[]

REMARKS ON A PRINTED PAPER, LATELY HANDED ABOUT, INTITULED, ‘A Catalogue of the Sacred Veſſels reſtored by Cyrus; and of the Chief Jews, who returned at firſt from the Captivity; together with the Names of the returning Families, and the Number of the Perſons at that Time in each Family: Diſpoſed in ſuch a Manner, as to ſhew moſt clearly the great Corruption of Proper Names and Numbers in the preſent Text of the Old-Teſtament.’

Addreſſed to all ſuch GENTLEMEN as have received or read the ſame.

THE SECOND EDITION.

By GRANVILLE SHARP.

LONDON: Printed for B. WHITE, at HORACE'S-HEAD, FLEET-STREET. M.DCC.LXXV.

REMARKS ON A PRINTED PAPER, &c.

[3]
GENTLEMEN,

HAVING received from a worthy Friend in the country, for whom I have the greateſt eſteem, a printed paper, which had been ſent him by Dr. Kennicott, intituled, ‘A Catalogue of the Sacred Veſſels reſtored by Cyrus; and of the Chief Jews who returned at firſt from the Captivity, together with the Names of the returning Families, and the Number of the Perſons at that Time in each Family; diſpoſed in ſuch a manner, as to ſhew [4]moſt clearly the great corruption of Proper Names and Numbers in the preſent Text of the Old-Teſtament;’ and being deſired to return the ſaid paper when I had peruſed it, I thought I could not handſomely do ſo without ſending my opinion of it at the ſame time. The nature of the ſubject is indeed ſo foreign to my own buſineſs and way of life, that I ſhould ſcarcely have preſumed to meddle with it, had not a point of good manners to this Gentleman firſt of all induced me to do ſo; but afterwards, when I had conſidered Dr. Kennicott's manner of expreſſing himſelf in the title of this catalogue, I thought myſelf obliged, through a deſire of vindicating the Holy Scriptures, to apply as cloſely to the examination of this charge againſt them, as my ſmall ſhare of leiſure would permit; being apprehenſiſe that this paper might cauſe ſuch prejudices againſt the integrity of the Text of the Old-Teſtament, as the [5]learned Author himſelf, perhaps, never conceived, and would be ſorry to have occaſioned by his catalogue.

The Letter to my friend, which was the reſult of this examination, was at my deſire ſhewn to Dr. Kennicott; but the arguments therein had not ſufficient weight to convince him, that ſome apology was neceſſary to be made to his friends, to prevent their miſinterpreting his real deſign in the ſaid catalogue, and to remove all appearance of his having charged the preſent Text of the Old-Teſtament with more faults than it really deſerves. Not being able however to lay aſide my own apprehenſions of the ill effects which might poſſibly be occaſioned by this catalogue, I have therefore ventured to print ſome of my remarks upon it, leſt any perſon, not having leiſure to examine it ſufficiently, ſhould be led to conceive, that all the differences in [6]names and numbers, found therein, are really corruptions in the preſent Text of the Old-Teſtament.

In the firſt part of the Catalogue the Doctor has compared Ezra's account of the ſacred veſſels with the account given of the ſame in the Book of Eſdras; and, as if he had clearly ſhewn thereby ſome great corruptions, he has affixed the following motto to his quotations; viz. ‘non poteſt verum aſſeri, quod 1 ita diverſum eſt.’

[7]But this account of Eſdras is not ‘ita diverſum’ as to amount to a contradiction [8]of the other, and therefore the doctor's motto is not at all applicable. [9]For Ezra might at one time make particular mention of ſuch Veſſels only as were [10]perhaps 2 chiefly uſed, or were moſt remarkable, and might mean to include [11]all the reſt in the general round Sum of 5400; and yet might afterwards think [12]proper to write a more circumſtantial hiſtory, ſetting down the exact number of each kind of veſſel, together with the particular amount or total of the whole.

In Joſephus the [...]. (30) and the [...]. (30) correſpond very well with the chargers of gold and baſons of gold, mentioned by Ezra. As to the other numbers, they all differ, as well from the account in Ezra, as from that in Eſdras, except the 1000 other veſſels; and the addition of the whole amounts to no more than 5210— yet, as he has not himſelf given a total number, he cannot be ſaid to contradict either of the others. Now, as not one of the articles in the Heb. account of Ezra exceeds the numbers of thoſe in Eſdras, there can be no contradiction therein, becauſe each number may be [13]included in the correſponding number in Eſdras.

