Billeder på siden

Septuagint : and I can see no reason, why they are not restor'd to their place, but that, either the criticks think them fpurious, or that they serve no christian purpose, or that they think them both Spurious, and impertinent to any christian purpose.

2. As to the second paffage (i) of Justin, wherein a quotation is made from ZACHARY, a great part, if not the wholt, of which is, according to Mr. (k) W. now dropped both in the Hebrew and Septuagint ; I answer, that this passage is not cited any where in the New Testament ; that it might be taken out of fome apocryphal book attributed to ZACHARY ; that JUSTIN does not fay it is left out of ZACHARY ; and that the citation, if taken from ZACHARY, seems to be accounted for by a learned person (1) in a note thereon, viz. that the citation consists of various passages out of the prophet ZACHARY, as they occurr'd to the memory of Justin, and the sense and not the express words fet down by him; which way of citation seems the common (m) method of the fathers, and makes it very absurd to pretend from thence, that the bible is cor


(1) Justin Apol. 1. %. 67.
(k) Whifton's Ejay, p. 144.
(1) Reeves's Juftin's Apology, p. 92.
Şee Thirlby in locum, & alibi in notis.
(mm) See Reeves, Ib. p. 38.

rupted, and that it ought to be corrected by their citations.

6. Sixthly, Mr.W. (n) charges the Jews with introducing into their copies a grofs and groundless alteration into the 22d Pfalm, which, he says, is one of the most eminent prophesies concerning the sufferings and passion of the Messias, that is in all the Old Testament. Instead of c) they pierc'd my hands and my feet, the Jews read, as a Lion my hands and my feet. But in this matter (é) there seems to be only a various reading of the Hebrew, and no manner of design to make any alteration of the text. For the Jews, tho they have generally put the reading, As A Lyon into the text (which reading of the MASORETES (9) Grotius thinks defensible) yet they have left the reading, They PIERCED, in the text of a fer copies, and in the margin of many other copies ; and they have continu'd the reading THEY PIERCED in all copies of the Septuagint, which yet Mr.


(n) Whiston's Ejay, p. 78. Po) Psalm 22. 16.

) See Clavis Scrip. Hottingeri, p.191Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. p. 229. Id. Bib. Crit. tom. 3. p. 481- 488. Whifton, Ib. p. 79. (o) Grosius in locum.

W. (r) pretends they have throughout corrupted to serve their purposes.

So that there is not the least colour of proof, that the Jews have corrupted any passages of the Old Testament, which can be apply'd to matters of christianity; much less any passages cited from thence by the apostles ; but on the contrary, it seems plain by the few instances of Justin MARTYR to support his charge of corruption against the Jews, that the christians had so careful an eye upon the Old Testament in respect to all passages, which could be strain'd so as to feem to allude to christianity (for of such only do the passages produc'd by Justin (s) consist, notwithstanding he says, that they exprefly declare, that Jesus, who was crucify'd, was God and man, and was to be crucify'd and dye); that it was impossible for the Jews to make any alteration either in the Hebrew or Septuagint, without being found out and detected by the christians. Christians (t) themselves were absolute security against such corruptions of the Jews. Some others indeed of the fathers as well as Justin MARTYR did charge the Jews with ma


(r) Whiston, Ib. p.78.
(s) Fuffin apud Whifton's Ejay, p. 140.
(1) Auguft. De Civit, Dei, 1. 15. c. 14.

liciously corrupting the scripture to the prejudice. of christianity: but ORIGEN, JEROM, Austin, and other fathers, vindicated (u) them from that charge; as have done divers learned (w) moderns, who contend, that those fathers who charg'd the Jews with maliciously falsifying the Old Testament were mistaken in that matter, by laying too great a stress on the Septuagint, which was a very faulty copy and translation, and by imagining, that the Jews produc'd corrupted Scripture, when in their controversies with christians, they produc'd either the original Hebrew, or the (x) accurate and pure version of Aquila, in opposition to the Septuagint.

The Jews were so little dispos'd to corrupt the Old Testament in respect of the passages cited from thence, or capable of


(w) Simon Hift. Crit. du V. Teft. p.6.
Pezron Defence de l'Antiquite des Tems, p. 133.
Capell. Critica Sacra, p. 2, &c.
(w) Grabe De Vitiis Sept. Interp. p. 34.
Clerici Hift. Ecelef. p. 525 527.
Martianey. Defence du Texte Hebreu,
Simon Ib. p. 102- 104.
Capellus Ib. p. 2, 3.
Rivet. N. Fuller. Glaffus.
Dupin, Hortenger, &c.

(x) ORIGEN in Cantica. Ib. Epift. ad AFRICANUM, p. 224,

Hieron. Epift. ad Marcellam, Tom... Col. 709, Ib. Epiftola ad Damalumo

being made use of, in behalf of christianity; that AQUILA himself, tho' a Jew and a great enemy to christianity, cannot be juftly charg'd with translating unfaithfully any one passage conceiv'd to have relation to christianity, as is prov'd by MONTFAUCON, (y) who shews the weak arguing of all those fathers, who charg'd AQUILA with such unfaithfulness, in respect to all the passages on which they grounded their charge ; that (Z) JEROM, who had ORIGEN'S Hexapla before him, when he made his latin translation, generally preferr'd the sense of AQUILA and SYMMACHus, as being better interpreters than the seventy, tho' both Jews, and translators after the rise of christianity; and that (a) AQUILA, THEODOTIon, and SYMMACHUS, translate the famous passage of Hosea which St. MATTHEW applies to Christ's coming out of Egypt, exactly as St. MATTHEW does, not imitating the translation of the Septuagint, which gives no literal ground for St. Matthew's application of it in the manner he does. And indeed I cannot imagine, why the Jews of any understanding or common sense, should have endeavour'd the alteration of any such


(y) Montfaucon, Prælim. ad Origenis Hexapla. c. so (2) Ib. c. 6. & 8. (a) Whifton's Ejay, p. 90.

« ForrigeFortsæt »