Chapter 14: The Final Apostasy of the Jewish Church

The final apostasy of the Jewish church — The general occasions of this — The people mixed with Gentiles — The entrance of philosophy — The various evils arising from it — Disputes, quarrels — Sects — The forgetting of the sacred language, the oppression and ignorance of the common people — The ambition and blindness of the teachers — Corruption of morals — Versions of the Scriptures.

I. The grace of God in the restoration of the church was, in the course of time, followed by the falling away of ungrateful men, and that falling away by a most horrible

collapse and ruin. The plan of our work requires that we set this forth briefly as well. The new church, founded upon the prophetic ministry, retained, while that ministry endured — though not entirely free from every fault — a purity that was pleasing to the merciful God. Once it was removed, the entire body of the church gradually sank into ruin. We shall briefly indicate what things drove it into those difficulties from which it could never emerge, and then the nature of its total apostasy.

II. From the time of the completed restoration, the people, oppressed by the tyranny and oppressions of the kings of Syria and Egypt, scattered here and there in all directions by various calamities, and compelled to endure foreigners even in the holy land, were immediately infected by the contagion of very many evils. In those centuries, the Greeks brought forth far and wide throughout the entire East that eristic philosophy, packed with empty wrangling, which they had not long before been giving birth to — the arms of the Macedonians serving as midwife. The teachers of the Jews also drank this in. While the temple of Solomon stood, and they worshipped God purely in it with sincere and proper devotion, that philosophy was entirely unknown to all the devout. For before the Babylonian captivity, no mention of literary learning or of foreign sciences occurs among that people — with the sole exception of mathematics, which they appear to have received from the Chaldeans and perverted to idolatrous uses. For all human wisdom is prone to pride and arrogance, especially when it resides in a mind not yet subdued to obedience to the truth. But that Greek philosophy, gradually introduced into the church, very quickly turned not merely into a great evil but into the ruin of purer theology. For those whose religion consisted in faith alone and the observance of the commandments of God began to erect schools — wholly unlike those over which the ancient prophets presided — to institute endless disputes, to tie knots, and to split into sects, just as we know that same philosophy caused to happen among the Greeks. The names of Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno were no more the banners of disputing factions among the Greeks than were the names of Shammai, Hillel, and others among the Jews. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes emulated the Academics, Peripatetics, and Stoics — and the itch for disputation of the former was more pernicious than that of the latter, because they entered into quarrels not about goat's wool or about fictions which, like spiders spinning webs from their own brains, they had fabricated — as the Greeks did — but about religion, the worship of God, and the meaning of the Scriptures, all of which are sacred and to be revered.

III. Next, the people had for the most part forgotten the sacred language. That was the second fruit of their mixing with the Gentiles. Those who lived in the dispersions spoke Greek; those who lived in their ancestral seats spoke Syriac. Thus the common people were gradually brought into the deepest ignorance of the law of God, since they could scarcely understand the language in which it alone was written. Relying on that ignorance, petty teachers began to puff themselves up, to arrogate everything to themselves as though they alone were wise, to despise the people, to lord it over their faith, to assume honorific titles, to contend with one another — some even doubted, having cast aside all fear of God. It would take too long here to trace the origins, distinctions, opinions, crimes, and pretexts of the sects. Since I must deal with matters well known and already treated by others, for the purposes of this work, it is my intention to touch briefly only on their main points. Let it suffice, therefore, to have reckoned in summary, among the causes of the general apostasy, the ignorance of the common people and the pride, vanity, and blindness of the teachers — the former destitute of the letter itself, the latter of the Spirit.

IV. Add to this that, after the Hasmoneans had held power for some time, having cast aside the divinely instituted theocracy, they openly defected in their political governance to Greek customs and rites. Greek were the names — Hyrcanus, Alexander, Aristobulus, Antigonus — of those who ruled the people after the Macedonian manner. And from that source also no small evils arose. Thus, when the prophetic ministry had ceased in the church, and the people, exposed to profane mixing with the Gentiles, had nearly forgotten their own language, and the teachers, splitting into various sects after the manner of philosophers, consulted only their own honor, and there was no one to cut down the ever-increasing harvests of wickedness — everything was openly hastening toward final ruin. But before I recount the main heads of this fatal apostasy, it is necessary that I say something about the versions of the holy Scriptures which very many consider to have arisen around this period, when the people had lost their proficiency in the sacred language; I hope it can be dealt with in the briefest of digressions.

On the Greek Version of the Holy Scriptures by the Seventy Elders.