And farther; if the number of each article in Ezra had been exactly the ſame with thoſe in Eſdras, the Sum Total 5400 would have appeared more like a miſtake; but, as they amount to no more than 2499, it is plain that the writer did not mean to enumerate every ſingle veſſel; becauſe he afterwards gives a round Sum Total of even Hundreds, viz. 5400, which is more frequent in Hiſtorians than exact and particular ſums: therefore a perſon muſt be very little acquainted with Hiſtory, who ſuppoſes that this is a contradiction to the Sum Total in Eſdras, becauſe the odd number 69 is omitted 3.

[14]As to the difference of the names by which the Veſſels are called, (however unlike they appear in the Engliſh Tranſlation,) yet whoever is acquainted with the original Text muſt know that they correſpond ſufficiently; except indeed the Heb. word, which is tranſlated knives; and that is capable of being conſtrued ſeveral different ways, but there is not [15]the leaſt reaſon to ſuppoſe that it has been corrupted.

The next thing that I have to obſerve is, that Dr. K. has been particularly unfortunate in fixing upon this part of the ſacred Hiſtory as a proof of the great corruption of the proper names and numbers in the preſent Text of the Old-Teſtament. Firſt,

Becauſe it was the cuſtom of the Babylonians to give new Names to their captives; ſo that it was very common among the Jewiſh Captives to be called by two names: of this the Book of Daniel gives ſufficient proof; and therefore this difference is of the leſs conſequence, becauſe two different names may mean the ſame perſon.

And, Secondly, becauſe theſe three Books all agree in the ſum total of perſons; [16] 4; viz. 42,360; and yet none of their accounts amount to that ſum by [17] upwards of 8000: ſo that were the names and numbers, which are particularized in each book, much more different than they really are, they could not with juſtice be accuſed of contradiction; becauſe there is ſufficient room left in any of theſe hiſtories for the mention of many different Families, which might have been omitted by the others.

Now thoſe who content themſelves with the Doctor's Catalogue, without farther examination, may indeed imagine, that he has ſhewn them moſt clearly [18]ſome great corruptions of proper names, &c. becauſe he has diſpoſed them in ſuch a manner as to compare the name Bezai in Ezra with Haſhum in Nehemiah: and again, Jorah in Ezra with Bezai in Nehemiah, which ſhould have been placed in the line above; alſo Haſhum in Ezra (which ſhould have been placed two lines higher) with Hariph in Nehemiah. Likewiſe he has placed Lod oppoſite to Jericho, Hadid to Lod, Ono to Hadid, and Jericho to Ono, each in a wrong line. So that he muſt either allow this to be a great miſtake, or elſe that theſe names are "diſpoſed in ſuch a manner" as to prove nothing at all of what he pretends 5.

[19]At the head of the names the Doctor has placed a Title, viz. "The Twelve Chief Men," by which people may unwarily be led to ſuppoſe that the chief men were confined to the limited number of Twelve; but the Scriptures make no mention of a limited number of Chief Men 6, but only of names: therefore it is not an inconſiſtency in the account of Ezra to mention only Eleven names. On this account, likewiſe, the difference in the names is of leſs conſequence, becauſe it is not eaſy to prove that different perſons were not intended to have been [20]expreſſed thereby: on the other hand, it may be as difficult to prove that they were; though there is ſome appearance of a proof in one inſtance; viz. the names Reelius and Roimus in Eſdras (if we conſider the Greek manner of expreſſing Hebrew names) will anſwer very well to Reelaiah ( [...]) in Ezra, and Raamiah ( [...]) in Nehemiah; which laſt names Dr. K. has compared together as ſuppoſing them to have been originally the ſame, though the ſimilar names juſt mentioned in Eſdras give us great reaſon to believe the contrary.

