corrupt and vitiated that it plainly appears to be another, lib. ii. De Verbo Dei, cap. vi.
He that shall read and consider what Jerome hath written of this translation, even then when he was excusing himself, and conde- scending to the utmost to waive the envy that was coming on him upon his new translation, in the second book of his Apology against Rufinus, cap. viii. ix., repeating and mollifying what he had spoken of it in another place, will be enabled in some measure to guess of what account it ought to be with us. In brief, he tells us it is cor- rupted, interpolated, mingled by Origen with that of Theodotion, marked with asterisks and obelisks; that there were so many copies of it, and they so varying, that no man knew what to follow (he tells us of a learned man who on that account interpreted all the errors he could light on for Scripture) ; that in the book of Job, take away what was added to it by Origen, or is marked by him, and little will be left. His discourse is too long to transcribe. See also his Epistle to Chromatius at large to this purpose. Let the reader also consult the learned Masius, in his preface to his most learned Comment on Joshua.
For the translations of the New Testament that are here afforded us, little need be spoken. Of the antiquity, usefulness, and means of bringing the Syriac into Europe, an account hath been given by many, and we willingly acquiesce in it. The Ethiopian and Per- sian are novel things, of little use or value; yea, I suppose it may safely be said they are the worst and most corrupt that are extant in the world. The Persian was not translated out of the Greek, as is confessed by the learned annotator upon it, " Praesens locus satis ar- guit, Persam Grsecum codicem baud consuluisse,'' in Luc. x. et 41. Yea, in how many things he goes off from the Greek, Syriac, Arabic, yea, goes directly contrary to the truth, is both acknowledged by its publisher and is manifest from the thing itself I know no use of it but only to show that such a useless thing is in the world.^ Nor is the Ethiopian one whit better, — a novel endeavour of an illiterate person. He tells us that John, when he wrote the Reve- lation, was archbishop of Constantia, or Constantinople, etc. It is to no purpose to go over the like observations that might be made on these translations; if any man hath a mind to be led out of the way, he may do well to attend unto them. Whether some of them be in use now in the world I know not; I am sure it is well if they be not. Had I not seen them, I could not have imagined any had
' " The criticism of the New Testament should discard all Persian versions as worth- less," Dr Davidson, Bib. Ci-it. ii. 222. In regard to the Ethiopic, no great value is attached to it by modern critics, as there is great uncertainty about its origin, and its text has never been vei'y correctly printed. — Ed.
LECTIONS GATHERED OUT OF TRANSLATIONS, 419
been so bad. Would I make it my business to give instances of the mistakes, ignorance, falsifications, errors, and corruptions of these translators, whoever they were (Jews or Christians, for I am not without some gfround of thinkinsf that Jews have had their hands in them for money), my discourse, as I said before, would swell into a volume; and, unless necessitated, I shall avoid it.
From what hath been spoken, it may abundantly appear that if there are indeed such corruptions, mistakes, and errors, crept into the original, as some have pretended, there is no relief in the least pro- vided for the security of truth by any of the translations exhibited unto us in these late editions of the Bible, themselves being of an uncertain original, corrupt, and indeed of no authority from them- selves, but merely from their relation to that whose credit is called in question. For my own part, as I said before, I allow them their pro- per use and place, and am thankful to them by whose care and pains we are made partakers of them ; but to endeavour by them to cor- rect the Scripture, — to gather various lections out of the original, as say others, — for my part I abhor the thought of it; let others do as seems good unto them. And if ever I be necessitated to speak in jDarticular of these translations, there are yet in readiness further dis- coveries to be made of them.^
There remains only, as to my purpose in hand, that some brief account be taken of what is yet further insinuated of the liberty to observe various lections in the Bible, upon supposition of gross corruptions that may be crept into it; as also of the specimen of various lections gathered out of Grotius' Annotations ; and somewhat of the whole bulk of them as presented unto us in the Appendix.
' Ou the important question of the value of ancient translations in criticism, it ia right the modern reader should not be misled. That they ai'e of value, not for the criticism, but the interpretation of the Scriptures, is the position of our author. It cannot be defended ; and the language in ■which he objects to these versions is too un- qualified, although on some points his objections were not destitute of 'weight, and have been confirmed by subsequent inquiries. Ou this subject, — the use of versions in cri- ticism,— we may cite the opinion of the most recent authority, Dr Davidson, in his valuable work on Biblical Criticism. Speaking of the principal versions of the Old Tes- tament,— the Septuagint, the fragments of the other Greek translators, the Pcshito or old Syriac, the Latin of Jerome, the Targums of Jonathan and Oukelos, and the Arabic of Saadias Haggaon, — he remarks, in regard to the supiwsition that they exhibit the text prior to all existing manuscripts, " They do without doubt render tliis important service partially. Their use in the criticism of the Old Testament is great. We have no other aids oif equal value, provided they be rightly applied. Yet they do not give an exact and complete view of the original text, as it was at the time of their origin. They do not yield that important service to sacred literature Avhich they might have done."