<< -- wr le be ttle es 
 
 carded Re 
 
 σὰ τ wae, ΟΝ. 
 
 coer nan ans tener’ ζει 
 
 ΟΝ > 
 er torre " Leen Cedi encase pe 
 
 5.2} song. AE BAC oe “noe 
 
 os 
 state re αν σα = 
 
 ἐρέτας, τὰς 
 baat cn Pu tune 
 
 penn τς 
 SESS eae τὸν 
 
 ear 
 
 = aera 
 
 Paneee 
 
 aa ai σον σον σον — PE eter - -- - -- - - ~~ - r — dail stint  τνὸτπύα τ΄ » ---τ αν -- το--.-ν--------...:Ἠ 
 
 "τ τ cm ewes ee eer ewren “--τ------ ---.-----..-.--.το..--- -ο. β.............-0.0...-.....-ὕ..............--...-...........ὕ...-. 
 
 et ar or 
 
Sectton’. Ses ee CS ee ἃ Ὁ a 
 
 Naniber: 
 
‘pol tl Ὡς 
 “ἸΌΝ 
 “ne : 
 ΟΡ 
 
THE FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 
 
 The following are the Works from which a Selection of Eicut Votumes for £2, 28. (or more at the 
 same ratio) may be made. (Non-subscription Price within brackets) :— 
 
 Alexander—Commentary on Isaiah. Two Vols. (17s.) 
 
 Baumgarten—The History of the Church in the Apostolic Age. Three Vols. (27s.) 
 Bleek—Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 Christlieb—Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Delitzsch—Commentary on Job. Two Vols. (2ls.) New Edition shortly. 
 
 Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (318. 6d.) 
 
 Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Two Vols. (218.} 
 
 A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (12s.) 
 
 Déllinger—Hippolytus and Callistus; or, The Church of Rome: A.D. 200-250. One Vol. (7s. 6d.) 
 Dorner—A System of Christian Doctrine. Four Vols. (42s.) 
 
 History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Five Vols. (52s. 6d.) 
 Ebrard—Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 The Gospel History. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Apologetics. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 
 Ewald—Revelation : Its Nature and Record. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Frank—System of Christian Certainty. One Vol. ore 6d.) 
 
 Gebhardt—Doctrine of the Apocalypse. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Commentary on Ist Corinthians. Two Vols. (2ls.) 
 
 Goebel—On the Parables. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Hagenbach—History of the Reformation. Two Vols. (2Is.) 
 
 History of Christian Doctrines. Three Vols. (318. 6d.) 
 
 Harless—A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Haupt—Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Havernick—General Introduction to the Old Testament. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Hengstenberg—Christology of the Old Testament. Four Vols. (42s.) 
 
 Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (33s.) 
 
 On the Book of Ecclesiastes. Etc. etc. One Vol. (9s.) 
 
 Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One Vol. (12s.) 
 
 The Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Keil—Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 
 Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Commentary on the Books of Samuel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 Biblical Archeology. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 Kurtz—History of the Old Covenant; or, Old Testament Dispensation. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 Lange—Commentary on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Two Vols. (18s.) 
 
 Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Luthardt—Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 Macdonald—Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Vols. (2ls.) 
 
 Martensen—Christian Dogmatics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Christian Ethics. General—Social—Individual. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 Miiller—The Christian Doctrine of Sin. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 Murphy-—-Commentary on the Psalms. 700 count as Two Volumes. One Vol. (12s.) 
 Neander—General History of the Christian Religion and Church. Nine Vols. (67s. 6d.) 
 Oehler—Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Two Vols. (218.) 
 Olshausen—Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Four Vols. (42s.) 
 
 Commentary on Epistle tothe Romans. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Commentary on Epistles to the Corinthians. One Vol. (9s.) 
 
 Commentary on Philippians, Titus, and 1st Timothy. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Orel ees regarding Consummation of God’s Kingdom. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Philippi—Commentary on Epistle to Romans. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Ra&biger—Encyclopsedia of Theology. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 Ritter—Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Vols. (26s.) 
 
 Sartorius—The Doctrine of Divine Love. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 Schtfrer—The Jewish People in the Time of Christ. Division II. Three Vols. (10s. 6d. each.) 
 Shedd—History of Christian Doctrine. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 Steinmeyer—History of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 The Miracles of our Lord in relation to Modern Criticism. One Vol. (7s. 6d.) 
 Stier—The Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight Vols. (10s. 6d. per vol.) 
 
 The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on Epistle of St. James. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Tholuck—Commentary on the Gospel of St. John One Vol. (6) 
 Ulimann—Reformers before the Reformation. Two Vols. (218. 
 
 Weiss—Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 
 The Life of Christ. Three Vols. (315. 6d.) 
 
 Winer—Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
uN i oth ὦ 
 ἡ νυν ἡ γιὰ <9 
 
 ‘se Detter re 
 
 Le 
 
 UL Were ἂν é ΠῚ eit Vi 
 AAD AREY yh να; φανὸν ΜΝ τὶ 
 wt d on Ferd fit iyd δὰ ἐν ᾿ ] (naa ν 
 4 ee See eg ΧΟ 
 
 ἣν ΠΡ Og iia fj ; ; ‘ AS VT ΩΝ Oy 
 ia ORR χὰ 8: Felipe eh vie 8 a naa eRe 
 ἐν iu! ᾿ δ ΤΥ ᾿ ; aware Tied ics 
 ayy ΟΝ Wome ria Al ἴὰ ἐλ ak nay, fof Cet i ἊΝ 4: Pees. 
 Partly Ce Wey, Oe att cele ὦ bade ji) ΕἾ ἢ we ’ fab wel ἀράν, 
 Ϊ ᾿ ; y i, i ee Ψ τὺ ΤΥ Ὑ) nai, we Ἰὼ ἂν λῶν) nu’? 
 pie Reh * PARA Monin) hy Aiea lh Ace 
 fi εὐ Ak δ ON hanger alos Sahl OMAN. ile 
 ( ‘ ‘ 
 } 4 Ae § ΕΗ f he ᾿ i ait "ἢ Σ 4} ΜΒ. 7 Py. 
 i Ι ν opt ' 4 ᾿ Ὁ ye la als 4 a 
 
 Ἢ ΨῚ ν Pe Reba ἯΙ 
 πα ον ΝΣ bie » ae ‘Pe ἢ 
 a ' ἢ ΔΜ é 7} woe eee Say ah 
 j Lis, ah he νι; τή, je rig arith ile vies 
 | | enrages 089° Na 
 , ἌΝ Δ aR Ml bi eae πο ὁ 
 
 ; Ι ἐν, 
 ἀν δ. Say Τὰ εν ἢ aie 
 ᾧ “Ἢ Ἧ WO ELLE y ise ibs SAE ἡ uy Cy on : 
 Fat URNS) ΩΝ ens 
 ; ee mic 4 ia be ty een Hie idg , heel 
 
 1 NTL Sor paltee yy Pek Tat Atte 
 ἀνα Ree 
 OY é pica iw Lay τ ὙΠ, oe WES: τὰν 
 4 δὲ Ἰῴν cnr e's ae Lea wn Rie i " 
 d ἜΓΝΩ » νὼ ΓΗ" ἣ Ἷ ha ᾿ 
 ὴ Δ. ὦ ,4 Hides 4 rr 
 
 if a Tots fare ias Ὁ ᾿ i. ye ΤῊ μὲ 
 
CANON AND TEXT OF THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, 
 FOR 
 T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 
 LONDON, . . . - SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED. 
 
 DUBLIN, . . . . GEORGE HERBERT. 
 NEW YORK, . . . CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS. 
 
CANON AND TEXT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Oly Testament. 
 
 BY 
 
 Dr. FRANTS BUHL, 
 
 ORDINARY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT LEIPZIG. 
 
 Translated by 
 
 Rev. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A., 
 
 FINDHORN, 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 T ἃ T CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 
 1892. 
 
ior Cer annie pit ae 
 ΝΆ νὺ ἡ on ἢ ὲ , ni Ἢ “i ; οἱ 
 ΔΝ, +; “ἀν hit ete | ἐὺ ; 
 
 ᾿ εὐ δὴ ΑΝ a 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Tue Author of the following work, after studying in his native 
 city of Copenhagen and also at Leipzig, was appointed 
 ordinary Professor of Theology and Oriental Languages in the 
 University of Copenhagen, and was transferred in 1890, 
 on the death of Dr. Franz Delitzsch, to oceupy the place 
 of that distinguished scholar in Leipzig. The Treatise now 
 presented in an English dress is described by its Author as to 
 some extent an enlarged translation of a Danish work, Den 
 gammeltestamentlige Skriftoverlevering, which had appeared in 
 1885. Inits original form it aimed at imparting information 
 as to the ascertained results of modern researches with 
 reference to the Canon and Text of the Old Testament. As 
 expanded and recast in the German edition, the Author 
 expresses the hope that it may prove useful to theological 
 students. For the English edition Professor Buhl has supplied 
 some additional references to the most recent literature, and at 
 his request the Translator has called attention to a few of the 
 most important contributions of British scholars which bear 
 directly upon the subject of this work. 
 THE TRANSLATOR. 
 
 FINDHORN, December 1891. 
 
; 
 i, 
 
 wrth 
 ae 
 
 | τ ων. 
 Ἰ i 7 OP | . ® ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ) wu 4 ay be an it 1 
 : ᾿ Ὶ ᾿ saa ! 
 
 ἤν", πον ἣ wi γ᾿ 
 
 νἀ et ee 
 
 δ 
 
 het ie i ‘ ἁ i ῃ 
 Γ ay ij ‘i πε a) 4 7 Ν "ek 
 
 > 
 
 δῇ ri 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 ΤῊΝ History ΟΕ THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON (88 1-22)— 
 General Sketch (§ 1), 
 
 I. The Old Testament Canon among the Pen (§§ 2-13), 
 A, The Palestinian (Babylonian) Canon (88 2-11), , 
 B. The Collection of Scriptures by the Alexandrine Jews 
 
 ($$ 12-13), 
 
 Il. The Old Testament Canon in the Christian Church (§§ 14- 99), 
 
 THE History oF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT (§§ 23-99)— 
 
 Preliminary Remarks (§ 23), 
 
 a 
 
 I. Aids to the Study of the History of the Text (§§ 24-73), 
 A. The Immediate Apparatus (§§ 24-36), 
 
 hs 
 . Manuscripts (§§ 26-29), . 
 
 . Collections of Variations (§ 30), 
 
 . The J ewish Massora (§§ 31-35), . 
 
 . Quotations and Transcriptions (ὃ 36), 
 
 oe ὦ bo 
 
 Printed Editions (§§ 24, 25), 
 
 | B. The Old Translations (§§ 37-72), 
 1. The Alexandrine Translation (δὲ 37-&0), 
 
 2. 
 
 Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Quinta, 
 
 (§$ 51-55), 
 
 3. Jerome and the Vulgate (§§ 56- 58), 
 
 4, 3 F 
 5. The Syriac Translations of the Bible (88 68-72), 
 
 Jewish Targums (§§ 59-67), 
 
 C. Aids from within the Text itself (§ 73), 
 11. Results of the History of the Text (§§ 74-99), 
 A. The External History of the Text (§§ 74-87), 
 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 
 Writing Materials (§ 74), 
 History of the Hebrew Letters (§§ 75-77), 
 Vocalisation and Accentuation (§§ 78-82), 
 
 The Divisions of the Text (ξξ 83- 87 ) 
 vii 
 
 and Sexta 
 
 PAGE 
 
Vili 
 
 GGA. 
 “a Sale 
 MG WJ 
 
 NGGW 
 REI 
 
 TA 
 
 ΠΕ ΓΥ τὸς 
 TSK |. 
 AY. % 
 ZAW . 
 ZDMG 
 ZKM . 
 ZKWL 
 ΖΓ. 
 7. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 B. The Internal History of the Text (§§ 88-99), : . Bae 
 1. The Linguistic Side of the Text (8 88), . : 228 
 
 2. The Transmission of the Text according to its Real 
 Contents (§§ 89-99) . Ἷ : ; τ 592 
 (a) Vocalisation (88 90, 91), . : . 2386 
 (Ὁ) The Consonantal Text (88 92-99), . ‘ . 239 
 
 ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 Gottinger Gelehrte Anzeigen. 
 
 Jahrbiicher fiir protestantische Theologie. 
 
 Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Juden 
 thums. 
 
 Nachrichten der Gottinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. 
 
 Revue des Etudes Juives. 
 
 Alexandrine Text. 
 
 Massoretic Text. 
 
 Theologische Studien und Kritiken. 
 
 Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie. 
 
 Zeitschrift der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft. 
 
 Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft. 
 
 Zeitschrift fiir Kunde des Morgenlandes. 
 
 Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben. 
 
 Zeitschrift der gesammten lutherischen Theologie. 
 
 Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie. 
 
THE 
 HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1. The term “ canonical books,” as designating the writings 
 which constitute the rule of faith and doctrine (κανὼν τῆς 
 ἀληθείας καὶ τῆς πίστεως), Was first employed by the Greek 
 fathers of the fourth century. But even before this name had 
 been coined, the idea was already current among Christians, 
 and, with reference to the Old Testament, also among Jews. 
 Seeing that, it is the canon of the Old Testament with which 
 we have to deal, the conceptions formed by the Jews must, 
 from the very nature of things, be regarded as of normative 
 importance, as may indeed be provisionally assumed, for this 
 reason that the New Testament contains no separate or new 
 doctrine on this point. So then also we see how, in the 
 course of the history of the Christian Church, several eminent, 
 clear-sighted men have directed their attention to what the 
 Jews have taught upon this particular point, and have taken 
 pains to make their fellow-Christians acquainted with the 
 subject. This, too, has oftentimes been done somewhat 
 reluctantly, and, in the first instance, in order to vindicate the 
 Church from the reproachful criticisms of the Jews. Never- 
 theless, we have, even in this, an acknowledgment of the 
 authority belonging to the Jews on those questions, which, 
 only on account of accidental historical circumstances, was 
 not fully admitted on the part of the Church. Hence the 
 history of the Old Testament Canon has generally been given 
 in the form of an account of the style and manner in which 
 
 the Jews established the number and extent of the sacred 
 A 
 
oy § 1. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 writings, while a summary sketch of the attitude of the 
 Christian Church upon this question was attached thereto, 
 simply as an appendix of more subordinate significance. It 
 must, however, be now quite evident that the task lying 
 before us consists in tracking out the historical process itself, 
 which, within the limits of Judaism, gave authority to the 
 writings of the Old Testament revelation as canonical, and 
 distinguished from them the writings that did not belong to 
 revelation; whereas the representations of later Judaism, both 
 in their original form and in their imitations among Christians, 
 are not in and for themselves of normative importance, but 
 must eventually give way before the ascertained results of 
 historical investigation. 
 
 Reference should be made to “Introductions to the Old 
 Testament,” in which also the collection of the Old Testament 
 writings is treated. Surveys of this literature will be found 
 in the following among other treatises: Scholz (Catholic), 
 Einleitung in die heiligen Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testa- 
 mentes, i. 1845, p. ὃ ff; Keil, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen 
 Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Schriften des 
 Alten Testamentes, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 6 ff [Eng. trans. of 2nd 
 ed. of 1869 by Prof. Douglas, 2 vols. 1. & T. Clark, Edin. 
 1869]; De Wette, Lehrbuch d. hast.-krit. Linl. in die kanon. 
 und apokr. Biicher des A. 1. 8th ed. by Schrader, 1869, 4 
 ff. [Eng. trans. of early ed. by Theodore Parker, 2 vols., 
 Boston 1843]; Strack, LHinleitung in A. 7. wn Zockler’s 
 Handbuch der Theol. Wissenschaften, 1. Also deserving to be 
 named: Belsheim, Om Bibelen, dens Forvaring, Overseettelse 
 og Udbredelse, 3rd ed. Christiania; Rosenius, Lndlednings 
 vetenskaben til den heliga skrift, Lund 1872. 
 
 The history of the canon is dealt with in the following: C. 
 F. Schmid, Historia antiqua et vindic. Canonis, Leipsic 1775 ; 
 Semler, Abhandlungen von freier Untersuchung des Kanons, 
 Halle 1771-1775; G. L. Bauer, Canon V. 7. ab Esdra non 
 collectus, 1797 ; Movers, Loci guidam historie canonis V. 7. 
 illustrata, 1842; Astier, Etude sur la cléture du canon de Vane. 
 
§ 1. INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 Test. Strassburg 1859; Dillmann in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsche 
 Theologie, iii. 419 ff. ; Fiirst, Der Kanon d. A. T. nach den 
 Veberiieferungen im Talmud und Midrasch, 1868; S. David- 
 son, Zhe Canon of the Bible, 3rd ed. 1880; Strack in Herzog’s 
 Real-Encyclopedie, vii. 412—451; Bloch, Studien zur Geschichte 
 der Sammlung des a. t. Literatur, 1876; Wildeboer, /et 
 ontstaan van den kanon des ouden verbonds, 1889, 2nd ed. 
 1891. Compare also: Schiirer, “ Geschichte des jiid. Volkes,” 
 im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, i. 1886, pp. 248-2453 [Eng. trans., 
 TMistory of Jewish People in the Times of Christ, Edin., T. & T. 
 Clark, Div. 11. vol. 1. 1885, pp. 306-312]; and the works of 
 Gritz and Geiger subsequently referred to. 
 
 On the use of the word “ canon,” see Credner, Zu7 Geschichte 
 des Kanons, 1847. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON AMONG THE JEWS. 
 a A.—THE PALESTINIAN (BABYLONIAN) CANON. 
 
 2. The collection of sacred writings acknowledged by the 
 Palestinian, and subsequently by all the Jews, consists of 
 three parts, which in medieval times were compared with 
 the three parts of the temple—the holiest of all, the holy 
 place, and the outer court. These three together were 
 designated in brief q'sn. They embraced respectively: The 
 five books of the Law (747; also Mint won ΠΌΤ, “the five 
 fifth parts of the Law”); the prophetical writings (O°S2)) ; 
 and the writings (0°3n2) or Hagiographa, as we usually call 
 them. The Massoretes divide the prophetical writings into 
 two subdivisions: DUN O82), Prophete Priores (Joshua, 
 Judges, Samuel, Kings), and DIN O33, Prophet Posteriores 
 (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets), 
 in all, eight books. The Hagiographa are: Chronicles, Psalms, 
 Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, 
 Esther, Daniel, and Ezra (Ezra-Nehemiah), embracing eleven 
 books. Of the Hagiographa, from Ruth to Esther are the five 
 so-called festival rolls or Megilloth (nia vinn), In one passage 
 in the Babylonian Talmud (Berachoth 570), Psalms, Proverbs, 
 Job (the books which, from their initial letters, are frequently 
 called np) are grouped together under the designation “the 
 creat pana”; Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations under 
 the designation “the small mins.” It is, however, to say the 
 
 least of it, doubtful whether this designation was in such 
 4 
 
§ 2. NAME AND IDEA OF THE CANON, 
 
 general use as has been commonly supposed. The entire 
 number of the canonical books is twenty-four, a number which 
 is often mentioned in the older Jewish literature, eg., 0. 
 Taanith 8a. Exodus yb. par. 41, fol. 156; Koheleth rb. (on 
 xii. 11), fol. 116a, ete. The complete enumeration of the 
 twenty-four books is to be found as early as in a Baraitha 
 (a tradition derived from the age of the Mishna doctors, but 
 not to be met with in the Mishna) ὁ. Baba Bathra 140, 15a, 
 Compare on this matter § 10. 
 
 The whole collection bears the name 81?) (from SP, “to 
 read”) or 1559 or N15D or vpn '2nD, “the sacred writings,” 
 or ΟἽΡΠ ‘and Ὑ 5, OND 13, “ the twenty-four writings.” By 
 way of contrast to “the Law,” the fundamental part, con- 
 sidered as in itself sufficient, the rest of Scripture was 
 sometimes embraced under the name map, “tradition,” or 
 8237. Compare ὃ 3. 
 
 The Jews expressed the idea “canonical” or “non- 
 canonical” in various ways. “ Whoever receives more than 
 twenty-four books introduces confusion mn» into his house,” 
 as is said in B. Koheleth rb. fol. 116a. Only the canonical 
 Scriptures should one save from a conflagration on the 
 Sabbath day; and this applies also to translations of the 
 sacred writings (If Sabb. 16. 1; ὃ. Sabb. 115a)—and it is 
 only those writings that “defile the hands” (Jf Jadaim ὁ. 
 5, etc). The latter phrase is an extremely remarkable 
 expression of the notion of sacredness, for, in order to protect 
 the sacred books from careless handling and profanation, those 
 very attributes were ascribed to them which in other cases 
 characterised things which men were forbidden to touch on 
 account of their impurity. From Jf Jadaim 4. 6, it appears 
 to have been the Pharisees who issued the peculiar ordinance, 
 while the Sadducees vigorously opposed it. On the other 
 hand, the idea that R. Akiba had pronounced all un- 
 acknowledged books, even such as the Book of Sirach, 
 
6 § 9. NAME AND IDEA OF THE CANON. 
 
 “strange,” Dis, and the reading of them involving 
 exclusion from the future world, is certainly due to a 
 textual error. It is quite evident that in the passage 
 referred to (Jf. Sanhedrin 10. 1, with the Talmuds) the 
 allusion was originally only to particular heretical, and 
 especially to Jewish-Christian, writings; while the Book of 
 Sirach and similar writings were considered secular, but 
 such as might be read. On the other hand, a stricter view 
 undoubtedly was entertained, according to which the reading 
 of such books was declared unallowable (“pnd vox, Sanh. 
 1000). 
 
 On the names of the canon and its several parts, compare 
 Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge der Juden, p. 44. In con- 
 nection with this it should be specially remembered that 
 nap may signify not only the Prophets and the Hagiographa 
 (e.g. M. Megilla 3. 1), but also all the canonical writings ; 
 compare especially: Schiffer, Das Buch Koheleth im Talmud 
 und Midrasch, 1884, p. 83 f.. On the Massoretic expression 
 NADU, “tradition,” see Joh. Delitzsch, De “inspiratione 
 scripture sacrw, 1872, p. 7 f. Among the medieval Jews 
 and the Massoretes 81? is sometimes used of the sacred 
 writings with the exception of the Law; also here and there 
 of “the Prophets” alone. Among writers of that age we also 
 meet with the word PiD8, which in the Talmud means only 
 “verse, applied to the entire collection of Scriptures (see 
 Bacher, ‘RES, xv. p. 113 ἃ. xvip. (277 £). Not »quite 
 synonymous with spp, although also derived from sp, is 
 the Arabic Qurdn, which is correctly rendered by “ religious 
 discourse ” (Literaturblatt fiir orient. Philol. 111. 1042). 
 
 That only Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations are 
 mentioned in Berachoth 57b as “short Hagiographa,” is to be 
 explained by the fact that Ruth was prefixed to the Psalms 
 as an introduction, while Esther was assigned its place 
 among the historical books (see Fiirst, Kanon 83, compared 
 with 60). 
 
 M. Jadaim 3. 5: “All the sacred writings (not all the 
 
§ 2. NAME AND IDEA OF THE CANON, 7 
 
 Hagiographa, see ὃ 8) defile the hands po»‘atns ΝΘ." 
 Compare on this subject: Delitzsch, Zeitschrift fiir Luther- 
 ische Theologie, 1854, p. 280; L. Low, Graphische Requisiten 
 und Erzeugnisse bet den Juden, i. 1870, p. 134 f.; Weber, 
 Lehren des Talmud, p. 86; and below at ὃ 8.  Fiirst (Kanon, 
 p. 83) translates it quite wrongly: “They declare the hands, 
 without having been previously washed, to be unclean.” 
 The correct explanation of this special ordinance, the 
 guarding against any profanation, is pointed out by Johanan 
 ben Sakkai (Zosephta Jadaim, ii. 19 f. p. 684, 2), when he 
 says that according to this we would be prevented from 
 using the sacred Scripture rolls as coverings for animals 
 that were ridden. Of small importance is the commonly 
 quoted explanation from Sabb. 13b, 14a, where the subject 
 under discussion is the Torah rolls, regarding which it was 
 forbidden that they should be set down beside consecrated 
 grain, less the mice should gnaw them (see Schiffer, Dus 
 Buch Koheleth, pp. 78 ff., 85 ff, 90 ἢ); this Halacha—one 
 of the eighteen MHalachoth included in “The Garret of 
 Chananiah,” § 8—is not sufficient to afford an explanation of 
 the whole affair. Still more far-fetched indeed is the 
 explanation given by Geiger (Urschrift wad Uebersetzungen der 
 Bibel, p. 135; Jiid. Zeitschrift, ii. 21 ff.), which is no less 
 untenable than the remarks of the same scholar on the 
 phrase “holy Scripture,’ on 133, and on the passage in 
 Sabb. 16. 1, where the books ja jp jy are said to be 
 non-canonical, but yet such as may be read (Nachgelassene 
 Schriften, iv. 13). 
 
 The word 133) (from 123, “to store up,” then “to conceal,” 
 with the abstract 3) which is met with in the earlier 
 Jewish writings, is no mere equivalent of the Greek word 
 “apocryphal.” It is not used of the writings that were not 
 received, but of books which were received, the canonicity of 
 which, however, was contested (ὃ 8), while it was also applied 
 to unauthorised translations of the sacred writings into the 
 Aramaic, Greek, or other languages (Sabb. 115a). What the 
 exact meaning of 133 is, may be seen.from a passage like Mey. 
 26d. “A Torah roll that has become rotten must be hidden, 
 
8 § 8. THE LAW. 
 
 iva, in the vault of a scholar.’ Compare also ὃ 26. Thus 
 originally it implies no judgment on the character of the 
 books, but a particular mode of procedure with existing copies 
 (copies used in the synagogues), and only secondarily does it 
 mean destruction generally. Jerome, therefore, in his Comm. 
 on Eccles. xii. 14, correctly translates it by obliterare. 
 
 Against the correctness of the received text of IZ. Sanhedrin 
 10. 1, Sanh. 1000, ger. Sanh. 28a, Gritz (UGWJ, 1886, 
 p- 285 ff.) has produced very cogent arguments. By com- 
 bination with Tosephta Jadaim, ii. 13, p. 683, 10, he 
 constructs the text as follows: R. Akiba said, “ Whoever 
 reads in the foreign (a‘xy'n), 1.6.0. Jewish-Christian writings 
 (compare Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Soph’rim), has no part in the 
 world to come. Books, on the other hand, like that of Sirach 
 and other such, which were composed after the age of the 
 prophets had been closed (qh) won, see ὃ 9), may be read 
 just as one reads a letter.” In like manner Joel (Blicke in die 
 Religionsgeschichte, i. 1880, p. 73 ff.), who meanwhile makes 
 the conjecture: “ Whoever reads in foreign writings, like the 
 writings of sswp 13, 1.6. Christian writings, etc.; on the other 
 hand, Ben Sirach’s book,” ete. 
 
 3. As the beginning of the construction of the canon 
 properly so called among the Jews, the historical development 
 of which is the subject of our present investigation, we take 
 that particular period when Ezra, at whose side Nehemiah 
 stood during the latter half of the fifth century before Christ, 
 introduced among the Jews “the Book of the Law,’ Ann ἼΒΌ, 
 as “ canonical” Scripture, and made it the ruling standard for 
 their religious and social life. The solution of the much con- 
 tested, and as yet by no means solved, questions regarding the 
 existence and enforcement of this law during the pre-exilian 
 period, is a matter to be determined by the special science of 
 Pentateuch criticism. We confine ourselves here to the 
 canonical validity which the written Law had obtained among 
 the Jews, after Ezra had read it before the great assemblage 
 at Jerusalem, and the people had put themselves under 
 
§ 4, THE PROPHETS. g 
 
 obligation to fulfil all the commands contained in the Law 
 (Neh, viii.—x.), by binding themselves under a written covenant 
 and by the taking of a solemn oath. Of other writings 
 outside of the Book of the Law there is on this occasion no 
 mention, and indeed there could not have been. It is indeed 
 certain enough that the prophetic writings had been eagerly 
 and widely read before, during, and after the exile. One may 
 refer, e.g., to echoes of older prophetical writings in Jeremiah 
 and Ezekiel, to Zechariah i. 4, and to the influence which 
 Tsaiah xl.—lxvi. exercised upon the contemporary and the 
 post-exilian literature. But a complete collection of prophetic 
 writings could not exist so long as the prophetic spirit 
 was still active and called forth new writings. Even the 
 acceptance of the Pentateuch alone by the Samaritans (δ 11) 
 points, though indeed this must not be accepted without full 
 proof, to this, that the canon of that day contained as yet 
 nothing more than the Pentateuch. The priority of the Law 
 is seen finally in this, that the entire collection of Scriptures, 
 even in later ages, was often still called “the Law,” , ΠΕ 
 the other two parts were regarded as merely supplements 
 toit. See 4 Ezra xiv. 21; John x. 34, xi. 34, xv. 25; 
 1 Cor. xiv. 21; Sanh. 91b; Moed katon 5a, ete. 
 
 With regard to the high regard shown to the Law, and its 
 pre-eminence over the Prophets and the Hagiographa, see 
 Sirach xxiv. 22-27; 1 Macc. i. 59 f.; Weber, Lehren des 
 Talmud, p. 79 ; Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, 2nd ed. p. 90 ff. 
 
 4. That the Jews of the Greek age acknowledged that 
 they were a people without prophets is proved by such 
 witnesses as 1 Mace. iv. 46, ix. 27, xiv. 41; The Song of the 
 Three Children, v. 14 (Ps. Ixxiv. 9 ?), with which passages 
 Sanh. 1la may be compared. And as they became more 
 and more convinced of this fact, after the silencing of the 
 loud voices of the prophets, they must have felt impelled to 
 
10 § 4. THE PROPHETS. 
 
 bring together in one complete whole the prophetic writings 
 ᾿ transmitted to them, the historical books, comprising utter- 
 ances of the old prophets, as well as the properly prophetical 
 books, and to attach this collection, as a second group of 
 sacred and inspired writings, to the Law. From the prologue 
 to the Book of Sirach we see that this collection was generally 
 recognised and circulated in the beginning of the second 
 century before Christ; and from the book itself we further 
 see that this second part had precisely the same contents as it 
 now has, for the author, in the paragraph xliv. 16—xlix. 13, 
 gives an outline of the contents of the first two parts of the 
 canon, in order thereby to set forth a picture of Israel’s 
 glorious history and of her mighty heroes, which exactly 
 corresponds with the contents of the prophetical books 
 acknowledged by us. How long it was before the prophetic 
 canon secured general acceptance we know not, and just as 
 little can we tell by whom and in what way the canonisation 
 was carried out. The much discussed story given in 2 Mace. 
 11. 13 of a temple library founded by Nehemiah contains 
 perhaps a true reminiscence of the historical preparations for 
 the canonisation of the Prophets and the Hagiographa, but is 
 by no means a history of the canonisation itself. 
 
 The important passage in the preface to the Greek transla- 
 tion of Ben Sirach runs as follows: πολλῶν Kal μεγάλων 
 ἡμῖν διὰ τοῦ νόμου Kal TOV προφητῶν Kal TOV ἄλλων TOV κατ᾽ 
 αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων δεδομένων. . . ὁ πάππος μου ᾿Ιησοῦς 
 ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἑαυτὸν δοὺς εἴς τε τὴν τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν 
 καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων ἀνάγνωσιν, καὶ ἐν τούτοις 
 ἱκανὴν ἕξιν περιποιησαμένος, προήχθη καὶ αὐτὸς συγγράψαι τι 
 τῶν εἰς παιδείαν καὶ σοφίαν ἀνηκόντων, κιτλ. [Whereas many 
 and great things have been delivered to us by the Law and the 
 Prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, .. . 
 my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to 
 the reading of the Law and the Prophets and other books of 
 our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn 
 
§ 4, THE PROPHETS. ΤΊ 
 
 on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and 
 wisdom, etc. ]. 
 
 For the determining of the time during which Ben Sirach 
 lived important data are afforded by his grandson’s preface. 
 The editor writes thus of himself: ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ 
 ἔτει ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐεργέτου βασιλέως παραγενηθεὶς εἰς Αἴγυπτον. 
 [Coming into Egypt in the eight and thirtieth year, when 
 Euergetes was king.] Seeing that an allusion to his own age 
 when he came to reside in Egypt would have been altogether 
 purposeless, he must mean the thirty-eighth year of the reign 
 of the king. Compare, on the position of the words, the LXX. 
 rendering of Haggai i.1. Now Euergetes I. reigned B.c. 247— 
 222, and consequently we have to think of Euergetes II. 
 who reigned 8.0. 170-116, although his uncontested supremacy 
 began only in Bc. 145. The year in question would then 
 be ΒΟ. 132, and accordingly the grandfather must have 
 flourished about ΒΟ. 170. 
 
 For further particulars compare Kuenen, Historisch-kritisch 
 Onderzock naar ontstaan en de versameling v. d. Boeken οἷ. 
 Ouden Verbonds, iii. 426 f.; Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, pp. 31, 
 114; Vitringa, De defectu prophetic post Malachiam (Observa- 
 tiones sacre, lib. vi. c. 7). 
 
 That Ben Sirach knew the full prophetic canon, as known 
 to us, may be regarded as thoroughly established. The non- 
 genuineness of Sirach xlix. 10, where mention is made of the 
 twelve prophets, affirmed in earlier times by Bretschneider, 
 and more recently repeated by Bohme (ΖΑ WV, vii. 280), has 
 been rightly met by Noldeke (ΖΑ ΤΥ, viii. 156) by the 
 testimony of the Syrian translation. 
 
 It can be easily understood how men felt themselves 
 impelled to collect together the wonderful treasures of the 
 prophetic literature, the inexhaustible springs of the Messianic 
 hopes, and to mark them off as God’s words from other 
 writings. The conjecture of Griitz (Koheleth, p. 156 f.), that, 
 by the canonisation of ‘the Prophets, a weapon had been sought 
 against the Samaritans, is more characteristic of the ingenuity 
 of its author than of the motives that were operative in that 
 age. That the reception of the historical- works, Joshua— 
 
12 8 4. THE PROPHETS. 
 
 Kings, into the second collection of writings presupposes the 
 decided opinion that these writings had been composed by 
 prophets properly so called, is by no means certain. It is 
 indeed very probable that these books were reckoned among 
 “the Prophets” merely because they contained occasional 
 utterances of the old prophets, such as Samuel, Nathan, 
 Ahijah, etc., by means of which the entire historical narrative 
 was, so to speak, sanctioned. This view is favoured especially 
 by the style and manner in which the author of Chronicles 
 quotes the several historical authorities lying before him. 
 See 1 Chron. xxix. 29; 2:'Chron. ix. 29, xi. 15, ete. These 
 passages, since 2 Chron. xxvi. 22 puts the matter quite 
 differently, do not certainly express the idea that that period 
 of the history has been described by a contemporary prophet. 
 For the opposite opinion see Wellhausen, who makes the last- 
 mentioned conjecture (Prolegomena, 1883, p. 235). Compare 
 also especially, Kuenen, Onderzoek ?, 1. 488. 
 
 As the date of the canonisation of “the Prophets,” Wailde- 
 boer (Het ontstaan, p. 112) conjectures the period about B.C. 
 200. But if these writings were not only recognised as 
 canonical by Ben Sirach writing about B.c. 170, but were also 
 circulated in a Greek translation as early as B.c. 140 (§ 38), 
 this date must still be regarded as decidedly too late. In 
 regard to the difference between the views of the grandfather 
 and grandson, see Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 29. But how 
 far one will have to go back, it is impossible with the means 
 at our disposal to determine. We might ask whether the 
 allusions of the chronicler, living about B.c. 300, to a pro- 
 phetico-historical work different from our books of Samuel 
 and Kings (see above), do not imply the assumption, that “the 
 Prophets” were not then as yet regarded as canonical, in 
 which case we would obtain the year Bc. 300 as the 
 terminus a quo. But this conclusion is still uncertain, since 
 we are too little acquainted with the circumstances of these 
 times to be able to deduce such consequences. 
 
 As to the way in which this canonisation was carried out 
 we possess no information. Undoubtedly it was the Soph*rim 
 who were the actors in this matter. On the other hand, it 
 
§ 5. THE HAGIOGRAPHA. 13 
 
 is not altogether impossible that the passage, 2 Mace. ii. 13, 
 contains a faint reminiscence of an earlier fact which prepared 
 the way for the subsequent canonisation of the Prophets and 
 the Hagiographa (ὃ 5). It is related in a spurious epistle, 
 that Nehemiah, according to his memoirs, founded a library 
 [undoubtedly in the temple], which contained the following 
 books: τὰ περὶ τῶν βασιλέων καὶ προφητῶν καὶ τὰ τοῦ Δαυὶδ 
 καὶ ἐπιστολὰς βασιλέων περὶ ἀναθεμάτων. That the Epistles 
 about Temple Gifts do not correspond to any Old Testament 
 book, but are probably letters of foreign (Persian) princes, is 
 clear. On the other hand, among others, the Books of Samuel 
 and Kings (perhaps also the Judges), and some sort of collection 
 of Psalms (that mentioned in Ps. Ixxii. 20, or those Psalms 
 bearing the superscription 1y75), may possibly have been meant. 
 But this certainly is not all, and even at the best this contri- 
 bution would be of very slight importance for the history of 
 the canon. Compare on this point the various discussions of 
 Kuenen, Onderzoek, ili. 403 ff., 427; Reuss, Geschichte d. hei. 
 Schriften, A. T. 1881, p.717; Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encyclo- 
 pedie*, vii. 426; and Wildeboer, Het. ontstaan, pp. 36 ἢ, 
 112, 115, 133. 
 
 5. The passage quoted in the previous section from the 
 preface to the writing of Ben Sirach mentions, next to the Law 
 and the Prophets, an additional class of writings, which are 
 called “the other writings,” or “the other writings of the 
 fathers,” where, according to the context, the term “ writings” 
 evidently meant writings with religious contents. That this 
 third group corresponds generally with the later so-called 
 Dna (δ 2) is quite plain; but still the question remains 
 as to whether the writings referred to in the prologue were 
 precisely co-extensive with those subsequently known as the 
 Hagiographa. Here we are without the means of answering 
 the question with the same certainty with which we can in 
 reference to “the Prophets,” since the Book of Ben Sirach 
 itself expressly refers only to the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, 
 Bebemab, and the Psalms (xlvii. 8 ff, xlix. 11). Although 
 
 Ψὔ 
 
14 § 5. THE HAGIOGRAPHA. 
 
 the absence of quotations from the rest of the Hagiographa 
 in and by itself indeed affords no proof against their existence 
 and their recognition in the beginning of the second century 
 before Christ, it must be openly confessed that the history 
 of the canon is thereby prevented from issuing an authorita- 
 tive veto against the assigning of a later date to one and 
 another of these writings. It belongs exclusively to the 
 particular criticism of the books in question to come to any 
 conclusion upon this point. For the rest it cannot escape a 
 careful observer of the quotation referred to, that not only the 
 indefinite expression “the other writings,” but still more the 
 way in which Ben Sirach, who had studied those transmitted 
 writings, determines, according to the preface, also (καὶ αὐτός) 
 to make his contribution to the moral improvement of men by 
 composing a treatise, make it evident that this last group had 
 not yet been severed from the religious literature of that pre- 
 sent age by the deep gulf of a canonical ordinance. And that 
 this was not only the opinion of the translator, but also that 
 of the author himself, is abundantly proved by the style in 
 which he refers in his treatise (xxiv. 28 ff) to the inspiring 
 divine wisdom as the source from which he has derived his 
 doctrine. Even if the prophetic spirit were no more opera- 
 tive (§ 4), there still existed the wisdom proceeding “from 
 the mouth of the Most High,’ making fruitful and inspiring 
 His people, among whom it still always drew to itself all who 
 were hungering after it. 
 
 What has been now brought out fully explains why the 
 Hagiographa, in the estimation even of later ages, were re- 
 garded as writings of a subordinate rank, as compared with 
 the Law and the Prophets. This is seen conspicuously in the 
 fact, that they were not used, like those others, for the read- 
 ings of the Sabbath day, and has its origin mainly in the opinions 
 expressed, ¢.g., in jer. Sabd. 16 fol. 15e, Losephta Sabbath, 13, p. 
 128, according to which they were not intended for public 
 
§ 6. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15 
 
 reading, but for Midrashic exposition. Also the designation, “the 
 Law and the Prophets,” for the whole canon is thoroughly in 
 accordance with this feeling. Compare ὃ 6 and Josephta Baba 
 bathra, 8.14, p. 409, 51: “The guardian should purchase for 
 his ward pa) TN”; Jer. Meg. 3.1; Soph rim, p. v., passages 
 which are quite correctly explained in the Babylonian Talmud 
 (Baba bathra 1 Ὁ), while Gratz (Koheleth, p. 150 f.) completely 
 misunderstands their meaning. We naturally find an excep- 
 tion in the case of the Psalms, which were held in high 
 esteem, and were used in the temple service. Even in the 
 LXX. we meet with a superscriptional statement of the Psalms 
 fixed for the several days of the week. See Ps. xxiv., xlviii., 
 xclii., xciv., and compare with Ps. xcii. in the Hebrew. That 
 the five Megilloth were read on the five feasts has been already 
 mentioned in ὃ 2, and in later days it became customary for 
 the High Priest, on the night before the great day of atone- 
 ment, to read in public from the Books of Chronicles, Job, 
 Ezra, and Daniel. 
 
 It might be asked whether the original document used 
 in the Book of Chronicles, the Book of the Kings of Israel 
 and Judah, which was in existence as early as B.c. 300, 
 belonged to “the other writings of the Book of Sirach”; but 
 probably this book was even then already supplanted by 
 Chronicles. 
 
 6. From the age following that of the Greek translation 
 of Ben Sirach, we find only very slight material for the 
 solution of our problem. In the First Book of Maccabees 
 (vii. 17) a quotation is made from Ps. lxxix. 2, with the 
 solemn formula implying the canonicity of the writing κατὰ τὸν 
 λόγον, ὃν ἔγραψε. Similarly, too, Simon ben Shetach, in the 
 first half of the first century before Christ, is said to have 
 quoted Eccles. vii. 12, with a ana7 (but see further ὃ 8). 
 On the other hand, sources are supplied us abundantly in the 
 generation after Christ. In Philo’s work (ἢ 12) are found 
 citations and references to most of the canonical writings, still 
 with the exception of Ezekiel, Daniel, and the five Megilloth. 
 
16 § 6. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 This may have been a pure accident, but it is nevertheless of 
 some interest to compare with it the state of matters set forth 
 in ὃ 8. The New Testament thoroughly confirms the results 
 won from Ben Sirach (δὲ 4, 5). “Moses of old times hath 
 in every city them that preach him, being read in the syna- 
 gogue every Sabbath day,” Acts xv. 21, and from Luke iv. 
 17 and Acts xiii. 15 it follows that the same was also true 
 of the prophetical writings. The pre-eminent importance of 
 these two portions of Scripture is seen in this, that the sacred 
 writings were sometimes called simply “the Law and the Pro- 
 phets” (Matt. v. 17, vii. 12; Luke xvi. 16, xxix. 31; Acts 
 xiii. 15, xxviii. 23; compare ὃ 5), while also the priority of 
 the Law is given expression to in the form of speech referred 
 to above in § 3. As concerns the Hagiographa, quotations are 
 made from a larger number than in the work of Ben Sirach, for 
 (at least if we adopt the prevailing view) references are want- 
 ing only to Ezra, Ecclesiastes, The Song, and Esther. Evidence 
 in favour of the threefold division of the canon is afforded 
 by the expression, “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the 
 Psalms” (Luke xxiv. 44). But the conclusions drawn from 
 this passage in regard to the extent, and particularly the order 
 or arrangement of the Hagiographa, are worthless, for this 
 reason, that the subject dealt with in this passage is the 
 prophetic and symbolic contents of the Old Testament, in 
 which connection the Psalms occupy a pre-eminent position 
 among the Hagiographa. But more important than all this 
 are the names under which the Old Testament is referred 
 to. Designations like γραφαὶ ἅγιαι, ἱερὰ γράμματα, ai γραφαί, 
 and especially ἡ γραφή, and, besides, the well-known solemn 
 formule of quotations, put a clear and conscious distinction 
 between holy Scripture and any other sort of literature, and 
 so give ground to the conjecture that the limits, still undeter- 
 mined in the days of Ben Sirach with reference to the third 
 part of the canon, had meanwhile become more sharply fixed. 
 
§ 6, THE NEW TESTAMENT. 17 
 
 On the other hand, it is wrong to seek in the passage, Matt. 
 xxiii. 35, a strict proof for the existence there and then of 
 the canon as we now have it. 
 
 The quotation in 1 Macc. vii. 17, seeing that the author 
 wrote after B.c. 105, but before B.c. 70, does not exclude a 
 Maccabean authorship of Ps. lxxix., but, in consequence of 
 the formula used, is not certainly in favour of it. 
 
 The above-mentioned quotation of Simon ben Shetach from 
 Ecclesiastes is to be found in Bereshith r. c. 91; jer. Berachoth 
 7. 2, fol. 118; Nazir 5. 3, fol. 540, and Koheleth ry. c. '7. 12. 
 To this may be added solemnly introduced quotations from 
 Ecclesiastes from the first half of the first century after 
 Christ, ὃ. Baba bathra 4a; Sabb. 306; Tosephta Berachoth, ii. 
 24, p. 5. 
 
 On the use of the Old Testament in Philo’s writings, see 
 Observationes- ad illustrationem doctrine de canone Vet. Test. ex 
 Philone (Copenhagen 1775), by C. F. Hornemann (scholar of 
 J. D. Michaelis, died as professor in Copenhagen a.p. 1830). 
 In this treatise, however, this fact is overlooked, that Philo 
 once (Mangey i. 525) makes use of a passage from Chronicles 
 (1 Chron. vii. 14). Compare also Siegfried, Philo als Ausleger 
 d. A. T. 1875, p. 161. The testimony given in the treatise 
 De vita contemplativa, 3, to the tripartite canon may best be 
 left out of account, inasmuch as that work is of doubtful 
 authenticity. See Lucius, Die Therapeuten, 1880; as also 
 Massebieau, Le Traité de la vie contemplative et la question 
 des Thérapeutes, 1888. 
 
 It must evidently be regarded as purely accidental that 
 Ezra-Nehemiah, as also the minor prophets, Obadiah, Nahum, 
 and Zephaniah, have not been quoted in the New Testament. 
 On the other hand, one might associate the absence of 
 quotations from the three books of The Song, Ecclesiastes, 
 and Esther with the partly contemporary discussions over 
 those referred to in § 8. Compare Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, 
 44,128. Nevertheless, this may, on closer examination, be 
 found to be a mere fortuitous coincidence, since Christ and 
 the first Christians, for practical reasons arising from the 
 
 B 
 
18 § 7. THE EZRA-APOCALYPSE. 
 
 circumstances in which they were placed, did not feel them- 
 selves called upon to make use of these writings of peculiar 
 contents, whereas the controversies referred to in § 8 were of 
 a purely dogmatic character. When Christ, in Matthew xxii. 
 35, speaks of the righteous blood shed from the time of Abel 
 to that of Zacharias (2 Chron. xxiv. 20 f.), a much more than 
 probable conclusion may be drawn from it with regard to the 
 extent and order of the canon of that day. It cannot certainly 
 be treated as a scholarly quotation which must be made 
 accurately to refer to Urija (Jer. xxvi. 23). 
 
 7. The result won in the preceding section receives an 
 extremely important confirmation, and the whole question 
 obtains a provisional conclusion by means of two almost 
 contemporary writings at or about the end of the first century 
 after Christ. In the so-called Ezra-Apocalpyse, which, with 
 much probability, has been assigned to the age of the Emperor 
 Domitian, A.D. 81—96, mention is made (xiv. 44-46) of 
 twenty-four writings, viz. 94—70, which Ezra wrote out 
 under divine inspiration after they had been utterly lost. 
 Here then we meet with the number twenty-four with which 
 we are familiar from the later Palestinian-Babylonian litera- 
 ture (and, indeed, even from a Baraitha, see δὲ 2, 10), as the 
 sum total of the acknowledged writings of the Old Testament. 
 The other witness is the treatise of Flavius Josephus against 
 Apion, in many respects rich in contents and teaching, which 
 must have been written about a.D. 100. In this work (i. 8) 
 it is said that to the sacred and genuine books of the Jews, 
 besides the five books of Moses, there belong also “thirteen 
 prophetical writings” and “four books with hymns and pre- 
 cepts for practical life.” This statement of Josephus is 
 remarkable in two ways. In the first place for the number 
 twenty-two (5 - 19 - 4), which, however, in following periods 
 we shall frequently meet with, and then especially for the 
 extremely peculiar threefold division which we do not find 
 
§ 7. JOSEPHUS AND ORIGEN. 19 
 
 elsewhere, which owing to its indefiniteness has given occasion 
 to various explanations and hypotheses. Thus the Jewish 
 scholar Griitz has sought from this division to draw the 
 conclusion that Josephus did not acknowledge the Books of 
 Ecclesiastes and The Song, since the four books that come last 
 in the list are: Psalms, Lamentations, Proverbs, and Job. 
 ut the only right way here is to follow the analogy of the 
 practice prevailing with some, especially Alexandrine writers, 
 and to assume that Josephus treated the Books of Ruth and 
 Lamentations as parts of the Books of Judges and Jeremiah. 
 Among the thirteen prophetical books there had therefore 
 been reckoned the eight books of the prophets (§ 2), Daniel, 
 Job, Chronicles, Ezra, and Esther, while the four books of 
 hymns and practical precepts had embraced Psalins, Proverbs, 
 The Song, and Ecclesiastes. With reference to this it is 
 particularly to be observed how Josephus expresses the idea 
 of canonicity (§ 2): even if the phrase “divine writings” be 
 not genuine, he yet says that only those books can lay claim 
 to our confidence, and that no one has been so bold as either 
 to add anything to them or take anything away from these 
 books transmitted from olden times. And thus, at the end of 
 the first century after Christ, we have undoubted evidence of 
 a clear and conscious conviction of a canonical collection of 
 writings, and unanimity with regard to this canon as it is now 
 known among ourselves. 
 
 By way of Appendix, before we pass to the consideration 
 of the contributions made by the Pharisees to the discussions 
 about the canon (ὃ 8), we may here enumerate some later 
 witnesses to the Jewish Canon, because, although belonging in 
 point of time to the group of authorities referred to in § 8, they 
 afford some supplementary and interesting particulars. We 
 meet in Origen with the number twenty-two as the sum total 
 of the Old Testament writings (Eusebius, Hist. Zeel. vi. 25), 
 who states expressly that he has taken his list from the Jews. 
 
20 § 7. ORIGEN AND JEROME. 
 
 In it Ruth and Lamentations are introduced only as parts of 
 the Books of Judges and Jeremiah, while the adoption of the 
 Book of Baruch among the canonical books is hardly to be 
 attributed to his Jewish authorities. Similarly, too, Jerome, 
 in his exposition of the Jewish Canon, gives the number of 
 books as twenty-two. In the so-called Prologus galeatus (ie. 
 Preface to the Books of Kings the first which he translated) he 
 refers to the genuine Jewish threefold division of the canon 
 into Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa, and, according to this, 
 mentions particularly what books belong to each of these 
 divisions. Of the Book of Judges he says: “ Et in eundem 
 compingunt Ruth, quia in diebus judicum facta narratur his- . 
 toria,’ and similarly he reckons the Lamentations to Jeremiah. 
 But after he has finished this exposition he adds thereto: 
 “Quanqguam nonnulli Ruth et Cinoth (Lamentations) inter 
 Hagiographa scriptitent et libros hos in suo putent numero 
 supputandos, ac per hoc esse priscz legis libros viginti quatuor.” 
 
 Jerome therefore is acquainted with the Jewish division 
 into twenty-four books, and in the preface to Daniel he keeps 
 expressly to this arrangement, for he says: “Illud admoneo non 
 haberi Danielem apud Hebreos inter prophetas, sed inter eos, 
 qui Hagiographa conscripserunt. In tres siquidem partes 
 omnis Sacra Scriptura ab eis dividitur, in Legem, in Prophetas 
 et in Hagiographa, i. e. in quinque, in octo et undecim libros.” 
 
 A list of the Old Testament writings which is expressly 
 described as having been borrowed from the Jews, but 
 diverges in important particulars from that list which has 
 been already referred to, is communicated by Melito of Sardis, 
 somewhat after A.D. 150. The writings named by him make 
 altogether twenty-two, but this number he makes up by 
 giving to Ruth an independent place in his enumeration, 
 whereas Esther is altogether wanting. Seeing that Melito does 
 not expressly declare that he is giving the complete number 
 of the writings, it might be supposed that Esther had been 
 
§ 7. JOSEPHUS-ORIGEN. 21 
 
 left out in the text before us only in consequence of an error 
 of transcription ; but against such an idea it must be remem- 
 bered that not only was Esther wanting in many of the 
 Church fathers of the following age (§§ 15,17), but that we 
 knew definitely that an opposition had risen up among the 
 Jews against the canonicity of this book, which held its 
 ground down to the third century (see ὃ 8). 
 
 The above quoted passage from the Fourth Book of Ezra 
 is given, 6.9., in Hilgenfeld’s Messias Judworum, pp. 182, 260, 
 321, 376, 433. Unfortunately, the Latin text is at this 
 passage uncertain, so that the reference given above rests 
 exclusively on the text of the oriental translations. Never- 
 theless it is scarcely reasonable to conclude from Epiphanius 
 (De pond. et mens. 10) with Bertheau, Buch d. Richter und Ruth, 
 1883, p. 290 ff., that the text had originally read twenty-two 
 instead of twenty-four books. 
 
 Josephus, Contra Apion. i. 8: Οὐ yap μυρίαδες βιβλίων 
 εἰσὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν, ἀσυμφώνων καὶ μαχομένων" δύο δὲ μόνα πρὸς 
 τοῖς εἴκοσι βιβλία, τοῦ παντὸς ἔχοντα χρόνου τὴν ἀναγραφὴν, 
 τὰ δικαίως [θεῖα, unauthentic, according to J. G. Miiller] 
 πεπιστευμένα. Καὶ τούτων πέντε μέν ἐστι τὰ Μωυσέως, ἃ τούς 
 τε νόμους περιέχει... . Arro δὲ τῆς Μωυσέως τελευτῆς μέχρι 
 τῆς ᾿Αρταξέρξου τοῦ μετὰ Ἐέρξην Περσῶν βασιλέως ἀρχῆς οἱ 
 μετὰ Μωυσῆν προφῆται τὰ κατ’ αὐτοὺς πραχθέντα συνέγραψαν 
 ἐν τρισὶ καὶ δέκα βιβλίοις" αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς 
 τὸν θεὸν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου περιέχουσιν. 
 ᾿Απὸ δὲ ᾿Αρταξέρξου μέχρι τοῦ Kal’ ἡμᾶς χρόνου γέγραπται 
 μὲν Exacta’ πίστεως δὲ οὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τοῖς πρὸ αὐτῶν, 
 διὰ τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν. 
 
 . τοσούτου γὰρ αἰῶνος ἤδη παρῳχηκότος, οὔτε προσθεῖναί 
 τις ovdév οὔτε ἀφελεῖν αὐτοὶς οὔτε μεταθεῖναι τετόλμηκεν' 
 Compare, in addition to this, Antigwities, x. 2. 2, where it is 
 said: οὐχ οὗτος μόνος ὁ προφήτης (Isaiah), ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλοι 
 δώδεκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐποίησαν: Compare Eichhorn, 
 Einleitung in d. A. 1.8 i. 105 ff.; Kuenen, Onderzoek, iii. 
 412 f.; Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedie*, vii. 428 ; 
 Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 42 f.; J. G. Miiller, Des Flavius 
 
22 § 7. THE NUMBERS 22 AND 24. 
 
 Josephus Schriften gegen den Apion. 1877, p. 99 ff.; Wright, 
 The Book of Koheleth, p. 461; Gratz, Koheleth, p. 169; 
 MGWJ, 1886, p. 83; also Tachauer, Das Verhdltnis von 
 Flavius Josephus zur Bibel und Tradition, Erlangen 1871. 
 
 On Origen, compare his Opera, ii. 528, and Eusebius, Hist. 
 Eel. vi. 25: εἰσὶ δὲ αἱ εἴκοσι δύο βιβλίοι καθ᾽ ᾿Εβραίους αἵδε: 
 The five books of Moses (among them ᾿Αμμεσφεκωδείμ for 
 Numbers, 1.6. OPE WIN, Num. i. 21; Yoma vii. 1), Joshua, 
 Judges, and Ruth, παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐν ἑνὶ Σ᾽ ωφετιμ, Samuel, Kings, 
 Chronicles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, 
 Isaiah, Jeremiah, σὺν θρήνοις καὶ τὴ ἐπιστολῇ ἐν ἑνὶ ᾿Ιερεμία, 
 Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, and Esther. Evidently the omission of 
 the Twelve Minor Prophets is the result of an error of 
 transcription, since otherwise only twenty-one writings would 
 have been enumerated. In Rufinus this book is mentioned 
 after Canticles. On the other hand, the addition of the 
 “ Epistle,” ze. the Book of Baruch containing the Epistle, is 
 to be explained most simply as an inaccuracy on the part of 
 Origen ; for the statement of the Constitutiones Avostolice, 
 v. 20, that Lamentations and the Book of Baruch were read 
 in public by the Jews on the Day of Atonement, is, when we 
 take into account the silence of the Jewish writings on the 
 subject, too insecure a support on which to build without any 
 other evidence (Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 76 f.). 
 
 Melito tells in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 26: ἀνελθὼν οὖν 
 εἰς τὴν ἀνατολὴν, καὶ ἕως τοῦ τόπου γενόμενος ἔνθα ἐκηρύχθη 
 καὶ ἐπράχθη καὶ ἀκριβῶς μαθὼν τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης 
 βιβλία ὑποτάξας ἐπεμψώά σοι. Then are enumerated the 
 following: five Books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four 
 Books of Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 
 The Song, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah (probably along with 
 Lamentations), the Twelve, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Ezra. Com- 
 pare Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 73 f. 
 
 The original relation between the numbers twenty-two and 
 twenty-four is still obscure. The latter numbering, indeed, 
 may be regarded as the older, because it can be more easily 
 explained how Ruth was reckoned to Judges and Lamenta- 
 tions (on the presupposition of its authorship by Jeremiah) to 
 
§ 8. CONTROVERSIES ON THE CANON AMONG JEWS. 23 
 
 Jeremiah, than how they should have been removed from 
 their original place among the prophets. It is quite uncertain, 
 however, whether in fixing this number they may have been 
 influenced by the idea of making the number of the books 
 equal to the number of the Hebrew letters. Origen and 
 Jerome, indeed, lay stress upon this correspondence, but this 
 may also have been a later play of the imagination, quite after 
 the style of another enumeration referred to by Epiphanius 
 (De pond. et mens. 22) and Jerome (Prologus galeatus) of twenty- 
 seven books (= the 22 letters of the alphabet and the 5 final 
 letters), in making out which the Alexandrine double reckoning 
 of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, and Ezra was used, while 
 Lamentations was counted as a separate book. Although the 
 combining of Ruth and Lamentations with Judges and 
 Jeremiah in the LXX. and by the Alexandrians was prevalent, 
 yet the number can scarcely have been determined by them, 
 because they generally did not respect the Palestinian Canon 
 (ὃ 12). Compare Kuenen, Onderzock, iii. 447 f.; Bleek, 
 Finleitung, iv. 204. 552; Bertheau, Richter und Ruth, 1883, 
 p. 290 ff; Strack in Herzoe’s Real-Encyclopedie*, vii. 434 ; 
 Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, 108. 134 f. 
 
 8. The witnesses referred to in the preceding sections 
 indicate in general outline the movement with which we are 
 concerned. A more profound disclosure is made to us by 
 means of a series of very interesting passages in the older 
 Jewish literature, which, however, suffer from the usual 
 absence of historical reminiscences in this literature, from in- 
 definiteness and one-sided incompleteness, and therefore have 
 been used by moderns in various ways and with varied results. 
 
 As already stated in § 6, solemnly made quotations of 
 various verses from Ecclesiastes have come down from the last 
 century before Christ and the first century after Christ. But 
 even in the pre-Philonic age the author of the Wisdom of 
 Solomon expresses himself (ii. 1-9) in a way in which one 
 cannot fail to perceive an unconcealed polemic against 
 Ecclesiastes. And shortly after the middle of the first century 
 
V 
 
 24 § 8. CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS. 
 
 after Christ an opposition seems to have arisen in Palestine 
 against the canonicity of that book, an opposition which, 
 however, extended also to other biblical books, and is con- 
 sequently of greater interest for the history of the canon. 
 Thus it is reported that the followers of Hillel and Shammai 
 differed with respect to the canonicity of the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes, the Hillelites recognising it as canonical, while 
 the strict Shammaites rejected it. Further, we learn that 
 Ezekiel gave offence, so that some wished to pronounce the 
 book apocryphal. However, Hillel and Chananiah, son of 
 Hezekiah, contemporary of the elder Gamaliel, succeeded in 
 setting aside these objections by means of a laborious inter- 
 pretation, by which the opposition to this prophet was for ever 
 silenced. On the other hand, there was, so far as we can see, 
 no decision arrived at with respect to the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 prior to the fall of Jerusalem, and the same was also the case 
 with respect to some other writings whose canonicity had 
 been attacked, of which we may name Canticles. It was not 
 until about A.D. 90 that the whole question was brought up 
 for discussion before a Synod at Jabne (Jamnia, a city not 
 far from the coast, south of Jaffa), the very one at which 
 Gamaliel II. was deprived of his office of patriarch. At that 
 Synod the canonicity of the whole of the sacred writings was 
 acknowledged. Special emphasis was laid upon the affirma- 
 tion of the canonicity, not only of Ecclesiastes but also of 
 Canticles, which affords clear evidence of the existence of an 
 opposition against that book. In a similar manner, too, 
 various passages in the Babylonian Talmud show that there 
 must have been ascribed to the Books of Ruth and Esther and 
 (whether in the same way ?) Proverbs, what necessitates the 
 adoption of the same conclusions with reference to these 
 writings. Meanwhile the decree issued for Jabne did not 
 altogether silence the doubts, as we opportunely learn from 
 the procedure of several teachers labouring during the first 
 
§ 8. CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS. 25 
 
 © 
 
 half of the second century after Christ. Indeed, the recollec- 
 tion of what was actually determined on at Jamnia was not 
 preserved in an accurate form, so that it gave rise to several 
 diverse statements. A more important effect was produced 
 by the circumstance that the Mishna, collected and edited 
 about A.D. 190, maintained the unrestricted canonicity of all 
 the twenty-four writings, among the rest also Ecclesiastes and 
 The Song, which were specially named. But even after this 
 time the criticism of the canon was not wholly silenced, for 
 we learn from the Babylonian Talmud that a scholar living in 
 the third century denied the canonicity of the Book of Esther. 
 
 In the disjecta membra here collected together, some now 
 wish to find a historical reminiscence of the final closing of 
 the hitherto open third part of the Old Testament writings, 
 according -to which the canonising of the Hagiographa 
 would stand out in the full light of history. A more exact 
 consideration of the fact, however, goes decidedly against this 
 view, and leads us rather to assume that the third part of 
 the canon had been even then already closed, although we 
 know as little about the way in which this closing was 
 accomplished as we do about the closing of the canon of the 
 Prophets (δ 4). Above all, we should take into consideration 
 these Talmudical reports only in connection with the wit- 
 nesses referred to in sections 6 and 7, especially with the 
 clear passage in the Apology of Josephus. Now, indeed, 
 we cannot possibly assume that the representation which 
 Josephus, residing in Rome shortly after the Synod of Jamnia, 
 gives of the contents and idea of the canon must have been 
 influenced by the decisions of the Synod. But seeing that 
 a Synod at Jerusalem in A.D. 65, coming to a decision regard- 
 ing the canon, is nothing more than an audacious fancy of 
 Griitz, it is highly probable that Josephus in his Apology 
 reported simply the teaching of the Pharisees of his times, 
 to whom he attached himself in a.p. 56. Therefore there 
 
26 § 8. CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS. 
 
 existed then the firm, carefully-weighed idea of a concluded 
 canon, and consequently such a canon itself, a result which 
 would be established even although two of the twenty-four 
 Old Testament writings may have been wanting in the Scrip- 
 ture collection of Josephus. See above, p.18. The state- 
 ments quoted from the Talmud and Midrash also best agree 
 with this explanation. In the first place, they show negatively 
 that such attacks upon biblical books do not exclude the idea 
 of an earlier established canon, for indeed criticism of the 
 several writings of the Old Testament were never altogether 
 silenced after the Synod of Jamnia, nor even after the decision 
 given in the Mishna. Further, the very attacks referred to, 
 when more exactly considered, presuppose a Scripture canon. 
 There is no dispute about the genuineness or age of the con- 
 troverted writings, but only about doubts and objections 
 which had been called forth by a definitely developed, 
 dogmatic principle of Scripture, for it was felt that the idea 
 of a “Scripture” precisely defined and marked off from all 
 other literature, involved the postulating of certain require- 
 ments of harmonious unity and religious-moral purity in that 
 Scripture. Indeed, Josephus, in the passage referred to, boasts 
 of this, that the sacred literature of the Jews did not con- 
 sist like that of the other nations of ἀσύμφωνα καὶ μαχόμενα 
 βιβλία. And just that objection, which in those times was 
 taken to the writings referred to, and which obliged the 
 vindicator of them to enter into all sorts of minute explana- 
 tions, which were finally approved by all Jews, is the most 
 striking proof of the fact that it was very strongly felt to be 
 a duty to take up the cause of the books objected to, which 
 can be explained only on the presupposition that has been 
 suggested. It also deserves consideration that the term 13 
 is used only of the writings whose canonicity was contested, 
 and not, eg., of Ben Sirach, although that book was much 
 read, and was quoted by some scholars (§ 12), which could 
 
§ 8. CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS. 27 
 
 scarcely be accounted for, if, ὁ ψ., Ecclesiastes as well as Ben 
 Sirach had been placed “outside the door.” Finally, in spite 
 of all the objections advanced, a bright light is shed upon the 
 whole question by the fact that not only writings from the 
 third part but also a prophetical book from the canon of the 
 Prophets, that had long previously been closed (ὃ 4), was 
 threatened with exclusion from the canon; for the recent 
 attempts to make out a distinction between the opposition to 
 Ezekiel and the opposition to the Hagiographa have all failed 
 to stand examination. For the rest, Geiger is quite right 
 when he describes all these discussions as scholastic contro- 
 versies which affected public opinion in a very slight degree. 
 On the other hand, there is no ground for entertaining any 
 doubt as to the credibility of the traditions referred to; there 
 is about them, indeed, too much verisimilitude to admit of 
 their being overthrown by the easily explained attempt of a 
 Rabbi Akiba to deny the whole thing. 
 
 The result is therefore this, that even the third part of the 
 Old Testament writings, which in the time of Ben Sirach was 
 as yet without firmly determined limits, had its canon finally 
 closed even before the time of Christ, although we know 
 nothing as to how or by whom this was accomplished ; 
 enough that the canon and the clear idea of the canon were 
 there, and formed the basis of a definite dogmatic theory of 
 the sacred writings (compare ὃ 9). But just this dogmatic 
 theory called forth various doubts and objections with refer- 
 ence to particular books, which made a revision of the canon 
 necessary. This revision was made at Jamnia, and was after- 
 wards confirmed in the Mishna. Its result was the establish- 
 ment of all previously canonised books. 
 
 That this revision was carried out somewhere about the 
 end of the first century after Christ is certainly no accidental 
 circumstance, but is closely connected with the completely 
 altered circumstances of Jewish social life. The state of 
 
28 § 8. CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS. 
 
 matters at that time was this: the capital and the temple 
 lay in ruins, and the Rabbinical college upon which the 
 holding together of Judaism depended were obliged to seek 
 refuge outside of the Holy City. Then the “Scripture” and 
 the study of Scripture became even more than formerly the 
 world in which Judaism continued to maintain its life; “the 
 Pharisees, who had lost their material fatherland, fled back 
 into their spiritual fatherland ; on it they spent all their care 
 and it brought them comfort amid all their misfortunes” 
 (Derenbourg). There was also added to this the conflict with 
 the powerfully advancing Christianity, which demanded the 
 firm establishment of everything belonging to Scripture, and 
 the setting aside of all hesitation on this point. The Old 
 Testament writings were in an ever-increasing degree the 
 armoury from which was obtained, in the struggle that broke 
 out, weapons of attack and defence, and this demanded, 
 especially in view of the peculiar constitution of the Jewish 
 mind, that the Bible itself should stand forth firm and un- 
 assailable. In the closest connection with this, as we shall 
 subsequently see (ὃ 99), stood also the fact that the Jewish 
 teachers at this very time were labouring to secure a definite 
 standard text for Holy Scripture. 
 
 Compare upon these questions: Delitzsch in ZL7, 1854, 
 p. 280 ff.; Kuenen, Onderzock, 111. 415, 421; Bleek, Lunlev- 
 tung, iv. 551 ἢ; Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 82 ff.; Cheyne, 
 Job and Solomon, p. 280 f.; Geiger, Urschrift, p. 398 ἢ; Sid. 
 Zeitsch. 1862, p. 151, 1870, p. 135 ff; Gratz, Koheleth, pp. 
 159-173; and UGWZ, 1871, p. 502 ff, 1882, p. 117, 
 1886; p.597. 
 τς ὮΝ. Jadaim 3.5: “All sacred writings defile the hands 
 
 (§ 2); even The Song and Ecclesiastes defile them!” [This 
 the decision, now the discussion.] Rabbi Judah [Ben Ilai, 
 see Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums, ii. 86] said: “The Song 
 defiles the hands, but this is disputed in regard to Ecclesiastes.” 
 R. Jose [Jost, ii. 85] said: “ Ecclesiastes does not defile the 
 
§ 8. CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS, 29 
 
 hands, and this is disputed with regard to the Song.” R. 
 Simeon [Ben Jochai, Jost, 1. 90] said: “The treatment of 
 Ecclesiastes is one of those points in which the school of 
 Shammai was milder than the school of Hillel” [which de- 
 clared that the book defiled the hands, ie. was canonical]. 
 R. Simeon ben Azai [Jost, ii. 97] said: “I have heard from 
 the seventy-two elders on the day when they gave to R. 
 Eleazar the presidency of the academy [1.6.ὄ at the Synod of 
 Jabne, see Derenbourg, Hssai sur V’histoire et la géographie de 
 la Palestine, i. 1867, p. 273; Jost, ii. 28 ff.; Gritz, Geschichte 
 der Juden, iv. 38 ff.], that The Song and Ecclesiastes defile 
 the hands. R. Akiba [Griitz, MGWJ, 1870, p. 484, reads 
 R. Jacob instead of Akiba] said: “God forbid that any one 
 in Israel should doubt that The Song defiles the hands; the 
 whole world does not outweigh the day in which Israel 
 received The Song. All the Hagiographa are holy, but The 
 Song is the-holiest of all. If they have been contested [!] it 
 was with reference to Ecclesiastes.” But R. Johanan ben 
 Jeshua, R. Akiba’s brother-in-law, said: “As R. Simeon ben 
 Azai has laid it down, so they disputed and so they decided!” 
 This same tradition is given in ὦ. Meg. Ta, where, instead of 
 Rt. Judah ben Ilai, R. Jose, and instead of R. Jose, ἢ. Meir 
 are named. To R. Simeon’s report about the Hillelites and 
 Shammaites this addition is made: “ On the other hand, Ruth, 
 The Song, and Esther defile the hands.” Finally, there is 
 then communicated a Baraitha of R. Simeon ben Menasja: 
 “ Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, because it was done 
 in Solomon’s own wisdom”; but this affirmation is contra- 
 dicted by the fact that Solomon, who was the author of other 
 inspired writings, could not in that case have said (Prov. xxx. 
 6): “Add then not to God’s words lest He reprove thee.” 
 
 On Ecclesiastes compare further ὁ. Sabb. 30ab; Koheleth r. 
 on i. ὃ and 1], 8; and Jerome on Eccles, xii, 14: “Ajunt Hebrwi, 
 quum inter cetera scripta Salomonis, que antiquata sunt nec 
 in memoria duraverunt, et hic liber obliterandus videretur, eo 
 quod vanas assereret Dei creaturas et totum putaret esse pro 
 nihilo, et cibum et potum et delicias transeuntes preferret om- 
 nibus, ex hoc uno capitulo meruisse autoritatem, ut in divinorum 
 
30 § §. CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS. 
 
 voluminum numero poneretur, quod totam disputationem suam 
 et omnem catalogum hae quasi ἀνακεφαλαιώσει coarctaverit 
 et dixerit finem sermonem suorum auditu esse promtissinum 
 nec aliquid in se habere difficile: ut scil. Deum timeamus et 
 ejus preecepta faciamus.” 
 
 b. Sabb. 306: “Some also wish to remove the Book of Pro- 
 verbs from the canon (123) because it contains contradictory 
 sayings [of which xxvi. 4, 5 is quoted as an example]; but 
 if it were not accomplished, it was because people said: “ We 
 have thoroughly examined the Book of Ecclesiastes, and have 
 found a solution for its contradictions, and we shall also 
 examine this book more carefully.” Against the attempt of 
 Gratz to prove the incredibility of this tradition, see Schiffer, 
 Das Buch Koheleth, p. 95 f. 
 
