Chapter 7

Chapter 7.

1 Of gathering various lections by the help of Translations. 2 The proper use and benefit of Translations. Their new pretended use. 3 The state of the Originals on this new pretense. 4 Of the Remedy tendered to the relief of that state. 5 No copies of old differing in the least from those we now enjoy, from the Testimony of our Saviour. 6 No Testimony new or old to that purpose. 7 Requisites unto Good Translations. 8 Of the Translations in the Biblia Polyglotta: of the Arabic. 9 Of the Syriac. 10 Of the Samaritan Pentateuch. 11 Of the Chaldee Paraphrase. 12 Of the Vulgar Latin. 13 Of the Seventy. 14 Of the Translation of the New Testament: of the Persian. 15 Of the Aethiopian. 16 The value of these Translations as to the work in hand. 17 Of the supposition of Gross corruption in the Originals. 18 Of various lections out of Grotius. 19 Of the Appendix in General.

Section 5. 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 Pretense.

Section 2. 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 enquiring 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, and use. For this rare Invention we are, as for the former, chiefly beholding to the learned and most diligent Capellus, 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 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 Capellus. The learned Author of our Prolegomena handles this business Prolegomena 6. I do not remember that he expressly any where 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 East 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 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 differs from that of Capellus I see not; for the difference between our Copies, and those of old, are by him assigned to no other Original; nor does Capellus 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 the 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 salve that seeming difficulty. The particulars assigned as Various Lections, are not differing 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 70 and Vulgar Latin.

Section 3. Let us now Consider our disease intimated, and the Remedy prescribed; 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 it may well prove mortal to the Sacred truth of the Scripture. The sum of it as was declared before, is that there were of old 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 Capellus; or that there are Corruptions befallen the Text (Varieties from the [illegible]) that may be found by the help of Translations, as our Prolegomena.

Section 4. Now whereas the first Translation that ever was, as is pretended, is that of the 70, and that of all others, excepting only those which have been translated out of it, does 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 lies 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 practice upon it, with his Conjectures from Translations.

Section 5. It is well known that the Translation of the Seventy, if it have the Original pretended, and which alone makes it considerable, was made and finished 300 years or near thereabout, before the Incarnation of our Saviour, that was, in that time and season wherein the Oracles of God were committed to the Jews while 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 afterwards neither our Saviour nor his Apostles take the least notice of it; yea does not our Saviour himself affirm of the word that then was among the Jews, that not [illegible] or [illegible] of it, 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 Seventy, according to this hypothesis, and which assuredly they then had if ever, not only letters and Tittles, 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.

Section 6. 2. Waving 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 does, or ever did, speak one word to this purpose. Let them direct us to any relic, any monument, any kind of Remembrance 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 indeed this 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 Seventy from the Original; they had other Copies than any now are extant; better all old Translations should be consumed out of the Earth, than 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 Judaic Church while 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 [illegible] 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 has 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 never so ancient, namely to correct the Originals by, leaving further discussion of sundry things in and about them to other Exercitations.

Section 7. 1. 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 enquired 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:

Secondly, 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.

Thirdly. That they be known to be made by men of ability and integrity, found 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, as to assist in the finding out what corruptions have befallen our Copies; and what is the true Reading 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 laid down.

Section 8. 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 honor I bear to the renownedly learned publisher of it and the various readings of the several Copies thereof; and the rather because he hath dealt herein with his wonted candor, giving in a clear and learned account of the Original and Nature of that Translation, which I had for the substance 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 any now alive.

Then he tells us upon the matter that this Translation is a Cento made up of many ill suited pieces, there being no Translation in that Language extant; I speak of the Old Testament; Secondly. For the Antiquity of the most ancient part of it was made about the year 4700 of the Jews account, that is of Christ 950. Thirdly. It was as to the Pentateuch translated by Rabbi Saadias Haggaon. Fourthly. That it is interpreted and changed in sundry things by some other person. Fifthly. That he who made these changes seemed to have so done that he might the better thereby [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as to some particular Opinion of his own, whereof sundry instances are given. Sixthly. That he seems to have been a Mohammedan, or at least much to have favored them, as appears from other Evidences, so from the inscription of his work with that solemn motto taken out of the Quran, in nomine Dei miseratoris, misericordis. Sixthly. It may be thought also that some other, a Jew, or a Samaritan had his hand in corrupting the last Translation. Seventhly. Who thought to stamp a divine Authority upon his particular Opinions. Eighthly. 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 (Cabbalistical) understanding of the Scripture. Ninthly. That the other Arabic Translations that are extant, are out of the Seventy: 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 lies 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 beholding to this Worthy learned Person. 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 readings 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 various readings, now afforded us: but I have another manner of account to give of my hours than so to spend them.

Section 9. 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 Seventy hath been in many things changed since this was made, which I rather suppose. But when, where, or by whom, it 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 its rendered by the learned Author of the Annotations on that Translation; Explicit Malachias sive libri 12 Prophetarum, quorum oratio perpetuò nobis adsit, Amen; precibúsq; ipsorum, precibúsq; omnium sanctorum, sodalium ipsorum praesertìm virginis, quae Deum peperit, omnium Sanctorum matris quae pro genere Adami intercedit, propitius sit Deus Lectori & Scriptori Peccatori, & 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. and elsewhere.

