A COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECY OF MICAH , By EDWARD POCOCK D. D. Canon of Christ-Church , and Regius Professor of the Hebrew Tongue in the Vniversity of OXFORD .

Imprimatur .

THE concurrence of severall reasons , ( each of which were sufficient ) have moved me to offer to your gracious acceptance this Essay . First , my duty to your Lordship as my Diocesan , who may justly challenge from me some account of my employments . Secondly , that gratitude which obligeth me to acknowledge your Lordships many favors extended to me and mine . And thirdly the need of patronage and protection that this Work hath , in regard that there is in it much stress laid on such part of Learning , ( the Orientall I mean , ) which of late , if not all along , hath had that unhappiness , as to be scarce able to keep it self , not only from neglect , but contempt , as needless ; at least of not great use or necessity . In some places abroad where it formerly found great encouragement , ( if we may beleive generall complaints , ) it hath now little regard , although I doubt not but that it will in good time recover its honor . That it may not be so among us at home , it must ow to the favour and countenance of men excelling as in authority and dignity , so in learning and judgement ; in which rank none being more eminent , so none will be more ready to afford it then your Lordship , who have your self alwaies been a lover of those Studies , and by long experience know and have made known the usefulness of them . I shall not here trouble your Lordship with giving an account of what is in these Annotations done , that being the proper work of the Preface . I shall only adde that besides the former motives , I have a strong encouragement to make this address to your Lordship from an assured confidence , that whatsoever it be that I bring , being the best that I have at present , and proceeding from those intentions with which it is offered , it shall by your Lordship be favouredly accepted from the hands of him who is

THE main thing in these Annotations endeavoured , is to settle the genuine aud literall meaning of the Text. Seeing it is often very differently rendred by Interpreters , according to their different judgments , from what we read in our English . Bibles ; and that in them also we have various readings in the Margin , I have laboured as far as I could to find out the truth among them , by examining such as I have occasion to take notice of , by the Original Hebrew , which is the standing rule which was at first by the goodness of God for such delivered to us by the Prophets and holy men divinely inspired , and hath ever since , by his wonderful Providence , been preserved uncorrupt and sincere .

Of any that shall question it , we may ask when it was corrupted , whither before Christs time or since ? If it be said before , and as an argument alledged for it , that there is a Translation of greater antiquity then his time , viz. in Greek , which so much differs from the Hebrew Copies which we now have , as to shew that in the Copy which the Authors thereof had , many things were read otherwise then in these , we are not to be moved by it , except three things be first made evident , 1. That the Copy which they had was a truer Copy then any reserved among the Jews which might be derived to us from them . 2. That those Interpreters strictly and precisely followed the letter of their Copy , and did not give themselves liberty of expressing what they conceived to be the sense and meaning , either more largely or in different words , or had not some notions of the words which are not now so usually known . 3. That the Copies which we have of their Version be genuin and uncorrupted , as they proceeded from them , without mixture or alteration . Which things have not yet been sufficiently proved , and I suppose cannot be .

Againe , if it had been before Christs time corrupted , it can scarce be doubted but we should have heard of it from him , who so often reprehending the Jews for their perverse Interpretations of it by the Glosses of their Traditions , we cannot think but he would much more have reprooved them if they had corrupted the Text it self .

And after his time it is no way probable that it could be altered or corrupted by any concurring malice of the Jews , ( as it must have been done by a general conspiration for corrupting all the Copies , or else would have been a vain attempt ) seeing it cannot be doubted but that among so many thousands of them , of whom many were converted to Christ , and among them divers others ( we may well suppose ) like Apollos , mighty in the Scriptures ( Act. 18. 24. ) many had in their hands true Copies of it , by which they would have discovered any forgery . And from them , that there were Copies imparted to other Christians also we have reason to think , when we find that among them for many years after Christ the Scriptures of the Old Testament were read in their Churches in the Hebrew language : for that it was so among the Syrians we have from a learned a a All Tacriti c. 29. man of that Nation , who in a Book that he wrote in Arabick , concerning divers heads of the Christian Religion , speaking of their manner of reading the Scriptures in the Church , saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i. e. In ancient time the Books of the old Testament were read in the Hebrew Tongue , till S. Ephraim forbad it : which we cannot think was for any other reason , but because they looked on the Hebrew as more genuine and authentick then any Translation , not that they had not then Translations of the Scripture in their own Language , as we shall by and by shew to be more then probable .

