The reasonableness and certainty of the Christian religion by Robert Jenkin ...

CHAP. V. Of the various Readings in the Old and New Testament.

IT is to be observ'd, that an extrardinary Providence has in a great measure secur'd the Holy Scriptures from those Casualties which are incident to humane Writings. For the great Antiquity of many Books of the Scrip∣tures, beyond that of any other Books in the World, the multitude of Copies, which have been taken in all Ages and Nations, the dif∣ficulty to avoid mistakes in transcribing Books, in a Language which has so many of its Let∣ters and of its Words themselves so like one another, the defect of the Hebrew Vowels, and the late invention (as it is generally now acknowledged) of the Points, the change of the Samaritan, or ancient Hebrew for the present Hebrew Character, the captivity of the whole Nation of the Jews for seventy years, and the mixtures and changes, which were during that time, brought into their Language; in short, all the accidents which have ever happened to occasion errors or mistakes in any Book, have concurred to cause them in the Old Testament; and yet the dif∣ferent Readings are much fewer, and make

much less alteration in the sense, than those of any other Book of the same bigness, and of any Note and Antiquity, if all the Copies should be carefully examined, and every little variation as punctually set down, as those of the Scriptures have been. But tho from hence it may appear, that a peculiar provi∣dence has been concerned in the preservation of the Books of the Scriptures, yet from hu∣mane considerations and arguments, we may likewise be assured, that nothing prejudicial to the Authority of the Scriptures has hap∣pened by any of these means.

1. The defect in the Hebrew Vowels, and the late Invention of the Points is no preju∣duce to the Authority of the Bible, as we now have it. Tho the Points, which criti∣tically determine the exact Reading of the Hebrew Tongue, be of a later invention, yet that Tongue was never without its Vowels. For Aleph, Vau, and Jod, and (which some add) He and Gnajm, before the invention of the Points, were used as Vowels, as it is evidently proved from Josephus, Origen, and St Jerom, by the best Criticks in that Language. It must in∣deed be confest, that these Vowels could not be so effectual to ascertain the true Reading, as the Points have since been, but whatever defect there might be in the Vowels, it was supplied by constant use and practice, and by some general Rules, which they observed in

the Reading. The Bible being a Book which by Divine Commandment was so often and carefully read both in publick and private, the Hebrew Text might be exact∣ly read, and the true sense certainly re∣tain'd and known; and it is no wonder, that by constant use and continual practice and custom from their infancy, the Jews could read it with ease and readiness without Points, which is no more than is ordinarily done now by men, who are skilful in that Language, and divers have attain'd to it by their own observation and industry. If there were the more difficulty in the Hebrew Tongue before the invention of Points, there was the more care and study used about it, the Jews having times purposely set apart, for the read∣ing of the Law, studied it with that diligence and exactness, that they knew it as well as they did their own Names, or better. Jo∣sephus expresses it, if that were possible; and they used so great accuracy both in their Pro∣nouncing and Writing, that there could be no danger, that any considerable mistake should be occasioned by any defect in the Vowels, before the Points were found out. This was a great part of the Jewish Learning, (as † Bishop Walton observes) the true Reading of the Text, and they who were most accurate and exact therein, were honoured most amongst 'em, and had their Schools, and their Scholars and Disciples, whom they instructed from time to time, till at

length in regard of their many dispersions and banishments, that the true reading might not be lost with the Language, they began to affix Points to the Text, as well to facilitate the reading, as to preserve it the better from any alteration or change.

But this is an objection, which never could have been made but in the Western parts of the world; for in the East they commonly write yet without points, as the Jews likewise write the Western Languages, where they live, without points, in the Hebrew Character. The Samaritans still have no points. And † the Children of the Turks, Arabians, and Persians, and generally of all the Mahometans, learn to read without them. Isaac Vossius says the Asiaticks laugh at the Europeans, be∣cause they cannot read as they do without Vowels. † Schickard confest, that he had known Children of seven years of age, read the Pentateuch meerly by use. Clenard, and Erpenius himself, who was so famous for the Arabick, and other Eastern Languages, both of them declared, that they learned the Ara∣bick only by their own study and diligence from Books without points: and Arpenius had attained to such accuracy in that Language, before he had read any Book with the points, that Isaac Casaubon so far approved of the Translation which he had then made, of the Arabick Nubian Geography into Latin, that he was very earnest with him to publish it. Lu∣dovicus

Capellus besides gives an instance from his own knowledge of one, who when he had scarce been taught the Arabick Alphabet, made a great progress in that Tongue in four months, only by his own industry, and with∣out the help of points.

