On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
co £ dir iglyv the Prdfessor endeavours to establish the fact b y induction ; a mode of reasoning , which , in many instances , is perfectly legitimate , and which is here purs tied with considerable ingenuity and force . From
several particular propositions he deduces that general proposition which he sets out with enuntiating : by steps he arrives at the final conclusion , that the Hebrew canon in the time of our Saviour was the same
Hebrew canon , which is now represented by our Hebrew Bibles ; and that we have his sanction for every canonical book of the Old Testament . For this purpose , the learned Prelate attempts to connect the catalogue of the Hebrew Scriptures , which Jeroin has driven in his Proloerus
galeatus , with the account which Josephus has given of those Scriptures , In his treatise against Apion . Jerom , like Josephus , divides them into three classes , which he calls , the Law the Prophets , and the Hagiographa . He has further enumerated the several
books of which each class consisted : and it appears from this enumeration , that the books which were then contained in the Hebrew Bible , were the same books which are now contained in it . In regard to the first class ,
or the Pentaieuch , the enumeration made respectively by Josephus and by Jerom , is , beyond dispute , the same . The only difficulty which attends the comparison of their accounts , is that which relates to the two other classes .
Yet , if we take those two classes together , both writers agree as to the total number of the books comprised in them : and the sole difference consists in the partition * of the books between the two classes . Now , as we know that the Jews have been
gradually augmenting the number of books in the third class , by a proportionate diminution of the number in the second , we need not wonder if the third class , which in the first
century contained only four books , contained nine at the end of the fojurth century , and that the books of the second class had been proportionally reduced from thirteen to eight .
JoWe > employ this word , in preference to Btehop M . 's repartition , which is a French , and not an English , noun .
Untitled Article
sefphus himself , in a i ^ eH-knoVra j > aa » sage of his treatise against Apion though he has not enumerated the seventeen books which composed the two last classes , has given a descri ption of those books ; and this descri ption exactly corresponds with the
inference deduced from a comparison of his account with Jerom's . To the third class the book of Proverbs , and the book of Ecclesiastes , as well as the book of Psalms , have been referred by the Jews of every age : to the same class Jerom , in his
catalogue of the Hebrew Scriptures , has referred the book of Job and Solomon ' s Song ; though it be probable that by Josephus they were somewhat differently arranged . Nor is it a solid objection against the accuracy of this reasoning , that later Jews have referred to the third class various
books , which are here referred to the second class of Josephus ; the removal of such books from the class in which they were originally placed being well explained by history . The Margaret Professor's conclusions are , that the Hebrew Scriptures which received the sanction of our
Saviour were the same Hebrew Scriptures which were known to Josephus ; that they contained the same books which were enumerated by Jerom , and still constitute our Hebrew Bibles ; and that the authority of the
Old Testament , according to the canon of the English church , though not according to the canon of the church of Rome , rests upon a basis which cannot be shaken . We
recommend his argument to the careful attention of students in theology and in logic . ( 31--50 . ) Of his thirty-fourth lecture the object is to establish the integrity of the Hebrew Bible , to shew that the
books which compose it have descended to the present age without material alteration . With this view , fee divides his inquiries into two periods ; the one extending from the time of Moses to that of our Saviour , th £
other extending from the time of our Saviour to this day . Here he mates a very fair and judicious use of several historical facts : nor , III any p * ° j his reasoning , is he more successful than in his proofs that the JeWs > fo * not Mtfdlly ; corrupted their Scnptures . As a specimen of his nu * fler
Untitled Article
5 $ f Review ' . —Bishop df Peterborough * * JHvimiy Lectures * .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Oct. 2, 1823, page 596, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1789/page/36/
-