Ilif 1^

m
iilii
m\mM'

iill'

iiwi

Ml'

'I^T

PRINCETON,

N.

J.

%-

H
Shelfi

^'^^^^;^.
Sectfbn
,

THE FOREIGN TH EOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

Works from which a Selection of Eight Volumes for 2, may be made. (Non-subscription Price within brackets) Alexander Commentary on Isaiah. Two Vols. (178.) Baumgarten The History of the Church In the Apostolic Age. TTiree Vols.

The

following are the

2a. (or

more

at the

same

ratio)

Bleok

Introduction to the

Now

Testament.

Two

(278.)

Vols.

(2l8.)

-Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Delitzsch Commentary on Job. Two Vols. (21s.) A'e-w Edition shortly. Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (3l8. 6d.) Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Two Vols. (2l8.) Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. One \'ol. (lOs. Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Two Vols. (21s.) Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Two Vols. (2l8.)
Christlieb
:

6d.)

A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (128.) DSlllnger Hippolytus and Callistus; or, The Church of Rome A D. 200-250. One Vol. (78. 6d.) Domer A System of Christian Doctrine. Four Vols. (42s.) History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, rive Vols. (528. 6d.) Ebrard Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) The Gospel History. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Apologetics. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Ewald Revelation Its Nature and Record, One Vol. (lOs. 6d.)
:

Frank System of Christian Certainty. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Gebhardt Doctrine oi the Apocalypse. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Gerlach Commentary on the Pentateuch. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Gieseler Compendium of Ecclesiastical History. F^our Vols. (42s.) GodetCommentary on St. Luke's GospeL Two Vols. (21s.) Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Two Vols. (218.) Commentary on 1st Corinthians. Two Vols. (21s.) Goebel On the Parables. One Vol. (lOs. 6d.) Hagenbach History of the Reformation. Two Vols. (21s.)
History of Christian Doctrines.
Three Vols.
(31s. 6d.)

Harless A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (lOs. 6d.) Haupt Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Vol. (lOs. 6d.) Havemlck General Introduction to the Old Testament. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Hengstenberg -Christology of the Old Testament. Four Vols. (42s.)

Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (338.) On the Book of Ecclesiastes. Etc. etc. One Vol. Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

(9s.)

(21s.)

Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One Vol. (12s.) The Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Two Vols. (2l8.) Kell Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on the Books of SamueL One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

Commentary on Commentary on Commentary on Commentary on

Jeremiah and Lamentations. Two Vols. EzekieL Two Vols. (21s.) the Book of DanieL One Vol. (10s. 6d.) the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.)
;

(2l8.)

Biblical Archaeology. Two Vols. (21s.) Kurtz History of the Old Covenant or. Old Testament Dispensation. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Lange Commentary on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St Mark. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Two Vols. (18s.) Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.) Luthardt Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Three Vol>. (3l3. 6d.) Macdonald Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Vols. (21s.) Martensen Christian Dogmatics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

Christian Ethics. General-Social Individual. Three Vols. (3l8. 6d.) Miiller The Christian Doctrine of Sin. Two Vols. (21s.) Murphy-Commentary on the Psalms. 7'o count as Tivo l/'oluwrs. One Vol. (12s.) Neander General History of the Christian Religion and Church. Nine Vols. (67s. 6d.) Oehler Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) Olshatisen Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Four Vols. (42s.) Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on Epistles to the Corinthians. One Vol. (9s.) Commentai-y on Philippians, Titus, and 1st Timothy. One Vol. (lOs. 6d.) OrelU Prophecy regarding Consummation of God's Kingdom. One V'ol. (10s. 6d.) Philippl Commentary on Epistle to Romans. Two Vols. (21s.) RSbiger EncyclopcBdla ot Theology. Two Vols. (2l8.) Ritter Comnaratlve Geography of Palestine. Four Vols. (263.) Sartorius The Doctrine of Divine Love. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) SchBrer The Jewish People In the Time of Christ. Division II. Three Vols. (lOs. 6d. each.) Shedd History of Christian Doctrine. Two Vols. (21s.) Stelnmeyer History of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) The Miracles of our Lord In relation to Modem Criticism. One Vol. (7s. 6d.) Stler The Words of the Lord Jesus. Eicht Vols. (10s. 6d. per vol.) The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on Epistle of St. James. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Tholuck Commentary on the Gospel of St. John One Vol. (9s.) Ullmann Reformers before the Reformation. Two Vols. (2l3.) Weiss Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) The Life of Christ. Three Vols. (^Is. 6d.) Winer- Collection of the Confessions of Clulstendom- One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

CANON AND TEXT OF THE

OLD TESTAMENT.

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB,

FOR
T.

&

T.

CLARK, EDINBURGH.

LONDON,
DUBLIN,

.... ....
.

SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED.

GEORGE HERBERT.
CHARLES SCRIBNER's SONS.

NEW YORK,

CANON AND TEXT

OK THK

<!^lti

Cestamcnt

BY

Dr.

FRAIJTS BUHL,
LEIPZIG.

ORDINARY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT

2Erau3lateti

bg

Rev.

JOHN MACPHEESOX,
FINDHORN.

M.A.,

T.

&

T.

EDINBURGH: CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

1892.

PREFACE.
The Author
city

of the following work, after studying in his native

of

Copenhagen

and

also

at

Leipzig,

was

appointed

ordinary Professor of Theology and Oriental Languages in the

University of

Copenhagen,
of

and was transferred

in

1890,
place

on the death

Dr. Franz Delitzsch, to occupy the

of that distinguished scholar in Leipzig.

The Treatise now

its

presented in an English dress

is

described by

Author

as to

some extent an enlarged

translation of a

Danish work. Den

gammeltcstamcntlige Skriftoverleveringy which had appeared in

1885.
as
to

In
the

its

original

form

it

aimed
of

at imparting information

ascertained

results

modern

researches

with

reference to the

Canon and Text

recast

of the Old Testament.

edition,

As

expanded and

in

the
it

German

the

Author

expresses the hope that

students.

may

prove useful to theological

For the English edition Professor Buhl has supplied

to the

some additional references

most recent literature, and at

his request the Translator has called attention to a few of the

most important contributions of British scholars which bear

directly

upon the subject

of this work.

THE TRANSLATOR.
FiNDHORN, Z>ecw6cr
1891.

CONTENTS,
Tjie History of

the Old Testament Canon

( 1),
. .

( 1-22)
.
. .

General Sketch
I.

.1
.

The Old Testament Canon among the Jews

( 2-13), ( 2-11),

4
4

J. The Palestinian (Babylonian) Canon

(12-13),
II.

B. The Collection of Scriptures by the Alexandiine Jews

43
tJie

The Old Testament Canon in

Christian Church ( 14-22),

50

The History of the Old Testament Text

Preliminary Remarks
I.

23-99)
79
( 24-73),

( 23),

Aids

to the

Study of the History of the Text

( 24-36),

82
82

A. The Immediate Apparatus

1.

Printed Editions ( 24, 25),

82 85
.

2.
3.
4. 5.

Manuscripts

( 26-29),

Collections of Variations ( 30),

90
94

The Jewish Massora

( 31-35),

Quotations and Transcriptions

( 37-72),

( 36),

106 108

B.

The Old Translations

1.

The Alexandrine Translation

(51-55),

2.

Aquila, Theodotion, Synnnachus,

....
( 56-58),

( 37-50),

108

Quinta, and

Sexta
149
159 167

3.

Jerome and the Vulgate

Jewish Targums

4.
5.

( 59-67),

The Syriae Translations

ivithin the

of the Bible ( 68-72),

185
194
\^')

C.
II.

Aidsfroni

Text

itself (% 73),

lic^ults

of the Hvitory of the Text

( 74-99),
'Text ( 74-87),

A. The External History of the

1.

195
195 198 207

Writing Materials

( 74),

2.
3.
4.

History of the Hebrew Letters ( 75-77),

Vocalisation and Accentuation ( 78-82),

The Divisions

of the Text ( 83-87),

219

Vlll

CONTENTS.
PA&g

B. The Internal History of the Text

1.

( 88-99),
.

228 228

The

Linguistic Side of the Text (88),

2.

The Transmission
Contents
(

of the Text according to its Real

.
.
.

89-99)

232
236

(o) Vocalisation ( 90, 91),

(6)

The Consonantal Text

( 92-99),

239

ABBEEVIATIONS.
GGA JPT
.

Gottinger Gelehrte Anzeigen.

Jahrbiicher
fiir

protestantische Theologie.
fiir

MGWJ

Monatsschrift

Geschichte und Wissenschaft

des Juden

thums.

NGGW
REJ TA
. .

Nachrichten der Gottinger Gesellschaft der "Wissenschaften.

Revue des Etudes

Alexandrine Text.
Massoretic Text.

Juives.

TM
TSK ZA
.

Theologische Studien und Kritiken.

Zeitschrift
fiir

Assyriologie.

ZAW

Zeitschrift der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft. Zeitschrift der

ZDMG ZKM ZKWL

ZLT
.

Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft.

Zeitschrift
Zeitschrift

fiir

Kunde

des Morgenlandes.

fiir

kirchliche Wissenschaft

und

kirchliches Leben.

Zeitschrift der Zeitschrift

fiir

gesammten lutherischen Theologie.

wissenschaftliche Theologie.

ZWT

THE
HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON.

TXTRODUCTIOX.

1.

The term

"

canonical books," as designating the writings

of
faitli

which constitute the rule

cikriOeia^ Kal rP)^ TrLareco^),

and doctrine {Kavwv

ti]^

was

first

employed by the Greek

this

fathers of the fourth century.

But even before

name had

been coined, the idea was already current among Christians,

and, with reference to
tlie

Old Testament, also among Jews.

formed by the Jews must,

Seeing that

it is

the canon of the Old Testament with which

we have

to deal, the conceptions

from the very nature of things, be regarded as of normative

importance, as reason that the
doctrine on

may

indeed be provisionally assumed, for this

Xew

Testament contains no separate or new

So then also we see
liow,

this

point.

in

the

course of the history of the Christian Church, several eminent,

clear-sighted

men have

directed their attention to

this particular point,

what the
with the

Jews have taught upon

pains
to

and have taken

done

make
This,

their fellow-Christians acquainted

too,

subject.

has

oftentimes

been

somewhat
Never-

reluctantly, and, in the first instance, in order to vindicate the

Church from the reproachful

theless,

criticisms of the Jews.

we

have, even in

this,

an acknowledgment of the
questions, which,

authority belonging to the

Jews on those

only on account of accidental historical circumstances, was

not fully admitted on the part of the Church.
history of the Old Testament
in the form of an account of

Hence the

Canon has generally been given the style and manner in which
of the

the Jews established the

number and extent A

sacred

2
writings,

1.

INTRODUCTION.
of

while a

summary sketch
upon
this

the

attitude

of

the

Christian Church

question was attached thereto,

It

simply as an appendix of more subordinate significance.

must, however, be

now

quite evident

that the task lying

itself,

before us consists in tracking out the historical process

which, within the limits of Judaism, gave authority to the

writinfTs

of

the Old Testament revelation as canonical, and

distinguished from
revelation
;

them the writings

that did not belong to

whereas the representations of later Judaism, both

in their original form and in their imitations are not in

among

Christians,

and

for themselves of

normative importance, but

results

must eventually give way before the ascertained

historical investigation.

of

Eeference should be made to

"

Introductions to the Old

Testament," in which also the collection of the Old Testament Surveys of this literature will be found writings is treated.
in the

following

among
;

other

treatises

Scholz (Catholic),

Einleitung in die heiligen Schriftcn des Alte7i und Neuen TestaKeil, LelirhucJi der historisch-kritisclien mentcs,\. 1845, p. 3 ff. Einleitung in die kanonische7i

und

cqjokryphiscJicn Schriften dcs

p.

Alien Tcstamentcs, 3rd

ed. of

ed.

1873,

if.

[Eng. trans, of

2nd

1869 by

Prof. Douglas, 2 vols., T.

&

T. Clark, Edin.

1869]; De Wette, Lehrhuch d. hist.-krit. Eial. in die kanon. und apokr. Bilcher dcs A. T. 8th ed. by Schrader, 1869, 4 [Eng. trans, of early ed. by Theodore Parker, 2 vols., ff.
Boston
Strack, Eiideitung in A. T. in Zbcklers 1843] Also deserving to be Handluch der Theol. Wissenscha/ten, Bibelen, dens Forvaring, Oversmttelse named Belsheim, Om
;

i.

og

Udbredelse,
til

3rd

ed.

Christiania
skrift,
is
et

Eosenius,

Indlednings

vetenskaben

den heliga

Lund 1872.
dealt with in the following
vindic. Canonis, Leipsic
:

The

history of the canon

C.
;

F. Schmid, Historia antiqua

1775

Semler, Ahhandlungen von freier

Untersuchung des Kanons,

V. T.
Va^ic.

Halle

1771-1775;
;

G. L. Bauer, Ca7ion V. T. ah Esdra non

collectus,

1797; Movers, Loci quidam historice canonis Astier, Etude sur la cloture du canon de illustrata, 1842

1.

INTKODUCTIOX.

Test. SLras.sburg

1859;
'J

Dillmaiiii

iii

the Jahrh. filr DcuUclte.

d.

Thcologic,

iii.

41

iX.

FUrst,

X'c'/-

Kanuii

A. T. nark

dm

UcbcrlicfcriuKjoi
son,

im Taluiud
vii.

inul Midrasck,
ed.
;

18G8;

S.

David-

The

Ciuioii of the Bible,

3rd

1880; Strack

in Ilerzo'^'s

Rcal-Encijclop(cdie,

412-451

Block, Studlcnzur Gcschichte,

;

Sammliuuj des a. t. Literatur, 187G Wildeboer, Hrt oitstaaii van den kanon des ouden verhonds, 1889, 2nd ed. 1891. Compare also Sclilirer, " Gcschichte des jiid. Volkes," im Zcltcdter Jvsit Christi, ii. 1886, pp. 248-253 [Eng. trans., History of Jcivish People in the Times of Christ, Edin., T. & T.
der
:

Clark, Div.

ii.

vol.

i.

1885, pp. 30G-312]; and the works

to.

of

Gratz and Geiger subsequently referred

On
des

the use of

tlie

word

"

canun," see Credner,

Zar

GeschicJUe

Kanons, 1847.

I.

TEE OLD TESTAMENT CANON AMONG THE JEWS.

-^

A.
2.

The

Palestinian (Babylonian) Canon.

of sacred writings ackno^yleclged
all

The

collection

by the

Palestinian,

and subsequently by

the Jews, consists of

three parts, which in mediae val times were compared with

the three parts of the temple

place,

the holiest of
three

all,

the holy

and

the

outer

court.

These

together
:

were

designated in brief ^"jn.

five
fifth

They embraced
;

respectiA^ely

The

books of the
parts of

Law (n-jin the Law ")

;

also

r]'\Snr}

''t^^^ np'pri,

''the five
(Q''^?P)
;

the prophetical writings

and

the writings (Q^?^n3)

or Hagiographa, as

we

usually call
into

them.

The Massoretes divide the prophetical writings

subdivisions
:

two

D''iV^'N1

"'^^??,

Proiohetcc Prior cs

(Joshua,

Judges, Samuel, Kings), and

(Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezeldel,

^^?^"ins D^N*p?, ProiohetcG Posteriorcs

and the Twelve Minor Prophets),

are
:

in

all,

eight books.

The Hagiographa
Canticles,

Chronicles, Psalms,

Job, Proverbs,

Ptuth,

Ecclesiastes,

Lamentations,

Esther, Daniel, and Ezra (Ezra-N'ehemiah), embracing eleven

books.

Of the Hagiographa, from Ptuth

to

Esther are the five

so-called festival rolls or Megilloth (ni?3?p trpn).

in the Babylonian

In one passage

Talmud

{Beracliotli 57h),

Psalms, Proverbs,

Job

(the books which, from their initial letters, are frequently

called n'''DX) are grouped together

under the designation

" the

great

D^niriD "

Canticles, Ecclesiastes,
D''ain3."

and Lamentations under

It
is,

the designation " the small

least

however, to say the

of

it,

doubtful whether this

4

designation was in such

 2.

NAME AND IDEA OF THE CANON.

has been

general use

as

number
is

of the

commonly supposed. The entire canonical books is twenty-four, a number which

in
rb.
tlie

often

mentioned
8rt.

older Jewish literature,

e.g.,

h.

Taanith
xii,

Exodus

par.

41, fob loG

KoJukth

rh.

{on

11), fob

llGrt, etc.
is

The complete enumeration

of

the

twenty-four books
(a tradition derived

to be

found as early as in a liaraitha

from the age of the Mishna doctors, but

h.

not to be met with in the Mishna)

Baha Bathra

14Z>,

15r^

Compare on
read
")

this matter

10.

The whole

collection bears the

name

t^^i^P

(from ^ip, " to

or ^^^^ or ^^)2p or chpn ^anp, " the sacred writings,"

or t^^p^ -ddd n'b, O^ied ^"d, " the twenty-four writings."

By
was
or

way

of contrast to " the

as

Law," the fundamental part, conthe

rest

sidered

in

itself

sufficient,

of

Scripture
" tradition,"

sometimes embraced under the name

N^^sn.

"^^Ji?,

Compare

3.

The Jews

expressed

the
"

idea

"

canonical

"

or

"

non-

canonical " in various ways.

Whoever
116rt.

receives

more than

twenty-four books introduces confusion nr^ino into his house,"

as
is

said in B.

Kohcldh

rb.

fol.

Only the canonical

conflagration

Scriptures

should
;

one save
this

from

on

tlie

Sabbath day

and

applies

also
;

to

translations

of the
it is

sacred waitings {M. Sahh. 16. 1

h.

Sahh.

lloa)iiud
(J/.

only those writings that "defile the hands"

5,
etc.).

Jadaim

o.

The

latter

phrase

is

an

extremely
for, in

remarkable

expression of the notion of sacredness,

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
it

From ]IL Jadaim 4. G, to have been the Pharisees who issued the peculiar On while the Sadducees vigorously opposed it.
account of their impurity.
hand,
the
idea

appears

ordinance,

the other
all

that

acknowledged books,

Akiba had pronounced even such as the Look of

K.

un-

Sirach,

2.

NAME AND IDEA OF THE CANON.

and
the

*'

strange,"

D^Ji^'^n^

reading
world,
is

of

them
in

involving

exclusion
textual
referred
allusion

from
error.

the
It

future
is

certainly

due

to

quite

evident
1,

that

the passage

to

{31.

SanJiedrin

10.
to

with the Talmuds) the

heretical,

was
and

originally

only

particular
;

and
but

especially to Jewish-Christian, writings

while the Book of

secular,

Sirach

similar

writings

were considered

such as might be read.

On

the other hand, a stricter view

to

undoubtedly was entertained, according

of such

which the reading

i^DN,

books was declared unallowable (npD^

Sanli.

100&).

On
Zunz,

the

names

of the

canon and
Vorto^cige

its

several parts, compare

p.

Gottesdienstliclie
it

der Juden,

44.

In conthat

nection with this

should be specially remembered

CiSD may
{e.g.

signify not only the Prophets

1),
:

and the Hagiographa

Koheletli

M. Megilla 3. compare especially

but also

all

the canonical writings;

Schiffer,
p.

Das Buch

im Tcdmud
inspiratione

nnd Midrasch, 1884,

^'^9v?^'
" tradition,"

83
p.
T
:

f.

On
f.

the Massoretic expression

see

Joh.
7
is

Delitzsch,

De
of

scripturce sacrce,

1872,

Among
Law
;

the mediieval

Jews

and the Massoretes

i^^PO

sometimes used
also

the sacred

writings witli the exception of the

of " the Prophets " alone.

here and there

Among

writers of that age

we

also

meet with the word

" verse,"

piDS,

which in the Talmud means onlv

f.,

applied to the entire collection of Scriptures (see

Bacher,

BEJ,

xv.

p.

113
is

xvi.

p.

277

f.).

Not
by

quite
is

synonymous with

N"ipD,

although

also derived

from Nip,

the Arabic Quran, which

correctly rendered

" religious

discourse" {Biterahtrhlatt fur orient. BMlol. iii. 104:r). That only Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations are

mentioned in Beraclioth 57& as "short Hagiographa," is to be explained by the fact that Euth was prefixed to the Psalms as an introduction, while Esther was assigned its place

among

the historical books (see Fiirst,

"

Kanon

83, compared
the

with 60).

M. Jadaim

3.

All the sacred writings (not

all

2.

NAMK AND IDEA OF THE CANON.

7
D'xr^LD."

Hagiograplia, sec

8) defile

the

liands

nn^n'nx

Compare on

this subject:

Delitzscli,
L.

ZcitscliriJ't

fur Luther'
.

Low, Graphischc Rcqidsitcn unci Erzcngnisse bei iJcn Judcn, i. 1870, p. 134 f Weber, Lehren des Talmud, p. 8G and below at 8. Fiirst {Kanou,
ischc Thco/or/ic,

1854,

p.

280;
;

83) translates it quite wroni^ly "They declare the hands, without having been previously washed, to be unclean."
p.
:

The

correct

explanation

of

this

special

ordinance,

the

guarding against any profanation,

is pointed out by Johanan ben Sakkai {Toscjyhta Jadaim, ii. 19 f. p. OS 4, 2), when he says that according to this we would be prevented from

using

the

sacred

Scripture rolls as coverings

for

animals

that were ridden.

Of small importance
14r^,

is

the

commonly

quoted explanation from Sahh. loh,

under discussion is the Torah rolls, forbidden that they should be set down beside consecrated grain, lest the mice should gnaw them (see Schiffer, Das Buck Kohcleth, pp. 78 ff., 85 ff., 90 f.) this Halacha one of the eic^hteen Halachoth included in " The Garret of Chananiah," 8 is not sufficient to afford an explanation of the whole affair. Still more far - fetched indeed is the explanation given by Geiger (Urschrift und Uchcrsctzunfjcn dcr Bibcl, p. 135 JUd. Zcitschrift, ii. 21 ff.), which is no less untenable than the remarks of the same scholar on the
;

where the subject regarding which it was

on VA, and on the passage in Sahh. 16. 1, where the books p3 piip pXw' are said to be non-canonical, but yet such as may be read {Nachgclasscnc
phrase

"

holy

Scripture,"

Schriftcn, iv. 13).

The word

TJ33

(from

t::,

" to

store up," then " to

conceal,"

which is met with in the earlier Jewish writings, is no mere equivalent of the Greek word " apocryphal." It is not used of the writings that were not
with the abstract
nr33)

received, but of books

which were received, the canonicity of which, however, was contested ( 8), while it was also applied
sacred writings into the

to unauthorised translations of the

Aramaic, Greek, or other languages {Sahh. 115^).

exact meaning of
26h.
T33

What

the

is,

"A

Torah

roll

seen from a passage like Meg. that has become rotten must be hidden,

may be

8
pjlJ, in

3.

THE LAW.

Compare also 2G. Thus originally it implies no judgment on the character of the books, but a particular mode of procedure with existing copies (copies used in the synagogues), and only secondarily does it mean destruction generally. Jerome, therefore, in his Comm. on Eccles. xii. 14, correctly translates it by oUiterare.
the vault of a scholar."

Against the correctness of the received text of M. Sanhedrin

10.
p. 1,

Sanh.
ff.)

1005,

yc/\

Sank. 28a, Griitz

285

has produced very cogent

Toscplita

(MGWJ, 1886, By comarguments.

13,
p.

bination

with

Jadaim,
:

ii.

683, 10,
"

he

constructs the

text

as follows
(D^jiv^n),

E.

Akiba

said,

Whoever

reads in the foreign

i.e.

Jewish-Christian writings

(compare Iiabbinovicz, DUcditke Soph^rwi), has no part in the Books, on the other hand, like that of Sirach world to come. and other such, which were composed after the age of the
prophets had been closed
just as one reads a letter."
Eeligionsgeschichte,
i.

(^b^si js^D, see

9),

may

be read

In
p.

1880,
i.e.

manner Joel (Blicke in die 73 ff.), who meanwhile makes

like
etc.
;

the conjecture
writings of

"

Whoever
p,

reads in foreign writings, like the

i<"itDD

Christian writings,

on the other

hand,
3.

Ben As

Sirach's book," etc.

the

beg;inninG[

of the

construction

of

the

canon

properly so called
of

among

the Jews, the historical development

which

is

the subject of our present investigation,

we

take

that particular period

when
Jews
"

Ezra, at

whose

side j^ehemiah

stood during the latter half of the fifth century before Christ,

introduced

among
and

the

the

Book
it

of the Law,"

min

1D,

as " canonical " Scripture,

their religious
tested,

and made
life.

the ruling standard for

social

The

solution of the

much

con-

and as yet by no means solved, questions regarding the

a matter to be determined by the special science of
criticism.

existence and enforcement of this law during the pre-exilian

period,
is

Pentateuch

We

confine

ourselves

here

to

the

canonical validity which the written

Law had
put

obtained

among
under

the Jews, after Ezra had read

at

it

before the great assemblage

Jerusalem, and

the

people

had

themselves

 4.

THE rROrilETS.

9
in

obligation to

fulfil

all

the

commands contained
oath.
is

the

Law

(Xeb.

viii.-x.),

by binding themselves under a written covenant

of

and by the taking

outside of the

a solemn

Of

other writings

Book

of the

Law

there

on this occasion no
It
is

mention, and indeed there could not have been.

certain

indeed

enough that the prophetic writings had been eagerly

aiid alter the exile.

and widely read before, during,

refer,
e.g.,

One may
Jeremiah

to echoes of older prophetical writings in

to

and Ezekiel,
Isaiah

Zechariah

i.

4,

and

to

the influence which

xl.-lxvi.

exercised upon

the contemporary

and the

post-exilian literature.

But a complete
exist

collection of prophetic

writings

could

not

so

long

as

the

prophetic

spirit

was

still

active and

called

forth

new

writings.

Even the
full

acceptance of the rentateuch alone by the Samaritans (11)

points,

though indeed

this

must not be accepted without

proof, to this, that

the canon of that day contained as yet

nothing more than the Pentateuch.

is

The

priority of the

Law

seen finally in

this, that

the entire collection of Scriptures,

still

even in later ages, was often

the other two
to
it.

called " the

Law," "because

parts

were regarded as merely supplements

;

See 4 Ezra xiv. 21

John

x.

34,

xii.

o4, xv.

25

1 Cor. xiv.

21

Sanh. 916

Mocd

Icaton oa, etc.

shown to the Law, and its pre-eminence over the Prophets and the Hagiographa, see Weber, Lchrcn dcs Sirach xxiv. 22-27; 1 Mace. i. 59 f. Talmud, p. 79 Wildebocr, Het ontstaan, 2nd ed. p. 00 ff.
to the high regard
;
;

With regard

4.

That the Jews

of

the

Greek age acknowledged that

is
;

they were a people without prophets

witnesses as
1

proved

by

such
of the

Mace.
v.

iv.

46,
(Ps.

ix.

27, xiv. 41
?),

The Song

Three Children,
Sanh. 11a

14

Ixxiv. 9

with which passages

as

may

be compared.
this
fact,

And

they became more

silencing of
felt

and more convinced of

after the

the

loud voices of the prophets, they must have

impelled to

10

4.

THE PROPHETS.

bring togetlier in one complete whole the prophetic writings

transmitted to them, the historical books, comprising utterances of the old prophets, as well as the properly prophetical
books, and to attach this collection, as a

second group of

sacred and inspired writings, to the Law.

to the

From
of

the prologue

Book

of Sirach

we

see that this collection

in

was generally
the second

recognised and circulated

the

beginning

century before Christ

and from the book

itself

we

further
as
it

see that this second part had precisely the

same contents
xliv.

now

has, for the author, in the

paragraph

16 xlix.
of of

13,
the

gives an outline of the contents of the

first

two parts

canon,

in order thereby
of

to

set

forth

picture

Israel's

glorious history and

her mighty heroes, which exactly

contents
of
it

corresponds

with

the
us.

the

prophetical

books

acknowledged by

How

long

was before the prophetic

not,

canon secured general acceptance we know

little

and just

as

can

we

tell

by

was
ii.

carried out.

whom and in what way the canonisation The much discussed story given in 2 Mace,
by Xehemiah contains

13

of

a temple library founded

perhaps a true reminiscence of the historical preparations for

the canonisation of the Prophets and the Hagiographa, but
is

by no means a history

of the canonisation itself.

The important passage

tion
rj/jbiv

in the preface to the as follows

:

Greek
/cal

transla/jueyaXcov

of

Ben

Sirach runs

iroWcov

Bia Tov vojJLOV kol

tmv

irpo^rjTOiV fcat TOiv

.
. .

aXKwv tmv Kar

/jlov

avTOv<^ r)K6Xov6r]KOTCov BeSo/Juevcov

iirl

o TraTrvro?

Irjaov'i

ifXelov eavrov Bov^ el? re ttjv tov vo/ulov kol tcov TrpoiprjTwv

Kol Tcov dXXcov irarplcov ^l^Xlcov avdyvwatv, koI ev tovtol<;

LKavrfv ^Lv irepLTToirjcrafJLevo^, irporj'^Or) kol avT6<^
TCOV et? TraiZelav kol aoc^iav dvrjKovTcov, k.t.X.

avyypd-^ai tl

[Whereas many and great things have been delivered to us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn
.

4.

THE PROPHETS.
to learning

1 1

on also himself

to write

something pertaining

and

wisdom,

etc.].

For the determining of the time during wliicli Ben Sirach lived important data are aflorded by his grandson's preface.

The
eret,

editor writes thus of himself: eV tcZ 6y^6(o Kal rpiaKoaro)

eVl rov Evepyerov /3a(7tXea)9 irapayevriOeL'^

into

e/?

AlyvTrrov.

[Coming

Egypt

in tlie

eight

and

thirtieth

year,

Seeing that an allusion to his when he came to reside in Kgypt would have been altogether purposeless, he must mean the thirty-eighth year of the reign

Euergetes was king.]

when own age

Compare, on the position of the words, the LXX. Now Euergetes I. reigned P..C. 247renderincr of Ha^gai i. 1. 222, and consequently we have to think of Euergetes II. who reigned B.C. ITO-IIG, although his uncontested supremacy
of the king.

The year in question would then began only in B.C. 145. be B.C. 132, and accordingly the grandfather must have
flourished about
B.C.

170.
Historisch-hritiscli
v.

For further particulars compare Kuenen,

Onderzoch nacir ontstaan en de versamelinfj

d.

Bodrn

d.

Ouden Verhonds,

iii.

42G
c.

;
.

Wildeboer, Hct ontstaan, pp. 31,

114; XitYmg^, De
iioncs sacra\ lib. vi.

dcfcctu ijroplidim loost

7).

MalacUiam {Obscrva-

That Ben Sirach knew the

to
us,

full

prophetic canon, as

known

may

be regarded as thoroughly established.

xlix.

genuineness of Sirach

10, where mention

is

The nonmade of the

twelve prophets, affirmed in earlier times by Bretschneider, and more recently repeated by Bohme (ZAW, vii. 280), has

been
It

rightly

met by Nuldeke {ZAW,

easily

viii.

156) by
felt

the

testimony of the Syrian translation.

can

be

understood

how men

themselves

impelled to collect together the wonderful treasures of the prophetic literature, the inexhaustible springs of the Messianic
hopes, and to
writings.

mark them

off

as

God's

words

from other

The conjecture
is

of Griitz (Kohclcth, p.

156

f.),

tliat,

by the canonisation

of the Prophets, a

weapon had been sought

against the Samaritans,

more

characteristic of the ingenuity

of its author than of the motives that

age.

were operative in that That the reception of the historical works, Joshua-

12

4.

THE PKOPHETS.

Kings, into the second collection of writings presupposes the

decided opinion that these writings had been composed
byis

prophets properly

so called, is

by no means

certain.

It

indeed very probable that these books were reckoned among " the Prophets " merely because they contained occasional
such as Samuel, Xathan, which the entire historical narrative Ahijah, etc., by means of This view is favoured especially was, so to speak, sanctioned. by the style and manner in which the author of Chronicles
utterances
of

the

old

prophets,

quotes the
passages,

several

historical
;

authorities

lying
xii.

before
etc.

him.

2 Chron. ix. 29, 15, See 1 Chron. xxix. 29 since 2 Chron. xxvi. 22 puts the matter
differently,

These
quite

do not certainly express the idea that that period of the history has been described by a contemporary prophet. For the opposite opinion see Wellhausen, who makes the last-

mentioned conjecture {Prolegomena, 1883, p. 235). also especially, Kuenen, Onderzoek^, i. 488.

Compare

As
200.

the date of the canonisation of " the Prophets," AVildep.

boer {Het ontstaan,

But

if

these writings

112) conjectures the period about B.C. were not only recognised as
B.C.

canonical by

Ben

Sirach w^riting about

170, but were also

B.C.

circulated in a
this

Greek translation as early as

still

140

( 38),

In be regarded as decidedly too late. the view^s of the grandfather regard to the difference between
date must

But how and grandson, see Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 29. far one will have to go back, it is impossible with the means We might ask whether the at our disposal to determine. allusions of the chronicler, living about B.C. 300, to a prophetico-historical work different from our books of Samuel
do not imply the assumption, that " the Prophets " were not then as yet regarded as canonical, in which case we would obtain the year B.C. 300 as the

and Kings

(see above),

terminus a quo.
w^e are too little

But

this

conclusion

is still

uncertain, since

acquainted with the circumstances of these

in

times to be able to deduce such consequences.

As

to the

way

which

this canonisation

we possess no who were the

information.
actors

Undoubtedly

it

was carried out was the Soph^rim

it

in this matter.

On

the other hand,

C>.

THE HAGIOGRAPHA.
tliat

is

not

altofijether

impossible

the passage, 2 ^lacc.

ii.

lo,

contains a faint reminiscence of an earlier fact which prepared

subsequent canonisation of the Tropliets and It is related in a spurious epistle, the Hagiographa ( o).
the
for the

way

that Nehemiah, according to his memoirs, founded a library

[undoubtedly iu the temple], which contained the following' books ra Trept rwv jSacnXecDp kol 7rpo(f)T]TCi)u koi ra rov /lav\S Kai iiriaroXa^i ^aaiXecov irepl avaOeiidrwv. That the Jvpislles
:

about Temple Gifts do not correspond to any Old Testament

book, but are probably letters of foreign (Tersian) princes,

clear.

is

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

may possibly have been meant. and even at the best this contribution would be of very slight importance for the history of the canon. Compare on this point the various discussions of Kuenen, Onderzoek, iii. 403 ff., 427; Reuss, Geschichtc d. heil.
bearing the superscription ^vh),
this certainly is not all,

But

Sckriften, A. T. 1
2Jccdie-,
vii.

88 1 p. 7 1 7 Strack in Herzog's Beal-Eiicyeloand Wildeboer, ffet. ontstaan, pp. 36 f., 42 G

,

112, 115, 133.

5.

The passage quoted

in the previous section

from the

preface to the writing of

Ben Sirach mentions, next

class

to the

Law

and the Prophets, an additional

of writings,

which are

called " the other writinf^s," or " the other writinc^s of the
fathers," where, according to the context, the

term "writings"

evidently meant writings with religious contents.

third
D''i^n3

That

this

group corresponds generally with

(

the

later so-called

2)

is

quite plain

but

still

the question remains

in the prologue were

as to

whether the writings referred

to

precisely co-extensive with those subsequentl}"

known
of

as the

Hagiographa.

Here we are without the means

"

answering

the question with the same certainty with which

reference to
itself

the Prophets,"' since the

Book

of

we can in Ben Sirach

Although

expressly refers only to the Books of Chronicles, Ezra,

(xlvii. 8
ff.,

Nehemiah, and the Psalms

xlix. 11).

14

5.

THE HAGIOGRAPIIA.
tlie

the absence of quotations from

in

rest of the

Hagiographa

and by

itself

indeed affords no proof against their existence

and their recognition in the beginning of the second century before Christ, it must be openly confessed that the history
of the

canon

is

thereby prevented from issuing an authorita-

tive veto

against the assigning of a later date to one and

It

another of these writings.

belongs

exclusively

to

the

particular criticism of the books in question to

come

to

any

conclusion upon this point.

For the

rest it

cannot escape a

careful observer of the quotation referred to, that not only the
indefinite expression
" the other writings,"

but

still

more the

way
to

in

which Ben Sirach, who had studied those transmitted

his contribution to the
treatise,

writings, determines, according to the preface, also (koI avro^)

make

moral improvement of

men by

composing a

make

it

evident that this last group had

religious literature of that pre-

not yet been severed from

sent age
this

tlie

by the deep gulf

is

of a canonical ordinance.

And

that

was not only the opinion

refers in his

of the translator, but also that

of the author himself,

abundantly proved by the style in

which he
divine

treatise (xxiv.

28

ff.)

to the inspiring

wisdom

as the source
if

from which he has derived his

doctrine.

Even
of the

the prophetic spirit were no more operaexisted the

tive ( 4), there

still

wisdom proceeding
fruitful

"

from

the

mouth

Most High," making

and inspiring
itself all

His people, among

whom
it.

it still

always drew to

who

were hungering after

"What has been now brought out fully explains why the Hagiographa, in the estimation even of later ages, were regarded as writings of a subordinate rank, as compared with
the

Law and

the Prophets.

This

is

seen conspicuously in the

fact, that they were not used, like those others, for the read-

ings of the Sabbath day, and has

its

origin

mainly in the opinions

for public

expressed,

e.g.,

in jcr. Sabb.
to

16

fol.

15c, Toscphta Sahhath, 13, p.

128, according

which they were not intended

C.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

15

reading, but for ]\Iiclrashic exposition. Also the designation," tlie

Law and

the I'rophcts," for the whole canon

is

thoroughly in

accordance with this feeling.

hathra, 8. 14, p.
liis

Compare G and Tusejyhfa Baha 409, ol: "The guardian should purchase for
;
;

ward D'S'^Ji min" jcr. Mey. 3. 1 Soph^rim, p. v., passages which are quite correctly explained in the Babylonian Talmud (Baba hathra lob), while Griitz (Kohelcth, p. 150 f.) completely
misunderstands their meaning.
tion in

"We naturally find an excep-

the

case

of the

Psalms, which were held in high

esteem, and were used in the tenjple service.

Even

in the

LXX. we meet
fi.xed for
xciii., xciv.,

with a superscriptioiial statement of the Psalms

See
I's.

the several days of the week.

xxiv., xlviii.,

and compare with

in 2,

Ps. xcii. in the

Hebrew.

That

the five Megilloth were read on the five feasts has been already

mentioned
the

High

Priest,

ment, to read in
Ezra, and Daniel.
It

and in later days it became customary for on the night before the great day of atonepublic from the Books of Chronicles, Job,

mi"ht be asked whether the original document used in the Book of Chronicles, the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judali, which was in existence as early as B.C. oOO,
belonged to
Chronicles.
G. "

the other writings of the

Book

of Sirach "

but

probably this book was even then

already supplanted

by

of

From the aG:e Ben Sirach, we

followincr

that of the Greek translation

find

only

very slight material

for the

solution
(vii.

of our problem.
is

In the First Book of Maccabees

17) a quotation

made from

Ps. Ix.xix.

2,

with the

solemn formula implying the canonicity of the writing Kara rov

\6yov, ov eypayjre.
first

Similarly, too,
first

Simon ben Shetach,

is

in the

half of the

century before Christ,

said to have

quoted Eccles.

vii.

12, with a 2'nDl (but see further

8).

On

the other hand, sources are supplied us abundantly in the

generation after Christ.

citations

In Philo's work ( 12) are found

to

and references

most of the canonical writings,

still

with the exception

of Ezekiel, Daniel,

and the

five Megilloth.

16
This

6.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

it is

may have been

interest to
8.

a pure accident, but

it

nevertheless of

some
in

compare with

the state of matters set forth

The

New
them

Testament thoroughly confirms the results

5).

won from Ben

in every city

Sirach ( 4,

"

Moses

of old times

hath

that preach him, being read in the synaiv.

gogue every Sabbath day," Acts xv. 21, and from Luke

17 and Acts

xiii.

15

it

follows that the

same was

also true

of the prophetical writings.

The pre-eminent importance

is

of

these two portions of Scripture

seen in

this,

that the sacred

writings were sometimes called simply " the

Law and

the Pro;

phets" (Matt.
xiii.

V.

17,
:

vii.

12

Luke
5),

xvi. 16, xxix.

31

Acts

15, xxviii. 23

compare

while also the priority of

the
to

Law

is

given expression to in the form of speech referred

3.

As concerns the Hagiographa, quotations are made from a larger number than in the work of Ben Sirach, for (at least if we adopt the prevailing view) references are wantabove in
ing only to Ezra, Ecclesiastes, The Song, and Esther.

Evidence

in favour of the threefold division of the canon is afforded

by the expression,
Psalms
"

"

the

Law

of Moses, the Prophets,

and the

(Luke xxiv. 44).

But the conclusions drawn from

and particularly the order
for this
is

this passage in regard to the extent,

or

arrangement of the Hagiographa, are worthless,

with in this passage

reason, that the subject dealt

the

prophetic and

symbolic contents of the Old Testament, in

which connection the Psalms occupy a pre-eminent position among the Hagiographa. But more important than all this
are
to.

the names under which the Old Testament

is

referred
ypacj^al,

Designations like ypacpal aytaL, lepa ypafifiara, al

rj

and especially

ypa(j)r),

and, besides, the well-known solemn

formulse of quotations, put a clear and conscious distinction

between holy Scripture and any other

so f^ive

sort of literature,

and

ground

to the conjecture that the limits, still undeterof

mined in the days

Ben

Sirach with reference to the third

part of the canon, had meanwhile become more sharply fixed.

 0.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

On

the other hcand,

it is

wrong

to seek in

tlie

passage. Matt,

xxiii.

85, a strict proof for the existence there and then of

the canon as

we now have

it.

in 1 Mace. vii. 17, seeing that the author 105, but before B.C. 70, does not exclude a Maccabean authorship of Ps. Ixxix., but, in consequence of

The quotation
B.C.

wrote after

the formula used,

is

not certainly in favour of

of

it.

The above-mentioned quotation

Ecclesiastes
7. 2, fol.
is

Simon ben Shetach from

r.

to be

found in Bcreshith
5. 3,
fol.

c.

91

jer. BcracJiotk
r.

llh] Nazir

o^h, and Kohekth

c.

7.

12.

To

this

may

be added solemnly introduced quotations from

Ecclesiastes
Christ,
h.

from the

first

half of
Sahh.

the

first

century after
iL

Baha hathra

4:a;

306; Toscphta Berachoth,

24,

p. 5.

On

the use of the Old Testament in Philo's writings, see

ad illustrationcm doctrincc de canone Vet. Test, ex Philoiu (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 525) makes use of a passage from Chronicles Compare also Siegfried, Philo cds Auskfjer (1 Chron. vii. 14). d. A. T. 1875, p. 161. The testimony given in the treatise
Ohservationes
i.

De
left

vita contemplativa, 3, to the tripartite

canon
is

may

best be

out of account, inasmuch as that work

of doubtful as also

authenticity.

See Lucius, Die Therapeuten,

vie

1880;

Massebieau, Ze Traite de la
des TMrajKutcs,
It

contcmjjlcttivc ct

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. 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, Hd ontstaan, 44. 128. Nevertheless, this may, on closer examination, be found to be a mere fortuitous coincidence, since Christ and
the
first

Christians,

for

practical

reasons

arising

from the

18

7.

THE EZEA- APOCALYPSE.

circumstances in whicli tliey were placed, did not feel themselves called

upon

to

make use

of these writings of peculiar

contents, whereas the controversies referred to in

8 were of
xxiii.

a purely dogmatic character.

When

Christ, in

Matthew

35, speaks of the righteous blood shed from the time of Abel
to that of Zacharias (2 Chron. xxiv.

20

f.),

much more than

probable conclusion

may

be drawn from

it

with regard to the

It cannot certainly

extent and order of the canon of that day.

be

treated

as

scholarly quotation which must be

made

accurately to refer to Urija (Jer. xxvi. 23).

7.

The

result

won

in the preceding

section

receives an

extremely important
obtains

confirmation, and the

whole question
of

a provisional

conclusion

by means

two almost
first

contemporary writings at or about the end of the

after Christ.

century

In the so-called Ezra-Apocalpyse, which, with

much

probability, has been assigned to the age of the

a.d.

Emperor
of

Domitian,

81-96, mention
viz.

is

made

(xiv.

44-46)

twenty-four

writings,

94

70,

which Ezra wrote out

lost.

under divine inspiration

after

they had been utterly

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 2, 10), as the

sum

total of the

acknowledged writings of the Old Testament.

is

The other witness

Apion, in

the treatise of Elavius Josephus against

many

respects rich in contents

and teaching, which

must have been written about a.d. 100. In this work (i. 8) it is said that to the sacred and genuine books of the Jews,
besides the five books of Moses, there belong also " thirteen

prophetical writings " and

cepts
for

"

four books with

hymns and

preis

practical

life."

This

statement of
first

Josephus

remarkable in two ways.

In the

place for the

number
for

twenty-two (5

-f

13

-f-

4),

which, however, in following periods

the

we

shall frequently

meet with, and then especially

extremely peculiar threefold division which we do not find

7.

JOSEPIIUS

AND

ORIGEN.

19

elsewhere, which owing to

to

its

indefiniteness has given occasion

various explanations and

Griitz

hypotheses.
this

scholar

has souglit from

Thus the Jewish division to draw the

tlie

conclusion that Josephus did not acknowledge

Ecclesiastes
in

liooks of
last

and The Song, since the four books that come

are
:

the

list

Psalms, Lamentations,

Proverbs,

and

Job.

But the only

and

right

way

here

is

to

follow the analogy of the

practice prevailing with some, especially Alexandrine writers,

assume that Josephus treated the Looks of Iluth and Lamentations as parts of the Books of Judges and Jeremiah.
to

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
Ecclesiastes.

had embraced Psalms, Proverbs,

The Song, ^nd

particularly to be

With reference to this it is observed how Josephus expresses the idea

:

of canonicity ( 2)

even

if

the phrase " divine writings " be

not genuine, he yet says that only those books can lay claim
to our confidence,
to

and that no one has been

to

so bold as either

add anything

them

or

take anything

away from these

end of
of
^

books transmitted from olden times.

the
first

And

thus, at the

century after Christ,

we have undoubted evidence

to this

a clear

and conscious conviction of a canonical

and unanimity with regard

collection of
it is

writings,

canon as

now

known amoncj 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, becanse, althou^jh beloncrinr in

point of time to the group of authorities referred to in

afford

8,

they

some supplementary and interesting

in Gtigen with the

particulars.

We
total

meet

number twenty-two
he has taken his

as the

sum

of the

Old Testament writings (Eusebius,

Hist. Eccl. vi.

list

25),

who

states expressly that

from the Jews.

20
In
it

7.

OKIGEN AND JEROME.

are introduced only as parts of

Euth and Lamentations

of

the Books of Judges and Jeremiah, while the adoption of the

Book

Baruch among the canonical books

is

hardly to be

attributed to his Jewish authorities.

Similarly, too, Jerome,

in his exposition of the Jewish Canon, gives the

number

of

books as twenty-two.

In the so-called Prologus galeatus

first

{I.e.

Preface to the Books of Kings the

refers to the

which he translated) he

genuine Jewish threefold division of the canon

to this,

into

Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa, and, according

particularly

mentions
divisions.

what books belong

of Judges he says

to each
:

of these

Of the Book

"

Et

in

eundem
his-

compingunt Euth, quia in diebus judicum facta narratur

toria,"

and similarly he reckons the Lamentations

nonnulli Euth

to Jeremiah.

But
"

after

he has finished this exposition he adds thereto

et

Quanquam

Cinoth (Lamentations) inter

Hagiographa scriptitent et

libros hos in suo putent

numero

supputandos, ac per hoc esse priscae legis libros viginti quatuor."

Jerome therefore

is

acquainted with the Jewish division

into twenty-four books,

and in the preface

:

to

Daniel he keeps

expressly to this arrangement, for he says

"Illud

admoneo non

haberi Danielem apud Hebrseos inter prophetas, sed inter eos,

qui

Hagiographa

conscripserunt.

In tres siquidem partes

omnis Sacra Scriptura ab

et in

eis dividitur, in

Legem, in Prophetas

Hagiographa,
list of

i. e.

in quinque, in octo et

undecim
is

libros."

the Old Testament writings which

expressly

described

as

having

been

borrowed

from

the
list

Jews,

but

diverges in important

particulars

from that

which has
Sardis,

been already referred

to, is

communicated by Melito of

somewhat
giving
to

after a.d. 150.

The writings named by him make

altogether twenty-two,

but this

number he makes up by
place
in his

Euth an independent
is

enumeration,

whereas Esther

altogether wanting.
is

Seeing that Melito does

not expressly declare that he

of the writings,
it

giving the complete

number

might be supposed that Esther had been

 7.

JOSErilUS-ORIGEN.

21

left

out in the text before us only in consequence of an error

;

of transcription

but against such an idea

it

must be remem-

bered

that not

only was Esther wanting in

many

of

tlie

Church fathers of the following age

( 15, 17), but that

we
its

knew

definitely that

an opposition had risen up among the

of this

Jews against the canonicity

ground down

book,

which held

to the third century (see 8).

The above quoted passage from the Fourth Book

is

of Ezra

given,

e.g.,

in Hilgenfeld's Mcssias Judccorum, pp. 182, 260,

321,

376, 433.
uncertain,

Unfortunately, the Latin text

is

at

this
rests

passage

so that the reference given above

Nevertheless it is scarcely reasonable to conclude from Epiphanius {De pond, et mens. 10) with Bertheau, Bach d. liichtcr and Ruth, 1883, p. 290 ff., that the text had originally read twenty-two instead of twenty-four books. Ov yap fivpla'^e^ ^i/SXlcov Josephus, Contra Apian, i. 8
exclusively on the text of

the oriental translations.

L(tI

Trap' VM'^^, aavficpcovcov Kal ^a'^Ofxevwv

Bug Bk

fjLOva Trpo?

Tot9 eLKOCTi ffi^Xla, rov iravTo<; e^ovra y^povov rrjv ava'ypa(^rjv,

Ttt

SiKaLox;

[deta,

unauthentic, according to
irevre
fjuiu
tvj^;

J.

G. Miiller]

TreTTLO-jevfieva.

Kal tovtcdv
/Ltera

eari

to,

Moovaecofi,

ruv'i

re

v6fjL0v<; irepie-yeL
^

.... ^Atto

T^9 Apra^ep^ov rov

/Ltera

Moivaeoif; reXei'T?)? f^^XP^ aep^tjv Ilepacbv paaCkew^ "PXV? ot

he

Mwvar^v

7rpo(f>i]Tai to-

Kar

avTOV<; irpaxOevra a-vveypayjrau

v/jlvov<; et?

iv Tpial Kal BeKa ^i(3Xiol<;'

al Be XolttoI reaaape^

Tov Oeov Kal

tol<;

dv6pa)7roL<; viro6i'}Ka<;

rov fiiov

TrepiexpvcTLv.

'Atto Be 'Apra^ep^ov fiexpt' tov Kad'

fiev
Blcl

i)fia<;

XP^^^^ yeypairrat

eKaara'
to
fxr]

TrtcrTecD?

Be

ovx

6fjL0ia<;

i^^loiraL

tow

irpo avrcov,
BiaBo)(^7Ji>.

yeveaOat

ttjv

tu)V

7rpo(j)r]T(bv

uKpifitj

....
Tt?

ToaovTov yap alwvo<i

yBrj 7rap(i)yT]KOTo<s, ovre irpoaOelvai

ovBev ovre acpeXelu

auroU ovre
7rpo(pi]T7]^

fieradelvai

jejoXpLrjKev

Compare, in addition to said: ov^ olto9 fi6vo<; 6

Einleitung in
d.

this, Antiqicities, x. 2. 2,

where
Kat

it is

(Isaiah),

aWa

aWoL

BcoBeKa TOV apcO/JLov to avro

eiroLrja-av

A.

T.^

i.

105
42
f.
;

ff.

Compare Eichhorn, Kuenen, Onderzoek, iii.

^,

412

Strack

in Herzog's Ecal-Encyclopccdie
p.

vii.

428;

Wildeboer, Ret ontstaan,

J. G. Miiller,

Dcs Flavins

22

7.

THE NUMBERS

22

AND

24.

Josephus Schriften gegen den Apion. 1877,

p.

99

ff.

Wright,

Book of Koheleth, p. 461; Griitz, Koheleth, p. 169; MGWJ, 1886, p. 83; also Tachauer, Das Verhdltnis von Flavius Joseflius zur Bibel tend Tradition, Erlangen 1871. On Oi'igen, compare his Opera, ii. 528, and Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 25 ela\ he at clkoo-c Svo ^i/SXloc Kad^ ^E^paiov^ aiSe The five books of Moses (among them ^Afx/jLeacpefccoBel/jb for iSTumbers, i.e. DH^PS t^in Num. i. 21 Yoma vii. 1), Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, Trap* avToU ev evl Xax^erLfJu, Samuel, Kings,
: :

The

Chronicles,

Ezra,

Psalms, Proverbs,
ttj

Ecclesiastes,

Canticles,

Isaiah, Jeremiah, crvv 6prjvoL<; kcll

eTriaroXrj iv evl 'lepejjLia,

Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, and Esther.

Evidently the omission of

the result of

the Twelve

Minor Prophets

is

an
is

error of

transcription, since otherwise only twenty-one writings

have been enumerated.

after Canticles.
" Epistle,"
i.e.

In Paifinus this book

the other
of

would mentioned

On

hand, the addition of the

to

Baruch containing the Epistle, is be explained most simply as an inaccuracy on the part of
the
;

Book

Origen
v.

for the

statement of the Constitutiones

Aioostolicce,

in public

Book of Baruch were read by the Jews on the Day of Atonement, is, when we take into account the silence of the Jewish writing's on the o 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\6cDv ovv
20, that Lamentations and the
:

el? Tifv avaToXrjv,

Kal eo)? rod tottov f^evojjievo^ ev6a eKripvyQri

Kal eirpa'^Orj
following

Kal dKpi^w<^ fiadcbv

eirefi'yjrd
croL.

ra

r?}?

7ra\aid<; hLaOrjKTj^

/Si^Xca virord^a'^
:

Then

are

enumerated the

five

Books

of Moses, Joshua,

Judges, Paith, four

Books of Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah (probably along with Lamentations), the Twelve, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Ezra. Compare Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 73 f. The origiual relation between the numbers twenty-two and twenty-four is still obscure. The latter numbering, indeed, may be regarded as the older, because it can be more easily explained how Euth was reckoned to Judges and Lamentations (on the presupposition of its authorship by Jeremiah) to

 8.

CONTROVERSIES ON THE CANON AMONG JEWS.

23

how they should have been removed from It is quite uncertain, their original place among the prophets. whether in fixing this number they may have been liowever, influenced by the idea of making the number of tlie books Origen and equal to the number of the Hebrew letters.
Jeremiah, than

Jerome, indeed, lay stress upon this correspondence, but this

may also have been

{Be
'pond. ct

a later play of the imagination, quite after

the style of another enumeration referred to by Epiphanius

mens. 22) and Jerome {Prologus galcatus) of twenty-

22 letters of the alphabet and the 5 final letters), in making out which the Alexandrine double reckoning of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, and Ezra was used, while Although the Lamentations was counted as a separate book. combininfr of Ruth and Lamentations with Judcres and Jeremiah in the LXX. and by the Alexandrians was prevalent, yet the number can scarcely have been determined by them, because they generally did not respect the Palestinian Canon Bleek, Compare Kuenen, Ondcrzock, iii. 447 f. ( 12). Einleitung, iv. 204. 552 Bertheau, liicJiicr nnd Ruth, 1883, Strack in Herzog's liCal-Encydopcvdic^, vii. 434; p. 290 ff.
seven books
the
;
;

(=

Wildeboer,
8.

Ilet ontstaan,

108. 134

f.

The witnesses

referred to in

the

preceding sections

indicate in general outline the

concerned.

movement with which we are more profound disclosure is made to us by

older

means
Jewish

of a series of very interesting passages in the

literature,

which,

however,

suffer

from

the

usual

absence of historical reminiscences in this literature, from indefiniteness

and one-sided incompleteness, and therefore have

results.

been used by moderns in various ways and with varied

As

already stated in

6,

solemnly

various verses from Ecclesiastes

made quotations of have come down from the last

century after Christ.

century before Christ and the

first

But
of

even

in

the pre-Philonic age the author of the

(ii.

Wisdom

Solomon expresses himself

cannot
fail

1-9)

in

way

in

which one
against

to

perceive

an

unconcealed

polemic
first

Ecclesiastes.

And

shortly after the middle of the

century

24
after Christ

8.

CONTEOVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.

an opposition seems to have arisen in Palestine

of

against

the canonicity

that

book, an opposition which,

is

however, extended also to other biblical books, and

con-

sequently of greater interest for the history of the canon.

Thus

it is

reported that the followers of Hillel and

respect
to

differed

with

the

canonicity
it

of

the

Shammai Book of

Ecclesiastes, the Hillelites recognising

as canonical, while

the strict Shammaites rejected

it.

Further,

we

learn that

Ezekiel gave offence, so that some wished to pronounce the

book apocryphal.

However, Hillel and Chananiah, son of

Hezekiah, contemporary of the elder Gamaliel, succeeded in

setting aside these objections
pretation,
silenced.

by means

of a laborious inter-

by which the opposition

to this prophet

was

for ever
see,

On

the other hand, there was, so far as

to the

we can

no decision arrived at with respect

prior to the fall of Jerusalem,

Book

of Ecclesiastes
also the case

and the same was

with respect to some other writings whose canonicity had

been attacked, of which we

until about A.D. 9

may name
at

Canticles.

It

was not
city not

that the whole question

was brought up
which
that

for discussion before a

Synod

Jabne (Jamnia, a

far

from the
II.

coast, south

of Jaffa), the very one at

of his office of patriarch.

Gamaliel
\J

was deprived

At

Synod the canonicity

acknowledged.

of the whole of the sacred writings

was

Special emphasis was laid

upon the

affirma-

tion of the canonicity, not only

Canticles,

of Ecclesiastes but also of

which

affords clear evidence of the existence of

an
too,

opposition

against

that

book.

In

similar

manner,

various passages in the Babylonian

Talmud show that there must have been ascribed to the Books of Euth and Esther and (whether in the same way ?) Proverbs, what necessitates the
adoption of the same conclusions with reference
writings.
to

these

Meanwhile the decree issued

for

Jabne did not

learn from
first

altogether silence the doubts, as

we opportunely

the procedure of several teachers labouring during the

 8.

CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.

Indeed,
tlie

25
recollec-

lialf

of the second century after Christ.

tion of

what was actually determined on

it

at Janinia

was not

preserved in an accurate form, so that

diverse statements.

gave
effect

rise to several

more important

was produced
and edited
all

by the circumstance that the Mishna,

the twenty-four writings,

collected

about A.D. 190, maintained the unrestricted canonicity of

among

the rest also Ecclesiastes and

The Song, which were

specially

named.

But even

after this

time the criticism of the canon was not wholly silenced, for

we

learn from the Babylonian

Talmud

that a scholar living in

the third century denied the canonicity of the

Book

of Esther.

In the

disjecta

membra here

collected together,
final

some now
closing of

wish to find a historical reminiscence of the

the hitherto open third part of the Old Testament writings,

according

to

which

the
full

canonising of

the

Hagiographa

would stand out in the

light of history.

more exact

consideration of the fact, however, goes decidedly against this

view, and leads us rather to assume that the third part of

the canon had been even then already closed, although

we
was

know

as little

about the way in which

this

closing

accomplished as
Prophets
( 4).

we do about the closing of Above all, we should take

reports
G

the canon of the

into consideration

these Talmudical

only in connection with the wit-

nesses referred to in sections

clear passage

and

7, especially

with the
indeed,

in the

Apology of Josephus.
that

Now,
Synod

we cannot

possibly assume

the

representation which
of Jamnia,

Josephus, residing in
gives of the contents

Rome

shortly after the

of the

and idea

canon must have been

influenced by the decisions of the Synod.

But seeing

tliat

a Synod at Jerusalem in ing the canon,

Griitz,
it
is

A.D.

65, coming to a decision regard-

nothing more than an audacious fancy of

is

highly probable that Josephus in his Apology

reported simply the teaching of the l*harisees of his times,

to

whom

he attached himself in

a.d.

56.

Therefore

there

26

8.

CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.

existed then the firm, carefully-weighed idea of a concluded

canon, and consequently such a canon

itself,

a result

which

would be established even although two

ture collection of Josephus.

of the twenty-four

Old Testament writings may have been wanting in the ScripSee above,
p. 18.

The

state-

ments quoted from the Talmud and Midrash

with
this explanation.

also best agree

In the

first place,

they show negatively

that such attacks upon biblical books do not exclude the idea
of an earlier established

canon, for indeed criticism of the

several writings of the Old Testament were never altogether

v/

silenced after the

Synod

of

Jamnia, nor even after the decision

to,

given in the Mishna.

Further, the very attacks referred

when more
There
is

exactly considered, presuppose a Scripture canon.

of

no dispute about the genuineness or age

writings,

the con-

troverted

but
called

only

about

doubts

and

objections

which

had

been

forth

by a
it

definitely

developed,

dogmatic principle of Scripture, for

of a " Scripture "

was

felt

that the idea

off

precisely defined

and marked

from

all

other literature, involved the postulating of certain require-

ments

of

harmonious unity and religious-moral purity in that

Indeed, Josephus, in the passage referred
to,

Scripture.

boasts

of this, that the sacred literature of the

sist like

Jews did not con-

that of the other nations of aavficj^cova koI ixa-^ofieva

Pip\[a.

And

just that objection,

which in those times was

and which obliged the
minute explanais

taken to the writings referred

vindicator of
tions,

to,

them

to enter into all sorts of

finally

which were

approved by
it

all

Jews,

the most
felt to
to,

striking proof of the fact that

was very strongly

be

a duty to take up the cause of the books objected

which

can be explained only on the presupposition that has been

sus^Q^ested.

It

also deserves

consideration that the term

T3J

is

used only of the writings whose canonicity was contested,

not,
e.g.,

and
read,

of

Ben

Sirach, although that

book was much

which could

and was quoted by some scholars

( 12),

8.

CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.

for,
if,

27
Ben

scarcely be accounted

erj.,

Ecclesiastes as well as

Sirach had been placed "outside the door."

of all the objections advanced, a bright light

Finally, in spite
is

shed upon the

whole question by the

third

fact

that not only writings from the

part but also a prophetical book from the canon of the

Prophets, that

had long previously been closed

the

4),

was

threatened with exclusion from

canon

for

the

recent

attempts to make out a distinction between the opposition to

Ezekiel and the opposition to the Hagiographa have
to
all

failed

stand examination.
describes
all

For the

rest,

Geiger

is

quite right

when he
versies

these discussions as scholastic contro-

which

affected public opinion in a very slight degree.

is

On
is

the other hand, there

no ground

for

entertaining any
;

doubt as

to the credibility of the traditions referred to

there

about them, indeed, too

much

verisimilitude

to

admit of

their being overthrown

by the

easily explained attempt of a

Eabbi Akiba to deny the whole thing.

The

result is therefore this, that even the third part of the

Old Testament writings, which in the time of Ben Sirach was

as yet without firmly determined limits,

had

its

canon

finally

closed even

before the time of Christ,

although

we know

nothing as to

how

or

by

whom

this

was accomplished

enoui^h that the canon and the clear idea of the canon were
there,

and formed the

basis of a definite dogmatic theory of

9).

the sacred writings (compare

But

just this

dogmatic

theory called forth various doubts and objections with refer-

ence to particular books, which

necessary.

This revision
in the

made a revision of the canon was made at Jamnia, and was afterIts result

wards confirmed

Mishna.

was the

establish-

ment

of all previously canonised books.

this

That

revision

was carried out somewhere about the

is

end of the

first

century after Christ

is

certainly no accidental

circumstance, but
altered

closely

connected with the completely

social
life.

circumstances of Jewish

The

state

of

"

28

8.

CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.

:

matters at that time was this

the capital and the temple

the

lay in ruins, and the Eabbinical college npon which

holding together of Judaism depended were obliged to seek

refuge outside of the

Holy

City.

Then the

" Scripture "

and

the study of Scripture became even more than formerly the

world in which Judaism continued to maintain

Pharisees,

its life

" the

who had

lost

their material
;

fatherland, fled back

all their

into their spiritual fatherland

on

it

they spent
all

care

and

it

brought them comfort amid

their

misfortunes
conflict

(Derenbourg).

There was also added to this the

with

the powerfully advancing Christianity, which

demanded the
and

firm establishment of everything belonging to Scripture,

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

assailable.

itself

should stand forth firm and unthis, as

In the closest connection with

( 99), stood

we

shall

subsequently see

also the fact that the

Jewish

teachers at this very time were labouring to secure a definite

standard text for Holy Scripture.

Compare npon these questions: Delitzsch in ZLT, 1854, Kuenen, OnderzoeJc, iii. 415, 421 Bleek, Miileip. 280 ff. Cheyne, tung, iv. 551 f.; Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 82 ff. Job and Solomon, p. 280 f Geiger, Urschrift, p. 398 f Jild. Zeifsch. 1862, p. 151, 1870, p. 135 ff.; Gratz, KoheUtli, pp. 159-173; and MGWJ, 1871, p. 502 ff., 1882, p. 117,
; ; ;
. ;
.

1886, p. 597. M. Jadaim 3.5: " All sacred writings defile the hands [This even The Song and Ecclesiastes defile them " ( 2) Eabbi Judah [Ben Ilai, the decision, now the discussion.] Judenihums, ii. 86] said: "The Song see Jost, Geschichte des
;
!

defiles the hands,

but this

is

disputed in regard to Ecclesiastes."

defile the

E. Jose [Jost,

ii.

85] said: "Ecclesiastes does not

"

8.

CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.

29

and this is disputed with regard to the Song." H. 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 declared that the book defiled the hands, i.e. was canonical], li. Simeon ben Azai [Jost, ii. 97] said: "I have heard from the seventy-two elders on the day when they gave to H. Eleazar the presidency of the academy [i.e. at the Synod of
hands,

Jabne, see Derenbourg, Essai

la Palestine, I
;

sui- rhistoire et
;

la g^ographie de

1867, p. 273 Jost, ii. 28 ff. Griitz, Geschichte dcr Juden, iv. 38 ff.], that The Song and Ecclesiastes defile the hands. E. Akiba [Griitz, MGWJ, 1870, p. 484, reads E. Jacob instead of Akiba] said " God forbid that any one in Israel should doubt that The Song defiles the hands the whole world does not outweigh the day in which Israel All the Hagiographa are holy, but The received The Song. If they have been contested [.'] it Song is the holiest of all. was with reference to Ecclesiastes." But R. Johanan ben
: ;

Jeshua,

11.

Akiba's brother-in-law, said:

it

Azai has laid

E.

R. Simeon ben down, so they disputed and so they decided

!

"As

This same tradition

Judah ben Ilai, To E. Simeon's report about the Hillelites and are named. Shammaites this addition is made " On the other hand, Euth, 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 contradicted by the fact that Solomon, who was the author of other
:

Meg. 7a, where, instead of E. Jose, and instead of E. Jose, E. Meir

is
h.

given in

inspired writings, could not in that case have said (Pro v. xxx.
6)
:

"

Add

then not to God's words lest

He

reprove thee."

On
on
in
i.

Ecclesiastes
ii.

3 and

compare further h. Sahh. SOah ; Koheldh r. and Jerome on Eccles. xii. 14: "Ajunt Hebra^i, 8;

quum

inter cetera scripta Salomonis, quie antiquata sunt nee

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 prreferret omnibus, ex hoc uno capitulo meruisse autoritatem, ut in divinorum

30

8.

CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.

volurainum numero poneretur, quod totam disputationera suam et omnem catalogum hae quasi avaKe^aXaiojaei coarctaverit et dixerit finem sermonem suorum auditu esse promtissimum nee aliquid in se habere difficile ut soil. Deum timeamus et
:

ejus priTBcepta faciamus."

h.

Sabb.

30b

"

Some

also

wish
is

to

remove the Book of Proit

verbs from the canon (ni) because

sayings [of which xxvi. 4, 5
if it

contains contradictory
;

quoted as an example]
:

but

We were not accomplished, it was because people said have thoroughly examined the Book of Ecclesiastes, and have found a solution for its contradictions, and we shall also examine this book more carefully." Against the attempt of
"

Gratz to prove the incredibility of this tradition, see Schiffer,

Das

Biicli Kohcleth, p.

95

f.

The Aboth of Rabbi Nathan (a post-Talmudic Schtirer, Geschichte, i. 106 f., Eng. trans. Div. i. vol.
c.

tract,
i.

see

p.

143),

1,

according to the

common

recension (the others are given

;

in Schechter, Aboth of Rabbi Nathan,

Vienna 1887 compare Book of Koheleth in relation to Modern Criticism, Wright, The 1883, p. 466): "At first Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes were pronounced apocryphal, because they contaiued symbolical this lasted until the men of the great synagogue expressions As examples of offenarose ( 9) and discovered a solution." sive passages, Prov. vii. 7-20, Cant. vii. 12 f., and Eccles. xi. 9
;

are referred
b

to.

Sabb.

lob;

Char/.

13a

Hezekiah Gamaliel the elder, Griitz, Geschichte clcs Juden, iii. 499] is of blessed memory, for but for him Ezekiel would have been declared 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
[see about this
;

Hananiah ben man, living in the time of Hillel and

;

Menachoth 4:oa

"

passages are very weak.

Gratz {Kolicleth,

p.

161)

calls

the

opposition to Ezekiel simply " casual."

The

tradition is
iv.

met

with only in the Babylonian Talmud (Bleek, Einleitung,

551),

but rests upon a Baraitha.

And

naturally just a

little is

proved

8.

CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE JEWS.

ol

by the circumstance that the contesters of the canonicity are

unnamed (Wildeboer,
also to Proverbs
;

Hd

ontstaan,

p.

^Q>),

for this

applies

by the fact that the canonicity of Ezekiel had been conserved even before the Synod of Jamnia (Wildeor
boer, p. 60).

Finally, on Esther

compare
ii.

h.

Meg. 7a
:

"

According

to

1\.

135 ff.] Esther does not defile the hands Could Samuel have meant by this that the Book was not the work of tlie Holy Spirit? No; he of Esther meant it was produced indeed by the Holy Spirit, but only for reading, not as Holy Scripture." As proof of the inspiraJudah, Samuel said [Jost,
!

tion of the book,

vi.

is

quoted

"

Haman

thought in his

heart," which no man without divine revelation could know. That the theory of Samuel did not affect the accepted inter-

pretation (Wildeboer,

Hd

ontstaan, p.

not a necessary, assumption.

lOOa, according to which certain teachers declared that wrappings for the Esther rolls were unnecessary. On the other hand,
Sanli.

64 f.) is a Compare further h.

possible,

but

jcr Megilla

70.

is

uncertain; see

Bertheau-Eyssel, Esra,
to, of

Nehcmia, and E6ter,

p.

368.

The hypothesis
Jerusalem in
a.d.

of Grixtz,

above referred

65 and

at
is

Jamnia
said to

in a.d.

two synods at 90, at which the

settled, rests

canon

of

the Hagiographa

have been
''

upon two altogether untenable presuppositions. In the first place, it is false that by the " sacred writings of M. Jadaivi 3. 5 are meant only the Hagiographa. See particularly Schiffer, Das Buck Xohcleth, p. 80 ff. And, in the second
place, there is

no vestige of proof that the question of the canon had engaged attention just before the overthrow of Jerusalem in " The Garret of Chananiah ben Hezekiah." Only the prohibition against laying the Torah rolls beside the grain devoted and received for the heave-offering ( 2), belongs to
the

eighteenth
;

Chananiah all Those modern writers are certainly wrong who seek to maintain that other writings were also the subject of attack.

