CHAPTER II.

CRITICAL MAXIMS.

§ 116.

FALSE MAXIMS.

["To make a fundamental and just criticism of the text requires extensive and accurate knowledge, especially an acquaintance with manuscripts, editions, old versions, and other ancient writings, Christian and Jewish; an acquaintance with the different ways in which various readings originate, with the whole history of the text, and with many minute details. It requires, therefore, a particular circumspection, which is only to be obtained by long practice and a careful study of the great critics. But, after all, it is exceedingly difficult to avoid stumbling sometimes, as not only Houbigant and Lowth have done, but Kennicott, and even the cautious Michaelis, who have sometimes altered a reading unnecessarily. These great examples should be a warning to beginners, who are generally too much inclined to alter the common reading."]"

The conflicting testimony of the witnesses can neither be judged of by their number' nor their antiquity, but

* [Jahn, l. c. vol. i. p. 493, sq., where see other excellent remarks.]

The Jews themselves admit this. Meier Hallevi, in Kennicott, Diss. Gen. p. 116. [He says he rejected the modern MSS., and followed the ancient.] Compare above, § 89. De Rossi justly observes, (Prol. canon 14, p. 4,) the true reading may be contained in a single codex, contrary to the authority of all the rest.

Meier Hallevi, 1. c., admits this, as also Walton, Prol. vi. 6. [Hallevi says, among the ancient and genuine MSS., he inclines to follow the

by their critical character alone. [But when other things are equal,-which rarely happens, -the greater number of witnesses must decide; and the larger this number is, the more probable is the reading for which they testify. The indirect versions, and manuscripts allied to them, are to be consulted as collateral evidence. When very old witnesses are on one side, and very good manuscripts on the other, important internal arguments may decide in favor of the reading. The ancient witnesses are of more weight than the modern ; old versions are more important than the manuscripts, and the internal argument has great value.]"

In estimating the critical value of variants, no preference is to be shown that is not based on a critical judgment of the variants themselves. The maxims which aid in making this judgment will be shown in the following sections."

greatest number; "for we are commanded in the Law," he adds, "to follow the greatest number in a matter where there is a disagreement. 'We ought to incline after the many. Ex. xxii. 2." But he must have had a curious variant in that text, for our editions and MSS. read that famous verse with a negative, &c. .] De Rossi is wrong, 1. c. "The more the MSS. agree with the ancient MSS. of the old translators, and preserve the genuine readings of ancient copies, the better is their condition, the greater their authority." Compare, also, canon 19. ["Among MSS. of whatever writer, age, character, and condition, if any one preserve the true reading of those MSS. which are represented by the Samaritan text and ancient versions, it is to be considered of great authority. Canon 21. MSS. not amended often preserve the best readings. A variant supported by the Samaritan text and ancient versions, and the best and most ancient MSS., is the true reading. Canon 23. Ancient MSS., other things being equal, are preferable to the modern; the amended to the not amended; the few which differ from one another, to the many that are like one another." Canon 33, sqq. Bruns (Præf. ad Kennicott, p. iv.) says, in a quotation, "We must stand by the authority of all that agree, or of a few excellent codices of the best character.”] See Walton, Prol. vi. 4.

Different estimates have been formed of the value of the Keri and

§ 117.

THE MOST IMPORTANT MAXIMS IN RESPECT TO THE ORIGINALITY OF THE READING.

Since the design of the critic is to restore the original reading, therefore the question to be asked respecting the variants is this: Do they bear, in themselves, marks of originality? or do they betray their later origin? The character of originality rests on these two grounds, namely:

I. On the probability-judging from the rest of the text which is supposed to be accurate-that the author wrote so, and not otherwise. This is the exegetico-critical ground of probability.

II. On the probability which arises from a comparison of the different readings, that the one has given occasion to the origin of the other. This is the historico-critical ground of originality. Something must be said of each.

§ 118.