But, before I leave Dr. Kennicott's twelve Chief Men, I will endeavour to clear up another difficulty, and will now take his ſide of the queſtion to prove, that he has done right in comparing Rehum in Ezra with Nehum in Nehemiah as the name of one man, notwithſtanding the great difference between them in [21]ſound, which may at firſt ſight ſeem to favour my ſuggeſtion about different perſons; and I ſhall have the more pleaſure in doing this, becauſe at the ſame time I ſhall ſhew moſt clearly that neither the one nor the other is corrupted. Now every perſon, who is tolerably acquainted with the Chaldee and Syriac tongues, muſt know, that N ( [...]) is frequently changed for R ( [...]) in words derived from the Hebrew, and therefore it is much more eaſy to believe that Nehemiah, like a Babylonian, wrote [...] for [...] (Nehum for Rehum) than to ſuppoſe that either of the words has been ſince corrupted.

Whatever difference there may be between Ezra and Nehemiah in numbers, (which are of leſs conſequence, as both of them fall ſo far ſhort of the total,) yet the difference in names is very immaterial, though Dr. Kennicott has diſpoſed [22]them in ſuch a manner as to make it ſeem very conſiderable.

There is but one name (viz. Hariph) in all this long liſt of Families, mentioned by Nehemiah, which has any material difference from thoſe mentioned by Ezra, and there are but four names in Ezra, viz. Jorah, Magbiſh, Hagab, and Aſnah, which are not found in Nehemiah; therefore as there are no names in Nehemiah to compare with theſe laſt, excepting the ſingle name Hariph, it is impoſſible for Dr. K. to prove any corruption of names in the Hebrew text throughout this whole liſt of families.

Perhaps the Doctor may imagine, that the difference of names in the Apocryphal Greek book of Eſdras is a ſufficient proof againſt the integrity of the Hebrew text of the other two; otherwiſe he muſt allow, that his Catalogue proves very [23]little in this article of names. But, ſuppoſing that theſe differences were real contradictions, (which they are not,) the ſuſpicion of corruption muſt of courſe fall on the book of 7 Eſdras. Firſt, Becauſe the two beſt Greek copies of this ſame book (viz. the Vatican and Alexandrian copies) differ very much from each other both in the names and numbers.

Secondly, Becauſe it is not of equal authority with the others, being apocryphal, and therefore not received into the canon of the Scriptures.

And, Thirdly, Becauſe two evidences againſt one, though they were all to be of equal authority, would undoubtedly gain the cauſe in this critical trial.

[24]But I will now endeavour to ſhew that even the apocryphal Book of Eſdras is not ſo widely different from the others as the Doctor has made them appear in his Catalogue; and of this I hope the few examples that follow will be a ſufficient proof.

Verſe 15. Aterezias is in the original Greek [...], agreeable to the Hebrew Ater-Hezekiah.

Verſe 18. Bethſamos is [...] in the Alexandrian copy, which is very agreeable to the Hebrew of Nehemiah, [...] Bithozmouth, or Bethazmaveth.

Verſe 20. Gabdes is [...], the genitive of [...], agreeable to the Hebrew Gaba.

Verſe 23. Annaas is [...], agreeable to the Hebrew Senaah.

[25]Ver. 25. Carme appears very different from Harim in Engliſh, though they are in the original tongues apparently the ſame word; for the H, in Harim, ( [...] in [...]) being a rough aſpirate, is frequently expreſſed by the [...] in Greek, as [...].

Verſe 28. Jatal is [...] in the original Greek, agreeable to the Hebrew.

Alſo Teta is [...], which agrees very well with the Hebrew Hatita.

Sami is [...] in the Vatican copy, which agrees very well with the Hebrew Shobai, for [...] by the Chaldaeans and Syrians was frequently exchanged both for [...] and [...]: likewiſe the word [...], as it is expreſſed in the Alexandrian copy, is agreeable to the Hebrew [...].

Verſe 29. Graba is [...] in the Vatican copy, and [...] in the Alexandrian, [26]agreeable to the Hebrew Hagaba.

Verſe 30. Acua is [...] in the Greek, which is much nearer to Akkub.

Verſe 31. Airus ſhould be [...], which is plainly derived from [...] (Reaiah) by prefixing the [...] or I, a thing very common in Hebrew names. Azia ſhould be [...], which very well correſponds with [...], called in Engliſh Uzza.

