CANON AND TEXT OP THE OLD TESTAMENT.
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBE,
FOR
&
T.
.
DUBLIN,
....
NEW YORK,
.
.
.
T.
CLARK, EDINBURGH.
SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED. (;EORGE HERBERT.
CHARLES SCRIBNER
S SONS.
CANON AND TEXT OF THK
Cestament
DR.
FKANTS BUHL,
ORDINARY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT
STranslatrtf
REV.
LEIPZIG.
&g
JOHN MACPHERSON,
M.A.,
FINDHORN.
T.
&
T.
EDINBURGH: CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 1892.
PREFACE. THE Author of
city
of the following work, after studying in his native
Copenhagen
and
also
at
Leipzig,
was
appointed
ordinary Professor of Theology and Oriental Languages in the
University of
and was transferred
Copenhagen,
in
1890,
on the death of Dr. Eranz Delitzsch, to occupy the place of that distinguished scholar in Leipzig.
presented in
an English dress
The Treatise now
described by
is
its
Author
as to
some extent an enlarged translation of a Danish work, Den gammeltestamentlige Skriftoverlevering, which had appeared in In
1885. as
to
the
its
original
form
ascertained
reference to the
expanded and
aimed of
Canon and Text recast
in
expresses the hope that students.
it
results
the it
at imparting information
modern researches with
of the Old Testament.
German
may
edition,
the
As
Author
prove useful to theological
For the English edition Professor Buhl has supplied
some additional references
to the
most recent literature, and
his request the Translator has called attention to a
at
few of the
most important contributions of British scholars which bear directly
upon the subject
of this work.
THE TRANSLATOR. FINDHORN, December 1891.
CONTENTS. THE HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON General Sketch I.
(
1-22)
(
.
1),
.
.1
.
The Old Testament Canon among the Jews A. The Palestinian (Babylonian) Canon (
2-13),
(
2-11),
.
.
4
.
.
4
B. The Collection of Scriptures by the Alexandrine Jews 43
(12-13), II.
The Old Testament Canon in
I.
Aids
23),
(
Study of the History of the Text A. The Immediate Apparatus ( 24-36), 1.
Printed Editions
2.
Manuscripts
3.
Collections of Variations
4.
The Jewish Massora
5.
Quotations and Transcriptions
24, 25),
(
26-29),
B. The Old Translations
(
.
30),
(
50
.
82
.82 82
.85 .94
.
36),
(
37-72),
90
.
.
.
.
The Alexandrine Translation Aquila, Theodotion,
3.
Jerome and the Vulgate 56-58), Jewish Targums ( 59-67),
37-50),
(
.
.
.
....
106
.108 .108
Symmachus, Quinta, and Sexta
.
(
.149 .
.
The Syriac Translations of the Bible Aids from within the Text itself 73), 5.
C.
.
.
1.
(51-55),
II.
.
.
31-35),
(
.
.79
24-73),
(
2.
4.
14-22),
23-99)
(
to the
(
(
...
THE HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT Preliminary Remarks
Church
the Christian
(
.
.
(
68-72), .
Remits of the History of the Text ( 74-99), A. The External History of the Text 4-87),
(7
.
167
.
185
.
194
.
.
]59
195
.195 .195
1.
Writing Materials
2.
History of the
Letters
(
75-77),
.
.
198
3.
Vocalisation and Accentuation
(
78-82),
.
.
207
4.
The Divisions
(
74),
Hebrew of the
Text
.
(
.
83-87),
.
.
219
CONTENTS.
Vlll
PAGE
B. The Internal History of the Text ( 88-99), 1. The Linguistic Side of the Text ( 88), 2.
The Transmission Contents
(a) Vocalisation (6)
of the Text according to its Real
89-99)
(
228 228
.
(
232
.
236
90, 91),
The Consonantal Text
(
92-99),
239
.
ABBKEVIATIONS. GGA JPT
.
.
.
.
Gottinger Gelehrte Anzeigen.
.
.
Jahrbiicher fur protestantische Theologie.
MGWJ
.
Monatsschrift fur Geschichte
und Wissenschaft des Juden
thums.
NGG W REJ TA
TM
.
.
.
Revue des Etudes
.
.
.
Alexandrine Text.
.
.
.
TSK ZA .... ZA W .
.
.
.
.
.
ZDMG ZKM ZKWL
.
ZLT
ZWT
Nachrichten der Gottinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Juives.
Massoretic Text.
Theologische Studien und Kritiken. Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie. Zeitschrift der alttestamentlichen Zeitschrift der
"Wissenschaft.
Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft.
.
.
Zeitschrift
fiir
Kunde
.
.
Zeitschrift
fiir
kirchliche Wissenschaft
.
.
Zeitschrift der
gesammten lutherischen Theologie.
.
Zeitschrift
wissenschaftliche Theologie.
.
fiir
des Morgenlandes.
und
kirchliches Leben.
THE HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON.
INTRODUCTION.
1.
The term
"
canonical
books,"
which constitute the rule
of
a\ri6eias /cal rr}?
was
TrtcrTect)?),
fathers of the fourth century.
as designating the writings
faith first
and doctrine (KCLVMV TTJ? employed by the Greek
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 O that
we have
the canon of the Old Testament with which
it is
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 ISTew Testament contains no separate or doctrine on
this
new
So then also we see how, in the
point.
course of the history of the Christian Church, several eminent, clear-sighted
men have
Jews have taught upon pains
to
subject.
make This,
directed their attention to
too,
has
oftentimes
first
been
done
with the
somewhat
instance, in order to vindicate the
Church from the reproachful
we
and have taken
this particular point,
their fellow-Christians acquainted
reluctantly, and, in the
what the
criticisms of the Jews.
Never
an acknowledgment of the Jews on those questions, which, to the authority belonging only on account of accidental historical circumstances, was
theless,
have, even in
this,
not fully admitted on the part of the Church. Hence the has of Old the Testament Canon generally been given history in the form of an account of the style and manner in which the Jews established the
number and extent A
of the sacred
2
INTRODUCTION.
1.
summary sketch
writings,
while a
Christian
Church upon
the
of
attitude
of the
question was attached thereto, more subordinate significance. It
this
simply as an appendix of 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
of
results
historical investigation.
made
Preference should be Testament,"
in
which
is treated.
writings in the following
to
"
Introductions to the Old
Old Testament found
also the collection of the
of this literature will be
Surveys
among
other
treatises
:
Scholz (Catholic),
EinUitung in die heiligen Schriflen des Alien und Neuen TestaKeil, Lehrbuch der Uistorisch-kritiselicn menics,i. 184 5, p. 3 tf .
;
und apokryphischen
EinUitung in die kanonischen Alien Testamentes, 3rd ed. of
1869 by
ed.
1873,
p.
G
IF.
Prof. Douglas, 2 vols., T.
Schriftcn dcs
[Eng. trans, of
&
T. Clark,
2nd Edin.
1869]; De Wette, Lelirluch d. liist.-krit. Einl. in die kanon. und apokr. Sucker des A. T. 8th ed. by Schrader, 1869, 4 tf. [Eng. trans, of early ed. by Theodore Parker, 2 vols., Boston 1843]; Strack, EinUitung in A. T. in Zocklers Also deserving to be Handbuch der Theol. Wissensclwften, named Belsheim, Om Bibelen, dens Forvaring, Overscettelse i.
:
Ixosenius, Indlednings og Udbredelse, 3rd ed. Christiania vetenskaben til den heliga skrift, Lund 1872. The history of the canon is dealt with in the following C. ;
:
F. Schmid, Historia antiqua,
ei
mndic. Canonis, Leipsic
1775;
Semler, Abhandlungen von freier Untersuclmng des Kanons, Halle 1771-1775; G. L. Bauer, Canon V. T. ab Esdra non
1797; Movers, Astier, illustrata, 1842 collectus,
;
Loci
quidam
historic?,
titude sur la cloture
canonis
V. T.
du canon de Vane.
1.
INTRODUCTION.
3
1859; Dillmann in the Jahrb. filr Deutsche 419 fF. Fiirst, Der Kanon d. A. T. nach den Theologie, und Midraseh, 1868; S. David im Talmud Ueberliefemnyen Test.
Strassburg iii.
son,
The Canon of
;
the Bible,
Real-Encyclopcedie, der Sammlung des
3rd
412-451
vii.
a.
t.
ed. ;
1880; Strack
in
Herzog
s
Blocli, Studien zur Gcschichte
Literatur,
1876
;
Wildeboer, Het
ontstaan van den kanon dcs ouden verbontls, 1889, 1891. Compare also Schiirer, Geschichte des jiid.
2nd
ed.
"
:
Volkes,"
ii. 1886, pp. 248-253 [Eng. trans., in the Times of Christ, Edin., T. & T. History of Jewish People and the works of Clark, Div. ii. vol. i. 1885, pp. 306-312]
im
Zeitalter Jesu
Christ i,
;
and Geiger subsequently referred to. On the use of the word canon," see Credner, Zur GcscJuchte des Kanons, 1847. Griitz
"
I.
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON AMONG THE JEWS. THE PALESTINIAN (BABYLONIAN) CANON.
A.
The
2.
collection
of sacred writings
and subsequently by
Palestinian,
acknowledged by the the Jews, consists of
all
three parts, which in mediaeval times were compared with
the three parts of the temple
and the
place,
outer
designated in brief five
Y Law
books of the
fifth
parts of the
the holiest of
These
court.
three
the holy
all,
They embraced respectively
sn.
(rnin
;
also rninn
wn
"
ntfpn,
the prophetical writings
Law");
were
together
The
:
the five (&>
P?)
;
and the writings (D^IIDSJ) or Hagiographa, as we usually call them. The Massoretes divide the prophetical writings into two
subdivisions
:
D Oi^fcO
D^p?, Prophetcv Priores
Judges, Samuel, Kings), and (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
in
all,
Job,
eight books.
and the Twelve Minor Prophets),
The Hagiographa
Proverbs, Eutli,
(Joshua,
Proplietce Posteriorcs
D^inK D^p?,
Canticles,
are
:
Chronicles, Psalms,
Ecclesiastes,
Lamentations,
Esther, Daniel, and Ezra (Ezra-Nehemiah), embracing eleven Of the Hagiographa, from Kuth to Esther are the five books. so-called festival rolls or Megilloth (TO30 t^pn). in the Babylonian
Talmud (Berachoth
Job (the books which, from called
great D^ira
"
;
the designation least
of
it,
575), Psalms, Proverbs,
their initial letters, are frequently
under the designation the Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations under "
are grouped together
n"tf)
In one passage
"
the small D Oiro."
doubtful whether this 4
however, to say the designation was in such It
is,
NAME AND IDEA OF THE CANON.
2.
general use
number
entire
of the canonical books
mentioned in the older Jewish
often
is
commonly supposed. The is twenty-four, a number
has been
as
5
Taanitli
8 a.
Exodus
xii.
fol.
116,
11),
twenty-four books
literature,
fol.
par.
etc.
I.
e.g.,
Kolideth
41, 156; The complete enumeration
rb.
\vhicl,
rb.
(on
of
the
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) I. Baba Batlira 14&, 15a. to be
is
10. Compare on this matter The whole collection bears the name
read
or ")
way
"J2pn
Y 3,
nro
or BHpn
or N~J2p or & Ypn ana, ;
of contrast to
sidered
as
in
Y
D nsp "
itself
"
D,
the
"
the twenty-four
the rest
sufficient,
By
writings."
the fundamental part, con
Law,"
sometimes embraced under the name a^an.
"
(from &np, to the sacred writings," N"ipp
n
of
was
Scripture
or
"
^?P,
tradition,"
3.
Compare The Jews expressed
canonical
"
idea
the
in various ways.
"
canonical
Whoever
"
"
"
or
non-
more than
receives
twenty-four books introduces confusion nciriD into his house," as is said in B. Koliddli rb. fol. 116a. Only the canonical Scriptures
should
Sabbath day
;
and
one save this
applies
sacred writings (M. Sail.
only those writings that 5,
etc.).
The
latter
from
also
16. 1; "defile
phrase
is
a
1.
the
an
on
conflagration to
Sail.
translations
and
115)
hands"
the
of the it
is
(M. Jadaim
3.
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. have been the Pharisees
to
From M. Jadaim 4. 6, who issued the peculiar
ordinance,
On
the other
while the Sadducees vigorously opposed hand,
the
idea
that
acknowledged books,
E.
even
it.
it
Akiba had pronounced such as the Book of
appears
all
un
Sirach,
6
2.
"
and
D^l^n,
strange,"
from
exclusion
NAME AND IDEA OF THE CANON.
textual
error.
referred
to
allusion
was
the
future
the It
is
10.
1,
to
only
originally
certainly
evident
quite
(M. Ssnhedrin
is
world,
that
and
similar
On
such as might be read.
to
a
the passage
in
particular ;
heretical,
and
while the Book of
were considered
writings
involving
due
with the Talrnuds) the
especially to Jewish-Christian, writings
Sirach
them
of
reading
secular,
but
the other hand, a stricter view
undoubtedly was entertained, according to which the reading Sank. of such books was declared unallowable (npn^ "PDN,
1005).
On
names
the
the canon and
of
its
several parts, compare
In con Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge der Judcn, p. 44. nection with this it should be specially remembered that
may signify not only the Prophets and the Hagiographa M. Megilla 3. 1), but also all the canonical writings compare especially Schiffer, Das Buch Koliddli im Talmud und Midrasch, 1884, p. 83 f. On the Massoretic expression D^iao
(e.g.
;
:
"
NFippC K,
1872,
and the Massoretes
Joh.
see
tradition,"
scriptural sacrcc,
7
p.
N"|PP
is
f.
De inspiratione the mediaeval Jews
Delitzsch,
Among
sometimes used
of
the sacred
also here and there writings with the exception of the Law of the Prophets alone. of that age we also writers Among meet with the word P^DS, which in the Talmud means only ;
"
"
"
verse," applied to the entire collection of Scriptures (see Not quite Bacher, BJKJ, xv. p. 113 f., xvi. p. 277 f.). synonymous with jopo, although also derived from &op, is the Arabic Quran, which is correctly rendered by religious "
discourse"
(LiteraturUatt
fur
orient. Pliilol.
iii.
104^).
That only Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations are mentioned in Beracliotli 57& as "short Hagiographa," is to be explained by the fact that Paith 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
NAME AND IDEA OF THE CANON.
2.
8) defile the hands D Trrns Hagiographa, see on this Delitzsch, Zeitsclirifl filr LutherCompare subject :
ische Theologie,
1854,
und Erzeugnissc Leliren des
Talmud,
L.
280;
p.
den Juden,
lei
86
i.
Low, GfraphiscJie Requisiten Weber, 1870, p. 134 f .
;
and below
at
8.
Fiirst
(Kanon, 83) translates it quite wrongly: "They declare the hands, without having been previously washed, to be unclean." p.
;
p.
The
correct
explanation
of
ordinance, the out pointed by Johanan
this
special
is
guarding against any profanation, ben Sakkai (Tosephta Jadaim, ii. 19 that
says
to
f. p. 684, 2), when he would we be prevented from
this
according the sacred Scripture rolls as coverings for animals that were ridden. Of small importance is the commonly
using
quoted explanation from Sabb. lob, 14, where the subject under discussion is the Torah rolls, regarding which it was forbidden that they should be set down beside consecrated
Buck
ff.,
Das
;
"
eighteen 8
Chananiah,"
the
Schiffer,
85 ff., 90 f.) this Halacha one Halachoth included in The Garret of
78
Koliddli, pp.
the
of
mice should gnaw them (see
the
grain, lest
whole
is
affair.
not sufficient to afford an explanation of Still more far - fetched indeed is the
explanation given by Geiger (Ursclirifl und Uebersetzungen der Bibel,
p.
135
;
Jiid. Zeitsclirifl,
untenable than the "
phrase Sabb.
holy 16.
1,
non-canonical,
remarks
21
ii.
of
the
which is no less same scholar on the ff.),
on nJ, and on the passage in Scripture," where the books jm pip j^ are said to be but yet such as
may
be read (Nachgelassene
Schriften, iv. 13).
The word
TJJJ
"
(from
W3,
to
store
up,"
then
"
to
conceal,"
which is met with in the earlier Jewish writings, is no mere equivalent of the Greek word It is not used of the writings that were not apocryphal." received, but of books which were received, the canonicity of which, however, was contested ( 8), while it was also applied with the abstract
""ip?)
"
to unauthorised translations
of the
sacred writings into the
What the Aramaic, Greek, or other languages (Sail. 115). exact meaning of n: is, may be seen from a passage like Mey. 2QI.
"A
Torah
roll that
has become rotten must be hidden,
8
THE LAW.
3.
,
in the vault of a
Thus
26.
also
Compare
scholar."
originally implies no judgment on the character of the but a books, particular mode of procedure with existing copies used in the synagogues), and only secondarily does it (copies it
mean on
Jerome, therefore, in his Comm.
destruction generally.
Eccles. xii. 14, correctly translates it
by
obliterare.
Against the correctness of the received text of If. Sanhedrin 10. 1, Sank. 100&, jer. Sank. 28a, Giiitz (MG-WJ, 1880, p. 285 ff.) has produced very cogent arguments. By com
with
bination
Jadaim,
Toscplita,
constructs the
text
follows
as
reads in the foreign
13,
ii.
Akiba
E.
:
683, 10,
p.
"
said,
he
Whoever
Jewish-Christian writings e Soph rim\ has no part in the
i.e.
(D^STI),
(compare Eabbinovicz, DiMuke 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 just as one reads a letter." the conjecture
"
:
As
the
of
which
is
may
be read
73
p.
ff.),
who meanwhile makes ;
etc.
among
construction
of
the
canon
the Jews, the historical development
the subject of our present investigation, \ve take
that particular period
when
Ezra, at whose side ISTehemiah
stood during the latter half of the
introduced
9),
reads in foreign writings, like the Christian writings, etc. on the other
beginning of the
properly so called
see
Whoever
writings of KittD p, i.e. hand, Ben Sirach s book," 3.
JN31D,
In like manner Joel (Blicke in die
1880,
i.
lldiyionsgcscliLclite,
("j^NI
among
the
Jews
"
the
fifth
Book
century before Christ, of the
Law,"
min nD,
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 as
"
canonical
"
existence and enforcement of this law during the pre-exilian period,
is
a matter to be determined
Pentateuch
criticism.
We
confine
by the
special science of
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
THE PROPHETS.
4.
commands contained
obligation to fulfil all the
(Nob.
viii.-x.),
9
in the
Law
by binding themselves under a written covenant
and by the taking
of
Book
outside of the
solemn
a
of the
Law
Of
oath.
there
is
other
on
writings
this occasion
no
It is indeed mention, and indeed there could not have been. certain enough that the prophetic writings had been eagerly
and widely read refer,
xl.
to Zechariah
Ixvi.
exercised
One may
after the exile.
not
writings
could
was
active and
i.
4,
and
exist
Jeremiah
influence which
to the
upon the contemporary and the
But a complete
post-exilian literature.
still
and
to echoes of older prophetical writings in
e.g.,
and Ezekiel, Isaiah
before, during,
so
long
forth
called
collection of prophetic
as
new
the
prophetic
writings.
spirit
Even the
acceptance of the Pentateuch alone by the Samaritans ( 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. is
seen finally in
this,
The
priority of the
Law
that the entire collection of Scriptures,
even in later ages, was often still called the Law," because the other two parts were regarded as merely supplements to it. See 4 Ezra xiv. 21 John x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25 "
;
;
1 Cor. xiv.
21
;
Sank. 91&; Mocd baton oa,
etc.
With regard
to the high regard shown to the Law, and its over the Prophets and the Hagiographa, see
pre-eminence Sirach xxiv.
Talmud,
p.
22-27;
79
;
1
Mace.
i.
59
f.
;
Weber, Lchren dcs ed. p. 90 ff.
Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, 2nd
That the Jews of the Greek age acknowledged that they were a people without prophets is proved by sucli witnesses as 1 Mace. iv. 46, ix. 27, xiv. 41 The Song of the 4.
;
Three Children, v. 14 (Ps. Ixxiv. 9 ?), with which passages Sarili. 11 And as they became more may be compared. and more convinced of this fact, after the silencing of the loud voices of the prophets, they must have
felt
impelled to
10
THE PROPHETS.
4.
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
sacred and inspired writings, to the Law.
Book
to the
of Sirach
we
second group of From the prologue
was generally
see that this collection
recognised and circulated in the beginning of the second century before Christ and from the book itself we further ;
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 see that this second part
canon,
in order thereby
glorious history
set
a
forth
picture
of
Israel s
and of her mighty heroes, which exactly
with
corresponds
to
the
contents
the
of
prophetical
books
How long it was before the prophetic acknowledged by us. canon secured general acceptance we know not, and just as little
can
we
was carried ii.
13
of
tell
out.
by whom and in what way the canonisation The much discussed story given in 2 Mace, by Nehemiah contains
a temple library founded
perhaps a true reminiscence of the historical preparations for the canonisation of the Prophets and the Hagiographa, but
by no means a history of the canonisation
is
itself.
The important passage in the preface to the Greek transla of Ben Sirach runs as follows iroXkwv KOI /jLeyaXcov $ia TOV vofjiov teal TWV 7rpo(f>r}Ta)v KOI TWV d\\wv TMV KOLT i^fjbtv
tion
:
avTOvs eTrl
/cal
rjKO\ov07]KOT(jL)V
irXelov eavrov Soi)$ TCOV
Be^o/juevcov el ?
a\\wv Trarpiwv
.
.
.
o TraTTTTO? fiov
re TTJV TOV VO/JLOV
KCLL
T&V
(3if3\iwv avd^vwcriv, KOI
ItcavTjv e^iv TrepLTroLTjo-afievo^,
TrpofyOrj
KOLI
ev
TOVTOIS
n
avros o-vyypdtyai,
TWV et? irai^e iav KOI crofylav av^KovTwv, K.T.\. [Whereas many and great things have been delivered to us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, rny 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 PROHIETS.
11
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. ev TO, 07800) KOI rpiaKocrrM editor writes thus of himself
The
:
eret eVt rov
[Coming
Evepyerov
into
Euergetes was when he came
/3acri\.ews
7rapa<yevr]6ei<$
et9
AiyviTTOV,
year, when his own age to that an allusion Seeing king.] to reside in Egypt would have been altogether in the
Egypt
eight and
thirtieth
purposeless, he must mean the thirty-eighth year of the reign of the king. Compare, on the position of the words, the LXX. Now Euergetes I. reigned B.C. 247of rendering Haggai i. 1.
222, and consequently we have to think of Euergetes II. reigned B.C. 170-116, although his uncontested supremacy The year in question would then began only in B.C. 145. be B.C. 132, and accordingly the grandfather must have
who
flourished about
B.C.
170.
For further particulars compare Kuenen, Historisch-kritisch Onderzock naar ontstaan en de versamelinc/ v. d. Boeken d. Ouden Verlonds, iii. 426 f Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, pp. 31, 114; Vitringa, De dcfectu prophetice post Malachiam (Observa.
;
tioncs sacrce, lib. vi.
c.
7).
That Ben Sirach knew the
full
prophetic canon, as
known
The nonto us, may be regarded as thoroughly established. genuineness of Sirach xlix. 10, where mention is made of the twelve prophets, affirmed in earlier times by Bretschn.eider, and more recently repeated by Bohme (ZAW, vii. 280), has been
rightly
met by Noldeke (ZAW,
testimony of the Syrian translation. It can be easily understood how
viii.
men
156) felt
by
the
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
The conjecture of Griitz (Koheleth, p. 156 f.), that, the of the Prophets, a weapon had been sought canonisation by the is more characteristic of the ingenuity Samaritans, against writings.
than of the motives that were operative in that That the reception of the historical works, Joshua-
of its author age.
12
4.
THE PROPHETS.
Kings, into the second collection of writings presupposes the decided opinion that these writings had been composed by It is prophets properly so called, is by no means certain. indeed very probable that these books were reckoned among the Prophets merely because they contained occasional "
"
utterances
Ahijah,
the
of
etc.,
old
by means
prophets, such as Samuel, Nathan, of which the entire historical narrative
This view is favoured especially was, so to speak, sanctioned. in which the author of Chronicles manner the and by style
quotes the several historical authorities lying before him. These 2 Chron. ix. 29, xii. 15, etc. See 1 Chron. xxix. 29 ;
22 puts the matter quite do not certainly express the idea that that period differently, of the history has been described by a contemporary prophet. 2
since
passages,
Chron. xxvi.
For the opposite opinion see Wellhausen, who makes the lastmentioned conjecture (Prolegomena, 1883, p. 235). Compare 2 i. 488. also especially, Kuenen, Onderzoek As the date of the canonisation of the Prophets," Wilde,
"
p. 112) conjectures the period about B.C. 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),
boer (Het ontstaan,
But
200.
fthis
must
date
jregard
if
still
In be regarded as decidedly too late. between the views of the grandfather
to the difference
But how and grandson, see Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 29. means with the it is will far one have to go back, impossible the ask whether to determine. at our disposal might "We
allusions of the chronicler, living about B.C. 300, to a prophetico-historical work different from our books of Samuel
and Kings "
Prophets
the (see above), do not imply the assumption, that were not then as yet regarded as canonical, in "
which case we terminus a quo.
would obtain the year B.C. 300 as the But this conclusion is still uncertain, since
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 \ve are too little
we possess no who were the
information. actors
Undoubtedly
in this matter.
On
it
e was the Soph rim
the other hand,
it
THE HAGIOGRAPIIA.
5.
13
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 is
It is related in a spurious epistle, the Hagiographa ( 5). that Nehemiah, according to his memoirs, founded a library [undoubtedly in the temple], which contained the following books ra irepi TWV @a(Ti\wv teal 7rpo$r)Twv KOI ra rov AavlB :
That the Epistles f3aai\ewv Trepl avaOe/jbdroov. about Tensile Gifts do not correspond to any Old Testament book, but are probably letters of foreign (Persian) princes, is Kal
67n<TToXa?
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 Tfii), 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, z
pcedie
,
vii.
426;
403
427; Eeuss, Gcschichte d. heil. Strack in Herzog s Real-Encycloand Wildeboer, lid. ontstaan, pp. 36 f,
iii.
Schriften, A. T. 1 8 8 1
,
ff.,
p. 7 1 7
;
112, 115, 133. 5.
The passage quoted
preface to the writing of
in the previous section
Ben Sirach mentions, next
and the Prophets, an additional called
"
fathers,"
the other
class
from
to the
of writings,
the
Law
which arc
or the other writings of the writings," where, according to the context, the term "writings" "
evidently meant writings with religious contents.
That
this
group corresponds generally with the later so-called D ZWD ( but still the question remains2) is quite plain
third
;
whether the writings referred to in the prologue were precisely co-extensive with those subsequently known as the as to
Here we are without the means
Hagiographa.
of
the question with the same certainty with which "
reference to itself
"
the Prophets,
since the
Book
of
answering
we can inl Ben Sirach
expressly refers only to the Books of Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, and the Psalms
(xlvii. 8
ff.,
xlix. 11).
Although
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 it must be openly confessed that the history
before Christ,
thereby prevented from issuing an authorita tive veto against the assigning of a later date to one and of the
canon
is
It belongs exclusively to the another of these writings. 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
way
in
the other
writings,"
but
still
more the
which Ben Sirach, who had studied those transmitted
writings, determines, according to the preface, also (KOI avros) to
make
moral improvement of
his contribution to the
make
men by
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
composing a treatise,
this
it
was not only the opinion
of the
author himself,
which he
of
the translator, but also that
abundantly proved by the style in
is
28 ff.) to the inspiring wisdom as the source from which he has derived his divine Even if the prophetic spirit were no more opera doctrine. tive ( 4), there still existed the wisdom proceeding "from the mouth of the Most High," making fruitful and inspiring refers in his treatise (xxiv.
His people, among whom were hungering after it.
What
has been
it still
now brought
always drew to
itself all
out fully explains
why
who
the
even of later ages, were re a subordinate rank, as compared with
in the estimation
/Hagiographa, garded as writings of the Law and the Prophets.
This is seen conspicuously in the they were not used, like those others, for the read ings of the Sabbath day, and has its origin mainly in the opinions fact, that
expressed,
e.g.,
16 fol. 15e, Tosephta Sallath, 13, p. which they were not intended for public
in jer. Sail.
128, according
to
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
G.
15
reading, but for Midrashic exposition. Also the designation, "the Law and the Prophets," for the whole canon is thoroughly in
6 and Toseplita Balm accordance with this feeling. Compare 409, 31: "The guardian should purchase for
lathra, 8. 14, p. his ward D^iwi
min"
;
jer.
Meg.
3. 1
;
Soplfrim,
p. v.,
passages
which are quite correctly explained in the Babylonian Talmud (Baba bathra 135), while Gratz (Koheleth, p. 150 f.) completely
We naturally find an excep misunderstands their meaning. tion in the case of the Psalms, which were held in high Even in the esteem, and were used in the temple service. LXX. we meet
with a superscriptional statement of the Psalms
fixed for the several days of the week. See Ps. xxiv., xlviii., That xciii., xciv., and compare with Ps. xcii. in the Hebrew.
the five Megilloth were read on the five feasts has been already
and in later days it became customary for on the night before the great day of atone High ment, to read in public from the Books of Chronicles, Job, mentioned in the
2,
Priest,
Ezra, and Daniel.
might be asked whether the original document used Book of Chronicles, the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, which was in existence as early as B.C. 300, but belonged to the other writings of the Book of Sirach this book was then even probably already supplanted by It
in the
"
"
;
Chronicles.
From the age Ben Sirach, we
6.
of
solution
following that of the Greek translation find
only very slight material for the
of our problem.
In the First Book of Maccabees
17) a quotation is made from Ps. Ixxix. 2, with the (vii. solemn formula implying the canonicity of the writing /ca-ra TOV \o<yov,
first
ov eypatye.
half of the
quoted Eccles.
On
Similarly, too,
Simon ben Shetach,
in the
century before Christ, is said to have 12, with a HTGI (but see further 8).
first
vii.
the other hand, sources are supplied us abundantly in the
In Philo
generation after Christ. citations
and references
with the exception
of
s
work
(
12) are found
most of the canonical writings, still Ezekiel, Daniel, and the five Megilloth. to
16
6.
may have been
This
some
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
a pure accident, but
it is
nevertheless of
compare with it the state of matters set forth The New Testament thoroughly confirms the results in 8. won from Ben Sirach ( 4, 5). "Moses of old times hath interest to
in every city
them
that preach him, being read in the syna
gogue every Sabbath 17 and Acts xiii. 15
day,"
it
Acts xv. 21, and from Luke
follows that the
of the prophetical writings.
is
seen in
writings were sometimes called simply
phets
(Matt.
v.
17,
15, xxviii. 23
vii.
12
iv.
also true
The pre-eminent importance
these two portions of Scripture
"
same was
;
Luke
"
this, that
the
the sacred
Law and
xvi. 16, xxix.
of
the Pro
31
Acts
;
while also the priority of the Law is given expression to in the form of speech referred 3. As concerns the Hagiographa, quotations are to above in xiii.
:
compare
number than
made from
a larger
(at least if
we adopt
5),
in the
work
of
Ben
Sirach, for
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 But the conclusions drawn from Psalms (Luke xxiv. 44). "
"
this passage in regard to the extent,
and particularly the order
arrangement of the Hagiographa, are worthless, for this reason, that the subject dealt with in this passage is the or
and symbolic contents of the Old Testament, in which connection the Psalms occupy a pre-eminent position prophetic
But more important than the names under which the Old Testament is
referred
Designations like ypcupal ayiai, lepa ypafi/juara, al
<ypa<f)ai,
among are to.
the Hagiographa.
all
this
and especially fj and, besides, the well-known solemn formuke of quotations, put a clear and conscious distinction between holy Scripture and any other sort of literature, and <ypa$>r),
ground to the conjecture that the limits, still undeter mined in the days of Ben Sirach with reference to the third so give
part of the canon, had meanwhile become more sharply fixed.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
0.
On
the other hand,
xxiii.
it is
17
to seek in the passage, Matt,
wrong
35, a strict proof for the existence there and then of
the canon as
we now have
it.
The quotation in 1 Mace. vii. 17, seeing that the author wrote after B.C. 105, but before B.C. 70, does not exclude a Maccabean authorship the formula used,
is
of
Ps.
The above-mentioned quotation Ecclesiastes
is
to be
but, in consequence of
Ixxix.,
not certainly in favour of of
it.
Simon ben
found in Bereshith
r,
c.
91
Shetacli from jer. Berachotli
;
Ill] Nazir 5. 3, fol. 546, and Kohekth r. c. 7. 12. To this may be added solemnly introduced quotations from Ecclesiastes from the first half of the first century after Sabb. 306; Tosephta Bemchoth, ii. Christ, b. Baba bathra 4a 7.
2, fol.
;
24,
p.
On
5.
the use of the Old Testament in Philo
s
writings, see Test, ex
Observations ad illustrationem doctrinal de canone Vet.
Philone (Copenhagen 1775), by C. F. Hornemann (scholar of J. D. Michaelis, died as professor in Copenhagen A.D. 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 Auslcycr d. A. T. 1875, p. 161. The testimony given in the treatise
De left
vita contemplativa, 3, to the tripartite canon out of account, inasmuch as that work is
authenticity.
See Lucius, Die Therapeutcn,
Massebieau, Le Traite de la des Therapeutes,
vie
contemplative
may
best be
of doubtful
1880; et
as also
la question
1888.
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. It
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,
Nevertheless, this may, on closer examination, be found to be a mere fortuitous coincidence, since Christ and
44. 128.
the
first
Christians,
for
practical
B
reasons
arising
from the
18
THE EZRA-APOCALYPSE.
7.
circumstances in which they were placed, did not feel them selves called upon to make use of these writings of peculiar 8 were of contents, whereas the controversies referred to in When Christ, in Matthew xxiii. a purely dogmatic character. 35, speaks of the righteous blood shed from the time of Abel 20 f.), a much more than
to that of Zacharias (2 Chron. xxiv.
probable conclusion may be drawn from it with regard to the It cannot certainly extent and order of the canon of that day.
must be made
be treated as a scholarly quotation which accurately to refer to Urija (Jer. xxvi. 23).
The
7.
won
result
section
receives an
and the whole question by means of two almost
confirmation,
extremely important obtains
in the preceding
a provisional
conclusion
contemporary writings at or about the end of the first century In the so-called Ezra-Apocalpyse, which, with much probability, has been assigned to the age of the Emperor after Christ.
81-96, mention is made (xiv. 44-46) of 70, which Ezra wrote out twenty-four writings, viz. 94 under divine inspiration after they had been utterly lost.
Domitian,
A.D.
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
sum
total of the
acknowledged
The other witness Apion, in
many
is
2, 10), as
writings of the
the
Old Testament.
the treatise of Flavius Josephus against
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 "
prophetical writings cepts
for
practical
and life."
remarkable in two ways.
four books with
This
In the
thirteen
hymns and pre
statement of first
"
Josephus
for the
is
number
place which, however, in following periods shall frequently meet with, and then especially for the
twenty-two (5
we
"
+ 13-4-4),
extremely peculiar threefold division which we do not find
7.
JOSEPHUS AND ORIGEN.
elsewhere, which owing to to
19
indefiniteness has given occasion
its
various explanations and
Thus the Jewish
hypotheses.
Gratz has sought from this division to draw the conclusion that Josephus did not acknowledge the Books of
scholar
Ecclesiastes
and The Song, since the four books that come last Psalms, Lamentations, Proverbs, and Job.
in the list are
But the only
:
way here is to follow the analogy of the with some, especially Alexandrine writers, practice prevailing and to assume that Josephus treated the Books of Euth and right
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
The Song, and particularly to of canonicity
(
had embraced Psalms, Proverbs,
With reference to this it is how Josephus expresses the idea
Ecclesiastes.
be observed 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
add anything to them or take anything away from these books transmitted from olden times. And thus, at the end of
to
the
first
century after Christ,
we have undoubted
a clear and conscious conviction
of a
evidence of
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 ( 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 afford
some supplementary and interesting
8,
particulars.
they
We
meet in Origen with the number twenty-two as the sum total of the Old Testament writings (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 25),
who
states expressly that
he has taken his
list
from the Jews.
20
7.
In
it
01UGEN AND JEROME.
Euth 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
In the so-called Prologus galeatus (I.e. Preface to the Books of Kings the first which he translated) he
books as twenty-two. refers to the
genuine Jewish threefold division of the canon
Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa, and, according to this, mentions particularly what books belong to each of these into
Of the Book
divisions.
of
Judges he says
"
:
Et in eundem
compingunt Euth, quia in diebus judicum facta narratur hisand similarly he reckons the Lamentations to Jeremiah.
toria,"
But "
he has finished this exposition he adds thereto Quanquam nonnulli Euth et Cinoth (Lamentations) inter after
:
Hagiographa scriptitent
et libros
hos in suo putent numero
supputandos, ac per hoc esse priscse legis libros viginti
Jerome therefore
quatuor."
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 is
:
haberi Danielem apud Hebrseos inter prophetas, sed inter eos,
In tres siquidem partes Hagiographa conscripserunt. omnis Sacra Scriptura ab eis dividitur, in Legem, in Prophetas qui
et in
A
Hagiographa, list of
described
i.
e.
in quinque, in octo et
undecim
the Old Testament writings which
as
having
been
borrowed
from
the
is
libros."
expressly
Jews,
but
particulars from that list which has been already referred to, is communicated by Melito of Sardis, The writings named by him make somewhat after A.D. 150.
diverges in important
number he makes up by Euth an independent place in his enumeration,
altogether twenty-two,
giving
to
whereas Esther
is
but this
Seeing that Melito does giving the complete number
altogether wanting.
not expressly declare that he is it might be supposed that Esther had been
of the writings,
7.
21
JOSEPHUS-ORIGEN.
out in the text before us only in consequence of an error but against such an idea it must be remem
left
of transcription
;
only was Esther wanting in
that not
bered
the
of
many
Church fathers of the following age ( 15, 17), but that we had risen an that up among the definitely opposition
knew
Jews against the canonicity
of this
ground down to the third century
(see
book,
which held
its
8).
The above quoted passage from the Fourth Book
of Ezra
Messias Judccorum, pp. 182, 260, is given, e.g., in Hilgenfeld 321, 376, 433. Unfortunately, the Latin text is at this s
so that the reference given above rests Never the text of the oriental translations.
uncertain,
passage
exclusively on theless it is scarcely reasonable to conclude from Epiphanius (De pond, ct mens. 10) with Bertheau, Bitch d. Richter und Ruth,
1883,
p.
290
if.,
that the text had originally read twenty-two
instead of twenty-four books.
Josephus, Contra Apion.
i.
8
Ov
:
<yap
uvplaBes
(3i/3\icov
aa^oaevcDV Bvo Be nova TTpos TOV TTavTos fyovTO, %povov Trju dvajpa(j)rjv,
elal Trap* rjuiv, aavfjifytovwv KOI TOIS eiKOo-i {3i{3\la, -TO,
BiKaiois
ireiriO
[Oela,
unauthentic, according to J. G. Miiller] TOVTCOV Trevre JJLGV IGTL ra McDvaews, a TOVS
Kal
Tev^eva.
re vouovs Trepie^et, .... TT}?
Airo Se
Mcovo-ecos reXe
TT)?
^Apra^ep^ov TOV fiera Sep^rjv Ilepawv /SacrtXeco?
/nera Mwvo-rjv
Trpo^rat ra
tear CIVTOVS
/
Trpa^Oevra crvve^pa^rav
e/ca /3i/3X/oi?* al Be \ot,iral reao-ape^ V/JLVOVS els rov Oeov Kal rot? dv9pco7rois vTroQrJKas rov /3lov Trepie^ovo-iv. ATTO Be ^Apra^ep^ov f^e^pL TOV KaO rjfia^ %povov
Iv rpial Kal
<ye<ypa7TTai,
jjiev
BLO,
GKacrTa Trio-Tews Be ov% Quotas rj^LWTai TOIS Trpb TO fjir) ryevecrdai, TTJV TCOV TrpotyrjTWV aKpi^t) BL
.... TLS
TOCTOVTOV yap alwvos
ouBev ovTe
Compare,
d^>e\elv
in addition to
rjBrj
avTols
Trapw^r] KOTOS, ovre Trpoadelvai
ovTe
Ter6\ar]Kev
/^eTaOelvai
this, Antiquities, x. 2. 2,
where
it is
ov% OVTOS ftoVo? 6 7rpo0^T^<5 (Isaiah), d\\a Kal a\\ot, Bci)BeKa TOV dpiOfjiov TO avTo eTroirjo-av Compare Eichhorn,
said
:
B 105 ff. Kuenen, Onderzoek, iii. EMeitung in d. A. T. 412 f Strack in Herzog s Real- Encyclopedia 2 vii. 428; Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 42 f. J. G. Miiller, DCS Flavins i.
.
;
,
;
;
22
7.
THE NUMBERS
22
AND
24.
Josephus Sehriften gegen den Apion. 1877,
The Book of KoMeth, MGWJ, 1886, p. 83;
The
ff
.
;
Wright,
461;
und
Tradition, Erlangen 1871.
his Opera,
Origen, compare 25 elal Se at eiKoat, Bvo
JEccl. vi.
99
Gratz, Koheleth, p. 169; also Tachauer, Das Verhaltnis von
p.
Flavius Josephus zur Bibel
On
p.
:
ii.
528, and Eusebius, Hist.
ftift\iot,
Ka&
*E/3palov<$
cuSe
:
books of Moses (among them ^A^fiea^eKw^ei^ for Yoma vii. 1), Joshua, Numbers, i.e. D^PS Vfchn Num. i. 21 five
;
t
Judges, and Ruth, irap avrols ev evl ZaxfreTifj,, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, crvv
6pr]voi<s
xal
777
eTriaroXr) ev evl lepe/jbia,
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 In Rufinus this book is mentioned have been enumerated.
On
after Canticles.
the
Book
other
hand, the addition of the
Baruch containing the Epistle, is Epistle," to be explained most simply as an inaccuracy on the part of
"
i.e.
Origen v.
;
the
for the
of
statement of the Constitutiones Apostolicce, Book of Baruch were read
20, that Lamentations and the
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: ave\6a)v ovv et9 Tr}v avaTo\7)V,
KOI
7Tpd^9rj
Kal eo)9 Tov T07TOV yevo/Aevos ev6a fjiaOa)v ra TIJS TraXatas
Kal dtcpi/Bws
pift\ia vTrordgas eVe/nJra
following
:
five
Books
croi.
Then
of Moses, Joshua,
are enumerated the
Judges, Euth, four
Books of Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah (probably along with Com Lamentations), the Twelve, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Ezra. Het ontstaan, p. 73 f. pare Wildeboer, The original relation between the numbers twenty-two and The latter numbering, indeed, twenty-four is still obscure. 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.
Jeremiah, than
23
how they should have been removed from
It is quite uncertain, their original place among the prophets. whether in this number however, fixing 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 stress this Jerome, indeed, lay upon correspondence, but this also have been a of later the may play imagination, quite after the style of another enumeration referred to by Epiphanius (De pond, et mens. 22) and Jerome (Prolog us galeatus) of twentyseven books ( the 22 letters of the alphabet and the 5 final
making out which the Alexandrine double reckoning and Chronicles, and Ezra was used, while Lamentations was counted as a separate book. Although the of Euth and Lamentations with Judges and combining 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 letters), in
of Samuel, Kings,
Bleek, Compare Kuenen, OnderzoeJc, iii. 447 f. iv. 204. 552 Bertheau, Eicliter und Ruth, 1883, S track in Herzog s Beal-Encyclopcedie*, vii. 434; p. 290 ff. Wildeboer, Ret ontstaan, 108. 134 f. (
12).
;
Einleitung,
;
;
8.
The witnesses
referred to in
the
preceding sections
movement with which we are more profound disclosure is made to us by
indicate in general outline the
concerned.
means Jewish
A
of a series of very interesting passages in the literature,
which,
however,
suffer
from
the
older
usual
absence of historical reminiscences in this literature, from in-
and one-sided incompleteness, and therefore have been used by moderns in various ways and with varied results. definiteness
As
already stated in
6,
solemnly
various verses from Ecclesiastes have
made
quotations of
come down from the
last
But century before Christ and the first century after Christ. 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
24
CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS,
8.
an opposition seems to have arisen in Palestine the canonicity of that book, an opposition which,
after Christ
against
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
the
to
Ecclesiastes, the Hillelites recognising
the
Shamraaites rejected
strict
it
of
as canonical, while
we
Further,
it.
Book
the
of
canonicity
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
by means of a laborious inter which the pretation, by opposition to this prophet was for ever setting aside these objections
On
silenced.
the other hand, there was, so far as
we can
see,
no decision arrived at with respect to the BpKof Ecclesiastes prior to the fall of Jerusalem, and the same wa^ also the case with respect to some other writings whose canonicity had of which we may name Canticles. It was not
been attacked,
for
90 that the whole question was brought up discussion before a Synod at Jabne (Jamnia, a city not
far
from the
until about A.D.
Gamaliel
II.
coast, south
was deprived
of
Jaffa),
the very one at which
At
of his office of patriarch.
that
Synod the canonicity of the whole of the sacred writings was acknowledged.
Special emphasis was laid
tion of the canonicity, not only Canticles, which
opposition
upon the
affirma
of Ecclesiastes but also of
affords clear evidence of the existence of
against
that
book.
In
a
similar
manner,
an too,
Talmud show that there the Books of Euth and Esther and
various passages in the Babylonian
must have been ascribed
to
(whether in the same way adoption writings.
of
?)
Proverbs, what necessitates the
the same conclusions
with reference
Meanwhile the decree issued
altogether silence the doubts, as
for
to
these
Jabne did not
we opportunely
learn from
the procedure of several teachers labouring during the
first
8.
CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.
Indeed, the recollec
half of the second century after Christ. tion of
what was actually determined on an accurate form, so that
preserved in
A
25
Jamnia was not
at
it
gave
rise to several
was produced by the circumstance that the Mishna, collected and edited diverse statements.
about
more important
effect
190, maintained the unrestricted canonicity of
A.D.
the twenty-four writings,
all
the rest also Ecclesiastes and
among
But even after this specially named. was not of the canon time the criticism wholly silenced, for we learn from the Babylonian Talmud that a scholar living in The Song, which were
the third century denied the canonicity of the
In the
disjecta
membra here
Book
collected together,
wish to find a historical reminiscence of the
final
of Esther.
some now 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
know
we
about the way in which this closing was as we do about the closing of the canon of the accomplished Above all, we should take into consideration Prophets ( 4). as little
these Talmudical reports only in connection with the wit nesses referred to in sections clear passage
we cannot
in the
G
and
7,
especially with the
Apology of Josephus.
possibly assume
that
the
Now,
indeed,
representation which
Josephus, residing in Borne 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. a
Synod
at
Jerusalem in
ing the canon,
is
A.D.
But seeing that
65, coming to a decision regard
nothing more than an audacious fancy of
highly probable that Josephus in his Apology reported simply the teaching of the Pharisees of his times, Griitz,
to
it
whom
is
he attached himself in
A.D.
56.
Therefore there
26
CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.
8.
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 of an
upon
biblical
books do not exclude the idea
established canon, for indeed criticism
earlier
of the
several writings of the Old Testament were never altogether
silenced after the
Synod
given in the Mishna.
when more There
Further, the very attacks referred
to,
exactly considered, presuppose a Scripture canon.
had
been
called
principle of
dogmatic
forth
by a definitely developed, was felt that the idea
Scripture, for it
"
"
of a
Jamnia, nor even after the decision
no dispute about the genuineness or age of the con writings, but only about doubts and objections
is
troverted
which
of
precisely defined
Scripture
and marked
off
from
all
other literature, involved the postulating of certain require
ments
harmonious unity and religious-moral purity in that
of
Scripture.
Indeed, Josephus, in the passage referred
sist like jBi,fi\ia.
that of the other nations of aavfjL^wva KOI
And
just that objection,
taken to the writings referred vindicator of tions,
them
which were
finally
a duty to take
boasts
fjia^ofjieva
which in those times was
to,
to enter into all
and which obliged the sorts of minute explana
approved by
striking proof of the fact that it
to,
Jews did not con
of this, that the sacred literature of the
all
Jews,
is
was very strongly
up the cause of the books objected
the most felt to to,
be
which
can be explained only on the presupposition that has been It also deserves consideration that the term T3J suggested. is
used only of the writings whose canonicity was contested,
and read,
not,
e.g.,
of
Ben
Sirach, although that
and was quoted by some scholars
(
book was much 12),
which could
8.
CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.
scarcely be accounted
for,
Sirach had been placed
"outside
if,
27
Ecclesiastes as well as
eg.,
the
Ben
Finally, in spite
door."
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 of all the objections advanced, a bright light
is
had long previously been closed ( 4), was for the recent threatened with exclusion from the canon Prophets, that
;
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
which
versies
On
affected public opinion in a very slight degree.
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
Eabbi Akiba to
The
result
is
by the easily explained attempt of a deny the whole thing. therefore this, that even the third part of the
Old Testament writings, which in the time of Ben Sirach was had its canon finally
as yet without firmly determined limits,
closed even before the time of
nothing
as
to
how
or
by
Christ,
whom
enough that the canon and the clear there,
and formed the basis of a
the sacred writings (compare
although
;|
dogmatic theory of
definite
9).
we know/
was accomplished idea of the canon were
this
But
just
this
dogmatic
theory called forth various doubts and objections with refer ence to particular books, which made a revision of the canon
This revision was
necessary.
wards confirmed
ment
in the
made
Mishna.
at
Jamnia, and was after
Its result
was the
establish
of all previously canonised books.
That
this
end of the
revision
was carried out somewhere about the
century after Christ is certainly no accidental but is closely connected with the completely circumstance, altered
first
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 and the Eabbinical ruins, college upon which the of Judaism holding together depended were obliged to seek Then the and refuge outside of the Holy City. Scripture :
lay in
"
"
the study of Scripture became even more than formerly the world in which Judaism continued to maintain its life the "
;
Pharisees,
who had
lost
fatherland, fled back
their material
into their spiritual fatherland
;
on
it
they spent
all their
care
brought them comfort amid all their misfortunes There was also added to this the conflict with (Derenbourg).
and
"
it
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 In the closest connection with this, as we shall assailable. subsequently see
(
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 %LT, 1854, 280 ff. Kuenen, Onderzoek, iii. 415, 421 Bleek, Einleitung, iv. 551 f.; Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 82 ff. Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 280 f Geiger, Urschrift, p. 398 f Jud. Zeitsch. 1862, p. 151, 1870, p. 135 ff. Gratz, KoMeih, pp. 159-173; and MGWJ, 1871, p. 502 ff., 1882, p. 117, p.
;
;
;
.
.
;
;
;
1886, p. 597. All sacred writings defile the hands M. Jadaim 3.5: even The Song and Ecclesiastes defile them ( 2) [This the decision, now the discussion.] Rabbi Judah [Ben Ilai, "
"
!
;
see Jost, Greschichte des Judenthums, defiles the hands,
B. Jose [Jost,
ii.
but this
ii.
86] said:
"The
Song
disputed in regard to Ecclesiastes." 85] said: "Ecclesiastes does not defile the is
8.
CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.
29
E. hands, and this is disputed with regard to the Song." Simeon [Ben Jochai, Jost, ii. 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, i.e. was canonical]. have heard from E. Simeon ben Azai [Jost, ii. 97] said: the seventy-two elders on the day when they gave to E. "
"I
Eleazar the presidency of the academy [i.e. at the Synod of Jabne, see Derenbourg, Essai sur I histoire et la gtogmphie de la Palestine, I
1867,
p.
273
;
Jost,
ii.
28
ff.
;
Griitz, Geschichte
der Juden, iv. 38 ff.], that The Song and Ecclesiastes defile E. Akiba [Gratz, MGWJ, 1870, p. 484, reads the hands.
God forbid that any one E. Jacob instead of Akiba] said in Israel should doubt that The Song defiles the hands the whole world does not outweigh the day in which Israel "
:
;
All the Hagiographa are holy, but The received The Song. If they have been contested [!] it of all. is the holiest Song was with reference to Ecclesiastes." But E. Johanan ben
As E. Simeon ben Jeshua, E. Akiba s brother-in-law, said Azai has laid it down, so they disputed and so they decided This same tradition is given in b. Meg. 7&, where, instead of "
:
"
!
Judah ben Il-ai, E. Jose, and instead of E. Jose, E, Meir To E. Simeon s report about the Hillelites and On the other hand, Euth, Shammaites this addition is made The Song, and Esther defile the hands." Einally, there is then communicated a Baraitha of E. 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 E.
are named.
"
:
:
"
"
;
inspired writings, could not in that case have said (Prov. xxx. "
6)
:
On on
i.
Add
3 and
quum
then not to God
Ecclesiastes ii.
s
words
compare further
lest b.
and Jerome on Eccles.
He
reprove
Sabb. oftab xii.
14:
;
thee."
Koheleth
r.
Hebr&i, inter cetera scripta Salomonis, qure antiquata sunt nee 8;
"Ajunt
memoria duraverunt, et hie liber obliterandus videretur, eo quod vanas assereret Dei creaturas et totum putaret esse pro nihilo, et cibum et potum et delicias transeuntes pra3ferret om nibus, ex hoc uno capitulo meruisse autoritatem, ut in divinorum in
30
8.
CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.
voluminum numero et
omnem
poneretur, quod totam disputationem suam catalogum hae quasi ava/cefaXcudxrei, coarctaverit
et dixerit finem
sermonem suorum auditu
nee aliquid in se habere
difficile
ut
:
ejus prsecepta faciamus." Some also wish to b. Sdbb. 30&: "
verbs from the canon
because
(TJJ)
which xxvi.
soil.
esse
promtissimum timeamus et
Deum
remove the Book of Pro it
contains contradictory
an example] but sayings [of were not accomplished, it was because people said have thoroughly examined the Book of Ecclesiastes, and have 4, 5 is quoted as
;
"
if it
:
found a solution for
examine
this
its
book more
contradictions, carefully."
and we
shall
We
also
Against the attempt of
Gratz to prove the incredibility of this tradition, see Schiffer,
Das Bmli
Koheleth, p.
95
f.
The Aboth of Rabbi Nathan (a post-Talmudic Schiirer, Geschiehte, c.
1,
i.
according to the
106
f.,
Eng.
common
trans. Div.
i.
vol.
tract,
see
i.
p. 143), recension (the others are given
in Schechter, Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, Vienna 1887 compare Wright, The Book of Kohelcth in relation to Modern Criticism, ;
1883, p. 46 G): "At first Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes were pronounced apocryphal, because they contained symbolical expressions this lasted until the men of the great synagogue As examples of offen arose ( 9) and discovered a solution." ;
sive passages, Prov. are referred to. b
Sabb. I3b
;
7-20, Cant.
vii.
Chay.
vii.
12
,
13a; Menachoth 45a:
and Eccles. "
xi.
9
Hananiah ben
Hezekiah [see about this man, living in the time of Hillel and Gamaliel the elder, Gratz, Geschichte dcs Juden, iii. 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 Griitz (Koheleth, p. 161) calls the passages are very weak. casual." The tradition is met opposition to Ezekiel simply "
with only in the Babylonian Talmud (Bleek, Einleitung, iv. 551), but rests upon a Baraitha. And naturally just a little is proved
CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.
8.
31
by the circumstance that the contesters of the canonicity are
unnamed (Wildeboer, Het
ontstaan, p.
66), for this applies
by the fact that the canonicity of Ezekiel had been conserved even before the Synod of Jamnia (Wilde also to Proverbs
or
;
boer, p. 60).
Finally, on Esther compare 1. Meg. *la : According to E. Judah, Samuel said [Jost, ii. 135 ff.] Esther does not defile "
:
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 the hands
!
;
for reading, not as Holy tion of the book, vi. 6
As
Scripture."
proof of the inspira
Haman thought in his quoted without divine revelation could know. "
is
:
heart," which no man That the theory of Samuel did not affect the accepted inter pretation (Wildeboer, Hct ontstaan, p. 64 f.) is a possible, but
not a necessary, assumption.
Compare further
Sank. lOOa,
b.
according to which certain teachers declared that wrappings On the other hand, for the Esther rolls were unnecessary. Neliemia,
4
70.
jer Megilla
and
The hypothesis Jerusalem in
is
uncertain; see
Bertheau-Eyssel, Esra,
Ester, p. 368.
A.D.
above referred
of Gratz,
65 and
at
Jamnia
two synods at which the
to, of
in A.D. 90, at
canon of the Hagiographa is said to have been upon two altogether untenable presuppositions. it is false
that
the
"
sacred writings
settled, rests
"
of
In the
first
M. Jadaim
by meant only the Hagiographa. See particularly Das Buch 80 ff. Schiffer, Koheleth, p. And, in the second no of is that there the question of the place, proof vestige canon had engaged attention just before the overthrow of Jerusalem in The Garret of Chananiah ben Hezekiah." Only place, 3.
5
are
"
the prohibition against laying the Torah rolls beside the grain devoted and received for the heave-offering ( 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 GeiFor when it is said, ger s Jud. Zcitschr. 1870, p. 135 ff.). ;
32
LATER THEORIES.
9.
r. 1 (fol. 165&), that the Book of Chron was given only to be expounded in Midrashim, this means nothing more than what is true of all the Hagiographa Fiirst (Kanon, p. 54) regards Num. r. 18, fol. 271^, as 5). ( proving that the Book of Jonah had sometimes been called in But evidently it is merely a play upon number?, question. when Jonah is here characterised as a "writing by itself
for example, in Lev. icles
"
(which his prophecy, moreover, in many respects actually is, compare Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, pp. 6062), in order thereby to bring out the required
number
eleven.
Precisely similar,
too, is the position sometimes taken up by the Kabbinists (as, Sail). 116, etc.), where they classify Num. x. 35 f. as a e.g. book by itself, and so reckon seven books of the Law. 1).
9.
The actual
too rare witnesses
facts of history to
made use
which the unfortunately
of in the preceding sections point,
have often necessitated the setting aside of conceptions at which arrived in a half a priori way from accepted theories, the presupposition of which, as a rule, was that the Old
men had
Testament canon must have been collected by a single author act, which had most likely taken place at an early
itative
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, We meet which certainly was not justified by their origin. 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 iii.