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, having passed through the hands of men ignorant and suspicious, against whose frauds and folly, by the reason of the paucity of Copies we have no relief, I question whether it may be esteemed of any great use of importance, as to the End enquired after.

Section 10. 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 Enquiries of Scaliger, or Morinus, added any thing to what is commonly known of them from the Scripture, and Josephus; In a word, an Idolatrous, Superstitious, wicked people they were, before they were subdued by Hyrcanus; afterwards 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; 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; Deuteronomy 11. 30. They have added Sichem to the Text, to give Countenance to their abominations. And openly in Deuteronomy 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 230 years old saith Morinus in the account of it, Opuscula Samaritana preface: to the Samaritan Translation: 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 Morinus to prove its integrity above the Hebrew Copy, as to the solution of difficulties by it, in Genesis 11. 29, 31. Exodus 12. 40; do evidently prove it corrupt; any man that will consider them will find the alterations purposely made to avoid the difficulties in those places, which is one common evidence of Corruption, in Genesis 11. 31: 60 years are cut off from the life of Tera to make the Chronology agree; and that of Exodus 12. 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 430 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 his 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.

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 reinforce those conjectures which he opposes; 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, Section 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 is to be hoped from the Example of the Samaritans: Were they all Barbers, and Porters, and Alehousekeepers, 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 farther be spoken.

The Chaldee Paraphrase is a Cento also. The Targum of Jonathan is ancient, so also is that of Onkelos; they are supposed to have been made before, or about the time of our Savior. Some of the Jews would have Jonathan to have lived not long after Ezra. Others that he was the chief Disciple of Hillel about an 100 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 500 years after our Savior, 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 endeavor 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 [foreign text] behold the Targumists observed not sometimes the way of Grammar. Secondly 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. Thirdly. 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. Fourthly. 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, Vindiciae veritatis Hebraicae page 2 chapter 10 page 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.

Section 12. Of the vulgar Latin, its uncertain Original, its Corruptions and 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.

Section 13. The 70 is that which must bear the weight of the whole. And good Reason it 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 woefully 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 advise of Demetrius Phalereus, who was dead before, that they should be put into 72 Cells or private Chambers; that there should be 12 of each tribe, fit for that work, are all of them incredible. See Scaliger ad Eusebium folio 123 Wouwer Syntagma chapter 11.

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, Hierome, Zonaras affirm that they translated the Law or Pentateuch only; Josephus affirms this expressly, [foreign text] (saith he) [foreign text]: Proemium ad Antiquitates: and this is a received Opinion: whence we have the rest is unknown. Take to this purpose the ensuing Chapter out of Drusius, Observationes, book 6 chapter 9.

Vulgatam Translationem Graecam non esse 70 Interpretum, contra quam olim existimatum fuit.

Translatio ea quae vulgo apud Graecos habetur, quin 70 Interpretum non sit, nemini hodie dubium esse arbitror nam si nihilaliud, inumeri in ea loci sunt, qui arguunt magnam Imperitiam sermonis Ebraici; sed and negligentiam singularem in legendo, and 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 Graecos voluisse tamen recepto nomine semper appellare. Certe quin dubetaverit super iisdem Authoribus, nihil dubitamus, nam vel hoc nos in ea opinione confirmat, quod scribit Josephum, omnemque adeo Scholam Judaeorum quinque tantum libros Mosis a septuaginta interpretibus translatos esse asserere, scribit autem hoc non semel, sed saepius, ut Ezechiel 5 page 343, and page 301, and 372, and Micah 2 page 150. Libris Antuerpiae vulgatis. Drusius observationes book 6 Chapter 9.

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 [foreign text] of it, if left in the Library of Alexandria, was consumed to ashes in Caesar's wars; though Chrysostom tells us, that the Prophets were placed in the Temple of Serapis, [foreign text]: ad Judaeos: and they abide there, saith he, unto this day; How unlikely this is, any man may guess, by what Hierome, who made another manner of Enquiry 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 Praefatio ad Biblia; Videbat Hieronymus Vir pius and doctus, Latinos vera and genuina legis atque Prophetarum destitutos lectione, nam 70 Interpretum editio, quae tunc ubique locorum receptissima erat apud Graecos and Latinos nedum perperam plerique in locis versa fuit, verum per Scriptores atque Scribas plurimum corrupta, id quod and hodie facile patet conferenti editionem illam juxta Hebraicam, veritatem, ut interim fatear illos non admodum peritos fuisse linguae Hebraicae id vel quod inviti cogimur fateri, alioquin in plurimis locis non tam foede lapsi fuissent.

If moreover the ability be granted, what security have we of their principles and honesty. Cardinal Ximenius 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 conclude, 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 it is on all hands confessed) have crept into the translation, makes it altogether useless as to the end we are enquiring after; this Hierome 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 Septuagint to be still extant, yet it is so corrupt and vitiated, that it plainly appears to be another, book 2, de Verbo Dei, Chapter 6.

He that shall read and consider what Hierome hath written of this Translation even then when he was excusing himself, and condescended to the utmost to waive the envy that was coming on him, upon his new Translation, in the second Book of his Apology against Ruffinus, Chapter 8, 9; 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 corrupt, 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; 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.

Section 14. 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: Praesens locus satis arguit, Persam Graecum codicem haud consuluisse; in Luke 10 and 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 it self; I know no use of it, but only to show that such a useless thing is in the world.

