Many are of opinion that it is an easy thing to write reflections on the Scriptures; my opinion 13 the reverse; common-place observations, which may arise on the surface of the latter, may be easily made by any person possessing a little common sense and a measure of piety; but reflections, such as become the oracles of God, are properly inductive reasonings on \\\c facts stated or the doctrines delivered, and require, not only a clear head and a sound heart, but such a compass and habit of philosophic thought, such a power to discern the end from the beginning, the cause from its effect, (and where several causes are at work to ascertain their respective results, so that every eilect may be attributed to its true cause,) as falls to the lot of but few men. Through the flimsy, futile, and false dealing of the immense herd of spiritualizers, metaphormen, and allegorists, pure religion has been often disgraced. Let a man put his reason in ward, turn conscience out of its province, and throw the reins on the neck of his fancy, and he may write — ^reflections without end. The former description of reflections 1 rarely attempt for want of adequate powers; the latter, my reason and conscience i>ro]ubil; let this be my excuse with the intelligent and jjious reader. 1 have, however, in tliis way, done what I could. I have generally, at the close of each chapter, sununed up in a few particulars the facts or doctrines contained in it; and have endeavoured to point out to the reader the spiritual and practical use he should make of them. To these inferences, improvements, or whatever else they may be called, I have given no specific name; and of them can only say, that he who reads them, though he may be sometimes disappointed, will not always lose his labour. At the same time I beg leave to inform him that I have not deferred spiritual uses of important texts to the end of the chapter; where they should be noticed in the occurring verse I have rarely passed them by.
Before I conclude, it may be necessary to give some account of the original vkksions of the sacred writings, which have been often consulted, and to which occasional references arc made in the ensuing work. These are the Samaritan, Chahlaic, jjithiopic, Septuagint, with those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; the Syriac, Vulgate, Arabic, Coptic, Persian, and Anglo-Stt.ron.
The Samaritan text must not he reckoned among the versions. It is precisely the same with the Hebrew, only fuller; having preserved many letters, words, and even whole sentences, sometimes several verses, which arc not extant in any Hebrew copy with which we are acquainted. In all other respects it is the same as the Hebrew, only written in what is called the Samaritan character, which was probably the ancient Hebrew, as that now called the Hebrew character was probably borrowed from the Chaldeans.
1. The Samaritan- version differs widely from the Samaritan test: the latter is pure Hebrew, the former is a literal version of the Hebreo-Sainaritan text, into the Chaldaico-Samaritan dialect. IVhcu this was done it is impossible to say, but it is allowed to be very ancient, consider- 18« ( 3)
ably prior to the Christian era. The language of this version is composed of pure Hebrew, Syro-Chaldaic, and Cuthite terms. It is almost needless to observe that the Sauaritan text and Samaritan version extend no farther than the five books of Moses; as the Samaritans received no other parts of the sacred writings.
2. The Chaldaio version or Targums have already been described among the commentators. Under this head are included the Targum of Onkelos upon the whole law; the Jerusalem Targum on select parts of the five books of Moses; the Targum of Jonathan hen Uzzicl also upon the Pentateuch; the Targum of Jonathan upon the prophets; and the Targum of Rabbi Joseph on the books of Chronicles; but of all these the Targums of Onkelos on the lau\ and Jonathan on the prophets, are the most ancient, the most literal, and the most valuable. See page 1 and 2 of this preface.
3. The Septuagint translation of all the versions of the sacred writings has ever been deemed of the greatest importance by competent judges. I do not, however, design to enter into the controversy concerning this venerable version; the history of it by Aristseus I consider in the main to be a mere table, worthy to be classed with the tale of Bel and the Dragon, and the stupid story of Tobit and his Dog: Nor do I believe, with many of the fathers, that " seventy or seventy-two elders, six out of each of the twelve tribes, were employed in the work; that each of these translated the whole of the sacred books from Hebrew into Greek while confined in separate cells in the island of Pharos;" or that they were so particularly inspired by G od that every species of error was prevented, and that the seventy-two copies, wlien compared together, were found to be precisely the same, verbatim et literatim. My own opinion, on the controversial part of the subject, may be given in a few words: I believe that the five books of Moses, the most correct and accurate part of the whole work, were translated from the Hebrew into Greek in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, about 285 years before the Christian era; that this was done, not by seventy-two, but probably by Jive learned and judicious men, and that when completed it was examined, approved, and allowed as a faithful version, by the seventy or seventy-two elders who constituted the Alexandrian Sanhedrim.; and that the other books of the Old Testament were done at difierent times by different hands, as the necessity of the case demanded, or the providence of God appointed. It is pretty certain, from the quotations of the evangelists, the apostles, and the primitive fathers, that a complete version into Greek of tlie whole Old Testament, probabh' called by the name of the Septuagint, was made and in use before the Christian era; but it is likely that some of the books of that ancient version are now lost, and that some others, which now go under the name of the Septuagint, were the production of times posterior to the incarnation.
4. The Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Tlieodotion, arc frequently referred to. Aquila was first a heathen, then a Christian, and lastly a Jew. He made a translation of the Old Testament into Greek so ver}- literal, that St. Jerome said it was a good dictionary to give the genuine meaning of the Hebrew words. He finished and published this work in tlie twelfth year of the reign of the Emperor Adrian, A. D. 128.
