manuscripts by which others were usually corrected, had been made as conformable as possible to the Masora, and that the greater part of transcribers obeyed its precepts as far as their knowledge of them extended. The Masora, therefore, with the manuscripts which agree with it constitute only one testimony, and an antimasoretical reading · is more probable than one which is masoretical.[a]—4) Readings not favourable to Christians were extended even in times anterior to these, and as they existed now in the standard copies, they passed into almost all the manuscripts, as n in Gen. xlix. 10., a reading, which before the 8th century at least, was altogether unknown. 5) -5) It is not probable that during this period the Jews corrected the text in some places from the Chaldee Paraphrases which they were accustomed to use; for they greatly preferred the original text. On the contrary, they rather seem to have modified the Paraphrases occasionally so as to suit the Hebrew; and therefore the testimony of the former to the reading of any passage ought to be taken, whenever it is practicable, from the most ancient manuscripts.

[a) Of course the author's meaning is, if in other respects the character be equally good. Even in this sense, the rule is not be applied without much caution, as the Masora may afford a reading more ancient, and therefore more likely to be genuine, than any other now extant. See TYCHSENI Tentamen. pp. 213. ss. 256. ss. Tr.]

§ 112. The principal editions of the Hebrew Text.

Such were the manuscripts from which the first editions were printed. The editors do indeed speak in high terms of the antiquity and excellence of the manuscripts which they used, but they scarcely understood what good and ancient manuscripts were, and neglected not only the ancient versions, but also all other manuscripts besides that from which they printed. It was impossible therefore that they could avoid introducing into their edition all the errors of that copy, and hence the first editions are by no means the best, although they are of great value, because they supply the places of the manuscripts from which they were taken. The editions which immediately succeeded the first are very seldom corrected by manuscript copies, but are

often accommodated to the principles of grammar and to the Masora. It is therefore by no means surprising that Bruns found the first editions more closely correspondent with manuscripts than the subsequent. See KENN. Diss. Gen. Ed. Bruns. p. 123.

The first editions are the following. 1) In 1477, the Psalter with the commentary of Kimchi, in large quarto. It seems to have been printed at Bologna. It abounds with errors, and the matres lectionis are introduced or omitted at pleasure.-2) In 1482, the Pentateuch in folio, was printed at Bologna, together with the Paraphrase of Onkelos.[a] The typography is accurate.3) 1485-6. The former and later prophets accurately printed at Soncino in two volumes folio.[b]—4) 1487. The Psalter with the commentary of Kimchi, and the remainder of the Hagiographa with commentaries, printed in small folio at Naples. [c] The typography is quite inaccurate.5) 1488. The Hebrew Bible, printed at Soncino in small folio. The Pentateuch follows the Bologna edition of 1482, and coincides with that in Vander Hooght. The former and later prophets agree with those of the Soncino edition of 1485-6, and the Hagiographa with that of Naples 1487.[d] The Soncino edition, was followed in that printed at Brescia in 1494, from which, or from the preceding of Soncino, most of the subsequent editions have been printed.

In 1502-1517, the Complutensian Polyglot was printed at Alcala or Complutum in Spain, in 6 volumes folio. It contains the Hebrew text, printed after manuscripts, with the vowel points, but without accents, besides the Alexandrine version, the Latin Vulgate, and the Targum of Onkelos.

The two Bomberg editions, with the Targums and Rabbinical commentaries, were printed by Cornelius and Daniel Bomberg, at Venice; the first in 1518 under the care of Felix Pratensis a converted Jew, and the second in 1525-6 under the care of Jacob Ben Chaijim. The latter, which has been followed in many subsequent editions, was more accurately reprinted in 1547-9.

In 1569-72, the Antwerp Polyglot was printed in 8 volumes folio, the expense being defrayed by Philip II. of Spain, whence it has been called the royal Polyglot. It contains the Hebrew text, according to the Complutensian edition, with a few changes; the Targum

of Onkelos, that of Jonathan on the prophets, the Targum of Job and the five Megilloth, from the second Bomberg edition; also the Alexandrine version and the Latin Vulgate. It was printed under the superintendence of Arias Montanus.

The Paris Polyglot was printed in 1629-45, in 9 folio volumes, at the expense of Le Jay. In addition to what is found in the Antwerp Bible, it contains also the Syriac Peshito version, according to an imperfect manuscript, the lacunæ of which Gabriel Sionita supplied by a translation of his own made from the Vulgate; the Arabic version; and the Samaritan text and version.

In 1657 appeared the London Polyglot edited by Walton, in six volumes folio, which adds to what is contained in that of Paris, the Ethiopic version of the Psalter and Canticles, and the Persian version of the Pentateuch. This Polyglot was accompanied by the Lexicon Heptaglotton of Castell, in two volumes, folio.

