in any of the Copies Origen made Ufe of. And that it might be known how much was added by Origen from one of the other Verfions, agreeable to the Hebrew, or what was in the LXX which was not in the the Hebrew, at the End of the Word or Sentence, to which the Obelife or Afterifk was prefixed, he placed this Mark v.

St. Ferom, in his Epiftle to Fretela and Junia, fays, that the Additions which Origen made to the LXX, and marked with an Afterisk, were taken from the Tranflation of Theodotion. And in his Prologue to the Prophecy of Daniel, he fays, Danielem prophetam juxta Septuaginta interpretes Domini Salvatoris Ecclefiæ non iegunt; utentes Theodotionis editione Et hoc cur acciderit nefcio. Which looks as if that Book had been fo corrupted by Tranfcribers, that Origen knew not how to correct it, and therefore placed the Tranflation of Theodotion in the room of it, that being the Verfion he feems to have best approved.

Though Origen's Tetrapla and Hexapla was of great Ufe to thofe who were difpofed diligently to ftudy and understand the Scriptures, yet neither the Hebrew Text, or more than one of all thefe Verfions, could be read in the Church; and as the Verfion of the LXX was what had been read in the Church from the Beginning, fo alfo it continued to be read in all the Greek Churches. For which Reafon, after the Publication of Origen's Hexapla, the Vernon of the LXX, as then corrected, was tranfcribed by itself (with the Afterisks and Obelisks) for the publick Ufe of the Churches. And when that alfo became faulty by frequent Transcripts, about the Year 300 Pamphilus and Eufebius publifhed a very correct Edition of the LXX, according to Origen's Hexapla. But the whole Greek Church did not feem pleafed with what Origen had done; for although all were fenfible, that by the Carelesnefs or Audacioufnefs of Tranfcribers the LXX was become very faulty, yet it is certain they did not receive Origen's Amendments. For Hefychius, an Egyptian Bishop, and Lucian, a Presbyter and Martyr of Antioch, did each of them undertake to make a new and correct Edition of the LXX, about the fame Time that Pamphilus and Eufebius publifhed their Edition of that which had been corrected by Origen; and the Eaftern Part of the Roman Empire, where Greek was vulgarly fpoken, as Latin was in the Western, was divided between these three Editions. For St. Jerom, in his Epiftle to Chromatius, prefixed to his Tranflation of the Books of Chronicles, fays, Alexandria & Ægyptus in Septuaginta fuis Hefychium laudat Authorem. Conftantinopelis ufque Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Media inter has Provincie Paleftinos codices legunt; quas ab Origine elaboratos Eufebius & Pamphilus evulgaverunt. So that at leaft two third Parts of the eastern Church would not receive Origen's Edition as worthy to be read in their publick Affemblies: But one preferred that of Helychius, and the other that of Lucian before it. However Origen's Edition was certainly the best, on Account of the Afterisks and Obelisks: Whereby the Reader might know and diftinguish how and where the Tranflation of the Septuagint differed from the Hebrew Copy, which he and the other Tranflators made Ufe of: Whereas the Corrections made by Hefychius and Lucian being allo made by a Comparison of the LXX with the then Hebrew Copies, without thofe Diftinctions, the Reader could not

diftinguish

diftinguish the pure LXX from the Alterations made by them. What he added from the Hebrew Copy, he marked with an Asterisk, and what was not in the Hebrew Copy, he made Ufe of, he would not leave out, only marked it with an Obelisk, as not knowing but it might be in that Copy of the Hebrew from whence that Tranflation was made. To give an Inftance, Exod. xii. 40. our English Bible, tranflated from the prefent Hebrew Copies, has thus given the Text, Now the fojourn ing of the Children of Ifrael who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty Years. But the LXX has it, Ἡ δὲ παροίκησις τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἣν παρώκησαν ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπλῳ (καὶ ἐν γῇ Χαναὰν αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν) ἔτη τετρακόσια Tgiáxovra. Now thofe Words I have put in a Parenthefis are in the LXX, but not in the prefent Hebrew Copies. Yet we have Reason to believe they were in the Copy from whence the Translation of the LXX was made, and were left out of the prefent Copies by the Carelefness of a Tranfcriber. For they are in the Samaritan Pentateu:, which is but another Copy of the Hebrew: And befides, as the Text ftands in the prefent Hebrew and our English Bibles, it is not true: For the Children of Ifrael were not in Egypt 430 Years, for the Time that they fojourned there was but little more than 200 Years. I know it is faid, that the Text, as it now ftands, does not imply that the Children of Ifrael dwelt or fojourned in Egypt 430 Years, only that they were fo long Sojourners, and dwelt in a Land not their own. But Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, whose fojourning must be brought into this Account of 430 Years, or there will want near 200 Years of that Number, cannot be called the Children of Ifrael; therefore, unless thefe Fathers of the Children of Ifrael are brought into the Account, as in the LXX and the Samaritan Copy, the Text is not true. From whence we may be fatisfied, that this was the true original Reading, and was in that Hebrew Copy from which the Version of the LXX was made.

