maritan and Alexandrine versions read x, and Ps. xxvii. 13. . These points, or at least many of them, seem to have arisen from the unwillingness of the transcriber to erase a letter or word improperly written, which he rather chose to denounce by this point while other subsequent copyists transcribed the points along with the word. The point over the vau in app in Gen. xix. 35. the Jews explained, Jerome tell us, in another way.

IV. K'ri v❜lo k'thib, 'p, to be read although not written;

where an omitted word, found in other documents, is supplied, but not introduced into the text, which exhibits only the punctuation, the word itself being written in the margin. Thus in II Sam. viii. 3, the points are in the text,, and in the margin the word, n, that is, л. The Talmud gives six instances, Elias Levita eight or ten,

V. K'thib v❜lo k'ri, "p np, written and not to be read, in five

:

places; where what is written in the text without vowels is directed to be omitted, because not found in other manuscripts, as in II Kings v. 18.

VI. K'ri k'thib, 'лpp, read what is written; that is for what is in the text another word written in the margin is to be read, to which the vowel points connected with the word in the text are to be applied. The number of these varies with various manuscripts from 793 to 1259. See CAPEL, Crit. Sac. T. I. L. III. cap. i. p. 176-178. All of them relate to the letters themselves or consonants, and several exhibit various readings, as Eccles. ix. 4. a for

an, and and are often commuted. Some contain explanations of difficult words, as in I. Sam. v. 6, 9. vi. 4, 5, 11, 17, and in Deut. xxviii. 27, one for phay. Some are periphrases of words which were thought to be obscene, as in II Kings xviii. 27. Isa. xxxvi. 12. onhan water of their feet, for Dr their urine; and

some relate to other trifling matters. See CAPEL, ubi sup. Cap. 4-17. p. 188-422. WALTON, Prol. VIII. § 20-28. KENNIC. Diss. II. on Hebrew text, pp. 281-287.

VII. Phiska, špɔɔ, or Phragma,, an empty space in the

middle of a verse, generally designated with a small circle, and indicating that something is wanting; or, as others suppose, that the sense is completed here. The former opinion agrees with Gen. iv. 8; the latter with some other places. These, however, do not properly belong to the present head, as they were not known before the publication, which was at a later period than that now referred to. In all they amount to 28.

VIII. The Masora, in addition to the preceding, mentions some critical conjectures of the learned, which are called S'birim,

30 ;

[in Ex. ii. 19.[a מצרים for מצרימה,as for instance

[a) For the references to the instances of each of the preceding classes of readings, see the Germ. Introd. p. 385-388. Tr.]

§ 108. The Masora.

The critical observations which have been enumerated in the preceding section, together with others which occur in the Talmud relating to the small, large, inverted and suspended letters, form the basis of the Masora, which was written in a distinct volume and enlarged in course of time by continual additions. This work was not begun before the sixth century, and its principal authors were the masters of the school of Tiberias. These teachers continued in subsequent ages to collect observations relating to the number of the letters, words, and verses of each book; its middle letter, word, and verse; the places where the same word is written with or without its mater lectionis; the verses which contain all the letters of the alphabet or a certain number; the words which are written with a final letter in the middle, and those which have a letter in its medial form at the end; the number of final letters in all the books, &c. This collection which was all written in one volume and was constantly increasing, was called Aids, nip or non, Masora, Massora or Massoreth,[a] and its

authors Masorets, (or Masorites,) and by this detail of trifling observations they endeavoured to preserve the text from alterations. See WALTON. Prol. VIII. § 1-12. CAPEL. ubi sup. cap. 12. p. 901918. BUXT. Tiber. 1656, Basil.

In course of time this work, which had been put together without any arrangement, was written out, at first with many abbreviations and afterwards in full, on the margin of manuscripts, in small letters, and what the margin was not large enough to contain was placed at the end of each book. The abbreviated transcript was called the little Masora, the other the great and final. WALTON. Prol. VII. § 9, 11.

The confusion of this farrago proved advantageous to criticism. For if it had been arranged in some order, its ardent admirers could easily have made use of it; and they would not have failed to alter the Hebrew text so as to agree with the Masora, and to reject all other readings, not a few of which are undoubtedly genuine. But as the transcribers could not retain in mind the whole Masora, and, from its want of arrangement, could not compare it with the text, they wrote with fidelity what they found in the manuscripts, and introduced into their copies no more of the Masora than what their memory supplied. On the whole the Masora has been of more injury than benefit to the integrity of the text, although it has preserved many readings, and among them some certainly genuine, which had otherwise perished. See WALT. Prol. VIII. § 14-17. SIMON, Hist. Crit. du V. T. Liv. I. Chap. I. p. 1. ss. Chap. 24-26, p. 131. ss. KENN. Diss. II. P 262-291.

