\, p^ \ .. l^ ^' ■n H^- N I 1.J ^ \ fii. OF THE Theological Seminary PRINCETON, N. J. Shelf, .».lS...Q..^..^^^ Book, V..L.2^ ^ 'sec. ^ ;,:;^ T^e State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Teftament conjtdered. DISSERTATION THE SECOND. Wherein the Samar. Copy of the Pentateuch is vindicated : The printed Copies of the Chaldee Paraphrafe are proved to be corrupted : The Sentiments of the Jews on the Heb. Text are afcertained : An Account is given of all the Heb. MSS, now known; and alfo A particular Catalogue of C X Heb. MSS, in OXFORD, CAMBRIDGE, And THE BRITISH MUSEUM. By Benjamin KEtsiNicoTT, M. A, Fellow of Exeter College, And Vicar of Culham in Oxford/hire, OXFORD Printed at the THEATRE : and Sold by MefTrs Fletcher and Prince^ in Oxford; John Rivingion, Dodjley., Rivington and Fletcher^ and Griffiths^ in L o N D o K, M DCC LIX. Imprimatur rHO. RANDOLPH Vice -Can. Oxon, OSiob. 31, 1758. T O THE REVEREND THOMAS HUNT, D.D. Regius Profeflbr of Hebrew^ Profeflbr of Arabic^ and Canon of Chriji- Churchy in The University of Oxford. Reverend Sir, A' S my former Diflertatlon, on the facred Hebrew Text, was infcrib'd to The Univerjity ^/^ O x f o R d, in grateful remembrance of Their Favour; fo this fecond Diflertation, upon the fame fubjedt, is, with Gratitude and great Refped:, humbly dedica- ted to You. It may be improper to trouble You, Sir, or the World, with a recital of the many private Obligations, which You have been pleas'd to confer, during that long Acquaintance, with which You have honoured me : and yet there is One, which muft be acknowledged on this occafion. The Obligation here meant, and I mention IV DEDICATION. mention it with all due thankfulnefs, is — that I ftand indebted. Sir, to You, for my knowledge of the very elements of the He- brew Language. And therefore, if any advan- tage fhould accrue to the World from my ob- fervations on the Hebrew Text; the World will, and ought to know, that this advantage is derived from Tour Inftruftions. This however would be doing little juftice to the excellence of your former Ledtures ; if I was not to add that from your truly warm Zeal for the cultivation of Oriental Li- terature, and your unwearied Endeavours to communicate what You were known fo emi- nently to underftand, Oxford has derived a new glory to its Charafter ; being of lata years become illuftrious, not more for its Ikill in Arts and Sciences, and in the Languages of Greece and Rome, than for its acquaintance with the facred Language of Mofes and the Prophets. But — Who is there, that has not read and admir'd the Diflertation, with which You yourfelf have favoured the Public, on Proverbs ch. 7 ; 22, 23 ? Every judicious Reader muft have there ito^n a very obfcure, and indeed unintelligible Text happily reftor'd to its ge- nuine brightnefs ; and this, principally, by the deteciion DEDICATION. v deteBion of one f mall letter corrupted in the He^ brew. And therefore, the following profecu- tion of the fame method, in endeavouring to difcover and corredl other corruptions, offers itfelf naturally to Tour Patronage. Permit me. Sir, to fay: Your addreffing that Differtation to the young Gentlemen, who attended your Hebrew Leftures — Your encouraging them to examine with reverence the words of holy Scripture ; and not only to inveftigate the genuine Senfe of the Hebrew Text as printed, but alfo to confider whether that Text be not fometimes corrupted Your pointing out one of the chief methods of difcovering fuch Corruptions ; namely, by confulting the old and venerable Verfions — and laftly, your inculcating thefe rational principles on fo numerous a fucceffion of Au- ditors, who were themfelves to inftrud; mul- titudes -— thefe feveral circumftances, arifing from your Differtation, have frequently led me to apply that paffage in the Proverbsy in which Solomon fays to his fon : Have I not written to thee excellent things, in counfel and knowledge ? T^hat I might make thee know the CERTAINTY OF THE WORDS OF TRUTH : that thou mightefi anjwer the words of truth to them, that fend unto thee. Ch. 22; 20,21. Preju- VI DEDICATION. Prejudices, when grown inveterate, are with great difficulty removed. And yet thofe prejudices, as to the abfohite authenticity and perfedtion of any one printed copy of the New Tejiamenti have ceas'd for fome years. Nu- merous MSS have been collated. The various Readings have been pubHlh'd. The learned World has been inftrucSed. And the autho- rity of the New Teftament has been, ftill more firmly, eftablifh'd by this ufe of MSS. And, what an honour is it to our own Coun- try; that the very learned Michaelis ihould declare ( in his late Lectures on the New Teftament, fed:. 25) that the Englip MSS of the New Tejiament have been hitherto the mofi confultedy and the bejl known ! The fame principles of reafon and good fenfe, which have been allowed to cultivate fa- cred criticifm on this fecond Volume of Reve- lation, muft be ( fooner or later ) admitted as to the Jirji Volume of Revelation likewife. Here alfo the ftrong prejudices of fome are now fhaken ; and doubts in many others are removed. MSS of the Heb. Text are, as yet, happily preferv'd. The Copies are very nu- merous ; and more numerous in England, than in any other Country. They are found to contain multitudes of various Readings. And DEDICATION. vu And thefe various Readings greatly improve the Senfe of the printed Text ; confirm the Authority of the ancient Verfions of the Old Teftament ; and juftify ( which, I humbly ap- prehend, has never yet been fully done ) the Quotations in the New Teftament. Some wife and good men have long ktn the neceffity of allowing, that there may be corruptions in the printed Hebrew copies ; that the Heb. MSS muft have been, without a conftant miracle, fubjed: to the fallibility of tranfcribers ; and that the Text of the Old Teftament is therefore to be fettled, explained and defended by found criticifm, like the Text of all other ancient writings. So that there is great propriety. Sir, in the following reflexion of the late excellent Bp Berkeley, concerning the Minute Philofophers of thefe days — Whether it might not become their cha^ racier, as impartial and unprejudiced fnen, to conjider the Bible in the fame light they would profane authors. Men are apt to make grea^ allowance for tranfpofitionsy omifjionsy and lite- ral errors of tranfcribers y in other ancient books — and why not, in the Prophets ? Dialog. 6, f€ that a point, fo very important, may well claim to be confider'd in the firft place. Secondly: as the printed Heb. Text has been fuppos'd to receive great authority from the printed Chaldee Paraphrafe ; their remark- able agreement requires here a careful confide- ration. For the argument has been frequently urg'd, with great appearance of weight, in the manner following — The Chald. Paraphrafe was made from Heb. MSS near the time of Chrift ; and, of courfe, agreed with thofe MSS: it now agrees, generally, with the printed Heb. Text : therefore the printed Heb. Text agrees, generally, with the Heb. MSS, near the time oi Chrift. And then, by a fe- cond inference, it is concluded; that there cannot have happen'd fo many miftakes, in tran- fcribing thefe MSS, fince the time of Chrift, as is fometimes pretended. But, that many and confiderable miftakes have, been made by fuch tranfcribers, has been prov'd already : and what I propofe at prefent, upon this point, is to ac- quaint the Reader that the Chald. Para- phrafe has been itfelf corruptedy and corrupted in conformity to the before-corrupted Hebrew. And when this fliall be made evident; the ftrong INTRODUCTION. 17 ftrong argument, drawn from their agreement at prefent, will be fatisfadiorily confuted. Thirdly: as it is of great confequence to get all the light we can into the fentiments of the Jews them/elves^ as to the corrednefs or corruption of their MSS ; and alfo with regard to th^Jirft printers of the Heb. text, and what kind of MSS they printed from ; and yet very little feems to be known at prefent upon thefe interefting points : I hope to gratify the curio- fity of the Learned (and ftrongly to confirm my own opinion already given ) by publifhing a very valuable MS, which I have lately difco- ver'd in the Bodleian Library. It is catalogued N"" 808, according to the general number of the Bodleian MSS; and it contains a Latin tranjlation of an Heb, preface^ which R. facob Ben Chainiy who had the care of Bombergs Heb, Bible, prefix d to the Venice edition : and the original is now to be found, printed in the Rabbinical charafter, in the fecond edition of that work. Lastly : after thus obferving, what have been the fentiments of the Jews themfelves, and what fort of MSS were made ufe of for print- ing the firft Heb. Bibles ; it may be then pro- per i8 INTRODUCTION. per to confider — What MSS are Jlill extant -y and how many, and of what nature, in our own country : that fo we may compare fuch MSS with the Bibles thus printed. And here I mufl acquaint the Learned, that I am now able greatly to encreafe that fatisfadtion, which pof- fibly they may have received from the difco- very already made of Seventy Heb. MSS. For I have been repeatedly honoured with leave to examine the feveral Heb. MSS of the old Teftament, which are preferv'd in that ve- ry ample and moft valuable Colled:ion of MSS^ printed Books, and curious Produdlions both of Art and Nature ; which are fix'd by Royal and Public Munificence at Montague Houfe^ now The British Museum. A Place! Which, from the conftitutions happily efta- blifh*d by the public-fpirited Curators of it (thofe truly Illuftrious Perfonages, who fre- quently affemble there ) muft foon become the admiration of foreign Nations, as it is already one of the chief Honours of our own. In a curfory examination of thefe many and curious MSS, feveral various readings, of confiderable moment, have been feledled; and thefe will be found inferted hereafter, at fuch places, as the nature of the following work Ihall require. And INTRODUCTION. 19 And as the catalogue of the Seventy Heb. MSS, which I before publiih'd, will be now augmented with Twerdy Five 2it the Britifh Mufeum ; and alfo, with 'Eight found lately in the Bodleian Library, with T^hree more in the public Library at Cambridge, and with Ojie in my own pofTeffion^ amounting in the whole to One Hundred and Seven Volumes ( a Treafure ! which, I prefume, no other Na- tion * will pretend to equal, in the fame way ) I fhall give here a new catalogue of them all together : diipos'd regularly, under the names of the feveral books of the old Teftament. And this arrangement will difcover to the Rea- der at one view how many MSS of each book England can boaft of — where each MS Is to be confulted — if not perfeSl, how far defedtive ; and whether at the beginning, mid- dle, or end — and alfo, in what page of each MS the beginning of each book of the Bible may readily be found. * As to the Heb. MSS preferv'd in the Vatican ; we can de- termine nothing with certainty, till we fhall have examin'd the printed volume, which begins the account of the MSS in that Xibrary. This ufeful work is now printing ; and is to make 20 Fol. volumes. The firft volume, which contains the Heb. and other Oriental MSS, has been publifh'd at Rome about 2 years j and its arrival in England is expsfted with great impatience. 20 CHAPTER I; on The Samaritan Pentateuch: particularly. The celebrated Corruption of T> enter on. 27, 4. Deuteron, 27, 4 -, Samaritan and Hebrew. ♦ ?2A=5 ♦ am^^A? ♦ AA ♦ ^^mPA "Therefore it Jhall he^ when ye be gone over "Jordan^ that ye fiall fet up thefe Jlonesy which I command you this day^ in mount Gerizim ; and thou Jh alt plaijler them with plaijier. :Tj:^n Dm^^ nnn ^3^y Therefore it Jhall be, when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye Jhall fet up thefe Jlones, which I command you this day, in mount E b A L ; and thou JJjalt plaijler the?n with plaijier* 21 LE T US now enter upon the firft of the preceding articles; and, with all due fairnefs and candor, confider attentively 'That Text, on which the authority of the whole Samar. Pentateuch is fuppos'd by fome greatly to depend. And here, antecedently to the dif- cuflion of this point, it has been recommended as necelTary to acquaint the Reader how unanimous the Learned have been, in confi- dering this as a point of principal importance ; and how uniform, in determining here for the Jews and condemning the Samaritans. It would be tedious to particularize the names of all thofe, who have help'd to countenance the prefent opinion ; and it would be ftill more te- dious minutely to fpecify the peremptorinefs of their determinations. Bootius and Buxtof^f ( the younger) Carpzovius and LeufdeUy with all their brother advocates for the integrity of the printed Heb. Text, muft of courfe exclaim loudly upon this occafion : but thefe are of in- ferior authority. Hottinger and Lightfoot, Pa- trick and Calmety Ufier and Dii-Pin^ Pri- deaiix and Walton, Father Simon and Father Houbigajit ~ these, when form'd into a body for the maintenance of any opinion, fcarce leave one the liberty to hazard a bare conjec- ture, that fuch men can be all miftaken. C 2 Mark, 22 OxNT THE SAMARITAN Mark, fays Lightfoot, the impudence of thefe Samaritans ], fee their bold and wicked inter- polation y their notorious faljific at ion of the words of Mofes I ' The word Garizim, fays F. Simon, demo72firates the irreligion of the Samaritaits, * Hearing fubjlitution^ fays Uflier ; aii impious change of the true word Khali ^ Hottinger affirms, that the Samar. Text cannot be authen- tic ^ principally becaufe of this malicious corrup- tion-, and that the quality of this corruption renders it fo glaring — ut pertinacem effe opor- teat, qui contrahifcere aiifit, Montem Garizim Samaritani sl^l^t^T) DO ( domum fanBuarii ) appellant, ex Deut. 27, 4 ; ubi legunt Garizrm. Ej7i audaciam I pro eo quod context us facer ^ eum- que fequentes interpretes reliqui omnes, habent Ebal, Garizim fubfituunt cultores fuperjiitiofl — facrilega hcec omnino, & plane impia Sama- ritanorum fraus I ^ Prideaux obferves To reconcile the greater veneration to mount Ge^ rizim, the Samarita?is have been guilty of a very great prevarication in corrupting the text, and made a facrilegious change. All other co- pies ajid tranfations make againjl them, a?id 1 Vol. 2, pag. 505, 506, 540. 2 Difquifit. Criticae ; pag. 84. 3 Epift. ad Cappellum ; pag. 20. 4 De HeptapHs Paris: fed. 13. Exer. Anti-Morin. p. 62. ^ prove PENTx\TEUCH. 23 prove the corruption to be on the Jide of the Samaritans, And this voluntary corruption of theirs, to ferve an ill caiife, gives the lefs au- thority to their copy in all other places, ' And laftly, Bp Walton affirms Locum ilhcm fDeut, -ijy^J mendofum eJJ'e in exe7nplaribus Samaritanis, negari non posse; cum in omnibus codicibus Hebrceis, 07nnibufque verfioni- bus antiquis, legatur Ebal, non Garizim, ^ But, however defperate the caufe of the Sa- maritans may, in this cafe, be thought ; and is, at prefent, peremptorily pronounc'd : it will not, I prefume, be unpardonable for me to apppear in their defence — an advocate for (what appears to me) much-injur'd Innocence, and zealous for the true honour of the original Word of God. Every one fhould pay a de- ference to the fentiments of men greatly emi- nent in literature, and be thankful for the in- ftrudlions convey'd down in the works of the Learned nov/ dead, or communicated by the Learned ftill living: but no incenfe muft be offer'd up to the authority of men, in things pertaining to God, without previous exami- nation. And, wherever the opinions of the mojl Learned and Truth feem to be at variance; 1 Connexion; part i, book 6. fedlion 3. a Prolegomena J 1 1, ib. a pro- 24 On the SAMARITAN a proteft, humbly enter'd by reafon and con- fcience, never can be criminal. Perhaps this may be no unrealbnable apology for my felf ; when I am about to difallow the authorities of the many great names before enumerated ; and to differ from moft of the Learned, upon the following point — the certainty of the Sama- ritans having corrupted their Pentateuch^ on the article of Gerizim and EbaL The point is fufficiently confiderable to demand a fair hear- ing, and an upright fentence; and fuch evi- dences fhall be here produc'd, as will make it at leaft probable, that the corrupters of holy Scripture, in this inflance, were the Jews, I enter upon this enquiry with the greater readinefs -, becaufe it will enable me to confute one chapter, which has not yet been anfwer d, in that famous book, The grounds and reafons of the Chrlfian Religion ; wrote by that great champion of infidelity, Anthony Collins Efqr. For this author, in that work fo remarkably replete with malice againft Chriflianity, has one whole chapter, to prove the Samar, Pen- tateuch corrupted, chiefly from the very text now under confideration. And he calls this a corrupted pa jfagCy of great importance; which affecls the authority of the Samar, Pen- tateuch the more, in that it was a designed corrup- PENTATEUCH. 25 corruption. And, that this charge againft the Samar. Pentateuch has hitherto been conceded to Mr. CoUins, as unanfwerable — I prefume firft, becaufe I find no traces of any reply to that whole chapter ; efpecially, as to the capi- tal corruption there infifted upon : and becaufe, in the fubfequent Defence of the grounds and reafons againft the many Anfwers publiih'd, the fame wilful corruption is again roundly objected ^pag, 76) without the leaft notice of any reply to the prior mention of it. I fhall therefore attempt to perfed: the many valuable Anfwers to that dangerous book, by a particu- lar confutation of this one chapter : which con- futation will perhaps follow moft properly, as a fupplement to the other obfervations propos'd upon this fubje(fl. And here then, the cleareft method may be — firft to produce fuch argu- ments, as otherthrow the certainty of this cor- ruption's being made by the Samaritans ; and then fuch, as will induce a probability of its being made by the Jews. It feems necefl^ary to prefix a ftate of the dif- pute, before we proceed to any particular ob- fervations. And here we may remark, firft; that God, by Mofes, commands the Ifraelites, when they fliall have pafs'd over Jordan into the land of Canaan, to put the blefjing upon Geri- -i6 On the SAMARITAN Gerizhn, and the curfe upon Ebah, two moun- tains, fituated in the center of the promis'd land between Dan and Beerfheba ; two moun- tains near each other, and having between them (at the foot of Gerizim) a fmall town anciently call'd Sichcm or Shechejn, but afterwards Nea- poHsy and now Naplofe. * Befides this com- mand, given in Dent, ii, 29 ; we read again in ch. 27 ; 1 25 1 3 : thefe fhall Jland upon mount Gerizim J to blefs the people -, and thefe upon 772ount Ebal, to curfe. Secondly : it is com- manded in verfe 4th &c. that they fhould fet up great f ones y ajid plaifter them with plaifter % on which they were to write the Law ofGoT>\ and that they fliould alfo build an Altar unto the Lord, Now the mount, which was to be thus dignified with the Law and the Altar, is in the Heb. text EbaU and in the Samar. Gerizim, Thirdly: about one thoufand years afterwards, the Samaritans built a Tetnple upon mount Gerizim 'y which was one of the prin- cipal caufes of the hatred, fo very remarkable, * Naplofa : fee MaundrelPs travels, Edit. 3. pag. 59. Thus alfo Peter a Valle (who brought from the Eaft the only MS copy of the Samar, Verfion now in Europe )^ fays, in his letter to Mo- linus. 1630 — Samaritani hodie perpauci funt : aliquot reperi in ^gypto, Cairi ^ Gazte ; quofdam alios in Palejiina, in civitate Skhcm (a Turcis Naplus nuncupata) qua nunc Eninarics Meiropo- //; eft ; alio: denique Damafci in Syria, be- PENTATEUCH. 27 between thofe two nations. And it is, upon this account, rationally agreed by the Learned that the variation in this text is not the efFecfl of careleflhefs, but a wilful corruption-, and that either the Samaritans have, in their co- pies, put Gerizim ( inftead of Ebal ) to recom- mend their Temple ; or that the Jews have, in their copies, put Ebal ( inftead of Gerizim ) out of oppofition to it. Now that this corruption was made by the Samaritans, Walton ( and with him join ex- prefly Hottinger and Prideaux ) affirms to be undeniable ; and that for the following reafons — cu7n in omnibus codicihus Hebrceis^ oiiinibuf- que verfwnibus antiquis, legatur Ebal, non Ga" rizi?n. Let us examine thefe reafons -, and pro- bably we ihall find them very unfatisfadlory. Objedlion — Ebal is the word in all the Heb, copies 'y therefore Ebal is the original word. I anfwer; this is almoft taking the point for granted. The difpute is, whether the prefent Heb. or Samar. copies retain the original word ; and the argument infers, that Ebal is the ori- ginal word, becaufe it is the word m the pre- fent Heb, copies. Should it be urg'd, that Ge^ rizim is the original word, becaufe it is the word in the prefent Samar. copies ; would this argument be allowed conclufive ? Certainly not ; D and 28 On the SAMARITAN and yet it concludes full as juftly as the for- mer : but indeed, neither of thefe arguments concludes any thing at all. The other objection has a more formidable appearance ; and it is this — Eia/ is the word in all the ancient verfions. Without contradicfl- ing this aifertion at prefent; let us examine the weight of it, fuppofing it had been true. Were the queftion here concerning a corrup- tion, introduc'd 600 years after Chriji , our ancient verfions had then been proper eviden- ces. But as the queftion is concerning a cor- ruption, introduc'd about 400 years before Chriji y I cannot fee, how thefe verfions can be of any ufe : fince they are all too late, to be proper evidences. This will, upon reflection, be readily allow'd as to allj excepting the Greek verfion. For certainly verfions, made from the Heb. text feveral hundred years after an alteration had been made wilfully either in the Hebrew or Samar. text, can be of no ufe ( in this inftance ) in favour of the Hebrew ; fince they can only be evidence for the ftate of the Hebrew copies, from which they were tranflated, and not for copies five, or fix, or feven hundred years older. And as to the Greek verfion of the Pentateuch 3 that is al- low'd ta have been made about 280 years be- fore PENTATEUCH. 29 fore Chrift. But fiirely a verfion, made by "jews^ an hundred years after the wilful cor- ruption of this text, can be no proper proof, that this text of the Jews had not been alter'd by thejnf elves, one hundred years before. There can be no reafonable doubt, but that this cor- ruption was made (either by the Samaritans in favour of their temple, or by the Jews out of oppoiition to it ) foon after that temple was built. And it was built, as Prideaux allows, during the reign of Darius Nothus ; about 409 years before Chrift. All the ancient verfions therefore, which have been made from the Heb. text, being made after the corruption had been introduc'd, are too late to be admitted as evidences, that can acquit the Jews, or convid: the Samaritans. But it muft not pafs unremark'd, that it is by no means true — that all the ancient ver- Jions do read Ebal in the text before us -, not- withftanding the round aflertions of fo many learned men. For, firft; there is deliver'd down to us an ancient verfion of the Samar. Penta- teuch; exprefs'd in the Samar. letters, and wrote in the Samar. dialed, which is a mix- ture of Chaldee and Hebrew. And there is no man of learning, but will allow ^ that a verfion from the Samar, text is as juft an authority in D 2 favour 30 On the SAMARITAN favour of the Samar, text, as a verfion from the Heb, text can be in favour of the Hebrew. Now Walton fays fproleg, 11,20 J verjionem HebrceoSamaritani textus tripUcem quidam Jia- tuunt, viz, Samaritanam, Arabic am & Gr^- cam, De duabus prioribus nullum ejl dubium, utramque enim habui — de tertid dubitatur. Prima verjio facia eji in dialcBum Samarita- nam, quo tempore cum fudc^is in religione con- venerant Samaritani, Conjiat valde antiquam ejj'e — non multo pojl templum Garizitanum ex- truBum verifimile ejl, non multo poji Ef- dram & Nehemiam, verj%nem banc cojijiatam fuijfe, * Here then is one verfion, and that be- fore allow'd to be of equal, nay, fuperior an- tiquity to the verfion of the LXX; and this very ancient verfion reads Gerizim, in the text in quefl:ion. As to the fecond verfion from the Samar. Pentateuch, namely the Arabic, this has never yet been printed. A MS copy of it, in the Samar, charader, makes a part of that * Hodierna Samaritanorum verjlo perantiqna^ ut exijllmniur, Montfauc. Prelim. DifTert. to Orig. Hex. p. 19. Crcdamus mul- tis de caujjs certi(Jif?ie, Samaritanam Fentateuchi •verjionem oinnihus (qua ad nos pervetierunt) ver^miibus major em atatem ferre Sent end a Waltoni accedi?nus^ qua traditur, verjlonem banc, baud it a multo pojl templum aufpiciis Saneballetis extruclumy fuijfe exa- ratam. Excrcitat. in Samar. Pentar. per Keilholz, Wittemberg. 40.1754. . vafl PENTATEUCH. 31 vaft treafure of MSS preferv'd In the Bodleian Library; and is catalogued N" 3128. It is in- deed imperfedt; but fortunately contains that part of Deuteronomy, which we are now con- liderlng : and the word in this verfion is alfo Gerizim, ^iirn^iTf'^T!'^^- And let us remark; that Walton, who had this verfion (iitramque enhn habui, fays he ) fhould not thus pofitive- ly have aiferted the confent of all the ver- fions ; when he had this verfion, and this very copy of it, in his hand. There is alfo an Ara- bic verfion of the Samar. Pentateuch, in the Arabic character ; a compleat copy of which, moft elegantly tranfcrib'd, was bought at Da- mafcus in 1663; and is now depofited in the Bodleian Library, catalogued N*' 3 1 33. It was prefented to our Univerfity by the learned Dr Jofeph Taylor, Fellow of St John's College : who has v/rote his name on the firft leaf, with this ftriking motto ^Eternitati studeo fomewhat fimilar to Lord Clarendon's motto, from Thucydides, K.TrifjLa> €$■ aet, "* This verfion alfo confirms the word Gerizim ; read- ing here *^>^c^ J^<^^ l3 • And lafiily ; as to a Greek verfion of the Samar. Pentateuch; if * Lord Clarendon has a fecond motto, equally remarkable ; which is --- Ne quid falsi dicere audeat, ne quid VERI NON AUDEAT. there 32 On the SAxMARITAN there ever was one, * that ( we may fairly fup- pofe ) read alfo Gerizim, in this verfe -, in con- formity to the Samar. copy, from whence it was tranilated. We fee then, that as the evidence of o?ie text deftroys the evidence of the other , and as there is, in fa(fl, the authority of verfio?is to oppofe to the authority of verjions ; no certain argument, or rather, no argument at all can be drawn from hence, to fix the corruption on ei- ther fide. And therefore I fliall now offer fe- veral obfervations ; which, when confider'd all together, will ( I prefame ) render it highly frobahky that this memorable corruption was made by the Jews -, and that the word in dif- pute was originally Gerizim — the mount, on which God commanded the Ifraelites to write the Law, and eredl the Altar, % I. The firft argument, to render it proba-^ ble, that Gerizim was the mount, on which * Hottinger contends, that there was fuch a Greek verfion; and that it was made from the Samar. text, above 2000 years fince. His words are thefe Meminit Cyrillus, ad Gen. 4, AiiX'ju^vJ etg TO Tnoiov' tul^ aotvi, inquit, r&iv Xoittzov y.eirof ru ^jj- f^TU ra Koe4v and an Altar for divine worfiip. Muft we not fuppofe, that this Altar continued there for fome hundred years i and that the memory and fame of it continued in the country for many hundred years longer ? And as thefe two mountains were near toge- ther, both in the tribe of Ephraim, and both therefore in the poffeffion of the Samaritans, fo that they might choofe which they pleas'd, to ered; their temple upon; would they not prefer that mountain^ which had been of old, by G o d's own command, the place of G o d's worfhip ? Gerizim they did, in fadl, choofe ; and there is therefore ftrong probability, that Gerizim was the mountain of worfhip formerly ; and not Ebal , which ( we find ) they rejected. III. The different nature of thefe mountains furnifhes another ftrong argument for the pre- ference in favour of Gerizim. For this moun- tain, ftanding on the fouth, with its furface declining towards the north, is fhelter'd from the PENTATEUCH. 37 the heat of the fun by its own fhade ; whereas El^aly looking fouthward, is more open to the fun falling directly upon it. 'Tis no wonder therefore, that the former fhould be cloath'd with a beautiful verdure, while the furface of the latter is more fcorch'd up and unfruitful. This remarkable diftindiion is not only boailed of by the Samaritans themfelves, but noted alfo by Maundrell {pag. 61 ) and other travellers. The famous Jew, R. Benjamin, ( vAio vilited Sic hem about 600 years ago ) gives the follow- ing account in his Itinerary — Li Neapoli, oli?n di5la Siche?n, centum ci?xiter Cuthcei, legis tan- tiim Mofaicce ohfervatores^ qiios Sarnaritanos appellant. Hi facer dotes habent ex Aaronis pro- fapia — offerunt holocaujla in monte Gerizimy & banc ejj'e domum fanBuarii affirf?tant. In hoc monte diverji funt fontes ac pomaria-, at mo?is Ebal aridus ejl injlar lapidum ac petrarum, * Reland ( in his differtation concerning Geri- zim ) is of opinion, that the very names of Gerizim and Ebal AtnotQ fruitfulnefs ^nAJieri- lity : adding — ipfa utriufqiie montis fades Be- nediBionem & MalediBionem^ in eo peragendam, luculenter exprimit. He remarks alfo — montes in Palcejiina plurimi triticum proferunty & alias frumenti fpecies ; quae ef eriiditifjimi Maundrelli, * See pag. 38 — 40; edit. Conft. TEmpercur. E 2 membri 38 On the SAMARITAN membri collegii Exeter en/is, obfervatio. The ce- lebrated Ludolfus, in his notes on the Samar. Letters fent him, fays ( p. 20 ) — retulit mthi Jacobus Levi Tomerita, montem Garizim eff'e fertiliffimiim^ jhitibus ^ fcaturiginibus plurimis trriguum-y montem Hebal contra plane aridum & Jlerikra effe. After which follows the infe- rence of this great man, ( v/hofe furprize was probably founded on the common miftake) — ubi pic mirari licet, cur Dens in ijlo Maledic- tionis monte deferto jujjerit cedijicare alt are & facrificare holocaiijla, ibique epulari & Icetariy & non potius in monte Garizim I IV. About 240 years after one of thefe moun- tains had been thus confecrated ; when Jotham made that beautiful and folemn oration ( which begins — Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechefn, that God w.ay hearken unto you: Jud. 9,7) he muft at that time know, which mountain had the Law and the Altar. One fhould therefore fuppofe y that, to give the greater weight to his addrefs, he would fpeak from thence : and 'tis certain, that he fpoke from Gerizim. This then probably was, of old, the place of religious worfhip to the inhabitants of Si- chem ; which town lay coolly fituated at the foot of Gerizim, on the north fide; and was there- PENTATEUCH. 39 therefore flhelter'd from the fun by the adjoin- ing ( or, according to Jofephus, '' the Jiiper- imp ending) mountain. This mountain was cer- tainly the higheft of the two ; ^ and Card. No- ris (de Epoch, Syro-Maced, p. 540—543) gives a coin of Caracalla, which expreffes the many fteps by v/hich it was afcended. The author of the Itinerarhim Hierofoly?7nta?2um ( who wrote about the year 330) calls mount Geri- zim Agazaren, which Reland corrects to Ar- garizin ; and properly : efpecially as the Alex- andrian MS reads Tct^ipetv, in Deuf. 1 1, 29. Of Gerizim then this author fays — 3i diciint Samaritani, Abraham facrijicium obtiilijfe ; & afcendujitur ad fmnmtim monte?n gradus numero ccc. Thus alfo Damafcius tells us, in Photius, that IJidorus came (j^ttq rvj^ ev lictXcu^vn Nect^- ria- KiCx)g, ^og cpet KcLTooKKTfJLivvig Tco ApycL^^co And he fays, that Abraham was the firji of all the ancient Jews, who facrijiced on that mountain. Noris, Z'^?^. 541, 543- Upon thefe words we may remark, that the tradition of Abraham's facrificing there ( tho' fome may think it founded only upon that mountain's having really been the place of I To fi^oj Tt r<*jg/!^t^v vTn^y-^rcfjj ttj^ YtKifim yizMsog. Lib. 5, 7> 2* Jofeph. /ib. 11,8,2. facri- 40 On the SAMARITAN facriiice in very ancient days, and that is of confequence to the prefent argument) feems founded upon truth. We read, in Gen. 1 2, 6 &c. And Abram pajfed thro the lajid unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh ( DD^ nniD p^K "IV ) ^nd the Lord appeared unto him, and faid. Unto thy feed will I give this land. And there builded he an altar and he removed from thence unto a moujitain on the eaji of Bethel. Probably he removed, for his fecond ftation, to the mountain near Bethel, from his firft ftation on moimt Gerizi?n near Sichem; and upon Gerizim, perhaps, he built his firft altar, and facrific'd. But, if not upon the mountain ; certainly in Sichem, at the very foot of it. And how extreamly remarkable is it, that the great Father of the Jewifti nation, as foon as he was taken into covenant with the true God, and received the promife of the land of Canaan, fliould offer up his firft facrifice, and be favour'd with the glorious appearance of God himfelf, either upon, or at the foot of, mount Gerizim I For thus Mofes f Deut. 1 1, 30 ) defcribes the fituation of Gerizim and Ebal ( for the Scripture, by way of greater dig- nity, ever puts Gerizim before Ebal ) Are they not on the other fide for dan — befide the plains of Moreh nnt: ^:n'7t^ Si\^ and in the Samar. PENTATEUCH. 41 tDy^ b^^ ^C*11^ P^^^ ^'^i^- From which com- parifon it is dear, that (whatever -be the pre- cife meaning of the words p^K or nilD ^<51^K ) the fame place is meant in both inftances. V. In accufations, where the guilt of the accused is only to be prefum'd ; much will de- pend always upon cha7''aBer, And in the pre- fent cafe, the Samaritans will be lefs likely to have wilfully corrupted the Law of Mofes ; if it can be proved, that they had a great venera- tion for it. When the truly-learned Dr. Hunt- ington was in the Eaft, he vifited the Samari- tans at Sichem ; and his letter to Ludolfus ac- quaints us, that one of thefe Samaritans had a MS copy of the Law hung round his neck^ af- feBionately carrying it in his bofom, Sozomen ( who flourifh'd about the year 440, and was educated in their neighbourhood ) calls the Sa- maritans T'd yioduisodg VQfJi^ Tzi fjLcLXi'^ct ^/\Xdo\ciLg : lib* 7, c. 18. Maimonides ■* fays of them; that, after the days of their idolatry mentioned in Scripture, didicerunt legem, & intellexerunt earn juxta fenfum literalein-y & pr^cepta, quce oh- fervabant, obfervahant accuratifjime & omni ani^ mi contentions Vid, not. ad cod, Mifn, Bera- * Maimonides, qui primum inter Judaeos dejtit r.ugari, floruit 1 1 70. Vid, indicem Spsnc. leg. Heb. cot h^ 42 On the SAMARITAN CGth^ cap. 8, fee. 8. And on the fame treatife, (cap, J, fee. I ) Obadias de Bartenora, another celebrated Jew, as honeftly remarks of them — obfervabant legem fcriptam ; © omne prce- ceptuniy quod tenuerimt, id longe dill gen tins ob- feri:abant quam ipji Ifraelitce. Well therefore might Hottinger fay Samaritani, ipforiim yudccormn tejlimonioy Jiint legicolce rigidijjimi. Exer. Anti-Mor. p. i8; 14, 15. VI. In St. John's Gofpel ( ch. 4 ) is record- ed a very remarkable interview between our bleifed Saviour and a Samaritan woman, near this very mountain. Does ChrilT: there charge the Samaritans with having arrogated to mount Gerizim honours, which did not belong to it ? Does He abufe the inhabitants of Sichem for fiich a race of wretches, as they have been lately reprefented ? The Samar. woman, find- ing Chrift to be a Prophet, earneftly and im- mediately propofes the grand fubjedl of difpute — Our fathers worjhipped in this mountain &c. In anfwer to which, he does not give the pre- ference, even to Jerufalem : much lefs does he fay, that Kbal had been the mount really ho- nour'd by God; and not Gerizim , as her fathers had falfly pretended. ^ * The words of our Saviour — Ye zvorjhip ye biczc not zvhat — ftiall be confidcrM hereafter. 'Tis PENTATEUCH. 43 'Tis farther obfervable, that this Samar. wo- man exprefs'd her expectation of the Mejjias — that Chrift made a clear declaration to her of his being fo — that fhe believ'd him to be fo — that fhe v/ent haftily into Sichem, full of the interefting difcovery — that, at the impor- tunate requeft of the inhabitants, Chrift conti- nued in the town, at the foot of Gerizim, for two days — and, that many of thofe Samari- tans were fuch candid judges, fo ingenuoufly difpos'd to embrace the truth ; that they faid : Now we believe we have heard him our- felves ; and we know, that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. On which words Lightfoot remarks — Here is a confejjion of faith higher by fome degree than the Jews common creed concernijtg the MeJ/iasi for they held him only for a Saviour of the Jewijlo na- tion : and fo we may fee, how deeply and cor-- dially thefe Sa??iaritans had drunk in the water of life, fo as to acknowledge Chrif in his proper character. The comment of St. Chryfoftom on the behaviour of this woman and her friends, in preference to that of the Jews, is worthy of our obfervation. Ovtoo tcccnx^^ sK^vyj roig Myo^jLi- Mif^yio'cci^ijzc TSLV'JV Ttjv Hcti^ctftetTiv — O^s a^kciv 0.01- F xfite linguarum 1 2 charaBe- ribusy Par. 1538) mentioning the Samaritans, fays — Samaritamis ilk a Chrijioy in parabola^ ani?720 magis pio & Jyncero declaratus eji quam facer do s ( Judaeus ) qui legis intumefcebat gloria. And he adds — ipfos Samaritanos cane pejus & angiie oderint yiidai. But to the preceding mention of the parable, we fhould not forget to add a much ftronger authority in their fa- vour, given by the fame divine inftrud:er. And how muft it humble the pride of Jews, and * To this teftimony we may add that of Epiphanius \ which is alfo very favourable to the general charadter of the Samaritans, cfpecially upon a comparifon with that of the Jews — ^Xiyxi^q tjjj ^^5 THS EN AMOOIN EHEi22 AIA^OPAN. con^ PENTATEUCH. 45 confound the infolence of fome other revilers of the Samaritans -, to perufe the hiftoiy of a real faci — of a wonderful and gracious mi- racle, wrought at the fame time upon nine Jews and one Samaritan ! The hiftory is not lefs pertinent than remarkable ; and let us give it a moment's attention. Behold, iirft, and wonder at, the behaviour of thefe 'Jews , of thefe nine Jews, all branded with everlafling infamy in the facred page, for the moft aftonifhing unthankfulnefs : mark'd, as men devoid of gratitude, as loft to all fenfe of benefit; men, who ad:ed as if they had conferr'd an honour upon Chrift himfelf by vouchfafing to be heal'd by him ! Withdraw now the eye from fuch objedls of deteftation ; and viev/ w^th pleafure the one, poor, humble, thankful, Samaritan : who is filFd, almoft over- powr'd, with his thoughts of the mighty Blefs- ing ! See, how the pious tranlport works upon his grateful foul ! When he fawy as foon as ever he perceives hitnfelf healed, he turns back to thank the gracious power that healed him : he breaks forth into praifes ; he glorifies his Benefactor ; he glorifies him with a loud voice ; he glorifies him as being God; He muft be God (he thinks ) who could be fo wonderful in goodnefs : and then, ilruck v/ith this awful F 2 infe- 46 On the SAMARITAN inference, he falls proftrate at the feet of Chrijly and devoutly woriliips him ! In fhort ; the Sa- maritan feems fo exuberant in his acknow- ledgments, as if his generous heart felt diftrefs from the ingratitude of his companions; and wilh'd by his own unbounded thankfulnefs to atone for the condudl of thofe Jewsy who were no fooner heal'd by Chrift, than they all fhame- fi\\\y forfook him ajid fed. St. Luke's account is this — 'Ten me?2, that ivere lepers. If ted up their voices, and faid ; fefus, majler ! have mercy on us. And he faid. Go, fhew yourf elves unto the priefts. And as they went, they were cleanfed. And one of them, when he faw that he was healed, turned back-, and with a loud voice glorified God, and fell down at his "* feet, giving him thanks : and he was a Sama- ritan^ And fefus faid-. Were there not ten cleanfed? But, where are the nine? Inhere are not found, that returned to give glory to God, fave this fir anger I Chap. 1 7. * As the pronoun cvjth in this place may not feem properly apDlicable to ©sos ; poffibly, the Syr. ^thiop. & Perlic verfions have preferv'd the true reading — at the feet ofjefus. And yet, perhaps, the common reading is as eafily vindicated, as the words — feed the church of God j which he hath pur chafed zuith h i s OWN blood: A&. 20, 28. But here, our very ancient Bodleian MS oi the JSls, catalogued N° 11 19, reads LKKAHZIAN (not TOy0Y i.e. ts 0s», but} TOYKY i.e. t» Kfg^j?. If PENTATEUCH. 47 If it be faid, that this Samaritan and his contemporaries liv'd long after the time, when this famous text ( Deut, 27, 4 ) was corrupt- ed ; and therefore ( tho' the difpofition of a peo- ple is indeed to be coUeded from the behaviour of individuals, yet ) their good charader is not conclulive in favour of their ancejlors : this is acknowledg'd readily. And no greater ftrefs is laid upon the particulars of this article, than to eflablifh the general character of the Samari- tans ; in oppofition to thofe writers, who revile that people, of all ages, as a race of wretches the moft profligate and moft abandon'd. VII. If then, from this worthy difpofition of the Samaritans, and from their profound ve- neration for the law of Mofes, they ihould be thought lefs likely to have made the wilful cor- ruption, which is confider'd in the prefent chapter; it may be now obferv'd — that, fhould this wilful corruption be charg'd upon the Jews, it will not be the firft charge againft them of this particular nature. St. Jerom, comment- ing on Galat, 3, 10, (It is written ; Curfed 'is every one, that cojitinueth not in all things , which are written in the hook of the law, to do them ) has the following very remarkable words. Hiinc 48* On the SAMARITAN Hunc morem habeo, ut quotiefcunque ab A- pojiolis de veteri injlrumento aliquid fumitur, recurram ad originales libros-, & diligent er in- fpiciamy quomodo in fuis locis fcripta Jint, In- veni ttaque in Deuteronomio hoc ipfum apud LXX interpret es it a pojitum : maledidtus om- nis homo, qui non permanferit in omnibus fer- monibus legis hujus. — Eat quo incertiim habe- muSf utrum LXX interpretes addiderint omnis homo G? in omnibus ; an in veteri Hebraico ita fuerity & pojlea A ju D^ is deletum sit. In banc me autem fiifpicionem ilia res Jlimulaty quod verbum omnis ^ in omnibus, quaji fenfui fuo neceffariumy ad probandum illudy quod qui- cunque ex operibus legis funt, fub maledifto lint. Apostolus, vir Hebrcece per it ice y & in lege doBiJ/imus, nunquam protulisset; niji in Hebrais voluminibus haberetur, ^lam ob caufam Samaritanorum Hebrew a volumina relegens, i?iveni Sd (quod interpretatur omnis Jive omnibus ) fcriptum effhy & cum LXX in- terpretibus concordare. Frujlra igitur i l l u d tulerunt Jud^i, ne viderentur eff'e fub malediBoy Ji non po[fent omnia* complere quce fcripta funt : cum antiquiores alterim quo- que gent is literc^e id pofitum fuijfe teflentur, * Tbe Eng. verjlon in this verfe of Deuteronomy, as in many other places, allows the corruption of the prejent Heb. copies. For, PENTATEUCH. 49 'Tis true; it has been frequently afTerted (in order to evade the force of this weighty determination ) that Jerom could not find the word in any Samar, MS, becaufe he did not know the Samar, letters. And, that he did not know thofe letters, has been pronounc'd fully evident, from the very wrong defcription he has given of the laji letter of the Alphabet. But furely — to give the dired: lie to fo vene- rable an Author, at leaft without very ample proof, can hardly be excus'd; and yet in this cafe the charge is as falfe, as it is raih and un- confider'd. For the evidence amounts to no- thing more than this — the modern Samar. Thau IS not likeJero7nsdef:ription', and there- fore ( a ftrange inference ! ) /Z>(? a n ci e n t Samar, Thau was not like Jeronts defcription. The defcription is this — antiquis Hebrceorum li- terisy quibus ufque hodie utuntur Samaritaniy extrema litera Thau Crucis habet fimilitudinem. Comment on Ezek. 9, 4. Now that ancient letters diifer d greatly from the modern, as to their ihape ; no man of learn- ing can poflibly be ignorant. And that the Sa- mar. Thau had formerly the very fiape aflign'd For, as it inferts other necefary words elfewhere, fo here it in- ferts the word all; noting it with a diflerent charader, as dej- cient in the pefent Hebrew, it 50 On the SAMARITAN it fo exprefly by this ancient author, has been prov'd from the beft authorities, by Reland and Ottius, Montfaucon and ChifhuU ; by Bianconi, in his late diflertation De antiquis litteris He- brceorum, 1 748 ; and alfo by Dr. Bernard, in his Table of Alphabets, call'd Orbis eruditi Li- ter at ur a, a CharaBere Samaritico dedu5fa — which Table being highly curious and valuable in itfelf, and grown much more fo becaufe ex- tremely fcarce ; the Public will be foon oblig'd with a new edition of it, greatly improv'd, by the learned Dr. Morton, Librarian at the Bri- tifj Mufeum, ^ This vindication of ^t. Jerom will by no means be thought a digreffion ; as it was ne- ceffary to eftablifh the authority of fo great a writer whofe teftimony is fo very material, as to the Jews having wilfully corrupted their * If it Ihould be poflible for any one, to doubt the authorities of fo many learned writers; there are in England feveral ge- nuine Samar. Coins, on which the D is uniformly exprefs'd by a Crofs. One of thefe, of fmall brafs, in excellent prefsrvation, is ( with 8 other Samar. Coins ) preferv'd in the valuable and elegant colledlion of Mr. Duane, at Lincoln's Inn. And on this curious Coin the n> in form of ^ (^ofs^ occurs 3 times; the in- fcription being ^Knti» m^KJlV mnx r-^W. Another Coin, of the fame fmall brafs, having on one fide the words juft fpeci- fied, and on the other fide the fame iwknown charaSiers as upon the reverfe of the preceding Coin, has been publifh'd by F. Harduin. 'See his Pliny, Parif. 1723 j z'ol 2, tab. 7, fag. 432. Penta- PENTATEUCH. 51 Pentateuch. I fhall juft remark, that not only the Samar. text and verlion, printed in the French and Eng. Polyglotts, but alfo all our Samar. MSS ( which contain this verfe ) read ^D omnisy agreeably to thofe Samar. MSS ex- amined by St. Jerom. And therefore 'tis matter of great furprize, that the learned Cellarim fhould affirm the diredt contrary 3 at leaft, as to the printed copies of the Samar. Pentateuch : for he fays Neque in Ebrao-SamaritanOy neque in verjione Sa?nar. hodie ^D omnis appa- ret. HorjE Samar. p. 55. Let us proceed now to another inftance of wilful corruption, which feems equally clear and exprefs. The book of Judges acquaints us with the fhameful condud: of fome in the tribe of Dan ; who firft ftole Micah's idol, and then publickly eftablifh'd idolatry, appointing one Jonathan and his fons as priefts. Concerning this Jonathan ( who thus impioufly prefum'd to minifter in this idolatrous fervice, and fo very foon after the death of Jofhua ) the prefent Heb. text tells us — he was the/on of Gerfioniy the/on ofManaJJ'eh : ch. 1 8, 30. But we know, that Gerfhom was the fon of Mofes -, and there are ftrong realbns for believing, that the word here was at firft Hw/tD Mofes, and not n*^'l^ Manajjeh. For firft Jerom has exprefs'd it G Mofes ', 52 On the SAMARITAN Mofes 3 and it is, at this day, Mofes in the Vul- gat. We read in the fupplement to Walton's Polyglott, in page the 5 th of the various read- ings coUeded by Lucas Brugenfis &c. Latinis codicibiis ( qui legunt Moyfi ) exemplaria quc^- dam G R ^ c A fuffragantur. And farther ; that the Greek, as well as the Latin, verfion former- ly read Mofes, we may ( as Glaffius obferves ) infer from Theodoret ; who flouriili'd ( about 423 ) a few years after Jerom's death. This Greek writer gives the following as the words of the Greek verfion imcf^b-c^v vio? Molvaojt^, vtii Tr;p(rci^, via MCfOc^' cwTog aouj ci viot cwt^ yjirciv li- p«f T>) (pvM Ac6i/, £^5" Ty}^ fJLiTOiKi(rici,g &C. 'Tis true ; tho' he has preferv'd the word Mofes, he has alfo ( tho' out of place ) preferv'd the word Ma- 7iaf]'eh : and from the exiftence of iotA words we may infer, that fome copies read the latter word, and fome the former; whilft others ( that they might certainly have the right word ) inferted both. But the true reading may be here eafily determined, by the nature of the place, and from the honeft confeflion of the Jews themfelves. For, ftruck with deep concern for the ho- nour of their Lawgiver, and diftrefs'd that a grandfon of Mo/es fhould be the firft prieft of idolatry j they have ventur'd ( it fcems ) upon a piou$ PENTATEUCH, 53 a pious fraud, placing over the word nti^tt the letter ^ which might intimate it to be Ma- najj'eh. The fate of this fuperpoiititious letter has been very various : fometimes plac'd over the word ; fometimes fufpended halfway ; and fometimes uniformly inferted. The confequence of which has been ; that, as it was univerfally underftood that the word was defign'd (by thofe who added this letter ) to be read Ma- najjehy Manaffeh has now fupplanted Mofes'-, and the facred text ftands here wilfully corrupt- ed. We are told indeed, that this relation to ManafTeh was not real hut Jigurative *, meant of a limilitude in idolatry, and not of natural confanguinity. But, that any man, who liv'd 800 years before ManafTeh, fhould be call'd the defcendant of ManafTeh, becaufe ManafTeh adted like him 800 years afterwards, is abfurd beyond exprefHon. Befides : who is it, that is here call'd the/on of Manajfehy becaufe equally idolatrous ? Is it the idolatrous priefl himfelf ? No y for the word ManafTeh follows after Ger- fhom : and fo Gerjhom, tho' innocent, is now call'd the fon of the idolatrous Manajfeh ; whilfl the wicked prieft, Jonathan himfelf, is only faid to be the fon of Gerfhom ! What a fruitful parent of abfurdities has this om fingle letter prov'd ! And yet 'tis a letter, G 2 that 54 On THE SAMARITAN ' that is part of a word, and is not part of a word : in the greater number of copies, fuf- pended between heaven and earth, as ominous ; m other copies, magnified to double the com- mon fize, as monilrous : and yet in fome co- pies ( written as well as printed ) endeavour- ing to conceal its own criminal intrufion, by Shrinking to the common fize, and wearing the exadl garb of the genuine letters^ with which it prefumes to alTociate. And all this; even tho' fome of the honefter Rabbies have affiir'd us, that the Nun had no right to a place in that word ; having been added by their fathers^ to take away this great reproach from the name and family of Mofes. The following are the words of R. Solomon J archie who liv'd about 650 years ago — p:) IJlD Ht^^D h'^ r\^1'2 ^:£)D r\'>r\ th^ nDi^ nnSn nnnD^i Dtrn n^ rn^t:^^ : nWl2 ^b^ nti^ltD Propter honorem Mofisfcrip- tafiiit ( litera ) Nun^ ut no men mutaretur ; & quidem fcripta fuit fufpenfa, ad indicandumy quod nonfuerit MenaJJ'es, fed Mofes. Vid. Tal- mud. Bava bathray fol. 109, b. Here then, we have the Jews convidled of wilful corruption^ upon the moft unexception- able of all evidences — their own confes- sion. And how any Chriftian can rationally defend this word, as uncorruptcd, I do not fee. That PENTATEUCH. 55 That Manaffehy in this text, fliould mean the then future king of Judah, is nioft abfurd to imagine. That it fhould mean Manajjeh the fon of Jofeph, is impoffible ; becaufe that Ma- naff'eh had no fon call'd Gerpom, But that G^r- fiom was the fon of Mofes, is certain from ma- ny texts of Scripture. And lafdy -, the time of this firft apoflacy to idolatry farther confirms the prefent argument. 'Tis allowed by the learned, that the events, recorded in the five lall chapters of Judges, happen'd foon after the death of Jofhua -, and ( in order of time ) are prior to the former chapters, which relate the oppreflions and deliverances of the Ifraelites. And, as this idolatrous eftablifliment in Dan was foon after Jofliua's death; that will be perfectly coincident with the life of Jonatha^iy the fon ofGerJhom, the fon of Mofes, For Jo- fhua, being in the vigour of life at the death of Mofes, muft be contemporary with Ger- fhom the fon of Mofes; and would, at his death, leave Jonathan, the fon of Gerfhom, in the vigour of life ; or at leaft capable, in point of age, of being an idolatrous priell: at fuch a time, as the facred hiftory here mof impartially reprefents him. The very learned John David Michaelis has judicioufly given his opinion, againft the legi- timacy 56 On the SAMARITAN timacy of this word Manajfeh, For in the 3d volume of the Gottingen Commentaries (4to 1753 ) this Writer has a curious treatife, De pretiis rerum apiid Hebr^os ante exilium Baby- lonlcum: where, upon the words, Jonathan Mojis ex Gerjhone nepos, he has the following note, p. 180. In bibliis Heb. cere typographico defcriptis Mana£is nepos dicitur : fufpenfa ta- men^ ac Ji fufpeBa ejfet, fupra reliquas lit era Nun ; qua una ManaJJis a Mofis nomine differt. Ex majorum traditione narrat Abendana, Nun illud in honorem Mofis adjeBuniy ne ejus nepos primus fuijfe videretur facrijiculus idoli: MoJis etiani nomen in vulgata Latina legitur, Mihi exploratum videtur^ non Manajfem intelligen- dum fed Mo/em : qui enim Levita MaJiqffem progenitorem habere potui/Jet? But then, as this worthy Author allows in this volume, that the word was originally Mofesy and that Ala- naffeh is printed falfely in the Heb. text ( it may be added — and falfely exprefs'd alfo in the Heb. MSS ) and as he here allows, that the yews wilfully alter d their text, out of regard to the honour of Mofes — it is evident, that he has been 'very lately convinced of the Jews ha- ving WILFULLY CORRUPTED their text, at leaft in one inftance; after having advanc'd the contrary opinion, in the volume preceding. For PENTATEUCH. ^y For there, in a curious treatife De Stclo ante exilimn Babylonicum, at p. 8i, his* words are — Nidlo certo exemplo probari hue ufque po- tuity Judaos vel unicum fui codicis locum con- filio corrupijje. This change of fentiment is not mention d here by way of refledlion ; but as a certain proof oifairnefs in fo eminent a Writer, ingenuoufly open to convidion. And I remark this the more readily, in hopes of fheltring my- felf under fo confiderable an authority; if I fhould be charg'd hereafter ( as I very juffly may ) with having altered my opinion alfo, on this fame point, fince the publication of my DifTertation on the Heb. Text. See pag. 275. It fhould not be forgot, that St. Jerom (commenting on the celebrated prophecy in Mic. 5, 2 ) takes notice of the eleven cities, which are mentioned in the verfion of the LXX, but not in the prefent Heb. text, at JoJJj, 1 5, 60 QlKCOy KCLf E(p^Ct^Ct ( CWTV] i<7i B>j3'Agg|tt ) KCif TisXei^ iv^iKcij x^cLj oLf KMfzoLf cw\m. Thefe cities, he thinks, may have been omitted by the ancient Jews, out of malice to Chriftianity; becaufe Bethlehe?n - Ephratah ( the place of Chrifh's nativity) is one of thefe cities, and is defcrib'd as in the tribe of Judah, Dr. Wall, in his critical 58 On the SAMARITAN critical notes, fays — thefe cities were doubtlefs in the Heb. copy of the LXX, And indeed they are of fucli a nature, that 'tis fcarce poffible to thmk them an interpolation. 'Tis true : this critic fuppofes the omiffion to have been occa- fion'd by the fame word ]nnvm (and their vil- lages) occurring immediately before and at the end of the words thus omitted : and indeed the fame word occurring in different places has been the caufe of many and great omiffions in the Heb. MSS. He thinks it the lefs likely, that the Jews fliould defignedly omit Bethlehem here ; becaufe that place is mention'd, as be- longing to Judah, in fever al other parts of Scripture. But then ; tho' Bethlehem is elfe- where mention'd as belonging to Judah, yet ( I believe ) Bethlehem-Ephratah is no where mention'd, in that manner, excepting here and in the prophecy of Micah before referr'd to. And therefore, tho' this remarkable omiffion was probably owing at firft to fome tranfcriber's miftake; its not being re-inferted might be owing to the reafon fpecified by St. Jerom. It may be noted, at the conclufion of this article — that Dean Prideaux alfo thought it poffible for the Jews to be guilty of ( what he calls) a plain corrupting of the text : and he expreily charges them with wilfully corrupting the PENTATEUCH. 59 the Greek verfion of Ifaiah 19, 18. See his Connexion , par. 2, b. 4. And now,' from thefe inftances of wilful Corruption thus charg'd up- on the Jews, let us return ; and proceed in the farther confideration of The Text principally controverted between them and the Samaritans : taking with us thofe other arguments which offer, and will prove flill more convincing, againft the former and in favour of the latter. VIII. Should the hatred of the Samaritans be here objected, as what might urge them to commit any crime out of oppofition to the Jews ; certainly the hatred of the Jews is at leaft equally notorious : and Reland fays f Differ t. 2, I ) Judaisy juratis Samaritanorum hoftibiis vix fides habenda. Agreeable to this is the re- mark of Voffius — ^anto odio Judcsi codicem Samaritanwn olim perfecuti fint^ ac etiamnum p erf e quant iir, neminem latere potefi eorum, qui legunt mendacia & calumniasy quibiis Samaritas eorumque fi:ripturam omnibus feculis obruere fint <:onati, De LXX, cap. 29. Scaliger obferves, in his famous book De emend, temp. p. 662 — "Judcei de Samaritis rnulta impudent ijjime men- tiuntur ; ut fciiinty qui 'Tah7iud & commenta- rios Rabbinicos legerunt. And we read alfo in Lightfoot ( vol. I. p. 598 ) —As the Samaritans H ivere 6o On the SAMARITAN were bitter to the Jews, fo the Jews ( to their power ) were not behind hand with the Sama-' ritans. For ( if we may believe their own au- thors ) Ezra, Zorobabel and Jejhua, gather d all the congregation into the temple y and they blew the trumpets -, and the Levites fung^ and curs' d the Samaritans by the fecret name of Gody ajid by the glorious writing of the tables^ and by the curfe of the upper and lower houfe of judgment : that no Ifraelite eat of any things that is a Samaritaris ; nor that any Samaritan be profelyted to IfraeU nor have any part in the RefurreBion, And they fent this curfe to all Ifrael in Babel, and added thereto curfe upon curfe ; and the king fixd a curfe everlafing to them, as it is faid. And God dejiroy all kings and people, that Jhall put their hands to alter it. Hoec R. Tanchum. * We find, in Ezra 4, i &c ; that, upon the Jews returning from their captivity, the Sama- ritans civilly ofFer'd to unite with them -, faying — let us build the temple with you, for we feek your God &c : which kind and religious propo- fal was roughly rejefted. Above 200 years af- ter, we may obferve, that the hatred of the Jews continued : for thus writes the author of Ecclus, ($0, 25,26) Inhere be two nations, * See alfo Walton's Polyglott, Prolegom. 11,4. . which PENTATEUCH. 6i ivhich my heart abhorreth-, and the , third is no nation : They that Jit upon the mountain of Sa- maria ', and they that dwell amongft the Philif- tines -y and that foolijh people y that dwell in S i- €HEM — pointing out the very mount of Ge- rizim. 'Tis farther obfervable, that the phrafe in our Saviour's time was ( not — the Samari- tans have no deahngs with the Jews — but ) the yews have no dealings with the Samaj'-i- tans, * And laftly; what could fhew greater virulence, than for the Jews, when they faw our Saviour's many mighty and beneficent mi- racles, and yet charg'd him with having a devil y fpitefully to call him a Samaritan — Say we not welly that thou art a Samaritany and haji a devil ? John 8,43. From all which it is moft abundantly manifeft, that the Jews cannot be acquitted of the preceding charge, merely y for their not hating the Samaritans. IX. Let us now confider the teftimony of Joseph us, that eminent hiftorian and Jewiih prieft; whom Reland calls hojiem Sa^naritano- rwn infenjijjimum : DiiTert. 2, 7. And I fhall only premife ; that, if the ancient Heb. MSS did, in the days of Jofephus, truly read Ebal foftom. in locum. in 62 On the SAMARITAN in the text of Dent. 27, 4 ; we fhall doubtlefs find this author moft poiitive and moft exprefs, that the Altar was to he, and was, built upon Ebal. Speaking of the command of God, by Mo- fes, upon this head (lib. 4. cap. 8. fee. 44^ he fays — Aram ex truer e jujit, ad folem orient em verfam, non procul ab urbe Sicimorum, inter MONTESDUOS, { i^i\cJL^v SvQiv o^okv) Gariz^o ad dextram poJitOy ad Icevam aiitem Gibalo. Here then he aflerts, that the Altar, tho' not to be upon Gerizim, was not to be upon Ebal, but between both ; and rather nearer to Gerizim, as being not far from Sichem at the foot of Ge- rizim. But can it poffibly be fuppos'd, that this acute and learned advocate for the Jews ( after fo much fharp contention with the Sa- maritans ) would fo exprefly have given up the honour of Ebal, if he could fairly have fup- ported it ? If the old Heb. MSS did read Ebal; it can fcarce be conceiv'd, that fuch a writer would not have fix'd this Altar upon Ebal with the greateft degree of accuracy: unlefs the Reader will pleafe to fuppofe, that Jofephus had juft th^n forgot the controverfy. But even this reply is prevented -, and 'tis clear, he had it full in view, v/hen he adds but a few lines after — ///'/ populo deminciat^ ut holocaufla of- fer at; PENTATEUCH. 63 ferat ; <£? pojl illam diem niinqiiam aliam viBi- 7nam ei hnponeret ; non enim effe licitum : a pro- hibition unauthoriz'd by holy Scripture, and therefore manifeftly the refult of Jewifli ha- tred. Having taken this view of the command^ let us now fee how he ftates the faSl ; and whe- ther he informs us clearly, that Jq/Jjua did build the altar upon EbaL It feems neceffary here to give the words from the Greek text; lib. 5, i, 19. Y^CLf X^P''1(^y iVT^S'iV 6777 JLlKifJl^CiJV (WV ClTmVTI, TtO TijV ^Ct\iOlVy 6777 fA^iV TCO TcL^^et Cp€t TTJJ/ 7}fj(,i(rCiCtV l^}(nVy iTTl dS. TO) TiQa>?\.Ct} TYIV YlfJULO-etCtV, 2V CO KCCf 0 (icOfJLOg 2qi, Koij TO A60i'nzov KoLj T^f icpzcig. Let us now confi- der this paflage. At que i?ide cum omni populo Sici?7ia profedius, & altare Jlatuit ubi Moyfes prcecepe7'at — Could this author have avoided mentioning Kbal here; if he knew that to have been the place ? It will be anfwei-'d, that Ebal is mention'd afterwards. True; but the mention made of it afterwards is in fo odd a manner, and the fentence is^-^ confus'd by means of the words iv co kolj o (iojy.og g^ ( even tho' they fhould be plac'd in a parentheiis ) that it may be fubmitted to the Learned, whether thofe words are not an interpolation. For, ha- ving before told us, that the Altar was erefted upon 64 On the SAMARITAN upon its proper Ipot, at the very place where Mofes had commanded ; could he thruft in the mention of it again afterwards; and in a part of the fentence, where the infertion is not na- tural, and perplexes the fenfe ? Had he origi- nally faid, that the Altar was ere6led upon Ebal, the words would probably have ftood thus ^COfA^QV Ti ipjdlV ITTl TCd TlQcCXc^ Op€i, KCtS'COg ^z^GiTa Uoovcjyjg, But at prefent, there feems great reafon to fufpeft an interpolation. Let us re- view the whole fentence. At que inde cum omni populo Sicima profeBus, & a/fare Jlatuit ubi Moyfes prceceperat -, & dein exercitu divifoy in monte quidem Garizi dimidium ejus cojijiituit^ in Gibalo vera dimidium ( in quo & altare eft ) £f Levitas & Sacer dotes. The conjedlure here offered may be ftrength- en'd by obferving, that the tranflators have been much puzzled, and forc'd to change the pofi- tion of the words, to improve the fenfe ; pla- cing dimidium before in Gibalo, inftead of in Gibalo before dimidiu?n. And had the words, objeded to, been original; I prefume, they would have ftood thus — stt; fjnv rco Tci^^et ooet ryjv Yif/.io'GiCLv ipi(ny, Tyjv h yifjua-etdv itti rco FtQo'XcOy ev a y^cq 0 (iooiA^o? g^ &c. Epiphanius ( fays Haver- camp ) feems to have explain'd this paflage by the fornxer book, or to have read differently; fince PENTATEUCH. 65 fince in his verfion he renders 0 (ia^fA^og iq-i, as if it were idv (i^fA^ov e^, and alfo inferts another verb afterwards. He therefore was not fatisfied with the above reading: but then his two verbs, in the pajl tenfe, do not agree with the verb ip](Tiv twice in the prefent tenfe, juft be- fore. Two Latin MSS read here agreeably to Epiphanius, but with fome variations. One, in the library of Merton College, reads — in monte garizim conjlituit medium & in baek in in quo & alt are cedificavit nee non & levitas fa- cerdotefque divijit. The other, in Exeter Coll. library, reads — in monte garizi conjlituit me- dium & in babel medium^ in quo & alt are cedi- Jicavit nee non & levitas faeerdotefque divijit. Should it be flill infifted, that the words, objedied to, have not been thruft in aukwardly by fome later Jewifh zealot, but muft have been the words of Jofephus ; then I anfwer, that HE FLATLY CONTRADICTS HIMSELF: which can fcarce be fuppos'd oi fueh a writer, upon a point y3 very inter ejling and entirely na- tionaL For, in the former paffage he affirms, that the Altar was not built upon Ebal, but near Gerizim ; and yet ( in fuch a cafe ) he muft be allow'd to affirm here, that the Altar was built upon EbaL And if he be further underftood to affert, that the Levites and priejls Jlood 66 On the SAMARITAN Jlood iipo72 Ebahy this will be foon confuted. But, to fpeak the truth ; this difcerning Jew feems convinc'd, — that the Altar was to be^ and was y ere tied on Gerizim; and therefore, tho' h€ could not give the honour to Ebal, he would not confirm it to Gerizim : which yet will be inferr'd by moft of his readers from his faying fo cautioufly — that Jojhua ereBed it WHERE Mofes commajided it. There remains one remark to be made on that paflage ( in the 4th book) where Jofephus {peaks of the command given by Mofes ; which is farther favourable to mount Gerizim. Had Jofephus faid, that Ebal was to be the place, -from whence they were to declare the curfe of God againft all fuch as fliould negled: God's worjhipy and forget his co?nmands -, this would have been urg d as a clear allufion to the Altar and the Law^ as being upon Ebal. It muft be then equally fair to infer, that he alludes to the Altar and the Law, as being upon Geri- zim-y fince, exprefly fpeaking of Gerizim^ he mentions the worjloip of Go t> and keeping his laws KO/ TT^COTU fJLlV ms iTTt TO) ToL^^SiV yiVOfA.lV'dg There is another famous paflage of Jofe- phus, which has been frequently quoted upon this PENTATEUCH. 67 this fubjeft; but it is really furprizing, that learned men fhould fo frequently have referr'd to it, as decifive againft the Samaritans. It is the account given (i3>3>4) of the fen tence of Ptolemy, in favour of the temple at Jerufalem againft the temple on Gerizim. But note here ; that, if the preference was ever fo juftly then given to the former, that preference would by no means recover for Eial the honour of the Altar, which had been long claim'd by Geri- zm. For the difpute was not then diredlly concerning thefe two mountains ; the Jews feeming rather to concede the Altar to Geri- zim, not once denying t/jat; and the difpute only oppofing the holinefs of jferi/fakm to the holinefs of Gen'zim, But indeed the account of this royal arbitration, as given by Jofephus himfelf ( notwithftanding Hottinger calls him tejlem 7ro>kcov ctvlct^iov ctT^c^v) is much more like- ly to ferve, than to prejudice, the caufe of the Samaritans : and, to enable the Reader to de- termine the more readily, the following ex- tradl is made from that remarkable piece of hiftory. "After the building of the Jewiih temple "in Egypt by Onias, a feditious tumult arofe "in that country between the Jews and the " Samaritans : the former contending, that tl^eir I "temple 68 On the SAMARITAN " temple at Jerufalem was authoriz'd by the " Laws of Mofes ; and the fame being infifted ** on, as to their temple, by the latter. Both " parties appeal'd to Ptolemy, requefting a pub- **lic hearing; and agreeing, that the advo- "cates, defeated, fhould fuflfer death. Both *^ parties fwore, they would produce their proofs "according to the Law; and implor'd Ptole- *^my's vengeance on that perfon, who fliould " violate this oath. The Jews ( fays this their "own hiftorian) were in great pain for their ** advocates ( o/ oi lovactioi (r(poo^^ vjyoovioov in^ rcov *^ cLVGPQOVj oig ccycLvctJCTetv VTTI^ Tcv iv UoQ(7dXvfjLotg Upov " (wviQcuvc. ) The Samaritans freely permitting " the Jewifli caufe to be heard firft, Androni- " cus began his proofs from the Law and the " fucceffion of the high priefts ; fetting forth "how each, receiving the honour from his fa- " ther, prefided over the temple ; and that all " the kings of Afia had honoured the holy place " of the Jews with magnificent prefents : where- " as no one had reipedted the temple at Geri- " zim, any more than if it had never been. ^ By * A teftimony very contrary to this, and alfo from a Jewifh Hiftorian ( tho' by no means of equal authority ) we have from Jofephus Ben Gorion, in the following words '>2^>")DD DOT ciDjn mK j^n"^ nriia t^w nn rzj'r-ij -in b\< Do^in vn ^i^7 '»'» *k:;TpD ^mK 'onv nnm 'noyi^^m 'n^mmsni 'n^nrwv^'^ PENTATEUCH. 69 *' which, and feveral other fimilar • proofs, the " king was perfuaded to decree — That build- "ing the temple at Jerufalem was authoriz'd ** by the Law of Mofes ; and that the Samari- ** tans [ who came to plead for their temple ] " fhould be put to death." But was there ever a decree more un- righteous, than thus folemnly to fentence men to death, unheard? For it does not appear, that the Samaritan advocates were allow'd to plead at all ! And, after all -, where is the force of the Jewifh evidences ? Both parties had fworn to confine themfelves to the Mofaic Law; but the Jews did not : and if they had, Where ( in all the Pentateuch ) is there the kaft au- thority for building a temple at Jerufalem ? — Certainly, moft Readers will infer therefore from this ftory, as told by this ancient Jewifh prieft, that the Samaritans had a very unfair judge in Ptolemy. And they will infer alfo ( a matter of great confequence to the point here in view ) that the Samaritans did ?wt corrupt Multi ex populo nojiro (mprohi) ad montem Gnrixim quotannh decimas Juas &" fpontaneas oblationes ac pacifica fua diebus fejlls detulerunty reViBo fan^uario Domini Dei nojlri quod Hierofolymis fuit : te?nplum ant em ijlud evafit opulentissimum ; ac diu Jietit, ufque ad regnum Hyrcani, Sifneonis Jilii, Hajjuonai, qui Vlud tandem dejlruxit. Edit. Breithaupt. ]. 2. c. 8. I 2 the 70 On the SAMARITAN the text in quejimz , becaufe the Jews did nof^ at that timey atte?npt to conviB them of it. A proof of this corruption would, at that timey have been fairly decifive. For, as the temple at Gerizim claim'd only, in virtue of its former Altar; prove that Altar to have belong d to Ebal, and Gerizim is at once ftripp'd of its borrow'd honours, and the Samaritans of courfe convidled. And let us by no means forget; how eafily fuch a corruption, if made by the Samaritans, might have been then prov'd by the Jews. Suppofe it made immediately after the Geri- zim-temple was built, about 400 years before Chrift; and that this conteft happen'd about 150 years before Chrift. Certainly the Jews had THEN MSS more than 250 years 'old; probably fome, wrote hundreds of years before the building that temple, and therefore very long before the fuppos'd corruption. And had o?ily ONE old Heb. MSS ( I fay, had only one ) been produc'd, fairly reading byy (Ebal) in the text in queftion ; the Samaritans had been convidied righteoufly. But, no fuch authorities were produc'd — iiot one fuch authority was even pretended — the Jew juft mention'd the Law, and talk'd a great deal of ( what was no- thing to the purpofe ) the fucceffion of their priefts PENTATEUCH. 71 priefts and the glory of their temple — v/hilft the poor Samaritans were not fo much as heard, but cruelly put to death — - and thus was vic- tory decreed by Ptolemy to the Jews ! At leaft ; fo fays Jofephus. But, note here ; that, as the Samaritans tell this ftory, Ptolemy decreed the viBory /^ t h e m. * In fliort : from the whole of the matter, as related by Jofephus, thus much is clear; either that the merits of the caufe, as founded upon the Law of Mofes, were not gone into at all ; or elfe, that they turn'd out fo unfavourable to the Jews, that this ( their own ) hiftorian has thought proper to fjpprefs the particular mention of them : where- as, had they been favourable, they muft have furnifh'd him with miatter of the greateji tri- umph. I fhall add but one remark : that as Jofephus does not charge ( nor mention his brother Jews as charging) the Samaritans with corrupting the text in queftion ; fo neither did other an- cient Jews. For they record the follov/ing very remarkable words of R. Eliezer Ben Jofe — / have faid to you, O Samaritans^ ye havefal- Jified your law : for ye fay ( Deut. 11, 30 ) X2yv nniD ^JI^K the plain of Moreh, which is Sichem [they add Sichem of their own ac- * See A£l, Erudit. Lipf. 1691, pag, 169. cord ] 72 On the SAMARITAN cord] we our/elves indeed confefs^ that the plain of More h is Siche?n, Lightfoot, who mentions thefe words ^W. 2, 505) expreffes great fur- prize at this Jew's acculing the Samaritans of fo flight a matter ; and at his ?iot at all men- tioning that far greater fubornation, as to mount Gerizim. X. Let us now, in the lail place, carefully conflder the teftimony of holy Scripture. It has been already obferv'd; that the evidences, ariiing from the text itfelf, in Dent. 27, 4, are equal : but there is another exprefs text, which mufl be here confider'd ; as Vv^ell as fome others, which have a near relation to it. If then the original command be, in this cafe, become in- determinate y let us fee, how the facl itfelf is related : tho' from the text of Jopua alfo, as it now flands, the Samaritans have very little to hope for. The Englifh verfion informs us, from the prefent Heb. text of JoJJj, 8, 30 -, that Jojlma built the altar in mount EbaL But here alfo we mufl note, that the Samar. Chro- nicon (which begins with the hiftory of Jofhua in 39 chapters ) affirms, that Jojhua built this altar on mount Gerizim, * Wherefore, as the * See A6la Erud. Lipf. 1691, pag. 167: and alfo Reland's DifTert. ofi the Samaritans and their Chronicon; fed. 27, 33. This PENTATEUCH. 73 authorities of thefe two parties are again con- tradidiory ; we muft now attend to the circum- ftances of the facred hiftory : and thefe feem to be deciiive. A day of great folemnity is appointed — the twelve tribes are ftation'd, and every cir- cumftance is perform'd, agreeably to the divine commands — fix tribes therefore are ftation'd upon Gerizim, and fix upon Ebal; probably the princes ( the reprefentatives of each tribe ) upon the top, or on the fide j and the common people ( regulated by their captains and other officers ) extended over the plain, from the foot of each mountain : and in the valley, between the two mountains, is the Ark of G o d ; at- tended by a feledl number of the Levites — the tribes being properly ftation'd, an Altar is built ( either on Gerizim or Ebal ) and upon this Altar are oiFer'd burnt-offerings and peace- This Chronicon of the Samaritans ( in the Samar. chara£ler, but ^the Arabic language ) has not yet been publifh'd. It is allow'd to be ( in comparifon of their Pentateuch ) a late work and of lit- tle authority : and it is here referred to, becaufe the Samaritans have no other hiftory, which mentions this tranfaftion of Jofliua. Reland thinks this Chronicon to have been finifh'd in the 3d century \ and fays of the copy of it, which was fent to Scaliger by the Samaritans efi verfto Arabic a (poft Corani confcrip- tionem fa6ia) antiqui codicis, qui lingua Rebraa ccnfcriptus erat, at qui nunc periit. Difiert. de Samaritanis, feft. 5, 6. ofll'r- 74 On the SAMARITAN offerings -, the former, to atone for their fins ; and the latter, to exprefs their gratitude for their prefent peace, and their fuppKcation for its continuance — the facrifices being oifer'd, a copy of t&e Law is engrav'd upon ftones, placed upon one of the two mountains — and the Law, thus engrav'd, being read; blejjings are then pronounc'd from mount Gerizim, and curfmgs from mount Ebal. Now where can we fuppofe Jos hua, the Captain-General, to have been ftation'd, du- ring this folemn tranfadlion ? Shall we fuppofe Hhn to have flood, on the beautiful mountain of Blejjings y or upon that of Curfmgs , on the mountain honour'd with the Altar and the Lawy or the contrary? — Joiliua was of the tribe of Ephraim ; Ephraim was the fon of Jo- feph ', and the defcendants of Jofeph were cer- tainly ftation'd upon Gerizim. 'Tis therefore highly probable; that upon Gerizim, where Joihua was ftation'd, there were in fadl the Altar and the Law, And as Jofliua was upon Gerizim; no doubt, He was the perfon, who read the Law, and proclaim'd the Bleffings from Gerizim : whilft fome prince, out of the fix tribes upon Ebal, might, by Joftiua's com- mand, pronounce the Curfmgs from Ebal. And PENTATEUCH. j^ And now, as to the true place of the Altar and the Law ; if we advance one ftep farther, we fhall feem to arrive at demonftration. If the Altar was upon Ebal-y doubtlefs the facri- jices were ofFer'd upon Ebal : but, who then were the Sacrlficers ? Did Reuben, or Gady or AJher, did Zebulun, or Dan, or Naphtali, im- piouily furniih out men for Priejts, on this very folemn occafion ? Moft certainly. Not. And yet, thefe were the fix tribes expreily fta- tion'd upon Ebal, Let us now fee, what tribes were exprefly ftation'd upon Gerizim — Ju- DAH, the tribe of the MeJJiah ; Levi, the tribe of the Priejis, the only me?i who were to minif- ter before God in facrifice , Joseph, the tribe of their warHke and religious leader Jojhua', with Simeon, Iffachar, and Benjamin. And fhall we then refufe to allow, that the Altar and the Law were plac'd on the mount of BleJJings — on the fame mount with Jojljua, the heroic leader of the people — on the fame mount with their glory, the tribe of Judah — and on the fame mount with the tribe ofhY^vi, who were the proper, the divinely-appointed, the only, Minijiers at that very Altar ? Will there be the leaft prefumption, in fuppo- ling the Reader to be now perfuaded, that this corruption has been hitherto charg'd upon the K inno- 76 On the SAMARITAN innocent inftead of the guilty? Certainly; if there be not here demonjiratioriy there is at leafl Jlrong probability — that GERIZIM, thus confefs'd to have been the mount of Bless- ings and the ftation of the tribe of LEVI, was the mount y which was to be, and was, ho- noured with the Altar and the Law. And if the Reader be convinced, that the Samaritans HAVE NOT corrupted their Pentateuch, in this celebrated article ; he muft be convinc'd, that THE Jews have corrupted it: and corrupt- ed, not only this text in their Pentateuch y but alfo the correfponding text in ^ojhua. It may not be improper to conclude thefe remarks with thofe fentences of holy Scripture, which moft particularly relate to this fubjeft. We read in Deut. ii^ib. Beholdy Ifet before you a blejjing and a curfe : zy. A hlejjingy if ye obey the comfnandments of the Lord — which I command you this day : 28. And a curfe y if ye will not obey — but turn afide out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods which ye have not known. 29 . And-- when the Lord hath brought thee in unto the land—- thou fiall put the blejjing upon mount Gerizim, and the curfe upon mount Ebal, Wc PENTATEUCH. ^y We read alfo. In Deut, 27, 2 -r When you JJmll pafs over Jordan — thou Jljalt Jet thee up great Jlonesy and plaijier them with plaijier. * * This plaifter has generally been underftood, as meant to be laid over the ftones, to give them fmooth furfaces ; that fo the Law might be infcrib'd upon that plaifter. But the very next words fhew, that the words were not to be infcrib'd upon it i.e. the plaijier 'y but upon /^(f^ j. e. the ft ones. Befides : \{ du- ration was not intended ; the original Tables were prefent, and might have been us'd for a fmgle recital of the Commandments on this extraordinary occafion. And if duration was intended ; covering the furfaces of the ftones with plaifter ( notwithftanding what has been faid of the tenacity of the ancient plaifter ) feems a method very unlikely to perpetuate the infcription : efpecially as the words are fuppos'd to be infcrib'd, as foon as the plaifter was laid on. The learned F. Houbigant thinks, that the words do not mean plaifter for the furfaces, but cement for the fides of thefe ftones; by which they were to be join'd firmly together — £ amentum, quo lapides monument i, unus ad unum, fir me cohare- rent. But, perhaps, the truth of the cafe is this. The letters on thefe ftones were not to be funk or hollow'd out, but rais'd in relievo, and the ftone cut from around the letters. The plaifter would be then of excellent ufe to fill up the interftices of the let- ters : and if the plaifter was white between the letters of black marble-, the words would appear (according to the command, at ver. 8) very plainly — or, as in Coverdale's verfton (1535) ma- nyfeftly and zvelL This hypothefis, of the letters being rais'd, may be ftrengthen'd by obferving, that the Arabic infcriptions ( perhaps all that are now extant ) are in relievo. The two Arabic Marbles, preferv'd in the Univerlity of Oxford, are proofs of this method of engraving ; which therefore might obtain former- ly amongft the other Oriental nations. Selden, in his account of the Oxford Marbles, mentions 4, number'd 191, 192, 193, 194; which have on them Hebrew chara£lers, and were anciently parts of fome fepulchral monuments of the Jews. But, not know- ing 78 On the SAMARITAN 3. And thoujhalt write upon them all the words of this law — 4. Te pall fet up thefe Jiones in mount ( Ebal ) — 5. A.?id there Jhalt thou build an altar— 8. And thou JJoalt write upon the Jiones all the words of this law, very plainly. (). And Mofesfaidy Take heed y and hear ken y O Ifrael; this day thou art become the people of the Lord— 10. 'Thou fialt therefore obey his voice — and do his commandments and his Jia- tiitesy which I command thee this day, 1 1 . And Mofesfaidy 12. Thefe Jh all ft and upon Gerizinty to blefs the people Simeon y Levi, fudahy IJTachary Jofephy and Benjamin. 13. And ■ ^'^{[^ fi^ll ft and upon Eh ah to curfe ; Reubeny Gady Apery Zebulun, Daily and Naphtali. 14. And the Levites ftoall ( not fpeak but ) an-- fwery ajid fay unto all Ifrael with a loud voice y 15. Curfe d be the man &c. And then, the twelve curfes being pronounc'd, to which the people were to fay. Amen; it follows — Deut. 28, I. And it ftdall come to pafs, if thou hearken to the voice of the Lordy to do all his coinmand- mentSy which I command thee this day, the Lord will fet thee on high above all nations— 2. And all thefe blessings pall come on thee — 3. Blefted ftdalt thou be in the city, and blefjed ing where thefe fragments arc ,♦ I cannot fay, whether the letters upon them are in rclievQy or the contrary, ftdalt PENTATEUCH. 79 Jhalt thou be in the field, &c. 15. Buti if thou hearken not unto the Lord, to do all his com- mandments and his fiatiites, which I command thee this day ; all thefe cv^s^s Jhall come upon thee— 16. Curfed Jhalt thou be in the city; and curfed Jhalt thou be in thefi.eld. &c. Here fol- low the feveral other forms of curfmg ; and thefe are all concluded with this remark (which therefore fliould conclude this 28 th chapter ' ) Thefe are the words of the covenant y which the Lord commanded Mofes to make with the chil- dren of Ifrael in the land of Moab, befides the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. Having thus feen the words, which contain the co7nmand of Mofes ; let us now attend to the words, which defcribe the execution of it by Jofima : after which may properly follow fome obfervations upon the whole, fojlo, 8, 30. Then fojlma built an altar unto the Lord, in ??iount ( Ebal ) 2^, As Mofes commanded — as it is written — an altar of whole fiones, over which no man hath lift up any iron : ^ and they oj^'ered 1 This verfe concludes the 28th chapter, in the celebrated Editions, printed by Michaelis and Houbigant. 