Verſe 32. Charcus in the original is in the genitive [...], and agrees well with Barkos.

Naſith is in the Vatican copy [...], which is ſufficiently near to Neziah.

Verſe 33. Azaphion is in the Alexandrian copy [...], which is much nearer to Sophereth.

[27] Pharira is in the Alexandrian copy [...], agreeable to the Hebrew [...] Perida; though the Greek [...] expreſſes the [...] without dageſch.

Verſe 38. Addus. The Doctor has had very little regard to the context, or he would not have placed this name oppoſite to Barzillai, in order to ſhew clearly a great corruption; for he might have been there informed, that Addus married Augia one of the daughters of Berzelus, and was named after his name. The word [...] in the Vatican copy is rendered Berzelus, for the Chaldaeans frequently changed the Hebrew [...] into [...] or [...].

I ſhall now endeavour to give you ſome proofs, that Dr. Kennicott has condemned the proper names and numbers of the preſent Text of the Old-Teſtament, as being greatly corrupt, without giving [28]himſelf the trouble (for any thing that appears in the catalogue to the contrary) even to examine the original text; and that he has contented himſelf with ſetting down the names and numbers merely as they occurred in the Engliſh tranſlation.

This is not leſs injuſtice than if a judge were to condemn a priſoner merely from the report given of him by others, without permitting him to appear before him to anſwer for himſelf.

My proofs of the Doctor's having merely copied the Engliſh Verſion, I ſhall take out of the book of Eſdras: becauſe with that (I ſuppoſe) he meant to correct the Hebrew Text.

Verſe 13. He has taken the name Sadas, and the number 3222 only from the Engliſh verſion; for in the Alexandrian [29]copy it is [...] (near to the Hebrew Azgad) 3622; and [...] 2322 in the Vatican copy: ſo that he trifles with the originals if he thinks in this manner to ſhew their corruptions.

Verſe 14. He has placed the number 667 to Adonicam as in the Engliſh Verſion of Eſdras, whereas the Vatican copy reads 637, and the Alexandrian 647.

Verſe 16. Ananias is called [...] and [...] in the original Greek.

Meterus is expreſſed by [...] in the original Greek.

Verſe 25. Phaſſeron in the Engliſh Verſion and the Doctor's catalogue has the number 1047, but in the Vatican copy it has 2047, and in the Alexandrian 2247. Carme as in the Engliſh Verſion 1017, whereas the Vatican copy has only 217, and the Alexandrian 2017.

[30]Verſe 37. Ladan, as in the Engliſh, which is [...] in the original.

Laſtly, the number of ſervants, 7347, is plainly a miſtake copied from the Engliſh Verſion; for the original Greek, as well as the Syriac Verſion of the ſame, is agreeable to the Hebrew 7337.

Now as many of the ſeeming differences (which the reader, as Dr. Kennicott ſuppoſes in page 507, 2d Diſſertation, will view with ſurprize) are not to be found in the original, but are occaſioned by the Doctor's copying merely from the Engliſh Verſion; as many other differences in names are cauſed only by the changing of letters, according to the common Chaldaean mode of expreſſing Hebrew words, and therefore are not liable to the charge of corruption; and as the moſt material differences between Ezra and Nehemiah are made by the Doctor's having placed the names in the order [31]in which they ſtand in each writer, which has cauſed him to compare names manifeſtly different, as if meant for the ſame perſon; ſo I muſt conclude (all theſe things conſidered) that not only the diſpoſition of names, but the whole performance is intirely unfair, becauſe the Doctor's motto leaves no room for allowances to be made for whatever may have occaſioned the ſeveral ſeeming differences, but condemns them indiſcriminately with a bold inſinuation of falſehood, viz. Non poteſt verum aſſeri quod ita diverſum eſt.

The Doctor in his printed Sheet has indeed placed this motto cloſe by the ſide of his quotation from the apocryphal Book of Eſdras, but it is plain that he intended thereby to cenſure the differences in the whole catalogue, becauſe he prefixed the ſame unjuſt motto to his firſt publication of the Catalogue in his 2d Diſſertation, p. 508.

