§ 104.

UTILITY OF THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS.

1. If the entire work of Aquila were still extant, the first rank would be assigned to it, on account of his literal fidelity."

2. The Alexandrian version claims superiority in respect of age, but its value is diminished by the uncertain condition of its text; by the unskilfulness of its authors, and their inaccurate notions respecting the grammatical construction and interpretation of the original."

3. The writers of the Targums were certainly best able to understand the original text; but the freedom with which they have treated it, in general, renders the critical use of their words difficult. The corruption of the Targums from the Hebrew text adds to the difficulty.

a

4. The Syriac version sometimes inclines to the Al

Dathe, De Aquila Reliquiis in Hose, in his Opusc. ed. Rosenmüller ; Lips. 1746, 8vo. Cappellus, 1. c. vol. ii. p. 805, and Scharfenberg's remarks therein.

Grabe, Diss. de LXX. Intt. ch. i. Carpzov, Crit. sac. p. 516, sqq. Gesenius, Gesch. d. Hebr. Spr. p. 77, sqq. Cappellus, vol. ii. p. 512, sqq. De Rossi, Prolegg. § 28. Knapp, Diss. ii. de Vers. Alex. in emendanda Lectione Exempli Hebr. caute adhibenda; Hal. 1775, 1776. Reinhard, De Vers. Alex. Auctoritate et Usu in constituenda Librorum Hebr. Lectione genuina, Opusc. acad. ed. Pölitz, vol. i. p. 25, sqq., 43, sqq. See other authors in Rosenmüller, 1. c. vol. ii. p. 445, sqq.

Eichhorn, § 217. Winer, l. c. p. 25, who limits the corruption from this source very much. See examples of the variants of the Targums in Eichhorn, § 224, 229, sqq., and Cappellus, vol. ii. p. 779, sqq. Pfannkuche, De Codd. MSS. V. T. et Vers. Chald. in Lectt. Antimasoreticis Consensu; Giss. 1803, 4to.

exandrian; but where it is independent, it is valuable on account of its fidelity to the original.a

5. Jerome's version is a very important witness, when it is freed from its mixture with the other Latin translations."

6. Saadias, and other more modern translators, belong rather to the masoretic text, though they often differ considerably from that."

§ 105.

2. QUOTATIONS FROM THE BIBLE BY THE TALMUD AND RABBINS.

When the Talmudists do not sport with passages of Scripture, nor bring them forward frivolously and from memory, but quote accurately and with care, their

Eichhorn, § 253. Bauer, Crit. sac. § 134. Michaelis, Abhandlung über d. Syr. Sprache, § 13. Dathe, Remarks in his edition of the Syriac Psalter. Hirzel, De Pent. Vers. Syr. § 2.

Cappellus, 1. c. vol. ii. p. 858, sqq. Kennicott, Diss. Gen. §84, 13, 14. Eichhorn, § 127, b.

[Kennicott, 1. c. § 43.]

On the critical use of Josephus, see Michaelis, Or. Bib. vol. v. p. 221, sqq. [Kennicott, 1. c. § 30, sq. Eichhorn, § 339.]

80.

Here belongs the formula

3, [i. e. read not so, but But this formula is mostly used when a passage is allegorized, though sometimes it is followed by a proper variant.] Buxtorf, Tiberias, ch. ix. p. 83, sqq.

[Numerous variants might reasonably be expected from the Talmud, for it is older than the Masora; but the quotations in the printed editions of the Talmud have been altered by the editors to conform to the common text. Doctor Gill, who collated the Talmud for Kennicott, found less than a thousand variants, and those relating mainly to trifles. Kennicott, Diss. Gen. § 35. Manuscripts of the Talmud, as well as printed editions, must be used, to find various readings.] Eichhorn, § 340. See further proofs of the uncritical diligence of the editors of the Talmud in Simon, 1. c. liv. i. ch.

citations are to be regarded as critical depositions, and of the same value with fragments from ancient manuscripts."

It is only the most ancient rabbins, who lived nearest to the time of the Talmud, that are of any critical value in this respect; such are Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Jarchi, and Maimonides.

§ 106.

3. THE MASORA.

It is well established that the Masora, in part, grew out of materials handed down by tradition, and out of critical observations; thus it contains, not only in the Keris and Kethibs, but also in the other annotations, statements respecting the text which frequently differ from the present readings, and are confirmed by the old witnesses, such as Origen and Jerome."

xx. p. 116. [Eichhorn, § 341, mentions one exception to this rule, and says Kimchi's Liber Radicum (Neap. 1490) has been edited by Sam. Latiph, in a more critical way, with all its original variants. See Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden; Berlin, 1832, ch. v.]

a

Buxtorf, Anticrit. p. 808, maintains the unimportance of the variants found in the Talmud, against Cappellus, 1. c. vol. ii. p. 900. Against Burtorf, see Claud. Cappellanus, Mare Rabbinicum infidum; Par. 1667, 12mo., and in Crenius, Fascic. x. Exercitatt. hist. See Extracts from it in Kennicott, Diss. ii. super Rat. Text. p. 247-252. Frommann gives various readings from the Mishna in his treatise An variæ Lect. ad Cod. V. T. colligi possint ex Mishna, Opusc. vol. i. p. 1–46. Kennicott published variants, also, from the Mishna and Gemara, in No. 650, after Doctor Gill's collation, (Diss. Gen. § 35,) in which Buxtorf's judgment is fully confirmed.