2 The learned Spencer laments, that the word ^ni is here ( in our Eng. Bible ) tranflated iron^ and not iron-tool ; as the fame word is properly tranflated in Deut. 27, 5. De Leg. Heb, lib. I, c. 2, fed. I. But Spencer's complaint would have been prevented, if our later Eng. verfions had not varied from thofe more 8o On the SAMARITAN burnt-offerings y and facrificed peace-offerings. 32. And he wrote there upon the Jiones a copy of the law of Mofesy which he wrote in the pre- fence of the children of IfraeL 33. And all If- raely and their elders, and offcers, and their judges y food on this fide of the ark, and on that fdcy before the priejis the Levitesy which bare the ark — as well the f ranger y as he that was born among them ; half of them over againji fjiount Gerizim, and half of them over againft mount Ebal : as Mofes had commanded before y that they Jloould blefs the people of IfraeL 34. And afterward he read all the words of the laWy the bleffngs and curfngSy according to all that is written in the book of the law, 35. Inhere was not a word of all that Mofes commandedy which foffua read not before all the congrega- tion of Ifraely with the womeny and the little ones, and the f rangers that were converfant among them. Let us now look back ; and remark firft the €xa6i ftationy allotted to the feveral parts of this multitude of people, on lb extraordinary an oC- more ancient. For in the Editions of 1537 and 1539, we read here — an altare of roughe JionCy over whyhe no took of yeron was lifte — And we read alio — - tole of yron, in the editions of 1541 and J54g. calion. PENTATEUCH. 8i caiion, Gerizim and Ebal ( fays Maundrell, p, 59 and 62 ) are feparated by a narrow val- ley 9 not above a furlong broad':, and Naplofa (the ancient SychemJ conjijling chiefly of two flreets lying parallel is built at the foot of and undery mount Gerizim. Now, upon Gerizim. were ftation'd the princes and chief men, as reprefentatives of fix of the tribes, of which Levi was one ; and on Ebal were ftation d the other fix tribes, as reprefented alfo by their chief men and princes. Extended upon the plain, over-againfty or from the foot of Geri- zimy towards the Eaft, were the common peo- ple of fix tribes, regulated by their feveral of- ficers ; in the fame manner as the people of the other fix tribes were extended, towards the Eaft, over-againfly or from the foot of EbaL In the valley was the Ark of God, attended by a feleB number of the Levites : and thefe could only be a party not the whole of the Le- vites, becaufe Levi was one of thofe tribes which were exprefly ftation'd upon Gerizim — i. e. the princes upon the mountain, and the body of that tribe at the foot of that fame mountain, as ftation'd with its five concomi- tant tribes. It muft be noted farther -, that, as the tribe of Levi was thus commanded to ftand upon Gerizifny it was of courfe forbid to ftand upon 82 On the SAMARITAN upon Ebal. And therefore, if the twelve tribes were ftation'd> in exadl conformity to this di- vine appointment ( as doubtlefs they were ) we muft conclude, that 7io part of the tribe of Levi was fiatiori d upon Ehal, But it may be afk'd. Were not the curfes to be pronounc'd from Ebal -, and did not the Le- vites pronounce the curfes ? To which I an- fwer affirmatively, as to the former: and the latter is be be affirm'd alfo, as to thofe curfes^ which the Levites in the valley, near the Ark, were order'd to repeat, Thofe particular curfes, to which the people were to fay Ameriy were to be firft pronounced from Ebal, and then REPEATED by the Levites in the valley. For the 14th verfe (Dent, 27) fhould be render'd in our Englifh verfion, agreeably to the Heb. word l^yi, and agreeably to all the ancient ver- fions — And the Levites fiall answer, and fay unto all the men of Ifrael, with a loud voice, 'Tis remarkable, that this ffiall anfwer) is the very rendring in many of our old EngliHi Bibles (fee the editions of 1540, 1541, 1549* M70' '^Sl'^^ ^^l"^^ ^5^3' ^599' ^^^2, 1607, and 1 6 1 o ) and that our lafl tranflators, in this as in feveral other inftances, alter d for the worfe, in their edition publifh'd in 16 13. The PENTATEUCH. 8j The next point to be conlider'd is — What that Law was, which Jofhua engrav'd upon ftones, in obedience to the command of Mofes. Various have been the conjediures of different writers. Some, taking the Law in its common acceptation, have fuppos'd it to be the whole Pentateuch. But the fuppofition of an engra- graving of that kind is too abfurd to need con- futation. Others have fuppos'd it to mean the book of Deuteronomy ; that fecond law, or re- petition of the laws before given. But this opi- nion alfo needs only to be mentioned. Others therefore have fuppos'd the Law here fpoke of to be the very blejjings and curjings pronounc'd upon this occafion. This opinion is far more probable than either of the preceding, and is indeed generally received; but yet, this alfo feems liable to great objedlions. That we may judge of this matter the more clearly, let us confider what were the blej/ings and curjings to be then proclaimed. Now con- cerning thefe the general opinion of both Jews and Chriftians has been that, as twelve curfes * are exprefs'd in the twelve verfes of * Where the fentence will admit of the diftinflion, it feems proper to exprefs by a curje the denunciation of vengeance againft a particular crime ; as in Deut. 27 : and a curfing may denote a general denunciation of vengeance for difobedience to the laws of G 0 D i as in Deut. 28, L Deut. 84 On THE SAMARITAN Dent. 27 5 the blejjings were the reverse of thefe ciirfes. But, if we confider the matter with attention ; can we conclude, that the If- f aeUtes were to be pronounc'd ( and to be ) hkjfedy merely /ir not committing fome one hor- rid crime ? After juftly pronouncing, Curfed be the idolater ; and Curfed be he, that lieth with any manner of beaft ; could they be command- ed to fay, Bleff'ed is he, that is not an idolater ; and BleJJed is he, that is not guilty of bejiiality ? Thefe, and other crimes there fpecified, are fb atrocious, that one cannot eafily conceive any man likely to be thus call'd blefed, barely for not committing them. Befides : as it was pof- fible, that a man might commit one, and not another, of the crimes here ipecified ; he would be then pronounc'd bleJJ'ed, for not committing one, and curfed for committing another i. e. he would be pronounc'd blejfed and curfed at the fame time. It muft be remarked farther ; that a curfe denounc'd is not properly law, or the law, but only the fan5lion of law : and therefore thefe penalties are the fanBions arifing from the curfes of God againft the violaters of laws given before ( either exprefly or by impli- cation ) which fan<5lions the Ifraelites them- felves were in thefe twelve cafes to allow to be mofl juft and righteous. If PENTATEUCH. 85 If we examine thefe twelve curfes, they will appear to contain a ftrong enforcement of the TEN Commandments; and 'tis highly pro- bable, that they were here proclaim'd princi- pally to fecure obedience to them : as will be made more clear by the following table. Deut. 27, 15. Curfed be the mariy that maketh any graven or ?nolten mage, an abomina- tion unto the Lord: &c, Amen. The 5th Commandment. 16. Curfed — that Jet teth light by his father or his mother. The 6th Commandment. 25-. Curfed — that taketh reward to fay an innocent p erf on. 24. Curfed-- thatfjiiteth his neighbour fecretly. 1 8. Curfed — that maketh the blind to wander out of the way. The 7th Commandment. 20. Curfed — that lieth with his father s wife, 21. Curfed — that lieth with any beajl. 22. Curfed — that lieth with his ffler. 2 3 . Curfed — that lieth with his mother in law. The 8 th Commandment. 17. Curfed that removeth his neighbours land -mark. L 2 The 86 On the SAMARITAN The 9th Commandment. 19. Cm-fed — that perverteth the judgment of the fir anger, fatherlefsy and widow. The loth Commandment. 26. Curfed — that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. Here, the application of the ten intermediate curfes is obvious. The firft curfe feems meant to anfvv'er to the four Commandments of the firft table ^y which enjoin the worfhip of the one true God, ^inA forbid Idolatry *. And the laft curfe, being a guard to all the precepts of God in general, is ( in fome meafure ) coincident v/ith the lOth Commandment, For that like- wife is a guard to the preceding Command- ments; forbidding even to meditate injuftice, or to entertain fuch defiresy as it would be crimi- nal to indulge to the prejudice of our neigh- bour. If then thefe curfes cannot properly be call'd the Lawy but contain only the fandlion of the Law i. e. the curfe of G o d denounc'd againft the violaters of thofe ten Commandments, which conftitute the firft and chief part of the Law given to the Ifraelites : then may we pre- * Deum tabula priirne mandata /j^Idololatriam abolendtim, veluti fcopum pnecipuum^ direxijfe, facile perciplamus, Spencer ; de Leg. Heb. lib. i, cap. 2. fee. i. fume PENTATEUCH. 87 fume, that thefe curfes were not what Mofes commanded to be engrav'd; and confequently were not what Jolliua did engrave — that be- ing caird rW'O nmn n^trD a copy of the law of Mofes y which he ( Mofes ) wrote ( tranfcrib'd into his hiflory from the two Tables) in the prefence of the children of IfraeL The fam.e objection holds full as ftrongly againft D enter. ch. 28. For that, containing no commands, but only the bleffings promised to obedience, and the curlings threatened to difobedience, in ge- neral, muft be allow'd to contain ( not a law or the lawy but ) the fanBion of laws already given. And in this long chapter, the double fandion of rewards and punifliments is deli- ver d in fuch language, as is wonderfully ani- mated and affedling, under all the difadvantagc of tranflation. * * Our Eng. tranflation of part of the lafl verfe Is this — And the Lord Jhall bring thee into Egypt again j and there' ye Jhrdl be fold unto your enemies for bond-men and bond-zucmen, and ?io man fhall buy you. Is not every reader flruck with the abfurdity of this verfion ? Can a man poffibly be fold, without being bought? Does not the former neceflarily imply the latter ? And does not their not bei?ig bought as clearly imply their not being fold? Whereas, if the verb Cn^lDDDm v/as render'd a7id fe fhall of- fer yourfelves to fale ; the fenfe would be proper, and exprefiivc of the moft bitter fufferings : — The Lord pall bring you once more into Egypt, the place of your forrner bondage : yet not as in the days of old, Jhall be your lot. Hereafter, fo great fhall be your mifery, that many of you Jhall offer yourf eh cs to be fold, Jhall pray to 83 On the SAMARITAN We may fairly prefume, that the Law, which was then ready was the fame with the Law then engravd. And the manner of expreffion feems clearly to evince, that the Law then read was different from the forms of bleffing and curfing, then read likewife. We are told, in JoPd, 8, 34 — that Jojhua read all the words of the lawy the bleJJingSy and the curjings ; mentioning thefe as three diftindl things. Whereas, had the Law been the very law o f the blejfings and curjings; the phrafe would then probably have been ( not nO'mn H^inn rbbprw but) nb^pm ryT\:ir\ nmn. But, it may be faid ; What then was that Law; a copy of which was engraved at this folemn convocation ? If neither the antecedent form of curfes, denounc'd againft particular crimes; nor the fubfequent form of bleffings and curfings, afcertain'd to obedience and dif- obedience to the laws of G o d in general : if to be admitted even as Jlaves : but a fate, yet more terrible, Jhall be then your portion. This prophecy, dreadful as it is, was moft literally fulfilPd ; when, after the deftrudion of Jerufalem by Titus, tho' fome Jews were fent, as flaves, into Egypt, multi- tudes were referv'd for the sword, and wild beasts, in the public theatres. T« h. XniTim TrXviJov^ rev? vyn^ iTrrxx-eMhaof, irt) f*iaz6g, S/TEjttif'^'' ^? ''^ }(g^' AiyuTrlov i^yx' TrXet^vg ^' «5 jug ittu^^M Jofeph. Bell. Jud. 6, 9, 2. neither PENTATEUCH. 89 neither of thefe can properly be confider'd as the Law ; what elfe is there remaining, to en- ter its claim to that expreffion ? I anfwer — The Ten Commandments; that divine fyftem of the ?nora/ Law, which may be well caird The Law by way of eminence. * And indeed thefe ten Commandments have fre- quently been confider'd, as tAe Law thus en- grav'd ; tho' the arguments, in fupport of fuch an interpretation, do not appear to have been fufficiently attended to. At our very entrance upon this confidera- tion, the propriety of engraving the ten Com- mandments on this occafion ftrikes us at once. For, had not the Ifraelites been brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand, to pofTefs the land of Canaan ; there to live as the fervants and the fubjedts of the one true God? Was there not a covenant exprefly made with them, to this purpofe, at mount Sinai ( i. e. Horeb ) at their entrance into the wildernefs ? Did not the ten Co?nmandmejits deliver'd by God, and the promife of obedience made by the people, conftitute the principal part of that Jolenin co- venant ? And therefore, upon their taking pof- * In holy Scripture, the law is a term us'd varioiifly : fome- times for the whole old Tejlatnent, as in i Cor, 1 4, 2 1 ; and in -^^^ 7> 53> only for the ten CGmmandmenis, fefTion 90 On the SAMARITAN felTion of the land thus promis'd ; What fo pro- per to engrave upon ftones, and fix up near the center of that country for pubhc infpedtion, as thofc ten Commandments y which make the principal part of that Lawy of that divine char- ter, their obedience to which was to fecure that country to them, and to their pofterity ? But farther : what fo proper to be then and there engrav'd, as thofe ten Comrnaiidments ; on their obedience to which not merely their tem- poral profper'ity may have depended, but pofli- bly their eijerlajling happinefs ? For thus fome of the Learned confider the difference here made, between the curfes exprefs'd in the 27th and in the 28th chapters of Deuteronomy. In the former, the curfe of God, being de- nounc'd indefinitely and at large, may refer to a future Jiate, and imply pmiiflyment hereafter : whereas, in the latter, the curfings are exprefly limited to prefent afliBlons and temporal chaf- tfe?nents. The verfe, which concludes the de- fcription of the temporal blefiings and curfings, is this — 1^ Dt'///. 29, i) T^hefe are the ivords of the covenants which the Lord commanded Mofes to make with the children of IfraeU in the land of Moah ; befdes the covenant y which he made with thein in Horeb. On which words the learned Father Houhigant remarks thus — In PENTATEUCH. 91 In his verbis ( praster id fcedus in Horeb ) Jig^ nificatur^ makdi^iojies eas, quce hoc in capite ffc, 2^ J Icgiintur^ non effe earum quce proximo capite antecefferunt explicatrices -y fed alias ah illisy & alius generis, Nempe rnaledidiiones prio- res adverfum eos denunciatce funt, qui Legem Decalogi in Horeb datam violarent ; neque illce pcenas comminabantur hac in mortali vita injli- gendas. Cum contra ; pojleriores maleditliones ijlce pcenas pr^ferites, eafque publicas, denitn-^ tient : quia Deus cum IJraelitis fcedere fe tali devinxeraty ut eorum rempublicam tarndiu tue- retur, quamdiu Deum verum colerent. That the Law thus engrav'd was really the Law of the ten Co?nmandmentSy i. e. the Law given at Horeb ( which is exprefly mention'd on this occalion ) feems farther evident from the following confiderations. The book of Deuteronomy chiefly contains the laws of God, as repeated by Mofes to the people, towards the conclufion of the forty years of their fo- journing in the wildernefs. And this repeti- tion feems to have been delivered in four fpeech-. es : the firft being from ch. 1,6, to 4, 41 — the fecond from ch. 5, i, to 26, 19 — the third from ch. 27, I, to 29,2; containing ( fepa- rately ) the orders relative to the tranfadlion at Gerizim and Ebal-— and the fourth from ch. M 29, 92 On the SAMARITAN 29, 2, to 30, 20. After which, we are told in ch. -^i, 9 ; that then Mofes wrote this law, and and delivered it to the priejisy which bare the fjf'k — to be carefully depoiited there, with the two Tables ( the X.zvl Commandments ) which were in the Ark before. And, at ver. 22, we are told -, that on the fame day, on which Mofes thus fmifh'd his book of the Law, he wrote alfo The Song ( beyond defcription fub- lime and beautiful ) which is contain'd in ch. the 3 2d. With this facred Ode, and ( per- haps * ) with ch. the 33d, containing his final benedidiion of the twelve tribes, were the wri- tings of Mofes concluded juft before his death. Now, if Mofes previoufly delivered thefe fpeeches, which are exprefs'd in the firft 30 chapters of Deuteronomy, and then wrote the Law ; muft not this mean, either that he then compos'd the whole Pentateuch, or at leaft con- cluded it by writing the book of Deuteronomy? Thefe fpeeches, which make almoft the whole of Deuteronomy, could not be hiftorically re- corded, could not be truly faid to have been * It has been conjedlur'd, that this 33d chapter, as well as the 34th, may have been the addition of fome writer later than Mofes ; partly, becaufe Mofes is there magnificently ftil'd t/^e man o/God ; and partly, becaufe exprefs mention is made of bis Song ( contain'd in ch. 32) as if that was the lajl part of his writings. See ch. 31 ; ver. 22, 24, 25, 26. fpohn^ PENTATEUCH. 93 fpoken^ till after they had been fpoken : and therefore, at lead this book of Deuteronomy, if not the whole Pentateuch, was evidently compos'd after the delivery of thefe fpeeches. If fo5 when Mofes, in his fpeech relative to Gerizim and Ebal, tells the people twice — ye ffmll engrave the words of this law : a-s he evidently fpeaks of Ibme law compos'd be- fore, and at that time referred to; fo, as nei- ther the Pentateuch, nor the book of Deutero- nomy, was then compos'd, the law here meant was moft probably the ten Commandments only.. The two Tables, containing thefe Command- ments, were then in the Ark. And as the Ark was doubtlefs near Mofes, whilil he was thus folemnly addreffing himfelf to his brethren ; we may confider him as pointmg to that very Law, when he faid — thou Jhalt write upon the Jlones all the words of mis law : fee Deut. 2j ; 3 and 8. But farther ; Immediately after this laft verfe, which contains the command as to the words to be engrav'd, it follows — And Mofes faid. Take heed, O Ifraell this day thou art become the people of the Lord, Thou fait therefore obey his voice &c. Here then he reminds them of the covenant ; and the covenant is expreily faid ( ch. 4, 1 3 ) to be the ten Co?nmandments M 2 — And 94 On the SAMARITAN — And he declared imto them his covenant y even ten Commandments -y and he wrote them upon two tables of Jione, And thus, in Exod, 34, 28. and he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant ^ the ten Commandments, It fhould be remember'd : that thefe Command- ments, making only fxteen verfesy might be eafi- ly engrav'd, on that folemn day ; and time be left for the other bufinefs. Whereas the en- graving eighty verfes ( of bleffings and curlings ) would be improbable , and engraving the Pen- tateuchy or indeed the book of Deuteronomy y had been impoflible. Admitting then, that the words to be engrav'd were the law of the covenant i.e. the ten Cowjnandments ; we may view this whole tranfadlion proceeding, in per- fecfl: order. The Ifraelites enter Canaan, in confequence of the covenant with God — they no fooner enjoy peace in that land, but they fet apart one day for prayer, thankfgiving, and devout re- membrance of that covenant — they firfl ered: an Altar, * and offer facrifices — they then * Notwithftanding the opinions of feveral amongft the learn- ed, it does not feem at all probable, that the Altar (which Jo- fhua built firfl ) was built of the very fame Jlones on which the Law was engrav'd ; for this evident reafon — that the Altar was to be built of ftones rough, unhewn, untouch'd by any tool; whereas feme hard tool, feme inltrument of metal, was necef- fary PENTATEUCH. 95 engrave the ten Commandments upon two great ftones ' — when thus engrav'd, they plaif- ter the ftones with plaifter, and eredl them on fome conipicuous point of mount Gerizim — from them, thus erefted, Jofhua proclaims the ten Commandments to the people — fl}e Law being thus proclaim'd from Gerizim, by Jo- fhua ; fome prince, of one of the fix tribes up- on Ebal, at Jofhua's command, "" declares the fary to engrave the Commandments : and as they could not have been engrav'd, fo neither could they have been read, e/ij^/y, un- lefs the furfaces of the ftones were previoufly fmooth'd by art and labour. 1 Thefe flones are here limited to TzvOf becaufe two large ftones would be fufficient ; and becaufe it was moft obvious for the Ifraelites to engrave the Commandments upon Hvo, in re- fpeftful imitation of tbe two tables, on which they had received thofe Commandments from God himfelf. 'Tis certain alfo, that where only two are meant, the Heb. word is frequently in the plural (or, as fome call it, the dual) number, without the nu- meral for tzvo exprefs'd at all. Thus Gen. 27, 36 ; he hath /up- planted me thefe ( XI2'>X^''J^ times ) two ti?nes. Thus, Lev. 12,5; Jhe Jkall be unclean ( Cyyil'^ weeks ) tzvo zveeks. And thus the words r*l1^nJl D'llX, in the very cafe now before us, are ren- der'd duos laptdes magnos, in the Lat. verfion of the Samar. text of Exod 20, 18. 2 'Tis very frequent in Scripture, to reprefent a per/on as do- ing that, which is done by another in his name and by his au- thority. And therefore Jojhua may be here confider'd, as pro- claiming both the bleflings and the curfings ; the former by him- felf, upon Gerizim ; the latter by fome prince, commiffion'd by him, upon Ebal: without our fuppofmg Jofhua to have pafs'd from one mountain to the other, to proclaim the whole in per- fon. 96 On the SAMARITAN curfe of God due to that man, who fhould violate any of thefe Commandments this curfe is denounc'd twelves times; and each curfe, as foon as declar'd from Ebal, is repeated aloud by the Levites near the Ark, in the iide of which were the two Tables and each curfe, having been thus re-proclaim*d by the Levites, is then confirmed by all the people, faying to each A?nen — the Moral Law being thus repeatedly and firmly ratified; then fol- lows a moft earneft perfuafive to obedience in general, founded upon the promife of all tern- poj'al blejjings : which is pronounc'd by Jofhua from Gerizim, the mount of bleffing — after which follows a moft earneft diflliafive from difobedience in general, founded upon the me- nace of temporal affiidlions and prefent puniJJj" ments : and this declaration of the many tre- mendous curfes of The Almighty, publick- ly and nationally to be inflicted, is proclaim'd from Kbaly and clofes this very folemn tranf- adlion. It muft have appeared ftrange, furprizingly ftrange, during the reader's perufal of the pre- ceding remarks ; that it is not more clearly ex- fon. And to this purpofe, the Eng. verfion is expiefs'd in Cover- -dale's Bible, in the following words — There was not one zvorde thM Mofes ^commaundedy but Jofua cnnjed it to he proclamed. prefs'd. PENTATEUCH. 97 prefs'd, what this Law, thus to be engrav'd, was: that a point of fo much importance fhould not have been, fome where or other, very accurately noted, and very particularly cir- cumfcrib'd by Mofes ; partly for the more fe- cure diredlion of Jofhua, and partly to render this awful tranfadion more intelligible, thro' future ages. But, all this furprize ceafes; all this puzzle is unravell'd -, all this uncertainty is at once removed ; if we allow the authority of the Samar. Pentateuch : if we will but grant, that there may have been in the Heb. text a certain paffage, which is now found in all the copies of the Samaritan text and verfion : and which is alfo found, exadlly as in the Samar. Pentateuch, in that Arabic verfion of it ( in the Arabic charad:er ) which has been mention'd in pag. 3 1 \ and which is a very valuable, be- caufe a very literal verfion. For, in EiXod. 20, as foon as the loth Commandment is conclu- ded, we read in the Samar. Pentateuch the five following verfes. 18. And it /hall come to pafsy when the Lord thy God JJoall bring thee into the land of the Canaanitesy whither thou goeji to pojjefs it ; then thou Jhalt Jet thee up great Jiones : and thou P:>alt plaijier them with plaijler, and fialt write upon the ftones all the words of this law. And 9? On Tin: SAMARITAN 19. And it pall come to pafsy when yc are fajfcd oier Jordan ; ye jhall put tbcfe Jhnesy which I command you this dayy upon mount Gerizim. 20. And thou jhalt build there an altar to the Lord thy (hd, an altar of Jiones ; thou JJjalt not lift up any iron tool upon them, 2 1 . T'hou Jhalt build the altar of the Lord thy God of whole Jlones ; and jhalt offer thereon burnt-offerings to the Lord thy God, and Jhalt facrifice peace -offerings : and thou Jhalt eat therCy and rejoice before the Lord thy God, 22. That mountain is on the other fide for- dany by the way where the fun goeth down, in^ the land of the Canaanitesy which dwell in the champiany over againjl Gilgaly befule the plain of Morehy near Sichem, Here then, according to this truly-vencnible copy of the book of Mofcs, ;ill is clear; the wliolc is pcrfedlly regular, and in harmonious proportion. We have (ci:\\ the feveral circuni- fiances concurring to render it liighly probable, that the ten Commandments coniVitutcd the Law, which was to be engrav'd. And, as it can fcarce be conceiv'd, that fuch a point could have been quite omitted by Mofes; it makes greatly for the honour of the Samar. Penta- teuch, PENTATEUCH. 99 teucli, to have prekrv'd io very confiderable a pall-ige. Why the ancient Jews ihould omit this pafliige, can be matter of no doubt at all with thole, who mark the honour it does to mount (7f'r;c./v;. And therefore the lame men, who corrupted Dn/r. 27, 4, have but aded with uniformity, if they have alio corrupted tlie 20th ch. of Exotl'/s; omitting Gerizim in the latter inllance, jutl as honellly* as they ALTE r'd it in the former. But, that fome few verfcs did formerly fol- low after the 1 oth Commandment in ver. 1 7, and before the i8th ver. of ExoJ. ch. 20 ; we have not only the authority of the Samar. Pen- tateuch (which, together with the feveral fore- going confirmations, may be thought fatisfac^o- ry ) but we have alio the authority of an an- cient SvRiAC MS, whicli contains a verfion of the old Tell amen t, and is catalogued ( in the Bodleian Librar)^) N'3130. Between the 17th and 18th verfes, at the very place where this pallage is now found in the Samar. Penta- teuch ; in this Syrlac MS ( tho' tranllated from an ancient Heh'fw copy ) there is left, in the middle of the page, a vacant fpace jull equal to the five verfcs expreis'd iji the Samaritan : and no fuch vacant fpace is left any where elfe, thro* the whole MS ; excepting a Ipace Ibme- N what 100 On the SAMARITAN what larger In the 27 chapter of Ecclus, and one fomewhat lefs in 2 Mac cab, ch. 8. The in- ference, from this very remarkable circum- ftance, I leave to the learned Reader. That the Samar. text fhould be condemned as corrupted, merely y for having more in it than the Hebrew ; no man of learning will main- tain. Certainly the Jews might omit as eafily as the Samaritans might infert. And I prefume, it has been, and will be hereafter more fully, prov'd — that feveral whole paflages, now in the Samaritan, but not in the Heb. Pentateuch^ are not interpolations in the former, but omif- Jions in the latter. And as to this particular paffage ( which, with a very abfurd fneer, has been call'd the eleventh Commandment *y it is, if genuine, a folemn order from God, relative to the ten Commandments juft before deli- ver d : enjoining the Ifraelites, that, when they took pofTeffion of the land of Canaan, they Jhould engrave thefe ten Commandments upon Jlohesy and fix them upon mount Gerizim near Sichem. But the whole of this 20th ch. of Exodus fhall be confider'd hereafter : not only, as it is one of the moft important chapters in the old Teftament; but alfo, becaufe there are more '* Carpzov. Crit. facr. Vet. Teft. pag, 606. difFe- PENTATEUCH. loi differences in this, than in any other chapter, between the Heb. and the Samar. copies. And the method, which I propofe to follow, is this — fi'^fi •' ^^ ^^^ before the Reader our Englifh tranflation of the Heb. text in one column, and in another a tranflation of the Samaritan -, pla- cing them oppoiite to each other, and pointing out by a different character where the Samar. copy varies from the Hebrew — fecondly : for the greater fatisfaffion of the Learned, I have collated all our Heb. & Samar. MSS, which contain this chapter, and alfo fuch places in Deuteronomy as are parallel to any places in this chapter: and the variations of all thefe MSS fhall be fpeciiied — thirdly, I ihall take particular notice of the feveral whole fenten- ces, which are in the Samar. but not in the Heb. copy — and fourthly : I fhall offer fome obfervations on the moft material amongft the minuter variations. From the future confideration of this chap- ter ( in the manner here proposed ) there will arife one remarkable Circumftance; which feems to be of confiderable importance, and likely to do fervice to the Christian Cause. And perhaps this, tho' not affign'd, may have been one reafon for Mr. Collm/s N 2 warm 102 On the SAMARITAN warm attack upon the Samar. Pentateuch. And, if this be true ; fhould not Chriftians learn to be extreamly cautious — how they join with Mf* Collinsy in opinion up072 this article ? Ef- pecially ; fince the weaknefs of his arguments, as well as the diihonefty of his quotations, will appear fully from the examination of Bothi iipon which I now enter, HAVING PENTATEUCH, 103 HAVING thus fubmitted to the Learned what I have to offer, in favour of the Samar. Pentateuch, fo far as relates to the ce- lebrated corruption of Dent, 27, 4 ; I proceed now to confider fuch other Objeffions to this Pentateuch, as have been urg'd by Mr. Collins in his Grounds and Keafons of the Chrijiian Re^ ligion. And here, I fhall introduce my remarks on the paj'ticular Chapter^ which contains thefe objedlions, by a few previous remarks on this Book in general. The manner, which Mr. Collins thought the mofl advantageous for his attack upon Chrif- tianity, was (in part) to lay hold of that flrong prejudice, which generally obtained, in favour of the Integrity of the printed Heb. "Text, And, as he flattered himfelf with the notion of an eafy triumph, in confequence of this common conceffion ; the reafoning of his book is this — The Truth of Chrijiianity depends entirely on proofs from the old Tejlament. But the proofs from the old Tejlament are inva- lidy and not thefanie as in the new Tejlament, Therefore, Chrijiianity has no proper proofs at all. He 104 On the SAMARITAN He pretends; that the old Tejiament, literally underjlood^no where ferves the purpofes ofChrif- tianity (p. i6o : ) but if of ufe, muft be un- derftood allegoric ally. He therefore firft re- commends allegory, as the only reafoning pro- per to bring all men to the faith of Chriji ( p. 94 'y ) and then ridicules this allegorical inter- pretation as abfurd: p. 87, 90. His argumen- tation, as to paffages in the new Teftament quoted from the old, ftands thus — The paffages in the new Tejlament from the old are not the fame as in the old 'Teftament, But thofe paffages have not been corrupted^ in the old Teftament, Therefore, thofe paffages were forgd^ or have been corrupted, in the new Teftament, Dangerous pofitions thefe, if true ! And they fhould awaken the moft ferious attention of Chriftians to the confequence of fuch notions, as are thus made ufe of to fix Crimes upon the authors of the new Teftament, by denying Miftakes introduced by the tranfcribers of the old Teftament. To countenance this inverted way of reafon- ing, and to give his poifon'd arrow the greater force ; Mr. Collins ( p. 54 — 61) has quoted Surenhuftusy as faying that he was fiird with PENTATEUCH. 105 "with grief at the paffages of the old^ Tefamenf quoted in the new — that he conversed with many fews^ who infolently reflected on the new TCeJtament ; affirming it to be plainly corrupt edy becaufe it feldom or never agreed with the old Tejiament ', fame of whom faidy they would pro- fefs the Chrifian Religion y if any one could re- concile the new Tejlament with the oldy he was the more grievdy becaufe he knew not how to apply a remedy to this evil — at laji he met with a Rabbiny who recommended to him fome allegorical Jewijh writings, and gave him ten rules y to Jl:ew how the Apoflles quotedy and why they alledgd pafages of the old 'Tejiament OTHERWISE than they are exprefsd in the original. And thus ( fays this decent Infidel ) the Rabbin ejlabliJJSd Chrifianityy juji as Lu- ther s Devil did Protejiantifm I As to the Integrity of the prefent Heb. Text ; this, he pretends, will be allow'd him by men of all denominations — by Jewsy Infidels and Chrifiians, He afks, p. 1 1 1 Do not the Jews take it for grant edy that they have a true copy of the books of the old Tejiametit ? Perhaps not, univerfally : yet, if they do, may not Jews be miftaken ? But he demands far- ther— Do not all Infidels take it for grant- ed? Yes: they either believe, or pretend to believe io6 On the SAMARITAN believe it ; and, as this Gentleman well exprefles It, THEY TAKE IT FOR GRANTED. They do, indeed, take this great point for granted ; and they choofe to do fo, as being fenfible — that, if the old Teftament Ihould be prov'd corrupt- ed, it would probably appear corrupted in thofe places, which furnifli them with the chief to- pics for buffoonry and profane infult. But then, he adds, p. 1 1 2 — // has been thought by Di- vines, to be of very ill confequence to Religion y to fuppofe any alterations have been 77iade in the eld Tejiament. This alfo is true. It has, in- deed, been thought by Divines. But it is hop d, that the days of fo dangerous a prejudice are haftening to a conclufion ; and 'tis hop'd far- ther, that the warm zeal of this eminent Un- believer will contribute not a little to reftify this miftake of Chrijlians. And now, as to this author's attack upon the writers of the new Teftament, for quoting differently from the old; he concludes (ftrange- ly defective in Literature and Logic) that what differs from the old Teftament as now printed muft equally differ from the original Heb. MSS. But, the more accurately the quotations in the Greek Teftament fhall be compar'd with what were probably the true readings in the Hebrew; the more clearly ( I prefume) v/ill it appear — that PENTATEUCH. 107 that one great caufe of the prefent variations of the Greek Text from the Hebrew, is the cor- ruption of the lattery in confequence of the miftakes made by tranfcribers ; and becaufe the Mafora has been founded upon, and has countenanced, thofe veiy miftakes. I ihall give one inftance, of no fmall mo- ment. St. Peter and St. Paul appeal to the Jews, concerning the refurrediion of Chrift — that David prophefied of the refurreBion offome one holy perfon-, who was to die, yet not to fee corruption. 'This, fay they, %ve declare to be fulfilled in Jefus Chrift. But, if we re- fer now to the text of the i6th Pfalm; we fhall find the word to be there ( and autho- riz'd in tlje text by the Mafora ) what will totally invalidate the argument of thefe Apof- tles. It is there printed in^DH; which word. In every other place, is naturally and juftly render'd plurally thy faints. And yet, if the Word here fignified originally thy faints ; the prophecy of a particular refurredion would then vanifh — the plural affirmation would be untrue — and both Peter and Paul would he found falfe witnejjes in the caufe of God. But furely, thefe Apoftles have not, cannot have thus imposed upon the world, either wil- fully or ignorantly. If the former; where is O their io8 On the SAMARITAN their honefty ? If the latter ; where is their infpiration ? But, to the proofs from ancient verlions, and from the context, we may add ( and let us be truly thankful to divine Providence for permitting us to add ) the greater authority of Hebrew MSS : many of which are, as yet, preferv'd ; and will frequently reftore the genuine words of holy Scripture. I have now examined TSirfy One Heb. MSS, which con- tain this Pfalm; and in Twenty Seven {^Fifteen of which are at Oxford, Five at Cambridge, Six in The Britifh Mufeum, and One in the poffeffion of Solomon Da Cofta Efq; ) there is very happily preferv'd the true reading ^n^DH, in xh^Jingular number. This is a various reading, which I before mentioned in my Diflertation, tho' not t^ien fo very fully conjfirm'd. And it is fuch a various reading, as has been judg d by the learned, in England, a powerful recommendation of Our Heb. MSS; and has been applauded by the learned, in other countries, as of very fignal importance. Having thus vindicated the Apoftolical quo- tations, and render d harmlefs one of Mr. Collins's moft formidable objeftions; we may proceed now to another leading miftake. Mr. Collins PENTATEUCH. 109 Collins employs a large part of his book againft Mr, Whijlon ; a writer — who, tho' wrong in feveral of his notions, has made learned and ludicious remarks on different fubjeils, and many valuable obfervations on the printed Text of the old Teftament; par- ticularly on the famous text of Deuteronomy before confider'd : and this text he fuppos'd right in the Samar. copy, tho' he has not touched the ftrongeft arguments in proof of it. But, had Mr. Whifton been ever fo injudi- cious ; Mr. Collins would be equally fo, if he could think — that, to anfwer the notions of Mr. Whifton was much the fame as to confute the doBrines, and fubvert the foundations of Christianity. Thefe previous refledlions being made ; let us now confider what this unbeliever has ad- vanc'd, in derogation of the Samar, Penta- teuch \ in his long chapter upon this fubjeft. His firft aflertion is this \ pag, 1 84. That the ten tribes, that revolted under Jeroboam, had a Pentateuch among them, may juftly be fuf- peBed, and'cannot be provd. The meaning of which words, together with the words there following (which mention the captivity of the ten tribes ) is this — '// may juftly be fif O 2 peBed no On the SAMARITAN pecledy that the ten tribes had not, and it can^ not be provdy that they had, any copy of the Pentateuch among the?ny from their revolt un- der Jeroboam, till they were carry d captive by ShalmaneJJer. In anfwer to this, let it be re- niark'd firft : that the Levites were fcatter'd thro' the other eleven tribes ; and were to be maintained by the firft-fruits and offerings of their brethren. And, can it then h^ juftly fuf- peBed', that fo large a part of the tribe of Levi, as muft have been interfpers'd with thofe ttn tribes, fhould live without a copy of That Law, upon whofe authority alone their right to particidar cities^ and even to a maintenance, was founded ? ^ Certainly men could not enjoy fo Angular an inheritance, nor indeed claim its privileges, without pri- zing their charter ; and without frequently referring to that very grant of Heaven, which fo peculiarly conferred it. And therefore, 'tis far more probable -, that at leaft the Levites ( thus ftation'd up and down in Ifrael ) had many copies of the Pentateuch. Mr. Collins was pleas'd alfo to forget, in the place before us — that fome of the moft emi- nent Prophets were rais'd up among thefe ten tribes; and preach'd to them (tho'not always ^ Num. 2,^1 2,7,8. Deut,i2>'i i. Jojh.io,', 14,33- ♦ with PENTATEUCH. nj with fuccefs ) the neceflity of worihipplng the one true God, and confequently of obey- ing the Law of Mofes. Was the Law of Mo- fes then unknown to EHjah ; who was fo 'very jealous for J e h o VA h, the God of hojis ? Were there not many copies of the Law in Ifrael ; when, even in the days of Ahab and Jezebel, there were in \{x2£i feven thoiifand^ who had not bowed the knee to Baal? How could Naboth plead the iniquity of felHng his vineyard to Ahab, but upon the authority of Lev, 25, 23 &c ? Muft we not conckide, that the book of the Law was taught at Bethel, in the very fchool of the prophets : and can any book be taught, without a copy of it ? Was Jehu, king of Ifrael ( fo remarkable for his 2;^<^/yir Jeh o VAH ) unacquainted with the Law ; when he fo totally cut oif the priefts of Baal, and deftroyed all his images ? At leaft, it would have been a ftrange accufation of Jehu ; to fay of him, if he had neither feen nor heard the Law, that he did not walk in the law of the Lord God of Ifrael with ALL HIS HEART. But, if we refer to 2 Kin, 17, 7 &c. we fhall find this point de- termin'd. For there the caufe of the captivity of the t^n tribes is thus fpecified — They had fnned againji the Lord their God^ who had hrought 112 On the SAMARITAN brought them out of Egypt — and fet up images — andferved idols; whereof the Lord had f aid unto themy ye Jhall not do this thing — not- withjlanding the Lord had tejlified againjl Ifrael by all the prophet Sy fayingy Keep my command- ment Sy according to all the Law, which I commanded your fat hers y and which I sent TO You by my fervants the prophets. And In the very next chapter (ver. 11,12) — becaufe they had tranfgrejjed the covena?zt of the Lordy and all that Moses the fervant of the Lord commanded, Mr. Collins feems alfo wrong, in aflerting here the ftricl univerfality of that captivity, as if not a man was left behind ; but that every Ifraelite was carried away, and all the inhabitants afterwards were Heathens. But, many of the common Ifraelites might be left in their own country ; * as was certainly the cafe, at the captivity of the other two tribes afterwards. And, had there been none left ; whence thofe Ifraelitesy who ( about 100 years after the captivity of the ten tribes ) came to Jerufalem, to celebrate the Paffover with the men of Judah, in the reign of good king Jo- * Si pofl afportntlonein decern tribuum, inter reliquias populi (nam ex omnibus tribubus quo s dam, pauper lores fci licet, reU8os ejfe zfiri do^i Jiatuunt) &c. Walton, Proleg. 3, 34. Jiah? PENTATEUCH. 113 Jiah? For we read in 2 Chro, 35, 18 : there was no pajfover fuch as Jo/iah kept, and all Judahy and Israel that were present ?<^^D^n S^lti^^l i.e. and fuch of IsRA'E.L as were found, left in their own country. Pag. 185. Mr. Collins will not allow the Samaritans to have had any Pentateuch for a long while , and affirms them to have all con- tinued Heathens for many ages. And yet 'tis certain ; that, about 40 years after the capti- vity of the ten tribes, when the Cuthean and other new inhabitants were deftroy'd by lions, for not worshipping the God of Ifrael -, Efar- haddon commanded faying. Carry thither one of the priejisy whom ye brought from thence — and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land, Then one of the priejis came, and dwelt in Bethel; and taught them, how THEY SHOULD FEAR THE LoRD. So they feared the Lord, and ferved their own Gods — they feared the Lord, and ferved their graven images. Is it then poffible for any man of fenfe ( unbiafs'd by hypothefis ) to fuppofe, that this prieft was fent back to the land of Ifrael, to teach the manner of the true God, to teach the inhabitants how to fear the Lord-, and yet brought with him no copy of that Law, by which only he could fo teach ? I am aware. 114 <^N THE SAMARITAN aware, that fome learned men, who would derogate from the antiquity of the Samar. , Pentateuch, pretend to beheve this. But, that this prieft, fo folemnly fent ( to avert for the prefent, and prevent for the future, the de- ftrucSbion of the inhabitants ) fhould be fent without % copy of that very Law, which he was fent to teach is to me incredible. Hottinger himfelf allows, that the prieft did bring back a copy of the Law ; a copy — qiice Jine dubio ne latum quidem unguem a Mojis cwro^ci(pco recej/it, ■ Exer. Anti-Mor. p. 8. But tho' the prieft was fent ; and tho* in confequence of his teaching, ( either with or without the Law) tie wor/hip of the true God was again introducd into IfraeU and eftablifli'd ( the inhabitants worftiipping falfe gods toge- ther with Jehovah ) within 50 years after the captivity of the ten tribes ; yet Mr. Collins would have it thought, nay he affirms, that the inhabitants continued Heathens yir 7na7iy ages. And then Prideaux is made to fay, that the inhabitants continued in grofs idolatry fas is on all hands agreed) till the building the temple on Gerizim, Whereas Prideaux fays, confiftentlv with his Bible, that they continued in that grojs idolatry ^ of worjhipping other gods in c o n- JUNCTION PENTATEUCH. 115 JUNCTION WITH THE TRUE : which kft words are very unfairly omitted. Pag. 186. And now is introduc'd the fa- mous text of Deut.ij,^', which Mr. CoUins here calls a pcijjdge of great importance, dejign- edly corrupted by the Samaritans : which afler- tion is feebly fupported by the bare mention of all our Heb. and Greek copies. But it has been obferv'd already ( pag. 27 &c. ) that neither of thefe authorities proves any thing. He drops a hint alfo, as to the 20th ch. of Exodus y but that likewife has been fpoken of already, at pag. 97 &c. Pag. 187, 188. Here Mr. ColHns introduces the memorable arbitration of Ptolemy, which has been particularly confider'd, at pag. 67 &c. Nothing therefore need be remarked farther on this head -, than juft to obferve — how much at rando?n this writer is found to talk of the Samaritans, as perhaps faying this and that, and probably pleading fa and fo: when 'tis plain from Jofephus ( the fole an- cient relator of this ftory) that the Samari- tans were not permitted to plead or to fpeak at ally and that the manner, in which the Jews did plead, demonftrates their want of evidence. Pag. 189. Mr. Collins, after various remarks upon Jofephus ( and many a perhaps not very P favour- ii6 On the SAMARITAN favourable to his own fyftem) here fays ^ there are two confideratmis, which feem to him to de- tenjiine the corruption to be on the part of the Samaritans. Thefe therefore fhall be confi- der'd ; after reminding the reader — how clearly the corruption has been before prov'd ( and from the very text of the Jews ) to have been made by the Jews themfelves. Let us however attend to this author's objecflions. The firft of thefe is founded on his dividing the Samaritans into three forts — i. the re- volting te?i tribes — 2. the new heathen inha- bitants— 3. the apojiate or refugee Jews, who join'd the fecond fort, after the temple upon Gerizim was built. * Now ( fays he, p. 190) * Reland*s words are remarkable, as to the number of thefe receding Jews, and the confequence of their feceflion — A Ju- dais defecerunt plurimi ad Samaritanos, quum multi Sacerdotes i5f Ifr^elita impediti ejfent illegitimis conjugiis, Jojephus fcribit, rempublicam Judaorum non leviter hac fecejjione fuijfe labefaSla- tarn. Ipfi Judai agnofcunt, eo tempore Ifraelem divifum ejfe in duas partes I quarum una Ezram^ altera Saneballetum fequebatur, No?i abs re igitur fufpicamur, Samaritanos magis imitates fuijfe mores ^ ritus Judaorum ; reliSldque veteri idololatrid^ unum Deum aJoraJJe — CertiJJirne perfuafus fum tempore Baneballeti nulla idola coluijfe Samaritanos ^ qui obfervarunt annos fabbaticos. At unde hoc haurire, nifi ex lege Mojts poterant, in qua cultus unius Dei tarn difertis & toties repetitis verbis jubetur. — Defolo locOy divino cultui dejiinato^ (coram Ftokmao) cum iis contendebant Judai. — Nee tamen diffitentur ipfi (Samaritani) quo/dam e/uis £d idololatriam defecijfe. DiiTertat. de Saraarit. neither PENTATEUCH. 117 neither the yews before the feparUtion of If rael fro77i Judahy nor the firji fort of Samari- tanSy fee7J2 ever to have had the leaf thought of worjinppmg at mount Gerizim-y and the contefy after the feparationy wasy whether worflip was to be perform d at fertfalern^ or at Dan and Bethel 'y for the facrednefs of which two laji place Sy there was fome pretence in antiquity. The firft part of this aflertion, as to the ancient Jewsy feems confuted by Abraham, the great father and founder of the Jewifh Nation. We have ktn already (pag. 40) that the place, which he firft refided at in the promis'd land, was ( by divine command ) the very town of Sichem or Shechefn ; over which hung mount Gerizim : fo that Sichem might well be the general name of both, and fome- times comprehend the town and its mountain. At this place then Abraham built his firft al- tar y oifer'd his firft facrifice to God; was there favour'd with the divine appearance ; and receiv'd the firft promife of the land of Canaan. 'Tis alfo remarkable; that the habitation -appointed to Jojhuay in Canaan, was the city of Himnath-ferah in mount Ephraim fJoJJ:. 19,50) yet, at the latter part of life, v/e fi.nd him remov'd to Shechem: or, at leaft, that Pa he ii8 On the SAMARITAN he went to Shechem, when he convened all Ifrael, to give them his dying exhortation. But, why exchange his own city for Shechem-, or why affemble all the tribes at Shechem ; (efpecially when the ark ofGoT> was at Shilo:) unlefs for the folemnity and convenience, de- riv'd from the Altar and the Law then upon mount Gerizim ? The laft chapter of Jajhua begins in the manner following : And Jojhua gathered all the tribes of Ifrael to Shechem ; and called for the elders of IfraeU their heads, their judges, and their officers ; and they prefented themf elves be- fore God, The meaning of which words feems clearly to be — that when the men of all the tribes were affembled in and around Shechem, to receive the laft commands of their vi6lo- rious leader ; he call'd the chiefs of all the tribes to himfelf upon Gerizim : where they prefented themfelves before the Lord, and ofFer'd facrifice on that mountain, which had been before confecrated by the Law and the Altar; and probably facrific'd upon that ve?y Altar, which Jofhua himfelf had eredted there be- tween 20 and 30 years before. God being worfliipp'd, Jofhua makes his laft oration. And having, with great art of perfuaiion, in- duced them to vow the moft refQlute obedi- ence PENTATEUCH. 119 ence to Jehovah; the 25th ancj following verfes tell us — So Jojhua made a covenant with the people that day ; and fet them a fia- tute^ and an ordinance in Shechem, And Jojhua took a great Jione ', and fet it up there, under an oaky that was by the sanctuary of the Lord, And he f aid. Behold, this ftone fhall be a witnefs ; for it hath heard all the words of the Lord, which he fpake unto us: it JJjall be therefore a witnefs unto you, Icji ye deny your God, Commentators have been greatly puz- zled at the w^ord t:^1p,":DI2 (in fajiciuario, in loco fa?iSoJ here rendered by the fancluary. The ark v^as not prefent; and if it had, the oak could not grow in the ark. But the oak might grow in or upon Gerizi?n, in or upon that holy place or mountain ; and there Jofhua might with great propriety take fome large ftone, and fet it up as a witnefs ; making at the fame time this ftriking remark — that the ftone, thus fet up, had heard all the words of the Lord i. e. that very ftone had been there, upon that mountain, when the Law of God was infcrib'd, and read to the people, at their former folemn convention. Thefe au- thorities therefore ( deriv'd from Abraham and Jojhua) feem fufficiently confiderable for us to afTert— -that the Jews had thoughts of 120 On the SAMARITAN of worJIAppingy and did worjhipy at Gerizlmj long before the feparation of Ifraelfromfudah: contrary to the firfl part of the preceding af- fertion of Mr. CoUms. The fecond part of his affertion is — that the firft fort of Samaritans (the ten tribes after their feparation ) never thought of worjhipping upon Grrizim, It would be ftrange, if they had worfhipp'd there : when two other places were fet apart for that purpofe by royal au- thority; one at f Dan ) the north, the other at f Bethel J the fouth extremity of their country : whereas Gerizim, or Shechem ( which amounts to the fame ) was more in the heart of Canaan. And indeed Jeroboam, or any man fenfible enough to condudl fo extraordi- nary a revolution in the government, muft eafily have judg'd — that Shechem (or Geri- zim ) was of all places the moft improper for the inftitution of Idolatry. For what could be more likely to ftrike the people with a fenfe of their guilt, in apoftatizing from the f rue God, and to reconvert them from the worlhip of Idols, than for them to affemble at that very place, where Abraham firft fa- crific'd to the true God; where Jofhua and all Ifrael had folemnly covenanted to wor- fhip the true God only ; and where it muft ever PENTATEUCH. 121 ever have occurr'd to them — What God their fathers worjhipped in that mountain. And therefore the very reverfe of Mr. Collins's conckifion is true ; that Jeroboam, at the fe- paration, preferr'd Bethel to Gerizim, as the place for one of his idol-calves — not, be- caufe Gerizim had not been^ but becaufe it had been fo remarkably the place of worfhipping the true God, and of repeated covenants ne- ver to forfake Him. And as to what he here adds, that the yews had no ?nalicious purpofe to ferve, by corrupting their text ; no one, who has read the preceding remarks, can poffibly doubt the fufficiency of their malice. Pag. 191. Our Saviour ( he fays ) may not improbably be fupposd to determine againft the Samar, readings in his converfation with the woman of Samaria. A very improbable fup- poiition ! For did Chrift fpeak at all of this corruption ? Did he even hint at the difpute between Gerizim and Ebal ? — and this is the only reading here under confideration. Can then any fuch determination poffibly be ex- torted from words, which do not at all men- tion, do not in the leaft hint at, the corruption in queftion ? The enquiry is not relative to the controverfy between Gerizim and Ebah but between Gerizim and Jerufalem. Chrift, in 122 On the SAMARITAN in his reply, certainly names that mountain before Jerufalem ; and fo far there is no pre- ference given to the latter — ye fhall worjhipy neither in this moiintairiy nor yet at "Jerufalem, The truth is, he carefully avoids determining the queftion ; as what was then, or would foon be, totally unneceflary: agreeably to the paraphrafe of this very writer — T!here is little reafon to trouble yourf elf about this quejlion^ in^ afmuch as the occafion will foon he removd : for the worjhip of God will 7iot much longer be confirid to any place ; andfo the privilege about which you contend^ will come to nothing. Thus far his paraphrafe feems right : but what fol- lows has no kind of authority, and tends only to make Chrifl contradiftory to himfelf — mifreprefenting him, as determiningyir feru- falem, in ver. 22 ; after reprefenting him, as refufing to determine yir or againjiy in ver. 21. The 2 2d verfe certainly has its difficulties \ but it clearly relates to the objeBy and not to the place y of worfhip — Te worjhip ye know not what : we know what we worjlnp: forfal- "-cation is oj^ the Jews. 'Tis generally allow'd, that the Samaritans had, at this time, totally forfaken their idolatries : which yet, perhaps, is not true. And if any remnant of idolatry ftill adher'd to that people, or was praftis'd by PENTATEUCH. 123 by any fmall part of them ; Jo far they ( at leaft that part of them ) would worjhip they knew not what : tho* the reft of the Samari- tans ihould have agreed ( according to the in- timation of Chrift ) in worfhipping the fa- ther. * But the words, ye worfjip ye know not whaty have been thought by Dr. Clark, Trapp, and others, rather to relate to the a?iceJiors of thefe Samaritans. And perhaps the v^ords of Chrift may properly be paraphrased thus — ^ *' Woman, as you take me for a prophet, be- ** lieve me, that the occafion of this difpute '* [ about the place of vs^orfliip ] will be foon ** removed. Sacrificesy now oifer'd at both places, " ftiall e'er long ceafe for ever. A new Reli- ** gion is to be eftablifti'd : which will require ** the true difciples of it to worihip in all ** places ; every where offering up their own *^ hearts to God, and difpos'd to obey Him *' in all things. When your anceftors came " into this land ; they knew not the manner " of God's worftiip, and indeed knew not ** God Himfelf And even Tou, tho' better in- *^ ftrudled, are yet in both refpedis defeftive in * Confitentur ipfi Samaritdni, quo/dam e fuis ad idololatriajn de- feciJTe. — ^0 JpeEiant verba hcsc Cyrilll in Johavjiem : Ov ya» c^yeioic KUj E;*.>jyf>'^o<; >3 iKctyuy }\UT^i'.oi. Reland. de Samaritanis. 124 On THE SAMARITAN ** your knowledge. Knowledge is more abun- *^ dant with usy the people of the Jews -, and <* from amongft the Jews com.tih. fahation i. e. *' //6^ Saviour of the world, who is to introduce " this new religion, and to render a temple un- *^ neceflary either upon Gerizim or at Jerufa- " lem." * According to this paraphrafe, our Saviour's anfwer does not determine the wo- man's queftion ; yet is it moft pertinent and pro- per ; tho' Mr. Collins declares it wholly for eign^ unlefs it relates to the place of worfhipping : pag. 193. After which he adds, that the sole reaforiy why falvation was of the Jews, was onfyy that the fews worjhipped at the place appointed by God: an aflertion, owing either to great prefumption, or to a very llender acquaintance with holy fcripture. However, in pag. 194, he advances an ar- gument, which ( he thinks ) concludes very * ATfovifxei ai ti x.ccf ttXicv «? cwjiTif Tout'; luehciatv AaSTfWtfKj. EpiphaniuSi in locum. And the following explanation of St. Chry- foltom gives no fmall countenance to the paraphrafe here propos'd. Ti m 0 Xg/fz? ; hk iXvjt iv ^>!7?;,4(^ » tzs&g rcainiv oCTrriiTntn ttjv TTTTzav Toj -TTf £(r«« oioag. — Ovk viaiaztv ot ILx/i^^etlctf c /tt^o- ffKUfjaVi CTl TOTTIH^V KOj fAiQ/l)(^lf S'EOV iVO^ll^OV CiycCf' eiOTTl^ ffltVOV KOf 0ei4fA3vci^ x.etj eairov B-i^7nvevTe§, Kctf tu ei[/,i>tTzc f/^tyvtwrig. la^iM ^ TTig oiKUfd/JVig ccorov v,h(nx,v oviu ^ov, « y,ctf jt^j) Truvlig- JlXioym- TitfAiv vfjLm, yuvcof ( ?$ ejt^ffjuwtjo^eti' TrXnv ecXt^X Kdf aroi TeAoj «!« XOITTZIV, logi- PENTATEUCH. 125 logically. If the time was to come, when fnen might worjhip any where, then they might not worJJdip any where, when Jefusfpake j ajid either Gerizim or yerufalem was then the Jble true place of worjhip and falvation. But one only of thofe places being then the true place of wor- JJjip and falvation ; Jefus plainly declares which of the two was that place, by faying. Salva- tion was of the Jews, Now as the word fal- vation, fo ftrangely thruft into this reafoning^ certainly makes nonfenfe; and as it could be introduc'd, only, to prepare the way for the ihocking part that follows, which he himfelf calls Digref/ion: we may confider his reafon- ing independent of it, thus — If the time was to come for worjhipping any where, men could not worjhip any where at that time — And if Gerizim only, or ferufalem only, was then the true place of worjhip \ J^fa^ declares which was the place by, faying, falvation is of the Jews. To this argumentation I anfwer firft, that our Saviour's words do not at all determine, but evidently avoid determining, as to the more holy or prc^^er place. And fecondly, if they did determine -, if the anfvv^er of Chrift was as conclufive, for woriliipping at Jerufalem, as Mr. Collins would reprefent it : my reply is neither more nor lefs than this ~— that Jeru- Q^ Jaiem 126 On the SAMARITAN falem was undoubtedly , at the thne of Chrijl^ the true place of woyfhip. And therefore, the Samaritans can no otherwife be excus'd for worfhipping elfewhere, at that time, than by our recollecting — that, upon the rebuilding the Jerufalem temple, the Samaritans readily ofter'd to affift in rebuilding it, which implied their readinefs and refolution jointly to wor- fhip in it — that they profefs'd to worfliip the fame God, and were therefore delirous to wor- ship him in the fame place — but that thefe peaceable and dutiful intentions were unkindly obftrudled, and their propofal for avoiding fchifm was roughly rejected, by the Jews, Pag. 195. It may have been fomev/hat diffi- cult for the reader to judge, why Mr. Collins fliould have been fo very defirous to compel the word falvation to relate to place. But in this page the fecret unfolds itfelf ; and it was only meant to pave the way for blafphemy — to prepare the reader for the moft groundlefs infinuation againft the goodnefs, and the bene- volence^ and the veracity of The Saviour of the world ! This writer tells us, he can by no means think the word falvation fignifies the eterv.al reward of heavenly happinefs. But w^hy } Becaufe ( fays he ) if fo ; Chrijly in declaring that falvation is of the Jews^ mujl imply ^ that the PENTATEUCH. 127 the Samaritans and all other meny^ hefides the Jerufalem Jewsy were to be eternally damridy and efpecially for fiich a mattery of no confe- quence in itfelf as the mere place of ivor/hip. How contradictory are thefe laft words to his former imputations of wickednefs to the Sama- ritans, iovforfaking the place ofworJJjipi which, if wickedy muft be matter of great confequence! But, not to dwell upon an inconliftency y let us rather attend here to this writer's criminal refledlion upon our bleffed Saviour. Great in- deed muft be the malignity of that mind, which could torture the words of Chrift into a meaning moft evidently never intended ; in hopes to expofe that moft amiable charadier, ajid put it to an open fiame. But, how could any man, unlefs loft to every thing fair and equitable, be capable of intimating — that the words falvation is of the Jews ( which fo naturally m.ean, that the Saviour was to arife among ft the JewSy who yet might be the Sa- viour of all nations ) could pofiibly fignify a declaration from Chrift, that all the Samari- tansy and all other men ( and indeed all the Jews themfelves, excepting barely the ferufa- km Jews J were to be damnd eternally I And yet, after this dreadful inlinuation ; for which he (good man) had been fo long preparing the 128 On the SAMARITAN the way, by infifting that the word fahation muft relate to the place of worfhip : at the end of this very digreffion, he freely acknow- ledges, that he has only been impofing upon his reader Sy and infulting Jesus Christ. For that, after ally the words falvation is of the ]twsfee?n to him ( he fays ) to Jignify only, that the Saviour fiould arife out of thofe fews, who worjhipfd at ferufalem ! And yet, in defiance of this conceffion, he dares to obferve farther — that, notwithftand- ing Chrift's infiniiation of damnation to the Sa^ maritansy he can never fuppofe, God will ra- tify fuch a fentence. Becaufe, the Samaritans { after all his abufes, he now really thinks ) were many of thern^ very good men — becauie Jeven thoifand of them ( he fays ) were ownd by God to be his people — and becaufe 7noji of the prophets the?nfelves, whofe works 7?iake a part of the books of the Old ^ejiament, were Sama- ritans y as Hofeay foely fonahy Obadiah : and yet I prefiime (fays he) 7io one will fay y thefe prophets are damn'd — notwithftanding the w^ords of Chrift ! But he dares to go yet far- ther; and to be ftill more outrageous againft what ( he himfelf acknowledges ) was never meant. Elijah and EliJJja ( fays he ) two re- nown d^ prophet Sy were alfo Samaritans ; thefirji whe?^€of PENTATEUCH. 129 whereof (an evidejit proof of ui^ not being D A M n'd^ had a miraculous paffage to heaven ^ going thither in his life-time ^ in a fiery chariot! Thefe fentences want no laboured condemna- tion : being fo very bafe, they mufl fliock even unbelievers. Sentences thefe ! which fhould create an alarming convidion of the wicked- nefs of that man, who could meditate fuch an unfair attack upon the brighteft of all charac- ters ; and ihould make men extremely loth to give up Religion, in compliment to a writer, whofe head frequently proves as weak as his heart is wicked. For, what can argue greater want of intelleft, judgment and memory, than flat contradiciions ? And yet, how does he ( in pages 195 — 197) exalt the true piety of the Samaritans, together with their great knowledge, and the abundance of their reli- gious inftrudlion ; telling us, that mofi of the prophets themfelves were Samaritans — that the great prophets Elijah and Elijloa were Samari- tans — and that all thefe prophets feem'd con- cernd only to keep up the worflnp of God ( amongft the ten tribes ) according to the in- ftitution of Mofes I And all this ; tho* he had exprefly aflerted ( at p. 184 ) — that it never coidd be provd that they had, and might jufl- ly be fufpeSied that they had noty one copy of the haw 130 On the SAMARITAN Law of Mofes a?nongJi them all: not one copy amongft the whole ten tribes^ from their fe^ far at ion to their captivity I Confequently : all the piety of thefe Samaritans, all their know- ledge, all their inftruftion in the Law of Mo- fes ; and all the diligence and unwearied zeal of all the prophets, who feem concerned for nothing elfe but to keep up the worfhip of God according to the Law of Mofes — all this was done, and happened; without one fngle copy of the Law of Mofes, exifting in the whole country ! Not one copy in the hand of any one prophet ! But ( it fhould feem ) the people were taught by the priefts, what the priefts themfelves had never learnt ; and both priefts and people were, at leaft multitudes of them, exceeding jealous for the honour of the true God, and exceeding zealous for the oh- fervation of his Laws, as prefcrib'd in the hooks of Mofes — without ever feeing, or hearing, or knowing, any thing at all about them ! Thus candid, fenfible, and confiftent is Infi- delity; in the perfon of its celebrated advo- cate, Mr. Collins ! Pag. 197. Here he afks, whether the Samar. Pentateuch has not the fame account of the death of Mofes, with the other ifiterpolated paf fagesy which are ifually (upon tradition or con- jecture) PENTATEUCH. 131 je5iurej attributed to Efdras : and if it has thenty how can that Pentateuch 'be derivdfrom a copy extant before Efdras ? This queftion, being founded partly on tradition, which in this cafe is various, and partly on conje^ure, which is always uncertain, may fafely be de- nied; and then the argument, founded upon it, drops of courfe. 'Tis true ; fome learned men have conjeftur'd, that Ezra added to the Pentateuch the laft chapter; inferting alfo thofe few lines, which are neceflarily the re- marks of fome writer later than Mofes. Yet have thefe additions been afcrib'd by others to dijfferent prophets ; and, in the opinion of Bp Patrick, the perfon moft likely to have been their author is SamueL But fhould we allow, that thefe fupplemental verfes might be added by Ezra ; it will by no means fol- low, that the Samaritans had no copy of the Pentateuch till after Ezra. Becaufe the addi- tions, made to the Jewifh copies by Ezra, might eafly be inferted afterwards into the Sa- mar. copies, out of a copy or copies brought from Jerufalem, about 40 years after, by Ma- naffeh ; who was fon of Joiada, the high prieft at Jerufalem ; and, marrying the daughter of Sanballat of Samaria, became the firft high- prieft of the temple on mount Gerizim. R Pag. 132 On the SAMARITAN Pag. 198. There is a great agreement (fays Mr. Collins ) in chronology, after the deluge, between the Samar. and Septuagint Pentateuchs} wherein they both differ from the original Hebrew about 700 years. What a mailer of reafoning is this writer ; in concluding, that what differs from the prefent Heb. text, mufl equally differ from the original Heb. copies X At leafl, he muft be very defedlive in litera- ture ; not to know, that the Samar. copy, be- ing the fame with the Heb. in its language ( tho' now different in charader ) is therefore equally old with the Hebrew, as to its origi- nal: and indeed muft be fo ; as not being a verfion, but the very text itfelf. Pag. 201. To derogate yet further ( fays he ) from the authority of the Samar. Pentateuch ; it is (according to Prideaux ) but a tranfcript from the vulgar Hebrew , out of the Chald, into the old Heb. charaBer : and it has all the in- terpolations of Efdras. The objecfbion, drawn from the interpolations, has been anfwer'd al- ready. And fhould we admit, that the Sa- mar. Pentateuch was tranfcriB d from the vul- gar Hebrew foon after Ezra, which is by no means granted ; yet even then, as the Samar. copy may have been deliver d down to us with greater accuracy and fewer corruptions, that copy PENTATEUCH, 133 copy may be now preferable to the prejmt He- brew, And that the Samar. copy has been deliver'd down more carefully, in the general, may partly be inferred from this very memo- rable difference — that the quotations made by the ancient Chrijiians from the Samar, text agree with the readings of the modern Samar. MSS ', but the quotations made by the a?2cient yews frequently vary from the modern HeL MSS. But Mr. Collins tells us alfo from Prideaux that a great many variations in the Samar, copy are manifejily caused by the mijiake of the Jimi- lar letters in the Heb. alphabet ^ which letters have nojimilitude in the Samaritan, In anfwer to which objeftion it may be remark'd iirft, that all reafoning at prefent upon the iimili- tude of ancient letters muft be (of itfelf) un- deciiivej unlefs there be deliver'd down the exad: forms of thofe ancient letters. And yet; if each character had been, in the days of Ezra, entirely the fame as it is now printed ; this boafted argument, which is founded up- on mifiukes fupposd to be thus made in tran- fcribing the Samar. from the Heb. Pentateiichy may be anfwer'd to full fatisfadtion. Hottinger was the man, who firft ftarted this objeftion ; and he ftated it thus — 'The R 2 Samar. 134 On the SAMARITAN Samar. copy was formerly tranfcriUd from the Hebrews becaufe there are in the Samar. many mijiakes of letter s^ which arefmilar in the Heb. but not at all fimilar in the Samaritan*. ' To prove this laft affertion he has produced 40 inftances of fuch miftakes : and indeed he might have produc'd twice that number, if you only allow him the following criterion — that every word or letter in the Samaritan^ which differs from the Hebrew^ is a mijlake in the Samaritan, 'Tis a matter of no fmall furprize, that this objed;ion of Hottinger's could have been fo fplendidly difplay'd by himfelf, as the moft clear and convincing demonftration y ^ and fhould have been fo warmly embrac'd by Pri- deaux, and other learned men ; when it is built upon principles, fome of which are falfe 1 — ^a confufio ( literarum diftarum ) apud Hebr^os FACiLLiMA, (apud) Samarttajtos valde monjirofa, probe attm' denda. The feveral diftinftions, on which he founds his demon- ftration, are exhibited in the 53d page (agreeably to various af- firmations in other pages ) of his Exercitatmis agabift the very learned Morinus. 2 Ventateuchus Samariticus, apographum vitiofum ex Hebreso GUtographo demonjlratur. Ilia, tanquam arietem imtnoturn, proferens ; quibus prima:?! argummtorum aciefn i?iftruximus . Mac prima ferie argumentorum peiitateuchum Sam. ab Hebr<^o de- f crip turn luculentijjime demonjlrahimm. ^ — Elucet, quod^ fine omni dubioy Samaritani ex Judaico dejcripferint . See the 'title, preface, and pages 44, 52. at PENTATEUCH. 135 at firft fight, and others very eafily confuted. For, does not one glance of the, eye difcover, that fome of the letters produc'd, as Jimilar in the Hebrew y are not fimilar at all? — fuch as K and 5; — K and n — ^^ and n — H and ^ — n and V* And yet, thefe are five out of the eleven fets of letters, which he produces as mifl:aken, thro their great likenefs in the He- brew. Again : does not the eye at once dif- cern, that the following letters, produc'd as not at all Jimilar in the Samaritan, are very fimilar? — fuch as 5 and "^ — ^ and ^. And yet, thefe are two out of the remain- ing fix fets of letters, produc'd as having no likenefs in the Sa?naritan, But thefe are ve?y Jimilar, And therefore, if the variations of thefe letters in the Samar. from the Heb. are truly corruptions in the Samaritan ; then may they have been made in tranfcribing the Sa- mar. copies from one another. And thus^ thefe two laft fets of letters o?ily fet afide 20 out of his 40 inftances. But flill, the circumftance moft furprizing is — that Hottinger ihould triumphantly ex- hibit fo many words as corrupted, and that learned men fliould infl:antaneoufly conclude them corrupted; when, many of the very in- ftances, thus given as corruptions, are not to be 136 On the SAMARITAN be found in any one Englifh or French Samar. MS r, tho' England can boaft of seven, and France of four. The four French MSS have been collated with thefe objeded in- ftances by the learned Father Houbigant; who has given a table of confutations, in his ex- cellent Prolegojnena, p. 93. * And I have my- felf collated the feven Eng. MSS, fo far as to form a full and compleat anfwer to Hottin- ger's obje(flion. And the reader will find, to- wards the clofe of this volume, a Table fpe- cifying Hottinger's inftances ; where the read- ings of thefe eleven Samar. MSS will be gi- ven, in parallel columns. From this collation of all thefe MSS it will appear — • that Hot- tinger has fpecified feveral corruptions, which are not found in any one of the Fr. MSS — that our Eng. MSS are equally free with the * In the fame Fro!cgo?ne?ia, p. 65, there is the following an- fwer to this fame objeftion. Id qui opponeba?it, litteras Snmariti- cas parum cognitas habebant. Nam quas litteras pro exemplo affe- rebant, ea funt utraque in lingua fimiles, Tales funt \\ ^ r\, •7 dff 1. ^od vero iidem in medium proferebant litteras 1 6f » chaldrdcas fatis Jlmiles ; quce funt Samaritice longe inter fe dijji- miles-, in quibus litteris valebant aliquando errajfe Samaritanos fcribas : id jam quaritur^ utrmn it errores Samaritanormn fuerint fcribarum. Neque vero ego in Samar. codice unqua?n vidi fie ^r- Tajfe fcribas, ut V^lvl pro Yod fcriberent. Et feepe in notis criti- cis docemus, iifdem in litteris defcribendis fape labi Judaos fcri- bas, in quibus Samarita?ii non labuntur. French, PENTATEUCH. 137 French, and in fever al injlances more free y from the corruptions thus inlifted on — particu- larly, that near 20 of the corruptions enlarg'd upon by Hottinger are not found in any one of the Eng. MSS ; and that feveral of the other corruptions are found in one or two on- ly, the other MSS preferving the true read- ings, I ihall give here a few inftances, referving the reft for the future Table. 'Tis objefted by Hottinger, that the Samar. Pentateuch, in Exod, 28,9, reads "^TW inftead of DHll^J yet three out of the four French, and all the five Eng. ( i. e. all which have this verfe ) read ^rw Exod, 32, 8 ', nnD inftead of inD (which he calls illuftre exemplum ) yet all the Eng. and all the Fr. MSS read nHD -— Exod. 39, II; ;i£3^ for DDi \ yet all the Eng. and all the Fr. MSS read DDi Lev, 5, 4 ; ntOl^ for Kton^: yet all the Eng. and all the Fr. MSS read Kton^ — Num, 21, 18 ; TSTs'^n for mnsn : yet all the Eng. and all the Fr. MSS read r\T\W^-'Num,2\,iO'y Dn* for IJIK; and yet all the Eng. MSS, and one Fr. MS, uni- formly read liit?. I ftiall only remark farther upon this head, at prefent ; that many of thofe 138 On the SAMARITAN thofe readings, which Hottinger points out as corruptions in the Samar. text, may he ge- nuine there, and corrupted in the Hebrew. For, as to the proper names of Calahy Huh Mafid and Hadoram ( four of the inftances produced from Gen. 1 1 ) who can prove, that thefe are not exprefs'd properly in the text of the Samaritans ? And as to common words, where the context will in part determine ; I fliall prove hereafter, that the Samar. Penta- teuch is right, and the Heb. wrong, in a place where Hottinger condemns the former in compliment to the latter. Hottinger, in the warmth of his zeal to enumerate a multitude of inftances, has pro- duced fome confefledly inconclulive. His point was to prove — that letters miftaken in the Samar. copy are fimilar in the Heb. alphabet, not in the Samaritan ; and therefore, that the Samar. tranfcriber was deceiv'd by the Jimilar fiape of the Heb. letters. And yet, in his very firft inftance, not only ^ and V are not fimilar, but the miftake is owing to the tranf- pofition of a word, and not to the change of a letter -— owing to a tranfpcfition, which ( as Hottinger himfelf fays ) may be called levis particularu7n inverfo. His fecond and third inftances are alfo of K and y, letters very unlike PENTATEUCH. 139 unlike as to fhape, but fometimes pronounc'd with the fame found ; and therefore fimilarity oi foundy and not of fiape^ may have occa- fion'd thefe variations. * So that his demon- ftration is again confuted ; becaufe it proceeds partly upon fuch a fimilitude, as mifled the eavy and not the eye : agreeably to his very in- coniiftent acknowledgment in p. 50 — where he owns fome corruptions to have undoubt- edly proceeded, not from the JJjape of letters, but from their pronunciation — n mutato in ^, 'uitioy Jine dubio, ut alias y or to ex pronun- TIATIONE. As it muft appear ftrange, that many of the words cited by Hottinger ( as corrupted in the Samar. Pentateuch ) are not to be found in any one of the eleven Samar. MSS before- mention'd 5 it becomes neceffary to ftate his authorities. His account ( in the preface ) is this — That he read over, three times, a written Samar. Pentateuch, belonging to Go- lius 'y during the examination, of which, ano- ther Samar. MS was fent to Lud. De Dieu at Leyden by A. Bp Uiher : which fecond MS * F. Simon fays — Aleph and Am are fometimes confounded^ becaufe their pronunciation is almof} the fame : thefe are two A's (according to St. Jerom ) one of which is pronounc'^d fironger than the other. Book i , ch. 1 1 . S being I40 On the SAMARITAN being collated with the firft, he fays. Ex illa^ rum coUatione vidi constantiam utrius- QUE in eoj qiiody vel noriy vel fcepij/ime maki He brake & Jcriberent & loquerentur. * The firft MS is now in the library at Ley- den; catalogued N°. i, amongft the MSS of Golius : and the queftion therefore is What is become of the fecond -y that, which came from UJher? De Dieu feems to have confider'd it as a prefent -, for in the dedica- tion, prefix'd to his annotations on the Afts of the Apoftles, he tells the Primate — Tiiis Uteris fiiijalut at us y & ( quod omnem fpem longe maxime fuperabat ) amplijjimo Pentateuchi Sa^ maritani m u n E r e beatus. And yet Ufher feems to have only lent it him ; as he did other MSS, which he afterwards defir'd might be returned. For Ufher's library was ( as Span- heim juftly ftiVd it ) the library of the learned world: and he fent this Samar. Pentateuch to DeDieu, in 1629, exhorting him to print it; that De Dieu ir%ht have the glory of being its firft publifheV. The following is the de- fcription which Ufher gives of it, in his letter to De Dieu — Ecce tibi Samarita?iorum illud Pentateuchum — tamdiu defderatum 'uenerandce * He juft mentions a third Samar. MS, but gives no account of it ; only faying, in pag. 49 — T^ria exemplaria Samaritica, qua infpexi, legunt p*7>l. autt'^ PENTATEUCH. 141 antiquitatis monurnentum, Receiitius eft exem- plar ; verum ex antiqiiioribus fatis jideliter ex- prejfiim. Leviticum a fe defcriptum annotavit lihrarius — ^^"a c^/^ nt'^iyTt ^^^3k ;;^d'^//J Giutnadi altera y anni goo Jiliorum Ifmae" lis: i.e. 1495. Gene feos h'ir urn, qui cafu all- quo exciderat, ab alio fuppletum fuijfe res ipfa loquitur 'y & quidem iJJwJt^ ^mm ^jjwj-^ ^ AiiJ A^ fj^ ^^^ decurtatas illas voces redie interpretor) anno Heg. gS6 i.e. 1578. Ufher, in his letter to L. Cappellus, 1652, fays farther — Samar. Pentateuchum vel pri- musy vel certe inter primosy noftris temporibus in occidentem ipfe intuli. — Non prius dejlitiy quam ex Syria & Palc^Jiina quinque velfex illiiis exemplaria (una cum Arabicce verjionis textus illiiis parte magnay & Arabici in eundem com- ment arii fragmento ) mihi comparavijfem. Of thefe five or fix copies, we may fix the pre- fent place oijive. One was given to Sir Rob. Cottony and is now in the Britifh Mufeum, catalogued Cotton, Claudius B 8. Another was given to A. Bp Laud; and is now in the Bod- leian, catalogued N° 624. And in the Bod- leian are three others, N°. 3127, 3128, 3129; which three copies were likewife Uiher's ; S 2 were 141 On the SAMARITAN were lent by him to Walton, for the benefit of his Polyglott ; and were afterwards ( with three other very valuable MSS ) purchas'd of Ufher's heirs by the Curators of the Bodleian library. If Uiher therefore had only^i;^ copies; the copy fent to De Dieu muft be one of the five before-mention'd. But if he had ^x ; then the copy fent to De Dieu is now wanting : which indeed is evident from the preceding defcription of it. The elegant catalogue of of books in the Leyden library, publifh'd in 1 71 6, fhews that it was not depofited there: and if any perfon would pleafe to make known, in what other library it now is ; the difcovery would be very acceptable to the curious. For it feems fomewhat difficult to believe, that this UfiTerian MS fhould really agree with the Leyden MS, in fuch a variety of ftrange cor- ruptions, with fo much conjlancy ; unlefs one had been copied from the other, or both from the fame faulty exemplar. Omnis exceptio conjirmat regulam, this is an eftablifh'd maxim. So that Hottinger muft be underftood to afl^ert the almoft univerfal confent of his two co- pies ; when he notes their difagreement only in four of his many inftances : of thefe four^ he charges Uiher's MS as being wrong ia two 'y PENTATEUCH. 143 two ; and yet neither of thefe two inftances is to be found in any one Englifh or French Sa- mar. MS. In fhort ; if Hottinger's two co- pies did uniformly contain the many corrup- tions imputed to them; 'tis allow'd, they were bad copies. But this by no means af- fedls the authority of the Samar. Pentateuch, in general ; becaufe fAere are fo many other co- pies^ free from fuch corruptions. And this de- monflration of Hottinger's muft fall to the ground, becaufe prov'd to have been built upon very wrong principles ; upon the likenefs and unlikejief of certain letters very improperly ajjignd', and upon the then prevaili?2g prejudice^ that every variation in the Samaritan from the Hebrew mujl be a corruption in the Samaritan. Pag. 202. This page of Mr. Collins confifts of a few odd matters, not very material. Such as — the compilation of the vulgar Heh, Pen-- tateuch by Efdras, and tranfcript of it into Chald. characters : how long after he pretends not to determine. Such as — Prideaux fup^ pofes or conjectures : two words, which our philofopher gives us disjunftively, as different infenfcy tho' ever thought ( till his time ) to mean juft the fame. Such again as — Mr. Collins fuppofng, or conjediuring. And fuch as — the Samaritans feenmg to have had no occa-^ 144 On the SAMARITAN occafionfor the law of Mofes (and for the very reafon, which of all others made it moft ne- ceffary ) becaufe they extreamly wanted it, i. e. becaufe they ferved heathen gods. That they ferv'd heathen gods, he proves ; becaufe they dedicated their te?7iple to Jupiter. And he wifely concludes that charge to be indifputa- ble ; becaufe he had it only from Jofephus^ their moft bitter and fworn enemy. But per- haps, we may apply very properly to this charge the words of Hottinger upon another occafion — ha?ic calumniam in Judceorwn fcho- lis cujam, pro more, Jiidcei fycophantice detor- Jeru72t — quid miremur, hoc idololatrice Jiigma Samaritanis, ab adverfariis- Judceis, inique & falfo inujium effe ? Exer. Anti-Morin. p. i8. Pag. 203. Here Mr. Collins labours to prove Mr. Whifton abfurd, or inconfiftent ; which charge, if made good, will be of fmall confe- quence. Pag. 204. We have here two fuppojitions ; w^hich are fuppos'd, in diredt contradiftion to the decifions of the moft learned authors. Sup- pojing ( fays he ) with Simon and many other learned men, that the prefent Jewijh ( which is the Chaldean or Ajfyrian ) character was the character always in ufe among the Jews ; and that the Samaritan (that isy the Phceniciany or PENTATEUCH. 