A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

SECT. III.

The History of the Hebrew Text. Of the Version of the Septuagint, and other Greek Versions of the Old Testament.

THE Books of Moses, and (a) almost all the rest of the Books of the Old Testament, were written in Hebrew. The ancient (b) Characters, which Moses and the other Authors, that wrote before the Captivity, made use of, according to the common Opinion, were the Sa∣maritan. For after the Division of the Ten Tribes under Rehoboam the Son of Salomon, the Israelites preserved the Pentateuch in the same form they received it from Moses, and (c) gave it af∣terwards to the Men of Cuth, who came to settle in their place at Samaria, from whence they were called Samaritans. The Tribes of Judah and Benjamin also preserved the same Characters till the Ba∣bylonish Captivity. But being once carried away into Babylon, they insensibly used themselves to write and speak after the manner of the Chaldeans. Therefore it was, that (d) Ezrah, having reviewed, and gathered together the Books of the Bible, used the new Chaldee Characters, as being better known to the Jews than the Ancient, which they have used almost always ever since. But the Jews not only bor∣rowed their Characters from the Chaldeans, but they borrowed their Language also, which was the same with that of the Syrians or Assyrians, and came very near the Hebrew (e). It is very certain, that at first this Language was not common to all the Jews, that they all understood Hebrew, and that there were likewise some Persons that spoke it still; so that the Chaldee and Hebrew Tongue were at the same time common in Judea (f). But by little and little they were confounded together, and the Vulgar Language of the Jews became the Syriack, but mixed with several Hebrew Terms, which was afterwards commonly called Hebrew. Nevertheless, the Sacred Books still continued written in He∣brew, and the Jews read them in that Language in their Synagogues; but the ancient Hebrew Lan∣guage being no longer common, and beginning to be less intelligible to all the Jews, they explained the Original Hebrew in their Synagogues, and this perhaps might give the first occasion to the (g) Chaldee Paraphrases, though those we now have seem to be of a later date. The Hebrew Text con∣tinued in this state without Points, till about the Year of our Lord 500, at which time the (h) Jews of Tiberias invented the Points, to limit and restrain the Reading and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Tongue.

I will not lose any time in endeavouring to prove all these things by any larger Explications, since any Man may see them more amply handled by those Persons, who have wrote Volumes of pur∣pose upon these Subjects; Neither will I discourse of the Oriental Versions of the Old Testament, that are all new, and besides of a very inconsiderable authority. But I cannot forbear to spend some time about the Greek Version of the Bible made by the LXX, whom we commonly rank in the number of Ecclesiastical Authors.

It has been long disputed, whether there was not a Greek Version of the Books of the Bible more ancient than the Septuagint. St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and some other ancient Writers, who pretend, that Plato, and several other Pagan Philosophers, have borrowed many passages out of the Books of the Bible, were of opinion, that they were Translated into Greek before the Seventy un∣dertook that business. They that follow this opinion, support it principally by the Testimony of Aristobulus related by Eusebius, who says, that before the time of the Seventy, some Persons had explained, all that concerned the Laws of the Jews, their departure out of Egypt, and whatever hap∣pened to them after the taking of their Country; words that seem to imitate, that the Pentateuch had been Translated before the Version of the Septuagint. St. Augustin, l. 18. De Civit. Dei, ch. 11. and Baronius after him deny it, and assure us, that the first Version of the Bible was the Septuagint.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 endeavours 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••concile th••se 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Opinions, by saying, that there were only some few frag∣ments 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••e Old T•…•…ment 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the S•…•…, but that these LXX Elders were the first, that made 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Version of all the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Volumes. He grounds his Opinion upon the a∣bove cit••d passage of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which ought to be only understood, says he, of some parts, as the Circum•…•…tion he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••kes i•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 well as what he adds, that the Law was first entirely translated under P••olomy Philade•…•…. But in case this Book of Aristo••ulus should only be the work of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••elle••ist 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as it is exceeding 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ this Op••nion would become very uncertain. Let us go on now to the V••••sion of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

All the Ancient Fathers have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••sephus and Philo, that the Version of the Bible, com∣monly called the •…•…int, was composed by Seventy or Seventy two Jews sent to Ptolomy Phila∣delphus, who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to have the Jewish Books in Greek, that he might place them in the Magnificent Library which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the care and industry of Demetrius Phalereus an Athenian. This has gone a long time for constant matter of fact, nor was it ever questioned but in our Age, in which some Criticks have been found, that have looked upon this History to be fabulous. We shall examine the conjectures they generally bring to prove it.

