1

called from hence Soph-Pasuk, i. e. The end of the verse. If Ezra himself was not the author of this dis vision (as most say,) it was not long after him that it was introduced; for certainly it is very ancient. It is most likely it was invented for the sake of the Targu mists or Chaldee interpreters. For, after the Hebrew language had ceased to be the mother tongue of the Jews, and the Chaldee grew up into use among them instead of it, (as was their case after their return from the Babylonish captivity,) their usage was, m that, in the public reading of the law to the people, it was read to them, first in the original Hebrew, and after that rendered by an interpreter into the Chaldee language, that so all might fully understand the same. And this was done period by period. And therefore, that these periods might be the better distinguished, and the reader more certainly know how much to read at every interval, and the interpreter how much to interpret at every interval, there was a necessity that some marks should be invented for their direction herein. The rule given in their ancient books is, that in the law the reader was to read one verse, and then the interpreter was to render the same into the Chaldee: but that in the prophets, the reader was to read three verses together, and then the interpreter to render the same three verses into Chaldee in the same manner; which manifestly proves, that the division of the Scriptures into verses must be as ancient, as the way of interpreting them into the Chaldee language in their synagogues; which was from the very time that synagogues were erected, and the Scriptures publicly read in them after the Babylonish captivity. This was at first done only in the law, (for° till the time of the Maccabees the law only was read in their synagogues;) but afterwards, in imitation hereof, the same

1 David Kimchi in Præfatione ad Michlol. Ephodai Gram. c. 7, Elias Levita in Præfatione ad Methurgeman.

m Waltone Prolegom. 3, sec. 24. Lightfoot, vol. i, p. 215, 220, 357, 1012. vol. ii, 545, 803. Buxtorfii Dissertatio de Linguæ Hebrea Conservatione, p. 197. Morini Exercit. Bibl. p. 2, exerc. 9, c. 5, sec. 9. Hottingeri Thesaurus, lib. 1, c. 3, sec. 3, Q. 1. Maimonides in Tephillin, c. 12. Shickard Bechinath Happerushim, c. 2, sec. 1.

n Mishnah in Tract. Megilla, c. 4. Tract. Sopherim, c. 11. o Buxtorfius in Bibliotheca Rabbinica, p. 283.

was also done in the prophets, and the Hagiographa, especially after that the prophets began also to be publicly read among them, as well as the law; and from hence the division of the holy Scriptures into verses, it is most likely, was first made, but without any numerical figures annexed to them. The manner whereby they are now distinguished in their common Hebrew Bibles, is by the two great points, called Soph-Pasuk, abovementioned. But whether this was the ancient way, is by some made a question. The objection raised against it is this: If the distinction of verses was introduced for the sake of the Chaldee interpreters in their synagogues, and must therefore be held as ancient as that way of interpreting the Scrip tures in them, P it must then have place in their sacred synagogical books; for none other were used either by the readers or their interpreters in their public assemblies. But it hath been anciently held as a rule among them, that any points or accents written into these sacred books pollute and profane them; and therefore no copy either of the law or the prophets now used in their synagogues, hath any points or accents written in it. To this I answer, whatever may be the practice of the modern Jews, this is no rule to let us know what was the ancient practice among them; since, in many particulars, they have varied from the ancient usages, as they now do from each other, according to the different parts of the world in which they dwell. The division of the law and the prophets into verses, among the Jews, is certainly very ancient; for mention of them is made in the Mishna; and that the reason of this division was for the direction of the readers and the Chaldee interpreters, is also there implied. And therefore, supposing such a division for this use, it must necessarily follow, that there must have been some marks to set it out, otherwise it could not have answered the end intended,

p Morinus in Exercitationibus Biblicis, part 2, exercit. 15, c. 1, sec. 9. q Tract. Sopherim, c. 3. Morini Exercit Bibl. part 2, exercit. 15, c. 4. Tract. Megilla c. 4, sec, 4, ubi. dicitur, Qui legit in lege non legit minus quam tres versus. Non legit interpreti plus quam unum versum, & in prophetis tres.'

Those that say these verses were distinguished by a set number of lines of which they consisted, seem not to have considered, that a line often ends in an imperfect sense, and in the middle of a sentence. And therefore a division into verses this way could not serve the end for which the Mishna makes mention of them, that is, for the direction of the readers and Chaidee interpreters in their synagogues; for there could be no true reading or true interpreting, if the stop were made otherwise than at the end of a full sentence. And therefore, if the distinction of verses in their sacred synagogical books were anciently discernible only by lines, it could be no otherwise according to the manner in which Maimonides says they! were written, than by ending of the last line of the: verse in a break. For that author, out of the Talmud, tells us, that the parchments, on which they were written, were to be of six hand's breadth, and of as many in length, and the writing of them to be in six columns, each column being of an hand's breath; and that each line in these columns was to contain thirty of their letters. And therefore, if a break were made where the last line of the verse ended, and the next verse were begun with a new line, this would, I acknowledge, be sufficient to set out the distinction of these verses, and make them fully answer the end intended. But there are two exceptions against it. The first is, that such breaks could not always be made, because sometimes the verse might be run out to the end of the last line, and so leave no space at all for a break; and then there could no distinction at all be made this way between that verse and the next. And the second is," that those who hold this opinion, that the verses were to be reckoned by lines, allow only two of the lines abovementioned to a verse: but there are many verses which cannot be written in fewer than five or six of those lines. It is most likely, that anciently the writing of those books was in long lines from one side of the parchment to the other, and that

