Chapter 4
CHAP. 4.
1 General Premises. 2 Opinions prejudicial to the Authority of the Originals in the Prolegomena, enumerated. 4 The just consequences of those Premises. 5 Others engaged in these opinions: of Capellus. 6 Of Origen, Ximenes, Arias Montanus Editions of the Bible.
Sect. 1. 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.
Sect. 2. 1. 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 speak of the Septuagint 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 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 Uketif are critical notes, consisting partly of various lections gathered by the late Masoretes and Rabbins; That considering how oftentimes 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 differing 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 have 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.
Sect. 3. 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 considerations 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.
Sect. 4. It is true, the Learned Prefacer owns not those wretched consequences, that some have labored 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 thinks 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 70, as he is quoted to that purpose by Morinus; Praefat. ad opus: Hebrae: Samarit. He concludes not, that on these accounts we must rely upon as 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.
Sect. 5. It is confessed that some learned men, even among the Protestants, have heretofore vented these or some of these paradoxes: especially Capellus in his arcanum punctationis revelatum, Critica sacra, and other Treatises: in the defense whereof, as I hear, he still labors, being unwilling to suffer loss in the fruit of so great pains. What will become of his reply unto Buxtorfius in the defense of his Critica, I know not: reports are that it is finished; And it is thought he must once more fly 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 has 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.
Sect. 6. Besides it is not known whither this inconvenience will grow. Origen in his octupla, 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, Augustine, 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, 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 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 pretense of their corruption.
Chapter 4.
1. General premises. 2. Opinions in the Prolegomena that are harmful to the authority of the originals, listed. 4. The fair consequences of those premises. 5. Others involved in these opinions: of Capellus. 6. Of Origen, Ximenes, and Arias Montanus's editions of the Bible.
Section 1. Having now explained in what sense and with what allowance for variant readings I maintain the assertion laid down in the preceding treatise — concerning the providential preservation of the whole book of God, so that we may have full assurance that we possess the complete revelation of His will in the copies among us — I will now proceed to weigh what further objections (beyond those already addressed) may be raised against this truth from the Prolegomena and Appendix to the Biblia Polyglotta, which were proposed for examination at the beginning of our discussion.
Section 2. 1. To speak generally about them, I must ask permission to say — and since this is simply a report of people's openly stated views, I hope I may say it without offense — that alongside many high and honorable expressions about the originals, setting aside the unbelievable fiction of the Jews corrupting the Bible out of hatred for Christians (which was first proposed by Justin Martyr, though he spoke only of the Septuagint, and has scarcely found one or two supporters since, being rejected by the overwhelming consensus of learned men, ancient and modern, except for a few Papists obsessed with their idols), and setting aside the general claim that this or that translation is superior to the original — there is no opinion I know of that has ever been circulated among Christians tending to diminish the value or undermine the esteem of the Hebrew copies, that is not directly or by fair inference endorsed in these Prolegomena. From them it is argued that the present Hebrew character is not the one used by God Himself and in the ancient Church before the Babylonian captivity, but is the Chaldean script, the original having been left to the Samaritans. It is argued that the points (vowels and accents) are a late invention of the Tiberian Masoretes, created long after several translations were already in existence. It is argued that the Qere and Ketiv are critical notes consisting partly of variant readings gathered by the later Masoretes and rabbis. It is argued that considering how the translators likely read the text before the invention of points and accents, the present reading may be corrected and amended by their translations, and that ancient translators had different copies from those we now possess. It is argued that where serious errors have crept into the Hebrew text, scholars may by their own conjectures discover variant readings to correct them — and to this end a sample of such variant readings, or rather corrections of the original, is presented in the Appendix from Grotius. It is argued that the books of Scripture have shared the fate of other books: by passing through the hands of many copyists, they bear upon them the marks of their negligence, ignorance, and carelessness.
Section 3. I truly wish that some other way had been found to give reputation and value to this noble collection of translations than by adopting these opinions, so damaging to the truth and authority of the originals. It may justly be feared that where one person tries to reassure himself against the uncertainty of the originals by considering the various translations presented here — which, upon examination, will prove to be what they are — many others will be ready to question the foundation of everything.
Section 4. It is true that the learned prefacer does not embrace those terrible consequences that some have labored to draw from these premises. Yet it must also be acknowledged that he provides no adequate safeguard against the legitimate drawing of those consequences from these premises. He does not say that because this is the state of the Hebrew language and Bible, therefore everything in it is doubtful and uncertain, easy to be twisted into various meanings, and unfit to serve as a standard for evaluating other translations — though he knows full well who considers this a fair consequence of the opinion that the vowels are a recent invention. He himself acknowledges that all our knowledge of Hebrew comes from the translation of the Seventy, as Morinus quotes him to this effect (Preface to the Hebrew Samaritan work). He does not conclude that on these grounds we must rely on an infallible living judge and the translation that he commends to us — though he knows full well who does draw this conclusion. He himself offers it as a rule that in correcting the original, we should have the agreement of the leaders of the Church. I could wish, then, that adequate protection against these inferences be offered to us before the premises are accepted, since great and wise men, as we will further see shortly, consider these consequences to flow naturally and necessarily from them.
Section 5. It is admitted that some learned men, even among the Protestants, have previously put forward these or some of these paradoxes — especially Capellus in his Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum, Critica Sacra, and other treatises. In defending these, as I hear, he still labors, being unwilling to lose the fruit of so much effort. What will become of his reply to Buxtorfius in defense of his Critica, I do not know. Reports say it is finished. And it is thought he must once again turn to the Papists, with the help of his son (a great zealot among them), as he did with his Critica to get it published. The majority of learned men among Protestants are not yet infected with this influence. Nor do I find his boldness in conjecturing endorsed in these Prolegomena. But let people be free to make their views known on the various points mentioned. It has been so, and may it remain so. If this great and useful work had not been prefaced with the presentation of these opinions, it would not have been a public concern (as it now seems to be) to take notice of them.
Section 6. Besides, it is unknown how far this problem will grow. Origen in his Octapla, as was mentioned, established the Hebrew original as the rule and measure of all translations. In the revival of that kind of work by Ximenes in the Complutensian Bibles, the original's position was maintained. Arias Montanus, who followed in their footsteps (concerning whose achievements under his master the King of Spain, I may say for their many excellencies that nothing like it has arisen before or since: nil oriturum alias, nil ortum tale) was religiously careful to maintain the purity of the originals, publishing the Hebrew truth (as it is called by Jerome, Augustine, and other ancients) as the standard for testing all translations against it. For this he was later accused of ignorance by an impudent Jesuit who never deserved to carry his books for him. Michael le Jay gave a new direction to this progress and in plain terms exalts a corrupt translation above the originals — and he does so on the principle now under discussion, as is abundantly clear from Morinus. And if this change of thinking, which has long been creeping in through the curiosity and boldness of critics, should also break into the Protestant world and be endorsed in public works, it is easy to imagine what the outcome will be. We left Rome under the guidance of the purity of the originals. I hope no one has a mind to return there under the pretense of their corruption.
