De Moor II:9: The Authenticity of the Hebrew and Greek Originals Defended, Part 1

What our AUTHOR taught in the preceding § concerning the Independent Authority and Authenticity of Scripture, found only in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and Greek Text of the New Testament, he now further defends, especially against the Papists, who for this Purpose, that they might establish the authority of their Vulgate Version, argue that the Founts are Corrupted:  thus Stapleton, Lindanus,[1] Cano, Coton,[2] Jean Morin,[3] Perronius,[4] and the like.  While others among them, not a few, whom they call Hebraizers, acknowledge and openly defend the Purity of the Founts; of which sort are Sixtus Senensis,[5] Bannes,[6] Andradius, Driedo,[7] Arias Montanus,[8] Bonfrerius,[9] Simon de Muis,[10] etc.  These latter men follow the determination of Canon Law, which our AUTHOR mentions, namely, that found in the Decreto of GRATIAN, part I, Distinction IX, chapter VI, As the trustworthiness of the ancient books is to be weighed from the Hebrew volumes, so the trustworthiness of the new requires the norm of the Greek language; and in Distinction LXXVI, chapter VII, out of Jerome on Zechariah 8, We are compelled, therefore, to have recourse to the Hebrew books, and to seek the verity of knowledge from the fount, more than from rivulets.  In a certain middle way Bellarmine proceeds, book II de Verbo Dei, chapter II, where in column 86 he writes:  “The Heretics of this time, out of hatred for the Vulgate Edition, attribute too much to the Hebrew edition.  For Calvin, and also Chemnitz[11] and Georgius Major,[12] maintain that all things are examined and emended according to the Hebrew text, which they frequently call the purest fount.  Which opinion is most manifestly false.”  He adds in column 87, “It appears that there are others, who with zeal indeed good, but I do not know whether according to knowledge, wholeheartedly contend that the Jews out of hatred of the Christian faith have studiously depraved and corrupted many passages of the Scriptures.”  He concludes in column 92, “Therefore, with these two opinions refuted, a third remains, which I think to be altogether true, which is that of Driedo and others, who teach that the Hebrew Scriptures have not been entirely depraved by the labor and malice of the Jews; but that neither are they altogether whole and pure, but have certain errors of their own, which partly crept in by the negligence or ignorance of the scribes, etc.  Moreover, the errors of this sort are not of great moment, etc.”  Compare BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 3, tome 2, pages 1458b, 1460a.  To the Papists are to be added the Socinians, who either out of the error or malice toward the Jews and Ancient Heretics complain of Corrupted Founts:  with this Purpose, that they might obtain the license to evade certain, most compelling passages, especially of the New Testatment, such as 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 5:7; etc.:  see what things are cited out of Socinus’ libro de Auctoritate Scripturæ, chapter I, pages 26, 27, 29; out of Volkelius’ book V, de Religione,[13] chapter V, page 376; out of the Catechesi Racoviensi, chapter I, “de Scriptura”, page 6, by HOORNBEECK in his Socinianismo confutato, tome I, book I, chapter II, pages 29, 30.  To these are to be joined a good number of Pseudo-Critics, Spinoza, Pererius,[14] Louis Cappel [see BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 3, tome 2, pages 1460-1462], Isaac Vossius[15] [see BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 3, tome 2, pages 1462b, 1463, where, as agreeing with Isaac Vossius, especially as far as Chronology is concerned, he joins Paul Pezron[16]], Richard Simon, Marcus Meiboom,[17] Jean Le Cleric [see BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 3, tome 2, pages 1463b, 1464a; who before the others reviewed by me records also on page 1460 Joseph Justus Scaliger as preferring the Alexandrian Greek Version to the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament; whom Claudius Salmasius, Hugo Grotius, and others followed, lest they should appear to symbolize with the rabble], and others, who in as many Passages as possible complain that the Sacred Text, especially the Hebrew, has been Corrupted, by injury of time, by the carelessness of scribes, etc., to be restored unto integrity by the comparison of Versions, especially the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch, or even by critical conjectures.  Who thus either maliciously, or unwarily, but nevertheless quite certainly, detract from the divine and unimpaired authority of the Sacred Codex.  I would not now mention the Mohammedans, who indeed partly acknowledge, but also partly reject, Sacred Scripture and its authority, both on account of narrations in the Koran contrary to Scripture, and because of Christ’s prophecy, deleted out of the New Testament, concerning the coming of Mohammed as Apostle and Prophet, and because of its ἐναντιοφανῆ, supposedly contradictory character, blindly raked up;  see HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum Philologicum, book I, chapter II, question IV, pages 125, 126; HOORNBEECK’S Summam Controversiarum, book III, pages 104-111, where the accusation of Corruption directed by Mohammedans at our Codices Hoornbeeck likewise refutes, 1.  by pointing out, that this was not able to be done by Christians, nor by Jews, still less by both conspiring together, without this outrage being quickly detected by others.  2.  That pure Codices more ancient than Mohammed, or Commentators on the Bible, ought to be brought forward, from which this Corruption might be proven.  3.  By asking, if it had seemed right to Christians to mutilate the Scriptures for the deceit of the Mohammedans, why would they not have crammed in other, more weighty things, against them in the same work?  4.  By adding, if you once urge that the Founts are Corrupted; whence are you going to prove that the same are not corrupted in other things, which, for example, are adduced as true in the Koran itself?  5.  That thus rashly Mohammed to such a degree commended the Scripture elsewhere.  Now, to the Objection concerning the deletion from the Scripture of the name of Mohammed and of the prophecy of his coming, Hoornbeeck in the same place responds, 1.  They are obliged to prove this accusation from ἀξιοπίστοις/trustworthy documents.  2.  Let them bring forward the passage in which these things were formerly read, so that we might examine the text and Ancient Codices, to see whether there be any indication of corruption.  3.  Or whether even one Codex or Ancient Commentator survive, in which these things might be found, or which had made mention of this corruption.  4.  The contrivance advances itself in this, that Mohammed himself complains of this matter in the Koran:  but how would Christians before the birth or death of Mohammed have removed the prophecy concerning him so completely from the Sacred Codices?  5.  Therefore, it is such as any imposter is able easily to allege:  compare GROTIUS’ de Veritate Religionis Christianæ, book VI, § 3; and see, if you would, VOETIUS’ Disputationem de Insolubilibus (ut vocant) Scripturæ, Disputationum Selectarum, volume I, pages 47 and following; WALCH’S[18] Miscellanea Sacra, book I, exercitation VI, § 9, 10, pages 154-156; HENDRIK LUSSING’S de Necessitate Religionis in genere, et Certitudine Christianæ in specie, vindicata, part I, dissertation V, § 581-611, pages 454-482.