[32]I call this motto unjuſt, not only becauſe it is there applied indiſcriminately to a quotation from two canonical Books of the Old-Teſtament, but becauſe St. Jerome's authority is quoted for it, as if he had applied the ſame words, for the ſame purpoſe, to the Book of Ezra, though it appears very plainly by St. Jerome's preface to the ſaid Book, that he was ſpeaking only of differences in the various copies of the Greek Verſion, when he made uſe of thoſe words.

But notwithſtanding the many faults, which I have found in the writings of this Gentleman, yet I have a much better opinion of him, than to ſuppoſe, that he will ever endeavour to evade my cenſure of his Catalogue, by alledging that he did not mean by it to ſhew the corruptions of the original Text, but only of the common Engliſh Tranſlation, which he has here copied word for word; and [33]that he meant the Engliſh Tranſlation where he has mentioned the preſent Text of the Old Teſtament.

I ſay, notwithſtanding the improbability that there is of the Doctor's ever ſeeking ſuch an evaſion, yet he muſt excuſe me if I endeavour to guard againſt any ſort of ſhifting-off from the point whatſoever.

Therefore I muſt obſerve, that the Text of any author cannot mean a Tranſlation, eſpecially when a perſon is ſpeaking of corruptions in it; for the Corruption of any Text muſt mean ſome wilful or accidental alteration from the original copy of the Author.

No Perſon therefore, ſpeaking concerning the corruption in a Tranſlation of any Book, may ſay that they are corruptions of the preſent Text of the ſaid book; becauſe [34]at the ſame time perhaps the real and original text contains none of thoſe faults which he complains of.

So that, ſhould the Doctor have really only meant to expoſe ſome defects, which he might imagine he had diſcovered in the Engliſh Verſion, (though I cannot think that he intended any ſuch thing by this Catalogue,) yet it muſt appear to the Eyes of all thoſe who know him, and his preſent undertaking, as if theſe unjuſt cenſures were levelled at the Original Text itſelf.

There are many other things, I believe, which might be alledged againſt this Catalogue, but I ſhall only beg leave to trouble the reader with two more.

Though there might be many Jewiſh Families called after the names of places, as Bethlehem, Ramah, Jericho, &c. yet [35]perhaps Dr. K. may have difficulty to prove that any Jewiſh Families were called Tel-melah, Telharſa, Cherub, and Addan, (Immer the next name being indeed an exception,) although he has placed them in his liſt of families under the running Title of "The Children of."

Now, if he had attended to the context, even of the Engliſh Tranſlation, he might have underſtood, that theſe were really the names of places, and not of families; for we are there informed, that the Families, afterwards mentioned, ‘which went up from the ſaid places, ‘ſought their regiſter among thoſe that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found.’

Another miſtake he has likewiſe made in comparing Cherub and Addan, the names of places in Ezra and Nehemiah, with Charaathalar and Aalar, the names [36] of men mentioned by Eſdras; though the context plainly ſhews that there were no other than what I ſay.

I will not however inſiſt on theſe two laſt articles, becauſe I preſume that I have before ſufficiently proved, that this Catalogue does not ſhew moſt clearly the great corruption of proper names and numbers in the preſent Text of the Old-Teſtament.

Now, leſt my cenſure of this catalogue ſhould ſeem to ſtrike obliquely at Dr. Kennicott's preſent undertaking of collating the Heb. MSS. which has been honoured with the ſubſcriptions of ſo many great and learned perſons; I think it neceſſary, for my own ſake, as well as in juſtice to Dr. Kennicott, to declare, that I think his collation of Hebrew MSS. a very laudable and uſeful undertaking; and that there cannot be the leaſt objection to his new Edition [37]of the Heb. Bible, if printed according to the propoſals offered by him in the year 1760; viz. (not with a new Text, but) from one of the beſt Editions already publiſhed, having the various readings inſerted at the bottom of every page.

I am, Gentlemen, Your moſt humble Servant, GRANVILLE SHARP.
THE END.
Notes
1.

