["In the poetic books and passages, by noticing the relation between verses and members of verses, an ac curate comparison of the context may be made; for the members of the periods sometimes correspond with one another in sense, by way of synonyme, or antithesis, and sometimes in form. New light will be shed on the connection, and even on the contested text, by noticing this parallelism in the verse. The members that correspond to one another are sometimes two; sometimes three, where the third is unlike the others; sometimes four, where the first corresponds to the third, and the second to the fourth; sometimes five, where the dissimilar member stands in the middle. Now, if the critic notices the corresponding member, it will often help him decide upon the doubtful reading. Still, it must be remembered, a reading that suits the corresponding member is not necessarily genuine."]"

§ 121.

2. CONSIDERATIONS DRAWN FROM THE PECULIAR CHARACTER OF THE WRITER.

The above more general reasons are made more definite, but are likewise limited, and sometimes removed,

in יעקב after the word עבדי 12 .and the additions to Isa. xlviii ,אחנמך

Kennicott's and De Rossi's MSS., are to be rejected. Most alterations of the text in Ziegler, (Sprichworter,) who follows the LXX., rest on this uncertain ground; e. g. Prov. iii. 12, ix. 29, 30, xii. 21. On the other hand, see Bauer, Crit. sac. p. 456, who very properly rejects the reading, Am. v. 6. In Ps. xxxvii. 28, the reading of the LXX. and Symmachus seems to be an arbitrary alteration to conform to the parallelism and rhythm. [“On the contrary, the Kethib, in Job xxx. 11, is to be preferred to the Keri on account of the parallel." See Hirzel and Ewald, in loc.] See Olshausen, Emend. p. 14.

by the writer's peculiar manner in thought, language, and style," and in particular by the peculiarity of the context in the discourse. This is, perhaps, the most important rule by which the critic, as well as the interpreter, is to judge of all. However, the application of

a

[The mistakes often made in applying this rule, render it very suspicious. When the Kritik der Offenbarung was published, it was universally ascribed to Kant. No less than eight scholars, his personal friends, were certain it was his. But it was written by Fichte. M. Schlegel disputes the genuineness of some of the dramas that have long passed for the works of Shakspeare, and ascribes to him works which have hitherto passed under other names. Every body knows with what confidence the "Dreams of an Opium-Eater" were ascribed to Mr. Coleridge, and how falsely.]

The readings preferred by Michaelis, Or. Bib. vol. xiv. Nos. 233, 234, viz. Isa. ix. 10, 17, for 1; Isa. xiv. 9, 1, for y; Isa. liii. 8,, for i, conflict with the sense, and the peculiarities of the writer. Whether the passages, Isa. vii. 17, 7; verse

glosses, as Houbigant, Lowth, Koppe, and Gesenius, think, may be doubted, on account of the analogy between them and ch. v. 7. Whether we are to read in Ps. xviii. 8, (following 2 Sam. xxii. 8,) instead of 2, is to be decided from the entire character of the later recension of this passage in the psalm. See De Wette, Com. über die Ps. in loc.

The same laws apply to the criticism of the punctuation, and the division into words. 1. Jud. xx. 48, is to be read, instead of ią; Job xxxiv. 18,, instead of 2; xxxvii. 11, 2, instead of 12; Am. iv. 3, , instead of ", on account of the sense; Hos. vi. 5,

2. Prov. xii. 28, 3, instead of 3, on account of the signification of

, beaten path; Isa. xxxii. 12, 77, instead of 7, on account of

the meaning and construction of D. Compare Gesenius, in loc.

3. Job xxiv. 12, 2, instead of the flat ; Ps. lv. 12, isama, instead of is, on account of the parallelism, and because the latter word is peculiar and scarcely probable; in Ps. xlii. 6, the division of the words and verse is to be altered after verse 12, and Ps. xliii. 5, on account of the rhythmical symmetry. See De Wette, 1. c. in loc.

this rule is somewhat limited by the fact, that the literary character of the Hebrew writers is, for the most part, very fluctuating and uncertain.

This peculiarity of character may be distinguished into nationality, (the peculiarities of the nation,) or individuality, (the peculiarities of the individual writer.)

[As Jahn has said, every author wrote in a certain land, province, and age, and under certain definite circumstances; now, a reading which does not suit this land, province, age, and circumstances, is suspicious and improbable. So the history of the writer is equally important in criticism and exegesis.