For these and other reasons , even the care that the Jews themselves ( as is by all known and confessed ) alwaies took of writing it exactly true , as that whereon their own preservation depended , we cannot on any probable grounds question the integrity thereof . Yea a learned b b Lud. Capell . in Crit. desens . p. 572. man , who is looked on to have laboured as much as any to question the integrity of the Hebrew Text , doth confess that in Christs time , and Ionathans the Paraphrast , the Hebrew Books that they then had were the same that we now have . And what then have we farther to be sollicitous about in this matter ? For of those was then the Book that our Saviour stood up to read in the Synagogue , and expounded by the same Spirit which first dictated what was therein written . Luc. 4. 16 , 17. &c. and the reading of which he justified by asking the Lawyer , who would know what he might do to inherit eternal life , What is written in the Law ? how readest thou ? Luc. 10. 26. Those the Scriptures , which he bad the Jews to search , as in which they thought to have eternal life , and as which testified of him , Io. 5. 39. and the same th●se of which he saith , that He came not to destroy but to fulfill them : and that till Heaven and Earth pass , one jote or title should not pass from them , till all were fulfilled , Mat. 5. 17 , 18. and which he so often cites and refers the Jews to , and the fulfilling of which he made the rule of what he did and suffered . Which his divine approbation of them , without questioning the Copies they then had of them , may justly seem to us a testimony of the integrity of them at that time , of greater validity then any human testimony from any different reading in any Translation , to make us question it . However these arguments may be eluded by such as will be contentious , yet they are such as may well sway with a sober mind , that neither before nor after Christs time the Hebrew Copies were corrupted , and so ought to be our undoubted rule .

The forecited c c Id. p. 625. Author saith that Translations are to be examined by the original Text , if any Copy of it be uncorrupted , and not that by translations : and that is that therefore , which not doubting those Copies that we have to be so , I have endeavored in part to do , so far at least as may serve to justify , or to give account of , that Translation of our own which we follow ; ( and deservedly , it being such and so agreeable to the Original , as that we might well choose among others to follow it , were it not our own , and established by authority among us : ) which could not well be done without comparing it with others also , and bringing all to the original Hebrew , as the test , as hitherto it hath had the honour to be esteemed , and will so still have , having on it that divine impress which will maintain its right and dignity against all that can be opposed .

