at Rome in 1671. It was prepared at the request of some of the Oriental clergy of high rank. The work was executed by Sergius Risius, a Maronite, and archbishop of Damascus, with the assistance of Sciolac Hesronita and Sionita, other Maronites, and of Cappella Malvasia, Guadagnolo, Maracci, Abraham Ecchellensis, and others. Great pains were taken to make the Arabic version conform to the Vulgate.' However, in the Psalms, the Melchite version lies at the basis, and is adopted with but few alterations. The version is of no value for critical or exegetical purposes; it is so full of barbarisms and Latinisms that it failed of its purpose in the East, and the missionaries who brought it were accused of corrupting the Scriptures.]

There are two manuscript versions of the Vulgate Psalter in Persian, mentioned by Walton."

Biblia Sacra Arabica, sac. Congregationis de propaganda Fide jussu edita ad Usum Eccles. Orientalium, additis e reg. Bibliis Lat. Vulg.; Rom., &c., 1671, 3 vols. fol.: reprinted by the Bible Society; Lond. 1822, 8vo. A part of the Old Testament was published at Rome, 1752, (1753?) small folio, in the press of Malchus Rutilius. See C. Aurivill. Diss. de rariori quadam Ed. Vers. Arab. Sac. Bib., (Upsal, 1776,) in his Dissert. ed. Michaelis, No. xiii. p. 308. See Schelling, On the Arabic Editions of the Bible, in 1752, in Eichhorn's Repert. vol. x. p. 154. Michaelis, Or. Bib. vol. xii. p. 112, vol. xviii. p. 179, vol. xx. p. 131, sqq. On other MS. versions, see Adler, Bib. krit. Reise, p. 177, sqq.

b [R. Simon, Lettres Choisies, vol. ii. p. 165. Le Long, ed. Masch, vol. ii. p. 115, and Nazari, Il Giornale de Letterati, (Rom. 1673,) cited in Rosenmüller, 1. c. vol. iii. p. 56, sqq.]

C

[See Döderlein, On the Arabic Psalters, in Eichhorn's Repert. vol. iv. p. 83, sqq.]

d Walton, Prol. xvi. 8.

293

BOOK III.

ON THE CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.

§ 75.

GENERAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT OF THIS BOOK.

By the term text, in its more rigorous sense, is to be understood whatever the author has written, or caused to be written, as an expression of his thoughts. In treating of the text, then, the writing characters used by the author, and, in general, whatever relates to the ancient manner of writing, are to be considered but indirectly; and what relates to the division of the work into chapters and verses, and its interpunction, lies still farther from the subject, especially when this division and interpunction did not proceed from the author himself. Both of these subjects may be included and treated of under the head of external form of the text.

Now, since the question relates to the genuineness and accuracy of the text, and the restoration thereof to its original purity, we must, therefore, in the first place, be able to understand the alterations it has undergone, or its history; and next, the means that are employed in criticism to purify and restore it, and also the method which we are to follow in this work.

Accordingly, this book on the criticism of the text is

separated into two divisions, namely,

I. The History of the Text; and,

II. The Theory of Criticism."

DIVISION I.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT.

CHAPTER I.

HISTORY OF THE EXTERNAL FORM OF THE TEXT.

§ 76.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON HEBREW PALEOGRAPHY.

In this place it must be taken for granted, without entering into the argument, that, before the exile, the old Hebrew writing characters—such as are still found on the coins of the Maccabees - were in use; but that, after that period, they were supplanted by a sort of Aramean characters, which, in the hands of the caligraphists, were formed into the present square letters; that both of these were destitute of vowels and of diacritical marks; that the division of the written text into its separate words was not observed throughout, though it was not entirely neglected."

a

[I have given rather a paraphrase than a close translation of this section.]

See De Wette, Heb. Jüd. Archäologie, § 278, sqq., and the writers there

["According to a Jewish tradition, before the exile, the Jews made use of the writing characters employed by the Samaritans; but, to judge from what is alleged to be the most ancient form of the letter thau, and from the letters on the Maccabaic coins, only this can be true, that the present Samaritan character is more closely related to the ancient Hebrew than are the square letters. Still they are not the original characters, for the square letters stand in the closest affinity with the Palmyrene, which agree very nearly with the old Aramean. Therefore it is probable that, a long time after the exile, the square letters were formed under the influence of the Aramean, and, perhaps, out of the Palmyrene characters; and, since they are obviously formed with a view to beauty of writing, it is probable that they are the result of the holy art of writing which came into use among the Jews through their zeal for their law."]"

referred to. Compare with that, Hupfeld, Elucidation of some obscure Passages in the History of the Text of the O. T., in Theol. Stud. und Krit. for 1830, pt. 2-4. Hävernik, vol. i. pt. i. p. 285.