5. Theodotion was a Christian of the Ehionitc sect, and is reported to have begun his translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek merely to serve his own party; but from what remains of his version it appears to have been very literal, at least as far as the idioms of the two languages would bear. His translation was made about the year of our Lord 180. All this work is lost, except his version of the book of the Prophet Daniel, and some fragments.
6. Symmachus was originally a Samaritan, but became a convert to Cliristianit}' as professed l)y the Ehionilcs. In forming his translation he appears to have aimed at giving the sense, rather than a literal version of the sacred text. His worli was probably completed about A. D. 200.
These three versions were published by Origen in his famous work entitled, Hexapla, of which they formed the third, fourth, and sixth colmnns. All the remaining fragments have been carefully collected by Father Montfaucon, and jjublished in a work entitled, Hexapla Orisrenis qua: supcrsunt, d-c. Paris, 1713. 2 vols, folio. Republished by C. F. Bahrdt, Leips. 1769, 2 vols. 8vo.
7. The ^Ethiopic version comprehends only the New Testament, the Psalms, some of the minor Prophets, and a few fragments of other books. It was probably made in the fourth century.
8. The Coptic version includes only the five books of Moses, and the New Testament. It is supposed to have been made in the fifth century.
9. The Syriac version is very valuable and of great authority. It was probably made as early as the second century; and some tliink that a Syriac version of the Old Testament was in existence long before the Christian era.
10. A Latin version, known by the name of the Itala, Italic or Antehieronymian, is well known amonir learned men; it exists in the Latin part of the Codex Beza at Cambridge, and in several other MSS. The text of the four gospels in this version, taken from four MSS. more ihan a thousand years old, was published by Blanchini, at Rome 1749, 4 vols, folio, and a larger collection by f>ahathicr, Rheims, 1743, 3 vols, folio. This ancient version is allowed to be of great use in 13il)lical criticism.
11. Tlic Vulgate, or Latin version, was formed by Saint Jerome, at the command of Pope Damasus, \. D. 384. Previously to this there were a great number of Latin versions made by different hands, some of which Jerome complains of as being extremely corrupt and self-contradictory. These versions, at present, go under the general name of the old Itala or Antchieronymian, already noticed. Jerome appears to have formed his text in general out of these, collating the whole with the Hebrew and Greek, from whicli he professes to have translated several books entire. The New Testament he is supposed to have taken wholly from the original Greek; yet there are sufficient evidences that he often regulated even this text bv the ancient Latin ver.=ions.
12. The Aiifflo-SaTon version of the four Gospel^! is supposed to have been taken from the ancient ItaJa some time in the eighth century; and that of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Job, from the Vulgate, by a monk called jElfric, in the ninth century. The former was printed at Dort, ill conjunction willi the Gothic version, by F. Junius, 166.5, 4to.; the latter, by Edward Thwaitrs, Oxford, 1()93, 8vo.; but in this version many verses, and even whole chapters, are left out; and the Book of Job is onlj- a sort of abstract, consisting of about five pages.
13. The Arabic is not a very ancient version, but is of great use in ascertaining the signification of several Hebrew words and forms of speech.
14. Tlie Persian includes only the five Books of Moses and the four Gospels. The former was made from the Hebrew text by a Jew named Yacoitb Tonsce; the latter, by a Christian of the Catholic persuasion, Simon Ihn Yusuf Ihn Ibrahecm al Tubreczee, about the vear of our Lord 1341.
These are the principal versions which are deemed of authority in settling controversies relative to the text of the original. There are some others, but of less importance; such as the Slavonic, Gothic, Sahidic, and Armenian; for detailed accounts of which, as also of the preceding, as far as the New Testament is concerned, I beg leave to refer the reader to Michaelts^s Lectures, in the translation, witli the notes of the Rev. Dr. Herbert yfarsh, and to the General Preface to the Gospels and Acts; and for farther information concerning Jcjcis/j and Christian commentators, he is requested to consult Bartoloccius^s Bibliothcca Rabbinica, and the Biblio' theca Theologica of Father Calmet.
In the preceding list of commentators I find I have omitted to insert in its proper place a work with whicli 1 have been long acquainted, and which for its piety and erudition I have invariably admired, viz.: " y1 plaine discovery nf the whole Revelation of Saint John; set doionc in two Treatises: The one searching and proving the true interpretation thereof: The other applying the same paraphrastieally and liistorically to the text. Set foorlli by Joiix Napeih L. of Marchestoun, younger. Wliercunto arc annexed certaiue Oracles of Sibylla, agreeing with tlie Revelation "and other places of Scripture. Edinburgh, printed b)' Robert Waldegrave, printer to the King's Majestie, 1503. Cum privilegio Rcgali, 8vo.
When tlie reader learns that the author of this little work was the famous Baron of Marchestoun, the inventor of the logarithms, a discover}- which has been of incalculable use in the sciences of astronomy, practical geometry, and navigation, he will bp jirepared to receive with respect what so great a genius has written upon a book that, above all others in the sacred code, seems to require the head and hand of the soundest divine and mathematician. The work is dedicated " to the right excellent, high and mighty Prince James VI.. King of Scoltes," afterwards James I., King of England; and in tlie Epistle Dedicatorie, the autlior strongl}- urges him to complete the reformation begun in his own empire, that he might be a ready instrument in the hand of God in executing judgment on the papal throne, which he then supposed to be near the time of its final overtlirow. Tlie first treatise is laid down in thirty-six propositions relating to the seals, trumpets, vials, and thunders.