Section 15. Nor is the Ethiopian one whit better; a novel endeavor 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 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.

Section 16. From what hath been spoken it doth 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 the proper use, and place; and am thankful to them by whose Care and pains we are made partakers of them; but to endeavor by them to correct the Scripture, to gather various lections out of the Original as say others, for my part I abhor the thoughts of it, let others do as seem 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.

Section 17. 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's annotations, and somewhat of the whole bulk of them, as presented unto us in the Appendix.

For the Corruptions supposed, I could heartily wish that learned men would abstain from such insinuations unless they are able to give them some pretense 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 rumors 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 of Morinus's 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. The industry of learned men of old, and of late Jews and Christians, have 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 has 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.

Section 18. For the Specimen of various lections gathered out of Grotius's 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 70, and Vulgar Latin of Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion, wherein we are not concerned. Secondly. The Keri and Cethib which we have often times over and over in this Volume. Thirdly. The various readings of the Oriental and Occidental Jews which we have also elsewhere. Fourthly. Conjectures how the 70, or Vulgar Latin read, by altering letters only. Fifthly. 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 Cethib, 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.

Section 19. As short an account will seem 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 Cethib, 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.

FINIS.

Chapter 7.

1. Of gathering variant readings by the help of translations. 2. The proper use and benefit of translations. Their new proposed use. 3. The state of the originals on this new proposal. 4. Of the remedy offered to address that state. 5. No copies of old differing in the least from those we now enjoy, from the testimony of our Savior. 6. No testimony, new or old, to that purpose. 7. Requisites for good translations. 8. Of the translations in the Biblia Polyglotta: of the Arabic. 9. Of the Syriac. 10. Of the Samaritan Pentateuch. 11. Of the Chaldean Paraphrase. 12. Of the Vulgar Latin. 13. Of the Seventy. 14. Of the translation of the New Testament: of the Persian. 15. Of the Ethiopian. 16. The value of these translations as to the work in hand. 17. Of the supposition of gross corruption in the originals. 18. Of variant readings from Grotius. 19. Of the Appendix in general.

Section 5. Because some judge that further objections may be raised against the thesis I have defended — drawn from what the Prolegomena affirm about gathering variant readings by the help of translations, and from the examples of that work given in the Appendix — I will close this discourse by considering that claim.

Section 2. The great and recognized use of various translations, for which we have always valued them, was the help they provide for the exposition of Scripture. To have before us in a single view the several judgments and understandings of so many worthy and learned men — the authors of these translations — regarding the original words of Scripture is a significant help and advantage to those who seek the mind and will of God in His Word. That translations were of any other use than this was formerly not supposed. They are now presented to us under a new function: as means and tools for correcting the original text and identifying corruptions in our present copies — showing that the manuscripts their authors used actually differed from those we now possess and use. For this remarkable invention we are chiefly indebted — as for the former — to the learned and most diligent Capellus, who is followed, as he himself declares in several instances, by the no less learned Grotius. The scheme is laid out like this. It is supposed that in ancient times there were several copies of the Old Testament differing in many words and sentences from those we now have. Some of the ancient translations were made from these copies. In translating, those translators expressed the sense and meaning of the copies they used. Therefore, by examining what they say where they differ from our present copies, we may discover — that is, learned men skilled at conjecture may discover — how those translators read in their manuscripts. In this way we may come to a further identification of the various corruptions that have crept into the Hebrew text, and by the help of those translations, correct them. So Capellus. The learned author of our Prolegomena handles this matter in Prolegomena 6. I do not recall that he anywhere expressly affirms that the ancient translators had other copies than those we now enjoy. But he holds that, in addition to the Keri and Kethib, the variant readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, and of the Eastern and Western Jews, there are — through the neglect, carelessness, and frailty of copyists — many things in the text that are not errors occurring in one copy and easily corrected by others, nor proper variant readings collectable from any ancient copies, but faults or mistakes present in all the copies we have or have ever known. By the help of translations — conjecturing how those translators read in their manuscripts, whether with other words, letters, consonants, or points — we may collect variant readings, as it were from the original. I do not see how this opinion differs in substance from that of Capellus, since Capellus assigns the differences between our copies and ancient ones to no other cause. Nor does Capellus say the Jews deliberately corrupted the text — only that alterations have befallen it through the means and channels described in the Prolegomena. To make this evident by examples, we have a great number of such variant readings gathered by Grotius in the Appendix. How that volume came to bear that title I was at first much puzzled to understand. The greatest part of it gives us not variant readings of the Hebrew text as is claimed, but only the variant interpretations of others from the Hebrew. But the Prolegomena account for that apparent difficulty. The specifics listed as variant readings are not differing readings collected from any copies that now exist or are ever known to have existed, but are critical conjectures of Grotius's own for amending the text, or at most conjectures about how the translators — especially the Seventy and the Vulgar Latin — read the words.

Section 3. Let us now consider the disease being identified and the remedy prescribed, along with the improbability of the one and the inadequacy of the other — assuming the disease to be real. The condition claimed is dreadful — such as might prove fatal to the sacred truth of Scripture. In short, as stated before: there were in ancient times several copies differing in many things from those we now have, according to which the ancient translations were made. Hence it has come to pass that in so many places those translations differ from our present Bibles — all the copies extant in the world. So Capellus. Or there are corruptions present in the text — variants from the original — that may be identified by the help of translations, as our Prolegomena argues.

