3L Citations ofTefiimoniea out of the OldTeJlament with fomeothers proceed farther, andaffign the rifeof this-difference unto fome other Copies of the Hebrew Text ufed by the LXX. varying from thofe which now remain. Thus inparticular, in that placeof Jeremy before mentioned , he conjectures that for 'nyy1 they read ,nyvr, I dJJpifed them; as another doth that they readú7n3 co the famepurpofe; for offilch conjeduresthere isnoend, But asle7y] may well fignifie as the Apofileexpounds it, and inotherplaces doth fo, as we fhall fee afterwards, fo this boldnefs incorrecting theText, and fancyingwithout proof, Teftimony or pro- bability of other ancient Copies of the Scripture of theOld Tegument, differing in many things from themwhich alone remain, and which indeed were ever in theworld, may quickly prove pernicious to the Church ofGod. We mull therefore look after' another expedient for the removal of thisdifficulty. 1. 20. I fay then, it ishighly' probable, that the Apof ie according to his wonted manner, which appears in almoft all theCitations ufedby him in this Epi¡tle, reporting the fenfe and importance of the places,itì words ofhis own, theCbriiftian^Tranfcribers oftheGreek Bible infected his exprcTons into theText, either as judgingthem a more properherfion of theOriginal, whereof theywere ignorant, than that of the LXX,or out ofa prepo- iterous zeal to take away the appearanceof a diverfity between the Text and theApo- filescitation ófit. Andthus in thofe Teftimonies where there isa real variation from the HebrewOriginal, the Apoltle took not his words from the Tranflation of the LXX, but his words were afterwardsinferted into that Tranflation. And this as me have partly made to appear already in fundry injtances, fo it (hall now briefly bAarther confir- med. For, Q. 2a FirJl, Whereas theReafons of theApoffkfor his Application of the Teffimonies ufed by him in his wordsand exprelions, are evident, as!hall in particularbe made ro fo noReafon can be aligned ,why the LXX. ( if any fuch LXX. t6,,r, tranflated the Old Tehament, or anyother Tranflators of it, fho.:!d i of the Hebrew Text. Neither VariousLetïions, nor ambiguity c.t words ofthe Original can in molt of them be pleaded.. For iuftance, The Apoftle na applying thofewords.of thePfalmiff, Pfalm 40. i4 m rn piiIH unto the humane na- ture and bodyofChnft, whereinhe did the will ofGoddid certainly exprefs thedelgu and intention of theHoly Ghofi in them. But who can imagine, what fhould move the LXX. to render pN a word of a known lignification and univocal, by mina, when theyhad tranflated it an hundred and fifty times, that is conflantly elfewhere, by, ave and Sync an ear, which alone it lignifies; or what !lipoid move them to render rro by xelaprí(), to prepare, when the word lignifies to digq; or to bore, and is al- wayes fo elfewhere rendred by themfelves ? Neither did any filch thing come hito their minds in the Tranllation of thofe places whence this Exprefon Items to,be bor- rowed, Exod.z1.6. Dew. 15. 17. Whenany manthen can give a tolerable conjecturé, why theLXX.thould be inclined thus to trantlate there words, Ichall confider it. In themeantime I judge there . is much more ground to fuppofe, that the Apofìles ex- preffìons which hehad weighty caufe to ufe, were byCome inferred into the GreekText of the OldTegument, than that aTranflation, which thofe that made it, had no eaule fo todo, evidently forfakingthe proper meaning of very obvious words, and their fenfea, known to themfelves, thould be taken up and ufed by theApoltle unto hispurpof. §:a2,. Secondly, Itis certain that fome Words ufed by the Apoftle have been inferred into fome Copiesof the Greek Bibles, which being tingle words, and of little importance prevailed not in them ill, as may be teen in fundry of the foregoing intlances. And whymay we not think.that Come whole fentences might on the fame account be in- ferted in forceof them, which beingofmore importance foúnd a. more general accep- tance, . And how alto by other means that Tranflatirmwas varioufly changed and corrupted of old, and that before the dayes of F ieran, Learned Men doknow and confels. q , z 3. It is further evident that oneplace (at leaf}) in this Epiflle, which it may befume could not conjecture fromwhor it thould be taken, yet finding it urged by the Apo- file, as a Teftimony out ofthe Teffament, is inlerted in another place of the Text than that from which the-Apoltle took it, and that where there is not the leaft colour for its intertion. This is the Teffimony out of Pfalm 95. v. 7. which the Apoftk cites Chan. r. v. 6. in words muchdiffering from thole wherewith the Original is rendered by the LXX. This tome of the Tranfcribers of theBiblenot knowing well where to find, have inferted in the veryfyIables of the Apoftles expreffion into Deut. 32. v 43. where
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=