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. XLIV.

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

In the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms.

IT is a known division of the Old Testament into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Law, the Prophets, and the Holy Writings; by abbrevation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

I. The Books of the Law, and their order need not be insisted upon, called com∣monly by us, the Pentateuch: but by some of the Rabbins the Heptateuch: and by some Christians the Octateuch: m 1.1 R. Samuel bar Nachman saith, R. Jonathan saith, Wisdom hath hewn out her seven Pillars [Prov. IX. 1.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 These are the seven Books of the Law. The Book of Numbers compleats the seven Books of the Law. But are there not but five Books only? Ben Kaphra saith the Book of Numbers is made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 three Books. From the beginning of the Book to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And it came to pass when the Ark set forward [Chap. X. 35.] is a Book by it self. That verse and the following is a Book by it self: And from thence to the end of the Book, is a Book by it self.

The reason why they accounted this period [Chap. X. 35. 36.] to be one Book by it self, was, partly because it does not seem put there in its proper place: partly because in the beginning of it, it hath the letter Nun inverted thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so after the end of it in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which in both places is set for a boundary and limit, to distinguish that period from the rest of the Book. Whatever therefore goes before, from the beginning of the Book to that period, is reckoned by them for one Book; and whatever follows it, for another Book; and the period it self for a third.

Eulogius speaking concerning Dosthes or Dositheus a famous seducer of the Samaritans, hath this passage, n 1.2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. He adulterated the Octateuch of Moses with spurious writings, and all kind of corrupt falsifyings. There is mention also of a Book with this title, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 o 1.3 The Christians Book, An Exposition upon the Octateuch. Whe∣ther this was the Octateuch of Moses, it is neither certain, nor much worth our enquiry, for Photius judgeth him a corrupt Author: besides that it may be shewn by and by that there was a twofold Octateuch besides that of Moses. Now if any man should ask how it come to pass that Eulogius (and that probably from the common notion of the thing) should divide the Books of Moses into an Octateuch; I had rather any one else rather than my self should resolve him in it. But if any consent that he owned the Heptateuch we have already mentioned, we should be ready to reckon the last Chapter of Deuter∣onomy for the eighth part.

Aben Ezra will smile here, who in that his obscure and disguised denial of the Books of the Pentateuch, as if they were not writ by the pen of Moses, he instances in that Chapter in the first place, as far as I can guess, as a testimony against it. You have his

words in his Commentary upon the Book of Deuteronomy, a little from the beginning p 1.4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if you understand the mystery of the twelve, &c. i. e. of the twelve Verses of the last Chapter of the Book (for so his own Country-men expound him) thou wilt know the truth, i. e. that Moses did not write the whole Pentateuch; an argument neither worth answering, nor becoming so great a Philosopher. For as it is a ridiculous thing to suppose that Chapter that treats of the death and burial of Moses should be written by himself, so would it not be much less ridiculous to affix that Chap∣ter to any other volume than the Pentateuch. But these things are not the proper sub∣ject for our present handling.

II. There also was an Octatuech of the Prophets too. q 1.5 All the Books of the Prophets are eight, Josuah, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremy, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve. For the Historical Books also, were read in their Synagogues under the notion of the Pro∣phets, as well as the Prophets themselves whose names are set down. You will see the title prefixt to them in the Hebrew Bibles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the former Prophets, as well as to the others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the latter Prophets. The Doctors give us the reason why they dispose the Prophets in that order that Jeremiah is named first, Ezekiel next, and Isaiah last, which I have quoted in Notes upon Matth. XXVII. 9. and let not the Reader think it irksome to repeat it here.

r 1.6 Whereas the Book of Kings ends in destruction, and the whole Book of Jeremy treats about destruction; whereas Ezekiel begins with destruction, and ends in consolation: and whereas Isaiah is all in consolation, they joyned destruction with destruction, and consolation with consolation.

III. The third division of the Bible is intitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Holy Writings. And here also is found an Octateuch by some body, (as it seems) though I know not where to find it.

Herbanus the Jew s 1.7 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was a man excellently well instructed in the Law, and holy Books of the Prophets, and the Octateuch, and all the other Writings. What this Octateuch should be, distinct from the Law and the Prophets, and indeed what the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all the other writings besides should be, is not easily guessed. This Octateuch perhaps may seem to have some reference to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hagiographa, or Holy Wri∣tings (for it is probable enough, that speaking of a Jew well skilled in the Holy Scriptures he might design the partition of the Bible, according to the manner of the Jews dividing it) but who then can pick out books that should make it up? Let the Reader pick out the eight, and then I would say that the other four are the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all the other Writings. But we will not much disquiet our selves about this matter.

It may be asked why these Books should be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Scriptures, when the whole Bible goes under the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the holy Scriptures. Nor can any thingbe more readily answered to this than, that by this title they would keep up their dignity, and just esteem for them. They did not indeed read them in their Synagogues, but that they might acknowledge them of most Holy and Divine Authority 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of them they confirm their Traditions, and they expound them mystically: t 1.8 Yea and give them the same title with the rest of the Holy Scriptures.

u 1.9 This is the order 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Hagiographa, Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, the Pro∣verbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, the Lamentations, Daniel, the Book of Esther, Ezra, and the Chronicles. It is here disputed, that if Job was in the days of Moses, why then is not his Book put in the first place? the answer is, they do not begin with vengeance, or afflicti∣on, and such is that Book of Job. They reply, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ruth also begins with affliction, viz. with the story of a Famine, and the death of Elimelech's Sons. But that was (say they) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an affliction that had a joyful ending. So they might have said of the Book and affliction of Job too. We see it is disputed there why the Book of Ruth should be placed the first in that rank, and not the Book of Job. But we might enquire whether the Book of Psalms ought not have been placed the first, rather than the Book of Ruth.

IV. In this passage at present before us who would think otherwise, but that our Sa∣viour alludes to the common and most known partition of the Bible? and although he name the Psalms only, yet that under the title he includes that whole volume. For we must of necessity say, that either he excluded all the Books of that third divi∣sion, excepting the Book of Psalms, which is not probable; or that he included them under the title of the Prophets, which was not customary; or else that under the title of the Psalms he comprehended all the rest. That he did not exclude them, reason will tell us; for in several Books of that division is he himself spoken of as well as in the Psalms; and that he did not include them in the title of the Prophets, reason also will dictate: because we would not suppose him speaking differently from the common and received opinion of that Nation. There is very little question therefore, but the Apostles

might understand him speaking with the vulgar: and by the Psalms to have meant all the Books of that Volume, those especially, wherein any thing was written concerning him∣self. For, let it be granted that Ruth as to the time of the History, and the time of its writing might challenge to its self the first place in order (and it is that kind of pri∣ority the Gemarists are arguing) yet certainly amongst all those Books that mention any thing of Christ, the Book of Psalms deservedly obtains the first place; so far that in the naming of this, the rest may be understood. So St. Matthew Chap. XXVII. 9. under the name of Jeremiah, comprehends that whole Volume of the Prophets, because he was placed the first in that rank which observation we have made in Notes upon that place.

Notes

• m 1.1

  Schabb. fol. 116. 1.
• n 1.2

  Apud Phot. Cod. ccxxx.
• o 1.3

  Cod. xxxvi.
• p 1.4

  Cap. 1.
• q 1.5

  Bava bathra, fol. 14. 2.
• r 1.6

  Bava bathra, ubi supr.
• s 1.7

  Oregent. Dial. at the begin∣ning.
• t 1.8

  Schabb. fol. 116. 2.
• u 1.9

  Bathra. ubi. supr.