« ForrigeFortsæt »
Now pursuant to this first change he reads virgin, according to the Septuagint, and not young woman ; tho' the original hebrew word (b) signifies, as appears by its ufe in other places, and by the present context, as he allows, a young woman, who might, or might not be a virgin.
But what will Mr.W. get by these changes, except a possible application of words, taken by themselves without their context, to the event of Mary's conception of Jesus? Which will never convince a reasonable man, that the original, obvious, and literal sense of Isalah, was to prophefy of the conception of Jesus by the virgin Mary.
Nothing will be obtain'd, even by reading (instead of young woman's being with child) virgin's being with child : for that expreffion asserts no miraculous or extraordinary conception, since it does not necessarily imply, that a virgin shall conceive without the concurrence of a man; or, if it does, points not obviously and primarily at the virgin Mary. Nor will any thing be obtain'd, by supposing the clause beforementíond to be disocated or taken from its proper place and added to this prophefy, besides the taking away one demonstration out of several that appear in Isaiah, that
(b) Erasmus in Matt. 1, 30.
the prophet had the birth of a male child of a virgin, or young woman in the time of Ahaz, and not the birth of Jesus by the virgin Mary in his first thoughts. For the whole context will still speak against him, and even in his opinion, not perfectly serve his purpofe. For after he has corrected Isaiah as abovemention'd, and after he has divided ISAIAH's prophesy into several prophesies, and made those prophesies independent of one another, he confesses, that (c), the prefent order of the parts of those prophesies and their present coherence and context will still make them look disorder'd. Mr. W. must therefore, if he will go on to endeavour to make this quotation pertinent, make further alterations; for what he has done already, does not, by his own confeffion, place it to full satisfaction.
That the Jezes bave not corrupted the Old
Testament in respect to the passages cited from thence in the New
FR.W. endeavours to show, that (d) N I the Jews have greatly corrupted the Old Testament, and more especially, as to
the quotations made from thence in the New Teftament.
To prove this last point he (e) produces some passages cited by the apostles, which are not apply'd according to the obvious meaning which they signify in the places where they stand in the Old Testament ; some passages, which seem not exactly cited by the apostles; others (f) wanting in the hebrew ; and many (g) passages, such as He shall be called a Nazarene, &c. which, he says, are intirely wanting in all copies of the Old Testament. He also urges the following passage of Justin MARTYR to prove his charge against the Jews.
“ I would have you know, says (5) Justin “ to Trypho, That your Rabbins have in" tirely taken away many texts of scripture “ from that version which was made by “ the elders that were with PTOLOMY, “ wherein it was exprelly declar'd, that this “ Jesus, WHO WAS CRUCIFY'D, WAS GOD “ AND MAN, AND WAS TO BE CRUCIFY'D OS AND DIF. Which texts, because I know, " that all those of your nation do reject, I “ do not inlist upon such inquiries; but shall " content myself in these debates with ma“ king ufe of those texts, that are still ex« tant in your allow'd bibles. For as to “ what texts I have hitherto alledg’d to you, « you allow of them all; excepting that « Thort citation, behold a virgin Mall be " with child." Then Trypho faid, " I «c desire, that you will first tell us, which are 66 those texts of scripture, that you say have 66 been corrupted. To which I reply'd ; I “ will do as you desire me. From what
(e) Whifton, p. 87, &c. 103, 129, 229, 321.
Esdras explain'd concerning the law of ss the passover, they have taken away this ss part of his explication. And Esdras said " to the people; This passover is your sao “ viour and your refuge : and if you will « consider it, and it come into your heart, " that we hall humble him for a figu, c and afterward mall believe on bim, “ then this place shall not be made defo“ late for ever, says the Lord of hosts. “ But if you hall not believe on him, “ nor hearken to his preaching, you mall “ be rejoyced over among the nations, $C And from the words (2) of JEREMIAH. « they have cut off this : I was an (innos “ cent) lamb, that was led to be sacri“ fic d. They deviz'd devices against & me, saying, Let us cast wood into his “ bread, and let us thrust him out of the ” land of the living ; and let bis name “ be remember'd no more. Now this text,
(i) Jer. 11.12.
« which is taken out of the words of JERE“ MIAH, is still found written in some copies,
that are in the Jewish synagogues : for they “ have taken them away but a little while e ago; and that on account of the demonsi stration that arises from them, that the “ Jews would take council about Christ « himself, to take him away by crucifying “ him; and that after such council they
have crucify'd him. Besides, they have « in like manner taken away what follows < from the words of the fame JEREMIAH; “ The Lord, the God of Israel, remem« bred thefe of his, that were dead, that “ were asleep in the dist: of the earth i ♡ and he descended to them, and preach'd " bis Salvation to them. They have alfo 56 taken away these few short words from « the Psalms of DAVID, (R) from the trees « For when the words were these, say he « among the Gentiles, that the Lord bath “ reign'd from the tree; they left it thus, “ say ye among the Gentilesy that the © Lord hath reign'd” Mr. W. (1) further supports this charge against the Jews, byproducing a passage from the same JusTIN, wherein is contain'd' a .quotation out of the prophet ZACHARY, which, he says: įs not now to be found in ZACHÁRYJus
. . . . . TIN $