In the first place they say, that this Story is wholly ••ounded upon the Authority of Aristeas and Aristobulus, from whom Josephus and Philo have taken all that they say in this matter, and that if these two Authors should prove s•…•…s, as the greatest part of the Criticks agree they are, then there would be no other credible. •…•…ess of the tr•…•… of this business, the Fathers having talked of them only upon the relation of these Authors. Secondly, these Criticks pretend, that this History does not in any manner agree with the Chronology of those times, and they demonstrate it thus: All those Authors, say they, who speak of this subject, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that it was Demetrius P••a••ereus, who had ••een formerly a great Man at Athens, that took the pains to make the Jews come to translate the Books of the Bible, and in the mean tim•• they pretend, that this Version was composed under the Reign of Ptolomy Philadelphus. Now Demetrius could not be in reputation under Ptolomy Philadelphus, nor could he be alive at that time, when they suppose that this Version was made. For it is certain, that Demetrius lived in Egypt under the Reign of Ptolomy the Son of Lagus, and that having counselled this Prince to name for his Su•…•… the Children which he had by E••ridice, he incurred the disgrace of Ptolomy Phil•…•…s, who ••••nished him the Court immediately after the death of his Father, and ordered him to be kept close in a certain Province, where he died soon after, as Hermippus, cited by Di••genes L••ert••••s testifies. All which makes it evident, that in the first place Demetrius was never in any credit with P••••lomy Philadelphus, and consequently, that he was not Supervisor of his Library, nor ordered to bring the Jews to translate the Bible: Secondly, that the Version of the Septuagint being made, as we are obliged to suppose, some years after the beginning of Philadelphus's Reign, Deme∣trius could not be employed in that affair, since he was dead before. 'Tis commonly answered, that Ptolomy Philadelphus reigned some time along with his Father, as 'tis observed in Eusebius's Chronicon, and that in this time he took care of the Library, and got the Version of the Bible to be made. 'Tis likewise urged, that this is the reason why some Authors place this Translation in the time of Ptolomy the Son of L••gus, and others in the time of Ptolomy Philadelphus. But in my Opinion this answer does not clearly remove the difficulty, since Aristeas and Josephus tell us in express words, that it happen'd under the Reign of Ptolomy Philadelphus, and that he was the King who took so much care ••o compleat his Library, without making the least mention of his Father. 'Twas to him alone that Demetrius address'd himself, to procure his Letters to the Jews, he was the only Man that wrote them; In a word, all Authors who say this matter happen▪d under his Reign, speak not one word of Ptolomy the Son of L••gus, and those that affirm, that it happen'd under the first Ptolomy, don't mention a syllable of Philadelphus. Vitruvius in the Preface to his 7th Book tells us, that Ptolomy Philadelphus made a Library in imitation of the Kings of Pergamus, and that Aristophanes, an Athenian Grammarian, was his Library Keeper, from whence it follows, that Demetrius never managed that Office, and that the Library was not begun till after his death. For that King of Pergamus, in imitation of whom Pto∣lomy Philadelphus erected his Library, was Eumenes, who could not possibly do it till after the death of Demetrius; and therefore Suidas says, the Version of the Septuagint was not made till the 33d year of the Reign of Philadelphus, and he observes, that Zenodotus was his Library Keeper. This still dis∣covers another contradiction in Chronology, that is to be found in Aristeas's and Josephus's Narration; for they say, that the Seventy came into Egypt when Ptolomy made a solemn Festival, occasioned by a Naval Victory which he obtained over Antigonus. This Sea-Fight ought to be the same, which Diodorus mentions in his 20th Book, and happen'd in the third year of the 118th Olympiad. Now at that time Demetrius was not come to Egypt, where he came not till after the death of Cassan∣der, which happen'd in the second year of the 120th Olympiad, according to the Testimony of Her∣mippus. And though one should still maintain, that he came thither at that time, yet it is certain, that Eleazer was not then the High Priest, since according to Eusebius, he did not begin to be so till the 123d Olympiad. They observe also another Solecism in Chronology, and that is in the Epistle at∣tributed to Demetrius by Aristeas: For Hecat••us of Abdera, that was Demetrius's Contemporary, is there cited as a Man that had been dead a long while ago. Thirdly, 'tis urged against the truth of this Story, that it is notoriously full of the fictions and inventions of the Hellenist Jews. It is supposed there, that Eleazer chose Seventy two Men, by taking six out of every Tribe. Now all the World knows, that at this time some of the Tribes were not to be found there, as having been carried away out of Judea, by Shalmanezer after the taking of Samaria. To this it may perhaps be replied, that there were still remaining amongst the Jews some Persons descended from all those Tribes,