21.
2
;
Tertullian,
De
cultu
(e.g.
in Irenseus, Adv. Hcer.
feminarum,
i.
3),
we
often
meet with a description of the origin of the Old Testament 7 from the Canon, which rests upont he passage quoted in 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
LATER THEORIES.
9.
proposed by Joscplius, Contra Apionem, i. him the prophets formed an unbroken series of the Persian king Artaxerxes, B.C.
which had
8.
According to to the time
down
464424.
The writings
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
Book of Chronicles wrongly to ascribe to the author There are indeed 4), and which has now become current. ( of the
events recorded which occurred after the time of Artaxerxes
Longimanus, but
trio-Tews ov-% ofiolas
r]^iwrai rot? nrpo avrwv,
TWV
Sia TO
fJL-q ryevecrOai TTJV StaBo^rjV [They 7rpo(f>7]Ta)V dtcpiflrj have not been esteemed of the same authority with the former, because there has not been an exact succession of the prophets
Naturally all this applies primarily to the thirteen historical books ( 7), but the four books of hymns
since that time].
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.
the same thing
is
also
Precisely
found in the old rabbinical writings,
where the period after the cessation of prophecy
is
indicated
the writings originating during this "j^Ni |N3D period are not canonical, although the reading of them is still
by the phrase
;
partially tolerated
(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 an assembly called nbftan HD33, the great assembly or Of 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
(&.
Bal>a
bathra c
14),
that the
men
of the
34
LATER THEORIES.
9.
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 Soplfrim, 34, also owe their origin "
great synagogue
According to Aboth derabbi Nathan, c. i., it was they who saved the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and The Song ( 8), Some hints which are found in the works of rabbis of etc. to them.
the Middle Ages, such as David Kimchi, were emphatically given expression to by Elias Levita, who died A.U. 1549, in the third preface to the
meaning
Massoretli
Hamassoreth
(
31),
as
that the sacred writings, which had not previously
been bound up in one whole, were brought together by the
men of the great known divisions.
synagogue, and arranged in the three wellThis hypothesis was taken up with great
enthusiasm, and found very general acceptance testant
theologians, with
the most recent times.
whom
it
owes
its
It
prevalence during so long
was just
as difficult
the significance of the great
synagogue
a period almost wholly to the to disprove as to prove
among Pro down to
retained favour
i
act that
it
formation of the Old Testament Canon, so long as the true character of that synagogue and the duration of its for the
remained quite indefinite and indistinct.
activity still
only after
It
was
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
at
shed
last
the
Men
upon
of the Great Synagogue, that light was 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 The Great Synagogue," in which Old Testament Canon. "
even modern Jewish and Christian authors are
still
seeing a
according to the convincing evidence
great variety of things, is, led by Kuenen, nothing more than an idealisation of the great
popular assembly which Ezra and Nehemiah called together
LATER THEORIES.
0.
(Nell, viii.-x.),
the
way
35
and which was certainly of great importance in canon of the Law as the basis of
of introducing the
the national
of
life
the
Jews
(
The uncommon length
3).
period which has been assigned to this the Talmudical writings, namely, from Ezra
the legislative
of
"
"
synagogue in down to Alexander the Great,
is a simple consequence of the whole period was pressed together in Talmudical reckoning into thirty-four years. Hence it cannot be supposed
fact that this
was ever entertained of connecting the great with what is properly regarded as the formation synagogue of the prophetical canon ( 4). that the idea
In conclusion, we must
briefly call
attention to the fact,
what has been the dominant theory down even to recent was formed by a single
that
times, namely, the idea that the canon
act effected at one particular period, has carried with
it
the
and most abstract explanations of the principle of the tripartite division of the Old Testament. Even the most
artificial
mediaeval Jews sought to establish various degrees of inspira tion, which Christian theologians partly modified and partly
blended with other no less unhistorical and Specially, therefore, because
theories.
unsatisfactory
has carried with
it
it
the abolition of all these false theories, the correct account of the
way
in
which the Old Testament collection
was brought
into its
present
state
to
is
of Scripture be regarded as a
veritable benefit.
Tertullian,
DC
cultu
feminarum,
i.
3
"
:
Quemadmodum
Hierosolymis Babylonia expugnatione deletis
mentum
omne
et
instru-
Judaicai literatures per Esdram constat restauratum." Compare Strack in Herzog s Real-Encyclopcedic", 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, Einhitung, 154, Eng. trans, ii. 137 ft), but by the Book of Esther, which he considered the last book of the Bible, and whose ETntrnx he falsely identified with
36
LATER THEORIES.
9.
With
Artaxerxes Longimanus.
of the prophetic gifts of
tive
Jews, in
2.
i.
8)
MGWJ,
certainly not
is
1886,
281
p.
ff.,
whole theory the narra
this
John Hyrcanus in
Gratz has
(
Wars of
the
In a treatise
accord.
attention
called
the closely-related view set forth in Seder Olam. It is said there (p. 90 in Meyer s edition of 1706), with reference to
to the age of
Alexander the Great, described prophetically in
Down to this time, f& ly, the prophets have prophesied by the Holy Spirit from that time p^D have wrought only the wise." With this agrees also Tosephta All books, which Jadaim, ii. 13, p. 683 f3D, i.e. after the silencing of prophecy, do not defile the hands," and the Book
the
of Daniel
"
:
"J^KI
;
"
:
"j^&o
passage
jer.
Sank. 28a, which has been quoted above at 2. in the introduction to his Commentary on
Kimchi speaks,
Chronicles (Sefer qchilat Mosche, iv. fol. 377^), of the division of the post-exilian prophets in the arrangement of the sacred Elias Levita (compare on him Saat avf Hoffnung, writings. :
iii.,
in the first
and fourth numbers;
ZDMG,
xliii. p.
206
if.)
Massoreth Hamassorcth, 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,
(The
says
and divided them into three parts and they arranged the Prophets with Hagiographa, but otherwise there are teachers ;
in
I.
Bttba lathra
14."
Thesaurus philol. i. 2, qurest, 1 (ed. 1696, p. Ill): "In concussum hactenus et tarn apud Christianos, non pro cerebro fungus est, quam Judreos ava^ia^Tov <[uibus Hottinger,
principium, simul et semel Canonem V. T. autoritate prorsus divina constitutum esse ab Esdra et viris Synagogre fait
On
"
i. c. 2, l,and Keil, 154, Eng. trans, ii. 137 ff. Great Synagogue," see Morinus, Exercitationes
Similarly Carpzow, Introductio,
Magnse.
flinleitung,
the
279 f.: Rau, Diatribe dc synagogc magna, 1726 and especially Kuenen in Verslagcn en medadeelingen dcr Koninlclijke Akademie van Wet. (Abt. Letterkunde), 2nd series, 6th part, 1877, p. 207 ff. Wildeboer, Het onstaan, p. 121 ff. Eobertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, pp. 156 f., 408 f., against Gratz (Koheleth, p. 155 f.), Geiger (Ursclirift, liblicce,ip.
;
;
;
9.
p.
37
LATER THEORIES.
124), and Wright (KoMcth, 1883, pp. G ff., 475 ff.). that all the characteristic features which the
Kuenen proves
Talmudical writings attribute to the great synagogue have been drawn from the narrative of Neh. viii.-x. Of special im portance in connection with the earlier theory was the passage in Pirkc Aloth, i. 2, according to which Simon the Just, whom the Talmud makes contemporary ^with Alexander the Great, but who in reality lived at a yet Inter 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 into the space of thirty-four years Olam, p. 91), so that to the Jews it
that
member
How
the Jews carne to
years
is
Gratz,
it,
Aloda zara 9, Seder
seemed quite a probable one of the famous scribes of Alexander s time
thing should also have been a
202
(b.
not quite clear.
MGWJ,
1886,
of the great
assembly of Ezra.
of thirty-four upon various the reckonings in Compare 293 and if., Loeb, REJ, xix. p. this period
fix
ff.
The mediaeval Jews sought to explain the threefold divibi-:" of the canon by the hypothesis of three different degrees oi So, for example, Maimonides, More Ncbuchim, ii. inspiration. 45 Kimchi, in the preface to his Commentary on the Psalm*. But the distinction proposed by them between HNiru nn and cnpn nn is one altogether foreign to the Old Testament. ;
Herm Witsius (Misccl. Sacr. libri iv. 1736, i. 12), whom Hengstenberg (Bcitrag czur Einleitung in d. A. T. i. 2 3 ff. ) follows, distinguishes between Munus prophcticum 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 propJieticuin. Compare also the far less clear attempts to
Einleitung, foreign
all
mark
a distinction in Keil
s
How completely 155, Eng. trans, ii. 149 f. 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
38
THE ORDER OF THE BOOKS.
10.
>.
Beracliotli 1 3a,
and above
See, for example,
"
Hagiograplia are spoken of as
prophets."
at
2.
10. In opposition to the Alexandrines ( 12) the Pales tinians from the beginning held firmly by the tripartite division
Old Testament writings as a deduction from the history of the origin of the canon. Within the range of these three parts, of the
on the other hand, there was originally no
order of
definite
succession for the several writings, excepting only in the case of the Law and of the Prophctce 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
But this first given to the order in succession of the books. Talmud (b. the From occurred in the times after Christ. Bala lathra 13&) we learn that even centuries there
still
in the first
and second
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 200. The immediate conse
rabbinical sanction about A.D.
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 Hagiograplia. In the second part of the canon, as we have already re
marked, the order of the historical books was at once
At
the most, an alteration was
Book Judges
of (
Ruth had 7).
On
a
place
made
given
it
there only after
the
fixed.
when the Book of
the other hand, in the often quoted passage
Baba lathra 14, we find Isaiah placed meet with the same order again in
of
after Ezekiel
several
;
and we
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 weoclila
(
32).
The motive
of this trans-
39
THE ORDER OF THE BOOKS.
10.
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
Isa. xl.
ff.
xlviii.
24
f.,
where
expressly attributed to the old Isaiah, such a
is
view cannot be styled an ancient tradition, especially when we consider, what has already been said, that the prophetic were not from the beginning written out in one to think of an actual historical criticism during
writings
volume
and
;
the Talmudical period
assumption. of contact
of
is
to
make
altogether too
The most probable thing
between Jeremiah and the
that the
great an
many
points
last chapters of the
Books
is,
to the placing of these writings in juxtaposition,
Kings led
was placed in front of the twelve prophets, because he was contemporary with Hosea (compare Isa. i. with while
Isaiah
Hosea
i.).
With Jerome
Isaiah receives the logical order,
and
first
this
(
37), as
well as with Origen,
place in accordance with the chrono
arrangement was subsequently followed
Spanish manuscripts, as also in the oldest manuscript known to us, the Codex of the Prophets, described under 3 2. in the
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 It
is
different
from that of the Hebrew Bibles, namely, Hosea,
Amos, Micah,
Joel,
Obacliah,
Jonah,
Nahum, Habakkuk,
Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.
The order
of the Hagiographa is, according to 1. Baba bathra Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song, In this Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles. 1
.
1
:
case, also, we cannot accept the who would find in the position
idea of
some modern scholars
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
THE ORDER OF THE BOOKS.
10.
assumptions made that have little to do with criticism. Jerome, on the other hand, certainly on chronological grounds, gives the
first
Ecclesiastes,
place to Job
;
then follow Psalms, Proverbs,
The Song, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, while
Euth and Lamentations
are included
the
among
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
order
in
succession
of
the Babylonian Jews,
of
several manuscripts.
in part adopted in
Oclila
The Massoretic work above
weoclda
is
Compare
Nr.
Ill,
at least also the
112, 127.
referred to gives the following as
the Palestinian arrangement
:
Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Pro
Euth, The Song, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, This order was the prevalent one among the Daniel, Ezra.
verbs,
Massoretes, and
is
therefore to be
met with
in a variety of
Spanish manuscripts and others, even in a Bible of A.D. 1009. In this arrangement the writings of Solomon are no longer placed together, while the five Megilloth are, but not in the The Song order of the parts to which they belong (Passover Euth the Destruc the Feast of the Weeks or Pentecost
;
;
tion
of
Feast
Jerusalem
of
in
Tabernacles
the
Month Ab
Ecclesiastes
;
Lamentations
and
Only the German manuscripts, according
Purim
;
the
Esther).
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
midst
the
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 vcterrima de librorum V. T. or dine atque Elias Levita, Massoreth hammasoreth, origine, Leipsic 1844. ed.
Ginsburg,
pp. 208, 236
120
p. f.
;
f., compare Bacher in ZDMG, xliii. H. Hody, De Bibliorum textibus origin-
11.
Strack in ZLT, 1875, p. 1705, pp. G44-GG4 and in Herzog s Real-Encydopcedie, vii. 441 f. Joel
alibus
G04
41
THE SAMARITAN CAXOX.
;
;
f.,
Miiller, Masscketli Soplfrim,
Derenbonrg unsupported
in is
p.
44
f.
On
the Prophets also,
Journal Asiat. 1870, xvi. 443 f. Quite the statement of Fiirst (Kanon, p. 15 if.), that tlie
the original text of Bciba batkra gives Ezekiel, Isaiah ii.
:
Isaiah
Jeremiah,
i.,
Baba bathra 136: Our teachers declared it permissible to have the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa bound So taught It. Meir (in the second together in one volume. whereas E. Judah (ben IJai) maintained the Law century), :
by itself, the Prophets by themselves, the Hagiographa by themselves. Some have even given the opinion that each Boethus ben should be by itself. E. Judah reported writing "
:
the Prophets in one volume, (in the end of the first century) Eabbi said that this was wrong."
Zonia had the eight books which Eleazar ben Azariah
of
approved yet others There was (E. Judah, the editor of the Mislma) said the the us one volume Torali, Prophets, and containing brought the Hagiographa, and we sanctioned Compare jer. Meg. ;
"
:
it,"
3. 1, fol. 13d, and Massekcth Soph rim, p. v. Only separate rolls in the were used for reading Compare Esther, synagogues.
were wrapped up in cloths and placed 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 in
Meg. 19 a. The in a case (NpTi, b.
rolls
#>?*??),
armarium judaicum
admittitur.
community of the Samaritans, who otherwise imitated the Jews in all matters, had a canon differing from The sacred writings of the that of the Palestinian Jews. 11.
The
Samaritans consisted only of
wanting
all
fortunes of
other
the
five
books
the prophetic writings and all the
Israelites in post-Mosaic
hand, they possessed
outside
of
the
of
the Law,
accounts of the times.
On
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
THE SAMARITAN CANON.
11.
of the
Eoman
Evidently
empire.
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 that the Law at the time of its adoption by the Samaritans was, even among the Jews, the only sacred writing, Had the and no mere third part of an indissoluble whole.
position
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
received the Law.
who assume no
Still it
at
which the Samaritans
can scarcely be doubted by those
essential recasting of the Pentateuch in the
times after Ezra, that this adoption of the Law had already taken place before the institution of the Samaritan community
and of the worship on Gerizim. account
of
this
occurrence
but evidently his chronology
Josephus indeed gives an
(Antiquities, xi.
7.
2
;
8.
2-4),
Partly on internal grounds, partly by a comparison with Neh. xiii. 28, it can be
shown
is
at fault.
that the period fixed
upon by him, the age of a hundred years, for about by the occurrence referred must have taken place shortly after
clearly
Alexander the Great, the time of
Nehemiah
is
too late
s activity.
The idea entertained by
certain
Church
fathers,
such as
and Jerome, that the Sadducees had to do with the forming of the canon of the Samaritans, certainly Tertullian, Origen,
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
POSITION OF ALEXANDRINES ON THE CANON.
12.
43
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 their assemblies (Philo, ed.
according to Josephus special writings,
was read every Sabbath
Mangey, the
(Wars of
ii.
458), they
Jews,
ii.
which they preserved with no
recent attempts to discover these writings
known
phal books
to us have,
up
8. 7),
had,
their
own
little care.
among
in
still
All
the apocry
to the present time,
proved
unsuccessful.
On
Canon compare Kuenen, Onderzoek, iii. Het ontstaan, p. 106 f MGWJ, 1886, 430; Wildeboer, 294 f. In p, general: Kautzsch in Herzog s Eeal-Encyclothe Samaritan
.
;
340
poedie, xiii.
ff.
Chronicon
Juynboll,
Leyden 1848
Samaritanum
arabice
conscriptum,
confounded with the Abulfathi annales Samaritani edited by Vilmar, 1865. Compare Heidenheim s Deutsche Vierteljalirschrift, ii. 1863, pp. 304 if., 432 ff.). On the Sadducees compare Wildeboer, Het cmtstaan, p.
122
Geiger, Urschrift, p. 1
f.;
Gfeschichte
Schiirer, l)iv.
(not to be
vol.
ii.
ii.
dcs jiid.
1
3
On the Essenes, especially
f.
Volkcs,
ii.
467
ff.,
Eng. trans.
188-218.
THE COLLECTION OF SCRIPTURES AMONG THE
B.
ALEXANDRINE JEWS. 12.
It
is
not very easy to form a clear conception of the
which the Alexandrine and, along with them, the Jews generally occupied in relation to the question
position
Hellenistic
of the canon.
It
might seem, upon a
superficial consideration,
the few direct witnesses with regard to this matter, which are still at our command, prove that the Alexandrine Jews
as
if
had the same canon
as the
indeed, according to
Hornemann
and
Jews
in their native land. s
Philo,
investigations, quotes from,
6), allegorises upon, only the canonical writings (compare although he betrays acquaintance also with certain apocryphal while Josephus, who, as a Jew writing in Greek writings ;
44
POSITION OF ALEXANDRINES ON THE CANON.
12.
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.
more
careful
instance from
we
examination, that Philo
world.
different
But, nevertheless,
s
are
here
are
quotations
it
is
found, upon
in
an entirely
in
almost
every
Law, and accordingly afford no certain evidence upon the question of the canon and yet more the
;
he has a wholly different theory of inspiration from that which lies at the basis of the con struction of the Palestinian Canon. According to Philo, decisive
is
this other fact, that
was not confined
inspiration
any one particular period.
to
In his view, not only the Greek translators of the Law, but, 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. 9, p. 112 I); De
still
migratione Abrali.
7, p.
393
we meet
This theory, which
0).
with also partly in Ben Sirach (5), and which Philo appar ently shared with other Alexandrine-Jewish thinkers, must
have
necessarily
contributed
boundaries between regard plain.
the
"
canonical
to "
smooth
and
down
non-canonical."
sharp
With
Josephus, position on this question is not so As a historical writer, he emphasises particularly his
to
"credibility"
of
the canonical books (see
naturally does not prevent
7),
but this
him from making use
of other
sources for the history of post-biblical times, "
"
apocryphal
worthy
the
"
book, the
of remark, on the
First
Book
of
among
Maccabees.
other hand, that even
these an It
is
within the
limits of the biblical period he unhesitatingly uses the addi
Books of Ezra and Esther, which are found only LXX. (Antiquities, xi. 1-5 and 6). And that the
tions to the
in the stricter
theory of the canon continues to be for him a mere
theory
is
shown by
this,
that he carries
down
history into the age following that of Artaxerxes
the Jewish I.
(see p. 35),
without a single word calling attention to the fact that his
POSITION OF ALEXANDRINES ON THE CANON.
12.
now
narrative
rests
upon
less credible authorities
while at the close of his Antiquities (xx. 11. 2),
45
than before
which
;
treats
of the ages between the creation and the twelfth year of Nero,
he refers only to the tepal the
indicating
/3ifi\oi as his
relationship
between
With
authoritative writings.
would have been scarcely
authorities, without
them and
the
other
a genuine Palestinian all this
possible.
an indirect way that we reach the conclusive that the Alexandrine Jews did not concern of fact the proof themselves about the strict Palestinian doctrine of the canon. Is is only in
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 intercourse with
them.
prevent our regarding
Jews who had
Naturally, however, this does not as possible that the
it
have
the
Jewish
Christians
may
collection
enlarged by the The Greek adoption of particular books (see farther p. 54). translation of the Bible among the Christians differs in two occasionally
very important points from the Palestinian Bible. first
place, the
threefold
division
is
In the
given up, so that the
between prophetic writings and the Hagiograplia is abolished; and secondly, we find among the books regarded, according to the Palestinian rule, as canonical, other books distinction
which the Jews, resident in their native land, permitted only as profane literature
(
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
we may
this
on the one hand, to the Aquila by the Greek Jews and,
point,
adoption of the translation of
on the other hand,
;
to the statements of
Origen quoted above 7 with regard to the canon of the Jews.
in
On
Philo compare the work of Hornemann referred to in 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 6,
.
;
Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavins Josephus, Schiirer,
Div.
ii.
and
of
Geschichte des jud.
vol.
the
iii.
179, 182.
LXX.
:
Alexandrine^ consensu,
Volkes,
On
1879,
713715,
ii.
pp.
69-79;
Eng. trans.
his use of the original text
De Josephi et vcrsionis Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavins
Scharfenberg,
1870
;
W
iii. 32 f. Siegfried in ZA Josephus, pp. 8-22 How the Palestinians rejected the apocryphal writings, but still permitted the reading of certain post-biblical works, such 2. as the Book of Ben Sirach, is told in Quotations from ;
t
Ben
Sirach, sometimes of a remarkable kind, are given in the Babylonian Talmud with the solemn introductory formulae, e.g. Erubin 65 (Rab. c. 16 5-247 A.D., compare Sirach vii. 10),
Kamma (Piabba c. 270-330 A.D., compare Sirach xiii. 15, xxvii. 9), and, in addition, Bcrcshith r. c. 91, where Simon ben Shetach ( 6) quoted a passage from Ben Sirach with
Bala
That in Eabba s time Ben Sirach should actually have Tro. 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 S track in Herzog s Real - Encyclopaedic 2 vii. 430; Wright, Ecclcsiastcs, p. 47 f.; Wildeboer, lid ontstaan, p. 85; and on the In the other side, Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 282 f. on the Talmud R. 100&), (Sank. contrary, Babylonian Joseph ,
plainly forbids the reading of Ben Sirach (np rf) TDK). Jerome, in his preface to his translation of Daniel, shows, in an interesting way, how the Jews of his time abused criticised the apocryphal works used by the Christians.
and
13.
On among
SACRED LITERATURE OF THE ALEXANDRINES.
47
the views entertained with regard to the Apocrypha the Jews of modern times, compare Geiger, Nach-
338.
ii.
gelassenc Schriftcn,
The writings which in
13.
way secured an
this
into the Bible of the Alexandrine
Jews
extensive and varied literature.
into an
entrance
afford us a glimpse
is not easy to determine the limits of this literature, since the Septuagint manuscripts used by the Christians vary greatly in their
It
extent, containing sometimes more, sometimes fewer writings,
For example, even the is to be found in a
canonical as well as non-canonical. sixth book of Josephus
Wars
of the
Jews
We cannot Syrian Bible manuscript (see further 16). canon of the Alexandrines in the strict "
"
therefore speak of a
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
men of the primitive ages of biblical history. Books, therefore, like the Epistle of Aristeas, referred to in
Israelites or
38, the JewishSibyllines, 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 like
history, "
The
the Epic of Philo the Elder, Ezekiel
Exodus,"
or the historical
works
drama
s
of Demetrius, Eupole-
mus, Artapanus, and Josephus. Finally, the inclusion among the sacred books of the voluminous productions of a modern author, like Philo, after
remains, partly
of
Hebrew
would naturally never be thought of. eliminations have been made,
these
Palestinian translations
language,
e.g.
the First
Book
of books
written
of Maccabees,
Ben
partly of original Greek works of Hellenistic Jews,
Wisdom
of Solomon.
What consists in
the
Sirach, e.g.
the
Of several writings we now know only
48
SACKED LITERATURE OF THE ALEXANDRINES.
13.
the
Of the extant writings some
titles.
character poetical
Ben
:
Sirach, the
character
are of a philosophical
Solomon
of
Psalms of Solomon
the
:
Wisdom
;
others of a
;
others
contain
which, however, are often
historical tales, especially legends,
only the investiture of religious-moral teachings the three Books of Maccabees, Tobit and Judith, the Jewish sections of :
the Ascensio Isaice
Book
the of
;
others are
Book
of
:
Assumptio Mosis, the Fourth Book
of Enoch, the
Ezra, the
prophetical character
of a
Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, the
On account of its special form, a Apocalypse of Baruch. revelation of Moses on Mount Sinai by the Angel of the Presence, the so-called Book of Jubilees also
been received into this
literature,
(r;
AeTrrr/ Pei/cert?),
although
it is
has
properly
In addition to only a free Haggadic rendering of Genesis, of appendices a series be has to mentioned there these finally to various canonical writings,
which were read with peculiar
enjoyment, and were therefore surrounded with the variegated The books thus added to embellishments of popular legend.
were those of Esther and Daniel, while also Chronicles had Ezra also had such it the Prayer of Manasseh.
attached to
an uncanonical addition joined to it, which, however, we no longer possess by itself, but as part of a very free reproduction
Book
of the
of
Ezra translated into Greek.
Sketches of the literature of the writings here referred to are given by Strack, EMcitung im A. T. in Zockler s Handlmch der
Theolog.
WisscnscJiaften, xii.
Real-Encyclopcedie-, Geschichte des jiid. Volkcs
Eng. trans. Div.
ii.
vol.
i.
by
;
Dillmann in Herzog
s
341 ff and especially in Schiirer s im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,ii. 575-830, .
;
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
713, 182, 184.
Volkes,
179,
ii.
Hebrew
originals
;
Schiirer, Geschichte des j ild.
715, 717, Eng. trans. Div. ii. vol. iii. This circumstance makes the hypothesis
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
Hebrew
of Israel" (2 Chron. "History of the Kings 18 ff.), extremely insecure. A free development of the hint thrown out by the Chronicler was what would very
the
xxxiii.
readily occur to writers of a later age. The Fourth Book of Ezra speaks indeed of seventy writings but among besides the twenty-four canonical books ( 7) ;
these are included only mystical apocalypses, like that book itself.
II.
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 14.
The use
writings
Old Testament in the
of the
when most profoundly
is,
of the
development
irepl
And
e/jLov.
44
New
a
further
vofjiw
ori Sel 7r\rjpa)0f)vai, Trdvra ra
:
Mwvcrews KOI
its
Testament writers draw
fact that Jesus is the Christ
/cal 7rpo(j)iJTai<>
^aX/^ot?
passage the reference
just as in this
Jewish Canon with
to the proper
also the
TU>
Testament
Scripture proof which Christ Himself
pointed out in Luke xxiv. yeypa/jL/jieva ev
New
considered,
three divisions all
is
(
only 6), so
their proofs of the
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
how
considers
little
the
New
apart from the intellectual
which the
free
Testament otherwise holds
life
and universal use
tion in the books of the
New
itself
of the Hellenistic Jews, of the
of
Alexandrine transla
Testament
is
only one single
he must necessarily attribute a great conspicuous example, importance to this restriction of the books used for proof in the
New
Testament, and ought not to cast "
to one side as
an
e silentio." But this naturally from us that there are to be admitting, prevent
argumentum
insignificant
does not at
it
all
found elsewhere in the portant traces of
New
Testament more or
such non-canonical writings as
less
were
im in
and were used among the Hellenistic Jews, the reading of which was also in part permitted even by the circulation
60
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
14.
Palestinians
In the
2).
(
IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
51
rank among these stands the
first
quotation from the Book of Enoch introduced in the Epistle of Jude (v. 14) with eTrpcxptfrevo-ev. Alongside of it comes the ninth verse in this same epistle, which is not to be found
indeed
the remnants as yet
among
Mosis, but
is
known
of the Assurnptio
upon the distinct testimony of Origen have formed a part of that work.
said,
2. 1), to
(De Principiis, There is no reason for doubting that Hebrews xi. 35 f. is founded upon the narratives of 2 Maccabees vi. f. On the iii.
other hand,
we cannot
decidedly say whether Hebrews
xi.
37
an apocryphal book on the sawing asunder of Isaiah, and 2 Tim. iii. 8 to the writing Jannes ct Jambres liber mentioned by Origen (de la Rue, iii. 916), or whether both refers to
Of the remin upon oral traditions. Testament of Ben Sirach and the Wisdom
passages rest simply iscences in the of
Solomon, which have been tracked out with great
some
are rather striking.
Sirach
Xo On
New
v.
But others
11.
Compare, are
c.y.,
James
zeal,
19 with
i.
of a very doubtful character.
quotations in the proper sense are to be
the other hand, this would
met with
have been the case
quotation 1 Cor. ii. 9, as Origen (de la Rue, had been derived from an Apocalypse of
iii.
if
916)
Elias
;
here.
the
affirms,
but our
complete ignorance of this writing prevents us from coming to
any
conclusion.
definite
Similarly Epiphanius (Dindorf,
from him, also Euthalius (Gallandi, BiU. Pair. x. 260), with reference to the It still remains doubtful what we are to passage Eph. v. 14. ii.
388)
reports, and,
think of Luke
xi.
49
in a fashion
;
Jas. iv. 5
f.
different
;
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
Nazarrcnoe
sectie
mini
Hebrseus obtulit, J eremite apocryphum, in quo luec ad verbum scripta reperi his
quotation
"),
conjecture that the evangelist had derived
ascribed to
Jeremiah from
this
Apocalypse.
52
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON AMONG THE SYRIANS.
15.
Without any doubt Matthew intends here
as usual to give a
quotation, while the Apocalypse referred to
canonical
have been of Christian
The actually
may
origin.
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, resulted
inevitably
in
many communities where
leading
follow unreservedly the prevailed, treatment of When the Palestinian Alexandrine Scripture. principles of the canon had become generally prevalent among culture
Hellenistic
Jews
the
to
12), there arose of necessity differences on this
(
point between the Christians and the Jews.
with
even
this,
among
Christians
In connection
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. 21, especially Compare among the writings mentioned in TSK 1853, p. 325 ff. Also Werner in the Theol. Boon, De Jacdbi epistola cum Quartalschrift, 1872, p. 265 ff. Siracidce libro convenientia, 1860 Grimm, Das Bucli der
Bleek in
t
;
;
Weislieit,
xxxviii.
674
f.,
vol.
iii.
;
p.
35
f.
Schiirer,
Fritzsche,
;
Gfeschickte
Die
Wcisheit
des jud.
Volkes,
Jesus ii.
Sirach s
596, 628,
636, 676, 685, 690, 741, 758, Eng. trans. Div. ii. 23, 55, 69, 109, 144, 150, 214, 234; Wildeboer, Het ontstaan p. 45 Wright, The Book of Kolieleth, p. 49. ;
On
Eph. 15.
v.
14 compare
Among
also
JPT, 1880,
the Syrian Christians
ment with the canon
we
p.
192.
find a practical agree
of the Palestinians, with some very The agreement is seen in this, that remarkable divergences. both In the Syrian the by apocryphal writings are excluded. translation of the Bible they were not to be found in the
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON AMONG THE SYRIANS.
15.
53
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 times.
earliest
which seems quite accidental, of The Song, makes no quotation from the Apocrypha, although he knew single exception,
and Ephrsem, who was likewise acquainted with several apocryphal writings, does not make them the
some
them
of
;
subject of his exposition.
On
the other hand, the Syrians
diverge from the Palestinian Canon by setting aside some of In the Syrian the writings that had been received into it. translation of the Bible the
Book
wanting, and the Jewish Syrian
had been subsequently adopted
of Chronicles
Targum
71), did not
(
It
was
originally
on that book, which
by any means
indeed
receive quoted by acceptance. general In later Aphraates, but Ephrsem does not comment upon it. times the teachers of the Syrian Church went even further.
Theodore
of
Mopsuestia
not
is
only
omitted
the
Chronicles, but also Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, and Job
canon
the
of
Esther
are
Nestoriaris,
is
received.
On
of
and in the and
Ezra-Nehemiah,
Chronicles,
wanting, while Job
;
Book
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 Even rule, with the addition of the Book of Esther.
a
Barhebrseus, in his grammatical and exegetical works, takes no
account of the Book of Chronicles.
In so far as the Book of Esther
we
are reminded of
wanting in those lists, the criticism which, even among the Jews, is
had been directed against that book hand, that
Book
we the of
(
8).
On
the
other
have, as has been already remarked, no certain proof Palestinians had declared themselves against the 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
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHURCH.
1G.
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, responsibility under the influence
indeed
these
who
acted on their
own
of subjective principles, as
appear in other connections in Theodore of
Mopsuestia.
Those
Church
who
Syrians received,
as
themselves
attached
was
to
to
the
be expected, those apocryphal
writings into their translations, in the manuscript of are
they (
be
to
met with
Greek
in
larger
which
numbers
or smaller
16).
Compare v. Lengerke, De Eplircemi Syri arte hermeneutica, 1831 Eichhorn, Einleitwig, iii. p. 255 ISToldeke, Die Alttestamentliche Litteratur, p. 263 G. G. A. 1868, p. 1826 ZDMG, xxxii. p. 587 xxxv. p. 496 Friinkel in JPT, 1879, p. 758 Nestle in Herzog s Eeal-Encydopoedie^, xv. p. 196. The ;
;
;
;
;
;
;
Apocrypha in Aphraates are found in the Homilies edited by Wright, pp. 66, 252, 438. Compare on other points, Bert, ApJirahats des persischen Weisen Homilien.
references to the
Am
clem Syrisclien ubersetzt,
T/ieol.
IMt.
such as the
it,
Syrians
p.
77
1888 (and
a review of
it
in
ff.).
Ethiopians, the
Latins, a part of the
were conspicuously influenced by the the Alexandrine Jews in reference to Scripture. 15),
(
practice of
We
1889,
The Greek Church, and the communities dependent
16.
upon
Zeit.
etc.,
accordingly meet in Justin, Clement of Eome, Irenseus,
Tertullian,
allusions
Clement
to
Palestinian
with frequent excluded from the
of Alexandria, etc., not only
writings which
had
been
Canon, but also formal and deliberately made many of the literary works mentioned in
quotations from 13.
How
far these
books are to be regarded as all belong among the Alexandrine Jews
ing to the Bibles already in use is,
as
we have
already remarked in
12, uncertain.
It is
THE OLD TESTAMENT CAXOX IN THE GREEK CHURCH.
1C.
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 Scripture,
was
the proper collection
of Jubilees, etc., into
made by
first
the Christians, although even
here the flexibility and indefiniteness of
Jewish Alex
the
andrine method of dealing with Scripture does not allow us to
any very decided conclusion. At any rate, there arose within the Greek Church an opposition against those
come
to
books, which in the most emphatic
points to this, that
way
they had not been received by the Jews, and that, in the Christian Churches, they had not obtained such general acceptance
as, e.g.
Wisdom
Jesus Sirach, the
Since then the Palestinians
also
of
Solomon,
considered these books to
mark out
be non-canonical, such a separation will help us to a certain boundary or outside limit of books in use
In this
Greek Jews.
way among
referred to were banished from this has
among
the
the Greeks the
writings
and the
result of
Church
use,
several of
them we possess no Greek
the other hand, some of
them were preserved among
been that
On
texts.
etc.
for
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 The Vatican Septuagint Codex by two examples.
trated
embraces, besides the canonical books
Book
of
Wisdom, Ben
:
the Greek Ezra, the
Sirach, additions to the
Book
Daniel.
In the Codex Alexandrinus we have
here named, and in addition, of
Manasseh
at the
;
and
at the
originally the Psalms affixed to the
New
of
the books
all
1-4 Maccabees and
same time,
beginning of the manuscript
too,
the
list
show that
Solomon, yet only as
Testament.
On
of Esther,
additions to
Judith, Tobit, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah,
the Prayer of contents
it
contained
an appendix
the other hand, the great
Milan Peschito manuscript, of which an account
is
given in
5G
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHUECH.
16.
72
contains, besides the usual
(of which,
Apocrypha
how
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 ever, the
:
Wars of
Jews.
the
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 in a very special degree owing to the complete unsusceptibility of the Ethiopians any influence of criticism that several of these works are
to
To the Ethiopian
even yet extant. belonged the
of
translation of the Bible
Book
Ezra, the
Apocalypse Martyrdom of Isaiah, and the Book
of
Enoch, the
of Jubilees,
from which
during the present century the texts have been recovered and edited.
The technical expressions church
use
were
opposition to
:
for
ajro/cpv^os,
cfravepos,
books excluded from
the
non
sccrdus,
manifestos, in
KOIVOS, manifestus, vulyatus.
Without
doubt these expressions were borrowed from the synagogue, where they had been used, however, with a somewhat different application.
While among the Jews
(2)
the term
M
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 ecclesiastical
community Out
books.
therefore of
this
could not introduce as idea
there
was readily
developed the idea of the heretical, the forged and ungenuine,
which
is
spoken of
On
often the
prominent one when the Apocrypha
is
by the fathers.
the quotations in the fathers from the writings rejected among others Scholz,
by the Palestinian Jews, compare
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHURCH.
17.
in
Einkitung
232
f.
die
hciligen
Schiirer,
;
trans. Div.
Eug.
Schriften
Gcschiclite
des jud.
vol.
9-219.
ii.
iii.
A. und N.
des
/
T.
i.
582-768, 220 ff.) (p.
ii.
Volkes, Scliolz
gives also a sketch of the relations of the various manuscripts to the Apocrypha.
On
"
the Ethiopians, compare Dillmann, Bibelkanons der abyss. Kirche," in Ewald Wissenschaft, v. i.
pecdie,
the
205.
Der Umfang des s
Jahrl. der
bill.
144
and Herzog s Eccd-Encydof., 1853, p. On the range of the biblical canon among
Armenians,
Georgians,
etc.,
see
Scholz, Einkitung,
i.
259.
On
use
the
of
the word
"
apocryphal,"
Zahn, Geschichte d. Neutestamentlichen
where attention
see
Kanons,
i.
especially
126150,
rightly called to the fact that the ideas pernicious, false, etc., are in the first instance
heretical,
is
Thus it is quite simply explained how Origen, one time writes (Contra Cels. v. 54) ev rals e/c/cX^o-tat? ov TTCLVV fieperai, 0)9 Oela ra eirLyejpa^eva TOV Evcn^ /3i(3\ta,
secondary.
who
at
:
libelli isti non another time (de la Rue, ii. 384), videntur apud Hebrseos in auctoritate haberi," yet also him
and
"
at
quotes the Book of Enoch, e.g. De Principiis, iv. 35 etc. sed in libro suo Enoch ita (de la Rue, i. 153): Various lists of the writings designated apocryphal are self
"
ait,"
given by Credner, Schtirer,
Div
ii.
Geschichte
vol.
iii.
Geschichte des Kanons, pp. 117 ff., 145 des jud. Volkcs, ii. 670 f., Eng. trans.
Zur
;
125.
17. After the Palestinian idea of the canon had, during
the course of the
first
Christian century, become the dominant
all Jews, they were obliged to attack with special the use of non-canonical writings on the part of the rigour and often a Christian was brought into a dilemma Christians,
one among
when all
the
Jews
in religious controversies simply repudiated
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
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHURCH.
17.
more exact information about the extent of the
believers
Such service was rendered by Melito and whose important explanations on this point have been Origen, mentioned above in Yet in doing this they had in view 7. Jewish Canon.
a purely practical end, and they had of
thought
suggesting that
generally to the
the use in
the
indeed the least
not;
Christians
should
submit
Jewish notions about the canon, and give up
their
churches of those non-canonical writings
which had obtained a footing among the Christian communi
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 ties.
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 Athanasius, in A.D. 365, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril
practice. of
the
Jerusalem, and Amphilochius, without expressly naming 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
Amphilochius refers 7).
On
Canon
of
to
it
omit the
Book
as received only
of
Esther, while
by some (compare 59th
the other hand, in Athanasius and in the
Synod of Phrygian and Lydian bishops at Laodicea, between A.D. 343 and A.D. 381, we meet with the
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
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHURCH.
17.
59
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 of the
the practice
To
churches was permitted (ava^ivwo-Ko^eva}.
the
in
Book
belonged, according to Athanasius, besides the
class
Esther
Wisdom
the
:
from those
who have given us the we not rarely meet with
fathers
of canonical books referred
quotations
of
of Solomon, Jesus Sirach, Judith, Tobit.
Hence even among those same lists
this
books
to,
allowed
be read
to
and a
;
consequence of this way of viewing the matter is, that we in the oldest Greek Bible have those reading books "
"
manuscripts
16).
(
Compare the Letter 12 ft BUG,
ed. de la
of Origen to Africarms in his Opera,
i.
Athanasius, Epistola, festalis of the year Colin,
ii.
1686,
38
p.
dvard^aoOai eavrols ravra rf) Oeoirvevcrrr)
ff.)
rd Xeyo/ueva <ypa<pf],
TrapeSocrav roi$ irarpdcnv ol
rov
KOI
irepl CLTT
365
(Opera, ed.
rives
ETretBrJTrep
:
aTro/cpvcfra
/cal
eT
979 e7r\7]po(>opr]07]fjiev )
dp^tj^ avroirrai
teal
eSo^e /cd/jiol rrporpairevri irapd Kal ^aOovri avwOev, e^? eKOecrOai ra 7rapa$o0evTa, TriaTevOevra re 6ela eivca
eVao To?,
KdOapos
el
\d<you
rjTrar^dr},
/jiev
^aiprj
SiafjieLvcis
fcarayvb)
TWV
7rd\iv
(There follows an enumeration of the twenty two without Esther, but with Euth separately named.)
d <ye
TrXetoz o?
aKpifBelas
TT
poar i6r] /JLL
KOI TOVTO
books,
A\\ ypd^wv
KOL erepa J3if3\ia rovrwv e^coOev, ov ^ev, rervTrcofJieva Se jrapa rwv rrarepwv ava^iOTL
rot?
rov
earl
apn
/cal
Trpoa-ep^ofjievois
/3ov\ofAevois Karrj-
^oXoyLtw^TO? /cal \6yov Kal teal fcal Iov$W, To{3ias, /cal Si$a%?i (Tocfria ^ipd^, ^Eadrjp, rwv Kal 6 yLtco? 6 real AiroaroKwv, /cd\ov/jiei>rj nTOi^v. KaKeivwv /cavovL^o/jievcav /cal rovrwv dva yivwo icofjLevwv 6tcr6/3e/a?
rrjs
<ro(f)La
*
rcov aTTOKpixj^cov
rwv
fjLv,
on
^vr^^, aXXa. aipenicwv
ecrriv errivoia,
6e\ovcriv avra, xapt&jjLevcov 8e
teal
TrpocrriOevrcov
60
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE LATIN CHURCH.
18.
,
iva 009 Trakaia Trpofyepovres Trpo^aaiv
TOVTOV Tou? cLKepaiovs. Council of Laodicea (Mansi, e/c
Canon 59:
OTI
Concill.
ov Bel ISiwriKovs
KK\r)crla ov$e a/cavovicrTa /3i{3\ia,
coll.
574),
ii.
^aX^ou? Xeyecr&u Iv aXXa /JLOVO, TCL Kavoviica
rfj T?}<>
Kal TraXata? SiadrjK r)*;.
KaivrjS
Gregory Nazianzen, Carmen ii.
nov.
xxxiii. Opera, ed. Colin,
1690,
98."
Amphilochius, Jambi ad Seleucum, Canonis, p. 194.
Jerusalem (Opera,
Cyril of
see Schmid, Historia
Benedict.
ed.
Paris,
1720,
names
ff.) p. 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
57
makes no mention
of
an intermediate order between the
canonical and the apocryphal books ix.
2,
he quotes from
Canon
Wisdom
xiii.
;
yet,
of the Council of Laodicea has the
however, on the doubtful genuineness of Gfeschichte d. NeutestamentlicJien Kanons, History of the Councils of the Church, p.
323 18.
e.g.
in his
same
list.
this
canon, Credner,
p.
vol.
Catech.
The 60th
5 as canonical.
ii.
217
Compare,
ff.
[Hefele,
Edinburgh 1876,
f.]
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
Church, were again
when we
lost,
for
the
which
customary is
all
practice of the
the more remarkable
consider that the Latin Church seemed to have been
Jerome
placed, in consequence of
s
extraordinary attainments
knowledge of the Old Testament, in the best position happy solution of the whole question. In the Prologus 7, Jerome gives a thoroughly wroughtgalcatus, referred to in in the for a
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.
standpoint, while he
much (
to
2).
word
6I
"
with a apocryphal than wider signification the Jews did their word tJJ Even those books which the Greek fathers permitted
be read
included
were,
among
still
uses the
according to this
the
"
mode
of representation,
Nevertheless, Jerome was not
ajro/cpvcfra.
himself in a position to maintain this standpoint over against the practice of the Church, but repeatedly falls back into the Indeed, he translated from
mediating practice of the Greeks. the Apocrypha, and
that
in
consequence of the demands of his fellow-countrymen, only Tobit, Judith, and the additions to Esther and Daniel, these latter writings bein^ O O entirely
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 Hrec duo volumina legit "
:
(ecclesia)
ad
sedificationem
ecclesiasticorum self
not
especially
plebis,
non
dogmatum confirmandam
infrequently
Jesus
various
quotes
Sirach,
-once
quotation (Comment, on Isaiah,
iii.
ad
"
;
auctoritatem
and so he him works,
apocryphal
expressly
introducing
12) with a
"
his
dicente scrip-
Meanwhile, the Western Church, striving after and definite forms, did not regard with favour unequivocal this somewhat uncertain intermediate position of the books
tura
sancta."
allowed to be read the problem
(libri ecclesiastici).
Instead of
now
solving
by an uncompromising acceptance of the Jewish
attempt was rather made to abolish altogether the distinction between canonical books and books that might In the Latin Bible manuscripts prior to simply be read. practice, the
Jerome, just as among the Greeks, non-canonical writings are
found along with the canonical.
Only here the number
the non-canonical writings did not vary so the Greeks, while the manuscripts writings received
bv most
of the
regularly
Churches,
much
as
of
among
embraced the i.e.
the
Wisdom
62 of
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE LATIN CHURCH.
18.
Solomon, Jesus Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees,
and the additions
and Jeremiah.
Daniel, Esther,
was now regarded as
ecclesiastical usus
writings
to
were
decisive,
and
all
The those
canonical, without
pronounced paying any Jewish Canon and the opposing remarks of was pre-eminently the African Church which,
regard to the
Jerome.
It
under the guidance
came
of Augustine,
to this practical, but
not historically justifiable, decision, for the
to
whose
lot
that fixity of
first
time at the
393, and Carthage, A.D. 397, Hippo, it thus fell to give to the Alexandrine Canon limits which it had not hitherto.
Church Assemblies
at
A.D.
Concerning Jerome compare, besides the Prologus galeatus, his preface to the Liber Tobice
meo
"
:
Feci satis desiderio vestro
Arguunt enim nos Hebneorum imputant nobis contra suum canonem Latinis Sed melius esse judicans Pharisseauribus ista transferre. orum displicere judicio, et episcoporum jussionibus deservire, non tamen
studia:
institi
Judith cujus
studio.
et
ut
Similarly, too, in the preface to the Liber Hebrseos Judith inter apocrypha legitur
potui." "
:
Apud
auctoritas
:
ad
roboranda
ilia
quae
in
contentionem
minus idonea judicatur. Sed quia hunc librum synodus Nicsena in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur veiriunt,
computasse, acquievi postulationi vestroe, immo exactioni." Caveat omnia apocrypha Further, the Epistola 7 ad Lcctam : et si quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem, sed ad signorum "
reverentiam legere voluerit, sciat non eorum titulis
praenotatur,
multaque his admixta
esse,
quorum
vitiosa, et
grandis
esse prudentise aurum in luto qussrere." list of the books in the old Latin Bible translations is
A
De institutione divinarium litterarum, Alongside of this we should take notice of a list of the canonical books found by Mommsen at Cheltenham, which given by Cassiodorus, c.
14.
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. Zvitung, 1886, Nr. 8; and J. Weiss in ZWT, xxx. 157 ff. Augustine ;
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE LATIN CHURCH.
18.
treats this question in
De
De
11.
Carthage i.
sand.
praxlest.
see
i.
Bruns,
133 and 138.
63
doctrina Christiana, ii. 8 compare On the Councils at Hippo and ;
Canones
The following
ct
apostolorum tables
may
conciliorum,
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
Cheltenham
the
list
puts
Numbers
before Leviticus (compare on that point Zahn, GescJiichte d. Neutestamentl. Kanons, i. 63); then follow Joshua, Judges,
Books
Euth, the four lipomena.
CASSIODOEUS. Psalms
1
list
of
Solo
mon Sirach
Tobit Esther Judith
Tobit Esther Judith
Ecclesiastes
Psalms
The Song
Five
Isaiah
of Psalms
Jeremiah Daniel
2
Daniel Ezekiel
Ecclesiastes of
Wisdom mon
Ezekiel
Twelve Prophets
Solo
Siraeh
Twelve Prophets
Tobit Esther Judith Ezra-Neh.
and
of
Jeremiah
Proverbs
The Song
Ezekiel
1
HIPPO. Job Psalms Five Books
.
Books Solomon
Isaiah
Twelve Prophets Job
Para-
of
:
Solomon 1 and 2 Maccabees Twelve Prophets Ezra-Neh Isaiah
Jeremiah Daniel
runs as follows
CHELTENHAM. AUGUSTINE. and 2 Maccabees Job
Job
Proverbs
Wisdom
and two Books
of Kings,
Thereafter the
Tobit Judith Esther Ezra-Neh. 1 and 2 Maccabees
Isaiah
Jeremiah Daniel Ezekiel
Maccabees
In
the Cheltenham list very remarkably the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah is wanting. The order of succession: Daniel, Of the Books Ezekiel, is the same in the last three columns. the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach, which in the other lists are simply regarded as writings of Solomon, Augustine says De quad am similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur." In the :
"
Hippo at the
list there is apparent an endeavour to gather together 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 Amiatinus: Corssen,
JPT,
also Studia Biblica
ct
ix.
619
ff.,
and below
Ecdesiastica, vol.
ii.
at
58.
Oxf. 1890, p.
[See
289
ff.,
64
19.
vol.
1891,
iii.
pp.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
217-325; The Cheltenham
Canonical Books, and
Sanday and 19.
The
of the
Writings
List
of the
W.
by
of Cyprian,
H. Turner.]
C.
Middle Ages vacillated Old Testament Canon between
ecclesiastical writers of the
in their representations of the
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. Latin Bible manuscripts contained, besides the usual Many to read" be books allowed ( 18), also the Apocalypse of Ezra.
"
The whole question was an open
one,
and the Church used
But when at answering O of it. a subsequent period Protestantism attached itself decisively to the fundamental position of Jerome, the matter was settled, no constraint in regard O
to the
Eomish Church was concerned, per viam opposiand Rome had the courage not only to take under its
so far as the tionis,
protection the practice of the Church, but it
as a condition of salvation
omnibus
sacris
in this
Si quis
libros
proclaim
integros
cum
partibus, prout in ecclesia catholica legi conet in veteri vulgata Latina editione habentur,
canonicis
et
dictas sciens et prudens
Trident,
:
also to
suis
sueverunt,
pro
"
iv. c. 1).
way were
noii
susceperit,
et
traditiones prre-
contemserit, anathema
"
sit
The non-canonical books referred
(Condi. to,
which
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. Fourth Books
of
On
the other hand, the Third and
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
regarded
as a
and emphatic declarations of Jerome, must be rather brutal
one,
theologians at a later period into their attempt to
no
brought several Catholic slight embarrassment, but
secure acceptance again for the older Greek
65
CARLSTADT, LUTHER.
20.
by making a distinction between proto-canonical and deutero-canonical books, was too evidently in contradiction to
practice,
the clear words of the Tridentine Council to be of any real avail.
The Greek Church,
too, after various vacillations,
a passing attempt to adopt the theory proposed
and
after
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 I)e Wette-Schrader, Einleitung, 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 Sixtus of Siena (Bibliotli. deutero-canonical," by "
1566), Bernard
sancta,
Jahn
i.
(Einleitung, TIicol Quartalsclirift,
i.
p.
262 276
On
f.
20.
;
1839,
BiUia,
s
1687),
compare Welte in the 230 ff., and Scholz, Eirilcitung, etc.,
ff.),
p.
the Greek Church, compare Bleek,
Herzog
ff.
(Apparat. ad
Lamy
141
Real-Encylopcedie,
vii.
The Reformation, which from the
445
TSK, 1853,
f.
first
directed
its
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 attention to the
to
some decision on the question,
read.
The
first
who
mation,
scripturis,
1520.
books that might be
treated this question, hitherto left open,
in a thoroughgoing manner,
Andrew
the canonical worth
as to
of the books received into the Bible as
Carlstadt,
In this
was the Hotspur in
his
treatise
little
tract,
of the Refor
DC
canonicis
he describes the opinions
Augustine and Jerome, and himself adopts very decidedly the view which Jerome had expressed in his Prologus galeatus of
(
18),
while, without
Church, he styles
all
any reference
to the practice of the
writings apocryphal which had not been
received by the Palestinians.
In the Zurich Bible of 1529 E
66
CARLSTADT, LUTHER.
20.
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
Among those there were included, not only the usual books allowed to be read, but also Third and Fourth Hebrews."
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 Even in A.D. 1519 he published
were read in the Church.
the Prayer of Manasseh as a supplement to his treatise kurze
wie
Untcrweisung,
appeared the
Book
of
man
"Wisdom,
beicJiten
and in
:
Eine
In A.D. 1529 1533 1534, Judith,
soil.
A.D.
two Books of Maccabees, and the Esther and Daniel while the Third
Tobit, Jesus Sirach,Baruch,the
additions to the Books of
and Fourth Books
of
Maccabees were not
meet in
;
Ezra and the Third and Fourth Books of But, at the same time,
translated.
his writings with a remarkable
we
which was
criticism
directed not merely against these waitings but also against par ticular books of
the
Hagiographa, and treated not only the but also the old Jewish decisions
practice of the Church,
Alongside of regarding the canon, with excessive freedom. of the non-canonical several writ sharp expressions against
above named, and reminders that they had tiot been received into the Hebrew Bibles, there are to be found in his ings
writings no less free denunciations of the Books of Esther, Indeed, he himself employed the Ecclesiastes, and Chronicles.
expression that, while the
excluded
from
deserved
to
the
have
Book
canon,
of Esther ought to have been
the
First
been included
criticism of the several
Books
meet with among the Jews
(
in
of the 8,
Book it.
Maccabees
of It
is
the
old
Hagiographa such as
we
which
is
compare
15),
CAELSTADT, LUTHER.
20.
67
here repeated, not however under the immediate influence of
under the impression which these writings made on his religiously sensitive nature, whose task it was historical facts, but
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 ing as
it
Jerome and Carlstadt
to be
everything accord In his translation of the
contributed to that end.
1534, Luther follows the example denominating the books allowed
Bible, completed in A.D. of
to estimate
read
in
"
apocryphal,"
and distinguishing them from the
but he keeps somewhat nearer the mediating 17, compare even Jerome practice of the Greek fathers ( when he them after the canonical Old himself, 18), places canonical books
;
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
by
"apocryphal"
it
thus became general to understand
just those non-canonical writings
into the ordinary Bibles, in direct
who
loquendi of the Greek fathers,
received
contradiction to the usus "apocryphal"
the
books that were excluded from the Bibles of the Church.
In
later
"
times the term
denominate
called
"
Pseudepigraphic
was introduced
this latter class of books, which,
inasmuch as Pseudepigraphs are
however,
is
to
less
found among the books admitted to be read by the Church, so that indeed even Jerome, in his preface to the writings of Solomon,
suitable,
named The
the
Book
treatise
:
of
s
see especially
dam
Solomon a
is
Andrew
libdlus D.
reprinted with a historical introduction
Zur Gcschicktc dcs Kanons (1847, p. 291 fif.) 81 (p. 364): Nunc autem, ut de meo quid-
additiam,
apocrypha
of
canonicis scripturis
DC,
Bodenstein-Carhtadt in Creduer
Wisdom
also
;
"
constat
incertitudinem
scripta, nee certum
autorem
autoris
non
reddere
facere
canonicas
68
LUTHER.
20.
scripturas, seel quod solus canon libros, quos respuit, apocryphos facit, sive habeant autores et nomina sive non."
On
the Zurich Bible and the
and from Luther
Combined Bibles
"
"
made up
translations, compare Herzog s Eeal554 f. 550, Encyclopcedie^, The above-mentioned prefaces to the translations of the
from
it,
s
iii.
Apocrypha are found in Luther s Samtlichen Werken, Erlangen, Of the First Book of Maccabees it is said 91-108. "This book is also one which is not to be met (p. 104):
Ixiii.
It is, however, almost equal in with in the Hebrew Bibles. 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 its
On for the understanding of the eleventh chapter of Daniel." 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 there is something good in
Book should be
ing statements
And when
he,
be compared:
to
the doctor,
rejected,
though
Further, there are the follow
it."
Erlang. the
corrected
Ausy.
Ixii.
131:
Second Book of this book and to
I am so opposed to Maccabees, he said Esther that I wished they had not been extant, for they Judaise too much and have many heathenish improprieties." "
:
De
servo arlitrio
:
canone, dignior omnibus, tur."
Esther
"Liber
Erlang. Auscj.
me
judice,
Ixii. p.
132
quamvis nunc habent in qui extra canonem habereThe 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, ;
"
has neither boot nor spur, it rides only in socks, as I did I do not believe myself, when I was still in the cloister. that Solomon has been damned, but this was written to
it
frighten
kings, princes,
and
lords.
So he did not himself
69
THE REFORMED CHURCH.
21.
was composed by Sirach must, however, compare with these the divergent statements of vol. Ixiii. p. 40, and
write the
Book
Ecclesiastes, but
in the time of the
Eclitio Erlang. Latina, xxi. 1
The Apocrypha received
it
We
Maccabees."
ff.
into the Lutheran translation of
the Bible are exactly the same as those canonised by the Itomish Church, only that the Prayer of Manasseh has also
been adopted.
Apocalypse of place liber
In not a few Protestant Bible translations the Ezra (i.e. the Fourth Book of Ezra) also finds
Compare Gildemeister, Esdrcc
the Apocrypha.
among
quartus arabice,
1877,
p.
42.
21. In the Reformed Church also, in the earliest times,
Apocrypha was allowed
intermediate position in the Bible translations, but the stricter principle of Scripture in the
the
its
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
from Bible translations.
to
have
Even
them completely removed
at the
Synod
1618-1619, Gomarus, Deodatus, and having
the
of Dort, in A.D,
others, insisted
Apocrypha withdrawn from the
upon
Bible, without
being able to induce the Synod to sanction this breach with At a somewhat later period, the the practice of the Church.