 The Aboth of Ravbi Nathan (a post-Talmudic tract, see 
 Schiirer, Geschichte, i. 106 f., Eng. trans. Div. 1. vol. 1. p. 143), 
 c. 1, according to the common recension (the others are given 
 in Schechter, Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, Vienna 1887; compare 
 Wrieht, Zhe Book of Koheleth in relation to Modern Criticism, 
 1883, p. 466): “ At first Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes 
 were pronounced apocryphal, because they contained symbolical 
 expressions ; this lasted until the men of the great synagogue 
 arose (§ 9) and discovered a solution.” As examples of offen- 
 sive passages, Prov. vil. 7-20, Cant. vil. 12 f., and Eccles. x1. 9 
 are referred to. 
 
 b Sabb.13b; Chag. 13a; Menachoth 45a: “ Hananiah ben 
 Hezekiah [see about this man, living in the time of Hillel and 
 Gamaliel the elder, Gritz, Geschichte des Juden, 111. 499] is of 
 blessed memory, for but for him Ezekiel would have been de- 
 clared apocryphal, because his words contradicted the words of 
 the Law; three hundred jars of lamp oil were brought to him, 
 and he sat in his garret and solved the contradictions.” The 
 grounds upon which some would make out the inconsistency 
 of this criticism of the canon with that set forth in other 
 passages are very weak. Gritz (Xoheleth, p. 161) calls the 
 opposition to Ezekiel simply “casual.” The tradition is met 
 with only in the Babylonian Talmud (Bleek, Hinleitung, iv. 551), 
 but rests upon a Baraitha. And naturally just a little is proved 
 
§ 8. CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS, 31 
 
 by the circumstance that the contesters of the canonicity are 
 unnamed (Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 66), for this applies 
 also to Proverbs ; or by the fact that the canonicity of Ezekiel 
 had been conserved even before the Synod of Jamnia (Wilde- 
 boer, p. 60). 
 
 Finally, on Esther compare b. Meg. 7a: “According to R. 
 Judah, Samuel said [Jost, ii. 135 ff]: Esther does not defile 
 the hands! Could Samuel have meant by this that the Book 
 of Esther was not the work of the Holy Spirit? No; he 
 meant it was produced indeed by the Holy Spirit, but only 
 for reading, not as Holy Scripture.” As proof of the inspira- 
 tion of the book, vi. 6 is quoted: “Haman thought in his 
 heart,” which no man without divine revelation could know. 
 That the theory of Samuel did not affect the accepted inter- 
 pretation (Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 64 f.) is a possible, but 
 not a necessary, assumption. Compare further b. Sanh. 100a, 
 according to which certain teachers declared that wrappings 
 for the Esther rolls were unnecessary. On the other hand, 
 jer Megilla 70. 4 is uncertain; see Bertheau-Ryssel, Esra, 
 Nehemia, and Ester, p. 568. 
 
 The hypothesis of Gratz, above referred to, of two synods at 
 Jerusalem in A.D. 65 and at Jamnia in A.D. 90, at which the 
 canon of the Hagiographa is said to have been settled, rests 
 upon two altogether untenable presuppositions. In the first 
 place, it is false that by the “sacred writings” of IM. Jadaim 
 3. 5 are meant only the Hagiographa. See particularly 
 Schiffer, Das Buch Koheleth, p. 80 ff. And, in the second 
 place, there is no vestige of proof that the question of the 
 canon had engaged attention just before the overthrow of 
 Jerusalem in “ The Garret of Chananiah ben Hezekiah.” Only 
 the prohibition against laying the Torah rolls beside the grain 
 devoted and received for the heave-offering (ὃ 2), belongs to 
 the eighteenth Halachoth sanctioned in “ The Garret of 
 Chananiah ; all else is pure fancy.” 
 
 Those modern writers are certainly wrong who seek to 
 maintain that other writings were also the subject of attack. 
 Thus Kohler, in reference to the Book of Chronicles (see Gei- 
 ger’s Jiid. Zeitschr. 1870, p. 135 ἡ. For when it is said, 
 
» § 9. LATER THEORIES. 
 
 for example, in Lev. r. 1 (fol. 165d), that the Book of Chron- 
 icles was given only to be expounded in Midrashim, this 
 means nothing more than what is true of all the Hagiographa 
 (ὃ 5). First (Kanon, p. 54) regards Num. τ. 18, fol. 271d, as 
 proving that the Book of Jonah had sometimes been called in 
 question. But evidently it is merely a play upon numbers, 
 when Jonah is here characterised as a “writing by itself” 
 (which his prophecy, moreover, in many respects actually is, 
 compare Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, pp. 60—62), in order thereby 
 to bring out the required number eleven. Precisely similar, 
 too, is the position sometimes taken up by the Rabbinists (as, 
 e.g. b. Sabb. 1164, etc.), where they classify Num. x. 35 fias a 
 book by itself, and so reckon seven books of the Law. 
 
 9. The actual facts of history to which the unfortunately 
 too rare witnesses made use of in the preceding sections point, 
 have often necessitated the setting aside of conceptions at which 
 men had arrived in a half ὦ priori way from accepted theories, 
 the presupposition of which, as a rule, was that the Old 
 Testament canon must have been collected by a single author- 
 itative act, which had most likely taken place at an early 
 period. Those various notions all originated among the Jews, 
 and in part were carried from them to the Christians, by 
 whom they were maintained often with passionate persistency, 
 which certainly was not justified by their origin. We meet 
 with two of these theories even in those writings belonging 
 to the end of the first Christian century, referred to in § 7. 
 In the centre of the Church fathers (e.g. in Irenzeus, Adv. Her. 
 iii, 21. 2; Tertullian, De cultu feminarum, i. 3), we often 
 meet with a description of the origin of the Old Testament 
 Canon, which rests upont he passage quoted in § 7 from the 
 Apocalypse of Ezra, according to which Ezra, by means of 
 divine inspiration, wrote out all the Old Testament books after 
 they had been completely lost in the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 and, in consequence, gave authority to the Old Testament 
 Canon. Not quite so devoid of historical basis is the theory 
 
§ 9. LATER THEORIES, 92 
 
 proposed by Josephus, Contra Apionem, i. 8. According to 
 him the prophets formed an unbroken series down to the time 
 of the Persian king Artaxerxes, B.c. 464-424. The writings 
 which had their origin before or during that period are genuine, 
 because the prophets have themselves written in them what 
 occurred during their own lives, That is the theory of the origin 
 of the Old Testament historical books, which some have sought 
 wrongly to ascribe to the author of the Book of Chronicles 
 (δ 4), and which has now become current. There are indeed 
 events recorded which occurred after the time of Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus, but πίστεως οὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τοῖς πρὸ αὐτῶν, 
 διὰ τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν [They 
 have not been esteemed of the same authority with the former, 
 because there has not been an exact succession of the prophets 
 since that time]. Naturally all this applies primarily to the 
 thirteen historical books (ὃ 7), but the four books of hymns 
 and practical precepts Josephus regarded as indisputably still 
 older, and consequently he may probably have considered the 
 closing of the canon as also belonging to that age. Precisely 
 the same thing is also found in the old rabbinical writings, 
 where the period after the cessation of prophecy is indicated 
 by the phrase 75) jw20; the writings originating during this 
 period are not canonical, although the reading of them is still 
 partially tolerated (δ 2). 
 
 Of greater importance was the third theory which the 
 Christians in the sixteenth century borrowed from the Jews, 
 and which soon lost its hypothetical character, and was set forth 
 by men like Hottinger and Carpzow as incontestable truth. 
 In the ancient Jewish literature there is often mention made 
 of an assembly called min nd33, “the great assembly or 
 synagogue,” which is associated with Ezra and Nehemiah. Of 
 the various labours which have been ascribed to this assembly, 
 some refer to the Old Testament writings. Thus, it is said in 
 
 a well-known passage (δ, Baba bathra 14a), that the men of the 
 σ 
 
94 § 9, LATER THEORIES. 
 
 great synagogue “wrote the Book of Ezekiel, the Twelve 
 / Minor Prophets, Daniel, and Esther. According to Tanchuma 
 (a Midrashic work on the whole of the Pentateuch) on Exod. 
 xv. 7, the so-called Tikkune Soph’rim, § 54, also owe their origin 
 to them. According to Aboth derabbi Nathan, c.i., it was they 
 who saved the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and The Song (§ 8), 
 etc. Some hints which are found in the works of rabbis of 
 the Middle Ages, such as David Kimchi, were emphatically 
 given expression to by Elias Levita, who died Α.Ὁ. 1549, in 
 the third preface to the Massoreth Hamassoreth (δ 31), as 
 meaning that the sacred writings, which had not previously 
 been bound up in one whole, were brought together by the 
 men of the great synagogue, and arranged in the three well- 
 known divisions. This hypothesis was taken up with great 
 enthusiasm, and found very general acceptance among Pro- 
 testant theologians, with whom it retained favour down to 
 the most recent times. It owes its prevalence during so long 
 a period almost wholly to the fact that it was just as difficult 
 to disprove as to prove the significance of the great synagogue 
 for the formation of the Old Testament Canon, so long as 
 the true character of that synagogue and the duration of its 
 activity still remained quite indefinite and indistinet. It was 
 only after the historical data scattered throughout the Tal- 
 mudical literature had been subjected to careful investigation, 
 and, above all, after the appearance of Kuenen’s masterly 
 treatise On the Men of the Great Synagogue, that light was 
 at last shed upon this question; but the result of these 
 researches has been once and for all to set aside the idea that 
 that assembly was of any importance for the forming of the 
 Old Testament Canon. “The Great Synagogue,” in which 
 even modern Jewish and Christian authors are still seeing a 
 great variety of things, is, according to the convincing evidence 
 led by Kuenen, nothing more than an idealisation of the great 
 popular assembly which Ezra and Nehemiah called together 
 
 “ 
 
§ 9. LATER THEORIES. 35 
 
 (Neh. viii.-x.), and which was certainly of great importance in 
 the way of introducing the canon of the Law as the basis of 
 the national life of the Jews (ὃ 3). The uncommon length 
 of the legislative period which has been assigned to this 
 “synagogue” in the Talmudical writings, namely, from Ezra 
 down to Alexander the Great, is a simple consequence of the 
 fact that this whole period was pressed together in Talmudical 
 reckoning into thirty-four years. Hence it cannot be supposed 
 that the idea was ever entertained of connecting the great 
 synagogue with what is properly regarded as the formation 
 of the prophetical canon (§ 4). 
 
 In conclusion, we must briefly call attention to the fact, 
 that what has been the dominant theory down even to recent 
 times, namely, the idea that the canon was formed by a single 
 act effected .at one particular period, has carried with it the 
 most artificial and most abstract explanations of the principle 
 of the tripartite division of the Old Testament. Even the 
 medizval Jews sought to establish various degrees of inspira- 
 tion, which Christian theologians partly modified and partly 
 blended with other no less unhistorical and unsatisfactory 
 theories. Specially, therefore, because it has carried with it 
 the abolition of all these false theories, the correct account of 
 the way in which the Old Testament collection of Scripture 
 was brought into its present state is to be regarded as a 
 veritable benefit. 
 
 Tertullian, De cultu feminarum, 1. 3: “Quemadmodum et 
 Hierosolymis Babylonia expugnatione deletis omne_ instru- 
 mentum Judaice literature per Esdram constat restauratum.” 
 Compare Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopadie*, vii, 415. 
 
 Josephus was led to fix upon the reign of Artaxerxes I. as 
 the limit of the age of the prophets, not by the Book of 
 Malachi (Keil, Hinleitung, ὃ 154, Eng. trans. ii. 137 ff.), 
 but by the Book of Esther, which he considered the last book 
 of the Bible, and whose vain he falsely identified with 
 
36 § 9. LATER THEORIES. 
 
 Artaxerxes Longimanus, With this whole theory the narra- 
 tive of the prophetic gifts of John Hyrcanus (Wars of the 
 Jews, 1. 2. 8) is certainly ποῦ ἴῃ accord. In a treatise 
 in MGWJ, 1886, p. 281 ff, Gratz has called attention 
 to the closely-related view set forth in Seder Olam. It is 
 said there (p. 90 in Meyer's edition of 1706), with reference 
 to the age of Alexander the Great, described prophetically in 
 the Book of Daniel: “ Down to this time, j~3 Ἵν», the prophets 
 have prophesied by the Holy Spirit ; from that time 7s) yo 
 have wrought only the wise.” With this agrees also Tosephta 
 Jadaim, ii. 18, p. 683: “ All books, which 559 NID, 1.6. after 
 the silencing of prophecy, do not defile the hands,” and the 
 passage jer. Sanh. 28a, which has been quoted above at § 2. 
 
 Kimchi speaks, in the introduction to his Commentary on 
 Chronicles (Sefer qehilat Mosche, iv. fol. 377a), of the division 
 of the post-exilian prophets in the arrangement of the sacred 
 writings. Ehas Levita (compare on him: Saat auf Hoffnung, 
 111., in the first and fourth numbers; ZDMG, xlii. p. 206 ff.) 
 says (The Massoreth Hamassoreth, ed. Ginsburg, p. 120): 
 “The twenty-four books were even then not gathered together ; 
 but Ezra and the men of the great synagogue collected them, 
 and divided them into three parts; and they arranged the 
 Prophets with Hagiographa, but otherwise there are teachers 
 in ὁ. Baba bathra 14.” 
 
 Hottinger, Thesaurus philol. 1. 2, quest, 1 (ed. 1696, 
 p. 111): “In concussum hactenus et tam apud Christianos, 
 quibus non pro cerebro fungus est, quam Judieos ἀναμφίσβητον 
 fuit principium, simul et semel Canonem V. Τὶ autoritate 
 prorsus divina constitutum esse ab Esdra et viris Synagogée 
 Maene. Similarly Carpzow, Jntroductio, i. ο. 2, §1,and Keil, 
 Hinleitung, ὃ 154, Eng. trans. ii. 137 ff. 
 
 On “the Great Synagogue,” see Morinus, Lxercitationes 
 biblice, p. 279 f.; Rau, Diatribe de synagoge magna, 1726; and 
 especially Kuenen in Verslagen en medadeelingen der Konink- 
 lijke Akademie van Wet. (Abt. Letterkunde), 2nd series, 6th part, 
 1877, p. 207 ff; Wildeboer, Het onstaan, p. 121 ff. ; Robert- 
 son Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, pp. 156 f., 
 408 ἢ, against Griitz (Koheleth, p. 155 f.), Geiger (Urschrift, 
 
a 
 
 § 9, LATER THEORIES. 37 
 
 p. 124), and Wright (Koheleth, 18835, pp. 6 ff, 475  ff.). 
 Kuenen proves that all the characteristic features which the 
 Talmudical writings attribute to the great synagogue have 
 been drawn from the narrative of Neh. vili—x. Of special im- 
 portance in connection with the earlier theory was the passage 
 in Pirke Aboth, 1. 2, according to which Simon the Just, whom 
 the Talmud makes contemporary, with Alexander the Great, but 
 who in reality lived at a yet later period, is said to have been 
 one of the last members of the great synagogue. But this 
 statement overlooked the fact that the period between the 
 rebuilding of the temple and the overthrow of the Persian 
 empire had been compressed, in the Talmudical record of it, 
 into the space of thirty-four years (ὦ. Aboda zara Ya, Seder 
 Olam, p. 91), so that to the Jews it seemed quite a probable 
 thing that one of the famous scribes of Alexander’s time 
 should also have been a member of the great assembly of Ezra. 
 How the Jews came to fix upon this period of thirty-four 
 years is not quite clear. Compare the various reckonings in 
 Gritz, MGWJ, 1886, p. 293 ff, and Loeb, RAJ, xix. 
 202 ff. 
 
 The medieval Jews sought to explain the threefold division 
 of the canon by the hypothesis of three different degrees οἱ 
 inspiration, So, for example, Maimonides, More Nebuchim, ii. 
 45; Kimchi, in the preface to his Commentary on the Psalms. 
 3ut the distinction proposed by them between ΠΣ nn and 
 wapn mn is one altogether foreign to the Old Testament. 
 Herm Witsius (Miscel. Sacr. libri iv. 1736, i. 12), whom 
 Hengstenberg (Beitrag ezur Hinleitung in d. A. 1. 1. 25 ff.) 
 follows, distinguishes between Munus propheticum and Donum 
 propheticum, in order to explain how Daniel came to be placed 
 among the Hagiographa. But this distinction is shattered 
 irretrievably over Amos vii. 14, where Amos repudiates the 
 idea that he is a possessor of the Munus propheticum. Compare 
 also the far less clear attempts to mark a distinction in Keil’s 
 Einleitung, ὃ 155, Eng. trans. ii. 149 f. How completely 
 foreign all such notions are to the spirit of antiquity is 
 strikingly seen from the theory of Josephus above referred to, 
 and from the Talmudical passages, where the authors of the 
 
 V 
 
38 § 10. THE ORDER OF THE BOOKS. 
 
 Hagiographa are spoken of as “prophets.” See, for example, 
 ὁ. Berachoth 13a, and above at ὃ 2. 
 
 10. In opposition to the Alexandrines (§ 12) the Pales- 
 tinians from the beginning held firmly by the tripartite division 
 of the Old Testament writings asa deduction from the history of 
 the origin of the canon. Within the range of these three parts, 
 on the other hand, there was originally no definite order of 
 succession for the several writings, excepting only in the case 
 of the Law and of the Prophete Priores, where naturally the 
 order of the books has been almost always the same. It 
 was only when the Old Testament writings began to be 
 ‘written out in one roll or in one volume that attention was 
 given to the order in succession of the books. But this first 
 occurred in the times after Christ. From the Talmud (0. 
 Baba bathra 13b) we learn that even in the first and second 
 centuries there still prevailed a doubt as to whether it were 
 allowable to write several books in one volume, and that this 
 custom came to be generally adopted only after it had obtained 
 rabbinical sanction about A.p. 200. The immediate conse- 
 quence of the practice of writing each book in a separate 
 volume was that in later times we meet with various arrange- 
 ments of the several books, especially in the confused and 
 indeterminate collection of the Hagiographa. 
 
 In the second part of the canon, as we have already re- 
 marked, the order of the historical books was at once fixed. 
 At the most, an alteration was made there only when the 
 Book of Ruth had a place given it after the Book of 
 Judges (§ 7). On the other hand, in the often quoted passage 
 of Baba bathra 14, we find Isaiah placed after Ezekiel; and we 
 meet with the same order again in several German and 
 French manuscripts, in the first edition of this Midrashic com- 
 pilation Yalkut shimoni, which is said to have been composed 
 in the thirteenth century, and in the enumeration list of the 
 Massoretic work Ochla weochla (§ 32). The motive of this trans- 
 
§ 10. THE ORDER OF THE BOOKS. 39 
 
 position is no longer apparent. Although many modern scholars 
 think that they see in it a proof that even then the Tannaites 
 had a correct conception of the partly exilic origin of the pro- 
 phecies ascribed to Isaiah, this is nevertheless extremely impro- 
 bable. In view of the passage Ben Sirach xlviii. 24 ἢ, where 
 Isa. xl. ff. is expressly attributed to the old Isaiah, such a 
 view cannot be styled an ancient tradition, especially when 
 we consider, what has already been said, that the prophetic 
 writings were not from the beginning written out in one 
 volume; and to think of an actual historical criticism during 
 the Talmudical period is to make altogether too great an 
 assumption. The most probable thing is, that the many points 
 of contact between Jeremiah and the last chapters of the Books 
 of Kings led to the placing of these writings in juxtaposition, 
 while Isaiah was placed in front of the twelve prophets, 
 because he was contemporary with Hosea (compare Isa. i. with 
 Hosea i.). With Jerome (§ 37), as well as with Origen, 
 Isaiah receives the first place in accordance with the chrono- 
 logical order, and this arrangement was subsequently followed 
 in the Spanish manuscripts, as also in the oldest manuscript 
 known to us, the Codex of the Prophets, described under § 32. 
 It is worthy of remark that the Twelve Minor Prophets, 
 which, even so early as in the first century after Christ, were 
 reckoned as one book, are arranged in the LXX. in an order 
 different from that of the Hebrew Bibles, namely, Hosea, 
 Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, 
 Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. 
 
 The order of the Hagiographa is, according to b. Baba bathra 
 1. 1: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song, 
 Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles. In this 
 case, also, we cannot accept the idea of some modern scholars 
 who would find in the position of the Book of Chronicles a 
 proof that this book had been received into the canon at a 
 later date than the Book of Ezra. Certainly in this we have 
 
40 ὃ 10. THE ORDER OF THE BOOKS. 
 
 assumptions made that have little to do with criticism. 
 
 / Jerome, on the other hand, certainly on chronological grounds, 
 
 gives the first place to Job; then follow Psalms, Proverbs, 
 Ecclesiastes, The Song, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, while 
 Ruth and Lamentations are included among the Prophets. 
 The arrangement given in Baba bathra, which, according to a 
 Massoretic work of A.D. 1207 (in the Tchufutkale collection), 
 seems to have been that of the Babylonian Jews, is at least 
 in part adopted in several manuscripts. Compare also the 
 order of succession in Ochla weochla Ny. 111, 112, 127. 
 The Massoretic work above referred to gives the following as 
 the Palestinian arrangement: Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Pro- 
 verbs, Ruth, The Song, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, 
 Daniel, Ezra. This order was the prevalent one among the 
 Massoretes, and is therefore to be met with in a variety of 
 Spanish manuscripts and others, even in a Bible of a.p. 1009. 
 In this arrangement the writings of Solomon are no longer 
 placed together, while the five Megilloth are, but not in the 
 order of the parts to which they belong (Passover—-The Song ; 
 the Feast of the Weeks or Pentecost—Ruth; the Destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem in the Month Ab—Lamentations; the 
 Feast of Tabernacles—Ecclesiastes ; and Purim—LHsther). 
 Only the German manuscripts, according to the statements of 
 Elias Levita, allowed their arrangement to be determined by 
 the succession of the parts, for they placed the five Megilloth 
 together in the midst of the Hagiographa, after Psalms, 
 Proverbs, and Job, and before Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles, 
 and this arrangement has finally became the prevalent one 
 in the printed editions. 
 
 Compare the solid and thorough work of Marx (Dalman), 
 Traditio rabbinorum veterrima de librorum Κ΄. T. ordine atque 
 origine, Leipsic 1844. Elias Levita, Massoreth hammasoreth, 
 ed. Ginsburg, p. 120 f., compare Bacher in ZDMG, xliii. 
 pp. 208, 286 ἢ; H. Hody, De Bibliorum textibus origin- 
 
§ 11. THE SAMARITAN CANON. 41 
 
 alibus 1705, pp. 644-664; Strack in ZLT7, 1875, p. 
 604 ἢ, and in Herzog’s Real-Hncyclopadie, vii. 441 f.; Joel 
 Miiller, Masseketh Soph*rim, p. 44 f. On the Prophets also, 
 Derenbourg in the Journal Asiat. 1870, xvi. 443 f. Quite 
 unsupported is the statement of Fiirst (Kanon, p. 15 ff.), that 
 the original text of Baba bathra gives: Isaiah 1., Jeremiah, 
 Ezekiel, Isaiah 1]. 
 
 Baba bathra 13b: Our teachers declared it permissible to 
 have the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa bound 
 together in one volume. So taught R. Meir (in the second 
 century), whereas R. Judah (ben 1141} maintained: the Law 
 by itself, the Prophets by themselves, the Hagiographa by 
 themselves. Some have even given the opinion that each 
 writing should be by itself. R. Judah reported: “ Boethus ben 
 Zonia had the eight books of the Prophets in one volume, 
 which Eleazar ben Azariah (in the end of the first century) 
 approved; yet others said that this was wrong.” Rabbi 
 (R. Judah, the editor of the Mishna) said: “There was 
 brought us one volume containing the Torah, the Prophets, and 
 the Hagiographa, and we sanctioned it.’ Compare jer. Meg. 
 3. 1, fol. 73d,.and Masseketh Soph‘*rim, p.v. Only separate rolls 
 were used for reading in the synagogues. Compare Esther, 
 b. Meg. 19a. The rolls were wrapped up in cloths and placed 
 in a case (ΝΡ, θήκη), and so were preserved in the book 
 chest of the Synagogue. Compare the remark of Tertullian 
 (De cultu feminarum, i. 3) about the book of Enoch, nee im 
 armarium judaicum admittitur. 
 
 11. The community of the Samaritans, who otherwise 
 imitated the Jews in all matters, had a canon differing from 
 that of the Palestinian Jews. The sacred writings of the 
 Samaritans consisted only of the five books of the Law, 
 wanting all the prophetic writings and all accounts of the 
 fortunes of the Israelites in post-Mosaic times. On the 
 other hand, they possessed outside of the canon an inde- 
 pendent reproduction of the Book of Joshua, which formed the 
 beginning of a chronicle which was carried down to the period 
 
42 δ 11. ΤΠῈ SAMARITAN CANON. 
 
 of the Roman empire. Evidently it was the often violently 
 denunciatory expressions against the Ephraimites in the his- 
 torical and prophetical writings that deterred the Samaritans 
 from receiving the two last divisions of the Jewish Canon. 
 But the whole phenomenon is explicable only on the sup- 
 position that the Law at the time of its adoption by the 
 Samaritans was, even among the Jews, the only sacred writing, 
 and no mere third part of an indissoluble whole. Had the 
 Jewish Canon, as has been often subsequently maintained, 
 owed its origin to a sudden single act, the authorising on the 
 part of the Samaritans of a single division of it can scarcely - 
 be explained, whereas one can easily understand that they did 
 not feel obliged to adopt writings subsequently pronounced 
 canonical and in part anti-Ephraimitic. Unfortunately we 
 possess no tradition of the time at which the Samaritans 
 received the Law. Still it can scarcely be doubted by those 
 who assume no essential recasting of the Pentateuch in the 
 times after Ezra, that this adoption of the aw had already 
 taken place before the institution of the Samaritan community 
 and of the worship on Gerizim. Josephus indeed gives an 
 account of this occurrence (Antiquities, xi. 7.2; 8. 2-4), 
 but evidently his chronology is at fault. Partly on internal 
 grounds, partly by a comparison with Neh. xiii. 28, it can be 
 clearly shown that the period fixed upon by him, the age of 
 Alexander the Great, is too late by about a hundred years, for 
 the occurrence referred must have taken place shortly after 
 the time of Nehemiah’s activity. 
 
 The idea entertained by certain Church fathers, such as 
 Tertullian, Origen, and Jerome, that the Sadducees had to do 
 with the forming of the canon of the Samaritans, certainly 
 rests upon a misunderstanding. The erroneousness of this 
 statement, as well as of that of later writers which substitutes 
 the Karaites for the Sadducees, has been made evident by the 
 clearer information obtained in recent times about the origin 
 
§ 12, POSITION OF ALEXANDRINES ON THE CANON, 45 
 and history of the sect of the Sadducees.—The relation of the 
 Essenes to the canon is not so clear. Notwithstanding their 
 great reverence for the Law, which was read every Sabbath in 
 their assemblies (Philo, ed. Mangey, ii. 458), they still had, 
 according to Josephus (Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 7), their own 
 special writings, which they preserved with no little care. All 
 recent attempts to discover these writings among the apocry- 
 phal books known to us have, up to the present time, proved 
 unsuccessful. 
 
 On the Samaritan Canon compare Kuenen, Onderzoek, iil. 
 430; Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 106 ἢ; MGWJ, 1886, 
 p, 294 f. In general: Kautzsch in Herzog’s Leal-Eneyclo- 
 pedie, xii. 540 ff. 
 
 Juynboll, Chronicon Samaritanum arabice conscriptum, 
 Leyden 1848 (not to be confounded with the Abulfathi annales 
 Samaritani edited by Vilmar, 1865. Compare Heidenheim’s 
 Deutsche Vierteljahrschrift, 11. 1863, pp. 304 ff, 432 ff). 
 
 On the Sadducees compare Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 
 122 f.; Geiger, Urschrift, p.113 ἢ Onthe Essenes, especially 
 Schiirer, Geschichte des jiid. Volkes, ii. 467 ff, Eng. trans. 
 Div. ii. vol. ii. 188-218. 
 
 £B.—THE COLLECTION OF SCRIPTURES AMONG THE 
 ALEXANDRINE JEWS. 
 
 12. It is not very easy to form a clear conception of the 
 position which the Alexandrine and, along with them, the 
 Hellenistic Jews generally occupied in relation to the question 
 of the canon. It might seem, upon a superficial consideration, 
 as if the few direct witnesses with regard to this matter, which 
 are still at our command, prove that the Alexandrine Jews 
 had the same canon as the Jews in their native land. Philo, 
 indeed, according to Hornemann’s investigations, quotes from, 
 and allegorises upon, only the canonical writings (compare § 6), 
 although he betrays acquaintance also with certain apocryphal 
 writings ; while Josephus, who, as a Jew writing in Greek 
 
44 § 12. POSITION OF ALEXANDRINES ON THE CANON. 
 
 and using the LXX. may be here taken into account, sets forth, 
 in the above quoted passage (§ 7), the complete Palestinian 
 doctrine of the canon. But, nevertheless, it is found, upon . 
 more careful examination, that we are here in an entirely 
 different world. Philo’s quotations are in almost every 
 instance from the Law, and accordingly afford no certain 
 evidence upon the question of the canon; and yet more 
 decisive is this other fact, that he has a wholly different theory 
 of inspiration from that which Hes at the basis of the con- 
 struction of the Palestinian Canon. According to Philo, 
 inspiration was not confined to any one particular period. 
 In his view, not only the Greek translators of the Law, but, 
 still more, all truly wise and virtuous men, are inspired 
 and capacitated by the Spirit of God for expressing what is 
 hidden from the common gaze (De Cherub. ὃ 9, p. 112 Ὁ; De 
 migratione Abrah. § 7, p. 393 C). This theory, which we meet 
 with also partly in Ben Sirach (§ 5), and which Philo appar- 
 ently shared with other Alexandrine-Jewish thinkers, must 
 necessarily have contributed to smooth down the sharp 
 boundaries between “canonical” and “non-canonical.” With 
 regard to Josephus, his position on this question is not so 
 plain. As a historical writer, he emphasises particularly 
 the “credibility ” of the canonical books (see § 7), but this 
 naturally does not prevent him from making use of other 
 sources for the history of post-biblical times, among these an 
 “apocryphal” book, the First Book of Maccabees. It is 
 worthy of remark, on the other hand, that even within the 
 limits of the biblical period he unhesitatingly uses the addi- 
 tions to the Books of Ezra and Esther, which are found only 
 in the LXX. (Antiquities, xi. 1-5 and 6). And that the 
 stricter theory of the canon continues to be for him a mere 
 theory is shown by this, that he carries down the Jewish 
 history into the age following that of Artaxerxes I. (see p. 35), 
 without a single word calling attention to the fact that his 
 
§ 12. POSITION OF ALEXANDRINES ON THE CANON, 45 
 
 narrative now rests upon less credible authorities than before : 
 while at the close of his Antiquities (xx. 11. 2), which treats 
 of the ages between the creation and the twelfth year of Nero, 
 he refers only to the ἱεραὶ βίβλοι as his authorities, without 
 indicating the relationship between them and the other 
 authoritative writings. With a genuine Palestinian all this 
 would have been scarcely possible. 
 
 Is is only in an indirect way that we reach the conclusive 
 proof of the fact that the Alexandrine Jews did not concern 
 themselves about the strict Palestinian doctrine of the canon. 
 Although we know the Alexandrine translation of the Bible 
 only in the form in which it has been used by Christians, it 
 scarcely admits of doubt that this form was virtually in 
 accordance with that current among the Alexandrine Jews, 
 seeing that the Christians would certainly not have introduced 
 a canon which had been wholly rejected by the Jews who had 
 intercourse with them. Naturally, however, this does not 
 prevent our regarding it as possible that the Christians may 
 occasionally have enlarged the Jewish collection by the 
 adoption of particular books (see further p. 54). The Greek 
 translation of the Bible among the Christians differs in two 
 very important points from the Palestinian Bible. In the 
 first place, the threefold division is given up, so that the 
 distinction between prophetic writings and the Hagiographa is 
 abolished ; and secondly, we find among the books regarded, 
 according to the Palestinian rule, as canonical, other books 
 which the Jews, resident in their native land, permitted only 
 as profane literature (ὃ 2), or distinctly rejected. This is a 
 practice which evidently resulted from the influence of the 
 Alexandrine theory of inspiration, and absolutely prevented 
 the adoption of the principle by which the Palestinian Canon 
 was determined. 
 
 From the beginning of the second Christian century, the 
 Palestinian Canon won authority among the Alexandrine Jews. 
 
46 § 12. POSITION OF ALEXANDRINES ON THE CANON. 
 
 For proof of this we may point, on the one hand, to the 
 adoption of the translation of Aquila by the Greek Jews; and, 
 on the other hand, to the statements of Origen quoted above 
 in § 7 with regard to the canon of the Jews. 
 
 On Philo compare the work of Hornemann referred to in 
 δ 6, and W. Pick in the Journal of the Society of Biblical 
 Literature and Exegesis, 1884, pp. 126-143. 
 
 On Josephus compare Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 41 ff. ; 
 Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, 1879, pp. 69-79; 
 Schiirer, Geschichte des jiid. Volkes, ii. 713-715, Eng. trans. 
 Div. ii. vol. iii. 179, 182. On his use of the original text 
 and of the LXX.: Scharfenberg, De Josephi et versionis 
 Alerandrine consensu, 1870; Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius 
 Josephus, pp. 8-22; Siegfried in ZA W, i. 32 ἢ. 
 
 How the Palestinians rejected the apocryphal writings, but 
 still permitted the reading of certain post-biblical works, such 
 as the Book of Ben Sirach, is told in ὃ 2. Quotations from 
 Ben Sirach, sometimes of a remarkable kind, are given in the 
 Babylonian Talmud with the solemn introductory formule, eg. 
 Erubin 65a (Rab. ο. 165-247 a.p., compare Sirach vii. 10), 
 Baba Kamma (Rabba ὁ. 270-330 A.D., compare Sirach xiii. 
 15, xxvii. 9), and, in addition, Bereshith r. c. 91, where Simon 
 ben Shetach (§ 6) quoted a passage from Ben Sirach with 
 yn>2. That in Rabba’s time Ben Sirach should actually have 
 been regarded by some as canonical is very improbable, since 
 no controversies on this point are reported. We should 
 rather suppose that here we have simply errors of memory, 
 which might easily have resulted from the Hebrew language 
 and the Old Testament colouring of the book. Compare 
 Strack in Herzog’s Real - Encyclopedic”, vu. 430; Wright, 
 Ecclesiastes, p. 47 f.; Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 85; and on the 
 other side, Cheyne, Job and Solomon, Ὁ. 282 f. In the 
 Babylonian Talmud (Sank. 1000), on the contrary, R. Joseph 
 plainly forbids the reading of Ben Sirach (p25 1px). Jerome, 
 in his preface to his translation of Daniel, shows, in an 
 interesting way, how the Jews of his time abused and 
 criticised the apocryphal works used by the Christians. 
 
§ 13, SACRED LITERATURE OF THE ALEXANDRINES. 47 
 
 On the views entertained with regard to the Apocrypha 
 among the Jews of modern times, compare Geiger, Nach- 
 gelassene Schriften, 11. 338. 
 
 13. The writings which in this way secured an entrance 
 into the Bible of the Alexandrine Jews afford us a glimpse 
 into an extensive and varied literature. It is not easy to 
 determine the limits of this literature, since the Septuagint 
 manuscripts used by the Christians vary greatly in their 
 extent, containing sometimes more, sometimes fewer writings, 
 canonical as well as non-canonical. For example, even the 
 sixth book of Josephus’ Wars of the Jews is to be found in a 
 Syrian Bible manuscript (see further § 16). We cannot 
 therefore speak of a “ canon” of the Alexandrines in the strict 
 sense of the word It may, however, be readily understood 
 that the contents of such writings are religious, and must 
 stand in connection with the history of the Old Covenant. 
 Besides, it was also necessary that their authors, who in many 
 cases wrote under feigned names, should be represented as 
 Israelites or men of the primitive ages of biblical history. 
 Books, therefore, like the Epistle of Aristeas, referred to in 
 δ 58, the Jewish Sibyllines, Phocylides, and similar works under 
 heathen masks, were excluded, Further, only writings whose 
 contents were of an original character could be taken into 
 consideration, not poetic or scientific reproductions of biblical 
 history, like the Epic of Philo the Elder, Ezekiel’s drama 
 “ The Exodus,” or the historical works of Demetrius, Eupole- 
 mus, Artapanus, and Josephus. Finally, the inclusion among 
 the sacred books of the voluminous productions of a modern 
 author, like Philo, would naturally never be thought of. What 
 remains, after these eliminations have been made, consists 
 partly of Palestinian translations of books written in the 
 Hebrew language, e.g. the First Book of Maccabees, Ben Sirach, 
 partly of original Greek works of Hellenistic Jews, eg. the 
 Wisdom of Solomon. Of several writings we now know only 
 
48 § 13. SACRED LITERATURE OF THE ALEXANDRINES. 
 
 the titles. Of the extant writings some are of a philosophical 
 character: Ben Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon ; others of a 
 poetical character: the Psalms of Solomon; others contain 
 historical tales, especially legends, which, however, are often 
 only the investiture of religious-moral teachings: the three 
 Books of Maccabees, Tobit and Judith, the Jewish sections of 
 the Ascensio Isaiw ; others are of a prophetical character: 
 the Book of Enoch, the Assumptio Mosis, the Fourth Book 
 of Ezra, the Book of Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, the 
 Apocalypse of Baruch. On account of its special form, a 
 revelation of Moses on Mount Sinai by the Angel of the 
 Presence, the so-called Book of Jubilees (ἡ λεπτὴ Γένεσις), has 
 also been received into this literature, although it is properly 
 only a free Haggadic rendering of Genesis. In addition to 
 these there has to be mentioned finally a series of appendices 
 to various canonical writings, which were read with peculiar 
 enjoyment, and were therefore surrounded with the variegated 
 embellishments of popular legend. The books thus added to 
 were those of Esther and Daniel, while also Chronicles had 
 attached to it the Prayer of Manasseh. Ezra also had such 
 an uncanonical addition joined to it, which, however, we no 
 longer possess by itself, but as part of a very free reproduction 
 of the Book of Ezra translated into Greek. 
 
 Sketches of the literature of the writings here referred to are 
 given by Strack, Hinleitung im A. T. in Zockler’s Handbuch 
 der Theolog. Waussenschaften, 1.3; by Dillmann in Herzog’s 
 Real-Encyclopedie*, xii. 341 ff. ; and especially in Schiirer’s 
 Geschichte des jiid. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 11. 575-830, 
 Eng. trans. Div. ii. vol. iii. 1-270. 
 
 In regard to the additions made to the biblical books, it is 
 most particularly to be observed that there is no ground for 
 supposing that the additions to Ezra, Esther, and Daniel are 
 translations from Hebrew originals ; Schiirer, Geschichte des jiid. 
 Volkes, it. 115,.. 715, 717, Ene, trans) Din Goan. 
 179, 182, 184. This circumstance makes the hypothesis 
 
 a 
 a ae 
 
§ 13. SACRED LITERATURE OF THE ALEXANDRINES., 49 
 
 suggested by Ewald and adopted by Wellhausen (Prolegomena, 
 1883, 237), that the Prayer of Manasseh is derived from 
 the Hebrew “History of the Kings of Israel” (2 Chron. 
 xxxill. 18 ff), extremely insecure. A free development of 
 the hint thrown out by the Chronicler was what would very 
 readily occur to writers of a later age. 
 
 The Fourth Book of Ezra speaks indeed of seventy writings 
 besides the twenty-four canonical books (ὃ 7); but among 
 these are included only mystical apocalypses, like that book 
 itself. 
 
Le 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE 
 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 
 
 14. The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament 
 writings is, when most profoundly considered, a further 
 development of the Scripture proof which Christ Himself 
 pointed out in Luke xxiv. 44: ὅτε δεῖ πληρωθῆναι πάντα τὰ 
 γεγραμμένα ἐν TO νόμῳ Μωυσέως καὶ προφήταις καὶ ψαλμοῖς 
 περὶ ἐμοῦ. And just as in this passage the reference is only 
 to the proper Jewish Canon with its three divisions (ὃ 6), so 
 also the New Testament writers draw all their proofs of the 
 fact that Jesus is the Christ and that the age introduced by 
 Him was the Messianic age of promise, from the writings 
 acknowledged as canonical by the Palestinian Jews. If one 
 considers how little the New Testament otherwise holds itself 
 apart from the intellectual life of the Hellenistic Jews,—of 
 which the free and universal use of the Alexandrine transla- 
 tion in the books of the New Testament is only one single 
 conspicuous example,—he must necessarily attribute a great 
 importance to this restriction of the books used for proof in 
 the New Testament, and ought not to cast it to one side as an 
 insignificant “argumentum e silentio.” But this naturally 
 does not at all prevent us from admitting, that there are to be 
 found elsewhere in the New Testament more or less im- 
 portant traces of such non-canonical writings as were in 
 circulation and were used among the Hellenistic Jews, the 
 reading of which was also in part permitted even by the 
 
 50 
 
 ἦν 
 EE ΎΎΎΥ ὙὙΨ 0». 
 
§ 14. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 51 
 
 Palestinians (ὃ 2). In the first rank among these stands the 
 quotation from the Book of Enoch introduced in the Epistle of 
 Jude (v. 14) with ἐπροφήτευσεν. Alongside of it comes the 
 ninth verse in this same epistle, which is not to be found 
 indeed among the remnants as yet known of the Assumptio 
 Mosis, but is said, upon the distinct testimony of Origen 
 (De Principtis, 111, 2. 1), to have formed a part of that work. 
 There is no reason for doubting that Hebrews xi. 35 f. is 
 founded upon the narratives of 2 Maccabees vi. f. On the 
 other hand, we cannot decidedly say whether Hebrews xi. 37 
 refers to an apocryphal book on the sawing asunder of Isaiah, 
 and 2 Tim. ui. 8 to the writing Jannes et Jambres liber 
 mentioned by Origen (de la Rue, 111. 916), or whether both 
 passages rest simply upon oral traditions. Of the remin- 
 iscences in the New Testament of Ben Sirach and the Wisdom 
 of Solomon, which have been tracked out with great zeal, 
 some are rather striking. Compare, e.g., James i. 19 with 
 Sirach v.11. But others are of a very doubtful character. 
 No quotations in the proper sense are to be met with here. 
 On the other hand, this would have been the ease if the 
 quotation 1 Cor. ii. 9, as Origen (de la Rue, iii. 916) affirms, 
 had been derived from an Apocalypse of Elias; but our 
 complete ignorance of this writing prevents us from coming 
 to any definite conclusion, Similarly Epiphanius (Dindorf, 
 ii. 388) reports, and, in a fashion different from him, also 
 Euthalius (Gallandi, Bibl. Patr. x. 260), with reference to the 
 passage Eph. v. 14. It still remains doubtful what we are to 
 think of Luke xi. 49; Jas. iv. 5 f.; John vii. 38. On the 
 other hand, those are certainly wrong who, on the ground of 
 a statement of Jerome on Matt. xxvii. 9 (“legi nuper in 
 quodam Hebraico volumine, quod Nazarene secte mihi 
 Hebreeus obtulit, Jeremiz apocryphum, in quo hee ad verbum 
 scripta reperi”), conjecture that the evangelist had derived 
 his quotation ascribed to Jeremiah from this Apocalypse. 
 
52 §15. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON AMONG THE SYRIANS. 
 
 Without any doubt Matthew intends here as usual to give a 
 canonical quotation, while the Apocalypse referred to may 
 have been of Christian origin. 
 
 The actually existing references to non-canonical writings, 
 in connection with the circumstance that we never find in the 
 New Testament a direct prohibition against the use of such 
 books, even for Messianic proofs, in the succeeding age, 
 inevitably resulted in leading many communities where 
 Hellenistic culture prevailed, to follow unreservedly the 
 Alexandrine treatment of Scripture. When the Palestinian 
 principles of the canon had become generally prevalent among 
 ‘the Jews (ὃ 12), there arose of necessity differences on this 
 point between the Christians and the Jews. In connection 
 with this, even among Christians themselves, divergent 
 customs prevailed, according as they gave a preference to the 
 ecclesiastical or to the Jewish practice, and traces of this 
 divergence are to be found even in the most recent times. 
 How the details were thereby shaped and fashioned will appear 
 from the following brief outline. 
 
 Compare among the writings mentioned in § 21, especially 
 Bleek in TSK, 1853, p. 325 ff. Also Werner in the Theol. 
 Quartalschrift, 1872, p. 265 ff.; Boon, De Jacobi epistola cum 
 Siracide libro convenientia, 1860; Grimm, Das Buch der 
 Weisheit, Ὁ. 35 f.; Fritzsche, Die Weishert Jesus Sirach’s 
 Xxxvlii.; Schiirer, Geschichte des giid. Volkes, ἘΠῚ 596, 628, 
 674f, 636, 676, 685, 690, 741, 758, Eng. trans. Div. ii. 
 vol. 11, 23, 55, 69, 109, 144, 150, 214, 234; Wildeboer, 
 Het ontstaan p. 45; Wright, The Book of Koheleth, p. 49. 
 On Eph. v. 14 compare also JPT, 1880, p. 192. 
 
 15. Among the Syrian Christians we find a practical agree- 
 ment with the canon of the Palestinians, with some very 
 remarkable divergences. The agreement is seen in this, that 
 by both the apocryphal writings are excluded. In the Syrian 
 translation of the Bible they were not to be found in the 
 
§ 15. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON AMONG THE SYRIANS. 53 
 
 earliest times. Aphraates, abbot-bishop of St. Matthew’s 
 cloister, near Mosul, about the middle of the fourth century, 
 who quotes passages from all the canonical writings, with the 
 single exception, which seems quite accidental, of The Song, 
 makes no quotation from the Apocrypha, although he knew 
 some of them; and Ephrem, who was likewise acquainted 
 with several apocryphal writings, does not make them the 
 subject of his exposition. On the other hand, the Syrians 
 diverge from the Palestinian Canon by setting aside some of 
 the writings that had been received into it. In the Syrian 
 translation of the Bible the Book of Chronicles was originally 
 wanting, and the Jewish Syrian Targum on that book, which 
 had been subsequently adopted (§ 71), did not by any means 
 receive general acceptance. It is indeed quoted by 
 Aphraates, but Ephrem does not comment upon it. In later 
 times the teachers of the Syrian Church went even further, 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia not only omitted the Book of 
 Chronicles, but also Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, and Job; and in the 
 eanon of the Nestorians, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 
 Esther are wanting, while Job is received. On the other 
 hand, the Nestorians, in a remarkable way, acknowledged Ben 
 Sirach and the apocryphal additions to Daniel as canonical. 
 Several of the Monophysites also adopted this canon, yet, as 
 a rule, with the addition of the Book of Esther. Even 
 Barhebreeus, in his grammatical and exegetical works, takes no 
 account of the Book of Chronicles, 
 
 In so far as the Book of Esther is wanting in those lists, 
 we are reminded of the criticism which, even among the Jews, 
 had been directed against that book (§ 8). On the other 
 hand, we have, as has been already remarked, no certain proof 
 that the Palestinians had declared themselves against the 
 Book of Chronicles, least of all against Ezra or Job. If, 
 then, this Syrian criticism of the canon, with its recognition 
 of the Book of Ben Sirach and of the additions to Daniel, is 
 
54 $16. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHURCH. 
 
 actually an outcome of Jewish influence, that influence is to 
 be sought only among Syrian Jews, who in this particular 
 must have gone their own way; but it is much more probable 
 that they were Syrian Christians, who acted on their own 
 responsibility under the influence of subjective principles, as 
 these indeed appear in other connections in Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia. | 
 
 Those Syrians who attached themselves to the Greek 
 Church received, as was to be expected, those apocryphal 
 writings into their translations, in the manuscript of which 
 they are to be met with in larger or smaller numbers 
 (§ 16). 
 
 Compare v. Lengerke, De Ephremi Syri arte hermeneutiea, 
 1831 ; Eichhorn, Finleitung, 111. Ὁ. 255 ; Noldeke, Die Alitesta- 
 mentliche Litteratur, Ὁ. 263; G. G.A. 1868, p. 1826; ZDMG, 
 kxxu. p.oof; xxxv. p 496; Frankel in Ὁ... ΠΟ pane 
 Nestle in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedie?, xv. p. 196. The 
 references to the Apocrypha in Aphraates are found in the 
 Homilies edited by Wright, pp. 66, 252, 4538. Compare on 
 other points, Bert, Aphrahats des persischen Weisen Homialien. 
 
 Aus dem Syrischen iibersetzt, 1888 (and a review of it in 
 Theol. Intt. Zeit. 1889, p. 77 ff). 
 
 16. The Greek Church, and the communities dependent 
 upon it, such as the Ethiopians, the Latins, a part of the 
 Syrians (§ 15), etc, were conspicuously influenced by the 
 practice of the Alexandrine Jews in reference to Scripture. 
 We accordingly meet in Justin, Clement of Rome, Ireneus, 
 Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, etc., not only with frequent 
 allusions to writings which had been excluded from the 
 Palestinian Canon, but also formal and deliberately made 
 quotations from many of the literary works mentioned in 
 § 15. How far these books are to be regarded as all belong- 
 ing to the Bibles already in use among the Alexandrine Jews 
 is, as we have already remarked in § 12, uncertain. It is 
 
§ 16. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHURCH. 55 
 
 highly probable that the attempt to introduce such books as 
 the Book of Enoch, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, the Apocalypse 
 of Ezra, the Book of Jubilees, etc., into the proper collection 
 of Scripture, was first made by the Christians, although even 
 here the flexibility and indefiniteness of the Jewish Alex- 
 andrine method of dealing with Scripture does not allow us to 
 come to any very decided conclusion. At any rate, there 
 arose within the Greek Church an opposition against those 
 books, which in the most emphatic way points to this, that 
 they had not been received by the Jews, and that, in the 
 Christian Churches, they had not obtained such general 
 acceptance as, eg. Jesus Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, ete. 
 Since then the Palestinians also considered these books to 
 be non-canonical, such a separation will help us to mark out 
 a certain boundary or outside limit of books in use among the 
 Greek Jews. In this way among the Greeks the writings 
 referred to were banished from Church use, and the result of 
 this has been that for several of them we possess no Greek 
 texts. On the other hand, some of them were preserved among 
 other National Churches dependent on the Greeks, such as 
 the Syrian, and, above all, the Ethiopian, which went furthest 
 in this direction. A picture of this development is afforded 
 by the various Bible manuscripts, which may be here illus- 
 trated by two examples. The Vatican Septuagint Codex 
 embraces, besides the canonical books: the Greek Ezra, the 
 Book of Wisdom, Ben Sirach, additions to the Book of Esther, 
 Judith, Tobit, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, additions to 
 Daniel. In the Codex Alexandrinus we have all the books 
 here named, and in addition, 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer 
 of Manasseh ; and at the same time, too, the list of contents 
 at the beginning of the manuscript show that it contained 
 originally the Psalms of Solomon, yet only as an appendix 
 affixed to the New Testament. On the other hand, the great 
 Milan Peschito manuscript, of which an account is given in 
 
56 8106, THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHURCH. 
 
 § 72 contains, besides the usual Apocrypha (of which, how- 
 ever, the Greek Ezra, Tobit, and the Prayer of Manasseh are 
 wanting): the Apocalypse of Baruch and the Apocalypse of 
 Ezra, and even in addition to these, the sixth book of Josephus’ 
 Wars of the Jews. Of the old Latin translations of the 
 Apocalypse of Ezra, the Assumptio Mosis, the Martyrdom of 
 Isaiah, and the Book of Jubilees, larger or smaller remnants are 
 still extant, which circumstance proves that these books were 
 read for a long time among the Latins, although officially they 
 were attached to the Greek practice. But it is ina very special 
 degree owing to the complete unsusceptibility of the Ethiopians 
 to any influence of criticism that several of these works are 
 even yet extant. To the Ethiopian translation of the Bible 
 belonged the Apocalypse of Ezra, the Book of Enoch, the 
 Martyrdom of Isaiah, and the Book of Jubilees, from which 
 during the present century the texts have been recovered and 
 edited. 
 
 The technical expressions for the books excluded from 
 church use were: ἀπόκρυφος, secretus, non manifestus, in 
 opposition to φανερός, κοινός, manifestus, vulgatus. Without 
 doubt these expressions were borrowed from the synagogue, 
 where they had been used, however, with a somewhat different 
 application. While among the Jews (δ 2) the term 123 was 
 used of books, properly copies, which had been banished from 
 official (synagogical) use ; “ apocryphal,’ among the Greek and 
 Latin fathers, signified such books as were not actually found 
 in the clear daylight of universal ecclesiastical use, and which 
 the particular community therefore could not introduce as 
 ecclesiastical books. Out of this idea there was readily 
 developed the idea of the heretical, the forged and ungenuine, 
 which is often the prominent one when the Apocrypha is 
 spoken of by the fathers. 
 
 On the quotations in the fathers from the writings rejected 
 by the Palestinian Jews, compare among others Scholz, 
 
§ 17. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHURCH, 57 
 
 Einleitung in die heiligen Schriften des A. und N, T. 1. 
 232 f.; Schiirer, Geschichte des jiid. Volkes, ii. 582—768, 
 Eng. trans. Div. ii. vol. 111, 9-219. Scholz (p. 220 ff.) 
 gives also a sketch of the relations of the various manuscripts 
 to the Apocrypha. 
 
 On the Ethiopians, compare Dillmann, “ Der Umfang des 
 Bibelkanons der abyss. Kirche,” in Ewald’s Jahrb. der bibl. 
 Wissenschaft, v. 1853, p. 144 f£., and Herzog’s Real-Encyclo- 
 peedie, i. 205. On the range of the biblical canon among 
 the Armenians, Georgians, etc., see Scholz, Hinleitung, 1. 
 259. 
 
 On the use of the word “apocryphal,” see especially 
 Zahn, Geschichte d. Neutestamentlichen Kanons, i. 126-150, 
 where attention is rightly called to the fact that the ideas 
 heretical, pernicious, false, etc., are in the first instance 
 secondary. ‘Thus it is quite simply explained how Origen, 
 who at onetime writes (Contra Cels. v. 54): ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις 
 ov πάνυ φέρεται ws θεῖα τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα τοῦ ᾿Ενὼχ βιβλία, 
 and at another time (de la Rue, ii. 384), “libelli isti non 
 videntur apud Hebreos in auctoritate haberi,”’ yet also him- 
 self quotes the Book of Enoch, eg. De Principiis, iv. 35 
 (de la Rue, i. 153): “sed in libro suo Enoch ita ait,” ete. 
 
 Various lists of the writings designated apocryphal are 
 given by Credner, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, pp. 117 ff, 145 ; 
 Schiirer, Geschichte des jiid. Volkes, ii. 670 ἢ, Eng. trans. 
 - Div ii. vol. 111, 125. 
 
 17. After the Palestinian idea of the canon had, during 
 the course of the first Christian century, become the dominant 
 one among all Jews, they were obliged to attack with special 
 rigour the use of non-canonical writings on the part of the 
 Christians, and often a Christian was brought into a dilemma 
 when the Jews in religious controversies simply repudiated 
 all proof passages taken from such writings, although among 
 the Christians they had possessed quite the same validity as 
 the other sacred books. In order to overcome this difficulty, 
 several of the fathers sought to spread among their fellow- 
 
58 §17. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHURCH. 
 
 believers more exact information about the extent of the 
 Jewish Canon. Such service was rendered by Melito and 
 Origen, whose important explanations on this point have been 
 mentioned above in § 7. Yet in doing this they had in view 
 a purely practical end, and they had not indeed the least 
 thought of suggesting that the Christians should submit 
 generally to the Jewish notions about the canon, and give up 
 the use in their churches of those non-canonical writings 
 which had obtained a footing among the Christian communi- 
 ties. Hence Origen himself not only used such books in his 
 works, but expressly vindicates them in his letter to Africanus, 
 for he urges that the practice of the Church in regard to 
 Scripture had been developed under the providence of God, 
 whereas the antipathy of the Jews to these writings had 
 been called forth by their hatred of the Christians and by 
 their fear lest through these books the Christian faith might 
 be strengthened. 
 
 The Greek fathers of the fourth century unhesitatingly 
 assume the same standpoint, while at the same time they 
 somewhat more decidedly acknowledge the pre-eminence of 
 the writings that are canonical according to the Jewish 
 practice. Athanasius, in A.D. 365, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril 
 of Jerusalem, and Amphilochius, without expressly naming 
 the Jews as their authorities, give lists of the canonical 
 writings, which are identical with those acknowledged by the 
 Palestinians, although with this significant difference, that the 
 two first-named fathers omit the Book of Esther, while 
 Amphilochius refers to it as received only by some (compare 
 § 7). On the other hand, in Athanasius and in the 59th 
 Canon of the Synod of Phrygian and Lydian bishops at 
 Laodicea, between A.D. 343 and A.D. 381, we meet with 
 express pronouncements against the use of non-canonical or 
 apocryphal books as injurious to the purity of doctrine. 
 Meanwhile, among those apocrypha the writings authorised by 
 
§ 17. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHURCH. 59 
 
 the practice of the churches were generally not included. 
 They formed an intermediate class between the canonical and 
 the apocryphal writings as books, the use of which for reading 
 in the churches was permitted (ἀναγινωσκόμενα). To this 
 class belonged, according to Athanasius, besides the Book of 
 Esther: the Wisdom of Solomon, Jesus Sirach, Judith, Tobit. 
 Hence even among those same fathers who have given us the 
 lists of canonical books referred to, we not rarely meet with 
 quotations from those books allowed to be read; and a 
 consequence of this way of viewing the matter is, that we 
 have those “reading books” in the oldest Greek Bible 
 manuscripts (ἢ 16). 
 
 Compare the Letter of Origen to Africanus in his Opera, 
 ed. de la Rue, i. 12 ff. 
 
 Athanasius, Lpistola festalis of the year 365 (Opera, ed. 
 Colin. ii. 1686, p. 38 ff): ᾿Επειδήπερ τινὲς ἐπεχείρησαν 
 ἀνατάξασθαι ἑαυτοῖς τὰ λεγόμενα ἀπόκρυφα καὶ ἐπιμίξαι 
 ταῦτα τῇ θεοπνεύστῃ γραφῇ, περὶ ἧς ἐπληροφορήθημεν, καθὼς 
 παρέδοσαν τοῖς πατράσιν οἱ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται 
 γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου" ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ προτραπέντι παρὰ γνησίων 
 ἀδελφῶν καὶ μαθόντι ἄνωθεν, ἑξῆς ἐκθέσθαι τὰ κανονιζόμενα 
 καὶ παραδοθέντα, πιστευθέντα τε θεῖα εἶναι βιβλία, ἵνα 
 ἕκαστος, εἰ μὲν ἠπατήθη, καταγνῷ τῶν πλανησάντων, ὁ δὲ 
 καθαρὸς διαμείνας χαίρῃ πάλιν ὑπομιμνησκόμενος 
 (There follows an enumeration of the twenty-two books, 
 without Esther, but with Ruth separately named.) ᾿Αλλ’ 
 ἕνεκά γε πλείονος ἀκριβείας προστίθημι Kai τοῦτο γράφων 
 ἀναγκαΐως, ὡς ὅτι ἐστὶ καὶ ἕτερα βιβλία τούτων ἔξωθεν, οὐ 
 κανονιζόμενα μὲν, τετυπωμένα δὲ παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ἀναγι- 
 νώσκεσθαι τοῖς ἄρτι προσερχομένοις καὶ βουλομένοις κατη- 
 χεῖσθαι τὸν τὴς εὐσεβείας λόγον᾽ σοφία Σολομῶντος καὶ 
 σοφία Σιρὰχ, καὶ ᾿Εσθὴρ, καὶ ᾿Ιουδὶθ, καὶ Τοβίας, καὶ διδαχὴ 
 καλουμένη τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων, καὶ ὁ ποιμήν. Καὶ ὅμως 
 κἀκείνων κανονιζομένων καὶ τούτων ἀναγινωσκομένων οὐδαμῶς 
 τῶν ἀποκρύφων μνήμη, ἀλλὰ αἱρετικῶν ἐστιν ἐπίνοια, γραφόν- 
 των μὲν, ὅτι θέλουσιν αὐτὰ, χαριζομένων δὲ καὶ προστιθέντων 
 
60 § 18. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE LATIN CHURCH. 
 
 αὐτοῖς χρόνους, ἵνα ὡς παλαιὰ προφέροντες πρόφασιν ἔχωσιν 
 ἀπατᾶν ἐκ τούτου τοὺς ἀκεραίους. 
 
 Council of Laodicea (Mansi, Concill. nov. coll. ii. 574), 
 Canon 59: ὅτι ov δεῖ ἰδιωτικοὺς ψαλμοὺς λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ 
 ἐκκλησίᾳ οὐδὲ ἀκανόνιστα βιβλία, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ κανονικὰ τῆς 
 καινῆς καὶ παλαιᾶς διαθήκης. 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen, Carmen xxxiii. Opera, ed. Colln, 1690, 
 n. 98: 
 
 Amphilochius, Jambi ad Seleucum, see Schmid, Historia 
 Canonis, p. 194. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem (Opera, ed. Benedict. Paris, 1720, 
 p. 57 ff.) names precisely the same books as Origen (§ 7), 
 with the addition of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, and 
 has probably borrowed his list from this predecessor. He 
 makes no mention of an intermediate order between the 
 canonical and the apocryphal books; yet, eg. in his Catech, 
 ix. 2, he quotes from Wisdom xiii. 5 as canonical. The 60th 
 Canon of the Council of Laodicea has the same list. Compare, 
 however, on the doubtful genuineness of this canon, Credner, 
 Geschichte d. Neutestamentlichen Kanogs, p. 217 ff. [Hefele, 
 History of the Councils of the Church, vol. ii. Edinburgh 1876, 
 p. 323 f.] 
 
 f 
 18. The Latin Church took a course somewhat different 
 
 from that of the Greek Church, a course by which, unfortun- 
 ately, the results of study won among the Greeks, and used 
 with wise consideration for the customary practice of the 
 Church, were again lost, which is all the more remarkable 
 when we consider that the Latin Church seemed to have been 
 placed, in consequence of Jerome’s extraordinary attainments 
 in the knowledge of the Old Testament, in the best position 
 for a happy solution of the whole question. In the Prologus 
 galeatus, referred to in § 7, Jerome gives a thoroughly wrought- 
 out description of the genuine Jewish Canon with its twenty- 
 two or twenty-four books; and thereafter he remarks briefly 
 and well: “ Quicquid extra hoc est, inter apocrypha ponen- 
 dum.” He thus takes up his position quite at the Palestinian 
 
§ 18. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE LATIN CHURCH. 61 
 
 standpoint, while he still uses the word “ apocryphal” with a 
 much wider signification than the Jews did their word }3 
 (ὃ 2). Even those books which the Greek fathers permitted 
 to be read were, according to this mode of representation, 
 included among the ἀπόκρυφα. Nevertheless, Jerome was not 
 himself in a position to maintain this standpoint over against 
 the practice of the Church, but repeatedly falls back into the 
 mediating practice of the Greeks. Indeed, he translated from 
 the Apocrypha, and that entirely in consequence of the 
 demands of his fellow-countrymen, only Tobit, Judith, and the 
 additions to Esther and Daniel, these latter writings being 
 distinguished from the canonical by diacritical marks; but in 
 the prologue to the Libri Salomonis he gives the non-canonical 
 writings used in the Church the same intermediate place which 
 they held among the Greeks, while he remarks of Jesus Sirach 
 and of the Book of Wisdom: “ Hee duo volumina legit 
 (ecclesia) ad eedificationem plebis, non ad _ auctoritatem 
 ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam”; and so he him- 
 self not infrequently quotes various apocryphal works, 
 especially Jesus Sirach,—once expressly introducing his 
 quotation (Comment. on Isaiah, ili. 12) with a “ dicente scrip- 
 tura sancta.” Meanwhile, the Western Church, striving after 
 unequivocal and definite forms, did not regard with favour 
 this somewhat uncertain intermediate position of the books 
 allowed to be read (libri ecclesiastici). Instead of now solving 
 the problem by an uncompromising acceptance of the Jewish 
 practice, the attempt was rather made to abolish altogether 
 the distinction between canonical books and books that might 
 simply be read. In the Latin Bible manuscripts prior to 
 Jerome, just as among the Greeks, non-canonical writings are 
 found along with the canonical. Only here the number of 
 the non-canonical writings did not vary so much as among 
 the Greeks, while the manuscripts regularly embraced the 
 writings received by most of the Churches, 1.6. the Wisdom 
 
62 8118, THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE LATIN CHURCH. 
 
 of Solomon, Jesus Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, 
 and the additions to Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah. The 
 ecclesiastical wsws was now regarded as decisive, and all those 
 writings were pronounced canonical, without paying any 
 regard to the Jewish Canon and the opposing remarks of 
 Jerome. It was pre-eminently the African Church which, 
 under the guidance of Augustine, came to this practical, but 
 not historically justifiable, decision, for the first time at the 
 Church Assemblies at Hippo, A.D. 393, and Carthage, A.D. 397, 
 to whose lot it thus fell to give to the Alexandrine Canon 
 that fixity of hmits which it had not hitherto. 
 
 Concerning Jerome compare, besides the Prologus galeatus, 
 his preface to the Liber Tobie: “ Feci satis desiderio vestro 
 non tamen meo studio. Arguunt enim nos Hebrzorum 
 studia: et imputant nobis contra suum canonem Latinis 
 auribus ista transferre. ‘Sed melius esse judicans Pharise- 
 orum displicere judicio, et episcoporum jussionibus deservire, 
 institi ut potui.” Similarly, too, in the preface to the Liber 
 Judith: “ Apud Hebreos Judith inter apocrypha legitur: 
 cujus auctoritas ad roboranda illa que in contentionem 
 veniunt, minus idonea judicatur. Sed quia hunc librum 
 synodus Niczena in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur 
 computasse, acquievi postulationi vestre, immo exactioni.” 
 Further, the Epistola 7 ad Letam: “ Caveat omnia apocrypha 
 et si quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem, sed ad signorum 
 reverentiam legere voluerit, sciat non eorum esse, quorum 
 titulis preenotatur, multaque his a vitiosa, et grandis 
 esse prudentiz aurum in luto querere.” 
 
 A list of the books in the old Latin Bible franslatagiene 15 
 given by Cassiodorus, De institutione divinarium liiterarum, 
 c. 14. Alongside of this we should take notice of a list of 
 the canonical books found by Mommsen at Cheltenham, which 
 belongs to the latter half of the fourth century. Compare 
 with reference to it: Mommsen in Hermes, xxi. 142 ff.; Zahn 
 in ZKWL, 1886, iii.; Harnack, Theolog. Litt. Zeitung, 1886, 
 Nr. 8; and J. Weiss in ZWT7, xxx. 157 ff. Augustine 
 
§ 18, THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE LATIN CHURCH. 63 
 
 treats this question in De doctrina Christiana, ii. 8 ; compare 
 De predest. sanct. i. 11. On the Councils at Hippo and 
 Carthage see Bruns, Canones apostolorum et conciliorum, 
 i. 133 and 138. The following tables may help to an under- 
 standing of the order of succession of the particular books in 
 these lists. They all have in the same order: the five 
 Books of Moses, only the Cheltenham list puts Numbers 
 before Leviticus (compare on that point Zahn, Geschichte d. 
 Neutestamentl. Kanons, i. 63); then follow Joshua, Judges, 
 Ruth, the four Books of Kings, and two Books of Para- 
 lipomena. Thereafter the list runs as follows :— 
 
 CASSIODORUS. CHELTENHAM, AUGUSTINE. Hippo. 
 
 Psalms 1 and 2 Maccabees Job Job 
 
 Proverbs Job Tobit Psalms 
 
 Wisdom of Solo- Tobit Esther Five Books οἵ 
 mon Esther Judith Solomon 
 
 Sirach Judith 1 and 2 Maccabees Twelve Prophets 
 
 Ecclesiastes | Psalms Ezra-Neh. Isaiah 
 
 The Song Five Books’ of Psalms Jeremiah 
 
 Isaiah Solomon Proverbs Daniel 
 
 Jeremiah Isaiah The Song Ezekiel 
 
 Ezekiel Jeremiah Ecclesiastes Tobit 
 
 Daniel Daniel Wisdom of Solo- Judith 
 
 Twelve Prophets Ezekiel mon Esther 
 
 Job Twelve Prophets Sirach Ezra-Neh. 
 
 Tobit Twelve Prophets 1 and 2 Maccabees 
 
 Esther Isaiah 
 
 Judith Jeremiah 
 
 Ezra-Neh. Daniel 
 
 1 and 2 Maccabees Ezekiel 
 
 In the Cheltenham list very remarkably the Book of 
 Ezra-Nehemiah is wanting. The order of succession: Daniel, 
 Ezekiel, is the same in the last three columns. Of the Books 
 the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach, which in the other lists 
 are simply regarded as writings of Solomon, Augustine says: 
 “De quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur.” In the 
 Hippo list there is apparent an endeavour to gather together 
 at the end of the canon the books regarded by the Jews as 
 non-canonical, while among them is included the Book of 
 Esther, as with Athanasius. Compare further in regard to 
 the repeating of the list of Cassiodorus in the Codex Amia- 
 tinus: Corssen, JPT7, ix. 619 ff, and below at ὃ 58. [See 
 also Studia Liblica et Eeclesiastica, vol. ii. Oxf. 1890, p. 289 ff, 
 
Pood 
 
 64 § 19. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 vol. ili, 1891, pp. 217-325; The Cheltenham List of the 
 Canonical Books, and of the Writings of Cyprian, by W. 
 Sanday and C. H. Turner.] 
 
 19. The ecclesiastical writers of the Middle Ages vacillated - 
 in their representations of the Old Testament Canon between 
 the great authority of Augustine on the one hand, and of 
 Jerome on the other, although even the practice of the Church 
 as a rule followed the good example given by the Africans. 
 Many Latin Bible manuscripts contained, besides the usual 
 “books allowed to be read” ($18), also the Apocalypse of Ezra. 
 The whole question was an open one, and the Church used 
 no constraint in regard to the answering of it. But when at 
 a subsequent period Protestantism attached itself decisively to 
 
 ‘the fundamental position of Jerome, the matter was settled, 
 
 so far as the Romish Church was concerned, per viam opposi- 
 tionis, and Rome had the courage not only to take under its 
 protection the practice of the Church, but also to proclaim 
 it as a condition of salvation: “Si quis libros integros cum 
 omnibus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia catholica legi con- 
 sueverunt, et in veteri vulgata Latina editione habentur, 
 pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones pre- 
 dictas sciens et prudens contemserit, anathema sit” (Concil. 
 Trident. iv.c. 1). The non-canonical books referred to, which 
 in this way were declared canonical, were: the additions to the 
 Books of Daniel and Esther, Baruch, with the Letter of Jeremiah, 
 the two First Books of Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Jesus Sirach, 
 and the Book of Wisdom. On the other hand, the Third and 
 Fourth Books of Maccabees, and the Prayer of Manasseh, were 
 only added as appendices to the New Testament. This solu- 
 tion of the question of the canon, which, especially in view 
 of the repeated and emphatic declarations of Jerome, must be 
 regarded as a rather brutal one, brought several Catholic 
 theologians at a later period into no slight embarrassment, but 
 their attempt to secure acceptance again for the older Greek 
 
§ 20. CARLSTADT, LUTHER. 65 
 
 practice, by making a distinction between proto-canonical and 
 deutero-canonical books, was too evidently in contradiction to 
 the clear words of the Tridentine Council to be of any real 
 avail. 
 
 The Greek Church, too, after various vacillations, and after 
 a passing attempt to adopt the theory proposed by Cyril of 
 Jerusalem and Jerome, decided, at the Synod of Jerusalem in 
 A.D. 1672, to canonise the books which were allowed to be 
 read in the Church. 
 
 The literature of the development sketched in the above 
 section will be found in De Wette-Schrader, Hinleitung, pp. 
 62-68; see also Bleek, TSK, 1853, pp. 271, 274. On the 
 attempted degrading of the books read in the Church to the 
 rank of “ deutero-canonical,” by Sixtus of Siena (Bidlioth. 
  sdncta, 1566), Bernard Lamy (Apparat. ad Biblia, 1687), 
 Jahn (Hinleitung, i. 141 ff.), ete, compare Welte in the 
 Theol. Quartalschrift, 1839, p. 230 ff, and Scholz, Hinleitung, 
 1. 262 ἃ On the Greek Church, compare Bleek, 7'SK, 1853, 
 p. 276 ff.; Herzog’s Real-Encylopedie, vii. 445 f. 
 
 20. The Reformation, which from the first directed its 
 attention to the Holy Scripture as the means, by the use of 
 which the great reaction in the direction of genuine Chris- 
 tianity could be carried out, was of necessity obliged to come 
 to some decision on the question, as to the canonical worth 
 of the books received into the Bible as books that might be 
 read. The first who treated this question, hitherto left open, 
 in a thoroughgoing manner, was the Hotspur of the Refor- 
 mation, Andrew Carlstadt, in his little tract, De canonicis 
 serupturis, 1520. In this treatise he describes the opinions 
 of Augustine and Jerome, and himself adopts very decidedly 
 the view which Jerome had expressed in his Prologus galeatus 
 (§ 18), while, without any reference to the practice of the 
 Church, he styles all writings apocryphal which had not been 
 
 received by the Palestinians. In the Ziirich Bible of 1529 
 E 
 
- 
 
 606 § 20. CARLSTADT, LUTHER. 
 
 and 1530, the non-canonical writings were not indeed left out, 
 but they were placed, in Leo Judea’s German translation, at 
 the end of the whole Bible, with the remark: “These are the 
 books of the Bible, which by the ancients are not numbered 
 among those of the Bible, and also are not found among the 
 Hebrews.” Among those there were included, not only the 
 usual books allowed to be read, but also Third and Fourth 
 Books of Ezra and Third Maccabees; on the other hand, it was 
 only at a later period that the Song of the Three Children, the 
 Prayer of Manasseh, and the additions to Esther were received. 
 
