Skip to main content

Full text of "Canon and text of the Old Testament"

See other formats 


CANON  AND  TEXT  OP  THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT. 


PRINTED  BY  MORRISON  AND  GIBE, 
FOR 

T.    &   T.    CLARK,    EDINBURGH. 

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

DUBLIN,   ....     (;EORGE  HERBERT. 

NEW  YORK,    .       .       .       CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS. 


CANON  AND  TEXT 


OF   THK 


Cestament 


DR.   FKANTS  BUHL, 

ORDINARY   PROFESSOR   OF  THEOLOGY   AT   LEIPZIG. 


STranslatrtf  &g 
REV.  JOHN   MACPHERSON,  M.A., 

FINDHORN. 


EDINBURGH: 

T.     &     T.     CLARK,     38     GEORGE     STREET. 

1892. 


PREFACE. 


THE  Author  of  the  following  work,  after  studying  in  his  native 
city  of  Copenhagen  and  also  at  Leipzig,  was  appointed 
ordinary  Professor  of  Theology  and  Oriental  Languages  in  the 
University  of  Copenhagen,  and  was  transferred  in  1890, 
on  the  death  of  Dr.  Eranz  Delitzsch,  to  occupy  the  place 
of  that  distinguished  scholar  in  Leipzig.  The  Treatise  now 
presented  in  an  English  dress  is  described  by  its  Author  as  to 
some  extent  an  enlarged  translation  of  a  Danish  work,  Den 
gammeltestamentlige  Skriftoverlevering,  which  had  appeared  in 
1885.  In  its  original  form  it  aimed  at  imparting  information 
as  to  the  ascertained  results  of  modern  researches  with 
reference  to  the  Canon  and  Text  of  the  Old  Testament.  As 
expanded  and  recast  in  the  German  edition,  the  Author 
expresses  the  hope  that  it  may  prove  useful  to  theological 
students.  For  the  English  edition  Professor  Buhl  has  supplied 
some  additional  references  to  the  most  recent  literature,  and  at 
his  request  the  Translator  has  called  attention  to  a  few  of  the 
most  important  contributions  of  British  scholars  which  bear 
directly  upon  the  subject  of  this  work. 

THE  TRANSLATOR. 

FINDHORN,  December  1891. 


CONTENTS. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  (§§  1-22) — 

General  Sketch  (§  1),                     .             .             .  .1 

I.    The  Old  Testament  Canon  among  the  Jews  (§§  2-13),         .  .           4 

A.  The  Palestinian  (Babylonian)  Canon  (§§  2-11),          .  .           4 

B.  The   Collection   of  Scriptures   by   the   Alexandrine   Jews 

(§§12-13), 43 

II.   The  Old  Testament  Canon  in  the  Christian  Church  (§§  14-22),      .         50 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  TEXT  (§§  23-99)— 

Preliminary  Remarks  (§  23),        ...  .79 

I.  Aids  to  the  Study  of  the  History  of  the  Text  (§§  24-73),     .  .         82 

A.  The  Immediate  Apparatus  (§§  24-36),           .             .  .82 

1.  Printed  Editions  (§§  24,  25),         .  82 

2.  Manuscripts  (§§  26-29),    .  .85 

3.  Collections  of  Variations  (§  30),  .  90 

4.  The  Jewish  Massora  (§§  31-35),    .  .94 

5.  Quotations  and  Transcriptions  (§  36),       .  .       106 

B.  The  Old  Translations  (§§  37-72),       .             .             .  .108 

1.  The  Alexandrine  Translation  (§§  37-50),               .  .108 

2.  Aquila,   Theodotion,  Symmachus,    Quinta,    and   Sexta 

(§§51-55),       ....  .149 

3.  Jerome  and  the  Vulgate  (§§  56-58),          .             .  .       ]59 

4.  Jewish  Targums  (§§  59-67),          .  .       167 

5.  The  Syriac  Translations  of  the  Bible  (§§  68-72),  .       185 

C.  Aids  from  within  the  Text  itself  (§  73),          .             .  .       194 
II.   Remits  of  the  History  of  the  Text  (§§  74-99),  .       195 

A.   The  External  History  of  the  Text  (§§7 '4-87),            .  .195 

1.  Writing  Materials  (§  74),               .             .             .  .195 

2.  History  of  the  Hebrew  Letters  (§§  75-77),            .  .       198 

3.  Vocalisation  and  Accentuation  (§§  78-82),            .  .       207 

4.  The  Divisions  of  the  Text  (§§  83-87),       .  219 


Vlll 


CONTENTS. 


B.   The  Internal  History  of  the  Text  (§§  88-99), 

1.  The  Linguistic  Side  of  the  Text  (§  88),    . 

2.  The  Transmission  of  the  Text  according  to  its  Real 

Contents  (§§  89-99)    . 
(a)  Vocalisation  (§§  90,  91), 
(6)  The  Consonantal  Text  (§§  92-99),    . 


PAGE 

228 

228 

232 
236 
239 


ABBKEVIATIONS. 

GGA    .     .     .  Gottinger  Gelehrte  Anzeigen. 

JPT    .     .     .  Jahrbiicher  fur  protestantische  Theologie. 

MGWJ     •     .  Monatsschrift  fur  Geschichte  und  Wissenschaft    des  Juden 

thums. 

NGG  W    .     .  Nachrichten  der  Gottinger  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften. 

REJ     .     .     .  Revue  des  Etudes  Juives. 

TA       .     .     .  Alexandrine  Text. 

TM      .     .     .  Massoretic  Text. 

TSK    .     .     .  Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken. 

ZA  ....  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie. 

ZA  W  .     .     .  Zeitschrift  der  alttestamentlichen  "Wissenschaft. 

ZDMG     .     .  Zeitschrift  der  Deutschen  Morgenlandischen  Gesellschaft. 

ZKM  .     .     .  Zeitschrift  fiir  Kunde  des  Morgenlandes. 

ZKWL     .     .  Zeitschrift  fiir  kirchliche  Wissenschaft  und  kirchliches  Leben. 

ZLT    .     .     .  Zeitschrift  der  gesammten  lutherischen  Theologie. 

ZWT  .     .     .  Zeitschrift  fiir  wissenschaftliche  Theologie. 


THE 
HISTORY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON. 


INTRODUCTION. 


1.  The  term  "  canonical  books,"  as  designating  the  writings 
which  constitute  the  rule  of  faith  and  doctrine  (KCLVMV  TTJ? 
a\ri6eias  /cal  rr}?  TrtcrTect)?),  was  first  employed  by  the  Greek 
fathers  of  the  fourth  century.  But  even  before  this  name  had 
been  coined,  the  idea  was  already  current  among  Christians, 
and,  with  reference  to  the  Old  Testament,  also  among  Jews. 
Seeing  that  it  is  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  with  which 

O 

we  have  to  deal,  the  conceptions  formed  by  the  Jews  must, 
from  the  very  nature  of  things,  be  regarded  as  of  normative 
importance,  as  may  indeed  be  provisionally  assumed,  for  this 
reason  that  the  ISTew  Testament  contains  no  separate  or  new 
doctrine  on  this  point.  So  then  also  we  see  how,  in  the 
course  of  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church,  several  eminent, 
clear-sighted  men  have  directed  their  attention  to  what  the 
Jews  have  taught  upon  this  particular  point,  and  have  taken 
pains  to  make  their  fellow-Christians  acquainted  with  the 
subject.  This,  too,  has  oftentimes  been  done  somewhat 
reluctantly,  and,  in  the  first  instance,  in  order  to  vindicate  the 
Church  from  the  reproachful  criticisms  of  the  Jews.  Never 
theless,  we  have,  even  in  this,  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
authority  belonging  to  the  Jews  on  those  questions,  which, 
only  on  account  of  accidental  historical  circumstances,  was 
not  fully  admitted  on  the  part  of  the  Church.  Hence  the 
history  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon  has  generally  been  given 
in  the  form  of  an  account  of  the  style  and  manner  in  which 

the  Jews  established  the  number  and  extent  of  the  sacred 

A 


2  §  1.    INTRODUCTION. 

writings,  while  a  summary  sketch  of  the  attitude  of  the 
Christian  Church  upon  this  question  was  attached  thereto, 
simply  as  an  appendix  of  more  subordinate  significance.  It 
must,  however,  be  now  quite  evident  that  the  task  lying 
before  us  consists  in  tracking  out  the  historical  process  itself, 
which,  within  the  limits  of  Judaism,  gave  authority  to  the 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation  as  canonical,  and 
distinguished  from  them  the  writings  that  did  not  belong  to 
revelation ;  whereas  the  representations  of  later  Judaism,  both 
in  their  original  form  and  in  their  imitations  among  Christians, 
are  not  in  and  for  themselves  of  normative  importance,  but 
must  eventually  give  way  before  the  ascertained  results  of 
historical  investigation. 

Preference  should  be  made  to  "  Introductions  to  the  Old 
Testament,"  in  which  also  the  collection  of  the  Old  Testament 
writings  is  treated.  Surveys  of  this  literature  will  be  found 
in  the  following  among  other  treatises  :  Scholz  (Catholic), 
EinUitung  in  die  heiligen  Schriflen  des  Alien  und  Neuen  Testa- 
menics,i.  184 5,  p.  3  tf . ;  Keil,  Lehrbuch  der  Uistorisch-kritiselicn 
EinUitung  in  die  kanonischen  und  apokryphischen  Schriftcn  dcs 
Alien  Testamentes,  3rd  ed.  1873,  p.  G  IF.  [Eng.  trans,  of  2nd 
ed.  of  1869  by  Prof.  Douglas,  2  vols.,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edin. 
1869];  De  Wette,  Lelirluch  d.  liist.-krit.  Einl.  in  die  kanon. 
und  apokr.  Sucker  des  A.  T.  8th  ed.  by  Schrader,  1869,  4 
tf.  [Eng.  trans,  of  early  ed.  by  Theodore  Parker,  2  vols., 
Boston  1843];  Strack,  EinUitung  in  A.  T.  in  Zocklers 
Handbuch  der  Theol.  Wissensclwften,  i.  Also  deserving  to  be 
named :  Belsheim,  Om  Bibelen,  dens  Forvaring,  Overscettelse 
og  Udbredelse,  3rd  ed.  Christiania ;  Ixosenius,  Indlednings 
vetenskaben  til  den  heliga  skrift,  Lund  1872. 

The  history  of  the  canon  is  dealt  with  in  the  following :  C. 
F.  Schmid,  Historia  antiqua,  ei  mndic.  Canonis,  Leipsic  1775; 
Semler,  Abhandlungen  von  freier  Untersuclmng  des  Kanons, 
Halle  1771-1775;  G.  L.  Bauer,  Canon  V.  T.  ab  Esdra  non 
collectus,  1797;  Movers,  Loci  quidam  historic?,  canonis  V.  T. 
illustrata,  1842  ;  Astier,  titude  sur  la  cloture  du  canon  de  Vane. 


§  1.    INTRODUCTION.  3 

Test.  Strassburg  1859;  Dillmann  in  the  Jahrb.  filr  Deutsche 
Theologie,  iii.  419  fF.  ;  Fiirst,  Der  Kanon  d.  A.  T.  nach  den 
Ueberliefemnyen  im  Talmud  und  Midraseh,  1868;  S.  David 
son,  The  Canon  of  the  Bible,  3rd  ed.  1880;  Strack  in  Herzog's 
Real-Encyclopcedie,  vii.  412-451 ;  Blocli,  Studien  zur  Gcschichte 
der  Sammlung  des  a.  t.  Literatur,  1876  ;  Wildeboer,  Het 
ontstaan  van  den  kanon  dcs  ouden  verbontls,  1889,  2nd  ed. 
1891.  Compare  also  :  Schiirer,  "  Geschichte  des  jiid.  Volkes," 
im  Zeitalter  Jesu  Christ i,  ii.  1886,  pp.  248-253  [Eng.  trans., 
History  of  Jewish  People  in  the  Times  of  Christ,  Edin.,  T.  &  T. 
Clark,  Div.  ii.  vol.  i.  1885,  pp.  306-312] ;  and  the  works  of 
Griitz  and  Geiger  subsequently  referred  to. 

On  the  use  of  the  word  "  canon,"  see  Credner,  Zur  GcscJuchte 
des  Kanons,  1847. 


I. 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  AMONG  THE  JEWS. 
A. — THE  PALESTINIAN  (BABYLONIAN)  CANON. 

2.  The  collection  of  sacred  writings  acknowledged  by  the 
Palestinian,  and  subsequently  by  all  the  Jews,  consists  of 
three  parts,  which  in  mediaeval  times  were  compared  with 
the  three  parts  of  the  temple — the  holiest  of  all,  the  holy 
place,  and  the  outer  court.  These  three  together  were 
designated  in  brief  Y'sn.  They  embraced  respectively :  The 
five  books  of  the  Law  (rnin  ;  also  rninn  wn  ntfpn,  "  the  five 
fifth  parts  of  the  Law");  the  prophetical  writings  (&>'P?) ; 
and  the  writings  (D^IIDSJ)  or  Hagiographa,  as  we  usually  call 
them.  The  Massoretes  divide  the  prophetical  writings  into 
two  subdivisions :  D'Oi^fcO  D^p?,  Prophetcv  Priores  (Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  Kings),  and  D^inK  D^p?,  Proplietce  Posteriorcs 
(Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets), 
in  all,  eight  books.  The  Hagiographa  are :  Chronicles,  Psalms, 
Job,  Proverbs,  Eutli,  Canticles,  Ecclesiastes,  Lamentations, 
Esther,  Daniel,  and  Ezra  (Ezra-Nehemiah),  embracing  eleven 
books.  Of  the  Hagiographa,  from  Kuth  to  Esther  are  the  five 
so-called  festival  rolls  or  Megilloth  (TO30  t^pn).  In  one  passage 
in  the  Babylonian  Talmud  (Berachoth  575),  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Job  (the  books  which,  from  their  initial  letters,  are  frequently 
called  n"£tf)  are  grouped  together  under  the  designation  "  the 
great  D^ira  "  ;  Canticles,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Lamentations  under 
the  designation  "  the  small  D'Oiro."  It  is,  however,  to  say  the 
least  of  it,  doubtful  whether  this  designation  was  in  such 

4 


§  2.    NAME  AND  IDEA  OF  THE  CANON.  5 

general  use  as  has  been  commonly  supposed.  The  entire 
number  of  the  canonical  books  is  twenty-four,  a  number  \vhicl, 
is  often  mentioned  in  the  older  Jewish  literature,  e.g.,  I. 
Taanitli  8 a.  Exodus  rb.  par.  41,  fol.  156;  Kolideth  rb.  (on 
xii.  11),  fol.  116«,  etc.  The  complete  enumeration  of  the 
twenty-four  books  is  to  be  found  as  early  as  in  a  Baraitha 
(a  tradition  derived  from  the  age  of  the  Mishna  doctors,  but 
not  to  be  met  with  in  the  Mishna)  I.  Baba  Batlira  14&,  15a. 
Compare  on  this  matter  §  10. 

The  whole  collection  bears  the  name  N"ipp  (from  &np,  "  to 
read  ")  or  "J2pn  or  N~J2p  or  &;Ypn  •ana,  "  the  sacred  writings," 
or  BHpn  'nro  Y'3,  D'nsp  Y'D,  "  the  twenty-four  writings."  By 
way  of  contrast  to  "  the  Law,"  the  fundamental  part,  con 
sidered  as  in  itself  sufficient,  the  rest  of  Scripture  was 
sometimes  embraced  under  the  name  n^?P,  "  tradition,"  or 
a^an.  Compare  §  3. 

The  Jews  expressed  the  idea  "  canonical "  or  "  non- 
canonical  "  in  various  ways.  "  Whoever  receives  more  than 
twenty-four  books  introduces  confusion  nciriD  into  his  house," 
as  is  said  in  B.  Koliddli  rb.  fol.  116a.  Only  the  canonical 
Scriptures  should  one  save  from  a  conflagration  on  the 
Sabbath  day ;  and  this  applies  also  to  translations  of  the 
sacred  writings  (M.  Sail.  16.  1;  1.  Sail.  115«)— and  it  is 
only  those  writings  that  "defile  the  hands"  (M.  Jadaim  3. 
5,  etc.).  The  latter  phrase  is  an  extremely  remarkable 
expression  of  the  notion  of  sacredness,  for,  in  order  to  protect 
the  sacred  books  from  careless  handling  and  profanation,  those 
very  attributes  were  ascribed  to  them  which  in  other  cases 
characterised  things  which  men  were  forbidden  to  touch  on 
account  of  their  impurity.  From  M.  Jadaim  4.  6,  it  appears 
to  have  been  the  Pharisees  who  issued  the  peculiar  ordinance, 
while  the  Sadducees  vigorously  opposed  it.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  idea  that  E.  Akiba  had  pronounced  all  un 
acknowledged  books,  even  such  as  the  Book  of  Sirach, 


6  §  2.    NAME  AND  IDEA  OF  THE  CANON. 


"  strange,"  D^l^n,  and  the  reading  of  them  involving 
exclusion  from  the  future  world,  is  certainly  due  to  a 
textual  error.  It  is  quite  evident  that  in  the  passage 
referred  to  (M.  Ssnhedrin  10.  1,  with  the  Talrnuds)  the 
allusion  was  originally  only  to  particular  heretical,  and 
especially  to  Jewish-Christian,  writings  ;  while  the  Book  of 
Sirach  and  similar  writings  were  considered  secular,  but 
such  as  might  be  read.  On  the  other  hand,  a  stricter  view 
undoubtedly  was  entertained,  according  to  which  the  reading 
of  such  books  was  declared  unallowable  (npn^  "PDN,  Sank. 
1005). 

On  the  names  of  the  canon  and  its  several  parts,  compare 
Zunz,  Gottesdienstliche  Vortrdge  der  Judcn,  p.  44.  In  con 
nection  with  this  it  should  be  specially  remembered  that 
D^iao  may  signify  not  only  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiographa 
(e.g.  M.  Megilla  3.  1),  but  also  all  the  canonical  writings  ; 
compare  especially  :  Schiffer,  Das  Buch  Koliddli  im  Talmud 
und  Midrasch,  1884,  p.  83  f.  On  the  Massoretic  expression 
NFippC'K,  "  tradition,"  see  Joh.  Delitzsch,  De  inspiratione 
scriptural  sacrcc,  1872,  p.  7  f.  Among  the  mediaeval  Jews 
and  the  Massoretes  N"|PP  is  sometimes  used  of  the  sacred 
writings  with  the  exception  of  the  Law  ;  also  here  and  there 
of  "  the  Prophets  "  alone.  Among  writers  of  that  age  we  also 
meet  with  the  word  P^DS,  which  in  the  Talmud  means  only 
"  verse,"  applied  to  the  entire  collection  of  Scriptures  (see 
Bacher,  BJKJ,  xv.  p.  113  f.,  xvi.  p.  277  f.).  Not  quite 
synonymous  with  jopo,  although  also  derived  from  &op,  is 
the  Arabic  Quran,  which  is  correctly  rendered  by  "  religious 
discourse"  (LiteraturUatt  fur  orient.  Pliilol.  iii.  104^). 

That  only  Canticles,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Lamentations  are 
mentioned  in  Beracliotli  57&  as  "short  Hagiographa,"  is  to  be 
explained  by  the  fact  that  Paith  was  prefixed  to  the  Psalms 
as  an  introduction,  while  Esther  was  assigned  its  place 
among  the  historical  books  (see  Fiirst,  Kanon  83,  compared 
with  60). 

M.  Jadaim  3.   5  :    "  All  the  sacred  writings  (not  all  the 


§  2.    NAME  AND  IDEA  OF  THE  CANON. 

Hagiographa,  see  §  8)  defile  the  hands  D'Trrns 
Compare  on  this  subject :  Delitzsch,  Zeitsclirifl  filr  Luther- 
ische  Theologie,  1854,  p.  280;  L.  Low,  GfraphiscJie  Requisiten 
und  Erzeugnissc  lei  den  Juden,  i.  1870,  p.  134  f .  ;  Weber, 
Leliren  des  Talmud,  p.  86  ;  and  below  at  §  8.  Fiirst  (Kanon, 
p.  83)  translates  it  quite  wrongly:  "They  declare  the  hands, 
without  having  been  previously  washed,  to  be  unclean." 
The  correct  explanation  of  this  special  ordinance,  the 
guarding  against  any  profanation,  is  pointed  out  by  Johanan 
ben  Sakkai  (Tosephta  Jadaim,  ii.  19  f.  p.  684,  2),  when  he 
says  that  according  to  this  we  would  be  prevented  from 
using  the  sacred  Scripture  rolls  as  coverings  for  animals 
that  were  ridden.  Of  small  importance  is  the  commonly 
quoted  explanation  from  Sabb.  lob,  14«,  where  the  subject 
under  discussion  is  the  Torah  rolls,  regarding  which  it  was 
forbidden  that  they  should  be  set  down  beside  consecrated 
grain,  lest  the  mice  should  gnaw  them  (see  Schiffer,  Das 
Buck  Koliddli,  pp.  78  ff.,  85  ff.,  90  f.)  ;  this  Halacha — one 
of  the  eighteen  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  (Ursclirifl  und  Uebersetzungen  der 
Bibel,  p.  135  ;  Jiid.  Zeitsclirifl,  ii.  21  ff.),  which  is  no  less 
untenable  than  the  remarks  of  the  same  scholar  on  the 
phrase  "  holy  Scripture,"  on  nJ,  and  on  the  passage  in 
Sabb.  16.  1,  where  the  books  jm  pip  j^  are  said  to  be 
non-canonical,  but  yet  such  as  may  be  read  (Nachgelassene 
Schriften,  iv.  13). 

The  word  TJJJ  (from  W3,  "  to  store  up,"  then  "  to  conceal," 
with  the  abstract  ""ip?)  which  is  met  with  in  the  earlier 
Jewish  writings,  is  no  mere  equivalent  of  the  Greek  word 
"  apocryphal."  It  is  not  used  of  the  writings  that  were  not 
received,  but  of  books  which  were  received,  the  canonicity  of 
which,  however,  was  contested  (§  8),  while  it  was  also  applied 
to  unauthorised  translations  of  the  sacred  writings  into  the 
Aramaic,  Greek,  or  other  languages  (Sail.  115«).  What  the 
exact  meaning  of  n:  is,  may  be  seen  from  a  passage  like  Mey. 
2QI.  "A  Torah  roll  that  has  become  rotten  must  be  hidden, 


8  §  3.    THE  LAW. 


,  in  the  vault  of  a  scholar."  Compare  also  §  26.  Thus 
originally  it  implies  no  judgment  on  the  character  of  the 
books,  but  a  particular  mode  of  procedure  with  existing  copies 
(copies  used  in  the  synagogues),  and  only  secondarily  does  it 
mean  destruction  generally.  Jerome,  therefore,  in  his  Comm. 
on  Eccles.  xii.  14,  correctly  translates  it  by  obliterare. 

Against  the  correctness  of  the  received  text  of  If.  Sanhedrin 
10.  1,  Sank.  100&,  jer.  Sank.  28a,  Giiitz  (MG-WJ,  1880, 
p.  285  ff.)  has  produced  very  cogent  arguments.  By  com 
bination  with  Toscplita,  Jadaim,  ii.  13,  p.  683,  10,  he 
constructs  the  text  as  follows  :  E.  Akiba  said,  "  Whoever 
reads  in  the  foreign  (D^STI),  i.e.  Jewish-Christian  writings 
(compare  Eabbinovicz,  DiMuke  Sopherim\  has  no  part  in  the 
world  to  come.  Books,  on  the  other  hand,  like  that  of  Sirach 
and  other  such,  which  were  composed  after  the  age  of  the 
prophets  had  been  closed  ("j^NI  JN31D,  see  §  9),  may  be  read 
just  as  one  reads  a  letter."  In  like  manner  Joel  (Blicke  in  die 
lldiyionsgcscliLclite,  i.  1880,  p.  73  ff.),  who  meanwhile  makes 
the  conjecture  :  "  Whoever  reads  in  foreign  writings,  like  the 
writings  of  KittD  p,  i.e.  Christian  writings,  etc.  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  Ben  Sirach's  book,"  etc. 