What Adversaries Object against the authority of the Hebrew and Greek Founts is not so; namely,

1.   Ignorance of these Languages.  For,

              a.  My Ignorance of a Language, in which some Book has been written, does not detract from the Authenticity of that Book, neither does it cause it to be that the text of that Book is of less authority.

              b.  That ignorance in Teachers is by all means to be blamed, and is to be removed by sedulous industry.

              c.  The Unlearned are to be assisted by a faithful Translation as an instrument, not as the foundation, of faith:  and the very smallest part of those are skilled in the Latin language.

2.  That thus our faith is suspended upon the tradition of the Rabbis.  Response:  by denial; although, a.  from the Commentaries of the Rabbis we do indeed to some extent draw an exposition of the Hebrew Words, as from profane Writers we draw the signification of Greek words:  but not the explication of the Sense of Scripture.  b.  Also concerning both a judgment is able to be rendered from Context and Parallels.  c.  Neither are other helps from cognate Oriental dialects wanting.  On Objections 1 and 2 compare DINANT’S de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter IV, § 49-52, pages 658-675.

3.  That these Founts are founts of contentions on account of the variety of the Points, Readings, and Interpretations.

              Responses:  a.  These contentions do not arise from the Founts by defect of those Founts, but of those who misuse these, not understanding them, or twisting them to their own principles.

              b.  The contentions are often also put to rest by an examination of the Founts.

              c.  If the Hebrew and Greek Founts be not Authentic on account of the contentions arising thence, then no edition of the Bible at all, whether Latin, or whatever other, would be Authentic:  for there is no version of the Bible in whatever language that through intervening corruption of human nature, and the imperfect measure of our knowledge, is not able to furnish material for contention.