 Luther also translated the non-canonical writings which 
 were read in the Church. Even in a.p. 1519 he published 
 the Prayer of Manasseh as a supplement to his treatise: Hine 
 kurze Unterweisung, wie man beichten soll. In AD. 1529 
 appeared the Book of Wisdom, and in A.D. 1533-1534, Judith, 
 Tobit, Jesus Sirach, Baruch,the two Books ef Maccabees, and the 
 additions to the Books of Esther and Daniel; while the Third 
 and Fourth Books of Ezra and the Third and Fourth Books of 
 Maccabees were not translated. But, at the same time, we 
 meet in his writings with a remarkable criticism which was 
 directed not merely against these writings but also against par- 
 ticular books of the Hagiographa, and treated not only the 
 practice of the Church, but also the old Jewish decisions 
 regarding the canon, with excessive freedom. Alongside of 
 sharp expressions against several of the non-canonical writ- 
 ings above named, and reminders that they had not been 
 received into the Hebrew Bibles, there are to be found in his 
 writings no less free denunciations of the Books of Esther, 
 Ecclesiastes, and Chronicles. Indeed, he himself employed the 
 expression that, while the Book of Esther ought to have been 
 excluded from the canon, the First Book of Maccabees 
 deserved to have been included in it. It is the old 
 criticism of the several Books of the Hagiographa such as we 
 meet with among the Jews (ὃ 8, compare ὃ 15), which is 
 
§ 20. CARLSTADT, LUTHER. 67 
 
 here repeated, not however under the immediate influence of 
 historical facts, but under the impression which these writings 
 made on his religiously sensitive nature, whose task it was 
 not to examine into their historical significance and their 
 consequent right to a place in the canon, but to give ex- 
 pression to the fundamental ideas of revelation in their purity 
 and overmastering power, and to estimate everything accord- 
 ing as it contributed to that end. In his translation of the 
 Bible, completed in A.D. 1554, Luther follows the example 
 of Jerome and Carlstadt in denominating the books allowed 
 to be read “apocryphal,” and distinguishing them from the 
 canonical books ; but he keeps somewhat nearer the mediating 
 practice of the Greek fathers (ὃ 17, compare even Jerome 
 himself, § 18), when he places them after the canonical Old 
 Testament, with the words of introduction: “These are books 
 not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture, 
 but yet good and useful for reading.” Through a very 
 natural misconception it thus became general to understand 
 by “apocryphal” just those non-canonical writings received 
 into the ordinary Bibles, in direct contradiction to the usus 
 loquendi of the Greek fathers, who called “apocryphal” the 
 books that were excluded from the bibles of the Church. In 
 later times the term “ Pseudepigraphic” was introduced to 
 denominate this latter class of books, which, however, is less 
 suitable, inasmuch as Pseudepigraphs are also found among 
 the books admitted to be read by the Church, so that indeed 
 even Jerome, in his preface to the writings of Solomon, 
 named the Book of Wisdom of Solomon a Wevderriypados. 
 
 The treatise: De canonicis scripturis libellus D. Andrew 
 Bodensten-Carlstadt is reprinted with a historical introduction 
 in Credner’s Zur Geschichte des Kanons (1847, p. 291 ff.); 
 see especially ὃ 81 (p. 364): “Nune autem, ut de meo quid- 
 dam additiam, constat incertitudinem autoris non facere 
 apocrypha scripta, nec certum autorem reddere canonicas 
 
68 § 20. LUTHER. 
 
 scripturas, sed quod solus canon libros, quos respuit, apocry- 
 phos facit, sive habeant autores et nomina sive non.” 
 
 On the Ziirich Bible and the “ Combined Bibles” made up 
 from it, and from Luther’s translations, compare Herzog'’s Keal- 
 Encyclopedie*, 11. 550, 554 Ff. 
 
 The above-mentioned prefaces to the translations of the 
 Apocrypha are found in Luther's Sdmitlichen Werken, Erlangen, 
 Ixii. 91-108. Of the First Book of Maccabees it is said 
 (p. 104): “This book is also one which is not to be met 
 with in the Hebrew Bibles. It is, however, almost equal in 
 its discourses and language to the other books of Holy 
 Scripture, and would not have been unworthy of a place 
 among them, for it certainly is a necessary and useful book 
 for the understanding of the eleventh chapter of Daniel.” On 
 the other hand, it is said of the Second Book of Maccabees: 
 “In short, just as we were willing that the First Book should 
 be received into the number of the Sacred Scriptures, so we 
 are willing that the Second Book should be rejected, though 
 there is something good in it.” Further, there are the follow- 
 ing statements to be compared:—AZrlang. Ausg. Ixii. 131: 
 And when he, the doetor, corrected the Second Book of 
 Maccabees, he said: “I am so opposed to this book and to 
 Esther that I wished they had not been extant, for they 
 Judaise too much and have many heathenish improprieties.” 
 De servo arbitrio: “Liber Esther quamvis nunc habent in 
 canone, dignior omnibus, me judice, qui extra canonem habere- 
 tur.” Erlang. Ausg. |xil. p. 182: “The Books of Kings go a 
 hundred thousand steps beyond him who has written the 
 Chronicles, for he has only indicated the sum and pointed 
 out the most remarkable points in the history, and has passed 
 over what is bad and small; therefore the Books of Kings are 
 more to be believed than the Books of Chronicles.” The 
 same, p. 128: Of the book of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, he says: 
 “This book ought to be more complete, it is too fragmentary, 
 it has neither boot nor spur, it rides only in socks, as I did 
 myself, when I was still in the cloister. I do not believe 
 that Solomon has been damned, but this was written to 
 frighten kings, princes, and lords. So he did not himself 
 
§ 21. THE REFORMED CHURCH. 69 
 
 write the Book Ecclesiastes, but it was composed by Sirach 
 in the time of the Maccabees.” We must, however, compare 
 with these the divergent statements of vol. lxiii. p. 40, and 
 Editio Erlang. Latina, xxi. 1 ff. 
 
 The Apocrypha received into the Lutheran translation of 
 the Bible are exactly the same as those canonised by the 
 Romish Church, only that the Prayer of Manasseh has also 
 been adopted. In not a few Protestant Bible translations the 
 Apocalypse of Ezra (ze. the Fourth Bock of Ezra) also finds 
 place among the Apocrypha. Compare Gildemeister, Zsdra 
 liber quartus arabice, 1877, p. 42. 
 
 21. In the Reformed Church also, in the earliest times, 
 the Apocrypha was allowed its intermediate position in the 
 Bible translations, but the stricter principle of Scripture in the 
 Churches influenced by Calvin carried with it the consequence 
 that, on the one hand, their want of canonicity was em- 
 phasised in the confessional writings as was not done in the 
 Lutheran confession; and, on the other hand, repeated 
 endeavours were made to have them completely removed 
 from Bible translations. Even at the Synod of Dort, in AD. 
 1618-1619, Gomarus, Deodatus, and others, insisted upon 
 having the Apocrypha withdrawn from the Bible, without 
 being able to induce the Synod to sanction this breach with 
 the practice of the Church. At a somewhat later period, the 
 Puritan Confession, Confessio Westmonasteriensis, 1648 (the 
 Westminster Confession, i. 3), pronounced the apocryphal 
 writings to be of equal value with ordinary human writings, 
 which had, as a natural consequence, the exclusion of these 
 from the Bible. But it was only in the beginning of the 
 present century that the controversy about the position of the 
 Apocrypha assumed more serious dimensions. On the ground 
 of the Puritan Confession, the Edinburgh Committee of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, on 17th January 1826, 
 protested against the resolution of the Society to allow, 
 especially in Bible translations in foreign languages, the 
 
70 § 21. THE REFORMED CHURCH. 
 
 adoption of the Apocrypha, and emphatically demanded its 
 withdrawal as a condition of their continuing to take part in 
 the work along with the other local committees. The two 
 years’ struggle that thus arose ended in the victory of the 
 enemies of the Apocrypha, so that the Bibles published since 
 by the Society contain only the canonical writings. The 
 controversy also broke out in Denmark, where Jens Moller, 
 in a successful pamphlet, vindicated the Apocrypha against 
 Pastor N. Blicher. 
 
 At a subsequent period, a prize offered by the Baden 
 Administrative Council of the Inner Mission in the year 
 1850, for an essay on the significance of the Apocrypha, 
 called forth a series of, in some cases, very solid controversial 
 treatises, which indeed led to no practical results, but afforded 
 admirable contributions to the discussion of the question. 
 
 The judgementsof the Reformed Confessional writings are to be 
 found in Niemeyer’s Collectio confessionum in ecclesiis reformatis 
 publicatarum, Leipsic 1840, with an Appendix, Halle 1840 ; 
 Confessio fidei Gallicana, p. 329 f.; Confessio Scotica, 1. 350; 
 Confessio Belgica, p. 362; Confessio Helvetica poster. p. 468 ; 
 The English XXXIX Articles, p. 6023; Declaratio Thoruni- 
 ensis, p. 670 f.; Confessio Bohemica, p. 187. In the West- 
 minster Confession, i. 3, it is said: “The books commonly 
 called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part 
 of the canon of the Scripture ; and therefore are of no authority 
 to the Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved, or made 
 use of, than any other human writings.” 
 
 On the Synod of Dort, see Acta synodi nat. Dordrecti halite, 
 Hanover 1620, p. 30. 
 
 [The Edinburgh controversy over the circulation of the 
 Apocrypha by the Bible Society, in which Dr. Andrew 
 Thomson, Dr. Patrick Macfarlane, Robert and Alexander Hal- 
 dane, Marcus Dods of Belford, Charles Simeon, Henry Venn, 
 and others opposed that circulation, may be studied in detail 
 in a collection of Pamphlets on the Apocrypha Controversy, in 
 4 vols., 1825-1827.] 
 
§ 22. CONCLUDING REMARKS. 71 
 
 Niels Blicher, in Zheol. Maanedsskrift, fiir Oct. 1827 ; Jens 
 Moller, in Nyt theol. Bibliothek, xv. 1829, p. 1 ff. 
 
 Ph. F. Keerl, Die Apocryphen εἰ. A. T. 1852 (prize essay) ; 
 Rud. Stier, Die <Apocryphen, 1853; Hengstenberg in the 
 Evang. Kirchenzeitung, 1853; Bleek in TSK, 1853, p. 267— 
 354. Further literature also in Keil, Linleitung, p. 665, Eng. 
 trans. vol. ii. 376 ff; and in Bleek, Hinleitung, p. 281 f. 
 
 22. As the above sketch has shown, a pretty considerable 
 difference of opinion has always prevailed within the Christian 
 Church in reference to the value and position of the Apocrypha. 
 The two extremes are represented by the Catholics and by the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, while the Lutheran Church 
 occupies an intermediate position. It cannot really admit of 
 any doubt, that the Protestant Church has, upon the whole, 
 done right—as the Greek fathers more or less hesitatingly, and 
 Jerome without hesitation, had done—in regarding the Jews 
 as the true authority on the question as to the extent of the 
 Old Testament Canon. The people of Israel, to whom the Old 
 Testament revelation had been entrusted, and whose life task 
 it was to preserve it uncorrupted, are in fact the legitimate and 
 competent judges, when it has to be decided in what writings 
 this revelation appears in purity and free from all foreign and 
 modifying elements. That we are no longer in a position 
 fully to trace out the principles which led the scribes in their 
 determinations regarding the canon, and that those principles 
 which can still be understood are in many cases extremely 
 peculiar, cannot be regarded, as in this connection, of any 
 importance. For it is not with the views of the scribes that 
 we have to do, but only with the favour shown to the 
 Scriptures and their circulation among the people, of which the 
 decrees of the rabbis as to the canon are simply anecho. The 
 spread and recognition which the books had won in the 
 genuinely Jewish community is the material which the scribes 
 had to work up in their own way; but how they succeeded 
 
 γ΄ 
 
 ν΄ 
 
ΤΩ § 22, CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 in this is only of secondary interest, while the firm position 
 of the writings among the members of the community affords 
 the special guarantee that they recognised in them a true 
 reflection of their spiritual life, and that these writings, there- 
 fore, must be accepted by us as the canonical means of learning 
 to know that life. Our task consists essentially in pointing 
 out on this basis the significance of the several writings within 
 the history of the Old Covenant, and in thereby proving their 
 canonical authorisation with a more complete apparatus than 
 was at the disposal of the Pharisees, But in order to do this, 
 we must above all firmly maintain that this task cannot be 
 solved, so long as one considers the Old Testament writings 
 under a purely religious aspect, as commonly was the case in 
 earlier times. Such a mode of considering them will, in a 
 strong and independent religious nature, of necessity lead to 
 depreciatory estimates of particular writings, such as we meet 
 with in Luther. The Old Testament writings are not expressive 
 of a religion which in regular and undisturbed progression 
 advances to a conclusive summit, but a preparatory revelation, 
 which after it has reached its culmination begins to sink and 
 to dissolve away in order that it may thereby itself become 
 conscious of its incompleteness, which was destined to give 
 way before the new and perfect. This age of general dissolu- 
 tion, in which some Israelites broke away from the faith of 
 their fathers without being able to transcend it, because the 
 new had not yet appeared, while others, seeking escape for 
 themselves by forgetting the preceding noble development of 
 the prophetic age with its ideal claims and satisfying them- 
 selves with a lower standpoint, produced writings in which 
 the community recognised a genuine picture of the moral and 
 spiritual currents by which it was moved. Too much stress 
 cannot be laid upon the fact that such writings, not only were 
 received into the canon, but even maintained their place there 
 in spite of the attacks of later times (§ 8). However 
 
§ 22. CONCLUDING REMARKS. "3 
 
 imperfect the method followed by the scribes in their treat- 
 ment of these writings may have been, they were at least 
 guided by the correct feeling that those books, according to 
 their innermost essence, were true and genuine expressions of 
 the spirit of the Old Testament, which will also be confirmed 
 by every really scientific investigation. It is therefore the 
 distinguishing excellence of the Protestant Church, over 
 against the Romish and Greek Churches, that it has put before 
 its members the canonical books pure and without any 
 admixture. Only these books give us a true picture of the 
 spiritual life of the Old Covenant called forth by revelation 
 and miraculous leading, and they only show the prophecies 
 contained in prophetic words and actions, whose fulfilment 
 and completion is Jesus Christ. And so, too, in the New 
 Testament, Scripture proof is taken only from “the Law, the 
 Prophets, and the Psalms” (ὃ 14). At a greater or less 
 distance from this circle stand, on the other hand, the non- 
 canonical writings. Indeed, in some of them the wonderfully 
 fascinating Old Testament life throbs with no little vigour; 
 yea, it were wrong to deny that we meet with a richer and 
 higher spirit in the Book of Wisdom than in the Book of 
 Esther or the Book of Chronicles, and that perhaps nothing 
 in the Apocrypha gives so much offence in its direct religious 
 application as Ecclesiastes. But, nevertheless, even in regard 
 to them, a thoroughgoing examination will confirm the judg- 
 ment of the Palestinian community, and lead to the conclusion 
 that these non-canonical books, one and all, must retreat into 
 the background, if we are to obtain a true picture of the Old 
 Testament revelation, with its peculiar course of development 
 and the forms of life thereby called forth. On the other hand, 
 it can be easily understood how the Church, which renounced 
 those forms in order to take up into itself all mankind, might 
 conceive an affection for some of these writings, and esteem 
 the spirit that throbbed in them better than the Palestinians 
 
U4 § 22. CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 had done ; and so far one is able to approve of what the older 
 Greek and Lutheran Churches did in respecting the traditional 
 usage, and retaining those writings in their Bible translations. 
 
 But however much one may from this standpoint recognise 
 the style and manner in which the Churches named above 
 have solved the question of the canon, there is yet another 
 point in which Luther and those who followed him have not 
 succeeded in disengaging themselves from an inherited incom- 
 pleteness. In the Alexandrine Bibles the introduction of the 
 Apocrypha led also to this result, that the tripartite division 
 of the canon was abandoned, although it played so important 
 a part among the Palestinian Jews (§ 3—5), and has so 
 essential a significance for the right estimation of the several 
 writings. Now, although Luther and the other Protestant 
 translators of the Bible set the non-canonical writings apart, 
 and gave them a place after the canon proper, they did not 
 reintroduce the tripartite division. And yet it is obvious 
 that we can only be justified in adopting Jewish authority on 
 the question of the canon, if we are prepared fully to appro- 
 priate the theory of the Jews with respect to the collection 
 and the mutual relation of the canonical books. Indeed, we 
 find that the New Testament expressly gives prominence to 
 the threefold division as intimately connected with the contents 
 and range of the Old Testament Canon (δὲ 7,14). It is a 
 mistake to confine the knowledge of this division to theological 
 students, and it would undoubtedly mark an important step 
 in advance if the original order and division were again 
 introduced into our Bible translations. If this were done, it 
 would contribute largely to the bringing before the people 
 several of the results of Old Testament research and to the 
 commending of these results as historically justifiable. 
 
 The above exposition, which manifestly leaves untouched 
 
 the incontestably high scientific importance of the Apocrypha, 
 does not exclude the fact that here and there questions about 
 
§ 22. CONCLUDING REMARKS. i” 
 
 the boundary line will arise. Thus it has been already told 
 (§ 12) that Ben Sirach had obtained a pretty wide circula- 
 tion among the Palestinians. In such a case then it was 
 exclusively the scribes who, according to some settled principle, 
 eave the decision as to whether the book was to be received 
 into the collection or not. What sort of principle this was 
 (the lateness of the period during which the author lived ? or 
 the secondary or borrowed character of the Proverbs 7) cannot 
 now be determined with any degree of certainty. The ground 
 on which the First Book of Maccabees was not received is 
 more distinct. It cannot be denied that the description of 
 the happy reign of Simon, c. 14, is given with so many 
 unmistakably Messianic expressions, that the readers must 
 have received the impression that the author had seen in the 
 Maccabean rule the fulfilment of the hope of Israel, which 
 therefore must place the book outside of the Old Testament 
 circle. 
 
 Among the Hagiographa pronounced canonical, only “ The 
 Song” causes any considerable difficulty.. That it was only 
 at a very late period received into the collection is not only 
 not supported by historical evidence (compare § 8), but is in 
 itself a wholly unhistorical statement. More than for any 
 other single writing must we for this very book presuppose an 
 early currency and general favour; otherwise it would cer- 
 tainly never have occurred to any Pharisee to regard it as 
 canonical. That it could maintain its place was undoubtedly 
 owing to the allegorical interpretation, whether suggested by 
 KR. Akiba or by some one else. But, on the other side, the 
 attacks upon its canonicity seem plainly to show that this 
 allegorical interpretation was not generally accepted, and so 
 there remains at least the possibility that in earlier times, 
 under a simple understanding of it, it had secured in the 
 community its wide circulation. 
 
THE 
 
 HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT. 
 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 23. Whoever makes a study of the history of the Old 
 Testament text must put up with very defective information 
 in many directions. Not only are we without the simplest 
 and surest means of discovering the fortunes of the text, 
 namely, the original manuscripts of the Old Testament them- 
 selves, but we cannot even in a single case point to a later 
 text in manuscript from which all the various forms of text, 
 as they now lie before us, may have been derived. And 80, 
 indeed, the oldest form of the text to which we can get back, 
 and which forms the common source of all texts known to us, 
 must first of all be constructed by means of textual criticism, 
 and that certainly, as regards various passages, with varying 
 degrees of certainty; and between the oldest text attainable 
 by us and the original text itself there now hes a dark space, 
 where all objective means are wanting to us that would enable us 
 to trace the external and internal history of the text. In order 
 to be able to perform its task within the sphere thus indicated, 
 the history of the text must presuppose all along the line the 
 ascertained critical results of specialists. Where such are 
 wanting, or are not satisfactorily established, it also must remain 
 incomplete and fragmentary. On the other hand, the critical 
 labours of specialists will be regulated by the history of the 
 text, and will find even through it a firm and sure method. 
 
 A sketch of the means that are at our command for tlie 
 elucidation of the textual history will form the first and an 
 essential section in the history of the text. Owing to the fact 
 
 79 
 
80 § 23. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 that in tracing back the Old Testament text the direct witnesses 
 for the text, after a relatively short time, leave us without the 
 benefit of their help, the secondary sources of information, the 
 old translations, play a conspicuous part, so that a quite special 
 attention must be given them. At the same time, with regard 
 to them, it is to be remembered that in the history of the 
 text the translations come into consideration only according 
 to their importance for the text, and that therefore all trans- 
 lations which originated at times when we possess direct 
 witnesses for the text must be left unmentioned. On the 
 other hand, it is necessary to give a somewhat full description 
 of the origination and character of the other translations; for 
 only in this way will the uncritical use of the old versions be 
 prevented, of which the history of exegesis shows so many 
 examples, and which, in a restoration of the original of a 
 somewhat wilful character, or effected by outside influences, 
 discovers immediately a witness for a divergent, and for its 
 very novelty preferred, form of text. So, too, of necessity the 
 peculiar circumstances of the transmission of the text of the 
 translations must be taken into consideration, so that all sorts 
 of readings that may have arisen through later changes may 
 not be allowed to bear false witness with regard to a form of 
 the original text that had never had an existence, and con- 
 versely, that no real but later variation corrected according 
 to the original text may be lost to the textual critic. 
 
 Compare, in addition to the general works mentioned in 
 δ 1, the following writings :— 
 
 Morinus, Lzercitationum briblicarum de Hebrei Grecique 
 teatus sinceritate libri duo, Paris 1669; Cappellus, Critica 
 Sacra, Paris 1650, new edition, with notes by Vogel and Schar- 
 fenberg, Halle 1775-86; Humfredi Hodii De bibliorum texti- 
 bus originalibus, versionibus Grecis et latina Vulgata libri iv. 
 Oxf. 1705; Hupfeld in 7SK, 1830 and 1837; the second 
 volume of Horne’s Introduction to the Critical Study and 
 
§ 23. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 891 
 
 Knowledge of the Holy Scripture, London 1860, by Dr. Sam. 
 Davidson ; Dillmann, “ Bibeltext ἃ, A. T.” in Herzog’s Real- 
 Encyclopedic, ii. 381 ff.; Strack, Prolegomena critica in V. 
 7. 18753; Weissmann, Kanonisierung und Feststellung des 
 Teaxtes der heiligen Schriften A. T. nach primdren Quellen 
 (Hebr.), Vienna 1887 ; Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, 
 1886, pp. 1-175. 
 
MEANS FOR THE STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF 
 THE TEXT. 
 
 A.—TuHeE APPARATUS PROPER. 
 
 1. Printed Editions. 
 
 24. The first printed editions of the Old Testament were 
 furnished by Jews. First of all in the year 1477 there appeared 
 a very defective edition of the Psalms with the Commentary 
 of Kimchi; next, in 1488, the whole of the Old Testament 
 at Soncino. The Brescia Bible, edited by R. Gerson ben 
 Moses in 1494, dependent upon the Soncino edition, was the 
 one used by Luther for his translation. The copy used by 
 him is preserved in the Royal Library at Berlin. It was not 
 until A.D. 1514-1517 that the Complutensian Bible referred 
 to below appeared, which contained the first edition of the 
 original Hebrew text issued under the care of Christians, It 
 also forms the real editio princeps of the New Testament. The 
 manual edition of Bomberg (Venice 1517, 1521, and often 
 afterwards) was still closely related to the Soncino edition, 
 whereas the manual edition of Buxtorf (Basel 1611) rests 
 partly on the Complutensian text, partly on the second Bom- 
 berg Bible spoken of below. The Athias ‘edition of J. Leus- 
 den (Amsterdam 1661-67) follows these editions, but with 
 collation of several manuscripts. To this again is attached 
 the edition of E. van der Hooght (Amsterdam 1705), on which 
 
 rests the widely circulated edition of Hahn and Theile. Of a 
 82 
 
§ 24. PRINTED EDITIONS. 85 
 
 more independent character was the edition of the text issued 
 under the charge of J. H. Michaelis (Halle 1720). In more 
 recent times, S. Baer, with the help of Franz Delitzsch, began 
 the editing of a series of very serviceable separate editions of 
 the several books, corrected according to the Massoretic text. 
 
 Besides these special editions of the text we also meet with 
 the Hebrew text in the so-called Polyglot Bibles, which, 
 besides the original text, furnish a larger or smaller number 
 of old translations. The most remarkable of these is the 
 Complutensian Bible, edited by Cardinal Francisco Ximenes 
 de Cisnero at Alcala (Complutum), which Conrad Pellican 
 rightly hailed as marking the beginning of a new era in 
 linguistic studies. The revision of the Hebrew text is indeed 
 defective, but rests on good Massoretic manuscripts. The 
 great Antwerp Polyglot contains an improved reproduction 
 of this edition. 
 
 Lastly, the original text is also to be found in the so-called 
 Rabbinical Bibles, where it is accompanied by the Targums 
 and various Jewish commentaries. Among these the first 
 place belongs to the second Bomberg Bible (1525—26), the 
 work of Jacob ben Chajim ibn Adonja, because of its text 
 corrected from the Massora and the reproduction of the 
 Massora which it contains. An account of this edition is 
 given below. ‘The edition of the Old Testament published at 
 Mantua 1742-44, resting upon a Toledo Bible of the year 
 1277, is also deserving of mention, because in it is incor- 
 porated the celebrated commentary of Solomon di Norzi 
 (Nurzia), Minhath Sai (Ὁ nny), which is of special import- 
 ance for the criticism of the Massoretic text. The same 
 commentary, composed originally in 1626 under the name 
 Gédér peres, is also to be found in the Vienna Bible, 1815-16. 
 
 Compare De Rossi, Varia lectiones, i. Ὁ. exxxix ff.; Le 
 
 Long, Bibliotheca sacra, Paris 1723, a new edition by Masch, 
 Halle 1778-90; De Wette-Schrader, Zinleitung, p. 217 ff. ; 
 
84 § 24, PRINTED EDITIONS. 
 
 Rosenmiiller, Handbuch der Litt. α΄. bibl. Kritik und LExegese, 
 i. 189 ff, iii 279 ff Of the Five Megilloth the old Mac- 
 hazor editions ought to be referred to; see upon these: Baer, 
 Quingue volumina, Ὁ. iv. To the works named in De Wette- 
 Schrader, Hinleitung, Ὁ. 217, on the oldest printed Hebrew 
 editions, should be added: F. Sacchi, Z tipographi Kbrev di 
 Soncino, Cremona 1877. On Luther’s manual edition of the 
 Bible compare Delitzsch in the Allgem. Luth. Evang. KZ, 1883, 
 Nr. 51. On the edition of the Psalms of 1477, compare 
 Baer, Liber psalmorum, iv. seq. Of Baer’s editions there have 
 appeared: Genesis, 1869; Isaiah, 1872; Jeremiah, 1890; 
 Ezekiel, 1884 ; the Twelve Prophets, 1878 ; the Psalms, 1880; 
 Proverbs, 1880; Job, 1875; the Five Megilloth, 1886; Daniel, 
 Ezra, and Nehemiah, 1882; Chronicles, 1888 ; see Euringer, 
 Der Masoratext des Koheleth, 1890. 
 
 Polyglots: The Complutensian Bible, 1514-1517; The 
 Antwerp Polyglot (“Regia” or “Plantiniana,” after the 
 Antwerp printer Christian Plantin, who died in A.D. 1589), 
 1569-1572. Upon the Antwerp text of the Old Testament, 
 as Delitzsch in the second of the treatises referred to below 
 has shown, is based the Hebrew part of the Biblia sacra, 
 Hebraice, Greece et Latine ex officina Sanctandreana 1587 (1599 
 and 1616 ex officina Commeliana). Finally the Parisian Poly- 
 elot, 1629-1645, and the London Polyglot, 1654-1657 
 (1817-1828, 1831).—Franz Delitzsch has dealt with the 
 Complutensian Polyglot in detail in three Leipsic Disserta- 
 tions: Studien zur Entstchungsgeschichte der Polygottenbibel des 
 
 fardinals Ximenes, 1871 (in which he gives, p. 19 ff, a 
 biographical sketch of Ximenes, and at p. 24 ff a sketch of 
 his fellow-workers on the Polyglot); Complutensische Varianten 
 zum Alttestam. Texte, 1878 (with investigations about the 
 Hebrew manuscripts by Ximenes); ferigesetzte Studien zur 
 Entstehungsgeschichte der complutensischen Polyglotte, 1886. 
 See more particulars below at p. 134. 
 
 Rabbinical Bibles: The first Bomberg Bible, edited by 
 Felix Pratensis, Vienna 1517-1518; Second Bomberg Bible, 
 edited by Jacob ben Chajim, 1525; Buxtortf’s Bible, Basel, 
 1618-1619; the Biblia magna mv Πρ (rich in materials), 
 
%, THE SAMARITAN TEXT. 85 
 
 Amsterdam 1724-1727; Biblia hebraica, Warsaw 1875- 
 1877. 
 
 On Solomon di Norzi’s Commentary and the Mantuan 
 edition, see Fiirst, Bibliographisches Handbuch der gesamten 
 jiidischen Litteratur, iii. 39 ἢ, Of importance in connection 
 with the Massora is the edition of Genesis by Heidenheim, 
 ὯΝ ἬΝ, 1818. 
 
 25. The peculiar form of the Pentateuch text used by the 
 Samaritans (§ 11) was printed in the Parisian and London 
 Polyglots, and was published separately by B. Blayney 
 (Oxford 1790) in a quarto edition. 
 
 Compare Kautzsch in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedie*, xiii. 
 353, 
 
 2. Manuscripts. 
 
 26. In comparison with the extreme antiquity of the Old 
 Testament books, the manuscripts of these must be described 
 as remarkably recent. Between the oldest manuscript whose 
 date can with certainty be ascertained and the writing con- 
 tained in it there lies a period of nearly seventeen hundred 
 years. The reason of this fact, which is all the more remark- 
 able on this account, that we possess manuscripts of several 
 translations of the Old Testament of a much earlier date, is 
 found in this, that the Jews, far from manifesting zeal in the 
 preservation of old Codices of the Bible, were wont rather, 
 when the manuscripts could no longer be used on account of 
 age, and were therefore laid in the lumber room of the syna- 
 gogue (7123), to accelerate their destruction, because they 
 feared lest the manuscripts no longer in use might be in any 
 way profaned. Notwithstanding the considerable number of 
 Old Testament manuscripts, we nevertheless possess only a 
 few which can even in a certain sense be called old, and of 
 these generally it is to be remarked, that the age of the 
 manuscripts cannot always With certainty be determined. 
 
86 § 27. CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 The catalogues of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are 
 given in Strack’s Prolegomena, pp. 29-33,119-—121. To this 
 work we may add further: Steinschneider, Die hebrdischen 
 Handschriften d. konigl. Bibliothek zu Miinchen, 1875; 
 Harkavy and Strack, Katalog d. hebr. Handschriften in St. 
 Petersburg, 1875; Schiller-Szinessy, Catalogue of the Hebrew 
 Manuscripts in Cambridge, 1876 ; Steinschneider, Katalog der 
 hebr. Handschriften in der Stadtbibliothek zu Hamburg, 1878 ; 
 Die Handschriftenverzeichnisse der kinigl. Bibl. zw Berlin, ii. 
 1878; Landauer, Katalog der Bibliothek in Strassburg. 
 Orient. Handschrifter, 1. 1881; Neubauer, Catalogue of the 
 Flebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, 1886. On the 
 Erfurt manuscripts compare Lagarde, Symmicta, 1877, p. 133 
 ff., and Baer, Liber Χ 17. Proph. p. vi. Merx, Chrestomathia 
 targumica xv. gives a list of manuscripts with the Babylonian 
 system of points. Compare generally the preface to Baer’s 
 editions of the text referred to in § 24, where various manu- 
 scripts in the possession of private parties are referred to and 
 described. On the Machazor manuscripts, compare Baer, 
 Quinque volumina, iv. seq. 
 
 On the Genizd see M. Sab. ix. 6; Soph’rim v. 14, p. xi; 
 Strack, Prolegomena, 42, and compare above ὃ 2. 
 
 27. The age of manuscripts can be determined accurately 
 only when they have come down with a dated subscription, and 
 even then we must be prepared for the possibility of falsifications 
 and ante-datings, which some editors had recourse to in order to 
 give increased value to the manuscripts. In recent times the 
 Karaite, A. Firkowitzsch,has obtained a particularly unfortunate 
 notoriety for this sort of work. Another, not so decisive mark 
 is afforded by certain formule, especially benedictions, which, as 
 can be conclusively proved, were first introduced at particular 
 periods. On the other hand, determinations as to the age of 
 manuscripts which are derived from the form of the letters or 
 other graphical peculiarities, are still more insecure, whereas by 
 these means the manuscripts can be grouped with great certainty 
 according to the place of their origin (German, Spanish, etc.). 
 
§ 28. OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS. 87 
 
 Compare Strack, Prolegomena, p. 33 ff.; ZL, 1875, 
 p. 601 f.; Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Litteratur, 1845, pp. 207, 
 214-230; Tychsen, Zentamen de variis codicum Hebraicorum 
 generibus, Rostock 1872; Idem, Beurteilung der Jahrzahlen 
 in den hebraisch-biblischen Handschriften, Rostock 1786; 
 Schnurrer, De codd. V. T. wtate difficulter determinanda, Tib. 
 1772. On the formule of the copyists compare also Bleek, 
 Hinleitung *, p. 565; and with regard thereto: Theolog. Litera- 
 turzeitung, 1878, p. 571. 
 
 On the forgeries of Firkowitzsch in general: see Harkavy 
 in Mémoires de Academie de St. Petersbourg, vii, 24, Nr. 1; 
 Strack, A. Firkowitzsch und seine Entdeckungen, 1876; and 
 ZDGM, xxxiv. p. 163 ff. On Chwolson’s otherwise very 
 learned Corpus inscriptionum Hebraicarum, St. Petersburg 
 1882, wherein an attempt is made partially to vindicate 
 Firkowitzsch, compare Strack in ZCB, 1883, p. 878. See 
 also § 76. 
 
 On some peculiarities of the pointing in the oldest manu- 
 scripts (“for Qames hatuph and the employment of Daghesh 
 lene in all letters”) see Baer, Liber Jeremie, p. vill seq. 
 
 A picture of the various types of letters is given in Euting’s 
 Schrifttafel in Chwolson’s Corpus inscriptionum Hebraicarum. 
 Compare also the facsimiles referred to in § 28. 
 
 28. The oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament whose 
 date can be with certainty ascertained belong to the tenth 
 century. Notwithstanding the many forgeries of Firkowitzsch 
 (ὃ 27), we owe to his collections of manuscripts from the 
 Crimea the oldest Codex, whose age can be given with 
 certainty, namely, a Babylonian manuscript of the Prophete 
 Posteriores of the year 916. It has been edited in a photo- 
 lithographic facsimile by H. L. Strack. To the same century 
 belong some fragments of Karaite Bible manuscripts, which 
 were obtained by Shapira in Hit (on the Euphrates, south- 
 west of Bagdad) and in Cairo. They are written in Arabic 
 letters, but with Hebrew points. The oldest manuscript of 
 the entire Old Testament, on the assumption of the correctness 
 
88 § 28. OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 of the date, is the Codex of the year 1010, which belongs also 
 to the Firkowitzsch collection. On the other hand, there are 
 some manuscripts which claim to be yet more ancient, such 
 as the often referred to Standard Codex of Aaron ben Asher 
 (§ 30) in Aleppo, and a Codex in Cambridge alleged to have 
 been written in the year 856, which more exact investigations 
 have shown to be of more recent origin. 
 
 Strack, Prophetarum posteriorum Codex Babylonicus Petro- 
 politanus, St. Petersburg 1876, of which the Russian Emperor 
 has presented copies to several libraries. Separately: Hosea 
 et Joel prophete. Ad fidem Cod. Babylonici Petropolitani, ed. 
 H. L. Strack, Leipsic 1875. 
 
 Hoerning, Descriptions and Collations of Six Karaite Manu- 
 scripts of portions of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic Characters, 
 London 1889. Of the whole number of these manuscripts 
 now to be found in the British Museum there are six here 
 described, and one (MSS. Orient. 2540), which comprises 
 Exodus i. i—vill. 5, is reproduced. 
 
 On Aaron ben Asher’s Codex compare Michaélis, Orient. 
 und exegt. Bibliothek, x. 63; the Jewish traveller Jacob 
 Sappir’s Account of his Travels -pp jax, Lyck, 1866, p. 12 ff.; 
 and especially, W. Wickes, 4 Treatise on the Accentuation of the 
 so-called Prose Books of the Old Testament, 1887, wherein a 
 sheet of manuscript is reproduced in facsimile by photography, 
 and where (pp. vii-ix) the incorrectness of the date is proved. 
 According to Lagarde (VWGGW, 1890, p. 16) it belongs to the 
 German manuscripts of the fourteenth century. 
 
 On the often referred to Cambridge Codex, Nr. 12, compare 
 Neubauer in The Academy, 1887, p. 321, against Schiller- 
 Szinessy’s article in the same paper, p. 304. 
 
 Wickes denies the correctness of the date of the Bible of A.D. 
 1010 or 1009. In his Treatise on the Accentuation, etc., p. 1x, 
 he says: “1 have myself no doubt, from personal inspection, that 
 Codex B, 19a,in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, dated 
 1009, is much younger, although the editors of the Catalogue 
 [Harkavy and Strack, pp. 263-274; compare also Baer and 
 Strack, Dikduke Hateamim. xxiv. seq.] accept the date.” 
 
§ 29. SAMARITAN MANUSCRIPTS. 89 
 
 On other old manuscripts see Strack, 7771875, p. 598 ἢ; 
 Delitzsch, Complutensische Varianten, 1878, p. 4 ff, and 
 especially the prefaces in Baer’s editions of the texts. The 
 celebrated Reuchlin Prophet - Codex dates from the year 
 1106. Compare the description of it in Baer, Liber Jeremie, 
 p. V1 sq. 
 
 Besides the already-mentioned facsimiles, we also meet with 
 reproductions of the older Old Testament manuscripts in the 
 Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts, published by the Paleo- 
 graphical Society, Oriental Series 111. sheets 40, 41, iv. 
 sheet 54; also in Neubauer’s Catalogue of the Hebrew Manu- 
 scripts in the Bodleian Library, p. 86. In his Geschichte des 
 Volkes Israel, p. 32, Stade gives representations of Reuchlin’s 
 Prophet-Codex, the Erfurt Bible Manuscript No. 3, and the 
 above referred to St. Petersburg Prophet-Codex. Further 
 literature in Steinschneider, Centralblatt fiir Bubliothekwesen, iv. 
 1887, pp. 155-165. 
 
 A manuscript fragment of Deuteronomy, alleged to be very 
 old, which caused some excitement in the year 1883, is 
 described by Guthe in Fragmente einer Lederhandschrift, 
 mitgeteilt und gepriift, Leipsic 1883. 
 
 In the Memoires de l Academie imp. de St. Petersbourg, 
 series vii. tome xxxii. 1884, Nr. 8, Harkavy describes some 
 manuscript fragments from Rhodes with a peculiar alphabet, 
 which, however, are decidedly spurious. Compare Derenbourg 
 in REJ, x. 311, and Baer, Quinque volumina, vi. sq. 
 
 29. To the Hebrew manuscripts of the Law belong also the 
 Samaritan Codices (§§ 11, 25). Since these manuscripts 
 represent a text, which at a very early period separated itself 
 from the Jewish text, it is not to be wondered at that often 
 a great importance has been attached to them, and that it has 
 been thought that by a comparison between them and the 
 received text an important step might be taken in the 
 reconstruction of the text of the Pentateuch. But the 
 Samaritan text has been so disfigured by errors of trans- 
 cription and by arbitrary treatment, that its critical import- 
 
90 § 30. COLLECTIONS OF VARIATIONS. 
 
 ance is very much restricted. These manuscripts are of 
 greater interest on account of the letter signs used in them 
 and their want of vowels, whereby in another way they 
 confirm the results obtained with regard to the external 
 history of the text. 
 
 Compare Eichhorn, ZHinleitung*, δὲ 378-389; Rosen in 
 the ZDMG, xviii. 582 ff.; Strack, Prolegomena, p. 56 f.; 
 Herzoe’s Real-Encyclopedie”, 1. 283, xii, 349, 334; and 
 Harkavy’s Katalog der samaritan. Pentateuch-Codices, Peters- 
 burg 1874 (in the Russian language)... Compare also 
 Heidenheim’s Bibliotheca Samaritana, 1. p. xiv sqq., and in 
 review of it, ZDMG, xxxix. p. 167. 
 
 3. Collections of Variations. 
 
 30. By means of the great collections of variations made 
 during last century by Kennicott and John Bern. de Rossi, and 
 by means of the apparatus of the critical editions, we have 
 been placed in a position to make use of manuscripts which 
 are no longer themselves extant. We come into possession of 
 variations from manuscripts no longer extant, which the 
 Jewish traditional text has preserved (ὃ 31). We may 
 readily set aside what is presented us in the readings of Rabbi 
 Meir and of a Torah Codex, said to have been brought from 
 Rome and preserved in the Severus Synagogue there. On 
 the other hand, the Jewish tradition presents a series of 
 readings which various standard Codices, drawn up by cele- 
 brated punctuators, have adopted. Such Codices (sometimes 
 called Mahzoroth) are: the Codex Hilleli (named after an 
 unknown R. Hillel), Codex Zanbiki, the Jericho Pentateuch, 
 Sepher Sinai, Keter Schem Tob, Machzora Rabba, etc. We must 
 also mention readings from various authorities during the 
 period between the eighth and the tenth centuries, like R. 
 Pinchas, R. Moses, R. Chabib, etc., first made known in recent 
 
§ 30. COLLECTIONS OF VARIATIONS. 91 
 
 times by means of the manuscripts of the Crimea; and finally, 
 the divergent readings of the two celebrated masters from 
 the beginning of the tenth century, R. Moses ben David ben 
 Naphtali in Babylon, and R. Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in 
 Tiberias. The latter has become the most distinguished 
 authority in favour of the received text. For the rest, these 
 variations, for the most part varieties of vocalisation, are of 
 more importance for philological than for textual criticism. 
 Although Ben Naphtali lived in Babylon, and his text 
 sometimes agrees with the traditional Babylonian text, his 
 text cannot be without more ado regarded as representative 
 of the Babylonian text in its opposition to the Palestinian 
 text or the text of Tiberias. On the contrary, a series of 
 variations has long been known which indicate the difference 
 between the Recensions of the Babylonian or Palestinian, or, as 
 they are commonly named in the history of the text, the 
 Eastern (xn, mdinhdjé) and the Western (*wanyn, ma‘arbaje) 
 schools. It was, however, only the discoveries of recent times 
 that made it evident how far-reaching this distinction was. As 
 the Babylonians and the Palestinians both had their Talmuds 
 (Babli and Jeruschalmi), their editions of the Targums (§ 61), 
 their arrangement of the biblical books (ὃ 10), and their system 
 of pointing (ὃ 80), so, too, they both had their Recensions of the 
 text. The earliest known list of these variations, we owe to 
 Jacob ben Chajim, who, undoubtedly on the basis of old manu- 
 scripts, communicated it in his Rabbinical Bible (ὃ 24). 
 Recent discoveries, however, have not only shown that these 
 lists must have been improved and enlarged, but have also 
 brought into light manuscripts, which contained the Babylonian 
 Lecension with all its peculiarities (ὃ 28). The variations extend 
 over all the Old Testament, and refer to the consonants as well 
 as to their vowel pronunciation. Finally, in some few passages 
 there are also reported differences between the readings of the 
 schools of the two Babylonian cities, Nehardea and Sora. 
 
92 § 30. COLLECTIONS OF VARIATIONS. 
 
 The question as to how far Q%e and K°*tib are to be 
 regarded as actual variations will be discussed in ὃ 33. 
 
 Kennicott, Vetus testamentum hebraicum cum variis lectioni- 
 bus, Oxford 1776-1780 (treats only of the consonantal texts) ; 
 the therein included Dissertatio generalis is edited by Bruns, 
 Brunswick 1783; De Rossi, Variew lectiones Veteris Testa- 
 menti, Parma, 1784-1788 ; and Scholia critica in V. T. Libr. 
 8. supplementa ad varias lectiones sacri textus, Parma 1798; 
 Delitzsch, Complutensische Varianten, 1878. The critical 
 apparatus in Baer’s editions (ὃ 24); Strack in ZZT7, 1877, 
 p. 17 ff (on Isaiah). The collations in Heerning’s Karaite 
 manuscripts mentioned in § 28. 
 
 The reported readings of R. Meir (see in regard to him, 
 Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums, 11. 86 ff.) are given: Bereshith 
 rb. c. 9 (Gen. i. 31; mp instead of IN»); Jdem, c. 20 (Gen. 
 iil. 21, sw instead of wy); Jdem, ὁ. 94 (Gen. xlvi. 23, jn 
 instead of *93)); jer. Taan. i. 1, fol. 64a (Isaiah xxi. 11, ἘΠ 
 instead of mn, indeed his reading rather is ‘on [Edom being 
 popularly regarded as equivalent to Rome], compare Jerome 
 on the passage). With these readings agree at least once 
 the readings of a Torah roll catalogued in a manuscript 
 Midrash, Bereshith rabbati (now in the library of the Israelite 
 community at Prague), which was brought to Rome, and there 
 “Jaid up in the wmnpxt ΚΠ 55. This roll is mentioned by 
 Kimchi on Gen. 1. 31, who writes “ the Synagogue of Severus.” 
 Epstein, who in the M@GWJ, 1885, pp. 337-351, quotes 
 these passages, conjectures that it may have been the roll of 
 the Law brought by Titus to Rome (see Josephus, Wars of the 
 Jews, vii. 5. 5). Compare further, Hochmuth in the same 
 journal, 1886, pp. 274-279. For the rest, at least the so- 
 called reading of R. Meir, nyo for 4" in Gen. 1. 31, might be 
 regarded rather as a free playful modification of the common 
 text than as a reading properly so-called. 
 
 On the ancient standard Codices, see Strack, Prolegomena, 
 14-29, 112-118, and ZZT, 1875, p. 613 f. On the Codex 
 Hiilleli, see the Academy, 1888, p. 321. 
 
 On Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, compare Strack, Prolego- 
 
§ 30, COLLECTIONS OF VARIATIONS. 93 
 
 mena, p. 24 ff.; ZLT, 1875, p. 616; Herzog’s Real-Hncyclo- 
 pedie*, ix. 390 ff.; Berliner, Zargum Onkelos, 1884, ii. 139; 
 and especially Baer and Strack, Die Dikduke hateamim des 
 Ahron b. M. ὃ. Ascher, 1879, pp. x ff., 78 ff. 84. These various 
 readings are given in a manuscript of the Tschufutkale-Collec- 
 tion, Nr. 13, O% 25 NY (see Dikduke, xxxii.; Baer, Liber psal- 
 morum, p. vi; Liber Hzechielis, p. vi; Quinque volumina, p v), 
 and in the pon ‘dn of the Codex de Rossi, Nr. 940 (see 
 Baer, Liber Jerenie, p. x sq.). They are mentioned, as well 
 as the following variations, in all the editions of Baer. Of 
 the three passages where the divergences between Ben 
 Naphtali and Ben Asher are said to have referred also to the 
 consonants, Jer. xi. 7, xxix. 22; 1 Kings iii. 20 (see ZZT, 
 1875, p. 611; Dikduke, xiii.), the two first are not established 
 by Baer’s edition. 
 
 On the.Eastern and Western schools, compare Strack, Prole- 
 gomena, 36-41, 121; ZLT, 1875, p. 608 ff, 1877, p. 22; 
 Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 32 ff. Lists of their 
 divergent readings are to be found in the Codex ben Asher 
 (see Baer, Liber Duodecim, p. viii), in the Bible of the year 
 1010, and in the Codices T'schufutkale, Nr. 7 and 18a (Baer, 
 Quingue volumina, p. v; Liber Jobi, p. v). It is to be 
 observed that the South Arabian manuscripts with “ Baby- 
 lonian” vocalisation contain the readings of the Western 
 school. See Wickes, Zhe Accentuation of the Prose Books, p. 
 150. 
 
 The schools at Nehardea and Sora (compare on these cities, 
 Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, 350 f., 343) diverged from 
 one another in their Halacha as well as in their Targum 
 criticism. An example of their different Bible readings is 
 to be found in Neh. iii. 37, where, according to the MJassora 
 magna, those of Nehardea read $x, those of Sora ὅδ). Com- 
 pare on them, Strack, Prolegomena, p. 40; Berliner, Die 
 Massora zum Targum Onkelos, ii. 61 ff. According to Berliner 
 the members of the school of Nehardea were emigrant 
 Palestinians, and consequently they followed the western 
 readings. 
 
94 § 31. THE MASSORA. 
 
 4. The Jewish Massora. 
 
 31. The want of old manuscripts of the Old Testament is 
 to some extent supplied by the so-called Massora or text 
 tradition of the Jews, which makes it possible for us to trace 
 back the text to the times earlier than those to which the 
 earliest extant manuscripts belong. ‘The proper task of the 
 Massora was the guarding of the Bible manuscripts against 
 degeneration through carelessness and wilfulness on the part 
 of transcribers, and, in consequence, the most painful and 
 minute supervision was exercised upon them; but just in this 
 way the Massora affords a glimpse into the form of the text 
 transmitted from early times which cannot be too highly 
 valued. Lists of the peculiarities of the text from all points 
 of view were compiled, all singularities were registered, so 
 that they could not easily be obliterated at the hands of 
 transcribers, and in this way a “fence” was built up around 
 Scripture, which has actually resulted in this, that we meet 
 with the text in essentially only one form from the time in 
 which the scribes began to watch over the transmission of the 
 text with this painstaking exactness. There were certainly 
 at the various centres of the Jews various Massoras, the 
 memory of which is preserved by means of the lists of 
 variations of the Massora that had won general acceptance 
 (§ 30), but these differences were trifling, and affected the 
 received form of text very little. The Massoretic material is 
 made up of marginal notes on the Bible manuscripts, and 
 of independent works. The marginal notes (Massora margin- 
 alis) stand either above or below the text, and are then 
 called Massora magna, or alongside the text, and are then 
 called Massora parva. The independent Massoretic works 
 are the expansion of the Massora magna. They were often 
 added at the end of the Bible text in manuscripts and 
 editions, whence the name JMassora finalis, The form in 
 
§ 31. THE MASSORA. 95 
 
 which the Massoretic material was communicated is that of 
 an alphabetical list, or of statements as to how often the 
 forms referred to are met with, or of the gathering together 
 of such expressions as are similar to one another, and might 
 therefore be readily interchanged. 
 
 Introductions into the difficult study of the Massora, that 
 may be used still with great advantage, are afforded by Jacob ben 
 Chajim in the preface to his Rabbinical Bible (ὃ 24), by Elias 
 Levita in his Massora hamasoreth, and by the elder Buxtorf. 
 
 A style of dealing with the text, which reminds us of that 
 of the Jews, is met with among the Indians; see Max Miiller, 
 Lectures on the Science of Language, 1861, p. 107. We also 
 meet with something similar among the Persians; see Sitz- 
 ungsberichte der konigl. bayerischen Akademie εἰ. Wéissensch. 
 1872, p. 96. 
 
 The pronunciation of the word np» or AND» is uncertain, 
 for we find ΓΒ. as well as Mid (MID). Both forms, which 
 occur in Ezekiel xx. 27, are remarkable, since the word is 
 derived from 1D, ¢radere. We should have expected Mid», 
 like 12 (Barth, Nominalbildung, ὃ 42a, 2). We prefer the 
 form Massora, which may have originated through sharpening 
 the accentuation, compare napa (Barth, ὃ 93a 8), whereas 
 MD, since 77432 as an intransitive is not parallel, is more 
 difficult to explain. Also the pronunciation of the correspond- 
 ing Aramaic snipo is doubtful. Compare the divergent 
 hypotheses in Lagarde, VGGIW, 1882, p. 168; Dalman, 
 Der Gottesname Adonaj. 1889, p. 8; and Strack, Theol. 
 Iitteraturblatt, 1889, p. 291. 
 
 Elias Levita’s (§ 9) monn mp ἼΒΌ was published in 
 Venice in 1536. A German translation was prepared by 
 Semler (Halle 1772); a new edition of the text, with English 
 translation by Ginsburg (The Book of the Massorah, with 
 translation and critical and explanatory notes, ed. ©. D. 
 Ginsburg, London 1867). Compare especially Bacher, 7DMG, 
 xhii. 231 ff Ginsburg has edited Jacob ben Chajim’s preface 
 -in Hebrew and English, 2nd ed., London 1867. 
 
96 § 32. HISTORY OF THE MASSORA. 
 
 Buxtorf, Tiberias sive commentarius masoreticus triplex, Basel, 
 1620, and often reprinted. A fragment of it as a specimen 
 of the mode of treatment is given by Bleek, Linleitung *, 
 p. 568 f. While Buxtorf here interprets the first chapter of 
 Genesis, the following seven chapters are commented on by 
 J. Hansen, Jnterpretatio masore magne textualis, Copenhagen 
 1733-1737. 
 
 32. The beginnings of the Jewish Massora can be traced 
 back to a very early period. How far indeed R. Akiba, with 
 his saying that “the ΠΟ is a fence around the Law” (Pirke 
 Aboth, iii. 13), is thinking of the text transmission, is doubt- 
 ful; but in any case we meet with contributions from the 
 Massoretic material even in the Mishna, and then, considerably 
 increased, in the Gemara and in the old Midrashic works, 
 with the exception, as can readily be understood, of all that 
 refers to the later system of pointing. There is a further 
 increase of material in the post-Talmudic tracts Musseket 
 sepher torah and Masseket soph’rvm, which are occupied with 
 the rules for the transcription of the Torah rolls. With 
 the invention of the system of pointing, the work of the 
 Massoretes received a new impetus, because now many 
 delicate points which previously could only be transmitted 
 orally could be fixed in writing. Aaron ben Moses ben 
 Asher of the tenth century, above referred to (§ 30), who 
 belonged to a distinguished family of punctuators in Tiberias, 
 composed a treatise which, besides all sorts of purely 
 crammatical remarks, communicated a series of Massoretic 
 observations and rules. This work was imitated in many 
 similar half-grammatical, half-Massoretic tracts, which, under 
 the name Horajath ha kore, gave rules for transcription and 
 pointing. In the following ages, when a purely philological 
 literature had been developed, the grammatical material was 
 separated from these works; and, at the same time, there 
 arose a purely Massoretic literature under the two forms 
 
] 
 ip 
 
 § 32. THE MASSORA. 97 
 
 mentioned above, marginal notes and independent writings, 
 by the latter of which the marginal notes of an almost 
 enigmatical character were often for the first time made 
 intelligible. A standard work of the independent order was 
 the celebrated book Ochla w'ochla, so called on account of its 
 commencement, which placed together the nbax of 1 Sam. i. 9 
 and of Gen. xxvii. 19. That it was already in existence in 
 the latter half of the twelfth century is beyond question, 
 whereas its relation to the Massora of Gerson ben Judah, who 
 lived in the eleventh century, is very doubtful. Its great 
 importance, however, consists in this that it circulated in at 
 least three different editions, of which two are still extant in 
 their original form. The third seems to have been used by 
 Jacob ben Chajim in the Massora magna, which he appended 
 to the end of his Rabbinical Bible (δὲ 24, 31). Elias Levita 
 also (§ 31), who was almost contemporary with Jacob, used 
 the book Ochla, which he praises as “ small in size but without 
 equal in the department of the Massora.” In the following 
 century the great Buxtorf sought, on the foundation laid in 
 the works named, to make Massoretic studies generally 
 accessible and fruitful (ὃ 51). At this time also appeared 
 Menahem di Lonzano’s Or tora, 1618, while Norzi’s above- 
 named critical commentary Géder peres (δ 24) did not appear 
 till somewhat later. In the eighteenth century Massoretic 
 studies found little favour, either among Christians or among 
 Jews. Only in our own century has new life been imparted 
 to them and essentially furthered by the works of W. Heiden- 
 heim (who died at Rédelheim in 1852), L. Dukes, Frensdorff, 
 Baer, Strack, J. Derenbourg, Wickes, and C. D. Ginsburg, 
 many of them very celebrated, and by the manuscripts brought 
 to light by them. The fruits of these minute and unwearied 
 investigations are presented in Baer’s edition of the text 
 corrected according to the Massora, and in many monographs 
 
 of the most recent Hebrew grammarians. 
 G 
 
98 § 32. THE MASSORA. 
 
 On the history of the Massora compare Geiger in the Jid. 
 Zeitschrift, iii. 78 ff.; Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedie’, 
 ix. 388 ff.; L. Blau, Massoretische Untersuchungen, 1891. 
 
 The statements regarding the Massora in the earliest Jewish 
 writings are collected in Strack’s Prolegomena, 73-94, 122 f., 
 where the literature will be found fully given. 
 
 Sepher tora is published in Kirchheim’s V LJ. libri Talmudier 
 parvt Hierosolymitant, Frankfurt 1851, pp. 1-11. Masseket 
 soph'rim, edited by J. Miiller, Leipsic 1878. Compare also 
 Adler, Judaworum codicis sacri rite scribendi leges, a libello 
 Thalmudico amp napa im lat. converse et annot. explicate, 
 Hamburg 1779. 
 
 On Aaron ben Asher, compare further § 80. Of his 
 massoretico-grammatical lessons a part was printed in the first 
 Rabbinical Bible (ὃ 24); afterwards L. Dukes gave quotations 
 in his Kontres hamasoret, 1846. Finally, Baer and Strack, 
 building with materials supplied by many contributors, have 
 edited the entire collection in a critical text: Die dikduke 
 ha-teamim des Ahron b. M. b. Ascher, Leipsic 1879. 
 
 A similar treatise, accompanied by valuable notes, has 
 been published by Derenbourg, according to a South Arabian 
 manuscript written in A.D. 1390, under the title “ Manuel du 
 Lecteur,” in the Journal Asiatique, 1870, xvi. 309 ff The 
 Jews in Yemen called such a compendium which frequently 
 preceded their Bible manuscripts, jenn mann, “Treatise on 
 the Crown, we. the Bible” Among the other Jews the 
 commoner name for it was DID. 
 
 On the grammatico-massoretic writers quoted by Elias 
 Levita, compare Bacher ZDMG, xl. 208. Especially on 
 the book Horajath ha-gore, see Wickes, Accentwation of the 
 Prose Books, p. X sq. 
 
 Gritz in MGW J, 1887, p. 154, attempts to prove that 
 the book Ochla was a work of Gerson ben Judah, who died 
 in AD. 1028. See, however, the opposing arguments of 
 Neubauer and Bacher in the same journal, pp. 299-309. 
 The one form of the text of the book is to be found in a 
 Halle manuscript, which Hupfield (7ZDMG, xxi. 202 ff.) 
 describes; the other in a Parisian Codex, which Frensdorff 
 
§ 38. ΚΡΤΊΒ AND QPRE 99 
 
 has edited: Das Buch Ochla W*ochla, Hanover 1864. That 
 Jacob ben Chajim used a third form of text of this work as 
 the basis of his Jlassora finalis, has been conjectured by 
 Griitz among others. 
 
 Frensdorff has issued in a separate edition: 727 ᾿Ξ 
 i337) (by Moses the Punctuator), Hanover 1847, and the 
 first volume of a Massora magna (Massoretisches Worterbuch), 
 Hanover 1876. Unfortunately this Massoretic Dictionary 
 is not to be continued. 
 
 Ginsburg’s laborious edition of the Massora (Zhe Massorah 
 compiled from manuscripts, alphabetically and lexically arranged, 
 i.—iil. 1880-1885) has been very severely criticised in The 
 Guardian, 1886, p. 1049, and by Baer, ZDMG, xl. 743 ff, 
 and described as quite an uncritical compilation. 
 
 An improved Massoretic text is being prepared by Baer 
 for the great Rabbinical Bible, ALikra gadol, which will be 
 published at Wilna. 
 
 Compare also the literature given in § 82. 
 
 33. While the portions of the Massora which consist in 
 numbers of verses, words, and letters, in lists of rare and 
 remarkable forms or expressions, which might be readily 
 interchanged with one another, are in part made mention of 
 in the following sections, we shall, in so far as it has not 
 already been done in ὃ 50, here concern ourselves with those 
 parts of the Massora which give information about divergent 
 forms of text, and are therefore of special interest for the 
 history of the text. To this class belong the distinctions 
 recorded in the Massora between A‘¢ib and @ré (usually, but 
 wrongly written (77), or between the written and the read 
 text. Ina pretty numerous set of passages—1314 according 
 to the Massora—the Jews read a different form of text from 
 that which has been transmitted in writing, for sometimes 
 they pronounce another word, or another form of the word— 
 sometimes they add something to or take something away 
 from the text, or, finally, sometimes they arrange the letters 
 
100 § 33. K®TIB AND QFRE. 
 
 differently. A trace of this guid pro quo can clearly be traced 
 back to the times before Christ, for even then the substitution 
 of myn for ‘278 must have become a very general practice 
 (compare § 76). At a later period we find the practice 
 erowing in extent in the Talmud, Sepher tora, Masseket 
 soph’rim, and in the Massoretic works. The. utterances of 
 the Massoretes, moreover, are not in perfect agreement upon 
 this point, for, in particular, not a few of the varying readings 
 of the Palestinian and Babylonian Jews (§ 30) consist simply 
 in varying statements of the Qarjan. The Qarjan, quoted in 
 the Babylonian Talmud, twice (Ruth 11. 11 and Jer. xxxii. 11) 
 acrees with the Babylonians against the Palestinians. 
 
 This somewhat remarkable phenomeuon, when we take into 
 consideration the Jewish reverence for the traditional text, 
 is explained very simply from one part of the Qarjan. In 
 the Bible we meet with various expressions which, on various 
 accounts, people could not venture to pronounce in their 
 synagocgical readings from the Law and the Prophets, and which 
 they were therefore in the habit of interchanging with other 
 harmless expressions. When the public synagogical reading had 
 been fixed in writing by means of pointing, the vowels of the 
 substituted expression were given to the words in question, 
 while the consonants to which these vowels were originally 
 attached were added in the margin. Thus ‘278 was read in 
 place of the unpronounceable myn (without, however, in the case 
 of this frequently-recurring word, writing the letters "4" in 
 the margin), 25¥ instead of the unlucky word δι}, ney instead 
 of oxsin, etc. The same also naturally occurred in the corre- 
 sponding passages of the Hagiographa, which received a 
 system of pointing moulded upon the mode of the reading 
 followed in the synagogue. Further, it is easily understood 
 how, with regard to the Law and the Prophets, in other cases 
 also there should be a strong tendency to hold fast to the 
 mode of reading that had become crystallised by repeated use 
 
§ 33. K'TIB AND Q°RE. 101 
 
 in the synagogues, even where it diverged from the authorised 
 written form of the text. And so, too, the Qarjan of those books 
 of the Hagiographa that were not read in the synagogues pro- 
 ceeded from the old-established use and wont of the teachers 
 who were accustomed to read these books, In so far it may 
 be allowed to be possible, that the Qarjan witnesses to the 
 existence of older forms of text which have been dislodged by 
 the Teatus Receptus ; and upon this hypothesis are really most 
 easily explained such double forms of text as are absolutely 
 equal in value, eg. Isa. xxii, 12, K%ib OMS, Ure OND; Ps, 
 v. 9, Αἰ, Win, Οὐ WO. Of a more doubtful nature 
 are the cases where the distinction has a purely gram- 
 matical and logical significance. Possibly, in the traditional 
 mode of reading in the synagogue, free play was given to all 
 sorts of subjective treatment of the text, for the words may 
 have been differently divided according to the conceivable or 
 actual sense, the suffixes may have been changed and the article 
 taken away. It is scarcely possible to come to a definite 
 conclusion with regard to the subjective or objective character 
 of this sort of Qarjan. It must also be admitted to be a 
 possible thing, that this subjective determination of the mode 
 of reading may also have been continued in accordance with 
 the established form of the canonical consonantal text in the 
 principal schools. But, in any case, it soon became finally 
 fixed, since even Ben Asher treats the read text as equally 
 sacred and inspired with the X‘¢éb itself; while the almost 
 contemporary Saadia also regarded all recorded variations of 
 the text as resting upon revelation. 
 
 Lists of literature are given by Strack, Prolegomena, p. 
 80 ff., 125, who quotes also the cases of Q’re and αἴ ἐὺ, given 
 in the Talmudical writings.. Compare the partially-divergent 
 hypothesis of Cappellus, Critica sacra, ili. c. 1-16; Morinus, 
 Exercitat. bibl. p. 533 ff.; Geiger, Urschrift, p. 254 ff. ; 
 Noéldeke, in ZWT, 1873, p. 445; ZDMG, xxxii. 591; 
 
102 § 33. K°TiB AND QPRE. 
 
 Dilmann, in Herzoe’s Real- Encyclopedic, ii. 387; Bleek, 
 Hinleitung, iv. 618. The records of Ben Asher and Saadias 
 above referred to are given in Dikduke, pp. 9 and 82 ἢ, 
 
 Frensdorff, Ochla, Nr. 97-170, and Baer in his editions of 
 the text, give the lists. Examples: 
 
 Ktib and Q’re: "ΥΝ for M1, ST for 87 (ὃ 92), ΠῚ for Ws ; 
 wD for Ὁ, Ps. οἱ. 5; ibs for M92, Jer. ii. 2.1. πρρὺ #2) for 
 ΠΡ), Amos vill. 8. 
 
 Ore wilo K*tib: O83 DD for DW, Jer. xxx. 38. 
 
 Kd w'lo Gre: FTN for TT TW, 8, Jer. li. ὃ. 
 
 A word which is read as two: O83 ὑπ for px25n, Pee xd 
 On vx for ONWND, Jer. vi. 29. 
 
 Two words which are read as one: ὩΣ for Dy, 
 LAAs: 
 
 Words whose final letters are connected with the following 
 word : niovien ΠΡΟΣ for maw? mnnnd, Ezek. xlii. 9, 2 Sam. v. 2, 
 Job. xxxvi. 12. 
 
 Words whose initial letter is connected with the preceding 
 word : saw xen’ instead of boavix Ww, Ezra iv. 12; 2 Sam. 
 oes 2). 
 
 The omission of an initial letter identical with the final 
 letter of the preceding word: Ph WN for Wwpni Ws), 
 Jer. iv. 5. 
 
 For euphemistic readings, compare b. Meg. 25b; Tosephta 
 Meg. iv. p. 228; all expressions written in such a way as to 
 cause shame are euphemistically read. 
 
 On ‘71s for mm, see the monograph of Dalman, Der Gottes- 
 name Adonaj, 1889, pp. 36 ffi and 85 ff. (the Massora on 
 Adonai). | 
 
 As marginal notes, these Qarjan are sometimes called 
 msn see Dikduke, p. 2, line 8; Gratz, MGW, 1885, p. 108. 
 
 On the so-called 39, compare Buxtorf, Tiberias, 11. ο. 10; 
 Cappellus, Critica sacra, 111. 15. 18; Geiger, Urschrift, p. 233. 
 
 Passages in the older Jewish literature should not be 
 confounded with Q%re, where it is said: “Read not... but 
 
 . By this is meant not other readings but conscious plays 
 upon letters. See Hupfeld, 7SK, 1830, p. 554 f. (eg. against 
 Morinus, Hzercitat. bibl. p. 581 ff.). 
 
“ 
 
 § 34. TIQQUNE SOPH*RIM. 103 
 
 34. While the Qarjan spoken of in ὃ 33 leaves undis- 
 turbed the received consonantal text, the Massora tells of 
 some passages where a euphemistic @’re is said to have been 
 adopted into the consonantal text so as to lead tp the com- 
 plete withdrawal of the original reading. These passages are 
 ealled Tigqune soph*rim, the improved readings of the scribes 
 (compare § 9). In the Talmud we do not meet with them, 
 but, on the contrary, they are found in the old Midrash on 
 Exodus, Mechilta. In the Massoretic works, whose lists are 
 somewhat divergent from those of the Mechilta, their number 
 is given at eighteen. The later Jews, for reasons that we can 
 readily appreciate, could not understand such liberty being 
 taken with the text, and therefore devised the ingenious 
 theory that by these are meant only passages where the 
 authors had abandoned the purposed expression with a view 
 to the readers, in order to express themselves more per- 
 spicuously. The Soph’rim had then only registered the 
 expression that was really intended. How far the traditional 
 statements with reference to these passages are correct and 
 have recorded all the phenomena belonging thereto, we shall 
 more carefully investigate in a later paragraph (§ 97). 
 
 Even in the Talmud (b. Nedarim 37b) we meet with the 
 so-called Jtture soph’rim, 1.6. five passages, where the scribes 
 have omitted a} from the text. Since something similar also 
 occurs in the Q’re (eg. Jer. iv. 5), and it is not possible to 
 discover a deeper mystery in the five passages referred to, this 
 chapter is of very little interest. 
 
 See Mechilta on Ex. xv. 7, p. 39a in Friedmann’s edition. 
 
 Compare the older literature in Strack, Prolegomena, 
 p. 86 f. (particularly Geiger, Urschrift, p. 308 ff.); and also: 
 Nyholm, De oman ppn XVIII. vocum Scripture sacre, Copen- 
 hagen 1734; Noldeke in GGA, 1869, p. 2001; Crane in 
 Hebraica, iii. 233-248; Dikduke, p. 44 f.; Frensdorff, Das 
 Buch Ochla W'ochla, Nr. 168, 217 
 
104 § 35. PUNCTA EXTRAORDINARIA. 
 
 The modern Jewish exposition is given among others by 
 Norzi (§ 24) on Zech. ii. 12 (translated in  Delitzsch, 
 Kommentar zu Habakuk, 1843, p. 206 f.). 
 
 The Ziqqune soph’rim are according to the Massora: Gen. 
 xviii, 22, originally toy way man; Num. xi. 15, originally 
 snyna; Num. xii. 12, originally wx and wnwa; 1 Sam. 
 iii. 13, originally °S instead of pnd; 2 Sam. xvi. 12, originally 
 fae 2 pam. xXx. 1 XY Wines sain Ae Chron.) 20 Loy 
 originally yabs5; Jer. 11. 11, originally "was; Ezek. viii. 17, 
 originally ‘ax; Hos. iv. 7, originally “naa and pn; Hab. 
 1.12, orginally mon; Zech. 1. 12, originally ‘yy; Mal. 
 1.13, originally ‘ms; Ps. cvi. 20, originally 125; Job vi. 20, 
 originally poy; Job xxxii. 3, originally poy; Lam. iii. 20, 
 originally 7wp». 
 
 RAM ΟΜΝ τ μὲ τ ἐπ 1,” wall, 2G: 
 
 35. Finally, there is still a series of passages to be 
 mentioned, where the Jews seem to have expressed their 
 doubt of the correctness of the text by the use of various 
 diacritical marks, without, however, as in the Q’re, reading 
 another text than that handed down by tradition. The value 
 of these marks is considerably detracted from by the fact that 
 the critical doubts, at least in most of these cases, seem to rest 
 on no objective foundation, but to have originated in subject- 
 ive reflections, which have for us a solely historical interest. 
 To this class belong the so-called puncta extraordinaria which 
 we meet with upon particular words. We find that already 
 in the Mishna (Pesachim, ix. 2), one of these cases is known: 
 Num. ix. 10, and in the Talmud and the Midrashim several 
 are mentioned; but they are interpreted partly in an alle- 
 gorical mystical fashion. Jerome, too, is acquainted with one 
 such case, Gen. xix. 35, and gives this explanation of it: 
 “ Appungunt desuper quasi incredibile et quod rerum natura 
 non capiat coire quemquam nescientem.”’ For the rest it is 
 difficult to decide in particular cases whether the doubts 
 
§ 55. PUNCTA EXTRAORDINARIA. 105 
 
 -ς 
 
 indicated are of a textual-critical or of ἃ historical-critical 
 character. —— The so-called 5 inversum, (compare a Baraitha 
 b. Sabb. 115b) seems to be purely textual-critical. It is 
 introduced in Num. x. 35 and 36 and seven times in Ps. evii., 
 which were originally parentheses, and seem to indicate that the 
 passages referred to were out of their proper places. Compare, 
 b. Sabb. 115a and above in the notes to § 6. The passages 
 where, according to tradition, an empty space within the 
 verse should have been, pipb yymNa ΝΡΌΒ, seem to be of some- 
 what greater interest. Probably it was intended by means of 
 these to indicate that the text there presented was defective ; 
 and seeing now that the old versions in some of these passages, 
 eg. in Gen. iv. 8, xxxv. 22, have actually something more 
 than the received text, these statements may possibly rest on 
 more objective foundations than the former; but from this it 
 does not by any means follow that the versions should be 
 unconditionally preferred to the traditional text. 
 
 Compare Strack, Prolegomena, pp. 88—91; Dikduhe, p. 45 f. 
 The two words distinguished by puncta eatraordinaria in 
 Ezek. xli. 20 and xlvi. 22, have not been translated in the 
 Targum (Cornill, Hzechiel, p. 127). So too the spe of 
 Gen. xxxiii. 4 is wanting in several manuscripts of the LXX. 
 
 On 3 inversum, compare Delitzsch, ZA WL, 1882, p. 231, 
 and on Ps. evii., Dikduke, p. 47. 
 
 On “ Pisga in the middle of the verse,” compare Buxtorf, 
 Tiberias, ii. 11; Dikduke, p. 54, and especially Gratz, MGW, 
 1878, p. 481 ff.; 1887, p. 193-200. 
 
