The works of the Reverend and learned John Lightfoot D. D., late Master of Katherine Hall in Cambridge such as were, and such as never before were printed : in two volumes : with the authors life and large and useful tables to each volume : also three maps : one of the temple drawn by the author himself, the others of Jervsalem and the Holy Land drawn according to the author's chorography, with a description collected out of his writings.

VERS. XVIII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Verily I say unto you.

I. SUCH an asseveration was usual to the Nation, though the syllables were some∣thing changed. g 1.1 A certain Matron said to R. Judah bar Allai, Thy face is like to a Swineherd, or an Usurer. To whom he answered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In truth both is forbidden me. The Gloss there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In truth, is a manner of speech used in swearing.

II. But our Saviour useth this phrase by the highest divine right. 1. Because he is Amen, the faithful witness, Rev. II. 14. 2 Cor. I. 20. See also Esa. LXV. 16. and Kimchi there. 2. Because he published the Gospel, the highest truth, Joh. XVIII 37, &c. 3. By this asseveration he doth well oppose his divine oracles against the insolent madness of the Traditional Doctors, who did often vent their blasphemous and frivolous tales under this seal, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They speak in truth: and wheresoever this is said, say they, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A Tradition of Moses from Sinai.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

One jot.

The Jerusalem Gemarists speak almost to the same sense. h 1.2 The book of Deuteronomy came, and prostrated it self before God, and said, O Lord of the Universe, Thou hast wrote in me thy Law, but now a Testament defective in some part is defective in all. Behold, Solo∣mon endeavours to root the letter Jod out of me (to wit in this Text 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He shall not multiply wives, Deut. XVII. 5.) The holy blessed God answered, Solomon and a thousand such as he shall perish, but the least word shall not perish out of thee. R. Honna said in the name of R. Acha, the letter Jod, which God took out of the name of Sarai ••ur Mother,

was given half to Sara, and half to Abraham. A Tradition of R. Hoshaia, the letter Jod came and prostrated it self before God, and said, O eternal Lord, Thou hast rooted me out of the name of that holy woman. The Blessed God answered, Hitherto thou hast been in the name of a woman, and that in the end, (Viz. in Sarai) but henceforward thou shalt be in the name of a man, and that in the beginning. Hence is that which is written, And Moses cal∣led the name of Hoshea, Jehoshua. The Babylonians also do relate this translation of the letter Jod out of the name of Sarai to the name of Joshua after this manner: i 1.3 The letter Jod, saith God, which I took out of the name of Sarai, stood and cried to me for very many years, how long will it be ere Joshua arise, to whose name I have added it.

You have an Example of the eternal duration of this very little letter Jod, in Deut. XXXII. 18. where in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is written even less than it self, and yet it stands immortal in that its diminutive state unto this very day, and so shall for ever.

k 1.4 There is a certain little City mentioned by name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Derokreth, which by reason of the smalness of it was called Jod in the Gloss. l 1.5 And there was a Rabbin, named Rabh Jod. Of the letter Jod. See Midrash Tillin upon the CXIV. Psalm.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

One tittle.

It seems to denote the little heads, or dashes of letters, whereby the difference is made between letters of a form almost alike. The matter may be illustrated by these examples 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉m 1.6 If it were Daleth, and a man should have formed it into Resh (on the Sabbath) or should have formed Resh into Daleth, he is guilty.

n 1.7 It is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ye shall not prophane my holy Name: whosoever shall change 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He, destroys the World (for then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 written with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He makes this sense, Ye shall not praise my holy Name.) It is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let every spirit praise the Lord. Whosoever changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth destroys the World. It is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They lied against the Lord: whosoever changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caph destroies the World. It is written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There is none holy as the Lord: whosoever changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheth into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth, destroys the World. It is written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Lord our God is one Lord: he that changeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Daleth into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Resh, destroys the World.

But that our Saviour by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Jot and Tittle, did not only understand the bare letters, or the little marks that distinguished them, appears sufficiently from vers. 19. where he renders it, one of these least commands: in which sense is that also in the Jeru∣salem Gemara, of Solomons rooting out Jod, that is, eva••uating that precept 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He shall not multiply Wives. And yet it appears enough hence, that our Saviour al∣so so far asserts the uncorrupt immortality and purity of the holy Text, that no particle of the sacred sense should perish, from the beginning of the Law to the end of it.

