KENN. Diss. Gen. edit. BRUNS. p. 279-329. Comp. MICH. Orient. Bibl. IX. Th. S. 91–131. XIII. Th. S. 170 ff. XVIII. Th. S. 138, 141, 160, 164. XXI. Th. S. 63. XXII. Th. S. 177. EICHн. Repert. XII. Th. S. 225. ROSEN. Hand. für die Lit. der Bibl. Krit. und Exeg. 1. S. 241–248.

DE ROSSI selected from this apparatus the more important readings, and after comparing 731 other manuscripts and 300 editions, and examining fully the ancient versions and books of the Rabbins even in manuscript, he published all the various readings which he had observed in 4 vols. 4to. in 1784-88, at Parma, to which in 1798 he added a supplement or Critical Scholia. It is to be lamented that De Rossi, as he himself confesses, Vol. IV. Diss. Præl. p. 19. col. 2., did not examine his materials throughout, but confined himself chiefly to an inspection of those places in which Kennicott and some other critics had noted variety.

From the apparatus thus prepared, DOEDERLEIN, and upon his death MEISNER, undertook the publication of a manual edition of the Old Testament, which was printed in 1793. But as the print was small and inaccurate, another manual edition was published by myself at Vienna 8vo. in 1806.*

The apparatus already collected is indeed very great; yet much remains to be done in order to bring the criticism of the O. T. to perfection. The manuscripts have not been accurately described, nor reduced into families; most of them have only been examined in certain places, and not collated throughout, which is the case with almost all those of De Rossi; complete extracts have not yet been made from the Masora; most of the versions still require the aid of a critic, and after they have been corrected they should be compared throughout. The accomplishment of these and many other requisites must be left to posterity.

§ 126. Of Internal Critical Evidence.

The principal arguments in relation to the genuineness of readings are external, or those afforded by the witnesses to whom what has been already said relates. But since it frequently happens that these witnesses are contradictory, so that it is impossible to found a judg

* [See § 113 at the end. Tr.]

ment on their authority; it becomes necessary, in order to decide the question, to call in the aid of internal arguments. Of these the chief are, such as are drawn from the various methods in which spurious readings arise; for in proportion to the difficulty with which a reading could have arisen from any other is the probability of its having descended from the writer himself; and in proportion to the ease with which it might arise from another reading does it betray a more recent origin, and its incorrectness. In order to make a proper use of these arguments, it is necessary carefully to draw from experience the various methods by which errors are produced. It is quite clear that spurious readings arise from two sources, namely, from errors of the pen, and from the erroneous judgment of the transcribers. Errors of the pen are of a fourfold kind, a) such as omit, b) such as add, c) such as transpose, and d) such as alter. Alterations moreover proceed either from an error of the sight, or, when written by dictation, of the hearing, or of the memory.-2) Through erroneous judgment, passages are either a) altered from others which are parallel, or b) perverted from their true meaning in consequence of abbreviations in the writing being incorrectly understood, or, c) mar. ginal notes are introduced into the series of discourse, or lastly, d) what is really right is supposed to be erroneous and improperly corrected. It is intended to treat of all these points in order.

-1)

§ 127. Errors which are committed by omission.[a] Transcribers readily omit a letter, a syllable, a word, and even a sentence and period, especially when ourλsura take place, i. e. when the beginning or the end of the following sentence or period is the same or similar. Thus in II Sam. xxiii. 20. occurs for 'n, as

T

it is in the parallel place, I Chron. xi. 22; in Lament. ii. 4. for , as preserved in the Targum; whole sentences are omitted in Ps. xxv. 5. cxlv. 13; an omission on account of similar terminations is found in Ps. xxxvii. 28, where by is omitted from its simi

-

::.

larity to high, though preserved by the Alexandrine version. Omissions in manuscripts are so numerous that they are generally to be considered as mere errors of the pen, unless they occur in manu

scripts very accurately written, which is but seldom the case. Hence a large number of witnesses declaring in favour of an omission prove nothing, and a few witnesses are sufficient authority to restore what has been omitted. Indeed even one witness may evince its genuineness, if other internal arguments of weight can be alleged.

[a) On the subject of this section, KENNICOTT's Two Dissertations on the State of the Hebrew Text, may be profitably consulted. See the Indexes, article Omissions; and on the whole subject of the causes of corruption, comp. BAUER, 20-23, p. 168–195, and EICHHORN, 84-108. Tr.]

