Does the Masoretic Text Preserve the Original Hebrew Manuscripts?

Work in progress. This page is a growing collection of primary and secondary sources bearing on the question of whether the Masoretic Text preserves the original Hebrew. I’ll keep adding and organizing sources as I find them.

Claims That the MT Was Intentionally Corrupted

Justin (martyr), Origen, Chrysostom, the pseudo Athanasius, Tertullian, Jerome and others accused the Jews of corrupting the Scriptures.*

Martianay, Nicolas of Lyra, Paul of Burgos, Salmeron, Melchior Canus, Morini, and others also have laid this accusation upon them.†

* S. Iustin. c. Tryph. 71, 72, etc. (M. 6, 644); S. Iren. c. hær. III. 21; IV. 12 (M. 7, 946, 1004); Origen. Ep. ad Afric. 9; in Ierem. hom. 16. 10 (M. 12, 65 sqq.; 13, 449 sqq.); S. Chrys. in Matth. hom. 5, 2 (M. 57); Ps. Athan. Synops. S.S. 78 (in textu latino tantum; M. 28, 438); Tertull. de cultu fem. I. 3 (M. 1, 1308); S. Hier. in Gal. 3, 10 (M. 26, 357).

† Raym. Mart. Pug. fid. II. 3, 9 p. 277; Lyran. et Paulus Burg. in Os. 9; Salmer. Proleg. 4; Cani Loci theol. II. 13; Morin. Exercit. bibl. I. 1, 2 p. 7 sqq. eorum et aliorum multorum testimonia recitat.

J. Martyr, Dialog with Trypho [100–150]

Chapter 71

‘I certainly do not trust your teachers when they refuse to admit that the translation of the Scriptures made by the seventy elders at the court of King Ptolemy of Egypt is a correct one, and attempt to make their own translation.¹ You should also know that they have deleted entire passages from the version composed by those elders at the court of Ptolemy, in which it is clearly indicated that the Crucified One was foretold as God and man, and as about to suffer death on the cross. But, since I know that all you Jews deny the authenticity of these passages, I will not start a discussion p 263 about them, but I will limit the controversy to those passages which you admit as genuine. Thus far, you have admitted the authenticity of all my quotations, except this, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive,” which you claim reads, “Behold, a young woman shall conceive.” And I promised to show that this prophecy was not spoken of Hezekiah, as you were taught, but of my Christ. This I now intend to prove.’

‘Before you do,’ interrupted Trypho, ‘we would like you to quote some of the passages you claim were entirely omitted [from the elders’ translation].’

Chapter 72

‘Since you asked,’ I replied, ‘here is an example. They have deleted the following passage in which Esdras expounded the law of the Passover: “And Esdras said to the people: This Passover is our Savior and refuge. And if you have understood, and it has entered into your hearts, that we are about to humiliate Him on a cross, and afterwards hope in Him, then this place will never be forsaken, saith the Lord of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, nor listen to His teaching, you shall be the laughing-stock of the Gentiles.”¹ They have also expunged these words from Jeremias: “I was as a meek lamb that is carried to be a sacrificial victim; they devised counsels against Me, saying: Come, let us put wood on His bread, and cut Him off from the land of the living, and let His name be remembered no more.”² Since this passage from the words of Jeremias is still found in some copies of Scripture in the Jewish synagogues (for it was deleted only a short time ago), and since it is also proved from these words that the Jews planned to crucify Christ Himself and to slay p 264 Him, and since He is shown, as was likewise prophesied by Isaias, as led like a lamb to slaughter, and in accordance with this passage He is marked as “an innocent lamb,” they are so confused by such words that they resort to blasphemy. Similarly have they removed the following words from the writings of the same Jeremias: “The Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, remembered His dead that slept in their graves, and He descended to preach to them His salvation.” ’³

Chapter 73

‘Furthermore, from a verse of the ninety-fifth Psalm of David they have left out the short phrase, “from the tree.”¹ For they have changed the verse, “Say ye to the Gentiles: The Lord hath reigned from the tree,’ to “Say ye to the Gentiles: The Lord hath reigned.” Now, no one of your people was ever said to have reigned as God and King over the Gentiles, except the Crucified One, who (as the Holy Spirit testifies in the same Psalm) was freed from death by His resurrection, and thus showed that He is not like gods of the Gentiles, for they are but the idols of demons. To clarify this point, I will repeat the whole Psalm for you. It is as follows: “Sing ye to the Lord a new canticle; sing to the Lord, all the earth. Sing ye to the Lord and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the Gentiles; His wonders among all people. p 265 For the Lord is great, and exceedingly to be praised; He is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils; but the Lord made the heavens. Praise and beauty are before Him; holiness and majesty in His sanctuary. Bring ye to the Lord, O ye kindreds of the Gentiles, bring ye to the Lord glory and honor, bring to the Lord glory unto His name. Bring up sacrifices, and come unto His courts. Adore ye the Lord in His holy court. Let all the earth be moved at His presence. Say ye among the Gentiles, the Lord hath reigned [from the tree].² For he hath established the world, which shall not be moved; He will judge the people with justice. Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad. Let the sea be moved, and the fullness thereof. The fields and all things that are in them shall be joyful. Then all the trees of the woods rejoice before the face of the Lord, because He cometh; because He cometh to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with justice, and the people with His truth.” ‘³

‘Only God knows,’ remarked Trypho, ‘whether or not our leaders have deleted portions of the Scriptures as you say. But such an assertion seems incredible.’

‘Yes,’ I agreed, ‘it does seem incredible. For it is more dreadful than the erecting of the golden calf (which they made while still satiated with the manna that fell to earth), and more revolting than the sacrifice of their children to demons, or the slaughter of the Prophets. You, indeed, appear not to have even heard of the Scriptures which I said they had mutilated. But the many passages which I have already cited, together with those which you have preserved, and which are still to be quoted are more than enough to prove the points at issue.’

¹ Perhaps of certain passages only, not their own translation of the whole Old Testament.

¹ The origin of this passage is unknown. Lactantius cites it in Latin in his Inst. div. 4.18.

² Jer. 11:19.

³ This passage is not found in the Sacred Text. However, Irenaeus quotes it (Adv. haereses 3, 20) and attributes it to Isaias, but in Adv. haereses 4, 22 and in his Preaching 78, he ascribes the words to Jeremias.

¹ Ps. 95:10. The words, ‘from the tree,’ (i.e., the cross), are commonly quoted by the Latin Fathers. They are not found in the Septuagint (except in one Greek MS.), nor in the Hebrew. Cf. 1 Apol. 41.4, and the Latin hymn, Vexilla Regis, written by Fortunatus at close of sixth century.

² To prove his point, St. Justin must have inserted the words from the tree, but the copyists probably omitted them.

³ Ps. 95:1–11.

Thomas B. Falls with Justin Martyr, The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy or The Rule of God, vol. 6, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1948), 262–265.

J. Calvin, “Psalm 22:16” in Commentary on the Book of Psalms [1557]

16. They have pierced my hands and my feet. The original word, which we have translated they have pierced, is כארי, caäri, which literally rendered is, like a lion. As all the Hebrew Bibles at this day, without exception, have this reading, I would have had great hesitation in departing from a reading which they all support, were it not that the scope of the discourse compels me to do so, and were there not strong grounds for conjecturing that this passage has been fraudulently corrupted by the Jews. With respect to the Septuagint version, there is no doubt that the translators had read in the Hebrew text, כארו, caäru, that is the letter ו, vau, where there is now the letter י, yod.¹ The Jews prate much about the literal sense being purposely and deliberately overthrown, V 1, p 374 by our rendering the original word by they have pierced: but for this allegation there is no colour of truth whatever. What need was there to trifle so presumptuously in a matter where it was altogether unnecessary? Very great suspicion of falsehood, however, attaches to them, seeing it is the uppermost desire of their hearts to despoil the crucified Jesus of his escutcheons, and to divest him of his character as the Messiah and Redeemer. If we receive this reading as they would have us to do, the sense will be enveloped in marvellous obscurity. In the first place, it will be a defective form of expression; and to complete it, they say it is necessary to supply the verb to surround or to beset. But what do they mean by besetting the hands and the feet? Besetting belongs no more to these parts of the human body than to the whole man. The absurdity of this argument being discovered, they have recourse to the most ridiculous old wives’ fables, according to their usual way, saying, that the lion, when he meets any man in his road, makes a circle with his tail before rushing upon his prey: from which it is abundantly evident that they are at a loss for arguments to support their view.

Again, since David, in the preceding verse, has used the similitude of a lion, the repetition of it in this verse would be superfluous. I forbear insisting upon what some of our expositors have observed, namely, that this noun, when it has prefixed to it the letter כ, caph, which signifies as, the word denoting similitude, has commonly other points than those which are employed in this passage. My object, however, is not here to labour to convince the Jews who in controversy are in the highest degree obstinate and opinionative. I only intend briefly to show how wickedly they endeavour to perplex Christians on account of the different reading which occurs in this place. When they object, that by the appointment of the law no man was fastened with nails to a cross, they betray in this their gross ignorance V 1, p 375 of history, since it is certain that the Romans introduced many of their own customs and manners into the provinces which they had conquered. If they object that David was never nailed to a cross, the answer is easy, namely, that in bewailing his condition, he has made use of a similitude, declaring that he was not less afflicted by his enemies than the man who is suspended on a cross, having his hands and feet pierced through with nails. We will meet a little after with more of the same kind of metaphors.

¹ This word has created much discussion. In the Hebrew Bible, the kethib or textual reading is, כארי, caäri, like a lion; the keri, or marginal reading, is כארו, caäru, “they pierced,” from כרה, carah, to cut, dig, or pierce. Both readings are supported by MSS. There is, however, no ground to doubt that the genuine reading is, כארו, caäru. As the Septuagint here reads ωρυξαν, they pierced, the translators, doubtless, considered that the correct reading of the Hebrew text was כארו, caäru. The Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and Æthiopic, give a similar rendering. All the Evangelists also quote and apply the passage to the crucifixion of Christ. Besides, the other reading, כארי, caäri, as a lion, renders the passage unintelligible. The Chaldee version has combined both the ideas of pierced and as a lion, reading, “Biting, as a lion, my hands and my feet.” Our author supposes that the text has been fraudulently corrupted by the Jews, who have intentionally changed כארו, caäru, into כארי, caäri. But there is no necessity for supposing that there has been any fraud in the case. In the process of transcription, the change might have been made unintentionally, by the substitution of the letter י, yod, for the letter ו, vau, which it so nearly resembles. Walford observes, “that the present reading [כארי, caäri] is quite satisfactory, if it be taken as a participle plural in regim., and be translated, ‘Wounders of my hands and my feet.’ ”

John Calvin, “Psalm 22:16,” in Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, trans. James Anderson (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 373–375.

J. Porter, Principles of Textual Criticism [1848]

It was, at one time, a very common opinion, that the Jews had wilfully corrupted the text of their sacred books in many places, in order to deprive Christians of the advantage which they might derive from the arguments drawn from ancient prophecy; but recent authors have almost entirely abandoned this charge. It is, indeed, not to be denied that many of the passages formerly relied on as proofs of the accusation are found, when minutely examined, to lend it no support, the readings objected to as spurious being, in some cases, manifestly and undoubtedly authentic; in others, well supported; and in many not less favourable to the Christian doctrine than those for which they were supposed to have been fraudulently substituted. The charge of general corruption, therefore, must fall to the ground: but there are yet manifest proofs that particular passages have, in some MSS. been tampered with; or at least that, in them, readings have been systematically preferred which seemed unfavourable to Christianity. Of this, Psalm 22:17 (Heb.) affords an example. There is no doubt, from the testimony of the ancient versions, as well as from the sense of the passage, that the true p 37 reading of the last clause of this verse is כּרו ידי ורגלי׃; which is rendered in our English version, “they pierced (i. e. tore or wounded,) my hands and my feet;” this reading is found in some MSS. as above given, and in several others with a slight change in the first word, which is written כּארו, by the insertion of one of the matres lectionis. The vast majority, however, of the Jewish MSS. and editions read, instead of כּרו or כּארו “they pierced,” כּארי or כּאריה “as a lion,” which makes nonsense of the clause, and even contradicts the Masorah, the rule by which they profess to be guided; for that document directs, that in this place כּארו shall be inserted in the text; כּארי in the margin. It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that party zeal may have influenced these copyists. They must have known that the Christians—whether correctly or not is nothing to the present question—regarded this clause as prophetically descriptive of the suffering Messiah; and, no doubt, they were prone to adopt any various reading by which the force of their opponents’ argument could be effectually turned aside. In this instance, therefore, we prefer the reading כּרו or כּארו, “they pierced,” because it is supported by some respectable authorities, and because it is least favourable to the party to which the transcribers of the Hebrew MSS. belonged.

J. Scott Porter, Principles of Textual Criticism (London: Simms and M’Intyre, 1848), 36–37.

H. Riggle, A Dead Falsehood Resurrected [1899]

It is very commonly believed among the people that this world will stand just six thousand years, and that the seventh thousand will be a Millennial Sabbath. They say that as God worked six days in creating all things, and rested the seventh, so man shall work upon earth just six thousand years, and the seventh thousand will be the Millennial rest-day; since “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Some teach that the one is typical of the other. This same doctrine was taught by false teachers in the second and third centuries, as will be shown further on in this chapter. We shall show that it is false; for according to the true chronology we are already 400 years in the eighth thousand, with the seventh thousand past. This is an important point, which we shall take considerable space to prove. We appeal to the apostolic Bible, known as the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. It will first be necessary to give evidence that the Septuagint version was the early Christians’ Bible. For the benefit of the reader we shall give considerable space to establish this fact.

*I.—HISTORY ON THE SEPTUAGINT, OR THE LXX.

The Septuagint is the oldest version of the Old Testament in the Greek language. By many authors it is affirmed to be the oldest in any language. According to the testimony of ancient historians, Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, the founder of the great Alexandrian library, hearing that the Jews possessed in their language some important books, resolved to have them translated into the Greek tongue, to be deposited in said library. So he sent messengers to the high priest at Jerusalem, requesting him to send him Hebrew scholars who were acquainted with both the Hebrew and the Greek languages, to translate the sacred writings of the Jews into Greek. Eleazar, who was high priest at that time, sent him seventy-two scholars (six out of each tribe) with a copy of the sacred writings, who completed the translation, according to Josephus, in seventy-two days. This translation has been named Septuagint, an abbreviation of the Latin word septuaginta, because there were seventy (literally seventy-two) scholars engaged in its translation. English-speaking people translate this name and call it the translation of the Seventy, and indicate it in writing by the Roman numerals LXX.

The translation of the LXX was held by the Jews to be inspired, as may be seen in the writings of Philo, who lived contemporary with Josephus. See Philo’s “Life of Moses,” Book II., pp. 5, 6, and 7. The fact p 185 that the LXX was adopted by the Jews throughout the world as the standard Bible, and that it was read in their synagogues even in Palestine, and that its correctness was never questioned by the Jews for more than three hundred years, proves that it is not the erroneous production modern critics have supposed it to be.

The early Christian church also held the LXX to be an inspired translation, according to the writings of all the early Fathers. They say concerning the translators of the LXX, that the Egyptian king placed each of the translators in separate booths, and that each completed the translation of the entire Old Testament, and that a comparison showed their translations to be verbatim throughout. This account is given in the following works: Justin Martyr, “Hortatory Address to the Greeks,” Chap. XIII; Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” Book III. Chap. 22; Clement of Alexandria, “Stromata, or Miscellanies,” Book I. Chap. 22; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., Book V. Chap. 8. Justin Martyr says this account is contained in the writings of Josephus, Philo, and many others. In fact, Philo does seem to confirm this account. He makes no mention of the seventy booths, but he does seem to say that the translators worked separately, as the following words of his will show: “They, like men inspired, prophesied, not one saying one thing and another another, but every one of them employed the selfsame nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested p 186 all their language to them. And yet who is there who does not know that every language, and the Greek language above all others, is rich in a variety of words and that it is possible to paraphrase the same idea, so as to set it forth in a great variety of manners, adapting many different forms of expression to it at different times?” I am unable to understand this Jewish author if he is not here confirming the testimony of the early Christian writers that the Philadelphus translators executed their work separately and afterwards compared their versions. So it seems that this wonderful incident is confirmed by both Jewish and Christian writers. Justin Martyr says concerning this incident: “These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and have heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as a part of their country’s tradition.” If this testimony be true, the story of the seventy translators is established. If it be untrue, Justin is not the faithful martyr (witness) of Christ Christians have ever held him to be, but a liar, a deceiver, and a hypocrite.

This story is universally disbelieved by the sectarian critics of to-day, but it was just as universally believed in the morning light age. To me it seems highly probable that the version of the LXX was made in the miraculous manner above described, since it was destined to be the version by which the life and char p 187 acter of the Savior was to be proved, and upon which the New Testament was to be established.

As the Greek language was the prevailing language of the world for some time prior to the corning of Christ, it forced its way even into Palestine, where it had supplanted the Hebrew tongue. That the common people of the Jews in the time of Christ no longer understood the Hebrew, may be proved even by the New Testament. When the Lord hung upon the cross he cried, “Eli! Eli! lama sabachthani?”—Matt. 27:46. “Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.”— Matt. 27:47–49. Jesus had not called for Elias as they thought, but cried, “My God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me?”—Mark 15:34. He had spoken in the Hebrew tongue, and the people who knew only the Greek language did not understand him. As the Greek language was the prevailing language of the Jews when the Savior appeared, the LXX, being the only Greek version of the Holy Scriptures, had become their standard Bible; hence it was from this version that our Savior and his apostles preached. It was from this version that the writers of the New Testament derived their quotations from the Old Testament.

In the latter part of the first century a prejudice p 188 arose among the Jews against the LXX, because it way the Christians’ Bible, which resulted in the fixing of a standard Hebrew text by the Jewish Rabbis. See “Septuagint,” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Akiba, who was chief teacher in the Rabbinical school at Jaffa near the close of the first century, is said to have been the leader of that movement. Just what the fixing of a standard Hebrew text by such “whited sepulchers” as they who swore away the life of the innocent Son of God would be, is a field of conjecture. We would suppose that they would corrupt rather than correct the scriptures. It is to this fixing of a standard (perverted) Hebrew text that the wide difference between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures is to be attributed, rather than to errors of the translators of the LXX, as the critics of Babylon would have it. The LXX could not have been an erroneous translation or the Rabbis would have condemned it and would not have suffered it to have continued in use among the Jews for nearly four hundred years.

Tertullian, who lived at the close of the second century, says that the Hebrew originals from which the LXX was translated were preserved in the Alexandrian library down to his time. His words are: “To this day at the temple of Serepis, the libraries of Ptolemy are to be seen, with the identical Hebrew originals in them.”—Apology, Chap. XVIII. If this be true, the apostolic Bible stood upon better footing than many suppose. The Hebrew originals proved the correctness p 189 of the LXX, and confirmed the oft repeated charge of the church Fathers upon the Rabbis, of corrupting the word of God. But as the Jews had fixed a standard Hebrew text, they would of course reject those Alexandrian manuscripts.

Josephus and Philo, Jewish historians of the first century, often quote the Old Testament, and their quotations always harmonize with the LXX; hence it is inferred that they used only this version. This, however, is questionable, especially in the case of Josephus. In his book entitled “Antiquities of the Jews,” he records the age of the world as it now stands in the LXX; but this should not be regarded as a proof that he used the LXX only, because he says in another work: “Those antiquities contain the history of five thousand years, and are taken out of our sacred books, but are translated by me into the Greek tongue.”—Josephus Against Apion, Bk I. p. 1. If Josephus translated from the Hebrew a chronology of 5,000 years B. C., it is evident that he used a text which corresponded with the LXX. This is an astounding proof that the Hebrew has been corrupted. The text that was used by the ancient Samaritans is still extant. Ditto says it harmonizes with the LXX in more than a thousand places where they differ from the Hebrew. See Encyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. This is another strong proof that the Hebrew has been corrupted.

The best of all the proofs that the LXX is a genuine translation is the sanction it received from the inspira p 190 tion of the first century. Christ and his apostles adopted it without uttering a single word about it containing errors. How could any believer indulge in the impious thought that if it contained errors our Savior would not have known it, and would not have discarded it? To imbibe such an idea would be a denial of his infallibility. The use of the LXX by the apostolic church could not be better described in few words than with the words of Schaff in his Bible dictionary. “The LXX has exerted great influence, was claimed by the Jews to be inspired, was in universal use among them in Christ’s day, is continually quoted by the New Testament writers, and by the Greek Fathers.” There is nothing in this statement that is not to this day universally believed.

After the Rabbis had fixed their standard Hebrew text they discarded the LXX entirely, which thenceforth became known as the Christians’ Bible, and it continued to be universally received by them for several hundred years. When the rapid spread of Christianity necessitated the translation of the scriptures into the various languages, the LXX was the standard from which those translations were made. The Arabic, the Ethiopic, the Armenian, the Gothic, the Illyrican, and all the ancient Latin versions were made from the LXX or from a Hebrew text corresponding with it. The LXX was the only Greek version of the Old Testament before the time of Aquila, a Jew, and an apostate from Christianity, who in A. D. 128 for the purpose of p 191 doing injury to the Christians’ Bible made a translation into Greek from the Jews’ Bible. Later in the century two other Greek versions were made from the Jews’ Hebrew text by Theodotion and Symmachus, two heretics of the Ebionite persuasion, who made their translation for the same purpose that Aquila had made his. But the morning light of the gospel age shone so brightly at that date that these versions could not supplant the LXX. A version also from the Jews’ Bible was made into the Syriac language, but it was never universally received, even among the Syrians, forasmuch as there were other versions made in the same language from the LXX.

Soon after the days of the apostles the Latin language, which was the language of the Roman empire, became the prevailing language of the world; hence many versions of the scriptures were made into the Latin tongue, but in the first four centuries they were without exception made from the LXX. Jerome, about A. D. 400, was the first to translate the Jews’ corrupted Hebrew into Latin. Augustine, who lived in the time of Jerome, sharply censured him for making the translation, which was at first rejected by the Christians: but as the darkness of the apostasy increased, it finally supplanted the LXX in Roman Catholicism. The Council of Trent (A. D. 1545) declared it canonical. Since that time it has been the standard Bible of the Romanists, which they call the Vulgate. The Papal Bibles in all languages are either translated or cor p 192 rupted from this text, while the Protestant Bibles are translated directly from the corrupted Hebrew Bible of the Jews.

To the everlasting praise of the Greek Catholics, we would say in conclusion, they have never given up the true Christian Bible, but to this day it is their only Bible. They have not defiled their hands by acting as accomplices in the crime of changing of laws (Bibles) which Daniel prophesied should take place under the dominion of the little horn (Popery). Dan. 7:25.

II.—INTERNAL EVIDENCES.

Internal evidences are the best proofs that the LXX was the Bible of the apostolic church. The quotations of the New Testament are taken from it. It is not saying too much to say that the New Testament is founded upon it. There is a marvelous similarity between the quotations of the New Testament and the LXX, even where they differ widely from the common version.

1. New Testament.— “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.”—Rom. 3:10–18.

2. LXX— “There is none that doeth goodness, there is not even so much as one. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there were any that understood, or sought after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace p 193 they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.”—Ps. 14:1–3.

3. Common Version— “They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”—Ps. 14:1–3.

1. New Testament.— “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: in his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? For his life is taken from the earth.”—Acts 8:32–33. p 194

2. LXX.— “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.”—Isa. 53:7–8.

3. Common Version.— “He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living.”—Isa. 53:7–8.

1. New Testament— “When he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”—Heb. 1:6.

2. LXX— “Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice unto his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.”—Deut. 32:43.

3. Common Version.— “Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people; for he will avenge the, blood of his servants, and will render vengeance unto his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.”—Deut. 32:43.

1. New Testament.— “Wherefore when he cometh p 195 into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me.”—Heb. 10:5.

2. LXX— “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole burnt offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.”—Ps. 40:6.

3. Common Version.— “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin-offering hast thou not required.”—Ps. 40:6.

1. New Testament.— “For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.”—Heb. 10:37–38.

2. LXX.— “Though he should tarry, wait for him; for he will surely come, and will not tarry. If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: but the just shall live by my faith.”—Hab. 2:3–4.

3. Common Version.— “Though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by faith.”—Hab. 2:3–4.

These are but specimens of the many quotations in the New Testament which are evidently from the LXX. The early Christian writers unanimously affirm that the New Testament writers always quoted from the LXX. Christians must accept the LXX as the p 196 true Old Testament, or they can not sustain the inspiration of the New Testament; for many of its arguments are based upon readings that are found only in the LXX. There are a great many quotations in the New Testament from the LXX that are not generally considered quotations. We will give an example or two.

1. New Testament.— “Be ye angry and sin not.”—Eph. 4:26.

2. LXX.— “Be ye angry, and sin not.”—Ps. 4:4.

3. Common Version.— “Stand in awe, and sin not.”—Ps. 4:4.

1. New Testament.— “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.”—1 Pet. 2:9.

2. LXX.— “If ye will indeed hear my voice, and if thou wilt do all the things that I shall charge thee with, and keep my covenant, ye shall be to me a peculiar people above all nations, for the whole earth is mine; and ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shall ye speak to the children of Israel: If ye shall indeed hear my voice, and do all the things which I shall teach thee, I will be an enemy to thine enemies, and an adversary to thine adversaries.”—Ex. 23:22.

3. Common Version.— “But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak: then I will be an enemy to thine enemies, and an adversary to thine adversaries.”—Ex. 23:22.

Besides the quotations, a great proof that the LXX p 197 is the apostolic Bible lies in a comparison of the language with which incidents of the Old Testament are recorded in the New. In Heb. 11:5 we read, “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” By reading of Enoch in the translation of the LXX we are driven to the conclusion that Paul drew from it the language quoted above. It says, “And Enoch was well-pleasing unto God, and was not found, because God translated him.”—Gen. 5:24. This is nearly the identical language used by Paul. The wording of the Received Version is entirely different. It says, “And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.”—Gen. 5:24.

In conclusion we might call the reader’s attention to a discrepancy between the genealogy of Christ as given by St. Luke and that in the Old Testament according to the Received Version, which is corrected by the LXX.

New Testament.— “Heber, which was the son of Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad.”—Luke 3:35–36.

LXX.— “And Arphaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Sala. And Sala begat Heber.”—Gen. 10:24.

Common Version.— “Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.”—Gen. 10:24.

The reader will observe that Cainan, one of the ancestors of Christ, is left out of the Authorized Version, while he is mentioned in the LXX. This is an unan p 198 swerable proof that the latter was the Bible used by St. Luke. These are a few of the many internal proof of the genuineness of the LXX.

III.—Chronology.

The chronology of the LXX differs widely from that of Catholic and Protestant Bibles, which Bibles have been taken directly or indirectly from the corrupted Bible of the Jews. It offers substantial evidence that the world is much older than the common account makes it. We will give the two chronologies in each of the Biblical periods.

FROM ADAM TO THE DELUGE.

Common Version.

“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.”—Gen. 5:3.]

“And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos.”— Gen. 5:6.

“And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan.”— Gen. 5:9.

“And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel.”— Gen. 5:12.

“And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared.”— Gen. 5:15.

“And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and begat Enoch.”— Gen. 5:18.

“And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah.”— Gen. 5:21.

“And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.”— Gen. 5:25.

“And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son; and he called his name Noah.”— Gen. 5:28–29.

“And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.”—Gen. 7:6.

Total number of years from Adam to the deluge, 1, 656.

The LXX.

“And Adam lived two hundred and thirty years, and begot a son after his own form, and after his own image, and he called his named Seth.”

“Now Seth lived two hundred and five years, and begot Enos.”

“And Enos lived an hundred and ninety years, and begot Cainan.”

“And Cainan lived an hundred and seventy years and he begot Maleleel.”

“And Maleleel lived an hundred and sixty and five years, and he begot Jared.”

“And Jared lived an hundred and sixty and two years, and begot Enoch.”

“And Enoch lived an hundred and sixty and five years, and begot Mathusala.”

“And Mathusala lived an hundred and eighty and seven years, and begot Lamech.”

“And Lamech lived an hundred and eighty and eight years, and begot a son. And he called his name Noe.”

“And Noe was six hundred years old when the flood of water was upon the earth.”

Total number of years from Adam to the deluge, 2, 262.

The chronology as contained in the Common Version has no sanction in ancient profane history, but the chronology of the LXX is verified by both Jewish and Christian authors.

Josephus (Jew), Latter Part of First Century.

“Seth was born when Adam was in his two hundred and thirtieth year.… Seth begot Enos in his two hundred and fifth year; who … delivered the government to Cainan his son, whom he had in his hundred and ninetieth year … Cainan … had his son Maleleel, who was born in his hundred and seventieth year. This Maleleel died, leaving his son Jared, whom he begot when he was in his hundred and sixty-fifth year.… His son Enoch succeeded him, who was born when his father was one hundred and sixty-two years old.… Now Mathuselah, the son of Enoch, who was born to him when he was one hundred and sixty-five years old, had Lamech for his son when he was one hundred and eighty-seven years of age.… Noah … was born to Lamech when he was one hundred and eighty-two years old. This calamity deluge happened in the six hundredth year of Noah’s government age.”—Antiquities, Bk. I. Ch. 3. Total number of years to the deluge, 2, 256.

Theophilus, of Antioch (Christian), A. D. 168.

“Adam lived till he begat, a son, 230 years. And his son Seth, 205. And his son Enos, 190. And his son Cainan, 170. And his son Mahaleel, 165. And his son Jared, 162. And his son Enoch, 165. And his son Methuselah, 167. And his son Lamech, 188. And Lamech’s son was Noah, of whom we have spoken above, who begot Shem when 500 years old. During Noah’s life, in his 600th year, the flood came. The total number of years, therefore, till the flood was 2,242.”

Clement.

Clement, of Alexandria, another Christian writer of the second century, says: “From Adam to the deluge are comprised 2,148 years.”—Stromata, Bk. I. Ch. 21.

Julius Africanus.

Julius Africanus, a Christian writer of the third century, says: “Noe was 600 years old when the flood came on. From Adam, therefore, to Noe and the flood are 2,262 years.”—Fragment of Chronography, Bk. III.

The reader will observe that the chronology from Adam to the deluge as given by Julius Africanus agrees exactly with our reckoning from the LXX. Theophilus, of Antioch, reckons but 2,242 years. This may be due to a discrepancy in the manuscripts of the LXX in regard to the age of Methuselah to the birth of Lamech, which may have existed as early as Theophilus’s time. As they stand to-day some manuscripts count 167 years, and others 187. Theophilus followed the 167 account, and thus obtained his 2,242 years to the flood. I have followed the 187 account according to the Alexandrian MS. because the shorter reckoning brings the flood 14 years before the death of Methuselah.

Josephus reckons 187 years for the age of Methuselah to the birth of Lamech, but he counts but 162 years for the age of Lamech to the birth of Noah, instead of 188 years according to the LXX.

We are unable to account for the 2,148 years of Clement, except it be attributed to errors of the transcribers. But it is evident that he unites with all the authors we have quoted, and with others we might quote to rec p 201 ognize the chronology of the LXX. So it appears that we run no risk in taking our stand in its favor.

FROM THE DELUGE TO THE COVENANT OF ABRAHAM.

Common Version.

The flood lasted one year and ten days.—Gen. 7:11; Gen. 8:14.

“Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood.”—Gen. 11:10.

“Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah.”— Gen. 11:12.

“And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber.”— Gen. 11:14.

“And Eber lived four and thirty years, and beget Peleg.”— Gen. 11:16.

“And Peleg lived thirty years, and beget Reu.”— Gen. 11:18.

“And Reu lived two and thirty years, and beget Serug.”— Gen. 11:20.

“And Serug lived thirty years, and beget Nahor.”— Gen. 11:22.

“And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and beget Terah.”— Gen. 11:24.

“And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram.”— Gen. 11:26.

“And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed Out of Haran.”—Gen. 12:4. “And the Lord appeared unto Abram.”— Gen. 12:7.

Total number of years from the flood to the covenant of Abram, 368.

The LXX.

The flood lasted just a year according to the LXX.

“Shem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.”

“Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.”

“Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Sala.”

“And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.”

“And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.”

“And Phaleg lived au hundred and thirty years, and begot Ragau.”

“And Ragau lived an hundred thirty and two years, and begot Seruch.”

“And Seruch lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Nachor.”

“And Nachor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years, and begot Tharrha.”

“And Tharrha lived seventy years, and begot Abram.”

“And Abram was seventy-five years old when he went out of Charrhan.” “And the Lord appeared to Abram.”

Total number of years from the flood to the covenant of Abram, 1, 248. p 202

The foregoing comparisons show a difference of 880 years between the Common Version and the LXX, in the chronology from the flood to the Abrahamic covenant. This is the greatest slaughter of time by the corrupters of the Hebrew, that is found in Old Testament chronology. They not only shorten the ages of the patriarchs to the birth of their sons, but throw out one of the patriarchs (Cainan) entirely. But that there was a patriarch between Arphaxad and Salah by the name of Cainan is well established. The gospel of Luke recognizes this fact. “Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad.”—Luke 3:35–36.

The fact that Luke recognizes Cainan as a link in the genealogy is sufficient proof in itself to establish his existence in the minds of true believers.

Hippolytus, a writer of the early part of the third century, places Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah, in the genealogy of the Hebrews. “But of this Heber the father is Salah; and of this Salah the father is Cainan; and of this Cainan the father is Arphaxad, whose father is Shem.”—Refutation of All Heresies, Book X. Ch. 26. Hippolytus does not mention the years between the births of the patriarchs, but he records the sum total from the birth of Shem to the birth of Heber. “There are, then, in the case of these patriarchs (that is, from Noah to Heber inclusive) five generations, and 495 years.”—Same Chapter. This accords exactly with the chronology of the LXX. p 203

Shem to Arphaxad, 100 yrs.

Arphaxad to Cainan, 135 yrs.

Cainan to Sala, 130 yrs.

Sala to Heber, 130 yrs.

Total, 495 yrs.

So the chronology of Hippolytus’s Bible harmonizes perfectly with the LXX as it stands to-day.

The chronology of the Common Version from the Deluge to Abraham is not consistent with the records of events of that age. The tower of Babel was built in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25), who according to the Common Version was born 131 years after the deluge. It is impossible that the immense population that seems to have existed at that time sprang from eight persons in 131 years. Also according to the Common Version all the patriarchs of the genealogy from Noah down, yea, even Noah himself, were alive at the time of Abraham’s birth; a thing by no means probable. Also according to the received chronology Shem lived to see Isaac’s twins seven times seven years old, and Heber almost lived to see Jacob’s family move to Egypt. Internal evidence alone is sufficient to prove that this part of the Bible chronology has been shortened.

Clement of Alexandria says concerning this period: “From Shem to Abraham, a thousand two hundred and fifty years.”—Stromata, Bk. I. Ch. 21.

This harmonizes with the LXX, while it differs from the authorized version by nearly 900 years. It is surely p 204 safest to stand upon the LXX in this period also.

FROM THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT UNTO THE EXODUS.

The length of this period in both versions of the Old Testament and also in the New Testament is fixed at 430 years. See Ex. 12:40–41; and Gal. 3:17.

FROM THE EXODUS TO THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE.

It is impossible to accurately determine the length of this period by adding the number of years in the reign of each judge, etc., and we would be ever left to wander in this wilderness, but for a bridge over the difficulty, erected by inspiration. But we are, after all, in a dilemma; because the bridge has been tampered with and the versions here again contradict.

Common Version.

“And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.”—1 Kings 6:1.

The LXX.

“And it came to pass in the four hundred and fortieth year after the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, in the fourth year and second month of the reign of King Solomon over Israel, that … he laid the foundation of the house of the Lord.”

A difference of forty years between the two versions arouses our suspicions, and causes us to search for the original figures. Happily for us the hand of inspiration in the New Testament made a draft of this bridge as it originally stood, and by means of this we can reconstruct it. “The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it. And about the time of forty years p 205 suffered he their manners in the wilderness. And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.”—Acts 13:17–21. If to this be added the forty years of David’s reign (1 Kings 2:11) and the four years of Solomon’s reign which passed before the temple was begun, the whole number of years from the Exodus to the building of the temple will be 40 plus 450 plus 40 plus 40 plus 4, which equals 574, or 94 years more than is given in the Received Version.

But there is yet a matter of doubt connected with this reckoning. Paul uses the word about both when speaking of the wanderings in the wilderness, and of the period of the judges. He surely had reasons for this. In one place in the LXX we are told that the Israelites wandered “forty and two” years in the wilderness. Josh. 5:5. This explains the first “about” and raises the whole number to 576 years. Now suppose we add another four years for the other “about” and write the round number 580. It seems plausible that this was the original reading of the LXX, since it seems to have been a rule with the rabbis when they corrupted the Biblical chronology to throw away each time 100 years. There are historic evidences p 206 that 580 years was the original reading of the LXX.

Clement of Alexandria (second century) speaks of a reckoning that counted from Moses to the age of Solomon 576 years. Stromata, Bk. I. Ch. 21. If to this number we add the four years of Solomon’s reign to the building of the temple, we shall have just 580 years. Many ancient records might be cited which count very nearly the same.

FROM THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE TO THE RETURN OF JUDAH.

The chronology of this period is perfectly preserved harmoniously in the two versions. The reigns of the kings of Judah down to the time of the carrying away into Babylon, as recorded in 2 Chronicles, are as follows:

Solomon after the building

of the temple, 36 yrs. 2 Chron. 9:30.

Rhehoboam, 17 yrs. 2 Chron. 12:13.

Abijah, 3 yrs. 2 Chron.13:2.

Asa,41 yrs. 2 Chron.16:13.

Jehoshaphat, 25 yrs. 2 Chron.20:31.

Jehoram, 8 yrs. 2 Chron.21:5.

Ahaziah, 1 yrs. 2 Chron.22:2.

Athaliah, 6 yrs. 2 Chron.22:12.

Joash, 40 yrs. 2 Chron.24:1.

Amaziah, 29 yrs. 2 Chron.25:1.

Uzziah, 52 yrs. 2 Chron. 26:3.

Jotham, 16 yrs. 2 Chron.27:1.

Ahaz, 16 yrs. 2 Chron.28:1.

Hezekiah, 29 yrs. 2 Chron.29:1.

Manasseh, 55 yrs. 2 Chron. 33:1.

Amon, 2 yrs. 2 Chron.33:21.

Josiah, 31 yrs. 2 Chron.34:1. p 207

Jehoahaz, 3 mo. 2 Chron. 36:1.

Jehoiakim, 11 yrs. 2 Chron.36:5.

Jehoiachin, 3 mo. 10 days 2 Chron. 36:9.

Zedekiah, 11 yrs. 2 Chron.36:11.

The captivity in Babylon lasted 70 years. 2 Chron. 36:21.

Total number of years from the building of the temple to the return of Judah from Babylon, 499 years.

FROM THE RETURN OF JUDAH TO THE BIRTH OF CHRIST.

The chronology of this period is very fragmentary, and it is therefore difficult to determine the exact number of years. We shall therefore adopt for the present the common account, which dates the return of Judah at B. C. 536. Christ was born four years earlier than the common account. Therefore the true length of time between Judah’s return and the Savior’s birth is, 536 minus 4, which equals 532 years. The entire number of years from the creation to the birth of Christ according to the two versions is as follows:

Common Version.

Adam to Deluge, 1, 656 year.

Deluge to Abrahamic Covenant, 368 years.

Abrahamic Covenant to Exodus, 430 years.

Exodus to Temple, 480 years.

Temple to Return, 499 years.

Return to Christ, 532 year.

Total, 3, 965 years.

The LXX.

Adam to Deluge, 2, 262 years.

Deluge to Abrahamic Covenant, 1, 248 years.

Abraham Covenant to Exodus, 430 years.

Exodus to Temple, 580 years.

Temple to Return, 499 years.

Return to Christ, 532 years.

Total, 5, 551 years.

All the Christian nations counted their chronology according to the LXX until Popery cast aside the Bible of the Christians, and accepted in its stead the corrupted Bible of the Jews, upon which the calendar p 208 was shortened more than 1500 years. This was truly a fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy that the “little horn” (Popery) should think to change times and laws. To verify our statement that the ancient Christian nations counted chronology according to the LXX. I will insert the testimonies of some of the Greek Fathers.

“For the Jews, deriving their origin from them as descendants of Abraham, having been taught a modest mind, and one such as becomes men, together with the truth by the spirit of Moses, have handed down to us, by their extant Hebrew histories, the number of 5,500 years as the period up to the advent of the word of salvation, that was announced to the world in the time of the sway of the Caesars.” ­Julius Africanus, 3d century; Extant Writings, Bk. III.

The number 5,500 in the foregoing was intended to be merely an approximate number, as is seen by his own words in another part of the same book. “The period, then, to the advent of the Lord from Adam and the creation is, 5, 531 years.” The reader will observe how nearly this accords with our reckoning of the LXX.

I would call the reader’s special attention to the first quotation from Africanus, in which he shows that 5,500 years of O. T. chronology had been handed down by the Hebrew writings of the Jews. He seems not to have known anything about the corrupting of the Hebrew text 200 years before. As he lived at Alexandria it is probable that he had access to the Hebrew originals from which the LXX was made, which were still p 209 preserved in the library of that city according to the testimony of Tertullian, who says: “To this day, at the temple of Serepis, the libraries of Ptolemy are to be seen, with the identical Hebrew originals in them.”—Apology, Chap. XVIII.

Theophilus of Antioch, who became bishop of Antioch, according to Eusebius, in A. D. 168, wrote a book on chronology which he dates A. M. (Latin Anno Mundi—the year of the world) by a passage in the same as follows: “All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5,698 years.”

