1 ; captivity; that they went into Chaldea, a country, where (y) One God had from remote antiquity been believ'd and worfhip'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 must in all probability be borrow'd from the other that particular care (z) was taken among the Chaldees to inftruct the jewifh 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 continu'd in that belief and worship ever fince; that it feems more natural for a body of flaves and captives to be form'd by their mafters and conquerors, than that the conquerors fhould be form'd by them, and that the flave should rather receive histories, and antiquities, from the mafter, than the mafter (y) Hide Religio Vet. Perfarum. (2) Ib. Antiq. 1. 1o. c. 11. & Dan. 1. 4. master from the flave; that, particularly, it feems improbable, that the Jews, who chang'd their own idolatrous notions and practices for thofe of the Chaldeans, fhould have fo much credit with the Chaldeans, as to introduce new hiftory and antiquities among them; and that it seems more probable, that the Jews, who became compleat converts to the notion of one God receiv'd among the Chaldeans, and were in many refpects form'd and disciplin'd by them, fhould receive their history and antiquities from the Chaldeans, who were an antient, polite, and learned people, and must have some historical 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 feem very probable, that the jewish books, which were new form'd, alter'd and publish'd after the chaldean, or babylonian, or perfian captivity, (call it as you please) might alfo receive chaldean alterations, no less than those other undisputed al terations. It may also be fuppos'd, that numerous changes were introduc'd in all the books of the Old Teftament, when the Mafforetes 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 judg ment. 2 Laftly, Laftly, the Jews themselves (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. Many changes therefore in the Old Testa ment 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 those paffages cited from thence by the authors of the New Testament; 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 jewifh 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 Testament in all his instances, which let them feem ever fo remote from the Septuagint or bebrew text of the Old Teftament, may be juftify'd by the known practice of citing and applying fcripture ufed by the jewish allegorical writers. (a) Whifton's Effay, p. 220; 2. Ses 2. Secondly, the apoftles might cite the Septuagint for divers of thofe places, which Mr. W. fuppofes corrupted in the hebrew. For the Septuagint was not only a falfe translation in innumerable inftances, but contain'd (b) additions to the text; fome whereof were made by the Seventy, who were fuppos'd by many to be infpir'd in making them, no lefs than in the tranflation itself; and others by the hellenift Jews, who used that tranflation in their fynagogues; (which additions plainly fhow the reafon, why (c) there are not near fo many texts cited in the New Teftament out of the Old, either different from, or wanting in the greek verfion now extant, as in the hebrew original.) And, I find both ancient 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 tranflated from 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 (b) Capelli Critica Sacra. Simon Hift. Crit. du V. T. p. 57, 103. Uffer de Sept. Interp. Edit. p. 8. Simon Hift. Crit. du N. T. p. 240. Ib. H. C. du V. T. p. 294. (c) Whitton's Essay, $Sc. p. 128. (d) Hieron Quæft. Hebr. in Gen, c. 40. fuch paffages of fcripture as were known d÷ mong them, and in fpeaking of a paffage in the (e) Acts, wherin St. LuкE follows the Septuagint, which fays, the family of JaCOB were feventy five fouls, contrary to the hebrew, which fays, they were but seventy fouls, he fays in juftification of St. LUKE, that St. Luke ought not to write contrary to that fcripture, which was fo commonly used as the Septuagint, and which at that time had more credit, than what St. LUKE could Say himself. SIMON (f) fays, it is unjust to accufe the evangelifts and apoftles with being falfifyers, because they cite fcripture otherwife than it is in the original, fince they made use of that fcripture, which was in ufe among the Jews. And CAPELLUS (g) fays, The apostles follow'd the Septuagint, left they should fcandalize the more weak bellenifts and gentile chriftians (to whom the hebrew tongue was unknown, and who therefore did, and could only use the Septuagint); who, if the apoftles had cited nuine fcripture, would have thought they had forg'd fcripture to ferve a purpose; and their credit would have been called in queftion. ge Mr. (e) Acts 7. 14. (f) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. T. p. 2336 (g) Capelli Critica Sacra, p. 54 |