Puritan Confession, Confessio Westminster
1648
(the
pronounced the apocryphal with value ordinary human writings, equal
Confession,
writings to be of
Westmonasteriensis,
i.
3),
which had, as a natural consequence, the exclusion of these But it was only in the beginning of the from the Bible. present century that the controversy about the position of the On the ground Apocrypha assumed more serious dimensions. of the Puritan Confession, the Edinburgh Committee of the British
and Foreign Bible Society, on 17th January 1825,
protested
against
especially
in
the
Bible
resolution
translations
of in
the
Society to
foreign
allow,
languages,
the
70
THE REF011MED CHURCH.
21.
adoption of the Apocrypha, and emphatically demanded its withdrawal as a condition of their continuing to take part in The two the work along with the other local committees. 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 Administrative for
1850,
prize
offered
by the Baden
Council of the Inner Mission in the year
an essay on the significance
called forth a series treatises,
a
period,
of,
some
in
which indeed led
to
cases,
of
the Apocrypha,
very solid controversial results, but afforded
no practical
admirable contributions to the discussion of the question.
The judgments of the Reformed Confessional writings are to be found in Niemeyer s Collectio confcssionum in ecclesiis reformatis puUicatarum, Leipsic 1840, with an Appendix, Halle 1840
;
Confessio fidei Gallicana, Confcssio Belyica, p.
362
p. ;
329
Confessio Scotica, i. Confessio Helvetica poster, p. f.;
350;
468;
The English XXXIX Articles, p. 602 Dedaratio ThoruniIn the West ensis, p. 670f. Confessio Boliemica, p. 787. 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
than any other
of,
On
the
human
Synod of Dort, Hanover 1620, p. 30.
see
writings."
Ada
synodi nat. Dordrecti habitce,
[The Edinburgh controversy over the circulation of the Apocrypha by the Bible Society, in which Dr. Andrew Thomson, Dr. Patrick Macfarlane, Eobert and Alexander Haldane, 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
4
vols.,
1825-1827.]
Apocrypha Controversy, in
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
22.
71
1827
Xiels Blicher, in Theol. Maanedsskrift, fur Oct. Holier, in Nyt theol Bibliotliek, xv. 1829, p. 1 ff.
Ph. F. Keerl, Die Apocryphen
End.
Stier,
A.
d.
T.
1852
(prize essay)
1853; Hengstenberg in the 1853; Bleek in TSK, 1853, p. 267-
,
22.
As
ii.
;
Die Apocryphen,
Evany. Kirchenzeitunrj 354. Further literature also in Keil, Einleitung, trans, vol.
Jens
;
376
ff;
and in Bleek, Einleitung,
p.
665,Eng.
281
p.
f.
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
The people
Old Testament Canon.
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
That we are no longer in a position trace out the principles which led the scribes in their
modifying elements. fully to
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.
we have
to
For
it is
do,
but
not with the views of the scribes that
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 an echo.
spread and recognition which the books had
won
in
The the
genuinely Jewish community is the material which the scribes had to work up in their own way but how they succeeded ;
72
22.
in this
is
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
only of secondary interest, while the firm position among the members of the community affords
of the writings
the
special guarantee
that they recognised in
them a
true
life, and that these writings, there must he accepted by us as the canonical means of learning
reflection of their spiritual fore,
to
know
that
Our task
life.
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.
we must above
all
But
do
in order to
this,
firmly maintain that this task cannot be
Old Testament writings under a purely religious aspect, as commonly was the case in Such a mode of considering them will, in a earlier times. solved, so long as one considers the
strong and independent religious nature, of necessity lead to
we meet
depreciatory estimates of particular writings, such as
The Old Testament writings are not expressive which in regular and undisturbed progression
with in Luther. of
a religion
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
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 conscious of
its
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
the
community
which
recognised a genuine picture of the moral and
spiritual currents
by which
it
Too much
was moved.
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
73
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
22.
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
the
of
excellence
Protestant
Church,
over
Eomish and Greek Churches, that it has put before members the canonical books pure and without any
against the its
Only these books give us a true picture of the the Old Covenant called forth by revelation and miraculous leading, and they only show the prophecies admixture.
spiritual life of
contained in prophetic words and actions, whose fulfilment And so, too, in the New and completion is Jesus Christ.
Testament, Scripture proof Prophets, and the distance from this canonical writings.
is
Psalms"
circle
taken only from (
14).
At
"
the Law, the
a greater or less
stand, on the other hand, the non-
Indeed, in some of them the wonderfully
fascinating Old Testament life throbs with no little vigour
;
were wrong to deny that we meet with a richer and yea, of Wisdom than in the Book of higher spirit in the Esther or the Book of Chronicles, and that perhaps nothing it
P>ook
in the
Apocrypha gives
so
application as Ecclesiastes. to them, a
ment
much
offence in its direct religious
But, nevertheless, even in regard
thoroughgoing examination will confirm the judg
community, and lead to the conclusion that these non-canonical books, one and all, must retreat into of the Palestinian
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, can be easily understood how the Church, which renounced those forms in order to take up into itself all mankind, might it
conceive an affection for some of these writings, and esteem the spirit that throbbed in
them
better than the Palestinians
74
22.
had done
;
and so
far
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 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.
Bat 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 In the Alexandrine Bibles the introduction of the pleteness.
Apocrypha led also to this result, that the tripartite division of the canon was abandoned, although it played so important a
among
part
the
Palestinian
Jews
35), 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 reintroduce that
the
after the
division.
tripartite
we can only be
And
justified in adopting
the question of the canon, priate
canon proper, they did not
the theory of the
and the mutual relation
if
we
yet
it
is
obvious
Jewish authority on
are prepared fully to appro
Jews with respect
to the collection
of the canonical books.
Indeed,
we
New
Testament expressly gives prominence to the threefold division as intimately connected with the contents find that the
and range
of the
Old Testament Canon
(
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
introduced into our Bible translations.
would contribute largely several of the results of
commending
to
division were again If this
were done,
it
the bringing before the people
Old Testament research and
to the
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,
75
Tims it has been already told the boundary line will arise. ( 12) that Ben Sirach had obtained a pretty wide circula In such a case then it was tion among the Palestinians. exclusively the scribes who, according to some settled principle, gave the decision as to whether the book was to be received
What sort of principle this was the collection or not. the lateness of period (the during which the author lived ? or the secondary or borrowed character of the Proverbs ?) cannot into
now be determined with any degree of certainty. The ground on which the First Book of Maccabees was not received is more the
distinct.
happy
It cannot be denied that the
reign of Simon,
c.
14,
is
description of
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.
the Hagiographa pronounced canonical, only The causes considerable That it was any Song difficulty. only at a very late period received into the collection is not only
Among
"
"
not supported by historical evidence (compare 8), but is in unhistorical statement. More than for any wholly
itself a
we for this very book presuppose an and early currency general favour otherwise it would cer never have occurred to any Pharisee to regard it as tainly canonical. That it could maintain its place was undoubtedly other single writing must
;
owing to the allegorical interpretation, whether suggested by E. 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 remains at least the possibility that in earlier times, under a simple understanding of it, it had secured in the there
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 but we cannot even in a single case point to a later
selves,
text in manuscript from which all the various forms of text, as they
now
lie
before us,
may have been
And
derived.
so,
we can get back, texts known to us,
indeed, the oldest form of the text to which
and which forms the common source
must
of all
be constructed by means of textual criticism, and that certainly, as regards various passages, with varying first of all
and between the oldest text attainable degrees of certainty us and the by original text itself there now lies a dark space, ;
where
all
objective
means
to trace the external
are wanting to us that
and internal history of the
would enable us In order
text.
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
Where such
specialists.
wanting, or are not satisfactorily established,
it
also
are
must remain
On the other hand, the critical incomplete and fragmentary. labours of specialists will be regulated by the history of the text,
A
and will
find even through
it
a firm
and sure method.
sketch of the means that are at our
command
elucidation of the textual history will form the essential section in the history of the text. 79
first
Owing
for the
and an
to the fact
80
PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
23.
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 to
them,
must be Ogiven them. At the same time, with regard O to be remembered that in the history of the
it is
text the translations to their
lations
come
importance for the
which
other hand,
consideration only according
text,
and that therefore
at
originated
witnesses for the text
into
times
must be
when we
left
all trans
possess
the
necessary to give a somewhat full description and character of the other translations for
it is
of the origination
only in this
direct
On
unmentioned.
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
very novelty preferred, form
of text.
its
So, too, of necessity the
peculiar circumstances of the transmission of the text of the
must be taken
translations
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
to the original text
Compare, 1,
in
may
later variation corrected according
be
the following writings
:
Morinus, Exercitationum textus
lost to the textual critic.
addition to the general works mentioned in
sinceritate
libri
biblicarum
duo, Paris
de
1669;
Hcbrcci
G-rcecique
Cappellus,
Critica
new edition, with notes by Vogel and ScharHalle 1775-86; Humfredi Hodii De UUiorum texti-
Sacra, Paris 1650,
fenberg, bus originalibus, versionibus Greeds
Oxf.
1705; Hupfeld
volume
of
Home s
et
latina Vulgata libri
iv.
TSK, 1830 and 1837; the second Introduction to the Critical Study and in
81
ITiELIMIXAltY REMARKS.
23.
Knowledge of the Holy Scripture, London I860, by L)r. Sain. in Herzog s RcalDavidson Dillmann, Bibeltext d. A. "
T."
;
Encyclopacdie, T.
ii.
381
ff.
;
Strack, Prolegomena critica in
1873; Weissmann, Kanonisieruny und
Tcxtcs der
liciligen
Sehriflcn A.
Vienna 1887 1886, pp. 1-175.
(Hebr.),
;
Cornill,
T.
nacli
DasBuehdcs
Fcststellung
V. dcs
primarcn Quellcn Proplictcn Ezccliid,
I.
MEANS FOE THE STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT. A.
THE APPARATUS PROPER. 1.
24.
The
first
Printed Editions.
printed editions of the Old Testament were
1477 there appeared with the Commentary Psalms a very of Kimchi; next, in 1488 the whole of the Old Testament The Brescia Bible, edited by E. Gerson ben at Soncino.
furnished by Jews.
First of all in the year
defective edition of the ;
in 1494, dependent upon the Soncino edition, was the The copy used by one used by Luther for his translation.
Moses
him
It was not preserved in the Eoyal Library at Berlin. until A.D. 1514-1517 that the Complutensian Bible referred is
below appeared, which contained the first edition of the It original Hebrew text issued under the care of Christians.
to
also forms the real editio princeps of the
manual
edition of
afterwards) was
New
Testament.
The
Bomberg (Venice 1517, 1521, and often
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 Bomberg Bible spoken of below.
The Athias
edition of J. Leus-
den (Amsterdam 1661-67) follows these editions, but with To this again is attached collation of several manuscripts. the edition of E. van der Hooght (Amsterdam 1705), on which rests the widely circulated edition of 82
Halm and
Theile.
Of a
24.
83
PRINTED EDITIONS.
more independent character was the edition of the text issued In more under the charge of J. H. Michaelis (Halle 1720). 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 the
Hebrew
text
in
the
so-called
we
meet with
also
of old
translations.
The most remarkable
which,
Bibles,
Polyglot
number
besides the original text, furnish a larger or smaller of
these
the
is
Complutensian Bible, edited by Cardinal Francisco Ximenes de Cisnero at Alcala (Complutum), which Conrad Pellican rightly hailed
marking the beginning of a new era in The revision of the Hebrew text is indeed
as
linguistic studies.
on good Massoretic manuscripts. The great Antwerp Polyglot contains an improved reproduction defective,
but rests
of this edition.
Lastly, the original text
is
also to be
found in the so-called
where it is accompanied by the Targums and various Jewish commentaries. Among these the first Ptabbinical Bibles,
place belongs to the second
work
Bomberg Bible (1525-26), the
Jacob ben Chajim ibn Adonja, because of corrected from the Massora and the reproduction of
Massora which given below.
The
Mantua 1742-44, 1277,
is
porated (Nurzia),
ance for
also
the
of
An
account of this edition
is
edition of the
Old Testament published
at
contains.
it
text
its
resting
upon a Toledo Bible
of the
deserving of mention, because in
is
it
year incor
celebrated commentary of Solomon di Nbrzi Minhath Sai (w nrutt), which is of special import the criticism of the Massoretic text. The same
the
commentary, composed originally in 1626 under the name Odder pcres, is also to be found in the Vienna Bible, 1813-16.
Compare De Long, Halle
Bibliotlieca
Rossi,
Varies lectioncs,
sacra, Paris 1723, a
i.
new
p.
cxxxix
edition
1778-90; De Wette-Schrader, EMeitung,
ff.
;
Le
by Masch, p.
217
ff;
84
ITJNTED EDITIONS.
24.
Rosen m tiller, Handluch der Litt. d. bill. Kritik und Exegese, i. 189 ff., iii. 279 ff. Of the Five Megilloth the old Macsee upon these hazor editions ought to be referred to Baer, in WetteDe To the works named iv. volumina, p. Quinque Schrader, Einleitung, p. 217, on the oldest printed Hebrew :
;
editions,
Soncino,
should be added
/
F. Sacchi,
:
On
Cremona 1877.
Luther
s
tipographi Elrei di edition of the
manual
Bible compare Delitzsch in the Allgem. Lutli. Evany. KZ, 1883, On the edition of the Psalms of 1477, compare
Nr. 51.
Baer, Liber psalmorum,
Of Baer
iv. seq.
editions there have
s
1872; Jeremiah, 1890; 1878 the Psalms, 1880;
appeared: Genesis, 1809; Isaiah, Ezekiel,1884; the Twelve Prophets,
;
Proverbs, 1880; Job, 1875; the Five Megilloth, 188G; Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, 1882 Chronicles, Der Masoratext des Kolicleth, 1890. ;
The Complutensian
Polyglots:
"
1888
Bible,
;
see Euringer,
1514-1517; The
the after Antwerp Polyglot llegia in who died A.D. Christian Plantin, 1589), Antwerp printer 15G9-1572. Upon the Antwerp text of the Old Testament, "
or
Plantiniana,"
("
as Delitzsch in
has shown,
is
Hebrew
part
of the
Billia sacra,
Latine ex officina Sanctandreana 1587 (1599 ex officina Commeliana). Finally the Parisian Poly
Hcbraice, Greece
and 1610
the second of the treatises referred to below
based the ct
1029-1645, and the London Polyglot, 1054-1657 (1817-1828, 1831). Franz Delitzsch has dealt with the
glot,
Complutensian Polyglot in detail in three Leipsic Disserta tions
:
Studien zur Entstcliungsgescliiclite der Polygottenlilel des
Kardincds Ximenes, 1871
(in
which
lie
gives, p.
19
ff.,
a
biographical sketch of Ximenes, and at p. 24 ff. a sketch of his fellow-workers on the Polyglot) Complutensisclie Varianten ;
zum AlUcstam. Texte, 1878 (with Hebrew manuscripts by Ximenes) Entstcliungsgcscliichte
der
Bibles:
The
p.
first
about the
Fortgesetzte Studien zur
;
complutensischen
See more particulars below at Ptabbinical
investigations
Polyglotte,
1886.
134.
Bomberg
Bible,
edited
by
Felix Pratensis, Vienna 1517-1518; Second Bomberg Bible, edited by Jacob ben Chajim, 1525 Buxtorf s Bible, Basel, ;
1618-1619
;
the Billia
magna r\m mbnp
(rich in
materials),
Am sterdam
85
THE SAMARITAN TEXT.
25.
172 4- 1727;
Billia
hcbmica,
Warsaw 1875-
1877.
On Solomon
Norzi
di
s
Commentary and
the
Mantuan
Handbucli der gesamten Of importance in connection
edition, see Fiirst, Bibliographisches iii.
jiidischcn Littcratur,
with the Massora ,
is
89
f.
the edition of Genesis by Heidenheim,
1818.
The peculiar form of the Pentateuch text used by the Samaritans ( 11) was printed in the Parisian and London 25.
was published
and
Polyglots,
(Oxford 1790)
separately
by
13.
Blayney
in a quarto edition.
Compare Kautzsch
in
2.
Herzog
s
Eeal-Encydopcedie
*,
xiii.
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
The reason
years.
of this fact,
able on this account, that translations of the
found in
we
which
is all
the more remark
possess manuscripts of several
Old Testament of a much
earlier date, is
this, that the Jews, far from manifesting zeal in the
preservation of old Codices of the Bible, were wont rather,
when age,
the manuscripts could no longer be used on account of laid in the lumber room of the syna
and were therefore
gogue
(
n
JV3),
to
accelerate
their
destruction,
because they
feared lest the manuscripts no longer in use might be in
way
profaned.
any
Notwithstanding the considerable number
of
Old Testament manuscripts, we nevertheless possess only a old, and of
few which can even in a certain sense be called
of the it is to be remarked, that the age be determined. cannot with certainty manuscripts always
these
generally
86
27.
The catalogues given in Strack
work we may Handscliriftcn
CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCPJPTS. of the manuscripts of the
Hebrew
Bible are
Prolegomena, pp. 29-33, 119-121. To this add further Steinschneider, Die hebrdischen k onigl. Bibliotliek zu Munchen, 1875 d. s
:
;
Harkavy and Strack, Katalog d. heir. Handschriften in St. Petersburg, 1875; Schiller-Szinessy, Catalogue of the Hebrew Steinschneider, Katalog der Manuscripts in Cambridge, 1876 hebr. Handschriften in der Stadtbibliothek zu Hamburg, 1878 ;
;
Die Handschriftenverzeichnisse der 1878 Landauer, Katalog der ;
Orient. Handschrifter,
1881
konigl.
Bibl. zu Berlin,
Bibliotliek
in
ii.
Strassburg.
Neubauer, Catalogue of the Bodleian Library, 1886. On the
i.
;
Hebrew Manuscripts in the Erfurt manuscripts compare Lagarde, Symmicta, 1877, p. 133 and Baer, Liber XII. Proph. p. vi. ff., Merx, Chrcstomathia targumica xv. gives a
system of points.
of manuscripts with the Babylonian to Baer s
list
Compare generally the preface
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 Geniza see M. Sab. Strack, Prolegomena, 42,
ix. 6 Soph rim and compare above 2. ;
v.
14,
p. xi
;
27. The age of manuscripts can be determined accurately
only
when they have come down with a dated subscription, and we must be prepared for the possibility of falsifications
even then
and ante-datings, which some editors had recourse give increased value to the manuscripts.
to in order to
In recent times the
Karaite, A. Firkowitzsch,has obtained a particularly unfortunate notoriety for this sort of work.
Another, not so decisive mark
afforded by certain formulae, especially benedictions, which, as can be conclusively proved, were first introduced at particular On the other hand, determinations as to the age of periods.
is
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.
p.
Compare S track, Prolegomena, 601 f Zunz, Zur Gcsckichte und .
87
OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS.
;
p.
33
ZLT, 1875, 1845, pp. 207, codicum Helraicorum ff.
;
Litteratur,
Tychsen, Tcntamcn de variis Eostock 1872 Idem, Beurteilung dcr Jalirzalilen gcneribus, in den kcbraisch-biblischcn Handscliriftcn, Eostock 1786
214230;
;
;
De
Schnurrer,
On
1772.
Einleitung
^
turzeitung,
On in
V. T. cctate difficulter determinanda, Tub. the formulae of the copyists compare also Bleek, codd.
565; and with regard thereto: 1878, p. 571. ,
Theolog. Litcra-
p.
the forgeries of Firkowitzsch in general I Academic de St. Petersbourg,
Mtimoires de
Strack, A. Firkowitzsch
ZDGM,
xxxiv.
163
und
:
seine Entdeckungen,
On Chwolson s
see
vii.
Harkavy
24, Nr. 1
;
1876; and
otherwise
very Corpus inscriptionum Hebraicarum, St. Petersburg 1882, wherein an attempt is made partially to vindicate See Firkowitzsch, compare Strack in LCB, 1883, p. 878. p.
ff.
learned
also
76.
On some
peculiarities of the pointing in the oldest
manu
for Qames liatupli and the employment of Daghesh scripts lene in all letters see Baer, Liber Jcremice, p. viii seq. ("
")
A
picture of the various types of letters is given in Euting s Sclirifttafcl in Chwolson s Corpus inscriptionum Hebraicarum.
Compare 28.
also the facsimiles referred to in
The
oldest manuscripts of the
28.
Old Testament whose
date can be with certainty ascertained belong to the tenth century. (
27),
Crimea
Notwithstanding the
we owe the
to
many
forgeries of Firkowitzsch
manuscripts from the age can be given with
his collections of
oldest Codex,
whose
certainty, namely, a Babylonian manuscript of the Prophetw Posteriores of the year 916. It has been edited in a photo
To the same century by H. L. Strack. some Bible of Karaite manuscripts, which belong fragments were obtained by Shapira in Hit (on the Euphrates, south lithographic facsimile
west of Bagdad) and in Cairo. They are written in Arabic with but The oldest manuscript of Hebrew letters, points. the entire Old Testament, on the assumption of the correctness
88
28.
of the date,
is
OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS.
Codex
the
to the Firkowitzsch
of the year
On
collection.
1010, which belongs
also
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
more recent
to be of
origin.
Prophetarum postcriorum Codex Bctbylonicus PetroPetersburg 1876, of which the Russian Emperor has presented copies to several libraries. Separately Hosea Strack,
politanus, St.
:
Ad
Joel prophetcc. H. L. Strack, Leipsic e.t
fidmi Cod. Bahylonici Petropolitani, ed.
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.
viii.
und
5, is
reproduced. Aslicrs Codex compare Michae lis, Orient, exeat. BibliotheJc, x. 63 the Jewish traveller Jacob
On Aaron
~ben
;
Account of his Travels -PSD px, Lyck, 1866, p. 12 if.; and especially, W. Wickes, A Treatise on the Accentuation of the so-called Prose Books of the Old Testament, 1887, wherein a Sappir
s
sheet of manuscript
and where
(pp. vii
According
to
is
reproduced in facsimile by photography,
ix) the incorrectness of the date is proved.
Lagarde
(NGG W,
1890,
p.
16)
it
belongs to the
German manuscripts
On
of the fourteenth century. the often referred to Cambridge Codex, Nr. 12,
Neubauer Szinessy
s
The Academy, 1887, article in the same paper, in
p.
p.
compare 321, against Schiller304.
Wickes denies the correctness of the date of the Bible of A.D. 1010 or 1009. In his Treatise on the Accentuation, etc., p. ix, he says: I 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. 263274; compare also Baer and Strack, Dihduke Hateamim. xxiv. seq.] accept the date."
On
other old manuscripts see Strack,
Delitzsch,
89
SAMARITAN MANUSCRIPTS.
29.
Complutensische
Varianten,
ZLT, 1875, 1878,
598
p.
4
p.
ff.,
f.;
and The
especially the prefaces in Baer s editions of the texts. celebrated Eeuchlin Prophet - Codex dates from the year 1106. Compare the description of it in Baer, Liber Jeremice, p. vi 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 Paleographical Society, Oriental Series iii. sheets 40, 41, iv. also in Neubauer s Catalogue of the Hebrew Manu in the Bodleian Library, p. 86. In his Gcschichtc ties scripts Volkes Israel, p. 32, Stade gives representations of Eeuchlin s Prophet-Codex, the Erfurt Bible Manuscript No. 3, and the
sheet
54
;
above referred
to
St.
Prophet-Codex.
Petersburg
Further
literature in Steinschneider, CentralUatt filr Bibliotliekwesen,iv.
1887, pp. 155-165.
A
manuscript fragment of Deuteronomy, alleged to be very which caused some excitement in the year 1883, is old, described by Guthe in Fraymente cincr Lcderhandschrift, mityctcilt und geprilft, Leipsic 1883. In the Memoir es de I Academic imp. de St. Peterslourg, series vii. tome xxxii. 1884, Nr. 8, Harkavy describes some manuscript fragments from Khodes with a peculiar alphabet, which, however, are decidedly spurious. in
REJ,
x.
29. To the
Samaritan
Compare Derenbourg
311, and Baer, Quinyue volumina,
Hebrew manuscripts
Codices
(
11,
25).
represent a text,
which
from the Jewish
text, it is not to
of the
Since
vi. sq.
Law
belong also the
these
manuscripts
at a very early period separated itself
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
COLLECTIONS OF VARIATIONS.
30.
much
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 ance
is
confirm
very
the results
restricted.
obtained with regard
to
the
external
history of the text.
378-389; Rosen in Compare Eichhorn, EMeitung*, 582 xviii. ZDMG, Strack, Prolegomena, p. 56 f if.; 2 s Reali. 283, xiii. 349, 334; and Herzog Encyclopedic s der Pentateuch- Codices, Peters Samaritan. Harkavy Katalog Russian the 1874 Compare also (in language). burg Heidenheim s Bibliotlieca Samaritana, i. p. xiv sqq., and in the
.
;
,
review of
it,
ZDMG, 3.
30.
By means
xxxix.
p.
167.
Collections of Variations.
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,
been placed in a position to
make
are no longer themselves extant. variations
Jewish
from manuscripts
traditional
readily set aside
text
what
is
no
use of
We
manuscripts which
come
longer
we have
into possession of
which the
extant,
We
has
preserved ( 31). may us in of Rabbi the presented readings
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
readings which various standard Codices,
a
series
drawn up by
of
cele
Such Codices (sometimes brated punctuators, have adopted. the Codex Hilleli (named after an called Mahzoroth) are unknown R. Hillel), Codex Zanbuki, the JericJio Pentateuch, :
We
must Sephcr Sinai, Keter Schem Tob, Machzora Ralba, etc. 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
91
COLLECTIONS OF VARIATIONS.
30.
times by means of the manuscripts of the Crimea; and finally, of the two celebrated masters from the divergent readings O O the beginning of the tenth century, E. Moses ben David ben
Naphtali in Babylon, and E, Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in The latter has become the most distinguished For the rest, these authority in favour of the received text. Tiberias.
variations, for the
more importance
most part
varieties
for philological
of
vocalisation, are of
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 On the contrary, a series of text or the text of Tiberias. variations has long been
known which
indicate the difference
between the Eecensions of the Babylonian or Palestinian,
or, as
they are commonly named in the history of the text, the e Eastern (^rono, m dinkdje) and the Western ( KTUJB, maarldje) It was, however, only the discoveries of recent times schools. 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),
arrangement of the biblical books ( 10), and their system of pointing ( 80), so, too, they both had their Eecensions of the their
The
text.
earliest
known
of these variations,
list
Jacob ben Chajim, who, undoubtedly on the basis scripts,
communicated
it
in
his
we owe to manu
of old
Eabbinical Bible
(
24).
Eecent 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 Recension with all its peculiarities ( 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
COLLECTIONS OF VARIATIONS.
30.
The question
as
how
to
far
(fre
K
and
e
tib
regarded as actual variations will be discussed in
are
to
be
33.
Kennicott, Veins testamentum hebraicum cum variis lectioni~bus, Oxford 1776-1780 (treats only of the consonantal texts)
;
the therein included Dissertatio generalis is edited by Brims, Brunswick 1783; De Eossi, Varies lectiones Veteris Testamenti, Parma,
1784-1788
and Scholia
;
critica in V. T. Libr.
Parma 1798; The critical Delitzsch, Complutensische Varianten, in in Strack Baer s editions ZLT, 1877, apparatus 24); ( in collations I7ff. The p. Hcerning s Karaite (on Isaiah).
s.
supplementa ad varias
lectiones sacri tcxtus,
1878.
manuscripts mentioned in
The reported readings
E. Meir (see in regard to him, Judcntliums, ii. 86 ff.) are given: Bcresliitli
Jost, Gescliiclite des rb. iii.
28. of
9 (Gen. i. 31; ni instead of *itf) of instead -viK 21, Idem, c. 94 -ny) c.
^m)
jer.
;
Taan.
1, fol.
i.
64a
on the passage).
With
Midrash,
of
a
20 (Gen.
is
pi
wi
^11 [Edom being
equivalent Eome], compare Jerome these readings agree at least once
popularly regarded
as
readings
c.
xlvi. 23,
(Isaiah xxi. 11,
instead of non, indeed his reading rather
the
(Gen.
;
instead of
Idem,
;
to
Torah
roll
catalogued
in
a
manuscript
(now in the library of the Israelite at Prague), which was brought to Eome, and there
Bercshitli rabbati
community laid up in the BTMD&n "
Kimclii on Gen.
who
i.
31, the
&W03."
who
writes
This "the
roll is
mentioned by
Synagogue of
Severus."
MGWJ, 1885, pp. 337-351, quotes Epstein, these passages, conjectures that it may have been the roll of the Law brought by Titus to Eome (see Josephus, Wars of the in
Compare further, Hochmuth in the same For the rest, at least the sojournal, 1886, pp. 274-279. called reading of E. Meir, JTID for IKE in Gen. i. 31, might be Jews,
vii.
5.
5).
regarded rather as a free playful modification of the text than as a reading properly so-called.
On
common
the ancient standard Codices, see Strack, Prolegomena, On the Codex
14-29, 112-118, and ZLT 1875, p. 613 f. ffilleli, see the Academy, 1888, p. 321. On Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, compare ,
Strack, Prolcgo-
mcna,
p. 2
pccdie
,
93
COLLECTIONS OF VARIATIONS.
30.
24 ff.; ZLT, 1875, p. 616; Herzog s Ecal-Encycloix. 390 ff Berliner, Targum Onkelos, 1884, ii. 139 .
;
;
and especially Baer and Strack, Die Dikduke liateamim des Akron I. M. b. Ascher, 1879, pp. x ff., 78 ff. 84. These various readings are given in a manuscript of the Tschufutkale-CollecBaer, Liber psaltion, Nr. 13, D ")^ rnjf (see Dikduke, xxxii. morum, p. vi Liber Ezecliielis, p. vi Quinque volumina, p v), 1
;
;
;
and in the
Codex de Rossi, Nr. 940
the
nipjn *Biin of
(see
Baer, Liber Jeremice, p. x sq.). They are mentioned, as well Of as the following variations, in all the editions of Baer.
the
three
passages
where
the
between
divergences
Ben
Naphtali and Ben Asher are said to have referred also to the
22 1 Kings iii. 20 (see ZLT, xi. 7, xxix. 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; Lists of their Geiger, NacJigelassene Scliriften, iv. 32 ff. to be found in are the Codex ben Asher divergent readings consonants, Jer.
;
;
(see
Baer, Liber Duodccim, p. viii), in the Bible of the year in the Codices Tsclmfidkale, Nr. 7 and ISa (Baer,
1010, and
Liber Jobi, p. v). It is to be Quinque volumina, p. v observed that the South Arabian manuscripts with Baby vocalisation contain the readings of the Western lonian ;
"
"
school.
See Wickes, The Accentuation of the Prose Books,
p.
150.
Nehardea and Sora (compare on these cities, Neubauer, Gtograpliie du Talmud, 350 f., 343) diverged from one another in their Halacha as well as in their Targum
The schools
at
An example
Bible readings is 37, where, according to the Massora of read i?x, those of Sora ?N1. those Nehardea Com mafjna,
criticism. to be
found in Neh.
of their different
iii.
on them, Strack, Prolegomena, Massora zum Targum Onkelos, ii. 61 ff.
pare the
members
of
Palestinians, and readings.
the
school
consequently
of
40
Berliner, Die According to Berliner
p.
;
Nehardea were they
followed
the
emigrant western
94
4.
The want
31. to
THE MASSORA.
31.
of
Tke Jewish Massora.
old manuscripts of the Old Testament
is
some extent supplied by the so-called Massora or text which makes it possible for us to trace
tradition of the Jews,
back the text to the times
earlier
than those to which the
The proper task of the extant manuscripts belong. Massora was the guarding of the Bible manuscripts against
^earliest
degeneration through carelessness and wilfulness on the part
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
of transcribers,
and, in
;
transmitted
Lists of
valued.
which cannot be too highly the peculiarities of the text from all points
from early times
view were compiled,
were registered, so easily be obliterated at the hands of was built up around fence transcribers, and in this way a has in which resulted this, that we meet actually Scripture, of
all
singularities
that they could not
"
"
i
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. at
various centres
the
memory
of
which
is
Jews various Massoras, the preserved by means of the lists of of
the
variations of the Massora that (
There were certainly
had won general acceptance trifling, and affected the
30), but these differences were
received form of text very
made up
of marginal
little.
The Massoretic material
notes on the Bible
is
manuscripts, and
The marginal notes (Massora marginabove or below the text, and are then
of independent works. alls)
stand
either
magna, or alongside the text, and are then The independent Massoretic works Massora parva. are the expansion of the Massora magna. They were often
called Massora called
added
at
editions,
the
manuscripts and The form in finalis.
end of the Bible text
whence the
name Massora
in
THE MASSORA.
31.
95
which the Massoretic material was communicated an alphabetical
or
list,
of
statements
is
how
as to
that of
often
the
forms referred to are met with, or of the o gathering O together O of such expressions as are similar to one another, and might therefore be readily interchanged.
Introductions into the difficult study of the Massora, that
with great advantage, are afforded by Jacob ben
may be
used
Chajim
in the preface to his Eabbinical Bible
still
24),
(
by Elias
Levita in his Massora hamasorctk, 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. also ;
We
meet with something similar among the Persians ungsbcriclite dcr konigl laycrisclien Akademie d.
see Sitz-
;
Wissenscli.
1872, p. 96. The pronunciation of the word rmDD or miDD is uncertain, for we find rniDtt as well as rniojp (rniD). Both forms, which occur in Ezekiel xx. 27, are remarkable, since the word is derived from tradere. We should have expected "ipo,
like
nito
n"jiDp 5
42,
(Earth, Nominallrildung,
form Massora, which
may have
^^
Aramaic
an intransitive
smDB
doubtful.
is
in
hypotheses Lagarde, Der Gottesname Adonaj. Litter atu rblatt,
188 9,
Le vita s Venice in 1536.
the
93a
/3),
whereas
not parallel, is more Also the pronunciation of the correspond
as
difficult to explain.
ing
prefer"
originated through sharpening
the accentuation, compare nnp3 (Barth, rniDB, since n
2).
We
p.
NGGW, 1889,
is
Compare the divergent 1882, p. 168; Dalman, 8; and S track, TheoL p.
291.
miDDn nilDO ISO was published in 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 Elias
9)
(
A
and critical and explanatory notes, ed. C. D. London 1867). Compare especially Bacher, ZDMG, Ginsburg, xliii. 231 ff. Ginsburg has edited Jacob ben Chajim s preface in Hebrew and English, 2nd ed., London 1867. translation
96
32.
HISTORY OF THE MASSORA.
Buxtorf, Tiberias sive commentarius masoreticus triplex,~BdiSel t fragment of it as a specimen
A
1620, and often reprinted.
mode of treatment is given by Bleek, Einleitung*, 568 While Buxtorf here interprets the first chapter of f. p. Genesis, the following seven chapters are commented on by of
J.
the
Hansen, Interpretatio masorce mayncc
Copenhagen
textualis,
1733-1737. 32.
back
The beginnings
to a
his saying that
Aboth,
How
very early period.
iii.
13),
"
is
the
Jewish Massora can be traced
of the
moo
far indeed E. Akiba,
a fence around the
is
Law
with
"
(Pirke
thinking of the text transmission, is
doubt
but in any case we meet with contributions from the Massoretic material even in the Mislina, and then, considerably
ful
;
increased, in
the
Gemara and
Midrashic works,
in the old
with the exception, as can readily be understood, of all that There is a further refers to the later system of pointing. increase
material
of
sepJier torak
the
the
in
and Masseket
post-Talrnudic
sopltfrim,
rules for the transcription
which are occupied with Torah rolls. With
of the
the invention of the system of pointing,
Massoretes
received
a
new
Masseket
tracts
impetus,
the work of
the
now many
because
which previously could only be transmitted Aaron ben Moses ben could be fixed in writing.
delicate points orally
Asher of the tenth century, above referred belonged
composed
to
(
30),
who
to a distinguished family of punctuators in Tiberias,
a
treatise
which,
besides
all
sorts
of
purely
grammatical remarks, communicated a series of Massoretic This work was imitated in many observations and rules. similar half-grammatical, half-Massoretic tracts, which, under
the
name
pointing.
Horajatli ha korc, gave rules for transcription and
In the following
ages,
when
a purely philological
had been developed, the grammatical material was and, at the same time, there separated from these works arose a purely Massoretic literature under the two forms literature
;
THE MASSORA.
32.
97
mentioned above, marginal notes and independent writings, by the latter of which the marginal notes of an almost were
character
enigmatical
the
often for
first
made
time
A
standard work of the independent order was intelligible. e the celebrated book Ochla w oclila, so called on account of its
commencement, which placed together the rfatf of 1 Sam. i. 9 That it was already in existence in and of Gen. xxvii. 19. the
half
latter
whereas
its
the twelfth century
of
relation to the
is beyond question, Massora of Gerson ben Judah, who
lived in the eleventh century,
is very doubtful. Its great in that it circulated in at this consists however, importance, least three different editions, of which two are still extant in
The third seems
their original form.
have been used by
to
Jacob ben Chajim in the Massora magna, which he appended to the end of his Rabbinical Bible ( Elias Levita 24, 31). also
(
31),
who was almost contemporary with
the book Ochla, which
he praises as
equal in the department of the
"
Jacob, used
small in size but without
Massora."
In the following
century the great Buxtorf sought, on the foundation laid in
accessible
named, to make Massoretic studies generally At this time also appeared and fruitful ( 31).
Menahem
di
the
works
named
Lonzano
s
Or
tora,
1618, while
jSTorzi s
above-
commentary Odder pcrcs ( 24) did not appear In the eighteenth century Massoretic till somewhat later. studies found little favour, either among Christians or among critical
Only in our own century has new life been imparted them and essentially furthered by the works of W. Heiden-
Jews. to
heim (who died
Eodelheim in 1832),
L. Dukes, Frerisdorff, and C. D. Ginsburg, Baer, Strack, J. Derenbourg, Wickes, many of them very celebrated, and by the manuscripts brought The fruits of these minute and unwearied to light by them.
investigations
at
are
presented
in
Baer
s
edition
corrected according to the Massora, and in of the
most recent Hebrew grammarians.
of the
text
many monographs
98
32.
THE MASSORA.
On
the history of the Massora compare Geiger in the Jiid. Strack in Herzog s Real-Encyclopcedie *, Zeitschrift, iii. 78 ff. ;
388
ix.
The
L. Blau, Massoretische Uniersuchunyen, 1891. statements regarding the Massora in the earliest Jewish ff.;
writings are collected in Strack s Prolegomena, literature will be found fully given.
7394, 122
f.,
where the
Seplicr tora is published in
Kirchheim
VII. libri Talmudici
s
parvi Hierosolymitani, Frankfurt 1851, pp.
1-11.
Masseket
e
soph rim, edited by J. Miiller, Leipsic 1878.
Compare
also
Judceorum codicis sacri rite scribendi leges, a libello Tkalmudico D HSlD D3DD in lat. converses et annot. explicates, Hamburg 1779. On Aaron ben Asher, compare further 80. Of his massoretico-grainmatical lessons a part was printed in the first Adler,
24); afterwards L. Dukes gave quotations in his Kontres hamasoret, 1846. Finally, Baer and Strack, Eabbinical Bible
(
building with materials supplied by many contributors, have edited the entire collection in a critical text Die dikduke :
iui-teamim des
Akron
b.
M.
b.
A seller,
Leipsic 1879. by valuable notes,
A similar treatise, accompanied has been published by Derenbourg, according to a South Arabian manuscript written in A.D. 1390, under the title "Manuel du "
Lecteur,
Jews
in
in the Journal Asiatique, 1870, xvi. 309 ff. The called such a compendium which frequently
Yemen
preceded their Bible manuscripts, jjOTin the
Crown,
i.e.
commoner name
On
the for it
Bible."
was
Among
mnn, the
"
other
Treatise
on
Jews the
DiBJlp.
writers quoted by Elms compare Backer ZDMG, xliii. 208. Especially on the book Horajatli Jia-qorc, see Wickes, Accentuation of the Prose Books, p. x sq.
the
grammatico-massoretic
Levita,
Gratz in MGWJ, 1887, p. 134, attempts to prove that the book Ochla was a work of Gerson ben Judah, who died in
A.D.
1028.
See,
however,
the opposing
arguments of
Neubauer and Bacher in the same journal, pp. 299309. The one form of the text of the book is to be found in a Halle manuscript, which Hupfield (ZDMG, xxi. 202 ff.) describes; the other in a Parisian Codex, which Frensdorff
3.3.
Das Bucli
K ET1R AND Q E UE.
99
W
e
That ochla, Hanover 1SG4. Jacob ben Chajini used a third form of text of this work as the basis of his Massora final-is, has been conjectured by lias
edited:
Griitz
among
Ochlci
others.
has
Frensdorff
issued
in
a separate
edition
:
Tip3n
rrn
rtorn (by Moses the Punctuator), Hanover 1847, and the first volume of a Massora magna (Massoretisclies Wortcrlucli), Hanover 18 70. Unfortunately this Massoretic Dictionary is
not to be continued.
Ginsburg
s
laborious edition of the Massora {The. Massorah
compiled from manuscripts, alphabetically and lexically arranged, i.-iii. 1880-1885) has been very severely criticised in The
Guardian, 1886, p. 1049, and by Baer, ZDMG, and described as quite an uncritical compilation.
An for
improved Massoretic text
xl.
743
ff.,
being prepared by Baer yadol, which will be
is
Mikra
the great Rabbinical Bible,
published at Wilna.
Compare 3:>.
also the literature given in
82.
While the portions of the Massora which consist in verses, words, and letters, in lists of rare and
numbers of
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 riot already been done in
30, here concern ourselves with those
Massora which give information about divergent text, and are therefore of special interest for the
parts of the
forms of
history of the text.
To
this
class
recorded in the Massora between
K
belong the distinctions and (usually, but
tib
Q"re
rl), or between the written and the read wrongly written In a pretty numerous set of passages text. 1314 according Q"
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
30.
A
differently.
back of
K E TIB AND Q E KE.
trace of this quid pro quo can clearly be traced
to the times before Christ, for
for
nirr
(compare
"o^x
76).
even then the substitution
must have become a very general At a later period we find the
practice
practice
extent in the Talmud, Scplier tora, Masseket The utterances of and in the Massoretic works. soph rim,
growing
in
e
the Massoretes, moreover, are not in perfect agreement upon this point, for, in particular, not a
of the Palestinian in
few of the varying readings
and Babylonian Jews
varying statements of the Qarjan.
30) consist simply
(
The Qarjan, quoted
in
the Babylonian Talmud, twice (Ruth ii. 11 and Jer. xxxii. 11) agrees with the Babylonians against the Palestinians.
when we
This somewhat remarkable phenomenon,
take into
consideration the Jewish reverence for the traditional text, is
explained very
In simply from one part of the Qarjan. various expressions which, on various
the Bible
we meet with
accounts,
people
not venture to pronounce
could
in
their
synagogical 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 Thus j lK was read in
attached were added in the margin.
place of the unpronounceable mrp (without, however, in the case of this frequently-recurring word, writing the letters
the margin), 33^ instead of the unlucky word of D^in, etc.
The same
sponding passages
system
of
of
fttt?,
>:HK
in
HKIV instead
also naturally occurred in the corre
the
Hagiographa,
which
pointing moulded upon the mode
followed in the synagogue.
Further,
it
is
received
a
of the reading
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
K K TIB AND Q
33.
in the synagogues,
written form
even where
of the text.
And
it
so,
K
101
KE.
diverged from the authorised too, the Qarjan of those books
Hagiographa that were not read in the synagogues pro ceeded from the old-established use and wont of the teachers of the
who were accustomed
to read these books.
In so far
may
it
be allowed to be possible, that the Qarjan witnesses to the existence of older forms of text which have been dislodged by the Textus Receptus ; and upon this hypothesis are really most easily explained such double forms of text as are absolutely
equal in value, v.
KTtb,
9,
are the
Isa.
e.g.
Q
"I2>in,
cases
where
e
xxiii.
rc
Of
"^n.
D*na, (frc D ns
t-fb
a
more has
distinction
the
of reading in the synagogue, free play
subjective treatment of
sorts of
;
Ps,
doubtful nature a
purely
gram
Possibly, in the traditional
matical and logical significance.
mode
K
12,
w as given T
words
the text, for the
to all
may
have been differently divided according to the conceivable or actual sense, the suffixes may have been changed and the article It is scarcely possible to come to a definite taken away. conclusion with regard to the subjective or objective character
to
be a
possible thing, that this subjective determination of the
mode
of this
sort of Qarjan.
of reading
may
It
must
also be admitted
have been continued in accordance with
also
the established form of the canonical consonantal text in the
But, in any case,
principal schools.
it
soon became finally
even Ben Asher treats the read text as equally sacred and inspired with the ICtib itself; while the almost fixed, since
contemporary Saadia also regarded the text as resting
upon
all
recorded variations of
revelation.
are given by Strack, Prolegomena, p. rc and ICtib, given 123, who quotes also the cases of the in the Talmudical writings. partially-divergent Compare Lists of literature
80
Q
ff.,
hypothesis of Cappellus, Critica sacra, Exercitat.
Noldeke,
bill.
in
p.
ZWT,
533
ff.
;
1873,
Geiger, p.
iii.
c.
1-1 G
Urschrift,
445; ZDMG,
;
p.
Morinus,
254 ff. 591;
xxxii.
;
102
K E T1B AND Q K RK.
33.
in
Dilrnann,
Herzog
Real
s
-
Encyclopaedic, ii. of Ben Aslier
387; Bleek,
The records
and Saadias Einleitung, above referred to are given in Dikduke, pp. 9 and 82 f. Frensdorff, Oclila, Nr. 97-170, and Baer in his editions of 618.
iv.
the text, give the
K
e
tib
8
and
for
Q
re
lists.
^K
:
3Bh5, Ps.
Amos e 2///0
Examples for nvr,
ci.
5
fe
;
N<n
for
:
for Kin
n^
92),
(
J er
ii.
.
rnjtt for
21
iW
;
nyjr^ai for
;
viii. 8.
K
e
tib
D Ka DVp;
:
n^,
f or
Jer. xxxi. 38.
X
ufh tyre T^.~^ for T TH\ A word which is read as two 3^3 ^n Dn e KS for Dn ND, Jer. vi. 29. :
Jer.
for
:
3.
Ii.
D^rAn,
ps
x.
.
10
;
;
Two words which Lam.
iv.
Words whose word
:
read
are
as
one
:
DW?
D jy
for
D,
3.
no^n
connected with the following nnnnoi, Ezek. xlii. 9, 2 Sam. v. 2,
final letters are
nnnpi
for
n\^
Job. xxxviii. 12.
Words whose word
:
ifer^
connected with the preceding mc^ Ezra iv. 12 2 Sam.
initial letter is
n_^
;
instead of fe^\s
;
xxi. 12.
The omission letter
of
the
of an initial letter identical with the
preceding
Wp? new
word:
for
final
Wpni nosi,
Jer. iv. 5.
For euphemistic readings, compare I.Meg. Toseplita all expressions written in such a way as to Meg. iv. p. 228 25Z>;
;
cause shame are euphemistically read. for nirr, see the monograph of Dalman, Dcr GoltesOn ^"IN
namc Adonoj, 1889,
pp.
36
ff*.
and 85
ff.
(the
Massora on
Adonai).
As marginal D^^"n
On
notes,
these
are
Qarjan
sometimes
called
see Difahikc,p. 2, line 8 Griitz,MGlVJ, 1885, p. 108. the so-called p OD, compare Buxtorf, Tiberias, ii. c. 10 ;
;
Cappellus, Critica sacra, iii. 15. 18; Geiger, Urschrift,}*. 233. Passages in the older Jewish literature should not be
but Eead not meant not other readings but conscious plays upon letters. See Hupfeld, TSK, 1830, p. 554 f. (e.g. against Morinus, Excrcitat. bill p. 581 fif.).
confounded with .
.
."
By
this is
Qfrc,
where
it is
said
"
:
.
.
.
E TIQQUNE SOPH BBI.
34.
34.
While the Qarjan spoken
103 33 leaves undis
of in
turbed the received consonantal text, the Massora
some passages where a euphemistic Qe re
tells
of
said to have been
is
adopted into the consonantal text so as to lead to the com These passages are plete withdrawal of the original reading. e
called Tiqqune soph rim, the
improved readings of the scribes In the Talmud we do not meet with them,
(compare 9). but, on the contrary, they are found in the old Midrash on In the Massoretic works, whose lists are Exodus, Mechilta.
somewhat divergent from those of the Mechilta, their number The later Jews, for reasons that we can given at eighteen.
is
not understand such liberty being the ingenious
readily appreciate, could
taken with the
text,
and therefore devised
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 theory
that
The Soph rim had then only
spicuously.
How
expression that was really intended.
registered
the
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
Even
Talmud
in the
(b.
so-called Itture soph rim,
have omitted a occurs in the
]
i.e.
from the
Qf re
(e.g.
(
97).
Nedarim 37&) we meet with the five
text.
passages,
where the scribes
Since something similar also and it is not possible to
Jer. iv. 5),
discover a deeper mystery in the five passages referred
chapter
is
to,
this
of very little interest.
See Mechilta on Ex. xv. the
older
7, p.
39
literature
in
in
Friedmann
s edition.
Compare Prolegomena, 86 f. (particularly Geiger, Urschrift, p. 308 ff.) and also: Nyholm, De onaiD ppn XVIII. vocum Scriptures sacrce, Copen hagen 1734; Noldeke in GGA, 1869, p. 2001; Crane in Helraica, iii. 233-248; Dikduke, p. 44 f Frensdorff, Das Buck Ochla Wochla, Nr. 168, 217 Strack,
p.
;
.
;
104
PUNCTA EXTKAOKDINARIA.
35.
The modern Jewish exposition Norzi
on
24)
(
Zech.
is
12
ii.
given
others
among in
(translated
by
Delitzsch,
Kommentar zu Habalwlc, 1843, p. 206 f.). The Tiqqune soph rim are according to the Massora Gen. Num. xi. 15, originally xviii. 22, originally noy miy mm Num. xii. 12, originally I^BN arid unea; 1 Sarn. :
;
"jnjTQ
;
2 Sam. xvi. 12, originally 13, originally ^ instead of or6 Wjn; 2 Sam. xx. 1 (1 Kings xii. 16; 2 Chron. x. 16), iii.
;
Jer. originally vr6j6 Hos. originally ^sx
ii.
;
iv.
;
i.
originally ninn
12,
i.
13, originally TUN
T^j J^
originally originally
The
;
Ps.
;
nna Ezek. viii. 17, Him and won Hab. Mai. Zech. ii. 12, originally vy cvi. 20, originally HUD Job vii. 20, 11, originally 7,
;
originally
;
;
;
xxxii.
3,
originally
1pH^""i
;
Lam.
iii.
20,
"jc?S3.
five Itture sopli
e
rim are: Gen.
55
xviii. 5, xxiv.
;
Num.
xxxi. 2; Ps. xxxvi. 7, Ixviii. 26.
there
35. Finally,
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 marks, without, however, as in the Q another text than that handed down by tradition.
diacritical
of these
marks
is
e
re,
reading
The value
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
we meet with upon
puncta extraordinaria which
particular words.
We
find
that already
Mishna (Pesachim, ix. 2), one of these cases is known Num. ix. 10, and in the Talmud and the Midrashim several
in the
:
are mentioned
;
but they are interpreted partly in an alle Jerome, too, is acquainted with one
gorical mystical fashion.
such case, Gen. xix. 33, and gives this explanation of it: Appungunt desuper quasi incredibile et quod rerum natura
"
non capiat difficult
to
coire
queinquam
decide
nescientem."
in particular
cases
For the
rest it is
whether the doubts
105
PUNCTA EXTRAOEDIXAIIIA.
35.
indicated are of a textual-critical or of a historical-critical
The
character.
115&) seems
Sdbb.
1}.
so-called
introduced in JiTum.
which were
x.
inversum, (compare a Baraitlm
:
be purely textual-critical.
to
35 and 36 and seven times
originally parentheses,
and seem
115
Sdbb.
and above
in the notes
is
to indicate that the
passages referred to were out of their proper places. It.
It
in Ps. cvii.,
to
Compare,
The passages
6.
where, according to tradition, an empty space within the verse should have been, pIDD JTOX2 KpDS, seem to be of some
what greater
was intended by means of indicate that the text there presented was defective
these to
interest.
Probably
it
;
and seeing now that the old versions in some of these passages, in Gen. iv. 8, xxxv. 22, have actually something more e.g. 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 Dikduke, p. 45 f. The two words distinguished by puncta, extraordinaria in Ezek. xli. 20 and xlvi. 22, have not been translated in the ;
Targum
(Cornill,
On
j
and on
On
Ezechiel,
p.
127).
So
too
the inpB*
of
wanting in several manuscripts of the LXX. inversum, compare Delitzsch, ZKWL, 1882, p. 231,
Gen. xxxiii. 4
is
Ps. cvii., Dikduke, p. 47.
Pisqa in the middle of the
"
Tiberias,
ii.
11
481
;
Dikduke,
verse,"
compare Buxtorf,
p. 54, and especially Griitz,
MGWJ,
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 1878,
p.
ff.
;
Bedeutung dcs Paseq fur die Qucllenscheidung in den Biichern A. T. 1887, and in the ZAW, 1887, pp. 301-312), to
des
find in
Paseq a sign of a collection of various documentary
authorities.
106
36.
5.
36.
Among
QUOTATIONS AND TRANSCRIPTIONS.
Quotations
and
Transcriptions.
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
of the text.
they reproduce the
Thus, in the
Talmud and
literal original
form
in Midrashic works,
be found a great number of quotations from the Old Testament writings, which may be of service in affording
there
is to
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 conclude that
be
we have
reckoned
the
of the
words in the
a true quotation.
text,
Among
can
we
these are
extant fragments of the second column in the Hexapla of Origen ( 43), which contains the
to
Hebrew
original
text
still
transcribed in Greek characters, and
from which the fathers sometimes quoted portions, together with the not infrequent transliterations of the original text in These transcriptions are specially valuable for this reason that they give us an indication of the pronunciation
Jerome.
of
the
Hebrew then common.
tolerably
has
left
The same
numerous passages where Theodotion Hebrew word untranslated ( 53).
the
and the LXX. the transcriptions are limited
is
true of the
in his version
In Josephus
for the
most part
proper names, but even these are of great importance, So too especially for the history of the Hebrew language.
to
the transliterations of the
Hebrew names on
the Assyrian and
Egyptian inscriptions, imperfect though they cast light
are,
sometimes
upon the ante-Massoretic pronunciation of Hebrew.
On the quotations from the Old Testament in the Talmud and in the Midrashim, compare Cappellanus, Mare rabbinicum
36.
QUOTATIONS AND TRANSCRIPTIONS.
107
infidum, Paris
1667; Cappellus, Critica sacra, v. 12; Strack, Briill, Jahrliicher fur Prolegomena, pp. 59-72, 94-111, 122 und Geschichte iv. Litteratur, 166; Geiger, Jud. Zeitschrift, jild. iv. 1886, p. 165 Deutscli, Nachgelassene Sehriften, iv. 27ff. i. 63-78. The 1885, Salomos, Tosephta quotations Spriiche The quotations are given by B. Pick, ZAW, vi. 23-29. from Mechilta and Sifre in ZAW, iv. 101-121. But see ;
;
;
the depreciatory remarks of Derenbourg in regard to these in ZAW, vii. 9193, where, with good reason, he warns against such a hunt after variations. collections
the transcriptions in Jerome compare Siegfried, ZA W, On the transcribed Hebrew text in the 1884, pp. 34-83. On Hexapla, compare Field, Oricjcnis hcxapla, i. Ixxi sqq.
On
Theodotion compare Field,
Amos
i.
1, e.g. vwfceSeifj,
etc.
We
LXX.
;
;
i.
the
xi sq.
vm
He
renders the nnpj of
of Ps. xxvii 2
by
&a(3eip,
sometimes meet with the same sort of thing in the
see Cornill, Das Bucli des PropJi. Ezechicl, p. 96. The proper names in Josephus are treated of by Siegfried \\\ ZAW, 1883, On the names in the LXX. pp. 38-41. ff. der Septuaginta, p. 9 zu compare Frankel, Vorstudien in der Namen Die der helrdischen Konnecke, Behandlung Septuaginta (Progr.), Stargard 1885; and, as of quite special value, the collections in Lagarde s Uebersicht uber die im Aramdischen, Arabisclien und Hebrdisclien tiblichc 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, Keilinscliriflen Altes Testament, 1883 [Eng. trans, in 2 vols.,
und das
The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, London On the Egyptian and other transcriptions see 1885, 1888]. Merx, Archiv fur wissenschaftl. Forschung d. A. T. i. 350 ff. ;
Bulletin de la sodett de geographic, 1879, pp.
209
ff.,
327
ff.
Compare also Steindorff, Die keilinschriftliche Wiedergabe agyptischer Eigennamen in the Beitrcigen 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
Tel-il-Amama, see HaleVy
108 in
37.
EEJ,
xx.
OLDEST GREEK TRANSLATIONS.
199 ff. Zimmern, 133 ff.
tinavercins,
Palas-
THE OLD TRANSLATIONS.
B.
1.
Zeitschrift d. Deutsch.
;
xiii.
The Alexandrine Translation
TJte Septuagint.
Old Testament, and generally one of the oldest and most remarkable attempts to translate a 37.
The
oldest version of the
writing into another language,
is
the translation produced by
What
is
told of still earlier transla
the Alexandrine Jews. tions of the
indeed,
by
Philometor,
Law
is
devoid of
a Jewish B.C.
all historical value.
philosopher that
180145,
that
there
It is told,
under Ptolemy
lived
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 to doubt, that alleged
we have no
sufficient
ground
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 Masscket soplfrim ( 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 work preserved by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, compare Hody, De Bibliorum textibus originalibus,lib. i. cap. ix. p. 49 ff.; Valckenaer, Diatribe de Aristobulo, Leyden 1806, and
of his
Schurer, Geschichte des jud. Volkcs, ii. 764, Eng. trans. Div. ii. iii. 237, where further lists of literature are given.
vol.