(1) In the letter, which I ſent to my friend on this ſubject, I endeavoured to ſhew, that a diſagreement in numbers, when the accounts of hiſtorians are compared, is not a ſufficient authority to juſtify a charge of corruption; and I ſuppoſed an example of two hiſtorians giving an account of the number of ſlain in a battle; the one that 1000 men were killed, and the other that no leſs than 2000 were loſt in the ſame battle; and I obſerved, that, if the account is true of 2000 being killed, the other account cannot be called a contradiction to it, becauſe a leſs number is mentioned therein; and this I thought ſufficient to exemplify, that a ſmaller number, when given without an abſolute limitation, is no contradiction to a greater number. But it has been objected to this example, that it is by no means parallel to the caſe in queſtion, becauſe the numbers of ſlain in battle in large armies, as given by Hiſtorians, are, from the nature of the thing, hardly ever to be depended upon; whereas, when an inventory of goods is given, it is reaſonably ſuppoſed to be exact to an unit, becauſe it eaſily may be ſo. I will therefore mention another example, not liable to the ſame objection, and more proper to be inſerted in theſe remarks becauſe it is quoted by Dr. Kennicott, (ſee page 532 of his 1ſt diſſertation,) viz. In 1 Kings iv. 26. we read that Solomon had 40,000 ſtalls for horſes, but in 2 Chr. ix. 25. only 4,000.’ This Dr. Kennicott mentions as one of the inſtances of miſtakes which are moſt eaſilyaccounted for, by admitting the addition, omiſſion, or tranſpoſition of a cypher: and the Doctor's favourite Author, Father Houbigant, thinks to remove all difficulty from the ſame by altering the Text in 1 Kings iv. 26. from [...] to [...] viz. from 40,000 to 4,000.

But the ingenious Author of a ſmall MS. book, lent me by a worthy and learned friend, (to whom I have great obligation on this, as well as many other accounts,) makes it appear very plainly, that the opinions of Bochart and Lud. Capellus (who think the word [...] inſtead of 40 ſhould be tranſlated 4) would cauſe greater difficulties than what are at preſent found in the Text; for, ſays he, ‘let this Rabbinical uſe of plural ordinal numbers be what they pleaſe; yet in the Scripture Style they are never taken ſingularly, and this I affirm after having examined ſome hundreds of places, where they are either joined with appellatives, perſons, or things, or greater numbers, as an hundred or thouſand: and ſo theſe Hebrew words [...] ſignify 40,000 beyond exception in all other Texts they are found in; and ſo the LXX. turn them here, and Joſephus preſerves the ſame high number.’ He then proceeds to ſhew the great probability (from the Riches and Grandeur of Solomon, and the more terrible execution a Quadriga would make than a Biga,) that Solomon's Chariots were drawn by 4 horſes; which opinion he ſupports by a variety of quotations and learned arguments; and afterwards obſerves, that, as Solomon had 1400 Chariots, (1 Kings x. 26. and 2 Chron. i. 14.) the number of horſes, allowing 4 to each chariot, would require 5600 Stalls, beſides the Stalls neceſſary for the 12,000 ſingle Troop Horſes; which numbers will occaſion great difficulties if we ſuppoſe that Solomon had only 4000 Stalls. He alſo obſerves, that (beſides the Stalls neceſſary for Solomon's ſtanding forces) ſtandings were neceſſary for horſes preſented to him by foreign Princes, as alſo for Baggage Mules and Dromedaries, which muſt be very numerous, not only for the carriage of proviſions, tents, and other warlike neceſſaries both for horſe and foot, but alſo for water, in the vaſt ſandy wild of Arabia Deſerta as far as Euphrates. Moreover, he obſerves, that as Solomon trafficked by his merchants with horſes brought out of Egypt, furniſhing the Kings of Syria and the Hittites; ſo this running trade might occaſion theſe ſtalls to be ſo numerous, not only ſerving the purpoſes of war, but of traffick. Many more reaſons are given by the ſame Author, which are confirmed by a great variety of learned quotations and authorities; but, I truſt, that thoſe few I have mentioned are quite ſufficient to prove that Father Houbigant has been much too haſty in altering the Sacred Text from 40,000 to 4000, and that he has thereby loaded it with a real difficulty, when he might have avoided the imaginary one, by admitting a very reaſonable and fair ſolution, which has been approved of by a great variety of learned commentators; I mean that of conſtruing the word [...] (not Stalls, but) Stables; which intirely removes all the difficulty: for, ſuppoſing each Stable capable of containing 10 Horſes, you very eaſily account for the number of 40,000 Stalls: and this opinion is approved of by Abarbinel, Junius, and Tremellius, Bp. Patrick, Sir Walter Raleigh, Monſ. Martin, and a great variety of other Commentators.