It is not hard to see which Bible was used by these authors. A great list of quotations from the early Christian writers might be compiled, all of which used the chronology of the LXX. After the close of the first century Cerinthus’s Millennial theory seems to have been imbibed by many, only in a somewhat modified form. They removed from it the idea of sensuality and held it rather to be an age of ease and luxury. The foundation of this theory as was taught in those times is fairly represented in the words of Hippolytus: “But that we may not leave our subject at this point undemonstrated, we are obliged to discuss the matter of the times, of which a man should not speak hastily, because they are a light to him. For as the times are noted from the foundation of the world, and reckoned from Adam, they set clearly before us the matter with which our inquiry deals. For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place at Beth p 210 lehem, under Augustus, in the year 5,500; and he suffered in the 33d year. And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath might come, the rest, the holy day on which God rested from all his works. For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they shall reign with Christ, when he comes from heaven, as John says in Apocalypse: for a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: Five are fallen; one is, that is, the sixth; the other is not yet come. In mentioning the three, moreover, he specifies the seventh, in which there is rest. But some one may be ready to say, How will you prove to me that the Savior was born in the year 5,500? Learn that easily, O man; for the things that took place of old in the wilderness, under Moses, in the case of the tabernacle, were constituted types and emblems of spiritual mysteries, in order that, when the truth came in Christ in these last days, you might be able to perceive that these things were fulfilled. For he says to him, And thou shalt make the ark of imperishable wood, and shalt overlay it with pure gold within and without; and thou shalt make the length of it two cubits and a half, and the breath thereof one cubit and a half, and a cubit and a half the height; which measures, when summed up together, make five cubits and a half, so that the 5,500 years might be signified thereby. At p 211 that time, then, the Savior appeared and showed his own body to the world, born of the virgin, who was the ark overlaid with pure gold, with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated and the ark made manifest. From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the 500 years that remain to make up the 6,000, and thus the end shall be.”—Com. on Daniel, Chap. II

This quotation will serve as another proof that the chronology of the LXX was recognized by the early Christians. That the five and a half cubits in the dimensions of the ark typified 5,500 years to the coming of Christ seems to have been universally believed in the early church, and it indeed seems to be a reasonable theory, since Christ did come at something near that date of the world, as we have already shown. The reader will observe how Hippolytus’ teaching on the seventh thousand years of the world’s history to be an age of ease and luxury accords with the teaching of the modern advocates of this theory. As the world was according to the true chronology of the LXX a little more than 5,500 years old at the time of our Savior’s birth, the fancied Millennium, which according to its early advocates was to have come at the end of 6,000 years, should have begun about the middle of the fifth century of the Christian age. This date came, but brought with it no Millennium of ease and luxury, nor yet of peace and holiness, but one of darkness, and blackness, and wickedness; for beginning p 212 very nearly with that date the world suffered for a thousand years under the greatest darkness, blindness, and superstition that history has yet recorded. The Millennial theory was in this entirely killed: but the devil saw a way to resurrect it and start it on foot again. So he put it in the hearts of Papists to fulfill the prophecy of Daniel by changing times and laws; that is, by throwing away the LXX, the true Bible of the Christians, and supplanting it with the corrupted text of the Jews, by which means he succeeded in making both Roman Catholics and Protestants believe that the world was more than 1, 500 years younger than it really was. They have therefore counted but 4,000 years before Christ instead of 5,551 years. According to this contracted chronology, the 6,000 years of the world’s history is not yet fulfilled. So the devil has again put it in the hearts of his servants to publish abroad the old dead falsehood that at the end of 6,000 years a kingdom will be set up upon the earth that will continue for 1,000 years, during which time they will enjoy great ease and luxury. Had the true chronology ever been retained by the world, we would to-day reckon that 7,000 years are past, and that we are already 400 years in the eighth thousand; and the Millennial heresy would have been dead indeed, except it could find another pile of sand upon which it might be re-established.

*The remainder of this chapter was written and contributed to this work by Wm. G. Schell.

Herbert M. Riggle, The Kingdom of God (James L. Fleming, 2005), 184–212.

C. Levias, “Masorah” in Jewish Encyclopedia [1901–06]

Tiḳḳune Soferim

Tannaitic sources mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. The explanation of this phenomenon is given in the expression כנה הכתוב (“Scripture has used euphemistic language,” i.e., to avoid anthropomorphism and anthropopathism). R. Simon b. Pazzi, an amora of the third century, calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (“tiḳḳune Soferim”; Gen. R. xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masorites. In Masoretic works these changes are ascribed to Ezra; to Ezra and Nehemiah; to Ezra and the Soferim; or to Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Baruch. All these ascriptions mean one and the same thing: that the changes were made by the Men of the Great Synagogue (comp. Tan., Beshallaḥ, on xv. 7). Ben Asher remarks that the proper expression would have been כנוי סופרים (“Diḳduḳe ha-Ṭe‘amim,” § 57), but, in the sense of the oldest sources, the only proper expression would have been כנוי הכתובים, a term which in an old variant has really been preserved (comp. Blau, “Masoretische Untersuchungen,” p. 50).

The term “tiḳḳun Soferim” has been understood by different scholars in various ways. Some regard it as a viva voce correction or modification of Biblical language authorized by the Soferim for homiletical purposes; i.e., the Scribes interpret a supposed euphemism, and their interpretation is called “tiḳḳun Soferim.” Others take it to mean a mental change made by the original writers or redactors of Scripture; i.e., the latter shrank from putting in writing a thought which some of the readers might expect them to express. Considering the various interpretations and the fact that neither the number nor the identity of the passages in question is definite (Mekilta counts 11, Sifre 7, Tanḥuma 13, Masorah 15 or 18), S. Sachs (in “Kerem Ḥemed,” ix. 57, note) and, without mentioning him, Barnes (“Journal of Theological Studies,” i. 387–414) come to the conclusion that the tiḳḳun tradition belongs rather to the Midrash than to the Masorah; i.e., its true bearing is on exegesis, not on textual criticism. The tiḳḳune Soferim are interpretations, not readings. The tiḳḳun tradition is probably connected with the tradition which ascribes the redaction of several books of Scripture to the Great Synagogue.

There are, however, phenomena in the Biblical text which force one to assume that at some time textual corrections had been made. These corrections may be classified under the following heads:

(1) Removal of unseemly expressions used in reference to God; e.g., the substitution of ברך (“to bless”) for קלל (“to curse”) in certain passages.

(2) Safeguarding of the Tetragrammaton; e.g., substitution of “Elohim” for “Yhwh” in some passages. Under this head some have counted such phenomena as the variants of the divine names in theophorous proper names; e.g., “Joahaz” for “Jehoahaz,” “Elijah” for “Eliyahu,” etc., but compare on this point J. H. Levy in “J. Q. R.” xv. 97 et seq.

(3) Removal of application of the names of false gods to Yhwh; e.g., the change of the name “Ishbaal” to “Ishbosheth.”

(4) Safeguarding the unity of divine worship at Jerusalem. Here belongs the change (Isa. 19:18) עיר ההרס for עיר הצדק or עיר ההדס.

Caspar Levias, “Masorah,” in The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 12 Volumes, ed. Isidore Singer (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901–1906), 366–368. Masorah: Jewish Encyclopedia’

A. Breen, A General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture [1908]

Justin (martyr), Origen, Chrysostom, the pseudo Athanasius, Tertullian, Jerome and others accused the Jews of corrupting the Scriptures.*

Martianay, Nicolas of Lyra, Paul of Burgos, Salmeron, Melchior Canus, Morini, and others also have laid this accusation upon them.†

Jerome, in another place, stoutly defends the integrity of the Hebrew text. Augustine, Sixtus of Sienna, Bellarmine, Genebrard, Mariana, Richard Simon and others have also defended its integrity.‡

In studying the question, we are led to the following conclusions: 1.—They err greatly who believe that any extensive corruption was wrought into the Hebrew text in hatred of the Messiah. That such corruption could not have been wrought before the time of the Christ is self-evident. There was lacking the motive for such movement, and, moreover, had it been done in hatred of the Messiah, he would have charged them with this great crime. That such corruption were wrought after the advent of Christ is disproven first from the impossibility of the work. There were many codices scattered abroad through the world, several of which were in possession of those who would not conspire in such undertaking. No system would suffice to reach them all. And, moreover, some of the sublimest of the Messianic prophecies never arrive, in their translations, at the grandeur that they have in the original. We believe, also, that the Providence p 642 of God would not permit that code to be essentially corrupted in which he had first covenanted with the chosen people. But it is not our mind to deny that an occasional corruption has been wilfully fastened upon the Hebrew text. Hatred of the Messiah is bound up in the heart of the Jew. Now, as they were the chief custodians of the Hebrew text, it is quite probable that, wherever the reading or the sense was doubtful, they would incline to that reading or interpretation which was less favorable to the Messiah. Again, some certain texts may have been deliberately corrupted in some codices, whence the corruption spread, and gradually invaded them all. This we admit, but it is in so small a part that it does not rob the great text of its value.

The corruption of one passage, or the attempt to obscure the sense of a passage, would have sufficed to bring upon the Jews the accusations spoken of in the Fathers. Moreover, it is not clear that the Fathers charged them with changing the Hebrew text, but rather with obscuring the sense, or that they rejected the Septuagint. Justin, it is true (l. c.), accuses them of deliberate mutilations, but an examination of the passages does not substantiate his charge. The rejection by the Jews of the deuterocanonical books might also have been taken by the Fathers as a corruption of Scripture.

We believe, therefore, that the way of truth lies in a middle course. We admit that some passages of the Hebrew text are corrupted, but we believe that in the main it is authentic, and of the greatest value for him who would arrive at the deeper sense of the message of the Old Law.

* S. Iustin. c. Tryph. 71, 72, etc. (M. 6, 644); S. Iren. c. hær. III. 21; IV. 12 (M. 7, 946, 1004); Origen. Ep. ad Afric. 9; in Ierem. hom. 16. 10 (M. 12, 65 sqq.; 13, 449 sqq.); S. Chrys. in Matth. hom. 5, 2 (M. 57); Ps. Athan. Synops. S.S. 78 (in textu latino tantum; M. 28, 438); Tertull. de cultu fem. I. 3 (M. 1, 1308); S. Hier. in Gal. 3, 10 (M. 26, 357).

† Raym. Mart. Pug. fid. II. 3, 9 p. 277; Lyran. et Paulus Burg. in Os. 9; Salmer. Proleg. 4; Cani Loci theol. II. 13; Morin. Exercit. bibl. I. 1, 2 p. 7 sqq. eorum et aliorum multorum testimonia recitat.

‡ S. Hier. in Is. 6, 9 (M. 24, 99); S. Aug. De Civ. D. XV. 13 (M. 41, 452); Bellarm. De verbo Dei II. 2; Sim. de Muis Triplex assertio pro veritate hebraica. Opp. II. p. 131 sqq.; Genebrard in Ps. 21:19; Sixt. Sen. Biblioth. s. VIII. hær. 13; loan. Mariana Pro Vulgata c. 7; Rich. Sim. Hist. crit. du V. T. III. 18; Marchini De divin. et canonic. libr. sacr. I. 6; Lamy Introd. in S. S. I. p. 83 sqq.; Reinke Beitræge VII. p. 292 sqq., etc. etc.

A. E. Breen, A General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, Second Edition (Rochester, NY: John P. Smith Printing Company, 1908), 641–642.

S. Vicchio, “Job in the Masoretic Text: A Search for the Original Text” in Job in the Ancient World [2006]

Early Rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE mention several passages in scripture where the proto-text must have differed from the present text. Often they are accompanied by the expression, “Scripture used euphemistic language,” Rabbi Simon Ben Pazzi (a third century scholar) calls these readings “Emendations of the Scribes.” This view was adopted by the Midrash and Medieval Masoretes. These emendations are principally of four kinds: 1) The removal of unseemly expressions; 2) The safeguarding of the name YHWH; 3) Removal of the names of false gods; and 4) Safeguarding the unity of divine worship in Jerusalem.

Stephen J. Vicchio, “Job in the Masoretic Text: A Search for the Original Text” in Job in the Ancient World (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2006). The Image of the Biblical Job: A History

NOTE: This is plagiarized without attributions from the “Masorah” article in the Jewish Encyclopedia (above).

C. McCarthy, “Deuteronomy 32:8” in BHQ Apparatus [2007]

That v. 8 represents a deliberate emendation for theological motives is reasonably certain (McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 211–14). Even more interesting is the series of subsequent corrections to which M was subjected as a consequence of an emended v. 8, showing that the phenomenon of theological corrections was not something that happened in a half-hearted way. It required more than the convictions of an isolated scribe to have effected five further interrelated changes (Gen 46:20, 21, 22, 27; Exod 1:5). Barthélemy (“Tiqquné Sopherim,” 295–304) links all these corrections to the Hasmonean period, while, more recently, Himbaza (“Dt 32,8,” 527ff.) argues that this emendation in v. 8 was somewhat later, and introduced only in the first century C.E. Note that T^J includes the number “seventy” (“the seventy souls of Israel that went down to Egypt”) in its interpretative expansion.

Carmel McCarthy, “Deuteronomy 32:8,” in Deuteronomy: Critical Apparatus and Notes, quinta editione, vol. 5, Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), 93.

J. Sexton, “Primeval Chronology Restored: Revisiting the Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11” [2016]

Numerous church fathers testify to the lengths to which orthodox Judaism went to discredit Jesus’ Messianic office, a phenomenon also recorded throughout the book of Acts. Justin Martyr says that the Rabbis deliberately expunged or altered Messianic verses from their Scriptures in their project of discrediting Lord Jesus as Messiah (e.g., see Dial. 71). According to Justin, the second-century Jews were still promulgating the lie that the disciples had stolen Christ’s body from the tomb (cf. Mt 28:13–15). . . . In a spiritual context that included the crucifixion of Jesus, the murder of Stephen, the attempted murder of Paul, virulent second-century opposition to the gospel, and a willingness to alter and even take away from the words of Scripture, the deliberate corruption of the primeval chronology easily falls within the realm of possibility.

The theory that the second-century Palestinian Jews deflated the primeval chronology for anti-Christian reasons supplies the motive, means, and opportunity that no other theory can.

. . .

The Jewish attempt to discredit Jesus as the Messiah is to our knowledge the only explanation with enough explanatory power to account for the deliberate chronological alterations in Genesis 5 and 11.

Jeremy Sexton, “Primeval Chronology Restored: Revisiting the Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11,” Bible and Spade 29, no. 1 (2016): 27.

Other Sources

“Falsification of Scripture and Medieval Christian-Jewish Polemics,” Medieval Encounters 2.3 (1996): 345–80.

Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, makes the case that the universal position of Second Temple Judaism was a belief in “two powers” (two separate persons who interact as and identify as YHWH) in heaven. Rabbinic Judaism rejected this, anathematizing it because of how it was being used by Christians to prove that Jesus was the second power. This is relevant, because it shows the ways in which Rabbinic Judaism was departing from Second Temple Judaism in response to the success of Christianity.

Errors in the Masoretes’ “Original” Hebrew Manuscripts of the Bible? – Biblical Archaeology Society

Jon Moffitt and Douglas Van Dorn, “Genesis 6 and the Sethite Heresy,” Reformed Fringe podcast

Douglas Van Dorn, “The Sons of God, the Nephilim, and Jesus Christ: Why the Supernatural Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4 Was Deliberately Changed in the Second Century AD and Why It Should Matter to Christians.”

Andrew Stephen Damick and Stephen De Young, “[Unknown Episode],” Lord of Spirits podcast

Is the Masoretic Text “corrupted by Rabbinical Judaism Rabbis”? : r/OrthodoxChristianity

https://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/Bible-chronology-charts-age-of-earth-date-Genesis-5-11-Septuagint-text-LXX-original-autograph-corrupted-Masoretic-MT-primeval-5554BC.htm

Do Christians believe Jews tampered with the Masoretic Text?

“All Hebrew MSS corrupt in some places” (D Wallace)? | The Puritan Board

Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew | The Orthodox Life

Can You Trust the Masoretic Text? | ArmstrongInstitute.org [counter claim]

The Purity of the Masoretic Text – Purely Presbyterian [counter claim]

Karaite Judaism’s claim of corruption?

Claims That the MT Was Not Intentionally Corrupted

J. Gerhard, “Chapter XIV: On the Integrity of the Hebrew Text in the Old Testament” in Theological Commonplaces [1625]

The Hebrew text is not corrupt

§ 318. Among the arguments with which the Papists labor to carry their point that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is not the authentic version, this one leads the crowd: that the Hebrew text has been corrupted in many places by the wickedness or carelessness of men. Bellarmine writes: “We must place the sources ahead of the streams only when it is certain that the sources have not been muddied; but now, the sources in many places flow with muddy waters” (De verbo Dei, bk. 2, c. 11). Against these Scripture-haters, therefore, we must demonstrate the purity and integrity of the sources, which we prove with a disjunctive syllogism of this kind: If the Hebrew sources in the Old Testament were corrupted, we would have to attribute this either to the malice of the Jews or to the carelessness of the scribes. But the sources have been corrupted neither by the malice of the Jews nor by the carelessness of scribes. Therefore they have not been corrupted in any way. The major premise contains a sufficient list of causes from which that corruption could have arisen. The minor has two parts, namely, that the sources were corrupted by neither the malice of the Jews nor the carelessness of scribes. Each must be proved in order.

First, not by the malice of the Jews

§ 319. According to Jerome (on Isaiah 6, vol. 5, f. 14), Origen proves (on Isaiah, bk. 8) that the malice of the Jews did not corrupt the sources. Origen draws his argument from a consideration of time that goes as follows: If the Jews corrupted the Scriptures, they did this either before or after Christ’s coming. If they did it before, why did Christ and the apostles never rebuke so great a crime when they did not keep silent about lesser crimes? If they did it after Christ’s coming, how are the testimonies that Christ and the apostles quote from the Old Testament found in Moses and the prophets in the very form in which they are cited? Jerome’s words read: “But if someone would say that the Jews falsified the Hebrew books, let them listen to Origen and what he responds in the eighth volume of his explanations of Isaiah to the little question, that the Lord and His apostles, who rebuke other sins, would never have kept quiet against the scribes and Pharisees about this sin, which was great. But if they say that the Hebrew books were corrupted after the coming of the Lord and Savior and after the preaching of the apostles, I shall not be able to keep from laughing that the Savior and the apostles would have offered testimonies in such a way that the Jews later were going to falsify them.”

§ 320. We can draw out that argument of Origen more broadly in this way: One cannot say that before the coming of Christ and the ministry of the apostles the Jews corrupted Holy Scripture: (1) Because Christ and the apostles would have rebuked this great sacrilege of the Jews severely because they censure the faulty interpretation of Scripture in them. (2) Christ sends His hearers back to search Moses and the prophetic Scripture carefully (John 5:39), and He wanted His hearers to listen to Moses and the prophets in their writings (Luke 16:29). But who would believe that Christ sent His hearers to corrupted p 284 and falsified Scriptures? (3) He wanted people to listen to the scribes and Pharisees who sat in the seat of Moses and who read Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2; Acts 15:21). Yet if the Mosaic writings had been corrupted, Christ by no means would have sent His people to hear and read them. (4) The eagerness of the Ethiopian eunuch to read the prophetic writings is commended and is honored by the sending of Philip, who supplies him the necessary explanation (Acts 8:30). Yet if the prophetic writings had been corrupted, the reading of them certainly would have been forbidden rather than commended. (5) With laudable eagerness the Thessalonians compare the teaching of Paul with Mosaic and prophetic Scripture (Acts 17:11). Yet how could they have passed judgment on the teaching of Paul from Mosaic and prophetic Scripture as a definite and fixed norm if that norm had not been whole and pure but falsified and corrupted in many places? (6) Paul commends Timothy with this reputation, that he knew the sacred writings from childhood (2 Tim. 3:15), and he encourages him to “attend to reading” (1 Tim. 4:13). Yet if the sacred writings had been corrupted by the wickedness of the Jews, Paul could not and should not have encouraged Timothy to read them. (7) Christ and the apostles everywhere prove their teaching from the Mosaic and prophetic books, and Paul expressly says that he “believes everything that is written in Moses and the prophets” (Acts 26:22). Yet if the books of Moses and the prophets had been corrupted, Christ and His apostles would never appeal to them without a necessary forewarning. (8) Paul says, “The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2). Therefore he commends their zeal in protecting the books of the Old Testament from destruction and corruption. Yet if they had corrupted them intentionally, he could not have commended their zeal in protecting the treasury of sacred books nor would the apostle have ignored this terrible sin of theirs.

It is far less probable that the Jews corrupted the Old Testament Scriptures after Christ’s coming and the apostles’ ministry, because the testimonies that Christ and the apostles adduce from the Old Testament are still read today in the same way as they quoted them.

§ 321. To the argument of Origen, we must add the other point that Augustine emphasizes in De civit. Dei, bk. 15, c. 13:

If I asked which is more believable: that the Jewish nation, scattered far and wide, could have conspired unanimously to write this lie and, while refusing authority to others, have deprived themselves of the truth; or that seventy men who were also Jews themselves, placed in one location, could have refused that same truth to foreign nations and could have done this by common consent? Who does not see which of these is more natural and easy to believe? God forbid, however, that any prudent person believe either that the Jews—however perverse and wicked—could have tampered with so many and such widely scattered codices or that those renowned seventy men could have taken this one common counsel about refusing the truth to the nations.

This argument of Augustine can be described more broadly in this way: The Jews did not want to corrupt nor could have corrupted the Hebrew sources. Therefore the notion that the sources were corrupted by the wickedness of the Jews is false.

p 285 The fact that they did not want to do this is proved: (1) By their reverence toward the sacred books. Philo (De egressu filiorum Israel ex Aegypto), Josephus (Contra Apionem, bk. 1), and Eusebius (Eccles. hist., bk. 3, c. 10; De praepar. evang., bk. 8, c. 2) give the following witness about them: “For a period of more than two thousand years up to their time, not even a word was ever changed in the Law of the Hebrews, and any Jew would rather die a hundred times than permit the Law to be changed in any way.” The Talmudists note on the last verse of Leviticus 27 and other places that “not even a prophet was allowed to change nor alter the least thing in the Law.” Johan. Isaacus, Contra Lindan., testifies that they still today observe the Hebrew codex so reverently that they declare a fast if it should fall on the ground. They write in the Talmud: “He commits an unforgivable sin who changes anything in the Bible; and there is the danger that the whole world may perish if anyone changes a single word in the Hebrew text because God has created this world because of Scripture alone.” (2) By the integrity of the chief prophecies about Christ. If the Jews had wanted to corrupt the divine Scripture to incur the hatred of Christians, they would either have removed the principal prophecies about Christ or changed them. So far are they from having done that that one can draw stronger arguments against them from the Hebrew text than from the Latin versions, as some of the Papists themselves acknowledge.

The fact that the Jews could not have corrupted the Hebrew sources is proved: (1) By their dispersion throughout the entire world. After the fall of Jerusalem, the Jews were scattered throughout the world. How could they, by common consent, have corrupted the Holy Scriptures to support their errors? (2) By the diligent caution of Christians. After the preaching of the Gospel in the New Testament, the Hebrew books were in the hands not only of the Jews but also of the Christians. There were always some in the Christian Church who could have both read and understood the books of the Old Testament in the original text because some are constantly converted from Judaism to Christ. These surely would not have kept this deceit quiet, had they noticed that the Jews, the enemies of Christ, were falsifying the Scriptures. (3) By the multitude of copies of the Bible. Among the Jews it was established by the laws “that no father of a family lack a Bible.” But even if a few had conspired to corrupt the Bible, they still could not have introduced this corruption immediately into every copy. Augustine, loc. cit., says, “God forbid, however, that any prudent person believe either that the Jews—however perverse and wicked—could have tampered with so many and such widely scattered codices.” (4) By the variety of translations. The Hebrew Bible was translated into Chaldaic and Greek before the birth of Christ. Therefore if the Jews had wanted to corrupt the Hebrew text, their malicious deceit would have been brought to light immediately by targumic paraphrases and the versions of the Septuagint translators.

Second, nor by the carelessness of scribes

§ 322. This, then, we have proved: that the Hebrew sources were not and could not have been corrupted by the malice of the Jews. The fact that they were not corrupted by the carelessness of scribes is proved: (1) By divine providence. “We are built upon the foundation not only of the apostles but also of the prophets” (Eph. 2:20), that is, on the doctrine included in the books of the prophets. Therefore divine providence did p 286 not permit those books to be corrupted and perverted; otherwise the foundation of the Church would be undermined and overthrown. Bellarmine says (De verbo Dei, bk. 2, c. 2): “It is not likely that God would have allowed the words of so many prophets to be falsified generally, especially because He has scattered the Jews throughout the entire world and wanted them to carry about the books of the Law and the prophets for this purpose, so that our foes would give a witness to the Christian truth.” As a consequence, Augustine calls the Jewish nation “the keepers and protectors of the Christians’ books” (Contra Faustum, bk. 12, c. 29; on Psalms 40 and 56; De civ. Dei, bk. 18, c. 46).

(2) By the authentic authority of Holy Scripture. If one were to grant that something in Holy Scripture was changed, most of its genuine authority would disappear. But on the contrary, Christ declares: “Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18). Also Luke 16:17: “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to pass away.”

(3) By the faithful protection of the Masorah. In the Masorah Gedolah, or the Great Masorah, added to the end of the major Bible published by Bomberg (whose authors were men of the Great Synagogue or consistory: Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Nehemiah, Zerubbabel, the priest Jeshua, and 120 other chief priests and Levites), are listed all together the verses, words, and letters of the Hebrew Bible. Every variant of these is noted and indicated in its own place, along with a recitation of each verse, so that a faithful and pure reading of the Hebrew text is preserved and fortified against any change or corruption. Elias Levita expresses the usefulness of this truly remarkable and inimitable diligence (preface to Masoreth Hammasoreth, bk. 3): “After that task that the Masoretes performed, it is impossible that a variant or change happened or could have happened later in any way in any book of Scripture. It is not in vain that our rabbinic scholars have said: ‘The Masorah is the fence of the Law (סְיָג לְתוֹרָה).’ ” Nicolaus Fullerus discusses this matter in this way (Miscell. sacr., bk. 3, c. 13):

With this plan (for protecting the Hebrew truth from corruptions), the most skilled teachers of the Jews developed a subtle and curious art that they have called the Masoreth, that is, the tradition or most accurate manner of handing down through the hands of posterity a pure and always complete canon of Holy Scripture. A benefit of this is that not only the words but also even the letters were numbered in such a way that no change, not even the slightest, can be introduced by unlearned, incautious, or rash people without being caught easily from its traces. Consequently, they quite fittingly call it, as it were, the fence of the Old Testament against every slip away from it, which removes and casts out the fear of corruption.

(4) By the singular vigilance of those who copied the Hebrew text either by pen or by type. A comparison of versions, either of manuscripts or of published editions, either of the oldest of these or of the more recent, clearly shows that those who copied the Hebrew text either by pen or by type always kept the work of the Masoretes before their eyes and were careful lest any change in words, letters, or punctuation catch them unawares; and if some change did by chance creep in, an added correction removed it immediately.

§ 323. We also use a reduction to the absurd. If the Old Testament codices were corrupted, the consequence would be: (1) That God either did not want or was unable p 287 to preserve the original text of Scripture unharmed. The first is repugnant to His goodness and wisdom by which He wanted to enlighten all people of every age to salvation by and through Scripture; the latter conflicts with His power. (2) That the one, supreme principle of our faith is no longer pure and uncorrupted because, when the streams never flow more purely from the springs, the translations will be more corrupt and perverted. (3) That Christ and the apostles will have to be called to the court of judgment because they never censured the Jews for that great sacrilege but only rebuked far less significant faults in them. (4) That the study is in vain which lovers of Hebrew apply to learning the sources and to a more accurate scrutiny of the Hebrew codices. (5) That all the things that Philo, Josephus, Eusebius, Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and other fathers mention about the faithful protection of Scripture and the reverent attitude of the Jews toward it are false and fictitious. (6) That the apostle commends the Jewish nation with lying praise when he says that they were “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2). Because all of this is absurd and unproved, therefore that, too, will be absurd from which such ideas are concluded and deduced.

§ 324. Some of the Papists themselves give their approval to this statement of ours concerning the integrity and purity of the Hebrew text. Johannes Isaacus, formerly professor of Hebrew at the academy of Cologne, has refuted the error of his pupil Lindanus—that the codex of the Bible was corrupted by the Jews—as false and wicked and has defended the Hebrew truth against Lindanus’s calumnies. The title of this book reads as follows: “The Defense of the Hebrew Truth of the Holy Scriptures against Lindanus” (Defensio veritatis Hebraicae sacrarum Scripturarum adversus Lindanum). In that work, bk. 2, p. 77, he advises: “More than two hundred arguments that refute Jewish impieties are contained in the Hebrew text more plainly than in the Latin translation.” Andrada acknowledges the same thing in Defens. fid. Trid., bk. 4, where he writes: “Those who treat the Hebrew versions devoutly and reverently find more testimonies regarding Christ in them than in the Latin and Greek.” The previously mentioned Isaacus asserts: “So great is the consensus of the Hebrew Bible that not even a single book can be brought forward, written in a Jewish hand, that lacks something contained in others or to which something is added that the others lack” (bk. 4, p. 69). To the words of Augustine in De civ. Dei, bk. 15, c. 13: “God forbid, however, that any prudent person believe either that the Jews—however perverse and wicked—could have tampered with the enumeration of the years in Genesis 5 in so many and such widely scattered codices,” Ludovicus Vives notes the following: “We can make this same response to those who make the objection that the Jews falsified and corrupted the codices of the Old Testament and the Greeks those of the New so that the truth of the sacred books may not be sought from those sources.” Benedictus Arias Montanus, preface to vol. 1 of the Bible, writes: “The Hebrew books that we are using have not been corrupted by the deceit of the Jews. Even if some changes were made, there never was a word or element or vowel point that was not preserved in the thesaurus they call the ‘Masorah.’ ” Thus he calls the Masorah the “faithful guardian.” Franc. Ribera, on c. 9 of Hosea, draws this conclusion: “If those manuscripts had been corrupted at the time when Jerome published his translation, the Church does not have the true Scripture because all are agreed that the Greek translation is faulty in many places. But if the Hebrew prototypes had been corrupted at the time when our edition was taken from p 288 them, then our edition has been totally corrupted, and the Church is without the true and uncorrupted Scripture.” Sixtus Senensis, Biblior. sanct., bk. 8, haer. 2: “One cannot say that the divine Scriptures of the Old Testament were falsified by the malice of either the Jews or the Christians.” Franc. Lucas Brugensis,⁵⁷ in his Epistle ad Sirletum prefixed to his Annotat. in bibl., writes: “It is not strange to say that many faults have crept into the Latin version, because the same thing happened in the source of Scripture. This is quite clear in the Greek New Testament, for we want to say nothing about the Hebrew.” Therefore he did not dare make a claim that faults of this kind had overtaken the Hebrew text.

We can bring out more approval of this sort for affirming the integrity of the Hebrew text from Cajetan (commentary on Genesis), Johannes Reuchlin (Specul. ocular.), Eugubinus Steuchus, Marcus Marinus Brixianus (Arca Noae), Guido Fabricius, Sanctes Pagninus, Vatablus, etc.

Antithesis

§ 325. Those who defend corruptions of the Hebrew source divide themselves into two classes. Some make the claim: “Because of their hatred of the Christian faith, the Jews purposely corrupted and perverted many passages of the Scriptures.” This is what is taught by Jacobus de Valentia, bishop of Christopolis, in his preface to the Psalms; Melchior Canus (Locor. theol., bk. 2, c. 13); Lindanus (De optimo genere interpret., bk. 1, c. 1); the Englishman Wilhelmus Rainoldus; Gordonus Huntlaeus (Controvers. 1, c. 8), etc. Some, on the other hand, declare: “The Hebrew Scriptures actually were not completely corrupted by the malice of the Jews; nevertheless they are not totally whole and pure but have some errors of their own that crept in partly because of the neglect and carelessness of scribes, because of a similarity of letters, and partly because of the ignorance of the rabbinic scholars who added the vowel points.” This is taught by Johannes Driedo (De eccles. dogmat. et Script., bk. 2, c. 1) and by Bellarmine, who in De verbo Dei, bk. 2, c. 2, turns from the opinion of the first group to the moderate conviction of Driedo when he attributes to the prior group a “good zeal” that is nevertheless not “according to knowledge.”

Both parties confirm their opinion: (1) With certain rational arguments or, rather, conjectures. (2) With the testimonies of the rabbinic scholars and certain fathers. (3) By bringing in several examples or passages of the Scriptures in which a corruption appears obvious. To all this, Mr. Salomon Glassius, professor of Hebrew literature and our beloved friend, responds sufficiently in his Philologia sacra, which he wrote and published at our encouragement and which will be able to offer much help to students of sacred and Hebrew literature. Here we shall merely bring in brief observations with which we shall be able to satisfy the arguments of the Papists and according to which we shall consider the examples of corruption that Bellarmine has adduced.

§ 326. Against the general reasons or conjectures with which they try to make it probable that the Hebrew sources were corrupted by the malice of the Jews or the carelessness of scribes, observe: (1) As we shall see in the following chapter, it is a false hypothesis p 289 that the vowel points are a recent invention of the Jews. Therefore one cannot prove from this the corruption of the Hebrew text.

(2) Even if the Jews really had wanted to corrupt the Hebrew text because of their hatred of the Christian religion—and it has not yet been proved that they dared to do this—this still would not at all be injurious to divine providence, which could preserve the integrity of Scripture against both the contrivances of the Jews and the persecution of tyrants.

(3) תִּקּוּן סֹפְרִים, “the corrections of the scribes,” about which Galatinus says much (De arcan., bk. 1, c. 8), do not prove that any corruption has been brought into the text. As Bellarmine correctly points out (De verbo Dei, bk. 2, c. 2):

Either by chance it is not true that any emendation of the Bible was made by the scribes (because in neither Talmud is there mention of such a tikkun; and Josephus, Contra Apionem, bk. 1, claims that no letter was ever changed in the Law by Hebrews, his countrymen; and because neither Epiphanius nor Jerome mentions this correction), or if the tikkun sophrim is not a fable, then it is not a corruption but a true emendation made not by some scribes but by Ezra and the other men of the Great Synagogue, namely, the holy prophets who, after their return from the Babylonian captivity, revised the sacred books and placed them into a certain order.

Buxtorf claims that those sophrim were the holy writers themselves (Moses and the prophets) who never wrote anything other than what we read today as their writing. More sagacious knowers of Hebrew, however, noting a certain inconsistency in those passages, wrote that those authors ought to have spoken in a different way and ought to have written in this or that way according to the coherence of the text, but for this purpose they preferred to write in this way and bring it out in that way, as it is in the text today. Consequently, Rabbi Aben Ezra pokes fun at the sagacious for several passages, saying that there was no need for tikkun, that is, what those “sagacious wise men” thought that the author ought to have spoken or written there in a different way is nothing. Marcus Marinus, preface to Arca Noae: “The Jews, who have a different opinion (from that of Galatinus) concerning these tikkun sophrim, laugh at the entire matter, for it is firm and certain to them that Holy Scripture, written by the prophets as we now have it, was never changed.”

(4) One cannot immediately infer from the corruption of one or two manuscripts in a vowel point, accent, letter, or even a whole statement—whether it happened because of carelessness or by intent—that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is corrupt completely and in itself, because that error can be corrected from an inspection of other proven and unchanged copies.

(5) Corruption of the Hebrew text cannot be proved from an irregular writing or pointing of the Hebrew words, the Masoretic note and correction of which are usually added in the margin. You see, those Masoretic notes either observe a merely grammatical anomaly or a mystery or a variance in the reading; or if any errors crept into the elements of the letters because of the carelessness of scribes, they correct them. In this way they establish rather than overturn the integrity of the text.

(6) From the version of the Septuagint translators, that no longer exists uncorrupted today, one cannot prove that any mutilation of the Hebrew text occurred, for this would p 290 be wanting to judge on the source from the streams, on the norm and rule from the square that the norm and rule have drawn [ex normato de norma et regula], though one must rather advance in the contrary order.

§ 327. We must turn this subject toward the testimonies of certain rabbinic scholars and fathers. (1) Rabbi Benchaiim Tunetanus distinctly disapproves of the opinion of those who claim that the copies of the Bible were corrupted during the Babylonian captivity. He says:

Their opinion is far removed from me, for I cannot be persuaded to believe and confess with my lips that the scribe Ezra found the book of the Law and the books of the prophets dubious, corrupt, and confused. In fact, my opinion is rather this: that Ezra and his colleagues found the sacred books whole and unharmed and that Ezra knew, according to his own judgment, which books were written by that excellent wisdom and why certain letters were written but not others and even why some foreign words were written. These he put into the actual text just as they had been written, adding something like a gloss in the margin to explain the nature of the foreign word.

(2) With its clear testimony, the Masorah refutes the opinion of those rabbinic scholars who claim that some corruption was made in the Hebrew text.

(3) Justin, Origen, and Eusebius speak not about the Hebrew text but about the Greek Septuagint translation when they write that the Jews corrupted the text of the Bible. Justin, Dialog. cum Tryphon., p. 231: “I want you to know that your teachers have removed many—even entire—passages of the Scriptures from the translations of the elders who were with Ptolemy, passages in which the declaration is shown to have been made that the one who was crucified is God and man, that He was hanged on the cross and died.”

(4) Chrysostom (homily 5 on Matthew) and Jerome (Epist. ad Augustinum, which is eleventh among the epistles of Augustine) speak about the Jewish translators Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, saying that in their translations from the Hebrew into Greek they set many things incorrectly to develop hatred against the Christian faith and to cast aspersions upon the Septuagint translation. This, however, does no harm at all to the integrity of the Hebrew text.

(5) If one were to examine in particular the passages that Justin says were corrupted by the Jews, it will appear that he spoke from suspicion rather than from knowledge, since he was not so skilled in the Hebrew language.

Examples of corruption adduced by Bellarmine: First, Isaiah 9:6: “He will call Him”

§ 328. To the examples of corruption that Lindanus, Gordonus, and others have adduced in great number, we have responded in our lectures on Scripture and our notes on the more difficult passages of the Old Testament. Here we shall consider carefully only those five passages that Bellarmine, more moderate than the rest of the Papists in this question, suspects have been corrupted. (I) “Isaiah 9:6 [Hebrew v. 5] has יִקְרָא, ‘he will call,’ though it is to be read יִקָּרֵא, ‘He will be called.’ Therefore the Hebrew source does not flow purely everywhere.”

p 291 We respond. (1) If the vowel points are removed, it can be read yiqra and yiqqare. However, Bellarmine, Stapleton, Pistorius, and other Papists claim that “the vowel points were added by the rabbinic scholars.” (2) The Chaldean renders it in the passive—יְאִתְקְרִי; the Septuagint does likewise—καλεῖται—as does also Jerome (bk. 3, on Isaiah). (3) Nevertheless they did not think that any corruption existed here. Rather, by an idiom of their own speech they expressed the idiom of the Hebrew language, and their consideration was not so much for the word itself as for the sense of the word. You see, they knew that among the Hebrews active verbs are often taken impersonally. Gen. 15:6: “He reckoned it to him as righteousness,” that is, “it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (as the apostle explains, Rom. 4:3). Gen. 16:14: “He called this well,” that is, “the well will be called.” Job 4:19: “They crush them according to the appearance of a moth,” that is, “they are crushed.” Job 7:3: “They have apportioned nights of misery to me,” that is, “have been apportioned to me.” (See Mercerus, commentary.) (4) This method of speaking occurs in the New Testament too. Luke 12:20: “They will require your soul,” that is, “your soul will be required.” (See also Luke 13:29; Rev. 16:15). (5) Furthermore, one could respond according to another Hebrew idiom, namely, that quite often the Hebrews translate an active verb of the third person singular without a definite nominative with a participle of the same verb supplied as understood. They call this manner of speaking לשן קצר, “truncated speech.” Gen. 48:2: “Announced to Jacob,” that is, “someone announcing” [announced]. Exod. 10:11: “Drove them out”; add here an understood “expeller” or “someone driving them out.” Job 27:23: “Claps hands,” namely, “one who is clapping” [claps]. If you wish, see Mercerus’s commentary on Mic. 2:4: “In that day, will take up a parable against you,” namely, “a lamenter will take up,” which Pagninus has added. (Cf. Vatablus in his commentary on this passage.) (6) Finally, in the prophetic text one can add these words as understood: “God the Father will call Him,” namely, the same one who gave us this Son of His. Consequently, Junius and Tremellius retain the active.

Second, Jeremiah 23:6: “He will call Him”

§ 329. (II) “Jeremiah 23:6 reads in the Hebrew ‘he will call Him’ in the singular, though it is to be read ‘they will call Him’ in the plural.” We respond. (1) Jerome attests that even at his time it was read יִקְרְאוֹ in the singular. The Septuagint translators render it καλέσει. Therefore already at the time of Jerome and, in fact, at the time of the Septuagint translators, the Hebrew text would have been corrupted, something that those do not concede who accuse the Hebrew sources of corruption but who claim that the Septuagint translators prepared their translation from a Hebrew text as yet uncorrupted.

(2) Vatablus, Pagninus, and Arias Montanus, who were highly skilled in the Hebrew language, say that it can be translated in the plural, “they will call,” just as the ancient Latin translator rendered πληθυντικῶς as “they will call.”

(3) They nevertheless did not think that there was any corruption because here, too, an active verb of the third person is taken impersonally: “he will call Him,” that is, each person in the Church or all the devout in the Church will call Him “Jehovah.”

p 292 (4) In fact, the preceding noun יִשׂרָאֵל [“Israel”] must again be taken in common in a collective sense: “In His days Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell securely. And this is His name (the name of David’s branch), which it (Judah and Israel) will call Him: ‘The Lord our Righteousness.’ ” Nothing is taken away from this explanation through a translation in the plural, because a plural verb is quite often joined with a collective noun.

(5) Many of the rabbinic scholars, older as well as more recent, have kept the singular reading and apply יְהֹוָה צִדְקֵנוּ to the noun Messiah, as Helvicus shows (vol. 4, Disp. Gissens., disp. 5, § 9). It is not likely, therefore, that the Jews corrupted the text lest they be compelled to acknowledge that the name Jehovah was attributed to the Messiah.