OLDEST GREEK TRANSLATIONS.
y?.
Among
those
who
109
contest the genuineness of those fragments
specially to be named Joel, Blicke in die, ReligionsgescJiicJite zu fang des 2 christl. Jahrhundert, i. 1880, p. 79 ff. is
An
In the fragment communicated by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, i. 22, ed. Potter, i. 410) and Eusebius (Prceparatio 12), Aristobulus writes to King Philometor: ce /cal 6 TI\drwv rfi Kd9^ TUJLCL^ vojJLoOecrici real Karr)Ko\ov0i]Ke xiii.
cvanyelica,
TrepieipyacrafjLevos eicacrra rwv eV awry \eyofjbevwv yap Trpb Arj^rpiov St eTepcov, rrpo TTJS A.\e%dvTO. re Kara rr]v rwv ^fjierepwv TroXtrcoz/, Kal TJ rwv Ej3paicov rwv avrois eTTiffxiveia, KCLI /cparTjcns T^? ^wpa^
cpov Kal Ilepawv eTTiKpanjcrea)?,
e^aycoyrjp
<ye<yovora)v
vofji,o6e<7ias (>i\6cro(>6v
KCLI
rwv
arcdv6X779
rr/s
6TT^yrjcn^ wcrre ev$r)\ov eivai rov rrpoeLprnjievov eiXrifyevai TroXXa yeyove yap rro\VfjLa6rj^, KaOtos KOI
IlvOayopas, 7ro\\a rwv rrap rjfuv fjuerevey/caf; els 7rjv eavrov *H 8 0X77 epjJLrjvela T&V Sia rov Soy/mar OTTO u av Kare^piaev. vouov rrdvrwv eVl rov TTpoaayopevOevros ^L\aSe\(j)OV crov $e Trpoyovov, rrpoo-eveyKa^evov fj,e{%ova <j)i\OTifj,iav, For rpiou rov 3>a\7]pews Trpay/AarevaafAevov ra trepl rovraiv. 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, 2. 107, compare Josephus, Antiquities, xii. 2. 3) there is certainly no reason why we should find a reminiscence of
ii.
earlier attempts p.
at
translation
(against Erankel,
Vorstudien,
24).
Five elders wrote for King Masseket soph r-im, i. p. ii Ptolemy the Law in Greek, and this day was for the Israelites "
:
just as dark as the day on which the golden calf for the Law cannot be translated with impunity. later time the king gathered together seventy
some manuscripts,
n\JpT
n^DH3, and the older
was made,
And
at a
etc.
In
elders,"
Sepher torn Therefore the
tract,
32), here in the same passage D^pr D^W. use which Joel, Blicke in die Reglionsgeschichte, p. 1 ff., e of the story in the Masseket soph rim is very precarious. (
pare also iv.
71
;
Geiger,
Berliner,
Ursclirift,
Targum
p.
441; Nachgdassene
Onkclos,
ii.
78
f.
makes
Com
Schriftcn,
110
THE EPISTLE OF ARISTEAS.
38.
38.
Ben
From
Sirach
(
the Prologue to the translation of the Book of 4) it appears that the Law, the Prophets, and part
Hagiographa must have existed about B.C. 130 in a Greek translation and that this translation is in all essential
also of the
;
respects identical with the Septuagiut as
from the use made
of it
by the somewhat
writer, Demetrius, as well as
of the last century before
we have
said,
before us
known
earlier
to us, follows
Jewish historical
by the Jewish-Hellenistic writers But when this has been
Christ.
really all that is
certainly
known
respecting the origin of the Alexandrine translation.
There
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 is
than explain our conception of the origin of this important
and
influential work.
The
Law
oldest writing whicli
into the
Greek language
speaks of the translation of the is
the celebrated Epistle of Aris-
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 teas, a Jewish- Alexandrine work.
Jews had not yet exchanged the Ptolemaic sovereignty for Its date must therefore have
the
that of the Seleucidean dynasty.
been
earlier
as an epistle
than
B.C.
which
The
198.
little
how
related
advised his into
the
the
s
an
it
Law
of the
Jews translated
might have a place given
it
in
The king agrees to this emancipates the 100,000 Jews whom his
library of Alexandria.
proposal, and, besides,
father
In a good literary style it Demetrius Phalereus,
librarian,
king master to have the
Greek, in order that royal
itself
officer of King Ptolemy II. and therefore a Gentile, had 284-247),
Aristeas,
Philadelphia (B.C. written to his brother Philocrates. is
book represents
had carried
to
Egypt as prisoners
of war.
He
then sent
Aristeas and the captain of his bodyguard to Jerusalem with
rich presents
and a
Eleazar to supply
work.
Ill
THE EPISTLE OF ARISTEAS.
38.
letter, in
which he prays the High Priest
him with men capable
of
undertaking this
There then follows a spirited description of Jerusalem, all of the noble and rea
the temple, the country, and above
sonable laws of the Jews. the king,
at the request of
The high priest is filled with joy and seventy-two men, six from
every tribe, are sent to Alexandria with
a copy of the
Law
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
written in golden letters.
proposed to them in philosophy,
politics,
and
ethics.
Thereafter
they are transported to the island of Pharos, where, in a beau they engage diligently in the work of transla Every day they all translate, each one by himself, a portion of the Law, and then, after comparison of the various tiful residence,
tion.
renderings, they produce a
common
text.
In seventy-two days
The Alexandrine Jews express their completed. admiration of the work, and beseech that they may be supplied the work
is
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
unknown to the Greeks, sends home laden with rich presents.
should have been
two interpreters
This story, though anything but niggardly in
the seventy-
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 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
as inspired (compare
the assertion, that each of the seventy-two interpreters had
wrought
in his
colleagues.
own
In
without being able to confer with his form the story was adopted by the
cell
this
112
38.
Talmud, where
it
THE EPISTLE OF ARISTEAS.
forms a rare contrast to the reservation, not
say antipathy, with which the Alexandrine translation is elsewhere referred to ( 40). Yea, even the Samaritans have to
At appropriated the story with these legendary excrescences. in to statements of the older same the time, opposition express authorities, this story
was made
narrative
with
a
rather
books of
to apply to all the
who views
the Old Testament, which even Jerome, sceptical
eye
(
51),
the whole
decidedly
rejects.
The Epistle of Aristeas, which has been often published 2. pp. 103-132), has e.g. in Havercamp s Josepbus, ii. recently been issued with a critically improved text by Moritz Schmidt in Merx s Arcbiv fur Wissenscb. Erforscbung 241 if. Compare generally in regard to this d. A. T. Hody, De BiUiorum textibus originalibus, lib. i. subject Griitz, Noldeke, Alttestamentliche Littcratur, p. 109 ff. MGWJ, 1876, p. 289 ff. Bleek, Einkitung, p. 571 ff (as,
i.
:
;
;
.
;
;
Papageorgios, Ueber den Aristcasbrief, Munich 1880; Lumbroso, Recbcrcbes sur I Economic politiqiie dc VJEgypte sous les Lagides, Turin Vblkes,
ii.
1870,
p.
351
819-824, Eng.
where further
ff.
;
Schiirer, Gescbicbte des jild.
trans. Div.
lists of literature
ii.
vol.
iii.
306-312,
are given.
Mangey, ii. 139. The passages of the fathers by Gallandi, Bibliothcca veterum pat-rum, ii. 805-824, and by Schiirer, Gescbicbte des jild. Tolkes, ii. 823, Philo, ed.
are enumerated
Eng. trans. Div.
ii.
vol.
iii.
311.
On
the chronological state
ments of the fathers about the year in which the LXX. was translated, see Nestle, Septuaffinta-Studien, Ulm 1886, p. 12 f. On the other B. Megilla 9a, Masseket sopb rim i. p. ii. 40 Ex. xii. about on this says Mechilta the 155) hand, (p. translated before had been the Law time of that the only the see On Annales Samaritans, Yilmar, King Ptolemy." Samaritance, 1865, p. 95 ff. Josefus enim scribit et Jerome (Vallarsi vi. 456): "
"
Hebra3i tradunt, quinque tantuin libros translates et Ptoleinseo resi traditos.
legis
Moysi ab
eis
^
As
39.
the
39.
to the historical
prevails at
accepting the story as credible in
all
author himself quite evidently was a
heathen mask, there pure
other hand,
this
day general
extent, that no one entertains the idea of
to this
invention
113
character of the account given in
of Aristeas, there
Epistle
agreement
THE ORIGIN OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
is
As the
writing under a much in his book which is clearly
majorcm gloriam Judccorum.
in
among
also
details.
its
Jew
On
the
the most distinguished investigators there
prevails a difference of opinion with regard to the ques
still
tion,
whether the whole
whether a form.
historical
This
is
of culture, for
of the
a purely fictitious romance, or
is
core lies hidden under
the
legendary
a question of great importance in the history it is
of
no small interest
know whether one
to
attempts to translate a literary work into another
first
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 On the one hand, attention is called to modest dimensions. the jargon, unintelligible to a Greek, in which the translation
Law
Of expressions like i\da-Keo-0ai or, as Lagarde shows, rather the Aramaic (i.e. ra? ao-e/3e/a?, and numerous others of that sort, a Greek could of the
has been written.
<yeia)pas
"13,
absolutely
"N"3),
make
nothing, not to speak of nirp
over simply in its easy to understand
Hebrew
why
form.
And
it
is
(
76) taken
certainly not
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.
it is also in a high degree remarkable that the Alexandrine Jews should have given liturgical rank to a
Further,
translation of their holy
Law
carried out at the instance of a II
114
39.
heathen.
Had
THE ORIGIN OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
there been indeed no account of the origin
down by
of the Septuagint handed
no one would hesitate to account
then certainly existence from the
tradition,
for its
need of the Egyptian Jews, who were growing ever more and more unfamiliar with their Hebrew mother tongue, and all the
more felt
so as
such a need did certainly very soon
(compare Nehem.
xiii.
24).
And
make
itself
in order to satisfy this
need just such a translation as the Alexandrine was required, which used the peculiar Jewish-Greek jargon and contributed farther to
we can
its
all
But, notwithstanding
development.
this,
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 \vas 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 same is true of the passage from Aristobulus the Jews. 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
quoted in
37, whether
it
the writings in question were of later origin,
remain the circumstance, not easily
to be
that the explanation given in the
Book
origin of the
still
there
would
accounted for by us, of
Aristeas of the
Septuagint, considered as a contribution to the
history of culture,
is
of far too original
attributed to a Jewish fabricator.
a
character to be
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, Fhilo 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
OI1IGIN OF
THE SEPTTJAGINT.
115
the objection which has been advanced against the his
to
torical truth of the story, to
statement
distinct
of
the effect that, according to the
Hermippus Callimachius, who
lived
during the reign of Ptolemy III., Demetrius Phalereus had been banished from Alexandria immediately after the death 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 of
Ptolemy Lagus,
it
the position that the king had a share in the originating of
on the other hand, undeniable that the which the translation of the Law is said to have played
the Septuagint, role
it
is,
in the learned circles of Alexandria
whereas the Greek
is
wholly undemonstrable
;
Torah, in connection with the other books
subsequently translated,
won among
the Alexandrian and all
and through them, among the members of the Christian Church, an importance of which the men who first
Hellenistic Jews,
conceived this bold idea could certainly never have dreamed. The usual designation in the fathers and in the Talmudical "
writings,
The Translation
to the translation of the
of the
Law
Seventy,"
which
is
applied
as well as to that of the other
books, rests indeed for seventy is
upon the Epistle of Aristeas as its authority, But simply a round number for seventy-two.
whence the Book plays
of Aristeas has taken that
number, which and is, there
so extraordinary a role in its narrative,
fore, certainly
not an invented number, remains
still
quite
obscure.
The question that concerns us here is dealt with in the works of Hody and Valckenaer referred to in 37, and in admit recent The treatises. following many more partially the credibility of the story told by Aristeas Valckenaer 3 iv. 322 fl Evvald, Greschichte du Volkes Israel Eng. trans. :
;
,
244
.,
Wellhausen-Bleek, Eirileitung, p. 5*71 ff. The whole story Ebmische Gcscldchte, v. 490.
v.
;
;
Mommsen, is
rejected
116
40.
THE ADOPTION OF THE LXX. BY THE JEWS.
a pure fabrication
as
by Hody, DC, BiUiorum Textibus ; 266 ff Eeuss, Geschichte der heiligen :
Eichhorn, Eepertorium 436 Schriften dcs A. T. i.
.
;
;
Noldeke,
ZDMG,
xxxii.
588,xxxix.
392 Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Kuenen, Godsdienst, 6 Schuurmans ff. Stekhoven, DC alexandrijnsche Septuaginta, p.
342
ii.
;
;
;
van
Vertaling TijdscJirift,
lid
1882,
Dodekapropheton,
p.
287
p.
1
ff.
;
Oort,
Theol.
ff.
The report of Hermippus Callimacliius Fragmenta hist. Grcec. iii. 47.
is
given in Miiller,
In explanation of the name various con Septuaginta have been made. attention has been called jectures Special "
"
to this that
the normal
Compare Num.
Justice. ichte
174
seventy (seventy-one or seventy-two) constituted number of members in a Jewish High Court of
der
jild.
referred to
the
court of justice.
327, Eng.
iv.
Volkcs,
It has
ff.
ii.
16, and further Schiirer, Gcscli151, Eng. trans. Div. ii. vol. i.
xi.
therefore been conjectured that the name authorisation of the translation by a high Compare Ewald, Geschichte der Volkes Israel,
trans,
v.
249; Schuurmans Stekhoven, 4
DC,
and the other works above
f., alexandrijnsche Vertaling, p. But nothing of this sort can be proved in connection with Alexandria in the times of the Ptolemies. Still less
quoted.
satisfactory as accounting for the
a
number had
larger
name
is
the hypothesis that
actually been engaged in the work
(Wellhausen-Bleek, Einleitung, p. 576). Compare also the on the of Steinschneiders treatise "Number Seventy" in the
ZDMG,
iv.
145
ff.
40. To the translation of the Pentateuch were soon added
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 translations of the other
which were executed by various and very variously The most of them are certainly to be qualified translators. as regarded private attempts, to which only circumstances lent lations
authoritative importance.
the
Book
of Ezra, of
This
is
seen notably in the case of
which we possess two translations
of
117
THE ADOPTION OF THE LXX. BY THE JEWS.
40.
An instructive picture of the way in varying extent ( 13). 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 translations
its
remarks about the imperfections of the
Old Testament writings that then
of
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 came to be highly esteemed among the Alexandrian and It in later times regarded as inspired ( 12). was Jews, lation soon
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
made acquainted with
the
world was subsequently
civilised
sacred writings of Israel.
dialect of the Septuagint, so barbarous in a
several particulars exercised an influence
New whom
of the
Testament, and in
with
it
Greek
The
ear, has in
upon the language
days through the fathers, often completely took the place of the original, later
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
the
in
most modern
languages.
Among its
to
the Jews, on the contrary,
position.
the
We
feelings
Palestinian
have
which
very
prevailed
Jews with reference
certain conclusion can be
only gradually secured incomplete information as
to
it
at
the
this
first
new
drawn from the
among
attempt.
large
the
No
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
THE ADOPTION OF THE LXX. BY THE JEWS.
40.
preters, a story
which has as
character of the
presupposition the inspired
its
set quietly beside the
LXX.,
various passages in which
its
enumeration of
divergences from the genuine
On the other hand, the steadily growing with Christianity must naturally have contributed struggle to make the Jews, who were always considerably largely text are rejected.
by the
influenced
state of feeling that prevailed in Palestine,
regard with aversion a translation which played so important a role 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 life and being lay in their adherence to
Jews, whose very
and
letters
existence
We
tittles.
of
this
antipathy.
Martyr show that the
Hebrew
possess
several
Even
difference
witnesses
the writings
Sefer Tora,
i.
8,
the day on which the Seventy translated the Fsrael
as doleful (
Taanitli,
Justin
between the LXX. and the
Bible formed a chief point of religious controversy
between Jews and Christians.
made
of
the
to
as
37); and c. xii. it is
declares that
Law was
for
the day on which the golden calf was
the later
in
said
"
:
On
portions
of the
8th Tebet the
Meyillath
Law was
in the
King Ptolemy (^n) written in the Greek language, and darkness covered the world for three days." The best proof
days of
of this feeling
occasioned so
among
many
the
Jews against the Septuagint, which Church fathers, is to be
difficulties to the
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 compare Frankel, Ucber den Einfluss
in the Torah translation,
der paldstinischen
228
Exegese auf die alexandr. Hermeneutik, Egli in the ZWT, 1862, p. 76 ff.
1851, p. ff.; In the Prologue
to
Ben
Sirach the translator writes
"
:
Ye
40.
119
THE ADOPTION OF THE LXX. BY THE JEWS.
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 are
also lation into another language cannot perfectly correspond 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 (ppovpai [Purim], which, according to had been translated in Jerusalem by Lysimachus,
this statement,
the son of Ptolemy. Compare Fritzsche, Kurzgefasotes excget. Handbucli zu die Apokryplicn, i. 72 f Noldeke, Alttestamentliclie Litteratnr, p. 88 Hct onstaan xan den Wildeboer, .
;
;
Kanon, 2nd
ed. p. 33.
On
the influence which the Septuagint has exercised in philosophy, compare Xb ldeke, Alttestamentliche Liter atur, p.
249.
On
the question of the use of the
LXX. 3
in the Palestinian
166; Fritzsche synagogues, compare Eichhorn, Einleitung 2 s Reali. 284; Frankel, Vorstudioi Herzog Encyclopedic zic der 56 ff. Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii. 80. Septuaginta, p. ,
in
i.
,
;
The
75&: "The foreignspeaking 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 Pamsha" Also, jer. Sota e vii. 1, fol. 215, on the Sh ma ; and Justinian, Novell. 146. The passages where the LXX., according to the Jewish chief passages are jer. Meg.
iv. fol.
statement, diverges from the original
Hebrew
text, are
to
be
Mecliilta on Exodus xii. 20, Meg. 9, jer. Meg. i. 9 The best known is Gen. i. 1, p. 15&,and Masseket sopWrim i. where the LXX., according to the Talmudical statement,
found in
I.
;
though it had been to 3 D nta JW&TQ this pre In the supposes that the native Jews themselves interpreted beginning when God created." Compare Frankel, Vorstudien
translate, as
;
"
:
zu der Septuaginta,
p.
Nacligclassene Schriften,
25 iv.
ff.
50
;
f.
Geiger,
Urschrift, p.
439
ff.
;
120
CHARACTER OF THE ALEXANDRINE TRANSLATION.
41.
Justin Martyr (ed. Otto
II.
\e<yeiv
rrjv
rot?
232):
p.
TJV e
eij<yi}(Tiv,
Trapa ITroAeyLuueo elvau ev TIGIV a\ijOr).
7Tpeo-(3vTepoi
iwv jBaaiXel
yevo/juevoi,
same work
also the
at p.
fjir]
240, and Origen,
moment
sight of the
lose
fact
Compare
Ad Africanum
41. In judging of the Alexandrine translation
not for a
ra>
that
it
5.
we should 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, ought not to be forgotten that the demands then made of a Bible translation were very different from what it
What was
would now be made.
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 It
factors.
traces throughout of the influence of these
avoids completely the bold anthropomorphisms
and the striking naivett of the original text, and shows in this particular an evident relationship with the other old Bible translations of the Jews. translation that
it
And
while
true of every
it is
presupposes a special exegesis of the text in was doubly observable at a time when
question, this naturally in a thoroughly naive
was treated
LXX.
in
Haggadic mirrors
manner the then dominant
interpretation
as the one possible sense of the text.
many
passages, as
well
in
a
Hence the
Halachic as in a
assumes the character of a Midrash, which contemporary conception of the Bible, and is
direction,
the
consequently of decided importance for the history of Old Testament exegesis. That in this way the peculiar circum-
41.
CHARACTER OF THE ALEXANDRINE TRANSLATION.
movements
121
Egyptian Jews are allowed to shine through, is what might very naturally be Yet even in this connection the facts have been expected. much overstated, and the endeavour has been made to very stances and spiritual
more than the LXX. can
find
of the
That
afford.
in sections
which
gives evidence of thorough acquaintance with Egypt the conditions of that country is natural enough and so too the treat of
it
;
well-known rendering of mnN by Sao-vTrov? instead of Xo/yco? may have been done out of consideration for the Lagido?.
But
all
specially
this is
we
not, in
any
much
case, of
shall seek in vain after
Greek philosophy on the rendering
any
importance.
And
real influence of the
of the text.
At
the most
can be proved only in quite isolated expressions, like aoparos KOI aKaracrKevacrTOs (Gen. i. 2) but upon the whole this
;
LXX.
Jewish work, whose authors have had a only very superficial connection with the intellectual and the
is
a purely
spiritual life of Greece.
If
we keep
in
here mentioned,
view
we
all
the circumstances which have been
guard ourselves against making the
shall
Alexandrine translation the subject of a sharp criticism. It as a whole call forth our admiration that it
must rather
should in any sort of way have actually accomplished its Only that kind of criticism is justifiable which makes
task.
the better sections of the for those that
have been
LXX.
the standard of comparison
less successful.
There will be found,
even within the compass of the whole translation, a remarkable diversity
among the
several
interest historically, because
books, it
which, however,
is
of
not only proceeds from the
very diverse capacities of the translators, but also from the The first rank adoption of diverse hermeneutical principles. is held by the translation of the Pentateuch, even there the various parts are dealt with somewhat although Also the Psalms, of so much variously (compare p. 116).
unconditionally
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
possible for the translators
it
On
to produce a useful translation.
the other hand, several
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 of the Prophets
most
word and phrase
rigid imitation of the very order of
the Hebrew.
"
Nactus
in
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
translated books
is
the
its
One
author.
Book
of Job,
most wilfully
of the
whose translator wished
pose as a poetarum lector ; while among those that have been rendered with painful literalness are Ezekiel, Chronicles,
to
:
The Song, and
Ecclesiastes.
The two
last
named remind one
of the method of Aquila ( 52); yet the exact between them and that translator is not quite clear.
strikingly relation
Compare on the subject Nacligelasscne Schriften,
iv.
whole Geiger, Frankel, Vorstudien zur der
of this section as a
73
ff.
;
:
Septuaginta, pp. 163-203. On the Palestinian influence compare Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palcistinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinisclie
Hermcneutik,
1857
Examples times, Isaiah acf)
e/c
22
11:
99
with
the
Pentateuch);
ff.
treatment of the text affected by the fjKiav avardX&v KOI "%vpiav
TOL><?
d<f>
rjXiov
rou
SW/JLUV
;
(TTTepfjiaTos
Num. avrov,
xxiv.
KOI
7
:
Kvpieva-ei,
Josh, Tcoy (3acri\eia avrov Balaam did they slay mra," the LXX. ev rfj poTrfj, the Jewish Haggada, that Balaam, who by his
/cal xiii.
of the ix.
only
(dealing
Geiger, Jild. Zeitsclirift, iv.
vtywOrjcrerai
rf
;
"
:
compare
magical arts had fled into the air, was brought down by Phinehas. On the other hand, the LXX. in Isaiah xix. 18, with their TroXt? daeSeK, are not, after all, to be regarded as Egyptising, but rather as preserving the original.
CHARACTER OF THE ALEXANDRINE TRANSLATION. 123
41.
On
the influence of Greek philosophy see Frankel, Ueber Zeller, Philosophic der Griechen, iii.
den Einfluss, pp.
217
3442
;
Siegfried, Philo als Ausleger d. A. T, 1875, p. 8 and especially Freudenthal, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, ii. 1890, pp. 205-222, who, after a thoroughgoing investi 2. p.
;
;
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, to the Book of Esther), the seventy- two of Law the are brought from Palestine, the trans interpreters
and the Postscript lator of
the
Book
of
Ben Sirach comes from Palestine to of the Book of Esther lives in Jeru
Egypt, and the translator
salem. As a 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 Translating is a phenomenon, is too severe of Greek translators and The God. special grace seventy gift 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 as a historical
"
:
"
(Erlangen. Ausgabe, Ixii. 112). Among the ever-increasing special treatises on the several
books of the to
the
older
LXX.
the following
literature given
may
be named (in addition
by Eichhorn, Einleitung
3 ,
i.
181): Topler, De Pentateuchi interpretations Alex, 1830 Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina libri iii. 1841 Erankel, Ueber den Einfluss, 1851. Hollenberg, in dole,
;
;
Der
Character der
Josua,
1876.
alexandrinische
Schulte,
versionis grcecce in libro
De
Uebersetzung des Buches atque indole genuince
restitutione
Judicum,
Text der Bucher Samuclis, 1871.
1889.
1885, The Light thrown by the of Samuel, by F. H. Woods.]
Boohs
Wellhausen, Der
[Studio, Biblica, 1st series, Septuagint Version on the
Scholz, Die alexandrinischc Uebersetzung des Buches Jesaias, 1880. Movers, De
124
THE EARLIEST HISTORY OF THE SEPTUAGINT TEXT.
42.
utriusque recensionis
1834
vaticiniorum
Jeremice indole
et
origine,
Wichelhaus, De Jeremice versionis alexandrines 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 G-reek and Hebrew, ;
with the Variations in the
and Explained,
LXX.
retranslated into the Original, Cornill, Das Buch dcs Propheten
1886, pp. 13-103.
Ezechiel,
der
1889.
1880
Alcxandriner,
Vollers,
(Nahum
Das Dodekapropheten
Malachi),
and in
ZAW,
1883, p. 219 if., 1884, p. 1 ff. (Hosea-Micah) Schuurmans Stekhoven, De alexandrijnsche Vertaling van lid Dodekapro;
plieton,
1887;
Treitch, Die
Buches
Hosea,
i.
des
Textgcstalt kritische
1888;
Buches
alexandrinische
Uebersetzung des
Untersuchungen ilber 1887. Brethgen, Der
llyssel,
Micha,
die text-
Werth der alien Uebersetzung en zu den Psalmen, JPT,
407fF. Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur gricch. Ueber der Bickell, De indole ac ratione Proverbien, 1863. setzung versionis Alexandrine in interpretando libro Jobi, 1862, and
1882,
p.
in the Zeitschrift fur katholischc Theologie, 1886, p. 557 ff.; Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford 1889, pp. 215-246,
On Origens "
LXX.
Revision of the
Textkritisches
zum
Buche
Job
"
Text of Job ; Dillmann, in Sitzungsberichte der
Konigleheuss Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1890. Dillmann on the Text of Job in Expositor for [Cheyne, August 1891, pp. 142-145.] Compare also on the traces of "
"
the
Greek
Museum,
xii.
poets
in
this
414-448.
translation, "
Jacob,
Egli
in
the
Das Buch Esther
Rhein. bei den
On the Greek translation of 1890, p. 241 ff. compare Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 1875, Eenan, LEccUsiaste, 1882, p. 65; Gratz, Koheleth, p. 175 f. 55f. p. Wright, The Book of Koheleth, 1883, p. 50 f. Klostermann, TSK, 1885, p. 153 ff. Bludau, De alexandrince See also the interpretations libri Danielis indole, i. 1891. 52. Prefaces of Jerome to his Commentary, and below at
LXX.
ZAW,
in
Ecclesiastes,
;
;
;
;
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
Testament. to
HISTORY OF THE SEPTUAGINT TEXT. 125
TIIK EARLIEST
42.
opens up to us the possibility of being able Hebrew text that lay before each indi
It
work back
to the
vidual Greek translator, and in this
with a form of text which
to gain acquaintance
way
some twelve hundred years Hebrew Bible manuscript. The com
older than the oldest
is
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. it is
in
Under
these circumstances
in the highest degree deplorable that the use of the
textual
the defective
which
should
criticism
condition
Stroth
called
"
of
the
be its
so
LXX. by
seriously prejudiced
own
text,
of
squaring
the restoration the
circle."
of
The
degeneration of the Septuagint text began very early, as is shown by the curses, certainly not uttered without occasion,
Jews
as
pro
every corruption of the translation.
A
pro
which the Epistle nouncing upon ductive cause of
of
this,
Aristeas represents the
here as in most cases, was the careless
and awkwardness
ness
doubt
by the
the
aggravated no character of the
transcribers,
meaningless but we learn expressly, even from
occasionally
Alexandrine translation Justin Martyr,
of
who
;
died about A.D. 163, that
many
conscious
and additions had, even on the part of Christians, A well-known example of been introduced into the text. alterations
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 diro rov %vkov in Psalm xcvi. 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
who undertook to perform this task was the great who died A.D. 254. The magnificent conception of
first
Origen,
126 work
his
ORIGEN
43.
to
TREATMENT OF THE TEXT.
textual criticism continues
in
admiration, which difficult
S
is
to
still
criticise his
it
not
is
methods now, when we are able
But
glance over their consequences.
undertaking has contributed to render the use of the
was that Origen sought
more
difficult.
LXX. The
to perform another task
of textual criticism, namely, to determine the relation
the Alexandrine translation and the
to
a fact that his
is
it
for the purposes of textual criticism yet
reason of this
an
excite
not lessened by the fact that
between
Hebrew
text, not only the establishing of the Septuagint
contemporaneously with but even using that same Septuagint text as an aid in performing that task, whereas that former problem should text,
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
the
LXX.
an influence that by his labours
lost not a little of its peculiarities.
Compare Justin Martyr, ed. The position of Origen on
Otto,
ii.
p.
242
ff.
question formed an exact Also parallel to his treatment of the question of the canon. in that connection there were, as he himself expressly remarks, this
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 Africanum, 5). 43.
As
then,
which he gave
to
Origen,
notwithstanding
the
the Jewish Canon, would
prominence by no means
surrender the Apocrypha received by the Church ( 17), he did not consider the Jewish text in principio as the only correct text, to all
cases
which the Alexandrine translation had
conformed.
In
the
to
be in
passage where he expresses
himself most thoroughly with regard to the principles of his
textual
127
ORIGEN S TREATMENT OF THE TEXT.
43.
(Comm. on Matth.
criticism
express opposition
to
xv.
lie
14),
says,
in
such an idea, that he might not find ToK^aavre^) in removing from his
himself justified (ov Septuagint text the sentences and words to be met with in
LXX., but not in the Hebrew text. But seeing that it at the same time his aim to call attention to the relation between the Hebrew and the Septuagint text, he indicated the
was
such passages distinctly by marking, in accordance with the practice of the grammarians in their treatises on textual criticism,
commencement by means
their
obelus, lemniscus, or hypolemniscus
or
(
-f-
a
of
or
prefixed
-7-),
while a
indicated the close of the words referred
to. metobelus (\) 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
(
53).
For although he indicated also these additions by diacritical or a metobelus at marks (placing an asterisk before, >x<
-i-j^-,
the end), the danger here was too great of some later tran scriber ignoring the marks, as in course of time to a great
But the worst of all was that extent actually did happen. himself declares very distinctly, used the Origen, as he different representatives
correct the faults of the
of
the
Hebrew
Greek text and
Tcxtus licccptus to
to find
his
way amid
the confusions of the various Septuagint manuscripts, for this
must have had a very detrimental of the standpoint of
effect
in the determining
textual criticism with regard to the con
struction of the Septuagint text.
It is at
that the close and firm unity of the
any rate conceivable
Hebrew
Tcxtus Rcccptus,
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 lioman Catholics "
"
has made on some Protestants, but just on this account has he sacrificed
much
that
is
characteristic
and original
in the
LXX.
128
OKIGEX
43.
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 of
which was
to
town of Caesarea, the Hexapla, the purpose 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
Hebrew
two forms
of the
of text
alongside of
one
The Jewish Textus Receptus was represented by the Greek letters ( 36), and
another.
text, a transcription of it in
the two very literal translations based on
Symmachus
(
52, 54)
;
it
of Aquila
and
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).
In some books
there were added a fifth and a sixth Greek translation, so that the
work sometimes bears translation,
compare below
tion resting
the
upon
name
also the
55.
at
Hebrew
text
Octapla.
On
a seventh
Moreover, this co-ordina
was already an injury
Alexandrine text inasmuch as that
text, in passages
to the
where
the Greek translation had a different succession of portions of the text, haa to be corrected according to the
That such a gigantic work, consisting
Hebrew
text.
somewhere about
of
fifty large volumes, coul<4-not be multiplied by transcriptions, must be considered as certain. The cost of such a proceeding
would have been too enormous. in Coesarea
must have been
Either the manuscript itself used, or students must have been
with the extracts from
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 satisfied
with some
critical alterations
;
it.
but even this so-called Tetrapla copies.
On
hand, at a later date, Eusebius of Caesarea
and
seems not to have existed in
many
the other 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
OPJGEN
43.
S
129
TREATMENT OF THE TEXT.
form the Hexaplar Recension found a wide circulation among the Latins. In opposition to this revised text, the
this
pre-Origenistic form of the text
was called
KOIVYJ or
vulgatct.
The Hexapla itself, which Jerome made use of in Ca^sarea 37), was still to be found there in the sixth century, but ( some unknown way,
afterwards, in
Wellhausen
ZA W,
1887,
Einleitung, translation
p.
it
disappeared.
not altogether correct, as also Reckendorf, has remarked, when he writes (Bleek, 67, p. 586): "Proceeding from the belief that the is
must have agreed with the original corrected the LXX., not according Origen
it,
standard, but according to the
Hebrew
as to
he knew its
own
In principle
truth."
Origen, just as in his treatment of the canon, so also in his textual criticism, recognised a double truth.
Comm. on Matth.
Origen,
xv.
14
: Trji>
/j,ev
ovv
ev
rots
7ra\aids ^laOi iK^s Sia^wviav, Oeov
avriypd^ois T??? evpo/2V IdaaaOai,
KpiTujpiq) xprjad^evoi rat? \ui7rals e KOI TLVCI p.ev a){3e\i(ra^V ev rw EjSpaiKM /JLTJ Kei/jieva ov But once he con ToAyu,?}craz Te? aura irdvra 7repL6\eiv, K.T.\.
.
.
.
have obliterated, with the Obelos, a word that seemed
fesses to to
him meaningless, although
it
did stand
(compare Cornill, Ezcchiel, p. 386). Compare on the Hexapla the Prolegomena
in
to
the
Hebrew
Field
s
Ori-
rjcnis Hcxaplorum qiiw supersunt, 18*75. Chap. i. deals with the names of the work (besides the names already mentioned,
we meet
also
sometimes with those
of
Pcntapla and Heptapla)
;
2-3, the diacritical signs and their significance the later fortunes of the Hexapla. On the latest
chap.
vii.
chap,
xi.,
form
of the
;
Hwnpla, compare
Birt,
Das
antike Buchwcsen, p.
107.
On the alterations in the Septuagint text made by Origen without remark, compare Field, Prolegomena, chap. vii. 4. Many a time the collection of the representatives of the Hebrew as, e.g.,
text
helped him to the objectively correct reading, xv. 10, where he read instead of
in Jer.
<*>$ei\ria-a
but oftener the original was thereby obliterated. The Book of Job has suffered more than all the rest from
w(j)e\7](ra
;
I
130
LUCIAN AND HESYCHIUS.
44.
the intrusion of numerous portions of the translation of Theodotion into the Alexandrine text. According to a Scholium
Codex 161 (Codex
of the
had 1600
2200
o-rfyoi,,
crr/^ot
Bibl. Dresdensis,
No.
iii.),
the book
but with the additions marked by asterisks, Prolegomena,
(Field,
Ixvi.).
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-
The question
dotion.
is
connected with the question of the
which Job is already very Hexaplar text (compare 46). That the translation of Theodotioii was widely circulated at an early date among Christians, is shown by the fact that even Irenoeus used Theodotion for Daniel. See Zahn in Herzog s relation of the Codex Vaiicanus, in
much augmented,
to the
131. That the edition of the text by Eusebius and Pamphilus was furnished with notes from the other translations is
.Real- Encyclopaedic, vii. p.
declared by the Syro-Hexaplaris, compare Field, Prolegomena, On the circulation of this recension, compare chap. xi. Medke inter has (i.e. Antioch Jerome (Prcef. in Paralipom.): "
and Egypt) provincial Palestine
(so Lagarde instead of Palesquos ab Origene elaborates Eusebius et His own preference for this recen Pamphilus vulgaverunt." sion, which afforded him admirable help in his contention for
tines) codices legunt,
the Hebrew truth," i.e. the Hebrew Text us Picccptus, is given expression to by him in a letter (106) to Sunnias and Fretela tcoivr) pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum
"
:
"
vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem qua; habetur in e|a7r\oZ9 et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est qiuc in eruditorum libris incor-
rupta et immaculata LXX. interpretum translatio reservatur quicquid ergo ab hac discrepat nulli dubium est, quin ita et ab Hebrreorum auctoritate discordet." Compare further the :
passage quoted in
Ad
44 from
Augustinnm ; the Lagarde, Librorum V. Jets over de yrieksche
44. jected
the same Epistle
;
also Epist. 89,
Prcffatio in Qualuor Evanyg. ; and T. grcece pars prior, xiii. Hooykaas,
Ver idling van
;
liet
0. T. p.
30
f.
Some time after Origen, the Septuagiut text was sub two new revisions. The one was undertaken by
to
44.
the founder
who
of the
LUCIAN AND HESYCHIUS.
131
Antiochiau school, Lucian of Samosata,
died as a martyr in A.D. 311, during the persecution of
found acceptance in Antioch, and was from tlience introduced into Constantinople, where especially ChryThe second revision was made sostom aided its circulation.
Maximus.
Tt
by Hesychius, who is usually identified with the Egyptian bishop of that name, who also suffered a martyr s death in It was circulated in Alexandria and Egypt. the year 311.
Jerome
43): "Alex (Prccfatio in Paralipom., compare LXX. suis Hesychium laudant auctorem,
andria et ^Egyptus in
martyris exem-
Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani plaria
On
probat."
the Recension of Lucian, compare the Synopsis scriptural ascribed
rj
Iv
77: Athanasius, Theodotion and Aquila, to
(d. h.
vrv^tDV KOI TrepLTTa
rot? oliceiois
/cal
T/}?
eVoTTTeucja? a\r]9eia<>
T&V ypacfrwv
TGUS-
teal
rot?
ra
Aet-
/-tera aicpifteias
pij/jLara
TOTTOLS
TrpoyeypafjLfievais
Symmachus) /cal
e^eBoTO TO??
In an instructive Scholium of Jacob of Edessa,
aBeXfak. which Nestle in
ZDMG,
xxxii. p.
489 and 498)
481
it
has communicated,
Therefore as the holy martyr Lucian has taken pains about the text of the Sacred Scrip
it is
said (pp.
"
:
and in many places improved, or even changed particular expressions used by the preceding translators, as, e.g., when he saw the word ons 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, Thus so that we find it written therein in many passages saith ons the Lord," where we have given both the Hebrew word adonai in Greek letters, and then alongside of it also the word Lord [therefore *Awvai Kvpios]." Compare what is further said below at 46. Jerome, Epist. 106, Ad Suntures,
"
:
niam
ct
Origenes
Fretelam et
"
:
Sciatis
Cnesariensis
aliam
esse
editionein,
quam
Eusebius, omnesque Graecite tracta-
communem, appellant, atque Vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc AovKiavos dicitur aliam LXX. interpretum, quie in efaTrXot? codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in Latinum
tores KOivrfv, id est
;
132
45.
sermonem
PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT. versa
fideliter
Jerosolymse atque Orientis
est, et
Here therefore the Recension of Lucian
ecclesiis decantatur."
as not belonging to the Hexapla is connected with the KOLVTJV. Further, he says in the Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum : 11
Lucianus, vir disertissinms, Antiochense ecclesise presbyter, in scripturarum studio elaboravit, ut usque nuuc
tantum
quiedam exemplaria Scripturarum Lucianse nuncupentur." His remarks in the Preface to the Four Gospels contrasts Pnetermitto eos codices quos a Luciano strikingly with this "
:
Hesychio nuncupatur, paucorum hominum asserit perversa quibus utique, nee in toto veteri instrumento post Septuaginta interpretes emendare quid licuit, nee in novo profuit emendasse quum multarum gentium linguis Scripet
contentio
;
:
tura ante translata cloceat falsa esse qusc addita simt." The information which we have about the Recension of
Hesychius
is
Besides the passages quoted and to the Four
extremely scanty.
Jerome
in the Prefaces of
to the Chronicles,
Gospels, he mentions this recension in his Iviii.
11:
"Quod
Commentary
in Isa.
in Alexandrinis
hujus capituli additum est
:
exemplaribus in principle et adhuc in te erit laus mea
herba orientur, et pinguescent, et heriditate possidebunt in generationem et generain Hebraico non habitur, sed rie in LXX. quid em tiones semper, et in fine
emendatis
et ossa tua quasi
:
et veris exemplaribus."
This remark, moreover,
is
inasmuch as the words et ossa tua quasi herba orientur be found in the original text as well as in the LXX.
inexact, are to
45. In
the
course
several Recensions
of
time
not only did each of these
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.
presented
A in
picture of this quite
the great
collections
unbounded confusion of
variations
is
which the
Oxford scholars, Robert Holmes and James Parsons, published at the end of last and the They beginning of this century. have, at least,
made
a survey of the whole material possible,
45.
and
PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
133
who
so liave afforded the starting-point for those
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 un trust worthiness and
incompleteness have been brought to light by the continued of textual criticism. In the following sketch we
labours
shall seek to present a picture of the progress
made
in the
most recent times
that has been
in this difficult undertaking.
The great editions of the LXX. hitherto had been the The Complutensian Bible, A.D. 1514-1517 ( following
foul-
24),
:
the Aldine edition, A.D. 1518, the
1587, and E. Grabe
s
edition,
Roman
A.D.
Sixtine edition, A.D.
1707-1720.
For the
Septuagint text of the Complutensian Bible, the editors, as more recent investigations have shown, used especially the
Codex Vaticanus 330
346
(in
(in
Holmes 248).
Holmes 108; in Lagarde This text was repeated
d)
and
in
the
1569-1572 ( 24). Antwerp edition was begun by Aldus Manutius, and was completed The Aldine
Polyglot of A.D.
and published with a preface after his death in A.D. 1515 What manuscripts by his father-in-law, Andreas Asulanus. it
now be
followed cannot
Editio Sixtina, the
the ii.),
it
work
certainly determined. of
Pope Sixtus V..
is
The Roman based
upon
Codex Vcdicanus Grcvcus 1209 (B, in Holmes the value of which had then been discovered but from celebrated
;
this
Sixtine
edition
departs
in
numerous
particulars.
Another celebrated manuscript, the Codex Alcxandrinus (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
editions.
At the head
facsimile
edition
of the
which exactly serves quite
so
reliable
of
is
available through
more
reliable
them
all stands the beautiful English Codex Alexandrinus (1881-1883),
in place of the manuscript
the great
Roman
edition
itself.
Not
of the
Codex
134
PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
45.
To these Vaticanus by Yerzellone and Cozza (1868-1881). of editions attached a of are series editions particular principal manuscripts by Tischendorf (especially Codex Sinaiticns), Cozza, &c.
A
very convenient sketch of the form of text in the Cod-ex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus is given in the very editions of last careful collations of E. Nestle in the
Also Tischendorf s LXX., which are based upon the Six tine. in these collations the Codex Sinaiticus has been compared, while Tischendorf himself had made discovered, and script,
use of only the
separately edited fragments
Frederico-Angustanus, and especially
A
Eplirccmi.
manu
of that also
first
the
Codex
very practical edition of the Septuagint with
various readings from various principal authorities has been
some separate critical editions, by Fritzsche (Esther, Ruth, Judges) and Lagarde (Genesis and the first Psalms), deserve to be begun by the English scholar Swete.
Finally,
mentioned.
p.
The 100
older if.
continuamt in his
cum
J. Parsons, Oxf.
variis lectionibus, ed.
1798-1827,
Elnleitung,
Holmes,
It.
in 5 vols.
Lagarde
Librorum V. T. canon, i. p. xv., characterises the work words Qui judicium neque in seligendis
in the following laboris sodalibus
tarurn
De Wette-Schrader,
in
literature
Vet. Testam.
"
:
neque in disponenda scripturarum probaverunt,
farragine
religionem
summam
sibi tradi-
reddendis
in
Compare
qua3 acceperant prsestiterunt." opinions quoted by Hooykaas, Jets over d.
g.
eis
also the
vertaling
van
lid
0. T. p. 6.
in
Sketches of the various manuscripts are given by S troth Eichhorn s Eepertorium, v. viii. and xi. Tischendorf, ;
Prolegomena to his edition of the Genesis grcece, pp.
p.
3
ff.
;
Cornill,
13-24. The Complutensian
Polyglot
compare
LXX.
Das Buck
Bible.
Vercellone,
On
the
xxiv.
;
Lagarde,
dcs Propheten Ezccliiel,
Greek text of
Dissertazioni Accademiclie
this
di
45.
135
PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
407
rario argumcnto, Koine 1864, p.
ff.
Delitzsch, Fortgesetzte
;
Stiidien zur EntsteliungsyescJiwhte der ComplutensiscJien Polyglotte, 1886 (compare above, 24). Besides the two named Codices
330 and 346, Delitzsch makes
Vaticani,
special mention of a
copy of a Venetian Codex, the original of which he seeks in the Codex Marc. v. (Holmes 68).
The Aldine. Biblia grcece Vend, in cedibus Aldi et Asulani, 1518. Compare Lagarde, Genesis grcece, p. 6 GGA, 1882, p. 450; Mittheilungen, \\. 57; Delitzsch, Fortgesetzte Studien ;
zur Entstehungsycschichte der ComplutensiscJien Polyglotte, pp. 24,
25; Cornill, Ezcchiel, pp. 24, 79; Schuurmans Stekhoven, Der Alcxandrijnschc Vertaling, p. 50 ff. The Sixtine Edition and the Codex Vaticanus. Vet. Testa ment, juxta LXX. ex auctoritate Sixti V. cditum, Home 1587.
Compare on
1657
;
Gr. juxta L.
van
since
1886.
After
it
(1)
(2) Vet. Testament, ex vers.
Bom.
Vatic.
the history of this edition
Ulm
studien,
Ess.
ed. etc. cd.
LXX.
:
LXX.
Lamb. Bos, 1709
interpr. ex
Sixti
auct.
1824, new edition 1887
1850 (compare
Nestle, Septuagintathe London Polyglot
further at
p.
;
interpr. ;
see.
exemplar.
(3) Vet. Testament V. ed. 1587, recus.
(4) Tischeridorfs editions
136).
Vercellone, Cozza,
Melander, Bibliorum sacrorum grcecus Codex Vaticanus,
1868-1881. Codex
manuscripto
1720;
Compare
Alexandrinus. Codice
Fred.
Facsimile of the
1881-1883,
Rome
xix. also Tischendorf, Prolegomena, ex antiquiss. Septuaginta interpr.
Alexandrine, ed. Grabe, Vetue Testamentum Field,
Oxford 1707grcece,
1859;
Codex Alexandrinus Old Testament, London
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. xxiii., and published them Neue Bruchstilcke des Cod. Sinaiticus, :
Tischendorf, Codex Ephrwmi Syri rescriptus Leipsic 1875. sive Fragmcnta Vet. Testament, 1845 (passages from Job, A series of fragments Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and The Song).
136
45.
PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
and manuscripts, some
of them of very great importance, is pub Monumenta sacra incdita, Xova Collectio The following deserve specially to be named Codex
lished in Tischendorf s i.-v.
:
Sarravianus (Holmes
iv.
v.),
with passages from the Octateucli
(namely, the fragments preserved in Leyden and St. Petersburg; the Parisian fragments were published by Lagarde in the
Abliandlungcn d. Gott. Gcs. d. Wissensch. 1879); Codex Marchalianus (or Claramontanus, now in Vatican, Holmes xii.) with Psalterium Turiccnse ; Psalmorum portions from the Prophets ;
fragm. papyracea Londincnsia ; the parts of the Codex Cottonianus saved from the fire (Holmes i., containing many Psalterium Veronense in Blanchfragments from Genesis). inus, Psalterium duplex, 1740. Compare further, Delitzsch, Die Psalmcn, p. 431 f. Codex Cryinoferratensis (fragments from the Prophets), ed. Cozza, Eome 1867-1877 Proplidarum Codex grcecus Vaticanus, 2125 curante Cozzi-Lugi, Eome ;
From Codex
Cliisianus E. vii. 45 (Holmes 88) have Vincent! ide appeared regibus, Jczccid sec. LXX. ex. Tetrapl. Orig., by Coster, 1840, and Daniel in Cozza s edition of the Codex Crypt oferr atcnsis, iii. 1877. This manuscript alone gives the correct Septuagint translation of Daniel,
1890.
:
while
the others
contain
Theodotion
s
translation
of
that
book (compare Tischendorf published the text, after 43). an earlier edition by Simon de Magistris, Eome 1772, as an Abbot, Pars palappendix to his edition of the LXX. impsestorum Dublinensinm (Isa. xxx. 2 xxxi. 7; xxxvi. 17xxxviii. 1), 1880. In the two last editions of Tischendorf s Vcteris Testamenti grceci juxta LXX. interpretes (vi. 1880 and vii. 1887) Nestle s will
collations
separately
:
Alexandrinus
be
Vcteris ct
found.
They may
testamcnti
Sinaiticus
cum
greed
also
be
codices
referred
to
Vaticanus
ct
tcxtu rccepto collati.
According to his statement the Sixtine edition differs in more than 4000 For Daniel he has com passages from the Codex Vaticanus. pared Cozza s edition of the Chisianus above referred to. Swete, The 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.]
40.
137
RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OF LXX.
Besides this manual edition
a larger edition
is
being pre
pared.
textum emendavit, Zurich
libri
Fritzsche, Esther, duplicem
Liber judicum sec. LXX. 1867. 1848 Lagarde, Genesis Greece, 1868; Novae psalterii Greed editionis Com specimen, 1887 (from the Gott Abhandlungen, 1887).
Ruth
;
sec.
LXX. 1864
;
pare also the first chapter of Genesis in his Ankundigung einer neuen Ausgabe der griech. Uebersctzung d. A. T. 1882, pp. 5-1 6. :
46. The editions referred to in the preceding section have
made us acquainted with
a
number
of manuscripts,
among The first
which are the most celebrated uncial manuscripts.
these unquestionably belongs to the Codex So long as one is satisfied with establishing the
among
place
Vaticanus.
LXX. by means
of some prominent manuscripts, maintain its undisputed supremacy, certainly and an edition based on it, with the most important variations
text of the this
Codex
will
noted down, will supply a convenient apparatus for common But in this way we do not reach beyond a mere use.
In recent times Lagarde has given a
provisional apparatus.
specimen, in a laborious but necessarily too irregular way, of the advantage that
use
may
be gained even from an unmethodical
the Alexandrine
of
His
translation.
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
by Jerome brought
43,
(
to the
44).
question, as
We to
are
how
LXX.
therefore
far it
may
in
signalised this
way
be possible to
authenticate and reproduce those recensions.
So
far
as
the Hexaplar Recension
edited by Eusebius and Pamphilus
is to
is
concerned, the text
be found more or less
and fragments of manuscripts, have been The rash conjecture part published. that has been hazarded by Cornill, that the celebrated Codex
certainly in various manuscripts
which
in
138
RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OF LXX.
46.
Vaticanus
and
an extract prepared with great circumspection date from the Hexapla of
is
a relatively very early
at
Origen preserved in Ca3sarea, has been withdrawn again by scholar himself. On the other hand, an aid for the
this
Hcxapla that cannot be too highly valued
revision of the
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 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 tion
the
of
37, are of use for the restora
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
group of
and Paul Lagarde. It is to be found in a manuscripts of which the Codex Vaticanus 330, the
same
was
to Frederick Field
used in
the Complutensian Bible, is one of Of the secondary translations, at least the Gothic attaches itself to it. The biblical quotations of as
the most important.
Chrysostorn 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 without It recension, unfortunately any critical apparatus. 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
about
also
his
sometimes
affirmed,
sometimes
denied,
acquaintance with Hebrew.
The
difficulty in regard
incomparably authenticate
greater, for it
to
the Eecension of Hesychius
we have
is
not in fact been able to
with any degree of certainty.
Most
scholars
point to the quotations in Cyril of Alexandria, which,
how
ever, very inexactly made, and mostly from memory. Lagarde, as indeed also before him the Danish bishop Fr.
are
RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OF LXX.
139
Miinter, conjectured that the Recension might be
found in
46.
some one look for
of the in
it
Coptic translations
(
49), while
the Ethiopic and Arabic version
of the
others
LXX.
Compare Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 86 IT. Ankundigung einer neucn Ausgale d. griecli Uebersetzung d. A. T. 1882; and the prefaces to the Librorum Vet. Testament. Canonicorum grcece pars prior, 1883. Lagarde s programme has been acknowledged, among others by Wellhausen (Bleek, Einleitung, p. 573) and Cornill (Ezechicl, p. 63), while others regard it as too finical and impracticable. Compare 1888, p. Ill Swete, Theolog. Tijdschrift 1882, p. 285 ff.
;
;
;
The Old Testament in Greek, Certainly this task p. x. sq. demands not only many and sure hands and much time, but also that others should busy themselves with the needs of the i.
also
Compare
present.
van
het
0.
T.
p.
8
ff.
;
Hooykaas, Jets over d. g. Vertaling Schuurmans Stekhoven, De Alex-
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
W. 1879, p. 3, remarks Whether the text actually goes back to Origen remains to be investigated Further, there also belong to ever, Lagarde, in
Abhandlungen
d. Gott. Ges. d.
"
:
").
group the Codex Barber inus (Holmes 86, containing the Prophets, with the exception of Daniel), and the Codex
this
Coislinianus (Holmes x., with pieces from the Octateuch), and some others of which Pitra speaks (Analecta sacra, iii. 552ff.). Compare on these manuscripts generally, Field, i. p.
C. sq.
ii.
428; Wellhausen-Bleek,
Cornill, Ezeehiel, 15,
16
ff.,
19.
588
Einleitung, p.
Lagarde speaks
of
a
f.
;
Codex
in the possession of a private individual which almost cer tainly produces the Ptecension of Palestine, Mittheilungcn, ii.
56.
On
the difficulties which beset the restoration of the
Palestinian Recension, compare Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii. 52, 55 f. The conjecture referred to of a relationship between
140
RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OF LXX.
40.
Vaticanus and the Hcxaplar Recension had been
the Codex
Eendal suggested by Cornill in his Ezechiel, pp. 80-95. Harris (John Hopkins University Circulars, iii. 29, 30, MarchApril, 1884) had also been led to adopt a similar opinion. This
was
hypothesis
Academy (1887, Cornill himself
convinced
meanwhile refuted by Hort in The 424), and was afterwards abandoned by
(NGGW,
of the fact
which
names,
ii.
1888,
that
characteristic
is
pp.
194-19G),
since he
was
B
in
the Hebraising of proper of the Hexapla Recension
It should also be remembered that in wanting. Jeremiah, B has not the genuinely Jewish, but the Alex andrine arrangement of the portions of the text. Cornill is
43),
(
thinks now, with Hort, that
B may rather
have been a copy of
a manuscript largely and preferentially used by Origen for his
Compare also Lagarde, Mittheilungen ii. The 55. p. dependence on the Hexapla text spoken of in the Codex Sinaiticus in the subscription to the Book of Esther Septuagint text.
by Tischendorf (Novum tcstamcntum sinaiticum,
referred
is
xxxiii.) to later corrections.
The
2.
Lucian Recension.
Ixxxiv. sqq.
1879,
p.
Ezechiel,
;
407 p.
Schuurrnans
28-46.
Compare
Field,
Prolegomena,
Bickell in the Zeitschriftfur katholischen Theologic, f.
65
Lagarde, Anlmndigung, p. 26 f Eeckendorf, ZA W, 1887, pp. .
;
f
.
;
Stekhoven,
De Alexandrijnsche
[Westcott, History of the Canon of the
;
Cornill,
63-66;
Vertaling,
New
pp.
Testament,
ed. 1875, p. 388.] When Field, Prolegomena, Ixxxviii., adduces as a criterion of the manuscripts belonging to this
4th
Kecension the remark of Jacob of Edessa, quoted above in 44, about the way and form in which Lucian restored the Hirf, he has to be reminded of this that abwvai icvpios is found also in the Codex Alexandrinus, in Cyril of Alexandria, and in the Ethiopia translation (Cornill, Ezechiel, pp. 73, 76, 172 ff.
;
About the manuscripts 1887, p. 288 f.). Lucian the Recension, moreover, absolute agreement containing does not prevail. For the historical books, Field points to Konig
in
ZKWL,
82, 93, 108 (i.e., Chisianus, E. vi. Parisian Codex Coislinianus, iii., Arundelianus, or Brit. Mus. i. d. 2, Vaticanus 330). To these Lagarde, who
the
38
Codices Holmes, 19,
;
the
4G.
141
RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OF LXX.
them by the signs h, f, in, d, adds the Parisian For (Holmes 118, Lagarde p), and some others. the Prophets, Field names the Codices Holmes, 22, 36, 48, Of these, Cornill (and 51, 62, 90, 93, 144, 147, 233, 308. with him Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii. 52, agrees) strikes out the numbers 62, 90, 147, 233, while he adds 23 (Codex Schuurmans Stekhoven names for the Minor Venctus, i.). designates
Codex
6
Prophets, 22, 36, 42, 51, 62, 86, 95, 147, 153, 185, 238, Yet it may be remarked that (according to the
240, 231. Theolog.
Literaturzeituny,
1890,
5)
the
in
Book
of
Ifuth
Theodoret agrees with the Codices 54 and 75, which often diverge from Codex 108. Lagarde, Librorum Veteris testamenti canonicorum grcece pars prior, 1883. A critical appa is to be found only in the two texts of Esther. We
ratus
have now the prospect of seeing this long-interrupted work iiUicltc Nominal resumed; see Ucbersicht iluer d. in Aram .
bilduny, p. 186.
Lagarde,
i.
On
p. vii. sq.
;
pare his Ankiindigung,
1887. 3.
p.
27.
On Adrian s
use of the Lucian
Goessling, Adrian s eiaaywyr], Leipsic Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the [Scrivener,
Recension,
New
.
