But the Hebrew text of the Old Teftament, compared with the text of ancient Greek and Latin authors, has, he obferves, in one refpect greatly the difadvantage. There are MSS. of the latter, which are much nearer in time to the age of the authors; and have fuffered much lefs, in proportion to the fhorter pace of time intervening. For example, the Medicean MS. of Virgil was written probably within four or five hundred years after the time of the poet: whereas the oldeft of the Hebrew MSS. now known to be extant, do not come nearer, than about fourteen centuries, to the age of Ezra *. So that we can hardly expect much more from this vaft collection of variations, taken in themselves as correctors of the text, exclufively of other confequences, than to be able by their means to difcharge and eliminate the errors, that have been gathering and accumulating in the copies for about 1000 years paft; and to give us now as good and correct a text, as was commonly current among the Jews, or might easily have been obtained, fo long ago.

On the other hand, he fays, we have a great advantage in regard to the Hebrew text, which the Greek and Latin authors generally want, and which in fome degree makes up for the defect of age in the prefent Hebrew MSS: that is, from the feveral antient verfions of the Old Teftament in different languages made in much earlier times, and from MSS. in all probability much more correct and perfect than any now extant. Thefe verfions, for the most part, being evidently intended for exact literal renderings of the Hebrew text, may be confidered in fome refpect as reprefentatives of the MSS. from which they were taken and when the version gives us a fense better in itself, and more agreeable to the context, than the Hebrew text offers, and at the fame time answerable to a word or words fimilar to thofe of the Hebrew text, and only differing from it by the change of one or more fimilar letters, or by the different pofition of the fame letters, or by fome other inconfiderable variation, we have good reafon to believe, that the fimilar Hebrew words anfwering to the verfion were indeed the very reading that food in the MS. from which the tranflation was made. To add ftrength to this way of reasoning, it is to be observed, that the MSS. now extant frequently confirm fuch fuppofed reading of thofe MSS. from which the ancient verfions were taken, in oppofition to the authority of the prefent printed Hebrew text; and make the collection of variations, now preparing for the public, of the highest importance; as they give a new evidence of the fidelity of the ancient verfions, and fet them upon a footing of authority, which they never could obtain before. They were looked upon as the work of wild and licentious in

* Ezra, before Chrift, 454. Usher.

terpreters,

terpreters, who often departed from the text, which they undertook to render, without any good reason, and only followed their own fancy and caprice. The prefent Hebrew MSS. fo often juftify the verfions in fuch paffages, that we cannot but conclude, that in many others likewife the difference of the verfion from the prefent original is not to be imputed to the licentioufnefs of the tranflator, but to the carele ffnefs of the Hebrew copyift: and this affords a juft and reasonable ground for correcting the Hebrew text on the authority of the ancient verfions.'

These ancient verfions are contained in the London Polyglott.

The Greek verfion, commonly called the Septuagint, or of the Seventy Interpreters, probably made by different hands (the number of them uncertain) and at different times, as the exigence of the Jewish church at Alexandria, and in other parts of Egypt required, is of the firft authority, and of the greatest ufe in correcting the Hebrew text; as being the most antient of all; and as the copy, from which it was tranflated, appears to have been free from many errors, which afterwards by degrees got into the text. But the verfion of Ifaiah is not fo old as that of the Pentateuch by a hundred years and more, having been made in all probability after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when the reading of the prophets in the Jewish fynagogues began to be practifed, and even after the building of Onias's temple, to favour which there feems to have been fome artifice employed in a certain paffage of Ifaiah in this verfion *. And it unfortunately happens, that Ifaiah has had the hard fate to meet with a tranflator very unworthy of him, there being hardly any book in the Old Teftament fo ill rendered in that version, as this of Ifaiah. Add to this, that the verfion of Ifaiah, as well as other parts of the Greek verfion, is come down to us in bad condition, incorrect, and with frequent omiffions and interpolations. Yet, with all these difadvantages, with all its faults and imperfections, this version is of more ufe in correcting the Hebrew text, than any other whatfoever.

The Arabic verfion fometimes verifies the reading of the Septuagint, being, for the most part at least, taken from that verfion.

The Chaldee Paraphrafe of Jonathan Ben Uziel, made about or before the time of our Saviour, though it often wanders from the text in a wordy allegorical explanation, yet very frequently adheres to it clofely, and gives a verbal rendering of it; and accordingly is fometimes of great ufe in afcertaining the true reading of the Hebrew text.

The Syriac verfion ftands next in order of time, but is fu. perior to the Chaldee in ufefulness and authority, as well in afcertaining, as in explaining the Hebrew text. It is a clofe

Chap. xix. 18.

tranf.

tranflation of the Hebrew into a language of near affinity to it. It is supposed to have been made as early as the first

century.

The fragments of the three Greek verfions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, all made in the fecond century, which are collected in the Hexapla of Mountfaucon, are of confiderable ufe for the fame purpose.

The Vulgate being for the moft part the tranflation of Jerom made in the fourth century, is of fervice in the fame way in proportion to its antiquity.'

Befides the affiftance derived from thefe ancient verfions, his lordship acknowleges his obligations to his friends: to the learned Mr. Woide for his extracts from the Fragments of a MS. of a Coptic verfion of Ifaiah, made from the LXX. and now preferved in the library of St. Germain de Prez at Paris; to the fame gentleman, for the collation of two Greek MSS. of Isaiah, in the British Mufeum; to the late excellent archbishop Secker, for his learned annotations on the Bible, now depofited in the library at Lambeth; to the late Dr. Durell for his remarks on the prophets; to Dr. Kennicott for his valuable collation of Hebrew manufcripts; and to others, whofe names are mentioned in the notes.