Some have indeed ſuppoſed, that the chariot Horſes, ſpoken of in the parallel paſſage in 2d Chronicles ix. 25. were but 4000, which King Solomon kept at or near Jeruſalem for his conſtant guard, and that the other ſpeaks of thoſe which were diſperſed throughout his whole kingdom.

But what is moſt material to my purpoſe is obſerved by the author of the little treatiſe above-mentioned; viz. the diverſity between theſe two relations (viz. in 1 Kings iv. 26, and 2 Chron. ix. 25.) amounts to 36,000; but, if the firſt account is proved true,’ (which he moſt clearly has done,) the ſecond muſt be ſo too, as the leſs is included in the greater number. Now this is the very concluſion that I drew from my former example, (viz. of the two hiſtorians giving different accounts of the number of men ſlain in a battle,) which was objected to: and this is another reaſon for my having quoted this example of Solomon's Horſes; and I have the more pleaſure in doing ſo, becauſe it is not liable to the ſame objection as the former, for the numbers therein may as reaſonably be ſuppoſed to be exact to a unit as the account of any other inventory whatever, becauſe it eaſily might have been ſo: we find likewiſe that the difficulty therein may reaſonably be accounted for without the ſuppoſition of a miſtake, or the neceſſity of having recourſe to Father Houbigant's dangerous and unwarrantable expedient of altering the text.

2.

(2) A very apt and ingenious objection has been made to this argument, and communicated to the writer of theſe Remarks; who hopes that the worthy and learned Author will excuſe his inſerting it here at length, as the omiſſion of it in this place might perhaps be deemed an injuſtice to the ſubject in queſtion. The Objection was as follows; ‘That Ezra did not mean to mention particularly the chief veſſels only, and then to include the reſt in the general round Sum 5400, is evident from hence, that he does do this before he comes to make up the Sum 5400; for he throws together all the Veſſels, not before ſpecified, under the article other Veſſels, and into the general round Sum 1000: and this round Sum 1000, added to the particular Sums before ſpecified, ought, in common ſenſe, to make the Sum total; which here it does not do.’

But, notwithſtanding the ſeeming propriety of this objection, yet, while there is any reaſonable way left of accounting for a difficulty, we ought to be very cautious of ſuppoſing a corruption; not from any idea of the abſolute Integrity of the Hebrew Text, but becauſe many very learned and experienced perſons have led themſelves and others into errors by eſteeming ſome difficult paſſages to be corrupt, when the truth and integrity of the ſame might have been very ſufficiently vindicated.

In the preſent caſe, though I have not met with any thing, which, in my opinion, ought to be adopted as the only true interpretation, yet I think that one of the ſolutions given by Bp. Patrick is ſo far reaſonable, that it removes the abſolute neceſſity of ſuppoſing a corruption, viz. It is ſaid, in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 18. Nebuchadnezzar carried away all the veſſels both great and ſmall. Now, in the account that is here given, the larger veſſels only, which were of greater bigneſs and price, are mentioned. (Among which are alſo reckoned the 1000 other Veſſels; which round Sum was not intended to make up the groſs, but only to include all the other great or larger Veſſels, the ſpecies of which were not particularized, as Joſephus teſtifies *, [...] [...].’) But the groſs Sum comprehends all, both great and ſmall, and amounts to the number 5400.’

*
And other great Veſſels a thouſand.
3.
(3) This numerical exactneſs in the Account of Eſdras, which is wanting in the Hebrew Account, has occaſioned a ſuppoſition that the latter, by ſome means or other, has undergone ſome alteration. But it muſt be obſerved that ſome ancient copies of the book of Eſdras have been equally exact in making the Sum total the amount of the ſeveral ſorts of veſſels to a unit, notwithſtanding that the particulars are very different, and that the Sum total exceeds the common reading by 391 veſſels. The old Latin Bibles, from which the preſent Vulgate was taken, have the reading juſt mentioned, which was probably tranſlated from MSS. as ancient as thoſe from which the preſent Greek Text of Eſdras was taken: and the ſame reading is found in Tindal's old Engliſh Bible, printed in 1549. Therefore this numerical exactneſs is not a ſufficient proof of the authenticity of the book of Eſdras in this place; ſo that if the Heb. of Ezra was to be corrected by it to the ſame numerical exactneſs, and if ſuch other corrections as have been propoſed were to take place in the Text of the Old-Teſtament, I am apt to think that our Holy Bible itſelf would ſoon, by too many, be eſteemed as little better than apocryphal.
4.