 Konig in ZKWL, 1889, p. 225 ff., 281 ff. has shown the 
 untenableness of the attempt of von Ortenberg (Ueber die 
 Bedeutung des Paseq fiir die Quellenscheidung in den Biichern 
 des A. 7. 1887, and in the ZAW, 1887, pp. 301-312), to 
 find in Paseq a sign of a collection of various documentary 
 authorities. 
 
106 § 36. QUOTATIONS AND TRANSCRIPTIONS. 
 
 5. Quotations and Transcriptions. 
 
 36. Among the immediate aids for the history of the text 
 are also to be reckoned the occasional introduction of larger or 
 smaller parts of the text into the earlier Jewish and Christian 
 literature, in so far as they reproduce the literal original form 
 of the text. Thus, in the Talmud and in Midrashic works, 
 there is to be found a great number of quotations from the 
 Old Testament writings, which may be of service in affording 
 us a glance into the contemporary condition of the text. 
 Yet, in order that he may not misuse the aid, one should not 
 lose sight of the fact that such passages were often quoted 
 from memory, so that they may not be absolutely identical 
 with the text of that time. Only in cases where the argu- 
 ment turns upon the form of the words in the text, can we 
 conclude that we have a true quotation. Among these are 
 to be reckoned the still extant fragments of the second 
 column in the Hexapla of Origen (ὃ 43), which contains the 
 original Hebrew text transcribed in Greek characters, and 
 from which the fathers sometimes quoted portions, together 
 with the not infrequent transliterations of the original text in 
 Jerome. These transcriptions are specially valuable for this 
 reason that they give us an indication of the pronunciation 
 of the Hebrew then common. The same is true of the 
 tolerably numerous passages where Theodotion in his version 
 has left the Hebrew word untranslated (ὃ 53). In Josephus 
 and the LXX. the transcriptions are limited for the most part 
 to proper names, but even these are of great importance, 
 especially for the history of the Hebrew language. So too 
 the transliterations of the Hebrew names on the Assyrian and 
 Egyptian inscriptions, imperfect though they are, sometimes 
 cast light upon the ante-Massoretic pronunciation of Hebrew. 
 
 On the quotations from the Old Testament in the Talmud 
 and in the Midrashim, compare Cappellanus, Mare rabbinieum 
 
§ 36. QUOTATIONS AND TRANSCRIPTIONS. 107 
 
 infidum, Paris 1667; Cappellus, Critica sacra, v. 12; Strack, 
 Prolegomena, pp. 59-72, 94-111, 122; Briill, Jahrbiicher fiir 
 jiid. Geschichte und Litteratur, iv. 166; Geiger, Jiid. Zeitschrift, 
 iv. 1886, p. 165; Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 27 ff.; Deutsch, 
 Spriiche Salomos, 1885, i. 63-78. The Tosephta quotations 
 are given by B. Pick, ZAW, vi. 23-29. The quotations 
 from Mechilta and Sifre in ZAW, iv. 101—121. But see 
 the depreciatory remarks of Derenbourg in regard to these 
 collections in ZAIV, vii. 91-93, where, with good reason, 
 he warns against such a hunt after variations. 
 
 On the transcriptions in Jerome compare Siegfried, ZA WV, 
 1884, pp. 34-83. On the transcribed Hebrew text in the 
 Hexapla, compare Field, Origenis hexapla, i. \xxi sqq. On 
 Theodotion compare Field, i. xi sq. He renders the ops of 
 Amos i. 1, eg. νωκεδειμ; the wat of Ps. xxvii 2 by δαβειρ, 
 etc. We sometimes meet with the same sort of thing in the 
 LXX.; see Cornill, Das Buch des Proph. Ezechiel, p. 96. 
 
 The proper names in Josephus are treated of by Siegfried 
 in ZAW, 1883, pp. 38-41. On the names in the LXX. 
 compare Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, p. 90 ff. ; 
 Koénnecke, Die Behandlung der hebrdischen Namen in der 
 Septuaginta (Progr.), Stargard 1885; and, as of quite special 
 value, the collections in Lagarde’s Uebersicht tiber die im Ara- 
 miischen, Arabischen und Hebréischen tibliche Bildung der 
 Nomina, 1889. Also the Onomastica sacra of Eusebius and 
 Jerome, as edited by Lagarde (2nd ed. 1887), should be taken 
 into account here. 
 
 On the Assyrian translations see Schrader, Kezlinschriften 
 und das Altes Testament, 1883 [Eng. trans. in 2 vols. 
 The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, London 
 1885, 1888]. On the Egyptian and other transcriptions see 
 Merx, Archiv fiir wissenschaftl. Forschung d. A. 7. 1. 350 ee 
 Bulletin de la société de géographie, 1879, pp. 209 ff, 327 ff. 
 Compare also Steindorff, Die keilinschriftliche Wiedergabe dgyp- 
 tischer Eigennamen in the Beitrdgen zur Assyriologie, i. 1889, 
 pp. 330-361, where repeatedly mention is made of Egyptian 
 names occurring in the Old Testament. On the names of 
 places in the letters found in the TZel-i/-Amama, see Halévy 
 
108 § 37. OLDEST GREEK TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 in RES, xx. 199 ff.; Zimmern, Zertschrift d. Deutsch. Palds- 
 tinavercins, xill. 133 ff. 
 
 B.—TuHE OLD TRANSLATIONS. 
 1. The Alexandrine Translation—The Septuagint. 
 
 37. The oldest version of the Old Testament, and generally 
 one of the oldest and most remarkable attempts to translate a 
 writing into another language, is the translation produced by 
 the Alexandrine Jews. What is told of still earlier transla- 
 tions of the Law is devoid of all historical value. It is told, 
 indeed, by a Jewish philosopher that lived under Ptolemy 
 Philometor, B.c. 180-145, that there was a much older 
 rendering (Diermeneusis) of the Law from the times of the 
 Persian sovereignty; but even if the fragments ascribed to 
 Aristobulus are genuine, which we have no sufficient ground 
 to doubt, that alleged translation cannot certainly have been 
 anything else than a postulate which seemed to philosophically 
 cultured Jews necessary in order that they might explain the 
 points of contact between Plato or Pythagoras and the Mosaic 
 law from the acquaintance of these philosophers with Mosaism. 
 Still less can a confused story in Masseket soph*rim (δ 32) of 
 an earlier translation of the Law by five elders lay any claim 
 to credibility. Indeed, the very uncertainty of the text in 
 this particular passage deprives this story of every vestige of 
 historical worth. 
 
 On the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus and the fragments 
 of his work preserved by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, 
 compare Hody, De Bibliorum teatibus originalibus, lib. 1. cap. 1x. 
 p. 49 ff; Valckenaer, Diatribe de Aristobulo, Leyden 1806, and 
 Schiirer, Geschichte des 74. Volkes, ii. 764, Eng. trans. Div. 11. 
 vol. iii, 237, where further lists of literature are given. 
 
§ 37. OLDEST GREEK TRANSLATIONS, 109 
 
 Among those who contest the genuineness of those fragments 
 is specially to be named Joel, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte 
 zu Anfang des 2 christl. Jahrhundert, i. 1880, p. 79 ff. 
 
 In the fragment communicated by Clement of Alexandria 
 (Stromata, i. 22, ed. Potter, 1. 410) and Eusebius (Praeparatio 
 evangelica, xiii. 12), Aristobulus writes to King Philometor: 
 κατηκολούθηκε δὲ καὶ ὁ Πλάτων τῇ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς νομοθεσίᾳ καὶ 
 φανερός ἐστι περιειργασάμενος ἕκαστα τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ λεγομένων 
 διερμηνεύται γὰρ πρὸ Δημητρίου ou ἐτέρων, πρὸ τῆς ᾿Αλεξάν- 
 dpov καὶ Περσῶν ἐπικρατήσεως, τά τε κατὰ τὴν ἐξαγωγὴν τῶν 
 “Εβραίων τῶν ἡμετέρων πολιτῶν, καὶ ἡ τῶν γεγονότων ἁπάν- 
 των αὐτοῖς ἐπιφάνεια, καὶ κράτησις τῆς χώρας καὶ τῆς ὅλης 
 νομοθεσίας ἐπεξήγησις" ὥστε εὔδηλον εἶναι τὸν προειρημένον 
 φιλόσοφόν εἰληφέναι πολλά: γέγονε γὰρ πολυμαθὴς, καθὼς καὶ 
 Πυθαγόρας, πολλὰ τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν μετενέγκας εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ 
 δογματοποιίαν κατεχώρισεν. Ἢ δ᾽ ὅλη ἑρμηνεία τῶν διὰ τοῦ 
 νόμου πάντων ἐπὶ τοῦ προσαγορευθέντος Φιλαδέλφου βασιλέως, 
 σοῦ δὲ προγόνου, προσενεγκαμένου μείζονα φιλοτιμίαν, Anun- 
 τρίου τοῦ Φαληρέως πραγματευσαμένου τὰ περὶ τούτων. For 
 the rest a certain acquaintance on the part of Plato with the 
 Jewish religion need not be regarded as absolutely impossible. 
 In some not very clear words ascribed to Demetrius Phalereus 
 by the author of the Epistle of Aristeas (Haverkamp, Josephus, 
 ii. 2. 107, compare Josephus, Antiquities, xii. 2. 3) there is 
 certainly no reason why we should find a reminiscence of 
 earlier attempts at translation (against Frankel, Vorstudien, 
 p. 24). 
 
 Masseket soph’rim, i. p. 11: “ Five elders wrote for King 
 Ptolemy the Law in Greek, and this day was for the Israelites 
 just as dark as the day on which the golden calf was made, 
 for the Law cannot be translated with impunity. And ata 
 later time the king gathered together seventy elders,’ ete. In 
 some manuscripts, opr Avina, and the older tract, Sepher tora 
 (ὃ 32), here in the same passage opt Oya. Therefore the 
 use which Joel, Dlicke in die Reglionsgeschichte, p. 1 ff., makes 
 of the story in the Masseket soph*rim is very precarious. Com- 
 pare also Geiger, Urschrift, p. 441; Nachgelassene Schriften, 
 iv. 71; Berliner, Zargum Onkelos, ii, 78 f. 
 
{10 § 38. THE EPISTLE OF ARISTEAS. 
 
 38. From the Prologue to the translation of the Book of 
 Ben Sirach (§ 4) it appears that the Law, the Prophets, and part 
 also of the Hagiographa must have existed about B.c. 130 in a 
 Greek translation; and that this translation is in all essential 
 respects identical with the Septuagint as known to us, follows 
 from the use made of it by the somewhat earlier Jewish historical 
 writer, Demetrius, as well as by the Jewish-Hellenistic writers 
 of the last century before Christ. But when this has been 
 said, we have before us really all that is certainly known 
 respecting the origin of the Alexandrine translation. There 
 is indeed no lack of very particular and detailed stories about 
 the way in which the Septuagint came into existence, but 
 unfortunately they are of such a kind that they confuse rather 
 than explain our conception of the origin of this important 
 and influential work. 
 
 The oldest writing which speaks of the translation of the 
 Law into the Greek language is the celebrated Epistle of Aris- 
 teas, a Jewish-Alexandrine work. This production must at 
 least be older than Josephus and Philo, possibly even than 
 the writings of Aristobulus mentioned at p. 108, as we have 
 internal reason for supposing that it belongs to an age when 
 the Jews had not yet exchanged the Ptolemaic sovereignty for 
 that of the Seleucidean dynasty. Its date must therefore have 
 been earlier than B.c. 198. The little book represents itself 
 as an epistle which Aristeas, an officer of King Ptolemy II. 
 Philadelphus (B.c. 284-247), and therefore a Gentile, had 
 written to his brother Philocrates. In a good literary style it 
 is related how the king’s librarian, Demetrius Phalereus, 
 advised his master to have the Law of the Jews translated 
 into Greek, in order that it might have a place given it in 
 the royal library of Alexandria. The king agrees to this 
 proposal, and, besides, emancipates the 100,000 Jews whom his 
 father had carried to Egypt as prisoners of war. He then sent 
 Aristeas and the captain of his bodyguard to Jerusalem with 
 
§ 38. THE EPISTLE OF ARISTEAS, 111 
 
 rich presents and a letter, in which he prays the High Priest 
 Eleazar to supply him with men capable of undertaking this 
 work. There then follows a spirited description of Jerusalem, 
 the temple, the country, and above all of the noble and rea- 
 sonable laws of the Jews. The high priest is filled with joy 
 at the request of the king, and seventy-two men, six from 
 every tribe, are sent to Alexandria with a copy of the Law 
 written in golden letters. During seven days they have daily 
 audiences of the king, and excite the admiration of all by 
 the wisdom with which they answer the seventy-two questions 
 proposed to them in philosophy, politics, and ethics. Thereafter 
 they are transported to the island of Pharos, where, in a beau- 
 . tiful residence, they engage diligently in the work of transla- 
 tion. Every day they all translate, each one by himself, a 
 portion of the Law, and then, after comparison of the various 
 renderings, they produce a common text. In seventy-two days 
 the work is completed. The Alexandrine Jews express their 
 admiration of the work, and beseech that they may be supplied 
 with a copy of it, while they pronounce a curse upon every 
 one who should presume to change the translation. Finally, 
 the king, who was greatly astonished that this noble law 
 should have been unknown to the Greeks, sends the seventy- 
 two interpreters home Jaden with rich presents. 
 
 This story, though anything but niggardly in its supply of 
 admiration, gifts, and symbolical numbers, was not sufficient 
 for the taste of the following generation, and so it had to be 
 further adorned in various directions. In Philo we meet 
 with an important addition which represents the interpreters 
 as inspired (compare § 12), so that they, for example, had all 
 used in their several translations the very same expressions. 
 In the Church fathers this is still further improved upon by 
 the assertion, that each of the seventy-two interpreters had 
 wrought in his own cell without being able to confer with his 
 colleagues. In this form the story was adopted by the 
 
AS § 38. THE EPISTLE OF ARISTEAS. 
 
 Talmud, where it forms a rare contrast to the reservation, not 
 to say antipathy, with which the Alexandrine translation is 
 elsewhere referred to (ὃ 40). Yea, even the Samaritans have 
 appropriated the story with these legendary excrescences. At 
 the same time, in opposition to the express statements of older 
 authorities, this story was made to apply to all the books of 
 the Old Testament, which even Jerome, who views the whole 
 narrative with a rather sceptical eye (ὃ 51), decidedly 
 rejects. 
 
 The Epistle of Aristeas, which has been often published 
 (as, eg. in Havercamp’s Josephus, u. 2. pp. 103-132), has 
 recently been issued with a critically improved text by 
 Moritz Schmidt in Merx’s Archiv fiir Wissensch. Erforschung 
 d. A. 7. i. 241 ff. Compare generally in regard to this 
 subject: Hody, De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, lib. 1.; 
 Noldeke, <Alttestamentliche Jvtteratur, Ὁ. 109 ff; Gritz, 
 MGWJ, 1876, p. 289 ff.; Bleek, Hinlettung, p. 571 ff. ; 
 Papageorgios, Ueber den Aristeasbrief, Munich 1880; Lum- 
 broso, Recherches sur l Economie politique de V Egypte sous les 
 Lagides, Turin 1870, p. 351 ff; Schiirer, Geschichte des jiid. 
 Volkes, ii. 819-824, Eng. trans. Div. i. vol. πἰ 306-312, 
 where further lists of literature are given. 
 
 Philo, ed. Mangey, 1. 139. The passages of the fathers 
 are enumerated by Gallandi, Bubliotheca veterum patrum, 11. 
 805-824, and by Schiirer, Geschichte des γα, Volkes, ii. 828, 
 Eng. trans. Div. ii. vol. 11. 311. On the chronological state- 
 ments of the fathers about the year in which the LXX. 
 was translated, see Nestle, Septwaginta-Studicn, Ulm 1886, 
 ply i. 
 
 B. Megilla 9a, Massehet soph’rim 1. Ὁ. u. On the other 
 hand, the Mechilta on Ex. xu. 40 (p. 150) about this says 
 only that the Law had been translated “before the time of 
 King Ptolemy.” On the Samaritans, see Vilmar, Annales 
 Samaritane, 1865, p. 95 ff. 
 
 Jerome (Vallarsi vi. 456): “Josefus enim scribit et 
 Hebrei tradunt, quinque tantum libros legis Moysi ab eis 
 translatos et Ptolemzeo regi traditos. 
 
§ 39. THE ORIGIN OF THE SEPTUAGINT, 113 
 
 39. As to the historical character of the account given in 
 the Epistle of Aristeas, there prevails at this day general 
 agreement to this extent, that no one entertains the idea of 
 accepting the story as credible in all its details. As the 
 author himself quite evidently was a Jew writing under a 
 heathen mask, there is also much in his book which is clearly 
 pure invention 7m majorem gloriam Judaorum. On the 
 other hand, among the most distinguished investigators there 
 still prevails a difference of opinion with regard to the ques- 
 tion, whether the whole is a purely fictitious romance, or 
 whether a historical core lies hidden under the legendary 
 form. This is a question of great importance in the history 
 of culture, for it is of no small interest to know whether one 
 of the first attempts to translate a literary work into another 
 language (an attempt which had a sort of precursor only in 
 the older polylingual royal decrees) was called forth by the 
 literary craving of the Hellenistic race for knowledge or by the 
 practical need of the Egyptian Jews. Now there are certainly 
 very serious reasons to be alleged against the credibility of this 
 story even when it has been reduced to very much more 
 modest dimensions. On the one hand, attention is called to 
 the jargon, unintelligible to a Greek, in which the translation 
 of the Law has been written. Of expressions like γειώρας 
 (i.e. 13, or, as Lagarde shows, rather the Aramaic 113), ἱλάσκεσθαι 
 τὰς ἀσεβείας, and numerous others of that sort, ἃ Greek could 
 absolutely make nothing, not to speak of myny (ὃ 76) taken 
 over simply in its Hebrew form. And it is certainly not 
 easy to understand why this barbarously rendered translation 
 should not have been subjected to a linguistic revision, if the 
 cultured classes of Alexandrian society had intended to make 
 themselves acquainted by its help with the Jewish Law. 
 Further, it is also in a high degree remarkable that the 
 Alexandrine Jews should have given liturgical rank to a 
 
 translation of their holy Law carried out at the instance of a 
 H 
 
114 § 39. THE ORIGIN OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 heathen. Had there been indeed no account of the origin 
 of the Septuagint handed down by tradition, then certainly 
 no one would hesitate to account for its existence from the 
 need of the Egyptian Jews, who were growing ever more and 
 more unfamiliar with their Hebrew mother tongue, and all the 
 more so as such a need did certainly very soon make itself 
 felt (compare Nehem. xii. 24). And in order to satisfy this 
 need just such a translation as the Alexandrine was required, 
 which used the peculiar Jewish-Greek jargon and contributed 
 further to its development. But, notwithstanding all this, 
 we can find no justification for the wholesale rejection of the 
 credibility of the story. If it be really so, as cannot well be 
 denied (compare § 38), that the Epistle of Aristeas was written 
 at the latest about B.c. 200, and therefore scarcely half a 
 century after the death of Ptolemy II., it would have been a 
 bold proceeding on the part of any writer to describe the origin 
 of the translation of the Torah in such a way that its untruth 
 must have been apparent, as well to the Alexandrians as to 
 the Jews. The same is true of the passage from Aristobulus 
 quoted in § 37, whether it be supposed that he knew or did not 
 know the story told by Aristeas. And even if we should feel 
 justified in minimising this witness by adopting the idea that 
 the writings in question were of later origin, still there would 
 remain the circumstance, not easily to be accounted for by us, 
 that the explanation given in the Book of Aristeas of the 
 origin of the Septuagint, considered as a contribution to the 
 history of culture, is of far too original a character to be 
 attributed to a Jewish fabricator. Neither should we over- 
 look the fact that the second of the reasons which have been 
 now given for the rejection of the story is very much weakened 
 by this, that in any case the Jewish author of the Book of 
 Aristeas and the Jews following him, Philo and Josephus, 
 have taken no offence at the thought of the translation having 
 been made at the instance of a heathen prince. Finally, as 
 
§ 39. THE ORIGIN OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 115 
 
 to the objection which has been advanced against the his- 
 torical truth of the story, to the effect that, according to the 
 distinct statement of Hermippus Callimachius, who lived 
 during the reign of Ptolemy III, Demetrius Phalereus had 
 been banished from Alexandria immediately after the death 
 of Ptolemy Lagus, it concerns only a quite separable matter of 
 detail in the story, and cannot therefore be decisive of the 
 main point of the question. If then, after an exact estimate 
 has been made of all reasons, pro and con, we still hold by 
 the position that the king had a share in the originating of 
 the Septuagint, it is, on the other hand, undeniable that the 
 réle which the translation of the Law is said to have played 
 in the learned circles of Alexandria is wholly undemonstrable ; 
 whereas the Greek Torah, in connection with the other books 
 subsequently translated, won among the Alexandrian and all 
 Hellenistic Jews, and through them, among the members of the 
 Christian Church, an importance of which the men who first 
 conceived this bold idea could certainly never have dreamed. 
 
 The usual designation in the fathers and in the Talmudical 
 writings, “The Translation of the Seventy,” which is applied 
 to the translation of the Law as well as to that of the other 
 books, rests indeed upon the Epistle of Aristeas as its authority, 
 for seventy is simply a round number for seventy-two. But 
 whence the Book of Aristeas has taken that number, which 
 plays so extraordinary a 7éle in its narrative, and is, there- 
 fore, certainly not an invented number, remains still quite 
 obseure, 
 
 The question that concerns us here is dealt with in the 
 works of Hody and Valckenaer referred to in § 37, and in 
 many more recent treatises. The following admit partially 
 the credibility of the story told by Aristeas: Valckenaer ; 
 Ewald, Geschichte du Volkes Israel*, iv. 322 ff., Eng. trans. 
 v. 244; Wellhausen-Bleek, Linleitung, p. 571 ft.; Mommsen, 
 Rémische Geschichte, v. 490. The whole story is rejected 
 
WV 
 
 -ς 
 
 110 § 40. THE ADOPTION OF THE LXX. BY THE JEWS. 
 
 as a pure fabrication by: Hody, De Bibliorum Textibus ; 
 Eichhorn, Repertorium 1. 266 ff.; Reuss, Geschichte der healigen 
 Schriften des A. T. ὃ 436; Noldeke, ZDMG, xxxii. 588, xxxix. 
 342; Kuenen, Godsdienst, 11.392; Frankel, Vorstudien zu der 
 Septuaginta, p. 6 ff.; Schuurmans Stekhoven, De alewandrynsche 
 Vertaling van het Dodekapropheton, Ὁ. 1 Τὰ; Oort, Theol. 
 Tijdschrift, 1882, p. 287 ff. 
 
 The report of Hermippus Callimachius is given in Miiller, 
 Fragmenta hist. Gree. 111. 47. 
 
 In explanation of the name “Septuaginta” various con- 
 jectures have been made. Special attention has been called 
 to this that seventy (seventy-one or seventy-two) constituted 
 the normal number of members in a Jewish High Court of 
 Justice. Compare Num. xi. 16, and further Schiirer, Gesch- 
 ichte der 76. Volkes, ii. 151, Eng. trans. Div. 11. vol. 1 
 174 ff It has therefore been conjectured that the name 
 referred to the authorisation of the translation by a high 
 court of justice. Compare Ewald, Geschichte der Volkes Israel, 
 iv. 327, Eng. trans. v. 249; Schuurmans Stekhoven, De 
 alexandrijnsche Vertaling, Ὁ. 4 f., and the other works above 
 quoted. But nothing of this sort can be proved in connection 
 with Alexandria in the times of the Ptolemies. Still less 
 satisfactory as accounting fur the name is the hypothesis that 
 a larger number had actually been engaged in the work 
 (Wellhausen-Bleek, Hinleitung, Ὁ. 576). Compare also the 
 treatise of Steinschneiders on the “Number Seventy” in the 
 ZDMG, iv. 145 ff. 
 
 40. To the translation of the Pentateuch were soon added 
 translations of the other Old Testament writings. Even the 
 translation of the Torah, as it seems, was not the work of one 
 hand, and this is still more evidently true of the other trans- 
 lations which were executed by various and very variously 
 qualified translators. The most of them are certainly to be 
 regarded as private attempts, to which only circumstances lent 
 authoritative importance. This is seen notably in the case of 
 the Book of Ezra, of which we possess two translations of 
 
§ 40. THE ADOPTION OF THE LXX. BY THE JEWS. 117 
 
 varying extent (ὃ 13). An instructive picture of the way in 
 which such translations originated is given in the preface to the 
 Book of Ben Sirach (§ 4), which at the same time is interest- 
 ing on account of its remarks about the imperfections of the 
 translations of Old Testament writings that then existed. 
 Besides the definite dating of this preface, the translation of 
 the Book of Esther also contains a statement as to the date 
 of its composition, which, however, is anything but clear. 
 
 Notwithstanding this partly private origin, the whole trans- 
 lation soon came to be highly esteemed among the Alexandrian 
 Jews, and was in later times regarded as inspired (ὃ 12). [Ὁ 
 was used in the synagogue service wherever Greek was the 
 principal language of the Jews, and was at the same time the 
 means by which the ancient civilised world was subsequently 
 made acquainted with the sacred writings of Israel. The 
 dialect of the Septuagint, so barbarous in a Greek ear, has in 
 several particulars exercised an influence upon the language 
 of the New Testament, and in later days through the fathers, 
 with whom it often completely took the place of the original, 
 and through the translations of following generations, which 
 were all more or less dependent upon it, it has exercised an 
 influence on the religious phraseology of the Christian com- 
 munities which can be traced even in the most modern 
 languages. 
 
 Among the Jews, on the contrary, it only gradually secured 
 its position. We have very incomplete information as 
 to the feelings which prevailed at the first among the 
 Palestinian Jews with reference to this new attempt. No 
 certain conclusion can be drawn from the large use of the 
 Septuagint made by Josephus owing to the peculiar position 
 of that author. The proofs which go to show that the LXX. 
 was used in the Palestinian synagogues are rather weak, and 
 have been vigorously contested by modern Jewish authors. 
 In the Talmud we have the story of the seventy-two inter- 
 
118 § 40. THE ADOPTION OF THE LXX. BY THE JEWS. 
 
 preters, a story which has as its presupposition the inspired 
 character of the LXX., set quietly beside the enumeration of 
 various passages in which its divergences from the genuine 
 text are rejected. On the other hand, the steadily growing 
 struggle with Christianity must naturally have contributed 
 largely to make the Jews, who were always considerably 
 influenced by the state of feeling that prevailed in Palestine, 
 regard with aversion a translation which played so important 
 a réle in the Church. Also, apart from the divergence 
 between the Septuagint and the Palestinian Canon, the often 
 excessive freedom with which the Alexandrine translation 
 treats the Old Testament text could not be satisfactory to the 
 Jews, whose very life and being lay in their adherence to 
 letters and titfles. We possess several witnesses to the 
 existence of this antipathy. Even the writings of Justin 
 Martyr show that the difference between the LXX. and the 
 Hebrew Bible formed a chief point of religious controversy 
 between Jews and Christians. Sefer Tora, 1. 8, declares that 
 the day on which the Seventy translated the Law was for 
 Israel as doleful as the day on which the golden calf was 
 made (§ 37); and in the later portions of the Megillath 
 Taanith, ec. xii. it is said: “On 8th Tebét the Law was in the 
 days of King Ptolemy (250) written in the Greek language, 
 and darkness covered the world for three days.” The best proof 
 of this feeling among the Jews against the Septuagint, which 
 occasioned so many difficulties to the Church fathers, is to be 
 found in the new Greek translations of the Old Testament 
 which obtained currency among the Jews, and of which a 
 description will be given in a later part of this work (§ 51). 
 
 On the question whether several translators had taken part 
 in the Torah translation, compare Frankel, Ueber den Hinfluss 
 der paldstinischen Exegese auf die alexandr. Hermeneutik, 
 1851) ἢ. 228 4£; Eeliin the ZWT, 1889: 
 
 In the Prologue to Ben Sirach the translator writes: “ Ye 
 
§ 40. THE ADOPTION OF THE LXX. BY THE JEWS. 119 
 
 are besought to make allowance where we seem in some 
 words to have failed, although the translation has been made 
 with care, for what has been said in Hebrew and its trans- 
 lation into another language cannot perfectly correspond ; also 
 the Law, the Prophecies, and the other books are in their 
 original form not a little different from the translation.” 
 
 The subscription of the Greek translation of the Book of 
 Esther runs as follows: “In the fourth year of the reign of 
 Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dositheus, who is said to have been a 
 priest or a Levite, and his son Ptolemy introduced the letter 
 now before us as the φρουραι [Purim], which, according to 
 this statement, had been translated in Jerusalem by Lysimachus, 
 the son of Ptolemy. Compare Fritzsche, Kuwrzgefasotes exeget. 
 Handbuch zu die Apokryphen, i. 72 f.; Noldeke, Alttesta- 
 mentliche Litteratur, p. 88; Wildeboer, Het onstaan van den 
 
 ‘anon, 2nd ed. p. 33. 
 
 On the influence which the Septuagint has exercised in 
 philosophy, compare Noldeke, <Alttestementliche Literatur, p. 
 249. 
 
 On the question of the use of the LXX. in the Palestinian 
 
 synagogues, compare Eichhorn, Hinleitung °, i. § 166; Fritzsche 
 in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedic*, i. 284; Frankel, Vorstudien 
 “zu der Septuaginta, p. 56 ff.; Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii. 80. 
 The chief passages are jer. Meg. iv. fol. 75a: “The foreign- 
 speaking Jews did not observe the custom prevailing amongst 
 us to divide the reading of the Torah among several persons, 
 for one individual reads the whole Parasha.” Also, jer. Sota 
 vii. 1, fol. 210, on the Sh’ma ; and Justinian, Novell. 146. 
 
 The passages where the LXX., according to the Jewish 
 statement, diverges from the original Hebrew text, are to be 
 found in ὁ. Meg. 9, jer. Meg. i. 9; Mechilta on Exodus xi. 20, 
 p. 156, and Masseket soph*rim i. The best known is Gen. 1. 1, 
 where the LXX., according to the Talmudical statement, 
 translate, as though it had been sna ods mws72; this pre- 
 supposes that the native Jews themselves interpreted: “In the 
 beginning when God created.” Compare Frankel, Vorstudien 
 zu der Septuaginta, p. 25 ff.; Geiger, Urschrift, p. 439 ff ; 
 Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 50 ἢ, 
 
120 § 41. CHARACTER OF THE ALEXANDRINE TRANSLATION. 
 
 Justin Martyr (ed. Otto 11. p. 232): τοῖς διδασκάλοις 
 ὑμῶν, οἵτινες τολμῶσι λέγειν τὴν ἐξήγησιν, ἣν ἐξηγήσαντο οἱ 
 ἑβδομήκοντα ὑμῶν πρεσβύτεροι παρὰ Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ τῶν 
 Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεῖ γενόμενοι, μὴ εἶναι ἔν τισιν ἀληθῆ. Compare 
 also the same work at p. 240, and Origen, Ad Africanum § 5. 
 
 41. In judging of the Alexandrine translation we should 
 not for a moment lose sight of the fact that it was a first 
 attempt to perform a difficult task, the translating of a writing 
 out of one language into another, which was found essentially 
 different from the first, and in which expressions were 
 altogether wanting for numerous ideas of the Old Testament. 
 Besides, it ought not to be forgotten that the demands then 
 made of a Bible translation were very different from what 
 would now be made. What was desired was a practically 
 useful translation which would take account of the circum- 
 stances of that particular time, which, above all, required that 
 the form in which the sacred writings appeared should be in 
 keeping with the advancing religious consciousness, and should 
 obviate the objections which a more careful and sharper-eared 
 generation might raise against the original form of the writings. 
 The LXX. shows traces throughout of the influence of these 
 factors. It avoids completely the bold anthropomorphisms 
 and the striking naiveté of the original text, and shows in 
 this particular an evident relationship with the other old 
 Bible translations of the Jews. And while it is true of every 
 translation that it presupposes a special exegesis of the text in 
 question, this naturally was doubly observable at a time when 
 in a thoroughly naive manner the then dominant interpretation 
 was treated as the one possible sense of the text. Hence the 
 LXX. in many passages, as well in a Halachic as in a 
 Haggadic direction, assumes the character of a Midrash, which 
 mirrors the contemporary conception of the Bible, and is 
 consequently of decided importance for the history of Old 
 Testament exegesis. That in this way the peculiar circum- 
 
§ 41, CHARACTER OF THE ALEXANDRINE TRANSLATION, 121 
 
 stances and spiritual movements of the Egyptian Jews are 
 allowed to shine through, is what might very naturally be 
 expected. Yet even in this connection the facts have been 
 very much overstated, and the endeavour has been made to 
 find more than the LXX. can afford. That in sections which 
 treat of Egypt it gives evidence of thorough acquaintance with 
 the conditions of that country is natural enough ; and so too the 
 well-known rendering of naxx by δασύπους instead of λαγώς 
 may have been done out of consideration for the Lagide. 
 But all this is not, in any case, of much importance. And 
 specially we shall seek in vain after any real influence of the 
 Greek philosophy on the rendering of the text. At the most 
 this can be proved only in quite isolated expressions, like 
 ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος (Gen. i. 2); but upon the whole 
 the LXX. is a purely Jewish work, whose authors have had 
 only a very superficial connection with the intellectual and 
 spiritual life of Greece. 
 
 If we keep in view all the circumstances which have been 
 here mentioned, we shall guard ourselves against making the 
 Alexandrine translation the subject of a sharp criticism. It 
 must rather as a whole call forth our admiration that it 
 should in any sort of way have actually accomplished its 
 task. Only that kind of criticism is justifiable which makes 
 the better sections of the LXX. the standard of comparison 
 for those that have been less successful. There will be found, 
 even within the compass of the whole translation, a remarkable 
 diversity among the several books, which, however, is of 
 interest historically, because it not only proceeds from the 
 very diverse capacities of the translators, but also from the 
 adoption of diverse hermeneutical principles. The first rank 
 unconditionally is held by the translation of the Pentateuch, 
 although even there the various parts are dealt with somewhat 
 variously (compare p. 116). Also the Psalms, of so much 
 importance for the community, are to be regarded as a well- 
 
122 § 41. CHARACTER OF THE ALEXANDRINE TRANSLATION. 
 
 executed piece of work. So, too, the generally clear contents 
 of the historical Prophets made it possible for the translators 
 to produce a useful translation. On the other hand, several 
 of the Prophets and the Hagiographa are very inadequately, 
 sometimes very badly, translated, so that indeed they run 
 through the whole scale from the freest paraphrases to the 
 most rigid imitation of the very order of word and phrase in 
 the Hebrew. “Nactus est Isaias interpretem sese indignum,” 
 remarks Zwingli with good reason, for the translation of that 
 book is in fact of such a kind that one has more cause to 
 admire its readers than its author. One of the most wilfully 
 translated books is the Book of Job, whose translator wished 
 to pose as a poctarwin lector; while among those that have 
 been rendered with painful literalness are: Ezekiel, Chronicles, 
 The Song, and Ecclesiastes. The two last named remind one 
 strikingly of the method of Aquila (ὃ 52); yet the exact 
 relation between them and that translator is not quite clear. 
 
 Compare on the subject of this section as a whole: Geiger, 
 Nachgelussene Schriften, iv. 73 ff.; Frankel, Vorstudien zur der 
 Septuaginta, pp. 163-203. 
 
 On the Palestinian influence compare Frankel, Ueber den 
 Einfluss der paldstinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische 
 Hermeneutik, 1857 (dealing only with the Pentateuch) ; 
 Geiger, Jiid. Zeitschrift, iv. 99 ff. 
 
 Examples of the treatment of the text affected by the 
 times, Isaiah ix. 11: Συρίαν ad’ ἡλίαυ ἀνατολῶν καὶ τοὺς 
 “Ἕλληνας ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου δυσμῶν; Num. xxiv. 7: ἐξελεύσεται 
 ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ, καὶ κυριεύσει ἐθνῶν 
 πολλῶν. καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἢ Τωγ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ; Josh. 
 xiii. 22: “ Balaam did they slay ana,’ the LXX. ἐν τῇ ῥοπῇ, 
 compare the Jewish Hagegada, that Balaam, who by his 
 magical arts had fled into the air, was brought down by 
 Phinehas. On the other hand, the LXX. in Isaiah xix. 18, 
 with their πόλις doedex, are not, after all, to be regarded as 
 Egyptising, but rather as preserving the original. 
 
§ 41. CHARACTER OF THE ALEXANDRINE TRANSLATION, 123 
 
 On the influence of Greek philosophy see Frankel, Ueber 
 den Einfluss, pp. 34-42; Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 
 2. p. 217; Siegfried, Philo als Ausleger d. A. T. 1875, p. 8; 
 and especially Freudenthal, in Zhe Jewish Quarterly Review, 
 ii. 1890, pp. 205-222, who, after a thoroughgoing investi- 
 gation, has arrived at a purely negative result. 
 
 It is worthy of being observed that in the three passages 
 where the translators of the LXX. are directly spoken of (the 
 Epistle of Aristeas, the Prologue to the Book of Ben Sirach, 
 and the Postscript to the Book of Esther), the seventy-two 
 interpreters of the Law are brought from Palestine, the trans- 
 lator of the Book of Ben Sirach comes from Palestine to 
 Egypt, and the translator of the Book of Esther lives in Jern- 
 salem. Asa matter of fact, in most cases the Palestinians would 
 have understood Greek better than the Jews born in Egypt 
 would know Hebrew, so that certainly the translators would 
 mostly be recruited from the recently immigrant Palestinians. 
 
 Luther’s judgment of the LXX., in so far as it is regarded 
 as a historical phenomenon, is too severe: “Translating is a 
 special grace and gift of God. The seventy Greek translators 
 have so translated the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language 
 as to show themselves inexperienced in and unacquainted 
 with the Hebrew, their translation is very trifling and absurd, 
 for they have disdained to speak the letters, words, and style” 
 (Erlangen. Ausgabe, \xii. 112). 
 
 Among the ever-increasing special treatises on the several 
 books of the LXX. the following may be named (in addition 
 to the older literature given by Eichhorn, Linleitung *, 1. 
 § 181): Topler, De Pentateuchi interpretationis Alex. indole, 
 1830; Thiersch, De Pentatewchi versione Alexandrina libri 
 iii. 1841; Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss, 1851. Hollenberg, 
 Der Charakter der alexandrinische Uebersetzung des Buches 
 Josua, 1876. Schulte, De restitutione atque indole genuine 
 versionis greece in libro Judicum, 1889. Wellhausen, Der 
 Text der Biicher Samuclis, 1871. [Studia Biblica, 1st series, 
 1885, The Light thrown by the Septuagint Version on the 
 Books of Samuel, by F. H. Woods.] Scholz, Die alex 
 andrinische Uebersetzung des Buches Jesaias, 1880. Movers, De 
 
124 § 42. THE EARLIEST HISTORY OF THE SEPTUAGINT TEXT. 
 
 utriusque recensionis vaticiniorum Jeremie indole et origine, 
 1834; Wichelhaus, De Jeremice versionis alexandrine indole et 
 auctoritate, 1846; Scholz, Der masoretische Text und die LXX. 
 Uebersetzung des Buches Jeremias, 1875; Workman, The Text 
 of Jeremiah ; a Critical Investigation of the Greek and Hebrew, 
 with the Variations in the LXX. retranslated into the Original, 
 and Explained, 1889. Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten 
 Hzchiel, 1886, pp. 13-103. Vollers, Das Dodckapropheten 
 der Alexandriner, 1880 (Nahum—Malachi), and in ZAW, 
 1883, p. 219 ff, 1884, p. 1 ff. (Hosea—Micah); Schuurmans 
 Stekhoven, De alexandrijnsche Vertaling van het Dodekapro- 
 pheton, 1887; Treitch, Die alexandrinische Uebersetzung des 
 Buches Hosea, 1. 1888; Ryssel, Untersuchungen tiber die 
 Textgestalt des Buches Micha, 1887. Bethgen, Der tezt- 
 kritische Werth der alten Uebersetzungen zu den Psalmen, JPT, 
 1882, p. 407 ff Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griech. Ucber- 
 setzung der Proverbien, 18638. Bickell, De indole ac ratione 
 versionis Alexandrine in interpretando libro Joli, 1862, and 
 in the Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie, 1886, p. 557 ff. ; 
 Hatch, Hssays in Biblical Greek, Oxford 1889, pp. 215-246, 
 On Origen’s Revision of the LXX. Text of Job; Dillmann, 
 “Textkritisches zum Buche Job” in Sittzwngsberichte der 
 Konigleheuss Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1890. 
 [Cheyne, “Dillmann on the Text of Job” in Expositor for 
 August 1891, pp. 142-145.] Compare also on the traces of 
 the Greek poets in this translation, Egli in the hein. 
 Museum, xii. 414-448. Jacob, “ Das Buch Esther bei den 
 LXX. in ZAW, 1890, p. 241 ff On the Greek translation of 
 Ecclesiastes, compare Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 1875, 
 p. 65; Gritz, Koheleth, p. 175 f.; Renan, LZ’ Heclésiaste, 1882, 
 p- 55f.; Wright, The Book of Koheleth, 1883, p. 50f.; 
 Klostermann, 7'SK, 1885, p. 153 ff; Bludau, De alexandrine 
 interpretationis libri Danielis indole, 1. 1891. See also the 
 Prefaces of Jerome to his Commentary, and below at ὃ 52. 
 
 42. Besides the historical importance referred to in the 
 preceding sections, the LXX. has the signal distinction of 
 being the oldest complete witness to the text of the Old 
 
§ 42, THE EARLIEST HISTORY OF THE SEPTUAGINT TEXT. 125 
 
 Testament. It opens up to us the possibility of being able 
 to work back to the Hebrew text that lay before each indi- 
 vidual Greek translator, and in this way to gain acquaintance 
 with a form of text which is some twelve hundred years 
 older than the oldest Hebrew Bible manuscript. The com- 
 parison of the text thus constructed, the Alexandrine Text, 
 with the Massoretic Text, introduces us to the most important 
 of all the sections of the history of the text, and converts an 
 entire series of problems from wholly irrelevant variations into 
 completely divergent recensions. Under these circumstances 
 it is in the highest degree deplorable that the use of the LXX. 
 in textual criticism should be so seriously prejudiced by 
 the defective condition of its own text, the restoration of 
 which Stroth called “the squaring of the circle.” The 
 degeneration of the Septuagint text began very early, as is 
 shown by the curses, certainly not uttered without occasion, 
 which the Epistle of Aristeas represents the Jews as pro- 
 nouncing upon every corruption of the translation. A pro- 
 ductive cause of this, here as in most cases, was the careless- 
 ness and awkwardness of the transcribers, aggravated no 
 doubt by the occasionally meaningless character of the 
 Alexandrine translation; but we learn expressly, even from 
 Justin Martyr, who died about A.p. 165, that many conscious 
 alterations and additions had, even on the part of Christians, 
 been introduced into the text. A well-known example of 
 such additions, in which, moreover, Justin and other fathers 
 considered that they had original elements of the text 
 which had been erased by the Jewish hatred of Christ, are 
 the words ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου in Psalm xcyi. 10, which long 
 played a part in patristic literature. Gradually the dis- 
 crepancies of the various manuscripts assumed so disturbing 
 a character that a remedy for this evil became a necessity. 
 The first who undertook to perform this task was the great 
 Origen, who died a.p. 254, The magnificent conception of 
 
126 § 43. ORIGEN’S TREATMENT OF THE TEXT. 
 
 his work in textual criticism continues still to excite an 
 admiration, which is not lessened by the fact that it is not 
 difficult to criticise his methods now, when we are able to 
 glance over their consequences. But it is a fact that his 
 undertaking has contributed to render the use of the LXX. 
 for the purposes of textual criticism yet more difficult. The 
 reason of this was that Origen sought to perform another task 
 of textual criticism, namely, to determine the relation between 
 the Alexandrine translation and the Hebrew text, not only 
 contemporaneously with the establishing of the Septuagint 
 text, but even using that same Septuagint text as an aid in 
 performing that task, whereas that former problem should 
 only have been taken up after he had secured a pure and 
 certain Septuagint text. Although the LXX. in several 
 passages affords the means of improving the received text of 
 the Palestinian Jews, since it points back to an original form 
 of text, the Palestinian Jewish authority, half against the will 
 of Origen, exercised so great an influence that by his labours 
 the LXX. lost not a little of its peculiarities. 
 
 Compare Justin Martyr, ed. Otto, 11. p. 242 ff 
 
 The position of Origen on this question formed an exact 
 parallel to his treatment of the question of the canon. Also 
 in that connection there were, as he himself expressly remarks, 
 frequent disputations between the Christians and the Jews, 
 which moved him to make his fellow-believers acquainted 
 with the Jewish Bible in order to protect them against the 
 criticism of the Jews (compare Ad A/fricanum, § 5). 
 
 43, As then, Origen, notwithstanding the prominence 
 which he gave to the Jewish Canon, would by no means 
 surrender the Apocrypha received by the Church (§ 17), he 
 did not consider the Jewish text ὧν principio as the only 
 correct text, to which the Alexandrine translation had to be in 
 all cases conformed. In the passage where he expresses 
 himself most thoroughly with regard to the principles of his 
 
§ 48. ORIGEN’S TREATMENT OF THE TEXT. 127 
 
 textual criticism (Comm. on Matth. xv. 14), he says, in 
 express opposition to such an idea, that he might not find 
 himself justified (οὐ τολμήσαντες) in removing from his 
 Septuagint text the sentences and words to be met with in 
 the LXX., but not in the Hebrew text. But seeing that it 
 was at the same time his aim to call attention to the relation 
 between the Hebrew and the Septuagint text, he indicated 
 such passages distinctly by marking, in accordance with the 
 practice of the grammarians in their treatises on textual 
 criticism, their commencement by means of a_ prefixed 
 obelus, lemniscus, or hypolemniscus (— or ~ or —), while a 
 metobelus (\’) indicated the close of the words referred to, 
 Far more dangerous was his procedure when, in the passages 
 where the original text contained more than the Septuagint, 
 he made additions to the Septuagint text from another Greek 
 translation, most frequently from that of Theodotion (ὃ 53). 
 For although he indicated also these additions by diacritical 
 marks (placing an asterisk before, > or +, a metobelus at 
 the end), the danger here was too great of some later tran- 
 scriber ignoring the marks, as in course of time to a great 
 extent actually did happen. But the worst of all was that 
 Origen, as he himself declares very distinctly, used the 
 different representatives of the Hebrew TZextus Receptus to 
 correct the faults of the Greek text and to find his way amid 
 the confusions of the various Septuagint manuscripts, for this 
 must have had a very detrimental effect in the determining 
 of the standpoint of textual criticism with regard to the con- 
 struction of the Septuagint text. It is at any rate conceivable 
 that the close and firm unity of the Hebrew Teztus Receptus, 
 as compared with the vacillations of the Septuagint manu- 
 scripts, must have made an impression upon Origen like that 
 which in our own days the “unity” of the Roman Catholics 
 has made on some Protestants, but just on this account has he 
 sacrificed much that is characteristic and original in the LXX. 
 
128 § 48, ORIGEN’S TREATMENT OF THE TEXT. 
 
 The Septuagint text of Origen, constructed in this way, 
 formed a part of the gigantic work produced by him in the 
 Palestinian seaport town of Cesarea, the Hexapla, the purpose 
 of which was to enable Christian readers, by means of a 
 magnificent apparatus, to take a survey of the relation between 
 the Greek and the Hebrew text. In six columns stand the 
 representatives of the two forms of text alongside of one 
 another. The Jewish Textus Receptus was represented by the 
 Hebrew text, a transcription of it in Greek letters (§ 36), and 
 the two very literal translations based on it of Aquila and 
 Symmachus (δὲ 52,54); while the last two columns contained 
 the revised Septuagint text and the translation of Theodotion, 
 which was a sort of revision of the LXX.(§ 53). Insome books 
 there were added a fifth and a sixth Greek translation, so that the 
 work sometimes bears also the name Octapla. On a seventh 
 translation, compare below at § 55. Moreover, this co-ordina- 
 tion resting upon the Hebrew text was already an injury to the 
 Alexandrine text inasmuch as that text, in passages where 
 the Greek translation had a different succession of portions of 
 the text, had to be corrected according to the Hebrew text. 
 
 That such a gigantic work, consisting of somewhere about 
 fifty large volumes, could not be multiplied by transcriptions, 
 must be considered as certain. The cost of such a proceeding 
 would have been too enormous. Either the manuscript itself 
 in Caesarea must have been used, or students must have been 
 satisfied with the extracts from it. Origen had indeed at- 
 tempted to make it more easily accessible, for he issued a new 
 edition, with the two first columns left out, and at the same time 
 with some critical alterations ; but even this so-called Tetrapla 
 seems not to have existed in many copies. On the other 
 hand, at a later date, Eusebius of Cesarea and his friend 
 Pamphilus caused the column which contained the Septuagint 
 text, with the diacritical marks and the marginal notes of all 
 kinds, to be copied out apart from the other translations, and in 
 
§ 43. ORIGEN’S TREATMENT OF THE TEXT. 129 
 
 this form the Hexaplar Recension found a wide circulation 
 among the Latins. In opposition to this revised text, the 
 pre-Origenistic form of the text was called κοινή or vulgate. 
 The Hexapla itself, which Jerome made use of in Cesarea 
 (ὃ 37), was still to be found there in the sixth century, but 
 afterwards, in some unknown way, it disappeared. 
 
 Wellhausen is not altogether correct, as also Reckendorf, 
 ZAW, 1887, p. 67, has remarked, when lhe writes (Bleek, 
 Hinleitung, p. 586): “ Proceeding from the belief that the 
 translation must have agreed with the original as he knew 
 it, Origen corrected the LXX., not according to its own 
 standard, but according to the Hebrew truth.” In principle 
 Origen, just as in his treatment of the canon, so also in his 
 textual criticism, recognised a double truth. 
 
 Origen, Comm. on Matth. xv. 14: τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς 
 ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν, θεοῦ διδόντος 
 εὕρομεν ἰάσασθαι, κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν 
 
 . καὶ τινὰ μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν ἐν τῷ “Εβραικῷ μὴ κείμενα οὐ 
 τολμήσαντες αὐτὰ πάντα περιελεῖν, K.T.A. But once he con- 
 fesses to have obliterated, with the Obelos, a word that seemed 
 to him meaningless, although it did stand in the Hebrew 
 (compare Cornill, Hzechiel, p. 386). 
 
 Compare on the Hexapla the Prolegomena to Field’s Ori- 
 genis Hexaplorum que supersunt, 1875. Chap. i. deals with 
 the names of the work (besides the names already mentioned, 
 we meet also sometimes with those of Pentapla and Heptapla) ; 
 chap. vii. § 2—3, the diacritical signs and their significance ; 
 chap. xi., the later fortunes of the Hexapla. On the latest 
 form of the Hexapla, compare Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, p. 
 107. 
 
 On the alterations in the Septuagint text made by Origen 
 without remark, compare Field, Prolegomena, chap. vii. ὃ 4. 
 Many a time the collection of the representatives of the 
 Hebrew text helped him to the objectively correct reading, 
 as, é.g., in Jer. xv. 10, where he read ὠφείλησα instead of 
 ὠφέλησα ; but oftener the original was thereby obliterated. 
 
 The Book of Job has suffered more than all the rest from 
 
 I 
 
130 § 44. LUCIAN AND HESYCHIUS. 
 
 the intrusion of numerous portions of the translation of Theo- 
 dotion into the Alexandrine text. According to a Scholium 
 of the Codex 161 (Codex Bibl. Dresdensis, No. 111.), the book 
 had 1600 στίχοι, but with the additions marked by asterisks, 
 2200 στίχοι (Field, Prolegomena, \xvi.). But possibly a 
 beginning had been made, even before Origen, of filling up 
 the gaps of the LXX. by means of the renderings of Theo- 
 dotion. The question is connected with the question of the 
 relation of the Codex Vaticanus, in which Job is already very 
 much augmented, to the Hexaplar text (compare ὃ 46). That 
 the translation of Theodotion was widely circulated at an 
 early date among Christians, is shown by the fact that even 
 Irenzeus used Theodotion for Daniel. See Zahn in Herzog’s 
 Real-Encyclopedie, vi. p. 131. 
 
 That the edition of the text by Eusebius and Pamphilus 
 was furnished with notes from the other translations is 
 declared by the Syro-Hexaplaris, compare Field, Prolegomena, 
 chap. xi. On the circulation of this recension, compare 
 Jerome (Pref. in Paralipom.): “ Mediz inter has (ae. Antioch 
 and Egypt) provincie Palestine (so Lagarde instead of Pales- 
 tinos) codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et 
 Pamphilus vulgaverunt.” His own preference for this recen- 
 sion, which afforded him admirable help in his contention for 
 “the Hebrew truth,” ze. the Hebrew Textus Receptus, is given 
 expression to by him in a letter (106) to Sunnias and Fretela : 
 xown “pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum 
 vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem que habetur in ἑξαπλοῖς et 
 quam nos vertimus, ipsa est que in eruditorum libris incor- 
 rupta et immaculata LXX. interpretum translatio reservatur : 
 quicquid ergo ab hac discrepat nulli dubium est, quin ita et 
 ab Hebreeorum auctoritate discordet.’ Compare further the 
 passage quoted in § 44 from the same Epistle; also Epist. 89, 
 Ad Augustinum; the Prefatio in Quatuor Evangg.; and 
 Lagarde, Librorum V. 1. grece pars prior, xili.; Hooykaas, 
 Jets over de grieksche Vertaling van het O. T. p. 30 ἢ 
 
 44. Some time after Origen, the Septuagint text was sub- 
 jected to two new revisions. The one was undertaken by 
 
§ 44. LUCIAN AND HESYCHIUS. 131 
 
 the founder of the Antiochian school, Lucian of Samosata, 
 who died as a martyr in A.D. 311, during the persecution of 
 Maximus. It found acceptance in Antioch, and was from 
 thence introduced into Constantinople, where especially Chry- 
 sostom aided its circulation. The second revision was made 
 by Hesychius, who is usually identified with the Egyptian 
 bishop of that name, who also suffered a martyr’s death in 
 the year 311. It was circulated in Alexandria and Egypt. 
 
 Jerome (Prefatio in Paralipom., compare ὃ 43): “ Alex- 
 andria et Algyptus in LXX. suis Hesychium laudant auctorem, 
 Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exem- 
 plaria probat.” 
 
 On the Recension of Lucian, compare the Synopsis scripture: 
 sacre ascribed to Athanasius, ὃ 77: ταῖς προγεγραμμέναις 
 ἐκδόσεσι (d. h. Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus) καὶ τοῖς 
 ‘EBpaixois ἐντυχὼν καὶ ἐποπτεύσας μετὰ ἀκριβείας τὰ λεί- 
 TOVTa ἢ καὶ περιττὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ῥήματα καὶ διορθωσάμενος 
 ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις τῶν γραφῶν τύποις ἐξέδοτο τοῖς χριστιανοῖς 
 ἀδελφοῖς. In an instructive Scholium of Jacob of Edessa, 
 which Nestle in ZDMG, xxxii. p. 481 ff. has communicated, 
 it is said (pp. 489 and 498): “Therefore as the holy martyr 
 Lucian has taken pains about the text of the Sacred Scrip- 
 tures, and in many places improved, or even changed particular 
 expressions used by the preceding translators, as, eg., when 
 he saw the word ‘37s in the text, and the word ‘ Lord’ on the 
 margin, he connected the two and set them both together, he 
 transmitted them in the Testament which he left behind him, 
 so that we find it written therein in many passages: “Thus 
 saith ss the Lord,” where we have given both the Hebrew 
 word adonai in Greek letters, and then alongside of it also 
 the word Lord [therefore “Adwvai κύριος) Compare what 
 is further said below at § 46. Jerome, Epist. 106, Ad Sun- 
 niam et Fretelam: “Sciatis aliam esse editionem, quam 
 Origenes et Cesariensis Eusebius, omnesque Greci tracta- 
 tores κοινὴν, id est communem, appellant, atque Vulgatam, et 
 a plerisque nunc Aovxravos dicitur; aliam LXX. interpretum, 
 que in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in Latinum 
 
132 § 45. PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 sermonem fideliter versa est, et Jerosolyme atque Orientis 
 ecclesiis decantatur.” Here therefore the Recension of Lucian 
 as not belonging to the Hexapla is connected with the κοινήν. 
 Further, he says in the Catalogus scriptorwm ecclesiasticorum : 
 “ Lucianus, vir disertissimus, Antiochene ecclesiz presbyter, 
 tantum in scripturarum studio elaboravit, ut usque nunc 
 quedam exemplaria Scripturarum Luciane nuncupentur.” 
 His remarks in the Preface to the Four Gospels contrasts 
 strikingly with this: “ Pretermitto eos codices quos a Luciano 
 et Hesychio nuncupatur, paucorum hominum asserit perversa 
 contentio; quibus utique, nec in toto veteri instrumento post 
 Septuaginta interpretes emendare quid licuit, nec in novo 
 profuit emendasse: quum multarum gentium linguis Scrip- 
 tura ante translata doceat falsa esse quee addita sunt.” 
 
 The information which we have about the Recension of 
 Hesychius is extremely scanty. Besides the passages quoted 
 in the Prefaces of Jerome to the Chronicles, and to the Four 
 Gospels, he mentions this recension in his Commentary in Isa. 
 lviii. 11: “Quod in Alexandrinis exemplaribus in principio 
 hujus capituli additum est: ‘et adhuc in te erit laus mea 
 semper,’ et in fine: ‘et ossa tua quasi herba orientur, et pin- 
 guescent, et heriditate possidebunt in generationem et genera- 
 tiones’ in Hebraico non habitur, sed ne in LXX. quidem 
 emendatis et veris exemplaribus.” This remark, moreover, is 
 inexact, inasmuch as the words et ossa tua quasi herba orientur 
 are to be found in the original text as well as in the LXX. 
 
 45. In the course of time not only did each of these 
 several Recensions become corrupted by errors of transcription, 
 but the Septuagint text especially suffered by this, that the 
 manuscripts rarely follow one particular Recension, but 
 attach themselves sometimes to this and sometimes to that 
 authority. A picture of this quite unbounded confusion is 
 presented in the great collections of variations which the 
 Oxford scholars, Robert Holmes and James Parsons, published 
 at the end of last and the beginning of this century. They 
 have, at least, made a survey of the whole material possible, 
 
§ 45. PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 133 
 
 and so have afforded the starting-point for those who in future 
 would make more thoroughgoing attempts to find their way in 
 this labyrinth by means of grouping the various manuscripts. 
 In so far they have been of use, but at the same time, owing to 
 the errors of their collaborateurs, their untrustworthiness and 
 incompleteness have been brought to light by the continued 
 labours of textual criticism. In the following sketch we 
 shall seek to present a picture of the progress that has been 
 made in the most recent times in this difficult undertaking. 
 The great editions of the LXX. hitherto had been the four 
 following: The Complutensian Bible, a.p. 1514-1517 (δ 24), 
 the Aldine edition, A.D. 1518, the Roman Sixtine edition, A.D. 
 1587, and E. Grabe’s edition, av. 1707-1720. For the 
 Septuagint text of the Complutensian Bible, the editors, as 
 more recent investigations have shown, used especially the 
 Codex Vaticanus 330 (in Holmes 108; in Lagarde d) and 
 346 (in Holmes 248). This text was repeated in the 
 Antwerp Polyglot of av. 1569-1572 (ὃ 24. The Aldine 
 edition was begun by Aldus Manutius, and was completed 
 and published with a preface after his death in A.p, 1515 
 by his father-in-law, Andreas Asulanus. What manuscripts 
 it followed cannot now be certainly determined. The Roman 
 Editio Sixtina, the work of Pope Sixtus V.. is based upon 
 the celebrated Codex Vaticanus Grecus 1209 (B, in Holmes 
 ii.), the value of which had then been discovered; but from 
 it this Sixtine edition departs in numerous particulars. 
 Another celebrated manuscript, the Codex Alewandrinus (A, in 
 Holmes iii.), forms the basis of the edition of E. Grabe ; yet it is 
 used with pretty considerable freedom. These two famous uncial 
 manuscripts have now become available through more reliable 
 editions. At the head of them all stands the beautiful English 
 facsimile edition of the Codex Alexandrinus (1881-1883), 
 which exactly serves in place of the manuscript itself. Not 
 quite so reliable is the great Roman edition of the Codex 
 
134 § 45. PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 Vaticanus by Verzellone and Cozza (1868-1881). To these 
 principal editions are attached a series of editions of particular 
 manuscripts by Tischendorf (especially Codex Sinaiticus), 
 Cozza, &c. 
 
 A very convenient sketch of the form of text in the Codex 
 Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus is given in the very 
 careful collations of E. Nestle in the last editions of 
 Tischendorf’s LX X., which are based upon the Sixtine. Also 
 in these collations the Codex Sinaiticus has been compared, 
 while Tischendorf himself had made use of only the first 
 discovered, and separately edited fragments of that manu- 
 script, Mrederico-Augustanus, and especially also the Codex 
 Ephrem. A very practical edition of the Septuagint with 
 various readings from various principal authorities has been 
 begun by the English scholar Swete. Finally, some separate 
 critical editions, by Fritzsche (Esther, Ruth, Judges) and 
 Lagarde (Genesis and the first Psalms), deserve to be 
 mentioned. 
 
 The older literature in De Wette-Schrader, Hinleitung, 
 p- 100 ff—Vet. Testam. cum variis lectionibus, ed. Rk. Holmes, 
 continuarvit J. Parsons, Oxf. 1798-1827, in 5 vols. Lagarde 
 in his Librorum V. 7. canon, i. Ὁ. xv., characterises the work 
 in the following words: “ Qui judicium neque in seligendis 
 laboris sodalibus neque in disponenda scripturarum sibi tradi- 
 tarum farragine probaverunt, religionem in reddendis eis 
 que acceperant summam prestiterunt.” Compare also the 
 opinions quoted by Hooykaas, Jets over d. g. vertaling van het 
 O: Pap, Ὁ 
 
 Sketches of the various manuscripts are given by Stroth 
 in Eichhorn’s Repertortum, v. vil. and xi.; Tischendorf, 
 Prolegomena to his edition of the LXX. § xxiv.; Lagarde, 
 Genesis grece, Ὁ. ὃ ff.; Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, 
 pp. 13-24. 
 
 The Complutensian Bible. On the Greek text of this 
 Polyglot compare Vercellone, Dissertaziont Accademiche di 
 
§ 45. PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 135 
 
 vario argumento, Rome 1864, p. 407 ff. ; Delitzsch, Fortgesetzte 
 Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Complutensischen Polyglotte, 
 1886 (compare above, ὃ 24). Besides the two named Codices 
 Vaticani, 330 and 346, Delitzsch makes special mention of a 
 copy of a Venetian Codex, the original of which he seeks in 
 the Codex Mare. v. (Holmes 68). 
 
 The Aldine. Biblia greece Venet.in wdibus Aldi et Asulani, 
 1518. Compare Lagarde, Genesis grace, p. 6; GGA, 1882, 
 p. 450; Mittheilungen, ii. 57; Delitzsch, Vortgesetzte Studien 
 zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Complutensischen Polyglotte, pp. 24, 
 25; Cornill, Hzechiel, pp. 24, 79; Schuurmans Stekhoven, 
 Der Alexandrijnsche Vertaling, p. 50 ff. 
 
 The Sixtine Edition and the Codex Vaticanus. Vet. Testa- 
 ment. juata LXX. ex auctoritate Sixti V. editum, Rome 1587. 
 Compare on the history of this edition: Nestle, Septuaginta- 
 studien, Ulm 1886. After it (1) the London Polyglot 
 1657; (2) Vet. Testament. ex vers. LXX. interpr. sec. exemplar. 
 Vatic. Rom. ed. etc. ed. Lamb. Bos, 1709 ; (3) Vet. Testament 
 Gr. juata LXX. interpr. ex auct. Sixti V. ed. 1587, recus. 
 L. van Ess, 1824, new edition 1887 ; (4) Tischendorf’s editions 
 since 1850 (compare further at p. 136). Vercellone, Cozza, 
 Melander, Bibliorum sacrorum grecus Codex Vaticanus, Rome 
 1868-1881. Compare also Tischendorf, Prolegomena, § xix. 
 
 Codex Alexandrinus. Septuaginta interpr. ex antiquiss. 
 manuscripto Codice Alexandrino, ed. Grabe, Oxford 1707- 
 1720; Fred. Field, Vetue Testamentum grace, 1859; 
 Facsimile of the Codex Alexandrinus Old Testament, London 
 1881-18853, in 3 vols. 
 
 Other published Manuscripts. In 1846 Tischendorf pub- 
 lished a part of the Codex Sinaiticus under the name: Codex 
 Friderico-Augustanus ; the rest of it appeared in 1862 as: 
 Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus, St. Petersburg (the Old Testament 
 forming the 3rd and 4th of the four folio volumes). Afterwards 
 Brugsch discovered some fragments of Leviticus xxii.—xxiil., 
 and published them: Neue Bruchstticke des Cod. Sinaiticus, 
 Leipsic 1875. Tischendorf, Codex Ephremi Syri reseriptus 
 sive Fragmenta Vet. Testament, 1845 (passages from Job, 
 Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and The Song). A series of fragments 
 
136 § 45. PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 and manuscripts, some of them of very great importance, is pub- 
 lished in Tischendorf’s Monumenta sacra inedita, Nova Collectio 
 i—v. The following deserve specially to be named: Codea: 
 Sarravianus (Holmes iv. v.), with passages from the Octateuch 
 (namely, the fragments preserved in Leyden and St. Petersburg; 
 the Parisian fragments were published by Lagarde in the 
 Abhandlungen d. Gott. Ges. d. Wissensch. 1879); Codex March- 
 alianus (or Claramontanus, now in Vatican, Holmes xii.) with 
 portions from the Prophets; Psaltertwm Turicense ; Psalmorwm 
 Jragm. papyracea Londinensia; the parts of the Codex 
 Cottonianus saved from the fire (Holmes i., containing many 
 fragments from Genesis). Psalterium Veronense in Blanch- 
 inus, Psalterium duplex, 1740. Compare further, Delitzsch, 
 Die Psalmen, p. 431 f. Codex Cryptoferratensis (fragments 
 from the Prophets), ed. Cozza, Rome 1867-1877 ; Prophetarwm 
 Codex grecus Vaticanus, 2125 curante Cozzi-Lugi, Rome 
 1890. From Codex Chisianus R. vii. 45 (Holmes 88) have 
 appeared : Vincenti ide regibus, Jezeciel sec. LXX. ex. Tetrapl. 
 Orig., by Coster, 1840, and Daniel in Cozza’s edition of 
 the Codex Cryptoferratensis, ii. 1877. This manuscript 
 alone gives the correct Septuagint translation of Daniel, 
 while the others contain Theodotion’s translation of that 
 book (compare ὃ 43). Tischendorf published the text, after 
 an earlier edition by Simon de Magistris, Rome 1772, as an 
 appendix to his edition of the LXX. Abbot, Pars pal- 
 inpsestorum Dublinensiwm (Isa, xxx. 2—xxxi. 7; xxxvi. 17- 
 xxxvil. 1), 1880. 
 
 In the two last editions of Tischendorf’s Veteris Testamente 
 grec juata LXX. interpretes (vi. 1880 and vii. 1887) Nestle’s 
 collations will be found. They may also be referred to 
 separately: Veteris testamentt gracit codices Vaticanus et 
 Alexandrinus et Sinaiticus cum textu recepto collati. According 
 to his statement the Sixtine edition differs in more than 4000 
 passages from the Codex Vaticanus. For Daniel he has com- 
 pared Cozza’s edition of the Chisianus above referred to. 
 
 Swete, Zhe Old Testament in Greek, i. and ii. (Gen.—Tobit), 
 Cambridge 1887-1891. [The third volume, completing the 
 work, will contain the Prophets and some of the Apocrypha.] 
 
§ 46. RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OF LXX. 137 
 
 Besides this manual edition a larger edition is being pre- 
 pared. 
 
 Fritzsche, Esther, duplicem libri textum emendavit, Zurich 
 1848; Ruth sec. LXX. 1864; Liber judicum sec. LXX. 1867. 
 Lagarde, Genesis Grace, 1868; Nove psalterii Greci editionis 
 specimen, 1887 (from the Gétt Abhandlungen, 1887). Com- 
 pare also the first chapter of Genesis in his: Ankiindigung einer 
 neuen Ausgabe der griech. Uebersetzung εἰ. A. 7. 1882, pp.d-16. 
 
 46. The editions referred to in the preceding section have 
 made us acquainted with a number of manuscripts, among 
 which are the most celebrated uncial manuscripts. The first 
 place among these unquestionably belongs to the Codex 
 Vaticanus. So long as one is satisfied with establishing the 
 text of the LXX. by means of some prominent manuscripts, 
 this Codex will certainly maintain its undisputed supremacy, 
 and an edition based on it, with the most important variations 
 noted down, will supply a convenient apparatus for common 
 use. But in this way we do not reach beyond a mere 
 provisional apparatus. In recent times Lagarde has given a 
 specimen, in a laborious but necessarily too irregular way, of 
 the advantage that may be gained even from an unmethodical 
 use of the Alexandrine translation. His demand is, that 
 instead of following the uncial manuscripts which were not 
 domiciled in any ecclesiastical province, we should secure a 
 sure basis for further critical operations by restoring, as far as 
 that can be done, the three recensions of the LXX. signalised 
 by Jerome (§§ 43, 44). We are therefore in this way 
 brought to the question, as to how far it may be possible to 
 authenticate and reproduce those recensions. 
 
 So far as the Hexaplar Recension is concerned, the text 
 edited by Eusebius and Pamphilusis to be found more or less 
 certainly in various manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts, 
 which in part have been published. The rash conjecture 
 that has been hazarded by Cornill, that the celebrated Codex 
 
138 § 46. RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OF LXX. 
 
 Vaticanus is an extract prepared with great circumspection 
 and at a relatively very early date from the Hezapla of 
 Origen preserved in Cesarea, has been withdrawn again by 
 this scholar himself. On the other hand, an aid for the 
 revision of the Hexapla that cannot be too highly valued is to 
 be found in the Syriac translation of the Hexaplar text, the 
 so-called Syro-Hexaplaris, of which an account will be given 
 below in ὃ 48. Also the Latin translation of the LXX. in 
 the Commentaries of Jerome, as well as his revisions of the 
 old Latin Bible mentioned in § 37, are of use for the restora- 
 tion of the Hexaplar Recension. Finally, as of special 
 evidential value, there are the quotations of the fathers living 
 in Palestine and the Palestinian liturgies. 
 
 The merit of having discovered the Lucian Recension belongs 
 to Frederick Field and Paul Lagarde. It is to be found in a 
 croup of manuscripts of which the Codex Vaticanus 330, the 
 same as was used in the Complutensian Bible, is one of 
 the most important. Of the secondary translations, at least 
 the Gothic attaches itself to it. The biblical quotations of 
 Chrysostom and Theodoret, as well as several marginal notes 
 of the Syro-Hexaplaris, furnish decisive proof of this. The 
 edition of the Septuagint begun by Lagarde reproduces this 
 recension, unfortunately without any critical apparatus. It 
 will only be when we have it completely before us, that we 
 shall be able to answer the question about Lucian’s relation to 
 the Hexaplar Recension and to the later Greek translations, 
 as also about his sometimes affirmed, sometimes denied, 
 acquaintance with Hebrew. 
 
 The difficulty in regard to the Recension of Hesychius is 
 incomparably greater, for we have not in fact been able to 
 authenticate it with any degree of certainty. Most scholars 
 point to the quotations in Cyril of Alexandria, which, how- 
 ever, are very inexactly made, and mostly from memory. 
 Lagarde, as indeed also before him the Danish bishop Fr. 
 
Ὁ 
 
 § 46. RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OF LXX. 139 
 
 Miinter, conjectured that the Recension might be found in 
 some one of the Coptic translations (§ 49), while others 
 look for it in the Ethiopic and Arabic version of the LXX. 
 
 Compare Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 80. ff. ; 
 Ankiindigung einer neuen Ausgabe εἰ. griech Ucbersetzung d. 
 A, 1. 1882; and the prefaces to the Librorum Vet. Testament. 
 Canonicorum grece pars prior, 1883. Lagarde’s programme 
 has been acknowledged, among others by Wellhausen (Bleek, 
 Hinleitung, p. 573) and Cornill (Hzchiel, p. 63), while 
 others regard it as too finical and impracticable. Compare 
 Theolog. Tijdschrift 1882, p. 285 ff; 1888, p. 111; Swete, 
 The Old Testament in Greek, i. p. x. sq. Certainly this task 
 demands not only many and sure hands and much time, but 
 also that others should busy themselves with the needs of the 
 present. Compare also Hooykaas, Jets over d. g. Vertaling 
 van het O. T. p. 8 ff.; Schuurmans Stekhoven, De Alea- 
 andrijnsche Vertaling, pp. 21-27. 
 