3.  As  the  beginning  of  the  construction  of  the  canon 
properly  so  called  among  the  Jews,  the  historical  development 
of  which  is  the  subject  of  our  present  investigation,  \ve  take 
that  particular  period  when  Ezra,  at  whose  side  ISTehemiah 
stood  during  the  latter  half  of  the  fifth  century  before  Christ, 
introduced  among  the  Jews  "  the  Book  of  the  Law,"  min  n£D, 
as  "  canonical  "  Scripture,  and  made  it  the  ruling  standard  for 
their  religious  and  social  life.  The  solution  of  the  much  con 
tested,  and  as  yet  by  no  means  solved,  questions  regarding  the 
existence  and  enforcement  of  this  law  during  the  pre-exilian 
period,  is  a  matter  to  be  determined  by  the  special  science  of 
Pentateuch  criticism.  We  confine  ourselves  here  to  the 
canonical  validity  which  the  written  Law  had  obtained  among 
the  Jews,  after  Ezra  had  read  it  before  the  great  assemblage 
at  Jerusalem,  and  the  people  had  put  themselves  under 


§  4.    THE  PROPHETS.  9 

obligation  to  fulfil  all  the  commands  contained  in  the  Law 
(Nob.  viii.-x.),  by  binding  themselves  under  a  written  covenant 
and  by  the  taking  of  a  solemn  oath.  Of  other  writings 
outside  of  the  Book  of  the  Law  there  is  on  this  occasion  no 
mention,  and  indeed  there  could  not  have  been.  It  is  indeed 
certain  enough  that  the  prophetic  writings  had  been  eagerly 
and  widely  read  before,  during,  and  after  the  exile.  One  may 
refer,  e.g.,  to  echoes  of  older  prophetical  writings  in  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel,  to  Zechariah  i.  4,  and  to  the  influence  which 
Isaiah  xl.— Ixvi.  exercised  upon  the  contemporary  and  the 
post-exilian  literature.  But  a  complete  collection  of  prophetic 
writings  could  not  exist  so  long  as  the  prophetic  spirit 
was  still  active  and  called  forth  new  writings.  Even  the 
acceptance  of  the  Pentateuch  alone  by  the  Samaritans  (§  11) 
points,  though  indeed  this  must  not  be  accepted  without  full 
proof,  to  this,  that  the  canon  of  that  day  contained  as  yet 
nothing  more  than  the  Pentateuch.  The  priority  of  the  Law 
is  seen  finally  in  this,  that  the  entire  collection  of  Scriptures, 
even  in  later  ages,  was  often  still  called  "  the  Law,"  because 
the  other  two  parts  were  regarded  as  merely  supplements 
to  it.  See  4  Ezra  xiv.  21  ;  John  x.  34,  xii.  34,  xv.  25  ; 
1  Cor.  xiv.  21  ;  Sank.  91&;  Mocd  baton  oa,  etc. 

With  regard  to  the  high  regard  shown  to  the  Law,  and  its 
pre-eminence  over  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiographa,  see 
Sirach  xxiv.  22-27;  1  Mace.  i.  59  f.  ;  Weber,  Lchren  dcs 
Talmud,  p.  79  ;  Wildeboer,  Het  ontstaan,  2nd  ed.  p.  90  ff. 

4.  That  the  Jews  of  the  Greek  age  acknowledged  that 
they  were  a  people  without  prophets  is  proved  by  sucli 
witnesses  as  1  Mace.  iv.  46,  ix.  27,  xiv.  41  ;  The  Song  of  the 
Three  Children,  v.  14  (Ps.  Ixxiv.  9  ?),  with  which  passages 
Sarili.  11«  may  be  compared.  And  as  they  became  more 
and  more  convinced  of  this  fact,  after  the  silencing  of  the 
loud  voices  of  the  prophets,  they  must  have  felt  impelled  to 


10  §  4.    THE  PROPHETS. 

bring  together  in  one  complete  whole  the  prophetic  writings 
transmitted  to  them,  the  historical  books,  comprising  utter 
ances  of  the  old  prophets,  as  well  as  the  properly  prophetical 
books,  and  to  attach  this  collection,  as  a  second  group  of 
sacred  and  inspired  writings,  to  the  Law.  From  the  prologue 
to  the  Book  of  Sirach  we  see  that  this  collection  was  generally 
recognised  and  circulated  in  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century  before  Christ ;  and  from  the  book  itself  we  further 
see  that  this  second  part  had  precisely  the  same  contents  as  it 
now  has,  for  the  author,  in  the  paragraph  xliv.  16— xlix.  13, 
gives  an  outline  of  the  contents  of  the  first  two  parts  of  the 
canon,  in  order  thereby  to  set  forth  a  picture  of  Israel's 
glorious  history  and  of  her  mighty  heroes,  which  exactly 
corresponds  with  the  contents  of  the  prophetical  books 
acknowledged  by  us.  How  long  it  was  before  the  prophetic 
canon  secured  general  acceptance  we  know  not,  and  just  as 
little  can  we  tell  by  whom  and  in  what  way  the  canonisation 
was  carried  out.  The  much  discussed  story  given  in  2  Mace, 
ii.  13  of  a  temple  library  founded  by  Nehemiah  contains 
perhaps  a  true  reminiscence  of  the  historical  preparations  for 
the  canonisation  of  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiographa,  but  is 
by  no  means  a  history  of  the  canonisation  itself. 

The  important  passage  in  the  preface  to  the  Greek  transla 
tion  of  Ben  Sirach  runs  as  follows :  iroXkwv  KOI  /jLeyaXcov 
i^fjbtv  $ia  TOV  vofjiov  teal  TWV  7rpo(f>r}Ta)v  KOI  TWV  d\\wv  TMV  KOLT 
avTOvs  rjKO\ov07]KOT(jL)V  Be^o/juevcov  .  .  .  o  TraTTTTO?  fiov 
eTrl  irXelov  eavrov  Soi)$  el'?  re  TTJV  TOV  VO/JLOV  KCLL  T&V 
/cal  TCOV  a\\wv  Trarpiwv  (3if3\iwv  avd^vwcriv,  KOI  ev  TOVTOIS 
ItcavTjv  e^iv  TrepLTroLTjo-afievo^,  TrpofyOrj  KOLI  avros  o-vyypdtyai,  n 
TWV  et?  irai^e'iav  KOI  crofylav  av^KovTwv,  K.T.\.  [Whereas  many 
and  great  things  have  been  delivered  to  us  by  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets,  and  by  others  that  have  followed  their  steps,  .  .  . 
rny  grandfather  Jesus,  when  he  had  much  given  himself  to 
the  reading  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  and  other  books  of 
our  fathers,  and  had  gotten  therein  good  judgment,  was  drawn 


§  4.    THE  PROHIETS.  1 1 

on  also  himself  to  write  something  pertaining  to  learning  and 
wisdom,  etc.]. 

For  the  determining  of  the  time  during  which  Ben  Sirach 
lived  important  data  are  afforded  by  his  grandson's  preface. 
The  editor  writes  thus  of  himself :  ev  TO,  07800)  KOI  rpiaKocrrM 
eret  eVt  rov  Evepyerov  /3acri\.ews  7rapa<yevr]6ei<$  et9  AiyviTTOV, 
[Coming  into  Egypt  in  the  eight  and  thirtieth  year,  when 
Euergetes  was  king.]  Seeing  that  an  allusion  to  his  own  age 
when  he  came  to  reside  in  Egypt  would  have  been  altogether 
purposeless,  he  must  mean  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  the  reign 
of  the  king.  Compare,  on  the  position  of  the  words,  the  LXX. 
rendering  of  Haggai  i.  1.  Now  Euergetes  I.  reigned  B.C.  247- 
222,  and  consequently  we  have  to  think  of  Euergetes  II. 
who  reigned  B.C.  170-116,  although  his  uncontested  supremacy 
began  only  in  B.C.  145.  The  year  in  question  would  then 
be  B.C.  132,  and  accordingly  the  grandfather  must  have 
flourished  about  B.C.  170. 

For  further  particulars  compare  Kuenen,  Historisch-kritisch 
Onderzock  naar  ontstaan  en  de  versamelinc/  v.  d.  Boeken  d. 
Ouden  Verlonds,  iii.  426  f . ;  Wildeboer,  Het  ontstaan,  pp.  31, 
114;  Vitringa,  De  dcfectu  pro'phetice  post  Malachiam  (Observa- 
tioncs  sacrce,  lib.  vi.  c.  7). 

That  Ben  Sirach  knew  the  full  prophetic  canon,  as  known 
to  us,  may  be  regarded  as  thoroughly  established.  The  non- 
genuineness  of  Sirach  xlix.  10,  where  mention  is  made  of  the 
twelve  prophets,  affirmed  in  earlier  times  by  Bretschn.eider, 
and  more  recently  repeated  by  Bohme  (ZAW,  vii.  280),  has 
been  rightly  met  by  Noldeke  (ZAW,  viii.  156)  by  the 
testimony  of  the  Syrian  translation. 

It  can  be  easily  understood  how  men  felt  themselves 
impelled  to  collect  together  the  wonderful  treasures  of  the 
prophetic  literature,  the  inexhaustible  springs  of  the  Messianic 
hopes,  and  to  mark  them  off  as  God's  words  from  other 
writings.  The  conjecture  of  Griitz  (Koheleth,  p.  156  f.),  that, 
by  the  canonisation  of  the  Prophets,  a  weapon  had  been  sought 
against  the  Samaritans,  is  more  characteristic  of  the  ingenuity 
of  its  author  than  of  the  motives  that  were  operative  in  that 
age.  That  the  reception  of  the  historical  works,  Joshua- 


12  §  4.    THE  PROPHETS. 

Kings,  into  the  second  collection  of  writings  presupposes  the 
decided  opinion  that  these  writings  had  been  composed  by 
prophets  properly  so  called,  is  by  no  means  certain.  It  is 
indeed  very  probable  that  these  books  were  reckoned  among 
"  the  Prophets "  merely  because  they  contained  occasional 
utterances  of  the  old  prophets,  such  as  Samuel,  Nathan, 
Ahijah,  etc.,  by  means  of  which  the  entire  historical  narrative 
was,  so  to  speak,  sanctioned.  This  view  is  favoured  especially 
by  the  style  and  manner  in  which  the  author  of  Chronicles 
quotes  the  several  historical  authorities  lying  before  him. 
See  1  Chron.  xxix.  29  ;  2  Chron.  ix.  29,  xii.  15,  etc.  These 
passages,  since  2  Chron.  xxvi.  22  puts  the  matter  quite 
differently,  do  not  certainly  express  the  idea  that  that  period 
of  the  history  has  been  described  by  a  contemporary  prophet. 
For  the  opposite  opinion  see  Wellhausen,  who  makes  the  last- 
mentioned  conjecture  (Prolegomena,  1883,  p.  235).  Compare 
also  especially,  Kuenen,  Onderzoek2,  i.  488. 

As  the  date  of  the  canonisation  of  "  the  Prophets,"  Wilde- 
boer  (Het  ontstaan,  p.  112)  conjectures  the  period  about  B.C. 
200.  But  if  these  writings  were  not  only  recognised  as 
canonical  by  Ben  Sirach  writing  about  B.C.  170,  but  were  also 
'circulated  in  a  Greek  translation  as  early  as  B.C.  140  (§  38), 
fthis  date  must  still  be  regarded  as  decidedly  too  late.  In 
jregard  to  the  difference  between  the  views  of  the  grandfather 
and  grandson,  see  Wildeboer,  Het  ontstaan,  p.  29.  But  how 
far  one  will  have  to  go  back,  it  is  impossible  with  the  means 
at  our  disposal  to  determine.  "We  might  ask  whether  the 
allusions  of  the  chronicler,  living  about  B.C.  300,  to  a  pro- 
phetico-historical  work  different  from  our  books  of  Samuel 
and  Kings  (see  above),  do  not  imply  the  assumption,  that  "  the 
Prophets "  were  not  then  as  yet  regarded  as  canonical,  in 
which  case  we  would  obtain  the  year  B.C.  300  as  the 
terminus  a  quo.  But  this  conclusion  is  still  uncertain,  since 
\ve  are  too  little  acquainted  with  the  circumstances  of  these 
times  to  be  able  to  deduce  such  consequences. 

As  to  the  way  in  which  this  canonisation  was  carried  out 
we  possess  no  information.  Undoubtedly  it  was  the  Sopherim 
who  were  the  actors  in  this  matter.  On  the  other  hand,  it 


§  5.    THE  HAGIOGRAPIIA.  13 

is  not  altogether  impossible  that  the  passage,  2  Mace.  ii.  13, 
contains  a  faint  reminiscence  of  an  earlier  fact  which  prepared 
the  way  for  the  subsequent  canonisation  of  the  Prophets  and 
the  Hagiographa  (§  5).  It  is  related  in  a  spurious  epistle, 
that  Nehemiah,  according  to  his  memoirs,  founded  a  library 
[undoubtedly  in  the  temple],  which  contained  the  following 
books  :  ra  irepi  TWV  @a(Ti\£wv  teal  7rpo$r)Twv  KOI  ra  rov  AavlB 
Kal  67n<TToXa?  f3aai\ewv  Trepl  avaOe/jbdroov.  That  the  Epistles 
about  Tensile  Gifts  do  not  correspond  to  any  Old  Testament 
book,  but  are  probably  letters  of  foreign  (Persian)  princes,  is 
clear.  On  the  other  hand,  among  others,  the  Books  of  Samuel 
and  Kings  (perhaps  also  the  Judges),  and  some  sort  of  collection 
of  Psalms  (that  mentioned  in  Ps.  Ixxii.  20,  or  those  Psalms 
bearing  the  superscription  Tfii),  may  possibly  have  been  meant. 
But  this  certainly  is  not  all,  and  even  at  the  best  this  contri 
bution  would  be  of  very  slight  importance  for  the  history  of 
the  canon.  Compare  on  this  point  the  various  discussions  of 
Kuenen,  Onderzoek,  iii.  403  ff.,  427;  Eeuss,  Gcschichte  d.  heil. 
Schriften,  A.  T.  1 8  8 1 ,  p.  7 1 7  ;  Strack  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyclo- 
pcediez,  vii.  426;  and  Wildeboer,  lid.  ontstaan,  pp.  36  f, 
112,  115,  133. 

5.  The  passage  quoted  in  the  previous  section  from  the 
preface  to  the  writing  of  Ben  Sirach  mentions,  next  to  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets,  an  additional  class  of  writings,  which  arc 
called  "  the  other  writings,"  or  "  the  other  writings  of  the 
fathers,"  where,  according  to  the  context,  the  term  "writings" 
evidently  meant  writings  with  religious  contents.  That  this 
third  group  corresponds  generally  with  the  later  so-called 
D'ZWD  (§  2)  is  quite  plain ;  but  still  the  question  remains- 
as  to  whether  the  writings  referred  to  in  the  prologue  were 
precisely  co-extensive  with  those  subsequently  known  as  the 
Hagiographa.  Here  we  are  without  the  means  of  answering 
the  question  with  the  same  certainty  with  which  we  can  inl 
reference  to  "  the  Prophets,'"'  since  the  Book  of  Ben  Sirach 
itself  expressly  refers  only  to  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  Ezra, 
Nehemiah,  and  the  Psalms  (xlvii.  8  ff.,  xlix.  11).  Although 


14  §  5.    THE  HAGIOGRAPHA. 

the  absence  of  quotations  from  the  rest  of  the  Hagiographa 
in  and  by  itself  indeed  affords  no  proof  against  their  existence 
and  their  recognition  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century 
before  Christ,  it  must  be  openly  confessed  that  the  history 
of  the  canon  is  thereby  prevented  from  issuing  an  authorita 
tive  veto  against  the  assigning  of  a  later  date  to  one  and 
another  of  these  writings.  It  belongs  exclusively  to  the 
particular  criticism  of  the  books  in  question  to  come  to  any 
conclusion  upon  this  point.  For  the  rest  it  cannot  escape  a 
careful  observer  of  the  quotation  referred  to,  that  not  only  the 
indefinite  expression  "  the  other  writings,"  but  still  more  the 
way  in  which  Ben  Sirach,  who  had  studied  those  transmitted 
writings,  determines,  according  to  the  preface,  also  (KOI  avros) 
to  make  his  contribution  to  the  moral  improvement  of  men  by 
composing  a  treatise,  make  it  evident  that  this  last  group  had 
not  yet  been  severed  from  the  religious  literature  of  that  pre 
sent  age  by  the  deep  gulf  of  a  canonical  ordinance.  And  that 
this  was  not  only  the  opinion  of  the  translator,  but  also  that 
of  the  author  himself,  is  abundantly  proved  by  the  style  in 
which  he  refers  in  his  treatise  (xxiv.  28  ff.)  to  the  inspiring 
divine  wisdom  as  the  source  from  which  he  has  derived  his 
doctrine.  Even  if  the  prophetic  spirit  were  no  more  opera 
tive  (§  4),  there  still  existed  the  wisdom  proceeding  "from 
the  mouth  of  the  Most  High,"  making  fruitful  and  inspiring 
His  people,  among  whom  it  still  always  drew  to  itself  all  who 
were  hungering  after  it. 

'  What  has  been  now  brought  out  fully  explains  why  the 
/Hagiographa,  in  the  estimation  even  of  later  ages,  were  re 
garded  as  writings  of  a  subordinate  rank,  as  compared  with 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  This  is  seen  conspicuously  in  the 
fact,  that  they  were  not  used,  like  those  others,  for  the  read 
ings  of  the  Sabbath  day,  and  has  its  origin  mainly  in  the  opinions 
expressed,  e.g.,  in  jer.  Sail.  16  fol.  15e,  Tosephta  Sallath,  13,  p. 
128,  according  to  which  they  were  not  intended  for  public 


§  G.    THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  15 

reading,  but  for  Midrashic  exposition.  Also  the  designation, "the 
Law  and  the  Prophets,"  for  the  whole  canon  is  thoroughly  in 
accordance  with  this  feeling.  Compare  §  6  and  Toseplita  Balm 
lathra,  8.  14,  p.  409,  31:  "The  guardian  should  purchase  for 
his  ward  D^iwi  min"  ;  jer.  Meg.  3.  1 ;  Soplfrim,  p.  v.,  passages 
which  are  quite  correctly  explained  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud 
(Baba  bathra  135),  while  Gratz  (Koheleth,  p.  150  f.)  completely 
misunderstands  their  meaning.  We  naturally  find  an  excep 
tion  in  the  case  of  the  Psalms,  which  were  held  in  high 
esteem,  and  were  used  in  the  temple  service.  Even  in  the 
LXX.  we  meet  with  a  superscriptional  statement  of  the  Psalms 
fixed  for  the  several  days  of  the  week.  See  Ps.  xxiv.,  xlviii., 
xciii.,  xciv.,  and  compare  with  Ps.  xcii.  in  the  Hebrew.  That 
the  five  Megilloth  were  read  on  the  five  feasts  has  been  already 
mentioned  in  §  2,  and  in  later  days  it  became  customary  for 
the  High  Priest,  on  the  night  before  the  great  day  of  atone 
ment,  to  read  in  public  from  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  Job, 
Ezra,  and  Daniel. 

It  might  be  asked  whether  the  original  document  used 
in  the  Book  of  Chronicles,  the  Book  of  the  Kings  of  Israel 
and  Judah,  which  was  in  existence  as  early  as  B.C.  300, 
belonged  to  "  the  other  writings  of  the  Book  of  Sirach  " ;  but 
probably  this  book  was  even  then  already  supplanted  by 
Chronicles. 

6.  From  the  age  following  that  of  the  Greek  translation 
of  Ben  Sirach,  we  find  only  very  slight  material  for  the 
solution  of  our  problem.  In  the  First  Book  of  Maccabees 
(vii.  17)  a  quotation  is  made  from  Ps.  Ixxix.  2,  with  the 
solemn  formula  implying  the  canonicity  of  the  writing  /ca-ra  TOV 
\o<yov,  ov  eypatye.  Similarly,  too,  Simon  ben  Shetach,  in  the 
first  half  of  the  first  century  before  Christ,  is  said  to  have 
quoted  Eccles.  vii.  12,  with  a  HTGI  (but  see  further  §  8). 
On  the  other  hand,  sources  are  supplied  us  abundantly  in  the 
generation  after  Christ.  In  Philo's  work  (§  12)  are  found 
citations  and  references  to  most  of  the  canonical  writings,  still 
with  the  exception  of  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  and  the  five  Megilloth. 


16  §  6.    THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

This  may  have  been  a  pure  accident,  but  it  is  nevertheless  of 
some  interest  to  compare  with  it  the  state  of  matters  set  forth 
in  §  8.  The  New  Testament  thoroughly  confirms  the  results 
won  from  Ben  Sirach  (§§  4,  5).  "Moses  of  old  times  hath 
in  every  city  them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  syna 
gogue  every  Sabbath  day,"  Acts  xv.  21,  and  from  Luke  iv. 

17  and  Acts  xiii.  15  it  follows  that  the  same  was  also  true 
of  the  prophetical  writings.      The  pre-eminent  importance  of 
these  two  portions  of  Scripture  is  seen  in  this,  that  the  sacred 
writings  were  sometimes  called  simply  "  the  Law  and  the  Pro 
phets  "  (Matt.   v.    17,  vii.   12  ;  Luke  xvi.  16,  xxix.  31  ;  Acts 
xiii.  15,  xxviii.  23  :   compare  §  5),  while  also   the  priority  of 
the  Law  is  given  expression  to  in  the  form  of  speech  referred 
to  above  in  §  3.    As  concerns  the  Hagiographa,  quotations  are 
made  from  a  larger  number  than  in  the  work  of  Ben  Sirach,  for 
(at  least  if  we  adopt  the  prevailing  view)  references  are  want 
ing  only  to  Ezra,  Ecclesiastes,  The  Song,  and  Esther.    Evidence 
in  favour  of  the  threefold  division  of  the  canon  is  afforded 
by  the  expression,  "  the  Law  of  Moses,  the  Prophets,  and  the 
Psalms  "  (Luke  xxiv.  44).      But  the   conclusions  drawn  from 
this  passage  in  regard  to  the  extent,  and  particularly  the  order 
or   arrangement  of  the   Hagiographa,   are   worthless,  for  this 
reason,  that  the  subject  dealt   with   in   this  passage  is   the 
prophetic   and   symbolic    contents  of   the  Old  Testament,  in 
which  connection  the  Psalms  occupy  a  pre-eminent  position 
among  the  Hagiographa.     But  more  important  than  all  this 
are   the  names  under  which  the  Old  Testament  is  referred 
to.    Designations  like  ypcupal  ayiai,  lepa  ypafi/juara,  al  <ypa<f)ai, 
and  especially  fj  <ypa$>r),  and,  besides,  the  well-known  solemn 
formuke  of  quotations,  put  a  clear  and  conscious  distinction 
between  holy  Scripture  and  any  other  sort  of  literature,  and 
so  give  ground  to  the  conjecture  that  the  limits,  still  undeter 
mined  in  the  days  of  Ben  Sirach  with  reference  to  the  third 
part  of  the  canon,  had  meanwhile  become  more  sharply  fixed. 


§  0.    THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  17 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  wrong  to  seek  in  the  passage,  Matt, 
xxiii.  35,  a  strict  proof  for  the  existence  there  and  then  of 
the  canon  as  we  now  have  it. 

The  quotation  in  1  Mace.  vii.  17,  seeing  that  the  author 
wrote  after  B.C.  105,  but  before  B.C.  70,  does  not  exclude  a 
Maccabean  authorship  of  Ps.  Ixxix.,  but,  in  consequence  of 
the  formula  used,  is  not  certainly  in  favour  of  it. 

The  above-mentioned  quotation  of  Simon  ben  Shetacli  from 
Ecclesiastes  is  to  be  found  in  Bereshith  r,  c.  9 1  ;  jer.  Berachotli 
7.  2,  fol.  Ill]  Nazir  5.  3,  fol.  546,  and  Kohekth  r.  c.  7.  12. 
To  this  may  be  added  solemnly  introduced  quotations  from 
Ecclesiastes  from  the  first  half  of  the  first  century  after 
Christ,  b.  Baba  bathra  4a ;  Sabb.  306;  Tosephta  Bemchoth,  ii. 
24,  p.  5. 

On  the  use  of  the  Old  Testament  in  Philo's  writings,  see 
Observations  ad  illustrationem  doctrinal  de  canone  Vet.  Test,  ex 
Philone  (Copenhagen  1775),  by  C.  F.  Hornemann  (scholar  of 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  died  as  professor  in  Copenhagen  A.D.  1830). 
In  this  treatise,  however,  this  fact  is  overlooked,  that  Philo 
once  (Mangey  i.  525)  makes  use  of  a  passage  from  Chronicles 
(1  Chron.  vii.  14).  Compare  also  Siegfried,  Philo  als  Auslcycr 
d.  A.  T.  1875,  p.  161.  The  testimony  given  in  the  treatise 
De  vita  contemplativa,  3,  to  the  tripartite  canon  may  best  be 
left  out  of  account,  inasmuch  as  that  work  is  of  doubtful 
authenticity.  See  Lucius,  Die  Therapeutcn,  1880;  as  also 
Massebieau,  Le  Traite  de  la  vie  contemplative  et  la  question 
des  Therapeutes,  1888. 