.
the quotations of Chrysostoin, compare on those of the Emperor Julian, com
compare
Testament, Cambridge, 3rd ed. 1883, pp. 315-318.] The Hesycliian Recension. Fr. Miinter, Specimen rer~
sionum Daniel is coptiarum, Rome 1786, p. 20 f Liceat tamen conjecturam exponere cui ipsa S. Hieronymi verba Alexandria et ^Egyptus Hesychiuin laudant auctorern, favere videntur recensionem nimirum sacri codicis Hesychianam in una alterave versionum coptiarum nobis superesse." "
.
:
:
:
Lagarde, Ankundigung,
67
25,
libr.
v.
test
i.
p.
xv.
Cornill
(Ezcchiel, ff.), family likeness between the Coptic, Latin Old translations, and the Codex Alex Ethiopic, Arabic, andrians. With this manuscript are related the Codices
finds a
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, Keckendorf, \\wxHesychius may therefore be looked for.
evQr,iuZAW, 1887,
p. 68, denies that there is any agreement between the Ethiopic translation and the Aldine edition. The
142
QUOTATIONS IN FATHERS AND VERSIONS OF LXX.
47.
Ethiopic translation, according to him, agrees rather with the Codices Holmes, 129, 56. Compare also Schuurmans Stek-
hoven, De Alexandrijnsche Vertaling, pp. 47 Lagarde, Mittheilungen, (jraphy,MQ\.\i\,
1882,
p.
The quotations
47.
60.
ii.
[Smith
8, Article
and especially
5 6,
of Christian Bio-
s Diet,
"
Hesychius,"
in the fathers
by Venables.]
form important aids in
researches in the textual criticism of the
appeared from the it is
LXX., as lias already Yet in the using of them
last paragraphs.
necessary to proceed with great caution, since they
easily lead to false conclusions.
them,
First of
all,
may
in dealing with
has to be remembered that the fathers very often quote
it
from memory, and that these quotations therefore are absolutely demonstrative only when they lay special stress upon the form of the passage cited, or
the text before them.
common
when But
it is
certain that they have
had
occasional deviations from the
if
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 text
without further corroboration demonstrative, seeing that the editions of their works, which we now have, sometimes rest
upon
later
revisions
which may have
in
of
all sorts
ways
modified the original.
The of
translations
made from
the
into other languages,
which some are very valuable, form another aid
textual study of the Septuagint.
daughter Bible,
if
regarding is
LXX.
even
versions
should
first
assigned
it
were not that the results
it
are
still
so insecure
and
so
place
to of
Vetus latina,
several independent
these
Old
Latin
the investigations
much
contested.
translations.
The utterances
Jerome and Augustine, even
and more
It
we can
whether we have to do with
Old Latin
of the later fathers, like
clearer
or
to the
among
the
yet quite a matter of controversy whether
speak of a
had been
be
The
definite
than they
are,
have settled the question, because those fathers
if
they
could not evidently
QUOTATIONS IN FATHERS AND VERSIONS OF LXX.
47.
143
gave expression only to their own opinions and reflections, In particular, and did not communicate any old traditions. one well-known saying of Augustine with regard to the Itala (De doctrina Christiana, ii. 15), not only has not contributed us,
but rather has called
An
actual decision will
upon the problem before
to cast light
new and
forth a
intricate question.
be reached only when we have a complete collection of all the Bible quotations of the Latin fathers, and a collection of the hitherto
text
constantly-accumulating
now we may
as an
it
regard
material.
But even
undoubted result of the investi
gations that have been carried out, that the circumstances of the case will not be
met by the hypothesis
lation appearing before us
we must assume
that
Alexandrine
now
in
of a single trans
several modifications, but
several independent translations of the
text.
The widespread notion that even Tertullian was acquainted with a Latin Bible of North African origin has been confuted
On the other with convincing arguments by Theod. Zahn. a did exist in the third such translation hand, certainly would be
it
Generally, indeed,
century.
in
the
provinces
that the need of a Latin Bible would be soonest and most
keenly
especially
felt,
among whom
among
the poorer classes of the people,
Christianity at
lingua vulgata, rustica,
language, is
mainly spread, and whose sermo cottidianus, plebeius,"
first
"
that in which actually the Old Latin Bibles were written.
A
first
of
collection
Old Latin Bible texts was edited by
In later times, Ranke and Ziegler, among others,
Sabatier.
have done service in this department.
On
the Bible quotations of the fathers, compare Cornill,
fizechiel,
p.
58
f.
;
Lagarde,
Psalterium
Hieronymi,
viii.,
53 f. From an earlier period, the collec Mittheilungen, tions of Strotli in Eichlwnis Repertorium, ii. 74 ff, iii. 213 ff., ii.
vi.
124
ff.,
xiii.
158
For the hypothesis
ff.
of a single
Old Latin Bible
translation,
144
47.
QUOTATIONS IX FATHERS AND VERSIONS OF LXX.
compare Wiseman, Essays on Various
London 1853, Wellhausen - Bleek,
Subjects,
Eichhorn, Einleitung*, 321; On the other hand, for the hypothesis Einleitung, p. 595. of several translations Ziegler, Die altlateinischen Bibeluberi.
i.
;
:
setzungen vor Hieron. 1879; Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii. 5 8 ff. Corbey [In Studio, Biblica, 1st series, Oxf. 1885, in Paper on St. James and its relation to other Old Latin Versions," p. 236, "
There were originally two main versions, two which all the texts that we now have were from stocks parent derived with different degrees of modification."] "
Sanday says
:
The remarks
etc., on the Old Latin and commented on by Ziegler, Die ff. The passage quoted from Augus In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala tine runs as follows ceteris prseferatur, nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuiBut when tate sentential (De doctrina Christiana, ii. 15). ut Sed on further he says tamen, superius dixi, horum
of Augustine, Jerome,
are quoted altlat. Blbelubersetz. p. 4
translations
"
:
"
"
:
quoque interpretum, qui verbis tenacius inhaeserunt, collatio non est inutilis ad explanandum scepe sententiam," it is evident that the openly expressed doubts of the correctness of the text in the former passage are not wholly unfounded, and
and Corssen s (JPT, 1881, p. 507 ff.) emendations and quce for nam are at least worthy of considera See, however, Zeigler, Die altlat. Bibelubersetz. p. 19 ff
Bentley ilia for
tion.
s
Itala
.
On
quotations of Tertullian, compare Zaliri, But on des neutestamentlichen Kanons, i. p. 51 ff.
the
G-escliiclite
Bible
the other side, Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii. p. 59. On the dialectic peculiarities of the Old Latin translations,
Ronsch,
Itala
Bibelulersetz. p.
und 22
102
p.
Pentateuchi ;
e
1869;
Zeigler,
25
Cornill, EzccUel, p.
sacrorum
A codice
Latince
list of
To these
ff.
Zeigler,
1881
;
1751.
.Robert,
Uebersetzung
Vulgata, .
Bibliorum
Sabatarii,
sew vetus Italica,
Paris
f
Die
versionis
later editions is
are
to
Lugdunensi
added:
be
altlat.
f.
versio
Int.
antiqiice
given by
Ulysse antiqua
Ziegler, Bruchstucke einer vorliieronymianisclien, d.
Pentateuclis,
Munich 1883
;
Belsheiin,
Pa-
limpsestus Vindobonensis, Christiania 1885; Ranke, Stutgardiana versionis sacrarum scripturarum latincc antehieronymiance
145
SYRIAC TRANSLATIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
48.
fragmenta, 1888
Lagarde, Probe
;
lateinischen Uebcrsctzungen d.
A.
T.,
neuen Ansgabc dcr
einer
1885.
48. After a portion of the Syrians had very wrongly begun to
abandon
their old
independent Bible
more than once translated
into
LXX. was
68) the
(
Some fragments
Syriac.
are
preserved of the rendering of Jacob of Edessa, A.D. 704sought to steer a middle course between the
still
705, which
Peshito and the Alexandrine version translation to
make
which
perhaps of the Philoxenus had caused Polycarp
Bishop
in A.D. 508,
;
as
also
and which embraced
at least a
But more
the Old Testament (after the Recension of Lucian).
important than
the
of the Syrian Eusebius and by Parnphilus ( 43), of Hcxapla which by good fortune not a little has been preserved. It was executed in the years 617618 in Alexandria by Bishop
text
all
rest
is
the
part of
reissue
cited
and contained not only the diacritical marks of but also Origen fragments of the other Greek translations, as notes. manuscript still extant in the sixteentli marginal Paul
of Telia,
A
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,
Book
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.
the
On
of
Wisdom,
Sirach,
the translation of Jacob of Edessa, compare d cxtraits de MSS. do la libl. nation, iv.
Notices
Bickell,
Conspectus
rei
Syrorum
Isaiah to be found in British
been edited by Ceriani in 1
of
:
liter,
(addit.
Monumcnta
the translation of
sacra
Daniel
:
pret urn
desumptum
ex Codice Syro-Esthranc/elo,
K
ft .
;
of
14,441) have et
Fragments found in Bugatus, Daniel secundum cditionem ff.
Sacy,
648
The fragments
ii.
Museum
De
profana,
v.
are to
be
LXX.
1788.
inter
146
OTHER SECONDARY TRANSLATIONS.
49.
On
Philoxenus, compare Assemanni, Bill,
Bickell, Conspectus rei Syrorum liter, p. 9. British Museum (addit. 17,106) is ascribed translator.
A
orient,
;
by Ceriani to this Compare, however, Field, Hexapla, i. p. xcii. sq. Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iv. 1887,
[Smith s 392, Article
"
Philoxenus,"
p.
"
Introduction, p.
328) says:
Philoxenian
its
is
by Venables. Scrivener (Plain The characteristic feature of the
excessive closeness to the original
probably the most servile version of Scripture ever
On
83
ii.
fragment in the
it
:
is
made."]
the Syro-Hexaplaris, compare Field, Hcxapla,
i.
p. Ixvii.
editions are given in De Wette-Schrader, Ceriani s edition of the Milan Codex 117.
The older
sqq.
Einleitung, p. forms the seventh
volume of the Monumenta sacra et profana, In the second volume of the same collection are to 1874. be found fragments from the British Museum. Further Skat :
Rordam, Libri Judicum ct Ruth hagen 1859, 1861; Lagarde,
sec.
vcrs.
Syro-Hexapl. Copen
Vcteris testamenti
cib
Origene
fragmenta ap. Syros scrvata,v. (Ex. Num. Jos. 1 and 2 1880. The best manuscripts, among them the Codex Kings) Ambrosianus, have, under the influence of Jacob of Edessa, recensiti
miT ( 76). Compare, ZDMG, xxxii. jhjh for the older pipi 507 f., 736. In the year 1486 the Syro-Hexaplar version Of this was translated into Arabic by Hareth ben Senan. translation there are two manuscripts in the Bodleian library.
See Field, Hexapla, 49.
the
With
LXX.
is
i.
p. Ixx. sq.
;
ZDMG,
xxxii. p.
468
f.
the old Latin and Syrian daughter versions of connected a series of other translations which are
of importance for the establishing of the various Eecensions.
The Gothic translation said
(
46), on Lucian
of the Bible s
revision
of
rests, as
has been already How far the
the text.
same may be affirmed regarding the Slavic translation is not The Coptic translation in the three dialects, yet established. the Sahidic, the Bohiric, and the Fayumic, will perhaps play
an important Besides these
role in the restoration of the text of Hesychius.
we must name
:
the Ethiopic, the Arabic, the
Armenian, and the Georgian translations
;
and
finally,
the
49.
14?
OTHER SECONDARY TRANSLATIONS.
interesting fragments of a translation of the
Aramaic language spoken by the Christians Vori Gabelentz and Loebe, Ulfilas V.
LXX.
N. T.
et
vers. gothiccc
fragmenta, 1863; Ohrloff, Die Bruchstileke vom A. Gothischcn Bibdiilcrsctzung, Halle 1876 Lagarde, ;
Testam. libri canon,
1890,
p.
On
20
p.
xiv
ii.
Mitthettungen,
;
52
f.;
T,
dcr
Vderis
NGGW,
f.
Slavic
the
i.
into the
of Palestine.
translation,
compare
De
Wette-Schrader,
The edition (Moscow 1663) to be seen Einleitung, p. 121. in the Copenhagen University Library has the following title The Bible, i.e., the Books of the Old and the New Testament :
"
translated into Slavic according to the translation from which was undertaken at the command
into Greek,
Hebrew 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. Yerner, do not agree with the Lucian Recension but rather with the Roman edition. to
The Coptic Bible fragments that have been discovered down 1880 are given in Stern, KoptiscUe Grammatik. 1880,
pp.
441446.
jffigyptiaca,
Besides
this,
1883 (Wisdom,
see
among
Sirach, Ps.
1885
der saliidisclicn Bibdiibersdzung,
stilckc
cii.)
others, ;
Lagarde, Lemine, Brach-
(Jos. xv. 7
xvii. 1).
A. Ciasca Sacrorum Mbliorum fragmenta copto-sahidica musei Boryiani, sclirift
Book
Rome 18851889. JcatJiol.
fur Job
of
Herzog
s
;
Thcologic,
Compare
1886,
and on the
Real- Encyclopaedic-,
p.
general ii.
443
;
question,
Dillmann,
ziim Buclie Jjob (see above at 41). On the Ethiopia Bible translation,
Herzog
s
Rcal-Encylopccdic",
i.
203
also
Bickell, Zeil-
558, with reference to the
if.,
Fritzsche
in
Textkritisclies
compare Dillmann in and 1887, p.
ZAW
t
Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik und Gescliichtc d. Pcntatenchs, i. 3 f. (according to which the Ethiopic Bible does not rest exclusively upon the LXX.); Ankundigung, p. 28 6
1 ff
;
;
Cornill, Ezccldd, p. 37.
Dillmann, BiUia V. T. sEthiop,
i.-ii.
1853, 1861. Of the Arabic translations in the Parisian and London the Poetical Books Polyglots are derived from the LXX. :
148
50.
CONCLUSION OF CRITICISM OF SEPTUAGINT TEXT.
(with the exception of Job) and the Prophets (Daniel as usual Compare Gesenius, Jesaja, being taken from Theodotion).
98-106, and (on Micah) Kyssel
ZA W,
the translation
to
Eyssel According Codex Alexandrinus, but with the use
1885, pp. 102-138.
attaches itself to
the
of the Peshito.
On
the Armenian translation, compare De Wette-Schrader, 2 Einleitung, p. 120 f. Fritzsche in Herzog s Real-Encylopcedie ,
;
the Georgian translation, De Wette-Schrader, Fritzsche in Herzog s Real-Encylopcedie 2 121; Eirileitung, p. ii.
443
ii.
444.
f.
On
,
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 the influenced Where this community, by Hexapla. expected, whose translation of the Gospels had been known even earlier,
dwelt, whether
Jerusalem or on the other side of the
in
Its members spoke the Palestinoquite uncertain. dialect ( 59), but employed, at least in later times,
is
Jordan,
Aramaic
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 of the
LXX.,
we have succeeded
so far as the aids at our disposal reach, with the
greatest possible purity to
work back by means
parison of the KOI.VIJ.
in reproducing the Eecensions
46), our next undertaking
(
of their help
must be
and through the com
non-revised witnesses for the text to the old
In general what
is
common
to all the Eecensions will
be accepted as representing the original document.
Where
met
with, any fundamental divergence from the Hebrew Textus Receptus will have to be regarded as the original differences are
LXX., because the
later
modifications of the Greek text were
149
LATER GREEK TRANSLATIONS.
51.
mainly intended to bring it into conformity with the Jewish For this construction of the genuine LXX. the genuine quotations of Philo, and partly also those met with in the text.
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 this plan sketched by Lagarde concerns the
remembered that
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
In other passages, however, the corruption of the text so great, that from the very nature of the case it cannot
text. is
be used.
Compare Lagarde, AnmerTcungen zur sctzung der Proverbicn, Vet. Tcstam. i. 1 5 f.
On
compare
Philo,
criticarum
in
vers.
p.
3
C. F.
;
Ankundigung,
;
Jlitthcihmgcn,
2.
p.
29
f
.
;
Ueber-
Librorum
Hornemann, Specimen excrcitationum
LXX.
interpretum ex Philonc, i.-iii. Philo und dcr iiberlieferte
Siegfried, Copenhagen, 17741778 Text d. LXX. in the ZWT, 1873, ii.
griecliischen
;
p.
217
ff,
and Lagarde,
52-54.
Aquila, Thcodotion, Symmachus, Qidnta, and Sexta.
51. The growing dissatisfaction of the Jews with the LXX., view of the ever-increasing importance of the Greek-speak In ing Jews, made a new Greek translation necessary ( 40). in
two
different
ways
the one radical, the other conservatively
attempt was made to satisfy this demand. Moreover, there had arisen, even before Origen, several other mediating
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-
Greek translations
of the
150 ment
LATER GREEK TRANSLATIONS.
51.
Hebrew
to the
facts about
we
these translations
who adopted them
Origen,
was then received among
that
text, as
For the knowledge that we have of some general
the Jews.
are indebted
into his
great
above
Polyglot
The Hexapla and the Tetrapla have indeed
all to
43).
(
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
Whether Lucian, whose
especially of Jerome.
fathers,
Church
the commentaries of the
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 Morinus began to collect the fragments investigated ( 46). which still remain. The work was continued by others, especially
by Montfaucon, and
is
now
provisionally concluded
which not only the immediate fragments have been gathered with unwearied industry, but, above all, the statements of the Syro-Hexaplaris have been
by Field
s
classical work, in
estimated in a
way
that shows a thorough mastery of
the
Greek language. Montfaucon, Hexaplarorum Origenes quce supcrmnt multis partibus auctiora quam a Flaminio Nobilio et J. Drusio edita fuerint, Paris 1713. Fr.
Field,
Oxford
Origenis
1875.
Hcxoplorum
quce
sifpersunt,
2
vols.,
Valuable supplements are given by Pitra,
Analecta sacra specileyio Solesmensi parata, iii. 188 3, pp. 555 578. Compare also Cornill, Ezechicl, p. 104 ff. 109.
The
signs are
Theodotion,
E
A
for
for
Aquila,
S
and
S
Quinta,
for
for
Symmachus, O for Sexta. Compare
further, Field, Prolegomena, cap. x. It is, as Nestle has shown, worthy of attention that accord
ing to the catalogue of the library of Constantino Barinus at
Constantinople (see
Verdier,
La
Bibliotheque
d Antoine dn
Lyons 1685, Supplement, p. 60), there are said to have been in that collection of books manuscripts with Verdier,
52.
Symmachus 52.
translation of
Psalms and other books of 588.
the
Compare Hody, De
Scripture.
The most peculiar
151
AQUILA.
bill. text, origin, p.
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, tinian
not only took as his basis the Pales
lie
Canon and the Palestinian form
perfectly
to
reproduce
Greek translation
the
Hebrew
as suitable for the
of the text, but sought
text,
and
to
make
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 n locale by the enclitic Se, by TCO \eyeiv, and the Hebrew
<rvv,
"ibtfj?
system of roots by etymological creations like oareovv, and for Ejfy and ETOJJ (from EVy oareov\ Ovpeovv for pj But on the other hand, Aquila (from $B Ovpeov), etc. o<TTM>05
eruditissimus lingua
such
yrcccce,
as
Jerome
styles
him
displays
Greek language, such handling fidelity in dealing with unusual and poetical expressions, often selecting one of similar sound with the Hebrew word, skill
in
his
of
the
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 This can be satisfactorily explained only by a carry out. consideration of the particular period in which Aquila lived. It is quite certain that he was an old man when the treatise of Irenreus, Adv. Hccres.,
was composed, between
A.D.
175 and
189, where he is mentioned for the first time. But even what the ancients tell about him is in part deserving of full A.D.
confidence.
Even should the statement
of Irenajus, that he
152
AQUILA.
52.
was a proselyte
"
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 "
from Pontus
valuable will be the report of Jerome that Aquila was a With scholar of the celebrated E. Akiba about the year 100. this agrees the statement in the/er.
Talmud (Kidd,
i.
fol.
59a)
about a proselyte D^py, a scholar of E. Akiba, while the passage jer. Meg. fol. 7lc, which makes him a scholar of the
contemporary teachers E. Eliezer and E. Joshua, describes him at least as living during that same time. Now it was E.
Akiba who,
and
in so pre-eminent a degree, impressed his mental
on the Judaism
spiritual character
of
his
day, in this
respect as well as in others, that he introduced in his exposi tion of Scripture a laid special
method that
weight on
sorts
all
of
dealt with minutiae,
which
small details, such as the
particles DJ, JIN, etc., and therefore just such minutiae as those which Aquila in his translation wished to fix attention upon In by that unrelenting treatment of the Greek language. this
way
tion
of
is
explained the preference with which this transla
Aquila,
which
was used
shown, as
said in jer.
is
enjoyed full Palestinian time long by the Jews. It had i. fol. 7 la, that Greek is the Meg.
probably
authorisation,
for a
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 ob py and to Japhet,
the ancestor of the Greeks,
praised Aquila (iD^p from
/caXco?),
language of the 45th Psalm
it
is
told that one
and applied
to
him the
rpQ D (Thou art fair, or thou become a Japhet) before the children of men. How widely his translation had spread among the Jews is witnessed <l
:
art
to
by Origen
as well as
by Jerome and even by No. 146 of That it was directed polemically
the Novellas of Justinian. against Christianity
might evidently be expected from the is proved from several particulars,
very nature of things, and
52.
from Isaiah
e.g.
vii.
153
AQUILA.
14, where
has veavis instead of the
it
LXX., and from by another term than ^/HO-TO?. wrought appears from the story irapOevos of the
endeavour
its
of
Of the
a second improved edition of his translation.
mens
render
to
nTO
With what diligence he Jerome that he produced Talmud some
of his translation given in the
speci
at least
agree precisely with the Greek fragments.
R
Compare
De
Anger,
Pentateuchi paraphraste, p. xvi.
ff.
;
iv.
Scliriflen,
83
f
;
.
10): ov%
evioL
ft)?
IBov
rj
Geiger, dcs
Gfeschichte
14:
viii.
18G.
p.
yaarpl
efet
Kal
(/>eo-io?
ot?
Scribae
et
KOI re^erat vlov,
A/cvXas
<pdaKovai.
Pharisaji,
57, Ad. Pamm.
autumant."
Epiphanius, DC
;
Jerome
quorum scholam
suscepit Acibas, quern magistrum Aquiloe proselyti
Further, Epistle
GO?
6
HOVTIKOS, KarafcoXovdrjO avTes 01
avTov yeyeveaOai,
"
v. 8.
TO\j.ict)vTCi)i>
TrpocrrjXvToi,
Iwarjcf)
et;
on Isaiah
1877,
iii.
o
ripfJLr)vevcrev
On
;
;
$acri vedvis ev
^lovBaloi
r.
.
24 (Eusebius, Hist. Ecclcst. TWV vvv jjieOepfJi^veveiv
Iremeus, Adv. Hccres.
pond.
f
ii.
Textgcstalt dcs Buclics Micha,
c.
i.
Hexapla,
580
p.
Schiirer,
.
quern fcrunt
Field,
;
704 ff., Eng. trans. Div. ii. vol. iii. 168; Ezechiel, p. 104 ff Eyssel, Untersuchungen iibcr die
Volkcs,
Cornill,
Chaldaico,
1843
Wellhausen-Bleek, Elnleitung,
Nacligelassene jild.
Onkelo
Leipsic
mens.
et
13-17.
R
the hermeneutical methods of
Akiba, see Bereshith
1 and/er. Bc-mcliotli, 9, 7 fol. 146, according to the latter of
which passages one of the scholars of Akiba was instructed by and pi. his master in the meaning of the words ns% DJ, ii. des Gcschichte 311, Eng. Compare Schiirer, jild. Volkcs, "IS,
trans. Div.
Origen,
ii.
Ad
(f)i\OTt,fji6Tepov
T^V
ypa(f)rji>
c5
vol.
i.
376.
AtcvXas 14, I)e la line) lou&ztot? ^ TreTno-revfjievos Trapa
Africanum fjid\i(7Ta
:
(i.
elct)6a(riv oi
.
.
.
dyvoovvres
In $id\KTov xpfjaOat, co? irdvTwv /j,d\\ov eTTirerevyfjievw. No. 146 of the Novella it is said of the public reading of the
At vero ii, qui gneca utentur translation!, qua3
Scriptures in the Jewish synagogues
lingua
legunt,
LXX.
interpretuin
"
:
154
THEODOTION.
53.
omnium accuratissiina et ceteris prrestantior judicata est Verum ne illos a reliquis interpretationibus secludere videamur, .
licentiam concedimus etiam Aquilse versione utendi, et extraneus sit, et in lectionibus quibusdam inter ipsam et interpretes
non modica
indirect
Isaiah
vii.
.
si ille
LXX.
sit dissonantia."
Justin Martyr (ed. Otto
an
.
acquaintance
ii.
240) betrays indeed at least translation of Aquila s
with
14.
On The
the relation of Aquila to the Books of Ecclesiastes and In reference to 41. Song in the LXX., compare above,
104
this question the statement of Cornill (Ezechiel, pp. 64,
f.),
about an Oxford Codex for Ezekiel (Holmes 62), which has in the highest degree been influenced by Aquila, is of im It is also worthy of note that the Syrian transla portance. tion has the sign of the accusative IV only in these two books
(elsewhere only in Gen.
1
i.
and
1
Ghron.
iv.
41).
"
[See article on Aquila by Professor Dickson in Smith Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. i. 1877, pp. 150, 151 "
also Article vol.
iii.
53.
in
"Versions"
the,
Dictionary of
Bible,
s ;
1863,
1622.] 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
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 to
also
attaches
additions
to
characteristic
by this, that it retains the apocryphal It is Daniel and the postscript to Job. itself
of
his
method
that
not
rarely
Theodotion
Hebrew word unchanged. circumstances, we are wholly with
receives into his translation the
Eegarding his personal out information. tion
of
the
He
treatise
is,
of
like Aquila, older
Irenasus,
Adv.
than the composi
Hcereseos.
himself calls him a proselyte from Ephesus.
Irenseus
This, however,
53.
agreement with what
not in
is
describes
repeatedly
him,
155
THEODOTIOX.
in
is
said
contrast
hy Jerome, who to Aquila, as an
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, Ebionite
;
as a
companion to indeed he seems
his Septuagint column.
Among
the
Jews
to have played no important part, which be accounted for by his mediating method. probably All the greater, on the other hand, was his success among the is
to
who used him greatly LXX., partly also in room of that made use of his translation of
for
Christians,
completely supplanted the
LXX.
Even
which
Daniel,
older custom
of
interpolating
e.g.
Jer.
14-26), and
xxxiii.
thereby contributed still more to the mixing up of Alexandrine translation.
Compare jiid.
that
with passages from Theodotion, was carried out
systematically by Origen (see,
ties
Irerueus
afterwards
the Alexandrine translation of
The possibly even
prophet.
the emendation of the
translation.
cap. iv.
Field, Prolegomena,
Volkcs,
ii.
708
ff,
Eng.
;
it
Schlirer,
trans. Div.
ii.
vol.
with the
Gescliiclitc iii.
172;
Kyssel, Tcxtyestalt des Buclics Micha, p. 187.
52; Jerome on Habakkuk iii. autem vere quasi pauper et Ebionita Syinmachus ejnsdem dogmatis pauperem sensum secuti
Irenseus,
1113: sed et
Judaice
Adv.
Ilceres.
"Theodotion
transtulerunt."
So, too, in the Preface to the version
On
the other hand, Epistola ad Augustinum 112 hominis Judcei atque UaspJiemi ; Praef. comment, in Daniel: of Job.
Illud quoque lectorem admoneo, Danielem non juxta LXX. interpretes sed juxta Theodotionem ecclesias legere, qui utique post adventum Christ! incredulus fuit, licet eum quidani
"
dicarit
Ebionitam,
qui
altero
genere
Juda?us
est."
method pursued by the author is very characterised by Jerome in his Comment, on John ii. 2. mediating
According
180-192, but
to
The well
Epiphanius he lived under Commodus, A.D. about him (De mensuns et
this author s stories
156
54.
SYMMACHUS.
ponderibus, 17-18), like those about the other translators, are The words quoted from Iremieus about the quite worthless.
importance of his translation among the Ebionites rather show that it must have been written some considerable time Schiirer is therefore inclined to
previously.
than Aquila.
however, he
make him
older
led to the adoption of this idea that a work like that of Theodotion s
If,
theory by the
is
after Aquila s had won accept not decisive, since we can without difficulty conceive of the origin of his translation in the way described
would have been superfluous ance, this
is
That Irenaeus names him before Aquila have its may simply ground in this, that his translation lay nearer Irenceus than that of Aquila, as indeed he actually made use of Theodotion s translation of Daniel ( 43). The in the above section.
coincidences in the Apocalypse of John are, as Schiirer him self remarks, not sufficiently convincing to warrant us in
Of greater importance is the building anything upon them. reminiscence in the Shepherd of Hermes (Vis. iv. 2. 4), of Theodotion
s
rendering of Daniel
Liter aturzeitung, xxviii.
1885, 146, 267).
Whether Theodotion
384.
vi.
or
23 (compare Theolog. But see also ZWT, 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 and good adequate Article, Theodotion," by Dr. Gwynn of in Smith s Diet, of Chr. Biography, vol. iv. 1887, pp. Dublin, "
970-979. the
On
Shepherd
the apparent use of Theodotion s Daniel in Hermes, see Hort in the Johns Hopkins
of
University Circulars,
iv.
23, and in opposition to the attempt
Hermes down from the beginning to the middle of the second century, see, besides Gwynn, Salmon, Introd. to the to bring
New
Testament, 1885, pp. 654-658.]
54.
Symmachus,
of
whom
Irenaeus does not
speak,
was
than Aquila and Theodotion. According to a story of Eusebius, he was an Ebionite, who seems to have made his
later
54.
translation not long before Origen,
other works whose
Jerome
character.
157
SYMMACHUS.
also calls
and
were
contents
him an
have composed Jewish -Christian
also to
a
of
Now
Ebionite.
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 deals with the alongside of one who with equal mastery
Hebrew and with the Greek languages. Together with he stands among of use made has who him, Jerome, great ideal of what a ancient translators nearest to the modern translator locutions,
should be. Only in his paraphrastic circum 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.
30 and Nah.
xxxii.
iii.
he also published a second revised
1,
edition of his translation.
Compare
Field, Prolegomena, cap.
Einleitung^Tp.
582
ff.
;
Cornill,
iii.
Wellhausen-Bleek,
;
EzecMd,
p.
108
7^
/mrjv
f.
;
Eyssel,
Textgcstalt des Buches Micha, p. 187.
Eusebius, Hist. Ecclest.
avTwv .
.
.
8^)
Kdl
TOVTWV
vTrofjivrj/jLaTa
ot? BOKGL, 7ry)o?
vi.
17:
TU>V
TOV
IcrTeov ^Eftiwvalov
Be TOV SvfJLfjLa^ov
TO Kara
MarOalov
a
KCLL
a\\wv Trapa
et?
ravra
Kparvveiv. ra? ypa(j)as ep^veiwv
Iov\iavr]s TLVOS eiXrjfyevai,
r?
avTov
elaen vvv Se
yeyovevai
(freperai, ev
vayye\iov,
aTToreivofJievos
$e$rj\w [juevriv aipeaiv
rrjv
epjjLTjvevTMv
^v^ayov
6
TOV KOI
r)i>
(^r/crL
Trap
5o. Jerome, i. ^v/jLfjid^ov Whether the story of Epiphanius, that he had been originally a Samaritan, rests on any historical grounds, can scarcely be
determined. ii.
51):
that
if
"In
(3l{3\ovs
StaSefacrat.
But Lagarde writes very connection with this
it
strikingly (Mittlicilungen,
should not be forgotten
Symmachus was a Samaritan, then
at least
Symmachus
does not unconditionally witness for the text of the Jews of he would have had a Samaritan his time." Certainly as "
"
no text of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. (Jilcl Zcitsclirift, 1862, pp.
weak grounds, Geiger
On very 62-64
;
158
QUINTA AND SEXTA.
55.
Nachgelasscne Schriften, p. 88
ft), sought to attach him to him is communicated by about Syrian story
A TSK
Judaism. Nestle,
1879,
t
p.
733
f.
Examples of the free paraphrases: Gen. i. 27: eV el/covi Sia<popa, opOiov 6 $eo9 GKTKrev avTov (which, according to Lagarde, Psalterium juxta Hebrceos Hicronymi, 165, implies the reading of D&21 D&3 instead of D^ 2 iDbvn); Gen. xviii. 25 6 Trdvra dvOpwirov diraLT&v SucaioTrpar/eiv, d/cpircos (JLT) Troirjo-ys :
rovro
;
Ps.
24: Ivari w? virv&v
xliv.
13
Pdcht, 9,
el;
:
rrjv
Of the two anonymous Greek translations, the Quintet and the Scxta, which Origen, as Eusebius says, drew out of 55.
some obscure corner and received at least, according to the
Habakk.
iii.
13),
express declaration of Jerome (in
was of Christian
tions have reached
number
into the Hexapla, the latter
Field
origin.
s
investiga
they embraced a larger the Old Testament books than was previously sup
of
the result that
posed to be the case,
but otherwise we
know nothing
precisely
Eusebius, and after him Jerome, spoke also of a translation," and Jerome, on Habakk. ii. 11, speaks
about them. "seventh
of
duas alias
But with the ex
editiones, besides the Quinta.
ception of perhaps Ps.
1.
this translation has ever
3 (Septima, KaraiyiaQtj), no trace of
Whether the
been found elsewhere.
sometimes by the Church fathers, which often renders the text pretty freely, was a translation in the proper o
Effpaios cited
sense, cannot
now
be definitely determined.
Field, Prolegomena, cap. v.
Compare
Eusebius, Hist. Levas
KOI
JScclest. vi.
16
:
/cat
rcva? erepas Trapa ra?
IvahXdrTOvcras, TTJV eoScmWo?, efavpeiv, a? ov/c oIS
irakai \av6dvovGas xpovov e/9 Trporjjayev efi wv Sta dBijXoTrjra TLVOS ap
TOV
avro TOVTO 7T/305
AKTLM
Atcvkov
epfjbijvelas
fjidvov
7T(7 r)fj,ijvaTO, a)?
NitcojroXei, rrjv
Se
ev
apa erepw
oSei/
<w?
elev
/cal
ex TLVWV
dvi^veocra^ ovtc
elBa)$,
evpoi ev T{J TOTT&J roiwSe ev ye
rrjv
fjiev
recrcrapas
50.
ou povov
,
159
JEROME.
TrefJLTffljv,
d\\a Kal
/cal
eKrrjv
eVl yiua? avOis o-eo-ijfjLeicoTaL, co? Iv iriOw Kara TOU? ftpovovs Avrwvivov rov
piJLrjveiav,
eV
viov
[211-217]. According to this then the Quinta was found at Nicopolis, on the west coast of Greece, and either the Sexto, or the Septima at Jericho. The passages from Jerome v
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 (versu compositi). Jerome on Hab. iii. 13: Sexta editio, prodens manifestis"
sime sacramentum,
ita
ex
vertit
Hebrseo
:
egressus
es,
populum tuum per Jesum Christum tuum
salvares
Greece dicitur ef?}X#e? TOV
TOV Xpicrrov
crcocrat,
ut
quod
rov \aov aov Sia lecrovv
The same on Hab.
aov"
:
ii.
11
"
:
Reperi, ex-
id est, Aquilse, Symrnachi, Septuaginta, Theodotionis et Quinta, in XII. prophetis et duas alias
ceptis
quinque editionibus,
editiones, in
quarum una scriptum
est
:
quia
lapis, in
altera
:
lapis enim.
On
6
Efipaios, compare Field, Prolegomena, Ixxv. sq.
3.
Jerome and
the Vulgate,
Of the translations which were intended
56.
to
take the
LXX., no one has obtained such historical signi In the Greek Church indeed the ficance as that of Jerome. place of 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
that
upon
it
learnt to
owed
it
to
Jerome
know the Old Testament in a form which, much purer and clearer than the Septua-
the whole, was
gint or the Latin Bible translations that were dependent it (
upon
47).
Jerome, born
A.D.
34G, died
A.D.
420, was,
if
a fair view
is
taken of the circumstances of his time, well equipped for the
160
JEROME.
56.
work which he ventured
And
to undertake.
even although
the astonishment of his contemporaries which found expression in
the
declaration of Augustine,
nemo mortalium unquam
Quod Hieronymus
may
scivit,
nescivit,
be justifiable only
when
compared with that of his fellow-Christians, knowledge it must yet be acknowledged that he spared no pains to make himself familiar with the Hebrew language, difficult as it was his
is
by reason of the helantia stridentiaque verba, and with the Non conditions of life presupposed in the Old Testament.
parms nummis paid he
for
instruction
his
under various
Jewish teachers, who sometimes, for fear of their countrymen,
came
him
to
"
secretly
by
night,
them Baranina, he whom the
like
Nicodemus,"
among
reward
bitter Eufinus, as a
for
the stores of Bible knowledge which the Church through long ages would have to thank him for, nicknamed by the Barabbas." In addition to this opprobrious designation of Jerome diligently used the works of the later Greek tran "
slators,
especially
result of his
imperfect,
is
that
of
Symmachus
endeavours was nevertheless so natural a
(
in
That the
54).
many
particulars
consequence of the circumstances
which he was placed, that the reproach of a defective scientific method, which e.g. Clericus brought against him, is no more justifiable than the Catholic attempts to elevate him in
into an infallible translator. of
those
around
him,
his
Compared with the attainments service marks an extraordinary
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
advance
;
well, qualified
him
for his work.
Exercitationes
liblicce, p. 156; Clericus, 1700; L. Engelstoft, Hieronymus Strid. interpres, etc., Copenhagen 1797 Zockler, Hieronymus, sein Lebcn und Wirken, 1865, pp. 342 ff., 465 ff. DeWetteNowack, Die Bedeutung des Schrader, Einleitung, p. 136 ff.
Compare Morinus,
Qacestiones Hieronymiancc,
;
;
;
REVISIONS OF OLD TRANSLATIONS AND THE NEW.
57.
Hieronymus
die Alttestamentl.
fiir
TextJcritik,
1875,
p.
161 5
ff.
;
Ryssel, Textgestalt des Baches Micha, p. I S 9 ff. On the influence of the Jewish exegesis on Jerome, see Rahmer, Die hebraischen Traditional in den Werken Hieronyi.
ix.
346
widely
Siegfried,
the beginning intended only by criticism
at
and correct the Vctus
of the text to establish
was
1865, 1867, 1868;
ff.
Jerome
57.
MGWJ,
1861, and
mus,
JPT,
circulated,
had
but
After he
forms.
then
had, at the
latina,
assumed call
which
many
of
Damasus, Testament Scriptures, he improved in A.D. 383 at Borne the translation of the Psalms licet cursim, and
divergent
revised the
New
with constant reference to the old Eecension that
it
customary form.
This
Damasus introduced into the Roman liturgy, so name of Psalter ium Eomanum. It was Rome down to the sixteenth century, and is still
obtained the
in use in
used in the Church of the chapel of the
St. Peter.
Doge down
It
to A.D.
was used in Venice in 1808, and
is
employed Some time day in the Ambrosian ritual in Milan. after this Jerome left Rome, in order to prosecute his studies in the East, and to live in the practice of religious exercises. to this
While staying in Crcsarea 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 a revision, he began o
all others.
new
Dissatisfied with his earlier
rendering o of the Psalms according o
Hcxaplar Eecension, which obtained currency in Gaul, and hence bears the name of the Psalterinm G-allicanum. This to the
Psalterium was
at
a
later
date
Breviary and into the Vulgate, and translation of the
ment writings text
has
;
also
Psalms
for
is
Roman
therefore the authorised
Catholics.
Other Old Testa
he wrought over according to the Hexaplar
with the exception of the Book of Job, this work been lost. Undoubtedly the fact that Jerome himself,
but,
all
adopted into the
L
162
REVISIONS OF OLD TRANSLATIONS AND THE NEW.
57.
while carrying on this work, became pledged to a far bolder By means of his undertaking, contributed to this result. laboriously acquired knowledge of Hebrew, he wished as the first
the
among the westerns to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew text. And even if his designating the Hebrew
time (which was essentially the same as the Massoretic text of the present day), the Hebrew truth" be not text
his
of
"
absolutely
correct,
text
this
yet
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 dogma ( 38). On the other hand,
a universally admitted
powerful opposition which this man, with noticeable elements of weakness in his character, met with from all
the
sides,
succeeded in inducing him
generally, wherever
was
it
customary and bold work
in the
all
possible to do so, to the
seems
have begun the great First of all he translated
at
He
translation.
year 390.
to
the easiest books, Samuel and Kings phets, and the Psalms; and
the rest of the canonical poraries
(
additions
books, and
the
then
to
for
the
old
translation,
the
Job,
years
contem
Judith, and
An
Pro
393405,
please his
Tobit,
correspondence with Augustine, who preference
;
finally, in the
Apocrypha: Jeremiah, Daniel, and Esther.
18), to
of
accommodate himself
to
the
epistolary
in spite of his
did
not
expressed wish, without
judgment on the undertaking of him an Jerome, gave opportunity for vindicating his work The vain man experienced a Ad Augustinum). (Epist. 112, further examination, to pass
great triumph
when
separate portions of his translation were
rendered into Greek by Sophronius, a remarkable reversal of
THE VULGATE.
58.
the
hitherto
between
relation
prevailing
163 Greeks
the
and
Latins.
van Ess, Pragmatiscli-kritische GescJiichte dcr Vulgata, 1824; Kaulen, Geschichtc dcr Vulcjata, Mainz 1868; 2 Fritzsche in Herzog s Real-Uncyclopcedie viii. 445-459. L.
Tub.
,
On
use
the
of
the
Psalterium
Romanum,
see Schol/, Einleitung, p. 486 f., and Theol. Littcraturllatt, 1874, Xo. 19. In the tenth volume of Vallarsi s Opera Hicronymi are to be
found the Psalterium Pomanum, Psalterium Gallicanum, and the translation of the Book of Job according to the Hcxaplar text. Lagarde has published a translation of Job based upon a manuscript in Tours and a Codex Bodlcianus (2426); Mittheilungen, ii. third manuscript.
193-237.
is
Caspar!
preparing to edit a
58. After the older Latin translation and that of Jerome had for a long
time been used alongside of one another, according Churches or their founder, the translation
to the choice of the
of
Jerome came
the
thirteenth
In by the seventh century. became customary to call it the
into general use
century
it
Vulgate (editio vulgata), a name,
Jerome himself, had been used
which
in earlier times,
to designate the
LXX.,
e.g.
by
especi
The Vulgate of the Kowrj, or its Latin rendering. Middle Ages was, however, by no means identical with the While the two translations had genuine translation of Jerome. ally the
been in use side by side, the manuscripts of the new translation in their whole extent were subjected to alterations from the Veins Intina, especially by means of marginal and by were incorporated into the text itself. this, in
the following ages there
came
notes,
in errors of transcription
and wilful additions of various kinds.
The endeavours
Cassiodorus and Alcuin to restore the text from state
were
unsuccessful,
and
the
which by
In addition to
so-called
its
of
corrupt
Correctoria,
or
some indeed are of pre point of view and in con
Collections of Variations, of which
eminent interest from a historical
nection with the criticism uf the text, served, in the hands
164
58.
THE VULGATE.
of unskilled persons, only to increase the confusion.
invention
the
Protestants
vied
art
Greek
the
before
printed
the
of
of
printing
New
the
Testament
After
Vulgate
was
Catholics and
with each other for a long time in the of the Latin translation, until
production of critical editions
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
importance, for disputationibus, to
Owing
it
translation a quite
authorised the Vulgate in
prcedicationibus
ct
unmeasured
puUids
cxpositionibus
lectionibus,
(Sess.
iv.).
the condition of the text at that time, the Bible
authorised in such a manner, had, as Kaulen expresses of an ideal than of a real existence,
it,
more
and the Catholic Church
therefore felt itself obliged to establish a form of text
which
The Protestants, for might actually claim to be the Vulgate. reasons that can well be understood, while these labours were The edition of going on, acted the part of critical spectators. Sixtus V. in A.D. 1590, which, according to the Bull printed in
it, was approved even for private use apostolica a domino tradita auctoritate, and declared to be vera,
front of
nubis
Icfjitima,
without
authentica
ct
indubitata, so that
papal authority
polcntis Dei ac bcatorum noverit incursurum,
to
any one who ventured indignationem omni-
change ct Pauli apostolorum it,
Pdri
cjus
se
had not the same fortune as the Sixtina
LXX.
Clement VIII. was obliged to take notice of the demands that had become clamant at the papal court,
of the
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
TILE
58.
165
VULGATE.
might possibly produce a practically useful text, they were not in a position to solve the difficult problem of the
editors
restoration of the genuine text of Jerome.
when
times,
And
even in recent
interest in the translation of the old linguistically
Church father has again revived among Protestants, we still find ourselves very far off indeed from this end. skilled
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
show how many fragments
variations
lations, therefore,
from the
LXX.
of
the old Latin trans
have been intruded into the
Vulgate.
Kaulen, Geschichte dcr Vulgata, pp. 150-494.
De
Berger,
histoire
I
cle
la
Vulgata
See also:
1888
en France,
;
Do
144f.
Wette-Schrader, Einleitung, p. On a remarkable Corrcctorium, probably from the thirteenth century, which, besides a rare critical insight, shows acquaint ance with the distinction between French and Spanish
Hebrew
text, with the Targums, the compare Vercellone, Dissertazione accademiche, Home 1864, p. 53 Kaulen, Gcschichtc tier Vulgata, p. 255 f. Under Clement VIII. there first appeared JJiblia Sacra
the
of
manuscripts
Itabbinists, etc.,
;
:
I ulgatce
1592. errors of "
V. jussu recognita atquc cdita, Rome Since this edition contained more than two hundred
editionis Sixti
the press, a
new one was
indeed corrected some of the printer
larger own"
of
number
issued in s errors,
uncorrected, and added
1593, which
but
left
new mistakes
a
still
of its
(Kaulen, Gcschichtc, p. 470). Only the third edition of the appended indices corrcctorii, can
1598, by reason
be regarded as conclusive. Although these editions differed of Sixtus V. of 1590 in almost three thousand
from the text
passages, they still continued to bear the name of that pope on their title-page. How the Protestants judged of these Tli. James, Bellnin papale, sivc dementis VIII. circa Hicronymianam editioncm, London 1600.
proceedings
is
shown,
concordia discors Sixti
e.g.,
V.
by
ct
166
58.
THE VULGATE,
Heyse and Tischendorf, Biblia sacra latin a Hieronymo interprete, 1873, is in point of textual criticism very unsatisfactory. Compare ZWT, p. 591 ft Psalterium hebrceos juxta Hieronymi, Leipsic 1874, Lagarde,
The
of
edition
V.T.
.
On
ZA W,
a manuscript not used by Lagarde, see Bsethgen,
1881,
105
p.
;
ft .
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
Among
This view was opposed by He maintained 1885, p. 191 f. Lagarde, Mittheilungen, that it was a manuscript of the ninth century, artificially Such written in an antique style after a cursive manuscript. to
belong to the
sixtli
century. i.
was the opinion
also
recentl}
however,
,
appeared in The
165
f.,
3091
.,
of
a
Cornill,
series
Ezcchiel,
158
p.
interesting (1887, xxxi. pp. Ill, 130,
Academy 414 1888, f.
;
More
f.
discussions
of
xxxiii.
239
pp.
f.,
has
148 307
fl".,
f.).
Light has been shed upon this question especially by Ilort s The name on the first page must be read
contributions,
Ccoifricd
Anylortim-
Abbot whose
the
;
the Codex was written in Jarrow under
rule
extended from
A.D.
690
to A.D.
710,
was sent from England The lirst sheet, however, with its three lists of the canon and pictorial illustrations (compare Corssen, JPT, ix. p. 619ff.), was borrowed from a Codex of Cassiodorus (of the Vetus latino} brought to England,
after the pattern of older Codices, and to Borne as a present to Gregory II.
From
this manuscript, Lagarde (Mittluilungen, i. pp. has edited the Wisdom of Solomon arid Sirach.
241-378)
[For an admirable and complete account of the Codex Amiatinus, see Mudia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, second series, Oxford 1890; "
(7)
The Codex Amiatinus and
its Birthplace,"
by H.
J.
White.
On the Italian Origin of the Codex Amiatinus Appendix and the Localising of Italian MSS.," by W. Sanday, pp. 273The Codex Tcetanus, which is supposed to belong to 324.] "
:
the eighth century, was collated for the Sixtine edition. This collation is preserved in the Vatican, and was printed in
Other manu Fatrologia, Latina, xxix. 879-1096. are enumerated by De Wette-Schrader, Einleitung,
Migne s
scripts
59.
143
p.
[See
f.
THE ARAMAIC AMONG THE JEWS. list
MSS.
of
of
167
the Vulgate in Scrivener
s
Plain Introduction, 1883, pp. 348-365.] Yercellone, Varicv Icctioncs Vulgatce led. Bibliorum cditionis, Koine 1860-1864 (only the historical books). Compare also: Bukentop, Lux de luce, 1710; Thielmarin, Bcitrage zur Textkritik d. Vulg., insbcsondcrc dcs Buclies Judith.
Programm
dcr Studicnanstalt Speier, 188 3. On the daughter versions of the translation of Jerome, see
De
Wette-Schrader, Einlcitung.
4.
59.
p.
147.
The Jewish Targums.
The Aramaic language, which even before the
exile
the international tongue of the north Semitic peoples,
was
but was
not understood by the common Jews (Isa. xxxvi. 11), after exile gradually took the place of the old Israelitish
the
language,
vulgar
and
was,
language of
times
the
in
the Jews.
Christ, the proper remarkable change, of
of
This
and Ezra, iv. 8-vi. 18, vii. 12, 26, are the first witnesses, was one element in a great and sweep In the Persian age we meet with the Aramaic ing movement. which Dan.
ii.
46-vii. 28,
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
dialect of this
same
Christians "West
(49)
spoke from the
Aramaic"
language.
first
Only
a
in a
few villages of the Anti-Lebanon is there now a poor, struggling remnant of this once dominant speech. Noldeke, Die scmitischcn Sprachcn, pp. 28-34; Kautzsch,
On the Biblisch-aramdischcn, Leipsic 1884. Christian-Palestinian dialect, see Noldeke, ZDMG, xx. 443 ft Gmmatik
dcs
.
On
the
Noldeke,
relation between
ZDMG,
xxxix.
the
313
ff.
Greek and the Aramaic, see [Studio, BiUica,
first series,
168
GO.
THE ORIGIN OF THE TARGUMS.
Oxford 1885, pp. 39-74, Article by BTeubauer lects spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ."] 60. In the of the
same proportion
in
"
On
the Dia
which the popular speech
Jews changed, did the Holy Scriptures become
easily understood by the multitude.
less
Only the scribes kept
alive among them the tradition of the pronunciation and the understanding of the text, and to them are we indebted The Law, for our ability still to read the Old Testament.
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
ings from the
Law and
the Prophets
;
while the weekly read
made
they should be understood by the people. this need, there
it
necessary that
In order to satisfy
arose the custom of the reader in the syna
gogue having alongside of him an interpreter, jojn^np, 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 Negatively this tendency showed itself in the leaving untranslated of some of the passages that were offen of
the age.
sive to the taste
and feelings
of these later times.
On
of the circle of readings being regularly repeated, the
account
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 ;
all kinds, called forth by the changing it, new ideas of circumstances of the times, would be freely deposited. That the Aramaic translations of the Old Testament which are still
to
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
GO.
This, however, does
fluid state.
an
not exclude the notion that
have been made by written Ara
attempt may maic renderings to make the contents tures more generally known. Indeed, it earlier
this
1G9
THE ORIGIN OF THE TARGUMS.
must have been the
of the is
Holy
Scrip
quite evident that
case with the Hagiographa,
which was
not read in public, since there is mention in pretty early times Thus there is mention of a Aramaic translations of them.
of
written translation of the Book of Job in the time of Christ (Sail. 1G); I Mcy.
oa makes evident allusion
to various
other
which can only be thought of There is also, as it seems, mention in
translations of the Hagiographa, as written documents.
the
Mishna (Jadaim
Testament.
Upon
in the earliest times
maic translations proved. it
(jer.
iv.
5) of
Aramaic translations
of the
Old
the whole, the widely spread notion, that it
was forbidden
to
transcribe the
Ara
of the portions read in the synagogue, is not
In the passage that has been quoted in support of 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 the subject (Sail). 16), that the scribes of the
reference to earlier
days regarded with disfavour such written interpreta Hagiographa, which can be easily
tions, especially those of the
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 Targums. 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
THE ORIGIN OF THE TARGUMS.
60.
Yet in not a few passages results can be reached by their help with reference to a text diverging It is very difficult to determine the date from the Eeceptus.
in a limited degree.
were possible to fix with certainty the time of their codification, little would thereby have been gained, since, in respect of their contents, of the composition of these
much
they partly represent Targuins on the
works
Law and
;
earlier
if it
especially
periods,
the Prophets, whose
have originated in the very
may And
and even
oldest layers
earliest synagogical readings.
Babylonian Targums, we have to
that, especially in the
do pre-eminently with ancient materials
shown, as Cornill
is
complete absence of polemic against the Christians in the Messianic passages.
has
appropriately remarked, by the
Gottesdienstliclu
Compare Zunz,
Massora zum Targum Onkelos,
"
When
"
JVQJJ,
1832,
Vortrcige,
Noldeke, Alttestamentliche Littcratur, p. untranslated passages, Geiger, Ursclirift,
M. Jadaim iv. 5, only refer to Aramaic
the
255
ff.
368;
p.
p.
7
On
all
ff.
;
the
Berliner,
59; ZDMG, xxix. 320. which is written as Dinn," can p.
Tosephta Sdbb. xvi. 128 the elder Gamaliel sat on one of the temple steps one translations.
:
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 b. Sabb. 115 ;
;
jer.
Sabb.
p. xi.
loc; Soptfrim,
fol.
16,
grandson of Gamaliel, according to this in a copy of this
1877,
p.
story,
Nevertheless,
the
subsequently read
The notion of Gra tz, MGWJ, Targum was a Greek translation, is
same book.
87, that
this
On the other hand, it is foundation. not impossible that it was identical with the SvpiaKrj /3//3Ao? It mentioned in the LXX. at the close of the Book of Job. absolutely
is
without
also not impossible that the Old Testament quotations in Testament may in some cases have been taken from
the
New
such a Targum. Messianische Prof.
Curtiss,
NGGW,
Compare,
Weissagungen,
1890,
Edinburgh p.
104.
e.g.
on Matt.
1890, 1891.
p.
ii.
114,
Compare
5,
Delitzsch,
Eng. trans, by also
Lagarde,
THE TARGUMS IN PALESTINE AND BAP.YLON.
61.
171
5. Meg. oa : Jonathan ben Uzziel ( 63), \vho had translated the Prophets into Aramaic, wished also to produce a Targum on the Hagiographa but he told how he had heard a Bath-qol, ;
which
said
Bacher, Jcr.
"
:
What
MGWJ,
Meg.
thou hast translated
1882, "
iv. 1
:
The
Berliner,
On
Haggai said, E. Samuel, son of II. Isaac, and found therein a Sopher reading his book then said he to him, this is not ;
oral orally, the written
Targum
Compare
R
visited a synagogue, interpretation from a
permitted.
is enough."
120.
p.
Onkelos,
ii.
p.
the origin of the word
88
by
writing."
Compare
ff.
Targum very
diverse opinions
The Assyriologists (Fred. Delitzsch, The Hebrew Lan guage, 1883, p. 50; Haupt in Schrader, Die Keilinschriften u, d. A. T. 2 p. 517) [see Eng. trans, vol. ii. 2G7] refer it to prevail.
an Assyrian word, ragdmu,
to shout, to cry out.
Wellliausen,
Vorarbeiten, 110, 153, combines *jc*-Os to conjecture," with some sort of Mantic custom of stonethrowing, and adds Perhaps it also has some connection with the Aramaic D:nn." On the other hand, Lagarde (Arm en.
Skizzen
uncl
iii.
"
"
:
Mittheilungcn, ii. 177 f.) treats }vr\r\ as an loan word, and the verb as denominative. Halevy, Indo-European finally, according to Devie s Appendix to the Supplementary
847;
Studien,
volume
of Littre
s
Dictionary,
p.
32, note 8, would derive
it
from the Greek rpiypos. The Arabic ,^\^^. J is in favour of the secondary nature of the participle f:nn, and consequently of the foreign derivation of the word. See Frankel, Aramdische Frcmdufortcr,
p.
280.
61. In Palestine, wliere the
Targums
originated, they were
never recognised as proper authorities.
occupy a place
They continued
to
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 5. 4, fol. 9c, where the addition to Lev. xxii.
jer. Bcrachoth, "
28, to
As
I in
heaven
am
merciful,
which the Targum known
soon earth be ye
to us as the
merciful,"
Jerusalem Targum
172
G2.
THE BABYLONIAN TOIUII TARGUM.
contains a parallel,
Jerome, who
is
rejected.
It
is
also
significant that
and was depend never made mention of a Jewish
lived a long time in Palestine,
ent on his Jewish teachers,
It was otherwise in Babylon. The Babylonian Targum. Jews produced no independent Targuin, 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 the Babylonian Targums, which is the Palestinowith an East Aramaic colouring, which has not Aramaic, in
dialect
essentially
But
changed the linguistic character.
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 &. Meg. oa). On the language of the Targums, Alttcslamentlichc Litteratur,
CcntndUatt, 1877,
ZDMG,
xliii.
26.)
p.
257
:
Noldeke,
compare
GGA, 1872,
p.
828
;
Lit.
305.
(Otherwise Elias Levita, compare Jud. Geiger, Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 93, etc.
p.
The authorised
Torah Targum of the Babylonians, but bears the name Targum Onkelos. The usually, incorrectly, denominating of it was based upon I. Meg. 3 a, according to which passage the Aramaic Torah Targum is said to have been 62.
"
composed by Onkelos (DftpiN) according to the directions Eliezer and But this Onkelos is only a Joshua." ("^P)
of
R
R
"
"
variation of D^py (Aquilas), and the parallel passage jer. Meg. 1. 9, fol.
spoken
whom
7lc,
of
shows that
in the original context the
was the Greek translator Aquila
(
subject
52), out of
made an Aramaic fact that the name
therefore the Babylonian reviewer has
translator.