4.  That the Autographs were formerly Lost.

              Responses:  a.  By conceding the Minor, and acknowledging the wisdom of God in this dispensation with JOHANN FRIEDRICH MAYER,[19] Dissertationibus Selectis XIX, § 12, page 566.  He says, “We believe that this was done by the most wise counsel of God, lest our minds, cleaving to the external husk of the letter, should more negligently hold the sense of the Holy Spirit, and, being seduced by a superstitious admiration of the Prophetic and Apostolic hands, should be too little solicitous concerning the finger of God, the virtue of which in these writings one may sense.”  He also adds this, that the matter would have been conjoined with perpetual emulation, since to only one particular Church the possession of so eminent a treasure would have been conceded, but out of the largesse of the same the rest would have been obliged to seek the credit of their own copies:  moreover, that one Codex could easily have been corrupted, and drawn unto the sense that the possessors of it were holding; but if that depraved Codex should afterwards be set forth as genuine, an immense Corruption of the copies would flow from thence.

              b.  But we deny the Consequence.  Since, 1.  the Copies in the same language very closely agree with the Autographs:  and, 2.  the certain and immoveable trustworthiness of our Copies is no more able to be called into doubt than the Copies of the writings of Cicero, Livy, Virgil, and Ovid are called into doubt, in spite of the fact that not a single Autograph of any one of these or of similar authors survives:  how much less when our Codices with respect to the Old Testament are authenticated by the Lord and His Apostles; with respect to the New Testament, by the Ancient Church:  and the credit of these is evident both from the reverence of the Jews concerning the Sacred Codex of the Old Testament, and from the consensus of the Codices printed and Manuscript, which, although written at very different times, agree in all things with a most agreeable harmony.  3.  In any event, the loss of the Autographs is able to procure for no Version authenticity above the Hebrew and Greek Copies, since all Versions proceed from Copies rather than the Autographs.

5.  But principally to evade the Authenticity of the Founts, they allege that the same now are actually Corrupted, either by the injury of time, or the scribes’ liability to error, or even, as Galatinus,[20] Pezron, Whiston,[21] and others maintain (see CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter III, § 6, number 2, page 109, and part III), deliberately, out of the hatred of the Jew toward the Christians and their faith; which Corruption they try to prove by various examples, also reported by our AUTHOR.

But, before we examine these examples, it is helpful to observe the following things in advance.

We concede some Corruption of the Founts, but of what sort?  α.  Accidental, β.  of some Exemplars, γ.  of one Point or Letter or another, δ.  always correctable from Parallels.

But we deny Corruption, α.  done deliberately by the Jews, β.  universal, of all Codices, γ.  of the whole Context, δ.  frequent, and, ε.  irreparable, through which, if by then it be nearly universal, the sense would thus be injured, inasmuch as the sense would no longer be able to be discovered in the Context or by Parallels.  We demonstrate this negative assertion:

α.  From the Providence of God, which by a singular kindness has so watched over our Codex that it might not at any time take in anything defective, according to Isaiah 40:8, compared with 1 Peter 1:25.  But, if the divine Providence willed as much to preserve for the Church the Canon perpetual, as to preserve for the Canon its integrity, it follows that today’s Canon of Scripture is uncorrupted:  otherwise God would not have achieved His goal.  But divine Providence willed as much to preserve for the Church the Canon perpetual; for to this end God granted to the Church θεόπνευστον/inspired Scripture, so that thence it might be certain of the will of the Divine Being and the way of pursuing salvation, and have an immovable foundation and norm for faith and worship:  as to preserve for the Canon its integrity; for God keeps the same will still today, even toward the Church, to be saved through the Word, and concerning the Scripture, as the means of salvation, which will He was fostering when He first delivered to the Church the same Scripture in writing.  Therefore, even today the Canon of Scripture is uncorrupted.

β.  From the Zeal of the Jews for the Law, which zeal, 1.  PHILO[22] commends, in his libro de Egressu filiorum Israel ex Ægypto, cited by EUSEBIUS in book VIII of Præparationis Euangelicæ, chapter VI, page 357, where he asserts, “All the way unto these times, through a space of time greater than two thousand years, not even a word was changed in the Law of the Hebrews, and every Jew would rather die a thousand times than allow the Law to be changed in anything.”  And also JOSEPHUS in book I, contra Apionem, pages 1036, 1037, Δῆλον δ᾽ ἔστιν ἔργῳ, πῶς ἡμεῖς τοῖς ἰδίοις γράμμασι πεπιστεύκαμεν·  τοσούτου γὰρ αἰῶνος ἤδη παρῳχηκάτος, οὔτε προσθεῖναί τις οὐδὲν, οὔτε ἀφελεῖν αὐτῶν, οὔτε μεταθεῖναι τετόλμηκεν·  πᾶσι γὰρ σύμφυτον ἐστιν εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς πρώτης γενέσεως Ἰουδαίοις ὀνομάζειν αὐτὰ Θεοῦ δόγματα, καὶ τούτοις ἐμμένειν, καὶ περὶ αὐτῶν εἰ δέοι θνήσκειν ἡδέως, but it is evident by our actions how firmly we have given credit to our books; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has dared either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them.  2.  Is proven by the care of the Masoretes or בעלי המסרת, Men of Tradition, inasmuch as they set in array the מָסֺרָה or מָסֺרֶה, Masorah, that is, the Tradition, or the Critical Doctrine concerning the fabric of Sacred Scripture, in which all the verses, words, and letters are enumerated, and all, even the least, variety of reading or writing is indicated, so that it might be a סְיָג לְתוֹרָה, fence to the Law, a bulwark of its undiminished integrity.  3.  And which Paul acknowledged, Romans 3:1, 2, Τί οὖν τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου; ἢ τίς ἡ ὠφέλεια τῆς περιτομῆς; Πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον·  Πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ὅτι ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ, What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?  Much every way:  chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God:  concerning which deposit, if they had kept it poorly, the Apostle would have warned us, neither would he have so commended the Jews on account of this privilege.  But, while God willed the Scriptures to be preserved for the Christian Church, to be delivered by the ministry of those to whom He entrusted His oracles, He also instills that purpose in them, that they might prove themselves faithful in preserving this treasure.