that were concealed in the Tribe of Judah, but that Eleazer should find just Six and no more in every Tribe, who were able to do such a business, seems, as they say, to look a little too fabulous▪

It is certain, says a modern Critick, that if we reflect a little upon the History of Aristeas, and read it with never so little Application, we shall be convinced, that an Hellenist Jew wrote this Book under the name of Aristeas in favour of his own Nation. The Miracles that are related there, and the very manner in which it is written, give us a true Idea of a Jewish Genius, which always, and especially at that time, delighted to publish Forgeries, that contained scarce any thing but extra∣ordinary things. He tells us, that some Persons having formed a design to Translate these Sacred Volumes, were deterred from their bold resolution by a signal punishment from Heaven, that Theo∣pompus having determined to insert some part of their Law into the body of his History, became mad; That the same Theopompus having pray'd to God, during the intermission of his Distemper, to discover to him the cause of this unfortunate accident, God answered him in a Dream, that it happened to him for his great presumption in endeavouring to make common those sacred things that ought to be kept private, and that he was restored to his former health, after having desisted from this Enterprize. We read in the same place, that Theodectus, a Tragick Poet, lost his sight▪ for having presumptuously attempted to insert a passage of the Bible into his Works, but that he recovered his sight upon acknowledgment of his fault, and begging pardon of God.

After all, the Authors of the Books attributed to Aristeas and Aristobulus say nothing but what is great and pom∣pous, and extraordinary. Aristeas for example does not content himself with saying, that the Se∣venty carried a Copy of the Law, but he adds, that they brought one written in Characters of Gold. He makes Demetrius give the King a Petition, that they might have the Books of the Jews. He describes the Table, and the other Presents, which King Ptolomy offer'd to the Temple at Jerusalem, very fabulously. In a word, there is scarce one single Circumstance in the whole Narration, that does not look very like a fable.

These reasons, and many others which may yet be brought, have made several Criticks reject these Books that are attributed to Aristeas and Aristobulus; and what is yet more material, there are some Persons that doubt, whether there were ever any Version composed by the 70 Jews that were sent to Ptolomy Philadelphus. As for my self, although I am heartily persuaded, that these Books of Ari∣steas and Aristobulus are spurious, yet nevertheless (i) I am of opinion, that we cannot absolutely deny, that there was a Greek Translation of the Bible made in the time of Ptolomy Philadelphus: But I dare by no means affirm, that this business was done perfectly after the same manner, as we find it related in the Book attributed to Aristeas.

