Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

manner of making citations fo as to ferve the purposes for which they were produc'd. And therefore with as great reason, many of the apoftolical citations may be fuppos'd ta ken from the Hebrew, as from the Septua gint.

IX,

That the means whereby Mr. WHISTON propofes to restore the true text of the Old Teftament in respect to citations made from thence in the New, will not reach that end.

TH

HE defign of Mr. WHISTON is to vindicate the citations made from the Old in the New Teftament; and particularly fuch, as now feem either wholly wanting in the Old Testament, or feem unaccurately cited, or seem not justly apply'd by the authors of the New Teftament; of all which fort of citations he gives us divers (≈) examples,

This difcordance between the Old and New Teftament, he attributes to the Jews, whom he charges with corrupting the Old Teftament in refpect to thofe citations, with

P 4

ext

(z) p. 281, 282. p. 88 109, 301-317, 3219, 326, 329.

express design to make the reasonings of the apostles appear groundless and impertinent.

To vindicate thefe citations he propofes to restore a true text of the Old Testament, as it stood in the days of Jesus and his apoftles (not the original text, which may have been (a) very different from that cited by the apostles); which true text is to manifest the truth and justness of the apostles citations and reafonings.

i

The (b) means, by which he proposes to reftore this true text, are, The Samaritan Pentateuch; the Greek pfalms, as attefted by the Roman pfalter; the prefent Hebrew text; the Jeveral Greek editions and manufcripts of the Septuagint verfion, with other tranflations anciently made from it; the old Syriac verfion made from the Hebrew, before the copies of the Hebrew. were fo corrupt as they now are; the Chaldee paraphrafes; the remains of the later Greek verfions, particularly those of AQUILA, THEODOTION, and SYMMACHUS; the antiquities of JOSEPHUS; the works of PHILO; the Apoftolick Conftitutions; the fathers and bereticks, who liv'd before, or not long after the days of ORIGEN; the Remains of the old italick or culgar

cer

(a) Simon Hift. Crit. da V. T. p. 424. (b) Whifton, p. 329, &c.

4

verfion; Hebrew copies, which have never come into the hands of the MASOretes, and Greek copies of the vulgar Septuagint verfion read in churches all the firft ages of chriftia. nity, or any parts of them; and, above all criticism (tho' he places it not among his means) whereby he propofes to alter fome paffages, and to change the places of others, which he fuppofes diflocated. Upon all which means I shall make the following obfervations.

1. As to all the prefent known Hebrew and Septuagint copies; they being themselves greatly corrupted, and particularly, as he fays, corrupted by the Jews with express design to confound the applications of the apoftolick citations from the Old Teftament; and their true text, with refpect to thofe corruptions being the thing propos'd to be reftor'd; the true text cannot be reftor'd by any of, or all, thofe copies.

2. The Chaldee Paraphrafes were, according to him, all (c) made for the fupport of the new hebrew (or corrupted) text, and for Securing its reception over all the world. And the later (d) Greek verfions plainly follow that Hebrew text, and were made, (e) as it were, on purpose

to

(c) p. 241, 242, 249.

(d) p. 267, 268.

(e) p. 233.

to eftablish and fpread the new corrected or corrupted Hebrew copies; and fome of them with (f) exprefs defign to oppose the Septuagint, which the apoftles and firft chriftians cited as favourable to chriftianity. So that these can no more restore a true text, than the Hebrew or Septuagint themfelves.

3. As to the Syriac verfion, the copies of it are lefs (g) exact, than the Hebrew text of the Jews, and the Greek verfion of the Septuagint And as to the remains of the old italick, or vulgate verfion; that was cited in a very (b) inexact manner by the Fathers, and was a verbal, barbarous, and unintelligible translation from the Septuagint, by an author, who understood no Hebrew was very different in different countries; and was corrected by JEROM chiefly from the (corrupt) Hebrew: from whence it fhould feem, that the remains of it, which have been collected, are not much to be depended on. But to invalidate both the beforemention'd and all other ancient tranflations; it is fufficient to obferve, that Mr. W. does not pretend from thence to render pertinent any citations made from the Old Teftament, which seem

(f) p. 241, 246, 247, 249.

t

(3) Simon Hift. Crit. du Vieux Teftam. p. 277. (b) p. 243, 244.

feem at prefent not pertinent, as they stand in the Old Teftament.

4. As to the Samaritan Pentateuch (whofe autority we have already particularly confider'd) and the Greek pfalms, as attefted by the Roman pfalter; they can affect very few important citations, and particularly but few of the prophetical citations. And as to the citations they do affect, it is fufficient to obferve, that the differences (i) between the Hebrew original or the Greek verfion of the Septuagint, and the New Teftament-citations, are but few, excepting in points of chronology, through the whole Pentateuch; and fill fewer in the pfalms of DAVID, as they now ftand in the Greek. So that in the Pentateuch we have commonly the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Septua gint; and in the Pfalms, the Septuagint, and the Roman Pfalter, agreeing in their readings Wherefore, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and Greek pfalms, as attefted by the Roman pfalter, cannot restore to us the true text, which Mr. W. contends for, in any important apoftolick citations, whereon the truth of christianity is grounded.

(i) Whifton, p. 300.

5. As

« ForrigeFortsæt »