Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

of the firft or Beginning of the fecond Century of the Gospel. Now, if the Samaritan Pentateuch was tranfcribed from the Vulgar Hebrew Bible, after That was tranfcribed into the Chaldee Character; and if the Vulgar Hebrew Bible was not tranfcribed into the Chaldee Character, till the Time Mr. W. mentions; then is the prefent Samaritan Pentateuch not only not derived originally from the firft Separation of the ten Tribes in the Days of JEROBOAM; but very modern, and not even of Authority and Antiquity enough to fettle the Hebrew Text, as it flood in the Times of JESUS and his Apostles; to fettle which was the End, for which Mr. W. lays fo much Strefs on the Samaritan Pentateuch.

But after all, fuppofing with (y) SIMON and many other learned Men; that the present Jewish (which is, the Chaldean or Affyrian) Character, was the Character always in Ufe among the Jews; and that the Samaritan (That is, the Phenician, or Canaanitish, or, as it is alfo 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 tranfcribed into that Character, either to give it a Pretence to

ty) Simon, Bibl. Crit. Vol. 2. p. 389

-435.

Toinard apud Le Clerc Bibl. Univ. Tom. 21. p. 131.
Allix apud Spanhemii De Numifm, Vol. 1. p. 69, &c.
Rhenferd Opera Philog. p. 225-253.

See Bajnage Hift. des Juifs, 1. 6. c 24.

Antiquity

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 verfed in no other Character but the Samaritan Character. And therefore the Samaritan Pentateuch is of lefs Authority and Antiquity for being written in the Samaritan Character; and muft for that very Reafon have been transcribed from the Pentateuch of the Jews written in the Chaldean or Affyrian Character; to fay nothing more here of the other Reasons to prove it was fo tranfcribed.

6. DOSITHEUS, a Samaritan, who (≈) lived after the Times of JESUS, is faid by (a) PHOTIUS to have adulterated the Pentateuch (by Miftake (b) called the Octateuch) 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 Verfion received by the Hellenist Jews; adding and taking away fome Paffages, and changing others, according to his Pleafure. And he particularly fuppofes him to have corrupted that Pentateuch, by inferting therein fome of the Septuagint Chronology; which alfo was a Corruption firft introduced in the Septuagint. (By which the Reader mav eafily fee, why the Septuagint is (z) Origen contra Geb. 1. 1. & in Matt. 27, Iract. (a) Photii Bibl. p. 883, 886.

(b) Uferii De Edit. Sept. Int. p. 216.

N 2

more

[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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 fuppofe, that fome modern Samaritan compiled it chiefly out of the different Copies of the Palestinian and Babylonian Jews and the Septuagint (the Sources, from whence USHER fuppofes DosITHEUS compiled it); because it fometimes agrees with the Hebrew Copies of Paleftine, fometimes with those of Babylon, and fometimes 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 folve Difficulties purfuant to their religious No

tions.

But I ufe thofe Hypothefes here, as I do the Hypothefes of other learned Divines, in Relation to many Parts of the Difpute between Mr. W. and myself, merely to oppose Mr. WHISTON; who every where proceeds on the most precarious Hypothefes, because feemingly proper to folve Difficulties, in his

(c) Ib. p. 218, 219.

(d) Dupin Differt. Prelim. &c. p. 533, 534.

Way

Way. And the fole Inferences I would make from fuch Topicks, against Mr. W. are; that there is no End of Hypothefes; that they are fo uncertain, that nothing ferving 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 Chriftian Religion itself, and the true Grounds and Reafons of it.

;

7. Lastly I obferve, that ORIGEN; who understood Hebrew well, and lived and converfed 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 ufeful Works towards understanding the Old Testament, viz. his Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla (in the two laft whereof he inferted the Vulgar Hebrew Text) wholly omitted the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Hebrew Text in the Vulgar Jewish, gave and not (e) in the Samaritan Character; tho he thought fit to give the Hebrew Text over again in Greek Characters. Nor does he apto have used the Samaritan Pentateuch in his Notes on the Hexapla, towards fettling the Text, in any Respect. And confequently ŎRIGEN must have judged the Samaritan Pentateuch of no Importance towards fettling the Reading and Senfe of that Part of the Old Teftament.

pear

8. So that I think I may venture to conclude, that Mr. W. has not the leaft Ground to date the Samaritan Pentateuch so high as

(e) Montfaucon, Prælim. ad Origenis Hexaplą, p. 21. N 3

the

the Times of JEROBOAM, against which there have appear'd feveral demonftrative Arguments, and for which he has as little Colour, as the Samaritans themselves have for a Manufcript Copy of their Pentateuch (f) pretended to be derived to them from the Times of PHINEAS, Contemporary with MOSES; whereby they are equally abfurd with the Jerufalem Jews and others, who make MOSES Author of the Account of his own Death and Burial and of the Comparison between himfelf and the Prophets in Ifrael, who fucceeded him; to fay Nothing of the Abfurdity in pretending to have a Manuscript of ́a (g) Book, whereof it will be difficult to find one of above fix or feven hundred Years old.

VIII.

That the Apostles did not always quote the Septuagint Verfion.

T has been (b) long difputed among the Learned, whether the Citations made from the Old in the New Teftament were taken from the Hebrew or Greek Bible. Which feems a strange Difpute; for it should seem eafy to know from whence a Man, who makes several hundred Quotations from the Old

(f) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. p. 130. (g) Ib, p. 512.

(b) Whilton's Eay. p. 87. Teftament

« ForrigeFortsæt »