145 or Canaanitijhi or, as it is alfo calVdy the old Hebrew) character was never usd by the Jews before the captivity — we need not wait for the conclufion, becaufe nothing can follow from fuch premifes. For, thefe are fuch Sup- pojitionsy as put the whole art of fuppojing quite out of countenance ! 'Tis here firft fup^ pos'd that the prefent yewijh character was' the charadter always in uje among the Jews-y which feems neceflarily to mean — that the yews NEVER us' d any other character. And yet 'tis here alfo fuppos*d, in the fecond place, that after the captivity y they usd the Samar. character ; and therefore not always the pre- fent Jewifli ! If, by the Jews always ufng the prefent Jewijh charafter, can poflibly be meant their fometimes ufing thafy and fometimes the Samaritan ; then is the Samar. ftill admitted a rival to the prefent Jewifh character, even in the ufe of it among the Jews. The oldeji letters, us'd by the Jews, which are now ex- tant, are certainly in the Samar » character : fince this charafter ( at leaft, letters much more fimilar to that than to the prefent Jew- ifh) appears on feveral Coins, ftruck by Si- mon &c. about 140 years before Chrift. Fra^- lichy in his Annales Regum & Rerum Syricty gives us 26 of thefe Coins ; of which 20 are gene- 146 On the SAMARITAN ^ generally allow'd by the learned to be genuine. How ftrange then it is for Mr* Colhns, who would willingly be thought a man of erudi- tion, to talk of the prefent Jewijh as the cha- raBer always in ufe among the Jews ! But, if fo ', then the prefent Jewifli mufl be the old- eji Jewiih charader ; ( tho' the Samar. be here caird the old Hebrew : ) which oldejl Jewijh character is however ( he fays ) the Chaldean or A/fyrian. And yet ; if the prefent Jewijh be the Chaldean character ( firft brought from Chaldea, after the captivity ) then the prefent Jewijh w^as not always the Jewifh charafter. On the contrary : if the prefent Jewijh was always the Jewiih character ^ it may be as oldy and older than the Chaldean, And if fo ; then, to call the oldejl Jewijh charafter Chaldean or AjJ'yrian -, or to give it a denomination taken from any other country, merely becaufe that country happen'd ( afterwards ) to ufe the fame ; muft be uncommonly abfurd. Having been thus led to mention the Heb. and Samar. charadlers ; and prefuming, that fome farther remarks upon this fubjeft may furnifli a more compleat confutation of Mr. Collins, upon this and a preceding article : I ihall exprefs my felf more particularly. What PENTATEUCH. 147 What was exaftly the form of the oldeft Heb. char after, of the charafter divinely in- fcrib'd upon the two Tables, and us'd after- wards by Mofes and the Ifraelites ; perhaps we fhall never learn. The only fojfible means left for fuch a difcovery feems to be — copy- ing the Lzfcriptions on the written mount ainsy in the wildernefs near mount Sinai; which In- fcriptions the late Bp of Clogher inferr'd ( from the circumftances related of them ) might be engrav'd there by the Ifraelites : and therefore his Lordfhip was zealous for the fending thi- ther fome perfon, on purpofe to copy them. That this may not be thought a whim, found- ed only upon the idle tale of fome modern iti- nerant; I fhall produce the teftimony of a learned traveller, who wrote in Greek more than 1200 years ago. - The author is Cofmas Mgyptius^ iiir Uteris adprime eruditus ; qui Indium Orient alefque alias regiones peragravity fcripjitque an. Chri/ii ^^S* This account is from Montfaucon, ^ who thus tranflates the teftimony of Cofmas — Cum fcriptam a Deo legem accepijfent Ifraelitcey ibi primum literds edidicerunt ; ac folitudine, ceu quieto quoda?n literario ludo-, ufus Deusy ipfos tot IS 40 annis exarandis Uteris exerceri Jivit, * CoUe^io nova Script orum Gracorum, toro. 2. p. 205. T ^am- 148 On the SAMARITAN §uamobrem in deferto Sinaiy inque omnibus He-^ hrceorum manjionibusy videre ejl lapides omnes^ ex ni07itibus delapfosy Uteris He braids infer iptos: ut EGO, qui ijlhac iter habuiy tejlificor. ^las infcriptiones yudm quidam, qui ipfas legerant^ narrabant nobis ita habere : profedlio talis — • ex tribu tali — anno tali — menfe tali. //// veroy utpote qui nuper literas edidicijfenty fre-* quentius fcribebanty & literas multiplicabant -^ ita ut ijlcec omnia loca Hebraicis infculptis plena Jint: qu^y ut quide?n ceJlimOy incredulorum CAUSA hacienus fervantur. But fhould the very letters, us'd by Mofes, be now undifcoverable ; yet may we conclude, that the fame letters were us'd alfo by Jofhua, and introduced by him into the land of Ca- naan. Antecedently to this conqueft of Ca* naan, the Canaanites might be acquainted with no other kind of writing than the hieroglyphic cal: * for, perhaps, it has never yet been fully * It hath been provM at large, that marks for things, by a kind of piBure writing, were the firft rude effort of ever;^ people upon earth, to convey and perpetuate their intelligence and con- ceptions to one another. Such a general concurrence muft needs be efteem'd the uniform voice of nature, fpcaking to the firft rude conceptions of mankind : for not only the Chinefe, Mexicans, and Egyptians^ but the Scythians likevvife ( not to fpeak of thofe intermediate inhabitants of the eirth, the Indians, Phoe- nicians, Ethic plans, Etrufcaps &c. ) all us'd the fame v^ray of writing by ^pidlure and hieroglyphic. All hieroglyphic wri- ting PENTATEUCH. 149 proved, that the Canaanites, or Phcenicians, were acquainted with any Alphabet more early. The art of expreffing founds by literal cha- rasters feems to have been a difcovery truly worthy of God ; and perhaps, the amazing combination of a very few letters, to exprefs words infinite in number, is fuc A knowledge as was too wonderful and excellent for man ; he could not attain unto it. If letters were firft taught by the two Ta- bles, delivered by G o d from Sinai to the If- raelites ; doubtlefs, the Canaanites and Phoeni- cians would be impatient to learn, even from the conquerors of Canaan, an art fo full of wonder and fo extenfively beneficial. * Letters, thus introduced into Phoenicia, foon travelled into Greece, under the condudl of Cadmus^ or ( as his name implies ) a man from the EAST — which was the fituation of Phoenicia with refpe(fl to Greece. * And this introduc- ting was abfolutely forbidden by the id commandment. — Alphabetic chara6lers were a matter of much importance to the Hebrews, as to the integrity of their religion. Divine Legation ; Edit. 3, 1758; vol.2, par. I, pag. 121 — 94 — 148 — 150. 1 Vhaniciis charaSleribus olim omnes CHANANiCi uft funt &' Hebrai ; ^ adhuc Samarlta?ii tituntur. Harduin. in Plin. nat. hift. lib. 7. 2 Cadmus — iUiteratis antea Gr^cis Fhcenicias liter as tradi- dit i nominaque literarum, qua ad noftram ujque tetatem, nulla fene admijfo dijcrimlney perfeverant. — ■ Jlii verifimilius putanty T 2 iJocem 150 OxN THE SAMARITAN tion of letters amongft the Greeks, who were before that ( as Herodotus thinks * ) totally il- literate, is judg'd by fome to have been as early as the days of Jojhua '^ ; and by others ( which is more probable ) during the time of tie Judges \ ':'ocem ( Cadmus ) Oric?italem nat'ionem Jlgnificare ; cujujinodi erant Vhiznices refpcBuGr^corum : ^ >31Dlp (Cadmonii) inter Phosnicias getites in libro Jojua memarantur. Montfauc. palaeo- graph. Grse. p. 115, 117. Eupolemus, who liv'd near 200 years before Chrift, fays — M^» •Tnt.Xcum iTirt' 2fg«/ 0 6CV etiv KOj E'o^eCiOt, tjjv ^irovot 4>oT\'0 videtiir redundare. But as the word feems to be twice abfolutely neceflary; how could this author poffibly think it, in the firfl inftance, redundant ; unlefs, becaufe he found it not in the Hebrew ? And if he believ'd the Integrity of the printed Heb. text ; doubtlefs ( in his edition of the Chald. paraphrafe ) out of two, or more, various readings he always chofe thaty which agreed beft with the printed Hebrew. So that here, we may fairly prefume, is difcover'd one great caufe of the very remark- able agreement of the printed Heb. and Chald. copies. And 'tis extreamly probable, ( fince this was the ftrong prejudice of the times ) that Felix Pratenfis, and every other editor of the moft early-printed Chald. copies, were tind:ur'd with the very fame prejudice. It cannot be denied, that Buxtorf was an advo- cate for the Integrity of the Heb. text ; and therefore, whatever alterations were made by him ( in his edition of this paraphrafe ) un- doubtedly promoted a ftill greater harmony. And we are told by the learned orientalift S. Clark, in the fupplement to the Eng. Poly- glott -— Variafuerunt Targum exemplaria, ea- que \ PARAPHRASE. i>jj que plurimum inter fe diverfa — - G? Biixtorfius mtumerisy quibus antea foedata eji\ corruptelis 'vmdicavit. And laftly, from this edition of Buxtorf was taken the copy in the Eng, Po- lyglott. So that from the preceding fliort hif- tory of the Chald. paraphrafe, the Reader may fafely infer — whether the agreement of the printed Chaldee with the printed Hebrew can be any proper proof of the Integrity of either. To the pt-eceding obfervations of other au- thors I fhall now fubjoin one obfervation, re^ fulting from my own enquiries. And it is an obfervation, which fixes upon the later MSS, and the early-printed copies, of the Chald. paraphrafe the following charge — that they have been dejignedly alter d, in compliment to the (before corrupted) copies of the Hcb, text : or, in other words — that alterations have been made wilfully in the Chald. paraphrafe^ to ren- der that paraphrafe y in fo??ie places y co7iformable to the words of the Heb. text ; where thofe Heb. words were fupposd to be right y but had been themfehes corrupted. Whoever has attentively compar'd our printed Heb. text with our printed Chald. paraphrafe 5 and has frequently found them to agree in places, which many reafons con- currcj; 178 On the CHALDEE curr'd to prove corrupted; muft have pre- funid — that the Chaldee has been corrupt- ed, in conformity to the corrupted Hebrew. And indeed, nothing could feem wanting to eftabhfh this prefumption, but the adiual dif- covery of a fewfuch readings ( as differed from the printed, and were alfo the very readings fuppos'd to have obtained originally) in the Chald, MSS- I can now acquaint the Reader with the aftual exiftence of fuch variations — that there are, in the few Chald. MSS I have had opportunity to examine, feveralfucb injiances : in which the readings are manifeft- ly true ^ tho' different from thofe, which are printed, in compliment to the corrupted He- brew. And here, let us firft recall the inftance of yofi. 22, 34. Will not every ingenuous man own ( what every man of fenfe muft fee ) the neceffity of re-inferting the word *iy (wit- nefs) as the name of the altar there mentioned ? 'Tis a known cuftom of the facred writers, firft to mention the names of men^ places^ or things y and then to fubjoin the reafons, on which fuch names are founded. And fo here, the Heb. text ( we may prefume ) originally declar'd that the Reubenites and Gadites called the altar witness ; for ( they faid ) // Jhall PARAPHRASE. 179 jhall be a witnefs between us &c. I have al- ready remark'd, that this name is acknowledg'd by the Syr. Arab, and Vulg. verfions. And it fhall be here only noted farther, as to the Heb. copy — that in Bomberg's firft edition there is ( in the place of this word ) the little circle o call'd pijkay denoting fome defe5i*y that the word ^V is printed in the margin of that edition, as it is alfo in the margin by Plantin ; and that it is inferted in our Eng. verfion. But then, how comes the Chald. pa- raphrafe to agree with the Heb. text, in fo very ftrange an omiffion } If this word be ge- nuine, the paraphrafe could not want it al- ways ; unlefs the omiffion of it in the Heb. text was very ancient. It muft be obferv'd : that, in Bomberg's old edition, tho' this word be only in the margin of the Heb. text ; and not at all in the Chald. paraphrafe, in the ad- joining column ; yet in the comment of Kim- chi ( printed at the bottom of the page ) the word is found in the former as well as latter part of the fentence ; and that twice, in the following manner nj^ O "IV PintD^ INIp J^iiO Kin "!^nD n^ Knnn^b ~— where the firft fentence feems meant for the Heb. text, and the fecond for the Chald, commentary. Y Certainly i8o On the CHALDEE Certainly Kimchi would not have inferted the word ly twice, and alfo the word *l\nD twice, without the authority of fome good MSS or MS. And Raphelengius himfelf al- lows. It was alfo twice in the MS of Mafius. To which authorities I can now add that of a Chald. MS ( in large 4°. ) the only Chald. MS of Jojhuay which I have yet had the good fortune to meet with. It is preferv'd in the Bodleian library, catalogued N°. 467 ; and the verfe before us is exprefs'd regularly, in this MS, in the following manner — iXD'^rh^ Kin »♦ nK K:jn:)o r<*in thd Another inftance, equally fatisfadory, oc- curs in Gen» 25, 8 — Abraham died in a good old age 'y an old man, and full and was ga-^ thered to his people. Men, vers'd in Scripture language, know the cuftomary phrafe to be — old and full of days , as 'tis faid of Ifaac, Job, and David. And they will therefore prefume, that the word for days ( not years, as 'tis wrongly inferted in our Eng. tranfla- tion ) has been carelefly omitted in the Heb, copy : efpecially, as that word is expreft in the Samar. text and all the ancient verfions, excepting only the Chald. paraphrafe. There ar3 PARAPHRASE. i8i are indeed fome printed copies of that para- phrafe, which have preferv'd this word ; a- greeably to the MSS, from which they were printed ( which MSS had not been in this inftance affimilated to the late Heb. copies : ) and the word \^f2V dies is now found, regular- ly exprefs'd, in the Targum of the Co?nplu- tenjian and Antwerp Polyglotts. This word is alfo prefei-y'd in the Chald. verfe of an Heb. and Chald. MS of the Pentateuch, in the Bodleian library, catalogued N°. 5233; and 'tis inferted alfo in the margin of the Chald. verfe, in another Bodleian MS, N°. 5349. Laftly ; there is in the Britifli Mufeum ( ca- talogued, Harl, N°. 5520 ) a copy of the Tar- gum, in which this word is found, inferted regularly -— ]»DV V1^^ & plenus dierum. A third inftance, which I have obferv'd, is in Kxod, 31, 8 — And the table and his fur- niture, and the pure candlejiick with all his furniture &c. 'Tis obfervable here, that the Samar. text has the word ^D ( all ) exprefs'd in the jfirft, as well as the fecond part of this verfe -, in which that text is ftrongly fupport- ed by the Samar. Gr. Syr. and Arab, verfions : authorities, fufRcient to convince us of the truth of this reading, in which they fo re- Y 2 markablv i82 On the CHALDEE markably agree. But to thefe I have now to add the authorities of two very valuable MSS preferv'd in the Britiih Mufeum : one of the He/?, text, catalogued HarL 5706 ; and the other of this Chald, paraphrafey catalogued HarL 5520. The Heb. MS not only has the very word, which is omitted in the printed copy and in other MSS ; but alfo fhews the reafon of its being fo omitted 5 having the words of this verfe in the following order — We mufl: note here, that the cuftom of the Jewiih tranfcribers is to fill their line ; and, if the line does not conclude with a compleat word, to infert one, two, or more of the let- ters, which begin the word following : which letters are again exprefs'd, and the whole w^ord given at the beginning of the next line. Such being the cafe; we may prefume this manner of writing to have been the caufe of many a corruption in the Heb. text : and that, upon two accounts. For where a line has ended with two or more letters, as part of the vv'ord which begins the line following; fuch letters may happen to conftitute a regu- lar word of themfelves : and therefore, tho' fuch PARAPHRASE. 183 fuch letters may have been meant originally for a diftinft word, they may have' been omit- ted under the notion of their being only the initial letters of the word following. On the contrary : fuch letters may have been taken for a word improperly ; and confeqnently, a word may have been introduc'd, where a word was not written originally. As for ex- ample; the fecond of the preceding three lines ends with HDH, which are the initials of n^intDn in the line following, and have been properly fo confider'd. But in the firil line, the word ^D 07nnis ( tho' fupported here by the Samar. Gr. Syr. and Arab, authorities ) has been expell'd the text, becaufe the next line happens to begin with the fame letters. And here alfo the fame complaifance has been Ihown to the corrupted Hebrew by the tran- fcribers of the Chald. paraphrafe ; who have omitted the word ^D in the firft inftance, be- caufe omitted in the Hebrew — excepting the copy of the Targum laft referr'd to, in the Britiili Mufeum. For that MS has faithfully preferv'd the original word ; reading N'mniD n^l ^llltD ^3 n^l <£? menfam & omnia vafa ejus. Whenever the Chald. MSS fliall be fully examin'd; there will be then abundant con- vidion. 184 On. THE CHALDEE viftion, that letters have been infertedy omittedy thrujl iriy blotted outy erasdy in a variety of places ; in order that fuch places might be- come more conformable to the Heb. text : ef- pecially in MSS, which have fuch text and paraphrafe rang d in parallel columns, with verfe oppofite to verfe ; or where the Heb. and Chald. verfes fucceed each other alternately, as they do in feveral MSS of the Pentateuch. Thus in the Bodleian MS, N°. 5233, at Exod. 20, 1 1 — the Heb. ( tho' printed D^'^ DK ) be- ing written D^H DKT; the Chaldee ( tho' print- ed KD* n* ) is written K/'lD^ XV\ in agreement with it. And as Onkelos could not here write both ns and DH; either the former or the latter has been corrupted, in compliment to the Heb. text : perhaps the Heb. MS is right here, being confirmed by the Sam. Gr. Syr. Arab, and Vulg. verfions. Again ^ at Deut. 5, 8 — the Hek ( tho* printed ^ ^D13 ) being in this fame MS ^D5 ^D1 ; the Chaldee (tho' printed like the print- ed Hebrew ) is in this MS made like the written Hebrew, reading hy\ D^:^. So again ; in this chapter, verfes 18, 19, 20 and 21, begin in this fame Heb. MS with K^, and confe- quently its Chald. paraphrafe begins the fame r yet the printed Hebrew has the conjunftion 0) PARAPHRASE. 185 ( 1 ) prefix'd ', and of courfe the printed Chal^ dee has it likewife — that paraphrafe being affimilated to that Heb. copy in all theie in- fiances. And this 5 notwithftanding the Sa- mar. text, and the Samar. Gr. and Syr. ver- lions agree againll the printed Heb. reading ; and tho' the Heb. ttxt itfelf, in Exodusy agrees with thofe authorities here, to prove it cor- rupted in thefe feveral inftances. Thus alfo in the Bodleian MS, N°. 1262 ; at Deut. 5, 8 — the words in the Heb. part of this MS are hy\ ^D£) > and, of courfe in the Chald. verfe (w^hich follows it) ^2^ D^l^J tho* the printed Heb^ reads ^D ^DD y and the print- ed Chaldee, faithful in its complaifance, drops the conjundlion alfo. And this ; tho' the Sa- mar. text and the verfions here in Deut. have this conjundtion — tho' Jive Heb. MSS of this chapter authorize this conjunftion — and tho' this conjundlion now ftands in the Heb. text itfelf ( confirmed by the Samar. text and by all the verjQons and MSS ) in the parallel chapter of Exodus, This fpirit of conformity, fo predominant in the tranfcribers of the Chald. paraphrafe, is farther vifible in Exod, 20, 17 — - where, tho' the printed Heb, text ( in oppofition to the i86 On the CHALDEE the Samar. text here, and to that as well as the Heb. text itfelf in DeutJ reads N^ "]V1 l/t^nn ; and tho' the printed Chald. paraphrafe has ( of courfe ) dropfd the conjundion alfo ; yet the MS laft - mentioned was written at firft, both in its text and ( confequently ) in its paraphrafe, with the conjunction. And I fay, at jirjl 'y becaufe fome zealous corrupter has ( with the pen of cajiigation or correBioriy very falfly fo call'd ) dagger d this genuine let- ter *! ', and ftruck it out as Ipurious both in the Heb. text, and alfo in its Chald. paraphrafe. In this fame chapter, at ver. 4. the Chald. MS (Brit. Muf Harl N°. 5520) reads xh'i ^D. But the Chaldee is printed Sdi D^i% a- greeably to the printed Heb. In ver. 17, this MS reads • — "y^^Ts ^bl -jnan ; where the printed Chaldee reads without the *}, as does the printed Hebrew. And thus, in T>eut, 5, 1 8, this fame MS reads ^^T\ ^V ; where the printed Chaldee and printed Hebrew read with the T before K^. In 2 Sam, 22, 8, an Heb. MS ( Brit. Muf UarL N°. 1861) read nHDl/tDI, agreeably to which the Chald. paraphrafe in this MS reads ^blbpt^l : whereas both the printed Hebrew and printed Chaldee are without the prefixed conjunction. In PARAPHRASE. 187 In the Britlfli Mufeum there is a curious Heb. MS, catalogued HarL 5709, which reads — b^^W"* ^n mv h'Dy in Exod, 12, 3 ; and it is fupported ( in reading the word ^^:i JiliiJ by the Samar. text, and the Samar. Gr. Syr. Arab, and Vulg. verlions. In this MS the Chald. paraphrafe, plac'd oppofite to the Heb. text, has the word Ukewife ; reading — Str* ^nn ^^nt:7^:l^. And yet, in the printed copies ; becaufe the word ^j;! ( tho* thus for- tified with authorities ) is dropp'd in the Heb. text, it is dropp'd alfo in the Chald. para- phrafe. Notwithftanding which, tho' '^^yi be not in the printed Chaldee ; the printed Lat. verjion of the printed Chaldee wonderfully reads filiorum ! This fame MS, in Exod. 10, 18, reads — tDV'O ntTD KVn agreeably to the Gr. Syr. and Lat. verfions. And the Chaldee of this MS reads accordingly — p nt^'O pfl^V But in the printed copies ; the word ntTD f MofesJ not being in the Heb. is not in the Chaldee. This fame MS, in Deut, 6, 12, reads ^♦^^^e after niH^; agreeably to the Samar. text, and the Samar. Gr. Syr. and Ar. verfions ; agree- ably alfo to the fenfe of this verfe and the fol- lowing. And the Chaldee of this MS reads Z accord- i88 On the CHALDEE accordingly ^n^K ^H. But in the printed co- pies ; the word, being not in the Hebrew, is not in the Chaldee. Thus again, in the next verfe, this MS reads — IDtl^m p2in im l^Vn — as does the Gr. verfion, xac/ 'sr^p^ cujtov xoA- ?^'ilB'y}(ryi &c. The Chaldee of this MSS reads, uniformly with its Hebrew, n"lpnn n^nbnnm. But thefe additional words are neither in the |)rinted Hebrew, nor printed Chaldee. In Prov. 1 5, 20, the printed Heb. text ftands thus — : 1DK nnn dik ^^ddi ns* nDir» ddh p ^4 wife f on maketh a glad father ; but a fooUjh MAN defpfeth his mother. But the Greek (and fo the Syriac ) verlion feems to have preferv'd the genuine reading — T/of u^d^o? ivCppcuvei Tmn- ^, r I O 2 Jk AcvK\yi^^£i {x>yiTVjpct ocjutov. 'Tis very remarkable, that this various reading of the Gr. and Syr. verfions is confirmed even by the printed Chaldee ; which, in oppolition to the Hebrew, reads N^m n:l^cb nn^ NDOH Kin n*)!:K tO^tr^D N*7DD. But then, on the other hand ; the printed Lat. verfion of the Chaldee, in this very place, is amazingly affimilated to the printed Hebrew : for it reads Filius fapiens — G? Jiultus homo! This variation of the Gr. and Syr. verfions, thus odly confirmed by the Chaldee, is confirm'd ftill more ftrongly by PARAPHRASE, 189 by an Heb. MS in the public library at Cam- bridge ( catalogued E, e, 5, 9 ) which reads ; iDj^ nrin ^^dd pi S" f i l i u s jinitm &c. I fhall clofe this fubjedb with one other iig- nal inftance, to prove the occafional confor- mity of the printed Chald. paraphrafe. We read now in Prov, 18^ 22 -— K'^Tu) ^':^*^^ K^'O J mn^!D X\r^ p£3n nvio ^/6^ /W^/>6 ^ w^^ Jindeth a good thing ; and obtaineth fa^ vourfrom the Lord. But, can it be truly faid, that every wife is a blejjing ? Could an univer- fal maxim, of this nature, proceed from the wifeft of men ? Could fuch a proverb poffibly be deliver'd by him ; who reprefents the evil and the foolijld woman as a curfe — by him-, who fays, that the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping ; and jhe^ that maketh ajha^ med, is as rottennefs in her hufband's bones — by him ; who ( to enforce it with particular emphafis) aflures us in two feparate proverbs, that // is better to dwell in the wildernefs, than with a contentious and angry woman. And, as he is thus fatyrical upon vice and folly ; fo is he equally juft, as an encomia!!:, upon virtue and real excellence. A virtuous woman ( fays he ) is a crown to her hufband — Her price is far above rubies — Favour is deceitful, 7j z and 190 On the CHALDEE and beauty is vain-y hut a woman y that feareth the Lord, she Jhall be praifed. Can fuch a writer then, who difcriminates thus wifely between the merit of a good woman, and the demerit of the contrary; can he be fuppos'd in this inftance to have faid — he, who find- eth any wife, findeth a blejjing ? Efpecially, when he fo very cautioufly confines this blefs- ing, every where elfe, to a wife adorn' d with wifdom and virtue ; and when he fo exprelly tells us, that only a prudent wife is from the Lord. If the reader fhould not be already convinced of the neceffity of thus diftinguifh- ing, in the cafe before us ; he may refer to the 25th and 26th chapters oi Ecclus : where the excellencies, that render a wife truly ami- able and juftly eligible, are beautifully dif- play*d ; as alfo thofe miferies, which attend a connexion with one of an oppofite charafter. 'Tis prefum'd therefore, that Solomon in the text before us exprefs'd himfelf thus. He, that findeth a goot> wife y findeth a good things and obtaineth favour from the Lord : T\t'\^ i 36. Thefe two verfes are omitted in this MS, tho' preferv'd in other Latin MSS ; and we find them alfo in the printed Latin copies. With regard to the hattJi veriion, I Ihall add one inftance more ; and it is an inftance very worthy of our attention. It is contain'd in the 2 Chron. 13 ; 3> 17 •* which paflage has appeared to many very Hkely to be corrupted, becaufe it contains numbers almoft incredible. This paffage, in its prefent ftate, acquaints us — that Abijah, King of fudah^ Jet the battle in array with 400,000 chosen meny againjl 800,000 CHOSEN meny under yeroboamy king of Ifrael'y and that, out of Ifrael onljy there were fain in the battle 500,000 ! This furprifing account was noted in my Dijfertationy p. 532 &c. where I mentioned, as probable, the opinion of the learned Vig- noles — that the Heb. numbers may have been anciently exprefs'd by marks, analogous to our common figures — that feveral numbers in the old Teftament feem greatly corrupted, and particularly thro' the addition or fubtrac- tion PARAPHRASE. 197 tion of a Cipher — - and that the numbers of this very paffage ( inftead of 400,000, and 800,000, and 500,000 ) were probably at firft 40,000, and 80,000, and 50,000. I pro- duc'd authorities to prove, that the hijiory cfjofephus, now containing the larger num- bers, formerly had the lefs ; and if fo, then has Jofephus alfo been altered, in conformity to the corrupted Hebrew. 'Tis confefs'd, that the ancient verfions, as printed in our Poly- glott, agree with the prefent Heb. text. But — may not the modern Hebrew be here cor- rupted ? Might not the authors of the ancient verfions have read differently ? And may not the prefent harmony of text and verfions, in this place, be the refult of injudicious zeal, correcting, or rather corrupting the latter, in compliment to the former ? I have, on this occafion, made a particular examination of the Latin veriion. And to this I was led by obferving — that the number of the chofen men here llain, which the Vulgat, printed by Pope Clement in 1592, determines to be 500,000, the Vulgat of Pope Sixtus, printed two years before, determin'd to be only 50,000. And indeed the two preceding numbers are equally different, tho' not marked as fuch in James's Bellum Papale : the edition A a 2 of 198 On the CHALDEE oi Sixtus reading 40,000 and 80,000; and that of Clement ( in conformity to the prefent He- brew ) reading 400,000 and 800,000. Infal- libility thus contradifting Infallibility ^ and the excommunicatio major being thundered forth againft the minuteft alteration in either copy, and yet both being pronounc'd authentic^ the' containing near 2000 variations — thefe mar- vellous circumftances, relative to the difcord- ance of the two Papal editions *, induced me * Of all the objeftions, urg'd againft the Infallibility of the Church of Rome, there is fcarce one more conclufive than this be- fore us : let us therefore briefly confider it. To appoint what is Scripture, and zuhat is not — this muft be (if any thing can be) to aSl in matter of faith. And is it not the uniform doflrine of Popery, that the Pope cannot err in matter of faith ? Behold then Pope Sixtiis the 5th, preparing a perfedl edition of the La- tin Bible — colleding the mofl ancient MSS, and beji printed co- pies — fummoning the moft learned men out of all the nations of the Chrifian world — affembling a congregation of Cardinals, for their a Jf fiance aiid counfel — prefiding over the whole Himfelf^ in the plenitude of zeal and certain knowledge ! Behold every word, in the cpy prepared for the prcjs, examin'd, and fully weigli'd, by Himflfi who laboriouily fpent many hours, every day, in feleciing the truejl readings ! The edition being printed, behold it declar'd to be corrected in the very beji manner pofftble ; and publifh'd with a tremendous excommunication of every perfon, who fhould prefume ( ever afterwards } to alter the leaf particle of the edition thus authentically promulg'd by His Holinefs, fitting in that Chair, in qua Petri vivit potefas^ & excellit auSioritas ! And yet — behold Pope Clement the 8ih, not more than two years after, folemnly publifliing another edition of the fame Bible ; an edition fq different from that of Sixtus, as to contain 2000 varia- PARAPHRASE. 199 to examine ofher Latin copies of the paflage before us. As to different printed editions, I variations ; fome of whole verfes, and many others clearly and dcfignedly contradiflory in fenfe ! [ See James's Bellum Papale (1600) and his Defence of it (i6i i) pag. 38. See alfo Dr. Hody» de Bibl. text, origin, &c. pag. 494 — 507-] And this edition of Clement, with all its repugnancies to the former, is alfo pro- nounc'd authentic, by the fame plenitude of knowledge and of power J and enforced by the fame fentence of Excommunication ! The defenfe, made by the Papifts, is — that Clement only correfled thofe errors of the prefs, which Sixtus defign'd to have corredled in a fecond edition. 'Tis thus, that Clement endeavours in his preface to evade the fentence of Excommunication. — ". ^od cum jam ejj'et excufum, Sixtus, animadvert ens non pauca prali vitio irrepfijfe, totum opus fub incudem revocandum decrevit ; quod, morie praventus, prajiare non potuit. That Sixtus defign'd a new edition, tho' it is here intimated, cannot be prov'd; and the contrary is manifeft from the following facl, which Clement would not mention — that Sixtus, after his edition was printed, obferving fome errors in it, correfted them with his own hand, either with his own pen, or by paftlng on words new printed. And as he himfelf thus corredcd the errors of his own edition, and then fent it forth to be recelv'd and maintain'd, unalterably, for ever; 'tis vain to pretend, that he meditated afterwards a different edition. That Sixtus thus corredled his edition, when printed, we may aflert upon the authority of his own Bull Eaque res quo magis incorrupte perjiceretur, nostra nos irsi MANu correximuSjJi qua pralo vitia obrepferant. We may there- fore take it for granted, that Sixtus did in fad correft ever^ fingl^ copy of his edition ; as the learned may fee it carefully perform'd, partly by the pen, but chiefly by words re-printed and parted on, in the copy very fortunately prefer v'd in the Bodleian library. James, at the beginning of his Bellum Vapale^ has enumerated 28 places, as thus correded. But if he us'd this very Bodleiaa copy, he was not accurate : for I have obferv'd feveral words, cor- 200 On the CHALDEE have examined 3 1 ; none of which are later than that of Clement, in 1592. I have al- fo examined 51 MSS; 45 in the Bodleian li- brary ^ 4 in the library of Dean Aldrich at Chrift-Church ; and 2 in Exeter College li- brary. I prefume, it will oblige the curious Reader; if I prefent him with the various readings of thefe 82 copies, as to the paffage before-mention'd. It may be fufficient to note tfie dates of the printed editions ; and the eight following editions contain the larger numbers — 400,000, 800,000, and 500,000. Editions printed 1526, 1542, 1543, 1556, 1564, 1579, 1588, 1592. The following are fuch editions, as either uniformly read the three lefs numbers ; or are irregularly corrupted, vary- ing in one or two numbers only. corre6led in the fame manner ; which he has taken no notice of. Upon the whole : if the edition of Sixtus was perfedl j Cle- ment, with his Cardinals, muft have httn fallible. If Clement's edition be perfedl ; Sixtus, with his Cardinals, mull have been fallible. And if we could poffibly concede to Clement, that Six- tus did intend a fecond and better edition ; how can we be fure, that the fame Pope and Council, who prov'd fallible in their FIRST edition, would have prov'd infallible in their se- cond? In fhort : as thefe two Papal Bibles thus unite to over- throw the boafted Infallibility of the Church of Rome ; it feems not very unwife, tho' very bold, condud in Baldwin the Jefuit ( fee James's Defence p. 34) who, knowing the Bible of Sixtus to be extreamly fcarce, affirm 'd — it zuas never puunjh''d at all. 1462 PARAPHRASE. 201 1462 1479 1492 1495 1514 1522 1523 1526 1540 1545 1564 1569 1573 1573 1578 1580 1583 1584 1589 1590 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 800,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 500,000 50,000 50^000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 500,000 50,000 the 22, Hio As.f^^> the Latin wr//^7r':^P'^^ ^ wtiich contain the larger numbers, ^^^ ^^^^ logued (in the Bodleian) N°. 516' 678, j^jl 1258, 1610, 1848, 1852, 1853, 1858, 2022, 2055, 2056, 2392, 2519, 2665, 2682, 3050, 3564, 3587, 3611, 4047, 4086. The follow- ing are fuch MSS, as uniformly read the three I Printed at Paris. z Printed at Bafil. lefi 202 On the CHALDEE lefs numbers ; or elfe are corrupted irregularly, varying only in one or two numbers. No, 8io — 400,000 800,000 50,000 1 144 — 60,000 800,000 50,000 1426 — 40,000 80,000 50,000 1511 — 40,000 800,000 50,000 1830 — 400,000 700,000 50,000 1849 — 40,000 800,000 50,000 1855 — 40,000 70,000 50,000 1967 — 40,000 80,000 500,000 1968 — 400,000 800,000 50,000 2029 — 40,000 80,000 50,000 2031 — 40,000 80,000 50,000 2032 — 40,000 80,000 50,000 2118 — 400,000 800,000 50,000 2427 — 40,000 80,000 500,000 • 2700 — 400,000 80,000 50,000 2703 — 40,000 80,000 50,000 ?>^5^ — 40,000 80,000 50,000 3497 — 400,000 800,000 50,000 ^S^3> — 40,000 80,000 50,000 3 7 GO — 40,000 80,000 500,000 ^053 — 40,000 80,000 50,000 4089 — 40,000 80,000 50,000 8187 — 40,000 80,000 50,000 ^ ^^^''^ 5urcC Archiv. Aldrich. '^^ ,^. ^aend a If 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 80,000 50,000 that the '^ ^ C 14 D 19 F 4 — 800,000 80,000 80,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Exeter CoHeg re Library. C2,7 C2,i3 — 40,000 4O5OOO 80,000 80,000 50,000 50,000 The PARAPHRASE. 203 The Reader will certainly be furpriz'd, per^ haps he will be pleas'd, to find in the writ- ten and printed Bibles fuch numerous autho- rities for the fmaller numbers ; becaufe thefe recover a credibility to the hiftory, which the larger numbers feem to deprive it of. But, befides the many copies, which uniformly read 40 and 80 and 50 thoufand; the other copies, which are corrupted but in part, confirm alfo the fmaller numbers. Four copies read 800,000 as fighting againft 40,000 : one copy reads 400,000 as fighting againft 80,000 : and five copies read 500,000 as flain out of 80,0005 which is moft evidently impoffible. Perhaps it may be afk'd here — How were thefe numbers exprefs'd by St. Jerom ? Tq which I anfwer \ that the numbers, fettled by that author, can only be learnt from the co- pies of his Bible : and we have ittvx how thefcy both written and printed, vary. 'Tis re- markable — that all the older piinted editions, as well as moft of the older MSS, have the fmaller numbers, Nicolas de Lyra, in his Glofs, printed (1589) in the margin of a La- tin Bible (which reads 500,000 flain) quotes Jerom, as reading only 50,000. And thus in the Paris edition of Jerom's works (1546) we read in the Sluc^Jl. Heb, in Paralipom : — cor-^ B b ruermt 204 9^ '^"^ CHALDEE ruerunt vulnerati ex Ifrael quinquaginfa mllia. But Erafmus doubts, whether this part ( the ^^Ji' Heb.J be the genuine work of Jerom. In the Benedidine edition (vol. i, col. 1075) the numbers in verfe the 3d of this chapter in Chroniclesy are printed 400,000 and 800,000. tJpon which there is the following remark- able note, at the bottom of the page — MSS. Reg. Corbel,! ^j & San-German, 1^9 legunt qua- draginta G? oftoginta. Canon Memmianus pure legit juxta Hebr^um, q^uod nos edi- DIMUS. This Memmian canon of the Hebrew ve- rity is faid to have been made at the com- mand of Theodulphus, Bp of Orleans, in the 9th century. And, whether this canon be of authority or not ; we find, that the editors of this famous edition of Jerom fettled the ver-* Jion of ferom according to what was, as they thought, the Hebrew verity. No wonder there- fore, that the printed copies of Jerom's Latin verfion agree, in fo many places, with the corrupted Hebrew; fince the editors of that verfion have made (what theycall'd) the He- brew verity their criterion of truth andfaljhood. This then is the great point here complain'd of; and which the preceding obfervations have been brought to illuftrate and afcertain. Tis PARAPHRASE. 205 'Tis alfo obfervable, that the Vulgat of Six- tns, which has the three fmaller numbers, feems to have been printed upon a jufter plan than that of Clement; which has ever jfince iifurp'd the place of it. Both editors profefs to give a moft correal edition of the Latin veriion, made by St.Jerom; but they proceed upon different principles . Sixtus profelTes to publifh according to the moft ancient and beft Latin copies, affifted by the quotations of the Latin fathers : not to corredt even the errors of the Latin verjion^ by referring to the Heb. text ; but to refer to that, onfy, where the Latin words fhould be ambiguous, or where the Latin copies varied remarkably. Whereas Clement, tho' he allows, that he alter'd fome places defignedly ; and confefles, that as to other places, which feem'd to want correction, he left them as he found them, for fear of giving offence ( which is a very timid apology from a Pope, who pretends to be the pillar and ground of truth] yet he feems to have made the Heb. text his general rule, for de- termining the beft readings in the Latin co- pies of the old Teftament — ut vulgatam edi- tionem Latinam^ adhibitis antiquiffimis codicibus MStisy infpe^is quoque Hebraicis fonti- Bus, accuratijjime cajiigarent. This difference B b 2 of 2o6 On the CHALDEE of proceeding is noted alfo by James, in the epiftle prefix'd to his Bellum Papale-, where he fays — Pro Sixto faciunt Louanienfes, Ste- fhanus bona ex parte, Henteniusy & quotquot editiones receptee funt in ecclejia Ro?nana per fpatium rnultorum annorum : pro Ckmente nuda VERITAS Hebraica &c. I therefore appre- hend, that the old Latin verfion is likely to be found more pure, in the edition of Sixtus, than in that of Clement ; fince the latter feems to have corrected his Latin by the modern ( i. e. the corrupted) Heb. copies — of which the numbers (40,000 and 80,000 and 50,000) as given by Sixtus, and the numbers (400,000 and 800,000 and 500,000) as given by Cle- ment, furniih one very ftriking example. Perhaps it may be afk'd here — Whence were th^kfmaller numbers tranflated, fuppo- iing them to be the more ancient ; as the He- brew and Greek copies have the larger num- bers ? I anfwer ; they might be tranflated from ancient copies of the Heb. text, or of the Gr. verfion, or of both. That the ancient co- pies of the verfion of the LXX have been al- tered, in conformity to the Hebrew verity, no learned man can doubt : and that we have loft many of thofe marks, by which the infertionsy omiffionsy and changes in that verfion were for- merly PARAPHRASE. 207 merly diftinguifh'd, cannot be denied. But ftill ; the old copies of that verlion might not be, and certainly were not, univerfally con- form'd to the Heb. text, either in the days of Origen, or of the correfters who fucceeded him Pamphilus, Lucian, and Hefychius. And many corruptions have probably been fince introduc'd into the Heb. text ; where the Gr. verfion has continued uncorrupted^ So that where the Heb. text and Gr. verlion now varyy one will frequently correal the other: but where they now agree, in places probably corrupted ; there the Greek may have been at firft tranllated from, or afterwards made con- formable to, the Hebrew, which had been previoufly corrupted. That the Heb. text is corrupted in many of its numbers, has been ( I prefume ) frequently proved already; and will be yet more fully prov'd hereafter. And th2Lt fome of thcfc num- bers were corrupted very early, feems evident from the agreement of the Greek, Syriac, and Latin verfions. Should it be demanded — How numbers, which ( as they are exprefs'd in words at length ) are widely different from each other, could poflibly be miftaken by any tranfcriber ; I would endeavoiu* to fatisfy fuch demand, by one or other of the following fo- lutions. Tha 2o8 On the CHALDEE The learned Vignoles ( as before obferv'd ) has conjedlur'd — that, fince many of the numbers are corrupted, in reading hundreds inftead of tensy and tens inftead of hundreds ; therefore the Jewifh tranfcribers might anci- ently exprefs numbers by marks analogous to our common figures : as the Arabians have done for many hundred years. And if fo; then the corruption of fuch numbers may eafily be accounted for, from the tranfcriber's carelefly adding or omitting a fingle cipher. For ex- ample: we read now ( i Sam. 6, 19 ) that the Lord fmote 50,070 Philiftines, for looking into the ark ; which number, the Syr. and Arab, verfions tell us, was in their copies only 5070. Thus we read at prefent ( i Kin. 4,26) that Solomon had 40,000 ftalls for horfes ; which number the parallel paffage in the Heb. text itfelf ( 2 Chron. 9> 25 ) aflures us, was only 4000. And thus the three num- bers, fo frequently before mentioned, may have been corrupted by the addition of a ci- ther. And fhould any one doubt the pojfibi- iity of a cipher being added by the fame per- fon in three numbers near together^ I need only refer him back to pag, 196 — where a cipher was at lirft added by my compofitor to each of the three large numbers; which were there- PARAPHRASE. 209 therefore printed in the proof-Jheet 4000,000 8000,000, and 5000,000. The other conjeaure is, that the Jews an- ciently exprefs'd their facred numbers by nu^ meral letters, 'Tis certain, they do fo at pre- fent in their own compoiitions 5 and 'tis cer- tain alfo, that fome of their ancient authors fpeak of fingle letters, as fignifying numbers ii_ the books of Scripture. Aben-Ezra, 600 years ago, confider d the Tod in TWy'^Ts f Exod. 25, 31 ) as inferted to exprefs ten, R. Eliezer (whofe book, call'd ntV^^K ^pID, was publifh'd by Vorftius in 1 644 ) is allowed by the Jews to have been a very ancient writer^ and is faid, in the preface, to have liv'd not long af- ter the apoftolic age. This Rabbi fpag. y^ ) confiders the word pT\''P as conlifting of 4 nu- meral letters ; which he makes to fignify their now cuftomary numbers— 10, 90, 8, and 100. 'Tis well known, that the 22 Heb. letters exprefs numbers as far as 400 ; and that the 5 remaining hundreds ( under one thoufand ) are exprefs'd by different forms of 5 of the let- ters, which feem invented on purpofe to ex- prefs them. Indeed it can fcarce be doubted, but that as 5, and only 5, of the feveral hun- dreds wanted each a fingle letter ; and as 5, and only 5, of thefe different forms were in- invented ; 210 On the CHALDEE invented ; fo thefe new forms were invented, to exprefs thofe remaining hundreds. The different forms of thefe 5 letters have been us'd, at the end of words, perhaps, ever lince their firft invention. And it is therefore pro- bable, that if we could fix the age of thefe final letters; we might then fix the time, when the Bible numbers were exprefs'd by fingle letters. Thefe finals are not known to the Samaritans. And as they are not in the leaft wanted to exprefs words, and yet are us'd in the Bible ; fo may we conclude, they were firft introduced into the Bible for the purpofe of numbers. This is the ufe made of them by the Jews, in their own writings ; and indeed they are admitted, even now, into the Jewijh commentaries, as printed with the Heb. text : fee R. S. Jarchi, on Gen, 25. 8. As the age of thefe finals tends to fix the age of thefe numeral letters j it may be ob- ferv'd, that the final Mem is mention'd in the Talmud of Babylon -, and that the authors of both Talmuds fpeak of the 5 finals as of great antiquity, even in their time. To which I fliall add, that St. Jerom, in his preface to the book of Kings, mentions the finals as equally in ufe with the 22 letters *. And as * Porro ^uinque liter iS duplices apud Kehraos funt j caph ^c, aliter PARAPHRASE. 211 Jerom's Heb. MSS might eafily be 200 years old ; if the finals were in his MSS, it fol- lows, that they muft have been us'd foon after the time of Chrift. In page the 8 th of ^ Dtf^ fertation on the Chronology of the Septuaginfy printed 1741 ; I find Jerom's authority made ufe of ( without any part of his works being referr'd to ) in the manner following — We are ajfured by St. yerom, that the Heb. compu- tations were not exprefsd in words at lengthy in the old Heb, copies ^ but in fmall charaBers fcarcely vijihle. If we may infer from Jerom, that the fi- nals were usd in the Heb. MSS, at lateft, about 200 years after Chrift^ we may infer from the Greek verfion, that they were not usd in the Heb. MSS, till about 100 years before Chrift. Dr. Hody, who feems to have given the moft rational account of the origin of the feveral parts of the Greek verfion, tells us (pag. 188) thzt Jeremiah was tranflated into Greek, about 130 or 140 years before Chrift. And from this verfion of Jerem, 31,8 [ i. e. in the Greek, ch. 38, 8 ] it feems clear that the finals were not then in the Heb. text. For in that verfe, the feven lettters mVDn aliter enim Jcribuntur per has principia medietatefqm verhorum, aliter fines. C c ( which 21^ On the CHALDEE ( which are here two words, and properly fig- nify 21/ ojuTot^ Tj(pXog ) are rendered in all the copies of the Gr. verfion iv iopTvi, But fuch a rendring, being the proper Greek of *?V1Di, which is one word only, fhews that the 0 was not then ( D ) Mem final ; fince the final would have divided the letters into two words, and prevented fuch a wrong tranflation. Let us now fee, upon this hypothefis of numeral letters ; whether there is any parti- cular likenefs between fuch letters, as would reprefent the genuine and the corrupted num- bers. In my Dijfertation I mentioned the eight inftances, which here follow. f^^g- 97 "~" 42 and 22 ^D for ^D 100 — - 500 and 200 T for *j 462 — 7000 and 700 t for \ 463 — 7000 and 700 t for \ 474 — 7 and 3 r for :i 529 — 550 and 250 T\ for Ts 529 — 50 and 20 i for D 529 — 7 and 6 ? for 1 Add now the three large and fmall numbers. 400,000 and 40,000 n for D 800,000 and 80,000 V\ for fj 500,000 and 50,000 •} for i It PARAPHRASE. 213 It muft be noted here, that fome of thefe let- ters, which are not now fo very fimilar as others, may anciently have been more fimilar. For, as to the firft inftance ; the modern D is not fo much like the D, as the old t:. * Thefe two letters are alfo very like in the Sa- maritan ; being there ^j and ^JJ. 'Tis farther obfervable, in vindication of the laft inftance but two ; that the D, as it was very anciently exprefs'd by fome, was almoft exadtly the fhape of the modern n, with the left perpen- dicular ftroke turning round at the bottom to the left, and terminating in a point. "* That the thoufands were exprefs'd anciently by fmgle letters, with a dot or fome mark over them, may be prefum'd from Ezra 1,10 i — where the Jiher hafons are faid to be (of a fecond forty without mentioning any firjl fort) 410. But in the parallel account, pre- ferv'd in ( what is now call'd ) Efdras ch. 2, 13, we ^ni the fame fiver bafons to have been 2410 ; which laft is the true number: fee Mr. Hallett's Notes on the Old Tef, vol. 2, pag. 8 1 . Now if :2, with a dot over it, flood 1 See Montfaucon's Prelim. DifTertation before Origen's Hexapla : p. 22. 2 See the Palmyrene alphabet, pag. 693 and 740, vol. 48 ; fee alfo the plate, at pag. 593, vol. 49 ; of our Philofophicai Tranfadlions. C c 2 ' for 214 On the CHALDEE for 2oao ; the letter might very eafily be co- pied without the dot. Afterwards, when ( in confequence of the corruptions, which had been found to arife from numeral letters) num- bers were exprefs'd by words at length ; the ^ ( being thus reduc'd to fignify two ) was of courfe written LD^^t!^ ♦* but this word, making nonfenfe with the following ( i. e. two four hundred and ten ) has been fince chang'd into tyWl^ — a word, not very agreeable to the fenfe here — and a word, which renders this account not only repugnant to the parallel chapter, but alfo inconjiftent with itfelf, as leaving the fum total ( now fpecified in the Heb. text ) very deficient for want of the 2000 thus omitted. That Origen exprefs'd the Heb. numbers, in his Hexapla, by numeral letters, may be prefum'd, becaufe he exprefs'd the Greek fo : and that his Greek numbers were fo exprefs'd, is probable, becaufe the Greek numbers are found fo exprefs'd in the Colbertine MS, which is allow'd to have been copied from the Hexapla. This very ancient Greek fragment reads in y/// I o, 3 : ekpinentoniepahab KAIKETHKAIErENONTOATTaBKAIATIOI. The Jerufalem Talmud, which is much later than Origen, has a paflage pertinent to the PARAPHRASE. 215 the prefent fubjea:. It tells us, as to Jacob's eleven fons (Gen. 32, 22 ) that one old Heb. MS read N^n WTs^ but two old' MSS read K^'^ XT\^V nnK. On which R. Japhe remarks, that as the letters N»n are not in the text it- felf, and yet are In both quotations 3 the ^C* muft in both quotations ftand for eleven. ^ If this be true ; then that MS, which read K%1 V^TSy feems to have united two readings ; taking the one from fome MS which read V^r\ novem, and the other from fome MS which read N^ midecim. The latter is the true read- ing y and therefore the letters ^^» feeni inferted alfo in the two MSS, as the way of expreffing eleven in fome former Heb. MSS. An Harleian MS, N°. 1861, in £aW. 20, 5, reads bv^ b tD^'^bl^ ; where the h, being the numeral letter for 30, is inferted after the word tD''\^bt^% which generally fignifies 3c, tho' it does not fo in this place : and therefore 'tis probable, that in fome former MS, the tranfcriber had exprefs'd the word here by ^, miftaking the word for 30. I fhall finifh thefe remarks on the Heb. numeral letters, with the following authori- ties. Huetius fays —- Facilis ejl conjeBuray lapfum hic in pingenda numeri nota libra- * See Morin. de Heb. & Gr. tex. Integritate, p. 561- rium. 2i6 On the CHALDEE riumf ut alias fcepe conttngit — Id tan turn his cavillationibus extorqueri pofet, luxatum effe in Arithmeticis aliquibus notis Scripturcef acres contextum ; quod neque quifquam negat. ' Cap- pellus fays — Non efi quod quis miretur banc in numeris difcrepantiam — art a videtur ( ex parte fait em) ex Ubrariorum^ in defer ibendis facris librisy lapfuy qui in numeris y ex nota- R u M forte NUMERICARUM ftmilitiidinCy facilis eji atque proclivis, * And Walton ( treating of the Integrity of the Heb. Text) having prov'd by a multitude of authorities, that the Heb. MSS did vary in many inftances, that the Jews own d the exiftence of fuch variations, and that not only Buxtorf, and Junius, but St. Jerom alfo allowed the very fame ; adds : Cum Hieronymo confentiunt fere omnesy in an- tiquis codicibus verfati'y quiy ut in aliis varieta- tes irrepfjfe advertunty fie prcecipue in numeris & propriis nominibus. — Ipfe Scaliger fie fcri^ hit. — ^^ In 2 Reg. 24, 18, Joachim iniit reg- ^^ num annos natus 18. At in 2 Chron. 36, 9, *' erat oBo tantum annorum-y ut omnino dena- ^' Rii NOTA hie defideretur. Nam literis *^NUMERALiBus, non ijcrbisy antiquitus nu- " 7neri concipiebaiitur : unde natum efi illud 1 Demonftratio Evang. in capite de libris Paralipom. 2 Cririca facra, lib. 3, cap. 20, {^q, 13. ( I Sam, PARAPHRASE. 217 ^* ( I Sam. 13,1) b^^^tr nit:* P deejl enim " nota numeralis. Editio Grceca mog v[v ivicwrov^ ** alii codices "Tfta^vTx iTcov. — Hoc natum eji ex *' compendiofa numeros Jcribendi rat tone : quod '* niji concedamus, quomodo tot varietates & dif- « crimina numerorum excufemus, non video.'* After which Walton adds — ^i vero difcre^ pantias illas non volunt ejje codicum variorum leBionesy fed utrafque divince ejfe auBoritatts \ HI EX Deo Janum aliquem bifrontem FACIUNT, SPECTANTEM '351^90^^ ;6^ OTHOS-CO. Frolegom. 7; 12, 13, 14. * The preceding remarks having been occa- fion'd by the variation of the copies, as to the three larger and fmaller numbers, in 2 Chron. 13; 3, 17 ; it may be proper here, at the con- clulion, to fubjoin one obfervation. If any man of learning fhould be ftill inclined to un- * It may be noted here ; that the errors in point of lumbers^ made by the tranfcribers of the Heb. Text, by no means prove them to have been lefs careful than other tranfcribers. Such errors could not, without a conllant miracle, have been prevented, in the copies of ancient books very frequently tranfcrib'd : and fuch errors have been introduced, perhaps in greater abundance, by the tranfcribers oi other ancient MSS. The reverend and learned Dr. Taylor, after having critically examin'd a variety of Greek MSS, makes the following remark, in his valuable edition of Demofthenes, vol, 2, pag. 600 Librarii male menjem ijlum Ast;T?gov vacant y cum A&n^.rov potius exarajfent. Verum in scrip- TIS CODD. ERROR NUMERALIUM EST INFINITUS. dertake 2i8 On the CHALDEE dertake a vindication of the larger numbers t and fhould think he could render them pro- bable, by comparing them with other 'very large numbers in the fame hiftory : I would recommend it to him to confider — Whether fome of thofe other very large numbers may not be corrupted likewife. For, if fo j he would then only build error upon error : in which cafe, whenever the foundation {hall be remov'd, the fuperftrufture muft fall to the ground. As for example. Would any wife man, truly zealous for the honour of the Scripture hiftory, undertake to defend the prefent numbers of 2 Chron. IJ9 13 — 19 ? Where the Heb. copies now af- fure us, that there were, in the city of Jeru- falem. One million one hundred and SIXTY THOUSAND; who, htmg mighty men of valour y waited on king Jehofhaphat, as only one part of his troops : for we read exprefly — thefe were in Jerufalemy and waited on the king \ bejides thofe^ wbo?n the king put in the fenced cities throughout all fudah. It would perhaps be equally unadvifeable to attempt a vindication of what we read now in 2 Chron, 1 4, 8 ; where Afa s forces are rec- koned at near Six hundred thousand men. But, could the king of Judah have been fo PARAPHRASE. 219 Co extreamly diftrefs'd at the approach of only the men of Ifrael, as to take out of the temple end out of the k'mgs houfe all the Jiher and gold that were left, and to hire the Syrians to help him againft Ifrael ; if he had at home fo vaft an army as 580,000 men, and all thefe mighty men of valour ? Or, if he had in fad: fo vaft an army; would it have been at all neceflary for him, upon the retreat of Ifrael, to have rats' d all his fubje5is without diJiin5iiony to help in demolishing the works at Ra- mah. See 2 Chron, 16, i 6 ; and i Kin. 15, 16 22. Laftly : there would probably be equal dif-. ficulty, in vindicating what we read at pre- fent ( 2 Chron. 25, 6 ) that the Ifraelites were able to lend to Amaziah 100,000 mighty men of valour ; when we are affur'd, they were fo greatly reduc'd but a few years before, that there were left of the people of Ifrael only 50 horjemen, 10 chariots, and 10,000 footmen : for the King of Syria had dejiroyed them, and had made them like the duft by threjhing. See 2 Kin, 13, 7. It is prefum'd, the preceding pages of re- marks on the Heb. numbers, and on the caufes of their corruption, will be thought not only of confequence in themfelves, but to D d bear 220 On the CHALDEE bear fome connexion with the general pofi-^ tion contain'd in pages 193 and 194 — rela- ting to the bad confequences, which have at- tended the wrong notion of the Integrity of the modem Heb, Text. As it has been abundantly prov'd. In the many remarks before made, that the Chald, paraphrafe has been wilfully altered, to render it more comformable to the Heb. text, in places before corrupted ; fo has it appear'd, from the remarks upon the Greek and Latin verjions^ that they alfo have fuffer'd, on account of the fuppos'd perfedlion of the Heb. text. But, let us return from this long digreffion, concerning the Greek and Latin verfions ; and conclude what has been offer d on the printed Chald. paraphrafe. Wherever this paraphrafe Is now found to agree with the prefent Heb. text. In places probably corrupted ; we may fairly prefume, that this agreement has been occafion'd by wilful alterations of the paraphrafe in confor- mity to the text. But, where it ftill differs from the prefent Heb. text ( as it does in ma- ny places, and fome of confiderable Impor- tance ) there it may fill preferve the dignity of an ancient paraphrafe ; and may be of great ufe PARAPHRASE. 221 ufe, to affift in the recovery of fuch readings as are loft, and in the explanation of fuch as •are difficult and obfcure. And laftly; as fome parts of this paraphrafe are of much greater authority than others, on account of their greater age, and of the greater accuracy and clofenefs with which they were compos'd : fo, the Reader will, on thefe accounts, pay his principal regard to the paraphrafe upon the Pentateuch — next, to that upon the anterior and pofterior Prophets — ftill lefs, to that upon the greater part of the Hagiographa ~ and leaft of all, to that upon the five fmall books, call'd the Megilloth ; the paraphrafe up- on which books is certainly much later, and far more vague, than upon any of the former. CHAPTER 222 CHAPTER HI ; containing The Sentiments of the JEWS Themfelves on The I-Iebrew Text. THE remarks, which feem*d neceflary, upon the Samar. Pentateuch and the Chald, Paraphrafey being thus fubmitted to the Learned -, I proceed now, agreeably to the method proposed in the introduction, to ar- ticle the Third, And the intention of this chapter is — to confider the Sentiments of the "Jews themjehesy as to the Heb. text of the old Teftament — to enquire, whether they have ever allow'd vm'iations in their written Heb. copies — if fo; how they accounted for fuch variations — how they determined the preference of fome variations to others what MSB they judg'd the beft — and from what fort of MS or MSS, and by what rule or rules, the Heb. Text was at firft, and has been lince, printed. These, tho' points of very material confequence ( and tho' the dif- cuffion of them be indeed neceffary, in order to the forming a perfedl judgment oi the Jiate of The Sentiments &c. 223 of the printed lieb, Text J are yet, at pre fen t, known ver}?- imperfectly : at leafl, there has been publickly communicated but little evi- dence upon this head, that may fafcly be con- fided in. The various references to Jewiili writers, and quotations from the moft eminent, which are colledled in this chapter, will prove the more acceptable to the curious reader; if he previously confiders, how necejjary fuch recourfe to the Jews tSy upon feveral of thofe articles, which are effcntial links in the chain of this enquiry. And of this neceflity he will be per- feftly convinc'd, upon perufing the following 20 interrogatories ; which may be put to every Chriftian advocate for the Integrity of the printed Heb. Text. 1. Whether all the MSS of the Heb. Bible have been tranfcrib'd without error ? 2. Ifyi?; why this conftant miracle, vouch- faf 'd to the tranfcribers of the old Teftament, and not to thofe of the new ? 3. \i not fo'y how are we to determine the merit of difagreeing MSS, and detedt their er- rors : how decide, for inftance, between the MSS of the Eajiern and IVeJiet^n provinces ; fince they have been allow'd to dilier ( not m mere 224 The SENTIMENTS mere points and accentSy but ) in at leaft 200 iioords ? 4. If we follow the Wejlern copies ; how are we to decide here again ( for the queftion immediately recurs ) between many MSS, all containing fome miftakes ? 5. From what fort of a MS was the Heb. Bible firft printed, about 250 years ago ? 6. li iromfeverdlMSS', did the editor y?- lecl out of them the beft and trueft readings ? 7. If that be afferted ; what proof have we of that editor's infallibility ? 8. If he had any Mafora^ to regulate his judgment, was that Mafora perfedt, and con- liftent ; and was it form'd upon uncorrupted, at leaft, upon very ancient, copies ? 9. If his Mafora was formed on late and corrupted copies, and inconfiftent with itfelf, as well as imperfeft ; would not fuch a rule lead him to eftablifh wrongs inftead of true^ readings ? 10. V/hen other editions of the Heb. Bible were printed afterwards, did the editors of thefe print from the firft : and if fo j where^ and by whom, was that firft edition printed ? 1 1 . If thefe editors did not copy from the firft ; from what fort of MS, or MSS, did each of them publifli : and were their MSS of Of THE JEWS. 225 of greater, or lefs, authority than thofe us'd by the firft editor ; and Why ? 12. As there have been printed near 100 editions of the Heb. Bible ; do they all con- tain tie fame true text ? 13. If the text of thefe different editions varies ( as it does, not in the points only, but in at leaft 25 words) which of thefe 100 edi- tions is fo fortunate as to contain the true text : and Why ? A Queftion ! which ( it is prefum'd ) cannot be anfwer'd by the ableji advocate for the Integrity of the printed Heb, text, 14. \i no fmgle printed edition contains the true text ; how are we fure, that it is contained in them all together ? 15. Should it be allow'd to lie fcatter'd in them all j by what rules is it to be colledled into one volume : or how are we to deter- mine as true any reading, admitted ( fuppofe ) into 50 of the printed copies, but rejeded by the other 50 :'or, are 51 to be always decifive againfl 49 ? 16. If an Heb. Bible is printed without the Keri, in the margin ; is it therefore imperfect : and if it muft have the Keri, how often muft it have it, in order to make a perfe5i edi- tion ? 17. As 226 The SENTIMENTS 17. As Elias Levlta reckons the marginal variations 848 ; has the Bomber g edition too manyy in admitting 1 1 7 1 ; or has the Flantin edition too few y in allowing but 793 ? 18. When the exadl number of the Keri is fettled ', is it, in any one inflance, to be pre- ferr'd to the reading in the text : if fo ; does not that prove the non-integrity of the text ? * 19. If the Keri be fometimes the truer reading -, is it fo univerfally ? 20. And if it be true fometimes, and not univerfally ; how are we to determine here, as well as in all the preceding cafes, with any degree of certainty : without recurring, after all, to the fame rules of criticifm, by which the learned agree to fix the true text of the new Teftament, and of all other ancient writings ? Now as feveral of the preceding articles can only be fettled by references to the Jews ; it is of principal concern to fearch after and exa- mine fuch amongft the Jewifh writers, as are moft likely to furnifli full and fair evidence. And here the author, moft likely to give the reader juft fatisfaffion, in point of honefty as * ^i poterit afcendere itt cor, ut Icgeretur ipfum Keri ; ^ relinqueremus fcripturam, qua fcripta erat per digitum Dei ? Chaim's Pref. fe(^. 15. well Of the jews. ^27* well asfkill, is Rabbi Jacob Ben Chaim ; who was, not only one of the chief Jewifh critics, but had the care of the large Bomber g edition, printed at Venice in 1526; and alfo prefix d to that edition a very long Preface. But this Preface being printed in the Rab- binical charadler, which few Chriftians can read, and fewer explain; no wonder it has continued almoft as unknown, as if it had never exifted. And this obfcure fate has at- tended it, the rather; becaufe fome few, who could have tranflated it, did not choofe to publifh what was unfriendly to their own fa- vourite opinions. A few lines indeed have been, now and then, quoted from it by dif- ferent authors. And Claudius Cappellanus ( in a valuable little book, which fhall be more particularly mention'd hereafter ) has given feveral fentences of the original, with a Latin tranflation : which whole book of Cappellanus was afterwards re-publi£h'd in a collection of fmall tracfts (10 vol. in I2^) caWd Fafciculus Opufculorum &c. Rotterod. 1700. The fpecimens, thus publiflh'd, have long rais'd a defire in the Learned, to know the whole of a Preface, WTOte by fo remarkable an author ; which has been prefum'd to con- tain many things of real importance. It was E e there' 228 The SENTIMENTS therefore matter of agreeable furprize, to dif- cover lately, in the Bodleian library, a MS, which contains a Latin tranjlation of this Pre- face, A Curiofity ; which ( tho' its Latin drefs be very uncooth ) has been thought fo refpedt- able for its fenfe, that the publication of it has been earneftly recommended. I very rea- dily comply with this advice ; and as truly- critical Readers would not willingly lofe any material part of this Preface, I (hall here give almoft the whole ; omitting only repetitions that are needlefs, and a few parts that feem unneceflary. And, at the end of this Preface, I {hall offer fuch remarks upon it, as will prove it to have the moft intimate connexion with the prefent enquiry into the State of the printed Heb. "Text. Cappellanus fays oi h "■-'' Prtrfatio fplendida R. Jac. ben Chaim nullum y quern fciamy haSie- nus invenit interpretem^ qui earn latinis typis proferret : a paucis cognita fuit latinis autho- ribus y fuit que ipfs tanquam non edit a, Tota fcatet qucejiionibus criticis Biblicisy agens de v A R I AT I o N I B u s fcriptur(^ 'y & fatetur di- fertis verbisy Talmud repugnare Maforce & ho- dierno contextui, Fortajfe tot am illam prafatio- nem ( quam jampridem promiferat Buxtorfus fenior ) cum necejfariis obfervationibus & ani- madverfonibusy Of THE JEWS. 229 madverjionibusy aliquando latinitate donahimus. Par. 2, cap. 4. At the top of the firft page of this tranfla- tion, are the words following^ which feem to imply, that the tranflator liv'd in the pariih of St, Ethelburg ( perhaps was Reftor there ) and that he corrected his tranflation at Tot- tenhain, by the affiftance of the Jew here mention d Ad D. Ethelbur. Lond. 1601, yuluG'', Tottenhamiy correxi -, opera & aiixilio honejlijjimi viri Jacobi Wulff-gangi Judm, And on the cover we read — TranJIatio Prafatio- nis Hebraiccey quam Bombergi Bibliis prccfixit Judceus quidam Tunetanusy eo7'unde?7i Bibliorum corredtor ad prcelum. THE PREFACE O F Rabbi JACOB BEN CHAIM. LAuDETUR Creator &c. — Deus dedit linguam SANCTAM legis & prophetarum populo fuo. Illi norunt fecreta ejus, gramma ticalia ejus, & fmgula particularia ejus, flra- taque viarum ejus. Viri S^^nagoga Magnce, quafi lux fplendidif- fima & aurum defaecatum { in quorum cordibus omne Ilatutum fuit certo decretum ) erexerunt figna, & adificarunt ei prsemu- nitiones, & murum, & fcrobem inter muros ; & pofuerunt ve6les & valvas, ad muniendum fortalitium ejus, ut relinquerent earn pu- ram & mundam ( accedunt enim omnes ad nubem fcindllae doc- trinae ejus) ut nemo extenderet manum fuam ; & ne qua pes earn conculcet, pofuit cuftodiam omni ftulto : ligarunt etiam ligamen- ti« fufilis auri verba ejus. Et requievit Spiritus fuper illo.sj & ce- E e 2 lebres 230 The SENTIMENTS lebres fuerunt, & prophetati funt, & non ceiTarant. Poft illos abfcondita eft vifio, 8c fcaturigo ejus claufa : non fuit amplius Angelas Domini j nam non furrexit poft illos, qui faceret opera eorum. Et ecce nos, qui hie fumus hodie, colligimus fpicas eo- rum, quarum illi obliti funt : omifimus item non necefTaria, quae illi aliquoties inferebant. Die autem & nofte currimus per vefti- gia eorum, & defatigamur ; neque tamen apprehendimus cos. Sect. II. Tranquillus fui in domo mea, & vlrens in palatio meo ; intentus doftrinae me^, in Tunis, civitate, quae eft in vi- ciniis Carthaginis antiquae. Movit me autem tempiis in regiones occidentales, & impulit me hue Venetias. Circiter poft tres menfes dixi in corde, Surgara & circuibo civitatem. Deus ob- viam ire fecit mihi virum quendam e fanftis Chriftianis ( n>Dn?3 CDn2fi;jn ) cujus nomen fuit Daniel Bombergus. Adduxit me in domum typographicam ejus ; 8c dixit, Cupio ut corrigeres li- bros imprimendos, 8c removeas ab iis offendicula err or urn ^ 8c pur- ges, & defaeces eos in fornace diligentiftimarum infpeftionum, & appendas eos in lancibus redlitudinum j ut tandem prodeant in lucera candidilTimi, purgatilBmi ut defaecatum argentum. Quam- vis autem videbam deliderium ejus majus quapi quod comprehend dere potui ; tamen dixi in corde. Nemo debet refragari magno viro. Dixiraus ei ; quod ego ncn no-vi totum hoc, neque id quod eft propinquum huic. Infuper, propterea quod opinio mea te- nuis eft, fimilis fum ego pugioni humili ; (adeo ) ut ( fi ) aggre- derer res magnas, quales funt iftae, exibit ex eo defolatio. Secun- dum illud R, Ifmaelis, " Fili mi, cautus efto in opere tuo : opus ** tuum eft opus Dei : & ft forte omiferis literam inventam, vel •Mnferas non inventam, deftruas mundum univerfum." Quanto autem magis hoc tempore, in quo non eft difcrimen inter Legem fcriptam & non fcriptam ; a tempore enim quo defcripta eft in libros, non eft difcrimen inter hanc & illam. Quoniam ex hoc contingat, ut tu fcribas loco prohibiti legitimum, & loco legitimi prohibitum. Ideoque non confidam nimium opinioni mes, ufque dum viderim, inter libros correBiores^ duos vel trei ; fi faerint confentientes inter fe, bene ; & fi non, nos volumus declarare ex jilis quod videtur nobis minime dtwum ; & emendabimus illud, dum Of THE JEWS. 231 dum appareat nobis id quod clarum eft. Et modo admonuerunt R. Mofes B. Nachman & R. Sol. B. Eleazer, ut non corrigerent €X opinione propria. III. Evenit autem, ut excitaret Deus fpiritum nobiliffimi viri, cum quo verfatus fum ; & confortavit cor ejus^ ad imprimendum 24 libros. Dixit itaque mihi, Accingas ut fortis lumbos tuos ; cupio enim imprimere 24 libros, cum commentariis Rabbino- rum, Chaldaica Paraphrafi, Mafora magna & parva, Keri & Cetib, & eis qurs plene fcribuntur & qus defedlive, & castera grammaticalia : in fine erit Mafora magna, fecundum ordinem Aruc { i. e. alphabeticum. ) Qiium autem vidcrim rem glorio* fam cfTe, ad oftendendam excellentiam Legis noftrse fanclcC ( ab eo enim die quo primum defcripta eft nihil tale contigit, five refpicias ordinem ejus five prasftantiam ) intendi omncs nervos ingenii mei, ut fatisfacerem defiderio ejus. IV. Cum autem viderem multos e ccetu Sapisntum noftrorum, qui hac noftra aetate vivunt, non ordinaffc cor fuum erga MafTo- reth, * neque fequi in aliqua re fententiam Maforitarum ( dicunt enim, ^,eena?n utilitas confcqtiatur ex ea ? ) ita ut fere oblivion! tradita eft & deperdita ; excuffi lacertum meum, ut oftenderem dignitatem Maforae ; & quod fine ea impofiibile eft fcribcre libros refte & emendate, multo magis libros Bibliorum. V. Item ratiocinabimur contra quofdam e noftjis fapientibus noviffimis ; qui retulerunt, quod Keri & Cetib hac ratione inventa funt. Quum in deportatione prima perierunt libri facri ( nam illi ctiam tranfportati fuerunt) & fapientes, qui noverunt S. S. mor- tui fuerunt ; viri Synagogas magnas invenerunt libros diverfos in- ter fe difFerre ; & in loco, ubi invenerunt duhltationein & confu- fionem, adfcribebant unum, fed non punclabant ipfum ; vci ad- fcripferunt margin!, fed non in texta -, quia fuerunt dubii de eo quod invenerunt. * The words Mafora and Majfforeth are evidently us'd here, indifcriminately, for the fame thing. And thus Leufden tells us — Mafora eft vox, qua tribus tnodis folet efferri ; Mafora ^ Mafo- rethy & Mojforeth : quorum nominum primum eft omnium frcquen- tifjimum. Dc Mafora, Sedl. i. VI. Opinio 232 The SENTIMENTS VI. Opinio autem eorum longe abeft a meo fenfu ; quemad- modum declarabo, quum refpondero eis e Gemara. Deinde con- fiderabimus de difcrimine inter Gemara noftrum & inter autores Maforae, in multis locis ; ex iis autem omnibus eligemus melio- rem-, & adducemus ex eis id quod legerimus, & faciat ad nof- trum propofitum. Turn refpondebimus haereticis (CD'3'Dn) qui peffime loquuntur de nobis ; nempe aiunt, Nos alteralTe in lege noftra circiter i8 voces, quas noftri vocant Tikkun fopheritn & Ittur fopherim, Sc Ker'i 8c Cetia^ 8c redum ordinem eorum. De- nique ollendam, quern ordinem fecutus fim in Mafora parva Sc magna. Et primo ordincbo bellum contra fapientes pofteriores ; quoniam dicunc id quod eft probrofum Legi noftrae ; quod Keri &: Cetib fuerunt dubitationes quaedam, in quibus hasferunt viri magnae Synagogae. H^c autem iunt nomina & verba eorum. VII. Ephodteus ita fcribit. Caput fcribarum Ezra intendit omnes vires, ut corrigeret errores i & Jtc etiam fecerunt omnes fcribee^ qui ipfum fequebantur : correxerunt, inquam, iibros ijios tarn perfect e, quantum fieri potuit. Hoc fuit in caufa, quod ha - bemus illos tarn perfeilos, in numero feftionum & verfuum, dic- tionum & literarum, plene fcriptorum & defeflive, anomale^s & Hebraica phrafi ; fecerunt etiam de hac re libros multos, ut funt libri Mafora. In locis etiam, quibus acciderat corruptio 8c con- f'dfio^ appofuerunt Keri l^ Cetib \ quoniam dubitabant, utra ve- rior effet ( ex eis ) quae invenerint. VIJI. Quantum ad Kimchi attinet^ fatis mirari non potero, quod OS fan6lum loqueretur confentaneum huic : hoc autem eft verbum ejus. Apparet quod iftae voces inventae fuerunt, propte- rea quod in captivitate priori perierunt libri, quum tranfportati fuerunt de loco in locum; & fapientes etiam qui experti fuerunt in S. S. mortui funt; & viri Synagogae magnae, qui reduxerunt legem ad antiquam formam, quum inve?iijfent differ entias in libris ( ambularunt in eis pofi multitudnmn ) elegerunt inter illas quod fua npinione conz'eniebat cum plurimis exemplarihus ', & propter claritatem, fcripferunt unum, & non pundarunt illud ; aut fcrip- ferunt in margine & non in textu : & fie fcripferunt forma una in margine, & alia in textu. Hue ufque ille. IX. Abar- Of T HE JEWS. 233 IX. Abarbanel fic refpondit. Opinio ifta, qua confentiunt fapientes ifti, longe remota ell a meo fenfu. Nam quomodo po- tero in anima mea credere, & quomodo inducam ut loquatur la- bium meum. Quod Ezra invenerit librum Legis Dei, & libros Prophetarum ejus, dubiis implicates propter corruptionem is' con- fuponem : quum tamen liber Legis, cui deef! vel una litera, eft proplianatus j quanto magis per Keri & Cetib ; nam juxta Keri defunt in Lege multse literae 8cc. QusEro ab illis, num fuerit Keri & Cetib juxta id quod invenerunt in libris variis ; neque tamen innotefceret Ezrse, utra via eorum ( habitabat in luce ) vera elTet ; quod pofuerit duo exemplaria, unum in margine al- terum in textu. Siautemiic; quare in commentariis in Hagio- grapha fequatur [ Kimchi ] Temper ipfum Keri & non Cetib ? Et quare Ezra, quum fuerat res illi dubia, fecerit pun6lationem Temper convenire Keri & non Cetib ? Et fi hsec fuit illorum opinio, pofu- iffet certe exemplum Keri in textu, quoniam hoc verum eft. Se- cundo ; li hsc fuerat in caufa corruptionis, quae contingebat libris ex parte exilii; fequitur quod incidit propter cafum, juxta locum emaculatum aut inventum. Tu autem invenies in feftione "p "|^ fcriptum CD>OK "^12, Keri vero eft C2')2}£ "j^D ; & fic fcribi- tur femel alio in loco. Quid ? anne incidit cafu quodam litura & confufio in voce CD'Oi' femper ? & fic de reliquis : ut nij/i fcri- bitur *i;^3 in 22 locis, femel n")]/! ; idem dicendum de CD'^IDI^, nDniniD, mbXsl^*, r\^2'2W*. Sed res ipfa non eft fecundum id quod imaginarunt fapientes : ideoque propitietur illis Deus. X. Contendit itaque veritatem hujus rei penes fe efle : nempe Ezram & ccetum ejus invenifle libros perfeftos & integros ; &, antequam aufus effet addere puncta & accentus 8c fophpafuk, ip- fum infpexifTe textum ; & verba, qus videbantur illi irregularia fecundum naturam linguse & confenfum hiftorice, exiftimabat apud fe quod fuerit hoc neceftario propter unam harum duarum caufa- rum. Aut quod fcriptor intendebat in verbis anomalis iftis e fe- cretis quae latent in lege j ideoque non extendit manum fuam ex- pungere quid e libris divinis, quia intellexit bene ex fuo fenfu, quod fapientia excellenti confcripti fuerunt fic : aut quod propter aliquam fpecialem caufam fcriptse fuerunt per liieras defcientei Sc redun- 234 The SENTIMENTS redundafitt's & phrafi anomala. Ideoque reliquit eas fcriptas in textu quemadmodum fcribuntur j veruntamen pofuit in margine ipfum Keri, quod eft interpretatio fcripturae anomalae iftius fecun- dum naturam linguce & literalem fenfum : & hujus generis inve- nies omne Keri & Cetib, quoe funt in Lege. XI. PofTibile ell, Ezram putafTe, quod fuerunt in libris fanftis didliones & voces, quae non fcribebantur fic per anomaliam fuam, fed propter aliquam certam caufam -, aut propterea quod qui lo- quebatur ilia non f nit expertus in grammatical quemadmodum de- cuit ; aut propter abbrevationem fcientiae grammatices confcripta, & illud fuiffe a propheta per ignorantiam qus exiit coram prin- cipe. Ideoque necefle fuit exponere veritatem didlionis iilius fe- cundum hiftoriam. Et hoc eil fignificatum ipfius Keri, quod po- fuit in margine ; quoniam timuit fcriba ianflus extendere manum ad verba eorum qui loquuntur ( II^llpH HHl ) per Spiritum fanc- tum, & ad eorum fcripta. Hoc autem fecit ex proprio fenfu, hoc eft, ut exponeret diftionem & vocem iftam ; pofuerunt autem in margine, ut effet i?iterpretatio ; nam ilia interpretatio eft ex fe. Et non eft dubium, quin fic acceperunt a prophetis & fapientibus generationis ejus, quae prasceffit eum. Et ecce multa e Keri & Cetib, in libro Jeremiad, funt hujus generis; fcripfit ilia Jere- mias per errorem & ignorantiam : & eft Keri expojiiio. Et fic eft Cetib & Keri ; quura viderit Ezra voces fcriptas non fignificare fecundum literalem fenfum : ideoque non appofuit illis pundla omnino, neque legebat. Et hinc fcias ; quod libris, quibus in- cidit multa hujufmodi, iftud eveniffe propter defe£lum loquentis in fcientia phrafium linguae, vel in fcientia grammatices fcriptu- rse. Ideoque funt in libris Jeremiae 8i Keri & Cetib, & in libro Samuclis ( quem fcripfit Jeremias ) funt 133. Sed in lege Dei, quae eft quadruplo major libro Jeremiae, non funt Keri k Cetib nili 65. Hue ufque fermo ejus. Et fic progreditur; & numerat, quot Keri & Cetib occurrunt in quolibet libro, ut oftendat quis fuerit e prophetis magis cxercitatus in grammatica hujus lingua. Xn. Refponfiones autem ejus mihi minime placent ; quem- admodum oftcndero, quum difputavero contra ilium. Verunta- men dubitationes ejus, quae movit contra Kimchium & Epho- dieum. Of THE JEWS. 235 daeum, bonae funt & reftse. Et quum refpondero refponfionibus ejus, reprehendentur etiam illi, quoniam omnes iilae funt folutio- nes dubiorum j & opinio Kimchi & Ephodaei in univerfum funt ex conjedura. Nos autem non habemus prseter Talmud nof- trum, quod accepimus pro nobis ( Anglice, taken upon us to foU low) quoniam cor antiquorum eft quali porta Ulam ; illi funt ve- races. Dice cum Abarbanele, quod Ezra & focii ejus invenerunt libros Legis perfedlos & integros, quemadmodum fcripti fuerunt in initio. Sed id quod dicit, quod Keri eft commentarius fcrip- turae anomaltc, non eft verum. R. Ifaac dicit, Leftio & emen- datio fcribarum, & ledio quse legltur & ( non ) fcribitur, & fcrip- tio quae fcribitur & non legitur, ftatutum eft Mofi in Sinai. Ledio fcribarum, ut QnKD WCyU *p5^. Emendatio fcribarum, ut nnj/n nnx ; & i^n *nnK ; & flD^in nni< ; & inx D>nti' lonp D0J13 ; & ^N H'nnD "IDpiy. Leguntur haec, & non fcribuntur j nnD in verfu IDD^H j item W^ in verfu "inTn i:>'"K ^N*iil^> nti'XD Dn^NH ; item D>K1 in verfu r\r\Vyi ; item Pi!? in verfu HD'^D ; item h)!< in verfu pUH ; item ^h\< in verfu D*^^!^;!. Haec au- tem fcribuntur, & non leguntur ; N3 in verfu n^D> ; item DX in verfu HIKDH ; item "]m> in verfu "l^nn ; item Xom in verfu 5:i3 riND ; item CDK in verfu ^,^U 'D. Hucufque Gemara. JIH in verfu n^I^DH ; junt 'qui dicunt z^t in Paraftia pnr.N ; fed non eft verum. Nam non invenitur in noftris libris ; item Mafora non facit mentionem ejus. Veruntamen in Mafora recenfentur omnia haec ; & prsterea addidit illis plura alia : attamen non me- minit n« capituli m2^D,1, fed DK capituli IL'Din, quod fcriptum reperitur in Jeremia, Vivet Dominus, qui fecit nobis ii-'DSn r~lK nK?n. Et R. S. Jarchi interpretatur Tii^ in verfu niKDri, quod fcribitur in Jeremia. Hucufque ille. Xni. Ecce colligimus, quod tradita faerunt Mi?