Bibles of Houbigant," Kennicott,' Döderlein, Meisner, and Jahn. [The Polyglots, and also the Biglots, must be named under this head.]"

Rabbi Meir Hallevi, Rabbi Menachem de Lonzano,

Houbigant, Notæ Criticæ in V. T. Libros, cum Heb. tum Græce scriptos, cum integris ejusdem Prolegg. ad Exemplar Paris, denuo recusæ, vol. i„, ii.; Franeq. 1777, 4to. See J. D. Michaelis, Pref. to his Krit. Collegio über die drei wichtigsten Psalmen von Christo. J. Chr. Kallii Prod. Examinis Criseos Houbigantianæ ; Hafn. 1763, 4to. His Exam. Cris. Houbigantianæ in Cod. Heb. Spec. i.; ibid. 1764. Seb. Rau, Exercit. ad Houbigantii Prol.; Lug. Bat. 1785, 4to.

Bruns, De var. Lect. Bib. Kennicot. in Eichhorn's Repert. vol. xii. p. 242, sqq., xiii. p. 31, sqq. See his Apology for Kennicott, id. vol. vi. p. 173, sqq. For the history and criticism of the work, see Rosenmüller, Handbuch, vol. i. p. 241, sqq. [The laborious work of Kennicott proves that the Hebrew MSS. are all modern; only three so old as the eleventh century, and none older; that they all exhibit one recension, and have issued from one source, and consequently are of little use to rectify a corrupt passage. He is too much inclined to prefer readings of the present MSS., which agree with the old versions, to the received text, when they give an easier or more harmonious sense. Better critical principles and more practice in the criticism of other ancient writings, would, doubtless, have secured him from these errors. Eichhorn (in No. 100 of the Jena Zeitung, afterwards published in Michaelis, Or. Bib. vol. xii., Append.) showed many mistakes of Kennicott's assistants. Rosenmüller, 1. c. p. 504. It is wonderful that a man so familiar with Hebrew MSS. should not have given the world a better classification, or some theory of the MSS.; at least, some hints at a Hebrew palæography. Bruns thinks his English assistants were incompetent to the task they undertook, and that Kennicott himself erred in rejecting the marginal readings, and in refusing to collate some ancient MSS. because they followed the Masora too closely.]

Bib. Heb. Reineccii ed. J. Chr. Döderlein et J. H. Meisner; Lips. 1793, 8vo. Bib. Heb. dig. et grav. Lectt. Var. adj. J. Jahn; Vien. 1807,3 vols. 4to.

d [There is a valuable Polyglot of the Pent. in Heb., Chald., Pers., and Arab.; Constantinople, 1546; another on the Ps. in Heb., Gr., Arab., and Chald., with the glosses and Lat. versions, by Justiniani; Gen. 1516; a third on the Ps. by Potken, in four languages; Col. 1518.]

The titles are, 30 % 0, (i. e. the Book, the Masora, the Hedge of the Law ;) Flor. 1750, fol.; Berl. 1761. See Kennicott, Diss. Gen. § 57, and Bruns, p. 112. See his Excerpts, in Neue Theol. Journal, vol. vi. p. 765, sqq. De Rossi, 1. c. § 36.

777778, (Light of the Law;) first published at Venice, 1518, in

and J. B. de Rossi, have published collations of various readings."

§ 97.

RESULTS OF THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT.

All the diligence hitherto applied to the comparison of Hebrew manuscripts, has taught us that they all, throughout, represent the same recension of the text, namely, the masoretic, which lies at the bottom of them all. [Kennicott and De Rossi compared one thousand three hundred and forty-six Jewish and Samaritan manuscripts, and three hundred and fifty-two editions; that is, sixteen hundred and ninety-eight copies, including both manuscripts and editions, not to mention the extracts from others, found in the margin of these. To these De Rossi added extracts from old versions, from the Fathers, the Rabbins, and uncounted writers, Jewish and Christian. From the use of all these materials, and the toil of six-and-thirty years, conducted with a zeal which bordered on fanaticism, we have learned only this, that the Masorites afford little aid in restoring the passages where the text is corrupt; that the Jewish. transcribers copied with most patient assiduity, and superstitious correctness; that Chance or Superstition

; separately, but incorrectly; Amst. 1558. See Simon, Hist. crit.

du V. T. p. 542. Kennicott, 1. c. § 61. De Rossi, § 37.

"Variæ lectiones Vet. Test. ex immensa MSS. editorumque codd. congerie haustæ et ad Samarit. textum, ad vetustissimas verss., ad accuratiores sacræ criticæ fontes ac leges examinatæ; Parm. 1784-1788, 4 vols. 4to. Scholia crit. in V. T. libros, sive supplementa ad varias sac. textus lectt.; ib. 1798, 4to. See Döderlein, Auserles. theol. Biblioth. vol. iv. p. 1, sqq. [De Rossi collated three hundred editions; seven hundred and thirty-one MSS., besides the variants of Kennicott; the ancient versions and rabbinical writings. However, he did not collate them all throughout, but only in places where others had found a difficulty.]

has destroyed all the old manuscripts; that the first critical editions were not always successful in their selection of readings, and that some few passages, therefore, may still be corrected from the present manuscripts. We see that our present uniformity of punctuation is supported by very few manuscripts; that there are numerous diversities of punctuation which affect the sense. But, alas! we learn that all aid from manuscripts relates only to trifles; they give us but little help in the most important defects, and we must close the list of those places, lamenting that there is no certain help for them. "What Time has swallowed we cannot recover." Jahn, however, thinks that much may yet be done in this department.]"