See specimens in Cappellus, l. c. vol. ii. p. 420, sqq. Tychsen, Bützow. Nebenstunden, and in Eichhorn's Repert. vol. i. p. 169, sqq.

Eichhorn, § 157. Compare § 113, 127, b. Præf. ad Köcheri Nov. Bib Heb. Cappellus, 1. c. vol. ii. p. 917, sqq. Buxtorf concedes this, Anticrit. p. 832.

§ 107.

III. MEANS OF ASCERTAINING THE SAMARITAN TEXT.

1. This text is contained in Samaritan manuscripts, the first of which came to Europe in 1620, or, according to Kennicott, in 1623. They are of no great antiquity, and are furnished with very uncertain subscriptions. The Samaritan character is written without the Jewish vowel points, accents, and diacritical marks, but with its own peculiar marks for reading and punc

tuation.c

2. To this recension belong the Samaritan, and the Samaritan-Arabic version of the Pentateuch."

Achilles Harlay de Sancy thinks this MS. was purchased at Damascus, in 1616, (by Petrus a Valle ?) and was sent to the Library of the Oratory at Paris. See Jo. Morinus, Opusc. Sam. p. 95. Exercitatt. in utrumque Pent. Sam. p. 8. Le Long, 1. c. vol. i. p. 358. Kennicott, Diss. Gen. p. 475, Cod. 363. The following are worthy to be consulted: Cod. Cottonianus, in Kennicott, No. 127; Cod. Sanct. Genov., Kennicott, No. 221. Compare Lobstein, Cod. Sam. Par. Sanct. Genov.; Frankfort, 1781; Barberinis Triglot; Kennicott, No. 504. Compare § 64, above.

It has been published from Cod. No. 363, in the Paris Polyglot, vol. vi., edited by Morinus, with his Latin version; in vol. i. of the London Polyglot, by Walton, improved, as it is pretended, after Usher's MSS. See Walton, Prol. xi. 10, and, on the other side, Castellus, Præf. ad Animadversiones Sam. in vol. vi. of the Polyglot. Both of these editions are in the Samaritan character. It has been published in the Chaldee square letter; Pentat. Heb Sam. ed. Benj. Blayney; Oxon. 1790, 8vo. See its variations from the Hebrew text in Houbigant's and Kennicott's Bibles.

Morinus, 1. c. Björnstahl, in Eichhorn's Repert. vol. iii. p. 87, sqq. De Rossi, Spec. Varr. Lectt. p. 150. Eichhorn, §380. See Kennicott's appreciation of the value of the Sam. Pent. State of the Heb. Text, vol. ii. ch. i. Signs of the division into words, e. g. Gen. i. 1, ¬¬3× °

с

the diacritical line called marhetono, e. g. Ex. v. 3,

signs ; בדבר

of division into paragraphs, Kazin, e. g. :· =, or -<:. &c. See Morinus, Exercitatt. p. 89, sqq. Walton, Prol. xi. 10. Houbigant, Prol. iii. 3. Adler, Bib. Krit. Reise, p. 144, sqq.

See above, § 63, 67.

§ 108.

IV. MEANS OF ASCERTAINING THE MASORETIC TEXT.

1. THE MANUSCRIPTS.

With some single exceptions, the Hebrew manuscripts represent the text of the masoretic recension; the ancient agree with it more nearly than the modern manuscripts." They are generally divided into sacred and

common; or,

I. The rolls of the synagogue ;

II. Private manuscripts. These are divided into two classes: 1. The manuscripts written in the Chaldee square letter; 2. The manuscripts in the rabbinical character.

§ 109.

A. Rolls of the Synagogue.

The synagogue rolls contain only the text of the Pentateuch, for the Hagiographa and the Prophets

Diss. super

Kennicott, Diss. Gen. ed. Bruns, p. 116, sqq. Præf. p. x. Rat. Text. p. 281, sqq. De Rossi, Prolegg. p. xx. See accounts and catalogues of the MSS. in Wolf, Bib. Heb. vol. ii. p. 293. Carpzov, Crit. sac. lib. i. ch. 8. Simon, Hist. Crit. du V. T. lib. i. ch. 21-23. Prol. Kennicott, Diss. Gen. p. 334.

Houbigant,

For the variants of the MSS., De Rossi, Clavis sac. Descriptio collatorum MSS. Tychsen, De Variis Codd. Heb. — Eichhorn, § 342—364, in the main, offers a model of a treatise on the MSS., and Bauer, Crit. sac. § 103, follows him.

See the descriptions of particular MSS. referred to by Rosenmüller, 1. c. vol. ii. p. 17, sqq. On the Berlin MSS., see Jablonski, Præf. ad Bib. Heb.; Shulz, Kritik der Bibelausgaben vorrede. Wolf, 1. c. p. 304, sqq.; Kennicott, 1. c. No. 150, 607–611; [and Dissertations, vol, ii. ch. v.; Horne, pt. i. ch. iii. sect. i.]