Halachoth sanctioned else is pure fancy."

in "

The

Garret

of

Thus Kohler,
ger's

in reference to the
p.

JiuL Zcitschr. 1870,

Book 135 ff.).

of Chronicles (see Gei-

Eor when

it

is

said,

"

32
for example, in Lev.
icles

9.

LATER THEORIES.
(fol.

r.

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. 2lld, as ( 5). proving that the Book of Jonah had sometimes been called in But evidently it is merely a play upon numbers, question. when Jonah is here characterised as a " writing by itself
(which his prophecy, moreover, in many respects actually is, compare Wildeboer, Hei ontstaan,^^. 60-62), in order thereby
to bring out the required
too, is the position
1).

number

eleven.

Precisely similar,

sometimes taken up by the Eabbinists (as, Sahh. 116 a, etc.), where they classify Num. x. 35 f. as a e.g. book by itself, and so reckon seven books of the Law.
9.

The actual

facts of history to

which the unfortunately

too rare witnesses

made use

of in the preceding sections point,

have often necessitated the setting aside of conceptions at which

men had

arrived in a half a priori

way from accepted

a
rule,

theories,

the presupposition of which, as

was that the Old

at

Testament canon must have been collected by a single authoritative act,

which had most likely taken place

all

an early
the Jews,

period.

Those various notions

originated

among

and in part were carried from them

to the

Christians,

by

whom

they were maintained often with passionate persistency,

justified

which certainly was not

to the

by

their origin.

We

meet

with two of these theories even in those writings belonging

end of the

first

Christian century, referred to in

{e.g.

7.

In the centre of the Church fathers

iii.

in Irenseus, Adv. Hcer.

i,

21.

Tertullian,

De

cultu

feminarum,

3),

we

often

meet with a description of the origin of the Old Testament Canon, which rests upont he passage quoted in 7 from the
Apocalypse of Ezra, according to which Ezra, by means of
divine inspiration, wrote out
all

the Old Testament books after

they had been completely lost in the destruction of Jerusalem,

and, in consequence, gave

authority to the Old

is

Testament
the theory

Canon.

Not

quite so devoid of historical basis

'.).

r.ATKK THEORIES.

33
i.

proposed

liy

Joseplius, Contra

Ainoncm,

8.

According to
the time
writin^s

him

tlie

prophets formed an unbroken series

of the Persian kinLj Artaxerxes, B.C.

down tu 4G4-424. The

which had

tlieir

origin before or during that period are genuine,

because the prophets have themselves written in them what

occurred during their
of the

own

lives.

That

is

the theory of the origin

Old Testament

historical books, whicli

of

some have
of

souglit

wrongly to ascribe
( 4),

to the author

the

Book

Chronicles

and which has now become current.

tlie

There are indeed

time of Artaxerxes
irpo avrayv,

events recorded w^hicli occurred after

Longimanus, but
Bca TO
fjLT}

Tr/crreo)? oi)^ ojiola^

ti-jv

lij^icoTai rots"

jeveaOaL

tcop 7rpo(p7]TMV u/cpi/SP)

hLaho')(r)v
tlie

[They
former,

have not been esteemed of the same autliority with

because there has not been an exact succession of the prophets

since that time].

Xaturally

nil

this

applies primarily to the

thirteen historical books (7), but the four books of

hymns

and practical precepts Josephus regarded

older,

as indisputably still

and consequently he may probably have considered the

Precisely
writinirs,

closing of the canon as also belonging to that age.

the same thini:

is

also

found in the old rabbinical

cessation of prophecy
is

where the period

after the

indicated

by the phrase

'^^\^'\

;S2D

the writings originating during this

period are not canonical, although the reading of

partially tolerated ( 2).

them

is still

Of greater importance was the

and which soon

third theory

which the

Christians in the sixteenth century borrowed from the Jews,

lost its hypothetical character,

and was

set forth

by men
an

like

Hottinger and Carpzow as incontestable truth.

is

In the ancient Jewish literature there

of

often mention

made
Of

assembly called
is

'^^'^t^

^?^-,

" the

great assembly or

synagogue," which

associated witli Ezra and Nehemiah.

the various labours which have been ascribed to this assembly,

some

refer to the

Old Testament writings.

{h.

Thus,

it is

said in
of the

a well-known passage

Baba bathra 14a}, that the men

34
great synagogue
"

9.

LATER THEOEIES.
the Twelve

wrote the Book of Ezekiel,

Minor Prophets, Daniel, and Esther.

According to Tanchuma

(a Midrasliic

work on the whole

of the Pentateuch)

on Exod.

XV. 7, the so-called Tikkunc SopWriin,

to them.

34, also owe their origin

c. i., it

According to Ahoth derahhi Nathan,

was they
8),

who saved the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and The Song ( Some hints which are found in the works of rabbis etc.
given expression to by Elias Levita,
the third preface to the

of

the Middle Ages, such as David Kimchi, were emphatically

who

died a.d. 1549, in

as

Massoreth Hamassordh ( 31),

writings,

meaning that the sacred

/

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 well-

This hypothesis was taken up with great

enthusiasm, and found very general acceptance

testant theolofjians, with

whom

it

retained

among Profavour down to

as difficult

the most recent times.

It ow^es its prevalence during so long

it

a period almost wholly to the fact that

was just

to disprove as to prove the significance of the great

for the formation

synagogue

of the

Old Testament Canon, so long as

its

the true character of that synagogue and the duration of

activity still

remained quite indefinite and indistinct.

It

was

only after the historical data scattered throughout the Tal-

mudical literature had been subjected to careful investigation,

and, above
treatise
all,

after the appearance of

Kuenen's

masterly

On

the

Men

of the Great Synagogue, that light was

this

at

last

shed

upon

question

but the result of these

aside the idea that

researches has been once and for

all to set

that assembly w\as of any importance for the forming of the

Old Testament Canon.

great variety of things,

"The Great Synagogue,"

still

in

which

even modern Jewish and Christian authors are

j
is,

seeing a

according to the convincing evidence

led

by Kuenen, nothing more than an idealisation of the great popular assembly which Ezra and Xehemiah called tDgether

 9.

LATER THEORIES.

35
in

(Xeh.
the

viii.-x.),

and which was certainly of great importance

canon of the

way

of introducing the
lite

the national

of

the

Jews (3).
whicli

I^w as the basis of The uncommon lengtli

to this

of the legislative
"

period

has

been assigned

synagogue
to

" in

the Talmudical writings, namely, from Ezra

is

down

Alexander the Great,

a simple consequence of the

in

fact that this

whole period was pressed together

Talmudical

reckoning into thirty-four years.

Hence

it

cannot be supposed

that the idea was ever entertained of connecting the great

synagogue with what

of the prophetical

is

properly regarded as the formation

( 4). call

canon

In conclusion, we must briefly

that

attention to the fact,

to recent

what has been the dominant theory down even

times, namely, the idea that the canon v;as formed

by a single
it

act effected .at one particular period, has carried with

the

most
ot"

artificial

and most abstract explanations of the principle

the tripartite division of the Old Testament.

Even

the

mediiieval
tion,

Jews sought

to establish various degrees of inspira-

which Christian theologians partly modified and partly

unsatisfactory
it

blended with other no less unliistorical and

theories.

Specially, therefore, because

all

it

has carried with

the abolition of
the

these false theories, the correct account of

of

way

in

which the Old Testament collection

into its

Scripture

was brought

present state

is

to

be regarded as a

veritable benefit.

Tertullian,

Be

cultu

feminarum,

i.

"

Quemadmodum

et

Ilierosolymis Babylonia expugnatione deletis omne instrunientum Judaicai literatune per Esdram constat restauratum." Compare Strack in llerzo^'s Ecal-Encyclopccdie'^, 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, Einlcitung, 154, Eng. trans, ii. 137 ff.), but by the Book of Esther, which he considered the last book of the Bible, and whose chivj'nx he falsely identified with

36

9.

LATER THEORIES.

Artaxerxes Longimanus.
JevjSy

With

this

whole theory the narra(

tive of the prophetic gifts of

John Hyrcanus
>

Wars of

the

J
^

281 ff., Gratz has called attention view set forth in Seder Olam. to the closely-related It is said there (p. 90 in Meyer's edition of 1706), with reference to the age of Alexander the Great, described prophetically in the Book of Daniel " Down to this time, |XD "ry, the prophets have prophesied by the Holy Spirit from that time lij^t^i p''D have wrought only the wise." With this agrees also Toseylita " All books, which "j^'^si |N3D, i.e. after Jadaim, ii. 13, p. 683 the silencing of prophecy, do not defile the hands," and the passage ye?\ Sanh. 28, which has been quoted above at 2. Kimchi speaks, in the introduction to his Commentary on
in
p.
:

2.8) is MGIVJ, 1886,

i.

certainly not

in

accord.

In a treatise

Chronicles (Sefer qchilat Mosche,

iv. fol.

377rt), of the division

of the post-exilian prophets in the arrangement of the sacred

writings.
iii.,

Elias Levita (compare on

him

Saat aiif Hoffnunrj,

xliii. p.

in the first
(^The

and fourth numbers;

ZDMG,

206

ff.)

says

Massoreth Haonassoreth, ed. Ginsburg,

p.

120):

"The twenty-four books were even then not gathered together;

but Ezra and the

men

of the great synagogue collected them,

;

and divided them into three parts

in
h.

and they arranged the

Prophets with Hagiographa, but otherwise there are teachers

Baha hathra 14."

Thesaurus philol.
i.

Hettinger,
p.

2,

qusest,

(ed.

1696,

([uibus
fuit

Ill): "In concussum hactenus et tam apud Christianos, non pro cerebro fungus est, quam Judreos ava/KJyLo-^rjrov
principium, simul
Similarly

et

seniel

Canonem
i.

V. T. autoritate

prorsus divina constitutum esse ab Esdra et viris Synagogue

Magnte.

Q?iri)zo\Y, Introductio,

c.

2,

l,and Keil,

Einleitung,

On

" the

154, Eng. trans, ii. 137 ff. Great Synagogue," see Morinus, Exercitationcs
;

279 f.; Eau, Diatribe de sijnagoge magna, 1726 and especially Kuenen in Verslagen en medadeelingen dcr KoninJclijke Akademie van Wet. (Aht. Letterhunde), 2nd series, 6th part, 1877, p. 207 ff. Wildeboer, Het onstaan, p. 121 ff. Pvobertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, pp. 156 f., 408 f., against Gratz {Koheleth, p. 155 f.), Geiger {Urschrift,
JjiUicce,^.
;

0.

LATER

TIIEOIIIES.

37

]).

124), and Wright {Kohcldh, 188o, pp. C (f., 47.", ff.). Kueneii proves that all the cliaracteristic features which the
Talnnulical writings attribute to the great

synagogue have

been drawn from the narrative of Neh. viii.-x. Of special importance in connection with the earlier theory was the passage in Pirkc Ahoth, i. 2, according to which Simon the Just, whom
the

Talmud makes contemporary J,with Alexander the

is

Great, but

wlio in reality lived at a yet later period,

said to liave been

one of the

last

members

of the great synagogue.

statement overlooked the fact

But this that the period between the

it,

rebuilding of the temple and the overthrow of the Tersian

empire had been compressed, in the Talmudical record of

into the space of thirty-four years
{o.

Ahoda zara

9a, Seder

Olam,

p.

yi), so that to the

Jews

it

seemed quite a probable

famous scribes of Alexander's time should also have been a member of the great assembly of Ezra. How the Jews came to fix upon this period of thirty-four
thing that one of the
years
Gratz,
is

not quite

clear.

MGirj, 188G,

Compare the various reckonings in 293 ff., and Loeb, Hi:J, xix. p.

202

ff.

of the

The mediieval Jews sought to explain the threefold divisiuii canon by the hypothesis of three different degrees of
So, for example,

inspiration.

Maimonides, 3Iorc Kclmchim,

ii.

45

Kimchi, in the preface

YiUt the distinction

i:hpn

Commentary on the Fscchns. proposed by them between nNi23 nn and

to his

Old Testament. Herm Witsius {Miscel. Saer. libri iv. 173G, i. 12), whom Hengstenberg {Bcitrdg czitr Einleitung in d. A. T. i. 23 ff. follows, distinguishes between Munus propheticiun and Dannni
is

nn

one altogether

foreign

to

tlie

2rrophctieurn, in order to explain

how Daniel came

this

to be placed
is

among the Hagiographa.

irretrievably over

But
vii.

distinction

shattered

Amos

14, where

Amos

repudiates the

idea that he

is

a possessor of the Muiiiis iwoplieticinn.

Compare

also the far less clear attempts to

Einleitung,
foreign
all

155, Eng. trans,

mark a distinction in Keil's ii. 149 f. How completely

the
spirit

such

notions are to

of

antiquity

is

strikingly seen from the theory of Josephus above referred to,

and from the Talmudical passages, where the authors

of the

38

10.

THE OEDEE OF THE BOOKS.

" prophets."
2.

Hagiographa are spoken of as h. BeracJioth 13a, and above at

See, for example,

10. In opposition to the Alexandrines ( 12) the Palestinians from the beginning held firmly
of the

by the

tripartite division
liistory of

Old Testament writings as a deduction from the

the origin of the canon.

Within the range

of these three parts, definite order of

on the other hand, there was originally no

succession for the several writings, excepting only in the case

of the

Law and

of the

Prophctce Friores, where naturally the

It

order of the books has been almost always the same.

was only when the Old Testament writings began

Sfiven to the order in succession of

to

be

written out in one roll or in one volume that attention was

the books.

But
the

this first
(b.

occurred in the times after Christ.

From

Talmud

Baba hathra

Vol))

we

learn that even in the

first

and second
it

centuries there

still

prevailed a doubt as to whether

were

allowable to write several books in one volume, and that this

custom came

to be generally

adopted only after

200.

it

had obtained

rabbinical sanction about A.D.

The immediate consevarious arrani]je-

quence of the practice of writing each book in a separate

volume was that

in later times

we meet with

ments of the several books, especially in the confused and

indeterminate collection of the Hagiographa.

In the second part of the canon, as we have already

marked, the order of the historical books was at once

re-

fixed.

At the most, an alteration was made there only when the Book of Euth had a place given it after the Book of
Judges
of
( 7).

On

the other hand, in the often quoted passage

after Ezekiel
;

Baba hathra 14, we find Isaiah placed meet with the same order again in
French manuscripts, in the
pilation Yallcut shimoni,
first

and we
com-

several

German and

edition of this Midrashic

is

which

said to have

been composed
list

in the thirteenth century,

and in the enumeration

(32).

of the

Massoretic work Ochla

vjcoclila

The motive

of this trans-

10.

THE ORDEi: OF THE

IJOOKS.

39

position

is

no longer apparent.
it

Although many modern scholars

think that they see in

a proof that even then the Tannaites

exilic origin of the pro-

had a correct conception of the partly

phecies ascribed to Isaiah, this
bable.
Isa. xl.
is

nevertheless extremely improxlviii.

Tn view of the passage Ben Sirach

11".

24

f.,

where

is

expressly attributed to the old Isaiah, such a

tradition, especially
said,

view cannot be styled an ancient

wlien

we

consider,

what has already been

that the prophetic

writings

were not from the beginning written out in one

volume

and

to tliink

of an actual historical criticism during

is

the Talmudical period

to

make

altogether too
is,

great an
points

assumption.
of contact

The most probable thing

that the

many

between Jeremiah and the

last chapters of the

Looks

of

Kings led
Isaiah

to the placing of these writings in juxtaposition,

while

was

placed

in

front of the

twelve prophets,
Isa.
i.

because he was contemporary with Hosea (compare

with

Hosea

i.).

With Jerome
first

37), as

well as with Origen,

tlie

Isaiah receives the

logical order,
in the

place in accordance with

chrono-

and

this

arrangement was subsequently followed

Spanish manuscripts, as also in the oldest manuscript

to us, the

known
It
is

Codex

of the Prophets, described

under

32.

worthy of remark that the Twelve

first

Minor Prophets,

which, even so early as in the

century after Christ, were

reckoned as one book, are arranged in the

different

LXX.

in

an order

from that of the Hebrew Bibles, namely, Hosea,

Joel,

Amos, Micah,

Obadiah,

Jonah,

Nahum, Habakkuk,
h.

Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

The order
1.

of the

Hagiographa

is,

according to

B^Jja hathra

1:

Puth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song, In this

Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles.

case, also,

we cannot

accept the idea of some modern scholars

who would

find in the position of the

Book

of

Chronicles a

proof that this book had been received into the canon at a
later date than the

Book

of Ezra.

Certainly in this

we have

40
assumptions

10.

THE ORDEK OF THE BOOKS.

that

made

have

little

to

do

with

criticism.

Jerome, on the other hand, certainly on chronological grounds,

./

gives the

first

place to Job

then follow Psalms, Proverbs,

Ecclesiastes,

The Song, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, while

Ptuth and Lamentations are included

among

the

Prophets.

The arrangement given in Baha hathra, wliich, according to a Massoretic work of A.D. 1207 (in the Tchufutkale collection),
seems to have been that of the Babylonian Jews,
in part adopted in several manuscripts.
is

at least
also the

Compare
Ill,

order

of

succession

in

Ochla weochla

Nr.

112, 127.

The Massoretic work above

verbs, Euth,

referred to gives the following as

:

the Palestinian arrangement

Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Pro-

The Song,

Ecclesiastes,

Lamentations, Esther,

Daniel, Ezra.

This order was the prevalent one among the

is

Massoretes, and

therefore to be

met with

in a variety of
a.d.

Spanish manuscripts and others, even in a Bible of

1009.

In

this

arrangement the writings of Solomon are no longer

placed together, while the five Megillotli are, but not in the
order of the parts to which they belong (Passover

the Feast of the

tion
of

Weeks
in

or Pentecost

Jerusalem

tlie

Feast

of

Tabernacles

Month

Ecclesiastes

Ab Lamentations and Purim

Paitli
; ;

The Song
;

the Destructhe

Esther).

Only the German manuscripts, according

to the statements of

Elias Levita, allowed their arrangement to be determined

by

the succession of the parts, for they placed the five Megilloth
together
in

the

midst

of

the

Hagiographa, after Psalms,

Proverbs, and Job, and before Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles,

and

this

arrangement has

finally

became the prevalent one

in the printed editions.

and thorough work of Marx (Dalman), Traditio o^ahhinorum vderrima de librorum V. T. ordine atquc Elias Levita, Massordh liammasoreth, origme, Leipsic 1844. ed. Ginsburg, p. 120 f., compare Bacher in ZDMG, xliii. H. Hody, De Bihliorum textihus originpp. 208, 236 f

Compare the

solid

11.

Till-:

.SAMAKITAX CANON.

41

(dibits

G04

f,,

Strack in ZLT, 1875, p. 1705, i)p. G44-GG4 and in Herzog's Ileal- Eiicyclopccdic, vii. 441 f. Joel
; ;

!Miiller,

MasscJceth iSojdt^riin, p.

44

f.

On

the Prophets also,

xvi.

IX'renbourg in the Journal Asiat.

unsupported

is

443 f. Quite 1870, the statement of Fiirst {Kanon, p. 15 if.), that

Baha
hatlira gives:

the original text of

Kzekiel, Isaiah
ii.

Isaiah

i.,

Jeremiah,

Baha hathra 136: Our teachers declared it permissible to have the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa bound together in one volume. So taught P. Meir (in the second the Law century), whereas IL Judah (ben Ilai) maintained by itself, the Prophets by themselves, the Hagiographa by themselves. Some have even given the opinion that each " Boethus ben writing should be by itself. P. Judah reported Zonia had the eight books of the Prophets in one volume, which Eleazar ben Azariah (in the end of the first century) Pabbi approved yet others said that this was wrong." " There was (P. Judah, the editor of the Mishna) said brought us one volume containing the Torah, the Prophets, and
:
:

xy

Compare jcr. Meg. Only separate rolls 3. 1, fol. 73<r^, and Massehcth Soph'^rim, p. v. were used for reading in the synagogues. Compare Esther, h. Meg. 19a. The rolls were wrapped up in cloths and placed in a case (xpTi, Oi^Krf), and so were preserved in the book chest of the Synagogue. Compare the remark of Tertullian {De cultu fcminarum, 3) about the book of Enoch, nee in armarium judaicum admittitur,
the Hagiographa, and

we

sanctioned

it.''

i.

11.

The community

of

the

Samaritans,

who

otherwise

imitated the

Jews

in all matters,

had a canon

differing
of

from
the

that of the Palestinian Jews.

The sacred writings

the
five

Samaritans consisted only of

books of the Law,

wanting

all

the prophetic writings and all accounts of the the

Israelites

fortunes of

in post-Mosaic

times.

On

tlie

other

hand, they possessed

outside
of

of

the

canon an inde-

pendent reproduction of the Book

Joshua, which formed the

beginning of a chronicle which was carried

down

to the period

42
of the

11.

THE SAMAHITAN CANON.

Evidently
it

Roman

empire.

was the often violently

denunciatory expressions against the Ephraimites in the historical

and prophetical writings that deterred the Samaritans

last

from receiving the two

divisions of the Jewish Canon.

is

But the whole phenomenon

position

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,

and no mere third part

of

an indissoluble whole.

Had

the

Jewish Canon, as has been often subsequently maintained,

owed

its

origin to a

sudden single

act, the authorising

it

on the

part of the Samaritans of a single division of

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.
possess

Unfortunately we

no tradition of the time at which the Samaritans

Still it

received the Law.

can scarcely be doubted by those

who assume no

essential recastincj 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 of
this

on Gerizim.

Josephus indeed gives an

xi. 7.

account

occurrence

(Antiqicities,
is

8.

2-4),

but evidently his chronology

at fault.

Partly on internal
xiii.

grounds, partly by a comparison with Neh.

clearly

28,

it

can be
of

shown that the period

is

fixed

upon by him, the age

Alexander the Great,

too late by about a hundred years, for

the occurrence referred

must have taken place

certain

shortly after

the time of Nehemiah's activity.

The idea entertained by

Tertullian, Origen,

Church

fathers,

such as
to

and Jerome, that the Sadducees had

do

with the forming of the canon of the Samaritans, certainly

rests

upon a misunderstanding.

The erroneousness

of this

statement, as well as of that of later writers which substitutes

the Karaites for the Sadducees, has been

made evident by

the

clearer information obtained in recent times about the origin

12.

rOSITION OF ALKXAXDRINES OX THK CANON.

43
tlie

and history of the sect of the Sadducees.

Kssenes to the canon
is

The relation of
458), they
ii.

not so clear.

Notwithstanding^ their
in

great reverence for the Law, wliich

their assemblies (I'hilo, ed.

was read every Sabbatli

ii.

Mangey,

still

had,

according to Josephns
special writings,

{Wars of

the Jetrs,

8.

7), their

own
All

which they preserved with no

little care.

recent attempts to discover these writings

among

the apocry-

phal books

known

to us have,

up

to the present time,

proved

unsuccessful.

Canon compare Kuenen, Oiiderzoek, iii. MGIVJ, 1886, 430; Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 106 f
the Samaritan
;
.

On

p,

294

f.

In general: Kautzsch in Herzog's

Ileal- Encyclo-

2)ccdie, xiii.

340

ff.

Juynboll,

Chronicon
to

Samaritamim

arahicc

conscriptum,

Leyden 184S (not

be confounded with the Ahiilfathi annates

Samaritani edited by Yilmar, 1865. Compare Heidenheim's Dmtschc Vierteljahrsrhrift, ii. 1863, pp. 304 ff., 432 iX). On the Sadducees compare "Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p.

122
Div.

f
.

Geiger, Urschrift, p.
Gesehichte des jiid.
ii.

113

f.

On
ii.

the Essenes, especially

Schiirer,
ii.

Volkes,

467

ff.,

Eng. trans.

vol.

188-218.
Collection of Scriptures among the

B.

The
is

Alexandrine Jews.
12.
It

not very easy to form a clear conception of the

position

which the Alexandrine and, along with them, the

Hellenistic

Jews generally occupied

It

in relation to the question

superficial consideration,

of the canon.
as
if

might seem, upon a

the few direct witnesses with regard to this matter, which

still

are

at our

command, prove that the Alexandrine Jews

Philo,

had the same canon as the Jews in their native land.

indeed, according to Ilornemann's investigations, quotes from,

and

allegorises upon, only the canonical writings

(compare

6),

although he betrays acquaintance also with certain apocryphal

writings
;

while Joseph us, who, as a

Jew

writing in Greek

44

12.

POSITION OF ALEXANDRINES ON THE CANON.

sets forth,

and using the LXX. may be here taken into account,

in the above quoted passage (
7),

the complete Palestinian

it

doctrine of the canon.

But, nevertheless,

is

found, upon

more

careful

examination, that
Philo's

we

are

here in an entirely
in

different

world.

quotations

are

almost

every

instance from

the

Law, and accordingly

canon

afford
;

no certain
yet more

evidence upon
decisive
is

the question of the

and

this other fact, that

he has a wholly different theory

of inspiration from that wliich lies at the basis of the construction

inspiration
of

the

Palestinian Canon.
to

According to Philo,

was not confined

truly

any one particular period.

In his view, not only the Greek translators of the Law, but,
still

more,

all

wise

and virtuous men, are

inspired

and capacitated by the

hidden from the

Spirit of
(i)(j

God

for expressing

what

is

common gaze
7, p.

Cherub.

9, p.

112 D; Be

migrcUione AhraJi,

393

C).

This theory, which w^e meet

with also partly in Ben Sirach

( 5),

and which Philo appar-

ently shared with other Alexandrine-Jewish thinkers, must

necessarily

have

contributed
"

to

smooth

down

the

sharp

boundaries between

canonical "

and
he

" non-canonical."
is

With
not so

regard to Josephus, his position on this question

plain.

As a

historical

writer,

emphasises

particularly
7),

the " credibility " of the canonical books (see

naturally does not prevent

but this
of other

sources for the history of

"

him from making use post-biblical times, among

First

these an
It
is

apocryphal

"

book, the

Book

of

Maccabees.

worthy of remark, on the other hand, that even within the

limits of the biblical period he unhesitatingly uses the addi-

tions to the

Books of Ezra and Esther, which are found only

(Antiquities,
xi.

in the

LXX.
is

15 and
to

6).

And

that

the

stricter theory of the

canon continues

be for him a mere

theory

show^n by this, that he carries

down
I.

the Jewish
(seep. 35),

history into the age following that of Artaxerxes

without a single word calling attention to the fact that his

12.

rOSlTION OF ALEXAXDUINES ON THK CANON'.

rests

45

narrative

now

upon

less credible authorities

than before

wliile at the close of

his Antiquities (xx. 11. 2), wliich treats

of the ages between the creation and the twelfth year of Nero,

he refers only to the tepal ^l^Xol as his authorities, without

indicating

the

relationsliip

between

them and

the
all

other
this

iiuthoritative

writings.

With

a genuine

Palestinian

would have been scarcely

Is is only in

possible.

an indirect way that we reach the conclusive

proof of the fact that the Alexandrine

Jews did not concern

themselves about the

strict

Palestinian doctrine of the canon.

Although we know the Alexandrine translation of the Bible

only in the form in which
scarcely
it

has been used by Christians,

this

it

admits of doubt that

form was virtually in

the Alexandrine Jews,

accordance with that current

seeing that
tlie

among

Christians would certainly not have introduced

a canon which had been wholly rejected by the

Jews who had

intercourse

with them.
it

Xaturally, however, this does not

as possible
tlie

prevent our regarding

occasionally

that the Christians

collection
p. 54).

may
the

have

enlarged

Jewish

by

adoption of particular books (see further

translation of the Bible

The Greek
In the

among

the Christians differs in two

very important points from the Palestinian Bible.

first

place, the

threefold

division

is

given up, so that the

is

\y

distinction

between prophetic writings and the Hagiographa

abolished

and secondly, wo

find

among

the books regarded,

according to the

Palestinian rule, as canonical, other books

which the Jews, resident in their native land, permitted only

as profane literature ( 2), or distinctly rejected.

This

is

.i

which evidently resulted from the influence of the Alexandrine theory of inspiration, and absolutely prevented
practice

the adoption of the principle by which the Palestinian

Canon

was determined.

From

the beginning of the second Christian century, the

Palestinian

Canon won authority among the Alexandrine Jews.

46

12.

POSITION OF ALEXANDRINES ON THE CANON.

For proof of

this

we may

point,

on the one hand,

to
;

the

adoption of the translation of Aquila by the Greek Jews

and,

on the other hand,

in

to the statements of

Origen quoted above

7 with regard to the canon of the Jews.

On

Philo compare the work of

Hornemann

referred to in

6,

and

W.

Pick in the Journal of

Exegesis,

the Society

of Biblical

1884, pp. 126-143. On Josephus compare AYildeboer, ZTc^^ ontstaan, ^. 41 ff. Bloch, Die Quellen clcs Flavins Josejjhus, 1879, pp. 69-79;
Literature

and

Schiirer,

Geschichte des jild.

iii.

Volkes,

ii.

713-715, Eng.
et

trans.

Div.

ii.

voL

179, 182.
:

On
;

his use of the original text

versionis

Scharfenberg, De JosejyJii and of the LXX. Alexandrinm consensu, 1870 Bloch, Die Quellen Siegfried in ZAW, iii. 32 f. Josephus, pp. 8-22
;

des Flavins

How
still

the Palestinians rejected the apocryphal writings, but

permitted the reading of certain post-biblical works, such Quotations from as the Book of Ben Sirach, is told in 2. of a remarkable kind, are given in the Ben Sirach, sometimes

Babylonian Talmud with the solemn introductory formulae, e.g. Erubin 65ft (Eab. c. 165-247 a.d., compare Sirach vii. 10),
Bcd)a

compare Sirach xiii. c. 91, where Simon ben Shetach ( 6) quoted a passage from Ben Sirach with That in Piabba's time Ben Sirach should actually have n^DD.
(Piabba
c.

Kamma

270-330

A.D.,

15,xxvii. 9), and, in addition, Bereshith

r.

been regarded by some as canonical is very improbable, since We should no controversies on this point are reported. 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.

Strack in Herzog's Real
Ecclesia.stes, p.
-

Compare
Wright,

Encyclopoidie

^,

vii.

430;

other side,

Wildeboer, Het ontstaan, p. 85; and on the In the Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 282 f.

47

f.;

Babylonian Talmud (Sank 1006), on the contrary, E. Joseph plainly forbids the reading of Ben Sirach (np''^b i^Dx). Jerome, in his preface to his translation of Daniel, shows, in an interesting way, how the Jews of his time abused and criticised the apocryphal works used by the Christians.

 13.

SACRED LITERATURE OF THE ALEXANDRINES.

tlie

47

On
among

the views entertained with regard to the

Apocryplia

Jews

of
ii.

modern
338.
in

times,

compare Geiger, Nadt-

gclasscnc Schriftcn,

13.

The writings which

this

way
Jews

secured an entrance
afford
It is

into the

Bihle of the Alexandrine

us a glimpse
not easy to

into an extensiv^e

and varied

literature.

determine the limits of this literature, since the Septuagint

manuscripts
used

by the

Christians vary greatly in their

extent, containing sometimes more, sometimes fewer writings,

canonical as well as non-canonical.

sixth book of Josephus' IFars of the

For example, even the

Jev.\s is to

be found in a

Syrian Bible manuscript

(see
" of

further

IG).

We

cannot

therefore speak of a " canon

the Alexandrines in the strict

sense of the word

It

may, however, be readily understood

writings are religious, and

that the conjtents of such

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

Israelites

feigned names, should be represented as

of

or

men

the

primitive ages of biblical history.

Books, therefore, like the Epistle of Aristeas, referred to in

38, the Jewish Sibyllines, Phocylides, and similar works under

heathen masks, were excluded.

Further, only writings whose

contents were of an original character could be taken into

consideration, not poetic or scientific reproductions of biblical
history,
"

like

the Epic of l^hilo the Elder, Ezekiel's

or the historical

drama

The Exodus,"

works of Demetrius, EupoleFinally, the inclusion

mus, Artapanus, and Josephus.

among

the sacred books of the voluminous productions of a

author, like Bhilo,

modern

would naturally never be thought

of.

What
in

remains,
partly
of

after

these eliminations have been made, consists

of

Palestinian translations
c.f/.

books written

the

Hebrew

language,

the First

Book

of Maccabees,

Ben

Sirach,

partly of original Greek works of Hellenistic Jews, eg. the

Wisdom

of Solomon.

Of several writings we now know only

48
the

13.

SACRED LITERATURE OF THE ALEXANDRINES.

titles.
:

Of the extant writings some

are of a philosophical

character
poetical

Ben

Sirach, the
:

Wisdom

of

Solomon
;

others of a

character

the

Psalms of Solomon

others

contain

historical tales, especially legends, which, however, are often

only the investiture of religious-moral teachings

the three

Books

of

Maccabees, Tobit and Judith, the Jewish sections of

;

the Asceyisio Isaim

others are of a

prophetical character

the
of

Book

of Enocli, the

Assumptio Mosis, the Fourth Book

Letter of Jeremiah, the
its

Ezra, the

Book

of Baruch, the

Apocalypse of Baruch.
revelation
of

On

account of

special form,

Moses on Mount Sinai by the

(r;

Angel of the
has

Presence, the so-called Book of Jubilees

also

XeTrrr] Teveai<^),
it is

been received into this

literature,

although

properly

only a free Haggadic rendering of Genesis.

In addition to

these there has to be mentioned finally a series of appendices

to various canonical writings,

which were read with peculiar

enjoyment, and were therefore surrounded with the variegated

embellishments of popular legend.

The books thus added

Ezra also
liad

to

were those of Esther and Daniel, while also Chronicles had

attached to
it

the Prayer of Manasseh.

to
it,

such

an uncanonical addition joined

longer possess by
of the
itself,

which, however,

we no

but as part of a very free reproduction

Book

of

Ezra translated into Greek.

Sketches of the literature of the writings here referred to are

given by Strack, Einleitung

der
Theolog.

im A.
i.
;
.

T. in

Zockler's Handhucli

Wissenscliaften,
xii.

Recd-Encydopcedie^,

Geschichte des jild. Volkcs

341 ff im Zeif alter

;

by Dillmann in Herzog's and especially in Schiirer's

Jesii Christi,
ii.

575-830,

ii. voL iii. 1-270. In regard to the additions made to the biblical books, it is most particularly to be observed that there is no ground for supposing that the additions to Ezra, Esther, and Daniel are Schiirer, Geschichte des jild. translations from Hebrew originals

Eng. trans. Div.

Volkes,

179,

713, 182, 184.

ii.

715, 717, Eng. trans. Div. ii. vol. iii. This circumstance makes the hypothesis

13.

SACKED LITERATURE OF THE ALEXANDRINES.

49

suggested by Ewald and adopted by "VVellhausen {Prolegomena,

1883, 237), that the Prayer of Manasseli is derived from the Hebrew "History of the Kings of Israel" (2 Chron. xxxiii. 18 fT.), extremely insecure. A free development of the liint thrown out by the Chronicler was what would very
readily occur to writers of a later age.

The Fourth Book

of Ezra speaks indeed of seventy writings

;

besides the twenty-four canonical books ( 7) but among these are included only mystical apocalypses, like that book
itself.

II.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

14.

The use
is,

of the

Old Testament in the

Scripture proof which

New

Testament
a
further

writings

when most profoundly

44

considered,

development of the

Christ

Himself

pointed out in Luke xxiv.

yeypafjLfjieva iv
j

otl Bel irXrjpwOrjvai Trdvra ra

tw

vo/icp iVfojucrew?

Kat

irpocprjTat'i

Kai

yjraXfjLOL^;

nrepl i/jiov.

And

just as in this passage the reference

its

is

only

to the proper

Jewish Canon with

three divisions ( 6), so

all

also the

New

Testament writers draw

their proofs of the

fact that Jesus is the Christ

and that the age introduced by

If one
itself

Him was
considers

the Messianic age of promise, from the writings

acknowledged as canonical by the Palestinian Jews.

how
free

little

the

New

Testament otherwise holds

apart from the intellectual

life

of the Hellenistic Jews,

of

which the

and universal use of the Alexandrine

transla-

tion in the books of the

conspicuous example,

he

New

Testament

is

only one single

attribute a great

must necessarily

importance to this restriction of the books used for proof in

the

New

Testament, and ought not to cast

"
all

it

to

one side as an
this

insignificant

argumentum

silentio."

But

naturally

does not at

prevent us from admitting, that there are to be

found elsewhere in the

portant traces of
circulation

New

Testament more or

less

imin

such non-canonical writings as

were

and were used among the Hellenistic Jews, the

even by the
50

reading of which was also in part permitted

 14.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON

In the
first

IN

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

51

Palestiuians (2).

rank among these stands the

in tlie Epistle of
it

quotation from the

Book

of

Enoch introduced

Jude

(v.

14) with eTrpocp/jTevaeu.

Alongside of
is

conies the

ninth verse in this same epistle, which

not to be found
of

indeed

among
is

the remnants as yet

said,
iii.

known

the Assumptio

Mosis, but

upon the

distinct testimony of

Origen

(De Principiis,

2. 1), to

have formed a part

of that work.
xi.
f.

There

is

no reason

for

doubting that Hebrews

vi.

35

f.

is

founded upon the narratives of 2 Maccabees

other hand,
refers to

On
xi.

the

we cannot
iii.

decidedly say whether Hebrews

37

an apocryphal book on the sawing asunder of Isaiah,

8
to

and 2 Tim.

the writing Jannes

la Rue,
iii.

ct

Jamhrcs

liber

mentioned by Origen {de

passages rest simply
iscences in the
of

916), or whether both

upon

oral traditions.

Of the remin-

New

Testament of Ben Sirach and the Wisdom

zeal,

Solomon, which have been tracked out with great

are rather striking.
v.

some
Sirach

Compare,
are

c/j.,

James

i.

19

witli

11.

But others

of a very doubtful character.

No On

quotations in the proper sense are to be

met with
91G)
;

here.
if

the other hand, this would

1 Cor.
ii.

have been the case

Rice,
iii.

the

quotation

9, as

Origen (de la

affirms,

had been derived from an Apocalypse of Elias

to
ii.

but our

complete ignorance of this writing prevents us from comin<'

any

definite

conclusion.

Similarly Epiphanius (Dindorf,

388)

reports, and, in

a fashion different from him, also

x.

Euthalius (Gallandi, Bill. Pair.

passage Eph.
v. 1 4.
xi.

260), with reference to

tlie

It still

remains doubtful what

f.
;

we

are to

think of Luke

49

Jas. iv. 5

John
9

vii.

38.

On
nuper

the

other hand, those are certainly wrong who, on the ground of

a statement
of

Jerome on Matt,
volumine,

xxvii.

(" legi

in

quodam

Hebraico

quod

NazariL*na3

sectic

mihi

Hebra3us obtulit, Jeremiae apocryphum, in quo

scripta reperi
his
"),

lirec

ad verbum

conjecture that the evangelist had derived

quotation

ascribed to

Jeremiah from

this

Apocalypse.

52

15.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON AMONG THE SYRIANS.

as usual to give a

Without any doubt Matthew intends here

canonical

quotation, while the Apocalypse

origin.

referred to

may

have been of Christian

The actually

existing references to non-canonical writings,

in connection with the circumstance that

we never
the

find in the

New

Testament a direct prohibition against the use of such

even
for

books,

Messianic proofs,
in

in

succeeding age,

inevitably
Hellenistic

resulted

leading
to

many communities where

follow

culture

prevailed,

unreservedly

the

Alexandrine treatment of Scripture.

principles of the canon

When

the Palestinian

had become generally prevalent among

of necessity differences on this

the

Jews

( 12), there arose

point between the Christians and the Jews.

In connection
divergent
to

with

this,

even

among
to

Christians

themselves,

customs prevailed, according as they gave a preference

ecclesiastical

the
this

or

the Jewish practice, and traces of

divergence are to be found even in the most recent times.

How

the details were thereby shaped and fashioned will appear

outline.

from the following brief

Compare among the writings mentioned in 21, especially Also Werner in the Theol Bleek in TSK, 1853, p. 325 ff. Boon, De Jacobi epistola cum Quartalsclirift, 1872, p. 265 fp. Grimm, Das Buck der Siracidce lihro convenientia, 1860
;
;

Weisheit,
xxxviii.
;

p.

35

f.

Fritzsche,

Die

WeisJieit

Jesus Siraclis
ii.

Schllrer,

Geschichte

des jud.

Volkes,

596, 628,

636, 676, 685, 690, 741, 758, Eng. trans. Div. ii. vol. iii. 23, 55, 69, 109, 144, 150, 214, 234; Wildeboer, Wright, The Book of Koheleth, p. 49. Het ontstaan p. 45 On Eph. v. 14 compare also JPT, 1880, p. 192.
f,
;

674

15.

Among

the Syrian Christians

of

we

find a practical agree-

ment with the canon

remarkable divergences.

the

Palestinians,
is

with

some very
this, that

The agreement

seen in

by both the apocryphal writings are excluded.

translation of the

In the Syrian

Bible they were not to be found in the

 15.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON AMONG THE SYRIANS.

times.

53

earliest
cloister,

Apliraates,

abbot-bishop

of

St.

^lutthew's

near Mosul, about the middle of the fourth century,

all

who

quotes passages from

the canonical writings, witli the

of

single exception,

which seems quite accidental,

tlie

The Song,

makes no quotation from

some
of

Apocryplia, although he

knew

them

and Ephnem, who was likewise acquainted

with several apocryphal writings, does not make them the

subject of his exposition.

On

the other hand, the Syrians

setting aside
it.

diverge from the Palestinian

Canon by

some

of

the writings that had been received into

translation of the Bible the

In the Syrian

Book

of Chronicles

was

originally

wanting, and the Jewish Syrian

Targum on
( Vl), did

that book, which

had been subsequently adopted

receive

not by any means

general

acceptance.

It

is

indeed

quoted
it.

by

Aphraates, but Ephr^em does not

comment upon
omitted

In later

times the teachers of the Syrian Churcli went even further.

Theodore

of

Mopsuestia

not

only

the
;

Book
and

of

Chronicles, but also Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, and Job

in tlin
aiid

canon
Esther

of
are

tlie

Nestorians,

Chronicles,
is

Ezra-Xehemiah,

wanting, while Job

received.

On

the other

hand, the Nestorians, in a remarkable way, acknowledged Ben

Sirach and the apocryphal additions to Daniel as canonical.
Several of the Monophysites also adopted this canon, yet, as
a
rule,

with the addition

of

the

Book

of

Esther.

Even

Barhebr?eus, in his grammatical and exegetical works, takes no

account of the Book of Chronicles.

In so far as the Book of Esther

is

wanting

in

tliose

lists,

we

are reminded of the criticism which, even

among

the Jews,

had been directed against that book (8).

hand,
that

On

the other

we
the
of

have, as has been already remarked, no certain proof

Palestinians

had declared themselves against

of all

tlie
If,

Book
of the

Chronicles, least

against Ezra or Job.

its

then, this Syrian criticism of the canon, with

recognition

Book

of

Ben Sirach and

of the additions to Daniel, is

54

16.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHURCH.

is

actually an outcome of Jewish influence, that influence

to

who in this particular must have gone their own way hut it is much more probable that they were Syrian Christians, who acted on their own
be sought only among Syrian Jews,
;

responsibility under the influence of subjective principles, as

these

indeed

appear in other connections in Theodore of

Mopsuestia.

Those

Syrians
received,

who
as

attached
to

themselves

to

the

Greek

Church
they
(

was

be expected, those apocryphal

writings into their translations, in the manuscript of which

are
to

be

met with in

larger

or smaller

numbers

16).

Compare
;

v.

Lengerke, De Ephrcemi Syri arte Jiermeneutica,

iii.

1831 ^ichhorn, I!inleitu7ig, mentliclie Littemtur, p. 263 xxxii. p. 587 xxxv. p. 496
;

p.

255

Noldeke, Die AUtesta;

G^. 6^.
;

^. 1868, p. 1826 Frankel in JFT, 1879,

p.

ZDMG,
p.

Nestle in Herzog's Rcal-Encyclopcedie'^y xv.

references to the

196.

758 The
;

Apocrypha in Aphraates are found in the Compare on Homilies edited by Wright, pp. 66, 252, 438.
other points, Bert, Aphrahats des persischen Weisen Homilicn.
Alts

dem

Syrisclien ilhersetzt,

1888 (and
fif.).

a review of

it

in

Theol. Litt. Zeit.

1889,

p.

77

16.

The Greek Church, and the communities dependent

it,

upon

such as the
(

Ethiopians, the
w^ere

Latins, a part of the

Syrians

15),

etc.,

conspicuously influenced by the

practice of the Alexandrine

Jews

in reference to Scripture.

We

accordingly meet in Justin, Clement of Eome, Irenaeus,

Tertullian,

Clement

of Alexandria, etc.,

not only with frequent

allusions

to

writin^^s

which

had

been

excluded

from

the

Palestinian

Canon, but also formal and deliberately made

quotations

from

many

of the

literary

works mentioned in
all

13.

How

far these

books are to be regarded as

belong-

ing to the Bibles already in use

is,

among

the Alexandrine Jews

12, uncertain.
It
is

as \YQ

have already remarked in

 IG.

THE OLD TESTAMKNT CANON

IN

THE GREEK CHURCH.

55

highly probable that the attempt to introduce such books as

the

Book

of

Enoch, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, the Apocalypse

of Ezra, the of Scripture,

Book
was

of Jubilees, etc., into

the proper collection

first

made by

the Christians, although even the

here the flexibility and indefiniteness of

Jewish Alex-

andrine method of dealing with Scripture does not allow us to

come
arose

to

any very decided conclusion.

At any

rate,

there

within the Greek Church an opposition against those

books, which in the most emphatic

way

points to this, that

they had not been received by the Jews, and that, in the
Christian

Churches,
as, e.g.

they

had

not

obtained
of

such

general
etc.

acceptance

Jesus Sirach, the

also

Wisdom

Solomon,

Since then the Palestinians

considered these books to

be non-canonical, such a separation will help us to mark out

a certain boundary or outside limit of books in use

among

the

Greek Jews.

In this

way among

the Greeks the

use,

writings
result of

referred to were banished from

this has
texts.

Church

and the

been that for several of them we possess no Greek

the other hand, some of

On

them were preserved among

other National Churches dependent on the Greeks, such as

the Syrian, and, above

in this direction.

all,

the Ethiopian, which went furthest

is

picture of this development

afforded
illus-

by the various Bible manuscripts, which may be here

trated

by two examples.

The

Vatican
:

Scptuagint

Codex

embraces, besides the canonical books

the Greek Ezra, the

Book

of

Wisdom, Ben

Sirach, additions to the

Book
all

of Esther,

Judith, Tobit, Barucli, the Letter of Jeremiah, additions to

Daniel.

In the Codex Alexandrinus we have

the books the Prayer

of contents

here named, and in addition,

of

1-4 Maccabees and

too,

Manasseh

and at the same time,

Psalms

the

list

at the beginning of the manuscript

originally the
affixed to the
of

show that

it

contained

Solomon, yet only as an appendix

New

Testament.

On

the other hand, the great

is

Milan Peschito manuscript, of which an account

given in

56

16.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GEEEK CHUECH.

(of which,
of

72 contains, besides the usual Apocrypha

Greek Ezra, Tobit, and the Prayer
:

howare

ever, the

Manasseh

wanting)

the Apocalypse of Baruch and the Apocalypse of

Ezra, and even in addition to these, the sixth book of Josephus'

Wa7's of the Jews.

Of the old Latin translations of the

Apocalypse of Ezra, the Assumptio Mosis, the Martyrdom of

Isaiah,
still

and the Book of Jubilees, larger or smaller remnants are

which circumstance proves that these books were

extant,

read for a long time

among
Greek

the Latins, although officially they

were attached

to the

practice.

But

it is

in a very special

degree owing to the complete unsusceptibility of the Ethiopians

to

any influence

of

criticism that several of these

works are
Enoch, the

even yet extant.

To the Ethiopian
and the Book

translation of the Bible

belonged the Apocalypse of Ezra, the

Book

of

Martyrdom
edited.

of Isaiah,

of .lubilees,

from which

during the present century the texts have been recovered and

The technical expressions

church
use

for

the

books excluded from

were

arroKpvc^o^,
kolv6<;,

sccrctus,

non

maiiifestus,

in

opposition to

(j)avp6<;,

manifestus, vidgatus.

Without

doubt these expressions w^ere borrow^ed from the synagogue,

where they had been used, however, with a somewhat

application.

different
tij

While among the Jews

2) the term

was

used of books, properly copies, which had been banished from

official

(synagogical) use

" apocryphal,"

among

the Greek and

Latin fathers, signified such books as were not actually found

in the clear daylight of universal ecclesiastical use, and which

the particular community therefore could not introduce as

ecclesiastical

books.

Out

of

this

idea

there

was readily

developed the idea of the heretical, the forged and ungenuine,

which

is

often the

prominent one when the Apocrypha

is

spoken of by the fathers.

On

the quotations in the fathers from the writings rejected

Scholz,

by the Palestinian Jews, compare among others

 17.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON

in
die

IN

THE GREEK CHURCH.

dcs

5*

Einldtiing

hciligni

Schriften
dcs jild.

A. und N.
ii.

T.

i.

232
Eng.

f.

Schiirer,
iJiv.

Gcschichte
ii.

Volkcs,
Scliolz

trans.

vol.

iii.

9-219.

582-7G8, 220 it) (p.

gives also a sketch of the relations of the various uianuscripts

to the

Apocrypha.
the Ethiopians, compare Dillmann,
"

On

Der Umfang des

dcr
hihl.

Bibelkanous der
Wisscnscliaft, v.
pccdie,
i.

abyss. Kirche," in Ewald's Jahrh.

1853,

p.

144

f.,

and Herzog's
see

llccd- Encyclo-

205.

On

the range of
etc.,

the biblical canon

among
,

the

Armenians,
the

Georgians,

Scholz, K^lnlcitunfj

i.

259.

On

use

of
d.
is

the

word

"

apocryphal,"

see
i.

especially
1

Zahn, Gcschichte

Nciitestamcntlichen

Kanons,
in

20-150,
instance

where attention
heretical,

rightly called to the fact that the ideas

false,
etc.,

pernicious,

are

the

first

secondary.

who

at

Thus it is quite simply explained how Origen, onetime writes {Contra Cels.v. 54): eV rat? iKK\r)aiaL<;
cf)pTaL &)? Oela

ov Trdvv

ra

iTriyeypafi/jLeva

tov 'Ev(o^ ^i^Xia,

and at another time (de he Iiue, ii. 384), " libelli isti non videntur apud Hebroeos in auctoritate haberi," yet also himself quotes the Book of Enoch, e.g. De Frincipiis, iv. 35
(dc la Rue,
i.

153):

" sed in libro

suo Enoch
designated

ita ait," etc.

Various

lists

of the

writings

apocryphal are
;

given by Credner, Zur Gcschichte dcs Kanons, pp. 117 ff., 145 Schiirer, Gcschichte dcs jild. Volkcs, ii. G70 f., Eng. trans.

Div

ii.

vol.

iii.

125.

17. After the Palestinian idea of the canon had, during

the course of the

first

Christian century, become the dominant

one among

all

Jews, they were obliged to attack with special

rigour the use of non-canonical writings on the part of the

Christians,

and often a Christian was brought into a dilemma

when
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

17.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE GREEK CHUKCIL more exact information about the extent of the

believers

Jewish Canon.

Such

service

was rendered by Melito and

in doing this they

Origen, whose important explanations on this point have been

mentioned above in

7.

Yet
that

had in view
submit

a purely practical end, and they had not indeed the least

thought

of

su^i::^estinf

the

Christians

should

generally to the Jewish notions about the canon, and give up

the use in

their

churches of those non-canonical writings

which had obtained a footing among the Christian communities.

Hence Origen himself not only used such books in his works, but expressly vindicates them in his letter to Africanus,
he urges that the practice of the Church in regard to
Scripture had been developed under the providence of God,

for

wdiereas the antipathy

of the

Jews
of

to

these writings

had

been called forth by their hatred

the Christians and by

their fear lest through these books the Christian faith

might

be strengthened.

The Greek

fathers

of the fourth

century unhesitatingly
at

assume the same standpoint, while

canonical

the same time they

of

somewhat more decidedly acknowledge the pre-eminence

the
WTitinsjs

that

are

accordimr

to

the

Jewish

practice.
of

Athanasius, in a.d. 365, Gregory JSTazianzen, Cyril

Jerusalem, and Amphilochius, without expressly naming

the

Jews

as

their

authorities,

give

lists

of

the

canonical

writings,

which are identical with those acknowledged by the

fathers omit
to
it

Palestinians, although with this significant difference, that the

two

first-named

the

Book

of

Esther, while

Amphilochius refers

as received only

by some (compare
59th
at

7).

On
of

the other hand, in Athanasius and in the the

Canon

Synod
a.d.

of Phrygian

and Lydian bishops

a.d.

Laodicea, between

343

and

381, we meet with

express pronouncements against the use of non-canonical or

apocryphal books as injurious

to

the

purity

of

doctrine.

Meanwhile, among those apocrypha the WTitings authorised by

 17.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON

of
tlie

IN

THE GUEEK CHURCH.

59

tlie

practice

churclies

were generally not

includetl.

They formed an intermediate

in

class

between the canonical and

the apocryphal writings as books, the use of which for reading the

churches was permitted (dvayipwaKo/ieva).

To

this

class belonged, according to

Athanasius, besides the Book of

Esther

the

Wisdom

of Solomon, Jesus Sirach, Judith, Tobit.

Hence even among those same

lists

fathers
to,

of canonical books referred

who have given us the we not rarely meet with

to

quotations

from those

books

allowed

be read

and a
that

consequence of this

way

of viewing the
"

matter

is,

we

have

those

"

reading

books

in

the

oldest

Greek

Bible

manuscripts

( 16).

Compare the Letter 12 tf. ed. de la Rue,

i.

of Origen to Africanus in his Opera,

Athanasius, Fjnstola fcstalis of the year

:

365

{Opera, cd.

'EireiS/jTrep Tive<; iTre-^eiprjaav Colin, ii. 1G86, p. 38 ff.) avard^aoOai eavTol^ rd Xeyofieva uTroKpvcpa kol iiri/jLi^at ravra rjj OeoTrvevarrj ypa^rj, irepl r)<^ i7r\7jpo(f>opi]0r]fjLi', KaOco^

irapeBoaav T0i9 irarpdaiv

fyevofievot
d86\(f)(x)v

oi djr

dp-^y}';

avroTrrat Kal vTnjperai

irapci yvrjaLoyv

tov Xoyov eSo^e Ka/xol "TrpoTpairevri

Kal fiaOovTi avwOev,
e^i)<;

iKOeaOai rd fcavoiu^ofieva
Oela
elpai

Kal

TrapahoOevra,
ei
/jlV

TnarevOevra

re

jSt^Xia,
,

iva
6

CKaaro^,
Ka6apo<^

rjiraTijOrj,

Karayvo) twv irXavrjaavroiv

hk
.
.

X^^PV 'ttuXlu v7rofit/j,vr]crK6fjLvo<; (There follows an enumeration of the twenty - two books, without Esther, but with Euth separately named.) 'AXX'
BLa/jLiva<i
.

veKd

ye

TrXet'oi'o?

uKpi/Seiaf;

TrpocrrLOrjfiL

Kal tovto

<ypd(f)(i)i>

dvayKaiw^,
VdidKeaQai
X'^laOaL
ao(f>ia

&)?

on
fiev,

earl

Kal erepa ^i/BXia tovtcou e^wdev, ov

he irapd rcov Trarepcov dvayi-

Kai>oi'i^u/j,eva

reTvircofieva

tol<;

dpn

irpoaepxpfievoL's

Kal ^ovXo/jLeuoL^; Karijaocfiia

TOV

T?;?
f^al

evcre^eta^;

Xoyov'

XoXofiojvro^

Kal

^ipd^,

^EaOijp, Kal ^lovSld, Kal To^ia<^, Kal BiSaxh

KaXovfj.ei'1]

Tcov

AttogtoXcdv,

Kal

ttoi/xjJv.

Kal

op-w^

KUKetvcov KavovL^op,evwv Kai tovtcov dvayivcoaKOfievcov ovSapux:

TCOV aiTOKpv^cdv T(ov fiev, OTL
fivrj/ir},

aXXa aipeTiKMV eaTiv

eirivoia,

ypa^ov-

deXovaiv avTa, x^pi^o/jievayv Be xal irpoaTiOevTdiv

60

18.

THE OLD TESTAMEKT CANON IN THE LATIN CHURCH.

o)?

avTol<; ypovov;, tva

iraXaia 7rpo(^epovTe<i irpo^aaiv

')((ocnv

dirarav

e'/c

tovtov tov? aKepalov^.

Concill.

coll. ii. 574), XeyeaOat iv tJ ore ov 8et lSL(oriKov<; ylraXfiGv^; Canon 59 ovSe aKavoviara /Si^Xia, aXka jiova tcl KavoviKa tt)? KK\r}ala

Council of Laodicea (Mansi,

:

nov.

Kaivrj^

Kol TToXaia^i

Soa6r]fC7]<;.

Gregory Nazianzen, Carmen

ii.

xxxiii. Opera, ed. Colin,

1690,

98.

Amphilocliius,
Canonis,
p.

Jamhi ad Sdcucum,
(Opei^a,

see Sclimid, Historia

194.

Cyril of
p.

Jerusalem

ed.

Benedict.

Paris,

1720,

same books as Origen (7), Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, and ^vith the addition of He has probably borrowed his list from this predecessor. makes no mention of an intermediate order between the canonical and the apocryphal books yet, e.r/. in his Catech. The 60th ix. 2, he quotes from Wisdom xiii. 5 as canonical. Canon of the Council of Laodicea has the same list. Compare,
57
if.)

names

precisely the

however, on the doubtful genuineness of this canon, Credner, [Hefele, Geschichte d. Neidestamcntliclien Kanc^s, p. 217 ff.
History of the Councils of the Church,
p.

vol.

ii.

Edinburgh 1876,

323
18.

f.]

The Latin Church took a course somewhat different from that of the Greek Church, a course by which, unfortunately, the results of study w^on among the Greeks, and used
with wise
consideration for the
lost,

customary
is

practice of the

Church, were again

which

all

the more remarkable

when we

consider that the Latin Church seemed to have been

placed, in consequence of Jerome's extraordinary attainments

in the knowledge of the Old Testament, in the best position

for a

happy solution

of the whole question.

In the Prologus

galeatus, referred to in 7,

Jerome gives a thoroughly wroughtits

out description of the genuine Jewish Canon with

twentybriefly

two or twenty-four books

and thereafter he remarks

est, inter

and well
dum."

"

Quicquid extra hoc

apocrypha ponen-

He

thus takes up his position quite at the Palestinian

 18.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON

still

IN

THE LATIN CHURCH.

"

C 1

standpoint, while he

uses the

word

apocryphal " with a

much wider
( 2).

signification

than the Jews did their word ^3

Even

those books which the Greek fathers permitted

to

be read

were,

according to this

mode

of representation,

included

among

the uTroKpvcpa.

Nevertheless, Jerome was not

himself in a position to maintain this standpoint over against

the practice of the Church, but repeatedly falls back into the

mediating practice of the Greeks.

the Apocrypha, and
that

Indeed, he translated from

in

entirely

consequence of the

demands

of his fellow-countrymen, only Tobit, Judith,

and the

additions to Esther and Daniel, these latter writing:s beinfx

distinguished from the canonical by diacritical marks

but in

the prologue to the Lihri Salomonis he gives the non-canonical

writings used in the Church the

same intermediate place which

they held

and

of

among the Greeks, while he remarks of Jesus Sirach " HcX^c duo volumina lecrit the Book of Wisdom
:

(ecclesia)

ad

cedificationem

plebis,

non
"
;

ad

auctoritatem

ecclesiasticorum
self

dogmatum confirmandam
quotes
Sirach,

and so he himworks,
his

not

infrequently

especially

Jesus

various

apocryphal

once
iii.

expressly

introducing

quotation

((?o??i7?zc?i^.

on Isaiah,

12)

witli a " dicente scrip-

tura sancta."

Meanwhile, the Western Church, striving

after

unequivocal and definite forms, did not regard with favour

this

somewhat uncertain intermediate

{lihri ccclcsiastlci).

position of the books

allowed to be read

Instead of

now

solving

the problem by an uncompromising acceptance of the Jewish

practice, the

attempt was rather made to abolish altogether

the distinction between canonical books and books that mijjht

simply be read.

In the Latin Bible manuscripts prior

to

Jerome, just as among the Greeks, non-canonical writings are

found along with the canonical.

Only here the number of

the non-canonical writings did not vary so

the Greeks, while the manuscripts
regularly

much
i.e.

as

among

embraced the
the

writings received by most of the Churches,

Wisdom

62
of

18.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE LATIN CHURCH.

Solomon, Jesus Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees,

to

and the additions

ecclesiastical usus

Daniel, Esther,

and Jeremiah.
decisive,

The
those

was now regarded as

canonical,

and

all

writings

were

pronounced

without

paying

any

regard to the Jewish Canon and the opposing

remarks of

Jerome.

It

was pre-eminently the African Church which,

of Augustine,

under the guidance

came

to this practical,
first

but

not historically justifiable, decision, for the

time at the
A.D.

Church Assemblies
to

at Hippo, a.d.
fell

393, and Carthage,

397,

whose

lot

it

thus

to give to
it

the Alexandrine Canon

hitherto.

that fixity of limits which

had not

Concerning Jerome compare, besides the Frologus gahatus,

his preface to the Liber Tobice
:

" Feci

satis

desiderio vestro

Arguunt enim nos Hebraeorum non tamen meo studio. studia: et imputant nobis contra suum canonem Latinis
Sed melius esse judicans Pharisa?orum displicere judicio, et episcoporum jussionibus deservire,
auribus ista transferre.
iustiti

ut potui."
:

Similarly, too, in the preface to the Ziber

Judith
cujus

"

Apud

Hebraeos Judith inter

apocrypha legitur
in

auctoritas

ad

roboranda

ilia

quse

contentionem
librura
legitur

veniunt,

Sed quia hunc minus idonea judicatur. synodus Nicsena in numero sanctarum scripturarum
acquievi
postulationi
:

computasse,

vestras,

immo

exactioni."

Further, the Epistola 7 ad Lcetam

et si

"

Caveat omnia apocrypha

quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem, sed ad signorum reverentiam legere voluerit, sciat non eorum esse, quorum titulis prsenotatur, multaque his admixta vitiosa, et grandis
esse prudentia3

aurum

in luto quserere."

A
c.

list

of the books in

the old Latin Bible translations

is

given by Cassiodorus,
14.

De

institutione divinariuiii litterarum,

Alongside of this

we should take

notice of a list of

the canonical books found by

Mommsen at

Cheltenham, which

belongs to the latter half of the fourth century.

:

Compare with reference to it Mommsen in Hermes, xxi. 142 ff. Zahn Harnack, Tlieolog. Litt. Zeitung, 1886, in ZKWL, 1886, iii. Augustine Nr. 8; and J. Weiss in ZWT, xxx. 157 ff.
; ;


18.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON

IN

THE LATIN

CIIUIICII.

C3

treats this question in

Dc dodrina
11.

Christiana,

ii.

De
i.

^7?'rt;r/cs^.

sand.

i.

On

the Councils
apostolorinn
tables

at

compare Hippo and

;

Carthage

see

Bruns,

Canoncs

conciliuraia,

133 and 138.

The following

may

help to an under-

standing of the order of succession of the particular books in

They all have in the same order the five these lists. Books of Moses, only the Cheltenham list puts Numbers before Leviticus (compare on that point Zahn, Geschichte d.
:

Ncutestamcntl. Kanons,

Euth, the four

lipomena.

63); then follow Joshua, Judges, Books of Kings, and two Books of l*arai.

Thereafter the

list

runs as follows

Cassiodorus.

64
vol.
iii.

19.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHUECH.

The
Cheltenham List
of Cyprian,
of the

1891, pp. 217-325;

of the Sanday and C. H. Turner.]

1 9.

Canonical Books, and

Writings

by

W.

The

ecclesiastical writers of the

Middle Ages vacillated

in their representations of the Old Testament

Canon between

the great authority of Augustine on the one hand, and of

Jerome on the

other, although

even the practice of the Church

as a rule followed the

good example given by the Africans.

Many
"

Latin Bible manuscripts contained, besides the usual

to

books allowed

be read"

( 18), also

the Apocalypse of Ezra.

The whole question was an open

no constraint in regard
to the

one,

and the Church used

it.

answering of

But when

at

a subsequent period Protestantism attached itself decisively to

^the fundamental position of Jerome, the matter was so far as the Eomish Church was concerned, yer viam
tionis,

settled,
ojyposiits

and Eome had the courage not only

" Si

to take

under

protection the practice of the Church, but

it

also to

proclaim

as a condition of salvation
suis partibus, prout
et et

quis libros integros

cum

omnibus

in ecclesia catholica legi con-

sueverunt,

in veteri vulgata

Latina

editione

habentur,
pra3-

pro

sacris

canonicis

non

susceperit,

et traditiones
sit "

dictas sciens et prudens contemserit,

anathema

(Concil.

Trident,
I

iv. c. 1).

The non-canonical books

referred

to,

which

'

in this

way were

declared canonical, were: the additions to the

of

Books of Daniel and Esther, Baruch, with the Letter

and the Book of Wisdom.
Fourth Books
of

Jeremiah,

the two First Books of Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Jesus Sirach,

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

and

eriiphatic declarations of

Jerome, must be

regarded

as a

rather

brutal

one,

brought several Catholic

theologians at a later period into no slight embarrassment, but

their attempt to

secure acceptance again for the older Greek

 20.

CARLSTADT, LUTHER.

G5

practice,

by making a distinction between proto-canonical and

deutero-canonical books, was too evidently in contradiction to

the clear words of the Tridentine Council to be of any real
avail.

The Greek Church,

too, aftQr various vacillations,

and

after

a passing attempt to adopt the theory proposed by Cyril of

Jerusalem and Jerome, decided, at the Synod of Jerusalem in

A.i),

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

62-68
rank

Wette-Schrader, Elnlcitiuig, pp. see also Bleek, TSK, 1853, pp. 271. 274. On the
" deutero-canonical,"

De

attempted degrading of the books read in the Church to the

of

by

Sixtus of

Siena {BiUioth.
Biblia,

sancta,

1687), compare Welte in the Theol. Quartalschrift, 1839, p. 230 ff., and Scholz, Einhitung, i. 262 f. On the Greek Church, compare Bleek, TSK, 1853,

156G), Bernard
i.

Lamy
ff.),

{Apparat. ad
etc.,

Jahn

{Einleitung,

141

p.

276
20.

ff.

Herzog's rical-Eiicylopccdie,

vii.

445

f.

The Reformation, which from the

first

directed

its

attention to the

Holy Scripture
in

as the

means, by the use of

gennine Chris-

which the great reaction

the

direction of

tianity could be carried out,

to

was

of necessity obliged to
as to

come

some decision on the question,

the canonical worth

of the books received into the Bible as books that

read.

might be

The

first

who

treated this question, hitherto left open,

in a thoroughgoing

manner, was the Hotspur of the Beforin

his
little

mation,

Andrew Cadstadt,
1520.

tract,

Dc

canonicis

scripturis,

In this treatise he describes the opinions

of Augustine

and Jerome, and himself adopts very decidedly

the view which Jerorae had expressed in his Prologus galeatus

(

IS),

while, without
all

any reference

to

the practice of the

Church, he styles

writings apocryphal which had not been

received by the Palestinians.

In the Ztirich Bible of 1529 E

66

20.

CAELSTADT, LUTHER.
left out,

and 1530, the non-canonical writings were not indeed

the end of the whole Bible, with the remark
"

but they were placed, in Leo Judea's German translation, at

:

These are the

books of the Bible, which by the ancients are not numbered

among

those of the Bible, and also are not found

among the

Hebrews."

Among

those there were included, not only the

usual books allowed to be read, but also Third and Fourth

Books

of

Ezra and Third Maccabees

on the other hand,

it

was

only at a later period that the Song of the Three Children, the

Prayer of Manasseh, and the additions to Esther were received.

Luther also translated the non-canonical writings which were read in the Church.

Even

in a.d.

1519 he published
:

the Prayer of Manasseh as a supplement to his treatise

kurze

Eine

Unterwcisung,

wie

man

heicldeii

soil.

In

A.D.

1529

appeared the Book of Wisdom, and in

Tobit, Jesus Sirach,Baruch,the
-

a.d.

1533 1534, Judith,

;

two Books of Maccabees, and the

additions to the Books of Esther

and Daniel

while the Third

and Fourth Books

meet in

of

Ezra and the Third and Fourth Books of

But, at the same time,

Maccabees were not translated.

we

his writings with a remarkable criticism

which was

directed not merely against these writings but also against particular books
of

the Hagiographa, and treated not only the

also

practice of the Church, but

the

old

Jewish decisions
Alongside of

regarding the canon, with excessive freedom.

sharp expressions against several of the non-canonical writings

above named, and reminders that they had not been

received into the

Hebrew

Bibles, there are to be found in his

writings no less free denunciations of the Books of Esther,

Ecclesiastes,

and Chronicles.

Indeed, he himself employed the

of Esther

expression that, while the

Book

ought to have been

of
It

excluded
deserved

from
to

the

canon,

the

First
in

Book
it.

Maccabees
is

have

been included

the
as

old

criticism of the several

Books of the Hagiographa such

(
8,

we
is

meet with among the Jews

compare

15),

which

20.

CAKLSTADT, LUTHEII.

67

liere

repeated, not liowever under the immediate iiilluence of

historical facts, but

under the impression which these writings

made on
not
to

his religiously sensitive nature,

whose task

it

was

examine into

their

historical

significance

and their

consequent right to a place in the canon, but to give expression to the fundamental ideas of revelation in their purity

and overmastering power, and

ing as
it

to estimate

everything accord-

contributed to that end.

In his translation of the

Bible, completed in A.D. of

1534, Luther follows the example

in

Jerome and Carlstadt

denominating the books allowed

to be read " apocryphal,"

and distinguishing them from the

17, compare
after tlie
:

canonical books
practice of the
liimself, 18),

but he keeps somewhat nearer the mediating

Greek fathers

even Jerome
canonical Old

when he

places

them

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

natural misconception
it

for

reading."

Through a very

thus became general to understand

by "apocryplial" just those non-canonical writings received

into the ordinary Bibles, in
direct

contradiction to the usiis

called " apocryphal " the

loqucndi of the Greek fathers,

who

books that were excluded from the Bibles of the Church.

later

In
to

times

the

term

"

Fsciideingraphic

"

was introduced
however,
is

denominate
suitable,

this latter class

of books, which,

less

inasmuch as Pseudepigraphs are

also found

among

the books admitted to be read

by the Church,
Solomon a

so that indeed

even Jerome, in his preface to the writings of

Solomon,

named
The

the

Book
:

of

Wisdom

of

ylrevBeiriypacpoi:.

treatise

Be
is

ainonicis scriptitris lihcUus D.