Now as the Jews are fruitful in Fictions, so they are not content with retailing those, that are to be found in this Author, but they have likewise added abundance of more extraordinary passages, in supposing, that these 72 Persons were shut up severally each Man in a particular Cell, and that they all of 'em translated the Scripture in the same manner, insomuch that all their translations were found conformable to each other, not only in the same Sense, but even in the same Words and Ex∣pressions. Upon this foundation they pretend, that they were inspired by God, and that their Ver∣sion ought to be considered, as wholly Divine. Some of the Fathers, that were extremely inclined to value the Authority of this Translation, readily believed this Fiction of the Jews (k), but St. Je∣rome, who had examined these things more exactly, and who preferred the Hebrew Text to the Tran∣slation of the Septuagint, laughed at this Story with reason, since neither Aristeas, nor Philo, nor Jose∣phus, who were the first Persons that gave us the History of this Version, spoke a word concerning these little Cells; but on the contrary Aristeas, or the Author of the Book that bears his name, tells us, that the Seventy, when they made this Version, concerted matters amongst themselves, and con∣ferr'd together. 'Tis upon the Testimony of the same Author, that St. Jerome assures us, that the Seventy only translated the five Books of Moses. Aristeas, Aristobulus, and Philo, tell us, that they translated no more than the Law, a word which ordinary signifies the Pentateuch only. And though we might understand it of all the Books of the Old Testament, which is not true, yet Josephus utterly excludes this Explication, by telling us, that this Law was that of the Legislator of the Jews, which passage can only agree to Moses and his Books. The Talmudists are of the same Opinion. On the the other side St. Justin, and the greatest part of the ancient Fathers, believed, that the Seventy translated all the Bible, because in their time the Greek Version of the Books of Scripture, that are joyned to the five Books of M••ses, went under the name of the Septuagint: But it is far more pro∣bable to believe, that the Seventy only translated the five Books of Moses, and that the following Books were from time to time translated by other Authors, as the difference of the style, that is to be ob∣served between the several Versions, sufficiently shews, since we have not the positive Testimonies of the Seventy to the contrary. But though the Greek Version of the other Books of the Bible, joyned to that of the LXX, was not performed by them, yet we must acknowledge, that it is very ancient, and that the Jews had no other before our Saviour was born.

But after the Christian Religion was setled, as the Christians supported themselves by the Autho∣rity of the Version of the LXX, so some of the Jews resolved to make a new Translation of the Books of the Bible, which as they pretend, should be more conformable to the Hebrew Text, and less favourable to the Christians (l). Aquila the Jew, who lived in the time of Adrian, was the first Man that thought of this design, and after put it into execution, by translating the Hebrew Text into Greek word for word. Afterwards Theodotion (m), a Disciple of Tatian, who after turned Marcionite, and at last a Jew, and flourished in the time of the Emperor Commodus, made another Greek Version of the whole Bible, in which, as he does not confine himself so closely to the Letter, as Aquila did,

so neither does he depart so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from it as Sy•…•… (n), the Author of the third Version, who lived in th•• time of the Emperor 〈◊〉〈◊〉. He had formerly been a Jew, and at last went over to the Sect of th•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ which c•…•… up very near to 〈◊〉〈◊〉. His Version is much freer, and he only concerns •…•…self to render the 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ without 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at the words (o). In the time of the Emperor Cara∣•…•…a there was another Ver•…•… of the Books of the Bible ••ound, or at least of one part thereof, and li•…•…wise a sixth under •…•…r the Son of M•…•…, which is called the Nicopolitan. Lastly, Origen added a Seventh Version, but that reached the Psalms only. The Hexapla, and Tetrapla of Origen were composed of these Vers•…•…. In the H•…•… they were joyned to the Hebrew Text written two ways, that is to say, in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Characters, and in Hebrew Characters, and this composed the two first Columns of the Work: In the third Column •…•…od Aq•…•…'s Translation, which was joyned to the He∣brew T•…•…, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 following the l•…•…r more religiously than any of the rest. The Version of the Sep∣•…•… was •…•…d between th•…•… of Sy•…•… and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and so these three Versions composed three Column••▪ the two other Versions were ranked in the two last Columns, and the Seventh, which was of the B••••k of Psalms, in the ninth Column. I think that this Work ought rather to be called Octapla than H•…•…, being composed of eight Columns; and therefore some have believed, that the Hexapla did not con•…•… the fifth and sixth Version, but only the other four; and that these two Versions ha∣ving been added since Origen▪ they then made Octapla of them. But E••sebius, and (p) St. ••erome, with several of the ancient Writers, make no distinction at all between the Octapla and Hexapla, but only between the Tetrapla and the Hexapla, and plainly affirm, that both the fifth and sixth Version were in the Hexapla of Origen, and even the seventh of the Book of Psalms. Therefore we must either say, that they counted not the two Columns of the Hebrew Text, or else, that the fifth and sixth Versions were ••nly of some particular Books of the Bible; and that thus the same Work of Origen had six Columns in some places, in others eight, and even nine in the Psalms, but that they were called Hexapla, either because there were generally but six Columns▪ or because the fifth and sixth Columns were afterwards added. And this appears to be the opinion of St. Epiphanius, which the Learned H••etius has so excellently explained. In the Tetrapla, that were made after the Hexapla, Origen has retrenched the fifth and sixth Versions, as also the two Columns of the Hebrew Text, so that they are only composed of the Versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theo∣do••ion. We must still observe, that the Version of the Sep••uagint, that was in the Hexapla, and Te∣trapla, was corrected and augmented in several places, yet without being changed. For Origen added there some passages taken from Theodotion, which he marked with an Asterisk, and as▪ for those places, that as he supposed ought to be cut off, and retrenched, he inclosed them between two Hooks. Since that there have been three Versions of the Sept••agint used in the Church. The first is the ancient or vulgar, and was received by L••cian, it was used at Constantinople, and in the East. The second was that of Hesy••hius, which they used in Alexandria, and all over Egypt. Lastly the third, which was used in Palestine, was the same with that, which was in the Hexapla of Origen, and which Eusebius and Pamphilus transcribed, and published separately. Here, says St. Jerome, are the three different Versions of Scripture, that divide the whole Earth. Totúsque orbis hac inter se trifariâ varietate com∣p•…•…gnat. I shall not say any thing about the Authority of the Version of the Septuagint, compared with that Hebrew Text, because it is a great and famous Question that does not in the least concern that design I have proposed to my self.

