Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

cian myfteries, he did accommodate it to the writings of the Jews:

That JuLIAN did attack (m) the apostles for mifapplying paffages of the prophets, and applying them to Jesus:

That FAUSTUS, the Manichæan, not only fpeaks (n) of divers particular quotations from the Old Teftament, as unfaithfully made and urg'd in the New Teftament, because not literally made and urg'd, and therefore charges the New Testament (0) with corruption, as Mr. WHISTON does the Old :

And that St. AUSTIN, who was not inferior in allegorical interpretations to ORIGEN himfelf, and who had the fame Old Teftament we now have (which Mr. W. fuppofes corrupted) and who contended that the Jews never (p) corrupted the Old Teftament, tells us, how effectual that was for the conviction both of Jews and Pagans in thefe (q) words. Propterea Judai adhuc funt, ut libros noftros portent in confufionem fuam. Quando enim volumus oftendere, Chriftum effe prophetatum, pro

(m) Julian apud Cyril, 1. 8. p. 253, 261, 262.
Grotius in Matt. 1. 22.

(n) Fauftus apud August. contra Faustum, l. 3. c. 1. ↳ 16. c. 2. l. 18. c. 3. 1. 1. 32. c. I.

(o) Ib. 1. 12. c. I.

(P) Auguftin. de civ. dei, 1. 15. c. 13.

(9) Auguftin. in Pfalm 56.

proferimus Ethnicis iftas literas: & ne fortè illi duri ad fidem ducant, nos Chriftianos illos compoffuiffe libros, & una cum Evangelio confinxiffe, binc illos convincimus, quod omnes illa litera, quibus CHRISTUS prophetatus eft apud Judæos funt. Proferimus ergo codices ab inimicis Judais, ut confundamus inimicos infideles. Codicem portat Fudaus, unde credat chriftianus:

And that therefore the truth feems to be what a very learned man (r) afferts, that the apostles in their writings, as well as Jesus CHRIST in bis difcourfes, cited the texts of the Old Teftament according to the commonly receiv'd fenfe of the fynagogue; and that the autority of thefe proofs in that receiv'd fenfe, did not a little contribute to the con verfion both of Jews and Gentiles. Which thought Mr. W. (s) himself seems to fear may be true, when he fays, He affuredly HOPES the difficulties themselves (that is, the incoherency of the New on the Old Teftament) were not GENERALLY in being in the first century.

..

J

Laftly, Mr. W. (t) argues from the apofto lick citations of the first century out of the Pentateuch

(r) Allix's Judgment of the Jewish Church against the

Unit. p. 40.

(s) Whifton's Esay, p. 264, &c.

(t) Whifton's Essay, p. 16.

Pentateuch and Pfalms; out of the firft, as agreeing to the Samaritan Pentateuch; which he calls the original hebrew; out of the latter, as agreeing almost exactly to the Septuagint verfion of the Pfaims, as attefted by the Roman pfalter. From whence he infers, that fince the Samaritan Pentateuch and Greek pfalms do fo nicely answer the citations of the first century, it is next to demonftration, that, the vulgar Hebrew and Septuagint did then anfwer the one to the other. But grant→ ing, that the apoftolical citations agreeing to the Samaritan Pentateuch and Greek Pfalms demonftrate an agreement fo far between the Hebrew and Septuagint; how is it demonstrated from thence, that there was an agreement between the Hebrew and Septuagint in refpect to paffages not cited by the apostles, or to the books of the prophets, which are the books of the Old Testament, whofe agreement in both copies we are chiefly concern'd to know in the prefent argument? Befides, the criticks pretend; that (u) the Pentateuch (of the Septuagint verfion) was tranflated long before the other books of the Old Teftament, and by different hands; and that the latter N books

(u) Whifton, Ib. p. 113.

books were not near fo well tranflated as the Pentateuch. And it is now (w) known, that long before the days of ORIGEN the Septuagint verfions of EZEKIEL and DANIEL were laid afide and loft, and other verfions substituted in their stead, and that the verfion of EZEKIEL in particular was fo much better done than the Septuagint verfions of the other books, that JEROM, who took that verfion to be done by the Seventy, was furpriz'd, bow it came to pass, that it agreed so much better with the Hebrew than most of the other books of the Old Testament.

As thefe general topicks of Mr. W. seem of very little force, fo they ought to be deem'd of no force, when it is confider'd that the Jews themselves had (x) a tradition, that thirteen paffages of MOSES were with defign falfely tranflated by the Seventy; that many ancient Jews, and efpecially the (y) Ferufalem Jews, feem to have been far from concurring with the (z) Alexandrian Jews, who as they were the tranflators, fo they feem the chief applauders of the Septuagint tranflation; that the

ancient's

(w) Whifton, Ib. p. 113.

(x) Uferii De Edit. Sept. Int. p. 11.
(y) Lightfoot's Works, Vol. 1. p. 488.
(z) Hody De Text. 1. 3.

2

ancients give an account of great (a) omif fions and additions, which were all noted in ORIGEN'S Hexapla; that there is now in fact a great difagreement between the preTent Hebrew and Septuagint; and that to af Tert an ancient agreement is (b) new and contrary to the general belief of the learn ed, both in the prefent and past ages: but efpecially when fuch agreement feems fo contrary to undeniable matter of fact: for by the meer comparing of the Hebrew and Septuagint together, notwithstanding the changes either or both of them may be fuppos'd to have receiv'd, it will appear to be (c) an ill verfion of a very hard book, and must be allow'd by thofe who can judge of it, to be far from being exact and true; and should any body now adays make a verfion fo imperfect, inftead of admiration and esteem, his work would be much defpis'd by the modern criticks. Let any

one compare (d) the citations out of the N 2

Sep

(a) Simon Hift. Crit. du Vieux Teftam. p. 103. Montfaucon Differt. Prelim. ad Origenis Hexapla, c.ǝt,

& 4.

See Origen. Hom. 12. in Jerem.

Hieron. in c. 17. Jerem.

(b) Whifton, Ib. p. 3.

(c) Hare's Difficulties and Difcouragements, p. 6:

See also Capelli Quæftio de Parallel. §. 7.

(d) See Le Glere Bib. Univ. Tom. 22. p. 478.

« ForrigeFortsæt »