Section 4. Now since the Septuagint is claimed to be the first translation ever made, and since it differs from our Bible more than all others combined — as may be demonstrated by some thousands of instances — we cannot but be exceedingly uncertain in determining where the copies supposedly used by those translators differed from ours, or where ours are corrupted. We are left to endless uncertain conjectures. What sense others make of this supposed problem I do not know. For my own part I am solicitous for the ark — for the sacred truth of the original. This is because I am fully persuaded that the remedy and relief of this supposed evil, supposedly found in the translations, is ill-suited to the cure, and in fact suited to increase the disease. Some other course must be taken. And since the remedy is plainly insufficient to effect the cure, let us examine whether the whole supposed disease is not a mere fantasy — and so do what we can to prevent the horrible and outrageous violence that will undoubtedly be done to the sacred Hebrew text if every learned charlatan is permitted to meddle with it using his conjectures drawn from translations.

Section 5. It is well known that the translation of the Seventy — if it has the origin claimed for it, which alone gives it weight — was made and completed about three hundred years before the incarnation of our Savior. This was during the time when the oracles of God were committed to the Jews, when that church and people were the only people of God, accepted by Him, appointed by Him as custodians of His Word for the use of the whole church of Christ to come — as the great and blessed foundation of truth. At that time there was an authoritative copy of the whole Scripture, serving as the standard for all others, kept in the Temple. Can it be imagined that at such a time there should have been such notorious variations in the copies of Scripture through that church's negligence, and yet afterward neither our Savior nor His apostles took the least notice of it? Our Savior Himself affirms of the word then among the Jews that not the smallest letter or the least stroke of a pen would pass away or perish — and whether the points or the consonants themselves with their details are intended or referred to in that expression, yet of the word that was translated by the Seventy, according to this theory, not only letters and tittles but words — and many of them — are concluded to be lost. But that no Jew believes the fiction we are examining, I could say with certainty — let a fool believe it.

Section 6. Second point: setting aside our recourse in such cases — namely the good providence and care of God in preserving His Word — let the authors of this suggestion prove their assertion. Namely, that there ever existed in the world any other copy of the Bible differing in so much as one word from those we now have. Let them produce one testimony, one credible author — Jew or Christian — who speaks even a single word to this purpose. Let them point us to any relic, any monument, any kind of remembrance of such copies, and not put us off with weak conjectures based on the meaning of one or two words, and it shall carry weight with us. Is it proper that a matter of such enormous importance — questioned by no one but themselves — should be decided by their conjectures? Do they think men will give up the possession of truth on such easy terms? That they will be dispossessed of their inheritance by guesswork? But they will say: is it not evident that the ancient translators used other copies, since we can see that in so many places they have translated words and passages in ways that would have been impossible had they been rendering from our copy as we now read it? But will that really be pleaded? May it not be extended to all places as well as to any particular one? May not men use the same argument for every variation the Seventy make from the original — that they had other and better copies than any now extant? Better that all ancient translations be consumed from the earth than that such a fiction be admitted. There are countless other reasons to account for the translators' variations from the original: their own inattentiveness, negligence, ignorance — for even the wisest do not see everything — their desire to expound and clarify the sense, and as is likely, their inclination to alter and vary many things from the original. Add to this the innumerable corruptions and interpolations that have befallen that translation over time — amply witnessed by the variant readings exhibited in the Appendix. It would be easy to demonstrate these things. Since therefore neither the care of God over His truth, nor the faithfulness of the Jewish church while the oracles of God were committed to it, will permit us to entertain the least suspicion that there ever existed in the world any copy of the Bible differing in the least from what we now enjoy — or that our copies are corrupted as is claimed — and since the authors of that insinuation cannot produce the least testimony to make it good — we rest, through the mercy and goodness of God, in the complete and unquestioned possession of His oracles, once committed to the Jews, and of the faith once delivered to the saints.

But now suppose — what has been supposed — that the holy Bible in its original texts is in the condition that some have claimed. Let us consider whether any relief in that case is to be expected from the translations provided to us with much labor, care, and diligence in these recent editions of the Biblia Polyglotta. Let us also settle the question whether correcting the originals by translations — be they ever so ancient — is any proper use of translations at all, leaving further discussion of various other matters concerning them to other occasions.

Section 7. First: that any translation — all or any — may be considered useful for this purpose, I suppose the following qualifications will readily be agreed upon. First, we must be certain that the translation was made directly from the original itself, and not from a prior interpretation of it. For if that appears to be the case, all its authority for the purpose in question vanishes entirely, or at best depends on that prior translation from which it derives — if it agrees with it; otherwise it is worthless. This one consideration will be found to apply to one half of these translations.

Second, the translation must be of venerable antiquity — made at a time when other copies of the original existed in the world besides the one we now possess.

Third: the translation must be known to have been made by men of ability and integrity, sound in the faith, and conscientiously careful not to add or subtract from the originals from which they translated. If all these qualifications — at minimum — do not meet in a given translation, it is most obviously evident that it can serve no useful purpose in helping to identify what corruptions have befallen our copies or what the true reading is in any contested place. Let us then, without prejudice on our own part and I hope without giving offense to others, very briefly consider the state and condition of the translations presented in the Biblia Polyglotta with respect to the qualifications laid down.