NOTES.

(a) WERE almost all written in Hebrew.] We must except Judith, Tobit, some Chapters of Daniel, and some of the first Book of Ezrah, which are written in Chaldee, and some o∣ther Chapters of the same Prophet Daniel, with the Books of the Maccabees that are written in Greek.

(b) The Characters which Moses made use of, &c. were the Samaritan.] This opinion was taken for granted in St. Jerome's time, as he himself observes in his Preface to the Kings, and it is confirmed by ancient Medals, where we find this Inscription, Holy Jerusalem, written in Hebrew in the Samari∣tan Characters; and this could not be written af∣ter the division of the Tribes, for at that time the Samaritans did not consider Jerusalem as an Holy City.

(c) Gave it to the Men of Cuth.] 'Tis far more probable, that the Men of C••th had the Books of the Law rather from the Israelites than the Jews. In the first place, because they preserved them written in the ancient Character, which makes it evident, that they did not receive them after the Captivity, since the Jews at that time wrote in Syria••k Characters. Secondly, because the Col∣lection of the Sacred Books amongst the Samari∣tans only contained the Pentateuch, and conse∣quently they received them of the Israelites, who acknowledged no other Books but these to be sa∣cred, and not of the Jews, who admitted the rest.

(d) Ezrah having reviewed and gathered toge∣ther the Books of the Bible.] I have followed the common opinion of the Jews and Holy Fathers, who ascribe the collecting and revising of the Sa∣cred Volumns of the Old Testament to Ezrah: Others are of opinion, that it was Nehemiah that took this care, but let the matter be how it will,

certain it is, that the Jews at their return from the Babylonian Captivity, took care to search after, and gather their Books together. The Author of the fourth Book of Esdras, which is a Book full of falsities and fictions, supposeth, that all the Copies of the Sacred Books being burnt or lost, Ezrah dictated them all anew by a Divine Inspiration. We have this ••able at length in the 14th Chap∣ter of this Book, where it is tack'd to several other foolish Whimsies. St. Clement of Alexandria, Theo∣doret, and St. Basil have followed this opinion, without reflecting upon it; but others who have used more precaution in this matter, are content to say with us, that Ezrah▪ collected, review'd, digested, and put in order the Books of Holy Scripture, when there were many Copies of it as yet remaining. This is the opinion of St. Iren•…•…us, Tertullian, St. Jerome, St. C••••ysostom, the Author of the Abridgment of the Bible, commonly attri∣buted to St. Athanasius, and of several others. The first opinion is not only extremely prejudicial to Religion, but impossible to be maintain'd. For, first, What probability is there, that the Jews du∣ring the Captivity, should lose all the Copies of that Book, for which they always preserved so profound a veneration, and which was the foun∣dation of their Religion? Why should we think, that not one single Man amongst them kept it by him? Is it credible, that Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jeremiah, were deprived of reading the Books of the Law? Can one conceive, that Ezrab had no other knowledge of them than by Inspiration? He, I say, that was so learned a Doctor of the Law of Moses at the time when he was in Babylon, as it appears, ch. 7. v. 6. of the first Book of Ez∣rah. 2. We ought to make the same reflection upon the Israelites of the Ten Tribes. Now it is not probable, that they did not carry the Holy Books along with them. The Book of Tobit in∣forms us, that Tobit read the Prophecy of Amos, Tob. c. 2. v. 6. 3. And 3dly, is it not past dispute, that the Men of Cuth preserved the Pentateuch, which the Israelites of the Ten Tribes gave them? 4. It appears by the 9th Chapter of Daniel, that the Jews had the Books of Moses, and read them during the Captivity. All Israel, says this Pro∣phet, have transgressed thy Law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice, and therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the Law of Moses, because we have sinned against him. And a little lower, All this evil is come upon us, as it is written in the Law of Moses. 5. It is said in the sixth Chapter of the Book of Ezrah, that the building of the Temple was finished in the sixth year of Darius, and that the Priests and Levites were established in their Ministerial Fun∣ctions, as it is written in the Law of Moses. Sicut scriptum est in lege Moysis. Now Ezrah was not yet come up to Jerusalem, for it is related in the following Chapter, that he arrived in Judea in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes. 6. In the se∣cond Book of Ezrah, ch. 8. the People being de∣sirous to be instructed in the Law of Moses, did not request him to dictate it to them anew, but only to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had given to the People of Israel. Et dixerunt Esdrae scribae, ut afferret librum legis Moysis quam praeceperat Deus Israeli. And it is said immediately after, that Ezrah brought the Book of the Law, and read it before all the Peo∣ple. It will be said perhaps, that I have borrow∣ed these Reasons out of another Mans Book, I own it, but I thought they were suitable to the present occasion.