/? /» 5'/»<7/ j & Ezram non pofuiffe Keri, ut eflet interpretatio ; & quod non vi- debatur ei, anomaliam ejfe ; quod abfit : neque fuerunt ei dubia, neque confufa ; fed omnia ea fuerunt tradita Mofi. Et rurfura difficile eft illud in oculis, quod dicit : Et fic quemadmodum in- venit Ezra fcriptum in lege oVlD^'^, quod fignificationem habet n3U eminentias j neque enim novimus, quid funt CS^nUJn ilia j F f oeceife 236 The sentiments neceffe cfl exponere per Keri, qaod funt QmnD : & fic n:ibX\i;% quia bw dicitur de regina, exponitur in Keri per njDDIi^'. Hucur. que ille. Non eft autem fecundum verba ejus. Rabbini aperte docent ; quod textus, fcripti in lege in verbis minus honeftis, legunt- ur in verbis honeftis. Quum princeps Abarbanel dicit, quod qui locuti funt non fuerunt experti in grammatica ; miramur, quod verbum hoc exiit ex ore hominis tantae opinionis. Num quis ex- iftimare poterit, Prophetas ifiexpertes fuifle in hifce omnibus ? Sin vero ita faerit ; turn ille fuit doftior illis, in grammatica He- braica. Non vivam, fi credidero hoc. Sin autem fuerit per ig- norantiam ; quare propheta, aut ille qui loquutus eft per Spiri- tum fandlum, non correxerunt errata? Fierine poteft, Mt error incidat in libro Jeremiae 81 vices, & in Samuele circiter 133 ; ut propheta infignis incidat in errores hujufmodi ? Conclufio eft ; videtur, quod abftt, quod Abarbanel nunquam viderit ipfum Ge- mara. Nam fecundum Talm.ud non relucet id quod dicit ; i. e. contrariatur ipfi Talmud, vel non eft ejufdem fententiae cum illo. Sed fortaffe fuerit ille fpiritus alterius, & non latuit ilium ( quod Deus avertat ) Talmud. Si quis dicat. Hoc non invenimus in Talmud, nempe Keri & Cetib, item Ittur fopherim &c. fed id quod recenfetur in Gemara, recenfetur in Mafora totum hoc, & praeterea adduntur plura alia : dicam, quod id quod recenfetur in Gemara, id omne efle traditum Mofi^ reliqua non. Et certum eft, quod in Mafora recenfetur totum hoc, & adduntur eis plura alia : & adduntur etiam alia quam quae occurrunt in traflatu DHDID. XIV. Dicit R. Simeon : Tres libri inventi fuerunt in (ab ) Ezra. In uno invenerunt >nbx p^D, in duobus M^K riilJ/D ; confirmarunt duo, & rejecerunt unum. In uno >3n >IDWr ^Kl n> vb'Q) Vk b'HCW* in duobus vero ---01 >VVN ^N1 ; refervarunt duo, & rejecerunt unum. Hucufque ille. XV. Si autem hasc res ita fit ( ut dicit Abarbanel ) quod ideo non extenderet manum fuam Ezra ad expungendum quicquam e libris Dei, quoniam intellexit ex fua opinione, quod fapienter fcrlpta fuerunt ; non poterit evadere unam harum difFerentiarum Aut quod ipfe noverit ilia fuifle tradita a Mofe ; aut quod fuerunt dubitationes, uti exponit Kimchi & Ephodaeus. Si dix- cris. Of the jews. 237 eris, ipfum non novilTe quod fuerunt data Mofi ; quare non ex» punxit, & fequutus eft majorem partem ; quoniam in tribus libris, qui inventi fuerunt apud Ezram, fequebantur majorem partem ? Sin autem dixeris omnes fuilTe limilcs ; & ideo prohibebatur, ne attingeret eos ut expungeret quicquam, fed pofuit Keri in mar- gine : fi res ita fit, doccat nos quomodo legitur in libro Legis ; quum prohibitum eft legere vel unam tantum literam, qus non eft in Scriptura. Qui poterit afcendere in cor, ut legeretur ipfum Keri ( quod eft emendatio Ezrae, ut efTet expolitio anomalise quae erat fcripta in textu, fccundum opinionem ejus ) & relinqueremus Scripturam, quse fcripta erat per digitum Dei ? Sed efto : tamen eft neceffum nobis dicere, quod omnia ifta tradita fuerunt Mofi in Sinai. XVI. Infapcr rogabat quidam a R. Samuele, Quomodo lici- tum eft legere quod non eft in fcriptura ? Refpondebat ; Quod interrogafti, quomodo minifter congregationis legat yifcabennah, quum fcribitur yifcalemiah, Sc in reliquis vocibus quibus accidit Keri & Cetib ; quoniam ea omnia fcripta funt fecundum Mafo- ram, & non fecundum Keri ---refponfio eft: Ifta funt tradita Mofi ; & in pofterum eft nulla dubitatio. Quanquam venerint in lege feepijjime Keri & Cetib, prater ea, qme occur ru?it in Tal- mud-y fm autem fuerint dubitationes, quomodo non recenfentur ilia cum his qui inveniuntur in trzStzmfopkerim P Quoniam. non numerat, nifi tria. Si ita fit, reliqua omnia fuerunt dubitationes : & fi dubitationes erant, ipfe fecutus effet majorem partem exem- plorum, quemadmodum fequebatur in iftis traftatus fopheri?n\ neque afHxus effet his, quae funt in margine. XVII. Neceffe eft ut concedas ; aut quod fuerunt tradita Mofi, & revelata funt ei (Ezrae) aut quod non revelata funt ei, quod fie tradita fuerunt Mofi. Si non ita revelata funt, ipfe novit certo certius, quod fic neceflario oportet fieri ; quoniam fic acceperunt a prophetis. Quid eft igitur quod afHrmat Abarbanel ; quod ti- muit Ezra fcriba fanftus immittere manum in verba eorum, qui loquebantur per Sp. Sanflum ? Et rurfum hoc difficile eft ; fi acceperint a prophetis & fapicntibus iftius generaiionis ; quare non ea correxerunt ipfi prophetae & fapientes iilius generationis? F f 2 Audi- 238 The sentiments Audivifti ipfum loquentem : ita oportet non credere pro certo quemadmodum ilatuit Rabbinus magnus. Concludimus, ex om- nibus iilis, quod Keri & Cetib, & omnes confuetudines Maforse, fint ex traditionibus earum, quse datse funt Mofi in Sinai ; ficut legimus in Talmud. XVIII. Veruntamen invenimus ifi multis locis, quod Talmud contrariatur ipfi Major a : ut invenimus in traftatu Niddah^ in feftione Benoth Cuthiim — juxta hunc verfum ; Lev. 15, 10, 'HKWyiPi qui portabit; Kll'^n autem fcribitur, cum defe<5lu Vaw, Additiones vero quasllionem movent ; Mirum eft, quod in Mafora hoc vocabulum plene fcribitur. Sed refpondent, quod Talmud contrarium Maforae : quemadmodum invenimus in traftatu De SabbatOy in feflione 'Brrmah behemah, juxta hoc flii Eli mahi- rim \ fcribitur CD'^Oj*D. H^c autem funt ^verba Gemarae ibi ; Dicit R. Hauna, CunOj^D fcribitur. Hucufque ille. XIX. R. S. Jarchi dicit: Miror valde de fapiente illo, de quo mentio fadla eft in hoc loco j nam dico, quod eft magnus erro:, & non revelatur ei res haec. Quoniam ecce in libris cor- reSiioribus fcribitur CD'IOX^D plene. Et in Mafora magna, in loco ubi numerant omnes didliones, in quibus eft Tod quod non legitur, non numeratur hoc : illi tamen numerant notis arithme- ticis. Hoc autem eft praster propofttum quaeftionis ; propterea quod CDHOi^D non habet fenfum ( n"n03/ ) tranfgrejffionis : fed eft ejufdem fignificationis cum HlinDU !?1p TlO^n ^ tranftre fe- tenint vocem in cajiris. — Ecce ni3*"lOi?D eft num. plur. & refer- tur ad populuin^ non 2.^ filios Eli\ quoniam illi fuerunt nzsn^lj; tranjgrejfores^ Sc non CDHO^r^- Hucufque verba ejus. XX. Autor additionum fcribit de hoc : l^nlmud^ que?n nos ha- lenius, coutrariatur libris quos hnbemus ; in quibus fcriptum eft CZ}nOyD= Et fic invenimus in Talmud Hierufolymitano,. de Samfone ; quod ille judicaret Ifraeleni 40 annos : docens, quod Philiftsei timebant ilium 20 annos poft mortem fuam, quemadmo. diim timebant ilium in vita fua. Quum in omnibus libris quos ha- bemus fcribitur 20 annos. Hucufque ille. Videtur autem mihi, quod nihil omnino pertinet ad cuaeftionem hoc de Samfone j quoniam Of the jews. 239 quoniam Talmud intellexit fecundum id quod eft in Deras. Quare dicitur bis, quod judicabat Ifraelem 20 annos ? Refpondet R. Acha; Timebant eum 20 annos poft mortem fuam, & 20 alios in vita ; quae funt 40 anni. Sed & ille judicabat Ifraelem 40' annos, per communem acceptationem ( allegorice. ) Nunc planum eft : confidera autcm tu diligentius. Hucufque ille. XXI. Miror autem R. S. Jarchi, qui fuit cxercitatus in Ma- fora, & opinio ejus eft fecundum fententiam autorum Mafors ( ut fupra apparet juxta verba de filiis Eli) qu^ftionem m.ovit e Ma- fora contra R. Hauna ; quum fcribit, Ego dico quod efi error in- JjgTtis &c. Et ecce invenimus in multis locis, quod opinio ejus eft non fecundum fententiam autorum Mafor^ ; juxta hasc verba ^ filii CD^tiU^'DH con cub in arum ; ut fcribit in commentariis in Pentateuchum, quod in Cetib deficit Tod\ quafi non fuerit ei nift una li'J^D concubina j ilk autem fuit Hagar, qu^e eadem cum Keturah. Hie autem fecutus eft Berefliith Rabba. Et fic in hoc loco : ^ fa^um eft in die mViD, fcribitur n^D. Hucufque ille. Et certe manifeftum eft, quod fcribitur in Mafora CD'^dU^DH bis plene : unum eft hoc ipfum, de quo modo : & alterum eft, per manum Hagai cuftodis CZJ>t:>:i^>Dn \ & fic, in die ni7D Mofis^ fcribitur in Mafora parva, IJon plene. Et rurfum invenimus, quod ipfe explicat ( in expolitione Pentateuchi in Paraftia pnnNI ) mnrD poftes domus ; ntllD fcribitur, quia non eft neceffarium ut fit plus una. Et miror propterea, quod in Pv^afora eft fcriptum plene m?nD. XXII. R. S. Jarchi, loco QDDir'DD >i^>Dtia, legit >l'nt:a CDDDl^'DD \ nos vero legimus licut Mafora magna, & non ficut Jarchi. Infuper in traftatu Menachoth, R. S. Jarchi non contra- riatur ipfi Talmud -, quod tamen adverfatur liuris correBioribus. In feftione V^Qli* DN n^m fcriptum eft DDtODb ; at in feflione "]Ka> >D n*m fcribitur riDiOID^I : fed inter D & D non fcribitur Vaw. Sed ego vidi in libro T^aghi antiquilhrno, quod etiam in priore feftione fcriptum eft riDDID^ ; fed inter S & D non fcribi- tur T^zv; contra mDEDID*^, quod in Gemara, in pofteriore fec- tione ; fed in hbris correaioribus, non Vaw inter "^ h Vs. Mira- mur, quomodo duo intelligantur ! Quod ft velimus,dicere, fervari regulam 240 The SENTIMENTS rcgulam fubftrahendi adjiciendi & exponendi j bene eft : fed non invenimus, quod hoc licitum eft, nifi in initio aut fine didlionis. Ccnfuetudo fuit 7almudijlarum, contradicere aliquoties autoribus Maforce. Et in Berejhith Rabba inveni in*^. Dicit R. ^dai, quod fcribitur nii' fine % intelligens Potipharem. Koc autem dubitare me facit; quod non inveniturin ullis libris, quod fit hoc loco ullus defedus: & refpondeo iterum, Talmud contradicere Maforitis certis in lociu XXIII. Eft mirandum valde, quod invenimus, R. S. Jar- chium & Saadiam ilkiftrem proferre quadam Keri is' Cetib, qua non inveniuntur in ullis libris Maforitarum. Jarchi fcribit, quod in hoc verfu pfalmorum (qui defcendere facit populmn meum ^nnn fubter me) in libro fuo Keri fuit TTinn & Cetib ^nnn : ego vero, diligenter fcrutatus, non invenio in Mafora magna. Et Saa- dias, in tine Danielis ( in verfu Et venit rex e Jeptentrione, ^ ftruxit aggerem, ^ cepit civitatem) facit Keri & Cetib in dic- tione innnD & Vnifno : quaefivi autem in libris Maforse, inter omnes literas permutatas, neque tamen hoc inveni. Mirari fatis non potero, quomodo fieri poffit ut Mafora abfcondatur ab hu- jufmodi illuftribus viris ; quoniam in Mafora, quam nos habemus, eft plane erratum. Veruntamen fateor illos fuilfe magis exercita- tos in omnibus di<5lionibus hujufmodi quam nos; & nos fumus quafi caeci in feneftra, refpeftu illorum. XXIV. Dubitavi multoties de hoc, poftquam obfervaffem foli- tum eile Talmudijlis contradicere Maforitis, quemadmodum decla - ravimus fupra in plenis ^ defedlivis ; fecundum quam opinionem fcribimus librum legis : quod enim eft reSfum huic eft profanum tjii Impraemeditatus refpondeo; Quod fecundum Talmud, quod nos habemus, fcribimus librum legis ; quoniam hoc eft quod rccepimus in nos obfervare,& illi fuerunt magis experti in Mafora quam nos fumus. Veruntamen vidimus, quod Jarchi argumen- tatur ex Mafora contra Talmud noftrum ; & dicit, quod erratum eft id quod reperitur in Gemara. Et autores etiam additamento- rum ratiocinantur ex Mafora contra Talmud noftrum ; & faciunt fundamentum e Mafora. Si autem Mafora non fuerit fundamen- tum, non moverent quaeftiones ex ea contra Talmud. Intelligi- mus O F T H E J E W S. 241 mus ex eo ; quod omnes libri, & emendatio librorum legis in univerfum facienda eft ex fententia Maforitarum. Etenim viri fynagogse magnas magni fuerunt, ita ut confidere. liceat illis. E- tiamfi in locis aliis quaeftio movetur ex Mafora contra Talmud. Sic mihi videtur. XXV. Sed nulla eft omnino ratio, quare dubitarent Haeretici, nos immutaffe aliquid in lege, propter id quod viderunt Ittur fo- pherim & Tikku?i fopheri?n, 8c Keri 8c Cetib 8cc. Res autem eft, ut mihi videtur, quod in initio homines plebei non fuerunt probe inftrudli in S.S. ideoque legebant ^nxi [Ge7i. 18, 5] nnxi \_P/, 68, 24 ] 7DDti:^D1 [ F/. 36, 7 : ] fuerunt decepti in his verbis tempore illo ; & putarunt quod eftet fecundum re6las grammaticas leges. Sed venerunt fcribae, & fuftulerunt ifta Vaw^ 8c legebant "inN & 7DDti'D. Et quum videbant, quod fcribs fuftulilTent ifta Fazu ; vocarunt ifta vocahuh luur/opbenm. Tum venit R. Ifaac, & docuit nos, quod fuerunt tradita Mofi. Et ufque ad genera- tiones proximas huic noftrae aetati laici fuerunt decepti ; 8c lege- bant ( Exod. 23, 13) "JD bv V^^'* ^*^1 [&] ^on audietur ex ore tuo : at fcribae docebant, hoc non debere legi cum Fazu, Hucufque verba ejus. XXVI. Ecce autem vides, quod non mutaverimus quicquam ; qnod Deus prohibeat ( ft fuiffet in animo eorum quicquam im- mutafl'e, non revelaflent, nee dixifient, 1 8 efte voces Tikkun fo- pherim ) 8c infuper quod fcribae nihil immutarunt (quod Deus avertat ) neque emendarunt ; tantum indicarunt quod conveniret fcriptura^ ita loqui. Sed propterea quod immutavit quod fcrip-» tum erat propter gloriam majeftatis divinae. Conftdera autem tu ; & quaeras, moneo. Pari ratione in Keri & Cetib ; ecce of- tenderunt quid mutarunt, ft veiis dicere quod immutarunt quic- quam : quod Deus prohibeat. Sed nos, quum fumus ex coetu credentium, credimus quod ftnt omnia tradita Mofi in Sinai. Et fic etiam mfikkun fopherim i etiamft diceres, quod fcribae emen- darunt quicquam : neque prodeft neque obeft mihi in re qua- quam, quid haeretici garriunt. Infpice diligentius hijioriam Ptclo- mai regis, nempe in i 3 locos quo 5 illi immutarunt ; quoniam ex- prejfe indicarunt quare immutarunt ilia : i^ quicquid immtitabant filit 242 The SENTIMENTS fuit in eo quod ipfi fcribebant. Conclulio eft in hac re, nihil ha- bent quod loquantur contra. XXVII. Si non fuifTent viri Synagogas magn^, qui reduxe- rant coronam antiquitati, ambulaflemus ficut caeci ; neque inve- niffemus librum probe correclum, neque librum legis cui poffi- mus inniti. Ex. gr. fi di6lio qusedam fit cum 1 vel fine 1 ; non poterimus fcire, utra harum verior ; ni exifteret Mafora. Et li non extaret autor Maforae, quomodo poterimus fcire, num ve- rum vel falfum ? Et fic in eis, quas plene & quae defeftive fcri- buntur ; quoniam eft nobis mater Textus & mater Mafora. Ve- runtamen controverfia eft, utra harum viarum faciamus funda- mentum. Quum Mafora adducit notam in lingua Targum, eft in eo caufa oblata ad inveftigandum & intelligendum. Ideoque omnia quae potui invenire & colligere ex illis, in omnibus libris Maforse quos habui, omnia ea collegi & pofui in 24, iftis in locis quibus conveniebant. Et circuivi, & correxi in Mafora majori, ut facile invcnirentur. Et li valuifTem prolongare & producere omnes utilitates Maforae, & argQmenta eorum j effet prolixitas multa, & meditatio multa, & defatigatio carnis. XXVIII. Quum autem vidiffem utilitatem magnam, quae con- fequitur e Mafora majori 6f mifiori^ ^ Mafora rabbatha ; reve- lavi aurem domini Dan. Bombergi (cuftodiat ilium rupes mea & redemptor meus ! ) & oftendi illi utilitatem quas confequitur ex ea ; turn adhibuit omnes vires facultatis fuse, ut mitteret in omnes regiones, ad inveftigandum omnia quscunque inveniri poterant de Mafora. Et tandem ( laus Deo !) devolvebatur [l^jVjD^ de- zfohebantur'] ad manus noftras quidam e libris Maforae, quicquid poterat revelari. Et dominus prasdiftus non fuit piger, & manum fuam non contraxit, & dextram fuam non reduxit retrorfum a ftil- jando aurum e crumena {ua, quin educeret poiFeflionem librorum j & legati diligentes elTent ad inveftigandum eos in foraminibus, & fiftliris, & in omnibus locis ubi client. XXIX. Poftquam vero infpexilTem in libros Maforae, & dili- gentius confideraiTem, vidi illos confufos valde & conturbatos ; ade9 ut 7wn fuit in illis locus, ubi non fuit aliqua corruptio [non domus, in qua non ibi mortuus : ] hoc eft, versus quos addacit autor Ma- forae, Of THE JEWS. 243 forse, & confufio magna quas fult in illis. Quoniam ifti libri, in quibus Mafora fuit circumfcripta, non fuit Mafora fcripta fecun- dum ordinem verfuum, qui fuerunt in columna. Multi eorum fuerunt confcripti per mdos, Scfguras-, adeo ut non fuit poffibile intelligere per eos ullam rem, Quoniam intentio fcriptoris fuit, ut ornaret fcriptionem fuam; & non ut intelligeremus illam. Et infuper in multis eorum, fuerunt in capite paginae quafi quatuor lineae, & infra circiter quinque : femper fcriptor noiebat addere neque diminuere ; dividebat in medio aut in capite ; & fic abbre- viabat multa, ut aequales faceret lineas fuas. XXX. Cum autem vidiffem totam hanc confufionem, excufli fi- num meum in initio, ut ponerem omnem Maforam juxta ordi- nem verfuum. Et poftea perquifivi per libros Maforse, quos ha- bui compaftos feorfim, praeter id quod fuit fcriptum in circu^tu Textus. In locis vero, ubi erat interftitium fadtum a fcriptore, aut abbreviatio ; quaefivi in voluminibus Maforse, & ordinavi illos juxta id quod decebat. In locis autem ubi invenerim difcrimen inter libros Mafora?, hunc nempe dicentem ftc^ ilium vero dicentem fic, adduxi opiniones utriufque. Sic enim invenitur fcriptum circa textum hujus, quern impreffimus in Mafora pundlatum prop- ter difcrimen ; propterea quod non effet e lingua autoris Maforae. Et fic in locis ubi fuerat difficultas mihi, propter verba unius libri e Mafora, quum non inveniretur fecundum verba ejus in multis libris ; & in Mafora alia, forma alia : nee tamen fuerat difficile; aut in locis aliquibus, ubi fuerat y?^/ ipfi contrarium, aut fuerat erratum^ inveftigabam ufque dum inveniflem veritatem, fecundum paupertatem opinionis mea : & in aliquibus locis reliqui rem in dubio, Et lie multae fpecies declarationum ; quemadmo- dum inveniet fcriptas circa 24 hos ( libros ) quos impreffimus. Deus autem novit, quantos labores fuftulerim propter hoc : & jam hoc manifeftum eft unicuique, qui vidit me occupatum in eo. In correftione autem verfuum, non fuit poffibile ut corrigerem ; nifi cognorim omnes 24 memoriter, & hoc latet me. Et nifi cx- taret concordantia R. If. Nathanis, non fuit poffibile ut imprime- retur Mafora. Cum Mafora elTet perfeda, coadlus fui emendare & componere poftea Maforeth majus ; quod non fuit poffibile G g im- 244 The SENTIMENTS iniprimere illud circa aliquem librum, quia eft in quantitate fua magna : & ordinavi illud fecundum ordinem Aruc. XXXI. Ecce non prohibetur a me, in omni poteftate mea fa- cultatis mejE, emendare Maforam in omnibus emendatlonibus qua: pojftbile fuit ; ut relinqueremus iilam puram & purgatam ; & ut oftenderem populis & principibus pulchritudinem, quoniam bona alpedlu eft ; & hoc, propter diligentes ulilitatem fratrum noftro- rum & decus Legis noftrae fandae ; &: (propter) impletionem de- fiderii domini D. Bombergi, quantum poflibile fuit : nihilominus dejiderlum ejus fuit majus quam quod ajfequi potuero. Et fic in ex- pofitionibus pofui omnem valentiam meam virium mearum, ut corrigerem qua corrupt a fuerunt, quantum ajfequi poterat tenuitas mea opinionis. Et reverfus fum retrorfum propter laborem mul- tumj quoniam fomnium oculis meis non dedi, ut fatisfacerem illis, vel in hyeme vel in asftate : neque enim dolui furgere in node propter frigus ; & praeterea : quoniam defiderium meum fuit, ut viderem finem operis fan6li. Laudetur Creator ^ qui purgavit me, ut inciperem ^ perficnent. Recordare mei^ Deus miy propter bonum. Amen. Such then is the Preface of R. Jacob jB. Chaim -, and the obfervations upon it, more particularly relative to our prefent purpofe, may be fuch as follow. I . That this celebrated Jewifh critic ( and moft other Jewiih critics agree with him in the fame opinion ) lays his foundation in the ( fuppos'd ) extraordinary knowledge, illumi- nation, and infpiration oi the fnen of the great Synagogue ; * whofe decrees he conliders as * Virorum fyjiagoga magna pracipui 12; Jggausy Zacharias, Malachias, Zorobabel, Mardochaus, EjdraSy Jefuas, Saraias, Re^ galias^ O F T H E J E W S. 245 infallible, and of fovereign authority. See the preceding fedtions — i, 27. 2. That he fuppofes thefe men, thus illu- minated and infpir'd, to have been the authors of the Mafora; i. e. of that particular enu- meration of the chapters, and verfes, and words, and letters, with the marginal notes and other remarks, now commonly known by the name of Mafora, or Tradition. Sed:. i, 24, 27. 3. That this Mafora was thought by B. Chaim the grand prefervative, or rejiorer, of facred truth ; the fure and only rule for afcer- taining the genuine readings in the Heb. text of the old Teftament. Seft. 1,4, 12, 24, 27. 4. That the Mafora, thus highly extoU'd by B. Chaim ( and by others of the later Jew- ijfh writers ) is here ingenuoufly own'd to have been flighted, and its ufefulnefs denied, by feveral wife Jews then living. Seft. 4, 2 1 . 5. That this Mafora appears from B. Chaim gdli^iSy Mafapher, Rehum^ Nehemias. His f crib unt adfcitos fuijje alios ^ it a ut ntimerum 1 20 compter ent : cut cestui omnia deliria fun, qua pudet ad Mo/en rtferre^ auda^er imputant, Omnes eos eodem tempore vixijfe, volunt ; iff illorum plures ad tempora Alex- andri pervenijffe : quanqunm e captivitate Babylonica omnes Uberati Hienifalem petierint. Morinus, de integritate &c. p. 247. So that moll of the members of this traditionary fynagogue, accord- ing to the preceding wild notion, liv'd each about 200 years \ , G g 2 to za6 The SENTIMENTS to have been in a ftate of remarkable corrup- tion and confufion, as well as of negleft and contempt : fome parts of it not being to be procured, after very diligent enquiry; and thofe parts, which were colledted, proving fo felf- contradidlory in fome places, fo greatly cor- rupted in many other places, and wanting fo very much reformation, that even this learned and indefatigable editor of it found himfelf abfolutely incapable of corredling it thorough- ly. Se6l. 4, 28, 29, 30, 31. 6. That the marginal notes, call'd Keri^ were very different in different copies : fome having mo7'e than were mentioned in the Tal- mud (fecfl. 12, 16) and others having more than were mention'd in the Major a (feft. 21, 23 ) — that fome Jews confider'd the Keri only as explanatory (fed:. 10, 11) — others held them to be various readings y and thefe, either certainly better, or pojjibly better, than the readings in the text ( fed:. 5, 6, 7, 8, li, 16 ) — whilft others agreed with B. Chaim, in calling them by no name, nor determining any thing at all about them, excepting, that they were all deliver d to Mofes upon Sinai. For they feem to have thought, that by fa- thering thefe differences upon their Legiilator, they fhould at once get rid of all doubt and difficulty Of the jews. 247 difHculty concerning them. Sedl. 12, 13, 15,, 16, 17, 25, 26. 7. That B. Chalm was exceedingly embar- rafs'd, in labouring to reconcile his two great authorities, which were found very contradic- tory ( fed:. 6, 18, 19, 20, 22 ) — the 'Talmud, tho' allow'd to be the rule of light (fed. 12, 24 ) frequently contradiding the Mafora : and confequently the Mafora^ tho* allow'd al- fo to be the rule of right ( fed. 12, 22, 24 ) as frequently contradiding the Talmud. 8. That fome of the Rabbins have declared, that when their facred copies were formerly found to differ ; the way, in which they were correded, was to prefer thofe readings which were countenanc'd by the greater number of copies ( fed. 8, 14, 15 ) — and that B. Chaim himfelf allows, that formerly their facred books were tranfcrib'd by common and igno- rant men, who made miftakes ; which mif- takes were afterwards correded : adding, that fome other alterations had been made by the fcribes. Sed. 25, 26. 9. That the words of the Heb. copies, quoted in the Talmud and in other ancient Jewifh writings, diifer'd in many inftances from the words found in the later Heb. copies. Sed. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. 10. That 248 The sentiments 10. That, as the Jews generally allow Ezra to have correded many errors, which crept into their facred books during the troubles and diftrefles of their captivity ; fo Ephodaeus allows, that other errors were admitted after- wards y which were corrected by other fucceed- ing fcribes, as accurately as they were able. Seft. 5, 7, 21, 22. 11. That B. Chaira, often fpeaking (as other Jews do ) of fome copies being more cor- rect and others lefs correct, of fome words as legitimate and others as prohibitedy thereby al- lows — that their tranfcribers did err, and that their MSS did contain miftakes^ but that fome MSS had fewer mijiakes than others, or were more properly corrected. And that their copies did vary ^-oery frequently y is alfo mani- feftly implied in this queftion of B. Chaim — Si non extaret Mafora^ quomodo poterimus fcire num verum velfalfum ? The fame may be in- ferr'd alfo from his affertion in the words fol- lowing — Sine Mafora impofjibile ejl f crib ere libros reBe & emendate, Se6t. 2, 4, 19, 22, 27. 12. Laftly: that B. Chaim talks of being fatisfied in doubtful cafes, by finding two or three of the more corredl copies, which agreed in the fame readings : ( fed. 2 ) — and, where ,his authorities differ'd, that he endeavour d to feledi O F T H E J E W S. 249 fele5l the better reading ( fedt. 6 ) -— and thus, that his own opinion was, after all, forced to determine, in a cafe of this great importance ; in a cafe, where ( he tells us ) it was the opi- nion of the enthufiaftic R. Ifmael, that to omit or infer t improperly a Jingle letter y would be to dejiroy the univerfe. Sedt. 2. In fhort — that this editor reprefents his work as full of difficulty, and himfelf as under great diftrefs, for fear of miftakes ; which cannot be ac- counted for, if all the Heb. MSS, which he faw, agreed with one another and alfo with the ancient copies. And, as there could then have been neither difficulty, nor danger ; his diftrefs muft have arifen from the many places, in which he found his MSS to differ from each other and from the quotations of their ancient writers. And, in a word ; that the only guide he had, to diredl his fteps amidft thefe perilous variations, was The Masora, From the whole therefore of the preceding Preface and Remarks we may now draw the following inferences — that the Heb. MSS have not been tranfcrib'd, without their fhare of errors — that the Jews themfelves, tho' protefting againft wilful corruptions, acknow- ledge many variations made involuntarily by the 250 The sentiments the feveral tranfcribers — that they anciently correfted one copy by another, and the fewer copies by the mo7^e in number — but that, in later times, their great Rule for general cor- reftion, and for the redudbion of all the dif- agreeing copies to an harmonious uniformi- ty, was their (imperfe5i and corrupted) Ma- soRA : confequently that fuch Heb, MSSy as were found to agree moft, or were made to agree moft with this Mafora, were reputed THE BEST ; the neareft to original perfedlion, and the moft proper to be perpetuated by printing: agreeably to the definitive maxim of B. Chaim, Emendatio librorum in univerfum facienda eji ex fententia Maforitarum — sic MIHI VIDETUR. Upon an enquiry of this nature. Whether the prefent copies of the Heb. Text have, or have not, been delivered down in one uniform and uncorrupted ftate; it muft be of confe- quence, to refer to the ancient Jewifti writers, and compare the Heb. texts as quoted in their writings with the fame texts as now printed. In this view, the ancient Jewish wri- ters will hold the fame rank of utility, as to the ^/^Teftament, which the Christian Fathers maintain as to the new* And it may Of the jews. 251 may be remark'd, with regard to both ; that where they evidently meant to give the words {znd not merely the fenfe J of Scripture; there fuch quotations ( no doubt ) agreed with their ancient facred copies : which facred copies may have fuffer'd many alterations from tran- fcribers fince, and in the very pafTages thus quoted. If fo ; the quotations in fuch ancient writers muft now differ from the modern fa- cred copies : unlefs fuch quotations have been ( by the later tranfcribers of them) affimilated and rendered comformable to the later facred copies. But then ; tho' we may, thro' this un- holy zeal, be depriv'd of fome various read- ings, both in the Jewiih Rabbins and in the Chriftian Fathers; yet where the quotations now differ from the modern facred copies, fuch quotations are of fufficient confequence to engage our attention. The confideration of this point, tho' of great ufe as to the new Teftament, where many errors of the tranfcribers are allow dy will be of much greater ufe as to the old Teft- ament, where fuch errors have been peremp- torily denied: and where it has been paffion- ately infifted upon, in favour of the Integrity of the prefent Text, that no injiances could be prodiicd of any texts quoted by anciejit fewijh H h writersy ^52 The SENTIMENTS uritcrsy where the words differ d from the mo- dern facred copies, Ben Chaim, in his Pre- face, has furnifh'd feveral proofs of fuch va- riations ; even now fubfifting, in the Talmud itfelf, and in other ancient books of the Jews. And, as I apprehend this point to be of no fmall importance; I fhall confirm his authori- ty by a few extracts from Claudius Cap- PELLANUS, an author already mentioned ( pag. 227 ) whofe little book is exprefly upon this fubjeft. It is call'd Mare Rabbinicum injidum\ Paris 1 667 : and it undertakes to prove — ^od T^almudijlce & Rabbim aliter aliquando re^ ferunt facrum contextum, quam 7iunc fe habeat * in nojiris exemplaribus Hebraicis ; &y quod no?i ejl Jidendum Rabbinis, From this book ( which is very fcarce ) I fhall now feledt a few paf- fages ; fuch, as will not only furnifh new evi- dence, and that in one or two articles parti- cularly curious ; but alfo prove a necefTary fupplement to B. Chaim's preface. Pag. 3 y Cappellanus afferts — plurimis va- rietatibus & mutationibus femper obnoxium fuiffe Hebrceum context um^ ut jam in confejjo ejl apud omnes'y quemque nunc habemus, a recentioribus Rabbinis tradifmn^ nobis proinde fufpeBum ejfe debere, quin multum a primcevo Hebrao recejfe^ rit : meque in ipfo ^udceorum Talmude reipsa deprC" Of T HE JEWS. 253 deprehendiffe nonnulla fcriptura facr(2 tejlimo-- nidy quce aliter fe haberent, quam nunc fe ha- beant in hodiernis ac vulgatis codicibus. Pag. 49. Inquit Marcus Marinus — "Judceos depravatas fcripturas habere^ & in aliquibus potijfimum locis ex f crib arum infcitia id proveni- ;t, ut dicereniy me compulit duorwn ex ipjifmet "Judceis fejlimonium. Pag. 52. Si Maforay prouf tllam ab antiquio- ribus traditam accepimusy tot ipfa fcatet men- disy erroribus & corruptelis ; quomodo caufa po- terit ejfe facri contextus integritatis F Si hoc conjlat de immani yudceorum incuria ; quomodo conjiare nobis poterit de perpetua, ac prope ni- mia, illorum diligent ia ( ut ait Marinus J in fcribendo facro contextu? Pag. 58. Abraham Bar Chia Hifpanusy in libro de adventu MeJJice ffcrip. 1260 ) legit in Job, 7, I, VD* n'i;p ^DOI ; ubi hodie Judcei con- jlanter legunt ^"^yv^ Pag. 72. Kimchius in libro D*ty*lt2^ ( Radices ) adducit nonnulhy quce vel non inveniuntur^ 'uel aliter leguntur in Bibliis : Jicut videre licet in codicibus ( Kimchii ) Mtis -, nam in imprej/is ab- lata Jint a Judais. ^od etiafn fajfus eji qui- dam Samuely in epijlola fua ad jinem hujus ope- ris (Kimchii) in imprejjione Neapolitanay 1490; in qua dicit — Rn ego invent in hoc libro fen- H h 2 tentias^ 254 The SENTIMENTS tentiasy quce non reperiuntur in Bibliis : nempe &c. Then, after nine inftances of words either found different, or not found at all, in the modern facred copies, Samuel ( the editor of Kimchi's book ) adds " Et quia inveni hcec in *' omjiibus ( Kimchii ) exemplaribiiSy nolui ea im- ^^ miitarey fed pofui in fine operis, ut cognofcant *^ omnes me no7i fuijje horiim authorem,^' Ex hoc infigni Samuelis fejlimonio patet, ilium non atifum has differ entias tollere, Conftat tamen yudceos alios, qui aliis editionibiis prcefiierunf^ non dubitaffe ea e toto libra ejicere \ ut hodie non compareant amplius in imprej/is, quamvis in om- nibus exemplaribus Mtis. Cur hanc fraudem huic libro fecerinf Judceiy aliam non poffum fuf- picari caufaffi, nifi quod — ne Chrijliani inde petere pojjint, quce manifefie arguerent miitatio- 72es & corruptiones facri contextus in diverfis exe?7iplaribus yudaicis. Et certe ego contuli Mtum exemplar hujus libri Kimchii -y & comperi loca ilia, quce in Bibliis nojlris jam 7ion reperi- witury extare in Mto, fed abeffe ab imprefjis Kimchii exemplaribus. Mirum itaque ?ion effet, fi hodie nulla extarent vefiigia apud'Judceos va- riationum illarum Biblicarum ; cum hoc vel una exemplo corflat, cos quantum poffunt (ad libitum mutando aut refcindendo ex ipforu?n authoribiis) fiudiofe cavercy ne id deprehendi pojjit ipfifque cxprO" Of THE JEWS. 255 exprobrari, Ubi funt igitur, qui Judaorum Ji-> demy integritafem, religionejn, diligentiam tan- toper e prccdicant'? Ecce eos fatentesy & itt cw- To''^ Onii^ ) quaji Jit unum e duobus locis ( alter um Gen. 4> 23 ) /;/ quibus dicunt nonniilliy quod de- ficit N*V NON. Mentionem etiam facit cujujdam Grammatici ', qui ait y ultra ce^tijm diBiones iiecejje eJJe mutare, Pag. 566. R. Ephodceus fie dijferit, cap.y. In captivitate Babylonica cceperunt corruptio & perturbatio libros fiacros invader e\ adeo ut de his homines dubitarent, Sed EJdras, in iis ex- ercitatijfimusy adhibuit omne robur ut dirigeret perverja & contorta. Idemque fecerunt omnes Jcribce qui eum Jecutijunty librojque illosy quan- turn pqffibile fuit, perJeBe correxerunt. In locis autem, quos invajerant corruptio & perturbatio, fecerunt Keri & Cetib ; eo quod dubium erat in eo quod reperiebatur, Pag. 567. R. Rijba fcribit y Sicut difi'erunt JB. AJer & B> Nephtali aliquot in locis y Jic dij'^ ferunt ^ contendunt de variis dictionibus Occident ales & Orien tales, — In omni locoy in quo invenimus difi'erentias in librisy dicitur in tra^iatu Sopherim, fequendarn ejje librorum mul- titudinem. Sic ait & R, Jacob : Nonne in die- tionwn mutatio?ie dijj'enfiones Junt in libris -, ref- que Of THE JEWS. 261 que ilia fuit fapientibiis dubia & anceps ? Kt ideOf ut de ea judicium ferrent^ necejfe habue- runt librorum multitudinem fequi, Pag. 572. Judceorwn codicibus facris id ac- cidity quod & aliis ; fcribaru7n negligentiay ca- ' lamitatum gent is injuria y ipfaque vetujlate non- nihil corrupti funt codices -, medio illo tempore, quod a 'Talmudijiis ad Major etas elapfum eft : U7tde fa^umy ut in hoc variarum leBionum ge- nere hi plures quam illi deprehendei'-int. Idem contigity & lo?2ge copiojiusy in aliis variarum letiionum fpeciebus, Multo enim plures adnotat tradiatus Scribarumy quam TalmudiJlcFy c^teri- que omnes qui eum prcecejferunt : Maforeta longe pluresy quam traBatus Scribarum : & Mafore- tis plurimas addiderunt "Judcei pojier lores. Pag. 609. Conjiat igitur ex Judceorum con- fejfioney & adnotationibus (ip forum opera ad li- brorum facrorum margines adfcriptis) libros illos multo plus quam mille Jcribarum corrupt elis nunc ejfe fcedatos, Verujny si penitus tex- TUM IPSUM INTROSPICIAMUS ^ MULTO CONFERTIOR CORRUPTEE ARUM SEGES DE- METENDA E LATEBRIS SESE PRODET- From the various kinds of teftlmony here collected, as to the Sentiments of the Jews them- I i 2 felves^ 262 The SENTIMENTS fchesy we are now well qualified to form this general conclufion — That the Jews have been from time to time fully convinc'd, and have alfo fairly acknowledged, that no miraculous fuperintendence, nor any extraordinary care of the tranfcribers, had preferv*d their facred MSS from Errors ; but that their feveral copies con- tained Variationsy and confequently Mijiakesy which ought moft carefully and moft religi- oufly to be corredled, in confequence of the divine Origin of thofe Scriptures, and their great Importance to Mankind. But, it will be faid here — If the Jews have thus own'd t\it fallibility of the tranfcri- bers of their facred books ; have they not, at the fame time, infifted upon the i?fallibility of their Mafora? Have they not difcover'd, to- gether with the difeafe, the certain method of cure ? Have they not conftantly boafled of their unerring guide to reformation; or ra- ther, of their being in pofleffion of a rule, which would correcfl all paft errors, and pre- vent future ones ? This is, in ibme meafure, true ; many of them have thus boafted : and therefore, the argument, built upon the au- thority and energy of this Mafora, muft be now cohfider'd. For as this Mafora, tho' its nature Of THE JEWS. 263 nature be not generally known, has been in general profoundly reverenc'd ; and as this Mafora affords almoft the only ihadow of an argument, in favour of the abfolute perfediion of the modern Heb. copies; 'tis'neceffary to give it here a due fliare of our attention. What I have to offer upon this head fliall be introduc'd in the following words of Cappel- lanus beforemention'd, in his anfwer to Vale- rian de Flavigny (Heb. Profeifor at Paris, 1658 ) who infifled on t/je Integrity of the Heb. Text^ and on the Mafora as the foundation of that Integrity. ^am immerito fbi arrogavit adverfarius, qiice in front e fuce epijlolce prcemifit^ verba apof toli Erit tempus, cum fanam dodtrinam non fuflinebunt ! S>uam enim fanam dod:rinam vocaty rev era vetus error ef ; qui, fuperiori fce- ctilo natusy ut nafcentibiis apud nos Uteris He- braicis gratiam & auBoritatem conciliarety hodie merito deferitur ab omnibus, ^lis enim credat quod olim credebatiir^ ne minimo quidem apiculo hodiernos codices difcrepare ab ipfis facrorwii fcriptorum autogr aphis ? ^em nunc non pudeat profiteri cwn Pagnino — Hebraea volumina nee una in did:ione efle corrupta ? Nee enim, ut tantum miraculum credatury fuficit ampUus tarn Jlupenda prcedicare de quorundamy^^'^^o'R'ET a- RUM 264 The sentiments RUM diligent ia: parum juvat multis fahulis ex- toller e tarn accuratam yudceorum Jinceritatem, Jidem & religionemy in exfcrihendis facris codici- bus, TempiiSy veritatis parens^ quantum ejuf- modi relatiojiibus tribuendum Jity ?ios edociiit. His enim eruditis temporihusy quibus Uterce Ori- entales melius Chyijliano orbi innotuerunty jam- dudum ab ejufmodi tarn crajfis erroribus emerfe- 7^unt Chrijiiani do^ores, — Olim non fatis explo- rata erat Maforetarum critic a bijioria : ut tejla- tur Buxtorfius, qui in Tiberiade conqueritury quod multi de Major a lo quant ur te?nere. " Pau- *^ ciffimi (inquit) Maforse veram notitiam hac- *^ tenus confecuti ; plurimos autem vidi de *' Maforetis, magis fecundum affedlus animi *^ pr?ejudiciis gravati, quam vera fcientia im- *' buti, judicare. Hiftoriam itaque, ut potui, ** pertextai; menda fuftuli — nee tamen c,re- *^ das omnia effe corredla — pudenda eft hie *' JudGeorum negligentia, immanis incuria & *^ ofcitantia, ad manifeftiffima vitia cascutivifTe *' &c." ^amobremy Ji Major a ipja tot Jcatet rnendis & corrupt elis ; quomodo caujd poterit eJJe Jacri contextus integritatis ? Satis mirari non pojfimjy quomodo ita apud ChriJlianos & ^Judaos invaluerit effatum illud — Masoram esse Sepem Legis ! The Of THE JEWS. 265 The fame ftrange prejudice, the fame blind veneration for the Mafora, which appeared in this adverfary of Cappellanus, appear'd alfo ( near the fame time ) in one of Yoffius's ad- verfaries, whofe name was Georgius Hor- Nius. This Mr. George Homey who was diftinguifl:/ d by the cafcigations of VoiTius, * fcems to have been a well-meaning writer, but certainly no adept in Logic, and ( w^hich might alfo be ealily prov'd ) a very moderate proficient in Arts and Sciences. Perhaps he held thefe in contempt -, and might think him- felf better employ'd, in contributing his time and pains towards the forming a jiew Cabbala : fo that, had he liv'd in thefe days, he might have {hone forth a fcholar of the firft clafs in the fchool of Mr. Hutchinfon, As the good word of fuch an author would have done Vof- iius very little honour ; fo he very facetioufly thanks the Gentleman for ^ot applauding him — Valde me t tie bam y ne laudatiirus e/fes -, nunc quia id non fecerisy i?ige?ttes tibi refero ' gratias. Having mentioned Mr. Home's affertion, that the Heb. text of the oldy and the Gr. text of the new Tejiamenty were both come down to us uncorruptedy Voiilus adds, Magnas apud om- * Fojii cajligaticnes ad chji\9.a Gecrgii Hornii ^ »6s9- 72es 266 The SENTIMENTS nes Chrijlianos inibit gratias ; fi ojlendere pojfitt undenam ergo IJla leBiomim varietas promana- 7'it. Cum enim in omni discre pan t i a ALIQUA SIT CORRUPTELA; Oportety lit CUm omnibus eruditis fateamur^ libros facros non om- 7iino tncorruptos ad nos perveniff'e i aut cum in- Jipidis quibufdam 'Judceis Jiatiiamusy variantes ijlas leBiones ab ipjis Prophetis ejfe excogitatas ! Having alfo expos'd his unlearned adverfary, for fpeaking of the prefent copies of Homer and Virgil, as having been tranfmitted down without error; he proceeds to cenfure Mr. Home's inconfiflency, in maintaining the in- corruption ( and indeed the incorruptibility J of the Heb, copies^ and yet allowing Jhne varia- tions : after which he judicioufly points out the amazing abfurdity, in fuppofing the ma- soRA certainly to have preferv'd, or certainly to reftore, the Hebrew Verity, For thus he tells Mr. Home, in his cafli- gations on the firft chapter — Provocas ad Providentiam divinam ; per quam Jirmiter Jia- tuendum eJfe dicis, " Depravationem codicum " Hebraeorum nee admifTam fuifle, nec po- ** TuissE ADMiTTi, five per fraudem, five *' per incuriam." Sed ipfe temet ipfum dejiruis ^^ patdo pojiy cum agnofcisy ^'EiTe in verbis qui- ** bufdam & Uteris difcrepantias." Pergis dein fie: O F T H E JE W S. 267 fic: ^* Acceffit ftupenda Masoretarum di- *^ ligentia, qui etiam fingulas literas in cenfum ** retulere ; & fi qu^ corruptelas in quasdam -^^ exemplaria irrepferant [i.e. fi fuerant ad- ** mijfcey quce admit ti non potueriint^ ex correc- ** tiffimis & indubitatis ipfi in perpetuum fu- *^ ftulerunt. ' ' Mirificum argumentum I ^luia nempe Major etce ante duo, tria & quatuor fe-- cula, etiam Jingidas literas numerarunt ; ideo non potuerunty ante quatuordecim & qidndecim feculay vitia a librariis "Judceis committi, Huic Jimile fuerity Ji qids dixerit : quia Nizolius om- nia vocahula Ciceronis collegit & numeris alii" gavit y ideo non potuiffe librariosy qui libros ejus defcripfere ante milk & plures annosy vel in iino verbo peccare. Aujim adjirmare te poma aut nuces cogitajjiy cum hc^c fcriberes, Videy ne de^ cipiarey bone Vir, But, 'tis time to take our leave of Mr. Home ; and, with him, of all thofe who choofe to ftand forth thus valiantly in defence of the Maforay and prove much warmer advocates for it than tnany amongft the Jews themfelves. The teftimony of B. Chaim (pag. 231, fedt. 4 ) is too remarkable, not to be recol- led:ed upon this occafion : and the following is his very ingenuous conceffion — - Vidi mul- tos e coetu Sapientum noJiroru?ny qui hac nojlra K k cetate 268 The SENTIMENTS cBtate vivunty non ordinajfe cor fuujn erga Ma- jor eth, neque fequi in aliqua re fententiam Ma-f foritarum ; dicimt enim " Quaenam utilitas con- ^* fequatur ex ea ? " And this fame Jewifli critic, tho' he had himfelf high notions of the utility of the Mafora, was compell'd to draw a me- lancholy pid:ure of its imperfection, corrup- tion and confufion: fee yJ5. 28 — 31. Not long after B. Chaim had printed the Mafora, Elias Levita ( who is faid to have fpent 20 years in the ftudy of it ) publifh'd an expla- nation of it. And Walton tells us ( proleg. 8, 13) — Elias invehifur contra Major et as ^ prop- ter inanis glorice defiderium ; & affirinat^ defec- tus Major ce non pqff'e nwnerariy ^ concludit^ opus imperJeBum deJeBibus undique Jcatere, Laftly : the author of the book Cojri tells us — Majoram opus vanum Juije^ & occupation nem diligentem in re inutili. Eandem JuiJJe Jen- tentiam plurium Rabbinorum affirmat : Multi ( inquit ) Sapient es traducunty dejpiciunt & vi- tuperant hoc Jtudium, Sapiens quoque Ahen EJra comparat Majoretas homini numeranti Jolia & paginas librorum medicoruniy a qua omni nume- ratione non Janatur ullum vubzus, * The Mafora therefore appears, from the pre- ceding authorities, to be entitled to the du- * Fraffenii difg^uifitiones Biblics ; p. 216. bious Of the jews. 269 bious charafter of — laudatur ah hisy ciilpatur ab Hits. But then ( which Is much more ob- fervable ) fome of the very fame men, who have loaded it with the opprobrious terms of very imperfe^y confiisd and contradictory ^ have yet been very extravagant in their encomiums on it. We have i^^rv the honourable things fpoken of it by B. Chaim : and Buxtorf, in the overflowings of his zeal, afcribes it to this fame Mafora, that — qua lafiffime patent oriens & occidensy una ore, uno modo, verbum T)ei le- gitur ; & omnium libroruniy qui in Aft a, Africa^ vel Europa funt, fine ulla difcrepantia, confo- nans harmonia cernitur. Tiberias, p. 7. Now, tho' this univerfal harmony of the facred co- pies is merely ideal ; and tho' the rant of ap- plaufe frequently met with, from Jews and Chriflians, in exaltation of the Mafora, be the certain effedt of zeal without proper know- ledge : yet, as truth often lies between the ex- tremes, we fhall perhaps find it here — if we allow to the foes of the Mafora, that it has not prevented the Heb. Text from being greatly corrupted, and if we allow alfo to its friends, that it may have prevented the Heb. Text from being corrupted more. Let us therefore confi- der it fomewhat more particularly. K k 2 As 270 The SENTIMENTS As to its age and origin ; many of the Jews maintain, that it was the work of Ezra and his brother-members of the great Synagogue : which is the opinion of B. Chaim; tctfeSi. i, 24, 27. But here, antecedently to any farther enquiries ; it fliould be obferv'd — that the Mafora means a vajl collection of traditionary remarks 9 of very various kinds y fome refpe5iing the divijion of the facred text into larger and lejfer feBions and verfes ; fome relating to words, ■Others to letters, and others to the vowel-points and accents. And 'tis not only probable, but certain, that this multifarious and crude fyf- tem of materials contains the remarks of fome few men of fenfe, but of many others, who have learnedly trifled away their time, in very different ages. Buxtorf, who fays, that the Maforets begun from the time of Ezra, al- lows it to be uncertain, in what age they end- ed: and he alfo allows ( p. 8 ) that no fatif- fad:ory account can be given of the true Ma- forets— qui fuerint ; ubi, aut quando, vixe- rint. Buxtorf alfo (p. 11) gives us the fol- lowing words of EHas — Autores Maford fue- runt centeni & milleni, una gejieratione poji aliam , neque cognitum nobis eft te?npus principii vet fnis ipforum. And laftly : Aben Ezra, in the beginning of his book Moznaim, gave the follow- Of THE JEWS. 271 following particular account, about 600 years ago — HDii^ nn^i niD^nn ^t:*:?^ ini on^^^nt^ C^"tpn /^j^ eos ( fc. autores Mifnas ) venenint nutores 'Talmiidis ( ic, Gemaras ) <&f />2/^m 7^6'- terunt in IJraele autores Mafora, qui feparave- runt omnern fnixturam' a JanBo — which lafk words contain a ftrong proof of the variations of the Heb. MSS ; fince this ancient and learn- ed Jew allows, that the Maforets feparated the drofs from the pure gold, diftinguifh'd what was adventitious and corrupt from what was original and facred. * The chief glorj^ of the Mafora, with all thofe who have deem'd it at all glorious, has been — that it proves the HeL text to have been uncorrupted. Whereas it fo happens, that it proves diredlly the contrary. For almofl the only thing, which it does in fad prove, is — that the profefs'd end and intention of it was to render the Heb. MSS correct, and to keep them fo. But, does not real correclion neceffarily imply real corruption ? And has not Aben Ezra told us fo, in the paflage juft before quoted ? If we look back to pag. 170, we fhall there find Elias declaring — ■ if the Maforets had not co??ie, the Law would have been two Laws ; clearly hinting at the many cor- 272 The SENTIMENTS corruptions, which the Mafora was meant to remove and to prevent. And yet ^ that a Ma- for a could not perfectly fecure from corrup- tion, he proves by adding — that, tho' there was a Mafora made upon the 'Tar gum of Onke- losy yet were there found in the copies of that Targum many variations. I would afk, whe- ther the moft Maforetical Chriftian can believe, that all the MSB of the Koran have been de- liver'd down uncorrupted ? And yet, the Ko- ran alfo had the honour of its Mafora ^ and the Mafora of the Muflulmen aflures us moll minutely, that all the letters of their facred book amount to 323,015 \ But learned men know, that the feveral MSB of the Koran have varied in many inftances "" : and therefore, if the Mahommedan Mafora has prov'd ineffec- tual, the fame may have been the cafe with the Mafora of the Rabbins. May have been ? — Does not this Mafora itfelf declare it to have been ? Is its own language intelligible, 1 Conjlimtir affirmat Ellas Lcjita Ma so ram Tahnude pojte- riorem ejje^ ilUufque refcrt imtlum ad annum Chrifii 506. Lno natam illain ejfe crediderim pofl annmn 600, ^ ab Arabibus fump- tam ; quibus Jud^ei id omne quod habent rei Grammatica iff Cn~ ilea acceptum referunt. Habent illi Alcorani fui MaJora?n, Ju- daic£& baud abjtmilem. Simon, difquifu. critic, p. 23. See alfo Walton's prolegom. 8, 9. 2 Walton's prolegom. 8, 15. upon Of THE JEWS. 273 upon any other fuppolition ? Does it not fay '— Such a word is ( n^lD ) written in the text y but ( np ) R'EAT> fuch a word, read the word give?i in the margin ? And what can be, if this be not, a confeflion of error in the text? A cenfure has been always paft upon that printer, who made the celebrated omif- fion of the negative particle in the 7th com- mandment; printing it — I'hou Jhalt commit adultery ? * Yet the Maforets tell us, that >i^ non is now, fome fay 15, fome fay 20 times, in the text; where the word fhould be lb ei. And if fo ; what material corruptions muft attend the undue infertion, or the omif- lion, of this negative, in 15 or 20 places? For, as Walton obferves — hac leBio momen" tofa eji, quia miitat fenfiim negativum in affirma- tivum ! In fhort : what, but the exiftence of a variety of corruptions, is to be inferr'd from the feveral following Maforetic dodirines ? — that 1 5 whole words are to be read, tho' not now written -— that 8 words, tho' written, * Altho' we call the Scripture the word of God, as it is; yet it was writ ( copied ) by a man, a mercenary man j whofe copy, either might be falfe, or he might make it falfe. For ex- ample : here were a thoufand Bibles printed in England, wirh the text thus. Thou jh alt co?nmit adultery ; the word, ?ict, left out. Might not this text be mended? Sild. Table-talk: pag. 2010, vol. 3, edit. 1726. arc 274 The SENTIMENTS are not to be read — that there are 15 111- ftances of feveral letters, written as one word, but to be read as two ; and 9 inftances of let- ters, written as two words, to be read ae one — that there are 1 1 tranfpofitions of letters calFd radical * — that, befides the very numerous variations of the letters n^^^, the inftances of addition, omiffion and change in the otier let- ters, amount to above 80 — and that the va- rious readings ( not in points but letters ) in the Oriental and Occidental copies, in all the facred books excepting the Pentateuch, are confeiTedly above 200 ! Thus freely does the Mafora acknowledge variations in the Heb. copies ; thus honeftly does it oifer to affift in correcting y<5/?^^ of the many corruptions, which time has introduced : and it may be added, that the Maforets themfelves never feem to have dreamt of, what fome modern critics have dreamt concerning them t&at thofe very IMPERFECTIONS, which they had noted in the Heb. texty would ever be produced, to prove that fame text perfect ! But whatever might be the intention of the * Buxtorf fays ( p. 267 ) that all the tranfpofitions are 62 ; each of which is call'd Maforetically nniNDT DlpID anteriorn- tum ^ pojlerioratum i. e. quando antepofitum eJJ, quad pofrponi BE BE BAT; aut coiitra, Mafo- Of the jews. 275 Maforets 5 'tis certain, that their labours have not preferv^d the Text uncorrupted. If the Mafora muft be confider'd an an hedge ; may not that hedge have been made unfkilfully ? Or might it not, if v^eU made, fall to decay ? One of the firft things, w^hich oifer themfelves to leflen our veneration for the Mafora, is its contradidlion to itfelf. On Genef. 4, 8 ; the Mafora fays. Sunt ( HD ) 28 verfusy dejinentes in medio versus ; reading in the margin of fome Bibles, at each of thefe inftances, ^ which fignify, that Of THE JEWS. 287 that the fubfequent variation of words In the Cethubim begins with Chronicles diredlly contrary to the general cuftom of placing Chronicles laft. I fhall give two examples, out of this new coUedion. In i Chrm. 11, 11 ; we read mN-!D ^h*^ hv contra trecentos : the various reading here is niND V^^^ ^V contra quadringentos -— which inftance proves, that this difference is taken from fome MS, and not from the parallel verfe in 2 Sam. 23, 8 ; becaufe the prefent reading there is ni'Jti^ ^3^ m^^D cofitra oBinge?itos. The other fpecimen relates to Prov» 19, i : Better is a poor mauy that walketh in his integrity^ than he that ts per verfe in his lipSy and is a fooL On v/hich words I remark'd in my Differtation, p. 509 — that the word VDDir his lips fhould perhaps be y>y\l his waysy agreeably to one of our Heb. MSS ; and that b^DD fool was probably in the ancient MSS y^*)^ rich. And I have the fatisfa(5tion to find both thefe corredlions exprefly confirmed by this colledion ; which gives firft fome of the words of this verfe, as they ftand at prefent, and then adds the varia- tions — : S^DD Nim vnfit:^ ^pv^ — t^n yso **ym Nim Don^i D^nsir c^pvD — ti^n nro Plaving thus prov'd, that the Mafora con- tains only part of the many various readings in 288 The SENTIMENTS in the Heb. MSS ; I proceed to a few other remarks, before I difmifs this fubjed. Elias Levita tells us, the whole Mafora was fo exten- Jive, as to be equal in quantity to the Bible it- felf: and yet, that the Maforets frequently made no remarks at all -, i.e. out of the many words in a fentence, or fedtion, they remark'd upon a few, and pafs'd over the reft. * So that if their comment ihould have been the means of preferving the parts thus comment- ed upon; yet the multitudes of words, ftill negleiled, would be equally in danger of cor- ruption, as if there had been no Mafora at all. Nay, their danger would be certainly encreas'd, and the corruptions have doubtlefs been con- tinued; becaufe men have been lefs careful to correft, on account of this very Mafora, which they fuppos'd to have prevented all miftakes. But then as the Mafora, notwithftanding its bulkinefs, was never perfedled ; fo the greater part of what was composed has long been loft : — Mafora (fays Walton) ex majori parte nu7ic periit, Proleg. 8, lo. The reafon of fuch a lofs is partly this — that when the cuftom began ( perhaps about 500 years ago ) of in- ferting extrad:s from the Maforetic volumes into the MSS, which contained the facred text; * Waltou^s prolcgom. S j lo, 1.4. they Of the jews. 289 they plac'd fuch extradls at the top^ hotto77iy and outer-fide of the text in every page. But here, the fpaces left round the text being fo narrow, as to admit but part of the Mafora ; the writers crouded in as much as" poffible in a ver)^ fmall character : and yet, many parts were omitted, and of courfe foon loft. In later times the parts, thus imperfecMy • introduced, became greatly corrupted ; and no wonder. For the tranfcribers, out of an abfurd notion of decorating their MSS, contrived to work up the marginal lines of the Mafora into all forts of fanciful devices; fuch as Triangles , Circles, Knots of various kinds. Birds, Beafts &c. In the execution of thefe projefts, they would change, omit and infert words at their pleafure, rather than write either fide of a Triangle out of equilateral proportion, or leave an Eagle or a Tiger unfiniih'd. ^ So that had the Mafora been perfected at firft, and fonn d upon good copies ; who can wonder, that, after perform- ing tranfmigration thro' the bodies of fo many different animals, it fhould at laft appear a monfter of corruption ? As to the original falfity, or corruption of the Mafora -, I fliall add one farther proof, too * Houbigant's prolegom. pag. 21 ; and E. Chaim's preface, fca. 29. confi- 290 The SENTIMENTS confiderable to be omitted : for which the Reader will be indebted to the reverend and very learned Dr. Gregory Sharpe. This Inge- nious Author, in his Differ tat ions on the On- gin of Languages (8°. 1751) has calculated the number of letters in the Heb. Bible, in a method that is perfeftly fatisfadlory. And this calculation, which was at firft confirmed by a MS at Perpignan in Spain, and has been farther confirm'd fince by a very careful enu- meration made by the learned Meyer Cohen, proves the Maforetic number of the letters (815,280) to be near 352,000 lefs than the real number. See his Dijfertations, pag. 69 — 72 ^ and his introduction to an Heb, Lexi- con, pag. 9 — II. The Mafor^ has long been ftil'd the hedge of the Law -, call'd fo, according to the ge- neral opinion, from its encloling the letters and preventing them from going aftray. But we have feen, that the Mafora was never fi- nifh'd; and certainly a hedge, rais'd but in part, muft be a very infufficient fecurity. Had It formed a perfed: enclofure, before any of the flock had wander'd : it might have been well. But, being raised late, after many years, and having fallen greatly to decay ; 'tis entitled to very little honour for its fervlces. Nay, its differ* Of THE JEWS. 291 differvices, even in its prefent ftate, are noto- rious. And yet, had it continued firm and compleat to this day ; greater ftill had been the misfortune. For, as many qf the flock appear to have wandered from their ftation, before the making of this enclofure ; all fuch would then have been hedg'd out, and ( per- haps ) prevented for ever from returning. The abfurdities therefore of confidering the Mafora as a fence and guard have led Father Houbi- gant to form a very happy conjecture -— that the preceding title was given to the Mafora, not becaufe it defended, but becaufe \\. fur round- ed, the text ; being written at the beginning and end, and all around the text in every page. So that it was much more probably calFd an hedge, on account of its real fhape than its imaginary efficacy. But, whatever be the origin of this appellation, the tranfition from thence will not be unnatural, nor the allufion void of propriety; if we conclude thefe various re- marks upon the Mafora, with comparing it to Virgil's great Elm, celebrated for the refidence of i^ain dreams, Ulmus opaca^ ingens-, quam fedem Sonnia vuJgb Vana tenere feriint^ foliifqiie fub omnibus harent. N n Wc 292 CHAPTER IV ; containing An History oi the Hebrew 'Text. WE have now feen, what were the fen- timents of the moft eminent amongfl the Jews themfelves, as to the corruption and corrediion of their facred MSS : and the difco- very of thefe fentiments feem'd neceffary, to prepare the way for the following obfervations. In order to judge properly of the degree of refpedt and veneration, which may be due to any ancient writing ; and to afcertain that au- thority, which the Text of it ought to claim, in its prefent ftate : we fhould endeavour to accompany it ( in imagination ) thro* the fe- veral ftages of its progrefs; marking, as at- tentively as we can, the care which has been taken of it, in defcending down to ourfelves, thro' the hands of tranfcribers and printers. Such a fcheme, if ufeful with regard to every ancient author, muft be particularly fo with regard to thofe moji ancient of all books, which are contain d in the volume of the old Tejia- ment : and yet a fcheme of this nature has not been hitherto delineated, or attempted. In Hist, of Heb. Text. 293 In order therefore to affift others and my- felf, in reducing our thoughts upon this ex- tenfive fubjed: into fome kind oi fyjlejn ; I fub- mit to the corrections of the Learned the fol- lowing hijloyj of the facred Heb. Text ; which ( I am convinced ) is imperfed:, and capable of great improvements. GOD, who in thefe lajl days hath fpoken unto us by his Son, /pake in times paji U7ito the fathers by the prophets : whom he appointed the meflengers of his Will ; and lent, at dif- ferent times, as his heralds, to proclaim peace or punifhment to his dutiful or difobedient fubjedls. And as God, at the fall of man, /;z the midji of judgment remembered mercy ; fo were thefe Prophets to record the various cir- cumftances of that temporary Difpenfation, which was to prepare for the reception of Him, who was to publifli the everlajling Gof- pel'y that Great Perfon, who was to be the Teacher y the Redeemer y and the Judge of man- kind. The writings therefore of thefe Prophets, being of fuch importance to the world, were ( as we might have prefum'd, and are exprelly alTur'd by an Apoflle ) given by infpiration of God. This has been conftantly the beUef of N n 2 Chriflians : 294 HISTORY OF THE Chriftians : and indeed with men, who ac- knowledge the divine authority of the new Teftament, that of the old follows of courfe. Thus much is confefs'd by Lord Bolingbroke ; who ( in his 3d letter on hiftory ) fays — that the new teftament, being provd, gives authority to the old. 'Tis true, he adds — it gives this au- thority to the particular parts only y meaning probably, the parts there quoted and referred to. But the expreffion of St. Paul is univerfal ; and TTc^cfii ^^-yn niuft be applied to all the ge- nuine books of the old Teftament. The divine injpiration of Scripture is ftated differently by different perfons : fome, extending it to the words as well as matter ; others, more ratio- nally inferring from the various differences of ftyle in the many different writers, that the matter only has been the fubjedl of divine infpiration. And here alfo, fome confine this to the communication of fuch fadls, as no wri- ter could difcover of himfelf, or derive with certainty from tradition ; whiht others feem more juftly to fuppofe, that God was pleas'd, not only to reveal fome great truths otherwife undifcoverable ; but likewife fo to influence the writers, in defcribing the fa5ls in and near their own times, that they might commit to writing the true and proper circumfiances. The HEBREW TEXT. 295 The diVifion of the books of the old Tefta- nient, as generally fuppos'd to have been de- fcrib'd in the new, is --Mofes, the Prophets^ and the Pfalms : Luk. 24, 44. The Pfalms, as a general term, included the books' of Poetry, which contain'd fongs or fhort fentences, di- vine and moral; whilft the books of Hiftory, as v^ell as thofe of Prophecy ( ftricftly fo call'd ) were denoted by the word Prophets, And that the books merely hijlorical, tho' compil'd from public regiilers or private accounts, were ge- nerally written by Prophets, has been judici- oufly remark'd by the reverend Mr. Peters, in the late preface to his Differtation upon Job : p. 29 &c. As to the Pentateuch , the general opinion, that Mofes was its author, feems very well founded : tho' it be at the fame time allow'd, that a few Jhort reinarks interfpersd are the additions of a later writer, or writers ; particularly the concluding chapter — - of which the 3 laft verfes feem to have been added long after the 9 verfes preceding. The Original of this Pentateuch, in the hand -writing of Mofes, was preferv'd with great care, being depolited in the fide of the ark ; and with the ark was probably intro- duc'd into the temple at Jerufalem. It mull: not be foi*got, that Sir I. Newton obferves ( in the 296 HISTORY OF THE the firft chapter of his obfervations upon Da-^ nielj — that at the dedication of the temple, there was nothing in the ark but the two ta- bles ; ( I Kin. 8, 9 ) and therefore^ when the Philijiines took the ark, they took out of it the book of the law, and the golden pot of manna, and Aaron s rod. But this remark does not feem juft; nor does the text ( on which it is grounded ) appear conclufive, as to fo early a lofs of the Mofaic MS of the Law, For, be- ing laid up, not in the ark, but in the fide of ity the MS might by that means be concealed from the Philiftines, and confequently be pre- ferv'd. Or, if difcover'd ; it might be either left, or reftor'd, by the Philiftines upon the very fame principle, which mov'd them to leave the two tables : whereas the golden pot and the rod of Aaron they might prefume to purloin, the one for its value, and the other for its curiofity. When therefore the hiftorian fpeaks of there being nothing in the ark (when brought into Solomon's temple ) but the two tables \ he might hint at the lofs of the golden pot and the rod that budded, without meaning to ex- clude the Mofaic MS preferv*d in the side of the ark. This diftindion feems confirm'd, in the epiflle to the Hebrews, ch. 9, 4 : where the HEBREW TEXT. 297 the apoftle, fpeaking of the ark, fays -— In which ( were, or had been ) the golden poty Aaron s rody and the tables of the covenant. And here 'tis probable, that the copy of the law is not mention'd as having been, with the other things, in the ark ; becaufe ( agreeably to the preceding diftinftion ) it had only been depolited in its fde. The words of the Heb. text add ftill greater weight to this diftincflion. For there ( at Deut, 31, 26 ) the Law is or- der'd to be depofited pnt^ n^D — not fo pro- perly in the fde, as by the fdcy or on the fde^ or perhaps (more ftridtly ) on the outside of the ark, in fome part or place proper to re- ceive it. And if this MS of Mofes was thus depofited on the oiitfde, or if only in the fide y of the ark; it might accompany the ark into the temple, tho' there was properly nothing in the ark but the two tables. In i Sam, 6, 8 ; we read, that the Philiflines ( when about to fend back this fame ark ) put jewels y or veffels, of gold in a coffer by the fde thereof Was not this coffer plac'd on the outfide of the ark ? If fo, the Mofaic MS was alfo on the outfide y for the noun is connedled with the very fame pre- pofition in both places. As the word nVD is not unnaturally render'd here on the outfidey io neither is this a new interpretation. For the learned 298 HISTORY OF THE learned Huetius tells us — Lex fait ad latus area exterius : hoc ejiy Ji "Jojiathanem para- phrajietn Chaldaum audimusy ? 35, 1 2 : TWO nSD liber Mofis. O o Ezr^ 300 HISTORY of the Ezr. 3,2: ntTD n^^in lex Mofis. Ezr. 6, i8t n^D nDD ///5^r Mofis, Neb. 13, I : nt:?D n£)D liber Mofis. Dan. g; 11,13: H'lTD nmn /^^i: ilf?/?/. ikfo/. 4, 4 : niTD nmn lex Mofis. But 2C/6r^. 34. 14: niTD na mn» nmn nDD liber legis Jehovce in majiu Mojis. As to the point of age, this MS certainly might be the original -y diftance of time leaving it very poffible. For the moft extended chro- nology does not make the interval from the death of Mofes to the death of Jofiah 950 years ; an age exceeded by that of feveral MSS preferv'd at this day. From this venerable Original, no doubt, many copies were taken from time to time, under the infpeflion of the High-Prieft, or fome Prophet. That there w^ere copies of it In Ifraely during the feparation of the ttn tribes, has been obferv'd already. And it may be pre- fum'd, that there were fome copies of it like- wife amongft the tribes of Judah and Benja- min ; particularly in the hands of the Prophets, Priejis and Levites : and that, by the inftruc- tion and authority of thefe MSS, the various fervices in the temple were regulated, during the reigns of the good kings of Judah. One objeftion will be made here, and that is — If there HEBREW TEXT. 301 there were feveral copies of the Law in Judah ; how are we to account for the furprize ex- prefs'd by Jofiah and the people, at his read- ing the copy found by Hilkiah ? To which I anfwer ; that their ignorance of the Law may fairly and fully be accounted for, from the hif- tory of the preceding reigns ; only from recol- lediing, what a very idolatrous king ManaJJ'eb was, for Jifty Jive years ; and that he want- ed neither power nor inclination to deftroy the copies of the Law, had thefe not been fecre- ted by the fervants of the true God. The Law, after being fo long conceal'd, would be unknown to almoft all the Jews ; and thus the folemn reading of it by good king Jofiah ( to whom it might be difcover'd fafely ) would awaken his own and the people's earneft at- tention. The copy produced was probably the Originaly wrote by Mofes j which would ex- cite ftill greater veneration. But, if it were not 5 we cannot doubt, but it had the proper marks of authenticity. And it muft be added — that copies of the Pentateuch had provi- dentially been, long before this time, in the hands of their enemies, the Ifraelites and Sa- maritans ; which fingle circumftance fliews the impradicability of what fome have been pleas'd to infinuate — - that Hilkiah might in- O o 2 troduce 302 HISTORY OF the troduce a fpurious Pentateuch. So that, upon the whole; there might be many copies of the Law extant in Judah, and the copy pro- duced by Hilkiah may have been the ojuts'^cl- -idn: ^ms^ lb — which words the Latin tranflator has rendered thus ; Injpice diligentius hijhriam Pto- P p ^ lenicei 3IO Hist, of H e b. Text. lemcei regis y nempe in 13 locos^ quos illi immu^ tarunty qiioniam exprejfe indicarunt quare im^ viutarunt illos: & quicquid immutabant fuit in €0 quod ipfi fcribebayit. It mufl be obferv*d, that the word nm is here rendered locos ^ which was the jfirft rendring in the Lat. MS ^ tho' it was afterwards altered to verba. The original word fignifies, in Hebrew and in Chaldee, not only a wordy but alfo a colledlion of words form'd into a command or a fpeech ; as is evi- dent from I Kin, 3, 10; where ( ipeaking of Solomon's prayer) iyir\ is rendered the fpeech : and from BuxtorPs Chald. Lexicon, which renders "IMI^ and •n;n verbum, fermoy oratio. It muft alfo be obferv'd, that if the laft word in the preceding Heb. quotation ( namely ^ ) was meant to fignify eiy which is not ex- prefs'd in the Latin tranllation \ then the i'^wiQ is -— the 13 changes y here fpoken of, were alfo made by the Jews in that which they wrote for HIM, namely, for Ptolemy. That we may difcover the true meaning of the preceding remarkable fentence ; it will be neceflary for us to recoiled:, that B. Chaim endeavours folemnly and earneftly ( in this 26th fedlion ) to vindicate his brethren from the heavy charge of wilfully altering their He- brew Bible ; aflerting his firm belief, that no altera- 0: First Period. 311 alterations had been made in the text ; and that no words had been placed in the margin, but upon the authority of fome tradition from Mo- fes. And yet, he readily allows 13 places to have been altered wilfully; for which alterations ( he fays ) a reafon had been given by their fathers. It feems impoffible to reconcile thefe afTertions — that they never did in any i?ijiance alter wilfully — and yet, that they did alter 1 3 placesy for which they gave a reafon — upon any other hypothefis than the following : that the allufion here is to the omifjion of I't, fpeeches ; which, tho' originally exprefs'd twice, in order to fave trouble they exprefs'd but once only. For one copy of a fpeech ( it was thought ) might be omitted, when another copy of it was ftill exprefs'd; and yet, as there was in this cafe no total omifjion y nor change of any one word into another y the Jews might poffibly think this to be no criminal alteration or cor- ruption. That Mofes did not think it improper or unneceffaiy, to exprefs repeatedly the fame fet of words, is evident from the 7th ch. of Num- bers-y in which the fame 50 words, which de- fcribe the oiFering of each of the 12 princes, are exprefs'd at large 1 2 times over. But then, many of the Jews ( to fave trouble ) exprefs the 312 Hist, of Heb. Text. the points under the words, in the firfl inflance only ; and omit them in all the reft. A ver. i8. ad ver. 83, fcrlbce Ger?namcorum librorum^ & pri?ni imprejfores Hebrai codicis, piin^ia vo- calm, per compejidium laborisy omijerunt, * The Arab, verfion, in the Lond. Polyglott, leaves out the words themjelvesy in the laft eleven in- ftances here fpoken of. And alfo, in Nehem. 7, 5, where we have Ezra s long catalogue re- peated -y the Arab, verfion omits the whole, and refers to the book of Ezra. But farther : if thefe fpeeches in Exodus have been omitted once in the Heb. text; they muft have been omitted either before, or aty the time of making the Greek verfion, in the reign of Ptole?ny. And here alfo the tefti- mony of B. Chaim is remarkably coincident ; fince he not only afi^erts — that the 13 places were alter'd in the Heb, text ( of which he is exprefly fpeaking ) but alfo — that the fame changes took place in what they wrote for Ptolemy, f^ quicquid i??i?nutabant fuit in eo quod fcribebant ei ) meaning, that the Greek verfion of the Pentateuch, fuppos'd to be made for Ptolemy, was made according to the Heb. text as alter'd in thefe feveral places. Laftly : the number of the fpeeches, thus re- * Nota in locuv:^ Bihl Michaelis. peated First Period. 313 peated In the Samaritan copy of Exodusy but not in the Hebrew, is exadlly 1 3 ; the very number mention'd in the preceding teftimony. For the following is a lift of thofe fpeeches, in Exodus ; which ( I prefume ) have been thus omitted in the prefent Hebrew. Exod, 6, 9 — Ifraelites to Mofes. Speech i. 7, 18 — Mofes to Pharaoh. 2. 8, 4 — Mofes to Pharaoh. 3. 8, 5 — Mofes to Aaron. 4. 8, 23 — Mofes to Pharaoh. 5. 9, 5 — Mofes to Pharaoh. 6. 9, 19 — Mofes to Pharaoh. 7, 10, 6 — Mofes to Pharaoh. 8. 11, 4 — God to Mofes. 9. 18, 24 — Mofes to Ifraelites. 10, 20,17 — God to Ifraelites. 11. 20, 1 9 — Ifraelites to Mofes. 12. 20,22 — God to Mofes. 13, Thus much, at prefent, as to variations by dejign-y at leaft in this firll period. As to ac* cidental variations, introduc'd fo very early ; it has been remarked already, that the Samar. text will prove fome fuch to have happened, antecedently to the Greek verfion. For where the Samar. text reads more agreeably to the context in the old, or to the Quotations in the J. new i 314 Hist, of Heb. Text. new Teftament; there we may prefume fair- ly, that the true reading is preferv'd by the Samaritans — efpecially, when their text is confirmed by their verjion^ which is allow'd to exceed all other verfions in its antiquity. * I fhall give one example of a confiderable corruption in the Heb. Pentateuch, in which the Greek, the Syriac, and all the later ver- fions agree with the prefent Hebrew : and therefore, 'tis probable, that this corruption happen d early in this firft period, at leaft be- fore the Gr. verfion was made. The paffage here meant is Deut. 10, 6 — And the children of Ifrael journeyed fr 0771 Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mofera. There Aaron died &c. But that Aaron died at Mofera, or Moferoth, is contradifted by two other accounts in the Heb. text itfelf (Num. 20, 22, and 33> 30 ) both which agree in declaring, that he died at mount Hor, the feventh Jiation from Mofe- roth. The order of the march is alfo tranf- pos'd in the preceding quotation; fince they journey' d, not from Bene-jaakan to Moferoth, but from Moferoth to Bene-jaakan : as is cer- tain from Num. 33, 31. The reader will be well-pleas'd to find, that the Samar. text and its verfion have delivered down the genuine * See the preceding pages 29 and 30. and First Period. 315 and confiftent words of Mofes in both thefe particulars ; for they have preferv'd the ma- ny words, which have been carelefly omitted here in the Hebrew ; and they read ( without the tranfpofition ) in the manner following — And the children of Ifrael journeyed from Mo- feroth, and pitched in Bene-jaakan : fro?n thence they journeyed, and pitched in Hagidgad : from thence they journeyed, and pitched in Jotba- thah, a land of rivers of ivaters- : from thence they journeyed, and pitched in Ebronah : from thence they journeyed, and pitched in Ezion- gaber: from thence they journeyed, ajid pitched in the wildernefs of Tj'm, which is Kadeih : from thence they journeyed, and pitched in mount Hor. And there Aaron died &c. 'Tis generally agreed by the Jews, that many corruptions happen'd in .their facred books, during the 70 years captivity. * And it can fcarce be doubted -, but that the dreadful perfecutions, which the Jews fuffer'd from Antiochus Epiphanes, and after him from others in different ages, were attended with effefts equally, if not more, unfavourable to the Heb. copies. And therefore, tho' the fa- * See B. Chiim's preface; fetfl. 7, 8. And Abarbanel alfo, in the preface to his book mnK '^m, fays — ^DD D/^Vn Ntry /— ;»;^J5T 'i'Di;^ Zfru litiraz'ii sos ab omni confufione ^ err ore. Q^ cred 316 Hist, of H e b. Text. cred text was left perfect at the beginning of this firft period, 400 years before Chrift ; yet many alterations might, and probably did, happen during thofe 400 years. But then, even in this period, we are providentially furniili'd with fuch evidences, as will difcover, and cor- real, feveral of thefe corruptions. The Heb. Pentateuch of the Samaritans has been before treated of particularly. And as to its Syro- Chaldaic verfion^ I lliall only add here — that the age of it may be dated from the beginning of this period. It muft not be forgot, that the Heb. and Samar. copies agreed more in the days of old, than they do at prefent in the printed editions ; for 'tis certain, from feveral inflances which I have already difcover' d, that the Heb. MSS now extant contain readings differing from the printed Hebrew, and agree- ing with the printed Samaritan. See 6 in- fiances, mention'd in pag. 181, 184, 185, 186, 187. To thefe I fliall add 8 inftances more, taken from two Harlean Heb. MSS in the Britijh Mufeiim ; the 6 firft from a MS, cata- logued N°. 5706 \ the two laft from N°. 5709* Note; thefe Heb, MSS agree, in the following inftances, with the printed Samar, copies. Lev, 9, 21. ntTD ni^ MS rwi:i ns* nin^ m^' 11,25. ^^^^ ^'^'^^ MS NDD1 D^on vnminiia Exod, First Period. 317 Exod, 7, 14. XDvr\ vhdh MS dvh dk Th&7 9, 24. Dn^ro \nK ^Dn MS Dn':i,t:n 29. ^£)D DK t:nD^f MS ^dd t:^n£)^e 13, 5. S.^ mn* MS S^? n^n^K nw 15, 17. ^'ir\'2 uns^e MS i:riD mn' 20, 18. Gvn MS DJ/n ^D As the Heb. and Samar. Peiitateuchs are two copies of the fame 'Text ; and as thefe co- pies .will corred: a few corruptions in each other, which were introduc'd before the Greek verfion was made : fo nearly the fame kind of affiftance may be deriv'd from the Heb. Text alone, wherever any account of men or things is expref/d twice, and repeated in a parallel paffage. This method of correBing the Text by itfefy by other paffages evidently defign'd to exprefs the fame words (or at leaft one uniform fenfe ) is very fatisfadtory ; and will furnifh almoft the only means of correfting fuch miftakes, as crept into any of the books from Jojhua to Malachi, during the firft 250 years of this period. It was upon this plan, antecedently to the difcovery of our Heb. MSS, that I began my Diflertation ; which, I prefume, abundantly proves the advantage, and indeed neceffity, of comparing parallel places : fince the comparifon of them difco- vers fome remarkable corruptions, which it Qj:j 2 would 3i8 Hist, of Heb. Text, would be now ( perhaps ) Impoffible to cor- reft by any other method. Let us take one example of an omijjiony another of an interpo^ lation, and a third of a confusd corruption. We read in i Chro, u, 13 : Eleazar was with David at Pafda?mnim, and there the Phi- lijlijtes gathered together to battky where was a parcel of ground full of barley ; and the people fled from before the Philiflines. Who could have difcover'd, that 34 words are here omit- ted ( fome of which are abfolutely neceffary to the fenfe of the chapter ) if they had not been prefenv'd in the parallel place, in 2 Sam. 23 ? See Diflertat. p. i 28. As to an interpo- lation : who could have difcover'd, that 2 whole verfes have been inferted improperly at the end of Chronicles ; did not the beginning of Ezra, by having the fame words, fully prove — that party and a very abrupt part, of the decree of Cyrus had been fubjoin'd to Chroni- clesy thro' the inadvertence of fome tranfcri- ber ? See DifTertat. p. 491. And as to a cor- ruption by change of letters &c. we read in 2 Sam, 21, 19 : Elhanan, the f on offaare Ore- giniy a Bethlehemitey flew Goliath the Gittite. But every man knows, that Goliath the Git tit e was ilain by David, And I do not fee, how we could ever have correded the errors in thefe First Period. 319 thefe words, without help from other paflages; eipecially from that which is exprefly parallel, in I Chro, 20, 5 : where we read properly — Elhanan the fin ofjaor, Jlew Lahmiy the bro- ther of Goliath of Gath, See Dilfertat. p. 78. From the confideration of the Samar. Pen- tateuch, and Parallel Paflages in the Heb. Text, let us proceed now to the Greek ver- Jion-y which claims our attention in the next place, in point of importance, and alfo in point of time. After many voluminous con- troverlies amongft learned writers upon the Greek verjion of the old Tejiament, we feem to have 3 circumftances clearly alcertain'd that there was no Greek verfion before that call'd the LXX — that the verfion fo deno- minated, was made at the beginning of the reign oi Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 280 years before Chriil: — and that the verfion, then made, was only of the Pentateuch. The learned Dr. Hody, who feems to have ftudied the origin of the Greek verfion more fully than any critic before him, has eftablifh'd the 3 preceding points, in his book f De Bib- lior, textibus orig. & verfiontbus ) pag. 570, 91, and 159. He feems alfo to have labour'd very fuccesfuUy, in detefting the falfe ftory of Arif- teas ; 320 Hist, of Heb. Text. teas; which is —•' that the Gr. verfion was made by LXXII Jewijh elders, at the command of Ptolemy : pag. i — no. He proves ( pag. 97 ) that this verfion was made by the Jews living at Alexandria, for the ufe of themfelves, and the many thoufands of their brethren, who were then fettled in Egypt; and who, living amongft Greeks, generally us'd the Greek language. And laftly he proves, that tlie whole Heb. Bible was not tranflated into Greek, at 07tce\ but that different parts were tranflated at different times — that the Penta- teuch was tranflated firft, about 285 years be- fore Chrift —- that only the Pentateuch was read in the fynagogues, till about 170 years before Chrifl:; when Antiochus Epiphanes, their cruel perfecutor, forbad them to recite any part of the Law — - that, foon after this prohibition, the Jews tranflated into Greek Ifaiah and the following prophets, for the ufe of the temple at Heliopolis and the Alexan- drian fynagogues — and that the other books were tranflated afterwards, with different de- grees of flvill and care, at various times, and by various perfons. See pag. 175, 190, 203. "* * Amongft other arguments, to prove the diverfity of tranfla- tors, may be reckoned the different tranflation of remarkable words, and the different expreliion of the fame Heb. letters in proper First Period, ^^21 This verfion of the old Teftament, thus gra* dually introduc'd into the world, however fu- perior in value one part may be to another, is ( when taken together ) a treafure truly inefti- mable. And we find Hody, with a warm fenfe of his obligation, thus exprefiing his pious gratitude — Verjionem Grcecam quant ivis pretii thefaurum hibens fateor ego, atqiie etiam profit teor-y & pro ea equidem Deo O. M, ex animo gratias ago : pag. 364. When we meditate attentively on the ftate of the world, and the hiftory of divine Provi- dence ; we cannot but adore That Wifdom, which from time to time protefted Revela- tion with fuch different fecurities which guarded the Pentateuch of the Jews by a coun- terpart lodg d fafely in the hands of the Sama- proper names. Thus CDT)ti'/D Philiffines is render'd in the Pentateuch and Jojhua <[)j/A<57«|tt, but in all the other books u)ii^c~ (P'jXoi. Thus nOD Pajfover is rendered in the Chronicles (Pxttk, bat in every other book ttu^oc. Thus the termination of local and family names is uniformly diftinguifh'd, in a catalogue of the fame men, by the tranflators of Samue/ and Chronicles : for €>iKMi, Avx%)Bj, NiTu^xBjy f!)x^x%ivi, Boi^(nicfjtiy Hx^.xtcovt ( with many others in Chrcn,) are in Samuel QixaiTKg-> Avxju^inqy Ne- T ^\Vi< > i Heb. MS. 439- Jo/- 15, 47 : ^HJjn ( printed ^Ujn ) 7 Heb. MSS. 445. Jud, I, 22 : on ( printed DO ) — 2 Heb. MSS. 15, 6 : nOK DOT ( not nO ) 4 Heb. MSS. 446. 15, II : ])\VD]U Or\b ( not \WDm ) I Heb. MS. 16, 18 : >^ Tjn ( printed nb ) — 4 Heb. MSS. 20, 13: on ( not printed ) — 4 Heb. MSS. 450. Rutb 4, 4 : ^K:in { printed V^^J' ) — 2 Heb. MSS. 45 1 . I Sart. 2, 3 : )b) & a ( nb) & non ) 4 Heb. MSS". 2, 16 : H^ ?ion ( printed 1^ ei ) 3 Heb. MSS. 452. 12, 10 : nONn ( printed nDSn ) 6 Heb. MSS. 454- 17, 7 : V^ (printed ^m ) — i Heb. MS. 463. zZam, 14, 26 : ^p'^'n ( printed pKn ) i Heb. MS, 472. 23, 13 : rwb^ 3 ( t=l')DbXD 30) 3 Heb. MSS. 23, 18 : n*i:;bt^n ( wbz'T\ ) — 3 Heb. MSS. 23, 21 : W>\!< vir ( n'l^^'K f/i'/ ) — 5 Heb. MSS. 476. I Ki7i. 12, 7 : nmn (printed "nmn ) 3 Heb. MSS. 12, 21 : Kn'1 ( printed IKnn ) 5 Heb. MSS. 477. 12, 23 : in^D ( printed Tn^D ) 2 Heb. MSS. 481. 2 A!"/;?. 19, 31 : n^xni^ (not printed ) — 3 Heb. MSS. 484. I Ckro, 6, 57 : not thefpurious word min> 5 Heb. MSS. 486. II, 3 : *]bDn (not printed ) — 1 Heb. MS. 487. II, 20 : >'ii^aN ( printed ♦li'nK ) 5 Heb. MSS. II, 20 : 1V1 ^ ^i ( xVl ^ /^tf// ) 2 Heb. MSS. 483. First Period. 329 483. 2 Chro. 1 1 , 1 8 : nn fdia ( p jilius ) — 2 Heb. MSS. 494. Job 42, 2 : >r)j;i> ( printed nj/l' ) 4 Heb. MSS. 496. Tfal 16, 10 : -]TDn (printed 71>Dn ) 17 Heb. MSS. 500. 22, 17 : nXD ( printed >-)ND ) 4 Heb. MSS. 504. 79, 7 : 1^Di< ( printed ^DN ) — i Heb. MSS. 503. Ifai. 7, 13: m.T (printed 'H^N ) i Heb. MS. 512. 65, 25 : r\n' ( printed nnXD ) -- i Heb. MS. 511 Jer. 7, 22 : >N>lfin ( printed X'2fin ) 4 Heb. MSS. 512. 21,12: DD>V^];d ( printed Dn>^!?J^D ) 4 Heb. MSS. 5x3. 31. 38 : CD'Nl ( not printed ) 3 Heb. MSS. 516. Exek.^z, 16: nWD tr^Dn (niDK "l^r^r]) 3 Heb. MSS. 48, 16: E'Drr (li'Dni:>Qn) — 8 Heb. MSS. To the preceding long lift of inftances, ill which the prefent Heb. MSS differ from the printed Heb. Text, but agree with the Greek verfion, I ihall now add others, which I have difcover'd fince the publication of the former, 'Exod. 9, 24 : tDH'^^Dl HarL 5706. 