Third, Psalm 22:[16]

§ 330. (III) Ps. 22:[16]. “There is no Christian who will not read ‘they have pierced My hands and feet.’ The Hebrew texts, however, read כַּאֲרִי, ‘as a lion,’ not ‘they have pierced,’ which is said כָּרוּ.” We respond. (1) Genebrardus, the Papist, in his commentary on this passage, p. 79, does not dare say that this passage was corrupted by the malice of the Jews but only that there is a variant reading because of the similarity of the letters ו and י. In the same place he also proves with the testimonies of very learned Jews that the best texts had כארוּ; this is also claimed by Andrada (Defens. fid., bk. 4); Joh. Isaacus (Contra Lindan., bk. 2); Galatinus (De arcan. Cath. verit., bk. 1, c. 8; bk. 8, c. 17); Gerhard Veltvyckus (appendix to Sessile tohu); and Pagninus, Vatablus, and Mullerus (in their commentaries on this passage). In fact, the library of our academy has a handwritten Hebrew manuscript that reads כארוּ.

(2) Even if כארי had incorrectly been put for כארוּ in some copies either because of the carelessness of scribes or the malice of the Jews, this still would not yet prove that the sources were corrupt, because the true and genuine reading could be restored from approved copies. Also that particular corruption in only some codices would do no harm to our position.

(3) Nor would the letter א added to the root letter כ stand in the way of this hypothesis about the change of the letter ו into the letter י, because it originates from the earliest writing of the Jews. Because it is certain that the points were not added in all copies, therefore the Jews generally add one of the letters א ו י after any long vowel, lest too difficult a reading result. However, no necessity forces us to acknowledge any corruption in this passage, because we can read it כארי without any harm to the truth. Yet in explaining this, the experts do differ. [a] Augustinus Nebrissensis (Psalterium quinquelinguum) and Polanus (Syntagm.) translate it “as a lion” and claim an ellipsis of the word כרוּ, “they have pierced,” or of another with a similar sense, because in the Chaldaic version the two are connected: “As a lion, they have pierced My hands and feet,” because ellipses of the sort also occur elsewhere in the Scriptures. [b] Avenarius thinks that the word was composed from כאר, “he pierced,” and אֲרִי, “lion,” in this sense: “As a lion they pierced,” which he also proves from the Chaldaic translation. [c] Gesnerus thinks it must be read with one little vowel point added, כָּאֲרֵי, so that it is the plural construct of כָּאֲרִים. He explains this as “those who pierce” or “of those who pierce My hands and feet.”

p 293 (4) Because not only the Small Masorah in its notes on Ps. 22:[16] but also the Great Masorah at the beginning of letter א note that כארי here has another meaning, as in Isa. 38:13 where it is translated “as a lion.” From this, one concludes that כארי was placed here for כָּרוּ without any corruption and must be translated “they pierced,” just as the Septuagint translators rendered it ὤρυξαν. Jerome has fixerunt [“they fastened or pierced”]; in the Ethiopian and Vulgate, foderunt [“they pierced”].

Therefore in this word a certain grammatical anomaly occurs: א was inserted either by epenthesis or from the earliest custom of writing, and י instead of ו was placed at the end. Those latter are ἐμμεταβολοί or interchangeable with each other, as Avenarius shows with many examples (Gramm., bk. 3, p. 585). Schindlerus confirms this opinion also from the fact that the כ has underneath it a qamets, from which it is obvious that this is not a formative letter but a root letter, for otherwise [if it were the preposition] it would have been a shewa.

Fourth, Psalm 19:4: “their voice”

§ 331. (IV) Ps. 19:4. “The Hebrew manuscripts read ‘Their קַוָּם (that is, their ‘line’ or their ‘plumb line’) has gone out into all the earth,’ though the Septuagint translators rendered it φθόγγος αὐτῶν [“their voice or sound”], and Paul approved of their translation (Rom. 10:18). How is it that Jerome translated it literally from the Hebrew, ‘their sound has gone out,’ so that it is necessary either to rebuke Paul and Jerome or certainly to admit that the source is not pure in this passage? It is likely that קוֹלָם ought to be read, since קולם comes from קום with only one letter added.”

We respond. (1) Genebrardus, in his scholia on Psalm 19, writes: “The Hebrew word indeed means ‘line,’ but the Septuagint translators were looking at the sense.” Jerome in his translation and the apostle in his citation in Rom. 10:18 followed the Septuagint because the doctrine of the apostles is the line, the plumb line, and rule of all doctrines in the Church.

(2) Johannes Isaacus points out that the word קַו also means “sound.” However, no examples of this meaning are extant; it is more likely, therefore, that the Septuagint translators repeated that word from the preceding verse.

(3) Not only here but also in many other places in the New Testament, Christ and the apostles quote statements from the Old Testament not according to the wording of the Hebrew text but according to the Septuagint translation, as Jerome teaches (Quaest. super Genes., c. 46). From this, however, one cannot and should not infer that the Hebrew text is not authentic nor that we must go back from the streams to the sources. After all, first, who are we when compared with Christ, the master of Scripture, and with the apostles, who were moved by the immediate inbreathing of the Holy Spirit? Second, though they do not always follow the actual words, nevertheless they do retain the purest sense and intention. Jerome, Epistle 151 ad Algasiam: “Whenever the evangelists and apostles have brought forth testimonies from the Old Testament, one must observe carefully that they have not followed the words but the sense; and whenever the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew, they expressed the Hebrew sense in their speech.” Furthermore, it is one thing p 294 to translate Scripture, but it is another to cite a passage from Scripture. Even the teachers of our Church in their disputations draw statements of Scripture from the Latin Vulgate version, yet they do not thereby claim that it is authentic; rather, as necessity demands, they appeal to the Hebrew sources. In addition, the nature of the Greek version today is different from what it formerly was, because that Greek version of the Old Testament that exists today either is not the version of the Septuagint translators or has been corrupted and vitiated in many ways. Finally, they did not quote statements of Scripture from the Greek version for the purpose of claiming that the Hebrew sources were contaminated and muddied, but because the Greek version was at that time the most used and the most widely accepted. Jerome, Quaest. super Genesin: “Observe this in general, that whenever the holy apostles or apostolic men speak to the people, they often use those testimonies that then were widely published among the Gentiles, namely, through the Septuagint translation.”

(4) Paul expressed literally the Hebrew source and the word קו in Gal. 6:16: “upon all who walk by this rule,” etc.

(5) It is apparent from the notes of the Masoretes that at their time this was read as קום. Therefore no suspicion of corruption lies here. After all, the Masoretic notes were written not only before Jerome’s translation but also even before the Septuagint version and, in fact, were written by Ezra and other men of the Great Synagogue, as Buxtorf and other experts of the Hebrew language affirm.

Fifth, complete sentences are missing

§ 332. (V) “Sometimes complete sentences are missing in the Hebrew, though they are not missing from the Septuagint version nor in Jerome’s translation. We have an example in Exodus 2, where this whole statement is missing: ‘She also bore another son, and he called his name Eliezer, saying: “The God of my father has helped me and has delivered me from the hand of Pharaoh.” ’ ”

We respond. (1) The Hebrew text has that verse in its own place, namely, Exod. 18:4.

(2) The Latin and Greek versions are not the rule for authentic truth in the Hebrew text, for we must not pass judgment on the spring from the streams but, on the contrary, on the streams from the spring.

(3) Who will make us certain that the Hebrew codices here lack something that must necessarily be supplied? You see, one may claim with equal ease that something must be taken away from the Greek and Latin codices.

(4) Cajetan admits: “That verse is superfluous.” The scholars at Louvain mark it with an asterisk, and Robertus Stephanus rejects it.

(5) If you pay attention to Moses’ argument and the flow of the narrative, this verse is inserted here ineptly. You see, Gershom, the son of Moses, preceded his brother Eliezer by many years, during which the Israelites looked to God and God saw them [Exod. 2:25]. Eliezer was born toward the end of those years and was still uncircumcised when Moses girded himself for his return to Egypt, as Junius notes (Animadvers.).

p 295 § 333. These are the five passages of the Old Testament that Bellarmine suspects have been corrupted in the Hebrew text. But even if one were to concede some variance of reading or the change of some little letter in them, yet the consequence would not follow that the Hebrew text was so corrupt that it could not be considered as authentic and that one could not appeal to it as the source. This is because: (1) There would be more in the conclusion than one could infer from the premises. For what is the logical connection here? Five passages have been corrupted, or rather have variant readings, therefore all of Scripture in the Hebrew codex is corrupt? The following is the only consequence: Therefore in those five places, the Hebrew Scripture is not genuine and whole.

(2) There is a scribal error that exists only in some but not all copies. Its correction is obvious to everyone, and both we and the Papists are in agreement regarding it, so we cannot consider it of such importance that it impugns the canonical authority of the Hebrew source.

(3) If that orthographic variance, brought on accidentally because of an affinity of letters and carried only by some copies, were to cause the Hebrew source no longer to be pure and authentic, the consequence would be that the Greek text in the New Testament would no longer be authentic because variant readings occur in it too. But this would be the same thing as if someone wanted to accuse an entire Epistle of corruption because of an error in a single letter [of a word].

(4) In fact, the Latin Vulgate version has been corrupted in far more passages and teems with far more serious errors. Yet the Papists have their hands full foisting it upon us as authentic.

(5) Bellarmine himself acknowledges that because of this no harm is done to the purity and genuine authority of the sources, for he writes against Lindanus, Canus, Gordonus, and others who attack the purity of the sources: “Errors of this sort that have crept in because of the negligence or ignorance of scribes are not of such weight that the integrity of Holy Scripture is lacking in those matters that pertain to faith and the good behavior. You see, in most cases the entire discrepancy of variant readings lies in some words that change the sense either very little or not at all” (De verbo Dei, bk. 2, c. 2, final §).

Johann Gerhard, On the Nature of Theology and on Scripture, ed. Benjamin T. G. Mayes, trans. Richard J. Dinda, Theological Commonplaces (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2009), 283–295.

F. Turretin, “Tenth Question: The Purity of the Sources,” in Institutes of Elenctic Theology [1696]

Have the original texts of the Old and New Testaments come down to us pure and uncorrupted? We affirm against the papists

I. This question lies between us and the papists who speak against the purity of the sources for the purpose of establishing more easily the authority of their Vulgate version and leading us away to the tribunal of the church.

II. By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

III. The question is not Are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the Greek (and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness (or by the Jews and heretics through malice) that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it.

IV. However all the papists do not agree. There are some whom they call “Hebraizers” who have recognized the purity of the sources and openly defended it (as Sixtus Senensis, Bibliotheca sancta 8 [1575], 2:314–19; Bannes, Scholastica commentaria in … Summae Theologicae [1585], I, Q. 1, Art. 8, 1:69, 70, 72; Andradius, Defensio Tridentinae fidei catholicae 4 [1580], pp. 574–709; Driedo, “De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus,” 2 in Opera [1572], 1:23–62; Arias Montanus, “Praefatio,” Biblia sacra Hebraice, Chaldaice, Graece et Latine [1572], vol. 1; Joannes Isaacus, Defensio veritatis Hebraicae sacrarum … adversus … Lindani [1559]; Bonfrerius, Pentateuchus Moysis Commentario … totius Scripturae 12.5 [1625], p. 43; Simeon de Muis, “Epistola,” Assertio veritatis Hebraicae adversus exercitationes … Ioannis Morini [1631] and many more). Others, on the contrary, vehemently urge the corruption of the sources: as Stapleton, Lindanus, Cano, Cotton, Morinus, Perronius, Gordon, etc. Others, unwilling to assert that the sources are corrupt, take a middle ground and hold that it is not a consequence of that purity and integrity that all things in the versions ought to be tested and amended by them. This is the opinion of Bellarmine (VD 2.2, pp. 62–65) who on this subject as on others is not at all consistent with himself.

The providence of God proves that the sources have not been corrupted.

V. The following arguments prove that the sources have not been corrupted. (1) The providence of God which could not permit books which it willed to be written by inspiration (theopneustois) for the salvation of men (and to continue unto the end of the world that they might draw from them waters of salvation) to become so corrupted as to render them unfit for this purpose. And since new revelations are not to be expected (after God has recorded in the Scriptures his entire will concerning the doctrine of salvation), what can be more derogatory to God (who has promised his constant presence with the church) than to assert that he has permitted the books containing this doctrine to become so corrupt that they cannot serve as a canon of faith? (2) The fidelity of the Christian church and unceasing labor in preserving the manuscripts; for since Christians have always labored with great zeal to keep this sacred deposit uncorrupted, it is not credible that they would either corrupt it themselves or suffer it to be corrupted by others. (3) The religion of the Jews who have bestowed upon the sacred manuscripts great care and labor amounting even to superstition. Hence Josephus says that after the lapse of ages no one has dared either to add to or take away from or alter the peculiar books of the Jews in any respect and that they think it an honor to die for the Scriptures (Against Apion 1*.42 [Loeb, 1:180–81]). Philo, in his book on the departure of the Israelites from Egypt (cited by Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 8.6.357c [ed. Gifford, 1903], 1:387) goes further, asserting that “even up to his time, through a space of more than two thousand years, not so much as a word had been changed in the law of the Hebrews and that any Jew would rather die a hundred times, than suffer the law to be altered in the least.” They carry their ridiculous superstition concerning the sacred manuscript to such a length that if a corrected book of the law fell on the ground, they proclaimed a fast and expressed their fears that the whole universe would return to its original chaos, so far were they from corrupting the manuscripts. (4) The carefulness of the Masoretes not only about verses and words, but also about single letters (which, together with all the variations of punctuation and writing, they not only counted, but also wrote down, so that no ground or even suspicion of corruption could arise). Arias Montanus employs this argument in the “Praefatio” to his Biblia sacra Hebraice, Chaldaice, Graece et Latine (1572), vol. 1. (5) The multitude of copies; for as the manuscripts were scattered far and wide, how could they all be corrupted either by the carelessness of librarians or the wickedness of enemies? Augustine says, “No prudent man can believe that the Jews however perverse and wicked could do it, in copies so numerous and so far and widely diffused” (CG 15.13* [FC 14:440; PL 41.452]). Vives said this ought to be the reply to those “who argue that the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New have been so falsified and corrupted as to make it impossible to draw the truth from these sources” (Saint Augustine, of the Citie of God with … comments of … Vives [1620], p. 519).

VI. (6) If the sources had been corrupted, it must have been done before Christ or after, neither of which is true. Not before because Christ would not have passed it over in silence (for he does censure the various departures in doctrine), nor could he bear to use corrupted books. Did he disregard the salvation of his people so far that he would neither himself, nor through his apostles, V 1, p 108 admonish us even by a word that the books of Moses and the prophets had been tampered with; while in the meantime he convicts the Jews from these very books (but to what purpose, if they had been corrupted and falsified?) and invites and urges his disciples to their perusal and search? Not afterward, both because the copies circulated among Christians would have rendered such attempts futile, and because no trace of any such corruption appears. For if this had been the case, why do we find the passages which Christ and the apostles quoted from Moses and the prophets just the same now as then and in no way corrupted? Why do Origen and Jerome, eminent scholars, so explicitly absolve the Jews from this crime? Therefore if no corruption took place either before or after the time of Christ, it never did (which argument Bellarmine follows, VD 2.2, pp. 62–65).

VII. (7) The Jews neither would nor could corrupt the sources. An examination of passages of Scripture proves that they were unwilling (besides their religion of which we have spoken). If they had wished to corrupt anything, they would by all means have tampered with the prophecies which speak of Christ and confirm the faith of Christians. For who can believe that they (if, as is supposed, actuated by hatred towards the Christians) would have falsified those passages from which they could derive no advantage against Christians and left untouched those upon which (as immovable) Christians build the foundation of evangelical truth? The matter stands thus: whatever passages are said to have been corrupted by the Jews, oppose Christians little or not at all; and the most important prophecies concerning Christ remain complete and are much more clear and emphatic (emphatikōtera) in the Hebrew than in the versions (as Jerome, Letter 32 [74], “Ad Marcellam” [NPNF2, 6:45–46], Johannes Isaacus, Defensio Veritatis Hebraicae sacrarum … adversus … Lindani 2 [1559], pp. 61–122 and Andradius, Defensio tridentinae fidei catholicae 2 [1580], pp. 167–460 observe). That they could not do it, even if they had strongly desired, not only the multitude of copies proves, but also the watchfulness of the Christians whose copies not all the Jews together could corrupt. The provident wisdom of God (which will not suffer one jot or tittle to pass from the law till all be fulfilled, Mt. 5:18) has much less permitted the body of heavenly doctrine to be weakened by the Jews and so great a treasure to be taken away. He rather wished, as Bellarmine well remarks, “for this very purpose to scatter the Jews over the whole world and the books of the law and the prophets to be carried about that our enemies might afford a testimony to the truth of Christianity” (VD 2.2, arg. 5, p. 63). Hence Augustine calls the Jews “a book-case nation, carrying as porters the law and the prophets as slaves usually carry manuscripts, that they by carrying may be deficient and these by reading may be proficient; for the Jews serve us as book-slaves and amanuenses, carrying the books for us the students” (cf. Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 12*.23 [NPNF1, 4:191; PL 42.266]; Psalm 57 [56].7 [9] [NPNF1, 8:227; PL 36.666]; Psalm 41 [40].13 [14] [NPNF1, 8:132; PL 36.463]); “in heart enemies, in books witnesses” as he elsewhere expresses it (On Faith in Things Unseen 6.9 [FC 4:467; PL 40.179]).

Sources of explanation.

VIII. Although various corruptions might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts through the carelessness of transcribers and the waste of time, they do not cease to be a canon of faith and practice. For besides being in things of small importance and not pertaining to faith and practice (as Bellarmine himself confesses and which, moreover, he holds do not affect the integrity of V 1, p 109 the Scriptures, VD 2.2, pp. 62–65), they are not universal in all the manuscripts; or they are not such as cannot easily be corrected from a collation of the Scriptures and the various manuscripts.

IX. The hatred of the Jews towards the Christians could indeed be the remote cause of the corruption of the sources, but this could be hindered by another superior cause (viz., by the providence of God which had the same prospective reference to the Christians concerning the sure rule of faith as to the Jews, that the gospel might be built up on an unmistakable basis). This could not have been, if he had suffered the sources to be corrupted.

X. The variance of the Septuagint from the original text does not imply that the text is corrupt, but rather the version is at fault. Jerome even in his time acknowledged this: ‘Praefatio … in Pentateuchum Moysi*,’ from “Hieronymi Prologus Galeatus” in Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixit V … et Clementis VIII (1865), p. xlviii; ‘Praefatio … in librum Paralipomenon Praefatio,’ from “Hieronymi Prologus Galeatus” in Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V … et Clementis VIII (1865), p. xlix; and Letter 106, “Ad Suniam et Fretellam” (PL 22.838). Bellarmine says that the Septuagint was so corrupted and falsified as to seem an entirely different thing, so that now it is not safe to correct the Hebrew or the Latin texts from the Greek manuscripts (VD 2.6, pp. 68–71).

XI. So far are the keri and kethib (which amount to 848 in number) from corrupting the text that they rather show the various readings of copies by which all corruptions of later hands are excluded. The same may be said of the chasir and jother, which mark grammatical defects or redundancies. From this is manifest the superstitious desire of the Masoretes to preserve the text, not to corrupt it even in the smallest degree.

XII. The tikkun sopherim (or corrections of the scribes) which are only eighteen, do not imply that there were corruptions in the text. Otherwise Christ (if they had been made before his time) or the orthodox fathers (if after his time) would not have passed them by without censure. Nor are they necessary corrections (as the reader can see), but rather choice readings. They are not so much changes of the sense as of words, made either by men of the great synagogue (of whom Ezra, inspired of God [theopneustos] was the chief, who after the return from the Babylonian captivity entirely restored the copies of the sacred books which had been scattered or corrupted and arranged them in their present order); or by the authors themselves (who after the manner of rhetoricians made corrections in the text). But that they are not all necessary, the thing itself proves because the sense is complete, the words in the text being retained; see Glassius, Philologia sacra (1713), 1, “Tractatus 1: De integritate and puritate Hebraei V. Test.,” pp. 1–174.

XIII. The similarity of certain letters might indeed have been the occasion of the introduction of errors into the various manuscripts through the negligence of transcribers, but they could not have been so universal as not to be detected by others; especially after the work of the Masoretes, who numbered not only the words, but even the letters as often as they occur in the text.

XIV. So far is the work of the Masoretes from being a proof of the corruption of the sources that, on the contrary, it was intended to guard against errors, so that not even one small point could afterwards be altered or destroyed.

V 1, p 110 XV. Although the apostle renders by phthongon (Rom. 10:18) what is expressed by qvm (Ps. 19:4 [5]), it does not follow that the Hebrew text is incorrect and that qvm (“their line”) is put instead of qvlm (“their voice” or “sound”). For qv signifies not only an extended or perpendicular line, but also a written line or letter by which boys are taught their elements. In Is. 28:10, this word is used to designate the untaught infancy of the people of Israel where the prophet says this people must be taught “precept upon precept, and line upon line” like children. So the psalmist says, “day teaches day and night unto night showeth knowledge” (Ps. 19:2). Now phthongos not unfitly answers to this word, as it is not only taken for the sound but also for the writing of a letter, just as we speak of a written diphthong and vowel. Further, Paul does not quote this passage as a proof, but only allusively and by anagoge accommodates it to the preaching of the gospel by the apostles, having regard to the sense rather than to the words.

XVI. The corrupting of words is different from misinterpretation. The Jews have misinterpreted Is. 9:6 (5), so as to make the words vykr’shmv (“and he shall call his name”) refer to the father who calls, not to Christ who is called. But they have not altered the words, for whether taken passively or actively it comes to the same thing. According to the Hebrew idiom, the future active without a subject often has a passive signification; as Ribera, In librum duodecim prophetarum Commentarii (1611), p. 303 (on Mic. 2, par. 17). Thus verbs of the third person taken impersonally can be translated now actively and then passively. Therefore the Hebrew lection (“and he shall call his name”) must not be altered, but must be explained by supplying the subject; not God the Father (according to the Jews), but everyone (viz., of believers) shall call his (i.e., Christ’s) name; and for the sake of clearness it must be taken passively, “his name shall be called.” Thus also in Jer. 23:6, there is a difference in the interpretation. Not in the words which are properly given, either in the singular (“he shall call him”), the nominative preceding Israel and Judah (as the Septuagint has it); or in the plural (“they shall call”) as Pagninus, Vatablus and Arias Montanus translate it following the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic and Vulgate versions. Jerome retains both readings (“he” and “they shall call”) (Commentariorum in Jeremiam [PL 24.820] on Jer. 23:6). Nor would any of the ancients say that this was corrupted.

XVII. In Gen. 49:10, the three targums of Onkelos, of Jerusalem, and of Jonathan and Kimchi understand shylh of the Messiah. It is evident that the Jews have not corrupted this passage to prove that the Messiah had not yet come. Besides, the name shylh which is attributed to the Messiah in the Talmud (BT [1935], “Sanhedrin,” 2:667) is no less opposed to the Jews and indicative of Christ than the word shylh (“sent”), which they maintain as the true reading, whether it is derived from shyl, which means “a son”; or from shlh which means “peaceful”; or as the Septuagint has it (and more appropriately for ’shr lv, hō apokeitai, “to whom the kingdom belongs”) as we find a similar phrase in Ezk. 21:27*.

XVIII. Zech. 9:9 has not been tampered with, when it is predicted of the Messiah that he shall be a king, just and nvsh‘. This word may be taken either passively (to denote that he was to be saved from death, as the apostle says in Heb. 5:7); or that he was to save himself (as in Is. 63:5*); or as a deponent, it may be used actively, many instances of which are met with in Hebrew; as nshb‘ (“he swore”), nsl (“he despoiled”). Thus it will be a participle signifying the same as mvshy‘ (“liberator,” “savior”).

XIX. Although the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt (Ex. 12:40) is said to have been 430 years (which cannot be understood of the time spent in Egypt alone, which was only 215 years; but concerning the time spent both in the land of Canaan and in Egypt, as the Samaritan and Greek parallel texts explain it), the Hebrew manuscripts ought not to be pronounced corrupt for the following reason. It is introduced by way of synecdoche (mentioning only Egypt) because it was the most remarkable exile of the Israelites, the denomination being made from the letter.

XX. There are no verses omitted in Ps. 14(15), for those quoted in Rom. 3:11–18 are not taken from this by the apostle, but collected from many Psalms (as from Ps. 5:9, 10[11]:7, 36:1, 140:3 and Is. 59:7, 8, which Jerome mentions “Preface” in Book 16, Commentariorum in Isaiam [PL 24.547]).

XXI. There is no corruption in the Greek text of 1 Cor. 15:47, but only in the Vulgate. The latter omits the word Kyrios (which here refers to Christ to make it evident that the Lord is Jehovah, not a mere man). Thus the antithesis of the first and second Adam becomes much stronger: “the first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.”

XXII. Although the doxology (doxologia) which appears at the end of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt. 6:13), is not found in Lk. 11, nor in the various copies, it does not follow that the passage is corrupt because our Lord may have twice proposed the same form of prayer: first in the private instruction of his disciples without it and then to a promiscuous crowd where he added it. Nor is it unusual for one evangelist to omit what another has mentioned, since they did not think it necessary to record absolutely everything; as for instance Mt. 6:33 has “seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness,” but Lk. 12*:31 simply “seek the kingdom of God.” We must not therefore erase, but supply from Matthew what Luke has omitted, since both were inspired (theopneustos), especially as the full form exists in all the Greek copies of Matthew, according to Erasmus and Beza.

XXIII. Although in some manuscripts, we read kairō douleuontes (“serving time,” Rom. 12:11), it does not appear in all. Indeed Franciscus Lucas says that he saw six manuscripts in which the word Kyriō occurs. Beza asserts that it is so in all the most approved manuscripts (Annotationes maiores in Novum … Testament: Pars Altera [1594], p. 133 on Rom. 12:11) and Dominic de Soto observes that this is the universal reading both in the Greek and Latin.

XXIV. It is true that all the Greek copies differ from the Latin on 1 Jn. 4:3, for where the Greek have “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,” the Latin read “every spirit that denies Jesus.” Yet it does not follow that the sources are corrupt because the Greek reading is both more majestic and far stronger against the Nestorians and Eutychians.

XXV. A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal).

XXVI. It is one thing to speak of the attempts of heretics to corrupt some manuscripts (which we readily allow). They gave rise to the complaints of the fathers; as concerning Marcion (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.27 [ANF 1:352]); and Origen on Rom. 16:13 (Commentariorum … ad Romanos [PG 14.1271]); and Theodoret of Cyrrhus concerning Tatian (Haereticarum fabularum compendium V 1, p 112 [PG 83.370–71]). It is quite a different thing to speak of their success or of entire universal corruption. This we deny, both on account of the providence of God, who would not permit them to carry out their intention, and on account of the diligence of the orthodox fathers, who having in their possession various manuscripts preserved them free from corruptions.

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 106–112.

B. Pick, “Various Readings of the Old Testament” [1881]

VARIOUS READINGS of the Old Test. It is now universally admitted that the text of the Old Test. has not come down to us without mistakes. Like all other ancient books, the Bible has suffered from the errors of transcribers; and thus, in the course of repeated copying, many small variations crept into the text, and various readings came into existence. These variæ lectiones may be assigned to two sources. They were made unintentionally or purposely.

I. Accidental Mistakes.—By far the greater number of existing various readings owe their origin to accident, and may be traced back to the following sources:

1. Transcribers saw amiss, and therefore they confounded letters similar in shape. Beth and Kaph, Gimel and Nun, Daleth and Resh, He and Cheth, are so like that they were exchanged. Thus, in Neh. 12:3 we read שכניה, but in ver. 14 שבניה; 1 Chron. 9:15, זכרי, but Neh. 11:17, זבדי; Gen. 10:3, ריפת, but 1 Chron. 1:6, דיפת; Gen. 10:4, דודנים, but 1 Chron. 1:7, רודנים; 18:12, מאדם, but 2 Sam. 8:12, מארם, etc. From the same cause the copyists transposed letters, words, and sentences. Thus we read,

Josh. 21:27, גלון, but in 1 Chron. 6:56, גולן.

1 Sam. 1:1, בן־תחו, but in 1 Chron. 6:19, בן־תוח.

2 Sam. 23:31, הברחמי, but in 1 Chron. 11:33, הבחרומי.

1 Kings 10:11, אלמגים, but in 2 Chron. 9:10, אלגומים.

Psa. 58:11, ויחרגו, but in 2 Sam. 22:46, ויחגרו.

Psa. 18:50, בגוים יהוה, but in 2 Sam. 22:50, יהוה בגוים

Psa. 18:45, לשמע אזן ישמעו לי בני נכר יכחשו־לו, but in 2 Sam. 22:45, בני נכר יכחשו־לי לשמוע אזן ישמעו לי.

Comp. also Psa. 96:9–11 with 1 Chron. 16:30–32.

From the same cause they omitted letters, words, and sentences, especially when two periods or clauses terminated in the same way. Thus Neh. 11:5, מעשיה, but 1 Chron. 4:36; 6:15, עשיה; Psa. 18:42, ישועו, but 2 Sam. 22:42, ישעו. Words were omitted: as in 1 Sam. 1:3, where, after מעירו, probably מן־רמתים (Sept. ἐκ πόλεως αὐτοῦ ἐξ Ἀριαθαίμ) was left out. The omission of clauses or sentences we notice, e.g. 1 Sam. 5:3, where, after ממחרת, the words ויבאו בית דגון ויראו were omitted, for the Sept. reads καὶ εἰσῆλθον εἰς οἶκον Δαγὼν καὶ εἶδον. The last two examples of omission bear the technical name of ὁμοιοτέλευτον.

2. Transcribers heard amiss, and fell into mistakes. Here the same observations can be made as above. Thus—

1 Sam. 17:34, we find זה, as in several codd., instead of שה.

“22:18, דויג, but the Keri, דאג.

2 Kings 20:4, העיר, but the Keri, חצר.

Psa. 96:12, יעלז, but 1 Chron. 16:32, יעלץ.

Isa. 65:4, פרק, but Keri, מרק.

To this cause must be ascribed the seventeen identifications of לא with לו noted in the margin of the Bible.

3. Transcribers made mistakes from memory. Where the copyist trusted too much to his memory, he confounded synonymous terms, as in Lev. 25:36, אל with בל; in 2 Kings 1:10, וידבר with ויאמר, and יהוה with אדוני; or he altered the word, after the more frequent forms, in parallel passages. Thus, in Isa. 63:16, some have למען שמך instead of מעולם שמך, because the former is the more common.

4. Transcribers made mistakes in judgment. They misapprehended the text before them, and therefore divided words badly, misunderstood abbreviations, and blundered with regard to the letters called custodes linearum, as well as marginal notes. One word was improperly separated into two, or two combined into one. An example occurs in Psa. 49:15, where the text has על מות instead of עלמות, unto death instead of forever. The latter reading is found in many MSS. and editions; Sept. εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας; Vulg. in sæcula. On the contrary, 55:16, ישימות, the textual reading, denoting desolations, is directed by the Keri to be divided into ישי מות, let death seize. This is adopted by many MSS., editions, and old translators, as Sept., Vulg., Aquila, Symmachus, Syriac, Arabic, Jerome.

Abbreviations were usually made by writing the first letter of a word and appending a small stroke or two to indicate the omission of some letters. Hence the omission was sometimes erroneously supplied, or the abbreviated word was considered complete in itself. Thus, יהוה was shortened into י֜ or י֞. In Isa. 42:19, the Sept. has translated כעבד יהוה by ὁ δοῦλός μου, showing that they mistook כעבד י֜ for כעבדי. So also in Jer. 6:11, חמת יהוה, the fury of Jehovah, is translated by the Sept. θυμόν μου, showing that they mistook חמת י֜ for חמתי; Psa. 31:7, שנאתי, I hate, all ancient translators understood for שנאת יהוה, thou, Lord, hatest; and this reading is found in Cod. 170. It is well known that the Jews did not divide a word between two lines. When there was a vacant space at the end of a line too small to contain the next word, they added letters to fill it up and preserve the uniform appearance of the copy. These supernumerary letters were generally the initials of the following word, though it was written entire in the next line. Ignorant transcribers may have taken these superfluous letters, called custodes linearun, “keepers of the lines,” into the text. Thus it is thought by some that in Isa. 35:1, the common reading יששום מדבר arose from יששו ם מדבר, by joining the superfluous מ to the end of the verb. On the other hand, transcribers suspected the existence of these custodes linearum in places where they did not occur, and omitted part of the text. So in Exod. 31:8 the word כל, “all,” appears to have been omitted because V 10, p 726 of the following כליו. The omitted word is found in the oldest versions. Errors also arose from taking marginal annotations into the text. Probably Isa. 7:17 furnishes an example, for the clause את מלך אשור is unsuitable. To such marginal annotations must be ascribed those passages in which to one word a second or even a third translation is added. Thus in 1 Sam. 12:14 the Sept. reads, for ולא רציתנו, καὶ οὐ κατεδυάστευσας ἡμᾶς (καὶ οὐ ἔθλασας ἡμᾶς).

In some cases the MS. itself may have been the cause of errors, be it that it was illegible or that some letters were obliterated. After all, it must be obvious that no intentional errors were made, and the existence of various readings is purely accidental.

II. Intentional Errors.—After what has been said, it would be useless to speak of intentional errors were it not for the very fact that Church fathers, Mohammed, and scholars of renown have brought such a charge against the Jews. But the charge has not been substantiated. Their veneration for the sacred books was too great to allow them to make alterations, knowing them to be wrong. Josephus (Cont. Apion. i, 8) says, Τοσούτου γὰρ αἰῶνος ἤδη παρῳχηκότος, οὔτε προσθεῖναί τις οὐδὲν, οὔτε ἀφελεῖν αὐτῶν οὔτε μεταθεῖναι τετόλμηκεν; and Eusebius (Præp. Evang. viii, 6) cites from Philo: Μὴ ῥῆμά γε αὐτοὺς μόνον τῶν ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ (Moses) γεγραμμένων κινῆσαι, ἀλλὰ κἂν μυριάκις αὐτοὺς ἀποθανεῖν ὑπομεῖναι θᾶττον, ἢ τοῖς ἐκείνου νόμοις καὶ ἔθεσιν ἐναντία πεισθῆναι. Like the Samaritans, the early Christians brought the accusation of corrupting the text against the Jews. But these were not competent witnesses or righteous accusers. For when the Jews quoted from the Hebrew Bible passages differing from the Sept., which some of the fathers regarded as inspired, it was very easy to say that the Jews had corrupted Scripture in such places. This was all the reply they could make, being themselves ignorant of the Hebrew original. It was different with Mohammed (see the Koran, sura ii, 73, 176–178; iii, 188; v, 17). His charge is equally directed against Christians as against Jews, because of his inability to find any support in the Scriptures for his prophetical pretensions.

The earliest among Christians who made the charge against the Jews of corrupting the text was Justin Martyr (comp. Trypho, c. 71, 72, 73), who was followed by Irenæus, Tertullian, and others. All these fathers knew nothing of Hebrew; they had to avail themselves of the Sept. Of more importance is the testimony of Origen and Jerome, because they knew Hebrew. It is true that Jerome, in his Commentary on Galatians iii, appears, indeed, to charge the Jews with erasing the word כל in Deut. 27:26; for he says, “Incertum habemus utrum LXX interpretes addiderint Deut. 27:26 omnis homo et in omnibus, an in veteri Hebræo ita fuerit et postea a Judæis deletum sit.… Quam ob causam Samaritanorum Hebræa volumina relegeus inveni כל scriptum esse et cum LXX interpretibus concordare. Frustra igitur illud tulerunt Judæi, ut viderentur esse sub maledicto, si non possent omnia complere quæ scripta sunt: cum antiquiores alterius quoque gentis literæ id positum fuisse testentur.” [“We are uncertain whether the Seventy translators added ‘every’ man and ‘in all things’ to Deuteronomy 27:26, or whether it was thus in the ancient Hebrew and was later deleted by the Jews… For this reason, consulting the Hebrew volumes of the Samaritans, I found that כל [kol, meaning ‘all/every’] was written and agrees with the Seventy translators. Therefore the Jews brought forward that argument in vain, so that they might seem to be under a curse if they could not fulfill all things that are written: since the letters of another, more ancient people testify that this had been placed there.”] But this charge does not appear to have been his deliberate opinion, as can be seen from his Commentary on Isaiah, ch. vi, where he says, “Quodsi aliquis dixerit, Hebræos libros postea a Judæis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem, quid in octavo volumine explanationum Esaiæ huic respondeat quæstiunculæ: quod nunquam Dominus et Apostoli, qui cætera crimina argnunt in scribis et Pharisæis, de hoc crimine, quod erat maximum, retienissent, sin autem dixerint post adventum Domini Salvatoris et prædicationem Apostolorum libros Hebræos fuisse falsatos, cachinnum tenere non potero, ut Salvator et Evangelistæ et Apostoli ita testimonia protulerint, ut Judæi postea falsaturi erant.” [“But if anyone should say that the Hebrew books were later falsified by the Jews, let him hear Origen, what he responds to this little question in the eighth volume of his commentaries on Isaiah: that never would the Lord and the Apostles, who reproach the scribes and Pharisees for other crimes, have kept silent about this crime, which would have been the greatest; but if they should say that the Hebrew books were falsified after the advent of the Lord Savior and the preaching of the Apostles, I will not be able to contain my laughter, that the Savior and the Evangelists and Apostles would have brought forward testimonies in such a way that the Jews were going to falsify them afterwards.”] In spite of this important testimony, there were not wanting some who renewed the old charge. Foremost among them were Isaac Vossius, W. Whiston, J. Morinus etc., who again were refuted by Carpzov, De Muis, Teglor, Boote, Cocceius, Grabe, Trigland, Bellarmine, R. Simon, Glassius, Capellus, and a host of others, who, examining the question sine studio et ira, were not apt to let their sober reason run astray.

There are two or three places in which the charge of intentional corruption has a plausible appearance, viz. Psa. 16:10; 22:17; and Zech. 12:10; but, without entering upon an examination of these passages, as beyond the province of this article, we may state that a close examination proves the folly of the charge.

With regard to the other classes of alterations arising from a well-meaning desire on behalf of the text, we see no good reason to doubt that readings apparently easier or less objectionable were occasionally substituted for others; that supposed mistakes were rectified; places, where something appeared to be wanting, filled up; and passages made conformable to parallel ones. Examples of this kind are found in Gen. 2:2, where, for השביעי, the Samaritan, Sept., and Syriac have הששי; Numb. 27:7, where, instead of אביהם, various MSS. with the Samaritan read אביהן with the feminine suffix; Judg. 18:30, where, for משה, was put מנשה; 1 Chron. 2:48, where, for ילד, several MSS. read ילדה in the feminine; Psa. 36:2, where, for לבי, many MSS. and versions read לבו. In like manner ממזר, in Deut. 23:2, was separated into מום זר; and עז למו, in Psa. 28:8, was changed in some MSS. into עז לעמו, the latter taken, perhaps, from 29:11.

After all, it must appear that all readings must be ascribed to purely accidental causes, such as have been enumerated above. See Keri and Kethib.

B. Pick, “Various Readings of the Old Test,” in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1881), 725–726.

Claims That the MT Contains Corrupt Readings

D. Wallace, “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism” [1991]

It is our contention that majority text advocates follow in Marcion’s train when it comes to their doctrine of preservation because their theological argument does not work for the Old Testament. If our contention is true, then the dogmatic basis for the majority text is bibliologically schizophrenic. The evidence is of two kinds.

First, the argument that the divine motive for preservation is public availability—as poor an argument as it is for the Greek text—is even worse for the Hebrew. Not only is it alleged that “God must do more than merely preserve the inspired original New Testament text. He must preserve it in a public way…through the continuous usage of His Church,”⁶⁴ but that “down through the ages God’s providential preservation of the New Testament has operated only through believers….”⁶⁵ But the Hebrew scriptures were neither preserved publicly—on display through the church as it were nor only through Christians. In light of this, how can majority text advocates escape the charge of Marcionism? In what way can they argue that a bibliological doctrine is true for the NT but is not true for the OT?

Second, it is demonstrable that the OT text does not meet the criteria of preservation by majority rule. Although the Masoretic textual tradition (which represents almost the entirety of the extant Hebrew manuscripts) is highly regarded among most OT textual critics, none (to my knowledge) claim that it is errorless.⁶⁶ Most OT scholars today would agree with Klein that “Samuel MT is a poor text, marked by extensive haplography and corruption—only the MT of Hosea and Ezekiel is in worse condition.”⁶⁷ In fact, a number of readings which only occur in versions (i.e., not in the extant Hebrew manuscripts at all), or are found only in one or two early Qumran manuscripts, have indisputable claim to authenticity in the face of the errant majority.⁶⁸ Furthermore, in many places, all the extant Hebrew manuscripts (as well as versions) are so corrupt that scholars have been forced to emend the text on the basis of mere conjecture.⁶⁹ Significantly, many such conjectures (but not all) have been vindicated by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.⁷⁰ Majority text advocates simply do not grapple with these OT textual phenomena. And if they were to do so and were even to prove many minority text readings or conjectures false, our point would still stand. Only if they could demonstrate that all minority text readings and all conjectures were inferior (or at least probably so), could their argument hold water. The indisputable fact is that OT textual criticism simply cannot be conducted on the basis of counting noses. Since this is the case, either majority text advocates must abandon their theological premise altogether, or else be subject to the charge of a bibliological double standard.

d. The biblical doctrine of preservation. In light of the occasional necessity of conjectural emendation for the OT text, it is our contention that not only is the majority text argument for preservation entirely wrong-headed, but so is any doctrine of preservation which requires that the exact wording of the text be preserved at all. In spite of the fact that even opponents of the MT/TR view embrace such a doctrine,⁷¹ it simply does not square with the evidence. Only three brief points will be made here, in hopes of stimulating a dialogue on this issue.

