CHAP. II.

SECTION I.

EXAMINATION OF THE

QUESTION WHETHER ANY CORRUPTION

OF THE SCRIPTURES TOOK PLACE DURING THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY.

We fix upon the Babylonian captivity, in the first place, because that period has been mentioned in the preceding Tract, (p. 250, &c.) as one, in which it is probable that some corruption might have taken place, or, which might have left the Jews without any adequate knowledge of the truths revealed in Scripture. The arguments there adduced seem to rest on the three following assumptions. First, that no written copies of the Scriptures were taken to Babylon at all. Secondly, from the circumstance of this captivity having continued seventy years, none of those who had been acquainted with the Scriptures during their residence in Canaan, could have been alive at their return, so as to teach their descendants the knowledge of divine things, which they themselves once possessed. And thirdly, as it has been said by some, that the Jews had entirely forgotten both their letters and language in the captivity, no doubt can remain of their having

forgotten the contents of their Scriptures also. We now proceed to examine the truth of these positions.

With respect to the first, then; namely, that the Jews had taken no copies of the Scriptures with them to Babylon, so as to have preserved them during the captivity, we may remark, There are several reasons which tend to prove the contrary. In the first place, it appears from the book of Daniel,* that he read and studied the prophecies of Jeremiah there. It also appears from Jeremiah, that he sent a part of his prophecy to his brethren who were in the captivity. In the second place, the Prophet Ezekiel prophesied in the captivity: his book, therefore, must have been in the hands of the Jews in and about Babylon. Thirdly, the Book of Daniel was all written in Babylon. In the fourth place, we have no intimation whatever in these books of the Law of Moses and the other books of Scripture having been lost, in consequence of the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar, a circumstance which would hardly have escaped their observation, when enumerating their several calamities, had it ever taken place. And, further, upon the return from Babylon, we find Ezra, not dictating the Law from memory, as some have supposed, but actually producing the

* Ch. ix. 2.

+ Ch. xxix. 1, &c.

book in the presence of all the people, and reading it aloud from morning till evening.* Neither could the historical books have been lost; for we find Ezra actually arranging the Priests and Levites, according to the order prescribed by David, which is still to be found in those books.

With regard to the second position, namely, that all the persons must have been dead, who had read the Scriptures prior to the captivity. We affirm, it is far from being true: for we are told in the book of Ezra,† that those who had seen the first temple at Jerusalem, wept when they saw the second, after their return from the captivity.

As to the third assumption, that the Jews had forgotten both their letters and language, it is by no means probable. For first, with respect to their letters, although it has been maintained by both Jews and Christians, that this took place, their opinions seem to have been formed rather from conjecture, than from any information on which reliance can be placed. Others, both Jews and Christians, no less learned, have held the contrary opinion, namely, that the letters now in use among the Jews have been derived from the highest antiquity. It is, there

* Neh. viii. 1, &c. ib. xii. 23-25, and 46.

+ Chap. iii. 12.

fore, by no means certain, that such a change in the Hebrew letters ever took place. But if it had, as the Jews must gradually have learned the new letter in Babylon, their Scriptures would be also transcribed in that letter, which would have left them in possession of their contents, just as well as the old ones would have done. The supposition, therefore, of the letter having been changed, is both uncertain and useless, when applied to the subject before us.

Nor had the Jews lost the knowledge of their language in Babylon. Several of the books which we now have, were written in pure Hebrew, after their return from the captivity; of these, the greatest parts of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah might be mentioned; the prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and several of the Psalms. Now, for whose edification could these books have been written, if the Jews had entirely forgotten the Hebrew language? And again, to what purpose would it have been for Ezra to have read the Law of Moses to the people in Hebrew, if they had been totally ignorant of the Hebrew language? Some, it is true, have supposed that Ezra construed the Hebrew text in the Chaldee language; but this, from the consideration of what is there said, is entirely groundless. The truth seems to be, the Hebrew language did not cease to be spoken among the Jews till many years after

their return from Babylon:* and it never ceased to be cultivated, from that day to this, by the learned of that nation. The third assumption is, therefore, entirely false and groundless.

Nor is it true that Nebuchadnezzar made such a carnage in Judea, as to leave no Jews alive in those parts, as stated at page 248, whatever the Oriental historians may say on that subject; for it is stated in the Scriptures, (which we shall shew may be relied upon) that many were left as vine-dressers and husbandmen; and that a viceroy was appointed to govern them.+

If this then was the case, what reason is there for supposing, that those persons had not copies of the Scriptures in their possession? Or, that such copies would not be preserved in the Holy Land? We certainly know of no edict published by Nebuchadnezzar prohibiting the Jews the use of their own Scriptures; nor of any, in which he ordered their books to be destroyed. There is, therefore, no reason for supposing, that copies of the Scripture were not preserved in Judea during the captivity.

There is also another circumstance which might be mentioned here: namely, the religious instructions which the Cuthites, inhabiting Samaria, had received from a priest‡ sent from Babylon to instruct them, immediately after the captivity

* Loscher. de causis Ling. Heb. p. 68.

+ Jer. xxxix. 10. xl. 5.

2 Kings xvii. 27, &c.