1 0, 1 8 : ntra j^5^n — HarL 5709. 12, 3: ^n nny — i^Zi^r/. 5709. 12,46 : ^n nnjr — ^<:2r/. 5709. 13^ 5- n^n^K mn» — HarL 5706. 20, II : D^n DJ^i — 5^^/. 5233. 20, 18 : iD^n bD — HarL 5709. 31, 8: vbD ^D " - i7^r/. 5706. IjCV. 9, 21 : nt!^D n^^ nin» - ' HarL 5706. Deut. 5. 8: ; Sdi boD 5 MSS. 5^23: ^^ry Tino iJ^r/. 5709. 6, J2 : T^^^? mn^ — 2 MSS. 6, 13: p:inn ibi — Prov. 33° His 1 Prov. 15, 20 Ifau 29, II 34, 16 Ezek. 34>3i OF H E B. Text. '-^^DD pi See p. 188. r\r\[h b'2^\^ -- BodL 5945. r\^T\'' ^D O - - BodL 461. DD^n^K nin* ':?^ HarL 5509. But it will be faid — Tho' we are oblig d by fuch a multitude of proofs to allow, that the authors of the Gr. verfion did read diffe- rently, as to Jingle letters 2in.A Jingle words -, yet what are we to think of this verfion, where it has many words together, and fometimes whole verfesy which are not in the printed Heb. copies ? I anfwer ; that thefe alfo may have been in the old Heb. MSS, tho' omitted in the later MSS, and therefore not appearing in the printed text. I fliall prove this, in one very remarkable inftance, from the prefent Heb. MSS. In the 2 ift chapter of yojhua ; the 36th and 37th verfes, tho' clearly neceffary to the ttnt^ of the chapter, having been accidentally omitted in fome ancient copy, are omitted in many later MSS : and being omitted in that copy or copies, on which the Mafora was form'd, they have been refus'd admittance into the printed Heb. text, upon Maforetic autho- rity. But thefe 2 verfes are in all the copies of the Gr. verfion ; and becaufe this verfion is ftrongly confirmed by the context, the tranfla- tor has generally been fupposd to have found thefe First Period. 331 thefe verfes in his very ancient MSS. They are inferted in the Heb. text of the Lond. Po- lyglott; and are admitted likewife into our Eng. Verfion, in the following manner — And out of the tribe of Reuben^ Bezer with her fuburbsy and Jahazah with her fuburbs, Kedemoth with her fuburbsy and Mephaath with her fuburbs : four cities. But then ; it might be ftill objefted that, fuppofing the preceding words to have been in the ancient Heb. MSS, yet the Gr. verfion has jflill more words in one of thefe verfes : and may not thefe be thought an arbi- trary infertion ? A fatisfa6lory folution of this difficulty was given in my DifTertation ( p. 442 ) where I produced 2 Heb. MSS, which had thefe verfes, and one of thefe MSS had alfo the four words morey which had not been taken notice of, as exifting in any Heb. MS. And therefore, the Author of the account of my book, publifh'd at Gottingen ( as mentioned in pag. 327 ) has noted this circumflance, but in a very inaccurate manner — Hoc prorfus iiovi attulit ex codice fuo 62 [not 62, but 5] quod in verfu 36, poji Reubenis no?neny hie codex cum gracis interpretibus addit ^"^"0 ^^^ HK urbent /•{/i/^// -— whereas, it ihould have been faid — - T\*rsr\ D7p0 yv ilK urbem refugii homicidce. S f I have 332 Hist, of H e b. Text* I have lately met with 4 other Heb. MSS, which contain thefe 2 memorable verfes ; but with different degrees of perfection. One MS, in the public library at Cambridge, ( cata- logued E e, 5, 8 ) has them, as they are print- ed in our Polyglott -, without the 4 words above fpecified : as is the cafe alfo of a fecond MS ( UarL 5498 ) in the Britifh Mufeum. In this fame repofitory is a third MS ( HarL 5774 ) which has the merit of prefer ving them, with the fame 4 words. But it is the lingular honour of the fourth MS, N° 1528 in the fame coUeftion, to have preferv'd ftill one word more , which does not yet appear to be contained in any other Heb. MS. And this word, being alfo exprefs'd in the Gr. verfion, is a very re- markable addition of authority to that verfion ; and indeed amply juftifies it, in this extenfive example. For, as the Gr. verfion reads — TW '2xro?\.iv TO ^^ u n fold e d i?r u n- ROLLED the volume. But, this circumftance falling rather within xh^fecond period , I ihall here conclude the hiftory of the Heb. text, during the firfi: period, namely, from the time of Malachi to the time of Chrift. P E R I O D 11. From the Beginning of the Chrijftian ^ra To the Year after Chrift 400- The firft circumftance, obfervable in this fecond period ( and it is a circumftance of the greateft confequence, in an examination of the Heb. Text ) relates to the quotations made in the new Teftament from the old by our Sa- viour and his Apoftles. But it is not my in- tention to confider all that has been offered, by 344 Hist, of Heb. Text. by numerous writers, on this exteniive and very interefting fubjed: : and indeed the nature of my prefent fcheme will only admit a few obfervations. The general opinion feems to be — that the writers of the new Teftament quoted uni- verfally from the Greek verjion of the old ; which therefore ( 'tis faid ) gives the higheft authority to that verjion. But men, who have examin d more judicioufly, ftate the matter thus that the quotations are fometimes from the Greek verjion^ and fometimes yri:?;;^ the Heb, text. And thefe authors conclude, that all is well, tho' fuch quotations are made from the Greek, where that differs from the He- brew y becaufe ( fay they ) both the text and the verjion are, in fuch places, always THE SAME IN SENSE. But whoever examines thefe quotations ful- ly, will find — that fome of them are not the jhne in fenfe with the words of the prefent Heb. text. And therefore I prefume, that the only true method of ftating this point, and doing juftice to our Saviour and his Apoftles, in their references to the old Teftament, is to fay — that, for whatever purpofe fuch quota- tions were made ( whether by way of exprefs prophecy, or only of allufion and accommo- dation ) Second Period. 345 dation ) they were always confonant to the true fenfe of the Heb. text. For 'tis fcarce poffible to conceive, how any fpeaker or writer can quote juflly fuch and fuch words, as from Mqfes (forinftance) ovifaiah; when the words quoted are not the words of Mofes or Ifaiah, and do not exprefs even the fenfe of Mofes or Ifaiah ; but are only taken from fome verfion, which ( upon the prefent fuppofition ) was no verfion at all in thefe inftances, becaufe it did not agree here in fenfe with its Original. The caufe of the general ( and indeed al- moft univerfal ) miftake, on this great article, is no other than that fruitful parent of error, the notion of the integrity of the modern Heb. text. For the writers, who have held this to be perfeBy have never been able, and ( I ap- prehend ) never will be able, to vindicate the Apoftolical quotations. Paflages, quoted from the facred Jewifh writers by infpir'd men, muft have been quoted agreeably to the fenfe of the Heb. text. But fuch quotations do not agree in fenfe with the printed Heb. text. Therefore fome alterations have happened, ei- ther in the Gr. text of the new Teftament, or the Heb. text of the old. What fay the Deifts here ? T:he Heb, text, fays Mr. Collins * * Se« the preceding pages 104 -« ioS» has 346 Hist, op Heb. Text. has certainly been deliver d down perfeB ; and therefore, fays he, the quotations are either forgd or faljijied in the new Tejlament, On the contrary ; as it appears from a collation of the Greek MSS of the new Teftament, that the words of the quotations are not corrupted in the Greek text; fo will it appear, from a collation of the Heb. MSS, that the words have been corrupted in the Hebrew, And if this be truth; it is furely a folution, which fhould recommend itfelf to the approbation of all Chriftians. That it is true; I have already (at p. 107) given one very fignal proof — in one wordy which is printed in the Hebrew, not only in a fenfe different from that given of it by two Apoftles, but alfo in a fenfe fubverfive of the argument which they build upon that very difference. If therefore the Apoflolical rea- foning upon this word was well grounded, and if the word in the Hebrew was anciently as they both quoted it; it mufl have been fincc corrupted. And indeed this turns out to be a corruption of a very late date^ being found only in a few of the latefl MSS. For amongft 31 Heb. MSS, in which I have found this word; the oldejl and beji MSS, and the far greater number, namely Twenty Seven^ read it Second Period. 347 it exprefly as the Apoftles have quoted it. This argument, in vindication of the Apof- toHcal quotations, v^hich is founded on the many corruptions provd in the later Heb. MSS, feems to eflabHfh this great point ( hitherto varioufly agitated ) upon a firm and folid foun- dation. That the writers of the new Tefla- ment did not make it a conjlant rule to quote from the Greek verlion, is certain 5 as appears from the many places, where their quotations differ from that verjion and agree with the He- brew. And as the quotations now agree with the Hebrew, frequently in the exprefs words, generally in the fenfe ; fo 'tis moft probable, that they univerfally agreed at Jirji — and that, where the Hebrew was exprefs'd properly in the Gr. verfion, they usd the words of that verfion — and, where that verfion was not proper, they tranjlated for themfelves. In fupport of the preceding fentiments, I fljiall produce the authority of St. Jerom, in the feveral following fentences — - Perfpicuum eji ilia magis vera eJJ'e exemplaria, qucu cum novi '^efiamenti au5ioritate concordant. * Crebro, Eu- Jiochiumy dixiffe me ?iovi, Apojiolos & Eva?ige- lijias ubiqiiumque de veteri Injirumento ponmit tejlimonia, fi inter Hebraicum & LXX nulla * Edit. Benedict, torn. 2, col. 507. U u diver- 34^ Hist, of H e b. Text. ♦ diverfitas fit, vel fuis vel LXX interprefu?7t verbis utifolitos. Sin autem aliter in HebraicOj aliter in veteri editione Jenfus ejl, Heh'ciicuni magis quam LXX fequi, * Jure LXX editio obtinuit in ecclejiis, vel quia prima ejl, & ante Chrijli fa5la adventiim; vel quia ah Apojiolis (in quibus tamen ab Hebraico non difcrepat ) ufurpata, — Non damno LXX-, fed confident er cunBis illis Apojiolos prafero, — Apojiolici viri fcrifturis utuntur Hebraicis : ipfos Apojiolos & Evangeli/ias hoc feci fe perfpicuum eft. Salvator^ ubiquumque veteris Scriptura memi?iit, de He- braicis voluminibus ponit exempla, — Nee hoc dicirnusy quod LXX interpret es fuggillemusy fed quod Apoftolorum & Chrifti major ft audi or it as : & ubiquumque LXX ab Hebrao non difcordant, ibi Apoftolos de interpret atione eorum exempla fumfffe : ubi vero difcrepant, id pofuij'e in Grce* CO, quod apud Hebrceos didicerant, Sicut ergo ego oftendoy multa in novo Teftamento pofta de veteribus libris^ quce in LXX non habentur ; & hcec fcripta i?i Hebraico doceo : fc accufator of tendat aliquid fcriptum ejje in novo 'T eft amenta de LXX interpretihus, quod in Hebraico non habeatur : & finita contentio eft,^ 1 fhall fub- join the following teflimony from Origen, who 1 Edit. Benedict, torn. 3, col. 390. 2 T:m.ii, col. 255, 423, 433. fays Second Period. 349 fays — 'Eoyj^eicoau^j.iv hy oti ztti tivmv 01 Atto^Xoi TO £B PA IKON, Kcq cv to £j/ t'/] KOivn, nd-eiKcimv. * There is an objecflion, which has been fre- quently made againft the fuppofition of errors exifting in the Heb. text during the time of Chrift : which objection is founded upon this — that Chrijl never reprovd the Je^vs for per- mitting their facred books to be corrupted. Chrijl^ fay the objed:ors, certainly "would have cenfurd their want of care, if they had deferv'd it; but, there being no fuch cenfure, there was nofuch carelefnefs -, and, as the tranfcribers had taken proper care, cojifequently there were then no corruptions, I anfwer, that fome things are here prefum'd, which are not certain; and that the whole is very inconclufive. For fince the utmoft human care will not render tran- fcribers infallible, the moft careful tranfcribers might have made fome miftakes : and yet, as this was only chargeable on human frailty, how could it juftly merit our Saviour's repre- henfion ? Befides : as the moji corrupted MS, now extant, would teach all the important do&ines and duties -, the MSS in the time of Chrift, being much lefs corrupted, would teach them with far greater exaftnefs. And there- fore, tho' there might be then miftakes and * Blanchini's Vindici^, pag. 234. U u 2 corrup- 350 Hist, of H e b. Text. corruptions in the Heb. MSS ; yet thefe, not being in the li^eightier matters of the law, might not be thought proper objedls of divine ani- madverlion. But let us confider, what would naturally have been the confequence ; had Chrift fe- verely cenfur'd the Jews, upon this occafion. Would not the Jews at once have faid — that he found fault with their Bible, becaufe it was not for his purpofe ? Would they not have faid — that, tho' he appealed to Mofes and the Prophets ; yet it was plain, he could not make out his pretenfions, without altering their Scriptures ? This very bad confequence would probably have refulted from fuch a condud:. And therefore, as the Heb* MSS were uncor- rupted in the chief points; and as there was the evidence of the Samar. text and verfion, together with the Gr. verfion and the Heb. text itfelf, to afiilT: men in corredting the cor- ruptions then introduced ; cur Saviour's filence, on this head, is accounted for. The MSS then extant would fully teach the Jews their duty, and would eiteclually prove yejus to be The Mejjiah. It was therefore left to Maho- met, to th^Lt/al/e prophet, who could not make >^ out a proper title, it was left to h i m, to ac- cufe the Jews of having alter'd and corrupted their Second Period. 351 their facred books * — a contrariety of Con- duel this, which was well adapted to the con- trariety of real Character % and which feems fully to juftify the preceding obien^ations. Fhiloy of Alexandria, being born about 30 years before Chrift, probably wrote about the year of Chrift 40. Some will not allow this famous Jew to have been at all acquainted with the Heb. language; but Hody (p. 229) is of opinion, that he certainly underftood Hebrew, tho' not very ikilfully. The many quotations therefore, which this early writer made from the old Teftament, will affift us in detecting fome corruptions -, and, if none of •his quotations fhould have been regulated by the Heb. text, yet will they be highly fenice- able in afcertaining the ancient readings of the Gr. verfion. In my DiiTertation, p. 347 ; there were fe- veral remarks, to prove the genuinenefs of 2 words omitted in the Hebrew, but preferv'd in the Samar. text, of Gen. 8. 4: which words ( notwithftanding the many forc'd conftruc- * That Mahomet did thns accafe the Jews, i^z^he Karani SuFdt 2, ver. 79; Surat 3, ver. "O ; Sura: 5, ver. 14. See alio M^racci's Trcdrcm. pag.-^, 33: and Sale's Trdlr:. Dijciurjf, F^S- 74» 75» 76. tions. 352 Hist, of Heb. Text. tions, and angry protefts, made by fome wri- ters ) feem to me moft undoubtedly genuine. The Gr. verlion agrees with the Samar. text ; reading A/gAS-^|ttgv «$• 73 7n<}iov, And Philo alio reads A/saS'^^si' ^tti 73 vnJ^ovy vol, i. p. 10 1, edit, Mangey. I ihall only remark farther, that Philo fpeaks of The Law as divided, before his time, into 5 parts or books : fee vol. 2, />. i. Clemens Romanus wrote his 2 celebrated epiftles, about the year of Chrift 65. And amongft the other quotations from the old Teftament, made by this Apoftolical writer, we find this Kot/ eimv K.cuv 'txtO? aSsA tcv et&i?^(pov cLurov, AfsA^iW^gv «$■ to 7rtcic}\ov which laft word the Alexandrian MS ( from which thefe epiftles are taken ) reads here for Tnhov. See this quotation, in the curious edition of Clement publifh'd by Wotton, p. 19; where there is an excellent note, enumerating the authorities in favour of the preceding words. The next writer, neceffary to be mention'd / here, on account of the great connection of his hiftory with that of the old Teftament, is the celebrated Jewifti Prieft,FAzi;my^/>/5/^j'; who wrote his Antiquities about the year of Chrift j4. Had this work of Jofephus been now un- corrupted, it would have contributed extreamly to- Second Period. 353 towards corredting the Heb. text : and, even in its prefent ftate, its affiftance will be very con- fiderable. It has been afferted by feme wri- ters ; that Jofephus, knowing little or nothing of Hebrew, always foUow'd the Greek verfion. But one fhould think, that fome credit fhould be due to fo eminent a writer, when he him- felf afferts frequently, that Ae tranjlated from the Hebrew, At the very beginning of his Antiquities, he tells us— that that work con- tains the univerfal antiquity of their ?iation, tranjlated out of the Hebrew letters. And (lib, 10, 10, 6 ) he fays that he inferted what he found in the ancient books ^ being only an interpreter into Greek from the He- brew volumes. If then Jofephus tranflated always, or generally, from the Heb. text ; his authority will have the greater weight : and indeed his account is highly probable in feve- ral places, where the modern Hebrew feems to be corrupted. To inftance, in one very- remarkable particular. Every man, who has confider*d the quan- tity of gold and iilver, faid ( i Chron, ch. 22 and 29 ) to have been left by David for build- ing the Temple, muft have been aftonifh'd at the fum total, when reduced to our common ftandard. Walton has prefix'd to his Polyglott the 354 Hist, of Heb. Text. the following account from the learned Brere- wood, in the 3 2d page of a treatife De pon- deribus & pretiis veterum Numynorum. Ami talenta 100, 000 - - 450, 000, 000. Argenti 1,000,000 -- 375, 000, ooo, Auri talenta 3, 000 - - 13, 500, 000. Argenti 70,000 - - 2,625,000. liOX.'^y pomids Jlerling 841,125,000. Brerewood remarks thus — Si ex folido argent 0 fuijj'ent integri Templi pa?Hetes & pavimenta; fi ex auro folido teBu?n integrum & fupelle^ile fuijfet co?iflatiim : illi tamen acervi pro opere & cperariis non fuffecijfent abunde tantum, verum longe fuperajjent. Confideravi templi dimenfio- nesy & cum ea auri & argenti mole y infolidam majfam conjlata, comparavi-, & banc fiipra illiid miiltum excrevijje reperii. Verum & ex pau- pertate fua, David ipfe dicit, hc^c fe confecrajje Deo — At hcec paupertas om?iem opulentij/imo- rum regum affluentiam quantum fuperat I If we take the preceding talents, according to Bp Cumberland's computation ; the fum total will be fomewhat lefs. But, were we to reduce it to lefs than ofie half-, would not the fum of FOUR HUNDRED MILLIONS of moncy be im- menfe and incredible ? I fhall now add, that we are highly indebted to Jofephus, who ac- quaints us — that the two firft fums were only one Second Period. 355 one TENTH part of what is exprefs'd in the prefent Hebrew : fo that 'tis extreamly proba- ble, that a cipher was added to them both, in fome very ancient Heb. copy 3 agreeably to what was remarked, pag, 208. The words of Jofephus are — xf^(r)i tclKavto, fA^vpict, ^iKcc a^^yv- ^ fjLv^ict^a/; taXavtoov — auri 10,000 talento^ rum-y argenti 100,000. Lib. 7, 14, 2. The next particular, with which the hiflory of the Heb. text is neceflarily connedled, is the Syriac verjion ; which, being very literal and very ancient, is of ineftimable value. Tho' the learned mention different verfions in Syriac, yet they agree in allowing that, printed in the Paris and London Polyglotts, to be ( what the Maronites call ) the Jimple and the ancient ver- lion. Eufebius fays ( Ecclef, hiji, 4, 22 ) that Hegcfippus ( who flouriih'd about the year of Chrift 160 ) quotes the Syriac verjion — €;c tom lAjpicticov 71VCL T^triv. Pocock,* in his preface to Micah, confiders it as made in or near the Apoftolic age. And Walton fays f pro/eg. 13, 16) ab Apojiolicis viris faBa?n concede \ quody prceter traditionem generalem ecclejiarum Orient aliu7n ( cui niultum in hoc tribuendi^my cum nulla ratio clara in contrarium affertur ) ctiam ex injitis arguments probatur in ipfa ver^ W w Jioney 356 Hist, of Heb. Text. fione, quce magJia^n ejus antiqiiitatem tejianfur. As it is therefore probable, that the Syriac verlion was made about the end of the iirft century; it might be made from Heb. MSS almoft as old, as thofe which were before tranf- lated into Greek ; and from MSS, which might be in fome places true, where the others were corrupted. And it will be no wonder at all, if a verfion fo very ancient fhould have pre- ferv'd a great variety of true readings, where the Heb. MSS were corrupted afterwards. To confirm this great point, I iliall juft mention 6 inftances, enlarged upon in my Differtation ; and add fome others difcover'd fince. Thus in 2 Chro. 22, 2 ; where the prefent Heb. text fays, Ahaziah was 42 years oldy when he began to reign ( and if this could be true, he muft have been born before his fa- ther ! ) the Syr. verfion reads 22 ; as the He- brew itfelf does in 2 Kin. 8, 26. ' In Nurn, 3, 39; the word pnnJ^I is not in our oldeftHeb. MS, nor in the Samar. text, nor in the Syr. verfion. * 2 Sam. 22, 28 ; the word n^VD illu- minabis is preferv'd in this verlion, and alfo in 2 Heb. MSS. ' Prov. 19, i : this whole verfe, which was corrected by the Syriac, re- ceives abundant confirmation from Heb. MSS : I Sec DilTert. pag. 98. 2 Pag. 411. 3 Pag. 467. as Second Period. 357 as was before obferv'd, pag. 287. ' "Jer* 26, 1 5 the word Jehoiakim is read in this verfion ( and perhaps more properly ) Zedekiah "- And in I Sam, 6, 19 ; where the Heb. text reads 50,070 Philiilines flain for looking into the ark ; the Syriac reads 5070. ^ To thefe I fliall now add a few inftances more, which are alfo very remarkable. The firft is. Lev, 3, 8 ; where, as the Syr. verfion reads — aizd jhall Jlay it before the Lord ; fo the HarL Heb. MS, N^ 5706, reads — - DHti^T rV\r\*' ^:Bb inx. The 2d inftance is, 2 Sam. 15,7; where the text tells us at prefent, that after 40 years Abfalom faid to David &c. but the Syriac reads, after four years. As there is no kind of event, from which the 40 years can be dated, with any fhadow of argument ; very great has been the diftrefs of the advo- cates for that reading : and indeed thofe, who refolve to vindicate every printed blunder, will have difficulties enough upon their hands. But we are happy in finding here that — Jofephus reads 4 years * that Theodoret reads 4 years ^ — that, in the Benedi6t. edition of Je- rom's verfion, feveral Lat. MSS are mentioned, I Differt. pag. 509. 2 Pag. 513. 3 Pag. 532. 4 Anti(i, 7, 9, I. 5 Interpret. 28 in 2 Sam, W w 2 as 358 Hist, of Heb. Text. as reading 4 years ' — that the canon of the Heb. verity, fuppos'd to be made about the 9 th century, is faid to be alter'd by fome cor^ redling hand from 4 to 40 * — that quafuor was alfo the reading in the famous Lat. Bible of Sixtus, tho* altered by his infalHble brother Clement to quadragintay in compliment to ( what he calls ) the Hebrew Fountain ^ — that one Lat. MS in Exeter College library ( C. 2, 13) reads poji IIII autem annos — and that quatuor is alfo the reading in an ancient Lat. MS, written in the Gothic charafter, the va- riations of which are publifh'd in Blanchini's Vindicicey pag. 55 — 207. "^ So that Grotius is well fupported, in having pronounc'd fo de- cilively — hand dubius error fcripturcey additis 1 See the Note, in col. 381, torn, i . Z See pag. 204 ; and the Note laft referred to. 3 See the preceding pages 197 — 295. 4 The learned Dr. Gregory Majanfius fays of this MS Biblia Latina, chnraSferibus Gothicis fcripta fere ante mille annos ^ extant adhuc in Bibliotheca Complutenjt. My authority for this is a long and valuable Letter, fent to His Majefty'^s late AmbafTador at Madrid, the Honourable Sir Benjamin Keene, in anfwer to an Enquiry made by His Excellency after the Spanifh MSS of the Bible; particularly thofc, which had been made ufeof for the Complutenfian edition. The Anfwer to this Enquiry contains many cijrious particulars ; and has been very obligingly commu- nicated to me by His Excellency's Brother, the Lord Biihop oi Chester, ad Second Period. 359 ad vocem vy^'^ duabus Uteris % quatuor an-- nos interceffijfey res ipfa loquitur. The 3d inftance, in favour of the Syr. ver- lion, fhall be 2 Sam. 22, 7 ; where feveral Heb. MSS have the words Knn Vi£)^, agree- ably to this verfion, and alfo to the parallel place Pfa. 18, 7. The 4th inftance is 2 Chro. 36, 9 ; where the Heb. text reads — Jehoia- chin was eight years old ; but this verfion reads eighteen. Dr. Wall's note on this place is — // is in my opinion pity, that the tranjlators have not mended fuch apparent er-- rata of the fcribe of the prefent Hebrew out of 2 Kings 24, 8 5 or out of LXX-, or out of common fenfe. I fhall conclude thefe few fpecimens of the great ufefulnefs of this verfion, with Prov. 26, 5 : a text, which is very frequently men- tion d, yet perhaps almoft univerfally miftaken. This and the preceding verfe contain thefe ce- lebrated aphorifms — Ajjfver not a fool, ac- cordifig to his folly -, — and Anfwer a fool, according to his folly. I would beg the reader to refledl, whether it be poffible for words to exprefs a naor^e clear and abfolute contradic- tion. If fuch a prohibition, and fuch a com- mand, had been both really given, unreflrain'd by any circumftances ; I fhould honour that cafuift, 360 Hist, of Heb. Text. cafuift, who could decide — how a wife man is bound to anfwer a fool's quejiion : fince if he 2iniwcr fooHJhlyy he muft ofFend againft the pro- hibition ; if wifely y he muft ofFend againft the co7nmand. If we confider each maxim, with its concomitant reafon -, we ftiall find the firft perfeftly fatisfaftory, but the fecond the very reverfe of propriety. Anfwer 7iot a fooU ac- cording to his folly- And why ? Lef thou alfo be like unto him : i. e. left thou be defervedly thought as great a fool as thy companion. Anfwer a fooU according to his folly. And why ? Lefl he be wife ( in his own eyes, or ) in his own conceit. What ! if a man talk fool- ifhly to a fool ; will that prevent a fool from thinking himfelf wife ? Certainly, in all the variety of things, there is nothing io likely to make a fool conceited, and to imagine himfelf a wife man ; as to hear a man of acknowledg'd wifdom talk in the fool's own ftile of nonfenfe and folly. I will prefume, the Reader is pre- pared to admire, and to accept with gratitude, the different reading preferv'd by the Syriac verfion ; in which the 2 maxims ftand thus. Anfwer not a fooly according to his folly ; left thou alfo be like unto him, Anfwer a fooly according to thine own wifdom ; left he be wife in his own conceit* It Second Period. 361 If any thing can be yet wanting to recommend this variation ( as being certainly genuine ) be- fides the perfedt propriety of the Syriac, and that infult upon common fenfe contained in the prefent Hebrew ( a reading, fo much the re- verfe of what it ought to be, that the learned Schultens makes not the leaft attempt to ex- plain it ) if, I fay, any additionl evidence {hould be requir'd, in fupport of this Syriac reading ; we may find it in the extraordinary concur- rence of the printed Chald, faraphrafey whofe ancient Heb. copy had the very fame readings And, as the prefent Heb. MSS afford proof, that a word has fometimes been taken in care- lefly from the line above ; fo the laft word of the firft Hemiflic in the fecond verfe is here taken in improperly from the end of the firft Hemiftic immediately over it, where the fame words preceding and following might the more eafily miflead the eye of the tranfcriber. ♦ vrvn DDn "n'Ts"^ id iri^.N^ b^DD n^jf If the reader has ever perus'd Bp Bull's life ( written by Mr. Nelfon ) he muft recoiled here the Quaker's challenge, to talk Scripture with him : fee p. 81. Mr. Bull, accepting the challenge, requir'd his adverfary to reconcile thefe two texts — Anfiver a fool, and anfwer not 362 Hist, of Heb. Text. not afoot, according to his folly. The Quaker, readily difcerning the flat contradiftion, an- fwer'd — that Solomon never faidfo. Mr. Bull then referred to the very words ; upon fight of which, his antagonifl: ( greatly mortified and aflionifh'd ) reply'd — Why, then, Solomons a fooL I fhall only add : that this enemy to hu- man learning might have fpar'd the imperti- nence of his fecond reply 5 if he could but have feen the truth of his frjiy namely, that Solomon never faid fo. From the Syriac verfion, we might proceed to the old Italic ( or Latin ) verfion ; that be- ing ( perhaps ) the next article in point of time. But as it may be more proper to con- ned: this with the Latin verfion of St. Jerom ; I fhall now mention the 3 verfions of Aquila^ Theodotion and Symmachus. 'Tis obfervable, that foon after the beginning of the 2d cen- tury, the Jews began to cenfure the Greek verfion, as not exadt and differing greatly from the Heb. text. That this verfion, tho' their fathers had fo much gloried in it, fhould at this time lofe its credit with the Jews, we can eafily believe for two reafons. Firfl:; becaufe, if they fl:ill approved of the Gr. verfion as ex- aft, they muft have condemned their H^b. text, Second Period. 363 text, which had then fuffer'd many alterations. / And fecondly; becaufe the Chriflians, gene- / rally ufing the Gr. verfion, fetch'd from thence ^ their arguments againft the Jews : and there- fore the Jews thought it good policy to con- demn that verfion as being at firfl: made, or fince become, fo inaccurate and fo faulty, as not fafely to be depended upon* The more effedlually to ihew their con- tempt, or rather their deteftation, of this ce- lebrated old Gr. verfion, they determin'd upon a new one : and indeed, that they might have at leaft numbers on their fide, they made three to fupply the place of the former. The firfl: of thefe was made, about the year 130, by Aquila ; who had been expell'd from amongfl: the Chrifl:ians, * and confequently ( becoming a Jew ) hated the Chriftians with a double degree of hatred. The fecond was made, about the year 175, by Theodotion; who was both Jew and Chrifl:ian, one of thofe who conned:- ed belief in Chrijl with obedience to the ritual law (j/'Mofes. And the third was made, about the year 200, by Symmachus ; who was a re- negado from the Samaritans to the Jews. * Aquila ah ecdejia Chrijiiana^ tanquam ad falutem minime idpneui, ejeilus eft. Epiphan. de pond. & mcnf, c, 14. Xx The 364 Hist, of H e b. Text. The pretence for making thefe new ver^ fions was, that they might approach nearer to the Heb. text : but then, the nearer they ap- proached to the text where corrupted, fo much the worfe. The words nitron n:)b:i (Gen. 4. 8 ) tho* in the Heb. copies, from whence the old Greek, Syriac, and ItaHc verfions, and alfo Aquila's verfion, were tranflated, were not in the Heb. copies us'd by the 2 other new Greek interpreters. So that the time of this corruption is very nearly afcertain'd. 'Tis generally al- lowed, that the intention of all the 3 tranfla- tors was to render differently fome paffages and words, which v/ere particularly urg'd againft the Jews by the Chriftians ^ and that one view of Symmachus was to interpret fo, as to thwart the Samaritans. ' Symmachus is here plac'd after Theodotion ; becaufe Jerom fays — Symmachus in Theodo^ tionis fcita concedens : * which words neceffa- rily imply, that Theodotion was the more early. Montfaucon ^ places the verfion of Sym- machus in the 9th year of Severus ; which is about the year 200 i.e. near 30 years after t^[X7)v^(mi Anecdot. Epiphaniij Montfauc, pralim. differ t, fag, 89. 2 Comment, in Jfai. 58 ; torn. 3, coL 431. 3 Vralim, Dijfert, pag. S3* the Second Period. 365 the verfion of Theodotlon. And 'tis remark- able, that Irenceus (who flourifh'd about the year 180) fays nothing of Symmachus, but mentions Aquila and Theodotion -, when fpeak- ing of a word rendered in the fame manner by all the three. The fentence is this — a?>^\vx eo^ evioi (pctai toov vvv f^i^pf^vivivetv ToXf^covTcov ttjv ^x^ a'/TszetiA^ivci cwtoj, in the fa- mous prophecy of "Jacob ( Gen. 49, 10) are charg'd upon Aquila, as firft made by hiniy out of enmity to Chriftianity. The charge is brought frequently, and urg'd ftrenuoufly, by yujiin Martyr m his dialogue with Trypho the Jew ', '^ and as Juftin wrote only about i o years after Aquila made his verfion, he is a very cre- dible witnefs as to the nature of that Jew's al- terations. 1 Irenaeus, edit, Grabe, fag. 253. 2 The following palTages are taken from Thirlby's edition, pages 224, 395, 285. Y^«j KOj 61 ^h/.OTtoiXai v^ui ToXfAecn XiyetVy f^nat €i^>}(B-af iv r-i^ (p^ocpnTfici, rov Htmov, l^ov r, vm^'^ivo? gy p^$jD< g|«, *{».', I^oy ij viecvig iv yoc'^i >,Yi-\itw[ [ e|« pag. 3 1 9 ] — li^v^otraD fJi£i oToj, 'Eaq ecv saS"*! tk oiTiVKeiixViX euiroi. 'E7riih\ cv^ oviw; i%Yty^(m,vTo ei eoJ^pjj;(5V7o:, etXi,' Bug oiv sA3"/] a oCTrvsceiTztj. — Ata'u'ry^.Xci vpiuv itXiJ.UTi My^iv 77})/ i^'/jyi^mv rm i%hf/,Y,n$vTU ^tj etvccf iv iimv uX-/f^. A ^^rt*/ ^^g»^w cp^yov1«/ EAEFXONTA AYTHN FMiiMKN, TT\^ ero is corrupted from n*i^ ubi : agreeably to the quotation of St. Paul — 0 death, where is thy Jling ? O grave, where is thy viBory? Now as the old Greek and the Syriac verfions, and alfo the Greek verfion of Aquila, tran- flate TV^ ubi', and Symmachus ( about 70 years after Aquila) tranflates ^ni^ ero, agreeably to the prefent reading ; this corruption feems clearly to have been introduced between the years 130 and 200. 'Tis obfervable, that tho* the Jews kept an annual feftival in honour of the old Greek ver- fion, and in pious thankfulnefs for fo great a blefling ; as is recorded by Philo : ' yet ( as Mr. Jack/on tells us "" ) about the time of the 3 new Greek verfions, the Jews not only de- I See pag. 140, 141 ; torn. 2, edit. Mangey. fi Chrcr^olog. Antic^uities ; I'c/. i. p^g.^l' clar'd Second Period. 367 clar d the verfion of the LXX to be full of er- rors, and forbad the reading of it ; but alfo kept a folemn fafl, on the 8th day of T^ebeth (December ) in order to curfe the memory of its being then made. As it is the opinion of this learned Chronologer, that the ancient Chronology is true, in the manner it is now contain'd in the old Gr. verfion ; fo he thinks that the Heb. text was corrupted in its an- cient Chronology, about the time of Aquila, from the principle of enmity to the verfion of the LXX, and alfo out of oppofition to Chriftianity. * This writer alfo obferves ( pag. 92 ) that it was eafy for the Jews to corrupt their Heb. Bibles, about the middle of the fecond century. And indeed, if they did corrupt by contraBing their chronology, for the two rea- fons before mentioned ; it was probably done during this fecond century, when the Jews feem to have been particularly furious againft the verfion of the LXX, and when a great part of their Heb. copies were probably loft or deftroy'd. Morinus obferves, in his Exercitatlons on the Heb. text and verfion of the LXX f Exerc. 9, r. I ) Natu?n videtur tantum dijjidiwn textuum illorum (Heb. & Graec.) afeculo Chrijli » See vol. 1 i pag. 50, 52, 54, 79, 93, 96 &c. ad 368 Hist, of Heb. Text. iid feculum Origenis, And indeed in this inter- val there was amazing deftrudtion made of the Jewifli people, at different times ; particularly when T^itus deftroy'd their temple and city, in the year 70 when fuch multi- tudes were cut off, in the reign of Trajariy in the year 116 — and, when Adrimi (in the years 134, 135, 136 ) made that laft great de- ftrudion of them, which drove multitudes into Spain and many other diftant parts of the world. So that, inftead of our being furpriz d that any of the facred Hebrew copies fhould have been loft or injured ; the wonder may moft juftly be -— that any copies were at all pre- fervid ; and that thofe, which were preferv'd, fhould have come down in fo good a ftate, in the general, as we really find them. This conceffion is an aft of juftice, to which I am fully perfuaded, that the prefent Heb. text is fairly entitled. For, tho' I think it a matter of duty, to point out carefully fuch places as feem to be now corrupted, either thro* accident or defign ; yet it muft alfo be held a matter of duty, not to charge the Jews as having been more carelefs than they in fad: were ^ or as having corrupted wilfully many paffages, of which there is no evidence. And therefore, tho' Mr. Jackfon fecms to have col- ledted Second Period. 369 ledled a variety of jftrong arguments, in proof that the corruption of the ancient chronology- was made wilfully in the Heb. tQxt ; * yet when he extends his charge, and ( pag. 92, 93, 96 ) reprefents the Jews as having wilfully corrupted the Heb. text alfo in tie Prophecies concerning Chriji^ he feems to fpeak without authority. The only reference, which he makes on this head, is ( p. 93 ) to Epiphanius : but then Epiphanius, in the very words quoted, fpeaks, not of the Heb. text, but of Aquilds ijerjion}, and only blames that trajijlator^ for rendring fome teftimonies relating to Chrift differently from the ^erjion of the LXX. There is indeed one part, in a moft cele- brated prophecy, which feems to be very ma- terially corrupted ; but then there is the evi- dence of the Greek verfion, that this change was before the time of Chrift, and therefore was the eifed: of accident and not of defign. The nature of the miftake is this — that a tranfcriber^ having fome knowledge by memory * *Tis remarkable, that Eufebius Emifenus, \vho flourifh'd about the year 340, mentions Symmachus ( and not Aquila or "Theodotlon) as alwa'^s putting 100 years lefs in the ancient ge- nealogies, agreeably to the Hebrew. So that if the Heb. chro- nology was contraded ; it was probably done in the interval be-- tfveen Theodotion iff Symmachus. The above affertion of Eufebius is given by Mountfaucon, in his Prelim. DifTert. pag, 54. 370 Hist, of Heb. Text. of the fentence he is writings inadvertently ex-- changes the place of two words in different parts of the fentence. I fliall prepare the reader by a few fimilar inftances. One inftance may be feen in my Diflertation -, where ( in the words O Deaths where is /y6y s t i n G ? O Grave, where is thy victory ? ) the words Jiing and 'viBory were written, and printed, in the place of each other. An inftance, more worthy of our obfervation, occurs in the Greek verfion of Ifai, 65, I : where the Vatican copy reads thus EfA^Cpavv}^ i^vriS'nv -ni? tfA,i f^cyj EIIEPflTn- SIN, ivpzS-i^v Tdig ifx^i fjiyi ZHTOTSIN. But the Alexandrian copy reads — Ei^(pctvYig iyivofjuriv rotg €fiz (JLVl ZHTOTSIN, Zv^lB-Yiv TOi? if^i fiv} EIIEPn- T 12 SIN. The Vatican copy is here agreeable to the Hebrew ; and the quotation, made by St. Paul f Rom. 10,20) is alfo agreeable to to the Hebrew : excepting, that there is a farther tranfpolition at prefent in the Apofto- lical quotation, the firft half having exchanged its place with the fecond. Thus alfo, in Pfal, 32, 5 ; where the Vat. copy reads ( agreeably to the Hebrew) Tnv amaptian ^tt^ iym^ou, Kojf T}]v ANOMiAN f^a UK ndzKv^ct : the Alexand. copy reads, T>?v anomian ^j^ y^oui 7}]v A- MAPTi AN 1^^. The laft inftance which I fhall mention, by way of introdudion, is Philip, i ; 3' 4 • Second P e r i o d. 371 3, 4 : Eu;^<*5/9^ 7Cf ^iCf fJLOV ITH TmtT'^ TJ MNEI A v^Jt^Ctiv -— D^cov ^ITA xctoctg 7i]V A £ H S I N mmi^ivog &c. I apprehend, that few of the Learned will doubt, whether fA^veia, and SiYimv fhould not be Jg>;cr« and ^m(M 5 after perufing the note up- on this paflage, which ( amongft many other extremely valuable criticifms ) is to be found in the 27th page of a very little, but very cu- rious Pamphlet, entitled Epijiola duce ad ceL F — p^ — Profe//orem Amjlelodamenfern fcriptce% de clar, Bentleioy & corruptis Novi Tejlamenti locts : Lond. 4to. 1721. Since therefore it appears from thefe inftances, that a word has fometimes chang'd its place with another word in the fame verfe; I (hall now mention one prophecy, where there feems to be the fame kind of exchange of two words for one another. The prophecy, here meant, is no other than that contain'd in the 53d chapter of Ifaiah-^ which fo particu- larly defcribes the nature of our redemption from fin by the fufFerings and death of the Meffiah. In this chapter, at ver. 9. we read, vnDi ^^'sD)^ rm mnp D^virn n^e tnn And he made his grave with the wicked^ and mth the rich in his death. All the ftrange perplexity of commentators, in labouring to make fenfe of the words at prefent, and the Y y remark- 372 Hist, of Heb. Text. remarkable want of fuccefs in their variety of attempts towards J t, afford the jufteft grounds to fufped:, that there is fome miftake in the prefent Hebrew. And I humbly apprehend, the whole difficulty is owing to this — that the words r\2p and vn^n ( for miDl ) have chang'd places. I muft next obferve, that the firft verb in this verfe fhould probably be ren- dered pajjivelyy in analogy to the verbs prece- ding; for, after the words, he was oppreffedy he was affiidiedy he was brought y he was taken, he was cut off-— fhould not ^D^l be rendered and he was put or placed ? It certainly may be fo rendered; and I only defire leave to tranflate here, as the very fame word ( coniift- ing of exadlly the fame letters ) is now tranf- lated properly in 2 Sam. 18, 9 — and Abfa- lonis head caught hold of the oak ( ^D^l LXX %0U{ i}Cfii(jLccS-yi ) AND HE WAS TAKEN UP be-^ tween the heaven and the earth. I prefume, that every Chriftian reader will be agreeably furpriz'd now, at feeing the words ( with this exchange ) exprefs'd in their regular tranflation And he was taken up \ji'A^iiJU(t(^if\ fufpenfus fuit'\ with wicked meji ifi his death ; and with a rich man was his fepulchre. Since the preced- ing parts of the prophecy fpeak, fo indifputa- bly. Second Period. 373 bly, of the fufferings and death of the Mef- fiah; thefe words feem evidently meant, as defcriptive of the Mefliah's being put to deaths in company with wicked men, and makiyig his grave ox fepulchre ( not with rich meuy but ) with one rich man. ^ Should it be objedted ; that, if we allow this corredlion to be right, we muft allow, that the Heb. text may be cor re Bed upon con- jeBure : I would alk — Have not other an- cient authors been corre6led upon conje6ture alfo ? And have not the learned thought many fuch corrections to be very fatisfadory ? But then, the word conje5ture muft not be left un- guarded; becaufe conjectural emendations are only then fatisfadtory, when they are well fup- ported by the context, or fome other undoubt- ed authority. This is the cafe of feveral excel- lent emendations upon conjedlure, made by Grabe and Bofs in their editions of the Gr. verlion of the old Teftament; and alfo in the Gr. text of the new Teftament, by the author * No Chriftian can poffibly doubt of this chapter being prc- didtive of the Mefliah; when he confiders ABs 8, 35. For, af- ter finding, that the Eunuch of Ethiopia had been reading this very chapter ( and had ask'd Philip, Of whom fpeaketh the pro- phet this F ) we arc told in this verfe — T^hen Philip began at the fame fcripture, and preached unto him, Jesus. Y y 2 of 374 Hist, of Heb. T?:xt. of the two Epiftles mentioned pag. 371 . * And as to the Heb. context of the words before mentioned ; I readily fubmit it to men of learn- ing Whether, at the clofe of fo circum- ftantial a prophecy concerning the Meffiah, the mention of his dealA and buriaU in the fame verfe with the mention of wicked men and one rich many do not almoft compel the reader to refer to the two thieves, as t h e WICKED MEN, with whom he ignominioufly diedy and to refer to the rich Jofeph of Arima- the ay as the rich man, in whofe fepulchre he was honourably buried. As my endeavour in this hiftory of the Heb. Text is to ftate the chief circumftances, upon which a critical examination of that Text fhould be founded; I could not omit fo ma- terial an article as the necejjity of corre5iingy in fome few places y upon the evidence of the con- text only. It may not be improper to fup- * Multi homines y iique literati, nimium facris tikis timentes, xnquiunt ; Incerta omnia ii faciunt, qui adeo fuis conjefluris in- dulgent. At vero nos, fi Veritas ipfa fpe^anda eji, incerta non fa- cimusy fed invenimus : aliud certe vclumus, nempe ex tenebris lu^ cem prof err e ; ^ efficere, ut puriora i^ cafiigatiora prodeant Apof- iolorum fcripta. St quis dicat, quod nulla facris Uteris vitia infe* derint ; pii magis efi fententia^ quam fane de his rebus judicantis. *^Efi igitur, ^7? conjecturis non Ti^A'E'^hKiis fuus adhuc hcus. Epifl. du2i pag. 30, 31. port Second Period. ^75 port this one inftance by a fecond ; and I hope, that the nature of the two inftances will be a fuificient apology for the length of this digreffion. In Jo/h. 24, 19 ; we read — ^nJ Jq/Jma faid unto the people ^ Te cannot ferve the Lord &c : this is the proper tranflation of the pre- fent Hebrew. But can any thing be more aftoniihing — than firft to find Jofhua exhort- ing, entreating, preffing the people, by every motive of gratitude and of intereft, to ferve the Lord and him only — and then, after the people had promised obedience, to find Jofhua telling them, Te cannot ferve the Lord! What ! Could he poffibly diflTuade them, could he try to difcourage them from the very thing, which he was labouring with all poffibly energy of foul, to induce them to vow mofl: religioufly ? This furely may be pronounced impoffible. Behold, how great afire a little fp ark kindle th ! See, what abfurdity becomes chargeable upon the venerable fpeaker in the text; what per- plexity, what contradidlion arifes, and fpreads its unkindly influence in this part of Scrip- ture, only from the improper infertion of one fmall letter — and of that particular letter ^ which is put in^ and left out, in a thoifaiid other 'words ^ at the tranfcribers pleafure4 I fpeak 376 Hist, of Heb. Text. fpeak thus pofitively, becaufe I make not the leaft doubt of the learned reader's agreeing, that the prefent word ^b^^^\ poteritis was ori- ginally ibon cejj'abitis : and I may venture to recommend this criticifm as worthy of real honour, becaufe it is not my own, but the re- mark of the late Mr. Hallet, in his Notes on Texts of Scripture ', vol. 3, p. 2. It may be neceflary to obferve, that ( rh^ fignifying cef- favit ) the words of the text i^Dfl ^ fignify non cejfabitis, or ne cejjetis — Ye shall not CEASE, or cease not to ferve the Lord: and then, the reafon is moft forcible and con- clulive — - Ceafe not to ferve the Lord -y ( con- tinue, perfevere in his fervice : ) y 01^ he is an holy G o D ; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive ( DD^t^*£}b ) your rebellion nor your fins: if ye forsake /i?^ Lord^ and ferve fir ange gods ', then he will turn and confume you. The word )^\V^ properly fignifies defediion or rebel-- lio7i ; it is tranflated rebellion, in fob 34, 27. And as for hVd ; to make an end, or ceafe to do a thing, are its known fignifications : as in Gen. 18, 33 ; Jud, 3, 18 : &c. Let us now proceed, with our hiftory, from Symmachus to Origen ; who composed his \ famous work of the Hexapla, in the year 231. Second Period. 377 231.* That the Heb. MSS varied in the time of Origen may be inferred from the quo- tation made in page 1 54. For as Origen fpeaks there of the more accurate MSS ; other MSS muft have been lefs accurate. Some therefore muft have been wrote with more care than others, or from better copies ; or elfe, they muft have been more accurately corredled : and certainly all real corredlion implies real corruption. If the reader pleafes, he fhall hear a confeffion from the Jews themfelves — that their Heb. copies had varied, and confequently were corrupted, long before the time of Ori« gen himfelf. For Origen, commenting on Pfa. 3, 8, fays, that the Heb, word ( ^n^ ) cannot Jignify fA^c^rcucdg, as the LXX had render d it i and that therefore it was probable, as some OF THE Jews say, that their ancient copies read differently : enos iiv, ^2 tines EBPAinN AETOTSI, Tct cioxouciL ctVTLy^.(poL in^oog ie^yjKiVCLf, This is a confeffion, which it cannot be fup- pos'd the Jews would have made to a Chrif- tian ; had not the Heb. MSS in their own time varied likewife. The old Greek word fA^cr^rcuciog fhews that the word in the old Heb. copy was tDi^nb ; and the word aidiyoov as it was render'd * Montfauc. prcTi'm. DifTert. p-.ig. 13. by 378 Hist, of Heb. Text. by the 01 Koimi ( Aq. Theod. & Sym. ) fliews that they read Thy as it is at prefent. * The numerous differences, that obtained ( at the beginning of the 3d century ) between the Heb. and Gr. copies were doubtlefs owing to many corruptions on both fides ; which therefore were objedted by the Chrijiians againfl the Heb, texty and by the Jews againfl the Gr. verjion. 'Tis no wonder, that Origen is fpa- ring of his cenfures upon the Heb. text; be- caufe he was greatly obhg'd to the Jews for their afliflance. Montfaucon tells us ( prcelim, dijf, p»2i) Origejies Judceos frequenter adibaty tit de Scripturce litter a edoceretur. But then, if Origen did thus frequently refer to the Jews, to learn what was the true letter of Scripture ; he might be much diredled by them, as to the true reading as well as the true fenfe : and if fo, we ought to trujl with caution to Origen s decijions about the Heb. t^xty which were thus regulated by Jewifh influence. With regard to the Gr. verfion, Origen was much better qualified to judge for himfelf : * Origen allow M, in other places, that the rendrings of the LXX might be owing to their reading differently in the Hcbxew. Thus, on Ezek. 7, 27; — >? fxri iv^rt^i^Tuv rcrt iv re* it^euxm rnt A«|l^Aipu,i)/9i ^i;s€9(pi^6fpi'iv cafloiq 734 ^sTf^KHuivoi tv roig euTi^oc^eig oujrm' kcj pro locis & temporibus ^ pro voluntate fcrip- torum^ vetus corrupt a editio eft, Hexaplaris autem ipfa eft qua in eruditorum libris incorrupta i^ immaculata Septuaginta interpre- B b b turn 396 Hist, of H e b. Text, ly, contradid:s that which was quoted from Jerom in pag. 387; and he could not poffibly fuppofe this true, unlefs he would grant the Heb, text in the Hexapla to be without blemijh likewife : which would be a very ftrange con- ceffion. But this perfedion of the verfion of the LXX, as {landing in the Hexapla, is what he denies in the cleareft terms elfewhere ; as the nature of the thing requires. * One great ufe however may be made of this paf- fage; which, tho' it feems to make Lucia?is edition not to be the fame with the Hexaplar copy ( in contradiction to his former triple di- 'vijion of the copies taken from thence ) clearly reprefents Lucians edition as 7iearly the fame with the common verjion of the LXX. Euthymius alfo fays, that the copy of Lu- cian cum LXX interpretum editioiie confentit-, turn tra7ijlatio refervatur. ^icquid ergo ab hac difcrepat, nuUi dubium eft, quin ita i^ ab Hebraormn auSioritate difcordet. Tom. 2, 'icol. 627. * Stcuti nullum hu?nanum opus perfeilum j ita ^ elaborata ab Adhmantio LXX interpretum editio non folum aliquos retinuit na- Z'os, Jed ^ (prater necejjaria defeBuum fupplementa) qua/dam infuper intsrpolationes ex aliis verfionibus male contraxit. Reman- fere in ea vitia, feu corruptiones quarundam vocum, qua Origenis diligentiam artemque criticam effugerunt. — Corrupfa quadam verba^ in his ipfis Origenianis codicibus reperta, ex aliorum tatrum fcriptis, vel per conje^iras^ correSia recenfentur, Grabe, De vitiis LXXf p. 95, 96. Second Period. 397 £? quce ab aliis depravafa fuerant reprobavit. And the depravations here meant were proba- bly the fame, which the Acis of Liician call the many fpiir ions paffhgesy which had been receivd into the facred hooks — alluding no doubt to the interpolations of Origen. Hody, p. 626, 627. It appears therefore, that the edition of Lucian came the neareft to the venerable copy of the LXX : and indeed this is now fo ge- nerally allow'd, that, in order to afcertain the excellence of any famous MS of this verfion, one grert point is to prove, that it agrees near- ly with the edition of Lucian, As a critical acquaintance with the prefent Greek verfion is abfolutely neceflary, in order to the forming a proper judgment of the Heb. text', I have been the more particular in the preceding obfervations. And yet, as there is one eifential point, which has not been fuffi- ciently explain'd, in proportion to its extenfive confequence ; I ihall now confider it more ful- ly— and the point I mean is 'The fever al Y^- TERPOLATioNs in the prefent Greek verfion. And, as thefe interpolations may be -— the different readings of different Greek verfions — or, gloffes and remarks inferted into the text either from the margin or the fancy of tranfcribers ; I ihall offer fome remarks upon B b b 2 both. 398 Hist, of Heb. Text. both. Thefe different kinds of interpolation are thus mention'd by the learned Zuinglius — Non ejl omittendiim^ Gracam interpretation nem plurima incommoda ejfe paffam : put a im- pojluras & importationes, nunc sciolorum, qui ex Aquilce, Symmachiy Theodotionisy aut quintce traductionisy aliquid ingerere Junt auji ( quoties enim deprehendimus duplices tranjlatio- nes?) nunc 'vero imprudentium, qui ut in doc turn dodli alicujus f qui ad marginem vel fen-- Jam fuum vel Jtmilem locum adfcripferat ) co^ dicem inciderunt, putarunt ex fubjlantia Scrip- turce facrce ejje ; ac max defcribendoy retulerunt in fuum exemplar, Prsefat. in apolog. complan. Ifaia?, foL 207. Thus alfo Grabe tells us — - Glojfemata partim, parti?n diver/a facrorum diciorum interpret amenta, e margine in textum ah imperitis librariis fubinde tranjlata, reperire eft. De vitiis LXX, p. 27. As to the interpolations, which are diffe- rent readings of different verfions j 'tis ealy to conceive, that many of thofe, who copied the verfion of the LXX, after the verfions of A- quila, Theodotion and Symmachus were made ( at leafl, after they were colledled in the Hex- apla ) would now and then infert in the mar- gin fuch readings in the other verfions, as they thought worthy of obfervation. And from the margin Second Perio d.# 399 margin, fuch notes were foon admitted into the text; the tranfcribers being ignorant e- nough to fuppofe them GmiJJions^ and therefore neceflary parts of the genuine text. For, that the Greek tranfcribers were frequently feled:- ed, for their Ikill in calligraphy, and not in criticifm, may well be prefum'd : and we have one proof furniih'd by our famous Alexand. MS — in which, not only the T in mhtshs (Num. 3, 49 ) is made larger than common, and put at the beginning of a new line, as if be- ginning a new paragraph; but in other places a fpace is left, and a new line begun with a large letter, in the middle of a {t\\X.tVLC^ : ex quo conjeBuram caper e licet , fcribam non in- tellexiJJ'e facrum quern exaravit textum, Grabe's prole gom. 1,6. In pag. 127 of my Difiertation, I mentioned one interpolation of this kind, taken from I Chron. 11, 11 ; where clttu^ and iv kcu^oo in are two verfions of riHN* D^i)! at one time. In pag. 128, another inftance was referred to, in 2 Sam. ij 13; where ov ^^zixw^a-fjAvoi. and «y hixco^ic^Y\juv are two verfions of nifi^ nV I fhall mention but one inftance more of an interpolation from different verfions ; and that is in 2 Sa?n. 5 ; 14, 15, 16. This paffage enu- merates the eleven fons of David, which were born 400 Hist, of H e b. Text. born in Jerufalem ; and the following is uni- formly their order in the Heb. text and all the verfions — Shammuah^ i ; Shobaby 2 ; Nathaiiy 3 ; Soloinoriy 4 ; IbhaVy 5 ; Elipua, 6 ; Nephegy 7 ; Japhiuy 8 ; Elipaina, 9 ; Eliada, i o ; £//- phalety 1 1 . But thefe names, now in the Fat, copy of the Gr. verfion, amount to twenty four ; the preceding eleven being all repeated, and reinferted from another veriion ( which make the number 22 ) and two of the names are exprefs'd twice even in this very repeti- tion. * i:a,{jLfA,ovii I ; ^ooQccQy 2 y ^ci%,Vy 3 ; Sot- XcofA^MV, 4 ; E^gcttf, ^ ; EKio-ovi, 6 ; Nct(psX, 7 ; U- ipigf, 8 ; EXiau^a,, 9 ; EXi^cti, I o ; EAf<:potAct§, 1 1 . 'LctfA.cLiy I ', iios-iQa^B-, 2 ; NctS-oti/, 3 y TopXcCf^ctccVy 4 ; uQuctPy 5 ; 0£>75"i^^, 6 'y [EAf(p5tAotr, a various read- ing for the nth name, and tranfpos'd; NotysJi a variation of the name following ; ] Nctipg;^, 7 ; lavctB'ctVy 8 ; AictoiCfjLv^y 9 ; BctotA/pctS', I O ; EXi(pccccB; 1 1 . But this paffage difcovers an in- terpolation, not only in the Gr. verfion, but alfo in tAe Heb. text. For in the enumera- tion of thefe names, as we now find them in I Chron. 3 ; 5, 6, 7 ; the 9th and i ith names (Elijhama and Eliphalet ) are interpolated af- ter the 5th, and yet they are exprefs'd alfo in * LXX interpretes hinc hide funt corruptly ac du/e w/ tres identidcm verjtonei ihi coaluerunt. Grabe, De z'itiis LXX, p. 96. their Second Period.^ 4or tlreir proper places. 'Tis farther remarkable ; that, in this fecond enumeration, Elijhua ( the 6th name ) is quite expelFd the Heb. text, on account of the intrufion of 2 names into its place : and that ^^^ Nepheg ( the 7th name ) is become 2 names ; one of which ( nJI^ ) is alfo interpolated, being an evident corruption and various reading of jiS^ Thefe 2 parallel places are therefore now corrupted thus — nDbtr 4 \r\^ 3 yy^ 2 v^'a>^ i Samu. 7\di^ 4 \r\^ 3 nni::^ 2 ^m^ i chro. r^» 8 :iq:i 7 v^^''^^ 6 in:j» 5 ^S* tD^D^bi^ II VT^.^ 10 v^^'b^ 9 S. :Db£)^bK II v^b^ 10 yotr^bN* 9 C. As to all thofe interpolations in the Gr. verlion, which contain various readings ex- tracted from tAe later Gr. verfions ; there is no difficulty in accounting for their iirft appear- ance in the margin, and their fubfequent ad- miffion into the text. But, what are we to fay, as to different rendrings before the time of Aquila ? If any fuch were interpolated, fo very early i will not the exiftence of thefe prove the exiftence of different Gr. verfions ( of the fame parts of Scripture ) before the verlion 402 Hist, of H e b. Text. verfion of Aquila ? And if fo ; are not all thofe miftaken, who fuppofe Aquila's Gr. ver- fion to have been thefecond? Thefe are quef- tions of real confequence^ and the anfwers fliould be made v^ith caution. The learned Grabe has prov'd, that the fame Heb. vv^ords were, in fome places, differently render'd long before Aquila ; and therefore it feems to fol- low — either, that thofe places were tranjlated by different perfons — or, that the fame tranf- lator fometimes render d the fa?ne Heb. words ( in the fame verfe ) in two different ways : of which alternative, I prefume the former part is far more probable than the latter. That there are in the prefent copies of the Gr. ver- fion fome double rendrings of the Hebrew, which were not only not taken from Aquila, Theodotion, or Symmachus, but were more early; may appear from the following in- fliances. The 2 2d Pfalm begins with thofe remark- able words, ii^ God ! My God\ why hafl thou forfaken me? The Gr. verfion reads, o The words ir^oc^ig fA,oi (look upon me J are not part of our bleffed Saviour's words, and are evidently a different tranflation of the fecond word h^ y which fignifies either Deus meusy or ad Second Period. 403 ad me. That this fecond veriion ^r^oc^ig ^0; was not the veriion of Aquila, Theodotion, or Sym- machus, is afferted by Montfaucon ; and it is prov'd by Jerom, who had free accefs to the Hexapla itfelf — Non, ut a Septuaginta pojitum eji ; Deus, Deus meus, reipice in me : & mult a hisfimilta, * As the opinion here adopted, of there being more than one Gr. verfion before Aquila, is taken from Dr. Grabe -, I fhall now give his own words : De vitiis LXX, p. 29. Ut tndu- biam affertioni fnece^ de duobus interpretamentis alkubi in unum etiam ante Origenis tempora con- fiatisy Jidem faciam ; alium locum, nulli except tioni obnoxium, proferam, EJi is Efaiae cap. 9, 6 y ubi genuina LXX verjio ejl : Kuj KccXetTctf to TUg cL^-x/iVTctg, Eufebius hunc locum ampliorem allegat ; infertis ( iriter ciy^iKo? & cth) ) feqiien^ ttbus verbis : B'oujf^ct^ofj oviA^^^Xc^y B'io? i^vm, g?^- ciccpjg, ccpx^v et^yivvig, th^ctvj^ rd ^^y^ovid? cumog ' quce reapfe exhibent aliam verfionem hebrcei ^J/V K^B t^-b^ ntr nv ^n^^ nUJl *7K a LXX interpret tibusy ijlud paulo aliter legentibusy per priora verba Greece redditi. This learned critic then proceeds to fhew, that Eufebius himfelf quo- ted the preceding words, as what were then * Adverfui Rufmum-y tgrn, 4, far. 2. png. 433, C c c con- 404 Hist, of Heb. Text. contain'd in different copies of the LXX-, fab- joining to the two former rendrings the difte- rent verfions of Aquila, Theodotion and Sym- machus. He then fhews, that Clemens Alex- andrinus (an. 192 ) and Irenceus ( an. 180 ) both quoted thefe 2 very different rendrings of this important pafTage. After which he adds — ex quibus patety umbos utramque interpreta- tionem in fids exemplaribus jundla?n habuiffe, — In alia quoque prophet ia celebratifjima aliud oc- currit exemplum diiarum interpret at ionum^ jam ante Origenis a tat em in Grceco codice jundiarum^ nempe Dan. 9, 27." de quo egerunt Ufferiiis & Vofiiis, I ihall only add, that in Ifai. 9, 6 ; the Vat. MS has only one tranflation, but the Alex. MS has both : and that both were quo- ted as early as they year 1 1 o by Ignatius — fee the fcholion, in the Vatican edition. Having given a few inftances of interpola- tions in the prefent verfion of the LXX, ari- fing from the exiftence of different Gr. ver- fions ; I fhall now mention gloj/es, or explana- tory remarks^ originally plac'd in the margin, oppofite to fuch words and phrafes in the text as appear'd obfcure : and with thefe gloffes we muft mention additionsy fet alfo in the mar- gin at firft, whether wdth a view to illuflrate or enlarge particular parts of hiftory, or from any Second Period. 405 any other motive. That it was very anciently the cuftom of Chriftian v/riters, to infert ex- planatory gloffes in the margin of their facred MSS, is allowed by the learned. And in the Two Epijllesy mentioned in p. 371, there are given 1 5 inftances of fuch marginal remarks ; which ( as the learned author feems clearly to prove ) have been taken into the text of the new Teftament, and now make part of it — to the difadvantage of that facred volume. Other inftances have been mentioned by other writers -, as the interpolation of ctm x^-^6/'^®" after xa^lv (John i, 16 ) is noted by Dr. Wall. And as to the old Teftament; one inftance of an explanatory glofs has been judicioufly point- ed out by the learned Mr. Upton, in his late edition of Spenfers Fairy ^een : vol. 2, pag. 410. The inftance is in Gen, 9, 20 : And Noah began to be an hujbandman. The words nOIKH V^ were here tranflated (M^r^c^vTsg y/ig-^ but this expreflion admitting two fenfes, ^co^ytg was afterwards plac'd in the margin, as a glofs to fix the true fenfe in this place : the confe- quence of which is, that ^^oo^yog has been ta- ken into the text, and is now plac'd there moft abfurdly in the following manner — cLvB'^coTTog yiMpyog yyig. As to laf^ge interpolations, arifing from ad- C c c 2 ditions 4o6 Hist, of Heb. Text. ditions to the hiftory by remarks made in the margin, which have crept from thence into the text ; Grabe has mentioned one which is very remarkable, conlifting of 30 words : De vitiis LXX, p. 26. The words are now add- ed, at the end of the 20th verfe of Gen» ch. 46 ; and exprefs the names of 5 perfons de- fcended from ManaiTeh and Ephraim. Grabe obferves, that fome one ( long before the time of Philo) being willing to continue the ge- nealogy of Jacob, noted here in the margin ( from the books of Numbers and Chronicles ) the 5 defcendants from Jofeph's 2 fons : which note was taken very early into the text. But, mark the bad confequences of this unfkilful intei-polation ! The fum total ( ver. 27 ) being too fmall, after this addition ; the number 70 is alter d to 75. And then, in confequence of the Gr. veriion reading 75 ; 'tis mofl pro- bable that the true number 70, us'd'by St. Stephen fAB,j, 14) was very early alter'd by fome Chriftian tranfcriber to y^ likewife. And by this means the reference, made by St. Stephen to the old Teftament, is become contradidlory to the Heb. text. To the preceding remarks on the 3 princi- pal Gr. copies taken from the Hexapla, and on their interpolations, it may be proper to add here Second Period. 407 here a few obfervations upon the two moft ce- Jebrated MSS of the Gr. verfion, which are extant in the world : the MS m the Vatican, and the Alexand, MS preferv'd ( now ) in the Britifh Mufeum. It is not my intention to en- ter into a minute examination of the merits of thefe MSS (for very great merit muft be allow'd to each, after the moft unfavourable pofitions that have been, or can be advanc'd ) but to mention a few circumftances, particu- larly relative to their connexion with the ftate of the Heb. text. The Vatican MS v/as publifh'd at Rome, by Card. Carafa, at the command of Sixtus Quintus, in 1587. It is faid, in the preface, to have been written ante milleji??iu?n ducenteji-^ mum annum \ which is before 387 : but Blan- chini fuppofes it a few years later; Vindicice, p. 34. The author laft nam'd has obliged the world with two fpecimens of its charadler : the firft is in pag. 30 of his Vijidicice ; the fe- cond, in his Eva?2ge/iarium, at pag. 492. A third fpecimen may be feen, connected with a particular defcription of this MS, fent by the prefedl of the Vatican the learned Zacag- ni to Dr. Grabe, and preferv'd in the Bod- leian library. As it is of confequence to be acquainted, in the mofl exad manner, with all 4o8 Hist, of Heb. Text. all the circumftances relating to this venerable MS ; and as this letter from Zacagni contains many curious particulars ^ it will be very ac- ceptable to the Learned, and make a ufeful part of the prefent enquiry. The following therefore is an exafl: copy of the Letter, fo far as it relates to this MS : excepting that the fmall Iota after r^, 3-icd, &c. is here omitted ; and the ancient Epjilon and Sigma are here ex- prelVd by the modern. Clarijfuno Viro B. Joanni Ernefto Grale S. T. D, Laurentius Alex. Zacagnius S. P. D, CoMMODUM accidit alterius epiftolas, quam ad te Maio prae- terito dederam, exemplar penes me remanfiile. In ea autem, Vir clariffime, quaefitis tuis de LXX. interprctum celeberrimo Vaticano fcripto codice, ex quo veteris Teftamenti grseca editio Romana deprompta fait, ita refpondebam. I. Codicem hunc praeftantiffimum initio ac fine mutilum efle; deperditis, fcilicet, prae nimia vetuftate non paucis foliis : incipit enim a cap. 47 Genefeos, prope finem folii 37 editionis Romanae col. i, lit. B, lin. 8, in illis verbis noAINEISFHNPAMESSHN. Defmit autem in cap. 9 epiftolae ad Hebrseos, ver. 14; in illis verbis AMi2M0N TQ.@EQ. Praeterea mancus eft idem codex a Pfalmo 105, fol. 465, editionis pariter Romanae col. 2, lit. A, lin. 7, in illis ver- bis AYTOYSENTnEPHMIi ; ufqae ad alia verba Pfalmii37 lit. E, pag. 477, TATAnEINAE^OPA. Folia, quas pericre, manu non admodum veteri fuppleta funt ; non item Machabaeorum li- bri, quia nempe incertum erat, an dim in eo codice extarent, Ca[;tera omnia manu una eademque in quadratis foliis. 8c tribus in unaquaque pagina columnis defcripta funt, ac praeterea eodem tempore, k ab codem librario ; ut ex atramenti & literarum fimi- litudine Second Period. 409 iitudine evincitur : totus codex ea cautione emendatus fuit, ut non immutata priori fcriptura, fingulae emendationes minoribus literis in fuperiori ut plurimum lineae parte, & interdam etiam in margine cum longiores eilent, collocarentur. II. Nulla fermc in toto codice vox aut fyllaba prae vetuftate ita olim exefa crat, ut prorfus legi non poffet; tantummodo enim literarum color evanuerat : fed cum Vaticanas Bibliothecae Praefefti haud imme- rito timerent, ne intra non multos annos legi amplius poffet, fe- dulo curarunt, ut a viro graecas lingua perito totus codex, fuper- indufto fingulis literis novo atramcnto, religiofiffime reftaurare- tur. An ante, vel poll Sixti V. editionem hoc fadlum fuerit, nos latet. Illud certum eft, fumma diligentia rem totam curatam fuiffc, ne minimo quidem veteris fcripturae apice mutato; nili quod accentus, ac fpiritus, quibus codex carebat, ubique ac fsepc quidem non redle additi fuerint, ut ex vocibus & integris lineis per veteris librarii errorem bis deicriptis, quas reftaurator femel reiingerc confuevit, dilucide apparet. III. Nullis literarum, fyllabarum, aut vocum compendiis codex fcriptus fuit, praeter- quam in vocibus ©EOS KYPIOE XPI2TOS DNEYMA IZPAHA, & in omnibus earundem cafibus ; quas ita breviari folent 02 KS X2 IINA ISA icum virgula fuprapofita'\\ in fine linearum modi- ca verborum contra6lione ufus fuit antiquus librarius, ad lineas sequandas cum una aiiis longior futura efict ; tunc enim in linea- rum fine }Cj pro x«/, O & A \^cum virgida fuprapojita'] Sc fimilia tantummodo pro ON & AN fcriptum reperias ; & infuper poftre- ma lineas vox, literis ex parte majoribus fcripta, minoribus in- terdum fine ullo compendio literarum terminatur, quemadmodum in veteris fcripturas fpecimine, quod cum his literis accipies, vi- dere eft. Ex eo quoque facile cognofces, codicem hunc omnium vetuftifiimum efie ; ejufque literas illis prorfus affimilari, quibus aritiquifiimse infcriptiones grascae exaratae funt. .Sane Pafchalis canon Hippolyti Portuenfis Epifcopi, qui fub ejus marmorca ef- figie ante Concilii Nicaeni tempora, ut probabilibus conjefluris colligitur, fculptus fuit, eadem qua Vaticanus codex, quadrata fcilicet literarum forma defcribitur ; nifi quod literse Y4)P & •*■ in Vaticano codice fere fern per, rariffime vero in Hippolyti ftatua, alias literas longitudine excedunt. Cum autem ea quadratis literis fcri- 4IO Hist, of Heb. Text. fcribendi ratio cum antea, turn Hippolyti Martyris sevo, ac dein- ceps quoque, per tria aut quatuor circiter fecula viguerit ; ex mc- morata quatuor folummodo literarum difcrepanda definiri nequit, fexto vel quinto aerae Chriflianae feculo, ut Vir antiquitatis libra- rias, te teftante, peritiflimus autumat, fcriptum fuiffe : nifi aliis argumentis ipfius opinio fulciatur, quae quanti ponderis e& pof- lint non video. Quod ad variantes Ofeae prophetae lediones abs te indicatas attinet ; fcias me totam quidem prophetiam cum Sixti V . editione comparaile, nihilque ab ea difcrepare deprehendiiTc, praeterquam in locis, quorum catalogum fubjicio. Pag. 557, col. 1, lit. r, lin. 7, TOYSAEYIOYSEAEHSri. Ibid. lit. E, lin. ult. OnaSANEKAYSnATTHN. Col. 2, lit. B, lin. ult. KAIOYAEIS OY.Lit. E, lin. antepenult. ENTHHMEPAEKEINH. Pag. 558, lit, B, lin. 8, ANAPIKAIErn. Lit. E, lin. I, ASGENHZEinPO^H THS. Lin. 4, TOYIEPATEYEIN. Col. 2, lit. B, lin. i, nOPNE TaSI ; & mox MOIXEYnZI. Pag. 559, col. 1, lit. A, KAIIA 2AITE j ita una eademque manu liotairu^ fupraponitur']. Lin. 3, THTPITHKAIANA2THZOME0A. Col. 2, lit. T, lin. 5, OYK HNOEniKAAOYMENOZENAYTOIS. Pag. 560, col. I, lit. E, lin. 7, OIES0ONTES. Col. 2, lit. B, lin. 2, nPiilMONEIAON HATEPAEAYTHN. Lin. 9, ONTronONEIS0HPAN. Lit. T, lin. 2. EKEIAYT0YZEMIZI2A. Lit. A, lin. 8, EHAHOYNE ©YSIASTHPIA. Pag. 561, col. i, lit. r, lin. I, TOYOIKOY lEPOBOAM. Col. 2, lit. r, lin. I, KAJENASEBEIAOIKOS. Lin. 2, KAIAA02, Pag. 562, lin. 2, ENFYNAIKIKAIEN TYNAIKI. Lin. 7, ANTAnOAIiSEIAYTaKS. Lit. B, lin. i, AYTOXEAABENENXri. Lin. 3, KAinPOSEGENTO. Lin. IC, OeEOSSOYSTEPE^iN. Col. 2, lit. B, 1. 7, AIOTIHZeENHSAZ. Lit. A, lin. 5, AYTAAIOTIEY0EIAI. In tribus quoque priori- bus Ezechielis prophetae capitibus hze tantum variantes ledliones inveniuntur; nempe pag. 682, col. i, lit. A, lin. 3, IIPOZnnON AEONTOS. Col. 2, lit. r, lin. i, IAON12ZOPASIN. Pag. 683, col. I, lit. B, lin. 9, MHOOBH0H2. Lit. r, lin. 7, ENflniON EMOYKAIENAYTHFErPAMMENAHK. Col. 2, lit. A, lin. lO, EISAKOYZAIMOY. Lit. T, lin. 3, iTcog : where 'tis manifeft, that the former is the verfion of p^, and the latter of p t^^ ; which alfo proves a variation in the Hebrew. And in ch. 1 8, 7 ^ uvS-fii^wg in the Vat. is in the Alex. J^v^cc — indifputably different ver- fions; Second Period. 415 fions ; the firft from D*1J^ homOy and the fecond from D*1K Syria, If, as Grabe ftates It (Prolegom. i, 10) that MS be the moft refpeftable, which comes the neareft to the Hexaplar copy; the Alexan- drian MS feems to claim that merit, In pre- ference to Its rival. ' If It be thought a mat- ter of fuperior honour, to come nearer the old Gr. verfion, uncor reeled or uncorrupted by Orl- ^tn ; ^ that merit feems to be due to the Va- tican. ' Thus In Hof, ^, 15; \^^ n^l Is In the Vat. copy, according to the old Greek, '01X3V nv : but the Alex, copy, agreeably to Theodotlon ( or, as Montfaucon fays, Symma- 1 Aliquot verfusy quos ex Theodotione injerutt Origines, tam in Vat. qtiam in Alex, codice r.on reperiuntur. — Patet Alexandrinam leBionem cum Hexaplar i melius quam Vaticanam congruere \ neutram verOy pur am & Jtmplicem ( jl modo pur a fuerit in ipjts Hexaplis ) rm o verfionem continere. Prolegom. 3 vol. Grabe's Sept. Alexandrinus Codex editionem Hexaplarem pene sequi- TUR ; fed etiam in editione Romana non pauca deprehenduntur leSliones, qua ab Hexaplari editione manarunt, Montf. Praelim. Diir. p. 43. » 2 Miror quomodo LXX interpretum libros legas, non purss, ut ah eis editi funt, fed ab Origene emendatos five corruptos — r/i amator eJJ'e verus LXX interpretum F Non legas ea, qua fub aflericis funt. Jerom to Auflin ; torn. 4, col. 626. 3 Romana LXX feniorum editio quajitujn accedat ad ILci'ivt^ ^ vulgatam A^Kixvog [feu Aukiocvi';'] ditiam, e plurihus epiflola hu- jus locis facile probari potefl. Annotat. in Epift. Hieron. ad Sun. & Fret. torn. 2, col. 671. chus ) 4i6 Hist, of Heb. Text. chus ) renders it onov cL^scictg. Blanchini in his Vindicia, p. 256, gives 46 inftances out .of Ijaiah', in which he compares the Vat. and Alex. MSS with the famous Marcalian and Chifian MSS, with the old Koivyjy and with Mont- faucoris Hexapla. And from this comparifon it appears, that the Vat. MS agrees moft with the old Greeks and the Alex, with the Hexa- pla : for the Vat. agrees with the Hexapla in 32 inftances, and in 14 with the the Y^mvw whereas the Alex, agrees with the Hexapla in 42, and w^ith the kc;j/^ in 2 only. After no- ting this from Blanchini's table, I was much furpriz'd to find a table of the fame 46 in- ftances, in the Prolegomena to the 3d vol. of Grabe's Septuagintj in which the Alex. MS is referr'd to in 4, and only in 4 inftances, in the column there call'd Hexaplar. But I was ftill more furpriz'd to find, that not one of thefe 4 inftances, there mark'd A, was really in the Alex. MS : they are indeed printed in Grabe's text, but in a lefs charaBer, and the real read- ings of the MS are given in the margin. Jerom obferves, in his comment upon Ifai, 58, 1 1 ; in Alexandrinis exemplaribus in princi- pio additum ejl : Et adhuc in te erit laus mea femper ^ G" in fine : Et ofla tua quafi herba orientur, & pinguefcent, & haereditate poflide- bunt Second Period. 417 bunt in generatlone & generationes : quod non habetur i?i LXX emendatis & veris exemplari- bus, Thefe additions are evidently either a different verjion of the words now beginning and ending this verfe y or elfe a glofs, by way of explanation. No part of this interpolation is in the Vat. MS ; and as the latter part is in the Alexandriariy 'tis ftrange that Hody fliould fix upon this very text, to prove this MS not to be Alexandrian or Hefychian ! See p. 638. To the preceding inftances of interpolation, one other, of a different kind, may be added; which deferves our particular attention — I mean, when additions have been made to any part of facred hijiory ; which additions, after being firft rafhly inferted in the margin, have been afterwards injudicioufly taken into the text. That there are grounds for fome com- plaints of this nature, is allow'd by Grabe ; who fays — Additamenta five temeritatiy five imperiti(X librariorum tribuenda puto : temeritati qutdajn ilia — infer t a a quopiam, qui in id ope^ ram abifus ef fuaniy ut hiftoriasy adjectis NOVIS QUIBUSDAM N ARR ATIONIBU S, latius diduceret, De vitiis LXX, p. 6. Interpolations, of this nature, if made late, may be difcover'd eafily by means of the feveral ancient veriions : but if made very early ( a httle before or foon after 4x8 Hist, of Heb. Text. after the time of Chrift ) it may be now dif- ficult to difcover them — and yet even in fuch a cafe, an interpolation may be detefted by the Heb. text, if made in the Gr. verjion ; or by the Gr. verfion, if made in the Heb, text-, or by an examination of the interpolation it- felf and its context, if it fhould chance to be introduc'd into both. Thefe remarks lead me to take notice of one part of the facred hifto- ry, in which there feems to be an interpola- tion ( of the nature here defcrib'd ) both in the Heb. text, and alfo in the Alex, copy of the Gr. verfion. And as this interpolation, if it really be one, confifl:s of near 40 verfes ; a careful examination of it mufl: be of great confequence in itfelf, and make an eflential part in a proper hifi:ory of the Heb. text. It will gtlfo be particularly proper in this place, on account of the difference in this great point between the Vat, and Alex. MSS. The reader has perhaps already difcover'd, that the paflage here meant relates to the hif- tory of David and Goliath ; and that it is the fame, which has been enlarg'd upon by the Reverend and learned Mr. Pilkingtoriy in his Retfiarks upon fever al paffages of Scripture : a Book, which contains many valuable obferva- tions, and to which I am much oblig'd for the favour- Second Period. 419 favourable mention it makes of my Differta- tion. I introduce this remarkable pafTage here, principally on account of one additional cir- cumftance, which will ftrongly confirm the fuppofition — - that thefe many verfes are not genuine. Mr. Pilkington has fill'd 14 pages with judicious remarks upon this fuppos'd in- terpolation ; to which pages, as I ought not to tranfcribe them, I defire to refer the reader. I fhall therefore only quote, what is neceflary to ftate the firft and chief part ; and to pre- pare for the confirmation, which will be here given, of the principal obfervation : not doubt- ing, but if the chapter ( i Sam, 17 ) fliall be thought interpolated from ver. 11 to ver. 32, the other parts there objed:ed to will eafily be given up alfo, on account of the abfurdities which feem to attend them. Remarks, pag. 6z. Had every verfion of the Hebrew Text agreed to give us a tranflation of this palTage, as v^^e now find it ; the attempts of clearing it from its embara;ffments would have been attended with very great difficulties ; but, as in feveral other cafes before mentioned, fo here, the providence of God feems to have fo far fecured the credit of thofc, who were ap- pointed to be the penmen of the oracles of truth, that the de- fence of their original records may be undertaken upon good grounds, and fupported by fufficient evidence. For, we are now, happily, in pofleffion of an ancient verlion of thefe two chap- ters, which appears to have been made from an Hebretv copy which had none of thofe 39 verfes, which are here fuppofed to have been interpolated \ nor was fimilar to what we have at pre* E e e fent. 420 Hist, of H e b. Text. fent, in thofe places which are here fuppofed to have been aher- ed. This veifion is found in the Vatican copy of the 7c ; which, whoever reads and confider?, will find the accounts, there given, regular, confiftent and probable. It will be propei , therefore, to examine the feveral parts where fuch alterations are fuppofed to have been iriade, in the Hebrew Text ; in order to produce fuch other external or internal evidence, as fnall be ne- ceffary to fupport the charge of interpolation ; which ought not to be laid, merely upon the authority of any fmgle verfion. The firfl palTage, which is not tranflated in the Vatican copy of the Greek verfion, is, from the nth to the 3 2d verfe of the 17th chapter, wherein w'e have an account, i/?. Of David^s being fent to the camp to vifit his brethren ; zdly^ Of his con- verfation with the men of Ifrael, relating to GoliaFs challenge, and their informing him of the Premium Saul had offered to any one, that fhould accept it and come off vidlorious ; 3^/y, Of Eliab's remarkable behaviour to his brother David^ upon his ma- king this enquiry: and 4/^/y, Of SauVs being made acquainted with what David had faid upon this occafion. It is obvious to remark upon this paffage, \ft, that after Da- vid had been of fo much fervice to the king, in caufing the evil Spirit to depart from him ; after its being recorded how greatly Satd loved him, and that he had made him his armour- bearer : after the king had fent to Jeffe, to fignify his intention of keeping his fon with him : all which are particularly men- tioned, in the latter part of the preceding chapter : the account of his keeping his father's fheep, afterwards, and being fent to his brethren upon this occafion, muft appear to be fomewhat im- probable. 2dly. That w^hat is here faid of the Premium, that Saul had offered to him who fhould conquer the Philijiine, is not well confiflent with the accounts afterwards given ; of which we fhall have occafion to take particular notice, "i^dly. That Eliab's be- haviour, as here reprefented, is not only remarkable, but unac- countable and abfurd. And \thly. That the enquiries of a young man, who is not faid to have declared any intentions of ac- cepting the challenge of the Philijline, would fcarcely have been related Second Period. 421 related to the king. — But now, if this pafTage be fuppofed to have been interpolated ; we muft fee how the connexion flands, upon its being omitted. V. II. "When Saul, and all Ifrael, heard thefe words of the ** Pkilijiine i they were difmayed, and greatly afraid. V. 32. "Then David faid unto Saul, Let no man's heart ** fail becaufe of him ; thy fervant will go, and fight with this '' Philijllne:' No connexion can be more proper : and, and in this view, David is reprefented as being, at that time, an attendant upon the king : and, when we had been told, juft before (16,21) that Saul had made him his armour-bearer, we might juftly expedl to find him with him, when the battle was fet in array : 17, 2. — In this connexion, David is alfo reprefented, as fully anfwering the charader before given of him ; ** A mighty va- " liant man, and a man of war :" 16, 18; and ready to fight with the Giant upon the firfl propofal : { for, the account of the Philijiiiie' % prefenting himfelf forty days, is in this pafiage here fuppofed to have been interpolated; 17, 16. } I fhall leave it to the critical Hebrew Reader to make what particular remarks he may think proper, in refpeft ro the ftyle, and manner of expref- fion, in thefe 20 verfes ; and let Je/fe go for an old maji, amongft men, in the days of Saul, Sec. The authorities here brought, to prove this great interpolation, are the internal evidence, arifing from the context -, and the external, ari- fing from the Vatican copy of the Gr. verfion. But, how then reads the Alexandrian MS ? The Remarks acknowledge, that this MS agrees here with the corrupted Hebrew ; and there- fore was probably tranflated ( in this part ) from fome late Heb. copy, which had been thus interpolated : fee pag. 72, 75. Now that E e e 2 thefe 422 Hist, of Heb. Text. thefe 2 MSS do contain different rendrings. In fome places, I obferv'd in pag. 398 — 404. And in this 1 7th chapter of Samuel, in ver. 4, the Alex. MS fays ( agreeably to the prefent Hebrew ) that the height of Goliath was fix cubits and a fpan : i.e. above eleven foot: but the Vat. MS ( agreeably to Jofephus * ) that it was four cubits and a fpan : i. e. near EIGHT foot. And in ver. 43 ; what the Vat. renders, he curfed David by bis gods, the Alex. renders by his idols. But, tho' the Heb. text might be confulted, and a few words different- ly render'd by the tranfcriber of one of thefe MSS, or by the tranfcribers of the MSS from which thefe MSS were taken; yet as thefe MSS do contain in this chapter fuch Greek as is almoft univerfally the fame ( in verb, noun. and particle ) I prefume, that they contain here the fame tranflation, with the defign'd alteration of only a few words, and with the difference of the interpolated verfes found in the Alex. MS. But, after all -, what if the Alex. MS, which * 'Tis neCefTary to (hew, that the Gr. ifj^t of Jofephus reads 7nj;^tty TESSAPCN j becaufe Hadfon's Latin verfion^ plac'd in the parallel colamn, in Hudfon's edition ( thro' a ftrangc want of rare, or thro' a ftrong fpirit of conforming to the Heb. text ) reads cu^ bitorum sex. See lib. 6, cap, 9, fee. i. now Second Period. 