which was also loft fo long, that the Contents of it were become unknown. And the Alterations have been, according to (s) SIMON, fuch and fo many, as to hinder us from difcerning now, what truly belongs to Moses, from That, which has been added by those, who fucceeded him, or by the Authors of the last Collection of the Books of MOSES. Which Alterations made JEROM (t) fay, It was indifferent to him, whether you faid MOSES was the Author of the Pentateuch, or that ESDRAS re-establish'd it. Moft of the Books of the Old Teftament were liable to great Corruptions during the Captivity, when the Jews, who went Idolaters into Captivity, did before the Expiration of it lofe their native Tongue; as all the Books afterwards were, when they were tranfcribed, as is ufually (u) fuppofed, out of the Hebrew into the Chaldee Character; which feems to fuppofe the Body of the Jews unable to read their own Hebrew Books, and confequently eafy to be imposed on in fuch a Tranfcript, which in its (w) Defign and Nature did, in all Probability, produce many Changes. There seems also to be añother, and That no inconfiderable Source of Alterations, tho' not before observed, as I know of, by any Body, in the Books of the Old Testament; which the Reader must bear in Mind were, by by the Confeffion of all, confiderably alter'd (s) Simon Hift. Crit. du Vieux. Teftam. p. 50. (w) Whifton's Effay, 266, 267, 268. (u) Simon Ib. p. 48. by by ESDRAS, or fome Body else after the Captivity. It is to be obferved, that the Jews, who were greatly departed from the Laws of MOSES, and efpecially from the Doctrine of the Unity of God, went (x) Idolaters into Captivity; that they went into Chaldea, a Country, where (y) one God had from remote Antiquity been believed and worship'd; that the religious Books (y) of that Nation give a Relation of Matters from the Creation to the Time of ABRAHAM fo little different from That contain'd in the Pentateuch, that one of the Accounts muft, in all Probability, be borrow'd from the other; that particular Care x) was taken among the Chaldees to inftruct the Jewish Youths of Quality and Parts in the Chaldean Difcipline and Learning; that the Jews came out at different Times from Chaldea fuch firm Believers and Worshippers of one God, and That under the high Patronage and Protection of the Kings of Chaldea ordaining fuch Belief and Worship among them, that they have continued in that Belief and Worship ever fince; that it seems more natural for a Body of Slaves and Captives to be form'd by their Mafters and Conquerors, than that the Conquerors fhould be form'd by them, and that the Slave fhould rather receive Hiftories, and Antiquities, from the Mafter, than the Mafter from the Slave; that, particularly, it (x) 2 Kings. 2 Chron. (y) Hide Religio Vet. Perfarum. Prideaux's Connection, Vol. 1. Lord's Religion of the Perfecs. Pocock Specimen Hift. Arabum, p. 148. Berofius apud Jofeph, Cont. Ap. 1. 1. (2) Ib. Antiq. 1. 10. c. 11. feems ; deems improbable, that the Jews, who changed their own idolatrous Notions and Practices for thofe of the Chaldeans, fhould have fo much Credit with the Chaldeans, as to introduce new History and Antiquities among them and 'that it feems more probable, that the Jews, who became compleat Converts to the Notion of God received among the Chaldeans, and were in many Refpects form'd and difciplined by them, should receive their History and Antiquities from the Chaldeans, who were an antient, polite, and learned People, and must have fome hiftorical Scheme of Things going. among them, which they received not only as Truths, but as religious Truths. From all which (as well as from many other Confiderations, which I now omit) it fhould seem very probable, that the Jewish Books, which were new form'd, alter'd, and publifh'd after the Chaldean, or Babylonian, or Perfian Captivity, (call it as you pleafe) might alfo receive Chaldean Alterations, no less than those other undisputed Alterations. It may also be fuppofed, that numerous Changes were introduced in all the Books of the Old Testament, when the Maforites invented Points and Accents, and thereby first fix'd a Text, which every one before was to find out for himself by Conjecture and his own Judgment. Laftly, the Jews themfelves (a) allow of the Lawfulness of making Alterations or Emendations of their facred Books; provided they think them for the Honour of God and for Religion. (a) Whifton's Elay, p. 220. Many Many Changes therefore in the Old Testament I readily yield to Mr. WHISTON; the Nature and Reafon whereof I referve for another Occafion. But what I deny here, and is the Question between Mr. W. and me, is, that the Jews have with Defign greatly or at all corrupted the Old Teftament as to any of thofe Paffages cited from thence by the Authors of the New Teftament; and to the Proofs he has offer'd to make good his Charge against the Jews, I answer as follows; 1. First, I fay, that the Apostles might cite and apply the Paffages they cited out of the Old Teftament after the Jewish Manner; as they seem to have done, and as almost all Christians affert they have done. And therefore Mr. W. manifeftly begs the Question about the Jews Corruption of the Books of the Old Teftament in all his Inftances which, let them feem ever fo remote from the Septuagint or Hebrew Text of the Old Teftament, may be juftify'd by the known Practice of citing and applying Scripture used by the Jewish allegorical Writers. 2. Secondly, the Apostles might cite the Septuagint for divers of thofe Places, which Mr. W. fuppofes corrupted in the Hebrew. For the Septuagint was not only a false Tranflation in innumerable Inftances but contain'd (b) Additions to the Text; some whereof were made by the Seventy, who were fuppofed by (b) Capelli Critica Sacra. Simon Hift. Crit. du V. T. Ib. p. 57. 103 Uffer De Sept. Interp. Edit. p. 8. Simon Hift. Crit. du N. Teft. p. 240. Ib. H. C. du V. T. p. 294. hany many to be infpired in making them, no less than in the Translation itself; and others by the Hellenist Jews, who used that Translation in their Synagogues; (which Additions plainly fhow the Reafon, why (c) there are not near fo many Texts cited in the New Testament out of the Old, either different from, or wanting in the Greek Verfion now extant, as in the Hebrew Original.) And, I find both antient and modern Criticks defend the Apostles, for citing Paffages out of the Septuagint, which either did not at all occur in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, or were not rightly tranfated frow the Hebrew, after the following Manner; This is generally to be obferved, fays (d) JEROM, that whenever the Apostles Speak to the People, they cite fuch Paffages of Scripture as were known among them; and in fpeaking of a Paffage in the (e) Acts, wherein St. LUKE follows the Septuagint, which says the Family of JACOB were feventy five Souls, contrary to the Hebrew, which fays they were but feventy Souls, fays in Juftification of St. LUKE, that St. LUKE ought not to write contrary to that Scripture, which was fo commonly ufed as the Septuagint, and which at that Time had more Credit, than what St. LUKE could fay himself. SIMON (f) fays, it is unjust to accufe the Evangelifts and Apostles with being Falfifyers, because they cite Scripture other (d) Hieron. Quæft. Hebr. (f) Simon Hift. Crit. du |