s Morinus in Exercitationibus Biblicis, part 2, exercit. 15, c. 2.

t Maimonides de Libro Legis. c. 7 & 9. Talmud in Baya Bathra, fol. 16. u Morinus, ibid.

the verses in them were distinguished in the same manner as the Stichi afterwards were in the Greek Bibles. For the manner of their writing those Stichi at first was, to allow a line to every Stichus, and there to end the writing where they ended the Stichus, leaving the rest of the line void, in the same manner as a line is left at a break. But this losing too much of the parchment, and making the book too bulky, for the avoiding of both these inconveniences, the way afterwards was, to put a point at the end of every Stichus, and so continue the writing, without leaving any part of the line void as before. And, in the same manner I conceive the Pesukim or verses of the Hebrew Bibles were anciently written. At first they 'allowed a line to every verse; and a line drawn from one side of the parchment to the other, of the length as abovementioned, was sufficient to contain any verse that is now in the Hebrew Bible. But many verses falling short of this length, they found the same inconveniences that the Greeks after did in the first way of their writing their Stichi; and therefore came to the same remedy, that is, they did put the two points abovementioned (which they call Soph-Pasuk) at the place where the former verse ended, and continued the writing of the next verse in the same line without leaving any void space at all therein. And so their manner hath continued ever since, excepting only that between their sections, as well the smaller as the greater, there is some void space left to make the distinction between them. And I am the more inclined to think this to be the truth of the matter, that is, that anciently the verses of the Hebrew Bible were so many lines therein, because among the ancients of other nations, about the same time, the lines in the writings of prose authors, as well as of poets, were termed verses; and hence it is that we are told,y that Zoroastres' works contained two millions of verses, and Aristotle's four hundred and forty-five thousand two hundred and seventy, though neither of them wrote any thing but in

x Vide Millii Prolegomena ad Græcum Testament. p. 90.

y Plin. lib. 3, c. 1.

z Diogenes Laertius in Vita Aristotelis.

prose; and so also we find the writings of Tully, of Origen, of Lactantius, and others, who were all prose writers, reckoned by the number of verses, which could be no other than so many lines. And why then might not the Bible verses anciently have been of the same nature also? I mean when written in long lines as aforesaid. But the long lines often occasioning, that in reading to the end of one verse, they lost the beginning of the next, and so often did read wrong, either by skipping a line, or beginning the same again; fore the avoiding of this, they came to the way of writing in columns and in short lines, as is abovementioned. But all this I mean of their sacred synagogical books. In their common Bibles, they are not tied up to such rules, but write and print them so as they may best serve for their instruction and convenience in common use. If the Jews at present, in their synagogical books, leave out the two points Soph-Pasuk at the end of the verses, it proceeds from their wresting the rule abovementioned, against putting points or accents into their sacred books, to a too rigorous meaning; for by those points therein mentioned, seem to be understood no other points than the vowel points, and such other as affect the text in the reading. But these two points at the end of every verse only terminate the period, without affecting at all either the words or the letters. But it

a Asconius Pedianus Ciceronis verba citat, versu a primo octingentisimo quinquagesimo, &c

b Hieronymus in Catalogo Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, & alibi. c Hieronymus in Epistola 124, ad Damasum.

d Cornelius Nepos in Epaminonda. In hoc volumine vitas excellentium virorum complurium concludere constituimus, quorum separatim multis millibus versuum complures scriptores ante nos explicarunt.' And Josephus tells us in the conclusion of his Antiquities, That this work of his contained twenty books, and sixty thousand ay or verses.' For the Greek x is the same with the Latin verses, and both the same originally with what we call a line in writing. For verses properly is a line, whether in prose or verse, and is so called a vertendo, because the writer, when he is got to the end of one line, turns back his hand, and begins the next, and so doth the reader also his eye, from the end of one line to the beginning of the next. Vide Menagii Observationes in Diogenis Laertii, lib. 4, No. 24. Jerome also, in his preface before his Latin version of the book of Daniel, saith, that Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, answered the objections of Porphyry against the Scriptures, multis versuum millibus, i. e. by many thousands of verses, that is, lines; for they all wrote in prose. e Maimonides in Libro Legis. c. 7.