To him, that diligently considers these words of our Saviour their Opinion offers it self, who suppose, that the whole Alphabet of the Law, or rather the original character of it is perished; namely, the Samaritan, in which they think the Law was first given and written; and that that Hebrew, wherein we now read the Bible, was substituted in its stead. We shall not expatiate in the question; but let me, with the Readers good leave, produce and consider some passages of the Talmud, whence, if I be not mistaken, Christians seem first to have taken up this opinion.

The Jerusalem Talmud treats of this matter in these words. o 1.8 R. Jochanan de Beth Gubrin saith, There are four noble Tongues, which the World useth: The Mother Tongue for Singing, the Roman for War, the Syriac for Mourning, the Hebrew for Elocution: and there are some which add, the Assyrian for Writing. The Assyrian hath writing (that is, letters or characters) but a language it hath not. The Hebrew hath a language, but writing it hath not. They chose to themselves the Hebrew language in the Assyrian character. But why is it called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Assyrian? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because it is blessed (or direct) in its writing. R. Levi saith, Because it came up into their hands out of Assyria.

A Tradition, R. Josi saith, Ezra was fit, by whose hands the Law might have been given, but that the age of Moses prevented. But although the Law was not given by his hand, yet writing (that is, the forms of the letters) and the language were given by his hand. And the writing of the Epistle was writ in Syriac, and rendred in Syriac, (Ezr. IV. 7.) And they could not read the writing, (Dan. V. 8.) From whence is shewn, that the writing (that is, the form of the characters and letters) was given that very same day. R. Nathan saith, the Law was given in breaking (that is, in letters more rude, and more disjoyned) And the matter is, as R. Josi saith. Rabbi (Judah Haccodesh) saith, the Law was given in the Assyrian language, and when they sinned, it was turned into breaking. And when they were worthy in the days of Ezra, it was turned for them again into the Assyrian. I shew to day, that I will render to you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mishneh, the doubled, or, as if he should say, the

seconded (Zech. IX. 12.) And he shall write for himself the Mishneh (the doubled) of this Law in a book; (Deut. XVII. 18.) namely in a writing, that was to be changed. R. Simeon ben Eleazar saith, in the name of R. Eleazar ben Parta, and he in the name of R. Lazar, the Hammodaean, the Law was given in Assyrian writing. Whence is that proved? From those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Exod. XXVII. 10.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vau in the Law is like a pillar. So the Jerusalem Talmudists.

Discourse is had of the same business in the p 1.9 Babylonian Talmud, and almost in the same words, these being added over. The Law was given to Israel in Hebrew writing, and in the holy Language. And it was given to them again in the days of Ezra in Assyrian writing, and the Syriac Language. The Israelites chose to themselves the Assyrian writing, and the holy Language. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And left the Hebrew writing, and the Syriac Language to ignorant persons. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But who are those Idiots (or ignorant persons?) R. Chasda saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Samaritans. And what is the Hebrew writing? R. Chasda saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, (according to the Gloss) Great letters, such as those are, which are writ in charms, and upon door posts.

That we may a little apprehend the meaning of the Rabbins, let it be observed,

I. That by the Mother Tongue (the Hebrew, Syriac, Romane being named particular∣ly) no other certainly can be understood than the Greek, we have shewn at the three and twentieth verse of the first Chapter.

II. That that writing, which the Gemarists call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and which we have inter∣preted by a very known word, Hebrew writing, is not therefore called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because this was proper to the Israelites, or because it was the antient writing, but (as the Gloss very aptly) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because the writing, or character was in use among them that dwelt beyond Euphrates. In the same sense, as some would have Abraham called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hebrew, signifying, on the other side, that is, beyond, or on the other side of Amana.

Many Nations were united into one Language, that is, the old Syriac, namely, the Chaldeans, the Mesopotamians, the Assyrians, the Syrians. Of these some were the sons of Sem, and some of Cham. Though all had the same Language; it is no wonder, if all had not the same letters. The Assyrians and Israelites refer their original to Sem: these had the Assyrian writing: the sons of Cham, that inhabited beyond Euphrates, had ano∣ther; perhaps, that, which is now called by us, the Samaritane, which it may be the sons of Cham, the Canaanites, used.