The same recension was in the hands of the old translators, from whose works we can clearly discern the text they had before them. Since their time, it has not been materially changed; and from the earnest carefulness of the Jews, we may conclude, with probability, that it was the same before their time. From the characteristic peculiarities of the different writers in the Bible, which are carefully preserved, and from those of the independent passages out of which some books are composed, it appears that, in general, this recension faithfully represents the text of the books which were collected together after the exile, and united into the canon.d

Above, § 88. Eichhorn, Præf. ad Köcher, Nov. Bibliotheca Heb.

d Eichhorn, 1. c., shows this very plainly in respect to the different names of God in Genesis and Job, and in respect to the different orthography of the various writers. Even the differences between parallel passages go to prove the accuracy of the text. See above, § 85.

§ 98.

VARIOUS CRITICAL SYSTEMS.

The critical school of the old Protestants were right, to a certain extent, when they maintained the integrity of the text as it existed in the masoretic manuscripts.“ But this school went too far when they extended the faultlessness of the text to the vowel points."

On the other hand, the moderns obviously exaggerate both the faults of the present text and the means of

a

Löscher, De Caus. Ling. Heb. p. 442: Non in ea versamur opinione, quam inspectio codicum palam refellit, ita custoditum esse quemvis Ebræorum codicem, ut temeritas critica vel hallucinatio scribarum nihil hinc inde mutare potuerit, sed ita arbitramur: etsi particulares codd., hic quidem in ista, ille in alia parte, alterationes leviusculas passi sint, nullam tamen mutationem in omnes codd. simul sumtos, h. e., in fontes abstracte, ut Philosophi loquuntur, consideratos irrupisse: idque divinæ providentiæ præsidio cumprimis, deinceps aliqua Judaicæ gentis industria factum.

Carpzov, Crit. sac. p. 93: Si in communi lectione omnes codd. conspirant, ea quoque standum est, nec vel in vers. cujusdam, vel in commodioris interpretationis gratiam, multo minus ob diversam allegationem, sive biblicam, sive ecclesiasticam, tentanda mutatio.

Buxtorf, De Punctorum Antiquit. et Orig. vol. i. p. 282: Si omnes varietates codd. Hebraicorum, quas in suis codd. critici illorum annotarunt, qua veteres, qua recentes, in unum manipulum aut fasciculum colligantur, deprehendentur esse levissimi, et plane quoad sensum nullius momenti, ita ut plerumque nihil aut certe parum intersit, hanc an illam sequaris lectionem. Idem, Anticrit. i. 4, p. 66, sqq.: Non est certum, si interpres aliter transferat, quam hodiernus cod. Hebr. refert, quod talem lectionem in suo exemplari Hebr. invenerit. Primum enim sensum sæpe reddiderunt, non ad verba attendentes: secundo deprehenditur, illos nimiam licentiam aliquando sibi sumsisse: tertio non eximendi sunt interpretes ab imperitia: quarto ad imperitiam accessit etiam sæpe negligentia et oscitantia: quinto etiam quædam sunt verss., de quibus constat, illas non amplius esse tales, quales a primis illarum authoribus fuerunt conditæ. See Buxtorf, On the Cod. Sam. 1. c. ii. 7, p. 524.

Here belong the following works: Sal. Glass, Tract. de Textus Hebr. in V. T. Puritate, in Bauer, Crit. sac. p. 22, sqq. Abr. Calov, Critici sac. Tract. ii. p. 396, sqq. Hottinger, Thes. Phil. p. 118, sqq. J. Leusden, Phi

correcting these faults, such as the ancient versions, the Samaritan codex, and critical conjecture."

Yet the contest between these different parties has served to give criticism of the Old Testament the necessary freedom and circumspection, with which, by using all the means at its command, it might seek to discover faults and correct them, though for more ancient errors, which lie deeper, it knows of no help.

DIVISION II.

THEORY OF THE CRITICISM OF THE HEBREW TEXT.

§ 99.

OBJECT OF THE CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

It appears from the history of the outward form of the text of the Old Testament, that the consonants alone are the proper object of criticism in the Old Testament, without any reference to their division into

lol. Ebr. Dissert. xxiii. Ant. Hulsius, Authentia absol. sac. Textus Hebr. vindicata, c. 8, sqq. Arn. Bootii Vindiciæ sive Apodixis Apolog. pro Hebr. Veritate cont. J. Morinum et L. Cappellum; Par. 1653, 4to. Matt. Wasmuth, Vindiciae sac. Script.; Rost. 1664, 4to.

a

Is. Vossius, De LXX. Int., and Append. ad Lib. de LXX. Morinus, Exercitatt. Bibl. de Hebr. Græcique textus sinceritate duo, quorum prior in Græcos sac. textus codd. inquirit, vulg. ecclesiæ versionem antiquissimis codd. conformem esse docet, germanæ LXX. interpretum edit. dignoscendæ et illius cum vulgata conciliandæ methodum tradit ejusdemque divinam integritatem ex Judæorum traditionibus confirmat. Posterior explicat, quidquid Judæi in Hebr. textus criticen hactenus elaborarunt, etc.; Par. 1669, fol.