First, the doctrine of preservation was not a doctrine of the ancient church. In fact, it was not stated in any creed until the seventeenth century (in the Westminster Confession of 1646). The recent arrival of such a doctrine, of course, does not necessarily argue against it—but neither does its youthfulness argue for it. Perhaps what needs to be explored more fully is precisely what the framers of the Westminster Confession and the Helvetic Consensus Formula (in 1675) really meant by providential preservation.

Second, the major scriptural texts alleged to support the doctrine of preservation need to be reexamined in a new light. I am aware of only one substantial articulation of the biblical basis for this doctrine by a majority text advocate. In Donald Brake’s essay, “The Preservation of the Scriptures,” five major passages are adduced as proof that preservation refers to the written Word of God: Ps 119:89, Isa 40:8, Matt 5:17–18, John 10:35, and 1 Pet 1:23–25.⁷² One of the fundamental problems with the use of these passages is that merely because “God’s Word” is mentioned in them it is assumed that the written, canonical, revelation of God is meant.⁷³ But 1 Pet 1:23–25, for example, in quoting Isa 40:8, uses ῥῆμα (not λόγος)—a term which typically refers to the spoken word.⁷⁴ Brake’s interpretation of Ps 119:89 (“For ever, O Lord, your word is settled in heaven”) is, to put it mildly, improbable: “The Word which is settled in heaven was placed there by a deliberate and purposeful act of God Himself.”⁷⁵ It seems that a better interpretation of all these texts is that they are statements concerning either divine ethical principles (i.e., moral laws which cannot be violated without some kind of consequences) or the promise of fulfilled prophecy.⁷⁶ The assumptions that most evangelicals make about the doctrine of preservation need to be scrutinized in light of this exegetical construct.

Third, if the doctrine of the preservation of scripture has neither ancient historical roots, nor any direct biblical basis, what can we legitimately say about the text of the New Testament? My own preference is to speak of God’s providential care of the text as can be seen throughout church history, without elevating such to the level of doctrine. If this makes us theologically uncomfortable, it should at the same time make us at ease historically, for the NT is the most remarkably preserved text of the ancient world—both in terms of the quantity of manuscripts and in their temporal proximity to the originals. Not only this, but the fact that no major doctrine is affected by any viable textual variant surely speaks of God’s providential care of the text. Just because there is no verse to prove this does not make it any less true.⁷⁷

C. Conclusion on the Arguments concerning Preservation

In conclusion, MT/TR advocates argue from a theological vantage point which begs the question historically and logically. More serious than petitio principii, they make several faulty assumptions which not only run aground on rational and empirical rocks, but ultimately backfire. The most telling assumption is that certainty equals truth. This is an evangelical disease: for most of us, at some point, the quest for certainty has replaced the quest for truth. But even for majority text advocates, this quest must, in the last analysis, remain unfulfilled. The worst feature of their agenda, however, is not the faulty assumptions. It is that their view of preservation not only is non-biblical, it is also bibliologically schizophrenic in that it cannot work for both testaments. And that, to a majority text or Textus Receptus advocate—as it would be to any conservative Christian—is the most damaging aspect of their theological agenda.

⁶⁴ Hills, King James Version Defended!, 29.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 26.

⁶⁶ E. Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), for example, argues that “an arbitrary procedure which hastily and unnecessarily dismisses the traditional text…can lead only to a subjective form of the text which is uncertain historically and without any claim to theological relevance” (111). He further argues that the Masoretic text “has repeatedly been demonstrated to be the best witness to the text. Any deviation from it therefore requires justification” (113). Yet, as conservative as he is, he hastens to add, “But this does not mean that we should cling to [the Masoretic text] under all circumstances, because it also has its undeniable faults…” (ibid.). For similar statements regarding the value, but not inerrancy, of the Masoretic textual tradition, see F. E. Deist, Toward the Text of the Old Testament (Pretoria: Kerkboekhandel Transvaal, 1978) 247–49; R. W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 62–63; F. F. Bruce, Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 61–69.

⁶⁷ Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament, 70. Cf. also F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (Garden City: Doubleday, 1958) 179–81; E. Tov, “The State of the Question: Problems and Proposed Solutions,” in 1972 Proceedings: IOSCS and Pseudepigrapha, ed. R. A. Kraft (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972) 3; and especially E. C. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978) 193–221.

⁶⁸ Cf. the discussions (and demonstrations) to this effect in D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986) 361–62 (Isa 49:12), 403–7 (Isa 53:11); Würthwein, Text of the Old Testament, 106–10 (on 108 he argues that Qumran MS 1QIsa^a at Isa 2:20 is superior to MT); J. A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1967) 17; E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor, 1981) 70–72, 288–306; W. H. Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964) 216–35; G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 203–9; Cross, Ancient Library, 169, 189, 191; Bruce, Second Thoughts, 61–62, 66–69; Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament, 62, 71, 74–76; C. E. Pfeiffer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969) 101–9.

⁶⁹ Cf. especially J. Kennedy, An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928). In the editorial note N. Levison comments that “Dr. Kennedy was very conservative theologically…. [yet] he was possessed with an intense passion for the correction of the Massoretic Text, and, as will be seen from the contents of this book, it was no mere speculation but considered and conscientious study that led him to his conclusions” (p. vii). But note also Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 231 (where he accepts an emendation by C. C. Torrey for Isa 53:11, since “if the verse is to be scanned as poetry at all, some such alteration is necessary”); Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament, 76 (on 1 Sam 14:47); Würthwein, Text of the Old Testament, 108 (on Jer 2:21); Bruce, Second Thoughts, 69 (on Isa 21:8; 53:11; and Deut 32:8); Deist, Towards the Text of the Old Testament, 247–49,260; D. M. Fouts, “A Suggestion for Isaiah XXVI 16 ,” Vetus Testamentum 41 (1991) 472–74.

⁷⁰ Ulrich notes that Josephus preserved “at least four genuine Samuel readings which were preserved by no other witness until 4QSam^a was recovered” (Samuel and Josephus, 2). Cf. also Cross, Ancient Library, 189 (“4QSam^a and 1 Chron 21:16 preserve a verse [2 Sam 24:16b] which has dropped out of MT by haplography…”); Würthwein, Text of the Old Testament, 142 (1QIsa^a confirms conjectures at Isa 40:6 and 40:17); Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle, 361–62 (1QIsa^a at Isa 49:12) 403–7 (Isa 53:11); Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 218–19 (Isa 11:6; 21:8) 225–26 (Isa 49:12) 226–33 (Isa 53:11).

⁷¹ Taylor’s comments in “Modern Debate” are representative: “It is essential, then, that this distinction be maintained between the concepts of inspiration, which insures the reliability of the divine revelation, and preservation, which insures the availability of the divine revelation” (148); “It is certain that if God took such pains to insure by inspiration the accuracy of the original manuscripts, He would not leave to an undetermined fate the future of those writings” (154); “Nothing of the inspired writings has been lost as a result of the transmission of the text. This, too, is in keeping with God’s preservation of the Scripture” (163). Cf. also Sturz, Byzantine Text-Type, 37–49, et al.

⁷² Donald L. Brake, “The Preservation of the Scriptures,” in Counterfeit or Genuine?, 175–218. This essay is a modification of Brake’s Th.M. thesis (Dallas Seminary, 1970), “The Doctrine of the Preservation of the Scriptures.”

⁷³ In passing, it should be noted that all these proof-texts, if they refer to the written word at all, refer to the OT. The bibliological inconsistency is thus heightened, for MT/TR advocates apply this doctrine only to the NT.

⁷⁴ BAGD, 735 (1).

⁷⁵ Brake, “Preservation,” 181–82. Apparently Brake means by this that an exact written copy of the originals was brought to heaven. Not only is this difficult to believe, but it renders the “public accessibility” idea absolutely worthless.

⁷⁶ “The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), in its context, means “all will be fulfilled” or “all of it is true” rather than “we must have every word preserved.” “Not one jot or tittle from the law will pass away until all is fulfilled” (Matt 5:18) plainly refers either to the ethical principles of the law or the fulfillment of prophecy, or both. (The validity of each of these options turns, to some degree, on how πληρόω is used elsewhere in Matthew and the weight given to those texts—e.g., are Matthew’s OT quotation introductory formulae [ἵνα πληρωθῇ in 1:23; 2:15; 4:14, etc., connecting the term to eschatological fulfillment] more significant or is Jesus’ own use of πληρόω [in 3:15, connecting it to ethical fulfillment] more significant?) Either way, the idea of preservation of the written text is quite foreign to the context.

Occasionally Matt 24:35 (“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away”) is used in support of preservation. But once again, even though this text has the advantage of now referring to Jesus’ words (as opposed to the OT), the context is clearly eschatological; thus the words of Jesus have certainty of fulfillment. That the text does not here mean that his words will all be preserved in written form is absolutely certain because (1) this is not only foreign to the context, but implies that the written gospels were conceived at this stage in Heilsgeschichte—decades before a need for them was apparently felt; (2) we certainly do not have all of Jesus’ words recorded—either in scripture or elsewhere (cf. John 20:30 and 21:25).

⁷⁷ A possible objection to this statement might be that, on the one hand, we criticize MT advocates for their rational leap of linking preservation to the majority, while on the other hand, here we argue for providential care without having a biblical basis. Is this not the same thing? No. That preservation is to be seen in the majority is an a priori assumption turned into a doctrine; that the doctrinal content of the Bible is not affected by the variants is an a posteriori demonstration which stops short of dogma. Thus if a viable variant were to turn up that affected a major doctrine, our view of God’s providential care would not be in jeopardy, though it would be reworded. An analogy might be seen in two twentieth century wars: One could say that God’s hand was seen in the Allies’ defeat of the Axis in World War II, as well as the Coalition’s defeat of Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. But on occasion, a given battle in which the weather conditions had previously been reported as quite favorable to the Allies’/Coalition’s cause turned out to be unfavorable, this would not alter our overall picture of God’s sovereignty. Rather, we simply could not appeal to that battle in support of our view. Similarly, our view of God’s providential care of the text does not depend on the nonexistence of viable variants which teach heresy precisely because we are not affirming such on a doctrinal level. Our statement is made solely on the basis of the evidence. And just as historical investigation might uncover certain environmental conditions, or mechanical failures, etc., which were unfavorable to the Coalition forces for a given battle, still the outcome of the Persian Gulf War is not at all altered by such evidence—even so any new discoveries of manuscripts may cause us to reshape how we speak of God’s providential care of the text, but the overall fact derived from empirical evidence is still the same.

Daniel B. Wallace, “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism,” Grace Theological Journal 12, no. 1 (1991): 39–44.

D. Wallace, “Has God Preserved the Scriptures? . . . (Part 1)” [????]

Many Christians believe in what they would call “the doctrine of preservation.” What they mean by this is that God has preserved the scriptures. More sophisticated expressions would argue that God has preserved the scriptures in the original languages, down to the very words. This is where the problem begins.

When we look at the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), we soon discover that there are a few places in which, at least at this time in history, God has not preserved the scriptures. For example, in some places all the extant Hebrew manuscripts (as well as versions) are so corrupt that scholars have been forced to emend the text on the basis of mere conjecture. That is, there is no manuscript in any language that has the true, original reading. Among the passages that make the list are Deut 32.8, 1 Sam 13.1, 1 Sam 14.47, Isa 21.8, Isa 53.11, and Jer 2.21. Besides these are passages that up until fairly recently were corrupt in all the manuscripts. For example, Eugene Ulrich, Septuagint scholar extraordinaire, noted that Josephus preserved “at least four genuine Samuel readings which were preserved by no other witness until 4QSama was recovered” (Samuel and Josephus, 2). Ernst Würthwein, in his Text of the Old Testament, 142, noted that 1QIsaa confirmed conjectures that scholars had come up with at Isa 40.6 and 40.17. There are several other OT texts that could be added to the list. The point is that even in those places in which the Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed the conjectures of scholars with hard data, the fact is that the Bible in its entirety—that is, in all of its very words—has not been available to God’s people for all these centuries.

E. F. Hills, who wrote his doctoral dissertation at Harvard, argued that:

If the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament scriptures is a true doctrine then providential preservation of the scriptures must also be a true doctrine. It must be that down through the centuries God has exercised a special providential control over the copying of the scriptures and the preservation and use of the copies, so that trustworthy representatives of the original text have been available to God’s people in every age.

Part of the problem with this approach is that the doctrinal basis becomes what God must do, rather than what scripture declares that he did. Another writer put things succinctly: “It is essential… that this distinction be maintained between the concepts of inspiration, which insures the reliability of the divine revelation, and preservation, which insures the availability of the divine revelation.” In other words, revelation is linked to inspiration and inspiration is linked to preservation. And yet another author wrote, “God has indeed inspired and preserved His OT words perfectly so that we might have an infallible, inerrant OT Bible in our hands today.” The link between inspiration and preservation seems to be almost one-for-one.

The sense that one gets when reading these definitions of preservation is twofold: First, the very words of the original text must be found somewhere among the existing manuscripts. But second, not only must they be found somewhere among the manuscripts, they must also be readily available to believers.

The problem that we see immediately is with the second implication: If there are some words in some passages in the OT that have not been readily accessible to believers for two thousand years, then what is the meaning of preservation? It would seem that the second implication is hardly true. And the fact is that there are still conjectures—places in which OT scholars know that the text is corrupted either here or there (e.g., how old Ahaziah was when he became king: 2 Chron 22.2 says he was 42; 2 Kings 8.26 says he was 22. Most scholars admit that a corruption occurred in either of these passages when they were copied by scribes, but which passage has been corrupted? The scribes were faithful to their predecessors by retaining the wording of the previous manuscripts that they used, even though they knew this would create a contradiction between these two passages. But they were unwilling to conform the two passages to each other because they thought that they might bury the true reading unwittingly.)

Although conjectural emendation is not necessary for the New Testament, the fact that it is for the Old Testament in some places means that God has not preserved the scriptures exactly as they were written in the original manuscripts. And unless we are prepared to say that the doctrine of preservation must mean something different for the OT than for the NT (which would be very Marcionite of us!), we need to admit that this form of the doctrine of preservation is not valid.

So, the first problem with any doctrine of preservation is the manuscript data: we certainly cannot say that the scriptures have been available, in exact copies of the original text, for the last two thousand years. We cannot even say they have been available by a patient, detailed examination of inexact copies over the past two millennia precisely because there are places in which no manuscripts of any age give the original reading. Does preservation mean that God has mostly preserved his word but human beings had to fill in the gaps from time to time? With the evidence mentioned so far, it would seem that we would either have to say something like that or that there is no solid historical basis for the doctrine of preservation. In the next blog (part 2), I will discuss the exegetical/biblical evidence (i.e., the proof-texts) that are used to show that preservation must be a doctrine that Christians should embrace—and why such texts do not mean what their advocates claim.

Don’t worry; I’ll end with some positive points too. But someone asked me to explain why I didn’t hold to the doctrine of preservation. This blog gives the first part of the reason: the evidence of the text that contradicts such a doctrine.

Has God Preserved the Scriptures? . . . (Part 1) – Credo House Ministries // https://web.archive.org/web/20250209120904/https://credohouse.org/blog/has-god-preserved-the-scriptures-part-1

A. Wolters, “The History of Old Testament Interpretation: An Anecdotal Survey” [2012]

It was not uncommon to accuse the Jews of having deliberately corrupted the text of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, the Cambridge scholar William Whiston (1667–1752) wrote a book in which he argued that the Masoretic Text is a corrupt text, deliberately altered by the Jews, whereas the true Hebrew text was that underlying the Septuagint and the citations in the New Testament.²⁴ Similarly, the English theologian John Hutchinson (1674–1737) was a strong defender of the unpointed Hebrew text of the Old Testament, which he believed taught the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. In his view the Masoretic points represented a Jewish corruption of the biblical text. Far from being an isolated eccentric, Hutchinson (and the “Hutchinsonianism” that he inspired) gained a considerable following, among them the respected Hebrew lexicographer John Parkhurst (1728–1797).²⁵

²⁴ William Whiston, An Essay Towards Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament and for Vindicating the Citations Made Thence in the New Testament (London: Senex, 1722).

²⁵ See Derya Gurses, “The Hutchinsonian Defence of an Old Testament Trinitarian Christianity: The Controversy over Elahim, 1735–1773,” History of European Ideas 29 (2003): 393–409.

Al Wolters, “The History of Old Testament Interpretation: An Anecdotal Survey,” in Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew and David J. H. Beldman (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 37.

G. LaNave, Against the Inveterate Obduracy of the Jews [2013]

Christian scholars of the twelfth century were increasingly aware that Jewish and Christian textual traditions of the Bible diverged, and in part this awareness stemmed from more frequent contacts between Latin scholars seeking from Jews insight into the Hebrew text and its interpretation.¹¹³ In sum, then, twelfth-century Christian Hebraists¹¹⁴ were increasingly aware that it was not only Jewish and Christian biblical interpretations that diverged, but even the Latin (Vulgate) and Hebrew texts themselves, V 14, p 36 p 36 hopelessly complicating, it seemed, efforts to convert the Jews. This new awareness stemmed from efforts by scholars like Andrew of St. Victor, whose contact with Jewish rabbis led to a better understanding of discrepancies between the Vulgate and Jewish readings of the text of the Old Testament.¹¹⁵ The Ysagoge in Theologiam, composed ca. 1135 as an introduction to theology by an otherwise unknown scholar, Odo, and dedicated to Gilbert Foliot, prior of Cluny, displays a similar interest in the Hebraica veritas and incorporates seventy-eight passages from the Old Testament written out in Hebrew characters.¹¹⁶ Peter Abelard mentions listening to a Jew commenting on the biblical text, and one of his disciples mentions that Abelard often sought out Jews to discuss points of biblical interpretation.¹¹⁷ While Petrus Alfonsi failed to do what he had promised, namely, to discuss only according to the Hebraica veritas the Old Testament passages that undergirded the Christian-Jewish debate, nonetheless his promise was an implicit recognition of the importance of variant textual and exegetical traditions. In addition, it reflected his understanding that until Christian polemicists V 14, p 37 p 37 acknowledged these variants, they could not hope to prevail in religious debate. It was for that purpose that Alfonsi agreed to introduce only the Hebraica veritas since, as he replied to Moses, “I desire greatly to slay you with your own sword.”¹¹⁸

Some other Christian scholars, lacking Alfonsi’s knowledge of Hebrew and lacking as well a more sophisticated understanding of the development of the biblical text, resorted instead to the explanation that where Jewish and Christian copies of the Old Testament diverge, it is because the Jews had intentionally falsified their Hebrew text in order to undermine the evidence that would otherwise demonstrate that Jesus is the messiah. Thus the ninth-century Christian Paul Alvarez alleged that “everyone knows that after the advent of Christ they [the Jews] falsified the Hebrew codices in order to suppress the clearest testimonies pertaining to Christ …”¹¹⁹ Similarly, Bruno of Segni (d. 1123), an important commentator on Scripture, objected to the Jews’ reading of Is 7:14 (“a virgin will conceive”), a passage Christians understood to foretell the birth of Jesus, and exhorted them to “[c]orrect therefore your books, Jews, which we do not doubt you have falsified out of envy.”¹²⁰ Likewise, Peter of Blois alleges an ideal Ur-text that Jews corrupted to conceal the evidence for Christian truths.¹²¹ At the same time, Christians were increasingly sensitive to Jewish complaints that the Vulgate Latin text was inferior to the Hebrew. In Gilbert Crispin’s Disputation of a Jew and a Christian, the Jewish interlocutor attacks Christians for using the inferior, Latin translation of the Bible since it departs from the Hebrew text.¹²² Similarly, the Jewish interlocutor in Joseph Kimhi’s twelfth-century Book of the Covenant repeatedly upbraids the Christian for errors introduced into the Vulgate text by the translator, Jerome.¹²³

Peter the Venerable, lacking any knowledge of Hebrew, could V 14, p 38 p 38 not, as Alfonsi did, truly appreciate the textual discrepancies that lay beneath differences in Christian and Jewish interpretations of Scripture. And yet, for another reason to be made clear below, he did not subscribe to the view that Jews had intentionally falsified or emended their own biblical codices to undermine Christian claims.¹²⁴ His unwillingness to allege a Jewish conspiracy of false emendation certainly did not stem from a positive view of Jews. Instead, it reflects his concern to oppose the allegation current in the Islamic world that both Jews and Christians had introduced corruption to their revealed texts. The Islamic doctrine of tahrîf mirrored the charge of false emendation that Christian authors alleged against Jews;¹²⁵ it asserted that Jews and Christians had intentionally falsified both Old and New Testaments in order to suppress prophetic passages that pointed to the coming of the prophet Mohammad. Although Peter the Venerable does not address this in his earlier Summary of the Complete Heresy and of the Diabolical Sect of the Saracens or Ishmaelites, it is an important concern in his Against the Saracens, written after his Against the Inveterate Obduracy of the Jews. In Against the Saracens, Peter defends the uncorrupted nature of the whole of the biblical text, and insists that if Muslims accept part of the Bible as an authoritative revelation, then they should accept it in its entirety. This defense demands, then, that Peter distance himself from the claim that Jews had corrupted their Hebrew codices in order to undermine Christian claims.¹²⁶

Just as in Against the Saracens he was forced to defend the integrity of the Hebrew text in which Christian claims are rooted, so in his anti-Jewish polemic he defends the integrity of the Vulgate translation to establish its authority among the Jews. Peter is aware that the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek and Latin, but he assures his Jewish “audience” that the translations are reliable. Although he acknowledges that the Vulgate and the Septuagint (LXX) sometimes present different readings, he insists that this occurs only in passages where the Jewish translators of the LXX, who were unwilling to offend their idolatrous patron Ptolemy, sought a more politically correct way to express its underlying truths.¹²⁷ While he admits that there are textual discrepancies, then, that separate the LXX and Hebrew codices, nonetheless he insists upon the veracity of the Vulgate. The Hebrew text and the Latin do not differ in their essential meaning: “Only the languages are different, while the meaning of the languages is the same. There are two sounds, but only one meaning.”¹²⁸ In Chapter Four he remarks that

we safeguard the [biblical] books intact, we guard them uncorrupted both as they were written by Moses and as they entered the languages of all the Gentiles, translated from the Hebrew and conserved, so to speak, by faithful translators; nothing is added to them, nothing is removed from them. I a Latin have, a Greek has, a Barbarian has, everything in those books that you have, O Jew. We copy what you copy, we read what you read, but on the whole we do not interpret the texts that were written or read in the way that you interpret them, nor on the whole do we understand them as you understand them. You sometimes follow in them the “letter that kills,” whereas I always follow in them the “vivifying spirit.”¹²⁹ You chew on the bark, whereas I eat the pith.¹³⁰

¹¹³ See especially Aryeh Graboïs, “The Hebraica veritas and Jewish-Christian Intellectual Relations in the Twelfth Century,” Speculum 50 (1975): 613–35. Constant Mews has discussed the familiarity with Hebrew of Peter Abelard and Heloise in “Abelard and Heloise on Jews and Hebraica Veritas,” in Christian Attitudes toward Jews in the Middle Ages: A Casebook, ed. Michael Frassetto (New York and London: Routledge, 2007), 83–108. For a broader but still useful discussion see also Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952), 329–55. Also see Gilbert Dahan, “La connaissance de l’exégèse juive par les chrétiens du XIIe au XIVe siècle,” in Rashi et la culture juive en France du Nord au moyen âge, ed. Gilbert Dahan, Gérard Nahon, and Elie Nicholas (Paris and Louvain: E. Peeters, 1997), 343–59.

¹¹⁴ For twelfth-century Christian Hebraism, see especially Michael Signer, “Polemic and Exegesis: The Varieties of Twelfth-Century Hebraism,” in Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, ed. Allison P. Coudert and Jeffrey S. Shoulson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004): 21–32. For an interesting examination of Hebrew study in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, see Willehad Paul Eckert, “Die Universität Köln und die Juden im späten Mittelalter,” in Mensch und Natur im Mittelalter, ed. Albert Zimmermann in Die Kölner Universität im Mittelalter. Geistige Wurzeln und soziale Wirklichkeit, ed. Albert Zimmermann (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 488–507.

¹¹⁵ For Andrew of St. Victor’s contact with Jewish scholars, see Michael Signer’s introduction to Andreae de Sancto Victore Opera. VI: Expositionem in Ezechielem, ed. Michael Alan Signer, CC CM 53e (Turnholt: Brepols, 1991), xiii, xxxi. See also Frans van Liere, “Andrew of St. Victor, Jerome, and the Jews: Biblical Scholarship in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance,” in Scripture and Pluralism: Reading the Bible in the Religiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, ed. Thomas Heffernan and Thomas Burman (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 69.

¹¹⁶ For the Latin text, see Artur Landgraf, Écrits théologiques de l’école d’Abélard (Louvain: Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense, 1934): 63–289. This singular work has survived in only one manuscript, and nothing more is known of its author, although it seems that he was an Englishman who had studied in France. A useful study of the text will be found in Michael Evans, “The Ysagoge in Theologiam and the Commentaries Attributed to Bernard Silvestris,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 54 (1991): 1–42. For the sources of the Jewish polemic contained in this work, see Avrom Saltman, “Gilbert Crispin as a Source of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the Ysagoge in Theologiam,” Bar-Ilan Studies in History 7 (1984): 89–99. It deserves special note that Odo did not take his Hebrew passages from a Hebrew Bible, but rather translated passages from the Latin Vulgate into Hebrew, because he recognized that one must be able to cite the Bible in Hebrew to contend with the Jews.

¹¹⁷ For sources, see Peter Abelard, Collationes, ed. and trans. John Marenbon and Giovanni Orlandi, pp. xlvi–xlvii, and n.101.

¹¹⁸ Petrus Alfonsi, Dialogue Against the Jews, trans. Resnick, 44.

¹¹⁹ Paul Alvarez, Epist. 16 (PL 121: 486D).

¹²⁰ Commentaria in Matthaeum 1 (PL 165: 75C).

¹²¹ See the argument of Peter of Blois, Contra perfidiam Judaeorum 4 (PL 207: 832C–34A).

¹²² Disputatio Iudei 128.1–11, in The Works of Gilbert Crispin, 43.

¹²³ Book of the Covenant, pp. 29, 54, 58.

¹²⁴ For a discussion of the canard of false emendation, see my “Falsification of Scripture and Medieval Christian-Jewish Polemics,” Medieval Encounters 2.3 (1996): 345–80.

¹²⁵ See Jean-Marie Gandeul and Robert Caspar, “Textes de la tradition musulmane concernant le tahrîf des écritures,” Islamochristiana 6 (1980): 61–104; for its role in medieval polemics, see also Norman Roth, “Forgery and Abrogation of the Torah: A Theme in Muslim and Christian Polemic in Spain,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 54 (1987): 203–36; Sidney H. Griffith, “Arguing from Scripture: The Bible in the Christian/Muslim Encounter in the Middle Ages,” in Scripture and Pluralism: Reading the Bible in the Religiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 29–58; and see my “Falsification of Scripture and Medieval Christian-Jewish Polemics,” 368–70. Finally, for late medieval Muslim attitudes, see Walid A. Saleh, “A Fifteenth-Century Muslim Hebraist: Al-Biqā’ī and His Defense of Using the Bible to Interpret the Qur’ān,” Speculum 83.3 (2008): 629–54.

¹²⁶ Cf. Contra sectam sive haeresim Saracenorum, ed. James Kritzeck, 247–56.

¹²⁷ Adversus Iudeorum 2, pp. 26–27, lns. 356–66.

¹²⁸ Adversus Iudeorum 2, p. 21, lns. 170–71.

¹²⁹ Cf. 2 Cor 3:6.

¹³⁰ Adversus Iudeorum 4, p. 99, lns. 1093–1102.

Gregory F. LaNave, ed., Against the Inveterate Obduracy of the Jews, trans. Irven M. Resnick, vol. 14, The Fathers of the Church: Mediaeval Continuation (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2013), 35–39.

Textual Differences between the MT, DSS, LXX, and GNT

Differences between the MT, DSS, LXX, and GNT [in progress]

To Organize

J. Owen, Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture; with Considerations on the Prolegomena and Appendix to the Late “Biblia Polyglotta” [16??]

Prefatory Note

There is a tendency to acquiesce in the general verdict against our author for the part he took in the controversy with Walton on the subject of the London Polyglott, without any very careful inquiry into the grounds on which it rests. Dr Owen, we are convinced, has been the victim of unintentional misrepresentation on this point, partly through the dexterous management of Walton, partly through his own want of caution in properly defining his position, and partly because on some points he was completely in error. Dr Twells, in his biography of Pococke, accuses Owen of writing against the Polyglott; and Mr Todd, in his biography of Walton, bitterly re-echoes the charge. Even his friendly biographer, Mr Orme, intimates that he viewed the Polyglott “with jealousy or disapprobation.” No statement could be more unfounded. Transparent honesty and perfect truthfulness were leading features of his character; and we cannot think of him as speaking in any other terms but those of warm and unfeigned admiration, when he eulogizes the Polyglott as “a noble collection,” “a great and useful work,” “which he much esteemed,” and when he declares that he “would never fail, on all just occasions, to commend the usefulness of the work, and the learning, diligence, and pains, of the worthy persons that have brought it forth.” Dr Chalmers, also, in reference to this controversy, censures Owen as “illiterate” for the views he expressed in it, and contrasts “the lordly insolence of the prelate” with “the outrageous violence of the puritan.” There is more of alliteration than truth in the contrast. Walton’s short-lived prelacy did not begin till after his controversy with Owen; and the charge of “outrageous violence” against the latter appears to have been suggested by the misrepresentation of his antagonist. Owen professed a desire to conduct the dispute “with Christian candour and moderation of spirit;” and, on the whole, he redeemed his pledge.

On the minute and multifarious details of biblical literature, our author assuredly must yield the palm to Walton. It was not his province. But the real merits of the controversy between them involve two questions, and by his opinions on these it must be judged whether the condemnation so unsparingly heaped on him is altogether well founded. These questions relate to the various readings in the original text of Scripture, and to the antiquity of Hebrew punctuation.

1. On the subject of various readings, Owen had submitted, in the epistle dedicatory, at the beginning of the former treatise, ample evidence that Papists had resorted on a great scale to the artifice of magnifying the corruption of the text, in order to exalt the Vulgate and support the claim of their church to infallibility. As critical research multiplied the various readings by the inspection of the ancient codices, Protestant divines took alarm, and, trembling for the ark of truth, discountenanced such inquiries. That Owen was altogether free from the panic cannot be affirmed. We must sympathize, p 346 however, with any pious jealousy for the honour of the holy oracles, in an age when sound principles of criticism had not been clearly established. It will be new, moreover, to many readers, who have hitherto assumed as true the charge against Owen of ignorant antipathy to the duties and advantages of sacred criticism, when they are told that he not only admitted the existence of various readings, but held that if any others could be discovered from a collation of manuscripts, they “deserved to be considered;” differing in this respect from Dr Whitby, who, at a later period, in 1710, published his “Examen Variantium Lectionum,” in opposition to Mill’s edition of the New Testament, taking up ground from which Owen would have recoiled, and insisting that every word in the common text stood as originally written,—“in iis omnibus lectionem textûs lefendi posse.” Owen acknowledged and proclaimed the fact, that in spite of all the variety in the readings, not a single doctrine was vitally affected by them. In regard to them, he objected to the unnecessary multiplication of very trivial differences,—an objection of no moment, stated in a single sentence, and never afterwards pressed. He objected further to the practice of Cappell, in making innovations on the received text by the authority of translations only, on the ground that these translations were made from copies essentially different from any now extant. He exonerates Walton from this error, but deems him not sufficiently careful to refrain from admitting into his Polyglott readings gathered from such a source. It was against Cappell’s theory that he chiefly wrote; and some strong expressions used in regard to it are quoted by Walton, in his reply to the following treatise, as directed sweepingly against the Polyglott. Few now would ratify the innovations of Cappell. Dr Davidson, in his standard work on biblical criticism, “sighs over the groundless conjectures introduced into parts of the Old Testament text by Cappell.” Owen’s main objection, however, reproduced frequently in the course of his tract, was against the attempt to amend the text by mere conjecture. There is still a diversity of opinion as to the legitimacy of this source of criticism. Griesbach repudiated the use of it in his edition of the New Testament. Marsh would avail himself of it in regard to the Old Testament, but not in regard to the New. Davidson reckons the cautious use of it lawful in regard to both. At all events, Walton himself professed to discard it as an instrument of criticism; and yet, as Owen shows, he admitted into the Polyglott the conjectural emendations of Grotius. Even Simon, an admirer of Grotius, while commending his notes, complains that he “sometimes multiplies the various readings without necessity.” So far, therefore, as it was a question of principle between them, Walton was not in advance of Owen. So far as it was a question of fact, Owen had rather the best of the dispute.

2. As to Hebrew punctuation, Owen held the points to be part of Scripture, and as sacred and ancient as the other elements of the text. Here he may have erred, but it was in honourable company,—with the Buxtorfs, Gerard, Glass, Voet, Flacius Illyricus, Lightfoot, Leusden, and others. Cappell, in 1624, though wrong on the question of criticism, adopted the opinions of a learned Jew, Elias Levita, who wrote in 1520, and of some Jewish and Christian writers even before the days of Levita, and first took strong ground in denying the antiquity of the Hebrew points, and tracing them to the school of the Masoretes. Still, the question was not determined. Schultens, in 1737, followed by Michaelis, adopted an intermediate course, contending that some points had been in use from the earliest ages of the language. Eichhorn and Gesenius were inclined to believe in the existence of some points before the Talmud and the days of Jerome. It was only in 1830 that Hupfeld is considered to have set the question at rest, by proving the Masoretic punctuation to have been unknown both to the authors of the Talmud and to Jerome. It is a question which it has taken the discussion of centuries to settle, and some may even yet be disposed to think that all the difficulties connected with Hupfeld’s view are not eliminated from it, and that some apparatus corresponding to the points must have been needed to secure uniformity in Hebrew pronunciation during successive ages, and in all parts of the world, wherever in ancient times there were Jews to speak their own tongue or read their own Scriptures.

Owen erred in various matters of detail; but the same allegation, though not to the same extent, might be made respecting Walton, who advanced opinions in the controversy which no modern scholar would endorse with his sanction. Owen erred also in betraying a nervous sensitiveness, lest an imposing array of various readings should invalidate the authority of the sacred text. The spirit in which Walton replied, however, cannot be justified,—transmuting the hypothetical reasonings of his adversary into positive averments, and applying to the Polyglott what he wrote against Bellarmine, Leo Castrius, Morin, and Cappell, whose principles of criticism were notoriously unsound p 347 and dangerous. Owen begins the following treatise by stating, that after he had finished but before he had sent off the manuscript of the preceding treatise “On the Original of Scripture,” the London Polyglott had reached him. “Palpable untruth!” exclaimed Walton; “for in that treatise there are two references to the Polyglott;”—as if they could not have been inserted after he had seen it, the more especially as on seeing it Owen declares that he took time for consideration. It is to be wished that he had taken more time, and been more guarded, and less rash on this occasion. He would have been less open in minor details to the rebukes of his learned and haughty antagonist; with whom, after all, we cannot help feeling some degree of sympathy, in his fears lest the rude breath of jealous criticism should scorch the laurel due to his brow for devising and completing that stupendous monument of enterprise, learning, and industry,—the Biblia Sacra Polyglotta Londini.—Ed.

Chapter I

The occasion of this discourse—The danger of supposing corruptions in the originals of the Scripture—The great usefulness of the Biblia Polyglotta—The grounds of the ensuing animadversions—The assertions proposed to be vindicated laid down—Their weight and importance—Sundry principles in the Prolegomena prejudicial to the truth contended for laid down—Those principles formerly asserted by others—Reasons of the opposition made to them.

When this whole little precedent treatise¹ was finished and ready to be given out unto the stationer, there came to my hands the Prolegomena and Appendix to the Biblia Polyglotta lately published. Upon the first sight of that volume, I was somewhat startled with that bulky collection of various readings which the appendix tenders to the view of every one that doth but cast an eye upon it. Within a while after, I found that others also, men of learning and judgment, had apprehensions of that work not unlike those which my own thoughts had suggested unto me. Afterward, considering what I had written about the providence of God in the preservation of the original copies of the Scripture in the foregoing discourse, fearing lest, from that great appearance of variations in the original copies, and those of all the translations, published with so great care and diligence, there might some unconquerable objections against the truth of what I had asserted be educed, I judged it necessary to stop the progress of those thoughts until I could get time to look through the Appendix and the various lections in that great volume exhibited unto us, with the grounds and reasons of them in the Prolegomena. Having now discharged that task and (as things were stated) duty, I shall crave leave to deliver my thoughts to some things contained in them, which possibly men of perverse minds may wrest to the prejudice of my former assertions,—to the prejudice of p 348 the certainty of divine truth, as continued unto us, through the providence of God, in the originals of the Scripture.

What use hath been made, and is as yet made, in the world, of this supposition, that corruptions have befallen the originals of the Scripture, which those various lections at first view seem to intimate, I need not declare. It is, in brief, the foundation of Mohammedanism (Alcor. Azoar. 5), the chiefest and principal prop of Popery, the only pretence of fanatical anti-scripturists, and the root of much hidden atheism in the world.¹ At present there is sent unto me by a very learned person, upon our discourse on this subject, a treatise in English, with the Latin title of “Fides Divina,” wherein its nameless author, on this very foundation, labours to evert and utterly render useless the whole Scripture. How far such as he may be strengthened in their infidelity by the consideration of these things time will manifest.

Had there not been, then, a necessity incumbent on me either utterly to desist from pursuing any thoughts of publishing the foregoing treatise, or else of giving an account of some things contained in the Prolegomena and Appendix, I should, for many reasons, have abstained from this employment. But the truth is, not only what I had written in the first chapter about the providence of God in the preservation of the Scripture, but also the main of the arguments afterward insisted on by me concerning the self-evidencing power and light of the Scripture, receiving, in my apprehension, a great weakening by the things I shall now speak unto, if owned and received as they are proposed unto us, I could not excuse myself from running the hazard of giving my thoughts upon them.

The wise man tells us that he considered “all travail, and every right work, and that for this a man is envied of his neighbour;” which, saith he, is “vanity and vexation of spirit,” Eccles. 4:4. It cannot be denied but that this often falls out, through the corruption of the hearts of men, that when works, right works, are with most sore travail brought forth in the world, their authors are repaid with envy for their labour; which mixes all the issues of the best endeavours of men with vanity and vexation of spirit. Jerome of old and Erasmus of late are the usual instances in this kind. That I have any of that guilt in a peculiar manner upon me in reference to this work of publishing the Biblia Polyglotta, which I much esteem, or the authors and contrivers of it, whom I know not,² I can with due consideration, and do, utterly deny. The Searcher of all hearts p 349 knows I lie not. And what should possibly infect me with that leaven? I neither profess any deep skill in the learning used in that work, nor am ever like to be engaged in any thing that should be set up in competition with it, nor did I ever know that there was such a person in the world as the chief author of this edition of the Bible but by it. I shall, then, never fail, on all just occasions, to commend the usefulness of this work, and the learning, diligence, and pains, of the worthy persons that have brought it forth; nor would be wanting to their full praise in this place, but that an entrance into this discourse with their due commendations might be liable to misrepresentations. But whereas we have not only the Bible published, but also private opinions of men, and collections of various readings (really or pretendedly so we shall see afterward), tending some of them, as I apprehend, to the disadvantage of the great and important truth that I have been pleading for, tendered unto us, I hope it will not be grievous to any, nor matter of offence, if, using the same liberty that they or any of them whose hands have been most eminent in this work have done, I do, with, I hope, Christian candour and moderation of spirit, briefly discover my thoughts upon some things proposed by them.

The renownedly learned prefacer to the Arabic translation in this edition of it tells us that the work of translating the Pentateuch into that language was performed by a Jew, who took care to give countenance to his own private opinions, and so render them authentic by bringing them into the text of his translation.

It is not of any such attempt that I have any cause to complain, or shall so do in reference to these Prolegomena and Appendix; only I could have wished (with submission to better judgments be it spoken) that, in the publishing of the Bible, the sacred text, with the translations, and such naked historical accounts of their originals and preservation as were necessary to have laid them fair and open to the judgment of the reader, had not been clogged with disputes and pleas for particular private opinions, imposed thereby with too much advantage on the minds of men by their constant neighbourhood unto canonical truth.

But my present considerations being not to be extended beyond the concernment of the truth which in the foregoing discourse I have pleaded for, I shall first propose a brief abstract thereof, as to that part of it which seems to be especially concerned, and then lay down what to me appears in its prejudice in the volumes now under debate, not doubting but a fuller account of the whole will by some or other be speedily tendered unto the learned and impartial readers of them. The sum of what I am pleading for, as to the particular head to be vindicated, is, That as the Scriptures of the Old and New p 350 Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable; so, by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where, shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority.

Now, the several assertions or propositions contained in this position are to me such important truths, that I shall not be blamed in the least by my own spirit, nor I hope by any others, in contending for them, judging them fundamental parts of the faith once delivered to the saints; and though some of them may seem to be less weighty than others, yet they are so concatenated in themselves, that by the removal or destruction of any one of them, our interest in the others is utterly taken away. It will assuredly be granted that the persuasion of the coming forth of the word immediately from God, in the way pleaded for, is the foundation of all faith, hope, and obedience. But what, I pray, will it advantage us that God did so once deliver his word, if we are not assured also that that word so delivered hath been, by his special care and providence, preserved entire and uncorrupt unto us, or that it doth not evidence and manifest itself to be his word, being so preserved? Blessed, may we say, were the ages past, who received the word of God in its unquestionable power and purity, when it shone brightly in its own glorious native light, and was free from those defects and corruptions which, through the default of men in a long tract of time, it hath contracted; but for us, as we know not well where to lay a sure foundation of believing that this book rather than any other doth contain what is left unto us of that word of his, so it is impossible we should ever come to any certainty almost of any individual word or expression whether it be from God or no. Far be it from the thoughts of any good man, that God, whose covenant with his church is that his word and Spirit shall never depart from it, Isa. 59:21, Matt. 5:18, 1 Pet. 1:25, 1 Cor. 11:23, Matt. 28:20, hath left it in uncertainties about the things that are the foundation of all that faith and obedience which he requires at our hands.