Andrea^-

Bodcnstcin-Carhtadt
see especially

reprinted with a historical introduction

Kanons (1847, p. 291 ff.) 364): "Nunc autem, ut de nieo quid (p. dam additiam, constat incertitudinem autoris uon facere apocrypha scripta, nee certum autorem reddere canonicas
in Credner's Ziir Gcschichtc dcs

81


68
scripturas, seel
20.

LUTHER.
libros,

quod solus canon

quos respuit, apocry-

phos
from

facit, sive

On

habeant autores et nomina sive non." the Zurich Bible and the " Combined Bibles " made up

and from Luther's translations, compare Herzog s Bealiii. 550, 554 f. The above-mentioned prefaces to the translations of the Apocrypha are found in Luther's Sdmiliclien Werken, Erlangcn, Of the First Book of Maccabees it is said Ixiii. 91108. "This book is also one which is not to be met (p. 104): with in the Hebrew Bibles. It is, however, almost equal in its discourses and language to the other books of Holy Scripture, and would not have been unworthy of a place among them, for it certainly is a necessary and useful book
it,

Encydopcedie'^,

for the understanding of the eleventh chapter of Daniel."

On
:

the other hand,

"

it is

said of the Second

Book

of

Maccabees

In short, just as

be received into
are willing that

we were willing that the First Book should the number of the Sacred Scriptures, so we the Second Book should be rejected, though
it."

there

is

something good in
to
he,

Further, there are the follow-

ing statements

be compared:
" I

Eiiang.

And when

the doctor,
:

corrected
so

131: the Second Book of

Ausg.
Ixii.

Maccabees, he said
Judaise too

am

opposed

to this

Esther that I wished

they had not been

book and to extant, for they

improprieties."

much and have many heathenish

:

De

servo arhitrio

"

Liber Esther

canone, dignior omnibus,

tur."

me

judice, qui extra

Erlang. Ansg.

Ixii. p.

132

quamvis nunc habent in canonem habere" The Books of Kings go a

hundred thousand steps beyond him who has written the Chronicles, for he has only indicated the sum and pointed out the most remarkable points in the history, and has passed over what is bad and small therefore the Books of IviuGjs are more to be believed than the Books of Chronicles." The same, p. 128: Of the book of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, he says " This book ought to be more complete, it is too fragmentary,
;

it

has neither boot nor spur,

it

rides

only in socks, as I did

I do not believe

myself,

when

was

still

in the cloister.

that

frighten

Solomon has been damned, but this was written to kings, princes, and lords. So he did not himself

 21.

THE REFORMED
it

CIIUKCII.

69

^^Tite the

was composed by Siracli in the lime of the Maccabees." We must, however, compare with tliese the divergent statements of vol. Ixiii. p. 40, and
Ecclesiastes, but
i\\

Book

Editio Eflang. Latina, xxi. 1

The Apocrypha received

into the

Lutheran translation of
canonised by the
of

the Bible are exactly the same as tliose

Komish Church, only that the Prayer

been adopted.

Manasseh has

also

In not a few Protestant Bible translations the

Apocalypse of Ezra {ix. the Fourth Book of Ezra) also finds place among the Apocrypha. Compare Gildemeister, Esdroc
liber

quart ics arahke, 1877,

p.

42.

21. In the Reformed Church also, in the earliest times,

the

Apocrypha was allowed

its

intermediate position in the

Bible translations, but the stricter principle of Scripture in the

Churches influenced by Calvin carried with

that,

it

the consequence

on the one hand, their w^ant of canonicity was emon

phasised in the confessional writings as was not done in the

Lutheran

confession

and,

the

other

hand,

repeated

endeavours were made to have

them completely removed

Synod of Dort,
in a.d

from Bible translations.

Even

at the

1618-1619, Gomarus, Deodatus, and

others, insisted

upon

having the Apocrypha withdrawn from the Bible, without

being able to induce the Synod to sanction this breach with
the practice of the Church.

At a somewhat
pronounced

later period, the

Puritan Confession, Confcssio

IV^est minster

Wcstmonastcricnsis,

1648

(the

Confession,

i.

3),

the

apocryphal
writings,

writings to be of equal value with ordinary

human

which had, as a natural consequence, the exclusion of these

from the Bible.

But

it

was only

in

the beginning of the

present century that the controversy about the position of the

Apocrypha assumed more

British

serious dimensions.

On

the ground

of the Puritan Confession, the

Edinburgh Committee of the

allow,

and Foreign Bible Society, on l7th January 1825,

against
in

protested
especially

the

resolution

of
in

the

Society to

Bible

translations

foreign

languages,

the

70

21.

THE REFORMED CHUKCII.

its

adoption of the Apocrypha, and emphatically demanded

withdrawal as a condition of their continuing to take part in

the work along with the other local committees.
years' struggle

The two

that thus arose ended

in

the victor}^ of the

enemies of the Apocrypha, so that the Bibles published since

by the Society contain only the canonical

in a successful pamphlet, vindicated

writings.

The

controversy also broke out in Denmark, where Jens Moller,

the Apocrypha against

Pastor

ISr.

Blicher.
period,

At a subsequent
1850,
for

prize

offered

by the Baden
the Apocrypha,

Administrative Council of the Inner Mission in the year

an essay on the significance

of,

of

called forth a series

treatises,

in

some
to

cases,

very solid controversial

results,

which indeed led

no practical

but afforded

admirable contributions to the discussion of the question.

The judgments of the Eeformed Confessional writings

found in Niemeyer's Colledio
jmhlicataritm, Leipsic
Confessio fidei

are to be

covfessiooiiim in ecclesiis reformatis

;

1840, with an Appendix, Halle 1840 Gallicana, p. 329 f.; Confessio Scotica, i. 350;

Confessio Belgica, p.

362

Confessio Helvetica poster, p.

p.

468

The English
ensis, p.

XXXIX
f.;
i.

Articles,

602
:

Declaratio

Thoruni-

670

Confessio Boliemica, p.
3,
it

787.

In the West-

minster

Confession,

is

said

"

The books commonly

called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part

of the canon of the Scripture to the
;

and therefore are of no authority

Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved, or made use of, than any other human writings." On the Synod of Dort, see Actcc synocli nat. Dordrecti Jiahitm, Hanover 1620, p. 30. [The Edinburgh controversy over the circulation of the Apocrypha by the Bible Society, in which Dr. Andrew Thomson, Dr. Patrick Macfarlane, Ptobert 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 PampJdets on the Apocrypha Coritroversy, in 4 vols., 1825-1827.]

22.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.
fiir

71
Oct.

Niels Blicher, in Theol. Mnamdsshrift,

]\Iuller, in Xijt

1827

Jens

thcoL Bihliothclc, xv.

d.

Ph. F. Keerl, Die Apocryphcn

Iiud.
Stier,

1820, p. 1 [\. A. T. 1852 (prize essay);

Die

Apocriiphen,

Evaiuj. KirchenzcitiUKj,

1853; Hen^^stenberg in the 1853; Bleek in TSK, 1853, p. 2G7in lUeek, Einlcitung, p.

354.

Further
ii.

liter.ature also in Kei\, Finleitunr/, p.

fl";

trans, vol.

37G

and

GG5,Eng. 281 f.

22.

As

the above sketch has shown, a pretty considerable

difference of opinion has always prevailed within the Christian

>/

Church in reference to the value and position of the Apocrypha.

The two extremes

are represented

by the Catholics and by the y^

cannot really admit of
has,

British and Foreign Bible Society, while the Lutheran Churcli

occupies an intermediate position.

It

any doubt, that the Protestant Church

done
right-

upon the whole,

and
,

as the Greek fathers more or

hesitation,

less hesitatingly,

Jerome without

had done

in re^ardincc the

on

Jews

as the true authority on tlie question as to the extent of the

Old Testament Canon.

The people

of Israel, to

whom

the Old
life

Testament revelation had been entrusted, and whose

it

task

was

to preserve

it

uncorrupted, are in fact the legitimate and

it

competent judges, when

has to be decided in what writings

this revelation appears in purity

and

free

from

all

foreign

and

modifying elements.

That we are no longer

in

a position

fully to trace out the principles wliich led the scribes in their

determinations regarding the canon, and that those principles

which can
peculiar,

still

be understood arc in

many

cases extremely

cannot be regarded, as in this connection, of any

importance.

For
do,

it is

not with the views of the scribes that

we have

to

but

only

with the favour shown to the

Scriptures and their circulation

among

the people, of which the

decrees of the rabbis as to the canon are simply an echo.

The

spread

and recognition whicli the books had won in the

is

genuinely Jewish community

the material which the scribes

;

had

to

work up

in their

own way

but

how

they succeeded

72
in this
is

22.

COXCLUDING REMARKS.

only of secondary interest, while the firm position

of the writings

among

the

members

of the

community

affords

the

special guarantee

that they recognised in

them a true
of learning

reflection of their spiritual life,

fore,

and that these writings, there-

must be accepted by us
that
life.

as the canonical

means

to

know

Our task

consists essentially in pointing

out on this basis the significance of the several writings within

the history of the Old Covenant, and in thereby proving their canonical authorisation with a more complete apparatus than

was

at the disposal of the Pharisees.

all

But

in order to do this,

we must above

firmly maintain that this task cannot be

solved, so long as one considers the

Old Testament writings

under a purely religious aspect, as commonly was the case in

earlier times.

Such a mode

of considering

them

will, in

strong and independent religious nature, of necessity lead to

depreciatory estimates of particular writings, such as

we meet

with in Luther.
of a
religion

The Old Testament writings are not expressive

in regular

which

and undisturbed progression

advances to a conclusive summit, but a preparatory revelation,

which
to

after it has reached its culmination begins to sink

and

dissolve

away
its

in order that

it

may

thereby

itself

become

conscious of

incompleteness, which was destined to give

perfect.

way

before the

new and

This age of general dissolu-

tion, in

which some

Israelites

broke away from the faith of

it,

their fathers without being able to transcend

because the

new had not

yet appeared, while others, seeking escape for

themselves by forgetting the preceding noble development of

the prophetic age with
its

ideal claims

and satisfying them-

selves with a lower standpoint,

produced writings in which

the

community recognised a genuine picture of the moral and Too much stress spiritual currents by which it was moved.
cannot be laid upon the fact that such writings, not only were

received into the canon, but even maintained their place there
in
spite
of

the

attacks

of

later

times

8).

However

 22.

CONCLUDING KEMAllKS.
l)y

73

imperfect the method fullowed

the scribes in their treatbeen, they were at least

ment

of these

writings

may

liave
tliat

guided by the correct feeling

those books, according to

of

their innermost essence, were true

and genuine expressions

the spirit of the Old Testament, which will also be confirmed

by every

really scientific investigation.

It

is

therefore the

distinguishing
against the
its

excellence

of

the

I'rotestant
it

Church,

over

Eomish and Greek Churches, that

has put before

members the canonical books pure and without any

Only these books give us a true picture
of the

admixture.

\/

spiritual life of the

Old Covenant called forth by revelation

and miraculous leading, and they only show the prophecies

contained in prophetic words

and

actions,

whose fulfilment
too,

and completion

is

Jesus Christ.
is

And
14).

so,

in the

Xew

Testament, Scripture proof

Prophets,

taken only from "the Law, the

(

and the Psalms"

At

a greater or less

distance from this circle stand, on the other hand, the non-

canonical writiuLjs.

Indeed, in some of them the wonderfullv

fascinating Old Testament life throbs with no little vigour;

yea,
it

were wrong

to

deny that we meet with

a richer

and
of

higher spirit in the Book of

Wisdom than

in

the

Book

Esther or the Book of Chronicles, and that perhaps nothing

in the

Apocrypha gives

so

much

ofience in its direct religious

application as Ecclesiastes.
to them, a thoroughgoing

But, nevertheless, even in regard

examination will confirm the judg-

ment

of the Palestinian community,

and lead
all,

to the conclusion

that these non-canonical books, one and

must

retreat into

the background,

if

we

are to obtain a true picture of the Old

its

Testament revelation, with

peculiar course of development

and the forms of

it

life

thereby called forth.

On

the other hand,

can be easily understood

how

the Church, M'hich renounced

those forms in order to take up into itself all mankind, might

conceive an affection for some of these writings, and esteem

the spirit that throbbed in them better than the Palestinians

74
had done
;

22.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.
one
is

and so

far

able to approve of

what the older

traditional

Greek and Lutheran Churches did in respecting the

usage,

and retaining those writings

in their Bible translations.

But however much one may from this standpoint recognise the style and manner in which the Churches named above
have solved the question of the canon, there
point in which Luther and those
is

yet another

who

followed

him have not

of the

succeeded in disengaging themselves from an inherited incompleteness.

In the Alexandrine Bibles the introduction

also
to

Apocrypha led
of the canon

this result, that the tripartite division

it

was abandoned, although

Palestinian

played so important
35),

part

among the
Now,

Jews

and has so

essential a sionificance for the rio'ht estimation of the several

wTitincjs.

althouf]jh

Luther and the other Protestant

translators of the Bible set the non-canonical writings apart,

/

and gave them a place

reintroduce
that

after the

canon proper, they did not

the

tripartite

division.

And

yet

it

is

obvious

we can only be

justified in adopting
if

Jewish authority on

the question of the canon,

priate

we

are prepared fully to appro-

the theory of the Jews with respect to the collection

of the canonical books.

and the mutual relation

find that the

Indeed,

we
to

New

Testament expressly gives prominence

the threefold division as intimately connected with the contents

and range
mistake to
students,

It is a Old Testament Canon ( 7, 14). confine the knowledge of this division to theological

of the

and
if

it

would undoubtedly mark an important step

the
oriofinal o

in

advance

order and

division were acrain o

If this

introduced into our Bible translations.

were done,

it

would contribute largely

to

the bringing before the people

to the

several of the results of

Old Testament research and

commending

of these results as historically justifiable.

The above

exposition,

which manifestly leaves untouched

the incontestably high scientific importance of the Apocrypha,

does not exclude the fact that here and there questions about

2-j.

CONCLUDING

t:kmai:k.s.

75
bci'ii

the boundaiy line will arise.

(

Thus

it

has

already told

12) that I'en Sirach had obtained a pretty wide circulaIn such a case then it was tion amouLr the Palestinians.
exclusively the scribes who, according,' to some settled princi])l(\

aave the decision as to whether tlie book was to be received AVhat sort of principle this was into the collection or not.
(the lateness of the period during

which the author lived

?)

or

the secondary or borrowed character of the Proverbs

cannot

now be determined with any

degree of certainty.

The ground

on which the First Book of Maccabees was not received is more distinct. It cannot be denied that the description of the happy reign of Simon, c. 14, is given with so many unmistakably Messianic expressions, that the readers must have received the impression that the author had seen in the Maccabean rule the fulfilment of the hope of Israel, which therefore must place the book outside of the (,)ld Testament
circle.

Among
Song

the Hagiographa pronounced canonical, only

"

The

" causes

any considerable

difficulty.

That

it
is

was only
not only

at a very late period received into

the collection

not supported by historical evidence (compare

itself

8),

but

is

in

a wiioDy unhistorical statement. !More than for any other single writing must we for this very book presuppose an
early currency and general favour
;

otherwise

it

would

cerit

tainly

never have occurred to any Pharisee to regard

as

canonical. That it could maintain its place was undoubtedly owing to the allegorical interpretation, whether suggested by Pi. Akiba or by some one else. But, on the other side, the attacks upon its canonicity seem plainly to show that this allegorical interpretation was not generally accepted, and so

there

remains at least the possibility that in earlier times,

it,

under a simple understanding of community its wide circulation.

it

had secured

in the

THE

HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT

77

PRELIMIXARY REMARKS.

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 discoverini:^ the fortunes of the text,
23.

namely, the original manuscripts of the Old Testament themselves,

but we cannot even in a single case point to a later

text in manuscript from which all the various forms of text,

as they

now

lie

before us,

may have been

of all

derived.

And

so,

indeed, the oldest form of the text to which

and which forms the common source

we can get back, texts known to us,

must

first of all

be constructed by means of textual criticism,

and that

certainly, as regards various passages, with varying

;

degrees of certainty

and between the oldest text attainable

by us and the
where
all

original text itself there

now

lies

a dark space,

objective

means

are wanting to us that

would enable us
text.

to trace the external

to

and internal history of the

its

In order

be able to perform

task within the sphere thus indicated,

all

the history of the text

ascertained
critical

must presuppose
of

along the line the

results

specialists.
it

Where such
also

are

wanting, or are not satisfactorily established,

must remain

incomplete and fragmentary.

On
it

the other hand, the critical

labours of specialists will be regulated by the history of the

text,

and

will find even throucjh

a firm and sure method.

sketch of the means that are at our

command
first

for the

elucidation of the textual history will form the

essential section in the history of the text.
70

and an

Owing

to the fact


80
23.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

that in tracinsj 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

must be given them.

it is

At the same

time, with regard

them,

to

be remembered that in the history of the

text the translations

come

into

consideration only according

to their importance for the text,

and that therefore

all trans-

lations wdiich

originated

at

times

when we

possess

direct

witnesses for the text other hand,

it is

must be

left

unmentioned.

On
;

the

necessary to give a somewhat full description

of the origination

and character

of the

other translations

for

only in this

way

will the uncritical use of the old versions be

prevented, of which the history of exegesis shows so

many

examples, and which, in a restoration of the original of a

somewhat

wilful character, or effected

by outside

influences,
its

discovers immediately a witness for a divergent, and for

very novelty preferred, form of text.

So, too, of necessity the

peculiar circumstances of the transmission of the text of the

translations

must be taken

into consideration, so that all sorts

of readings that

may have

arisen through later changes

may

not be allowed to bear false witness with regard to a form of

the original text that had never had an existence, and conversely, that

no real but

later variation corrected according

critic.

to the original text

may

be lost to the textual

to the
:

Compare, in addition

general works mentioned in

1,

the following waitings

Morinus,
texhis

Excrcitationum
libri

hihlicarum

de
;

Hebrmi Gra^cique
Cappellus,
Critica

sinceritatc

duo, Paris

1669

Sacra, Paris 1650,

fenberg,

new edition, with notes by Vogel and ScharHalle 1775-86; Humfredi Hodii De hibliorum textict

hus origmalibus, versionihus Grcccis

latina Vidgata libri iv.

1705; Hupfeld in TSK, 1830 and 1837; the second volume of Home's Introduction to the Critical Study cuid
Oxf.

 23.

rKKLLMIXAKV l:KMAI;KS.

8L

Knowlcdyc of the Holy Scripture, London 18 GO, by ])r. Sam. Davidson Dillmann, " lUbeltext d. A. T." in Herzog's licalEncyclopccdic, ii. o81 ff. Strack, rrolcgomcna critita in V.
;
;

T.

187o

AVeissmann, Kanonisicrimj
kciligen ScJiriftcn
;

und

Feststclhing

dcs

Tixtes dcr
(Jlebr.),

Vienna 1887 1886, pp. 1-175.

A. T. nach ^jWwiarc/i Quellcn Cornill, Das Buck dcs Pro'phetcn EzcchicL,

I.

MEANS FOR THE STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT.

A.

The
1.

Appaeatus Proper.

Frinted Editions.

24.

The

first

printed editions of the Old Testament were

First of all in the year

furnished by Jews.

1477

there appeared

a very defective edition of the Psalms with the

of

Commentary
Gerson ben

Kimchi; next,
Soncino.

in

1488, the whole

Bible,

of the

Old Testament
Pi.

at

The Brescia

edited

by

Moses in 1494, dependent upon the Soncino edition, was the The copy used by one used by Luther for his translation.

him
to

is

preserved in the Eoyal Library at Berlin.

It

was not

until A.D.

1514-1517

that the Complutensian Bible referred

first

below appeared, which contained the

edition of the
It

original

Hebrew

text issued under the care of Christians.

also forms the real editio jjvincefs of the

New

Testament.

The
often

manual

edition of

Bomberg (Venice 1517, 1521, and

closely related to the

afterwards) was

still

Soncino edition,

whereas the manual edition of Buxtorf (Basel 1611) rests

partly on the Complutensian text, partly on the second

Bom-

berg Bible spoken of below.

The Athias To

edition of J. Leuseditions,

den (Amsterdam 1661-6 7) follows these

collation of

but with
attached

several manuscripts.

this

again

is

the edition of E. van der Hooght (Amsterdam 1705), on which

rests the

widely circulated edition of

82

Hahn and

Theile.

Of a

24.

PRINTED EDITIONS.

SH
of the text issued

more independent character was the edition

under the charge of
J.

H. Michaelis

(llalle

1720).

In more

recent times, S. Baer, with the help of Franz Delitzscli, 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

we

also

meet

witli

Hebrew

text

in

the

so-called

Polyglot

liibles,

which,

besides the original text, furnish a larger or smaller

of old
translations.

number
is

The most remarkable

of

these

the

Complutensian Bible, edited by Cardinal Francisco Ximenes

de Cisnero at Alcala (Complutum), which Conrad Pellicau
rightly

hailed

as

marking the beginning

of a

new
is

era in

linguistic studies.
defective,

The

revision of the

Hebrew

text

indeed

but

rests

on good Massoretic manuscripts.

The

great

Antwerp Polyglot contains an improved reproduction

is

of this edition.

Lastly, the original text

also to be
is

found in the so-called

Ptabbinical Bibles,

where

it

accompanied by the Targums

and various Jewish commentaries.

place belongs to the second

Among

these

the

first

Bomberg Bible (1525-20), the

its

work

of Jacob

ben Chajim ibn Adonja, because of

the
it

text

corrected

from

Massora and the reproduction of the

Massora which
given below.

contains.

An

account of this edition

is

The

edition of the resting

Old Testament published

Bible of the
it is

at

Mantua 1742-44,
1277,
is

nY)on a Toledo

year
incor-

also deserving of mention, because in

porated
(Nurzia),

the

celebrated

commentary
(^*^

of
is

Solomon

di

Norzi

Minhath Sai

nn:?3),

which

of special import-

ance for the criticism of the

Massoretic text.

The

sauK^

commentary, composed originally in 1020 under the name

Goder
fcres, is also to

be found in the Vienna Bible, ISl.'^.-lO.

Vcnnce lectioncs,
i.

Compare De
Halle

Rossi,

p.

cxxxix

ff.

Le
ff.

Long, Bihliotheca sacra, Paris 1723, a new edition by ^fasch,

1778-00; De Wette-Schrader,

Einleitung, p.

217

84:

24.

rPJNTED EDITIONS.

Eosenm tiller, Hanclhuch der Litt. d. hibl. Kritik und Exegese, iii. 279 ff. Of the Five Megilloth the old Maci. 189 ff., Baer, see upon these hazor editions ought to be referred to To the works named in De WetteQuinque volnmina, p. iv. Schrader, Einhitung, p. 217, on the oldest printed Hebrew
;
:

editions,

should be added

F. Sacchi,

tipograijlii

Ehrei di

Soncino,

Cremona 1877.

On Luther's manual

edition of the

Bible compare Delitzsch in the Allgem. Zuih. Evang.

'Nr.

KZ, 1883,

51.

On

the edition of the Psalms of

iv. seq.

Baer, Ziher psabnorum,

1477, compare Of Baer's editions there have

appeared:
Ezekiel,

Genesis,
;

1869;

Isaiah,

1884

the Twelve Prophets,

1872; Jeremiah, 1890; 1878 the Psalms, 1880;

;

Proverbs, 1880; Job, 1875; the Five Megilloth, 1886; Daniel,

Ezra, and jSTehemiah,

1882

Chronicles,

1888

see Euringer,

Eer

Ifasoratext des Koheleth,

1890.
Bible,

Polyglots:

The Complutensian

1514-1517; The

Antwerp Polyglot (" Eegia " or " Plantiniana," after the Antwerp printer Christian Plantin, who died in A.D. 1589), 1569-1572. Upon the Antwerp text of the Old Testament,
as Delitzsch in

the second of the treatises referred to below

has shown,

is

based the Hebrew part of the BiUict

et

sacrcij

Hebraice, Greece

Latine, ex officina

Sanctandrecma 1587 (1599

and 1616 ex officina Coinmeliana). Finally the Parisian Polyglot, 1629--1645, and the London Polyglot, 1654-1657 (1817-1828, 1831). Franz Delitzsch has dealt with the Complutensian Polyglot in detail in three Leipsic Disserta-

tions

Studien zur EntstcliungsgescMchte dcr Polygottenhihel des

Kardiiials

which he gives, p. 19 ff., a biographical sketch of Ximenes, and at p. 24 ff. a sketch of his fellow-workers on the Polyglot) Complutcnsisclie Variantcn
Ximenes,
(in
;

1871

zmn

Alttestam.

Texte,

1878
der

(with investigations about the

;

Hebrew^ manuscripts by Ximenes)

EntstehungsgcscJiichte

Fortgcsetztc

Studien zur

complutensisclien
p.

Polyglotte,

1886.

See more particulars below at

Ptabbinical

134.

Felix Pratensis,

The first Bomberg Bible, edited by Vienna 15171518; Second Bomberg Bible, Buxtorf's Bible, Basel, edited by Jacob ben Chajim, 1525 1618-1619 the BiUia magna nc'b n^np (rich in materials),
Bibles:
; ;

lV).

the samai;itax tkxt.

Bihlia
hehraica,

85

Amsterdam 1724-1727;
1877.

Warsaw 1875the
dcr
in

Commentary and edition, see Flirst, Bihliographischcs Handhuch jildischcn Littcraticr, iii. 39 f. Of importance
di

On Solomon

Xorzi's

Mantuan
(jcsnmten

connection

with the Massora

U'TV "nxD, 25.

is

the edition of Genesis by Heidenheim,

1818.
of the Pentateuch text used

The peculiar form

(

by the

Samaritans
Polyglots,

11) was printed in the Parisian and London

and

was

published

separately

by

B.

Blayney

(Oxford 1790) in a quarto edition.

Compare Kautzsch
353.

in Herzog's liCcd-EncyclojJccdie-,

xiii.

2.

Manuscripts.

26. In comparison with the extreme antiquity of the Old

Testament books, the manuscripts of these must be described

as

remarkably recent.

Between the

oldest manuscript

whose

date can with certainty be ascertained and the writing contained in

years.
it

there lies a period of nearly seventeen hundred

of this fact,

The reason

which

is all

the

more remark-

able on this account, that

we

possess manuscripts of several

translations of the Old Testament of a

much

earlier date, is

found in

this,

that the Jews, far from manifesting zeal in the

preservation of old Codices of the Bible, were wont rather,

when
age,

the manuscripts could no longer be used on account of

laid in the

and were therefore

lumber room of the syna-

gogue PlVp), to accelerate their destruction, because they feared lest the manuscripts no longer in use might be in any

way

profaned.

Notwithstanding the considerable number of

Old Testament manuscripts, we nevertheless possess only a

few which can even in a certain sense be called
these generally
it

old,

and

of

is

to

be remarked, that the age of the

manuscripts cannot always with certainty be determined.

86

27.

CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCEIPTS.

The catalogues of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are given in Strack's Prolegomena, pp. 29-33, 119-121. To this

work we may add further

Handschriften
d.

Steinschneider, Die hehrdiscJien

zii

konigl.

Bibliothck

Milnchen,

1875

Harkavy and Strack, Katcdog d. liehr. Handschriften in St. Petersburg, 1875; Schiller-Szinessy, Catalogue of the Hebreio Manuscripts in Camhridge, 1876 Steinschneider, Katalog der hehr. Handschriften in der Stadthihliothek zio Hainhurg, 1878
;

Hie Handschriftenverzeichnisse der konigl. Bibl. zu Berlin, ii. 1878 Landauer, Katalog der Bihliothek in Strasshurg.
;

Orient. Handsclirifter ,

i.

1881

aSTeubauer,

Hebreio Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, 1886.

Catalogue of the On the

Erfurt manuscripts compare Lagarde, Sijnimicta, 1877, p. 133 ff., and Baer, Liber XIL. Proph. p. vi. Merx, Chrestomathia
targurrdca xv. gives a
list

of manuscripts with the Babylonian

to

system of points.

Compare generally the preface

Baer's

editions of the text referred to in

24, where various

manuand

scripts in the possession of private parties are referred to

described.

On

the

Machazor manuscripts,

compare Baer,
v.

Quinque volumina,

iv. seq.

On

the Geniza see

M.

Sab.

ix.

Soph^rim

14,

p.

xi

Strack, Prolegomena, 42,

and compare above

2.

27.

The age

of manuscripts can be determined accurately

when they have come down with a dated subscription, and even then we must be prepared for the possibility of falsifications
only

and ante-datings, which some

editors

had recourse

to in order to

give increased value to the manuscripts.

In recent times the

Karaite, A. rirkowitzsch,has obtained a particularly unfortunate

notoriety for this sort of work.
is

Another, not so decisive mark

afforded

by

certain formulae, especially benedictions, which, as

first

can be conclusively proved, were

periods.

introduced at jDarticular

On

the other hand, determinations as to the age of

manuscripts which are derived from the form of the letters or

other graphical peculiarities, are these
still

more insecure, whereas by

great certainty
etc.).

means the manuscripts can be grouped with

according to the place of their origin (German, Spanish,

 28.

OLDKST MANUSCIiU'TS.
rrolcgomaut,
p.
:-o
11".;

87

Com[)are
p.

Strack,

ZLT, 1875,
1845, pp. 207,

GOl

f.

Ziinz,

Zur

Gcsckichic unci LiUcratur,

214230;
(jcncrihus,

Tintamai de variis codiaun Hchraicoruni Idem, BciLrtcilung dcr Jahrzahhv liostock 1872
Tyclisen,
;

in

den

hchrdisch-hihlischcn

Jlcuidschriftcii,

liostock

1780;

Schnurrer,

Dc
^,

codd.

V. T. cvtatc difficidtcr

1772.

On

the formuliu of
p.

ddcrminanda, Ttili. the copyists compare also Bleek,

Tkcolog. Litcra-

Einleitunfj
turzcitung,

505; and with regard thereto: 1878, p. 571.

On
in

the forgeries of Firkowitzsch in general

see

Harkavy
;

Mf^moircs dc V Academic dc St. Pctcrshoiirg,

vii.

24, Xr. 1

Strack, A. Firkcnvitzsch

und
ff.

seine Entdccln.ngcn,

1870

and
very

ZDGM,
learned

xxxiv.
Corincs

p.

103

On

Chwolson's otherwise
St.

inscriptionum

Hehraicaricin,

Petersburg

1882, wherein an attempt is made partially to vindicate Sec Firkowitzsch, compare Strack in LCB, 1883, p. 878.
also 70.

On some
scripts (" for

peculiarities of the pointing in the oldest

manu-

Qamcs

Jiatiiph

and the employment of Daghesh

is

Icne in all letters ") see Baer, Liher Jcrcmicv, p. viii seq.

picture of the various types of letters

given in Euting's

Schrifttafcl in Chwolson's

Corpus iiiscrip)tionum Hehraicarum.

Compare
28.

also the facsimiles referred to in 28.

The

oldest manuscripts of the

Old Testament whose

date can be with certainty ascertained belong to the tenth

century.
( 27),

Xotwithstandiug the

many

forgeries of Firkowitzsch

we owe
the

to

his collections of

manuscripts from the

Crimea

oldest Codex,

whose

age

can

be

given

with

certainty, namely, a

Babylonian manuscript of the Prophcta

910.
It has

Postcriores of the year

been edited in a photo-

lithographic facsimile by H. L. Strack.

To the same century

belong some fragments of Karaite Bible manuscripts, which

were obtained by Shapira

in

Hit (on the Euphrates, south-

west of Bagdad) and in Cairo.

letters,

They

are written in Arabic

but with Hebrew points.

The oldest manuscript of

the entire Old Testament, on the assumption of the correctness

88
of the date,
is

28.

OLDEST MANUSCEIPTS.

the Codex of the year 1010, which belongs also

to the Firkowitzsch collection.

On

the other hand, there are

ancient, such

some manuscripts which claim to be yet more

as the often referred to Standaoxl
(

Codex of Aaron ben Asher

30) in Aleppo, and a Codex in Cambridge alleged to have

been written in the year 856, which more exact investigations

have shown to be of more recent

origin.

Strack, Proplietarum fosteriorum

politaniis, St.

Codex Babylonicus PetroSeparately

Petersburg 1876, of which the Eussian Emperor

:

has presented copies to several libraries.

et

Hosea

fidem Cod. Bahj/lonici Petroj^olitani, ed. H. L. Strack, Leipsic 1875. Hoerning, Descriptions and Collations of Six Karaite Manuof portions of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic Character's, London 1889. Of the whole number of these manuscripts
scripts

Joel prophetce.

Ad

now

to

be found in the British

Museum

there are six here

described,

and one
i.viii. 5, is

(MSS. Orient. 2540), which

reproduced.
s

comprises

Exodus
tind

i.

On Aaron
exegt.

ben Asher
x.

Codex compare Michaelis, Orient,

Jewish traveller Jacob Sappir's Account of his Travels tsd pN, Lyck, 1866, p. 12 ff.; and especially, W. Wickes, A Treatise on the Accentuation of the so-ccdled Prose Books of the Old Testament, 1887, wherein a sheet of manuscript is reproduced in facsimile by photography, and where (pp. vii ix) the incorrectness of the date is proved. According to Lagarde (A''6^6^ PT, 1890, p. 16) it belongs to the
Bibliotheh,

63

the

German manuscripts

of the fourteenth century.

On

the often referred to Cambridge Codex, Nr. 12, compare

in

Neubauer

Szinessy's article in the

The Academy, 1887, same paper,

p.

p.

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, 19, in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, dated 1009, is much younger, although the editors of the Catalogue [Harkavy and Strack, pp. 263-274; compare also Baer and Strack, Dikduke Hateamim. xxiv. seq.] accept the date."

20.

SAMAKITAX MANUSCKIPTS.
p.

80

On

otlier old

manuscripts see Strack, ZLT, 187;',

598
f!'.,

f.

Delitzsch,

Complutcndsche
Reuchlin

Vamanten,
-

1878,
dates

p.

and

especially the prefaces in Baer's editions of the texts.

The
year

celebrated

Prophet

Codav
it

from

the

1106.
p. vi sq.

Compare the

description of

in Baer, Lihcr Jercmicn,

Besides the already-mentioned facsimiles,

we

also

meet with

reproductions of the older Old Testament manuscripts in the

Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts, published by the Paleo-

Oriental Series iii. sheets 40, 41, iv. Neubauer's Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, p. 8G. In his Gcschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 32, Stade gives representations of Reucldins Propliet-Codex, the Erfurt Bible Manuscript No. o, and the
Society,
also in

graphical

sheet

54

above referred

to

St.

Petersburg

Prophet-Codex.

Further

literature in Steinschneider, Centralblatt filr Bibliothekwesen,\\.

1887,

pp.

155-165.

A
old,

manuscript fragment of Deuteronomy, alleged to be very

which caused some excitement in the year 1883, is by Guthe in Fragvunte einer Lederhandschrift, mitgetcilt \Lnd gepruft, Leipsic 1883. In the Memoires de V Academic imp. de St. Petersbourg, series vii. tome xxxii. 1884, Nr. 8, Harkavv describes some manuscript fragments from lihodes with a peculiar alphabet, which, however, are decidedly spurious. Compare Derenbourg in REJj X. 311, and Baer, Quinine volumina, vi. sq.
described
29. To the

Hebrew manuscripts
(

of the

Law

belong also the

Samaritan

Codices

11,

25).

Since

these

manuscripts

represent a text, which at a very early period separated itself

from the Jewish

text, it is not to

be wondered at that often

a great importance has been attached to them,

and that
taken

it

has

been thought that by a comparison between them and the

received text
reconstruction

an
of

important
the
text

step
of

might

be

in

the

the

Pentateuch.

But the
import-

Samaritan text has been so disfigured by errors of transcription

and by arbitrary treatment, that

its

critical

90
ance
is

30.

COLLECTIONS OF VAEIATIONS.
restricted.

very

much
of

These manuscripts are of

greater interest on account of the letter signs used in

them

and

their

want

vowels,

whereby in another way they

to

confirm

the results

obtained with regard

the

external

history of the text.

Compare Eichhorn, Emleitung^, 378-389; Eosen in Strack, Prolegomena, p. 56 f the ZDMG, xviii. 582 ff Herzog's Recd-Eiicyclopmclie^, i. 283, xiii. 349, 334; and
;
.

Harkavy's Katalog der Samaritan. Pentateuch- Codices, PetersCompare also burg 1874 (in the Eussian language). Heidenheim's Bibliotlieca Samaritana, i. p. xiv sqq., and in
review of
it,

ZDMG,

xxxix.

p.

167.

3.

Collections of Variations.

30.

By means
of the

of the great collections of variations

made

during last century by Kennicott and John Bern, de Eossi, and

by means

apparatus of the critical editions,

of

we have

been placed in a position to make use

are no longer themselves extant.
variations

manuscripts which
into possession of

We

come

from manuscripts
text
is

no

longer

extant,
(

which the

Jewish

traditional

has

preserved

31).

We may

readily set aside

what

presented us in the readings of Eabbi

said to

Meir and of a Torah Codex,

have been brought from

Eome and

preserved in the Severus Synagogue there.

the Jewish tradition

On
of
cele-

the other hand,

presents

series

readings which various standard Codices,

drawn up by

brated punctuators, have adopted.

called

Such Codices (sometimes

an

Malizoroth) are

the

Codex Hilleli (named after

unknown
also

E. Hillel),

Codex Zanhlki, the Jericho Pentateuch,

etc.

Sejpher Sinai, Keter

Schem Toh, Machzora Rahba,

We must

mention readings from various authorities during the

period between the eighth and the tenth centuries, like E.

Pinchas, E. Moses, E. Chabib,
etc., first

made known

in recent

 30.

COLLECTIONS OF VAKIATlUNS.

times

Ijy

means

of the manuscripts of the Crimea;

and

finally,

the divergent readings of the two celebrated masters from

the beginning of the tenth century,

11.

]\Ioses

ben David ben

in

Kaphtali in Babylon, and

Tiberias.

II.

Aaron ben Moses ben Asher

the

Tlie

latter

has

become

most

distinguished
rest,

authority in favour of the received text.

variations, for the

For the
of

these

most part

varieties

vocalisation, are of

more importance
sometimes agrees

for philological

than for textual criticism.

in

Although Ben Naphtali lived

Avith

Babylon, and his text

the traditional Babylonian text, his

text cannot be without

more ado regarded

its

as representative

of the
text

Babylonian text in

opposition to the Palestinian

or the text of Tiberias.

On

the contrary, a series of

indicate the difference
or,

variations has loncj been

known which
in

between the Eecensions of the Babylonian or Palestinian,

they are commonly

as

named

the history of the

text,

the

Eastern ("NnriD, mUliiihdje) and the Western {^^i'^V'0,maarldje)

schools.
It was,
it

however, only the discoveries of recent times

that

made

evident

how

far-reaching this distinction was.

As

the Babylonians and the Palestinians both had their

Talmuds
( 61),

(Babli and Jeruschalmi), their editions of the

their

Targums
and

arrangement of the biblical books

( 10),

their system

of pointing ( 80), so, too, they both

text.

had their Piccensions of the

The

earliest

known
it

list

of these variations,

Jacob ben Chajim, who, undoubtedly on the basis

scripts,

we owe to of old manu(

communicated

in

his

Babbinical I>ible

24).

Ilecent discoveries, however, have not only

lists

shown

that these
also

must have been improved and enlarged, but have

brought into light manuscripts, which contained the Bahylonian

Recension with
all its peculiarities

(28).

The

variations extend

over

all

the Old Testament, and refer to the consonants as well

Finally, in

as to their vowel pronunciation.

some few passages

Sora.

there are also reported differences between the readings of the

schools of the two Babylonian

cities,

Nehardea and

92

30.

COLLECTIONS OF VARIATIONS.
to
liovv

The question

as

far

Q'rc

and KHih are

to

be

regarded as actual variations will be discussed in

33.

Kennicott, Vetus testamentum hehraicum

hus,

mwi

variis lectioni;

Oxford

1776-1780
;

(treats only of the consonantal texts)

is

the therein included Disscrtatio gcneralis

edited by Bruns,

Brunswick 1783 De Eossi, Varice lectiones Veteris Testamenti, Parma, 1784-1788 and Scholia critica in V. T. Lihr. supplementa ad varias lectiones sacri textus, Parma 1798; s. The critical Delitzsch, Comjjhctensische Varianten, 1878. apparatus in Baer's editions ( 24); Strack in ZLT, 1877, The collations in Hoerning's Karaite p. 17P. (on Isaiah). manuscripts mentioned in 28. The reported readings of E. Meir (see in regard to him,
;

Jost, Geschichte des

rb. c.
iii.

Judenthums,

ii.

86

ff.)

are given
;

Bereshith

9 (Gen.
nij^

i.

31; niD instead of ISd)

y\)3)\
i.

Idem,

c.

20 (Gen.
pi

21,

instead of
j^"^^;

Idem,
1, fol.

instead of

"'jni)

Taan.

94 (Gen. 64a (Isaiah

c.

xlvi. 23,

xxi. 11, 'dH

instead of non, indeed his reading rather

is

^'0T\

[Edom being

popularly regarded as equivalent to Eome], compare Jerome

on the passage).
the
readings
of

With
a

these readings agree at least once

roll

Torah

catalogued in

manuscript

Midrash, Bereshith rabhati (now in the library of the Israelite

community at Prague), which was brought to Eome, and there " laid up in the m^lDNT t^DtJ^^^D." This roll is mentioned by Kimchi on Gen. i. 31, who writes " the Synagogue of Severus." Epstein, who in the MGWJ, 1885, pp. 337351, quotes
these passages, conjectures that

the

Law

brought
5.

Jews,

vii.

5).

may have been the roll of by Titus to Eome (see Josephus, Wai^s of the Compare further, Hochmuth in the same
it

journal,

1886, pp. 274279.

For the

rest, at
i.

least the so-

called reading of E. Meir, niD for

nxD in Gen.

31, might be

regarded rather as a free playful modification of the

text than as a reading properly so-called.

common

On

the ancient standard Codices, see Strack, Prolegomena,

Hilleli, see the

14-29, 112-118, and ZLT, 1875, p. 613 f. Academy, 1888, p. 321. On Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, compare

On

the Codex

Strack, Prolego-

 30.

COLLECTIONS OF VARIATIONS.

93

24 11"; ZLT, 1875, p. GIG; Ilerzog's Ecal-Enrydop(iUe\ ix. 390 ff. Berliner, Targum Oiikcios, 1884, ii. 139; and especially Baer and Strack, Die Dikdiike hateamim des Akron h. M. h. Ascher, 1879, pp. x ff., 78 ff. 84. These various
mena,
p.
;

readings are given in a manuscript of the Tschufutkale-Collection, Nr. 13, D'"}^^^ r\iV (see Dihlulcc, xxxii.
;

Baer, Liher psalv),

morum,

p. vi

Lihcr

Ezccliiclis, p. vi

Quinque volumina, p

and in the
as the

nip:n ^^'bn of

the
sq.).

Codex de Rossi, Nr. 940

(see

Baer, Liber Jeremice, p.

They

are mentioned, as well

following variations, in all the editions of Baer.

Of

where the divergences between Ben Naphtali and Ben Asher are said to have referred also to the consonants, Jer. xi. 7, xxix. 22 1 Kings iii. 20 (see ZLT, 611 Dikdukc, xiii.), the two first are not established 1875, p. by Baer's edition. On the. Eastern and Western schools, compare Strack, Prolegomena, 36-41, 121; ZLT, 1875, p. 608 ff., 1877, p. 22; Geiger, Kachgclasscnc Schriftcn, iv. 32 ff. Lists of their divergent readings are to be found in the Codex hen Asher
the
three

passages

(see

Baer, Lihcr Duodecim,

in the

p. viii), in

the Bible of the year

1010, and

Codices Tscluifuikale, Nr. 7 and

ISa (Baer,

Quinqiie volumina, p. v; Jjiher Johi, p. v). It is to be observed that the South Arabian manuscripts with " Babylonian " vocalisation contain the readings of the Western
school.

See Wickes, The Accentuation of the

I*rose

Books,

p.

150.

The schools at Nehardea and Sora (compare on these cities, Neubauer, G^ograpJiic du Talmud, 350 f., 343) diverged from one another in their Halacha as well as in their Tari2:um
criticism.

An example

of their different

Bible readings

is

found in Neh. iii. 37, where, according to the Massora magna, those of Xehardea read ^s, those of Sora hi<\ Compare on them, Strack, Prolegomena, p. 40 Berliner, Die Massora zum Targum Onkelos, ii. G 1 ff. According to Berliner
to be
;

the

members

of

the

school

of

Nehardea were
they
followed
the

emigrant
western

Palestinians,
readinffs. o

and

consequently

94

31.

THE MASSOKA.

4.

The Jewish Massora.

is

31.
to

The want

of

old manuscripts of the Old Testament

some extent supplied by the so-called Massora or text tradition of the Jews, which makes it possible for us to trace back the text to the times earlier than those to which the
earliest

extant manuscripts belong.

The proper task

of the

Massora was the guarding

of the Bible

manuscripts against

degeneration through carelessness and wilfulness on the part

of transcribers, and, in

consequence, the most painful and

;

minute supervision was exercised upon them

but just in this

way

the Massora affords a glimpse into the form of the text

transmitted
valued.
of view

from early times

which cannot be too highly

were registered, so
at

Lists of the peculiarities of the text from all points

were compiled,

all

singularities

that they could not

transcribers,

easily be

obliterated

the

hands

of

and

in this

way

a " fence "

was

built

up around

Scripture,

which has actually resulted in

began

this,

that

we meet

with the text in essentially only one form from the time in

which the
the

scribes

to

watch over the transmission of the

There were certainly
the Jews various Massoras, the
of

text with this painstaking exactness.

at

various centres
of

of

memory
(

which

is

preserved by means

the

lists

of

variations of the Massora that

had won general acceptance and

affected the
is

30), but these differences were trifling,

little.

received form of text very

The Massoretic material

made up
alis)

of marginal

notes on the Bible manuscripts, and

of independent works.

The marginal notes {Massora marginbelow the

text,
text,

stand

either

above or

and are then and are then

called Massora

magna, or alongside the

The independent Massoretic works They were often are the expansion of the Massora magna. added at the end of the Bible text in manuscripts and
called Massora 'parva.
editions,

whence the name Massora

finalis.

The

form in

 31.

THE MASSORA.
is

95
tliat of

wliicli

the Mdssoretic material was coniiiuinicated

list,

an alphabetical

or

of statements

as to

how

often

the

forms referred to are met with, or of the

gatherini,'

together

of such expressions as are similar to one another, and might

therefore be readily interchanged.

Introductions into the difficult study of the Massora, that

may be

used

still

with great advantage, are afforded by Jacob ben

to his Eabbinical Bible ( 24),
,

Chajim in the preface

Levita in
liis

by Elias

Massora hamasorcth and by the elder Buxtorf.

style of dealing with the text,

is

which reminds us of that

;

of the Jews,

Lectures on the Science of Language,

met with among the Indians see Max Mliller, 18G1, p. 107. We also
I'ersians
d.
;

meet with something similar among the

iingshericktc

see Sitz-

der konigl. hayerischen

Akadeviic

Wissensch,

1872, p. 9G. The pronunciation of the word miDO or miD^ is uncertain, for we find ri'jiDp as well as rinion (nniDD). Both forms, wliich occur in Ezekiel xx. 27, are remarkable, since the word is derived from "^P^^ ^?'f^^''^'We should have expected irj^DD, niic'3 (Barth, Nominalhildung 42, 2). like We prefer the form Massora, which may have originated through sharpening the accentuation, compare nnp3 (Barth, 93r6 yS), whereas
,

^T^?, since
ing

"T^^^t^

as

an intransitive
is

is

not parallel,

is

more

difficult to explain.

Also the pronunciation of the corresponddoubtful.

Aramaic
in

xniDD

hypotheses

Lagarde,

NGGW,
1889,
291.

Compare the divergent 1882, p. 168; Dalnian,

]).

Der

Gottesname

Adonaj.
p.

8;

and

Strack,

Theol.

Litter aturhlatt,

1889,

Elias Le vita's ( 9) miDon nilDO iD was published in Venice in 1536. A German translation was prepared by Semler (Halle 1772); a new edition of the text, with English translation by Ginsburg (The Book of the Massorah, with translation and critical and explanatory notes, ed. C. D.

Ginsburg, London 1867).

xliii.

in

Compare especially Bacher, ^7)J/6^, 231 ff. Ginsburg has edited Jacob ben Chajim's preface Hebrew and Eniijlish, 2nd ed., London 1867.

96

32.

HISTORY OF THE MASSORA.

Buxtorf, Tiberias sive commeniarius masoreticus triplex, Basel,

1620, and often reprinted.

of
p.

fragment of

it

as a

specimen
chapter of

mode of treatment is given by 568 f. While Buxtorf here interprets

the

Bleek, Einleitung^,
the
first

Genesis, the following seven chapters are

J.

Hansen, Interpretatio

commented on by masorce magnm textualis, Copenhagen

1733-1737.
32.

The beginnings
that "
13),
is

of the

Jewish Massora can be traced

back

to a very early period.

How

far indeed E.

Akiba, with

his saying

the

mOD

is

a fence around the

Law "
is

{Pirke

Aboth,
ful
;

iii.

thinking of the text transmission,

doubt-

but in any case

we meet with

contributions from the

Massoretic material even in the Mishna, and then, considerably

increased, in

the

Gemara and

in the old

Midrashic works,
all

with the exception, as can readily be understood, of

refers to the later

that

system of pointing.
in

There

is

a further

increase

of material

the

post-Talmudic tracts Masseket

sepher torah

and Massekct

soph'' rim,

which are occupied with

Torah
rolls.

the

rules for the transcription

of the

With

the invention of the system of pointing,

the work of the

Massoretes

received

new
in

impetus,

because

now many

delicate points

which previously could only be transmitted

fixed
writing.

orally

could be

Aaron ben Moses ben

to
(

Asher of the tenth century, above referred composed

which,
besides

30),

who

belonged to a distinguished family of punctuators in Tiberias,

a
treatise
all

sorts

of

purely

<irammatical remarks, communicated

observations and rules.

a series

of

Massoretic

This work was imitated in

many

similar half-grammatical, half-Massoretic tracts, which, under

the

name Horajath ha

kore,

gave rules for transcription and

ages,

pointing.
literature

In the following
these works

when

a purely philological

had been developed, the grammatical material was

;

separated from
arose

and, at the

same

time, there

purely Massoretic

literature

under the two forms

 32.

THE MASSORA.

07

mentioned above, marginal notes and independent writings,

by the

latter

of

which

tlie

marginal notes of an
first

almost

enigmatical
intelligible.

character

were often for the

Lime

made
its
i.

standard work of the independent order was

the celebrated book

OMa

w'ochla, so called on account of

ni'DS of 1

commencement, which placed together the

and
tlie

Sam.

1)

of Gen. xxvii. 10.

latter
its

That

it

was already
is

in

existence in

half

of

the twelfth century

beyond question,

whereas

relation to the

Massora of Gerson ben Judah, wlio

is

lived in the eleventh century,

very doubtful.
it

Its

great

importance, however, consists in this that

least three different editions, of

circulated in at
still

which two are

to

extant in

their original form.

The third seems

have been used by

Jacob ben Chajim in the Massora magna, which he appended

to the

Elias Levita end of his liabbinical Bible ( 24, 31). also ( 31), who was almost contemporary with Jacob, used

the book Ochla, which he praises as " small in size but without

equal in the department of the Massora."

In the following

century the great Buxtorf sought, on the foundation laid in

the
w^orks

named,
and
di

to

accessible

fruitful

make Massoretic studies generally At this time also appeared ( 31).

Menahem

Lonzano's Or tora, 1G18, while Norzi's above-

named critical commentary Godcr iiercs ( 24) did not appear In tlie eighteenth century Massoretic till somewhat later. studies found little favour, either among Christians or among Jews. Only in our own century has new life been imparted
to

them and

essentially furthered
at

by the works of

W.

Heiden-

heim (who died

Baer, Strack,
J.

Eodelheim

in 1832), L.

Dukes,
I).

Frensdorll",

Derenbourg, Wickes, and C.

celebrated,

Ginsburg,

many

of

them very
by them.
are

and by the manuscripts brought

to light

The

fruits of these

minute and unwearied

edition

investigations

presented

in

Baer's

of the

text

corrected according to the Massora, and in

of the

many monographs

most recent Hebrew grammarians. G

98

32.

THE MASSORA.

On
ix.

the liistory of the Massora compare Geiger in the Jild,

ill.

Zeitschrift,

78

ff.

S track in Herzog's

Real-Encyclo'pcedie'^,

388

ff.;

L. Blau, MassoretiscJie Uniersuchungen,

The statements regarding the Massora

where
the literature will be
is

in

1891. the earliest Jewish

writings are collected in Strack's Prolegoiiuna,

7394, 122
libri

f.,

found fully given.

Scphcr tora

published in Kirchheim's

VIL

Talmudici

Masseket jmrvi Hierosolyiiiitani, Yr^nkhwt IS ol, pp. 1-11. Compare also soprim, edited by J. Muller, Leipsic 1878.

Judceorum codicis sacri rite scribendi leges, a lihello Thalmudico D"'"iDlD riDDD in lat. conversce et annoL explicatce, Hamburg 1779. On Aaron ben Asher, compare further 80. Of his massoretico-grammatical lessons a part was printed in the first Eabbinical Bible ( 24); afterwards L. Dukes gave quotations Finally, Baer and Strack, in his Koiitres liamasoret, 1846. building with materials supplied by many contributors, have Die dikduke edited the entire collection in a critical text Ahron h. M. h. Ascher, Leipsic 1879. ha-teamim des A similar treatise, accompanied by valuable notes, has been published by Derenbourg, according to a South Arabian manuscript written in a.d. 1390, under the title "Manuel du The Lecteur, " in the Journal Asiatique, 1870, xvi. 309 ff. Jews in Yemen called such a compendium which frequently preceded their Bible manuscripts, jxrnn nianjo, " Treatise on
Adler,
:

the

Crown,
the

i.e.

the
for it

Bible."

Among

the

other

Jews the

commoner name

was

D"iLDi"ip.

On

grammatico-massoretic

writers

quoted by Elias
Especially on

Levita, compare Baclier

ZDMG,

xliii.

208.

the book Horajath ha-qore, see Wickes, Accentuation of the

Prose Books,
Griitz in
p.

sq.
p.

MGWJ,

the book Oclila

in
A.D.

1887, was a work

134, attempts to prove that

1028. See, iSTeubauer and Backer 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

Gerson ben Judah, who died however, the opposing arguments of

of

3;>.

K'rin

and

g'i:i:.

99

Das Bach Ochla WocltUt, Hanover 1SG4. That Jacob ben Chajini used a third form of text of this work as the basis of liis Massora finalis, has been conjectured by
has edited
:

Cihitz

among

others.

Frensdorff

has

issued

in

a separate

edition

^'i^iH

o~it

ntani (by Moses the Punctuator), Hanover 1847, and tlie first vohinie of a Massora magna (Massorclischcs Wbrtcrhuch), Hanover 187G. Unfortunately this Massoretic ])ictionary
is

not to be continued.
Ginsburg's laborious edition of the Massora {Tltc Massorah

compiled from manuscripts, alphabetically and lexically arranged,

s<jverely criticised in The 1049, and by Baer, ZDMG, xl. 743 p. and described as quite an uncritical compilation. An improved Massoretic text is being prepared by Baer for the great Eabbinical Bible, Mikra (jadol, which will be
i.-iii.

1880-1885) has been very

Guardian, 1886,

fi'.,

published at Wilna.

Compare
3.'j.

also the literature given in

82.

While the portions

verses,

of the

Massora which consist

lists

in

numbers of

words, and letters, in

expressions,

of rare

and

remarkable forms or

which might be readily

interchanged with one another, are in part

in

made mention
it

of

the

following

sections,

we

sliall,

iu

so far as

has not

already been done in

parts of the

30, here concern ourselves with those

Massora which give information about divergent

forms of text, and are therefore of special interest for the

history of
tlie

text.

To
or

this

class

belong the distinctions

recorded in the Massora between K'tih and (/re (usually, but

wrongly written
text.

C/rt),

between

tlie

written and the read

In a pretty numerous set of passages

to the

Massora

1314

according

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
differently.

33.

K^TIB

AND

Q'^KE.

A
"'^'it?

trace of this quid pro quo can clearly be traced

back
of

to the times before Christ, for for

even then the substitution

nin'

must have become a very general practice

(compare

76).

At
in

later

period

we

find

the
tora,

practice

growing
sopJi^rim,

in

extent

the

Talmud, Sepher

Masseket
of

and in the Massoretic works.

The utterances

the Massoretes, moreover, are not in perfect agreement upon

this point, for, in particular, not a

few of the varying readings

(

of the Palestinian

and Babylonian Jews

tlie

30) consist simply

in

in varying statements of

Qarjan.
ii.

The Qarjan, quoted

11 and
Jer, xxxii.

the Babylonian Talmud, twice (Kuth

11)

agrees with the Babylonians against the Palestinians.

This somewhat remarkable phenomenon,

when we

take into

consideration the Jewish reverence for the traditional text,

is

explained very simply from one part of the Qarjan.

In

the Bible
accounts,

we meet with
people
could

various expressions which, on various

not venture to pronounce 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

attached were added in the margin.

Thus

''j'"^^

was read in

place of the unpronounceable mn^ (without, however, in the case

of this frequently-recurring word, writing the letters nx in

the margin), 2yJ instead of the unlucky word

of
D^i^-in, etc.

^5:1^, ^^<1^?

instead

The same
of

also naturally occurred in the corre-

sponding passages

the

tiagiographa,

which

received

system

of

pointing moulded upon the

Further,
it

mode
is

of the reading

followed in the synagogue.

easily understood

how, with regard to the

also there should be

Law and

the Prophets, in other cases

a strong tendency to hold fast to the

mode

of reading that

had become

crystallised

by repeated use

 33.

K^TIB

AND
it

<.>''l'S:.

101

in tlie synagogues,

even where

diverged iVoni the authorised

the Qarjan of those books

written form of the text.

of the

And

so, too,

Hagiographa that were not read in the synagogues pro-

ceeded from the old-established use and wont of the teachers

who were accustomed

to read these books.

In so far

it

may

be allowed to be possible, that the Qarjan witnesses to the

existence of older forms of text which have been dislodged by

the Textiis Rcceptus

and upon

this hypothesis are really

most

easily explained such double forms of text as are absolutely

equal in value,
V.

e.g.

Isa.

xxiii.
ic*:n.

12,

KHih
a

t.'\T\3,

C/rv

c^n?

Ps.

9,

KHlb,

"ir'in,

(frc

Of

more
has

doubtful nature
a

are

the

cases

where

the

distinction

purely

gram-

matical and logical significance.

Possibly, in

the traditional
to all

mode

of reading in the synagogue, free play

was given

sorts of

subjective treatment of the text, fur the words

may

have been differentlv divided according' to the conceivable or

actual sense, the suflixes

may have been changed and

come
to

the artichi

taken away.

It

is

scarcely possible to

a definite

conclusion with regard to the subjective or objective character

of this
sort of Qarjan.
It

must

also be admitted

to

be a

possible thing, that this subjective determination of the

of reading

mode

may

also

have been continued in accordance with

soon became linally

the established form of the canonical consonantal text in the

principal schools.
iixed, since

But, in any case,

it

even Ben Asher treats the read text as e(iually

sacred and inspired with the JCtib itself; while the almost

contemporary Saadia also regarded

the text as resting upon revelation.
Lists of literature

all

recorded variations of

are

given

by Strack,

Prolegoriicna,

p.

123, who quotes also the cases of Qrc and ICtih, giwQii in the Talmudical writings. Compare the partially-divergent

80

ff.,

hypothesis of Cappellus, Critica sacra,

Excrcitat.
hihl.

iii.

c.

1-1 G
p.

Morinus,
ff.
;

p.

533

ff.;

Geiger,
p.

Noldeke, in

ZWT,

1873,

254 445; ZDmi, xxxii. 501;

Urschrift,

102
Dilraann, in
Einleitung,
iv.

33.

K'^TIB

AND

Q^RE.

Herzog's Bcal- Encycloija'die,

ii.

387; Bleek,
f.

G18.

The records

of

Ben

Aslier and Saadias

above referred

to are given in BikduJce, pp. 9

and 82

Frensdorff, Ochla, Xr.

the text, give the

lists.

97-170, and Baer Examples

:

in his editions of

KHih and
'':^hD
T]p^2),

Q'rc

"nx
ci.

for

for "J^ibo,

Ps.
8.
:

for Xin ( 92), ni;?3 for "^V^ 5; i^3 for n^D, Jer. ii. 21 ; nypL-'^l for
r])r\\
i^>r\

Amos

viii.

Vc 2v'lo KHib KHib I'flo Q-re A word which

Dn

s>*zi D^p; for

^'^\ Jer. xxxi. 38.

t^^r^^ for IV' 1">^\ i'^, Jer. Ii. 3. 2'i<3 ^n for D^XD^^n Ps. is read as two
:
:

x.

10

:;'sp for Dnc^'x^, Jer. vi.

29.

Two
Lara.

w^ords

which

are

read

as

one

C3^:y^3

for

D''^y

""^^

iv. 3.

Words whose

final letters are

rn3*t^6

connected with the following

xlii. 9,

wwd
Job.

n^D'f^n

nnnpi for

nnnnoi, Ezek.

2 Sam. v. 2,

XXX viii. 12. Words whose initial letter word: 'bby^ t^n^iC' instead of
xxi. 12.
'

is

connected with the preceding

lfe*C\s nvj',

Ezra

iv.

12

2 Sam.

The omission
letter

of an initial letter identical with the

final

of

the

preceding

word:

^Vpn

r^nST

for U'pm ncxi,

Jer. iv. 5.

For euphemistic readings, compare

Meg.
iv. p.

h.

Meg. 255; ToseioMa

228

all

expressions written in such a

way

as to

cause shame are euphemistically read.

On

'ns for rwr\\ see the

name Adonaj, 1889,

Adonai).

pp.

monograph of Dalman, Dcr Goites36 ff. and 85 if. (the Massora on

Qarjan
are

As marginal
D-'m'-n see

notes,

these

sometimes

called

DiMuke,^. 2, line 8; OY'AizJIGWJ, 1885, p. 108 On the so-called pUD, compare Buxtorf, Tiherias, ii. c. 10 Cappellus, Critica sacra, iii. 15. 18; Geiger, Ursclirift,^. 233. Passas^es in the older Jewish literature should not be but confounded with QWe, where it is said " Bead not ." By this is meant not other readings but conscious plays upon letters. See Hupfeld, TSK, 1830, p. 554 f. {e.g. against Morinus, Exercitat. hihi. p. 581 ff.).
: .
.

 31.

TIQQUNE

SOPIl^'ltlM.

lO."'

34. While

the

(Jarjaii

spoken of

in

o'.\

leiives

undistells

turbed the received consonantal

text,

the IMassora
is

of

some passages where a euphemistic

Q^rc

said

to

have been

adopted into the consonantal text so as to lead tp the complete withdrawal of the original reading.
called Tiqqunc soph'rim, the

These passages are

improved readings of the scribes

the old Midrash on
lists

(compare

0).

In the

Talmud we do not meet with them,

found
in

but, on the contrary, they are

Exodus, Mechilta.

In the ]\Iassoretic works, whose

of the Mechilta, their

are

somewhat divergent from those

is

number

given at eighteen.

Tlie later Jews, for reasons that

we can

readily appreciate, could

not understand such liberty being

the

taken
theory

with the
that

text,

and therefore devised

ingenious

by these are meant only passages where the

themselves more perregistered

authors had abandoned the purposed expression witli a view

to

the

readers, in

order

to

express

spicuously.

The SopU^rim had then only

the

expression that was really intended.

How

far the traditional

statements with reference to these passages are correct and

have recorded

all

the

phenomena belonging

thereto,

we

shall

more carefully investigate

in a later paragraph ( 97).

{h.

Even

in

the

Talmud

Ncdarim oil) we meet with the

five

so-called Itture soph^rim,

i.e.

passages, where the scribes

have omitted a
occurs in the

from the
(e.g.

text.

Since something similar also

Qrc

Jer. iv. 5),

and

it

is

not possible to
to, this

discover a deeper mystery in the five passages referred

chapter

is

of very little interest.

7, p. 39ft in

See Mechilta on Ex. xv.

Friedmann's edition.

Compare the older literature in Strack, Prolcyomcna, and also: p. 86 f. (particularly Geiger, Urschrift, p. 308 ff.) Nyholra, Dc DnsiD ppn XVIII. vocum Scn'pturcc sacrcc, Copenhagen 1734; Noldeke in GGA, 1869, p. 2001; Crane in Frensdorfl', Das Ilchraica, iii. 233-248; Dikduke, p. 44 f Bucli Ochla Wochla, Nr. 168, 217
;
;
.

104

35.

PUNCTA EXTEAOEDINAPJA.

The modern Jewish exposition is given among others by Norzi ( 24) on Zech. ii. 12 (translated in Delitzsch, Kommentar zu Hahakuk, 1843, p. 206 f.). The Tiqqune sop/i'^rim are according to the Massora: Gen.
xviii.

22, originally IDy

i:*Tiy

mn^l

Num.

xi.

15, originally

inynn;
iii.

Num.
2

xii.
''b

12,

originally
;

ij''OX

13, originally

instead of Dnb
1

and i:n::^n; 1 Sam. 2 Sam. xvi. 12, originally

irya;

Sam.
vnb^^i?
^25s*
;

xx.
;

(1 Kings
ii.

xii.

16; 2 Chron.

x.
viii.
;

16),

originally
originally
i. i.

Jer.

11, originally
7,

nuD

Ezek.

17,

Hos.

iv.
;

originally n)2^
ii.

and

li^on
"^ry

Hab.
Mai.
20,
20,

12,

originally

niDD
;

Zech.

12,

originally
;

13, originally

'niN

Ps. cvi. 20, originally

nu^ Job
;

vii.
iii.

originally

ybv

',

Job

xxxii.

3,

originally ipnv'")

Lam.
55

originally "jc^ai

The

five Itture soioh'^nm are

Gen.

xviii. 5, xxiv.

jSTum.

xxxi. 2; Ps. xxxvi. 7, Ixviii. 26.

35. Finally,

there

is

still

series
to

of

passages

to

be

mentioned, where the Jews seem

have expressed their

doubt

of

the correctness of the text by the use of various

diacritical

marks, without, however, as in the Q^re, reading

another text than that handed

of these

down by

tradition.

The value

marks

is

considerably detracted from by the fact that

the critical doubts, at least in most of these cases, seem to rest

on no objective foundation, but

ive reflections,

to

have originated in subject-

which have

for

us a solely historical interest.

To
\

this class belong the so-called

imncta extraor dinar ia which

we meet with upon

in the

particular words.
ix. 2),

We
the

find that already

is

Mishna {Pesachim,
ix.

one of these cases

known

Xum.

10, and in the

;

Talmud and
Jerome,

Midrashim several
alle-

are mentioned

but they are interpreted partly in an

too, is

gorical mystical fashion.

acquainted with one

it:

such case, Gen. xix. 33, and gives this explanation of

''

Appungunt desuper quasi

capiat coire
to

incredibile et

quod rerum natura

For the
rest it is

non

quemquam
in

nescientem."
cases

difficult

decide

particular

whether the doubts

 So,

PUNCTA EXTRAOKDINAIMA.
textual-ciiticiil
j

105

iiiilicatcd

character.
b.

The

are of a

or

ol"

a historical-critical

so-called
to

inversum, (compare a Baraitha

Sahh.

115h) seems

be

purely

textual-critical.

It

is

introduced in

Xum.

x. 3")

and 3G and seven times

in Ps. cvii.,

^vhich were originally parentheses, and seem to indicate that the

passages referred to were out of their proper places.

h.

Compare,

Sahh. lli>a

and above

in the

notes to

0.

The passages
the
to be of

where, according to

tradition,
p"iD2

an empty space within

verse should have been,

yvc^<n NpDD,
it

seem

someof
;

what greater

interest.

Probably

was intended by means

these to indicate that the text there presented was defective

and seeing now that the old versions

e.g.

in

some of these passages,

in

Gen.

iv. 8,

xxxv. 22, have actually something more

than the received text, these statements

may
;

possibly rest on

more objective foundations than the former

but from this

it

does not by any means follow that the versions should be

unconditionally preferred to the traditional text.

Compare Strack, Frolegomciia, pp. 88-91 Dikduhc, p. 45 f. The two words distinguished by pnncta cxtraordinaria in Ezek. xli. 20 and xlvi. 22, have not been translated in the So too the \np^^ of Targum (Cornill, Ezcchid, p. 127). Gen. xxxiii. 4 is wanting in several manu.^cripts of the LXX.
;

On
and on

invcrsiim,

compare Delitzsch, ZKITL, 1882,

p.

231,

Ps. cvii., DUcdulce, p. 47.

On

"

Pisqa in the middle of the verse," compare Buxtorf,

ii.

Tiberias,

11

DiMuke,
;

p.

54, and especially Griitz,

MGWJ,

1878, p. 481 ff. 1887, p. 193-200. has shown the Konig in ZKWL, 1889, p. 225 ff., 281 untenableness of the attempt of von Ortenberg (Ueher die Bedeutuny des Faseq fitr die Qucllenseheidung in den Bilelicrn des A. T. 1887, and in the ZAW, 1887, pp. 301-312), to find in Paseq a sign of a collection of various documentary
fi'.

authorities.

106

36.

QUOTATIONS AND TRANSCRIPTIONS.

5.

Quotations

and

Ti^anscriiotions.

36.

Among

the immediate aids for the history of the text

are also to be reckoned the occasional introduction of larger or

smaller parts of the text into the earlier Jewish and Christian
literature, in so far as

they reproduce the

literal original

form

of the text.

Thus, in the Talmud and in Midrashic works,

there

is to

be found a great number of quotations from the

of service in affording of

Old Testament writings, which may be

us
a

glance

into the contemporary condition

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

with the text of that time.

may
of the

not be absolutely identical

cases

Only in

where the argutext,

ment turns upon the form

conclude that
to

words in the

can

we

we have
the

a true quotation.

Among

these are

be

reckoned
in the

still

extant

fragments of the second

contains the

column
original

Hexapla of Origen
text

( 43), whicli

Hebrew

transcribed in Greek characters, and

from which the fathers sometimes quoted portions, together

with the not infrequent transliterations of the original text in
Jerome.

These transcriptions are specially valuable

for this

reason that they give us an indication of the pronunciation

of the

Hebrew then common.

the

The same

is

true of the

tolerably

numerous passages where Theodotion

in his version

has

left

Hebrew word

untranslated ( 53).

In Josephus

and the LXX. the transcriptions are limited

to

for the

most part
So too

proper names, but even these are of great importance,

especially for the history of the

Hebrew

language.

the transliterations of the

Hebrew names on

the Assyrian and

are,

Egyptian inscriptions, imperfect though they

cast light

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 rahhinicum

 3G.

QUOTATIONS AND TRANSCRIPTIONS.

Cappellus, Critica sacra,
v.
1
1'
;

lOT
Struck,

infidum, Taris

1GG7

rrolcgomena,^^. 50-72,
jild. Geschichic
iv.

94-111,122;
iv.

