hang perpendicular; all these enumerations they made, and took the number of each. Such was their scrupulosity, that though it might have been plain that one letter was put for another, or that a word was pushed out of its place, still they would not vary the text, but indicated these changes by a particular mark, supposing that some mystery had occasioned the alteration. They distinguished the degrees of certainty which they attributed to their critical corrections or insinuations by three words: KERI, read;-CHETIB, write ;-and SBHIR, conjecture.* 4. Such critics, it will be admitted by all candid persons, were not likely capriciously or wilfully to alter the text; and their numerous and minute rules rendered it almost impossible that they should do so by accident, at least in any thing very material. II. But we are not more at a loss to discover the method pursued in the revision of the Hebrew MSS. by the critics of whom we have just spoken, than we are to ascertain the rules adopted by the early editors of the printed editions. The particular MSS. which they used, the way in which they employed their materials, the degree of authority they yielded to preceding editions, and other matters of a similar description, are all beyond our power to learn; for on these points they have maintained a complete silence. We must, therefore, be contented with a brief sketch of the principal editions, and then pass on to notice the process by which our present critical apparatus has been formed. 1. The first printed edition of the entire Hebrew Bible was that executed at Soncino, in 1488, under the editorial care of Abraham ben Chayim. The critical value of this editio princeps is very great, but there are only nine copies of it known to be in existence: the Bodleian library, and that of Exeter College, Oxford, possess the only two copies in England. The variations between this edition and that of Van der Hooght are stated by Kennicott to amount to some thousands, though none of them are of any great moment. 2. This was followed, in 1494, by an edition at Brescia, edited by Gerson, son of Rabbi Moses, which deserves special attention, from having been used by Luther for his German translation, and also from having formed the basis of several subsequent editions, of which may be noticed that in the Complutensian Polyglott. 3. These two editions, with a third, printed in 1517, without the name of any place, are called *See Lewis' Origines Hebrææ, vol. iv, p. 156. Calmet's Dictionary, vol. ii., p. 122, 5th edit.; and Butler's Horæ Bibka. P- 40. the Soncinates, being printed by Jews of a family, which came originally from Germany, and established themselves at Soncino, a town in Lombardy, between Cremona and Brescia. They were the first Hebrew printers.† 4. We need only mention another edition, namely, that published by Daniel Bomberg, in 1525, at Venice. This edition, the Brescia edition of 1494, and the Complutensian edition of 1517, form the basis of almost all subsequent editions. III. But whatever variations may be found in the text of these and subsequent early editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, it must not be supposed that they resulted from any deviation on the part of the respective editors from the MSS. they employed. Christians, as well as the Jews, confided most implicitly in the immaculate purity of the text; to have questioned which would have been regarded as an act of the utmost temerity, if not of impiety. Hence it is not to be wondered at, that Buxtorf, who published his Tiberias, or an exposition and defence of the Masoretic doctrines, in 1620, should confirm the affirmation of Elias Levita, by saying of the Hebrew MSS., Omnium librorum, qui vel in Asiâ, vel in Africâ, vel in Europá sunt, sine ullâ discrepantiâ, consonans harmonia cernitur. It so happened, however, that in the early part of the seventeenth century, the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch, the existence of which was well known to some of the early Christian writers, but which had been lost sight of for upwards of a thousand years, was again brought to light; and its numerous variations from the Masoretic text suggested the idea of a diversity of readings in the Hebrew MSS. The examination of copies which was hence induced, issued in the detection of actual and numerous mistakes, and thus prepared the way for that corrected and purer text which we now possess. 1. The first person who boldly and determinately impeached the purity of the Hebrew text was the learned Morinus, a Roman Catholic priest, of the Oratory at Paris, who first published his Exercitationes Ecclesiasticæ et Biblicæ, in 1633. In 1650, he was followed by the erudite Capellus, in the same country, and in 1658, by our own celebrated and justly venerated countryman, Bishop Walton. The Critica Sacra of Ca Butler's Hora Biblicæ, p. 77. This had, indeed, been affirmed by Elias Hutter, in the preface to his edition of the Hebrew Bible, published at the latter end of the sixteenth century; but his statements do not appear to have produced any effect, since Buxtorf does not mention them in his Tiberias, which was published about thirty years afterwards. pellus should not be passed over without notice. 