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 [Page 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 [Page 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 [Page 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.’

[Page 7]But this account of Esdras is not ‘ita diversum’ as to amount to a contra­diction [Page 8]of the other, and therefore the doctor's motto is not at all applicable. [Page 9]For Ezra might at one time make particu­lar mention of such Vessels only as were [Page 10]perhaps ² chiefly used, or were most remarkable, and might mean to include [Page 11]all the rest in the general round Sum of 5400; and yet might afterwards think [Page 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 [Page 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.

[Page 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 [Page 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; [Page 16] ⁴; viz. 42,360; and yet none of their accounts amount to that sum by [Page 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 [Page 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.

[Page 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 [Page 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 [Page 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 [Page 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 [Page 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.

[Page 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.

[Page 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, [Page 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.

[Page 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 [Page 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 [Page 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.

[Page 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 [Page 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.

[Page 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 [Page 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 [Page 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 [Page 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 [Page 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 [Page 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.