I have given this Inftance, to fhew that Origen had just Reason not to omit thofe Paffages in the LXX, which he could not find in his Hebrew Copy; fince, notwithstanding it might be in a more ancient Copy from which that Verfion was made, and omitted in the later Hebrew Copies through the Overfight of a Tranfcriber, from whence it would neceffarily be omitted in all the Copies taken from that. Such Omiffions may, and will be often made without Defign, and the most careful Copier in a long Work can hardly fail of being fometimes overfeen. But a Copier can hardly put in a Word or Sentence, which is not in the Book he copies from, through meer Carelefness or Overfight, but must do it defignedly: Therefore I do not fee that we need accufe the Jews of having added to the Text any of thofe Words or Sentences which Origen found to be omitted in the Copies of the LXX, which he collated. They might be in the original LXX, but were omitted by the Overfight of Tranfcribers, which were very numerous, as appears from the Neceffity that was found in all Places to correct their Errors. Neither on the other Hand need we fuppofe that the Words or Sentences which we find in the LXX, which are not in the Hebrew, were added to the Text; they might be in the original Hebrew, but omitted by the Oversight of Tranfcribers, from whence the

Hebrew

Hebrew Copies, which were extant in Origen's Time, were taken. We should not accufe either the Jews or Chriftians of wilfully corrupting the Scriptures, when the Matter may be otherwife fairly accounted for. And for this Reafon I, for my own Part, esteem those Words and Sentences which Origen has marked with an Obelisk to be genuine Parts of Holy Scripture, no less than those he has marked with an Afterisk, or which he has not marked at all. Nay, I doubt not but thofe Texts, which Juftin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho (p. 218, &. Edit. Jebb.) accufes the Jews of having expunged, though they are not now to be found either in the Hebrew or LXX according to the present Copies, were originally in both, and in Juftin's Time, and alfo in that of Irenæus, and were therefore Parts of the Holy Scripture; particularly that Text which he fays was in Jeremiah ; Εμνήσθη δὲ κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἅγιος Ἰσραὴλ τῶν νεκρῶν αὐτοῦ τῶν κεκοιμημένων εἰς γῆν Χώματος, καὶ καλέβη πρὸς αὐτοὺς εὐαγγελίζασθαι αὐτοὶς τὸ σωτήριον αὐτοῦ. Sylburgius, in his Notes on Justin Martyr, and Dr. Grabe, in his Notes on Irenæus, both obferve, that St. Peter appears to have had this Prophecy in his Thoughts, 1 Epift. iv. 6. faying, For this Caufe was the Gospel preached alfo to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to Men in the Flefb, but live according to God in the Spirit.

The Greek Verfions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, are now loft, except Theodotion's Tranflation of the Book of Daniel, as before mentioned, and fome few Fragments of all of them to be found here and there in the Writings of the Ancients, as likewife are thofe of the other two or three Tranflations in Origen's Hexapla, none remaining now intire but the LXX. The Jews, though in their Difperfion before Chrift came, they read the Scriptures in the Greek Tongue according to the LXX in most of their Synagogues, yet afterwards, in Oppofition to the Chriftians, who used that Verfion in the Churches, they determined to read their Scriptures in Hebrew only, or in Hebrew and Chaldee. But it was fome Ages before they could intirely bring this to país. This we learn from a Novel of Juftinian's (Nov. 146.) wherein that Emperor mentions a Contest among the Jews, fome of them maintaining that the Scriptures fhould be read in their Synagogues in the Hebrew Tongue only; and others requiring that they thould be read not in Hebrew only, but also in Greek, or fuch Language as was understood by all. And accordingly he decreed, that it fhould be read in Greek, or fome other vulgar Language, as well as in Hebrew. But notwithstanding this Decree of the Roman Emperor, made about the Year 550, the Jews, who stood for the Hebrew Language only, prevailed at laft. The Jews therefore took no care to preferve the LXX, or any other Greek Tranflation: And the Chriftians took care to preferve only the LXX, which was daily read in all the Greek Churches. But Bishop Walton juftly accufes the Greeks of great Negligence, for not preferving that noble Work of Origen's Hexapla, and contenting themfelves with only taking Copies of the LXX from it.

As there were three Editions of the LXX anciently, of Origen, Hefychius and Lucian, fo, for near 200 Years after the Invention of Printing, there were only three principal Editions of it. The first was printed by the Order, Direction, and at the Charge of Cardinal Ximenes,

Arch

Archbishop of Toledo; who having founded an Univerfity at Complutum, or Alcala, employed the Divines there to print an Edition of the Bible, containing firft the Hebrew Text with the Chaldee Paraphrafe of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, then the Septuagint Greek Verfion of the Old Teftament and the original Greek of the New, and the Latin Verfion of both. The Publishers tell us, that they procured a great Number of MSS. which they collated, which were not common, but the most ancient and correct that they could get, and from thence took the Septuagint they have given us. This Book was printed in 1515; but by Reafon of the Death of Cardinal Ximenes, fome Difputes arifing concerning his Debts and Legacies, and fome Things in his Will, the Book was not published until four Years after. From this Edition have been printed both the Polyglots of Antwerp and Paris: The former of which was published Anno Dom. 1572, and the other 1645; likewife the Septua gint of Commelin, printed at Heidelberg with Vatablus's Commentary, Anno 1599.