In keeping with this
is
the
D^PXJ occurs also elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud and in the Toseplita in the form DlS^S (compare, e.g., jer. Demai, vi.
2od, with Tosepkta Demai,
fol.
10,
now no
longer any ground have wittingly should Babylon "
for
vi.
There
57, 1C).
p.
is
that any one in
assuming
named
the redactor of the Torah
show
off his hermeneutical Aquila the Onkelos at least in this connection is an although O
in order thereby to
"
Targum art,
173
THE BABYLONIAN TORAH TARGUM.
62.
Undoubtedly we have to Aquila among the Targum ists. do with a simple confusion which was readily enough caused "
"
by the word
From
"
Targum."
this
follows, in the
it
first
not to be understood as referring to the date of the composition of the Torah Targum, and, place, that that passage
is
further, that the actual redactor of that
Targum must have
been unknown
still
to the Babylonians,
which
further confirm
the conclusion to be drawn from the dialectic character of the translation
Targum "
itself, it
as
says,
we
in
it
"our
Targum"
(b.
the
Kicld. 69a), or
therefore arises, whether the Babylonians have
with
the
Targum which they adopted
as they has been altered it, essentially by them. certain that the Babylonian Targum on the Law, which
agreed
received It is
names
Talmud quotes
the Babylonian
translate."
The question so
Where
61).
(
or
whether
it
comparison with that of the Palestinian
literal,
gives the impression that
recasting of an older precursor.
it
is
remarkably
originated in a thorough
Also the assertion of Geiger it are so abbreviated
and Bacher that several passages in
that they are unintelligible without a comparison with
Palestinian Torah
exaggeration
;
yet
Targums, it is
rests for
the
the
most part on an
nevertheless evident that
has been
it
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
the brief form
more
original,
Targums.
met with
in
The
assertion of Berliner, that
the Babylonian
and the paraphrase the
spond with the
facts
of the
case.
later,
This
Targums
is
the
does not corre
Targum
is
rather a
1*74
THE BABYLONIAN TORAH TARGUM.
62.
and therefore a secondary work while the Palestinian Targums, which certainly were concluded considerably later,
learned,
;
contained
many
ancient portions which were omitted in the
But for the hypothesis that this reduc Babylonian Tavgum. tion had been first undertaken by the Babylonians, there no ground. If these, as the dialectic colouring seems to have also prove, subjected the text to a certain amount of is
revision, yet,
on the other hand, the ignorance
lonians with regard to the origin of their
of the
Targum
Baby
distinctly
having been essentially a Babylonian One would be rather led to assume that the Targum
disproves the idea of
work.
it
reduction in question was a fruit of the minute treatment of Scripture introduced by R. Akiba, and therefore that
been undertaken in Palestine.
Targum
Onkelos-Aquila has
after
scarcely that anticipated
point
is
that this
in Palestine
In so
work
itself,
became authorised
by
its
far,
a
remained without result
whereas the Targum originating from in
When
Babylon.
school began to flourish,
For the
rest, this
i.e.
question
is
in
this
itself
when
Targum
And
anthropomorphisms.
of receiving into the text all sorts of is
to
Babylonian
represents an older,
In
Jewish translations, as also with the LXX.,
lated
the
not of great interest, for in point
in part certainly a pre-Christian age.
all
it
happened we do that the Targum
the third Christian century.
of contents the Babylonian Torah
avoiding of
But the main
originator.
of reduction
brought to Babylon
first
had
meaning, but
certain
not know, yet the idea readily suggests
had been
it
the naming of the
be found also in the
common with it
all
shows a careful
the peculiar custom
Hebrew words untrans
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 rabbinical Bibles.
Now
given in the Polyglots and
a step in advance has been taken
by
THE BABYLONIAN T011AH TAKGUM.
G2.
Berliner
publication of the Recension of
s
of
fragments
from
various
Museum.
British
Merx
1557.
the year
Salibioneta
Babylonian
tlie
175
excellent editio
has published some manuscripts in the
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
An
preserved.
the establishment of the text
important aid toward
afforded by the Massoras on
is
Onkelos, which at the same time show with what care this
was treated by the Jews.
translation
Compare Luzzato, Oheb
Ger.
1871, pp. 85-104, 1875, iv. 104, 106 ff. Bacher, ;
die
1830
Geiger,
;
ZDMG,
Inter essen
d.
110
Wellhausen-Bleek, Einkituny,
.
;
Targuni Onkelos,
ii.
100
ff.,
Zeitschrift,
ff
.
Schriften,
Frankel.
;
Judenthnms, 1846,
fur
ff
59
xxviii.
Zeitschrift
relig.
J iid
290; Nachgelassene
p.
p.
114-128;
607;
Geschichte
Schiirer,
Div.
p.
Berliner,
i. 134. Further literature in Berliner, Targum Onkelos, pp. 175-200. On the beginnings of the Babylonian school, compare Jost, Geschichte dcs Judentlmms, ii. 134 ff. Yet it is said there, "We find even in Babylon, in the time of Akiba, p. 132 f.
(les
Volkes,
jud.
trans.
117, Eng.
i.
i.
vol.
:
individual Palestinian teachers of the Law, especially descend ants of the family Bethera."
On
the
Targum
character
Onkelos, 2
Encyclopcedie
,
ii.
xv.
of
the translation,
200-245
366
ff.
;
A olck
1881
;
und Anthropopathien lei The substitution Targumim. 1870.
pomorpliien
compare Berliner, Herzog s Real-
in
Singer, Onkelos
Targums zur Halachc,
seines
T
;
und das
Verlialtnis
Maybaum, Die AntliroOnkelos und den spdtcren of
"
Salamites
"for
^*p
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, Nabatdischc Urschriflen in
,
p.
28
f.)
the text. iii.
22,
;
thus therefore the ancient times distinctly colour Examples of the free treatment of passages: Gen.
"Behold,
the
man
is
unique in the world, for he out
176 of his
THE BABYLONIAN PROPHET TARGUM.
G3.
own
self
Symmachus
can
iBe, 6
:
know
the good and the
evil."
Compare
Aba/A yeyovev ofiov afi eavrov yivcocrKetv and R. Akiba. Also MecJiilta on Exod.
Ka\ov KOI Trovrjpov, The prohibition against seething a kid in xiv. 29 (p. its mother s milk (Ex. xxiii. 19) is in agreement with M. Chullin 8 on the prohibition against eating flesh prepared in The untranslated words are given by Berliner, Massora milk. zum Targum Onkelos, p. 57. 33<z).
Bologna 1482 (Pentateuch
edition:
First
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, Einleitung, p. 125; Berliner, On Berliner, Targum Onkelos, Targum Onkelos, p. 187 if. Berlin 1884 (I. Text, II. Introduction and Notes), compare Noldeke s review in Lit. Centralblatt, 1884, 39, and especi ally Lagarde, Mittlicilungen, ii. 163-182, 386. Babylonian manuscripts in the British Museum,
From the Merx (Chres-
1888) has edited after the Codex de 1-11, 47; Num. xx. 12-25, 9; Deut. Gen. c. 1-4, c. 24-25, xxvi. 1-10, xix. 27-29, 8, c. 32-34. xxxii. 16-26. Ex. c. c. 20-24 and Deut, c. 49. Com 15, 6, of favourable remarks the 263 ff. iii. Landauer, ZA, pare see 245 ii. ff. ChrcstoOn manuscripts Berliner, Merx, tomcttliia
Targumica,
Rossi, 12, Lev.
ix.
;
mathia,
For
p. x. sq., xv. sq.
exposition
:
Schefftel,
Biure
Onkelos,
Scholicn
zum
Targum Onkelos, licrausgeg. von Perles, 1888 (in Hebrew). Compare also Merx, Johannes Buxtorfs cles Vaters Targum:
commentar Babylonia, ZWT, 1887 and 1888. Berliner, Massorah zum Targum Onkelos, 1877; Landauer, Die Masorti zum Onkelos nach neuen Quellen, Israelitische Letterbode,
Amsterdam,
MittJieilungcn,
ii.
167
Jalirg.
viii.
xi.
Compare Lagarde,
ff.
63. Of the Babylonian Targum. on the Prophets practically It also be said as of the Targum on the Law. name which is derived from the same passage of the Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 3a), but it has just as little
the same
may
usually bears a
153.
177
THE BABYLONIAN PROPHET TARCUM.
historical value as the
name Onkelos.
tion of the
is
Prophets
there
The Aramaic
transla
ascribed to the well-known
scholar of Hillel, Jonathan ben Uzziel, and hence the Prophet
Targum where
is
commonly
cited as the
passages are quoted in the
Jonathan. But Talmud from the Babylonian
Targum
of
translation of the Prophets, they are, as a rule, ascribed to
Joseph ben Chija, who died in A.D. 333, and never to that Jonathan, nor is there ever, in the Palestinian Talmud, any But seeing mention made of a translation by Hillel s pupil. Pi.
that a Palestinian parallel to the note in the Babylonian
about the Targum on the Prophets
is
of this point
The conjecture
is (
is
scarcely possible.
Talmud
wanting, the unravelling of Luzzatto
very ingenious, that Jonathan is another name for Theodotion but this is nothing more 53), as Onkelos was for Aquila ;
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
would agree the limit
to the fourth century. of
the final redaction of the actually, as
is
With
this also
time conjectured ( 62) as marking Targum on the Law, supposing that
commonly assumed,
the coincidences between
the translation of the Prophets and the parallel passages in
Targum on the Law prove the dependence of the former But these similarities may just as well have upon the latter. come down from the oral lectures and the older forms of the the
Targums, and therefore prove Moreover, the redaction
is
little.
question here also about the date of the
of very slight interest, for, as
has been already
remarked above, the material of the Targum is undoubtedly In comparison with the Torah Targum very much older. this translation is far freer and more paraphrastic. Compare,
But this is the extremely loose rendering of Isa. liii. caused in part by the difference in the contents of the books
e.g.
M
178
G3.
THE BABYLONIAN PROPHET TARGUM.
even Onkelos himself in poetical and prophetic passages assumes a less literal and more para Compared with the phrastic character than elsewhere. translated, as indeed
Palestinian
Targum on the Prophets the Babylonian must
always be described as observing the proper mean, while also way a strong adherence to the letter goes with that freedom. side by side
in a remarkable
A
good help in study
when taken
in
Urschrift, p.
ZDMG,
Berliner,
Targum 2
by Lagarde s
s
careful
28), especially
(
Some
Collations.
pointing have been published
Zum Targum
Compare Frankel, Bacher,
afforded
connection with Cornill
pieces with Babylonian Merx.
Geiger,
is
the Codex Rcucldin
reprint of the text in
der
by
1872;
Prophetcn,
164; Nachgelassene 1
xxvi-ii.
if.,
Onkelos, p.
see
Schriften, iv. 105; also xxix. 1 57 if., 319 ff. ;
124; Volck
in
Herzog
s
Real
p. 110 ff. Especially uber die Textgcstalt des Buches llyssel, Untersuchungen On the date of composition 1887, pp. 163-169.
EncycloTjccdie
,
xv.
370
Goi nill, JZzechiel,
;
on Micha: Micha, also
JPT, 1879,
Frankel,
p.
756
[On the paraphrastic
ff.
rendering of the Prophet Targum see Driver and Neubauer, The Fifty -third Chapter of Isaiah, according to the Jewish
Oxford 1877.] Jonathan ben Uzziel composed the Targum on the Prophets according to the traditions f sp) of Haggai, then trembled the land of Israel in Zechariah, and Malachi its whole extent (properly 400 parasangs) and a Bath-kol was Interpreters, b.
Meg. 3a.
;
Who
men ? But Jonathan and It is I Thou knowest remained standing upright, said, for own it neither done I have that my glorification nor for my in Thine for order to prevent divisions but s honour, family further The Israel in 60). expression here is (compare mouth of the last from the The same remarkable, prophets." in in the about same Onkelos the also ^S? appears story heard
:
discovers
my
mysteries to
!
"
"
"
62). passage of the Talmud ( Palestinian parallel passage has
On "oa^
the
other
instead
of *D
hand, the "
under
PALESTINIAN TO UAH TAKGUM.
T1IK
G4.
179
Wellhausen-Bleek (Einleitung, p. GO 8) makes sight." from the mouth of the acute remark that in analogy with the last prophets," we might conjecture in the Onkelos their
"
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 liabbis Eliezer and
But
Joshua.
in
the
Jerusclialmi (^zh
the names of the
!)
liabbis at least are genuine, so that one at furthest
might assume an original Babylonian reading N. 1ST. 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, On Joseph ben Chija, com Gottesdienstliclie Vortrage, p. 63. :
Gcschichte
pare Jost,
des
Judcnthums,
ii.
184
f.
;
Bacher,
Aggada dcr babylonischen Amor Her, 1878, p. 101 f. Older editions are named by De Wette-Schrader, Einleitung, p.
Lagarde, Prophetce chaldaice, 1872, without vowels
127.
1157, and pp. 731-767); Nachespecially Handsel aus ciner Erfurter wift Symmicta, i. 139. trcige Variations from the Antwerp Polyglot and the BombergBuxtorf are given by Coruill, ZAW, 1887, p. 177 ff. Noldeke,
(compare
Lit.
1872,
Centralblatt,
p.
Klostermann, TSK, 1873,
:
;
JBzechiel,p\).
113-120.
From Babylonian manuscripts, Merx
Hab. iii. Judges v. Sam. xxii. xxiii. 7; Isa. Iii. 13, liii. 12; Jonah; Micah On the and, from the Codex llcucldin, Hab. iii. (vocalised).
(Chrcstomathia targumica) has edited
:
;
;
2
;
readings of Elias Levita, compare
The Palestinian Targums carry us
64. (
only
different forms of
xliii.
230.
into another sphere
Of the Palestinian translation of the Law we have
61).
two
ZDMG,
fragments.
have been other the
for
:
one complete, another which consists
The
correct
the complete
Targum Fragments,
names
these
for
would
one Jeruschalmi, and for the or Jeruschalmi
i.
and
ii.
;
but
here also through misunderstandings other designations became current.
Targum
While by Jeruschalmi Fragments, the other
is is
frequently understood the called
Targum Jonathan
ISO
THE PALESTINIAN TORAII TARGTJM.
G4.
(Pseudo-Jonathan), which originated, however, only through a false interpretation of the abbreviation
"n
(i.e.
D^BYP Dinn).
Of the complete Targum, which was first printed in Venice in On 1591, no manuscripts have up to this time been found.
Taimun which had even Fragments, O O
the other hand, of the J
earlier
(in
1518) been published
in the
Bomberg
Bible,
two
manuscripts are extant.
The
between the complete Jeruschalmi and the Torah Babylonian Targum has been referred to above ( 62). It is impossible to determine whether the former should be relation
regarded as older or as younger than the Babylonian, because although it bears a more original, still uncontracted character, yet,
on the other
later
to
indeed,
If,
period.
alludes
the
wives
present form of the
century
;
days of the
the
its
Gen. xxi. 21
translation of
Mohammed,
of
Targum cannot be
this
much
shows that the
older than the seventh
on the other hand, in Dent, xxxiii. 11 are found The enemies of the high priest Johanan shall not
"
which could only have been so formulated in the The origin of the work known as
John Hyrcanus.
is
Targum Fragments
and even up plained.
to
this
much more open
While some
and supplements
much
in
any
to
to controversy,
day has by no means been clearly ex see
in
it
independent Targum, others regard This
present form at a
but,
the words, survive,"
secured
side, it
fragments of an originally it
as a collection of glosses
some Aramaic translation
case
is
certain, that
it is
the Law.
of
not closely related
Babylonian but to the Palestinian Targum, and there Both are of a free fore is to be taken into account here.
to the
Midrashic character, and so are fundamentally distinguished from the Targum Babli.
in their treatment of the text
De duabus Hierosolymitanis Pentatcuclii paraGronemann, Die jonathansche Pentateuch1859; phrasibus, in ikrem Verhaltnisse zur Halaclia, 1875; Seligsohn, ubersetzung and Traub in MGWJ, 1857, pp. 96 ff., 138 ff. Schiirer, Seligsohn,
;
Geschichte vol.
dcs jild.
135, and the
i.
181
PALESTINIAN PROPHET TARGUMS.
G5.
Volkcs,
ii.
118
f.,
literature referred to
Eng. trans. Div. under 02.
ii.
Elias Levita himself only knew one Targum Jeruschalmi, but reports that others quoted a Pentateuch Targum of Jonathan (ZDMG, xliii. 220). Paul of Burgos (A.D. 1429), Petrus Galatinus, and Azaria de Eossi (who died A.D. 1578)
were acquainted with this however, was rarissima.
whose
"
Jonathan,"
translation,
See Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii. 165 f. Unfortunately the manuscript used for the Venice edition of 1591 has since disappeared. The one manu script of the
Targum Fragments
Zunz, Gottesdienstliche
pare
Mittheilungen,
On
it
165
p.
based the
is
;
is
in
Vortriigc,
Berliner,
Bomberg
7077
Tare/urn
edition,
Com
Vatican 440. pp.
Lagarde,
;
123.
ii.
Onkelos,
1518.
Another, the
Nuremberg manuscript, is described by Lagarde, NG-GW, 1888, pp. 1-3. Both Targums are to be found in the London Polyglot in the fourth volume. 65. Of the
or the
Targum
Targums
of the Palestinians
on
the Prophets there remain only fragments, partly as quotations
the works
in
of
the
Eabbis of the Middle Ages, partly as
marginal glosses in manuscripts, so especially in the
28 and 63.
Eeuchlin referred to in
They have
Codex
of
a similar
Targums on the Law. Sometimes contain ideas that they might be traced very far back, e.g. when a fragment on 2 Sam. xvii. 1 8 renders DDmy by Bill character to the Palestinian
"
of Dismissal or Divorcement."
Joseph in Zunz,
Compare the
notices
by E.
Sail. 5 6 a.
b.
Gottcsdicnstliclic
Vorlmgc,pp. 77-79
;
Bacher,
ZDMG,
The Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriftcn, iv. 109. glosses of the Codex Rcuchlin are given by Lagarde, Prophetce xxviii.
1
ff.
;
chaldaicc, vi. -xlii. passim; compare some improvements thereon suggested by Baer, Liber Jeremicc, p. 6. sheet of a Palestinian Targum on Isaiah was laid by Ginsburg before
A
the
members
of the
Vienna Congress
of Orientalists,
1886.
182
PALESTINIAN TARGUMS ON IIAGIOGRAPHA.
GG.
The Targums on the Hagiographa
GO.
They have
Palestinians.
also
are peculiar to the
been found among the South
Arabian Manuscripts in the British Museum, although these
make
With the exception Babylonian pointing. of the two Old Testament writings in which Aramaic sections use of the
are found,
"
"
Daniel and Ezra, there are Targums on all the Book of Esther, which was a
other Ketubim, and on the
Official significance they special favourite, there are three. never had, but are to be considered individual works of the
same kind It
as the oldest
only need
further
Targums
be said
referred to above in
that
they
are
GO.
distinguished
from one another by important differences, and follow wholly Whereas some, like the Targums on The divergent principles. 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
Targum on
the
Psalms, which, however,
The becomes sometimes rather Haggadic, e.g. on Ps, xci. of a a to be free on Proverbs the seems rendering Targum Syriac translation of that book. of these
The date
works can only be indicated
of the composition
in a vague, general way.
As the Targum on the Psalms presently stands the ninth century, since in
its
it is
later than
rendering of Ps. Ixxxiii. 7
it
The Targum on Job is much later mentions the Hungarians. On the other hand, the 60. than the writing referred to in material in these
Targums
is
naturally
much
older,
which
be quite precisely authenticated, e.g. when on Esther contains a statement which Masseket
sometimes can
Targum
ii.
Soph? rim, 13. 6, p. xxii., attributes to E. Joseph
The text by Lagarde
of these s
Targums has been made text of the
reprint of the
binical Bible of
1517-1518
(
24).
(
63).
easily accessible
first
Venetian Eab-
Instructive monographs
on the several Targums are begun, but might be carried out
much
further.
07.
Lagarde, Hayiographa chaldaicc, 1873. editions is specially to be mentioned the
Compare Merx
183
SAMARITAN TORAII TARGUM.
Among
the older
Antwerp
Polyglot.
in the Verhand lung en des
Orient. Congresses
In the Jud. Liter aturllatt, 1889, zur Berlin, 1882, p. 157. of contributions to the textual a series J. Riess has published the criticism of Megilloth according to a Breslau Codex.
Compare the same on Esther in MGWJ, 1881, p. 473 ft The dream of Mordecai has been edited by Merx in his .
Chrcstomatliia Targumica. About the Targums on Proverbs see
Archiv fur
iviss.
Erforsclmng
Nacligelassene Schriften,
iv.
112
d.
A. T.
f.
On
Noldeke in Merx,
246-249;
Geiger,
Job, Bacher in
MG- WJ,
ii.
ff. On the Psalms, Bacher, MGWJ, 1872, and Baethgen in JPT, 1882, pp. 447-455 ff. On Chronicles, Kohler and Rosenberg, Jud. Zeitschrift, 1870, Targum ii. on Esther, Riess in MGWJ, 1876, p. 72 ff. Munk, Targum ScJieni z. Bucli Esther, 1876; p. 161 ff.
1871,
p.
p.
408
P.
Cassel,
208
ff.,
Das Bucli Esther, i. 1878, p. 239 ff. Nechemiaund Ester, 1887, p. 366.
;
Bertheau-
Ryssel, Esra,
On
the
Jewish Targum on Chronicles, which has been
received into the Syriac Bible, compare
Aramaic Targum, which, might be expected, embraces only the Pentateuch, and
67. as
71.
The Samaritans
also possess an
attaches itself to the form of text peculiar to the Samaritans (
11, 29).
It is
somewhat more
literal
than the Jewish
Targums, but equally with them jealous in guarding against In regard to its origin and authority all anthropomorphisms.
The most serious difficulties met with we know nothing. 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 TO ^a^apeiTiKov, and which Field has collected, corre spond as a rule with this Targum, and are therefore, in some
title
sort of
way, related
to
it.
Where
the fathers got these frag-
184
SAMARITAN T011AH TAKGUM.
07.
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 Targurn into Greek.
The Samaritan Targum,
as
we
find it in the Polyglots,
shows
a relationship in another direction, namely, with a Samaritan-Arabic translation, which had been composed in f But this cor the eleventh or twelfth century by Abu-Sa id.
also
rests, as
respondence
Jvohn and Vollers have shown, on the
of the Samaritan text according to an Arabic
later revision
The manuscripts not infected in this way are divided by Vollers into an Aramaising and a He braising group.
translation.
Briill, Das samaritanische Targum z. Pentateuch, Varianten zu Genesis des samaritanisclien 1875 Targum, 1876; Petermann, Pentateuchus Samaritanus ~BQY\ii}, i.-ii. 1872, 1882, iii.-iv. (by Vollers), 1883, 1885; Heidenheim, Bibliotlicca Samaritana, i. 1884 (Genesis), with which
Editions
:
1873
;
)
should be compared the severe criticism in ZDMG, xxxix. 165ff. Gen. i.-iv., Exod. xx. 7-17 in Petermann s Brevis
The Oxford Frag Grammatica, 1873. ments (Lev. xxv., xx vi. Num. xxxvi. 9) are edited by Nutt, 1874. Moore, "On a Fragment of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the Library of Andover Theological Seminary." Proceed the American Oriental A list xxxv. 1882, ings of Society,
lingucc Samaritance
;
of manuscripts is given ii.
:
LiteraturUatt filr Orient. Philologie,
92.
Winer, De vcrsionis Pentateuchi Samaritans
indole,
1817
;
Kohn, Samaritanische Studien, 1868 Zur Sprache, Lit. und Dogmatik der Samaritaner, 1876; Noldeke, GGA, 1865, St. 53; Jud. Zeitschrift, 1868, p. 213; ZDMG, xxx. ;
343 in
ff.
;
Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriftcn,
Herzog
On Gratz,
s
Real- Encyclopaedic
the Samareitikon
MGWJ,
literature: trans. Div.
1886,
:
p.
2 ,
xiii.
iv.
Field, Hexapla,
60
ff.
121
On
vol.
iii.
211, 225.
;
Kautzsch
i.
p. Ixxxiii.
329
f.
;
the Samaritan-Greek
Schurer, Geschichte des jud. Volkes, ii.
ff.
350.
ii.
750, Eng.
Of Abu Sa
Kuenen has published
translation
id s
Arab. Pent.
185
OF THE PESIIITO.
01IIGIN
G8.
:
Liber
Abu
Said conscriptam, Leyden 1851 Exodus and Leviticus, 1854. Compare Kolin, Zur Sprache, Lit. und Doyin. d. Samaritancr, pp. 134-140. Kautzsch in Herzog s Real-Encyclopcedie 2 xiii. 350. Gcncseos
sec.
ab
vers.
;
,
The Syriac Translation of
5.
68. The referred to,
name by which
^
}/\f\
the Bible.
the Syriac translation
P sitd f
(pronounced
without
is
t
usually
with the
;
English article the P^l-tta) is to be met with first in manu The usual explana scripts of the ninth and tenth centuries. "
tion,
the
simple,
Much more
or
literal,"
probable
is
"
usual,"
is
scarcely correct.
the explanation suggested by Field
and Noldeke, dirXa, by way of contrast to the Syro-Hexaplar translation, which had obtained a wide circulation among the The designation was then applied at first Syrians ( 48). only to the Old Testament part of the translation. The very fact that the translation attached itself to the
Hebrew labour, it
text
which
shows that is
it
owed
its
existence
further confirmed by the
to
for the traditional Scripture exposition of the Jews.
this,
however,
it
does not follow that
Jewish contrivance.
It is indeed
it
Jewish
sympathy shown was the
in
From
result of
quite possible that
it
had
a Christian undertaking, for the Jewish character be might explained, either from the fact that the Jews had taken part in the work (as in the translation of Jerome, 56),
its origin in
or, still
more probably, by the fact that the translators were The possibility must, indeed, generally
Jewish Christians.
speaking, be conceded of the Jews residing in the "border lands between the Eoman and the Parthian empires having come to feel a necessity for a translation of the Old Testa
ment
into their
own
by the Greek Jews.
language, like that which had been
And
certainly
it is
felt
a fact that isolated
186
ORIGIN OF THE PESHITO.
08.
portions of the Peshito are purely Jewish productions as the translation of Proverbs,
received
such
which elsewhere had not been
the Palestinian Targums
among
;
and that of
66),
(
But, Chronicles, which had been originally a Jewish Targum. on the other side, no Jewish writing speaks of such a Bible
Syrian Jews, whereas they make frequent of Aquila, as well as of the Targums.
translation of the
mention
The
of the
Pesliito
LXX. and
has,
on the contrary, always been recognised by
the Syrian Christians of the earlier times as their Bible trans
Therefore probability is strongly in favour of the idea that it owed its origin to Christian effort, while, to some lation.
made was made by
extent, fragments of older Jewish translations have been
use of in
it,
and
for the
of the translation
tian passages
the translation
rest,
For a direct proof of the Christian origin
Jewish Christians.
we might
which
it
point to the various purely Chris if
contains,
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.
Prague 1859
Perles, Meletemata Peschitthoniana,
Compare
Geiger, Nachydassene tamentliche Literatur,
iv.
Scliriften,
262;
p.
96
in
Nestle,
Herzog
Encyclopedic*, xv. 192 ff. On the relationship with the Jewish tradition
mid
Onkelos
126
f.
Pcscliittlw.
Die
Sebok,
;
1865;
Berliner,
Cornill, EzeclM, p. Prophelen, 1887, p. 7 Syriac Textus Receptus, see Studio, Biblica, ;
p.
154
Real-
Onkelos,
12
dcr
first
s
Schonfelder,
Targum
Uebersetzung
syrisclie
:
;
Alttes-
jSTb ldeke,
;
f.
ii.
Ideinen
[On the 1885,
series,
An Account of a Syriac MS. of the 5th by G. H. Gwilliam.] Examples of a decidedly Christian colouring Jer. xxxi. 151
ff.,
in article
"
Century,"
:
3 1 (according to 3);
Hosea
On
26
viii.
8
;
as the contrary, Jer. xi.
Ps. xix. 5, ex. 3.
14;
xiii.
the form
Gframmatik,
Hebrews |Afc
B.
-
^ On
see its
Noldeke, Kurzgefasste
meaning
:
syrisclie
Field, Hexapla,
i.
G9.
COMPOSITION AND HISTORY OF TESHITO,
187
In support of the Noldeke, ZDMG, xxxii. 589. xv. 192, 199, in s Nestle view, Real-Ency. opposite Herzog but even this is not = simple." who translates usual p.
ix.
;
"
"
"
;
69. If
we
consider the Syriac translation as a whole to be
we
have to assume the founding of the Christian Church in that region about A.D. 150 as the a Christian work, then
terminus a quo of
we have
shall
its origin.
for its existence
The
first
certain witnesss that
given by Aphraates about two but without any doubt, seeing that
is
hundred years later ( 15) Greek had not spread in that eastern region, a translation of the ;
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 existence of the Peshito, if the o %vpos once cited by early
Holy
Melito
(
7) were identical with
stood by this
2vpo<$,
very uncertain.
made
If,
But what
it.
often quoted by the
Church
is to
be under
fathers, is still
by the arguments of Field has been
as
6 2vpos was a translation of the Old Testament into Greek circulated in Syria, we shall have to
at
least
look
first of
probable,
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. xxii. 13, Kpe^dfjievo^ ev crafteK) 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
from some worthless
which
traditions,
of the translation, apart
we know only
this
one thing,
by Ephra?m 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 is
also confirmed
188
RELATION OF PESHITO TO SErTUAGINT.
70.
of the translation
Book
the
the
of
question
;
while, on the other side, the absence of
of Chronicles indicates a peculiar attitude on the
canon
At
15).
(
a later period a large
portion of the Syrians, with little reason,
independent
translation
estimated LXX., which
abandoned their old
through admiration
for
the
over
was several times translated
into
movement was Syriac ( 48). Theodore of Mopsuestia, who repeatedly reproaches those who esteemed more highly an unknown translator (eva TIVCL The
chief
leader
in
this
Yet even
than the seventy-two inspired interpreters.
afyavrj)
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 Xestorians, until times, through the labours of missionaries,
into a
new
it
in
modern
has been wakened
life.
the origin of the Syrian Church proper, compare Nb ldeke, GGA, 1880, p. 873 Zahn, Gcscldclitc d. Neutestamentl.
On
;
Kanons,
On
6
i.
369.
2vpo$, see Field, Hexapla, i. p. Ixxvii. sqq. He calls to the note of Diodorus on Gen. xxxix. r)v
attention
<yap
Kara rov 2,vpov fcarevoSov/jLevos where evidently eTnrvy^dpfDv would suit as well as /carevoSov/jLevos to represent the Syriac were it only by means of a wK*A^Lo, Greek translation possible to mark this distinction. dvrjp e7riTvy%dva)v
On
?}
;
the legends about the origin of the Peshito, compare,
Wiseman, Horce syriaccc, 1828, p. 103. The statements of Theodore referred to will be found Mai, Nov. Pair. UUiotlicca, vii. 241, 252 f., 263. e.g.,
in
i.
70. text, it
Although the Peshito attaches itself to the original still shows here and there, especially in some books, a
sort of similarity to
direction
must
the LXX., so that a dependence in this
necessarily
be
assumed.
But how
far
the
agreement by the supposition that the translators during their work may have used the LXX., or is
that
it
capable of explanation
had been occasioned only by
later revisions according to
70.
189
HELATION OF PESIIITO TO SEPTUAGINT.
the Alexandrine translation, has not been as yet determined,
probably always remain doubtful.
and
will
the
LXX.
The
similarity with
in all essential respects equally strong in
is
all,
even
the oldest, manuscripts, and in the quotations of Aphraates, so that such a recasting
must
There
in
any case have taken place
at a
not the least probability in favour very of a of the hypothesis thoroughgoing revision after the time early date.
is
of Aphraates.
On
the quotations of Aphraates, compare
15.
On
those
Spohn, De ratione text us biblici in Ephrcemi Syri commcntarii obvii, 1786. Further, as to how the text-words from Jacob of Edessa must be distinguished from the quota of
Ephrsem
tions
of
[Studia
same
:
compare Noldeke, ZDMG, xxxii. 589. 1885, p. 168 f., and note by F. H. Wood in
Ephrajm,
fiiblica,
173.] idea of a revision of the older translation, Against a revision made on the basis of the original of such especially text, in the days after Aphraates and Ephroem, Noldeke article, p.
the
remarks (ZDMG-, xxxii. 589): "First of all, the text- words in Ephrsem 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 Further a revision of the Syrian Bible against the later text. on the basis of the Hebrew after the time of Ephrsem is quite inconceivable. Knowledge of the Hebrew was for ever lost
among
the Syrians with the complete sundering of the Church
Even Jacob of Edessa, and men of ardour like Jerome, had only learned a few scraps And how is it to be explained that the Syrians, of Hebrew.
of Edessa from Judaism. scientific
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
?
liahlfs
(ZAW,
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 Barhebneus.
190
CHARACTER OF THE PESHITO.
71.
On
the Syriac Bible s dependence upon the LXX., com Rahlfs in ZA W, ix. 161 ff., where the assertion of pare Gottheil that the Bible manuscript used by Barhebraeus had
been modified in accordance with the Syrian Hexapla (48) refuted. Sebok, Die Syrisclie Ucbcrsetzung der 12 kleinen and Cornill, Ezccliiel, p. 153 f. It is worthy PropJietcn, p. 7 of mention that the translation of the Book of Chronicles ( 71) is not interpolated on the basis of the LXX. (JPT, is
;
v.
758).
Some Psalm
in the Old Syrian manuscripts and (Codex Ambrosianus, Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manu British in Museum, i. 1870, Nos. 169, 179) are scripts remarkable, according to which the Psalms are said to have from Palestinian into Hebrew, and from been translated The light which into thence Greek, and finally into Syriac." to the seems cast this passage upon origin of the LXX. is,
translations
"
Baethgen s researches, a false light In particular, Bsethgen has proved (JPT, 1882, p. 422 f.). 49 can have that the Palestinian translation referred to in
however,
according
to
formed no link midway between the LXX. and the Peshito. noticeable is the freedom with which the original superscriptions of the Psalms are left out from the Syrian
Very
which, however, according to the statements of the Syrians, was first done through the influence of Theodore The superscriptions which we find in the of Mopsuestia.
translation,
manuscripts and editions are characterised by many variations, and are taken from the commentaries of the Church fathers,
from those 1885, p. 66 ff. Mas. i. 116 ff.
of
especially
ZAW, Brit.
71.
;
Theodore.
Compare
Boethgen,
Wright, Catalogue of Syr. MSS. in
Considered as a translation, the Peshito, as a whole, mean rank. If it does not reach the elevation of
takes no
the
LXX.
in
its
best parts,
it
never sinks so low as the
Alexandrine translation, which one,
e.g.,
may be convincingly proved if Isaiah with the Greek. the Almost compares Syriac
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 is
Hebrew and
the Aramaic dialect, which
surely excusable considering the relationship of the two
Worse, and more dangerous for inexperienced with which suffixes and
languages.
of the text, is the freedom
critics
forms are
verbal this,
there
sometimes interchanged.
another
is
circumstance,
In addition to
already
adverted
whereby the importance of the Peshito for textual criticism
to, is
its
dependence upon the
LXX. Where Syrian and Greek agree text, we can seldom be sure whether
against the Massoretic
very seriously depreciated, namely,
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
While the Peshito
actually so read.
distinguished from the
Targums by
otherwise thoroughly
is
and
literalness
its
close
attachment to the original, an exception in this respect is found in the translation of the Book of Chronicles. In this
which
writing, (
not
did
originally
belong
mere Jewish Targum, with
15), a
such a work,
is
made use
of.
carefully, conjectures that
it
all
Friinkel,
to
the
Peshito
the peculiarities of
who
has examined
had been composed by Jews
it
of
Edessa in the third century. Prager, critical,
On
De
vcteris
1871. the Pentateuch
Testamenti vcrsionc
:
Hirzel,
syriaca
De PentateucUi
vacant indok commcntatio, 1825. (Jesenius, Commentar ilberd en Jcsaja,\. SI if.
quam
Pcscliito
Cornill,
Ezcclncl,
pp.
136-156.
On
the
quccstioncs
vcrsionis Syr.
On Isaiah: On Ezekiel :
Minor Prophets:
Credner, De proplidarum minor, vcrsionis Syr. quam Pcscliito vocant indole diss. i. 1827; Sebcik, Die syrische Ucbcrsctzuny
und
ilir Vcrhiiltniss zu dcm massord. on Micah Specially Eyssel, UntersucJiungen iiber die Textgestalt dcs Buclies Miclm, p. 169 if. On the Psalms Ikctligen, Untersuclmngen ubcr die Psalmcn nacli der
der 12 lidnc.n Prophdcn Texte,
1887.
:
:
192
CRITICISM OF THE PESIIITO TEXT.
72.
(Schriften, der Kieler Universitiit, xxv.)
PescJiito
1882,
p.
422
On Job:
if.
De Syriaca
Stenij,
and JPT, libri
Joli
On Ecclesiastes and 1887. Ruth Janichs, Animadversiones criticcc in versionem Syr. librorum Koheldh d Ruth, 1871. Pescliittlionianaiii On interpretatione,
Helsingfors
i.,
:
Chronicles: Friinkel, JPT,
Nestle in Herzog
1879,
508
p.
s liGcd-Encijclopccdie-, xv.
ff.
192
Compare
also,
ff.
72. Although the critical establishment of the Peshito text is
indeed
still
in its
infancy,
it is
even already clear that no from any future criticism
important results are to be expected of the text.
The two
Nestorian and the
chief Recensions of the Peshito, the
West
Syrian, are represented respectively
by the Oroiniah Bible of the American missionaries of the year 1852, and by the text of the Parisian Polyglot edited The latter, after being collated with by Gabriel Sionita. other manuscripts, was reissued in the
repeated in Lee Society.
s
London
edition for the British
The West Syrian group must
Polyglot,
and
and Foreign Bible then,
according
to
Eahlfs, be further divided into three families, the Jacobite, the
Melchitian, and the Maronite.
West Syrian manuscripts
is
One
of the
most notable of the
the Codex Amlrosianus of the
sixth or seventh century, which has been published in photo-lithography.
the East Syrian group
comparing the
By we
by Ceriani
West Syrian with
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.TX 485, which has then to be compared, partly with the quotations of Aphraates and EpliKem, partly with a manuscript in the British Museum of the year 464, therefore of the period before the division.
A text
further aid in study
which bears
the
is
the Monophysite Massora on 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.
193
CRITICISM OF THE PESHITO TEXT.
72.
The Apocrypha,
received
first
Syriac Bible, has been edited
at a later
period into
the
by Lagarde.
and Foreign Bible with the Oromiah Bible, the Society by Lee, 1823, is, along The immediate use. useful for most Psalms, vocalised, help
The imvocalised
were
edited
by
Bickell,
6
Nestle,
p.
ff.
;
London
Lee,
editions: p.
edition of the British
Conspectus Brevis linguce
13 ff. For criticism, of the
ZAW
Eahlfs in
1825.
Compare on other Syrorum liter ar ice, 1871, Syriacw r/ranimatica, 1881,
rei
text,
compare especially the
treatise of
1889, pp. 161-210.
t
On
the oldest manuscripts, see Ceriani, Mcmoire Letter at u ret, ser. Institute Lonibardo di Science e
del iii.
P. vol.
Wright, Catalogue of Syr. MSS. in Brit. Mus. i. 3 f. the Codex Ussher, a copy, as it seems, of an old Maronite manuscript made in the years 1626-1628, now in Oxford, 2
xi.
;
On
see Eahlfs in
syra Pescitto
ZAW, Vet.
140
(Ezechiel, p.
1889,
p.
195
Testamenti, Milan
ff.)
would deny
all
ff.
Ceriani, Translatio
1876-1883.
Cornill
value to this manuscript,
which judgment, however, Eahlfs (p. 181 ff.) vigorously Account of a Syriac Biblical MS. of contests. [Gwilliam, "
Fifth
the pp.
On p.
Century,"
in
Studio,
Biblica,
first
series
1885,
151-174.] the
119
ff
.
;
Syrian Massora, see Wiseman, Horcc Syriacw, Martin, Tradition KarJcapliienne, Paris 1870;
Hoffmann, ZAW, 1881, p. 159 f., ZDMG-, xxxii. 745 Weingarten, Die syrisclie Massora nacli Bar Hebrceus. Dcr Pentateuch, 1887. [Scrivener, Plain Introduction, p. 333 f G.
;
.
W. Wright
Prof.
1887,
vol. xxii.
of
Cambridge
in Encyclopaedia
;
Brittanica,
826.]
On the derivative versions (in the Arabic language), com In the Polyglots pare De Wette-Schrader, Einleituwj, 133. are: Judges, Euth, Samuel, 1 Kings i.-xi., 2 Kings xii. 17xxv.,
Neh.
ix.
28-xiii., Job, Chronicles.
Lagarde, Veteris testamenti apocryplii syriace,
N
1861.
104
73.
AIDS FROM WITHIN THE TEXT ITSELF.
AIDS FROM WITHIN THE TEXT
0.
73. Since none of the aids mentioned
ITSELF.
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
means may be found
investigate whether
which may serve
itself
in the text
for the regulating of the text.
Indeed,
as soon as textual criticism began to strike out a path for itself,
was immediately made very evident that the Old Testament
it
writings do in fact at several points supply such aids as would,
they were used with prudence and circumspection, un As an example of the sort of doubtedly lead to sure results. if
aid thus given,
we may mention
the parallel sections in the
Old Testament, which contain the same out of account, would have
Ps.
xviii.
Kings
xviii. = 2
Sam.
30
xx.
xxii.
;
19;
Ezra
ii.
Jer.
E.g., Isa.
2
lii.
= Neh.
vii.
;
what
xxxvi.-xxxix. xxv.
Kings also the
;
Book
Chronicles in comparison with the older Historical Books,
of
and the reminiscences of etc.
to
and where the
a significance similar to
various manuscripts elsewhere have. 2
text,
the intentionally changed expressions were left
repetition, if
earlier prophets
textual critic the
xlvi.
Hebrew poetry not seldom
Further, the forms of the
in Jer.
means
order are the generally prevailing
of discriminating
parallelism of the
:
ff.,
afford
of this 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
thought and language, the handling of which, indeed, opens the door to all manner of arbitrariness, but which, nevertheless, above all in writings like universally
applicable
laws
of
those of the Old Testament, must be regarded as indispensable.
Compare Cappellus, Eirileitung*,
i.
139.
Critica
sacra Lib.
i.
cap. 3
;
Eichhorn,
II.
RESULTS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. A.
THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 1
74.
We
Writing Materials.
.
know very
about the material and form
little
of
The word IB? signifies the Old Testament autographs. originally The Glazed or Smoothed, and indicates nothing about the material that it may also mean a book roll is ;
shown by
xxxiv.
Isa.
By
4.
we
ppn
are
reminded of the
when
writings were engraved or scratched in on a solid in its secondary meaning it is used of any but substance,
times
kind of marking (Isa. synonymous term tnn uncertain.
xlix. ;
That in even
at least, tablets of
16).
The same
is
later times,
viii.
1,
xxx. 8; Hab.
ii.
is
shown by
2.
Perhaps
during the Assyro-Babylonian age brick tablets were even in Palestine, as Ezekiel refers to them (Ezek. iv. If it
was desired
to
make
is
on particular occasions
a solid substance were used
these passages: Isa.
true of the
while the root meaning of ana
known 1,
n
^?.?).
the engraving of any writing in a
very special degree durable, then the stylus or graver (toy, Isa. viii. 1), with a diamond point (Jer. xvii. 1), was used. But ordinarily lighter materials, such as
Jer. xvii. 1, or
B"jn,
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
&i<]>0pai
as writing
material, 105
and as the Persians
also
19G
WHITING MATERIALS.
74.
employed material of this sort (compare Ezra the Jews likewise in all probability used the same.
constantly 1
vi.
f.),
is confirmed by Numb. v. 23, according to which passage what had been written could be washed out with water. But, on the other hand, the report in Jer.
This supposition
xxxvi. 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, in
some places
On
was even then known, seeing that
"W)
in
Palestine
inkstand, Ezek. (Jer. xxxvi.
xlv. 2).
grew Lake.
of a dark fluid
compare npij, a vessel, a scribe
ix. 2),
s vessel,
an
which was applied by a sharp-pointed
writer
23)
Merom
the
was made by means
this material writing
(to, Jer. xxxvi. 18,
itself, as, e.g. at
it
The usual form
s
reed or pen of the
Jer.
(toy,
book was a
roll,
viii.
8
;
Ps.
n?jp (compare
14; Ezek. ii. 9 f. Zech. v. 1; Ps. xl. 8; and Jer. xxxii. 14, where a sealed document is preserved in an The rrin^n mentioned in Jer. xxxvi. 23 earthen vessel). xxxvi.
Jer.
;
signify the several
In
later
(Antiquities,
columns
times xii.
2,
the
of the roll.
Epistle
of
10) mention the
names several kinds
of
more
Aristeas Si<f>0epai,,
and Josephus and the Talmud
or less prepared skins of animals.
For the copies of the Law only skins of clean beasts were The roll form was the usual one used (jer. Meg. i. fol. 7 Id). (compare Luke iv. 17, 20), and is even yet the obligatory form for manuscripts which are to be used for reading in the But by and by another form, that of the Codex, synagogues.
When
book form, now the ordinary one, which some have wrongly supposed to have been found as early as in the Epistle of Aristeas, became
came more and more
usual
among
the Jews
into use.
this
we do not know.
With
regard to the
idea of the canonicity of Scripture this change was of import ance, all
inasmuch as the Codex form made
it
possible to have
the sacred writings written out in one volume, and thereby
74.
give outward expression to
to
197
WHITING MATERIALS. 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
13& referred
fol.
bathra,
to
10, where the
above at
permissibility of the collection of several or all of the sacred
manuscript is discussed, and various authorities from the second and from the end of the first writings
one
into
we have
century are cited,
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 6 The form and Sepher Thora and Masseket Soph rim ( 32). material of Bible manuscripts of later times are to be seen in
the oldest preserved Codices rolls
themselves.
are
They
either
or private
manu
oldest manuscript, the
Baby
or leather,
of
synagogue parchment most frequently in the Codex form, of parchment,
scripts,
leather, or cotton
paper.
The
lonian Codex of the Prophets
28), is written on parchment,
(
Codex form, with two columns on each page.
in
Wahner, Antiquitates Ebrceorum, sect. i. cap. 45 L. Low, Graphische Ilcquisiten und Erzcugnissc lei den Jadoi, Leipsic 1870, 1871; Schlottmann in Kiehm s Handworterbuch, pp. 1416-1431 Strack, ZLT, 1875, pp. 598-601 Herzog s 2 Real Encyclopaedic xiii. 689 ff. to With reference similar ;
;
;
,
customs among the Christians, see especially Zahn, Geschichte Kanons d. N. T. i. 61 ff. The Academy, xxxi. 1887, 4155. p. des
;
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 Phoenicians. This is also shown by the very name )3t/3Ao?, which is connected with the city of Byblus (Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Academic, philol.-hist. Class. 1888, cxvi. p.
636). the
for
Only
name
at a later date irdirvpos.
On
was the name the
/3//3Xo?
signification
of
exchanged
198
75.
THE OLD AND NEW ALPHABETS.
compare Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii. 260 f. Compare generally with regard to papyrus and paper Oesterr. Monatsblatt fur d. On the etymology Orient. 1885, p. 162 ff., 1886, p. 159 ff. of i$6epa compare Lagarde, Ges. Abhandl. p. 216, where also Bock, Perga^ is considered as belonging to the same root. :
1
i"
ment, eine
culturgcsch.
Studie
;
Oesterr.
Buchlidndler
-
Corre-
1886, Nos. 3-6 (not accessible to me). On the Codex form, compare Birt, Das antike Buchwcsen, Birt is wrong in supposing that pp. 62, 93, 100, 107, 113.
spondenz, xxvi.
word reu^o?,
in the Epistle of Aristeas (Merx, Arcliiv. i. finds a ne proof of the employment of the Codex form; p. 67), is used in that passage of a roll is shown by for that in the
rei)%o<?
an
in the
earlier passage
Gescliiclite des
Kanons
d.
N.
Epistle (p. T. p. 66.
Compare Zahn,
44).
According
to the last-
passage, the roll of the Law referred to was made of the skins of animals prepared and joined together in a Birt is also wrong when he seeks the miraculous way.
named
reason for the spread of the Codex form in the fact that skins were cheaper than papyrus. Compare Marquardt,
Privatalterthumer
1883,
p.
459
Gescliiclite des
d.
Earner,
ii.
785
;
Theolog. Literatur-zeitung
Wiedemann, Agyptisclie Kanons d. N. T. p. 71 f. ;
Geschichte, p.
29
;
,
Zahn,
Descriptions of the older Old Testament manuscripts have 28. been given above in
2.
History of the Hebrew Letters.
Were it possible to compare the original manuscripts Old Testament with our present texts, the first difference that would attract our attention would be the different forms 75.
of the
of the letters.
we have
in
Instead of the square-shaped writing which
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
199
THE OLD AND NEW ALPHABETS.
75.
found in Nineveh, the coins of the Maccabees and All these Cochba, and the Samaritan manuscripts.
of
Bar
monu
ments are inscribed with a kind of written characters which belongs to the Phoenician 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 Hebrew writing," or sometimes rT! 3T\3 and nwtep
S "PV
3ns,
ana, 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. writing
is
writing,"
Talmud, is
by the later
called
Jews ysnp ana,
in respect of the regular
^W*
ar)3 ;
historically
form
Assyrian
square-shaped and in the
of the letters,
The
"
suitable
The new
"
writing."
latter designation
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. 1662; Cappellus, Diatribe de veris et antiquis Ebrworum 1645 literis, Dobrowsky, De antiquis Hebrworum characteribus, Prague 1783 Kopp, Bilder und Scliriften der Vorzeit, 1821, ii.; Hupfeld, TSK, 1830, p. 289 ff. De Vogue, Basel
;
;
;
Melanges
d archeologie
and
Linguistic Driver, Notes
orientale,
Oriental
Paris
Essays, Text
1868
London
on the Hebrew
;
E.
1880,
K
Gust,
xii.-xiii.;
of the Boohs of Samuel,
1890, i.-xxix. [Studio, Biblica ct Ecclesiastica, 3rd series, Oxford 1891, Article ii. by Neubauer, The Introduction of the Square Characters in Biblical MSS., and an Account of the "
Earliest
1-36.]
MSS.
of
the
Bible
(with
three
Facsimiles),
pp.
200
THE OLD AND NEW ALPHABETS.
75.
The Phoenician style of writing, from which the European alphabets and the South Arabic-Ethiopic writing are derived, was made use of by the Phoenicians and other Canaanites. The most important memorial of it is the Moabite Stone of
Mesha Die
of the ninth century before Christ (Smend and Socin, The Aramaic InscJirift des Konigs Mesa von Moab. 1886).
which the oldest representatives are some and weights found in Assyria and Babylon, and the old Aramaic Taimain style of writing (Bericlite der Berliner Academic, 1884, p. 815) are found widely spread among the Palmyrenes and ISTabateans, and, during the Persian age, also in Egypt. From this Aramaic writing are derived the Syriac, and Arabic alphabets, as well as the Pehlewi alphabet, Cufic, and also the Avesta writing (Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii. 38 ff.). On the Siloah inscription: ZDMG, xxxvL p. 725 ff. ZDPV, style of writing, of
seals
;
54
iii.
102
iv.
f.,
ff.,
250
ff.,
260
v.
ff.,
250
ff.
Statement of Palestine Exploration Fund, 1881,
Acaddmie
des inscr. et dcs belles lettres,
1882,
p.
Quarterly
;
141
p.
199
ff.
ff;
On
iixing the dates, see also Quarterly Statement of Palestine On the seals and weights Exploration Fund, 1889, p. 35 ff. with Hebrew writing: Levy, Siegel und Gemmen, 1869;
Ganneau
On
the
Schiirer, i.
:
De
Geschiclite
i.
Saulcy, Recherches sur
123 la
ff,
ii.
304
dcs jiid. Volkes,
i.
ff .
numismatique
of Jcwisli Coinage,
1854; Madden, History
Judaique, vol.
Journal asiatique, 1883,
in
coins
1864;
19, Eng. trans. Div.
i.
23.
On the Jewish names for the two alphabets, see Low, Berliner, Beitrdge zur liebr. Graphisclie Eequisiten, ii. 5 3 ff. Grammatik in Talmud und Midrascli, 187 9, p. 6 and especially W, 1881, p. 334 ff. Instead of yjn, the word by Hoffmann, ;
;
ZA
is is is
often read fjn, but the correctness of the former reading (i deession, which proved by the statement of Epiphanius
interpreted
insculptum"
The Somahirenus
(Opera
writing,
there
ed.
Dindorf, 1863.,
also
referred
to,
iv.
215).
is
inter
preted by Lagarde (Mittheilungen, ii. 257) to mean T n? ^-P(b. Sank. 21&) is connected by G. Hoffmann with
Libbonaa the city
where
runi?,
Judges
probably
19 (now El-Leberi), south of Nablus, was a Samaritan school. Halevy,
xxi.
there
INTRODUCTION OF SQUARE-SHAPED WRITING.
201
Melanges de Crit 1883, p. 435, conjectures in place of from Neapolis or Shechem. the form nfc&a O, i.e.
n^3,
70.
"
"
On Ezra 1.
1
p.
289
in later times,
22; Herodotus,
ff.;
ZAW,
When
292
ii.
xiii.
iv.
ff,
Talmud
the
192,
106,
i.
Josephus, Antiquities,
;
76.
new
name Assyria
the vi.
;
92;
6
v.
Strdbo,
;
xvi.
Hupfeld, TSK, 1830,
208. the
ascribes
style of writing to Ezra, this
is
Jewish inclination
of the
7
6.
compare Lam. iii.
introduction of the
in the first instance to
an
associate the
change with a celebrated name, but there certainly lies in the tradi tion this element of truth, that the change was brought about
example
not by the people, but by the scribes, of Ezra.
On
the
who walked
in the steps
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
was not
It
practical use.
still
have been to some extent in
until the time of
Christ that the
Aramaic writing became that of the people (Matt. v. 18). have, on the other hand, in the interesting inscription of the year 176 before Christ, which is found in the tower
We
built
by Hyrcanus
as
is,
in
it
which
it
at
Arak--el-Emir, east of the Jordan, brief
contains only the word ITQIQ,
both
are
styles
typical of the practice of that time. scripts
of
that day the
long been in
common
new
use.
a
mixed form,
which perhaps was But in the Bible manu
combined,
style
of
writing had
Unfortunately we
are
already
not able
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 to follow out the
written in the old style
Samaritans
(
11).
On
when
the
Law was
the other hand, the
question as to whether the
texts used
adopted by the
much
discussed
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
It is throughout the translation favours such a supposition. also in agreement with this that the name mrp read at first,
seems, in the Alexandrine translation unchanged was read 111111 by the Greeks and others, which was possible
as
it
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
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
alongside of
what might be expected.
style of writing is
On
the opinions of later Jews regarding the introduction the square-shaped writing, compare jer. Meg. i. 11, fol. 7 lie; I. Sank. 21&; Origen ii. 529 4 (Lagarde, Novce Psal-
of
terii
TOV
greed cditiones specimen 9) aurot? av6K(p(Jt)vr)Tov Trap
.
Trpoo-rjyopla, ov^l TOVTOV dTW, Trapa Se E\\7](Ti rfj
rot? a/cpi/SecTTepois
TO ovo/^a, (fiaal
auros
Se
.
.
yap TOV
8e
TerpaypdfjLfjLa-
^ev
Kvpios
eKcfrwveirai,
rfj
TerpaKal ev
eftpaloi
ov rot? vvv, aX\a rot? a
"Ecrbpav
Trapa
Se TU
Kal \eyerai
TOO yejpa/jifJLevov eV
r&v avnypd^wv
J3paLKol<;
xapa/crrjpas
ecm
:
rov<?
Jerome, JPpistola 25 ad Marcellam
Ty al^fJid\wo ia erepovs
ev
Trporepovs "
Trapa&eSwKevai.
Nonum
(nomen dei) est tetragrammaton, quod ineffabile putaverunt, quod his literis scribitur Jod, E, Vau, E. Quod quidam non intelligentes :
propter elementorum similitudinem, quam in Grsecis libris Prolog, galeatm : repererint, Pi Pi legere consueverunt."
duas esse litteras apud Hebrasos Syrorum Chaldasorum lingua testatur qua3 Hebrasse magna ex parte confinis est, nam et ipsi viginti duo elementa habent eodem sono sed diversis characteribus. Samaritani etiam
"Viginti
quoque
et
et
Pentateuchum Mosi totidem
literis scriptitant. figuris
tantum
et
apicibus
legisque
templi
203
INTRODUCTION OF SQUARE-SHAPED WRITING.
76.
discrepantes.
est
Certumque
Ezram
scribam
doctorem post capta Hierosolyrna et instaurationem sub Zorobabel alias literas reperisse quibus mine
cum ad illud usque tempus iidem Samaritanorum et Hebrseorum characteres fuerint. Et nomen Domini tetrautimur,
.
.
.
quibusdam grsecis voluminibus usque hodie antiquis expressum literis invenimus." The proper origin of the transcription is even yet a matter of in
grammaton
75, controversy. Epiphanius (in the passage referred to in see Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii. 256 f.) says Hesdra ascendeiis a Babylone,volensque discernere Israel a reliquis gentibus, "
:
ut genus Habrahsc non videretur esse permixtum cum habit[pxn Dy], qui tenent quiden legein, non tamen
atoribus terrse
immutavit pristinam formam relinquens deessenon, propter quod ea forma a Samaritanis pra3occupata jam fuerat." But it is less probable that the Samaritans should have tran et prophetas,
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 that Ezra should have improbable already introduced this
change, this makes it all the more likely that the change originated in the school of Scripture expositors imported from Neh. Babylon, of whom Ezra was the type (Ezra viii. 1 6 ;
viii. 7,
and that the members
9),
of
this school
were led to
take this step for polemical reasons. Much more hazardous is the conjecture made in ZAW, i. 377, Hoffmann G. by
based upon Isa. had in use among been writing after
Scheppig,
viii.