(e) It is very certain, that at first this Lan∣guage was not common to all the Jews.] This is a∣bundantly proved against the common opinion, by what is said in the Book of Nehemiah, ch. 13. v. 24. that the Children of the Jews who had Married strange Women, spoke Asotice and not Judaice. In the Hebrew the words are Ashdodith, and Jehudith, and this last word in the second Book of Kings, ch. 18. v. 26. is opposed to A∣ramith, which signifies in Syriack, Precamur loqua∣ris nobis Syriace & non Judaice; in the first Book of Ezrah, ch. 4. v. 7. and in the Prophet Daniel, ch. 2. v. 4. Aramith has still the same signification. On the contrary Jehudith signifies the Hebrew Tongue in opposition to the Syriack, as we may see in the second Book of Chron. ch. 32. v. 18. 2 Kings, 18. 26. and in Isaiah, ch. 36. v. 11. There were several Jews therefore in the time of Ezrah that still spoke Hebrew. And this is evidently proved by the Books of Ezrah that were made since the Captivity, and yet were written in He∣brew, and not in Chaldee, except some Chapters of the first Book of Ezrah, where he tells us of the opposition, that the Officers of the King of Per∣sia, who spoke Chaldee, gave to the Jews. From whence it follows, that the Jews both understood and spoke Hebrew. For otherwise why should Ezrah, if he designed to have his Books intelli∣gible by all the Jews, write them in a Language, which was not natural to them. The same con∣sideration will hold good as to the Books of the latter Prophets, who wrote in Hebrew after the Captivity, and yet addressed their Prophecies to all the People. But lastly, that which admits of no reply, is a remarkable passage in the Book of Ne∣hemiah, ch. 8. and 9. where we find, that the Law was read in Hebrew before the People, and all the People hearkened to it, and understood it; These Remarks have been lately made by a very Inge∣nious and Learned Person. Mr. Simon indeed brags, that he has invincible Reasons to overthrow them; When he has honoured the World with a Sight of them, we shall see whether they are powerful enough to make us retract this opinion, as he would willingly perswade us they are; but in the mean time he ought not to take it amiss, if till then, we continue in the same mind.

(f) The Syriack Tongue mix'd with Hebrew Words became the vulgar Language of the Jews, which was afterwards called the Hebrew Tongue.] The truth of this appears by the Hebrew Words that we find in the New Testament, which are all, as St. Jerome observes, Syriack Words, and what our blessed Saviour says,

That not one Iota of the Law of God shall pass away, &c.

makes it evident, that the Jews at that time used the pre∣sent Hebrew Alphabet, and not the ancient, and it is demonstrated from hence, that the▪ of the Jews was a little Letter, which is true of the Sy∣riack [and Hebrew] J••d, and not of the Samaritan, which has three Feet.