Every author has, likewise, his peculiar language, conforming to his age and dwelling-place, and a style suited to his own course of thought and circle of images; he has also his own peculiar doctrines, or, at least, modifications thereof peculiar to himself. From a consideration of these things, we may, sometimes, conclude what the author probably wrote; for a reading that does not agree with these peculiarities is suspicious. In conformity with this rule, in Job, Hosea, Micah, Joel, and Isaiah, the ornate reading is most probable, while the least ornate is most probable in Haggai, Malachi, Ezra, and Nehemiah. But the application of this rule demands so much attention, and so many delicate observations, that too much caution cannot be observed in the use of it.]"

§ 122.

II. HISTORICO-CRITICAL GROUNDS OF ORIGINALITY.

Except in unfortunate and rare cases, the original reading is to be found among the variants of a passage.

" [Jahn, vol. i. p. 491, sqq.]

Now, since the original reading was not only the first in order of time, but has given occasion to all the other readings, in one way or another, there arises the following rule: That is the original reading which explains the origin of all the rest.

In comparing the readings, we ought to consider all the ways in which false readings originate." But it is of special importance to consider whether the text has been altered by design; and hence arises this rule: The more difficult reading is to be preferred to the more easy.

These rules are to be applied chiefly in respect to the sense or logical meaning of the text; to the language of the writer; to the rhetorical structure of the passage. But we must always consider the peculiarities of the individual writer."

§ 123.

JUDGMENT OF THE CRITICAL WITNESSES AS A WHOLE.

We pass from a criticism of single readings to an estimate of the entire text of single witnesses. Then

1. In respect of the sense. It would not be critical to wish to alter Ezra v. 4, on account of the obscurity and incorrectness of the narrative. Compare verse 8, 9. The Sam. Pent. in Gen. xi. 32, makes Terah one hundred and forty-five years old, obviously to remove the contradiction with xii. 4. 2. In respect of the language. Ps. xii. 8, the reading, in the MSS. and versions, is to be rejected, and the more difficult reading pa,, is to be preferred. So the Keri in Ps. xxx. 4, Prov. viii. 35, &c., is to be rejected, and the Kethib preferred. Gen. xxiv. 4, "of Kennicott's and De Rossi's MSS., the Masora and Sam. text, instead of ", is the easier and the worse reading. So Num. xi. 25, 3, of the

an opinion is formed against the Samaritan text and the versions, which, for the most part, represent the text by more easy readings, that commend themselves to a superficial observer, and in favor of the masoretic text, in which, however, the Keris, and the readings of the manuscripts that follow them, or agree with the versions and the Samaritan copy, are to be suspected of being explanations and corrections." ["The readings which are unanimously supported by the old versions and manuscripts, or for which they give an overpowering testimony, and which are, at the same time, supported by internal arguments, must be genuine. Since this is almost always the case with the text of the Old Testament, its trustworthiness is established, and the propo

Sam., instead of, is the worse reading. The same may be said of many Sam. readings. Gesenius, Pent. Sam. § 9-11, as in 2 Sam. xxii. 11, 77, instead of 77 in Ps. xviii. 11. On the contrary, Ps. xviii. 23,

In the Samaritan .אָסוּר מִמֶּנָּה is, perhaps, an easier reading of אָסִיר מֶנִי

ז'.

and Alexandrian reading, Gen. xiv. 14, 1, for 1, it remains uncertain whether the Jewish transcriber put the more common word instead of the лas heɣóuɛvov, or whether the Sam. and LXX., stumbling at the difficult sense, followed their own conjecture. Gesenius, l. c. p. 64. 3. In respect to construction. In Gen. xli. 56, the Sam. inserts

after

Num. xxxi. 15, occurs in the LXX.; in Ex. xxxiv. 7, they read

, instead of, to make the passage more connected. Here belongs the addition to Gen. iv. 8.

In Jer. ii. 20, the Kethib 77

2 Kings xix. 13, the Kethib

to be preferred.

a

is more difficult than the Keri 778; in is more difficult than , and therefore

* In Ps. xxxvi. 2, some MSS., and all the versions, have in, instead of

, and yet this reading is probably false; and so, in Ps. xxviii. 8, MSS. and versions have in, which is probably an easier reading, for in. The maxim of De Rossi is false: Utor vetustis interpretibus et Samaritano textu, tamquam lapide Lydio, ut lectionum præstantiam et auctoritatem dimetiar.