« ForrigeFortsæt »
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 deriv'd 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. fuppofes Luke to cite a (i) false copy : or they might use 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 said in (k) LUKE, that our Saviour read in the Synagogue at Nazareth a passage out of ISAIAH, which passage of Isaiah, as reported by Luke, does not agree exactly eia ther with the hebrew or Septuagint; tells (1) us, that it seems most likely, that he read it out of some chaldee targum, that is, a chaldee paraphrafe or translation, which was
(b) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. T. p. 235. Montfaucon Differt. Prelim. ad Originis Hexapla. c. 4 (1) See Whiston's Ejay, p. 115, 118, 119. (k) Luke 4. (1) Prideaux's Connection; Vol. 2: p. $47. See Capelli Critica Sacra, P: 58; $9.
d'ead in the synagogue. And therefore no, argument can be urged, for the corruption of the hebreze or Septuagint by the Jews, from the citations of the apostles out of the Old Testament; not being exa&ly 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 apo stles 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 lost or not rank'd among the books of the Old Testament, which forg'd books the primitive christians received as facred in some degree from the Jews, and used them, and read them in their religious afsemblies. Of this Mr. W. was inform’d by the late learned Bishop LLOYD, who thus wrote to him. (m) Vigilius was one of those orthodox bishops, that were under the heavy persecution of those Arian kings of the Vandats about A. D. 500, and then did write
(m) Lloyd's Letter to W. apud W's Historical Pref. p. 34.
books against the reigning Berely ; whichi 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 calld the Wifdom of SOLOMON ; another call d the book of BARUCH ; whereof also a part is call’d the epistle of Jeremiah." I tannot commend them, that to conceal themselves used such arts ; but neverthelefs, their books were highly approv'd ; infomuch that they were read bv the hellenift 7ews in their synagogues, and to com ing into the christians hands, they were also read in christian churches, in and next after the apostles times. We have also an (12) 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 intituled Enoch the Patriarchs ; the prayer of JOSEPH; the testament of Moses's the assumption of MOSES; ABRAHAM ; ELDAD and MODAD, the pralms of SOLOMON ; the revelation of Elias'; the vision of ISATAH; the revelation of SOPHONIAH ; the revelation of ZACHARY ; and the re. L2
(n) See Authors cited in Grabe's Spiceleg: I. t: p. 1341
vclation of Esdras; and divers others bore the names of HabbacCuc, EZEKIEL, DANIEI, and other prophets.
Now ORIGEN, TERTULLIAN, EPIPHANius, Austin, and Georgius SYNCELLUS, who saw and read many of these forg'd books of the Jews, do (.) assure us, that the apostles took several of these quotations, in question, from them. And Origen in particular, makes the following apology for the apoItles citing these forg'd books. He says, (p) The apostles and evangelists, wbo were fill'd with the Holy Ghost, might knows what was fit to be cited out of those books, and what to be rejetted; 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 fource of some of the quotations, whereof I am now treating.
1. First, they might be taken from certain (pp) mystical paraphrases of the Jews, on the Old Testament ; which mystical paraphrafes were frequently interpolated into the text of the Old Testament 2. Or, secondly, they might be the
Grabe, Ib. p. 129- 140. to) Origines Prol. duar. Homil. in Cant. Cant. Opera Vol. 1. p. 501. Baf. 1577. & apud Grabe, Ibu
(PP) Āpad Dodwel's Life, p. 508.
sayings, or revelations of christian (9) prophets, who in the christian assemblies gave interpretations of things deliver'd in the Old Testament ; which being apprco'd by those, who had the discerning of Spirits, were presero'd, and known to be from God. 3. Or, thirdly, they might be cited (r) from writings, which were plainly taken for those of the old prophets, tho’ in truth they were not such, yet cited as theirs, because the persons who cited them kneze, that the persons to whom they wrote accounted them as such. By which Mr. Dodwel does not mean such forg'd writings of Jews as are abovemențion'd by me, but books compos'd by christians under jewish names ; and particularly under the name of Ezra or EsDRAS. Which practise of citing such authors continu'd, as he fays, in ufe in the church, till Melito had settled the canon of the old Teftament. This Melito who liv'd late in the second century, and was esteem'd a prophet himself, did, it seems, in order to fatisfy the curiosity of his brother ONESIMUS, (s) go into the east to be certainly informd of the books of the Old Testament ; and did
(9) For an account of which Prophets, see the Histor ry of Montanism, p. 87.
(r) Dodwel's Life, p. 510.