V>v\x\\,Jahrhuchcr

fur

und Zittcratur, 1G5 Nachgdassene Schriftcn, iv. 27 fr.; Deutscli, p. Sprilchc Salomos, 1885, G3-78. The Toseplita quotations The quotations are given by B. Pick, ZAIF, vi. 2:3-29. 101-121. But see from Mechilta and Sifre in ZAW,\y.
;

IGG

Geiger, JUd. Zcitschrift,

18SG,

i.

the depreciatory ren)arks of Derenbourg in regard to these

91-93, where, with good reason, he warns aGfainst sucli a hunt after variations. On the transcriptions in Jerome compare Siegfried, ZA W, On the transcribed Hebrew text in the 1884, pp. 34-83. On Hexapla, compare Field, Orirjcnis hcxapla, i. l.xxi sqq. xi sq. He rendeis the Dnpj of Theodotion compare Field, Amos i. 1, e.g. vcoKeBeifi the i^m of Ps. xxvii 2 by Sa/Seip, etc. We sometimes meet with the same sort of thing in the LXX. see Cornill, Das Buck dcs Froph. Ezcchicl, p. 9G. The proper names in Josephus are treated of by Siegfried u\ ZAW, 1883, pp. 38-41. On the names in the LXX. compare Frankel, Vorstudien zii dcr Scptuaginta, p. 90
collections

in

ZAW,

vii.

i.

11'.

Konnecke, Die Bchandhiug

Septuaginta (Progr.), Stargard
mdischen,

der

hchrdischcn

Namen

in

der

1885;

and, as of quite special

value, the collections in Lacrarde's Uebersicht ilher die

im Ara-

Bildung der Nomina, 1889. Also the Onomastica sacra of Easebius and Jerome, as edited by Lagarde (2nd ed. 1887), should be taken
Arahischen und
Hchrdischcn
uhlichc

into account here.

On

the Assyrian translations see Schrader, Keilhischriflcn

und das Altes Testament, 1883 [Fng. trans, in 2 vols., The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, London 1885, 1888]. On the Egyptian and other transcriptions see !Merx, Archiv filr wisscnschaftl. Forschung d. A. T. i. 350 ff. Bulletin de la soci4td de g^ograpthie, 1879, pp. 209 ff., 327 ff. Compare also Steindorff, i)ic keilinschriftliche Wiedergabe dgyptischer Eigennameii in the Beitrdgen zur Assyriologie, i. 1889, pp. 330-3G1, where repeatedly mention is made of Egyptian names occurrinir in the Old Testament. On the names of places in the letters found in the Tcl-il-Amama, see Halovy
;

108
in

37.

OLDEST GllEEK TRAXSLATIONS.

Zeitsclirift
d.

REJ,

XX.

tinavercins,

199 if.; Zimmern, xiii. 133 ff.

Dcutscli.

Palds-

B.

The

Old Translations.

1.

The Alexandrine Translation

Tlie Septuagint.

3 7.

The

oldest version of the

Old Testament, and generally

the translation produced by
told of still earlier translaIt is told,

one of the oldest and most remarkable attempts to translate a

writing into another language,
the Alexandrine Jews.
tions of the
is

What

is

Law
B.C.

is

devoid of

all historical value.

indeed,

by a Jewish philosopher that lived under Ptolemy

Philometor,

180145,

that

there

was

much

older

rendering {Diermeneusis) of the

Law from
if

the times of the

Persian sovereignty

but even

the

fragments ascribed to
sufficient

Aristobulus are genuine, which

we have no

ground

to doubt, that alleged translation cannot

certainly have been

anything else than a postulate which seemed to philosophically

cultured Jews necessary in order that they might explain the
points of contact between Plato or Pythagoras and the Mosaic

law from the acquaintance of these philosophers with Mosaism.

Still

less

can a confused story in Massckct soplt^rim

32) of

an
to

earlier translation of the

credibility.

Law by

five elders lay

any claim

Indeed, the ver}^ uncertainty of the text in

this particular passage deprives this story of every vestige of

historical worth.

On
of his

the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus and the fragments

work preserved by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, compare Hody, i)e Bihlioruni textibus originalihus,\\h. i. cap. ix. Yalckenaer, Diatribe de Aristobido, Leyden 1806, and p. 49 ff.
;

Schiirer, Geschichte des jild. Volkcs,

vol.
iii.

ii.

764, Eng. trans. Div.

of
literature are

ii.

237, where further

lists

given.

67.

OLDEST GKKKK TUANSLATION.S.

109

Among
is

those wlio contest the genuineness of those fragments

specially to be

named

Joel, Blicke in die Religionfigeschidite

i.

1880, p. 79 ff. In the fragment communicated by Clement of Alexandria {Stromata, i. 22, ed. Potter, i. 410) and Eusebius {Prfcpdratio fvangcUca, xiii. 12), Aristobulus writes to King Thilometor KarrjKoXovQjjfce Be kol o UXdrcov rrj KaO^ tj/jlu^; vofioOecrLa Kal
zu

Avfang

des 2 christl. Jahrlnindcrt,

^avepo^ iart
hiepixrjvevTaL

Trepiei pyaad/ivo<=;

e/caara tQ)v iu avrf} \e>^/ofievwv

yap Spov Kal Uepaoiv

irpo AijiirjrpLOV Sl* irepcov, irpb r?}?

i'iTiKpaTi]cre(D<i,

^AXe^dvdirdv'
0X77?

rd re Kara
i)

ttjv ^ay(oyy}i> t6)V

E/3pai(i)v t6)v 7)/jL6Tpajv

ttoXltcov, Kal

rcou yeyovorcov
^copa'^

Tcov avTol^ i7rc(p(ivLa, Kal Kpdrrjai^;

i'OfjLo6e(TLa<;

t?}?

Kal

r/}?

eTre^ )jyrjai<;' (oare

evBrjXov eivat tov

irpoipr]/j,i^ov
)]<=;,

(f)LXoao(f)6u elXijtpevac

iroXXd' yeyove yap 7roXv/j.a6

jj/jlIi'

KaOw^ Kal
eavrov
End rov

IIv6ayopa<^, iroXXd twz^ rrap

SoyfiaroTToiiav Kare-^^oopicreu.

pLeTeveyKa<^
5' oXtj

eh

t^iv

'H

epfjLTjpeia to)v

vopov irdvrcDV

iirl

rod TrpoaayopevOevro^ ^iXaSeXcpov

/3aaiXe(j}<;,

GOV Se irpoyovov, TrpoaeveyKapievov

/nei^ova cf^iXori/jLLav, Ai^prj-

rpLou TOV ^aXripiw^ irpaypiaTevaapievov rd irepl tovtcov.

For

the rest a certain acquaintance on the part of Plato witli 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 (ITaverkamp, Joscjyhus,
ii.

2.

107, com[)are flosephus. Antiquities,

reason
at

xii. 2.

3) there

is

certainly no

why we

should find a reminiscence of

(against Erankel,

earlier attempts
p.

translation

Vorstudien,

24).
^[assclcct

sopWrim,

i.

p.

ii

"

Five

elders wrote

for

King

Ptolemy the Law

just as
for the

and this day was for the Israelites dark as the day on which the golden calf was made,
in Greek,

Law

cannot be translated with impunity.

D':pT nc'ona,

And

at a

later time the king gatliered together seventy elders," etc.

In

some manuscripts,
use which Joel,

( 32), here in the

and the older tract, Sepher tora same passage D^3pT D'^yx**. Therefore the Bliclcc in die Bcglionsgcschichte, p. 1 ff., makes

of the story in the Masscket soph'rivi is very precarious.

Com-

pare also Geiger,

iv.

Urschrift,

p.

441
ii.

Nachgclassenc Scliriftcn,

71

Berliner,

Targum

Onkclos,

78

f.

110
38.

38.

THE EPISTLE OF ARISTEAS.

From
(

the Prologue to the translation of the

4)
it

Book

of

Ben Sirach
also of the

appears that the Law, the Prophets, and part

B.C.

Hagiographa must have existed about

;

130

in a

Greek translation
from the use made

and that

this translation is in all essential

respects identical with the Septuagiut as

of it

known

to us, follows

by the somewhat

earlier

Jewish historical

writer, Demetrius, as well as

by the Jewish-Hellenistic writers

of the last century before

said,

Christ.

But when

this

has been

we have

before us

really all that is

certainly

known
There

respecting the origin of the Alexandrine translation.

is

indeed no lack of very particular and detailed stories about

the

way

in

which the Septuagint came

into existence, but

unfortunately they are of such a kind that they confuse rather

than explain our conception of the origin of this important

and

influential work.

The

oldest writing

which speaks
is

of the translation of the

Law

into the

Greek language

the celebrated Epistle of Aris-

teas, a

Jewish- Alexandrine work.

older than Josephus

This production must at

least be

and Philo, possibly even than

p.

the writings of Aristobulus mentioned at

internal reason for supposing that
it

108, as we have

belongs to an age

when

the Jews had not yet exchanged the Ptolemaic sovereignty for
that of the Seleucidean dynasty.
Its date
little

must therefore have

itself

been earlier than

as an epistle

B.C.

198.

The
an

book represents

which
(B.C.

Philadelphus

King Ptolemy II. 284-247), and therefore a Gentile, had

Aristeas,
officer of

written to his brother Philocrates.

is

In a good literary style

it

related

how

the

king's

librarian,

Demetrius
of the

Phalereus,

advised his master to have the

into

Law

Jews translated
to
this

Greek, in order that

royal

it

might

liave a place given it in

the

library of Alexandria.

The king agrees

proposal, and, besides, emancipates the father

100,000 Jews whom

his

had carried

to

Egypt

as prisoners of war.

He

then sent

Aristeas and the captain of his bodyguard to Jerusalem with

 38.

THE

EI'ISTLK OF AKISTKAS.

Ill

rich presents

and a

letter, in

which he prays the High Priest

capable of undertaking this

Eleazar to supply

liini

with

men

work.

There then follows a spirited description of Jerusalem,

all

the temple, the country, and above

of the noble

and rea-

sonable laws of the Jews.

at the request of

The high

priest is filled with joy

si.x

the king, and seventy-two men,

from

every

tribe, are

sent to Alexandria with

a copy of the

Law

written in golden letters.

audiences of
the

During seven days they have daily the king, and excite the admiration of all by

wisdom with which they answer the seventy-two questions proposed to them in philosophy, politics, and ethics. Thereafter
they are transported to the island of Pharos, where, in a beautiful residence,

they engage diligently in the work of translaall

tion.

Every day they

translate, each

one by himself, a

portion of the Law, and then, after comparison of the various

renderings, they produce a

common

text.

In seventy-two days

the work

is

completed.

admiration of

The Alexandrine Jews express their the work, and beseech that they may be supplied
it,

with a copy of

while they pronounce a curse upon every

to

one who should presume

the king,

change the translation.

Finally,

who was greatly astonished that this noble law should have been unknown to the Greeks, sends the seventytwo interpreters home laden with rich presents.
This story, though anything but niggardly in
admiration,
gifts,
its

supply of
sufficient

and symbolical numbers, was not

and so
it

for the taste of the following generation,

had

to

be

further adorned in various

directions.

In Philo we meet

with an important addition which represents the interpreters

as inspired (compare

12), so that they, for example,

had

all

used in their several translations the very same expressions.

In the Church fathers this

is

still

further improved upon by

the assertion, that each of the seventy-two interpreters had

wrought

in his

own

cell

without being able to confer with his

the
story

colleagues.

In

this

form

was adopted by the

112
Talmud, where
to

38.

THE EPISTLE OF APJSTEAS.

it

forms a rare contrast to the reservation, not

is

say antipathy, with which the Alexandrine translation

( 40).

elsewhere referred to

Yea, even the Samaritans have

appropriated the story with these legendary excrescences.

At

the same time, in opposition to the express statements of older

authorities, this story

was made

to

apply to

all

the books of

the Old Testament, which even Jerome,

narrative
rejects.

who views
(

the whole

with

rather

sceptical

eye

51),

decidedly

The Epistle of Aristeas, which has been often published (as, e.rf. in Havercamp's Joseplius, ii. 2. pp. 103-132), has recently been issued with a critically improved text by Moritz Schmidt in Merx's Archio fur Wissensch. Erforschung 241 ff. Compare generally in regard to this d. A. T. Hody, De Bibliorum textihus originalibus, lib. subject Griitz, Xoldeke, Alttestamentliche Littcratitr, p. 109 ff. MGJVJ, 1876, p. 289 ff.; Bleek, Einleitung, p. 5 71 ff.
i.
:

i.

Papageorgios, Ucber den Aristcashrief,

Lagidcs, Turin
Volkes,
ii.

Munich 1880

Lumles

broso, BecJiercJics sur V Economic i^olitique dc VEgijpte sous

1870,

p.

351

ff.

Schiirer, Gcschichte des jild.

ii.

819-824, Eng.

trans. Div.

vol.

iii.

306-312,

where further
Philo, ed.

lists of literature

are given.

Mangey, ii. 139. The passages of the fathers are enumerated by Gallandi, Bibliotheca vetericm pa^rzd?;^,, ii. 805824, and by Schiirer, Geschiclite des jild. Volkes, ii. 823,
Ens. trans. Div.
ii.

vol.

iii.

311.

On

the chronological statethe LXX. Ulm 1886,

the other

ments of was translated, p. 12 f.

the fathers about the year in which

see

Xestle, Septicaginta-Studien,

B. Mcgilla 9a, Massekct soph^rim

i.

p.

ii.

On

hand, the Mechilta on Ex.

xii.

40

(p.

loh) about this says

" before

only that the

Kins:

Law had been translated On the Samaritans, Ptolemv."

p.

the time of

see

Yilmar, Annalcs
et
eis

Samaritance, 1865,

95
vi.

ff.

456): Hebrsei tradunt, quinque tantum

Jerome
(Yallarsi

"

Josefus

libros

enim scribit legis Moysi ab

translates et Ptolenueo regi traditos.

 30.

THE ORIGIN OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

cliaracter

1 1

30.

As

to the historical

of tlie account given in

this

the Epistle of Aristeas, there

prevails at

day general

agreement to this extent, that no one entertains the idea of

accepting
the story as
credible in all
its

details.

As the
clearly

author liimself quite evidently was a

Jew

writing under a
is

heathen mask, there

])nre

is

also

much

in his

book which

invention

in

majorem gloriam Judccorvni.

On

the

other hand, amoncij the most distinguished investigators there

still

prevails a difference of opinion with regard to the ques-

tion,

whether the whole

historical
is

is

a purely fictitious romance, or

whether a
form.

core lies hidden under

the

legendary

This

a question of great importance in the history

it is

of culture, fur
of the
first

of

no small interest to know whether one

attempts to translate a literary work into another

language (an attempt which had a sort of precursor only in

the older polylingual royal decrees) was called forth by the
literary craving of the Hellenistic race for

knowledge or by the
there are certainly

practical need of the Egyptian Jews.

Now

very serious reasons to be alleged against the credibility of this

story even

when

it

has

been reduced to very much more

the one hand, attention
is

modest dimensions.

On

called to

the jargon, unintelligible to a Greek, in which the translation

of the
(i.e. "13,

Law
or, as

has been written.

Of expressions

like ^eLwpa<;

Lagarde shows, rather the Aramaic

"li'^),

iXuaKeaOaL

Ta? da^eia<;, and numerous others of that

absolutely

sort,

a Greek could

make

nothing, not to speak of mn^ ( 70) taken

its

over simply in

Hebrew

form.

And

it

is

certainly not

easy to understand

why

this barbarously rendered

translation
if

should not have been subjected to a linguistic revision,

cultured classes of Alexandrian society had intended to

the

make

themselves acquainted by
Eurther,
it

its

help

with

the

Jewish Law.

is

also

in

a high

degree

remarkable that the

Alexandrine Jews should have given liturgical rank to a

translation of their holy

Law

carried out at the instance of a

114
heathen.

39.

THE ORIGIN OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

Had

there been indeed no account of the orisjin

of the Septuagint

handed down by
to

tradition,
its

then certainly

no one would hesitate

account for

existence from the

need of the Egyptian Jews, who were growing ever more and

more unfamiliar with

more
ielt

their

Hebrew mother
24).

tongue, and all the

so as

such a need did certainly very soon

xiii.

make

itself

(compare Nehem.

And

in order to satisfy this

need just such a translation

as the

Alexandrine was required,

which used the peculiar Jewish-Greek jargon and contributed

further to
its

development.

But, notwithstanding

all

this,

we can

find

no justification for the wholesale rejection of the

If
it

credibility of the story.

be really

so, as

cannot well be

denied (compare

38), that the Epistle of Aristeas

was written

at the latest about B.C.

200, and therefore scarcely half a

II., it

century after the death of Ptolemy

would have been a

untruth

bold proceeding on the part of any writer to describe the origin

of the translation of the

Torah in such a w^ay that

its

must have been apparent,

the Jews.

as well to the Alexandrians as to

The same

is

true of the passage from Aristobulus

it

quoted in

37, whether

be supposed that he

know

the story told by Aristeas.

knew or did not And even if we should feel

still

justified in

minimising this witness by adopting the idea that

there w^ould

the writings in question were of later origin,

remain the circumstance, not easily

that the explanation given in the
origin of the

to be accounted for

by

us,

Book

of

Aristeas of the

Septuagint, considered as a contribution to the

is

history of culture,

of far too original

character to be

attributed to a Jewish fabricator.

Neither should we over-

look the fact that the second of the reasons which have been

now
by

given for the rejection of the story

is

very

much weakened
Book
of

this,

that in any case the Jewish author of the

Aristeas and the

Jews following him, Philo and Josephus,

Finally, as

have taken no offence at the thought of the translation having

been made at the instance of a heathen prince.

39.

THK ORIGIN OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

115
liis-

to

the objection whicli has been advanced against the

torical truth of the story, to

the effect that, according to the

Calliniachius,

distinct

statement

of

Ilermippus
III.,

who

lived
liad

during the reign of Ttolemy

Demetrius Phalereus

been banislied from Alexandria immediately after

of

tlie deatli

Ptolemy Lagus,

it

concerns only a quite separable matter of

detail in the

story,

and cannot therefore be decisive

pro and

of the

main point
has been

of the question.

If then, after an exact estimate

con,

made

of all reasons,

we

still

hold by

the position that the king had a share in the originating of the Septuagint,
role
it
is,

on the other hand, undeniable that the

is

which the translation of the Law

said to have played

;

in the learned circles of Alexandria is wholly undemonstrable

whereas the Greek Torah, in connection with the other books

won among the Alexandrian and all Hellenistic Jews, and through them, among the members of the Christian Church, an importance of which the men who first
subsequently translated,
conceived this bold idea could certainly never have dreamed.

The usual designation

writings, "
to the translation of the

in the fathers
of

and in the Talmudical

is

The Translation

the Seventy," which

applied

Law

as well as to that of the other

its

books, rests indeed upon the Epistle of Aristeas as

for seventy is

authority,

simply a round number for seventy-two.

But
there-

whence the Book of Aristeas has taken that number, which

plays so extraordinary a role in
fore, certainly
its

narrative,

and

is,

not an invented number, remains

still

quite

obscure.

The question that concerns us here is dealt with in the works of llody and Valckenaer referred to in ,*>7, and in many more recent treatises. The following admit partiall}' tlie credibility of the story told by Aristeas Valckenaer Kwald, Gcschichie du Volkes Israel^, iv. 322 ff., Eng. trans. V. 244 Wellhausen-Bleek, Einleitung, p. 571 ff. Mommsen, Romisclie Gcschichie, v. 490. The whole story is rejected
:

116
as

40.

THE ADOPTION OF THE LXX. BY THE JEWS.

:

by Hody, De BiUiorum Textihus Eichhorn, Bepcrtorium i. 266 ff. Eeuss, GescMchte der heiligen
a pure fabrication
;

SchriftendesA.

T.

436

^6\(\q\q,
;

ZDMG,

xxxii.

588,xxxix.

Kuenen, Godsdienst, ii. 392 Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, p. 6 ff. Schuurmans Stekhoven, Dc cdexandrijnsche Oort, Theol. Vertaling van het BodekaprGpheton, p. 1 ff. 287 ff. Tijdsclirift, 1882, p. The report of Hermippus Callimachius is given ia Mliller, Fragmenta hist. Grcec. iii. 47.

342

In explanation of the name " Septuaginta " various conSpecial attention has been called jectures have been made. to this that seventy (seventy-one or seventy-two) constituted
the normal
Justice.
iclite

number of members in a Jewish High Court of Compare Num. xi. 16, and further Schurer, GeschVolkes,
ii.
ii.

der
ff.

174

151, Eng. trans. Div. It has therefore been conjectured that

jiid.

vol.

i.

th,e

name

referred to

the

authorisation of the translation

by a high

court of justice.
iv.

Compare Ewald, Geschichte der Volkes Israel, 327, Eng. trans, v. 249; Schuurmans Stekhoven, Be
p.

alexandrijnsche Vertcding,

f.,

and the other works above

quoted.

But nothing

of this sort can be proved in connection

Still less with Alexandria in the times of the Ptolemies. satisfactory as accounting for the name is the hypothesis that a larger number had actually been engaged in the work

(Wellhausen-Bleek, Einleitung,
treatise of

p.

576).

Compare

also the

Steinsclmeiders on the

"Number Seventy"

in the

ZBMG,

iv.

145

ff.

40. To the translation of the Pentateuch were soon added

translations of the other

Old Testament writings.

it

Even the

translation of the Torah, as

seems, was not the work of one

of the other trans-

hand, and this

is still

more evidently true

lations

which were executed by various and very variously

qualified translators.

The most
This

of

them

are certainly to be

regarded as private attempts, to which only circumstances lent

authoritative importance.
is

seen notably in the case of

of

the

Book

of Ezra, of

which we possess two translations

 40.

THE ADOPTION OF THE LXX.

( 13).

i;Y

THE JEWS.
llie

117
way
in

varying extent

An

instructive picture of
is

whicli sucli translations originated

given in the preface to the

Book

of

Ben Sirach
of

( 4),

which

at the

same time

is

interest-

ing on account of
translations

its

remarks about the imperfections of the

existed.

Old Testament writings that then

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

lation soon

origin, the

whole trans-

came

to

be highly esteemed among the Alexandrian

It

Jews, and was in later times regarded as inspired ( 12).

was used

in the synagogue

service wherever

Greek was the

principal language of the Jews, and

was

at the

same time the

means by which the ancient

civilised

world was subsequently

made acquainted with

the sacred writings of Israel

The
has in

dialect of the Septuagint, so barbarous in a

Greek

ear,

several particulars exercised an influence

of the

upon the language

with

Xew whom

Testament, and in later days through the fathers,

it

often completely took the place of the original,

and through the translations of following generations, which were all more or less dependent upon it, it has exercised an
influence on the religious phraseology of the Christian

com-

munities which can be

languages.

traced

even

in

the

most modern

Among
its

the Jews, on the contrary,

it

only gradually secured

information
first

position.

We

have

very

incomplete
at

as

to

the

feelings

which

prevailed
to

the

among

the

Palestinian

Jews with reference

this

new

attempt.

No

certain conclusion can

be drawn from the large use of the

Septuagint made by Josephus owing to the peculiar position

of that author.

was used

in

show that the LXX. the Palestinian synagogues are rather weak, and The proofs which go
to

have been vigorously contested by modern Jewish authors.

In the Talmud we have the story of the seventy-two inter-

118

40.

THE ADOPTION OF THE LXX. BY THE JEWS.

which has as
its

preters, a story

presupposition the inspired

character of the

LXX.,

set quietly beside the

its

enumeration of

various passages in which

text are rejected.
struggle with

divergences from the genuine

On
the

the other hand, the steadily growing

Christianity

must naturally have contributed

largely

to

make
by the
the

Jews,

who were always

considerably

influenced

state of feeling that prevailed in Palestine,

regard with aversion a translation which played so important

a
role

in

Church.

Also,

apart

from

the

divergence

between the Septuagint and the Palestinian Canon, the often

excessive
treats the

freedom with which the Alexandrine translation

Old Testament text could not be satisfactory

life

to the

Jews, whose very

letters

and being lay in

their adherence

to

and

titfles.

We

possess

several

witnesses
of

to

the

existence

of this

antipathy.

Even the

writings

Justin

Martyr show that the

difference

between the LXX. and the

Hebrew Bible formed

a chief point of religious controversy

Sefer Tor a,
i.

between Jews and Christians,

8, declares

that
for

the day on which the Seventy translated the

Israel as doleful as

Law was

the day on which the golden calf was

made

37); and in the later portions of the Megillatli

c. xii. it is

Taanith,

said

"On

8th Tebet the

Law was
The

in the

days of King Ptolemy

('"ohr\)

written in the Greek language,

for three days."

and darkness covered the world

of this feeling

best proof

among

the

Jews against the Septuagint, which

occasioned so

found in the

many difficulties to the Church fathers, is to be new Greek translations of the Old Testament
of

which obtained currency among the Jews, and

description will be given in a later part of this

which a
( 51).

work

On

the question whether several translators had taken part

Exegese
alexandr.

in the Torah translation, compare Frankel, Ueher den Einfluss

der paldstinischen

atif

die

Hermencutih,
"

1851, p. 228 ff*.; Egli in the ZWT, 1862, p. 76 ff: In the Prologfue to Ben Sirach the translator writes

Ye

40.

Till-:

ADOPTIOX OF THE LXX.

liV

THE JEWS.

119

are

besought to make allowance where we seem in some words to have failed, although the translation has been made
care, for

with

what has been

said

in

Hebrew and

its

trans;

lation into another language cannot perfectly correspond

also

the Law, the

Prophecies, and the other books are in their

original form not a little different from the translation."

The subscription

of the
:

Greek translation of the Book

of

In the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dositheus, who is said to have been a
Esther runs as follows
priest or a Levite,

"

and

his son

Ptolemy introduced the

letter

now

before

us as the (ppovpac [Purim], which, according to

this statement,

had been translated in Jerusalem by Lysimachus,

the son of Ptolemy.

Compare
88

Fritzsche, K^Lrzgcfasotes cxcgd.

i.

Handhuch zn
mentliclic

die

Apokryiihen,
;

72

Noldeke, Alt testa

Littcratui\ p.
ed. p. 33.

Wildeboer, Hct onstaan xan den

Septuagint has exercised in
p.

Kanon, 2nd

On
249.

the influence which the

philosophy, compare Xuldeke, Alttestamcntlichc Literatxir,

On

the question of the use of the

LXX.
2,

in the Palestinian
i.

synagogues, compare Eichhorn, Einleitunrj

in Herzog's Reed- Eiiey eloper die-,
"zu der Septuafjinta, p.
i.

IGG; Fritzsche
ii.

284; Frankel, Vorstudioi

80.
fob

56

ff.

VtQxlmQV, Teirgum Onlcelos,

iv.

7oa: "The foreignspeaking Jews did not observe the custom prevailing amongst us to divide the reading of the Torah among several persons, Also, je7\ Sota for one individual reads the whole Feirasha." vii. 1, fob 216, on the Sh^ina ; and Justinian, Novell. 146. The passages where the LXX., according to the Jewish

The

chief passages are jer. Meg.

statement, diverges from the original

Hebrew
best

text, are

to be

found in
p.

h.

Meg. 9,je7\ Meg.

i.

9
i.

Mechilta on Exodus

xii.

20,
i.

156, and Masscket soj^h'^rwi

The

known

is

Gen.

1,

where the LXX., according to the Talmudical statement, this pretranslate, as though it liad been t^-ii n^n^x n-L^sna supposes that the native Jews themselves interpreted " In the
;

beginning when

God

created."
p.

zu der Septuaginta,

25
iv,

ff.

Compare Frankel, Vorstudien Geiger, Ursehrift, \). 439 ff.

Nachgelassenc Schriftcn,

50

f.

120

41.

CHAEACTER OF THE ALEXAXDPJNE TRANSLATION.

11.
p.

Justin Martyr (ed. Otto

vjJLMv, OLTLve<;

232): roU SiSao-rnXot?

TlrdXeixaiw
too

ToKjjLwaL \e<yLV rrjv

vjjLMV

i^/jyijcriv, rjv i^i^yijcravro or

ijSSo/jL'^fcovTa

irpecr^vrepoL
fiy)

irapa

rSiu

AlyviTTLcov ^aaiXet yevoiJuevoL,

also the

elvai ev

naiv

dXrjOfj.

Compare

same work

at p.

240, and Origen,

Ad AfriccDium
we
w^as

5.

41. In judging of the Alexandrine translation

sliould

not for a

moment

lose

sight of the fact

that

it

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

Besides,
it

numerous ideas

of the

Old Testament.
from what

ought not to be forgotten that the demands then

made

of

a Bible translation were very different

would now be made.

What was

desired w^as a practically

useful translation which would take account of the circum-

stances of that particular time, wljich, 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

factors.

traces throughout of the influence of these

It avoids

completely the bold anthropomorphisms

of

and the striking na'ivcU

this

the original text, and shows in

particular

an evident relationship with the other old

Bible translations of the Jews.

translation that
it

And

while

it is

true of every

presupposes a special exegesis of the text in

question, this naturally

was doubly observable

at a time

when

in a thoroughly naive

manner the then dominant

well
in

interpretation

was treated

as the one possible sense of the text.

Hence the

LXX.

in

many

passages, as

Halachic as in a
of a

Haggadic

direction,

assumes the character

Midrash, which
is

mirrors the

contemporary conception of the Bible, and

consequently of decided importance for the history of Old

Testament exegesis.

That in

this

way

the peculiar circum-

41.

CHAnACTEIl OF THE ALEXANDRINE TKANSLATION.

121

stances and spiritual

allowed to
expected.

movements of the Egyptian Jews are shine through, is what might very naturally he
in

Yet even

this connection

the facts have been

to

very
find

much

overstated,

and the endeavour has heen made

afford.

more than the LXX. can

That

in sections

which

treat of

Egypt

it

gives evidence of thorough acquaintance with

is

the conditions of that country

natural enough

and so too the

well-known rendering of

n2J"iS

by

Baav7rov<; instead of Xayco^;

for

may have been done

But
all

out of

consideration

the Lngidie.

this is

not, in

any

case, of

much
any

importance.

And

specially

we

shall seek in vain after

real influence of the

Greek philosophy on the rendering

this can

of the text.

At

the most

be proved only in quite

i.

isolated expressions, like

aopaTOfi Kal aKarao-Kevaaro^ (Gen.

2); but upon the whole

the

LXX.

is

a purely Jewish work, whose authors have had

only a very superficial connection with the intellectual and

spiritual life of Greece.

If

we keep

in

view

all

the circumstances which have been

here mentioned,

we

shall

guard ourselves against making the

It
it

Alexandrine translation the subject of a sharp criticism.

must rather

as

a whole call forth

our admiration

that

should in any sort of

task.

way have
of criticism

actually accomplished
is

its

Only that kind

justifiable

which makes

the better sections of the

for those that

LXX.

the standard of comparison

have been

less successful.

There will be found,

even within the compass of the whole translation, a remarkable

diversity

among

the several

books,
it

which, however,

is

of

interest historically, because

not only proceeds from the

very diverse capacities of the translators, but also from the

adoption of diverse hermeneutical principles.
unconditionally
is

The

first

rank

held by the translation of the Pentateuch,

although even there the various parts are dealt with somewhat
variously (compare
p.

116).

Also the Psalms, of so

much

importance for the community, are to be regarded as a well-

122

41.

CHARACTER OF THE ALEXANDRINE TRANSLATION.

So, too, the generally clear contents

executed piece of work.

of the historical Prophets

made

it

possible for the translators

to produce a useful translation.

of the Prophets

On

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

most

rigid imitation of the very order of

"

word and phrase

in

the Hebrew.

Nactus

est Isaias interpretem sese

indignum,"
of

remarks Zwingli with good reason, for the translation

that
to

book

is

in fact of such a kind that one has

its

more cause

admire

readers than
is

its

author.

One

of the

most wilfully

translated books
to pose as

the

Book
lecto7^ ;

of Job,

whose translator wished

a 'poctarum

while

among
:

those that have

been rendered with painful literalness are

Ezekiel, Chronicles,

The Song, and

strikingly
relation

Ecclesiastes.

The two
of

last
(

named remind one

52); yet the exact
is

of the

method

Aquila

between them and that translator

not quite clear.

Geiger,

Compare on the
Septuaginta, pp.

subject of this section as a whole

iv.

Nachgelassenc Schi^iften,

73

ff.

Frankel, Vorstndien zur der

163-203.
Exegese

On

the Palestinian influence compare Prankel, JJeher den

der pcddstinischen

Einjluss

auf
with

die

alexandrini'sche

Hermeneutih,

1857

(dealing
iv.

only
ff.

the

Pentateuch);

Geiger, Jild. Zeitschrift,

99

Examples of the treatment of the text affected by the times, Isaiah ix. 11: ^vplav a<^' rjKiav avaroXcov koL tou?
"EXkT]va^
dvdpo)7ro<;
d(j)

rjXiou

Bvcr/jLcov

Num.
avrov,

xxiv.

i^eXevarerai
eOvoiv

ck

tou

o-irepfMaro';
rj

koX

Kvpievaeb

TToWcbv'
xiii.

Koi
:

{jy^ooOrjaerai

Fcoy ^aaikeia

avrov

Josh.

Balaam did they slay 2"ina," the LXX. iv rrj poTrrj, Jewish Haggada, that Balaam, who by his magical arts had fled into the air, was brought down by
22 compare
"

the

Phinehas.

On

the other hand, the

acreSe/c,

LXX.
all,

in Isaiah xix. 18,

to be regarded as

with their TroXt?

are not, after

Egyptising, but rather as preserving the original.

 41.

CHARACTER OF THE ALEXANDIIINK TRANSLATION'. 123

On
den
2. p.

the inlluence of Greek philosophy see Frankel, Uchn-

JEinfluss, pp.

34-42

Zeller, Philosopliic

dcr Griechcn,
7\

iii.

217

Siegfried, Philo als Aitslegcr d.

21ie

A.

1875,

]>.

and
ii.

especially Freudentlial, in

Jewish Quarterly Review,

1890, pp. 205-222, who,

It is

alter a thoroughgoing investi-

gation, has arrived at a purely negative result.

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
tlie

Sirach,

and the Postscript

interpreters of the
lator of
tlie

to

tlie

Book

of Esther), the seventy- two

trans-

Law
of

are brought from Palestine,

Book

Ben Sirach comes from

Palestine to

Egypt, and the translator of the Book of Esther lives in Jeru-

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.
salem.

As a matter

of fact, in

Luther's judgment of the

as a historical

LXX.,

in so far as
:

it

is

regarded

Translating is a phenomenon, is too severe special grace and gift of God. The seventy Greek tran.slators 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 trilling and absurd, " for they have disdained to speak the letters, words, and style
{Erlangcn. Avsgabe,
Ixii.

"

112).

Among
to

the ever-increasing special treatises on the several

books of the
the
older

LXX.

the following

may

be named

(in

addition
'^,

literature given

by Eichhorn,

Einleitiing

i.

181): Topler, De Pentateuchi interprctationis Alex, indole, 1830 Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina lihri
;

iii.

1841

Frankel,

Ueher den Eivflvss, 1851.

Ilollenberg,

Der Charalder der alexandrinischc Uehcrsetzung des Buches Jos2ia, 1876. Schulte, De rcstiiutione atque indole genuincc Wellhausen, Der versionis grcecx in lihro Judicum, 1889.
Text der Biieher Samnelis, 1871.
[Stiidia Biblica, 1st series,

1885, The Light thrown hy the Septiiagint Version on the Scholz, Die alcxBooks of Samuel, by F. H. Woods.] Movers, De andrinische Uehersetzuug des Buches Jesaias, 1880.

124

42.

THE EAELIEST HISTORY OF THE SEPTUAGINT TEXT.

'vaticiniorum

lUriusq^ue recensionis
;

Jeremice indole

et

origine,
et

1834 Wichelhaus, De
auctoritate,

Jeremice versionis alexandrince indole

1846;

Scholz,

Der masoretische Text und

die

LXX.
Text

Uebersetzu7ig des Bitches Jeremias,

1875

Workman, The

of Jeremiah ; a Critical Investigation of the Greek and Hehreio, with the Variations in the LXX. retranslated into the Original,

and

Ex'plained,

1889.

Cornill,

1886, pp. 13103. der Alexandriner, 1880 (Nahum-Malachi), and in ZAW, 1883, p. 219 ff., 1884, p. 1 ff. (Hosea-Micah) Schuurmans Stekhoven, Be alexandrijnsche Vertaling van het Dodekaprophetoii, 1887; Treitch, Die alexandrinische Uebersetziing des
Ezechiel,
;

Bas Buch des Propheten Vollers, Das Dodchapropheten

Bitches

Rosea,
des

i.

1888;

Eyssel,

Untersuchnngen
Baethgen,

ilher

die
text-

Textgcstalt
kritische

Bitches

Micha,

1887.

Der

Werth der

alt en Uehersetzungen

1882,
sctzu7ig

p.

407

ff.

Lagarcle,

zu den Psalmen, JPT, Aiimerkungen zur griech. JJcberBickell,

der Proverhien, 1863.

De

indole ac ratione

versionis Alexandrince in interpretando lihro Johi,

1862, and
p.

in the Zeitschrift filr katholische Theologie,

1886,

557

ff.;

Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford 1889, pp. 215-246, On Origens Revision of the LXX. Text of Job ; Dilhnann,
"

Textkritisches

zum

Buche

Job

"

in

Sitzungsberichte

der

Konigleheuss Akademie der

Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1890. Dillmann on the Text of Job " in Expositor for August 1891, pp. 142-145.] Compare also on the traces of the Greek poets in this translation, Egli in the Rhein. Museum; xii. 414448. Jacob, " Das Buch Esther bei den LXX. in ZA W, 1890, p. 241 ff. On the Greek translation of Ecclesiastes, compare Freudenthal, Hellenistische Stitdien, 1875, p. 65; Gratz, Koheleth, p. 175 f.; Kenan, EEccUsiaste, 1882, Wright, The Book of Koheleth, 1883, p. 50 f.; p. 55f. Klostermann, TSK, 1885, p. 153 ff. Bludau, De alexandrince iiiterprctationis libri Danielis iiidole, 1891. See also the Prefaces of Jerome to his Commentary, and below at 52.

[Cheyne,

"

i.

42. Besides

the

historical importance referred to in the

preceding sections, the

LXX.

has the signal distinction of

of the

being the oldest complete witness to the text

Old

 42.

TIIK

EAULIEST HISTORY OF THE SEITUACINT TEXT.

It

125

Testament.
to

opens up to us the possibility of being able

work back
a form

to the

Hebrew
which

text tliat lay before each indi-

vidual Greek translator, and in this

way

to gain acquaintance

with

of

text

is

some twelve hundred years

Bible manuscript.

older than the oldest

Hebrew

The com-

parison of the

te.\t

tlius

constructed, the Alexandrine Text,

with the Massoretic Text, introduces us to the most important

of all the sections of the liistory of the text,

and converts an

entire series of problems from wholly irrelevant variations into

completely divergent recensions.

it is

Under these circumstances

in the highest degree deplorable that the use of the

LXX.
by
of

in textual

criticism

should
of

be
its

so

seriously prejudiced
text,

the defective

condition
called
"

own

the restoration
the
circle."

which

Stroth

the

squaring

of

The
is

degeneration of the Septuagint text began very early, as

shown by the
which
tlie

curse.s, certainly

not uttered without occasion,

Epistle of

Aristeas represents the

Jews

as

pro-

nouncing upon every corruption of the translation.

ductive cause of
ness
this,

pro-

here as in most cases, was the carelessof

tlie

and awkwardness

transcribers,

aggravated no
of

doubt

by the

occasionally
;

meaningless

character

the

Alexandrine translation
Justin Martyr,
alterations

but we learn expressly, even from

who

died about a.d. 163, that

many

conscious

and additions had, even on the part

te.xt.

of Christians,

been introduced into the

well-known example of
elements

such additions, in which, moreover, Justin and other fathers

considered
that

they

had

original

of

the

text

which had been erased by the Jewish hatred of Christ, are the words diro rov Pv\ov in Psalm xcvi. 10, which lon^'
played a
part
in
patristic
literature.

Gradually the dis-

crepancies of the various manuscripts assumed so disturbing

a character that a remedy for this evil became a necessity.

The

first

Origen,

who undertook to perform this task was the great who died a.d. 254. The magnificent conception of

126
his

43.

opjgen's treatment of the text.

continues
excite
it

work

in

textual criticism
is

still

to

an
not
to

admiration, which
difficult

not lessened by the fact that

is

to

criticise his

methods now, when we are able

glance over their consequences.

But

it

is

a fact that

his

undertakinsj has contributed to render the use of the

for the purposes of textual criticism yet

LXX.
The

more

difficult.

reason of this was that Origen sought to perform another task

of textual criticism, namely, to determine the relation

between
not only

the Alexandrine translation and the

Hebrew

text,

contemporaneously with
text,

the establishing of the Septuagint

but even using that same Septuagint text as an aid in

performing that task, whereas that former problem should

only have been taken up after he had secured a pure and
certain

Septuagint

text.

Although

the

LXX.

in

several

passages affords the

means

of improving the received text of

it

the Palestinian Jews, since

points back to an original form

of text, the Palestinian Jewish authority, half against the will

of Origen, exercised so great

an influence that by his labours

the

LXX.

lost not a little of its peculiarities.

Compare Justin Martyr, ed. The position of Origen on

Otto,
this

ii.

p.

242

ff.

question formed an exact

parallel to his treatment of the question of the canon.

Also

in that connection there were, as he himself expressly remarks,

frequent disputations between the Christians and the Jews, which moved him to make his fellow-believers acquainted

with the Jewish Bible in order to protect them against the criticism of the Jews (compare Ad Africanum, 5).
43.

As

then,
to

Origen,

notwithstanding

the

prominence

which he gave

the Jewish Canon, would

by no means
the

surrender the Apocrypha received by the Church ( 17), he

did not consider the Jewish text in iirincipio as
correct text, to
all

only

which the Alexandrine translation had

In
the

to be in

cases

conformed.

passage

where he expresses

himself most thoroughly with regard to the principles of his

4.S.

UlilGEN's

TREATMENT OF THE TKXT.

Mattli.

127
says, in
lincl
liis

textual

criticism

(Comni. on

xv.

14),

lie

express opposition to such an idea, that he might not

liimself justified

{ov

ToXfirjaavrefi)

in

removing

from

Septuagint text the sentences and words to be met with in

the LXX., but not in the

Hebrew
aim

text.

Jjut

seeing that

it

was

at the

same time

his

to call attention to the relation

between

tlie

Hebrew and
the

the Septuagint text, he indicated

tlie

such passages distinctly by marking, in accordance with

practice
criticism,

of

grammarians in

their

treatises
of

on textual
a
-:-),

their

commencement by means
(

prefixed

obelus, lemniscus, or hypolemniscus

or

-f-

or

while a

metobelus (Y) indicated the close of the words referred to. Par more dangerous was his procedure when, in tlie 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

marks (placing an

asterisk before,

>><^

or

^,

a metobelus at

the end), the danger here was too great of some later transcriber ignoring the marks, as in course

of time to a great
of all

extent actually did happen.

Origen,
as

But the worst

very
the

was that
used
the
to

he

liimself

declares
of

distinctly,

diflerent representatives

Hebrew

Tcxtus

lieccptus

correct the faults of the

Greek text and

to find

\\\s

way amid

the confusions of the various Septuagint manuscripts, for this

must have had

a very detrimental effect in the determining

of the standpoint of textual criticism with regard to the con-

struction of the Septuagint text.

It is at

any rate conceivable

Rcccptus,

that the close and firm unity of the

as

Hebrew TcxUis
tin?

compared with the vacillations of

in our

Septuagint manulike

scripts,

must have made an impression upon Origen

that

which

own days
that
is

the " unity

" of the

lioman Catholics

has made on some l*rotestants, but just on this account has he

sacrificed

much

characteristic

and

oricrinal in the

LXX.

128

43.

opjgen's treatment of the text.

text of Origen, constructed
in
this

The Septuagint
Palestinian seaport
of

way,

formed a part of the gigantic work produced by him in the

town

of Csesarea, the Hexaiila, the purpose

of

which was

to

enable Christian readers, by means

tlie

magnificent apparatus, to take a survey of

the Greek and the
representatives
another.
of

relation

between

Hebrew
the

text.

In six columns stand the

of text

two forms

alongside of

one

The Jewish Textus Beceptus was represented by the

text, a transcription of it in

Hebrew

Greek

letters ( 36),
it

and and

the two very literal translations based on

of Aquila

Symmachus
which was a

( 52,

54)

while the last two columns contained

the revised Septuagint text and the translation of Theodotion,

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,

also the
at

name Odapla.
55.

On

a seventh

compare below

Moreover, this co-ordinato the

tion resting

upon the Hebrew text was already an injury

text, in

Alexandrine text inasmuch as that

passages where

the Greek translation had a different succession of portions of

the text, had to be corrected according to the

Hebrew

text.

That such a gigantic work, consisting

fifty large

of

somewhere about

volumes, could not be multiplied by transcriptions,

as certain.

must be considered
in Csesarea
satisfied

The

cost of such a proceeding

itself

would have been too enormous.

Either the manuscript

must have been

used, or students
it.

must have been

at-

with the extracts from

to

Origen had indeed

tempted
edition,

make

it

more
first

easily accessible, for he issued a

new

with the two

columns
;

left out,

and

at the

same time
the other

with some

critical alterations

but even this so-called Tetraijla

copies.

seems not to have existed in many

On

hand, at a later date, Eusebius of Csesarea and his friend

Pamphilus caused the column which contained the Septuagint

text,

with

tlie diacritical

marks and the marginal notes of

all

kinds, to be copied out apart from the other translations, and in

43.

OUIG en's TREATMENT or

'III

i:

TEXT.

129

this

form

tlie

Hexaplar Recension found

In opposition to
tlie
thi.s

wide circulation
revi.sed
kolvyj or

among

the Latins.

text,

the

pre-Origenistic form of

text

was

called

vulfjatu.

The Hcxapla
( 37),

itself,

which Jerome made use of

in Coesarea

was

still

to

be found there in the sixth century, but

it

afterwards, in

some unknown way,

is

disappeared.

Wellhausen

not altogether correct, as also lleckendorf,

67, has remarked,

ZAW,

1887,
p.

p.

when

lie

writes (Bleek,

Einleitunrj,

586): "Proceeding from the belief that the translation must have agreed with tlie original as he knew it, Origen corrected the LXX., not according to its own
standard, but according to the

Hebrew

trutli."

In principle

Origen, just as in his treatment of the canon, so also in his

textual criticism, recognised a double Origen,
trutli.

Qomm, on Matth.
rT]<:

xv.

14:

rr^v

fiev

ovv

iv

roh

dvTi'ypd(f)oi<^

7ra\aid<i

hia6}']fcr}<i

htacfiwvLav, Oeov
ral'^

hthovro^

eupofiev cdcraaOai, KpLTrjpKp '^(pTjadp.evoL

. .

XotTrat? eKhoaeaLv
fll)

Koi

TLVCL flV 00^6\LCra/J.V U

TM

'EjSpaLKOi
lUit

KeLjjLeva

ov

ToX/x?/'crat'Te?

avrd iravra

TrepieKelv, k.tX.

once he conthe

fesses to to

have obliterated, with the Obelos, a word that seemed

it

him meaningless, although

did stand

in

Hebrew

(compare Cornill,
gcnis Hcxaploriun

Ezechiel, p. 386).
to
i.

Compare on the Hexapla the Prolegomena

qvcv,

Field's Ori-

snpersunt, 1875.

Chap.

deals with

the

names
vii.
xi.,

of the

work

(besides the

names already mentioned.

;

we meet
chap.
chap,

also

sometimes with those of Pentop)la and Heptapla) 2-3, the diacritical signs and their significance the later fortunes of the Hcxapla. On the latest

form
107.

of the Hcxapla,

compare
tlie

Birt,

Das ant ike Buchwesen,

p.

On

the alterations in

Septuagint text

made by Origen

without remark, compare Field, Froler/omena, chap. vii. 4. Many a time the collection of tlie representatives of the

Hebrew
jis,

text

helped him to the objectively correct reading,

xv. 10,

where he read wcpeiXTjaa instead of but oCtener the original was thereby obliterated. u}(f)e\T]cra The Book of Job has suflered more than all the rest from
e.g.,

in Jer.
;

130

44.

LUCIAN AND HESYCHIUS.

the intrusion of numerous portions of the translation of Theo-

dotion into the Alexandrine text.

of the

Codex 161 {Codex

(jtC^oi,
aTi')(pL

Bibl.

According to a Scholium Dresdeiisis, No. iii.), the book

Ixvi.).

had 1600

but with the additions marked by asterisks,

Frolegomena,

2200

(Field,

But possibly

beginning had been made, even before Origen, of filling up the gaps of the LXX. by means of the renderings of TheoThe question is connected with the question of the dotion. relation of the Codex Vaiicaniis, in which Job is already very much augmented, to the Hexaplar text (compare 46). That the translation of Theodotion was widely circulated at an early date among Christians, is shown by the fact that even See Zahn in Herzog's Irenaeus used Theodotion for Daniel. Real-Encydopcedie, vii. p. 131. That the edition of the text by Eusebius and Pamphilus was furnished with notes from the other translations is declared by the Syro-Hexa^plaris, compare Field, Prolegomenciy On the circulation of this recension, compare chap. xi. Jerome {Prcef. in Paralipom.): " Med ice inter has (i.e. Antioch and Egypt) provincit^ Palestinse (so Lagarde instead of Palestinos) codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaborates Eusebius et His own preference for this recenPamphilus vulgaverunt." which afforded him admirable help in his contention for sion,
" the

Hebrew
"

truth," Le. the

Hebrew

Textas Receptus,

is

given
:

(106) to Sunnias and Fretela KOivr) pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem quae habetur in efaTrXoZ? et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorexpression to by
in a letter

him

rupta et immaculata

LXX.

interpretum translatio reservatur

est,

quicquid ergo ab hac discrepat nulli dubium

quin

ita et

ab Hebraeorum passage quoted in

auctoritate discordet."

Compare further the

;

44 from

the same Epistle

also Epist. 89,

Ad

Augustinum ; the Lagarde, Lihrorum V.

cle

Prcefatio
T. grcece

in Quatuor Evangg.
;

Jets over

grieksche Vertaling

pars prior, xiii. van het 0. T.^. 30

and Hooykaas,
;

f.

44.
jected

Some time after Origen, the Septuagint text was subThe one was undertaken by to two new revisions.

 44.

LUCIAX AND IIKSYCIIIUS.

Antiochiiiii

131
of Samosata,

the founder

of the

school, Lucian

who

died as a martyr in a.d. ;)11, during the persecution of

It

^laximus.

found acceptance in Antioch, and was from

thence introduced into Constantinople, where especially Chry-

sostom aided

its

circulation.
is

The second

revision

was made

hy Hesychius, who
the year 311.

usually identified

with the Egyptian

a martyr's death in

bishop of that name,

It

who

also suffered
in

was circulated

Alexandria and Egypt.

Jerome

{Prccfatio in Paralipom., con\\ii\XQ

43): "Alex-

andria et ^^gyptus in

LXX.

suis

Hesychium laudant auctorem,

Constantinopolis
plaria probat."

usque Antiocliiam Luciani martyris exem-

On

the Eecensi07i of Lucian, compare the Synopsis scriptures

to

sacrcc ascribed

Athanasius,

77:

rals

Trpoyeypa/jbfjLevat^
/cat
to,

eKSuaeac
TTovra
u

(d. h.

Aquila, Theodotion and

/cat

Symmachus)

roU
Xei-

'E^pa'cKoU ivTV-^oyv
1]

eVoTTTeucra? fieTa aKpi^eia<^

Kai TvepiTTa
t(a)l>

t/;? a\rjdeia<^ prj/xara

'ypa(l)cou

kol hLopOcoadfievo'^

Tot? 0LK6L0C<;

TOTTOt?

e^ehoTO T0i9 y^piCTTLavol^

aBe\(f>ol<;.

In an instructive Scholium of Jacob uf Edessa,

which Nestle in
it is

ZDMG,

xxxii. p.

481

ff.

has communicated,

said (pp. 489 and 498): "Therefore as the holy martyr Lucian has taken pains about the text of the Sacred Scriptures, and in many places improved, or even changed particular expressions used by the preceding translators, as, e//., when he saw the word ^jns in the text, and the word Lord on tlie
'
'

margin, he connected the two and set them both together, he

transmitted them in the Testament which he left behind him,
so that

we

find

it

written therein in

many

passages

"

Thus

^ith '':nx the Lord," where we have given both the Hebrew word adonai in Greek letters, and then alongside of it also the word Lord [therefore ^AhcDvau KvpLos:]!' Compare what
is

further said below at

et

46.

niarn

Frdelam

" Sciatis

Jerome, Epist. 106, Ad Sunaliam esse editionem, quam

appellant, atque Vulgatam, et
;

Origenes et Ciesariensis Eusebius, omnesque Gra3ciie tractatores Koivrjv, id est

communem,

a plerisque nunc AovKt.avo<; dicitur

aliam

LXX.

interpretum.

qme

in

e^airXoh cudicibus

repei'itur, et

a nobis in

Latinum

132
sermonem

45.

PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

versa
est, et

fideliter

Jerosolymse atque Orientis

ecclesiis decantatur."

Here therefore the Recension of Luciau

:

as not belonging to the Hexajpla is connected with the Kotvrjv.

Further, he says in the Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum

"

Lucianus, vir disertissimus, Antiochense ecclesiee presbyter,

in

tantum

scripturarum

studio

elaboravit,

ut usque

nunc

qu^dam

exemplaria

Scripturarum

Lucian^e

nuncupentur."

His remarks in the Preface to the Four GosjmIs contrasts " Pr&etermitto eos codices quos a Luciano strikingly with this et Hesychio nuncupatur, paucorum hominum asserit perversa
:

contentio

quibus utique, nee in toto veteri instrumento post

Septuaginta interpretes
profuit emendasse
:

emendare quid licuit, nee iu novo quum multarum gentium linguis Scripof

tura ante translata doceat falsa esse quce addita sunt."

The information which we have about the Kecension

Hesychius
is

extremely scanty.

Besides the passages quoted

in the Prefaces of

Jerome

to the Chronicles,

and

to the

Four

Gospels, he mentions this recension in his

Iviii.

Commentary
te erit

in Isa.

11:" Quod

in Alexandrinis exemplaribus in principio

:

hujus capituli additum est

semper,' et in fine
'
:

et

adhuc

in

laus

mea

et ossa tua quasi

herba orientur, et pin-

guescent, et heriditate possidebunt in generationem et generationes

'

in

Hebraico non habitur, sed ne in

LXX. quidem
is

emendatis et veris exemplaribus."

inexact,

This remark, moreover,

are to

inasmuch as the words et ossa tua quasi hcrha orientur be found in the original text as well as in the LXX.
the course of

45. In

time not only did each of these

errors of transcription,
this,

several Eecensions

become corrupted by
follow

but the Septuagint text especially suffered by

manuscripts
rarely

that the

one

particular

Piccension,

but

attach themselves sometimes to this and sometimes to that

authority.

A
in

picture of this quite

imbounded confusion
of

is

presented

the great

collections

variations

which the

Oxford scholars, Robert Holmes and James Parsons, published

at the

end of

last

and the beginning

of

this century.

They

have, at least,

made

a survey of the whole material possible,

 45.

rUINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

the starting-point fur those

133
in future

and

so

have

al'lbrdetl

who

would make more thorougligoin^ attempts

this labyrinth

to find their

way

in

by means of grouping the various manuscript?.

In so

far

they have been of use, but at the same time, owing to

the errors of their collaborateurs, their untrustworthiness and

incompleteness have been brought to light by the continued

labours
of

textual

criticism.

In

the

following sketch

we

shall seek to present a picture of the progress that has been

made in the most recent times in this difficult undertaking. The great editions of the LXX. hitherto had been the four
following: The Complutensian IMble,
a.I).

IT*

14-1 51 7

( 24),

the Aldine edition, a.d. 1518, the

Roman

Sixtine edition, a.d.

1587, and E. Grabe's

edition,

a.d.

1707-1720.

For the

Septuagint text of the Complutensian Bible, the editors, as

more recent investigations have shown, used especially the

330 (in Holmes 108 in Lagarde d) and This text was repeated in the 346 (in Holmes 248). The Aldine Antwerp Tolyglot of A.D. 1569-1572 ( 24).
Codeo: Vaticanus
;

edition

was begun by Aldus Manutius, and was completed

after

and published with a preface

his

death in

a.d.

1515

by
it

his

father-in-law,

Andreas Asulanus.

What
V.. is

manuscripts

followed cannot

now be
work

certainly determined.
of

The Eoman
based upon
(B, in
;

Editio Sixtina, the

Pope Sixtus

the celebrated Codex Vaticanus Gra^cus

ii.),

1209

Holmes

the value of which

this

had then been discovered

departs
in

but from

it

Sixtine

edition

numerous

particulars.
in

Another celebrated manuscript, the Codex Alexandrinus (A,

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
editions.

now become
of

available through
all

more

reliable

At the head
edition

them

stands the beautiful English

facsimile

of the Codex Alexandrinus

which exactly serves in place of

quite so
reliable is

(18811883), Not the manuscript itself.

edition
of the

the great

Roman

Codex

134
Vatica7ucs

45.

PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

by Yerzellone and Cozza (18G8 1881).

by
Tischendorf (especially

To these

principal editions are attached a series of editions of particular

manuscripts
Cozza, &c,

Codex

Sinaiticiis),

very convenient sketch of the form of text in the Codex

Codex Alexandrinus
of
is

Vaticamts and
careful

given in
last

the

very
of

collations

E.

Nestle

in

the

editions

Tischendorf's

LXX., which

are based

upon the

Sixtine.

Also

in these collations the Codex Sinaiticiis has been compared,

while Tischendorf himself had made

discovered, and
script,

use of only the

of that

first

separately edited fragments

manuCodex

Frederico-Angustaniis, and

especially also the

EphrmwA.

very practical edition of the Septuagint with

various readings from various principal authorities has been

begun by the English scholar Swete.

critical

Finally,

some separate
and
be

editions,

by Fritzsche (Esther,
and
the
first

Ruth, Judges)
deserve
to

Lagarde

(Genesis

Psalms),

mentioned.

p.

The older literature Vet. Tcstam. 100 ff.

in

De

Wette-Schrader, Eiiileitung,
in 5 vols.

citm variis lectionibns, ed. B. Holmes,

continuavit J. Parsons, Oxf.

in his

17981827,
i.

Lagarde
the

Librorum

V. T. canon,
:

p. xv., characterises

work

in the following words

laboris sodalibus

"

Qui judicium neque in seligendis

religionem
in

neque

in disponenda scripturarum sibi tradi-

tarum

farragine

probaverunt,

reddendis

eis

quge acceperant

summam

pr?estiterunt."

Compare
vertaling

also the

opinions quoted by Hooykaas, Jets over

0. T. p. 6.

d. g.

van

liet

Sketches of the various manuscripts are given by Stroth

in

Eichhorn's Refcrtorinm,

v.

viii.

and

xi.

Tischendorf,
;

Prolegomena to his edition of the

Genesis grcece, p. 3
;

LXX.

xxiv.

Lagarde,

Cornill, Das Bitch dcs Projpheten Ezecliiel, ff. 13-24. pp. The Complutensian Bible. On the Greek text of this Polyglot compare Yercellone, Dissertazioni Accademiche di

45.

PRINCITAL MSS. OF THE SKI'THAGINT.

135
FurigesetzU

variu arr/umcnto, Ptome

18G4,

p.

407

fV.

\){i\'itzs{:h,

Studien zur Entstehungsrjeschichte der Comj}lutcnsiHchen Polyglotte,

188G (compare above, 24). l>esides tlie two named Codices Vaticani, 330 and 346, Delitzsch makes special mention of a
copy of a Venetian Codex, the original the Codex Marc. v. (Holmes G8).
of wliicli
lie

seeks in

The Aldine. Bihlia grcvce Venet. in cvdihus Aldi et Asulani, 1518. Compare Lagarde, Genesis grccce, p. G GGA, 1882, p. 450; Mittheihmgen, 57; DQlitzsch, For tgesetzte Studien
;

i'l.

zur Entstehungsgcschichte der Com2:)lutensischen Polyglotte, pp. 24, 25; Cornill, Ezechiel, pp. 24, 79; Schuurmans Stekhoven,

Der Ale rand rijnsche Vertaling, p. 50 ff. The Sixtine Edition and the Coder. Vatieanus.
ment, juxta

Vet. Testa-

LXX.

ex auctoritate Sb:ti V. editum,

:

Eome 1587.
Polyglot
exemplar.

Compare on
stMien,

the history of this edition

Xcstle, Septuaginta-

U-lni

188G.

After

it

(1)

the

London
sec.

1657
Vatic.

(2) Vet. Testament, ex vers.

LXX.

interpr.
;

Bom.
Fss.

ed. etc. ed.

Gr. jiLvta
L.

LXX.

Lamb. Bos, 1709 (3) Vet. Testament interpr. ex auct. SUti V. ed. 1587, recus.
;

1824, new edition 1887 (4) Tischendorfs editions Vercellone, Cozza, since 1850 (compare fnrther at p. 136). Melander, Bihliorum sacrorum graicus Codex Vatieanus, Rome
van

1868-1881.
Codex
manuscripto

Compare
Codice

also Tischendorf, Prolegomena, xix.

Alexandrinus.
Fred.

Septuaginta
ed.

interpr.

ex

antiquis.^.

Alexandrino,
Vetue

Grahe,

Oxford 1707-

Testamentum grccce, 1859; Facsimile of the Codex Alexandrinus Old Testament, London

1720;

Field,

1881-1883,

in 3 vols.

In 1846 Tischendorf published a part of the Codex Sinaiticns under the name: Codex

Other published Manuscripts.

Friderico-Augustanus

the rest of

it

appeared in 1862 as:

St. Petersburg (the Old Testament forming the 3rd and 4th of the four folio volumes). Afterwards Brugsch discovered some fragments of Leviticus xxii.-xxiii.,

Bihliorum Codex Sinaiticus,

and published them Neue Bruchstiicke dcs Cod. Sinaiticus, Leipsic 1875. Tischendorf, Codex Ei)hra:mi Syri resanptus Fragmenta Vet. Texfament, 1845 (passages from Job, sire Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and The Son<?). A series of fragments
:

136

45.

PRINCIPAL MSS. OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

of

them of very great importance, is published in Tischendorf's Monumenta sacra incdita, Nova Collectio i V. The following deserve specially to be named Codex Sarravianus (Holmes iv. v.), with passages from the Odatcucli (namely, the fragments preserved in Leyden and St. Petersburg; the Parisian fragments were published by Lagarde in the Ahhandlungcn d. Gott. Ges. d. Wissensch. 1879); Codex Marchalianus (or Claramontanus, now in Vatican, Holmes xii.) with
:

and manuscripts, some

portions from the Prophets

Psalterium Turicense

Psalmomm

fragm. pa-pyracea Londinensia ; the parts of the Codex Cottonianus saved from the fire (Holmes i., containing many fragments from Genesis). Psalterium Veovnense in Blanchinns,

Psalterium
p.

dujjlex,

Die Psalmen,

431

f.

1740. Compare further, Delitzsch, Codex Cryptoferratensis (fragments

;

from the Prophets), ed. Cozza, Eome 18671877 Pro2:)hetaTum Codex grcBcus Vaticanus, 2125 curante Cozzi-Lugi, Eome 1890. From Codex Chisianus P. vii. 45 (Holmes 88) have appeared Vincenti ide regibus, Jezeciel sec. LXX. ex. Tetrapl. Orig., by Coster, 1840, and Daniel in Cozza's edition of the Codex Cryptoferratensis, iii. 1877. This manuscript
:

alone

gives

the correct
contain

Septuagint

translation

of

Daniel,
of

while

the others

Theodotion's

translation

that

book (compare 43). Tischendorf published the text, after an earlier edition by Simon de Magistris, Eome 1772, as an appendix to his edition of the LXX. Abbot, Pars jpalinipsestoriim Puhlinensium (Isa. xxx. 2 xxxi. 7; xxxvi. 17xxxviii. 1), 1880. In the two last editions of Tischendorf's Veteris Testamenti grceci juxta LXX. interpretes (vi. 1880 and vii. 1887) Nestle's
collations

will
:

be

found.

They may
grceci

also

be

referred

to
et

separately

Veteris
et

testamenti

codices

Vaticanus

Alexandriniis

Sinaiticus

cum

textu recepto collati.

to his statement the Sixtine edition differs in

passages from the Codex Vaticanus.

According more than 4000 For Daniel he has com-

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.]

4G.

RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OK LXX.

a
larger edition
is

137
being pre-

Besides this manual edition

pared.

Fritzsche, Esther ^ d^qylicem libri tcxtum cmendavit, Zurich

1848

R^Uh

sec.

LXX. 1864

Lihcr judicum

sec.

LXX. 18G7.
Com-

Lagarde, Genesis Grcuce,

i<peci?nen,

1868; Novcc

psaltcrii Grcccicditionis

1887 (from
the
first

the Gott Ahhandlungen, 1887).

liis
:

j)are also

chapter of Genesis in
gricch.

AnkilndigiLng einer
T.

iicucn

Ausgahe dor

Uehcrsctzung

d.

A.

1882, pp.5-16.

46. The editions referred to in the preceding section have

made
])lace

us

acquainted with a number of manuscripts,

among
first

which are the most celebrated uncial manuscripts.

The
the

among

these
lonc'

unquestionably
as one

belongs

to

Codex

Vaticanus.
text of the
this

So

is satisfied

with establishinf^ the

LXX. by means
will
it,

of

some prominent manuscripts,

Codex

certainly maintain its undisputed supremacy,

and an edition based on

with the most important variations

noted down, will supply a convenient apparatus for

use.

common

But

in

this

way we do

not

reach

beyond a mere

])rovisional apparatus.

In recent times Lagarde has given a

specimen, in a laborious but necessarily too irregular way, of

tlie

advantage that
of

may

be gained even from an unmethodical

translation.

use

the Alexandrine

His

demand

is,

that

instead of following the uncial manuscripts which were not

domiciled in any ecclesiastical province,

we should

secure a

sure basis for further critical operations by restoring, as far as

that can be done, the three recensions of the

LXX.
in

signalised
this

by Jerome ( 43,

44).

We

are

therefore
it

way

brought to the question, as to

how

far

may

be possible to

authenticate and reproduce those recensions.

So

far

as

the Hexaplar Recension

is

is

concerned, the text

edited by Eusebius and Pamphilus

certainly in various manuscripts

to be found

more or

less

and fragments

of manuscripts,

which

in

part have

been published.

The rash conjecture

that has been hazarded by Cornill, that the celebrated Codex

138
Vaticanus

46.

KESTOKATIOX OF RECENSIONS OF LXX.

an extract prepared with great circumspection
date

is

and

at

a relatively very early

from the Hcxapla of

Origen preserved in Caesarea, has been withdrawn again by

this

scholar

himself.

On

the

other hand,

an aid for the

is

revision of the

Hcxapla that cannot be too highly valued

to

be found in the Syriac translation of the Kexajplar 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
of

37, are of use for the restoraFinally,

as

the

Hexccplar

Recension.

of

special

evidential value, there are the quotations of the fathers living

in Palestine

and the Palestinian

liturgies.

The merit

of havinc^ discovered the Lucian Recensioii belongs

to Frederick Field

and Paul

La^^arde.

It is to

be found in a

group of manuscripts of which the Codex Vaticanus 330, the

same

as

was used

in

the Complutensian

Bible,

is

one of

the most important. the Gothic attaches

Of the secondary
itself to
it.

translations, at least

The

biblical quotations of

Chrysostom and Theodoret, as well as several marginal notes

of the Syro-Hexaijlaris, furnish decisive proof of this.

The
this

edition of the Septuagint

begun by Lagarde reproduces

recension, unfortunately without

will only be

any

critical

apparatus.
us, that

It

when we have

it

completely before

we

shall be able to

answer the question about Lucian's relation to

the Hexajolar Recension and to the later Greek translations,

as
also

about

his

sometimes

affirmed,

sometimes

denied,

acquaintance with Hebrew.

The

difficulty in regard

to the

Eecension of Hesychius

is

incomparably greater, for we have not in fact been able to

authenticate
it

with any degree of certainty.

Most

scholars

point to the quotations in Cyril of Alexandria, which, however,

are

very

inexactly

made, and mostly from memory.

Lagarde, as indeed also before him the Danish bishop Fr.

; ,

4G.

RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OF
tliat
tlie

lA'X.

139
found in
others

Miinter, conjectured

]iecension migliL bo
(

some one of the Coptic translations

look for
it

40), wliile

in the P^thiopic

and Arabic version of the LXX.

p.

Compare Lagarde, Gesammdte Abhandluv[/ni,

Ankiindigung
einer naien

SO

fl*.

Au^gahe
i\\Q

d.

gricch

Uihersdzung

d.

A. T. 1882; and the prefaces to

TAhroriim Vet. Testament.

Lagarde's programme Canonicorum graxe ixirs prior, 1883. lias been acknowledged, among others by Wellhausen (Bleek, Einleitung, p. 573) and Corn ill {Ezecliicl, p. 63), while Compare others regard it as too finical and impracticable.
Theolog. Tijdschrift

1882,

p.

285

ff.

1888,

p.

HI

Swete,

Certainly this task The Old Testament in Greek, i. p. x. sq. hands and much time, but demands not only many and sure also that others should busy themselves with the needs of the present. Compare also Hooykaas, Jets over d. g. Vertaling Schuurmans Stekhoven, De Ale.vvan het 0. T. p. 8
fl".
;

andrijnsehc Vertaling, pp. 21-27.

1.

The Recension

of the

Hexajala.

Of

tlie

manuscripts

containing this form of text according to the

thesis

common hypo;

The Codex Marchalianus and the Chisianiis, R. vii, 45 (compare above, 45 here also see about the editions of the Codex Sarraviamos, of which, however, Lngarde, in Ahhandlungen d. G'Ott. Ges. d. IT. 1879, p. 3, remarks " Whether the text actually goes back to Origen
there are partially printed
: :

remains to be investigated
tliis

").

Further, there also belong to

Prophets,

group the Codex Barherinus (Holmes 86, containing the with the exception of Daniel), and the Codex
x.,

with pieces from the Octateuch), and some others of which Pitra speaks (Analecta sacra, iii. 552 ff.). Compare on these manuscripts generally. Field, i.
Coislinianus (Holmes
p.

C. sq.

ii.

428; Wellhausen-Bleek,

Einleitung, p.

Lagarde speaks of 15, 16 If., 19. in the possession of a private individual which almost
Ezecliicl,

CormW,

588 f a Codex
.

cer-

tainly produces
ii.

the

Pcccension

of

Palestine,

Mitthcilungen

56.

On

the difficulties which beset the restoration of the

ii.

Pcdestinian Recension, compare Lagarde, Mitthcilungen,

52,

55

f.

The conjecture

referred to of a relationship between

140
the

4G.

RESTORATION OF RECENSIONS OF LXX.

Codex

Vaticanns and the Hexaplar Recension had been

Ezechiel,

suggested by Cornill in his

April,

pp.

8095.
iii.

Eendal

Harris {John Hopkins' University Circulars,

29, 30, March-

1884) had
hypothesis

also been led to adopt a similar opinion.

meanwhile refuted by Hort in The Academy (1887, ii. 424), and was afterwards abandoned by Cornill himself (NGGW, 1888, pp. 194-196), since he was
This

was

convinced

of the
is

fact

that

in

B
of

the Hebraising of proper

names,
( 43),

which
is

characteristic
It

the

wanting.

should also

Hexapla Recension be remembered that in

text.

Jeremiah,

has

not the genuinely Jewish, but the Alexportions of the

Cornill

andrine arrangement of the

thinks now, with Hort, that

have been a copy of a manuscript largely and preferentially used by Origen for his
Septuagint text.