Section 8. Let us take a look at some of the chief translations without following any particular order, since there is no more reason for the order adopted in the Appendix than for any other. I will begin with the Arabic, out of respect for its renowned and learned publisher and for his account of the various readings from several of its manuscripts. I do so the more readily because he has dealt in this matter with his characteristic candor, giving a clear and learned account of the origin and nature of that translation. I had already received the substance of it from him in a personal conversation, in which he also gave me a satisfactory account of certain other translations, which I will not now need to mention. I will only say that his judgment in such matters is to be esteemed at least equal to that of any man now living.

He tells us in substance that this translation is a patchwork assembled from many ill-matched pieces, there being no single complete translation of the Old Testament extant in that language. Second, as to its antiquity: the most ancient portion was made around the year 4700 by the Jewish reckoning, that is, around AD 950. Third, the Pentateuch was translated by Rabbi Saadias Haggaon. Fourth, it was altered and changed in several places by some other person. Fifth, that person appears to have made his changes in order to serve a particular opinion of his own, of which several examples are given. Sixth, he appears to have been a Muslim, or at least strongly sympathetic to them, as is evident from other indications — including his inscribing his work with the solemn motto taken from the Quran: "In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful." Sixth, it is also possible that another person — a Jew or a Samaritan — had a hand in corrupting the translation. Seventh, this person aimed to stamp divine authority on his own particular opinions. Eighth, the foundation of the Arabic translation now printed being that of Saadias, it is notable that Saadias himself professes to have both added and subtracted as he saw fit, in order to bring out what he considered the hidden, mystical sense of Scripture. Ninth, the other Arabic translations that are extant were translated from the Septuagint — either directly, or through the Syriac, which itself was translated from the Septuagint. On these and similar points that oracle of Eastern learning — who has not merely picked up a few words of these languages, as some do, but has searched with great diligence and judgment into the nature of the learning preserved in them and the importance of the books we have — discourses in that preface. It is the way of superficial scholars, when they have acquired a little skill in any language or field, to persuade the world that all wisdom lies therein. Men of thorough learning, whose learning is governed by sound judgment, know that the true use of their abilities consists in bringing men to a clear acquaintance with truth. In that regard, not only in this particular, we are indebted to this worthy and learned person. I suppose little argument is needed to prove that this translation — though very useful in its proper place and function — is not in the least a fit remedy against any supposed corruption in the original, nor a suitable source for gathering variant readings different from our present text. It may indeed exercise the ability of learned men to consider where and how often it departs from the rule of faith. But as a rule in itself and on its own authority — falling short of all the necessary qualifications laid down above — it is none.

Were I now to go and collect examples of the open and glaring failures of this translation and proceed likewise with the rest, I think I could compile a volume nearly as large as the one of variant readings now offered to us. But I have better uses for my hours than that.

Section 9. Whether the Syriac translation is any more suitable for this purpose, anyone who takes the trouble to consider and weigh it will easily discover. It does appear to have been made from the original, at least in part — or else the translation of the Seventy has been considerably altered since this was made, which I am more inclined to suppose. But when, where, and by whom it was made does not appear. Nor in many places does it seem to have any regard at all to the Hebrew. The note at the close of the Prophets I take to come from the scribe of that individual copy rather than from the translator. But so that the reader may see through what hands it has passed, he may take it as rendered by the learned author of the annotations on that translation: "Here ends Malachi, or the book of the twelve Prophets, whose speech may continually be with us, amen; and by their prayers, and by the prayers of all the saints, their fellows, especially the virgin who bore God, mother of all the saints, who intercedes for the race of Adam, may God be merciful to the reader and the sinful scribe, and to all who share in this work by word or deed." But this devout conclusion is, I believe, from the scribe — whose habitual carelessness in his work is repeatedly noted in the collection of variant readings, as on page 8 and elsewhere.

Though I acknowledge this translation to be very useful in many respects and to follow the original for the most part, yet since it was made at a time still unknown and by unknown hands, since it evidently follows another corrupt translation in several places, and since it has passed through the hands of persons ignorant and untrustworthy — against whose errors and corruption we have no relief due to the scarcity of copies — I question whether it can be regarded as of any great importance for the end we are inquiring after.

