Billeder på siden

of the first or Beginning of the second Century of the Gospel. Now, if the Samaritan Pentateuch was transcribed from the Vulgar Hebrew Bible, after That was transcribed into the Chaldee Character; and if the Vulgar Hebrew Bible was not transcribed into the Chaldee Character, till the Time Mr. W. mentions; then is the present Samaritan Pentateuch not only not derived originally from the first Separation of the ten Tribes in the Days of JEROBOAM ; but very modern, and not even of Authority and Antiquity enough to settle the Hebrew Text, as it stood in the Times of Jesus and his Apostles; to settle which was the End, for which Mr. W. lays so much Stress on the Samaritan Pentateuch. · But after all, fuppofing with (y) Simon and many other learned Men ; that the present Yewis (which is, the Chaldean or Asyrian) Charaxter, was the Character always in Use among the Jews; and that the Samaritan (That is; the Phoenician, or Canaanitish, or, as it is also call’d, the Old Hebrew ) Character was never used by the Jews before the Captivity, in any Manner, either in Books or Medals; it will then follow, that the Samaritan Pentateuch, as written in the Samaritan Character, could not be the Pentateuch in its original Character, but must have been transcribed into that Chara&ter, either to give it a Pretence to

to' Simon, Bibl. Crit. Vol. 2. p. 389 4 35.
Toinard apud Le Clerc Bibl. Univ. Tom. 21. p. 131.
Allix apud Spanhemii De Numism, Vol. 1. p. 69, &c.
Rhenferd Opera. Philog. p. 225- 253.
See Bajnage Hist. des Juifs, l. 6. c. 24.


Antiquity, or to distinguish it from the Jews Pentateuch, or to render it legible to the Inhabitants of Samaria, who, upon the Pentateuch's being first introduced among them, might be versed in no other Character but the Samaritan Character. And therefore the Samaritan Pentateuch is of less Authority and Antiquity for being written in the Samaritan Charaxter; and must for that very Reason have been transcribed from the Pentateuch of the Jews written in the Chaldean or Affyrian Character; to say nothing more here of the other Reasons to prove it was so transcribed.".

6. Dositheus, a Samaritan, who (2) lived after the Times of Jesus, is said by (a) PhoTIUS to have adulterated the Pentateuch (by Mistake (6) called the Oetateuch) of Moses with many Corruptions. This adulterated Pentateuch our learned USHER takes to be the prefent Samaritan Pentateuch; and he supposes, that DosITHEUs compiled this New Hebrew Book out of the Hebrew Copies of Palestine and Babylon, and the Greek Version received by the Hellenist Jews ; adding and taking away fome Passages, and changing others, according to his Pleasure. And he particularly supposes him to have corrupted that Pentateuch, by inserting therein some of the Septuagint Chronology; which also was a Corruption first introduced in the Septuagint. (By which the Reader mav casily fee, why the Septuagint is .tz) Urgen contra ucis. do 1. & in valt. 27, Tract. .. (a) Photii Bibl. p. 883, 886. 16) Ulirii De Edit. Sept. Int. p. 216. i

N 2


more conformable to the Samaritan than to the Hebrew Text ; and also how (c) improper it is to settle the true Reading of the Pentateuch, even as it was in our Saviour's Time, by the Samaritan Pentateuch.) But whether or no, DositHEUS, the Samaritan, was the Compiler of the Samaritan Pentateuch ; it is not improbable, according to (d) DUPIN, to suppose, that some modern Samaritan compiled it chiefly out of the different Copies of the Palestinian and Babylonian Jews and the Septuagint (the Sources, from whence USHER supposes Dositheus compiled it); because it sometimes agrees with the Hebrew Copies of Palestine, sometimes with those of Babylon, and sometimes with the Septuagint.

I would not be thought in this Matter of DosITHEUS, &c. which I borrow from the Great USHER, and from Dupin, to espouse either of their Hypothefes ; to which they seem driven by their Judgment on the State of Things, and by their Inclination to solve Difficulties pursuant to their religious Notions.

But I use those Hypotheses here, as I do the Hypothefes of other learned Divines, in Relation to many Parts of the Dispute between Mr. W. and myself, merely to oppose Mr. WHISTON ; who every where proceeds on the inost precarious Hypotheses, because seemingly proper to solve Difficulties, in his

(c) Ib. p. 218, 219.
(d) Dupin Differs. Prelim. &c. p. 533, 534.

&c. p. 533, 534.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Way. And the sole Inferences I would make from such Topicks, against Mr. W. are ; that. there is no End of Hypotheses ; that they are so uncertain, that nothing serving to establish an Opinion can be justly inferr'd from them; and that, by their Number and Uncertainty, they feem the Effects of not understanding rightly the Christian Religion itself, and the true Grounds and Reasons of it.

2. Lastly I observe, that ORIGEN; who understood Hebrew well, and lived and conversed much with the Jews in Palestine ; who · was greatly skill'd in the Literature of the Old

Teftament; and who compleated three most laborious and useful Works towards understanding the Old Testament, viz. his Tetrapla, Hexapla, and O&tapla (in the two last whereof he inserted the Vulgar Hebrew Text); wholly omitted the Samaritan Pentateuch, and gave the Hebrew Text in the Vulgar Jewish, and not (e) in the Samaritan Character; tho he thought fit to give the Hebrew Text over again in Greek Characters. Nor does he appear to have used the Samaritan Pentateuch in his Notes on the Hexapla, towards settling the Text; in any Respect. And consequently ORIGen must have judged the Samaritan Pentateuch of no Importance towards settling the Reading and Sense of that Part of the old Teftament.

8. So that I think I may venture to conclude, that Mr. W. has not the least Ground to date the Samaritan Pentateuch so high as le) Montfaucon, Prælim. ad Origenis Hexapla, p. 21.




the Times of JEROBOAM, against which there have appear'd several demonstrative Arguments; and for which he has as little Colour, as the Samaritans themselves have for a Manuscript Copy of their Pentateuch (f) pretended to be derived to them from the Times of PhiNEAS, Contemporary with Moses; whereby they are equally absurd with the Jerusalem Jews and others, who make Moses Author of the Account of his own Death and Burial and of the Comparison between himself and the Prophets in Israel, who succeeded him; to say Nothing of the Absurdity in pretending to have a Manuscript of a (8) Book, whereof it will be difficult to find one of above fix or seven hundred Years old.

VIII. That the Apostles did not always quote the Sep

tuagint Version. IT 'has been (b) long disputed among the 1 Learned, whether the Citations made from the Old in the New Testament were taken from the Hebrew or Greek Bible. Which seems a strange Dispute ; for it should seem easy to know from whence a Man, who makes several hundred Quotations from the Old

Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. p. 130. (8) Ib. p. 512.

(b) Whilton's Elay. p. 87.


« ForrigeFortsæt »