It  must  evidently  be  regarded  as  purely  accidental  that 
Ezra-Nehemiah,  as  also  the  minor  prophets,  Obadiah,  Nahum, 
and  Zephaniah,  have  not  been  quoted  in  the  New  Testament. 
On  the  other  hand,  one  might  associate  the  absence  of 
quotations  from  the  three  books  of  The  Song,  Ecclesiastes, 
and  Esther  with  the  partly  contemporary  discussions  over 
those  referred  to  in  §  8.  Compare  Wildeboer,  Het  ontstaan, 
44.  128.  Nevertheless,  this  may,  on  closer  examination,  be 
found  to  be  a  mere  fortuitous  coincidence,  since  Christ  and 
the  first  Christians,  for  practical  reasons  arising  from  the 

B 


18  §  7.    THE  EZRA-APOCALYPSE. 

circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed,  did  not  feel  them 
selves  called  upon  to  make  use  of  these  writings  of  peculiar 
contents,  whereas  the  controversies  referred  to  in  §  8  were  of 
a  purely  dogmatic  character.  When  Christ,  in  Matthew  xxiii. 
35,  speaks  of  the  righteous  blood  shed  from  the  time  of  Abel 
to  that  of  Zacharias  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  20  f.),  a  much  more  than 
probable  conclusion  may  be  drawn  from  it  with  regard  to  the 
extent  and  order  of  the  canon  of  that  day.  It  cannot  certainly 
be  treated  as  a  scholarly  quotation  which  must  be  made 
accurately  to  refer  to  Urija  (Jer.  xxvi.  23). 

7.  The  result  won  in  the  preceding  section  receives  an 
extremely  important  confirmation,  and  the  whole  question 
obtains  a  provisional  conclusion  by  means  of  two  almost 
contemporary  writings  at  or  about  the  end  of  the  first  century 
after  Christ.  In  the  so-called  Ezra-Apocalpyse,  which,  with 
much  probability,  has  been  assigned  to  the  age  of  the  Emperor 
Domitian,  A.D.  81-96,  mention  is  made  (xiv.  44-46)  of 
twenty-four  writings,  viz.  94  —  70,  which  Ezra  wrote  out 
under  divine  inspiration  after  they  had  been  utterly  lost. 
Here  then  we  meet  with  the  number  twenty-four  with  which 
we  are  familiar  from  the  later  Palestinian-Babylonian  litera 
ture  (and,  indeed,  even  from  a  Baraitha,  see  §§  2,  10),  as  the 
sum  total  of  the  acknowledged  writings  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  other  witness  is  the  treatise  of  Flavius  Josephus  against 
Apion,  in  many  respects  rich  in  contents  and  teaching,  which 
must  have  been  written  about  A.D.  100.  In  this  work  (i.  8) 
it  is  said  that  to  the  sacred  and  genuine  books  of  the  Jews, 
besides  the  five  books  of  Moses,  there  belong  also  "  thirteen 
prophetical  writings  "  and  "  four  books  with  hymns  and  pre 
cepts  for  practical  life."  This  statement  of  Josephus  is 
remarkable  in  two  ways.  In  the  first  place  for  the  number 
twenty-two  (5  +  13-4-4),  which,  however,  in  following  periods 
we  shall  frequently  meet  with,  and  then  especially  for  the 
extremely  peculiar  threefold  division  which  we  do  not  find 


§  7.    JOSEPHUS  AND  ORIGEN.  19 

elsewhere,  which  owing  to  its  indefiniteness  has  given  occasion 
to  various  explanations  and  hypotheses.  Thus  the  Jewish 
scholar  Gratz  has  sought  from  this  division  to  draw  the 
conclusion  that  Josephus  did  not  acknowledge  the  Books  of 
Ecclesiastes  and  The  Song,  since  the  four  books  that  come  last 
in  the  list  are :  Psalms,  Lamentations,  Proverbs,  and  Job. 
But  the  only  right  way  here  is  to  follow  the  analogy  of  the 
practice  prevailing  with  some,  especially  Alexandrine  writers, 
and  to  assume  that  Josephus  treated  the  Books  of  Euth  and 
Lamentations  as  parts  of  the  Books  of  Judges  and  Jeremiah. 
Among  the  thirteen  prophetical  books  there  had  therefore 
been  reckoned  the  eight  books  of  the  prophets  (§  2),  Daniel, 
Job,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Esther,  while  the  four  books  of 
hymns  and  practical  precepts  had  embraced  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
The  Song,  and  Ecclesiastes.  With  reference  to  this  it  is 
particularly  to  be  observed  how  Josephus  expresses  the  idea 
of  canonicity  (§  2)  :  even  if  the  phrase  "  divine  writings  "  be 
not  genuine,  he  yet  says  that  only  those  books  can  lay  claim 
to  our  confidence,  and  that  no  one  has  been  so  bold  as  either 
to  add  anything  to  them  or  take  anything  away  from  these 
books  transmitted  from  olden  times.  And  thus,  at  the  end  of 
the  first  century  after  Christ,  we  have  undoubted  evidence  of 
a  clear  and  conscious  conviction  of  a  canonical  collection  of 
writings,  and  unanimity  with  regard  to  this  canon  as  it  is  now 
known  among  ourselves. 

By  way  of  Appendix,  before  we  pass  to  the  consideration 
of  the  contributions  made  by  the  Pharisees  to  the  discussions 
about  the  canon  (§  8),  we  may  here  enumerate  some  later 
witnesses  to  the  Jewish  Canon,  because,  although  belonging  in 
point  of  time  to  the  group  of  authorities  referred  to  in  §  8,  they 
afford  some  supplementary  and  interesting  particulars.  We 
meet  in  Origen  with  the  number  twenty-two  as  the  sum  total 
of  the  Old  Testament  writings  (Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  25), 
who  states  expressly  that  he  has  taken  his  list  from  the  Jews. 


20  §  7.    01UGEN  AND  JEROME. 

In  it  Euth  and  Lamentations  are  introduced  only  as  parts  of 
the  Books  of  Judges  and  Jeremiah,  while  the  adoption  of  the 
Book  of  Baruch  among  the  canonical  books  is  hardly  to  be 
attributed  to  his  Jewish  authorities.  Similarly,  too,  Jerome, 
in  his  exposition  of  the  Jewish  Canon,  gives  the  number  of 
books  as  twenty-two.  In  the  so-called  Prologus  galeatus  (I.e. 
Preface  to  the  Books  of  Kings  the  first  which  he  translated)  he 
refers  to  the  genuine  Jewish  threefold  division  of  the  canon 
into  Law,  Prophets,  and  Hagiographa,  and,  according  to  this, 
mentions  particularly  what  books  belong  to  each  of  these 
divisions.  Of  the  Book  of  Judges  he  says :  "  Et  in  eundem 
compingunt  Euth,  quia  in  diebus  judicum  facta  narratur  his- 
toria,"  and  similarly  he  reckons  the  Lamentations  to  Jeremiah. 
But  after  he  has  finished  this  exposition  he  adds  thereto : 
"  Quanquam  nonnulli  Euth  et  Cinoth  (Lamentations)  inter 
Hagiographa  scriptitent  et  libros  hos  in  suo  putent  numero 
supputandos,  ac  per  hoc  esse  priscse  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  eis  dividitur,  in  Legem,  in  Prophetas 
et  in  Hagiographa,  i.  e.  in  quinque,  in  octo  et  undecim  libros." 

A  list  of  the  Old  Testament  writings  which  is  expressly 
described  as  having  been  borrowed  from  the  Jews,  but 
diverges  in  important  particulars  from  that  list  which  has 
been  already  referred  to,  is  communicated  by  Melito  of  Sardis, 
somewhat  after  A.D.  150.  The  writings  named  by  him  make 
altogether  twenty-two,  but  this  number  he  makes  up  by 
giving  to  Euth  an  independent  place  in  his  enumeration, 
whereas  Esther  is  altogether  wanting.  Seeing  that  Melito  does 
not  expressly  declare  that  he  is  giving  the  complete  number 
of  the  writings,  it  might  be  supposed  that  Esther  had  been 


§  7.    JOSEPHUS-ORIGEN.  21 

left  out  in  the  text  before  us  only  in  consequence  of  an  error 
of  transcription  ;  but  against  such  an  idea  it  must  be  remem 
bered  that  not  only  was  Esther  wanting  in  many  of  the 
Church  fathers  of  the  following  age  (§§  15,  17),  but  that  we 
knew  definitely  that  an  opposition  had  risen  up  among  the 
Jews  against  the  canonicity  of  this  book,  which  held  its 
ground  down  to  the  third  century  (see  §  8). 

The  above  quoted  passage  from  the  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra 
is  given,  e.g.,  in  Hilgenfeld's  Messias  Judccorum,  pp.  182,  260, 
321,  376,  433.  Unfortunately,  the  Latin  text  is  at  this 
passage  uncertain,  so  that  the  reference  given  above  rests 
exclusively  on  the  text  of  the  oriental  translations.  Never 
theless  it  is  scarcely  reasonable  to  conclude  from  Epiphanius 
(De  pond,  ct  mens.  10)  with  Bertheau,  Bitch  d.  Richter  und  Ruth, 
1883,  p.  290  if.,  that  the  text  had  originally  read  twenty-two 
instead  of  twenty-four  books. 

Josephus,  Contra  Apion.  i.  8  :  Ov  <yap  uvplaBes  (3i/3\icov 
elal  Trap*  rjuiv,  aavfjifytovwv  KOI  aa^oaevcDV  Bvo  Be  nova  TTpos 
TOIS  eiKOo-i  {3i{3\la,  TOV  TTavTos  fyovTO,  %povov  Trju  dvajpa(j)rjv, 
-TO,  BiKaiois  [Oela,  unauthentic,  according  to  J.  G.  Miiller] 
ireiriO'Tev^eva.  Kal  TOVTCOV  Trevre  JJLGV  IGTL  ra  McDvaews,  a  TOVS 
re  vouovs  Trepie^et,  ....  'Airo  Se  TT)?  Mcovo-ecos  reXe 
TT}?  ^Apra^ep^ov  TOV  fiera  Sep^rjv  Ilepawv  /SacrtXeco?  «/ 
/nera  Mwvo-rjv  Trpo^rat  ra  tear  CIVTOVS  Trpa^Oevra  crvve^pa^rav 
Iv  rpial  Kal  §e/ca  /3i/3X/oi?*  al  Be  \ot,iral  reao-ape^  V/JLVOVS  els 
rov  Oeov  Kal  rot?  dv9pco7rois  vTroQrJKas  rov  /3lov  Trepie^ovo-iv. 
'ATTO  Be  ^Apra^ep^ov  f^e^pL  TOV  KaO'  rjfia^  %povov  <ye<ypa7TTai, 
jjiev  GKacrTa'  Trio-Tews  Be  ov%  Quotas  rj^LWTai  TOIS  Trpb 
BLO,  TO  fjir)  ryevecrdai,  TTJV  TCOV  TrpotyrjTWV  aKpi^t)  BL 
....  TOCTOVTOV  'yap  alwvos  rjBrj  Trapw^r] KOTOS,  ovre  Trpoadelvai 
TLS  ouBev  ovTe  d^>e\elv  avTols  ovTe  /^eTaOelvai  Ter6\ar]Kev' 
Compare,  in  addition  to  this,  Antiquities,  x.  2.  2,  where  it  is 
said :  ov%  OVTOS  ftoVo?  6  7rpo0^T^<5  (Isaiah),  d\\a  Kal  a\\ot, 
Bci)BeKa  TOV  dpiOfjiov  TO  avTo  eTroirjo-av'  Compare  Eichhorn, 
EMeitung  in  d.  A.  T.B  i.  105  ff. ;  Kuenen,  Onderzoek,  iii. 
412  f . ;  Strack  in  Herzog's  Real- Encyclopedia 2,  vii.  428; 
Wildeboer,  Het  ontstaan,  p.  42  f. ;  J.  G.  Miiller,  DCS  Flavins 


22  §  7.    THE  NUMBERS  22  AND  24. 

Josephus  Sehriften  gegen  den  Apion.  1877,  p.  99  ff . ;  Wright, 
The  Book  of  KoMeth,  p.  461;  Gratz,  Koheleth,  p.  169; 
MGWJ,  1886,  p.  83;  also  Tachauer,  Das  Verhaltnis  von 
Flavius  Josephus  zur  Bibel  und  Tradition,  Erlangen  1871. 

On  Origen,  compare  his  Opera,  ii.  528,  and  Eusebius,  Hist. 
JEccl.  vi.  25  :  elal  Se  at  eiKoat,  Bvo  ftift\iot,  Ka&  *E/3palov<$  cuSe : 
The  five  books  of  Moses  (among  them  ^A^fiea^eKw^ei^  for 
Numbers,  i.e.  D^PS  Vfchnt  Num.  i.  21  ;  Yoma  vii.  1),  Joshua, 
Judges,  and  Ruth,  irap  avrols  ev  evl  ZaxfreTifj,,  Samuel,  Kings, 
Chronicles,  Ezra,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  crvv  6pr]voi<s  xal  777  eTriaroXr)  ev  evl  'lepe/jbia, 
Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Job,  and  Esther.  Evidently  the  omission  of 
the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets  is  the  result  of  an  error  of 
transcription,  since  otherwise  only  twenty-one  writings  would 
have  been  enumerated.  In  Rufinus  this  book  is  mentioned 
after  Canticles.  On  the  other  hand,  the  addition  of  the 
"  Epistle,"  i.e.  the  Book  of  Baruch  containing  the  Epistle,  is 
to  be  explained  most  simply  as  an  inaccuracy  on  the  part  of 
Origen  ;  for  the  statement  of  the  Constitutiones  Apostolicce, 
v.  20,  that  Lamentations  and  the  Book  of  Baruch  were  read 
in  public  by  the  Jews  on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  is,  when  we 
take  into  account  the  silence  of  the  Jewish  writings  on  the 
subject,  too  insecure  a  support  on  which  to  build  without  any 
other  evidence  (Wildeboer,  Het  ontstaan,  p.  76  f.). 

Melito  tells  in  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  26:  ave\6a)v  ovv 
et9  Tr}v  avaTo\7)V,  Kal  eo)9  Tov  T07TOV  yevo/Aevos  ev6a 
KOI  €7Tpd^9rj  Kal  dtcpi/Bws  fjiaOa)v  ra  TIJS  TraXatas 
pift\ia  vTrordgas  eVe/nJra  croi.  Then  are  enumerated  the 
following :  five  Books  of  Moses,  Joshua,  Judges,  Euth,  four 
Books  of  Kings,  Chronicles,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
The  Song,  Job,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  (probably  along  with 
Lamentations),  the  Twelve,  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  and  Ezra.  Com 
pare  Wildeboer,  Het  ontstaan,  p.  73  f. 

The  original  relation  between  the  numbers  twenty-two  and 
twenty-four  is  still  obscure.  The  latter  numbering,  indeed, 
may  be  regarded  as  the  older,  because  it  can  be  more  easily 
explained  how  Ruth  was  reckoned  to  Judges  and  Lamenta 
tions  (on  the  presupposition  of  its  authorship  by  Jeremiah)  to 


§  8.    CONTROVERSIES  ON  THE  CANON  AMONG  JEWS.  23 

Jeremiah,  than  how  they  should  have  been  removed  from 
their  original  place  among  the  prophets.  It  is  quite  uncertain, 
however,  whether  in  fixing  this  number  they  may  have  been 
influenced  by  the  idea  of  making  the  number  of  the  books 
equal  to  the  number  of  the  Hebrew  letters.  Origen  and 
Jerome,  indeed,  lay  stress  upon  this  correspondence,  but  this 
may  also  have  been  a  later  play  of  the  imagination,  quite  after 
the  style  of  another  enumeration  referred  to  by  Epiphanius 
(De  pond,  et  mens.  22)  and  Jerome  (Prolog us  galeatus)  of  twenty- 
seven  books  (—  the  22  letters  of  the  alphabet  and  the  5  final 
letters),  in  making  out  which  the  Alexandrine  double  reckoning 
of  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles,  and  Ezra  was  used,  while 
Lamentations  was  counted  as  a  separate  book.  Although  the 
combining  of  Euth  and  Lamentations  with  Judges  and 
Jeremiah  in  the  LXX.  and  by  the  Alexandrians  was  prevalent, 
yet  the  number  can  scarcely  have  been  determined  by  them, 
because  they  generally  did  not  respect  the  Palestinian  Canon 
(§  12).  Compare  Kuenen,  OnderzoeJc,  iii.  447  f.  ;  Bleek, 
Einleitung,  iv.  204.  552  ;  Bertheau,  Eicliter  und  Ruth,  1883, 
p.  290  ff. ;  S track  in  Herzog's  Beal-Encyclopcedie*,  vii.  434; 
Wildeboer,  Ret  ontstaan,  108.  134  f. 

8.  The  witnesses  referred  to  in  the  preceding  sections 
indicate  in  general  outline  the  movement  with  which  we  are 
concerned.  A  more  profound  disclosure  is  made  to  us  by 
means  of  a  series  of  very  interesting  passages  in  the  older 
Jewish  literature,  which,  however,  suffer  from  the  usual 
absence  of  historical  reminiscences  in  this  literature,  from  in- 
definiteness  and  one-sided  incompleteness,  and  therefore  have 
been  used  by  moderns  in  various  ways  and  with  varied  results. 

As  already  stated  in  §  6,  solemnly  made  quotations  of 
various  verses  from  Ecclesiastes  have  come  down  from  the  last 
century  before  Christ  and  the  first  century  after  Christ.  But 
even  in  the  pre-Philonic  age  the  author  of  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon  expresses  himself  (ii.  1-9)  in  a  way  in  which  one 
cannot  fail  to  perceive  an  unconcealed  polemic  against 
Ecclesiastes.  And  shortly  after  the  middle  of  the  first  century 


24  §  8.    CONTROVERSIES  AMONG  THE  JEWS, 

after  Christ  an  opposition  seems  to  have  arisen  in  Palestine 
against  the  canonicity  of  that  book,  an  opposition  which, 
however,  extended  also  to  other  biblical  books,  and  is  con 
sequently  of  greater  interest  for  the  history  of  the  canon. 
Thus  it  is  reported  that  the  followers  of  Hillel  and  Shammai 
differed  with  respect  to  the  canonicity  of  the  Book  of 
Ecclesiastes,  the  Hillelites  recognising  it  as  canonical,  while 
the  strict  Shamraaites  rejected  it.  Further,  we  learn  that 
Ezekiel  gave  offence,  so  that  some  wished  to  pronounce  the 
book  apocryphal.  However,  Hillel  and  Chananiah,  son  of 
Hezekiah,  contemporary  of  the  elder  Gamaliel,  succeeded  in 
setting  aside  these  objections  by  means  of  a  laborious  inter 
pretation,  by  which  the  opposition  to  this  prophet  was  for  ever 
silenced.  On  the  other  hand,  there  was,  so  far  as  we  can  see, 
no  decision  arrived  at  with  respect  to  the  BpKof  Ecclesiastes 
prior  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  same  wa^  also  the  case 
with  respect  to  some  other  writings  whose  canonicity  had 
been  attacked,  of  which  we  may  name  Canticles.  It  was  not 
until  about  A.D.  90  that  the  whole  question  was  brought  up 
for  discussion  before  a  Synod  at  Jabne  (Jamnia,  a  city  not 
far  from  the  coast,  south  of  Jaffa),  the  very  one  at  which 
Gamaliel  II.  was  deprived  of  his  office  of  patriarch.  At  that 
Synod  the  canonicity  of  the  whole  of  the  sacred  writings  was 
acknowledged.  Special  emphasis  was  laid  upon  the  affirma 
tion  of  the  canonicity,  not  only  of  Ecclesiastes  but  also  of 
Canticles,  which  affords  clear  evidence  of  the  existence  of  an 
opposition  against  that  book.  In  a  similar  manner,  too, 
various  passages  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud  show  that  there 
must  have  been  ascribed  to  the  Books  of  Euth  and  Esther  and 
(whether  in  the  same  way  ?)  Proverbs,  what  necessitates  the 
adoption  of  the  same  conclusions  with  reference  to  these 
writings.  Meanwhile  the  decree  issued  for  Jabne  did  not 
altogether  silence  the  doubts,  as  we  opportunely  learn  from 
the  procedure  of  several  teachers  labouring  during  the  first 


§  8.    CONTROVERSIES  AMONG  THE  JEWS.  25 

half  of  the  second  century  after  Christ.  Indeed,  the  recollec 
tion  of  what  was  actually  determined  on  at  Jamnia  was  not 
preserved  in  an  accurate  form,  so  that  it  gave  rise  to  several 
diverse  statements.  A  more  important  effect  was  produced 
by  the  circumstance  that  the  Mishna,  collected  and  edited 
about  A.D.  190,  maintained  the  unrestricted  canonicity  of  all 
the  twenty-four  writings,  among  the  rest  also  Ecclesiastes  and 
The  Song,  which  were  specially  named.  But  even  after  this 
time  the  criticism  of  the  canon  was  not  wholly  silenced,  for 
we  learn  from  the  Babylonian  Talmud  that  a  scholar  living  in 
the  third  century  denied  the  canonicity  of  the  Book  of  Esther. 
In  the  disjecta  membra  here  collected  together,  some  now 
wish  to  find  a  historical  reminiscence  of  the  final  closing  of 
the  hitherto  open  third  part  of  the  Old  Testament  writings, 
according  to  which  the  canonising  of  the  Hagiographa 
would  stand  out  in  the  full  light  of  history.  A  more  exact 
consideration  of  the  fact,  however,  goes  decidedly  against  this 
view,  and  leads  us  rather  to  assume  that  the  third  part  of 
the  canon  had  been  even  then  already  closed,  although  we 
know  as  little  about  the  way  in  which  this  closing  was 
accomplished  as  we  do  about  the  closing  of  the  canon  of  the 
Prophets  (§  4).  Above  all,  we  should  take  into  consideration 
these  Talmudical  reports  only  in  connection  with  the  wit 
nesses  referred  to  in  sections  G  and  7,  especially  with  the 
clear  passage  in  the  Apology  of  Josephus.  Now,  indeed, 
we  cannot  possibly  assume  that  the  representation  which 
Josephus,  residing  in  Borne  shortly  after  the  Synod  of  Jamnia, 
gives  of  the  contents  and  idea  of  the  canon  must  have  been 
influenced  by  the  decisions  of  the  Synod.  But  seeing  that 
a  Synod  at  Jerusalem  in  A.D.  65,  coming  to  a  decision  regard 
ing  the  canon,  is  nothing  more  than  an  audacious  fancy  of 
Griitz,  it  is  highly  probable  that  Josephus  in  his  Apology 
reported  simply  the  teaching  of  the  Pharisees  of  his  times, 
to  whom  he  attached  himself  in  A.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  of  the  twenty-four 
Old  Testament  writings  may  have  been  wanting  in  the  Scrip 
ture  collection  of  Josephus.  See  above,  p.  18.  The  state 
ments  quoted  from  the  Talmud  and  Midrash  also  best  agree 
with  this  explanation.  In  the  first  place,  they  show  negatively 
that  such  attacks  upon  biblical  books  do  not  exclude  the  idea 
of  an  earlier  established  canon,  for  indeed  criticism  of  the 
several  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  were  never  altogether 
silenced  after  the  Synod  of  Jamnia,  nor  even  after  the  decision 
given  in  the  Mishna.  Further,  the  very  attacks  referred  to, 
when  more  exactly  considered,  presuppose  a  Scripture  canon. 
There  is  no  dispute  about  the  genuineness  or  age  of  the  con 
troverted  writings,  but  only  about  doubts  and  objections 
which  had  been  called  forth  by  a  definitely  developed, 
dogmatic  principle  of  Scripture,  for  it  was  felt  that  the  idea 
of  a  "  Scripture  "  precisely  defined  and  marked  off  from  all 
other  literature,  involved  the  postulating  of  certain  require 
ments  of  harmonious  unity  and  religious-moral  purity  in  that 
Scripture.  Indeed,  Josephus,  in  the  passage  referred  to,  boasts 
of  this,  that  the  sacred  literature  of  the  Jews  did  not  con 
sist  like  that  of  the  other  nations  of  aavfjL^wva  KOI  fjia^ofjieva 
jBi,fi\ia.  And  just  that  objection,  which  in  those  times  was 
taken  to  the  writings  referred  to,  and  which  obliged  the 
vindicator  of  them  to  enter  into  all  sorts  of  minute  explana 
tions,  which  were  finally  approved  by  all  Jews,  is  the  most 
striking  proof  of  the  fact  that  it  was  very  strongly  felt  to  be 
a  duty  to  take  up  the  cause  of  the  books  objected  to,  which 
can  be  explained  only  on  the  presupposition  that  has  been 
suggested.  It  also  deserves  consideration  that  the  term  T3J 
is  used  only  of  the  writings  whose  canonicity  was  contested, 
and  not,  e.g.,  of  Ben  Sirach,  although  that  book  was  much 
read,  and  was  quoted  by  some  scholars  (§  12),  which  could 


§  8.    CONTROVERSIES  AMONG  THE  JEWS.  27 

scarcely  be  accounted  for,  if,  eg.,  Ecclesiastes  as  well  as  Ben 
Sirach  had  been  placed  "outside  the  door."  Finally,  in  spite 
of  all  the  objections  advanced,  a  bright  light  is  shed  upon  the 
whole  question  by  the  fact  that  not  only  writings  from  the 
third  part  but  also  a  prophetical  book  from  the  canon  of  the 
Prophets,  that  had  long  previously  been  closed  (§  4),  was 
threatened  with  exclusion  from  the  canon ;  for  the  recent 
attempts  to  make  out  a  distinction  between  the  opposition  to 
Ezekiel  and  the  opposition  to  the  Hagiographa  have  all  failed 
to  stand  examination.  For  the  rest,  Geiger  is  quite  right 
when  he  describes  all  these  discussions  as  scholastic  contro 
versies  which  affected  public  opinion  in  a  very  slight  degree. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  ground  for  entertaining  any 
doubt  as  to  the  credibility  of  the  traditions  referred  to ;  there 
is  about  them,  indeed,  too  much  verisimilitude  to  admit  of 
their  being  overthrown  by  the  easily  explained  attempt  of  a 
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  ;| 
enough  that  the  canon  and  the  clear  idea  of  the  canon  were 
there,  and  formed  the  basis  of  a  definite  dogmatic  theory  of 
the  sacred  writings  (compare  §  9).  But  just  this  dogmatic 
theory  called  forth  various  doubts  and  objections  with  refer 
ence  to  particular  books,  which  made  a  revision  of  the  canon 
necessary.  This  revision  was  made  at  Jamnia,  and  was  after 
wards  confirmed  in  the  Mishna.  Its  result  was  the  establish 
ment  of  all  previously  canonised  books. 