B may rather

p. 55.

Compare also Lagarde, Mittheilunyen The dependence on the Hexapla text spoken of

ii.

in

the Codex Sinaiticus in the subscription to the

is

Book

of Esther

referred

by Tischendorf {Novum testamentum

Recension.

sinaiticum,

xxxiii.) to later corrections.

Compare Field, Proleyomena, Ixxxiv. sqq. Bickell in the Zeitschrift fur katholischen Theologie, Cornill, 1879, p. 407f. Lagarde, Ankilndiyicng, p. 26 f Rzechiel, p. 65 f Eeckendorf, ZAW, 1887, pp. 63-66; Schuurmans Stekhoven, De Alexandrijnsche Vertaling, pp. 28-46. [Westcott, History of the Canon of the New Testament
2.

The Lucian
;

4th

ed.

1875,

p.

388.]

When

Field, Prolegomena, Ixxxviii.,

adduces as a criterion of the manuscripts belonging to this Recension the remark of Jacob of Edessa, quoted above in

which Lucian restored the ir^n'', he has to be reminded of this that ahwvat, Kvpio^ is found also in the Codex Alexandrinits, in Cyril of Alexandria, and in the

44, about the

way and form

in

Ethiopic translation (Cornill, Ezechiel, pp. 73, 76, 172 f. Konig in ZKWL, 1887, p. 288 f.). About the manuscripts
does not prevail. the

containing the Lucian Recension, moreover, absolute agreement

For the

historical books,

Field points to
Chisianus, R.
vi.

Codices Holmes, 19,

;

82, 93,

108

{i.e.,
iii.,

38

the

Parisian Codex Coislinianus,

i.

Arundelianus, or

Brit.

Mus.

d.

2,

Vaticanus

330).

To these Lagarde, who

4(3.

]:estokation of kkcensions of

i.xx.

141

them by tlie signs h, f, m, d, adds the Parisian Codex G (Holmes 118, Lagarde p), and some others. For the Prophets, Field names the Codices Holmes^ 22, 3G, 48, Of these, Cornill (and 51, 62, 90, 93, 144, 147, 233, 308. with him Lagarde, Mitthcilunrjen, ii. 52, agrees) strikes out the numbers (32, 90, 147, 233, while he adds 23 {Codex Venetus, i.). Schuurmans Stekhoven names for the Minor I'rophets, 22, 36, 42, 51, 62, 86, 95, 147, 153, 185, 238, Yet it may be remarked that (according to the 240, 231. Theolog. Litcraturzcitunfj, 1890, 5) in the Book of liutli Theodoret agrees with the Codices 54 and 75, which often diverge from Codex 108. Lagarde, Lihronim Veteris testamcnti canonicorum grccce pars j^rior, 1883. A critical apparatus is to be found only in the two texts of Esther. "We have now the prospect of seeing this long-interrupted work lesumed se^ Uthersicht ilber d. in Aram ilhliclie Nominal hildanrj, p. 180. On the quotations of Chrysostom, compare Lagarde, i. p. vii. sq. on those of the Emperor Julian, comdesignates
;
.

pare his Ankiindijunrj,

Recension,

p.

27.

On

Adrian's use of

iho,

Lucian
Leipsic

compare

Goessling,

Adrian's

etcraywYT;,

1887.

[Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the

New

Testament, Cambridge, 3rd ed. 1883, pp. 315-318.] 3. The Hesychian Recension. Fr. Miinter, Specimen ver-

sionum Daniclis coptiarum, Rome 1786, p. 20 f.: " Liceat tamen conjecturam exponere cui ipsa S. Hieronymi verba Alexandria et ^Egyptus Hesychium laudant auctorem, favere
videntur
in
:

recensionem
alterave

nimirum

sacri

codicis

Hesychianam
superesse."
xv.

versionum coptiarum Lagarde, Ankilndigung, 25, libr. v. test

una

nobis
i.

p.

Cornill

{Ezcchiel,

67

ff.),

finds a

family likeness between the Coptic,

Ethiopic, Arabic, Old Latin translations, and the Codex Alex-

andrinus.

With

this

manuscript

are

related

the

Codices

Holmes, 4.^, 68, 87, 90, 91, 228, 238, which often agree with the quotations of Cyril. In this group, which may be
said almost precisely to correspond with the Aldine edition,

Hesychius may therefore be looked for. Peckendorf, however, in Z.4 JF, 1887, p. 68, denies that there is any agreement between the Ethiopic translation and the Aldine edition. The

142

47.

QUOTATIONS IN FATHERS AND VERSIONS OF LXX.

Ethiopic translation, according to him, agrees rather with the

Codices Holmes, 129, 56.

Compare
60.

also

Schuurmans Stekespecially

hoven,

Be

Alexcmch'ijnsche Vertaling, pp.

ii.

47 5 6, and

Lagarde, Mittheilungen,
grajphy,yo\.
ill.

[Smith's Diet, of Christian Bio-

1882,

p.

8,

Article " Hesychius," byVenables.]

47.

The quotations

in the fathers

form important aids in

researches in the textual criticism of the

LXX.,

as has already
of

appeared from the

it is

last paragraphs.

Yet in the using

them

necessary to proceed with great caution, since they

First of
all,

may

easily lead to false conclusions.

in dealing with

them,

it

has to be remembered that the fathers very often quote

from memory, and that these quotations therefore are absolutely

when they lay special stress upon the form of the passage cited, or when it is certain that they have had But if occasional deviations from the the text before them.
demonstrative only

common
made

text

on the part of the fathers are not therefore

also,

always decisive, then

clear,

on the other hand, as Lagarde has

their

agreement with the

common

text

is

not

without further corroboration demonstrative, seeing that the

editions of their works,

which we now have, sometimes

in
all sorts of

rest

upon

later

revisions

which may have

ways

modified the original.

The
of

translations

made from the LXX.

The

into other languages,

to the

which some are very valuable, form another aid

first

textual study of the Septuagint.

place

among
Old

these

daughter
Bible,
if

versions
it
it

should

be

assigned

to
of

the

Latin

were not that the results

are
still

the investigations
contested.
It

regarding
is

so insecure
of

and

so

much

even yet quite a matter

Veins latina,
or

controversy whether

we can

speak of a

whether we have to do with

several independent Old Latin translations.

of the later fathers, like

The utterances
if

Jerome and Augustine, even

definite

they

had been

clearer

and more

than they

are,

could not
evidently

have settled the question, because those fathers

47.

QUOTATIONS

IN FATIIKRS

AND VERSIONS OF LXX.

143

gave expression only to their own opinions and

reflections,

and did not conimunicate any old

traditions.

In particular,

one well-known saying of Augustine with regard to the Itala

(De dodrina
to cast light

christiajia,

ii.

15), not only has not contributed

us,

upon the problem before

intricate question.

but rather has called

actual decision will
tin,'

forth a

new and

An

be reached only

when we have

a complete collection of all

Dible quotations of the Latin fathers, and a collection of the

hitherto

constantly-accumulating
regard
it

text

material.

But even

now we may

as an

undoubted result of the investitlie

gations that have been carried out, that

the case will not be

circumstances of
of a single trans-

met by the hypothesis

lation appearing before us

now

in

several modifications, but

that

we must assume
text.

several independent translations of the

Alexandrine

The widespread notion that even TertuUian was acquainted

with a Latin Bible of North African origin has been confuted
with convincing arguments by Tbeod. Zahn.
hand, such a
century.
translation

On
in

the other the

third

certainly
it

did

exist
in

Generally, indeed,

would be

the

provinces

that the need of a Latin Bible would be soonest and most

keenly

felt,

especially

among

the poorer classes of the people,

first

among whom
language,
is

Christianity at

mainly spread, and whose

"

lingua vulgata,rustica, sermo cottidianus, plebeius,"

tlie

that in which actually

Old Latin Bibles were written.

first

collection

of

Old Latin Bible texts was edited by

Sabatier.

In later times, Iianke and Ziegler, among others,

this department.

have done service in

On

the lUble quotations of the fathers, compare Cornill,

p.

Ezrcliiely

58
ii.

f.

Lagarde,
f.

Fsaltcrium

Jlieroni/mi,

viii,,

Mitthcilungcn,

53

From an

earlier period,
ii.

the colleciii.

tions of Stroth in Eichliorns Ixcpertormni,

vi.

74

ff.,

213

fl'.,

124

ff.,

xiii.

158

ff.

For the hypothesis uf a single Old Latin Bible translation.

144

47.

QUOTATIONS IN FATHERS AND VERSIONS OF LXX.

compare Wiseman, Essays on Various

i.
;

Eichborn,

Einhitung^,

i.

London 1853, 321; Wellhausen - Bleek,

Subjects,

Einleitung, p. 595.

On
:

the other hand, for the hypothesis

Ziegler,
;

of several translations

Die altlateinischen Biheluberii.

setzungen vor Hieron.

58 ff. Corbey [In Studia Biblica, 1st series, Oxf. 1885, in Paper on James and its relation to other Old Latin Versions," p. 23G, St. Sanday says " There were originally two main versions, two parent stocks from which all the texts that we now have were
Lagarde, Mittlieilungen,
"
:

1879

derived with different degrees of modification."]

The remarks
translations

of Augustine, Jerome, etc.,

on the Old Latin

and commented on by Ziegler, Die The passage quoted from Augusaltlat. BiheliXbersetz. p. 4 ff. " In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala tine runs as follows ceteris prseferatur, nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuir)Ut when tate sententite " {De dodrina Christiana, ii. 15). " Sed tamen, ut superius dixi, horuni further on he says quoque interpretum, qui verbis tenacius inhseserunt, collatio non est inutilis ad explanandum ssepe sententiam," it is
are quoted
: :

evident that the openly expressed doubts of the correctness of

the text in the former passage are not wholly unfounded, and
Bentley's and Corssen's (JFT, 1881,
ilia for Itala
p.

507

ff.)

emendations
of considera-

and

qicce

for

nam

are at least

worthy

tion.

See, however,

Zeigler,

Die
of

altlat. Bibelubersetz. p.

19

ff.

On

the

Bible

quotations

Tertullian,
i.

Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons,

p.

compare Zahn, But on 51 ff

the other side, Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ii. p. 59. On the dialectic peculiarities of the Old Latin translations,

Eonsch,

Itala

Bibelubersetz. p.

und 22 f.

Vidgata,
;

1869

Zeigler,

Die

altlat.

Cornill, Ezechiel, p.

25

f.

Sabatarii,

Bibliorum

sacrorum

latince

xersionis
is

antiquce

seu vetus Italica, 1751.

Zeigler,
p.

A
codice

list of

later editions to

given by

102
;

ff.

To these
e

are

be

added:
lat.

Ulysse
antiqua,

Robert, Pentateuchi
Paris

Lugdunensi

verslo

1881

Ziegler, Bruchstilcke einer vorhieronymianischen,

Uebersetzung d.
limpsestus

Pentateuchs,

Vindobonensis,

Belsheim, PaMunich 1883 Christiania 1885; Hsmke, Stutgar;

diana

versionis

sacrarum scripturariim

latino: antehieronymiance

48.

SYKIAC TUANSLATIOXS OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

Lagarde, Prohc
einer

145

fragmenta, 1888

ncuen Ausgahc dcr

latcinischoi Uehcrsdzangen d.

A.

T.,

1885.

48. After a portion of the Syrians had very wrongly begun

to

abandon

their old

independent Bible
into Syriac.

68) the

LXX. was

more than once translated

still

preserved of the rendering of

Some fragments arc Jacob of Edessa, a.d. 704

as also perhaps of the

705, which

sought to steer a middle course between the

;

Peshito and the Alexandrine version

translation
to

which

Bishop

Philoxenus had caused Polycarj)

at least a part of

make

in a.d. 508,

and which embraced

the

the Old Testament (after the Recension of Lucian).

But more
of

important than

all

rest

is

the

Syrian

reissue
(

the

Hcxapla text cited by Eusebius and Pamphilus

43), of
It

w^hich by good fortune not a little has been preserved.

was executed
Paul
of Telia,

in the years

017-618

in Alexandria
diacritical

by Bishop
marks of

and contained not only the

Ori^en but also fraijjments of the other Greek translations, as

marginal notes.

manuscript

still

extant in the sixteentli

century, wliicli contained a portion of the historical books,

was subsequently

lost.

On

the other hand, the Amhrosiaii

Codex, which Ceriani has

had reproduced by photo-lithography,

and
Prophets, with Baruch,

comprises the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song,

the

Book

of

Wisdom,

Sirach,

tlie

the Epistle of Jeremiah, and the additions to Daniel.

To

these have yet to be added fragments in Paris aud London,

which have been issued by various

editors.

On

the translation of Jacob of Edessa, compare

et

De

Sacy,
ft'.
;

Notices

extraits

de

Bickell, Conspectus rei

MSS. dc Syrorum
:

la

lihl.
ii.

nation,

liter,

iv. 648 The fragments

of

Isaiah to be found in British

Museum

(addit.

14,441) have
et

been edited by Ceriani in

1
ff.

Monumenta

sacra

|;?'o/(nia,

v.

Frasjments of
:

the translation of

Daniel

are to

be

found in

Bugatus, Daniel secundum editionem

ex Codice Syro-Edhrangelo,

LXX.

inter-

prctum desumpium

1788.

146

49.

OTHER SECONDARY TRANSLATIONS.

orient,
ii.

On
British

Philoxenus, compare Assemanni, Bill,

83

Bickell, Conspectus rei

Syrormn
17,106)

liter, p. 9.

fragment in the
p. xcii. sq.

Museum

{addit.

is

ascribed by Ceriani to this

Ilexajjla,
i.

translator.

Compare, however. Field,

Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iv. 1887, Scrivener {Plain p. 392, Article " Philoxenus," by Venables. Introduction, p. 328) says: " The characteristic feature of the
[Smith's

Philoxenian

is

its

excessive closeness to the original

it

is

probably the most servile version of Scripture ever made."] On the Syro-Hcxaplaris, compare Field, Hexapla, i. p. Ixvii.
sqq.

The

older editions are given

p.

in

De
of

Wette-Schrader,
the Milan Codex
et

EinUitung,

117.

Ceriani's

edition

forms the seventh volume of the Monumenta sacra

profana,

1874.

In the second volume of

the same

collection are to

be found frac^ments from the British Museum.

Further

Skat

Eordam, Lihri Judicuni ct Ruth sec. vers. Syro-Hexapl. Copenhagen 1859, 1861; Lagarde, Veteris tcstainenti ah Origene recensiti fragment a ap. Syros servata, v. (Ex. Num. Jos. 1 and 2 The best manuscripts, among them the Codex Kings) 1880. Amhrosiamis, have, under the influence of Jacob of Edessa, Compare, ZDMG, xxxii. jhjh for the older 2^W'^ = ^'^^^ ( '^^)In the year 1486 the Syro-Hcxaplar version Of this was translated into Arabic by Hareth ben Senan. translation there are two manuscripts in the Bodleian library.

507

f.,

736.

See Field, Hexapla,

49.

i.

p. Ixx. sq.

ZDMG,

xxxii. p.

468

f.

With
is

the old Latin and Syrian daughter versions of

the

LXX.

connected a series of other translations which are

of importance for the establishing of the various Eecensions.

The Gothic translation

of the Bible rests, as has

of

been already

said ( 46), on Lucian's revision

the text.

How

far the
is

same may be affirmed regarding the Slavic translation

yet established.

not

The Coptic

translation in the three dialects,

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

 40.

OTHER SECOXDAKY TRANSLATIONS.

of the

147
into the

interesting fragments of a translation

LXX.

Aramaic language spoken by the Christians

of ralcstine.

Von Gabelentz and

fragmenta,
Gothischcn

Luebe, Uljilas V.

ct

N.

T. vers, gothiav T.

18G3;

Ohrloff,

Blhdilhcrsctzung,
i.

Die Bruclistikke vom A. Halle 187(3 Lagarde,

; ;

der

Vcteria

Tcstam. lihri canon,

p.

xiv

Mitthcilnngcn,

ii.

52

f.;

NGGW,

1890,

p.

20

f.

On
in the
"

the

Slavic
Y>-

translation,

Einleitung,

121.

compare De Wette-Schrader, The edition (]\losco\v IG 6.*)) to be seen

:

Copenhagen University Library has the following title The Bible, i.e., the Books of the Old and the New Testament

translated into Slavic accordinfi: to the translation from

into Greek,

Hebrew

which was undertaken at the command of the

Egyptian king I'tolemy Philadelphus in the year 350 before the incarnation of our God and liedeemer," etc. The passages

compared by

my

colleague,

Brof Yerner, do not agree with the

Liccian Rccensioii but ratlier with the

Boman

edition.

The Coptic Bible fragments that have been discovered down

to

1880

are

given in Stern, Koptiscke Grammatik.

Besides
this,

1880,

pp. 4414-46.

see

among
l*s.

others,
;

Lagarde,

jEgyptiaea,

1883 (Wisdom,

Sirach,

stuckc der sahidisclicn Biheliibcrsetzung,

Lemme, Brueh1885 (Jos. xv. 7 xvii. 1).

cii.)

A. Ciasca Sacrornm hiUiorum fragmcnta copto-salddica musei

Borgiani,

Bome 1885-1889.
;

Compare
p.

also

Bickell, Zeii-

scJirift filr kathol. Thcologic,

1886,
ii.

558, with reference to the

question,

Book

of Job

and on the

general

Fritzsche

in

Herzog's Real-Encyclopa'die",

443

Dillniann, Te.efk/itisches

zum Buche

Jjoh (see above at 41).

translation,
i.

On
61
ff;

the Ethiopic Bible

Herzog's Beal-Fncglopa'dic\
3

compare Dillmann 203 if., and ZAW, 1887,

in
p.

Lagarde, Matcrialicn zur Kritih

i.
f.

und

Gcschichte d. Penta-

teuchs,

(according to which the Ethiopic Bible does

not rest exclusively upon the CorniU, Ezechif I

,

LXX.); Ankundiguiig,

p.

28:
i.-ii.

p.

37.

Dillmann, i>Wi'a V. T. yEthiop,

in

1853, 1861.

Of the Arabic

translations

the

Parisian
:

Polyglots are derived from the

LXX.

tlie

Poetical

and London Books

148

50.

CONCLUSION OF CRITICISM OF SEPTUAGINT TEXT.

(with the exception of Job) and the Prophets (Daniel as usual

being taken from Theodotion).

Compare Gesenius, Jcsaja, 98-106, and (on Micah) Eyssel ZAW, 1885, pp. 102-138.
to

According

Eyssel the translation

attaches itself to

the

Codex Alexandrinus, but with the use of the Peshito.

On
ii.

the Armenian translation, compare

p.

De
De

Wette-Schrader,
Wette-Schradei-,

Einleitung,

120
121

f.;

Fritzsche in Herzog's Rcal-Encylo2:)cedif",

443
444.

f.

On

the Georgian translation,

;

Einleitiing, p.
ii.

Fritzsche in Herzog's Rccd-Encylopcedic^,

The fragments
tenth

of the translation used

by the Palestinian

Christians have been edited by

and eleventh centuries

Land from manuscripts of the in London (Psalms) and St.

Petersburg (parts of Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Job, and Proverbs)

The Anecdota syriaca, iv. 1875, pp. 103 ff., 165 ff., 222 ff. Greek text which had served as its original was, as might be Where this community, expected, influenced by the Hexapla.
whose translation of the Gospels had been known even earlier, dwelt, whether in Jerusalem or on the other side of the
Jordan,
is

quite uncertain.

Its

members spoke the

Palestino-

Aramaic

dialect ( 59), but employed, at least in later times,

the Syriac alphabet.

[A good

general account of all these translations, especially

to the

with reference

New

Testament,

is

given in Scrivener,

Flain Introduction, 3rd ed. 1883, pp. 365-412; Lightfoot contributing the account of the Coptic versions].
50. After
of the

we have succeeded

in reproducing the Eecensions

LXX.,

so far as the aids at our disposal reach, with the

greatest possible purity ( 46), our next undertaking

to

must be

work back by means

In general what

of their help

and through the comEecensions will

parison of the non-revised witnesses for the text to the old

Koivrj.
is

common

to all the

be accepted as representing the original document.

differences are

Where

met

with, any fundamental divergence from the

Hebrew

Textus Eeceptus will have to be regarded as the original

later

LXX., because the

modifications of the Greek text were

51.

LATER CHEEK TRANSLATIONS.

bring
it

140

mainly intended
text.

to

into conformity with the Jewish

For

this construction of the

genuine

LXX.

the genuine
in tlie

quotations

of Philo,

and partly also those met with

New

Testament, will afford very considerable help.

Finally, in the pursuit of this study, in order that

we may
must be
isolated

not give an overdrawn representation of the

facts, it

remembered that
passages one
the

this plan

sketched by Lagarde concerns the

icholc

methodical treatment of the

LXX.

In

many

may

even now, by the careful employment of

means

at his disposal,

make use

of the Alexandrine trans-

lation in investigations into

text.
is

the history and criticism of the

In other passages, however, the corruption of the text

case
it

so great, that from the very nature of the

cannot

be used.

Compare Lagarde, Anmcrkungcn zur

sctzKiig dcr Frovcrhien, p. 3
;

gricchischcii
p.

Uehcr-

Ankundigung,

29

f.;

Lihroruvi

Vet.

15 f. On Philo, compare
Tcstam.
i.

C. F.

Hornemann, Specimen cxercitationum

interpretum
ex

criticarum

in

vers.

LXX.
;

Philone,

i.-iii.

Copenhagen, 1774-1 778

Text d.

Siegfried, Philo

LXX.

in the
ii.

ZWT,

1873,

p.

nnd der ubcriieferte and Lagarde, 217

f!".,

Mittheilungen,

52-54.

2.

Aquila, Theodoiion, Sgrnmaehns, Quinta, and Sexta.

51. The growing dissatisfaction of the Jews with the LXX.,

in view of the ever-increasing importance of the Greek-speak-

ing Jews,

made

new Greek

translation necessary ( 40).

Jn

two

different

ways

mediating

the one radical, the other conservatively

the

attempt was made to satisfy this demand.

Moreover, there had arisen, even before Origen, several other

Greek translations
proceeded
circles.

of the

Old Testament, of which one

set

from the Ebionite party, another from Christian

to all these translations

Common

was a

closer attach-

150
ment
to the

51.

LATER GREEK TRANSLATIONS.

text, as
tliat

Hebrew

was then received among

are indebted above all to

the Jews,
facts about

For the knowledge that we have of some general

these translations

we

Origen,

who adopted them

amplified

into his

great

Polyglot ( 43).

The Hexctpla and the

fragments of the

Tetrajpla

have indeed perished, but

have happily been

translations

saved in the form of marginal notes to the copies of the

Hexapla text (43-48), and in the commentaries of the Church Whether Lucian, whose text fathers, especially of Jerome.
often contains interpolations from the later Greek translations,

had used

this independently, or

whether his text had only

been wrought over by Origen, has not yet been thoroughly

investigated ( 46).

Morinus began

to collect the fragments

which

still

remain.

The work was continued by

is

others,

especially

by Montfaucon, and

now

provisionally concluded

by

Field's classical work, in

which not only the immediate

fragments have been gathered with unwearied industry, but,

above

all,

the statements of the Syro-Hcxaplaris have been

estimated in a

way

that

shows a thorough mastery

of

the

Greek language.
Montfaucon, Ilexa'plaroriim Origenes quce siipcrsunt iindtis partibus auctiora quam a Flaminio Nobilio et J. Dinisio edita
fnerint, Paris 1713.
Fr. Field,

Origenis

Hexcqolorum

quce

supcrsunt,

vols.,

Oxford

1875.

Valuable supplements are given by Pitra,

Analeda sacra sp)ecilegio Solesmensi parata, iii. 1883, pp. 555 Compare also Cornill, Ezechicl, p. 104 ff. 109. 578. The signs are 'A for Aquila, X for Symmachus, O for Compare Theodotion, E' for Quinta, and S' for Sexta.
further. Field, Prolegomena, cap. x.
It
is,

as Nestle has shown,

worthy

of attention that accord-

ing to the catalogue of the library of Constantine Barinus at

Constantinople (see Verdier,

Verdier,

La

Bihliotheque

d'Antoine

du

Lyons 1685, Sup2)Iement, p. 60), there are said to have been in that collection of books manuscripts with


S
o-J.

AQUILA.
the
I'salms and
hibl. tent,

')

Syininachus' tran.^laLion of
Scripture.

other

books of

Compare Hody, De

orvjin. p.

588.
in
is

52.

Tlie

most peculiar of these new translations, and

an extraordinarily interesting production,
In
thorougli touch with the

many

respects

that of Aquila.

movement, which from Palestine

new spiritual had spread out among the

of the text, but sought

Alexandrine Jews, he not only took as his basis the Palestinian

Canon and the Palestinian form

the

perfectly to reproduce

Hebrew

text,

and

to

make

the

Greek translation

as suitable for the

basis

of a discussion as

the original, for he reproduced and imitated the original text

down
which

to

the most minute details.

In this

way

the Greek

idiom was indeed boldly violated, and there arose a dialect

to a

Greek must have seemed more outrageous than the

Jewish- Gxeek jargon into which the

LXX. had been

translated.

Thus the

sign of the accusative

Se, "^bsp

n locale by the enclitic

nx was represented by aw, by tw Xeyeiv, and tlie Hebrew

QVy oareov), Ovpeovv for p3

system of roots by etymological creations like oariovv, and

ocTTeivo^ for
DSfV

and

C^vy (from

(from

i^p

Ovpeov), etc.

But on the other hand, Aquila

Jerome
the
styles

eruditissiDuis linguce grcccce, as

him

displays

such

skill

in

his

handling

of

Greek language,

such

fidelity

in

dealing

with

unusual and poetical expressions,

often selecting one of similar sound with the

Hebrew word,
the

that those barbarisms are not by any

indications
of

means

to be regarded as

linguistic deficiencies, but

it

only as

conto

sequence of adopting a principle whicli

carry out.

was impossible

This can be satisfactorily explained only by a

consideration of the particular period in wliicli Aquila lived.

It is quite certain that

he was an old

man when
first

the treatise

of Irenteus, Adv. Hccrcs.y

A.D.

was composed, between

a.d.

175 and
But even

189, where he

is

mentioned for the

about him
is

time.

what the ancients

confidence.

tell

in part deserving of full

Even should

the statement of Irenieus, that he

152
was a proselyte
"

52.

AQUILA.

from Pontus

"

have

to

be given up, as

arisiDg from a confusion witli Acts xviii. 2,

and should
all

also

the stories of Epiphanius about him be set aside,

the more

valuable will be the report of Jerome that Aquila was a

scholar of the celebrated K.

Akiba about the year 100.

With
59a)

this agrees the statement in the jer.

Talmud (Kidd,

i.

fol.

about a proselyte
passage
jer.

D^^pv,

scholar of K. Akiba, while the

of the

Meg.

fol.

7lc,

which makes him a scholar

same

contemporary teachers E. Eliezer and E. Joshua, describes

him
and

at least as

living during that

time.

Now

it

was

K. Akiba who, in so pre-eminent a degree, impressed his mental

spiritual character

on the Judaism

of his

day, in this

respect as well as in others, that he introduced in his exposition of Scripture a

laid special weight

method that
on
all sorts

dealt with minutiae,

which

of

small details, such as the

as those

particles DJ,

T\^, etc.,

and therefore just such minutise

w4iich Aquila in his translation wished to fix attention upon

by that unrelenting treatment

this

of the

Greek language.

In

way
of

is

explained the preference with which this transla-

tion

Aquila,

which

probably

enjoyed

fall

Palestinian
It
is

authorisation,

was used

for a long time

i.

by the Jews.

had
the

shown, as

is

said in jer. Meg.

fol.

7 la, that Greek

one language into which the

plete

Law

can be rendered in a comit

manner (no doubt only by subjecting

the ancestor of the Greeks,
(iDi'''p

to

a very

peculiar treatment), and with allusion to the

to Japhet,
it

name
told
to

ob'py

and

is

that one

praised Aquila

from

koKcos:),
:

and applied
(Thou

him the
thou

language of the 45th Psalm

art

n''D^S^

art fair, or

become a Japhet) before the children

of

men.
is

How
of

widely his translation had spread among the Jews

to

witnessed

by Origen

as well as

by Jerome and even by No. 146

That
it

the Novellae of Justinian.

against Christianity

was directed polemically

might evidently be expected from the

is

very nature of things, and

proved from several particulars,

52.

AQUILA.

^3

e.g.

from Isaiah

vii.

14, where

it

has veavi^ instead of the

irapdevo<^ of the

LXX., and from

;j^pto-To?.

its

endeavour
"With what

to render n^-j'D

by another term than

diligence
lie

he

wrought appears from the story

of

Jerome that

produced
speci-

a second improved edition of his translation.

Of the

mens

of his translation given in the

Talmud some

at least

agree precisely with the Greek fragments.

Dc Onhclo Chaldaico, qnciii fcrunt Field, Hcxapla, Pentcdcuclii ^^rn-rr^^/iras^e, Leipsic 1843 Geiger, Wellhausen-Bleek, Einlcitui^g, p. 580 f p. xvi. ir.
Compare
;

E.

Anger,

i.

Nachgelasscne
jiid.

Schriftcn,
ii.

iv.

83

Schiirer,

Geschichte

dcs

704 ff., Eng. trans. Div. ii. vol. iii. 1G8; CorniW, Uzcchiel, IX 104 ff.; Piyssel, Untcrsnchungen iihcr die
Volkcs,

Textgcstalt des Buchcs Micha,

Iremeus, Adv.

Hcr.res.

iii.

1877, p. 186. 24 (Eusebius,

vvv

Hist.

Ecclcst. v. 8.

10):
TTjv

ov')(^

&)?

evLoi cpaac
t)

tojv

fieOepjjLTjvevetv

roXficovrcov

ypacp/jv ISou

veavL<; iv

yaarpl

e^ei

koI rt^tjau viov, w?

0oBoTL(i)V
a/i(l)6T6poL

7]pfjL7]Vvau

6 'E(f)6aio<;

Kol ^AKvXa<; 6 IIovtlko<;,

'lovSaioL
e'f

'7rpocr7]\vTOL,

oU

KaTaKoXov6i]cravT<;

oi

'E/3iovaiOL

'Iwarjcj)

avrov yeyeveadac (pdaKovai.

Jerome

"Scribe et Pharisa^i, quorum scholam suscepit Acibas, quem magistrum Aquil?e proselyti autumant." Further, Epistle 57, Ad. Pcunm. ; Epiphanius, X^c mens, ct 2Jond. c. 1317. On the hermeneutical methods of R. Akiba, see Bcrcsldth
on Isaiah
viii,

14:

146, according to the latter of which passages one of the scholars of Akiba was instructed by
r.

andyer. Berachoth,

9,

fol.

his master in

the meaning of the words

Geschichte
i.

ns,

n:,
ii.

"JS,

and

p"i.

Compare
Origen,

Schiirer,
ii.

des jiid.

Volkcs,

311, Eng.

trans. Uiv.

vol.

376.
(i.

Ad

Africanum

14,

De

la

Rue): 'AKv\a<;
rijv

<f)L\oTL/jL6T6pov
Tf]v ypa(f)^u' (o

TTeTTto-Teu/ieVo?

TTapcL

^IovBaioL<;

i)pixip>evKevaL

ixaXidTa elcodaaiv oi aypoovuT<;

cd<;

E^paLcov
In

BcaXeKTov y^prjadai

ttuptcov /laXXov
it is

iTTiTerexr/fievai.

No. 146

of the Novdlcc

said of the public reading of the

:

Scriptures in the Jewish synagogues

"

At vero

ii,

qui gneca

lingua legunt,

LXX.

interpretum

utentur translationi, qucT

154

53.

THEODOTIOX.

omnium accuratissima et ceteris prrestantior judicata est Verum ne illos a reliquis interpretationibus secludere videamur,
.
.

licentiam concedimus etiam Aquil?e versione utendi, et

si ille

extraneus

sit,

et in lectionibus

quibusdam

inter

ipsam

et

LXX.

interpretes

non modica sit dissonantia." Justin Martyr (ed. Otto ii. 240) betrays indeed
indirect
vii.

at least
of

an

acquaintance

with

Aquila's

translation

Isaiah

14.

On

the relation of Aquila to the Books of Ecclesiastes and

in the

The Song

LXX., compare above,

41.

In reference

to
f.),

this question the statement of Cornill {EzecJdel, pp. 64,

104

about an Oxford Codex for Ezekiel (Holmes 62), which has in the highest degree been influenced by Aquila, is of importance.

worthy of note that the Syrian translation has the sign of the accusative rT" only in these two books (elsewhere only in Gen. i. 1 and 1 Chron. iv. 41). [See article on " Aquila " by Professor Dickson in Smitlts
It is also

Dictio7iary of Christian Biography, vol.

also Article
vol.
iii.

"Versions" in

1877, pp. 150, 151 Dictionary of the BiUe, 1863,

i.
;

1622.]
supposed, was younger

53.

If

Theodotion, as

is

usually

than Aquila, the appearing

all

of his translation

shows that not

Greek-speaking Jews agreed with the bold hermeneutical

principles of Aquila, and that

to

many were
is

unwilling wholly

abandon the LXX. with which they had been so long

familiar.

The work

of Theodotion

indeed to be regarded
it

as a sort of also

comprehensive revision of the LXX., to which

itself

attaches
to

by

this, that

it

retains the apocryphal

to

additions

Daniel
of
his

and the

postscript

Job.

It

is

characteristic

method

that

not

rarely

Theodotion

receives into his translation the

Hebrew word unchanged.

w^e are

Eegarding his personal circumstances,

out information.
tion
of

wholly with-

He

is,

like Aquila, older

than the composiIrenseus

the

treatise

of

Irenaeus,

Adv.

Hcereseos.

himself calls him a proselyte from Ephesus.

This, however,

53. THEODOTIOX.

155
by Jerome, who
to

is

not

in

apjreement
describes

witli

wliat
in

is

said

repeatedly

him,

contrast
tliis

Aquila,
father

as

an

Ebionite

but in other passages

Church

names
of

liim a Jew,
others.

and mentions

his

Ebionism only as the opinion

Origen made use of him, as has been already

to his

said,

as a

companion

Septuagint column.

Among

the

Jews

indeed he seems to liave played no important part, which

probably

is

to

be accounted for by his mediating method.

All the greater, on the other hand, was his success

among

the

who used him greatly LXX., partly also in room of that made use of his translation of
Christians,

for

the emendation of the

translation.

Even

Irenieus

Daniel,

which

afterwards
of

completely supplanted
prophet.

the Alexandrine

translation
of

that

The possibly even

by Origen
still

older custom

interpolating

the LXX.. with passages

systematically

from Theodotion, was carried out

(see, e.g.

Jer.

xxxiii.

14-26), and
it

thereby contributed

more

to the

mixing up of

with the

Alexandrine translation.

Compare
lies jild.

Field, Prolegomena,
ii.

cap. iv.

Schiirer,
ii.

Geschichte
iii.

Volkes,

708

ff

Eng.

trans. Div.

vol.

172

liyssel, Tcxtgestalt des Biiches Michc(, p.

187.

Irenreus, Adv. Hccres. 52; Jerome on Habakkuk iii. 11-13: "Theodotion autem vere quasi pauper et Ebionita sed et Symmachus ejusdem dogmatis pauperem sensum secuti

Judaice transtulerunt."
of Job.

So, too, in the Preface to the version

On

the other hand, Epistola ad

;

Avgudinvm 112

comment, in Daniel: " Illud quoque lectorem admoneo, Danielem non juxta LXX. interpretes sed juxta Theodotionem ecclesias legere, qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit, licet eum quidam
hominis Juda:i atque hlasphemi
Praef.

The qui altero genere Juda?us est." method pursued by the author is very well mediating characterised by Jerome in his Comment, on John ii. 2. According to Epiphanius he lived under Commodus, a.d. 180-192, btit this author's stories about him (De mcnsuris ct
dicant

Ebionitam,

156
;ponder%bus,

54.

SYMMACHUS.

17-18), like those about the other translators, are quite worthless. The words quoted from Iren?eus about the importance of his translation among the Ebionites rather show that it must have been written some considerable time
previously.

Schurer
If,

is

therefore inclined to
is

make him
of

older

than Aquila.

however, he

led to the adoption of this

theory by the idea that a work like

that

Theodotion's

would have been superfluous

ance, this
is

after Aquila's

had won accept-

not decisive, since

conceive of the origin

in the above section.

we can without difficulty of his translation in the way described That Irengeus names him before Aquila
this, that

may

simply have

its

ground in

his translation lay

nearer Irenseus than that of Aquila, as indeed he actually

made use

of Theodotion's translation of Daniel ( 43).

The
himis

coincidences in the Apocalypse of

John

are, as Schiirer

self remarks, not sufficiently convincing to warrant us in

building anything upon them.

Of

greater importance

the

reminiscence in the Shepherd of

Theodotion's

Hermes
vi.

{Vis.

iv.

2. 4), of

rendering of Daniel

Liter aturzeitung,
xxviii.

1885, 146, 267).

or

384.

Whether Theodotion

23 (compare Theolog. But see also ZWT, Aquila was the elder
8,

can finally be decided only by a thoroughgoing examination of

their translations.

On

Theodotion on Isaiah xxv.

where

some think they find traces of a Christian mode of thought, compare Field on the passage, and Kautzsch, De vet. Testam. [See a particularly locis ci Paulo apost. allcgatis, 1869, p. 104. " Theodotion," by Dr. Gwynn of good and adequate Article, Dublin, in Smith's Diet, of Chr. Biograjjhy, vol. iv. 1887, pp. 970-979. On the apparent use of Theodotion's Daniel in the Shepherd of Hermes, see Hort in the Johns Hopkins' University Circulars, iv. 23, and in opposition to the attempt
to bring

the second century, see, besides

Hermes down from the beginning to the middle of Gwynn, Salmon, Introd, to the

Neio Testament, 1885, pp. 654-658.]

54.
later

Symmachus,

of

whom

Irenseus does not

speak,

was

than Aquila and Theodotion.

According to a story of
to

Eusebius, he was an Ebionite,

who seems

have made his

 54.

SYMxMACHUS.

157
also to liave

translation not long before Origen,

and

composed

other

works whose

contents
also calls
to

were

of

Jewish -Christian

character.

Jerome

him an
a

Ebionite.

Xow

if

it is

thoiiMit remarkal)le

find

IMble translation

among

tlie

Ebionite Jewish Christians, the astonishment increases when,

on a closer inspection of his translation, we find ourselves

alongside
of

one who with

equal mastery deals with the

Together with Hebrew and with the Creek languages. Jerome, who has made great use of him, he stands among ancient translators nearest to tlie modern ideal of what a
translator
locutions,

should

be.

Only

in

his

paraphrastic

circum-

which we meet with here and there

According

in the case of

bold or dogmatically offensive passages, does he show himself

a genuine
xxxii. :]0

child of his age.

to

Jerome on

Jer.

and Nah.

iii.

1,

he also published a second revised

edition of his translation.

Compare

Field, Prolegomena, cap.

iii.

AVellhausen-Bleek,
p.

Einleiiuiuj^,^.

582

ff

QoxmW,
vi.

Ezeehiel,

108
fiijv

f.

liyssel,

Text[/est alt des Bitches Micha, p. 187.

Eusebius, Hist. Ecclest.

avT(x)P
.
.

17

rchv

ye

epfnjvevrcou

8rj

tovt(jov lareov ^E^Kjovolov top ^Vfifjua-^ov yeyovevat,

Kal v7ro/jLin]fiaTa Be rov ^vfifjud'^ov elcrerc vvv (^eperai, ev

ol? BoKel, 7rpo<;

Trjv

to Kara

MarOalov
Kparvveiv.
ypa(^a<^
tu>o<;

aiTOTeLvo^evo<s

euayyeXiov,
o
Slpiyevr}<;,

hehTjKw [Jbivrjv aipeaiv

ravra Be

fiera

Kal

aXkwv eU ra?
irapa ^Iov\iavrj<^

epfMrjveicov

rov ^vfi/iaxov,
Kai
(j^riat
i.

arjfjLaivei

eL\rj(f)Ci>ai, rjv

Trap

5.'.).

avTov

^v/jLfjid'^ov

ra? /S/^Xou? hiahe^acrai.

Jerome,

Whether the
determined.
ii.

story of Epiphanius, that he

had been originally

a Samaritan, rests on

any

historical grounds, can scarcely be

But Lagarde writes very

strikingly {Mittheilungen,

51): "In connection with this it should not be forgotten that if Symmachus was a Samaritan, then at least Symmachus
does not unconditionally witness for the text of the Jews of

he would have had On very no text of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. weak grounds, Geiger {Jild. Zcitschrift, 1862, pp. 62-04
his time."

Certainly as " a Samaritan

"

158

55.

QUINTA AND SEXTA.

Nachgelasscne Schriften, p.

88
f.

ff.),

sought to attach him to

is

Judaism.
Nestle,

Syrian story about him

p.

communicated by
i.

TSK, 1879,
6

733

Examples

of the free paraphrases: Gen.

6eo<;

27:

iv elKovi

Zia^opa^ opdiov

etcTiaev

avrov (which, according to

xviii.

Lagarde, Psalterium juxta Hehrceos Hieronymi, 165, implies

the reading of th^y\ vhi'i instead of ih^i l^^va); Gen.
6 iTCLvra avOpoiTTOV airairoiv ScKaiOTrpayelv, dKpLT(o<;

25

fjur]

nToirjarj'^
:

TovTo

Ps.

xliv.

24:

Ivarc

co?

virvcov

el;

Eicht, 9, 13

rrjv

ev^poavpTjv roiv dvdpooTrcov.

55. Of the two

anonymous Greek

translations, the Quintet

and the

Sexta,

which Origen,

as Eusebius says,

drew out

of

some obscure corner and received into the Hexapla, the

at least, according to the

latter

express declaration of Jerome (in

origin.

Habakk.

iii.

13),

was of Christian

Field's investiga-

tions have reached

the result that

they embraced a larger

number

of the

Old Testament books than was previously sup-

posed to be the case, but otherwise we

know nothing
ii.

precisely
also of a

about them.

Eusebius, and after

him Jerome, spoke

"seventh translation," and Jerome, on Habakk.

of

11, speaks

duas alias

editiones, besides the Qiointa.

1.

But with the ex-

ception of perhaps Ps.

3 (Septima, KaraoyLaOr)), no trace of

this translation has ever been

o

found elsewhere.

Whether the
which often

'Eppam

cited

sometimes by the Church

fathers,

renders the text pretty freely, was a translation in the proper

sense, cannot

now be

definitely determined.

Compare

Field, Prolegomena, cap. v.

vi.

Eusebius, Hist. Ecclest.

KaTr}/jLa^V/Jb6va<;

ep/jbTjveLa^;

16: Kal Tiva<i erepag irapa ra? evaWaTTOvaa^, Tr)v 'AkvXou /cat

^v/jLfidyov Kal eoBoTicovo^, e(^evpelv, a? oxjk

6W

oSev

e/c

tlvcov

fiv^MV TOP
'Trpor)ya'yev'

nraXai \avddvovcra<; ')(povov et?

i(p'

</)co?

dvi')(yeo(Ta<i

o)v

hid

dSrjXoTTjTa

tIvo<^

dp
Trjv

elev fxev

ouk

etSco?,
Trj

avTO TOVTO fiovov

irpo^;
liTjv

eTrearjfjLtjvaTO, co?

dpa
eTepcp

evpoi iv

^AktIco

N ncoTroXet,
twv

Trjv

he

ev

Toirw Toiwhe' ev

ye

TOt? e^a7r\oL<i

'\jrd\/jLCt)v,

fxeTa Td<; eVto-rJ/ioi'? Teaaapa<i

OG.

JEUOM?:.

159
kuI
'

e/cSocr6i9,

ov

jiovov

rrrefiTrrTji/,

aWa

tKrrjv

Koi
iv

t/SSo/iT/i/

irapadel's ep/irjveiav, eirl fiLU'^ avdi's aeaij/ieiMTaL, o)^

eupijfjLevTj^

Jcpi^ol

Kara tov<^ "^porov^ Avtojvlvov tov viov According to this then the Quinla was ^efii'jpov [211-217]. found at Nicopolis, on the west coast of Greece, and either the The passages from Jerome Sexta or the Septima at Jericho. According to his are given by Field, Prolcgonuna, xliii. commentary on Titus iii. 9, tlie Quinta, Scxta, and Sejjtima were mainly composed of the poetical books (versii compositi).
iv
iriOcp

Jerome on Hab. iii, 13: "Sexta editio, prodens manifestisegressus es, ut sime sacramentum, ita vertit ex Hehnx^o quod salvares populum tuum per Jesum Christum tuum Graece dicitur i^ijXde^ tov acoaat, top \acv aov Bed leaovv The same on Hab. ii. 11 " Eeperi, exrov XpLo-Tov aov." ceptis quinque editionibus, id est, Aquilce, Symmachi, Septua: : :

ginta, Theodotionis et Quinta, in XII. prophetis et duas editiones, in

lapis enim.

alias
:

quarum una scriptum

est

quia

lapis, in

altera

On

6 'ElBpalo^,

compare Field, Prolegomena, Ixxv.

sq.

3.

Jerome and

the Vulgate,

56.

Of the translations which were intended

to

take the

place of the
ficance as

LXX., no one has obtained such historical signiIn the Greek Church indeed the that of Jerome.
its place,

Alexandrine translation maintained

and among the

that they

Jews circumstances gradually took such

a turn

generally needed no Greek translation of the Old Testament.

On

the other hand, the Western Church

it

owed

it

to

Jerome

that

learnt to

upon the whole,

it(4V).
Jerome, born

know the Old Testament in a furm which, was much purer and clearer than the Septua-

gint or the Latin Bible translations that were dependent upon

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
work which he ventured
in

56.

JEROME.

to undertake.

And

even although

the astonishment of his contemporaries which found expression the

declaration of Augustine,
scivit,

Quod Hicronymiis

ncscivit,

nemo mortalium unquam

his
it

may

be justifiable only

when

knowledge

is

compared with that

of his fellow- Christians,

must yet be acknowledged that he spared no pains

to

make
it

himself familiar with the

Hebrew

language, difficult as

was

by reason
parvis

of the helantia stridentiacpce verha,

life

and with the

JYoii

conditions of

presupposed in the Old Testament.

nummis paid he for his instruction under various Jewish teachers, who sometimes, for fear of their countrymen, came to him secretly by night, "like Nicodemus," among
them Baranina, he whom the
a^es
bitter Rufinus, as a

reward

for

the stores of Bible knowledge which the Church through long

would have

to

thank

him

for,

nicknamed by the
In addition to this

opprobrious designation of " Barabbas."

Jerome diligently used the works

slators,

of

the later Greek tran(

especially

that

of

Symmachus

54).

That the
particulars

result of his endeavours

was nevertheless

in

many
of

imperfect,
in

is

so natural a consequence of the circumstances

which he was placed, that the reproach

method, which
justifiable
e.g.

defective
is

scientific

Clericus brought against him,

no more

than the Catholic attempts to elevate him

into an infallible translator.

of

Compared with the attainments

service

those
;

around

him, his

marks an extraordinary

advance

while, on the other hand, his mastery of the Latin

tongue, obtained by means of continuous study of the classics,

the grave tone of that speech moreover suiting his purpose

well, qualified

him

for his work.

Compare Morinus,

Excrcitationcs

hihliccc, p.

156;

Clericus,

1700; L. Engelstoft, Hieronymus Zockler, Hieronymus, Strid. interpres, etc., Copenhagen 1797 342 ff., 465 f. DeWettesein Leben und Wirken, 1865, pp. Nowack, Die Bedeutung des Schrader, Einleitung, p. 136 ff.
Qumstiones Rieronymiance,
;

 57.

REVISIONS OF OLD TKANSLATIONS AND THE NEW.

die Alttcstawxntl.

lUeronymus

fiir

Tc.dkritik,

187'~>, p. 5

fl".

Kyssel, Tcxtgcdalt des Baches Micha, p.

189

fl*.

On
mus,
i.

the iiiHuence of the Jewish exegesis on Jerome, see

Rahnier, Die hcbrdischen Traditionen in den Werken Hierony-

1861, and

MGWJ,

18G5, 1867, 1868;

Siegfried,

JPT,
57.

ix.

346

ff.

Jerome
widely

at

the beginning intended only by criticism

of the text to establish

and correct the Vetus

but

latina, whicli

was

circulated,

had

then

assumed
call

many
a.d.

divergent

forms.

After he

had, at the

of

Damasus,
and
This

revised the

New

Testament Scriptures, he improved in

licet ctcrsim,

383

at

Rome

the translation of the Psalms

with constant reference to the old

Recension
that
it

customary form.

Damasus introduced into the Roman liturgy, so obtained the name of Psallerium Romanum. It was

in use in

Rome down

to the sixteenth
St. Peter.

century, and
in
is

is

still

used in the Church of

the chapel of the Doge
to this

It

was used
1808, and
Milan.

Venice in

down

to a.d.

employed

day in the Ambrosian

ritual in

Some time

after this

Jerome
and

left

Rome,

in order to prosecute his studies

in the East,

to

live in the practice of religious exercises.

While staying
of Origen,

in Ca?sarea he

came

to

know

of the

Hcxapht

and thereby became acquainted with one form of

the text of the Septuagint, which he subsequently gave the

preference to before all others.
revision, he

Dissatisfied with his earlier

began a new rendering of the Psalms according

to the

Hexaplar Recension, which obtained currency in Gaul,

and hence bears the name of the Psalterium GaUicanum. This

Psaltcriiun

was

at

later

date

adopted into the

is

Roman

Breviary and into the Vulgate, and

translation of the

therefore the authorised

Psalms

for

Catholics.

Other Old Testa-

ment
text
;

writings also he wrought over according to the Hexa'plar

but, with the exception of the

Book

of Job, this

work

has

all

been

lost.

Undoubtedly the

fact that

Jerome himself,

162

57.

REVISIONS OF OLD TRANSLATIONS AND THE NEW.

while carrying on this work, became pledged to a far bolder

undertaking,
contributed
to
this
result.

By means

of his

laboriously acquired knowledge of Hebrew, he wished as the

lirst

anion" the westerns to translate the Old Testament from

the
text

Hebrew
of

text.

And

even

if

his designating the

Hebrew
the

his

time (which was essentially the same as

" the

Massoretic text of the present day),

absolutely
correct,

Hebrew
so

truth" be not

yet

this

text

stood

high above the

Alexandrine Bible that the new undertaking marked an important step in advance, while
attacks on the part
of
his
it

exposed him to

many

bitter

unscientific

contemporaries.

He

himself with his victorious logic pointed out to his opponents

that the Church had a long time before without scruple exchansfed the Alexandrine translation of Daniel for that of

Theodotion, although the inspiration of the Seventy had been

a universally admitted

dogma

38).
this

On

the other hand,

noticeable
all

the

powerful

opposition

which

man, with

elements of weakness in his character, met with from

sides,

succeeded in inducing him to accommodate himself

it

generally, wherever

was

at

all

possible to do

so,

to

the

customary translation.

He

seems to have begun the great

First of all
;

and bold work in the year 390.

and the Psalms; and

he translated

the easiest books, Samuel and Kings

phets,

then Job, the Pioyears

finally, in the

393405,
contem-

the rest of the canonical

poraries ( 18), of the

books, and

to

please his

Apocrypha: Tobit, Judith, and the

additions

to

Jeremiah, Daniel, and Esther.

An

epistolary

correspondence with Augustine,

preference
for

who

in spite of his expressed

the

old

translation,

did

not

wish,

without

further examination, to pass

judgment on the undertaking of

for

Jerome, gave him an opportunity

(Epist.

vindicating his

work

112,

Ad

Augustinum).

The vain man experienced a

great triumph

when

separate portions of his translation were

rendered into Greek by Sophronius, a remarkable reversal of

 58.

THE VULGATE.
relation

163
the

the

liitlierto

prevailing

between

Greeks and

Latins.

van Ess, rragmatisch-kritische Gesddchle der Vuhjatd, Tub. 1824; Kaulen, Gcschichtc dcr Vidf/a (a, Mainz 1868;
Fritzsche in Ilerzog's Rcal-Encydopccdic',

On

the
,

use
\k

of
t'.,

the

Fsalterium

445459. Romaimm, see Scholz,

viii.

Eiideitwinj

486

and ThcoL Litteraturhlait, 1874, No. 19.

In the tenth volume of Vallarsi's Opera Hicronyrai are to be found the Pscdtcrium Romamtm, Psaltcrium GaUicanum, and
the translation of the
text.

Book

of

Job according

to the

Ilcxaplar

Lagarde has published a translation of Job based upon manuscript in Tours and a Codex Bodkianus (2420);
ii.

.}fittheihc7ige7i,

193-237.

Caspari

is

preparing to edit a

third manuscript.

58. After the older Latin translation and that of Jerome had
for a

long-time been used alongside of one another, according

to the choice of the

Churches or

tlieir

founder, the translation

of

Jerome came
thirteenth

into general use

by the seventh century.

to
call
it
e.(/.

In
the

the

century

it

became customary
which

^'ulgate (editio vulgata), a name,

in earlier times,

by

Jerome himself, had been used

ally the
KOivy, or
its

to designate the

LXX.,

especi-

Latin rendering.

The Vulgate

of the

Middle Ages was, however, by no means identical with the

genuine translation of Jerome.

While the two

translations

had

been in use side by

in

side, the

manuscripts of the new translation

their

whole extent were subjected to alterations from the

Vetus Icdina, especially by means of marginal notes, which by

and by were incorporated into the text

this, in

itself.

In addition to

the following ages there

came

in errors of transcription

and wilful additions of various kinds.

were

The endeavours
its

of

Cassiodorus and Alcuin to restore the text from

state

corrupt
or

unsuccessful, and

the

so-called

Correetoria,

Collections of Variations, of which

some indeed are

of

of prein

eminent interest from a historical point

view and

con-

nection with the criticism of the text, served, in the hands

164

58.

THE VULGATE.
After

of unskilled persons, only to increase the confusion.

the

invention
before

of

the

art

of

printing

the

Vulgate

printed

the

Greek

'New Testament
other
for

was

Catholics and

Protestants

vied with each

critical

a long time in the

production of

editions of the Latin translation, until

of the

an incident occurred which suddenly cooled the zeal

Protestants,

and led

to their judging of the

work
the

of the old

Church father

in quite an unreasonable way.

The Tridentine Apocrypha

Council, which

elevated

the recognition
19),

of

into a condition of salvation (

and thereby destroyed

upheld, yet, on the

what Jerome had with

importance, for
dispuiationibus,

so

much energy

other hand, ascribed to his

it

translation a quite

unmeasured

authorised the Vulgate in puhlicis lectionibus,

ct

prmdicationihus

expositionihus

(Sess.

iv.).

Owino- to the condition of the text at that time, the Bible

authorised in such a manner, had, as Kaulen expresses
of
it,

more

an ideal than of a real existence, and the Catholic Church

therefore felt itself obliged to establish a form of text

which

might actually claim

to be the Vulgate.

The

Protestants, for

reasons that can well be understood, while these labours were

going on, acted the part of critical spectators.

The

edition of

Sixtus V. in a.d. 1590, which, according to the Bull printed

in front of
it,

was approved even

auctoritate,

for

private use apostolica

to

nobis

a domino tradita
et

and declared

be vera,

legitima, authentica

indubitata, so that
it,

any one who ventured

indignationem omniapostoloruni ejus se

without

papal authority to change

Petri
et

potentis Dei ac beatoruni

noverit incursurum,

FauH

had not the same fortune as the Sixtina

to take

of the

LXX.

Clement VIII. was obliged

notice of

the

demands that had become clamant

to

at the papal court,

and therefore allowed a new text

be edited, which at last

became the authorised text of the Roman Catholic Church.

The

style

and manner, moreover, in which these editions

that,

were prepared do not admit of any doubt

while the

 5S.

THE VULGATE.
text,

IGo
they

editors

might possibly produce a practically useful

in a position to solve the
diilicult

were not

])robleni of the

restoration of the genuine text of Jerome.

And

even in recent

times,
skilled

when

interest in the translation of the old linguistically

Church father has again revived among Protestants,

find

we

still

ourselves

very far

off

indeed from this

end.

Only the unfortunately incomplete Collection

of Variations

by

Vercellone affords a valuable contribution to a future reconstruction of the Vulgate text, especially in this way, that these
variations

show how many fragments

from the

of the

old Latin trans-

lations, therefore,

LXX.

have been intruded into the

Vulc^ate.

Kaulen,
Berger,

GcscJiichtc

dcr Vulr/ata,
de la

-p-p.

150-494.

See also:

Dc

Vhistoire

Vuhjata en France,
p.

1888;

De

Wette-Schrader, Einleitung,

144

f.

On
ance

a remarkable Corrcetorium, probably from the thirteenth

century, which, besides a rare critical insight, shows acquaint-

between French and Spanish manuscripts of the Hebrew text, with the Targums, the Eabbinists, etc., compare Vercellone, Dissertazione accachyniclw, liome 1864, p. 53 Kaulen, Gci^chichtc der Vulgata, p. 255 f. Under Clement VIII. there first appeared Biblia Saera
with
the
distinction
;
:

Tidgatce editioiiis Sixti

V. jussu recognita atquc edita,

Rome

1592.
"

Since this edition contained more than two hundred

errors of the press, a

new one was

issued in

1503, which

indeed corrected some of the printer's errors, but left a still larger number uncorrected, and added new mistakes of its

own"
of

(Kaulen, Gesehichte,
of the

p.

470).

Only the third

edition

1598, by reason

appended

indices cor rector ii, can

be refjarded as conclusive.

Althouiih these editions differed

from the text

passages, they

of Sixtus V. of
still

1590

in almost three

thousand

continued to bear the name of that pope

on their

title-page.
is

How
e.g.,

the

Protestants judged of these

sive

proceedings

shown,

by Th. James, Bcllurn papale,

ct

Concordia discors Sixti

V.

Clement is VIII. circa Hicrony-

mianam

editicnem,

London 1600.

1G6
The
edition of

58.

THE VULGATE.

Heyse and Tischendorf, Bihlia sacra latina V.T. Hieronymo interprete, 1873, is in point of textual criticism very unsatisfactory. Compare ZWT, p. 591 ff.; Lagarde, Psaltcrium jiu:ta hehrwos Hieronymi, Leipsic 1874. On a manuscript not used by Lagarde, see Baethgen, ZA W, 1881, p. 105 ff.

Among
now

the manuscripts of the Vulgate

is

the celebrated

Codex Amiatinus, previously in the Cloister of

in Florence.
It

Mount Amiata,

was supposed by Tischendorf and others to belong to the sixth century. This view was opposed by Lagarde, Mittheilungen, i. 1885, p. 191 f. He maintained that it was a manuscript of the ninth century, artificially written in an antique style after a cursive manuscript. Such also was the opinion of Cornill, EzecJiiel, p. 158 f. More
recently,

however,

series

of

interesting

discussions

has
ff.,

appeared in The Academy (1887, xxxi. pp. Ill, 130, 148

1888, xxxiii. pp. 239 f., 307 f.). Light has been shed upon this question especially by Hort's contribr.tions, Tlie name on the first page must be read Ccolfrie.cl Anglorum ; the Codex was written in Jarrow under the Abbot whose rule extended from a.d. 690 to A.D. 716, after the pattern of older Codices, and was sent from England to Eome as a present to Gregory XL The first sheet, however, with its three lists of the canon and pictorial illustrations (compare Corssen, JPT, ix. p. 619 ff.), was borrowed from a Codex of Cassiodorus (of the Vctus latina) brought to England.
f.,

165

309

f.,

414

f.;

From

this manuscript,

Lagarde {Mittheilungen,
of

i.

pp.

241378)
[For an

has edited the

Stiidia Biblica

Wisdom
et

Solomon and
second
its

Sirach.

admirable and complete account of the Codex Amiatinus, see

Ecclesiastica,
series,

Oxford 1890

(7)

"The Codex Amiatinus and

''
:

Birthplace,"

byH.

J.

White.

Appendix On the Italian Origin of the Codex Amiatinus and the Localising of Italian MSS.," by W. Sanday, pp. 273The Codex Toetanus, 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 Mi^xi^'^ Patrologia Latina, xxix. 879-1096. Other manuscripts are enumerated by De Wette-Schrader, Einleitung,

5!).

THE AUAMAIC AMONG

list 1

TIIK JEWS.

lOT
Scrivener's

p.

143

f.

[See

of

MSS.
,

of

the Vulgate in
.

ria in Lit rod action,

S83

pp. 3 4 8 - 3 6 5

Vercellone, Varia: ledioncs Vulgatx

hit.

Bihliorum
hooks).

cditionis,

riome
also:

1860-1864 Bukentop, Lvx

(only
de

the

historical

Compare

luce,

1710;

Thielniann, Beitrage zur

Textkritik d. Vulg., inshcsondcrc des Buches Judith.

Prograwm

der Studicnanstalt Spcier, 1883.

On

the daughter versions of the translation of Jerome, see

p.

De

Wette-Schrader, Einlcitinig,

147.

4.

The Jewish Targums.

exile
Ijut

59.

The Aramaic language, which even before the

was
was

the international tongue of the north Semitic peoples, not understood by the
the
exile

common Jews
the
place
the

(Isn.

xxxvi. 11), after

old
Israelitish

gradually

took
in

of

tlie

language,
vulf^ar

and

was,
of

times

of

Christ,

the

proper
of

lauG^uajre
ii.

the Jews.

This

remarkable
8-vi. 18,
in a great

chanf]fe,
vii.

which Dan.
are the
first

4^^-vii.

28, and Ezra,

iv.

12, 26,

witnesses,

was one element

and sweej)-

ing movement.

In the Persian age we meet with the Aramaic

as the properly universal language of that period, even in tlie

inland parts of Arabia, and as

it

was adopted by the Jews

tribes

from their neighbours, so also by the Arabian

which

had taken up their residence east

also the Palestinian

of that Jordan.

Naturally
first

Christians ( 49) spoke from the

lancjua^je.

dialect of this

same "West Aramaic"

is

Onlv

in a

few villages of the Anti-Lebanon

there

now

a poor, struggling

remnant of

this once

dominant speech.

Noldeke, Die scmitischen Sprachcn, pp.

28-34

Kautzsch,

Gramatih

dcs

Bihlisch-aramdischcn, Leipsic

1884.
xx.

On

the
ff.

Christian-Palestinian dialect, see Noldeke,

ZBMG,

443

On

the relation between the

Greek and the Aramaic, see

[Studia Bihiica,
first series,

Noldeke,

ZBMG,

xxxix.

313

ff.

168

60.

THE ORIGIN OF THE TARGUMS.

Oxford 1885, pp. 39-74, Article by Neubauer " lects spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ."]
60. In the
of the

On

the Dia-

same proportion

in

which the popular speech

less

Jews changed, did the Holy Scriptures become

by the multitude.
the
tradition

easily understood

Only the

scribes kept

alive

among them
still

of the

pronunciation

and

the understanding of the text, and to them are

for

we indebted
The Law,
the

our ability

to read

the Old Testament.

however, played so important a part among the post-exilian

Jews that the understanding

ings from the

of

it
;

could not remain

peculiar property of the learned class

while the weekly read-

Law and

the Prophets

made

it

necessary that
satisfy

they should be understood by the people.

this need, there arose the

In order to

custom of the reader in the synaipaninp,

gogue having alongside of him an interpreter,

who
of

rendered the portions read into the language of the people.

Such a rendering would very readily assume the character

an expository paraphrase, which sought to bring the read

portion nearer to the requirements of the religious sentiments
of

the age.

Negatively this tendency showed

itself

in

the

leaving untranslated of some of the passages that were offensive to the taste

and

feelings of these later times.

On

account

of the circle of readings being regularly repeated, the

Aramaic

rendering must readily have assumed a fixed crystallised form,

which would be transmitted from one generation

but upon this
to
it,

to another

basis,

wherever there was no manifest antagonism

all

new

ideas of

kinds, called

forth

by the changing
That
still

circumstances of the times, would be freely deposited.

the Aramaic translations of the Old Testament which are

preserved arose, at least partly, in this way, can be proved to

demonstration from
distinguish

this,

that

in

several

of

them we can

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.

THE ORIGIN

01-

THE TARGUMS.

IGO

fluid state.

Tliis,

however, does not exclude the notion that

an

earlier

attempt
to

maic renderings
tures
this

may have been made by written Aramake the contents of tlie Holy ScripIndeed,
it is

more generally known.

quite evident

tliat

must have been the case with the Hagiographa, which was
is

not read in public, since there

of

mention

in pretty early times

is

Aramaic translations of them.

Thus there

mention of a

written translation of the Book of Job in the time of Christ

(Sahb. 16); h Meg. 2>a

makes evident
There
5) of
is also,

allusion to various other

translations of the Hagiographa,

as written documents.

which can only be thought of

as
it

seems, mention in
of the

the

Mishna {Jadaim

iv.

Aramaic translations

Old

Testament.

Upon

the whole, the widely spread notion, that

in the earliest times it

was forbidden

to

transcribe the Arais

maic translations
proved.
it

of the portions read in the synagogue,

not

In the passage that has been quoted in support of

Meg.
iv.

{jer.

1)

what
that

stood,

is

only

this,

when properly undersuch written translations must not be

is

really said,

used in the synagogue service

written record
is

itself,

while the production of a

not

itself forbidden.

On

the other hand,

it

may

be fairly concluded, especially from the first-mentioned

reference to the subject (Sahb. IG), that the scribes of the

earlier

days regarded with disfavour such written interpretaHagiographa, 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,
sorts of

and might be the means

views among the people.

of

spreading

all

heretical

All these Aramaic translations, whatever their origin

may

have been, bear the name of Targums.

said

Wliat has been already

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
in a limited

60.

THE ORIGIN OF THE TARGUMS.

Yet in not a few passages
results can

degree.

be reached by their help with reference to a text diverging

from the Reccptus.

It is very difficult to determine the date

of the composition of these

works

and even

if it

were possible

to fix with certainty the time of their codification, little

would

thereby have been gained, since, in respect of their contents,

they partly represent

much

earlier

periods,

especially

the

Targums on the Law and the Prophets, whose

oldest layers

may have And that,

lias

originated in the very earliest synagogical readings.

especially in the Babylonian Targums,
is

we have

to

do pre-eminently with ancient materials

appropriately remarked, by the

shown, as Cornill
all

complete absence of

polemic against the Christians in the Messianic passages.

Compare Zunz,
untranslated

Gottesdienstliche

Vortrdgc,
p.

1832,
ff.

p.

ff.

Noldeke, Alttestamentliche Littcratur,

passages,

255
p.

On
;

the

Geiger,

Urschrift,
;

368

Berliner,

ZDMG, xxix. 320. p. 59 M. Jaclaim iv. 5, " n^"i3y, which is written as D1J"in," can Tosejilita Sctbh. xvi. 128 only refer to Aramaic translations. " When the elder Gamaliel sat on one of the temple steps one brought him a book with a Targum of the Book of Job but he ordered a builder working near by to build the book into Compare l. Sabb. 115 the wall which he was then building." Nevertheless, the jcr. Sahh. 16, fol. 15c; Sojjh^rivi, -p. xi.
Massora zum Targum Onkelos,
:

grandson of Gamaliel, according

to this story,

subsequently read

The notion of Gratz, 3IG WJ, in a copy of this same book. 1877, p. 87, that this Targum was a Greek translation, is
absolutely

without

foundation.
it

On

the

other hand,

it

is

not impossible that

was identical with the

at the close of the

XvpiaKif) (Bl^Xo^

mentioned in the
is

LXX.

Book

of Job.

It

Old Testament quotations in the New Testament may in some cases have been taken from Compare, e.g. on Matt. ii. 5, Delitzsch, such a Targum. Messianische Weissagungen, 1890, p. 114, Eng. trans, by
also not impossible that the

Prof.

Curtiss,

Edinburgh
p.

1891.

Compare

also

Lagarde,

NGGiV, 1890,

104.

 Gl.

THE TARGUMS
;

IN

PALESTINE AND BAIiYLON.

171

Jonathan ben Uzziel ( 63), who liad translated tlie Prophets into Aramaic, wished also to produce a Tar;iun on but he told how he had heard a Buth-qol, the IIafM0'rap]ia " What thou hast translated is enougli.'" Compare which said Bacher, MGWJ, 1882, p. 120. " li. Ilaggai said, R. Samuel, son of IJ. Isaac, Jer. Meg. iv. 1 visited a synagogue, and found therein a Sopher reading his
h.

Meg.

3rt

interpretation from a book

then said he to him, this

is

not

permitted.
]]erliner,

The

oral orally, the written

0/ikelox,
ii.

by writing."

Compare

Targum

p.

88

If.

On

the origin of the word

Targum very

diverse opinions

The Assyriologists (Fred. Delitzsch, The Ifehrew Language, 1883, p. 50; Haupt in Schrader, Die Keilinschriften u. d. A. Tr p. 517) [see Eng. trans, vol. ii. 207] refer it to
prevail.

an Assyrian word, ragdmu,

Skizzcn
unci

to shout, to cry out.

iii.

Wellhausen,

Vorarheiten,

110,

153,

combines

*^^J'

" to conjecture,"

with some sort of IMantic custom of stonethrowing, and adds " Perhaps it also has some connection On the other hand, Lagarde (Armen. with the Aramaic Dm."
:

Stuelien,

847; MiUheilungcn,

ii.

177

f.)

treats |CJ-in

as

an

Indo-European loan word, and the verb as denominative. Halevy, finally, according to Devie's Appendix to the Supplementary

volume

of Littre's

Dictionary,

p.

32, note

8,

would derive
is

it

from the Greek

of

Tpiy/j.6^.

The Arabic

^U^r/

in favour of

the secondary nature of the participle

the foreiijn derivation of
p.

pnnD, and consequently

See Eriinkel, Ara-

the word.

mdischc Frenidwortcr,

280.

Gl. In Palestine, where the

Targums

originated, they were

never recognised as proper authorities.

They continued

to

occupy a place by themselves, and therefore show, however

widely they became known, the above-described peculiarities
in their full extent.

When

they were quoted in the Jerusalem

Talmud,
jer. "

this

was done only that they might be confuted.

5.

So
x.xii.

Beraclwth,

4, fol.

9c,

where the addition

to Lev.

28,
to

As

I in

heaven

am

merciful,

soon earth be ye merciful,"

Jerusalem Targum

which the Targum known

to us as the

172

62.

THE BABYLONIAN TORAII TAEGUM.

is

contains a parallel,

rejected.

It is

also

significant that

Jerome, who lived a long time in Palestine, and was dependent on his Jewish teachers, never

made mention

of a

Jewish

Babylon. The Babylonian Jews produced no independent Targum, but took over from the Palestinian Jews their Aramaic translations of the Law and the Prophets, which naturally must have made their way
It

Targum.

was otherwise

in

to

them

in a written form.

Witness

is

borne to this by the

is

dialect in

the Babylonian Targums, which

the Palestino-

Aramaic, with an
essentially

East Aramaic colouring, which has not

changed the linguistic character.

But

in

Babylon

these renderings, which were used in the synagogue service,

were authorised, and in

alterations.

this

way were
this,

preserved from further

the

In consequence of

Babylonians

had

only Targums on the

Law and
l.

the Prophets, and only one on

each of these books (compare

Meg. oa).

On

the

language

of

the

Targums,

compare
p.

Noldeke,

Alttestainentliche Littemtur, p.

257

GGA, 1872,

S28

Lit.

CentralUatt,

1877,
26.)

p.