(g) The Chaldee Paraphras•••• which we have seen to be of a l••ter date.] The C••••ldee Para∣phrase is divided into three Parts▪ The first, that contains the Pentateuch, is attributed to O••kelos; the second, that contains the Prophets, to Jona∣than; the third, to one Josephus the blind. There is likewise another Paraphrase of the Pentateuch, called that of Jerusalem, and another of the Can∣ticles; but all these Paraphrases are imperfect, as well as new. Since that time the Jews having committed to writing abundance of Traditions in a Book which they call Misna, they afterwards composed Commentaries upon it, whereof the most celebrated is called the G••mera. But all these Books are full of ridiculous foolish Fictions, and have nothing common with the Scripture; The Masora, that is, a sort of a Critical Perfor∣mance upon the Bible, is of more use and advan∣tage. The Follies and Whimsies of the Cabala are impertinent and impious.

(h) About the year of our Lord 500, the Jews of Tiberias invented the Points.] These Points were not used in St. Jerom's time, as may be easi∣ly proved from several Passages of this Father drawn out of his 22th Question upon Jeremiah, and out of his Commentary upon Habakkuk, in Chap. 3. Vers. 20. which abundantly shew, that in his time the Pronunciation of the Hebrew Words was not determined by the Points, as it has been since.

(i) I am of opinion, that one cannot absolutely deny, that there was a Greek Version of the Books of the Bible made in the time of Ptolomy Philadel∣phus.] It is not credible, that the Authors of the Books attributed to Aristeas and Aristobulus en∣tirely invented the whole History, and that there is no part of it true. 'Tis sar more probable, that they only added several Circumstances to the Mat∣ter of Fact, which was assuredly certain. Mr. Si∣mon imagines, that this Version was called the Septuagint, beause it was approved by the Sane∣drim, but this is a Conjecture without any Foundation.

(k) Some of the Fathers have believed this Fiction of the Talmudists.] The Author of the Discourse against the Greeks, attributed to St. Ju∣stin, St. Irenaeus, and St. Clement, believed it, St. Austin questioned and doubted the truth of it, St. Jero•••• laughs at it.

(l) Aquila the Jew.] A certain Syriack Au∣ther▪ ••ited by Monsieur Le J••i [the Publisher of the French Po••••g••••ot▪] tells us, that he was descend∣ed from Adrian, and adds many other Passages 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are extremely improbable. St. Jerom assures us, that he was a Jew, in his Commentary upon the third Chapter of Habakkuk, upon the third of Isaiah, and in his Epistle to Marcellus.

(m) Theodotion the Disciple of Tatian.] St. Jerom's Testimony confirms what we have said here, St. Iren••••s names him in his Book against H••••esy, from whence it follows, that he lived when Elut••erius was Pope.

(n) Symmachus, &c.] What we say concern∣ing this Man, is taken out of St. Jerom in his Pre∣face upon Job; Eusebius also says, l. 6. c. 7. that he was an Ebionite; and this is the reason why Hil••ry the Deacon Author of The Commentary of St. Paul, attributed to St. Ambrose, calls the Ebionites S•…•…∣machians.

(o) We yet find another Version of the Bible in the time of the Emperor Caracalla.] St. Epiphani∣us is of opinion, that this fifth Version was found at Jericho, the Author of The Abridgment attribu∣ted to St. Athanasius is of the same opinion: But Eusebius following the Testimony of Origen, tells us, that the sixth was found at Nicopolis; that we don't know where Origen found the fifth; and that the seventh, which was only a Version of the Psalms, was found at Jericho. Consult Euseb. l. 6. c. 16. St. Jerom assures us, that all these Transla∣tions were made by Jews.

(p) Eusebius, St. Jerom, and several other An∣cients, make no distinction between the Octapla from the Hexapla.] They place the fifth, sixth, and seventh Version, in what they call the Hex∣apla. St. Epiphanius, in his Book of Weights and Measures, speaks of the Octapla, but as of a Work which was not distinguished from the Hex∣apla, for after he has described the Hexapla, h•• adds, And if we find there the fifth and sixth Ver∣sion added, it follows that we ought to call them Octapla. These Columns were unquestionably written upon different Rolls, that were fasten'd one to the side of another.