That  this  revision  was  carried  out  somewhere  about  the 
end  of  the  first  century  after  Christ  is  certainly  no  accidental 
circumstance,  but  is  closely  connected  with  the  completely 
altered  circumstances  of  Jewish  social  life.  The  state  of 


28  §  8.    CONTROVERSIES  AMONG  THE  JEWS. 

matters  at  that  time  was  this :  the  capital  and  the  temple 
lay  in  ruins,  and  the  Eabbinical  college  upon  which  the 
holding  together  of  Judaism  depended  were  obliged  to  seek 
refuge  outside  of  the  Holy  City.  Then  the  "  Scripture  "  and 
the  study  of  Scripture  became  even  more  than  formerly  the 
world  in  which  Judaism  continued  to  maintain  its  life ;  "  the 
Pharisees,  who  had  lost  their  material  fatherland,  fled  back 
into  their  spiritual  fatherland  ;  on  it  they  spent  all  their  care 
and  it  brought  them  comfort  amid  all  their  misfortunes " 
(Derenbourg).  There  was  also  added  to  this  the  conflict  with 
the  powerfully  advancing  Christianity,  which  demanded  the 
firm  establishment  of  everything  belonging  to  Scripture,  and 
the  setting  aside  of  all  hesitation  on  this  point.  The  Old 
Testament  writings  were  in  an  ever-increasing  degree  the 
armoury  from  which  was  obtained,  in  the  struggle  that  broke 
out,  weapons  of  attack  and  defence,  and  this  demanded, 
especially  in  view  of  the  peculiar  constitution  of  the  Jewish 
mind,  that  the  Bible  itself  should  stand  forth  firm  and  un 
assailable.  In  the  closest  connection  with  this,  as  we  shall 
subsequently  see  (§  99),  stood  also  the  fact  that  the  Jewish 
teachers  at  this  very  time  were  labouring  to  secure  a  definite 
standard  text  for  Holy  Scripture. 

Compare  upon  these  questions:  Delitzsch  in  %LT,  1854, 
p.  280  ff. ;  Kuenen,  Onderzoek,  iii.  415,  421  ;  Bleek,  Einlei- 
tung,  iv.  551  f.;  Wildeboer,  Het  ontstaan,  p.  82  ff. ;  Cheyne, 
Job  and  Solomon,  p.  280  f . ;  Geiger,  Urschrift,  p.  398  f . ;  Jud. 
Zeitsch.  1862,  p.  151,  1870,  p.  135  ff. ;  Gratz,  KoMeih,  pp. 
159-173;  and  MGWJ,  1871,  p.  502  ff.,  1882,  p.  117, 
1886,  p.  597. 

M.  Jadaim  3.5:  "  All  sacred  writings  defile  the  hands 
(§  2)  ;  even  The  Song  and  Ecclesiastes  defile  them  !  "  [This 
the  decision,  now  the  discussion.]  Rabbi  Judah  [Ben  Ilai, 
see  Jost,  Greschichte  des  Judenthums,  ii.  86]  said:  "The  Song 
defiles  the  hands,  but  this  is  disputed  in  regard  to  Ecclesiastes." 
B.  Jose  [Jost,  ii.  85]  said:  "Ecclesiastes  does  not  defile  the 


§  8.    CONTROVERSIES  AMONG  THE  JEWS.  29 

hands,  and  this  is  disputed  with  regard  to  the  Song."  E. 
Simeon  [Ben  Jochai,  Jost,  ii.  90]  said:  "The  treatment  of 
Ecclesiastes  is  one  of  those  points  in  which  the  school  of 
Shammai  was  milder  than  the  school  of  Hillel "  [which  de 
clared  that  the  book  defiled  the  hands,  i.e.  was  canonical]. 
E.  Simeon  ben  Azai  [Jost,  ii.  97]  said:  "I  have  heard  from 
the  seventy-two  elders  on  the  day  when  they  gave  to  E. 
Eleazar  the  presidency  of  the  academy  [i.e.  at  the  Synod  of 
Jabne,  see  Derenbourg,  Essai  sur  I'histoire  et  la  gtogmphie  de 
la  Palestine,  I  1867,  p.  273  ;  Jost,  ii.  28  ff.  ;  Griitz,  Geschichte 
der  Juden,  iv.  38  ff.],  that  The  Song  and  Ecclesiastes  defile 
the  hands.  E.  Akiba  [Gratz,  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 
received  The  Song.  All  the  Hagiographa  are  holy,  but  The 
Song  is  the  holiest  of  all.  If  they  have  been  contested  [!]  it 
was  with  reference  to  Ecclesiastes."  But  E.  Johanan  ben 
Jeshua,  E.  Akiba's  brother-in-law,  said  :  "  As  E.  Simeon  ben 
Azai  has  laid  it  down,  so  they  disputed  and  so  they  decided ! " 
This  same  tradition  is  given  in  b.  Meg.  7&,  where,  instead  of 
E.  Judah  ben  Il-ai,  E.  Jose,  and  instead  of  E.  Jose,  E,  Meir 
are  named.  To  E.  Simeon's  report  about  the  Hillelites  and 
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  contra 
dicted  by  the  fact  that  Solomon,  who  was  the  author  of  other 
inspired  writings,  could  not  in  that  case  have  said  (Prov.  xxx. 
6)  :  "  Add  then  not  to  God's  words  lest  He  reprove  thee." 

On  Ecclesiastes  compare  further  b.  Sabb.  oftab ;  Koheleth  r. 
on  i.  3  and  ii.  8;  and  Jerome  on  Eccles.  xii.  14:  "Ajunt  Hebr&i, 
quum  inter  cetera  scripta  Salomonis,  qure  antiquata  sunt  nee 
in  memoria  duraverunt,  et  hie  liber  obliterandus  videretur,  eo 
quod  vanas  assereret  Dei  creaturas  et  totum  putaret  esse  pro 
nihilo,  et  cibum  et  potum  et  delicias  transeuntes  pra3ferret  om 
nibus,  ex  hoc  uno  capitulo  meruisse  autoritatem,  ut  in  divinorum 


30  §8.    CONTROVERSIES  AMONG  THE  JEWS. 

voluminum  numero  poneretur,  quod  totam  disputationem  suam 
et  omnem  catalogum  hae  quasi  ava/cefaXcudxrei,  coarctaverit 
et  dixerit  finem  sermonem  suorum  auditu  esse  promtissimum 
nee  aliquid  in  se  habere  difficile :  ut  soil.  Deum  timeamus  et 
ejus  prsecepta  faciamus." 

b.  Sdbb.  30&:  "  Some  also  wish  to  remove  the  Book  of  Pro 
verbs  from  the  canon  (TJJ)  because  it  contains  contradictory 
sayings  [of  which  xxvi.  4,  5  is  quoted  as  an  example]  ;  but 
if  it  were  not  accomplished,  it  was  because  people  said :  "  We 
have  thoroughly  examined  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  and  have 
found  a  solution  for  its  contradictions,  and  we  shall  also 
examine  this  book  more  carefully."  Against  the  attempt  of 
Gratz  to  prove  the  incredibility  of  this  tradition,  see  Schiffer, 
Das  Bmli  Koheleth,  p.  95  f. 

The  Aboth  of  Rabbi  Nathan  (a  post-Talmudic  tract,  see 
Schiirer,  Geschiehte,  i.  106  f.,  Eng.  trans.  Div.  i.  vol.  i.  p.  143), 
c.  1,  according  to  the  common  recension  (the  others  are  given 
in  Schechter,  Aboth  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  Vienna  1887  ;  compare 
Wright,  The  Book  of  Kohelcth  in  relation  to  Modern  Criticism, 
1883,  p.  46 G):  "At  first  Proverbs,  Canticles,  and  Ecclesiastes 
were  pronounced  apocryphal,  because  they  contained  symbolical 
expressions ;  this  lasted  until  the  men  of  the  great  synagogue 
arose  (§  9)  and  discovered  a  solution."  As  examples  of  offen 
sive  passages,  Prov.  vii.  7-20,  Cant.  vii.  12  £,  and  Eccles.  xi.  9 
are  referred  to. 

b  Sabb.  I3b  ;  Chay.  13a;  Menachoth  45a:  "  Hananiah  ben 
Hezekiah  [see  about  this  man,  living  in  the  time  of  Hillel  and 
Gamaliel  the  elder,  Gratz,  Geschichte  dcs  Juden,  iii.  499]  is  of 
blessed  memory,  for  but  for  him  Ezekiel  would  have  been  de 
clared  apocryphal,  because  his  words  contradicted  the  words  of 
the  Law ;  three  hundred  jars  of  lamp  oil  were  brought  to  him, 
and  he  sat  in  his  garret  and  solved  the  contradictions."  The 
grounds  upon  which  some  would  make  out  the  inconsistency 
of  this  criticism  of  the  canon  with  that  set  forth  in  other 
passages  are  very  weak.  Griitz  (Koheleth,  p.  161)  calls  the 
opposition  to  Ezekiel  simply  "  casual."  The  tradition  is  met 
with  only  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud  (Bleek,  Einleitung,  iv.  551), 
but  rests  upon  a  Baraitha.  And  naturally  just  a  little  is  proved 


§  8.    CONTROVERSIES  AMONG  THE  JEWS.  31 

by  the  circumstance  that  the  contesters  of  the  canonicity  are 
unnamed  (Wildeboer,  Het  ontstaan,  p.  66),  for  this  applies 
also  to  Proverbs ;  or  by  the  fact  that  the  canonicity  of  Ezekiel 
had  been  conserved  even  before  the  Synod  of  Jamnia  (Wilde 
boer,  p.  60). 

Finally,  on  Esther  compare  1.  Meg.  *la :  "  According  to  E. 
Judah,  Samuel  said  [Jost,  ii.  135  ff.] :  Esther  does  not  defile 
the  hands  !  Could  Samuel  have  meant  by  this  that  the  Book 
of  Esther  was  not  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  No ;  he 
meant  it  was  produced  indeed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  only 
for  reading,  not  as  Holy  Scripture."  As  proof  of  the  inspira 
tion  of  the  book,  vi.  6  is  quoted  :  "  Haman  thought  in  his 
heart,"  which  no  man  without  divine  revelation  could  know. 
That  the  theory  of  Samuel  did  not  affect  the  accepted  inter 
pretation  (Wildeboer,  Hct  ontstaan,  p.  64  f.)  is  a  possible,  but 
not  a  necessary,  assumption.  Compare  further  b.  Sank.  lOOa, 
according  to  which  certain  teachers  declared  that  wrappings 
for  the  Esther  rolls  were  unnecessary.  On  the  other  hand, 
jer  Megilla  70.  4  is  uncertain;  see  Bertheau-Eyssel,  Esra, 
Neliemia,  and  Ester,  p.  368. 

The  hypothesis  of  Gratz,  above  referred  to,  of  two  synods  at 
Jerusalem  in  A.D.  65  and  at  Jamnia  in  A.D.  90,  at  which  the 
canon  of  the  Hagiographa  is  said  to  have  been  settled,  rests 
upon  two  altogether  untenable  presuppositions.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  false  that  by  the  "  sacred  writings  "  of  M.  Jadaim 
3.  5  are  meant  only  the  Hagiographa.  See  particularly 
Schiffer,  Das  Buch  Koheleth,  p.  80  ff.  And,  in  the  second 
place,  there  is  no  vestige  of  proof  that  the  question  of  the 
canon  had  engaged  attention  just  before  the  overthrow  of 
Jerusalem  in  "  The  Garret  of  Chananiah  ben  Hezekiah."  Only 
the  prohibition  against  laying  the  Torah  rolls  beside  the  grain 
devoted  and  received  for  the  heave-offering  (§  2),  belongs  to 
the  eighteenth  Halachoth  sanctioned  in  "  The  Garret  of 
Chananiah  ;  all  else  is  pure  fancy." 

Those  modern  writers  are  certainly  wrong  who  seek  to 
maintain  that  other  writings  were  also  the  subject  of  attack. 
Thus  Kohler,  in  reference  to  the  Book  of  Chronicles  (see  Gei- 
ger's  Jud.  Zcitschr.  1870,  p.  135  ff.).  For  when  it  is  said, 


32  §  9.    LATER  THEORIES. 

for  example,  in  Lev.  r.  1  (fol.  165&),  that  the  Book  of  Chron 
icles  was  given  only  to  be  expounded  in  Midrashim,  this 
means  nothing  more  than  what  is  true  of  all  the  Hagiographa 
(§  5).  Fiirst  (Kanon,  p.  54)  regards  Num.  r.  18,  fol.  271^,  as 
proving  that  the  Book  of  Jonah  had  sometimes  been  called  in 
question.  But  evidently  it  is  merely  a  play  upon  number?, 
when  Jonah  is  here  characterised  as  a  "writing  by  itself " 
(which  his  prophecy,  moreover,  in  many  respects  actually  is, 
compare  Wildeboer,  Het  ontstaan,  pp.  60—62),  in  order  thereby 
to  bring  out  the  required  number  eleven.  Precisely  similar, 
too,  is  the  position  sometimes  taken  up  by  the  Kabbinists  (as, 
e.g.  1).  Sail).  116«,  etc.),  where  they  classify  Num.  x.  35  f.  as  a 
book  by  itself,  and  so  reckon  seven  books  of  the  Law. 

9.  The  actual  facts  of  history  to  which  the  unfortunately 
too  rare  witnesses  made  use  of  in  the  preceding  sections  point, 
have  often  necessitated  the  setting  aside  of  conceptions  at  which 
men  had  arrived  in  a  half  a  priori  way  from  accepted  theories, 
the  presupposition  of  which,  as  a  rule,  was  that  the  Old 
Testament  canon  must  have  been  collected  by  a  single  author 
itative  act,  which  had  most  likely  taken  place  at  an  early 
period.  Those  various  notions  all  originated  among  the  Jews, 
and  in  part  were  carried  from  them  to  the  Christians,  by 
whom  they  were  maintained  often  with  passionate  persistency, 
which  certainly  was  not  justified  by  their  origin.  We  meet 
with  two  of  these  theories  even  in  those  writings  belonging 
to  the  end  of  the  first  Christian  century,  referred  to  in  §  7. 
In  the  centre  of  the  Church  fathers  (e.g.  in  Irenseus,  Adv.  Hcer. 
iii.  21.  2  ;  Tertullian,  De  cultu  feminarum,  i.  3),  we  often 
meet  with  a  description  of  the  origin  of  the  Old  Testament 
Canon,  which  rests  upont  he  passage  quoted  in  §  7  from  the 
Apocalypse  of  Ezra,  according  to  which  Ezra,  by  means  of 
divine  inspiration,  wrote  out  all  the  Old  Testament  books  after 
they  had  been  completely  lost  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
and,  in  consequence,  gave  authority  to  the  Old  Testament 
Canon.  Not  quite  so  devoid  of  historical  basis  is  the  theory 


§  9.    LATER  THEORIES. 

proposed  by  Joscplius,  Contra  Apionem,  i.  8.  According  to 
him  the  prophets  formed  an  unbroken  series  down  to  the  time 
of  the  Persian  king  Artaxerxes,  B.C.  464—424.  The  writings 
which  had  their  origin  before  or  during  that  period  are  genuine, 
because  the  prophets  have  themselves  written  in  them  what 
occurred  during  their  own  lives.  That  is  the  theory  of  the  origin 
of  the  Old  Testament  historical  books,  which  some  have  sought 
wrongly  to  ascribe  to  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Chronicles 
(§  4),  and  which  has  now  become  current.  There  are  indeed 
events  recorded  which  occurred  after  the  time  of  Artaxerxes 
Longimanus,  but  trio-Tews  ov-%  ofiolas  r]^iwrai  rot?  nrpo  avrwv, 
Sia  TO  fJL-q  ryevecrOai  TTJV  TWV  7rpo(f>7]Ta)V  dtcpiflrj  StaBo^rjV  [They 
have  not  been  esteemed  of  the  same  authority  with  the  former, 
because  there  has  not  been  an  exact  succession  of  the  prophets 
since  that  time].  Naturally  all  this  applies  primarily  to  the 
thirteen  historical  books  (§  7),  but  the  four  books  of  hymns 
and  practical  precepts  Josephus  regarded  as  indisputably  still 
older,  and  consequently  he  may  probably  have  considered  the 
closing  of  the  canon  as  also  belonging  to  that  age.  Precisely 
the  same  thing  is  also  found  in  the  old  rabbinical  writings, 
where  the  period  after  the  cessation  of  prophecy  is  indicated 
by  the  phrase  "j^Ni  |N3D ;  the  writings  originating  during  this 
period  are  not  canonical,  although  the  reading  of  them  is  still 
partially  tolerated  (§2). 

Of  greater  importance  was  the  third  theory  which  the 
Christians  in  the  sixteenth  century  borrowed  from  the  Jews, 
and  which  soon  lost  its  hypothetical  character,  and  was  set  forth 
by  men  like  Hottinger  and  Carpzow  as  incontestable  truth. 
In  the  ancient  Jewish  literature  there  is  often  mention  made 
of  an  assembly  called  nbftan  HD33,  "  the  great  assembly  or 
synagogue,"  which  is  associated  with  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  Of 
the  various  labours  which  have  been  ascribed  to  this  assembly, 
some  refer  to  the  Old  Testament  writings.  Thus,  it  is  said  in 

a  well-known  passage  (&.  Bal>a  bathra  14«),  that  the  men  of  the 

c 


34  §9.    LATER  THEORIES. 

great  synagogue  "  wrote  the  Book  of  Ezekiel,  the  Twelve 
Minor  Prophets,  Daniel,  and  Esther.  According  to  Tanchuma 
(a  Midrashic  work  on  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch)  on  Exod. 
xv.  7,  the  so-called  Tikkune  Soplfrim,  §34,  also  owe  their  origin 
to  them.  According  to  Aboth  derabbi  Nathan,  c.  i.,  it  was  they 
who  saved  the  canonicity  of  Ecclesiastes  and  The  Song  (§  8), 
etc.  Some  hints  which  are  found  in  the  works  of  rabbis  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  such  as  David  Kimchi,  were  emphatically 
given  expression  to  by  Elias  Levita,  who  died  A.U.  1549,  in 
the  third  preface  to  the  Massoretli  Hamassoreth  (§  31),  as 
meaning  that  the  sacred  writings,  which  had  not  previously 
been  bound  up  in  one  whole,  were  brought  together  by  the 
men  of  the  great  synagogue,  and  arranged  in  the  three  well- 
known  divisions.  This  hypothesis  was  taken  up  with  great 
enthusiasm,  and  found  very  general  acceptance  among  Pro 
testant  theologians,  with  whom  it  retained  favour  down  to 
the  most  recent  times.  It  owes  its  prevalence  during  so  long 
a  period  almost  wholly  to  the  i'act  that  it  was  just  as  difficult 
to  disprove  as  to  prove  the  significance  of  the  great  synagogue 
for  the  formation  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  so  long  as 
the  true  character  of  that  synagogue  and  the  duration  of  its 
activity  still  remained  quite  indefinite  and  indistinct.  It  was 
only  after  the  historical  data  scattered  throughout  the  Tal- 
mudical  literature  had  been  subjected  to  careful  investigation, 
and,  above  all,  after  the  appearance  of  Kuenen's  masterly 
treatise  On  the  Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  that  light  was 
at  last  shed  upon  this  question ;  but  the  result  of  these 
researches  has  been  once  and  for  all  to  set  aside  the  idea  that 
that  assembly  was  of  any  importance  for  the  forming  of  the 
Old  Testament  Canon.  "  The  Great  Synagogue,"  in  which 
even  modern  Jewish  and  Christian  authors  are  still  seeing  a 
great  variety  of  things,  is,  according  to  the  convincing  evidence 
led  by  Kuenen,  nothing  more  than  an  idealisation  of  the  great 
popular  assembly  which  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  called  together 


§  0.    LATER  THEORIES.  35 

(Nell,  viii.-x.),  and  which  was  certainly  of  great  importance  in 
the  way  of  introducing  the  canon  of  the  Law  as  the  basis  of 
the  national  life  of  the  Jews  (§  3).  The  uncommon  length 
of  the  legislative  period  which  has  been  assigned  to  this 
"  synagogue  "  in  the  Talmudical  writings,  namely,  from  Ezra 
down  to  Alexander  the  Great,  is  a  simple  consequence  of  the 
fact  that  this  whole  period  was  pressed  together  in  Talmudical 
reckoning  into  thirty-four  years.  Hence  it  cannot  be  supposed 
that  the  idea  was  ever  entertained  of  connecting  the  great 
synagogue  with  what  is  properly  regarded  as  the  formation 
of  the  prophetical  canon  (§  4). 

In  conclusion,  we  must  briefly  call  attention  to  the  fact, 
that  what  has  been  the  dominant  theory  down  even  to  recent 
times,  namely,  the  idea  that  the  canon  was  formed  by  a  single 
act  effected  at  one  particular  period,  has  carried  with  it  the 
most  artificial  and  most  abstract  explanations  of  the  principle 
of  the  tripartite  division  of  the  Old  Testament.  Even  the 
mediaeval  Jews  sought  to  establish  various  degrees  of  inspira 
tion,  which  Christian  theologians  partly  modified  and  partly 
blended  with  other  no  less  unhistorical  and  unsatisfactory 
theories.  Specially,  therefore,  because  it  has  carried  with  it 
the  abolition  of  all  these  false  theories,  the  correct  account  of 
the  way  in  which  the  Old  Testament  collection  of  Scripture 
was  brought  into  its  present  state  is  to  be  regarded  as  a 
veritable  benefit. 

Tertullian,  DC  cultu  feminarum,  i.  3  :  "  Quemadmodum  et 
Hierosolymis  Babylonia  expugnatione  deletis  omne  instru- 
mentum  Judaicai  literatures  per  Esdram  constat  restauratum." 
Compare  Strack  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyclopcedic",  vii.  415. 

Josephus  was  led  to  fix  upon  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  I.  as 
the  limit  of  the  age  of  the  prophets,  not  by  the  Book  of 
Malachi  (Keil,  Einhitung,  §  154,  Eng.  trans,  ii.  137  ft), 
but  by  the  Book  of  Esther,  which  he  considered  the  last  book 
of  the  Bible,  and  whose  ETntrnx  he  falsely  identified  with 


36  §  9.    LATER  THEORIES. 

Artaxerxes  Longimanus.  With  this  whole  theory  the  narra 
tive  of  the  prophetic  gifts  of  John  Hyrcanus  ( Wars  of  the 
Jews,  i.  2.  8)  is  certainly  not  in  accord.  In  a  treatise 
in  MGWJ,  1886,  p.  281  ff.,  Gratz  has  called  attention 
to  the  closely-related  view  set  forth  in  Seder  Olam.  It  is 
said  there  (p.  90  in  Meyer's  edition  of  1706),  with  reference 
to  the  age  of  Alexander  the  Great,  described  prophetically  in 
the  Book  of  Daniel :  "  Down  to  this  time,  f&«  ly,  the  prophets 
have  prophesied  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  from  that  time  "J^KI  p^D 
have  wrought  only  the  wise."  With  this  agrees  also  Tosephta 
Jadaim,  ii.  13,  p.  683  :  "  All  books,  which  "j^&o  f«3D,  i.e.  after 
the  silencing  of  prophecy,  do  not  defile  the  hands,"  and  the 
passage  jer.  Sank.  28a,  which  has  been  quoted  above  at  §  2. 

Kimchi  speaks,  in  the  introduction  to  his  Commentary  on 
Chronicles  (Sefer  qchilat  Mosche,  iv.  fol.  377^),  of  the  division 
of  the  post-exilian  prophets  in  the  arrangement  of  the  sacred 
writings.  Elias  Levita  (compare  on  him  :  Saat  avf  Hoffnung, 
iii.,  in  the  first  and  fourth  numbers;  ZDMG,  xliii.  p.  206  if.) 
says  (The  Massoreth  Hamassorcth,  ed.  Ginsburg,  p.  120): 
"The  twenty-four  books  were  even  then  not  gathered  together; 
but  Ezra  and  the  men  of  the  great  synagogue  collected  them, 
and  divided  them  into  three  parts ;  and  they  arranged  the 
Prophets  with  Hagiographa,  but  otherwise  there  are  teachers 
in  I.  Bttba  lathra  14." 