(4) This agreement of the three Books in the ſum total of Perſons has occaſioned a ſuppoſition, ‘that the Catalogue in all three was originally the ſame; and that all three are now imperfect in ſome of the particulars, ſince the particulars in none of them now amount to the ſum 42,360, which is ſaid to be the ſum of each.’ But there is no proof that the liſt, which Nehemiah found, was exactly the ſame with that from which Ezra copied; for many different accounts might have been taken by the Perſons appointed to number the people, even under the ſame title of the Children of the Province that went up out of Captivity, &c. and though they might find it very eaſy to agree in the ſum total, even to a unit, by reckoning the people, promiſcuouſly, by fifties, hundreds, or thouſands, (in which method the want of pedigrees would cauſe no difficulty,) yet in taking the numbers of the families ſeparately they might be very liable to differ, on account of the difficulty of aſcertaining the legitimacy of ſome particular perſons in many of the ſaid Families.

It muſt be obſerved too, that not one of the three liſts mentions the number of Prieſts, who were rejected for want of proper Regiſters, though the names of their families are the very laſt in each liſt, juſt preceding the Sum total; ſo that there is no doubt but that they are included therein notwithſtanding: therefore, as the conſent of all three informs us, beyond contradiction, of the real Sum total, ſo the want of the number of theſe Prieſts in all three liſts ſeems as clearly to prove that the particular numbers in each were not intended to make up exactly the ſaid Sum total; becauſe it muſt otherwiſe ſeem very unaccountable, that all theſe three Liſts, as well as all the ancient verſions, which have been made from them, ſhould happen to be corrupted in the ſame identical place.

Dr. Kennicott ſeemed to be aware of this objection, when he firſt publiſhed his Catalogue of names in his ſecond Diſſertation, page 508, &c. for he has there omitted theſe three laſt names, which have no numbers ſpecified, though he has thought fit to add them to his ſecond Edition in the printed ſheet; becauſe he muſt have been convinced, that they ought to be included in the Sum total, notwithſtanding the triple evidence of theſe Liſts, that no number ought to be added to the ſame; and, conſequently, that the exact number 42,360 was never intended to be made appear from the addition of the particular Sums in any of theſe Liſts.

5.
(5) By way of excuſe for Dr. Kennicott, it has been urged, that the names are taken in the order in which they ſtand in each writer, to ſhew how the order of the original Catalogue has been diſturbed, and that he did not intend to compare thoſe names, which are manifeſtly different, as if meant for the ſame perſon: but as no ſufficient evidence has ever yet been produced, that the order of the names has really been diſturbed, in any of the Liſts, from what it was when written by the Authors of each; and as I have, in a former note, ſhewn a probability, that the Catalogue in all three Liſts was not originally exactly the ſame; and as this ſeems to be proved by theſe very variations in the order of the names; therefore I think that the Doctor's manner of diſpoſing the names cannot with juſtice be defended.
6.
(6) Dr. Kennicott nevertheleſs informs us, in page 508, (Second Diſſertation,) that the twelve Chiefs repreſented the twelve Tribes.
7.
(7) See Dr. Kennicott's ſecond Diſſertation on the State of the Hebrew Text, pages 506 and 507, where he intirely gives up the authority of the Book of Eſdras: ſo that its teſtimony ought to have but very little weight (eſpecially with Dr. K. himſelf) in correcting the Text.
Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Citation Suggestion for this Object
TextGrid Repository (2020). TEI. 3559 Remarks on a printed paper lately handed about intituled A catalogue of the sacred vessels restored by Cyrus Addressed to all such gentlemen as have received or read the same By Granville. University of Oxford Text Archive. . https://hdl.handle.net/21.T11991/0000-001A-5F63-B