For the end proposed it was oft necessary to look into the signification of the words in that Tongue , and what several senses they are capable of , that it may accordingly appear which of such as by several Interpreters are fastened on them , will be best agreeable to the place in which they occur , and according to the construction they are used in . For by the different understanding of them is that great variety which is amongst Interpreters , of which account cannot be given , much less they be though oftentimes reconcilable , or that all their different Versions proceeded from one Fountain , or at least one reading : but looking thereinto it will be made apparent that the variety proceeded not from any variety in their reading , but from the variety of significations of one word : among which some have , according to their different judgement , preferred one , some another , yet so as that all have thought themselves to follow the same Original , and ought not presently to be condemned , as disagreeable to it . According to this respect , several places in the new Testament cited out of the old , which according to the usual Translations seem to differ from them , as there now read in the old , will be found not to differ at all from them , according to another signification which the word , in which the difference is placed , is as capable of as that by modern Translators usually given it , and by them that follow those Translators looked on as having no other . As for example's sake . Where we find , Heb. 8. 9. And I regarded them not , saith the Lord , cited out of Ieremy , c. 31. 32. where is in ours and other Translations read , Although I was an husband unto them , saith the Lord : a man would think that these proceeded not from the same reading of the Hebrew Text , till enquiring into the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baalti in that Language , he find that that hath both these significations to be an husband , and to despise , loath , or not have regard to ; and so ( to omit other examples ) in that signal place in this Prophecy of Micah , c. 5. 2. which being cited Matt. II. 6. Thou Bethlehem Ephrata art not the least among the Princes of Iudah , will seem to flow from another reading then what now is read in the Prophet , Though thou be little among the thousands of Iudah ; till upon enquiry it be found that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tsair , used by the Prophet doth signify as well great or illustrious , as little . Then will the difference appear to be from the Interpreters taking , some the one signification , others the other : and that therefore these places might be rendred in the old Testament to the same purpose , that they are in the new . One Translation therefore is not presently to be condemned , because it differs from another , but both are to be tried by the Original ; and when they may both be found to agree to that , neither is rashly to be condemned , but with due deliberation and discretion , that to be followed which may give the most convenient meaning to the place ; which may oft be so doubtful a case , as that a man , though of good judgement and a discerning spirit , may be put to a stand , and will not dare rashly to determine on either side .

This having been observed by our Translators , they have with great modesty and ingenuity , we see , put various readings or rendrings in the Margin of our Bibles , as doubting which to prefer , and leaving it to the prudent Reader which to choose ; as if the one and the other were ( as the Jews in such cases use to speak ) both the words of the living God ; both true and agreeable as well to the original words as to the analogy of Faith . And such modesty is by all in interpreting the Scriptures very imitable , and being observed would prevent many quarrels , in which the truth , by rashly contending for it , is lost , and such uncharitably censured , as forsaking the truth , which did heartily seek it , and perhaps did not err from it .