1,
priests
that the Aramaic and statesmen even
before the exile.
On the inscription of Hyrcanus, compare De Vogue, Temple de Jerusalem, 1864, pp. 38-42, pi. xxxiv. xxxv., and especi ally
Noldeke
unknown
s
Note,
ZDMG,
xix.
640, which seems
still
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
to the
s
Corpus inscriptionum Hebraicarum, 1882 (with a
of different styles of writing by Euting). large [See also table of early Semitic alphabets by Professor Briinnow, table
204
INTRODUCTION OF SQUARE-SHAPED WRITING.
7G.
as frontispiece to Stadia Biblica et Ecchsiastica, 3rd series, 1891.] Compare also Clermont-Ganneau, Jfipitaphes helrai-
d
qiies
ossuaires juifs, Paris 1883, and the inscription in the Bericlite der Berliner
stir
grecques
les
Palmyrene synagogue Academic, 1884, p. 933 ff. On the forgeries of Firkowitzsch, 27. compare what is said above in
On
importance of the Septuagint
the
for
liclics
Lclirlucli
xviii.
379
;
pretando
libri
1883,
70
p.
Vollers,
On
d.
De
;
hebr.
Spraclie,
indolc ac
ratione
i.
37
f
.
;
ZAW
1883,
t
I1IIII in the
p.
ff
.
229
question
Bickell,
;
Ixiii. ;
ZDMG,
in
versionis alex.
Merx, Hiob. Jobi, p. de Grit. p. 167 Vogue, Melanges 8
the
Bb ttcher, Ausfuhr-
treated in the above paragraph, compare
ff.
inter;
JPT,
and especially
ff.
LXX. and among
the fathers, compare
Origen quoted on p. 202 Novce Psalterii editiones specimen 9 Euagrius Lagarde, grceci in Lagarde, Onomasticon i. 205 f., and especially ZDMG, the
remarks
and
of
Jerome
;
;
xxxii.
466
name
of
Noteworthy is the remark of Origen that the 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 ff.
God
(Einhituny, p. 629) cate this statement
Hyrcanus
it ("
is
certainly wrong in seeking to vindi by a reference to the inscription of
is
therefore certain that the
LXX. had
Jahve, not in the characters 111111, for the yod has
found
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, niiT, although the latter must still have been the presupposi
mill, and that Jerome, who expressly speaks of the simply repeats what Origen had said, it is probable that the remark of Origen rests on a misunderstanding, which perhaps
tion of
mill,
arose from this, that the mrf 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.
205
TYPES OF SQUARE-SHAPED WPJTING.
77.
find
It is interesting also to
that this Pipi was adopted by fol. 42c. The
the Hebrew-speaking Jews, see jer. Nedarim,
MGWJ
1886, pp. 60-73, that the form conjecture of Griitz, was to be met with in a Septuagint manuscript inter t
mill
polated with Samaritan additions, is wrong, because conflicting with the words of Origen rot? dfcpi^earepo^ TWV avnypdBesides, TIITII is also met with outside the Pentateuch. :
(f>wv.
regular and
Jews the Aramaic alphabet assumes the and
the
Among
77.
distinct forms of the square-shaped character,
down
has continued in this form pretty nearly unchanged the
present
mention
is
The
day.
times looked like n
mrp also
for
variations,
made, are very (jer.
testifies to
(
i.
occasionally
that n in the earliest
trifling, as e.g.
Meg.
which
of
which, moreover, IIITII
9),
In the manuscripts a distinc
76).
somewhat rectangular Tarn writing nn nro the German and Polish Jews and the rounded Welsh "
tion between the
"
"
"
of
writing
^>"il
3rD of the Spanish and Oriental Jews (compare also manuscripts were written in other
Sometimes
27).
of writing,
styles
e.g.,
the so-called Eashi writing, a kind of
Of a quite singular description are the manu the Karaites, mentioned above in 28, from the
cursive hand. scripts
of
tenth to the fourteenth century written in Arabic
The
Talmud Jerome in
(e.g.
Meg.
jer.
i.
b.
11,
Sail.
fol.
7).
(
are often referred to in the
letters
final
104a; Sank. 94, 986; Meg.
71c; compare Soplfrim
From
ii.
p. v.),
21,
;
Zeph.
xi. iii.
e.g.
B. Nah.
11 LXX. 19,
Yet
we might conclude Hebrew texts used by
this
w&
LXX. -pwb
HB>Dn,
the
;
by
a portion of the numerous instances
Massoretic Text Zech.
3a
as also
which the LXX. divides the words otherwise than
in the
to
letters.
"
"
so-called
conclusion, although
:
Ps. xvi.
^ntf
is
done
LXX. 3, LXX. nn&o xxiii. 33, LXX.
12 D^C? DN
i.
;
Jer.
that these letters were foreign the Alexandrine translators.
probable,
certain, since the divergent division
is
not
may have
absolutely
originated in
206
TYPES OF SQUARE-SHAPED WHITING.
77.
The
older manuscripts prior to the time of transcription.
named examples show
last-
was Makkef The final letters, the existence
besides that
is
a sign that
only subsequently introduced. which is witnessed to by inscriptions prior to the birth of Christ, were formed only to suit the convenience of writers,
of
since their
number
(five) is quite arbitrary.
In the days of Jerome the diacritical point over t? was Both signs are not in use, nor was the point Daghesh. connected together with the more recently introduced system of points.
With
and
great fidelity the irregularities of form
were
letters
in
size
in
manuscripts, and
the
preserved To these belong the so-called subsequently in the editions. literoB majusculce (e.g. Deut. xviii. 13, xxxii. 6; Ps. Ixxx. 16,
particular
Ixxxiv. 4
;
Ruth
are referred to
Lev.
xi.
42;
iii.
Even
13).
Kidcl 666:
(b.
Meg.
166:
in the
Num.
Esther
Talmud some
xxv. 12;
ix.
9),
I.
and
of these
Kicld.
in
30a:
the
book
we
already meet with their technical name. Soplfrim ix. p. xv. Further, the so-called literce suspenses, which are mentioned as
Talmud (Kidd.
early as in the Babylonian
Sank.
1036:
Job
xxxviii.
1315),
to
30ft
which
:
14
Ps. Ixxx. also
may
;
be
An irregular final p is met added Judg. xviii. 30 ( 97). with in Exod. xxxii. 25; Num. vii. 2. The so-called j inverses and puncta extraordinaria have been already referred to in
35.
Compare
The ornamental which are
to
further,
little
99.
strokes ("
crowns
"
DnrD,
pin,
JW)
be met with in manuscripts over particular
mentioned even by 6. Mcnachoth 296, Sabb. 9a, In the Crimean Synagogue rolls they were in an
letters, are
105.
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, Btitrdge zur hcbr. Gramm. in Talmud, On the later types of writing, compare Hupfeld, p. 15 ff.
VOWEL
ORIGIN OF THE
78.
207
SIGNS.
TSK, 1830, p. 278 Levy, Gescldchtc dcr jiid. Miinzen, 1862, Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, 1845, p. 206 p. 145 ;
f.
;
Eichhorn, Einleitung,
iii. ii.
Graphische Requisite^
and above
377; 72 ff
Baer, Liber Jesaice,
Eating,
.
;
ZDMG,
vii.
;
313
xlii.
ff.
27-28.
On J.
;
Low,
the final letters see Hupfeld, TSK, 1830, p. 256 ff Miiller, Masseket Soph rim, 40 Wellhausen-Bleek, Ein.
;
;
637
leitung, p.
;
Berliner, Beitrage, p.
25
if.
and the table
of
written characters by Euting in Chwolson s Corpus inscript. heir, [or the Table by Professor Briinnow in Studio, Biblica,
3rd Series, 1891, Hab. iii. 4 Amos ;
frontispiece]. iv.
viii.
13,
12.
On & compare Jerome on On Daghesh, Jerome on
Gen. xxxvi. 24 (iamim=maria).
The
majusculce and minusculce are given by Frens-
literce
dorff, Ochla
W
e
ochla,
Nos.
Strack, Prolegomena, pp. p.
47
the
Sepher
242
;
Further,
Dikduke,
f.
On
ii.
82-84 (compare No. 161). 91-93 Baer and Strack,
ff.
"crowns,"
Paris
tagin,
Hupfeld, TSK, 1830, p. 276 f Barges, 1866 Journal asiatique, 1867, ix. .
ZLT, 1875,
;
;
;
p.
601; Low, Graphische
Requistien,
68. Vocalisation
3.
78.
The
composed vowels,
as
languages, indication.
and Accentuation.
signs mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs were originally in
the
were
exclusively other
left
The vowel
oldest
wholly signs
of
consonants,
branches
without
any
of
while
the
written
the
Semitic visible
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 in other manuscripts at least the rule was while gogues ( 74), observed, that the one who added the points, rji?3, was another
than the transcriber proper,
The
iftfD.
vowel points was National II., Gaon in
recollection of the later origin of the
Mar never altogether lost sight of. Sura 859-869, says expressly, that the pointing was not given
208
ORIGIN OF THE
78.
Law on
contemporaneously with the
And
later times.
Sarug
VOWEL
Chajjug
century,
century, finally
the
in
in
in the
the fourteenth
correct
historically
in
similar
Eaimund Martin
thirteenth century and Nicholas von Lyra
maintained
its origin
Menahem ben
themselves
express
Christian writers also, like
terms.
but had
Sinai,
in the following
and Judah
SIGNS.
view,
which
found an acute and able vindicator in the learned Jew
Elias Levita (compare
From
31).
men
these
the Eeformers
adopted the correct theory, which found in succeeding ages representatives
distinguished
Piscator, Scaliger, Drusius,
in
Sebast.
Mlinster,
etc.
Cappellus,
Fagius,
But, meanwhile,
had been spreading, first among the Jews (especially among the Karaites), and then subsequently among Christians, according to which the vowel points were equally another theory
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
against a view which
made
many
possible a distinction
do battle
to
between the
original sense of the text and the apprehension of
fixed
it
by most distinguished Christian repre sentatives of the theory of the originality of the vowel points the
pointing.
As
the
we may name, Matth.
Gomarus,
Flacius, Junius,
J.
Gerhard,
and especially the two Buxtorfs. Owing to the dogmatic had come to assume, a concus which the question significance An occasion was given by the sion became absolutely inevitable. publication of the treatise of Cappellus,
Arcanum
punctationis
revelation, which Erpenius, without mentioning the author s Not till 1648 did the reply name, published in 1624.
appear of the younger Buxtorf, Tractatus de punctorum accentuum in libris V. T. licbraicis crigine, antiquitate auctoritatc, in
the
which he sought
to vindicate against Cappellus
theory that had been maintained by
theory
found
Bircherodius,
an
also
who
in
ct
et
advocate
in
1687 published
his
father.
Denmark a
treatise
in
This J.
J.
Punctorum
78.
VOWEL
ORIGIN OF THE
Ebraicorum authenticce
et
The
liblicce vindicicv.
some
of Cappellus, however, in spite of
209
SIGNS.
flaws,
arguments
proved so con
clusive, Equally unavailing opposition was vain. was the acknowledgment on the part of the Swiss in their
that
confessional
all
of
writings
the
the
of
authority
traditional
The view maintained by Cappellus prevailed more and more, and had indeed already been long an acquisi pronunciation.
tion acknowledged
when new
all,
discoveries
a surprising manner, and at the
in
it
by
confirmed
same time began
some extent upon the dark question
spread light to
to
of the
origin of the pointing.
Compare Schnedermann, Die Controverse des L. Cappellus den Buxtorfern, 1879 Hersmann, Zur Gescliiclite des
mit
;
Strcites uber
die
Entstehung
Iluhrort.
llealgymn.
hebr.
d.
1885 (unknown
Punctation.
Progr.
d.
to me).
The saying of Mar-Natronai s referred to is quoted by LuzKerem ckemed, iii. 200. On other Ptabbis, compare Journal
zatto,
1870,
asiatique,
Levita
s
xvi.
468, and
Ginsburg
s
edition of
Massoreth ha-massoreth referred to in
31.
Elias
For an
opposite statement, we may refer to Aaron ben Asher, see Baer and Strack, Dikduke, p. 11. Eairnund Martin (Pugio field, Leipsic 1687, p. 697) on Hosea ix. 12, Scribce punctarunt a (i.e. incarnatio mca ct s
"ii^
derivatur a
"IBQ
q.e.
caro) sicut
pundatur
m^o
quod
cst
:
in
rcccsso meo.
Luther "
on
Gen.
xlvii.
31 (Opera
Tempore Hieronymi nondum
lat. Erlang. xi. 85): sane videtur fuisse usus punc-
Eecentiores torum, sed absque illis tota Biblia lecta sunt. vere Hebrieos, qui judicium de vero sensu et intellectu linguae sibi summit, qui tamen non arnici, sed hostes Scriptural sunt,
non
Ideo sa3pe contra puncta pronuntio, nisi consententia cnm novo testamento." Compare Calvin gruat prior on Zechariah xi. 7 (Prcelectiones in 12 Prophctas, 1581, p. 676), recipio.
and Zwingli, Prccfatio in apologiam complanationis Isaice (Opera Schuler and Schultheis, v. 556). Formula cons. Helvet. Can. ii. In specie autem Hebraicus
ed.
"
:
Veteris Test. Codex, quern ex traditione ecclesioe Judaicse, cui o
210
79.
HALF VOWELS AS VOWEL
SIGNS.
olim Oracula Dei commissa sunt, accepimus hodieque retine^
quoad consones, turn quoad punctorum saltern potestatem,
rnus, turn
sive
vocales, sive
puncta
ipsa,
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
together with
connection
the
contributed the colour,
Hebrew became
with
i.e.
which
as
a
language,
living
of context, without difficulty
the vowels.
It
was only when
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
germ already lying in the old system of writing. In those passages where the written indication of the vowel of the
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 riot then in any danger of affixing to the text their
own
private interpretation.
less frequently K),
That these
letters (vn,
which are often designated by the
less cor
name matrcs lectionis, were subsequently used to a very much greater extent than they were originally, is clearly On the Moabite Stone of proved from a variety of facts. Mesha ( 75) they are practically not present at all. On the
rect
Siloali
inscription they appear only as signs of diphthongs
while the coins of the Maccabees have indeed D Hin of nn.T, but only irnn pan.
LXX.,
translate often in a
The
1
,
;
alongside
old versions, above all the
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, DT1K,
LXX. DIN: Hosea
xii.
12, D -W,
LXX.
nnt?
:
Kali,
i.
Ezek. xxxii. 29, DHX, LXX. D-IS. D, Trg. Syr. Dno Talmud the Babylonian (Kidd. 30a) it is expressly said
Dn
:
have not more exact information about the
scriptio
10,
In
:
"
We
plena and
79.
defectiva
;
and
HALF VOWELS AS VOWEL SIGNS.
211
the diversities between the manuscripts
finally,
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
might be either u or 6, * might be i Yet Hebrew writing or e, n final might be either 6 or d or e. continued to occupy this standpoint for more than five hundred
Thus
plain to the eye.
Proof of this
years after Christ. the older Jewish
1
is
afforded in abundance
and Christian memorials.
by
Fathers of the
Church, like Origen and Jerome, knew, indeed, a particular pronunciation of the Hebrew text, but they had only their
and not any system of signs. Whenever any exact statement had to be made about vocalisa tion, the use of a half vowel was the only graphic means Jewish teachers
to
thank
for this,
So, too, in the whereby this could be visibly represented. Talmud, which in controversial cases either used the half
vowels or
left
pronunciation
it (e.g.
to 1}
the readers to
Sank. 4-).
determine the intended
Also Sephcr Thorn and Massclcct
c
Soph rim prove the same thing by their silence forbid the use of the Soph pasuk in the Torah
;
since they 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
where all later marks of pointing are while the Samaritan Pentateuch manuscripts ( 29) wanting, are satisfied with indicating the special pronunciation of par ticular words by means of a diacritical line over the consonants.
in the synagogue rolls,
Compare Chwolson, Die
Quiescenten ^n in der althclrdischcn Verhandl. Oriental Orthographic, Congress, ii. 459-490; In the other Wellhausen-Bleek, Einleitung, p. 634 ff. Semitic languages also half vowels were commonly used as
vowel
letters,
but in various degrees.
The Arabic employed
212
HALF VOWELS AS VOWEL SIGNS.
79.
only for long vowels, while in an increasing for short vowels in the Syriac This means of Christians of Palestinian and Jews. writings vocalisation was finally carried out in a systematic way in
them
strictly
measure we find them used
Mandean
writing, where, however, y also in several cases
appears as a
vowel sign (Noldeke, Mandaische Grammatik,
the
Further, also, of a similar character is the use of Jewish transcription of modern languages, and use of the letters sniry in the Greek alphabet. the finally, Compare Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii. 39 ff., who at the same p. 3
ff.).
N^iy in the
time treats of the
A vesta
The
writings in this connection.
Karaites constructed a most peculiar phonetic style of writing See in their Bible manuscripts written with Arabic letters.
Hoerning, Sechs
Jcarait.
Manuscr.
ix.
The warning
sqq.
of
Noldeke (ZDMG, xxxii. 593) against considering the ortho graphy of the Mesha tablet without further examination Old Hebrew has recently been justified by the Siloali While the diphthongs on the stone of Mesha inscription. are not indicated by signs, the Siloah inscription has niy, 1D, as
^
%
On
etc.
the other hand,
it
Compare ZDPV,
for iiv.
has v.
still
206.
vx
for
p%
^P for in
i>ip,
trfcO
So, too,
inscription shows that cases in the Old Testament like
iv
this
mn
where an etymological N has been Of special im omitted, must be treated as exceptions.
for
Truxn,
TO* for
"nxs*,
portance in connection with textual criticism is the question, whether the final vowels in Hebrew had been originally un
Compare Gramm. xxv. p. 33. The Talmudic frnpfti? EN mater lectionis indicates a proof drawn directly from the traditional reading in opposition to DS, which is used if the proof is drawn from the marked.
rnDoi>
See Hupfeld, TSK, 1830,
abstract possibilities of the text. p.
556
;
Eirileitung, p.
Worterbuch,
Ewald
Wellhausen-Bleek, Prolegomena, p. 69 And on the other side, e.g. Levy, Neuheb. 616.
Strack,
i.
;
92.
(Lelirbucli d. hebr. Spraclie,
20
f.) is
cluding from the words of Origen (De la Rue,
lov&a Trap rjfuv Be Eftaiois flvdv ra>
fjiev
o
o Bevrepos
ecrriv TTOVOS
Avvav avrcoi
elvat, ,
wrong 141)
iv.
in con :
Trd\iv
Xeyerat, irapa
"that
our Massora
80.
THE NEW VOWEL
213
SIGNS.
then existed essentially in the one form or in the other. is seen from the remarks of Jerome.
true relationship
in
also
Jonah
He
the proper
to
iii.
The
4) frequently points (e.g. pronunciation, but this he had from his Jewish teachers, to whom he often refers (e.g. in Amos iii. 11 Zeph. iii. 9). ;
That he knew no system of points is evident from many of his remarks (e.g. on Hab. iii. 5) Pro eo quod nos transtulimus mortem in Hebrteo tres literse positae sunt Daleth, Beth, Res, absque ulla vocali, quae si legantur dadar verbum "
:
:
(on Hosea xiii. 3): Apud Hebrseos locusta et fumarium iisdem scribitur literis Aleph, Kes, Beth, He. Quod si legatur arbe locusta dicitur, si fumarium/ aroba, By vocales he understands the half significant,
deber
si
"
pestem
;"
"
vowels referred litera
Vau
to, e.g.
appellatur equus,
word
on Isaiah xxxviii. 14:
ponatur inter duas
si
si
Jod legitur
sis
"Media
vocalis
sus
Samach, legitur et hirundo dicitur."
et
The
means with him the pronunciation of the word, "Nee refert utrum Salim aut e.g. Epist. 73, Ad Euagrium Salem nominatur, cum vocalibus in medio literis perraro acccntus
:
utuntur Hebnei, et pro voluntate lectorum atque varietate regionum eoclem verba diversis sonis atque accentibus pro-
Compare Hupfeld, TSK, 1 8 3 0, p. 5 7 1 ff. Nowack, Die Bcdeutung d Hier. fur d. Alttcstamentl. Textkritik, p. 43 ff. In the Talmud rmpj means, either the abnormal points mentioned in 35, or the angles and corners of the letters,
ferantur."
jer. Cliag.
e.g.
80.
The
ii.
2, fol. 77c.
insufficiency of the
the
Jews
as
Aaron ben Asher
to seek out
new and more
a
with -^.
in
79 led
certain system, which,
32) expresses it, might help the * with rryiD, with N^J, In the choosing of a means for the attainment (
reader to avoid confounding ite
means described
i"nib>
owing to the view of Scripture then prevailing, all systems were CL priori excluded which would have involved an alteration of the traditional letters, so that, e.g., there could be of this end,
no thought of such an invention as the Ethiopic alphabet. What had to be done rather was to discover a system, which
214
THE NEW VOWEL
80.
would not make the vowel with the old
appear of equal importance
signs
In
letters.
this
SIGNS.
the present well-known
way
It vowel system had origin. simple points and strokes, and so its
we know
consists, as for the
it,
of
most part reminds
And seeing now that this one of the East Syrian pointing. system of signs can be traced back to the fifth century, it must be always regarded as a possibility that the inventors of Hebrew system had been influenced by the Syrian.
the
Although the origin of the Hebrew system of pointing still in obscurity, it has yet become possible by means of
lies
Firkowitzsch limits to
s
rich collection of manuscripts to
some extent the period
mark within
While indeed, Thora
of its origin.
as already remarked, the post-Talmudic treatises Seplier
and i
e Soph rim knew
MasscJcet
rom statements
Aaron
in
no system of
of
30. 32), living in the
(
belonged
generations
itself
text,
through
whose
member, Asher ha-Zakken, must have flourished the
eighth
According
century.
pointing must be assigned
proved
half of the tenth century,
first
a family which occupied with the pointing of the
to
signs, it is
manuscripts that the punctuator
these
to
this
the
five
oldest
as early as
origin
of the
to the seventh or eighth century.
The sign for a in the usual system might be considered an But in 81. abbreviated^, as in the system spoken of in many manuscripts (as in the South Arabic, compare Journal 1870, ii. 363, and in the Karaite facsimiles of which probably was the Hoerning), Kametz has the form
asiatique,
,
original.
On the forefathers ZL T, 1 8 7 5, p. 6 1 2
compare TSK, 1875, p. 745 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, f.
v.
533
A
ff.
;
MGWJ
Syrian
t
;
1881,
p.
366, 1885,
p.
102
f.
year 412, written in Edessa 12150), has already the vowels marked by Compare besides on the Syrian pointing
Codex
(British Museum of points.
means
of Aaron,
;
of
the
:
81.
und
Evvakl, Abhandluncjcn zur orient, p.
53
ff.;
ZKM, de
Histoire
1837,
la
p.
204
chcz
punctation
525
i. ff.
447
ff.,
1872,
i.
of
1832,
Literatur,
109 ff. Martin, Jacobi Syriens, 1875
les
p.
;
;
1869;
305
Wright, Catalogue
;
bill.
1839,
ff.,
Epistola de orthoyraphia syriaca,
1867,
215
THE SUPEPiLINEAll SYSTEM.
ff
.
the
;
Journal Asiatique,
Nestle,
ZMDG,
MSS.
Syr.
Museum, iii. 1168 ff. That the usual system only attained by degrees wonderful nicety is proved by various indications. Dillmann on Gen. xliii. 26. above, 27, 30
xxx.
British
in
its
present
Compare
;
81. Besides the system of pointing that
another system, differing from to light since the year 1840.
it
in
some
is
now common,
respects, has
come
This second system, resting as
does on statements in various Bible manuscripts, is usually the is Babylonian," and regarded as that which
it
called
"
The situation, however, prevailed in the Babylonian schools. is not so as on good grounds, has Wickes, simple, recently out. The has become known to us pointed divergent system from Babylonian and South Arabian manuscripts but that it was not the only Babylonian system, and that the Babylonians ;
in "
did
general
Tiberian
"
much
rather
use
the
ordinary,
so-called
or Palestinian, can be proved to demonstration.
Xot only does lon, therefore
Saadia,
who from
A.D.
928 wrought
shortly after the time in which the
in
Baby
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 30) are Babylonians" ( "
sometimes of a kind that the ing would
have
"
"
Babylonian
system of point
been
absolutely incapable of expressing the distinction indicated. The facts of the case, graphically
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
therefore, are
any particular
notice
from the other Jews.
Until future
216
81.
THE SUPERLINEAR SYSTEM.
we had better denomi name of the second," or,
discoveries lead to further conclusions,
nate the divergent system by the 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
drawn from
to be
istic of
Now
their peculiar forms.
the character
the second system, besides the placing of the vowels
above the
letters,
is,
that the signs for d (o) and
$
consist of a
reduced reproduction of the letters K and 1, the sign for a, as it seems, of a small y. If, then, we should further consider the point by which
i
is
indicated a contracted
\
and the
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
double point
:
since A.D. 700,
for d
as a bisected
1,
and which may be considered an independent
But this con invention alongside of the received system. The of it is not confirmed on closer examination. ception superlinear signs for
same
as
in
the
i
and
common
(
N and
)
are undeniably the
system, and since they,
points, are not inconsistent in a superlinear system, a
as
mere
depend
ence of this system upon the received is even by this made This impression is further strengthened by the fact probable. that some manuscripts for il phnc scriptum use simply the Since then the recently published Karaite ordinary sign i.
manuscripts
(
28),
which in part had
their origin in
the
neighbourhood of Bagdad, follow upon the whole the common system, but designate the u by an Arabic damma, i.e. a small
1,
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 K, appear as fore,
vowel
signs.
According to
this,
there
the superlinear system would be a secondary modification
THE SUPERLINEAR SYSTEM.
21 7
an older system essentially identical with the received. Perhaps also in this way the position of the signs over the of
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 6. letters
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
by means of a comparison
result
of the superlinear accentuation
with the received.
The older literature on the which especially see Pinsker,
Babylonian
" "
pointing (among
Einfiilirung in die Babylon Heir. Pnnctation, 1863) is given in Strack s edition of the Babylonian Prophet-Codex, p. vii, and Strack-Harkavy s Katalog. der heir. :
Bibelhandscliriften zu St. Petersburg,
we may mention: ZLT, 1875, Derenbourg, Revue de
la
soc.
vii.
phil.
1879,
crit.
Further, p. 223 f. 619 ff., 1877, p. ISff. 453 ff. M. Schwab, Act.
1875,
p.
p.
;
;
165-212;
Griitz,
MGWJ,
1881,
348ff.; Strack in the Wissesnch. JahresbericUt iiler d. morgenl. Studien in Jahre, 1879, p. 124; Merx, Verlmndlungen d. p.
Berl.
Orient.
Accentuation
and especially Wickes, Congr. i. 188 ff 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 Chrestomatliia targumica, p. xv, and in Baer s Liber JoU, 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 (rbytf? Ipuo), it is ascribed to the Zunz, Zur Gescliichte und Literatur, p. 110; der Juden, Books,
p.
v.
556
142.
;
"iiC
N
fitf.
See
Giiitz, Gfescliichte
Wickes, Accentuation of so-called Prose in the Massoretic notes in the
So, too,
Sometimes the superlinear vowel See Wickes, Accentua system Indeed, the Babylonian Prophet Codex is tion, p. 145ft. also a witness to the fact that this system was used in Tschufutkale manuscript. is
designated the
"
Oriental."
218
But with
Babylon. that
SIGNS OF ACCENTUATION.
82.
in Ex.
if
lonian
perfect right 5 32yprt is
xxiii.
Wickes emphasises the fact handed down as a Baby "
"
reading in contrast to 3ayrn the "Western," the superlinear system, which had no proper sign for Segol, would not have been able in this case to give expression to the traditional So,
pronunciation.
Hebrew
too,
vowels, which
is
Saadia knows Segol as one of the irreconcilable with the Babylonian
system.
Although up
to
time relatively few manuscripts with
this
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 :
& a and
o,
N
i,
K
e,
K
u,
K
0,
K a and
=N
(the horizontal
stroke indicates Sheva). In the Job Codex, of which Baer s Liber 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, Lekrbuch der hebr. In this way, no doubt, originated a sign 37. Grammatik, for e
(namely x)
lost the tone
;
;
but, as
it
was only used if an e While the stood for Scgol.
seems,
otherwise a or %
it
Prophet Codex represents il by \ the sheet produced by facsimile from Job has sometimes this sign, sometimes the superlinear.
On
the
Karaite
Karait. Manuscr.
p. 1
manuscripts, compare
Hoerning,
Seeks
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 role of indicating the tone syllable of the
words and their logical
superordinatiori or subordination in the verse as a whole. e In the Talmud, Masseket Soph rim, the Synagogue rolls and the Samaritan manuscripts, these signs are as completely un
known is,
as are the
vowel
signs.
The superlinear vowel system
81, accompanied by a divergent which the accents are indicated partly
as already indicated in accents, in
system
of
by the
initial
letters of their
names.
This
is
found, as
it
83.
219
SEPARATION OF WORDS.
seems, in all books, whereas the received system of pointing has for the three poetical books, Psalms, Proverbs, and the
Book
of
Job
a separate system.
(K"n),
There are five words mentioned in I). Joma 52a, the con nection of which in the verse were doubtful (namely, HN^, Gen. iv. 7 TPN, IHD, Ex. xvii. 9 DHp^c, Ex. xxv. 35 Gen. xlix. 7; Dpi, Deut. xxxi. 16), which speaks against the ;
;
;
existence of
a system
of
accentuation.
Compare
Berliner,
Beitrdgc zur liebr. GframmatiJe, 29 f. On the accents, compare Heiclenheim,
hateamim, 1808
;
poetischen Accente,
Emeth, 1852
fur
wiss E.
;
d.
Scplier Mischpcte Bal ams, Abhandlung uber die Polak, Amsterdam, 1858 Baer, Thorath
Jhuda eel.
b.
;
and on the position of Metheg. in Merx, Archiv A. T. i. 55 ff. Griitz, MGWJ, 1882, p. 385 ff. ;
;
A
Treatise on the Accentuation of the Three Poetical Treatise on the Accentuation of Books, London 1881, and
Wickes,
A
Oxford 1887. Twenty-one Compare Baer and Strack, DiJcduke, pp. 16-33 and on the Accentuation in Codex Rcuchlin : Baer, Liber Jcremice, p. ix. On the 1875, 606, 1877, Babylonian system: ZLT, p. p. 31 ff. so-called Prose Books,
the
;
;
Wickes, Accentuation of
the Prose Books, p.
4 The Divisions of 83. Several
Semitic
peoples,
142
ff.
the Text.
like
the
South
Arabians,
Ethiopians, Samaritans, and in part also the Phoenicians,
mark
the separation of individual words in a piece of writing by The means of a point or stroke inserted between them. conjecture
Hebrews
naturally also
suggests itself
that
at
one time the
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 ( 75) has a
point between the several words, partly because the double
84) can be most simply conceived of as originating through the doubling of such a
point dividing verses (Soph pasuk,
220
But, on the other hand,
point.
in
SEPARATION OF VERSES.
84.
it is
certain that this point
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 33 that the Jewish pare 77), and we have seen also in tradition
alludes
itself
certain
to
in
passages
which
the
was uncertain. In the Babylonian Talmud e McnacJwth 30 a, (b. compare Massekct Soph rim, ii.) a point for It is rather required that separating words is unknown. division of words
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
Old Testament texts
in use in the
easily the letters
common
might be
is
How
unproved.
falsely divided is
shown by the
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 Nbwack, Diz Bedeutung
41
Textkritik, p. Oil the final letters,
84.
The double
of verses,
compare
point,
and Masseket
Hicr.fiir
d.
Alttestamentl.
77.
Soph pasuk,
made mention
is
d.
f.
for
marking the division Thora
of for the first time in Seplier
e
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 Sop/i rim,
With
to the text.
this also agree the older witnesses.
Even
in the Mishna verses are spoken of, P*DB pi. D^DS 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,
that
Babylonian Jews
among
others
the
in
observed a different rule from the Palestinians. vacillation
shows
itself
when we compare
this
and
respect
The same
the old translations,
especially the
Since
those
these
for
LXX.,
differences
frequently
have
text.
the poetical books,
also
affect
writing in lines or stichoi cannot have
practice of
another
from that of the Massoretic
of verse division
system
221
SErAKATION OF VERSES.
84.
the
been in
use in these times, which yet seems so natural a method of
Hebrew
writing
poetry.
On
the other hand, perhaps about
the time of Jerome, this system had found poetical books, while the
duced by
way
into the
colometric style of writing intro
Church into
father of the
this
its
his
translation of
the other books \vas an imitation of the editions of classical writers.
The division
of verses that
now common, which
is
is
based
on the parallelism prevailing in the poetical books, for in the other writings
it
double clause,
is
paragraphs of the size of a poetical neither the Babylonian nor the Palestinian, divides
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 Seplier Thora,
4
iii.
which the beginning
(ed.
of
Aaron ben Asher
Kirchheim,
of the
verse
is
p. 6)
:
A
marked by
(
32).
manuscript in a point could
not be used for public reading. Masseket Soph* rim, iii. 6. In a remarkable way the synagogue rolls of the Crimea while, on the contrary, four Crimean disregard this rule ;
private manuscripts have no Soph iwsuk. p.
See ZLT, 1875,
601.
In the Mishna (Meg. 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 "
:
On the other hand, in the Prophets, he should read 60). three Pesukim at a time, yet only if the three Pesukim are not three Parashas. Compare Wiilmer, Antiquitates Ebrceorum, (
i.
97
373
;
f
.
;
S track, Prolegomena, Zeitschrift, ii. 140,
Jud.
p.
78
iv.
113, 265,
ff.
;
Geiger, x.
Urschrift, Nacli-
24;
gelassene ScJiriften, iv. 24.
On
the
various
systems
of
verse
divisions,
compare
222
SEPARATION OF VERSES.
84.
MGWJ,
It is expressly 1885, p. 97 ff. 305 that a full understanding of verse be had. According to this passage, which
especially Gratz, said in 1. Kidd.
division
is
not to
Babylonian division of verses, the Law has 5888, At the the Psalms 5896, and the Chronicles 5880 verses. the had another Palestinians same time it is said that division,
refers to the
among other differences, divide Exodus xviii. 9 into e verses. Compare MasseJcet Soph rim, ix. 3, where we
for they,
three
probably meet with the Palestinian division, according to which, not Lev. xiii. 33, but Lev. viii. 23 was the middle
Examples of passages in which the LXX. and other versions divide otherwise than the Massorete text,
verse of the Law.
are the following xc. 11 f., xcv. 7
Ps. xvii. 3
:
Lam.
;
Critica
Compare Cappellus, also
iii.
f.,
5
;
xxiii. 5
Hos.
sacra,
f.,
iv.
lib.
Ixv. 8
1 1 f
iv.
.
xc. 2
f.,
Isa.
;
It
3.
cap.
12
i.
be mentioned that of the words mentioned in
whose
On
f.
may 82,
doubtful, one stands quite at the beginning Gen. xlix. 7 (compare 91).
relation
of the verse
f.,
:
is
the Massoretic division of verses compare Baer and
55
Strack, Dikduke, p.
f.
In the Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 16a) mention is made of a kind of writing in lines which was used in particular but it cannot have been thoroughly carried poetical passages out in ancient times on account of what is referred to in the ;
above sections. p.
187; Levy,
Prolegomena,
p.
Compare
further, Delitzsch, Psalmen,
1883,
NeuheLrciischer
On
80.
Worterbuch, i. 163; Strack, colometric style of writing in
the
Epiphanius, Origen, compare Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 16 De ponderibus et mens. iv. In the Preface to Isaiah Jerome ;
"
says
:
Nemo cum
prophetas versibus viderit esse descriptos,
metro eos restimet apud Hebraeos ligari et aliquid simile sed quod in habere de psalmis et operibus Salomonis ;
Demosthene
et in
ut per cola scribantur et et non versibus conscripserunt,
Tullio solet
fieri,
commata, qui utique prosa iios quoque utilitati legentium providentes interpretationem novam novo scribendi genere distinximus." Compare Morinus, Exercitationes
liblicce,
p.
476
ff.,
antike Buchwesen, 1882, p. 180.
and, in general, Birt,
The
single lines
Das
bear also
223
SEPARATION OF PARASHAS.
85.
Jerome and Augustine the name versiculi or Morinus has misunderstood, p. 481 f.
in
which
versus,
Sections embracing a larger portion of the text, the so-
85.
^1^) were marked by the Jews 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 s
called Parashas
by means
(~l%, pl
of
indicated being less thoroughgoing, this ended in the middle
In the former
of the line.
that
way were called
rtonp. a
D,
and
Subsequently
which
to
class
case, the
"
open,"
it
Parashas that ended in "
nimna, in the latter
was customary
to indicate
closed/
by a a or
In the editions
the Parasha belonged.
most of the manuscripts the use of these signs is confined to the Law, whereas Baer has carried it out in his in
editions
24) even in the other books.
(
received divsion, the
Law
According to the
298 open and 379
contains
The Karaite manuscript, written
Parashas.
closed
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
open and of closed Parashas in both Talmuds. See lab. Sabb. 1035; jer Meg. 715. Also the separate Psalms were some
of
times
(b.
there
is
Bcraclwtli 95, 10a) called Parashas.
no mention
Parasha division in
of
general
examples are given which,
most
part,
MenachotJi
Parashas
agree 3,
of
the
if
is
spoken
often).
Prophets
of,
and particular
not always, yet at least for the
with the later
and
7,
In the Mishna
the two kinds of Parashas, but the
divisions
(Taanith, 4.
The Mishna knew (Meg.
4.
4).
also
Whether
3
;
of
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
And that there Jerome, cannot be conclusively decided. must have been a time in which the Psalms were not in a of
single
instance
distinguished
from each other by means of
224
SEPARATION OF PARASIIAS.
85.
clear
intervals
may
reference to their for the text,
On
the
be concluded from the
number and
and even in whole,
the
vacillation
in
division in the old authorities
later manuscripts.
Parasha
received
characterised as proper and
fitting.
to
be
Instances like Ex.
vi.
division
is
28, Hag. 15, where evidently verses that go together are separated, or Isaiah Ivi. 9, where the separation rests on an i.
incorrect exegesis, are comparatively rare.
Compare Morinus, Excrcitationes BiUiccc, p. 491 ff. HupTSK, 1837, p. 837 ff. Strack, Prolegomena, p. 74 ff. Geiger, JilcL Zeitsclirift, x. 197 Nacligelasscne Schriflen, iv. 22 f. Gratz, MGWJ, 1885, p. 104 f. Originally Parasha only means a section in general, ;
field,
;
;
;
;
specially one larger than a verse. Compare b. Berachoth Q3a, where a verse is called a small Parasha." The passage from the Mishna (Meg. 4. 3), referred to in 84, proceeds on the assumption that sometimes a Parasha may consist only of one verse, which actually is the case in Isaiah lii. 3 ff. The Capitula of Jerome sometimes correspond exactly with the Parashas, e.g., Micali vi. 9, on which passage he expressly In Hebraicis alterius hoc capituli exordium est, apud remarks "
"
"
"
:
LXX.
vero
finis
superioris."
Hence
in his text
the division
was outwardly marked. Compare also on Zeph. iii. 14. But often he used the word quite carelessly in the sense of a passage of the text. Compare Hupfield, TSK 1837, p. 842. On the division of the Psalms, compare J. Miiller, Masseket Sopherim, p. 222 f.; Bsethgen, in the Scliriften d. t
Universittit 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
and
and
ix.
and by dividing Psalms cxvi. and cxlvii. The Syriac translation, again, joins only Psalms cxiv. and and cxv. and divides only Psalm cxlvii. But elsewhere an different total is Thus entirely given. jer. Sail. 16. 1, fol. 15c, gives 147 Psalms, while several old manuscripts have also less than 150, for they frequently join Psalms xlii. and x.,
cxiv.
cxv.,
xliii.,
and
b.
cxiv.
Berachotli,
We
or
95; Acts
the 10th Psalm
In olden times, too, Psalm i. was connected with Psalm ii. (see
and cxv.
not counted,
often
is
9,9;
DIVISION INTO CHAPTERS.
8G.
else xiii.
33
\. 40), so that Meg. 175) as the 9th.
Justin Martyr,
;
once referred to
(b.
must not confound with the Parasha division spoken of above section the liturgical division of the
in the
Law
into
This Parashas, and of the Prophets into Haphtaras (moan). of the the was connected with of practice readings system
Babylonian Jews, which overtook the reading of the Law in one year (b. Meg. 315); whereas in Palestine a three years course had been introduced (b. Meg. 295 compare on this ;
matter
Yet the now authorised
80).
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 a or D three times in the empty space pre With the exception of the one passage ceding its beginning. (Gen.
beginnings always corresponded with the an open or closed Parasha. Baer, however, in
xlvii. 28), their
beginning
of
his edition of Genesis, gives
m
nz?"ia,
137;
1^, etc.
Strack,
Compare ff.
;
vii.
their full title, ~p nisna
Jost, Gcscliiclite d.
Prolegomena,
1870, p. 531 122 ff, 250 ff.,
them 76
p.
f
.
;
Judenthums, ii. Journal asiatique,
and especially EEJ, 146 ff.
iii.
282-285,
vi.
86. It has usually been supposed that in the division of the text into Sedarim D*~nD, as
was made known specially A.D. 1525, we have an attempt it
by Jacob ben Chajim s Bible of on the part of the Jews to carry out an actual arrangement of the Old Testament in chapters. Eecently, however, Theodor has sought
to
show that
a liturgical one, for
it
is
this division
was originally
said to correspond with
years Palestinian cycle of the reading of the
Law
(
the three 85).
The
Sedarim division of the other writings would then have to be In any regarded as a later imitation of the Law division. 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
DIVISION INTO CHAPTERS.
86.
based upon these. Moreover, the Sedarim division varies not a little. The Jerusalem Talmud (Sail. 16. 1, fol. 15c, com e
pare Masseket Soph rim, 16.
On
Sedarim.
Law 175 made known by
10, xxx.) gives to the
the other hand, the division
Jacob ben Chajirn has 447 Sedarim, of which 154 are in the This numbering is now found to have manuscript Law. authority in a Bible Codex of the year 1294.
Finally, the
Sou tli Arabian Massora manuscript edited by Derenbourg 32) has 167 law Sedarim, with which the Bible of the year (
1010
is
The
in substantial agreement.
which now has secured actual
division into chapters
recognition in the
Hebrew
was borrowed by the Jews
Bible,
from the Christians.
After a variety of earlier attempts, the divided into chapters in the thirteenth was text of the Vulgate century, in order that it might be possible to prepare practical This division, which varies here and Bible concordances. 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 1521.
Bible in A.D.
work was done
Unfortunately in
just in
a haphazard
must always evidently hold by that in editions of the text and
it,
it is
way, and though we yet to be recommended
translations, the portions of the
text should be otherwise grouped,
when
the blunders are so
evident and generally admitted as in Gen.
1_6, x 1-4, .
The numbering
of the
verses naturally
It is
met with
Athias Bible of
On p.
220
the ff.
Zcitsclirift,
;
ff.
Isa. ix.
;
presupposes the
for the
the Sabbioneta edition of the Pentateuch, to
1
ii.
13-15.
lii.
division into chapters.
and applied
passages the
many
1557
the whole of the Old Testament A.D.
time in
first
A.D.
first
(
62), in the
1661.
Sedarim, compare Miiller, Masseket Sopherim, Journal asiatiquc, 1870, p. 529 ff. Geiger, Jud. ;
1872,
p.
22
;
Baer, Liber Genesis,
p.
92
;
Theodor,
87.
MGWJ, 35
1885,
351
p.
227
DIVISION INTO BOOKS.
if.,
1886,
212
p.
1887,
ff.,
p.
ff.
On
the chapters, compare Morinus, Exercitationcs bibliccc, The determining of the date as given we f., 487 f.
484
pp.
owe
to Genebrardus, Chronographia (ed. Paris 1660, p. 631). In the following century Nicholas von Lyra (quoted by Merx, "
Joel,
320) complains:
p.
Signatio capitulorum in bibliis
nostris est frequenter defectiva, quia frequenter
non sequitur
signationem hebraicam nee etiam Hieronymum, ut prsesertim in antiquis bibliis
was
87. There "
Books
"
secundum Hieronymum mention
signatur."
a
of
originally
into
division
with reference only to certain particular writings of
Book
of the
Ezra-Nehemiah.
This
the Old Testament, namely, the Pentateuch, the
and
Twelve
Prophets,
division,
which in the case of the Twelve Prophets was easily
the
Psalms,
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.
The Talmud
cvi.).
Baba bathra, lob) requires an empty space of four (b. between the Books of the Pentateuch, and of three between the Books time,
since
it
of
the Minor
Prophets.
had then become customary
several writings in one volume, four
between each
empty
of the prophetic writings.
in the Bible of the year 1010 found between Ezra and Nehemiah.
e.g.
In the printed Bibles
it
(
lines lines
At the same
to
write
all
or
lines are required
In some manuscripts, 28), one empty line is
became customary
to
make
a
In Alexandria, the city the practice began, even in the
further division of particular works. of literature
par
excellence,
years before Christ, of substituting short and convenient rolls
and often very long ones, and consequently it was necessary to divide the great literary works into
for the old
found
88.
vseparate books.
LINGUISTIC VALUE OF POINTING.
Thus
also
it
Book
translation, for the
happened with the Alexandrine
Book
of Samuel, the
the Book of Chronicles, and the Book
of
of the Kings,
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
favour of the Codex form
74),
(
it
rolls
was abandoned
was
still
subsequently was adopted from the Vulgate Bible of
1521 (compare
Mention Kidd.
I.
is
o 3a.
made The
retained,
in
and
into the Boniberg
86).
of the
books
five
otherwise
so
of
Psalms even in Jerome
well instructed
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
Buchwesen,
p.
479.
compare
practice,
Yet
it
Birt,
Das
antike
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 Eohde, GGA, 1882, p. 1541 f.). "
"
"
R
THE INTERNAL HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
The Linguistic
1.
88.
"
side of the
Transmission of Scripture.
Since the Massoretic system of pointing was invented
only at
a comparatively late date, the question arises as to
how
the pronunciation, that was
this
means,
Hebrew
is
related to
the
made
visible
and clear by
actual pronunciation
of
the
This question is naturally of with the minute study of in connection fundamental interest the
as a living language.
Hebrew
tongue, but
it
will also
reward the student
of the
he will give a glance at it. Here now In the first place, we never two facts are firmly established. elsewhere meet with a system of pronunciation so thoroughly history of the text,
if
88.
229
LINGUISTIC VALUE OF POINTING.
characterised by inner logical consistency as that which lies
before us in the Palestinian system of pointing.
second place,
it is
And, in the
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
agreement with the transcriptions in Jerome and 36), and, finally, from the testimonies regarding the
its essential
Origen
(
Only the pronunciation of the allied Phoenician language. d the of as which is a, pointing, pronunciation presupposed by because
uses the same sign for 6 and
it
d, is to
be considered
isolated cases,
met with in Jerome merely in while even later only the Polish-German Jews
so
it,
as a novelty
which
pronounce
is
to be
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 Aslier and
other rabbis, that this
sign
represents
various
vowels or vowel sounds according to the syllable following, sometimes i, sometimes a, by which means e,
sometimes
apparent differences between the pointing and the old tran scriptions transmitted to us have repeatedly arisen.
But by
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 this
it is
but by no means that the Massoretic pronunciation absolutely the oldest, let alone that it is the only one that
sible to us, is
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
has ever been.
often have arisen through the
awkwardness
of the transcribers,
and through a certain degeneration of the language on the part of
Jews
and there
it
living
among
does retain
foreigners
;
but nevertheless here
the original form.
According to
230
88,
Jerome
(Epist.
Hebrew pro
LINGUISTIC VALUE OF POINTING.
Ad
73,
varietate
Evangduni) it was admitted that in 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 That of older forms from which the present had their origin. 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 and demands, moreover, in special its use a very particular measure of circumspection. The same is true in a still higher degree of the transcriptions stress, is still
in its infancy,
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
Gescliichte
der
Hebraischen, ZAW, vi. 213-259; Kautzsch, 36. 388, and the writings referred to in
On
Ausspraclie des ZDMG, xxxiv.
the similarity between the Massoretic pronunciation of of the Phoenician known
Hebrew and the pronunciation
the
through Plautus, compare Schroder, Die phonizische Sprache,
1869, p. 120 ff. In Jerome K as
o,
e.g.
is
~bosor "ij>3
pronounced generally as (Isa. xxxiv. 6), zochor
"9J
d,
more rarely
(Isa.
xxvi.
14).
should not be overlooked that the transcriptions in Jerome are not rarely vacillating, which in many cases
Moreover,
it
must be ascribed
many
to his
to
his
Jewish teachers, but certainly in
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,
yod
it is
i,
e.g.
ed.
before f., 31 f.) Jerome on Isa. xvii. 11
Baer and Strack, pp. 12
Dto, bijdm (compare
:
88.
biom), but it is c, if the yod itself has i, (in these cases ben Naphtali writes 7K"ipy,
agrees with the old pronunciation Israel,
Haupt, Beitrdye zur Assyriologie, moreover, has
b. Naplitali,
231
LINGUISTIC VALUE OF POINTING.
the Tcxtus Receptus
:
when
made
Ps. xlv.
10
i.
its ;
17,
way
7N~ib v,
e.g.
tfjisrdel
which undoubtedly not Jisrael ; compare
260
the practice of into several editions of ;
Prov. xxx. 17
Jer. xxv.
;
26
;
has Metheg, it sounds a, e.g. Nta3, laid a instead of Sheva in Jerome, ZA W, iv. the frequent (compare a guttural it takes the vowel 29 or before p. f.) finally, Eccles.
13
ii.
;
it
;
of the guttural, e.g. INp, m6d. Elsewhere it sounds e. on the somewhat modified rules of other teachers,
237
f
.
;
On f
.
vi.
10, p. 48. Gesenius-Kautzsch, Gframmatik, xxv. the significance of the Greek transcriptions in the
Hexapla and
361
Compare
ZA W,
"
:
in the
LXX., compare Lagarde, Mittlieilungen, ii. ubliche die im Aram.
Uebersicht liber
Bildung der
.
.
.
orthography of the Siloah inscription (in opposition to the tablet of Mesha, 75) represents the original pronunciation of i as au, then should Nomina,"
passim.
If the
forms like Avvav instead of
jjiN, Avar) instead of JMpta (Num. 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 au (e.g.
xiii.
8),
dsdr, mraum instead of Cri^, compare Stade, Grammatik, p. 120), it might still be discussed whether a Greek au might not many a time have originated in a similar Further, the conclusions drawn by Lagarde from forms way. like SoSo/jLa, SoXo/iow, 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
ausar instead of
coloured by the assimilating of the mobile vowel, as the Maswas the case before the gutturals (see above).
soretes admitted
Compare nifilim, etc., 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, i, o. Compare what is said in the above 81 about the Babylonian system of pointing.
232
89.
On
DEVELOPMENT OF TEXTUAL
the significance of the
169
names transcribed on the inscrip 168 f Haupt, Beitrdge, zur
ZA W,v.
compare Stade,
tions,
CRITICISM.
.
;
To the examples there named may Assyriologie, be added Rasunu, which corresponds to the Paaaawv of the i.
f.
:
LXX. against the Many niceties have
been
}^1 of the Massoretic text. of
the Massoretic pronunciation can only by the introduction of the
established
finally
these also various superfine forms. Thus we would certainly not make the old genuine language responsible for a form like Ps. vii. 6, or D nunn, Zech. x. 6. The same is true indeed of differentiating forms like SN and T3K, D ?B and DTO, :b and ?fe J 1K and T^, which probably rest on artificial forms, although these may have been found already in existence by the Massoretes, as certainly was the
among
pointing,
^,
"T
S
S
with
case
pronunciation H|p^ (LXX, a- via Sometimes errors in the consonantal text have the
sensible
Oavdrov). occasioned impossible forms,
2.
The Transmission of
e.g.
!STeh.
Jer. xv. 10.
14;
ii.
the Text according to its real
Contents.
89. In the Criticism
form
in
which the Old Testament Textual
it is a young phenomenon. The Eeformed theologian Cappellus (t 1658), and Morinus (t 1659), who went over to Catholicism, had indeed, already
in
the
criticism
is
presently conducted,
seventeenth of
Old
century,
sketched
Testament Text
a long time disregarded, and only
made
;
the
outlines
of
a
but this remained for
now
has a beginning been
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 in earnest to take in
principle
to
exclude
all
all traditional
criticism
of
the
text,
divergences of the text,
because
it
the
regarded Baby e.g. lonian and Palestinian reading, as resting on independent revelations.
In later times the rigid theory of inspiration in
89.
233
DEVELOPMENT OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
the older Protestantism contributed to the branding of any
attempt to improve the traditional text as a dangerous under Indeed, the Formula consensus Hdvdici ( 78), with taking. all
scrupulous exactness, expressly rejects textual criticism which
has
been
declared
by
earlier
and
indispensable.
that apparatus for
later critics of the text
And even
times have there been several scholars
who
in
modern
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 of some critics, and it remains textual emendations tionary "
"
a not-to-be-forgotten truth that the traditional
Hebrew
text
have an advantage over the text that lias only indirectly been reached, yet the opinion always more and more gains ground that a methodical criticism of the text is to will
ever
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
The
behind.
evil lies, not in the use of
the apparatus of textual criticism, but in the circumstance that often that apparatus It
is insufficient.
was in particular the
result of the great collations of
manuscripts undertaken by Kennicott and de Eossi ( 30) which for a long time afforded confirmation to the notion that the traditional form of the text should be considered without
ado as authentic.
The Hebrew
more
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 docurnentarily the oldest by recently discovered manuscripts, yet a thorough
going examination proves that the text preserved with such extraordinary care is, after all, only a Tcxtus Rcceptus, 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
before us in a
lie
73), and which often in details differ in such ( But even a way that only the one form can be correct. elsewhere passages are met witli which in the received form
double form
are absolutely impossible
and admit only
of
one explanation,
Even if the state of namely, that of an error of the text. 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
and
it is
not absolutely in harmony with the original, which cannot be put aside, of
so there originates the task,
using
all
means within our reach
in order to
make
clear at
the relation of the Textus Rcceptus to the oldest text and only when this work has objectively accessible to us
all points
;
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.
Tn consideration of the peculiar history of the Old Testa ment text ( 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 s Job and to his own Commentary on the Psalms, 1 2 7-2 Dillmann in Herzog s Real- Encyclopaedic 2 ii. pp. 399 f.; Konig, ZKWL, 1887, pp. 273-297.
of Hirzel
,
;
Compare the variations in the
Dikduke, "
Eorum
p.
82
interesting statements of Saadia about the Old Testament text in Baer and Strack,
f.
Formula consensus
Helvetici,
Canon
iii.
:
proinde sententiam probare neutiquam possumus, qui
lectionem,
quam Hebraicus Codex
exhibet,
humano tantum
constitutam
arbitrio
esse
definiunt,
quam minus commodam LXX. seniorum aliorumque Targumim
Samaritano,
quandoque
ex
aliunde
vel
Chaldaicis,
ratione
sola
quique lectionem Heb-
judicant, configere, eamque versionibus Grsecis, Codice
raicam,
ex
emendare
collatis
neutiqnam
religione
se
editionibus,
quam
qua3
Hebraici
etiain
ipsiusque
quern variis inodis corruptum esse dictitant, adhibita
codicis,
circa
inter
imo
etiarn,
ducunt, neque adeo alinm lectionem authenticam,
ex
235
DEVELOPMENT OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
89.
human!
variantes
lectiones
judicii
Kpicrei,
erui possit
agnoscunt."
Examples correct
:
parallel texts, of which only the one can be Gen. xxxvi. 23, D^nrr, 1 Chron. i. 7, D
of
Gen.
nn
x. 4,
\by 1 Chron. i. 40, pi?y; Judges rrm; 2 Sam. xxiii. 27, uzn, 1 xxiii.
13, Tsp, 1 Chron.
xviii.
11, NTI,
Examples
which on
of passages,
2 Sam. xxii. 11,
&m,
Ps.
where the number
and xxxviii.
logical
grounds must be
32, 36, xix. 6, 15, xxxviii. 21, 36 f., at the end of the names referred to does not
xv.
represent the actual sum total 2 Sam. xxiii. 18 f.; Jer. xxvii.
On
;
etc.
incorrect: Josh.
3,
;
15, ivn
xi.
;
22, mix, 1 Kings xi. 26, 2 Sam. Chron. xi. 29, 330
vii.
y
1,
;
the meaningless expression,
1,
where, according to xxvii. for Jehoiachim.
Zedekiah should be read
grammatical grounds we cannot accept the
nj
of Ezek.
xlvii.
13, etc. 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
textual criticism libros,
1777
Houb. in Cod. Hebr., Copenhagen 1763, and Exam-en Hoiib. in Cod.
in the second
terpretum
versione
e
grcecorum z.
A.
iiberlieferten Textes d.
criseos
1764); Kennicott, Dissertatio generalis volumn of V. T. Hebr. cum variis lectionibus; Hebr.
Spohn, Jeremias
Emendationen
as
Houbigant, Notce criticce in univ. Vet. Test, (in opposition: Kallius, Prod, examinis criseos :
Judccorum Alex, ac rcliquorum in-
emendatus, 1794-1824; Olshausen, Kiel 1826 Beitrdge zur Kritik des
T.,
;
im Buche
Backer Samuelis, 1871
;
Genesis,
1870
;
Wellhausen, Text
Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text
236
CORRECTNESS OF THE VOCALISATION.