2. The labours of these critics having destroyed the confidence which had been hitherto reposed in the integrity* of the Hebrew text, originated an inquiry respecting the means for ascertaining the extent to which it had suffered, and the sources whence materials were to be obtained for restoring its purity. It seems not to have occurred to these learned men, however, that a collation of MSS. would furnish the most satisfactory evidence of the actual state of the text, as well as the materials for its improvement. The only standards by which Morinus had thought of measuring it, were the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint or ancient Greek Version: wherever it differed from these, he concluded that its verity was impaired. Nor was the critical apparatus of Capellus much more extensive, as is evident from the account just given of his work; although he avoided many of the errors into which his predecessor had fallen, by exercising a sounder judg *The text of an ancient author may be said to have preserved its integrity, if it is upon the whole in such a state as when it left his hands. Here, however, the term is used in a higher sense, as denoting its purity, or freedom from all error. ment as to the criterion by which the purity of the Hebrew text was to be determined. “He considered the ancient Versions, when applied under proper restrictions, as one source of critical authority in ascertaining the purity of disputed passages: but he did not consider with Morinus that a deviation of the Hebrew from the Septuagint, or from the Vulgate, was a reason for supposing, that in such places the Hebrew was incorrect. In short, his principles of criticism were such as the best judges have applied to ancient authors in general. Where Capellus failed, he failed in the application of his principles."+ 3. The attention of the learned world having been thus excited to the subject, it was soon determined that the only satisfactory mode of proceeding, was by a collation of MSS. and ancient Versions. This was accordingly undertaken by competent persons; and the result of their labours was given to the world in the successive editions of Athias, Jablonski, Van der Hooght, Michaelis, and Houbigant. It was reserved for the indefatigable Kennicott, however, to institute an extensive collation of MSS., and to produce the first critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, upon a magnificent scale. During the thirty years in which he and his coadjutors were employed in this work, under the patronage of the learned and wealthy in all parts of Europe, upwards of six hundred Hebrew MSS., and sixteen copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch, were either wholly or partially collated. Nor was this the full extent of his labours. Ardently desirous of giving consistency and permanency to the text, this industrious scholar added to the collation of MSS. a collation of the most valuable printed editions, and an examination of the quotations from the Hebrew Bible which were found in the works of the Jewish literati. The first volume of Kennicott's Bible was published in the year 1776, and was followed by the second volume in 1780. 4. "That the mass of various readings exhibited in this edition, which greatly exceed in number the various readings collected by the industry of three centuries for the Greek Testament, contains but few of real importance, is no subject of reproach to the learned editor," says Bishop Marsh, "who could only produce what his authorities afforded. Nor is he to be censured for giving all that he had, without regard to their relative value. His was the first attempt ever made, to give a copious collection of Hebrew readings; and he could hardly have been justified, if he had exercised his own discretion in regard to the portion which should be laid before the public. + Bishop Marsh's Lectures, p. 210. He wisely, therefore, afforded the opportunity to his | dition from the sacred writers, are in fact nothing readers of selecting for themselves: and though more than various readings of the Hebrew text. his extracts are rarely of much value for the pur- Out of a thousand of them, as printed by Van pose of critical emendation, they enable us, both der Hooght, there were but fourteen not found in to form an estimate of the existing Hebrew MSS., the text of some one of the MSS. examined by and to draw some important conclusions in regard Kennicott. to the integrity of the Hebrew text." 5. The major part of this immense collection of readings consists in mere variations of orthography, in the fulness or defectiveness of certain words, in the addition or subtraction of a mater lectionis,* of a vau, or a yod. And if we further deduct the readings, which are either manifest errata, or in other respects are of no value, the important deviations will be confined within a very narrow compass. In short, Dr. Kennicott's collation has contributed to establish the credit of the Masora. We learn from it this useful lesson, that although a multiplication of written copies will, notwithstanding all human endeavours, produce variations in the text, the MSS. of the Hebrew Bible have been so far protected by the operation of the Masora, that all which are now extant, both the oldest and the newest, might be compared with those MSS. of the Greek Testament which Griesbach refers to the same edition.t 6. A few years after the publication of Dr. Kennicott's Bible, De Rossi, the Hebrew professor at Parma, and the friend and fellow-labourer of Kennicott, added considerably to the collections previously mad-e, by publishing the various readings of seven hundred and thirty-one MSS., and three hundred and ten editions, some of which were unknown, and others but little known. The whole number of MSS. collated on this occasion, therefore, amounted to thirteen hundred and forty-six; and of editions, to three hundred and fifty-two; making a total of sixteen hundred and ninety-eight; containing several hundred thousand various readings. And yet not one doctrine or precept of revelation is affected by them. 7. There is one circumstance connected with this undertaking worthy of note; namely, the proof thereby afforded, that the marginal words of the Masora, printed opposite to the text in the rabbinical Bibles, and hitherto regarded as materials of interpretation, transmitted by oral tra The letters () aleph, (1) vau, and (•) yod, are called maIres lectionis, because employed to assist the reader of an printed MS. how to pronounce the words in which those letters are contained, being considered chiefly as props to the points by which they are usually accompanied. Where 1, are pointed, they are sometimes inserted, sometimes Gated, at the discretion of the writer. + Bishop Marsh's Lectures, pp. 221, 222. IV. Such is the history of the Hebrew text; from which the progress hitherto made in its criticism may in some measure be gathered. The necessity for this review may not at present be apparent ; but, as sacred criticism has for its object an aggregate of literary labours, undertaken at different periods, and for different purposes; and as its principles are general conclusions deduced from these literary labours, it will ultimately be seen, that the reason or foundation of those laws cannot be comprehended, without a previous knowledge of the nature and amount of these labours. By such a review of the several stages through which the criticism of the Bible has passed, we discover not only the means by which it has acquired its present form, but also the propriety of those rules which the critics have laid down for directing and regulating their operations.‡ V. This section may close with a brief notice of those celebrated copies of the Hebrew Scriptures which have been adopted by the Jews, as exemplars of all subsequent copies. 1. The copy of HILLEL, who is thought to have lived about the year A. D. 1000, was preserved at Toledo, in Spain, where Kimchi, who lived in the twelfth century, states that he saw it. Rabbi Zacuti, who lived near the close of the fifteenth century, says that part of it had been sent into Africa. 2. The copy of AARON BEN ASHER, one of the doctors of the celebrated academy at Tiberias, about the middle of the eleventh century, was preserved for many years at Jerusalem as a standard copy; and Maimonides, who made his own copy of the law from it, assures us that it was universally appealed to. From this exemplar all the MSS. of the western Jews, as well as all the printed copies of the Hebrew Bible, are almost wholly derived. 3. The copy of JACOB BEN NAPHTALI, who was president of the other famous Jewish academy at Babylon, and contemporary with BEN ASHER, was adopted by the oriental Jews. 4. The Codices of JERICHO and SINAI, and one called SANBOUKI, are highly commended for 5. The CODEX MALABARICUS, obtained by the late Dr. Buchanan from the black Jews in Malabar, whence it takes its name, though forming a distinct class, should not be passed by without notice. It is evident, as Bishop Marsh has suggested, that the copies of the Pentateuch preserved in India must have descended from the autograph of Moses through very different channels to those in the west of Europe, and therefore the close agreement of the one with the other (the Indian copy presenting only four peculiar readings) is a proof that they have preserved the original text in great purity. Whether this copy was formed from the Masoretic text, is by no means certain; for although it was probably written much later than the period when the Masorites finished their labours, it is probable that their influence never reached the mountainous district in the south of India.* SECTION III. EARLY VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. The Samaritan Pentateuch-The Septuagint-Greek Versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus - Labours of Origen-Value of the Septuagint to an Interpreter-Relationship between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX. -Early Revision of the Hebrew Text-Value of Various Readings. I. Mention has been made, in the preceding section, of the SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH, in reference to the influence it has had on the criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures; but before we proceed to notice the criticism of the Greek Testament, some further account of this venerable work, and also of the SEPTUAGINT Version, is called for. 1. The existence of the PENTATEUCH, or five Books of Moses, written in the peculiar alphabetic character employed by the Samaritans,† was known in very ancient times to such of the Christian Fathers as were acquainted with the Hebrew language. Origen, in his commentary on Numb. xiii. 1, and xxi. 13, distinctly speaks of it; as does Jerome, in his prologue to the Book of Kings, and in other places. 2. These, with one or two similar references in Origen, constitute the evidence we have, that the Samaritan Pentateuch was known in very ancient times to such of the Fathers as devoted themselves to the critical study of the Hebrew Scriptures. From the time of Jerome down to the first quarter of the seventeenth century, however, no traces appear, in the history of criticism and sacred literature, of the existence of the * See Yeats's Collation, p. 40. In the Samaritan copy of the law of Moses. 3. In the mean time, between the years 1620 and 1630, Archbishop Usher, so distinguished for his zeal in sacred literature, as well as for the knowledge of it which he himself acquired, had succeeded, by persevering efforts, in obtaining six additional copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch from the East, some of which were complete, and others incomplete. Five of these are still in England, deposited in different libraries; one, which the archbishop presented to Ludovicus de Dieu, appears to have been lost. 4. In 1621 another copy was sent to Italy, which is now in the Ambrosian library at Milan. About the same time, Peirese procured three copies; two of which are in the royal library at Paris, and one in that of Barberini at Rome. 5. To these copies others have since been added; so that Kennicott, as we have already stated, was able to extend the comparison of Samaritan MSS., for his critical collection of various readings, to the number of sixteen: most of them, however, were more or less defective, in regard to parts of the Pentateuch. 