[ To be concluded in our next. ]*

A Differtation on the Languages, Literature, and Manners of Eaftern Nations. Originally prefixed to a Dictionary, Persian, Arabic, and English. The Second Edition. To which is added, Part II. containing Additional Obfervations. Together with further Remarks on A New Analysis of Ancient Mythology: in answer to An Apology*, addressed to the Author, by Jacob Bryant, Esq. By John Richardfon, Efq. F. S. A. 8vo. 75. bound. Murray. WE E formerly gave our opinion of the first part of this Dif

fertation, and of the Dictionary to which it is prefixed. While we had occafion to commend the perfevering industry of Mr. Richardfon in forming a compilation fo effentially ufeful to the fervants of the Eaft India Company, and fo favourable to the pursuits of men of letters, we were obliged to admire the bold originality of thinking that is difcovered in almoft every page of his Differtation. This performance shows him poffeffed of two qualities, which are rarely found united in an author, a laborious application, with a rich exuberance of fancy. Its fuperior merit has extorted a panegyric even from Mr. Bryant. He obferves in his Apology, that this is

The Apology was never published: but the arguments it contains may be collected from this article.

by

by no means like the former *, a dry and fcholaftic business; the offspring of a dull grammarian; but a compofition highly coloured and embellished; abounding with tropes and figures, and enriched with a multiplicity of learning; fo that we are bewildered in the variety of entertainment.'

The fecond part of Mr. Richardfon's performance does not fall fhort of the firft; but is equally new, ingenious, and interesting. It is divided into two chapters, each confifting of feveral fections. The first fection contains his obfervations apon the general credit to which the Greek hiftorians are entitled in oppofition to the Perfian; upon the expedition of Xerxes; and upon the idea of the Grecians being tributary or fubject to the Perfian kings. On the first head he takes notice of the concurring teftimony of Latin writers as well as of the later writers among the Greeks, to prove the little credit that is to be given to the early hiftorians of Greece. He proves it to have been the general voice of antiquity, that these hiftorians were strongly infected with the love of fable; that they were continually in oppofition one with another; and that there was not any thing clear, pofitive, and authentic to be learned from their writings. He mentions the opinion of many learned moderns to the fame purpofe, and cites innumerable paffages of this kind from Mr. Bryant; who has treated Mr. Richardfon with great feverity for maintaining' opinions extremely fimilar to his own.

t

After giving the fulleft evidence that can be required on 'this fubject, Mr. Richardfon obferves there can be no great prefumption in fuppofing, amidst fo much error, fome amendment poffible. Can there be any impropriety in enquiring how far the records of the Perfians may, in respect of their own hiftory, correct the mistakes and the fictions of the Greeks? Or can there be much harm in directing the attention of ingenious and learned travellers to the discovery of fuch ancient eastern materials as may tend either to authenticate or to confute the eastern hiftorians of more modern times ?

Xenophon and Ctefias were among the few Greeks who could have even an opportunity of confulting the Perfian records. Yet there are not two productions of antiquity more queftioned than the Cyropaedia of Xenophon, and the Annals of Ctefias. Plato and Cicero confider the former as no

*The former, Mr. Bryant tells us, is the work of an anonymous writer, a person of undoubted learning, who has undertaken to give an account of the yearly productions in literature; among other works he has mentioned mine, and very little to its advan tage.'

thing more than a beautiful Romance; but notwithstanding their opinion, the Cyropaedia has been followed as an authentic hiftory by Jofephus, Eufebius, Ufher, and Prideaux. The authors of the Univerfal History confider its authority as far preferable to that of Herodotus; while Scaliger, Erafmus, and many others, look upon it as a collection of figments. Dr. Jackfon declares that it has mifled every writer who has attempted to follow it. At the fame time he ftyles Herodotus the most accurate and faithful hiftorian; and confiders Ctefias in a light very different from that in which he has appeared to the learned in general. To Ctefias, on the other hand, fir Ifaac Newton pays fmall regard; but to Herodotus, whofe authority is totally rejected by Strabo, he looks up with high respect; calling him the father of hiftory, and endeavouring to reconcile with him every point of early chronology. Amidft this extraordinary oppofition of opinions among men of uncommon learning, induftry, and difcernment, Mr. Richardfon fuppofes with Voffius, that it must be extremely difficult, if not impoffible, to attain the truth.

No fubject has afforded a more extenfive field for diffenfion than the Babylonish, Affyrian, Median, and Perfian dynasties. The operations of chronologers in adjusting the æra and reign, of different princes to the feveral fyftems, which they fupports are worthy of attention. When they meet with kings that puzzle them, they cut them off without ceremony: or perhaps they turn them upfide down; they fafhion Affyrians into Babylonians, Perfians into Medes; and whilft they find here an hundred years too much, and there an hundred years too little, they difpute with keennefs a few months in a prince's reign, who, moft probably, never reigned at all. As to profane hiftory, thefe operations are harmless and therefore amufing. But they deferve ferious animadverfion when applied to the facred writings. By a fingular impropriety, learned men have fuppofed errors, where they fhould have fuppofed none; and there is hardly one inftance in which the Perfian history as related by the Greeks, has been produced in fupport of fcripture, in which fome obvious inconfiftency may not be difcovered. Of this Mr. Richardfon offers many striking examples. On the other hand, it is by no means impoffible that the present Perfian hiftorians, if examined with attention, authenticated by means of earlier writers, and connected with the ancient royal records of Perfia, might be found, in general, to coincide more nearly with the facred writings; and at any rate it is impoflible that they fhould occafion more confufion than the learned have already created, by adhering