ing of those books in the Synagogues on certain festivals, for which purpose they were transcribed in a separate volume. Comp. STORR in Neues Repertorium für Bibl. und Morgenl. Litt. von PAULUS, II. Th. S. 225-247.

(a) Comp. § 1. of this part. Also DE WETTE, Einleit. § 10. PRI DEAUX, Connexion, Part I. B. V. anno 446. Vol. I. pp. 331. ss. Tr.]

CHAPTER VI.

HISTORY OF THE HEBREW TEXT.[a]

Of

§ 104. The text is by no means free from errors. Although the Hebrew text, as has been already shown (§ 12, 13.), has not been corrupted; yet it has been impossible to preserve it entirely free from faults. If all the transcribers had been learned, critical and attentive, still they could not have avoided errors. these errors some at least would give a meaning, and therefore instead of being corrected would be transcribed, so that at length manuscripts every where would differ, and the reader after some time be unable to determine the genuine reading from the erroneous. In other words, various readings would arise and very many have been collected by a comparison of ancient versions, of passages cited by ancient writers, of manuscript copies, and of modern editions. Most of these indeed are of very little moment, but there are some which entirely alter the sense in places of great importance, so that they ought by no means to be neglected by the theologian.

:

The Jews, with the exception of the few who have compared manuscripts, deny the existence of various readings. The Catholic clergy on the other hand, have always admitted them, and indeed in their zeal for the reputation of the vulgate, they have sometimes extended the number and importance of textuary errors further than is necessary. The Jews were supported by the Protestants, with the view of defending their doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture. At last, however, about the middle of the 18th century, the latter began, principally by the agency of John David Michaelis, with immense labour to consult manuscripts, to collect and examine various readings. Those who previously to this time had defended the existence of various readings had made but little progress. Lewis Capel is the most distinguish

ed. For ten years he was prevented from printing his Critica Sacra, and it was published at last by his son, who had become a convert to the Catholic church. It was very severely attacked by many, and especially by the Buxtorfs, both father and son. See KENNICOTT On the State of the Hebrew Text, Diss. I. Part ii. pp. 279. ss. WALTON, Proleg. VII. p. 240. Seq. DE ROSSI Lect. Var. V. T. Præf. T. I. § 34. ROSENMUELLER Handbuch für die Liter. der bib. Krit. und Exeg. Bd. I. S. 439 -608. CAPEL. Crit. Sac. T. II. L. vi. c. 3. p. 932-937.

[a) On the subject of this Chapter, compare BAUER, § 25-34. p. 195-234. Tr.]

§ 105. History of the text until the Alexandrine version was made.

Respecting the errors which had crept into the Hebrew text previously to the third century before Christ, we have scarcely any information. But it is not therefore to be apprehended, that their number and importance were so great as to have produced any changes affecting its identity and genuineness. For if, during the long period of time which elapsed between the third century before Christ and the invention of printing, no such evil took place, it is much less probable that this should have been the case during that shorter interval which extended from the age of the authors to the third century before Christ. This will appear more clearly if it be considered, that in those old times books were but seldom transcribed, and that mistakes and errors committed by copyists in a language which was then vernacular, would be the more readily observed and could be corrected with the more certainty, and that the correction of manuscripts would be made with the more caution because the most exact copies were the most carefully sought for. That great care was taken in correcting manuscripts recently transcribed, is confirmed by the practice which prevails in eastern countries even in our own time, as we learn from Alexander Russel, in his State of Learning at Aleppo,' whose statement has been confirmed to me by the oral testimony of Aryda.* The transcriber reads over the newly made copy before a collection of learned men, each of whom follows the reader with his own copy of the same book, carefully examining whether what is read agrees with it. As soon as any disagreement is perceived, the reader stops,

[A learned Maronite resident in Vienna at the time that this work was written, Germ. Introd. Th. I. S. 37. Tr.]

and a discussion respecting the genuine reading takes place, which is sometimes sharp and of long continuance.-It is quite evident then, that the number of various readings of importance could not very greatly increase.

With respect to more ancient variations of the text, all that we know of them relates to places which occur twice. All the discrepancies of such, however, must not be referred to the class of. various readings; for many may have arisen from a second and more polished edition made by the author himself, as Ps. xviii. and II Sam. xxii.; or the author who borrowed the plan from some other book, may have made some changes, as is the case perhaps with Isa. ii. 24. and Mic. iv. 1-3. See VOGEL in his edition of CAPEL'S Critica Sacra, T. I. L. I. c. 3. p. 31-45. In the alphabetical Psalms sometimes members or words are wanting, which cannot be found in any manuscript, and some of which do not appear in any version: they must therefore have been lost before the Alexandrine was made. Comp. Ps. xxv. 5, 6, 17, 18; xxxvii. 20, 28; cxlv. 13, 14. Some things also seem to have been added or introduced in those ancient times; as the genealogy in Ex. vi. 14-27, which appears out of place; the remark respecting the quantity of the Ephah in Ex. xvi. 36, and others.

§ 106.

The Hebrew text from the age of the Alexandrine version to year 200 after Christ.

the

From the third century before to the end of the second after Christ, very many various readings are observed in the Alexandrine version and the Peshito Syriac, in the fragments of Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions, in the paraphrase of Onkelos, in quotations in the New Testament, in Flavius Josephus, and in the Mishna. Many of these discrepancies are to be ascribed to the errors, unwarranted liberties, and negligence of the interpreters; but not a few of them are found in our own Hebrew manuscripts, which shows that they existed in the old copies which the interpreters used. See CAPEL, Crit. Sac. T. I. L. I. cap. 13, T. II. L. IV. cap. 2-14. KENN. On the State of the Hebrew Text, Diss. II. pp. 326–333.—It may be of use to remark, that the Alexandrine translators differ from our Hebrew text more frequently

than those of the second century after Christ. See CAPEL, ubi sup. T. II. L. V. cap. 4, 5. p. 805-845. Several causes may be assigned for this fact. In the third century before Christ the text was defaced with fewer errors than in the second century after Christ; the Alexandrine translators frequently erred in consequence of their imperfect acquaintance with Hebrew grammar; and lastly they used a greater freedom in translating than interpreters of the second century, who were anxious to exhibit to both the contending parties, Jews and Christians, what the Hebrew text contained.

§ 107. The Hebrew Text from the year 200 to the year 500.

The Hebrew text, as it existed from the year 200 to the year 500, is presented to us by Origen in his Hexapla, by Jerome in his Latin version and commentary, by Jonathan in his paraphrase of the Prophets, and by the Rabbins in quotations made in the Gemara. The varieties are scarcely more numerous or important than those in the versions of the second century. The discrepancies in the Hebrew manuscripts in the second century, or at least in the third, excited the attention of Jews, and they began to compare copies, and to collect various readings, which, distributed in different classes, appear in the Jerusalem Talmud, about the year 280. See Tract. Thaanith, p. 68. They are as follows.

I. Ittur Sopherim, Dio

y, the rejection of the Scribes, in five

places; where the reader is directed to reject the prefix vau, as in The other places are Num. xii. 14.

.ואחר for אחר .5 .Gen. xviii

II. Thikkun Sopherim, Diop, correction of the Scribes, in 16 or 18 places; where, of two readings that which appeared preferable is selected, as in I Sam. iii. 13. Dn to them, for to me.

III. Extraordinary points over one, more, or all the letters of some word, in 15 places; as Num. xxi. 30. x, for which the Sa

* [Jahn, in both his Latin and German works, gives only these four references, although he mentions five; supply from DE WETTE, Einleit. S. 152., Gen. xxiv. 55. Tr.]