While the Complutenfian Bible, though printed, lay unpublished, an Edition of the LXX was published at Venice, Anno Dom. 1518, from the Prefs of Aldus Manutius. The learned Editor Andreas Afculanus, Father-in-law to the Printer, tells us, as the Complutenfian Divines did, that he collated a great many MSS. in order to frame a correct Edition; but, like them, he gives no particular Account what they were, or where to be found. This Edition Bishop Walton judges to be more pure than the Edition of Complutum: For it wants moft of thofe Additions which Origen has put under Afterifks; and has those marked with Obelisks: And thofe Tranfpofitions of Verses and Chapters which the Ancients tell us the LXX had. From this Copy of Aldus all the German Editions, excepting that of Heidelberg before mentioned, have been printed: Only as to the Order of fome Books, Chapters, and Verses, which all the Ancients testify were placed differently from what they are in the Hebrew Copies, they have tranfpofed and placed in the fame Order as they stand in the prefent Hebrew Bibles. Alfo the Books called Apocrypha are not mingled with the canonical, according to the Order of the Hiftory, as all the ancient Books have them; but they are put separately after all the reft, as they are in our modern Tranflations.

But the Roman Edition, made chiefly from a very ancient MS. in the Vatican Library, has obtained the Preference of the other two in the Opinion of most learned Men. The Printing of this Edition was first fet on Foot by Cardinal Montalto, who afterwards becoming Pope under the Name of Sixtus Quintus, at the Time when it was published, Anno Domini 1587, it therefore came out under his Name. He first commended the Work to Pope Gregory the 13th, and by his Advice the Work was committed to the Care of Anthony Caraffa, a learned Man of a noble Family in Italy, afterwards made a Cardinal and Library-Keeper to the Pope. He, by the Affiftance of feveral other learned Men imployed under him, in eight Years finished this Edition. It was for the most Part according to an old MS. in the Vatican, which was written all in Capitals, without the Marks of Accents or Points, and without any Diftinction of Chapters or Verfes, and is fuppofed to VOL. III.

be

be as ancient as the Time of St. Jerom; only where this was wanting (for fome Leaves of it were loft) they fupplied the Defect out of other MSS. the principal of which were, one they had from Venice, out of the Library of Cardinal Beffarion, and another that was brought them out of Calabria: Which laft fo agreed with the Vatican MS. that they fuppofed them to have been written either the one from the other, or elle both from the fame Copy. The next Year was published at Rome a Latin Verfion of this Edition, with the Notes of Flaminius Nobilius. Morinus printed both together at Paris, Anno Dom. 1628. And from this Vatican Edition have been publifhed all thofe Septuagints that have been printed in England; that is, that of London in 8°, Anno 1653; that in Walton's Polyglot, published 1657; and that of Cambridge 1665; which laft has the learned Preface of Bishop Pierfon prefixed to it, and does much more exactly give us the Roman Edition, than that of 1653.

But I must here obferve, that this Cambridge Edition, which Dean Prideaux (from whom I have chiefly taken what I have here faid of the three eminent Editions) fays was twice printed, first by John Field in the Year 1665, and then by John Hayes in the Year 1684. But Hayes (who fucceeded Field as Printer to the University) put Field's Name to his own Impreffion, and dated it 1665 as Field's was, and printed it Page for Page like Field's, and fo put a Cheat upon the World, to make it pafs for Field's Edition, though the Print was not fo clean and neat, and I question alfo whether fo correct as Field's. As I was admitted at Cambridge within a Year after Hayes reprinted Field's Septuagint, and was well acquainted with Hayes, I remember I afked him how he came to fet Field's Name, and the Date of 1665 to a Book himself had juft printed? He only fmiled, and made me some flight Answer, intimating that I fhewed myself a Stranger to the World, by afking fuch a Question.

But Bishop Walton finds Fault with the London Edition of 1653; yet the Cambridge Editors, though they printed fome Years after that Bifhop had taken Notice of this Fault, did the very fame. For (fays he) though they profefs to give us the Roman Edition, yet they took the Liberty to alter and interpolate it in feveral Places, to bring it nearer to the Hebrew Text, and the modern Verfions. For they did not only change the Order in which the Books, Chapters, and Verfes were placed in all the MSS. (which Transpositions are noted in all that have written of the LXX.) and reduced them to the Order of the present Hebrew, as the German Editors for the most Part have done, and have divided the Pfalms according to the Hebrew, but have alfo added fome Paffages from the Complutenfian, and other Editions, which are not in the Roman. But this, as he fays, is not giving us a pure Edition, Secundum Exemplum Vaticanum, as they pretend to do, but a mixed Edition of their own.

Having mentioned the Divifion of the Pfalms, I think it proper here to obferve to you, where lies the Difference between the Hebrew and the LXX with regard to it. The Pfalms proceed in the fame Order in both: But the two Pfalms, which are called the ninth and tenth in the Hebrew, are joined together, and make but one Pfalm in the LXX.

Hereby