As, then, I have in the foregoing treatise evinced, as I hope, the self-evidencing light and power of the Scripture, so let us now candidly, for the sake and in the pursuit of truth,—dealing with a mind freed from prejudices and disquieting affections, save only the p 351 trouble that arises from the necessity of dissenting from the authors of so useful a work,—address ourselves to the consideration of what seems in these Prolegomena and Appendix to impair the truth of the other assertions about the entire preservation of the word as given out from God in the copies which yet remain with us. And this I shall do, not doubting but that the persons themselves concerned will fairly accept and weigh what is conscientiously tendered.

As, then, I do with all thankfulness acknowledge that many things are spoken very honourably of the originals in these Prolegomena, and that they are in them absolutely preferred above any translation whatever,¹ and asserted in general as the authentic rule of all versions, contrary to the thoughts of the publisher of the great Parisian Bibles, and his infamous hyperaspistes, Morinus; so, as they stand in their aspect unto the Appendix of various lections, there are both opinions and principles, confirmed by suitable practices, that are of the nature and importance before mentioned.

1. After a long dispute to that purpose, it is determined that the Hebrew points or vowels, and accents, are a novel invention of some Judaical Rabbins, about five or six hundred years after the giving out of the gospel² Hence,—

(1.) An antiquity is ascribed to some translations, two or three at the least, above and before the invention of these points; whose agreement with the original cannot, therefore, by just consequence, be tried by the present text, as now pointed and accented.

(2.) The whole credit of our reading and interpretation of the Scripture, as far as regulated by the present punctuation, depends solely on the faithfulness and skill of those Jews whose invention this work is asserted to be.

2. The קְרִי וּכְּתִיב, of which sort are above eight hundred in the Hebrew Bibles, are various lections, partly gathered by some Juduicial Rabbins out of ancient copies, partly their critical amendments.³

And, therefore,—

After these various lections, as they are esteemed, are presented unto us in their own proper order, wherein they stand in the great Bibles (not surely to increase the bulk of diverse readings, or to present a face of new variety to a less attentive observer, but) to evidence that they are such various lections as above described, they are given us over a second time, in the method whereinto they are cast by Cappellus, the great patriarch of these mysteries.⁴

3. That there are such alterations befallen the original as, in many places, may be rectified by the translations that have been made of old.⁵

p 352 And therefore,—

Various lections may be observed and gathered out of those translations, by considering how they read in their copies, and wherein they differed from those which we now enjoy.¹

4. It is also declared, that where any gross faults or corruptions are befallen the originals, men may by their faculty of critical conjecturing, amend them, and restore the native lections that were lost; though in general, without the authority of copies, this may not be allowed.²

And therefore,—

A collection of various readings out of Grotius, consisting for the most part in such conjectures, is in the Appendix presented unto us.

5. The voluminous bulk of various lections, as nakedly exhibited, seems sufficient to beget scruples and doubts in the minds of men about the truth of what hath been hitherto by many pretended concerning the preservation of the Scripture through the care and providence of God.

It is known to all men acquainted with things of this nature that in all these there is no new opinion coined or maintained by the learned prefacer to these Bibles; the severals mentioned have been asserted and maintained by sundry learned men. Had the opinion about them been kept in the ordinary sphere of men’s private conceptions, in their own private writings, running the hazard of men’s judgments on their own strength and reputation, I should not from my former discourse have esteemed myself concerned in them. Every one of us must give an account of himself unto God. It will be well for us if we are found holding the foundation. If we build hay and stubble upon it, though our work perish, we shall be saved. Let every man in these things be fully persuaded in his own mind; it shall be to me no offence. It is their being laid as the foundation of the usefulness of these Biblia Polyglotta, with an endeavour to render them catholic, not in their own strength, but in their appendage to the authority that on good grounds is expected to this work, that calls for a due consideration of them. All men who will find them stated in these Prolegomena may not perhaps have had leisure, may not perhaps have the ability, to know what issue the most of these things have been already driven unto in the writings of private men.

As I willingly grant, then, that some of these things may, without any great prejudice to the truth, be candidly debated amongst learned men, so taking them altogether, placed in the advantages they now enjoy, I cannot but look upon them as an engine suited to the destruction of the important truth before pleaded for, and as a fit p 353 weapon put into the hands of men of atheistical minds and principles, such as this age abounds withal, to oppose the whole evidence of truth revealed in the Scripture. I fear, with some, either the pretended infallible judge or the depth of atheism will be found to lie at the door of these considerations. “Hoc Ithacus vellet.” But the debate of the advantage of either Romanists or Atheists from hence belongs to another place and season. Nor is the guilt of any consequences of this nature charged on the workmen, which yet may be feared from the work itself.

Chapter II

Of the purity of the originals—The αὐτόγραφα. of the Scripture lost—That of Moses, how and how long preserved—Of the book found by Hilkiah—Of the αὐτόγραφα of the New Testament—Of the first copies of the originals—The scribes of those copies not θεόπνευστοι—What is ascribed to them—The great and incomparable care of the scribes of it—The whole word of God, in every tittle of it, preserved entire in the copies of the original extant—Heads of arguments to that purpose—What various lections are granted in the original of the Old and New Testaments—Sundry considerations concerning them, manifesting them to be of no importance—That the Jews have not corrupted the text—The most probable instances considered.

Having given an account of the occasion of this discourse, and mentioned the particulars that are, all or some of them, to be taken into further consideration, before I proceed to their discussion, I shall, by way of addition and explanation to what hath been delivered in the former treatise, give a brief account of my apprehensions concerning the purity of the present original copies of the Scripture, or rather copies in the original languages, which the church of God doth now and hath for many ages enjoyed as her chiefest treasure; whereby it may more fully appear what it is we plead for and defend against the insinuations and pretences above mentioned.

First, then, it is granted that the individual αὐτόγραφα, of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, are in all probability, and as to all that we know, utterly perished and lost out of the world; as also the copies of Ezra. The reports mentioned by some to the contrary are open fictions.¹ The individual ink and parchment, the rolls or books that they wrote, could not without a miracle have been preserved from mouldering into dust before this time. Nor doth it seem improbable that God was willing by their loss to reduce us to a nearer p 354 consideration of his care and providence in the preservation of every tittle contained in them. Had those individual writings been preserved, men would have been ready to adore them, as the Jews do their own ἀπόγραφα in their synagogues.

Moses, indeed, delivered his original copy of the Pentateuch in a public assembly unto the Levites (that is, the sons of Korah), to be put into the sides of the ark, and there kept for a perpetual monument, Deut. 31:25, 26. That individual book was, I doubt not, preserved until the destruction of the temple. There is, indeed, no mention made of the book of the law in particular, when the ark was solemnly carried into the holy place after the building of Solomon’s temple. 2 Chron. 5:4, 5; but the tabernacle of the congregation continued until then. That, and all that was in it, are said to be “brought up,” verse 5. Now, the placing of the book by the sides of the ark being so solemn an ordinance, it was no doubt preserved; nor is there any pretence to the contrary. Some think the book found by Hilkiah in the days of Josiah was this καλὴ παραθήκη, or αὐτόγραφον of Moses, which was placed by the sides of the ark. It rather seems to have been some ancient sacred copy, used in the service of the temple, and laid up there, as there was in the second temple,¹ which was carried in triumph to Rome: for besides that he speaks of his finding it in general in the house of the Lord, upon the occasion of the work which was then done, 2 Chron. 34:15, which was not in or about the holy place, where he, who was high priest, knew full well this book was kept, it doth not appear that it was lawful for him to take that sacred depositum from its peculiar archives to send it abroad, as he dealt with that book which he found; nay, doubtless, it was altogether unlawful for him so to have done, it being placed there by a peculiar ordinance, for a peculiar or special end. After the destruction of the temple, all inquiry after that book is in vain. The author of the Second Book of Maccabees mentions not its hiding in Nebo by Jeremiah, with the ark and altar, or by Josiah, as say some of the Talmudists; nor were it of any importance if they had. Of the Scripture preserved in the temple at its last destruction, Josephus gives us a full account, De Bell. Jud. lib. vii. cap. xxiv.

Secondly, For the Scriptures of the New Testament, it doth not appear that the αὐτόγραφα of the several writers of it were ever gathered into one volume, there being now no one church to keep them for the rest. The epistles, though immediately transcribed for the use of other churches, Col. 4:16, were doubtless kept in the several churches whereunto they were directed. From those πρωτότυπα, there were quickly ἐκτυπούμενα “transcribed copies,” given out p 355 to “faithful men,” 2 Tim. 2:1, whilst the infallible Spirit yet continued his guidance in an extraordinary manner.

For the first transcribers of the original copies, and those who in succeeding ages have done the like work from them, whereby they have been propagated and continued down to us, in a subserviency to the providence and promise of God, we say not, as is vainly charged by Morinus and Cappellus, that they were all or any of them ἀναμάρτητοι and θεόπνευστοι, “infallible and divinely inspired,” so that it was impossible for them in any thing to mistake. It is known, it is granted, that failings have been amongst them, and that various lections are from thence risen; of which afterward. Religious care and diligence in their work, with a due reverence of Him with whom they had to do, is all we ascribe unto them. Not to acknowledge these freely in them, without clear and unquestionable evidence to the contrary, is high uncharitableness, impiety, and ingratitude. This care and diligence, we say, in a subserviency to the promise and providence of God, hath produced the effect contended for; nor is any thing further necessary thereunto. On this account to argue, as some do, from the miscarriages and mistakes of men, their oscitancy and negligence in transcribing the old heathen authors, Homer, Aristotle, Tully, we think it not tolerable in a Christian, or any one that hath the least sense of the nature and importance of the word, or the care of God towards his church. Shall we think that men who wrote out books wherein themselves and others were no more concerned than it is possible for men to be in the writings of the persons mentioned, and others like them, had as much reason to be careful and diligent in that they did as those who knew and considered that every letter and tittle that they were transcribing was part of the word of the great God, wherein the eternal concernment of their own souls and the souls of others did lie? Certainly, whatever may be looked for from the religious care and diligence of men lying under a loving and careful aspect from the promise and providence of God, may be justly expected from them who undertook that work. However, we are ready to own all their failings that can be proved. To assert in this case without proof is injurious.

The Jews have a common saying among them,—that to alter one letter of the law is no less sin than to set the whole world on fire; and shall we think that in writing it they took no more care than a man would do in writing out Aristotle or Plato, who for a very little portion of the world would willingly have done his endeavour to get both their works out of it? Considering that the word to be transcribed was, every ἰῶτα, and tittle of it, the word of the great God; that that which was written, and as written, was proposed as his, as from him; that if any failings were made, innumerable eyes of men, p 356 owning their eternal concernment to lie in that word, were open upon it to discover it, and thousands of copies were extant to try it by; and all this known unto and confessed by every one that undertook this work,—it is no hard matter to prove their care and diligence to have outgone that of other common scribes of heathen authors. The truth is, they are prodigious things that are related of the exact diligence and reverential care of the ancient Jews in this work, especially when they intrusted a copy to be a rule for the trial and standard of other private copies. Maimonides in הלכות ספר תורה, chap. 8:3, 4, tells us that Ben Asher spent many years in the careful, exact writing out of the Bible. Let any man consider the twenty things which they affirm to profane a book or copy, and this will further appear. They are repeated by Rabbi Moses, Tractat. de Libro Legis. cap. x. One of them is, שחסר אפילו אות אחת, “If but one letter be wanting;” and another, “If but one letter be redundant.” Of which more shall be spoken if occasion be offered.

Even among the heathen, we will scarce think that the Roman pontifices, going solemnly to transcribe the Sibyls’ verses, would dc it either negligently or treacherously, or alter one tittle from what they found written; and shall we entertain such thoughts of then who knew they had to do with the living God, and that in and about that which is dearer to Him than all the world besides? Let men, then, clamour as they please, and cry out of all men as ignorant and stupid which will not grant the corruptions of the Old Testament which they plead for, which is the way of Morinus; or let them propose their own conjectures of the ways of the entrance of the mistakes that they pretend are crept into the original copies, with their remedies, which is the way of Cappellus; we shall acknowledge nothing of this nature but what they can prove by undeniable and irrefragable instances,—which, as to any thing as yet done by them or those that follow in their footsteps, appears upon the matter to be nothing at all. To this purpose take our sense in the words of very learned man: “Ut in iis libris qui sine vocalibus conscripti sunt, certum constantemque exemplarium omnium, tum excusarum scriptionem similemque omnino comperimus, sic in omnibus etiam iis quibus puncta sunt addita, non aliam cuipiam nec discrepantem aliis punctationem observavimus; nec quisquam est qui ullo in loco diversa lectionis Hebraicæ exemplaria ab iis quæ circumferuntur, vidisse se asserat, modo grammaticam rationem observatam dicat. Et quidem Dei consilio ac voluntate factum putamus, ut cum magna Græcorum Latinorumque fere omnium ejusdem auctoris exemplarium, ac præsertim manuscriptorum pluribus in locis varietas deprehendatur, magna tamen in omnibus Hebraicis, quæcunque nostro sæculo inveniuntur, Bibliis, scriptionis æqualitas, similitudo atque p 357 constantia servetur quocunque modo scripta illa sint, sive solis consonantibus constent, sive punctis etiam instructa visantur,” Arias Montan. præfat. ad Biblia Interlin. de Varia Hebraicorum Librorum Scriptione et Lectione.

It can, then, with no colour of probability be asserted¹ (which yet I find some learned men too free in granting), namely, that there hath the same fate attended the Scripture in its transcription as bath done other books. Let me say without offence, this imagination, asserted on deliberation, seems to me to border on atheism. Surely the promise of God for the preservation of his word, with his love and care of his church, of whose faith and obedience that word of his is the only rule, requires other thoughts at our hands.

Thirdly, We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining; what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared. In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word. These copies, we say, are the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they are in all things to be examined, tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves. Translations contain the word of God, and are the word of God, perfectly or imperfectly, according as they express the words, sense, and meaning of those originals. To advance any, all translations concurring, into an equality with the originals,—so to set them by it as to set them up with it on even terms,—much more to propose and use them as means of castigating, amending, altering any thing in them, gathering various lections by them, is to set up an altar of our own by the altar of God, and to make equal the wisdom, care, skill, and diligence of men, with the wisdom, care, and providence of God himself. It is a foolish conjecture of Morinus, from some words of Epiphanius, that Origen in his Octapla placed the translation of the LXX. in the midst, to be the rule of all the rest, even of the Hebrew itself, that was to be regulated and amended by it: “Media igitur omnium catholica editio collocata erat, ut ad eam Hebræa cæteræque editiones exigerentur et emendarentur,” Exercit. lib. i. cap. iii. p. 15. The truth is, he placed the Hebrew, in Hebrew characters, in the first place, as the rule and standard of all the rest; the same in Greek characters in the next place; then that of Aquila; then that of Symmachus; after which, in the fifth place, followed that of the LXX., mixed with that of Theodotion.

The various arguments giving evidence to this truth that might be produced are too many for me now to insist upon, and would take up more room than is allotted to the whole discourse, should p 358 I handle them at large, and according to the merit of this cause. 1. The providence of God in taking care of his word, which he hath magnified above all his name, as the most glorious product of his wisdom and goodness, his great concernment in this word answering his promise to this purpose; 2. The religious care of the church (I speak not of the Romish synagogue) to whom these oracles of God were committed; 3. The care of the first writers in giving out authentic copies of what they had received from God unto many, which might be rules to the first transcribers; 4. The multiplying copies to such a number that it was impossible any should corrupt them all, wilfully or by negligence; 5. The preservation of the authentic copies, first in the Jewish synagogues, then in the Christian assemblies, with reverence and diligence; 6. The daily reading and studying of the word by all sorts of persons, ever since its first writing, rendering every alteration liable to immediate observation and discovery, and that all over the world; with, 7. The consideration of the many millions that looked on every letter and tittle in this book as their inheritance, which for the whole world they would not be deprived of: and in particular, for the Old Testament (now most questioned), 8. The care of Ezra and his companions, the men of the great synagogue, in restoring the Scripture to its purity when it had met with the greatest trial that it ever underwent in this world, considering the paucity of the copies then extant;¹ 9. The care of the Masoretes from his days and downward, to keep perfect and give an account of every syllable in the Scripture,—of which see Buxtorfius, Com. Mas.; 10. The constant consent of all copies in the world, so that, as sundry learned men have observed, there is not in the whole Mishna, Gemara, or either Talmud, any one place of Scripture found otherwise read than as it is now in our copies; 11. The security we have that no mistakes were voluntarily or negligently brought into the text before the coming of our Saviour, who was to declare all things, in that he not once reproves the Jews on that account, when yet for their false glosses on the word he spares them not;² 12. Afterward the watchfulness which the two nations of Jews and Christians had always one upon another,—with sundry things of the like importance, might to this purpose be insisted on. But of these things I shall speak again, if occasion be offered.

Notwithstanding what hath been spoken, we grant that there are p 359 and have been various lections in the Old Testament and the New. For the Old Testament, the Keri and Ketib, the various readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, of the eastern and western Jews, evince it. Of the קְרִי וּכְּתִיב I shall speak particularly afterward. They present themselves to the view of every one that but looks into the Hebrew Bible. At the end of the great Rabbinical Bibles (as they are called) printed by Bombergus at Venice, as also in the edition of Buxtorfius at Basil, there is a collection of the various readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, of the eastern and western Jews;—we have them also in this Appendix. For the two first mentioned, they are called among the Jews, one of them, R. Aaron, the son of R. Moses, of the tribe of Asher; the other, R. Moses, the son of David, of the tribe of Naphtali. They flourished, as is probable, among the Jews, about the year of Christ 1030, or thereabouts, and were teachers of great renown, the former in the west or Palestina, the latter in the east or Babylon. In their exact consideration of every letter, point, and accent of the Bible, wherein they spent their lives, it seems they found out some varieties. Let any one run them through as they are presented in this Appendix, he will find them to be so Email, consisting for the most part in unnecessary accents, of no importance to the sense of any word, that they deserve not to be taken notice of. For the various readings of the oriental or Babylonian, and occidental or Palestine Jews, all that I know of them (and I wish that those that know more of them would inform me better) is, that they first appeared in the edition of the Bible by Bombergus, under the care of Felix Pratensis, gathered by R. Jacob Ben Chajim, who corrected that impression. But they give us no account of their original, nor (to profess my ignorance) do I know any that do: it may be some do, but in my present haste I cannot inquire after them. But the thing itself proclaims their non-importance; and Cappellus, the most skilful and diligent improver of all advantages for impairing the authority of the Hebrew text, so to give countenance to his “Critica Sacra,” confesses that they are all trivial, and not in matters of any moment. Besides these, there are no other various lections of the Old Testament. The conjectures of men conceited of their own abilities to correct the word of God are not to be admitted to that title. If any others can be gathered, or shall be here after, out of ancient copies of credit and esteem, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they deserve to be considered. Men must here deal by instances, not conjectures. All that yet appears impairs not in the least the truth of our assertion, that every letter and tittle of the word of God remains in the copies preserved by his merciful providence for the use of his church.

As to Jews, besides the mad and senseless clamour in general for p 360 corrupting the Scriptures, three things are with most pretence of reason objected against them:—The תקון סופדים, tikkun sopherim, or “correctio scribarum,” by which means it is confessed by Elias that eighteen places are corrected. But all things are here uncertain: uncertain that ever any such things were done; uncertain who are intended by their sopherim,—Ezra and his companions most probably; nor do the particular places enumerated discover any such correction. They are all in particular considered by Glassius, lib. i. tract. 1; but the whole matter is satisfactorily determined by Buxtorfius in his letters to Glassius, printed by him, and repeated again by Amama, Anti. Barb. Bib. lib. i. p. 30, 31. Because this thing is much insisted on by Galatinus to prove the Jews, corrupting of the text, it may not be amiss to set down the words of that great master of all Jewish learning:—

“Ad tertium quæsitum tuum, de tikkun sopherim, 18 voces hanc censuram subiisse Massora passim notat. Recensio locorum in vestibulo libri Numerorum, et Ps. 106. Utrobique non nisi 16 recensentur, sed in Num. 12:12 duo exempla occurrunt, ut notat R. Solomon. Deest ergo unus locus mihi, quern ex nullo Judæo hactenus, expiscari potui, nec magnus ille Mercerus eum invenit. Galatinus hoc thema non intellexit, et aliena exempla admiscet. Sic et alii qui corruptiones ista esse putant. Nec ullum hactenus ex nostris sive evangelicis sive catholicis vidi, qui explicarit, quæ fuerint scribæ isti, et quales תיקונים ipsorum. Quam antiquæ hæ notæ de tikkun sint, liquido mihi nondum constat. Antiquior ipsarum memoria est in libro ספרו, qui ante Talmud Babylonicum fertur conscriptus. Dissentiunt tamen Hobræi de ejus autore et tempore. In Talmud neutro ulla plane istius tikkun mentio fit, cum alias עיטור סופרים longe minoris negotii in Talmud commemoretur. Si aliter ista loca fuissent aliquando scripta, Onkelos et Jonathan id vel semel expressissent. Nec Josephus reticuisset, qui contrarium Hebræis adscribit, nullam scilicet unquam literam mutatam fuisse in lege ab Hobræis popularibus suis, lib. i. contra Apionem. Talmudistæ in Lev. 27. vers. ult. diversis locis notant, nec prophetæ ulli licitum fuisse vel minimum in lege mutare vel innovare. Quomodo ergo scribæ quidam vulgares hanc audaciam sibi arrogassent, textum sacrum in literis et sensu corrigere? In silentio itaque omnium, in aurem tibi dico, Sopherim hosce fuisse ipsos autores sacros, Mosen et Prophetas, qui nunquam aliter scripserunt quam hodie scriptum legitur. At sapientes Hebræorum nasutiores, animadvertentes inconvenientiam quandam in istis locis, scripserunt, aliter istos autores loqui debuisse, et secundum cohærentiam propositi textus, sic vel sic scribere, sed pro eo maluisse sic scribere, et id sic efferre, ut illud hodie in textu est. Veluti Gen. 18:22, lectum scriptum, ‘Et Abraham adhuc stabat p 361 bat coram Domino.’ Itane? ubi legitur, inquiunt sapientes, quod Abraham venerit ad Dominum, et steterit coram eo; contrarium dicitur in præcedentibus, Deus scilicet venit ad Abraham, et dixit ad eum, ‘Num ego celo ab Abrahamo,’ etc. ‘Clamor Sodomæ et Gomorrhæ magnus est,’ etc. Ideoque Moses scribere debuit, ‘Et Dominus adhuc stabat coram Abrahamo.’ At ita serviliter de Deo loquí non decuit Mosen, unde תיקון correxit et mutavit stylum sermonis, honoris majoris causa, et dixit, ‘Et Abraham adhuc stabat,’ etc. Hinc R. Salamo adjicit היה לו לכתוב scribendum ipsi (Mosi) erat, (Seu) scribere debebat, ‘Et Dominus stabat;’ non quod aliter sic scripserit antea, et postea id ab aliis scribis correctum sit, aut corruptum. Hinc R. Aben Ezra, ad aliquot loca irridet nasutos, inquiens, nullo tikkun opus fuisse, id est, nihil esse, quod nasuti isti sapientes putarint, autorem debuisse aliter ibi loqui vel scribere. Vide et eum Job. 32:3. Habes mysterium prolixe explicatum, in quo et multi Hebræorum impegerunt.” Thus far Buxtorfius.

The עימור סופרים are insisted on by the same Galatinus; but these are only about the use of the letter ו four or five times, which seem to be of the same rise with them foregoing.

But that which makes the greatest cry at present is the corruption of Ps. 22:17, where, instead of כָּאֲרוּ, which the LXX. translated Ὤρυξαν, “They digged” or “pierced,”—that is, “my hands and feet,”—the present Judaical copies, as the Antwerp Bibles also, read כָּאֲרִי, “as a lion,” so depraving the prophecy of our Saviour’s suffering, “They digged (or pierced) my hands and my feet,” leaving it no sense at all; “As a lion my hands and my feet.” Simeon de Muis upon the place pleads the substitution of י for ו to be a late corruption of the Jews; at least, כָּאֲרוּ was the Keri, and was left out by them. Johannes Isaac, lib. ii. ad Lindan., professes that when he was a Jew, he saw כָּאֲרוּ in a book of his grandfather’s. Buxtorf affirms one to have been the Ketib, the other the Keri, and proves it from the Masora; and blames the Antwerp Bibles for printing כָּאֲרִי in the line. With him agree Genebrard, Pagninus, Vatablus, Mercer, Rivet, etc. Others contend that Ca-ari, “as a lion,” ought to be retained, repeating ὑπὸ κοινοῦ, the verb הִקִּיפוּנִי, “They compassed me about,” affirming also that word to signify, “to tear, rend, and strike;” so that the sense should be, “They tear my hands and feet as a lion.” So Voetius, De Insolubil. Scripturæ. But that כָּאֲרִי cannot be here rendered “sicut leo” most evince, partly from the anomalous position of the prefix כ with Kamets, but chiefly from the Masora, affirming that that word is taken in another sense than it is used Isa. 38:13, where it expressly signifies, “as a lion.” The shorter determination is, that from the radix כָרַה by the epenthesis τοῦ א, and the change which is used often of ו into י (as in the p 362 same manner it is Ezra 10:44), in the third person plural, the preterperfect tense of kal is כָּאֲרִי, “perfoderunt,” “they digged,” or “pierced through my hands and my feet.” But to what purpose is this gleaning after the vintage of Mr Pococke to this purpose in his excellent Miscellanies?

The place of old instanced in by Justin Martyr, Ps. 96:10, where he charges the Jews to have taken out these words, ἀπὸ ξύλου, “from the wood,” making the sense, “The Lord reigneth from the wood,” or the tree, so pointing out the death of Christ on the cross, is exploded by all; for besides that he speaks of the Septuagint, not of the Hebrew text, it is evident that those words were foisted into some few copies of that translation, never being generally received, as is manifested by Fuller, Miscellan. lib. iii. cap. xiii. And it is a pretty story that Arias Montanus tells us of a learned man (I suppose he means Lindanus) pretending that those words were found in a Hebrew copy of the Psalms, of venerable antiquity, beyond all exception, here in England; which copy coming afterward to his hand, he found to be a spurious, corrupt, novel transcript, wherein yet the pretended words are not to be found! Arias Mont. Apparat. de Variis Lec. Heb. et Mass. And I no way doubt, but that we want opportunity to search and sift some of the copies that men set up against the common reading in sundry places of the New Testament, we should find them not one whit better or of more worth than he found that copy of the Psalms.

Chapter III

Of various lections in the Greek copies of the New Testament

For various lections in the Greek copies of the New Testament, we know with what diligence and industry they have been collected by some, and what improvement hath been made of those collections by others. Protestants, for the most part, have been the chiefest collectors of them. Stephanus, Camerarius, Beza, Cameron, Grotius, Drusius, Heinsius, De Dieu, Cappellus, all following Erasmus, have had the prime hand in that work. Papists have ploughed with their heifer to disparage the original, and to cry up the Vulgar Latin. A specimen of their endeavours we have in the late virulent exercitations of Morinus. At first very few were observed. What a heap or bulk they are now swelled unto we see in this Appendix. The collection of them makes up a book bigger than the New Testament itself! Of those that went before, most gave us only what they found in some particular copies that themselves were possessors of; some, p 363 those only which they judged of importance, or that might make some pretence to be considered whether they were proper or no. Here we have all that by any means could be brought to hand, and that whether they are tolerably attested for various lections or no; for as to any contribution unto the better understanding of the Scripture from them, it cannot be pretended. And whither this work may yet grow I know not.

That there are in some copies of the New Testament, and those some of them of some good antiquity, diverse readings, in things or words of less importance, is acknowledged. The proof of it lies within the reach of most, in the copies that we have; and I shall not solicit the reputation of those who have afforded us others out of their own private furniture. That they have been all needlessly heaped up together, if not to an eminent scandal, is no less evident. Let us, then, take a little view of their rise and importance.

That the Grecian was once as it were the vulgar language of the whole world of Christians is known. The writing of the New Testament in that language in part found it so, and in part made it so. What thousands, yea, what millions of copies of the New Testament were then in the world, all men promiscuously reading and studying of the Scripture, cannot be reckoned. That so many transcriptions, most of them by private persons, for private use, having a standard of correction in their public assemblies ready to relieve their mistakes, should be made without some variation, is ἐκ τῶν ἀδυνάτων. From the copies of the first ages, others in the succeeding have been transcribed, according as men had opportunity. From those which are come down to the hands of learned men in this latter age, whereof very few or none at all are of any considerable antiquity, have men made it their business to collect the various readings we speak of; with what usefulness and serviceableness to the churches of God others that look on must be allowed their liberty to judge. We know the vanity, curiosity, pride, and naughtiness of the heart of man; how ready we are to please ourselves with things that seem singular and remote from the observation of the many, and how ready to publish them as evidences of our learning and diligence, let the fruit and issue be what it will. Hence it is come to pass,—not to question the credit of any man speaking of his manuscripts, which is wholly swallowed in this Appendix,—that whatever varying word, syllable, or tittle, could be by any observed, wherein any book, though of yesterday, varieth from the common received copy, though manifestly a mistake, superfluous or deficient, inconsistent with the sense of the place, yea, barbarous, is presently imposed on us as a various lection.

As, then, I shall not speak any thing to derogate from the worth of their labour who have gathered all these various readings into one p 364 body or volume, so I presume I may take liberty without offence to say, I should more esteem of theirs who would endeavour to search and trace out these pretenders to their several originals, and, rejecting the spurious brood that hath now spawned itself over the face of so much paper, that ought by no means to be brought into competition with the common reading, would reduce them to such a necessary number, whose consideration might be of some other use than merely to create a temptation to the reader that nothing is left sound and entire in the word of God.

However, now Satan seems to have exerted the utmost of his malice, men of former ages the utmost of their negligence, of these latter ages of their diligence,—the result of all which we have in the present collection in this Appendix,—with them that rightly ponder things there ariseth nothing at all to the prejudice of our assertion; as may possibly, God assisting, be further manifested hereafter, in the particular consideration of some or all of these diverse readings therein exhibited unto us. Those which are of importance have been already considered by others, especially Glassius, tract. 1, lib. i.

It is evident that the design of this Appendix was to gather together every thing of this sort that might by any means be afforded. At the present, that the reader may not be too much startled at the fruit of their diligence whose work and labour it was, I shall only remark concerning it some few things that, on a general view of it, occur unto me:—

First, then, here is professedly no choice made nor judgment used in discerning which may indeed be called various lections, but all differences whatever that could be found in any copies, printed or written, are equally given out. Hence many differences that had been formerly rejected by learned men for open corruptions are here tendered us again. The very first observation in the treatise next printed unto this collection, in the Appendix itself, rejects one of the varieties as a corruption. So have some others of them been by Arias Montanus, Cameron, and many more. It is not every variety or difference in a copy that should presently be cried up for a various reading. A man might with as good colour and pretence take all the printed copies he could get of various editions, and gathering out the errata typographica, print them for various lections, as give us many, I shall say the most, of those in this Appendix under that name. It may be said, indeed, that the composers of this Appendix found it not incumbent on them to make any judgment of the readings which de facto they found in the copies they perused, but merely to represent what they so found, leaving the judgment of them unto others. I say also it may be so; and therefore, as I do not reflect on them nor their diligence, so I hope they or others p 365 will not be offended that I give this notice of what judgment remains yet to be made concerning them.

Secondly, Whereas Beza, who is commonly blamed by men of all sides and parties for making too bold upon various lections, hath professedly stigmatized his own manuscript, that he sent unto Cambridge, as so corrupt in the Gospel of Luke that he durst not publish the various lections of it, for fear of offence and scandal (however, he thought it had not fallen into the hands of heretics, that had designedly depraved it), we have here, if I mistake not, all the corruptions of that copy given us as various readings; for though I have not seen the copy itself, yet the swelling of the various lections in that Gospel into a bulk as big or bigger than the collection of all the New Testament,—besides the [other] Gospels and Acts, wherein that copy is cited one thousand four hundred and forty times,—puts it out of all question that so we are dealt withal. Now, if this course be taken, and every stigmatized copy may be searched for differences, and these presently printed as various readings, there is no doubt but we may have enough of them to frighten poor unstable souls into the arms of the pretended infallible guide;—I mean as to the use that will be made of this work by such persons as Morinus.

Thirdly, I am not without apprehensions that “opere in longo obrepsit somnus,” and that whilst the learned collectors had their hands and minds busied about other things, some mistakes did fall into this work of gathering these various lections. Some things I meet withal in it that I profess I cannot bring to any good consistency among themselves. To let pass particular instances, and insist on one only of a more general and eminent importance:—in the entrance unto this collection an account is given us of the ancient copies out of which these observations are made; among the rest one of them is said to be an ancient copy in the library of Emmanuel College in Cambridge: this is noted by the letters Em. throughout the whole collection. Now, whereas it is told us, in these preliminary cautions and observations, that it contains only Paul’s Epistles, I wonder how it is come to pass that so many various lections in the Gospels and Acts as in the farrago itself are fixed on the credit of that book could come to be gathered out of a copy of Paul’s Epistles. Certainly here must be some mistake, either in the learned authors of the previous directions, or by those employed to gather the varieties following. And it may be supposed that that mistake goes not alone; so that, upon a further consideration of particulars, it may be we shall not find them so clearly attested as at first view they seem to be. It would indeed be a miracle, if, in a work of that variety, many things should not escape the eye of the most diligent observer.

I am not, then, upon the whole matter, out of hopes but that, upon p 366 a diligent review of all these various lections, they may be reduced to a less offensive and less formidable number. Let it be remembered that the vulgar copy we use was the public possession of many generations,—that upon the invention of printing it was in actual authority throughout the world with them that used and understood that language, as far as any thing appears to the contrary; let that, then, pass for the standard, which is confessedly its right and due, and we shall, God assisting, quickly see how little reason there is to pretend such varieties of readings as we are now surprised withal: for,—

1. Let those places be separated which are not sufficiently attested unto, so as to pretend to be various lections; it being against all pretence of reason that every mistake of every obscure, private copy, perhaps not above two or three hundred years old (or if older), should be admitted as a various lection, against the concurrent consent of, it may be, all others that are extant in the world, and that without any congruity of reason as to the sense of the text where it is fallen out. Men may, if they please, take pains to inform the world wherein such and such copies are corrupted or mistaken, but to impose their known failings on us as various lections is a course not to be approved.

2. Let the same judgment, and that deservedly, pass on all those different places which are altogether inconsiderable, consisting in accents or the change of a letter, not in the least intrenching on the sense of the place, or giving the least intimation of any other sense to be possibly gathered out of them but what is in the approved reading. To what end should the minds of men be troubled with them or about them, being evident mistakes of the scribes, and of no importance at all?

3. Let them also be removed from the pretence, which carry their own convictions along with them that they are spurious, either,—(1.) By their superfluity, or redundancy of unnecessary words; or, (2.) Their deficiency in words evidently necessary to the sense of their places; or, (3.) Their incoherence with the text in their several stations; or, (4.) [By giving] evidence of being intended as expository of difficulties, having been moved and assoiled by some of the ancients upon the places, and their resolutions being intimated; or, (5.) Are foisted out of the Septuagint, as many places out of the New have been inserted into that copy of the Old; or, (6.) Are taken out of one place in the same penman and are used in another; or, (7.) Are apparently taken out of one Gospel and supplied in another, to make out the sense of the place; or, (8.) Have been corrected by the Vulgar Latin,—which hath often fallen out in some copies, as Lucas Brugensis shows us on Matt. 17:2, Mark 1:38, 7:4, and sundry other places; or, (9.) Arise out of copies apparently corrupted, like that of Beza in Luke, and that in the Vatican boasted of by Huntley the Jesuit, which Lucas p 367 Brugensis affirms to have been changed by the Vulgar Latin, and which was written and corrected, as Erasmus says, about the [time of the] council of Florence, when an agreement was patched up between the Greeks and Latins; or, (10.) Are notoriously corrupted by the old heretics, as 1 John 5:7. Unto which heads many, yea, the most of the various lections collected in this Appendix may be referred. I say, of this work might be done with care and diligence (whereunto I earnestly exhort some in this university, who have both ability and leisure for it), it would quickly appear how small the number is of those varieties in the Greek copies of the New Testament which may pretend unto any consideration under the state and title of various lections, and of how very little importance they are to weaken in any measure my former assertion concerning the care and providence of God in the preservation of his word. But this is a work of more lime and leisure than at present I am possessor of; what is to come, θεοῦ ἐν γούνασι κεῖται. In the meantime I doubt not but to hear tidings from Rome concerning this variety, no such collection having as yet been made in the world.

Chapter IV

General premises—Opinions prejudicial to the authority of the originals in the Prolegomena enumerated—The just consequences of these premises—Others engaged in these opinions—Of Cappellus—Of Origen, Ximenes, Arias Montanus’ editions of the Bible.

Having now declared in what sense, and with what allowance as to various lections, I maintain the assertion laid down in the foregoing treatise concerning the providential preservation of the whole book of God, so that we may have full assurance that we enjoy the whole revelation of his will in the copies abiding amongst us, I shall now proceed to weigh what may be objected further (beyond what hath already been insisted on) against the truth of it from the Prolegomena and Appendix to the Biblia Polyglotta, at the entrance of our discourse proposed to consideration:—

To speak somewhat of them in general, I must crave leave to say,—and it being but the representation of men’s avowed judgments, I hope I may say without offence,—that together with many high and honourable expressions concerning the originals, setting aside the incredible figment of the Jews corrupting the Bible out of hatred to the Christians, which, being first supposed by Justin Martyr (though he speaks of the LXX. only), hath scarce found one or two since to own it, but is rejected by the universality of learned men, ancient and modern, unless some few Papists mad upon their idols, and the p 368 thesis preferring in general this or that translation above the original, there is no opinion that I know of that was ever ventilated among Christians, tending to the depression of the worth or impairing the esteem of the Hebrew copies, which is not, directly or by just consequence, owned in these Prolegomena. Thence it is contended that the present Hebrew character is not that used by God himself and in the old church before the captivity of Babylon, but it is the Chaldean, the other being left to the Samaritans; that the points or vowels, and accents, are a late invention of the Tiberian Masoretes, long after sundry translations were extant in the world; that the Keri and Ketib are critical notes, consisting partly of various lections gathered by the late Masoretes and Rabbins; that considering how ofttimes, in likelihood, translators read the text before the invention of the points and accents, the present reading may be corrected and amended by them, and that because the old translators had other copies, or different copies from them which we now enjoy; that where gross faults are crept into the Hebrew text, men may by their own conjectures find out various lections whereby they may be amended,—and to this purpose an instance of such various lections, or rather corrections of the original, is in the Appendix exhibited unto us out of Grotius; that the books of the Scriptures having had the fate of other books,—by passing through the hands of many transcribers, they have upon them the marks of their negligence, ignorance, and sloth.

Now, truly, I cannot but wish that some other way had been found out to give esteem and reputation to this noble collection of translations than by espousing these opinions, so prejudicial to the truth and authority of the originals. And it may be justly feared, that where one will relieve himself against the uncertainty of the originals by the consideration of the various translations here exhibited unto us, being such as upon trial they will be found to be, many will be ready to question the foundation of all.

It is true, the learned prefacer owns not those wretched consequences that some have laboured to draw from these premises; yet it must be acknowledged, also, that sufficient security against the lawful deriving those consequences from these premises is not tendered unto us. He says not that because this is the state of the Hebrew language and Bible, therefore all things in it are dubious and uncertain, easy to be turned unto various senses, not fit to be a rule for the trial of other translations, though he knows full well who think this a just consequence from the opinion of the novelty of the vowels; and himself grants that all our knowledge of the Hebrew is taken from the translation of the LXX., as he is quoted to that purpose by Morinus, Præfat. ad Opusc. Hebræ. Samarit. He p 369 concludes not that on these accounts we must rely upon an infallible living judge, and the translation that he shall commend unto us, though he knows full well who do so; and himself gives it for a rule, that at the correction of the original we have the consent of the guides of the church. I could desire then, I say, that sufficient security may be tendered us against these inferences before the premises be embraced, seeing great and wise men, as we shall further see anon, do suppose them naturally and necessarily to flow from them.

It is confessed that some learned men, even among the Protestants, have heretofore vented these or some of these paradoxes; especially Cappellus, in his “Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum,” “Critica, Sacra,” and other treatises; in the defence whereof, as I hear, he still laboureth, being unwilling to suffer loss in the fruit of so great pains. What will become of his reply unto Buxtorfius in the defence of his Critica I know not. Reports are that it is finished; and it is thought he must once more flee to the Papists by the help of his son, a great zealot amongst them; as he did with his Critica, to get it published. The generality of learned men among Protestants are not yet infected with this leaven; nor, indeed, do I find his boldness in conjecturing approved in these Prolegomena. But let it be free for men to make known their judgments in the severals mentioned. It hath been so, and may it abide so still. Had not this great and useful work been prefaced with the stating of them, it had not been of public concernment (as now it seems to be) to have taken notice of them.

Besides, it is not known whither this inconvenience will grow. Origen, in his Octapla, as was declared, fixed the Hebrew original as the rule and measure of all translations. In the reviving of that kind of work by Ximenes in the Complutensian Bibles, its station is left unto it. Arias Montanus, who followed in their steps (concerning whose performances under his master the king of Spain, I may say, for sundry excellencies, “Nil oriturum alias, nil ortum tale”), was religiously careful to maintain the purity of the originals, publishing the Hebrew verity (as it is called by Jerome, Austin, and others of the ancients) as the rule of examining by it all translations whatever; for which he is since accused of ignorance by a petulant Jesuit,¹ that never deserved to carry his books after him. Michael Le Jay hath given a turn to this progress, and in plain terms exalts a corrupt translation above the originals, and that upon the principle under consideration, as is abundantly manifest from Morinus. And if this change of judgment, which hath been long insinuating itself, by the curiosity and boldness of critics, should break in also upon p 370 the protestant world, and be avowed in public works, it is easy to conjecture what the end will be. We went from Rome under the conduct of the purity of the originals; I wish none have a mind to return thither again under the pretence of their corruption.