I. Concerning the Greek version of the Scriptures by the Seventy, which is commonly assigned to this interval of time — while the Jewish church was on a downward slope toward general apostasy — I must say what Protagoras once said, as reported by Laertius, book ix. 51, concerning the gods of the nations. "Concerning the gods," he says, "I am not able to know whether they exist or do not exist, nor what they are like; for many things prevent one from knowing — both the obscurity of the matter and the brevity of human life." For all that is commonly said about that version is so uncertain, and so many and so great are the battles of opinion about it, that scarcely a lifetime would suffice for accurately examining them all; so that what he once said we have seen — that many uncertain men contend about this uncertain matter.

II. Very many agree that some version of the Scriptures was made at this time by seventy-two men; yet there are those who reject the entire history of it as bad goods and a purely Jewish fable. Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria assign that work to the time of Ptolemy Lagus; the most celebrated father of the history, Aristeas — as found in Josephus — and Josephus himself assign it to Philadelphus; some assign it to Philometor. Justin, in Apol. ii, is the authority for the claim that Philadelphus sent to Herod the king of the Jews requesting that he send those interpreters to him. What in

378 ON THE TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES BY THE LXX. [BOOK V. He demonstrates, by means of a quality befitting a most distinguished man, that he gave too ready a credence to the rumors that were commonly circulated about that translation. Most writers say that Demetrius Phalereus was the one who advised Philadelphus to obtain the books of the Jewish law; but others think that Philadelphus never made use of the services of that Demetrius in the preparation of his literary undertaking, for Laertius writes that Demetrius was in great disfavor with that king, and therefore died at the beginning of his reign from the bite of a serpent near Diospolis. The learned Vossius could counter this testimony in no other way than by asserting that Philadelphus had established his Library while his father was still reigning — contrary to the common testimony of all the ancients — yet even so that wedge is not sufficient for the knot; for Philadelphus had pursued Demetrius with mortal hatred long before his father's death. Moreover, nearly everyone ventures to swear that six men from each tribe were sent by the high priest of the Jews to Philadelphus to complete that work; but there are those who would not believe even sworn witnesses that so large a number of learned men from each tribe was then living in Jerusalem. Some maintain that these men were not so much translators as prophets; among those who at one time held this view was Augustine, in City of God, book 18, chapter xlii, which Jerome was never persuaded of by anyone. Justin affirms that they were distributed into seventy-two cells and that each one produced the entire work separately, so that they agreed on every single word rendered; Jerome gently mocks this fiction; Serarius and others give credence to the history after Justin; many follow Jerome in discounting it. Some write that the entire translation was completed in seventy-two days; others reject that dreadful haste. There are those who write that they translated only the Pentateuch — such as Aristeas, Josephus, Philo, and nearly all the Talmudic scholars; Huetius, Morinus, and most of the moderns say the whole of the Old Testament scriptures. Some hold that the Jews were greatly pleased by that work; others that they solemnly instituted a fast on account of the undertaking that had been begun, and cursed the work itself. Philo asserts that the LXX made their translation not from the Hebrew truth but from the Chaldean Targum, and certain of the rabbis agree with him; Cappellus, and those who owe everything to him in the controversy concerning the vowel points, say it was made from a Hebrew manuscript written without points. Some say the high priest sent a manuscript, if not written in golden letters, at least adorned with them, as a mark of honor to Philadelphus; most of the rabbis declare that a manuscript of that kind is profane and fit for no use at all. Some affirm that the translators were equipped with the highest proficiency in languages and employed the greatest fidelity in executing the work; others that they willingly corrupted the sense in many places for various reasons; Munster and Ximenes say they lacked either fidelity or understanding. Truly remarkable are the things Jerome writes about this translation in his letter to Augustine. And in the preface to Isaiah, addressed to Paula and Eustochium, he expressly affirms that the translators were unwilling to disclose to pagans the sacraments of their faith openly. Most conjecture that the Greek translation which still survives under their name is the very one they produced long ago; Drusius, and he is not alone, maintains that the ancient one has long since perished. If it survives, most concede that it has been very badly corrupted in numerous places since Jerome, among whom is Bellarmine; Morinus asserts that it has been preserved pure and unimpaired. Some think the whole tradition concerning this translation is a Jewish fable, as we said before. Heinsius, in Aristarchus, chapter x, determines that the fable-makers seized the occasion for fabricating it from (Exod. 24:7, 11). He writes that it was said that Moses, Aaron, and seventy elders ascended to God, and that He did not lay His hand on the princes of the children of Israel; in place of which last words the Hellenists have: of the elect of Israel not even one dissented. Hence, beyond doubt, the story about Ptolemy and those seventy elders — hence those famous scenes which blessed Jerome explodes, hence that invention that not one among so large a number disagreed in the rendering of the holy scriptures. The conjecture of that most learned man would perhaps have pleased those who are not unaware of how skilled the Jews are as craftsmen in fabricating the most monstrous falsehoods from the slightest occasions — had not a more recent Aristarchus declared him to be a grammarian and a vain man, to be laughed at for his arrogance, after he had passed from the living. To subject these various opinions, or other controversies about this translation, to examination in this place would be foreign to the task I have undertaken. Since it is commonly referred to the period we are discussing, nothing that I know of prevents me from briefly saying what I think of it. [*Angariae: the fasts of the four seasons. Martini, Lexicon Philologicum. — Ed.]