Now for these ends , viz. both of finding the one or several significations of some words , where there was any dubiousness or difficulty , and the convenientest meaning of them in the place , agreeably to the scope or context , I have made use of ( according to my skill ) the best helps as I could meet with , and those of several kinds . Such are , The comparing of such places , as the word or expression that is to be explained , occurs in , elsewhere in the Scripture . 2. The inspection of several of the most approved Translations . 3. The use , either of such Books as give the signification of single words , as , Dictionaries , &c. or else labour to give the meaning of them as joined with others , as , Commentators and Expositors . The Translations that have been looked into are both ancient and modern ; the more ancient , the Greek , ( commonly called the Septuagint ) and the Latin , ( known by the name of the vulgar Latin ) and the Syriack and the Arabick Versions . The Greek and Latin have been so long known in all places in this Western part of the World , and so much by many hath been said of them , that it will be needless to give any account of them : but the other , viz. the Syriack and Arabick , though well , and only , known in the Eastern parts , so unknown among us , till the late noble Editions of the Polyglot Bibles at Paris and London , that it may seem requisite to give some . That the Syriack had anciently a Translation of the Scripture into their Language , is manifest , and such as may challenge priority of the Greek it self , if we may believe them . But for making the matter more clear , we may observe that they have two Translations , the one done out of the Hebrew , the other out of the Greek . Gregorius Abul Pharajius in his History , ( which was printed at Oxford in Arabick and Latin ) thus tells us , that the Greek Version made by the LXXII Elders in Ptolemeus Philadelphus's time , which was received not only by the Greeks , but by most Sects of the Christians , yet was not followed by the Syrians , especially the more Easterly ones : For that they had a Translation which was called the Simple or plain Version , because the Translators did not in it so much labour for elegance of words , which was conformable to the Copy of the Jews : but ( saith he ) the more Western have two Translations , that Simple one , which was translated out of Hebrew into Syriack , after the coming of Christ , in the time of Addaeus ( or Thaddaeus ) the Apostle ; or as others affirm , in the time of Solomon the son of David , and Hiram : and another more florid made according to that of the LXXII out of Greek into Syriack , a long time after the Incarnation of our Saviour . For better understanding what he saith , and the opinion of those of that Nation , we may farther take notice of what an ancient Bishop ( Soaded Bishop of Hadetha , cited by the learned Sionita in his Preface to his Edition of the Psalms in Syriack and Latin ) saies , That as to the Translation of the sacred Books it was thus , the Law , Iosue , Iudges , Ruth , Samuel , David , ( or the Psalms ) the Proverbs , Ecclesiastes , Canticles , and Iob , were done in the time of Solomon , at the request of Hiram King of Tyrus his friend . The other Books of the old and new Testament in the time of Abagar King of Syria , by the care of Thaddaeus and other Apostles . Their later Version I suppose to have been made by Thomas Heracleensis : for so I find in a Syriack MS ( of which account is given in the Preface to the second Epistle of S. Peter in Syriack , Greek and Latin , printed at Leiden , An. 1630. ) a distinction made betwixt the Translation which was made in ancient daies , and the Translation of Thomas Heracleensis . And so in the old Testament in the MS. Syriack Copy , is there prefixed to one Version of the Story of Susanna , that it was according to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Translation of Heracleensis , ( for there are two Versions of that Story in the Copy , but neither of them may be supposed to belong to the ancient simple Version , as neither probably any of the Apocryphal Books ; before some of which ( as the first book of Esdras ) is put , That they were conformed to the Tradition of the LXXII , and at the end of it , that it was not found in the simple Version , and so likewise before Tobit . ) When this Tho. Heracleensis lived I have not yet met with any certain Narration , only I find him signalized in a Syrian Calendar among their Saints or holy men , by having his name among those , to whose memory the 26. day of Haziran , or Iune , is consecrated , which makes it probable that he is not of late standing ; which will farther be confirmed , if he be the same ( as I suppose he was ) of whom Schultingius makes mention in his Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica , tom. 3. pag. 106. by the name of Thomas Harchalanus , giving account of him out of a Catalogue of Missals made by Ignatius Patriarch of Antioch , that he translated out of Greek into Chalde ( as he calls the Syriack ) the Missals of Iohn the Evangelist and of Clement , about four hundred and seven years after Christ . But when the Syrians contend for the Antiquity of their Version , we see it is for that other more ancient . But besides what they say for themselves , wherein perhaps they may seem to go too high , we have not only from the Greek Fathers , but from all our Copies of the LXXII it self undoubted proofs of the very great antiquity of some Syriack Version . In all the Editions that we have of the LXXII , ( except the Complutensian ) as well that out of the very ancient Copy in the Kings Library , as the rest from other Copies expressed , we have at the end of Iob these words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. he is interpreted out of a ( or the ) Syriack Book , i.e. the Bible , ( for out of no other Book would they have taken words for authentick Text. ) Which shews that there was a Syriack book ( or Translation ) ancienter then any of them : and that it was so written in those ancienter Copies , out of which any of them were transcribed ; they all of them , though in other things differing between themselves , agreeing in it . And this plainly gives us to look on the Syriack Version as very ancient , which is that which at present we say , and withall seems a sufficient proof , that ( as we above intimated ) there was before S. Ephraims time such a Translation among the Syrians in their own Tongue , which they might have used , if they had not thought the Hebrew more authentick , and as so , given that honour to it , as to use only it in their Churches . If they had not then had any , his forbidding them to use the Hebrew had been a depriving them of any use of the Scriptures of the old Testament , which we suppose was not his mind to do , but only to cause them to be read in a more intelligible Language , in which he is said to have written Comments on it .

But although this be as much as may suffice to our present purpose , yet having fallen on the mention of this matter , it may perhaps not be amiss by the way , to endeavor to give farther some little account of it , which if any think not to be of much concernment , he may pass it over .