I. EXEGETICO-CRITICAL GROUNDS OF ORIGINALITY.

1. CONSIDERATIONS DRAWN FROM THE GENERAL LAWS OF THE MIND.

A. Logical Grounds of Originality.

Since every writer is subject to the universal laws of

Kethib. The Jews and the old Christian critics prefer the Keri entirely. Buxtorf, De Punct. Antiqu., &c. p. 174. J. Avenar., Gram. Heb. p. 522. Th. Hackspan, De Script. Jud. in Theol. Usu, p. 299. Hottinger, Thes. Phil. p. 418. See others cited in Carpzov, Crit. sac. p. 352. The Kethib is preferred entirely by Danz, Sincer. Script. vacill. § 28, p. 86, and in the main by Schultens, Diss. ii. de Authentia selectiorum Chethibim; Franeq. 1725. See Elrich's Collect. Opusc. vol. ii. Wolf (Bib. Heb. vol. ii. p. 520) passes a wiser judgment, as also Carpzov (p. 353) and others.

thought, and it must not be assumed that he has written nonsense, therefore every reading which is absolutely senseless and contradictory is to be rejected for some other which has a meaning, and harmonizes with the

context."

Yet this rule requires to be applied with great caution. We must take all possible pains to find a suitable meaning in the words; we must not measure the author's thought too rigorously by our standards, and must remember it is possible he drew from different

sources.

§ 119.

B. Grammatical Grounds of Originality.

A writer cannot transgress the laws of language. Correctness of language, therefore, may, in general, be considered a mark of the true reading. But amongst Hebrew writers, whose language permitted great irregularities, especially in gender and number, and whose

a

Thus the Kethib 3, Levit. xi. 21, and Isa. ix. 2, is to be rejected, and the Keri to be received. On the contrary, the Keri is to be rejected for the Kethib, in Exod. xxi. 8, Ps. cxxxix. 16, et al. Compare Aurivill, De Var. Lect. et 73, in Cod. Bib. Diss. p. 469, sqq. Cappellus, vol. ii. p. 264. The Kethib is to be rejected for the Keri 77, 1 Sam. iv. 13. For similar reasons, in Ps. lxxiii. 7, with the LXX., the Syriac, and Vulgate, we must read, instead of the masoretic ; in Jerem. xxviii. 1, we must read Zedekiah, instead of Jehoiakim. In 2 Kings viii. 16, we must

.81 $ ,See above . ויהושפט מלך יהודה strike out the words

7, is

Thus the reading of the Sam., Syr., and LXX., in Ex. ii. 2, to be rejected, and the masoretic text received. Gesenius, De Pent. Sam. p. 50. The Kethib Isa. ix. 2 may still be contended for. in loc.

See Hitzig,

Thus the erroneous reading Michal, instead of Merab, in 2 Sam. xxi. 8, may perhaps, be referred to another source. See below, § 179.

literary treasures we do not fully possess, a regard for accuracy of language has produced a host of variants ;" yet it can but seldom serve to restore the true text."

§ 120.

C. Rhetorical Grounds of Originality.

Most writers recognize certain natural or conventional rules of style; and their text may also be criticised and corrected according to these rules. But the Hebrew writers are bound so loosely by such rules, that they seem rather to have sought to remain free from them." They do not even adhere rigidly to the parallelismus membrorum, but often depart from it in a striking manner. It is, therefore, only with the greatest caution that this rule can be applied to the criticism of the text."

There are numerous grammatical Keris of the Sam. text, and the versions; see, e. g., on Ps. xxx. 4, xxii. 27, Gesenius, 1. c. p. 26, sqq. The moderns have made many critical attempts to amend the apparent grammatical errors of the text. See examples in Houbigant, Michaelis, and others.

The following Kethibs are, perhaps, to be rejected, and the Keris received: 2 Sam. xix. 32, 1777, Ker. 1777; 2 Kings xxiii. 33, , Ker. ; 1 Kings xvii. 14, 155, Ker. ; (but perhaps the original reading was, for which was written by mistake;) Jer.

. מבהלים against the Keri, מבלחים

But compare Cappellus, vol. i. p. 208, who justly defends the Kethib, Ez. iv. 4,

The following are uncritical corrections made by a wrong application of this rule of rhetorical uniformity of style: e. g. the addition of the LXX., Gen. i. 6, καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως ; verse 8, καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς, ὅτι καλόν ; that of the Sam. LXX., 1 Cod. R. in verse 14, 7787 39 77873. So in the reading

of ; בכל הארץ for, בכל חית הארץ 26 or version of the Syriac, in verse

the Sam. Gen. xxiv. 22, EN 3, after verse 43.

The reading in Isa. li. 19, 7, Cod. 1, Kennicott, and versions, for