III. That the translation of the law, or Mosaic Pentateuch, into the Greek language was made around the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus is demonstrated by the testimonies of very many and by widespread tradition. It is probable that this work was undertaken by the Alexandrian Jews for the benefit of those who in that dispersion used the Greek language and were not learned in Hebrew. Whether any Targum existed at that time, as some maintain, is entirely uncertain. Certainly the great majority of the people at that time used the Syro-Chaldean dialect. There were therefore perhaps among them those who preceded the Hellenists in the work of transferring the scriptures into the vernacular tongue. But what is said about this consists of mere conjectures, since no traces of such a labor survive. In the course of time, the remainder of the Old Testament scriptures was added to the Pentateuch. Most concede, and certain proofs exist, that the whole work did not come from the same authors. We shall see presently that the Targum work was completed in the same manner. But whoever produced it, this much is clear: the work was undertaken and completed when the Jewish church was already rushing headlong toward its destruction; and from this one may conjecture how greatly that translation ought to be valued, if it still existed complete and uncorrupted. But whatever remains of that first Alexandrian version has been variously corrupted and interpolated in the days of Jerome, as he himself shows throughout. It would be well if from that time

380 ON THE TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES BY THE LXX. [BOOK V. — the common Greek version that then existed had suffered no harm. However it came to pass, it cannot be denied that it now disagrees with the Hebrew truth in six hundred places, and more often gives words under which there lies no tolerable sense; how vainly the interpreters labor in expounding such passages there is no need to say — the matter is self-evident. There are those, however, who affirm that our Savior used that version and thereby commended it to the church — precisely as some petty priest once wrote that He was accustomed to chanting the Mass. That this can be affirmed with greater plausibility of the writers of the New Testament seems possible. For many passages from the Old Testament are cited in their writings in the very same words that still survive in the Greek version, although they very frequently appear to differ in certain respects from the Hebrew texts. Many have shown that this discrepancy is one of words only and not of sense; some have even shown that the apostles in fact followed the Hebrew text in places where they are commonly thought to have adhered to the Greek version. The view that pleases most is that of those who affirm that the Holy Spirit, as the author of all scripture, expounding His own meaning as He saw fit, transferred testimonies from the Old Testament to the New using whatever words He pleased; and that Christian copyists of the Greek version gradually inserted those very words into it. IV. The authors of this view are not without very strong arguments on which they rely. It will be sufficient for me to point out a single one in this place, which I do not know whether anyone has yet observed. It is known that certain testimonies are cited in the New Testament in a somewhat obscure form, so that it is not immediately easy for everyone to discern from what passage of the Old Testament they are drawn. It is certain that some persons inserted several of these into the Greek text in those places where previously there was no trace of them, and from which they neither were nor could have been drawn. Let the words cited by the apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:6) — and let all the angels of God worship Him — serve as an example. Since some did not know from where the apostle had borrowed these words, they deemed it necessary to insert them at Deuteronomy 32:43, and so after the words Rejoice, O heavens, with Him, they added and let all the angels of God worship Him — words of which there is not a trace or vestige in the Hebrew text, nor anything that would provide any occasion for inserting them. Moreover, so that we may understand that the passage has been interpolated, immediately after the violent intrusion of those words they repeat Rejoice, so that the sense of Moses's speech would thus proceed in an orderly fashion. That the apostle did not cite those words from that passage is made manifest by the preface, apart from the fact that the words of the Holy Spirit, in whose name he cites them, are not in that passage. When, he says, He brings the firstborn into the world, He says — but in that Mosaic passage concerning the bringing of the firstborn into the world there are no such words, the direct exposition of which is the purpose of the Holy Spirit in Psalm 97, in which that testimony was truly spoken.