Whereas the last Chapter of Iob in the Hebrew Text and such Translations , as follow it , ends with the 17. verse , and these words , So Iob dyed being old and full of daies , in the Greek called the Septuagint , are added to the quantity of several verses more , and that so anciently that some of the Greek Fathers have commented on them as authentick Text. d d Pro●m on the Catena on Job , printed at London , 1637. Olympiodorus saith that they were delivered as so from the Apostles themselves , and Polychronius that they were so accounted by the Fathers . There is first added , It is written that he should rise againe with those whom the Lord should raise . Then follows what we mentioned , He ( or this man ) is interpreted out of the Syriack book , dwelling ( or that he dwelt ) in the Land of Ausitis ( or Vz ) in the borders of Idumea and Arabia : and his name was Iobab , with other things concerning his wife and a son , and his Genealogy , as that he was of the posterity of Esau , and the fifth from Abraham , and reigned in Edom after Balat , &c. as likewise concerning his friends that came to visit him ; after which in the Copy printed according to that very ancient MS. in the Kings Library is repeated again a briefer account of Iob himself , having prefixed to it as before , He is interpretted out of the Syriack book , but in other Copies , this is not found . What use to make of this we shall after see . And it is by diverse ancient and modern taken notice that Aquila and Symmachus , who translated the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek , concluded that Book as the Hebrew doth , but that Theodotion , who likewise so translated them , and lived about 180. years after Christ , concluded it as the Septuagint doth , with Additions out of the Syriack Version .

But here may be objected against what we would thence infer concerning the antiquity of that Syriack Version , what is by some of the Greeks said that by the Syriack , named in those Additions to Iob , is meant the Hebrew Tongue ; to that purpose makes what in an Anonymous Greek Author , ( whose words were imparted to me by my Reverend and most learned friend Dr Thomas Marshall ) prefixed in a MS Copy to Ioannes Melala , is said , viz. that it was Origens opinion that it is so . Of what credit that Author is I know not , for it is not likely that Origen thought or should say so . In that Commentary on Iob , which goes under his name , it is said that that Book was written first in Syriack , and then done into Hebrew , being polished and completed by Moses . If so , then the Syriack and Hebrew in his opinion were looked on as different . But that Book is looked on as spurious , and the opinion a groundless conjecture . What Origen thought may easily be collected out of his Epistle to Africanus , part of which is set forth before the Text of Iob , by the learned Patricius Iunius , printed according to the MS copy in the Kings Library , where he saith that those words which follow in the Greek after the 17. verse of the last Chapter are not found among the Hebrews , and therefore neither in Aquila , but in the LXXII and Theodotion . Had he thought that by Syriack , out of which it is expresly said they were taken , had been meant Hebrew , he could not have said they had been wanting in the Hebrew Books . However , by others it is so said . For so Nobilius in his various readings o the Greek tells us , that the Greek Scholiast saith that he calls the Hebrew dialect , Syriack , because of the affinity betwixt them , and endeavors to prove it . Of that Greek Scholiast , I can give no account but from him . But in Olympiodorus in the Catena on Iob , we have the same expresly affirmed , who having observed that Aquila and Symmachus end where the Hebrew doth , but Theodotion hath the same additions that the LXXII , then gives his opinion thus , The Hebrew dial●ct he calls in this place Syriack ; then confirms it with those very loose and unconcluding arguments ; because , the Syriack language is of very nigh affinity with the Hebrew , having the same number of letters ( VIZ. 22. ) and then because Iudea is comprehended under the name of Syria .