III. That the Law was given by Moses in Assyrian letters, is the opinion (as you see) of some Talmudists; and that indeed the sounder by much. For to think that the Divine Law was writ in characters proper to the cursed seed of Cham, it agreeable neither to the dignity of the Law, nor indeed to reason it self. They that assert the Mother writing was Assyrian, do indeed confess that the characters of the Law were changed, but this was done by reason of the sin of the people, and through negligence. For when under the first Temple the Israelites degenerated into Canaanitish manners, perhaps they used the letters of the Canaanites, which were the same with those of the Inhabitants beyond Euphrates. These words of theirs put the matter out of doubt: The Law was given to Israel in the Assyrian writing in the days of Moses: but when they sinned under the first Tem∣ple, and contemned the Law, it was changed into breaking to them.

Therefore according to these mens opinion, the Assyrian writing was the Original of the Law, and endured, and obtained unto the degenerate age under the first Temple. Then, they think, it was changed into the writing used beyond Euphrates, or the Sama∣ritane; or, if you will, the Canaanitish (if so be, these were not one and the same:) but by Ezra it was at last restored into the original Assyrian.

Truly I wonder that Learned Men should attribute so much to this tradition, (for whence else they have received their Opinion, I do not understand) that they should think that the primitive writing of the Law was in Samaritane: seeing that which the Gemarists assert concerning the changing of the characters, rests upon so brittle and tot∣tering a foundation, that it is much more probable, that there was no change at all (but that the Law was first writ in Assyrian by Moses, and in the Assyrian also by Ezra) because the change cannot be built and established upon stronger arguments.

A second question might follow concerning Keri, and Chethib: and a suspicion might also arise, that the Text of the Law was not preserved perfect to one Jot and one Tittle, when so many various readings do so frequently occur. Concerning this business we will offer these few things only, that so we may return to our task.

1. These things are delivered by Tradition: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 q 1.10 They found three books in the Court, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Meoni, The book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zaatuti, and the book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hi. In one they found written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The eternal God is thy refuge: but in the two other they found it written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Deut. XXXIII. 27.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They approved (or, confirmed those two, but rejected that one. In one they

found written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But in two it was written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he sent young men of the children of Israel. (Exod. XXIV. 5.) Those two they confirmed, but that one they rejected. In one they found written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 She was nine: but in the two was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 She was eleven: those two they confirmed, and that one they rejected.

I do much suspect, that these three books, laid up in the Court, answered to the three∣fold Congregation of the Jews, namely in Judea, Babylon, and Egypt, whence these copies might be particularly taken. For however that Nation was scattered abroad al∣most throughout the whole World, yet by number and companies scarcely to be num∣bred, it more plentifully encreased in these three Countries, than any where else: In Judea by those that returned from Babylon, in Babylon by those that returned not; and in Egypt by the Temple of Onias. The two Copies that agreed, I judge, to be out of Judea and Babylon, that that differed to be out of Egypt: and this last I suspect by this, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zaatuti smells of the seventy Interpreters whom the Jews of Egypt might be judged by the very sake of the place to favour more, than any elsewhere. r 1.11 For it is asserted by the Jewish Writers, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was one of those changes, which the Septuagint brought into the sacred Text.

II. It is therefore very probable that the Keri and Chethib was compacted from the comparing of the two Copies of the greatest authority, that is, the Jewish and the Ba∣bylonian: which when they differed from one another in so many places in certain little dashes of writing, but little or nothing at all as to the sense, by very sound counsil they provided, that both should be reserved, so that both Copies might have their worth preserved, and the sacred Text its purity and fulness, whilst not one jot, nor one tittle of it perished.

Notes

• g 1.1

  Bab. B••rac▪ fol. 55. 1.
• h 1.2

  Sanhedr. fol. 20. 3.
• i 1.3

  Sanhedr. fol. 107. 1.
• k 1.4

  Bab. Taanith, fol. 21. 2.
• l 1.5

  Fol. 22. 2.
• m 1.6

  Hieros. Schab. fol. 10. 4.
• n 1.7

  Tanch••m, fol. 1. 1.
• o 1.8

  In Megill. fol. 71. 2, 3.
• p 1.9

  Sanhedr. fol. 21. 2. & 22. 1.
• q 1.10

  Hieros. Ta••∣nit••, fol. 68. 1.
• r 1.11

  Massecheth Sopherim, cap. 1 art. 8.