(a) The word means tradition, from to deliver. See BUXT. Lex.

-:

Chal. Tal. col. 1235. and Tiberias. c. i. p. 3. ss. Tr.]

§ 109. Eastern and Western Readings.

From the sixth century to the tenth, during which period the Masora was framed, there existed flourishing Jewish schools, at Babylon or Seleucia in the east, and at Tiberias in the west, in which many copies of the sacred books were made. In these different countries therefore two families of manuscripts arose, which at length in the eighth or ninth century were collated. The discrepancies which were observed, are called pn nion, varieties of the reading, and

come down to us under the name of eastern and western readings. According to some their number amounted to 210, according to others to 216, but in reality they were 220, all relating to the consonants, except the point Mappik in y, Amos. iii. 6., and in Ayy,

Jer. vi. 6. Our editions vary from the eastern readings in fifty-five places. WALT. Prol. VIII. § 27, 28. CAPEL. ubi sup. T. I. L. III. c. xvii. The eastern text of this age appears to be contained in the version of Saadias Gaon, and in some measure in the more modern of the Targums, in which, although in other respects they are not of great value, many good readings have been preserved, which are of the greater moment, if they coincide with other more ancient versions in opposition to the Masora and our Masoretical text.

§ 110. Recension of Aaron Ben Asher and Jacob Ben Naphtali.

In the former part of the eleventh century, Aaron Ben Asher, at Tiberias, and Jacob Ben Naphtali, at Babylon or Seleucia, collated manuscripts. The various readings which were the result of this comparison, which amounted to 864, relate to the vowel points and accents, with the exception of one place, Cant. viii. 6, where, according to Ben Naphtali, we ought to read nane, in two words, but according to Ben Asher, nane, in one.

T

These varieties are not

indeed of great consequence, but they show that at this time the punctuation system was already completed; although it may be said in a certain sense, that these two men gave the finishing stroke to that work. On account of the greater facility with which manuscripts pointed according to that system might be read, the more ancient copies which were either entirely unpointed, or varied from the system, became disesteemed and were suffered to perish. This seems to be the principal cause why no Hebrew manuscript is extant, which can be proved by satisfactory evidence to be older than the eleventh century. Our editions, except in a few places, follow the recension of Aaron Ben Asher.

§ 111. History of the text from the year 1040 to 1477. The learned Jews who removed from the East to Europe in the middle of the eleventh century, brought with them pointed manuscripts, and in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries copies were written out and corrected with greater care than was exercised in the following ages. There are, however, circumstances tending to lessen the value of such copies. 1) The Hebrew Grammar composed by Saadias Gaon, who died in 942, and afterwards improved by Judah Chiug about 1070, and translated from the Arabic into Rabbinic by Rabbi Samuel, might have induced transcribers who were acquainted with it to correct the anomalies which existed in the text; yet from the number remaining at present, it appears that they very seldom ventured to do this. But as there is no room for suspecting that a reading accordant with grammatical principles should have been changed into one that is anomalous, the rule holds good, that an anomalous reading, cæteris paribus, is more probable than one which is grammatical.' This rule, is certainly correct; yet it is by no means to be urged beyond its legitimate extent, for an anomalous reading may have arisen from an error of the pen, or from an imprudent introduction of a marginal note into the text.—2) The Jewish Rabbins of those times, especially Maimonides, Jarchi, Abenez ra and Kimchi, frequently cite places then differently read, and sometimes mention various readings; which proves that differences existed among the manuscripts. They also appeal to manuscripts, by which others recently written were corrected. These standard manuscripts differed in different countries, but all exhibited some spurious readings, which were propagated by the correctors to all others of the same country. For this reason all manuscripts of the same country constitute one and the same family, and like witnesses giving evidence in concert, are to be considered in criticism as affording no more than single testimony. Moreover since many more manuscripts of some countries have been preserved than of others, the general rule that the reading which has the support of the greater number of manuscripts is always the more probable, does not hold good. 3) Although during this period not a few of the Jews held the Masora in but little estimation, yet by many others it was regarded as an infallible rule; nor can it be doubted that the standard