But though this be by him and others , who perhaps looked not much into those Tongues , affirmed , we cannot be much moved by it . For besides that no such words are found in any Hebrew copy , which he himself confesseth , and so destroys what he would affirm , if Hebrew and Syriack be one , we cannot think it an opinion generally received by the Fathers . Some of them certainly knew , that to say Syriack and Hebrew were different things , and would not confound them by calling one the other . Besides , what we have already said from Origen , S. Chrysostome ( who living long at Antioch in Syria , could not but know what was meant by the Syriack language , ) on the 48. Psalm , according to the Greek division , in one verse , cites both the Syriack and the Hebrew , and as distinct readings ; and so Theodoret on Psalm 115. and on Ionah 3. 4. to omit many other testimonies , several of which are found in the Greek Scholiast , and Nobilius's Notes thereon .

And whereas , as the same Nobilius observes , some say that by Syriack is meant Chalde , that signifies nothing , for it will be no more then to say , by Syriack is meant Syriack : for these are at most but two Dialects of one Tongue , however it hath obtained that that which the Jews retained after their return from Babylon , where they learned it , and lost much of their own , and framed much to the rules of the Hebrew , be peculiarly called Chalde , as any that would know more of it may see in the learned Preface of Ludovicus de Dieu , to his Grammar of the Oriental Tongues . To this day divers of the Syrians call themselves Chaldeans , and their Tongue Chalde , and that which we call Chalde the Jews call ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arami , Syriack . And what then would , if this were granted , be thence concluded , but that either the book of Iob was written in the Chalde Dialect , or else that there was in it a Translation of that Book in which those additions were read as authentick Text when the Seventy translated it into Greek , and they followed its authority . Neither of which I supposed will be granted ; for besides that , in the Chalde Paraphrast that we now have , no such additions are found , it is manifest that that is of much later date then Ptolomaeus Philadelphus his time , and that there was any other in his time in that Dialect , which is now lost , none can prove , nor will any Christians easily grant , although e e R. Azarias . See Buxt . de punctorum antiq. part. 1. c. 9. p. 126. &c. and R. Gedaliah cited by Hotinger . Philol. Sac. p. 205. some Jews contend for it , and would have the Greek of the Seventy to have been translated out of that , and not out of any genuin Hebrew copy , which is too great a slurre to be cast upon it . There is therefore nothing said except they mean it is the Hebrew which is called Syriack , and who should mean so ? surely not the Seventy , who by all are said to have been Jews ; they would not so far have profaned their holy Tongue ( as they all call it , by way of excellency to distinguish it from all others and * * Cozari l. 2. c. 68. peculiarly Syriack ) as to call it so , nor taken for authentick Text any thing that they had not found in it , no , nor Theodotion himself , so long after them , having that skill in Hebrew which he had , have confounded those names , nor any ancient Greek who knew so much of it as to be able to translate it .