Hottinger,  Thesaurus  philol.  i.  2,  qurest,  1  (ed.  1696, 
p.  Ill):  "In  concussum  hactenus  et  tarn  apud  Christianos, 
<[uibus  non  pro  cerebro  fungus  est,  quam  Judreos  ava^ia^Tov 
fait  principium,  simul  et  semel  Canonem  V.  T.  autoritate 
prorsus  divina  constitutum  esse  ab  Esdra  et  viris  Synagogre 
Magnse.  Similarly  Carpzow,  Introductio,  i.  c.  2,  §  l,and  Keil, 
flinleitung,  §  154,  Eng.  trans,  ii.  137  ff. 

On  "  the  Great  Synagogue,"  see  Morinus,  Exercitationes 
liblicce,ip.  279  f.:  Rau,  Diatribe  dc  synagogc  magna,  1726  ;  and 
especially  Kuenen  in  Verslagcn  en  medadeelingen  dcr  Koninlc- 
lijke  Akademie  van  Wet.  (Abt.  Letterkunde),  2nd  series,  6th  part, 
1877,  p.  207  ff. ;  Wildeboer,  Het  onstaan,  p.  121  ff.  ;  Eobert- 
son  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  pp.  156  f., 
408  f.,  against  Gratz  (Koheleth,  p.  155  f.),  Geiger  (Ursclirift, 


§  9.    LATER  THEORIES.  37 

p.  124),  and  Wright  (KoMcth,  1883,  pp.  G  ff.,  475  ff.). 
Kuenen  proves  that  all  the  characteristic  features  which  the 
Talmudical  writings  attribute  to  the  great  synagogue  have 
been  drawn  from  the  narrative  of  Neh.  viii.-x.  Of  special  im 
portance  in  connection  with  the  earlier  theory  was  the  passage 
in  Pirkc  Aloth,  i.  2,  according  to  which  Simon  the  Just,  whom 
the  Talmud  makes  contemporary ^with  Alexander  the  Great,  but 
who  in  reality  lived  at  a  yet  Inter  period,  is  said  to  have  been 
one  of  the  last  members  of  the  great  synagogue.  But  this 
statement  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  period  between  the 
rebuilding  of  the  temple  and  the  overthrow  of  the  Persian 
empire  had  been  compressed,  in  the  Talmudical  record  of  it, 
into  the  space  of  thirty-four  years  (b.  Aloda  zara  9«,  Seder 
Olam,  p.  91),  so  that  to  the  Jews  it  seemed  quite  a  probable 
thing  that  one  of  the  famous  scribes  of  Alexander's  time 
should  also  have  been  a  member  of  the  great  assembly  of  Ezra. 
How  the  Jews  carne  to  fix  upon  this  period  of  thirty-four 
years  is  not  quite  clear.  Compare  the  various  reckonings  in 
Gratz,  MGWJ,  1886,  p.  293  if.,  and  Loeb,  REJ,  xix. 
202  ff. 

The  mediaeval  Jews  sought  to  explain  the  threefold  divibi»-:" 
of  the  canon  by  the  hypothesis  of  three  different  degrees  oi' 
inspiration.  So,  for  example,  Maimonides,  More  Ncbuchim,  ii. 
45  ;  Kimchi,  in  the  preface  to  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalm*. 
But  the  distinction  proposed  by  them  between  HNiru  nn  and 
cnpn  nn  is  one  altogether  foreign  to  the  Old  Testament. 
Herm  Witsius  (Misccl.  Sacr.  libri  iv.  1736,  i.  12),  whom 
Hengstenberg  (Bcitrag  czur  Einleitung  in  d.  A.  T.  i.  2  3  ff. ) 
follows,  distinguishes  between  Munus  prophcticum  and  Donum, 
propheticum,  in  order  to  explain  how  Daniel  came  to  be  placed 
among  the  Hagiographa.  But  this  distinction  is  shattered 
irretrievably  over  Amos  vii.  14,  where  Amos  repudiates  the 
idea  that  he  is  a  possessor  of  the  Munus  propJieticuin.  Compare 
also  the  far  less  clear  attempts  to  mark  a  distinction  in  Keil's 
Einleitung,  §  155,  Eng.  trans,  ii.  149  f.  How  completely 
foreign  all  such  notions  are  to  the  spirit  of  antiquity  is 
strikingly  seen  from  the  theory  of  Josephus  above  referred  to, 
and  from  the  Talmudical  passages,  where  the  authors  of  the 


38  §  10.  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  BOOKS. 

Hagiograplia  are  spoken  of  as  "  prophets."     See,  for  example, 
£>.  Beracliotli  1 3a,  and  above  at  §  2. 

10.  In  opposition  to  the  Alexandrines  (§  12)  the  Pales 
tinians  from  the  beginning  held  firmly  by  the  tripartite  division 
of  the  Old  Testament  writings  as  a  deduction  from  the  history  of 
the  origin  of  the  canon.  Within  the  range  of  these  three  parts, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  was  originally  no  definite  order  of 
succession  for  the  several  writings,  excepting  only  in  the  case 
of  the  Law  and  of  the  Prophctce  Priores,  where  naturally  the 
order  of  the  books  has  been  almost  always  the  same.  It 
was  only  when  the  Old  Testament  writings  began  to  be 
written  out  in  one  roll  or  in  one  volume  that  attention  was 
given  to  the  order  in  succession  of  the  books.  But  this  first 
occurred  in  the  times  after  Christ.  From  the  Talmud  (b. 
Bala  lathra  13&)  we  learn  that  even  in  the  first  and  second 
centuries  there  still  prevailed  a  doubt  as  to  whether  it  were 
allowable  to  write  several  books  in  one  volume,  and  that  this 
custom  came  to  be  generally  adopted  only  after  it  had  obtained 
rabbinical  sanction  about  A.D.  200.  The  immediate  conse 
quence  of  the  practice  of  writing  each  book  in  a  separate 
volume  was  that  in  later  times  we  meet  with  various  arrange 
ments  of  the  several  books,  especially  in  the  confused  and 
indeterminate  collection  of  the  Hagiograplia. 

In  the  second  part  of  the  canon,  as  we  have  already  re 
marked,  the  order  of  the  historical  books  was  at  once  fixed. 
At  the  most,  an  alteration  was  made  there  only  when  the 
Book  of  Ruth  had  a  place  given  it  after  the  Book  of 
Judges  (§  7).  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  often  quoted  passage 
of  Baba  lathra  14,  we  find  Isaiah  placed  after  Ezekiel ;  and  we 
meet  with  the  same  order  again  in  several  German  and 
French  manuscripts,  in  the  first  edition  of  this  Midrashic  com 
pilation  Yalkut  shimoni,  which  is  said  to  have  been  composed 
in  the  thirteenth  century,  and  in  the  enumeration  list  of  the 
Massoretic  work  Ochla  weoclila  (§  32).  The  motive  of  this  trans- 


§  10.  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  BOOKS.  39 

position  is  no  longer  apparent.  Although  many  modern  scholars 
think  that  they  see  in  it  a  proof  that  even  then  the  Tannaites 
had  a  correct  conception  of  the  partly  exilic  origin  of  the  pro 
phecies  ascribed  to  Isaiah,  this  is  nevertheless  extremely  impro 
bable.  In  view  of  the  passage  Ben  Sirach  xlviii.  24  f.,  where 
Isa.  xl.  ff.  is  expressly  attributed  to  the  old  Isaiah,  such  a 
view  cannot  be  styled  an  ancient  tradition,  especially  when 
we  consider,  what  has  already  been  said,  that  the  prophetic 
writings  were  not  from  the  beginning  written  out  in  one 
volume  ;  and  to  think  of  an  actual  historical  criticism  during 
the  Talmudical  period  is  to  make  altogether  too  great  an 
assumption.  The  most  probable  thing  is,  that  the  many  points 
of  contact  between  Jeremiah  and  the  last  chapters  of  the  Books 
of  Kings  led  to  the  placing  of  these  writings  in  juxtaposition, 
while  Isaiah  was  placed  in  front  of  the  twelve  prophets, 
because  he  was  contemporary  with  Hosea  (compare  Isa.  i.  with 
Hosea  i.).  With  Jerome  (§  37),  as  well  as  with  Origen, 
Isaiah  receives  the  first  place  in  accordance  with  the  chrono 
logical  order,  and  this  arrangement  was  subsequently  followed 
in  the  Spanish  manuscripts,  as  also  in  the  oldest  manuscript 
known  to  us,  the  Codex  of  the  Prophets,  described  under  §  3  2. 
It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets, 
which,  even  so  early  as  in  the  first  century  after  Christ,  were 
reckoned  as  one  book,  are  arranged  in  the  LXX.  in  an  order 
different  from  that  of  the  Hebrew  Bibles,  namely,  Hosea, 
Amos,  Micah,  Joel,  Obacliah,  Jonah,  Nahum,  Habakkuk, 
Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Malachi. 

The  order  of  the  Hagiographa  is,  according  to  1.  Baba  bathra 
1 .  1 :  Ruth,  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  The  Song, 
Lamentations,  Daniel,  Esther,  Ezra,  and  Chronicles.  In  this 
case,  also,  we  cannot  accept  the  idea  of  some  modern  scholars 
who  would  find  in  the  position  of  the  Book  of  Chronicles  a 
proof  that  this  book  had  been  received  into  the  canon  at  a 
later  date  than  the  Book  of  Ezra.  Certainly  in  this  we  have 


40  §  10.  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  BOOKS. 

assumptions  made  that  have  little  to  do  with  criticism. 
Jerome,  on  the  other  hand,  certainly  on  chronological  grounds, 
gives  the  first  place  to  Job ;  then  follow  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes,  The  Song,  Daniel,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Esther,  while 
Euth  and  Lamentations  are  included  among  the  Prophets. 
The  arrangement  given  in  Baba  bathra,  which,  according  to  a 
Massoretic  work  of  A.D.  1207  (in  the  Tchufutkale  collection), 
seems  to  have  been  that  of  the  Babylonian  Jews,  is  at  least 
in  part  adopted  in  several  manuscripts.  Compare  also  the 
order  of  succession  in  Oclila  weoclda  Nr.  Ill,  112,  127. 
The  Massoretic  work  above  referred  to  gives  the  following  as 
the  Palestinian  arrangement :  Chronicles,  Psalms,  Job,  Pro 
verbs,  Euth,  The  Song,  Ecclesiastes,  Lamentations,  Esther, 
Daniel,  Ezra.  This  order  was  the  prevalent  one  among  the 
Massoretes,  and  is  therefore  to  be  met  with  in  a  variety  of 
Spanish  manuscripts  and  others,  even  in  a  Bible  of  A.D.  1009. 
In  this  arrangement  the  writings  of  Solomon  are  no  longer 
placed  together,  while  the  five  Megilloth  are,  but  not  in  the 
order  of  the  parts  to  which  they  belong  (Passover — The  Song ; 
the  Feast  of  the  Weeks  or  Pentecost — Euth  ;  the  Destruc 
tion  of  Jerusalem  in  the  Month  Ab — Lamentations ;  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles — Ecclesiastes  ;  and  Purim — 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. 

Compare  the  solid  and  thorough  work  of  Marx  (Dalman), 
Traditio  rabbinorum  vcterrima  de  librorum  V.  T.  or  dine  atque 
origine,  Leipsic  1844.  Elias  Levita,  Massoreth  hammasoreth, 
ed.  Ginsburg,  p.  120  f.,  compare  Bacher  in  ZDMG,  xliii. 
pp.  208,  236  f. ;  H.  Hody,  De  Bibliorum  textibus  origin- 


§  11.    THE  SAMARITAN  CAXOX.  41 

alibus  1705,  pp.  G44-GG4  ;  Strack  in  ZLT,  1875,  p. 
G04  f.,  and  in  Herzog's  Real-Encydopcedie,  vii.  441  f. ;  Joel 
Miiller,  Masscketli  Soplfrim,  p.  44  f.  On  the  Prophets  also, 
Derenbonrg  in  tlie  Journal  Asiat.  1870,  xvi.  443  f.  Quite 
unsupported  is  the  statement  of  Fiirst  (Kanon,  p.  15  if.),  that 
the  original  text  of  Bciba  batkra  gives :  Isaiah  i.,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  Isaiah  ii. 

Baba  bathra  136:  Our  teachers  declared  it  permissible  to 
have  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa  bound 
together  in  one  volume.  So  taught  It.  Meir  (in  the  second 
century),  whereas  E.  Judah  (ben  IJai)  maintained :  the  Law 
by  itself,  the  Prophets  by  themselves,  the  Hagiographa  by 
themselves.  Some  have  even  given  the  opinion  that  each 
writing  should  be  by  itself.  E.  Judah  reported  :  "  Boethus  ben 
Zonia  had  the  eight  books  of  the  Prophets  in  one  volume, 
which  Eleazar  ben  Azariah  (in  the  end  of  the  first  century) 
approved  ;  yet  others  said  that  this  was  wrong."  Eabbi 
(E.  Judah,  the  editor  of  the  Mislma)  said :  "  There  was 
brought  us  one  volume  containing  the  Torali,  the  Prophets,  and 
the  Hagiographa,  and  we  sanctioned  it,"  Compare  jer.  Meg. 
3.  1,  fol.  13d,  and  Massekcth  Soph'rim,  p.  v.  Only  separate  rolls 
were  used  for  reading  in  the  synagogues.  Compare  Esther, 
b.  Meg.  19 a.  The  rolls  were  wrapped  up  in  cloths  and  placed 
in  a  case  (NpTi,  #>?*??),  and  so  were  preserved  in  the  book 
chest  of  the  Synagogue.  Compare  the  remark  of  Tertullian 
(De  cultu  feminarum,  i.  3)  about  the  book  of  Enoch,  nee  in 
armarium  judaicum  admittitur. 

11.  The  community  of  the  Samaritans,  who  otherwise 
imitated  the  Jews  in  all  matters,  had  a  canon  differing  from 
that  of  the  Palestinian  Jews.  The  sacred  writings  of  the 
Samaritans  consisted  only  of  the  five  books  of  the  Law, 
wanting  all  the  prophetic  writings  and  all  accounts  of  the 
fortunes  of  the  Israelites  in  post-Mosaic  times.  On  the 
other  hand,  they  possessed  outside  of  the  canon  an  inde 
pendent  reproduction  of  the  Book  of  Joshua,  which  formed  the 
beginning  of  a  chronicle  which  was  carried  down  to  the  period 


42  §  11.    THE  SAMARITAN  CANON. 

of  the  Eoman  empire.  Evidently  it  was  the  often  violently 
denunciatory  expressions  against  the  Ephraimites  in  the  his 
torical  and  prophetical  writings  that  deterred  the  Samaritans 
from  receiving  the  two  last  divisions  of  the  Jewish  Canon. 
But  the  whole  phenomenon  is  explicable  only  on  the  sup 
position  that  the  Law  at  the  time  of  its  adoption  by  the 
Samaritans  was,  even  among  the  Jews,  the  only  sacred  writing, 
and  no  mere  third  part  of  an  indissoluble  whole.  Had  the 
Jewish  Canon,  as  has  been  often  subsequently  maintained, 
owed  its  origin  to  a  sudden  single  act,  the  authorising  on  the 
part  of  the  Samaritans  of  a  single  division  of  it  can  scarcely 
be  explained,  whereas  one  can  easily  understand  that  they  did 
not  feel  obliged  to  adopt  writings  subsequently  pronounced 
canonical  and  in  part  anti-Ephraimitic.  Unfortunately  we 
possess  no  tradition  of  the  time  at  which  the  Samaritans 
received  the  Law.  Still  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  by  those 
who  assume  no  essential  recasting  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the 
times  after  Ezra,  that  this  adoption  of  the  Law  had  already 
taken  place  before  the  institution  of  the  Samaritan  community 
and  of  the  worship  on  Gerizim.  Josephus  indeed  gives  an 
account  of  this  occurrence  (Antiquities,  xi.  7.  2  ;  8.  2-4), 
but  evidently  his  chronology  is  at  fault.  Partly  on  internal 
grounds,  partly  by  a  comparison  with  Neh.  xiii.  28,  it  can  be 
clearly  shown  that  the  period  fixed  upon  by  him,  the  age  of 
Alexander  the  Great,  is  too  late  by  about  a  hundred  years,  for 
the  occurrence  referred  must  have  taken  place  shortly  after 
the  time  of  Nehemiah's  activity. 

The  idea  entertained  by  certain  Church  fathers,  such  as 
Tertullian,  Origen,  and  Jerome,  that  the  Sadducees  had  to  do 
with  the  forming  of  the  canon  of  the  Samaritans,  certainly 
rests  upon  a  misunderstanding.  The  erroneousness  of  this 
statement,  as  well  as  of  that  of  later  writers  which  substitutes 
the  Karaites  for  the  Sadducees,  has  been  made  evident  by  the 
clearer  information  obtained  in  recent  times  about  the  origin 


§  12.    POSITION  OF  ALEXANDRINES  ON  THE  CANON.  43 

and  history  of  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees. — The  relation  of  the 
Essenes  to  the  canon  is  not  so  clear.  Notwithstanding  their 
great  reverence  for  the  Law,  which  was  read  every  Sabbath  in 
their  assemblies  (Philo,  ed.  Mangey,  ii.  458),  they  still  had, 
according  to  Josephus  (Wars  of  the  Jews,  ii.  8.  7),  their  own 
special  writings,  which  they  preserved  with  no  little  care.  All 
recent  attempts  to  discover  these  writings  among  the  apocry 
phal  books  known  to  us  have,  up  to  the  present  time,  proved 
unsuccessful. 

On  the  Samaritan  Canon  compare  Kuenen,  Onderzoek,  iii. 
430;  Wildeboer,  Het  ontstaan,  p.  106  f . ;  MGWJ,  1886, 
p,  294  f.  In  general:  Kautzsch  in  Herzog's  Eeal-Encyclo- 
poedie,  xiii.  340  ff. 

Juynboll,  Chronicon  Samaritanum  arabice  conscriptum, 
Leyden  1848  (not  to  be  confounded  with  the  Abulfathi  annales 
Samaritani  edited  by  Vilmar,  1865.  Compare  Heidenheim's 
Deutsche  Vierteljalirschrift,  ii.  1863,  pp.  304  if.,  432  ff.). 

On  the  Sadducees  compare  Wildeboer,  Het  cmtstaan,  p. 
122  f.;  Geiger,  Urschrift,  p.  1 1 3  f.  On  the  Essenes,  especially 
Schiirer,  Gfeschichte  dcs  jiid.  Volkcs,  ii.  467  ff.,  Eng.  trans. 
l)iv.  ii.  vol.  ii.  188-218. 

B. — THE  COLLECTION  OF  SCRIPTURES  AMONG  THE 
ALEXANDRINE  JEWS. 

12.  It  is  not  very  easy  to  form  a  clear  conception  of  the 
position  which  the  Alexandrine  and,  along  with  them,  the 
Hellenistic  Jews  generally  occupied  in  relation  to  the  question 
of  the  canon.  It  might  seem,  upon  a  superficial  consideration, 
as  if  the  few  direct  witnesses  with  regard  to  this  matter,  which 
are  still  at  our  command,  prove  that  the  Alexandrine  Jews 
had  the  same  canon  as  the  Jews  in  their  native  land.  Philo, 
indeed,  according  to  Hornemann's  investigations,  quotes  from, 
and  allegorises  upon,  only  the  canonical  writings  (compare  §  6), 
although  he  betrays  acquaintance  also  with  certain  apocryphal 
writings ;  while  Josephus,  who,  as  a  Jew  writing  in  Greek 


44  §  12.    POSITION  OF  ALEXANDRINES  ON  THE  CANON. 

and  using  the  LXX.  may  be  here  taken  into  account,  sets  forth, 
in  the  above  quoted  passage  (§7),  the  complete  Palestinian 
doctrine  of  the  canon.  But,  nevertheless,  it  is  found,  upon 
more  careful  examination,  that  we  are  here  in  an  entirely 
different  world.  Philo's  quotations  are  in  almost  every 
instance  from  the  Law,  and  accordingly  afford  no  certain 
evidence  upon  the  question  of  the  canon ;  and  yet  more 
decisive  is  this  other  fact,  that  he  has  a  wholly  different  theory 
of  inspiration  from  that  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  con 
struction  of  the  Palestinian  Canon.  According  to  Philo, 
inspiration  was  not  confined  to  any  one  particular  period. 
In  his  view,  not  only  the  Greek  translators  of  the  Law,  but, 
still  more,  all  truly  wise  and  virtuous  men,  are  inspired 
and  capacitated  by  the  Spirit  of  God  for  expressing  what  is 
hidden  from  the  common  gaze  (De  Cherub.  §  9,  p.  112  I);  De 
migratione  Abrali.  §  7,  p.  393  0).  This  theory,  which  we  meet 
with  also  partly  in  Ben  Sirach  (§5),  and  which  Philo  appar 
ently  shared  with  other  Alexandrine-Jewish  thinkers,  must 
necessarily  have  contributed  to  smooth  down  the  sharp 
boundaries  between  "  canonical  "  and  "  non-canonical."  With 
regard  to  Josephus,  his  position  on  this  question  is  not  so 
plain.  As  a  historical  writer,  he  emphasises  particularly 
the  "credibility"  of  the  canonical  books  (see  §  7),  but  this 
naturally  does  not  prevent  him  from  making  use  of  other 
sources  for  the  history  of  post-biblical  times,  among  these  an 
"  apocryphal "  book,  the  First  Book  of  Maccabees.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark,  on  the  other  hand,  that  even  within  the 
limits  of  the  biblical  period  he  unhesitatingly  uses  the  addi 
tions  to  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Esther,  which  are  found  only 
in  the  LXX.  (Antiquities,  xi.  1-5  and  6).  And  that  the 
stricter  theory  of  the  canon  continues  to  be  for  him  a  mere 
theory  is  shown  by  this,  that  he  carries  down  the  Jewish 
history  into  the  age  following  that  of  Artaxerxes  I.  (see  p.  35), 
without  a  single  word  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  his 


§  12.    POSITION  OF  ALEXANDRINES  ON  THE  CANON.  45 

narrative  now  rests  upon  less  credible  authorities  than  before ; 
while  at  the  close  of  his  Antiquities  (xx.  11.  2),  which  treats 
of  the  ages  between  the  creation  and  the  twelfth  year  of  Nero, 
he  refers  only  to  the  tepal  /3ifi\oi  as  his  authorities,  without 
indicating  the  relationship  between  them  and  the  other 
authoritative  writings.  With  a  genuine  Palestinian  all  this 
would  have  been  scarcely  possible. 

Is  is  only  in  an  indirect  way  that  we  reach  the  conclusive 
proof  of  the  fact  that  the  Alexandrine  Jews  did  not  concern 
themselves  about  the  strict  Palestinian  doctrine  of  the  canon. 
Although  we  know  the  Alexandrine  translation  of  the  Bible 
only  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  been  used  by  Christians,  it 
scarcely  admits  of  doubt  that  this  form  was  virtually  in 
accordance  with  that  current  among  the  Alexandrine  Jews, 
seeing  that  the  Christians  would  certainly  not  have  introduced 
a  canon  which  had  been  wholly  rejected  by  the  Jews  who  had 
intercourse  with  them.  Naturally,  however,  this  does  not 
prevent  our  regarding  it  as  possible  that  the  Christians  may 
occasionally  have  enlarged  the  Jewish  collection  by  the 
adoption  of  particular  books  (see  farther  p.  54).  The  Greek 
translation  of  the  Bible  among  the  Christians  differs  in  two 
very  important  points  from  the  Palestinian  Bible.  In  the 
first  place,  the  threefold  division  is  given  up,  so  that  the 
distinction  between  prophetic  writings  and  the  Hagiograplia  is 
abolished;  and  secondly,  we  find  among  the  books  regarded, 
according  to  the  Palestinian  rule,  as  canonical,  other  books 
which  the  Jews,  resident  in  their  native  land,  permitted  only 
as  profane  literature  (§  2),  or  distinctly  rejected.  This  is  a 
practice  which  evidently  resulted  from  the  influence  of  the 
Alexandrine  theory  of  inspiration,  and  absolutely  prevented 
the  adoption  of  the  principle  by  which  the  Palestinian  Canon 
was  determined. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  second  Christian  century,  the 
Palestinian  Canon  won  authority  among  the  Alexandrine  Jews. 


46  §  12.    POSITION  OF  ALEXANDRINES  ON  THE  CANON. 

For  proof  of  this  we  may  point,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the 
adoption  of  the  translation  of  Aquila  by  the  Greek  Jews  ;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  to  the  statements  of  Origen  quoted  above 
in  §  7  with  regard  to  the  canon  of  the  Jews. 