423 now has thefe verfes, fhould itfelf prove them interpolated ? What, if the very words of this very MS demonftrate, that thefe verfes were not in fome former Gr. MS ? Certainly, if the Alex. MS fhould be thus found, at laft, not to contradidl, but to confirm the Vatican, in its omiffion of thefe 20 verfes; the concur- rence of thefe authorities will render the ar- gument much more forcible and convincing. Let us then ftate the prefent queftion ; which is. Whether the 20 verfes, between ver. II and ver. 32, which are now in the Heb. text, are interpolated. The Vat. MS goes on, immediately from the end of the 1 1 th verfe ( — K(t\ i(poQyf^aav (r(po^^oL.) to ver. 3 2d, which begins Ko/ «7r? AccvJ': whereas the 12th verfe in the Hebrew begins, not with ajpeech, but with David's birth and parentage. If then, the Alex. MS begins its prefent 12th verfe, as the 3 2d verfe begins, and as the 12th verfe could not begin properly ; I appeal to any man of judgment, Whether the tranfcriber was not certainly copying from a MS, in which the 1^2 d verfe face ceded the nth verfe: and, if toy then from a MS, which had not thefe inter- mediate verfes. Now that this is in fad: the cafe, will at once appear, upon examining the Alex, copy ; where the 1 2th verfe begins with KAI 424 Hist, of H e b. Text. KAI EI HE A ATI A — exadlly as the 32d verfe begins, and as the 1 2th verfe could not begin properly. The cafe feems clearly to be ; that the tranfcriber, having wrote w^hat is now in the nth verfe, was beginning what is now the 3 2d verfe; when, after writing Ka/ «7r? A^^u/^, he perceiv'd, that either the Hebrew, or fome other Gr. copy, or the margin of his own copy, had feveral intermediate verfes. Upon which, without blotting out the lignificant word E I n £, he goes on to write the addition ; thus fortunately leaving a decifive proof of his own great interpolation. If this addition was in the margin of that MS, from which the Alex, was tranfcrib^d ; it might be inferted by that tranfcriber. But if it was inferted, either from the Hebrew, or from any other Gr. copy; the tranfcriber of this MS feems to have had too little learning for fuch a proceed- ing. If it was done by the writer of thaty^r- mer MS ; then the interpolation may be 1 00, or 150 years older than the Alex. MS. Per- haps the earlieft Chriftian writer, who en- larges upon the ftrange circumftance, of Da- vids coming form the fheep to the army, is Chryfoftom ; in his homily upon David and Saul : fo that, it had then been long in fome copies Second Period. 425 copies of the Gr. verfion, The truth feems to be; that the addition of thefe 20 verfes took its firft rife from what Jofephus had in- ferted, in his variation and embeHfhment of this hiftory : but, that many circumftances were afterwards added to his additions. For ( and it is extreamly remarkable ) tho' Jofephus has fome, he has not half the im- probabilities, which are found at prejent in the facred hiftory : as for inftance No- thing of the armies beijig fighting in the v alley y ox fighting at ally when David was fent by his father ; as in ver, 1 9 Nothing of the hofi going forthy and fionting fihr the battle^ at the time of David's arrival ; as in ver, 20 Nothing of all the men of Ifrael fieeing from Goliathy as in ver, 24; on the contrary, the two armies (it fhould feem) continued up- on their two mountains Nothing of Da^ vid's long converfation with the Joldiers (ver. 25 — 27 ) in feafons fo very improper, as whilft they were fijoiifing for the battky or whilft they were fieeing from Goliath ; and fieeing from a man, after they had k^x\. him, and heard him, twice in every day, for forty days together y ( ver, 16 ) the two armies, all this very long while, leaning upon their arms, and looking very peaceably at one another ™_No^ 426 Hist, of Heb. Text. Nothing of GoHath^s repeating his chal- lenge every mor?iing and every evening ; as in ver. 1 6. David ('tis faid, 'u^r. 23 ) happened to hear one of thefe challenges 5 but if he heard the evening challenge, it would have been then too late for the feveral tranfadlions be- fore, and the long purfuit after, Goliath's death ; and David could not well hear the morning challenge, becaufe he could fcarce have arrived fo early, after travelling from Bethle- hem to the army ( about 1 5 miles ) and bring- ing with him an ephah of parched corn, and ten loaves, and ten cheefes -, as in ver, 1 7, 1 8 Nothing of encouraging any man to fight Goliath by an offer of the kifigs daughter (ver, 25 ) which, as it feems from the fubfe- quent hiftory, had never been thought of; and which, had it been offered, would probably have been accepted by fome man or other out of the whole army Nothing of Eliab's reprimanding David, for coming to fee the bat- tle, as in ver, 2%', but for a very different rea- fon : and indeed it is highly improbable, that Eliab fhould treat him at all with contempt and fcurrility, after having feen Samuel anoint him for the future king of Ifrael : fee ch, 16; 1,13 Nothing of a fecond converfation between David and the foldiers; as in ver, 30, 3^- Second Period. 427 3 1— Nothing of Saul and Abner s not know-- ing "who was David's father, at the time of his going forth againft the PhiUftine; as in *uer, 55 Nothing of David's being intro- ducd to the king by Abner, in form, after kill- ing the Philiftine (ver, ^y) at a time, when the king and the captain of the hoft had no leifure for complimental ceremony, but were fet out fver. 52 ) in immediate and full pur-' fuit of the Philijiines, Nor, laftly, is any no- tice taken here by Jofephus of ( what now be- gins the 18 chapter) Jonathan sfriendfiip for David y which is related elfewhere, and in a different manner. On the contrary; as fbon as Jofephus has mention d Goliath's death ^ and told us, that Saul and all Ifrael fhouted, and fell at once upon the Philiftines ; and that, when the purfuit was ended, the head of Goliath was carried by David into his own tent ( and he could have then no tent of his own, if he had not been then an officer in the army ) I fay, as foon as Jofephus has recorded thefe circumftances, he goes on to Saul's envy and hatred of David, ar if ing from the wo^ mens fongs of congratulation ; exadlly as thefe capital parts of the hiftory are conned:ed in the Vatican MS. And with this circum- ftance I fhall conclude thefe remarks, earneftly F f f recom- 428 Hist, of H e b. Text. recommending the whole to the learned read- er's attentive examination. It mufl not however be forgot, that the learned F, Houbigant has, in his Bible, plac'd thefe 20 verfes ( from the nth to the 3 2d) betweeen hooks ; as containing a pafTage, which comes in very improperly. And part of his note upon the place is this — Hoc fublatOy nihil rejlabit in contextu lacunofwn ; nee feries abrumpitury fi jungis ver. 11 own 32; tit apud editionem Ro?nanam. Parum credibile ejiy eun- dem fcriptorem facrumy qui antea narravit Da- videm effe filium Ifai, habuifle Ifai filios odto, primogenitum effe Eliab, alterum Abinadab, tertium Samma, & caetera id genus, hcec ea-^ dem mox iterajfe : hcec enim non erant ejufmodiy ut iteranda ejje viderentur. — Nos hcec uncinis includimusy ut intelligatury umc non esse EjusDEM, cujus funt veliqudy scriptoris; G? ne accufetur hujus libri facer fcriptory tan^ quam context um fuum iterationibus otiojisy neque ex re natisy infercijfet, Tho' feveral other obfervations might be added, as to the preceding corruption ; yet I muft not enlarge farther at prefent. And there- fore I fhall here conclude this fubjedl; and, with it, the hiftory of the Heb. text, during this fecond period 3 as foon as I have obviated briefly Second Period. 429 briefly the few following objedlions. For it will be objefted — that the verfes, here fup- pos'd to be interpolated, are very many — that it is not eafy to conceive, when fuch an interpolation could have been introduc'd — and that, tho' feveral proofs have been given of interpolations in the Gr. ver/ion, yet no one proof has been given of any other pajfage interpolated in the Heh. text. Now, as to the greatnefs of this interpola- tion y if the reader be furpriz'd at this, I can acquaint him with another, that is much larger — confifting of 230 lines. This very won- derful interpolation begins at 2 Chron. 2, 7 ; and was made in an Heb. MS, now in the Britifh Mufeum, HarL N°. 5506. If it be enquired, as to this interpolation in Samuel 'y When it could poffibly be intro- duc'd into the text ? It may be obferv'd ; that about the time of J of ep hits, the Jews feem to have been fond of enlarging, and ( as they vain- ly thought it ) embellifhing the facred hiftory, by inventing fpeeches, and prayers, and hymns, and alfo new articles of hiftory, and thefe of confiderable length : witnefs the feveral addi- tions to the book of Efher ; witnefs the long / ftory, concerning wi/iey women a?2d truth, in- ferted amidft parts of the genuine hiftory of Fff2 Ezra 430 Hist, of Heb. Text. Ezra and Nehemiah, and work'd up into what is now call'd the Jirji book of Efdras : witnefs the hymn of the the 3 children in the fiery furnace, added to Daniel: and witnefs alfo the many additions in Jofephus. Certainly then, fome few remarks might be noted by the Jews, and fome few of their hiftorical ad- ditions, might be inferted, in the margin of their Heb. copies ; which might afterwards be taken into the text itfelf by injudicious tranfcribers. The hiftory of David's conqueft of the mighty and infulting Philiftine is certainly very engaging ; and it gives a moft amiable defcription of a brave young man, relying with firm confidence upon the aid of the Got> of battle^ againft a blafpheming enemy. 'Tis not therefore very ftrange, that fome fanciful Rab- bin fhould be particularly ftruck with the ftrange circumftances of the Philiftine's daring to challenge all Ifrael, and David's cutting off the giant's head with the giant's own fword. And then, finding that Jofephus had faid, that David came from the Jheep to the campy and happen d to hear the challenge ; the Rabbin might think it very natural, that David fliould be indignant againft the giant, and talk valour- oufly to the foldiers, and that the foldiers fhould Second Period. 431 fliould mightily encourage David : and then ( to be fure ) this was the moft lucky feafon to introduce the celebrated friendfhip of Jo- nathan for David ; particularly, when ( ac- cording to thefe additions ) Jonathan had feen Abner leading David in triumph to the kings prefence-, every one admiring the young hero, as he proudly advanced, with the grim head of the Philijiine in his hand. So that this mul- tiform addition and fanciful embellifhment of the Rabbin reminds one of the motley abfurdity defcrib*d by the poet in the famous lines — Humano Capiti cervicem TiElor equinam Jungere Ji velit^ ^ v arias inducere pliimas &c. The pafTage, fuppos'd to be interpolated here, was in the Heb. text before the time of Aquila; becaufe there are preferv'd a few of the differences in thofe tranflations of it, which were made by Aquila, Theodotion and Sym- machus. Thefe verfes, being thus acknow- ledged at that time, would doubtlefs be found in fach copies, as the Jews then declar'd to be genuine-, and which they deliver'd after- wards to Origen as fuch. And that Origen did refer to the Jews, for fuch copies as they held geyiuine \ he allows, in his epiftle to Afri- canus : for there he fpeaks of foothing the Jews, in order to get pure copies from them 432 Hist, of H e b. Text. TC4V }CcL%tDooy KCLf f.cv}dzv TrXcLCi^a, s^ofldyj/, Z u I N G L I u s, whofe name is juftly reve- renc'd, and efpecially by foreign Proteftants, will perhaps be a proper authority to urge in favour of the opinion — that there may have been a paffage interpolated in the Heb. text. For this famous v^riter remarks thus upon Je- rem, 52 ; 28, 29, 30. Vt ingenue dicam quid de ijlo catalogo fentiam ; adparet eum alicujus potius ejje, qui gentis Judaic^ ignomi- NIAM VOLUERIT ALiqUA RATIONS LE- VARE, quam ipjius yeremic^. Nam Ji ad c en- Jus prijlinos refpiciasy longe major fuit numerus Hebrceorumy qua^n ut tam VAUCifuerint cap- tiy & hoCy tribus be His, Niji qiiis fame^ pejie nc prceliis caufetur deletosy quo minus major modus fit captus. Sed ijla non tam libenter re-- cipiet animus judicandi peritusy atque prompte Jingitur. Verum utcunque res habeaty nolui pra- terire ilium ( catalogum ) ne quid querulis de- effet. Id maxif7ium eji 'y quod LXX ne frag- mentum qjjidem ullum hujus cata- LOGi HABENT."^ I fhall Only add to this excel- lent remark; that the Heb. text itfelf allov^^s, that *■ Thefe 3 verfes are alio interpolated in the Arab, verfion ; being inferted between hooks in the Eng. Polyglott, and mark'd as taken from a difFercnt MS. the Second Period. 433 the words of Jeremiah endedy at the end of the 51ft chapter. This 5 2d chapter therefore is tack'd on here, to introduce the book of La-* mentations y and it is evidently a copy of the conclufion of the book of KingSy with fome corruptions, and with the interpolation of thefe 3 verfes. Where this interpolation comes in, there are a few verfes in KingSy which mention the government and death of Gedaliah; and this genuine part of the hiftory in Ki?igs is left out in this chapter ( call'd Jeremiah's ) in order to make room for this fpurious infertion. For thefe 3 verfes are not in Kings, but feem abfolutely irreconcileable with what is there recorded : for here we are told, that the whole number of the Jews carried away captive, at the 3 diiferent times, was only 4600 ; whereas we are affur'd, in 2 Kin. 24; 14, 16, that at one fmgle time there were carried away no lefs than 17000. PERIOD III. From the Year after Chrift 400, To the Conclufion of the Talmud, about 700. Having thus mention d the feveral articles, which fall within the fecond period, during which it is probable that the greateft part of the 434 Hist, of Heb. Text. the corruptions in the Heb. text happened; and having endeavoured to ftate them in pro- portion to their extenlive confequence, which has requir'd a great variety of obfervations ; I ihall be obHg'd to be ihort in the hiftory of the remaining periods. I proceed therefore, in the order before proposed, to confider the Heb. text, during the third period 5 and, as this and the following periods are lefs impor- tant, they will require fewer obfervations. The firft article in this third period muft be the tranflation, or rather tranflations, of the very eminent and learned St. Jerom; who died in the year 420 : and 'tis well known, that he made two ( if not three ) Latin tranf- lations of the old Teftament. A multitude of Latin verfions had been made ( from the Greek ) before Jerom's ; and there was one, call'd the old Italic or ^vulgar Latin, which was made for the ufe of the Latins foon after their converfion to Chriflianity. This old Italic ver- fion was allow'd to be far fuperior to all the reft ; being, as Auftin calls it — tenacior ver- borum cum perfpicuitate fententice : which ver- fion becoming corrupt, Jerom ( between the years 370 and 380 ) made a new Lat. verfion from the Hexaplar Greek, inferting alfo the afterifcs and other marks of Origen : which marks Third -Period. 435 marks were foon after ( in a fecond edition ) omitted ' whether the afterijcd p^J/ages were omitted alfo, is perhaps uncertain. About the year 390 he began a new Latin verfion of the old Teftament, from the He^ breWy to which he was induc'd by the many corruptions crept into the Gr. verfion. This reafbn he gives frequently, particularly in his preface to the Chronicles ; where he fays — Si LXX interpretum fur a, Gf ut ah eis in Grce^ cum verfa eji^ editio permaneret ; fuperfue me^ mi Chromatid impelleresy ut Hebr^a volumina Latino fermone transferre^n. In this verfion from the Hebrew, the books he iirft publifh*d were Samuel and Kings, and the laft were the Pentateuchy yofhua, and EJiher : concluding the whole about the year 407. One reafon, given by Jerom for this Lat. verfion, agrees remarkably with that given by Origen for interpolating the old Greek that the Chrijiians might know what was in the Heb, text then allow d by the Jews ; fince the Jews, in Jerom's days alfo, frequently infulted the Chriftians with telling them, // was not fo in the Hebrew. * We feem to have a proof 1 Epijl. ad Augujiinu7n\ torn. 4, col. G 26. 2 Hebraus tecum difputans^ volenfque te illudere^ per fermone s p^ne fngulos ajferebat, non it a haberi in Hebreco — Jerom to So•. G g g phronius. 436 Hist, of H-e b. Text. here, that fome corruptions had crept into the Heb. text, between the days of Origen and Jerom. Origen had given the Heb. text, as the Jews then approv'd of it ( fee p. 424 ) and Jerom had free accefs to Origen's Hexapla. And therefore, had no alterations happen'd, or were none Hkely to have happen'd, in the intermediate 150 years; would Jerom have earneftly defir'd other Heb. copies ? Or, when he privately got a fight of other copies ; would he have been very eager to have tranfcrib'd them ? Thefe facts ( and they are very confi- derable ) appear from his letter to Pope Da- mafus (who died in 384 ) in which he apo- logizes for having long deferred anfwering Da- mafus, on account of his fortunately obtain- ing, and tranfcribing feveral Heb. volumes; which a Jew ( under pretence of perujing them ) had borrow'd out of a fynagogue, at "Jer orris own requeji. For he fays (torn, 2. coL 563 ) he was preparing to anfwer the letter from Damafus — quum fubito Hebraus inter- venity deferens non pauca volumina ^ qucs de phronius; torn, i, co/. S^^, The reafon of this Latin verfion he gives alfo, in his letter to Auftin — Ut fcirent nojiriy quid He- braica Veritas contineret. Non noftra conjinximus ; fed, ut apud Hebraos invenimuiy divina tranjlulimus. Sicubi dubitas, Hebraos interroga. Sed forte dices : quid, fi Hebrai aut refpondere noke- rint, aut mentiri voluerint ? — Tom. 4, col. 627. fyna- Third Period. 437 Jynagogay quaji leclurus, acceperat, Et ilico ; HABEs, i?iquity QUOD PosTi>LAVERAs : me- que dubkim, & quid facer em nefcientemy itafef- tinus exterruity uty omnibus prcetermijjisy ad fcribendum tranfvolarem ; quod quidem ufque ad prafens facto, - Whatever corruptions obtain'd in thefe Heb, copies, doubtlefs obtain'd in Jeromes Lat. ver- lion, begun foon after : and indeed, his adhe- ring to the Heb. verity is frequently aflerted ; and he appeals to the Jews for fuch a confor- mity. * Hody (p. 552 ) obferves of the great reformer Luther, quod textui Heb. hodierno minus faviffe videtur : and, that it was a re- mark of Luther's — Rabbi?ii varie deprava- runt 'y itaque Hieronymum quoque deceperunf. But he observes ( p. 429 ) that the juftly-ce- lebrated Roger Bacon remarks — Jerony- musy quia falfarius reputabatur a viris Eccle- fiafiicisy non aufus fuit ubique transferre fecun- dum Hebraicam veritatem* Jerom feems to ufe the words Hebrew verity ; as fpeaking of the Originaly in oppolition to the corrupt Gr. ver- fion : and not, as fome have imagin'd, becaufe he thought the Heb, text to be abfolutely u?i- * Mihi omnino coiifcius non funiy mutajfe me quidpinm de Be- hraica veritate. Interroga quemlibet Hebraorum. Tom. i, col. 322. G g g 2 corrupted. 438 Hist, of Heb. Text. corrupted. For 'tis Impoffible, he could think fo : when he allows, that the Heb. copies in the time of Aquila were very different from thofe in his own time ; ' when he frequently notes variations in the Heb. copies ; * and when he faw the difficulty of tranfcribing Heb, MSS, without making fome miftakes, on ac- count of the fjnall charafter, in which thofe MSS were written. ^ I ihall only obferve far- ther as to Jerom ; that he feems to prove, that the numbers in the Heb. text were ex- prefs'd by numeral letters : for he fays f to?n, 3, col, 1754) Iota litera, nonfolum apud Grce^ cosy fed & apud Hebraosy denarium numerum fignijicat. Such then is the afliftance, we may receive from this celebrated Father, and fuch is the nature of his Lat, verfion. But here we muft obferve; that the verfion, now authenticated under the title of the Vulgaty is not the very 1 ^inqus lihrt Mojlsy plus quam catert^ cum Hebraicis con - Jonant. Sed Cf Aquila^ tff Symmachus, &' Theodotioity longe alt- ter habeni quam nos legimus. Tom. 2, col. 507. 2 Malta funt eicemplaria apud Hebraos ; quce ne femel quidem Dominum habeant. Sciendum^ in quibujdam Hebraicis volumini" bus non ejje additu?n omnis. f.om. 2, r^/. 635 ; ^3, 161 6. 3 Call ganf [bus o/uHs fene^ute, ad no5iurnum lumen nequaquam valeamus Hebrctorum volumina rekgere j qua etiam adfolis dieique fulgcrem, litcrarum parvitate, nobis cacantur. Tom. 3, col. 842. verfion Third Period. 439 verfion thus made by Jerom; but a verfion compounded of the old Italic and "Jeroms ver- Jion together, fo as to make a third different from either of the two former. % We muft obferve alfo, that the MSS of this verfion are found to differ ( in fome inftances ) from the printed copies 5 fee p. 202 — that it has been printed, with many and great variations, by the Popes Sixtus and Clement; fee p. 197 — and yet, that even in its prefent ftate, it pre- ferves many true readings, where the modern Heb. copies are corrupted : fee CappeL Crit^ Sac. p. 351 — 371- ^ I fhall conclude this article with obferving, that the Heb. MSS now extant contain fome words, which are entirely different from the printed Heb. text, and yet are the very words tranflated in the printed Latin verfion. In my Differtation, p. 516; one inftance was quoted from Ezek, 45, i : where, tho' the printed Hebrew reads nSn^^ in hc^reditate, our oldeft Heb. MS reads ^"llji^, agreeably to fortito in the Vulgat. I fliall add another inftance, much more remarkable ; relating to ^erem, 5 1 , 19. The printed text is — p^n n^KD nV — inbm Dniri Kin b:)n nvv o nipv^ N071 ficut hac pars "Jacobin quia plafinator omnium * See Walton*s Frolegomena i lo, 9. ipfe 440 Hist, of Heb. Text. ipfey & fcepfrum hcereditatis ejus. The con- trail: here is between the true God, the God of Ifrael, and falfe gods, the idols of the hea- then. But what fenfe is there in the prefcnt words — "The portion of Jacob is not like them\ for he is the former of all things y and the rod of his inheritance ? The tranflators of the Eng. veriion were fo fenfible, that the text was here corrupted, that they have not fcrupled to fup- pofe a whole word dropped out in the Hebrew, which therefore they have inferted ; for they read — And Israel is the rod of his inheri- tance. Neither the prefent Greek nor Syriac verfion has the word Ifrael, but (which is extraordinary ) this word is preferv'd in the Chald. paraphrafy and alfo inTHEVuLGAT; and the latter reads — & Ifrael fcept rum ha^ reditatis ejus. This alfo is the very reading here in one of the Harleian MSS, catalogued N^572I; which reads inbm D:itr ^N^trn. And laftly; to put to filence every advocate for the perfedlion of this Heb. verfe in its printed ftate, it may be added — that in ch. ID, 1 6, we have this fame verfe, with ^Nlti^n in the printed Hebrew. Nn ^Drt ^^V >D np];> p^n rh^'2 K^ Jerem. lo, 1 6. Kin ^Drr ^-av o mpi^> p^rr nbio n^ Jerem. i^i, 19. nQt:» r\M of none effeB, thro' their traditions, Buxtorf fays ; Laudata & frita in Kabbinoriim fcriptis ejl fententia : " Fili mi, attende ad verba Scribarum magis *' quam ad verba Legis, ic. Mofis. Scito, ver- *^ ba Scribarum amabiliora effe verbis Prophe- ^* tarum.*' "* So that Buxtorf might well ex- ^ See the original words of thefe and other fimilar fayings, in Buxtorf 5 book, J)e Abbrcv, Beb, p. 226 ck'im Fourth Period. 447 claim (p. 228 ) Tides y leBor^ objlinatijjimce & obcacatijjtmce gent is , defuo Talmud & ejus corn- pilatoribus, impudentijjima & impia elogia. An ergo mirum \ quod Dei verbum reliquerunty & patrum traditiones fecuti funt ? And, in p. 335, this author obferves — Prifci illi Judcei, ad annum ufque 7niUeJimum Chrijii, tantum erant in Talmudicis occupati^ de Bibliis illujlrandis pa- rum folliciti. But the' this latter part of Buxtorf's cen- fure may be juft, as to the bulk of the Jews; yet Mafclef afliires us, that fome of the more learned were griev'd at this blind fuperftition ; and endeavour'd to bring back their brethren to a proper preference of the word of Go n. On this account, they and their followers were call'd CD^NIp quaji Scripturarii, quia folis Scripturis credere fe profitebantur ; cceteris^ eo quod Rabbinorum traditionibus mordicus adhce^ rerenty Rabbaniftarum nomen inditum : Karditce circa ann. 740 exorti funt. Pag. 10. Morinus thought he could difcover, that the ancient Jews review d the Heb. text five times, before the invention of the vowel points ; fee Exercit, p. 408. Mafclef was of the fame opinion ; and it may be proper to exprefs his fentiments in his own words. Non paiica le- gu?itur a fudceis pera^lce librorum facrorum cafii^ 44^ Hist, of Heb. Text. cajligationes Jive recenfiones, De prima, qucs dicitur ablatio fcribarum, mentio jit in id- mude : 5 tantummodo didliones fpe^at. Fit ibi^ de77i mentio de secunda, quce eji quarundam diclionu?n, quae leguntur & non fcribuntur ; & 'vice verfa. Differunt illce ab eis, qucz pojlea viagno numero a primis Mafforethis, in Biblio- 7^um 7narginibus iiotatcz^ dictmtur /implicit er Keri. Tertiam, qua corred:io fcribarum di^ citury commemorant plures antiqui Medrajhim : fpediat ea 20 circiter diciiones hinc & inde /par- fas. Quarts mentionem facit traciatus^o- pherim ; cum, plurima loca refer ens, quibus non confentiebant codices MSti, ait leclionein illam fuiffe eleBam, quce pluribus MSfis fidciebatur, AuBor libri Sopherim anxie exponit, quomodo defer ibi deb e ant libri Legis — quce 7nale fcripta eradi, quce non eradi pofjint, citra libri prof a- nationem-, quce didlio7ies in duas dividi debeant, quce divifce in unam conjungi-, quce f crib antur . cum una litera, & legantur cum alia — quce literce fcribi debeant 7najufculce, fufpenfce, inver- fce y quce didliones fupernotari, quc^ fcribi, & non legi % quce non fcribi & legi ; qua aliter fcribi, & aliter legi : &c. Tahnude multo pof- terior eJi, quia de ea farragine loquitur tam magnifice : Similis eft finquitj aquse Scriptura, Mifhna vino, Talmud condito. Quaint a re- cerfio Fourth Period. 449 cenfio multo celebrior ejiy confine f que 216 varias ledfionesy qiiarum nulla in Lege, Occidentales Judcei, in Palcejlina degentesy textum ( pojl 4 recenjiones jam memoratas ) recenfueranty & co- dices inter fe contukrant ; varias le^iones, nee non conjeBuras ?nemoratu dignasy adnotarunt, IJla r e cenfio y cum in Babylo?2iorumJudc^orum ma-' nus devenij/'ety ab eis revifa ejiy & cum fuis co-- dicibus comparata. Itaque 216 loca notarunty in qiiibus optimi eorum codices ab Occidentalium codicibus differebant : & non quoad pun^a & accentusy fed didiiones & literas. Receri/io ilia Babylonica non potuit abfolviy nifi exadio oSiavo Chrijii feculo. From thefe feveral reviews of the Heb. text it appears, that, warm as the zeal of .many Jews was for their Talmud ^ yet feme of them did not forget their facred Scriptures. How many MSS were us'd, on each of thefe occafions, is not faidj nor with what degree of exadtnefs the reviews were made. If the MSS varied theny as much as thofe at pre- fent y they would have furnifh'd far more va« rious readings, unlefs the MSS themfelves were very few. Perhaps, if they were many, they might be examin d very flightly ; and perhaps many other variations might be then noted, which are now forgotten. Some 450 Hist, of Heb. Text. Some examination, it feems, had been made of the Heb. copies, before the writing of the Talmud. For we learn from the ift of the preceding articles, that the Talmud mentions Ittur fopherim ; which means, that in fome places the fcribes took away the Fau : and yet, how confiderable that letter may be, fee p. 375. The 2d article tells us, that the Tal- mud fpeaks alfo of Keri and Cetib ; fo that there was then a catalogue begun of various readings, which were afterwards allow'd to amount to about 1000; and which would now amount to ten times that number. That many others have been noted by the Jews themfelves, fee p. 286. Under the 3d article, within this period, we hear of Tikkun fophe- rimy or the ordination and coiTedtion of many words by the fcribes 5 fome of thefe confift in the alteration of pronouns, as Dllb Hits for 'h mihi'y others of verbs and nouns, as mDi mo- riemur for ^\^'0^\ morieris, and vV^^^ tentoria fua for Vn^K deifni. We find alfo, under the 4th article, that the Jewifh critics determined for fuch readings, as were preferv'd in the greater number of copies , agreeably to p. 247, 259. How many readings were thus acciden- tally preferr'd, is not fpecified : perhaps it could not ; as it might not be known, when this Fourth Period. 451 this blind principle began to operate^ and how long its influence continued. The 5th article Ipecifies the various readings, then noted, as being 216. And laftly; to thefe reviews may be added a Jixth^ made by B. A^oer and B. Naphtaliy the former being Redtor of the fchools in Paleftine, and the latter in Babylon. If thefe tv^o critics corrected any letters a?2d words ; no particulars of thefe corredions have been recorded. The merit of thefe chiefs is generally faid to confill in noting the diffe- rences of the prefent pundluation, or vowel- points; which had been invented before, or during, their time ; and had been inferted in a few copies of the Heb. text. And this laft review, be the nature of it more or lefs im- portant, feems to have been made about the year 1000. If the 5 reviews beforemention'd fucceed each other in chronological order; 'tis proba- ble, that the Masorets ( fo much talk'd of) liv'd between the time of the 3d and of the 5th of thefe reviews. Not that all the critics, fo caird, are here fuppos'd to have liv'd at one time ; but in feveral different ages : fee p. 270. But, as there had been a fet of men, who out of a variety of traditions compo^'d the Mifli- nah ; fo there might afterwards be another fet lii pf 452 Hist, of Heb. Text. of men, who particularly colledled iiach tra- ditions, as refpedted the Heb. text : extrad- ing alfo from the Talmud, what was there recorded, in relation to words and letters ; and adding other remarks of their own. The men, who committed to writing the few traditions on this particular fubjed:, were call'd Mafo- rets: and to the Mafora, thus composed, ma- ny additions were probably made, from time to time, for ages after. The Maforets then, properly fo call'd, feem to have liv'd about the year 800. Probably not fooner -y becaufe Aben Ezra, who liv'd near 600 years ago, fays ( fee p. 271 ) that, after the authors of the Mifh- nah, came the authors of the Gemara % after whom, came the authors of the Mafora ; and after them, the authors of the pundluation. And probably not later y becaufe the Mafora does not mention the 216 variations of the Occidental and Oriental copies ; the catalogue of which was probably made about the mid- dle of the 9 th century. In the year 942 died R. Saadias, call'd Gaon ( i. e. the illufirious ) who prefided over the Babylonian fchools. For, the Jews enjoy 'd the privilege of fchools, in feveral parts of Ba- bylon, till the year 1040; when, being driven from thence by the vidorious Arabians, they fled Fourth Period. 453 fled Into different parts of Europe, particularly Spain. Mafclef fays, that Saadias was the iirft perfon, that attempted any thing. In the na- ture of an Heb, Grammar y which materials R. Juda Chiug, about 130 years after, me- thodically digefted into a regular fyftem. ' Saadias feems to have contributed his part to- wards the Mafora ; for Leufden tells us, that Saadias enumerated all the Hebrew letters In the old Teftament, and exprefs'd their feveral numbers In an Heb. poem. ^ But the chief merit of this learned and laborious Rabbi is, that he tranflated all the old Teftament from the Hebrew Into Arabic 5 expreffing the Ara- bic In Heb. characters. ^ But then, tho' the whole Heb. Bible was thus tranflated by him 5 yet the Pentateuch only has been, as yet, publifli'd from his ver- fion. The other books, now in Arabic, In the Paris and Lond. Polyglotts, were tranflated at diflferent times by different authors; partly from the Greek, and partly from the Syriac verfions : and but few parts. If any ( except- ing the Pentateuch ) were tranflated from the 1 t^ov^ Grammatica Argumenta \ p. 30, 31. 2 Philolog. Heb. Differ tat. 22, 7, 8. 3 ^2^XQvC%Frolegomena', 14,15. I I i 2 Heb. 454 Hist, of Heb. Text. Heb. text.* Where this Arab, verfion has been tranflated from the Hebrew, there it will affift in detedling fome corruptions crept into the Heb. text fince; and where it was made from the ancient verlions, there it will affift in efta- bliihing the true readings of thofe verfions. As this Arab, verfion is the lateft of all the ancient verfions of the old Teftament; we may ftop for a moment, and look back upon thefe feveral verfions, thus aifembled from dif- ferent quarters of the world, and from very diftant ages ; all uniting in one holy confede- racy, for the illujiration and correBion of the prejent volume of the old 'Tefament, Let us furvey the facred Text, attended with its vene- rable train of Verfions ; as they prefent them- felves in the following table : adding alfo fuch other afliftances, as tend to eftabUfh the true reading and true fenfe of the Original Hebrew, 1 The Hebrew Text of the Old Teftamt, 2 The Samar. Text of the Pentateuch. 3 Parallel Paflages in the Text itfelf. 4 The Samar. Verfion of the Pentateuch. 5 The Greek Verfion, call'd the LXX. 6 The Chaldee Paraphrafes. * Sec Pocock's remarks, prefixM to the various readings of th? Arab. Pentateuchs, in Walton's Polyglott ; torn. 6. The Fourth Period. 455 7 The Quotations in the New Teftamt. g The Syriac Verfion. 9 The old Italic Verfion. I o The Latin Verfion of St. Jerom. I I The Arabic Verfion. 12 The Quotations, made from the Heb. Text or ancient Verfions, by the Jews, Philo, Jofephus &c. or by the Greek and Latin Chrifi:ian Fathers, to the end of this fourth Period. P E R I O D V. From B. Aflier and B. Naphtali, 1000, To the Invention of Printing, 1457. About the beginning of this period, learning began to flourifli among the Jews ; and, with learning, the ftudy of their facred Scriptures. And about the middle of the 12 th century liv'd the 4 men, who did fo much honour to the Jewiih nation — -Maimonides, Jarchi, Aben Ezra and Kimchi. That the at- tention of the learned Jews now eminently re- verted from the Talmud to the Bible, is thus aflerted by Buxtorf — Diuturnum fuit doBo- rum virorum Jilentium^ propter gravijjimas ca- lamitates exilii. Paulo poji an. 1000, Jiudia liter arum renafci inter ipfos cceperunty & J^p^" entes 456 Hist, of H e b. Text. entes ipforum public e inclarefcere, — Al? anno 1 000 plerique libri Judceorum prodire cceperunt. ^i antea fuerunt (quorum pauci ) non Bibliis, fed traditionibus Talmudicis expHcandis, prceci- pue occupati fuerunt. De Abbrev. Heb. p. 294. It feems necelTary here to enquire into the opinions of the 4 great Rabbies, juft before mentioned ; as to the perfection or corruption of the Hebrew text. It has been already ob- ferv'd of Jar CHI ; that he fpeaks of fome co- pies being more correal than others ; that he frequently contradicts the Mafora ; that he a- grees with the 'Talmud in fome readings, which are contrary to ( what were call'd ) the more correB copies ; and that he ( as Saadias had done before him ) has noted feveral Keri and Cetiby which are not to be found in any books of the Mafora : fee pag. 238, 239, 240. It has been already obferv'd ofAsENEzRA^ that he thought a word to be wanting in 2 Sam. 13, 39 j and alfo in i Sam. 24, 1 1 : that he tells us of fome Jews, who faid that K^ non was wanting in two places -, and that fome Gram- marian pronounced above an hundred words to want alteration : fee pag. 259, 260. As to Kim CHI, who was the lateft of the Four; it has been obferv'd ( pag. 232 ) that he aiTures us, there were differences in the old Heb. Fifth P e r'i o d. 457 Heb. MSS 'y and that, where the copies difFer'd, the rule with the ancient Jews was, to follow the greater number. It has been obferv'd alio (p. 253 ) that the quotations of Kimchi from the Heb. text were, in fome inftances, diffe- from the readings in the printed copies. It mufl be now obferv'd, as to Maimonides ; that he fays. There was kept at Jerufalem for ma- ny years, and afterwards in Egypt, the famous MS of the Heb. Bible written by B. AJher^ to which the Jews applied for the correftion and regulation of all their facred MSS : and it was confulted alfo by Maimonides himfelf. Walton gives us the following, as the words of Maimonides on this fubjed; — Liber y cut innixi fumus in rebus ijiisy eji liber celeberrimus per JEgyptiwiy qui a plurimis annis erat Hiero-^ folymisy ut ex eo corrigerentur libri. Huic au^ tern oinnes innitebantur ; eo quod, cum eum cor-- rexijjet B, AJJjer, & multos annos diligent em in eo operam navaffety & fcepius eum recenfuijfet : ijium librum fecutus Jum & ego in libro Legisy quern defcripfi juxta ejus formam. And Walton himfelf fpeaks of B. Afher's copy, as that, ad cujus normam conformantur omnia Bibliorum ex- emplaria imprefja, Prolegom. 4, 9. But, tho' Maimonides thus afferts, that all men depended on B. Afher's MS, and corred:- ed 458 Hist, of Heb. Text. ed their copies by it; yet, as the prefent MSS differ in a multitude of inftances, it muft be allowed — either, that there were other ftand- ard copies, by which MSS were correcfted likewife — or that fome of the MSS, now ex- tant, differ greatly from B. Aiher's, becaufe they differ greatly from one another. The truth feems to be, that there were other MSS, deriving great fame from the learning and au- thority of the perfons writing or correcting them j which therefore wqre alfo recommend- ed for ftandard copies, in different parts of the world, and in different ages. Ante art em typographicam publice projiabat in unaquaque frovincidy in qua fynagoga pliires eranty liber qiiidam punBatiis totius fcriptura, mult or urn Rabbinorum judicio cof^rediijjime fcriptus ; ad quern, velut ad lapidem Lydium, cceteri yudcei libros privates examinabant. Liber Aflier, pra cateris Celebris, publice Hierofolymis exponeba- tur ; ad quern R. Mofes Mgyptius librum pro- prium correxit. Liter Hifpanicos antiquijjimus codex Hillelianus — & fcepe in rebus dubiis, quce fpe5lant lit eras ^c, ad margine?n MStorum adnotatur, Ita fcribi in cod. Hilleliano. Hunc confuluit Kimchi'y & tejlantur R,Ab, Zacuth & Da. Gansy quod ex eo correxerimt omnes libros. Morinus, De Text. &c. p. 466, 467- Walton Fifth Period. 459 Walton, fpeaking of this celebrated R. Hil- lely makes fome very pertinent rcmarks in the words following — Cum plures fuerint Hilk" les ; difputanfy quifnam fuerit ijie, qui librum hunc exquijitum fcripjit, — Alii dicunt, fuiJJ'e quendam Hillelem recentiorem ( quam an. 340 ) in Hifpania ; ad cujus exemplar Hifpani Judcei libros fuos abhinc 500 ayinis emendare folebanf. — Rejlat itaquey librum hunc fuijfe recentioris cujufdam Hillelis, qui poji B. AJloer & B. Naph- tali vixit ; & fortajfe Hifpani illius. Me mini t Ramban fan. 1200) libri Hilleliani. Et Mo- rinus defer ibit MS Heb, ff crip turn an, Chrijii 1208 ) ubi duo illi verfus Jof. 21. 36, 37, pri- mum fcripti fuerant : fed pojlea erafi funty hac nota in margine addita, Non invenimus illos duos verfus in Hillelianis. Ratio etiani proba- bills reddi potejly cur non habeamus codices He- brceos ita antiquos, ut Gn^cos quofdam veteris ac novi Tejiamenti : quia poft Maforetarum cri- ticam & pun^tationemy ab omnibus receptamy yudceorum magiftri omnes codices y his ?ion con- formes y ut prophanos & illegitimosy D a M N a- RUNT ; unde pojl pauca fecula, omnibus juxta Maforetarum exemplaria defcriptisy R e l i qjj i REJECTI ET ABOLiTi. Hinc efty quod pauca habemus exemplaria Hebraic a 600 a?ino7'um — exemplaria annorum 700 'Del %oo funt rarifjima, Proleg. 4, 8. K k k As 460 Hist, of H e b. Text. As the ftate of the prefent Heb. text greatly depends upon this Jifth period 5 it is neceflary to attend to thefe two points — that the Jews did corredl their MSS by fome famous copies — and that the Heb. MSS, now extant, a- bound in corrections of this nature. -Thefe material circumftances are well ftated by Cap- pellanus -, and therefore from him I fhall quote the words following — Scimus quidem famofa diverjis temporibus fuijfe qucedam Bibliorum ex- emplaria apud Jiidceosy ex quibus ccetera corri- gerent. Sic apud Ephodaum & B, Ch aim Jit mentio libri\>^^r\ ( coronamentorum ) quern ho- diernis exemplaribus prceferre non dubitant. Sic de codicibus /Egyptioy Babylonioy HierofolymitanOy quibus multum autoritatis defer ebant ; ex Jama incertay quod correct i Juijfenf a celebribus Rab-- binis B. AJher aut B. Nephtali. Sic de Hilleliano eodicey qui propius ad ?ios pertinere videtur, a quo hodierni nojiri Jh^taJJe manarunt. In libro JuchaJinJic habetur. In anno 956 [an. 1196] fuit perfecutio magna in regno Leon ( in Hifpania ) tuncque eduxerunt inde codiceni ( N^^n^nn Biblia) quem fcripferat R. Hillel, ex quo corrigebant omnia exemplaria. Et ipfe ejus partem vidi, divenditam in Africa; meo autem tempore erant 900 anni, ex quo fcrip- tus Fifth Period. 461 tus fuerat : KImchi ait Pentateuchum illius codicis effe Toleti. Hac A. Zachuty autor Ju- cba/in. Ex quibiis infer o, quant amcunque 'Ju- dm adhibeant diligent iam in exfcribendis fuis codicibus fut multi predicant j non it a tamen fuijje cert ay & ab omni fufpicione mendorum alien a y eorum exempt aria (tarn privata quani publica) ut nullis erroribus aut varietatibus ob- noxia haberentur. Siquidein, ut tejlantur Ab. Z a chut G? T>av. Ganz, ad illud Hillelianum cat era omnia corrigebant. Nee proinde etiam tantopere mira?7Z ejje Bibliorum hodiernorum in- ter fe conformitatemy quaji Jingularem & mira-- culorum divince providentice effeBuni -, ad quern yudceiy longe lateque diffvjiy confpirare non po- tuerint, Nanty prccterqiiam quod plurimisy ut dixiy adhuc fubjacent varietatibusy non objlan- tibus illis corre5lionibuSy & Maforeticis litera- rum fupputationibus ; ejufmodi exemplis patet, non femel convenijje Judceos & confpirajjey ut ad unmn ide?nqiie exemplar ccetera omnia conforma- rentur, — At quibus argument is conjlare potejl de codicis Hilleliani autoritate t ant ay ut omyiibus prceponderare debuerit y at que etiam a nobis prceferri illis vetujtioribusy ex quibus exprejfce funt vERsioNES ANTrquioREs ? ^is ita Judms additlusy ut t am facile crediderit eos ?icc falliy nee fallere potuifjey in hoc cafu ? ^is K k k 2 certus 462 Hist, of Heb. Text. certus ejfe pojjit codtceni hunCy quern ferebant a 900 annis fcriptum fuijfe, omnibus potior em eJfe-, & utrum ilia ad ilium conformatione cceteri re^ vera corrigerentur^ non 'vera corrumperentur ? ^is nefcity quam variis Jc^pe conjeBuris multi multafalfo comminifcantur de rebus y quce homi- num ?nemoriam fuperant ? ^anto magis apud Judaos f gentemfabularum credulam ) quos ne- mo 7iefcit quibus vicijjitudinibus obnoxii femper fuerint ; quamque difficile fuerit y per tot cafiis & difcrimina rerumy certam de hoc codice memo- riam retinuijfe ? — Sed hcec fufficiant ad ojlen- dendimiy quam "vana fortaffe opinione antiquita- tis J'u7nm<^y vel fpecie celeberrimi alicujus nomi- nis delujiy corrigendis Bibliis temcrarias tnanus admoverint Judcei. Non pojfum tamen omitterCy quce in banc rem ad me fcripjit fapientijjimus R, Simon, his verbis, ** Affervantur, inquity in *' Bibliotheca noftra Parifienli elegantiffima ^* Bibliorum MStorum exemplaria ; qu:£, quo *^ numero habiti fuerint Maforetarum codices, " aperte declarant : ab his enim tot in locis ilia " variant, ut ex eorum collatione variationum *' voLUMEN efficere non effet arduum. Verum V Judaei quidam recentiores, ejufmodi diflbnan- <* tiarum impatientes, fuis correftionibus tex- •^ turn omnem depravarunt. Pundta enim vo- *' c^lia in ilium invexere, appolitis Maforeta- **rum Fifth Period, 463 *' rum notis ; erafis, qu^ fibi videbantur fuperr '^ flure. Uteris ; ita ut loca omnia, quas hodier- " nis ccdicibus non refpondebant, virgula cen- ** foria notata fuerint : quas quidem deprava- " tiones, primo confpedlu, fcribarum imperitis ^* tribui. Sed dum rem propius intueor, om- ^^ nis dubitandi ratio prascifa eft ; locis enim "pra?fertim, quae a Masoretarum ledlione <* variabant, cultellus ille cenforius adhibitus ^* fuerat. Et in hoc confpirant feptem MSti ** codices, qui a fciolis Judaeis de induftria re- ^'formati funt, ut Masoreticis confor- **MARENTUR. Nec iUos fuilTe plebeiorum **hominum, elegantiflimi eorum charaileres " prorfus evincunt. Unius praefertim elegan- " tiam ne quidem imitantur Regia & Rob. ** Stephani Biblia. Hie in ufum Theodori Le- " vitae, Judasorum in exilio principis, a Ju- *Maeo quodam sacerdote, ab annis ferme " 500 [circ. 1 170] perquam accurate defcrip- *' tus fuit, ex vetuftiffimis codicibus ; poftha- ** bitis Maforetarum exemplaribus ; quas fatis " arguunt, Maforam non magni fa6tam fuiilc " a veteribus. Nec video, cur hodie pluris fiat " a Chriftianis. Eorum, qui Bibliis edendis " hadtenus praefuere, rationem probare nequeo ; ** qui Maforetarum artem, non fecus ac ii pra^- ^* ceptiones illius divinae fuiflent, fufpiciunt ; " ac 464 Hist, of H e b. Text. " ac fuperftitlonum Judaicarum fautores textum '' Biblicum mifere depravant." H^ec de expenjis afe codtcibus MStis admonere me voluit vir eru- ditijjimusy quce apprime faciunt ad rem prc^fen-- tem-y ut probetur, ne ]\]i>jeos, quidem ipfos cre- dere libros ab omnibus mendis ita immunesy quin illos quandoque audeanty corrigendi Jiudioy etiam corrumpere. Pag. 262 &c. The preceding quotation is very long ; but then it is very curious, and tends to eftablifli points of effential confequence in the prefent enquiry. Now, that the famous MSS, fet forth as Jlandard copiesy were not all of them per- fect, is evident from that mofl famous MS of R. Hillel. Perhaps the writer of it might be the very Hillel, who was extolFd in fuch fub- limated nonfenfe, that the Jews held — his merits could not be difplay'd fully, if all the heavens were parchment y and all the feas were ink &CC, Should no lefs a man than this have wrote the Hillel-MS ; yet, may not that MS be ftill prefum'd to contain many corruptions in words and letters; when, in one place, it omits TWO WHOLE VERSES, which are moft manifeftly genuine ? See p. 459. And as to the other ftandard copies, if they likewife were greatly corrupted ; then the more exactly they were follow'd, and the more implicit that obe- dience Fifth Period. 465 dience which was paid to their authority ; fo much the worfe muft be all fuch MSS, as were thus copied from, or corrected by them. 'Tis certain, that almojl all the Heb. MSS of the old Teftament, which are known at prefent, were written within this ffth pe- riod, between the years 1000 and 1457 • which makes it probable, that all the MSS, written before the years 700, or 800, were deftroy'd by fome decree of the Jewifh Senate ( fee p. 459 ) on account of their many differences from the copies then declard genuine. 'Tis cer- tain alfo, notwithftanding fome flandard copies have been held forth for univerfal imitation, as Nebuchadnezzar's golden image was fet up to be v/orfhipp'd by men of all nations and languages; and tho' the imitation in the for- mer cafe was too general, as the idolatry in the latter was almoft univerfal : yet, as there were Jews, who refused to worfhip the image, in defiance of the fiery furnace ; fo have there been Jews, who have ventur'd to reinftate ma- ny true readings, which had been expell'd by the rulers of their fynagogues. And there have been a few honourable fcribes, who, notwith- ftanding the authority of Hillel's MS, have refus'd to omit the two verfes, Jojh, 21 ; 36, 27 — which verfes, as they have been omit- ted 466 Hist, of Heb. Text. ted fo generally, and yet are fo clearly necef- fary, were probably declar'd fpurious by fome abfurd aft of the Jewifh Senate, and prohibit- ed under pains and penalties. See p. 445, F. Simon ( as we have feen, in page 462 ) declar d, that the various readings in the Heb. MSS at Paris would make a volume. And at the fame time he complains, with the ftridleft juftice, of the numerous rafures and alterations made in the oldeft and beft of the MSS ; in order to reduce them to a conformity to thoie copies, which the later Jews generally adopt- ed, and dignified with the title of Masore- TiCAL. The fame juft complaint is made by F. Houbigant, in thefe words — ^^^ quidem mifera conditio omnium omnino codicumfuity qui ante annos fere fexcentoi fuerunt defcripti ; in quibus ego fcriptiones priori manu faBas pojle- rioribus meliores fcepe deprehendi ; quoniam ve-* tujiiores ad recentiorufn normam exigebantur^ yudceorumque Masor^ devotorum infcitia & fuperjlitione inurebantur, Proleg. p. 105. That there are various readings in the Heb. MSS, and that the latejl MSS are the moji cor- ruptedy are points thus aflerted by Walton — De caufa, unde jiuxerunt variantes le6lioneSy non multum labor andum ; cum certum Jity eas a fcriptoribus facris oriri non poj/e. Errores ab iis Fifth Period. 467 ;V/, qui exemplaria defcripferunt, & non fatis accurate cum codice originario contulerunty Jiux^ ere primo ; a quibus alii alia defcribentesy erro- res eorum propagarunt ; qui (non extantibus codicibus originariisy unde corrigi pot er ant J in plures derivati funt. Sic ab uno codice mult^ millia propagari pojfunt y & quo plures codices defcripti, & quo longius a prototypis dijianty eo PLURES MENDAS contraheve procUve ejl. No- tandum etianty ex Ungues Hebrcee^ genio procll- vem ejfe fcribarum err or em ; turn ob liter arum quarundam Jimilitudinemy quas difficile ejl dijlin- guere ( prcefertim cum libri minutis charaBeri^ bus olim defcripti fuerint ) turn ob foni in aids affinitatem ; ut & per liter arum tranfpojitionem. Scribce vero error interdmn ex ofcitantia, vet non fatis at tent a eclypi cmn arc he typo collationcy oritur ; fcepe ex audacia, cum in ?}iargine notata in textum inferit -, vely men dam suspicans UBI NULLA EST, SUB SPECIE CORRIGENDI TEXTUM, CORRUMPIT. Prolcg. 6, 7. From the preceding authorities we may now infer ; that the Jewifh tranfcribers have been fubjedl to error, not only as much, but more than the tranfcribers of books in other languages ; that the Heb. MSS varied, in ma- ny places, about tlie year looo; that the Jews having been, from the year looo to 1457, L 1 1 employed 468 Hist, of H e b. Text. employ'd diligently about their facred Scrip- tures, we cannot doubt but they tranfcrib'd a great multitude of copies ; and that, as every MS would contain fome new miftakes, the more MSS there were written, the greater would be the number of corruptions ; and therefore the lateft MSS would probably be the worft. It appears alfo from the preceding teflimonies ; that the Heb. MSS, written a- bout the years iioo or 1200, were in hSt much better than the later; becaufe they are found free from many of the errors introduc'd afterwards. It appears farther ; that, about the years 1300 or 1400, the Jews had eftablifh'd fome fort of general ftandard, which they caird tie Mafora ; and that whatever copies were written thus lately agreed moft remark- ably in feveral corruptions before unknown. And we find it exprefly afferted, that many of the older MSS have fufFer'd greatly from the hands of thofe, who, under the notion of cor- redting, have corrupted them; having alter'd letters, words and fentences, in blind obedi^ ence to Maforetic authority. The pofitions thus advanced by the learned writers beforemention'd feem to exprefs a ve- ry juft ftate of things, during this fifth pe- riod. For, after an examination of above One Hundred Fifth Period. 469 Hundred Heb. MSS, I am firmly convinc'd — that the older fuch Heb. MSS are, the lefs they are corrupted^ and that the lateft MSS are ( in general ) the worft — that a multi- tude of readings, which were true and ge- nuine, have been eras'd, or mark'd as errors, in the older MSS — and, that the rule made ufe of, for correcfling in this ftrange manner, was the Mafora-y a work, form'd partly upon^ ijery late copies, and partly upon copies, if old- er, very much corrupted. For this rule com- mands *]TDn thy holy one to be written ^n^DH thy faints ; when the latter word is fo glaring a corruption, and is even now ( after all that has happen'd to the text ) found only in a few of the lateft MSS. See pag. 108, 346. Th« fame rule (amongft other interpolations there- by eftablifh'd ) commands the Jpurious word TM^TV Judah to be receiv'd as genuine, tho' it evidently makes nonfenfe, in i Chron. 6, 57. See DifTertat. p. 484, 553. And as this rule authorizes corruptions in letters, and in words ^ fo in whole fentences ; for the two genuine verfes in yojhua, which the Mafora rejefts as fpuriousy muft never be forgotten. See p. 331. The refult of the whole is this : that the Heb. MSS were at laft ( in the 14th and 15th centuries ) reduced, by Maforetic regimen, to L 1 1 2 almoft 47^ Hist, of Heb. Text. almoft an abfolute uniformity in their various depravations; and that Heb. MSS are now the more pure, and therefore the more valua- ble, in proportion as they are more ancient, and as they recede farther and farther from the laft ftage of their corruption. Here then, at the conclufion of the age of MSS, and at our entrance upon the age of Printing, it muft be obferv'd moft carefully, as a matter of the utmoft confequence in the prefent enquiry — that, if the Heb, Bible has been printed from very late MSS, or ( which amounts to the fame ) from MSS correBed down to the modern Maforetic ftandard % fuch text, fo printed, muft be far remov'd from its original integri- ty. That THIS IS FACT, I humbly appre- hend to be clearly demonftrable \ fince our printed editions agree almoft univerfally with one another, and agree uniformly with the la^ teji and worji MSS. PERIOD VI. From the Invention of Printing, 1457; To the prefent Time. The learned Father Houbigant accounts for the agreement of the printed Heb. Bibles, by faying, that all the fucceeding editions were ta- ken Sixth Period. 471 ken from thefirjl-, and that the firft Heb. Bible was printed by R, "Jacob Ben Chatniy whofe ttxt was follow'd by Felix Fratenjisy and the other editors. Frolegofn. p. 94 — 96. But if I obferve, that this account does not feem per- fedtly accurate; I prefume it will be excused by One, whom I honour as an author, and re- Ipe6t as a friend. The firft edition by R. Jac. B. Chaim was printed at Venice, and dated 'lD*n 286 i.e. in the Chriftian iEra 1526, or 1528; * and therefore this edition was fubfe- quent to that of Felix Pratenfis, which was publifh'd at Venice in 1 5 1 8 — the dedication is dated in 15 17. As it may be a matter both of confequence and of curiofity, to know the very firft printed edition of the Heb. Bible ; I fhall offer a few farther obfervations on this fubjed:. That there was an edition of at leaft a part of the Heb. Bible, long before that of Felix Pratenfis, is evident from a printed copy of the Cethubim or Hagiographa. This very curious edition is printed on vellum, in 2 folio volumes; and has many words different from all the Heb. copies printed afterwards. But, having given * The Jews omit the thoufand, and generally reckon 240 years lefs than the Chriftians : but there are fome few, who make the difference to be 242 years. an 472 Hist, of Heb. Text. an account of this fingular copy, in my Dif- fertat. p. 520 ; I fliall only add here, that Dr. Pellet, who prefented it to Eton College li- braiy, has wrote in it — ImpreJJus ejl Neapoli, 1487; i.e. anno uno ante imprej/ionemy quam fieri curaverwit Judcei Soncinates, The edition, here faid to be printed at Soncinum, is men- tioned by Le Long (Biblioth. facra) who fays, it was printed by Abraham the fon of Rabbi Hhaim i. e. Chaim. But then, tho' this 'at Soncinum, in 1488, feems to be the firft edi- tion of the whole Heb. Bible ; yet the prece- ding copy of the Cethubim was printed at Na- ples, in 1487. And yet, that part alfo is ex- ceeded in antiquity by an edition of the prior ProphetSy which Le Long fays was printed at Soncinum, in i486. This edition contained the pojlerior Prophets alfo, according to Wol- fius ( Biblioth, Heb. 2, 397 ) fo that it feems to have made a firfiy or a fecond part to Dr. Pellet's, which is regularly the third. The copy then, printed the moft early of thofe I have yet feen, is this given by Dr. Pel- let; which contains many readings different from all the other printed copies, and contrary to the Mafora. The laft is probably one of the reafons, for which the whole edition may have been dellroy'd — excepting this copy, which Sixth Period. 473 which had the Angular good fortune to efcape the flames : for Dr. Pellet fays. Hoc exemplar unicum, & Jlammis crept urn, uti par ejl credere. It muft be obferv*d, that tho* Le Long could not trace any one copy of this edition ; yet it is mention'd by Wolfius, in his Bibliotheca He- brcea. In torn. 2, p. 401 ; he mentions the 2d volume of this copy, which contains all the Cethubim excepting the Pfalms. In torn. 3, p. 881, 882; after mentioning again the 2d volume, he fays — Vidi etiam Pfalmos uno *uo- lumine, in eade7n forma, eodem anno, Neapoli edit OS', qui part e?n primam hujus colleBionis con-- Jiituiffe videntur, Eandera editiojiem, in mem- brana exprejfam, vidi in Bibliotheca Gujiavi Schrcederi, pajioris quondam Gluckjtadieiijis. And in tom. 4, p. 141 ; he fays In exemplari Schrcederi titulum frujlra qucejivi, quern nee forte (ex more antiquifjimarum quarumque edi- tionumj unquam habuit, Thefe circumftances of its being printed on vellum, and having no title, exadlly agree with Dr. Pellet's copy : and perhaps this may be the very copy, which for- merly belong'd to Schrceder. Le Long and Wolfius both affirm, that they faw an Heb. Bible, in 8° printed at Brefcia, in 1494 : concerning which Wolfius fays fto?n. 2, p* 2^s) — ^'^^^ adhibuit Opitius, qui eamjic fatis 474 Hist, of H e b. Text. fatis accuratam pronunciat ; & experientia edoc^ tus referty ejus leBionem fecutas effe editiones fere omnes, quotquot earn a R, Chaim corredfam prcecejferint. Of this edition I ihall take fome farther notice hereafter. We may now proceed to the celebrated edi- tion of Bomberg at Venice, printed under the direction of Felix P7'atenjis : who ( as Hody fays, p. 461 ) was ex Judceo Monachus. 'Tis not known from what particular MSS the Heb. text of this edition was taken ; but 'tis certain, that it agrees moft with very late MSS, and fuch as were corre5ied according to the Mafora. 'Tis remarkable, that the editor, in his dedication to Pope Leo, complains of the very corrupt ftate of the Heb. MSS ; and talks of having collated, and corrected ( I pre- fume, Maforetically ) many MSS, which were us*d for this edition — Multi ante a manufcripti circumferebantur ; fed adeo nit ore fuo privati, ut par fere mendarum numerus di5iiones ipfas confequeretur — plurimis collatis exemplaribuSy hofce libroSi Jiudio noftro fide & diligentia cas- TiGATos, imprimendos ciiravit Bombergus, At the fame time, that this edition of the Heb. Bible was preparing at Venice, another edition of equal fame was preparing by Card. Ximenes at Complutum in Spain ; and as thefe two Sixth Period. 475 two capital editions were thus in the prefs at once, neither of them could be printed from the other. But, tho' they fhould have been both printed, not from any previoufly printed copy, but diredly from MSS ; yet, as they were both printed by men who were, or had been Jews,* from fuch MSS as were uniform- ly corredled by the fame Mafora ; they would exhibit almoft univerfally the fame text. And that the Heb. MSS, here made ufe of, had fuffer'd this Maforetical caftigation, is plain from the words of Ximenes in his dedication to Pope Leo — maxima??! laboris nojiri partem i?2 eo prcecipue fuiffe v erf at am, ut castiga- TissiMA o??ini ex parte vetujli[ji??iaque exem- plaria pro archetypis habere??ius. This famous Bible was begun in 1502, and finifli'd in 1517^ but not publiih'd till 1522. The Bomberg edition, publlfli'd by the ce- lebrated R. Jacob B. Chaim, was printed in * That the men, who had the care of the Heb. text in this edition, had been Jews j is thus aflerted by Le Long — Alpho7i' fus medicus Co?nplute?iJis^ Paulus Coronellus, &' Alphonfus Zmnora^ Hebr tear urn rerum confultijjimi ; hi tres ex Judais Chrijiiani fa8i fuerant. See Wolfius, torn. 2, f. 339. And in the Letter fent to the late Sir Benjamin Keene (as mention'd, p. 358) Dr. Ma- janlius fpeaks of thefe corredlors in the fame manner. — Hebraa- mm rerum confultiffimos -, qui cum dim inter svq% publicas fcbolas fuijfent modcratiy tunc Chrijiiana ecclefia alumni erant, M m m 1526, 476 Hist, of H e b. Text. 1526, or 1528. Concerning this editor, and his work, F. Houbigant fays — - Tejiis eji ipfe B> Chatm^ non fuijjefe optimorum codicum edi- torem. Nam cum is multum conqueratur, quod in fuis codicibus Mafora variis animalium figu- ris deformata ejjet ; eo ipfo declarat^ codices Juos fuijje omnium recentijjimos, Proleg. p. 95. And no one, who has confider'd the preface of this editor ( printed here, at p. 229 &c) can pof- fibly doubt. Whether he did not publifh ac- cording to the copies moft exactly corredfed by that Mafora, which he reverenced fo pro- foundly. In 1549 was publifh'd the fecond edition of B. Chaim's Bible, with the famous Preface at the beginning : and of this edi- tion Le Long fays — prceftantifjima eft & om- nium optima, juxTA qjjam prafertim fe- quentes prodierunt, Wolfius gives it exadly the fame charafter : but fays, that Conrade Zeltner blames B. Chaim for being fo excef- fively devoted to the Mafora^ idque ex eo evin- city quod celebratos illos verfculos Jofus, in Mafora gratiam, exulare prater rem ex codice facro jujferit, Tom. 2, p. 371- In 1572, was publiili'd the Royal or Spanijh Polyglotty in 8 folio volumes, printed at Ant- werp 'y principally under the diredlion of Arias Montanus. We need fay the lefs here of this great Sixth Period. 477 great work ; as it is not pretended, that the leaft correBion was made in this edition of the Heb. Text. Indeed no fuch thing could poffi- bly be expedled from an editor, who believ'd the perfection of the Heb. Text — quanta in- tegritate ( fays he ) femper confervata fuerint Biblia Hebrcea, pleriqiie dotiiJji?ni viri conjlanter ajfeverarunt : Sec, Hody, p. 516, 517. In 1 6 19, the 5th edition of B. Chaim's Rai- hinical Bible ( as it was call'd ) was publifh'd by Buxtorfy in which the Heb. Text was co- pied exaftly from B. Chaim's 2d edition. In 1635, an edition was publifh'd by the famous Jew Manaffeh B. Ifraeh, who tells us in the preface that he had alter'd a few letters; and, where the moft corrected copies differ'd, he took refuge in Grammar rules and the Mafora. In 1 64 1, was publifh'd, in 10 folio volumes, The Paris Polyglott. A work ! far furpafling every former edition of the Bible : a work, fo truly magnificent and extenfively ufeful, that it would have been univerfally ftil'd the wonder of that age — had not its glory been in fome meafure eclips'd by another Polyglott, which foon fucceeded it. This Paris edition, tho' it claims no merit from correcting the Heb. Text, will ever be honour d by men of true M m m 2 learn- 478 Hist, of Heb. Text. learning, for puhlifhing ( befides the Syriac and Arab. Verfions ) the iirft edition of The Samar. Pentateuch and its Verjion — printed from MSS brought into Europe between the years 1620 and 1630, and publifli'd by th6 very learned Morinus : to whom the world is alfo indebted f':v many excellent remarks on "The Heb, Texty as well as on The Samar, Pentateuch, About the fame time there fhone forth in the Republic of letters another Genius, equal if not fuperior in luftre to that of Morinus ; undauntedly purfuing with the fame induftry, in defiance of all exterior difcouragements, a true and rational defence of the Original Heb. Text, by pointing out critically the various cor- C ruptions of the modern copies of it. The learn- ^ cd reader knows this to be Ludovicus Cap- pel lus ; the firft man, who ventur'd to com- pofe a regular work of criticifm upon the printed Heb, Text. This learned work, which was 36 years in compofing, and was refused admiffion to the prefs by the prohibitory prin- ciples of foreign Proteftants, was ( after ten years fruitlefs application for an Imprimatur ) elegantly printed at Paris for the Proteftant father by his fon, who was of the church of Rome. But the fon thought it his duty to in- fert i Sixth Period, 4^9 fert fome words, and omit fome ve7j long paf- fagesy in defiance of his father's authority, out of zeal for his holy mother the church : a fort of treatment, which the author juflly com- plains of; when he inferts the rejected paf- fages, in his valuable letter to Uflier, printed in 4°. 1 65 1. The Critica Sacra of Cappellus was pub- lifh'd, in 1650, about 8 years before his death, and about 40 years after he left 'Exeter Col- lege-, in which place he ftudied for many years. And this immortal work ( however ac- companied with fome marks of human im- perfedion ) has contributed fo greatly towards the removal of inveterate prejudices, and has fo eminently affifted men in difcovering the real ftate of the printed Heb. Text ; that I fhall clofe its charader with the two follow- ing quotations. Voffius f De LXX, p. 249) fays — Bene, Ji qiiifquamy de Scripturis divinis merit lis eji L. Cappellus, in pr cedar 0 op ere de Critica Sacra ; qua non tantum navos & lacu- nas Hehraici textus plurimas ojlendit, fed & multiplicem medicinam, qucz, cum aliunde, turn prcecipue ex LXX tranjlatione, parari pojit. Non me fugit, quid de hoc libro fentiant Judcei, & qui illis favent : verum his au5lor Jim, lit di- Ugentius legant Cappellum -, & quidem eo ufque, donee < 4S0 Hist, of Heb. Text. donee difcufsa ingenii nebula lumini adfuefiant^ ac agnofcant fe in fole cceciitiijfe. And Grotius, in an epiftle to the author, fays thus — In Sacra Critica nefcio magifne indefejfam fedulita- tern mirari debeam, an uberrimarn eruditioneniy an judicium limatijjimum : quce tres laudes in hoc opere it a inter Je cert ant ^ ut in ambiguo maneat^ cui de tribus prima palma debeatur — Omnibus placer e nemini datum eji Contentus ejlo ??iag}jis potius quam mult is laudator ib us. In 1657, was publifh'd The London Po- lyglot t, under the direcflion of the very ^ learned Brian Walton ; the immenfe me- / rit of whofe work is too well known, to want any labour'd recommendation. And yet ; it muft be obferv'd, that even in This, the beft and moft ufeful of all editions, the Heb. Text is printed Major etic ally -, almoft in an abfolute agreement with the many former editions, and with the lateft and worft MSS. For tho' the editor has fhewn clearly, that the Jewifh tran- fcribers have made many miftakes, and that the MSS have many true readings, where the printed Text is erroneous ; and tho' he fpeaks ( Proleg. 4, 12 ) oi \i2.vmg fupp lied fome thiiigSy which were not in the Venice or Bajil edi- tions; yet I humbly prefume, that the only fupplement, which he has made, is -— refto- ring ^ Sixth Period. 481 ring the two verfes in yojloua, which had been arbitrarily expell'd by Maforetic authority. In 1 66 1, Athias with many other Jews pub- lifh'd an edition ; which, notwithftanding the pretence of its being corrected by them ac- cording to ancient MSS, is certainly ( fo far as words and letters are concern'd ) agreeable on- ly to the lateft^ as the other printed copies were before it. A third edition of this Bible was, in 1667, publifh'd by Leufden ; who tells the reader — I'M damns Biblia, t7?2preffa per Athiamy quibus corr editor a nunquam fol af- pexit. And yet, tho' the fun never faw fo much implicit obedience paid to the Mafora before ; the Rabbins afTure us, in their prefatory re- commendation, that fome whole words were here corredled ex Mafora & a Ma/ore'tids, qui fepem legis fecerunt. This fupremely-Mafore- tical edition appear'd to their High Mighti- nefles, the States General, fo particularly meri- torious, that Athias, the typographer, was pre- fented with a chain of gold, and^ a gold medal pendant. But, was it not an ad; of fuperabun- dant goodnefs ? thus to reward a Jew for an edition, in which John Leufden ( tho' a Chrif- tian ) confeffes, that he permitted the Latin contents, here added in the margin, to explain away fome of the prophecies relating to the MeiTiah ! 482 Hist, of Heb. Text. Mefliah! See Le Long, in locum, 'Tis alfo obfervable, that Leufden founded forth the praife of the former edition, as taken from moft accurate and moft ancient MSS ; MSS, richly ornamented by the Mafora in the fhape of Bears, Dogs and Tigers : but that very ftrange recommendation was dropp'd in this edition, after being well ridiciiVd by Father Simon. Houblganf s Proleg, p. 95. In 1699, was pubhfh'd, in 4°. at Berlin, the edition of Daniel Erneji Jablo?iJki; and it was referv'd for this man of eminent learning, to lay the regular foundation for a reformation of the printed Heb. Text. This he has done in the preface, by making feveral excellent ob- fervations on the nature of the prefent Heb. MSS ', with the proper marks of their anti- quity, and the great advantages to be derived from them. That the Jewifh tranfcribers have made multitudes of miftakes, he fhews fatif- fadtorily. That the Keri are truly various read- ings, arifing from the miftakes of tranfcribers, he proves clearly. That the older MSS have the Keri in the text, but the later in the mar- gin ; and confequently that the Mafora, which confiders the Keri as in the margin, muft be founded on the later copies : thefe points he fets forth fully. That one of the Heb. MSS at Sixth Period. 483 at Berlin contains fome thoufands of various readings, and that the other old Heb. MSS have numerous dififerences from the printed text, he affirms exprefly. And, that thefe old MSS have fufFer'd many alterations from the late correcting Maforets, he proves indifputa- bly. Laftly; he fets forth the poffibility of procuring (as foon as there fhall be Zeal enough to prompt the men of eminence in Europe to attempt procuring ) very ancient Heb. MSS from fuch of the Jews, as have been fettled for many ages in Chinas /Ethiopia^ Conjiantinopky Thejfalonica, and other diftant parts of the world -— quorum codicum nonnulli^ in Europceorum ufuniy ut acquirantur ; nulli vel LAB OR I 'uel suMPTUi parcendum ejfe^ mecum ajjirmabiint qui, quantopere philologia facra hinc illujlrari pojjity feciun reputaverint. This then is the firft author ^ who, after proclaiming the aftual exiftence of many various readings in the Heb. MSS, has recommended both an ac- curate examination of thofe MSS now known, and a diligent fearch after others ( at prefent unknown ) thro' the fever al quarters of the world : and to h i m therefore muft be given the honour of having planned the noble fcheme, for cor reding the many corruptions in the printed Heb. Text of the old Teftament. And N n n yet; 484 Hist, of Heb. Text. yet ; as he knew the force of prejudice to be very ftrong, and what a ftorm might burft up- on the head of that man, who fhould firft ven- ture upon the actual correBion of any material corruption ; it appeared ( it feems ) prudential not to praftife what was thus bravely recom- mended : and therefore, he republifh'd the Heb. Text almoft the fame as it was adjufted Maforetically, in Leufden's edition of 1677 Videns meliora, probanfque y Deteriora fequens ! This editor fpeaks, indeed, of his having cor- redled fome miftakes ^ but then, thefe correc- tions feem to have been confined entirely, or ^ nearly fo, to the vowel-points and accents. But, \ to fpeak freely : there are fo many perplexing / difficulties, in fettling the different ftations of / thefe accents, dignified with the pompous ti- tles of EmperoKy Kings and Minijters ^ the in- vention of them is fo very modern ; the au- thority of them therefore is fo very little ; and the direction given by them muft be fo very frequently erroneous; that I feel a real con- cern, when I find that Writers, who are fo capable of rational and manly criticifm, can defcend to fuch folemn trifling ; and fpend their valuable time, in labouring to be expert at thefe truly difficiles ?iuga ! As to the pre- ceding Sixth Period. 485 ceding remark, that fcarce any corrections feem to be made in the letters and words of this edition ; this may be prefum'd — partly, becaufe no fuch are fpecified in the preface — and partly, becaufe the famous word for thy holy one is here printed plurally^ in obedi- ence to the Mafora ; and in obedience to the fame authority the two verfes are here alfo omitted in Jojhua, Thefe genuine verfes are the more furprizingly omitted here -y becaufe they are found in all the MSS, which Jablonfki made ufe of — Legunt eos omnia nos- tra MANuscRiPTA. The authorities, for the feveral things here quoted, may be found in the curious preface to this edition ; in fee- tions 10, II, 13,24,27,33,35 — 39. In 1705, was publiih'd Vander Hooght's very elegant edition ; which alfo follow'd Leufden's laft edition of Athias. No correftions can be expefted from this editor, who confider'd eve- ry letter in his book ( no matter how it came there ) as abfolutely genuine, and maintained the Mafora to be infallible — Ego ( fays he ) contextus Hebrceiy ad minimum ufqiie apicemy tenacijjimus ; memor ijlius KabbinicU " Si forte " demeres vel abundare faceres literam, effes ** ac fi vaftares totum mundum." Mafora vere dicitur fepes legis j eo fine adornatay ne unquam N n n 2 qualify 486 Hist, of Heb. Text. qualifcunque tentaretur vel in minimis perverjio, Praef. fed:. 2, 24. In 1709, was publifh'd an Heb. Bible by Opitiusy who copied alfo from Leufden's Athi- as ; but fays, that he collated feveral MSS in Berlin and other places. But, if thefe MSS furnifh'd ever fo many true readings ( and they certainly furnifh'd fome ) yet, if thefe and all other MSS upon earth had agreed in any one reading againft theMafora; Opitius would have held them all in fovereign contempt. See Dif- fertat. p. 299. F. Houbigant therefore fays — TJtrum Opitius novu?n quidquam protulit ? Certe editionem Opitianam cceteris omnino Jimilem ha- bemus, Proleg. p. 96. If then this edition was alfo conformable to the late MSS, as regulated by the Mafora; the fame Maforetic influence muft have regulated the very early copy, print- ed at Brefcia, in 1494 : becaufe that edition is recommended by Opitius. See p. 474; and Wolf. Bib. Heb. 2, 365. In 1720, an Heb. Bible was publiili'd at Hally by the learned Profeifor yohn Henry Michaelis'y being the firfl: edition, which con- tain'd any various readings, collected from Heb. MSS by a Chriftian editor. The text here is taken from Jabloniki's edition, with fome few emendations : particularly, with the two Sixth Period. 487 two verfes very laudably inferted in Jojkua. The fpurious word niin* Judah m i Chro, 6, ^y (or, the 42d verfe, in fome Bibles) is not in this edition y nor is it in the edition of Jablon- flci. There were collated for this Bible moft of the beft printed editions, and alfo 5 Heb» MSS belonging to the library at Erfurth ; 2 of which contain f^e verfes in Jofiiia excluded by the Mafora. The propriety of feleding various readings from Heb. MSS, and ancient verfions, is fet forth in the preface; p. 14 -— 19. And the editor has inferted here and there fome variations of words and letters ; but the variations, chiefly noted, relate to the miniitice of criticifm, confifling only in points and ac^ cents. The kil edition, neceffary to be here men- tioned, is That, which was publifh'd in the latter end of the year 1753* by the learned Charles Francis Houbigant, one of the Fathers of the Oratory in Paris. This great work coniifts of 4 folio volumes, moft elegantly printed; and it contains — ift ; the Heb. Text, taken from Vander Hooght — 2dly ; critical notes, correding that Text by the Samar. Pentateuch, Heb. MSS, and an- cient Verfions — and 3dly ; a new Latin Ver- fion, made by himfelf, expreflive of fuch a Text 488 Hist, of Heb. Text. Text as his critical emendations appear'd to juftify and recommend. The whole work is introduc'd with general Prolegomena^ explain- ing the nature and reafonablenefs of the de- fign ; urging alfo the neceffity of it, from the very imperfe(fl ftate of the editions before publifh'd; in which nearly the fame corrupt Text had been printed from time to time : and he aflerts, that in all thefe editions tanta mciiria editum ejl facrum njolumen Hebraicum^ quanta baud f do an ullus codex ^ qui fuerit ty- fographice luce cohonejlatus, Proleg. p. i. As it may be expedled here, that I deliver my fentiments on the real merit of this cele- brated edition ; I take the liberty to fay — that it feems to proceed upon fo juft a plan, as to its main principles, and to be executed ( in the general ) with fo much Ikill and judg- ment, as to claim for its worthy author the applaufe of all the friends of Religion and Learning. And yet, I cannot indulge my par- tiality, fo greatly, either for the work or the author of it, as not to wifh — that he had fpar'd fome of his bolder criticifms, when they are unfupported by MSS, parallel places, or. ancient verjQons; efpecially, where the pro- pos'd emendations are not clearly and ftrongly recommended by the context. It Sixth Period, 489 It has been objefted by fome men of learn- ing — that only a few feleSl various readings are infer ted in this work from the Heb, MSS; when it would have been far more agreeable and tifeful to the reader y to have had all the va^ rious readings noted after each chapter. This indeed is indifputable. But then -, when learn- ed men confider, how very laborious a work is already executed, and what a very toilfome addition they would willingly prefcribe far- ther : fhould they not confider alfo the fhort- nefs of human life ; and refled:, what an heavy burden they would bind upon another^ when they themfelves ( it may be ) would not touch it with one of their fingers ? Inftead therefore of cenfuring the author for what he has not done, and perhaps at his time of life could not do; it may be nobler and more juft to be thankful for what he has perform'd, and thus ufefuUy communicated to the world. Another objecflion was made to this work ( before its publication ) by the late Dr. Hodges , in his preface to ( what he calls ) the Chrijiian Plan, His objedion was, that Houbigant in- tended to alter the Heb. text, to make it con- formable to the Vulgat : his defign ( fays he ) is manifefiy by his referring to the vulgate as the Jiandard of perfection. But furely this, of all 490 Hist, of Heb. Text. all cenfures, muft have been the leaft dreamt of; when it was Houbigant's profefs'd inten- tion, to Jet afide the Vulgat as being faulty and not anfwering his purpofe, and to publifh a new Latin Verfion of his own. This cenfure therefore, fo rafhly advanced and fo unjuftly continued by this Hutchinfonian Doftor, is ex- tremely furprizing ; and one cannot help wifh- ing — that, if men muft be planning airy fyf- tems of fanciful theology, they would not for- get moral honejlyy nor defpife the plain paths of truth andfobernefs. The words at the con- clufion of Houbigant's Prolegomena , which have been feverely tortur'd upon this occafion, evidently fay — that the nature of this new Latin verfion was fuch, that it came nearer to the Vulgat, than to the modern Lat. verlions quantum nos a novis Latinis interpretibus difcejimiisy tanto pro plus accejjijfe ad Vulgat am. So far from idolizing the Vulgat, this writer only refers to it occafionally, as one of the an- cient verfions, to affift him in correcting the Heb. text j which text he attempted to re- form, principally^ by means of the Samar. Pentateuch and Heb. MSS. And therefore, as we cannot but pity the preceding cenfure, which is juft the reverfe of truth ; fb we can- not but applaud this fon of the church of Rome, Sixth Period. 491 Rome, for thus reducing the Vulgat within its proper fphere of ufe and dignity. And the learned will join with me in applauding alfo the moderation and the learning of Hiniy who lately adorn'd the Papal Chair with a charac- ter fo very refpedtable ; and who fent F. Hou- bigant two gold medals y in teftimony of his ap- probation of this edition. I fhall proceed now, by the Reader's leave, to conclude the prefent hiftory, with a fliort account of what I have myfelf attempted, to- wards pointing out fome of the corruptions in the Heb. Text, and alfo the proper methods of corredting them. It may be obferv'd here, that I have mentioned F. Houbigant's Bible an- tecedently to my own Differtation, becaufe of its connection with the other editions of the Bible ', and not, becaufe it was firft publifh'd. The Differtation was publifh'd here in Janua^ ryy and received by F. Houbigant at Paris in May 1753; and his Bible came firft to Eng- land about the conclufion of the fame year : the letter, in which he acquainted me with fending it, being dated Decemb, i-T^y ^753' Thefe particulars feem neceffary to be men- tioned 'y becaufe it has been obferv'd, that feve- ral criticifms are remarkably the fame in that edition and in my Differtation. O o o But 492 Hist, of H e b. Text. But here, before I fpeak farther of my own endeavours i it may be proper juft to mention feveral men of very eminent learning, v^ho have (during the prefent century) contributed by their excellent obfervations, towards the removal of that injurious prejudice, which has fo long and fo amazingly obtain'd, as to the perfeftion of the printed Heb. Text. Thefe writers and their works I ihall therefore men- tion, in the following chronological order. 1700. Dr. Hyde's Religio veterum Per/arum-, a new edition of which valuable book is now preparing by the Reverend and learned Mr Coftard. The author has here pointed out one great corruption in the Heb. text of Num. 24, 24 y and corrected it by the Sa- mar. Pentateuch. See cap, 2. 1720. Dr Wells's Specimen of an ejfay on the true reading of the Heb. Text: and the preface to his commentary on the old Teftament. 1 72 1. Dr. Bentley. I infert this very celebra- ted Critic, in hopes of difcovering the ac- tual exiftence of what is mention'd ( in a vindication of his propofals on the Gr. Tef* tament, p. 35) in this manner — a volume^ in quarto y of various lections and emendations of the Heb. Texty drawn out of the ancient ver^ Sixth Period. 493 verjions ; which would make a 2d fart to the famous Cappelluss Critic a Sacra. See alfo Wolf. Bibl. Heb. torn, 2, p. 239. 1722. Mr Whifton's EJjay on the true Text of the oldTeftament, See the preceding p. 109. 1729. Mr Hallett's Notes on fever al Texts of Scripture. See the preceding page 376. 1733. Mr Coftard's Critical Obfervations 07i fome of the Pfalms : pag. 24, 25. 1734. Dr. Wall's Crit. Notes on the old Tejlam, 1736. Bp Hare's Edition of the Pfalms, 1739. Sir I. Newton's Chronology. See the preceding page 337. 1738. Dr Grey's Edition of the Proverbs, 1742. Edition of Job, 1743. Dr Hunt's Differtat. on Prov, 7; 22, 23. 1744. Mr Mudge's Eng, Verfion of the Pfalms , 1747. Mr Coftard's Obfervations on fob: p. 3 5. 1748. Afronomy of the Ant lent s : p.39> X748. DrRobertfon, on. Reading Hebrew, 1749. Dr Grey's Laft Words of David. At p. 23, is a Letter from the prefent Lord Bp of London ^ in which this Great Prelate ap- proves of corredling the printed Heb. Text. 1750. Mr Coftard's Dijfert, on Kefitah: p. 19. 1752. "^ Dijfert, on Ezek. 13, 18 : p. 25. 1753. DrLowth's Prcele^iones de Sacra Poefi O o o 2 Hebrao- 494 Hist, of Heb. Text. Hebraorum. See pag. 27, 137, 17^, 182, 244, 254, 266, 279, 340. 1753. Mr Green, on The Song of Deborah. lySS- ^^ The Prayer of Habakkuk. 1756. Mr Heath's Eng/i/h Verfion of Job. 1757. V>xT2iv\ox\ Heb, Concordance, Pref. f.4. As Mr Pilkington*s Remarks are already mention'd (fee p. 418) I fhall conclude this catalogue with a book, calFd Obfrvationes mifcellane^ in librum fob -, printed in 8**, at Amfterdam, 1758. 