Section 10. Of the Samaritan Pentateuch — both the original text and the translation — we need not say much. What the people from whom it takes its name were is well known; and the inquiries of Scaliger or Morinus have added nothing to what is commonly known about them from Scripture and Josephus. In brief: they were an idolatrous, superstitious, and wicked people before they were subdued by Hyrcanus. Afterward they continued in separation from the true church of God, and by our Savior's own testimony, salvation was not among them. When they received their Pentateuch is uncertain. It is likewise uncertain how long they kept it. That they corrupted it while they had it is not uncertain — they are charged with this by the Jews in the Talmud, and the instance they give survives to this day in Deuteronomy 11:30. They have also added Shechem to the text to lend support to their abominations. And openly in Deuteronomy 27:4, where God commands that an altar be built on Mount Ebal, they have wickedly and nefariously corrupted the text by substituting Mount Gerizim. One such deliberate corruption, made on purpose to justify a sin and false worship, is enough to destroy the authority of any copy whatever. The copy printed here was brought out of the East, from Damascus, not long ago. It appears to have been two hundred and thirty years old at the time, according to Morinus in his account of it (Opuscula Samaritana, preface to the Samaritan Translation). As I said before, whether any Samaritans remain to this day is uncertain — there are a few families of Jews who walk in that way here and there. Now that this Pentateuch — which was never as such committed to the church of God, whose origin is traceable by no one and whose preservation is explicable by no one, known to few, used by none of the ancient Christians, and deliberately corrupted by men of corrupt minds to justify their folly — should on its own account carry any authority for any purpose, let alone to rival the Hebrew text, is something no person without a concealed agenda will seriously contend for. The instances Morinus uses to argue that it has greater integrity than the Hebrew copy — in Genesis 11:29, 31, and Exodus 12:40 — actually prove it corrupt. Anyone who examines them will find the alterations were deliberately made to avoid the difficulties in those passages, which is one of the clearest evidences of corruption. In Genesis 11:31, sixty years have been cut from the life of Terah to make the chronology work. And in Exodus 12:40, "the sojourning of the children of Israel, and of their fathers, when they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years," is a plain comment or explanation inserted into the text. Nor would Jerome, who had access to this copy, make any use of it when dealing with those very difficulties. If I were to go through the rest of Morinus's instances by which he seeks to credit this Samaritan copy — now found in the Biblia Polyglotta — I could show that there is scarcely one of them that does not furnish a clear argument of corruption in it, on some of the best grounds we have for judging the integrity or corruption of any copy. And if this Pentateuch had carried any credit in earlier times, it would not have been omitted — or rather, as it seems, entirely rejected as a thing of no value — by Origen in his diligent collection of the original text and its versions.

We are, however, in a field where everything is carried about by conjectures, and it would be no hard task to show the complete uncertainty of what the author of the Prolegomena has fixed upon as the origin of this Pentateuch, or to reinforce the conjectures he opposes. But that is not my present work, and I do not know whether it ever will be. But I must say for now that I could have wished he had refrained from the close of his discussion, section 2, where — from a passing mention of the Samaritan liturgy and its claimed antiquity — he turns, with some bitterness, against those who have set aside the English service book. It would seem, in some men's judgment, to be no act of imprudence to reserve a triumph over the so-called sectaries for some more considerable victory than any that can be hoped for from the example of the Samaritans. Even if all those who set aside the service book were barbers, porters, and innkeepers, they might easily perceive that the example and precedent of a wicked people forsaken by God and forsaking Him — to whom the promise of the Spirit of supplication was never made nor given — carries no compelling force for the people of Christ under the New Testament, who have that promise fulfilled in them. And much more to the same effect will some of them be found to say when men of wisdom and learning who are able to instruct them condescend personally to do so. But I will leave unsaid what more might be spoken.

The Chaldean Paraphrase is also a patchwork. The Targum of Jonathan is ancient, and so is that of Onkelos. They are supposed to have been made before or around the time of our Savior. Some Jews would have Jonathan to have lived not long after Ezra. Others say he was the chief disciple of Hillel, about a hundred years before Christ's incarnation. Others hold a different view and will not allow it to be much older than the Talmud. But I see no sufficient grounds as yet to overturn the received opinion. The other portions of Scripture were paraphrased at various times — some more than five hundred years after our Savior — and are full of Talmudic fancies, if not outright fables, as is the one on the Song of Solomon. That all these Targums are of excellent use is readily granted, and we are indebted to the Biblia Polyglotta for presenting them in so convenient an arrangement alongside the original, so that they may be easily compared with it. But as to the end we are inquiring after, how little advantage is to be gained from them the following few observations will show. First: it was never the aim of those paraphrasts to render the original text exactly, word for word, but to represent the sense of the text as it appeared to their own judgment. For this reason it is impossible to give any reliable account of how they read any given passage in which they differ from our present copies, since their aim was to give the sense as they understood it rather than the bare meaning of the words themselves. Hence Elias says of them: "Behold, the Targumists did not always observe the way of grammar." Second: it is evident that all the Targums aimed to give mystical senses, especially the later ones, and so were inevitably driven to depart from the literal text. Third: it is evident that they have often added whole sentences to Scripture from their own understanding or corrupt traditions — even the best of them — sentences for which there is not one tittle or syllable in Scripture and never was. Fourth: what careful hands it has passed through, the bulky collection of variant readings given in this Appendix abundantly shows. And since it has not lain under any special care and merciful providence of God, who can tell how many other faults and errors — undiscoverable from any variety of copies, as has happened with the Septuagint — may not have crept into it? A fuller account of these matters will be available when the work of Buxtorfius the father on the Babylonian Talmud — promised some time ago by the son to be published (Vindiciae Veritatis Hebraicae, page 2, chapter 10, page 337) — and, as we are informed by the learned annotator on this paraphrase in his preface in the Appendix, recently sent to the publishers of this Bible, shall be published. So we have not yet arrived at the remedy provided for the supposed disease.

Section 12. Of the Vulgar Latin — its uncertain origin, its corruptions and barbarisms, and its abuse — so much has already been said by so many that it would be pointless to repeat it. For my part I regard it as by far the best in the whole collection presented to us, excepting the interlinear of Arias Montanus. But it cannot be compared to several modern translations and is wholly unfit to provide the relief that is sought.