On  Philo  compare  the  work  of  Hornemann  referred  to  in 
§  6,  and  W.  Pick  in  the  Journal  of  the  Society  of  Biblical 
Literature  and  Exegesis,  1884,  pp.  126-143. 

On  Josephus  compare  Wildeboer,  Het  ontstaan,  p.  41  ff . ; 
Bloch,  Die  Quellen  des  Flavins  Josephus,  1879,  pp.  69-79; 
Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  jud.  Volkes,  ii.  713—715,  Eng.  trans. 
Div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  179,  182.  On  his  use  of  the  original  text 
and  of  the  LXX.  :  Scharfenberg,  De  Josephi  et  vcrsionis 
Alexandrine^  consensu,  1870  ;  Bloch,  Die  Quellen  des  Flavins 
Josephus,  pp.  8-22  ;  Siegfried  in  ZA  Wt  iii.  32  f. 

How  the  Palestinians  rejected  the  apocryphal  writings,  but 
still  permitted  the  reading  of  certain  post-biblical  works,  such 
as  the  Book  of  Ben  Sirach,  is  told  in  §  2.  Quotations  from 
Ben  Sirach,  sometimes  of  a  remarkable  kind,  are  given  in  the 
Babylonian  Talmud  with  the  solemn  introductory  formulae,  e.g. 
Erubin  65«  (Rab.  c.  16 5-247  A.D.,  compare  Sirach  vii.  10), 
Bala  Kamma  (Piabba  c.  270-330  A.D.,  compare  Sirach  xiii. 
15,  xxvii.  9),  and,  in  addition,  Bcrcshith  r.  c.  91,  where  Simon 
ben  Shetach  (§  6)  quoted  a  passage  from  Ben  Sirach  with 
Tro.  That  in  Eabba's  time  Ben  Sirach  should  actually  have 
been  regarded  by  some  as  canonical  is  very  improbable,  since 
no  controversies  on  this  point  are  reported.  We  should 
rather  suppose  that  here  we  have  simply  errors  of  memory, 
which  might  easily  have  resulted  from  the  Hebrew  language 
and  the  Old  Testament  colouring  of  the  book.  Compare 
S track  in  Herzog's  Real  -  Encyclopaedic  2,  vii.  430;  Wright, 
Ecclcsiastcs,  p.  47  f.;  Wildeboer,  lid  ontstaan,  p.  85;  and  on  the 
other  side,  Cheyne,  Job  and  Solomon,  p.  282  f.  In  the 
Babylonian  Talmud  (Sank.  100&),  on  the  contrary,  R.  Joseph 
plainly  forbids  the  reading  of  Ben  Sirach  (np'rf)  TDK).  Jerome, 
in  his  preface  to  his  translation  of  Daniel,  shows,  in  an 
interesting  way,  how  the  Jews  of  his  time  abused  and 
criticised  the  apocryphal  works  used  by  the  Christians. 


§  13.    SACRED  LITERATURE  OF  THE  ALEXANDRINES.  47 

On  the  views  entertained  with  regard  to  the  Apocrypha 
among  the  Jews  of  modern  times,  compare  Geiger,  Nach- 
gelassenc  Schriftcn,  ii.  338. 

13.  The  writings  which  in  this  way  secured  an  entrance 
into  the  Bible  of  the  Alexandrine  Jews  afford  us  a  glimpse 
into  an  extensive  and  varied  literature.  It  is  not  easy  to 
determine  the  limits  of  this  literature,  since  the  Septuagint 
manuscripts  used  by  the  Christians  vary  greatly  in  their 
extent,  containing  sometimes  more,  sometimes  fewer  writings, 
canonical  as  well  as  non-canonical.  For  example,  even  the 
sixth  book  of  Josephus'  Wars  of  the  Jews  is  to  be  found  in  a 
Syrian  Bible  manuscript  (see  further  §  16).  We  cannot 
therefore  speak  of  a  "  canon  "  of  the  Alexandrines  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word  It  may,  however,  be  readily  understood 
that  the  contents  of  such  writings  are  religious,  and  must 
stand  in  connection  with  the  history  of  the  Old  Covenant. 
Besides,  it  was  also  necessary  that  their  authors,  who  in  many 
cases  wrote  under  feigned  names,  should  be  represented  as 
Israelites  or  men  of  the  primitive  ages  of  biblical  history. 
Books,  therefore,  like  the  Epistle  of  Aristeas,  referred  to  in 
§  38,  the  JewishSibyllines,  Phocylides,  and  similar  works  under 
heathen  masks,  were  excluded.  Further,  only  writings  whose 
contents  were  of  an  original  character  could  be  taken  into 
consideration,  not  poetic  or  scientific  reproductions  of  biblical 
history,  like  the  Epic  of  Philo  the  Elder,  Ezekiel's  drama 
"  The  Exodus,"  or  the  historical  works  of  Demetrius,  Eupole- 
mus,  Artapanus,  and  Josephus.  Finally,  the  inclusion  among 
the  sacred  books  of  the  voluminous  productions  of  a  modern 
author,  like  Philo,  would  naturally  never  be  thought  of.  What 
remains,  after  these  eliminations  have  been  made,  consists 
partly  of  Palestinian  translations  of  books  written  in  the 
Hebrew  language,  e.g.  the  First  Book  of  Maccabees,  Ben  Sirach, 
partly  of  original  Greek  works  of  Hellenistic  Jews,  e.g.  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon.  Of  several  writings  we  now  know  only 


48  §  13.    SACKED  LITERATURE  OF  THE  ALEXANDRINES. 

the  titles.  Of  the  extant  writings  some  are  of  a  philosophical 
character :  Ben  Sirach,  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  ;  others  of  a 
poetical  character :  the  Psalms  of  Solomon ;  others  contain 
historical  tales,  especially  legends,  which,  however,  are  often 
only  the  investiture  of  religious-moral  teachings :  the  three 
Books  of  Maccabees,  Tobit  and  Judith,  the  Jewish  sections  of 
the  Ascensio  Isaice ;  others  are  of  a  prophetical  character : 
the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Assumptio  Mosis,  the  Fourth  Book 
of  Ezra,  the  Book  of  Baruch,  the  Letter  of  Jeremiah,  the 
Apocalypse  of  Baruch.  On  account  of  its  special  form,  a 
revelation  of  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai  by  the  Angel  of  the 
Presence,  the  so-called  Book  of  Jubilees  (r;  AeTrrr/  Pei/cert?),  has 
also  been  received  into  this  literature,  although  it  is  properly 
only  a  free  Haggadic  rendering  of  Genesis,  In  addition  to 
these  there  has  to  be  mentioned  finally  a  series  of  appendices 
to  various  canonical  writings,  which  were  read  with  peculiar 
enjoyment,  and  were  therefore  surrounded  with  the  variegated 
embellishments  of  popular  legend.  The  books  thus  added  to 
were  those  of  Esther  and  Daniel,  while  also  Chronicles  had 
attached  to  it  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh.  Ezra  also  had  such 
an  uncanonical  addition  joined  to  it,  which,  however,  we  no 
longer  possess  by  itself,  but  as  part  of  a  very  free  reproduction 
of  the  Book  of  Ezra  translated  into  Greek. 

Sketches  of  the  literature  of  the  writings  here  referred  to  are 
given  by  Strack,  EMcitung  im  A.  T.  in  Zockler's  Handlmch 
der  Theolog.  WisscnscJiaften,  i. ;  by  Dillmann  in  Herzog's 
Real-Encyclopcedie-,  xii.  341  ff .  ;  and  especially  in  Schiirer's 
Geschichte  des  jiid.  Volkcs  im  Zeitalter  Jesu  Christi,ii.  575-830, 
Eng.  trans.  Div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  1-270. 

In  regard  to  the  additions  made  to  the  biblical  books,  it  is 
most  particularly  to  be  observed  that  there  is  no  ground  for 
supposing  that-  the  additions  to  Ezra,  Esther,  and  Daniel  are 
translations  from  Hebrew  originals  ;  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  j'ild. 
Volkes,  ii.  713,  715,  717,  Eng.  trans.  Div.  ii.  vol.  iii. 
179,  182,  184.  This  circumstance  makes  the  hypothesis 


§  13.    SACRED  LITERATURE  OF  THE  ALEXANDRINES.  49 

suggested  by  Ewald  and  adopted  by  Wellhausen  (Prolegomena, 
1883,  237),  that  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh  is  derived  from 
the  Hebrew  "History  of  the  Kings  of  Israel"  (2  Chron. 
xxxiii.  18  ff.),  extremely  insecure.  A  free  development  of 
the  hint  thrown  out  by  the  Chronicler  was  what  would  very 
readily  occur  to  writers  of  a  later  age. 

The  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra  speaks  indeed  of  seventy  writings 
besides  the  twenty-four  canonical  books  (§  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  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New  Testament 
writings  is,  when  most  profoundly  considered,  a  further 
development  of  the  Scripture  proof  which  Christ  Himself 
pointed  out  in  Luke  xxiv.  44  :  ori  Sel  7r\rjpa)0f)vai,  Trdvra  ra 
yeypa/jL/jieva  ev  TU>  vofjiw  Mwvcrews  KOI  7rpo(j)iJTai<>  /cal  ^aX/^ot? 
irepl  e/jLov.  And  just  as  in  this  passage  the  reference  is  only 
to  the  proper  Jewish  Canon  with  its  three  divisions  (§  6),  so 
also  the  New  Testament  writers  draw  all  their  proofs  of  the 
fact  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  and  that  the  age  introduced  by 
Him  was  the  Messianic  age  of  promise,  from  the  writings 
acknowledged  as  canonical  by  the  Palestinian  Jews.  If  one 
considers  how  little  the  New  Testament  otherwise  holds  itself 
apart  from  the  intellectual  life  of  the  Hellenistic  Jews, — of 
which  the  free  and  universal  use  of  the  Alexandrine  transla 
tion  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  is  only  one  single 
conspicuous  example, — he  must  necessarily  attribute  a  great 
importance  to  this  restriction  of  the  books  used  for  proof  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  ought  not  to  cast  it  to  one  side  as  an 
insignificant  "  argumentum  e  silentio."  But  this  naturally 
does  not  at  all  prevent  us  from  admitting,  that  there  are  to  be 
found  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  more  or  less  im 
portant  traces  of  such  non-canonical  writings  as  were  in 
circulation  and  were  used  among  the  Hellenistic  Jews,  the 
reading  of  which  was  also  in  part  permitted  even  by  the 

60 


§  14.  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.     5 1 

Palestinians  (§  2).  In  the  first  rank  among  these  stands  the 
quotation  from  the  Book  of  Enoch  introduced  in  the  Epistle  of 
Jude  (v.  14)  with  eTrpcxptfrevo-ev.  Alongside  of  it  comes  the 
ninth  verse  in  this  same  epistle,  which  is  not  to  be  found 
indeed  among  the  remnants  as  yet  known  of  the  Assurnptio 
Mosis,  but  is  said,  upon  the  distinct  testimony  of  Origen 
(De  Principiis,  iii.  2.  1),  to  have  formed  a  part  of  that  work. 
There  is  no  reason  for  doubting  that  Hebrews  xi.  35  f.  is 
founded  upon  the  narratives  of  2  Maccabees  vi.  f.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  cannot  decidedly  say  whether  Hebrews  xi.  37 
refers  to  an  apocryphal  book  on  the  sawing  asunder  of  Isaiah, 
and  2  Tim.  iii.  8  to  the  writing  Jannes  ct  Jambres  liber 
mentioned  by  Origen  (de  la  Rue,  iii.  916),  or  whether  both 
passages  rest  simply  upon  oral  traditions.  Of  the  remin 
iscences  in  the  New  Testament  of  Ben  Sirach  and  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon,  which  have  been  tracked  out  with  great  zeal, 
some  are  rather  striking.  Compare,  c.y.,  James  i.  19  with 
Sirach  v.  11.  But  others  are  of  a  very  doubtful  character. 
Xo  quotations  in  the  proper  sense  are  to  be  met  with  here. 
On  the  other  hand,  this  would  have  been  the  case  if  the 
quotation  1  Cor.  ii.  9,  as  Origen  (de  la  Rue,  iii.  916)  affirms, 
had  been  derived  from  an  Apocalypse  of  Elias  ;  but  our 
complete  ignorance  of  this  writing  prevents  us  from  coming 
to  any  definite  conclusion.  Similarly  Epiphanius  (Dindorf, 
ii.  388)  reports,  and,  in  a  fashion  different  from  him,  also 
Euthalius  (Gallandi,  BiU.  Pair.  x.  260),  with  reference  to  the 
passage  Eph.  v.  14.  It  still  remains  doubtful  what  we  are  to 
think  of  Luke  xi.  49  ;  Jas.  iv.  5  f.  ;  John  vii.  38.  On  the 
other  hand,  those  are  certainly  wrong  who,  on  the  ground  of 
a  statement  of  Jerome  on  Matt,  xxvii.  9  ("  legi  nuper  in 
quodam  Hebraico  volumine,  quod  Nazarrcnoe  sectie  mini 
Hebrseus  obtulit,  J  eremite  apocryphum,  in  quo  luec  ad  verbum 
scripta  reperi "),  conjecture  that  the  evangelist  had  derived 
his  quotation  ascribed  to  Jeremiah  from  this  Apocalypse. 


52       §  15.    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  AMONG  THE  SYRIANS. 

Without  any  doubt  Matthew  intends  here  as  usual  to  give  a 
canonical  quotation,  while  the  Apocalypse  referred  to  may 
have  been  of  Christian  origin. 

The  actually  existing  references  to  non-canonical  writings, 
in  connection  with  the  circumstance  that  we  never  find  in  the 
New  Testament  a  direct  prohibition  against  the  use  of  such 
books,  even  for  Messianic  proofs,  in  the  succeeding  age, 
inevitably  resulted  in  leading  many  communities  where 
Hellenistic  culture  prevailed,  to  follow  unreservedly  the 
Alexandrine  treatment  of  Scripture.  When  the  Palestinian 
principles  of  the  canon  had  become  generally  prevalent  among 
the  Jews  (§  12),  there  arose  of  necessity  differences  on  this 
point  between  the  Christians  and  the  Jews.  In  connection 
with  this,  even  among  Christians  themselves,  divergent 
customs  prevailed,  according  as  they  gave  a  preference  to  the 
ecclesiastical  or  to  the  Jewish  practice,  and  traces  of  this 
divergence  are  to  be  found  even  in  the  most  recent  times. 
How  the  details  were  thereby  shaped  and  fashioned  will  appear 
from  the  following  brief  outline. 

Compare  among  the  writings  mentioned  in  §  21,  especially 
Bleek  in  TSKt  1853,  p.  325  ff.  Also  Werner  in  the  Theol. 
Quartalschrift,  1872,  p.  265  ff. ;  Boon,  De  Jacdbi  epistola  cum 
Siracidce  libro  convenientia,  1860  ;  Grimm,  Das  Bucli  der 
Weislieit,  p.  3  5  f. ;  Fritzsche,  Die  Wcisheit  Jesus  Sirach's 
xxxviii. ;  Schiirer,  Gfeschickte  des  jud.  Volkes,  ii.  596,  628, 
674  f.,  636,  676,  685,  690,  741,  758,  Eng.  trans.  Div.  ii. 
vol.  iii.  23,  55,  69,  109,  144,  150,  214,  234;  Wildeboer, 
Het  ontstaan  p.  45  ;  Wright,  The  Book  of  Kolieleth,  p.  49. 
On  Eph.  v.  14  compare  also  JPT,  1880,  p.  192. 

15.  Among  the  Syrian  Christians  we  find  a  practical  agree 
ment  with  the  canon  of  the  Palestinians,  with  some  very 
remarkable  divergences.  The  agreement  is  seen  in  this,  that 
by  both  the  apocryphal  writings  are  excluded.  In  the  Syrian 
translation  of  the  Bible  they  were  not  to  be  found  in  the 


§  15.    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  AMONG  THE  SYRIANS.       53 

earliest  times.  Aphraates,  abbot-bishop  of  St.  Matthew's 
cloister,  near  Mosul,  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century, 
who  quotes  passages  from  all  the  canonical  writings,  with  the 
single  exception,  which  seems  quite  accidental,  of  The  Song, 
makes  no  quotation  from  the  Apocrypha,  although  he  knew 
some  of  them ;  and  Ephrsem,  who  was  likewise  acquainted 
with  several  apocryphal  writings,  does  not  make  them  the 
subject  of  his  exposition.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Syrians 
diverge  from  the  Palestinian  Canon  by  setting  aside  some  of 
the  writings  that  had  been  received  into  it.  In  the  Syrian 
translation  of  the  Bible  the  Book  of  Chronicles  was  originally 
wanting,  and  the  Jewish  Syrian  Targum  on  that  book,  which 
had  been  subsequently  adopted  (§  71),  did  not  by  any  means 
receive  general  acceptance.  It  is  indeed  quoted  by 
Aphraates,  but  Ephrsem  does  not  comment  upon  it.  In  later 
times  the  teachers  of  the  Syrian  Church  went  even  further. 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  not  only  omitted  the  Book  of 
Chronicles,  but  also  Ezra-Nehemiah,  Esther,  and  Job  ;  and  in  the 
canon  of  the  Nestoriaris,  Chronicles,  Ezra-Nehemiah,  and 
Esther  are  wanting,  while  Job  is  received.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Nestorians,  in  a  remarkable  way,  acknowledged  Ben 
Sirach  and  the  apocryphal  additions  to  Daniel  as  canonical. 
Several  of  the  Monophysites  also  adopted  this  canon,  yet,  as 
a  rule,  with  the  addition  of  the  Book  of  Esther.  Even 
Barhebrseus,  in  his  grammatical  and  exegetical  works,  takes  no 
account  of  the  Book  of  Chronicles. 

In  so  far  as  the  Book  of  Esther  is  wanting  in  those  lists, 
we  are  reminded  of  the  criticism  which,  even  among  the  Jews, 
had  been  directed  against  that  book  (§  8).  On  the  other 
hand,  we  have,  as  has  been  already  remarked,  no  certain  proof 
that  the  Palestinians  had  declared  themselves  against  the 
Book  of  Chronicles,  least  of  all  against  Ezra  or  Job.  If, 
then,  this  Syrian  criticism  of  the  canon,  with  its  recognition 
of  the  Book  of  Ben  Sirach  and  of  the  additions  to  Daniel,  is 


54     §  1G.    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  IN  THE  GREEK  CHURCH. 

actually  an  outcome  of  Jewish  influence,  that  influence  is  to 
be  sought  only  among  Syrian  Jews,  who  in  this  particular 
must  have  gone  their  own  way ;  but  it  is  much  more  probable 
that  they  were  Syrian  Christians,  who  acted  on  their  own 
responsibility  under  the  influence  of  subjective  principles,  as 
these  indeed  appear  in  other  connections  in  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia. 

Those  Syrians  who  attached  themselves  to  the  Greek 
Church  received,  as  was  to  be  expected,  those  apocryphal 
writings  into  their  translations,  in  the  manuscript  of  which 
they  are  to  be  met  with  in  larger  or  smaller  numbers 
(§  16). 

Compare  v.  Lengerke,  De  Eplircemi  Syri  arte  hermeneutica, 
1831  ;  Eichhorn, Einleitwig,  iii.  p.  255  ;  ISToldeke,  Die  Alttesta- 
mentliche  Litteratur,  p.  263  ;  G.  G.  A.  1868,  p.  1826  ;  ZDMG, 
xxxii.  p.  587  ;  xxxv.  p.  496  ;  Friinkel  in  JPT,  1879,  p.  758  ; 
Nestle  in  Herzog's  Eeal-Encydopoedie^,  xv.  p.  196.  The 
references  to  the  Apocrypha  in  Aphraates  are  found  in  the 
Homilies  edited  by  Wright,  pp.  66,  252,  438.  Compare  on 
other  points,  Bert,  ApJirahats  des  persischen  Weisen  Homilien. 
Am  clem  Syrisclien  ubersetzt,  1888  (and  a  review  of  it  in 
T/ieol.  IMt.  Zeit.  1889,  p.  77  ff.). 

16.  The  Greek  Church,  and  the  communities  dependent 
upon  it,  such  as  the  Ethiopians,  the  Latins,  a  part  of  the 
Syrians  (§  15),  etc.,  were  conspicuously  influenced  by  the 
practice  of  the  Alexandrine  Jews  in  reference  to  Scripture. 
We  accordingly  meet  in  Justin,  Clement  of  Eome,  Irenseus, 
Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  etc.,  not  only  with  frequent 
allusions  to  writings  which  had  been  excluded  from  the 
Palestinian  Canon,  but  also  formal  and  deliberately  made 
quotations  from  many  of  the  literary  works  mentioned  in 
§  13.  How  far  these  books  are  to  be  regarded  as  all  belong 
ing  to  the  Bibles  already  in  use  among  the  Alexandrine  Jews 
is,  as  we  have  already  remarked  in  §  12,  uncertain.  It  is 


§  1C.    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CAXOX  IN  THE  GREEK  CHURCH.      55 

highly  probable  that  the  attempt  to  introduce  such  books  as 
the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Martyrdom  of  Isaiah,  the  Apocalypse 
of  Ezra,  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  etc.,  into  the  proper  collection 
of  Scripture,  was  first  made  by  the  Christians,  although  even 
here  the  flexibility  and  indefiniteness  of  the  Jewish  Alex 
andrine  method  of  dealing  with  Scripture  does  not  allow  us  to 
come  to  any  very  decided  conclusion.  At  any  rate,  there 
arose  within  the  Greek  Church  an  opposition  against  those 
books,  which  in  the  most  emphatic  way  points  to  this,  that 
they  had  not  been  received  by  the  Jews,  and  that,  in  the 
Christian  Churches,  they  had  not  obtained  such  general 
acceptance  as,  e.g.  Jesus  Sirach,  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  etc. 
Since  then  the  Palestinians  also  considered  these  books  to 
be  non-canonical,  such  a  separation  will  help  us  to  mark  out 
a  certain  boundary  or  outside  limit  of  books  in  use  among  the 
Greek  Jews.  In  this  way  among  the  Greeks  the  writings 
referred  to  were  banished  from  Church  use,  and  the  result  of 
this  has  been  that  for  several  of  them  we  possess  no  Greek 
texts.  On  the  other  hand,  some  of  them  were  preserved  among 
other  National  Churches  dependent  on  the  Greeks,  such  as 
the  Syrian,  and,  above  all,  the  Ethiopian,  which  went  furthest 
in  this  direction.  A  picture  of  this  development  is  afforded 
by  the  various  Bible  manuscripts,  which  may  be  here  illus 
trated  by  two  examples.  The  Vatican  Septuagint  Codex 
embraces,  besides  the  canonical  books  :  the  Greek  Ezra,  the 
Book  of  Wisdom,  Ben  Sirach,  additions  to  the  Book  of  Esther, 
Judith,  Tobit,  Baruch,  the  Letter  of  Jeremiah,  additions  to 
Daniel.  In  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  we  have  all  the  books 
here  named,  and  in  addition,  1-4  Maccabees  and  the  Prayer 
of  Manasseh  ;  and  at  the  same  time,  too,  the  list  of  contents 
at  the  beginning  of  the  manuscript  show  that  it  contained 
originally  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  yet  only  as  an  appendix 
affixed  to  the  New  Testament.  On  the  other  hand,  the  great 
Milan  Peschito  manuscript,  of  which  an  account  is  given  in 


5  G      §  16.    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  IN  THE  GREEK  CHUECH. 

§  72  contains,  besides  the  usual  Apocrypha  (of  which,  how 
ever,  the  Greek  Ezra,  Tobit,  and  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh  are 
wanting) :  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  and  the  Apocalypse  of 
Ezra,  and  even  in  addition  to  these,  the  sixth  book  of  Josephus' 
Wars  of  the  Jews.  Of  the  old  Latin  translations  of  the 
Apocalypse  of  Ezra,  the  Assumptio  Mosis,  the  Martyrdom  of 
Isaiah,  and  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  larger  or  smaller  remnants  are 
still  extant,  which  circumstance  proves  that  these  books  were 
read  for  a  long  time  among  the  Latins,  although  officially  they 
were  attached  to  the  Greek  practice.  But  it  is  in  a  very  special 
degree  owing  to  the  complete  unsusceptibility  of  the  Ethiopians 
to  any  influence  of  criticism  that  several  of  these  works  are 
even  yet  extant.  To  the  Ethiopian  translation  of  the  Bible 
belonged  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra,  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the 
Martyrdom  of  Isaiah,  and  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  from  which 
during  the  present  century  the  texts  have  been  recovered  and 
edited. 