305.

(Otherwise Elias Levita, compare

ZDMG,
62.

xliii.

Geiger, Jud. Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 93, etc.

The authorised

Torah Targum

of

the Babylonians,
Onkelos.

usually, but incorrectly, bears the

name Targum
h.

The
been

denominating of

it

was based upon

Meg. 3a, according to

is

which passage the Aramaic Torah Targum

"

said to have

composed by Onkelos

(Di^pJ) according to the directions ('sp)

of

Eliezer and
ob'^PV

Joshua."

But

this "

Onkelos "

is

only a

variation of
1. 9, fol.

(Aquilas),

and the

parallel passage jer. Meg.

7lc,

shows that in the original context the subject

(

spoken of was the Greek translator Aquila

52), out of

whom

therefore the Babylonian reviewer has

translator.

In keeping with

this is

the

made an Aramaic fact that the name

Talmud and
in
jer. Deraai, vi.

obvv occurs

also elsewhere in the Babylonian

D'kp^ii,

the Toscphta in the form

(compare,

e.g.,

 G2.

JllE

BABYLONIAN TOKAII TAHGUM.

vi.

173
There
is

10,

fol.

25(1,

with Toscphta Dcviai,

p.

57, IG).

now no
Targum
art,

longer any

ground

for

assuming that any one

in

Babylon should have wittingly named the redactor of theTorah

"

Aquila

" in

order thereby to

show

of!"

his hermeneutical
is

although the Onkelos at least in this connection

"

an
to

"

Aquila

among
"

the Targumists.

Undoubtedly we have

do with a simple confusion which was readily enough caused

by the word
to

Targum."
passage
is

From

tliis

it

follows, in the

first

place, that that

not to be understood as referring

the date of the composition of the Torali Targum, and,

further, that the actual redactor of that

Targum must have

still

been unknown

to the

Babylonians, which

further confirm

the conclusion to be drawn from the dialectic character of the

translation ( 61).

Where
names
it

the Babylonian

Talmud quotes the

(h.

Targum

itself, it

"our Targum"

Kidd. G9a), or

says, " as

we

translate."

The question
so

therefore arises, whether the Babylonians have

tlie

agreed
it,

with

Targum which they adopted

it

as they

received

or whether

has been essentially altered by them.

It is certain that the

Babylonian Targum on the Law, which

is

in

comparison with that of the Palestinian

gives the impression that
it

remarkably

literal,

originated in a thorough

recasting of an older precursor.

Also the assertion of Geiger

in
it

and Bacher that several passages

Palestinian Torah

are so abbreviated

that they are unintelligible without a comparison witli

the

Targums,
it is

rests for

the

most part on an
it

exaggeration

yet

nevertheless evident that

of

has been

formed by a reduction

document containing a greater

still

abundance of Helachic material, which

shines through, and
in the Palestinian
is

in

many

places

nearly related to the material met with

Targums.
in

The

assertion of Berliner, that

the brief form

met with

the Babylonian
later,

Targums

is

the

more

original,

and the paraphrase the

facts

does not correis

spond with the

of the case.

This Targum

rather a

174
learned,

62.

THE BABYLONIAN TORAH TARGUM.

while the Palestinian
later,

and therefore a secondary work

Targums, which certainly were concluded considerably

contained

many

ancient portions which were omitted in the

Babylonian Targum.
tion
is

But

for the hypothesis that this reduc-

had been

first

undertaken by the Babylonians, there

no ground.

If these, as the dialectic colouring

seems to

prove, have also subjected the text to a certain

revision, yet,

amount

of

on the other hand, the ignorance

tlieir

of the

Baby-

lonians with regard to the origin of

Targum

distinctly

disproves the idea of

it

having been essentially a Babylonian

rather led to assume that the

work.

One would be

Targum
it

reduction in question was a fruit of the minute treatment of

Scripture introduced by E. Akiba, and therefore that

had

been undertaken in Palestine.

In so
a

far,

the naming of the

Targum
point
is

after

Onkelos-Aquila has

certain

meaning, but

scarcely that anticipated

by

its

originator.

But the main

that this

work

of reduction

remained without result

it

in Palestine

itself,

whereas the Targum originating from

became authorised in Babylon.

had been
For the

When

this

happened we do
the

not know, yet the idea readily suggests

first

itself that

Targum

brought to Babylon
i.e.

when

the

Babylonian

school began to flourish,

rest, this

in

the third Christian century.

question

is

not of great interest, for in point

of contents the Babylonian Torah

Targum

represents an older,
all

in part certainly a pre-Christian age.

In common w4th
it

Jewish translations, as also with the LXX.,

avoiding of
all

shows a careful

anthropomorphisms.

And

the peculiar custom

of receiving into the text all sorts of

lated

is

to

be found

also in

the

Hebrew words untransLXX., and still more in

Targum does not
exist.

Theodotion.

properly critical edition of this

Formerly one had to content himself with the very defective

text in respect of vocalisation
rabbinical Bibles.

given in the Polyglots and

Now

a step in advance has been taken

by

G2.

THE BABYLONIAN TOKAII

TAK(^.UM.

175

lerliner's

publication of the Recension of

of

tlie

excellent editio

Sahhioncta

the year
various

1557.

Merx has published some

manuscripts
in

fragments
British

from

Babylonian

the

Museum.

These manuscripts contain the Babylonian

( 80),

system of pointing

while Berliner's edition presents a

picture of the time during which the Babylonian pointing

was

being changed for the Palestinian, in which some peculiarities

of the former

were

still

preserved.
is

An

important aid toward

Ijy

the establishment of the text

afforded

the Massoras on

Onkelos, which at the same time show with what care this
translation

was treated by the Jews.

;

Compare Luzzato, Ohcb Gcr. 18.30 Geiger, Jiul Zcitsckrift, 1871, pp. 85-104, 1875, p. 290; Nachgelassenc Schriftcn, iv. 104, 106 ff. Bacher, ZDMG, xxviii. 59 ff.; Frankel.
;

Zeitschrift-filr

die

relig.

Interessen d. Judenthums, 1846, p.

p.

110

ff.

AVellhausen-Bleek, Einlcitvnfj,
ii.
i.

607;
i.

Berliner,
GeschicJite
i.

Targiim Onkelos,
des jiid.
Volkcs,

100

ff.,

114-128;
trans.

Schlirer,

117, Eng.

Div.

vol.

1:)4.

Further literature in Berliner, Targum Onkelos, pp. 175-200. On the beginnings of the Babylonian school, compare Jost,
GeschicJite
]).

des Judenthums,
:

ii.

134

ff.

Yet

it

is

said there,

132

f.

""We

find

even in Babylon,

in the

time of Akiba,

individual Palestinian teachers of the Law, especially descendants of the family Bcthera!'

On

the

character
ii.

of

the translation,
;

compare Berliner,
in

'Targum
seines

Onkelos,

200-245
ff
;

Volck
Onkelos
;

llerzog's

Real-

Encyclopccdic'^ , xv.

306

^'lUi^er,

und das Verhdltnis

Targums zur Hcdaehc, 1881

Maybaum, Die Anthro-

pomorphien iind Anthropopathien hei Onkelos und den spdteren Targumim. 1870. The substitution of " Salamites "for ^rp in Gen. xv. 19, and elsewhere, as also in tlie Targum on
the

Prophets,

is

interesting,

since

that

people

was

con-

temporary with the Xabateans QLwim^, Nahataischc Urschriften,

p.

28

f.)

thus therefore the ancient times distinctly colour

the text.
iii.

Examples

of

the free treatment of passages

is

Gen.

22, 'Behold, the

man

unique

in

the world, for he out

176
of his

63.

THE BABYLONIAN PROPHET TARGUM.

can

own

self
:

know

the good and the evil."

Compare

Symniachus cBe, 6 'ASa/M yejovev ofxov a<f>' eavrov jivcoa-Keiv KoXov Kal TTovTjpov, and E. Akiba. Also Mcchilta on Exod. xiv. 29 (p. 33a). The prohibition against seething a kid in its mother's milk (Ex. xxiii. 19) is in agreement with M.
Chullin 8 on the prohibition against eating flesh prepared in
milk.

The untranslated words

Onhelos, p. 57.

are given

by

Berliner, Massora

zum Targum
First

Bologna 1482 (Pentateuch edition). On the following editions, among which those of Lisbon 1491, the Eabbinical Bible 1517, the Antwerp Polyglot (Regia) 1569, and the Sahhioneta edition 1 557, are deserving of special remark,
edition:

compare Targiim
Berlin

De

Wette-Schrader, Einleitung,

Onkelos, p.
(I.

1884

On Berliner, 187 if. Text, IL Introduction and

Lit. Ccntrcdhlatt,
ii.

p.

Berliner, 125 Targum Otikelos,

;

Noldeke's review in
ally

Notes), compare 1884, 39, and especi-

163-182, 386. Eroni the Babylonian manuscripts in the British Museum, ]\Ierx (ChrestomatJiia Targumica, 1888) has edited after the Codex de Rossi, 12, Lev. ix. 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. Ex. c. 15, c. 20-24 and Deut. xxxii. 16-26. Com6, c. 49. pare the favourable remarks of Landauer, ZA, iii. 263 ff. On manuscripts see Berliner, ii. 245 ff. Merx, ChrestoLagarde, Mittlieilungen,
;

mathia,

p. x. sq.,

xv. sq.
:

For

exposition
Onhelos,

Schefftel,

Biiire

Onkelos,

Sclwlieii

zum

Targum Compare

herausgeg.

von

Perles,

1888

(in

Hebrew).

also

commentar Babylonia,
Berliner, Massorali

Merx, Johannes Buxtorfs des Vatcrs TargumZWT, 1887 and 1888.

zum Targum

Onkelos,

1877; Landauer,
Tsraelitische

Masord zum Onkelos nacli neuen Zetterhode, Amsterdam, Jahrg. viii. xi.
Die
Mittheilungen,
ii.

Qicellen,

Compare Lagarde,

167

ff.

Of the Babylonian Targum on the Prophets practically It also the same may be said as of the Targum on the Law. usually bears a name which is derived from the same passage
63.
of the

Babylonian Talmud {Meg. oa), but

it

has just as

little

(;3.

THE BABYLONIAN PROniET TAHGUM.

177
transla-

historical value as the

name Onkelos.
is

The Aramaic

tion of the

IVopliets

there

ascribed to the well-known

scholar of Hillel, Jonathan ben Uzziel, and lience the Propliet

Targum

is

commonly

cited as the
tlie

Targum

of Jonatlian.

But

where passages are quoted in

Babylonian Talmud from the

translation of the Prophets, they are, as a rule, ascribed to

li.

Joseph ben Chija, who died in

is

a.d.

333, and never to that

Jonathan, nor

there ever, in the Palestinian Talmud, any

Hillel's pupil.

mention made of a translation by

about the Targum on the Prophets
of this point
is
is

But seeing

that a Palestinian parallel to the note in the Babylonian

is

Talmud

wanting, the unravelling

of Luzzatto

scarcely possible.
is

The conjecture
another
;

very ingenious, that Jonathan

name
is

for

Theodotion

( 53), as

Onkelos was

for

Aquila

but this

nothing more
perhaps,

than a clever guess.

On

the other hand,

we might

from the above referred to mode of quotation in the Babylonian

Talmud, conclude that the Babylonian Joseph ben Chija,

blind,"

"

the

had taken part in the redaction of

this

Targum, which

therefore

would belong

to the fourth century.

With

this also

would agree the limit

of time conjectured (

62) as marking
that

the final redaction of the

actually, as is

Targum on the Law, supposing

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 upon the latter. But these similarities may just as well have
the

come down from the

Moreover, the
redaction
is

oral lectures

and the older forms of the

Targums, and therefore prove

little.

question here also about the date of the

slight interest, for, as has
is

of very

been already

remarked above, the material of the Targum

very

undoubtedly

much

older.

In comparison with the Torah Targum

this translation is far freer

e.g.

and more paraphrastic.

liii.

Compare,

the extremely loose rendering of Isa.

But

this is

caused in part by the difference in the contents of the books

178

63.

THE BABYLONIAN PROPHET TAEGUM.

Onkelos himself in poetical and
less
literal

translated, as indeed even

prophetic passages
phrastic

assumes a
than

and

more parathe

character

elsewhere.

Compared with

Palestinian

Targum on

the

Prophets the Babylonian must

always be described as observing the proper mean, while also

in a remarkable
side

way

a strong adherence to the letter goes

by side with that freedom.

good help in study
is

afforded

by Lagarde's careful
(

reprint of the text in the

Codex Eeuclilin

28), especially

when taken
pieces

in

connection with Cornill's Collations.

pointing have

Some
by

with Babylonian

been published

Merx.

Compare Frankel, Zitm Targum cler Prophetcn, 1872 Geiger, Ursclirift, p. 164; Nachgelasse^u Schriften, iv. 105 Bacher, ZDMG, xxviii. 1 ft:, see also xxix. 157 ff., 319 ff. Berliner, Targum Onkelos, p. 124; Volck in Herzog's Real Encyclopceclu^ xv. 370 CoimW, Ezechiel, p. 110 ff. Especially
,
;

on Micha: Eyssel, Untersuchungcn uher die Textgestalt des Buches On the date of composition Miclia, 1887, pp. 163-169.
also

Frankel,

rendering of

JPT, 1879, p. 756 ff. [On the paraphrastic the Prophet Targum see Driver and Neubauer,

The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah, according to the Jewish Interpreters, Oxford 1877.] Jonathan ben Uzziel composed the Targum &. Meg. 3<x.
on the Prophets according to the traditions (^sp) of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi then trembled the land of Israel in its whole extent (properly 400 parasangs) and a Bath-kol was
;

heard:

Who

discovers

my

mysteries to

men?
!

remained standing upright, and said, It is I that I have done it neither for my own glorification nor for my family's but for Thine lionour, in order to prevent divisions

But Jonathan Thou knowest

The expression here is The same from the mouth of the last prophets." remarkable, story about " Onkelos " in the same "ap appears also in the On the other hand, the passage of the Talmud ( 62). Palestinian parallel passage has ^jai? instead of ^s?o "under
in Israel (compare further
"

60).

04.

TIIK

PALESTINIAN

TOiiAlI

TAKGUM.
p.

l?'.)

their sight."

Wi^llhausoii-Rleek (Binlcllnnrj,
tliat in

the acute remark

aiiah^gy with

"

from
iu

008) makes tlie mouth of

the
Onkelo.s

the

last

i)ro[)hets,"

we

might
the

conjecture
of

Joshua and Eleasar " (the followers of Moses), which allbrded a suggestion of names, out of which were afterwards made the Kahbis Kliezer and
passage an
original " i'rom

mouth

Joshua.

I>ut

in

the

Jcruschalmi

(^jsi) !)

the names of the

Kabbis at least are genuine, so that one at furthest might assume an original Babylonian reading: X. N. has interpreted
the

Law from

the

mouth

of

Joshua and Eleasar, which may

the

then have been confounded with the passage in the Jcruscludml.

The passages quoted

Gottcsdieiistliclic

in

Talmud

are

given by Zunz,

Vortrdf/e, p. 63.

On Joseph
ii.

ben Chija, com-

pare Jost,

Gcschichte

dcs

Jiulcnthums,

Aggada
p.

dcr habi/Ionischen Amordcr, 1878,

p.

184 101

f.
f.

Bacher,

Older editions are named by

127.

De

Wette-Schrader, Elnlcitumj,

1872, without vowels (compare Noldeke, Lit. Ceiitralhlatt, 1872, p. 1157, and especially Klostermann, TSK, 1873, pp. 731-767); Nachtrdge axis ciner Erfurter Hcuidschrift : Sgmmicta, i. 139. Variations from the Antwerp Polyglot and the BombergBuxtorf are given by Cornill, ZAJV, 1887, p. 177 ft'.; Ezechiel,^^. 113-120. From Babylonian manuscripts, Merx (Chrcstomathia targumica) has edited Hab. iii. Judges v. 2 Sam. xxii.-xxiii. 7; Isa. Iii. 13, liii. 12; Jonah; Micah and, from the Codex lleuchlin, Hab. iii. (vocalised). On tlie readings of Elias Levita, compare ZDMCl, xliii. 230.
-Lagarde, Fvophctcc chaldalce,
: ;

64.
( 61).

The Palestinian Targums carry us

into another sphere

Of the Palestinian translation of the Law we have

two
only

different forms
of

one

complete, another which consists

correct

fragments.
:

The

names

for

these

would

have been

for

the complete

one Jcruschalmi, and for thr

i.

other the Tcirgum Fragincnts, or Jcruschcdmi

and

ii.

but

here also through misunderstandings other designations became

current.

While by Jcruschalmi

is
is

frequently understood the

called

Targum Fragments, the other

Targum Jonathan

180

64.

THE PALESTINIAN TORAH TAEGUM.

(Pseudo-Jonathan), which originated, however, only through

a false interpretation of the abbreviation
"'"n (i.e. ^t:h&\'\'^

DiJin).

Of the complete Targum, which was

1591, no manuscripts have up

first

printed in Venice in

to this time

been found.

On
two

the other hand, of the TarGfum Fraoiments, which had even

earlier (in

1518) been published

in the

Bomberg

Bible,

manuscripts are extant.

The

relation

between the complete Jeruschalmi and the

to

Babylonian Torah Targum has been referred

It is impossible to

above

( 62).

determine whether the former should be

regarded as older or as younger than the Babylonian, because

although
yet,

it

bears a more original,

side, it

still

unconfracted character,

on the other

secured
the

its

present form at a

much

later period.

If,

indeed,
of

translation of
this

Gen. xxi. 21

alludes

to

the wives

Mohammed,

shows that the

present form of the

Targum cannot be

older than the seventlr'

century; but, on the other hand, in Deut. xxxiii. 11 are found

the words, " The enem.ies of the high priest Johanan shall not
survive,"

which could only have been so formulated in the

days of John Hyrcanus.

the

The
is

origin of the

work known

as

Targum Fragments
to

much more open

in
it

to controversy,

and even up
plained.

this

day has by no means been clearly exsee

While some
to

fragments of an originally
it

independent Targum, others regard

as a collection of glosses
of the

and supplements
This

some Aramaic translation

is

Law.

much
is

in

any case

certain, that it is not closely related

to the fore

Babylonian but to the Palestinian Targum, and thereto

be taken into account here.

Both are

of a free

Midrashic character, and so are fundamentally distinguished

in their treatment of the text from the Tarsfum Babli.

De ditabns Hierosolymitanis Pentateitchi jparaphrasibus, 1859; Gronemann, Die jonathansche Pentateuchiibersetzung in ihrem Verhdltnisse zur Halacha, 1875; Seligsohn, and Traub in MGWJ, 1857, pp. 96 138 ff. Schiirer,
Seligsohn,
ff'.,
;

 G5.

PALESTINIAN morilET TAUGUMS.

Volkcs,

181
Div.
ii.

Gcscliichtc

lies

jCuJ.

ii.

118

I'.,

Eiig.

trans,

vol.

i.

135, and the literature referred to under

G2.

Elias Levita himself only

knew one Targum Jeruschalmi,

a

but reports that others

quoted

Pentateuch

Targuin

of

Paul of Burgos (a.d. 1429). Jonathan (ZDMG, xliii. 220). and Azaria de Rossi (who died a.d. 1578) Petrus Galatinns, were acquainted with this " Jonathan," whose translation,
however,

was

rarissima.

See

Lagarde,

Mittheilunfjcn,
for
tlie

ii.

165

f.

Unfortunately the manuscript used

Venice

The one manuedition of 1591 has since disappeared. Comscript of the Targum Fragments is in Vatican 440.
pare

Zunz,

Gottesdicnstliclic
p.

Vortrilgc,

pp.

7077

Lagarde,
ii.

Mittheilunfjcn,

165;

Berliner,

Tarfjuni

Oalcclo^,

123.

On

it

is

based the

Boniberg edition, 1518.

is

Another, the

Xureniberg

manuscript,

described by

Lagarde,

NGGW,

1888, pp. 1-3. Both Targums are

the fourth volume.

to be

found in the London Polyglot in

65. Of the Tarcrum or the Tarfrums of the Palestinians on

the Prophets there remain only fragments, partly as quotations

in

the works

of

tlie

Rabbis of the Middle Ages, partly as

marginal glosses in manuscripts, so especially in the Codex of

Reuchlin referred to in 28 and ^o.

character to the Palestinian

They have

a similar

Targums on the Law.

18 renders

Sometimes
far back,
e.g.

they contain ideas that might be traced very

when

a fragment on

Sam.

xvii.

Dn3"iy

by

" Bill

of Dismissal or Divorcement."

Compare the

notices

by R.

Joseph in
Zunz,
xxviii.
1

h.

Sahb. 56rt.

GottcsdicnstlicJie
ff.
;

Vortmge,Y>V-

^^-^^

Bacher, ZZ) J/G^,

iv.

Geiger, Nachgclassenc Scliriftcn,

109.

The

glosses of the Codex Ilcuchlin are given

chaldaice,
vi. -xlii.

passim;
]^>aer.

compare

by Lagarde, Proi^hctcv. some improvements

p.

thereon suggested by
the

Liber Jeremicc,

6.

sheet of

a Palestinian Targum on Isaiah was laid by Ginsburg before

members

of the

Vienna Congress

of Orientalists,

1886.

182
QQ.

GO.

PALESTINIAN TARGUMS ON HAGIOGRAPIIA.

are peculiar to the

The Targums on the Hagiographa

Palestinians.

They have

also

been found among the South

Arabian Manuscripts in the British Museum, although these

make
of the

use of the " Babylonian " pointing.

With

the exception

two

01(1

Testament writings in which Aramaic sections

all

are found,

Daniel and Ezra, there are Targums on

the

other Ketubim, and on the

Book

of

Esther, which

was a

special favourite, there are three.

Official

significance they

never had, but are to be considered individual works of the

same kind
It

as the oldest

Targums

referred to above in

GO.

only need

further

be said

that

they

are

distinguished

from one another by important differences, and follow wholly

divergent principles.

Whereas some,

like the

Targums on The

Song, Ecclesiastes, and one of those

on Esther, are already

literalistic

almost purely Midrashic works, others are of a

character, like the third

Targum on
the

Esther, the

Targum on
xci.

Proverbs, and

tlie

Targum on

Psalms, which, however,

e.f/.

becomes sometimes rather Haggadic,

on Ps.

The

Targum on the Proverbs seems

Syriac translation of that book.
of these

to be a free rendering of a

The date

of the composition

works can only be indicated

in a vague, general
it is

way.

As

the

Targum on the Psalms

presently stands

later than
it

the ninth century, since in

its

rendering of Ps. Ixxxiii. 7

is

mentions the Humijarians.

material in these Targums

The Targum on Job

much

later

than the writing referred to in

is

60.

On

the other hand, the

naturally

much

older,
e.g.

which

sometimes can
TarfTum
ii.

be quite precisely authenticated,

when

on Esther contains a statement which Masseket

p. xxii., attributes to

Soph'rim, 13. 6,

E. Joseph ( 63).
easily accessible

The text

of these

Targums has been made

of the

by Lagarde's reprint
binical Bible of

text of the
( 24).

first

Venetian Eab-

1517-1518

Instructive monographs

on the several Targums are begun, but might be carried out

much

further.

 G7.

SAMARITAN TORAII TAIIGUM. Amoni;

tlie

183
older

Lagarde, Hafjiographa chaldaicc, 1873.

editions
is

specially to be

mentioned the Antwerp Polyglot.

Orient. Kuiifjrcsscs

Coni])are Mer.x.
ziir Berlin,

in the VcrJtamlliuKjcii dcs

p.

1882,
the

157.

In the Jiul LitcraturUatt, 1889,

according to a Breslau

J. Iliess

has publislied a series of contributions to the textual

of

criticism

Megilloth

Codex.

Compare the same on Esther in MGWJ, 1881, p. 473 ff. The dream of Mordecai has been edited by Merx in his Ch resto hi ath ia Ta rg n m ica. About the Targums on Proverbs see Noldeke in Merx, Arcliiv filr wiss. Erforscliung d. A. T. ii. 246-249 Geiger, On Job, Bacher in MGWJ, Nachgdassene, Schriftcn, iv. 112 f. On the Psalms, Bacher, MGWJ, 1872. 1871, p. 208 ff. p. 408 ff., and Biethgen in JPT, 1882, pp. 447-455 ff.
;

On
p.

Chronicles, Kohler and Rosenberg, JCid. ZeiUchrift, 1870,

Targum ii. on Esther, Piess in MGWJ, 1S7G, Munk, Targum Seheiii z. Bitch Esther, 1876; p. BertheauP. Cassel, Das Buch Esther, i. 1878, p. 239 ff. Pyssel, Esra, Nechemia und Ester, 1887, p. 3GG. On the Jewish Targum on Chronicles, which has been
72
ff.

IGl

ff.

received into the Syriac Bible, compare

71.

G7.
as

The Samaritans
be

also possess

an Aramaic Targum, which,

only the Pentateuch, and

miglit

expected, embraces

attaches itself to the form of text peculiar to the Samaritans

( 11, 29). It
is

somewhat more
witli

literal

than the Jewish

Targums, but equally

all

them

jealous in guarding against

its

anthropomorphisms.
notliing.

In regard to

origin

and authority

we know

The most

serious difficulties

met

witli

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

title

of

the Septuagint manuscripts by the Church fathers under the

TO Xa^apeiTLKov, and wliich Field has collected, correthis
it.

spond as a rule with

sort of

Targum, and are

tlierefore, in

some

way, related

to

Where

the fathers got tliese frag-

184
ments
is

67.

SAMARITAN TOIIAH TAKGUM.

yet, seeing that the

not certain

Samaritans even in

the times before Christ were in possession of a Greek literature, there is

nothing to render

it

absolutely impossible that

they

may have had

a
relationship

a translation of their
as

Targum

into Greek.

The Samaritan Targum,

also

we

find it in the Polyglots,

shows
a
in

in

another

direction,

namely, with

Samaritan-Arabic translation, which had been composed

the eleventh or twelfth century by Abu-Sa'id.

But

this cor-

respondence
later revision
translation.

rests, as

Kohn and

Vollers have shown, on the

of the Samaritan text according to an Arabic

The manuscripts not infected

in

this

way

are

divided by Vollers into an Aramaisiug and a

Editions
:

He braising
z.

group.

Briill,
;

Das samaritanische Targum

zu
Genesis
des

Pentateiicli,

1873 1875

Varianten

samaritanischen

Targum, 1876; VQiQvii\'?a\n, Pcntateuchus Sa7naritanus, Berlin, i.-ii. 1872, 1882, iii.-iv. (by Vollers), 1883, 1885; Heidenheim, Bibliotlieca Samaritana, i. 1884 (Genesis), with which should be compared the severe criticism in ZDMG, xxxix. 165 ff. Gen. i.-iv., Exod. xx. 717 in Petermann's Brevis lingiice Samaritana^ Grammatica, 1873. The Oxford Fragments (Lev. XXV., XX vi. Num. xxxvi. 9) are edited by ISTutt, 1874. Moore, "On a Fragment of the Samaritan Pentateuch Proceedin the Library of Andover Theological Seminary." A list ings of the American One7itcd Society, 1882, xxxv.
;

of manuscripts is given
ii.

LitcraturUatt filr Orient. Philologie,

92.

Kohn, Samaritanische Studien,

1817; 1868 Zur Sprache, Lit. unci Dogmatik der Samaritaner, 1876; Noldeke, GGA, 1865, St. 53; Jild. Zeitschrift, 1868, p. 213; ZDMG, xxx. 343 ff. Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. 121 ff. Kautzsch in Herzog's Real- Ency clop mdie^, xiii. 350. On the Samareitikon Field, Hcxapla, p. Ixxxiii. 329 f
rersionis Pentateuclii Samaritance indole,
; ; ;

Winer, Pe

i.

Gratz,

MGWJ,
ii.

1886,
iii.

p.

60

ff.

On

the Samaritan-Greek
ii.

literature:
trans. Div.

Schurer,
vol.

Geschichte des jild. Volkes,

750, Eng.

211, 225.

 G8.

OKIGIN OF THE PESIIITO.

185
:

Of Abu
Gcncseos
sec.

Sa'id's

translation
vers,

Kuenen has puUislied

Liher

Arab. Pent.

ah Alio Said conscriptam, Leyden

Exodus and Leviticus, 1854. Compare Kuhii, Zur Sprachc, Lit. nnd Dorjm. d. Samarifancr, pp. 134-140.

1851

Kautzsch

in Herzog's Real-Encyclopccdic-,

xiii.

350.

5.

Tlic

Syriac Translation of the Bible.

the Syriac transhition
t
;

68. The
referred to,

name by which
"JA

is

usually

c^

(pronounced P'bUd without

is

with the
in

English article the P'sltd)

scripts of the ninth
tion,
"

to

be met with

first

manu-

and tenth centuries.

literal,"
is

The usual explanais

the

simple,

or

" usual,"

scarcely correct.

Much more
translation,

probable

the explanation suggested by Field

of contrast to the

and Xoldeke, airXa, by way

Syro-Hexaplar

which had obtained a wide circulation among the

Syrians ( 48).

The designation was then applied

at first

only to the Old Testament part of the translation.

The very

fact

that the translation attached itself to the

it

Hebrew
labour,
it

text

shows that
is

owed

its

existence

to

Jewish
in

which

further confirmed by the

sympathy shown
was the

for the traditional Scripture exposition of the Jews.

From
it

this,

however,

it

does not follow that

It is indeed

it

result of

Jewish contrivance.
its

quite possible that

had

origin in a Christian undertaking, for the

Jewish character

might be explained, either from the

fact that tlie

Jews had

taken part in the work (as in the translation of Jerome,

or, still

56),

more probably, by the

fact that the translators

were

Jewish Christians.

The

possibility must, indeed, generally

speaking, be conceded of the

Jews

residing in the

border

lands between the

Eoman and

the Parthian empires having

come

to feel

a necessity for a translation of the Old Testa-

ment

into their

own

language, like that which had been

felt

by the Greek Jews.

And

certainly

it is

a fact that isolated

186

68.

ORIGIN OF THE PESIIITO.

portions of the Pesliito are purely Jewish productions

as the translation of Proverbs,

such

which elsewhere had not been

But,

received

among

the Palestinian Targums ( 66), and that of

Chronicles, which had been originally a Jewish Targum.

on the other
mention

side,

no Jewish writing speaks of such a Bible

translation of the Syrian Jews, whereas they

of the

make

frequent

LXX. and

of Aquila, as well as of the

Targums.

The Peshito
lation.

has,

on the contrary, always been recognised by

the Syrian Christians of the earlier times as their Bible trans-

Therefore probability
it

is

strongly in favour of the

idea that

owed
and

its

origin to Christian effort, while, to

some

extent, fragments of older

usfe

Jewish translations have been made

rest,

of in

it,

for the

the translation was

made by

Jewish Christians.
of the translation
tian passages

For a direct proof of the Christian origin

we might
it

point to the various purely Chrisif

which

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.

Compare
Geiger,
tamentliclu

Perles, Meletemata Pcscliittlw7iia7ia,

Scliriften,
p.
ff.

Nacligelassene Literatur,

iv.

96

Prague 1859 Noldeke, Alttes;

262;

Nestle,

in

Herzog's

Beat-

Encydopccdic'^, xv.

192

On
126
f

the relationship with the Jewish tradition

Schonfelder,
ii.

Onkelos unci Pescliittho.

;
.

1865;

Berliner, Targumfi Onkelos,

Sebok,

Die

syrische

Uchersctzung

der

12
f.

Jdeinen

[On the Propheien, 1887, p. 7; 154 -p. Syriac Textus Receptus, see Studia Bihlica, first series, 1885, p. 151 ff, in article "An Account of a Syriac MS. of the 5th Century," by G. H. Gwilliam.] Examples of a decidedly Christian colouring Jer. xxxi. 31 (according to Hebrews viii. 8 as the contrary, Jer. xi. 3); Hosea xiii. 14; Ps. xix. 5, ex. 3.
Cornill, Pzechiel,
:

On

the form

|A

A.

>

m.c^ see

Noldeke, Kurzgefasste syrische

Grammatik,

26

B.

On

its

meaning

Field, Hexapla,

i.

 69.

COMPOSITION AND HISTORY OF TESHITO.

18V
tlie

p.

ix.

Noldeke,

ZDMG,
;

xxxii.

589.

In siipjmrt of
not

opposite view, Nestle in Ilerzog's lieal-Ency. xv.

192, 199,

who

translates " usual "

but even tins

is

" simple."

69. If

we

consider the Syriac translation as a whole to be

a Christian work, then

we

shall

have to assume the founding

about
A.D.

of the Christian

Church

in that region

150

as the

terminus a quo of

its origin.
is
;

The

first

certain witnesss that

we have

for its existence

later (

given by x\plnaates about two

hundred years

15)

but without any doubt, seeing that

Greek had not spread

in that eastern region, a translation of the

Holy Scriptures
be a necessity.

into the language of the people would, very

felt

soon after the founding of the Church in that land, be

to
-the

We

should have had a direct proof for

Peshito,
if
it.

early existence of the

the 6 ^vpo<; once cited by

Melito

r)

were identical with

But what

is

to

be underis still

stood by this Xvpo^, often quoted by the Church fathers,

very uncertain.
at
least

If,

as

by the arguments of Field has been

o

made

probable,

Xvpo<;

was a translation
shall

of

the

Old Testament into Greek circulated in Syria, we

look
first of

have to

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
all

l)y

^lelito

(Gen.

xxii.

13, Kpefidfivo<; Iv aaffe/c) does not at

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 i)roduce 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

traditions,

of

the translation, apart

this

from some worthless

we know only

one thing,

which
it

is

also confirmed

by Ephrtem and Jacob of Edessa, that

That the Apocrypha

was the work

of several translators.
is

was

originally wanting

new

proof of the Jewish character

188

70.

RELATION OF PESHITO TO SEPTUAGINT.

while, on the other side, the absence of

of the translation

the

Book

of Chronicles indicates a peculiar attitude on the

of

question

the

canon

15).
little

At

a later period a large

portion of the Syrians, with

reason,

abandoned their old

for

independent

translation

through admiration

the

over-

estimated LXX., which

Syriac ( 48).

The

was several times translated into chief leader in this movement was

Theodore
esteemed
d(f)avfj)

of Mopsuestia,

who
an

repeatedly reproaches those

more

highly

unknown

translator

who (eW nva

Yet even

than the seventy-two inspired interpreters.

in the following generations,

when

the Syrian language had

ceased to be spoken, the Peshito was preserved and studied

by the Jacobites
into a

as well as

by the Nestorians,
it

until in

modern

times, through the labours of missionaries,

has been wakened

new

life.

On
deke,

the origin of the Syrian Church proper, compare Nol-

GGA, 1880,
i.

p.

873

Zahn, Geschichte

d.

Neutestaraentl.

Kanons,

369.
i.

On

Xvpo^, see Field, Hexaiila,

to

p. Ixxvii. sqq.

He
r]v
;

calls

attention

the

note of Diodorus on Gen. xxxix.

rj

<^ap

Kara rov ^vpou Karevo^ov fxevo<; where evidently iTnTvy^^dvwv would suit as well as KarevoSovfievoq to represent the Syriac ^>.kV.^Ld, were it only by means of a Greek translation possible to mark this distinction.
avrjp eTTLTvy^^^dvcov

On
e.g.,

the legends about the origin of the Peshito, compare,

will be

Wiseman, Horce syriacce, 1828, p. 103. The statements of Theodore referred to

vii.
i.

found in

Mai, Nov. Pair. UUiotlieca,

70. Although the
text, it still

241, 252

f.,

263.

Peshito attaches itself to the original

there, especially in

shows here and

some books, a
the

sort of similarity to the

LXX.,
be

so that a

dependence in this

direction

must
is

necessarily

assumed.

But how

far

agreement

capable of explanation by the supposition that

the translators during their work

that
it

may have used

the LXX., or

had been occasioned only by

later revisions according to

)

 70.

KELATION OF PESIIITO TO SEPTUAGINT.

189

the Alexandrine translation, has not been as yet determined,

and
the

will probably

always remain doubtful.

The

similarity with
all,

LXX.

is

in all essential respects equally strong in

even

the oldest, manuscripts, and in the quotations of Aphraates, so

that such a recasting

must
is

in

any case have taken place

at a

very early date.

There

not the least probability in favour

of the hypothesis of a thoroughgoing revision after the time

of Aphraates.

On
of

the quotations of Aphraates, compare

:

15.

On

those

Ephrrem

Spohn, Dc rationc
ohvii,

iextiis hiblici

in Ephrccmi Sijri

commcntarii

Further, as to how the text-words 178G. from Jacob of Edessa must be distinguished from the quotations of EphrcTm, compare Noldeke, ZDMG, xxxii. 589.

[Studia Biblica, 1885,

p.

168

f.,

and note by

F.

H.

Wood

in

same

article, p.

173.]
idea of a
revision of the older translation,

Against
text,

the

especially of such a revision

in

made on

the basis of the original

the

days

after

Aphraates

and

Ephnem, Xoldeke

remarks (ZBMLr, xxxii. 589): "First of all, the text-words in Ephriem 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 on the basis of the Hebrew after the time of Ephrrem is quite
against the later text.
inconceivable.

Knowledge

of the Hebrew^

was

for ever lost

among

the Syrians with the complete sundering of the Church

of Edessa from Judaism.

scientific

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.
split

up by
all

civil

and

confessional divisions,

Roman and
Nestorians,
its

Persian subjects.

Catholics,

Monophy sites, and

liible if it

should yet
to

have the same

?

had owed
ix.

ori^nn

SO late a revision

liahlfs

(ZAIV,

I7l)

has,

on the

other hand, called attention to a late revision of the translation of the Psalms in some manuscripts undertaken upon
the basis of the

commentarv

of Barhebra?us.

190

71.

CHARACTER OF THE PESHITO.

upon the LXX., comwhere the assertion of pare Eahlfs in ZAW, ix. 161 ff., Gottheil that the Bible manuscript used by Barhebrasus had been modified in accordance with the Syrian Hexapla (48) Sebok, Die Si/rische Uehersetziing der 12 kleinen is refuted. and Cornill, Ezcchiel, p. 153 f. It is worthy Prophetc7i, p. 7

On

the Syriac Bible's dependence

of
(
V.

mention
71)
is

that the translation

of

the

Book

of

Chronicles

not interpolated on the basis of the

translations
in the

LXX. {JPT,

758).

Some Psalm

Old Syrian manuscripts

{Codex Amhrosianus, and Wright, Catcdogue of Syriac Manu169, 179) are scripts in British Museum, i. 1870, Nos.
remarkable, according to which the Psalms are said to have been translated " from Palestinian into Hebrew, and from

thence into Greek, and

this passage

finall}"

into Syriac."

The

light

which
is,

seems

to

cast

upon the

origin of the

LXX.

however,

according
p.

to
f.).

B?ethgen's

researches, a

false

light

In particular, Bsethgen has proved 49 can have formed no link midway between the LXX. and the Peshito. Very noticeable is the freedom with which the original superscriptions of the Psalms are left out from the Syrian

{JPT, 1882,

422

that the Palestinian translation referred to in

translation,

which, however, according to the statements of

first

done through the influence of Theodore The superscriptions which we find in the of Mopsuestia. manuscripts and editions are characterised by many variations, and are taken from the commentaries of the Church fathers,
the Syrians, was
especially

from

those
ff
.

of
;

Theodore.

Compare
Sijr.

Btethgen,

ZAW,
Brit.

1885, p. 66 116 ff. Mas.

i.

Wright, Catcdogue of

MSS. in

71.

Considered as a translation, the Peshito, as a whole,

takes no

mean

rank.

If

it

does not reach the elevation of

it

the

LXX.
e.g.,

in its

best parts,

never sinks so low as the

be convincingly proved
if

Alexandrine translation, which

one,

may

compares the Syriac Isaiah wath the Greek.

it

Almost
it

everywhere

conveys an intelligible meaning, even though

be not always that of the original, and oftentimes one meets

71.

CHARACTER OF THE

PESIIITO.

191
or
ha})])y

with transldtions which rest upon good tradition

divination.

Here and there

its

vahie

is

lessened

by con-

fusions between the

is

Hebrew and

the Aramaic dialect, which

surely excusable considering the relationship of the two

languages.
critics

Worse, and more dangerous

for

inexperienced

of the text, is the freedom

with which suihxes and

In
addition
to
to,
is

verbal
this,

forms are
is

sometimes interchanged.
circumstance,

there

another

already

adverted

whereby the importance

of the Peshito for textual criticism

its

very seriously depreciated, namely,

dependence upon the

LXX.
text,

Where Syrian and Greek

agree against the Massoretic

is

we can seldom

be sure whether the Syrian witness

only an unimportant reduplication of that of the LXX., or

whether the original text on wliich the Syriac was based had
actually so read.

While the Teshito

is

otherwise thoroughly
literalness

distinguished from the

Targums by

its

and

close
is

attachment to the

original,

an exception in this respect

found in the translation of the Book of Chronicles.

writing,
( 15), a

In this
Peshito

which

originally

did

not

belong
all

to

the

mere Jewish Targum, with

is

the peculiarities of

such a work,

made use

of.
it

Fninkel,

who

has examined

it

carefully, conjectures

that

had been composed by Jews of

Edessa in the third century.

Prager,
criticcc,

Dc

vdcris I'cstanicnti vcrslonc

syrlaca

quastioncs

On
quam

1871. tlie Pentateuch

Hirzel,

Dc

Pcntateuchi vcrsionis Syr.

Fcschito vocant indole commentatio,

i.

Gesenius, Commcntar ilhcrd en Jcsaja,

Cornill,

1825. On Isaiah: 81 ff. On Ezekiel

EzcclM, pp. 136-156.

On

the

Minor Prophets:

Credner,

Dc

proj)hctarnvi minor, vcrsionis Syr.

diss.
i.

quam

Fcschito

vocant indole

-1827

Sebok, Die syrischc

ihr Vcrhdltniss
Z2i

Uchcrsctzuvrf

der 12 hleincn Prophcten

Texte,
ilher

und

dcm massont.
if.

1887.

Specially on

Micah

Pyssel,

Untersuchungcn

die
:

Tc.vtfjcstalt

dcs Baches Micha, p.

169

On

the

Psalms

Piethgen, Untersuchungcn ilbcr die Psalrnea nach der

192
Pescliito

72,

CRITICIS.M OF

THE PESHITO TEXT.

and JPT,
lihri

(Schriften, der Kieler Universitat, xxv.)

1882,

p.

422

ff.
i.,

On Job:

Stenij,

De Syriaca

Johi

interpretcUionc,

Helsingfors 1887.

On
in

Ecclesiastes

and
Syr.

Euth

Janichs,

Animadversiones
lihrorum

criticcc

versionem

Peschitthonianam

Koheleth

d
508

Butli,
ff.

1871.
ff.

On
also,

Chronicles: Frankel, JP7',

1879,

p.

Compare

Nestle in Herzog's Real-Encyclopcedie^, xv. 192

72. Although the critical establishment of the Peshito text

is

indeed

still

in its infancy,

it is

even already clear that no

important results are to be expected from any future criticism

of the text.
ISTestorian

The two

chief Recensions of the Peshito, the

and the West Syrian, are represented respectively

of the

by the Oromiah Bible by

Gabriel Sionita.

American missionaries

of the

year 1852, and by the text of the Parisian Polyglot edited

The

latter,

after

being collated with

other manuscripts, was reissued in the

London
then,

Polyglot,

and

repeated in Lee's edition for the British and Foreign Bible

Society.

The West Syrian group must

according to

Rahlfs, be further divided into three families, the Jacobite, the

Melchitian, and the Maronite.

One

of the

most notable of the

West Syrian manuscripts

sixth or seventh century,
in photo-lithography.

is

the Codex Amhrosianus of the

which has been published by Ceriani

By comparing the West Syrian with the East Syrian group we shall be able to conclude that there had been a common Syriac text in the times before the
division of the Syrian

Church in

A.D.

485, which has then

to

be compared, partly with the quotations of Aphraates and

Ephrsem, 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

is

the Monophysite Massora on the

of

which bears

the

name

the

"

Karkaphensian,"

and

proceeded from the cloisters at

Chaboras in Mesopotamia.

Further

also,

the daughter versions of the Peshito

may

be used

for the establishment of its text.

72.

CRITICISM OF THE PESIIITO TEXT.

103
into

The Apocrypha,

first

received

at a Liter

perioil

the

Syriac Bible, has been edited by Lagarde.

The unvocalised

edition of the British

is,

and Foreign Bible

Society by Lee, 1823,

along with the Oromiah Bible, the

use.

most useful help for immediate were edited by Lee, London

editions:
p.

Bickell,

ff

Nestle,

The Psalms, vocalised, 1825. Compare on other Conspectus rei Syrorum literaricc, 1871, Brcvis lingucc Syriaccc f/rammatica, 1881,
text,

p.

13 ff. For criticism of the

compare especially the

treatise of

Kahlfs in

ZAIF, 1889,
Lomhardo
di

pp.

lGl-210.
see
e

On
xi.

the oldest manuscripts,

Science

Ceriani,

Memoire
ser.

del
iii.

F.
vol.

Instituto

Letteratura,

On

Wright, Catalogue of S)/): MSS. in Brit. Mus. i. 3 f. the Codex Usshcr, a copy, as it seems, of an old ^laronite
;

manuscript-

made
Vet.

in the years

see Rahlfs in

ZAW,
ff)

syra Pescitto
(Fzechiel, p.

162G-1628, now in Oxford, Ceriani, Translatio 1889, p. 195 ff. Testamenli, Milan 187G-1883. Cornill
would deny
all

140

value to this manuscript,

which judgment, however, Rahlfs (p. 181 ff.) vigorously [Gwilliam, " Account of a Syriac Biblical ]\IS. of contests.
the
pp.

Fifth

Century,"

in

Studia
see

Biblica,

first

series

1885,

151-174.]

Wiseman, Hurw Syrinca\ 119 ff Martin, Tradition Karkaphicnne, Paris 1870; p. G. Hotfmann, ZAJF, 1881, p. 159 f., ZDMG, xxxii. 745 Weingarten, Die syrische Massora nach Bar Ifebrauts. Der Pentateuch, 1887. [Scrivener, P/am Int7vductio7i, j). 333 f Prof. W. Wright of Cambridge in Eacyclopccdia Brittanica, 1887, vol. xxii. 82G.]
the

On

Syrian Massora,

On the derivative versions (in the Arabic language), compare De Wette-Schrader, Einleitung, 133. In the Polyglots
are: Judges, lluth, Samuel, 1 Kings
i.-xi,,

2 Kings

xii.

17-

XXV., Nell. ix. 28-xiii., Job, Chronicles.

Lagarde, Veteris tcstavunti apocryphi syriace, 1861.

194

73.

AIDS FKOM WITHIN THE TEXT ITSELF.

C.

Aids from within the Text

can regard
its

itself.

73.

Since none of the aids mentioned in the

foregoing

paragraphs go back to the times of the biblical authors, textual

criticism, before it

work

as brought to a close,

must
itself

investigate whether

means may be found

in the text

which may serve

for the regulating of the text.

Indeed,
itself,

as soon as textual criticism began to strike out a path for

it

was immediately made very evident that the Old Testament

they were used with prudence and circumspection, unresults.

writings do in fact at several points supply such aids as would,

if

doubtedly lead to sure

aid thus given,

As an example
text,

of the sort of

we may mention

the parallel sections in the

Old Testament, which contain the same

repetition, if the intentionally

and where the

left

changed expressions were

significance similar to
E.g., Isa.
lii.

out

of account,

would have a

what
xxv.

various manuscripts elsewhere have.

xxxvi. xxxix.

Kings

xviii.

30 xx.
xxii.
;

19;
ii.

Jer.

=2
;

Kings
also the

Ps. xviii.

=2

Sam.

Ezra

= Neh.

vii.

Book

of Chronicles in

comparison with the older Historical Books,

of earlier prophets in
Jer.
xlvi.
ff.,

and the reminiscences

etc.

Further, the forms of

the
textual critic the

Hebrew poetry not seldom

means
of discriminating
:

afford

to

of this

order are the generally prevailing parallelism of the clauses,

the peculiar rhythm of the

Hebrew

elegiac poetry, the use

here and there of the alphabetic system, the refrains,

means

of these forms characteristic of the

By Old Testament we
etc.

are led finally to the last criteria of all textual criticism, the

universally

applicable

laws

of

thought

and

language,
all

the
of

handling of which, indeed, opens the door to

arbitrariness,

manner

but which, nevertheless, above

all in

writings like

those of the Old Testament,

must be regarded
Lib.
i.

as indispensable.
;

Compare Cappellus,
Einleitung^,
i.

Critica sacra

cap. 3

Eichhorn,

139.

II.

RESULTS OF TEXTUAL
A.

CPiLTICISM.

The

External History of the Text.

1.

Writing Materials.
little

74. AVe

know very

about the material and form of

the

Old

Testament

autographs.

The word

""sp

signifies

originally

The Glazed or Smoothed, and

;

indicates

nothing
roll
is

about the material

that
4.

it

shown by
times

Isa.

xxxiv.

may also mean a book By ppn we are reminded

it

of the

when

writings were engraved or scratched in on a solid

its

substance, but in

secondary meaning
xlix.
;

is

used of any
true of the
sriD
is

kind of marking

(Isa.

16).

The same

is

synonymous term
uncertain.
at least, tablets of

D"in

while the root meaning of

later

That in even

times,

on particular occasions
is

a solid substance were used

viii.

shown by
Perliaps

these passages: Isa.

1,

xxx.

8; Ilab.

ii.

2.

during the Assyro-Babylonian age brick tablets were

known

even in Palestine, as Ezekiel refers to them (Ezek.

If
it

iv. 1, !^f?.?).

was desired

to

make

the engraving of any writing in a

(t^V,

very special degree durable, then the stylus or graver

Jer. xvii. 1, or
xvii. 1),
t3'?n,

Isa. viii. 1),

with a diamond point (Jer.

lighter materials, such as
of
letters

was

used.

But ordinarily

were undoubtedly used

xix. 14),

for the writing

(2

Kings

were also naturally employed in the writing of books.

(v.

Since Herodotus

58) describes the

195

"

Barbarians

" as

making

use of BL(f)0pai as writing material, and as the Persians also

196
constantly
vi.

74.

WKITING MATERIALS.
this sort

employed material of

(compare

Ezra

f.),

the

Jews likewise
is

in all probability used the same.

This supposition

confirmed by

Numb.
hand,

v.

23, according to

which passage what had been written could be washed out

with water.
But, on
the
other
the
report
in
Jer.

xxxvi. 23 does not favour the use of this material, since the

burning of a leather

roll

would have spread a suffocating

Perhaps the use of the papyrus
it

smoke through the chamber.

(New Hebrew,
in

")^^)

was even then known, seeing that

e.g.

grew
Lake.

some places

in Palestine itself, as,

at the

Merom

On
(i'''=J,

this material writing

Jer. xxxvi. 18,

was made by means

of a dark fluid

compare ^pp, a

vessel, a scribe's vessel,

an

inkstand, Ezek.
(Jer.

ix. 2),

which was applied by a sharp-pointed

(pv, Jer.
roll,
viii.

xxxvi.

23) writer's reed or pen

of the book
ii.

Ps.

xlv. 2).

The usual form

14; Ezek.

was a
v.

n^^P (compare
xl.

Jer.

xxxvi.

f.

Zech.

1; Ps.
is

8; and

Jer. xxxii. 14,

where a sealed document

preserved in an
Jer.

earthen vessel).
signify the several

The
the

nin^'n

mentioned

in

xxxvi.

23

columns

of the roll.

In

later

times

Epistle

of

Aristeas

and Josephus

(Aniiqidties, xii. 2, 10)

mention the Si^Oepai, and the Talmud

names
used

several kinds of

more

or less prepared skins of animals.

Eor the copies of the Law only skins of clean beasts were
(jer.

Meg.

i.

fol.

^Id).

The

roll
is

form was the usual one

(compare Luke

iv.

17, 20), and

even yet the obligatory

form

for

manuscripts which are to be used for reading in the

synagogues.

But by and by another form,

into use.

that of the Codex,

came more and more

When

this

book form, now

the ordinary one, which some have wrongly supposed to have

been found as early as in the Epistle of Aristeas, became

usual

among

the Jews

we do not know.
Codex form made

With
it

regard to the

idea of the canonicity of Scripture this change was of importance,

all

inasmuch

as the

possible to have

the sacred writings written out in one volume, and thereby

74.

WKITIXr. MATEUIALS.

197
Llie

to

give outward expression to

the

fact

tlmt

canonical
sucli a

books were in a peculiar manner bound together in

way
h.

as excluded all others.

Perhaps in the tradition from

to

Baba

hathra,

fol.

136 referred

above at

10, where the

permissibility of the collection of several or all of the sacred

writings

into

one

manuscript

is

discussed,

and

various
first

authorities from

the second and from the end of the

century are cited, we have a reminiscence of the change in

the practice of writing called forth by the introduction of the

Codex form.

For the restoring of the synagogue

rolls

and

the correct copying of the text precise rules are prescribed in Sephcr Thora and Masschet Sopli^rim
( 32).

The form and

Tliey are
either

material of Bible manuscripts of later times are to be seen in

the oldest preserved Codices

themselves.
leather,

synagogue
scripts,

'rolls

of

parchment or
in

or private

manuBaby-

most frequently
paper.

the

Codex form,

of parchment,

leather, or cotton

The

oldest manuscript, the

is

lonian Codex of the Prophets ( 28),

in

written on parchment,
page.

Codex form, with two columns on each

i.

L. Low, Wahner, Antiquitatcs Ehra:ornm, sect. cap. 45 Graphische Bcquisiten und Erzeugnissc hci den Judcn, Leipsic 1870, 1871; Schlottmann in liiehm's HamlwOrtcrhuch, pp. 1416-1431; Strack, ZL2\ 1875, pp. 598-601; Herzog's Heal Encyclopxrxlic^ xiii. 689 ff. With reference to similar customs among the Christians, see especially Zahn, Gcschichte des Kanons d. N. T. i. 61 f The Academy, xxxi. 1887,
;

f.

p.

415&.

The hypothesis that the Israelites had used papyrus becomes all the more probable when we remember that the Greeks became acquainted with it through tlieir intercourse with the Phcenicians. This is also shown by the very name /3t^\o9, which is connected with the city of Byblus {Sitzinujsherichte der Wierier Academie, 2^hiloL-hist. Class. 1888, cxvi. Only at a later date was the name ^l^Xo^ exclianged p. 636).
for

the

name

Trdirvpo^.

On

the

signification

of

TruTrupo^

198

75.

THE OLD AND XEW ALPHABETS.

compare Lagarde, Mittheihingen, ii. 260 f. Compare generally with regard to papyrus and paper Oestcrr. Monatsblatt fiir d. On the etymology Orient. 1885, p. 162 ff., 1886, p. 159 ff. of Bicjidepa compare Lagarde, Ges. Ahhandl. p. 216, where also Bock, Fergais considered as belonging to the same root.
:

i'''=i

ment, eine

culturgesch.

Stitdie

Oestcrr.

Buchlidndler

Corre-

spondenz, xxvi. 1886, Nos.

3-6 (not accessible to me). On the Codex form, compare Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, Birt is wrong in supposing that pp. 62, 93, 100, 107, 113. in the word rev^o^, in the Epistle of Aristeas (Merx, Arcliiv. i. p. 67), he finds a proof of the employment of the Codex form; for that T6i)%09 is used in that passage of a roll is shown by Compare Zahn, an earlier passage in the Epistle (p. 44).
Geschichte des Kayions d.
iV.

T. p. 66.

According to the
referred to

last-

named

passage, the roll of the

Law

was made

of

the skins of

and joined together in a Birt is also wrong when he seeks the miraculous way. reason for the spread of the Codex form in the fact that Compare Marquardt, skins were cheaper than papyrus.
animals
prepared
Privatalterthumcr
d.

Ronier,

ii.

785

Theolog. Literatur-zeitung
Gescliichte, p.

1883,

p.

459

Geschichte des

Wiedemann, Agyptisclie Kanons d. N. ^. p. 71 f.

29

Zahn,

Descriptions of the older Old Testament manuscripts have

been given above in

28.

2.

History of the Hehrew

possible to

Letters.

75.
of the

Were

it

compare the original manuscripts

texts, the first difference

Old Testament with our present

that would attract our attention would be the different forms

of the letters.

Instead of the square-shaped writing which

is

we have

in

our present texts, and which

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
the
is

now known

to us

through the Siloah inscription of

Christ,

eighth century before

some

seals

and weights

70.

THE OLD AND .NKW ALl'HAHKTS.

tlie

TJO
of
15ar

found in Xineveli,

coins of the

Maccabees and

Cochba, and the Samaritan manuscripts.

All these monu-

ments are inscribed with a kind of written characters whicli

belongs to the Phoenician branch of
the Semitic ali)habet
a development of the
( 59),

whereas the square-shaped writing

is

Arabic branch, which, just like the Aramaic language

obtained a wide currency during and after
Persian dominion.
tlie

period of the

The Jews named the old Hebrew

"

writincr

simidv ^l^^ ^^^

"^^^ji^p

Hebrew

writing," or sometimes I'H 3n3

and

3n3, has
first

variously explained expressions, of which, however, the

probably means

" inscription

on a coin," with reference to the

use of the old writing on the coins of the Maccabees.

writing
is

The new
and
in the

called

by the

later

Jews V^y^

2n3,

"

square-shaped

writing," in respect of the regular form of the letters,

Talmud,
is

^"]1C'&5

nna, " Assyrian writing."

suitable

The

latter designation

historically
after the

when one remembers

that

Assyria,

even

overthrow of Nineveh, continued in use as the

of tlie districts belonging to the old Assyrian
it

common name
throughout an
laniTuajiije.

empire, and that

was just

in

these regions that Aramaic,

ever-increasing radius, became the dominant

Compare Buxtorf

(the younger). Disserted, philol. ihcol.

et

iv.

1662 Uteris, 1645

Basel
;

Cappellus, Diatribe dc veris

;

antiquis Ebrccorum

terihus,

Dobrowsky, De antiquis Hchra:oru'ni characPrague 1783 Kopp, Bildcr und Schriftcn dcr Vorzcit,
;

289 ff. De Vogu(5, Oust, P. M6langcs d'archt^olor/ic orientale, Paris 1868 Linguistic and Oriental Essays, London 1880, xii. xiii.;
1821,
ii.;

Hupfeld,

TSK, 1830,

p.

Driver, Notes

on

the

Hebrew Text of

[Studia Biblica ct 1890, i xxix. Oxford 1891, Article ii. by Neubauer, " The Introduction of the Square Characters in Biblical MSS., and an Account of the
Earliest

Books of Samuel, Ecclesiastica, 3rd series,

the

MSS.

of

the

Bible

(with

three

Facsimiles),

pp.

1-36.]

200

75.

THE OLD AND NEW ALPHABETS.

style of writing,

The Phoenician

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 of the ninth century before Christ (Smend and Socin, Die Inschrift des Konigs Mesa von Modb. 1886). The Aramaic style of writing, of which the oldest representatives are some seals and weights found in Assyria and Babylon, and the old Aramaic Taimain style of writing (BericJite der Berliner Acadeniie, 1884, p. 815) are found widely spread among the Palmyrenes and Nabateans, and, during the Persian age, also in Egypt. From this Aramaic writing are derived the Syriac, Cufic, and Arabic alphabets, as well as the Pehlewi alphabet, and also the Avesta writing (Lagarde, Mittheihinfjen, ii. 38 ff.). On the Siloah inscription: ZDMG, xxxvi. p. 725 ff.; ZDPV, iii. 54 f., iv. 102 ff., 250 ff., 260 ff., v. 250 ff. Quarterly Statement of Palestine Exploration Fund, 1881, p. 141 ff.; Acad4mie des inscr. et des belles lettres, 1882, p. 199 ff. On
;

fixing the dates,

see

also
p.

Quarterly Statement

of

Palestine

Exploration Fund, 1889,

35

ff.

On

the seals and weights

with

Hebrew writing: Levy, Siegel und Gemmen, 1869; Ganneau in Journal asiatique, 1883, i. 123 ff., ii. 304
ff*

On

the

coins

De

Saulcy,

Reeherches sur

Ice

nu^nismatique

Judaique,
23.

1854; Madden,

^^s^or?/ of Jewish
Volkes,
i.

Coinage,

1864;
i.

Schurer, Gesehichte des

vol.
i.

jild.

19, Eng. trans. Div.

On

the

Jewish names
ii.

for

the
;

two alphabets, see Low,

Jiehr.

Grapthische Ecquisiten,

53

ff.

Berliner, Beitrdge zur

1 87 9, p. 6
;

Grammatik in Talmud und Midrasch, by Hoffmann, ZA W, 1881, p. 334 ff.

is
is is

and especially Instead of rn the word

''

often read p"i, but the correctness of the former reading

proved by the statement

writing,

of

Epiphanius
also
ii.

deession,
iv.
is

which
215).
inter"^^b.

interpreted inseulptum" {Opera ed. Dindorf, 1863,

The Somahirenus preted by Lagarde

Zibhonaa
(b.

there

referred
to

to,

{Mittlieilungen,
is

257)

mean

"i^^p

Sank. 21b)
there

connected by G. Hoffmann with

a

the city n^n^. Judges xxi. 19 (now El- Zeben), south of Xablus,

where

probably

was

Samaritan

school.

Halevy,

7G.

INTRODUCTION OF SQUARE-SHAPED WRITING.

201

435, conjectures in place of ns^r:, the form ns^ir^ i.e. " from Neapolis " or Shechem. On the name Assyria in later times, compare Lam. v. 6

Mdangcs

dc Crit.

1883,

p.

Ezra

vi.

22; Herodotus,

i.

lOG,

192,
;

iii.

92;

Straho,

xvi.

1.1; Josephiis, Antiquities^, xiii. 6. 7 p. 289 ff.; ZAW, ii. 292 fl., iv. 208.
76.

Hupfeld, TSK, 1830,

When

the

Talmud

ascribes
is

the

introduction of the
first

new

style of writing to Ezra, this

of the

in the to

instance an

example

Jewish inclination

assotiiate
lies

the

change

with a celebrated name, but there certainly

tion this element of truth, that the change

in the tradi-

was brought about

in the steps

not by the people, but by the scribes,

of Ezra.

who walked

On

the

other

hand, the use of the old style of

writing on the coins of the Maccabees was a thoroughly popular

and

nation-al

act,

which moreover presupposes that

still

at

that

time the old alphabet must

practical use.
It

have been to some extent in

Christ that the
v. 18).

was not

until the time of

of

Aramaic writing became that

the

people (Matt.

We

have, on the other hand, in the interesting inscription of

the year
built

170 before

Christ,

which

is

found in the tower

Jordan, brief

by Hyrcanus
is,

at Arak-el-Emir, east of the

as

it

it

contains only the word nu^D,

styles

mixed form, was

in

which

both

are

combined,

which perhaps
in the Bible

typical of the practice of that time.

scripts

But

manualready

of

that day the

new

style of

writing had

long been in

common

use.

Unfortunately we are not able

to follow out the course of

development

in detail.

That the

Samaritans in their Bible manuscripts adhered to the use

of the old

alphabet,

though indeed
the

in

a peculiar

form,

is

proved by the fact that

written in the old style

Torah
the

rolls

were

still

being

when

Law was

adopted by the

Samaritans

( 11).

On

the other hand, the

texts used

much

discussed

question as to whether the

by the Alexandrine

translators were written in the old style of writing or in the

202

76.

INTRODUCTION OF SQUARE-SHAPED WRITING.

latter

new, must be answered in favour of the

alternative,

since the confounding of letters which occur here and there

throughout the translation favours such a supposition.

also in agreement with this that the

It is

name mn^ read

at

first,

as

it

seems, in the Alexandrine translation unchanged was

read

Ullil by
the

the Greeks and others, which was possible

only as the transcription of the word written in the

style, since

new

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
in the old

name

Bible manuscripts, while the two styles of writing continued

alongside of

one another for ordinary purposes.

That the

synagogue inscriptions, and the inscriptions on the tombs of

priests

from and after the time of Christ are in the new

is

style of writing

what might be expected.

On
of

the opinions of later

Jews regarding the introduction

i.

the square-shaped writing, compare jer. Meg,

I.

11,

fol.

7l&c;
terii

Sank. 216; Origen

Trap

ii.
:

529* (Lagarde, Novm Psalecrrt

. .

greed editiones specimen 9)

av6K(f)(ovr]T0V

3e rt

lerpaypd^fxafiev
rfj

rov

avTOL<;

Kal \iyeraL

^ABcovat irpoarj'yopLa,
jpa/Jb/jLara),

ov'yl

tovtov jeypa/jL/xevou iv rw rerpaiv

irapa Be
he

EWrjcri, rg Kvpio^ K(f)(0V6LTat' Kal

T0i9 aKpL^e<TTkpoL<^

twv

avTL<ypd(f)CJV

e^paLOL<^ '^apaKTrjpaL

Kelrac to ovofxa, e^paiKol^; he

ov

tol<;

vvv,

dXka roU dpyaiTrapaSeBcoKevai,.

OTarot?' ^aal yap

auTOL<i

rov "EaSpav
irapa
tov<;

iv

rfj

al'^fiaXcoaia erepov^i

yapaKTiipa^;

irporepov^
:

Jerome, Ujnstola 25 ad MarceUam

{nomcn dci) est tetragrammaton, quod ineffabile putaverunt, quod his Uteris scribitur Jod, E, Vau, E. Quod quidam non intelligentes propter elementorum similitudinem, quam in Grsecis libris
repererint.
" Viginti

"

Nonum

Pi Pi
et

legere
esse

consueverunt."
litteras

Prolog,

galeatus

duas
est,

apud

quoque

et

Chaldgeorum lingua testatur

Syrorum quae Hebrseae magna

Hebraeos

ex parte confinis

nam

et ipsi viginti

duo elementa habent

eodem sono sed diversis characteribus. Samaritani etiam Pentateuchum Mosi totidem Uteris scriptitant, figuris tantum

70.

INTRODUCTION OF SQUAUE-SlIArED WKITINci.

discrepantes.

20.*]

et

apicibus

legisque
teinpli

scribam doctorem post capta Hierosolyma et iiistaurationem sub Zorobabel alias literas reperisse quibus nunc
est

Certunique

Kzram

utiniur,

cum ad
in

illud

usque tcmpus iidcni Saniaritanoruni

.
.

et

Hebrffioruui characteres fuerint.

Et nomen Domini

tetra-

grammaton

quibusdam groBcis voluminibus usque hodie antiquis expressum literis invenimus." The proper origin of the transcription is even yet a matter of
controversy.

Epiphanius (in the passage referred to in

ii.

see Lagarde, MiUhcilunf/en,

256

f.)

75, says: " Hesdra ascen-

dens a Baby lone, volensque discernere Israel a reliquis gentibus,

ut genus Habrahce non videretur esse permixtum
atoribus terrae
et prophetas,

cum

habit-

[psn

Q]}],

qui tenent quiden legem, non tamen

immutavit pristinam formam relinquens deessenon, propter quod ea forma a Samaritanis pra30ccupata jam fuerat." But it is less probable that the Samaritans should have transcribed the Law adopted by the Jews in the earlier characters, than that they should have ignored the transcription introduced after their adoption of the Law. If it be therefore improbable that Ezra should have already introduced this change, this makes it all the more likely that the change originated in the school of Scripture expositors imported from Babylon, of whom Ezra was the type (Ezra viii. 16; Neh. viii. 7, 9), and that the members of tliis school were led to take this step for polemical reasons. j\Iuch more hazardous
is

the conjecture

made by G. Hoffmann
upon
Isa.
viii.

in

ZAW,
the

i.

377,

after

Scheppig,

based

1,

that

Aramaic

writing had been in use

before the exile.

among priests and statesmen even

On
ally

the inscription of Hyrcanus, compare

De Vogue, Temple

dc Jerusalem,

1864, pp. 38-42,

Note,

pi.

xxxiv. xxxv., and especi-

640, which seems still unknown to the authors of the Survey of Eastern Palestine, 1889, pp. 65-87, where the ruins of Arak-el-Emir are fully described. The Jewish inscriptions are now collected in
Noldeke's
xix.

ZBMG,

Chwolson's Corpus inscriptioniLm Hebraicarum, 1882 (with a

large
table

of different

styles of writing

by Euting).

[See

also table of early Semitic alphabets

by Professor Brlinnow,

204

76.

INTRODUCTION OF SQUARE- SHAPED WRITING.

et

as frontispiece to Studia Biblica

Ecclesiastica,

3rd

series,

1891.]
ques
et

Compare

also
les

Clermoiit-Ganneau, Eintaplies Mlraiossuaires juifs, Paris

grecques sur

1883, and the

Palmyrene synagogue inscription in the Berichte der Berliner Academie, 1884, p. 933 ff. On the forgeries of Firkowitzsch, compare what is said above in 27.

On
licJies

the

importance of the

Septuagint

for

the

question

treated in the above paragraph, compare Bottcher, Aicsfuh'-

ZchrhucJi d.

liehr.

Sprache,
ratione
ff
;
.

i.

37

f.;

Bickell,
alex.
Ixiii.
;

ZDMG,
inter;

xviii.

379
p.

De
;

indole ac
p.

versio7iis

in
ff.

Ijretando

lihri

Joli,

Merx, Hioh.
p.

JPT,

1883,

70

Vogue, Melanges de Grit

167

and especially

Vollers,

ZAW,

1883,
in the of

p.

229

ff.

On nini
the

LXX. and among

and Jerome
i.

the fathers, compare

remarks

Origen

quoted

on
;

p.

202

Lagarde, Novce Pscdterii grceci editiones sjjecimen 9

in

Euagrius

Lagarde, Onomasticon

205

f,

and

especially

ZDMG,

xxxii.

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 {Einleitiing, p. 629) is certainly wrong in seeking to vindicate this statement by a reference to the inscription of Hyrcanus (" it is therefore certain that the LXX. had found Jahve, not in the characters III III, for the yod has still an entirely different form on the inscription of Arak-el-Emir ") for the writing in profane literature and that of the Bible manuscripts of the pre-exilian age cannot be assumed without more ado to be parallel. If it be further considered that Origen says nothing of a contrariety between the Septuagint manuscripts in the use of the Old Hebrew and New Hebrew, nin% although the latter must still have been the presupposition of nini, and that Jerome, who expressly speaks of the simply repeats what Origen had said, it is probable that remark of Origen rests on a misunderstanding, which perhaps the arose from this, that the mn'' had been written after a somewhat old-fashioned pattern. On the other hand, its appearance in Old Hebrew is shown on the Mesha tablet, line 18.
ff.

466
of

name

God

mm,

77.

TYPES OF SQUARE-SHAPED WHITING.

find
tluit

205

was adopted by the Hebrew-speaking Jews, see jcr. Nedarim, Ibl. 42c. Tlie conjecture of (iriitz, MGWJ, 1886, pp. GO-73, tliat the form nini was to be met witli in a Septuagint manuscript interIt is interestinc; also to this Pipi

polated with Samaritan additions,

is

wrong, ])ecause conflicting

with the words of Origen

(f)(i)p.

toI<^

aKpiPearepoi^i tcov dvTijpu-

Besides,

mill
the

is

also

met with outside the Pentateuch.

77.

Among

Jews the Aramaic alphabet assumes the

form pretty nearly unchanged down

regular and distinct forms of the square-shaped character, and

has continued in
the

tliis

present
is

day.