All these things considered, it would be a strange Paradox to pretend, that there is no certainty in the Ancient Eastern way of wri∣ting, and that no body can certainly know what their Authors meant, nay, that they did not know one anothers meaning, as well as we do now in our manner of writing, before some certain time, when the points are sup∣posed to be first found out.

II. The change of the Old Hebrew Cha∣racter into that now in use, is no prejudice to the Authority of the Hebrew Text. Be∣cause this was but the writing over that, which was before in one Alphabet into ano∣ther, the Language being still the same: and this, if it were done with sufficient care (as we have all the reason in the world to believe it was) could make no material mistakes, and we find it hath not, by the agreement between the Hebrew and the Samaritan Pentateuch still extant.

III. The Keri and the Kelib, or the diffe∣rence in some places between the Text and the Marginal Reading, is no prejudice to the Authority of the Scripture. For as the vari∣ous Lections of the Bible are much fewer,

considering the Antiquity of it, and the vast numbers of Copies, which have been tran∣scribed in all Ages and Countreys, than those of any other Book: so many of them may be easily reconciled, and the occasion of them as easily discovered. Some of them were occa∣sioned by the likeness of several of the Hebrew Letters, which were not easily to be distin∣guisht in Books written in such small Cha∣racters, as St Jerome complains were used in writing the Hebrew Bibles of his time. O∣thers happen'd from Abbreviations, and some might proceed from Marginal Glosses.

It must likewise be observ'd, that all the words we meet with in the Margin of the He∣brew Bibles, are not to be look'd upon as vari∣ous Lections, for divers of them were placed there by the Jews out of superstition, because they scrupled to pronounce certain words, and therefore appointed others to be read in their stead. But when the Jews were dispersed into divers Countreys, their Dialect or manner of Pronunciation must needs be different, and as the same words were pronounced different∣ly, so they would in time be differently writ∣ten, which gave one chief occasion to the va∣rious Lections in the old Testament, for from the emulation between the Schools of the Jews at Babylon and those at Jerusalem, there arose a set of various Lections under the Title of of the Eastern and the Western Readings, but it is acknowledged, that they † are of no mo∣ment,

and that as to the sense, it is much at one which reading is admitted, for they con∣cern matters of Orthography, rather then of Orthodoxy, as Buxtorf speaks; and the Jews of Palestine and of Europe, who follow the Western Readings, yet do not altogether re∣ject the Eastern; but in some editions have printed them both. The different readings of Ben Ascher and Ben Naphtali had the same original, the Eastern Jews following the one, and the Western observing the other, but these concern the Points and Accents only, and not either the Words or Letters.

There is no Antient Book in the World, of which we can be certain, that we rightly un∣derstand it, if it be necessary to the right un∣derstanding of a Book, that it be without vari∣ous Lections; for what Book is there without 'em, or what Book of the same bigness, and of any Antiquity, has so few various Lections as the Bible? and what Book can be Transcribed or Printed, but it is liable to have mistakes made in it.

IV. No difference between the Hebrew Text and the Septuagint, and other Versions, or be∣tween the several Versions themselves, is any prejudice to the Authority of the Scriptures, nor can prove that the Hebrew Text was ever different in any thing material from what it is now. The Translation of the Septuagint , as it hath been observed from St. Jerom, and others, is in many places rather a Comment or Para∣phrase than a strict Version, and gives the

sense rather than the words of the Hebrew Texts. Many times there is supposed to be a difference, where there is none, for want of a sufficient knowledge of the Original, as † Dr Pocock has shewn in divers Instances, and Bp Pearson in others, besides what has been writ∣ten by Isaac Vossius to this purpose: and one very skilful in the Oriental Tongues, had undertaken to shew the agreement between Hebrew and and the Septuagint throughout, and had made a considerable Progress in the work, as Bishop Walton informs us. Other differences proceed from the mistakes of Tran∣scribers, as it must needs happen in Books, of which so many Copies have been taken in all Ages; and from the rashness of Criticks in making unnecessary alterations, or by insert∣ing into the Text such Notes, as were at first placed only for explication in the Mar∣gin. In some things of less consequence the Translators might be mistaken, or they might follow a different Copy.