 1. The Recension of the Hexapla. Of the manuscripts 
 containing this form of text according to the common hypo- 
 thesis there are partially printed: The Codex Marchalianus 
 and the Chisianus, R. vii. 45 (compare above, § 45; here also 
 see about the editions of the Codex Sarravianus, of which, how- 
 ever, Lagarde, in Abhandlungen d. Gott. Ges. εἰ. W. 1879, p. 3, 
 remarks: “ Whether the text actually goes back to Origen 
 remains to be investigated”). Further, there also belong to 
 this group the Codex Barberinus (Holmes 86, containing the 
 Prophets, with the exception of Daniel), and the Codex 
 Coislinianus (Holmes x., with pieces from the Octateuch), 
 and some others of which Pitra speaks (Analecta sacra, iil. 
 552 ff.). Compare on these manuscripts generally, Field, i. 
 p. C. sq. 11. 428; Wellhausen-Bleek, Hinleitung, p. 588 ἢ; 
 Cornill, Hxchiel, 15, 16 ff., 19. Lagarde speaks of a Codex 
 in the possession of a private individual which almost cer- 
 tainly produces the Recension of Palestine, Mittheilungen, 
 ii. 56. On the difficulties which beset the restoration of the 
 Palestinian Recension, compare Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 11. 52, 
 55 f. The conjecture referred to of a relationship between 
 
140 § 46. RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OF LXX. 
 
 the Codex Vaticanus and the Hexaplar Recension had been 
 suggested by Cornill in his Fvzechiel, pp. 80-95. Rendal 
 Harris (John Hopkins’ University Circulars, 111. 29, 30, March- 
 April, 1884) had also been led to adopt a similar opinion. 
 This hypothesis was meanwhile refuted by Hort in The 
 Academy (1887, 11. 424), and was afterwards abandoned by 
 Cornill himself (W@GW, 1888, pp. 194-196), since he was 
 convinced of the fact that in B the Hebraising of proper 
 names, which is characteristic of the Hexapla Recension 
 (§ 43), is wanting. It should also be remembered that in 
 Jeremiah, B has not the genuinely Jewish, but the Alex- 
 andrine arrangement of the portions of the text. Cornill 
 thinks now, with Hort, that B may rather have been a copy of 
 a manuscript largely and preferentially used by Origen for his 
 Septuagint text. Compare also Lagarde, JMttiheilungen 1]. 
 p. 55. The dependence on the Hexapla text spoken of in 
 the Codex Sinaiticus in the subscription to the Book of Esther 
 is referred by Tischendorf (Novum testamentum sinarticum, 
 Xxx.) to later corrections. 
 
 2. The Lucian Recension. Compare Field, Prolegomena, 
 Ixxxiv. sqq.; Bickellin the Zeitschrift fiir katholischen Theologie, 
 1879, p. 407 f.; Lagarde, Ankiindigung, p. 26 f.; Cornill, 
 Ezxchiel, p. 65 f.; Reckendorf, ZAW, 1887, pp. 63-66; 
 Schuurmans Stekhoven, De Alexandrijnsche Vertaling, pp. 
 28-46. [Westcott, History of the Canon of the New Testament, 
 4th ed. 1875, p. 388.] When Field, Prolegomena, 1xxxviii., 
 adduces as a criterion of the manuscripts belonging to this 
 Recension the remark of Jacob of Edessa, quoted above in 
 § 44, about the way and form in which Lucian restored the mn, 
 he has to be reminded of this that ἀδωναι κύριος is found also 
 in the Codex Alexandrinus, in Cyril of Alexandria, and in the 
 Ethiopic translation (Cornill, Zzechiel, pp. 73, 76, 172 ff. ; 
 Konig in ZK WL, 1887, p. 288 ἢ) About the manuscripts 
 containing the Lucian Recension, moreover, absolute agreement 
 does not prevail. For the historical books, Field points to 
 the Codices Holmes, 19, 82, 93, 108 (ae. Chisianus, R. vi. 
 38; the Parisian Codex Coislinianus, 111., Arundelianus, or 
 Brit. Mus. i. ἃ. 2, Vaticanus 330). To these Lagarde, who 
 
§ 46. RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OF LXX. 141 
 
 designates them by the signs h, f, m, d, adds the Parisian 
 Codex 6 (Holmes 118, Lagarde p), and some others. For 
 the Prophets, Field names the Codices Holmes, 22, 36, 48, 
 51, 62, 90, 93, 144, 147, 233, 308. Of these, Cornill (and 
 with him Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 11. 52, agrees) strikes out 
 the numbers 62, 90, 147, 233, while he adds 23 (Codex 
 Venetus, i.). Schuurmans Stekhoven names for the Minor 
 Prophets, 22, 36, 42, 51, 62, 86, 95, 147, 153, 185, 238, 
 240, 231. Yet it may be remarked that (according to the 
 Theolog. Lnteraturzeitung, 1890, 5) in the Book of Ruth 
 Theodoret agrees with the Codices 54 and 75, which often 
 diverge from Codex 108. Lagarde, Librorum Veteris testa- 
 menty canonicorum greece pars prior, 1883. A critical appa- 
 ratus is to be found only in the two texts of Esther. We 
 have now the prospect of seeing this long-interrupted work 
 resumed; see Uebersicht iiber d.in Aram .. . tibliche Nominal- 
 bildung, p. 186. On the quotations of Chrysostom, compare 
 Lagarde, 1. p. vil. sq.; on those of the Emperor Julian, com- 
 pare his Ankiindiyung, p. 27. On Adrian’s use of the Lucian 
 Tecension, compare Goessling, Adrian’s εἰσαγωγη, Leipsic 
 1887. [Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the 
 New Testament, Cambridge, 3rd ed. 1883, pp. 315-318.] 
 
 3. The Hesychian Recension. Fr. Miinter, Specimen ver- 
 stlonum Danielis coptiarum, Rome 1786, p. 20 ἢ: “ Liceat 
 tamen conjecturam exponere cui ipsa ὃ. Hieronymi verba: 
 Alexandria et Aigyptus Hesychium laudant auctorem, favere 
 videntur: recensionem nimirum sacri codicis Hesychianam 
 in una alterave versionum coptiarum nobis  superesse.” 
 Lagarde, Ankiindigung, 25, libr. v. test 1. p. xv. Cornill 
 (Hzechiel, 67 ff.), finds a family likeness between the Coptic, 
 Ethiopic, Arabic, Old Latin translations, and the Codea Alex- 
 andrinus. With this manuscript are related the Codices 
 Holmes, 49, 68, 87, 90, 91, 228, 238, which often agree 
 with the quotations of Cyril. In this group, which may be 
 said almost precisely to correspond with the Aldine edition, 
 Hesychius may therefore be looked for. Reckendorf, how- 
 ever, in ZA W, 1887, p. 68, denies that there is any agreement 
 between the Ethiopic translation and the Aldine edition. The 
 
142  § 47. QUOTATIONS IN FATHERS AND VERSIONS OF LXX. 
 
 Ethiopic translation, according to him, agrees rather with the 
 Codices Holmes, 129, 56. Compare also Schuurmans Stek- 
 hoven, De Alexandrijnsche Vertaling, pp. 47-56, and especially 
 Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 11. 60. [Smith’s Dict. of Christian Bio- 
 graphy, vol. 111. 1882, p. 8, Article “ Hesychius,” by Venables. ] 
 
 47. The quotations in the fathers form important aids in 
 researches in the textual criticism of the LXX., as has already 
 appeared from the last paragraphs. Yet in the using of them 
 it is necessary to proceed with great caution, since they may 
 easily lead to false conclusions. First of all, in dealing with 
 them, it has to be remembered that the fathers very often quote 
 from memory, and that these quotations therefore are absolutely 
 demonstrative only when they lay special stress upon the form 
 of the passage cited, or when it is certain that they have had 
 the text before them. But if occasional deviations from the 
 common text on the part of the fathers are not therefore 
 always decisive, then also, on the other hand, as Lagarde has 
 made clear, their agreement with the common text is not 
 without further corroboration demonstrative, seeing that the 
 editions of their works, which we now have, sometimes rest 
 upon later revisions which may have in all sorts of ways 
 modified the original. 
 
 The translations made from the LXX. into other languages, 
 of which some are very valuable, form another aid to the 
 textual study of the Septuagint. The first place among these 
 daughter versions should be assigned to the Old Latin 
 Bible, if it were not that the results of the investigations 
 regarding it are still so insecure and so much contested. It 
 is even yet quite a matter of controversy whether we can 
 speak of a Vetus latina, or whether we have to do with 
 several independent Old Latin translations. The utterances 
 of the later fathers, like Jerome and Augustine, even if they 
 had been clearer and more definite than they are, could not 
 have settled the question, because those fathers evidently 
 
§ 47. QUOTATIONS IN FATHERS AND VERSIONS OF LXxX. 143 
 
 gave expression only to their own opinions and reflections, 
 and did not communicate any old traditions. In particular, 
 one well-known saying of Augustine with regard to the Ztala 
 (De doctrina christiana, ii. 15), not only has not contributed 
 to cast light upon the problem before us, but rather has called 
 forth a new and intricate question. An actual decision will 
 be reached only when we have a complete collection of all the 
 Bible quotations of the Latin fathers, and a collection of the 
 hitherto constantly-accumulating text material. But even 
 now we may regard it as an undoubted result of the investi- 
 gations that have been carried out, that the circumstances of 
 the case will not be met by the hypothesis of a single trans- 
 lation appearing before us now in several modifications, but 
 that we must assume several independent translations of the 
 Alexandrine text. 
 
 The widespread notion that even Tertullian was acquainted 
 with a Latin Bible of North African origin has been confuted 
 with convincing arguments by Theod. Zahn. On the other 
 hand, such a translation certainly did exist in the third 
 century. Generally, indeed, it would be in the provinces 
 that the need of a Latin Bible would be soonest and most 
 keenly felt, especially among the poorer classes of the people, 
 among whom Christianity at first mainly spread, and whose 
 language, “ lingua vulgata, rustica, sermo cottidianus, plebeius,” 
 is that in which actually the Old Latin Bibles were written. 
 
 A first collection of Old Latin Bible texts was edited by 
 Sabatier. In later times, Ranke and Ziegler, among others, 
 have done service in this department. 
 
 On the Bible quotations of the fathers, compare Cornill, 
 
 zechiel, p. ὃ8 ἢ; Lagarde, Psalterium HMieronymi, viii., 
 Mittheilungen, τ. 53 ἢ, From an earlier period, the collec- 
 tions of Stroth in Lichhorn’s Repertorium, ii. 74 ff., iii, 213 ff, 
 vi. 124 ff, xii. 158 ff. 
 
 For the hypothesis of a single Old Latin Bible translation, 
 
144 § 47. QUOTATIONS IN FATHERS AND VERSIONS OF LXX. 
 
 compare Wiseman, Essays on Various Suljects, London 1853, 
 i.; Eichhorn, Ainlectung?, 1. ὃ 3821; Wellhausen - Bleek, 
 Hinleitung, p. 595. On the other hand, for the hypothesis 
 of several translations: Ziegler, Die alilateinischen Brbeltiber- 
 setzungen vor Hieron. 1879; Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 11. 58 ff. 
 [In Studia Biblica, 1st series, Oxf. 1885, in Paper on “ Corbey 
 St. James and its relation to other Old Latin Versions,” p. 236, 
 Sanday says: “ There were originally two main versions, two 
 parent stocks from which all the texts that we now have were 
 derived with different degrees of modification.” ] 
 
 The remarks of Augustine, Jerome, etc., on the Old Latin 
 translations are quoted and commented on by Ziegler, Die 
 altlat. Bibeliibersetz. p. 4 ff. The passage quoted from Augus- 
 tine runs as follows: “ In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala 
 ceteris preeferatur, nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicui- 
 tate sententize” (De doctrina christiana, 11. 15). But when 
 - further on he says: “Sed tamen, ut superius dixi, horum 
 quoque interpretum, qui verbis tenacius inheserunt, collatio 
 non est inutilis ad explanandum spe sententiam,”’ it is 
 evident that the openly expressed doubts of the correctness of 
 the text in the former passage are not wholly unfounded, and 
 Bentley’s and Corssen’s (JP7, 1881, p. 507 ff.) emendations 
 illa for Itala and que for nam are at least worthy of considera- 
 tion. See, however, Zeigler, Dre altlat. Bibeliibersetz. p. 19 ff. 
 
 On the Bible quotations of Tertullian, compare Zahn, 
 Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 1. p. 51 ff But on 
 the other side, Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 11. p. 59. 
 
 On the dialectic peculiarities of the Old Latin translations, 
 Ronsch, tala und Vulgata, 1869; Zeigler, Die altlat. 
 Bibeliibersetz. p. 22 f.; Cornill, Hzechiel, p. 25 f. 
 
 Sabatarii, Bibliorum sacrorum Latine versionis antique 
 seu vetus Italica, 1751. A list of later editions is given by 
 Zeigler, p. 102 ff. To these are to be added: Ulysse 
 Robert, Pentatewchi e codice Lugdunensi versio lat. antigua, 
 Paris 1881; Ziegler, Bruchstiicke einer vorhieronymianischen, 
 Uebersetzung d. Pentatewchs, Munich 1883; Belsheim, Pa- 
 limpsestus Vindobonensis, Christiania 1885; Ranke, Stutgar- 
 diana versionis sacrarum scripturarum latine antehveronymiane 
 
§ 48. SYRIAC TRANSLATIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 145 
 
 Fragmenta, 1888; Lagarde, Probe einer neuen Ausgabe der 
 lateinischen Uebersetzungen d. A. T., 1885. 
 
 48. After a portion of the Syrians had very wrongly begun 
 to abandon their old independent Bible (ὃ 68) the LXX. was 
 more than once translated into Syriac. Some fragments are 
 still preserved of the rendering of Jacob of Edessa, a.p. 704- 
 705, which sought to steer a middle course between the 
 Peshito and the Alexandrine version; as also perhaps of the 
 translation which Bishop Philoxenus had caused Polycarp 
 to make in A.p. 508, and which embraced at least a part of 
 the Old Testament (after the Recension of Lucian). But more 
 important than all the rest is the Syrian reissue of the 
 Hexapla text cited by Eusebius and Pamphilus (§ 49), of 
 which by good fortune not a little has been preserved. It 
 was executed in the years 617-618 in Alexandria by Bishop © 
 Paul of Tella, and contained not only the diacritical marks of 
 Origen but also fragments of the other Greek translations, as 
 marginal notes. A manuscript still extant in the sixteenth 
 century, which contained a portion of the historical books, 
 was subsequently lost. On the other hand, the Ambrosian 
 Codex, which Ceriani has had reproduced by photo-lithography, 
 comprises the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song, 
 the Book of Wisdom, Sirach, and the Prophets, with Baruch, 
 the Epistle of Jeremiah, and the additions to Daniel. To 
 these have yet to be added fragments in Paris and London, 
 which have been issued by various editors. 
 
 On the translation of Jacob of Edessa, compare De Sacy, 
 Notices et extraits de MSS. de la bibl. nation. iv. 648 ff. ; 
 Bickell, Conspectus ret Syrorum liter. ii. The fragments of 
 Isaiah to be found in British Museum (addit. 14,441) have 
 been edited by Ceriani in: Monumenta sacra et profana, v. 
 1 ff. Fragments of the translation of Daniel are to be 
 found in: Bugatus, Daniel secundum editionem LXX, inter- 
 pretum desumptum er Codice Syro-Esthrangelo, 1788. 
 
 K 
 
146 § 49. OTHER SECONDARY TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 On Philoxenus, compare Assemanni, Bibl. orient. 11. 83; 
 Bickell, Conspectus rei Syrorum liter. p. 9. A fragment in the 
 British Museum (addit. 17,106) is ascribed by Ceriani to this 
 translator. Compare, however, Field, Hexapla, i. p. xcil. sq. 
 [Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iv. 1887, 
 p. 392, Article “ Philoxenus,” by Venables. Scrivener (Plain 
 Introduction, p. 328) says: “The characteristic feature of the 
 Philoxenian is its excessive closeness to the original: it 18 
 probably the most servile version of Scripture ever made.” ] 
 
 On the Syro-Hexaplaris, compare Field, Hexapla, i. p. |xvil. 
 sqq. The older editions are given in De Wette-Schrader, 
 Hinleitung, p. 117.  Ceriani’s edition of the Milan Codex 
 forms the seventh volume of the Monumenta sacra et profana, 
 1874. In the second volume of the same collection are to 
 be found fragments from the British Museum. Further: Skat 
 Rordam, Libri Judicum et Ruth sec. vers. Syro-Hexapl. Copen- 
 hagen 1859, 1861; Lagarde, Veteris testamenti ab Origeie 
 recensitt fragmenta ap. Syros servata, v. (Ex. Num. Jos. 1 and 2 
 Kings) 1880. The best manuscripts, among them the Codex 
 Ambrosianus, have, under the influence of Jacob of Edessa, 
 jhjh for the older pipi = mn’ (ὃ 76). Compare, ZDMG, xxxil. 
 507 f.,736. In the year 1486 the Syro-Hexaplar version 
 was translated into Arabic by Hareth ben Senan. Of this 
 translation there are two manuscripts in the Bodleian library. 
 See Field, Hexapla, i. Ὁ. lxx. sq.; ZDMG, xxxii. p. 468 f. 
 
 49, With the old Latin and Syrian daughter versions of 
 the LXX. is connected a series of other translations which are 
 of importance for the establishing of the various Recensions. 
 The Gothic translation of the Bible rests, as has been already 
 said (§ 46), on Lucian’s revision of the text. How far the 
 same may be affirmed regarding the Slavic translation is not 
 yet established. The Coptic translation in the three dialects, 
 the Sahidic, the Bohiric, and the Fayumic, will perhaps play 
 an important role in the restoration of the text of Hesychius. 
 Besides these we must name: the Ethiopic, the Arabic, the 
 Armenian, and the Georgian translations; and finally, the 
 
§ 49. OTHER SECONDARY TRANSLATIONS. 147 
 
 interesting fragments of a translation of the LXX. into the 
 Aramaic language spoken by the Christians of Palestine. 
 
 Von Gabelentz and Loebe, Ulflas V. et N. T. vers. gothicw 
 fragmenta, 1863; Ohrloff, Die Bruchstiicke vom A. T. der 
 Cothischen Bibeliibersetzung, Halle 1876; Lagarde, Veteris 
 Testam. libri canon. 1, p. xiv; Mittheilungen, iit. 52 f.; NEGI, 
 1890, p. 20 f. 
 
 On the Slavic translation, compare De Wette-Schrader, 
 Hinleitung, p. 121. The edition (Moscow 1663) to be seen 
 in the Copenhagen University Library has the following title: 
 “The Bible, z.c., the Books of the Old and the New Testament 
 translated into Slavic according to the translation from Hebrew 
 into Greek, which was undertaken at the command of the 
 Egyptian king Ptolemy Philadelphus in the year 350 before 
 the incarnation of our God and Redeemer,” etc. The passages 
 compared ‘by my colleague, Prof. Verner, do not agree with the 
 Lucian Recension but rather with the Roman edition. 
 
 The Coptic Bible fragments that have been discovered down 
 to 1880 are given in Stern, Koptische Grammatik. 1880, 
 pp. 441-446. Besides this, see among others, Lagarde, 
 Aigyptiaca, 1883 (Wisdom, Sirach, Ps. cii.); Lemme, Bruch- 
 stiicke der sahidischen Bibeliibersetzung, 1885 (Jos. xv. 7—xvii. 1). 
 A. Ciasca Sacrorum bibliorum fragmenta copto-sahidica muset 
 Lorgiani, Rome 1885-1889. Compare also Bickell, Zeit- 
 schrift fiir hathol. Theologic, 1886, p. 558, with reference to the 
 Book of Job; and on the general question, Fritzsche in 
 Herzog’s Real-ELneyclopadie?, ii, 443 ; Dillmann, Textkritisches 
 zum Buche Jjob (see above at § 41). 
 
 On the Ethiopic Bible translation, compare Dillmann in 
 Herzog’s Leal-Encylopedie*, i. 203 ff., and ZAW, 1887, p. 
 61 ff; Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte d. Penta- 
 teuchs, 1, 3 f. (according to which the Ethiopic Bible does 
 not rest exclusively upon the LXX.); Ankiindigung, p. 28 : 
 Cornill, Ezechiel, p. 37. Dillmann, Biblia V. T. Athiop, i—ii. 
 1853, 1861. 
 
 Of the Arabic translations in the Parisian and London 
 Polyglots are derived from the LXX.: the Poetical Books 
 
148 § 50. CONCLUSION OF CRITICISM OF SEPTUAGINT TEXT. 
 
 (with the exception of Job) and the Prophets (Daniel as usual 
 being taken from Theodotion). Compare Gesenius, Jesaja, 
 98-106, and (on Micah) Ryssel ΖΑ͂ W, 1885, pp. 102-138. 
 According to Ryssel the translation attaches itself to the 
 Codex Alexandrinus, but with the use of the Peshito. 
 
 On the Armenian translation, compare De Wette-Schrader, 
 Finleitung, p. 120 ἔν; Fritzsche in Herzog’s Real-Eneylop edie *, 
 1. 443 f. On the Georgian translation, De Wette-Schrader, 
 Hinleitung, p. 121; Fritzsche in Herzog’s Leal-Encylopedie *, 
 1. 444. 
 
 The fragments of the translation used by the Palestinian 
 Christians have been edited by Land from manuscripts of the 
 tenth and eleventh centuries in London (Psalms) and St. 
 Petersburg (parts of Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Job, and Proverbs) : 
 Anecdota syriaca, iv. 1875, pp. 103 ff, 165 ff, 222 ff The 
 Greek text which had served as its original was, as might be 
 expected, influenced by the Hexapla. Where this community, 
 whose translation of the Gospels had been known even earlier, 
 dwelt, whether in Jerusalem or on the other side of the 
 Jordan, is quite uncertain. Its members spoke the Palestino- 
 Aramaic dialect (§ 59), but employed, at least in later times, 
 the Syriac alphabet. 
 
 [A good general account of all these translations, especially 
 with reference to the New Testament, is given in Scrivener, 
 Plain Introduction, 3rd ed. 1883, pp. 365-412; Lightfoot 
 contributing the account of the Coptic versions]. 
 
 50. After we have succeeded in reproducing the Recensions 
 of the LXX.,so far as the aids at our disposal reach, with the 
 ereatest possible purity (δ 46), our next undertaking must be 
 to work back by means of their help and through the com- 
 parison of the non-revised witnesses for the text to the old 
 κοινή. In general what is common to all the Recensions will 
 be accepted as representing the original document. Where 
 differences are met with, any fundamental divergence from the 
 Hebrew Zextus Receptus will have to be regarded as the original 
 LXX., because the later modifications of the Greek text were 
 
§ 51. LATER GREEK TRANSLATIONS. 149 
 
 mainly intended to bring it into conformity with the Jewish 
 text. For this construction of the genuine LXX. the genuine 
 quotations of Philo, and partly also those met with in the 
 New Testament, will afford very considerable help. 
 
 Finally, in the pursuit of this study, in order that we may 
 not give an overdrawn representation of the facts, it must be 
 remembered that this plan sketched by Lagarde concerns the 
 methodical treatment of the whole LXX. In many isolated 
 passages one may even now, by the careful employment of 
 the means at his disposal, make use of the Alexandrine trans- 
 lation in investigations into the history and criticism of the 
 text. In other passages, however, the corruption of the text 
 is so great, that from the very nature of the case it cannot 
 be used. 
 
 Compare Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Ueber- 
 setzung der Proverbien, p.3; Ankiindigung, p. 29 f.; Librorum 
 Vet. Testam. i. 15 f. 
 
 On Philo, compare C. F. Hornemann, Specimen exercitationum 
 criticarum in vers. LDLXX. interpretum ex Philone, 1.-111. ; 
 Copenhagen, 1774-1778 ; Siegfried, Philo wnd der iiberlieferte 
 Text d. LXX.in the ZWT, 1873, p. 217 ff, and Lagarde, 
 Mittheilungen, 11. 52-54. 
 
 2. Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Quinta, and Sexta. 
 
 51. The growing dissatisfaction of the Jews with the LXX., 
 in view of the ever-increasing importance of the Greek-speak- 
 ing Jews, made a new Greek translation necessary (ὃ 40). In 
 two different ways—the one radical, the other conservatively 
 mediating—the attempt was made to satisfy this demand. 
 Moreover, there had arisen, even before Origen, several other 
 Greek translations of the Old Testament, of which one set 
 proceeded from the Ebionite party, another from Christian 
 circles. Common to all these translations was a closer attach- 
 
150 § 51. LATER GREEK TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 ment to the Hebrew text, as that was then received among 
 the Jews. For the knowledge that we have of some general 
 facts about these translations we are indebted above all to 
 Origen, who adopted them into his great Polyglot (§ 43). 
 The Hexapla and the Tetrapla have indeed perished, but 
 fragments of the amplified translations have happily been 
 saved in the form of marginal notes to the copies of the 
 Hexapla text (§§43—48), and in the commentaries of the Church 
 fathers, especially of Jerome. Whether Lucian, whose text 
 often contains interpolations from the later Greek translations, 
 had used this independently, or whether his text had only 
 been wrought over by Origen, has not yet been thoroughly 
 investigated (§ 46). Morinus began to collect the fragments 
 which still remain. The work was continued by others, 
 especially by Montfaucon, and is now provisionally concluded 
 by Field’s classical work, in which not only the immediate 
 fragments have been gathered with unwearied industry, but, 
 above all, the statements of the Syro-Hexaplaris have been 
 estimated in a way that shows a thorough mastery of the 
 Greek language. 
 
 Montfaucon, Hexaplarorum Origenes que supersunt multis 
 partibus auctiora quam a Flaminio Nobilio εἰ J. Drusio edita 
 fuerint, Paris 1713. 
 
 Fr. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum que supersunt, 2 vols., 
 Oxford 1875. Valuable supplements are given by Pitra, 
 Analecta sacra specilegio Solesmensi parata, 111. 1883, pp. 555— 
 578. Compare also Cornill, Hzechiel, p. 104 ff 109. 
 
 The signs are "A for Aquila, Σ΄ for Symmachus, © for 
 Theodotion, E’ for Quinta, and S’ for Sexta. Compare 
 further, Field, Prolegomena, cap. x. 
 
 It is, as Nestle has shown, worthy of attention that aceord- 
 ing to the catalogue of the library of Constantine Barinus at 
 Constantinople (see Verdier, La Bibliothéque αἰ Antoine du 
 
 Verdier, Lyons 1685, Supplement, p. 60), there are said to 
 have been in that collection of books manuscripts with 
 
§ 52. AQUILA. 151 
 
 Symmachus’ translation of the Psalms and other books of 
 Scripture. Compare Hody, De bibl. text. origin. p. 588. 
 
 52. The most peculiar of these new translations, and in 
 many respects an extraordinarily interesting production, is 
 that of Aquila. In thorough touch with the new spiritual 
 movement, which from Palestine had spread out among the 
 Alexandrine Jews, he not only took as his basis the Pales- 
 tinian Canon and the Palestinian form of the text, but sought 
 perfectly to reproduce the Hebrew text, and to make the 
 Greek translation as suitable for the basis of a discussion as 
 the original, for he reproduced and imitated the original text 
 down to the most minute details. In this way the Greek 
 idiom was indeed boldly violated, and there arose a dialect 
 which to a Greek must have seemed more outrageous than the 
 Jewish-Greek jargon into which the LXX. had been translated. 
 Thus the sign of the accusative nx was represented by συν, 
 n locale by the enclitic δε, 728? by τῷ λέγειν, and the Hebrew 
 system of roots by etymological creations like ὀστέοῦν, and 
 dotéivos for DY and OY (from DOSY ὀστέον), θυρεοῦν for ἢ. 
 (from {22 θυρεόν), etc. But on the other hand, Aquila— 
 eruditissimus lingue greece, as Jerome styles him—displays 
 such skill in his handling of the Greek language, such 
 fidelity in dealing with unusual and poetical expressions, 
 often selecting one of similar sound with the Hebrew word, 
 that those barbarisms are not by any means to be regarded as 
 indications of linguistic deficiencies, but only as the con- 
 sequence of adopting a principle which it was impossible to 
 carry out. This can be satisfactorily explained only by a 
 consideration of the particular period in which Aquila lived. 
 It is quite certain that he was an old man when the treatise 
 of Irenzeus, Adv. Heres., was composed, between A.D. 175 and 
 A.D. 189, where he is mentioned for the first time. But even 
 what the ancients tell about him is in part deserving of full 
 confidence. Even should the statement of Irenzus, that he 
 
152 y § 52, AQUILA. 
 
 was a proselyte “from Pontus” have to be given up, as 
 arising from a confusion with Acts xviii. 2, and should also 
 the stories of Epiphanius about him be set aside, all the more 
 valuable will be the report of Jerome that Aquila was a 
 scholar of the celebrated R. Akiba about the year 100. With 
 this agrees the statement in the jer. Talmud (Kidd, i. fol. 59a) 
 about a proselyte pbpy, a scholar of R. Akiba, while the 
 passage jer. Meg. fol. 71c, which makes him a scholar of the 
 contemporary teachers R. Ehezer and R. Joshua, describes 
 him at least as living during that same time. Now it was 
 it. Akiba who, in so pre-eminent a degree, impressed his mental 
 and spiritual character on the Judaism of his day, in this 
 respect as well as in others, that he introduced in his exposi- 
 tion of Scripture a method that dealt with minutie, which 
 laid special weight on all sorts of smali details, such as the 
 particles pi, nx, etc., and therefore just such minutie as those 
 which Aquila in his translation wished to fix attention upon 
 by that unrelenting treatment of the Greek language. In 
 this way is explained the preference with which this transla- 
 tion of Aquila, which probably enjoyed full Palestinian 
 authorisation, was used for a long time by the Jews. It had 
 shown, as is said in jer. Meg. i. fol. 71a, that Greek is the 
 one language into which the Law can be rendered in a com- 
 plete manner (no doubt only by subjecting it to a very 
 peculiar treatment), and with allusion to the name pbpy and 
 to Japhet, the ancestor of the Greeks, it is told that one 
 praised Aquila (ipbp from καλως), and applied to him the 
 language of the 45th Psalm: mp (Thou art fair, or thou “ 
 art become a Japhet) before the children of men. How 
 widely his translation had spread among the Jews is witnessed 
 to by Origen as well as by Jerome and even by No. 146 of 
 the Novelle of Justinian. That it was directed polemically 
 against Christianity might evidently be expected from the 
 very nature of things, and is proved from several particulars, 
 
§ 52. AQUILA. 153 
 
 eg. from Isaiah vii. 14, where it has νεᾶνις instead of the 
 παρθένος of the LXX., and from its endeavour to render ΠῚ Ὁ 
 by another term than ypsoros. With what diligence he 
 wrought appears from the story of Jerome that he produced 
 a second improved edition of his translation. Of the speci- 
 mens of his translation given in the Talmud some at least 
 agree precisely with the Greek fragments. 
 
 Compare R. Anger, De Onkelo Chaldaico, quem ferunt 
 Pentateuchi paraphraste, Leipsic 1843; Field, Hexapla, 1. 
 p. xvi. ff.; Wellhausen-Bleek, Hinleitung, p. 580 f.; Geiger, 
 Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 83 f.; Schiirer, Geschichte des 
 74. Volkes, ii. 704 ff, Eng. trans. Div. ii. vol. ui. 168; 
 Cornill, Hzechiel, p. 104 ff.; Ryssel, Untersuchungen tiber die 
 Textgestalt des Buches Micha, 1877, p. 186. 
 
 Ireneus, Adv. Heres. iii. 24 (Eusebius, Hist. Eeclest. v. 8. 
 10): οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοί φασι τῶν viv μεθερμηνεύειν τολμώντων 
 τὴν γραφήν᾽ ἰδοὺ ἡ νεᾶνις ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱὸν, ὡς 
 Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ ᾿Εφέσιος καὶ ᾿Ακύλας ὁ Πόντικος, 
 ἀμφότεροι ᾿Ιουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι, οἷς κατακολουθήσαντες οἱ 
 ᾿Ἐβιοναῖοι ἐξ ᾿Ιωσὴφ αὐτὸν γεγενέσθαι φάσκουσι. Jerome 
 on Isaiah viii. 14: “Scribe et Pharisei, quorum scholam 
 suscepit Acibas, quem magistrum Aquile proselyti autumant.” 
 Further, Epistle 57, Ad. Pamm.; Epiphanius, De mens. et 
 pond, c. 13-17. 
 
 On the hermeneutical methods of R. Akiba, see Dereshith 
 r. 1 and jer. Berachoth, 9,7 fol. 140, according to the latter of 
 which passages one of the scholars of Akiba was instructed by 
 his master in the meaning of the words ns, D3, 4s, and p>. 
 Compare Schiirer, Geschichte des 74, Volkes, ii. 311, Eng. 
 trans. Div. ii. vol. i. 376. 
 
 Origen, Ad Africanum (i. 14, De la Rue): ’AxvrAas , . . 
 φιλοτιμότερον πεπιστευμένος παρὰ ᾿Ιουδαίοις ἡρμηνευκέναι 
 τὴν γραφήν ᾧ μάλιστα εἰώθασιν οἱ ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν ᾿Εβραίων 
 διάλεκτον χρῆσθαι ὡς πάντων μᾶλλον ἐπιτετευγμένῳ:. In 
 No. 146 of the Novelle it is said of the public reading of the 
 Scriptures in the Jewish synagogues: “ At vero ii, qui greca 
 lingua legunt, LXX. interpretum utentur translationi, que 
 
154 § 53. THEODOTION. 
 
 omnium accuratissima et ceteris preestantior judicata est... 
 Verum ne illos a reliquis interpretationibus secludere videamur, 
 licentiam concedimus etiam Aquile versione utendi, et si ille 
 extraneus sit, et in lectionibus quibusdam inter ipsam et LXX. 
 interpretes non modica sit dissonantia.” 
 
 Justin Martyr (ed. Otto 11. 240) betrays indeed at least 
 an indirect acquaintance with Aquila’s translation of 
 Isaiah vu. 14. 3 
 
 On the relation of Aquila to the Books of Ecclesiastes and 
 The Song in the LXX., compare above, § 41. In reference to 
 this question the statement of Cornill (Hzechiel, pp. 64, 104 f.), 
 about an Oxford Codex for Ezekiel (Holmes 62), which has in 
 the highest, degree been influenced by Aquila, is of im- 
 portance. It is also worthy of note that the Syrian transla- 
 tion has the sign of the accusative n° only in these two books 
 (elsewhere only in Gen. i. 1 and 1 Chron, iv. 41). 
 
 [See article on “ Aquila” by Professor Dickson in Simith’s 
 Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. 1. 1877, pp. 150, 151; 
 also Article “Versions” in Dictionary of the Bible, 1863, 
 vol. 111. 1622.] 
 
 53. If Theodotion, as is usually supposed, was younger 
 than Aquila, the appearing of his translation shows that not 
 all Greek-speaking Jews agreed with the bold hermeneutical 
 principles of Aquila, and that many were unwilling wholly 
 to abandon the LXX. with which they had been so long 
 familiar. The work of Theodotion is indeed to be regarded 
 as a sort of comprehensive revision of the LXX., to which it 
 also attaches itself by this, that it retains the apocryphal 
 additions to Daniel and the postscript to Job. It is 
 characteristic of his method that not rarely Theodotion 
 receives into his translation the Hebrew word unchanged. 
 
 Regarding his personal circumstances, we are wholly with- 
 out information. He is, like Aquila, older than the composi- 
 tion of the treatise of Irenzeus, Adv. Hereseos. Ireneus 
 himself calls him a proselyte from Ephesus. This, however, 
 
§ 53. THEODOTION. 155 
 
 is not in agreement with what is said by Jerome, who 
 repeatedly describes him, in contrast to Aquila, as an 
 Ebionite; but in other passages this Church father names 
 him a Jew, and mentions his Ebionism only as the opinion of 
 others. Origen made use of him, as has been already said, 
 as a companion to his Septuagint column. Among the Jews 
 indeed he seems to have played no important part, which 
 probably is to be accounted for by his mediating method. 
 All the greater, on the other hand, was his success among the 
 Christians, who used him greatly for the emendation of the 
 LXX., partly also in room of that translation. Even Irenus 
 made use of his translation of Daniel, which afterwards 
 completely supplanted the Alexandrine translation of that 
 prophet. The possibly even older custom of interpolating 
 the LXX. with passages from Theodotion, was carried out 
 systematically by Origen (see, eg. Jer. xxxili, 14-26), and 
 thereby contributed still more to the mixing up of it with the 
 Alexandrine translation. 
 
 Compare Field, Prolegomena, cap. iv.; Schiirer, Geschichte 
 des 7114. Volkes, ii. 108 ff, Eng. trans, Div. ii. vol. 111, 172 ; 
 tyssel, Textgestalt des Buches Micha, p. 187. 
 
 Ireneeus, Adv. Heres. ὃ 52; Jerome on Habakkuk 11]. 
 11-13: “Theodotion autem vere quasi pauper et Ebionita 
 sed et Symmachus ejusdem dogmatis pauperem sensum secuti 
 Judaice transtulerunt.” So, too, in the Preface to the version 
 of Job. On the other hand, Lpistola ad Augustinum 112 
 hominis Judai atque blasphemi; Praef. comment. in Daniel : 
 “T]lud quoque lectorem admoneo, Danielem non juxta LXX. 
 interpretes sed juxta Theodotionem ecclesias legere, qui utique 
 post adventum Christi incredulus fuit, licet eum quidam 
 dicant Ebionitam, qui altero genere Judeus est.” The 
 mediating method pursued by the author is very well 
 characterised by Jerome in his Comment. on John 1]. 2. 
 
 According to Epiphanius he lived under Commodus, A.D. 
 180-192, but this author’s stories about him (De mensuris et 
 
156 § 54. SYMMACHUS. 
 
 ponderibus, 17-18), like those about the other translators, are 
 quite worthless. The words quoted from Irenzus about the 
 importance of his translation among the Ebionites rather 
 show that it must have been written some considerable time 
 previously. Schiirer is therefore inclined to make him older 
 than Aquila. If, however, he is led to the adoption of this 
 theory by the idea that a work like that of Theodotion’s 
 would have been superfluous after Aquila’s had won accept- 
 ance, this is not decisive, since we can without difficulty 
 conceive of the origin of his translation in the way described 
 in the above section. That Irenzeus names him before Aquila 
 may simply have its ground in this, that his translation lay 
 nearer Irenzeus than that of Aquila, as indeed he actually 
 made use of Theodotion’s translation of Daniel (ὃ 43). The 
 coincidences in the Apocalypse of John are, as Schiirer him- 
 self remarks, not sufficiently convincing to warrant us in 
 building anything upon them. Of greater importance is the 
 reminiscence in the Shepherd of Hermes (Vis. iv. 2. 4), of 
 Theodotion’s rendering of Daniel vi. 23 (compare Theolog. 
 Interaturzeitung, 1885, 146, 267). But see also ZWT, 
 xxvill. 984. Whether Theodotion or Aquila was the elder 
 can finally be decided only by a thoroughgoing examination of 
 their translations. On Theodotion on Isaiah xxv. 8, where 
 some think they find traces of a Christian mode of thought, 
 compare Field on the passage, and Kautzsch, De vet. Testam. 
 locis a Paulo apost. allegatis, 1869, p. 104. [See a particularly 
 good and adequate Article, “ Theodotion,” by Dr. Gwynn of 
 Dublin, in Smith’s Dict. of Chr. Biography, vol. iv. 1887, pp. 
 970-979. On the apparent use of Theodotion’s Daniel in 
 the Shepherd of Hermes, see Hort in the Johns Hopkins’ 
 University Circulars, iv. 23, and in opposition to the attempt 
 to bring Hermes down from the beginning to the middle of 
 the second century, see, besides Gwynn, Salmon, Introd. to the 
 New Testament, 1885, pp. 654-658,] 
 
 54, Symmachus, of whom Ireneus does not speak, was 
 later than Aquila and Theodotion. According to a story of 
 Eusebius, he was an Ebionite, who seems to have made his 
 
§ 54. SYMMACHUS. 157 
 
 translation not long before Origen, and also to have composed 
 other works whose contents were of a Jewish-Christian 
 character. Jerome also calls him an Ebionite. Now if it is 
 thought remarkable to find a Bible translation among the 
 Ebionite Jewish Christians, the astonishment increases when, 
 on a closer inspection of his translation, we find ourselves 
 alongside of one who with equal mastery deals with the 
 Hebrew and with the Greek languages. Together with 
 Jerome, who has made great use of him, he stands among 
 ancient translators nearest to the modern ideal of what a 
 translator should be. Only in his paraphrastic circum- 
 locutions, which we meet with here and there in the case of 
 bold or dogmatically offensive passages, does he show himself 
 a genuine child of his age. According to Jerome on Jer. 
 xxxil, 30 and Nah. iii. 1, he also published a second revised 
 edition of his translation. 
 
 Compare Field, Prolegomena, cap. 111.; Wellhausen-Bleek, 
 Hinleitung *, p. 582 ff.; Cornill, Hzechiel, p. 108 ἢ ; Ryssel, 
 Textgestalt des Buches Micha, p. 187. 
 
 Eusebius, Hist. Eeclest. vi. 17: τῶν ye μὴν ἑρμηνευτῶν 
 αὐτῶν δὴ τούτων ἰστέον ᾿Εβιωναῖον τὸν Σύμμαχον γεγονέναι 
 
 . καὶ ὑπομνήματα δὲ τοῦ Συμμάχου εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται, ἐν 
 οἷς δοκεῖ, πρὸς τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἀποτεινόμενος εὐαγγέλιον, 
 τὴν δεδηλωμένην αἵρεσιν κρατύνειν. ταῦτα δὲ ὁ ᾿Ωριγένης, 
 μετὰ καὶ ἄλλων εἰς τὰς γραφὰς ἑρμηνειῶν τοῦ Συμμάχου, 
 σημαίνει παρὰ ᾿Ιουλιανῆς τινος εἰληφέναι, ἣν καὶ φησι παρ᾽ 
 αὐτοῦ Συμμάχου τὰς βίβλους διαδέξασαι. Jerome, i. § 53. 
 Whether the story of Epiphanius, that he had been originally 
 a Samaritan, rests on any historical grounds, can scarcely be 
 determined. But Lagarde writes very strikingly (Alittheilungen, 
 ii. 51): “In connection with this it should not be forgotten 
 that if Symmachus was a Samaritan, then at least Symmachus 
 does not unconditionally witness for the text of the Jews of 
 his time.” Certainly as “a Samaritan” he would have had 
 no text of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. On very 
 weak grounds, Geiger (μα, Zeitschrift, 1862, pp. 62-64; 
 
158 § 55. QUINTA AND SEXTA. 
 
 Nachgelassene Schriften, p. 88 ff.), sought to attach him to 
 Judaism. A Syrian story about him is communicated by 
 Nestle, TSK, 1879, p. 733 ἢ 
 
 Examples of the free paraphrases: Gen. i. 27: ἐν εἰκόνι 
 διαφόρᾳ, ὄρθιον ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν αὐτόν (which, according to 
 Lagarde, Psalterium juata Hebrwos Hieronymt, 165, implies 
 the reading of nbyn) ndya instead of odya wbya); Gen. xviii. 25: 
 ὁ πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἀπαιτῶν δικαιοπραγεῖν, ἀκρίτως μὴ ποιήσῃς 
 τοῦτο; Ps. xliv. 24: ἱνατί ὡς ὑπνῶν et; Richt, 9,13: τὴν 
 εὐφροσύνην τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 
 
 55. Of the two anonymous Greek translations, the Quinta 
 and the Sexta, which Origen, as Eusebius says, drew out of 
 some obscure corner and received into the Hexapla, the latter 
 at least, according to the express declaration of Jerome (in 
 Habakk. iii. 13), was of Christian origin. Field’s investiga- 
 tions have reached the result that they embraced a larger 
 number of the Old Testament books than was previously sup- 
 posed to be the case, but otherwise we know nothing precisely 
 about them. Eusebius, and after him Jerome, spoke also of a 
 “seventh translation,” and Jerome, on Habakk. 11. 11, speaks 
 of duas alias editiones, besides the Quinta. But with the ex- 
 ception of perhaps Ps. 1. 3 (Septima, καταυγίσθη), no trace of 
 this translation has ever been found elsewhere. Whether the 
 ὁ Ἑβραῖος cited sometimes by the Church fathers, which often 
 renders the text pretty freely, was a translation in the proper 
 sense, cannot now be definitely determined. 
 
 Compare Field, Prolegomena, cap. ν. 
 Eusebius, Hist. Ecclest. vi. 16: καί twas ἑτέρας παρὰ τὰς 
 , Ρ / 5 / \ ) ’, Ν 
 κατημαξευμένας ἑρμηνείας ἐναλλάττουσας, τὴν AxkvXouv καὶ 
 Συμμάχου καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος, ἐφευρεῖν, ἅς οὐκ oid’ ὅδεν Ex τινων 
 a , / lal / 
 μυχῶν τὸν πάλαι λανθάνουσας χρόνον εἰς φῶς ἀνιχνεόσας 
 / mL pee ee \ 2 , / Lode) = > 2O\ 
 προήγαγεν ἐφ’ ὧν διὰ ἀδηλότητα Tivos ap εἶεν οὐκ εἰδὼς, 
 αὐτὸ τοῦτο μόνον ἐπεσημήνατο, @ ἄρα τὴν μὲν εὕροι ἐν τῇ 
 \ ? / / \ \ > Ca, / 2. me 
 πρὸς ᾿Ακτίῳ Νικοπόλει, τὴν δὲ ἐν ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ ToLw@de’ EV γε 
 μὴν τοῖς ἑξαπλοῖς τῶν ψαλμῶν, μετὰ τὰς ἐπισήμους τέσσαρας 
 
$ 56. JEROME, 159 
 
 ἐκδόσεις, οὐ μόνον πέμπτην, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕκτην καὶ ἑβδόμην 
 παραθεὶς ἑρμηνείαν, ἐπὶ μιᾶς αὖθις σεσημείωται, ὡς ἐν “]εριχοῖ 
 εὑρημένης ἐν πίθῳ Kata τοὺς χρόνους ᾿Αντωνίνου τοῦ υἱοῦ 
 Σεβήρου [211-217]. According to this then the Quinta was 
 found at Nicopolis, on the west coast of Greece, and either the 
 Sexta or the Septima at Jericho. The passages from Jerome 
 are given by Field, Prolegomena, xliii, According to his 
 commentary on Titus iii. 9, the Quinta, Sexta, and Septima 
 were mainly composed of the poetical books (versw compositi). 
 Jerome on Hab. iii. 13: “Sexta editio, prodens manifestis- 
 sime sacramentum, ita vertit ex Hebrzo: egressus es, ut 
 salvares populum tuum per Jesum Christum tuum: quod 
 Greece dicitur ἐξῆλθες τοῦ σῶσαι, Tov Aaw σου διὰ ᾿Ιεσοῦν 
 τὸν Χριστόν σου. The same on Hab. ii. 11: “ Reperi, ex- 
 ceptis quinque editionibus, id est, Aquilz, Symmachi, Septua- 
 ginta, Theodotionis et Quinta, in XII. prophetis et duas alias 
 editiones, in quarum una scriptum est: quia lapis, in altera: 
 lapis enim. 
 On ὁ ‘EBpaios, compare Field, Prolegomena, 1xxv. sq. 
 
 3. Jerome and the Vulgate. 
 
 56. Of the translations which were intended to take the 
 place of the LXX., no one has obtained such historical signi- 
 ficance as that of Jerome. In the Greek Church indeed the 
 Alexandrine translation maintained its place, and among the 
 Jews circumstances gradually took such a turn that they 
 generally needed no Greek translation of the Old Testament, 
 On the other hand, the Western Church owed it to Jerome 
 that it learnt to know the Old Testament in a form which, 
 upon the whole, was much purer and clearer than the Septua- 
 gint or the Latin Bible translations that were dependent upon 
 it (§ 47). 
 
 Jerome, born A.D. 346, died A.p. 420, was, if a fair view is 
 taken of the circumstances of his time, well equipped for the 
 
160 § 56. JEROME. 
 
 work which he ventured to undertake. And even although 
 the astonishment of his contemporaries which found expression 
 in the declaration of Augustine, Quod Hieronymus nescivit, 
 nemo mortalium unquam scivit, may be justifiable only when 
 his knowledge is compared with that of his fellow-Christians, 
 it must yet be acknowledged that he spared no pains to make 
 himself familiar with the Hebrew language, difficult as it was 
 by reason of the helantia stridentiaque verba, and with the 
 conditions of life presupposed in the Old Testament. Non 
 parvis nummis paid he for his instruction under various 
 Jewish teachers, who sometimes, for fear of their countrymen, 
 came to him secretly by night, “like Nicodemus,’ among 
 them Baranina, he whom the bitter Rufinus, as a reward for 
 the stores of Bible knowledge which the Church through long 
 ages would have to thank him for, nicknamed by the 
 opprobrious designation of “ Barabbas.” In addition to this 
 Jerome diligently used the works of the later Greek tran- 
 slators, especially that of Symmachus (§ 54). That the 
 result of his endeavours was nevertheless in many particulars 
 imperfect, is so natural a consequence of the circumstances 
 in which he was placed, that the reproach of a defective 
 scientific method, which eg. Clericus brought against him, is 
 no more justifiable than the Catholic attempts to elevate him 
 into an infallible translator. Compared with the attainments 
 of those around him, his service marks an extraordinary 
 advance; while, on the other hand, his mastery of the Latin 
 tongue, obtained by means of continuous study of the classics, 
 the grave tone of that speech moreover suiting his purpose 
 well, qualified him for his work. 
 
 Compare Morinus, Exercitationes biblice, p. 156; Clericus, 
 Questiones Hieronymiane, 1700; L. Engelstoft, Hieronymus 
 Strid. interpres, etc., Copenhagen 1797; Zockler, Hieronymus, 
 sein Leben und Wirken, 1865, pp. 342 ff, 465 ff; De Wette- 
 Schrader, Hinleitung, p. 136 ff.; Nowack, Die Bedeutung des 
 
§.57. REVISIONS OF OLD TRANSLATIONS AND THE NEW. 161 
 
 Hieronymus fiir die Alttestamentl. Texthritik, 1875, p. ὃ ff. ; 
 Ryssel, Textgestalt des Buches Micha, p. 189 ff. 
 
 On the influence of the Jewish exegesis on Jerome, see 
 Rahmer, Die hebrdischen Traditionen in den Werken Hierony- 
 mus, i. 1861, and MGWJ, 1865, 1867, 1868; Siegfried, 
 JPT, ix. 346 ff. 
 
 57. Jerome at the beginning intended only by criticism 
 of the text to establish and correct the Vetus latina, which 
 was widely circulated, but had then assumed many 
 divergent forms. After he had, at the call of Damasus, 
 revised the New Testament Scriptures, he improved in A.D. 
 383 at Rome the translation of the Psalms Jicet ewrsim, and 
 with constant reference to the old customary form. This 
 Recension Damasus introduced into the Roman liturgy, so 
 that it obtained the name of Psalteriwm Romanum. It was 
 in use in Rome down to the sixteenth century, and is still 
 used in the Church of St. Peter. It was used in Venice in 
 the chapel of the Doge down to Α.Ὁ. 1808, and is employed 
 to this day in the Ambrosian ritual in Milan. Some time 
 after this Jerome left Rome, in order to prosecute his studies 
 in the East, and to live in the practice of religious exercises. 
 While staying in Caesarea he came to know of the Hexapla 
 of Origen, and thereby became acquainted with one form of 
 the text of the Septuagint, which he subsequently gave the 
 preference to before all others. Dissatisfied with his earlier 
 revision, he began a new rendering of the Psalms according 
 to the Hexaplar Recension, which obtained currency in Gaul, 
 and hence bears the name of the Psalterium Gallicanum. This 
 Psalterium was at a later date adopted into the Roman 
 Breviary and into the Vulgate, and is therefore the authorised 
 translation of the Psalms for Catholics. Other Old Testa- 
 ment writings also he wrought over according to the Hexaplar 
 text; but, with the exception of the Book of Job, this work 
 
 has all been lost. Undoubtedly the fact that Jerome himself, 
 L 
 
162  § 57. REVISIONS OF OLD TRANSLATIONS AND THE NEW. 
 
 while carrying on this work, became pledged to a far bolder 
 undertaking, contributed to this result. By means of his 
 laboriously acquired knowledge of Hebrew, he wished as the 
 first among the westerns to translate the Old Testament from 
 the Hebrew text. And even if his designating the Hebrew 
 text of his time (which was essentially the same as the 
 Massoretic text of the present day), “ the Hebrew truth” be not 
 absolutely correct, yet this text stood so high above the 
 Alexandrine Bible that the new undertaking marked an im- 
 portant step in advance, while it exposed him to many bitter 
 attacks on the part of his unscientific contemporaries. He 
 himself with his victorious logic pointed out to his opponents 
 that the Church had a long time before without scruple ex- 
 changed the Alexandrine translation of Daniel for that of 
 Theodotion, although the inspiration of the Seventy had been 
 a universally admitted dogma (§ 38). On the other hand, 
 the powerful opposition which this man, with noticeable 
 elements of weakness in his character, met with from all 
 sides, succeeded in inducing him to accommodate himself 
 generally, wherever it was at all possible to do so, to the 
 customary translation. He seems to have begun the great 
 and bold work in the year 390. First of all he translated 
 the easiest books, Samuel and Kings; then Job, the Pro- 
 phets, and the Psalms; and finally, in the years 393-405, 
 the rest of the canonical books, and to please his contem- 
 poraries (§ 18), of the Apocrypha: Tobit, Judith, and the 
 additions to Jeremiah, Daniel, and Esther. An epistolary 
 correspondence with Augustine, who in spite of his expressed 
 preference for the old translation, did not wish, without 
 further examination, to pass judgment on the undertaking of 
 Jerome, gave him an opportunity for vindicating his work 
 (Epist. 112, Ad Augustinum). The vain man experienced a 
 great triumph when separate portions of his translation were 
 rendered into Greek by Sophronius, a remarkable reversal of 
 
§ 58. THE VULGATE. 163 
 
 the hitherto prevailing relation between the Greeks and 
 Latins. 
 
 L. van Ess, Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata, 
 Τὰν. 1824; Kaulen, Geschichte der Vulgata, Mainz 1868 ; 
 Fritzsche in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopadie”, viii. 445-459. 
 
 On the use of the Psalterium Romanum, see Scholz, 
 Hinleitung, p. 486 ἢν, and Theol. Litteraturblatt, 1874, No. 19. 
 In the tenth volume of Vallarsi’s Opera Hieronymi are to be 
 found the Psalterium Romanum, Psalterium Gallicanum, and 
 the translation of the Book of Job according to the /Hezxaplar 
 text. Lagarde has published a translation of Job based upon 
 a manuscript in Tours and a Codex Bodleianus (2426); 
 Mittheilungen, ii. 193-237. Caspari is preparing to edit a 
 third manuscript. 
 
 58. After the older Latin translation and that of Jerome had 
 for a long-time been used alongside of one another, according 
 to the choice of the Churches or their founder, the translation 
 of Jerome came into general use by the seventh century. In 
 the thirteenth century it became customary to call it the 
 Vulgate (editio vulgata), a name, which in earlier times, eg. by 
 Jerome himself, had been used to designate the LXX., especi- 
 ally the κοινή, or its Latin rendering. The Vulgate of the 
 Middle Ages was, however, by no means identical with the 
 genuine translation of Jerome. While the two translations had 
 been in use side by side, the manuscripts of the new translation 
 in their whole extent were subjected to alterations from the 
 Vetus latina, especially by means of marginal notes, which by 
 and by were incorporated into the text itself. In addition to 
 this, in the following ages there came in errors of transcription 
 and wilful additions of various kinds. The endeavours of 
 Cassiodorus and Alcuin to restore the text from its corrupt 
 state were unsuccessful, and the so-called Correctoria, or 
 Collections of Variations, of which some indeed are of pre- 
 eminent interest from a historical point of view and in con- 
 nection with the criticism of the text, served, in the hands 
 
164 § 58. THE VULGATE. 
 
 of unskilled persons, only to increase the confusion. After 
 the invention of the art of printing—the Vulgate was 
 Catholics and 
 Protestants vied with each other for a long time in the 
 
 printed before the Greek New Testament 
 
 production of critical editions of the Latin translation, until 
 an incident occurred which suddenly cooled the zeal of the 
 Protestants, and led to their judging of the work of the old 
 Church father in quite an unreasonable way. The Tridentine 
 Council, which elevated the recognition of the Apocrypha 
 into a condition of salvation (§ 19), and thereby destroyed 
 what Jerome had with so much energy upheld, yet, on the 
 other hand, ascribed to his translation a quite unmeasured 
 importance, for it authorised the Vulgate in publicis lectionibus, 
 disputationibus, predicationibus et expositionibus (Sess. 1v.). 
 Owing to the condition of the text at that time, the Bible 
 authorised in such a manner, had, as Kaulen expresses it, more 
 of an ideal than of a real existence, and the Catholic Church 
 therefore felt itself obliged to establish a form of text which 
 might actually claim to be the Vulgate. The Protestants, for 
 reasons that can well be understood, while these labours were 
 going on, acted the part of critical spectators. The edition of 
 Sixtus V. in A.D. 1590, which, according to the Bull printed 
 in front of it, was approved even for private use apostolica 
 nobis a domino tradita auctoritate, and declared to be vera, 
 legitima, authentica et indubitata, so that any one who ventured 
 without papal authority to change it, indignationem omni- 
 potentis Det ac beatorum Petra et Paulr apostolorum gus se 
 noverit incursurum, had not the same fortune as the Stxtina 
 of the LXX. Clement VIII. was obliged to take notice of 
 the demands that had become clamant at the papal court, 
 and therefore allowed a new text to be edited, which at last 
 became the authorised text of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 The style and manner, moreover, in which these editions 
 were prepared do not admit of any doubt that, while the 
 
§ 58. THE VULGATE. 165 
 
 editors might possibly produce a practically useful text, they 
 were not in a position to solve the difficult problem of the 
 restoration of the genuine text of Jerome. And even in recent 
 times, when interest in the translation of the old linguistically 
 skilled Church father has again revived among Protestants, 
 we still find ourselves very far off indeed from this end. 
 Only the unfortunately incomplete Collection of Variations by 
 Vercellone affords a valuable contribution to a future recon- 
 struction of the Vulgate text, especially in this way, that these 
 variations show how many fragments of the old Latin trans- 
 lations, therefore, from the LXX. have been intruded into the 
 Vulgate. 
 
 Kaulen, Geschichte der Vulgata, pp. 150-494. See also: 
 Berger, De Uhistoire de la Vulgata en France, 1888; De 
 Wette-Schrader, Hinleitung, p. 144 f. 
 
 On a remarkable Correctorium, probably from the thirteenth 
 century, which, besides a rare critical insight, shows acquaint- 
 ance with the distinction between French and Spanish 
 manuscripts of the Hebrew text, with the Targums, the 
 Rabbinists, ete., compare Vercellone, Dissertazione accademiche, 
 Rome 1864, p. 53; Kaulen, Geschichte der Vulgata, p. 255 f. 
 
 Under Clement VIII. there first appeared: Biblia Sacra 
 vulgate editionis Sixti V. jussu recognita atque edita, Rome 
 1592. Since this edition contained more than two hundred 
 errors of the press, a new one was issued in 1593, which 
 “indeed corrected some of the printer’s errors, but left a still 
 larger number uncorrected, and added new mistakes of its 
 own” (Kaulen, Geschichte, p. 470). Only the third edition 
 of 1598, by reason of the appended indices corrector, can 
 be regarded as conclusive. Although these editions differed 
 from the text of Sixtus V. of 1590 in almost three thousand 
 passages, they still continued to bear the name of that pope — 
 on their title-page. How the Protestants judged of these 
 proceedings is shown, eg., by Th. James, Bellum papale, sive 
 concordia discors διαί V. et Clementis VIII. circa Hverony- 
 mianam editionem, London 1600. 
 
166 § 58. THE VULGATE. 
 
 The edition of Heyse and Tischendorf, Biblia sacra latina 
 V.T, Hieronymo interprete, 1873, is in point of textual 
 criticism very unsatisfactory. Compare ZWT, p. 591 ff.; 
 Lagarde, Psalterium juaxta hebreos Hieronymi, Leipsic 1874. 
 On a manuscript not used by Lagarde, see Bethgen, ΖΑ W, 
 fool p. ΤῸ i. 
 
 Among the manuscripts of the Vulgate is the celebrated 
 Codex Amiatinus, previously in the Cloister of Mount Amiata, 
 now in Florence. It was supposed by Tischendorf and others 
 to belong to the sixth century. This view was opposed by 
 Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 1. 1885, p. 191 f He maintained 
 that it was a manuscript of the ninth century, artificially 
 written in an antique style after a cursive manuscript. Such 
 also was the opinion of Cornill, Fzechiel, Ὁ. 158 f. More 
 recently, however, a series of interesting diseussions has 
 appeared in The Academy (1887, xxxi. pp. 111, 130, 148 ff, 
 165£, 309f, 414f£; 1888, 2xxill pp, 239 4 Πρ ύον 
 Light has been shed upon this question especially by Hort’s 
 contributions, The name on the first page must be read 
 Veolfried Anglorum ; the Codex was written in Jarrow under 
 the Abbot whose rule extended from a.p. 690 to Α.Ὁ. 716, 
 after the pattern of older Codices, and was sent from England 
 to Rome asa present to Gregory II. The first sheet, however, 
 with its three lists of the canon and pictorial illustrations 
 (compare Corssen, JP7’, ix. p. 619 ff), was borrowed from a 
 Codex of Cassiodorus (of the Vetus latina) brought to England. 
 From this manuscript, Lagarde (Mittheilungen, 1. pp. 241-378) 
 has edited the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach. [For an 
 admirable and complete account of the Codex Amiatinus, see 
 Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, second series, Oxford 1890; 
 (7) “ The Codex Amiatinus and its Birthplace,” by H. J. White. 
 Appendix: “On the Italian Origin of the Codex Amiatinus 
 and the Localising of Italian MSS.,” by W. Sanday, pp. 273-— 
 324.| The Codex Tatanus, which is supposed to belong to 
 the eighth century, was collated for the Sixtine edition. 
 This collation is preserved in the Vatican, and was printed 
 in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, xxix. 879-1096. Other manu- 
 scripts are enumerated by De Wette-Schrader, Hinleitung, 
 
§ 59. THE ARAMAIC AMONG THE JEWS. 167 
 
 p- 143 f. [See list of MSS. of the Vulgate in Scrivener’s 
 Plain Introduction, 1883, pp. 348-365. ] 
 
 Vercellone, Varie lectiones Vulgate lat. Bibliorwm editionis, 
 Rome 1860-1864 (only the historical books). Compare 
 also: Bukentop, Lua de luce, 1710; Thielmann, Beitrage zur 
 Teathritik εἰ. Vulg., insbesondere des Buches Judith. Programm 
 der Studienanstalt Speier, 1883. 
 
 On the daughter versions of the translation of Jerome, see 
 De Wette-Schrader, Hinleitung, p. 147. 
 
 4. The Jewish Targums. 
 
 59. The Aramaic language, which even before the exile was 
 the international tongue of the north Semitic peoples, but was 
 not understood by the common Jews (Isa. xxxvi. 11), after 
 the exile gradually took the place of the old Israelitish 
 language, and was, in the times of Christ, the proper 
 vulgar language of the Jews. This remarkable change, of 
 which Dan. ii. 40—vil. 28, and Ezra, iv. 8—vi. 18, vii. 12, 26, 
 are the first witnesses, was one element in a great and sweep- 
 ing movement. In the Persian age we meet with the Aramaic 
 as the properly universal language of that period, even in the 
 inland parts of Arabia, and as it was adopted by the Jews 
 from their neighbours, so also by the Arabian tribes which 
 had taken up their residence east of that Jordan. Naturally 
 also the Palestinian Christians (§ 49) spoke from the first a 
 dialect of this same “ West Aramaic”’ language. Only ina 
 few villages of the Anti-Lebanon is there now a poor, struggling 
 remnant of this once dominant speech. 
 
 Noldeke, Die semitischen Sprachen, pp. 28-34; Kautzsch, 
 Gramatik des Biblisch-aramdischen, Leipsic 1884. On the 
 Christian-Palestinian dialect, see Noldeke, ZDMG, xx. 443 ff. 
 On the relation between the Greek and the Aramaic, see 
 Noldeke, ZDMG, xxxix. 313 ff. [Studia Biblica, tirst series, 
 
168 § 60. THE ORIGIN OF THE TARGUMS. 
 
 Oxford 1885, pp. 39-74, Article by Neubauer “On the Dia- 
 lects spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ.”] 
 
 60. In the same proportion in which the popular speech 
 of the Jews changed, did the Holy Scriptures become less 
 easily understood by the multitude. Only the scribes kept 
 alive among them the tradition of the pronunciation and 
 the understanding of the text, and to them are we indebted 
 for our ability still to read the Old Testament. The Law, 
 however, played so important a part among the post-exilian 
 Jews that the understanding of it could not remain the 
 peculiar property of the learned class; while the weekly read- 
 ings from the Law and the Prophets made it necessary that 
 they should be understood by the people. In order to satisfy 
 this need, there arose the custom of the reader in the syna- 
 gogue having alongside of him an interpreter, ?22, who 
 rendered the portions read into the language of the people. 
 Such a rendering would very readily assume the character of 
 an expository paraphrase, which sought to bring the read 
 portion nearer to the requirements of the religious sentiments 
 of the age. Negatively this tendency showed itself in the 
 leaving untranslated of some of the passages that were offen- 
 sive to the taste and feelings of these later times. On account 
 of the circle of readings being regularly repeated, the Aramaic 
 rendering must readily have assumed a fixed crystallised form, 
 which would be transmitted from one generation to another ; 
 but upon this basis, wherever there was no manifest antagonism 
 to it, new ideas of all kinds, called forth by the changing 
 circumstances of the times, would be freely deposited. That 
 the Aramaic translations of the Old Testament which are still 
 preserved arose, at least partly, in this way, can be proved to 
 demonstration from this, that in several of them we can 
 distinguish such layers from various periods as prove that 
 the recording of them must have been preceded by a time in 
 which they had been transmitted orally, and were still in a 
 
§ 60. THE ORIGIN OF THE TARGUMS. 169 
 
 fluid state. This, however, does not exclude the notion that 
 an earlier attempt may have been made by written Ara- 
 maic renderings to make the contents of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures more generally known. Indeed, it is quite evident that 
 this must have been the case with the Hagiographa, which was 
 not read in public, since there is mention in pretty early times 
 of Aramaic translations of them. Thus there is mention of a 
 written translation of the Book of Job in the time of Christ 
 (Sabb. 16); ὃ Meg. 3a makes evident allusion to various other 
 translations of the Hagiographa, which can only be thought of 
 as written documents. There is also, as it seems, mention in 
 the Mishna (Jadaim iv. 5) of Aramaic translations of the Old 
 Testament. Upon the whole, the widely spread notion, that 
 in the earliest times it was forbidden to transcribe the Ara- 
 maic translations of the portions read in the synagogue, is not 
 proved. In the passage that has been quoted in support of 
 it (jer. Meg. iv. 1) what is really said, when properly under- 
 stood, is only this, that such written translations must not be 
 used in the synagogue service itself, while the production of a 
 written record is not itself forbidden. On the other hand, it 
 may be fairly concluded, especially from the first-mentioned 
 reference to the subject (Sabb. 16), that the scribes of the 
 earlier days regarded with disfavour such written interpreta- 
 tions, especially those of the Hagiographa, which can be easily 
 understood, because such writings were withdrawn from the 
 control of the spiritual guardianship exercised by the Pharisees, 
 and might be the means of spreading all sorts of heretical 
 views among the people. 
 
 All these Aramaic translations, whatever their origin may 
 have been, bear the name of Zargums. What has been already 
 said makes it clear that their significance was essentially in the 
 realm of the history of religion and culture, partly also in the 
 province of exegesis, whereas, owing to their free treatment 
 of the text, they are of importance for textual criticism only 
 
170 § 60. THE ORIGIN OF THE TARGUMS. 
 
 in a limited degree. Yet in not a few passages results can 
 be reached by their help with reference to a text diverging 
 from the Receptus. It is very difficult to determine the date 
 of the composition of these works ; and even if it were possible 
 to fix with certainty the time of their codification, little would 
 thereby have been gained, since, in respect of their contents, 
 they partly represent much earlier periods, especially the 
 Targums on the Law and the Prophets, whose oldest layers 
 may have originated in the very earliest synagogical readings. 
 And that, especially in the Babylonian Targums, we have to 
 do pre-eminently with ancient materials is shown, as Cornill 
 has appropriately remarked, by the complete absence of all 
 polemic against the Christians in the Messianic passages. 
 
 Compare Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge, 1832, p. 7 ff.; 
 Noldeke, Alttestamentliche Litteratur, p. 255 ff On the 
 untranslated passages, Geiger, Urschrift, p. 368; Berliner, 
 Massora zum Targum Onkelos, p. 59; ZDMG, xxix. 320. 
 
 M. Jadaim iv. 5, “nay, which is written as nywon,” can 
 only refer to Aramaic translations. Tosephta Sabb. xvi. 128: 
 “When the elder Gamaliel sat on one of the temple steps one 
 brought him a book with a Targum of the Book of Job; but 
 he ordered a builder working near by to build the book into 
 the wall which he was then building.” Compare ὦ. Sabb. 115 ; 
 jer. Sabb. 16, fol. 15¢; Soph’rim, p. xi. Nevertheless, the 
 grandson of Gamaliel, according to this story, subsequently read 
 in acopy of this same book. The notion of Gritz, MGW, 
 1877, p. 87, that this Targum was a Greek translation, is 
 absolutely without foundation. On the other hand, it is 
 not impossible that it was identical with the Συριακή βίβλος 
 mentioned in the LXX. at the close of the Book of Job. It 
 is also not impossible that the Old Testament quotations in 
 the New Testament may in some cases have been taken from 
 such a Targum. Compare, eg. on Matt. 11. 5, Delitzsch, 
 Messianische Weissagungen, 1890, p. 114, Eng. trans. by 
 Prof. Curtiss, Edinburgh 1891. Compare also Lagarde, 
 NGGW, 1890, p. 104. 
 
§ 61. THE TARGUMS IN PALESTINE AND BABYLON. 171 
 
 b. Meg. 3a: Jonathan ben Uzziel (§ 63), who had translated 
 the Prophets into Aramaic, wished also to produce a Targum on 
 the Hagiographa; but he told how he had heard a Bath-gol, 
 which said: “ What thou hast translated is enough.” Compare 
 Bacher, WGI J, 1882, p. 120. 
 
 Jer. Meg.iv.1: “R. Haggai said, R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, 
 visited a synagogue, and found therein a Sopher reading his 
 interpretation from a book; then said he to him, this is not 
 permitted. The oral orally, the written by writing.” Compare 
 Berliner, Targum Onkelos, 11. p. 88 ff. 
 
 On the origin of the word Yargum very diverse opinions 
 prevail. The Assyriologists (Fred. Delitzsch, The Hebrew Lan- 
 guage, 1883, p. 50; Haupt in Schrader, Die Keilinschriften 
 u. d. A. T2 p. 517) [see Eng. trans. vol. ii. 267] refer it to 
 an Assyrian word, ragdmu, to shout, to cry out. Wellhausen, 
 Skizzeen und Vorarbeiten, iii. 110, 153, combines καθ,» 
 “to conjecture,” with some sort of Mantic custom of stone- 
 throwing, and adds: “Perhaps it also has some connection 
 with the Aramaic pyn.” On the other hand, Lagarde (Armen. 
 Studien, ὃ 847; Mittheilungen, ii. 177 f.) treats jomn as an 
 Indo-European loan word, and the verb asdenominative. Halevy, 
 finally, according to Devie’s Appendix to the Supplementary 
 volume of Littré’s Dictionary, p. 32, note 8, would derive it 
 from the Greek tpvypos. The Arabic .jle> 3 is in favour of 
 the secondary nature of the participle jomnn, and consequently 
 of the foreign derivation of the word. See Frankel, Ava- 
 midische Fremdworter, p. 280. 
 
 61. In Palestine, where the Targums originated, they were 
 never recognised as proper authorities. They continued to 
 occupy a place by themselves, and therefore show, however 
 widely they became known, the above-described peculiarities 
 in their full extent. When they were quoted in the Jerusalem 
 Talmud, this was done only that they might be confuted. So 
 jer. Berachoth, 5. 4, fol. 9c, where the addition to Lev. xxii. 
 28, “ As Lin heaven am merciful, soon earth be ye merciful,” 
 to which the Targum known to us as the Jerusalem Targum 
 
172 8 62. THE BABYLONIAN TORAH TARGUM. 
 
 contains a parallel, is rejected. It is also significant that 
 Jerome, who lived a long time in Palestine, and was depend- 
 ent on his Jewish teachers, never made mention of a Jewish 
 Targum. It was otherwise in Babylon. The Babylonian 
 Jews produced no independent Targum, but took over from 
 the Palestinian Jews their Aramaic translations of the Law 
 and the Prophets, which naturally must have made their way 
 to them in a written form. Witness is borne to this by the 
 dialect in the Babylonian Targums, which is the Palestino- 
 Aramaic, with an East Aramaic colouring, which has not 
 essentially changed the linguistic character. But in Babylon 
 these renderings, which were used in the synagogue service, 
 were authorised, and in this way were preserved from further 
 alterations. In consequence of this, the Babylonians had 
 only Targums on the Law and the Prophets, and only one on 
 each of these books (compare 6. Meg. 3a). 
 
 On the language of the Targums, compare Ndéldeke, 
 Alttestamentliche Litteratur, p. 257: GGA, 1872, p. 828; Lit. 
 Centralblatt, 1877, p. 305. (Otherwise Elias Levita, compare 
 ZDMG, xiii. 26.) Geiger, Jiid. Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 93, ete. 
 
 62. The authorised Torah Targum of the Babylonians, 
 usually, but incorrectly, bears the name Targum Onkelos. The 
 denominating of it was based upon ὦ. Meg. 3a, according to 
 which passage the Aramaic Torah Targum is said to have been 
 “composed by Onkelos (D19P2&) according to the directions (ΒΕ) 
 of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.” But this “ Onkelos” is only a 
 variation of p>py (Aquilas), and the parallel passage jer. Meg. 
 1. 9, fol. 71c, shows that in the original context the subject 
 spoken of was the Greek translator Aquila (§ 52), out of 
 whom therefore the Babylonian reviewer has made an Aramaic 
 translator. In keeping with this is the fact that the name 
 p>*py occurs also elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud and in 
 the Tosephta in the form midpox (compare, eg., jer. Demat, Vi. 
 
