work, they obferved the irregularities they had committed, why did not they mend their work, by cafting out the irregular points and putting regular ones in the text itself, and not point to them in the margin, or there direct to the true reading? Is it ufual for authors to animadvert on their own work in fuch a manner? If they make mistakes in their work at firft, is it ufual in an after edition, and following editions, to continue fuch mistakes in the body of the work, and put the corrections of them in the margin? The Maforetes, hadthey been the inventors of the vowel-points, would never have put them to a word in the text, to which they were not proper, but what better agree with a word placed by them in the margin; had they invented them, they would have put proper ones to the word in the text; or have removed that, and put the word in the margin in its room, with which they agree; fee Gen. viii. 17. and xiv. 3. and it may be observed, that their critical art and notes are not only frequently exercised and made upon the points, but even upon the points without confonants, and upon confonants without points; which would not have become them, had they been the inventors of them; fee an instance of each in Jer. xxxi. 38 and li. 3. The truth of the matter, with respect to the Maforetes, is, that the pointing of the Bible was not their work; they considered it as of a divine original, and therefore dared not to make any alteration in it; but only obferved, where there was an unusual punctuation, that it might be taken notice of; and that fo they found it, and fo they left it; and that thofe who came after them might not dare to attempt an alteration. Punctuation was made before their time, as their work itself fhews; and Walton ", an oppofer of the antiquity of the points, has this obfervation; "The Maforetic notes about words irregularly pointed, and the numbers of "them, neceffarily fuppofe that pointing was made long before." these Maforetes employed their time and ftudy, in counting the verses and letters of the Bible, and how many verfes and letters there are in such a book; and where exactly is the middle of it; where a word is deficient or lacks a letter; or where it is full and has them all; or where one is redundant and has too many; where one letter is larger and another leffer than ufual, and another suspended; fuppofe now this is all trifling, and of no manner of importance,. yet who or what are injured by it? The mifpending of their time in such trifles, is a lofs not to others, but to themselves; and, as a learned man remarks", "How trifling foever this fcrupulous exactnefs of the Maforetes "(with respect to the letters in the Hebrew text) may appear, yet it fuggests. "to us one obfervation, that the Jews were religiously careful to preserve the K kk 2 Have << true ▪ Prolegom, 8. f. 12% w Chappelow's Commentary on Job ix. 34. See alfo on chap. xi. 14, or not. "true literal text of fcripture; and confequently, notwithstanding their "enmity and obftinate averfion to Christianity, they are not to be charged "with this additional crime of having corrupted the Bible;" and after all, have not the Chriftians had their Maforetes alfo, who, with like diligence and faithfulness, have numbered all the verses, both of the Greek version of the Old Teftament and of the books of the New? And have they been blamed for it? Jerom numbered the verses of the book of Proverbs, and says they were 915, exactly as the Maforah. Some words, through length of time, became obfcene and offenfive to chafte ears, at least were thought fo; hence the Maforetes placed other words in the margin, which, perhaps, is the boldest thing they ever did, and of which the Karaite Jews complain; but then they never attempted to remove the other words from the text, and put in theirs in their room; they only placed them where they did, that, when the paffages were read in public, or in families, the reader might be fupplied with words that fignified the fame, only more pure and chafte, and lefs offenfive; at least which were thought fo; and which were left to their own option to read them The paffages are Deut. xxviii. 27, 30. 1 Sam. v. 6, 9. Ifai. xiii. 16. chap. xxxvi. 12. Zech. xiv. 2. 2 Kings vi. 25. chap. x. 27. and chap. xviii. 27. and it would not be improper, if, in the margin of our Bibles overagainst the laft, and others that have the fame word, another English word or words were put to be read lefs offenfive. And, by the way, from the change of words propofed in those paffages, may be drawn an argument in favour of the antiquity of the Maforetes. For this part of their work must be done, whilst the Hebrew language was a living language, when only the difference of words offenfive or not offenfive to the ear could be difcerned, and a change of them neceffary: and certain it is, these notes were made before the Talmud, for mention is made of them in it; yea, these variations are followed by the ancient Targums, by Onkelos, and the Jerufalem on Deut. xxviii. 