Chapter V

The original of the points proposed to consideration in particular—The importance of the points to the right understanding of the Scripture—The testimony of Morinus, Junius, Johannes Isaac, Cevallerius, and others—The use made by the Papists of the opinion of the novelty of the points—The importance of the points further manifested—The extreme danger of making the Hebrew punctuation arbitrary—That danger evinced by instance—No relief against that danger on the grounds of the opinion considered—The authors of the Hebrew punctuation according to the Prolegomena; who and what—Morinus’ folly—The improbability of this pretence—The state of the Jews, the supposed inventors of the points, after the destruction of the temple—Two attempts made by them to restore their religion: the first under Barchochab, with its issue; the second under R. Judah, with its issue—The rise and foundation of the Talmuds—The state of the Jews upon and after the writing of the Talmuds—Their rancour against Christ—Who the Tiberian Masoretes were that are the supposed authors of the Hebrew punctuation; their description—That figment rejected—The late testimony of Dr Lightfoot to this purpose—The rise of the opinion of the novelty of the points—Of Elias Levita—The value of his testimony in this case—Of the validity of the testimony of the Jewish Rabbins—Some considerations about the antiquity of the points: the first, from the nature of the punctuation itself, in reference unto grammatical rules; [the second,] from the Chaldee paraphrase, and integrity of the Scripture as now pointed.

This being, in my apprehension, the state of things amongst us, I hope I may without offence proceed to the consideration of the particulars before mentioned, from whence it is feared that objections may arise against the purity and self-evidencing power of the Scriptures, pleaded for in the foregoing treatise. That which in the first place was mentioned, is the assertion of the points or vowels, and accents, to be a novel invention of some Rabbins of Tiberias in Palestina. This the learned author of the Prolegomena defends with Cappellus’ arguments, and such other additions as he was pleased to make use of. To clear up the concernments of our truth in this particular, it will be necessary to consider,—1. What influence in the right understanding of the text these points have, and necessarily must have; 2. What is their original, or whom their invention is ascribed unto in these Prolegomena. As to the assertive part of this controversy, or the vindication of their true sacred original, p 371 some other occasion may call for additions to what is now (by the way) insisted on. And as I shall not oppose them who maintain that they are coevous with the letters,—which are not a few of the most learned Jews and Christians,—so I nowise doubt but that, as we now enjoy them, we shall yet manifest that they were completed by אנשי כנסת הנדולה, the men of the great synagogue, Ezra and his companions, guided therein by the infallible direction of the Spirit of God.

That we may not seem ἀεροζατεῖν, or to contend de lana caprina, the importance of these points as to the right understanding of the word of God is first to be considered, and that from testimony and the nature of the thing itself. Morinus, in his preface to his Hebrew Lexicon, tells us that without the points no certain truth can be learned from the Scriptures in that language, seeing all things may be read divers ways, so that there will be more confusion in that one tongue than was amongst all those at Babylon: “Nulla igitur certa doctrina poterit tradi de hac lingua, cum omnia possint diversimodo legi, ut futura sit major confusio unicæ hujus linguæ quam illa Babylonis.” Morinus plainly affirms that it is so indeed, instancing in the word דבו, which, as it may be variously pointed, hath at least eight several significations, and some of them as distant from one another as heaven and earth. And to make evident the uncertainty of the language on this account, he gives the like instance in c, r, s, in Latin. Junius, in the close of his animadversions on Bell. De Verbo Dei, lib. ii. cap. ii., commends that saying of Johannes Isaac against Lindanus, “He that reads the Scriptures without points is like a man that rides a horse ἀχάλινος, without a bridle; he may be carried he knows not whither.” Radulphus Cevallerius goes further: Rudiment. Ling. Heb. cap. iv., “Quod superest de vocalium et accentuum antiquitate, eorum sententiæ subscribo, qui linguam Hebræam, tanquam omnium aliarum ἀρχέτυπον absolutissimum, plane ab initio scriptam confirmant; quandoquidem qui contra sentiunt non modo authoritatem sacræ Scripturæ dubiam efficiunt, sed radicitus (meo quidem judicio) convellunt, quod absque vocalibus et distinctionum notis, nihil certi firmique habeat;”—“As for the antiquity of the vowels and accents,” saith he, “I am of their opinion who maintain the Hebrew language, as the exact pattern of all others, to have been plainly written with them from the beginning; seeing that they who are otherwise minded do not only make doubtful the authority of the Scriptures, but, in my judgment, wholly pluck it up by the roots, for without the vowels and notes of distinction it hath nothing firm and certain.”

In this man’s judgment (which also is my own), it is evident to all how obnoxious to the opinion now opposed the truth is that I am contending for.

p 372 To these also may be added the great Buxtorfs, father¹ and son,² Gerard,³ Glassius,⁴ Voetius,⁵ Flacius Illyricus,⁶ Polanus, Whitaker, Hassret,⁷ Wolthius.⁸

It is well known what use the Papists make of this conceit. Bellarmine maintains that there are errors crept into the original by this addition of the points: De Verb. Dei, lib. ii. cap. ii., “Hisce duabus sententiis refutatis, restat tertia, quam ego verissimam puto, quæ est, Scripturas Hebraicas non esse in universum depravatas opera et malitia Judæorum, nee tamen omnino esse integras et puras, sed habere suos errores quosdam, qui partim irrepserint negligentia et ignorantia librariorum, etc., partim ignorantia Rabbinorum qui puncta addiderunt; itaque possumus, si volumus, puncta detrahere et aliter legere;”—“These two opinions being confuted, the third remaineth, which I suppose to be most true; which is, that the Hebrew Scriptures are not universally corrupted by the malicious work of the Jews, nor yet are wholly pure and entire, but that they have errors, which have crept in partly by the negligence and ignorance of the transcribers, partly by the ignorance of the Rabbins who added the points; whence we may, if we please, reject the points and read otherwise.”

In the voluminous opposition to the truth made by that learned man, I know nothing more perniciously spoken, nor do yet know how his inference can be avoided on the hypothesis in question. To what purpose this insinuation is made by him is well known, and his companions in design exactly declare it. That their Hebrew text be corrected by the Vulgar Latin is the express desire of Gregory de Valentia, tom. i. disput. 5, q. 3; and that because the church hath approved that translation, it being corrected (says Huntley) by Jerome before the invention of points. But this is put out of doubt by Morinus, who from hence argues the Hebrew tongue to be a very nose of wax, to be turned by men which way they please, and to be so given of God on purpose that men might subject their consciences to their infallible church, Exercit. lib. i. exer. i. cap. ii. Great hath been the endeavour of this sort of men, wherein they have left no stone unturned, to decry the originals. Some of them cry out that the Old Testament is corrupted by the Jews, as Leo Castrius,⁹ Gordonius Huntlæus,¹⁰ Melchior Canus,¹¹ Petrus Galatinus,¹² Morinus,¹³ Salmeron, Pintus, Mersennus, Animad. in Problem. Georgii Venet, etc., p. 233;¹⁴—that many corruptions have crept into it by negligence p 373 and the carelessness of scribes, so Bellarmine,¹ Genebrard,² Sixtus Senensis,³ with most of the rest of them. In these things, indeed, they have been opposed by the most learned of their own side, as Arias Montanus,⁴ Johannes Isaac,⁵ Pineda,⁶ Masius,⁷ Ferrarius,⁸ Andradius, and sundry others, who speak honourably of the originals. But in nothing do they so pride themselves as in this conceit of the novelty of the Hebrew punctuation, whereby they hope, with Abimelech’s servants, utterly to stop the wells and fountains from whence we should draw our souls, refreshment.

This may serve for a short view of the opinions of the parties at variance, and their several interests in these opinions. The importance of the points is on all hands acknowledged, whether aiming at the honour or dishonour of the originals. Vowels are the life of words; consonants without them are dead and immovable; by them are they carried to any sense, and may be to divers. It is true that men who have come to acquaintance with the Scriptures by the help of the vowels and accents, being in possession of an habitual notion and apprehension of that sense and meaning which ariseth from them, may possibly think that it were a facile thing to find out and fix upon the same sense by the help of the matres lectionis אהוי, and the consideration of antecedents and consequents, with such like assistances. But let them be all taken out of the way (as I shall manifest it is fit they should be, if they have the original assigned to them by the Prolegomena), and let men lay aside that advantage they have received from them, and it will quickly appear into what devious ways all sorts of such persons will run. Scarce a chapter, it may be a verse, or a word, in a short time, would be left free from perplexing, contradicting conjectures. The words are altogether innumerable whose significations may be varied by an arbitrary supplying of the points. And when the regulation of the punctuation shall be left to every single person’s conjectures upon antecedents and consequents (for who shall give a rule to the rest), what end shall we have of fruitless contests? What various, what pernicious senses shall we have to contend about! Suppose that men sober, modest, humble, pious, might be preserved from such miscarriages, and be brought to some agreement about these things (which yet in these days, upon many accounts, is not to be looked for, yea, from the nature of the thing itself seems impossible), yet this gives us but a human, fallible persuasion, that the readings fixed on by them are according to the mind of God; but to expect such an agreement is fond and foolish. Besides, who shall secure us against the luxuriant, p 374 atheistical wits and spirits of these days, who are bold upon all advantages ἀκίνητα κινεῖν, and to break in upon every thing that is holy and sacred, that they will not, by their huckstering, utterly corrupt the word of God? How easy is it to foresee the dangerous consequents of contending for various readings, though not false nor pernicious, by men pertinaciously adhering to their own conjectures! The word of God, as to its literal sense, or reading of the words of it, hath hitherto been ἐξαγώνιον, and the acknowledged touchstone of all expositions; render this now a μῆλον ἔριδος, and what have we remaining firm and unshaken?

Let men, with all their confidence as to the knowledge of the sense and meaning of the Scriptures which they have already received, by such helps and means as are all of them resolved into the present punctuation of the Bible (for all grammars, all lexicons, the whole Masora, all helps to this language, new and old in the world, are built on this foundation), reduce themselves to such an indifferency as some of late have fancied as a meet rise for knowledge, and fall seriously to the reading of some of the prophets, whose matter is sublime and mystical, and their style elliptical and abstruse, without the help of points and accents,—let them fix them, or any figures to answer their sounds, arbitrarily, merely on their judgment in the language and conjectures at the sense of the place, without any advantage from what they have been instructed in,—and let us see whether they will agree, as they fabulously report of the seventy translators! Whatever may be the issue of their industry, we need not fear quickly to find as learned as they that would lay their work level with the ground. I confess, considering the days we live in, wherein the bold and curious wits of men, under pretence of critical observations, alluring and enticing with a show of learning, have ventured to question almost every word in the Scripture, I cannot but tremble to think what would be the issue of this supposition, that the points or vowels, and accents, are no better guides unto us than may be expected from those who are pretended to be their authors. The Lord, I hope, will safeguard his own from the poison of such attempts. The least of its evil is not yet thoroughly considered. So that whereas, saving to myself the liberty of my judgment as to sundry particulars, both in the impression itself and in sundry translations, I acknowledge the great usefulness of this work, and am thankful for it, which I here publicly testify, yet I must needs say, I had rather that it, and all works of the like kind, were out of the world, than that this one opinion should be received, with the consequences that unavoidably attend it.

“But this trial needs not be feared. Grant the points to have the original pretended, yet they deserve all regard, and are of singular p 375 use for the right understanding of the Scripture; so that it is not lawful to depart from them without urgent necessity, and evidences of a better lection to be substituted in the room of that refused.” But as this relieves us not, but still leaves us within the sphere of rational conjectures, so whether it can honestly be pretended and pleaded in this case comes nextly to be discovered by the consideration of the supposed authors of this invention.

The founders of this story of the invention of the Hebrew points tell us that it was the work of some Rabbins living at Tiberias, a city in Galilee, about the year of Christ 500, or in the next century after the death of Jerome and the finishing of the Babylonian Talmud. The improbability of this story or legend I am not now to insist upon. Morinus makes the lie lower. He tells us that the Babylonian Talmud was finished but a little before the year 700, Exer. ii. cap. iii., par. poster.; and that the Masoretes (to whom he ascribes the invention of the points) wrote a long time after the finishing of the Talmud and the year 700, p. p. 5, cap. iii. This long time cannot denote less than some hundreds of years. And yet the same man in his preface to his “Samaritica Opuscula,” boasting of his finding R. Jehuda Chiug, manifests that he was acquainted with the present punctuation, and wrote about it. Now, this rabbi was a grammarian,—which kind of learning among the Jews succeeded that of the Masoretes,—and he lived about the year 1030; so that no room at all seems to be left for this work. That there was formerly a famous school of the Jews and learned men at Tiberias is granted. Jerome tells us that he hired a learned Jew from thence for his assistance, Epist. ad Chromat. Among others, Dr Lightfoot¹ hath well traced the shadow of their sanhedrim, with their presidents in it, in some kind of succession, to that place. That they continued there in any esteem, number, or reputation, unto the time assigned by our authors for this work, is not made to appear from any history or record of Jews or Christians; yea, it is certain that about the time mentioned, the chiefest flourishing of the Jewish doctors was at Babylon, with some other cities in the east, where they had newly completed their Talmud, the great pandect of Jewish laws and constitutions, as themselves everywhere witness and declare. That any persons considerably learned were then in Tiberias is a mere conjecture; and it is most improbable, considering what destruction had been made of them at Diocæsarea and Tiberias, about the year of Christ 352, by Gallus, at the command of Constantius. That there should be such a collection of them so learned, so authorized, as to invent this work and impose it on the world, no man once taking notice that any such persons ever were, is beyond all belief. Notwithstanding p 376 any entanglements that men by their conjectures may put upon the persuasion of the antiquity of the points, I can as soon believe the most incredible figment in the whole Talmud as this fable. But this is not my business. Let it be granted that such persons there were. On the supposition under consideration, I am only inquiring what is the state and condition of the present Hebrew pointing, and what weight is to be laid thereon. That the reader, then, may a little consider what sort of men they were who are assigned in these Prolegomena as the inventors of this artifice of punctuation, I shall take a brief view of the state of the Jews after the destruction of the temple down to the days inquired after.

That the Judaical church-state continued not only de facto, but, in the merciful forbearance of God, so far that the many thousands of believers that constantly adhered to the Mosaical worship were accepted with God until the destruction of the temple; that that destruction was the ending of the world that then was by fire, and the beginning of setting up solemnly the new heaven and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness,—I have at large elsewhere declared, and may, God assisting, yet further manifest in my thoughts on the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. From the time between the beginning of Christ’s preaching to the utter desolation of the city and temple, an open, visible rejection of that church, as such, was made. Thereon an utter separation of the true Israel from it ensued; and the hardened residue became לאֹ־עַמִּי and לאֹ רֻחָמָה,—a people not in covenant or delight, but of curse and indignation. What their state was for a season onwards, both civil and religious, many have declared. I shall only insist on the heads of things. In general, then, they were most remote from accepting of the punishment of their sin, or considering that God was revenging upon them the quarrel of his covenant to the utmost, having broken both his staves, “Beauty and Bands.” So far were they from owning their sin in selling of their Messiah, that, seeing an end put to all their former worship thereupon, there is nothing recorded of them but these two things, which they wholly, in direct opposition unto God, gave themselves up unto:—1. They increased in rage and madness against all the followers of Christ, stirring up persecution against them all the world over. Hereunto they were provoked by a great number of apostates, who, when they could no longer retain their Mosaical rites with the profession of Christ, being rejected by the churches, fell back again to Judaism or semi-Judaism. 2. A filthy lusting and desire after their former worship, now become abominable and a badge of infidelity, that so their table might become a snare unto them, and what had been for their safety might now become the p 377 means of their utter ruin and hardening. Of the former, or their stirring up of persecution, all stories are full of examples and instances. The latter, or their desires and attempts for the restoration of their worship, as conducing to our present business, must be further considered.

For the accomplishment of a design to restore their old religion, or to furnish themselves with a new, they made two desperate attempts. The first of these was by arms, under their pseudo-Messiah, Barchochab, in the days of Hadrian. Under the conduct and influencings of this man, to whom one of the chief Rabbins (Akiba) was armour-bearer, in the pursuit of a design to restore their temple and worship, they fell into rebellion against the Romans all the world over. In this work, after they had committed unheard-of outrages, massacres unparalleled, murders, spoils, and cruelties, and had shaken the whole empire, they were themselves in all parts of the world, especially in the city Bether, where was the head of their rebellion, ruined with a destruction seeming equal to that which befell them it Jerusalem in the days of Vespasian and Titus.

That the rise of this war was upon the twofold cause mentioned, namely, their desire to retain their former worship and to destroy the Christian, is evident. For the first, it is expressed by Dio Cassius: Hist. Rom. lib. lxix., in Vita Had., Ἐς δὲ τὰ Ἰεροσόλυμα πόλιν αὐτοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς κατασκαφείσης οἰκίσαντος, ἣν καὶ Αἰλίαν Καπιτωλίναν ὠνόμασε καὶ ἐς τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τόπον, ναὸν τῶ Διῒ ἕτερον ἀναντεγείροντος, πόλεμος οὔτε μικρὸς οὔτʼ ὀλιγοχρόνιος ἐκινήθη. Ἰουδαῖοι γὰρ, δεινόν τι ποιούμενοι τοὺς ἀλλοφύλους τινὰς ἐς τὴν πόλιν σφῷν οἰκισθῆναι, καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἀλλότρια ἐν αὐτῇ ἰδρυθῆναι· κ.τ.λ. It was the defiling of the soil whereon the temple stood (which God suffered on set purpose to manifest their utter rejection, and that the time was come wherein he would be no more worshipped in that place in the old manner) that put them in arms, as that author declares at large. And for the latter, Justin Martyr, who lived at that time, informs us of it: Apol. ii. ad Anton. Pium., Καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ νῦν γεγενημένῳ Ἰουδαϊκῷ πολέμῳ Βαρχοχέζας ὁ τῆς Ἰουδαίων ἀποστάσεως ἀρχηγέτης Χριστιανοὺς μόνους εἰς τιμωρίας δεινὰς, εἰ μὴ ἀρνοῖντο Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ βλασφημοῖεν, ἐκέλευεν ἀπάγεσθαι. His fury was in an especial manner against the Christians, whom he commanded to be tortured and slain, unless they would deny and blaspheme Jesus Christ. See Euseb. Chron. ad an. Christi 136. And this war they managed with such fury, and, for a while, success, that after Hadrian had called together against them the most experienced soldiers in the world, particularly Julius Severus out of England, and had slain of them five millions and eighty thousand in battle, with [while?] an infinite number besides, as the historian speaks, by famine, sickness, and fire, were consumed, he found himself to have sustained so much p 378 loss by them that he began not his letter to the senate in the wonted manner, Εἰ αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ παῖδες ὑμῶν ὑγιαίνετε, εὖ ἂν ἔχοι· ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ στρατεύματα ὑγιαίνομεν· he could not assure them that it was well with him and his army.

By this second desolation they were [brought] very low, made weak and contemptible, and driven into obscurity all the world over. In this state they wandered up and down for some season in all manner of uncertainty. They had not only lost the place of their solemn worship, seeing it was wholly defiled, the name of Jerusalem changed into Ælia, and themselves forbid to look towards it upon pain of death,¹ but also, being now unspeakably diminished in their number, all hope of contriving themselves into any condition of observing their old rites and worship was utterly lost.²

Here they sat down amazed for a season, being at their wits’ end, as was threatened to them in the curse. But they will not rest so. Considering, therefore, that their old religion could not be continued without a Jerusalem and a temple, they began a nefarious attempt against God, equal to that of the old world in building Babel, even to set up a new religion, that might abide with them wherever they were, and give them countenance in their infidelity and opposition to the gospel unto the utmost. The head of this new apostasy was one R. Judah, whom we may not unfitly call the Mohammed of the Jews. They term him Hannasi, the “prince;” and Hakkadosh, the “holy.” The whole story of him and his companions, as reported by the Jews, is well collected by Joseph de Voysin, Observat. in Proœm. ad Pugi. Fidei. p. 26, 27. The sum of the whole concerning this work is laid down by Maimonides in his præfatio in Seder Zeraiim, p. 36, 37 of the edition of Mr Pococke; wherein also a sufficient account is given of the whole Mishna, with the names of the Rabbins either implied in it or occasionally mentioned. This man, about the year of Christ 190 or 200, when the temple had now lain waste almost three times as long as it did in the Babylonish captivity, being countenanced, as some of themselves report,³ by Antoninus Pius, compiled the Jewish Koran, or the Mishna, as a rule p 379 of their worship and ways for the future. Only, whereas Mohammed afterward pretended to have received his figments by revelation (though, indeed, he had many of his abominations from the Talmud), this man pleaded the receiving of his by tradition,—the two main engines that have been set up against the word of God. Out of such pharisaical traditions as were indeed preserved amongst them, and such observances as they had learned and taken up from apostate Christians, as Aquila and others, with such figments as were invented by himself and his predecessors since the time of their being publicly rejected and cursed by God, this man compiled the ספר משניות,—which is the text of their Talmud, and the foundation of their present religion,—under the name of the old oral law. That sundry Christian ceremonies and institutions, vilely corrupted, were taken up by the Jews of those days, many of them being apostates, as were also some of Mohammed’s assistants in compiling of the Koran, I shall, God assisting, elsewhere endeavour to evince and manifest. That any gospel observances were taken from the Jews, as being in practice amongst them before their institution by Christ, will appear in the issue to be a bold and groundless fancy.

The foundation mentioned being laid in a collection of traditions and new invention of abominations, under the name of old traditions, by this Rabbi, the following Talmuds are an improvement of the same attempt of setting up a religion under the curse and against the mind and will of God, that, being rejected by him, and left “without king, without prince, without sacrifice, without image, without an ephod, and without teraphim,” any kind of worship, true or false, they might have something to give them countenance in their unbelief. The Talmud of Jerusalem, so called (for it is the product of many comments on the Mishna in the city of Tiberias, where R. Judah lived) because it was compiled in the land of Canaan, whose metropolis was Jerusalem, was published about the year of Christ 230: so it is commonly received, though I find Dr Lightfoot of late, on supposition of finding in it the name of Diocletian the emperor, to give it a later date; but I confess I see no just ground for the alteration of his judgment from what he delivered in another treatise before. The Doclet mentioned by the Rabbins was beaten by the children of R. Judah Princeps, as himself observes, who lived in the days of one of the Antoninuses, a hundred years before Diocletian. Neither was ever Diocletian in a low condition in the east, being a Sarmatian born, and living in the western parts; only he went with Numerianus in that expedition into Persia, wherein he was made emperor at his return. But this is nothing to my purpose. See Lightfoot, Chorograph. cap. lxxxi. p. 144. The Babylonian Talmud, so called because compiled in the land of Babylon, in the cities of p 380 Nahardea, Sora, and Pumbeditha, where the Jews had their synagogues and schools, was finished about the year 506 or 510. In this greater work was the mystery of their iniquity finished, and the engine of their own invention for their further obduration perfectly completed. These are now the rule of their faith, the measure of their exposition of Scripture, the directory of their worship,—the ground of their hope and expectation.

All this while the Jews enjoyed the letter of the Scriptures, as they do to this day; yea, they receive it sometimes with the honour and veneration due to God alone. God preserved it amongst them for our present use, their further condemnation, and means of their future conversion. But after the destruction of the temple, and rejection of their whole church-state, the word was no longer committed to them of God, nor were they intrusted with it, nor are to this day. They have it not by promise or covenant, as they had of old, Isa. 59:21. Their possession of it is not accompanied with the administration of the Spirit; without which, as we see in the instance of themselves, the word is a dead letter, of no efficacy for the good of souls. They have the letter amongst them, as at one time they had the ark in the battle against the Philistines, for their greater ruin.

In this state and condition they everywhere discover their rancour and malice against Christ, calling him, in contempt and reproach, תָלוּי, who is קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ יְהוָֹה צְבָאוֹת, relating monstrous figments concerning him and their dealing with him, under the name of “Jesus the son of Pandira.” Some deny that by Jesus, the son of Pandira and Stada, in the Talmud, the blessed Messiah is intended. So did Galatinus, Arcan. Relig. Cathol. lib. i. cap. vii.; and Reuchlinnus Cabal, lib. i. p. 636; Guliel. Schickard., in Proœm. Tarich. p. 83. The contrary is asserted by Reynoldus, Prælec. in lib. Apoc., prælec. 103, p. 405, 406; Buxtorfius Lexic. Rab. voce סטד, and also in פנדירא; Vorstius Not. ad Tzem. Dav. p. 264. And, in truth, the reason pleaded by Galatinus and others to prove that they did not intend our Saviour doth, upon due consideration, evince the contrary. The Jesus, say they, who is mentioned in the Talmud, lived in the days of the Maccabees, being slain in the time of Hyrcanus, or of Aristobulus, one hundred years before the death of the true Messiah; so that it cannot be he who is by them intended. But this is invented by the cursed wretches, that it should not appear that their temple was so soon destroyed after their wicked defection from God in killing of his Son. This is most manifest from what is cited by Genebrard from Abraham Levita, in his “Cabala Historiæ,” where he says that Christians invented this story, that Jesus was crucified in the life of Herod (that is, the tetrarch), that it might appear that their temple was destroyed immediately thereupon; p 381 “when,” saith he, “it is evident from the Mishna and Talmud that he lived in the time of Alexander, and was crucified in the days of Aristobulus:” so discovering the true ground why they perverted the whole story of his time,—namely, lest all the world should see their sin and punishment standing so near together. But it is well that the time of our Saviour’s suffering and death was affirmed even by the heathens, before either their Mishna or Talmud were born or thought of: “Abolendo rumori” (he speaks of Nero, and of his firing Rome) “subdidit reos, et quæsitissimis pœnis affecit, quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per Procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat,” Tacit. Annal. lib. xv. cap. xliv. To return to our Jews: universally in all their old writings they have carried on a design of impugning him in his Gospel; for as we need not their testimony, nor any thing but the Scripture, for their conviction and αὐτοκατακρισία, so, to acknowledge the truth, the places cited out of their Talmuds and Gemara, from the Cabalists and other Rabbins, by Martinus Raymundus, Porchetus, Galatinus, Reuchlinus, and others (setting aside Galatinus his Gale Rezeia, which must be set aside), seem[ing] to be wrested the most of them beside their intentions, as things obscurely, metaphorically, and mystically written, are easily dealt withal. Their disputes about the Messiah, when they speak of him of set purpose, as in Lib. Sanhedrim, are foolish, contradictious triflings, wherein they leave all things as uncertain as if they were wrangling in their wonted manner, “de lana caprina.” So that, for my part, I am not much removed from the opinion of Hulsius (lib. i. p. 2, dic. sup. de Temp. Messiæ), that Æsop’s Fables are of as much use in Christian religion as the Judaical Talmud. Whilst they keep the Scripture, we shall never want weapons out of their own armory for their destruction. Like the Philistine, they carry the weapon that will serve to cut off their own heads. Now, the Tiberian Masoretes, the supposed inventors of the points or vowels, and accents, which we now use, were men living after the finishing of the last Talmud, whose whole religion was built thereon.

Let us, then, a little, without prejudice or passion, consider who or what these men were, who are the supposed authors of this work:—1. Men they were (if any such were) who had not the word of God committed to them in a peculiar manner, as their forefathers had of old, being no part of his church or people, but were only outwardly possessors of the letter, without just right or title to it, utterly uninterested in the promise of the communication of the Spirit, which is the great charter of the church’s preservation of truth, Isa. 59:21. 2. Men so remote from a right understanding of the word, or the mind and will of God therein, that they were desperately engaged p 382 to oppose his truth in the books which themselves enjoyed, in all matters of importance unto the glory of God or the good of their own souls, from the beginning to the ending; the foundation of whose religion was infidelity, and one of their chief fundamentals an opposition to the gospel.¹ 3. Men under the special curse of God and his vengeance, upon the account of the blood of his dear Son. 4. Men all their days feeding themselves with vain fables, and mischievous devices against the gospel, labouring to set up a new religion under the name of the old, in despite of God; so striving to wrestle it out with his curse to the utmost. 5. Men of a profound ignorance in all manner of learning and knowledge but only what concerned their own dunghill traditions;² as appears in their stories, wherein they make Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, help Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, with innumerable the like fopperies. 6. Men so addicted to such monstrous figments, as appears in their Talmuds, as their successors of after ages are ashamed of, and seek to palliate what they are able; yea, for the most part idolaters and magicians, as I shall evince. Now, I dare leave it to the judgment of any godly, prudent person, not addicted to parties and names of men, who is at all acquainted with the importance of the Hebrew vowels and accents unto the right understanding of the Scripture, with what influence their present fixation hath upon the literal sense we embrace, whether we need not very clear evidence and testimony, yea, undeniable and unquestionable, to cast the rise and spring of them upon the invention of this sort of men.

Of all the fables that are in the Talmud I know none more incredible than this story, that men who cannot, by any story or other record, be made to appear that they ever were in rerum natura,—such men as we have described, obscure, unobserved, not taken notice of by any learned man, Jew or Christian,—should in a time of deep ignorance, in the place where they lived, amongst a people wholly addicted to monstrous fables, themselves blinded under the curse of God, find out so great, so excellent a work, of such unspeakable usefulness, not once advising with the men of their own profession and religion, who then flourished in great abundance at Babylon and the places adjacent, and impose it on all the world (that receive the Scriptures), and have every tittle of their work received, without any opposition or question from any person or persons, of any principle whatever; yea, so as to have their invention made the constant rule of all following expositions, comments, and interpretations. Credat Apella.

To draw, then, to the close of this discourse, I must crave liberty p 383 to profess that it I could be thoroughly convinced that the present Hebrew punctuation were the figment and invention of these men, I should labour to the utmost to have it utterly taken away out of the Bible, nor should I (in its present station) make use of it any more. What use such an invention might be of under catholic rules, in a way of grammar, I shall not dispute; but to have it placed in the Bible as so great a part of the word of God is not tolerable. But blessed be God, things are not as yet come to that pass! I shall only add, that whereas some of the most eminently learned and exercised persons in all the learning and antiquity of the Jews that these latter ages have produced, have appeared in the confutation of this fancy of the invention of the points by some post-Talmudical Masoretes, I am sorry their respect to the Rabbins hath kept them from the management of this consideration, which is to me of so great importance.

To what I have spoken I shall add the words of learned Dr Lightfoot, in his late Centuria Chorograph., which came to my hands since the finishing of this discourse, cap. lxxxi. p. 146: “Sunt qui punctata Biblia credunt a sapientibus Tiberiensibus” (he means Elias only, for other Jews of this opinion there are none). “Ego impudentiam Judæorum, qui fabulam invenerunt, non miror; Christianorum credulitatem miror, qui applaudunt. Recognosce (quæso) nomina Tiberiensium a sita illic primum academia ad eam expirantem, et quidnam tandem invenies nisi genus hominum præ Pharisaismo insaniens, traditionibus fascinans et fascinatum, cæcum, vafrum, delirum; ignoscant, si dicam magicum et monstrosum? Ad opus tam divinum homines quam ineptos, quam stolidos! Perlege Talmud Hierosolymitanum, et nota qualiter illic se habeant R. Juda, R. Chamnath, Z. Judan, R. Hoshaia, R. Chaija Rubba, R. Chaija Bar Ba, R. Jochanan, reliquique inter Tiberienses grandissimi doctores; quam serio nihil agunt; quam pueriliter seria; quanta in ipsorum disputationibus vafrities, spuma, venenum, fumus, nihil; et si punctata fuisse Biblia in istiusmodi schola potes credere, crede et omnia Talmudica. Opus Spiritus Sancti sapit punctatio Bibliorum, non opus hominum perditorum, exæcatorum, amentium.” In the words of this learned person there is the sum of what I am pleading for. Saith he, “I do not admire the Jews’ impudence, who found out that fable; I admire Christians’ credulity, who applaud it. Recount, I pray, the names of the Tiberians from the first foundation of a university there to the expiring thereof, and what do you find but a sort of men being mad with (or above) the Pharisees, bewitching and bewitched with traditions, blind, crafty, raging; pardon me if I say magical and monstrous? What fools, what sots, as to such a divine work! Read over the Talmud of Jerusalem; consider how R. Juda, R. Chamnath, Z. Judan, R. Hoshaia, R Chaija, p 384 Rubba, R. Chaija Bar Ba, R. Jochanan, and the rest of the great doctors among the Tiberians, do behave themselves; how seriously they do nothing; how childish they are in serious things; how much deceitfulness, froth, venom, smoke, nothing, in their disputations: and if you can believe the points of the Bible to proceed from such a school, believe also their Talmuds. The pointing of the Bible savours of the work of the Holy Spirit, not of wicked, blind, and mad men.”

The Jews generally believe these points to have been from mount Sinai, and so downward by Moses and the prophets, at least from Ezra and his companions, the men of the great synagogue; not denying that the knowledge and use of them received a great reviving by the Gemarists and Masoretes, when they had been much disused. So R. Azarias at large, Imre Binah. cap. lix.

Had it been otherwise, surely men stupendously superstitious in inquiring after the traditions of their fathers would have found some footsteps of their rise and progress. It is true, there is not only the opinion, but there are the arguments, of one of them to the contrary,—namely, Elias Levita. This Elias lived in Germany about the beginning of the Reformation, and was the most learned grammarian of the Jews in that age. Sundry of the first reformers had acquaintance with him. The task not only of reforming religion, but also of restoring good literature, being incumbent on them, they made use of such assistances as were to be obtained then to that purpose. This man (whom Thuanus takes notice of¹) lived with Paulus Fagius, and assisted him in his noble promotion of the Hebrew tongue. Hence haply it is that some of those worthies unwarily embraced his novel opinion, being either overborne with his authority, or not having leisure to search further after the truth. That the testimony of this one Elias should be able to outweigh the constant attestation of all other learned Jews to the contrary, as Cappellus affirms and pleads, and as is insinuated in our Prolegomena,² is fond to imagine; and the premises of that learned man fight against his own conclusion. “It is known,” saith he, “that the Jews are prone to insist on every thing that makes for the honour of their people and language; and therefore their testimony to the divine original of the present punctuation, being in their own case, is not to be admitted. p 385 Only Elias, who in this speaks against the common interest of his people, is presumed to speak upon conviction of truth.” But the whole evidence in this cause is on the other side. Let us grant that all the Jews are zealous of the honour and reputation of their nation and language, as they are; let us grant that they greedily close with every thing that may seem to have a tendency thereunto: what will be the issue or natural inference from these premises? Why, as nothing could be spoken more honourably of the Jews whilst they were the church and people of God than that of Paul, that “to them were committed the oracles of God,” so nothing can be magined or fixed on more to their honour since their divorce from God than that their doctors and masters should make such an addition to the Scripture, so generally acknowledged to be unspeakably useful. And to this purpose Elias, who was the father of this opinion, was far from making such deductions thence as some do now-a-days, namely, that it is lawful for us to change the vowels and accents at our pleasure, but ties all men as strictly to them as if they had been the work of Ezra. It is Elias, then, that speaks in his own case; whose testimony is, therefore, not to be admitted. What was done of old and in the days of Ezra is ours, who succeed unto the privileges of that church; what hath been done since the destruction of the temple is properly and peculiarly theirs.

It may, perhaps, be thought that by the account given of the Rabbins, their state and condition of old and of late, I might have weakened one great argument which learned men make use of to confirm the sacred antiquity of the present Hebrew punctuation, taken from the universal consent and testimony of the Jewish doctors, ancient and modern, this one Elias excepted. Who can think such persons are in any thing to be believed? But, indeed, the case is quite otherwise. Though we account them wholly unmeet for the work that is ascribed unto them, and, on supposition that it is theirs, affirm that it had need undergo another manner of trial than as yet, out of reverence to its generally received antiquity, it hath met withal; yet they were men still who were full well able to declare what de facto they found to be so, and what they found otherwise. It cannot, I think, be reasonably supposed that so many men, living in so many several ages, at such vast distances from one another, who, some of them, it may be, never heard of the names of other some of them, should conspire to cozen themselves and all the world besides in a matter of fact not at all to their advantage. However, for my part, whatever can be proved against them I shall willingly admit. But to be driven out of such a rich possession as is the present Hebrew punctuation, upon mere surmises and conjectures, I cannot willingly give way or consent.

p 386 It is not my design to give in arguments for the divine original of the present Hebrew punctuation; neither do I judge it necessary for any one so to do whilst the learned Buxtorfius’ discourse, “De Origine et Antiquitate Punctorum,” lies unanswered. I shall, therefore, only add one or two considerations which to me are of weight, and not, as I remember, mentioned by him or his father in his “Tiberias,” or any other that I know of in their disputes to this purpose.

1. If the points or vowels, and accents, be coevous with the rest of the letters, or have an original before all grammar of that language (as, indeed, languages are not made by grammar, but grammars are made by languages), then the grammar of it and them must be collected from the observation of their use, as they were found in all their variety, before any such art was invented or used; and rules must be suited thereunto. The drawing into rules all the instances that, being uniform, would fall under such rules, and the distinct observation of anomalous words, either singly, or in exceptions comprehending many under one head that would not be so reduced, was the work of grammar. But, on the other side, if the vowels and accents were invented by themselves, and added to the letters, then the rule and art of disposing, transposing, and changing of them, must be constituted and fixed before the disposition of them; for they were placed after the rules made, and according to them. A middle way, that I know of, cannot be fixed on. Either they are of the original writing of the language, and have had rules made by their station therein, or they have been supplied unto it according to rules of art. Things are not thus come to pass by chance; nor was this world created by a casual concurrence of these atoms. Now, if the grammar or art was the ground and foundation, not the product of their use, as I am confident I shall never see a tolerable answer given to that inquiry of Buxtorfius the elder in his “Tiberias,” why the inventors of them left so many words anomalous and pointed otherwise than according to rule or the constant course of the language, precisely reckoning them up when they had so done, and how often they are so used, as ֵ and ֶ for ֲ and ַ for ָ and the like, when they might, if they had so pleased, have made them all regular, to their own great ease, advantage of their language, and facilitating the learning of it to all posterity, the thing they seem to have aimed at: so I cannot be satisfied why, in that long, operose, and curious work of the Masoretes, wherein they have reckoned up every word in the Scripture, and have observed the irregularity of every letter and tittle, they never once attempt to give us out those catholic rules whereby they or their masters proceeded in affixing, the points; or whence it came to pass that no learned Jew for p 387 hundreds of years after should be able to acquaint us with that way, but in all their grammatical instructions should merely collect observations, and inculcate them a hundred times over, according as they present themselves to them by particular instances. Assuredly, had this wonderful art of pointing, which for the most part may be reduced to catholic rules, and might have wholly been so if it were an arbitrary invention, limited to no pre-existing writing, been found out first and established as the norma and canon of affixing the vowels, some footsteps of it would have remained in the Masora, or among some of the Jews, who spent all their time and days in the consideration of it.

2. In the days of the Chaldee paraphrast, when the prophecies of the humiliation and death of their Messiah were only not understood by them, yet we see into how many several ways and senses they are wrested by that paraphrast, to affix some tolerable meaning to them. Take an instance on Isa. 53. Jonathan there acknowledges the whole prophecy to be intended of Christ, as knowing it to be the common faith of the church; but not understanding the state of humiliation which the Messiah was to undergo, he wrests tie words into all forms, to make that which is spoken passively of Christ, as to his suffering from others, to signify actively, as to his doing and exercising judgment upon others! But now, more than five hundred years after, when these points are supposed to be invented, when the Rabbins were awake and knew full well what use was made of those places against them, as also that the prophets (especially Isaiah) are the most obscure part of the whole Scripture, as to the grammatical sense of their words in their coherence, without points and accents, and how facile it were to invert the whole sense of many periods by small alterations in these rules of reading, yet as they are pointed they make out incomparably more clearly the Christian faith than any ancient translations of those places whatever. Johannes Isaac, a converted Jew, lib. i. ad Lindan, tells us that above two hundred testimonies about Christ may be brought out of the original Hebrew that appear not in the Vulgar Latin or any other translation. And Raymundus Martinus, “Noverint quæ ejusmodi sunt” (that is, who blamed him for translating things immediately out of the Hebrew, not following the Vulgar Latin) “in plurimis valde sacræ Scripturæ locis veritatem multo planius atque perfectius pro fide Christiana haberi in litera Hebraica quam in translatione nostra,” Proœm. ad Pug. Fid. sec. 14. Let any man consider those two racks of the Rabbins and swords of Judaical unbelief, Isa. 53. and Dan. 9., as they are now pointed and accented in our Bibles, and compare them with the translation of the LXX., and this will quickly appear unto him. Especially hath this been p 388 evidenced, since the Socinians¹ as well as the Jews have driven the dispute about the satisfaction of Christ to the utmost scrutiny and examination of every word in that 53d of Isaiah. But yet, as the text stands now pointed and accented, neither Jews nor Socinians (notwithstanding the relief contributed to them by Grotius wresting that whole blessed prophecy to make application of it unto Jeremiah, thinking therein to outdo the late or modern Jews; Abrabanel and others applying it to Josiah, the whole people of the Jews, Messiah Ben Joseph, and I know not whom) have been able, or ever shall be able, to relieve themselves from the sword of the truth therein. Were such exercitations on the word of God allowable, I could easily manifest how, by changing the distinctive accents and vowels, much darkness and perplexity might be cast on the contexture of that glorious prophecy. It is known, also, that the Jews commonly plead that one reason why they keep the copy of the law in their synagogues without points is, that the text may not be restrained to one certain sense, but that they may have liberty to draw out various, and, as they speak, more eminent senses.

Chapter VI

Arguments for the novelty of the Hebrew points proposed to consideration—The argument from the Samaritan letters considered and answered—Of the copy of the law preserved in the synagogues without points—The testimony of Elias Levita and Aben Ezra considered—Of the silence of the Mishna, Talmud, and Gemara, about the points—Of the Keri and Ketib—Of the number of the points—Of the ancient translations, Greek, Chaldee, Syriac—Of Jerome—The new argument of Morinus in this cause—The conclusion about the necessity of the points.