§ 62. THE BABYLONIAN TORAH TARGUM. 173 
 
 10, fol. 25d, with Tosephta Demai, vi. p. 57,16). There is 
 now no longer any ground for assuming that any one in 
 Babylon should have wittingly named the redactor of the Torah 
 Targum “ Aquila ” in order thereby to show off his hermeneutical 
 art, although the Onkelos at least in this connection is an 
 “ Aquila” among the Targumists. Undoubtedly we have to 
 do with a simple confusion which was readily enough caused 
 by the word “Targum.” From this it follows, in the first 
 place, that that passage is not to be understood as referring 
 to the date of the composition of the Torah Targum, and, 
 further, that the actual redactor of that Targum must have 
 been unknown to the Babylonians, which still further confirm 
 the conclusion to be drawn from the dialectic character of the 
 translation (§ 61). Where the Babylonian Talmud quotes the 
 Targum itself, it names it “our Targum” (ὦ. Kidd. 69a), or 
 says, “as we translate.” 
 
 The question therefore arises, whether the Babylonians have 
 so agreed with the Targum which they adopted as they 
 received it, or whether it has been essentially altered by them. 
 It is certain that the Babylonian Targum on the Law, which 
 in comparison with that of the Palestinian is remarkably 
 literal, gives the impression that it originated in a thorough 
 recasting of an older precursor. Also the assertion of Geiger 
 and Bacher that several passages in it are so abbreviated 
 that they are unintelligible without a comparison with the 
 Palestinian Torah Targums, rests for the most part on an 
 exaggeration ; yet it is nevertheless evident that it has been 
 formed by a reduction of a document containing a greater 
 abundance of Helachic material, which still in many places 
 shines through, and is nearly related to the material met with 
 in the Palestinian Targums. The assertion of Berliner, that 
 the brief form met with in the Babylonian Targums is the 
 more original, and the paraphrase the later, does not corre- 
 spond with the facts of the case. This Targum is rather a 
 
174 § 62. THE BABYLONIAN TORAH TARGUM. 
 
 learned, and therefore a secondary work ; while the Palestinian 
 Targums, which certainly were concluded considerably later, 
 ~ contained many ancient portions which were omitted in the 
 Babylonian Targum. But for the hypothesis that this reduc- 
 tion had been first undertaken by the Babylonians, there 
 is no ground. If these, as the dialectic colouring seems to 
 prove, have also subjected the text to a certain amount of 
 revision, yet, on the other hand, the ignorance of the Baby- 
 lonians with regard to the origin of their Targum distinctly 
 disproves the idea of it having been essentially a Babylonian 
 work. One would be rather led to assume that the Targum 
 reduction in question was a fruit of the minute treatment of 
 Scripture introduced by R. Akiba, and therefore that it had 
 been undertaken in Palestine. In so far, the naming of the 
 Targum after Onkelos-Aquila has a certain meaning, but 
 scarcely that anticipated by its originator. But the main 
 point is that this work of reduction remained without result 
 in Palestine itself, whereas the Targum originating from it 
 became authorised in Babylon. When this happened we do 
 not know, yet the idea readily suggests itself that the Targum 
 had been first brought to Babylon when the Babylonian 
 school began to flourish, 1.6. in the third Christian century. 
 For the rest, this question is not of great interest, for in point 
 of contents the Babylonian Torah Targum represents an older, 
 in part certainly a pre-Christian age. In common with all 
 Jewish translations, as also with the LXX., it shows a careful 
 avoiding of all anthropomorphisms. And the peculiar custom 
 of receiving into the text all sorts of Hebrew words untrans- 
 lated is to be found also in the LXX.,, and still more in 
 Theodotion. 
 
 A properly critical edition of this Targum does not exist. 
 Formerly one had to content himself with the very defective 
 text in respect of vocalisation given in the Polyglots and 
 rabbinical Bibles. Now a step in advance has been taken by 
 
§ 62. THE BABYLONIAN TORAH TARGUM. 175 
 
 Berliner’s publication of the Recension of the excellent editio 
 Sabbioneta of the year 1557. Merx has published some 
 fragments from various Babylonian manuscripts in the 
 British Museum. These manuscripts contain the Babylonian 
 system of pointing (§ 80), while Berliner’s edition presents a 
 picture of the time during which the Babylonian pointing was 
 being changed for the Palestinian, in which some peculiarities 
 of the former were still preserved. An important aid toward 
 the establishment of the text is afforded by the Massoras on 
 Onkelos, which at the same time show with what care this 
 translation was treated by the Jews. 
 
 Compare Luzzato, Oheb Ger. 1830; Geiger, Jiid Zeitschrift, 
 1871, pp. 85-104, 1875, p. 290; Nachgelassene Schriften, 
 iv. 104, 106 ff.; Bacher, ZDMG, xxviii. 59 ff; Frankel. 
 Zeitschrift fiir die relig. Interessen εἰ. Judenthums, 1846, p. 
 110 ff.; Wellhausen-Bleek, Hinleitung, p. 607; Berliner, 
 Targum Onkelos, τ. 100 ff, 114-128; Schiirer, Geschichte 
 des jtid. Volkes, i. 117, Eng. trans. Div. i. vol. i, 134. 
 Further literature in Berliner, Zargum Onkelos, pp. 175-200. 
 
 On the beginnings of the Babylonian school, compare Jost, 
 Geschichte des Judenthums, 11. 134 ff. Yet it is said there, 
 p. 132 f.: “We find even in Babylon, in the time of Akiba, 
 individual Palestinian teachers of the Law, especially descend- 
 ants of the family Bethera.” 
 
 On the character of the translation, compare Berliner, 
 Targum Onkelos, ii. 200-245; Volek in Herzog’s Real- 
 Encyclopedic”, xv. 366 ff.; Singer, Onkelos und das Verhdltnis 
 seines Targums zur Halache, 1881; Maybaum, Die Anthro- 
 pomorphien und Anthropopathien bei Onkelos und den spéiteren 
 Targumim. 1870. The substitution of “Salamites ” for »*p 
 in Gen. xv. 19, and elsewhere, as also in the Targum on 
 the Prophets, is interesting, since that people was con- 
 temporary with the Nabateans (Euting, Nabatdische Urschriften, 
 Ρ. 28 f.); thus therefore the ancient times distinctly colour 
 the text. Examples of the free treatment of passages: Gen. 
 iil, 22, “ Behold, the man is unique in the world, for he out 
 
176 § 63. THE BABYLONIAN PROPHET TARGUM. 
 
 of his own self can know the good and the evil.” Compare 
 Symmachus: ἴδε, ὁ ᾿Αδὰμ γέγονεν ὁμοῦ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ γινώσκειν 
 καλὸν καὶ πονηρὸν, and R, Akiba. Also Mechilta on Exod. 
 xiv. 29 (p. 33a). The prohibition against seething a kid in 
 its mother’s milk (Ex. xxii. 19) is in agreement with M. 
 Chullin 8 on the prohibition against eating flesh prepared in 
 milk. The untranslated words are given by Berliner, J/assora 
 zum Targum Onkelos, p. 57. 
 
 First edition: Bologna 1482 (Pentateuch edition). On 
 the following editions, among which those of Lisbon 1491, the 
 Rabbinical Bible 1517, the Antwerp Polyglot (Regia) 1569, 
 and the Sabbioneta edition 1557,are deserving of special remark, 
 compare De Wette-Schrader, Hinleitung, p. 125; Berliner, 
 Targum Onkelos, p. 187 ff—On Berliner, Zargum Onkelos, 
 Berlin 1884 (1. Text, II. Introduction and Notes), compare 
 Noldeke’s review in Jit. Centralblatt, 1884, 39, and especi- 
 ally Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 11. 163-182, 386. From the 
 Babylonian manuscripts in the British Museum, Merx (Chres- 
 tomathia Targumica, 1888) has edited after the Codex de 
 hose, 42, Lev.nix. +11, 475, Num a 1 22 9 een 
 ‘avi: 1-10. xix, 97 99. 8, c. 32-34: Gen. ¢. 1-4. 24 
 6,c.49. Ex.c. 15, ¢c. 20-24 and Deut. xxxii. 16-26. Com- 
 pare the favourable remarks of Landauer, ZA, i. 263 ff. 
 On manuscripts see Berliner, 11. 245 ff; Merx, Chresto- 
 mathia, p. X. 8q., XV. Sq. 
 
 For exposition: Schefftel, Bure Onkelos, Scholien zum 
 Targum Onkelos, herausgeg. von Perles, 1888 (in Hebrew). 
 Compare also: Merx, Johannes Buxtorf’s des Vaters Targum- 
 commentar Babylonia, ZWT, 1887 and 1888. 
 
 Berliner, Massorah zum Targum Onkelos, 1877; Landauer, 
 Die Masord zum Onkelos nach neuen Quellen, Israelitische 
 Letterbode, Amsterdam, Jahrg. vil. x1. Compare Lagarde, 
 Mittheilungen, ii. 167 fi. 
 
 63. Of the Babylonian Targum on the Prophets practically 
 the same may be said as of the Targum on the Law. It also 
 usually bears a name which is derived from the same passage 
 of the Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 3a), but it has just as little 
 
§ 63. THE BABYLONIAN PROPHET TARGUM. 177 
 historical value as the name Onkelos. The Aramaic transla- 
 tion of the Prophets is there ascribed to the well-known 
 scholar of Hillel, Jonathan ben Uzziel, and hence the Prophet 
 Targum is commonly cited as the Targum of Jonathan. But 
 where passages are quoted in the Babylonian Talmud from the 
 translation of the Prophets, they are, as a rule, ascribed to 
 R. Joseph ben Chija, who died in A.D. 333, and never to that 
 Jonathan, nor is there ever, in the Palestinian Talmud, any 
 mention made of a translation by Hillel’s pupil. But seeing 
 that a Palestinian parallel to the note in the Babylonian Talmud 
 about the Targum on the Prophets is wanting, the unravelling 
 of this point is scarcely possible. The conjecture of Luzzatto 
 is very ingenious, that Jonathan is another name for Theodotion 
 (§ 53), as Onkelos was for Aquila; but this is nothing more 
 than a clever guess. On the other hand, we might perhaps, 
 from the above referred to mode of quotation in the Babylonian 
 Talmud, conclude that the Babylonian Joseph ben Chija, “ the 
 blind,’ had taken part in the redaction of this Targum, which 
 therefore would belong to the fourth century. With this also 
 would agree the limit of time conjectured (ὃ 62) as marking 
 the final redaction of the Targum on the Law, supposing that 
 actually, as is commonly assumed, the coincidences between 
 the translation of the Prophets and the parallel passages in 
 the Targum on the Law prove the dependence of the former 
 upon the latter. But these similarities may just as well have 
 come down from the oral lectures and the older forms of the 
 Targums, and therefore prove little. 
 
 Moreover, the question here also about the date of the 
 redaction is of very slight interest, for, as has been already 
 remarked above, the material of the Targum is undoubtedly 
 very much older. In comparison with the Torah Targum 
 this translation is far freer and more paraphrastic. Compare, 
 e.g. the extremely loose rendering of Isa. lili, But this is 
 
 caused in part by the difference in the contents of the books 
 me 
 
178 § 63. THE BABYLONIAN PROPHET TARGUM. 
 
 translated, as indeed even Onkelos himself in poetical and 
 prophetic passages assumes a less literal and more para- 
 phrastic character than elsewhere. Compared with the 
 Palestinian Targum on the Prophets the Babylonian must 
 always be described as observing the proper mean, while also 
 in a remarkable way a strong adherence to the letter goes 
 side by side with that freedom. 
 
 A good help in study is afforded by Lagarde’s careful 
 reprint of the text in the Codex Reuchlin (ὃ 28), especially 
 when taken in connection with Cornill’s Collations. Some 
 pieces with Babylonian pointing have been published by 
 Merx. 
 
 Compare Frankel, Zum Targum der Propheten, 1872; 
 Geiger, Urschrift, p. 164; Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 105; 
 Bacher, ZDMG, xxviii. 1 ff, see also xxix. 157 ff., 319 ff.; 
 Berliner, Zargum Onkelos, p. 124; Volek in Herzog’s Real 
 Encyclopedie’, xv. 370 ; Cornill, Hzechiel, p. 110 ff. Especially 
 on Micha: Ryssel, Untersuchungen tiber die Teatgestalt des Buches 
 Micha, 1887, pp. 163-169. On the date of composition 
 also Frankel, /P7, 1879, p. 756 ff. [On the paraphrastic 
 rendering of the Prophet Targum see Driver and Neubauer, 
 The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah, according to the Jewish 
 Interpreters, Oxford 1877.] 
 
 b. Meg. 3a. Jonathan ben Uzziel composed the Targum 
 on the Prophets according to the traditions (52) of Haggai, 
 Zechariah, and Malachi; then trembled the land of Israel in 
 its whole extent (properly 400 parasangs) anda Bath-kol was 
 heard: Who discovers my mysteries to men? But Jonathan 
 remained standing upright, and said, It is 1! Thou knowest 
 that I have done it neither for my own glorification nor for my 
 family’s but for Thine honour, in order to prevent divisions 
 in Israel (compare further § 60). The expression here is 
 remarkable, “ from the mouth of the last prophets.” The same 
 ‘5 appears also in the story about “ Onkelos” in the same 
 passage of the Talmud (ὃ 62). On the other hand, the 
 Palestinian parallel passage has ΞΡ instead of ‘pay “ under 
 
§ 64. THE PALESTINIAN TORAI TARGUM. 179 
 
 their sight.” Wellhausen-Bleek (Lindeitung, p. 608) makes 
 the acute remark that in analogy with “from the mouth of 
 the last prophets,” we might conjecture in the Onkelos 
 passage an original “ from the mouth of Joshua and Eleasar ” 
 (the followers of Moses), which afforded a suggestion of names, 
 out of which were afterwards made the Rabbis Eliezer and 
 Joshua. But in the Jeruschalmi (355!) the names of the 
 tabbis at least are genuine, so that one at furthest might 
 assume an original Babylonian reading: N. N. has interpreted 
 the Law from the mouth of Joshua and Eleasar, which may 
 then have been confounded with the passage in the Jeruschalmi. 
 
 The passages quoted in the Talmud are given by Zunz, 
 Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge, p. 63. On Joseph ben Chija, com- 
 pare Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums, ii. 184 f.; Bacher, 
 Aggada der babylonischen Amorder, 1878, p. 101 f. 
 
 Older editions are named by De Wette-Schrader, Hinleitung, 
 p. 127. -Lagarde, Prophetw chaldaice, 1872, without vowels 
 (compare Noldeke, Lit. Centralblatt, 1872, p. 1157, and 
 especially Klostermann, 7'SX, 1873, pp. 731-767); Nach- 
 trage aus einer LHrfurter Handschrift: Symmicta, i. 139. 
 Variations from the Antwerp Polyglot and the Bombereg- 
 Buxtorf are given by Cornill, ZAW, 1887, p. 177 ff.; 
 Hzchiel, pp.113-120. From Babylonian manuscripts, Merx 
 (Chrestomathia targumica) has edited: Hab. iii.; Judges v.; 
 2 Sam. xxii.—xxill. 7; Isa. 111. 13, 11]. 12; Jonah; Micah; 
 and, from the Codex Reuchlin, Hab. iii. (vocalised). On the 
 readings of Elias Levita, compare ZDMG, xliii. 230. 
 
 64. The Palestinian Targums carry us into another sphere 
 (§ 61). Of the Palestinian translation of the Law we have 
 two different forms — one complete, another which consists 
 only of fragments. The correct names for these would 
 have been: for the complete one Jeruschalmi, and for the 
 other the Zargum Fragments, or Jeruschalmi i. and ii; but 
 here also through misunderstandings other designations became 
 current. While by Jeruschalmi is frequently understood the 
 Targum Fragments, the other is called Targum Jonathan 
 
180 § 64. THE PALESTINIAN TORAH TARGUM. 
 
 (Pseudo-Jonathan), which originated, however, only through 
 a false interpretation of the abbreviation "ἢ (dc. *oSvAn» in). 
 Of the complete Targum, which was first printed in Venice in 
 1591, no manuscripts have up to this time been found. On 
 the other hand, of the Targum Fragments, which had even 
 earlier (in 1518) been published in the Bomberg Bible, two 
 manuscripts are extant. 
 
 The relation between the complete Jeruschalmi and the 
 Babylonian Torah Targum has been referred to above (§ 62). 
 It is impossible to determine whether the former should be 
 regarded as older or as younger than the Babylonian, because 
 although it bears a more original, still uncontracted character, 
 yet, on the other side, it seeured its present form at a much 
 later period. If, indeed, the translation of Gen. xxi. 21 
 alludes to the wives of Mohammed, this shows that the 
 present form of the Targum cannot be older than the seventlr~ 
 century; but, on the other hand, in Deut. xxxiil. 11 are found 
 the words, “The enemies of the high priest Johanan shall not 
 survive,’ which could only have been so formulated in the 
 days of John Hyrcanus. The origin of the work known as 
 the Targum Fragments is much more open to controversy, 
 and even up to this day has by no means been clearly ex- 
 plained. While some see in it fragments of an originally 
 independent Targum, others regard it as a collection of glosses 
 and supplements to some Aramaic translation of the Law. 
 This much in any case is certain, that it is not closely related 
 to the Babylonian but to the Palestinian Targum, and there- 
 fore is to be taken into account here. Both are of a free 
 Midrashic character, and so are fundamentally distinguished 
 in their treatment of the text from the Targum Babh. 
 
 Seligsohn, De duabus HMierosolymitanis Pentateuchi para- 
 phrasibus, 1859; Gronemann, Die jonathansche Pentateuch- 
 tibersetzung in threm Verhdltnisse zur Halacha, 1875; Seligsohn, 
 
 and Traub in MGWJ, 1857, pp. 96 ff, 138 ff.; Schiirer, 
 
§ 65. PALESTINIAN PROPHET TARGUMS. 181 
 
 Geschichte des 714. Volkes, ii. 118 ἔν, Eng. trans. Div. 1]. 
 vol. i. 135, and the literature referred to under ὃ 62. 
 
 Elias Levita himself only knew one Targum Jeruschalmi, 
 but reports that others quoted a Pentateuch Targum of 
 Jonathan (ZDMG, xliii. 226). Paul of Burgos (A.D. 1429), 
 Petrus Galatinus, and Azaria de Rossi (who died Α.Ὁ. 1578) 
 were acquainted with this “Jonathan,” whose translation, 
 however, was rarissima. See Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 11. 
 165 f. Unfortunately the manuscript used for the Venice 
 edition of 1591 has since disappeared. The one manu- 
 script of the Targum Fragments is in Vatican 440. Com- 
 pare Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortriége, pp. 70-77; Lagarde, 
 Mittheilungen, p. 165; Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii. 123. 
 On it is based the Bomberg edition, 1518. Another, the 
 Nuremberg manuscript, is described by Lagarde, VGGIV, 
 1888, pp. 1—3. 
 
 Both Targums are to be found in the London Polyglot in 
 the fourth volume. 
 
 65. Of the Targum or the Targums of the Palestinians on 
 the Prophets there remain only fragments, partly as quotations 
 in the works of the Rabbis of the Middle Ages, partly as 
 marginal glosses in manuscripts, so especially in the Codex of 
 Reuchlin referred to in §§ 28 and 63. They have a similar 
 character to the Palestinian Targums on the Law. Sometimes 
 they contain ideas that might be traced very far back, eg. 
 when a fragment on 2 Sam. xvii. 18 renders anany by “ Bill 
 of Dismissal or Divorcement.” Compare the notices by R. 
 Joseph in ὦ. Sabb. 56a. 
 
 Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrage, pp. 77-79 ; Bacher, ZDMG, 
 xxviii. 1 ff.; Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 109. The 
 glosses of the Codex Reuchlin are given by Lagarde, Prophete 
 chaldaice, vi.—xlii. passim; compare some improvements 
 thereon suggested by Baer, Liber Jeremie, p. 6. A sheet of 
 a Palestinian Targum on Isaiah was laid by Ginsburg before 
 the members of the Vienna Congress of Orientalists, 1886. 
 
182 § 66. PALESTINIAN TARGUMS ON HAGIOGRAPHA. 
 
 66. The Targums on the Hagiographa are peculiar to the 
 Palestinians. They have also been found among the South 
 Arabian Manuscripts in the British Museum, although these 
 make use of the “ Babylonian” pointing. With the exception 
 of the two Old Testament writings in which Aramaic sections 
 are found, Daniel and Ezra, there are Targums on all the 
 other Ketubim, and on the Book of Esther, which was a 
 special favourite, there are three. Official significance they 
 never had, but are to be considered individual works of the 
 same kind as the oldest Targums referred to above in § 60. 
 It only need further be said that they are distinguished 
 from one another by important differences, and follow wholly 
 divergent principles. Whereas some, like the Targums on The 
 Song, Ecclesiastes, and one of those on Esther, are already 
 almost purely Midrashic works, others are of a literalistic 
 character, like the third Targum on Esther, the Targum on 
 Proverbs, and the Tareum on the Psalms, which, however, 
 becomes sometimes rather Haggadic, eg. on Ps. xci. The 
 Targum on the Proverbs seems to be a free rendering of a 
 Syriac translation of that book. The date of the composition 
 of these works can only be indicated in a vague, general way. 
 As the Targum on the Psalms presently stands it is later than 
 the ninth century, since in its rendering of Ps. lxxxiil. 7 it 
 mentions the Hungarians. The Targum on Job is much later 
 than the writing referred to in § 60. On the other hand, the 
 material in these Targums is naturally much older, which 
 sometimes can be quite precisely authenticated, eg. when 
 Targum ii. on Esther contains a statement which Masseket 
 Soph’rim, 13. 6, p. xxii., attributes to R. Joseph (ὃ 63). 
 
 The text of these Targums has been made easily accessible 
 by Lagarde’s reprint of the text of the first Venetian Rab- 
 binical Bible of 1517-1518 (ὃ 24). Instructive monographs 
 on the several Targums are begun, but might be carried out 
 much further. 
 
§ 67. SAMARITAN TORAH TARGUM. 183 
 
 Lagarde, Hagiographa chaldaice, 1873. Among the older 
 editions is specially to be mentioned the Antwerp Polyglot. 
 Compare Merx in the Verhandlungen des Orient. Kongresses 
 zur Berlin, 1882, p. 157. In the Jiid. Literaturblatt, 1889, 
 J. Riess has published a series of contributions to the textual 
 criticism of the Megilloth according to a Breslau Codex. 
 Compare the same on Esther in MGWJ, 1881, p. 473 ff. 
 The dream of Mordecai has been edited by Merx in his 
 Chrestomathia Targuinica. 
 
 About the Targums on Proverbs see Noldeke in Merx, 
 Archiv fiir wiss. Erforschung d. A. T. ii. 246-249; Geiger, 
 Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 112 ἢ, On Job, Bacher in MG W./, 
 1871, p. 208 ff. On the Psalms, Bacher, ΜΟΊ, 1872, 
 p. 408 ff, and Bethgen in JPT7, 1882, pp. 447-455 ff. 
 On Chronicles, Kohler and Rosenberg, Jiid. Zeitschrift, 1870, 
 p. 72 ff. Targum ii. on Esther, Riess in MGW, 1876, 
 p- 161 ff Munk, Zargum Scheni z. Buch Esther, 1876 ; 
 P. Cassel, Das Buch Esther, 1. 1878, p. 259 ff.; Bertheau- 
 Ryssel, Zsra, Nechemia und Ester, 1887, p. 366. 
 
 On the Jewish Targum on Chronicles, which has been 
 received into the Syriac Bible, compare § 71. 
 
 67. The Samaritans also possess an Aramaic Targum, which, 
 as might be expected, embraces only the Pentateuch, and 
 attaches itself to the form of text peculiar to the Samaritans 
 (δὲ 11, 29). It is somewhat more literal than the Jewish 
 Targums, but equally with them jealous in guarding against 
 all anthropomorphisms. In regard to its origin and authority 
 we know nothing. The most serious difficulties met with 
 here arise mainly from the wretched condition of the text, 
 which even the more recent editions have not succeeded in 
 remedying. 
 
 The Greek fragments which were quoted on the margin of 
 the Septuagint manuscripts by the Church fathers under the 
 title τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν, and which Field has collected, corre- 
 spond as a rule with this Targum, and are therefore, in some 
 sort of way, related to it. Where the fathers got these frag- 
 
184 § 67. SAMARITAN TORAH TARGUM. 
 
 ments is not certain; yet, seeing that the Samaritans even in 
 the times before Christ were in possession of a Greek litera- 
 ture, there is nothing to render it absolutely impossible that 
 they may have had a translation of their Targum into Greek. 
 The Samaritan Targum, as we find it in the Polyglots, shows 
 also a relationship in another direction, namely, with a 
 Samaritan-Arabic translation, which had been composed in 
 the eleventh or twelfth century by Abu-Said. But this cor- 
 respondence rests, as Kohn and Vollers have shown, on the 
 later revision of the Samaritan text according to an Arabic 
 translation. The manuscripts not infected in this way are 
 divided by Vollers into an Aramaising and a Hebraising group. 
 
 Editions: Brill, Das samaritanische Targum 2. Pentateuch, 
 1873-1875; Varianten zu Genesis des samaritanischen 
 Targum, 1876; Petermann, Pentateuchus Samaritanus, Berlin, 
 iil. 1872, 1882, iii—iv. (by Vollers), 18838, 1885 ; Heiden- 
 heim, Bibliotheca Samaritana, i. 1884 (Genesis), with which 
 should be compared the severe criticism in ZDMG, xxxix. 
 165 ff Gen. i-iv., Exod. xx. 7-17 in Petermann’s Brevis 
 lingue Samaritane Grammatica, 1873. The Oxford Frag- 
 ments (Lev. xxv., xxvi.; Num. xxxvi. 9) are edited by Nutt, 
 1874. Moore, “On a Fragment of the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 in the Library of Andover Theological Seminary.” Proceed- 
 ings of the American Oriental Society, 1882, xxxv.—A list 
 of manuscripts is given: Literaturblatt fiir Orient. Philologie, 
 a7 2) 
 
 Winer, De versionis Pentateuchi Samaritane indole, 1817 ; 
 Kohn, Samaritanische Studien, 1868; Zur Sprache, Lit. und 
 Dogmatik der Samaritaner, 1876; Noldeke, GGA, 1865, 
 bt Dd;. Sid. Zeutsehryt, 1808, p. 215; ΖΡ nee 
 343 ff; Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 121 ff.; Kautzsch 
 in Herzog’s Real-Hncyclopedie*, xiii. 350. 
 
 On the Samareitikon: Field, Hexapla, 1. p. xxxil. 329 f.; 
 Gratz, MGWJ, 1886, p. 00 ff. On the Samaritan-Greek 
 literature: Schiirer, Geschichte des jiid. Volkes, ii, 750, Eng. 
 trans. Div. 11. vol. ii. 211, 225. 
 
§ 68. ORIGIN OF THE PESHITO. 185 
 
 Of Abu Said’s translation Kuenen has published: Liber 
 Geneseos sec. Arab. Pent. vers. ab Abu Said conseriptam, Leyden 
 1851; Exodus and Leviticus, 1854. Compare Kohn, Zur 
 Sprache, Lit. und Dogm. d. Samaritaner, pp. 134-140. 
 Kautzsch in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedie*, xiii. 350. 
 
 5. The Syriac Translation of the Bible. 
 
 68. The name by which the Syriac translation is usually 
 referred to, [As (pronounced {δι ἃ without ¢; with the 
 English article the P*itd) is to be met with first in manu- 
 scripts of the ninth and tenth centuries. The usual explana- 
 tion, “the simple, literal,’ or “usual,” is scarcely correct. 
 Much more probable is the explanation suggested by Field 
 and Néldeke, dada, by way of contrast to the Syro-Hexaplar 
 translation, which had obtained a wide circulation among the 
 Syrians (ὃ 48). The designation was then applied at first 
 only to the Old Testament part of the translation. 
 
 The very fact that the translation attached itself to the 
 Hebrew text shows that it owed its existence to Jewish 
 labour, which is further confirmed by the sympathy shown in 
 it for the traditional Scripture exposition of the Jews. From 
 this, however, it does not follow that it was the result of 
 Jewish contrivance. It is indeed quite possible that it had 
 its origin in a Christian undertaking, for the Jewish character 
 might be explained, either from the fact that the Jews had 
 taken part in the work (as in the translation of Jerome, § 56), 
 or, still more probably, by the fact that the translators were 
 Jewish Christians. The possibility must, indeed, generally 
 speaking, be conceded of the Jews residing in the border 
 lands between the Roman and the Parthian empires having 
 come to feel a necessity for a translation of the Old Testa- 
 ment into their own language, like that which had been felt 
 by the Greek Jews. And certainly it is a fact that isolated 
 
186 § 68. ORIGIN OF THE PESHITO. 
 
 portions of the Peshito are purely Jewish productions; such 
 as the translation of Proverbs, which elsewhere had not been 
 received among the Palestinian Targums (§ 66), and that of 
 Chronicles, which had been originally a Jewish Targum. But, 
 on the other side, no Jewish writing speaks of such a Bible 
 translation of the Syrian Jews, whereas they make frequent 
 mention of the LXX. and of Aquila, as well as of the Targums. 
 The Peshito has, on the contrary, always been recognised by 
 the Syrian Christians of the earlier times as their Bible trans- 
 lation. Therefore probability is strongly in favour of the 
 idea that it owed its origin to Christian effort, while, to some 
 extent, fragments of older Jewish translations have been made 
 use of in it, and for the rest, the translation was made by 
 Jewish Christians. For a direct proof of the Christian origin 
 of the translation we might point to the various purely Chris- 
 tian passages which it contains, if only in regard to these we 
 were sure that they had come immediately from the hand of 
 the translator, which, upon the whole, is probable, but cannot 
 be certainly proved. 
 
 Compare Perles, MWeletemata Peschitthoniana, Prague 1859 ; 
 Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 96; Noldeke, <Alttes- 
 tamentliche Lrteratur, p. 262; Nestle, in Herzog’s eal- 
 Encyclopedve 7, xv. 192 ff. 
 
 On the relationship with the Jewish tradition: Schonfelder, 
 Onkelos und Peschittho. 1865; Berliner, Targum Onkelos, 11. 
 126 ἢ; Sebok, Die syrische Uebersetzung der 12 kleinen 
 Propheten, 1887, p. 7; Cornill, Hzechiel, Ὁ. 154 f. [On the 
 Syriac Zextus Receptus, see Studia Brblica, first series, 1885, 
 p- 151 ff, in article “ An Account of a Syriac MS. of the 5th 
 Century,” by G. H. Gwilliam. | 
 
 Examples of a decidedly Christian colouring: Jer. xxxi. 
 31 (according to Hebrews viii. 8; as the contrary, Jer. ΧΙ. 
 py; Hosea xiii. 154.:.: 8 5 κὺχ ὅδ, ex. 3. 
 
 On the form (Ajsmo@ see Noldeke, Kurzgefasste syrische 
 Grammatik, ὃ 26 B. On its meaning: Field, Hezxapla, i. 
 
§ 69. COMPOSITION AND HISTORY OF PESHITO. 187 
 
 p- ix.; Nodldeke, ZDMG, xxxii. 589. In support of the 
 opposite view, Nestle in Herzog’s Real-Ency. xv. 192, 199, 
 who translates “usual”; but even this is not = “simple.” 
 
 69. If we consider the Syriac translation as a whole to be 
 a Christian work, then we shall have to assume the founding 
 of the Christian Church in that region about A.D. 150 as the 
 terminus a quo of its origin. The first certain witnesss that 
 we have for its existence is given by Aphraates about two 
 hundred years later (§ 15); but without any doubt, seeing that 
 Greek had not spread in that eastern region, a translation of the 
 Holy Scriptures into the language of the people would, very 
 soon after the founding of the Church in that land, be felt to 
 be a necessity. We should have had a direct proof for the 
 early existence of the Peshito, if the ὁ Σύρος once cited by 
 Melito (§ 7) were identical with it. But what is to be under- 
 stood by this Σύρος, often quoted by the Church fathers, is still 
 very uncertain. If, as by the arguments of Field has been 
 at least made probable, ὁ Σύρος was a translation of the 
 Old Testament into Greek circulated in Syria, we shall have to 
 look first of all to the West Syrian regions, where in Melito’s 
 time we should scarcely expect to hear of a Greek translation 
 of the Peshito. Moreover, the passage quoted by Melito 
 (Gen, xxl. 13, κρεμάμενος ἐν σαβέκ) does not at all agree with 
 the present Peshito text. Should we therefore even assume 
 that the Bible had, as early as in the second century, been 
 translated into Syriac, it is still impossible to produce a proof 
 that that old translation was the Peshito; but this will always 
 be regarded as probable since, at least in reference to the Old 
 Testament, there are no indications pointing to a contrary 
 conclusion. About the composition of the translation, apart 
 from some worthless traditions, we know only this one thing, 
 which is also confirmed by Ephrem and Jacob of Edessa, that 
 it was the work of several translators. That the Apocrypha 
 was originally wanting is a new proof of the Jewish character 
 
188 § 70. RELATION OF PESHITO TO SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 of the translation; while, on the other side, the absence of 
 the Book of Chronicles indicates a peculiar attitude on the 
 question of the canon (§ 15). At a later period a large 
 portion of the Syrians, with little reason, abandoned their old 
 independent translation through admiration for the over- 
 estimated LXX., which was several times translated into 
 Syriac (§ 48). The chief leader in this movement was 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, who repeatedly reproaches those who 
 esteemed more highly an unknown translator (ἕνα τινὰ 
 ἀφανῆ) than the seventy-two inspired interpreters. Yet even 
 in the following generations, when the Syrian language had 
 ceased to be spoken, the Peshito was preserved and studied 
 by the Jacobites as well as by the Nestorians, until in modern 
 times, through the labours of missionaries, it has been wakened 
 into a new life. 
 
 On the origin of the Syrian Church proper, compare Nol- 
 deke, GGA, 1880, p. 873; Zahn, Geschichte d. Neutestamentl. 
 Kanons, 1. 369. 
 
 On ὁ Σύρος, see Field, Hexapla, i. p. lxxvii. sqq. He calls 
 attention to the note of Diodorus on Gen. xxxix. ἣν yap 
 ἀνὴρ ἐπιτυγχάνων ἢ κατὰ τὸν Σύρον KaTevodovmevos ; where 
 evidently ἐπιτυγχάνων would suit as well as κατευοδούμενος 
 to represent the Syriac ux, were it only by means of a 
 Greek translation possible to mark this distinction. 
 
 On the legends about the origin of the Peshito, compare, 
 6.0., Wiseman, Hore syriace, 1828, p. 103. 
 
 The statements of Theodore referred to will be found in 
 Mai, Nov. Patr. bibliotheca, vii. 1. 241, 252 f., 263. 
 
 70. Although the Peshito attaches itself to the original 
 text, it still shows here and there, especially in some books, a 
 sort of similarity to the LXX., so that a dependence in this 
 direction must necessarily be assumed. But how far the 
 agreement is capable of explanation by the supposition that 
 the translators during their work may have used the LXX., or 
 that it had been occasioned only by later revisions according to 
 
 \ 
 
 ͵ 
 
§ 70. RELATION OF PESHITO TO SEPTUAGINT. 189 
 
 the Alexandrine translation, has not been as yet determined, 
 and will probably always remain doubtful. The similarity with 
 the LXX. is in all essential respects equally strong in all, even 
 the oldest, manuscripts, and in the quotations of Aphraates, so 
 that such a recasting must in any case have taken place αὖ ἃ 
 very early date. There is not the least probability in favour 
 of the hypothesis of a thoroughgoing revision after the time 
 of Aphraates. 
 
 On the quotations of Aphraates, compare § 15. On those 
 of Ephrem: Spohn, De ratione textus biblici in Ephrami Syri 
 commentarit obvii, 1786. Further, as to how the text-words 
 from Jacob of Edessa must be distinguished from the quota- 
 tions of Ephrem, compare Noldeke, ZDMG, xxxii. 589. 
 [Studia Biblica, 1885, p. 168 ἢ, and note by F. H. Wood in 
 same article, p. 173.] 
 
 Against the idea of a revision of the older translation, 
 especially of such a revision made on the basis of the original 
 text, in the days after Aphraates and Ephrem, Néldeke 
 remarks (ZDMG, xxxi. 589): “First of all, the text-words 
 in Ephrem have no special relation to the quotations from 
 memory by Aphraates in part very imperfectly remembered, 
 so that we could set the text of these two as a unity over 
 against the later text. Further a revision of the Syrian Bible 
 on the basis of the Hebrew after the time of Ephrem is quite 
 inconceivable. Knowledge of the Hebrew was for ever lost 
 among the Syrians with the complete sundering of the Church 
 of Edessa from Judaism. Even Jacob of Edessa, and men of 
 scientific ardour like Jerome, had only learned a few scraps 
 of Hebrew. And how is it to be explained that the Syrians, 
 split up by civil and confessional divisions, Roman and 
 Persian subjects, Catholics, Monophysites, and Nestorians, 
 should yet all have the same Bible if it had owed its origin 
 to so late a revision? Rahlfs (ΖΑ W, ix. 171) has, on the 
 other hand, called attention to a late revision of the trans- 
 lation of the Psalms in some manuscripts undertaken upon 
 the basis of the commentary of Barhebreeus. 
 
190 § 71. CHARACIER OF THE PESHITO. 
 
 On the Syriac Bible’s dependence upon the LXX., com- 
 pare Rahlfs in ZAW, ix. 161 ff, where the assertion of 
 Gottheil that the Bible manuscript used by Barhebreeus had 
 been modified in accordance with the Syrian Hexapla (§ 48) 
 is refuted. Sebok, Die Syrische Uebersetzwng der 12 kleinen 
 Propheten, p. 7; and Cornill, Lzechiel, p. 153 f. It is worthy 
 of mention that the translation of the Book of Chronicles 
 (ὃ 71) is not interpolated on the basis of the LXX. (JPY, 
 v. 758). 
 
 Some Psalm translations in the Old Syrian manuscripts 
 (Codex Ambrosianus, and Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manu- 
 scripts in British Museum, i. 1870, Nos. 169, 179) are 
 remarkable, according to which the Psalms are said to have 
 been translated “from Palestinian into Hebrew, and from 
 thence into Greek, and finally into Syriac.” The light which 
 this passage seems to cast upon the origin of the LXX. is, 
 however, according to Bethgen’s researches, a false lght 
 (JPT, 1882, p. 422 f.). In particular, Bethgen has proved 
 that the Palestinian translation referred to in § 49 can have 
 formed no link midway between the LXX. and the Peshito. 
 Very noticeable is the freedom with which the original 
 superscriptions of the Psalms are left out from the Syrian 
 translation, which, however, according to the statements of 
 the Syrians, was first done through the influence of Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia. The superscriptions which we find in the 
 manuscripts and editions are characterised by many variations, 
 and are taken from the commentaries of the Church fathers, 
 especially from those of Theodore. Compare Bethgen, 
 ZAW, 1885, p. 66 ff.; Wright, Catalogue of Syr. MSS. in 
 Brit. Mus. i. 116 ff. 
 
 71. Considered as a translation, the Peshito, as a whole, 
 takes no mean rank. If it does not reach the elevation of 
 the LXX. in its best parts, it never sinks so low as the 
 Alexandrine translation, which may be convincingly proved if 
 one, ¢.g., compares the Syriac Isaiah with the Greek. Almost 
 everywhere it conveys an intelligible meaning, even though it 
 be not always that of the original, and oftentimes one meets 
 
§ 71. CHARACTER OF THE PESHITO. 191 
 
 with translations which rest upon good tradition or happy 
 divination. Here and there its value is lessened by con- 
 fusions between the Hebrew and the Aramaic dialect, which 
 is surely excusable considering the relationship of the two 
 languages. Worse, and more dangerous for inexperienced 
 critics of the text, is the freedom with which suffixes and 
 verbal forms are sometimes interchanged. In addition to 
 this, there is another circumstance, already adverted to, 
 whereby the importance of the Peshito for textual criticism is 
 very seriously depreciated, namely, its dependence upon the 
 LXX. Where Syrian and Greek agree against the Massoretic 
 text, we can seldom be sure whether the Syrian witness is 
 only an unimportant reduplication of that of the LXX., or 
 whether the original text on which the Syriac was based had 
 actually so read. While the Peshito is otherwise thoroughly 
 distinguished from the Targums by its literalness and close 
 attachment to the original, an exception in this respect is 
 found in the translation of the Book of Chronicles. In this 
 writing, which originally did not belong to the Peshito 
 (ἢ 15), a mere Jewish Targum, with all the peculiarities of 
 such a work, is made use of. Friinkel, who has examined it 
 earefully, conjectures that it had been composed by Jews of 
 Edessa in the third century. 
 
 Prager, De veteris Testamenti versione syriaca questiones 
 critice, 1871. 
 
 On the Pentateuch: Hirzel, De Pentateuchi versionis Syr. 
 quam Peschito vocant indole commentatio, 1825. On Isaiah: 
 Gesenius, Commentar iiberd en Jesaja, i. 81 ff. On Ezekiel: 
 Cornill, zechiel, pp. 136-156. On the Minor Prophets: 
 Credner, De prophetarum minor. versionis Syr. quam Peschito 
 vocant indole diss. 1. 1827; Sebék, Die syrische Uebersctzung 
 der 12 kleinen Propheten und ihr Verhiltniss zu dem massoret. 
 Texte, 1887. Specially on Micah: Ryssel, Untersuchungen 
 tiber die Textgestalt des Buches Micha, p. 169 ff. On the 
 Psalms: Biethgen, Untersuchungen tiber die Psalmen nach der 
 
192 72. CRITICISM OF THE PESHITO TEXT. 
 
 Peschito (Schriften, der Kieler Universitat, xxv.) and JPT, 
 1882, p. 422 ff. On Job: Stenij, De Syriaca libri Jodi 
 interpretatione, 1., Helsingfors 1887. On Ecclesiastes and 
 Ruth: Janichs, Animadversiones ecritice im versionem Syr. 
 Peschitthonianam librorum Koheleth et Ruth, 1871. On 
 Chronicles: Frankel, JP7’, 1879, p. 508 ff. Compare also, 
 Nestle in Herzog’s Real-Eneyclopedie*, xv. 192 ff. 
 
 72. Although the critical establishment of the Peshito text 
 is Indeed still in its infancy, it is even already clear that no 
 important results are to be expected from any future criticism 
 of the text. The two chief Recensions of the Peshito, the 
 Nestorian and the West Syrian, are represented respectively 
 by the Oromiah Bible of the American missionaries of the 
 year 1852, and by the text of the Parisian Polyglot edited 
 by Gabriel Sionita. The latter, after being collated with 
 other manuscripts, was reissued in the London Polyglot, and 
 repeated in Lee’s edition for the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society. The West Syrian group must then, according to 
 Rahlfs, be further divided into three families, the Jacobite, the 
 Melchitian, and the Maronite. One of the most notable of the 
 West Syrian manuscripts is the Codex Ambrosianus of the 
 sixth or seventh century, which has been published by Ceriani 
 in photo-lithography. By comparing the West Syrian with 
 the East Syrian group we shall be able to conclude that there 
 had been a common Syriac text in the times before the 
 division of the Syrian Church in A.D, 485, which has then to 
 be compared, partly with the quotations of Aphraates and 
 Ephrem, partly with a manuscript in the British Museum of 
 the year 464, therefore of the period before the division. 
 
 A further aid in study is the Monophysite Massora on the 
 text which bears the name of the “Karkaphensian,” and 
 proceeded from the cloisters at Chaboras in Mesopotamia. 
 Further also, the daughter versions of the Peshito may be used 
 for the establishment of its text. 
 
§ 72. CRITICISM OF THE PESHITO TEXT. 193 
 
 The Apocrypha, first received at a later period into the 
 Syriac Bible, has been edited by Lagarde. 
 
 The unvocalised edition of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society by Lee, 1823, is, along with the Oromiah Bible, the 
 most useful help for immediate use. The Psalms, vocalised, 
 were edited by Lee, London 1825. Compare on other 
 editions: Bickell, Conspectus ret Syrorum literariw, 1871, 
 p. 6 ff; Nestle, Brevis lingue Syriace grammatica, 1881, 
 p. 13 ff. 
 
 For criticism of the text, compare especially the treatise of 
 Rahlfs in ZA W, 1889, pp. 161-210. 
 
 On the oldest manuscripts, see Ceriani, Memoire del R. 
 Instituto Lombardo di Science ὁ Letteratura, ser. ii. vol. 
 xi. 2; Wright, Catalogue of Syr. MSS. in Brit. Mus. i. 3 f. 
 On the Codex Ussher, a copy, as it seems, of an old Maronite 
 manuscript’ made in the years 1626-1628, now in Oxford, 
 see Rahlfs in ZAW, 1889, p. 195 ff Ceriani, Zranslatio 
 syra Pescitto Vet. Testamenti, Milan 1876-1883. Cornill 
 (EHzechiel, p. 140 ff.) would deny all value to this manuscript, 
 which judgment, however, Rahlfs (p. 181 ff.) vigorously 
 contests. [Gwilliam, “ Account of a Syriac Biblical MS. of 
 the Fifth Century,’ in Studia Biblica, first series 1885, 
 pp. 151-174.] 
 
 On the Syrian Massora, see Wiseman, Hore Syriace, 
 p- 119 ff; Martin, Zradition Karkaphienne, Paris 1870; 
 G. Hoffmann, ZAW, 1881, p. 159 ἢ, ZDMG, xxxii. 745 ; 
 Weingarten, Die syrische Massora nach Bar Hebreus. Der 
 Pentateuch, 1887. [Scrivener, Plain Introduction, p. 333 f. ; 
 Prof. W. Wright of Cambridge in Encyclopedia Brittanica, 
 1887, vol. xxii. 826.] 
 
 On the derivative versions (in the Arabic language), com- 
 pare De Wette-Schrader, Hinleitung, 135. In the Polyglots 
 are: Judges, Ruth, Samuel, 1 Kings i—xi., 2 Kings xii. 17— 
 xxv., Neh. ix. 28—xiii., Job, Chronicles. 
 
 Lagarde, Veteris testamenti apocryphi syriace, 1861. 
 
194 § 73. AIDS FROM WITHIN THE TEXT ITSELF. 
 
 C’.—AIDS FROM WITHIN THE TEXT ITSELF. 
 
 73. Since none of the aids mentioned in the foregoing 
 paragraphs go back to the times of the biblical authors, textual 
 criticism, before it can regard its work as brought to a close, 
 must investigate whether means may be found in the text 
 itself which may serve for the regulating of the text. Indeed, 
 as soon as textual criticism began to strike out a path for itself, 
 it was immediately made very evident that the Old Testament 
 writings do in fact at several points supply such aids as would, 
 if they were used with prudence and circumspection, un- 
 doubtedly lead to sure results. As an example of the sort of 
 aid thus given, we may mention the parallel sections in the 
 Old Testament, which contain the same text, and where the 
 repetition, if the intentionally changed expressions were left 
 out of account, would have a significance similar to what 
 various manuscripts elsewhere have. y., Isa. ΧΧΧΥΙ.--ΧΧΧΙΧ. 
 =9 Kings xviii 30=ex) 195) Jer l=?) Kings 
 Ps. xvili.=2 Sam. xxii.; Ezra 11.=Neh. vii.; also the Book 
 of Chronicles in comparison with the older Historical Books, 
 and the reminiscences of earlier prophets in Jer. xlvi. ff, 
 etc. Further, the forms of Hebrew poetry not seldom afford 
 to the textual critic the means of discriminating: of this 
 order are the generally prevailing parallelism of the clauses, 
 the peculiar rhythm of the Hebrew elegiac poetry, the use 
 here and there of the alphabetic system, the refrains, etc. By 
 means of these forms characteristic of the Old Testament we 
 are led finally to the last criteria of all textual criticism, the 
 universally applicable laws of thought and language, the 
 handling of which, indeed, opens the door to all manner of 
 arbitrariness, but which, nevertheless, above all in writings like 
 those of the Old Testament, must be regarded as indispensable. 
 
 Compare Cappellus, Critica sacra Lib. 2. cap. 3 ; Kichhorn, 
 Einleitung *, i. ὃ 139. 
 
EE 
 RESULTS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 
 A.—THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 
 
 1. Writing Materials. 
 
 74. We know very little about the material and form of 
 the Old Testament autographs. The word 50 signifies 
 originally The Glazed or Smoothed, and indicates nothing 
 about the material; that it may also mean a book roll is 
 shown by Isa. xxxiv. 4. By ppn we are reminded of the 
 times when writings were engraved or scratched in on a solid 
 substance, but in its secondary meaning it is used of any 
 kind of marking (Isa. xlix. 16). The same is true of the 
 synonymous term 077; while the root meaning of n> is 
 uncertain. That in even later times, on particular occasions 
 at least, tablets of a solid substance were used is shown by 
 these passages: Isa. vill. 1, xxx. 8; Hab. 11. 2. Perhaps 
 during the Assyro-Babylonian age brick tablets were known 
 even in Palestine, as Ezekiel refers to them (Ezek. iv. 1, 722). 
 If it was desired to make the engraving of any writing in a 
 very special degree durable, then the stylus or graver (bY, 
 Jer. xvil. 1, or 94, Isa, viii. 1), with a diamond point (Jer. 
 xvii. 1), was used. But ordinarily lighter materials, such as 
 were undoubtedly used for the writing of letters (2 Kings 
 xix. 14), were also naturally employed in the writing of books. 
 Since Herodotus (v. 58) describes the “ Barbarians ” as making 
 
 use of διφθέραι as writing material, and as the Persians also 
 195 
 
196 § 74, WRITING MATERIALS. 
 
 constantly employed material of this sort (compare Ezra 
 vi. 1 f.), the Jews likewise in all probability used the same. 
 This supposition is confirmed by Numb. v. 29, according to 
 which passage what had been written could be washed out 
 with water. But, on the other hand, the report in Jer. 
 XxXxvil. 23 does not favour the use of this material, since the 
 burning of a leather roll would have spread a suffocating 
 smoke through the chamber. Perhaps the use of the papyrus 
 (New Hebrew, 13) was even then known, seeing that it grew 
 in some places in Palestine itself, as, eg. at the Merom Lake. 
 On this material writing was made by means of a dark fluid 
 (1, Jer. xxxvi. 18, compare MDP, a vessel, a scribe’s vessel, an 
 inkstand, Ezek. ix. 2), which was applied by a sharp-pointed 
 (Jer. xxxvi. 23) writer's reed or pen (OY, Jer. vill. 8; Ps. 
 xlv. 2). The usual form of the book was a roll, mpi (compare 
 Jer, axxvi, 186 Baek; n, 9 Ε΄: Zech: Ν᾿. I<: Ps. ΧΕ 8 am 
 Jer. xxxil. 14, where a sealed document is preserved in an 
 earthen vessel). The nina mentioned in Jer. xxxvi. 23 
 signify the several columns of the roll. 
 
 In later times the Epistle of Aristeas and Josephus 
 (Antiquities, xii. 2,10) mention the διφθέραι, and the Talmud 
 names several kinds of more or less prepared skins of animals. 
 For the copies of the Law only skins of clean beasts were 
 used (jer. Meg. i. fol. 71d). The roll form was the usual one 
 (compare Luke iv. 17, 20), and is even yet the obligatory 
 form for manuscripts which are to be used for reading in the 
 synagogues. But by and by another form, that of the Codex, 
 came more and more into use. When this book form, now 
 the ordinary one, which some have wrongly supposed to have 
 been found as early as in the Epistle of Aristeas, became 
 usual among the Jews we do not know. With regard to the 
 idea of the canonicity of Scripture this change was of import- 
 ance, inasmuch as the Codex form made it possible to have 
 all the sacred writings written out in one volume, and thereby 
 
§ 74. WRITING MATERIALS. 197 
 
 to give outward expression to the fact that the canonical 
 books were in a peculiar manner bound together in such a 
 way as excluded all others. Perhaps in the tradition from 
 b. Baba bathra, fol. 130 referred to above at ὃ 10, where the 
 permissibility of the collection of several or all of the sacred 
 writings into one manuscript is discussed, and various 
 authorities from the second and from the end of the first 
 century are cited, we have a reminiscence of the change in 
 the practice of writing called forth by the introduction of the 
 Codex form. For the restoring of the synagogue rolls and 
 the correct copying of the text precise rules are prescribed in 
 Sepher Thora and Masseket Soph*rim (δ 32). The form and 
 material of Bible manuscripts of later times are to be seen in 
 the oldest preserved Codices themselves. They are either 
 synagogue ‘rolls of parchment or leather, or private manu- 
 scripts, most frequently in the Codex form, of parchment, 
 leather, or cotton paper. ‘The oldest manuscript, the Baby- 
 Jonian Codex of the Prophets (δ 28), is written on parchment, 
 in Codex form, with two columns on each page. 
 
 Wahner, Antiquitates Hbreorum, sect. 1, cap. 45; L. Low, 
 Graphische Requisiten wnd Erzeugnisse bei den Juden, Leipsic 
 1870, 1871; Schlottmann in Riehm’s Handwirterbuch, pp. 
 1416-1431; Strack, ZZ7, 1875, pp. 598-601; Herzog’s 
 Real Encyclopedic’, xiii. 689 ff. With reference to similar 
 customs among the Christians, see especially Zahn, Geschichte 
 des Kanons d. N. T. i. 61 ff; The Academy, xxxi. 1887, 
 p. 4150. 
 
 The hypothesis that the Israelites had used papyrus 
 becomes all the more probable when we remember that the 
 Greeks became acquainted with it through their intercourse 
 with the Pheenicians. This is also shown by the very name 
 βίβλος, which is connected with the city of Byblus (Sizwngs- 
 berichte der Wiener Academie, philol.-hist. Class. 1888, cxvi. 
 p. 636). Only at a later date was the name βίβλος exchanged 
 for the name πάπυρος On the signification of πάπυρος 
 
198 8 75. THE OLD AND NEW ALPHABETS. 
 
 compare Lagarde, Mittheilungen, τι. 260 f. Compare generally 
 with regard to papyrus and paper: Oesterr. Monatsblatt fir ὁ. 
 Orient. 1885, Ὁ. 162 ff, 1886, p. 159 ff. On the etymology 
 of διφθέρα compare Lagarde, G'es. Abhandl. p. 216, where also 
 ἡ is considered as belonging to the same root. Bock, Perga- 
 ment, eine culturgesch. Studie; Ocsterr. Buchhindler - Corre- 
 spondenz, xxvi. 1886, Nos. 3-6 (not accessible to me). 
 
 On the Codex form, compare Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, 
 pp. 62, 93, 100, 107, 113. Birt is wrong in supposing that 
 in the word τεῦχος, in the Epistle of Aristeas (Merx, Archiv. 1. 
 p. 67), he finds a proof of the employment of the Codex form; 
 for that τεῦχος is used in that passage of a roll is shown by 
 an earlier passage in the Epistle (p. 44). Compare Zahn, 
 Geschichte des Kanons d. N. T. p. 66. According to the last- 
 named passage, the roll of the Law referred to was made of 
 the skins of animals prepared and joined together in a 
 miraculous way. Birt is also wrong when he seeks the 
 reason for the spread of the Codex form in the fact that 
 skins were cheaper than papyrus. Compare Marquardt, 
 Privatalterthiimer εἰ. Romer, ii. 785 ; Theolog. Literatur-zeitung, 
 1883, p. 459; Wiedemann, Agyptische Geschichte, p. 29 ; Zahn, 
 (teschichte des Kanons d. N. T. p. 71 f. 
 
 Descriptions of the older Old Testament manuscripts have 
 been given above in § 28. 
 
 2. History of the Hebrew Letters. 
 
 75. Were it possible to compare the original manuscripts 
 of the Old Testament with our present texts, the first difference 
 that would attract our attention would be the different forms 
 of the letters. Instead of the square-shaped writing which 
 we have in our present texts, and which is found as the 
 prevalent form even in our oldest manuscripts, we would 
 have seen in these autographs an Old Hebrew style of writing, 
 such as is now known to us through the Siloah inscription of 
 the eighth century before Christ, some seals and weights 
 
§ 75. THE OLD AND NEW ALPHABETS. 199 
 
 found in Nineveh, the coins of the Maccabees and of Bar 
 Cochba, and the Samaritan manuscripts. All these monu- 
 ments are inscribed with a kind of written characters which 
 belongs to the Pheenician branch of the Semitic alphabet ; 
 whereas the square-shaped writing is a development of the 
 Arabic branch, which, just like the Aramaic language (§ 59), 
 obtained a wide currency during and after the period of the 
 Persian dominion. 
 
 The Jews named the old Hebrew writing simply “13¥ 33, 
 “ Hebrew writing,” or sometimes Κ᾿} 3ND and myzia) 2Π5, has 
 variously explained expressions, of which, however, the first 
 probably means “inscription on a coin,” with reference to the 
 use of the old writing on the coins of the Maccabees. The new 
 writing is called by the later Jews Y3}) 3N2, “ square-shaped 
 writing,” in respect of the regular form of the letters, and in the 
 Talmud, "SW8 3nd, “ Assyrian writing.” The latter designation 
 is historically suitable when one remembers that Assyria, 
 even after the overthrow of Nineveh, continued in use as the 
 common name of the districts belonging to the old Assyrian 
 empire, and that it was just in these regions that Aramaic, 
 throughout an ever-increasing radius, became the dominant 
 language. 
 
 Compare Buxtorf (the younger), Dissertat. philol. theol. iv. 
 Basel 1662; Cappellus, Diatribe de veris et antiquis Ebreorum 
 literis, 1645; Dobrowsky, De antiquis Hebrworum charac- 
 teribus, Prague 1783; Kopp, Bilder und Schriften der Vorzett, 
 1821, ii; Hupfeld, 7SK, 1830, p. 289 ff.; De Vogiié, 
 Mélanges darchéologie orientale, Paris 1868; R. N. Cust, 
 Linguistic and Oriental Essays, London 1880, xi1.—xiii.; 
 Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, 
 1890, i—xxix. [Studia Biblica et Lcclesiastica, 3rd series, 
 Oxford 1891, Article ii. by Neubauer, “ The Introduction of the 
 Square Characters in Biblical MSS., and an Account of the 
 Earliest MSS. of the Bible (with three Facsimiles), pp. 
 1-36.] 
 
200 § 75. THE OLD AND NEW ALPHABETS. 
 
 The Pheenician style of writing, from which the European 
 alphabets and the South Arabic-Ethiopic writing are derived, 
 was made use of by the Phcenicians and other Canaanites. 
 The most important memorial of it is the Moabite Stone of 
 Mesha of the ninth century before Christ (Smend and Socin, 
 Ne Inschrift des Konigs Mesa von Moab. 1886). The Aramaic 
 style of writing, of which the oldest representatives are some 
 seals and weights found in Assyria and Babylon, and the old 
 Aramaic Taimain style of writing (Berichte der Berliner 
 Academie, 1884, p. 815) are found widely spread among the 
 Palmyrenes and Nabateans, and, during the Persian age, also 
 in Egypt. From this Aramaic writing are derived the Syriac, 
 Cufic, and Arabic alphabets, as well as the Pehlewi alphabet, 
 and also the Avesta writing (Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 11. 38 ff.). 
 On the Siloah inscription: ZDMG, xxxvi. p. 725 ff.; ZDPYV, 
 1,54 f, iv. 102 ff,.250 ff, 260 ff, v. 250 1; Quarieriy 
 Statement of Palestine Exploration Fund, 1881, p. 141 ff; 
 Académie des inser. et des belles lettres, 1882, p. 199 ff On 
 fixing the dates, see also Quarterly Statement of Palestine 
 Exploration Fund, 1889, p. 35 ff. On the seals and weights 
 with Hebrew writing: Levy, Siegel und Gemmen, 1869 ; 
 Ganneau in Journal asiatique, 1883, 1, 123 ff, 11. 304 1 
 On the coins: De Saulcy, Recherches sur la numismatique 
 Judaique, 1854; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, 1864 ; 
 Schiirer, Geschichte des jiid. Volkes, 1.19, Eng. trans. Div. i. 
 vol. 1.23. 
 
 On the Jewish names for the two alphabets, see Low, 
 Graphische Requisiten, 11. 53 tf.; Berliner, Beitrdge zur hebr. 
 Grammatik in Talmud und Midrasch, 1879, p. 6; and especially 
 by Hoffmann, 74 W, 1881, p. 334 ff. Instead of yy, the word 
 is often read yy, but the correctness of the former reading 
 is proved by the statement of Epiphanius “ deession, which 
 is interpreted insculptum” (Opera ed. Dindorf, 1863, iv. 215). 
 The Somahirenus writing, there also referred to, is inter- 
 preted by Lagarde (Mittheilungen, ii. 257) to mean W 8D, 
 Labbonaa (b. Sanh. 210) is connected by G. Hoffmann with 
 the city n25, Judges xxi. 19 (now El-Leben), south of Nablus, 
 where probably there was a Samaritan school. Halévy, 
 
§ 76. INTRODUCTION OF SQUARE-SHAPED WRITING. 201 
 
 Mélanges de Crit. 1883, p. 435, conjectures in place of manda, 
 the form mybpy, ze. “from Neapolis ” or Shechem. 
 
 On the name Assyria in later times, compare Lam. v. 6; 
 azra vi. 22; Herodotus, i. 106, 192, iii, 92; Strabo, xvi. 
 1.1; Josephus, Antiquities, xiii. 6. 7; Hupfeld, TSA, 1890, 
 p. 289 ff.; ZAW, ii. 292 ff, iv. 208. 
 
 76. When the Talmud ascribes the introduction of the 
 new style of writing to Ezra, this is in the first instance an 
 example of the Jewish inclination to assoviate the change 
 with a celebrated name, but there certainly lies in the tradi- 
 tion this element of truth, that the change was brought about 
 not by the people, but by the scribes, who walked in the steps 
 of Ezra. On the other hand, the use of the old style of 
 writing on the coins of the Maccabees was a thoroughly popular 
 and national act, which moreover presupposes that at that 
 time the old alphabet must still have been to some extent in 
 practical use. It was not until the time of Christ that the 
 Aramaic writing became that of the people (Matt. v. 18). 
 We have, on the other hand, in the interesting inscription of 
 the year 176 before Christ, which is found in the tower 
 built by Hyrcanus at Arak-el-Emir, east of the Jordan, brief 
 as it is,—it contains only the word m‘ny,—a mixed form, 
 in which both styles are combined, which perhaps was 
 typical of the practice of that time. But in the Bible manu- 
 scripts of that day the new style of writing had already 
 long been in common use. Unfortunately we are not able 
 to follow out the course of development in detail. That the 
 Samaritans in their Bible manuscripts adhered to the use 
 of the old alphabet, though indeed in a peculiar form, is 
 proved by the fact that the Torah rolls were still being 
 written in the old style when the Law was adopted by the 
 Samaritans (ὃ 11). On the other hand, the much discussed 
 question as to whether the texts used by the Alexandrine 
 translators were written in the old style of writing or in the 
 
202 § 76. INTRODUCTION OF SQUARE-SHAPED WRITING. 
 
 new, must be answered in favour of the latter alternative, 
 since the confounding of letters which occur here and there 
 throughout the translation favours such a supposition. It is 
 also in agreement with this that the name myn read at first, 
 as it seems, in the Alexandrine translation unchanged was 
 read IIIIII by the Greeks and others, which was possible 
 only as the transcription of the word written in the new 
 style, since the name in the old Hebrew writing had a quite 
 different appearance. Probably the fact was this, that the 
 new writing had even by that time been long in use in the 
 Bible manuscripts, while the two styles of writing continued 
 alongside of one another for ordinary purposes. That the 
 synagogue inscriptions, and the inscriptions on the tombs of 
 priests from and after the time of Christ are in the new 
 style of writing is what might be expected. 
 
 On the opinions of later Jews regarding the introduction 
 of the square-shaped writing, compare jer. Meg. i. 11, fol. 
 1106; ὃ. Sanh. 216; Origen ii. 5294 (Lagarde, Nove Psal- 
 terit greci editiones specimen 9): ἔστι δέ τι τετραγράμμα- 
 τον ἀνεκφώνητον map’ αὐτοῖς. . . Kal λέγεται μὲν τῇ 
 ᾿Αδωναΐ προσηγορίᾳ, οὐχὶ τούτου γεγραμμένου ἐν τῷ τετρα- 
 γραμμάτῳ, παρὰ δὲ “Ἕλλησι τῇ Κύριος ἐκφωνεῖται" καὶ ἐν 
 τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἑβραίοις χαρακτῆρσι 
 κεῖται τὸ ὄνομα, ἐβραϊκοῖς δὲ οὐ τοῖς νῦν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀρχαι- 
 οτάτοις" φασὶ γὰρ τὸν "Εσδραν ἐν τῇ αἰχμαλωσίᾳ ἑτέρους 
 αὐτοῖς χαρακτῆρας παρὰ τοὺς προτέρους παραδεδωκέναι. 
 Jerome, «Ῥ ριδίοία 25 ad Marcellam: “Nonum (nomen det) est 
 tetragrammaton, quod ineffabile putaverunt, quod his literis 
 scribitur Jod, E, Vau, E. Quod quidam non intelligentes 
 propter elementorum similitudinem, quam in Grecis libris 
 repererint, Pi Pi legere consueverunt.” Prolog. galeatus: 
 “Viginti et duas esse litteras apud Hebreos Syrorum 
 quoque et Chaldzorum lingua testatur que Hebreee magna 
 ex parte confinis est, nam et ipsi viginti duo elementa habent 
 eodem sono sed diversis characteribus. Samaritani etiam 
 Pentateuchum Mosi totidem literis scriptitant, figuris tantum 
 
§ 76. INTRODUCTION OF SQUARE-SHAPED WRITING. 203 
 
 et apicibus discrepantes. Certumque est Ezram _ scribam 
 legisque doctorem post capta Hierosolyma et instaurationem 
 templi sub Zorobabel alias literas reperisse quibus nune 
 utimur, cum ad illud usque tempus iidem Samaritanorum et 
 Hebreorum characteres fuerint. . . . Et nomen Domini tetra- 
 srammaton in quibusdam grecis voluminibus usque hodie 
 antiquis expressum literis invenimus.” 
 
 The proper origin of the transcription is even yet a matter of 
 controversy. Epiphanius (in the passage referred to in ὃ 75, 
 see Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 11. 256 f.) says: “ Hesdra ascen- 
 dens a Babylone, volensque discernere Israel a reliquis gentibus, 
 ut genus Habrahe non videretur esse permixtum cum habit- 
 atoribus terre [yoxn oy], qui tenent quiden legem, non tamen 
 et prophetas, immutavit pristinam formam relinquens deessenon, 
 propter quod ea forma a Samaritanis przeoccupata jam fuerat.” 
 But it is less probable that the Samaritans should have tran- 
 scribed the Law adopted by the Jews in the earlier characters, 
 than that they should have ignored the transcription intro- 
 duced after their adoption of the Law. If it be therefore 
 improbable that Ezra should have already introduced this 
 change, this makes it all the more likely that the change 
 originated in the school of Scripture expositors imported from 
 Babylon, of whom Ezra was the type (Ezra vii. 16; Neh. 
 vill. 7, 9), and that the members of this school were led to 
 take this step for polemical reasons. Much more hazardous 
 is the conjecture made by G. Hoffmann in ZAW, i. 377, 
 after Scheppig, based upon Isa. villi. 1, that the Aramaic 
 writing had been in use among priests and statesmen even 
 before the exile. 
 
 On the inscription of Hyrcanus, compare De Vogué, Temple 
 de Jérusalem, 1864, pp. 38—42, pl. xxxiv.—xxxv., and especi- 
 ally Ndéldeke’s Note, ZDMG, xix. 640, which seems still 
 unknown to the authors of the Survey of Eastern Palestine, 
 1889, pp. 65-87, where the ruins of Arak-el-Emir are fully 
 described. The Jewish inscriptions are now collected in 
 Chwolson’s Corpus inscriptionum Hebraicarum, 1882 (with a 
 large table of different styles of writing by Euting). [See 
 also table of early Semitic alphabets by Professor Briinnow, 
 
204 ὃ 76. INTRODUCTION OF SQUARE-SHAPED WRITING. 
 
 as frontispiece to Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, 3rd series, 
 1891. Compare also Clermont-Ganneau, Epitaphes hébrai- 
 ques et grecques sur les ossuaires juifs, Paris 1883, and the 
 Palmyrene synagogue inscription in the Berichte der Berliner 
 Academie, 1884, p. 933 ff. On the forgeries of Firkowitzsch, 
 compare what is said above in § 27. 
 
 On the importance of the Septuagint for the question 
 treated in the above paragraph, compare Bottcher, Aws/iihr- 
 liches Lehrbuch d. hebr. Sprache, i. 37 f.; Bickell, ZDMG, 
 xvii. 379; De indole ae ratione versionis alex. in inter- 
 pretando libri Joli, p. 8 ff.; Merx, Hob. lxiii. ff.; JPT, 
 1883, p. 70; Vogué, Mélanges de Crit. p. 167; and especially 
 Vollers, ZA W, 1883, p. 229 ff. 
 
 On ΠΙΠῚ in the LXX. and among the fathers, compare 
 the remarks of Origen and Jerome quoted on p. 202; 
 Lagarde, Nove Psalterii greci editiones specimen 9 ; Euagrius 
 in Lagarde, Onomasticon i. 205 f., and especially ZDMG, 
 xxxll. 466 ff. Noteworthy is the remark of Origen that the 
 name of God in the Greek Bibles (for so the passage 
 is certainly to be understood, see ZDMG, xxxii. 467) was 
 written in “Old Hebrew” characters. Wellhausen- Bleek 
 (Linlevtung, p. 629) is certainly wrong in seeking to vindi- 
 cate this statement by a reference to the inscription of 
 Hyrcanus (“it is therefore certain that the LXX. had found 
 Jahve, not in the characters ΠΙΠῚ, for the yod has still an 
 entirely different form on the inscription of Arak-el-Emir ”) ; 
 for the writing in profane literature and that of the Bible 
 manuscripts of the pre-exilian age cannot be assumed without 
 more ado to be parallel. If it be further considered that 
 Origen says nothing of a contrariety between the Septuagint 
 manuscripts in the use of the Old Hebrew and New Hebrew, 
 mim, although the latter must still have been the presupposi- 
 tion of IIIIII, and that Jerome, who expressly speaks of the 
 ITIIII, simply repeats what Origen had said, it is probable that 
 the remark of Origen rests on a misunderstanding, which perhaps 
 arose from this, that the min’ had been written after a some- 
 what old-fashioned pattern. On the other hand, its appear- 
 ance in Old Hebrew is shown on the Mesha tablet, line 18. 
 
§ 77. TYPES OF SQUARE-SHAPED WRITING. 905 
 
 It is interesting also to find that this Pipi was adopted by 
 the Hebrew-speaking Jews, see jer. Nedarim, fol. 42c. The 
 conjecture of Griitz, WGWJ, 1886, pp. 60-73, that the form 
 IIIIII was to be met with in a Septuagint manuscript inter- 
 polated with Samaritan additions, is wrong, because conflicting 
 with the words of Origen: τοὶς ἀκριβεστέροις τῶν ἀντιγρά- 
 gov. Besides, ITIIII is also met with outside the Pentateuch. 
 
 77. Among the Jews the Aramaic alphabet assumes the 
 regular and distinct forms of the square-shaped character, and 
 has continued in this form pretty nearly unchanged down 
 the present day. The variations, of which occasionally 
 mention is made, are very trifling, as eg. that πὶ in the earliest 
 times looked like n (jer. Meg. i. 9), which, moreover, ΠΙΠῚ 
 for myn’ also testifies to (ὃ 76). In the manuscripts a distine- 
 tion between the somewhat rectangular “Tam” writing on an> 
 of the German and Polish Jews and the rounded “ Welsh” 
 writing why ana of the ‘Spanish and Oriental Jews (compare 
 § 27). Sometimes also manuscripts were written in other 
 styles of writing, e.g., the so-called Rashi writing, a kind of 
 cursive hand. Of a quite singular description are the manu- 
 scripts of the Karaites, mentioned above in ὃ 28, from the 
 tenth to the fourteenth century written in Arabic letters. 
 
 The so-called “ final letters” are often referred to in the 
 Talmud (eg. ὃ. Sabb. 104a; Sanh. 94a, 98); Meg. 2b, 3a; 
 jer. Meg.i. 11, fol. 716; compare Soph’rim ii. p. v.), as also by 
 Jerome (δ 7). From a portion of the numerous instances 
 in which the LXX. divides the words otherwise than is done 
 in the Massoretic Text —eg. B. Nah. i. 12 omy ox LXX. 
 ow Sun; Zech. xi. 11 LXX. νον: Ps. xvi. 3, LXX. ayia 
 "ys ain; Zeph. iii. 19, LXX. yoynd ynx; Jer. xxiii. 33, LXX. 
 ons xvin,—we might conclude that these letters were foreign 
 to the Hebrew texts used by the Alexandrine translators. 
 Yet this conclusion, although probable, is not absolutely 
 certain, since the divergent division may have originated in 
 
206 § 77. TYPES OF SQUARE-SHAPED WRITING. 
 
 older manuscripts prior to the time of transcription. The last- 
 named examples show besides that Makkef is a sign that was 
 only subsequently introduced. The final letters, the existence 
 of which is witnessed to by inscriptions prior to the birth of 
 Christ, were formed only to suit the convenience of writers, 
 since their number (five) is quite arbitrary. 
 
