end of the book then remains a little comma," (лεqizoлŃ,) has led Jahn and Bertholdt astray to the conclusion that the commata were longer than the cola."

The verses were first marked with numbers in Sabionetti's edition of the Pentateuch, 1557; more perfectly in Athias's edition, with Leusden's preface, in 1661, and in Stephens's editions of the Vulgate, since 1558.

CHAPTER II.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT ITSELF.

§ 81.

CORRUPTION OF THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

THE fact that the text of the Old Testament has not come down to us in a faultless state, forces itself upon

Psalmis et operibus Salomonis: sed quod in Demosthene et in Tullio solet fieri, ut per cola scribantur et commata, qui utique prosa et non versibus conscripserunt, nos quoque utilitati legentium providentes interpretationem novam novo scribendi genere distinximus. Præf. in Ezech.: Legite et hunc juxta translationem nostram: quoniam per cola scriptus et commata, manifestiorem legentibus sensum tribuit. Præf. in Paralip.: - apertius et per versuum cola digererem. Præf. in Jos.: Monemus lectorem, ut distinctiones per membra divisas diligens scriptor conservet.

a

--

Martianay, Præf. in Opp. Jerome, i. prol. iv. 3, states the matter correctly. Bertholdt, p. 209, following Tychsen, in Eichhorn, Rep. vol. iii. p. 140, thinks Jerome found this division in the Hebrew MSS. On the other hand, see Morinus, p. 447. Eichhorn, § 77, p. 264. But the latter has not sufficiently attended to the following passages. Ep. ad Cyprian. ad Ps. xc. 11, (Opp. ii. p. 702:) Inter Hebraicum et Septuaginta diversa distinctio est: LXX. enim dinumerationem (3) timori et furori domini copulant. Ep. ad Paullam de Alphabeto Hebr. Ps. cxviii. (cxix.) Opp. ii. p. 709: — quod videlicet ex prima littera, quæ apud eos vocatur Aleph, octo versus inciperent. Ad Jerem. ix. 22: LXX. et Theodotion junxerunt illud præterito capitulo.

the thoughtful interpreter in many places, even if he does not make any very extensive critical investigations, by the obvious impropriety and want of sense in the common readings. Yet the critical skeptics, Morinus, Cappellus, and others, were obliged to fight for the admission of this fact, against the blind defenders of the inviolable purity of the text. Even Kennicott was obliged

to contend for it.

§ 82.

PROBABILITY THAT ERRORS WOULD BE INTRODUCED INTO THE TEXT.

From the nature of things and the fate of all ancient books," we must suppose that the Old Testament, in spite of the holy zeal of the Jews to maintain its purity, - which may be called the influence of the Holy Ghost, - would become disfigured by the faults of transcribers, unless a continual miracle took place. The possible origin of errors may be traced back to two main causes, namely, to ACCIDENT and DESIGN, both of which have, unquestionably, had an influence on the Old Testament.

[Eichhorn and others suppose the original manuscripts, as they proceeded from the hand of the author, or his amanuensis, may have contained mistakes, omissions, repetitions, errors in orthography, and the like.

He is mistaken if he takes this for a mere division of the words into lines as it is probable he does, following R. Simon, l. c. p. 145. Comp. Jerome, Præf. in Ezek.

• Ex. xvii. 16. (Comp. Clericus, Vater, in loc.) Num. xvi. 1. (Comp. Vater.) 1 Sam. vi. 18. xiii. 1. (Comp. des Vignoles Chronol. i. 138, sqq.) xiv. 32. 2 Sam. vi. 4. xix. 25. xxii. 33. xxiii. 8. 1 Kings vii. 15, 20. (xi. 15?) 1Ch. xxvi. 23. 2 Ch. xx. 1, sq. Jes. vii. 8. Jerem. xxvii. 1. Comp. 3, 12. xviii. 1. xxvii. 13. lxxiii. 7. (Comp. Schnurrer, Diss. p. 184.)

Ps. xviii. 5, 4, 3. xxv. 17.

Le Clerc, Ars crit. pt. iii. vol. ii. ch. 1—15.

In the short book of Amos there are many orthographical

errors, which probably belong to the original manuscript. But it is the duty of the critic to restore the text to the condition in which the author published it; not to correct his errors, though he may attempt to account for them.

1. Eichhorn thinks the authors themselves sometimes made a recension of some parts of the Old Testament, or a new edition, revised throughout, and altered here and there. In some instances, he thinks we have both editions in the original language; for example, Ps. xiv. and liii. In other cases, one edition is in the original, the other in a translation. Such is the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah. Besides this, later writers borrowed passages from their predecessors, after making slight alterations. Thus, for example, the later prophets took much from one another, and from earlier writers; in this manner, Ps. cviii. is compiled from Ps. lvii. 8-12, and lx. 7-14. Compare Jer. xlviii. with Isa. xv. xvi.; Jer. xlix. 7-17, with Obadiah.