The Authority of the Text of Scripture is greatly confirmed from the citations of the Greek and Latin Fathers, from whence it ap∣pears that in the several Ages of the Greek and Latin Churches, the Copies which they made use of had no such variations from those we now use, as to be of any ill consequence in matters of Religion.

As to the Imputation that was charged up∣on the Jews by some of the Fathers, that

they had corrupted the Scriptures in such places, as according to the Translation of the Septuagint, and the sense of their Ancestors must prove the Truth of the Christian Religion against them; this is to be understood of the Versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodosian, who being all either profest Jews, or Judai∣zing Hereticks, designed their Translations to countenance their own errors, especially Aquila, who undertook his Version, purpose∣ly to oppose that of the Septuagint. For it is now generally agreed, that the Jews ne∣ver deserved the Censure of having corrupted the Hebrew Text, tho they perverted the sense of it, and where there were various Readings, chose to follow that which was most favou∣rable to their own pretences, tho it were in contradiction to the Judgment of their Fore∣fathers, as well as the Christians. Philo in a discourse cited by Eusebius (who thereby owns the Truth of it) said, that for the space of above two thousand years there had not been a word altered in the Law, but that the Jews would chuse to dye never so many deaths rather than they would consent to any thing in prejudice of it. And▪ † Josephus declares of the whole Old Testament, that it had suffer∣ed no alteration from the beginning down to his own Time. Morinus himself, whatever he hath elsewhere said to the contrary, declares in a Letter to Dr Comber Dean of Carlisle, that he supposes no man can doubt, but that the

Jewish Copies, caeteris paribus, are to be prefer∣red before any Copies of the Samaritans, which he in his Writings so highly magnifies.

It must be acknowledged that the numbring of the Verses and Words and Letters, and the observing which was the middle Letter of e∣very Book, could signify little to the securing of the Hebrew Text entire, because there may be the same number of Verses, and Words, and Letters in different Books, and the same Number of Letters may make up different Words, and the same Words diversely placed and apply'd, may express a very different sense: nor could there be any charm in a word, that stood in the midst of a Book, to keep all the rest in their proper places. But this scrupulous and even superstitious diligence of the Jews, in little things is an evi∣dence of their constant study of the Scri∣ptures, and of the great value and reve∣rence they had for it, so that they would nei∣ther corrupt it themselves, nor suffer it to be corrupted by others, but were careful and zealous to preserve every ever letter and tittle; and as I observed before from Josephus, they were so well acquainted with it, that he thought he could not fully enough express their skill and accuracy, but by saying that they knew it better than their own names.

V. It is evident, and confest by the Cri∣ticks, that neither by these, nor by any other means, any such difference is to be found in the several Copies of the Bible, as to prejudice

the fundamental Points of Religion, or wea∣ken the Authority of the Scriptures. All re∣lating to this controversy has been eagerly debated by contending parties, who yet agree in this, whatever they differed in besides, that the various Lections do not invalidate the au∣thority of the Scriptures, nor render them in∣effectual to the end and design of a Divine Re∣velation, inasmuch as all the various Lections taken together, are no preiudice to the Ana∣logy of Faith, nor to any Points necessary to Salvation. Ludovicus Cap∣pellus, who had studied this subject as much as any man, and was as well able to judge of it, after the strictest examination he could make, found, that the things rela∣ting either to Faith or Pra∣ctice, are plainly contained in all Copies, whatever dif∣ference there is in lesser things, as in matters of Chronology, which depend upon the al∣teration, or the omission or addition of a Letter, or in the Names of Men, or of Cities or Countreys. But the fundamen∣tal Doctrines of Religion are so dispersed throughout the Scriptures, that they could receive no damage nor alteration, unless the whole Scriptures should have been changed. Wherefore not only the most learned Prote∣stants,