 In the days of Jerome the diacritical point over yw was 
 not in use, nor was the point Daghesh. JBoth signs are 
 connected together with the more recently introduced system 
 of points. 
 
 With great fidelity the irregularities of form and size in 
 particular letters were preserved in the manuscripts, and 
 subsequently in the editions. To these belong the so-called 
 litere majuscule (eg. Deut. xviii. 13, xxx. 6; Ps. lxxx. 16, 
 Ixxxiv. 4; Ruth i. 13). Even in the Talmud some of these 
 are referred to (b. Kidd. 666: Num. xxv. 12; ὃ. Kidd. 30a: 
 Lev. xi. 42; Meg. 160: Esther ix. 9), and in the book 
 Soph*rim ix. Ὁ. xv. we already meet with their technical name. 
 Further, the so-called literw suspense, which are mentioned as 
 early as in the Babylonian Talmud (Kidd. 30a: Ps. Ixxx. 14; 
 Sanh. 1086: Job xxxviil. 13-15), to which also may be 
 added Judg. xvii. 30 (ὃ 97). An irregular final p is met 
 with an Aixod...xxxi δ; Num, was 2: ὦ dhe wso-caltedies 
 inverse and puncta extraordinaria have been already referred 
 to in § 35. Compare further, § 99. 
 
 The ornamental little strokes (“ crowns” ona, 12, pst) 
 which are to be met with in manuscripts over particular 
 letters, are mentioned even by ὦ. Menachoth 29b, Sabb. 9a, 
 105a. In the Crimean Synagogue rolls they were in an 
 unusual way placed over some words, especially over words 
 written too high. 
 
 The Talmudical remarks on the form of the letters are 
 collected in Berliner, Bettrdge zur hebr. Gramm. in Talmud, 
 p. 15 ff On the later types of writing, compare Hupfeld, 
 
 Ὁ’ 
 
§ 78. ORIGIN OF THE VOWEL SIGNS. 207 
 
 TSK, 1830, p. 278; Levy, Geschichte der jiid. Miinzen, 1862, 
 p- 145; Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, 1845, p. 206 f.; 
 Eichhorn, Hinleitung, iii. ὃ 377; Baer, Liber Jesaia, vii.; Low, 
 Graphische Requisiten, ii. 72 ff.; Euting, ZDMG, xlii. 313 ff. 
 and above §§ 27-28. 
 
 On the final letters see Hupfeld, 7'SK, 1830, p. 256 ff.; 
 J. Miiller, Masseket Soph*rim, 40; Wellhausen-Bleek, Zin- 
 leitung, p. 637; Berliner, Beitrége, p. 25 ff. and the table of 
 written characters by Euting in Chwolson’s Corpus inscript. 
 hebr. [or the Table by Professor Briinnow in Studia Biblica, 
 3rd Series, 1891, frontispiece]. On w compare Jerome on 
 Hab. ui. 4; Amos iv, 13, viii. 12. On Daghesh, Jerome on 
 Gen. xxxvi. 24 (damim=maria). 
 
 The litere majuscule and minuscule are given by Frens- 
 dorff, Ochla W*ochla, Nos. 82-84 (compare No. 161). Further, 
 Strack, Prolegomena, pp. 91-93; Baer and Strack, Dikduke, 
 5 8} a 
 
 On the “ crowns,” Hupfeld, 7SK, 1830, p. 270 ἢ; Bargés, 
 Sepher tagin, Paris 1866; Journal asiatique, 1867, ix. 
 242 ff.; ZLT, 1875, p. 601; Low, Graphische Requisiten, 
 ii. 68. 
 
 3. Vocalisation and Accentuation. 
 
 78. The signs mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs were 
 composed originally exclusively of consonants, while the 
 vowels, as in the other oldest branches of the Semitic 
 languages, were left wholly without any written visible 
 indication. The vowel signs now commonly used were only 
 introduced at a later date, and so they are even to this day 
 excluded from the rolls that are written out for use in the syna- 
 gogues (§ 74), while in other manuscripts at least the rule was 
 observed, that the one who added the points, 172, was another 
 than the transcriber proper, 7550, 
 
 The recollection of the later origin of the vowel points was 
 never altogether lost sight of. Mar Natronai 11., Gaon in 
 Sura 859-869, says expressly, that the pointing was not given 
 
208 § 78. ORIGIN OF THE VOWEL SIGNS. 
 
 contemporaneously with the Law on Sinai, but had its origin in 
 later times. And in the following century, Menahem ben 
 Sarug and Judah Chajjug express themselves in similar 
 terms. Christian writers also, like Raimund Martin in the 
 thirteenth century and Nicholas von Lyra in the fourteenth 
 century, maintained the historically correct view, which 
 finally found an acute and able vindicator in the learned Jew 
 Elias Levita (compare ὃ 31). From these men the Reformers 
 adopted the correct theory, which found in succeeding ages 
 distinguished representatives in Sebast. Miinster, Fagius, 
 Piscator, Scaliger, Drusius, Cappellus, etc. But, meanwhile, 
 another theory had been spreading, first among the Jews 
 (especially among the Karaites), and then subsequently among 
 Christians, according to which the vowel points were equally 
 with the consonants an original element in the Scriptures. In 
 a special manner, too, the purely mechanical development of 
 the Protestant theory of inspiration led many to do battle 
 against a view which made possible a distinction between the 
 original sense of the text and the apprehension of it fixed by 
 the pointing. As the most distinguished Christian repre- 
 sentatives of the theory of the originality of the vowel points 
 we may name, Matth. Flacius, Junius, Gomarus, J. Gerhard, 
 and especially the two Buxtorfs. Owing to the dogmatic 
 significance which the question had come to assume, a concus- 
 sion became absolutely inevitable. An occasion was given by the 
 publication of the treatise of Cappellus, Arcanum punctationis 
 revelatum, which Erpenius, without mentioning the author’s 
 name, published in 1624. Not till 1648 did the reply 
 appear of the younger Buxtorf, Tractatus de punetorum et 
 accentuum in libris V. T. hebraicis origine, antiquitate et 
 auctoritate, in which he sought to vindicate against Cappellus 
 the theory that had been maintained by his father. ‘This 
 theory found also an advocate in Denmark in J. J. 
 Bircherodius, who in 1687 published a treatise Punctorwm 
 
§ 78. ORIGIN OF THE VOWEL SIGNS. 209 
 
 Ebraicorum authentice et biblice vindicia. The arguments 
 of Cappellus, however, in spite of some flaws, proved so con- 
 clusive, that all opposition was vain. Equally unavailing 
 was the acknowledgment on the part of the Swiss in their 
 confessional writings of the authority of the traditional 
 pronunciation. The view maintained by Cappellus prevailed 
 more and more, and had indeed already been long an acquisi- 
 tion acknowledged by all, when new discoveries confirmed 
 it in a surprising manner, and at the same time began to 
 spread light to some extent upon the dark question of the 
 origin of the pointing. 
 
 Compare Schnedermann, Die Controverse des L. Cappellus 
 mit den Buxtorfern, 1879; Hersmann, Zur Geschichte des 
 Streites tiber die Entstehung d. hebr. Punctation. Progr. d. 
 Realgymn. MRuhrort. 1885 (unknown to me). 
 
 The saying of Mar-Natronai’s referred to is quoted by Luz- 
 zatto, Kerem chemed, 111. 200. On other Rabbis, compare Journal 
 asiatique, 1870, xvi. 468, and Ginsburg’s edition of Elias 
 Levita’s Massoreth ha-massoreth referred to in § 31. For an 
 opposite statement, we may refer to Aaron ben Asher, see 
 Baer and Strack, Dikduke, p. 11. 
 
 Raimund Martin (Pugio jfidei, Leipsic 1687, p. 697) on 
 Hosea ix. 12, Scribe punctarunt “wa (ie. incarnatio mea et 
 derivatur a WA ᾳ.6. caro) sicut punctatur “wa quod est: im 
 Tecesso Me. 
 
 Luther on Gen. xlvii. 31 (Opera lat. Erlang. xi. 85): 
 “Tempore Hieronymi nondum sane videtur fuisse usus punc- 
 torum, sed absque illis tota Biblia lecta sunt. Recentiores 
 vere Hebros, qui judicium de vero sensu et intellectu linguze 
 sibi sumunt, qui tamen non amici, sed hostes Scripture sunt, 
 non recipio. Ideo spe contra puncta pronuntio, nisi con- 
 gruat prior sententia cum novo testamento.” Compare Calvin 
 on Zechariah xi. 7 (Prelectiones in 12 Prophetas, 1581, p. 676), 
 and Zwingli, Prefatio in apologiam complanationis Isaie (Opera 
 ed. Schuler and Schultheis, v. 556), 
 
 Formula cons. Helvet. Can. ii.: “In specie autem Hebraicus 
 Veteris Test. Codex, quem ex traditione ecclesiz Judaice, cui 
 
 O 
 
210 § 79. HALF VOWELS AS VOWEL SIGNS. 
 
 olim Oracula Dei commissa sunt, accepimus hodieque retine- 
 mus, tum quoad consones, tum quoad vocales, sive puncta ipsa, 
 sive punctorum saltem potestatem, cet.” 
 
 79. The Hebrew writing was at first, like its Semitic sisters, 
 exclusively a consonantal writing, a sketch with the pen of 
 the speech, familiarity with which as a living language, 
 together with the connection of context, without difficulty 
 contributed the colour, ze. the vowels. It was only when 
 Hebrew became a dead language, in which tradition and study 
 supplied the place of the knowledge that comes from daily use, 
 the need was felt of devising a system of visible vocalisation. 
 
 The first means devised consisted in a wider development 
 of the germ already lying in the old system of writing. In 
 those passages where the written indication of the vowel 
 sound seemed specially desirable, letters were added without 
 hesitation, which originally were signs of the consonants con- 
 nected with the vowels, as direct signs of the corresponding 
 vowels. They were not then in any danger of affixing to the 
 text their own private interpretation. That these letters (1, 
 less frequently δ), which are often designated by the less cor- 
 rect name matres lectionis, were subsequently used to a very 
 much greater extent than they were originally, is clearly 
 proved from a variety of facts. On the Moabite Stone of 
 Mesha (§ 75) they are practically not present at all. On the 
 Siloah inscription they appear only as signs of diphthongs; 
 while the coins of the Maccabees have indeed on, alongside 
 of osm, but only Stn joan. The old versions, above all the 
 LXX., translate often in a way which would have been simply 
 impossible had the text already at that time had the scriptio 
 _plena which it has now; for’ example, Amos ix. 12, os, 
 xX. ose: Hosea xn. 12. onw, LXXO ee: Woh ee 
 pap, Trg. Syr. pp: Ezek. xxxu. 29, pos, LXX oie τὰν 
 the Babylonian Talmud (Xidd. 30a) it is expressly said: “ We 
 have not more exact information about the scriptio plena and 
 
 * 
 
; 
 Ι 
 
 8 79. HALF VOWELS AS VOWEL SIGNS. “ΤῈ 
 
 defectiva ; and finally, the diversities between the manuscripts 
 in almost all cases arise from the different placing of the half 
 vowels.” 
 
 How incomplete even these means were is shown from the 
 fact that the short vowels were left wholly without any mark- 
 ing, and the special tone of the long vowels could not be made 
 plain to the eye. Thus } might be either @ or 6, » might be 1 
 or é, 7 final might be either 6 or ὦ ore. Yet Hebrew writing 
 continued to occupy this standpoint for more than five hundred 
 years after Christ. Proof of this is afforded in abundance by 
 the older Jewish and Christian memorials. Fathers of the 
 Church, like Origen and Jerome, knew, indeed, a particular 
 pronunciation of the Hebrew text, but they had only their 
 Jewish teachers to thank for this, and not any system of sigus. 
 Whenever.any exact statement had to be made about vocalisa- 
 tion, the use of a half vowel was the only graphic means 
 whereby this could be visibly represented. So, too, in the 
 Talmud, which in controversial cases either used the half 
 vowels or left it to the readers to determine the intended 
 pronunciation (e.g. ὃ Sanh. 4a). Also Sepher Thora and Masseket 
 Soph’rim prove the same thing by their silence; since they 
 forbid the use of the Soph pasuk in the Torah rolls (§ 84), 
 they would have still more determinedly have forbidden the 
 use of the vowel signs, had these then really been in existence. 
 A faithful picture of the state of matters at that time is given 
 in the synagogue rolls, where all later marks of pointing are 
 wanting, while the Samaritan Pentateuch manuscripts (ὃ 29) 
 are satisfied with indicating the special pronunciation of par- 
 ticular words by means of a diacritical line over the consonants, 
 
 Compare Chwolson, Die Quiescenten yn in der althebriischen 
 Orthographie, Verhandl. Oriental Congress, ii. 459 — 490; 
 Wellhausen-Bleek, Hinleitung, p. 634 ff. In the other 
 Semitic languages also half vowels were commonly used as 
 vowel letters, but in various degrees, The Arabic employed 
 
342 § 79. HALF VOWELS AS VOWEL SIGNS. 
 
 them strictly only for long vowels, while in an increasing 
 measure we find them used for short vowels in the Syriac 
 writings of Palestinian Christians and Jews. This means of 
 vocalisation was finally carried out in a systematic way in 
 the Mandean writing, where, however, y also in several cases 
 appears as a vowel sign (Noldeke, Mandéische Grammatik, 
 p. 3 ff.). Further, also, of a similar character is the use of 
 sy in the Jewish transcription of modern languages, and 
 finally, the use of the letters xnmy in the Greek alphabet. 
 Compare Lagarde, Mitthetlungen, 11. 39 ff., who at the same 
 time treats of the Avesta writings in this connection. The 
 Karaites constructed a most peculiar phonetic style of writing 
 in their Bible manuscripts written with Arabic letters. See 
 Hoerning, Sechs karait. Manuscr. 1x. sqq. The warning of 
 Noldeke (ZDMG, xxxii. 593) against considering the ortho- 
 graphy of the Mesha tablet without further examination 
 as Old Hebrew has recently been justified by the Siloah 
 inscription. While the diphthongs on the stone of Mesha 
 are not indicated by signs, the Siloah inscription has sy, ssi, 
 etc. On the other hand, it has still ws for ws, 5p for dip, Ἂν 
 for 1. Compare ZDPV, v. 206. So, too, wx in this 
 inscription shows that cases in the Old Testament like tnn 
 for tnxn, ‘ny’ for ‘nsx’, where an etymological 8 has been 
 omitted, must be treated as exceptions, Of special im- 
 portance in connection with textual criticism is the question, 
 whether the final vowels in Hebrew had been originally un- 
 marked. Compare Gramm. xxv. p. 33. 
 
 The Talmudic snpod ox mater lectionis indicates a proof 
 drawn directly from the traditional reading in opposition to 
 ποῦ ox, which is used if the proof is drawn from the 
 abstract possibilities of the text. See Hupfeld, 7S, 1830, 
 p- 556; Strack, Prolegomena, p. 69; Wellhausen-Bleek, 
 Einieitung, p. 616. And on the other side, eg. Levy, Newheb. 
 Worterbuch, 1. 92. 
 
 Ewald (Lehrbuch d. hebr. Sprache, § 20 f.) is wrong in con- 
 cluding from the words of Origen (De la Rue, iv. 141): πάλιν 
 τῷ Ιουδὰ παῤ ἡμῖν μὲν ὁ δεύτερος ᾿Αυνὰν εἶναι λέγεται, Tapa 
 δε ᾿Εβραίοις ᾽Ωνάν 6 ἐστιν πόνος αὐτῶν, “that our Massora 
 
§ 80, THE NEW VOWEL SIGNS. 213 
 
 then existed essentially in the one form or in the other. The 
 true relationship is seen from the remarks of Jerome. He 
 also frequently points (eg. in Jonah iii. 4) to the proper 
 pronunciation, but this he had from his Jewish teachers, to 
 whom he often refers (eg. in Amos iii, 11; Zeph. iii. 9). 
 That he knew no system of points is evident from many of 
 his remarks (6... on Hab. iii. 5): “Pro eo quod nos trans- 
 tulimus mortem in Hebreo tres liter posite sunt: Daleth, 
 Beth, Res, absque ulla vocali, que si legantur da@ar ‘ verbum’ 
 significant, si deber ‘ pestem’;” (on Hosea xiii. 3): “ Apud 
 Hebreos locusta et fumarium iisdem scribitur literis Aleph, 
 Res, Beth, He. Quod si legatur arbe ‘locusta’ dicitur, si 
 aroba, ‘fumarium.’” By vocales he understands the half 
 vowels referred to, ¢.g. on Isaiah xxxviii. 14: “ Media vocalis 
 litera Vau si ponatur inter duas Samach, legitur ‘sus’ et 
 appellatur equus, si Jod legitur ‘sis’ et hirundo dicitur.” The 
 word accentus means with him the pronunciation of the word, 
 eg. Epist. 73, Ad Huagrium: “Nec refert utrum Salim aut 
 Salem nominatur, cum vocalibus in medio literis perraro 
 utuntur Hebrei, et pro voluntate lectorum atque varietate 
 regionum eodem verba diversis sonis atque accentibus pro- 
 ferantur.” Compare Hupfeld, 7K, 1830, p. 571 ff. Nowack, 
 Die Bedeutung d Hier. fiir αἰ. Alttestamentl. Texthritik, p. 43 ff. 
 
 In the Talmud pp: means, either the abnormal points 
 mentioned in § 35, or the angles and corners of the letters, 
 eg. jer. Chag. ii. 2, fol. 770. 
 
 80. The insufficiency of the means described in § 79 led 
 the Jews to seek out a new and more certain system, which, 
 as Aaron ben Asher (§ 32) expresses it, might help the 
 reader to avoid confounding 83) with 812, MY with Td, 
 ἦν with sy. In the choosing of a means for the attainment 
 of this end, owing to the view of Scripture then prevailing, all 
 systems were ἃ priori excluded which would have involved an 
 alteration of the traditional letters, so that, 6.., there could be 
 no thought of such an invention as the Ethiopic alphabet. 
 What had to be done rather was to discover a system, which 
 
214 § 80. THE NEW VOWEL SIGNS. 
 
 would not make the vowel signs appear of equal importance 
 with the old letters. In this way the present well-known 
 vowel system had its origin. It consists, as we know it, of 
 simple points and strokes, and so for the most part reminds 
 one of the East Syrian pointing. And seeing now that this 
 system of signs can be traced back to the fifth century, it 
 must be always regarded as a possibility that the inventors of 
 the Hebrew system had been influenced by the Syrian. 
 Although the origin of the Hebrew system of pointing still 
 lies in obscurity, it has yet become possible by means of 
 Firkowitzsch’s rich collection of manuscripts to mark within 
 limits to some extent the period of its origin. While indeed, 
 as already remarked, the post-Talmudic treatises Sepher Thora 
 and Masseket Soph*’rim knew of no system of signs, it is proved 
 from statements in these manuscripts that the punctuator 
 Aaron (δὲ 30. 32), living in the first half of the tenth century, 
 belonged to a family which occupied itself through five 
 generations with the pointing of the text, whose oldest 
 member, Asher ha-Zakken, must have flourished as early as 
 the eighth century. According to this the origin of the 
 pointing must be assigned to the seventh or eighth century. 
 
 The sign for @ in the usual system might be considered an 
 abbreviated δὲ, as in the system spoken of in ὃ 81. But in 
 many manuscripts (as in the South Arabic, compare Journal 
 asiatique, 1870, 11. 363, and in the Karaite facsimiles of 
 Hoerning), Kametz has the form —, which probably was the 
 original, | 
 
 On the forefathers of Aaron, compare 7SK, 1875, p. 745; 
 ZLT, 1875, p.612£.; Baer and Strack, Dikduke, x. In opposi- 
 tion to the ordinary view, Griitz seeks with unwearied zeal to 
 prove that Aaron was a Karaite. See Geschichte der Juden, 
 Woo ἢ, MOWS, 1891. p. 366, 1650) p Ὁ 
 
 A Syrian Codex of the year 412, written in Edessa 
 (British Museum 12150), has already the vowels marked by 
 means of points. Compare besides on the Syrian pointing : 
 
§ 81. THE SUPERLINEAR SYSTEM, 215 
 
 Ewald, Abhandlungen zur orient. und bibl. Literatur, 18382, 
 p. 53 ff; ZKM, 1837, p. 204 ff, 1839, p. 109 ff; Martin, 
 Histoire de la punetation chez les Syriens, 1875; Jacobi 
 Epistola de orthographia syriaca, 1869; Journal Asiatique, 
 1867, i. 447 ff, 1872, i. 305 ff; Nestle, ZMDG, xxx. 
 525 ff.; Wright, Catalogue of the Syr. MSS. in British 
 Museum, iii. 1168 ff. 
 
 That the usual system only attained by degrees its present 
 wonderful nicety is proved by various indications. Compare 
 above, δὲ 27, 30; Dillmann on Gen. xliii. 26. 
 
 81. Besides the system of pointing that is now common, 
 another system, differing from it in some respects, has come 
 to light since the year 1840. This second system, resting as 
 it does on statements in various Bible manuscripts, is usually 
 called the “Babylonian,” and is regarded as that which 
 prevailed -in the Babylonian schools. The situation, however, 
 is not so simple, as recently Wickes, on good grounds, has 
 pointed out. The divergent system has become known to us 
 from Babylonian and South Arabian manuscripts; but that it 
 was not the only Babylonian system, and that the Babylonians 
 in general did much rather use the ordinary, so-called 
 “Tiberian” or Palestinian, can be proved to demonstration. 
 Not only does Saadia, who from a.p. 928 wrought in Baby- 
 lon, therefore shortly after the time in which the Codex of 
 the Prophets provided with the divergent system of pointing 
 was written (see § 28), speak as little as the Massoretes and 
 Rabbis of such a system as characteristic of the Babylonians, 
 but the traditional readings of the “ Babylonians” (ὃ 30) are 
 sometimes of a kind that the “Babylonian” system of point- 
 ing would have been absolutely incapable of expressing 
 graphically the distinction indicated. The facts of the case, 
 therefore, are more correctly represented by saying that this 
 second system had been made use of in Babylon alongside of 
 the received system, but not to such an extent that it attracted 
 any particular notice from the other Jews. Until future 
 
 * 
 
216 § 81. THE SUPERLINEAR SYSTEM. 
 
 discoveries lead to further conclusions, we had better denomi- 
 nate the divergent system by the name of the “second,” or, 
 in accordance with its peculiar form, the “superlinear” 
 system. 
 
 For the more exact determining of the points of difference 
 between the two systems, we are directed to the conclusions 
 to be drawn from their peculiar forms. Now the character- 
 istic of the second system, besides the placing of the vowels 
 above the letters, is, that the signs for ὦ (0) and @ consist of a 
 reduced reproduction of the letters x and 1, the sign for d, as 
 it seems, of a small y. If, then, we should further consider 
 the point by which ἢ is indicated a contracted ", and the 
 double point : for 6 as a bisected 1, we should then have a 
 completed system which reminds us of the West Syrian 
 system of pointing by means of the Greek vowel signs used 
 since A.D. 700, and which may be considered an independent 
 invention alongside of the received system. But this con- 
 ception of it is not confirmed on closer examination. The 
 superlinear signs for ¢ and é (4 and y) are undeniably the 
 same as in the common system, and since they, as mere 
 points, are not inconsistent in a superlinear system, a depend- 
 ence of this system upon the received is even by this made 
 probable. This impression is further strengthened by the fact 
 that some manuscripts for ὦ plene scriptwm use simply the 
 ordinary sign ἢ. Since then the recently published Karaite 
 manuscripts (§ 28), which in part had their origin in the 
 neighbourhood of Bagdad, follow upon the whole the common 
 system, but designate the ὦ by an Arabic damma, 1.6. a 
 small }, it is natural to assume that even the above-mentioned 
 peculiarities of the superlinear system should be regarded as 
 an after growth and a further development of the Arabic 
 system of indicating the vowels, in which indeed 1, and 
 partially s, appear as vowel signs. According to this, there- 
 fore, the superlinear system would be a secondary modification 
 
§ 81. THE SUPERLINEAR SYSTEM. 217 
 
 of an older system essentially identical with the received. 
 Perhaps also in this way the position of the signs over the 
 letters can be explained, for by this a collision with the older 
 system would be avoided, which would then also enable us to 
 understand how the double point was made the sign of ὁ. 
 That these Greek-Arabic Bible manuscripts which contained 
 the Targum alongside of the text have the superlinear system 
 only in the Targum, while they use the ordinary system in the 
 text, is best explained on this hypothesis. Finally, Wickes 
 also has come to the same result by means of a comparison 
 of the superlinear accentuation with the received. 
 
 The older literature on the “ Babylonian” pointing (among 
 which especially see: Pinsker, Linfiihrung in die Babylon Hebr. 
 Punctation, 1863) is given in Strack’s edition of the Babylonian 
 Prophet-Codex, p. vii, and Strack-Harkavy’s Katalog. der hebr. 
 Bibelhandschriften zu St. Petersburg, 1875, p. 223 ἢ, Further, 
 we may mention: ZZT, 1875, p. 619 ff, 1877, p. 18 ff; 
 Derenbourg, Revue crit. 1879, p. 453 ff.; M. Schwab, «εἰ. 
 de la soc. phil. vii. 165-212; Gritz, MGWJ, 1881, 
 p. 348 ff.; Strack in the Wissesnch. Jahresbericht iiber d. morgen. 
 Studien in Jahre, 1879, p. 124; Merx, Verhandlungen d. 
 Berl. Orient. Congr. i. 188 ff.; and especially Wickes, 
 Accentuation of the so-called Prose Books, 1887, p. 142 ff. 
 The manuscripts with “Babylonian” pointing are given in 
 Strack’s edition of the Prophet Codex, in Merx’s Chrestomathia 
 targumica, p. xv, and in Baer’s Liber Joli, p. iv sq. 
 
 In an epigraph to a Pentateuch Codex with Targum to be 
 found at Parma, where mention is made of the superlinear 
 system (πον spi), it is ascribed to the ws pox. See 
 Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, p. 110; Griitz, Geschichte 
 der Juden, v. 556; Wickes, Accentuation of so-called Prose 
 Books, p. 142. So, too, in the Massoretic notes in the 
 Tschufutkale manuscript. Sometimes the superlinear vowel 
 system is designated the “ Oriental.” See Wickes, Accentua- 
 tion, p. 145n. Indeed, the Babylonian Prophet Codex is 
 also a witness to the fact that this system was used in 
 
218 § 82. SIGNS OF ACCENTUATION. 
 
 Babylon. But with perfect right Wickes emphasises the fact 
 that if in Ex. xxiii. 5 33~m) is handed down as a “ Baby- 
 lonian” reading in contrast to 73m) the “ Western,” the super- 
 linear system, which had no proper sign for Segol, would not 
 have been able in this case to give expression to the traditional 
 pronunciation. So, too, Saadia knows Segol as one of the 
 Hebrew vowels, which is irreconcilable with the Babylonian 
 system. 
 
 Although up to this time relatively few manuscripts with 
 the superlinear pointing are known, there are yet to be found 
 in these a considerable diversity in regard to details. In the 
 South Arabian manuscripts the following signs are met with: 
 Sdando,x ὁ, ¢ 8 τὸ 8 ὁ, ὶ ἅ and = δὲ (the horizontal 
 stroke indicates Sheva). In the Job Codex, of which Baer’s 
 Lnber Jobi contains a facsimile, and in the Prophet Codex the 
 system is complicated, for the sign for Sheva is also combined 
 with the other vowels. See Stade, Lehrbuch der hebr. 
 Grammatik, § 37. In this way, no doubt, originated a sign 
 for & (namely x); but, as it seems, it was only used if an 2 
 lost the tone; otherwise @ or ἔ stood for Segol. While the 
 Prophet Codex represents οὐ by 3, the sheet produced by 
 facsimile from Job has sometimes this sign, sometimes the 
 superlinear., 
 
 On the Karaite manuscripts, compare Hoerning, Sechs 
 Karait. Manuser. p. 10 f. 
 
 82. In all probability, contemporaneously with the intro- 
 duction of the vowel signs the text was provided with a 
 system of accentuation marks, which played the double réle 
 of indicating the tone syllable of the words and their logical 
 superordination or subordination in the verse as a whole. 
 
 In the Talmud, Masseket Soph*rim, the Synagogue rolls and 
 the Samaritan manuscripts, these signs are as completely un- 
 known as are the vowel signs. The superlinear vowel system 
 is, as already indicated in § 81, accompanied by a divergent 
 system of accents, in which the accents are indicated partly 
 by the initial letters of their names. This is found, as it 
 
§ 83. SEPARATION OF WORDS. 219 
 
 seems, in all books, whereas the received system of pointing 
 has for the three poetical books, Psalms, Proverbs, and the 
 Book of Job (spn), a separate system. 
 
 There are five words mentioned in ὦ. Joma 52a, the con- 
 nection of which in the verse were doubtful (namely, nx, 
 Gen. iv. 7; opwr, Ex. xxv. 35; 1m», Ex. xvii. 9; 1, 
 Gen. xlix. 7; op), Deut. xxxi. 16), which speaks against the 
 existence of a system of accentuation. Compare Berliner, 
 Beitrage zur ποῦν, Grammatik, 29 f. 
 
 On the accents, compare Heidenheim, Sepher Mischpete 
 hateamim, 1808; Jhuda b. Balams, Abhandlung {δεν die 
 poetischen Accente, ed. Polak, Amsterdam, 1858 ; Baer, Z’horath 
 Emeth, 1852; and on the position of Metheg. in Merx, Archiv 
 fiir wiss Ε΄. d. 4. T.i. 55 ff.; Griitz, MGW J, 1882, p. 385 ff. ; 
 Wickes, A Treatise on the Accentuation of the Three Poetical 
 Books, London 1881, and A Treatise on the Accentuation of 
 the Twenty-one so-called Prose Books, Oxford 1887. Compare 
 Baer and Strack, Dikduke, pp. 16-33 ; and on the Accentuation 
 in Codex Reuchlin: Baer, Liber Jeremie, p. ix. On the 
 Babylonian system: ZZZ, 1875, p. 606, 1877, p. 31 ff; 
 Wickes, Accentuation of the Prose Books, p. 142 ff. 
 
 4 The Divisions of the Text. 
 
 83. Several Semitic peoples, like the South Arabians, 
 Ethiopians, Samaritans, and in part also the Phoenicians, mark 
 the separation of individual words in a piece of writing by 
 means of a point or stroke inserted between them. The 
 conjecture naturally suggests itself that at one time the 
 Hebrews also had separated the individual words of their 
 sacred text in a similar way, partly because not only the 
 Mesha tablet but also the Siloah inscription (ὃ 75) has a 
 point between the several words, partly because the double 
 point dividing verses (Soph pasuk, § 84) can be most simply 
 conceived of as originating through the doubling of such a 
 
 5 
 
220 § 84. SEPARATION OF VERSES. 
 
 point. But, on the other hand, it is certain that this point 
 in any case has not been regularly used, because we could not 
 then account for the frequent cases in which the LXX. 
 divides the words otherwise than the Massoretic text (com- 
 pare § 77), and we have seen also in § 33 that the Jewish 
 tradition itself alludes to certain passages in which the 
 division of words was uncertain. In the Babylonian Talmud 
 (ὁ. Menachoth 30a, compare Masseket Soph*rin., ii.) a point for 
 separating words is unknown. It is rather required that 
 between the several words an empty space should be left as 
 large as a letter, while the space left between letter and letter 
 within the word should just be the breadth of a hair. Yet 
 the hypothesis that in earlier times a scriptio continua had 
 been in use in the Old Testament texts is unproved. How 
 easily the letters might be falsely divided is shown by the 
 common Bible manuscripts themselves, which yet labour after 
 the observing of the Talmudical prescriptions. 
 
 On the divergent systems of dividing words that appear in 
 Jerome, see Nowack, Die Bedeutung d. Hier. fiir d. Alttestamenti. 
 Textkritik, p. 41 f. 
 
 On the final letters, compare § 77. 
 
 84. The double point, Soph pasuk, for marking the division 
 of verses, is made mention of for the first time in Sepher Thora 
 and Masseket Soph’rim, but the prohibition on the part of these 
 writings against the use of this double point in the synagogue 
 rolls shows at the same time that originally it had been foreign 
 to the text. With this also agree the older witnesses. Even 
 in the Mishna “verses” are spoken of, PiDZ pl. ODE; but 
 from statements in the Talmud and other ancient writings it 
 is evident that among the Jews much diversity of usage pre- 
 vailed with regard to the dividing of the several verses, and 
 that among others the Babylonian Jews in this respect 
 observed a different rule from the Palestinians. The same 
 vacillation shows itself when we compare the old translations, 
 
§ 84, SEPARATION OF VERSES. 921 
 
 especially the LXX., for these frequently have another 
 system of verse division from that of the Massoretic text. 
 Since those differences affect also the poetical books, the 
 practice of writing in lines or stichoi cannot have been in 
 use in these times, which yet seems so natural a method of 
 writing Hebrew poetry. On the other hand, perhaps about 
 the time of Jerome, this system had found its way into the 
 poetical books, while the colometric style of writing intro- 
 duced by this father of the Church into his translation of 
 the other books was an imitation of the editions of classical 
 writers. 
 
 The division of verses that is now common, which is based 
 on the parallelism prevailing in the poetical books, for in the 
 other writings it divides paragraphs of the size of a poetical 
 double clause, is neither the Babylonian nor the Palestinian, 
 but a third which seems to have been fabricated by the old 
 Massoretes, since it comes to view first of all in the above- 
 mentioned Massoretic work of Aaron ben Asher (ἢ 92). 
 
 Sepher Thora, iii. 4 (ed. Kirchheim, p. 6): A manuscript in 
 which the beginning of the verse is marked by a point could 
 not be used for public reading. Masseket Soph*rim, 111. 6. 
 In a remarkable way the synagogue rolls of the Crimea 
 disregard this rule; while, on the contrary, four Crimean 
 private manuscripts have no Soph pasuk. See Ζ11, 1873, 
 p. 601. 
 
 In the Mishna (Jeg. iv. 4) it is said: “The readers should 
 read not less than three Pesukim of the Law. Also he should 
 not read more than one Pasuk at a time to the interpreter 
 (§ 60). On the other hand, in the Prophets, he should read 
 three Pesukim at a time, yet only if the three Pesukim are not 
 three Parashas. Compare Wiihner, Antiquitates Ebreorum, 
 i. 97 f.; Strack, Prolegomena, p. 78 ff.; Geiger, Urschrift, 
 373; Jiid. Zeitschrift, ii. 140, iv. 113, 265, x. 24; Nach- 
 gelassene Schriften, iv. 24. 
 
 On the various systems of verse divisions, compare 
 
232 § 84. SEPARATION OF VERSES, 
 
 especially Gritz, MGWJ, 1885, p. 97 ff. It is expressly 
 said in ὁ. Kidd. 30b that a full understanding of verse 
 division is not to be had. According to this passage, which 
 refers to the Babylonian division of verses, the Law has 5888, 
 the Psalms 5896, and the Chronicles 5880 verses. At the 
 same time it 15 said that the Palestinians had another division, 
 for they, among other differences, divide Exodus xviii. 9 into 
 three verses. Compare Masseket Soph*rim, ix. 3, where we 
 probably meet with the Palestinian division, according to 
 which, not Lev. xi. 33, but Lev. vill. 23 was the middle 
 verse of the Law. Examples of passages in which the LXX. 
 and other versions divide otherwise than the Massorete text, 
 are the following: Ps. ἄγ, 3 δ xxi. 5 f,, Ixy. 3 £,.xe. 2.4, 
 xc. 117, xev. 7; Lam. ur 5: Hos. iy. 111 Vsaei eee 
 Compare Cappellus, Critica sacra, lib. iv. cap. 3. It may 
 also be mentioned that of the words mentioned in § 82, 
 whose relation is doubtful, one stands quite at the beginning 
 of the verse: Gen. xlix. 7 (compare § 91). 
 
 On the Massoretic division of verses compare Baer and 
 Strack, Dikduke, p. 55 f. 
 
 In the Babylonian Talmud (JM/eg. 16a) mention is made 
 of a kind of writing in lines which was used in particular 
 poetical passages; but it cannot have been thoroughly carried 
 out in ancient times on account of what is referred to in the 
 above sections. Compare further, Delitzsch, Psalmen, 1883, 
 p. 187; Levy, Neuhebriischer Worterbuch, i. 163; Strack, 
 Prolegomena, p. 80. On the colometric style of writing in 
 Origen, compare Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 16; Epiphanius, 
 De ponderibus et mens.iv. In the Preface to Isaiah Jerome 
 says: “Nemo cum prophetas versibus viderit esse descriptos, 
 metro eos estimet apud Hebreeos ligari et aliquid simile 
 habere de psalmis et operibus Salomonis; sed quod in 
 Demosthene et in Tullio solet fieri, ut per cola scribantur et 
 commata, qui utique prosa et non versibus conscripserunt, 
 nos quoque utilitati legentium providentes interpretationem 
 novam novo scribendi genere distinximus.” Compare Morinus, 
 Exercitationes biblice, p. 476 ff., and, in general, Birt, Das 
 antike Buchwesen, 1882, p. 180. The single lines bear also 
 
§ 85. SEPARATION OF PARASHAS. 228 
 
 in Jerome and Augustine the name versiculi or versus, which 
 Morinus has misunderstood, p. 481 f. 
 
 85. Sections embracing a larger portion of the text, the so- 
 called Parashas ("¥7B, pl. NVW4B) were marked by the Jews 
 by means of intervening spaces, which in the case of a 
 specially complete sundering of the passage, leave all the rest 
 of the line empty, whereas, in the case of the sundering 
 indicated being less thoroughgoing, this ended in the middle 
 of the line. In the former case, the Parashas that ended in 
 that way were called “open,” Minn, in the latter “closed,” 
 nimind, Subsequently it was customary to indicate by a 5 or 
 a Ὁ, to which class the Parasha belonged. In the editions 
 and in most of the manuscripts the use of these signs is 
 confined to the Law, whereas Baer has carried it out in his 
 editions (§ 24) even in the other books. According to the 
 received divsion, the Law contains 298 open and 379 closed 
 Parashas. The Karaite manuscript, written in Arabic letters, 
 edited by Hoerning, diverges in part from this division, as 
 also elsewhere in this direction a certain vacillation prevails. 
 
 As concerns the antiquity of this division, mention is made 
 of open and of closed Parashas in both Talmuds. See bab. Sabb. 
 1030; jer Meg. 71b. Also the separate Psalms were some- 
 times (ὁ. Berachoth 9b, 10a) called Parashas. In the Mishna 
 there is no mention of the two kinds of Parashas, but the 
 Parasha division in general is spoken of, and_ particular 
 examples are given which, if not always, yet at least for the 
 most part, agree with the later divisions (Zaanith, 4. 3; 
 Menachoth 3, 7, and often). The Mishna knew also of 
 Parashas of the Prophets (Meg. 4. 4). Whether these 
 Parashas were outwardly marked as early as the times of the 
 Tannaites, as at any rate they seem to have been in the time 
 of Jerome, cannot be conclusively decided. And that there 
 must have been a time in which the Psalms were not in a 
 single instance distinguished from each other by means of 
 
224 8 85. SEPARATION OF PARASHAS. 
 
 clear intervals may be concluded from the vacillation in 
 reference to their number and division in the old authorities 
 for the text, and even in later manuscripts. 
 
 On the whole, the received Parasha division is to be 
 characterised as proper and fitting. Instances like Ex. vi. 
 28, Hag. 1. 15, where evidently verses that go together are 
 separated, or Isaiah lvi. 9, where the separation rests on an 
 incorrect exegesis, are comparatively rare. 
 
 Compare Morinus, Lvercitationes Biblice, p. 491 ff; Hup- 
 field, TSK, 1837, p. 837 ff. ; Strack, Prolegomena, p. 74 ff. ; 
 Geiger, Jiid. Zeitschrift, x. 197; Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 
 22 f.; Gritz, MGWJ, 1885, p. 104 f. 
 
 Originally Parasha only means a section in general, 
 specially one larger than a verse. Compare ὦ. Berachoth 63a, 
 where “a verse” is called “a small Parasha.” The passage 
 from the Mishna (Meg. 4. 3), referred to in ὃ 84, proceeds on 
 the assumption that sometimes a Parasha may consist only of 
 one verse, which actually is the case in Isaiah 111. 3 ff. 
 
 The Capitula of Jerome sometimes correspond exactly with 
 the Parashas, eg., Micah vi. 9, on which passage he expressly 
 remarks: “ In Hebraicis alterius hoc capituli exordium est, apud 
 LXX. vero finis superioris.” Hence in his text the division 
 was outwardly marked. Compare also on Zeph. 11. 14. But 
 often he used the word quite carelessly in the sense of a 
 passage of the text. Compare Hupfield, 7SK, 1837, p. 842. 
 
 On the division of the Psalms, compare J. Miiller, 
 Masseket Soph*rim, p. 222 f.; Bethgen, in the Schriften d. 
 Universitét Kiel, 1879, p. 9. The division now common, 
 which is met with also in Luther, makes the number of the 
 Psalms 150. This is also the number in the LXX., but it is 
 there reached in another way, namely, by joining Psalms ix. 
 and x., exiv. and exv., and by dividing Psalms exvi. and exlvii. 
 The Syriac translation, again, joins only Psalms cxiv. and 
 and exv. and divides only Psalm exlvii. But elsewhere an 
 entirely different total is given. Thus jer. Sabb. 16. 1, fol. 
 15c, gives 147 Psalms, while several old manuscripts have 
 also less than 150, for they frequently join Psalms xli. and 
 
§ 86. DIVISION INTO CITAPTERS. 225 
 
 xliii., and exiv. and exy. In olden times, too, Psalm i. was 
 often not counted, or else connected with Psalin ii. (see 
 b. Berachoth, 9b; Acts xili. 33; Justin Martyr, i. 40), so that 
 the 10th Psalm is once referred to (b. Meg. 170) as the 9th. 
 
 We must not confound with the Parasha division spoken of 
 in the above section the liturgical division of the Law into 
 Parashas, and of the Prophets into Haphtaras (mqvan). This 
 system of readings was connected with the practice of the 
 Babylonian Jews, which overtook the reading of the Law in 
 one year (b. Meg. 31b); whereas in Palestine a three years’ 
 course had been introduced (ὦ. Meg. 29h; compare on this 
 matter § 86). Yet the now authorised fifty-four liturgical 
 Parashas were not made finally valid before the 14th century. 
 They were only externally marked in the Law, and this was 
 done by writing 5 or Ὁ three times in the empty space pre- 
 ceding its beginning. With the exception of the one passage 
 (Gen. xlvii: 28), their beginnings always corresponded with the 
 beginning of an open or closed Parasha. Baer, however, in 
 his edition of Genesis, gives them their full title, 45 nua 
 ΠῚ mens, 7, ete. Compare Jost, Geschichte d. Judenthums, ii. 
 137; Strack, Prolegomena, p. 76 ἢ; Journal asiatique, 
 1870, p. 531 ff.; and especially RAJ, iii. 282-285, vi. 
 122 ff., 250 ff, vii. 146 ff. 
 
 86. It has usually been supposed that in the division of 
 the text into Sedarim np, as it was made known specially 
 by Jacob ben Chajim’s Bible of a.p. 1525, we have an attempt 
 on the part of the Jews to carry out an actual arrangement 
 of the Old Testament in chapters. Recently, however, 
 Theodor has sought to show that this division was originally 
 a liturgical one, for it is said to correspond with the three 
 years’ Palestinian cycle of the reading of the Law (ὃ 85). The 
 Sedarim division of the other writings would then have to be 
 regarded as a later imitation of the Law division. In any 
 case, and to this others have already called attention, this 
 division agrees remarkably with the order of the old Midrashim, 
 
 which decidedly give the impression of having been homilies 
 P 
 
. 
 
 226 § 86. DIVISION INTO CHAPTERS. 
 
 based upon these. Moreover, the Sedarim division varies not 
 a little. The Jerusalem Talmud (Sadd. 16. 1, fol. 15¢, com- 
 pare Masseket Soph*rim, 16. 10, xxx.) gives to the Law 175 
 Sedarim. On the other hand, the division made known by 
 Jacob ben Chajim has 447 Sedarim, of which 154 are in the 
 Law. This numbering is now found to have manuscript 
 authority in a Bible Codex of the year 1294. Finally, the 
 South Arabian Massora manuscript edited by Derenbourg 
 (§ 32) has 167 law Sedarim, with which the Bible of the year 
 1010 is in substantial agreement. 
 
 The division into chapters which now has secured actual 
 recognition in the Hebrew Bible, was borrowed by the Jews 
 from the Christians. After a variety of earlier attempts, the 
 text of the Vulgate was divided into chapters in the thirteenth 
 century, in order that it might be possible to prepare practical 
 Bible concordances. This division, which varies here and 
 there in details, was used first of all by Isaac Nathan in his 
 Hebrew concordance, prepared 1437-1448, and published in 
 1523, and subsequently it was adopted in the second Bomberg 
 Bible in A.D. 1521. Unfortunately in many passages the 
 work was done just in a haphazard way, and though we 
 must always evidently hold by it, it is yet to be recommended 
 that in editions of the text and translations, the portions of the 
 text should be otherwise grouped, when the blunders are so 
 evident and generally admitted as in Gen. 11. 1 ff.; Isa, ix. 
 1-6, x. 1—4, lu. 13-15. 
 
 The numbering of the verses naturally presupposes the 
 division into chapters. It is met with for the first time in 
 the Sabbioneta edition of the Pentateuch, a.p. 1557 (δ 62), 
 and applied to the whole of the Old Testament first in the 
 Athias Bible of a.p. 1661. 
 
 On the Sedarim, compare Miiller, Jasseket Sopherim, 
 p. 220 ff; Journal asiatigque, 1870, p. 529 ff.; Geiger, Jiid. 
 Zeitschrift, 1872, p. 22; Baer, Liber Genesis, p. 92; Theodor, 
 
§ 87. DIVISION INTO BOOKS. 227 
 
 MGWJ, 1885, p, 351 ff, 1886, p. 212 ff., 1887, τ. 
 35 ff. 
 
 On the chapters, compare Morinus, Lxercitationes biblice, 
 pp. 484 ἢ, 487 f. The determining of the date as given we 
 owe to Genebrardus, Chronographia (ed. Paris 1660, p. 631). 
 In the following century Nicholas von Lyra (quoted by Merx, 
 Joel, p. 320) complains: “Signatio capitulorum in bibliis 
 nostris est frequenter defectiva, quia frequenter non sequitur 
 signationem hebraicam nec etiam Hieronymum, ut presertim 
 in antiquis bibliis secundum Hieronymum signatur.” 
 
 87. There was mention originally of a division into 
 “ Books” with reference only to certain particular writings of 
 the Old Testament, namely, the Pentateuch, the Book of the 
 Twelve Prophets, the Psalms, and Ezra-Nehemiah. This 
 division, which in the case of the Twelve Prophets was easily 
 enough understood, is also in those other writings very old. 
 Thus the dividing of the Psalms into five books, which again 
 without doubt presupposes the five-fold division of the Law, 
 was indirectly witnessed to as early as by the Chronicles 
 (compare 1 Chron. xvi. 8 ff. with Ps. evi.). The Talmud 
 (ὦ. Baba bathra, 13b) requires an empty space of four lines 
 between the Books of the Pentateuch, and of three lines 
 between the Books of the Minor Prophets. At the same 
 time, since it had then become customary to write all or 
 several writings in one volume, four empty lines are required 
 between each of the prophetic writings. In some manuscripts, 
 eg. in the Bible of the year 1010 (ὃ 28), one empty line is 
 found between Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 
 In the printed Bibles it became customary to make a 
 further division of particular works, In Alexandria, the city 
 of literature par excellence, the practice began, even in the 
 years before Christ, of substituting short and convenient rolls 
 for the old and often very long ones, and consequently it was 
 found necessary to divide the great literary works into 
 
228 § 88. LINGUISTIC VALUE OF POINTING. 
 
 separate books. Thus it also happened with the Alexandrine 
 translation, for the Book of Samuel, the Book of the Kings, 
 the Book of Chronicles, and the Book of Ezra, were each 
 divided into two books, whereas even the longest prophetic 
 writings were left undivided. Although the occasion of this 
 division was removed when the use of rolls was abandoned in 
 favour of the Codex form (§ 74), it was still retained, and 
 subsequently was adopted from the Vulgate into the Bomberg 
 Bible of 1521 (compare § 86). 
 
 Mention is made of the five books of Psalms even in 
 b. Kidd. 33a. The otherwise so well instructed Jerome 
 strangely enough wished, as the Preface to his translation of 
 the Psalms shows (Lagarde’s edition, p. 1 f.), to reject this 
 division as one not genuinely Jewish. 
 
 On the Alexandrine practice, compare Birt, Das antike 
 Buchwesen, p. 479. Yet it should not be overlooked that 
 mention is made, though indeed more rarely, of several 
 “books” being in one roll, and of one “book” consisting of 
 several rolls (compare Rohde, GGA, 1882, p. 1541 1). 
 
 B.—THE INTERNAL HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 
 1. The Linguistic side of the Transmission of Scripture. 
 
 88. Since the Massoretic system of pointing was invented 
 only at a comparatively late date, the question arises as to 
 how the pronunciation, that was made visible and clear by 
 this means, is related to the actual pronunciation of the 
 Hebrew as a living language. This question is naturally of 
 fundamental interest in connection with the minute study of 
 the Hebrew tongue, but it will also reward the student of the 
 history of the text, if he will give a glance at it. Here now 
 two facts are firmly established. In the first place, we never 
 elsewhere meet with a system of pronunciation so thoroughly 
 
§ 88, LINGUISTIC VALUE OF POINTING. 229 
 
 characterised by inner logical consistency as that which lies 
 before us in the Palestinian system of pointing. And, in the 
 second place, it is certain that this system is not one that first 
 takes form artificially through later reflection, but is, in all 
 essential respects, in accordance with the early tradition. This 
 follows, partly from the incapacity of the oldest Massoretes to 
 understand actually the system of pronunciation, partly from 
 its essential agreement with the transcriptions in Jerome and 
 Origen (§ 36), and, finally, from the testimonies regarding the 
 pronunciation of the allied Phcenician language. Only the 
 pronunciation of @ as a, which is presupposed by the pointing, 
 because it uses the same sign for 6 and 4, is to be considered 
 as a novelty which is to be met with in Jerome merely in 
 isolated cases, while even later only the Polish-German Jews 
 so pronounce it, whereas the Spanish Jews have a pure @. 
 On the other hand, with regard to the Sheva it is not to be 
 forgotten, that we have it expressly stated by Aaron ben 
 Asher and other rabbis, that this sign represents various 
 vowels or vowel sounds according to the syllable following, 
 sometimes e, sometimes 7, sometimes @ by which means 
 apparent differences between the pointing and the old tran- 
 scriptions transmitted to us have repeatedly arisen. 
 
 But by this it is only proved that the system of pointing 
 gives visibility to what had once actually been the ordinary 
 pronunciation of the Hebrew, and indeed the best now acces- 
 sible to us, but by no means that the Massoretic pronunciation 
 is absolutely the oldest, let alone that it is the only one that 
 has ever been. In the transcribed proper names in the LXX. 
 (§ 36) we meet with a style of pronunciation considerably 
 different from that of the Massoretes, which no doubt may 
 often have arisen through the awkwardness of the transcribers, 
 and through a certain degeneration of the language on the 
 part of Jews living among foreigners; but nevertheless here 
 and there it does retain the original form, According to 
 
230 § 88, LINGUISTIC VALUE OF POINTING. 
 
 Jerome (Epist. 73, Ad Evangelum) it was admitted that in 
 Hebrew pro varietate regionum eadem verba diversis sonis atque 
 accentibus were pronounced. To this are to be added further 
 the proofs which the Massoretic pronunciation itself affords in 
 favour of the fact, that it belonged to a later development of 
 the language, for it is intelligible only through the postulating 
 of older forms from which the present had their origin. That 
 in the linguistic investigations in connection with this subject 
 even those Greek transcriptions must have their value is 
 clear, but the systematic and thorough use of these means 
 and apparatus, upon the necessity of which Lagarde has laid 
 special stress, is still in its infancy, and demands, moreover, in 
 its use a very particular measure of circumspection. The 
 same is true in a still higher degree of the transcriptions 
 which are found in the old inscriptions (§ 36), which also here 
 and there can shed light upon an antique stage of the Hebrew 
 language, and especially on the original pronunciation of the 
 proper names. 
 
 Compare Schreiner, Zur Geschichte der Aussprache des 
 Hebréischen, ZAW, vi. 213-259; Kautzsch, ZDMG, xxxiv. 
 388, and the writings referred to in § 36. 
 
 On the similarity between the Massoretic pronunciation of 
 the Hebrew and the pronunciation of the Phcenician known 
 through Plautus, compare Schréder, Die phonizische Sprache, 
 1809, p. 1208 
 
 In Jerome ὃὲ is pronounced generally as a, more rarely 
 as 0, eg. bosor ΦΞ (Isa. xxxiv. 6), zochor 13% (Isa. xxvi. 14). 
 Moreover, it should not be overlooked that the transcriptions 
 in Jerome are not rarely vacillating, which in many cases 
 must be ascribed to his Jewish teachers, but certainly in 
 many to his own inaccuracy. 
 
 The rules with reference to the pronunciation of the Sheva 
 mobile at the beginning of the word are given thus by ben 
 Asher (Dikduke, ed. Baer and Strack, pp. 12 ἢ, 31 f.): before 
 yod it is 7, eg. ΝΞ, bijém (compare Jerome on Isa. xvii. 11 
 
§ 88. LINGUISTIC VALUE OF POINTING, 231 
 
 biom), but it is e, if the yod itself has 7, ey. DET", l*jisrael 
 (in these cases ben Naphtali writes bain which undoubtedly 
 agrees with the old pronunciation /srael, not Jisrael ; compare 
 Haupt, Beitrige zur Assyriologie, i. 17, 260; the practice of 
 b. Naphtali, moreover, has made its way into several editions of 
 the Textus Receptus: Ps. xlv. 10; Prov. xxx. 17; Jer. xxv. 26; 
 
 Eccles. ii. 13; when it has Metheg, it sounds a, eg. 8133, bab 
 (compare the frequeiit a instead of Sheva in Jerome, ZA ΙΓ, iv. 
 p- 29 f.); or finally, before a guttural it takes the vowel 
 of the guttural, e.g. 182, m°od. Elsewhere it sounds 6. Compare 
 on the somewhat modified rules of other teachers, 74 IV, vi. 
 237 f.; Gesenius-Kautzsch, Grammatik, xxv. ὃ 10, p. 48. 
 
 On the significance of the Greek transcriptions in the 
 Hexapla and in the LXX., compare Lagarde, Mitthetlungen, ii. 
 361 ἢ: “ Uebersicht tiber die im Aram. . . . iibliche 
 Bildung der Nomina,” passim. If the orthography of the 
 Siloah inscription (in opposition to the tablet of Mesha, § 75) 
 represents the original pronunciation of j as aw, then should 
 forms like Advay instead of 18, Avon instead of YLT (Num. 
 xill. 8), be regarded as an older pronunciation, all the more as 
 the Assyrians write ausi’a (ZA, ii. 261). But if one should 
 bethink him that the Syrians not rarely resolve 6 into aw (eg. 
 ausar instead of désér, mrawm instead of Din, compare Stade, 
 Grammatik, p. 120), it might still be discussed whether a 
 Greek aw might not many a time have originated in a similar 
 way. Further, the conclusions drawn by Lagarde from forms 
 like Σόδομα, Yorouwr, etc., in favour of a typal form qutul, 
 ingeniously as they are vindicated, are yet somewhat pro- 
 blematical, since here there must be subsumed a pronunciation 
 coloured by the assimilating of the mobile vowel, as the Mas- 
 soretes admitted was the case before the gutturals (see above). 
 Compare nifilim, ete., in Jerome, ZAW, iv. 80. Finally, it 
 has also to be kept in mind in this connection that even the 
 most recent translations of Arabic place-names show how 
 difficult it often is in the case of a non-Semitic ear to define 
 precisely a sound that is vibrating between a, e, 7,6. Compare 
 what is said in the above § 81 about the Babylonian system 
 of pointing. 
 
232 § 89. DEVELOPMENT OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 
 
 On the significance of the names transcribed on the inscrip- 
 tions, compare Stade, ZAW, v. 168 ἢ; Haupt, Bettrdge zur 
 Assyriologie, i. 169 f. To the examples there named may 
 be added: Rasunu, which corresponds to the Paacowv of the 
 LXX. against the py of the Massoretic text. 
 
 Many niceties of the Massoretic pronunciation can only 
 have been finally established by the introduction of the 
 pointing, among these also various superfine forms. Thus we 
 would certainly not make the old genuine language responsible 
 for a form like 70, Ps. vii. 6, or ΕἸ, Zech. x. 6. The 
 same is true indeed of τσ forms like 728 and VAs, 
 Oa and ON, 7p and 12, ‘TN i 278, which probably rest 
 on artificial τ although these may have been found 
 already in existence by the Massoretes, as certainly was the 
 case with the sensible pronunciation mys (LXX. σκία 
 θανάτου). Sometimes errors in the consonantal text have 
 occasioned impossible forms, eg. Neh. 11. 14; Jer. xv. 10. 
 
 2. Lhe Transmission of the Text according to its real 
 Contents. 
 
 89. In the form in which the Old Testament Textual 
 Criticism is presently conducted, it is a young phenomenon. 
 The Reformed theologian Cappellus (+t 1658), and Morinus 
 (t 1659), who went over to Catholicism, had indeed, already 
 in the seventeenth century, sketched the outlines of a 
 criticism of Old Testament Text; but this remained for 
 a long time disregarded, and only now has a beginning been 
 made in earnest to take in hand the necessary preliminary 
 labours. Even among the Jews of the Middle Ages we meet 
 with a conception of Scripture which led them as a matter of 
 principle to exclude all criticism of the text, because it 
 regarded all traditional divergences of the text, 6... the Baby- 
 lonian and Palestinian reading, as resting on independent 
 revelations. In later times the rigid theory of inspiration in 
 
§ 89, DEVELOPMENT OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 233 
 
 the older Protestantism contributed to the branding of any 
 attempt to improve the traditional text as a dangerous under- 
 taking. Indeed, the Formula consensus Helvetici (δ 78), with 
 scrupulous exactness, expressly rejects all that apparatus for 
 textual criticism which by earlier and later critics of the text 
 has been declared indispensable. And even in modern 
 times have there been several scholars who in practice are 
 disinclined to any thoroughgoing criticism of the text, or who, 
 where it is at all possible, hold out for the traditional form of 
 the text. Now, although this conservative tendency forms a 
 wholesome drag upon the not infrequent recklessly revolu- 
 tionary “ textual emendations ” of some critics, and it remains 
 a not-to-be-forgotten truth that the traditional Hebrew text 
 will ever have an advantage over the text that has only 
 indirectly been reached, yet the opinion always more and 
 more gains ground that a methodical criticism of the text is to 
 be regarded, not only as a right, but also as a duty which we 
 owe to the Old Testament writers, and to the noble works 
 which they have left behind. The evil lies, not in the use of 
 the apparatus of textual] criticism, but in the circumstance 
 that often that apparatus is insufficient. 
 
 It was in particular the result of the great collations of 
 manuscripts undertaken by Kennicott and de Rossi (ὃ 30) which 
 for a long time afforded confirmation to the notion that the 
 traditional form of the text should be considered without more 
 ado as authentic. The Hebrew manuscripts exhibit indeed so 
 remarkable an agreement; that a strong impression is produced 
 of the care which the Jews had expended on the reproduction 
 of the sacred text. But even although this imposing agree- 
 ment has been still more evidently supported documentarily 
 by the oldest recently discovered manuscripts, yet a thorough- 
 going examination proves that the text preserved with such 
 extraordinary care is, after all, only a Textus Receptus, the 
 relation of which to the original text still remains a question 
 
234 § 89. DEVELOPMENT OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 
 
 for discussion. And that these two forms of the text are not 
 without further inquiry to be identified, a variety of circum- 
 stances incontestably proves. Specially convincing are the 
 texts which in the Old Testament itself lie before us in a 
 double form (§ 73), and which often in details differ in such 
 a way that only the one form can be correct. But even 
 elsewhere passages are met with which in the received form 
 are absolutely impossible and admit only of one explanation, 
 namely, that of an error of the text. Even if the state of 
 matters were such that only a single instance of this sort 
 could be proved, it would be thereby made good, that the text 
 as we have it is not absolutely in harmony with the original, 
 and so there originates the task, which cannot be put aside, of 
 using all means within our reach in order to make clear at 
 all points the relation of the Zextus Receptus to the oldest text 
 objectively accessible to us; and only when this work has 
 been done, can the question be answered as to whether the 
 task of Old Testament criticism can be hereby solved, or 
 whether we must still call to our aid a well considered 
 conjectural criticism. 
 
 In consideration of the peculiar history of the Old Testa- 
 ment text (ὃ 78), the development of the vowel system and 
 the consonantal text must in the following sketch be treated 
 separately, since they belong to two different periods, and do 
 not come forward with the same authority. 
 
 Compare among others, Olshausen’s Prefaces to his edition 
 of Hirzel’s Job and to his own Commentary on the Psalms, 
 pp. 17-22; Dillmann in Herzoo’s Real-Encyclopedie 3, ii. 
 399 f.; Konig, ZK WL, 1887, pp. 273-297. 
 
 Compare the interesting statements of Saadia about the 
 variations in the Old Testament text in Baer and Strack, 
 Dikduke, p. 82 f. Formula consensus Helvetici, Canon Iii. : 
 “ Korum proinde sententiam probare neutiquam possumus, qui 
 lectionem, quam Hebraicus Codex exhibet, humano tantum 
 
§ 89, DEVELOPMENT OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM, 235 
 
 arbitrio constitutam esse definiunt, quique lectionem Heb- 
 raicam, quam minus commodam judicant, configere, eamque 
 ex LXX. seniorum aliorumque versionibus Grecis, Codice 
 Samaritano, Targumim Chaldaicis, vel aliunde etiam, imo 
 quandoque ex sola ratione emendare religione neutiquam 
 ducunt, neque adeo aliam lectionem authenticam, quam que 
 ex collatis inter se editionibus, ipsiusque etiam Hebraici 
 codicis, quem variis modis corruptum esse dictitant, adhibita 
 circa lectiones variantes humani judicii κρίσει, erui possit 
 agnoscunt.” 
 
 Examples of parallel texts, of which only the one can be 
 correct: Gen, x. 4, Ὁ), 1 Chron. i. 7,799; Gen. xxxvi. 23, 
 nby, 1 Chron. i. 40, μὸν; Judges vii. 22, my, 1 Kings xi, 26, 
 mony; 2 Sam. xxiii. 27, 20, 1 Chron. xi. 29, 2330 ; 2 Sam. 
 xxiii. 13, wyp, 1 Chron. xi. 15, wyn; 2 Sam. xxii. 11, #1, Ps. 
 Xvili, 11, x, etc. 
 
 Examples of passages, which on logical grounds must be 
 incorrect: Josh. xv. 32, 36, xix. 6, 15, xxxvill. 21, 36 Σ, 
 where the number at the end of the names referred to does not 
 represent the actual sum total; the meaningless expression, 
 2 Sam. xxiii. 18 f.; Jer. xxvii. 1, where, according to xxvii. 
 3, and xxxvili. 1, Zedekiah should be read for Jehoiachim. 
 On grammatical grounds we cannot accept the 73 of Ezek. 
 ΧΙ. 13, ete. 
 
 Besides the works of Cappellus and Morinus named in 
 § 23, the special treatises on the LXX. mentioned in § 41, 
 and Lagarde’s Specimen spoken of in § 45, the following may 
 be referred to among the more important modern works as 
 textual criticism: Houbigant, Note ecritice in univ. Vet. Test. 
 libros, 1777 (in opposition: Kallius, Prod. examinis criseos 
 Houb. in Cod. Hebr., Copenhagen 1763, and HLxamen criseos 
 Houb. in Cod. Hebr. 1764); Kennicott, Dissertatio generalis 
 in the second’volumn of V. 7. Hebr. cum variis lectionibus ; 
 Spohn, Jeremias e versione Judeorum Alex. ac reliquorum im- 
 terpretum grecorum emendatus, 1794 -- 1834: Olshausen, 
 Emendationen x A. 7., Kiel 1826; Beitrdge zur Kritik des 
 tiberlieferten Textes im Buche Genesis, 1870; Wellhausen, Text 
 εἰ, Biicher Samuelis, 1871; Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text 
 
236 § 90. CORRECTNESS OF THE VOCALISATION, 
 
 of the Books of Samuel, 1890; Taylor, The Massoretic Text and 
 the Ancient Versions of Micah, 1891; Bethgen, Der Textkriti- 
 sche Werk der Alten Uebersetzungen zu den Psalmen in JPT, 
 1882, pp. 405 ff, 593 ff; Merx, Der Werk der Septuaginta 
 Sir die Textkritik der Alten Testamentes in JPT, 1883, p. 
 65 ff.; Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, 1886; the 
 peculiar works of Krochmal, Haksaw we hamichtow, 1875. 
 Also the various commentaries (e.g. Lowth’s Zsatah and Kloster- 
 mann’s Biicher Samuelis und der Kénige), and innumerable 
 articles referring to matters of detail in reviews and in 
 Lagarde’s works. 
 
 a. Vocalisation. 
 
 90. If we consider the Massoretic system of points, not 
 from the standpoint of the science of language, but simply as 
 a means of discovering the meaning of the text, the differ- 
 ences presented by the manuscripts and the Massoretic 
 collections of variations are of extremely little importance. 
 Such complete divergences as Hosea x. 9, NNO and NXdN; 
 Judges xx. 48, 09 and omy; Ps, Ixxy. 7, 12789 and 12799; 
 Kecles. 11. 7, 7372 and 2p ; Jer. xxvii. 17, 7379 and 4330, are 
 very rare, and even these are without any essential influence 
 upon the exposition. 
 
 Of greater importance is the difference, when we compare 
 the Massoretic vocalisation with that of the old translations. 
 So long as we speak of the different vocalisations as totalities, 
 no one will deny that the understanding of the text put before 
 us in the Massoretic pointing by far transcends in value the 
 forms represented by the old versions. None of the old 
 translators, with the exception possibly of the Targumists, 
 whose testimony, however, is weakened by their free treatment 
 of the text, has had so clear an insight into the sense of the 
 text, and has understood it down to its nicest peculiarities in 
 accordance with the traditional reading as it lies before us in 
 
 the Massoretic system of pointing; and the obligation under 
 
§ 91. INCORRECTNESS OF VOCALISED PASSAGES. 237 
 
 which we lie to the received vocalisation and accentuation for 
 our understanding of the Old Testament text cannot in fact be 
 overestimated. But, nevertheless, it ought not to be overlooked 
 that the apprehension of the text which has been stereotyped 
 by the Massoretes is historically mediated, and is inseparably 
 connected with the history of Jewish exegesis, and hence the 
 possibility that it may reproduce in one passage or another 
 a later conception should never be lost sight of. 
 
 As examples of the difference between the vocalisation of 
 the Massoretes and that of the old translations a few well- 
 known instances may serve: Gen. xlvii. 31,789; LAX. Syr. 
 moo; xlix. 10, mv. LAX. Aq. Sym. Targ. bab. und jer. Syr. 
 mov; Isa. vii. 11, TONY ; Aq. Sym. Theod. Jerome, mk Hos. 
 ix. 12, "WB; LXX. Theod. W3; Ps. ii, 9, DVI; LY. Syr. 
 Jerome, DYIA ; x. 17, 35, LXX. Syr. Sym. PIA; xi. 8, nwa ; 
 LXX, Syr. nna; xv. 4, 1b; LXX. Syr. yd; Prov. iii. 12, 
 aN; LXX. 382); Isa. ii, 20, nina ἼΒπο, Theod. φαρφαρωθ. 
 A specially interesting example of the variety of meanings 
 which may be given to the consonants is afforded by Ps. ci. 
 5, Sous x ins, but LXX. bain Sp) ἡ, Compare Cappellus, 
 Critica sacra, lib. iv. cap. 2, lib. v. cap. 2, 4,8; Cornill, Zzech. 
 p. 127; and on the whole question, the remarks of Well- 
 hausen-Bleek, Hinleitung, 616. 
 
 91. The state of matters is most correctly conceived when 
 we continually regard the vocalisation as a @Q’re (δ 33), the 
 relation of which to the ΑΓ has to be more closely con- 
 sidered. Although many expositors as a rule, and not 
 wrongly (see, however, ὃ 92), give the preference to the απ 
 over the Q’re, where the Massora expressly states the differ- 
 ence between the two, it should not be overlooked that we 
 may also have to do with an unjustifiable Q’re in passages 
 where the read word presupposes no other consonants than 
 the traditional word. And, in fact, there are cases where the 
 factors operating upon the traditional Qarjan (§ 33) have been 
 
238 § 91. INCORRECTNESS OF VOCALISED PASSAGES. 
 
 actually at work in producing the usual reading of the text, 
 e.g. the nervous dread with which in later times the anthro- 
 pomorphisms or otherwise offensive expressions were regarded, 
 or the introduction of later ideas and modes of presentation into 
 the text. In other passages where such considerations do 
 not enter, other conceptions than those of the Massoretes may 
 be brought forward as more natural, in regard to which the 
 old translations (§ 90) may here and there afford some help. 
 The case is similar with the diacritical marks of the 
 Massoretes, 6... with the point over Φ (ὃ 77), and with their 
 accentuation and verse division (§ 84), which indeed as a rule 
 disclose a singularly fine insight into the connection, but yet 
 here and there must give way before more simple theories. 
 
 Compare Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, 
 12857, pp. VOU ΘΟ 
 
 Examples of a vocalisation probably in favour of precon- 
 ceived views: Eccles. iii. 21,“ Who knoweth the spirit of man, 
 ΠΡΊΝ, which ascendeth heavenwards!” instead of the intended, 
 and by the translators presupposed, non, “ whether it rises 
 upwards?” Jer. xxxiv. 18, "BP, Aq. 22?; Isa. i. 12, Ex. 
 xxxiv. 24, Deut. xxxi. 11, nisrp, instead of nie (to behold 
 God); ΔῈ xc. 2, ΟΊ ΓΙ, as 3 fem. instead of boinn (for God 
 could not Shin) ; Isa. vii. 11, TONY, instead of nok (in order 
 to avoid the idea of invoking the dead), etc. Related to these 
 are the traditional forms of some proper names, as Isa. vii. 6, 
 82d; perhaps ps7, instead of M87, § 88; 72) after the analogy 
 of nva; mAvy, Ps. xci. 6, FL (compare OW and the LXX.) 
 is perhaps a popular dogmatic allusion. Harmless passages, 
 which might be improved are: Mal. 11. 3, YU, better in LAL. 
 Aq. Jerome, YW; 1 Sam. xviii. 11, DU, better -O%; Isa. xxx. 
 8, syd, LXX. Syr. Trg. Jerome, TP; Job xvi. 21, 13, better 
 2=}"2. Sometimes vowel letters are misunderstood (ὃ 79): 
 DaNw, read DYDNY from AW, Amos ii. 7, Ps. lvi. 2, lvii. 4; DND, 
 read DND, 2 Sam. xix. 4. 
 
 wis not correctly distinguished: Eccles. iii, 17 (read OY) ; 
 
§ 92. RESULT OF COLLATION OF MANUSCRIPTS, 239 
 
 Isa, xxxii. 12 (read nv); Ezek. xxxix. 26 (read wi). Com- 
 pare Job ix. 17, where Lagarde proposes ‘25. 
 
 A case in which the accentuation has been certainly deter- 
 mined by the desire to favour a particular view is met with 
 in Isa. i, 9, where ΡΣ is drawn towards what follows. On 
 Isa. xlv. 1, compare Griitz, MGWJ, 1874, p. 45. The view 
 of Delitzsch and others that the accentuation of Isa. ix. 5 was 
 determined by preconceived views of the meaning of the text 
 is denied by Wickes, Accentuation, p. 49. A very free ren- 
 dering, with a play upon the words of the text, is found in 
 ὃ. Berach, 4b., according to which in Palestine they read Amos 
 v. 2, as follows: “Fallen is she; further she will not [fall]; 
 raise thee, O daughter of Israel !” 
 
 Passages where the verse division might be improved: Ps, 
 Sent tue Gi. evil, 3.£: xxii. (91 ἢ - Gen. xlix, 24 £; 
 Isa. lix. 15, 
 
 b. The Consonantal Tecxt. 
 
 92. It has been already remarked above (ὃ 89) that the 
 Hebrew manuscripts, as also the Massora, represent in reality 
 only one single form of text, for the variations that are met 
 with are of an extremely trifling kind, and are mostly without 
 any influence upon the sense of the text. One of the principal 
 roles among the variations is played by the divergences that 
 arise out of the scriptio plena and defectiva which are explained 
 in the remarks made in § 79. In addition to these we meet 
 here and there interchanges of letters similar in appearance, 
 like 7 and 4,3 and 3,1 and‘, etc. Besides, we have inter- 
 changes of synonymous expressions, especially under the 
 influence of parallelism, and divergences with respect to the 
 Y’re and Ktib, which form a frequent difference between the 
 western and the eastern texts. Only one of these latter cases 
 is of any general interest, namely, that the Babylonians have 
 not, like the Palestinians, the well-known (re, 817, only in 
 the Pentateuch, but here and there also in the other books, 
 
240 § 92. RESULT OF COLLATION OF MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 The Q’re itself, which, according to ὃ 33, may be regarded in 
 a certain sense as a various reading, has usually only a 
 historically explicable value, but hits sometimes upon the 
 right thing, whether by divination, or in accordance with a 
 genuine old tradition, On the manuscripts of the Samaritans, 
 compare § 94. 
 