γ.  From the Multitude of Exemplars scattered everywhere, both formerly among the Jews, and then after the times of Christ and the Apostles among Christians; whence the universal Corruption of Codices, to be undertaken by the Jews, was altogether impossible.

δ.  From the principal Prophecies concerning Christ preserved both in the Text, and in the Chaldean Paraphrases.  Now, what madness of the Jews would this have been, to have corrupted the Scripture passages Chronological, Genealogical, and of lesser moment, from which they seize no advantages against Christians; but to have passed over those things intact, in which as master-strokes Christians establish the foundation of Evangelical truth?  Bellarmine himself, in book II de Verbo Dei, chapter II, Controversiis, tome I, column 88 at the end, acknowledges this, observing, “If the Jews had wished to falsify the Sacred Scriptures out of hatred of the Christians, doubtlessly they would have removed the principal prophecies:  but they did not at all do this, and the Hebrew Codices sometimes vex the Jews more than the Greek and Latin Codices.”

ε.  From the lack of any Censure of Christ or the Apostles brought against the Jews in this matter; who certainly blame them with the diverse depravations of the doctrine and sense of the Law introduced by them, hypocrisy, and contumacious unbelief with respect to the Writings of Moses and the Prophets:  but never accuse them with the Corruption of the Codices and books of the divine oracles; concerning which the disciples, professing faith in Christ, would certainly have had to be warned, lest they should readily suffer themselves to be led away into error through the falsified Codices of the Jews.

ϛ.  On the other hand, they themselves actually commend frequently the Old Scriptures, John 5:39; 2 Timothy 3:15, 16; 2 Peter 1:19.  Indeed, unto Scripture, as unto the principium of faith and the norm of things to be believed and to be done, indeed as unto the means of pursuing eternal salvation, as much to be read, as to be searched and investigated, Christ and the Apostles sent not only their own hearers, but also the hearers of all times; it is necessary that it be uncorrupted and whole in every age.  For who would believe that Christ sent men, anxious over their salvation, to a norm, 1.  corrupted and contaminated with pervasive defects, 2.  requiring the emendations of men, 3.  and to that extent slippery, concerning which no one might be certain in what place he might read incorrectly, in which place rightly; likewise, when he alights on a fault, in what way it might be restored unto integrity?

ζ.  The eminent word of the Lord in Matthew 5:18 agrees with what has now been said, in which passage the certain fulfillment of those things that are contained in the Law and Prophets, fulfillment promised in verse 17, He confirms by a more general argument from the invariable stability of Scripture, saying, Ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.  Whatever Scripture, by its immutable duration, is actually being set over against the heaven and earth, which shall perish; and, thus continuing to endure without any corruption, it is asserted by Christ, that it is not going to admit the loss or change of any point or letter; that, uncorrupted unto this day, sets itself forth.  But the Old Testament is Scripture.  Therefore, etc.

From all which it is proven that the Jews neither were willing to corrupt their Codices, nor were able; neither before the times of Christ and the Apostles, nor after those times.  So that this last might yet be more clearly evident,

η.  We observe that after the times of the Apostles the Universal Corruption of the Codices was Impossible,

              1.  By industry, a.  From the dispersion of the Jews throughout the whole world, who, it could be proven by no witness worthy of confidence, conspired as one, from all parts of the world, to falsify the Codex.  b.  From the most diligent caution and vigilance of the Christians, by which the most approved exemplars of the faith were preserved in libraries, and were afterwards employed to prepared printed editions.  c.  From the abundance of the exemplars of the Bible, diffused throughout the whole world, by all which, in entirely the same manner, no defect was able to be introduced without the knowledge of the Christians.