90.
of the Books of Samuel, 1890; Taylor, The Massoretic Text and the Ancient Versions of Micah, 1891; Baethgen, Der Textkritische Werk der Alien Uelersetzungen zu den Psalmen in JPT,
1882, pp. 405 ff., 593 ff. Merx, Der Werk der Septuaginta fur die Texikritik der Alien Tcstamentcs in JPT, 1883, p. 65 ff. Cornill, Das Bucli des Prophcien Ezechiel, 1886; the peculiar works of Krochmal, Haksaw ive hamichtow, 1875. Also the various commentaries (e.g. Lowth s Isaiah and Klostermann s Bilcher Samuelis und der Konige), 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
ences
of discovering the
presented
collections
of
by
the
meaning
of the text, the differ
manuscripts
variations are of
and the
extremely
little
Massoretic importance.
Such complete divergences as Hosea x. 9, flNtpn and Judges xx. 48, Dnp and Qhp p s Lxxv. 7, if]J?p and Eccles. ii. 7, njpp and n:?i?p Jer. xxvii. 17, nrm and nrm, 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
with the exception possibly of the Targumists, whose testimony, however, is weakened by their free treatment translators,
of the text, has text,
had so clear an insight into the sense of the
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 ;
which we
237
INCORRECTNESS OF VOCALISED PASSAGES.
91.
the received vocalisation and accentuation for
lie to
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
historically mediated,
is
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
As examples
of the difference
of.
between the vocalisation of
the Massoretes and that of the old translations a few well-
known
instances
ntso;
xlix.
rife;
Isa. vii. 11,
ix.
LXX.
;
x.
31, n ^P
;
LXX.
und
bob.
Aq. Sym. Targ.
Aq. Sym. Theod. Jerome, Tkeod. nba Ps. ii. 9, DJfin;
17, p?? 4,
3X31; Isa.
LXX. Syr. Sym. jnr6 LXX. Syr.
pan
;
nhBiar;
;
LXX.
Theod.
A
specially interesting example of the variety of which may be given to the consonants is afforded 5, fcnK
s6
iris,
Critica sacra, p.
lib. iv.
Syr. nntfn;
iii.
l2,
^ap^apwO. meanings by Ps. ci.
%
LXX.
but
3,
Prov.
3nni>;
;
20,
ii.
Syr.
Hos.
nbfct?
xi.
;
Syr.
jer.
;
;
Syr. nntfn; xv.
LXX.
3601;
nW
LXX.
tixnn
serve: Gen. xlvii.
LXX.
10, rife;
l2, *??*;
Jerome,
may
t:riN
fc6
inx.
Compare Cappellus,
cap. 2, lib. v. cap. 2, 4, 8
;
Cornill, Jfzech.
127; and on the whole question, the remarks
of
Well-
hausen-Bleek, Einleitung, 616. 91.
we
The
state of matters is
most correctly conceived when e
continually regard the vocalisation as a
which
relation of sidered.
to
Although
wrongly
(see,
over the
e
Q
re,
K
the
many
e
tib
has to
expositors
Q re ( 33), the be more closely con as
where the Massora expressly
ence between the two,
a
rule,
and not
92), give the preference to the
however,
it
states the
K
e
tib
differ
should not be overlooked that
we
have to do with an unjustifiable Q e re in passages may where the read word presupposes no other consonants than also
the traditional word. factors operating
And, in
fact, there are cases
upon the traditional Qarjan
(
where the
33) have been
238
work
actually at e.g.
INCORRECTNESS OF VOCALISED PASSAGES.
91.
in producing the usual reading of the text,
the nervous dread with which in later times the anthro
pomorphisms or otherwise
were regarded,
offensive expressions
and modes of presentation into
or the introduction of later ideas
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 the text.
old translations
The
case
Massoretes,
(
is
e.g.
here and there afford some help. similar with the diacritical marks of the
90)
may
w
with the point over
accentuation and verse division
7
(
and with
"7),
84), which indeed
(
their
as a rule
disclose a singularly fine insight into the connection, but yet
here and there must give
before more simple theories.
way
Compare Geiger, Ursclirifl und Uebersetzungen der 1857, pp. 157 if., 337 ff. Examples ceived views nbiyn,
of a vocalisation probably in favour of precon
Eccles.
:
"
21,
iii.
Who
knoweth the
which ascendeth heavenwards xxxiv.
Jer.
xxxiv. 24, Deut. xxxi.
God);
Ps.
xc.
2,
could not
^nn,
^,
18,
11,
nxii?,
man,
instead of the intended,
whether
njtyn,
Aq.
^
Isa.
;
it
rises
12, Ex.
i.
instead of n*r6 (to behold
3 fern, instead of
as
spirit of
"
!
and by the translators presupposed, upwards?"
Bibel,
^nn
(for
God
11, fvKB^ instead of nbtfBJ (in order *riri); Eelated to these to avoid the idea of invoking the dead), etc. Isa. vii.
are the traditional forms of
some proper names, as
W
perhaps pn, instead of Ps. xci. 6, of HBO; rnrra. btfStt
;
88;
P^"],
(compare
ijjfa
Isa. vii. 6,
after the analogy
DHP and
the
LXX.)
Harmless passages, perhaps a popular dogmatic allusion. which might be improved are Mai. ii. 3, JHT, better in LXX. is
:
Aq. Jerome,
JTiT
;
1
Sam.
xviii.
11, bpj, better /bl
;
Isa.
xxx.
xvi. 21, ?a, better 8,1$, LXX. Syr. Sometimes vowel letters are misunderstood ( 79): D BKtP, read D BKP from f)1^ Amos ii. 7, Ps. Ivi. 2,lvii. 4;
Trg. Jerome, 1$; Job
i3=r3.
,
read
Bfe6,
w is
2 Sam. xix. 4.
not correctly distinguished
:
Eccles.
iii.
1 7 (read
239
RESULT OF COLLATION OF MANUSCRIPTS.
92.
12 (read OHE?) Ezek. xxxix. 26 (read m*\). Com 17, where Lagarde proposes ^sibn. A case in which the accentuation has been certainly deter mined by the desire to favour a particular view is met with in Tsa. i. 9, where oyDD is drawn towards what follows. On Isa. xxxii.
pare Job
;
ix.
Isa. xlv. 1,
of Delitzsch
The view compare Griitz, MGWJ, 1874, p. 45. 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 the with a words of the text, is found in upon dering, play I.
v.
Berach.
according to which in Palestine they read Fallen is she further she will not
4&.,
follows
2, as
Amos
"
:
;
[fall]
;
"
daughter of Israel
raise thee,
!
Ps. Passages where the verse division might be improved Gen. xlix. 24 f. 7, xlii. 6 f., xvii. 3 f., xxii. 31 f :
xcv.
.
;
;
Isa. lix. 15.
It.
92.
It has
The Consonantal Text.
been already remarked above
Hebrew manuscripts,
89) that the
(
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
the variations
among
played by the divergences that and defectiva which are explained In addition to these we meet 79. is
arise out of the scriptio plena
in the remarks
made
in
here and there interchanges of letters similar in appearance, like n
and
"i,
of
changes
3
and
3,
1
and \
synonymous
etc.
Besides,
expressions,
we have
especially
inter
under
the
influence of parallelism, and divergences with respect to the (fre
and
K
e
tib,
which form a frequent
western and the eastern is
of
any
not, like
texts.
general interest,
difference
Only one
between the
of these latter cases
namely, that the Babylonians have
the Palestinians, the well-known
Q
e
rc, Kin,
only in
the Pentateuch, but here and there also in the other books.
240
92.
The Q a
e
RESULT OF COLLATION OF MANUSCRIPTS.
which, according to 33, may be regarded in certain sense as a various reading, has usually only a re itself,
historically
value, but
explicable
sometimes upon the
hits
right thing, whether by divination, or in accordance with a
On
genuine old tradition.
the manuscripts of the Samaritans,
94.
compare
Cornill, Das Bitch Ezecldel, p. 7 ff., rightly styles the result of his comparison of the common text with the Codex Babylon. In a biblical book of forty-eight, for the as quite surprising most part quite long, chapters, the text of which has been "
:
transmitted in a notoriously faulty condition, the oldest of all manuscripts, compared with the first and best printed It should not editions, yields only sixteen actual variations."
known
on this account be denied that here and there, by means of collations of manuscripts, we may give an emendation of the text, e,(j. Isa. xxx. 18, where two manuscripts have DT instead of DV, Isa. xxvii. 1,
but some manuscripts,
"ion,
"ion ;
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 ?K an(l ii.
n^n H^U
6,
xviii. 4,
DpHN*; ii
10,
nra xcvii.
;
xv.
-iro 11,
^-(Codex
(compare Lam. v. Zeph.
A etc -) P S nym nynj :
2,
Ps. ix. 7,
;
rnr
jnr
30)
Hilleli,
T?
4,
n^DJ ii.
;
;
25,
Ps.
jt?jn
ftrjn
xviii.
UBD
cii.
;
Isa.
jn; Jer.
11, njn
Ixiii.
nB7U
Eccles.
;
ii-
-
;
43, Dpns <JDD;
13, -pan
Hag. -JKMI
ci. 24, ntajJ K jbwx (compare 18, n^y, Cod. Bab. 7^; Zech. xiv. 18, D^orrnx B. D^oyn-^3"nK Zech. xiv. 4 omits in B. sinn DV3
xxxii. 8).
19); Ps.
iii.
^ ;
Ezek. ii.
vi. 5,
oa
Dn^i^
11
;
;
a different
e
Q re, Neh.
ii.
6
;
Zeph.
7, etc.
On
the (fre ^in 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;
t
Isa.
>
xxx. 33; Job xxxi. 11)
is
incorrect, as Ezek.
13, xi. 7, xiv. 17, xvi. 46-48, xviii. 20, xxi. 19, xxvi. 17, xxx. 13, xxxii. 16 Jer. xxii. 16, xxviii. 17, show. The
i.
;
241
POST-CHRISTIAN WITNESSES FOR THE TEXT.
93.
idea that Kin occurs only in the Pentateuch, which has been quoted against the correctness of the theory in the criticism of the
thus
Pentateuch which distinguishes a variety of documents,
falls to
the ground. e
passages in which correct reading are: Amos viii. 8 2 Sam. v. 2,
Examples
Q re nypm
of
is
1
;
undoubtedly the Sam. xvii. 34,
nc>;
93.
If
we compare
the form of text obtained by means of
the manuscripts and the Massora with older witnesses for the
from the
text
time
after
such as the
Christ,
Talmudical
quotations, the Hexaplar transcriptions, and the post-Chris tian
translations,
we
more numerous than
much
shall find indeed variations not
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 Tcxtus Receptus (
92), those witnesses
now referred
to contain not
valuable readings, the collation of which
is
unfrequently
of real interest.
But, at the same time, there appears a characteristic difference
between these witnesses. correspond
for
The quotations in the Talmud
the most part with
before us, especially
if
made from memory.
we keep
the text that
now
lies
in view that they are often
So, too, the texts used
by Jerome and
the later Greek translators are very nearly the same as our
In the Aramaic versions, on the other hand, we not The Targums unfrequently meet with interesting variations. own.
especially
sometimes afford good readings, which, however,
GO, may be explained by what has been stated above in of extreme the the material. antiquity Targumic partly by
On
the other hand, according to
certain
whether
translation
the
variations
70,
represent actually the
post- Christian
times,
or
are
it
obtained
remains often un
from
only repetitions
Christian (Alexandrine) form of the text.
Q
the
Syriac
condition of the text in of
the
pre-
242
PUB-CHRISTIAN WITNESSES FOR THE TEXT.
94.
Compare Cappellus, Critica sacra, lib. v. cap. 2, 5, 6, 9-11 Nowack, Die .Bedeutung ties Hicron. fur d. alttestamentl. Textkritik, p. 23 ff. Baethgen, Der tcxtkritische Worth, d. alt.
;
;
Ucberstz. d.
in
Ps.
128
JPT, 1882,
405
pp.
ff.,
593
ff.
Cornill,
;
A
156.
thoroughgoing comparison of the post-Christian translations with the Massoretic text is a decided desideratum (compare Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii. 51). Ezecliiel, pp.
A
ff.,
couple of examples
may
at least give a tolerable illus
tration of the matters referred to in the above sections.
xxvi. 2
D^y
ff.,
nix
D^
mn
11
^
n^n
ny
ny mrvn
Greek transcription according
473
Hcxapla,
ii.
aaapeLfj,
ovafico
o-a/jLw%
Oecrap
{3aa$covai ii.
17, T.
v.
11, T.
vn, Targ.
a8a
f.
10^ pnv
TIDD -iv :D :IDK
-ran
to
:niD2 12
intan
yju
ftarc
"u
p.
362)
inns
the
$6oov
:
(m^
tecrpo
ftaroov (inD^).
yi ftaia a &wvai acoB
cod
ii.
efjifiovvei^.
acofjLTjp
craXw/j,
craXwfj,
Isa.
Dny^ D^,
Epiphanius (compare Field,
Lagarde, Mitthcilungcn,
;
ywi aa$iK
^ sn
11
)
fferov
Hab.
(liv) a)\e/i6i{jb.
M. and Jerome, frrrp, Targ. Syr. (LXX.), ^n Hos. M. Jerome, IV, Syr. Targ. (LXX.), F z eph. iii. 18, Hos. vi. 5, T. M. Jerome, IIK TBB^ID, (LXX.), s
;
J
"in
;
mn
Jer. xxv. 38, fnn, Targ. (LXX.), Syr. Targ., II^D ^a^o Ezek. xxvii. 11 Gen. i. 26, pKfri?:ni, Syr. (by correct divination ?), p^n HTl^Dll. Ps. xi. 1, cmn, all versions (with ;
;
;
the LXX.), ioa in.
Ezek.
v.
15,
nn^ni,
Targ. Syr.
Jerome
Isa. xxv. 2, -I^D, all versions, Ty.
(LXX.), rrm.
we go back to the witnesses for the text in times (to which, as was remarked in 93, the pre-Christian Targums in part belong), the variations grow in the intensive 94.
If, finally,
as well as in the extensive sense.
the Alexandrine forth
the text
numerous
Proverbs,
in
its
variations,
to details, but it
The
translation, in so far as original
some
of
sometimes, as
form.
chief witness here it
It
is
succeeds in setting not only affords
them highly important in regard in the Book of Jeremiah and in
assumes the character of a different liecension.
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.
exemplar with a divergent
243
proved partly from the
text, is
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
Targums
29), in the oldest parts of the
(
G4), and in pre-Christian works, such as the
(
of Jubilees that
had
its
origin in Palestine
(
Book
Indeed,
13).
even in the translations from the times after Christ the forms of the text translated to as
being then
by the LXX. are here and there witnessed
still
read
therefore evident
It is
93).
(
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 While in earlier times it was
to in
41 and
89.
especially the Catholics who in the modern scientific treatises to the LXX., gave preference on the history of the Old Testament text, the Massoretic text
has
won an
Zwingli
is
The utterance
ever increasing significance.
specially deserving of attention
"
:
Infiniti
sunt
of
loci,
quibus manifeste deprehenditur LXX. et aliter et melius turn legisse, turn distinxisse, quam Kabbini postea vel legerint vel
(Opera ed. Schuler et Schultheiss, remarkable the agreement between the
distinxerint"
On
v.
555-59).
LXX. and
the
Samaritan Pentateuch, compare (besides the literature referred to by l)e Wette-Schrader, Einleituny, p. 205 f.) the London
19 Morinus, Exercitationes ecclesiasticce in Samaritanorum Pentat., Paris 1G31 Cappellus, Alexius a S. Aquilino, FcntaCritica sacra, lib. iii. cap. 20 tcuclii Hcbr. Sam. prcestantia, 1783 Gesenius, DC Pentateuchi Polyglot,
vi.
;
utrumquc
;
;
;
Samaritani
indolc
origine,
auctoritate
ct
Geiger, Urschri/t, pp. 8-19, 99
if.
;
;
lical-Encyclopccdic,
386 1877-78
ii.
Pick, Bibliotli. Sacra,
;
1815
;
I860,
54 ff. Noldeke, AltDillmaim in Herzog s Fritzsche in Herzog, i. 283
42 Nachgelassene Schriflcn, iv. testamentliche Liter cdur, pp. 42, 240
p.
comment.,
Jiicl. Zcitsclirift, iv. ;
;
;
;
E.eidQnliQim,iUiotheca sama-
244
95.
ritana,
xxi.
ii.
VALUE OF THE SEPTUAGINT. That the Alexandrine translators did
sqq.
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.
LXX.
it
Moreover,
should not be overlooked that the
many passages agrees with the Massoretic text against the Samaritans. On the text of the Book of Jubilees, compare Bonsch, Das Bucli der Julilicien, Leipsic 1874, and especially Dillmann in in just as
the Sitzunysbcricliten der Berliner Academie, 1883, p. 324 ff., where about twenty- seven cases are quoted in which the text
Book
the
of
Jubilees
of
agrees
with
that
of
the
LXX. As
95.
certainly as the deviations of the
LXX. from
received, text consist in great part of deviations in the
the
Hebrew
text used in the work, so certain
is
it
the
copy
of
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
amended by
a thoroughgoing collation with 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, text can be variously
the
Naturally in using it the most painstaking care necessary, and never should the critic of the text lose sight
less or is
We
LXX.
more.
of the fact that the
on the to
an
text, is
Hebrew
immediate authority
be regarded as worthy of preference auxiliary, and that the treatment of the
always
indirect
text, as the
to
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
of his task
On
is
text are raised, while the justification
by no means lowered.
the other side,
it is
not less certain that the deviations of
245
VALUE OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
95.
the LXX., in spite of the extreme antiquity of this translation, are not throughout always of equal importance for the
Rather in numerous passages the received The most remarkable
tion of the text.
text
emenda
to be unconditionally preferred.
is
feature of the case
is
the witness of the
that such instances also occur just where
LXX.
from pre-Christian times
reinforced by the other witnesses
is
(
Thus,
94).
it is
a generally
acknow
ledged fact that several of the readings which the LXX. 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, are
readings
Dm
"iE>&ri>3,
A&W?)
LXX.
;
1
for example, the Alexandrine be unconditionally preferred: Gen. xli. 56, LXX. D nnEfcn (or a similar word for o-irofio-
to
Sam.
33 Eh
ix.
2
;
25
Sam.
f.,
oy ~QY1,
xxiii.
LXX.
roE^E-"
8,
1
,
^?"!!1,
LXX.
and IEO^I, (mediately),
*nm -nbgn Isa. 9, YDS.II tnnn, LXX. LXX. Bnn Yin j X xiii. 33, KE IDTIBVIK, LXX. Kferan DriN; p s xlii. 6 TI^K :v:s, LXX. ^Vl ?; Ps. Ixix/ 27, iiBDS LXX. iB pi Neh. iii. 14, PIM-I, LXX. rnrv Zeph. iii. 17, LXX. Enn\ The LXX. and the nebs*;
xliv.
Isa.
12,
xvii.
;
Ehn,
er<
.
f.,
;
E"nn\
Samaritans have good readings in the following passages Gen. Ex. v. 9, W&\, instead of 29, Y3K, instead of D^3N too Ex. xiv. the 25, nos^, instead of ID^I (so Syriac) :
xxxi.
;
lb>JT
Deut.
;
;
iv.
37,
Dnnnx
Djnil
(
= 0nk.
Syr.,
Jerome);
Deut.
On the other hand, the 43, noiK, instead of inDlK. Massoretic text is to be preferred to their united witness in 42, xiii. 6; Num. xxiv. 7, xxvi. 12 (compare e.g. Ex. xii.
xxxii.
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 and above itself (e.g. Jer. xv. 10; Ps. xvii. 1 4 ; Cod. Vat.) ;
246 all,
CONJECTUKAL CKITICISM.
9G.
the duplicate translations of the same passage that arose Isa. ix. 5 in Cod. Alex, affords
from interpolations, of which 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
suppose that with this his work survey
of the field teaches this.
is
critic of
ended.
the text
Even
must not
a very general
The Alexandrine
translation
back only to the third century before Christ, a time, therefore, which was separated from that of many of the Old carries us
Testament writers by a long period. errors of the text in the times
The presence
of various
make
following compels us to
the fundamental admission of the possibility of such having
had an existence even
Hence
conjectural
in the texts of those
criticism
much
earlier times.
cannot be excluded from the
investigations about the Old Testament text. enter upon a region where only a few select
Here,
too,
spirits
we
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, as
it
must here be remembered that the Old Testament
we have
already indicated above at
73, affords at
itself,
some
points a firm basis of operation which lends to the conjectures a greater security.
witnesses, even
if
Also the divergent readings of the old 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
more
easily found
by means of two known
unknown x can be 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
"TENDENCY"
97.
247
ALTERATIONS OF TEXT.
presupposition justifiable indeed, but to be used
fittingly, is a
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 Thus. Ps. xxii. 30, v f\K can without more ado reject them. for ifas For our estimate of the Jer. xv. 10, ^ttp Dr6a. character of David, the reading in 2 Sam. xii. 31 of ?.^, Also we have improve instead of TQjjn, is not unimportant. ;
1
"l"
ments
in vHK, instead
mvy
nDSD
in
rof>
of
vnx in Gen. xxxi. 25 (Lagarde)
Isaiah xxi.
6,
The
etc.
;
parallel passage 4, "nn^D for ^in
2 Sam. xxii. 5, suggests in Psalm xviii. poetic parallelisms in Ps. x. 6 recommends T^K, and in Job x. the prevailing rhythm in Psalm xcii. ff. suggests 15, ty nn in Psalm xciii. 4, ^crap "^ or (p. 253) i-QC?bD Tntf, instead ;
;
"*
How
of nntrD D^vix.
a glance at the
rhythm
of the
Lamenta
good emendations of the text has been shown by Budde on Isaiah xiv. The alphabetical form teaches that of Psalm ix. 7, with a word that has fallen tions
may
lead
to
n>n
out of the text, must belong to verse 8. On the contrary, of Isaiah iii. 11 is attached to verse 10, it leads to when the substitution of ^K K fur IIDK the parallelism between "MS
;
The 12 and 13 suggests B 7P, instead of -|^p, etc. 2 instead LXX. has in 6 a xxiv. Sam. KaBrjs, genuine ^erreifju of the senseless but since the Hittite Kadesh was DTinn Isaiah
viii.
wp
;
here unsuitable, Ewald ingeniously conjectured ^bin, instead of ^"ip. [See Wellhausen, Der Text dcr Buclies Samuelis, pp. 217,
221
ff.,
or Thenius in
Commentary.]
authorities have in Gen.
All the docu
to which, in 8, order to obtain a meaning, Sam. LXX. Syr., etc., supply mtrn but certainly it was originally "iD^l, instead of
mentary
iv.
iwi,
;
(Olshausen),
97.
essential condition of a methodical criticism of the
an exact insight into the nature of the textual errors It is specially be met with in the Old Testament.
text to
An
etc.
is
required that the question be answered as to whether
Old
Testament
text
has
been
intentionally
altered,
the or
248
"TENDENCY"
97.
we have
whether
to
do
ALTERATIONS OF TEXT.
only with
purely
unintentional
errors of transcription.
The
assertion that the
their text
an old one.
is
Jews have on purpose corrupted 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
contends for similar way.
repeated,
e.g.
;
the
"
and even Jerome, who elsewhere zealously
Hebrew
truth,"
expresses himself once in a
In the Middle Ages these changes were often by Eaimund Martin, and in later times they were
uttered with yet
greater
and bitterness by antiYea, even in modern times,
violence
Protestant critics like Morinus.
Lagarde has expressed the conjecture that the chronological of Genesis were falsified by the Jews in the
statements
For the polemic against the Christians. charges thus formulated there have meanwhile never been
interests
their
of
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
by a Jewish
treatise
occasion. Briill
text,
Geiger,
to
Abraham
scholar,
whom, among
Geiger,
others,
has
given
Dozy and
!N".
have attached themselves, affirms that in the received just as well as in the old translations, numerous
alterations
are
to
be found, which had their origin in the
and dogmatic views of later times, and had therefore been undertaken in a kind of apologetic interest.
religious solicitude
That
this latter formulating of the thesis is not altogether
unfounded
is
The same
undeniable.
can be proved in the case of Qarjan
of the
Hebrew
text
(
all
religious dread
old translations, and in
which
many
33, 91), as also the tendency
modern
translations to give expression to their indignation manifestations of antipathy by means of the word of against a as of fact, lead the Jews in ancient matter Scripture, did, of
times to
alter
here
and there the
consonantal
text.
A
or.
reminiscence tradition
preserved in the Jewish collection of the so-called Tiqqunc
such attempts
of
the
in
itself
249
ALTERATIONS OF TEXT.
"TENDENCY"
is
34. Although SopWrim, which was referred to ahove in some of the cases collected under that name are doubtful, and others evidently wrong, and even although the accounts given
sound of the word
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, e.y. of the original
Job ii.
vii.
LXX. had
20, where the
it);
i.
12
;
while in 1 Sam.
On
LXX.).
Ezek.
viii.
13, not
iii.
still
the original -fiy
;
Zech.
10 and the LXX. rendering of 17 Lam. iii. 20 Xum. xi. 15
8 (compare Dent, xxxii.
Hab.
may
;
;
;
^
but
DTi^tf is to
be read (compare
the other hand, as often happens in similar cases,
the enumeration
not exhaustive, for in other places such
is
The most interesting example Tiyqunim may be discovered. the interchange of baal with bosheth in many proper names.
is
In the older Israelitish times the word ?$p was used quite as harmlessly of the
which
is
God
shown by
of Israel as the
this that
many
synonymous word names had
old proper
jfttf,
this
name
of God incorporated with them, e.g. Ish ba al, the son of Saul (1 Chrou. viii. 33), Baaliada the son of David (1 Chron. ,
xiv. 7),
Meriblaal, the son of Jonathan (1 Chron.
in later times,
when
name Ba
the
al
viii.
34).
But
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
antipathy against, the persons concerned.
became Eliada (2 Sam.
v.
s sympathy with, or David s son,Baaliada
16), whereas in the case of those
belonging to the race of Saul, in accordance
Baal was exchanged xviii.
19, 25, LXX.).
IsJibosheth
(2
Sam.
ii.
for ri^a,
"
shame
with Hos.
ix.
10,
"
1
Kings (compare Thus arose the now well-known names if)
and
Mepliiboslictli
(2
Sam.
ix.
G).
250
"
97.
TENDENCY
"
ALTERATIONS OF TEXT.
Besides this change, of which a distinct view is afforded us in Book of Chronicles, where the names remain unchanged,
the
some Tiqqunim which can be proved with an But otherwise Geiger s exposition rests upon equal certainty. an extreme exaggeration and a zeal for discovering intentional
there are
still
And
changes in the original text bordering on monomania. as the instances
are limited in
so also
must have
number, The Qarjan, with been the time in which they originated. a character, such as we meet with in the tendency "
"
Talmuds, shows
and therefore belongs
this,
the
fourth
had
their origin, the text
century after Christ.
a character that
it
At
at the
the time
latest
to
when they
had already assumed so immutable could not be touched even in offensive
passages.
13
quo mihi videtur aut veteres quam nunc habent, aut sensum scripturarum posuisse, non verba, aut quod Apostolum
Jerome on Gal.
HebKCorum
libros
iii.
aliter
"Ex
:
habuisse,
magis est sestirnandum, post passionem Christ! et in Hebrreis et in nostris codicibus ab aliqno Dei nomen appositum, ut infamiam nobis inureret, qui in Christum maledictum a Deo credimus" (compare also on v. 10).
Eaimund Martin,
16 87), p. 095 ff. Martini," by Neubauer in [On 3rd vol. vii. ser. 100 ff. 179 ff. and 1888, Expositor, pp. article by Schiller-Szinessy in The Journal of Philology, xvi. No. 31, p. 130 ff.] Morinus, Exercitationes billiccc, pp. 7-19. "
Martin
"
or
Pugio
field
"
see
(ed.
article
;
Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik
und
G-eschichte
dcs Penta-
tenchs, 1867, p. 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 i.
xii
:
"The
the LXX., the calculations made by the Christians, according which the Messiah had appeared in the year of the world
to
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
view, Kuenen, Letterkunde,
3,
1873, Amsterdam,
Geiger, Urschrift
On
bosheth
Wellhausen,
en Mcdedelingen dcr
Verslagen
ii.
251
UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OF TEXT.
98.
und
for baal,
Text
des
p.
Akademie,
k.
296.
Uebersctzungcn der Bibel, 1857.
compare Geiger, Buclics
Samuel,
Kuenen, Verslagen en Mededelingen,
iii.
ZDMG, pp. 5,
xii.
1888,
xvi.
and p.
730 30
176.
ff.
;
f.
;
A
confirmation is found in the exposition of Num. xxxii. 38, where && rooiD 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,
A compare Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, iii. 178. in this of names occurs the from play upon change passages the LXX. where Baal has the feminine article (compare Rom. xi. 4), while in reading the word ala-^vvr) was used (compare Dillman, Monatsberichte d. k. Academic d. W. zu Berlin, 1881). To the same category belong probably also the name Jezebel, which originally indeed can scarcely have been com Compare Hoffmann, ZAW, 1883, p. 105. nirp on Tpn as a euphemism for ^P, compare Psalm Further, x. 3 Job i. 11, ii. 1) 1 Kings xxi. 10, with Isaiah viii. 21; 1 Sam. iii. 13. Perhaps also iynn, instead of nynn, Gen. bined with br.
;
;
Of another sort is Judges xviii. 30, where Moses was changed into Manasseh (compare b. Baba bat/ira, 109&). 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 xxxi. 49, where nsya quently to be found close by e.g. Gen. n P, whereas this word is itself to is said to be a for change ^ be found in verses 45, 51 ff. To this it may be added that, xx. 13.
:
according to Lagarde s happy conjecture, navon (verse ought probably to be inserted after the word im. of
21)
Against Geiger, compare especially the appropriate remarks Wellhausen in Text des Buchcs 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,
number
of errors in the text
that are
met with
owe
by
far the greatest
their existence
to
causes
in all other sorts of writings, namely, the
inaccuracies and the misunderstandings of transcribers.
naturally there
much
is
much
Here
that cannot be put on record, and
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 In doing
emendations.
so,
we must always keep
in
view
and peculiar fortunes of the Hebrew
special characteristics
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 text
it
in
is
has no occasion to refer to passages in which the good order, and so easily a one-sided comfortless
be given. Only the reading can dispel this illusion. This will show that textual criticism can indeed in many cases con
representation of the facts of the
Old Testament
tribute in an important
beauty
may
itself
manner
to the greater
clearness
of the text, but does not alter the contents
known
and
from those
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 already
in
any
essential respect.
astonishment that so old a literary work as the Old Testament, written in a character so
little
practised and so
much exposed
and
so intelligible.
to serious risks, should still be so readable
Letters which are very similar in appearance were readily Even the ancients were aware of this danger, and b. Sabb. 103& expressly warns against the confusion of N
interchanged.
with y, of 2 with 3, of a with of 1 with i, of n with n, of with \ of r with :, of n with a, of D with D. 1 Examples of such interchanges have been occasionally referred to above. ,
253
UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OF TEXT.
98.
The confusion of and T was particularly common. So, too, the On n and n compare above, confusion i and 3. 77; and LXX. It Isaiah xxx. on should and D3n. E 4, D, DJH, specially further be remembered here, that the forms of the old Hebrew "i
have also to be taken into consideration ( 75), because may have led to interchanges. Ex
letters
here other similarities
amples are: Zeph.
13, where the received nyiED
iii.
might
*tt
easily originate in the old system of writing from the original Dto also Isaiah xix. 18, (as preserved in the LXX.) IVio ;
and might in a similar way originate from \rvs Isaiah xvii. 9, upon which Lagarde, Semitica, i. 31, should be where
D"in
;
consulted.
In particular, it cannot even in ancient times had been sometimes
Abbreviations were misunderstood. be doubted that
mm
Then the LXX. presupposes
written only as xxv. 37, ^SK for mm ".
in
Jer.
sjx, and conversely the LXX. had read in Jonah i. 3, mm nny, instead of nay, and in Ps. xvi. 3, mm mnsriE, instead of TIN n[n]. Compare also Hitzig on Jer. it would seem that here and there iii. 19 and vi. 11. So, too,
in the Scriptures transcribers made use of contractions for the grammatical endings, in which cases then the marks of
Thus Lowth abbreviation might easily have been overlooked. and Cheyne conjecture in Isaiah v. 1, DHH, instead of nn, and Derenbourg, in Ps. So, too, in
Isaiah
Klostermann
on
Michaelis, Orient,
Eequisiten pp. y
cxlvii.
1
Sam.
und
44-53
17, Tiny DVD, instead of
4, read
li.
xiv.
WV 34
excgct. Biblioth. ;
The
iDy
Compare
.
also
and in general, J. D. 20. 37; Low, GrapMsclic
rest xiii.
p.
215.
upon wrongly supplied 18, where E/Wp should
e Perhaps also the Q re Kin referred 92 should be so judged, for originally it would be
be read instead of D^ written
W.
Erankel, Vorstu-dien,
Sometimes errors in the text vowel letters ( 79), e.g. 2 Sam. to in
;
for
s
y.
&?n.
words plays a very considerable role, may be seen from what is said in 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 ( 33), false dividing of
the possibility of which Not infrequently 83.
254
98.
UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OF TEXT.
for their corrected readings in such passages as 2 Sam. v. 2, Job xxxviii. 12, Jer. iv. 5, Ezra iv. 12, are quite right. But we meet with this phenomenon very frequently. Thus
already cited passages, Hos. vi. 5, Jer. xv. 33, Ps. xlii. 6 f., and, further, in Neh. i. 12, read Ps. Ixii. 4, read Ps. xliv. 5, read mro mi:
the
in
xxiii.
ITO
;
mm
10,
;
19 f., read K Dnpy Eccles. vii. 27, read r6npn Of a somewhat similar kind are the cases where a letter etc. which concludes one word and at the same time begins the 2 Sam. second, is through an oversight only written once e.g. Jer. liii. 10, read K^nn Zech. iv. 7, read v. 2, read nx N^sn inn nns; Ps. xlii. 2, read n^ao Ps. civ. 18, read D^nn Job And such xxxiii. 17, read niryDB Eccles. ii. 24 f., ^tf^D, etc. cases as those in which an initial and final letter has been wrongly reduplicated: e.g. Jer. vi. 20, read nitD Neh. ii. 14, (.Ten. xlix.
"iD
;
:
;
;
;
;
;
;
read *pa6o
;
Ps. xxii. 31, read
etc.
n\
Passages where letters have been transposed are found in Ps. xviii. 4G, i:nrM, on the contrary, 2 Sam. ii. 22, rorn Ps. Isa. viii. 12,Tj p, which probably is Ixxii. o, TISTI, read pifrOi :
;
;
;
to be altered into trip (with i for
where DV [a final sound Jer. by repeating D ntf& jn, and Isa. xli. 1, where ro
found in
Jer. iv. 25,
i).
;
False repetitions are
has arisen out of D*N*QJn
11
]
viii.
is^brp
3,
where the second
(compare
xl.
31), are
be struck out (compare also Ps. xviii. 14). well-known cause of textual errors is the similar begin ning of two clauses, of which then the second came to be to
A
An
example is found in Josh. xv. 59, where a names of places has disappeared from the Not less was the Massoretic text (compare the LXX.). overlooked.
whole
series
of
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, e.g. 2 Sam.
11 1:111 belong to v. 12, where the words l,tan where and and 16 the Ps. v. v. 17 xxxiv., LXX.), (compare xix.
.
must be transposed.
While
.
.
in these cases a simple trans
there are other passages to be met with, position where various portions foreign to the original text have been is sufficient,
introduced
the
through
255
REVIEW.
99.
of
incorporation
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, e.g. in Isa. vii. 8, ix. 13 f.,
DOW
last been placed beyond all doubt. rrniK was originally a parenthesis apply ing to the whole passage ii. 4-vii. 28, the adoption of which into the text brought with it the change of noaH into VOTI.
10, has
xxix.
In Dan.
ii.
(compare also Ezra 99.
at
4, indeed,
iv.
V).
remains
It only
for
us
now
to
bind together in one
comprehensive description of the historical development of the
Old Testament what has been brought out in the preceding It has been shown that the form of the sections (92 ft). text, as it
now
lies
before us, in all essential respects can be
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 traced back to the
now
possess.
first
As concerns
the Pentateuch, this pre-Christian
text had been widely circulated, though indeed in various, in
part divergent, copies,
characterised
and
yet this
as one superior to
became the received
text.
old
text
and
cannot be
the one that subsequently
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. tinction of the pre-Christian
Already this
dis
and post-Christian age suggests
the conjecture, that the domination of the received text
be ascribed to the endeavours of the after Christ, finally settled the
is
to
same men who,
shortly question as to the extent and
The necessity that range of the Old Testament Canon ( 6). 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
REVIEW.
99.
fixed
form,
which was
of
consequence especially in con who were dependent upon the
troversies with the Christians,
LXX. and
If,
we were
therefore,
men such as E. Akiba those who have on this
to refer to
his like-minded contemporaries, as
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
sway from that time onwards in Aquila, who was dependent How upon E. Akiba or his immediate contemporaries ( 52). in Jews felt themselves the times bound subsequent strongly the
shown in a
to this authorised text is
rightly this
insight had
its
in this,
it,
by means of reflection or remembrance of other and in part more suitable
the
by
convinced of
manner
even in passages where he incorrectness, whether it be that
that no one ventured to change felt
striking
readings
obtained
33).
(
Of the
been
and manner in which this authorised text was we unfortunately know nothing definitely. This
style
constructed
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 In so far, the relatively recent but already wide able one. spread theory, that single
archetype,
extant manuscripts point back to one Such a standard decidedly correct.
all
is
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 (IP n^n, e.g. 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
the
other
hand, the
equally
primitive Codex obtained
extended.
On
that
this
widespread theory
position by mere arbitrary by the manuscripts of the several books that by chance were at hand being bound together into one standard
choice, or
this
Bible,
is
by no means
257
REVIEW.
99.
Even
certain.
if
this
may have been
example, with the Book Samuel ( 95), where surely the manifest errors of the text would scarcely have been allowed to stand if the authorised the case with particular books,
for
of
by means of the collation of several certainly had not been the only principle
text had been established it
manuscripts,
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
produced
(jer.
way was an
Taanith
iv.)
;
authentic form of the
text
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 e re and the
K
e
tib.
But
this fidelity
to the objective witnesses for the text is in fact to
be con
more subjective through dependence upon dogmatic motives and unhistorical principles, would have been productive of in sidered as a great benefit, since at that time a its
criticism,
curable
mischief.
Inadequate
as
the
method
of
textual
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 criticism
the several passages in the Old Testament that have been intentionally changed show ( 97) what the result
witnesses
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,
manuscripts were transcribed, we may finally explain a part of several abnormal forms which with
from which
all
later
258
99.
REVIEW.
down
pedantic scrupulosity have been preserved
The
our
to
own
which
irregularly large or small letters, of
days ( 77). 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
Also
them.
imitated
the
so-called
litterce
may
suspenses
indeed in part be omitted letters which in that manuscript were added above the other letters.
Simon (Histoire Critique du V. T. liv. i. chap, xviii., Eotterdam 1685, p, 101) points out the importance of
Eich. ed.
the early years of the Christian era for the establishment of Et ainsi cette grande aversion des Juifs pour la this text "
:
Traduction des Septante, n a commence qu apres plusieurs et ce fut principaledisputes qu ils eurent avec les Chretiens ;
ment dans
appliquerent au sens Ecriture et a rendre les exemplaires hebreux les plus corrects qu il leur fut possible." The derivation of all manuscripts from one Archetype has
de
litteral
ce temps-lii
les Juifs
que
s
1
been maintained by Bosenmuller ( Vorrede zur Stereolypausgabe A. T. 1834), Olshausen (Die Psalmen, 1853, pp. 17 f.,
des
337
f.),
verlien,
Lagarde
1863,
p.
(Anmerkungen zur f. GGA, 1870,
1
;
(Alttestament. Literatur, p. ix.
303; and on
241),
the other side,
Uebers.
griecli.
1549
p.
etc.
Compare
ZWKL,
if.),
also
1887,
p.
Pro-
d.
Noldeke
ZAW, 278
ff.
Lagarde has formulated this theory in a quite peculiar style in the Preface referred to in 97 but compare Kuenen s reply ;
there
the hypothesis that the standard manuscript consisted of manuscripts arbitrarily put also
together, ii.
referred
to.
Against
compare Dillmann in Herzog
s
Real-Encyclopcedie,
388.
Jer. Taanitli, iv. fol. 685: "Three Torah Codices were found in the temple Court, Codex pyo, Codex *BiBjft, and Codex In one there was pyo (Deut. xxxiii. 27), while the two fcon.
others had
ruijflD
Neulielrdisches
;
one had
Worterbuch
DIW i.
(Ex. xxiv. 5
;
compare Levy, one njtt
507), the other two
;
00.
259
KEVIEW.
In all three had nine times ton, the others eleven times son. cases the two were held to and the one rejected." Compare e Fiirst s Remarks on an Ezra Massekct Sopli rim vi. 4, p. xii. Codex (Kanon d. A. T. p. 117) rest, as Strack has shown, on
wrong reading, 1. Moecl Kat. 186; Varice Lectiones in Mischnam, ii. 61.
a
compare liabbinovicz,
The
similarity of the post-Christian forms of the text of in the above section is naturally true only upon the spoken does not exclude, as follows indeed from the facts and whole, all sorts of small divergences. the exhaustive answer to which, how important question, the of the task referred to in ever, requires 93, performance is to determine the exact relation between the Massoretic text
already set forth in
92-93,
An
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, PUJNTEIIS, EDINBURGH.
PUBLICATIONS OF
&
T.
O L
T.
.A.
IR,
LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT
Adam
(J.,
Ahlfeld
IKI,
GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH.
38
AN
D.D.)
(Dr.), etc.
CO.
LIMITED.
EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
8vo, 9s.
THE VOICE FROM THE CROSS. Cr. 8vo, THE SEVEN CHURCHES OF ASIA. Is.
price 5s.
Alcock (Deborah) Alexander (Prof. W.Lindsay) BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. Twovols. 8vo, 21s. Alexander (Dr. J. A.) COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH. Two vols. 8vo, 17s. Allen (Prof. A. V. G.) LIFE OF JONATHAN EDWARDS. Fcap. 8vo, 5s. Ante-Nicene Christian Library A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH Piuon TO THE COUNCIL OF NiaasA.
Augustine
s
Twenty-four
Works
vols. Svo, Subscription price,
Edited by
8vo, Subscription price,
3,
6, 6s.
MARCUS DODS, D.D.
Fifteen vols.
19s. nett.
Bannerman (Prof.) THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Bannerman (D. D., D.D.) THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 8vo, 12s. Baumgarteu (Professor) APOSTOLIC HISTORY. Three vols. 8vo, 27s. Beck (Dr.) OUTLINES OF BIBLICAL PSYCHOLOGY. Crown Svo, 4s. PASTORAL THEOLOGY IN THE XEW TESTAMENT. Crown Svo, 6s. Bengel GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. With Original Notes, Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. Svo, Subscription Cheaper Edition, the five volumes bound in three, 24s.
Besser
s
CHRIST THE LIFE OF THE WORLD.
Price
price,
31s.
6d.
6s.
Bible-Class Handbooks. Crown Svo. BINNIE (Prof.) The Church, Is. 6d.
BROWN (Principal) The Epistle to the Romans, 2s. CANDLISH (Prof.) The Christian Sacraments, Is. 6d. The Work of the Holy Spirit, Is. 6d. Christian Doctrine of God, Is. Gd. DAVIDSON (Prof.) The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2s. 6d. DODS (Prof.) Post-Exilian Prophets, 2s. Book of Genesis, 2s. DOUGLAS (Principal) Book of Joshua, Is. 6d. Book of Judges, Is. 3d. Obadiah to Zephaniah, Is. (kl. HAMILTON (T., D.D.) Irish Presbyterian Church History, 2s. HENDERSON (ARCHIBALD, D.D.) Palestine, with Maps, 2s. 6d. INNES (A. TAYLOR) Church and State. KILPATRICK (T.B., B.D.) Butler s Three Sermons on Human Nature, Is. 6d. LINDSAY (Prof.) St. Mark s Gospel, 2s. 6d. St. Luke s Gospel, Part I., 2s.; The Acts of the Apostles, two Part II., Is. 3d. The Reformation, 2s. :>s.
vols., Is. 6d. each.
MACGREGOR Book
The Epistle
(Prof.) of
Exodus.
Two
to the Galatians,
Is.
6d.
vols., 2s. each.
The Westminster Presbyterianism, Is. 6d. The Sum of Saving Knowledge, Is. 6d. MURPHY (Prof.) The Books of Chronicles, Is. 6d. REITH (Gso., M.A.) St. John s Gospel. Two vols., 2s. each. SCRYMGEOUR (WM.) Lessons on the Life of Christ, 2s. 6d. STALKER (JAMES, D.D.) Life of Christ, Is. 6d. Life of St. Paul, Is. 6d. SMITH (GEORGE, LL.D.) A Short History of Missions, 2s. 6d. THOMSON (W. D., M.A.) Christian Miracles and Conclusions of Science, 2s. WALKER (NORMAN L., D.D.) Scottish Church History, Is. 6d. WHYTE (ALEXANDER, D.D.) The Shorter Catechism, 2s. 6d. Bible-Class Primers. Paper covers, 6d. each ; free by post, 7d. In free by post, 9d. cloth, 8d. each
MACPHERSON (JOHN, M.A.) Confession of Faith,
2s.
;
CKOSKERY (Prof.) Joshua and the Conquest. GIVEN (Prof.) The Kings of Judah. GLOAG (PATON J., D.D.) Life of Paul. IVEKACH (JAMES, M.A.) Life of Moses.
PATERSON
(Prof. J. A.)
Period of the Judges.
T.
and
T. Clark s Publications.
Gieseler (Dr. J. C. L. ) ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. Four vols. 8 vo, 2, 2s. Gifford (Canon) VOICES or THE PROPHETS. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. Given (Kev. Prof. J. J.) THE TRUTHS OF SCRIPTURE IN CONNECTION
WITH REVELATION, INSPIRATION, AND THE CANON.
Glasgow (Prof.) Gloag (Paton
J.,
8vo, 6s.
APOCALYPSE TRANSLATED AND EXPOUNDED. 8vo, 10/6. A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY D.D.)
ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Two
Vols. 8vO, 21s.
THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES.
Crown
8vo, 7s. 6d.
INTRODUCTION TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 8vo, 12s. INTRODUCTION TO THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 8vo, 10s. 6d. EXEGETICAL STUDIES. Crown Svo, 5s. Godet (Prof.) COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. Two vols. Svo, 21s. COMMENTARY ON ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. COMMENTARY ON EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. COMMENTARY ON IST EPISTLE TO CORINTHIANS. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. LECTURES IN DEFENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. Cr. Svo, 6s. Goebel (Siegfried) THE PARABLES OF JESUS. Svo, 10s. 6d. Gotthold s Emblems or, INVISIBLE THINGS UNDERSTOOD BY THINGS ;
THAT ARE MADE.
Grimm
Crown
Svo, 5s.
GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE
s
lated, Revised,
NEW
TESTAMENT. Trans Demy 4to, 36s. The Biblical Cosmogony in the
and Enlarged by JOSEPH H. THAYER, D.D.
Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.)
CREATION;
or,
Light of Modern Science.
With Illustrations. Crown Svo, 5s. 6d. HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
Hagenbach (Dr. K. R.) HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION.
Two vols. Svo, 21s. Newman, LL.B.) THE LORD S PRAYER. 2nd Ed., cr. Svo, 6s. GETHSEMANE or, Leaves of Healing from the Garden of Grief.
Hall (Rev.
;
Crown
Svo, 5s.
BEYOND THE STARS; or, Heaven, its Inhabitants, (T., D.D.) Second Edition, crown Svo, 3s. 6d. Occupations, and Life. Haiiess (Dr. C. A.) SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS. Svo, 10s. 6d. Hamilton
THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF THEISM. S., D.D.) THE SELF-EEVELATION OF GOD. Svo, 12s. Haupt (Erich) THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 8vo, 10s. Havernick (H. A. Ch.) INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT. Heard (Eev. J. B., M.A.) THE TRIPARTITE NATURE OF MAN Harris (Rev.
SOUL,
AND BODY.
OLD AND Hefele (Bishop)
Fifth Edition, crown Svo,
1 2s.
6cl.
10s. 6d.
SPIRIT,
6s.
NEW THEOLOGY. A Constructive Critique.
A
8vo,
Cr. Svo, 6s.
HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.
Vol. III., A.D. 431 to the I., to A.D. 325 ; Vol. II., A.D. 326 to 429. close of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. Svo, 12s. each. Vol.
COMMENTARY ON PSALMS. 3 vols. Svo, 33s. COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES, ETC. Svo, 9s. THE PROPHECIES OF EZEKIEL ELUCIDATED. Svo, 10s. 6d. THE GENUINENESS OF DANIEL, etc. Svo, 12s. HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Two vols. Svo, 21s. CHRISTOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Four vols. Svo, 2, 2s.
Hengstenberg (Professor)
ON THE GOSPEL Herzog
OF ST. JOHN.
Two
vols. Svo, 21s.
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, HISTORICAL, DOCTRINAL, AND
PRACTICAL THEOLOGY. Based on the Real-Encyldopddie of Herzog, Plitt, and HaucL Edited by Prof. SCHAFF, D.D. In three vols., price 24s. each. ENCYCLOPEDIA OP LIVING DIVINES, ETC., OF ALL DENOMINATIONS IN EUROPE AND AMERICA. (Supplement to Herzog s Encyclopaedia. ) Imp. Svo, 8s.
Hutchison (John, D.D.)
COMMENTARY ON THESSALONIANS.
Svo, 9s.
T.
and
T.
Clark
s
Publications.
Hutchison (John, D.D.) COMMENTARY ON PHILIPPIANS. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Janet (Paul) FINAL CAUSES. By PAUL JANET, Member of the In stitute. Translated from the French. Second Edition, demy 8vo, 12s. THE THEORY OF MORALS. Demy Svo, 10s. 6d. Johnstone (Prof. E., D.D.) COMMENTARY ON LST PETER. Svo, 10s. 6d. Jones (E. E. C.) ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. Svo, 7s. 6d. Jouffroy PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAYS. Fcap. Svo, 5s. Kant THE METAPHYSIC OF ETHICS. Crown Svo, 6s. PHILOSOPHY OF LAW. Trans, by W. HASTIE, B.D. Cr. Svo, 5s. PRINCIPLES OF POLITICS, etc. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d.
COMMENTARY ON THE PENTATEUCH, 3 vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. ; JOSHUA, JUDGES, AND RUTH, Svo, 10s. 6d. BOOKS OF SAMUEL, Svo, 10s. 6d. BOOKS OP KINGS, Svo, 10s. 6d.; CHRONICLES, Svo, 10s. 6d. EZIIA, NEHEMIAH, ESTHER, Svo, 10s. 6d. JEREMIAH, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. EZBKIEL, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. DANIEL, Svo, 10s. 6d. MINOR, PUOPIIETS, 2 vols. Svo, 21s.
Keil (Prof.)
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
MANUAL
INTRODUCTION TO THE Two vols. Svo, 21s. HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Keymer (Rev. N., M.A.) NOTES ON GENESIS. Crown Svo, Is. 6d. Killen (Prof.) THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CHURCH. A Treatise on OF
HISTORICO-CUITICAL
CANONICAL SCRIPTUKES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Church Government.
Svo, 9s.
THE OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH and Polity
"Worship,
THEIGNATIAN Konig
(Dr. F. E.)
; or, The History, Doctrine, of the Christians, traced to A.D. 755. Svo, 9s. EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS. Cr. 8vo, 2s. Gd.
THE RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF ISRAEL.
Cr. Svo, 3s. Gd.
THE SUFFERING SAVIOUR; or, Meditations (Dr. F. W.) on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eighth Edition, crown Svo, 6s.
Krummacher
DAVID, THE KING OF ISRAEL. AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Crown Svo,
Kurtz
Second Edition,
Two
HANDBOOK OF CHURCH HISTORY.
(Prof.)
cr.
8vo, 6s.
Gs.
vols. Svo, 15s.
HISTORY OF THE OLD COVENANT. Three vols. Svo, 31s. Gd. Ladd (Prof. G. T.) THE DOCTRINE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE :
Critical, Historical,
Old and
New
A
and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the
Testaments.
Two
vols. Svo,
1600 pp., 24s.
THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF MAN. Svo, 10s. Gd. Lane (Laura M.) LIFE OF ALEXANDER VINET. Crown Svo, 7s. Gd. Lange (J. P., D.D.) THE LIFE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. Edited
Laidlaw
(Prof.)
by MARCUS Dons, D.D.
2nd Ed.,
in 4 vols. Svo, Subscription price, 2Ss.
COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD AND
NEW
TESTAMENTS.
Edited
by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D. OLD TESTAMENT, 14 vols. NEW TESTAMENT, 10 vols. APOCRYPHA, 1 vol. Subscription price, nett, 15s. each. ON ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK. Three vols. Svo, 31s. Gd. ;
;
ON THE GOSPEL OF ON THE GOSPEL OF Leehler (Prof. TIMES.
ST. ST.
LUKE. Two vols. Svo, 18s. JOHN. Two vols. Svo, 21s. THE APOSTOLIC AND POST- APOSTOLIC
G-. V., D.D.) Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine.
2 vols.
cr.
Svo, 16s.
Lehmann
SCENES FROM THE LIFE OF JESUS. Cr. Svo, 3s. Gd. (Pastor) Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) THE Six DAYS OF CREATION. Cr. Svo, 7s. Gd. Lichtenberger (F., D.D.) HISTORY OF GERMAN THEOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY. Svo, 14s. Lilley (J. P., M.A.) Use. Crown Svo,
Lisco (F.
G-.)
THE LORD S SUITER
:
Its Origin,
Nature, and
5s.
PARABLES OF JESUS EXPLAINED. Fcap. Svo, 5s. MICROCOSMUS An Essay concerning Man and
Lotze (Hermann)
relation to the World.
:
Fourth Edition, two
vols.
Svo (1450 pages),
36s.
his
T. and T. Clark
s
Publications.
THE CHURCH. Crown 8vo, 5s. THEFOURTH GOSPEL. 7s. 6d. GOSPEL DESCRIBED AND EXPLAINED ACCORDING
Luthardt, Kahnis, and Bruckner
ST. JOHN THE AUTHOR OF
Luthardt (Prof. )
ST. JOHN S TO ITS PECULIAR CHARACTER.
Three
vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.
APOLOGETIC LECTURES ON THE FUNDAMENTAL (6 Ed.\ SAVING MORAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY (3 Ed.}. 3 vols. cr. Svo, 6s. each. (5 Ed. HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS. Vol. I., Svo, 10s. 6d. Macdonald INTRODUCTION TO PENTATEUCH. Two vols. Svo, 21s. THE CREATION AND FALL. Svo, 12s. Mair (A., D.D.) STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. Second ),
Edition, crown Svo, 6s.
CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS
Martensen (Bishop)
Doctrines of Christianity.
CHRISTIAN Three
ETHICS.
vols. Svo, 10s.
6<1.
A
:
Compendium
of the
Svo, 10s. 6d.
INDIVIDUAL
(GENERAL
SOCIAL.)
each.
GROWTH
OF THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY, from Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. Svo, 21s. AIDS TO THE STUDY OF GERMAN THEOLOGY. 3rd Edition, 4s. 6d. CPJTICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARIES ON THE Meyer (Dr.)
Matheson
(Geo., D.D.)
the First Century to the
NEW
TESTAMENT. Twenty Non- Subscription Price, 10s.
Svo. Subscription 6d. each volume.
vols.
Price,
5s.
5,
nett ;
S GOSPEL, two vols.; MARK AND LUKE, two vols.; ST. ROMANS, two GOSPEL, two vols. ; ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, two vols. EPHESIANS AND vols. GALATIANS, one vol. CORINTHIANS, two vols. THESSAPHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS, one vol. PHILEMON, one vol. LONIANS (Dr. Lunemann], one vol. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES (Dr. Huther), one vol. HEBREWS (Dr. Lunemann), one vol. ST. JAMES AND ST. JOHN S EPISTLES (Huther), one vol. PETER AND JUDE (Dr. Huther), one vol.
MATTHEW
ST.
JOHN
S
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
BIBLE WORDS AND PHRASES. 18mo, Is. THE WORLD OF PRAYER, Crown Svo, 4s. 6d. SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY TO THE HOLY SPIRIT. 7s. 6d
Michie (Charles, M.A.)
Monrad Morgan
(Dr. D. G.) (J., D.D.)
EXPOSITION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 8vo, 7s. 6d. THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SIN. An entirely New Translation from the Fifth German Edition. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Murphy (Professor) COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS. 8vo, 12s. A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON EXODUS. 9s. Naville (Ernest) THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. Crown Svo, 4s. 6d. THE CHRIST. Translated by Rev. T. J. DESPRES. Cr.8vo,4s.6d. MODERN PHYSICS: Studies Historical and Philosophical. Translated by Kev. HENRY DOWNTON, M.A. Crown Svo, 5s. Neander (Dr.) GENERAL HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND Milller (Dr. Julius)
CHURCH. Eight vols. Svo, Nicoll (W. R., LL.D.) THE Christ,
Crown
2, 2s. nett.
INCARNATE SAVIOUR:
A
Life of Jesus
Svo, 6s.
Novalis HYMNS AND THOUGHTS ON RELIGION. Crown Svo, 4s. Oehler (Prof.) THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 2 vols. Svo, 21s. Olshausen (Dr. H.) BIBLICAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS AND Cheaper Edition, four vols. crown Svo, 2*&. Svo, 10s. 6d. ; CORINTHIANS, one vol. ?9s. PHILIPPIANS, TITUS, AND FIRST TIMOTHY, one vol. Svo, 10s. 6d. Oosterzee (Dr. Van) THE YEAR OF SALVATION. Words of Life for Every Day. A Book of Household Devotion. Two vols. Svo, 6s. each. ACTS. -
Four vols. Svo,
ROMANS, one
2, 2s.
vol.
;
MOSES A Biblical Study. Crown Svo, 6s. OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY OF THE CONSUMMATION OF GOD :
Orelli
KINGDOM.
S
Svo, 10s. 6d.
COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH.
Svo, 10s.
(5<1.
JEREMIAH.
Svo, 10s. 6d.