There are, therefore, three fundamental editions of the Hebrew text. 1) That of Soncino of 1488, reprinted in the Brescian edition of 1494; 2) the Complutensian, finished in 1517; and 3) the second Bomberg of 1526.-From these all other editions have emanated either directly or indirectly. In a very few some things have been corrected from manuscript copies.-The most celebrated of these is the edition of Joseph Athias, printed at Amsterdam in 1661. The edition of Vander Hooght of 1705 accompanied by some various readings, has acquired celebrity from the circumstance of Kennicott's collation of manuscripts having been made by it.-There are other more modern editions of less celebrity. Jablonsky's very correct edition is followed in the celebrated one of John Henry Michaelis of 1720.—But although all the editions have flowed from the above mentioned three, and a few contain some corrections taken from manuscripts; yet they differ in many respects, and even exhibit some readings which are not to be found in any manuscript or ancient version, and are mere errors of the press. [e]

[a) The commentary of Jarchi is also subjoined. Tr.]

[b) Together with the commentary of David Kimchi. Tr.]

[c) DE ROSSI describes them as forming two distinct volumes in small quarto. The commentaries on the Hagiographa, are those of Im

manuel on the Proverbs; of Ben Gershom on Job, and of Jarchi on the remaining books. Tr.]

[d) This was the first edition of the entire Hebrew Scriptures. An accurate account of this and the preceding editions may be found in De Rossi, De Hebraicæ Typographiæ origine ac primitiis, ed. G. F. HUEfNAGEL Erlangæ 1778. pp. 12-44. In a note on p. 14. Hüfnagel asserts, after Kennicott, that the Bible of Soncini differs from the text of Vander Hooght in eleven thousand places. Horne says twelve thousand, and that Masch questions the truth of the assertion. HORNE Introd. II. p. 114. Tr.]

[e) Dr. Jahn is himself the editor of a very useful edition of the Hebrew Bible, in four 8vo. volumes printed at Vienna. In this work he has arranged those books which contain the same portion of history in separate columns as a harmony; viz. the books of Chronicles, with those of Samuel and Kings, and a few portions of Genesis. The prophets he has digested in chronological order. In addition to the usual divisions into chapters and verses which are marked in the margin, he has distributed the various books into sections according to the subjects, prefixing to each a short statement of the contents. He has also added the moré important various readings; and at the end of the 4th volume a catalogue of manuscripts and editions. The last edition was printed in 1806. -On the subject of the preceding section much valuable additional information may be derived from DE WETTE, Einleit. 95, 96, and the authorities there referred to; and from HORNE's Introd. Vol. II. Part I. Ch. iii. 1. pp. 113-126. Tr.]

§ 113. Origin of the Samaritan text.[a]

The Pentateuch which the Samaritans have preserved in their own character, has no doubt descended from the time, when (975 B. C.) the ten tribes separated from the kingdom of Judah. For after this period a perpetual jealousy raged between the two kingdoms, and therefore the ten tribes or at least the priests of the golden calves did not receive copies from the kingdom of Judah, but transcribed from their own manuscripts, and thus handed them down to posterity. Upon the deportation of the ten tribes 740 and 722 B. C., the foreigners, who had been sent into the country, became mingled with those of the Israelites who had remained, and were called Samaritans. Being infested by lions, they received an Israelitish priest sent by the Assyrian monarch to instruct them in the Mosaic religion. He fixed his residence in Bethel, where the golden calf was first worshipped, and was therefore a priest of the calf. He took with

him his Israelitish manuscript'; for the ancient hatred against the kingdom of Judah still subsisting would have made him reject with abhorrence the idea of borrowing thence. Copies of this manuscript were spread among the Samaritans, and some have been preserved to our own time, without having been modified according to the Jewish text. The animosity prevailing between the Samaritans and the Jews effectually precluded this, and the Jewish apostates, who went over to the Samaritans, would not dare to remove the discrepancies from Jewish manuscripts which still exist.

[a) On the subject of this and the following section, see HORNE, Introd. Vol. II. Part. I. c. 1. Sect. 2. pp. 10-15. CARPZOV, P. II. c. iv. p. 585-620. EICHHORN, 378-389. BAUER, 92-94. SIMON, L. I. c. x-xiii. PRIDEAUX, Part. I. Book vi. anno 409, p. 413-425. GESENIUS de Pentateuchi Samaritani origine, indole et auctoritate Commentatio philologico-critica, Hale. 1815. Comp. also an article in the North American Review for April 1826, p. 274-317. Tr.]

§ 114. History of the Samaritan text.

The Samaritan text has not been altered to suit the Masora, and in consequence of the small number of Samaritans, it has not been very often transcribed. This accounts for the comparative fewness of its errors. It has many faults however of another kind from which the Jewish text is free. 1) The gutturals, (y, 11, 77, x,) which the Samaritans do not pronounce, are very often commuted, and therefore discrepancies arising from this cause can by no means be reckoned in the class of various readings, but are to be considered as mere errors.- -2) The matres lectionis are frequently introduced and in observance of certain rules, while the Jewish text retains more constantly the old freedom of orthography.—3) Many readings occur which owe their origin to some preconceived opinions, as the ages of the patriarchs in Gen. v. and xi. which in regular and equable proportion diminish with progressive generations. Jerome (Quæst. in Gen. v. 25-28.) found the Samaritan text in his time not arranged in this manner.- -4) Some changes appear to have been made from conjecture, or to solve difficulties, as in Gen. iii. 2. wnan, the liar, for vinn, the serment; Gen. xxxi. 53. v, let him judge,

TT