But because this seems to be a matter of great importance, wherein the truth formerly pleaded for appears to be nearly concerned, I shall, ὡς ἐν παρόδῳ, very briefly consider the arguments that are usually insisted on (as in these Prolegomena) to prove the points to be a novel invention; I mean of the men and at the time before mentioned. Particular instances I shall not insist upon, nor is it necessaly I should so do; it hath been done already. The heads of arguments, which yet contain their strength, are capable of a brief despatch, which shall be given them in the order wherein they are represented by the Prolegomena, Proleg. 3, sect. 38–40.

1. It is said, then, “That whereas the old Hebrew letters were the present Samaritan,² the Samaritan letters having been always without p 389 points, as they yet continue, it is manifest that the invention of the points must he of a later date than the change of the letters, which was in the days of Ezra; and so, consequently, be the work of the post-Talmudical Masoretes.” “Pergula Pictoris!” This whole objection is made up of most uncertain conjectures. This is not a place to speak at large of the Samaritans, their Pentateuch, and its translation. The original of that nation is known from the Scripture, as also their worship of God, 2 Kings 17. Their solemn excommunication and casting out from any interest among the people of God is also recorded, Ezra 9. 10., Nehem. 8. Their continuance in their abominations after the closing of the canon of the Scripture is reported by Josephus, Antiq. lib. xi. cap. viii. In the days of the Maccabees they were conquered by Hyrcanus, and brought into subjection by the Jews, Joseph. Antiq. lib. xiii. cap. x. Yet their will-worship, upon the credit of the tradition of their fathers, continued to the days of our Saviour, and their hatred to the people of God, John 4:9, 22. When, by whom, in what character, they first received the Pentateuch, is most uncertain;—not likely by the priest sent to them; for notwithstanding his instructions, they continued in open idolatry, which evidences that they had not so much as seen the book of the law. Probably this was done when they were conquered by Hyrcanus, and their temple razed, after it had stood two hundred years. So also did the Edomites. What diligence they used in the preservation of it, being never committed to them by God, we shall see afterward. That there are any of them remaining at this day, or have been these thousand years past, is unknown. That the letters of their Pentateuch were the ancient Hebrew letters, as Eusebius, Jerome, and some of the Rabbins, report, seems to me (on the best inquiry I have been able to make) a groundless tradition and mere fable. The evidences tendered to prove it are much too weak to bear the weight of such an assertion. Eusebius speaks only on report; affirmatur,—it was so affirmed, on what ground he tells us not Jerome, indeed, is more positive; but give me leave to say, that supposing this to be false, sufficient instances of the like mistakes may be given in him. For the testimony of the Talmud, I have often declared that with me it is of no weight, unless seconded by very good evidence. And indeed the foundation of the whole story is very vain. The Jews are thought and said to have forgot their own characters in the captivity, and to have learned the Chaldean, upon the account whereof they adhered unto it after their return, when the same men were alive at p 390 the burning of the one and the building of the other temple. That the men of one and the same generation should forget the use of their own letters, which they had been exercised in, is incredible. Besides, they had their Bibles with them always, and that in their own character only; whether they had any one other book or no, we know not And whence, then, this forgetting of one character and learning of another should arise doth not appear; nor shall I, in such an improbable fiction, lay much weight on testimonies the most ancient whereof is six hundred years later than the pretended matter of fact.

The most weighty proof in this case is taken from the ancient Judaical coins, taken up with Samaritan characters upon them. We are now in the high road of forgeries and fables; in nothing hath the world been more cheated. But be it granted that the pretended coins are truly ancient, must it needs follow that because the letters were then known and in use, that they only were so,—that the Bible was written with them, and those now in use unknown? To salve the credit of the coins, I shall crave leave to answer this conjecture with another. The Samaritan letters are plainly preternatural (if I may so say), a studied invention,—in their frame and figure fit to adorn, when extended or greatened, by way of engraving or embossing, any thing they shall be put upon or cut in. Why may we not think they were invented for that purpose, namely, to engrave on vessels and to stamp on coins, and so came to be of some use in writing also? Their shape and frame promise some such thing. And this is rendered the more probable from the practice of the Egyptians, who, as Clemens Alexandrinus¹ tells us, had three sorts of letters; one which he calls ἐπιστολογραφική, with which they wrote things of common use; another termed by him ἱερογραφική, used by the priests in the sacred writings; and the other ἱερογλυφική, which also was of two sorts, simple and symbolical. Seeing, then, it was no unusual thing to have sundry sorts of letters for sundry purposes, it is not improbable that it was so also among the Jews: not that, they wrote the sacred writings in a peculiar character as it were to hide them, which is declaimed against, but only that the other character might be in use for some purposes; which is not unusual. I cannot think the Greeks of old used only the uncial letters, which yet we know some did; though he did not who wrote Homer’s Iliad in no greater a volume than would go into a nutshell.

p 391 But if that should be granted that cannot be proved,—namely, that such a change was made,—yet this prejudices not them in the least who affirm Ezra and the men of the great congregation to have been the authors of the points, seeing the authors of this rumour affixed that as the time wherein the old Hebrew letters were excommunicated out of the church, together with the Samaritans. Nay, it casts a probability on the other hand, namely, that Ezra, laying aside the old letters because of their difficulty, together with the new introduced the points, to facilitate their use. Nor can it be made to appear that the Samaritan letters had never any vowels affixed to them. Postellus affirms that the Samaritans had points in the days of Jerome, and that their loss of them is the cause of their present corrupt reading: “Punctis hodie quæ habebant Hieronymi temporibus carent: leguntque, sine punctis admodum depravatè,” Postell. Alphab. 12 lingua. There were always some copies written without vowels, which might be preserved, and the others lost. That people (if we have any thing from them) being wicked, ignorant, sottish, superstitious, idolatrous, rejecters of the greatest part of the Scripture, corrupters of what they had received, might neglect the task of transcribing copies with points, because a matter of so great care and diligence, to be performed aright. Nor is it improbable, whatever is pretended to the contrary, that, continuing in their separation from the people of God, they might get the law written in a character of their own choosing, out of hatred to the Jews.

Now, let any man judge whether, from this heap of uncertainties, any thing can arise with the face of a witness, to be admitted to give testimony in the cause in hand. He that will part with his possession on such easy terms never found much benefit in it.

2. The constant practice of the Jews in preserving in their synagogues one book, which they almost adore, written without points, is alleged to the same purpose; “for what do they else hereby but tacitly acknowledge the points to have a human original?” Ans. But it is certain they do not so acknowledge them, neither by that practice nor by any other way, it being the constant opinion and persuasion of them all (Elias only excepted) that they are of a divine extract; and if their authority be to be urged, it is to be submitted unto in one thing as well as in another. The Jews give a threefold account of this practice:—(1.) The difficulty of transcribing copies without any failing, the least rendering the whole book, as to its use in their synagogues, profane. (2.) The liberty they have thereby to draw out various senses, more eminent, as they say (indeed more vain and curious), than they have any advantage to do when the reading is restrained to one certain sense by the vowels and accents. (3.) To keep all learners in dependence on their teachers, seeing they cannot p 392 learn the mind of God but by their exposition, R. Azarias, lib. Imre Binah. cap. lix. If these reasons satisfy not any as to the ground of that practice, they may be pleased to inquire of them for others who intend to be bound by their authority;—that the points were invented by some late Masoretes they will not inform them. For Jesuitical stories out of China, they are with me, for the most part, of the like credit with those of the Jews in their Talmud; he that can believe all the miracles that they work, where men are not warned of their juggling, may credit them in other things. However, as I said, I do not understand this argument: “The Jews keep a book in their synagogues without points, therefore the points and accents were invented by the Tiberian Masoretes;” when they never read it, or rather sing it, but according to every point and accent in ordinary use. Indeed, the whole profound mystery of this business seems to be this, that none be admitted to read or sing the law in their synagogues until he be so perfect in it as to be able to observe exactly all points and accents in a book wherein there are none of them.

3. The testimony of Elias Levita, not only as to his own judgment, but also as to what he mentions from Aben Ezra and others, is insisted on. “They affirm,” saith he, “that we have received the whole punctuation from the Tiberian Masoretes.” Ans. It is very true that Elias was of that judgment; and it may well be supposed, that if that opinion had not fallen into his mind, the world had been little acquainted with it at this day. That by “receiving of the punctuation from the Tiberians,” the continuation of it in their school, not the invention of it, is intended by Aben Ezra, is beyond all exception evinced by Buxtorfius, De Punct. Antiq. par. i. cap. iii. Nor can any thing be spoken more directly to the contrary of what is intended, than that which is urged in the Prolegomena from Aben Ezra, Comment, in Exod. 25:31, where he affirms that he saw some books examined in all the letters, and the whole punctuation by the wise men of Tiberias, namely, to try whether it were done exactly according to the patterns they had. Besides, all Elias, arguments are notably answered by R. Azarias, whose answers are repeated by Joseph de Voysin in his most learned Observations on the Proœmium of the Pugio Fidei, p. 91, 92. And the same Azarias shows the consistency of the various opinions that were among the Jews about the vowels; ascribing them as to their virtue and force to Moses, or God on Mount Sinai; as to their figure and character to Ezra; and as to the restoration of their use unto the Masoretes.

4. The silence of the Mishna Gemara, or whole Talmud, concerning the points is further urged. This argument is also at large discussed by Buxtorfius, and the instances in it answered to the full; p 393 nor is it needful for any man to add any thing further until what he hath discoursed to this purpose be removed. See par. i. cap. vi. See also Glassius, lib. i. tract. i. De Textus Hebræi Puritate, who gives instances to the contrary; yea, and the Talmud itself, in Nedarim, or “of vows,” chap. 4, on Nehem. 8:8, doth plainly mention them; and treatises more ancient than the Talmud, cited by R. Azarias in Imre Binah, expressly speak of them. It is to me a sufficient evidence, able to overbear the conjectures to the contrary, that the Talmudists both knew, and in their readings were regulated by, the points now in use, in that, as many learned men have observed, there is not one text of Scripture to be found cited in the Talmud in any other sense, as to the literal reading and meaning of the words, than only that which it is restrained unto by the present punctuation; when it is known that the patrons of the opinion under consideration yield this constantly as one reason of the seventy translators reading words and sentences otherwise than we read them now in our Bibles,—namely, because the books they used were not pointed, whereby they were at liberty to conjecture at this or that sense of the word before them. This is one of the main pillars of Cappellus’ whole fabric in his Critica Sacra. And how it can be fancied there should be no variety between our present reading and the Talmudists’, upon supposition they knew not the use of points, I know not. Is it possible, on this supposition, there should be such a coincidence between their and our present punctuation, when, on the same principle, it seems there are so many variations by the LXX, and the Chaldee paraphrast?

5. Of the קְרִי וּכְתִיב, which are pleaded in the next place to this purpose, I shall speak afterward. The difference in them is in the consonants, not in the vowels; which yet argues not that there were no vowels when they were collected or disposed as now we find them. Yea, that there were no vowels in the copies from whence they were collected (if they were so collected) may be true, but that that collection was made any later, for the main of it, than the days of Ezra doth not appear. Now, whatever was done about the Scripture in the Judaical church before the times of our Saviour is manifest to have been done by divine authority, in that it is nowhere by him reproved, but rather the integrity of every word is by him confirmed. But of these things distinctly by themselves afterward we are to speak.

6. A sixth argument for the novelty of the points is taken from their number; for whereas it is said all kinds of sounds may be expressed by five vowels, we are in the present Hebrew punctuation supplied with fourteen or fifteen, which, as it is affirmed, manifests abundantly that they are not coevous or connatural to the language itself, but the arbitrary, artificial invention of men, who have not assigned p 394 a sufficient difference in their force and sound to distinguish them in pronunciation. But this objection seems of small importance. The ground of it is an apprehension that we still retain exactly the true pronunciation of the Hebrew tongue; which is evidently false. (1.) It is now near two thousand years since that tongue was vulgarly spoken in its purity by any people or nation. To imagine that the true, exact, distinct pronunciation of every tittle and syllable in it, as it was used by them to whom it was vulgar and natural, is communicated unto us, or is attainable by us, is to dream pleasantly whilst we are awake. Aben Ezra makes it no small matter that men of old knew aright how to pronounce Kamets Gadol. Saith he, אנשי טבריא נם חכמי מצרים ואפריקא יודעים לקרוא הקמץ גדזל,—“The men of Tiberias, also the wise men of Egypt and Africa, knew how to read Kamets Gadol.” (2.) Even the distinct force of one consonant, and that always radical, ע, is utterly lost, so that the present Jews know nothing of its pronunciation. (3.) Nor can we distinguish now between תּכּ and טק, between ב and וּ, though the Jews tell us that the wise men of Tiberias could do so twelve hundred years ago; as also between ָ and, ַ, ֵ and ֶ, וּ and ֻ; nor is the distinct sound of עחהא so obvious unto us. (4.) The variety of consonants among many nations, and their ability to distinguish them in pronunciation, makes this of little consideration. The whole nation of the Germans distinguish not between the force and sound of t and d; whereas the Arabic dal and dhsal, dad, ta, and da, manifest how they can distinguish those sounds. (5.) Nor are the Jewish ץ ז ם שׁ שׂ answered distinctly in any other language; to distinguish some of which good old Jerome had his teeth filed, by the direction of his Nicodemus.¹ (6.) The truth is, the Hebrews have but ten vowels, five long and five short, or five great and five less; Sheva is but a servant to all the rest, and its addition to Segol and Pathakh makes no new vowels. To distinguish between Kamets Khatuph and Khatuph Kamets there is no colour. Seven only of them, as Morinus hath manifested out of R. JehudaChiug, one of the first grammarians among the Jews, namely, וּוֹיֲֵֶֶַ, they called, of old, kings, or the chief rulers of all the motions of the letters. So that indeed they have not so many figures to distinguish sounds by, with all their vowels, as have the Greeks. Besides the seven vowels, they have twelve diphthongs, and three of them, as to any peculiar sound, as mute as Sheva. It is true, Pliny tells us that Simonides Melicus found out two of the vowels, η and ω, as he did also two consonants, ζ and ψ; but surely he did so because he found them needful to answer the distinct p 395 sounds used in that language, or he had deserved little thanks for his invention.¹ Speaking lately with a worthy learned friend² about a universal character, which hath been mentioned by many, attempted by divers, and by him brought to that perfection as will doubtless yield much if not universal satisfaction unto learned and prudent men, when he shall be pleased to communicate his thoughts upon it to the world, we fell occasionally on the difference of apert sounds or vowels: which when I heard him with good reason affirm to be eight or nine, remembering this argument about the Hebrew points, I desired him to give his thoughts in a few words the next day; which he did accordingly. Now, because his discourse seems evidently to discover the vanity of this pretence, that the Hebrew vowels are an arbitrary invention from their number, I have here inserted it:—

Apert sounds are either	{	Simple. Vowels. Double. Diphthongs.
1. Apert simple sounds are distinguishable	{	Formally. Accidentally.

(1.) The formal difference is that which doth constitute several letters, and must depend upon the various apertion required to the making of them, together with the gravity or acuteness of the tone which is made by them; according to which there are at least eight simple vowels, that are by us easily distinguishable, namely,—

1. 2.	}	E	{	magis acutum: as in he, me, she, ye, etc. minus acutum: as the English, the; the Latin, me, te, se, etc.
3.		I or Y, which are both to be accounted of one power and sound. Shi, di; thy, my.
4. 5.	}	A	{	magis apertum. All, tall, gall, wall. minus apertum. Ale, tale, gale, wale.
6. 7.	}	O	{	rotundum, minus grave: as the English, go, so, no; the Latin, do. magis grave et pingue: as the English, do, to, who.
8.		U as in tu, use, us, etc.

So many apert simple sounds there are evidently distinguishable: I would be loath to say that there neither are nor can be any more; for who knows how many other minute differences of apertion and gravity may be now used, or here after found out by others, which practice and custom may make as easy to them as these are to us?

(2.) But besides this formal difference, they are some of them accidentally distinguishable from one another, with reference to the quantity of time required to p 396 their prolation, whereby the same vowel becomes sometimes long [and sometimes] short:—

So E min. acut.	{	Long. Mete, steme. Short. Met, stem.
I	{	L. Alive, give, drive, title, thine. S. Live, give, driven.—F i. e., tittle, thin.
A min. apert. A	{	L. Bate, hate, cate, same, dame—ae. S. Bat, hat, cat, sam, dam.
O rotund	{	L One, none, note, etc.—oe vel oa., S. One (non Lat.), not.
U	{	L. Use, tune, pule, acute.—ue. S. Us, tun, pull, cut.

The other remaining vowels, namely, E magis acut., A magis apert., and O magis grave, do not change their quantities, but are always long.

2. Diphthongs are made of the complexion of two vowels in one syllable, where the sounds of both are heard. These are:—

1. Ei, ey	Hei, Lat. They.
2. Ea	Eat, meat, seat, teat, yea, plea.
3. Eu, ew	Heu, Lat. Few, dew.
4. Ai, ay,	Aid, said, pay, day.
5. Au, aw	Audience, author, law, draw.
6. Oi, oy	Point, soil, boy, toy.
7. Ou, ow	Rout, stout, how, now.
8. Ui, uy	Bui, juice.
9. Eo	Yeoman, people.

How other diphthongs (which have been used) may be significant for the expression of long vowels, see noted above.

There is, then, very little weight to be ventured upon the strength of this objection.

7. It is further pleaded, Proleg. 8, sect. 46, that the ancient translations,—the Greek, the Chaldee, and the Syriac,—do manifest that at the time of their composing the points were not invented, and that because in sundry places it is evident that they read otherwise, or the words with other points (I mean as to the force and sound, not figure of them) than those now affixed. For this purpose, very many instances are given us out of the Septuagint, especially by Cappellus; Grotius also takes the same course. But neither is this objection of any force to turn the scale in the matter under consideration. Somewhat will, in the close of this discourse, be spoken of those translations. The differences that may be observed in them, especially in the former, would as well prove that they had other consonants,—that is, that the copies they used had other letters and words,—than ours, as other vowels; yea, if we must suppose that where they differ from our present reading they had other and better copies, it is most certain that we must grant ours to be very corrupt. “Hoc Ithacus vellet.” Nor can this inference be avoided, as shall, God willing, be further manifested, if occasion be administered. The truth is, the present copies that we have of the Septuagint do in many places so vary from p 397 the original that it is beyond all conjecture what should occasion it. I wish some would try their skill upon some part of Job, the Psalms, and the Prophets, to see if, by all their inquiries of extracting various lections, they can find out how they read in their books, if they rendered as they read, and we enjoy what they rendered. Simeon de Muis tells us a very pretty story of himself to this purpose, Assert. Verit. Heb. sect. 1; as also how ridiculous he was in his attempt. But I shall recall that desire. The Scripture, indeed, is not so to be dealt withal; we have had too much of that work already. The rabbinical אל תקרא is not to be compared with some of our critics, Temura and Notarjecon.¹ Of the Chaldee paraphrase I shall speak afterward. It seems not to be of the antiquity pretended. It is not mentioned by Josephus, nor Origen, nor Jerome;—but this will not impeach its antiquity. But whereas it is most certain that it was in high esteem and reverence among all the Jews before the time assigned for the punctuation of the points, it seems strange that they should, in disposing of them, differ from it voluntarily in so many places. Besides, though these translators, or any of them, might use copies without vowels, as it is confessed that always some such there were, as still there are, yet it doth not follow at all that therefore the points were not found out nor in use. But more of this when we come to speak distinctly of these translations.

8. Of the same importance is that which is, in the last place, insisted on from the silence of Jerome and others of the ancients as to the use of the points among the Hebrews. But [as] Jerome saw not all things (he saw not the Chaldee paraphrase, which our authors suppose to have been extant at least four hundred years before him), so it cannot be made evident that he mentioned all that he saw. To speak expressly of the vowels he had no occasion; there was then no controversy about them, nor were they then distinctly known by the names whereby they are now called. The whole current of his translation argues that he had the Bible as now pointed; yea, learned men have manifested by instances that seem of irrefragable evidence that he had the use of them; or, it may be, he could not obtain a pointed copy, but was instructed by his Jew in the right pronunciation of words. Copies were then scarce, and the Jews full of envy. All these things are uncertain. See Munster. Præfat. ad Bib. The truth is, either I cannot understand his words, or he doth positively affirm that the Hebrew had the use of vowels, in his Epistle to Evagrius, Epist. 126: “Nec refert utrum Salem an Salim nominetur, p 398 cum vocalibus¹ in medio litteris perraro utantur Hebræi.” If they did it perraro, they did it, and then they had them, though in those days, to keep up their credit in teaching, they did not much use them. Nor can this be spoken of the sound of the vowels, but of their figures; for surely they did not seldom use the sounds of vowels, if they spake often. And many other testimonies from him may be produced to the same purpose.

Morinus, in his late “Opuscula Hebræa Samaritica,” in his digression against the Hebrew points and accents, the first part, p. 209, brings in a new argument to prove that the puncta vocalia were invented by the Jewish grammarians, however the distinction of sections might be before. This he attempts out of a discourse of Aben Ezra concerning the successive means of the preservation of the Scripture; first, by the men of the great synagogue, then by the Masoretes, then by the grammarians. As he assigns all these their several works, so to the grammarians the skill of knowing the progresses of the holy tongue, the generation of the kingly points and of Sheva, as he is by him there cited at large. After, he labours to prove by sundry instances that the puncta vocalia are by him called reges, and not the accents, as is now the use; and in the addenda to his book, prefixed to it, he triumphs upon a discovery that the vowels are so called by Rabbi Jehuda Chiug, the most ancient of the Jewish grammarians. The business is now, it seems, quite finished, and he cries out, “Oculis aliorum non egemus amplius, αὐτόπται nunc sumus”! A sacrifice is doubtless due to this drag of Morinus. But quid dignum tanto?

The place insisted on by him out of Aben Ezra was some years before produced, weighed, and explained, by Buxtorf, out of his מֹאזְנֵי לָשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ, or the Standard of the Holy Tongue, De Punct. Orig. par. i. p. 13, 14, cap. iii.; and it is not unlikely, from Morinus his preface to his consideration of that place, that he fixed on it some years ago, that he learned it from Buxtorfius, by the provision that he lays in against such thoughts; for what is it to the reader when Morinus made his observations? The manner of the men of that society in other things gives sufficient grounds for this suspicion. And Simeon de Muis intimates that he had dealt before with the father as he now deals with the son, Censur. in Exercitat. iv. cap. vii. p. 17; himself, with great and rare ingenuity, acknowledging what he received of him: Assert. Verit. Heb. cap. v., “Dicesve me hæc omnia mutuatum a Buxtorfio? quidni vero mutuor, si necesse erit.” But what is the great discovery here made? 1. That the puncta vocalia are p 399 some of them called reges; the accents have now got that appellation; some of them are reges, and some ministri: so that the present state of things in reference to vowels and accents is but novel. 2. That the grammarians invented these regia puncta, as Aben Ezra says.

But, I pray, what cause of triumph or boasting is in all this goodly discovery? Was it ever denied by any that the casting of the names of the vowels and accents, with the titles, was the work of the grammarians? was it not long since observed by many that the five long vowels, with ַ and ֶ, were called of old reges? and that the distinction of the vowels into long and short was an invention of the Christians rather than Jewish grammarians, the Jews calling them some absolutely reges, some great and small, some matres et filias? “But then,” saith he, “the grammarians were the inventors of these points.” Why so? “Aben Ezra refers this unto the work of the grammarians, to know the progresses of the holy tongue, the generation of those kings,” etc. But can any thing be more evident against his design than his own testimony? It was the work of the grammarians to know these things, therefore not to invent them. Did they invent the radical and servile letters? Surely they also then invented the tongue; for it consists of letters radical and servile, of points and accents: and yet this is also ascribed to them by Aben Ezra. But it is well that Morinus hath at length lighted upon R. Jehuda Chiug. His opinion before was collected out of Kimchi, Ephodius, Muscatus, and others. But what says he now himself? For aught that appears, by what we have quoted by Morinus, he is like to prove a notable witness of the antiquity of the points. It may be well supposed that Morinus, writing on set purpose against their antiquity, would produce that testimony which in his whole author was most to his purpose; and yet he fixes on one wherein this ancient grammarian, who lived about the year of Christ 1150 or 1200, gives us an account of the points, with their names, without the least intimation of any thing to the impeachment of their divine original. So also the same Aben Ezra on Ps. 9:7 tells us of one Adonim Benlafrad, who, long before this R. Jehuda, found ַ for ֶ in an ancient copy. And therefore, when Morinus comes to make the conclusion of his argument, discovering, it seems, himself the folly of the pretence that the points were invented by the grammarians, the last sort of men mentioned by Aben Ezra, he says, “Procul omni dubio est, et luce meridiana clarius Aben Ezram sensisse omnium vocalium punctationem a Masorethis Tiberiensibus, et grammaticis, qui hos sequuti sunt, originem ducere.” But of these Masoretes there is not one word in the premises, nor is any such thing assigned unto them by Aben Ezra, but quite another employment,—of making a hedge about the law, by their observations on all the words of it;—and had he dreamed of their inventing the points, he would sure p 400 enough have assigned that work to them; and as for the grammarians, his own testimony lies full to the contrary.

And these are the heads of the arguments insisted on by Cappellus and others, and by these Prolegomena, to prove the Hebrew punctuation to be an invention of the Jews of Tiberias five hundred years or more after the incarnation of Christ. “Brevis Cantilena, sed longum Epiphonema.” As I have not here designed to answer them at large, with the various instances produced to give countenance unto them (nor is it needful for any so to do until the answer already given to them be removed), so by the specimen given of their nature and kind, the sober and pious reader may easily judge whether there be any force in them to subvert the persuasion opposed by them, grounded on the catholic tradition and consent of the Jews; the uncontradicted reception of them absolutely, without the least opposition, all the world over, by Jews and Christians; the very nature of the punctuation itself, following the genius of the language, not arising or flowing from any artificial rules; the impossibility of assigning any author to it since the days of Ezra, but only by such loose conjectures and imaginations as ought not to be admitted to any plea and place in this weighty cause; all attended with that great uncertainty which, without their owning of these points to be of divine original, we shall be left unto in all translations and expositions of the Scripture. It is true, whilst the Hebrew language was the vulgar tongue of the nation, and was spoken by every one uniformly everywhere, it had been possible that, upon a supposition that there were no points, men, without infallible guidance and direction, might possibly affix notes and figures which might with some exactness answer the common pronunciation of the language, and so, consequently, exhibit the true and proper sense and meaning of the words themselves: but when there had been an interruption of a thousand years in the vulgar use of the language, it being preserved pure only in one book, to suppose that the true and exact pronunciation of every tittle, letter, and syllable, was preserved alive by oral tradition, not written anywhere, not commonly spoken by any, is to build towns and castles of imaginations, which may be as easily cast down as they are erected. Yet unless this be supposed (which with no colour of reason can be supposed, which is yet so by Cappellus and the learned author of the Prolegomena), it must be granted that the great rule of all present translations, expositions, and comments, that have been made in the church of God for some hundreds of years, is the arbitrary invention of some few Jews, living in an obscure corner of the world, under the curse of God, in their unbelief and blindness! The only relief in the Prolegomena against this amazing inference is, as was said, that the Masoretes affixed not the present punctuation arbitrarily (so also Cappellus), but according to p 401 the tradition they had received. What weight is to be laid upon such a tradition for near a thousand years (above, according to Morinus) is easily to be imagined. Nor let men please themselves with the pretended facility of learning the Hebrew language without points and accents; and not only the language, but the true and proper reading and distinction of it in the Bible. Let the points and accents be wholly removed, and all apprehensions of the sense arising by the restraint and distinction of the words as now pointed, and then turn in the drove of the learned critics of this age upon the naked consonants, and we shall quickly see what woful work, yea, havoc of sacred truth, will be made amongst them. Were they shut up in several cells, I should scarcely expect the harmony and agreement amongst them which is fabulously reported to have been in the like case among the LXX. The Jews say, and that truly, לשונו על הקדאה בלנקוד לא ירים איש את,—“No man can lift up his tongue to read without punctuation.” And, “Si rationi in his et similibus dominium concedamus, toti mutabuntur libri, in literis, vocibus, et sententiis, et sic res ipsa quoque mutabitur,” Lib. Cosri. 1, par. 3, p. 28.

And thus have I, with all possible brevity, vindicated the position formerly insisted on from this grand exception, which might be justly feared from the principles laid down in the Prolegomena.

Chapter VII

Of the קְיִי וּכְתִיב, their nature and original—The difference is in the consonants—Morinus’ vain charge on Arias Montanus—The senses of both consistent—Of the great congregation—The spring and rise of these various readings—The judgment of the Prolegomena about them—Their order given twice over in the Appendix—The rise assigned to them considered—Of Cappellus, his opinion, and the danger of it.

We are not as yet come to a close. There is another thing agitated in these Prolegomena, and represented in the Appendix, that may seem to derogate from the universality of my assertion concerning the entire preservation of the original copies of the Scripture. The קְרִי וּכְתִיב, or the scriptio and lectio, or scriptum and lectum, is that which I intend. The general nature of these things is known to all them that have looked into the Bible. One word is placed in the line and another in the margin, the word in the line having not the points or vowels affixed to it that are its own, but those that belong to the word in the margin. Of this sort there are in the Bible eight hundred and forty, or thereabout; for some of the late editions, by mistake or oversight, do differ in the precise number. All men that have wrote any considerations on the Hebrew text have spoken of their nature in general; so hath the author of these Prolegomena. p 402 As to our present concernment,—namely, to manifest that from them no argument can arise as to the corruption of the original,—the ensuing observations concerning them may suffice:—

1. All the difference in these words is in the consonants, not at all in the vowels. The word in the margin owns the vowels in the line as proper to it, and the vowels in the line seem to be placed to the word whereunto they do not belong, because there is no other meet place for them in the line where they are to be continued, as belonging to the integrity of the Scripture.

Morinus, to manifest his rage against the Hebrew text, takes from hence occasion to quarrel with Arias Montanus, and to accuse him of ignorance and false dealing, De Heb. Text. Sincer., Exer. i. cap. iv. p. 40.

The pretence of his quarrel he makes to be, that Arias affirms the greatest part of these various lections to consist in some differences of the points; for which purpose he cites his words out of his preface to his collection of various lections: “Maxima in his lectionibus varietatis pars in hujusmodi punctorum discrepantia consistit, ut toto hujus Mazzoreth sive variarum lectionum volumine demonstratur.” Whereunto he subjoins, “Mira assertio! ne una quidem in punctis sita est. Catalogum plurimorum ipse ad finem præfationis adtexuit. Et varietates omnes sunt in literis, nulla in punctis. Confidentius scribo omnium variarum lectionum quas Judæi appellant קְרִי וּכְתִיב, Keri et Ketib, de quibus agit Arias nulla prorsus ad puncta pertinet. Iterum confidentius,” etc. Would not any man think but that the man had made here some great discovery, both as to the nature of the קְרִי וּכְתִיב, as also to the ignorance of Arias, whom he goes on to reproach as a person unacquainted with the Masora, and with the various lections of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, of the eastern and western Jews, at the end of the Venetian Bibles; which Bibles he chiefly used in the printing of his own? And yet, on the other hand, men acquainted with the ability and great discerning of Arias will be hardly persuaded that he was so blind and ignorant as to affirm the greatest part of the variety he spoke of consisted in the changing of vowels, and immediately to give instances wherein all he mentions consists in the change of consonants only. But what if all this should prove the ignorance and prejudice of Morinus? First, To his redoubled assertion about the difference of the Keri and Ketib in the consonants only,—wherein he speaks as though he were blessing the world with a new and strange discovery,—it is a thing known “lippis et tonsoribus,” and hath been so since the days of Elias Levita. What then? Intended Arias Montanus to affirm the contrary?

“Hic nigri succus loliginis: hæc est

Ærugo mera.”

He speaks not at all of the קְרִי וּכְתִיב, but merely of the anomalous p 403 pointing of words, in a various way from the genius of the tongue, as they are observed and reckoned up in the Masora: of other varieties he speaks afterward, giving a particular account of the Keri and Ketib; which whether he esteemed various lections or no I know not. “Non si te superis æques.” But all are ignorant who are not of the mind of an aspiring Jesuit!

2. That the difference in the sense, taking in the whole context, is upon the matter very little, or none at all; at least each word, both that in the line and that in the margin, yields a sense agreeable to the analogy of faith.

Of all the varieties that are found of this kind, that of two words the same in sound, but of most distinct significations, seems of the greatest importance,—namely, לוֹ and לֹא, fourteen or fifteen times; where לֹא, “not,” is in the text, the margin notes לוֹ, “to him,” or “his,” to be read. But yet, though these seem contrary one to the other, wherever this falls out, a sense agreeable to the analogy of faith ariseth fairly from either word: as, to give one or two instances, Ps. 100:3, הוּא עָשָנוּ וְלֹא אֲנָחְנוּ,—“He hath made us, and not we ourselves.” The Keri in the margin is ולו, “his;” giving this sense, “He hath made us, and his we are,” the verb substantive being included in the pronoun. So Isa. 63:9, בְּבָל־צָרָתָם לֹא צָר,—“In all their afflictions (or straits), no straitness:” so the כְתִיב. The קְרִי [is] לו, “Straitness (or affliction) was to him,” or “he was straitened” or “afflicted.” In the first way, God signifieth that when they were in their outward straits, yet he was not straitened from their relief; in the other, that he had compassion for them, was afflicted with them, which upon the matter is the same. And the like may be showed of the rest.

I confess I am not able fully to satisfy myself in the original and spring of all this variety, being not willing merely to depend on the testimony of the Jews, much less on the conjectures of late innovators. To the uttermost length of my view, to give a full account of this thing is a matter of no small difficulty. Their venerable antiquity and unquestionable reception by all translators gives them sanctuary from being cast down from the place they hold by any man’s bare conjecture. That which to me is of the greatest importance is, that they appear most of them to have been in the Bibles then when the oracles of God were committed to the Jews; during which time we find them not blamed for adding or altering one word or tittle. Hence the Chaldee paraphrast often follows the Keri, which never was in the line, whatever some boastingly conjecture to the contrary; and sometimes the Ketib. That which seems to me most probable is, that they were collected, for the most part of them, by the אנשי כנסת הנדולה, “The men of the great congregation.” Some, indeed, I find of late (I hope not out of a design to bring all p 404 things to a further confusion about the original) to question whether ever there were any such thing as the great congregation. Morinus calls it a Judaical figment. Our Prolegomena question it, Proleg. 8, sect. 22. But this is only to question whether Ezra, Nehemiah, Joshua, Zechariah, Haggai, and the rest of the leaders of the people, on their return from the captivity, did set a sanhedrim, according to the institution of God, and labour to reform the church and all the corruptions that were crept either into the word or worship of God. I see not how this can reasonably be called into question, if we had not, to confirm it, the catholic tradition of Jews and Christians. Neither is it called “The great congregation” from its number, but from the eminency of persons. Now, on this supposition it may be granted that the Keri on the books of these men themselves, Ezra and the rest, were collected by the succeeding church; unless we shall suppose, with Ainsworth, that the word was so received from God as to make both necessary. And if we know not the true cause of its being so given, we have nothing to blame but our own ignorance, this not being the only case wherein we have reason so to do. Our last translation generally rendereth the word in the margin, noting also the word in the line, where there is any considerable difference. Those who have leisure for such a work may observe what choice is used in this case by old and modern translators; and if they had not believed them to have had an authoritative original, beyond the impeachment of any man in these days, they could not fairly and honestly have used both line and margin as they have done.

What say now our Prolegomena, with the Appendix, unto these things?

We have them in the Appendix represented unto us in their own order, according as they are found in the books of the Scriptures; and then over again in the order and under the heads that they are drawn and driven unto by Cappellus;—a task that learned man took upon himself, that he might in the performance of it give some countenance to his opinion, that they are, for the most part, critical emendations of the text made by some late Masoretes, that came no man knows whence, that lived no man knows where nor when. Thus, whereas these Keri and Ketib have the only face and appearance upon the matter of various lections upon the Old Testament (for the Jews, collections of the various readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, of the oriental and occidental Jews, are of no value, nor ever had place in their Bible, and may be rejected), the unwary viewer of the Appendix is presented with a great bulk of them, their whole army being mustered twice over in this service!

But this inconvenience may be easily amended, nor am I concerned in it.

p 405 3. Wherefore, thirdly, for the rise of them, it is said that some of them are the amendments of the Masoretes or Rabbins; others, various lections out of divers copies. That they are all, or the most part of them, critical amendments of the Rabbins is not allowed; for which latter part of his determination we thank the learned author, and take leave to say that in the former we are not satisfied. Prol. 8, sect. 23–25, the arguments that are produced to prove them not to have been from Ezra, but the most part from post-Talmudical Rabbins, are capable of a very easy solution, which also another occasion may discover; at present I am gone already too far beyond my intention, so that I cannot allow myself any farther digression.

To answer briefly. Ezra and his companions might be the collectors of all those in the Bible but their own books, and those in their own books might be added by the succeeding church. The oriental and occidental Jews differ about other things as well as the Keri and Ketib. The rule of the Jews, that the Keri is always to be followed, is novel, and therefore the old translators might read either or both as they saw cause. There was no occasion at all why these things should be mentioned by Josephus, Philo, Origen. Jerome says, indeed, on Isa. 49:5, that Aquila rendered that word “to him,” which is written with ל and א, not ל and ו. But he makes it not appear that Aquila read not as he translated, that is, by the קְרִי. And for what is urged of the Chaldee and LXX. making use of the Keri and Ketib, it is not intended that they knew the difference under these names, but that these differences were in their days. That the word now in the margin was in the line until the days of the pretended Masoretes is not nakedly to be said, but proved, if such a novel fancy expect any credit in the world. That the Judaical Rabbins have made some alterations in the text of their own accord, at least placed words in the margin, as to their consonants, supplying their vowels in the line where they ought not to have place; that there were various lections in the copies after the Talmud, which have been gathered by some obscure Jews, no mention being made of those collections in the Masora or any of their grammarians,—is the sum of the discourse under consideration. When all this, or any part of it, is proved by testimony or evident reason, we shall further attend unto it.

In the meantime, I cannot but rejoice that Cappellus’ fancy about these things,—than which I know nothing more pernicious to the truth of God,—is rejected. If these hundreds of words were the critical conjectures and amendments of the Jews, what security have we of the mind of God as truly represented unto us, seeing that it is supposed also that some of the words in the margin were sometimes in the line? And if it be supposed, as it is, that there are innumerable p 406 other places of the like nature standing in need of such amendments, what a door would be opened to curious, pragmatical wits to overturn all the certainty of the truth of the Scripture every one may see. Give once this liberty to the audacious curiosity of men priding themselves in their critical abilities, and we shall quickly find out what woful state and condition the truth of the Scripture will be brought unto. If the Jews have made such amendments and corrections of the text, and that to so good purpose, and if so much work of the like kind yet remain, can any man possibly better employ himself than with his utmost diligence to put his hand to this plough? But he that pulleth down a hedge, a serpent shall bite him.

Chapter VIII

Of gathering various lections by the help of translations—The proper use and benefit of translations—Their new pretended use—The state of the originals on this new pretence—Of the remedy tendered to the relief of that state—No copies of old differing in the least from those we now enjoy, inferred from the testimony of our Saviour—No testimony, new or old, to that purpose—Requisites unto good translations—Of the translations in the Biblia Polyglotta—Of the Arabic—Of the Syriac—Of the Samaritan Pentateuch—Of the Chaldee Paraphrase—Of the Vulgar Latin—Of the Septuagint—The translations of the New Testament—Of the Persian—Of the Ethiopian—The value of these translations as to the work in hand—Of the supposition of gross corruption in the originals—Of various lections out of Grotius—Of the Appendix in general.

Because it is the judgment of some, that yet other objections may be raised against the thesis pleaded for, from what is affirmed in the Prolegomena about gathering various lections by the help of translations, and the instances of that good work given us in the Appendix, I shall close this discourse with the consideration of that pretence.

The great and signal use of various translations, which hitherto we have esteemed them for, was the help afforded by them in expositions of the Scripture. To have represented unto us in one view the several apprehensions and judgments of so many worthy and learned men as were the authors of these translations, upon the original words of the Scripture, is a signal help and advantage unto men inquiring into the mind and will of God in his word. That translations were of any other use formerly was not apprehended. They are of late presented unto us under another notion,—namely, as means and helps of correcting the original, and finding out the corruptions that are in our present copies, showing that the copies which their authors used did really differ from those which we now enjoy p 407 and use! For this rare invention we are, as for the former, chiefly beholden to the learned and most diligent Cappellus; who is followed, as in sundry instances himself declares, by the no less learned Grotius. To this purpose the scene is thus laid: It is supposed [that] of old there were sundry copies of the Old Testament differing in many things, words, sentences, from those we now enjoy. Out of these copies some of the ancient translations have been made. In their translations they express the sense and meaning of the copies they made use of. Hence, by considering what they deliver, where they differ from our present copies, we may find out (that is, learned men, who are expert at conjectures, may do so) how they read in theirs. Thus may we come to a further discovery of the various corruptions that are crept into the Hebrew text, and by the help of those translations amend them. Thus Cappellus. The learned author of our Prolegomena handles this business, Proleg. 6. I do not remember that he anywhere expressly affirms that they had other copies than those we now enjoy; but whereas (besides the Keri and Ketib, the various readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, of the eastern and western Jews) there are, through the neglect, oscitancy, and frailty of the transcribers, many things befallen the text,—not such failings as, happening in one copy, may be easily rectified by others, which are not to be regarded as various lections, nor such as may be collected out of any ancient copies, but faults or mistakes in all the copies we enjoy, or that have ever been known,—by the help and use of translations, conjecturing how they read in their books, either with other words or letters, consonants or points, we may collect various lections as out of the original. What this opinion upon the matter differeth from that of Cappellus I see not, for the difference between our copies and those of old are by him assigned to no other original; nor doth Cappellus say that the Jews have voluntarily corrupted the text, but only that alterations are befallen it by the means and ways recounted in the Prolegomena. To make this evident by instances, we have a great number of such various lections, gathered by Grotius, in the Appendix. The truth is, how that volume should come under that name, at first view I much wondered. The greatest part of it gives us no various lections of the Hebrew text, as is pretended, but various interpretations of others from the Hebrew. But the Prolegomena solve that seeming difficulty. The particulars assigned as various lections are not different readings, collected out of any copies extant, or ever known to have been extant, but critical conjectures of his own for the amendment of the text, or at most conjectures upon the reading of the words by translators, especially the LXX. and Vulgar Latin.