V. I will add a single passage, and that a well-known one. From the words of Moses in Genesis 47:31 — the Hebrew text of which is heavily damaged in the source — the apostle shows that Jacob worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff; that is, he was strong in faith, though nearly dying. The apostolic words, and he bowed in worship upon the top of his staff, crept into the Greek text, as if the apostle had thereby translated those words of Moses; for that the Greek translators originally did not render the Hebrew word in that place by the word for staff is evident enough from the fact that the very same word, repeated in the same history concerning the same person and matter, they consistently render by the word for bed or couch, as may be seen in Genesis 48:2, and in Genesis 49:33 — but about these things, God willing, on another occasion.

DIGRESSION III. On the Origin of the Targumim, or Chaldean Paraphrases.

I. To this interval of time, when the Jewish church was already rushing toward its destruction, most scholars assign the origin of the Chaldean paraphrases — or the Targumim — at least of certain parts of them. Whether there were once more translations of holy scripture into that language than survive has been rendered uncertain by what certain of the ancients said about the Greek translation of the LXX having been made from the Chaldean paraphrase. All scholars, both Jews and Christians, confess that a complete translation of the whole of scripture, produced by one man or by several at the same time or in the same century, never existed. There still survive three Targums on the law, or Mosaic Pentateuch. Of these, one bears the name of Onkelos; another is distinguished by the name of Jonathan Ben Uzziel; the third is called, for what reason I do not know, the Jerusalem Targum. That which exists on the historical books and the prophets carries the name of the same Jonathan, or of another Jonathan. That on the books of Psalms, Job, and Proverbs is attributed to a certain one-eyed or blind Joseph, whoever he may have been. Of entirely uncertain authorship are the fabulous and puerile commentaries that survive under the name of Targumim on Esther, the Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes. The books of Ezra and Daniel never had a Targum, since they were from the beginning partly written in Chaldean. Elias Levita, in his preface to the Methurgeman, does indeed make mention of a Targum of Daniel; but the sequence of his argument proves that by Targum he understands in that place the Chaldean language itself, not an ancient paraphrase; and for that reason he expresses the wish that a Chaldean grammar be drawn up on the model of the Targum of Daniel. Ravius indicated not long ago that a Targum on the books of Chronicles survives; a copy of which the distinguished Samuel Clerk, Architypographer of the University of Oxford — a man most worthy of a better fortune on account of his manifold learning — at last obtained, and is about to publish shortly; and in this way the chain of paraphrases on all the books of the Old Testament will be complete.

II. Everything that is said by authors about the time when these Targumim were composed is most uncertain. Josephus, Origen, and Jerome — the most skillful investigators of literary monuments of this kind — are silent. Sixtus of Siena was of the opinion that some Targum was known to the ancients under the name of a Syriac codex. That work, when at last published (if it was indeed published), reveals itself to be a Christian work, sufficiently different from those Chaldean paraphrases of the Jews. There are those who suspect that this Jonathan son of Uzziel was, by reason of a similarity of name, the same as Theodotion, the well-known interpreter of the scriptures, whom all the ancients without exception mention. But no one reports that this Pontic proselyte ever interpreted the scriptures in Chaldean, since his Greek translation was so well known. The ancient Christians therefore appear to have been entirely ignorant of all these paraphrases. Some accordingly hold that all of them were written not only after the destruction of the city and temple, but also after the age of Jerome. For it is known that he spent his life in those places where it seems impossible that the names and deeds of these literary luminaries could have been entirely hidden from him. The hatred that subsisted between Christians and Jews — on account of which neither people deigned to celebrate the literary achievements of the other — is alleged by some as the cause of this silence. That the common people on both sides were so disposed is indeed credible. But what does this have to do with Josephus, the most learned of the Jews, who, setting aside the impulses of anger and zeal against Christians, expounded with the greatest diligence all the achievements of his nation, and who even wove a narrative of the Greek translation that is quite lengthy and honorable? What does it have to do with Jerome, the most curious investigator of all not only books but also Hebrew traditions? There must be some other reason why these men made no mention of these paraphrases. But I do not wish to cling obstinately to this argument. It is certain that Jerome did not see all the books and all the literary monuments that existed in his own age; for neither the weakness of the human intellect nor the brevity of this life is sufficient for so great an undertaking. Nor is it credible that he committed to writing everything that he saw or knew. We also showed above that an argument drawn from the silence of certain ancient writers is not adequate to destroy the antiquity of books or the credibility of writings. Let the reader consult: Petrus Galatinus, Arcana Catholica, book 1, chapter ii, pp. 7-9; Martinus Raymundus, Pugio Fidei, book 1; Gulielmus Schickardus, Bechinath Happerushim, p. 37; Buxtorf, De Origine Punctorum, p. 127; Josephus de Voisin, Preface to Pugio Fidei; Cocceius, in Sanhedrin, p. 226; Buxtorf, Abbreviationes, p. 120; Morinus, Preface to the Greek Bible; Hoornbeek, Preface to Controversiae Judaicae; Hottinger, Philologia Sacra, book 1, chapter iii, section 1, p. 259; Rivet, Isagoge ad Sacram Scripturam, p. 119.