27, 30. and not only by Pfeudo Jonathan on 1 Sam. v. 6, 9. 2 Kings vi. 25. chap. x. 27. and chap. xviii. 27. but by the true Jonathan on Ifai. xiii. 16. and chap. xxxvi. 12. and Zech. xiv. 2. who and Onkelos are supposed to live in the first century. As for the word Sebirim, fometimes used by the Maforetes in their notes; this only respects the conjectures of fome perfons, who thought a word should be otherwise read or pointed; but it is what the Maforetes object to, and fay of fuch perfons, that they are mistaken: and this they observe, that no one may prefume * Vid. Croii Obferv. in Nov. Teft. c. 1. & c. 10. a T. Bab. Megillah, fol. 25, 2, presume to make any alteration upon fuch conjectures and are they to be blamed for this? And, befides these things, what have they done, except tranfmitting, from age to age, the marginal or various readings, which had been obferved by collating copies, or which arofe from their own obfervations, by comparing different copies that lay before them; and from delivering them down to pofterity, they obtained the name of Maforetes; and can this be thought to be culpable in them? They left the text as they found it; nor did they offer of themfelves to infert a various reading, different from the commonly received copy, but placed fuch readings in the margin, that others might make what use of them they pleased; or rather they took this method, to prevent the infertion of them into the text, fuggefting, that fo they found them, and there it was proper to continue them: and is a Bible with such readings the worfe for them? Is a Greek Teftament to be dif-esteemed, for having the various readings in it collected from different copies? Or are our English Bibles with the marginal readings in them, placed by the tranflators themselves, with references to other fcriptures, the lefs valuable on that account? Nay, are they not the more valued for them? And it may be observed, that these Keries, or marginal readings of the Hebrew text, are followed in many places, by fome of the best tranflators of the Bible, both ancient and modern. Aquila and Symmachus, the best of the ancient Greek interpreters, almost always follow them. Jerom had knowledge of them, and teftifies to Aquila's following them, in a particular inftance. His words are ©, "Afferemoth "in Jer. xxxi. 40. for which, in a Hebrew copy it is written Sedemoth, which "Aquila interprets fuburbana." And which reading is preferred by Jerom, as is the marginal reading of ver. 38. And if he was the author of the Vulgate Latin verfion, that agrees with the marginal readings of the Maforetes in several places; fee fofb. iii. 16. and chap. xv. 47. 2 Sam. viii. 3. 2 Kings xix. 31. all which shew the antiquity of these readings. So modern interpreters, Junius and Tremellius, our own translators, and the Dutch, often follow them, as do various interpreters, both Papifts and Proteftants. Nay, fome of these readings and notes are confirmed by the infpired writers of the New Teftament. Thus, for instance, in Pfal. xvi. 10. the word rendered boly One, is written with a yod, as if it was plural; but the Maforetic note on it is, that the yod is redundant, and fo the word is to be confidered as of the fingular number; and this is confirmed by two infpired writers, the apostles Peter and Paul, Ats ii. b Montfaucon. Hexapla Origen. vol. 2. p. 549. c De loc, Heb. fol. 89. B. 27. and 27. and chap. xiii. 35. Again, in Prov. iii. 34. the Cetib, or textual writing is, yh, the poor; but the Keri, or marginal but the Keri, or marginal reading, onay, the humble, or lowly, which is followed by our tranflators of the text, and is confirmed by two apostles, James and Peter, Jam. iv. 6. 1 Pet. v. 5. And what have the Maforetes done in this refpect, but what the learned Dr Kennicott is now doing, or getting done in the feveral libraries in Europe; that is, collating the feveral copies, and collecting from them the various readings; and which, if I understand his design aright, is not to form, upon his own judgment, a new copy of the Hebrew text; but to do with the prefent copy in common use, what others have done with the New Teftament; let it stand as it is, with the various readings thrown into the margin as they may be collected, and leave them to every one's judgment, with fome critical rules to form it, to make ufe of them as they please: and when this learned gentleman has finished his large Maforetic work, he will be the greatest Maforete that