The

variations,

of

which

occasionally

mention

made, are very

(yV?'.

trifling, as e.g.

that n in the earliest

times looked like n

for
n'in^

Meg.

i.

9),

which, moreover,

Flini

also testifies to ( 76).

In the manuscripts a distinc"

tion

between the somewhat rectangular

Tarn

"

writing on nno
"

of the

German and
L*6>11

Polish Jews and the rounded

Welsh

"

writing

DHD of the Spanish and Oriental Jews (compare

also

27).

Sometimes

manuscripts were written in other

styles of writing,

e.g.,

the so-called Rashi writing, a kind of

cursive hand.

Of a quite singular description are the manumentioned above

letters "

scripts of the Karaites,

in

28, from the

letters.
tlie
;

tenth to the fourteenth century written in Arabic

The

so-called " final

(e.g.
i.

are often referred to in

Talmud
jer. Meg.

h.

Sahb.

104a; Sank. 94a, 986;

ii.

Meg. 2h, 3

11,
7).

fol.

71c; compare Soplfrim

p. v.), as also

by

Jerome

From a portion of the numerous instances in which the LXX. divides the words otherwise than is done 12 d^d5^*j cn LXX. in the Massoretic Text e.g. B. Nah. W^h^n; Zech. xi. 11 LXX. "^jy:^ Ps. xvi. 3, LXX. nv-iS3 nnsn^ Zeph. iii. 19, LXX. ^^vnb inx Jer. xxiii. 33, LXX. we might conclude that these letters were foreign Dnj< NC'on, to the Hebrew texts used by the Alexandrine translators.
(
i.
:

""

Yet

this

conclusion, although

probable,

is

not

absolutely

certain, since the divergent division

may have

originated in

206

77.

TYPES OF SQUARE-SHAPED WRITING.

older manuscripts prior to the time of transcription.

The

last-

named examples show

of which
Christ,
is

besides that

Makkef

is

a sign that

was

only subsequently introduced.

The

final letters, the existence

witnessed to by inscriptions prior to the birth of

suit

were formed only to

the convenience of writers,

since their

number

(five) is quite arbitrary.

t>

In the days of Jerome the diacritical point over

not in use, nor was the point Daghesh.

was

Both signs are

connected together with the more recently introduced system

of points.

With

great fidelity the irregularities of form and size in

letters

particular

were

preserved in the

manuscripts, and
so-called

subsequently in the editions.

literce

To these belong the

xviii.

majusculce

{e.g.
iii.

Deut.
13).

13, xxxii. 6
in the

Ps. Ixxx. 16,

Ixxxiv.

Euth

Even

Talmud some
6.

of these

are referred to

{b.

Kidd. 666:

Num.
ix.

xxv. 12;
9),

Kidd. 30a:

Lev.

xi.

42;

Meg.
XV.

16&:

Esther

and in the book

SopliS-'iin ix. p.

we

already meet with their technical name.

literce susioensce,

Further, the so-called

which are mentioned as

30f<t
:

early as in the Babylonian

Sanli.

Talmud {Kidd.
1315),
to

Ps. Ixxx.
also
p

14

1036:

Job
xviii.

xxxviii.

which

may
is

be

added Judg.

30

97).

An

irregular final
2.

met
3

with in Exod. xxxii. 25;

inversce

Num.

vii.

The

so-called

and puncta extraordinaria have been already referred

to in 35.

Compare

further, 99.

The ornamental little strokes (" crowns " DnriD, pJD, piVT) which are to be met with in manuscripts over particular
letters, are

mentioned even by

h.

MenacJioth 296, Sahb. 9a,

rolls

105.

In the Crimean Synagogue

they were in an

unusual way placed over some words, especially over words

written too high.

The Talmudical remarks on the form of the letters are collected in Berliner, Beitrdge zur hcbr. Gramm. in Talmud,
p.

15

fP.

On

the later types of writing, compare Hupfeld,

; ;

78.

ORIGIN OF THE

VOWEL

.SIGXS.

207

TSK, 1830, p. 278 Levy, Gcschichte dcr jiul }funzen, 18G2, Zunz, Zur Gcschichte und Litcratur, 1845, p. 20 G f p. 145 Eiclihorn, Uinlcitunf/, iii. 377 Daer, Liher Jcsaicc, vii. Low, Graph ische licqicisiten, ii. 72 ff. Eating, ZDMG, xlii. 313 ff.
; ;
.

and above

27-28.

On
.1.

the final letters see Hupfekl,

TSK, 1830,
25
ff.

p.

25G

ff.

Mailer, Mcissekct

SophWim, 40

Wellhausen-Bleek, Ein-

leitung, p.

637

Berliner, Beitrdgc, p.

and the table

of

by Euting in Chwolson's Corpus inscript. hehr. [or the Table by Professor Brlinnow in Studia Biblica, 3rd Series, 1891, frontispiece]. On compare Jerome on Hab. iii. 4 Amos iv. 1 3, viii. 1 2. On Uaghesh, Jerome on Oen. xxxvi. 24 {iamim^^maria). The litcrcc majuscidcc and minusculcc are given by Frenswritten characters
l*^
;

dorff,

Oclda W'ochla, Nos.

Strack, Prolegomena, pp.

p.

82-84 (compare No. IGl). Furtlier, 91-93 Baer and Strack, Dikduke,
;

47

f.

On
Sepher

the "crowns," Hupfeld,

tagin,
;

TSK, 1830,
Journal

p.

276

Barges,
ix.

Paris

1866
p.

asiatiquc,

1867,

242
ii.

ff.

ZLT, 1875,

601; Low, Graph ischc

Fcequisitc7i,

68.
Vocalisation

3.

and Accentuation.

78.

The

signs mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs were

originally
in

composed
vowels,
as

exclusively

of

consonants,
of

while

the

the
left

other

oldest

branches

the

Semitic
visible

languages,
indication.

were

wholly
signs

without

any

written

The vowel

now commonly used were only

out for use in the syna-

introduced at a later date, and so they are even to this day

excluded from the gogues

rolls that are written

( 74), wliile in

other manuscripts at least the rule was

the points,
rji??,

observed, that the one

who added
"^^iD.

was another

than the transcriber proper,

The

recollection of the later origin of the

of.

vowel points was

II.,

never altogether lost sight

Mar

Xatronai

Gaon

in

Sura 859-869, says expressly, that the pointing was not given

208

78.

ORIGIN OF THE

VOWEL
Sinai,

SIGNS.

contemporaneously with the

later times.

Law on

but had

its origin

in

And

in the following

century,

Menahem ben
in similar
in the

Sarug
terms.

and Judah

Chajjug

express

themselves

Christian writers also, like

Eaimund Martin
correct

thirteenth century and Nicholas von Lyra in the fourteenth

century,
finally

maintained

the

historically

view,

which

found an acute and able vindicator in the learned Jew

Elias Levita (compare

31).

From
in

these

men

the Eeformers

adopted the correct theory, which found in succeeding ages

distinguished
representatives
Sebast.
etc.
first

Munster,

Fagius,

Piscator, Scaliger, Drusius,

Cappellus,

But, meanwhile,

another theory had been spreading,

(especially

among

the

Jews

among

the Karaites), and then subsequently

among
In

Christians, according to

which the vowel points were equally

with the consonants an original element in the Scriptures.

a special manner, too, the purely mechanical development of

the Protestant theory of inspiration led
against a view which

many

to

do battle

made

possible a distinction

between the

original sense of the text

and the apprehension

of it fixed

by

the

pointing.

As

the

most distinguished Christian repre-

sentatives of the theory of the originality of the vowel points

we may name, Matth.

Flacius, Junius,

Gomarus,

J.

Gerhard,

Owing to the dogmatic and especially the two Buxtorfs. significance which the question had come to assume, a concussion

became absolutely inevitable. An occasion was given by the

publication of the treatise of Cappellus,

revelatum,

Arcanum pundationis
1648
origine,

which Erpenius, without mentioning the author's

1624.

name, published in

Not

till

did the

reply

appear of the younger Buxtorf, Tractatus de

pundorum d
antiquitate
et

accentuum

in

lihris

V.

T.

hebraicis

audoritate, in

which he sought
an
in

to vindicate

against Cappellus
his
father.

the theory that had been maintained by

This
J. J.

theory

found

also

advocate

in

Denmark
a
treatise

in

Bircherodius,

who

1687 published

Pundorum

 78.

ORIGIN OF THE
ct

VOWEL

SIGNS.

209
arguments

Ehvaicorum authenticce

hiUicce vindicicc.

The

of Cappellus, however, in spite of

clusive,

some
vain.
of

flaws,

proved so con-

that

all

opposition

was

Equally unavailing
the Swiss in their
of

was the acknowledgment on the part

confessional

writings

of

the

authority

the

traditional

pronunciation.

The view maintained by Cappellus prevailed

acquisi-

more and more, and had indeed already been long an

tion
it

acknowledged by

all,

when new
tlie

discoveries

confirmed

in

a surprising manner, and at the same

time began to

spread light to some extent upon

origin of the pointing.

dark question of the

Compare Schnedermann, Die Controverse clcs L. Cappellus mit den Baxlorfern, 1879 Hersmann, Zur Geschichte des
;

Streites iiber

die EntstelLung

d.

hchr.

Punctation.
to me).

Progr.

d.

Eealgymn.

Euhrort.

1885 (unknown

The saying of Mar-Natronai's referred to is quoted by Luzzatto, Kcrem chemcd, iii. 20 0. On other Eabbis, compare Journal
asiatiquc,

1870,

xvi.

468, and

Ginsburg's edition of

Elias

Levita's Massorcth ha-massoreth referred to in

31.

For an
see

opposite statement,
P>aer

we may

refer

to

Aaron ben

Aslier,

and Strack, Bikduke, p. 11. Eaimund Martin (Pugio fidei, Leipsic 1687, p. 697) on Hosea ix. 12, Scribal punctarunt ^y\^2 {i.e. incarnatio mea et
dcrivatur a
rccesso meo.
"IL**3

q.e.

caro) sicut punctatur

mtra

qiiod est

in

Luther
"

on

Gen.

xlvii.

31 {Opera

lat.

Erlaiig.

xi.

Sh):

Tempore Hieronymi nondum sane videtur

illis

fuisse usus

punc-

torum, sed absque

sibi

tota Biblia lecta sunt.

Eecentiores

vere Hebneos, qui judicium de vero sensu et intellectu lingua;

sumunt, qui tamen non amici, sed hostes Scriptural sunt, non recipio. Ideo sa^pe contra puncta pronuntio, nisi con-

gruat prior sententia

cum novo

testamento."

Compare Calvin

12 p. 676), and Zwingli, Pra^fatio in apologiam complanationis Isaia: (Opera ed. Schuler and Schultheis, v. 556). Formida cons. Ilelvei. Can. ii. " In specie autem Hebraicus Veteris Test. Codex, quem ex traditione ecclesiae Judaicae, cui
on Zechariah
xi.

7 {Pra:lectiones in

Prophetas, 1581,

210

79.

HALF VOWELS AS VOWEL

SIGNS.

olim Oracula Dei commissa sunt, accepimus hodieque retine-

mus, turn quoad consones, turn quoad vocales, sive puncta

sive

ipsa,

punctorum

saltern potestatem, cet."

79.

The Hebrew writing was

familiarity

at

first,

like its Semitic sisters,

exclusively a consonantal writing, a sketch with the pen of

the

speech,

with

which as a living

language,

together with

the

connection
i.e.

of context, without difficulty

It w^as

contributed the colour,

the vowels.

only

when

Hebrew became

a dead language, in

which tradition and study

supplied the place of the knowledge that comes from daily use,
the need was felt of devising a system of visible vocalisation.

The
of the

first

means devised consisted

the

in a wider development

germ already lying

passages where

in the old system of writing.

In

those

written

indication

of the vow^el

sound seemed specially desirable,

hesitation,

letters

were added without

which originally were signs

of the consonants con-

nected Avith the vowels, as direct signs of the corresponding

vowels.
text their

They were not then

in

any danger

of affixing to the
letters (iM,

own

private interpretation.

That these

less frequently ^),

which are often designated by the

less cor-

rect

name maU^cs lectionis, were subsequently used to much greater extent than they w^ere originally, is
proved from a variety of
facts.

a very

clearly

On

the Moabite Stone of

all.

Mesha

75) they are practically not present at

On

the

Siloah inscription they appear only as signs of diphthongs

while the coins of the Maccabees have indeed

of D^nn% but only ^"ijn pDn.

D"'Tin"',

alongside

The

old versions, above all the

LXX.,

translate often in a

way which would have been simply

for'

impossible had the text already at that time had the scriptio

plena which

it

has now;
xii.
:

example,

Amos
D''-it^
:

ix.

12,
i.

Dl^i^,

LXX.
D'lTD,

Q'^^^

Hosea

12, omc*,

LXX.

Nah.

10,

the

Dno Ezek. xxxii. 29, DHN, LXX. D"iN\ In Babylonian Talmud (Kidd. 30a) it is expressly said " We
Trg. Syr.
:

have not more exact information about the

scriptio

plena and

71).

HALF VOWELS AS VOWEL SIGNS.

211

defediva

and

finally,

the diversities between the manuscripts

in almost all cases arise

from the different placing of the half

vowels."

How
ing,

incomplete even these means were

is

shown from

tin?

fact that the short

vowels were

left

wholly without any mark-

and the special tone of the long vowels could not be made

plain to the eye.

or
e,

Thus

might be

eitlier
c.

u or

0,

might be

n final might be either 6 or d or

Yet Hebrew writing

five

continued to occupy this standpoint for more than

years after Christ.

hundred

Proof of this

is

alforded in abundance

by

the older Jewish

and Christian memorials.

Fathers of the

Church, like Origen and Jerome, knew, indeed, a particular

pronunciation of the

Hebrew

text,

but they had only their

signs.

Jewish teachers

to

thank

for this,

and not any system of

to be

Whenever .any exact statement had

tion,

made about
So,

vocalisa-

the use of a half vowel was the only graphic means

this

whereby

could be visibly represented.

too,

in

the

Talmud, which in controversial cases either used the half

vowels or
left
it
{e.g.

to
h

the readers to determine the intended

4rt).

pronunciation

Sank

Also Sepher Thora and Masselcct

their silence
;

Soph'^rim prove the

same thing by

since they

forbid the use of the Soph pasiik in the Torah rolls ( 84),

they would have

still

more determinedly have forbidden the

use of the vowel signs, had these then really been in existence.

faithful picture of the state of matters at that time is given

in the .synagogue rolls,

where

all

later

marks of pointing are

wanting, while the Samaritan Pentateuch manuscripts (29)

are satisfied with indicating the special pronunciation of particular

words by means of a

diacritical line over the consonants.

Compare Chwolson, Dir

Orthofjrap)hic,

Quicsccntcn

^in

in dcr altJubrdischen
ii.

Verhandl.

Oriental
p.

Congress,

459 490;
the
other

Wellhausen-Pleek,

IJinleitunr/,

G34

ff.

In

Semitic languages also half vowels were

vowel letters, but in various degrees.

commonly used as The Arabic employed

212
them
strictly

79.

HALF VOWELS AS VOWEL SIGNS.

only for long vowels, while in an increasing

for short

measure we find them used

vocalisation

vowels in the Syriac

This means of

writings of Palestinian Christians and Jews.

was

finally carried out in a systematic

j;

way

in

the

Mandean
ff.).

writing, where, however,

also in several cases

appears as a vowel sign

p.

(Noldeke, Manddisclie
is

Grammatik,
the use of

Further, also, of a similar character

modern languages, and in the finally, the use of the letters xnn^y in the Greek alphabet. Compare Lagarde, Mittlieilungen, ii. 39 ff., who at the same The time treats of the Avesta writings in this connection. peculiar phonetic style of writing Karaites constructed a most
t<'''iV

Jewish transcription

of

in their Bible manuscripts written with Arabic letters.

See
of

Hoerning,

Seclis harait.

Mamtscr.

ix.

sqq.

The warning

Noldeke {ZDMG, xxxii. 593) against considering the orthography of the Mesha tablet without further examination as 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, sviD,
etc.

On
-11!^.

the other hand,

it

has
v.

still tJ^s

for ^^^,
too,

b\>

for

h'\p,

")^*

for

Compare ZDPV,
'm"'

206.

So,

i:'j<-i

in

this

inscription shows that cases in

for

the Old Testament like tnn

where an etymological t^ has been Of special imomitted, must be treated as exceptions.

rnxn,
for
\"is:\

portance in connection with textual criticism

is

the question,

whether the final vowels in Hebrew had been originally unCompare Gramm. xxv. p. 33. marked. The Talmudic \iir\\>'ch U^ mater lectionis indicates a proof drawn directly from the traditional reading in opposition to mor^i' DS, which is used if the proof is drawn from the
abstract possibilities of the text.
p.

See Hupfeld, TSK, 1830,

p.

556

Strack,
p.
i.

Frolegomena,

69

Wellhausen-Bleek,
e.g.

Einlcitung,

616.
92.

And

on the other side,

Levy, Neuheh.

Worterhuch,

wrong in concluding from the words of Origen {De la Rue, iv. 141) TrdXtv T(o lovBa 'Trap r^fjulv fjuev o Svr6po<; ^Avvav elvat Xeyerai, irapa he 'E^paLOL<; ^flvdv 6 iariv irovo'^ avroov, " that our Massora
(LehrhucJi d. hehr. Sprache,

f.) is
:

Ewald

20

 80.

THE NEW VOWEL

SIGNS.

then existed essentially in the one form or in the other. true relationship is seen from the remarks of Jerome.
also

The

He

frequently points

{e.g.

in

Jonah

iii.

4) to the

proper

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 " Pro eo quod nos transhis remarks {e.g. on Hab. iii. 5)
:

tulimus mortem in Hebra?o tres

Beth, Ees, absque ulla vocali, qua}
significant,
si

literal

positai

sunt: Daletli,
*

si le<::;antur

dadar
xiii.

verbum

'

deber 'pestem';" (on Hosea

3): "

Apud
si

Hebra30S locusta et fumarium iisdem

Ees, Beth, He.
aroba,
'

scril)itur

literis

Aleph,
half

Quod
"
to, e.g.

si

legatur
vocales

arbe 'locusta'

dicitur,

fumarium.'

By

he understands the
*

vowels referred
litera

Yau

si

on Isaiah xxxviii. 14: "Media vocalis pouatur inter duas Samach, legitur sus et
'

appellatur equus,

si

Jod legitur

sis

'

et

hirundo dicitur."

The

word accciitus means with him the pronunciation of the word, " Nee refert utrum Salim aut e.g. Epist. 73, Ad Euagrmm Salem nominatur, cum vocalibus in medio literis perraro utuntur Hebriei, et pro voluntate lectorum atque varietate
:

regionum eodem verba diversis sonis atque accentibus proferantur." Compare Hupfeld, TSK, 1830, p. 571 ff. Nowack, Die Bcdciitung d Hier. filr d. Alttestamcntl. Texthntik, p. 43 ff. In the Talmud mipj means, either the abnormal points
mentioned in
e.g. jer.

ii.

35, or the angles and corners of the letters,

2, fol. 77c.
'

Clmg.

80.

The

insufficiency of the

means described

in

70 led

the Jews to seek out a

as

new and more

certain system, which,

it,

Aaron ben Asher

with

32) expresses

might help the

n^vj'

reader to avoid confounding liJ with

liv
-i!iv.

^)^^,

with

n")^D,

In the choosing of a means

for the

attainment
all

of this end,

owing

to the

view

of Scripture

then prevailing,

systems were d yriori excluded which would have involved an

alteration of the traditional letters, so that,
e.g.,

there could be

no thought

of to

such an invention as the Ethiopic alphabet.

What had

be done rather was to discover a system, which

214

80.

THE NEW VOWEL

SIGNS.

would not make the vowel signs appear of equal importance

with the old
letters.
its

In

this

way

the present well-known

vowel system had

origin.

It consists, as

we know
now

it,

of

simple points and strokes, and so for the most part reminds

one of the East Syrian pointing.

And

seeing

that this
it

system of signs can be traced back to the

fifth

century,

must be always regarded

the

as a possibility that the inventors of

Hebrew system had been

in obscurity,
it

influenced by the Syrian.

still

Although the origin of the Hebrew system of pointing

lies

has yet become possible by means of

Firkowitzsch's rich collection of manuscripts to

limits to

mark within
Thora
proved

some extent the period

of its origin.

While indeed,

as already remarked, the post-Talmudic treatises Seplier

and Masscket SopMrim knew

of

no system of

signs, it is

from statements in these manuscripts that the punctuator

Aaron

( 30. 32), living in the first half of the tenth century,

belonged

to

family
the

which
pointing

occupied
of

itself

through

five

generations

with

the

text,

whose

oldest

member, Asher ha-Zakken, must have flourished

the
eighth
century.

as early as

According

to

this

the

origin

of the

pointing must be assigned to the seventh or eighth century.

The

sign for a in the usual system might be considered an

S, as in

abbreviated

the system spoken of in

81.

But

in

many

manuscripts (as in the South Arabic, compare Journal

asiatique,

363, and in the Karaite facsimiles of which probably was the Hoerning), Kametz has the form

1870,

ii.

original.

On

the forefathers of Aaron, compare

p.

TSK, 1875,

p.

7-45

ZLT, 1875,

612

f.;

Baer and S track,

Z^^"Mw^^g, x.

In opposi-

tion to the ordinary view, Griitz seeks with unwearied zeal to

prove that Aaron was a Karaite.

v.

See Geschichte der Juden,

366, 1885, p. 102 f. A Syrian Codex of the year 412, written in Edessa (British Museum 12150), has already the vowels marked by

533

ff.

MGWJ,

1881,

p.

means

of points.

Compare

besides on the Syrian pointing

 81.

THE SUPEIiLINEAU SYSTEM.

orient,

Ewald, AhhnncUunf/cn zur

p.

und
les

hibl
p.

Litcratur,
;

1832,

53

flf.;

ZKM,
de
la

1*837, p.

204

ff.,

1839,

Ilistoire

jyujidatioji

chcz

109 fT. Martin, Si/ricns, 1875; Jacohi

;

Epistola de oHhographia si/riaca,

18G9
ff.
;

Journal Asiatique,

18G7,

i.

447

ff.,

1872,

i.

305
of

Nestle, Syr.

ZMDG,
in

xxx.

525

ff.

Wright, Catalogue

the

MSS.

British

Museum, iii. 1168 IT. That the usual system only attained by degrees wonderful nicety is proved by various indications. Dillniann on Gen. xliii. 26. above, 27, 30
;

its

present

Compare

81. Besides the system of pointing that

is

now common,
come

another system, differing from

to light since the year
it

it

in

some

respects, has

1840.

This second system, resting as

is

does on statements in various Bible manuscripts,

the
"

usually

called

Babylonian,"

and

is

regarded

as

that

which

prevailed in the Babylonian schools.

is

The

situation, however,

not so simple, as recently Wickes, on good grounds, has

pointed out.

The divergent system has become known

;

to us
it

from Babylonian and South Arabian manuscripts

but that

was not the only Babylonian system, and that the Babylonians
in
"

general

did

much

rather

use

the

ordinary,

so-called

Tiberian " or Palestinian, can be proved to demonstration.

Saadia,

Not only does

lon, therefore

who from

a.d.

928 wrought

in

Baby-

shortly after the time in which the

Codex of

the Prophets provided with the divergent system of pointing

was written

(see

28), speak as little as the Massoretes

and

Rabbis of such a system as characteristic of the Babylonians,

but the traditional readings of the
"

Babylonians"
"

30) are

sometimes of a kind that the

ing

"

Babylonian

system of pointof

would

have

been

absolutely

incapable

expressing
case,

graphically the distinction indicated.

therefore, are

The

facts of the

more correctly represented by saying that

this

second system had been made use of in Babylon alongside of

the received system, but not to such an extent that
it

attracted

any particular

notice

from the other Jews.

Until future

"

216

81.

THE SUPERLINEAR SYSTEM.

discoveries lead to further conclusions,

nate the divergent system by the

in

we had better denominame of the " second," or,

form,

accordance

with

its

peculiar

the

" superlinear

1/

system.

For the more exact determining of the points

of difference

between the two systems, we are directed

to be

to the conclusions

drawn from

their peculiar forms.

Now

the character-

istic of

the second system, besides the placing of the vowels

letters, is, that

above the

the signs for d (o) and

i,

ll

consist of a
a,

reduced reproduction of the letters K and

it

the sign for

as

seems, of a small

y.

If,

then,

we should

further consider
\

the point by which

is

indicated a contracted
i,

and the

double point

we should then have a completed system which reminds us of the West Syrian
:

for d as

a bisected

system of pointing by means of the Greek vowel signs used

since a.d. 700, and

which may be considered an independent

invention alongside of the received system.

ception of
it

But

this con-

is

not confirmed on closer examination.

i

The

superlinear signs for

and

S (^

and

'^)

are undeniably the

same

as

in

the

common

system, and since they, as mere

points, are not inconsistent in a superlinear system, a depend-

ence of this system upon the received

probable.

is

even by this made

This impression

is

further strengthened

by the

fact

that some manuscripts for

H plene scriptum use simply

their origin in

the

ordinary sign ^

Since then the recently published Karaite

28),

manuscripts

which in part had

the

neighbourhood of Bagdad, follow upon the whole the

system, but
designate
the

common
i.e.

4 by an Arabic damma,

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

of

system

indicating

the

vowels,
signs.

in

which indeed

i,

and

partially x, appear as
fore,

vowel

According to

this, there-

the superlinear system would be a secondary modification

 81.

THE SUPERLINEAR SYSTEM.

witli

217
the
received.

of

an older system essentially identical

Perhaps also in this way the position of the signs over the
letters

can be explained, for by this a collision with the older

system would be avoided, which would then also enable us to

understand how the double point was made the sign of
6.

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.

to the

Finally,

Wickes

also has

come

same

result

by means of a comparison

of the superlinear accentuation

with the received.

The older literature on the " Babylonian " pointing (among which especially see Pinsker, Einfilhrung in die Bahylon Jlchr. Panclation, 1863) is given in Strack's edition of the Bahylonian Propkct-Co'dcx, p. vii, and Strack-Harkavy's Katalog. der hchr. Further, Bibelhandscliriften zu St. Petersburg, 1875, p. 223 f. we may mention: ZLT, 1875, p. 619 ff., 1877, p. 18 ff.; Derenbourg, Revue crit. 1879, p. 453 ff.; M. Schwab, Act. 165-212; Griitz, MGWJ, 1881, dc la soc. phil. vii. p. 348 ff.; Strack in the Wisscsnch. Jahreshericht ulcr d. morgcnl. Studien in Jalire, 1879, p. 124; Merx, Verhandlungen d. and especially Wickes, 188 ff Orient. Congr. i. Berl. Accentuation of the so-called Prose Books, 1887, p. 142 The manuscripts with " Babylonian " pointing are given in
:

fl".

Strack's edition of the Prophet Codex, in Merx's Chrestomathia

iargumica,

p.

xv, and in Baer's Ziher Johi,

p. iv sq.

In an epigra[)h to a Pentateuch Codex with Targum to be found at Parma, where mention is made of the superlinear See system (nf?vo^ ipi^o), it is ascribed to the iiCK p.
Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur,
der Juden,
Books,
p.
p.

110;

Griitz, Geschichte

v.

556

Wickes, Accentuation of
in

so-called Prose

142.

So, too,

the

Massoretic

notes

in

the

Sometimes the superlinear vowel See Wickes, Accentuasystem is designated Indeed, the Babylonian Prophet Codex is tion, p. 145/1. also a witness to the fact that this system was used in
Tschufutkale manuscript.
the " Oriental."

218
Babylon.
that
if

82.

SIGNS OF ACCENTUATION.
perfect right

But with
in Ex.

xxiii.

5 ^OTi

is

Wickes emphasises the fact handed down as a " Babythe "Western," the superfor Segol,

lonian" reading in contrast to

linear system,

^^V!?!

which had no proper sign

So,
too,
is

would not

have been able in

pronunciation.

this case to give expression to the traditional

Saadia knows Segol as one of the

irreconcilable with the Babylonian

Hebrew
system.

vowels, which

few manuscripts with the supeiiinear 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
to

Although up

this time

relatively

i, c, 5^ a and Oy k ^ u, x o, n a and n - X (the horizontal stroke indicates Sheva). In the Job Codex, of which Baer's Lihcr Johi contains a facsimile, and in the Prophet Codex the
ii,

system
with

is

complicated, for the sign for Sheva

is

also

combined
der
hebr.

the

other

vowels.

See

Stade,

Lelirhuch

Grammatik,
for

37.
;

In

this
it

way, no doubt, originated a sign

seems,
it

^ (namely x)
;

but, as

was only used

if

an

lost the tone

otherwise a or f stood for SegoL

AVhile the

Prophet Codex represents u by ^, the sheet produced by facsimile from Job has sometimes this sign, sometimes the
superlinear.

On

the

Karaite
p. 1

manuscripts, compare
f.

Hoerning,

Seeks

Karait. Manuscr.

82. In all probability, contemporaneously with the intro-

duction of the vowel signs the

text

was provided with a

logical

system of accentuation marks, which played the double role

of indicating the tone syllable of the

words and their

superordination or subordination in the verse as a whole.

In the Talmud, Masseket Soph^rim, the Synagogue

rolls

and

the Samaritan manuscripts, these signs are as completely un-

known
is,

as are the

vowel

signs.

The superlinear vowel system

as already indicated in

81, accompanied by a divergent

system of accents, in which the accents are indicated partly

by the

initial

letters of their

names.

This

is

found, as

it

83.

SEPARATION OF WOHDS.

seems, in

all

books, whereas the received system of pointing

tliree

has for the

poetical books, Psalms, Proverbs,

and the

Book

of

Job (s"on), a separate system.

There are five words mentioned in h. Joma r>2nr, the connection of which in tlie verse were doubtful (namely, nsL", ins, inD, Ex. xvii. 9 Gen. iv. 7 Dnp:;'^, Ex. xxv. 35
; ; ;

Gen.

xlix.

7;

Dpi,

Dent. xxxi. 16), wliich speaks against

of

tlie

existence of

a system

accentuation.

Compare

Berliner,

29 f. On the accents, compare Heidenheim, Scplicr Mischpctc hatcnmim, 1808; Jhuda b. Bal'ams, Ahhandlvvrj vhcr die Baer, Thorath 2)oetischen Acccntc, ed. Polak, Amsterdam, 1858 Emeth, 1852 and on the position of Metheg. in Merx, Arcliiv Griitz, MGWJ, 1882, p. 385 ff. d. A. r. i. 55 fur wiss
Beitrdgc zur hchr. Grammatil\
;

ff'.

Wickes, Treatise on the Accentuation of the Three Poetical Treatise on the Accentuation of Books, London 1881, and

Compare Twmty-one so-called Prose Boohs, Oxford 1887. Baer and Strack, Dikduhe, pp. 1 6-33 and on the Accentuation
the
;

in

Codex

Reuchlin

Baer,

Liher Jeremiad,
p.

]>.

ix.

On
p.

thu
ff
.

Babylonian system:

ZLT, 1875,

606,

1877,

31

Wickes, Accentuation of

the Prose Books, p.

142

ff.

4 The Divisions of
83. Several

the Text.

Semitic

peoples,

like

the

South

Arabians,

Ethiopians, Samaritans, and in part also the Phoenicians,

the separation of individual words in a

piece of

mark writing by
The

means

of

point

or

stroke

inserted between them.

conjecture

naturally
also

suggests itself

that

at

one time the

of their

Hebrews

had separated the individual words

a similar way, partly because not
(

sacred text in

only the

Mesha

tablet

but also the Siloah inscription

75) has a

point between the several words, partly because the double point dividing verses {Soj)h pasuk,

84) can be most simply

conceived of as originating through the doubling of such a

220
point.

84.

SEPAEATION OF VERSES.
it is

But, on the other hand,

certain that this point

in

any case has not been regularly used, because we could not
cases in

then account for the frequent

divides the words otherwise than

which the LXX.

33 that the Jewish
in

the Massoretic text (com

pare

77),

and we have seen

alludes
to

also in

tradition

itself

certain

passages

which

the

division of words
{h.

was uncertain.

In the Babylonian Talmud

ii.)

Me7iachoth oOa, compare Masseket Soph^rim,

a point for

separating

words

is

unknown.

It

is

rather

required that
left as

between the several words an empty space should be

large as a letter, while the space left between letter

and
hair.

letter

within the word should just be the breadth of a

the hypothesis that in earlier times a scriptio

Yet

continua had

been in use in the Old Testament texts

easily the letters

is

unproved.

How

might be

falsely divided is

shown by the

common

Bible manuscripts themselves, which yet labour after

the observing of the Talmudical prescriptions.

On

the divergent systems of dividing words that appear in

d.

Jerome, see ]N"owack, Die Bedeutung

Textkritik, p.

Hier.filr

d.

Alttestamentl.

41

f.

On
84.

the final letters, compare

77.
for

The double
is

point,

Soph pasuk,

marking the division

Thora

of verses,

made mention

of for the first time in Seplier

and Masseket Soph^rim, but the prohibition on the part

shows

of these

writings against the use of this double point in the synagogue

rolls

at the

same time that

"

originally

it

had been foreign

to the text.

in the

With this Mishna " verses

among

also agree the older witnesses.

Even
;

are

spoken

of,

p^D^

pi. D^ip^DQ

but
it

from statements in the Talmud and other ancient writings

is

evident that

the

Jews much

diversity of usage pre-

vailed with regard to the

dividing of the several verses, and

that

among

others

the

Babylonian Jews

in

this

respect

observed a different rule from the Palestinians.

vacillation

The same

shows

itself

when we compare

the old translations,

 84.

SEPAKATION OF YEKSES.
for

221
have
another
text.

especially

the

LXX.,

these

frequently

system of verse division from that of the Massoretic

Since
those
differences
affect

also

the poetical

books,

the

practice of writing in lines or stichoi cannot have been in

use in these times, which yet seems so natural a method of

writing

Hebrew

poetry.

On

the other hand, perhaps about

its

the time of Jerome, this system had found

poetical books, while the colometric

way

into the

style of writing introhis translation of

duced by

this

father of the

Church into

the other books w^as an imitation of the editions of classical

writers.

The

division of verses that

is

now common, which

is

based

on the parallelism prevailing in the poetical books, for in the

other writings
it

divides

paragraphs of the size of a poetical

double clause,

is

neither the Babylonian nor the Palestinian,

but a third which seems to have been fabricated by the old

Massoretes, since
it

comes to view
of

first

of all in the
( 32).

above-

mentioned Massoretic work

Seplier Tlwra,
iii.

Aaron ben Asher

:

(ed. Kircliheim, p. 6)

manuscript in
a point could
iii.

which the beginning

of the

verse

is

marked by
rolls

not be used for public reading.

Masseket Soph^rivi,
of

6.

In a remarkable w\ay the

;

Crimea disregard this rule while, on the contrary, four Crimean private manuscripts have no Soph pasuJ:. See ZLT, 1875,
synagogue
the
p.

601.

In the Mishna

(Mer/. iv.

4)

it is

said

"

The readers should

Also he should

read not less than three Pesuhim of the Law.

( 60).

not read more than one Pasuk at a time to the interpreter

On

the other hand, in the Prophets, he should read

if

three Pcsukim at a time, yet only

three
i.

the three Pesukun are not

ParasJws.
f
.

97
;

Strack, Proler/omcna,
"ii.

373

Jikl.

Compare Wiihner, Antiquitates Ehrcrormn, Geiger, Urschrift, p. 78 ff. Zcitschrift, 140, iv. 113, 265, x. 24; Nach;

gelassene Schriften,

iv.

24.

On

the

various

systems

of

verse

divisions,

compare

222
especially
Griitz,

84.

SEPARATION OF VERSES.

MGWJ,

1885,

p.

97

ff.

It

is

expressly
of

said

in

h.

Kidd. 306

that a full

understanding

verse

division

is

not to be had.

According to this passage, which

of verses, the

refers to the

Babylonian division

Law

has 5888,

the Psalms 5896, and the Chronicles

5880

verses.

At

the

same time
for they,

it is

said that the Palestinians

had another

division,

three verses.

among other differences, Compare Masscket

xiii.

divide

Exodus

xviii. 9 into

SojjJi^rim, ix.

3,

where we

probably meet with the

which, not Lev.
verse of the Law.

Palestinian division,
viii.

according to

23 was the middle Examples of passages in which the LXX.

33, but Lev.
text,
f,,
f.

and other versions divide otherwise than the Massorete

are the following
xc.
:

Ps. xvii. 3

f.,

xxiii. 5
iv.

f.,

Ixv. 8
f.;

f.,

xc. 2
i.

11

f.,

xcv. 7;

Lam.

iii.

5; Hos.
sacra,

11

Isa.
3.

12

Compare Cappellus,
also be

Critica

lib.

iv.

cap.

It

may
82,

mentioned that of the words mentioned in

is

whose relation

doubtful, one stands quite at the beginning

of the verse: Gen. xlix. 7 (compare 91).

On

the Massoretic division of verses compare Baer and

Strack, Dikduke, p.

55

f.

In the Babylonian Talmud {Meg. 16a) mention

of a kind of writing in lines
;

is

made

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 Compare further, Delitzsch, Psalmcn, 1883, above sections.
p.

187

Levy, Neuliehrdischer
p.

Wd?ierhuch,

i.

163

Strack,

Prolegomena,

80.

On
iv.

the colometric style of writing in

vi.

Origen, compare Eusebius, Hist Ecclcs.

De

2^onderibus
:

et

mens.

In the Preface

to Isaiah

16; Epiphanius, Jerome

T^emo cum prophetas versibus viderit esse descriptos, metro eos ?estimet apud Hebneos ligari et aliquid simile sed quod in habere de psalmis et operibus Salomonis
says
"
;

Demosthene et in Tullio solet fieri, ut per cola scribantur et commata, qui utique prosa et non versibus conscripserunt, nos quoque utilitati legentium providentes interpretationem novam novo scribendi genere distinximus." Compare Morinus, Exercitationes hiblicce, p. 476 ff., and, in general, Birt, Das antike Buchwcse7i, 1882, p. 180. The single lines bear also

85.

SEPARATION OF PARASHAS.
versiculi or versus,

223
which

in

Jerome and Augustine the name

p.

Alorinus has misunderstood,

85.

481

f.

Sections embracing a larger portion of the text, the so-

called Farashas {^^y^^, pi.

^^1^) were marked by

the

Jews
of

by means

of

intervening spaces, which in

the case

specially complete sundering of the passage, leave all the rest

of

the line empty, whereas, in

the

case

of

the sundering

indicated being less thoroughgoing, this ended in the middle

of the line.

In the former

case, the

Parashas that ended in

the latter " closed,"
to indicate

that

way were
to

called " open," nimna, in

it

ninnp.
a
D,

Subsequently

was customary

by a d or

which

class

the Parasha belonged.

In the editions
is

and

in

most of the manuscripts the use of these signs

it

confined to the Law, whereas Baer has carried

editions (.24) even in the other books.

out in his

According to the
closed

received divsion, the

Parashas.

Law

contains

298 open and 379

The Karaite manuscript, written

in Arabic letters,

edited by Hoerning, diverges in part from this division, as

also elsewhere in this direction a certain vacillation prevails.

As concerns
of

the antiquity of this division, mention

is

made

open and of closed Parashas in both Talmuds.

See hah. Sahh.

1036; jcr Meg. 716.

times
there
(6.

Also the separate Psalms were someIn the Mishna

Bcraclioth 96, 10a) called Parashas.

is

no mention of the two kinds of Parashas, but the

general
if

Parasha division in

is

spoken

of,

and

particular

examples are given which,

not always, yet at least for the

divisions

most

part,

agree
3, 7,

with the later

{TaaiiUh, 4.
also

Mcnachoth
Parashas

and

often).

The Mishna knew

{Meg.
4. 4).

of

of

the

Prophets

AVhether

these

Parashas were outwardly marked as early as the times of the

Tannaites, as at any rate they

seem

to

have been in the time

of Jerome, cannot be conclusively decided.

And

that there
in a

must have been a time

single

in

which the Psalms were not

instance

distinguished

from each other by means of

224
clear

85.

SEPARATION OF PARASHAS.
concluded from the
vacillation

intervals

may be

in

reference to their
for the text,

number and
the

division in the old authorities

and even in
whole,

later manuscripts.

On

the

received

Parasha

division

is

to

be
vi.

characterised as proper and fitting.

Instances like Ex.

28, Hag.

i.

15, where evidently verses that go together are

Ivi.

separated, or Isaiah

9,

where the separation

rests

on an

incorrect exegesis, are comparatively rare.

Compare Morinus, Exercitationes Biblicce, p. 491 ff. Hupfield, TSK, 1837, p. 837 ff. Sfcrack, Prolegomena, p. 74 ff. Geiger, Jilcl. Zeitsclirift, x. 197 Nachgelasscne Schriften, iv. 22 f. Gratz, MGWJ, 1885, p. 104 f. Originally Parasha only means a section in general, specially one larger than a verse. Compare l. Beraclioth 63a, " a verse " is called " a small Parasha." where The passage from the Mishna {Meg. 4. 3), referred to in 84, proceeds on
;
; ; ;

the assumption that sometimes a Parasha

may

consist only of
lii.

one verse, which actually

is

the case in Isaiah

ff.

Jerome sometimes correspond exactly with the Parashas, e.g., Micah vi. 9, on which passage he expressly remarks " In Hebraicis alterius hoc capituli exordium est, apud LXX. vero finis superioris." Hence in his text the division was outwardly marked. Compare also on Zeph. 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,
of
:

The Capitida

Massehet Soph^rim,

p.

222

f.;

B^ethgen, in the Schriftcyi d.

Universitdt Kiel, 1879, p. 9. The division now common, which is met with also in Luther, makes the number of the Psalms 150. This is also the number in the LXX., but it is there reached in another way, namely, by joining Psalms ix. and X., cxiv. and cxv., 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 entirely different total is given. Thus jer. Sahh. 16. 1, fol. 15c, gives 147 Psalms, while several old manuscripts have also less than 150, for they frequently join Psalms xlii. and

 8G.

DIVISION INTO CHAPTERS.

225
Psalm was Psalm ii. (see
i. i.

xliii.,

and

cxiv.

and cxv.
;

In olden times,

too,

often
b.

not counted, or

else
xiii.

connected

witli

Bcrachoth, 9b

Acts
is

33

Justin Martyr,
{b.

40), so that

the 10th Psalm

once referred to

Meg. lib) as the 9th.

We

must not confound with the Parasha division spoken of

in the above section the liturgical division of the

Law

into

Parashas, and of the Prophets into Haplitaras (niDSn).

This
of the

system of readings was connected with

one year
matter
{b.

tlie

practice
of the
tliree

Babylonian Jews, which overtook the reading

course had been introduced

{b.

Law

in

Meg. olb)\ whereas in Palestine a

Meg.

years'
this

296; compare on
1

8G).

Yet

tlie

now

authorised fifty-four liturgical

Parashas were not made finally valid before the

4th century.

They were only externally marked in the Law, and this was done by writing d or D three times in the empty space preceding its beginning. With the exception of the one passage
(Gen.
xlvii.-

28), their beginnings always corresponded with the

beginning of an open or closed Parasha.

his edition
n: n'jns,

Baer, however, in
*]55

of Genesis, gives
etc.

them

their full title,

n'jnD
ii.

p,

Compare
ff.
;

Jost, Geschichte d.
. ;

Judcnthums,

137;
1870,

Strack,

Prolegomena,

531 p. 122 ff., 250 ff.,

Journal asiatique, 76 f p. and especially EFJ, iii. 282-285, vi.

ff.

vii.

146

86. It has usually been supposed that in the division of

the text into Seclarim D^ilD, as
it

was made known specially

1525, we have an attempt

by Jacob ben Chajim's Bible of

of

a.d.

on the part of the Jews to carry out an actual arrangement

the

Old

Testament
to
it

in

chapters.

Pecently,

however,
originally

Theodor has sought

a liturgical one, for

show that
is

this division

was

said to correspond with

the three

years' Palestinian cycle of the reading of the

Law

( 85).

The

Sedarim division of the other writings would then have to be

regarded as a later imitation of the
case,

Law

division.

In any
this

and

to

this others

have already called attention,

division agrees remarkably with the order of the old Midrashim,

which decidedly give the impression of having been homilies

226

86.

DIVISION INTO CHAPTERS.

based upon these.

a
little.

Moreover, the Sedarim division varies not

{Sahh. 16. 1,
fol.

The Jerusalem Talmud

15c,

com-

pare Masscket Soprim, 16.

10, xxx.) gives to the

Sedarim.

On

the other hand, the division

of

Law 175 made known by

manuscript
Finally, the

Jacob ben Chajim has 447 Sedarim,

which 154 are in the

to

Law.

This numbering

is

now found

have

authority in a Bible Codex of the year 1294.

South Arabian Massora manuscript edited by

(

Derenbourg

32) has 167 law Sedarim, with which the Bible of the year

1010 is in substantial agreement. The division into chapters which now has secured actual recognition in the Hebrew Bible, was borrowed by the Jews
from the Christians.
text of the Vulgate

After a variety of earlier attempts, the

in the thirteenth

was divided into chapters

it

century, in order that

might be possible

to prepare practical

Bible

concordances.

This division, which varies here and

first

there in details,

was used

of all

by Isaac Nathan

in his

Hebrew concordance, prepared 1437-1448, and published in 1523, and subsequently it was adopted in the second Bomberg
Bible in a.d.

1521.

Unfortunately in

many

passages

the

work was done

just in a haphazard
it, it is

way, and though we

yet to be recommended

must always evidently hold by that in editions of the text and

translations, the portions of the

text should be otherwise grouped,

when

the blunders are so

ii.

evident and generally admitted as in Gen.

ff.

Isa. ix.

1-6,

X.

1-4,

lii.

13-15.
of

The numbering
the

the verses naturally

It is

presupposes the
first

division into chapters.

met with

for the
a.d.

time in
( 62),

Sabbioneta edition of the Pentateuch,

to the
a.d.

1557
first

and applied

whole of the Old Testament 1661.

in the

Athias Bible of

On
p.

the
ff.
;

Sedarim,

compare

Miiller,
p.

Massehct

Sopherim,
Theodor,

220

Journal asiatique, 1870,

529

ff.

Geiger, Jild.

Zeitschrift,

1872,

p.

22

Baer, Liher Genesis,

p.

92

 87.

DIVISION INTO BOOKS.

227
fl'.,

MGUV,
35
pp.
if.

188.".,

p.

351

il,

1S8G,

]k

212

1887.

p.

On
owe
to

the cliapters, compare Morinus, Eoccrcitationcs

f.,

biblicoc,

484

487

f.

The determining

of

the date as given

we

p. GiU). In the following century Nicholas von Lyra (quoted by Merx, Joel, p. 320) complains: " Signatio capitulorum in bibliis

CJenebrardus, Clcronoyraphia (ed. Paris IGGO,

nostris est frequenter defectiva, quia frequenter

non sequitur

signationera hebraicam nee etiam

in antiquis bibliis

Hieronymum, ut prajsertini secundum Hieronymum signatur."

originally of

87. Tliere
"

was mention

division

into

Books

"

with reference only to certain particular writings of

the Old Testament, namely, the Pentateuch, the

Book

of the

Twelve

Prophets,

the

Psalms,

and

Ezra-Nehemiah.

This
easily

division, w^hich in the case of the

Twelve Prophets was

five books,

enough understood,

is

also in those other writings very old.

Thus the dividing

of the

Psalms into

which again

without doubt presupposes the five-fold division of the Law,

was indirectly witnessed

(compare
(b.

to as

early

as

by the Chronicles

Chron. xvi.

ff.

with

Ps. cvi.).

The Talmud
of four lines

Bdba

bathra, lob) requires an

empty space
Prophets.
to

between the Books of the

between the Books
time,
since
it

Pentateuch, and of three lines

of

the Minor

At the same
write
all

had then become customary

or

several writings in one volume, four

empty

lines are required

between each
cff.

of the prophetic writings.

In some manuscripts,
28), one

in

the Bible of the year

1010

empty
to

line is

found between Ezra and Nehemiah.

In
the printed
Bibles
it

became customary

make

further division of particular works.

of literature

In Alexandria, the city

par

excellence,

the practice began,

even in the

years before Christ, of substituting short and convenient rolls

for the old

and often very long ones, and consequently

to

it

was
into

found

necessary

divide

the

great

literary

works

228

88.

LINGUISTIC VALUE OF POINTING.

separate books.

Thus

it

also

happened with the Alexandrine

translation, for the

Book

of Samuel, the

Book
of

of the Kings,

the

Book

of Chronicles,

and the Book

Ezra, were

each

divided into two books, whereas even the longest prophetic

writings were left undivided
division

Although the occasion of

of rolls
it

this

was removed when the use

was abandoned
still

in

favour of the Codex form ( 74),

was

retained,

and

subsequently was adopted from the Vulgate into the Bomberg

Bible of

1521 (compare
is

86).
five

Mention
h.

made
The

of the

books of Psalms even in

so

Kidd.

33a.

otherwise

well instructed

Jerome

strangely enough wished, as the Preface to his translation of

the Psalms shows (Lagarde's edition,

division as one not genuinely Jewish.

p.

f.),

to reject this

On

the Alexandrine
p.

practice,
it

compare

Birt,

Das

antike

Buchwesen,
"

479.

Yet

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.).

B.

The Internal History of the

side of the

Text.

1.

The Linguistic

Transmission of Scripture,

88. Since the Massoretic system of pointing

was invented
and clear by
of

only at a comparatively late date, the question arises as to

how
this

the pronunciation, that was

made

visible

means,

is

related to the

actual pronunciation

the

Hebrew
the

as a living language.

This question

is

naturally of

fundamental interest in connection with the minute study of

Hebrew

tongue, but
if

it

will also

reward the student of the

it.

history of the text,

he will give a glance at In the

Here now

two

facts are firmly established.

first place,

we never

elsewhere meet with a system of pronunciation so thoroughly

 88.

LINGUISTIC VALUE OF rOINTING.

229

characterised by inner logical consistency as that which lies

before us in the Palestinian system of pointing.

And,

in the
first

second place,

it is

certain that this system

is

not one that

is,

takes form artificially through later reflection, but

in all

essential respects, in accordance with the early tradition.

follows, partly

This
tu

from the incapacity of the oldest Massoretes

understand actually the system of pronunciation, partly from

its essential

agreement with the transcriptions in Jerome and

from the testimonies regarding the

Origen

( 36), and, finally,

pronunciation of the allied Phoenician language.

Only the

pronunciation of a as

a,

which

is

presupposed by the pointing,

is

because

it

uses the same sign for 6 and a,

to

be considered
in

as a novelty

which

is

to be

met with

in

Jerome merely

isolated cases, while

even later only the Polish-German Jews

a.

so

pronounce

it,

whereas the Spanish Jews have a pure

it is

On

the other hand, with regard to the Sheva

that

not to be

forgotten,

we have

it

expressly stated by
sign

Aaron ben
various

Asher and
sometimes

other rabbis, that this

represents

vowels or vowel sounds according to the syllable following,

e,

sometimes

i,

sometimes

d,

by which means

apparent differences between the pointing and the old transcriptions transmitted to us have repeatedly arisen.

But by

this

it is

only proved that the system of pointing

gives visibility to

what had once actually been the ordinary

pronunciation of the Hebrew, and indeed the best

sible to us,
is

now

acces-

but by no means that the Massoretic pronunciation

it is

absolutely the oldest, let alone that

the only one that

has ever been.

(

In the transcribed proper names in the

LXX.

30) we meet with a style of pronunciation considerably

different

from that of the Massoretes, which no doubt

may

often have arisen through the

awkwardness

of the transcribers,

and through a certain degeneration of the language on the

part of

Jews
it

living

among

foreigners

but nevertheless here

and there

does retain

the original form.

According

to

230
Jerome

88,

LINGUISTIC VALUE OF POINTING.

(Epist.

73,

Ad

Evangelum)

it

was admitted that

in

Hebrew pro
accentihiLs

varietate

regiomtm eadem verba diversis sonis atque

were pronounced.

To

this are to be

added further

the proofs which the Massoretic pronunciation

favour of the
fact,

itself affords in

that

it

belonged to a later development of

only through the postulating
origin.

the language, for it

of older forms

is intelligible

from which the present had their

That

in the linguistic investigations in connection with this subject

even those Greek transcriptions must have their value

clear,

is

but the systematic and thorough use of these means

of

and apparatus, upon the necessity

special stress,
its
is still

which Lagarde has

laid

in its infancy,

and demands, moreover, in

use
is

a very

particular measure of circumspection.

still

The

same

true in a

higher degree

of

the

transcriptions

which are found in the old inscriptions and there can shed
proper names.
light

( 36),

which

also here

upon an antique stage of the Hebrew

language, and especially on the original pronunciation of the

Compare
Hebraisclun,

Schreiner,

Ziir

Gcscliichte

der

Aussioraclu

des

ZAW,

vi.

213-259; Kautzsch, ZDMG,

xxxiv.

388, and the writings referred to in 36. On the similarity between the Massoretic pronunciation of
the

Hebrew and the pronunciation

ff.

of the Phoenician

known

through Plautus, compare Schroder, Die jphdnizische SpracJie,

1869, p. 120 In Jerome

as
0,
e.g.

^5

is

pronounced generally as
"^J!

d,

more rarely
xxvi.

bosor "i^3 (Isa. xxxiv. 6), zochor

it

(Isa.

14).

Moreover,
in

should not be overlooked that the transcriptions

Jerome are not rarely vacillating, which in many cases must be ascribed to his Jewish teachers, but certainly in

many

to his

own

inaccuracy.

The

rules with reference to the pronunciation of the Sheva

word are given thus by ben Asher {Dikduhe, ed. Baer and Strack, pp. 12 f., 31 f.) before yod it is i, e.g. Di''3, bijSm (compare Jerome on Isa. xvii. 11
mobile at the beginning of the
:

88.

LINGUISTIC VALUK OF roiNTINC.

the yod

2:31

hioju),
(ill

but

it is c, if

itself

has

i,

cfj.

?Ni"*'7,

I'jisrdH

these cases ben Naphtali writes

^^^^t:7, wliicli

undoubtedly
;

agrees with the old pronunciation

Israel, not Jisrael

i.

compare

Haupt,
b.

Bcitrcifjc

zur Assyriologic,

17,

260

the practice of

Naphtali, moreover, has

:

made
10
;

its

way

into several editions of

; ;

the Tcxtiis licccptus

Eccles.
ii.

Ps. xlv.
it

13

when

has Metlicg,
a

Pro v. xxx. 17 Jer. xxv. 2G it sounds , ejj. Ni33, habd

(compare the frequent a instead of Shcva in Jerome,

p.

ZA W, ZA W,
p.

iv.

29

f.)

or

finally, before

guttural
it

it

takes the vowel

c.

of the

guttural, e.g. "i^p, iifod.

Elsewhere

sounds

Compare
vi.

on the somewhat

modified rules of other teachers,

237

Gesenius-Kautzsch, Grammatik, xxv.

the significance
of

10,

48.

Greek transcriptions in the Hcxapla and in the LXX., compare Lagarde, Mitthcilungen, ii. " Uebersicht iiber die im Aram. iibliche 3(51 f If the orthography of the Bildung der Nomina," passim. Siloah inscription (in opposition to the tablet of Mesha, 75)
the
. : .

On

represents the original pronunciation of

as an, then should

V^'in

forms like Avvav instead of

xiii.

)J^5<,

Avarj instead of
all
if

(Num.

8),

be regarded as an older pronunciation,

ii.

the more as

the Assyrians write ausia {ZA,

261).

But

one should

bethink him that the Syrians not rarely resolve 6 into au {eg,

ausar instead of

osdr,

mraum

instead of ^iiD, compare Stade,

Grammatik, p. 120), it might still be discussed whether a Greek au might not many a time have originated in a similar way. Further, the conclusions drawn by Lagarde from forms like ^oSofia, HoXoficov, etc., in favour of a typal form quhd, ingeniously as they are vindicated, are yet somewhat problematical, since here there must be subsumed a pronunciation coloured by the assimilating of the mobile vowel, as the Massoretes admitted was the case before the gutturals (see above).

Compare

nijilim,

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

nr, e, i,

o.

Compare

what

is

said in the above

81 about the Babylonian system

of pointing.

232

89.

DEVELOPMENT OF TEXTUAL

CRITICISM.

On
tions,

the significance of the names transcribed on the inscrip-

Haupt, Beitrdge zicr Assyriologie, i. 169 f. To the examples there named may be added Rasunu, which corresponds to the Paaaa-cov of the
v. 1 6 8
f
;
.

compare Stade,

ZA ]^,

LXX. against the Many niceties

have been
pointing,

pV"i

of the Massoretic text.

of

the Massoretic pronunciation can only

established

finally

by the introduction

of

the

among these also various superfine forms. Thus we would certainly not make the old genuine language responsible for a form like P]""^T, Ps. vii. 6, or D^nufin, Zech. x. 6. The same is true indeed of differentiating forms like ">''?^? and "l'?^5, D*n3 and D"-!!?, "q^b and "^b^, 'pi< and ^J'^x, which probably rest on artificial forms, although these may have been found already in existence by the Massoretes, as certainly was the
case

with

the

sensible

pronunciation
in

J^.ip^V

(LXX.

o-Kia

Oavdrov),

Sometimes

errors

the consonantal text have

ii.

occasioned impossible forms,

e.g.

Neh.

14;

Jer. xv. 10.

2.

The Transmission of

the Text according to its real

Contents.

89. In the
Criticism
is

form

in

which the Old Testament Textual

it

presently conducted,

is

a young phenomenon.
(t

The Eeformed theologian Cappellus

(t

1658), and Morinus

1659), who went over to Catholicism, had indeed, already

the

in

seventeenth
of

century,

sketched
;

the

outlines

of

criticism

Old

Testament Text

but this remained for

has a beginning been

a long time disregarded, and only

now

made

in earnest to take in

hand the necessary preliminary

of the

labours.

Even among the Jews

to

Middle Ages we meet

because

with a conception of Scripture which led them as a matter of

principle

exclude

all

criticism

of

the

text,
e.g.

it

regarded

all traditional

divergences of the text,

reading,
as

the Baby-

lonian and Palestinian

revelations.

resting

on independent

In later times the rigid theory of inspiration in

 89.

DEVELOI'MENT OF TEXTUAL CKITICISM.

233

the older rrotestantism contributed to the branding of any

attempt to improve the traditional text as a dangerous undertaking.

Indeed, the Formula consensus Hclvdici ( 78), with

all

scrupulous exactness, expressly rejects

textual criticism which
lias

that apparatus for

by

earlier

and

later critics of the text

been

declared

indispensable.

And even
who

in

modern

times have there been several scholars

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 revolutionary " textual emendations " of some critics, and
it

remains
text

a not-to-be-forgotten truth that the traditional

will

Hebrew

ever

have an advantage over the text that has only

been reached, yet the opinion always more and
criticism of the text
is

indirectly'

more gains ground that a methodical

be regarded, not only as a
right,

to

but also as a duty which

we

owe

to

the Old Testament writers, and to the noble works

left behind.

which they have

The

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

more
so

ado as authentic.

The Hebrew manuscripts exhibit indeed

is

remarkable an agreement, that a strong impression

of the care

produced

which the Jews had expended on the reproduction

of the sacred text.

But even although

this

imposing agree-

ment has been

still

more evidently supported documentarily

by the oldest recently discovered manuscripts, yet a thoroughgoing examination proves that the text preserved with such
extraordinary care
relation of
is,

after all,

only a Tcxtus Rcccptus, the

which

to the original text still

remains a question

234

89.

DEVELOPxMENT OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

for discussion.

And

that these

two forms of the text are not

circumSpecially convincing are the
lie

without further inquiry to be

stances iucontestably
proves.

identified, a variety of

texts which in the Old Testament itself

before ns in a
differ

double form
a

( 73),

and which often in

details

in such

way

that only the one form can be correct.

But even

elsewhere passages are met with which in the received form

are absolutely impossible

and admit only

text.

of

one explanation,
if

namely, that of an error of the

Even

the state of

matters were such that only a single instance of this sort

could be proved,
as

it

would be thereby made good, that the text

which cannot be put
to

we have
all

it is

not absolutely in harmony with the original,

aside, of

and

so there originates the task,

using
all

means within our reach in order

make
this
to

clear at

points the relation of the Textus Receptus to the oldest text

;

objectively accessible to us

and only when

work has

been done, can the question be answered as

task of

whether the

Old Testament criticism can be hereby solved, or

still

whether we must

call

to

our

aid a well considered

conjectural criticism.

In 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 followimr sketch be treated

separately, since they belong to

two

different periods,

and do

not come forward with the same authority.

of HirzeVs Job
;

Compare among others, Olshausen's Prefaces to his edition and to his own Commentary on the Psalms, Dillmann in Herzog's Real-Encyclopcedie -, ii. pp. 1 7-2 2 399 f.; Konig, ZKWL, 1887, pp. 273-297. Compare the interesting statements of Saadia about the
variations in the
p.

Dikduke,
"

82

f.

Old Testament text in Baer and Strack, Formida consensus Helvetici, Canon iii.
:

proinde sententiam probare neutiquam possumus, qui lectionem, quam Hebraicus Codex exhibet, humano tantum

Eorum

 89.

DEVELOPMENT OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

esse
definiunt,

235

arbitrio

constitutam

quique lectionem Heb-

quam minus cominodam ex LXX. seiiiorum aliorumque

raicam,

judicant, configere,

eamque
Codice
inio

versionibus
vel

Giiucis,

Samaritano, Targuinim

Chaldaicis,

aliunde

etiam,

quandoque ex sola ratione emendare religione neutiquaiii ducunt, neque adeo aliani lectionem authenticam, quam quiu ex collatis inter se editionihus, ipsiusque etiam Ilebraici codicis, quem variis modis corruptuni esse dictitant, adhibita
circa

lectiones

variantes

humani

judicii Kplaev, erui possit

agnoscunt."

Examples
correct
:

of

parallel texts, of

which only the one can be

;

D^nn, 1 Chron. i. 7, D^nn Gen. xxxvi. 23, \hv, 1 Chron. i. 40, \hv\ Judges vii. 22,m-iv, 1 Kings xi. 26, 2 Sam. m-iv; 2 Sam. xxiii. 27, ^J3D, 1 Chron. xi. 29, ^22D 2 Sam. xxii. 11, sn^i, Ts. xxiii. 13, TVp, 1 Chron. xi. 15, ivn
Gen.
x. 4,
;

xviii.

11, KT'^

etc.

Examples

of passages,

which on
xix.

logical
6,

grounds must be
21, 36
f.,

incorrect: Josh.

xv.

32, 36,

15, xxxviii.

where the number

2 Sam. xxiii. 18
3,

at the

end of the names referred

total
;

to does not

represent the actual

f.;

sum

the meaningless expression,

Jer. xxvii. 1,

where, according to xxvii.

and xxxviii.
13, etc.

On

Zedekiah should be read for Jehoiachim. grammatical grounds we cannot accept the n: of Ezek.
1,

xlvii.

Besides

the works

of

Cappellus and

23, the special treatises on the

LXX.

Morinus named in mentioned in 41,

and Lagarde's Specimen spoken of in 45, the following may be referred to among the more important modern works as
textual criticism
lihros,
:

Houbigant, Notcc

criticcc

in

iiniv.

Vet. Test,

1777

(in

opposition: Kallius,

Prod, examinis criseos

Houh. in Cod. Heir., Copenhagen 1763, and Examen criseos Houh. in Cod. Hchr. 1764); Kennicott, Dissertatio generalis
in the second

volumn
e

of

V. T. Hchr.

cum

variis lectionihus;
in-

Spohn, Jcremias

'ccrsione

Judccorum Alex, ac rcliquorum

terprctum grcecorum emcndatus, 1794 1824; Olshausen, Emcndationcn z. A. T., Kiel 1826; Bcitriirjc zur Kritik dcs Wellhausen, Text iibcrlicfcrten Tcxtes im Buchc Genesis, 1870
;

d. Biichcr

Samuelis,

1871

Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text

236

90.

COKRECTNESS OF THE VOCALISATION.

of the Books of Samuel, 1890; Taylor, The Massoretic Text and the Ancient Versiojis of Micah, 1891; Bsethgen, Der TextkritiUehersetzungen zu den Psalmen in JPT, 1882, pp. 405 ff., 593 ff.; Merx, Der Werk der Septuaginta fur die Textkritik der Alten Tcstamentes in JPT, 1883, p. 6 5 ff. Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Bzechiel, 1886; the peculiar works of Krochmal, Haksaio we hamichtow, 1875. Also the various commentaries (e.g. Lowth's Isaiah and Klostermann's Bilcher Samiielis und der Konige), and innumerable articles referring to matters of detail in reviews and in
sche

Werk

der Alten

Lagarde's works.
a.

Vocalisation.

90. If

we

consider the Massoretic system of points, not

from the standpoint of the science of language, but simply as

a means of discovering the meaning of the text, the
ences
differ-

presented
of

by the

manuscripts

and the

Massoretic

collections

variations are of extremely little importance.

9,

Such complete divergences as Hosea x. Judges XX. 48, Dnp and Dhn Ps. Ixxv.
;

JJ^^n and

nson
'^?']'?"?

7, "iJlTpp

and

Eccles.

ii.

7,

njpp and

^}J>P', Jer.

xxvii. 17,

njnn, are ^PJ} and

very rare, and even these are without any essential influence

upon the

exposition.
is

Of greater importance

the difference,

when we compare
totalities,

the Massoretic vocalisation with that of the old translations.

So long as we speak of the different vocalisations as

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.

translators,

None

of the

old

with the exception possibly of the Targumists,

is

whose testimony, however,

of the text, has
text,

weakened by

their free treatment

had so clear an insight into the sense of the

it

and has understood

down

to its nicest peculiarities in

it lies

accordance with the traditional reading as

the Massoretic system of pointing
;

before us in

and the obligation under

 91.

INCORRECTNESS OF VOCALISED PASSAGES.

237

which we

lie to

the received vocalisation and accentuation for

our understanding of the Old Testament text cannot in fact be

overestimated.

But, nevertheless,

it

ought not to be overlooked

that the apprehension of the text which has been stereotyped

by the Massoretes
possibility that

is

historically mediated,

and

is

inseparably

connected with the history of Jewish exegesis, and hence the

it

may

reproduce in one passage or another

of.

a later conception should never be lost sight

As examples of the difference between the vocalisation of the Massoretes and that of the old translations a few wellknown instances may serve: Gen. xlvii. 31, '"i^p LXX. Sijr.
;

n;p^;
nVc';

xlix.

10,

^W; LXX.
^^^^
\

Aq. Sym. Targ.

hah. unci jer.

Syr.

Isa. vii. 11,

Aq. Sym. Theod. Jerome, ^)'^p\ Hos.*

;

ix.'l2, "1^3;

LXX.
;

Theod. nc^a
;

Ps.

ii.

9, cyhri
]

LXX.
3,

Syr.
nhu'ri;

Jerome,

Dn^

x.

17, T?^
4,

LXX.
3ND1;

Syr. nnt^n; xv.

LXX. Syr. Sym. T^n V^n^; LXX. Syr. V^n^;

20, nnsinbn^;

xi.

Prov. iii.'l2,
(t>ap(f)apo)d.

LXX.

3ND1; Isa.

ii.

Theod.
of

specially interesting

example of the variety

!??i

meaning's

which may be given

5, i^p^N

to the

i6

^rix,

but
lib. iv.

LXX.

consonants n^ Sm,

is

afforded

by

Ps.

ci.

Compare Cappellus,
;

Critica sacra,
p.

cap. 2,

lib. v.

cap. 2, 4, 8

Cornill,

j!Jzech.

127; and on the whole

question, the remarks of Well-

hausen-Bleek, Einleitung, 616.

91. The state of matters
is

most correctly conceived when

to

we

continually regard the vocalisation as a Q'rc ( 33), the

relation of
sidered.

which

to

the

KHih has

be more closely conas

Although
(see,

many

expositors

rule,

and

not

wrongly

however,

92), give the preference to the

KHih

over the Qrc, where the Massora expressly states the differ-

ence between the two,

it

should not be overlooked that we

may

also

have

to

do with an unjustifiable Qrc in passages

where the read word presupposes no other consonants than the traditional word. And, in fact, there are cases where the
factors operating

upon the

traditional Qarjan (

33) have been

238

91.

INCORRECTNESS OF VOCALISED PASSAGES.

in producing the usual reading of the text,

actually at
e.g.

work

the nervous dread with which in later times the anthroor otherwise offensive expressions

pomorphisms

were regarded,

or the introduction of later ideas

and modes of presentation into

the text.

In other passages where such considerations do

not enter, other conceptions than those of the Massoretes

may

be brought forward as more natural, in regard to which the

old translations ( 90)

may

here and there afford some help.

the
diacritical

The case
Massoretes,

is

similar with

marks of the
and with
their

e.g.

with the point over

77),

accentuation and verse division ( 84), which indeed as a rule

disclose a singularly fine insight into the connection, but yet

here and there must give

way

before

more simple

theories.

Compare Geiger, Ursclirift tmd Uebersetzungen der Bihel, 1857, pp. 157 ff., 337 ff. Examples of a vocalisation probably in favour of preconceived views Eccles. iii. 21," AVho knoweth the spirit of man,
:

which ascendeth heavenwards " instead of the intended, and by the translators presupposed, npiyn^ " whether it rises upwards?" Jer. xxxiv. 18, '}i>, Aq. ^^ph Isa. i. 12, Ex.
ThSV^,
!

xxxiv. 24, Deut. xxxi.

11,

nxii?,

instead of

risii?

(to

behold

God);

Ps.

xc.

2, ^^^nn, as
Isa. vii.

3 fem. instead of

^.^inn (for

God

could not

^i?in);

11, nbsp, instead of T\)m

(in order

invoking the dead), etc. Eelated to these are the traditional forms of some proper names, as Isa. vii. 6, bxnn; perhaps p^i, instead of P^'"j, 88; ^bb after the analogy
to avoid the idea of
of riK^i; nnnc^y.
is

Ps. xci. 6, ^^^\

(compare

Q^l^;^

perhaps a popular dogmatic allusion. which might be improved are Mai. ii. 3,
:

and the LXX.) Harmless passages,

better in

V^T,

LXX.
better

Aq. Jerome,
8, IV^,
|Zi=pzi.

V^t

Sam.

xviii. 11,

^^%

better M^)_\ Isa. xxx.

xvi. 21,
I?,

LXX.

Syr.

Trg. Jerome, IV^;

letters

Job

Sometimes vowel
read W'^^f from ^\^,

are misunderstood ( 79)

ii.

D^QXlr,

Amos

7, Ps. Ivi. 2,lvii.

4;

^^,
^f)
\

read ^^^, 2 Sam. xix. 4.

^ is

not correctly distinguished

Eccles.

iii.

1 7 (read

"

92.

RESULT OF COLLATION OF MANUSCRIPTS.

D^nL")

239

Isa. xxxii.

12 (read

Ezek. xxxix. 2G (read

^jDibn.

t^^h)).

Com-

pare Job

ix.

17, wliere Lagarde proposes

case in whicli the accentuation has been certainly deter-

mined by the desire to favour a particular view is met with in Isa. i. 9, where DyoD is drawn towards what follows. On Isa. xlv. 1, compare Griitz, MGWJ, 1874, p. 45. The view of Delitzsch and others that the accentuation of Isa. ix. 5 was determined by preconceived views of the meaning of the text is denied by Wickes, Accentuation, p. 49. A very free rendering, with a play upon the words of the text, is found in h. Bcrcick. 4:b., according to which in Palestine they read Amos
V.