The  technical  expressions  for  the  books  excluded  from 
church  use  were :  ajro/cpv^os,  sccrdus,  non  manifestos,  in 
opposition  to  cfravepos,  KOIVOS,  manifestus,  vulyatus.  Without 
doubt  these  expressions  were  borrowed  from  the  synagogue, 
where  they  had  been  used,  however,  with  a  somewhat  different 
application.  While  among  the  Jews  (§2)  the  term  M  was 
used  of  books,  properly  copies,  which  had  been  banished  from 
official  (synagogical)  use  ;  "  apocryphal,"  among  the  Greek  and 
Latin  fathers,  signified  such  books  as  were  not  actually  found 
in  the  clear  daylight  of  universal  ecclesiastical  use,  and  which 
the  particular  community  therefore  could  not  introduce  as 
ecclesiastical  books.  Out  of  this  idea  there  was  readily 
developed  the  idea  of  the  heretical,  the  forged  and  ungenuine, 
which  is  often  the  prominent  one  when  the  Apocrypha  is 
spoken  of  by  the  fathers. 

On  the  quotations  in  the  fathers  from  the  writings  rejected 
by  the  Palestinian  Jews,  compare  among  others  Scholz, 


§  17.    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  IN  THE  GREEK  CHURCH.      0  / 

Einkitung  in  die  hciligen  Schriften  des  A.  und  N.  T.  i. 
232  f. ;  Schiirer,  Gcschiclite  des  jud.  Volkes,  ii.  582-768, 
Eug.  trans.  Div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  9-219.  Scliolz  (p.  220  ff.) 
gives  also  a  sketch  of  the  relations  of  the  various  manuscripts 
to  the  Apocrypha. 

On  the  Ethiopians,  compare  Dillmann,  "  Der  Umfang  des 
Bibelkanons  der  abyss.  Kirche,"  in  Ewald's  Jahrl.  der  bill. 
Wissenschaft,  v.  1853,  p.  144  f.,  and  Herzog's  Eccd-Encydo- 
pecdie,  i.  205.  On  the  range  of  the  biblical  canon  among 
the  Armenians,  Georgians,  etc.,  see  Scholz,  Einkitung,  i. 
259. 

On  the  use  of  the  word  "  apocryphal,"  see  especially 
Zahn,  Geschichte  d.  Neutestamentlichen  Kanons,  i.  126—150, 
where  attention  is  rightly  called  to  the  fact  that  the  ideas 
heretical,  pernicious,  false,  etc.,  are  in  the  first  instance 
secondary.  Thus  it  is  quite  simply  explained  how  Origen, 
who  at  one  time  writes  (Contra  Cels.  v.  54)  :  ev  rals  e/c/cX^o-tat? 
ov  TTCLVV  fieperai,  0)9  Oela  ra  eirLyejpa^eva  TOV  'Evcn^  /3i(3\ta, 
and  at  another  time  (de  la  Rue,  ii.  384),  "  libelli  isti  non 
videntur  apud  Hebrseos  in  auctoritate  haberi,"  yet  also  him 
self  quotes  the  Book  of  Enoch,  e.g.  De  Principiis,  iv.  35 
(de  la  Rue,  i.  153):  "  sed  in  libro  suo  Enoch  ita  ait,"  etc. 

Various  lists  of  the  writings  designated  apocryphal  are 
given  by  Credner,  Zur  Geschichte  des  Kanons,  pp.  117  ff.,  145  ; 
Schtirer,  Geschichte  des  jud.  Volkcs,  ii.  670  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  the  Jews  in  religious  controversies  simply  repudiated 
all  proof  passages  taken  from  such  writings,  although  among 
the  Christians  they  had  possessed  quite  the  same  validity  as 
the  other  sacred  books.  In  order  to  overcome  this  difficulty, 
several  of  the  fathers  sought  to  spread  among  their  fellow- 


58      §  17.    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  IN  THE  GREEK  CHURCH. 

believers  more  exact  information  about  the  extent  of  the 
Jewish  Canon.  Such  service  was  rendered  by  Melito  and 
Origen,  whose  important  explanations  on  this  point  have  been 
mentioned  above  in  §  7.  Yet  in  doing  this  they  had  in  view 
a  purely  practical  end,  and  they  had  not;  indeed  the  least 
thought  of  suggesting  that  the  Christians  should  submit 
generally  to  the  Jewish  notions  about  the  canon,  and  give  up 
the  use  in  their  churches  of  those  non-canonical  writings 
which  had  obtained  a  footing  among  the  Christian  communi 
ties.  Hence  Origen  himself  not  only  used  such  books  in  his 
works,  but  expressly  vindicates  them  in  his  letter  to  Africanus, 
for  he  urges  that  the  practice  of  the  Church  in  regard  to 
Scripture  had  been  developed  under  the  providence  of  God, 
whereas  the  antipathy  of  the  Jews  to  these  writings  had 
been  called  forth  by  their  hatred  of  the  Christians  and  by 
their  fear  lest  through  these  books  the  Christian  faith  might 
be  strengthened. 

The  Greek  fathers  of  the  fourth  century  unhesitatingly 
assume  the  same  standpoint,  while  at  the  same  time  they 
somewhat  more  decidedly  acknowledge  the  pre-eminence  of 
the  writings  that  are  canonical  according  to  the  Jewish 
practice.  Athanasius,  in  A.D.  365,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem,  and  Amphilochius,  without  expressly  naming 
the  Jews  as  their  authorities,  give  lists  of  the  canonical 
writings,  which  are  identical  with  those  acknowledged  by  the 
Palestinians,  although  with  this  significant  difference,  that  the 
two  first-named  fathers  omit  the  Book  of  Esther,  while 
Amphilochius  refers  to  it  as  received  only  by  some  (compare 
§  7).  On  the  other  hand,  in  Athanasius  and  in  the  59th 
Canon  of  the  Synod  of  Phrygian  and  Lydian  bishops  at 
Laodicea,  between  A.D.  343  and  A.D.  381,  we  meet  with 
express  pronouncements  against  the  use  of  non-canonical  or 
apocryphal  books  as  injurious  to  the  purity  of  doctrine. 
Meanwhile,  among  those  apocrypha  the  writings  authorised  by 


§  17.  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  IN  THE  GREEK  CHURCH.   59 

the  practice  of  the  churches  were  generally  not  included. 
They  formed  an  intermediate  class  between  the  canonical  and 
the  apocryphal  writings  as  books,  the  use  of  which  for  reading 
in  the  churches  was  permitted  (ava^ivwo-Ko^eva}.  To  this 
class  belonged,  according  to  Athanasius,  besides  the  Book  of 
Esther :  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Jesus  Sirach,  Judith,  Tobit. 
Hence  even  among  those  same  fathers  who  have  given  us  the 
lists  of  canonical  books  referred  to,  we  not  rarely  meet  with 
quotations  from  those  books  allowed  to  be  read ;  and  a 
consequence  of  this  way  of  viewing  the  matter  is,  that  we 
have  those  "  reading  books "  in  the  oldest  Greek  Bible 
manuscripts  (§  16). 

Compare  the  Letter  of  Origen  to  Africarms  in  his  Opera, 
ed.  de  la  BUG,  i.  12  ft 

Athanasius,  Epistola,  festalis  of  the  year  365  (Opera,  ed. 
Colin,  ii.  1686,  p.  38  ff.) :  'ETretBrJTrep  rives 
dvard^aoOai  eavrols  rd  Xeyo/ueva  aTro/cpvcfra  /cal  eT 
ravra  rf)  Oeoirvevcrrr)  <ypa<pf],  irepl  979  e7r\7]po(£>opr]07]fjiev) 
TrapeSocrav  roi$  irarpdcnv  ol  CLTT  dp^tj^  avroirrai  teal 
rov  \d<you'  eSo^e  /cd/jiol  rrporpairevri  irapd 
Kal  ^aOovri  avwOev,  e^?  eKOecrOai  ra 
KOI  7rapa$o0evTa,  TriaTevOevra  re  6ela  eivca 
eVao'To?,  el  /jiev  rjTrar^dr},  fcarayvb)  TWV 
KdOapos  SiafjieLvcis  ^aiprj  7rd\iv 
(There  follows  an  enumeration  of  the  twenty  -  two  books, 
without  Esther,  but  with  Euth  separately  named.)  'A\\' 
d  <ye  TrXetoz'o?  aKpifBelas  TT poar i6r] /JLL  KOI  TOVTO  ypd^wv 
OTL  earl  KOL  erepa  J3if3\ia  rovrwv  e^coOev,  ov 
^ev,  rervTrcofJieva  Se  jrapa  rwv  rrarepwv  ava^i- 
rot?  apn  Trpoa-ep^ofjievois  /cal  /3ov\ofAevois  Karrj- 
rov  rrjs  6t»cr6/3e/a?  \6yov'  <ro(f)La  ^oXoyLtw^TO?  /cal 
(Tocfria  ^ipd^,  Kal  ^Eadrjp,  teal  'Iov$W,  fcal  To{3ias,  /cal  Si$a%?i 
/cd\ov/jiei>rj  rwv  * AiroaroKwv,  real  6  nTOi^v.  Kal  6'yLtco? 
KaKeivwv  /cavovL^o/jievcav  /cal  rovrwv  dva'yivwo'icofjLevwv 
rcov  aTTOKpixj^cov  ^vr^^,  aXXa.  aipenicwv  ecrriv  errivoia, 
rwv  fjL€v,  on  6e\ovcriv  avra,  xapt&jjLevcov  8e  teal  TrpocrriOevrcov 


60      §  18.    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  IN  THE  LATIN  CHURCH. 


,  iva   009  Trakaia   Trpofyepovres  Trpo^aaiv 
e/c  TOVTOV  Tou?  cLKepaiovs. 

Council  of  Laodicea  (Mansi,  Concill.  nov.  coll.  ii.  574), 
Canon  59:  OTI  ov  Bel  ISiwriKovs  ^aX^ou?  Xeyecr&u  Iv  rfj 
€KK\r)crla  ov$e  a/cavovicrTa  /3i{3\ia,  aXXa  /JLOVO,  TCL  Kavoviica  T?}<> 
KaivrjS  Kal  TraXata?  SiadrjK'r)*;. 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  Carmen  xxxiii.  Opera,  ed.  Colin,  1690, 
ii.  98." 

Amphilochius,  Jambi  ad  Seleucum,  see  Schmid,  Historia 
Canonis,  p.  194. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (Opera,  ed.  Benedict.  Paris,  1720, 
p.  57  ff.)  names  precisely  the  same  books  as  Origen  (§  7), 
with  the  addition  of  Baruch  and  the  Letter  of  Jeremiah,  and 
has  probably  borrowed  his  list  from  this  predecessor.  He 
makes  no  mention  of  an  intermediate  order  between  the 
canonical  and  the  apocryphal  books  ;  yet,  e.g.  in  his  Catech. 
ix.  2,  he  quotes  from  Wisdom  xiii.  5  as  canonical.  The  60th 
Canon  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea  has  the  same  list.  Compare, 
however,  on  the  doubtful  genuineness  of  this  canon,  Credner, 
Gfeschichte  d.  NeutestamentlicJien  Kanons,  p.  217  ff.  [Hefele, 
History  of  the  Councils  of  the  Church,  vol.  ii.  Edinburgh  1876, 
p.  323  f.] 

18.  The  Latin  Church  took  a  course  somewhat  different 
from  that  of  the  Greek  Church,  a  course  by  which,  unfortun 
ately,  the  results  of  study  won  among  the  Greeks,  and  used 
with  wise  consideration  for  the  customary  practice  of  the 
Church,  were  again  lost,  which  is  all  the  more  remarkable 
when  we  consider  that  the  Latin  Church  seemed  to  have  been 
placed,  in  consequence  of  Jerome's  extraordinary  attainments 
in  the  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  best  position 
for  a  happy  solution  of  the  whole  question.  In  the  Prologus 
galcatus,  referred  to  in  §  7,  Jerome  gives  a  thoroughly  wrought- 
out  description  of  the  genuine  Jewish  Canon  with  its  twenty- 
two  or  twenty-four  books  ;  and  thereafter  he  remarks  briefly 
and  well  :  "  Quicquid  extra  hoc  est,  inter  apocrypha  ponen- 
dum."  He  thus  takes  up  his  position  quite  at  the  Palestinian 


§  18.    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  IN  THE  LATIN  CHURCH.       6  I 

standpoint,  while  he  still  uses  the  word  "  apocryphal "  with  a 
much  wider  signification  than  the  Jews  did  their  word  tJJ 
(§  2).  Even  those  books  which  the  Greek  fathers  permitted 
to  be  read  were,  according  to  this  mode  of  representation, 
included  among  the  ajro/cpvcfra.  Nevertheless,  Jerome  was  not 
himself  in  a  position  to  maintain  this  standpoint  over  against 
the  practice  of  the  Church,  but  repeatedly  falls  back  into  the 
mediating  practice  of  the  Greeks.  Indeed,  he  translated  from 
the  Apocrypha,  and  that  entirely  in  consequence  of  the 
demands  of  his  fellow-countrymen,  only  Tobit,  Judith,  and  the 
additions  to  Esther  and  Daniel,  these  latter  writings  bein^ 

'  O  O 

distinguished  from  the  canonical  by  diacritical  marks  ;  but  in 
the  prologue  to  the  Libri  Salomonis  he  gives  the  non-canonical 
writings  used  in  the  Church  the  same  intermediate  place  which 
they  held  among  the  Greeks,  while  he  remarks  of  Jesus  Sirach 
and  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom :  "  Hrec  duo  volumina  legit 
(ecclesia)  ad  sedificationem  plebis,  non  ad  auctoritatem 
ecclesiasticorum  dogmatum  confirmandam  "  ;  and  so  he  him 
self  not  infrequently  quotes  various  apocryphal  works, 
especially  Jesus  Sirach, — -once  expressly  introducing  his 
quotation  (Comment,  on  Isaiah,  iii.  12)  with  a  "  dicente  scrip- 
tura  sancta."  Meanwhile,  the  Western  Church,  striving  after 
unequivocal  and  definite  forms,  did  not  regard  with  favour 
this  somewhat  uncertain  intermediate  position  of  the  books 
allowed  to  be  read  (libri  ecclesiastici).  Instead  of  now  solving 
the  problem  by  an  uncompromising  acceptance  of  the  Jewish 
practice,  the  attempt  was  rather  made  to  abolish  altogether 
the  distinction  between  canonical  books  and  books  that  might 
simply  be  read.  In  the  Latin  Bible  manuscripts  prior  to 
Jerome,  just  as  among  the  Greeks,  non-canonical  writings  are 
found  along  with  the  canonical.  Only  here  the  number  of 
the  non-canonical  writings  did  not  vary  so  much  as  among 
the  Greeks,  while  the  manuscripts  regularly  embraced  the 
writings  received  bv  most  of  the  Churches,  i.e.  the  Wisdom 


62       §  18.    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  IN  THE  LATIN  CHURCH. 

of  Solomon,  Jesus  Sirach,  Tobit,  Judith,  1  and  2  Maccabees, 
and  the  additions  to  Daniel,  Esther,  and  Jeremiah.  The 
ecclesiastical  usus  was  now  regarded  as  decisive,  and  all  those 
writings  were  pronounced  canonical,  without  paying  any 
regard  to  the  Jewish  Canon  and  the  opposing  remarks  of 
Jerome.  It  was  pre-eminently  the  African  Church  which, 
under  the  guidance  of  Augustine,  came  to  this  practical,  but 
not  historically  justifiable,  decision,  for  the  first  time  at  the 
Church  Assemblies  at  Hippo,  A.D.  393,  and  Carthage,  A.D.  397, 
to  whose  lot  it  thus  fell  to  give  to  the  Alexandrine  Canon 
that  fixity  of  limits  which  it  had  not  hitherto. 

Concerning  Jerome  compare,  besides  the  Prologus  galeatus, 
his  preface  to  the  Liber  Tobice :  "  Feci  satis  desiderio  vestro 
non  tamen  meo  studio.  Arguunt  enim  nos  Hebneorum 
studia:  et  imputant  nobis  contra  suum  canonem  Latinis 
auribus  ista  transferre.  Sed  melius  esse  judicans  Pharisse- 
orum  displicere  judicio,  et  episcoporum  jussionibus  deservire, 
institi  ut  potui."  Similarly,  too,  in  the  preface  to  the  Liber 
Judith :  "  Apud  Hebrseos  Judith  inter  apocrypha  legitur : 
cujus  auctoritas  ad  roboranda  ilia  quae  in  contentionem 
veiriunt,  minus  idonea  judicatur.  Sed  quia  hunc  librum 
synodus  Nicsena  in  numero  sanctarum  scripturarum  legitur 
computasse,  acquievi  postulationi  vestroe,  immo  exactioni." 
Further,  the  Epistola  7  ad  Lcctam :  "  Caveat  omnia  apocrypha 
et  si  quando  ea  non  ad  dogmatum  veritatem,  sed  ad  signorum 
reverentiam  legere  voluerit,  sciat  non  eorum  esse,  quorum 
titulis  praenotatur,  multaque  his  admixta  vitiosa,  et  grandis 
esse  prudentise  aurum  in  luto  qussrere." 

A  list  of  the  books  in  the  old  Latin  Bible  translations  is 
given  by  Cassiodorus,  De  institutione  divinarium  litterarum, 
c.  14.  Alongside  of  this  we  should  take  notice  of  a  list  of 
the  canonical  books  found  by  Mommsen  at  Cheltenham,  which 
belongs  to  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century.  Compare 
with  reference  to  it :  Mommsen  in  Hermes,  xxi.  142  ff. ;  Zahn 
in  ZKWL,  1886,  iii. ;  Harnack,  Theolog.  Litt.  Zvitung,  1886, 
Nr.  8;  and  J.  Weiss  in  ZWT,  xxx.  157  ff.  Augustine 


§  18.    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON  IN  THE  LATIN  CHURCH.       63 


treats  this  question  in  De  doctrina  Christiana,  ii.  8  ;  compare 
De  praxlest.  sand.  i.  11.  On  the  Councils  at  Hippo  and 
Carthage  see  Bruns,  Canones  apostolorum  ct  conciliorum, 
i.  133  and  138.  The  following  tables  may  help  to  an  under 
standing  of  the  order  of  succession  of  the  particular  books  in 
these  lists.  They  all  have  in  the  same  order:  the  five 
Books  of  Moses,  only  the  Cheltenham  list  puts  Numbers 
before  Leviticus  (compare  on  that  point  Zahn,  GescJiichte  d. 
Neutestamentl.  Kanons,  i.  63);  then  follow  Joshua,  Judges, 
Euth,  the  four  Books  of  Kings,  and  two  Books  of  Para- 
lipomena.  Thereafter  the  list  runs  as  follows : — 


CASSIODOEUS. 

Psalms 

Proverbs 

Wisdom   of   Solo 
mon 

Sirach 

Ecclesiastes 

The  Song 

Isaiah 

Jeremiah 

Ezekiel 

Daniel 

Twelve  Prophets 

Job 

Tobit 

Esther 

Judith 

Ezra-Neh. 

1  and  2  Maccabees 


CHELTENHAM. 
1  and  2  Maccabees 
Job 
Tobit 
Esther 
Judith 
Psalms 
Five      Books      of 

Solomon 
Isaiah 
Jeremiah 
Daniel 
Ezekiel 
Twelve  Prophets 


AUGUSTINE. 

Job 

Tobit 

Esther 

Judith 

1  and  2  Maccabees 

Ezra-Neh . 

Psalms 

Proverbs 

The  Song 

Ecclesiastes 

Wisdom    of    Solo 
mon 

Siraeh 

Twelve  Prophets 

Isaiah 

Jeremiah 

Daniel 

Ezekiel 


HIPPO. 
Job 

Psalms 
Five      Books      of 

Solomon 
Twelve  Prophets 
Isaiah 
Jeremiah 
Daniel 
Ezekiel 
Tobit 
Judith 
Esther 
Ezra-Neh. 
1  and  2  Maccabees 


In  the  Cheltenham  list  very  remarkably  the  Book  of 
Ezra-Nehemiah  is  wanting.  The  order  of  succession:  Daniel, 
Ezekiel,  is  the  same  in  the  last  three  columns.  Of  the  Books 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  and  Sirach,  which  in  the  other  lists 
are  simply  regarded  as  writings  of  Solomon,  Augustine  says : 
"  De  quad  am  similitudine  Salomonis  esse  dicuntur."  In  the 
Hippo  list  there  is  apparent  an  endeavour  to  gather  together 
at  the  end  of  the  canon  the  books  regarded  by  the  Jews  as 
non-canonical,  while  among  them  is  included  the  Book  of 
Esther,  as  with  Athanasius.  Compare  further  in  regard  to 
the  repeating  of  the  list  of  Cassiodorus  in  the  Codex  Amia- 
tinus:  Corssen,  JPT,  ix.  619  ff.,  and  below  at  §  58.  [See 
also  Studia  Biblica  ct  Ecdesiastica,  vol.  ii.  Oxf.  1890,  p.  289  ff., 


64  §  19.    THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 

vol.  iii.  1891,  pp.  217-325;  The  Cheltenham  List  of  the 
Canonical  Books,  and  of  the  Writings  of  Cyprian,  by  W. 
Sanday  and  C.  H.  Turner.] 

19.  The  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  Middle  Ages  vacillated 
in  their  representations  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon  between 
the  great  authority  of  Augustine  on  the  one  hand,  and  of 
Jerome  on  the  other,  although  even  the  practice  of  the  Church 
as  a  rule  followed  the  good  example  given  by  the  Africans. 
Many  Latin  Bible  manuscripts  contained,  besides  the  usual 
"  books  allowed  to  be  read"  (§  18),  also  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra. 
The  whole  question  was  an  open  one,  and  the  Church  used 
no  constraint  in  regard  to  the  answering  of  it.  But  when  at 

O  O 

a  subsequent  period  Protestantism  attached  itself  decisively  to 
the  fundamental  position  of  Jerome,  the  matter  was  settled, 
so  far  as  the  Eomish  Church  was  concerned,  per  viam  opposi- 
tionis,  and  Rome  had  the  courage  not  only  to  take  under  its 
protection  the  practice  of  the  Church,  but  also  to  proclaim 
it  as  a  condition  of  salvation  :  "  Si  quis  libros  integros  cum 
omnibus  suis  partibus,  prout  in  ecclesia  catholica  legi  con- 
sueverunt,  et  in  veteri  vulgata  Latina  editione  habentur, 
pro  sacris  et  canonicis  noii  susceperit,  et  traditiones  prre- 
dictas  sciens  et  prudens  contemserit,  anathema  sit "  (Condi. 
Trident,  iv.  c.  1).  The  non-canonical  books  referred  to,  which 
in  this  way  were  declared  canonical,  were:  the  additions  to  the 
Books  of  Daniel  and  Esther,  Baruch,with  the  Letter  of  Jeremiah, 
the  two  First  Books  of  Maccabees,  Judith,  Tobit,  Jesus  Sirach, 
and  the  Book  of  Wisdom.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Third  and 
Fourth  Books  of  Maccabees,  and  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh,  were 
only  added  as  appendices  to  the  New  Testament.  This  solu 
tion  of  the  question  of  the  canon,  which,  especially  in  view 
of  the  repeated  and  emphatic  declarations  of  Jerome,  must  be 
regarded  as  a  rather  brutal  one,  brought  several  Catholic 
theologians  at  a  later  period  into  no  slight  embarrassment,  but 
their  attempt  to  secure  acceptance  again  for  the  older  Greek 


§  20.    CARLSTADT,  LUTHER.  65 

practice,  by  making  a  distinction  between  proto-canonical  and 
deutero-canonical  books,  was  too  evidently  in  contradiction  to 
the  clear  words  of  the  Tridentine  Council  to  be  of  any  real 
avail. 

The  Greek  Church,  too,  after  various  vacillations,  and  after 
a  passing  attempt  to  adopt  the  theory  proposed  by  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem  and  Jerome,  decided,  at  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  in 
A.D.  1672,  to  canonise  the  books  which  were  allowed  to  be 
read  in  the  Church. 

The  literature  of  the  development  sketched  in  the  above 
section  will  be  found  in  I)e  Wette-Schrader,  Einleitung,  pp. 
62-68  ;  see  also  Bleek,  TSK,  1853,  pp.  271,  274.  On  the 
attempted  degrading  of  the  books  read  in  the  Church  to  the 
rank  of  "  deutero-canonical,"  by  Sixtus  of  Siena  (Bibliotli. 
sancta,  1566),  Bernard  Lamy  (Apparat.  ad  BiUia,  1687), 
Jahn  (Einleitung,  i.  141  ff.),  etc.,  compare  Welte  in  the 
TIicol  Quartalsclirift,  1839,  p.  230  ff.,  and  Scholz,  Eirilcitung, 
i.  262  f.  On  the  Greek  Church,  compare  Bleek,  TSK,  1853, 
p.  276  ff. ;  Herzog's  Real-Encylopcedie,  vii.  445  f. 