§ 128. Errors which have arisen from additions.[a]

The rule respecting omissions, however, is by no means to be urged to a very great degree, because transcribers may readily add a letter, or syllable, or word; although no one could easily add a whole sentence through an error of the pen. An addition also might arise from the circumstance of the transcriber's having written an erroneous letter, or syllable, or word, from his copy, although condemned by a fine stroke or point. Sometimes it must remain uncertain whether the omission or addition be the more probable, unless other arguments can be obtained to assist in forming a judgment. The matres lectionis which are occasionally of great importance, transcribers have been accustomed to insert or omit at pleasure, and sometimes to introduce them in an improper place: hence in Gen. xlix. 10. for . To the same cause is to be traced the Arabic orthography which is at times to be met with, as for in Hos.

קאם
קם

x. 14. If, however, this orthography is of frequent occurrence in any book, as for instance in Job, it undoubtedly proceeds from the author; because no reason can be given why transcribers should have so frequently introduced a foreign orthography in this book in particular. But it is unquestionable, that careless transcribers have often added the article, the paragogic, and the particles

and

5. See Isa. xxix. 11. Mic. iii. 2. I Sam. xxvi. 22. II Kings vii. 13.

[a) See KENNICOTT's Two Dissertations; Indexes, article Insertions. Tr.]

§ 129. Transpositions.

Transcribers are also apt to transpose letters, words, or sentences. Thus in Eccles. ix. 4. m is read for ', which is given in the

Alexandrine version and the Targum, and is required by the series of the discourse; and in II Sam. xxi. 19. D' occurs after "y",

.:

having been transferred from the line below.Transpositions of verses may be found in Lament. c. ii. iii. and iv., of the letters y and §; and Kennicott refers to manuscripts in which psalms and chapters of books are transposed, Diss. Gen. p. 42-47.

§ 130. Changes produced by errors of the sight.

Letters or words are often changed through an error of the sight, and from this cause very many various readings have arisen. In order to judge of these it is necessary to notice the similarity of letters, and the possibility of one letter being mistaken for two, or two for one, and thus affording occasion for a change. Thus in Ps. xi. 1, has been interchanged with in, which the Alexandrine version expresses. It is to be regretted that the more ancient form of the letters is unknown, from which the oldest various readings might be explained. Discrepancies, however, of ancient date occur, arising from the change of letters which are now similar, as in Josh. xv. 47, biam, k’'ri, ban. From this source have flowed many and

:

great errors in numbers, which were formerly expressed by letters, a commutation of which might easily produce those immense numbers which are so often to be met with in the historical books.

Thus in II Chron. xxii. 2, ♫ 22 has been changed into an 42, as is evident from II Kings viii. 26. Comp. also II Chron. xiii. 3. xiv. 7, 8, (3, 9.) xvii. 13-19. [a]

(a) See KENNICOTT's Two Dissertatations; Diss. I. pp. 96. ss. 462. ss. 472. s., comp. also pp. 529. ss., and Diss. II. pp. 208-221. and 512. ss. Tr.]

§ 131. Changes arising from a failure of memory.

Since transcribers would naturally look at the copy, and take several words at once to be afterwards written down, occasional slips of memory would give rise to other words, especially to such as are synonymous or similar. From this cause commutations of particles often occur, as of and ¡ with the prefixes Lamed and Mem,

of with ↳ and 2. So also there is sometimes an interchange of

; וּמיד

In II Sam. xxii. 1, ten manuscripts have 3D for

ומכף

and on the contrary in Ps. xviii. 1, many read ¬ for . Hence also the frequent interchanges of the names of God, nin', "İN

and Ds for since the Jews for 2000 years past have constantly

read '18 for nin', or where both occur in connexion, □; trans

cribers may not unfrequently have written from memory these two words instead of the other. Comp. CAPEL. Crit. Sac. T. I. L. I.

c. iii. p. 45-47. 109-112.

§ 132. Changes from an error in hearing.

If a book were dictated to several transcribers, one or other of them would sometimes hear a word incorrectly, and write another of similar sound. This seems to be the cause of those 17 commutations of with 1, which are noted in the Treatise. Sopherim and in the margin of our Bibles; and also of He with Aleph, as 18 in I Kings xii. 18. and □ in II Chron. x. 18; and " in II Kings viii. 28. and p'

in II Chron. xxii. 5.

§ 133. Alterations from parallel places.

Parallel passages have furnished a most abundant source of alterations. In some instances, such passages, being very familiar to the transcriber, have crept into the text without his knowledge or intention. In others inconsiderate transcribers have corrupted a text because they have deemed it necessary to render it conformable to a parallel passage. Thus the 7th and 8th verses of II Kings xx., are