Section 13. The Septuagint is what must bear the weight of the entire case. And it is right indeed that it should answer for most of the rest, since they are evidently derived from it — and while they are often worse than it, they are sometimes made to appear better than it now is. But here again everything is exceedingly uncertain. Almost nothing is clearly established about the Septuagint except that it is woefully corrupt. Its origin is uncertain. Some scholars call the whole story of that translation into question, as though those seventy-two men never existed at all. The circumstances reported about them and their work are certainly fabulous: that they were summoned at the advice of Demetrius Phalereus, who was already dead by that time; that they were placed in seventy-two separate cells; that there were twelve men from each tribe ready for the work — all of these are incredible. See Scaliger ad Eusebium, folio 123; Wouwer, Syntagma, chapter 11.

Some Jews say they translated from a corrupt Chaldean Paraphrase, which to me does not seem unlikely. Josephus, Augustine, Philo, Jerome, and Zonaras all affirm that they translated only the Law or Pentateuch — Josephus states this explicitly in his Proem to the Antiquities. This is the received opinion. Where the rest of the translation comes from is unknown. Take for this purpose the following chapter from Drusius, Observationes, book 6, chapter 9.

The common Greek translation is not the work of the Seventy Interpreters, contrary to what was formerly supposed.

"That the translation commonly received among the Greeks is not the work of the Seventy Interpreters is, I believe, doubted by no one today. For, to say nothing else, there are countless places in it that betray a profound ignorance of the Hebrew language, along with a remarkable carelessness in reading and a negligence unworthy of such men. Anyone who does not see this sees nothing, even though Eusebius and Jerome repeatedly appear in their monuments to attribute it to the Seventy Interpreters. We too, when we cite something from it, use the customary name rather than the accurate one — following the example of Jerome, whom we suspect, even if he believed that translation had not been produced by those men, nonetheless chose always to use the received name rather than give offense to the Greeks. Certainly we have no doubt that he doubted its authorship, for among other things this confirms us in that opinion: he writes that Josephus, and indeed the entire Jewish school, asserts that only the five books of Moses were translated by the Seventy Interpreters — and he writes this not once but repeatedly. See his works at Ezekiel 5, page 343, and page 301 and 372, and at Micah 2, page 150. Books published at Antwerp." Drusius, Observationes, book 6, chapter 9.

Granted that such a translation was made and of the whole Bible by some Alexandrian Jews, as is most probable — yet it is certain that the original copy, if left in the Library of Alexandria, was consumed to ashes in Caesar's wars. Though Chrysostom tells us that the Prophets were placed in the Temple of Serapis and says they remain there to this day — how unlikely this is, any man may judge by what Jerome, who inquired into these matters far more rigorously than Chrysostom, affirms concerning the incurably variant copies of that translation, which had no one to adjudicate between their differences. We also know how little precision men in those days — before the study of grammar had brought a sound knowledge of languages — had in their understanding of one language in relation to another. And some learned men have seriously questioned the very skill of those interpreters. So Munster writes in his Preface to the Bible: "Jerome, a devout and learned man, saw that the Latins were deprived of the true and genuine reading of the Law and the Prophets. For the edition of the Seventy Interpreters, which was then most commonly received among Greeks and Latins, was not only incorrectly translated in many places but also greatly corrupted by copyists and scribes, as is readily apparent today when that edition is compared against the Hebrew truth. Meanwhile I will acknowledge that those translators were not very proficient in the Hebrew language — a fact we are compelled to admit despite ourselves, for otherwise they would not have stumbled so disgracefully in so many places."

If moreover their ability be granted, what assurance do we have of their principles and honesty? Cardinal Ximenes, in his preface to the Complutensian Bible, tells us — and this is most true if the translation we have is actually theirs — that on various grounds they took liberty in translating according to their own judgment. He concludes from this: "Hence the translation of the Seventy-Two is sometimes superfluous and sometimes deficient." But suppose all these uncertainties could be overlooked: the intolerable corruptions that — as is acknowledged on all sides — have crept into the translation make it entirely useless for the purpose we are examining. Jerome declares this at length in his Epistle to Chromatius and uses it as grounds for the necessity of a new translation. Indeed, Bellarmine himself says that although he believes the translation of the Septuagint is still extant, it is so corrupt and adulterated that it plainly appears to be another book entirely: book 2, De Verbo Dei, chapter 6.

Anyone who reads and carefully considers what Jerome wrote about this translation — even when he was doing his utmost to excuse himself and soften the offense caused by his new translation — in the second book of his Apology against Ruffinus, chapters 8 and 9, repeating and moderating what he had said of it elsewhere, will be in some position to judge what regard ought to be given to it. In brief, he tells us it is corrupt and interpolated; mingled by Origen with the translation of Theodotion, marked with asterisks and obeli; that there were so many copies of it, and they so varied from one another, that no one knew what to follow. He tells of a learned man who on that account accepted all the errors he could find as Scripture. He notes that in the Book of Job, if what Origen added or marked is removed, little will remain. His full discussion is too long to transcribe here. See also his Epistle to Chromatius at length on this matter. The reader should also consult the learned Masius in his Preface to his most learned commentary on Joshua.