6. The external appearance of these MSS. agrees, in some respects, with that of the synagogue rolls of the Jews; but in many others it differs. All the Samaritan copies in Europe are in the form of books, either folio, quarto, or still smaller; although the Samaritans in their synagogues make use of rolls, as the Jews do also. The letters in the Samaritan copies are simple, exhibiting nothing like the literæ, majuscule, minusculæ, incersæ, suspensæ, &c., of the Hebrews. They are entirely destitute of vowel points, accents, or diacritical signs, such as are found in Hebrew and Chaldee. Each word is separated from the one which follows it, by a point placed between them; parts of sentences are distin + For some account of these people, see Part III., chap. guished by two points; and periods and para 3, sect. I. graphs by short lines, or lines and points. 7. The following is a fac-simile of the first line | the six copies belonging to Archbishop Usher, and of the MS. preserved in the British Museum by him presented to Sir Robert Cotton :-(Bibl. Cotton. Claudius, B. 8.), which was one of It is a small folio in size, and consists of two | the Seventy, Morinus maintained that the authority hundred and fifty-four pages, written on vellum. of the Samaritan, particularly when supported by It has fortunately escaped injury by the fire which damaged and destroyed so many valuable articles in the Cottonian library, in 1731, and is in an excellent state of preservation. the Septuagint, was paramount to that of the Jewish text. He laboured, moreover, to show that, in a multitude of passages, which in that text, as it now stands, are obscure and difficult, or unharmonious, the Samaritan offers the better reading; that the Jews have corrupted their Scriptures by negligence, or ignorance, or superstition; and that the safe and only way to purify them, is to correct them from the Samaritan, in connexion with the Septuagint. 8. The MSS. differ, however, in some unimportant particulars. Words of doubtful construction are sometimes marked by a small line over one of the letters. The margin is empty, unless, as is sometimes the case, the Samaritan or Arabic Version is placed by the side of the original text. The whole Pentateuch, like the 12. The signal was now given for the great Jewish copy, is divided into paragraphs, which | contest which ensued. Capellus, in his “ Critica they call Ratzin. But while the Jews make only | Sacra," followed in the steps of Morinus; but De fifty-two or fifty-four divisions (one to be read Muis, Hottinger, Stephen Morinus, Buxtorf, on each sabbath in the year), the Samaritans make nine hundred and sixty-six. 9. The age of some of the Samaritan copies is determined by the date, which accompanies the name of the copyist; in others it is not found. Kennicott has endeavoured to ascertain the date of all the Samaritan MSS. which he compared. But he resorts to conjecture in order to effect this; conjecture supported by no well-grounded rules of judging. The Codex Oratorii, used by Morinus, he supposes to have been copied in the eleventh century; while all the others, except one, are conceded to be of more recent origin. One he assigns to the eighth century. The reasoning of Kennicott and De Rossi, about the age of Hebrew and Samaritan MSS., rests, however, on very uncertain grounds. 10. The materials on which the Samaritan MSS. | are written, are either parchment or silk paper. Ordinary paper has been used, in recent times, only to supply some of the defects in them. Fuller, Leusden, and A. Pfeiffer, each, in separate works published within the seventeenth century, attacked the positions of Morinus and Capellus. Their principal aim was to overthrow these positions, rather than to examine the subject before them in a critical and thorough manner. 13. Much less like disputants, and more like impartial critics, did Father Simon, Walton, and Le Clerc, conduct themselves, relative to the question about the value and authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch. In particular, Simon has thrown out suggestions which imply, for substance, the same opinions, on many controverted points, that the latest and best critics, after all the discussion that has taken place, have adopted. 14. But during the latter part of the last contury, when the fierceness of the controversy seemed to have abated, Houbigant, treading in the steps of J. Morinus, renewed it in the Prolegomena to his Bible. With him other controvertists united. Kennicott, in various works, 11. The Christian world, before Morinus pub- A. S. Aquilino, Lobstein, and Alexander Geddes, lished his famous "Exercitationes Ecclesiastica have all contended for the equal or superior in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum authority of the Samaritan Codex. Houbigant (1631), had been accustomed, as we have seen, was answered, in a masterly way by S. Ravius, to resort only to the Jewish Hebrew Scriptures, in his “ Exercitationes Philologica, 1761, and as exhibiting the well authenticated and esta- recently, Michaëlis, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Bauer, Hished text of the Mosaic law. But the publi- and Jahn, have discussed the subject with a good cation of Morinus soon excited a controversy, degree of moderation and acuteness. They have which, even at the present time, has not wholly all inclined to attach considerable value to many subsided. As the Samaritan copy of the law, in of the Samaritan readings; although most of a multitude of places, agrees with the Version of them consider the Samaritan Pentateuch, on C |