* [Origen, ad Ez. ix. 4, says the letter thau had formerly the figure of a cross. Jerome follows Origen in this. Prolog. Galeat. Opp. i. p. 317. On the influence of Ezra in changing the writing character, see Eichhorn, § 67. Michaelis, Or. Bib. vol. xxii. p. 118.

See, on this subject, Kopp., Bildern und Schriften der Vorzeit. § 101, sqq. Eichhorn, § 66. Whiston, Tentamen restaurandi gen. Textum V. T. p. 126. Bauer, Crit. sac. V. T. § 10–12. Gesenius, Com. de Pent. Sam.

For the opinion that the square letters were the original characters, see Joa. Buxtorf, Dissert. Philol. Theol. iv. de Lit. Heb. Antiq. No. 4. Schickard, Bechinath Happeruschim, p. 82. Hottinger, Exercit. antimorin. p. 33, sqq. Steph. Morinus, De Lingua primæva, ii. 10, p. 317. Wasmuth, Vind. Hebr. Script. p. 35, sqq. Loescher, De Causis Ling. Heb. p. 216. Lightfoot, on Matt. v. 18. Pfeiffer, Crit. sac. p. 72. Carpzov, Crit. sac. p.

228, sqq.

On the opinion that the Samaritan was the original, see Jo. Morinus, Exercit. ad Pent. Sam. ii. 1, § 6, p. 91, sqq. Jos. Scaliger, De Emend. Temp. p. 185. Animad. ad Chronicon. Eusebii, p. 62, 103. Is. Vossius, Diss. de

§ 77.

DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

1. DIVISION INTO LARGER AND SMALLER PASSAGES.

The text of the Pentateuch is divided into six hundred and sixty-nine paragraphs, called Parashes, (zine, in singular, that is, separation, division.) Those Parashes which begin with a break in the line, and those with a vacant space between the lines, (*,

,) are called open, (,) and shut, (i,) or bound, (, that is, leaning upon,) and are distinguished in manuscripts and editions by the initial letters

פ

and . d. The open Parashes seem to serve to indicate the different contents of the text, or the greater divisions; the shut, to denote smaller divisions."

These Parashes are mentioned in the Mishna, and in the Gemara. The difference between the open and shut is mentioned among the essentials of sacred orthography."

a

LXX., c. 29. De Orac. Sibyll. c. 15. Lud. Cappellus, Arcanum Punct. i. 6. Walton, Prol. iii. 33. Jos. Dobrowsky, De Antiq. Heb. Charact.; and others referred to by Pfeiffer and Carpzov, cited in De Wette, 1. c. See Appendix, D.] Vitringa, Syn. Vet. p. 965. The minor segments of the Law of Moses did not formerly serve to assist the reading of the Law, but to distinguish the contents. Hupfeld, Beleuchtung dunkler Stellen der A. T. Text Geschichte, in Stud. und Krit. for 1837, Heft. 4, whom we follow in this, cites, as a proof, the genealogies, Gen. v. xi.; the history of the flood, vi.— 1x.; the collection of the laws, Ex. xx., xxi.-xxiii. Lev. xviii. Num. xxix. Deut. v., xxii.—xxv.; the catalogues, Ex. xl. Num. xxv1. Jos. XV. Jud. i. 2 Sam. xxii. 1 Kings iv.; the blessings and curses, Num. vi. Deut. xxvii. But this will not always apply to the present text. It will to Ex. xx. verse 8, which begins with a ; but not to Gen. v., which begins with a; and vi. 1—4, is only separated from it by a . So Ex. xxi. -xxiii., where there are several .

Taan. iv. 3. Berach. ii. 2. Tam. v. i. p. 103, c. 2. Megill. Hieros. p. 71, c. 2.

Menach. iii. 7. Schabb. Bab.