              2.  By accident:  for only by a stupendous miracle could it have happened that in all the same passages, in altogether the same manner, all the Codices of all the ages, by some accident, with no one, Jewish or Christian, noticing, taking precautions, or warning of such misfortune, suffered corruption.

θ.  So that I might make an end of speaking, I warn with our AUTHOR that if we concede the Corruption of the Original Text, other Editions of Scripture will be supposed freely and falsely to have greater integrity:  where then will you find a firm and infallible foundation for faith?

GROTIUS comes against the Charge of a mutated Scripture of the New Testament, de Veritate Christianæ Religionis, book III, § 15; similarly against the Charge of a mutated Scripture of the Old Testament, book III, § 16, pages 174-178.

[1] William Damasus Lindanus (1525-1588) was Bishop of Roermond; he vigorously implemented measures of the Counter-Reformation in the Low Countries.

[2] Pierre Coton (1564-1626) was a French Jesuit and royal confessor.

[3] Jean Morin (1591-1659) was born to Protestant parents, but converted to Roman Catholicism, probably under the influence of Cardinal du Perron.  His work in Biblical scholarship included editions of the Samaritan Pentateuch and Targum; he followed Louis Cappel in criticism of the Masoretic Text.

[4] Jacques Davy Duperron (1556-1618) was a French cardinal.  By his learning, eloquence, and zeal, he did much to withstand the advance of Calvinism in France.

[5] Sixtus of Siena (1520-1569) converted from Judaism to Roman Catholicism.  He was one of the great Dominican scholars of his age, excelling in particular in Biblical scholarship.

[6] Domingo Báñez (1528-1604) was a Spanish Dominican and Thomistic theologian.

[7] Johannes Driedo (c. 1480-1535) was a Roman Catholic theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Leuven.  Driedo’s writings were influential at the Council of Trent.

[8] Benedict Arias Montanus (1527-1598) was a Spanish Benedictine Monk.  He attended the Council of Trent, and he was heavily involved in the production of the Polyglot Bible.

[9] Jacobus Bonfrerius (1573-1642) joined the order of the Jesuits in 1592.  He enjoyed a long tenure as a professor of the Scriptures and Hebrew at Douay, France.

[10] Simon de Muis (1587-1644) was one of the most learned Hebraists of his day.  He served in both the academy, as Hebrew Professor of the Royal College of France, and in the Roman Church, as Canon and Archdeacon of Soissons.

[11] Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) studied under Luther and Melanchthon, and rose to become a theologian and churchman of some prominence.

[12] George Major (1502-1574) was a Lutheran theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Wittenberg (1545-1574).

[13] Johanns Völkel (c. 1565-1616) was a German Socinian.  His De vera religione was the first major systematic presentation of Socinian doctrine published at the Racovian Academy.

[14] Isaac La Peyrère (1596-1676) was born into a Huguenot family, but later converted to Romanism.  He is most remembered for his Millenarian view and the Pre-Adamite hypothesis.

[15] Isaac Vossius (1618-1689), son of Gerhard Johann Vossius, was a Dutch scholar and manuscript collector.

[16] Paul-Yves Pezron (1639-1706) was a Cistercian monk and Doctor of Theology at St. Bernard in Paris.

[17] Marcus Meiboom (1630-1711) was a Danish general scholar.  He was a historian of music of great repute, and a philologist of some ability.

[18] Johann Georg Walch (1693-1775) was a German Lutheran theologian, serving as Professor of Rhetoric and Poetry (1719-1724), and then as Professor of Theology (1724-1775), at Jena.

[19] Doctor Johann Friedrich Mayer (1650-1712) was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian, serving as Professor of Theology at Wittenberg (1684-1687), at Kiel (1688-1701), and at Greifswald (1701-1712).  Mayer was a champion of Lutheran orthodoxy, and vehemently opposed to Pietism.

[20] Petrus Galatinus, or Pietro Colonna Galatino (1460-1540), was an Italian Franciscan, theologian, and Orientalist.  With Reuchlin, he was an advocate for the authority and authenticity of the Hebrew original.

[21] William Whiston (1667-1752) was an English mathematician, historian, and theologian, most remembered for his translations of Josephus and his Arianism.

[22] Philo was a first century Jewish scholar of Alexandria, Egypt.  In him, one finds a synthesis of Platonic philosophy and Hebrew exegesis and theology.