There was a time ( as we have intimated ) after the Jews return from Babylon , when their Language had so much of Chalde , or Syriack , mingled with it , as that it might have been as well called Syriack as Hebrew ; yet even then was it rather called Hebrew then Syriack , as appears in the new Testament . But sure the ancient proper Hebrew , such as we now speak of , none could so call who had any insight in those Tongues , except for some design ; so that to say that by Syriack is meant the Hebrew , must be the assertion of some Greeks , who were either ignorant of those Languages , or else were unwilling to attribute too much to the Syriack , or give preference to it , above the Greek Version , as ancienter then it . They might as well tell us that Iacob spake Syriack , when he called the heap Galeed as well as Laban , who called it f f Gen. 31. 47. Iegar Sahadutha . But if it be granted them that by Syriack in those words in the Greek was meant Hebrew , how then will they unriddle how that , which , according to them , was anciently a part of the Text in the Hebrew , and thence as so , taken into the Greek , is now wanting in all the Copies in that Language , and was likewise omitted by Aquila and Symmachus , who undertook the Translation of the whole that was looked on as authentick ? they will not be able to give any rational account of this . But to us , who look on as meant by Syriack that Language properly so called , it will be no difficulty . For if it be asked how it should come to pass that those additions should so anciently come into the Greek Version , being not in the Hebrew , but said to be taken out of the Syriack book , the answer , I suppose , will be easy . Some anciently among the Syrians , ( whose custome of inserting Notes or Scholias in their Copies may be perceived out of such as are taken notice of , in the various readings of the Syriack in the Polyglot Bibles , gathered by the learned Mr Thorndike ) had somewhere in his Copy of the Syriack Translation to the book of Iob added for explication sake , according to what he had either by Tradition , or out of some History then extant , received concerning the person of Iob , that brief account of him , not unlike to which , though not quite the same , there are found prefixed to it in two Copies in that Language , which were made use of in the Edition of those Polyglot Bibles , two in something different terms , and one shorter then the other ; as he that pleaseth , may see in the various readings of the Syriack in that Book . This , those that copied out anciently , those Versions of the Septuagint and Theodotion , ( for it will be too much to say the Authors of them themselves , especially of the first , if they were truly the Seventy , who commonly bear that name ) finding in some such old Syriack copy , thought worth while to translate into Greek , and add in their own at the end . ( Yea so , as if in differing Copies they found such account given in differing terms , to take notice thereof also , as appears by what is done in the ancient MS of the Kings Library , as we have mentioned . ) Which other transcribers after continued , till what was so added was in time taken in as part of the genuine Text ; with inanimadvertency enough , seeing the Appendix , as is well noted in the various Lections to the Francfort Greek Edition , doth not redolere stilum Canonis , savour of , or any way agree with , the style of the Canonical Text. And this being observed , the meaning of those words , He ( i. e. Iob , his person not the book , as the Author of the Comment , called Origen's , seems to think ) is interpreted , will be , account ●is given of him in the following words out of the Syriack Book ( or Version . ) That expression is agreeable , as to the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. ( to be interpreted , ) in the new Testament and other Authors , so to what is usual among the Eastern People , and peculiarly in the Arabick Writers to call the account given of the Genealogy , name , and History of any , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tarjamatoho , his interpretation ( as often in that famous writer of lives Ebn Chalican , and others ) and perhaps in the Syriack book might be written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Methtargam , He is thus interpreted , i. e. account is thus given of him .

This conjecture is abundantly confirmed by what we read in Polychronius forecited , who witnesses that those additions to Iob , however by many received into the Text , whose opinion himself followed because of the authority of the Fathers , yet were by others rejected ; They ( saith he ) reject the Genealogy which is in the end , because it is not in the Hebrew , and the Book is concluded with those words , And Iob dyed being old and full of daies , and say that the likeness of the name in the Genealogy of Esau , which is in the book of Genesis , where mention is made of Iobab , gave occasion of error to some , and of making that Scholion , or Note , and that in tract of time afterwards , that which was written in the Margin ( or elsewhere ) was by others taken into the Text.

However it were , yet these things which have been said , taken at the least advantage , give testimony to the antiquity of the Syriack Version . That which was mentioned in the ancientest Copies of the Septuagint and Theodotion , which were seen and used by the Greek Fathers , and had such credit when they were written as to be taken notice of as of great authority , and little less authentick then the Text it self , must needs be ancient . I hope none will think this to be eluded by saying that Iob alone was then translated into Syriack , and not other Books of the Scripture ; this would be a supposition contrary not only to the testimony of Syriack Writers and others , which ought not rashly to be contemned , but to all reason .

Something to this purpose may be collected also out of the conclusion of the Book of Iob in the printed Arabick Version , in which that which makes the 18. verse in the Greek , viz. It is written that he should rise , &c. is not found , nor that which follows , He is interpreted out of the Syriack Book , but most of the rest , ( after a breach made ) is , though somwhat different from what is in Greek : for whereas in it , is said , that he was the fifth from Abraham , the Arabick saith he was the sixth , with some other differences in the Arabick it self , but made more by the mistake of the Latin Translator , as he that shall look into it shall easily perceive , as where instead of Asom , a proper name , he puts nomen , because the word , so signifying , hath the same letters with the other . And then he concludes , saying that the Author of the Copy , out of which he wrote it , saith , that this Book was translated out of Syriack into Arabick . Whether that Author meant it of the whole Book , or only of the additions , may be doubted as also some other things which cannot be farther determined without sight of his MS Copy . However , it appears that the Syriack Version was then in great authority and veneration . I have been long in this digression , not seeking to attribute more to the Syriack Version then may in reason be due to it , but to vindicate to it that which it may justly challenge , as to its antiquity . To return and proceed ,