2. If a hymn or a proverb were taken from the mouth of the people and reduced to writing, - and this was, perhaps, the case with some psalms and proverbs, - it was almost impossible to avoid errors. Thus some psalms, not always the oldest nor the most recondite, contain numerous inaccuracies, which cannot be corrected by the ancient versions, the present manuscripts, or any critical authorities; while other psalms, of greater antiquity, need scarce any correction, or are easily amended by the common critical methods. Ps. cxix., with its one hundred and seventy-six separate sentences, has come down to us in a remarkably perfect state. If the iron diligence of the Jewish copyists preserved this and others so perfectly, are we to attribute the errors

of other psalms to their negligence? It seems wise, in his view, to refer them to the original state of the text, of which the author published two editions.

3. When the writer cast earlier pieces into a new form, or abridged them, the chances of error were increased. Examples of this kind of error may be found in Gen. vii. 9, 16, compared with vi. 19; in 1 Ch. i. 17, sqq., compared with Gen. x.—xi.]"

§ 83.

ORIGIN OF ERRONEOUS READINGS.

1. BY ACCIDENT.

The errors of copyists are manifold.

I. They saw wrong.

1. Thus they confounded similar letters." Hence, on the supposition that numeral characters were used, we are to explain the difference in numbers. a mistaken for 1, 2 Sam. xxiv. 13. Seven years, in 1 Ch. xxi. 12; the Septuagint has three years. ▷ mistaken for, 1 Kings xii. 21, 180,000; the Septuagint reads 120,000. [In this manner many other mistakes in numbers seem to have arisen; for example, 2 Ch.

a

[Eichhorn, § 82-86. Teller, Diss. de Judicio super variis Lectt. Cod. Heb. recte faciendo, in his Opuscula, p. 33, sqq.]

b Cappellus, Crit. sac. ed. Vogel, vol. i. p. 79, sqq. Eichhorn, § 96. Hitzig, Begriff der Kritik. p. 126. Often and. Ps. cx.3, 7702, var. lect. 7. Ps. xix. 14, 77, LXX.?.- with . Jos. xv. 47, 37, Keri 377.- with . Ps. lxxviii. 69. Verss. Neh. xii. 3,, Vs. 14, . •— with 7. Gen. xxxvi. 23, 1, 1 Ch.

i. 40, 157.

с

, כארץ

, בארץ

Kennicott, Diss. vol. i. p. 521-527, vol. ii. p. 201–203. Diss. Gen. ed. Bruns, § 27. Bauer, Crit. sac. p. 188, sqq.

xiii. 3, it is said Jeroboam led out an army of 800,000 men, and lost 500,000 in the field; in xvii. 13-19, that Jehoshaphat could bring an army of 1,160,000 into the field; and, xiv. 7, sqq., that Asa had 580,000 men from the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, that Zerah came out against him with 1,000,000-statements quite incredible.

Other numbers, which make no sense, must be explained in the same manner; for example, 1 Sam. xiii. 1, Saul was one year old when he became king; 2 Ch. xxii. 2, Ahaziah, at the age of forty-two, succeeds his father, who had just died in his fortieth year; 1 Ch. xxix. 4—7, David, of his poverty, gives 3000 talents of gold, and 7000 of silver; others give 5000 of gold, 10,000 of silver, 18,000 of brass, and 100,000 of iron, at a time when the talent of gold was worth 24,309 dollars, and the weight of the talent (of iron and brass) was 125 pounds. The numeral for ten is often overlooked; as in Ezra ii. 34, the Hebrew reads 1017, and the Septuagint 1007; Esth. ix. 14, Haman has ten sons, in the Hebrew, the Septuagint omits the number. It is to be remembered that formerly the Hebrew letters resembled one another more closely than at present.]" 2. They misplaced letters."

3. They misplaced whole words. 2 Sam. vi. 2. Compare 1 Ch. xiii. 6. Ezra ii. 70. Compare Neh. vii. 73. According to Houbigant and Hitzig, is transposed in Ps. xxxv. 7.

See Faber's Programm. in Eichhorn, § 96.

• Ez. ii. 46, -, Neh. vii. 48, "; 1 Kings x. 11, 7, 2 Ch. ix. 10, ; Ps. xviii. 46, 27, 2 Sam. xxii. 1. Cappell. p. 71, sqq. According to Movers, Chron. p. 76, they both confounded and

, בכל עז ובשירים instead of בכל עצי ברושים,5 .misplaced, in 2 Sam. vi

1 Ch. xiii. 8.