'Tis remarkable, that the unknown author dedicates it to his friend Mr Vernet, FrofefTor of Divinity at Geneva ; not- withftanding the preface exprefly denies the perfeciion of the printed Heb, Text ; which ( if not at prefent ) was fome few years fince an ar- ticle of Faith in Switzerland. Diflertat. p. 236. The following are the words of this learned and judicious Foreigner — Erunt^ fatfcio, qui in conjeBandoy circa reBam text us Hebrai con- Jiitutioneniy me audacia intolerandce arguent. Nimirum hodiedum habe?nus theologos, quipundta omnia & apices, quos fuis codicibus Maforeta- rum vitilitigatrix allevit diligentiay ta?ita vene- ratione profequuntury ut ipfs religiojity i) el la- tum unguem inde difcedere : autf quis^ iis neg- leSlisy paulo aliter eadem verba legere tentet, levis Sixth Period. 495 levis mutationis difpendio fenfiim luculentiorem eruensy aBum prorfus ejje de TextUy ac totius S. Scriptiira auBoritatem periclitaru clamitenf. — — ^i vero ea fuperjiitione attinentury ut om- nem conjeElandi libertatem a S. Textus traBa- tione procul arceant, & in ea re accurate Cri- tices operam facrilegii pojlulent ; pro me refpon- dentem audiant Francifcum Hare. — Hanc fe-* mitam inirey tanto duce S? aiifpicey hand cunc- tatusy conjeBuras pauculas, circa Hebrcei codicis aut potius editionis Major etic^ emendationemy in medium protuli. Minime enim, quod tantwn con- ]^diwx's, finty Jiatim rejiciend^ funt % fed tunc demumy Ji necejfitas abfit autfimilitudo veri ; de quo magijirorum artis judicium ejio. At que uti- nam contingerent nobis membrance ilia Ma/ore- ticis codicibus vetujiioresy quas bene multas ex^ cuffijfe fe ait dociijf, Houbigant ; quibufque im- pigre ufus ejiy ad concin?2a?2da?n fuam Bibliorum editionem ! aut evohere daretur alios paris nofce codices Hebrceosy quos in Oxonlenii Bibliotheca latentesy eodem fere temporcy eruiffe fe tejiatur — Anglus ; qui varias & momentofas quidem nonnullas leBiones exhibenty & a Tiberiaden/is fcholce recenfione hand paucis in locis difcrepant. Did vix potejiy quot tunc nebulce difpellerentur ; quant afve improvfa hcec lux Critic ce facrce fup^ petias ferret, Prasf. p. 19 — — 28, Having 496 Hist, of H e b. Text. Having thus mention'd the works of others, 1 fhall now ftate the nature of my own en- deavours upon this fubjed:. The fame notion of the perfection of the printed Heb. Text, which a few years ago was very general, and is ftill entertain'd by many, was a ftrong pre- judice alfo with mey till about ten years fince : when, being defir'd by a friend to confider 2 Sam, 23, 8, I was led to difcern fome cor- ruptions in that particular text 5 and confe- quently learnt, that the integrity of the Heb. Bible ought not to be maintained. I proceeded afterwards to examine the verfes following in that chapter; and the refult was a full convic- tion, that the Heb. Text contained a variety of corruptions. The proofs arifing from this chapter appear d the more clear and conclu- five, as the chapter contain'd many names and numbers^ the i^wi^ of which is more fix'd and lefs liable to be explained away: and proofs arifing from this chapter were the more ftrong, becaufe the nth ch. of the ift book of Chro" nicks, containing the fame catalogue, feem'd to have been exprefs'd at firft nearly in the fame words. From a comparifon of thefe pa- rallel chapters with one another, and with the ancient vcrfions of both, there feem'd to arife, not only proof that the miftakes were manyy Sixth Period. 497 manyy but alfo evidence for the fatisfadtoiy corrediion oi fomcy and thefe of confiderable confequence to the fenfe of the two chapters. And as a plan of this nature, form'd upon chapters lefs material than many others, might find men more free from lyftem and preju- dice ; and might awaken the attention of the Learned to other parts, of greater moment, which might alfo be found corrupted ; I was perfuaded to publiili my obfervations. Almofl: the whole of what I thus proposed publifhing was printed off, before I had ktvi any Heb. MSS ; having made no enquiries af- ter them, becaufe I had then conftantly heard and read — - that all the Heb. MSS now ex- tant were very late and perfedtly uniform. However, having at laft difcover'd fome in the Bodleian library, I foon found encourage- ment to enquire farther ; and the number of Heb. and Samar, MSS, which I met with in Oxford and Cambridge, amounted to Seven- ty copies : fome containing the whole, and others only parts of the old Teflament. It could aiford me no fmall fatisfadion to find the fcheme, which I had thought necefTary for the honour of Revelation, fo unexpedledly confirmed by MSS. For thefe not only demon- strated, that the Jews had made many and great 498 Hist, of H e b. Text. great miftakes (by omiffion, interpolation, and change ) as was known to be the cafe with other tranfcribers ; but thefe MSS were found to contain feveral of the very readings, which had been before recommended as genuine. To the comparifon of thefe parallel chapters I therefore added ( by way of a fecond part ) a catalogue of our MSS, with fome remarks on their different ages and degrees of impor- tance ; proving, that they contain'd many true readings, where the printed text was corrupt- ed ; and alfo, fome of the very readings tranf- lated in the ancient verlions, where thofe ver- fions differ from the printed Hebrew. So that as fome of thofe MSS were 600 or 700 years old i they would corredt many miftakes intro- duced about thofe times, or fmce : and as they gave this remarkable fandlion to the ancient verlions ; thefe verfions, thus confirmed, would corredt other miftakes introduc'd more than a thoujand years before. The whole of what I had thus to offer I fubmitted to the Public with deference -, not doubting, but thefe well- meant endeavours would be approved by fome, tho' they would probably occafion very wrath- ful expoftulations from others. Nor were thefe apprehenfions entirely vain, ; fince the Differtation was foon favour'd with the Sixth Period. 499 the notice both of friends and of enemies* And as I am bound to exprefs my grateful fenfe of the honour it has receiv'd from fome, who have alfo kindly pointed out a few mif- takes; fo am I obHg'd to others for whole Pamphlets of objedlions, fince thefe alfo tend to confirm the general fcheme by faying very little to the purpofe againft it : and perhaps even that petulance^ or rather rage of abufe, which in my profefs'd opponents has fupplied the want of argument, fhould be confider'd as the higheft compliment, next to the praife of men who are truly praife-worthy. Amongft the learned men abroad, who have honour'd my Differtation with their notice ; there is one Gentleman, at Leipfic, who has publifh'd what he is pleased to call a Latin verjion of it. But the Differtation can have very little chance of appearing to advantage amongft thofe foreigners, who may judge of it from this unfair tranflation; in which, as if my work had not faults enough of its own to anfwer for, it is fubje6led to difgracc from numerous 7?iifreprefe?itations made by the tranf lator — I wifh there was no occafion to add, that federal of thefe mifreprefentations are ve- ry grofs, and yet made in places where the fenfe is very obvious ; fo that they feem to P p p have 5CO Hist, of H e b. Text. have been made defignedly^ out of diilike to the principles of the very book thus tranilated. This, I am fenfible, is an heavy charge 3 but proofs, far m^ore than are neceffary, may be produc'd. Befides : what perverfions of the fenfe muft arife from printing "Jacob for Joab, Joab for Jafhobeam, David for Jacob, Petri for Pueri, and Samaritan ibr Samuel ? And yet, not one of thefe uncommon blunders is correded ; tho' the tranilator hath fubjoin'd a lift of Errata ! I am under the difagreeable necefTity of complaining farther ; that tho' the tranflator ( in a correfpondence begun by himfelf ) pro- fefs'd the higheft opinion of the Diflertation, and requefted a copy to be fent him ( v^hich was fent him ) as he could not purchafe it in Saxony ; and tho' he was aware, how much fome men abroad were predifpos'd to condemn it; and tho* he acquainted me, that // was fublickly as well as privately cenfurd by fome Divines^ before they had ever feen it y and laft- ly, tho' he himfelf pretends to have flood forth valiantly in its defence : this fame worthy friend firft cenfures me ( in his preface ) as correBing too confidently, and yet (afterwards) makes me fpeak most confidently in a multitude of places, where I have exprefs'd great Sixth Period. 501 great and proper diffidence. So that where I have faid, in plain Englifli, that pq/Jibly or perhaps a thing might he^ or feemd to be, fo or fo; he frequently, in his Latin, fuppreffes all thefe terms of rejlritiion and doubtfulnefs, and reprefents me as pronouncing with the moft decijive a?2d peremptory certainty ! In iy$J, this friend publifli'd a treatife De judicio fuper variis le5iionibus Codicis He- brcci divi?2i re6ie faciendo : in which are a va- riety of things, proper to be coniider'd here- after, if I fhould ever find leifure and inclina- tion to take notice of all the objedions of my antagonifts. At prefent, I only defire the rea- der's patience, whilft I remark ; that fome idea of this learned Critic may be derived from the following circumftance. In p. 38 of his trea- tife he fays — facies Jacobi h.e. facies Dei, quam 'Jacobus qiwtidie pot e rat afpicere : Pfal. 24, 6. He tells us, that the Gr. Vulg. and Arab, verfions read here the face of the God of Jacob, and the Syr. verfion thy face, O God of Jacob -, but that neither of thefe read- ings can be true, becaufe they are both very intelligible: whereas the reading in the pre- fent Hebrew muft be preferable, becaufe it is more difficult to he underjlood. And if he was not to determine thus, he fays, he fcould of- P p p 2 fend 502 Hist, of Heb. Text. fend againft a law of his own making ; the meaning of which is — that a more difficult reading is ever to be preferrd before a lefs dif- Jicult : which ( as he explains it ) is the fame as to fay — that a reading hard, obfcure, and unintelligible is always to take place of what is eafy, clear, and fatisfa5lory i.e. light is lefs eligible than darknefs, and {tn{t than nonfenfe. I do not therefore think it the leaji misfortune^ to find either the principles upon which my Differtation proceeds, or any of the inftances by which it is illuflrated and confirm'd, pro- nounc'd erroneous by fuch a critic as fny friend here defcrib'd. The latefi: circumftance, which I can men- tion in this hiftory of the Heb. Text, is my prefent work , which, as it is a continuation of the former, is call'd The Second Differtation upon this fubjecfl. Concerning this Diiferta- tion, all that I fhall remark here is, that it difcovers about Forty Heb. MSS, preferv'd in England, which were not before mention'd; and from them it offers to the Reader nume- rous proofs of the great points before advanced : namely — that the printed Heb. copies are all taken from very late and bad MSS, or from one another — that the older MSS have ma- ny variations, which not only corredl the later MSS, Sixth Period. 503 MSS, but alfo confirm the authority of the an- cient Verfions — confequently, that it is moft reafonable, and moft neceffary, that a review fhould be made of the printed Heb. Text; that fo its corruptions may be correfted by the evidence of Heb, and Samar, MSS, An- cient Verfions, and Parallel Places. This laft fpecies of evidence not having been much enlarg'd upon in the preceding pages, tho' it is one of the moft fatisfadlory and con- vincing; I fhall conclude this hiftory of the Heb. Text with a very particular illuftration of its utility. And it may be foretold without prefumption, that the following comparifon will prove fo forcible and ftrong ( in proof of various corruptions exifting in the printed Text) as to extort a confejjion from all, who can in- genuoufly own convicflion ; and perhaps will vcsxy^ok Jilence upon thofe, who may be fo ob- ftinate in error, as to be proof againft all hu- man application. Proper Names and Numbers are univerfally allow'd moft cafy to be miftaken by tranfcri- bers ', and corruptions of Names and Numbers may be difcover'd and corrected with more certainty than the corruptions of common words : efpecially, when the fame article of hiftory is preferv'd in fome other part of Scrip- ture. 504 Hist, of Heb. Text. ture. The variations of numbers in two copies of the fame hiftory feem incapable of any other folution than the miftakes of tranfcri- bers; and the variations of jiamesy tho* thefe are fomewhat more liable to cavil, have gene- rally ( I prefume ) proceeded from the fame caufe. I know, that fome few perfons are ex- prefly mention'd in Scripture, as having diffe- rent names ^ for which differences fome ac- count is there given. I can alfo conceive it poflible, that profane writers, living in diffe- rent ages and diflant countries, might exprefs the names of the fame perfons with a varia- tion of one or more letters. But I find it dif- ficult to conceive, that profane writers ( men of fenfe) living in the fame age and country, could exprefs the names of the fame remark- able men with great differences from one ano- ther. Much lefs can I fuppofe, that the very fame fenfible writer, mentioning the very fame men, would exprefs their names very diffe- rently in different parts of his own hiftory. And leaft of all can I poffibly imagine or be- lieve, that this was originally the cafe with any one or more of the facred hiftorians. As for in fiance : it feems abfolutely incredible, that the name of the great king Nebuchad^ nezzar fhould have been originally exprefs'd /even Sixth Period. 5°5 NBUCDRAZUR I NB CDNAZ R NBUCDNAZ R NBUCDRAZ R 2 NBUCDNAZ R 3 NB CDN Z R 4 NBUCDN Z R NBUCDN Z R 5 NBUCDN ZUR 6 NB CDNAZ R 7 NBUCDNAZ R y?"y?. 24, 1 : n vKnD 2: 25, 22 : n VN*:nDin:i From thefe 7 names of one perfon, or ra- ther from this one name corrupted 6 different ways, I proceed now to fie catalogue of all thofe, who returned from the captivity ^ in coji- fequence of the decree of Cyrus. This catalogue is given firfl, in the 2d ch. of Ezra-, and a fecond copy is preferv'd in the 7th ch. of A^^- hemiah. That this is a catalogue of the very fame perfons, who returned at the very fame time, feems undeniable \ becaufe Nehemiah ( 7, 5 ) exprefly fays — and I found a regijier of the genealogy of them, which came up at the firjl'y and found wj-itten therein &c. 'Tis a matter of great advantage, to find two very an- cient copies of the fame catalogue (or hiflory) but 5o6 Hist, of Heb. Text. but it muft be much more fortunate to find three y becaufe, where two agree againft a third, that third may be there ( in general ) corrected fafely. Now of this catalogue we have three copies, all of very great antiquity, and two of them in books of undoubted au- thority. The two copies in Ezrdy and Nehe- miah, have been already mentioned; and the other is preferv'd in the ift book of Efdras. 'Tis well known, what various opinions have obtain'd, as to the books call'd Apocryphal ^ efpecially between Proteftants and Papifts : and as to Efdrasy tho' the 2d book is generally al- lowed to be extremely fabulous, the ift has been extolFd highly, as being exprefs'd in the Heb. idiom. Some have therefore thought, that it exifted formerly in Hebrew; and this is one reafon for its being objected that one whole book is now lojl out of the facred ca- non. It may be of confequence, to confute this opinion, and prevent future contentions about this book ; which may be done by obferving — that, except one long Jiory ( and a very few verfes varied defignedly, and alfo fome acci- dental corruptions ) the book is nothing more nor lefs than a copy of what is now related in the books properly canojiicaL It was, in all pro- babihty, extracted by fome very ancient Jew, for the fake of his inferting in it the long Sixth Period. 507 ftory, concerning winey women and truths which he might learn from Jofephus, or Jofephus from him. I fhall fpecify the particular places, from which the parts of Efdras are taken ; as foon as I have acquainted the Reader, that for this confiderable difcovery he is oblig d to the Reverend and very Learned Mr S a n f o r d. Fellow of B^U'tliol College ; to v/hom I muft here exprefs my gratitude for this, and many other excellent obfervations. Efd. I, I ; to I, 23 : — 2 Chro, 35, i ; to '^^, 20. 1, 25 ; to 2, I : — 35, 20 J to ^6, 22. 2, I ; to 2, 16 : — Ezra 1,1; to 2, i. 2, 16 i to 3, I : — 4,7; to 5, I. 3, I ; to 5, 7 : — the long interpolated ft ory. 5, 7 ; to 6, I : — Ezra 2, i ; to 4, 6. 6, I ; to 9, ^y : — 5, I ; to end. 9, ^y ; to end : — Nehem. 8, i ; to 8, 13. As I fhall conclude this hiftory with the following catalogue, it may be introduced with a few obfervations. If the reader, upon view- ing with furprize the differences hereafter no- ted, fhould alk ; Whether the Heb. MSS cor- reB any of thefe corfuptiojts : the reply is — that I do not yet know ; becaufe my chief bufinefs, at prefent, is to fhew the neceffity of their being examin d. But if it be aiVd, fFhe- ther the ancient Verjions will ajjijl here ; I can Q^q q anfwcr 5o8 Hist, of H e b. Text. anfwer — that they certainly will corred ma-- ny of thofe great miftakes, and fapply feme of the omiffions. To particularize all fuch cor- redlions would be a work of very many pages ; and therefore I fhall only fpecify one remark- able corrediion, deriv'd even from the Vulgat ; but in the written, and not in the printed co- pies of it — for thefe laft have been here new model'd, in compliment to the later Hebrew Text. In pag. 213, 214, it was obferv'd, that the' we read now in Ezr, i, 10, Jilver bafojis of a fecond ( fort ) 410 ; yet 'tis highly proba- ble, that the ancient and true reading \y2.s Jil- ver hajons 2410 (without mentioning a 2d fort ) as we find it now printed in the parallel verfe in Efdras, This conjecture I have been fince enabled to confirm by a Latin MS, in Exeter College library, catalogued C 2, 13; which reads here in Ezra — fcyphi argentei 2410: and with this MS agree the Bodleian Lat. MSS, N° 'j^^, 2032, 2682, 3563, 4089, 'J er orris Preface to Ezra. Non poteji verum offer i, quod [ita] diverfum ejl, Ezr. ch. 2, I &c. Now thefe are the children of the Neh. ch. 7, 6 &c. Thefe are the children of the Efd. ch. 5, 7 &c. And thefe are they of Ezr. province^ that went up out of the captivity, Neh. province^ that went up out of the captivity, Efd. Jewry, that came up from the captivity. Sixth P E R I o D, 509 Ezr. of thofe which had been carried awa)\ whom Nell, of thofe that had been carried away^ whom Efd. where they dwelt as flrangers^ whom Ezr. Nehui hadnezzar the king of Babylon had car- Neh. Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had car- Efd. Nabuchodonofor the king of Babylon had car- Ezr. ried away unto Babylon ; and came again un- Neh. ried away ; and came again Efd. ried away unto Babylon -, and they returned un- Ezr. to Jerufalem and Judah^ Neh. to Jerufalem and to Judah^ Efd. to Jerufalem and to the other parts of Jewry ^ Ezr. every one unto his city, Neh. every one unto his city, Efd. every man to his own city, [The 12 Chiefs, reprefenting the 12 Tribes] Ezr. Neh. E s d. 1 Zerubbabel 2 Jefnua 3 Nehemiah 4 Seraiah 5 Reelaiah 6 7 Mordecai 8 Bilflian 9 Mifpar 10 Bigvai 11 Rehum 12 Baanah Zerubbabel Jefhua Nehemiah Azariah Raamiah Nahamani Mordecai Billhan Mifpereth Bigvai Nehum Baanah Zorobabel Jefus Nehemias Zacharias Reefaias Enenius Mardocheus Beelfarus Afpharafus Reelius Roimus Baana THE Children of Parofh Shephatiah Arah 2172 Parofh 372 Shephatiah 775 Arah 2172 Phoros 37X Saphat 652 Ares 2172 472 Pahath- 5IO Hist, of Heb. Text. Pahath-moab 2812 Pahath-moab 2818 Phaath-moab 2812 Helam 1254 Elam 1254 Elam 1254 Zattu 945 Zattu 845 Zathui 945 Zaccai 760 Zaccai 760 Corbe 705 Bani 642 Binnui 648 Bani 648 Bebai 623 Bebai 628 Bebai 623 Azgad 1222 Azgad 2322 Sadas 3222 Adonikatn 666 Adonikam 667 Adonikam 667 Bigvai 2056 Bigvai 2067 Bagoi 2066 A din 4?4 Adin 6q? Adin 454 Ater Hczekiah gS Ater Hezekiah 98 Aterezias 92 Ceilan } Azetas 5 67 Azuram 432 Ananias no Bezai 323 Haflium 328 Arom 32 Jorah 112 Eezai 324 BalTa 323 Hafhum 223 Hariph 112 Azephurith 102 Gibbar 95 Gibcon 95 Meterus 3005 Bethlehem 123 Bethlehem 123 Bethlomon 123 Netophah 56 Netophah 65 Netophah 55 Anathoth 128 Anathoth 128 Anathoth 158 Azmaveth 42 Bethazmaveth 4x Bethfamos 42 Kirjathariml Kirjathjearim' 7 Kiriathiarius 2,5 Chephirah > 743 Chephirah f 743 Caphira ' Beroth '■ Beeroth J Beeroth ) 743 Pira 700 Chadias 7 Ammidioi 3 422 Ramah 7 Gabel y 621 Ramah ; Gabel ; 621 Cirama 7 Gabdes S 621 Michmas 122 Michmas 122 Macalon 11% Bethel } Ai ;• Nebo 223 Bethel ■ Ai Nebo 123 Betolius - - ' - 52 52 52 Magbifh 156 Nephis 156 Elam 1254 Elam 1254 Harim 320 Harim 320 Lod 7 Jericho 345 Hadid > 725 Lod 7 Calamolalus / Onus ;' Ono . Hadid [ 721 725 Jericho 345 Ono J Jerechus 245 Senaah 3630 Senaah 3930 Annaas 3330 Jedaiah ' Jefhua 973 Jedaiah " Jefhua ;' 973 Jeddu 7 Jefus \ SannafibJ 972 Sixth Period. 511 Immcr Pafhur Harim Jefhua Kadmiel Hodaviah Afaph Shallum « Ater I Talmon ! Akkub r Hatita j Shobai "^ Ziha Hafupha Tabbaoth Keros Siaha Padon Lebanah Hagabah Akkub i Hagab Shalmai Hanan &c. in all Telmelah^ Telharfa Cherub Addan Immer Delaiah Tobiah Nekoda 392 > 652 1052 Immer 1052 1247 Pafhur 1247 1017 Harim 1017 Jefhua "1 Kadmiel I 74 > 74 Hodevah J 128 Afaph 148 Shallum^ Ater I Talmon I ,.« ^39 Akkub f '3^ Hatita j Shobai "^ Ziha Hafhupha Tabbaoth Keros Sia Padon Lebana Hagaba Shalmai Hanan &c. in all Telmelah -^ Telharelha Cherub Addon Immer Delaiah Tobiah Nekoda 39- > 642 Whole — 42,360. Whole — 42,360. Servants Singers Horfes Mules Camels Affes 7337 200 736 245 435 6720 Servants 7337 Singers 245 Horfes Mules Camels AfTes 73^ 245 6720 Meruth PhafTaron Carme JeiTue 1 Cadmiel f Banuas i Sudias J Afaph Salum -. Jatal Talmon ! Dacobi [ Teta Sami -* Efau Afipha Tabaoth Ceras Sud Phaleas Labana Graba Acua Uta Cetab Agaba Subai Anan &c in all Thermeleth 1052 1047 1017 74 128 139 37- Thelerfas Charaathalar Aalar y 652 Ladan Ban Necodan Whole —42,360. Servants 7347 Singers Horfes Mules Camels Beails **************************** 245 7036 245 435 5525 * ** 512 Hist, of H e b. Text. Tho' it be impoffible to enlarge here on the many and great variations in the prece- ding Catalogue -, yet I cannot difmifs it, even for the prefent, without the few following remarks That thefe three copies muft have origi- nally agreed; being moil: evidently meant to record tbe vefj fame Names, with the very fa?ne Numbers : That the Names y however, are now fo ilrangely corrupted, as to prove moft fully the exiftence of various errors in the printed Heb. Text, and to call aloud for the molt careful and fpeedy reformation : That the NumbeTSy tho' varying fo very widely in feveral of their particulars, are yet fumm'd up, in all the three printed Cata- logues, in the very fame fum total 42,360; and yet the real fum total ( at prefent ) of the largeji of the three fets of Numbers is lefs than 42, 360 by above 8400 : That there is, however, a method of cor- redling thefe greatly-corrupted Numbers, and compleating the prefent fum total ; which me- thod cannot be now propos'd : and laftly. That the many alterations of the Numbers have probably been owing to miftakes made at very different times, and from different caufes s Sixth Period. ^j^ caufes ; a few perhaps, from miftaking words at length ; fome, from miftaking one Heb. letter for another, when written as numerals y but moft of them feem to have been owing to a kind of notation, us'd about the time of Chrift, in the land of Paleftine, and therefore probably mjbme Heb. MSS ; the knowledge of which notation has been loft for many ages to all the learned world. I therefore congratulate the prefent age, and our own country, on the difcovery lately made of this notation by the learned Mr S w i n t o n ^ whofe curious tables of the whole method are juft publifh'd in our Philojoph, T^ranfaBions^ vol. 48, pag. 721 and 7283 and vol. ^o, pag. 805. This difcovery was made partly from the Palmyrene Infcrtp" tions, and partly from fome Sidonian Coins: the dates of the former extending 214 years, from 49 to 263 after Chrift; and the date of the oldeft of the latter being 153 years more early than the oldeft of the former. The Coins exprefs the unitSy from i to 10, by ftiort fmall ftrokes perpendicular, or nearly fo ; and the Infcriptions ( after the inconvenience of many fucceflive ftrokes had been amply expe- rienced) have one arbitrary mark for 5, ad- mitting only nil of the fucceftive ftrokes : the hundreds^ and units after the tens, are ex- prefs'd 5^4 Hist, of Heb. Text. prefs'd on both, in the fame manner as the lingle units. When therefore we confider well the feveral corruptions in the preceding Num- bers; and when we mark, how frequently they confift of a Jingle unify or a Jingle ten^ or a Jingle hundred, too much or too little: how naturally does the notation of Palmyra, but ftill more that us'd more anciently at Si- DON, (which town was given to the tribe of A/her 'yj I fay, how naturally, and how hap- pily, does this notation folve thefe otherwife inexplicable difficulties ! * And we fhould therefore highly honour all ftudious refearches after fuch venerable remains of Antiquity; lince, whilft they give a pleafing re-exiftencc to arts, once illuftrious, but long loft, they prove thus eminently ferviceable in correfting the miftakes, made by ancient tranfcribers, in the feveral parts of the facred pages. * As, for example : Shephatiah 372 372 472 Zattu 945 845 945 Adonikam 666 667 667 Bigvai 2056 2067 2066 Bezai 323 324 323 Jericho 345 345 245 Jedaiah &c. 973 973 972 Shallum &c. 139 138 139 Telmelah &c. 652 642 652 Pe RH AP S 515 CHAPTER V; containing A Catalogue of Hebrew and Samaritan MSS. PERHAPS there will be no prefumptlon In fuppoiing, that the preceding hijlory of the Heb. Texty together with the fentiments of the yews themfehes^ and fuch other remarks as have been made in this Diflertation, have fufRciently convinced the learned Reader that the printed Hebrew Text is greatly cor- rupted — and that the correftion of it ought to be undertaken, as fpeedily, and as careful- ly, as poffible. The firft thing proper to be done, for corredting the Text of any ancient author, is to examine MSS ; and the more of thefe there are, efpecially if of confiderable antiquity, the more corredt will fuch author probably be render'd. For why is the corrupt ftate of Hefychius and F. Paterculusy and the corredtnefs of TerencCy fo very remarkable ? The reafon is well known to be, that there is extant but one MS of each of the former, and a multitude of the latter. Learned men know this muft be the cafe, as to ancient authors, univerfally. And nothing could have fo long R r r pre- 5i6 On THE HEBREW prevented a diligent enquiry after, and a clofe examination of, the MSS of the Heb. Bible, but a general perfuafion ( entertained without enquiry ) that the Heb, MSS, now extant, were but few, and that they were fo Jingularly uniform, as to contain no variations of any con- feqiience. But, how was it poffible, that points of fuch great importance could have been thus taken for granted ! Yet, taken for granted they have been moft" certainly -, and ( I fuppofe ) to the no fmall aftonifhment of the reader, who has feen feveral variations, of real con- fequence, quoted from thofe MSS in the pre- ceding pages : in which are alfo produced tef- timonies of their containing thoufands of va- rious readings. And who can fay, before exa- juination, Whether many of thefe various read- ings may not prove extremely valuable ? As to the fmall number of fuch MSS, now extant; I have made a catalogue of the titles and places of above four hundred and FORTY a number! about three times as great as that of the Greek MSS of the new Teftament, which have been colled:ed at fuch vafk expence, and collated with fuch truly lau- dable zeal. That this treafure of Heb. MSS may be made ufe of, they muft firft be made known ; and 'tis hop'd, that the difcovery of the AND S A M A R. MSS. 517 the following will bring to light many others at prefent unknown; or, at leaft, not here mention'd. It will be unnecefTary to fwell the catalogue with an account how all the follow- ing MSS have been difcover'd. It need only be faid, in the general — that the catalogue is form'd upon the befl: printed Accounts cor- rected in fome parts by private Letters \ and that no one MS is inferted without authority. Whatever errors may be found, as to the fo- reign MSS, they will be carefully corrected; if the Learned abroad will favour the author with the difcovery of them : and he will be thankful for the notice of any other MSS of the Heb. Bible, which are not here enume- rated. Before I infert this catalogue, I fhall obferve farther ; that as moft of the following MSS contain only parts of the Heb. Bible; and as the names of fome of thefe parts will not eafily be underftood by common readers, without an explanation; the fcheme in the next page will remove every fuch difficulty. [N. B. The Haphtaroth are 54 chapters, or leiTons, felecSed out of the Prophets-, and read in the fynagogues by the Jews, on their Sabbaths and other feftivals, ] R r r 2 The 5i8 On THE HEB RE W The Hebrew Bible is divided thus ; Pentateuch Prophets ijofhua Judges Samuel Kings /-Ifaiah f Major \ Jeremiah cEzekiel rHofeah &c. Minor \ to I Cethubim or PJagiographa Job Malachj -Ruth Pfalms Proverbs Daniel ^ Ezr. Neh. |g I Lamentations .Chro4iicles ^Solomon's Song ;| j Either ^^ < Ecclefiaftes A CATAI^OGUEofMSS, Containing the Whole, or Parts, of The Hebrew Bible, N G L A N Oxford The Bodleian Library. D 1 Bible 2 Bible 3 Bible 4 Bible a vol fol. ( general N" ) 471, 461 • -.-..- 4to 3198 - - - 2 vol. 4to 5350, 5351 - - - 2 vol. fol. 5945, 5946 5 Pentateuch ------- fol. 1262 6 Pentateuch - - - - 2 vol. 4to 5349 7 Pentateuch 3 large Rolls 5748, 5749, 5750 8 Pentateuch ^ - ^ - - - ^ foL 5949 AND S A M A R. MSS. 519 9 Pentateuch - a large Roll Rawlinfon 10 Genefis --- fol. 2131 11 Exodus --- 12° 53S9 12 Gtn, Exod. Deut. 12° 978 MSS Hibern. 13 Lev. Num. Deut. Megill. - - 4to 5948 14 Num. Deut. ------ 8vo 5246 15 Deuteron. and fome Haphtaroth 12° 5935 16 Pent. Prophets ^. 4to 2 10 1 Prophets pofterior ------ 4to 3 Library at Lambeth. 102 Pfalms 8vo N* 435 Library of the R o y A l Society. 103 Pentateuch ----- 4to N* To thefe MSS, known at prefent in England, I fhall now add thofe in other Countries \ difpofing the feveral Places in alphabetical order. The pre- ceding MSS, with 7 copies of the Samar. Penta- teuch, amount to 1 10 copies, making 125 volumes. A L C A L A AND S A M A R. MSS, 523 A L c A L A ( Complutum ) Spain, Bible - - faid to be writ in the 9 th century. Bible ----- in the 12 th century. Bible ---.--..- . Pentat. Majanfms^s Letter \ fee before, page 358 A L T o R F Suabia. Efther See JVolf. Bibliothec. Heh. vol. 4. pag. 84 Amsterdam. Bible dated 1299 ^ - - - - H^olf. 2, 297 Bible except ^mr Prophets, Jer. & Ezek. 1290 Pentateuch, 60 copies, in Spanifh Jews fynagogue ; i^t Leufden's Pbikl. Hebr, dilTertat. 34, fed. 12. Library of John vander Hagen. Bible dated 1326 4to - - JVolf. a^^ 79 to 84 Pentateuch & Haph. - - - 4to dated 11 36 Pent. Megill. & Haph. - - fol. - - 11 76 Pent. Megill. & Haph, ----- fol. Pent. Megill. ( exc. Lament. ) & Haph. - fo]. Pent. Megill. Pfal. Prov. Job & Haph. - fol. Prophets & Hagiographa, exc. Megill. - fol. Prophets pofterior ( exc. Jerem. ) & Hagiographa. Hagiogr. with parts of Jer. & Ifai. fol. dated 1286 Job, with parts of Jer. & Ifai. fol. - - 1 309 Megilloth, exc. Either fol. - - - - 1215 Library of Cornel. Tripp. Pent. Megill. & Haph. (JVolf. 4 ; 8 1, 83 ) fol. 1428 Ifaiah, minor Prophets & Hagiographa fol. 1290 Library of Gafp. Ferd. J^ega. Bible - - - - f /Fb//\ 2, 300; 4, 83 ) 1399 Library of Herman vander JVall. Bible (JFolf^,^^) fol Anhalt-Dessau. Bible ( Jablonjki's Bible -, Preface, fe^. 6 ) 2 vol. Augsburg. Pentateuch - Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, cap. 2. Sn Bade :^ 524 <^N THE HEBREW Baden Suahia. Bible a vaft folio Le Long's Bibliotheca^ cap. 2. Bible dated 11 06 - cap, 2. Berlin. Bible (fee preceding page 192) 4 vol. Clajf. N i Bible - 3 vol. N 2 Pentateuch a large Roll Pentateuch ------- a Roll Pentateuch & Haph. N3 Pentateuch, Megill. & Haph, - - - N 15 Pentateuch, Megill. Job & //^^/^. - - N 1 8 Pentateuch, Megill. (exc. Ruth) Job, Haph. N 4 Prophets minor., Prov. & Megill. - - - N 1 1 Either 2 copies, each a Roll - - - N 19, 21 Berne. Prophets (exc. minor) Megill. Dan. Ezr. Chron. with other MSS - - - /F^^. 2, 304; 4, 85 Besan^on France. Bible ( Library of the Abby of St. Vincent ) 2 vol. Bologna. Library of the Dominicans. Bible very ancient Montfauc. Bihliothec. 432 D Pentateuch the famous Roll - - Biar. pag. 399 Library of the Canons of St. Saviour. Bible 3 vol. dated 1 1 93 Montfauc. Biar. p. 40 5 Bible ----------- p. 407 Bible - p. 407 Ifaiah & Jeremiah -- p. 407 Either a very ancient Roll - - - - p. 406 B R I E G Silejia. Pentat. Megill. (many various readings) Wolf. 4, 2^ Cai-fong-fu China, Pentateuch very ancient 1 2 copies taken from it. See Le Lon£s Biblioth. cap. 2 ; alfo A Colle5iion of Voyages (4 vol. 4to 1747) vol.4, p. 226, 227; & Renaudofs Ancient Accounts of China : 8vo, p. 184. AND S A M A R. MSS. 525 Cairo E.gypt. Pentateuch 2 copies Bp Pocock's 'Travels^ vol. i, 28 Bible faid to be writ by Ezra - - - - 1,28 C E s E-N A Italy. Bible ----- Montf, Bibliothec. 433 A Pentateucli -, -. - - - - - - -433A Copenhagen. Bible fol. - - - ' - - - - - rVolf. 4, 88 Bible fol. ---------- 4, 88 Pentateuch imperfect fol. - - - - -4, 88 Dresden. Bible, fol. Lowtlfs FrAeEliones p. 169 ♦, JVolf. 4, 86 E R F U R T H. Bible fol. 2 vol. Michaelis Bib. Heh. Prasf. N° i Bible fol. ( JVoIf. 2, 2,^y ) - - - - N° 2 Bible imperf. fol. - - N° 3 Pentat. Megill. Job, Haph. ( begins Gen. 34, 5) 4 Prophets & Pfalms imperfe^ „ _ - - N"" 5 Florence. The Laurentian or Gr. Duke's Library Bible fol. 1295 Montf auc. Bibliothec. ^.2 A^i, '^o Bible fol. ------- - p. 241, 31 Bible 1397 - p. 244, I Bible 2 vol. lFolf.^,n Bible 4 vol. -4, 88 Bible 3 vol. --------- 4, 88 Genefis -----------4, 88 Deuter. Megill. & Haph. 4to Montf. p. 249, 4 Pentateuch 8vo ------ p. 250, 14 Pent. & prior Prophets - - - - IFolf 4, 88 Pent. Megill. & Haph. 498 Montf p. 250, 10 Pent. Megill. & Haph. 478 fol. - p. 249, i Pent. Megill. & Haph. 291 - - - p. 249, 3 Jofhua to Ezra ------- IVolf 4, 8 8 Jofhua, Judges, Samuel 4to Montf p. 241,45 Prophets pojlerior ------ Wolf 4» ^ ^ Sff2 Ezekiel 526 On THE HEBREW Florence continued. Ezekiel &c. to Zechariah 4to Montf. p. 240, 9 Prophets popr, Pfal. Job, Prov. Eflh. Ruth, Eccl. Hagiographa fol. - - - Montf, p. 245, 12 Job, Ezra 4to - - - - - - p. 242, 52 Pfal. Prov. Job, Dan. 16° - - - p. 240, 18 Either 3 copies - - - - p. 240-, 14,20,24 St. Mark's Library. Bible a Roll ------- Wolf, z, 10% F u R T H Franconia. EflJier a Roll ------ IVolf 2, 0,10 Hague. Bible fol. (March, de St. Philippe) Wolf 4, S9. Hall. Bible a Roll ------ Wolf i, ^10 Pentateuch (Eraf. de SeideVs) Jahlonjk. Pre}, fee. 6 Hamburgh. Bible 4 vol. fol. 1 37 1 Wolf. 2, ^11 ; 4,90 Bible faid to be 900 years old - - 2, 300 Gen. & Exod. imperf fol. - - - - 2, 309 Gen. Exod. Deut. Job fol. - - - - 2, 309 Numb, (imperf.) Deut. Megiil. fol. - 2,309 Deut. Ruth, Lam. Eccl. 8vo Montf BibL p. 11 69 Pentateuch 4to ------ PFolf 2^ ^21 Pentateuch 4to 1381 - - - - - A-> 9'i Pentateuch, Jerem. & part of Ifai. 4to 4, 89 Pentateuch & Job fol. - - - - - 2, 302 Pentateuch, Megilloth, Job & Haph. fol. 2, 309 Pentat. Megiil. Job & Haph. fol. 2, 311 ; 4, 89 Pentat. Megiil. (exc. Eflh.) Job, //^//^. 8vo 2,309 Pentat. Megiil. & Haph. fol. 1420 - 2, 309 Prophets fol. 2, 321 Prophets fol. -------- 4, 92 Prophets, exc. Jofhua fol. - - - - 2, 309 Prophets & Hagiographa fol. - - - 2, 309 Proph. Pfa. Pro. Ecc. Song, Chro. Maccab. 2, 311 Job & part of Jeremiah fol. - - - 4? 93 AND SAMAR. MSS. 527 Pfalms fol. . - - - JVoIf. 2, 321 ; 4, 92 Pfalms fol. - - -2, 310 Pfalms 12'' 2 copies - 2, 310 Pfalms 16" 2, 310 J 4, 92 Pfalms &■ Job 410 11 61 - - - - 2,294 Proverbs 12° - -4^8 8, 92 Dan. Ezr. Nehem. Chron. 8vo - - - 2, 310 Ruth a Roll ----- -_- 2,310 Eflher 2 copies each a Roll - - - 2, 310 Song, Ruth, Lamentations 4:0 - - - 4, 93 Hanover. Library of R. David Oppenheimer. Bible fol. - - . lVolf.2,^12 Pentateuch 2 vol. fol. - - - - 2, 313 Pentateuch 1032 4to - - _ _ 4, 82 Pentateuch, Megilloth & Haph. 4to 2,312 Prophets fol. ------- - 2,312 Heidelburg. Bible - - Hottiyig, Bihlioth. §uadripart. p. 179 Helmstad. Pentateuch ------- JVolf. 2^ 7,12 Pentateuch a Roll - - - - - - 2, 312 Pentateuch, Megilloth & Haph. - - - 2, 313 Hesse-Cassel. Pentat. & Hagiogr. fol. A5f. Lipf. ijc^j p. 559 H o B A near Bamafcus. Bible 3 copies Rolls Perry^s View Levant^ P- ^3^ I E N A. Bible 2 vol. fol. 1343 - - - ^^^.2,299 Prophets & Hagiographa - - - - 2,313 KONINGSBURG. Pent. Megill. Jud. Job & Haph. 1 3 1 3 foL 2,298 Prophets & Hagiographa fol. - - - 2, 320 L E I p s I c. Pentat. Ruth, Song, Lam. & Haph. - - 2, 314 Pentat. Megill. Pfal. Prov. Job & Maccab. Chald. 528 On the HEBREW L E Y D E NT. Bible^ - . C/F5?//. 2, 314; 4, 93) 8vo GV. 9 Leviticus - - Catalogue^ printed 1 7 1 6, p. 405 Pent. Ifai. Sam. Kin. Lam. (JVolf. 4, 93 ) Gol. 42 Prophets, except Kings ( fFolf. 2, ^i^) Gol. 6 Pfalms ------- Catalogue^ p. 404 Lyons France. Bible 1295 ------- ^olf.4., 82 Mechlin Flanders. Pfalms --.- -^^^-2, 315 Milan. Bible - Montfauc. Biar. p. 11 •, & JVolf. 2, 300 M o D E n A. Bible Monfauc. Biar. p. 31 NUREMBURG. Pentateuch ------- IVolf. 2^ 7,16 Megilloth --- 2,316 Padua. Bible fol. .------ - TFGlf.2,^1^ Paris. The Royal Library. Bible -------- 1357 fol. N^ I Bible ----- . - - - - fol. 2 Bible {Houhiganfs Prolegom. p. 103) fol. 3 Bible ------- 2 vol. fol. 4, 5 Bible {Hoiib. Proleg. p. 105) 2 vol. fol. 6^y Bible - - - 1272 4to 26 Bible -------- 1332 4to 27 Bible -------- 1346 4to 28 Bible ( Houh. Proleg. p. 106) 1347 4to 29 Bible ---------- 4to 30 Bible -------- 1404 4to 31 Bible -- 8vo 52 Pentateuch -------- fol. 10 Pentateuch -------- fol. u Pentateuch 3 copies each a Roll - 22, 23, 24 Pentateuch - (defective at the end) 4to 33 Pentateuch ----- 2 vol. 4to 34, 35 AND SAMAR. MSS. 529 Gcnefis, Exodus, Megilloth - - - 4to 36 Exod. & Hagiogr. exc. Megill. 1284 fol. 12 Lev. Deut. Megill. & Haph. - - - fol. 13 Numbers, Deuteronomy - - - _ 4to '^j Pentat. Megill. Haph. & Maccah. - fol. 8 Pentat. Megill. ( exc. Ruth ) & Haph, fol. 9 Pentat. & />mr Prophets - - - - 410 32 Prophets -.^----_ fol. i^ Prophets, except Judges - - - - fol. 14 Prophets prior ------- fol. 17 Vrophets p eft eri or (defe5f. at begin.) - 4to 49 Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel - - - - fol. 21 Prophets & Hagiogr. exc. Megill. - fol. 16 Hagiographa, exc. Chronicles - - - fol. 18 Hagiographa, exc. Dan. Ezr. & Neh. fol. 19 Hag. (exc. Eccl.) &/>n< 3 i>2i,i7 131}/ 131K 4 G 7,19 D'nn:i onnj 5 £10, 13 jm :in3 6 G3i,i8 jm» an3> 7 G3i,26 :imn jn^n 8 £14,24 am CDHM 9 Gio, II nbD n^D lO G3o,38 D>Dn-i CD'ion") 11 G3o,4i D>iom Q'Dnn 12 G 39, 20 nnon nnon J3 G39, 20 nnDH nnon 14 G39,2i nnon nnon 15 ^4^45 n:];D n^VD 16 ^41,45 >n3Dj^ >n3>DSf 17 £28, 9 on'd; nDH-iz; 18 £28,18 D)bn> cziibn> 19 £32, 8 nno nnD 20 ^32,15 in>in inon 21 gh.h PTI pnn 22 G41, 3 mp-» r-iipn 23 G41, 4 n^pn m^p-i 24 £22, 10 Niti^: nni^^a 25 £32,31 mn mn 26 G15, I nn-iK nnnx 27 JV12, 6 j;iinn j/nnrr 28 G40, 10 D'Jini:; D'jn-iZ; 29 £22, II CDb'^) Q^i^* 30 L 6, 10 nD no 31 Gi5,io nira mm 32 ^49* 7 Dnnnn Dmnn 33 £39,19 nnrr nnn 34 £21,18 CDni^ czDnrr 35 £39,11 :iD3 DD3 36 £11,19 riDjn rnD>:n 37 £>i4,i8 r-iD:in rnD'jT 38 ^ 5» 4 riDih t^D^V 39 iV2I,l8 \i)''\2n nnsn Orat. 2 Peir. 1 Pcir. 2 liij; 121]/ — jn2> jni* :in2> n^D n^D n^D "iHDn nnorr -inorr CDHti' tzi^-i:' CDHiz; cin^n> C2)bn> t=2)bn> '^riD nnr^ -ino iH'^rr in'3n ii;>3n Nii:*} Nnti>3 nnti'3 Dun-iL^ Dun-L^^ Dun*.:; CDnj; CDnrr t=i)^n DD3 DD3 DD3 ^<:onV Kton^ kio:;^; nnDH nnDn nnDrr Bodl.i Bodl 2 Bodl. 3 Bodl. 4 Bodl. 5 Bodl. 6 ; Br. Mu. -KHDj; ■ -KHDj; H nn;/ • - N nny - • « nnj; ■ - K nnj; - ■ Nnn:/ nnx — ^n^< nnx nnx ^n^{ nnb< "i:ij« i:^N t:i« 121X liiK -— 131^ CD'nnj CD'H^a — CD'nna rzi^nna CD>n2J ciD'nna Jim :im Jini jn3 :im :im :ini _ :im' :in2> ^ jn2> :im> :in]» :im> jmn jn^n — :in3n amn :imn :in:in tDnn CDn>i CDn>i cz)n>i CDnn CDnn CDn'i nb — — n^D n^D nbj n^3 CDiDnn D'lo-in D'Dnn D>rDn") D'Dnn D'Dnn D'iDnn CD>IDn-| D»[on-i D'lom D>iDnn D>Dnn D>iDnn D'om nnDn nnon nnon nnDH nnon •nnon nnon ^non nnon nnon nnon nnon nnon nnon "inon nnon -inon nnon nnDPt -inon nnDn mpD m;;D n:i;D r\2:;D nij/D mj;D riiVD >n:'D2f 'D^'DJ; >n3>D2; 'n3>D2f *r]yD}£ TirDJ^ ^n^B^ cdh::^ — , — , cuniy CDne; nni:; rzinm c=i)bn' — . £z]i!?n» CDi^n> CDi^n> cziibn> ai^n> nno — THD nnD "IHD nnD nno in^in — in'3n in>:n in>3n mon in^in — pTI — pi'^ pin pnn PTI rmpn rmp"i mpi mip-i n'^.p^ rmpn rmp-i r-np-i rmpn rnipn mip") mipn r-npn rnip-) Knri^3 — — Nni:^a K2i:;3 nni:'! nniL^j mn — mn mn mn nin mn nn-^K nn-iK — nn"^x nnnx nnn« nn")>* j^mnn — n^nn j^i^nn j^ninn j^ninn i^ninn D^jn'iz; Da-It:/ Duniz; D'jnt:; Dun::; D»:ntz; Dunii; CDb\D> — — CDb'd;^ CDb]i;> cub^* CD^t:;> >1D — no HD HD no nn "»inn mnn — -linn — mnn nna Dnnnn Dn-)2y Dnnan Dnnnn Dnnnn Dmnn Dmnrr nnn — nnn nnn -inn •inj; nnrr CDHJ/ — Dnn 0)^:; Dnn Dnn Dnrr DD3 — DD3 DD3 dd:j DD3 DDJ mD:in ^ riDui nD>:n DDJin DD'Jin PDjn — , DDUn — . DDUl riDun DDun DD'jn KDn^ — > i:Dr> — — — 42 G27, 9 nir^i; ni:»y« nti^i^K n-ii^VN* H'k^'J/K 43 ^3^51 '^^'^' nxn> — — — 44 G37, 4 mm rim — — — 45 £ 16,14 "^s^^ ^D3 nDD nDD -IDD 46 G 8, 3 vn abeft — — — 47 G 8, 3 nDHI ):2W) — — — 48 G 8,22 CDDV tDDV — — — 49 G 9, 16 n"iD?j< nnDm — — — 50 G32, 33 N>'ii:>jrT Ktr^iii'T — — — 5' ^32,33 i<'\i^^r\ Ki:>irr — — —• 52 G27, 3 -in>bn in>^n — — — 53 G4o,ionnnDND nn-)DKD — — — 54 G 43, 10 i^HDnn i:)DnDr)n i^DHDnrt i^DHDnn i^Dnonn 55 G49, 10 innp» innp» — . w- — 56 G49, 12 Mdh i^>^Dn — — — 57 G28, 9 ab. 2 verba abfunt — — — 58 G 31,27 ab.Dni^^ni non ab. non ab. non ab. non ab» 59 £ 9, 5 ab. 4 verba non ab. non ab. non ab. non ab. 60 JS21, 18 ab. 3 verba abfunt — —^ — 61 Ezi,20 ab. Dltia abeft — — — 62 .£22,31 Db*i:;n ybu;n — .-^ 63 i?22, 31 |D>yii;n ybwn — ^— — 64 G 3,4 rl1Dn^^^ : niDn iiDn!? — — — 67 ^9,19 riTN ^vn ?j^n \:;n rjrrr 68 £"39, 3 n>D >nD >nD *nD >nD 69 Zi3,5[ n^nDD nxnf^D — — — 70 L 14,44 r)^<"i^?2 nt^noD — — — 71 iV2i,3o nD>n3 ni3i>3 — _ , — 72 z 21,23 ^3K ^K . DK ' 7X . DX ' ^K.DK ^K . DK 73 Gio,23 bnn b>)n — — _- . 74 G 1 0,23 Nli^D HWD — — — 75 G 1 0,27 a-nnx tD-inx — — — 76 G25, 4 -IDK nDN — — ^—. 77 G25,i3 nn3 mj^n^ — — — 78 £ 6,15 nn^ nnx — — .— Bodl. I -Bodl. 2 Bodl. ^ 5 Bodl. 4 Bodl. 5 Bodl. 6 Br.Mu: l^nj^o — TTiJ^a 1 IIIHD 1nJ/0 11^1^0 T^TO i^w i3Dr> — .. i^^r> i3nr> i:d?» i:ir:)r> nm^ nti'i/x nti>i;N rwD^H nt:>j^K n*k^PK n*i^'];i? DNn» r-)>n> mx-)* rnxn* r-iNn» r-ixn* r-iKn> nm vnm mm vnm vnm nm vnn'T nDD — — , ncD ^DD nDD nDD abeft abeft — abeft ^ abeft abeft )nw) — ^ )2W) nti^i nt:^i nuf) £DDV 2ID?31'' — tZDDV £Z)DV 2Z3DV CUDV — n-!DrN — nn3?N H'nDm n^DrN nnD?H Kti'^n N*i:>n Kii^irr Ni^jrr i<*]D:n Nii>3n Nii^jn Nt^2il Kti^in NuL^n Nii'^n N-ii'^n Kir'^n Kt:^:irr -]r)>Vn •^n^n irrVn ^n>bn "jrrVn in>Vn '^nbn nn-iD.sD nniDD r)^nD^^D j nnnDND J nn-iDND nniDND nnnDxa iJDnr^rn — i^DHDnn i^DHDnn liDHDnn uDnnnn liDnonn )nnpf innp» innp> innp> innp> ir)np> innp» )b>b:^n iV>!?2n iV^^Dn iV>Vd.i iV>VDn iV>VDn iV^Drr abfunt abfunt abfunt abfunt abfunt abfunt abfunt non ab. non ab. — non ab. non ab. non ab. non ab. non ab. — non ab. non ab. non ab. non ab. non ab. abfunt — — abfunt abfunt abfunt abfunt abeft — — abeft abeft abeft abeft yb\i;n — — yb'^n yb\L'n ybwn ybwn iD'Vii^n — _-. lyb^Dn )'2b\L*n )ybwn )ybwn — niDD nV — niDJi iDnb ?;^n ^:;n ?j?n mn r;^n ri^n ^vn 'HD — ' >nD n>D ^HD 'HD >nD riNiDD ■ i nxnr^D nx'nDD . nxn^D j DH^DD n^noD ni<^Dn ' J DKIDD DiSIDD r)N-)D?D , DN-lDD DN^DD n=j-)>3 — ^ an^i CDy^ CD-)>3 cuno CDn>3 i'K.DN — . Vk.dn bi'< . DN Vn.dn Vn.dn Vn.dk Vnrr — . — bnnn — Vnn bnn Ktl^D — -— ^WD K-Li'rD iy^ ego : tho' the Hebrew be wrong, and alfo the print- ed Samaritan, in both places ; and tho' the fa- mous MS of Morinus and Houbigant be alio wrong, in both places ; yet the true reading, in both places, is preferv'd in Five of the English Samar. MSS, N° i, 4, 5, 6, 7, in the preceding catalogue : N" 2 is defedlive in the I ft inftance, and N° 3 in the 2d. The Reader may fee thefe two inftances illuftrated in my laft DiiTertation, at pag. 366 and 401. It may not be improper, to conclude this fubjed: with obferving that I make no doubt, but, amongft the 78 inftances in the preceding Table, there are fome corruptions in the Samar. copies, as well as fome in the Hebrew — that I leave the other particulars, to be afcertain'd hereafter by fome one, who may be happy in more leafure and greater abi- lities — and that I beg to recommend to the impartial examination of the Learned the feveral arguments here offer'd, in favour of The Samaritan Pentateuch, CONCLUSION. I HAVE now fubmltted to the judgment of the PuWic my obfervations on the four points, which I propos'd to confider : namely, the Samar. Pentateuch s the Chald. Paraphrafe-, the fentiments of the Jews thcmfehesy as to the. correBnefs of their f acred books ; and, the num- ber and nature of the Heb. and Samar. MSS. To thefe obfervations I fhall here add ( by way of conclufion ) fuch things, as feem to deferve notice ; but which have occurr'd fince the printing off thofe pages, to which they relate : in which pages therefore the Reader is defir'd to infert a reference to thefe additions. And I fhall here alfo acknowledge, and very readily corred, fome of my miilakes; not doubting but the Learned will difcover others, which have efcap'd my own notice. For as to invo- luntary errors, in a work of this extenfive na- ture, I have reafon to befpeak the Reader's candor, in the words of Dr Hody — ^lin in multis ipfemety pauxillus homOy erraverim, dubi-^ tare nequeOy cum in Viris Tantis tot & tantos animadverti err ores. In the preceding 3d chapter, and at page 455 &c. I endeavour'd to ftate the opinions of the Jews on thq correflnefs of their facred co- pies f 554 CONCLUSION. pies; and to the teftimonles there produc'd, which relate chiefly to ancient Jews, I can now add fomething of confequence, that is modern. I have lately been favoured with the light of an Heb. Bible, ( printed by Athias, in 1661) the margin of which contains, in wri- ting, curious remarks upon, and correftions of, the Heb. text; grounded upon Parallel Places, the Samar. Pentateuch, the Gr. and Syr. Verfions, Jofephus, Bochart, Selden, Wall, Hare, Newton, and others; with quotations from Maimonides, Aben-Ezra &c, Thefe marginal notes were made by a very learned Jew ; who frequently declar'd his opinion, that the Heb, text contain d many errors of the tranfcribersy and that the Samar, was bet- ter pre ferv d than the Hebrew, The notes are partly in Englifh, and partly in the Portuguefe language : and that the writer was a Jewy is certain from the information 1 received; and it might other wife be inferred from his Rabbi- nical quotations, and his applying the 53d ch. of Ifaiah to Zerubbabel. The firft article, which I fhall quote from thefe marginal notes, relates to the hiftory of David and Goliath : and I was agreeably fur- priz'd at finding, that the fame pafTages ( in that hiftory ) which had been fuppos'd 7iot ge- nuine CONCLUSION. 555 nuiney both in Mr Pilkington's remarks and the preceding pages (419 &c, ) were diftin- guifh'd in this Bible as interpolated. The verfes from i Sam, ij, 11 to 17, 32, and from 17, ^^ to 18, 6, were included in parenthefes *y and the margin ( which m.entions the Vatican Gr. verfion ) obferves, that the hijlory conjijis at prefent of different and inconfijient accounts. The remark on chap, 17, 54 (and David put his armour i?i his tent ) is — 'This cojvfirms the Vatic, Sept, But, on ver. 40, 'tis faid — This text feems to be againjl the Vatic, Sept, This verfe has appear'd to others, as well as this critical Jew, to favour the authenticity of the verfes in queftion ; for the circumftance of David's having then a Jiaff, a Jhepherd's bag and ajling, feem ( fay they ) to jfhew, that he was juft then come from his flock. But, does not this hurt the caufe, which it is brought to defend ? If David came then from his flock ; why muft he bring with him hhjli?ig ? Whether he himfelf carried the loaves and cheefes, or drove the beafts which carried them; of what ufe, in either cafe, was his Jling ? Perhaps it will be faid — that David might be particularly expert at that paftoral weapon: and therefore, as he was going to the armyy he might take with him that in- X X X ftrument 556 CONCLUSION. ftrument of offence ; in hopes of an opportu- nity to fhew his fkill, and perform fome pub- lic fervice : for Jlingers made a very refpedl- able part of an army, in the days of David ; fee I Chro, 12, 2. I readily allow, David might excel in the ufe of this weapon. But then, this folution removes the other difficulty ; which arifes from David's being fuppos'd to have with him in his tent ( whilft armour- bearer to Saul ) his Jling, and alfo his Jhep- herd's bagy or a pocket, or pouch, made like a fliepherd's bag ( faften'd to his fafh or girdle ) in which the ftones for the fling were ufually depoiited. For, thefe inftruments he might carefully keep by him in his tent, as one me- thod of fighting to advantage : a method this, which was held honourable, as being known to be ufeful ; a method of attack, in which David might, and no doubt did, excel great- ly; fince it was the very method, which in fad he chofe for the conqueft of Goliath. As to ^p'O ^ ft^ffy i^ fometimes iignifies a mili^ tary weapon y as 'tis exprefs'd in the ufeful Concordance of Dr Taylor; and 'tis mentioned amongft the inftruments of war, Ezek, 39, 9. The words Jhepherds bagy which are gene- rally underftood as meaning the bag of David the Jhepherdy properly fignify a vejfel or bag of the pepherds XyV^T\ ^^^^ ^^ '^^f paforum. CONCLUSION. 557 There is another word, which alfo defcribes this pocket or bag; and that is Dlp^* rendcr'd a fcrip, for the text fays, David put the 5 ftones tOlp^Ol CD^ynn 'Sd^, two phrafes ex- planatory of each other ; and fo the Eng. ver- iion renders them — iii a floephcrds bag, even in a fcrip. No mention is made elfewhere in Scripture of the bag, in which flingers put the ftones for their flings. But as the inven- tion oi a fafchel ov bag for Jhepherds was pro- bably prior to that of fuch a military pocket ; this pocket might at firft take its name from the bag of Jhep herds y which it was made in imitation of. And tOlpS' might be another and later term, meant to exprefs (by one word inftead of two ) the very fame thing ; which ( as a pouch now contains cartridges for a muflcet ) then contained ftones for a fling. I fliall only add, that this bag cannot ealily be fuppos'd tho^fatchel, us'd by David in the fields, and containing his provifons. For, would he have brought his fatchel with him , if he came to the army with provifions ? Or, if he had brought it ; would he not have left it in the hands of the keeper of the carriage^ or with fome other perfon, v/hen he was about to be introduced to the prefence of king- Saul ? Whereas the lingle fuppofition of Da- X X X 2 vid's 558 CONCLUSION. vid*s keeping by him fin his tent ) his fling as a military weapon, and his pocket or pouch for ftones ( a necelTary concomitant of a fling ) feems to remove all difficulty. But fliould any difficulty ftill remain ; it mufl: then be confider'd, whether the notion of the genuine- nefs of the verfes in queflion be not attended with far greater difficulty. See p. 420 &c. As to the remarks of this Jewifli Critic up- on other texts ; he has alfo included in a pa- renthejis the words DH^IlK ^'^bK (Gen, 31? 53 ) which I had fuppos'd interpolated^ in the for- mer Difl^ertation, p. 369. As to the law en- grav'd by Jofliua; the margin of this Bible ( at ^ofh. 8, 33 ) calls it the Decalogue^ agree- ably to the preceding pages 88 &c. And laft- ly y as to the vaft fums left by David, before confider'd in pages 353 and 354; this Bible, in the margin of i Chro, ch. 22 fays — // is fupposdy thefe Talents are not to be reckon d like the Mofaick^ for they would amount to j 20 millions : but as the Scripture makes no diffe- renccy we have ?io other computation to go by. But, taking leave for the prefent of this copy of the Bible, I proceed to the other particu-^ lars, which remain to be here fubjoin'd : and thefe it may be convenient to place in the fame order of fucceffion with the preceding pages, to which they refer. CONCLUSION. 559 Pag. 50 ; Note. Bianconi has attempted to explain the charafters here call'd unknown ; and he fuppofes the infcription to be 'ip^ bi^ 2r\^n Deus abftiilit affiiciionem. See de anti- quis Uteris Hebrceorum, pag. 29. Pag. 55. 'Tis obferv'd here, that the idola- trous prieft might be the grandfon of Mofesy in point of chronology. To which we may add, that the 20th ch. of Judges treats of matters poflerior to thofe in ch. the i8th; and 'tis faid ( 20, 28 ) that Phineasy the/on of Eleazar^ the fon of Aaron^ flood then before the ark. 'Tis certain therefore, that the grandfon of Mofes might live at the fame time with the grandfon of Aaron ; and probably he liv'd la- tery as Mofes was the younger brother and liv'd after Aaron. It would throw great light upon this and many other fimilar paffages ; if there were publhh'd an exad; Table of the fucceffions of the Patriarchs and chief perfons mention'd in the old Teftament, particularly tholfe of the 1 2 tribes ? I have attempted fuch a Table, for my own ufe ^ and tho' it proves very difficult to ftate fome parts of it, yet I am fure that great advantage may b'e derived from it, even tho' executed imperfectly. The fcheme of my Table is both Genealogical and Chronological y exhibiting in the center, in a perpen- 560 CONCLUSION. perpendicular feries, the line of fucceffion from Adam to our Saviour, with the different chronologies and the times of birth and death, in perpendicular columns near the central line of the Meffiah ; on the left hand branch off all the elder fons with their defcendants, and on the right fuch as were younger than thofe in the central column ; and on both fides, the heads of families are difpos'd in equi-diflant genealogical lines, fo as to difcover at one view thofe who were contemporaries, or nearly fb, down thro' the feveral generations. To re^ commend to fome more able hand the perfecft execution of fuch a Table as this, is the more pertinent in this place; becaufe fuch a Con- fpedius will folve many difficulties, corred: ma- ny corruptions, and of courfe prove greatly ferviceable to all thofe who would examine fully the facred hiflory. I fhall only add, that in my Table, as Levi and the other fons of Jacob are extended on one long line, which makes the 24th line of the Table, and the 23d defcent from Adam; fo Phineas and yo- nathan appear at once as contemporaries y being both of them on the 29th line; and being near together, as having the fame great-grand- father i. e. Amram. Pag. ^j. This fuppofition, that the 1 1 cities were CONCLUSION. 561 were omitted accidentally ( on account of the fame word occurring at the end of 2 adjoin- ing verfes ) obviates the difficulty mention'd by Reland; who thinks, the Jews could not omit thefe cities defig?iedly. But that learned writer has fome reflexions, which greatly countenance the belief of this confiderable, tho' unintended, omiffion. In pag. 643 of his Palejline he fays — Mirantur multi banc ur- hem ( Bethlehem Ephratha ) inter urbes tribiii Judce ajjignatas non recenferi Jof, 15; quando- quidem nativitate Mejjice adeo illuftris eJJ'et fu- tura. Fit quidem ejus ?7tentio Jud. 17, 7 — fed eo in loco, uBi pr-^cipue videtur me- MORARi DEBuissE, altum dc ilia Jilentium eft, Monendum tamen hie ejty in verjione Alex^ andrina recenferi ( Jof. 15, 60 ) banc urbem in- ter urbes Juda, cufn nonnullis aliis quas codices Hebr^ei ?ion agnofcunt. Pag. 107. The word '^n^Dn ( thy faints J being of particular importance ; it may be re- marked, that the word in that form is necef- farily plural. Vain will be the endeavour to prove the propriety of one word, .thus cor- rupted from Angular to plural, by another word corrupted in the fame manner. Suppofe a man fhould vindicate ( i Kin. 12, 21 ) ^^y^ CDyHn^ & venerunt Rehoboamy by alledging that 562 CONCLUSION. that ( in "Jojh. 6, 7 ) TlDK^I G? dixerunt agrees with Jofhua-y would not fuch an argument be wonderfully fatisfadory ? And yet there are men, who think they roundly vindicate one word, however irregularly now exprefs'd; if they can but difcover another word unfortu- nately in the fame condition. That Heb. nouns plural, ending in D% retain ^ before a fuffix as a mark of their plurality, is one of the moft general principles of the language ; and yet it would be no wonder, if, amongft fo many other corruptions, there fhould be a few inftances of fuch a » being now found in a word properly fingular — as is clearly the cafe in *^n^Dn. An objedtion, ariling from yT^'O in (Deut. 23, 14) is thus anfwer'd in the Relationes de libris novis Gottingce ( fafcic. XI, p. 104 ) "Jod in Y^nO non fer vile fed ra- dicale ejly ortum ex n terti(2 radicalism quod ante fiiffixa jam omitti potejiy jam in Jod mutari. If this be not fully fatisfadlory ; it may be obferv'd farther, that the common word for a camp is TyT^'Oy and that camps or hojis are ex- prefs'd by D^^HD or m^HD ; but that the word, when plural, is fometimes rendered camp, a- greeably to the ufe of the Latin word cajlra. Thefe different ufes of the word may have the more eafily mifled a tranfcriber i and that fome CONCLUSION. 563 fome tranfcriber has err*d here, feems ex- treamly probable — becaufe this very word is exprefs'd fingularly ( "]:n,!: ) in this fame verfe now in the Heb. text; and both thefe words are "]^nD in the Samaritan. And as to the inftance of ^inn lOni.tD f Ge?2. 27, 29 and Num. 24, 9 ) that phrafe may be taken diftri- butively, hlejj'ed be every one of thofe who blefs thee. But as to fingular participles, in poetical ^\2iCtSy ft^piufcule adejl ' paragogicum, Buxtorf. Thefaur. pag, 103. It has been repeatedly obferv'd ; that out of 3 1 Heb. MSS, which I have found to con- tain this Pfalm, 27 authorize the fingular word ^*l^Dn. To thefe 27 I can now add ano- ther, preferv'd in the Archi-Epifcopal Library at Lambeth, 8vo, N''435: which reads alfo ^TDH thy holy One, This MS contains feve- ral other remarkable variations. It reads ib^t^ comederunty in Pf, 79, 7 ; agreeably to my former DiiTertation, p. 504. It ftrongly con- firms 2 corredlions propos'd on Pf, 68, 9 : for it reads tD:i inftead of P]J^, & ^'^bK TT\T\'^ in- fl:ead of »n^K D'n^{< ; as fuppos'd in that Dif- fertation, p. 502. It alfo preferves the word mn^ Jehovah, in feveral places, where it is lofi: in other written copies and in all the printed editions. Y y y Pag, 564 CONCLUSION. Pag. 202. In the Lambeth Library are 3 Lat. MSS of the Bible. The firft ( 2 vol. fol. N°3,4) reads 40000, 80000, and 50000; the fecond ( 2 vol. fol. N° 89, 90 ) agrees with the printed Vulgat ; and the third ( N* 756) reads 40000, 80000, and yet 500000. Note alfo; that the firft and third MSS read 4 (inftead of 40) agreeably to the preceding re- marks, p. 358 ; -and both read 2410 ( inftead of 410) fuppos'd the true reading, p. 508. Pag. 218. In fupport of the prefent read- ings here fpecified, and in favour of the large numbers of inhabitants in Paleftine, the reader may confult p. 51 &c. of a Differtation on the Numbers of Mankind in ancient and modern times: 8vo, Edinb. 1753. Pag. 295. Lihrorum Bihlicorum dijlributio- nem in Legem, Propheticos, © Hagiographos, ejj'e idtimce antiquitatis baud dubito : id vero viinime credo, libros Jofli. Jud. Sam. Gf Reg. in ordinem Frophetarum a fudceis vetujtijjimis re- lates fuijje 'y ut fa^um ejl act ate Hieronymiy & a Judceis recentioribus. Hody; p. 190. Pag. 319. Tho* the reader will judge from the inftances already given, xh2X parallel places furnifli fatisfadlory evidence for the corredtion of fome corruptions ; yet in proportion as more parallel places are compared, the ftronger will CONCLUSION. 565 will be the convidlion as to the ufefulnefs, and indeed the necefiity, of fiich comparifons. I am enabled to fpeak of this matter with the greater certainty, becaufe I have compar'd the whole of Chronicles with thofe other places which contain the fame parts of hiftory. The book, which I have form'd for the purpofe of this comparifon, contains the whole facred hiftory of the Jews, from the inftitution of their Monarchy to their re-eftablifhment at Je- rufalem after their captivity : and, as it gives in parallel columns SainiieU Kings, Chronicles, Ezra andNehemiah, with oth^v parallel places -, there not only arifes an hiftory far more corn- pleat ( the omiffions in one writer being here fiird up by the additions in another ) but alfo a variety of corruptions are eafily diicover'd, and may be fatisfadlorily corred:ed. As, for inftance. In 2 Sa?n, 22, we have David's fublime Song of thankfgiving ; which is alfo given in the 18th Pfalm. Compare thefe printed copies together in the Hebrew, with the words of one plac'd over the words of the other 3 and it will be furprifing to fee, how clearly one corrects the other in feveral places. I am aware, that fome men have at- tempted to vindicate the prefent differences in thefe 2 copies of this divine Ode, by calling Y y y 2 one 566 CONCLUSION, one a fecond edition of the other, correm^Vr31, as in the Pfalm, in 17 MSS. 3 >}Td^n >^ir'D written »3i^>i:^in ^I^'iinD. 5 ^:iDDi< written 01DDi<, as in the Pfalm, in 19 MSS. 5 nnii'D written >^nn, as in the Pfalm. 5 >bni written >Vr731, as in the Pfalm. 5 >in:?n> written >nn3;n% as in the Pfalm, in 11 MSS. 6 Oi:iD written *2)2Dy as in the Pfalm, in 15 MSS. 6 ^iDlp written >3imp, as in the Pfalm, in 1 3 MSS. 6 *W\)\'^ written 'li'pirD, as in the Pfalm, in 10 MSS. 7 V2f«n *n^)W) written Viixn Nnn v:Db >n'J)W\ as in Pfalm. 8 i:>irjni written ^'^jnm. 8 DHDID written nnPIQI, and alfo nO)D, as in the Pfalm. 11 Nn>"l written N"in, as in the Pfalm. 1 2 "j'li^n written nDD "jliTf, as in the Pfalm. 12 DDD CONCLUSION. 569 1 2 HDD written IDDP, as in the Pfalm. 14 CD'DLy p written CD'DI^'D. 15 Oi^n written V2^rT» as in the Pfalm. 16 )bv written 1^:in, as in the Pfalm. 16 mni^Jin written Jinj^JD, as in the Pfalm. 18 *h:WD written ^K^li'DI, as in the Pfalm, in 7 MSS. 19 0D'7p> written >210'Tp», as in the Pfalm, in 12 MSS. 19 ]T\V^ written |pi^'D^, as in the Pfalm, in 9 MSS. 2 1 >npl!fD written *pl}£'D, as in the Pfalm. 23 IZDDti'D written VcDDtI'D, as in the Pfalm, in 1 7 MSS. 26 nUJ written n3J, as in the Pfalm, in 4 MSS. 27 "iDm written "linDD, as in the Pfalm. 29 mn> Hi written m I'Kn, as in the Pfalm. 32 i:'n^x ni;^3D written >i>n^i^ >nbir, as in the Pfalm. 33 D'nn nr)>1 written om |nn, as in the Pfalm. 34 V^:n written >^J-), as in the Pfalm, in 17 MSS. 34 *2yDT written ODHT'. 38 CDTD'ii'KI written OJ'tiW, as in the Pfalm. 38 Cn^D written Cum^D, as in the Pfalm, in 15 MSS. 40 onrm v/ritten >3n?xm, as in the Pfalm. 40 onnn written >nnn, as in the Pfalm. 41 nnr\ written J — iDL 41 CDn'DjfX"! *i>.:WD written nzm'Dl'H ^Hiii'DI, as in the Pf. 43 pK nDj;D v/ritten pK b^J ^D^/D. 45 rk^'nDn> written ItiTID*, as in the Pialm. " 46 CDnn:iDDQ n:inn written CDn'nnjDOD i:i")n>i. 47 >Pt:^> nt2^ '^V^^ DTI written >i^t:;> >n!?J< On'i, as in the Pf. 48 mDp3 written r~nDp3, as in the Pfalm, in 21 MSS. 48 inDI written I^TM, as in the Pfalm. 48 >3nnn written >nnn, as in the Pfalm. SO CD>Un mn> written mn' D'Un, as in the Pfalm. Various Readings in the MSS of the PSALM. 3 *hi< written 'n^X, as in Samuel. 4 >n*X pi written >n*i% as in Samuel. 7 vrsn NDP V}D^ ^'^a-lir'T vrrinen r2?«3 'n^^Vui^V 8 n3>-)n ,S7o CONCLUSION. 8 CDnn nD)\:i) written ^"IKH HDIDl. 16 CD'D written CD', as in Samuel. 18 >K3li'D1 written 'D?01pnDDl. 21 'pTVD written »ripl!fD, as in Samuel. 24 IDI? written lV, as in Samuel. 30 ^nj< written \^nK, as in Samuel, in 20 MSS. 32 1i>n^K *r\b)t written 13'nVx nj/bnD, as in Samuel. 34 ^tnrm, as in Samuel. 41 Qn^DI^K \S3li'D1 written ZZDn Di'Xl ^H^]VD, as in Samviel. .42 nin* b^ written n)r\* bn, as in Samuel. 43 ^i; ")DpD written ^JT pM ^DIO. 43 n)^ >3D bjr written CZ)>D >DD ^7. 44 ny written >Di^, as in Samuel. 44 >3D'il?il written Oir^tiT), as in Samuel. 44 nn:! 'li'^n^ written CZ)>1J ^IN"?. 46 U'in'T written nailM, as in Samuel, in 6 MSS. 49 DDn written CD'DDrr, as in Samuel, in 4 MSS. 50 rDH* D>un written D'Ul niHS as in Samuel, in 3 MSS. Pag. 320, 18. Vitringa thinks, the Jews were forbid to read any part of their Bible, ^ia certa Deum colendi ratio ceque in Prophetarum fcriptis continetiiry quarn in Lege Mofis \ du- bium non ejij quin omnia Jimul abrogata Antio- chus voluerit. Obfervat. facrae, cap. 7. * That * Vitringa obferves in the fame chapter — ' A do5liJftmis viris animadverjum dudum^ Legis ^ Prophetarum verjionem^ utram" que fub nomine LXX venditaiam, non parum a fe invlcem dif- ferre\ atque in pojieriori t ant as non ejfe antiqaitatis ^ accuratio- nis notas. — Cum Alexandrini Jiid^i Gr^ca dialeBo uterentur^ qua etiam per tot am JEg^ptum familiaris erat , vulgus Judaorum paulntim oblitum fuit lingucs Hekraa. Necejfario igitur Graca rerJiOy a viris doSliJJimis in{lru5ta, publice prodiit ; fpeSlabat vero ilia verfio unice Legem Mofts^ faUa tempore Ft, Vhiladelphi, — CONCLUSION. 571 the Prophets were tranflated into Greek about 130 years before Chrift, appears from the prologue to Ecclus ; where we read, Ov tod^v- VAf^H CWTZt iV lOtmOtg E^fiOUl^ XiytfJLiVa,, KOUf OTOLV |M.S- Illio(pyjTeioL(y Kouf izt Xctvnt roov (iiCAiCt)v, ov fj>AKoa,v 6%« TYiv i^cL(pcj)a,v iv icw\oi? M}^f/.£vci. See Hody; p. 199. Pag. 332. F. Houbigant inferts *nm:::i ; and has the authority of the MS, which is call'd Cod. Orator. 54. In the Benedicfline edition of Jerom (torn, i, co/.2y^) there is a curious note upon this paffage; which tells us, that *^1*101 was found m vetujiis & optimis noniiul- Us MStis. The note obferves alfo — exempia- ria Hebraica Hieronymi aliqud fui parte fuiJJ'e mutilay quia Ji fuiffet in eis verjiculus ]oi. ziy 36, Latine ilium Hieronymus reddidijjet -, & in antiquiorihus editionis Latince codicibus reperi- retury in quibus abeji. Pag. 342. As the critics have frequently fuppos'd, that the improper conjunftion of the fkins of MSS has occafion'd great tranlpofi- tions \ and yet, as perhaps no proof from fadl of fuch a tranfpofition has been yet produced j Poft tempora Ant. EpiphaniSy cum Prophetarum le^io in fynagogis Canaaniticis ejfet injlituta ; Jlexandrina fynagoga eandem Fro- phetarum leBionem videntur recepljfe — ^ maxitne necejfaria que- que erat Prophetarum interpretatio Graca, fi eorum leSiio ( apud Alexandrines ) cum fruifu celebraretur. Z z z I fhall 572 CONCLUSION. I fhall mention one, which I lately difcover'd in the Bodleian library. In p. 518, three large rolls are faid to contain the Pentateuch ; but they are found to want from Exod. 12, 28 to 17, 9. The verfes (amounting to 139) which are wanting between the rolls 5748 and 5749, are contained in another roll, N'' 5752 5 which has been feparated by fome former Librarian, and is titled on the back Volumen parvum con- tinens leSimics aliquot Biblicas : whereas the hediiones Biblicce or Haphtaroth were never taken out of the Pentateuch. This little roll confifts of 2 fkins -, one containing from Exod. 12, 38 to 14, 28 j and the other from Exod. 14, 28 to 17, 9 : and yet, this laft fkin is few'd up ( not after i but ) before the firft. So that Exod, ch. 17 is now follow'd by Exod. ch. 12 ; and here is a tranfpofition made of j ^ verfes. The reader is defir'd to infert a reference to this palTage in p. 518, at MS 7; and alfo at N"* 7, in the following catalogue of Exodus. Pag. 351, II. Thus alfoGrabe: for he fays ( De vitiis LXX, p. 24 ) Philo ibi verba juxta Hebrceum textiim pofuiffe videtur. Pag. 355. The Oriental writers date the Sy- riac verfon fo high as the firft century. And Jhall we rejeB their teftimony^ in a cafcy in which they only can give it ? Michael. Lectures on the New Teftament j fed:. 49. CONCLUSION. 573 Pag. 366, 6. See CappelL Crit.facr. p. 343. Pag. 375, ult. In F. Simon's Crit. Hiflory we read (p. 18 ) VaUy pro f crib arum arbitra- tUy modo o??iiJJamy 7nodo additaniy exifthnat Aben Efray rei critic(Z peritus. Thus, as to this very word; in Pf. 18, 39, what is printed ^^y is in feveral MSS 1^3 V ; and on the contrary, in Jof i^,6^y the word I'^DV is in all the Bodleian MSS except one ^by ; the 1 being infer ted improperly in the later MSS and printed copies, and being rejected as improper even by the Mafora. Pag. 386, I. Jerom; torn. 4, col. 437. Pag- 387, 25. Mr Scholtz of Berlin (whofe father is one of the Chaplains to His Prus- sian Majesty) having lately inform'd me, that Dr Jablonfky was dead, and that his fa- ther had been Jablonlky's intimate acquaint- ance, wrote from England to know what was become of this MS of Malius. And he has favoured me with the following anfwer — that neither the late Dr 'Jablonjkyy nor his father ^ ever pqffefsd or faw that MS y but that it was in the hands of Dr Lent, as appear d from Grabes Sept, Frolegom, torn, 4, cap, 4, §. 9. This anfwer furpriz'd me ; as I had plac'd this MS with Jabloniky, upon the authorities of Dr Lee the editor of Grabe's 2d part, and of Z z z 2 Brei^ 574 CONCLUSION. Breitinger the republifher of the whole. Dr Lee fays — Hujus codicis^ anxie qucejiti a Gra^ bioy usuM tandem obtinuit tile ipfe^ qui primus hujufce notitiam ei prcebueraty Jablonsquius. Per vtrum igitur hunc, Ji quid huic editioni de- fity id omne ex codicis ijlius imprejjione ahunde fupplendum ejje fperandum ejl. Cap. 3, §. 2. And Breitinger, in his preface to the 3d part, fays — Jab L on s QUI UM publico nomine compello at que obtejior, ut pretiojijjimi s u i ( olim Ma- Jiani) codicis editionem jam per 25 annos dejidc" ratam maturarcy & vel ipfe publicce luci dona- re, vel nobis ejus ufum concedere velit. And yet, notwithftanding thefe notices; Grabe him- felf, in his Prolegomena to the 4th part (which part was the 2d in pubUcation ) had previouf- ly faid — Literas accipiebam a Dan, Ernejlo Jablonski — quibus mihi Jignificabaty ubi Majii codex ajfervaretur ; in vico nempe quodam baud procul Her born a Naff'oviorum inter li- bros dodioris Le n t 1 1 &c. As thefe informa- tions are fo different, I have requefted my friend Mr Scholtz to get a particular account of this MS from Profeffor Rau, at Herborni which is the place fpecified by Grabe himfelf. Could this MS be confulted ; it would proba- bly be found to join its authority againft the many verfes fuppos'd fpurious in Samuel. For this CONCLUSION. 575 this MS very remarkably confirms the autho- rity of the Vatican Septuagint; fince Mori- nus fays * -— ^icquid in Syro ( Mafiano ) eji notatum ajierifcoy ab edit tone 'Romana abejl : quicquid in eo notatum eft obelo, eidem adejl ra- rijfime — which laft words' fhould perhaps be, as the fenfe requires, ab eodem ( or eidem) abejl rari£ime. If therefore, ahuoft all the obelizd paflages in this Syr. MS are found in the Vat. Septuagint, and if the paffages ajierifcd in this Syr. MS are not found in the Vat. Septuagint; 'tis highly probable, that the verfes in i Sam. I J and 1 8, which are not found in the Vat. Septuagint, 2irQ ajierifc d in this Syr. MS. And if they are afterifc*d in this MS ; they were probaby inferted with an afterifc by Origen. And if they were inferted in the Gr. verfion by Origen -, they were probably not in the Gr. verfion before. And if they were not ori- ginally in the Gr. verfion ; 'tis very probable, they were not originally in the Heb. text. Pag. 409, 13. The contrary is aiferted by MichaeKs; Ledl. New Teftam. fedl. 21. Pag. 442, 3. Wolfius obferves, in his pre- face to his Bibliotheca Hebrcea ( pag. 28 ) that the Jews affirm the Mifhnah to have been written 316 years before the Gemara of Ba- # JOe Heb. iff Graf, tex^fmceritate-, 1. i, ex. 9, cap. 4. §. 7. bylon, ^^(y CONCLUSION. bylon, and that the Jerufalem Gemara was 83 years before the other Gemara. . Pag. 445, 10. See Houbig. Frolegom. p. 8. Pag. 447, 9. See Wolf. Biblioth. Heb, 4, 93. Pag. 474, 7 ; 475, 18. This Venice edition was pubHfh'd in 15 18. But the Compluten- fian, tho' then printed, was not publifli'd till 4 or 6 years after. Blanchini (Evang. part i, p. 495 ) fays, poji anyium 1522 : and Michae- lis (LeB, New Teji. fed. 33 ) fays, it njDas not fold publickly till i^^\, Pag. 493. Between the lines 17 and 18 may be added Mr Langford's objeBions to ( Mr Mann's) Critical Notes, See pag. 2, 8, 32. Pag. 519, 14. This MS fliould be mark'd Jlib, or Hibern. as well as the MS before it. And in line 17, the MS may be catalogued 7350, torn, 2 ; it being exprefs'd with that general number in the 2d volume of the Bod- leian catalogue. Thus alfo the iirft MS, in pag. 520, may be mark'd 7347, torn. 2. The MS, N° 44, contains Ezra before Nehemiah, In pag. 521, N° 68 fliould be mark'd Mm 5, 27 : N" 74 fliould be mark'd R 8, 6 ; and N° jy is both 5710 and 571 1. Pag. 536, 20. The note of St Jerom upon this text is — ^Johannes evafigelijla, Hebraus ex Hebrceis^ non magnopere curavit quid Greece^ literce CONCLUSION. ^y^ Uteres continerenf ; fed verbum interpret at iis e verbo ejiy tit i?i H e b r^ o legerat, Pag. 538. A great miflake is here made, in defcribing th.^ Jirjl Samar. MS as wanting only 29 verfes at the beginning and end. Whereas the upper and inner corners of the leaves ( with feveral words ) are loft from Gen, i, 20 to 15, I : and it is alfo defecflive in the fol- lowing parts of T>euterono?7iy 'y from 5, 25 to 6, 2 ; from 6, 24 to 7, 5 ; from 9, 25 to 9, 28 ; from II, 12 to II, 25 ; from 14, 8 to 16, 15; from 24, 15 to 26, 13 ; from 29, 12 to 29, 20; and from 31, 12 to 32, 34. Pag. 541. This famous MS was {ttvv alfo byMaundrell, in 1697; ^^^ P^§* ^^- -^^^ ^^ p. 60, that learned traveller has obferv'd, in vindication of the Samaritans from the impu- tations of the Jews — T^hat their religion con- Jijls in the adoration of a calf as the fews give oiity feems to have more of fpite than of truth in it. As there are fome deficiencies in our MSS, which could not well be fpecified in the con- cluding catalogue, under the feveral books in which fuch deficiencies are found ; they may be enumerated here, and referr'd to in the ca- talogue at the end. Under Samuel y N°2i wants from i Sa7n, 4, 16 to i Sam, 5, 10. Un- der 578 CONCLUSION. der Chronicles \ N° i6 wants from 2 Chro.iii 8 to 25, 4; and from 34, 15 to 35, 19. N' 29 begins at i Chro, 2, 21 ; and ends at 2 Chro, 36, 12 : it alfo wants from i Chro, 7, 26 to 8> 40; from 2 C/5rd?. 20, 6 to 20, 30; and from 25, 3 to 25, 23. Under Nehemiah\ N° 29 wants from 9, 17 to 10, 40; and from 11, 32 to 12, 38. Under Pfalms -, N° 16 wants from 46, 10 to 52, 9. And N° 29 wants from 14, 7 to 18, 1 J ; alfo from 78, 63 to 81, 8. Un- der Ifaiah\ N° 68 contains from 24, 2 to 43, 10 ; but tranfpos'd : and in the fame MS there is another tranfpofition from ch. 1 5 to ch. 29, in 'Jeremiah. Under Exodus ; N° 12 contains ( does not want J from 5, 8 to 40, 19. To all which remarks it may be added ; that at the bottom of Ruthy and the other parts of the Hagiographay there is fubjoin'd the curious copy at Etony tho' printed ; becaufe it con- tains more various readings than fome MSS : and therefore fuch of the learned, as may choofe to collate the Heb. MSS, will by no means leave that printed copy unconfulted. And now, at the conclufion of this DiiTer- tation ; I beg leave to entreat the Reader, that he will confider thoroughly the importance of the prefent fubjedt, the nature of the evidence here CONCLUSION. 579 here produced, and the ufe proper to be made of it. The fubjedl is no lefs than an attempt to point out the means of afcertaining the ge- nuine words of that Revelation, which God made to the Jews; which however was written, not for that nation only, but alfo for the benefit of the whole Chriftian world. If the happinefs or mifery of mankind be neceffarily connected with their obedience or difobedience to the will of the Almighty; what great care fhould be taken, that the will of the Almighty, when proclaim'd from Heaven, be accurately preferv'd in the words of the original; and from thence be faithfully tranflated, and clearly explain'd, in the modern languages ! Certainly, the moft folid judgment, the moft mafterly fkill, and the moft facred regard to truth, fhould con- jointly be applied, in freeing holy Scripture from every miftake of tranfcribers and of printers : that fo nothing may intrude there, which may derogate from the dignity of an infpir'd volume; nothing, which may intro- duce contradidtion, abfurdity, or even obicu- rity, to obftrud: the religious enquiries of its friends 'y nothing, which may furnifli matter of triumph, at leaft of cavil, to its enemies. The prefent Eng. verfion is much better, A a a a in 580 CONCLUSION. in general, than the verfions in the days of Queen EUzabeth ; and yet there are inftances, in which the older Eng. verfions are evidently preferable. How aftoniihing is it, that our prefent Bible fhould declare Chrift to have been without Jin, and yet call him a malefac- tor ! For, is not that the neceffary fenfe of the words in Luk, 23,32? — there were alfo two other malefa^iors led with him to be put to death. The error arifes only from the want of two points ; the Greek reading i\i^oi ^vo xdt- Kii^yoi &c. inftead of ?\i^ot Svo, Kccta^p^i, &c. And fo the Englifh reads two other malefac- tors &c. inftead of two others^ malefadtorsy &c. Yet the latter was the fenfe of the Eng. ver- fion in 1583 — and there were two others^ which were evil doers ^ led with him to be flain. As to errors in our verfion of the old Teftam- ent y what vaft improvements have been made, in tranflating many parts of the printed Heb. text, during the laft 150 years : for there have been no lefs than 1 50 years, fince the whole was laft tranflated into Engliih ! But, not to iniift here on the inftances of 300 foxes being tied tail to tail ( Jud. 15? 4 ) inftead of 300 fieavcs of corn placed end to end\^ nor on Eli-^ * See the note of the learned Dr Gregory Sharpe^ in his edi- tion of Eolberg's IniroduBion to univerfol Hijiory, under the account of ^avifon. iah's CONCLUSION. 581 jah*s being fed with bread and jiejh by ravens ( I Kin* I7> 6 ) inftead of his being fed with thefe by ( Orbim ) the inhabitants of Oreb or Orbo : ' not to enlarge here on thefe points (which are mention'd in the Memoirs of Lit e- raturey 17 10) nor indeed on any other mo- dern improvements however valuable ; I fliall take particular notice only of one. What dif- trefs have thoufands of ferious and thinking men felt, in reading the 109th Pfalm -, in which 'tis generally fuppos'd, that David ut-- terdfuch horrid curfes upon his enemies I And yet, when the Pfalm is confider'd ; it clearly contains the curfes of David's enemies upon David. * For, the curfes are not againft 771a- ny, but one perfon 07ily : and belides, both in the beginning and end of the Pfalm, David complains of the dreadful things fpoken a- gainft him by others — The 7nouth of the un- godly ^ the mouth of the deceitful^ is ope7ied upon tne : they have fpoken againft me with falfe to72gues ; they have compared me about with words of hatred. And, after reciting the im- precations of his enemies, he adds — though 1 Orbim, accola villa in finibus Arabum, Elia dederiint ali* menta. Jerom 3, 119. 2 For this remark the Reader is indebted to the late Dr Sykes ; who has given it, in the preface to his comment on the epiftle to the Hebrews, A a a a 2 thev 582 CONCLUSION. THEY CURSE, yet blefs thou. Perhaps it may be ftill objeded ; that David feems to make thefe curfes his own, by faying in ver. 19 — Let it thus happen from the Lord unto mine enemies. But, as there is no word here expref- five of a wifli in the Hebrew; perhaps the words fhould be rendered — lihis is the beha- *viour of mine adverfariesy with refpeSl to ( or with) Jehovah. The compound particle r\^'0 is render'd on the behaf of in Exod. 27, 21. But if it be thought preferable to render the words, This is the behaviour of mine adverfa- ries ( or of thofe who accufe me) before feho- vah'y DJ^D is render'd ivcomov, in Lev. 24, 8. I mention thefe few, out of many inftances of miflranflation ; in order to prepare the way for one of the chief inferences from the pre- ceding Differtation. For if the prefent Eng. verlion is fo faulty, as to make a reformation of it extreamly defireable; what fort of Heb. text is to be the rule of right, or the ftandard, by which fuch a reformation is to be conducfl- cd ? Muft we proceed again, and for ever, to tranflate from the Heb. text, as it is now printed ; merely becaufe it is printed ? Muft we contribute to perpetuate the many corrup- tions in this text ? — a text, form'd upon no one knows what particular MS or MSS ; ex- cepting CONCLUSION. 583 cepting, that it is found to agree only with fuch MSS, as are the latejl and the worji -, with MSS, which contain various inftances of error and nonfenfe, from which the older MSS now extant are free ! But, fetting afide the confideration of new verfions ; muft there be ftill publifh'd new edi- tions of a book the moft ancient of all others, and of all books the moft venerable and im- portant, one only excepted ; without allowing to it a privilege, which is readily allowed to all other ancient books in the world i,e, a collation of MSS ? Efpecially as it is a book, in which feveral of its letters, being very li- milar, are more likely to be miftaken ; and in which the miftake of a iingle letter makes a difference in the ftnk far greater than perhaps in any other language. 'Tis a juft caufe of aftonifhment, and would be incredible with- out proofs of its poffibility, that any Chrif- tians, who pretend to be Scholars, fhould hold it matter of duty, to reverence all the errors introduced by tranfcribers and printers ; declaring war againft thofe, who affert the exiftence of miftakes in the printed copies : and all this, notwithftanding the printed co- pies themfelves are contradictory to one an- other ! I am amazed, fays Michaelis ff^^-^4-) when 584 CONCLUSION. when I hear fome men ^vindicate our common readings with as much zeal, as if the editors had been ififpired by the holy Ghoji ! The truth is : it has been look'd upon by many as one point of ProteJia?itipn, to hold the perfedlion of the Heb. and Gr. originals y ever fince the champions of Popery pronounc'd the Lat, ve?-Jion authentic. But, as the learn- ed in the church of Rome now fee and own the neceffity of giving up, or explaining a- way, the authenticity of that verfion ; * fo do learned Proteftants alfo, in the general, fee and own fome miftakes in the printed copies of the originals. And it would be ftrange in- deed ; if, whilft the former ingenuoufly re- nounce the error of their forefathers, the lat- ter fhould be lefs ready to facrifice to Truth. Efpecially, when Proteftants are only exhorted to renounce an error, in following implicitly a very blind tradition: a tradition — that their copy of the Heb. text now printed is per- fedily authentic^ having been deliver d down free from all mijiake ; tho' they cannot fay how, nor why, nor where, nor from what MS or MSS^ fuch printed copy has been taken ! * That fome of the Papifls did this, foon after the council of Trent ; fee Cbi//ingwortb's Religion of Frotejlants, chap. 2, i74, &c. But CONCLUSION. 