Section 14. Regarding the translations of the New Testament offered here, little need be said. Of the antiquity, usefulness, and means by which the Syriac was brought to Europe, many have given accounts, and we willingly accept them. The Ethiopian and Persian are recent productions of little value or use. Indeed, I believe it may safely be said they are the worst and most corrupt translations extant in the world. The Persian was not translated from the Greek, as the learned annotator on it acknowledges: "The present passage sufficiently shows that the Persian translator did not consult the Greek text" (on Luke 10:41). In how many places it departs from the Greek, Syriac, and Arabic — and goes directly contrary to the truth — is both acknowledged by its publisher and plain from the text itself. I know no use for it except to show that such a useless thing exists in the world.

Section 15. Nor is the Ethiopian one bit better. It is a recent effort by an uneducated person. This translator tells us that when John wrote the Revelation he was Archbishop of Constantinople, and so forth. It is pointless to go through similar observations that could be made about these translations. If anyone wishes to be led astray, he would do well to follow them. Whether some of them are still in use anywhere in the world I do not know; I am sure it would be better if they were not. Had I not seen them, I could not have imagined any translations could be so bad. Were I to make it my business to catalogue the mistakes, ignorance, falsifications, errors, and corruptions of these translators — whoever they were, whether Jews or Christians, for I have some grounds for suspecting that Jews had a hand in them for money — my discussion, as I said before, would swell into a volume. Unless I am compelled, I shall avoid it.

Section 16. From what has been said it is abundantly clear that if there are indeed such corruptions, mistakes, and errors that have crept into the original text as some have claimed, no relief in the slightest has been provided for the security of truth by any of the translations presented in these recent editions of the Bible. These translations themselves are of uncertain origin, corrupt, and in fact carry no authority on their own — only in relation to the text whose credibility is being called into question. For my own part, as I have said before, I grant them their proper use and place, and I am grateful to those through whose care and labor we have been made partakers of them. But to attempt to correct Scripture by them, or to gather variant readings from the original by their means — as others say — I abhor the thought of it. Let others do as seems good to them. And if I am ever compelled to speak in particular about these translations, there are further discoveries yet in readiness to be made about them.

Section 17. There remains, as regards my purpose, only that some brief account be given of what is further suggested about the liberty of observing variant readings in the Bible on the assumption of gross corruptions that may have crept into it, and also of the specimen of variant readings gathered from Grotius's annotations — and something about the whole bulk of them as presented to us in the Appendix.

Regarding the supposed corruptions, I could sincerely wish that learned men would abstain from such suggestions unless they are able to support them with specific examples. The issue is not about this or that individual copy, which through the errors of scribes or printers may contain significant mistakes. There is no need for men's critical abilities to fix such mistakes — other copies are available for that purpose. The suggestion is made about the text as a whole, apart from such copying errors. To cast doubts into men's minds about the integrity and purity of the text, without sufficient grounds or warrant, is surely not allowable. It is wrong to deal so with men and their writings; how much more wrong with the Word of God. If a man were to write that in the case of some theft or murder supposedly committed by a person of spotless reputation, it would be wise to take such and such precautions — and were to publish this to the world — would their stirring of such rumors be viewed as an honest, Christian, and fair course of action? And is it safe to deal so with the Scripture? I speak of Protestants. As for Roman Catholics, who have grown bold in their opposition to the original Scriptures, I must say that I regard them as effectively carrying out a scheme of Satan to draw men into atheism. Nor in particular do I regard Morinus's Exercitations as any better than this. It is readily acknowledged that there are many difficult passages in Scripture, especially in the historical books of the Old Testament. Some of these have been regarded by some as unintelligible. The industry of learned men, ancient and modern — Jewish and Christian — has been well exercised in interpreting and reconciling them. By one means or another, a fair and plausible account has been given of all of them. Where we cannot reach the deepest truth, it has been thought fitting that poor creatures should bow their understanding to the truth and authority of God in His Word. If once this liberty is given — that difficult passages may be regarded as corruptions and amended at the pleasure of men — I do not know how we shall be able to stop before we arrive at questioning the whole of Scripture. What we therefore insist upon is this: that according to all rules of fair procedure, men must first prove such corruptions before entertaining us with their provision of remedies.

Section 18. As for the specimen of variant readings gathered from Grotius's Annotations, I will not concern myself greatly with it. They are nothing more than that learned man's own personal observations. Set aside, first, the variant readings of the Septuagint and Vulgar Latin, of Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion — which do not concern us. Set aside, second, the Keri and Kethib, which appear over and over again throughout this volume. Set aside, third, the variant readings of the Eastern and Western Jews, which we also have elsewhere. Set aside, fourth, conjectures about how the Septuagint or Vulgar Latin read, formed by altering letters only. Set aside, fifth, Grotius's own conjectures about how the text might be improved — and very little room will be left for what remains. From the cursory survey I have made of them, I see not one word that can claim to be a genuine variant reading, unless it belongs to the Keri and Kethib or to the difference between the Eastern and Western Jews. So as I said before, as regards my present purpose I am not at all concerned in that collection; those who are may examine it further.

Section 19. An equally brief account will do for a general consideration of the whole bulky collection of variant readings presented to us here. As for those belonging to the various translations, they do not concern us at all: where any or all of them fail or are corrupt, we have a rule — blessed be God — preserved by which to correct them. As for those from the originals, I have already addressed them specifically. I will only add that we have some of them from both the Old and New Testament presented at least three times over. Many of the Keri and Kethib, after having already done double service, are given us a third time by Grotius. The same is true of those from the New Testament, similarly repeated by Grotius and Lucas Brugensis.

THE END.