REMARKS ON A PRINTED PAPER, &c.

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 Cata⯑logue of the Sacred Veſſels reſtored by Cyrus; and of the Chief Jews who re⯑turned at firſt from the Captivity, to⯑gether with the Names of the return⯑ing 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 pre⯑ſent 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 med⯑dle with it, had not a point of good man⯑ners to this Gentleman firſt of all induced me to do ſo; but afterwards, when I had conſidered Dr. Kennicott's manner of ex⯑preſſing himſelf in the title of this cata⯑logue, I thought myſelf obliged, through a deſire of vindicating the Holy Scrip⯑tures, to apply as cloſely to the examina⯑tion of this charge againſt them, as my ſmall ſhare of leiſure would permit; be⯑ing 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 apo⯑logy 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-Teſ⯑tament’ with more faults than it really deſerves. Not being able however to lay aſide my own apprehenſions of the ill ef⯑fects which might poſſibly be occaſioned by this catalogue, I have therefore ven⯑tured 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 fol⯑lowing 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 contra⯑diction [8]of the other, and therefore the doctor's motto is not at all applicable. [9]For Ezra might at one time make particu⯑lar 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 To⯑tal 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 Hiſto⯑rians than exact and particular ſums: therefore a perſon muſt be very little ac⯑quainted 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 Tran⯑ſlation,) 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 un⯑fortunate in fixing upon this part of the ſacred Hiſtory as a proof of the great cor⯑ruption of the proper names and numbers in the preſent Text of the Old-Teſtament. Firſt,

Becauſe it was the cuſtom of the Ba⯑bylonians to give new Names to their cap⯑tives; ſo that it was very common a⯑mong 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, be⯑cauſe two different names may mean the ſame perſon.

And, Secondly, becauſe theſe three Books all agree in the ſum total of per⯑ſons; [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 juſ⯑tice 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 omit⯑ted by the others.

Now thoſe who content themſelves with the Doctor's Catalogue, without farther examination, may indeed ima⯑gine, that he has ſhewn them moſt clear⯑ly [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 pre⯑tends ⁵.

[19]At the head of the names the Doctor has placed a Title, viz. "The Twelve Chief Men," by which people may un⯑warily be led to ſuppoſe that the chief men were confined to the limited num⯑ber 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, be⯑cauſe 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 ex⯑preſſing 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 Re⯑hum in Ezra with Nehum in Nehemiah as the name of one man, notwithſtand⯑ing the great difference between them in [21]ſound, which may at firſt ſight ſeem to favour my ſuggeſtion about different per⯑ſons; 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 ſup⯑poſe that either of the words has been ſince corrupted.

Whatever difference there may be be⯑tween 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 imma⯑terial, though Dr. Kennicott has ‘diſ⯑poſed [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 Ne⯑hemiah to compare with theſe laſt, ex⯑cepting the ſingle name Hariph, it is im⯑poſſible for Dr. K. to prove any corrup⯑tion of names in the Hebrew text through⯑out this whole liſt of families.

Perhaps the Doctor may imagine, that the difference of names in the Apocry⯑phal 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, ſup⯑poſing 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 au⯑thority with the others, being apocry⯑phal, 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 Ca⯑talogue; and of this I hope the few ex⯑amples 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 Bethazma⯑veth.

Verſe 20. Gabdes is [...], the ge⯑nitive of [...], agreeable to the He⯑brew Gaba.

Verſe 23. Annaas is [...], agree⯑able 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 fre⯑quently expreſſed by the [...] in Greek, as [...].

Verſe 28. Jatal is [...] in the ori⯑ginal 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 Sy⯑rians 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 Alex⯑andrian, [26]agreeable to the Hebrew Haga⯑ba.

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 correſ⯑ponds 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 Alexan⯑drian 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 oppo⯑ſite to Barzillai, in order to ſhew clearly a great corruption; for he might have been there informed, that Addus mar⯑ried Augia one of the daughters of Ber⯑zelus, and was named after his name. The word [...] in the Vatican copy is rendered Berzelus, for the Chal⯑daeans frequently changed the Hebrew [...] into [...] or [...].

I ſhall now endeavour to give you ſome proofs, that Dr. Kennicott has con⯑demned 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 ſet⯑ting down the names and numbers mere⯑ly as they occurred in the Engliſh tran⯑ſlation.

This is not leſs injuſtice than if a judge were to condemn a priſoner merely from the report given of him by others, with⯑out permitting him to appear before him to anſwer for himſelf.

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

Verſe 13. He has taken the name Sadas, and the number 3222 only from the Engliſh verſion; for in the Alexan⯑drian [29]copy it is [...] (near to the He⯑brew 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 Ver⯑ſion 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 Alexandri⯑an 2247. Carme as in the Engliſh Ver⯑ſion 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 Eng⯑liſh 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 differ⯑ences (which the reader, as Dr. Ken⯑nicott ſuppoſes in page 507, 2d Diſſer⯑tation, will view with ſurprize) are not to be found in the original, but are oc⯑caſioned 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 Doc⯑tor's having placed the names in the or⯑der [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 per⯑formance is intirely unfair, becauſe the Doctor's motto leaves no room for allow⯑ances 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 differ⯑ences 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 be⯑cauſe 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. Je⯑rome'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 bet⯑ter opinion of him, than to ſuppoſe, that he will ever endeavour to evade my cen⯑ſure of his Catalogue, by alledging that he did not mean by it to ſhew the corrup⯑tions 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 improbabi⯑lity that there is of the Doctor's ever ſeeking ſuch an evaſion, yet he muſt ex⯑cuſe 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 Tran⯑ſlation, eſpecially when a perſon is ſpeak⯑ing of corruptions in it; for the Corrup⯑tion of any Text muſt mean ſome wilful or accidental alteration from the original copy of the Author.

No Perſon therefore, ſpeaking concern⯑ing the corruption in a Tranſlation of any Book, may ſay that they are corruptions of the preſent Text of the ſaid book; be⯑cauſe [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 pre⯑ſent undertaking, as if theſe unjuſt cen⯑ſures were levelled at the Original Text itſelf.

There are many other things, I believe, which might be alledged againſt this Ca⯑talogue, 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 rec⯑koned 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 Cata⯑logue 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 col⯑lating 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 uſe⯑ful undertaking; and that there cannot be the leaſt objection to his new Edi⯑tion [37]of the Heb. Bible, if printed ac⯑cording to the propoſals offered by him in the year 1760; viz. (‘not with a new Text, but) from one of the beſt Edi⯑tions already publiſhed,’ having the various readings inſerted at the bottom of every page.