585 But what is it that we contend for, againft thefe rigid adherents to a tradition fo wild and indefenfible ? Will they, dare they fay ; that we mean to affert, or pretend to difcover any authority from MSS, for fubverting any one article oi faith ^ or diity^ at prefent en- join'd ? T>o we then make void the Law by thefe MSS ? Got> forbid : yea, we eflahliflo the haw. For, there is an abfolute neceffity of collating MSS, in order to a good edition of any ancient author; as has been explained, and prov'd by feveral eminent writers : ^ and the learned are now agreed, that the printed editions of ancient authors are more or lefs per^ fe5ly as more or fewer MSS have been corfult^ ed. Certainly then ; that, which ejlablijhes the authenticity of other ancient books, cannot dejiroy that of the books of Revelation. Fears of bad confequences muft be groundlefs, where hopes of great advantages have fo folid a foun- dation. Take any one, take the moft faulty Heb. MS in the world ; and I humbly pre- fume, it will be found to contain the fame Bible in the main, and teach the fame great dodtrines and duties as are taught at prefent. * Walton's ConfJerator Conpdefd\ p. 92, | 26, 1 30, 1 3 i , 149 &c. Sykes's A^.7/. and Rev. Rcligioji; p. 267 — 273, Bentley's FhiUkuth. liffienf. Remark 32.1 (S.C. Things 586 CONCLUSION. Things abfolutely neceffary are exprefs'd fre- quently. The ten Commandjnents are all re- corded twice; fome oftner. So that a miftake in fome copies, even mfuch places, might be correfted by the true reading in other copies : and fhould there be a miftake in all the later copies, in a word or two of any one Com- mandment, yet the fame Commandment be- ing repeated in the original, and exprefs'd twice in the ancient verfions, fuch miftake would be clearly difcoverable. * But then, tho' the moft corrupted MSS contain the fame Bible in the main ; will it therefore be aflerted, that the Heb. text fhould be printed from MSS the moji corr^upted? Should there be but a bare fufpicion, that bet- ter MSS might be found than thofe already made ufe of; with what zeal fhould ferious men labour to procure them ? But if MSS, better than thofe yet printed, are actually dif- coverdy MSS, which reconcile one part of the old Teftament to another ; which recon- cile the old Teftament to the new ; which il- * Truftra itaque dicunt, quia nullum exemplar fit omnino pu- rum^ ergo nufquam ejfe facram Scripturam. Imo vero nullum tarn tnendofum ejl exemplary quod non pro fana Scriptura debeat haberi, Jbunde &" copiofe e quibufins facrorum librorum codiclbus omnia, ad falutem ^ fdem necejfaria, pojfunt hauriri, Voff". de LXX Interp. cap. 9. luftrate CONCLUSION. 587 luftrate many places now obfcure and unin- telligible; which will corredt many of the corruptions in the copies for 800, perhaps for 1000 years, laft paft; and which will con- firm the authority of verfions made from Heb. copies, 1500 and 2000 years ago: ihall not SUCH MSS be confulted, fhall they not be brought forth for public benefit with fincere thankfulnefs and veneration ? It muft be fo. The honour of God, and the intereft of Re- ligion, require it at our hands. At prefent we have this treafure in earthen vejfelsy mouldring away and periihing in MSS ; fome parts of which are already loft, or be- come abfolutely illegible ; whilft others are growing daily lefs and lefs capable of giving information. 'Tis therefore a duty pointed out, and it feems an honour meant by Provi- dence to the prefent age, above the ages that have gone before or fhall follow after, to per- form this great work of correcting the printed text of the Heb. Bible. MSS could not be us'd, before they were difcover'd ; nor can they be us'd, after they are deftroy'd by time. Learning and good fenfe, and alfo valuable editions of the ancient verfions, have happily prepar'd the way for fuch a work at prefent. And tho' pojierity^ • by the difcovery of other Bbbb MSS, 588 CONCLUSION. MSS, may contribute more light; yet muH: not LIGHT be dear and valuable to our- selves ? The affiftance, offer'd by the pre- fent MSS, will render the Hebrew^ Scriptures niQre intelligible, more ufeful, and confequent- ly more worthy of God; and let not this be withheld from the many millions of the pre^ fent generation. Can we derive any advantage from the bare exiftence of what was meant, and of what was given, to be a public blefs- ing ? Moft certainly, not. Wisdom, that IS HID; AND Treasure, that is hoard- j:© UP; WHAT PROFIT is in them both? Ecclus 20, 30. Till the Heb. MSS are examined, we can- not be fure of all the principles of the lan^ guage. The very Grammar is not yet cora- pleatly fettled; becaufe what is as yet done has been planned upon the printed copies : and certainly that critic, who follows a very cor- rupt guide, muft fix many a wrong criterion. It was therefore juftly remark'd by the re- nowned Luther — nativam phrajin Hebrcei fermonis nondum in lucem prolatam ejje — in ea^ opinione fumy quod non habent Rabbini perfect tarn cognitionem Heb, Grammaticce — Judceo^ rum Grammaticam vereor ejfe mutilam ; ide(y Rabbini fape hallucinantur. Hody ; p. 553* And not only Rabbins, but Chriftians alfo. CONCLUSION. 589 muft err greatly ; if they form pronouns, fix the anomalies of verbs, and fettle the bounds of right and wrong in Grammar, without a previous examination of Heb MSS : becaufe nothing but MSS can afcertain the genuine idioms of an ancient and dead language. Here then, if we would afcertain, if we would un- derftand properly, the Heb. Bible; here we muft begin. A collation of its MSS muft of neceflity be the foundation ; and then will the fuperftrudlure rife with a truly majeftic gran- deur ; firm and unftiaken by external violence, as well as juft and harmonious in its own pro- portions. It is not however pretended, that the pre- fent Heb. MSS will corredt a// the errors in the prefent text. But, what then ? Shall we corredt nothing, becaufe we may not perhaps corredt every thing ? We can only ufe the means within our power : and for the proper ufe or negleft of thefe, we fhall be, we muft be, ftridly accountable hereafter. If it was ever particularly neceflary for the facred light of Scripture to fhine before men, with full and unclouded fplendor ; it is fo in this age of irreligion and infidelity. For \i fome do not believe y and the love of many waxeth cold', then ihould /y6^ truth of God much more abound^ Bbbb 3 590 CONCLUSION. Perhaps the profefs'd enemies of Chrlftianity never were fo numerous in Chriftian countries, as at prefent; and thefe eagerly lay hold of inaccuracies and abfurdities in the printed co- pies of the Bible, for the fake of fome pre- t-ence to infult and vilify it. Others there are, the reverfe of the former in delign ; who, by attempting to fpiritualize all, even the hifto- rical parts of the old Teflament, and holding for facred every error in the printed copies, build up error upon error; and thus injudici- oufly contribute to the difefteem of that very Book, which they themfelves have in venera- tion. On account of men of this complexion, as well as the former; a clofe application to the Heb. language, and a fedulous endeavour to remove every miftake from the printed text, become the more neceflary and indifpenfable in the teachers of Religion, thofe Jiewards of the myjieries of Gon, * And fome of the hap- py confequences of fuch an application and * The following is the powerful exhortation of Luther — Linguas Hebraam Gracamque cum tanti fecerit Deus^ ut eafdem Verbo fuo confer vajido, quo nihil facrius, elegerit j pnr eft^ nos illas ipfai pra omnibus ira5lare & colere, quam poterimus, bono- rijice. Sape monui, Hebraam linguam difceretis. Serio vos hor- toVy ne earn negligatis. Theologos oportet ejfe munitos contra Papatum J ^ contra aliud hominum vulgus^ qui, cum unam Heb. vocem fonare didicerunt, Jiatim put ant fe magijlros hujus facne lingua. Arbiiror habituros nos Religionis noftr^s hojles plurimos ; ibi certe cognilione Heb. lingua opus erit, Scio enim quantum mihi CONCLUSION. 591 fuch an endeavour may be — that thofe be- lievers, who err thro* zeal for want of know- ledge, may be taught to think foberly, as they ought to think : and unbelievers may be fi- fenc'd, perhaps be converted, when they learn that many of their objections have been only founded upon the blunders of tranfcribers ; and fo they, who in times paft revil'd, may reverence the holy Scriptures, and glorify God on this behalf. That there are not wanting MSS of the Heb. Text, is certain ; becaufe I have men- tioned the places of above 400. And that thofe MSS contain very many various readings, is alfo certain ; fince about 40 MSS contain fome hundreds of variations, and that only in the fpace of 100 verfes. * Let every MS there- fore, which time has as yet left us, whether containing the whole or only part of the Heb. Bible, ( for we fhould gather up every valuable fragment, that nothing be lojlj let them be all examined with great care, and their various contra meos hojles profuerit. ^are hac quantulacunque cognitione, iNFiNiTis MiLLiBus AUREORUM, carerc noHfn. * If any man doubts this, let him examine for himfelf ; and the catalogue here given at the end will fhew him, at one view, how many MSS of each book of the Heb. Bible England con- t;iins — in what library — in what part of the library — what the fize of each MS — in what page or leaf of the MS each book of the Bible begins — and whether it be perfedl or defedive. 592 CONCLUSION. readings be all publifh'd with great exadnefs. And then will the learned be qualified, with regard to the old as well as the new Tefta- ment, to obey the apoftolical injundion (han- TA AOKIMAZETE, TO KAAON KATEXETe) Prove all things i hold f aft that which is good. As to the propriety of examining all the MSS, and publifhing all their variations ; the 2 follow- ing quotations are judicious and fatisfaftory. Dr Eyre fays to Cappellus — Omnino id probo, quod a te obfervatum eft^ fieri fojfe inter dum ut codex i qui ut plurimum deterior efty alicubi ha- beat meliorem leBione?n, Crit. Sacr. pag. 633. And in Cappellanus we read ( p. 95> 96 ) Jod^ minima Heb, literarum^ non minorem habet vim quam qucelibet alia. Si radicalis, ad thematis fignificationem non minus concurrit ; fi minifte^ rialisy non minus verborura & nominum modos variaty unde etiam fignificationum modi pariter variantur, Viri doBiJJimi nihil in divinis Scrip - turis exiguumy fed omnia fuum pondus habere exiftimant : quemadmodum Aurifices ( inquit ChryfoftomusJ or MONON TAS UAZAi: Tor XPTSIOT, AAAA KAI TA MIKPA -^'HrMATA, META nASHS STAAErOTSIN AKPIBEIAS. A collation of the Heb. MSS, tho' it has not yet been perform'd, was much recom- mended in the lafl century ; and even by fome warm advocates for the printed Heb. text. CONCLUSION. 593 Bootius, in his epiftle to Abp. Ufher, fays ( p. 3 ) Si Cappellus v arias leBiones, ex Heb. exemplarium collatione, in medium attulijfet, at^ que in unum comport affet ; gratias ultro habe- remusy tanquam pro labore utili & laudabili, Walton fays (Prolegom, p. 50) ~ Do5liJ]\ Bux- torf, Jilius integrum librum magno Jiudio compo^ fuit ', in quo, non tantiim ex omnibus libris im- prejjis, fed & MStis plurimis, variant es leBio^ nes collegity & in corpus digejit, judiciumque Juum de Jingulis adjecit : Opus, haBenus a nulla Chrijlianorum tentatum. This book was un- fortunately fupprefs'd ; the author probably not choofing to expofe himfelf to the violent prejudices of his times. Walton himfelf adds to the account of Buxtorf's book — Plures itaque funt ijiiufmodi codicum difcrepantice, qua ex variis MStis colligendce rejiant. — Mendas irrepere pojje quis non videt ? quce tamen ex aliis codicibus, vel antiquis verjionibus, & loci cir- cumjlantiis, emendare licet ; ut Jcepius dixi??ius. Pag. 42. And, p. 80, as to the Samar. Pen- tateuch he fays — Optandum, ut aliquis, cut otium & ingenium ad rem tantam aggrediendum fuppetit, accurate difcrepantias examinaret -, & qucenam ex fcribarum err ore, qucenam ex codi- cum Heb, varietate ort<^Ji?it, dijiingueret. Certe qui hoc opus perjiceret, magnam a grata pojie- r it ate laudem reportaret. Hottinger fays — 594 CONCLUSION. Hac una nobis fuperejfe videtur Koputpvi, ut tarn ex Major eticis notis, quam aliis contextus facri codicibus vetujlisy colligerentur varied lediiones. Extant codices in bibliothecis y fed tanquam ad carceres, & tenebras ceternasy damnati. ' Lce- fcher's exhortation is very ftrong — Equidem regium & aterna laude dignum opus prcejiaret Princeps quifpianty Ji ( fuppeditatis necejfariis fumptibusj curaret codices fynagogicos or bis uni- 'uerji colligiy at que ex illis fontes Ebrceos denuo r^cenferi: it a fane cavillis fciolorum occurri, & res ilia omnisy quantum philologice fieri pot eft y ad demonjirationis artem reduci pojfet, * The laft quotation, and it is worthy of particular at- tention, fhall be from Dr Lee's Prolegomena to the 2d vol. of Grabes Sept, cap, i. § 30. Priufquam quicquam pofitivi fiatuatur in hac collatione textuum, de Hebrai Grcecique textus Jinceritate ; co?ifulendi funt codices Heb, MSti. Nam plurimi fane fu?it in bibliothecis codices MSti fatis veteres ; inter quos prcecipue recen- fendi funt codices Hebrceo-Samaritani. Nulla ratio vel fingi potejiy ubi varied leBiones adhuc comparenty quare uni libro adhcereamus, alterum refpuamusy fne ullo judicioy ideo tantum quia hodierni fudcei itafcribunt, — ^um ergo mul- tce fnt in textu Hebrceo varice le^liones ; quis qucefo negare potef optimum factum ejfe^ I Bibliothecar, p. 157, 159. 2 De caufis ling. Heb, p. 445, INDEX OF TEXTS. GENESIS. 4> 8 pag. 35i>352>3^4 9, 20 405 10, 23 549 12, 6 40 25» 4 549 25, 8 180 26, 29 549 27, 29 563 27, 40 340 315 33 333' 552 31.51 550 31. 53 558 465 20 406 Exodus 9, 24 3^7' 329 10,18 187,329 II chap. 308 12, 3 187, 329 12, 40 333 12, 46 329 13. 5 317. 329 15. 17 317 18, 6 332^552 20 chap. 97 — 10 1 20, II 184, 329 20, 18 97, 317,329 31, 8 181, 329 Leviticus 3, 8 357 4, 29 328 9, 21 316, 329 II, 25 316 Numbers 3, 39 356 24> 9 563 Deuteron. 5, 8 184, 329 5; 18 — 21 184 5> 23 329 6; 12, 13 187, 188,329 10, 6 314 11, 30 40 23, 14 562 27, 2 27 ; 3, 8 275 4 27' 5 27, 8 77, 95 note. 93 20 — 76 94 note. 87 Deuteron. 27, 14 82 27, 26 48 28, 68 87 note 29, I 79.90 31. 9 92 31, 26 298 33 chap. 92 34thap. 92,131,303 Jofhua 7, 25 260 8, 30 72, 94 note. 8, 33 558 8, 34 88 8, 35 95 note. 9» 4 340 15' 47 328 15,60 57.561 '5' 63 573 21; 36, 37 285,330-332, 390,485,487,571 22,34 175.178 24, 1 118 24. 19 375. 573 24, 26 119 Judges I, 22 328 15. 4 580 15; 6, II 328 16; 13, 14 334 16, 18 328 18,30 51 — 55.559 20, 13 328 Ruth 4, 4 328 Samuel i S. 2 j 3, 16 328 I S. 6, 18 341 I S. 6, 19 208, 357 I S. 12, 10 328 I S. 13, I 217 I S. 15, 9 341 I S. 17, 7 328 iS. 17, 12 418 — 431, 554 — 558,575 1 S. 24, II 260 28.55 14-16 399-401 28.13,39 259 2 S. 14, 26 328 2^.15,7 357^5^4 INDEX OF TEXTS. 2 Samuel 21, 19 318 2 S. 22 chap. 565 — 570 28.22,7 359 2 S. 22, 28 356 2 S. 23, 8 496 2S. 233 13, 18, 21 328 Kings I K. 4, 26 208 1 K. 12; 7, 21, 23 328 iK. 17, 6 581 2 K. 17, 28 113 2K. 19, 31 328 2K. 23, 16 335 Chron. I C. i, 33 549 iC. 3; 5, 6, 7 400,401 I C- 6, 57 328, 4695 487 I C. II chap. 496 I C. II ; 3, 20 328 iC. II, 13 318 1 C. 22, 14 353, 558 iC. 29; 4-8 353>558 2C. II, 18 329 2C. 13; 3, 17 196,564 2C. 14, 8 218 2 C. 17 ; 13 — 19 218 2 C: 22, 2 356 2C. 25, 6 219 2 C. 26, 5 256 2 C. 34, 14 299 2 C. 34, 19 &C. 301 2C. 36, 9 216,359 2C. 36; 22, 23 318 Ezra I, 10 213,508,564 2, I kc. 508 Sec. 4, 2 60, 126 Nehem. 7, 6 kc. 508 kc. Job 42, 2 329 Pfalms 3, 8 377 16,10 107,346,469,561 18, whole 565 — 570 18, 14 391 22, I 402 22, 17 329 29, I 384 68, 9 563 79» 7 329^ 5^3 ************ Pfalm 109, whole 581 Proverbs 15,20 188,330 18, 22 189 19, I 287,356 26, 5 359 Ecclefiaftes 6, 10 341 Ifaiah 7, 13 329 9, 6 403 19, 18 59 29, u 330 34? 16 330 53. 9 371 65, 25 329 Jeremiah 7, 22 329 21, 12 329 26, I 357 31. 38 329 5I5 19 439 52; 28 — 30 432 Ezekiel 34, 31 330 42, 16 329 45. I 439 48, 16 329 Hofea 13, 14 366 Amos 8, 8 341 Micah 5, 2 57 Zechariah 12, 10 536 Efdras, I ft book 506 kc. lE. 2, 13 213 I E. 5, 7 &c. 508 kc. Ecclus Prologue 571 20, 30 588 50; 25, 26 ' 60 Luke 4, 17 343 17 ; II — 18 46 23, 32 580 24, 44 295 John I, 16 405 4; 5—42 42, 121— 126 4, 9 61 8, 43 61 Acts 7, 14 406 20, 28 46 Romans 10, 20 370 Philippians i i 3, 4 371 ************ INDEX OF PERSONS. Abarbanel pag. 315 Aben Ezra 209, 259, 260, 268,270,455,456 Antiochus Epiph. 315,320 Apoftles quote from theHeb. text ; 48, 344 — - 349, , ., , 37O' 536, 576 Aquila s verfion ; 362 — 366 Arias Montanus 476 Arilleas 319 AiTeman 35 Athias's Heb. Bible 481 with MS notes J 554 Bacon, Roger 437 Baldwin, Jefuit 200 Barnabas 442 Barton, his Heb. MS 521 E,ate, Julius 10 Benedict, Peter 34, 35 Benjamin, Rab. 37 Bentley 50, 585 Bernard 50 Bianconi 50, 157, 559 Blanchinij 358,389,407,416 Bolingbroke 294 Bomberg,Ven. ed. 179, 230 Bootius 21, II 593 Breitinger 7, 574 Brerewood 353 Bull Bp and Quaker 361 Buxtorf; 169,176,255,264, 269,270, 274,277,326, 446, 455. Buxtorf 's Heb. Bible 477 Buxtorf, fon 21, 593 Cadmus 149 Calmet 21 Cappellanus ; 227,252,263, 460, 592 Cappellus; 216,326,340, 439' 478, 592 Carpzovius 21, ico, 276 Cellarius 5 1 Chillingworth 584 Chifhull 50, 154, 156 Chiug, Rab. Juda 453 Chryfoftom ; 43, 61, 124, 424, 592 Clarendon 31 Clark, Samuel 176 Clarke, Sam. Dr. 123 Clayton Bp 147 Clemens Roman. 352 Clement's Lat. Bible 197 &c. wcrfe ; 205, 358 Collins, Anthony ) 24, lor _ —164, 345*595 Com.ings, Fov/ler lo Cofmas i^gyptius 147 Coftard 493 Coverdale's verfion ; 77? 96 Cyril 304 Da Cofta 108, 522 Damafcius 39 De Dieu 139, 140 Dofitheus 158 Duane 50 Du Pin 21, 159 EliasLevita; 271,288,341 Eliezer B. Jofe 71, 209 Ephraem Syrus 33 Epiphanius ; 44, 124, 304, 3^3* 369 Erafmus 3, 204 Eulogius 158 Eupolemus 150 Eufebius ; 150, 160, 304, 355' 393» 403 Eufebius Emifenus 369 Euthymius 396 Felix Praten. 176,471,474 Fraflenius 268 Glaffius 52 Golius's Samar. MS 139 Grabej 337,342,381,382, 3855 386, 3^9' 396, 39^5 400, 403, 406, 412, 415? 4i7'44i5 574- Green 494 Grey 493 INDEX OF Grotius 358, 480 Hallet; 213, 37^' 493 -Hamilton 532 Harduin 50, 149 Hare 493 Havercamp 64 Heath 494 Herodotus 150 HefychiuSjWhy incorred: 515 ^ _ i Gr. verlion 393 Hillel 464 Hodges 489 Hody; 199,211, 319,320, 3515379^394. 397»437» 553> 564. 588. Hofman's Lexicon 392 Home, George 265 Hottinger; 21, 22, 32, 42, 67> 114. 133-'- 144.541 ^^ . .— 550, 594 Houbigant; 21, 77, 79,90, 136,276,289,291, 326, 428, 466, 470, 476, 482, 486,487,546,550,551. Hudlon's Jofephus 422 Huetiusj 161, 215, 298, 303 Hunt Dedication 493 Huntington 41 Hutchinfonians; 13,265,490 Hyde 492 Jablonfky's Heb, Bible 482 Jackfon's Chronol. 366, 368 Jacob Aben Amram 595 Jacob, Rab. Ben Chaim ; 1 7, 227, 229, 230 - — 244, 309 — 313, 471 James's Bell. 197,199,206 Japhe, Rabbi 215 Jarchi, R. Sol. 54, 210, 285, 455> 456 Jcrom; 47 — 5i> 57> I54> 193, 203, 204, 210, 211, 216,283,304,347,364, 3^^5.387. 391. 394. 395. 403,415, 416, 434.438, 442.5^8,573,576,581. PERSONS. Jews J 42, 44, 47, 48, 52, 59. 69. 368 made 5 reviews ot the Heb. text ; 447 fentiments on the Heb. text; 17, 105,222, , . 291,377,554,595 Jonathan, Moi. grandfon 51 Jofeph Ben Gorion 68 Jofephus ; 39, 61 — 70, 88, 144. 197. 342. 352, 357. 425,507. Jofiah's furprize 301 Irena^us 365 Ifmael, Rabbi 249, 485 Juftinian 443 Juftyn Martyr 365 Keene, Sir Benj. 358, 475 Keilholz 30 Kidder 595 Kimchi; 175, 179,253,455 Langford 576 Lee 573, 594 Le Long ; 412, 476, 482 Leufden; 21, 169,231,453, 482, 523 Lightfoot ; 21, 22, 59, 72 Lcefcher 594 Lowth 493, 494, 525 Lucas Brugenlis 52 Lucian's Gr. edit. 393, 397 Ludolfus 38, 532 Luther 437, 588, 590 Lyra, Nic. 203 Mahomet charg'd the Jews with corrupting their Bi- ble ; 350.351 Majanfius 358, 475 Maimonides 41, 455, 457 Manafleh B.Ifrael's Bib. 477 Maracci's Koran 351 Mafclef; 445,447,448,453 Mafius's Chald. MS 180 Syr. MS ; 387, 388,573-575 Maundrell326,37,6 1,81,577 INDEX o F Michaelis, Ben. Heb. Bible ; 79^312,486,537 Michaelis John Dav. 6, 55, ,, ^ 537^572,575.583 Montfauconj 30, 50, 147, 15O5 153' 1545 156, 162, 2135 364, 366, 369, 378, 384, 392., 394, 415. Morinus; 170,215,245,258 -261,283,367,446,447, 458,478,575. Morton 50 Mudge 493 Naphtali, Ben. 451 Nebuchadnezzar's name 505 Nelfon's ftory Bp Bull 361 Newton; 1505295,337,493 Noris, Cardinal 39 Obadias de Bartenora 42 Opitius's Heb. Bible 486 Origen -, 154, 160 — 163, 214,348,376-392,431. Owen 534 Pamphilus's Gr. edition 393 Paterculus, incorred 515 21, 131 472, 473 26 I, 366, 572 --421,555 355»454 44 Patrick Pellet Peter a Valle Peters Philo 3 Pilkington 41 Pocock Poftellus Prideauxs 21,22,29,58,114, 133, 305 Ptolemy's decifion 67 — 7 1 Raphelengius J 171,176,180 Reland; 37,50,59,61, 72, 116, 123, 561 Renaudot 524, 532 Robertfon 49 3 Saadias, Rab. 285,451,453 Sack, Berlin 191 Sale's Koran 272, 351 Samaritans 3 26,37,41—47, 69, 1165 122 PERSONS. Sanford 507 Scaliger 59, 216 Scandar 35 Scholtz, Berlin 573 Selden 77, 273 Sharpe, Gregory 290, 580 Simon, F. 21, 22, 139, 168, 272,462,482,573. Sixtus, Pope, his Lat. Bible ; 197 &c. 205, 358 Sozomen 41 Spencer 41, 79, 86 Stephens R. Lat. Bible 195 Surenhufius 104 Swinton 155, 513, 541 Sykes 581,585 Symmachus's Ver. 362 - 366 Syncellus 150 Taylor, John 217 Taylor, John 494, 556 Taylor, Jofeph ^I Terence, why corre6l ; 515 Theodoret 52, 357 Theodotion's Ver. 362-366 Theodulphus 204 Theophanes 392 Valer. de Flavigny 263 Van Hooght's Heb. Bib. 485 Vernet 494 Vignoles 196, 208 Vitringa 570 Vorftius 209 Voffius ; 59, 2 65, 479, 586 Upton's Spencer 405 Ufher; 21,22, 139-142,159 Wall; 575359,4055493 Walton; 9, 21, 22, 30,31, 60, 112, 153, 168, 172, 194, 216, 217, 268, 272, 273, 275, 278, 288, 326, 3535 3555 380, 4575 459, 466,480,585,593. Warburton 148 Wells 492 \^^etftein's Gr. Teft. 412 INDEX o F Whifton 109, 493 WqIHus ; 472, 473, 476, ,^^ 532, 536, 537. 575- Wotton's Clem. Rom. 352 PERSONS. Ximenes, Cardinal 474 Zacagni's Letter 407 --411 Zeltner 476 Zuinglius 337, 398, 432 INDEX OF THINGS and PLACES. Accents Hebrew 484 Eton Heb. copy ; 471,578 Alexandrian Gr. MS ; 370, Exeter Coll. MS Jofeph. 65 404, 407 — 423 Lat. MSS Bible ; Antwerp Polyglott 476 200, 202, 358 Arab. Marbles, Oxford 77 Finals, Hebrew 209, 210 Arab. Ver. old Teft. 453 Gemara ; 441, 444, 575 -Sam. Pent. 30,31,97 Gerizim ; 22,31,33,36,40, Bafilidian Gems 153 62,69,73,81. Bleflings on Gerizim 83 GlofTes inferted 404 Bodleian Library 31,141, Gothic Lat. MS, Spain 358 286, 518, 538, &c. Gottingen Commentar. 56 Britifh Mufeum ; 18, 181, Relations ; 327, 182, 316, 332, 521, 539. 331, 562 Cambridge MSS; 108, 191, Grammar Heb. firft ; 453 521, &c. Greek Letters 156 Canon Heb. clos'd 305 Gr. verfion of LXX, its age ; ChaldeeMSS valuable; 180 28, 211, 319, 320 — 192, 339, 361, 440 ----- formerly different ; Chald. Paraph, corrupt; 16, 52, 336, 365 166, 177, 184, 220. interpolated ; ^2, — its verfion wrong; 187,188 397 ~ 433 Chrift Ch. Oxford Lat. Bib. -----. its authors read dif- MSS ; 200, 202 ferently 326 ~ 333 Chronology Heb. 367, 369 cenfur'd by the Citiean Infcriptions 156 Jews ; 362, 367 Commandment 7th 273 bad editions 194 Complut. Polyglot. 475,570 - : its value ; (pajjim) - - - - - Gr. verfion 194 321-323,328-332,336-339 Conjedhires 371 ~ 376 Gr. verfion Sam. Pent. 31,32 Ebal; 22,37, 40, 62, 73, 81 Hebrew Letters 151—158 Eng. ver. allows errors in the Heb. Text corrupt ; 48, 52, printed Heb. text ; 48, 179 59, 75, 76, 254, 305. r - ^ r wrong ; 78, 82, 87, Hebrew Text corrupted, by 95,119,180 tranfpofition 569 — 572 r old ver. better; 80,82 by change ; 20 — ^pi/Iola2^ {1721) 371,405 7^> l88j 3^8, 337, 401, J^fdras, I ft book 506 568 — 570, INDEX OF THINGS and PLACES. by infertion ; 53, 184,318, 391,429,433, 568-570 by omilHon ; 57, 97» 99' 175' 180 — 182, 184, 185, 187, 189, 318, 33O' 333 -335' 568 -570 its Hiftory i 292 — 5 ii Hexapla ; 379'382,385,392 Jewlfh Coins 145, 155 Senate 445, 465 Infallibility, Papal j 198, 200 Italic Verfion 362, 434 Keri j 246, 281 — 287, 450 Koran has a Mafora 272 Lambeth Heb. MS ; 522,563 Lat. MSS 564 Latin printed copies difF. 20 1 copies conform'd to the Heb. 1^5 &c. 204,508 Law on Gerizim ; 83 — 97 LeipfjcAdl-.Erud. 7 1,72,338 Letters, the firfl 148, 149 London Polyglott 480 Maccabees, hiftory 534 Mafora ; 107, 196, 245, 262 —291,451,466, 468, 469. Memmian Canon 204, 358 Merton Coll. MS Jofeph. 65 Miflinah 441,443,575 MSS, necelTary to be colla- ted ; 6,108—165,180-- 220, 257, 261, 287, 328— 332, 455'502, 515, 566. MSS Heb. 19,516,518 &c. latefl worft 467-470 a Catalogue 518-532 Naplofe, &MSj 26,541,577 Numbers Heb. exprefs'd by numeral letters ; 209,212, 2i5'438, 513- i- - - - by arbitrary marks ; 196, 208,213,513 Obfervationes in 'Johum 494 Ojt<5.'flTeAst/Toi» often the caufe of omflion ; 58, 385, 561 Oriental and Occident. Heb. copies ; 260, 274, 278 Palmyr.Infcrip.155,213,513 Parallel Places ; 317 — 3I9> 503-512,564-570. Paris Hebrew MSS; 528, 529' 539' 540 PolyglQtt 477 Pentateuch, orig. 295—300 Phoenician Letters; 149-158 Quotations in the Gr. Teft. whence taken 107, 343 Samar. Chronicon 72 Letters 145—158 MSS; 51, 136,333, 538 " 552 Pentateuch ; 21-165, 180— 188, 301 — 305. chief objection to it anfwer'd ; 1 34, 542 &c. Verfion 29, 316 Thau^ its old Ihape ; 49, 50, 161 Sidonian Coins 513 Sigean Marble 156 Syriac MS, Bodleian 99 Verfion 355 — 362 Talmud 247, 441, 575 Targums 168 &c. Various Readings ; 282, 286 many in the Heb. MSS; 462,483,536,567. Vatican Gr. MS; 370,404, 407-422,555,575 Venice edit. 471,474,476 Verfions, ufeful ; 324, 337 Vowel Points, Heb. 484 Vulgat 438 - 440 Words not feparated 341 Written Mountains 147 ^ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % CORRECTIONS, Pag. 25, 19 : : overthrow Pag- 375? 17 • poffible 161, II : ; T^fz^oi 376, 15 : FOR 1865 24 : reads 382, 23 : eC^e/iOTcHf 188, 16 : jwjjlggac 388, 9 : ajlerifcs. 223, I : The 416, 10 : dele the 238, 14 : CD>n>nvD 42I5 9 : proper : and, in 2395 13' 20 : Oir'J^DH 424, 26 : vid's from 275> 3- as an 43O5 3 : dele the 276, 21 : delapfam 430, 8 : ditions might 281, 27 : dele con- 493> 3:^329• 351, 22 : Gf«. 4, 8 : 557, 3:/n>- 357y 3- Zedekiah. In the Catalogue of Chronicles 361, 8: additional N° 4 : for 5495, 5945 365* 24 : <2S&(Pt^C(. and, for N° 80, 94 365. 31 ' Myciv Ejlher^ N"^ 13 ends at 3, iq. Publifh'd by the fame Author The State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Tejiament conftdered. A Dissertation, in 2 Parts. Part the ift compares i Chron. ch. 1 1 with 2 Sam. ch. 5 and 23 \ and Part the 2d contains Obfervations on LXX Hebrew MSS, with an Extract of fome Miftakes and Various Readings. Oxford, 8vo : m dcc l iii. GENESIS MSS XLI. Oni^Dl pnxn end — (ch.50) — beginning N^l n>r^N*l3 1 Bodleian Libfy. No. 471 — Fol. leaf i begins at 27, 31. 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — - 410 leaf i wants from 24, 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5350 — 4to leaf i [16 to 25, 22. 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fol. pag. i begins 34, 21. 5 Bodleian Libry. No. 1262 — ' Fol. leaf i ■ 6 Bodleian Libry. No. 5349 — 4to leaf 2 > 7 Bodleian Libry. No. 5748 — Roll . 8 Bodleian Libry. No. 5949 — Fol. leaf i 9 Bodleian Libry. — Roll 10 Bodleian Libry. No. 21 31 — Fol. pag. i 12 Bodleian Libry. Hib. 978 — 12'' leaf i begins at 4, 20; 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2878 — Fol. leaf I [ends 36, 7. 17 Bodleian Libry. No. 5233 — Fol. leaf i . 18 Bodleian Libry. No. 5356 — 8vo pag. i ■ . 55 Corpus College W B 4, 7 — Fol. leaf i . 60 Jefus College No. 1 1 — Fol. pag. i 63 Lincoln College — Roll -— . 65 Oriel College No. 72 — Fol. leaf i begins at I, 24. 66 Dr Barton, Chrift- Church — 12** pag. i 68 Cambridge Lib. M m 5, 27 — 410 pag. i . 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf i 75 Britilh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf i • . 76 Britilh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. i - 77 Britilh Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. i 78 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5586 — Fol. pag. i 79 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5772 — 4to pag. i .. 80 Britifh Mufeum Har. 7619 — Roll 83 Britilh Mufeum Har. 7621 — 4to pag. i ^- 84 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5709 — 4to pag. i 85 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5773 — 4to pag. i 86 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1861 — 410 leaf i 99 Britifh Mufeum D. Cofta i — Roll 100 Brit. Mufeum D.CoIla 2 — 4to leaf i . 103 Royal Society No. — 4to leaf i begins at 6, 20. 1 Samar. Bodleian No. 3127 — Fol. pag. i begins at 1,21. 2 Samar, Bodleian No. 3128 — 4:0 pag. i fee page 538. 1 GENESIS continued, 3 Samar, Bodleian No. 3129 — 410 pag. i fee page 538. 4 Samar, Bodleian No. 624 — 410 leaf i 5 Samar, Bodleian Marfh 15 — 12'' leaf i 6 Samar, Bodleian No. 5328 — 24^ leaf i 7 Samar. Br. Muf. Claud. B S — 4to leaf i EXODUS MSS XLIII. : Cn^yDD hjl end — ( ch. 40 ) — beginning r^'OZ^ T\b\<\ 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 471 — Fol. leaf 21 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 22 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5350 — 4to leaf 30 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fol. pag. 18 ■ 5 Bodleian Libry. No. 1262 — Fol. leaf 69 6 Bodleian Libry. No. 5349 — 410 leaf 131 7 Bodleian Libry. No. 5748, 5749 Roll ' 8 Bodleian Libry. No. 5949 — Fol. leaf 50 9 Bodleian Libry. — - — Roll • 11 Bodleian Libry. No. 5359 — iz pag. i ■ 12 Bodleian Libry. Hib. 978 — 12' leaf 71 wantsfrom5,J 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2878 — Fol. leaf 54 [1040, 19. 17 Bodleian Libry. No. 5233 — Fol. leaf 64 18 Bodleian Libry. No. 5356 — 8vo pag. 78 wants from 55 Corpus College W B 4, 7 — Fol. leaf 38 [40, 14. 60 Jefus College No. 11 — Fol. pag. 135 '63 Lincoln College — Roll — ■ 65 Oriel College No. 72 — Fol. leaf 36 66 Dr Barton, Chrill - Church — \z^ pag. 103 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 4to pag. 61 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 38 75 BritiOi Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 36 76 BridOi Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 57 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. 68 78 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5586 — Fol. pag. 83 79 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5772 — 4to pag. iii 80 Britifh Mufeum Har. 7619 — Roll 81 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5683 — 410 ^z BritiHi Mufeum Har. 5706 — Fol. ^T, Britifh Mufeum Har. 7621 — 4to - [ends 40,8. pag. pag- 3 begins ] begins [8,22; 6,23. pag. EXODUS continued. S4 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5709 — 410 pag. 121 ' ■■■ " 85 Bruifli Mufeum Har. 5773 — 4to pag. 83 ■* 86 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1861 — 410 leaf 54 99 Bridlh Mufeum D. Cofta i — Roll 100 Brit. Mufeum D.Cofla 2 — 410 leaf 34 ■ ■ 103 Royal Society No. — 410 leaf 65 • 1 Samar. Bodleian No. 3127 — Fol. pag. 103 2 Samar. Bodleian No. 3128 — 4to pag. 122 fee p. 538. 3 Samar. Bodleian No. 3129 — 4to pag. 78 fee p. 538- 4 Samar, Bodleian No. 614 — 4to leaf 49 5 Samar. Bodleian Marlh 15 — 12^ leaf 74 6 Samar. Bodleian No. 5328 — 24^ kaf 30 ■ 7 Samar. Br. Muf. Claud. B 8 — 410 leaf 64 ' ' LEVITICUS MSS XLL : O'D nnn end — ( ch. 27 ) — beginning nm biK N^p'T 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 471 — Fol. leaf 55 • 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 41 ■ 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5350 — 4to leaf 55 • 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fol. pag. 6^ 5 Bodleian Libry. No. 1262 — Fol. leaf 127 6 Bodleian Libry. No. 5349 — 4to leaf 243 7 Bodleian Libry. No. 5749, 57$o Roll ■ 8 Bodleian Libry. No. 5949 — Fol. leaf 91 ■ 9 Bodleian Libry. — Roll ■ 13 Bodleian Libry. No. 5948 — 410 pag. i ' 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2878, 2879 ^^^- ^^af 96 > 17 Bodleian Libry. No. 5233 — Fol. leaf 113 - 18 Bodleian Libry. No. 5356 — 8vo p. 144 begins at 1,13. 55 Corpus College "W B 4, 7 — Fol. leaf 70 60 Jefus College No. 12 — Fol. pag. i 63 Lincoln College — Roll ■ 65 tDriel College No. 72 — Fol. leaf 68 • 66 Dt Barton, Chrift- Church — 12^ pag. 182 ■ 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 4to pag. 1 1 1 — : 73 Emanuel Coll. No. 1,27 — Fol. leaf 70 ■ 75 Britilh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 58 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 103 ■ LEVITICUS continued. 77 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. 125 - 78 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5586 — Fol. pag. 154 __ 79 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5772 — 410 pag. 209 — 80 Britifh Mufeum Har. 7619 — Roll Si Britilh Mufeum Har. 5683 — 410 p. 61 begins at 8, 28. 82 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5706 — Fol. pag. 92 S3 Britifli Mufeum Har. 7621 — 4to pag. 284 84 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5709 — 410 pag. 224 85 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5773 — 4to pag. 156 86 Britifli Mufeum Har. 1861 — 4to leaf 98 99 Britifli Mufeum D. Cofta i — Roll 100 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofta 2 — 410 leaf 64 103 Royal Society No. — 4to leaf 125 1 Samar. Bodleian No. 3127 — Fol. pag. 193 3 Samar. Bodleian No. 3129 — 4to pag. 154 fee page 538. 4 Samar. Bodleian No. 624 — 410 leaf 89 5 Samar. Bodleian Marfli 15 — 12^ leaf 130 6 Samar. Bodleian No. 5328 — 24° leaf 59 7 Samar. Br. Muf. Claud. B 8 — 4to leaf 1 20 NUMBERS MSS XLIII. : im^ nn> h-^ end — ( ch. 36 ) — beginning rwr\> niTI 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 471 — Fol. leaf 78 2 Bodleian Libry, No. 3198 — 4to leaf 56 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5350 — 4to leaf 73 ■ 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fol. pag. 98 1 5 Bodleian Libry. No. 1262 — Fol. leaf 167 — — 6 Bodleian Libry. No. 5349 — 4to leaf 323 ■ 7 Bodleian Libry. No. 5750 — Roll ■ 8 Bodleian Libry. No. 5949 — Fol. leaf 117 — — — 9 Bodleian Libry. — Roll ■ 13 Bodleian Libry. No. 5948 — 4to pag. 68 14 Bodleian Libry. No. 5246 — 8vo leaf i begins at 4, 44. 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2879 — Fol. leaf 126 17 Bodleian Libry. No. 5233 — Fol. leaf 149 — 18 Bodleian Libry. No. 5356 — 8vo pag. 189 -m 55 Corpus College W B 4, 7 -— Fol. pag. 92 6c jefus College No. 12 — Fol. pag. 81 ■ NUMBERS continued. 63 Lincoln College — Roll ■ 65 Oriel College No. 72 — Fol. leaf 39 ■ 66 Dr Barton, Chrift-Church — • 12^ pag. 239 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag. 145 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 92 . 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 73 . 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 140 . 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. 165 . 78 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5586 — Fol. pag. 204 79 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5772 — 4to pag. 277 ■ 80 Britifh Mufeum Har. 7619 — Roll 81 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5683 — 4to pag. 116 ■ 82 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5706 — Fol. pag. 159 ■ 83 Britifh Mufeum Har. 7621 — 410 pag. 381 . 84 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5709 — 410 pag. 297 . 85 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5773 — 410 pag. 208 86 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1861 — 4to leaf 129 99 Britifh Mufeum D. Cofla i — Roll 100 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofla 2 — 4to leaf 85 < 103 Royal Society No. — 4to leaf 167 1 Samar. Bodleian No. 3127 — Fol. pag. 264 2 Samar, Bodleian No. 3128 — 4:0 pag. 163 fee p. 538. 3 Samar, Bodleian No. 3129 — 4to pag. 231 fee p. 538. 4 Samar. Bodleian No. 624 — 4to leaf 115 . 5 Samar. Bodleian Marfh 15 — 12° leaf 163 ■ 6 Samar. Bodleian No. 5318 — 24'' leaf 78 7 Samar. Br. Muf Claud. B 8 — 410 leaf 156 DEUTERONOMY MSS XLV. J hir:^> !?D end — ( ch. 34 ) — beginning Onmn H^N 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 471 — Fol. leaf 113 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 77 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5350 — 410 leaf 97 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fol. pag. 145 • 5 Bodleian Libry. No. 1262 — Fol. leaf 219 ■ 6 Bodleian Libry. No. 5349 — 4to leaf 429 7 Bodleian Libry. No. 5750 — Roll DEUTERONOMY continued. 8 Bodleian Libry. No. ^949 — Fol. leaf 157 ■ 9 Bodleian Libry. ■ — Roll • 12 Bodleian Libry. Hib. 978 — 12" leaf 152 13 Bodleian Libry. No. 5948 — 4to pag. 164 14 Bodleian Libry. No. 5246 — 8vo leaf 115 15 Bodleian Libry. No. 5935 — 12^ pag. i begins at i, 15. 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2879 — Fol. leaf 166 wants fm 21, 17 Bodleian Libry. No. 5233 — ' Fol. 1. 196 [13 to 22,17. 18 Bodleian Libry. No. 5356 — 8vo pag. 254 55 Corpus College WB 4,7 — Fol. leaf 122 60 Jefus College No. 12 — - Fol. pag. 197 63 Lincoln College — Roll 65 Oriel College No. 72 — Fol. leaf 120 • 66 Dr Barton, Chrift - Church — i z" pag. 3 1 7 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 4to pag. 193 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 124 ■ 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 94 ' 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 196 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. 228 -- 78 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5586 — Fol. pag. 277 ends 32,29, 79 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5772 — 4to pag. 367 80 Britilh Mufeum Har. 7619 — Roll 81 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5683 — 4to pag, 198 82 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5706 — Fol. pag. 243 83 Britifh Mufeum Har. 7621 — 4to pag. 508 84 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5709 — 4to pag. 592 85 Britifh Mufeum Har, 5773 — 4to pag. 278 %(i Britifh Mufeum Har. 1861 — 4to leaf 174 99 Britifh Mufeum D. Cofla i — Roll • 100 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofla 2 — 4to leaf 116 103 Royal Society No. — 4to leaf 228 1 Samar. Bodleian No. 3127 — Fol. pag. 369 fee p. 538, 2 Samar. Bodleian No. 3128 -r- 4to pag. 165 fee p. 538. 3 Samar. Bodleian No. 3129 — 4to pag. 339 fee p. 538. 4 Sa?nar, Bodleian No. 624 — 4to leaf 154 fee p. 538. 5 Samar. Bodleian Marfh 15 — 12'' leaf 212 fee p. 539. 6 Samar. Bodleian No. 5328 — 24*^ leaf 107 fee p. 539. 7 Samar. Br. Muf. Claud. B 8 — 410 leaf 208 JOSHUA MSS XVII. : OnDK -inn end ( ch. 24 ) beginning nZ'D H)^ nHH 'iTI 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 2 ■ 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 97 — 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5350 — 4to leaf 119 ■ 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fol. pag. 187 19 Bodleian Libry. No. 5933 — • 4to leaf i ■ 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 4to pag. 1 begins at 10,6. 62 St. John's Coll. No. 3,143 — 4to pag. 4 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 4to pag. 234 69 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 8 — 4to pag. i •- 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. i ' 73 Emanuel Coll. No. 1,27 — Fol. leaf 152 75 Britifli Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 113 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 246 > 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. 281 ' 87 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. i ■ 88 Britilh Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. i 89 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5720 — Fol. leaf i begins at 7, 22. JUDGES MSS XVIII. lP,Zy> Vyi^n end ( ch. 21 ) beginning i^tiMH' DID nnx *m 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 23 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 319-8 — 4to leaf no 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5350 — 4to leaf 64 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fol. pag. 215 19 Bodleian Libry. No. 5933 — 4to leaf 134 20 Bodleian Libry. Hib. 979 — 410 leaf i 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 4to pag. 17 ■ 62 St. John's Coll. No. 3,143 — 4to pag. 151 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 4to pag. 264 69 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 8 — 4to pag. 57 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 41 73 Emanuel Coll, No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 171 75 Britilh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol, leaf 127 ' 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 280 ' 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol, pag. 317 JUDGES continued. Sy Briti{h Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 49 88 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. 46 89 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5720 — Fol. leaf :2o RUTH MSS XXX. : in m yb^H end — ( ch. 4 ) — beginning rjDW >D>:i Tin 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 367 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 363 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 410 leaf 448 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 235 13 Bodleian Libry. No. 5948 — 410 pag. 249 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 41 17 Bodleian Libry. No. 5233 — Fol. leaf 241 18 Bodleian Libry. No. 5356 — 8vo pag. 314 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 4to pag. 497 29 Bodleian Libry. No. 5934 — 12'' leaf 148 44 Bodleian Libry. Hib. 980 — ■ 410 leaf i 45 Bodleian Libry. No. 2606 — 410 leaf 150 ends at 4,16. 47 Bodleian Libry. No. 470 — Fol. leaf i 61 Jefus College No. 13 — Fol. pag. 8 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag. 781 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 80 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 535 75 Britilh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 307 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 850 ,77 Britifti Mufeum Har. 57 11 — Fol. pag. 1052 82 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5706 — Fol. pag. 356 83 Britifh Mufeum Har. 7621 — 4to pag. 799 84 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5709 — 410 pag. 599 85 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5773 — 410 pag. 446 86 Britifli Mufeum Har. i86i — 4to leaf 219 92 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5506 — 4to pag. 223 93 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5715 — Fol. pag. 291 94 Britifli Mufeum Har, 5775 — 4to pag. i 96 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5686 — 4to pag. 663 100 Brit. Mufeum D.Coila 2 — 410 leaf 146 Eton Copy printed A a 5, 2 — Fol, leaf 291 — .SAMUEL MSS XVIII. ;CD'D' ni^nt:; ID^n end ( ch. 31 ) begin, nnx W>ii 'nn S. I :^KTir> bi^D HDJion (ch. 24) ^ix'iz; n^D nn^ 'nn s. 2 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 43, 70 ■ 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 122, 137 . 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5350 — 410 leaf 148, 165 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fol. pag. 243, 280 . 21 Bodleian Libry. Hib. 981 — 410 leaf i begins i S. 2, 3. 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf i begins iS.6,io. 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 42, 76 . 56 Corpus College W D i, 5 — 8vo 1. 56 ends i S.20, 15. 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag. 291, 328 69 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 8 — 4to pag. 113, 185 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 86, 137 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 189, 213 75 Britidi Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 140, 158 y6 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. ^13, 356 . 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. 352, 402 • 87 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 97, 158 ■ 88 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. 91, 150 -^ . 89 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5720 — Fol. leaf 46, 82 — KINGS MSS XVIII. nOK nii^y Ti^'X end { ch. 22 ) begin. ]p^ "in "pDn) K. 1 ;v>n 'D' bj oa ( ch. 25 ) !?^^Ti:'0 n^in rii'sn K. 2 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 94, 120 ■ 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 150, 166 ■ 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5350 — 410 leaf 181, 209 4 Bodleian Libry. N. 5945 p. 310 to 346; &5946 p. i to 34. 20 Bodleian Libry. Hib. 979 — 4to leaf 57, 125 - 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 57, 89 . 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 109, 146 ■ 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag. 360, 400 69 Cambridge Lib. £05, 8 — 4to pag. 246, 321 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 180, 231 ■ 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 233, 256 • 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 172, 190 — 3 KINGS continued. 76 Britifh Mufeum Har, 5498 — 8vo pag. 392, 434 . . ']'j Britifh Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. 440, 485 Sj Britifh Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 20S, 267 . S8 Eritifli Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. 200, 260 ^ 89 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5720 — Fol. leaf 120, 147 [9,11. 90 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5721 -^ Fol. p. i, 29: begins i K. CHRONICLES MSS XIX. : n^y-lKH nnVDfD ?:) end ( ch. 29 ) begin. tin3K DtT' DIX C i ; b:;n iDir vnbn nvi> — ( ch. 36 ) — no^i:^ prnnn C. 2 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 422, 443 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 276, 289 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 4to leaf 327, 342 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946, p. 408 ; & 5495, p- 347 ends 2 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 121, 135 [C.9,4. 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 425, 457 — 29 Bodleian Libry. No. 5934 — 12"* leaf i, 24 •-. 56 Corpus College W D i, 5 — 8vo leaf 57, 131 6^ Oriel College No. 72 — leaf 290, 310 ends 36, 20. 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 4to pag. 857, 888 71 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, g — Fol. pag. 720, 885 ■ 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 280, 327 — 73 Emanuel Coll. No. 1,27 — Fol. leaf 416, 437 — ■. — — . y$ Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 389, 404 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 940, 978 yy Britifh Mufeum Har. 571 1 — Fol. pag. 785, 823 92 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5506 — 4to pag, 366, 432 • 93 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5715 — Fol. pag. 198, 239 ■ — Sg Britifh Mufeum Har. 5775 — 410 pag. 310, 373 . Eton Qo^y printed A a 5, 2 — Fol. leaf 331, 350 • -. EZRA MSS XXI. :iZDOniO>*uyn end (ch. 10) beginning tr>~lD':> DrfK n^ttai 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 399 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 382 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 4to leaf 426 — i 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 371 .■ EZRA continued. 1 6 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 108 — -. 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 4to pag. 396 > 29 Bodleian Libry. No. 5934 — 12^ leaf 1 90 ends ic, 31 44 Bodleian Libry. Hib. 980 — ' 410 leaf 32 • 45 Bodleian Libry. No. 2606 — 410 leaf i ■ 46 Bodleian Libry. No. 5936 — 4to leaf 35 • — » • 65 Oriel College No. 72 — Fol. leaf 271 ^-* 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag. 830 ' 71 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 9 — Fol. pag. 651 ' 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 381 ■ 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 566 75 Britifli Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 376 - 76 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 906 ']'] Britifh Mufeum Har. 571 1 — Fol. pag. 1108 — ► 92 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5506 — - 4to pag. 156 ■ 93 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5715 — Fol. pag. 160 94 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5775 — 4to pag. 265 • Eton Copy printed A a 5, 2 — Fol. leaf 312 NEHEMIAH MSS XXL : nilD^ *r^b^ end . — ( ch. i 3 ) — beginning pl^nm HIT 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 ■ — • Fol. leaf 407 ■ 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 387 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 4to leaf 431 ■ 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. leaf 383 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — • Fol. leaf 113 ■ 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 4to pag. 407 ' 29 Bodleian Libry. No. 5934 — 12° 1. 201 begins at 2, 7. 44 Bodleian Libry. Hib. 980 — 410 leaf 48 45 Bodleian Libry. No. 2606 — 410 leaf 27 — — . 46 Bodleian Libry. No. 5936 — 4to leaf 57 65 Oriel College No. 72 — Fol, leaf 278 • 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag. 841 71 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 9 — Fol. pag. 679 • 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 397 ■■ 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 574 - 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 381 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 920 ■ _ 77 Britifh Mufqiim Har. 5711 — Fol. pag. 11 21 ■— * NEHEMIAH continued. 92 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5506 — 4to pag. 180 93 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5715 — Fol. pag. 175 94. Britifli Mufeum Har. 5775 — 410 pag. 284 Eton Co'py printed A a 5, 2 — Fol. leaf 320 ESTHER MSS XXXVII. n^^l? h'lh ti^h]D end (ch. 10) beginning 'i^^nitr^nK >DO »n>1 I Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 381 ■ 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 371 ■ 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 410 leaf 450 • 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 339 • 13 Bodleian Libry. No. 5948 — 4to pag. 290 ends at 4, 10. 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 51 17 Bodleian Libiy. No. 5233 — Fol. leaf 249 18 Bodleian Libry. No. 5356 — 8vo pag. 417 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 501 29 Bodleian Libry. No. 5934. — 12'' pag. 166 45 Bodleian Libry. No. 2606 — 4to leaf 129 47 Bodleian Libry. No. 470 — Fol. leaf 70 48 Bodleian Libry. No. 2964 — Roll 49 Bodleian Libry. No. 2973 — ■ Roll 50 Bodleian Libry. No. 3208 — Roll 5 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 3318 — 12^ leaf 1 2 61 Jefus College No. 13 — Fol. pag. 46 64 Lincoln College — Roll 65 Oriel College No. 72 — Fol. leaf 265 67 B. Kennicott, Exeter Coll. — Roll 68 Cambridge Lib. M m 5, 27 — 4to pag. 797 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 420 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — - Fol. leaf 549 75 Britifli Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 371 76 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 874 77 Britifli Mufeum Har. 571 1 — Fol. pag. 1076 82 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5706 — Fol. pag. 331 83 Britifli Mufeum Har. 7621 — 4to pag. 849 84 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5709 — 4to pag. 629 ^ 85 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5773 — 410 pag. 475 86 Britifli Mufeum Har. 1861 — 4to leaf 235 ESTHER continued. 92 Britiih Mufeum Har. 5506 — 4to pag. 255 93 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5715 — Fol. pag. 311 94 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5775 — 410 pag. 250 96 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5686 — 4to pag. 690 98 Britifh Mufeum Har. 7620 — Roll 100 Brit. Mufeum D.Coila 2 — 410 leaf 157 Eton Co^y printed A a 5, 2 — Fol. leaf 294 JOB MSS XXVI. CD'D> V'y^'^ end — ( ch. 42 ) — beginning f^IO n'H *d''H 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 338 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 350 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5350 — 4to leaf 395 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fcl. pag. 295 > 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. 1. 80 wants fm ig, 21 17 Bodleian Libry. No. 5233 — Fol. leaf 290 [to 23,7. 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 565 29 Bodleian Libry. No. 5934 — 12^ leaf 107 30 Bodleian Libry. No. 5938 — 4to pag. i — . 31 Bodleian Libry. No. 6055 — Fol. pag. i . 45 Bodleian Libry. No. 2606 — 4to leaf 65 61 Jefus College No. 13 — Fol. pag. 183 65 Oriel College No. 72 — Fol. leaf 229 • 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5,27 • — 410 pag. 747 71 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 9 — Fol. pag. 461 . 72 Caius College No. 404 '— 8vo pag. 432 • 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 505 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 336 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 815 ■ 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 571 1 — Fol. pag.979 86 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1861 — 410 leaf 285 92 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5506 — 4to pag. 273 93 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5715 — Fol. pag. 104 94 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5797 — 4to pag. 150 95 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5797 — Fol. pag. 5 • 100 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofla 2 •— 4to leaf 223 ■■ ■ Etoh Qopy printed A ^ c, 2 — Fol. Ui^ zzz 4 PSALMS MSS XXXV. [ I Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 298 ' * 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 306 — * 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 410 leaf 362 < 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 238 * 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — FoL leaf 55 * 18 Bodleian Libry. No, 5356 — 8vo pag. 319 — — : * 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 4to pag. 511 — * 29 Bodleian Libry. No. 5934 — iz"" leaf 55 begins at 3,1. 32 Bodleian Libry. No. 432 — 12° leaf 69 * 33 Bodleian Libiy. No. 945 — 410 pag. i * 34 Bodleian Libry. No. 1542 — 4to pag. i * 35 Bodleian Libry. No. 1878 — 8vo pag. 1 * 36 Bodleian Libry. No. 2271 — - 12'' pag. i . . - > — ■ * 37 Bodleian Libry. No. 3009 — 12^ pag. i ^-^ * 38 Bodleian Libry. No. 3317 — 8vo pag. i * 39 Bodleian Libry. No. 5352 — 410 pag. i ^ 40 Bodleian Libry. 7347 torn. 2 8vo p. i begins at 3, i. 58 Corpus College W B 4, 6 — Fol. pag. i 59 Corpus College W D 2, i — Fol. leaf 28 — — — * 61 Jefus College No. 13 — Fol. pag. 1 1 65 Oriel College No. 72 — Fol. 1. 198 begins at 32, 8. 68 Cambridge Lib. M m 5, 27 — 4to pag. 646 * 71 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 9 — Fol. pag. i * 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 466 ^ 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 464 * 74 Trinity College R 8, 6 — Fol. pag. i * 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — • Fol. leaf 309 * 76 Britilli Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 715 * yy Britifh Mufeum Har. 571 1 — Fol. pag. 873 * 92 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5506 — 410 pag. i * 93 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5715 — Fol. pag. i begins at 28, 8. 94 Britifh Mufeum Har. ^yy^ — 4to pag. 8 * 96 Britifh Mufeum Har, 5686 — 410 pag. 842 . * 100 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofla 2 — 4to leaf 164 * 102 Lambeth Libry. No. 435 — 8v-o p. 1 begins at 2, 2 * Eton Co^y printed A a 5, 1 — Fol. leaf 2 ■ * * This Afterifc is plac'd here, to difiinguifh thofe XXVIII MSS, which confirm tlie fingular word ")*7'Dn in Pftjhn 16, 10. PROVERBS MSS XXIV. jn'ti^i^D Dn^wn end — (ch. 31 ) — beginning HdViZ; *b\Vl^ 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 29 Bodelian Libry. No. 5934 41 Bodleian Libry. No. 5353 42 Bodleian Libry. No. 5360 43 Bodleian Libry. No. 5932 59 Corpus College W D 2, i 61 Jefus College No. 13 68 Cambridge Lib. 'Mm 5, 27 71 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 9 72 Caius College No. 404 ■ 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 75 Britifli Mufeum Har. 1528 76 Britiih Mufeum Har. 5498 yy Britifh Mufeum Har. 571 1 92 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5506 93 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5715 94 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5775 97 Britifh Mufeum Har. 7622 1 00 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofla 2 Eton Copy prinied A a 5, 2 ■ ECCLESIASTES MSS XXXIII. : j;"1 CDKI end ( ch. i 2 ) beginning m^Hp mi 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 . — ■ Fol. leaf 372 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 366 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 4to leaf 439 • 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol, pag. 339 • 13 Bodleian Libry. No. 5948 — 4to pag. 273 16 Bodleian Libry, No. 2880 — ■ Fol. leaf 43 17 Bodleian Libry. No. 5233 — Fol. leaf 245 ■■ 18 Bodleian Libry. No. 5356 — 8vo pag. 399 • Fol. leaf 353 4to leaf 339 4to leaf 407 Fol. leaf 319 Fol. leaf 90 4to pag. 588 12° pag. 129 4to pag. I Fol. pag. I 8vo pag. I Fol. leaf 27 Fol. pag. 139 4to pag. 721 Fol. pag. 345 8vo pag. 542 Fol. leaf 521 Fol. leaf 347 8vo pag. 788 Fol. pag. 1 01^ 410 pag. 323 Fol. pag. 71 4to pag. 1 1 3 4to pag. I 4to leaf 209 Fol. leaf 117 ECCLESIASTES continued. iS Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 606 < 29 Bodleian Libry. No. 5934 — 12° leaf 155 47 Bodleian Libry. No. 470 — Fol. leaf 27 — • 51 Bodleian Libry. No. 3318 — 12^ leaf i — • 52 Bodleian Libry. No. 5365 — 8vo pag. 10 - 53 Bodleian Libry. No. 6076 — ■ 410 pag. 3 begins at 10, 5. 61 Jefus College No. 13 — Fol. pag. 26 62 St. John's Coll. No. 3, 143 — 410 pag. 299 65 Oriel College No. 72 — Fol. 1. 244 begins at 3, 5, 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 4to pag. 789 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 570 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 540 75 Britilh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 356 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 859 77 Brltifti Mufeum Har. 5710 —• Fol. pag. 1061 82 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5706 — Fol. pag. 373 83 Britifli Mufeum Har. 7621 — 4to pag. 807 84 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5709 — 4to pag. 61 5 85 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5773 — ■ 4to pag. 456 86 Britifli Mufeum Har. 1861 — 4to leaf 227 92 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5406 — 4to pag. 239 93 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5715 — Fol. pag. 301 94 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5775 — 4to pag. 194 96 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5686 — 410 pag. 672 100 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofl:a 2 — 4to leaf 152 — Et on Copy printed A a 5, 2 — Fol. leaf 277 SOLOMON'S SONG MS S XXXII. : dJ^Dtrn nn V end ( ch. 8 ) beginning OpiiTl Dn*]Vn n'U^ 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 370 . 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 365 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 4to leaf 443 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 347 13 Bodleian Libry. No. 5948 — 4to pag. 256 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 47 17 Bodleian Libry. No. 5233 — Fol. leaf 239 — — 18 Bodleian Libry. No. 5356 — 8vo pag. 394 «8 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — - 4to pag. 614, ■ * SOLOMON'S SONG continued. 29 Bodleian Libry. No. 5934 — iz"' leaf 151 — • 47 Bodleian Libry. No. 470 — Fol. leaf 1 1 54 Bodleian Libry. No. 5890 — 4to leaf 158 ends at 8, 5. 61 Jefus College No. 13 — Fol. pag. i 62 St. John's Coll. No. 3, 143 — 410 pag. 279 65 Oriel College No. 72 •— Fol. leaf 248 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 2 7 — 410 pag. 785 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 581 . 73 Emanuel Coll. No. 1,27 -— Fol. leaf 537 75 Britifli Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 359 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 854 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. 1056 82 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5706 — Fol. pag. 349 83 Britifh Mufeum Har. 7621 — 4to pag. 827 84 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5709 — 4to pag. 590 85 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5773 — 410 pag. 451 86 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1861 — 410 leaf 216 92 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5506 — 410 pag. 216 93 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5715 •— Fol. pag. 297 ■ . 94 Britifh Mufeum Har, 5775 — 4to pag. 207 ■ 95 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5797 — Fol. pag. 143 96 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5686 — 4to pag. 667 — 100 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofla 2 — 4to leaf 144 . Eton Co^y printed A a 5, 2 — Fol. leaf 269 ISAIAH MSS XXIV. : -)*»^n b^b end ( ch. 66 ) beginning inyW* \m 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — • Fol. leaf 145 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 184 . 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 4to leaf 225 1 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 148 - 1 6 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — < Fol. leaf i 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — - Fol. leaf 225 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 591 1 — 4to leaf i 24 Bodleian Libry. 7350 torn. 2, 8vo pag. i 25 Bodleian Libry. No. 5930 — 4to pag. i • 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — ^t9 pag. 294 ■■■■ '■ ■ 5 ISAIAH continued. 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 —. Fol. leaf i 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag.435 - 70 Canibridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — 410 pag. i . 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 586 • 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 279 ■ 75 BritiQi Muleum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 206 76 Bridfh Mufeam Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 475 . 77 Brltifh Mufeum Har. 571 1 — Fol. pag. 527 %y Britifti Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 321 — • 88 Eritifh Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. 323 ■ > 89 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5720 — Fol. leaf 178 ■ 90 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5721 — Fol. pag. 77 ■■ 91 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5509 — > 410 pag. i begins 13,14. 101 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofta 3 — 410 leaf i JEREMIAH MSS XXL : VO »D> ^D ^niD end — ( ch. 52 ) — beginning in^DI* n^l 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 180 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 207 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 410 leaf 248 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. leaf 35 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 122 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 591 1 — Fol. leaf 50 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 4to pag. 187 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 40 68 Cambridge Lib. M m 5, 27 — 4to pag. 485 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — Fol. pag. 91 72 Caius College No. 404 -— 8vo pag. 654 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 311 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 229 76 BritiQi Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 530 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 571 1 — Fol. pag. 587 87 Brkifli Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag, 409 88 Britiih Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. 389 89 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5720 -^ Fol. leaf 255 90 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5721 — Fol. pag. 143 91 Britiih Mufeum Har. 5509 — 410 pag. 55 1 01 Brit. Mufeum D. Colla 3 — 410 leaf 48 LAMENTATIONS MSS XXX. : mn li; end ( ch. 5 ) beginning n^U:> H^'K 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 378 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 370 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 410 leaf 445 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 350 • 13 Bodleian Libry. No. 5948 — 4to pag. 264 — 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 48 17 Bodleian Libry. No. 5233 — Fol. leaf 242 ■ 18 Bodleian Libry. No. 5356 — 8vo pag. 411 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 618 ends at 3, 30. 29 Bodleian Libry. No. 5934 — 12° leaf 162 45 Bodleian Libry. No. 2606 ^— 4to leaf 118 47 Bodleian Libry. No. 470 — Fol. leaf 53 61 Jefus College No. 13 — Fol. pag. 16 • 65 Oriel College No. 72 — Fol. leaf 250 • 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 4to pag. 806 ■ 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 738 ■■ 73 Emanuel Coll. No. I, 27 — • Fol. leaf 546 75 Britifli Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 361 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 869 yj Eriiifh Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. 1071 82 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5706 — Fol. pag. 364 83 Britifh Mufeum Har. 7621 — 4to pag. 836 84 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5709 — 410 pag. 605 ■ 85 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5773 — 410 pag. 408 86 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1861 — 410 leaf 222 • 92 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5506 — 4to pag. 230 ■ 93 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5715 — Fol. pag. 323 94 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5797 — 410 pag, 214 96 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5686 — 4to pag. 682 —* 100 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofla 2 — 4to leaf 149 Eton Qo^j printed A a. ^, 2 — Fol. leaf 287 ■ EZEKIEL MSS XXIII. : now nin> end — ( ch. 48 ) — beginning C:D>'iVbW2 T!>1 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 225 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 255 E Z E K I E L continued. 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5350 — 410 leaf 280 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fol. pag. gc 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 177 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 5911 — 410 leaf 112 — 26 Bodleian Libry* No. 3731 — 4to pag. i . 27 Bodleian Libry. No. 5950 — 24^ leaf no ends 42, 13, 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 4to pag. 250 ^7 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 84 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 10 — * 4to pag. 548 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — 4to pag. 210 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 744 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 351 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 260 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 602 ■ 77 Britilh Mufeum Har. 5711 — Fol. pag. 665 87 Britifti Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 522 88 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5774 — 410 pag. 486 89 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5720 — Fol. leaf 290 ends 45,19. 90 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5721 — Fol. pag. 226 91 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5509 — 4to pag. 138 101 Brit. Mufeum D. Colla 3 — 410 leaf 112 DANIEL MSS XX. ; ytyn ypb end — ( ch. 1 2 ) — beginning W)b'i2^ n3*iia 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner i 73 29 Bodleian Libry. No. 5934 44 Bodleian Libry. Hib. 980 46 Bodleian Libry. No. 5936 - 65 Oriel College No. 72 • 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 71 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 9 72 Caius College No. 404 ■ 73 Imanuel Coll. No. 1,27 ■ Fol. leaf 387 4to leaf 375 4to leaf 418 Fol. pag- 355 Fol. leaf 1 01 4to pag. 378 12^ leaf 174 4to leaf 6 4to leaf I Fol. leaf 254 4to pag. 811 Fol. pag. 610 8vo pag. 815 Fol. leaf 555 DANIEL continued. 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 363 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 885 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5711 — Fol. pag. 1087 92 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5506 — 410 pag. 121 93 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5715 — Fol. pag. 138 94 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5775 — 410 pag. 221 Eton Qo^y printed A a 5, 2 — Fol. leaf 299 ROSEA MSS XXII. : CDl ^h^y end ( ch. 14) begin. J/'l^^IH h^ H^n Iti'N T^T^* im 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 ■ — Fol, leaf 265 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 258 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 410 leaf 307 < 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. leaf 196 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 22 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 267 . 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 59 11 — Fol. leaf 166 •27 Bodleian Libry. No. 5950 — 24^ leaf i begins 10, 12, 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 336 . — 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 120 68 Cambridge Lib. M m 5, 27 — 410 pag. 603 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — Fol. pag. 310 ■ 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 839 — • 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 387 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 287 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 665 . 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 571 1 ■ — Fol. pag. 731 87 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 623 ■ 88 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5774 — 410 pag. 573 90 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5721 — Fol. pag. 305 91 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5509 — 4to pag. 221 1 01 Brit. Mufeum D. CoHa 3 — ■ 410 leaf 168 — — - JOEL MSS XXIL : ]V2^3 \y2} end ( ch. 3 ) beginning ^NV hi< H^H Ti^'K HIH' "131 I Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 270 -— -^— » 6 JOEL continued. 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 261 ■ 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 410 leaf 310 ■ . 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 202 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol, leaf 25 ■ 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 273 — 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 591 1 — 4to leaf 173 ' 27 Bodleian Libry. No. 5950 — 24° leaf 6 ■ -^^ 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 4to pag. 342 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 125 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag. 610 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — 410 pag, 322 • 72 Caius College No. 404 — ■ 8vo pag. 848 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 392 — - 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 290 ■ 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 673 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. 740 87 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 635 > 88 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5774 — ' 4to pag. 584 90 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5721 — Fol. pag. 315 91 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5509 — 4to pag. 230 101 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofla 3 — 4to leaf 176 AMOS MSS XXIL : jnhi^ mn> end ( ch. 9 ) beginning DlDj; niT 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 272 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 262 — 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 4to leaf 312 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 205 — > 16 Bodleian Libry, No. 2 8 So — Fol. leaf 27 ' 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 276 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 591 1 — 410 leaf 175 27 Bodleian Libry. No. 5950 — 24^ leaf 16 ■ 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — j\.w pag. 345 r— — 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 126 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag. 613 ■ 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — 410 pag. 327 — — 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 852 73 Emanuel Coil. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 393 — — , 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 292 ■ AMOS continued. 76 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 676 » 'j'j Britifh Mufeiim Har. 571 1 — Fol. pag. 743 87 Britifh Miifeam Har. 5722 — - Fol. pag. 640 • ^ 88 Britifli Muleum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. 589 ^ 90 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5721 — Fol. pag. 320 ■ • 91 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5509 — 4to pag. 254 • 1 01 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofta 3 — 4to leaf 179 OBADIAH MSS XXII. \ riD^^Dn mn>^ end ( ch. i ) . beginning nn^lT ptH 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 •■ — Fol. leaf 277 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 410 leaf 264 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 4to leaf 314 — ■ 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 211 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 29 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 281 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 591 1 — Fol. leaf 181 27 Bodleian Libry. No. 5950 — 24" leaf 26 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 4to pag. 350 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 130 68 Cambrid^3 Lib. Mm 5, 10 — ■ 4to pag. 620 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — 4to pag. 338 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 860 —. 73 Emanuel Coll. No. 1, 27 — Fol. leaf 397 ■ 75 Britifli Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 294 ^() Britifli Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 683 77 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. 750 87 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5712 • — Fol. pag. 650 88 Britifli Mufeum Har. 7621 — 4to pag. 598 90 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5721 — Fol. pag. 328 91 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5509 — 4to pag. 244 loi Brit. Mufeum D. Cofl:a 3 — 4to leaf 185 JONAH MSS XXIL J nnn T\r:iTa\ end ( ch. 4 ) beginning mv h\< niH' im >nn 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 277 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 265 ■ ■ 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5350 — 4to leaf 315 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fol. pag. 211 ■ JONAH continued* 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 30 — ~ 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 283 23 Bodleian Libry, No. 591 1 — Fol. leaf 182 27 Bodelian Libry. No. 5950 — 24^ leaf 29 28 Bodleian Libry. Tannen 73 — 410 pag. 351 — 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 131 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag. 620 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — 410 pag. 339 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 861 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 398 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 295 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 684 •^^ Britilh Mufeum Har. 571 1 — Fol. pag. 751 87 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 652 88 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. 600 — 90 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5721 — Fol. pag. 330 91 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5509 — 4to pag. 245 1 01 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofta 3 — 410 leaf 186 MICAH MSS XXIL :!=D*Tp 'rO>D end (ch. 7) begin. T\yr:i Vn* H'H 'rvTJ^ XW^'' 131 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 279 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 265 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 4to leaf 316 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fol. pag. 213 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 31 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 284 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 591 1 — 4to leaf 184 27 Bodleian Libry. No. 5950 — 24^ leaf 35 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 4to pag. 353 ■ 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 132 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 -— 4to pag. 622 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — 4to pag. 343 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 863 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 399 75 Britifli Mufeum Har. 1528 •— Fol. leaf 296 76 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 687 77 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5711 — Fol. pag. 753 • %-l Britifli Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 656 M I C A H continued. 8S Britifh Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag.603 90 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5721 — Fol. pag.332 endsat7,iS. 91 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5509 — 410 pag. 248 1 01 Brit. Mufeum D. Corta 3 — 4:0 leaf 188 NAHUM MSS XXI : TDn "IJli^n end ( ch. 3 ) beginning m:>: K'l^D 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 282 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 . — 410 leaf 267 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 4to leaf 317 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. leaf 217 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 32 » 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 287 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 5911 — Fol. leaf 188 27 Bodleian Libry. No. 5950 — 24° leaf 48 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 357 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 135 68 Cambridge Lib. M m 5, 27 — 4to pag. 627 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — Fol. pag. 351 ■ 72 Caius College No. 404 ■ — 8vo pag. 869 73 Emanuel Coll. No, i, 27 — Fol. leaf 402 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 298 ■ 76 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 691 ■ • yj Britifli Mufeum Har. 571 1 — Fol. pag. 758 Sy Britifli Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 66 3 — 88 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. 609 91 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5509 — 410 pag. 254 1 01 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofta 3 — 410 leaf 192 ■ • HABAKKUK MSS XXL : >m3':m hj^jD^ end ( ch. :§ ) begin, pipnn n^n "i*ii'K iSron 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 283 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 268 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 4to leaf 318 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 219 ■ 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol, leaf 33 ■ 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 289 -— 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 591 1 — 410 leaf 190 — -^ — r HABAKKUK continued. 27 Bodleian Libry. No. 5950 — 24° leaf 53 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 358 ■ 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 136 . 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag. 629 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — 410 pag. 354 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 871 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 403 • 75 BritiHi Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 299 76 Bridfn Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 693 77 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5710 — Fol. pag. 760 87 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 666 88 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. 612 91 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5509 — ■ 4to pag. 256 101 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofta 3 — 410 leaf 194 ZEPHANIAH MSS XXL : r\)r[> -idh end ( ch. 3 ) begin. n>3D2: bi< n*n Tvi'K n)n> "im 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 285 - 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 269 5 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 4to leaf 319 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 220 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 34 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 290 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 591 1 — 4to leaf 191 2/ Bodleian Libry. No. 5950 -^ 24° leaf 59 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 360 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 137 ■ ,68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 17 — 410 pag. 630 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — 4to pag. 357 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 874 • 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 405 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 300 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 -r- 8vo pag. 696 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 571 1 — Fol. pag. 762 S7 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 670 88 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. 615 91 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5509 — 4to pag. 259 101 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofta 3 ^-^ 410 leaf 196 ^ HAGGAI MSS XXI. miK32; nin» end ( ch. 2 ) beginning tZD^D'd/ DW^ 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 16 -Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 591 1 27 Bodleian Libry. No. 5950 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 10 70 Cambridge Lib. E 65, 10 72 Cains College No. 404 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5710 87 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5712 88 Britifli Mufeum Har. 7621 91 Britifli Mufeum Har. 5509 loi Brit. Mufeum D. Cofta 3 — • Fol. leaf 286 — 4to leaf 270 • ' ' ■■ ■— — 4to leaf 320 — Fol. pag. 222 — Fol. leaf 35 — Fol. leaf 292 ' — Fol. leaf 194 — 24^ leaf 66 — — 4to pag. 362 — Fol. leaf I 39 ' — 4to pag. 633 — 4to pag. 362 ' — 8vo pag. 877 • — Fol. leaf 406 • — Fol. leaf 301 — 8vo pag. 698 • — Fol. pag. 765 ' ■ — Fol. pag. 674 ' — 4to pag. 619 — — . — 4to pag. 262 ends at I, 5, — 4to leaf 199 ' ZECHARIAH MSS XX. :Ninn CDvn end — (ch. 14) — beginning ^y^yz'H irnni 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 -— Fol. leaf 288 2 Bodleian Libiy. No. 3198 — 4to leaf 270 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 410 leaf 321 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5946 — Fol. pag. 224 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 36 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — Fol. leaf 294 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 591 1 — Fol. leaf 195 27 Bodleian Libry. No. 5950 — 24° leaf 72 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 364 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 140 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag. 634 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — 4to pag. 365 ZECHARIAH continued. 72 Cains College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 880 — 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 408 — Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — > Fol. leaf 302 — Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 700 ~ 77 Britifh Mufeum Har. 571 1 — Fol. pag. 767 — Sj Bridlh Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 677 — 88 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. 621 — 1 01 Brit. Mufeum D. Cofla 3 — 410 leaf 200 -- MALACHI MSS XX. :CZ)'nn Y'^^^ end ^'(ch. 4) beginning im Kti'Q 1 Bodleian Libry. No. 461 — Fol. leaf 294 . 2 Bodleian Libry. No. 3198 — < 410 leaf 274 3 Bodleian Libry. No. 5351 — 410 leaf 325 4 Bodleian Libry. No. 5945 — Fol. pag. 232 16 Bodleian Libry. No. 2880 — Fol. leaf 39 22 Bodleian Libry. No. 5234 — • Fol. leaf 302 . 23 Bodleian Libry. No. 591 1 — 4to leaf 205 27 Bodleian Libry. No. 5950 — 24^^ leaf 1 01 — 28 Bodleian Libry. Tanner 173 — 410 pag. 374 . 57 Corpus College W B 4, 8 — Fol. leaf 145 68 Cambridge Lib. Mm 5, 27 — 410 pag. 643 ■ . 70 Cambridge Lib. E e 5, 10 — 4to pag. 382 • 72 Caius College No. 404 — 8vo pag. 892 • -. 73 Emanuel Coll. No. i, 27 — Fol. leaf 414 75 Britifh Mufeum Har. 1528 — Fol. leaf 306 76 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5498 — 8vo pag. 711 77 Britifh Mufeum Har, 57 11 — Fol. pag. 778 ■ 87 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5722 — Fol. pag. 693 ■ 88 Britifh Mufeum Har. 5774 — 4to pag. 636 101 Brit. Mufeum D. Colta 3 — 4to leaf 210 FINIS. m Sit-. ■1^% ^. ""'■""' '"^'Pnn'ed Hebrew ,ext Of ^ 1012 00116 0466 i.'«w- -w »c \V^-^» '^» '■v-^^^i -^ •(* -^'£a r ;/: '{ A / N '■*^ X5<^'' ifl^"^ ■/t- ■'^^- 4v ' J