plain the subject more clearly, his testimony is to be rejected. 5) If an obscure or difficult word, which the translator did not perhaps understand, has been omitted, or conjecturally translated, it is not to be inferred that it did not exist in his manuscript, or that it was differently written.-6) If the translator has paraphrased, or expressed the sense merely, we are not to suppose that he had read in his manuscript other words than those which are now extant, and frequently it is not easy to conjecture what he did read as a witness therefore he is of no authority.- -Hence it is evident that versions which render the original word for word, afford more assistance to the critic than those which only give the sense.

The versions themselves indeed are by no means free from errors and various readings; yet these are not the same as the various readings of the Hebrew, nor do they occur in the same places, and consequently their testimony is not thereby invalidated. The mediate versions, the authors of which neither examined nor understood Hebrew manuscripts, express no more than their testimony concerning the readings of that version from which they were drawn. But if a version made immediately from the original appears to be related in certain places to another version, its testimony with regard to the reading in those places is suspicious. Such a connexion may arise from a translator's having often consulted a version, as Theodotion and probably also the Syriac translator have the Septuagint, or from one version's being altered to correspond with another. When an ancient version, has in an age more modern than that in which it was originally composed, been remodelled in some places according to the Hebrew text, its evidence in such places is more modern, and cannot possess the same weight as the rest of the text. This observation applies to some passages of the Targums, and of the Vulgate.

The Antiquities of Josephus may in a very great degree be reckoned among the mediate versions, for this work was drawn from the Alexandrine. But in places where it differs remarkably from that version, Josephus examined Hebrew manuscripts, and his testimony in relation to the reading of the Hebrew text, is of the greatest weight.

§ 120. Quotations in the New Testament.[a]

The quotations from the Old Testament which are found in the New, are taken for the most part from the Alexandrine version, and afford testimony respecting its readings. But those which are derived from the Hebrew text are evidence of the reading of the Hebrew manuscripts of that age. Sometimes a passage is cited from the Alexandrine version, but as he who is introduced as speaking did not use the Greek but the Aramæan language, and quoted either the Hebrew text itself or a translation of it into the Aramæan, it is plain that the Hebrew manuscripts also at that time exhibited the reading given. This applies to Acts xv. 17, compared with Amos ix. 12. But it is worthy of observation, that the writers of the New Testament frequently give the sense of a place without regarding the words, or connect several places in one continuous discourse, as in Rom. iii. 11-18; in such cases we are not to conclude that their manuscripts differed from ours. The quotation in Matt. xxvii. 9, from Zech. xi. 12, 13, which is of this kind, is worthy of particular attention. Comp. Germ. Introd. p. 448, and Append. Herm. Fasc. I. p. 256-267.

[a) A very full list of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, arranged in classes, is given by HORNE, Introd. Part I. c. ix. § 1. Vol. II. pp. 343-433: and the Junior Class in the Theological Seminary, Andover, have published the "Citations of the Old Testament by the writers of the New Testament, compared with the original Hebrew and the Septuagint version, under the superintendence of M. STUART, Associate Professor of Sacred Literature, 1827." This will be found a very convenient and useful work to persons wishing to form an acquaintance with the subject. Tr.]

The places which are cited in the Talmud were taken from manuscripts belonging to the period between the end of the second and the end of the fifth centuries, or somewhat more ancient; and their testimony is equivalent to that of those manuscripts, and increases in weight where it agrees with the versions against the Masoretic text; as in Ps. xvi. 10. quoting on for 770, and in Gen. xlix. 10, he

for . But all the discrepancies of the Talmudists from the Masoretic text are not to be considered as various readings, for these writers often give the sense of a place, neglecting the language, or they mutilate the text, or designedly omit certain words or add them, or combine together many places; not unfrequently, they merely allude to some passage, or, in order to press out a paronomasia, make some alteration in the text, and direct it to be read in some particular way although not so written in the manuscripts. It is necessary therefore to be cautious in using the testimony of the Talmudic wriSee BUXTORF in his Tiberias, L. I. C. 9. p. 20, Basil. 1656. CAPEL. Crit. Sac. T. II. L. V. c. 12. § 4. p. 901.

ters.

§ 122. Testimony of the Masora.

Although the Masora has stricken out of the text many good readings, or has left them in only a few manuscripts, yet it has also preserved many good readings which have perished from manuscripts or have been retained in very few; as for instance Ps. xxii. 17, (16,)

TT

Its testimony is of which the readings

which is noted in the Masora on Num. xxiv. 9. equal weight with that of the manuscripts from were taken, that is, of manuscripts from the 6th to the 10th centuries inclusive. But it must be observed, that if the Masora agree with the Talmudists and with the manuscripts, it constitutes along with them only a single testimony; but if it differs from them, it af fords an independent evidence.