Let us now consider our disease intimated, and the remedy prescribed, p 408 together with the improbability of the one and the unsuitableness of the other as to the removal of it, being once supposed. The distemper pretended is dreadful, and such as may well prove mortal to the sacred truth of the Scripture. The sum of it, as was declared before, is, “That of old there were sundry copies extant, differing in many things from those we now enjoy, according to which the ancient translations were made, whence it is come to pass that in so many places they differ from our present Bibles, even all that are extant in the world;” so Cappellus;—or, “That there are corruptions befallen the text (varieties from the αὐτόγραφα) that may be found by the help of translations;” as our Prolegomena.

Now, whereas the first translation that ever was, as is pretended, is that of the LXX., and that, of all others, excepting only those which have been translated out of it, doth most vary and differ from our Bible, as may be made good by some thousands of instances, we cannot but be exceedingly uncertain in finding out wherein those copies which, as it is said, were used by them, did differ from ours, or wherein ours are corrupted, but are left unto endless uncertain conjectures. What sense others may have of this distemper I know not; for my own part, I am solicitous for the ark, or the sacred truth of the original, and that because I am fully persuaded that the remedy and relief of this evil provided in the translations is unfitted to the cure, yea, fitted to increase the disease. Some other course, then, must be taken; and seeing the remedy is notoriously insufficient to effect the cure, let us try whether the whole distemper be not a mere fancy, and so do what in us lieth to prevent that horrible and outrageous violence which will undoubtedly be offered to the sacred Hebrew verity, if every learned mountebank may be allowed to practise upon it with his conjectures from translations.

1. It is well known that the translation of the LXX., if it have the original pretended, and which alone makes it considerable, was made and finished three hundred years, or near thereabout, before the incarnation of our Saviour. It was in that time and season wherein the oracles of God were committed to the Jews, whilst that church and people were the only people of God, accepted with him, designed by him keepers of his word for the use of the whole church of Christ to come, as the great and blessed foundation of truth,—a time when there was an authentic copy of the whole Scripture, as the rule of all others, kept in the temple. Now, can it be once imagined that there should be at that time such notorious varieties in the copies of the Scripture, through the negligence of that church, and yet afterward neither our Saviour nor his apostles take the least notice of it? Yea, doth not our Saviour himself affirm of the word that then was among the Jews, that not ἰῶτα ἕν or μία κεράια of it p 409 should pass away or perish? where, let not the points, but the consonants themselves with their apices, be intended or alluded unto in that expression: yet of that word, which was translated by the LXX., according to this hypothesis, and which assuredly they then had, if ever, not only tittles and letters, but words, and that many, are concluded to be lost. But that no Jew believes the figment we are in the consideration of, I could say, “Credat Apella.”

2. Waiving the consideration of our refuge in these cases, namely, the good providence and care of God in the preservation of his word, let the authors of this insinuation prove the assertion, namely, that there was ever in the world any other copy of the Bible, differing in any one word from those that we now enjoy; let them produce one testimony, one author of credit, Jew or Christian, that can, or doth, or ever did, speak one word to this purpose; let them direct us to any relic, any monument, any kind of remembrancer of them,—and not put us off with weak conjectures upon the signification of one or two words, and it shall be of weight with us. Is it meet that a matter of so huge importance, called into question by none but themselves, should be cast and determined by their conjectures? Do they think that men will part with the possession of truth upon so easy terms? that they will be cast from their inheritance by divination? But they will say, “Is it not evident that the old translators did make use of other copies, in that we see how they have translated many words and places, so as it was not possible they should have done had they rendered our copy according to what we now read?” But will this indeed be pleaded? May it not be extended to all places as well as to any? and may not men plead so for every variation made by the LXX. from the original, that they had other copies than any that now are extant? Better all old translations should be consumed out of the earth than that such a figment should be admitted. That there are innumerable other reasons to be assigned of the variations from the original,—as the translators’ own inadvertency, negligence, ignorance (for the wisest see not all), desire to expound and clear the sense, and, as it was likely, of altering and varying many things from the original, with the innumerable corruptions and interpolations that have befallen that translation, indifferently well witnessed unto by the various lections exhibited in the Appendix,—it were easy to manifest. Seeing, then, that neither the care of God over his truth, nor the fidelity of the Judaical church whilst the oracles of God were committed thereunto, will permit us to entertain the least suspicion that there was ever in the world any copy of the Bible differing in the least from that which we enjoy, or that those we have are corrupted, as is pretended; and seeing that the authors of that insinuation cannot produce the least testimony to make it good, μένωμεν ὥσπερ ἐσμὲν, p 410 through the mercy and goodness of God, in the entire, unquestionable possession of his oracles once committed to the Jews, and the faith therein once committed to the saints.

But now, to suppose that such indeed hath been the condition of the holy Bible in its originals as is pretended, let us consider whether any relief in this case be to be expected from the translations exhibited unto us, with much pains, care, and diligence, in these Biblia Polyglotta, and so at once determine that question, whether this be any part of the use of translations, be they ever so ancient, namely, to correct the originals by, leaving further discussion of sundry things in and about them to other exercitations.

That all or any translation may be esteemed useful for this purpose, I suppose without any contention it will be granted,—1. That we be certain concerning them that they are translated out of the originals themselves, and not out of the interpretations of them that went before them; for if that appear, all their authority as to the business inquired after falls to the ground, or is at best resolved into that former whence they are taken, if they are at agreement therewith; otherwise they are a thing of naught. And this one consideration will be found to lay hold of one moiety of these translations. 2. That they be of venerable antiquity, so as to be made when there were other copies of the original in the world besides that which we now enjoy. 3. That they be known to be made by men of ability and integrity, sound in the faith, and conscientiously careful not to add or detract from the originals they made the translation out of. If all these things at least concur not in a translation, it is most undeniably evident that it can be of no use to assist in the finding out what corruptions have befallen our copies, and what is the true lection of any place about which any differences do arise. Let us, then, as without any prejudice in ourselves, so without, I hope, any offence to others, very briefly consider the state and condition of the translations given us in the Biblia Polyglotta as to the qualifications here laid down.

Let us, then, take a view of some of the chiefest of them, without observing any order, seeing there is no more reason for that which is laid down in this Appendix than for any other that may be fixed on. I shall begin with the Arabic, for the honour I bear to the renownedly learned publisher¹ of it and the various lections of the several copies thereof; and the rather because he hath dealt herein with his wonted candour, giving in a clear and learned account of the original and nature of that translation; which I had, for the substance p 411 of it, received from him in a discourse before, wherein also he gave me a satisfactory account concerning some other translations, which I shall not need now to mention, though I shall only say his judgment in such things is to be esteemed at least equal with [that of] any now alive.

First, then, he tells us upon the matter that this translation is a cento, made up of many ill-suited pieces,¹ there being no translation in that language extant. I speak of the Old Testament. 2. For the antiquity of the most ancient part of it, [it] was made about the year 4700 of the Jews’ account, that is, of Christ 950.² 3. It was, as to the Pentateuch, translated by R. Saadias Haggaon. 4. That it is interpreted [interpolated?] and changed in sundry things by some other person. 5. That he who made these changes seemed to have so done that he might the better thereby δουλεύειν ὑποθέσει, as to some particular opinion of his own; whereof sundry instances are given. 6. That he seems to have been a Mohammedan, or at least much to have favoured them, as appears from other evidences, so from the inscription of his work with that solemn motto, taken out of the Koran, “In nomine Dei miseratoris, misericordia.” 7. It may be thought, also, that some other, a Jew or a Samaritan, had his hand in corrupting the last translation, 8. who thought to stamp a divine authority upon his particular opinions. 9. That the foundation of this translation, now printed, being that of Saadias, it is observable that he professeth that he did both add and detract according as he thought meet, that so he might set out the hidden, cabalistical understanding of the Scripture. 10. That the other Arabic translations that are extant are out of the Septuagint, either immediately or by the Syriac, which was translated out of it. On these and the like heads doth that oracle of the eastern learning—who hath not only, as some, learned the words of some of those languages, but searched with great diligence and judgment into the nature of the learning extant in them, and the importance of the books we have—discourse in that preface. It is the way of sciolists, when they have obtained a little skill in any language or science, to persuade the world that all worth and wisdom lie therein: men thoroughly learned, and whose learning is regulated by a sound judgment, know that the true use of their abilities consists in the true suiting of men to a clear acquaintance with truth. In that kind, not only in this particular are we beholden to this worthy, learned person.

p 412 I suppose there will not need much arguing to prove that this translation, though exceeding useful in its own place and kind, yet is not in the least a fit remedy to relieve us against any pretended corruption in the original, or to gather various lections different from our present copy by. Well may it exercise the ability of learned men to consider wherein and how often it goes off from the rule of faith; but rule in itself and upon its own account, coming short of all the necessary qualifications laid down before, it is none.

Should I now go to gather instances of the failings of this translation, open and gross, and so proceed with the rest, I think I might make a volume near as big as that of the various lections now afforded us; but I have another manner of account to give of my hours than so to spend them.

Whether the Syriac translation be any fitter for this use, any one who shall be pleased to consider and weigh it will easily discover. It seems, indeed, to have been made out of the original, at least for some part of it, or that the translation of the LXX. hath been in many things changed since this was made (which I rather suppose); but when,¹ where, or by whom, doth not appear; nor doth it in many things seem to have any respect at all unto the Hebrew. The note at the close of the Prophets I suppose to proceed rather from the scribe of that individual copy than the translator; but that the reader may see what hands it hath passed through, he may take it as it is rendered by the learned author of the annotations on that translation: “Explicit Malachias sive libri xii. prophetarum, quorum oratio perpetuo nobis adsit, Amen; precibusque ipsorum, precibusque omnium sanctorum, sodalium ipsorum præsertim virginis, quæ Deum peperit, omnium sanctorum matris quæ pro genere Adami intercedit, propitius sit Deus lectori et scriptori peccatori, et omnibus sive verbo sive opere, ipsis participantibus.” But this good conclusion is, as I suppose, from the scribe; the usual negligence of whom in his work is frequently taxed in the collection of various readings, as page 8, et alibi.

Now, though I confess this translation to be very useful in many things, and to follow the original for the most part, yet being made as yet I know neither when nor by whom, in sundry places evidently following another corrupt translation, and having passed through the hands of men ignorant and suspicious, against whose frauds and folly, by reason of the paucity of copies, we have no relief, I p 413 question whether it may be esteemed of any great use or importance as to the end inquired after.¹

Of the Samaritan Pentateuch, both original and translation, we shall not need to add much. What the people from whom it hath its denomination were is known; nor have the inquiries of Scaliger and Morinus added any thing to what is vulgarly known of them from the Scripture and Josephus. In a word, an idolatrous, superstitious, wicked people they were, before they were subdued by Hyrcanus; afterward they continued in the separation from the true church of God; and, upon the testimony of our Saviour, had not salvation among them. When they received their Pentateuch is uncertain; it is uncertain also how long they kept it. That they corrupted it whilst they had it is not uncertain; they are charged to have done so by the Jews in the Talmud, and the instance they give abides to this day, Deut. 11:30. They have added “Sichem” to the text, to give countenance to their abominations. And openly, in Deut. 27:4, where God gives a command that an altar should be set up on mount Ebal, they have wickedly and nefariously corrupted the text, and put in Gerizim. Now, one such voluntary corruption, made on set purpose to countenance a sin and false worship, is enough to lay low the authority of any copy whatever. The copy here printed was brought out of the east, from Damascus, not long since. “It appears to have been two hundred and thirty years old,” saith Morinus in the account of it, Opusc. Samar. Præfat. ad Translat. Samarit. As I said before, that any Samaritans do as yet remain is uncertain; some few Jews there are that walk in that way, here and there a few families. Now, that this Pentateuch, which was never as such committed to the church of God, that had its rise no man knows by whom, and that hath been preserved no man knows how, known by few, used by none of the ancient Christians, that hath been voluntarily corrupted by men of corrupt minds, to countenance them in their folly, should be of any authority, upon its own single account, to any end or purpose, especially to vie with the Hebrew text, men that have not some design that they publicly own not will scarce contend. The places instanced in by Morinus² to prove its integrity above the Hebrew copy, as to the solution of difficulties by it, in Gen. 11:29, 31, Exod. 12:40, do evidently prove it corrupt. Any man that will consider them will find the alterations purposely made p 414 to avoid the difficulties in those places; which is one common evidence of corruption. In Gen. 11:31, sixty years are cut off from the life of Terah, to make the chronology agree; and that of Exod. 12:40, “The dwelling of the children of Israel and their fathers, when they dwelt in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years,” is a plain comment or exposition on the text. Nor would Jerome, who had this copy, make any use of it in these difficulties. Might I go over the rest of Morinus’ instances, whereby he seeks to credit his Samaritan copy, which we have in these Biblia Polyglotta, I could manifest that there is scarce one of them but yields a clear argument of corruption in it, upon some of the best grounds that we have to judge of the sincerity or corruption of any copy. And if this Pentateuch had been of any credit of old, it would not have been omitted, yea, as it seems, utterly rejected as a thing of nought, by Origen, in his diligent collection of the original and versions.¹

But we are in a way and business wherein all things are carried to and fro by conjectures; and it were no hard task to manifest the utter uncertainty of what is fixed on as the original of this Pentateuch by the author of the Prolegomena, or to re-enforce those conjectures which he opposeth; but that is not my present work, nor do I know that ever it will be so. But I must for the present say, that I could have been glad that he had refrained the close of his discourse, sect. 2, wherein, from the occasional mention of the Samaritan Liturgy, and the pretended antiquity of it, he falls, not without some bitterness of spirit, on those who have laid aside the English Service-book. It were not (in the judgment of some) imprudently done, to reserve a triumph over the sectaries to some more considerable victory than any [that] is to be hoped [for] from the example of the Samaritans. Were they all barbers, and porters, and alehouse-keepers, yet they might easily discern that the example and precedent of a wicked people, forsaken of God, and forsaking of him, to whom the promise of the Spirit of supplications was never made, nor he bestowed upon them, is not cogent unto the people of Christ under the new testament, who have the promise made good unto them. And much more unto the same purpose will some of them be found to say, when men of wisdom and learning, who are able to instruct them, shall condescend personally so to do. But I shall forbear what might further be spoken.

The Chaldee Paraphrase is a cento also. The Targum of Jonathan p 415 is ancient, so also is that of Onkelos; they are supposed to have been made before or about the time of our Saviour. Some of the Jews would have Jonathan to have lived not long after Ezra; others [say] that he was the chief disciple of Hillel, about a hundred years before Christ’s incarnation; some are otherwise minded, and will not own it to be much older than the Talmud: but as yet I see no grounds sufficient to overthrow the received opinion. The other parts of the Scripture were paraphrased at several times, some above five hundred years after our Saviour, and are full of Talmudical fancies, if not fables; as that on the Canticles. That all these Targums are of excellent use is confessed; and we are beholden to the Biblia Polyglotta for representing them in so handsome an order and place, that with great facility they may be compared with the original. But as to the end under consideration, how little advantage is from hence to be obtained, these few ensuing observations will evince:—1. It was never the aim of those paraphrasts to render the original text exactly verbum de verbo, but to represent the sense of the text according as it appeared to their judgment. Hence it is impossible to give any true account how they read in any place wherein they dissent from our present copies, since their endeavour was to give us the sense as they thought, rather than the bare and naked importance of the words themselves. Hence Elias saith of them, המתרנמים לא שמרו לפעמום דרך הדקדוק והנה,—“Behold, the Targumists observed not sometimes the way of grammar.” 2. It is evident that all the Targums agreed to give us often mystical senses, especially the latter, and so were necessitated to go off from the letter of the text. 3. It is evident that they have often made additions of whole sentences to the Scripture, even the best of them, from their own apprehensions or corrupt traditions, whereof there is not one tittle or syllable in the Scripture, nor ever was. 4. What careful hands it hath passed through, the bulky collection of various lections given in this Appendix doth abundantly manifest. And seeing it hath not lain under any peculiar care and merciful providence of God, whether innumerable other faults and errors, not to be discovered by any variety of copies (as it is happened with the Septuagint), may not be got into it, who can tell? Of these and the like things we shall have a fuller account when the “Babylonia” of Buxtorf the father (promised some while since by the son to be published, Vindic. Veritat. Heb. p. 2, c. x. p. 337, and, as we are informed by the learned annotator on this Paraphrase, in his preface in the Appendix, lately sent to the publishers of this Bible) shall be put out. So that we have not as yet arrived at the remedy provided for the supposed distemper.

Of the Vulgar Latin, its uncertain original, its corruptions and p 416 barbarisms, its abuse, so much hath been spoken, and by so many already, that it were to no purpose to repeat it over again. For my part, I esteem it much the best in the whole collection exhibited unto us, excepting the interlineary of Arias; but not to be compared to sundry modern translations, and very unfit to yield the relief sought after.

The Septuagint is that which must bear the weight of the whole. And good reason there is, indeed, that it should answer for the most of the rest, they being evidently taken out of it, and so they are oftentimes worse; yet they are now better than that is. But here again all things are exceedingly uncertain; nothing almost is manifest concerning it but that it is wofully corrupt. Its rise is uncertain. Some call the whole story of that translation into question as though there had never been any such persons in rerum natura. The circumstances that are reported about them and their works are certainly fabulous. That they should be sent for upon the advice of Demetrius Phalereus, who was dead before, that they should be put into seventy-two cells or private chambers, that there should be twelve of each tribe fit for that work, are all of them incredible.¹ See Scal, ad Euseb. fol. 123; Wouwer Syntag. cap. xi.

Some of the Jews say that they made the translation out of a corrupt Chaldee paraphrase; and to me this seems not unlikely. Josephus, Austin, Philo, Jerome, Zonaras, affirm that they translated the Law or Pentateuch only. Josephus affirms this expressly: Οὐδὲ γὰρ, saith he, πᾶσαν ἐκεῖνος ἔφθη λαζεῖν τὴν ἀναγραφὴν, ἀλλʼ αὐτὰ μόνα τὰ τοῦ νόμου παρέδοσαν οἱ πεμφθέντες ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξήγησιν, Proœm. ad Antiquit. And this is a received opinion; whence we have the rest is unknown. Take to this purpose the ensuing chapter out of Drusius, Observat. lib. vi. cap. ix.:—

“Vulgatam translationem Græcam non esse LXX. interpretum, contra, quam olim existimatum fuit.

“Translatio ea quæ vulgo apud Græcos habetur, quin LXX. interpretum non sit, nemini hodie dubium esse arbitror nam si nihil aliud, innumeri in ea loci sunt, qui arguunt magnam imperitiam sermonis Ebraici; sed et negligentiam singularem in legendo, et oscitantiam tantis viris indignam qui in ea editione non videt, nihil videt; etsi Eusebius, Hieronymus passim in monumentis suis eam Septuaginta interpretibus attribuere videtur. Nos quoque cum aliquid inde proferimus usitato magis quam vero nomine utimur, exemplo videlicet Hieronymi, quem suspicamur, licet crederet interpretationem eam a viris illis elaboratam minime fuisse, ne offenderet Græcos voluisse p 417 tamen recepto nomine semper appellare. Certe quin dubitaverit super iisdem authoribus, nihil dubitamus, nam vel hoc nos in ea opinione confirmat, quod scribit Josephum, omnemque adeo scholam Judæorum quinque tantum libros Mosis a Septuaginta interpretibus translatos esse asserere, scribit autem hoc non semel, sed sæpius, ut Ezech. v. pag. 343, et pag. 301 et 372 et Mich. ii. pag. 150. Libris Antwerpiæ vulgatis.”

Let it be granted that such a translation was made, and that of the whole Bible, by some Alexandrian Jews, as is most probable, yet it is certain that the αὐτόγραφον of it, if left in the library of Alexandria, was consumed to ashes in Cæsar’s wars; though Chrysostom tells us that the Prophets were placed in the temple of Serapis: Μέχρι νῖν ἐκεῖ τῶν προφητῶν αἱ ἑρμηνευθεῖσαι βίζλοι μένουσιν, Ad Judæos; “and they abide there,” saith he, “unto this day.” How unlikely this is any man may guess, by what Jerome, who made another manner of inquiry after those things than Chrysostom, affirms concerning the incurable various copies of that translation wanting an umpire of their differences. We know also what little exactness men in those days, before the use of grammar, attained in the knowledge of languages in their relation to one another; and some learned men do much question even the skill of those interpreters. So Munster. Præfat. ad Biblia, “Videbat Hieronymus vir pius et doctus, Latinos vera et genuina legis atque prophetarum destitutos lectione, nam LXX. interpretum editio, quæ tunc ubique locorum receptissima erat apud Græcos et Latinos nedum perperam plerisque in locis versa fuit, verum per scriptores atque scribas plurimum corrupta, id quod et hodie facile patet conferenti editionem illam juxta Hebraicam veritatem, ut interim fatear illos non admodum peritos fuisse linguæ Hebraicæ id vel quod inviti cogimur fateri, alioquin in plurimis locis non tam fœde lapsi fuissent.”

If, moreover, the ability be granted, what security have we of their principles and honesty? Cardinal Ximenes, in his preface to the edition of the Complutensian Bibles, tells us (that which is most true, if the translation we have be theirs) that on sundry accounts they took liberty in translating according to their own mind; and thence concludes, “Unde translatio Septuaginta duum, quandoque est superflua quandoque diminuta;”—“it is sometimes superfluous, sometimes wanting.” But suppose all these uncertainties might be overlooked, yet the intolerable corruptions that (as is on all hands confessed) have crept into the translation make it altogether useless as to the end we are inquiring after. This Jerome in his Epistle to Chromatius at large declares, and shows from thence the necessity of a new translation. Yea, Bellarmine himself says, that though he believes the translation of the LXX. to be still extant, yet it is so p 418 corrupt and vitiated that it plainly appears to be another, lib. ii. De Verbo Dei, cap. vi.

He that shall read and consider what Jerome hath written of this translation, even then when he was excusing himself, and condescending to the utmost to waive the envy that was coming on him upon his new translation, in the second book of his Apology against Rufinus, cap. viii. ix., repeating and mollifying what he had spoken of it in another place, will be enabled in some measure to guess of what account it ought to be with us. In brief, he tells us it is corrupted, interpolated, mingled by Origen with that of Theodotion, marked with asterisks and obelisks; that there were so many copies of it, and they so varying, that no man knew what to follow (he tells us of a learned man who on that account interpreted all the errors he could light on for Scripture); that in the book of Job, take away what was added to it by Origen, or is marked by him, and little will be left. His discourse is too long to transcribe. See also his Epistle to Chromatius at large to this purpose. Let the reader also consult the learned Masius, in his preface to his most learned Comment on Joshua.

For the translations of the New Testament that are here afforded us, little need be spoken. Of the antiquity, usefulness, and means of bringing the Syriac into Europe, an account hath been given by many, and we willingly acquiesce in it. The Ethiopian and Persian are novel things, of little use or value; yea, I suppose it may safely be said they are the worst and most corrupt that are extant in the world. The Persian was not translated out of the Greek, as is confessed by the learned annotator upon it, “Præsens locus satis arguit, Persam Græcum codicem haud consuluisse,” in Luc. 10. et 41. Yea, in how many things he goes off from the Greek, Syriac, Arabic, yea, goes directly contrary to the truth, is both acknowledged by its publisher and is manifest from the thing itself. I know no use of it but only to show that such a useless thing is in the world.¹ Nor is the Ethiopian one whit better,—a novel endeavour of an illiterate person. He tells us that John, when he wrote the Revelation, was archbishop of Constantia, or Constantinople, etc. It is to no purpose to go over the like observations that might be made on these translations; if any man hath a mind to be led out of the way, he may do well to attend unto them. Whether some of them be in use now in the world I know not; I am sure it is well if they be not. Had I not seen them, I could not have imagined any had p 419 been so bad. Would I make it my business to give instances of the mistakes, ignorance, falsifications, errors, and corruptions of these translators, whoever they were (Jews or Christians, for I am not without some ground of thinking that Jews have had their hands in them for money), my discourse, as I said before, would swell into a volume; and, unless necessitated, I shall avoid it.

From what hath been spoken, it may abundantly appear that if there are indeed such corruptions, mistakes, and errors, crept into the original, as some have pretended, there is no relief in the least provided for the security of truth by any of the translations exhibited unto us in these late editions of the Bible, themselves being of an uncertain original, corrupt, and indeed of no authority from themselves, but merely from their relation to that whose credit is called in question. For my own part, as I said before, I allow them their proper use and place, and am thankful to them by whose care and pains we are made partakers of them; but to endeavour by them to correct the Scripture,—to gather various lections out of the original, as say others,—for my part I abhor the thought of it; let others do as seems good unto them. And if ever I be necessitated to speak in particular of these translations, there are yet in readiness further discoveries to be made of them.¹

There remains only, as to my purpose in hand, that some brief account be taken of what is yet further insinuated of the liberty to observe various lections in the Bible, upon supposition of gross corruptions that may be crept into it; as also of the specimen of various lections gathered out of Grotius’ Annotations; and somewhat of the whole bulk of them as presented unto us in the Appendix.

p 420 For the corruptions supposed, I could heartily wish that learned men would abstain from such insinuations, unless they are able to give them some pretence by instances. It is not spoken of this or that copy, which, by the error of the scribes or printers, may have important mistakes found in it. There is no need of men’s critical abilities to rectify such mistakes; other copies are at hand for their relief. It is of the text, without such suppositions, that this insinuation is made. Now, to cast scruples into the minds of men about the integrity and sincerity of that, without sufficient ground or warrant, is surely not allowable. It is not good to deal so with men or their writings, much less with the word of God. Should any man write that in case of such a man’s theft or murder, who is a man of unspotted reputation, it were good to take such or such a course with him, and publish it to the world, would their stirring of such rumours be looked on as an honest, Christian, and candid course of proceeding? And is it safe to deal so with the Scripture? I speak of Protestants. For Papists, who are grown bold in the opposition to the originals of the Scripture, I must needs say that I look upon them as effectually managing a design of Satan to draw men into atheism; nor, in particular, do I account Morinus’ Exercitations one whit better. It is readily acknowledged that there are many difficult places in the Scripture, especially in the historical books of the Old Testament. Some of them have by some been looked at as ἄλυτα. The industry of learned men of old, and of late Jews and Christians, has been well exercised in the interpretation and reconciliation of them: by one or other a fair and probable account is given of them all. Where we cannot reach the utmost depth of truth, it hath been thought meet that poor worms should captivate their understandings to the truth and authority of God in his word. If there be this liberty once given, that they may be looked on as corruptions, and amended at the pleasure of men, how we shall be able to stay before we come to the bottom of questioning the whole Scripture I know not. That, then, which yet we insist upon is, that according to all rules of equal procedure, men are to prove such corruptions before they entertain us with their provision of means for remedy.

For the specimen of various lections gathered out of Grotius’ Annotations, I shall not much concern myself therein; they are nothing less than various lections of that learned man’s own observations. Set aside, 1. The various lections of the Septuagint, [of the] Vulgar Latin, [and] of Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion, wherein we are not concerned; 2. The Keri and Ketib, which we have oftentimes over and over in this volume; 3. The various readings of the oriental and occidental Jews, which we have also elsewhere; 4. Conjectures how the Septuagint and Vulgar Latin read, by altering letters only; p 421 5. Conjectures of his own how the text may be mended,—and a very little room will take up what remains. By that cursory view I have taken of them, I see not one word that can pretend to be a various lection, unless it belong to the Keri and Ketib, or the difference between the oriental and the occidental Jews: so that, as I said before, as to my present design, I am not at all concerned in that collection; those that are may further consider it.

As short an account will serve for the general consideration of the whole bulky collection of various lections that we have here presented unto us. For those of the several translations, we are not at all concerned in them; where any or all of them fail or are corrupted, we have a rule, blessed be God, preserved to rectify them by. For those of the originals, I have spoken to them in particular. I shall only add, that we have some of them, both from the Old and New Testament, given us thrice over at least; many of the Keri and Ketib, after a double service done by them, are given us again the third time by Grotius; so also are those of the New Testament by the same Grotius and Lucas Brugensis.

¹ The treatise “Of the Divine Original, etc., of the Scriptures.”

¹ Whitak. Cham. Rivet. de S. S. Molin. nov. Pap. Mestrezat. Cont. Jesuit. Regourd. Vid. Card. Perron. Respon. ad Reg. mag. Bullen. 1. 5, c. 6.

² Since my writing of this, some of the chief overseers of the work, persons of singular worth, are known to me.

¹ Prolog. 7, sect. 17.

² Ibid. 3, sect. 8, et seq.

³ Ibid. 8, sect. 23, etc.

⁴ Append, p. 5.

⁵ Proleg. 7, sect. 12.

¹ Proleg. 6, sect. 8–10.

² Ibid. 6, sect. 12.

¹ Adrianus Ferrariensis Flagellum Judæor. lib. ix. cap. ii., Rab. Azarias Meor Henaim. p. 13, cap. ix.

¹ Joseph, de Bell. Jud. lib. Til. cap. xxiv.

¹ Proleg. 7, sect. 12.

¹ “Hicrosolymis Babylonica expugnatione daletis, omne instrumentum Judaicæ lite raturæ per Esdram constat restauratum.”—Tertull. lib. de Hab. Mul. cap. iii.

² “Quod si aliquis dixerit Hebræos libros à Judæis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem, quid in octavo volumine explanationum Esaiæ respondeat quæstiunculæ; quod nunquam dominus et apostoli qui cætera crimina arguunt in Scribis et Pharisæis, de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent. Sin autem dixerint post adventum Domini et prædicationem apostolorum libros Hebræos fuisse falsatos cachinnum tenere non potero.”—Hierom. in cap. vi. Esaiæ.

¹ Morin. Exercit. de Heb. Text. Sine. lib. i. exer. i. cap. iv.

¹ Buxtorf Tiberias.

² De Antiquitate Punct.

³ Exeg. loc. com. tom. i. de Sa. Sc.

⁴ De Text. Heb. Puri.

⁵ Loc. com. quousque se extendat. Author S. Sa.

⁶ Clav. Scrip. Sel. p. 2, trac. 6.

⁷ De Templ. Ezec.

⁸ Disputat. Jenæ.

⁹ De Translat. Scripturæ.

¹⁰ Controversarium Epitome.

¹¹ Loc. Theol. lib. ii. cap. xiii.

¹² Arcan. Cathol. lib. i.

¹³ Exercit. de Heb. Text. Sincer.

¹⁴ Proleg.

¹ De Verbo Dei, lib. ii.

² In Ps. 21.

³ Biblioth. lib. viii. Hæres. 13.

⁴ Præfat ad Bib. Interlin.

⁵ Respons. ad Lindan.

⁶ De rebus Solom. cap. iv. sect. 1.

⁷ Præfat. ad Josu.

⁸ Prolog. Biblica.

¹ Lightfoot, Fall of Hierus. sect. 3–5, etc.

¹ Euseb. Hist. lib. iv. cap. vi.; Orosius. lib. vii. cap. xiii.; Hieron. Com. in Zach. cap. xi. Vid Tzemach. David. et Hotting. Hist. Ecclesi. Nov. Testam.

² “Dispersi, palabundi et cœli et soli sui extorres, vagantur per orbem sine homine, sine Deo, rege, quibus nec advenarum jure terram patriam saltem vestigio salutare conceditur.”—Tertull. Apol.

³ “Post hæc processu temporis ventum est ad Rabbinu Hakkadosh, cui pax, qui fuit seculi sui phœnix, etc. Ille legem in Israele confirmavit sententiis, dictis, et differentiis ore traditis a Mose, usque ad tempora sua collectis, cum et ipse esset ex iis qui ore tradita referebant. Collectis igitur sententiis et dictis istis, manum admovit componendæ Mishnæ, quæ omnium quæ in lege scripta sunt præceptorum explicationem contineret, partim traditionibus a Mose (cui pax), ore acceptis, partim consequentiis argumentatione elicitis,” etc.—Vid. R. Maimon. præfat. in Seder Zeraiim, edit. Poc. p. 36–38.

¹ Fundament, nonum. apud Maimon, præfat. ad Perek. Chelek. p. 175, edit. Poc.

² Shobet Jehuda, p. 40.

¹ “Eodem fere tempore Palatinus abolita pontificia authoritate doctrinam Lutheri recepit, eaque de causa Paulum Fagium tabernis Rhenanis in Palatinatu natum Hiedelbergam evocavit. Is sub Volfgango Capitone perfectissimam linguæ, sanctæ cognitionem adeptus, cum egestate premeretur, Petri Busteri veri locupletis Isnæ in qua ille docebat senatoris liberalitate sublevatus Heliam ilium Judæorum doctissimum accersendum curavit, et instituta typographica officina maximum ad solidam rerum Hebraicarum cognitionem momentum attulit.”—Thuanus Hist. lib. ii. ad an. 1564, p. 546.

² Proleg. 3, sect. 42.

¹ Faustus Socin. de Jesu Christo Servatore; Crellius Cont. Grot. p. 62.

² Pietro Della Valle had discovered, in his travels through the east, a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which was presented in 1620 to the library of the Oratory at Paris, by Harlæus do Saney. It excited considerable sensation among the learned, was reputed of great antiquity, and held to be derived from some copy antecedent to the Babylonish captivity. It contained no vowel points, and hence the analogical argument to which our author refers against the antiquity of the Hebrew points.—Ed.

¹ Αὐτίκα δὲ οἱ παρʼ Αἰγυπτίοις παιδευόμενοι, πρῶτον μὲν πάντων τὴν Αἰγυπτίων γραμμάτων μέθοδον ἐκμανθάνουσι, τὴν ἐπιστολογραφικὴν καλουμένην· δευτέραν δε, ἱερατικὴν ᾗ χρῶνται οἱ ἱερογραμματεῖς· ὑστάτην δὲ καὶ τελευταίαν, τὴν ἱερολυφικὴν ἧς ἡ μέν ἐστι διὰ τῶν πρωτῶν στοιχείων κυριολογικὴ, ἡ δὲ συμζολική· τῆς δὲ συμζολικῆς ἡ μὲν κυριολογεῖται κατὰ μίμησιν· ἡ δὲ ὥσπερ τροπικῶς γράφεται, ἡ δὲ ἄντικρυς ἀλληγορεῖται κατά τινας αἰνιγμούς· ἥλιον γὰρ οὖν γράψαι βουλόμενοι, κύκλον ποιοῦσι· σελήνην δὲ, σχῆμα μηνοειδὲς, κατὰ τὸ κυριολογούμενον εἷδος.—Clemens. Alex., Stromat. lib. v.

¹ “Veni rursum Hierosolymam, et Bethlehem ubi labore pretii Bartemium Judæum nocturnum habui præceptorem; timebat enim Judæos, et exhibebat se mihi alium Nicodemum.”—Hieron. Ep. ad Oceanum.

¹ “Literas semper arbitror Assyrias fuisse, sed alii apud Egyptios a Mercurio, ut Gellius; alii apud Tyros repertas volunt: utique in Græciam intulisse e Phœnice Cadmum sexdecim numero, quibus Trojano bello adjecisse quatuor hac figurâ θξφχ. Palimedem totidem, post eum Simonidem Melicum ζηψω, quarum omnium vis in nostris cognoscitur.”—Plinius Nat. Hist. lib. vii. cap. lvi. quæ quis in vita invenerit.

² Dr Wilkins, ward, of Wad. Col.: [afterwards bishop of Chester, and author of a celebrated “Essay towards a Real Character and Philosophical Language.” On account of his literary pursuits in this direction, Owen seems to have appealed to him as an authority in the present instance. A complete and more accurate classification of sounds will be found in certain recent works. See a list of authors on the subject in the appendix to the “Essentials of Phonetics,” by Ellis.—Ed.]

¹ Cabalistic signs,—תְמויָה and נֹטיְיֵקיֹן, the former denoting a change either by transposition of letters, or by altering the alphabetical order of the letters; the latter being applied to instances in which one letter written is held to be the sign for a whole word or object.—Ed.

¹ Words seemingly conclusive in favour of Owen’s view, if Jerome understood by “vocales” what we understand by “vowels.” The former, however, in the language of Jerome denotes “gutturals.” See Havernick’s “Introduction to the Old Testament,” sect. 53, and Hupfeld, s. 580.—Ed.

¹ Dr Edward Pococke, born 1604; rector of Childrey, Berkshire, in 1643; professor of Hebrew in Oxford; one of Walton’s assistants in the preparation of the Polyglott, and one of the most accomplished scholars of his time.—Ed.

¹ Pococke’s statement was, that this translation was not all made by one author, or directly from the Hebrew, but partly out of the Hebrew, partly out of the Syriac, and partly out of the Septuagint.—Ed.

² It was of the translation of the Pentateuch by Saadias that Pococke had affirmed that it had been executed about a.d. 950. Owen seems to refer to the most ancient part of the Old Testament; Walton writes as if Owen had spoken of the most ancient part of the translation.—Ed.

¹ The reference is to the old Syriac or Peshito; a name derived from the Chaldee פְשִׁיטאָ, simple or single. Though Walton complained bitterly of the statement of Owen, yet the date of the version has been long matter of controversy among the learned, Michaelis ascribing to it high antiquity, Marsh questioning the conclusiveness of his arguments, and Laurence unsuccessfully attempting to refute the bishop. It is thought to belong to the end of the second or beginning of the third century.—Ed.

¹ A statement that must be qualified, Michaelis pronouncing it “the very best translation of the Greek Testament he ever read;” and Dr Davidson affirming, “It is far from being as accurate or as uniformly good as it might have been,” but always to be “consulted as an important document in the criticism and interpretation of the New Testament.” The testimony of the latter author as to the value of the Old Testament according to this version is equally decided: “In point of fidelity, it is the best of all the ancient versions.”—Ed.

² Morin. cap. i. exer. 4.

¹ It is now beyond all question that Owen’s estimate of the value of the Samaritan Pentateuch, for the purposes of critical emendation, was correct. Since the dissertation of Gesenius, “De Pentateuchi Samaritani Origine,” etc., “its credit in the critical world,” says Dr Davidson, “has been greatly lowered, its position as an authority depreciated far below the rank which several eminent scholars once gave it.”—Ed.

¹ On this point the good sense of Owen had fairly the better of the learning of Walton, who believed and defended the whole fable of Aristeas in regard to the origin of the Septuagint: see Proleg. ix. 18.—Ed.

¹ “The criticism of the New Testament should discard all Persian versions as worthless,” Dr Davidson, Bib. Grit. ii. 222. In regard to the Ethiopic, no great value is attached to it by modern critics, as there is great uncertainty about its origin, and its text has never been very correctly printed.—Ed.

¹ On the important question of the value of ancient translations in criticism, it is right the modern reader should not be misled. That they are of value, not for the criticism, but the interpretation of the Scriptures, is the position of our author. It cannot be defended; and the language in which he objects to these versions is too unqualified, although on some points his objections were not destitute of weight, and have been confirmed by subsequent inquiries. On this subject,—the use of versions in criticism,—we may cite the opinion of the most recent authority, Dr Davidson, in his valuable work on Biblical Criticism. Speaking of the principal versions of the Old Testament,—the Septuagint, the fragments of the other Greek translators, the Peshito or old Syriac, the Latin of Jerome, the Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos, and the Arabic of Saadias Haggaon,—he remarks, in regard to the supposition that they exhibit the text prior to all existing manuscripts, “They do without doubt render this important service partially. Their use in the criticism of the Old Testament is great. We have no other aids of equal value, provided they be rightly applied. Yet they do not give an exact and complete view of the original text, as it was at the time of their origin. They do not yield that important service to sacred literature which they might have done.”

On the subject of New Testament versions he observes, “No benefit has accrued from extending the range of investigation in this quarter. Rather has there been disadvantage.…. The Arabic versions of the New Testament ought to be neglected. They are useless. The same may be said of the Persian.” The versions which he regards as sources of criticism are the Syriac, Latin, Egyptian, Ethiopia, and Gothic.—Ed.

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 16 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 345–421.

Bibliography

Claims of Intentional Corruption

Breen, A. E. A General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, Second Edition (Rochester, NY: John P. Smith Printing Company, 1908), 641–642.

Calvin, John. “Psalm 22:16,” in Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, trans. James Anderson (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 373–375.

Levias, Caspar. “Masorah,” in The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 12 Volumes, ed. Isidore Singer (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901–1906), 366–368. Masorah: Jewish Encyclopedia’

Martyr, Justin. The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy or The Rule of God, vol. 6, The Fathers of the Church, ed. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1948), 262–265.

McCarthy, Carmel. “Deuteronomy 32:8,” in Deuteronomy: Critical Apparatus and Notes, quinta editione, vol. 5, Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), 93.

Owen, John. Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture; with Considerations on the Prolegomena and Appendix to the Late “Biblia Polyglotta.” The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 16 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 345–421.

Porter, J. Scott. Principles of Textual Criticism (London: Simms and M’Intyre, 1848), 36–37.

Resnick, Irven M. “Falsification of Scripture and Medieval Christian-Jewish Polemics,” Medieval Encounters 2.3 (1996): 345–80.

Riggle, Herbert M. The Kingdom of God (James L. Fleming, 2005), 184–212.

Sexton, Jeremy. “Primeval Chronology Restored: Revisiting the Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11,” Bible and Spade 29, no. 1 (2016): 27.

Vicchio, Stephen J. “Job in the Masoretic Text: A Search for the Original Text” in Job in the Ancient World (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2006).

Whiston, William. An Essay Towards Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament and for Vindicating the Citations Made Thence in the New Testament (London: Senex, 1722).

Claims Against Intentional Corruption