2, as

follows

"

Fallen

is

she
!

further she will not

[fall]

raise thee,

daughter of Israel
6
xvii.

Passages where the verse division might be improved

xcv.
7,
xlii.
f.,

Ps.
f.
;

f.,

xxii.

31

Gen. xlix.

24

Isa. lix. 15.

h.

The Consonantal Text.

(

92.

It has

been already remarked above

as also the

89) that the

Hebrew manuscripts,

Massora, represent in reality

only one single form of text, for the variations that are met

with are of an extremely

trilling kind,

and are mostly without

any influence upon the sense of the

roles

text.

One

of the principal

among

the variations

is

played by the divergences that

arise out of the scriptio plena

and dcfectiva which are explained

In addition to these we meet

in the remarks

made
and
3,

in 79.

here and there interchanges of letters similar in appearance,

like T

and

n,

and \

etc.

Besides,

we have

inter-

changes

of

synonymous

expressions,

especially

under

the

influence of parallelism, and divergences with respect to the

Q'rc

and ICtlh, which form a frequent difference between the

texts.

western and the eastern

is

Only one

of these latter cases

of

any general
like

interest,

namely, that the Babylonians have

Qrc, Nin^ only in

not,

the Palestinians, the well-known

the Pentateuch, but here and there also in the other books.

240
The
a

92.

RESULT OF COLLA.TION OF MANUSCRIPTS.

Q'tc itself, which, according to 33,

may

be regarded in
usually only a

certain

sense

as

various

reading, has
hits

historically

explicable

value, but

sometimes upon the

right thing, whether

by

divination, or in accordance with a

genuine old tradition.

On

the manuscripts of the Samaritans,

compare

94.

Cornill,

Das

Biich

EzccJiiel, p.

ff.,

rightly styles the result

of his comparison of the

as quite surprising
:

common

text with the Codex Babylon.

"

In a biblical book of forty-eight, for the

all

most part quite long, chapters, the text of which has been
transmitted in a notoriously faulty condition, the oldest of

known

manuscripts, compared with the

first

and best printed

It should not

editions, yields only sixteen actual variations."

on this account be denied that here and there, by means of collations of manuscripts, we may give an emendation of the
text,
e.g.

Isa.

xxx. 18, where two manuscripts have DT" instead

of

D"!"",

Isa. xxvii. 1, lon,

but some manuscripts, inn; but, for

the most part, the variations are quite insignificant, or consist

which immediately Examples (apart from the show themselves to be such. innumerable deviations in the use of the vowel letters, the Isa. interchange of b^ and ^V, etc.) Ps. cii. 4, jtJ^ya J^ryD
in inaccuracies of particular manuscripts
:

ii.

6, ni^^n n^^D

xv.
;

2,

nyn:i nynj

Ixiii.
;

11, ny-i 'ri

xviii.

Jer.

xviii. 4,

-lonn-loni

Ps. ix. 7,

n^n^nti^DJ
;

43, Dpn^<

Dpnx; xcvii. 11, niTyir; Eccles. ii. 25, ij^D -JOD; Hag. 10,h^-{Codex Hilleli, 30) T3 Ps. cii. 13, i-iDn-l^^D^l ii (compare Lam. v. 19); Ps. ci. 24, ni5>3K>Xib'^C'X (compare
xxxii. 8).
D^ijn-DN*

Zeph.

iii.

18, Txhv, Cod. Bab. ybi^; Zech. xiv.

;

18,

B.

D'^oyn-i'D-ni^

Zech. xiv. 4
;

omits in B.
ii.

i^)nn

DV3

Ezek.
ii.

vi. 5, on^i^ibi D^^iji^J

a different Q're, Neh.

Zeph.

7, etc.

compare Geiger, Urschrift, p. 236. The Massoretic remark that the Babylonians have this reading only in three passages outside of the Pentateuch (1 Kings xvii. 15; Isa. xxx. 33; Job xxxi. 11) is incorrect, as Ezek. 46-48, xviii. 20, xxi. 19, xxvi. 17, i. 13, xi. 7, xiv. 17, xvi.
the
Q^re,
5<1!7,

On

xxx.

13, xxxii.

16

Jer.

xxii.

16, xxviii.

17, show.

The

 93.

rOST-CIIRISTIAN WITNESSES FOR THE TEXT.

241

occurs only in the Pentateuch, whicli has been quoted against the correctness of the theory in tlie criticism
idea that
^<1^

of the Pentateuch

which distinguishes a variety of documents,

Q'rc
is

thus

falls to

the ground.
of

Examples
HL";

passages in which

correct reading are:

Amos

viii.

r\''^\>t''^\

undoubtedly the Sum. xvii. 34,

2 Sam.
If

V. 2, t^^arom x^vicn.

93.

we compare
tlie

the form of text obtained

])y

means of

the manuscripts and the Massora with older witnesses for the
text

from

time

after

Christ,

such as the

Talmudical

quotations, the Hcxaplar transcriptions,

tian
translations,

and the post-Chris-

we

shall

find indeed variations not

much

more numerous than

found in these

in

the manuscripts, but the variations a

exhil)it

more

characteristic

physiognomy.

While the

variations of the manuscripts, in almost all cases,

consist only in an inexact reproduction of the Tccdus Bcceptus

( 92), those witnesses

now

referred to contain not unfrequently

is

valuable readings, the collation of which

of real

interest.

But, at the same time, there appears a characteristic difference

between these witnesses.

The quotations
in

in

the

Talmud

correspond for the most part with

before us, especially
if

the text that

now

lies

we keep

view that they are often

made from memory.

own.

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

unfrequently meet with interesting variations.

especially

The Targums
GO,

sometimes afford good readings, which, however,

may
On

be explained by what has been stated above in

partly by the' extreme antiquity of the Targumic material.

the other hand, according to

70,

it

remains often un-

certain

whether

the

variations

obtained

from

the

Syriac
text in

translation

represent actually the

times,
or
are

condition of the
of

post-Christian

only repetitions

the

pre-

Christian (Alexandrine) form of the text.

242

94.

PEE-CHEISTIAN WITNESSES FOE THE TEXT.

Compare Cappellus, Critica sacra, lib. v. cap. 2, 5, 6, 9-11 Nowack, Die Bedeutung des Hieron. fur d. aUtcstamentl. B^etbgen, Der textkritisclie Worth, d. alt. Textkritik, p. 23 ff. Cornill, Ucberstz. d. Ps. in JFT, 1882, pp. 405 ff., 593 fF. A tborougbgoing comparison of jEzecJiiel, pp. 128 ff., 156.
; ;
;

tbe post-Cbristian translations with tbe Massoretic text

is

decided desideratum (compare

Lagarde, Mittlieilungen,

ii.

51).

couple of examples

may
:

at least give a tolerable illusIsa.

tration of tbe matters referred to in tbe above sections.

xxvi. 2
^^^hv 11^

ff.,

ub^\^ '\^n "jiJOD -iv^

d^jidj^ '\^' pn^*

'ij

^*3^i

Dny::^ inns

nin''

n^2

"^2

ny

ny

r]^r\^2

inon

tmon in
ii.

"d

uh^,

tbe

Greek transcription according

Hexapla,
craapeifju
crafJLw-x^
ii.

to

Epipbanius (compare Field,

p.

473

Lagarde, Mittheilungen,

362)

(\i6oov

ovajSo)

ycot

aahiK

a(o/jLr)p

efifiovveifi.

cecrpo

(mv)
^erov

Oeaap <Ta\o)/jb aa\(o/j. yjb ^aK /Saroov (iriDa). ^aahwvai aha co6 yi j^aia aScovai crcoB (Tiv) coXe/juei/jb. Hab. Targ. Syr. (LXX.), irr-ns Hos. ii. 17, T. M. and Jerome, }n^n% Zepb. iii. 18, V. 11, T. M. Jerome, IV, Syr. Targ. (LXX.), l^ Hos. vi. 5, T. M. Jerome, -ii5< T^i^'?^> vn, Targ. (LXX.), ^in Jer. xxv. 38, jnn, Targ. (LXX.), mn Syr. Targ., iij^3 "ddc^^d
; ; ;

Ezek.
tbe

xxvii.

11;
i^3
'^^.

Gen.

i.

26,

pxn-bni, Syr.

(by

correct

divination

?), yii^T]

n^n-^snv

Ps. xi. 1, DDin, all versions (with

v.

LXX),
n^^m.

Ezek.

15, nn^m, Targ. Syr. Jerome

"T'y.

(LXX.),
94.

Isa. xxv. 2, -i^yc, all versions,

If, finally,

we

go back to tbe witnesses for tbe text in

pre-Cbristian times (to wbicb, as was remarked in

93, tbe

Targums

in part belong), tbe variations

grow in tbe intensive

cbief witness bere is
it

as well as in tbe extensive sense.

Tbe

the Alexandrine translation, in so far as

forth

succeeds in setting
not

the text in

its

original

form.

It

only affords
in regard

numerous
Proverbs,

variations,

some

of

them highly important

to details, but sometimes, as in tbe

it

Book

of Jeremiah

and in

assumes the character of a different Eecension.

through arbitrary

That these divergences have not arisen

with our own, but
witness to
the

treatment on tbe part of tbe translators of a text identical

actual

existence of an

 04.

rUK-CllKlSTIAN WITNESSES FOK

TIIP:

TEXT.

24,':}

exem})lar with a tlivergent text,

is

proved partly from the

character of the variations themselves, partly from the fact

that several of these divergences are also to be found in other

witnesses for the text before the time of Christ, as in the text
of the

Samaritan Pentateuch
( G4),

( 29), in the oldest parts of

the

Targums

and

in pre-Christian works,
its

such as the Book

Indeed,

of Jubilees that

had

origin in Palestine ( 13).

even in the translations from the times after Christ the forms
of the text translated to as being

by the LXX. are here and there witnessed

read ( 93).
It is

then

still

therefore evident

that the relation between the later and the pre-Christian text

forms one of the most important chapters in the history of the

text of the Old Testament, and that a systematic comparison

with the

LXX. must

be a main task of textual criticism.

Compare the writings referred to in 41 and 89. While in earlier times it was especially the Catholics who gave preference to the LXX., in the modern scientific treatises
on the history of the Old Testament text, the Massoretic text has won an ever increasing significance. The utterance of
Zwingli
is

specially deserving of attention

" Infiniti

sunt

loci,

(piibus manifeste deprehenditur

legisse,

LXX.

et alitor et melius turn

tum

distinxisse,

quam

liabbini postea vel legerint vel

v.

distinxerint" (Opera ed. Schuler et Schultheiss,

555-59).
the

On

the remarkable agreement between the

LXX. and

Samaritan Pentateuch, compare (besides the literature referred to by De Wette-Schrader, EinlcitiuKj, p. 205 f.) tlie London
Polyglot,
vi.

19
lib.

Morinus,
cap.

Excrcitationcs

ccdcsiasticcc
;

in

ntriunquc

Saiiiaritanorum
iii.

Pcntat.,

Paris

1G31
S.

Cappellus,

Crilica sacra y
taichi Ilcbr.

20

Alexius a
;

Aquilino, Pcnta-

Sam. prmstantia, 1783

originc,

Gesenius,

Dc

Pcntalcachi

Samaritani

indole

et

auctoritatc

comment.,

1815;

Geiger, Ursclirift, pp. 8-19, 99 ff.; Jild. Zcitschrift, iv. 186G, Nachjelassenc Schriftcn, iv. 54 ff. ]). Xdldeke, Alt42
; ;

trsfamcntlichc Litcratur, pp. 42,

240

Dillmann
in

in

Herzog's
i.

Pfal-Encijclopadic,

ii.

386;

Fritzsche
;

Herzog,

283;

Pick, Biblioth. Sacra,

1877-78

Keidenheiui, Billivtheca sama-

244
ritana,
ii.

95.

A^ALUE OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

That the Alexandrine translators did 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
xxi.

sqq.

not use a Samaritan copy of the

circulated.

Moreover,

it

should not be overlooked that the

passages agrees with the Massoretic
of Jubilees, compare Eonsch,

LXX.
On

in just as

many

text against the Samaritans.

the text of the

Book

Das
ff.,

Biich der Jiibiliden, Leipsic 1874, and especially

Dillmann in
p.

the Sitzungsbericliten der Berliner Academie, 1883, the

324
of

where about twenty-seven cases are quoted in which the

text
of

Book

of

Jubilees

agrees

with

that

the

LXX.
95.

As

certainly as the deviations of the

LXX. from
is it

the

received text consist in great part of deviations in the copy of

the

Hebrew

text used in the work, so certain

that the

Alexandrine readings in not a few passages deserve to be

preferred above the Massoretic readings.
writings, such as the

Especially in some

Books

of

Samuel and Ezekiel, the received

collation with
feels

text can be variously

amended by a thoroughgoing

the

LXX.

We

can easily understand

how one

himself

shut in at every step by the confused state of the Greek text,

but nevertheless
less or
is

its

use has already led to

it

all sorts of discoveries,

more.

Naturally in using

the most painstaking care

necessary, and never should the critic of the text lose sight

of the fact that the

Hebrew

text, as the

immediate authority

on the
to

text, is

always to be regarded as worthy of preference

auxiliary,

an

indirect

and
of the

that

the

treatment

of

the

exemplar text on the part

Greek translators was often

one that cannot be determined.

But thereby only the demands

upon the

critic of
is

the text are raised, while the justification

of his task

by no means lowered.
it is

On

the other side,

not less certain that the deviations of

95.

VALUE OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

245

the LXX., in spite of the extreme antiquity of this translation,

are not tlirougliout always of equal importance for the
tion of the text.
Iiatlier in

emenda-

numerous passages the received

text

is

to be unconditionally preferred.
is

The most remarkable

feature of the case

that such instances also occur just where

is

the witness of the

LXX.

reinforced by the other witnesses

from pre-Christian times

( 94).

Thus,

it is

a generally

acknowthe

ledged fact that several of the readings whicli the

LXX. and

Samaritan Pentateuch have in

the Massoretic readings.

common

are of less value than

It therefore appears also here again

tlie

very remarkable, that in the criticism of

text the extreme

antiquity and the wide circulation of a reading in and by themselves afford no decisive proof of its correctness, but that later

witnesses for the text

transmit- the original.

may

here

and there more correctly

In the following passages,

readings
are
to

for

example, the Alexandrine

xli.

be unconditionally preferred: Gen.

D^inc'cn (or

5G,

a similar word for acro^o25 f., Dy "im^l, LXX. ^*^?"^'L and IDDL'n, LXX. a^wh; 2 Sam. xxiii. 8, n3*J'33L"% LXX. (mediately), npp'-; Isa. xvii. 9, Tcsni cnnn, LXX. '?nni ^y^sn Lsa.

nnn

"il*'N"^3,
;

LXX.

\cova<;)

Sam.

ix.

xliv.

12,

::hn,

LXX.
Ps.

t^'in

Tnn
6
'S^dv

Jer.

xxiii.

33,

Ni"o-n?3-nN,
^n>Ki
\:i3;

LXX.

fci-fpn

Dnx;

xlii.

f,
;

>nbs :nD,

LXX.
14,

Ps. Ixix.' 27, nDD\

LXX.

Xeh.

iii.

nD3i,

LXX.
:

npni; Zeph.
xxxi.
vj'y"'

iii.

17, c^nn\

LXX. ^nn\
D3UX
(
;

The LXX. and the

Gen.
v.

Samaritans have good readings in the following passages

29, -JUS, instead of
Syriac)
;

Ex.

9,

U*p'l,

instead of

(so too the

iv.

Ex. xiv. 25,

"iDS'i,

instead of iD^l

Deut.
xxxii.

37,

Dnnnx Dyin
is

= Onk.
to

Syr.,

Jerome);

Deut.

43, DDns, instead of

intDns*.

On
7,

the other hand, the

Massoretic text
c.(/.

to be preferred

their united witness in

Ex.

xii.

42,

xiii.

6;

Num.

xxiv.

xxvi.

12 (compare
in textual

further the writings referred to in

94).
of the

To the dangers attending the use

itself
{e.(/.

LXX.

criticism belong the corruptions that arose within the

Jer. xv.

10;

Ps.

xvii.

Greek and above 14; Cod. Vat.);

246
all,

96.

CONJECTUKAL CRITICISM.

the duplicate translations of the

Isa.

same passage that arose

5 in Cod. Alex, affords

from interpolations, of which

ix.

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
is

critic of

the text must not

suppose that with this his work

survey of the
carries us
therefore,
field

ended.

Even

a very general
translation

teaches this.

The Alexandrine
of

back only to the third century before Christ, a time,

which was separated from that

many

of the

Old

Testament writers by a long period.

The presence

of various

errors of the text in the times following compels us to

make

the fundamental admission of the possibility of such having

had an existence even

in the texts of those

much

earlier times.

Hence

conjectural

criticism

cannot be excluded from the

Here,
too,

investigations about the Old Testament text.

we

enter upon a region where only a few select spirits are at

home, while just

tion.

for those

who

are unfit

it

has a great fascinaof arbitrary

Yet even

here,

amid the great multitude

several

and useless

fancies,

we meet with

happy proposals

which, in spite of the want of objective evidence, are so striking and simple, that the favour which they have found

may
itself,

lend to them an almost objective character.

time,
as
it

At

the same

must here be remembered

that the Old Testament

we have

already indicated above at

73, affords at

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

unknown x can be
quantities.

more

easily found

by means of two known

And

even where ingenuity must simply create the conjectures out of

itself,

the presupposition lying at the foundation of them, that

the ancient authors have expressed

themselves clearly and

97.

"tendency" alterations OF

TEXT.

247

fittingly, is a

presupposition justifiable indeed, but to be used

with circumspection.
Several of the

proposed alterations of the text are un-

doubtedly to be regarded as improvements in the writings, and so evidently are they such, that only a blind prejudice Thus. Ps. xxii. 30, V "X can without more ado reject tliem.

For our estimate of tlie character of David, the reading in 2 Sam. xii. 31 of '^''^V\}, Also we have improveinstead of 1^2]!^, is not unimportant. ments in iT^^^5, instead of vns in Gen. xxxi. 25 (Lagarde)
for 11^3 X
;

Jer.

xv.

10,

^iii'i'p

cn^D.

riDVO

moy

n^^ in Isaiah xxi.

5,

G,

etc.

The

parallel passage
;

Sam.

xxii.

suggests in Psalm xviii. 4, na'JTD for ^^3n

recommends ''*5*f ??, and in Job x. ''^y 'in; the prevailing rhythm in Psalm xcii. ff. suggests 15, in Psalm xciii. 4, 'Tl^p'^P 1''^^5 or (p. 253) nnirbo ins, instead of nnCTD. Dnnx. How a glance at the rhythm of the Lamentapoetic parallelisms in Ps. x. 6
"

tions

may

lead to good

emendations of the text has been

xiv.
7,

shown by Budde on Isaiah teaches that nron of Psalm ix. out of the text, must belong
wdien MS of Isaiah
the
substitution
viii.
iii.

The alphabetical form with a word tliat has fallen

verse 8.

to

On

the contrary,
it

11

is

attached to verse

10,

leads to

of

^it^'S

fur

nns

the parallelism between

tc'P, etc.

12 and 13 suggests *O.P, instead of genuine LXX. has in 2 Sam. xxiv. 6 a ;^eTTe</A
Isaiah
of the senseless ^c^ip DTinn
;

The

KaS-q^;, instead

but since the Hittite

Kadesh was
instead

here unsuitable, Ewald ingeniously conjectured

of
^*jnp.

'ij^ij},

[See Wellhausen, Der Text

dcr Buclics Sarmielis,

All the docuCommentary.] mentary authorities have in Gen. iv. 8, "iCNM, to which, in order to obtain a meaning, Sam. LXX. Syr., etc., supply n3^3 but certainly it was originally ip'J'M, instead of los'i nit'n
pp. 217,
ff.,

221

or Thenius in

(Olshausen),

etc.

97.
text
to
is

An

essential condition of a methodical criticism of the

an exact insight into the nature of the textual errors

be

met with
Testament

in

the

Old Testament.

It

is

specially

required that the question be answered as to whether

the
or

Old

text

has

been

intentionally

altered,

248
whether

97.

"tendency" alterations of
to

text.

we have

do

only with

purely

unintentional

errors of transcription.

The

assertion that the

is

Jews have on purpose corrupted

their text

an old one.

The Church

fathers,

who were

dependent on the LXX., must naturally have been led to

such a conclusion with regard to the occasional deviations of
the Jewish text
;

and even Jerome, who elsewhere zealously

contends for
similar way.

"

the

Hebrew

truth," expresses himself once in a

In the Middle Ages these changes were often

repeated,

e.g.

by Eaimund Martin, and in

greater

later times they

were
anti-

uttered with yet

violence

and bitterness by

Protestant critics like Morinus.

Yea, even in modern times,

tliat

Lagarde has expressed the conjecture

statements
interests of

the chronological

of

Genesis

were

falsified

by the Jews in the

For the

their

polemic against the Christians.

charges thus formulated there

have meanwhile never been

any actual proofs brought forward.

On

the other hand, the

question about the presence of alterations

made on purpose

has emerged in recent times in another form, to which a

treatise

by a Jewish
Geiger,
to

occasion.
Brlill

Abraham Geiger, has given whom, among others. Dozy and N.

scholar,

have attached themselves, affirms that in the received

just
as

text,

well
to

as

in

the old

translations,

numerous
and had

alterations

are

be found, which had their origin in the

religious solicitude

and dogmatic views of

later times,

therefore been undertaken in a kind of apologetic interest.

That

this latter formulating of

is

the thesis

is

not altogether

unfounded

undeniable.

The same

religious dread

which

can be proved in the case of Qarjan

of
of the

all old translations,

and in many

Hebrew

text ( 33, 91), as also the tendency

modern

translations to give expression to their indignation

against manifestations of antipathy

by means

of the

word

of

Scripture, did, as a matter of fact, lead the

Jews

in ancient
text.

times to

alter

here

and

there

the

consonantal

 97.

"

TKNDENCY

"

ALTEUATIONS OF TEXT.
is

249
Jewish
Tiqquric

reminiscence
tradition

of

such attempts
in

preserved
of

in

tlic

itself

the

collection

the

so-called

Sopk'rim, which was referred to above in

\\\.

Although

some

of tlie cases collected

under that name are doubtful, and

otliers evidently

wrong, and even although the accounts given

of the original sound of the

word may not always be

correct,

yet the fact that such changes had been

able,

made

is

incontestcorrect,
e.g.

and some of the cases reported are perfectly

vii.

Job
ii.

20, where the

LXX. had
viii.

still

the original yhv) Zech.

of
;

8 (compare Deut. xxxii.

10 and the LXX. rendering 17

'h
;

it);

Hab.

i.

12

Ezek.
iii.

Lam.

iii.

20

Num.

xi.

15

while in 1 Sam.

13, not

but wrh^

is

to be read

(compare

LXX.).

On

the other hand, as often happens in similar cases,

is

the enumeration

not exhaustive, for in other places such

Tiqqunim may be discovered.

is

The most

interesting

example

the interchange of haal with hoshcth in

In the older Israelitish times the

harmlessly of the
^vhich
is

many proper names. word ^p w^as used quite as

synonymous word
names had
P^5,
this

God

of Israel as the

shown by

this that

many

old proper
e.g.

name

of

God

incorporated with them,

viii.

Ish haal, the son of

Saul (1 Chron.
xiv. 7),

33),

Ba aliadcC ,i\\Q
name

son of David (1 Chron.

viii.

Merihbaal, the son of Jonathan (1 Chron.

34).

But

in later times,

when

the

Ba'al had become a symbol of

Caananitish heathenism, such names gave offence (compare

llos.
ii.

18,

20),

and people began therefore

to

change the

names, when they occurred in the books used in the synagogues, in various

ways

and

so, at

the same time, the oppor-

tunity was taken to give expression to one's sympathy with, or

antipathy against, the persons concerned.

David's sou, Ba aliada

became Bliada (2 Sam.

v.

16), whereas in the case of those

ix.

belonging to the race of Saul, in accordance with Hos.

10,

Baal was exchanged

xviil 19, 25,

for

riC'3,

"

shame

"

(compare

Kings

LXX.).
ii.

Thus arose the now well-known names

fl)

Ishhoshdh (2 Sara.

and Mcpliiboshdh (2 Sam.

ix.

6).

250

97.

"

TENDENCY

"

ALTEEATIONS OF TEXT.
is

Besides this change, of which a distinct view

the

afforded us in

Book

of Chronicles,
still

where the names remain unchanged,

there are

some Tiqqunim which can be proved with an

equal certainty.

But otherwise

Geiger's exposition rests

upon

an extreme exaggeration and a zeal

for discovering intentional

chancjes in the orifrinal text borderin^y

as the instances are limited in

on monomania.

And

number, so also must have

been the time in which they originated.

a
" tendency "

The Qarjan, with

meet
with
in

character,
this,

such

as

we At

the

Talmuds, shows
the fourth

and therefore belongs

at the latest to

century after Christ.

the time
so

when they
immutable

had

their origin, the text

it

had already assumed

a character that
passages.

could not be touched even in offensive

Jerome on Gal.
Ilebrceorum
libros

iii.

13

"Ex quo
habuisse,

mihi videtur aut veteres

aliter

quam nunc

habent, aut

Apostolum sensum scripturarum

magis
est

posuisse,

non verba, aut quod

sestimandum, post passionem Christi et in Hebraeis et in nostris codicibus ab aliquo Dei nomen appositum, ut

infamiam nobis inureret, qui in Christum maledictum a Deo credimus" (compare also on v. 10). Eaimund Martin, Fugio fidei (ed. 1687), p. 695 ff [On " Martin " or " Martini," see article by ISTeubauer in
Expositor,
article

3rd

ser.

1888,

vol.

vii.

pp.

100

ff.

179

ff.;

and

by Schiller-Szinessy in The Journal of

p.

Philology, xvi.

No. 31,
teuchs,

130
i.

ff.]

Morinus, Exercitationes

hiUicce, pp.

7-19.

Lagarde, Matericdien zur Kritik

und

Geschichte des Penta-

1867,

p.

xii

"The chronology

of the

patriarchs

before

Noah

is

evidently falsified in the Massoretic text, and

the purpose of opposing, with the help of

indeed
to

falsified for

the LXX., the calculations

made by

the Christians, according

which tlie Messiah had appeared in the year of the world Such falsifications, as the fathers so often chari>;ed 6500.
if

against the Jews, are only conceivable,

they could be traced

back

to

one copy from which

all

the other transcriptions of

tliis

the text had to be taken."

Compare, however, against

1)8.

UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OF TEXT.

Vcrslagcn

251
AJcademu,

view, Kiienen,

en Mcdcdclingcn (hr

k.

o, 1873, Amsterdam, p. 20G. Geiger, Urschrift und UdnrsctzaiKjai dcr Bihrl^ 1857. On hosheth for haal, compare Geiger, ZDMG, xvi. 7.''0 Wellhausen, Text des Bitclies Samuel, pp. xii. and 1)0

Ldtcrhindc,

ii.

ff.

f.

Kueiien, Vcrslagen en Mcdedclingcn,

iii.

5, ISS.S, p. 170.

A
On
this,

confirmation is found in the exposition of Num. xxxii. *^)8, where D^ n3DlD can only be a parenthesis, whicli recommends
that the reading witli
tlie

word Baal should be changed.

some Arabic parallels, which, however, are divergent in

that the

names

are

combined with actual names of gods,

A compare Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarheitcn, iii. 178. play upon this change of names occurs in the passages from the LXX. where Baal has the feminine article (compare Rom. xi. 4), while in reading the word ala')(yvri was used (compare Dillman, MonaUhcrichtc d. k. Acadcmie d. W. zn Berlin, 1881). To th6 same category belong probably also the name Jezebel, which originally indeed can scarcely have been combined with Compare Hoffmann, ZAIV, 1883, p. 105. Further, on nin'' tjib as a euphemism for ?)??, compare Psalm X. 3 Job i. 11, ii. 9 1 Kings xxi. 10, with Isaiah viii. 21; 1 Sam. iii. 13. Perhaps also ^ynn, instead of nynn, Gen. XX. 13. Of another sort is Judges xviii. 30, where Moses was changed into ]\Ianasseh (compare h. Baha hathrn, 109Z/). In this case the added n is written higher up tlian 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 character, because the word said to have been changed is frequently to be found close by e.g. Gen. xxxi. 49, where nsvo

is

said to be a change for

*^'^TP,
ff.

whereas

tliis
it

word

is

itself

to

be found in verses 45, 51

To

this

may

be added that,
(verse

according to Lagarde's happy conjecture,

21) ought probably to be inserted after the word nn3. Against Geiger, compare especially tlie appropriate remarks
nsrvr^n

of

Wellhausen
98.

in I'ext des Buehes JSajnv.el, p. 32.

While the chanqes made

in

the Old Testament with

252

98.

UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OF TEXT.

deliberate intention are not very numerous,

by

far the greatest to

number
that are

of errors in the text

owe

their existence

causes

met with
is

in all other sorts of writings, namely, the

inaccuracies and the misunderstandings of transcribers.

Here
shall

naturally there

much

that cannot be put on record, and

much

that defies all calculation, but, notwithstanding,

we

find it not unprofitable to cast a glance over the errors that

most frequently recur in the Old Testament, in order

able to estimate in

to

be

some measure the

so,

possibilities of

proposed
in

emendations.
special

In doing

we must always keep

of the

view

characteristics

and peculiar fortunes

Hebrew

writings that have been described above.

Moreover,

it

must not be forgotten that a

to the

sketch, like that

upon which we have been here engaged,

of things,

in the very nature

of the text,

must give prominence

shady side

whereas
text
is

it

has no occasion to refer to passages in which the

in good order,

and so easily a one-sided comfortless

representation of the facts

of the

may

be given.

Onl}^ the reading

illusion.

Old Testament

itself

can dispel this

This will
cases

show that textual

beauty of the
already
text,

criticism can

indeed in

many

con-

tribute in an important

manner

to the greater clearness

and

but does not alter the contents from those

known

in

any

essential respect.

And

even though

passages are found of the soundness of which

entertain a doubt,
it

we cannot but

is

yet,

upon the whole, a matter of

practised and so

astonishment that so old a literary work as the Old Testament,

written in a character so
little

much exposed
intelligible.

to serious risks, should still be so readable

and so

Letters which are very similar in appearance were readily

interchanged.

and h. Scibb. of n with n, of of T with with v, of 2 with 3, of j with Examples of of T with i, of n with d, of D with D. with 1 referred to above. such interchanges have been occasionally
^;, "),
,

Even the ancients were aware of this danger, 103& expressly warns against the confusion oi ^

1)8.

UNINTENTIONAL EUKOKS OF TEXT.

i

2o3

and i was particularly common. So, too, the confusion 2 and d. On n and n compare above, 77; and specially on d and D, Isaiah xxx. 4, D^n, LXX. D:n. It should further be remembered here, that the forms of the old Hebrew letters have also to be taken into consideration ( 75), because
here other similarities

The confusion of

may have

led to interchanges.
"ij

amples are: Zeph.

iii.

13, where the received n^i^o

Exmight

easily originate in the old system of writing

(as preserved in the

from the original

xix. 18,
;

LXX.)

^yio

DV3

also Isaiah

where Din might in a similar way originate from pnv and Isaiah xvii. 9, upon which Lagarde, Scmitlra, i. 31, should be
consulted.

In particular, it cannot be doubted that mn^ even in ancient times had been sometimes written only as \ Then the LXX. presupposes in Jer.
XXV. 37,
^^<

Abbreviations were misunderstood.

for

mn^

f]X,

Jonah
iii.

i.

3,

mn"' nay,

and conversely the LXX. had read in instead of nay, and in Ps. xvi. 3, nin^
no[n].
it

nnxnr^, instead of

nns

19 and

vi.

11.

So, too,

Compare also Hitzig on Jer. would seem that here and there

in

the Scriptures transcribers

made use

of

contractions for

the grammatical endings, in which cases then the marks of abbreviation might easily have been overlooked. Thus Lowth

and Cheyne conjecture

Derenbourg, in Ps.
So, too, in

in Isaiah v. 1,

Dnn, instead of nn, and

n-'D,

cxlvii.
li.

17,

nny
34
;

instead of
"pv.

Isaiah

4,

read D^pv for

xiv.

nor ^D. Compare also

and in general, J. D. 37; Low, Graphischc Bcquisiten, pp. 44-53 Frankel, Vorstudicn, p. 215. Sometimes errors in the text rest upon wrongly supplied vowel letters ( 79), e.g. 2 Sam. xiii. 18, where Dj'iyp should
1

Klostermann

on

Sam.

MichaL'lis, Orient, inid exegct. Bihlioth. 20.

;

be read instead of
to in

D^5)^yo.

Perl taps also the Q'rc Nin referred

for originally
it

02 should be so judged,
false dividing of

would be

written xn.

The

the possibility of which

words plays a very considerable rdlc^ may be seen from what is said in

83. Xot infrequently is a letter separated from its own word and added to the next. Even the Jewish tradition was aware of some of these cases, as we have already seen ( 33),

: ;

254

98.

UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OF TEXT.

such passages as 2 Sam.
v.

for their corrected readings in

2,

Job xxxviii. 12, Jer. iv. 5, Ezra iv. 12, are quite But we meet with this phenomenon very frequently.
in

right.

Thus
10,

the

already

cited

passages,

Hos.

vi.

5,
i.

Jer.

xv.

xxiii.

33, Ps.
Ps.
xlix.

xlii.

f.,

and, further, in Neh.

injy;

Ixii. 4,

read .Tim

nnj
;

12, read )12V Ps. xliv. 5, read niVD \"i^t?

19 f., read '^t^x nnpy Eccles. vii. 27, read rhnpn iroi^, Of a somewhat similar kind are the cases where a letter etc. which concludes one word and at the same time begins the e.g. 2 Sam. second, is through an oversight only written once
Gen.
:

V. 2,

read

nt^ i^'i^n
xlii.

Jer.

liii.

10, read ii'hnn

;

Zech.

iv.

7,
;

read

"inn

nn^; Ps.

2,

read
;

nf5\sD

Ps. civ. 18, read

b^<^:^c, etc.

D''"inn

Job
been
14,

xxxiii. 17, read nD'j;DD

Eccles. ii.*24 f,
initial
vi.

And such
Neh.
ii.

cases as those in

which an
e.g.

and

final

letter has
3it:
;

wrongly reduplicated:
read 12S^D
;

Jer.

20, read

sn% etc. have been transposed are found in Ps. Ps. xviii. 46, im*"!, on the contrary, 2 Sam. ii. 22, njn^l Isa. viii. 12,-it^p, which probably is Ixxii. 5, lixi^l, read "jn^;^"!
Passages where
letters
; ;

Ps. xxii. 31, read

False repetitions are chp (with n for n). where DV [D^] has arisen out of D^N''33n found in Jer. iv. 25, Jer. viii. 3, where the second by repeating final sound Dnt^D'jn, and Isa. xli. 1, where HD ID^bn^ (compare xl. 31), are to be struck out (compare also Ps. xviii. 14).
to be altered into
;

well-known cause of textual errors is the similar beginning of two clauses, of which then the second came to be An example is found in Josh. xv. 59, where a overlooked. whole series of names of places has disappeared from the Not less was the Massoretic text (compare the LXX.). 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. nmi belong to v. 11 xix. 12, where the words ^^b^n (compare the LXX.), and Ps. xxxiv., where v. 16 and v. 17
. . .

must be transposed.
position
is sufficient,

While in these
to the

cases a simple trans-

there are other passages to be

original text

met with,
have been

where various portions foreign

09.

KEVIEW.
of

255
marginal
falsi tied

introduced

through

tlie

incorporation

notes.

Thus originated the words standing in a Isa. xxxviii. 21 f., introduced from 2 Kings
existence
xxix.
of

passage,

xx. 7

f.

Many
13
f.,

passages of this sort are indeed subjects of controversy, but the

interpolations,
e.g.

in

Isa.

vii.

8,

ix.

10, has
ii.

now

at

last

been placed beyond

4-vii.
it

all

doubt.

In Dan.

4, indeed, n"'0"ix

was

originally a parenthesis apply-

ing to the whole passage

ii.

28, the adoption of which

"n3l*i.

into the text brought with

the change of nDS'l into

(compare also Ezra

99.
It only

iv.

V).

remains

for

us

now

to

bind together in one

comprehensive description of the historical development of the

Old Testament what has been brought out

sections
text, as

in

the preceding

(92 ff.). it now lies

It

has been shown that the form of the

before us, in all essential respects can be

first

traced back to the

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

the Pentateuch, this pre-Christian

now
in

possess.

As concerns

text had been widely circulated, though indeed in various, and

part divergent, copies, and

yet this old

text cannot

be

characterised as one superior to the one that subsequently

became the received

text.

So also in regard

to

the

other

book, for which only the

LXX.

is

tlie

oldest witness, some-

times the Alexandrine translation, sometimes the subsequently

received text, has preserved the original.
tinction of tlie pre-Christian

Already this

dis-

and post-Christian age suggests

tlie

the conjecture, that the domination of

received text

is

to

be ascribed to the endeavours of the same

after Christ, finally settled the

men who,

shortly

question as to the extent and

( G).

range of the Old Testament Canon

The necessity that

of Jerusalem,

everything that concerned Scripture, the peculiar source and

centre of Jewish
sliould
life

and activity

after the

fall

be made perfectly certain and immovably steadfast,

it

carried with

also the

demand

that the text

must receive a

256
fixed

99.

REVIEW.
consequence
especially
in

form,

wliicli

was

of

con-

troversies with the Christians,

who were dependent upon

the

LXX.
and

If,

therefore,

we were

to refer to

men

such as R. Akiba

his like-minded contemporaries, as those

who have on
it

this

point also procured for the Jews certainty and unity,

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

in Aquila,

the

sway from that time onwards

who was dependent

( 52).

upon E. Akiba or his immediate contemporaries

strongly the

How
in this,

Jews

felt

themselves in suhsequent times hound

to this authorised text is

shown in
it,

a striking

manner
it

that no one ventured to change

even in passages where he

be that
or

rightly felt convinced of its incorrectness, whether

this

insight had

been

obtained

by means

of reflection

by the remembrance of other and in part more

readings ( 33).

suitable

Of the

style

and manner in which

unfortunately
that the

this authorised text

definitely.

was
This

constructed

we

know nothing

much

only

is plain,

very conception of such an

authorised form of text implies the existence of a definite

standard manuscript, which was pronounced the only allowable one.

In so

far,

the relatively recent but already wide-

spread theory, that

single

all

extant manuscripts point back to one

correct.

archetype,

is

decidedly

Such a standard
or less

manuscript might secure currency, either by means of direct

transcription, or

by means

of this, that in a greater

degree the extant manuscripts were corrected in accordance

with
also

it (IP n^^n^ e.g. jer.,

Sanhed.

ii.

fol.

20c); and so

we

see

this established text

pushing

its

way

in a remarkably

short time wherever the Pharisaic influence

extended.
that

On
this

the

other

hand, the

equally
this

widespread theory
position

primitive Codex obtained

choice, or

by the manuscripts of chance were at hand being bound together

by mere arbitrary the several books that by

into one standard

 99.

REVIEW.

257
if

Bible,

is

by no means

certain.

the case with particular books,

of

Even

tliis

may have been

Book

for example, with the

Samuel

( 95),

where surely the manifest errors of the text

to

would scarcely have been allowed

text had been established

stand

if

the authorised

by means

of the collation of several

manuscripts,

it

certainly
all

had not been the only principle

Tlie

employed, least of

in the case of the Law.

Jewish

tradition, indeed, expressly declares that in the establishing of

tlie

Pentateuch text various manuscripts were collated, and

that only in this

way was an
iv.)
;

authentic form of the

text

produced

{jcr.

Taanith

and we have absolutely no right

to recjard the tradition as a fiction.

On
e.g.,

the other hand,

it is

quite correct to say that the critical activity in these matters

was reduced
and that

to a

minimum,

so that,

the parallel texts of

the Old Testament ( 73) were not brought into harmony,

in

no case was an endeavour made

to

bring about

correspondence between the authorised text and the ancient

spoken form of the

distinction

text,

which lay

at the

foundation of the

between the Q^re and the KHlh.

text
is

But
in

this fidelity

to the objective witnesses for the

fact to

be con-

sidered as a great benefit, since at that time a more subjective

criticism,

through

its

dependence upon dogmatic motives and

unhistorical principles,

would have been

as
is

productive of in-

curable
criticism

mischief.

Inadequate

the

method of textual
the passages

certainly

was which

indicated in

quoted from the Talmud

to let

namely,

in the choice of readings,

the

matter

be determined by

the

number

of

the

witnesses

the several passages in the Old Testament that

(

have been intentionally changed show

07) what the result

would have been

if

a subjective criticism had had freer play

in the establishing of the authorised text.

By means
from which

of the hypothesis of sucli a primitive exemplar,

all

later

manuscripts were transcribed, we

may

finally explain

a part of several abnormal forms which with

258

99.

EEYIEW.

pedantic scrupulosity have been preserved

down

to

our

own

days

( 77).
is

The

irregularly large or small letters, of

which

mention

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
litterce

slavishly

imitated

them.

Also

the

so-called

s^isioensce

may

indeed in part be omitted letters which in that manuscript

were added above the other

Eich.
ed.

letters.

Simon (Histoire Critique du V. T. liv. i. chap, xviii., Eotterdam 1685, p, 101) points out the importance of
:

the early years of the Christian era for the establishment of

this text
"

Et

ainsi cette

grande aversion des Juifs pour la

n'a

Traduction des Septante,

commence
;

qu'apres plusieurs
et ce fut principale-

disputes qu'iis eurent avec les Chretiens

ment dans
litteral

ce temps-la que les Juifs s'appliquerent au sens

de I'Ecriture et a rendre les exemplaires hebreux les

of all manuscripts from one

plus corrects qu'il leur fut possible."

The derivation

Archetype has

been maintained by Eosenmiiller {Yorredeziir Stereotypmisgahe des A. T. 1834), Olshausen {Die Psalmen, 1853, pp. 17 f., 337 f.), Lagarde (Anmerkungen zur griech. Uehers. d. Pro-

1549 ff.), Noldeke Compare also ZAW, (AUtestament. Literatur, p. 241), etc. ix. 303; and on the other side, ZWKL, 1887, p. 278 ff.
mrUen, 1863,
p.

f.

GGA, 1870,

p.

Lagarde has formulated this theory in a quite peculiar style in but compare Kuenen's reply the Preface referred to in 97
;

there

also

referred

to.

Against

the

hypothesis

that

the

standard manuscript consisted of manuscripts arbitrarily put

together,
ii.

compare Dillmann in Herzog's Real-Encyclopcedie,

388.

Jer. Taanitli, iv. fol. 68Z): "Three Torah Codices were found in the temple Court, Codex pyo, Codex "'DIDj;?, and Codex In one there was py (Deut. xxxiii. 27), while the two NTi.

others had

r\T\V'0

one had

'DIDVr
i.

(Ex. xxiv. 5
7),

Neuhehrdisclies

Worterbuch

compare Levy, the other two nyj one

;

 09.

liEVIKW.

259

had nine times s^n, the others eleven times N^n. In nil three two were held to and the one rejected." Compare Fiirst'.s Jinnarks on an Ezra Massel'ct Soph'rim vi. 4, p. xii. Codex {Kanon d. A. T. '^. 111) rest, as Strack has shown, on a wrong reading, h. Mocd Kat 186; compare Kabbinovitz,
cases the

Varioi Lcctioncs in Mi^chiiam,

ii.

61.

The

similarity

of

the

post-Christian
is

forms of

the

text

spoken of in the above section

naturally true only upon the

whole, and does not exclude, as follows indeed from the facts

already set forth in 92-93, all sorts of small divergences. An important question, the exhaustive answer to which, however, requires the performance of the task referred to in 93,
is to

determine the exact relation between the Massoretic text

of Aquila,

and the Archetypal texts

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.

MOREISON AND

GIBB. PKINTEDS,

EDINBDROU.

'

T.

&

T. Clark's Publications.

THE

FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL
MESSRS. CLARK beg to invite the attention of
Laymen
to this Series.

LIBRARY.

PUBLISHERS' NOTICE ON COMPLETION OF THE SERIES.

Clergymen and educated

Forty-five years have now elapsed since the commencement of the Foreign Theological Library, and during that time Four Volumes annually (or 180
in all) have
It is

appeared with the utmost regularity.

diflBcult to

now, however,

preserve this regularity

and, whilst the

will

Publishers will continue to issue translations of the best

German and French

be even

works, they will do so as occasion

offers,

and thus the publications

more

select.

In completing the Foreign Theological Library as a series, they desire

anew

to express their grateful thanks to the Subscribers for their support.

trust

They

and believe that the whole

in this

series

has exercised, through

the

care with which the books have been selected, a healthful influence upon the

progress of theological science

The BISHOP OF

country and the United States.

to

GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL, with regard

Sacred Study, says :'lt

may

be

of some
I

service to the reader if I mention the long and valuable series of Commentaries on, believe, every book of the Old Testament, that will be found translated from the German in the
little

comprehensive Foreign Theological Library of Messrs. Clark of Edinburgh. The same Library may be mentioned in reference to the New Testament ; and it may be further mentioned that, by the enterprise of the same Publishers, the whole of the valuable Commentaries of the late Dr. Meyer
are

now

accessible to the English student.

W. R. HARPER, of Chicago University, and Editor of 'The Biblical World,' writes: 'The FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY, published by Messrs. T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, has exercised a great influence upon the biblical studies in this country and in England. It has introduced to students of the Scriptures some of the best work of German theologians and critics. The Publishers announce that, with the concluding volume of SchUrer's "History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ," they will bring the series to an end. The forty-five years of publication, at the rate of four volumes yearly, is an achievement to look back upon with pride, and the belief of the Messrs. Clark, that "through the care with which books have been selected, the series has exercised a healthful influence upon the progress of theological science, " Is amply Justified. It is gratifying to learn that they do not propose entirely to give up this special work of publishing such translations, but will discontinue the aerial publication, Issuing books irregularly, as occasion offers.'
Prof.

of

In order to bring the Foreign Theological Library more within the reach all, it has been decided to allow selections of

EIGHT VOLUMES
at the Subscription

Price of
(net)

TWO GUINEAS

N.B. No duplicates can be included in such (or more at the same ratio). A compU-te list of volumes in the Foreign Theological Library selections. will be found on the following page.


T.

&

T. Clark's Publications.

THE FOREIG N THEOLOGIC AL LIBRARY.

Works from which a Selection of Eight Volumes for 2, 2s. (or more at the may be made. (Non-subscription Price within brackets) Baumgarten The History of the Church in the Apostolic Ago. Three Vols (27s.) Bleek Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) Cassel Commentary on Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Christlieb Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Delitzseh New Commentary on Genesis. Two Vols. (21s.) Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Two Vols. (21s.) Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Last Edition. Two Vols. (21s.) Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Two Vols (21s.) A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (12s.) DSllinger Hippolytus and Callistus or, The Church of Rome A.D. 200-250. One Vol. (7s. 6d.) Domer A System of Christian Doctrine. Four Vols. (42s.)

The

following are the

same

ratio)

History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Five Vols. Ebrard Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Apologetics. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) The Gospel History. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Ewald Revelation Its Nature and Record. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Old and New Testament Theology. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
:

(52s. 6d.)

Frank System of Christian Certainty. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Gebhardt Doctrine of the Apocalypse, One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Gerlach Commentary on the Pentateuch. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Gieseler Compendium of Ecclesiastical History A.D. 451-1409. Three Vols. Godet Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two Vols. (21s.) Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Two Vols. (21s.) Commentary on 1st Corinthians. Two Vols. (21s.) Goebel On the Parables. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Hagenbach History of the Reformation. Two Vols. (21s.)
:

(31s. 6d.)

History of Christian Doctrines.

Three Vols.

(31s. 6d.)

Harless A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Haupt Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Havemick General Introduction to the Old Testament. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Hengstenberg Christology of the Old Testament. Four Vols. (42s.) Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (33s.) On the Book of Ecclesiastes, etc. etc. One Vol. (9s.) Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.) Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One Vol. (12s.) The Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Two Vols. (21s.) Keil Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on the Books of Samuel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations. Two Vols. (21s.) Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Vols. (21s.) Book of Daniel. One Vol. Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.)

(10s. 6d.)

Biblical Archaeology. Two Vols. (21s.) Kurtz History of the Old Covenant or. Old Testament Dispensation. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) Lange Commentary on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) St. John. Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Two Vols. (18s.) Two Vols. (21s.) Luthardt Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
;

History of Christian Ethics to the Reformation.

One

Macdonald Introduction to the Pentateuch. Martensen Christian Dogmatics. One Vol.

Vols. (10s. 6d.)

Two

Vol. (21s.)

(10s. 6d.)

Christian Ethics. General Social Individual. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) MUller The Christian Doctrine of Sin. Two Vols. (21s.) Murphy Commentary on the Psalms. To cottnt as Two Volumes. One Vol. (12s.) Neander General History of the Christian Religion and Church. Vols. I. to VIII. (60s.) Oehler Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.) Olshausen Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Four Vols. (42s.) Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Corinthians. One Vol. Commentary on Philippians, Titus, and 1st Timothy. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Orelli Prophecy regarding Consummation of God's Kingdom. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on Isaiah. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Jeremiah. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Philippl Commentary on Epistle to Romans. Two Vols. (21s.) RSbiger Encyclopaedia of Theology. Two Vols. (21s.) Ritter Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Vols. (26s.) Sartorius The Doctrine of Divine Love. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Schtlrer The Jewish People in the Time of Christ. Five Vols. (10s. 6d. each.)

(9s.)

Shedd History

of Christian Doctrine.

Two

Vols.

(21s.)

Steinmeyer History of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) The Miracles of our Lord in relation to Modem Criticism. One Vol (7s. 6d.) Stler The Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight Vols. (10s. 6d. per vol.) The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on Epistle of St. James. One Vol. The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

(10s. 6d.)

UUmann Reformers
Winer Collection

before the Reformation.

Two

Vols.

Weiss Biblical Theology of the New Testament.

2 Vols.

of the Confessions of Christendom.

(21s.) (21s.) The Life of Christ. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

3 Vols. (31s. 6d.)


&

T.

T. Clark's Publications.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY.

The Ante-Nicene Christian

Works
of
Nicaea.

Library.

A Collection of

all

the

Church prior to the Council Rev. ProfesRor Roberts, D.T)., and Principal James Donaldson, LL.D., St. Andrews. In Twenty-four
of the Fathers of the Christian

Edited by the

handsome 8vo Volumes, Subscription Price 6, selection of Twelve Volumes for 3, 3s. net.
Any Volume may
be bad separately, price lOs. 6d.

6s.

net;

or

This Series has been received witli marked approval by all sections of the Christian Church in this country and in the United Stat^s, as sujtplyin;,' what has lonf; been felt to be a want, and also on account of the impartiality, learning, and care with which Editors and Translators have executed a very difficult task.

The following Works are included in the Series Apostolic Fathers, comprising Clement's Epistle
;

to the Corinthians Polycarp to the Ephesians; Martyrdom of Polycarp Epistle of Barnabas; Epistles of Ignatius (longer and shorter, and also the Syriac Version) Martyrdom of Ignatius Epistle t<. Diotrnetus Pastor of H.'iiiias; Papias; Spurious Epistles of Ignatius. Oik- Vnlunie. Justin Martyr; Athenagoras. One Volume. Tatian; Theophilus; The Clementine Recognitions. One Volume. Clement of Alexandria, comprising Exhortation to Heathen The Instructor and the Miscellanies. Two Volumes. HippolytUB, Volume First; Refutation of all Heresies, and Fragments from his Commentaries. Irenasus, Volume First. IrensBUS (completion) and Hippolytus (cnniplrtinn); Fragments of Third Century. One Volume. Tertullian against Marcion. One Volume. Cyprian; The Epistles and Treatises; Novatian Minucius Felix. Two Volumes. Origen De Principiis Letters; and portion of Treatise against Celsus. Two Volumes. Tertullian: To the Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations, et''. Tliree Volumes. Methodius; Alexander of Lycopolis Peter of Alexandria Anatolius; Clement on Virginity; and Fragments. One Volume. Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations; comprising all the very curious Ai>o(ryphal Writing's of the tirst three Centuries. One Volume. Clementine Homilies; Apostolical Constitutions. One Volume. Arnobius. om Volum. Gregory Thaumaturgus; Dionysius; Archelaus; Syrian Fragments. One Volume, Lactantius; to^'cther with tlie Testaments of the Twelve Patrianhs, and P'ragments of the Second an'l Third Centuries. Two Volumes. Early Liturgies and Remaining Fragments. One Volume.
;
; ; ; ; ;

ST.

AUGUSTINE'S WORKS.

The Works

of Aurelius Augustine, P.ishop of Hippo. Edited by Marcus Duds, D.D. In Fifteen Volumes, demy 8vo,

Subscription Price 3, 19s, net. Any Volume may be had separately, price lOs, 6d. The 'City of God.' Two Volumes. The Harmony of the Evangelists, and the Sermon on the Mount. Writings in connection with the >iir Volume. Oonatist Controversy. )ne Volume. Letters.' Two Volumes, The Anti-Pelagian Works. Three N'oluuii's. On Christian Doctrine. Enchiridion Treatises against Faustus the on Catechising, and on Faith Manichaean. une Vulume. and the Creed, unc Vulume. On the Trinity. One Volume. 'Confessions,' With Copious Notes by Commentary on John. Two Volumes. HeV. J. O. ril.KINfiTON. 'For the reproduction of the "City of God" in an admirable English garb we are greatly
( (

'

indebted to the well-directed enterjirise and energy of .Messrs. Claris, and to the accuracy and scholarship of those who have undertaken the laborious task of translation.' CArus/ta/i Observer.

iVl^.-Messrs, Clark

otFer a Selection of

Twelve Vohnnes from either or both of

those Series at the Subscription Price of Three Guineas net (or a larger

number

at

same proportion).


T.

&

T. Clark's Publications.

MEYER'S COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.

'Meyer has been long and well known to scholars as one of the very ablest of the German expositors of the New Testament. We are not sure whether we ought not to say that he is unrivalled as an interpreter of the grammatical and historical meaning of the sacred writers. The Publishers have now rendered another seasonable and important service to English students in producing this translation.' Gvahdiaj^.

Critical

and Exegetical Commentary on the

By
Dr.

Neinr

Testament.
Hannover.

H. A.

W. Meyer,

Oberconsistorialrath,

Under

the editorial care of Kev. Dr. Dickson, late

Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow. In Twenty handsome 8vo Volumes, price 5, 5s. net. Or a selection may now be made of any Eight Volumes for Two Guineas net (or a larger number at the same proportion).

Any Volume may

ST,

be had separately, price 10s. 6d.

;
;

MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, Two Volumes MARK AND LUKE, Two Volumes ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL, Two Volumes; ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, Two Volumes; ROMANS, Two Volumes; CORINTHIANS, Two Volumes; GALATIANS, One Volume;
EPHESIANS AND PHILEMON, One Volume PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS, One Volume; THESSALONIANS, One Volume; TIMOTHY AND TITUS, One Volume; HEBREWS, One Volume; JAMES AND JOHN, One Volume; PETER AND JUDE, One Volume.
;

The series, as written by Meyer himself, is completed by the publication of Ephesians with Philemon in one volume. But to this the Publishers have thought it right to add Thessalonians and Hebrews, by Dr. LUnemann, and the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles,
by Dr. Huther.
need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous, and learned of Dr. Meyer has been most carefully consulted throughout and I must again, as in the pi-eface to the Galatians, avow my great obligations to the acumen and scholarship of the learned editor.' Bishop Ellicott in Preface to his Commentary on
'

commentary

Ephesians.
'

The

ablest grammatical exegete of the age.'

Philip Schaff, D.D.

Works

of Dr.

John Owen.

D.D., Edinburgh.

Edited by Eev. W. H. Goold, In 24 Volumes, demy 8vo, price 4, 4s. net.

in

THE COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS,

be had separately, price 42s.

Seven Volumes, may

Works
of

Commentaries, Forty-five Volumes. Tracts on the Reformation, Three Volumes.

of

John

Calvin.

Six Volumes (or more at the same proportion) for 21s., with the exception Vols. I. and V.; and CORINTHIANS, 2 Vols. which are now out of j^rint. Any separate Volume (with the above exceptions), 6s. THE LETTERS, Edited by Dr. Boxnet, Two Volumes, 10s. 6d. THE INSTITUTES, Two Volumes, Translated, 14s. THE INSTITUTES, in Latin, Two Volumes, Tholuck's Edition, price 14s. net.

A Selection of

PSALMS,

HABAKKUK


T.

&

T.

Clark's Publications.

BEN GEL'S GNOMON.

'Stands out among the exvgvtical litfutiirc nut unly of the t-ighteinth century, but of all and precision, and for its combination of spiritual insight with the best scholarship of his time.' I'lofviisuT W. Hanhav, 1).I>., Oxlunl.
centuries, for its masterly terseness

Gnomon
IlKNiiKL.

of

the

Newr Testament.
Edited by the Rev.
each,

Ly

John

Alhkut

Translutod into Knglisli.

Illustrative.

Witli Original Notes, Explana-

tory

and

Andrew
and
the

R. Fausset,

M.A.
8vo,

The

Original Translation was in Five Large Volumes,

demy

averaging

more than 550

pp.

very great

demand for this Edition has induced the Publishers to issue the FiveYohimes bound in Tliree, at the Subscription Price of 24s. net. They trust by this still further to increase its usefulness.
*^* The Five Volume Edition

may

still

be had at the original Subscription

6d. net.
'

Price, 1,

lis.

Bristol says of Beugel: There is one expositor so uniquely eminent in drawing from Holy Scripture its deeper spiritual meaning, that it may be well for the student always to have at hand, for the New Testament, the Gnomon of Bengcl, and to acquire through the help of this most introspective expositor the aptitude of drawing from the Holy Word its full message to the soul.'

The Bishop of Gloucester and

ST/ER'S

WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS.

Uy
Dr.

The Words

of the Lord Jesus.

RuDOLrn
and

Stier.

Eight Vols. 8vo (or the Eight Vols, bound in Four), 2,

2s. net.

The Words of the Risen Saviour, The Words of the Apostles, 8vo,
Volumes
'

8vo, 10s. 6d.

10s.

6d.

(Or the

Ten

for 2, 12s. 6d. net.)

Its measure of practical and is a treasury of thou-rhtful exposition. spiritual application, with exegetical criticism, commends it to the use of those whose duty it is to preach as well as to understand the Gospel of Christ.' Guardian.

The whole work

LANGE'S LIFE OF CHRIST.

The

Complete Critical Examination of the Origin, Contents, and Connection of the Gospels. Translated from the German of J. P. Lange, D.D.,
Professor of Divinity in the University of Bonn.
Edited, with
in

Life of the Lord Jesus Christ:

additional Notes,

by Marcus Dods, D.D.

net.
;

Cheap Edition,

Four

Volumes, demy Svo, price 28s.

'

it first presents the life of Christ as Stands in the front rank given in the four Gospels together, and then as given by each Gospel separately from Principal \. Cave, D.D. its peculiar standpoint.'

of lives of Christ

PROFESSOR EADIE'S COMMENTARIES.

Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians.
J.

P>y the

late

Professor

Eadie, D.D.

The Three Volumes

are supplied at the price of

18s. net,

or in separate Volumes, at 10s. 6d. each.

They have

been carefully edited by the Rev. William Young, M.A., Glasgow.


T.

&

T. Clark's Publications.

With Illustration Neiff Testament. and Maps. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. Complete in Four Volumes, imperial 8vo, price 12s. 6d. each. Contributors: The Very Rev. Dean Howson The Very Rev. Dean Plumptre Principal David Brown, D.D. W. Milligan, D.D. J. Rawson Lumby, D.D. W. F. Moulton, D.D. Rev. Canon Spence Marcus Dods, D.D.; J. Oswald
;
; ; ; ;
; ;

Commentary on the

Gloag, D.D. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D. Philip Schaff, D.D. Matthew B. Riddle, D.D. Maps and Plans Professor Arnold Guyot. Illustrations W. M. Thomson, D.D., Author of 'The Land and the Book.'

Dykes, D.D.

Joseph Angus, D.D.

B. Pope,

Baton

J.

D.D.

WiUiam

Volume

I.

Volume
St.

II.

The Synoptical Gospels.

Romans

Volume III. to Philemon.

John's Gospel, and The Acts of the Apostles. Vohime IV. Hebrews to Revelation.

' A useful, valuable, and instructive commentary. The interpretation is set forth with clearness and cogency, and in a manner calculated to commend the volumes to the thoughtful reader. The book is beautifully got up, and reflects great credit on the publishers as well as the writers.' The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. I have looked into this volume, and read several of the notes on crucial passages. They seem to me very well done, with great fairness, and with evident knowledge of The illustrations are very good. I cannot doubt the controversies concerning them. that the book will ^Drove very valuable.' The Bishop of Winchester. have already spoken of this commentary with warm praise, and we can certainly assert that the enterp ise has now been brought to a close with really admirable work.'
'
'

We

English Churchman.
'

congratulate Dr. Schaff on the completion of this useful work, which we are now able to commend, in its complete form, to English readers of the Scriptures, ... It will be seen that we have a high opinion of this commentary, of the present volume, and also In this last respect it is perhaps of more unifonn excellence than of the whole work. any of its rivals, and in beauty of appearance it excels them all.' Church Bells.

We

Studies in the Christian Evidences: Being the Times. By Rev. Alexander Mair, D.D.
Revised and Enlarged, crown 8vo, price
.

Apologetics for

Third Edition,

6s.
. .

'This book ought to become immensely popular. That one chapter on "The Unique Personality of Christ" is a masterpiece of eloquent writing, though it is scarcely fair to mention oue portion where every part is excellent. The beauties of the volume are everywhere apparent, and therefore will again attract the mind that has been once delighted with the literary feast.' T/ie Rock.

Encyclopaedia of Theology.
D.D., Breslau.
Literature,
'

By

Professor

J.

E.

Rabiger,

Translated,
J.

with additions to the History and

2 Vols. 8vo, price 21s.

by Rev.

Macpherson, M.A.

Rabiger's Encyclopaedia is a book deserving the attentive penisal of every divine. Athenceum. It is at once instructive and suggestive.'
.

System of the Christian Certainty. By

'

Professor Dr. Fr.

theological work has come to us from Germany since the publication of Dr. Dorner's " Christian Doctrine."' Literary World.

H. R. Frank, Erlangen. No weightier or more valuable

In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.

The Gospel
tion

of St. Peter.

Synoptical Tables.

With

Transla-

and

Critical Apparatus.

Edited by Prof. H. von Schubert,

8vo, Is. 6d. net.
Expository Times.

D.D., Kiel.
*

Authorised English Translation.

The most useful thing that has yet been published on this fragment.'


T.

&

T. Clark's Publications.

BY PRINCIPAL

A.

CA\/E, P.P.
:

An

Introduction to Theology
Its

Kcsults,
of

autl

Its Literature.

IJy

iU Principles, Its Branches, Alfred Cave, B.A., D.D.,

College, London. Second Edition, largely Pibliographical Lists carefully revised to date. rewritten, and the In demy 8vo, price 1 2s.
Princi})al

Hackney

The best original work on the subject in the Englisli language.' rim. ii* Schakk. D.D., LL.D. Its arrangement is perfect, its learning accurate and extensive, and its practical hints Christian World. invaluable.' A marvel of industry, and simply invaluable to theologians.' Clergyman's
'
'
'

Magazine.

The

Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement. By Alfred Cave, D.D., Principal of Hackney Cullege, London. In demy 8vo, New Edition, revised throughout, price 10s. 6d.
. . .

'Every page in this edition has been carefully revised in the light of the latest relative researches. The literary references have also been brought down to date. In the New Testament section there is considerable variation. Upon the Doctrine of the Atonement especially, conclusions upon wliich affect so materially tlie presentation of Christian truth, the author's views have been steadily ripening, as he believes, during the thought of years, Conse<iuently more than half of the Testament portion has been vewviiieu.'' Extract from the Preface. ' Let readers judge is this not now the best systematic study of the Atonement in

New

the English language

'

Expository Times.

BY PRINCIPAL

P.

W.

SIMON, P.P.

The Redemption
ment.

of

Man
W.

By

Principal D.

Discussions Bearing on the Atone: Simon, D.D., Bradford. In demy 8vo,

price 10s. 6d.

Principal Fairbairn, Mansfield College, writes: 'I wish to say how stimulatint: and helpful I have found your book. Its criticism is constructive as well as incisive, while its point of view is elevated and commanding. It made me feel quite vividly how superficial most of the recent discussions on the Atonement have been.' Its learning, ample although that be, is its least merit it has the far higher and rarer qualities of freshness of view and deep ethical insight. I h()i)e it will find the general and cordial reception it so well deserves.' Professor K. Flint, I'.D.
'
:

The Bible an Outgrowth

cipal L).

of Theocratic Life.
In crown 8vo, price

By

Prin-

W.

Simon, D.D., Bradford.

4s. 6d.

' This book will well repay perusal. It contains a great deal of learning as well as ingenuity, and the style is clear,' Guardian. ' Dr. Simon's little book is wortliy of the most careful attention.' J5a/i/w/. ' Dr. John Brown, of Bedford, writes: ' I feel sure that such of your readers as may make acquaintance with it, will be as grateful for its valuable help as I have been myself.'

Delivery and Development of Christian Doctrine.

KoBEUT Rainy, D.D., Principal, and Professor Church History, Xew College, Edinburgh. Price
'

P.y

of

Divinity and

10s. 6d.

gladly acknowledge the high excellence and the extensive learning which these lectures display. They are able to tlie last degree, and the author has, in an unusual measure, the power of acute and brilliant generalisation.' /.jVerory Churchman. The subject is treated with a comprehensive jrrasp. keen logical power, clear analysis and learning, and in devout spirit.' Evangelical Magazine.
'

We


Handbooks
Edited
'

for Bible Classes and Private Students. by Professor Maecus Dods, D.D., and Alexander

Whyte, D.D.
specially the admirable Handbooks for Bible Classes issued by T. & T. Clark of Edinare very clieap, and among them are some books unsurpassed in their kind.'^Dr. W. in The British Weekly. 'Sound, intelligible, and sometimes brilliantly-written handbooks, packed with wisdom and knowledge.' iHe</iorf( si Recorder. have long desired to meet with a These volumes are models of the multum in parvo style. series of this kind Little Books on Great Subiects.' Literary World.
I

name

burgh.

They

E-OBERTSON NicoLL

'

We

COMMENTARIES
Professor
2s.

Marcus Dods, D.D.

Genesis.

2s.

Professor T. M. Lindsay, D.D.

Vols.
3s. 3d. (Vol. I., 2s.
;

James Macgregor, D.D.

each.

Exodus.
Joshua.

2 Vols.
Is.

George Reith, D.D.

6d.

St. Luke. 2 Vol. II., Is. 3d.). 2 Vols. St. Jolin. 2s.

Principal

Douglas, D.D. Judges. Is. 3d.

Is. 6d.

each.

Professor J. G.

Murphy, LL.D.

Chronicles.

Professor T. M. Lindsay, D.D. Acts. Is. 6d. each. Principal Brown, D.D. Romans. 2s.

2 Vols.

Professor Marcus Dods, D.D. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. 2s. Obadiah to ZephPrincipal Douglas, D.D. anlah. is. fid. Professor T. M. Lindsay, D.D. Mark. 2s. 6d.

James Macgregor, D.D.

Is. 6d.

Professor J. S. Candlish, D.D.

Galatians. Is. 6d. Ephesians.

Professor A.
2s.

B.

Davidson, D.D.

Hebrews.

6d.

GENERAL SUBJECTS
jAiiES Stalker, D.D. The Life of Christ. The Life of St. Paul.

Rev.
Is. 6d.

is. 6d.

John Macpherson, M.A. The Sum of Saving Knowledge. The Confession of Faith. 2s.
Is. 6d.

Is. 6d.

(Large-tyjje Editions, Ss. 6d. each.)

Presbyterianism.
Professor Bint^ie, D.D.

Alexander Whyte, D.D. The Shorter Catechism.

Professor J.

2s. 6d.

S. Candlish, D.D. Christian Sacraments. Is. 6d. Christian Doctrine of God. Is. 6d. Work of the Holy Spirit. Is. 6d. Biblical Doctrine of Sin. Is. 6d. Norman L. Walker, D.D. Scottish Church History. Is. 6d. Rev. W. D. Thomson, M.A. The Christian Miracles and the Conclu-

The Church.

Is. 6d.

The The The The

Rev. T. B. KiLPATRiCK, B.D. Butler's Three Sermons

on

Human

Nature, is. 6d. President Hamilton, D.D. History of the Irish Presbyterian Church.
2s.

Rev. W. Scrymgeour, M.A. Lessons on the Life of Christ.

2s. 6d.

sions of Science.

2s.
2s. 6d.

George Smith, LL.D., F.R.G.S., CLE.

History of Christian Missions.

A. Taylor Innes, M.A., Advocate.

Church and State.

Rev.
J.

3s.

Archibald Henderson, D.D.

Palestine: Its Historical With Mcqis. 2s. 6d. Professor T. M. Lindsay, D.D.

Geography.

Feather. The Last of the Prophets

Baptist.
2s.

John
2s.

the

The Reformation.

2s.

Rev. W. Fairweather, M.A. From the Exile to the Advent.

Bible-Class Primers.
'A most
In paper

Edited by Rev. Professor Salmond, D.D.

is

useful series. With such helps as these, to be an inefficient teacher worthy.' Rev. C. H. Spurgeon.
covers, Qd. each ; free hy post. Id.

to be blame-

In cloth, M. each ; free by post, 9d. Testament Morality, by Rev. T. B. KilChristian Character: PATRicK, B.D. The Free Church of Scotland, by Kev. C. G. M'Crie, D.D. The Truth of Christianity, by Professor J. Iverach, D.D. The Making- of Israel, by Rev. 0. A. Scott, B.D. The Sabbath, by the Editor Our Christian Passover, by Rev. C. A. Salmond, M.A. The Kingdom of God, Three Parts {or one vol., cloth, Is. 6d.), by F. Herbert Stead, M. A. The Parables of our Lord, by the Editor Life of St. John, by Paton j. Gloag, D.D.The Story of Jerusalem, by Rev. H. Callan, M. A. Life of Abraham, by Rev. Charles A. Scott, B.D.Historical Connection between the Old and New Testaments, by Professor John Skinner, M.A. Life of Christ, by the EniTOR The Shorter Catechism, Three Farts {or one vol., cloth. Is. 6d.), by the Editor The Period of the Judges, by Professor Paterson, D.D. Outlines of Protestant Missions, by Rev. J. Robson, D.D. The Apostle Peter, by the Editor Outlines of Early Church History, by H. W. Smith, D.D. David, by the late Rev. P. Thomson, M. A. Moses, by Professor J. Iverach, D.D. Paul, by Paton J. Gloag, D.D. Solomon, by Rev. R. Winterbotham, M.A., LL.D. Reformation, by Rev. Professor WitherowKings of Israel, by Rev. W. Walker, M.A. Kings of Judah, by Professor Given, Ph.D. Joshua arid the Conquest, by Professor Croskery. Is.The Extra Vols. Bible Words and Phrases, by Rev. Charles Michie, M.A. Seven Churches of Asia, by Miss Deborah Alcock. Is.

Study

iu Nevv^

BS1135.B934
Canon and text of the Old Testament
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library

1012 00038 2541

li^^i

^jiiil