but † Bellarmin himself, and the best Criticks amongst the Papists have acknow∣ledged, that all things relating to Articles of Faith, and Rules of Life, are delivered intire and uncorrupted in the Scriptures, notwithstanding the various Lections. And tho some of the Roman Communion have en∣deavoured to prove the necessity of an infalli∣ble Church, by Arguments drawn from hence, yet says Bishop Walton, I do not re∣member, that in any particular controversy be∣tween them and us, they urge any one place of Scripture, for their cause, upon the uncertainty of the Reading without Points, which plainly shews, that there is no such uncertainty in the Text un∣pointed, as is pretended. F. † Simon complains, that the Catalogues of various Lections are much larger than they ought to be, and that for the most part they are of no moment, and he charges Cappellus more than once, with multiplying 'em without Reason. Morinus indeed made it his endeavour to lessen the authority of the Hebrew Text in favour of the Septuagint, and the Vulgar Latin, but his Authority is very in∣considerable, when compared with those of the same Communion, who have declared themselves against his opinion. In the life of Morinus, written by F. Simon, there is this Character of Cappellus and Morinus, that if

they be compared as to what they have both written concerning the Bible, Morinus, shews more learning in his Books, but it is very of∣ten not to the purpose, whereas Cappellus has more sagacity and judgment, and never wan∣ders from his subject, but proves what he is upon by the strongest Arguments. And as se∣vere as this Censure may seem to be, yet it is justified in effect, by the confession of Morinus himself. For he † acknowledgeth to Buxtorf that he never throughly applied himself to the study of the Hebrey Tongue, that he had read nothing in Hebrew for 7 years together, and that therefore he did not question, but he had made many mistakes, especially in his Samari∣tan Exercitations, great part of which were written in hast, and he was forc'd to use such a variety of Authors, that he believes it im∣possible, but that he must have been often mi∣staken. The Authority of Morinus then sig∣nifies nothing in prejudice to the Hebrew Text And Spinoza himself has owned, that he could for certain affirm, that he had observed no fault nor various reading, which con∣cerned the Moral Precepts, that cou'd render them obscure or doubtful.

Bishop Walton has with great learning and judgment, summed up the Arguments on al•• sides, and as † F. Simon acknowledgeth, ha••

examined this matter with more exactness than all that had gone before him. His Po∣lyglot Bibles give an ocular demonstration to the truth of what he maintains, that there is nothing of consequence, either as to Faith or Practice, concerned in the difference of the several Copies of the Hebrew Text, or of the several Versions. And as many Sects and Di∣visions as there are amongst Christians, and as many different Translations as they make use of, they all acknowledge the Authority of the originals, and their Translations in the main are the same, however they disagree in rendring some particular passages, which con∣cern the different opinions of the several par∣ties, and upon that account maintain their own Translation to be more correct than o∣thers. If we allow of Mr Selden's Judg∣ment, who was very able to make a true one, and far enough from being prejudiced in the case, he says, the English Translation of the Bible is the best Translation in the world, and renders the sense of the Original best, taking in for the English Translation the Bishop's Bible, as well as King James's. However, by dif∣ferent Translations, and by comparing divers Copies and Versions to make out the true Reading, many Texts become better under∣stood, and more fully explained, than if there had been but one Reading, and no difference in the Translations.

VI. And no less may be said in behalf of the New Testament than of the Old; for the Books of it were kept from the beginning as a Sa∣cred Treasure, with great care and reverence, and were constantly read in the Christian As∣semblies, and soon translated into all Lan∣guages. The Primitive Christians chose to undergo any Torments, rather than they would deliver up the Books of Scripture to their Persecutors to be destroyed, and they were no less careful to preserve them uncor∣rupted by Hereticks. Besides, when Hereticks attempted to corrupt any Text of Scripture to serve their particular Heresies, they were de∣clared against not only by the Orthodox, but by other Hereticks, who were not concerned for those opinions, in behalf whereof the corruption was intended. So that it was im∣possible for any corruptions to be imposed up∣on the Church, or to pass undiscovered even by some of the Hereticks themselves. They must be designed for some end, and to autho∣rize some particular Doctrines, and then all, who were not for those Doctrines, and more especially those who were against them, would certainly oppose such corruptions.