 Cornill, Das Buch Ezechiel, p. 7 ff., rightly styles the result 
 of his comparison of the common text with the Codex Babylon. 
 as quite surprising: “In a biblical book of forty-eight, for the 
 most part quite long, chapters, the text of which has been 
 transmitted in a notoriously faulty condition, the oldest of all 
 known manuscripts, compared with the first and best printed 
 editions, yields only sixteen actual variations.” It should not 
 on this account be denied that here and there, by means of 
 collations of manuscripts, we may give an emendation of the 
 text, eg. Isa. xxx. 18, where two manuscripts have O07’ instead 
 of ow, Isa. xxvii. 1, ἼΦΠ, but some manuscripts, 19Nn; but, for 
 the most part, the variations are quite insignificant, or consist 
 in inaccuracies of particular manuscripts which immediately 
 show themselves to be such. Examples (apart from the 
 innumerable deviations in the use of the vowel letters, the 
 interchange of DN and ὃν, etc.): Ps. cii. 4, wya—jwys; Isa. 
 ii. 6, soa—b9; xv. 2, mym—ay; Ixiii, 11, ny—yn; Jer. 
 xviii. 4, wona—rnD; ~Ps. ix. 7, nyni—nwy; xviii. 43, pprx— 
 ΡΝ; xevit 11, mir; Hecles. τὶ 25, ΒΟ. ῈΒ; Hew 
 ii 10, 'x—(Codex Hilleli, § 30) T2; Ps. οἷ]. 13, Fr2>n—FNDD 
 (compare Lam. v. 19); Ps. ci. 24, ndayx—>oowsx (compare 
 xxxii 8). Zeph. iii. 18, my, Cod. Bab. pox; Zech. xiv. 18, 
 onin-ns 2B. owyn-ba-ns; Zech. xiv. 4 omits in B yin ona; 
 Ezek. vi. 5, omyb3—p2"b3; a different Q’re, Neh. ii. 6; Zeph. 
 11. 7, οἷο. 
 
 On the Q’re, SJ, compare Geiger, Urschrift, p. 236. The 
 Massoretic remark that the Babylonians have this reading 
 only in three passages outside of the Pentateuch (1 Kings 
 xvii. 15; Isa. xxx. 33; Job xxxi. 11) is incorrect, as Ezek. 
 143, x: 7, xiv. 17, xvi. 46-48, xvii) 20; xxi, 19) xxv og 
 xxx. 13, xxxii. 16; Jer. xxii. 16, xxviii. 17, show. The 
 
8 93. POST-CHRISTIAN WITNESSES FOR THE TEXT. 241 
 
 idea that 817 occurs only in the Pentateuch, which has been 
 quoted against the correctness of the theory in the criticism 
 of the Pentateuch which distinguishes a variety of documents, 
 thus falls to the ground. 
 
 Examples of passages in which Q’re is undoubtedly the 
 correct reading are: Amos vill. 8 nypyy; 1 Sam. xvii. 34, 
 my; 2 Sam. v. 2, xan) x sion. 
 
 93. If we compare the form of text obtained by means of 
 the manuscripts and the Massora with older witnesses for the 
 text from the time after Christ, such as the Talmudical 
 quotations, the Hezaplar transcriptions, and the post-Chris- 
 tian translations, we shall find indeed variations not much 
 more numerous than in the manuscripts, but the variations 
 found in these exhibit a more characteristic physiognomy, 
 While the variations of the manuscripts, in almost all cases, 
 consist only in an inexact reproduction of the Z'eztus Receptus 
 (δ 92), those witnesses now referred to contain not unfrequently 
 valuable readings, the collation of which is of real interest. 
 But, at the same time, there appears a characteristic difference 
 between these witnesses. The quotations in the Talmud 
 correspond for the most part with the text that now lies 
 before us, especially if we keep in view that they are often 
 made from memory. So, too, the texts used by Jerome and 
 the later Greek translators are very nearly the same as our 
 own. In the Aramaic versions, on the other hand, we not 
 unfrequently meet with interesting variations. The Targums 
 especially sometimes afford good readings, which, however, 
 may be explained by what has been stated above in ὃ 60, 
 partly by the’ extreme antiquity of the Targumic material. 
 On the other hand, according to § 70, it remains often un- 
 certain whether the variations obtained from the Syriac 
 translation represent actually the condition of the text in 
 post-Christian times, or are only repetitions of the pre- 
 
 Christian (Alexandrine) form of the text. 
 Q 
 
242 § 94. PRE-CHRISTIAN WITNESSES FOR THE TEXT. 
 
 Compare Cappellus, Critica sacra, lib. v. cap. 2,5, 6, 9-11; 
 Nowack, Die Bedeutung des Hieron. fiir d. alttestamentl. 
 Textkritik, p. 23 ff.; Beethgen, Der teathritische Worth. d. alt. 
 Ueberstz. d. Ps. in JPT, 1882, pp. 40d ff, 593 ff; Cornill, 
 Ezchiel, pp. 128 ff, 156. A thoroughgoing comparison of 
 the post-Christian translations with the Massoretic text is a 
 decided desideratum (compare Lagarde, Mittheilwngen, 11. 51). 
 
 A couple of examples may at least give a tolerable illus- 
 tration of the matters referred to in the above sections. Isa. 
 xxvi. 2 ff, novi ayn ἼΘ᾽ Ὅν sD NN TOW Py 5} 2) OMY InN 
 δρῦν ὋΝ mn ΓΔ 2 ἽΝ “Wy mma inva impr 42% ody, the 
 Greek transcription according to Epiphanius (compare Field, 
 Hexapla, ii. 4'73 f.; Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii. p. 362): φθοου 
 σααρειμ ovaBo you σαδικ σωμὴρ εμμουνειμ. ιεσρο (7%) 
 σαμωχ θεσαρ carwp σαλὼμ xu Bax βατοοῦυ ([Π83). βετου 
 βααδωναν ada wf xu Bata adwvar σωδ (WY) ὠλεμειμ. Hab. 
 ii. 17, T. M. and Jerome, jn, Targ. Syr. (LXX.), Jnn; Hos. 
 v. 11, Ὁ M. Jerome, wy, Syr. Targ. (LXX.), Ὁ; Zeph. iii, 18, 
 vn, Targ. (LXX.),; Hos. vi. 5, T. M. Jerome, ἫΝ Hawn, 
 Syr. Targ., xa ‘wawn; Jer. xxv. 38, jon, Targ. (LXX.), 2n; 
 Ezek. xxvii. 11; Gen. 1. 26, prxn-dom, Syr. (by correct 
 divination ?), paxn mn-jo0). Ps. xi. 1, adn, all versions (with 
 the LXX.), 192 70. Ezek. v. 15, anim, Targ. Syr. Jerome 
 (LXX.), nvm. Isa. xxv. 2, Yyn, all versions, Vy. 
 
 94. If, finally, we go back to the witnesses for the text in 
 pre-Christian times (to which, as was remarked in ὃ 93, the 
 Targums in part belong), the variations grow in the intensive 
 as well as in the extensive sense. The chief witness here is 
 the Alexandrine translation, in so far as it succeeds in setting 
 forth the text in its original form. It not only affords 
 numerous variations, some of them highly important in regard 
 to details, but sometimes, as in the Book of Jeremiah and in 
 Proverbs, it assumes the character of a different Mecension. 
 That these divergences have not arisen through arbitrary 
 treatment on the part of the translators of a text identical 
 with our own, but witness to the actual existence of an 
 
§ 94. PRE-CHRISTIAN WITNESSES FOR THE TEXT. 243 
 
 exemplar with a divergent text, is proved partly from the 
 character of the variations themselves, partly from the fact 
 that several of these divergences are also to be found in other 
 witnesses for the text before the time of Christ, as in the text 
 of the Samaritan Pentateuch (δ 29), in the oldest parts of the 
 Targums (ὃ 64), and in pre-Christian works, such as the Book 
 of Jubilees that had its origin in Palestine (δ 13). Indeed, 
 even in the translations from the times after Christ the forms 
 of the text translated by the LXX. are here and there witnessed 
 to as being then still read (ἢ 93). It is therefore evident 
 that the relation between the later and the pre-Christian text 
 forms one of the most important chapters in the history of the 
 text of the Old Testament, and that a systematic comparison 
 with the LXX. must be a main task of textual criticism. 
 
 Compare the writings referred to in § 41 and § 89. 
 
 While in earlier times it was especially the Catholics who 
 gave preference to the LX.X., in the modern scientific treatises 
 on the history of the Old Testament text, the Massoretic text 
 has won an ever increasing significance. The utterance of 
 Zwingli is specially deserving of attention: “ Infiniti sunt loci, 
 quibus manifeste deprehenditur LXX. et aliter et melius tum 
 legisse, tum distinxisse, quan Rabbini postea vel legerint vel 
 distinxerint ” (Opera ed. Schuler et Schultheiss, v. 555-59). 
 
 On the remarkable agreement between the LXX. and the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch, compare (besides the literature referred 
 to by De Wette-Schrader, Hinleitung, p. 205 1.) the London 
 Polyglot, vi. 19; Morinus, Zzercitationes ecclesiastice in 
 utrumque Samaritanorum Pentat., Paris 1631; Cappellus, 
 Critica sacra, lib. 111, cap. 20; Alexius a 8. Aquilino, Penta- 
 teucht Hebr. Sam. prestantia, 1783; Gesenius, De Pentateuchi 
 Samaritant origine, indole et auctoritate comment., 1815; 
 Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 8-19, 99 ff.; Jiid. Zeitschrift, iv. 1866, 
 p. 42; Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 54 ff.; Nodldeke, Alt- 
 testamentliche Interatur, pp. 42, 240; Dillmann in Herzog’s 
 Real-Encyclopedie, ii. 386; Fritzsche in Herzog, i. 283; 
 Pick, Biblioth. Sacra, 1877-78 ; Heidenheim, Bibliotheca sama- 
 
ΕΜ § 95. VALUE OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 ritana, ii, xxi. sqq. That the Alexandrine translators did 
 not use a Samaritan copy of the Law is clear; but equally 
 improbable is the supposition that the Samaritans may have 
 altered their Hebrew manuscripts in accordance with the 
 LXX. The agreement between the two rather shows that 
 the reading which they have in common was then widely 
 circulated. Moreover, it should not be overlooked that the 
 LXX. in just as many passages agrees with the Massoretic 
 text against the Samaritans. 
 
 On the text of the Book of Jubilees, compare Ronsch, Das 
 Buch der Jubilitien, Leipsic 1874, and especially Dillmann in 
 the Sitzuwngsberichten der Berliner Academie, 1883, p. 324 Τῇ, 
 where about twenty-seven cases are quoted in which the 
 text of the Book of Jubilees agrees with that of the 
 LXX, 
 
 95, As certainly as the deviations of the LXX. from the 
 received text consist in great part of deviations in the copy of 
 the Hebrew text used in the work, so certain is it that the 
 Alexandrine readings in not a few passages deserve to be 
 preferred above the Massoretic readings. Especially in some 
 writings, such as the Books of Samuel and Ezekiel, the received 
 text can be variously amended by a thoroughgoing collation with 
 the LXX. We can easily understand how one feels himself 
 shut in at every step by the confused state of the Greek text, 
 but nevertheless its use has already led to all sorts of discoveries, 
 less or more. Naturally in using it the most painstaking care 
 is necessary, and never should the critic of the text lose sight 
 of the fact that the Hebrew text, as the immediate authority 
 on the text, is always to be regarded as worthy of preference 
 to an indirect auxiliary, and that the treatment of the 
 exemplar text on the part of the Greek translators was often 
 one that cannot be determined. But thereby only the demands 
 upon the critic of the text are raised, while the justification 
 of his task is by no means lowered. 
 
 On the other side, it is not less certain that the deviations of 
 
§ 95. VALUE OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 245 
 
 the LXX., in spite of the extreme antiquity of this translation, 
 are not throughout always of equal importance for the emenda- 
 tion of the text. Rather in numerous passages the received 
 text is to be unconditionally preferred. The most remarkable 
 feature of the case is that such instances also occur just where 
 the witness of the LXX. is reinforced by the other witnesses 
 from pre-Christian times (ὃ 94). Thus, it is a generally acknow- 
 ledged fact that several of the readings which the LX.X. and the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch have in common are of less value than 
 the Massoretic readings. It therefore appears also here again 
 very remarkable, that in the criticism of the text the extreme 
 antiquity and the wide circulation of a reading in and by them- 
 selves afford no decisive proof of its correctness, but that later 
 witnesses for the text may here and there more correctly 
 transmit-the original. 
 
 In the following passages, for example, the Alexandrine 
 readings are to be unconditionally preferred: Gen. xli. 56, 
 pna wwia-$s, LXX. onavinn (or a similar word for ottoBo- 
 Awvas); 1 Sam. ix. 25 f, oy ra, LXX. 734), and wae, 
 LXX. 35¥"; 2 Sam. xxiii, 8, nawaav’, LXX. (mediately), 
 nvr ; Isa, xvii. 9, ΟΝ ΠῚ πη, LXX. 302) “pst; Isa. 
 xliv. 12, wan, LXX. wn TN; Jer. xxiii. 33, xwo-no-ne, 
 LXX. nbn omy; Ps. xiii, 6 £, bx ip, LXX. Ox) 8; 
 Ps. lxix. 277, pp’, LXX. 3D"; Neh. iii. 14, nas, LXX. 
 N22); Zeph. iii. 17, won, LAX. win. The LXX. and the 
 Samaritans have good readings in the following passages: Gen. 
 xxxi. 29, Jax, instead of onan; Ex. v. 9, Ye", instead of 
 wy’ (so too the Syriac); Ex. xiv. 25, 1px, instead of 1D"; 
 Deut. iv. 37, onyne pynta (=Onk. Syr., Jerome); Deut. 
 Xxxli. 43, nods, instead of \noww. On the other hand, the 
 Massoretic text is to be preferred to their united witness in 
 eg. Ex. xii. 42, xiii. 6; Num. xxiv. 7, xxvi. 12 (compare 
 further the writings referred to in § 94). 
 
 To the dangers attending the use of the LXX. in textual 
 criticism belong the corruptions that arose within the Greek 
 itself (eg. Jer. xv. 10; Ps. xvii. 14; Cod. Vat.); and above 
 
246 § 96. CONJECTURAL CRITICISM. 
 
 all, the duplicate translations of the same passage that arose 
 from interpolations, of which Isa. ix. 5 in Cod. Alex. affords 
 an interesting example. 
 
 96. Although the use of the old translations, especially of 
 the LXX., forms one of the most essential tasks of Old 
 Testament textual criticism, the critic of the text must not 
 suppose that with this his work is ended. Even a very general 
 survey of the field teaches this. The Alexandrine translation 
 carries us back only to the third century before Christ, a time, 
 therefore, which was separated from that of many of the Old 
 Testament writers by a long period. The presence of various 
 errors of the text in the times following compels us to make 
 the fundamental admission of the possibility of such having 
 had an existence even in the texts of those much earlier times. 
 Hence conjectural criticism cannot be excluded from the 
 investigations about the Old Testament text. Here, too, we 
 enter upon a region where only a few select spirits are at 
 home, while just for those who are unfit it has a great fascina- 
 tion. Yet even here, amid the great multitude of arbitrary 
 and useless fancies, we meet with several happy proposals 
 which, in spite of the want of objective evidence, are so strik- 
 ing and simple, that the favour which they have found may 
 lend to them an almost objective character. At the same 
 time, it must here be remembered that the Old Testament itself, 
 as we have already indicated above at § 73, affords at some 
 points a firm basis of operation which lends to the conjectures 
 a greater security. Also the divergent readings of the old 
 witnesses, even if they should be just as little serviceable as 
 those of the Massoretes, sometimes indirectly supply an aid 
 to the correction of the text, because the unknown 2 can be 
 more easily found by means of two known quantities, And 
 even where ingenuity must simply create the conjectures out of 
 itself, the presupposition lying at the foundation of them, that 
 the ancient authors have expressed themselves clearly and 
 
§ 97. “ TENDENCY ” ALTERATIONS OF TEXT. 247 
 
 fittingly, is a presupposition justifiable indeed, but to be used 
 with circumspection, 
 
 Several of the proposed alterations of the text are un- 
 doubtedly to be regarded as improvements in the writings, 
 and so evidently are they such, that only a blind prejudice 
 can without more ado reject them. Thus. Ps. xxii. 30, i πὸ 
 for δον; Jer. xv. 10, ndSp ond. For our estimate of the 
 character of David, the reading in 2 Sam. xii. 31 of T3¥0, 
 instead of -ayn, is not unimportant. Also we have improve- 
 ments in ny, instead of πὸ in Gen. xxxi. 25 (Lagarde) ; 
 MDS AIDY ποῦ in Isaiah xxi. 6, etc. The parallel passage 
 2 Sam. xxii. 5, suggests in Psalm xviii. 4, “aw for Son ; 
 poetic parallelisms in Ps. x. 6 recommends WS, and in Job x. 
 15, ‘P m1; the prevailing rhythm in Psalm xcii. ff. suggests 
 in Psalm xciii. 4, "avin WAS or (p. 253) “awn “5 WIN, instead 
 of sawn ons. How a glance at the rhythm of the Lamenta- 
 tions may lead to good emendations of the text has been 
 shown by Budde on Isaiah xiv. The alphabetical form 
 teaches that mon of Psalm ix. 7, with a word that has fallen 
 out of the text, must belong to verse 8. On the contrary, 
 when ἫΝ of Isaiah iii. 11 is attached to verse 10, it leads to 
 the substitution of WS for nox; the parallelism between 
 Isaiah viii. 12 and 13 suggests ΣΡ, instead of rip, etc. The 
 genuine LXX. has in 2 Sam. xxiv. 6 a χεττεὶμ Καδης, instead 
 of the senseless ‘wip o'nnn ; but since the Hittite Kadesh was 
 here unsuitable, Ewald ingeniously conjectured 737, instead 
 of ‘wap. [See Wellhausen, Der Text der Biiches ‘Samuels, 
 pp. 217, 221 ff, or Thenius in Commentary.] All the docu- 
 mentary authorities have in Gen. iv. 8, 1x", to which, in 
 order to obtain a meaning, Sam. LXX. Syr., etc., supply ΠΡῸΣ 
 min; but certainly it was originally προ, instead of 78" 
 (Olshausen), ete. 
 
 97. An essential condition of a methodical criticism of the 
 text is an exact insight into the nature of the textual errors 
 to be met with in the Old Testament. It is specially 
 required that the question be answered as to whether the 
 Old Testament text has been intentionally altered, or 
 
248 § 97. “TENDENCY ” ALTERATIONS OF TEXT, 
 
 whether we have to do only with purely unintentional 
 errors of transcription. 
 
 The assertion that the Jews have on purpose corrupted 
 their text is an old one. The Church fathers, who were 
 dependent on the LXX., must naturally have been led to 
 such a conclusion with regard to the occasional deviations of 
 the Jewish text ; and even Jerome, who elsewhere zealously 
 contends for “the Hebrew truth,” expresses himself once in a 
 similar way. In the Middle Ages these changes were often 
 repeated, e.g. by Raimund Martin, and in later times they were 
 uttered with yet greater violence and bitterness by anti- 
 Protestant critics like Morinus. Yea, even in modern times, 
 Lagarde has expressed the conjecture that the chronological 
 statements of Genesis were falsified by the Jews in the 
 interests of their polemic against the Christians. For the 
 charges thus formulated there have meanwhile never been 
 any actual proofs brought forward. On the other hand, the 
 question about the presence of alterations made on purpose 
 has emerged in recent times in another form, to which a 
 treatise by a Jewish scholar, Abraham Geiger, has given 
 occasion. Geiger, to whom, among others, Dozy and N. 
 Brill have attached themselves, affirms that in the received 
 text, just as well as in the old translations, numerous 
 alterations are to be found, which had their origin in the 
 religious solicitude and dogmatic views of later times, and had 
 therefore been undertaken in a kind of apologetic interest. 
 
 That this latter formulating of the thesis is not altogether 
 unfounded is undeniable. The same religious dread which 
 can be proved in the case of all old translations, and in many 
 Qarjan of the Hebrew text (§§ 33, 91), as also the tendency 
 of modern translations to give expression to their indignation 
 against manifestations of antipathy by means of the word of 
 Scripture, did, as a matter of fact, lead the Jews in ancient 
 times to alter here and there the consonantal text. A 
 
8 97. “ TENDENCY” ALTERATIONS OF TEXT. 249 
 
 reminiscence of such attempts is preserved in the Jewish 
 tradition itself in the collection of the so-called Ziqqune 
 Soph*rim, which was referred to above in ὃ 54. Although 
 some of the cases collected under that name are doubtful, and 
 others evidently wrong,-and even although the accounts given 
 of the original sound of the word may not always be correct, 
 yet the fact that such changes had been made is incontest- 
 able, and some of the cases reported are perfectly correct, ¢./. 
 Job vii. 20, where the LXX. had still the original py; Zech. 
 ii. 8 (compare Deut. xxxii. 10 and the LXX. rendering of 
 it); Hab. i. 12; Ezek. viii. 17; Lam. iii. 20; Num. xi. 15 ; 
 while in 1 Sam. iii 13, not Ὁ but ony is to be read (compare 
 LXX.). On the other hand, as often happens in similar cases, 
 the enumeration is not exhaustive, for in other places such 
 Tiqqunim may be discovered. The most interesting example 
 is the interchange of baal with bésheth in many proper names. 
 In the older Israelitish times the word bya was used quite as 
 harmlessly of the God of Israel as the synonymous word ἤν, 
 which is shown by this that many old proper names had this 
 name of God incorporated with them, eg. 161. ba‘al, the son of 
 Saul (1 Chron. viii. 33), Ba‘aliada‘, the son of David (1 Chron. 
 xiv. 7), Meribba‘al, the son of Jonathan (1 Chron. viii. 34). But 
 in later times, when the name Baal had become a symbol of 
 Caananitish heathenism, such names gave offence (compare 
 Hos. ii. 18, 20), and people began therefore to change the 
 names, when they occurred in the books used in the syna- 
 gogues, in various ways; and so, at the same time, the oppor- 
 tunity was taken to give expression to one’s sympathy with, or 
 antipathy against,the persons concerned. David’s son, Ba aliada® 
 became Hliada (2 Sam. v. 16), whereas in the case of those 
 belonging to the race of Saul, in accordance with Hos. ix. 10, 
 Ba‘al was exchanged for ΠΟ, “shame” (compare 1 Kings 
 xvii. 19, 25, LXX.). Thus arose the now well-known names 
 Ishbosheth (2 Sam. ii. ff) and Mephibosheth (2 Sam. ix. 6). 
 
250 § 97, “ TENDENCY” ALTERATIONS OF TEXT. 
 
 Besides this change, of which a distinct view is afforded us in 
 the Book of Chronicles, where the names remain unchanged, 
 there are still some Ziggunim which can be proved with an 
 equal certainty. But otherwise Geiger’s exposition rests upon 
 an extreme exaggeration and a zeal for discovering intentional 
 changes in the original text bordering on monomania. And 
 as the instances are limited in number, so also must have 
 been the time in which they originated. The Qarjan, with 
 a “tendency” character, such as we meet with in the 
 Talmuds, shows this, and therefore belongs at the latest to 
 the fourth century after Christ. At the time when they 
 had their origin, the text had already assumed so immutable 
 a character that it could not be touched even in offensive 
 passages. 
 
 Jerome on Gal, 111. 13: “ Ex quo mihi videtur aut veteres 
 Hebreorum libros aliter habuisse, quam nunc habent, aut 
 Apostolum sensum scripturarum posuisse, non verba, aut quod 
 magis est estimandum, post passionem Christi et in Hebreis 
 et in nostris codicibus ab aliquo Dei nomen appositum, ut 
 infamiam nobis inureret, qui in Christum maledictum a Deo 
 credimus” (compare also on v. 10). 
 
 Raimund Martin, Pugio fider (ed. 1687), p. 695 ff. 
 [On “Martin” or “ Martini,’ see article by Neubauer in 
 Expositor, 3rd ser. 1888, vol. vii. pp. 100 ff. 179 ff.; and 
 article by Schiller-Szinessy in The Journal of Philology, xvi. 
 No. 31, p. 130 ff] Morinus, Lxercitationes biblice, pp. 7-19. 
 
 Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik wnd Geschichte des Penta- 
 teuchs, 1867, 1. p. xii: “The chronology of the patriarchs 
 before Noah is evidently falsified in the Massoretic text, and 
 indeed falsified for the purpose of opposing, with the help of 
 the LXX., the calculations made by the Christians, according 
 to which the Messiah had appeared in the year of the world 
 5500. Such falsifications, as the fathers so often charged 
 against the Jews, are only conceivable, if they could be traced 
 back to one copy from which all the other transcriptions of 
 the text had to be taken.” Compare, however, against this 
 
§ 98. UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OF TEXT. 251 
 
 view, Kuenen, Verslagen en Mededelingen der k. Akademie, 
 Letterkunde, ii. 3, 1873, Amsterdam, p. 296. 
 
 Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersctzungen der Bibel, 1857. 
 
 On bosheth for baal, compare Geiger, ZDMG, xvi. 730 ff. ; 
 Wellhausen, Zext des Buches Samuel, pp. xii. and 30 ἢ ; 
 Kuenen, Verslagen en Mededelingen, iii. 5, 1888, p. 176. A 
 confirmation is found in the exposition of Num. xxxii. 38, 
 where OY N31) can only be a parenthesis, which recommends 
 that the reading with the word Baal should be changed. On 
 some Arabic parallels, which, however, are divergent in this, 
 that the names are combined with actual names of gods, 
 compare Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, iii. 178. A 
 play upon this change of names occurs in the passages from 
 the LX. X. where Ba‘al has the feminine article (compare Rom. 
 xi. 4), while in reading the word αἰσχύνη was used (compare 
 Dillman, Monatsberichte εἰ. k. Academie οἰ. W. zu Berlin, 1881). 
 
 To thé same category belong probably also the name 
 Jezebel, which originally indeed can scarcely have been com- 
 bined with 2. Compare Hoffmann, ZAW, 1883, p. 105. 
 Further, on 7 32 as a euphemism for bb, compare Psalm 
 x. 3; Jobi. 11, 1. 9; 1 Kings xxi. 10, with Isaiah viii. 21; 
 1 Sam. iii, 13. Perhaps also synn, instead of nynn, Gen. 
 xx. 13. Of another sort is Judges xvii. 30, where Moses 
 was changed into Manasseh (compare b. Baba bathra, 10 9}). 
 In this case the added n is written higher up than the other 
 letters, and the change therefore was not discovered. 
 
 Of purposely made changes that have been alleged to exist 
 in other places, some are of a not very convincing char- 
 acter, because the word said to have been changed is fre- 
 quently to be found close by: eg. Gen. xxxi. 49, where TB3'D 
 is said to be a change for 723, whereas this word is itself to 
 be found in verses 45, 51 ff. To this it may be added that, 
 according to Lagarde’s happy conjecture, npynn (verse 21) 
 ought probably to be inserted after the word 772. 
 
 Against Geiger, compare especially the appropriate remarks 
 of Wellhausen in Zext des Buches Samuel, p. 32. 
 
 98. While the changes made in the Old Testament with 
 
252 § 98. UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OF TEXT. 
 
 deliberate intention are not very numerous, by far the greatest 
 number of errors in the text owe their existence to causes 
 that are met with in all other sorts of writings, namely, the 
 inaccuracies and the misunderstandings of transcribers. Here 
 naturally there is much that cannot be put on record, and 
 much that defies all calculation, but, notwithstanding, we shall 
 find it not unprofitable to cast a glance over the errors that 
 most frequently recur in the Old Testament, in order to be 
 able to estimate in some measure the possibilities of proposed 
 emendations. In doing so, we must always keep in view 
 special characteristics and peculiar fortunes of the Hebrew 
 writings that have been described above. 
 
 Moreover, it must not be forgotten that a sketch, like that 
 upon which we have been here engaged, in the very nature 
 of things, must give prominence to the shady side of the text, 
 whereas it has no occasion to refer to passages in which the 
 text is in good order, and so easily a one-sided comfortless 
 representation of the facts may be given. Only the reading 
 of the Old Testament itself can dispel this illusion. This will 
 show that textual criticism can indeed in many cases con- 
 tribute in an important manner to the greater clearness and 
 beauty of the text, but does not alter the contents from those 
 already known in any essential respect. And even though 
 passages are found of the soundness of which we cannot but 
 entertain a doubt, it is yet, upon the whole, a matter of 
 astonishment that so old a literary work as the Old Testament, 
 written in a character so little practised and so much exposed 
 to serious risks, should still be so readable and so intelligible. 
 
 Letters which are very similar in appearance were readily 
 interchanged. Even the ancients were aware of this danger, 
 and ὁ. Sabb. 1030 expressly warns against the confusion of & 
 with y, of ἃ with 5, of 3 with y, of 5 with 5, of 5 with n, of 
 ἡ with », of + with 3, of n with 5, of Ὁ with p. Examples of 
 such interchanges have been occasionally referred to above. 
 
§ 98. UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OF TEXT. 253 
 
 The confusion of 5 and Ἵ was particularly common. So, too, the 
 confusion 2 and 5. Onn anda compare above, ὃ 77; and 
 specially on Ὁ and Ὁ, Isaiah xxx. 4, o3n, LXX. pon. It should 
 further be remembered here, that the forms of the old Hebrew 
 letters have also to be taken into consideration (ὃ 75), because 
 here other similarities may have led to interchanges. Ex- 
 amples are: Zeph. ii. 13, where the received spy ‘39 might 
 easily originate in the old system of writing from the original 
 (as preserved in the LXX.) ἽΝ OVD; also Isaiah xix. 18, 
 where ΘΠ might in a similar way originate from psy; and 
 Isaiah xvii. 9, upon which Lagarde, Semitica, i. 31, should be 
 consulted. 
 
 Abbreviations were misunderstood, In particular, it cannot 
 be doubted that mn even in ancient times had been sometimes 
 written only as * Then the LXX. presupposes in Jer. 
 xxv. 37, ‘Ds for mn ὮΝ, and conversely the LXX. had read in 
 Jonah i. 3, myn I2y, instead of “ay, and in Ps, xvi. 3, nym 
 VIN, instead of “N nY[A]. Compare also Hitzig on Jer, 
 ii. 19 and vi.11. So, too, it would seem that here and there 
 in the Scriptures transcribers made use of contractions for 
 the grammatical endings, in which cases then the marks of 
 abbreviation might easily have been overlooked. Thus Lowth 
 and Cheyne conjecture in Isaiah ν. 1, oy, instead of “5, and 
 Derenbourg, in Ps. exlvii. 17, my ow, instead of spy "2. 
 So, too, in Isaiah li. 4, read O'DY for Ὁ", Compare also 
 Klostermann on 1 Sam. xiv. 34; and in general, J. D. 
 Michaélis, Orient. und exeget. Biblioth. 20.37; Τῶν, Graphische 
 fequisiten, pp. 44-53 ; Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 215. 
 
 Sometimes errors in the text rest upon wrongly supplied 
 vowel letters (§ 79), eg. 2 Sam. xiii. 18, where priv should 
 be read instead of pS yy. Perhaps also the Q’re 89 referred 
 to in § 92 should be so judged, for originally it would be 
 written Nn. 
 
 The false dividing of words plays a very considerable réle, 
 the possibility of which may be seen from what is said in 
 § 83. Not infrequently is a letter separated from its own 
 word and added to the next. Even the Jewish tradition was 
 aware of some of these cases, as we have already seen (ὃ 33), 
 
254 § 98. UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OF TEXT. 
 
 for their corrected readings in such passages as 2 Sam. v. 2, 
 Job xxxvill. 12, Jer. iv. 5, Ezra iv. 12, are quite right. 
 But we meet with this phenomenon very frequently. Thus 
 in the already cited passages, Hos. vi. 5, Jer. xv. 10, 
 xxi oo, Ps: xii 61, and) further,;in Neh. 1 12; read “yam 
 smoy; Ps. Ixii. 4, read anna ΠΥ; Ps. xliv. 5, read myn ‘nds; 
 Gen. xlix. 19 f., read wy papy; Eccles. vii. 27, read nbnpn aps, 
 ete. Of a somewhat similar kind are the cases where a letter 
 which concludes one word and at the same time begins the 
 second, is through an oversight only written once: eg. 2 Sam. 
 v. 2, read ns ΘΠ; Jer. lili. 10, read whnn; Zech. iv. 7, read 
 “in ΠῚ Ps. xl. 2, read nowo; Ps. civ. 18, read annn; Job 
 Xxxiii. 17, read nwynn; Eccles. iiv24 f., δ Ὁ, etc. And such 
 eases as those in which an initial and final letter has been 
 wrongly reduplicated: eg. Jer. vi. 20, read 3; Neh. 11. 14, 
 read qax5o; Ps. xxii. 31, read s, ete. 
 
 Passages where letters have been transposed are found in: 
 Ps. xviii. 46, an, on the contrary, 2 Sam. 11. 22, mann; Ps. 
 Ixxil. 5, Jw, read JN; Isa. vii. 12, swp, which probably is 
 to be altered into vp (with 4 for 4). False repetitions are 
 found in Jer. iv. 25, where oy [Ὁ}] has arisen out of o's°297 
 by repeating final sound; Jer. viii. 3, where the second 
 oxy, and Isa. xli. 1, where no pny (compare xl. 31), are 
 to be struck out (compare also Ps. xviii. 14). 
 
 A well-known cause of textual errors is the similar begin- 
 ning of two clauses, of which then the second came to be 
 overlooked. An example is found in Josh. xv. 59, where a 
 whole series of names of places has disappeared from the 
 Massoretic text (compare the LXX.), Not less was the 
 danger attending the adding of omitted passages of the text in 
 the margin, because the signs of correction might easily be 
 misunderstood. In this way are explained passages where 
 the succession of clauses is evidently in confusion, eg. 2 Sam. 
 xix. 12, where the words oon... 121 belong to v. 11 
 (compare the LXX.), and Ps. xxxiv., where v. 16 and v. 17 
 must be transposed. While in these cases a simple trans- 
 position is sufficient, there are other passages to be met with, 
 where various portions foreign to the original text have been 
 
§ 99. REVIEW. 255 
 
 introduced through the incorporation of marginal notes. 
 Thus originated the words standing in a falsified passage, 
 Isa, xxxviii. 21 f., introduced from 2 Kings xx. 7 f. Many 
 passages of this sort are indeed subjects of controversy, but the 
 existence of interpolations, eg. in Isa. vil. 8, ix. 13 ἢ, 
 xxix. 10, has now at last been placed beyond all doubt. 
 In Dan. ii. 4, indeed, n5" was originally a parenthesis apply- 
 ing to the whole passage ii. 4--ν11, 28, the adoption of which 
 into the text brought with it the change of Mx into 37%. 
 (compare also Ezra iv. 7). 
 
 99. It only remains for us now to bind together in one 
 comprehensive description of the historical development of the 
 Oid Testament what has been brought out in the preceding 
 sections (ὃ 92 ff.). It has been shown that the form of the 
 text, as it now lies before us, in all essential respects can be 
 traced back to the first century after Christ, while we have 
 sure witnesses to prove that in the time before Christ a form 
 of text did exist which diverged considerably from the one we 
 now possess. As concerns the Pentateuch, this pre-Christian 
 text had been widely circulated, though indeed in various, and 
 in part divergent, copies, and yet this old text cannot be 
 characterised as one superior to the one that subsequently 
 became the received text. So also in regard to the other 
 book, for which only the LXX. is the oldest witness, some- 
 times the Alexandrine translation, sometimes the subsequently 
 received text, has preserved the original. Already this dis- 
 tinction of the pre-Christian and post-Christian age suggests 
 the conjecture, that the domination of the received text is to 
 be ascribed to the endeavours of the same men who, shortly 
 after Christ, finally settled the question as to the extent and 
 range of the Old Testament Canon (ὃ 6). The necessity that 
 everything that concerned Scripture, the peculiar source and 
 centre of Jewish life and activity after the fall of Jerusalem, 
 should be made perfectly certain and immovably steadfast, 
 carried with it also the demand that the text must receive a 
 
256 § 99. REVIEW. 
 
 fixed form, which was of consequence especially in con- 
 troversies with the Christians, who were dependent upon the 
 LXX. If, therefore, we were to refer to men such as R. Akiba 
 and his like-minded contemporaries, as those who have on this 
 point also procured for the Jews certainty and unity, it would 
 be in perfect consistency with this view, that we should meet 
 for the first time with this form of the text which has held 
 the sway from that time onwards in Aquila, who was dependent 
 upon R. Akiba or his immediate contemporaries (ὃ 52). How 
 strongly the Jews felt themselves in subsequent times bound 
 to this authorised text is shown in a striking manner in this, 
 that no one ventured to change it, even in passages where he 
 rightly felt convinced of its incorrectness, whether it be that 
 this insight had been obtained by means of reflection or 
 by the remembrance of other and in part more suitable 
 readings (δ 33). 
 
 Of the style and manner in which this authorised text was 
 constructed we unfortunately know nothing definitely. This 
 much only is plain, that the very conception of such an 
 authorised form of text implies the existence of a definite 
 standard manuscript, which was pronounced the only allow- 
 able one. In so far, the relatively recent but already wide- 
 spread theory, that all extant manuscripts point back to one 
 single archetype, is decidedly correct. Such ἃ standard 
 manuscript might secure currency, either by means of direct 
 transcription, or by means of this, that in a greater or less 
 degree the extant manuscripts were corrected in accordance 
 with it (Ὁ ™33, eg. jer., Sanhed. ii. fol. 20c); and so we see 
 also this established text pushing its way in a remarkably 
 short time wherever the Pharisaic influence extended. On 
 the other hand, the equally widespread theory that this 
 primitive Codex obtained this position by mere arbitrary 
 choice, or by the manuscripts of the several books that by 
 chance were at hand being bound together into one standard 
 
§ 99. REVIEW. 257 
 
 Bible, is by no means certain. Even if this may have been 
 the case with particular books,—for example, with the Book 
 of Samuel (§ 95), where surely the manifest errors of the text 
 would scarcely have been allowed to stand if the authorised 
 text had been established by means of the collation of several 
 manuscripts,—it certainly had not been the only principle 
 employed, least of all in the case of the Law. The Jewish 
 tradition, indeed, expressly declares that in the establishing of 
 the Pentateuch text various manuscripts were collated, and 
 that only in this way was an authentic form of the text 
 produced (jer. Taanith iv.); and we have absolutely no right 
 to regard the tradition as a fiction. On the other hand, it is 
 quite correct to say that the critical activity in these matters 
 was reduced to a minimum, so that, e.g., the parallel texts of 
 the Old Testament (§ 73) were not brought into harmony, 
 and that in no case was an endeavour made to bring about 
 correspondence between the authorised text and the ancient 
 spoken form of the text, which lay at the foundation of the 
 distinction between the Q’re and the K°téb. But this fidelity 
 to the objective witnesses for the text is in fact to be con- 
 sidered as a great benefit, since at that time a more subjective 
 criticism, through its dependence upon dogmatic motives and 
 unhistorical principles, would have been prdductive of in- 
 curable mischief. Inadequate as the method of textual 
 criticism certainly was which is indicated in the passages 
 quoted from the Talmud—namely, in the choice of readings, 
 to let the matter be determined by the number of the 
 witnesses—-the several passages in the Old Testament that 
 have been intentionally changed show (ὃ 97) what the result 
 would have been if a subjective criticism had had freer play 
 in the establishing of the authorised text. 
 
 By means of the hypothesis of such a primitive exemplar, 
 from which all later manuscripts were transcribed, we may 
 
 finally explain a part of several abnormal forms which with 
 R 
 
258 § 99, REVIEW. 
 
 pedantic scrupulosity have been preserved down to our own 
 days (§ 77). The irregularly large or small letters, of which 
 mention is to some extent already made in the Babylonian 
 Talmud, may have been occasioned by inequalities or some 
 other defect in the material of that standard manuscript, for 
 later copyists out of reverence for their pattern slavishly 
 imitated them. Also the so-called litter suspense may 
 indeed in part be omitted letters which in that manuscript 
 were added above the other letters. 
 
 Rich. Simon (Histoire Critique du V. T. liv. i. chap. xviii., 
 ed. Rotterdam 1685, p, 101) points out the importance of 
 the early years of the Christian era for the establishment of 
 this text: “ Et ainsi cette grande aversion des Juifs pour la 
 Traduction des Septante, n’a commeneé qu’apres plusieurs 
 disputes 4115 eurent avec les Chrétiens; et ce fut principale- 
 ment dans ce temps-la que les Juifs s’appliquérent au sens 
 littéral de l’Ecriture et ἃ rendre les exemplaires hébreux les 
 plus corrects quwil leur fut possible.” 
 
 The derivation of all manuscripts from one Archetype has 
 been maintained by Rosenmiiller (Vorrede zur Stereotypausgabe 
 des A. T. 1834), Olshausen (Die Psalmen, 1853, pp. 17 f., 
 337 f.), Lagarde (Anmerkungen zur griech. Uebers. d. Pro- 
 verbien, 1863, Ὁ. 11; GGA, 1870, p. 1549 ff), Noldeke 
 (Alttestament. Literatur, p. 241), etc. Compare also 74 W, 
 ix. 303; and on the other side, 7WKL, 1887, p. 278 ff. 
 Lagarde has formulated this theory in a quite peculiar style in 
 the Preface referred to in ὃ 97; but compare Kuenen’s reply 
 there also referred to. Against the hypothesis that the 
 standard manuscript consisted of manuscripts arbitrarily put 
 together, compare Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedie, 
 i 388. 
 
 Jer. Taanith, iv. fol. 685: “Three Torah Codices were 
 found in the temple Court, Codex ἣν, Codex ιν, and Codex 
 ἐπ. In one there was pyp (Deut. xxxiii. 27), while the two 
 others had nnya; one had δὴν) (Ex. xxiv. 5; compare Levy, 
 Neuhebréisches Wéorterbuch i. 507), the other two τ; one 
 
8. 99. REVIEW. 259 
 
 had nine times 'n, the others eleven times yn. In all three 
 cases the two were held to and the one rejected.” Compare 
 Masseket Soph’rim vi. 4, p. xii. Fiirst’s Remarks on an Ezra 
 Codex (Kanon εἰ, A. 7. p. 117) rest, as Strack has shown, on 
 a wrong reading, ὁ. Moed Kat. 18); compare Rabbinovicz, 
 Varie Lectiones in Mischnam, i. 61. 
 
 The similarity of the post-Christian forms of the text 
 spoken of in the above section is naturally true only upon the 
 whole, and does not exclude, as follows indeed from the facts 
 already set forth in §§ 92-93, all sorts of small divergences. 
 An important question, the exhaustive answer to which, how- 
 ever, requires the performance of the task referred to in § 93, 
 is to determine the exact relation between the Massoretic text 
 and the Archetypal texts of Aquila, Symmachus, and Jerome. 
 In a remarkable way the Hebrew manuscripts, which certainly 
 were derived from the most diverse regions, seem to form a 
 unity over against those translators, because the variations 
 present in these are only extremely seldom repeated in any 
 one manuscript. Evidently the rigid stability of form which 
 resulted from the labours of the Massoretes called into being 
 new standard texts, on which the manuscripts are directly 
 dependent, which, however, were themselves collateral with 
 the manuscripts used by those translators. 
 
 MORRISON AND GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. 
 
ἢ Ν ΕΝ P A Pay ie {ρα OMe ον ΤΥ 
 5 oy) Ἐν} ' - ' δ ᾿ Pa Mi πων ahi 
 ε΄ 
 - I 
 
T. ἃ T. CLARK’S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 ene 
 
 FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 
 
 PUBLISHERS’ NOTICE ON COMPLETION OF THE SERIES. 
 
 ESSRS. CLARK beg to invite the attention of Clergymen and educated 
 Laymen to this Series. 
 
 Forty-five years have now elapsed since the commencement of the Forrian 
 THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY, and during that time Four Volumes annually (or 180 
 in all) have appeared with the utmost regularity. 
 
 It is now, however, difficult to preserve this regularity; and, whilst the 
 Publishers will continue to issue translations of the best German and French 
 works, they will do so as occasion offers, and thus the publications will be even 
 more select. 
 
 In completing the Foreign THEoLocicaL Liprary as a series, they desire 
 anew to express their grateful thanks to the Subscribers for their support. 
 
 They trust and believe that the whole series has exercised, through the 
 care with which the books have been selected, a healthful influence upon the 
 progress of theological science in this country and the United States. 
 
 The BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL, with regard to Sacred Study, says :—‘/t may be 
 of some little service to the reader if | mention the long and valuable series of Commentaries on, 
 / believe, every book of the Old Testament, that will be found translated from the German in the 
 comprehensive Foreign Theological Library of Messrs. Clark of Edinburgh. The same Library may 
 be mentioned in reference to the New Testament; and it may be further mentioned that, by the 
 enterprise of the same Publishers, the whole of the valuable Commentaries of the late Dr. Meyer 
 are now accessible to the English student.’ 
 
 Prof. W. R. HARPER, of Chicago University, and Editor of ‘The Biblical World,’ writes :— 
 ‘The FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY, published by Messrs. T. ἃ T. Clark of Edinburgh, has 
 exercised a great influence upon the biblical studies in this country and in England. /t has 
 introduced to students of the Scriptures some of the best work of German theologians and critics. 
 The Publishers announce that, with the concluding volume of Schiirer's ‘‘ History of the Jewish 
 People in the Time of Christ," they will bring the series to an end. The forty-five years of pubdli- 
 cation, at the rate of four volumes yearly, is an achievement to look back upon with pride, and the 
 belief of the Messrs. Clark, that ‘‘through the care with which books have been selected, the series 
 has exercised a healthful influence upon the progress of theological science,” is amply justified. 
 /t is gratifying to learn that they do not propose entirely to give up this special work of publish- 
 ing such translations, but will discontinue the serial publication, issuing books irregularly, as 
 occasion offers.’ 
 
 In order to bring the Foreign TnEoLocicaL ΓΙΒΕΛΕΥ͂ more within the reach 
 of all, it has been decided to allow selections of 
 
 EIGHT VOLUMES 
 at the Subscription Price of 
 TWO GUINEAS (net) 
 
 (or more at the same ratio). N.5.—No duplicates can be included in such 
 selections. A complete list of volumes in the ForEIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY 
 
 will be found on the following page. 
 - 
 
T. & Ty CLARK’S: PUBLICATIONS: 
 
 THE FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 
 
 The following are the Works from which a Selection of E1cHT VoLuMEs for £2, 28. (or more at the 
 same ratio) may be made. (Non-subscription Price within brackets) :— 
 
 Baumgarten—The History of the Church in the Apostolic Age, Three Vols (27s.) 
 Bleek—Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Cassel—Commentary on Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Christlieb—Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Delitzsch—New Commentary on Genesis. Two Vols. (215.) 
 Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Last Edition. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. TwoVols (2ls.) 
 A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (12s.) 
 Ddllinger—Hippolytus and Callistus; or, The Church of Rome: A.D. 200-250. One Vol. (7s. 6d.) 
 Dorner—A System of Christian Doctrine. Four Vols. (42s.) 
 History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Five Vols. (52s. 6d.) 
 Ebrard—Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
 The Gospel History. One Vol. (10s.6d.) Apologetics. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 Ewald—Revelation : Its Nature and Record. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Old and New Testament Theology. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Frank—System of Christian Certainty. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Gebhardt—Doctrine of the Apocalypse. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Gerlach—Commentary on the Pentateuch. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Gieseler—Compendium of Ecclesiastical History: A.D. 451-1409. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 Godet—Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Commentary on St. John’s Gospel. Three Vols. (81s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Commentary on lst Corinthians. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Goebel—On the Parables. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Hagenbach—History of the Reformation. Two Vols. (2I1s.) 
 History of Christian Doctrines. Three Vols. (81s. 6d.) 
 Harless—A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Haupt—Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Havernick—General Introduction to the Old Testament. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Hengstenberg—Christology of the Old Testament. Four Vols. (42s.) 
 Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (33s.) 
 On the Book of Ecclesiastes, etc. etc. One Vol. (9s.) 
 Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One Vol. (12s.) 
 The Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Keil—Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on the Books of Samuel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Vols. (21s.) Book of Daniel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Biblical Archzwology. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Kurtz—History of the Old Covenant; or, Old Testament Dispensation. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 Lange—Commentary on the Gospels ‘of St. Matthew and St. Mark. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Two Vols. (18s.) St.John. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Luthardt—Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
 History of Christian Ethics to the Reformation. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Macdonald—Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Martensen—Christian Dogmatics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Christian Ethics. General—Social—Individual. Three Vols. (315. 6d.) 
 Miiller—The Christian Doctrine of Sin. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Murphy—Commentary on the Psalms. 700 countas Two Volumes. One Vol. (128.) 
 Neander—General History of the Christian Religion and Church. Vols. I. to VIII. (60s.) 
 Oehler—Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Olshausen—Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Four Vols. (42s.) 
 Commentary on Epistle tothe Romans. One Vol. (10s.6d.) Corinthians. One Vol. (9s.) 
 Commentary on Philippians, Titus, and lst Timothy. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Orelli—Prophecy regarding Consummation of God’s Kingdom. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Commentary on Isaiah. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Jeremiah. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Philippi—Commentary on Epistle to Romans. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Rkbiger—Encyclopxdia of Theology. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Ritter—Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Vols. (26s.) 
 Sartorius—The Doctrine of Divine Love. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Schfirer—The Jewish People in the Time of Christ. Five Vols. (10s. 6d. each.) 
 Shedd—History of Christian Doctrine. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Steinmeyer—History of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 The Miracles of our Lord in relation to Modern Criticism. One Vol (7s. 6d.) 
 Stier—The Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight Vols. (10s. 6d. per vol.) 
 
 The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on a of St. James. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 Ullmann—Reformers before the Reformation. Two Vols. (21s.) 
 Weiss—Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 2 Vols. (21s.) The Life of Christ. 3 Vols. (31s. θᾶ.) 
 Winer—Oollection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
 
T. ἃ T. CLARK’S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 THE ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY. 
 
 The Ante-Nicene Christian Library. A Collection of all the 
 Works of the Fathers of the Christian Church prior to the Council 
 of Nicea. Edited by the Rev. Professor Rosrerrs, D.D., and 
 Principal James Donaupson, LL.D., St. Andrews. In Twenty-four 
 handsome 8vo Volumes, Subscription Price £6, 6s. net; or a 
 selection of Twelve Volumes for £3, 3s. net. 
 
 Any Volume may be had separately, price 10s. θᾶ, 
 
 This Series has been received with marked approval by all sections of the Christian 
 Church in this country and in the United States, as supplying what has long been 
 felt to be a want, and also on account of the impartiality, learning, and care with 
 which Editors and Translators have executed a very difficult task. 
 
 The following Works are included in the Series :— 
 
 Apostolic Fathers, comprising Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians; Polycarp to the 
 Ephesians ; Martyrdom of Polycarp; Epistle of Barnabas; Epistles of Ignatius (longer and 
 shorter, and also the Syriac Version); Martyrdom of Ignatius ; Epistle to Diognetus ; Pastor 
 of Hermas; Papias; Spurious Epistles of Ignatius. One Volume. Justin Martyr; 
 Athenagoras. One Volume. Tatian; Theophilus; The Clementine 
 Recognitions. One Volume. Clement of Alexandria, comprising Exhortation 
 to Heathen; The Instructor; and the Miscellanies. Two Volumes. Hippolytus, 
 Volume First; Refutation of all Heresies, and Fragments from his Commentaries. 
 Irenzus, Volume First. Irenzeus (completion) and Hippolytus (completion); 
 Fragments of Third Century. One Volume. Tertullian against Marcion. 
 One Volume. Cyprian; The Epistles and Treatises; Novatian; Minucius Felix. 
 Two Volumes. Origen: De Principiis ; Letters; and portion of Treatise against Celsus. 
 Two Volumes. Tertullian: To the Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations, etc. Three 
 Volumes. Methodius; Alexander of Lycopolis; Peter of Alexandria 
 Anatolius; Clement on Virginity; and Fragments. One Volume. Apocry- 
 phal Gospels, Acts,and Revelations; comprising all the very curious Apocryphal 
 Writings of the first three Centuries. One Volume. Clementine Homilies; 
 Apostolical Constitutions. One Volume. Arnobius. One Volume. Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus; Dionysius; Archelaus; Syrian Fragments. One Volume. 
 Lactantius; together with the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and Fragments of 
 the Second and Third Centuries. Two Volumes. Early Liturgies and Remaining 
 Fragments. One Volume. 
 
 ST. AUGUSTINE'S WORKS. 
 
 The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. 
 Edited by Marcus Dons, D.D. In Fifteen Volumes, demy 8vo, 
 Subscription Price £3, 19s. net. 
 
 Any Volume may be had separately, price 10s. 6d. 
 
 The ‘City of God.’ Two Volumes. | The Harmony of the Evangelists, 
 Writings in connection with the and the Sermon on the Mount. 
 Donatist Controversy. One Volume. One Volume. 
 The Anti-Pelagian Works. Three | ‘Letters.’ Two Volumes. 
 Volumes. On Christian Doctrine, Enchiridion 
 Treatises against Faustus the on Catechising, and on Faith 
 Manichzan,. One Volume. and the Creed. One Volume. 
 On the Trinity. One Volume. ‘Confessions.’ With Copious Notes by 
 Commentary on John. Two Volumes. Rev. J. G. PILKINGTON. 
 
 _ ‘For the reproduction of the ‘City of God” in an admirable English garb we are greatly 
 indebted to the well-directed enterprise and energy of Messrs. Clark, and to the accuracy and 
 scholarship of those who have undertaken the laborious task of translation.’'—Christian Observer. 
 
 N.B.—Messrs. CLARK offer a Selection of Twelve Volumes from either or both of 
 those Series at the Subscription Price of Three Guineas net (or a larger number at 
 same proportion), 
 
‘T&T... CLARK'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 MEYER’S COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 ‘Meyer has been long and well known to scholars as one of the very ablest of the German 
 expositors of the New Testament. We are not sure whether we ought not to say that he is 
 unrivalled as an interpreter of the grammatical and historical meaning of the sacred writers. 
 The Publishers have now rendered another seasonable and important service to English students in 
 producing this translation.’— GUARDIAN. 
 
 Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New 
 Testament. By Dr. H. A. W. Meyer, Oberconsistorialrath, 
 Hannover. Under the editorial care of Rev. Dr. Dickson, late 
 Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow. In Twenty 
 handsome 8vo Volumes, price £5, 5s. net. Or a selection may 
 now be made of any Hight Volumes for Two Guineas net (or a 
 larger number at the same proportion). 
 
 Any Volume may be had separately, price 10s. 6d. 
 
 ST, MATTHEW’S GOSPEL, Two Volumes ; MARK AND LUKE, Two Volumes; ST. JOHN’S 
 GOSPEL, Two Volumes; ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, Two Volumes; ROMANS, 
 Two Volumes; CORINTHIANS, Two Volumes; GALATIANS, One Volume; 
 EPHESIANS AND PHILEMON, One Volume; PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS, 
 One Volume; THESSALONIANS, One Volume; TIMOTHY AND TITUS, One 
 Volume; HEBREWS, One Volume; JAMES AND JOHN, One Volume; PETER 
 AND JUDE, One Volume. 
 
 The series, as written by Meyer himself, is completed by the publication of Ephesians 
 with Philemon in one volume. But to this the Publishers have thought it right to add 
 Thessalonians and Hebrews, by Dr. Liinemann, and the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles, 
 by Dr. Huther. 
 
 ‘I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous, and learned 
 commentary of Dr. Meyer has been most carefully consulted throughout; and I must 
 again, as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my great obligations to the acumen and 
 scholarship of the learned editor.’—Bishop Exuicorr in Preface to his Commentary on 
 Ephesians. 
 
 ‘The ablest grammatical exegete of the age.’—Puiiie Scuarr, D.D. 
 
 Works of Dr. John Owen. Edited by Rev. W. H. Goo.p, 
 D.D., Edinburgh. In 24 Volumes, demy 8vo, price £4, 4s. net. 
 
 THE COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, in Seven Volumes, may 
 be had separately, price 42s. 
 
 Works of John Calvin. Commentaries, Forty-five Volumes. 
 TRACTS ON THE ReFoRMATION, Three Volumes. 
 
 A Selection of Six Volumes (or more at the same proportion) for 21s., with the exception 
 of PSALMS, Vols. I. and V.; HABAKKUK and CORINTHIANS, 2 Vols.— 
 which are now out of print. Any separate Volume (with the above exceptions), 6s. 
 
 THE LETTERS, Edited by Dr. Bonnet, Two Volumes, 10s. 6d. 
 
 THE INSTITUTES, Two Volumes, Translated, 14s. 
 
 THE INSTITUTES, in Latin, Two Volumes, Tholuck’s Edition, price 14s. net. 
 
T. & T. CLARK’S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 BENGEL’S GNOMON. 
 
 ‘Stands out among the exegetical lite:ature not only of the eighteenth century, but of all 
 centuries, for its masterly terseness and precision, and for its combination of spiritual insight 
 with the best scholarship of his time.'—Professor W. Sanpay, D.D., Oxford. 
 
 Gnomon of the New Testament. By Jonny A .serr 
 Bencet. Translated into English. With Original Notes, Explana- 
 tory and Illustrative. Edited by the Rev. ANprew R. Fausset, 
 M.A. The Original Translation was in Five Large Volumes, demy 
 8vo, averaging more than 550 pp. each, and the very great 
 demand for this Edition has induced the Publishers to issue the 
 Five Volumes bound in Three, at the Subscription Price of 24s. net. 
 They trust by this still further to increase its usefulness. 
 
 *.* The Five Volume Edition may still be had at the original Subscription 
 Price, £1, 118. 6d. net. 
 
 Tue Bishop or GLOUCESTER AND Bristou says of Bengel:—‘ There is one expositor 
 so uniquely eminent in drawing from Holy Scripture its deeper spiritual meaning, 
 that it may be well for the student always to have at hand, for the New Testament, 
 the Gnomon of Bengel, and to acquire through the help of this most introspective 
 expositor the aptitude of drawing from the Holy Word its full message to the soul.’ 
 
 STIER’S WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS. 
 
 The Words of the Lord Jesus. By Dr. Rupowrn Sten. 
 Eight Vols. 8vo (or the Eight Vols. bound in Four), £2, 2s. net. 
 
 The Words of the Risen Saviour, 8vo, 10s. 6d.; and 
 
 The Words of the Apostles, 8vo, 10s. 6d. (Or the Ten 
 Volumes for £2, 12s. 6d. net.) 
 
 ‘The whole work is a treasury of thoughtful exposition. Its measure of practical and 
 spiritual application, with exegetical criticism, commends it to the use of those whose 
 duty it is to preach as well as to understand the Gospel of Christ..—Guardian. 
 
 LANGE’S LIFE OF CHRIST. 
 The Life of the Lord Jesus Christ: A Complete Critical 
 
 Examination of the Origin, Contents, and Connection of the 
 Gospels. Translated from the German of J. P. Lanes, D.D., 
 Professor of Divinity in the University of Bonn. Edited, with 
 additional Notes, by Marcus Dops, D.D. Cheap Edition, in Four 
 Volumes, demy 8vo, price 28s. net. 
 
 ‘Stands in the front rank of lives of Christ; it first presents the life of Christ as 
 given in the four Gospels together, and then as given by each Gospel separately from 
 its peculiar standpoint.’—Principal A. Cave, D.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR EADIE'S COMMENTARIES. 
 
 Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians. [By the late Professor 
 J. Eaviz, D.D. The Three Volumes are supplied at the price of 
 18s. net, or in separate Volumes, at 10s. 6d. each. They have 
 been carefully edited by the Rev. Witt1am Youne, M.A., Glasgow. 
 
To& TT CreARK'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 Commentary on the New Testament. With Illustration 
 and Maps. Edited by Puinie Scuarr, D.D., LL.D. Complete in 
 Four Volumes, imperial 8vo, price 12s. 6d. each. 
 
 CoNTRIBUTORS :—The Very Rev. Dean Howson; The Very Rev. Dean Plumptre ; 
 Principal David Brown, D.D.; J. Rawson Lumby, D.D.; W. Milligan, D.D. ; 
 W. F. Moulton, D.D.; Rev. Canon Spence; Marcus Dods, D.D.; J. Oswald 
 Dykes, D.D.; Joseph Angus, D.D.; Paton J. Gloag, D.D.; 8. D. F. Salmond, 
 D.D.; William B. Pope, D.D.; Philip Schaff, D.D.; Matthew B. Riddle, D.D. 
 Maps and Plans—Professor Arnold Guyot. Illustrations—W. M. Thomson, 
 D.D., Author of ‘The Land and the Book.’ 
 
 Volume 7. Volume 11]. 
 The Synoptical Gospels. St. John’s Gospel, and 
 The Acts of the Apostles. 
 Volume 11]. Volume IV. 
 Romans to Philemon. Hebrews to Revelation. 
 
 ‘A useful, valuable, and instructive commentary. The interpretation is set forth with 
 clearness and cogency, and in a manner calculated to commend the volumes to the 
 thoughtful reader. The book is beautifully got up, and reflects great credit on the 
 publishers as well as the writers.—THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. 
 
 ‘I have looked into this volume, and read several of the notes on crucial passages. 
 They seem to me very well done, with great fairness, and with evident knowledge of 
 the controversies concerning them. ‘The illustrations are very good. I cannot doubt 
 that the book will prove very valuable.—TuHE ΒΙΒΗΟΡ oF WINCHESTER. 
 
 ‘ We have already spoken of this commentary with warm praise, and we can certainly 
 assert that the enterp:ise has now been brought to a close with really admirable work.’ 
 —English Churchinan. 
 
 ‘We congratulate Dr. Schaff on the completion of this useful work, which we are now 
 able to commend, in its complete form, to English readers of the Scriptures, . . . It will 
 be seen that we have a high opinion of this commentary, of the present volume, and also 
 of the whole work. In this last respect it is perhaps of more uniform excellence than 
 any of its rivals, and in beauty of appearance it excels them all.’—Church Bells. 
 
 Studies in the Christian Evidences: Being Apologetics for 
 the Times. By Rev. AtexanpER Marr, D.D. Third Edition, 
 Revised and Enlarged, crown 8vo, price 6s. 
 
 ‘This book ought to become immensely popular. ... That one chapter on ‘‘ The 
 Unique Personality of Christ” is a masterpiece of eloquent writing, though it is 
 scarcely fair to mention one portion where every part is excellent. The beauties of the 
 volume are everywhere apparent, and therefore will again attract the mind that has 
 been once delighted with the literary feast.’— The Rock. 
 
 Encyclopedia of Theology. By Professor J. F. RAsicsr, 
 D.D., Breslau. Translated, with additions to the History and 
 Literature, by Rev. J. Macrpuerson, M.A. 2 Vols. 8vo, price 21s. 
 
 ‘Rabiger’s Encyclopedia is a book deserving the attentive perusal of every divine. 
 . . » It is at once instructive and suggestive.’—A thenewum. 
 
 System of the Christian Certainty. By Professor Dr. Fr. 
 H. R. Frank, Erlangen. In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d. 
 
 ‘No weightier or more valuable theological work has come to us from Germany 
 since the publication of Dr. Dorner’s ‘‘ Christian Doctrine.” ’—Literary World. 
 
 The Gospel of St. Peter. Synoptical Tables. With Transla- 
 tion and Critical Apparatus. Edited by Prof. H. von ScHuBeErt, 
 D.D., Kiel. Authorised English Translation. 8vo, 1s. 6d. net. 
 
 ‘ The most useful thing that has yet been published on this fragment.’—Ezpository Times. 
 
T. & T. CLARK’S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 BY PRINCIPAL 4. CAVE, 0.0. 
 
 An Introduction to Theology: Its Principles, Its Branches, 
 Its Results, and Its Literature. By Atrrep Cave, B.A., D.D., 
 Principal of Hackney College, London. Second Edition, largely 
 rewritten, and the Bibliographical Lists carefully revised to date. 
 In demy 8vo, price 12s. 
 
 ‘The best original work on the subject in the English language.’—Puiuip Scnarr. 
 D.D., LL.D. 
 
 ‘Its arrangement is perfect, its learning accurate and extensive, and its practical hints 
 invaluable.’—Christian World. 
 
 ‘A marvel of industry, and simply invaluable to theologians.’—Clergyman’s 
 Magazine. 
 
 The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement. 
 By Aurrep Cave, D.D., Principal of Hackney College, London. 
 In demy 8vo, New Edition, revised throughout, price 10s. 6d. 
 
 ‘Every page in this edition has been carefully revised in the light of the latest 
 relative researches. The literary references have also been brought down to date... . 
 In the New Testament section there is considerable variation. Upon the Doctrine of 
 the Atonement especially, conclusions upon which affect so materially the presentation 
 of Christian truth, the author’s views have been steadily ripening, as he believes, during 
 the thought of years. Consequently more than half of the New Testament portion has 
 been rewritten.’— Hatract from the Preface. 
 
 ‘ Let readers judge—is this not now the best systematic study of the Atonement in 
 the English language ὃ ’—Hapository Times. 
 
 BY PRINCIPAL D. W. SIMON, D.D. 
 
 The Redemption of Man: Discussions Bearing on the Atone- 
 
 ment. By Principal D. W. Smon, D.D., Bradford. In demy 8vo, 
 price 10s. 6d. 
 
 Principal FarrBarrN, Mansfield College, writes:—‘I wish to say how stimulating 
 and helpful I have found your book. Its criticism is constructive as well as incisive, 
 while its point of view is elevated and commanding, It made me feel quite vividly how 
 superficial most of the recent discussions on the Atonement have been.’ 
 
 ‘Its learning, ample although that be, is its least merit: it has the far higher and 
 rarer qualities of freshness of view and deep ethical insight. I hope it will find the 
 general and cordial reception it so well deserves.’—Professor R. Firnr, D.D. 
 
 The Bible an Outgrowth of Theocratic Life. By Prin- 
 cipal 1). W. ὅϊμον, D.D., Bradford. In crown 8vo, price 4s. 6d. 
 
 ‘ This book will well repay perusal. It contains a great deal of learning as well as 
 ingenuity, and the style is clear. — Guardian. 
 
 ‘Dr. Simon’s little book is worthy of the most careful attention.’— Baptist. 
 
 ‘ Dr. Joun Brown, of Bedford, writes :—‘ I feel sure that such of your readers as may 
 
 2S Smet with it, will be as grateful for its valuable help as I have been 
 myself.’ 
 
 Delivery and Development of Christian Doctrine. By 
 Ropert Rarny, D.D., Principal, and Professor of Divinity and 
 Church History, New College, Edinburgh. Price 10s. 6d. 
 
 ‘We gladly acknowledge the high excellence and the extensive learning which these 
 lectures display. They are able to the last degree, and the author has, in an unusual 
 measure, the power of acute and brilliant generalisation.’—Literary Churchman. 
 
 ‘ The subject is treated with a comprehensive grasp, keen logical power, clear analysis 
 and learning, and in devout spirit.'.—Evangelical Magazine. 
 
Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students. 
 
 Edited by Professor 
 Warrs, D.D. 
 
 Marcus Dobs, 
 
 D.D., and ALEXANDER 
 
 ‘T name specially the admirable Handbooks for Bible Classes issued by T. ἃ T. Clark of Edin- 
 
 burgh. They are very cheap, and amon 
 RoBERTSON NIcouy in The British Weekly. 
 
 them are some books unsurpassed in their kind.’~Dr. W. 
 
 ‘Sound, intelligible, and sometimes brilliantly-written handbooks, packed with wisdom and 
 
 knowledge.’—Methodist Recorder. 
 
 ‘These volumes are models of the multwm in parvo style. We have long desired to meet with 
 series of this kind—Little Books on Great eed rare World. Ξ eT ee 
 
 COMMENTARIES— 
 
 Professor Marcus Dops, D.D. Genesis. 2s. 
 
 JAMES Macerecor, D.D. Exodus. 2 Vols. 
 2s. each. 
 
 Principal Douauas, D.D. Joshua. 15. 6d. 
 Judges. 15. 3d. 
 
 ee J. G. Murpuy, LL.D. Chronicles. 
 15. 6d. 
 
 Professor Marcus Dops, D.D. Haggai, Zech- 
 ariah, Malachi. 2s. 
 
 Principal Doueias, D.D. Obadiah to Zeph- 
 aniah. Is. 6d. 
 
 Professor T. M. Linpsay, D.D. Mark. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Professor T. M. Linpsay, D.D. St. Luke. 2 
 Vols. 3s. 3d. (Vol. L, 25... ΥΟΙΣ ΤΕ ΒΊΗΣ 
 
 GeEoRGE ReiTH, D.D. St. John. 2 Vols. 25. 
 each. 
 
 Professor T. M. Linpsay, D.D. Acts. 2 Vols. 
 15. 6d. each. 
 
 Principal Brown, D.D. Romans. 2s. 
 
 JAMES MACGREGOR, D.D. Galatians, 15. 6d. 
 
 Professor J. S. CanpiisH, D.D. Ephesians. 
 15. 6d. 
 
 Professor A. B. Davipson, D.D. Hebrews. 
 2s. 6d. 
 
 GENERAL SUBJECTS— 
 
 JAMES STALKER, D.D. 
 
 Rev. JoHN MAcPHERSON, M.A. 
 
 ls. 6d. 
 15. 6d. 
 
 The Life of Christ. 
 
 The Sum of Saving Knowledge. ᾿ 15. 6d. 
 The Life of St. Paul. 
 
 The Confession of Faith. 2s. 
 
 (Large-type Editions, a 6d. each.) Presbyterianism. ls. 6d. 
 ALEXANDER WHYTE, D.D. sare a 
 The Shorter Catechism. 2s. 6d. eae pee ate see 
 
 Professor J. 5. CANDLISH, D.D. 
 
 The Christian Sacraments. Rev. T. B. Kirpatricx, B.D. 
 
 15. 6d. Butler’s Three Sermons on Human 
 
 The Christian Doctrine of God. 15. 6d. 
 The Work of the Holy Spirit. 1s. 6d. _Nature.- 1s. 6d. 
 The Biblical Doctrine of Sin. 15. 6d. President Hamitton, D.D. 
 
 History of the Irish Presbyterian Church. 
 1s. 6d. 2s. 
 Rey. W. ScRYMGEOUR, M.A. 
 Lessons on the Life of Christ. 2s. 6d. 
 A. TAYLOR INNES, M.A., Advocate. 
 Church and State. 3s. 
 Rev. J. FEATHER. 
 The Last of the Prophets—John the 
 Baptist. 2s. 
 Rev. W. FAIRWEATHER, M.A. 
 From the Exile to the Advent. 2s. 
 
 Norman L. WALKER, D.D. 
 Scottish Church History. 
 Rey. W. Ὁ. THomson, M.A. 
 The Christian Miracles and the Conclu- 
 sions of Science. 2s. 
 GrorcE SmitH, LL.D., F.R.G.S., 6.1.1. 
 History of Christian Missions. 2s. 6d. 
 ARCHIBALD HENDERSON, D.D. 
 Palestine: Its Historical Geography. 
 With Maps. 2s. 6d. 
 Professor T. M. Linpsay, D.D. 
 The Reformation. 2s. 
 
 Bible-Class Primers. Edited by Rev. Professor Saumonp, D.D. 
 
 ‘A most useful series. With such helps as these, to be an inefficient teacher is to be blame- 
 worthy.’—Rev. C. H. SPURGEON. 
 
 In paper covers, 6d. each ; free by post, Td. In cloth, 8d. each; free by post, 9d. 
 
 Christian Character: A Study in New Testament Morality, by Rev. T. B, Και,- 
 PATRICK, B.D.—The Free Church of Scotland, by Rev. ὦ. G. M‘Criz, D.D.— 
 The Truth of Christianity, by Professor J. lveracu, D.D.—The Making of Israel, 
 by Rey. C. A. Scorr, B.D.—The Sabbath, by the Eprror—Our Christian Passover, by 
 Rey. C. A. SALMonpD, M.A.—The Kingdom of God, Three Parts (or one vol., cloth, 1s. 6d.), 
 by F. Hersert STEAD, M.A.—The Parables of our Lord, by the Ep1ror—Life of St. John, 
 by Paton J. Guoac, D.D.—The Story of Jerusalem, by Rev. H. Cattan, M.A.—Life of 
 Abraham, by Rev. CHaruzs A. Scorr, B.D.—Historical Connection between the Old 
 and New Testaments, by Professor JoHn SxinneR, M.A.—Life of Christ, by the 
 Epvrror—tThe Shorter Catechism, Three Parts (or one vol., cloth, 1s. 6d.), by the Eprror 
 —The Period of the Judges, by Professor ParEerson, D.D.—Outlines of Protestant 
 Missions, by Rev. J. Ronson, D.D.—The Apostle Peter, by the Eprrorn—Outlines of 
 Early Church History, by H. W. Smiru, D.D.—David, by the late Rev. P. THomson, 
 M.A.—Moses, by Professor J. Iveracu, D.D.—Paul, by Patron J, ἀπολο, D.D.— 
 Solomon, by Rev. R. WinrERBotHAM, M.A., LL.D.—Reformation, by Rev. Professor 
 WirHerow—Kings of Israel, by Rev. W. WALKER, M.A.—Kings of Judah, by Pro- 
 fessor GIVEN, Ph.D.—Joshua and the Conquest, by Professor CRosKERY, 
 
 Extra Vols. Bible Words and Phrases, by Rev. CHAaRLes ΜΊΟΗΙΕ, M.A. 1s.—The 
 Seven Churches of Asia, by Miss DEBorAHn ALCOCK. Is. 
 
ee B934 
 Canon and text of the ms ieemner? 
 
 iN 
 
 1 1012 00038 2541