ever any age produced; fince not only eight hundred and forty-eight various readings, as Elias' has reckoned those of the Maforetes to be, but as many thousands, and more will now appear. I fay not this, to depreciate his laborious undertaking, far be it from me; he has my good wishes for the finishing of it, and what little affiftance otherwise I can give him in it. For I am not fo great an enthusiast, for the integrity of the prefent printed Hebrew copy, as to imagine, that it is entirely clear of the mistakes of transcribers in all places: to imagine this, is to fuppofe a miraculous interpofition of Divine Providence attending the copiers of it, and that conftant and universal; and if but one copier was under fuch an influence, it would be very extraordinary indeed, if his copy should be lighted on at the first printing of the Hebrew Bible; and befides, the first Hebrew Bible that was printed, was not printed from one copy, but from various copies collated; nor is there more reason to believe, that the Hebrew text of the Old Teftament, which is more ancient, should be preserved from the escapes of librarians, than the Greek of the New Teftament, which it is too notorious are many; nor is fuffering fuch escapes any contradiction to the Promise and Providence of God, refpecting the preservation of the Sacred Writings, fince all of any moment is preserved in the several copies; so that what is omitted, or stands wrong in one copy, may be fupplied and set right by another, which is a fufficient vindication of Divine Providence; and this may serve to excite the diligence and industry of learned men, in collating the feveral copies for fuch a purpose; and befides, the Providence of God remarkably appears, in that the efcapes fuffered to be made do not affect any doctrine Præfat. 3. ad Maforet. doctrine of faith, or any moral practice, as has been obferved and owned by many and after all, if from the prefent collation of manufcripts, there should be published, what may be thought a more correct and perfect copy of the Hebrew text, we shall be beholden to the Jews for it, against whom the clamour rises so high: for by whom were the manufcripts written, now collating, but by Jews? For the truth of this, I appeal to the learned collator himself; and who, if I mistake not, in his printed Differtations always represents the several Hebrew copies, whether more or lefs perfect, as the work of Jewish transcribers; and indeed the thing speaks for itself: for from the times of ferom to the age of printing, there were scarce any, if any at all among Christians, capable of transcribing an Hebrew copy; that interval was a time of barbarous ignorance, as with refpect to arts and sciences, fo with respect to languages, especially the Hebrew. To know a little Greek, in those barbarous times, was enough to make a man fufpected of herefy; and to ftudy Hebrew, was almost fufficient to proclaim him an heretic at once: the ftudy of which lay much neglected, until it was revived by Reuchlin and others, a little before, and about the time of the Reformation. There might, in the above space of time, rife up now and then one, who had fome knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, as Raymund in the thirteenth century, the author of Pugio Fidei; and friar Bacon, who wrote an Hebrew grammar in the latter end of the fame century, and which perhaps was the first, at least one of the firft Hebrew grammars written by a Christian; though fince, we have had a multitude of them : for almost every matterer in the Hebrew language thinks himself qualified to write a grammar of it. However, there is no reason to believe, as I can understand, that any of our Hebrew manufcripts were written by Chriftians, but all by Jews, I mean fuch as were written before the age of printing; for what have been written fince, can be of no account. I observe there is much talk about the Maforetic Bible, and about Maforetic authority. As to the Maforetic Bible, I could never learn there ever was such an one, either in manufcript, or in print, that could with any propriety be fo called. Is a Bible with points to be colled Maforetic? It must be with great impropriety, fince the Maforetes, as has been obferved, were not the authors of pointing are any called fo, because they have various readings, and other nates in the margin? As well may a Greek Teftament, with various readings, and notes in the margin, have fuch a name. Let it be fhewn, if it can, that there 2 & Amamæ Antibarb. Bibl. l. 1. p. 20, 22, Bochart. Phaleg. 1. 2, c. 13. col. 91, 92. Walton. Prolegom. 6. f. 1. 3. & 7. f. 12. 15. and Confiderator confidered, p. 127, 162, Capellus de Critica. Epift. ad Uffer. p. 116. Dr Kennicott, Differt. 1. p. 11. 301. |