The agreement likewise of the Greek Text of the New Testament, with the several an∣cient Versions, and with the quotations found in the Writings of the Fathers, who cited and alledged them from the times of the Apo∣stles, proves that there have been no alterati∣ons

of any such consequence as to make the Scriptures insufficient for the ends of a Divine Revelation. If any man be of another opi∣nion, let him instance in any one Article of Faith, or Rule of Life, which cannot be proved from the Scriptures. It is not enough for him to shew, that some one or more Texts, which have been brought in proof of it, are disputed, but he must shew that it can be proved by no Text, which is clear and undisputed.

The various Lections of the Holy Scriptures are so far from being an Argument against their Authority, that they rather help to prove it, since they are comparatively so few in a Book of so great Antiquity. For no care and regard, inferiour to that, which we must suppose men to have of a Book, which they are convinced is of Divine Authority, could have produced a less variety of Readings in a Book of much less Antiquity. They are all of no consequence to the prejudice of the end and design of a Revelation; and therefore they come under the number of such Acci∣dents, as God cannot be obliged in his pro∣vidence to prevent. But the Bible could not without the signal providence of God, have been preserved for so many ages, under so many changes and revolutions, which the Wisdom of God, for reasons elsewhere ob∣served, saw fit to permit, much less could it have escaped with so inconsiderable variati∣ons,

unless it has been secured by a particular providence, from those corruptions and al∣terations, which are so frequent in Humane Writings.

Notes

• Vid. Wal∣ton. Prolegom. iii. s. 49.
• Joseph. contr. Ap. lib. ii.
• †

  Consi∣derat. considere c. x. S. 8.
• Walt. Prole∣gom iii. s. 40. Morin-Epist. 15. & 70. in∣ter Anti∣quit. Eccl. Orient.
• †

  Joseph. Scalig. E∣pist. 243.
• Voss. de Sibyll. Orac.
• †

  Walt. Prole∣gom. iii. s. 50.
• Lud. Capel. de Punct. Hebr. An∣tiqu. lib. ii. c. 27. s. 4, 5, 6.
• Hieron. Proaem. in Ezech. Comment lib. 8.
• †

  Vid. Walt. Proleg. 8. S. 28.
• Id. Pro∣leg. iv. s. 9.
• Id. Pro∣legom. ix. s. ••2. & x. s. 8.
• †

  Pocock Append. ad Por••. Mos. c. 1, 2, 3, 4. Pears. Praef. ad Septuag. Edit. Can∣tab. Is. Voss. de lxx. Inter∣pret. Walt▪ Proleg. ix. 46.
• Euseb. Praepar. Evang. lib. viii. c. 6.
• †

  Contra Apion. lib. i.
• Antiqu. Eccl. Ori∣ent. Epist. 38.
• Non minus ex ijs, quae supra disputata sunt, planum est, id, quod statim libri pri∣mi initio monuimus, & saepi∣us toto opere inculcavimus, pleras{que} omnes, quae observa∣ri & deprehendi in sacris li∣bris possunt, varias Lectiones, levissimi esse ac pene nullius momenti, ut parum admo∣dum intersit, aut vero perin∣de omnino sit, utram sequa∣ris, sive hanc, sive illam. Lu∣dovic. Cappel. Crit. Sacr. lib. 6. c. 2.
• †

  Caeterum non tanti mo∣menti sunt ejusmodi errores, ut in iis, quae ad sidem & bo∣nos mores pertinent, Scriptu∣rae Sacrae integritas desidere∣tur. Plerum{que} enim tota dis∣crepantia variarum Lectio∣num in Dictionibus quibus∣dam posita est, quae sensum aut parum, aut nihil mutant. Bellarmin. De Verbo Dei lib. ii. c. 2.
• Considera∣tor consi∣dered, ch. 12. s. 4.
• †

  Hist. Crit. V. T. lib. 3. c. 23.
• Joh. Morin. Vita.
• †

  Epist. 70. inter Antiqu. Eccl. O∣rient.
• Hoc certo af∣firmare possum me nul∣lam ani∣madver∣tisse men∣••••m, nec Lectionum varietatem, circa moralia documenta, quae ip•••• obscura aut dubia reddere possunt Tractat. Theolog. Polit. c. 9.
• †

  Crit. Hist. V. T. lib. 3. c. 21.
• Table-Talk.