which took place during the reign of Hoshea king of Israel (i. e. Samaria.) That this priest instructed them in the Law of Moses, is beyond all doubt and that he gave them a copy of that law, has been called in question by none; a copy of it remaining in the hands of the Samaritans to this very day. The Jews in Judea must, therefore, have had a copy of their Scriptures. The Jews in Babylon must have had another, containing also the additional revelations which had been made during the captivity. The Cuthites must have had another of the law. We have no reason, therefore, to believe, that the Scriptures suffered on account of the captivity.

With respect to the Jews, they certainly could have had no motive for corrupting their Scriptures during this period: unless we suppose, that the severe denunciations of the Prophets were considered as a check to their national pride. These, however, are now contained in the Scriptures; and, in all probability, just as they had been delivered by the Prophets. Besides, had any wilful corruption taken place, the copy of the law preserved by the Cuthites, would, upon comparison, detect the fraud; as the same spirit of opposition, which formerly existed between the Jews and that people, still continues. But upon comparison of the two, no such corruption is, or has ever been, found. There are indeed considerable differences observable, but these, from the

consideration of their character, must have originated with the Cuthites.* The Scriptures of the Jews, therefore, underwent no wilful corruption during this period.

It has been remarked by the Moola (p. 252.) that the testimony of Ezra, was that of one witness only. But, after what has been said, this objection must fall to the ground. For it is probable, that most of the Jews in the captivity had copies of the Scriptures in circulation among them: and it is certain, that many returned who had received their knowledge of religion before the captivity. Besides, it is certain, that Nehemiah-a great number of the priests-the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, were all contemporary with Ezra, and acquainted with the Scriptures. To these we may add those poor inhabitants who had remained in Judea, since the times of Nebuchadnezzar, on the part of the Jews; and the Cuthites of Samaria, as independent witnesses. The objection, therefore, rests on a mere ignorance of the facts of the case, and is, therefore, unworthy of regard.

* Of this kind is the repetition of certain passages, the awkward emendations of others, and the change of the name of Mount Ebal to Gerizim in Deut. xxvii. 4.

SECTION II.

THE QUESTION EXAMINED, WHETHER ANY

CORRUPTION OF THE SCRIPTURES TOOK PLACE SOON AFTER THE BIRTH OF OUR LORD.

THE NATURE OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM A CONSI-
AND AFTER

DERATION OF THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS STATED.
MAKING DUE ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN VARIETIES OF READ-
ING, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN, THAT NO CORRUPTION
TAKEN PLACE.

HAS

We proposed to consider, in the second place, whether any textual corruption took place, in the Jewish Scriptures, during the period commencing with our Lord's ministry, and ending with the Hejira or flight of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina. But before we can enter fully on this question, it will be necessary to consider a few of the Mirza's statements on the subject of the ancient translations for to these translations we occasionally appeal.

It has been affirmed at page 339, That the multiplicity of translations which have been made of the Holy Scriptures, has tended rather to multiply and give currency to corruptions than the contrary. But this opinion must have originated in a mistaken view of the subject. Learned men do not appeal to translations which are supposed to be immaculate: their object is to ascertain, after making every reasonable allowance for the faults of translation, transcription, and the

HH

like, whether the translator appear to have had a copy of the original before him, corresponding in all respects to those now in our hands, or not. The accuracy and care of a translator will certainly give a critic a much greater confidence in his enquiries than he could otherwise have: but, the information of which he is in quest, does not depend on this consideration alone. If he can ascertain what the text was in the original, at the time such translation was made, he gains his end. If, for instance, a translation appears to have been made with great ability, the translator will be found uniformly to have rendered the phraseology of his original in such a way as to shew, that he was well acquainted with the language, in which it was composed. And, when this is the case, considerable reliance can be placed on every part of his translation; particularly, if it also be found that the translation has been preserved with care.

If, again, he is consistently uniform in giving the proper names of men, countries, and the like in his translation, it may be expected, that the same names will be found in the corresponding places in the original. If, again, he is found to translate the names of animals, precious stones, articles of dress, and the like, by the same words respectively, then it may be expected, that the same words will be found in their respective correspondent places in the original. But, if the original should not contain any

one of such words as found in the translation ; and especially if it be found in a number of other independent translations, upon which reliance also may be placed, it will then become probable, that such word has either been omitted by an ellipse, or that it has been lost through the carelessness of the transcriber of such copy of the original. But if the idiom of the language of the original will account for the omission of the word by the ellipse, then the translations in question will shew, that they have all understood the passage in the same way, and that the text is, in all probability correct. Again, should it appear upon comparison, that the word under consideration, in the original, presents some letter similar either in form or sound to another, which, when substituted would make the original and the translations agree, it will then become probable, that the copyist has, in the hurry of transcribing, written one letter for another. And again, if, upon comparing the copy of the original with others, we find this to have been the case, we may be satisfied that the manuscript, and not the translation, is erroneous. But if all the manuscripts conspire in giving the same word, but the translators give it a sense in their translations not usually attached to that word, it will then become doubtful, whether the translators have been mistaken, or whether the word might, in ancient times, have also borne the sense, which they have attached to it. In such a case judgment