The notes called "p k'ri (Comp. § 107.), mentioned in the Jeru

salem Talmud and repeated in the Masora, are mostly various readings, of which the one marked in the margin is directed to be preferred. But this direction does not bind the critic, who cannot possibly judge of manuscripts which those Jews did not even name: he must pronounce sentence on the testimony of versions and manuscripts, or from internal arguments.

§ 123. Quotations in Rabbinical Writers.

The learned Jews who flourished particularly from the 11th to the 16th centuries, took the passages of the Bible which they quote from

manuscripts of their own age or somewhat more ancient, and the readings cited by them possess the same authority as the manuscripts of those times. But since in that period the text had already been reduced into the Masoretical form, their citations also generally correspond to our text, although some important discrepancies are observable, which are of the greater consequence because they are repugnant to the Masora and Targums, and coincide with the most ancient versions: as in Gen. xlix. 10, and 1 for nw, Comp. my Heb. Bib. T. I. p. 117.

With respect to quotations in Rabbinical writers the same caution is necessary which has been recommended in relation to Talmudical; that is to say, every aberration from the received text is not to be added to the various readings. For frequently they merely exhibit the sense, or only allude to a place, or give the words of the text somewhat inaccurately through a failure of memory, and they not only omit or commute some words, but also add others: from such quotations it is not allowable to force out various readings. In proportion therefore as the probability increases, that the authors wrote out the words of the text from manuscripts which themselves had examined, their testimony is the more important. This remark applies to commentaries, and especially if it appear from the explanation itself, what reading exclusive of any other was used by the author, so that there can be no room for suspecting the words to have been altered by transcribers or editors. Thus, in Bereshith Rabba, Tanchuma and Jarchi, in Gen. xlix. 10, 1 is not only written, but also explained.

Those of the Rabbins who are critics, as R. Meir, son of Todros. called also Todrosius and Harama, of the 13th century, R. Menahem de Lonzano, and R. Solomon Norzi, both of the 16th, constantly produce various readings from very old manuscripts, which however scarcely exceed the 11th century. These readings are not to be despised, although the greater part of them are of little importance. Comp. DE ROSSI Var. Lect. Vol. I. Proleg. § 36-38, p. 39–43. SIMON, Hist. Crit. du V. T. Tom. I. p. 363. ss. CAPEL. Crit. Sac. T. II. L. V. C. 12. § 22—28, p. 919-924. ROSEN. Handbuch für die Lit. der Bibl. Krit. und Exeg. II. Th. S. 77. ff.

§ 124. Quotations in the Fathers.

Ecclesiastical writers took the places of Scripture which they quote from the version of their church, and consequently their testimony can extend no further than to the readings of that version. Origen and Jerome are the only fathers who certainly made use of Hebrew manuscripts, and their evidence is equivalent to that of manuscripts of their age. If any others appeal to the Hebrew text, they drew their remarks chiefly from Origen and Jerome.

§ 125. Collections of Various Readings.

Human life is too short to allow of a thorough examination of all those monuments which are indispensably necessary to criticism, in addition to the many other subjects which are equally worthy of attention. But as many learned men have from time to time investigated different documents. extensive collections of various readings have at length arisen, of which the critic should avail himself. Some beginnings were made by those ancient Jews, to whom we owe the rejections and corrections of the Scribes, and other observations before noticed. See § 107. More recently Todrozius, Menahem and Norzi have collected larger apparatus. KEN. Diss. Gen. p. 111— 131. De Rossi, p. 39-43. MUNSTER was the first among Christians who in his edition of 1556 added some various readings. Not many more are found in that of VAN DER HOOGHT, 1705; but in the edition of JOHN HENRY MICHAELIS, 1720, the various readings of five manuscripts and nineteen editions are exhibited, and that not only in the letters, but also in the vowel points and accents.

These were imperfect beginnings. In 1753, HOUBIGANT, a priest of the Oratory, published a critical edition of the Old Testament according to the text of Van der Hooght, but greatly corrected. By this attempt, the learned were animated to a more careful examination of the character of the Hebrew text. The result was many collations of Hebrew manuscripts, until by the efforts of KENNICOTT a comparison was made through the whole of Europe, and at length his edition appeared, which, following Van der Hooght's text, contained various readings from 615 manuscripts, from 52 editions, and from both the Talmuds. It was published in 2 vols. folio, 1776-80, at Oxford.