Works, Book 4 · Letter 31

Works · Book 4 · Letter 31

p. 785EPISTLE XXXI.

Mr. Mede's Answer to a Doubt touching some Variations between the Hebrew Text and the Hellenists, and some smaller corruption crept into the Hebrew copies.

I Have heard alledged; If any corruption had crept into the Hebrew Text at or before our Saviour's time, the holy Apostles and Penmen of the New Testament would have restored it, or somewhere intimated it. But what if they did so, and yet we had rather follow the Masorites than them?

Matt. 15. 9. out of Esay 29. 13.

foreign

The Hebrew Text reads now

foreign

Where foreign an emphatical word appears not.

But the Lxx. and S. Matthew with them,

foreign

d…c…ntium or edocta hominum … mes reverentis sed frustra …orum.

i. Sed fuit cul…us eorum erga me mandatum hominum edoctum or edoctus

i. Frustrà verò reverentur me mandata …minum docentes: viz. referring Docentium to foreign frustrà reverentia eorum mei qui docent mandata hominum.

See foreign in the same Prophet for frustrà, cap. 45. 9. ibid. versibus 18, 19. item cap. 49. 4.

The Masorites might have pointed it foreign, as they do often elsewhere, Iod for Van; yea in the Chaldee foreign is the same with foreign.

Also foreign may be pointed foreign. Then it would be, Frustrà cultus eorum meimandata hominum docens, and never a letter altered but Iod into Van.

It is to be noted that the Prophet calls Idols and Idol-worship often in this book foreign, i. Vanity.

Acts 15. 17. out of Amos 9. 12.

foreign, &c.

The Hebrew now reads marvellous differingly, foreign

But the Lxx. read, and the Apostles ratifie it, foreign Vt passid…ant residuum Edom. foreign Vt requirant Deum (vel Dominum) reliqui hominum.

For the Lxx. often translate foreign by foreign, more than 40. times, foreign above an 100.

Heb. 8. 9. out of Ierem. 31. 32.

—foreign.

The Hebrew hath now in place of foreign, which is foreign, a clean contrary sense, and inconsequent to what goes before. I know how it is wont to be salved.

But did not the Lxx, and the Apostle with them, read foreign, which without any more ado is foreign or foreign, or foreign, and makes the sense coherent with what went before? foreign and foreign differ not very much. See the same construction of foreign in the same Prophet, chap. 14. 15.

But in these and other such, it may be said, the Apostles accommodated to the capacity of the times, and so followed the LXX as a known and received Translation, but not either to correct the then Hebrew reading by it, or prefer that of the Hellenists before it.

p. 786But what will they say, if sometimes the Apostles follow a reading differing both from the Septuagint and Hebrew, even where the LXX and Hebrew exactly agree together?

Matth. 27. 9, 10. out of Zach. 11. 13.

foreign.

The words included in the parenthesis are a brief comprehension of what went before, and interlaced only for explication sake. So that the words quoted out of the Prophet directly are only these:

foreign.

But first, there are no such words in Ieremy; that which sounds like them is in Zachary.

Secondly, the Hebrew in Zachary, and the LXX agreeing with it, have something which S. Matthew hath not, and S. Matthew again something which neither of them have.

Hebr.

foreign

LXX.

foreign.

Matth.

foreign.

Here the Hebrew hath foreign, the LXX, foreign, which S. Matthew hath not.

On the other side, S. Matthew hath foreign, which neither Hebrew nor LXX have: Besides, the Seventie's Greek here differs almost every word from S. Matthew's.

This difficult piece may, I think, be made easie after the manner following.

First, it may seem the Evangelist would inform us, that those latter chapters ascribed to Zachary, (viz. the 9, 10, 11, &c.) are indeed the Prophecies of Ieremy, and that the Iews had not rightly attributed them. Certainly, if a man weighs the Contents of some of them, they should in likelihood be of an elder date than the time of Zachary; See also chap. 5. 11.namely, before the captivity: For the subjects of some of them were scarce in being after that time. And the Chapter out of which S. Matthew quotes, may seem to have somewhat much unsutable with Zacharie's time; as, a Prophecy of the destruction of the Temple, then when he was to encourage them to build it: and how doth the sixth verse of that Chapter suit with his time? There is no Scripture saith they are Zacharie's, but there is Scripture saith they are Ieremie's, as this of the Evangelist. As for there being joyned to the Prophecies of Zachary, that proves no more they are his, than the like adjoyning of Agur's Proverbs to Solomon's proves they are therefore Solomon's; or that all the Psalms are David's, because joyned in one Volume with David's Psalms. Hocprimum.

Secondly, foreign here in S. Matthew is the first person singular, not the third plural, as we are wont to translate it: For it answers to foreign in the Hebrew. The same person and number must also foreign be, whether the foreign be paragogical, or an ancient slip of the Scribe. For the Syriack translates it dedi, and in the Hebrew it answer to to foreign. All this to be so the words following evince, viz. foreign. How will it cohere else? They gave, &c. as the Lord commanded me. Must it not needs be, I gave? &c.

Thirdly, the Evangelist for foreign would, as should seem, have us read— foreign, which is, adverbum, foreign, or foreign, or, as S. Matthew more freely translates, foreign. See foreign Esther, chap.

1. v. 8, 15, &c. foreign often in that Book. If it be considered how aukwardly those words foreign stand in that sentence, and how disturb'd they make the Syntax, it will breed suspicio mendi. And if one of the Apostles of our Lord play here the Critick, it is no sin to follow him, say the Masorites what they will.

p. 7872. Reg. 20. 12, &c. Esay, chap. 39. tot. are but two Copies of the same history, yet are there two or three differences, questionless from the hand of the Scribe; as

Ia the rest is no tittle difference throughout.If it be apparent one letter is changed for another here, why may it not be in other places?

I durst shew no such conceits as these, but to so great an Antiquary as your Lordship, to whom the possibility of corruption by writing is so well known, or rather the impossibility of the contrary. Who knows what time will discover, cum Elias venerit?