The Samaritan showing that many and unnecessary impositions are not the oil that must…The Samaritan shewing that many and unnecessary impositions are not the oyl that must…

Have not, and do not our Theological Critics and Translators differ in their Opinions, even concerning the Signification of words, as about the ⟨p. 25⟩Original of them? Is there any agreement or concord among them, or do we need to go far for proofs of it? The first verse in the Bible will furnish us with enough. ברא שית In the beginning is translated by the Jerusalem Targum, בחוכמא in Wisdom, By the Arabic [Greek or Hebrew] the first, and by Aquila [Greek or Hebrew], Summatim. Nor are they agreed in the origination of the word שמים Some will have it compounded of the words מים and שם ibi sunt aquae, there are waters: Others will have it derived from the Arabic word [Greek or Hebrew] altum esse. And as great variety may be observed in the Translation of those words, The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, but such varieties are endless. I will only mention the different opinions of Critics, upon those words, Psal, 22.17. They pierced. The word כארי some think is derived from the Hebrew word כרה, and that the Aleph in the middle is Epenthetical, and the Jod in the end of the word is put for Vau, either by the negligence of Transcribers, or the fraud of the Jews out of spite to the Christian Religion: Others think the radix of the word is כהר, and that Aleph is put for Ajn, by a permutation usual in the Eastern Languages: Others think that the word is Syriac, and that the radix is [Greek or Hebrew] and that 'tis here the infinitive Mood with the affix of the first Person, which often admits the signification of the preter perfect Tense among the Hebrews. This opinion they think is favoured by the Septuagint, who Translate the word [Greek or Hebrew], which is of the same signification ⟨p. 26⟩with [Greek or Hebrew] as Ferrarius informs us. Other diversities of opinions there are concerning this word, those that please may consult De Dieu, Glassius, Hottinger, Amama, Pocock, in Porta Mosis, with many others.

Have not, and do not our Theological Criticks and Translators differ in their Opinions, even concerning the Signification of words, as about the ⟨p. 25⟩Original of them? Is there any agreement or concord among them, or do we need to go far for proofs of it? The first verse in the Bible will furnish us with enough. ברא שית In the beginning is translated by the Jerusalem Targum, בחוכמא in Wisdom, By the Arabick the first, and by Aquila , Summatim. Nor are they agreed in the origination of the word שמים Some will have it compounded of the words מים and שם ibi sunt aquae, there are waters: Others will have it derived from the Arabick word altum esse. And as great variety may be observed in the Translation of those words, The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, but such varieties are endless. I will only mention the different opinions of Criticks, upon those words, Psal, 22.17. They pierced. The word כארי some think is derived from the Hebrew word כרה, and that the Aleph in the middle is Epenthetical, and the Jod in the end of the word is put for Vau, either by the negligence of Transcribers, or the fraud of the Jews out of spight to the Christian Religion: Others think the radix of the word is כהר, and that Aleph is put for Ajn, by a permutation usual in the Eastern Languages: Others think that the word is Syriack, and that the radix is and that 'tis here the infinitive Mood with the affix of the first Person, which often admits the signification of the preter perfect Tense among the Hebrews. This opinion they think is favoured by the Septuagint, who Translate the word , which is of the same signification