« ForrigeFortsæt »
wise than it is in the Original, fince they made Use of that Scripture, which was in Use among the Fews. And CAPELLUS (8) fays, The Apostles follow'd the Septuagint, left they should fcandalize the more weak Hellenists and Gentile Christians ( to whom the Hebrew Tongue was unknown, and who therefore did, and could only use the Septuagint ); who, if the Apostles had cited genuine Scripture, would have thought they had forged Scripture to serve a Purpose; and their Credit would have been call d' in Question.
Mr. W. therefore has no Reason to charge the Jews with corrupting the Hebrew Text because it differs from the Septuagint Text cited by the Apostles.
3. Thirdly, Jesus and the Apostles might cite or use a Copy of the Septuagint very different from those Copies derived down to us; for the (b) antient Copies of the Septuagint (in all which there were Additions, which were not in the Hebrew Text) differ'd much from one another; and Mr.W. supposes LUKE to cite a (i) false Copy; or they might ufe and cite other Translations of the Old Testament, which differ'd from the original Hebrew, besides the Septuagint; for Dr. PriDEAUX; on Occasion of its being laid in (k) LUKE, that our Saviour read in the Synagogue at Nazareth a Passage out of ISAIAH, which
(g) Capelli Critica Sacra. p. 54. (b) Simon Hist. Crit. du V. T. p. 235. Montfaucon Dissert. Prelim. ad Origenis Hexapla, c. 4: (i) See Whiston's Elay, p. 115, 116. p. 119. (k) Luke 4.
Passage of Isaiah, as reported by LUKE, does not agree exactly either with the Hebrew or Septuagint; tells (1) us, that it seems most likely that be read it out of some Chaldee Targum, That is, a Chaldee Paraphrase or Translation, which was read in the Synagogue. And therefore no Argument can be urged, for the Corruption of the Hebrew or Septuagint by the
Yews, from the Citations of the Apostles out of the Old Testament not being exactly found in either of those Copies.
4. Fourthly, divers of the Passages, which Mr. W. mentions as corrupted, and divers of those, which he mentions as wholly omitted in the Old Testament, were most certainly not taken from the Old Testament by the Authors of the New, notwithstanding he says the Apostles took them from thence. For it is well-known, that the Jews had several Books deem'd sacred among them, which were forged, under the Names of their Prophets, and are now either loft or not rank'd among the Books of the Old Testament; which forged Books the primitive Christians received as sacred in some Degree from the Jews, and used them, and read them in their religious Assemblies. Of This Mr. W. was inform'd by the late learned Bishop LLOYD, who thus wrote to him. (m) ĦIGILIUS was one of those orthodox Bishops, that were under the
(1) Prideaux's Connection. Vol. 2. p. 547. See Capelli Critica Sacra. p. 58, 59.
(m) Lloyd's Letter 10 W, apud W's Historical Pref. p. 34.
heavy Perfecution of these Arian Kings of the Vandals about A. Ď. 500, and then did write Books aguinst the reigning Heresy; which, for Concealment sake, be put out in the Name of ATHANASIUS. Thus did some of the Jews, in the Times of Perfecution, write Books against heathen Idolatry. One, that is call, the Wisdom of SOLOMON; another call’d the Book of Baruch; whereof also a Part is call’d the Epistle of JEREMIAH. I cannot commend them, that to conceal themselves used such Arts; but nevertheless, their Books were "highly approved; infomuch, that they were read by the Hellenist Jews in their Synagogues, and só coming into the Christians Hands, they were also read in Christian Churches, in and next after the Apostles Times. We have also an (n) Account, that there were seventy two of this Kind translated into Greek by the Seventy, when they translated and finish'd the twenty two Books of the Old Testament. Some of these Books were intitled, Enoch; the Patriarchs; the Prayer of JOSEPH; the Testament of Moses; the Assumption of Moses, ABRAHAM, ELDAD and MODAD; the Psalms of SOLOMON; the Revelation of ELIAS; the Vison of ISAIAH ; the Revelation of SOPHONIAH; the Revelation of ZACHARY; and the Revelation of ESDRAS; and divers others bore the Names of HalBACCUC, EZECHIEL, DANIEL, and other Prophets.
(n) See Authors cited in Grabe's Spicileg. $. 1. p. 134, 135. '
Now ORIGEN, TERTULLIAN, EPIPHANIUS, AUSTIN, and GEORGIUS SYNCELLUS, who saw and read many of these forged Books of the Jews, do (0) assure us, that the Apostles took several of these Quotations, in Question, from them. And ORIGEN, in particular, makes the following Apology for the Apostles citing these forged Books. He says, (P) The Apostles and Èvangelists, who were filld with the Holy Ghost, might know what was fit to be cited out of those Books, and what to be rejested; but that others cannot without Danger do so, who have not so great an Abundance of the Spirit.
We may learn from Mr. Dodwel a threefold Source of some of the Quotations, whereof I am now treating.
1. First, they might be taken from certain (pp) mystical Paraphrafes of the Jews on the Old Teftament; which mystical Paraphrafes were frequently interpolated into the Text of the Old Testament. 2. Or, secondly, they might be the Sayings, or Revelations of Christian (0) Prophets, who in the Christian Assemblies gave Interpretations of Things delivered in the old Testament ; which being approved by these, who had the discerning of Spirits, were preferved, and known to be from God. 3. Or, thirdly, they might be cited (r) fromWritings,
(o) Grabe. Ib. p. 129–140.
Origines Prol. duar. Homil. in Cant. Cant. Opera. Vol. 1. p. 501. Baf. 1577. & apud Grabe. Ib.. (PP) Apud Dodwel's Life. p. 508.
(9) For an Account of which Prophets, see the History of Montainilm. p. 87.
• (r) Dodwel's Life. p. 510. K 2
which (s) Euf. Hist. Ecc. 1. 4. c. 6. (1) Grabe De Vitiis Septuag. Inter. p. 34.
which were plainly taken for those of the old Prophets, thô in Truth they were not fuch, yet cited as theirs, because the Perfons, who cited them, knew that the Persons, to whom they wrote, accounted them as füch. By which Mr. Dodwel does not mean such forged Writings of Jews as are above-mention'd by me, but Books composed by Christians under Jewish Names; and particularly under the Name of Ezra or Esdras. Which Practice of citing such Authors continued, as he says, in Use in the Church, till Melito had settled the Canon of the Old Testament. This MELITO, who lived late in the second Century, and was esteem'd a Prophet himself, did, it seems, in order to satisfy the Curiosity of his Brother ONESIMUS, (s) go into the East to be certainly inform’d of the Books of the Old Testament; and did colle&t such Passages out of the Law and the Prophets as related to our Saviour and the several Parts of the Christian Faith.
5. Fifthly, I proceed to consider Mr. W's Charge against the Jews, founded on the two Passages of Justin MARTYR;
1. As to the first Passage, I observe, that JUSTIN objects to the Jews five Places; a Place in ISA I AH, Behold a Virgin Mall be with Child; a Place taken away from ESDRAS; two Places taken away from JEREMIAH ; and the Words from the Tree, taken away from the g6th Psalm ; of all which (except the Place in Isaiah) Dr. GRABE (†) says, Ne