III. I will treat briefly of each individually. Among all the Targumists, if you consider the dignity of the work, first place is owed by the consensus of all scholars to Onkelos. I do not know whether the Jews, who take such great delight in fictions and falsehoods — of which there is less abundance in him than in the others — are of the same opinion. What century he lived in, or who he was, has not yet been established. Some hold that he was a proselyte, and that he lived in the days of Hillel and Shammai — that is, at least a hundred years before the destruction of the city. Rabbi Azariah in Imre Binah agrees with that conjecture, as does the author of the book Zohar, col. 131, citing a passage in Hebrew or Aramaic: Shammai and Hillel, he says, did not teach Onkelos the word of the law until he was circumcised. Others hold that he was likewise a proselyte, but the brother-in-law of the Emperor Titus, and thus that he lived at the very time of the destruction. So the author of Juchasin, p. 52. Azariah in Imre Binah expressly rejects that opinion, relying on no other argument than the century in which, following the tradition of certain teachers, he had affirmed that Onkelos lived. Some suspect, on account of a similarity of name, that this Onkelos was that Aquila who, as Jerome testifies, translated the holy scriptures into Greek with exactness in a second attempt. Others also report that a certain Aquila lived at about that time who was celebrated among the Jews, and whom they think was this Onkelos. Since, therefore, nothing certain remains regarding the time when he lived, anyone is free to think whatever he likes according to his own judgment. His Targum, however, whoever he was, is almost the only one among the surviving Chaldean paraphrases that is worth reading. For it adheres closely to the text, most often rendering the very words and generally rendering the sense of the Holy Spirit, and does not, as is customary for all the others, deliberately wander into mythical and fanciful writings. Guided by this reason alone, I conjecture that this paraphrast lived before the destruction of the city; for from that time onward all without exception, utterly destitute of the Holy Spirit, indulged in childish and ridiculous trifling. In what estimation or repute the work was held among the more ancient Jews is entirely unknown; that some of the later ones valued it highly is attested by the compilation of that codex in which the Hebrew text itself and this paraphrase of Onkelos are written out alternately verse by verse; but that it was ever read publicly in the synagogues the Jews deny, nor is there any reason why it should have been, since from the final dispersion the Jewish people were utterly ignorant of the Chaldean language. To think that this translation — of uncertain author and uncertain origin — has any worth or authority where it differs from the Hebrew truth is the opinion of none but madmen.

IV. The one who translated the prophets (Daniel excepted) and the historical books into the Chaldaic language is said to be Jonathan Ben Uzziel. There also exists, as we noted above, a Targum of the entire law attributed to the same name. Regarding the time in which he lived, everything that is brought forward is no less uncertain than what we reported concerning Onkelos. A great many Jews affirm that he was a disciple of Hillel. For to Hillel and Shammai, as the most famous masters of the sects, they eagerly ascribe everything whose origin they do not know. They also fabricate that miracles were performed from heaven in connection with both the beginning and the completion of this work. For they write that the beginning of the work was attended by an earthquake, and by the Spirit thundering terribly against the author for having violated the scriptures; and that its progress and appro-

