copies with very ancient Hebrew MSS. But on the contrary, If the present Chaldee paraphrase may have been taken from MSS. not so very ancient; and if it certainly has not been delivered down perfect, or nearly so; but greatly vitiated by time, and containing numerous mistakes of transcribers and especially, if it should appear, that it has been, in several places, altered wilfully, in conformity to the Hebrew text, where that text itself had been before corrupted: then will the learned certainly allow, that the present agreement of that paraphrase with the present Hebrew text can be no proof of the integrity of either.

"The authority of this paraphrase having been magnified improperly, upon the notion of its being most carefully and exactly delivered down; I presume it will be of considerable consequence to undeceive the reader upon this point. And in order to this, I shall here produce the opinions of those authors, who seem to have studied this paraphrase most attentively; subjoining some remarks of my own, particularly on the written copies of it.

"As to the exact age of the Chaldee paraphrase; we may safely affirm that to be uncertain. Some learned men have supposed, that such paraphrases were in use amongst the Jews soon after the captivity, or long before the time of Christ; but scarce any one pretends, that paraphrases of such very high antiquity are now in being. On the contrary, it has been remarked by other learned men, as a strong presumption against the antiquity of these Targums-that no kind of Chaldee paraphrase is so much as mentioned by Origen, Jerom, Epiphanius, or any early Christian writer.”

After adducing concessions from Walton, Leusden, and others, in proof of what he says, he adds, p. 171.—“It must be remarked here, that strong as these several testimonies are, in derogation of the honors paid to the pres

ent Chaldee paraphrase, they will certainly have the greater weight, as coming from warm friends: being, in fact, unfavorable concessions extorted by the force of truth from those, who meant the honor, and would fain have supported the authority, of this very paraphrase.”

After illustrating that the Chaldee paraphrase has been altered and corrupted by a number of examples from scripture, he says, p. 192. "We have now seen that the printed Chaldee paraphrase has been greatly corrupted ; and that it has been voluntarily rendered conformable, in many instances, to the modern Hebrew text. The inference from which truths must be, that this boasted paraphrase cannot possibly be admitted as a voucher for the integrity of that text, merely from its general agreement with it at present." He concludes, p. 220, by saying," As it has been abundantly proved, in the many remarks before made, that the Chaldee paraphrase has been wilfully altered, to render it more conformable to the Hebrew text, in places before corrupted; so has it appeared from the remarks upon the Greek and Latin versions, that they also have suffered, on account of the supposed perfection of the Hebrew text. But, let us return from this long digression, concerning the Greek and Latin versions; and conclude what has been offered on the printed Chaldee paraphrase.

"Wherever this paraphrase is now found to agree with the present Hebrew text, in places probably corrupted, we may fairly presume, that this agreement has been occasioned by wilful alterations of the paraphrase in conformity to the text. But, where it still differs from, the present Hebrew text, (as it does in many places, and some of considerable importance) there it may still preserve the dignity of an ancient paraphrase; and may be of great use, to assist in the recovery of such readings as are

lost, and in the explanation of such as are difficult and obscure. And lastly; as some parts of this paraphrase are of much greater authority than others, on account of their greater age, and of the greater accuracy and closeness with which they were composed: so, the reader will, on these accounts, pay his principal regard to the paraphrase upon the Pentateuch-next, to that upon the anterior or posterior prophets-still less, to that upon the greater part of the Hagiographa-and least of all, to that upon the five small books, called the Megilloth; the paraphrase upon which books is certainly much later, and far more vague, than upon any of the former."

After attending to these statements from Dr. Kennicott, and especially to the examples he gives to which I have alluded, few will be disposed to put very great confidence in what the Targums say, but in so far as they corroborate any thing which we find stated in the Bible. None we should think would receive it implicitly on their authority that Gehenna is a place of endless misery. Let the question be decided first from the Bible in what sense Gehenna is used there, and if the Targums corroborate the sense given it by the inspired writers we have no objections to admit what they say. We have attempted to show what the sense of Gehenna in the New Testament is, and we have found it agree with the Old. If what we have stated about this is found correct, we think no man, on the mere authority of the Targums, ought to pronounce

us wrong.

4th, But it is very evident that the Targums are not all of equal merit, nor deserve to be quoted as of equal authority on any religious subject. This is the case not only in regard to their difference in point of antiquity but other things. This is obvious from the account of them just given by Dean Prideaux. He gives a preference

to the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel, to all the others. Besides; he considers the Targum of Onkelos the best of those two, not only in order of place and time, but also of execution. The Targum of Onkelos he considers "a strict version, rendering the Hebrew text word for word." But Jonathan "takes upon him the liberty of a paraphrast, by enlargements and additions to the text for therein are inserted several stories, and also several glosses of his own, which do not much commend the work; and more of this is to be found in that part which is in the later prophets, than in that which is in the former." What we have noticed these things for, is, that we shall presently see, that those who quote or refer to the Targums to prove Gehenna a place of endless misery, quote or refer to those Targums of least merit in point of antiquity, style, or accuracy of execution. They do not refer to the Targum of Onkelos, for it is a strict version of the Hebrew text; but they refer us to those other Targums, the authors of which made enlargements and additions to the text: and inserted stories and glosses of their own. This we should deem sufficient of itself, to show the absurdity of appealing to the Targums to prove that Gehenna signifies a place of endless misery for the wicked. But more of this presently.

Having given this rather lengthy account of the Targums, with these remarks, let us attend to what men quote from them, in proof that Gehenna, in the New Testament, is used to express a place of endless misery for all the wicked. It is very natural for one to conclude, that the quotations made from the Targums would be given us at length, and that they would be full and explicit in establishing this doctrine. We have been at some pains to collect from men who have had access to such scarce books, to see and judge for ourselves con

cerning what they produced from them in proof. The following, is all we have seen quoted from them, to prove that Gehenna or hell signifies a place of endless misery. Mr. Parkhurst on the word Gehenna, thus writes, “From this valley's having been the scene of those infernal sacrifices, and probably too from its continuing after the time of Josiah's reformation, 2 Kings xxiii. 10. a place of abominable filthiness and pollution; the Jews in our Saviour's time used the compound word gee nm, for hell, the place of the damned. This appears from that word's being thus applied by the Chaldee Targums on Ruth ii. 12. Psalm cxl. 12. Isai. xxvi. 1-5. and xxxiii. 14. and by the Jerusalem Targums, and that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel. Gen. iii. 24. and xv. 17. Compare 2 Esdras ii. 29." It ought to be noticed here, that Parkhurst does not quote one word from these Targums to let us see what they have said, but merely says, that the word Gehenna is used for the place of the damned in certain places in the Targums, on some texts in the Old Testament to which he refers. Let any one turn to those texts and he will see, that Gehenna does not occur in one of them. Yea, it is difficult to perceive how any man could introduce the doctrine of hell torments in speaking of them. The only exception to this is Isai. xxxiii. 14. a text we have considered in chap. ii. sect 3. In whatever way the Targumists speak of Gehenna in those texts, it is certain that nothing said in the texts themselves afforded them the least occasion to say that Gehenna was the place of the damned. At any rate we ought to have seen what they have said, that we might judge of the evidence they have adduced, for ourselves. On a subject like the one before us, it affords no satisfaction to give us a volume of such kind of proof. I shall also quote the following from Whitby on Mark ix. 43, 44.-"That Gehenna was by