We reckon likewise among the ancient Translations , the Arabick , though all of much later date then the former . In that Language there are several Versions , some done out of the Hebrew , some out of Greek , some out of Syriack , and perhaps one of late years done and printed at Rome out of the vulgar Latin ; as I was told by one of that Church , was intended , and I have seen some Sheets of it , but I know not whether it were completed . However , that is none of those we speak of . Those that I had to deal with are two , the one , that which is found in the Polyglot Bibles , which when , or by whom , done is uncertain ; it is conformed mostly to the Greek ; in this part , I mean , of the Minor Prophets ; for the whole Bible is apparently not of one Texture , but in some parts seems more conformed to the Hebrew , ( as in the Pentateuch ) in others to the Syriack , in others to the Greek , as he that peruseth it will find . The other is a Manuscript , the use of which I had out of the store of my learned and very good friend Mr Robert Huntington . There is no name of the Author expressed ( that I find ) in the Copy . Whither it be the work of R. Saadiah Haggaon ( a Jew famous as for his other Works , so for his Translation of the Books of the old Testament , out of Hebrew into Arabick ) I have reason to doubt , seeing the Prophecy of Isaiah , which is in the same Volume , differs from what I find in another Copy of that Prophecy , which bears his name . And it is certain that others of the Jews , besides him , did translate the Scriptures ( or part of them ) into that Language , and therefore if it be any where by me cited as his , it is not positively affirmed , and I almost think it is not his . Whose ever it be , it seems to be of some antiquity , for it is not of late years that the Jews have used to write in Arabick , as formerly they did , as is shewed in the Preface to Porta Mosis . Whither we should reckon Ionathan , who made a Paraphrase of the Prophets , among Translators or Expositors , I something doubt , because taking liberty of a Paraphrast , he rather makes his business to give the meaning then the particular signification of the words , which is more the business of a strict Translator ; although every such Translator too may not amiss be looked on as an Expositor or Commentator . This Paraphrase is of great authority with the Jews , and is constantly affirmed to have been made much about Christs time ; and I know not why we should question it . For those allegations against it , whcih are brought out of that Paraphrase of the Law , which goes under the name of Ionathan , and hath besides the difference of the style , many things in it savouring of greater novelty , signify nothing , that being confessedly none of this Ionathans work , and therefore is as the other Paraphrases , on the other Books , of much less authority ( if any at all ) then that of Onkelos on the Law , or the true Ionathan on the Prophets .

Besides these ancient Versions , it was convenient to look on others more modern ; such are those of Pagnin , the Tigurin , Munster , Castalio , Iunius and Tremellius in Latin , and Diodati in Italian , &c. which will be found sometimes cited . These often differing among themselves , and from the ancienter , and from ours , give us occasion to examine the words in the Hebrew , and to enquire more narrowly into the grounds of the difference , and to see what the Original will bear , that so we might be able to judge between them , which not seldom will be an hard matter to do , and force us to leave the Reader to prefer that which seems to him best in his own judgement , seeing that will bear more , by reason of the different use and signification of the words that occur in it , and all making a good sense . When I have occasion to cite the vulgar Latin , I have mostly chosen to give it in the words of the Doway Translation into English out of it , as that which perhaps would be judged more authentick then any rendring of mine own . In the use of our English Translation I would desire the Reader to have an eye to the marginal reading , together with what is in the Text.