384 THE ORIGIN OF THE TARGUMS. Val was attended by fire falling from heaven to consume the flies that happened to stray onto the parchment on which he was writing; and that its completion was attended by the highest praises, not unlike those with which the image of Christ was said to have honored Thomas, after he had completed the first part of the second, crying out, "You have written rightly concerning me, Thomas" — whether they actually believe this is uncertain. Galatinus contends, in book 1, chapter 3, that this same Jonathan who wrote the Targum on the prophets also translated the law in a Mosaic manner. He also reports that he himself at that time saw a copy of this version, which did not become publicly available in its complete form until more than a century later. And what is the strongest argument that he reported in good faith what he had seen is that he recites the opening words of that paraphrase exactly as they now stand in the printed copies. For copies of the Targum of Jonathan were once exceedingly rare, and not more than one or two could be found among the Jews themselves in any single province, as Elias Levita testifies in the preface to the Methurgamim. Rabbi Azarias also, in the Imre Bina, chapter 9, affirms that this same Jonathan composed the translation of both the Pentateuch and the prophets. Those who hold a different opinion rest their case chiefly on the argument that it is established by the most certain indications that this paraphrast of the law lived not only after the destruction of the city, but also after the completion of the Talmudic work, to which he makes express reference at Exodus 26:2 — whereas the other, the prophetic Jonathan, lived before the coming of Christ, indeed, as some hold, shortly after the return of the people from the Babylonian captivity. But the weight of the arguments by which they prove that this prophetic Jonathan lived in those times that intervened between the return from Babylon and the destruction of the city — upon which the entire force of the argument depends — has not yet been established. The testimony of the Jews, unaccompanied by any evidence from the circumstances of the facts, is not sufficient for proof. There are also rabbis besides Azarias who, along with Galatinus, assert that both works are the offspring of one and the same author. I have no wish to make this dispute my own. What alone gives any appearance of reason to the suggestion that these two Jonathans were different persons is this: that the prophetic Targumist does not blunder quite so badly as that most foul corruptor of the Pentateuch. What is to be thought of the whole work I will show briefly. In rendering the historical books he is restrained. He rarely indeed reproduces the text word for word, yet he does not wander everywhere at his own pleasure. There are, however, even in these, places where he trifles so childishly and in such a Talmudic manner that I can scarcely believe a little man of such audacity and ignorance ever laid a hand on the exposition of the scriptures before the full apostasy of that church was accomplished. It is distasteful to record here his most trifling ravings. Let the reader test this in Judges chapter 5, and he will find that we have invented nothing here. In exactly the same manner he conducts himself throughout in translating the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Wherever the meaning of any passage appears somewhat more obscure and recondite, especially if it presents anything concerning the person, grace, or office of the Messiah (although he readily retains the name of Messiah, and even inserts it several times where it does not occur in the text), he boldly and recklessly twists it by means of wicked invented allegories toward carnal and legal meanings — that is, in a Jewish manner. Let Isaiah chapter 53 serve as an example, from which the reader may understand how the blind Jews torture both themselves and the words of the Holy Spirit in order to extricate themselves from that rabbinic slaughterhouse of unbelief. In the remaining prophets, as though he had determined nothing else for himself but to stray perpetually from the true sense of the words, he everywhere invents the most perverse allegories with unbridled license. Genuine expositions of truth "Appear as rare swimmers in a vast whirlpool."

V. There remains the exposition of the law, which one might truly call a cartload of lies. I do not hesitate to affirm that more monstrous fabrications are not to be found even in the Muhammadan Alcoran itself than this impure craftsman of lies has heaped up into this paraphrase. There is scarcely any piece of the most putrid nonsense among the most foolish Talmudists that this impostor of remarkable audacity has not included in his patchwork collection. This filthy book is plainly unworthy to occupy any place whatever among the expositions, commentaries, or Targums of the law. And all these things I intend to be said of that other one, commonly called the Jerusalemite.

VI. This Joseph also, who is said to have written a paraphrase on the Hagiographa, was truly blind. If anyone wishes to have a specimen of Jewish audacity, blindness, impudence, ignorance, and lying, let him consult this author. The entire book of Esther from beginning to end is defiled with the most shameless lies and ridiculous fables. The Song of Solomon swarms everywhere with Talmudic absurdities, and the Talmud itself is commended by name at chapter 5, verse 10; nor is the matter handled more reverently in Ecclesiastes. The paraphrase on Job is without doubt a patchwork, compiled from the attempts of several writers, and is not free from rabbinic ravings. The book of Psalms and the Proverbs of Solomon have suffered less from the defilements of this impure man. Yet I would not say that these Targums are of no use whatever, since they carefully express those things that are said of God in the Scriptures in an anthropomorphic manner, and do not twist the passages pertaining to the Messiah toward other persons, as is the practice of the more recent Jews — for the name of the Messiah occurs more than fifty times among the Targumists, as Elias observes in the Methurgam — although they wretchedly corrupt the meaning of those passages; and one who wishes to acquaint himself with Jewish fables may learn them from these works.