20.  The  Reformation,  which  from  the  first  directed  its 
attention  to  the  Holy  Scripture  as  the  means,  by  the  use  of 
which  the  great  reaction  in  the  direction  of  genuine  Chris 
tianity  could  be  carried  out,  was  of  necessity  obliged  to  come 
to  some  decision  on  the  question,  as  to  the  canonical  worth 
of  the  books  received  into  the  Bible  as  books  that  might  be 
read.  The  first  who  treated  this  question,  hitherto  left  open, 
in  a  thoroughgoing  manner,  was  the  Hotspur  of  the  Refor 
mation,  Andrew  Carlstadt,  in  his  little  tract,  DC  canonicis 
scripturis,  1520.  In  this  treatise  he  describes  the  opinions 
of  Augustine  and  Jerome,  and  himself  adopts  very  decidedly 
the  view  which  Jerome  had  expressed  in  his  Prologus  galeatus 
(§  18),  while,  without  any  reference  to  the  practice  of  the 
Church,  he  styles  all  writings  apocryphal  which  had  not  been 

received  by  the  Palestinians.      In  the  Zurich  Bible  of  1529 

E 


66  §  20.    CARLSTADT,  LUTHER. 

and  1530,  the  non-canonical  writings  were  not  indeed  left  out, 
but  they  were  placed,  in  Leo  Judea's  German  translation,  at 
the  end  of  the  whole  Bible,  with  the  remark :  "  These  are  the 
books  of  the  Bible,  which  by  the  ancients  are  not  numbered 
among  those  of  the  Bible,  and  also  are  not  found  among  the 
Hebrews."  Among  those  there  were  included,  not  only  the 
usual  books  allowed  to  be  read,  but  also  Third  and  Fourth 
Books  of  Ezra  and  Third  Maccabees  ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  was 
only  at  a  later  period  that  the  Song  of  the  Three  Children,  the 
Prayer  of  Manasseh,  and  the  additions  to  Esther  were  received. 
Luther  also  translated  the  non-canonical  writings  which 
were  read  in  the  Church.  Even  in  A.D.  1519  he  published 
the  Prayer  of  Manasseh  as  a  supplement  to  his  treatise :  Eine 
kurze  Untcrweisung,  wie  man  beicJiten  soil.  In  A.D.  1529 
appeared  the  Book  of  "Wisdom,  and  in  A.D.  1533— 1534,  Judith, 
Tobit,  Jesus  Sirach,Baruch,the  two  Books  of  Maccabees,  and  the 
additions  to  the  Books  of  Esther  and  Daniel ;  while  the  Third 
and  Fourth  Books  of  Ezra  and  the  Third  and  Fourth  Books  of 
Maccabees  were  not  translated.  But,  at  the  same  time,  we 
meet  in  his  writings  with  a  remarkable  criticism  which  was 
directed  not  merely  against  these  waitings  but  also  against  par 
ticular  books  of  the  Hagiographa,  and  treated  not  only  the 
practice  of  the  Church,  but  also  the  old  Jewish  decisions 
regarding  the  canon,  with  excessive  freedom.  Alongside  of 
sharp  expressions  against  several  of  the  non-canonical  writ 
ings  above  named,  and  reminders  that  they  had  tiot  been 
received  into  the  Hebrew  Bibles,  there  are  to  be  found  in  his 
writings  no  less  free  denunciations  of  the  Books  of  Esther, 
Ecclesiastes,  and  Chronicles.  Indeed,  he  himself  employed  the 
expression  that,  while  the  Book  of  Esther  ought  to  have  been 
excluded  from  the  canon,  the  First  Book  of  Maccabees 
deserved  to  have  been  included  in  it.  It  is  the  old 
criticism  of  the  several  Books  of  the  Hagiographa  such  as  we 
meet  with  among  the  Jews  (§  8,  compare  §  15),  which  is 


§  20.    CAELSTADT,  LUTHER.  67 

here  repeated,  not  however  under  the  immediate  influence  of 
historical  facts,  but  under  the  impression  which  these  writings 
made  on  his  religiously  sensitive  nature,  whose  task  it  was 
not  to  examine  into  their  historical  significance  and  their 
consequent  right  to  a  place  in  the  canon,  but  to  give  ex 
pression  to  the  fundamental  ideas  of  revelation  in  their  purity 
and  overmastering  power,  and  to  estimate  everything  accord 
ing  as  it  contributed  to  that  end.  In  his  translation  of  the 
Bible,  completed  in  A.D.  1534,  Luther  follows  the  example 
of  Jerome  and  Carlstadt  in  denominating  the  books  allowed 
to  be  read  "  apocryphal,"  and  distinguishing  them  from  the 
canonical  books  ;  but  he  keeps  somewhat  nearer  the  mediating 
practice  of  the  Greek  fathers  (§  17,  compare  even  Jerome 
himself,  §  18),  when  he  places  them  after  the  canonical  Old 
Testament,  with  the  words  of  introduction  :  "  These  are  books 
not  to  be  held  in  equal  esteem  with  those  of  Holy  Scripture, 
but  yet  good  and  useful  for  reading."  Through  a  very 
natural  misconception  it  thus  became  general  to  understand 
by  "apocryphal"  just  those  non-canonical  writings  received 
into  the  ordinary  Bibles,  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  usus 
loquendi  of  the  Greek  fathers,  who  called  "apocryphal"  the 
books  that  were  excluded  from  the  Bibles  of  the  Church.  In 
later  times  the  term  "  Pseudepigraphic  "  was  introduced  to 
denominate  this  latter  class  of  books,  which,  however,  is  less 
suitable,  inasmuch  as  Pseudepigraphs  are  also  found  among 
the  books  admitted  to  be  read  by  the  Church,  so  that  indeed 
even  Jerome,  in  his  preface  to  the  writings  of  Solomon, 
named  the  Book  of  Wisdom  of  Solomon  a 


The  treatise  :  DC,  canonicis  scripturis  libdlus  D.  Andrew 
Bodenstein-Carhtadt  is  reprinted  with  a  historical  introduction 
in  Creduer's  Zur  Gcschicktc  dcs  Kanons  (1847,  p.  291  fif.)  ; 
see  especially  §  81  (p.  364):  "  Nunc  autem,  ut  de  meo  quid- 
dam  additiam,  constat  incertitudinem  autoris  non  facere 
apocrypha  scripta,  nee  certum  autorem  reddere  canonicas 


68  §  20.    LUTHER. 

scripturas,  seel  quod  solus  canon  libros,  quos  respuit,  apocry- 
phos  facit,  sive  habeant  autores  et  nomina  sive  non." 

On  the  Zurich  Bible  and  the  "  Combined  Bibles  "  made  up 
from  it,  and  from  Luther's  translations,  compare  Herzog's  Eeal- 
Encyclopcedie^,  iii.  550,  554  f. 

The  above-mentioned  prefaces  to  the  translations  of  the 
Apocrypha  are  found  in  Luther's  Samtlichen  Werken,  Erlangen, 
Ixiii.  91-108.  Of  the  First  Book  of  Maccabees  it  is  said 
(p.  104):  "This  book  is  also  one  which  is  not  to  be  met 
with  in  the  Hebrew  Bibles.  It  is,  however,  almost  equal  in 
its  discourses  and  language  to  the  other  books  of  Holy 
Scripture,  and  would  not  have  been  unworthy  of  a  place 
among  them,  for  it  certainly  is  a  necessary  and  useful  book 
for  the  understanding  of  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Daniel."  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  said  of  the  Second  Book  of  Maccabees  : 
"  In  short,  just  as  we  were  willing  that  the  First  Book  should 
be  received  into  the  number  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  so  we 
are  willing  that  the  Second  Book  should  be  rejected,  though 
there  is  something  good  in  it."  Further,  there  are  the  follow 
ing  statements  to  be  compared: — Erlang.  Ausy.  Ixii.  131: 
And  when  he,  the  doctor,  corrected  the  Second  Book  of 
Maccabees,  he  said :  "  I  am  so  opposed  to  this  book  and  to 
Esther  that  I  wished  they  had  not  been  extant,  for  they 
Judaise  too  much  and  have  many  heathenish  improprieties." 
De  servo  arlitrio :  "Liber  Esther  quamvis  nunc  habent  in 
canone,  dignior  omnibus,  me  judice,  qui  extra  canonem  habere- 
tur."  Erlang.  Auscj.  Ixii.  p.  132  :  "  The  Books  of  Kings  go  a 
hundred  thousand  steps  beyond  him  who  has  written  the 
Chronicles,  for  he  has  only  indicated  the  sum  and  pointed 
out  the  most  remarkable  points  in  the  history,  and  has  passed 
over  what  is  bad  and  small ;  therefore  the  Books  of  Kings  are 
more  to  be  believed  than  the  Books  of  Chronicles."  The 
same,  p.  128:  Of  the  book  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiastes,  he  says: 
"  This  book  ought  to  be  more  complete,  it  is  too  fragmentary, 
it  has  neither  boot  nor  spur,  it  rides  only  in  socks,  as  I  did 
myself,  when  I  was  still  in  the  cloister.  I  do  not  believe 
that  Solomon  has  been  damned,  but  this  was  written  to 
frighten  kings,  princes,  and  lords.  So  he  did  not  himself 


§  21.    THE  REFORMED  CHURCH.  69 

write  the  Book  Ecclesiastes,  but  it  was  composed  by  Sirach 
in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees."  We  must,  however,  compare 
with  these  the  divergent  statements  of  vol.  Ixiii.  p.  40,  and 
Eclitio  Erlang.  Latina,  xxi.  1  ff. 

The  Apocrypha  received  into  the  Lutheran  translation  of 
the  Bible  are  exactly  the  same  as  those  canonised  by  the 
Itomish  Church,  only  that  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh  has  also 
been  adopted.  In  not  a  few  Protestant  Bible  translations  the 
Apocalypse  of  Ezra  (i.e.  the  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra)  also  finds 
place  among  the  Apocrypha.  Compare  Gildemeister,  Esdrcc 
liber  quartus  arabice,  1877,  p.  42. 

21.  In  the  Reformed  Church  also,  in  the  earliest  times, 
the  Apocrypha  was  allowed  its  intermediate  position  in  the 
Bible  translations,  but  the  stricter  principle  of  Scripture  in  the 
Churches  influenced  by  Calvin  carried  with  it  the  consequence 
that,  on  the  one  hand,  their  want  of  canonicity  was  em 
phasised  in  the  confessional  writings  as  was  not  done  in  the 
Lutheran  confession ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  repeated 
endeavours  were  made  to  have  them  completely  removed 
from  Bible  translations.  Even  at  the  Synod  of  Dort,  in  A.D, 
1618-1619,  Gomarus,  Deodatus,  and  others,  insisted  upon 
having  the  Apocrypha  withdrawn  from  the  Bible,  without 
being  able  to  induce  the  Synod  to  sanction  this  breach  with 
the  practice  of  the  Church.  At  a  somewhat  later  period,  the 
Puritan  Confession,  Confessio  Westmonasteriensis,  1648  (the 
Westminster  Confession,  i.  3),  pronounced  the  apocryphal 
writings  to  be  of  equal  value  with  ordinary  human  writings, 
which  had,  as  a  natural  consequence,  the  exclusion  of  these 
from  the  Bible.  But  it  was  only  in  the  beginning  of  the 
present  century  that  the  controversy  about  the  position  of  the 
Apocrypha  assumed  more  serious  dimensions.  On  the  ground 
of  the  Puritan  Confession,  the  Edinburgh  Committee  of  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  on  17th  January  1825, 
protested  against  the  resolution  of  the  Society  to  allow, 
especially  in  Bible  translations  in  foreign  languages,  the 


70  §  21.    THE  REF011MED  CHURCH. 

adoption  of  the  Apocrypha,  and  emphatically  demanded  its 
withdrawal  as  a  condition  of  their  continuing  to  take  part  in 
the  work  along  with  the  other  local  committees.  The  two 
years'  struggle  that  thus  arose  ended  in  the  victory  of  the 
enemies  of  the  Apocrypha,  so  that  the  Bibles  published  since 
by  the  Society  contain  only  the  canonical  writings.  The 
controversy  also  broke  out  in  Denmark,  where  Jens  Moller, 
in  a  successful  pamphlet,  vindicated  the  Apocrypha  against 
Pastor  N.  Blicher. 

At  a  subsequent  period,  a  prize  offered  by  the  Baden 
Administrative  Council  of  the  Inner  Mission  in  the  year 
1850,  for  an  essay  on  the  significance  of  the  Apocrypha, 
called  forth  a  series  of,  in  some  cases,  very  solid  controversial 
treatises,  which  indeed  led  to  no  practical  results,  but  afforded 
admirable  contributions  to  the  discussion  of  the  question. 

The  judgments  of  the  Reformed  Confessional  writings  are  to  be 
found  in  Niemeyer's  Collectio  confcssionum  in  ecclesiis  reformatis 
puUicatarum,  Leipsic  1840,  with  an  Appendix,  Halle  1840  ; 
Confessio  fidei  Gallicana,  p.  329  f.;  Confessio  Scotica,  i.  350; 
Confcssio  Belyica,  p.  362  ;  Confessio  Helvetica  poster,  p.  468; 
The  English  XXXIX  Articles,  p.  602  ;  Dedaratio  Thoruni- 
ensis,  p.  670f. ;  Confessio  Boliemica,  p.  787.  In  the  West 
minster  Confession,  i.  3,  it  is  said :  "  The  books  commonly 
called  Apocrypha,  not  being  of  divine  inspiration,  are  no  part 
of  the  canon  of  the  Scripture  ;  and  therefore  are  of  no  authority 
to  the  Church  of  God,  nor  to  be  otherwise  approved,  or  made 
use  of,  than  any  other  human  writings." 

On  the  Synod  of  Dort,  see  Ada  synodi  nat.  Dordrecti  habitce, 
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,  Eobert  and  Alexander  Hal- 
dane,  Marcus  Dods  of  Belford,  Charles  Simeon,  Henry  Venn, 
and  others  opposed  that  circulation,  may  be  studied  in  detail 
in  a  collection  of  Pamphlets  on  the  Apocrypha  Controversy,  in 
4  vols.,  1825-1827.] 


§  22.    CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  71 

Xiels  Blicher,  in  Theol.  Maanedsskrift,  fur  Oct.  1827  ;  Jens 
Holier,  in  Nyt  theol  Bibliotliek,  xv.  1829,  p.  1  ff. 

Ph.  F.  Keerl,  Die  Apocryphen  d.  A.  T.  1852  (prize  essay)  ; 
End.  Stier,  Die  Apocryphen,  1853;  Hengstenberg  in  the 
Evany.  Kirchenzeitunrj ,  1853;  Bleek  in  TSK,  1853,  p.  267- 
354.  Further  literature  also  in  Keil,  Einleitung,  p.  665,Eng. 
trans,  vol.  ii.  376  ff;  and  in  Bleek,  Einleitung,  p.  281  f. 

22.  As  the  above  sketch  has  shown,  a  pretty  considerable 
difference  of  opinion  has  always  prevailed  within  the  Christian 
Church  in  reference  to  the  value  and  position  of  the  Apocrypha. 
The  two  extremes  are  represented  by  the  Catholics  and  by  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  while  the  Lutheran  Church 
occupies  an  intermediate  position.  It  cannot  really  admit  of 
any  doubt,  that  the  Protestant  Church  has,  upon  the  whole, 
done  right — as  the  Greek  fathers  more  or  less  hesitatingly,  and 
Jerome  without  hesitation,  had  done — in  regarding  the  Jews 
as  the  true  authority  on  the  question  as  to  the  extent  of  the 
Old  Testament  Canon.  The  people  of  Israel,  to  whom  the  Old 
Testament  revelation  had  been  entrusted,  and  whose  life  task 
it  was  to  preserve  it  uncorrupted,  are  in  fact  the  legitimate  and 
competent  judges,  when  it  has  to  be  decided  in  what  writings 
this  revelation  appears  in  purity  and  free  from  all  foreign  and 
modifying  elements.  That  we  are  no  longer  in  a  position 
fully  to  trace  out  the  principles  which  led  the  scribes  in  their 
determinations  regarding  the  canon,  and  that  those  principles 
which  can  still  be  understood  are  in  many  cases  extremely 
peculiar,  cannot  be  regarded,  as  in  this  connection,  of  any 
importance.  For  it  is  not  with  the  views  of  the  scribes  that 
we  have  to  do,  but  only  with  the  favour  shown  to  the 
Scriptures  and  their  circulation  among  the  people,  of  which  the 
decrees  of  the  rabbis  as  to  the  canon  are  simply  an  echo.  The 
spread  and  recognition  which  the  books  had  won  in  the 
genuinely  Jewish  community  is  the  material  which  the  scribes 
had  to  work  up  in  their  own  way ;  but  how  they  succeeded 


72  §  22.    CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

in  this  is  only  of  secondary  interest,  while  the  firm  position 
of  the  writings  among  the  members  of  the  community  affords 
the  special  guarantee  that  they  recognised  in  them  a  true 
reflection  of  their  spiritual  life,  and  that  these  writings,  there 
fore,  must  he  accepted  by  us  as  the  canonical  means  of  learning 
to  know  that  life.  Our  task  consists  essentially  in  pointing 
out  on  this  basis  the  significance  of  the  several  writings  within 
the  history  of  the  Old  Covenant,  and  in  thereby  proving  their 
canonical  authorisation  with  a  more  complete  apparatus  than 
was  at  the  disposal  of  the  Pharisees.  But  in  order  to  do  this, 
we  must  above  all  firmly  maintain  that  this  task  cannot  be 
solved,  so  long  as  one  considers  the  Old  Testament  writings 
under  a  purely  religious  aspect,  as  commonly  was  the  case  in 
earlier  times.  Such  a  mode  of  considering  them  will,  in  a 
strong  and  independent  religious  nature,  of  necessity  lead  to 
depreciatory  estimates  of  particular  writings,  such  as  we  meet 
with  in  Luther.  The  Old  Testament  writings  are  not  expressive 
of  a  religion  which  in  regular  and  undisturbed  progression 
advances  to  a  conclusive  summit,  but  a  preparatory  revelation, 
which  after  it  has  reached  its  culmination  begins  to  sink  and 
to  dissolve  away  in  order  that  it  may  thereby  itself  become 
conscious  of  its  incompleteness,  which  was  destined  to  give 
way  before  the  new  and  perfect.  This  age  of  general  dissolu 
tion,  in  which  some  Israelites  broke  away  from  the  faith  of 
their  fathers  without  being  able  to  transcend  it,  because  the 
new  had  not  yet  appeared,  while  others,  seeking  escape  for 
themselves  by  forgetting  the  preceding  noble  development  of 
the  prophetic  age  with  its  ideal  claims  and  satisfying  them 
selves  with  a  lower  standpoint,  produced  writings  in  which 
the  community  recognised  a  genuine  picture  of  the  moral  and 
spiritual  currents  by  which  it  was  moved.  Too  much  stress 
cannot  be  laid  upon  the  fact  that  such  writings,  not  only  were 
received  into  the  canon,  but  even  maintained  their  place  there 
in  spite  of  the  attacks  of  later  times  (§  8).  However 


§  22.    CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  73 

imperfect  the  method  followed  by  the  scribes  in  their  treat 
ment  of  these  writings  may  have  been,  they  were  at  least 
guided  by  the  correct  feeling  that  those  books,  according  to 
their  innermost  essence,  were  true  and  genuine  expressions  of 
the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  will  also  be  confirmed 
by  every  really  scientific  investigation.  It  is  therefore  the 
distinguishing  excellence  of  the  Protestant  Church,  over 
against  the  Eomish  and  Greek  Churches,  that  it  has  put  before 
its  members  the  canonical  books  pure  and  without  any 
admixture.  Only  these  books  give  us  a  true  picture  of  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  Old  Covenant  called  forth  by  revelation 
and  miraculous  leading,  and  they  only  show  the  prophecies 
contained  in  prophetic  words  and  actions,  whose  fulfilment 
and  completion  is  Jesus  Christ.  And  so,  too,  in  the  New 
Testament,  Scripture  proof  is  taken  only  from  "  the  Law,  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Psalms"  (§  14).  At  a  greater  or  less 
distance  from  this  circle  stand,  on  the  other  hand,  the  non- 
canonical  writings.  Indeed,  in  some  of  them  the  wonderfully 
fascinating  Old  Testament  life  throbs  with  no  little  vigour ; 
yea,  it  were  wrong  to  deny  that  we  meet  with  a  richer  and 
higher  spirit  in  the  P>ook  of  Wisdom  than  in  the  Book  of 
Esther  or  the  Book  of  Chronicles,  and  that  perhaps  nothing 
in  the  Apocrypha  gives  so  much  offence  in  its  direct  religious 
application  as  Ecclesiastes.  But,  nevertheless,  even  in  regard 
to  them,  a  thoroughgoing  examination  will  confirm  the  judg 
ment  of  the  Palestinian  community,  and  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  these  non-canonical  books,  one  and  all,  must  retreat  into 
the  background,  if  we  are  to  obtain  a  true  picture  of  the  Old 
Testament  revelation,  with  its  peculiar  course  of  development 
and  the  forms  of  life  thereby  called  forth.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  can  be  easily  understood  how  the  Church,  which  renounced 
those  forms  in  order  to  take  up  into  itself  all  mankind,  might 
conceive  an  affection  for  some  of  these  writings,  and  esteem 
the  spirit  that  throbbed  in  them  better  than  the  Palestinians 


74  §  22.    CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

had  done  ;  and  so  far  one  is  able  to  approve  of  what  the  older 
Greek  and  Lutheran  Churches  did  in  respecting  the  traditional 
usage,  and  retaining  those  writings  in  their  Bible  translations. 
Bat  however  much  one  may  from  this  standpoint  recognise 
the  style  and  manner  in  which  the  Churches  named  above 
have  solved  the  question  of  the  canon,  there  is  yet  another 
point  in  which  Luther  and  those  who  followed  him  have  not 
succeeded  in  disengaging  themselves  from  an  inherited  incom 
pleteness.  In  the  Alexandrine  Bibles  the  introduction  of  the 
Apocrypha  led  also  to  this  result,  that  the  tripartite  division 
of  the  canon  was  abandoned,  although  it  played  so  important 
a  part  among  the  Palestinian  Jews  (§  3—5),  and  has  so 
essential  a  significance  for  the  right  estimation  of  the  several 
writings.  Now,  although  Luther  and  the  other  Protestant 
translators  of  the  Bible  set  the  non-canonical  writings  apart, 
and  gave  them  a  place  after  the  canon  proper,  they  did  not 
reintroduce  the  tripartite  division.  And  yet  it  is  obvious 
that  we  can  only  be  justified  in  adopting  Jewish  authority  on 
the  question  of  the  canon,  if  we  are  prepared  fully  to  appro 
priate  the  theory  of  the  Jews  with  respect  to  the  collection 
and  the  mutual  relation  of  the  canonical  books.  Indeed,  we 
find  that  the  New  Testament  expressly  gives  prominence  to 
the  threefold  division  as  intimately  connected  with  the  contents 
and  range  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon  (§§  7,  14).  It  is  a 
mistake  to  confine  the  knowledge  of  this  division  to  theological 
students,  and  it  would  undoubtedly  mark  an  important  step 
in  advance  if  the  original  order  and  division  were  again 
introduced  into  our  Bible  translations.  If  this  were  done,  it 
would  contribute  largely  to  the  bringing  before  the  people 
several  of  the  results  of  Old  Testament  research  and  to  the 
commending  of  these  results  as  historically  justifiable. 

The  above  exposition,  which  manifestly  leaves  untouched 
the  incontestably  high  scientific  importance  of  the  Apocrypha, 
does  not  exclude  the  fact  that  here  and  there  questions  about 


§  22,    CONCLUDING  REMARKS,  75 

the  boundary  line  will  arise.  Tims  it  has  been  already  told 
(§  12)  that  Ben  Sirach  had  obtained  a  pretty  wide  circula 
tion  among  the  Palestinians.  In  such  a  case  then  it  was 
exclusively  the  scribes  who,  according  to  some  settled  principle, 
gave  the  decision  as  to  whether  the  book  was  to  be  received 
into  the  collection  or  not.  What  sort  of  principle  this  was 
(the  lateness  of  the  period  during  which  the  author  lived  ?  or 
the  secondary  or  borrowed  character  of  the  Proverbs  ?)  cannot 
now  be  determined  with  any  degree  of  certainty.  The  ground 
on  which  the  First  Book  of  Maccabees  was  not  received  is 
more  distinct.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  description  of 
the  happy  reign  of  Simon,  c.  14,  is  given  with  so  many 
unmistakably  Messianic  expressions,  that  the  readers  must 
have  received  the  impression  that  the  author  had  seen  in  the 
Maccabean  rule  the  fulfilment  of  the  hope  of  Israel,  which 
therefore  must  place  the  book  outside  of  the  Old  Testament 
circle. 

Among  the  Hagiographa  pronounced  canonical,  only  "  The 
Song  "  causes  any  considerable  difficulty.  That  it  was  only 
at  a  very  late  period  received  into  the  collection  is  not  only 
not  supported  by  historical  evidence  (compare  §  8),  but  is  in 
itself  a  wholly  unhistorical  statement.  More  than  for  any 
other  single  writing  must  we  for  this  very  book  presuppose  an 
early  currency  and  general  favour ;  otherwise  it  would  cer 
tainly  never  have  occurred  to  any  Pharisee  to  regard  it  as 
canonical.  That  it  could  maintain  its  place  was  undoubtedly 
owing  to  the  allegorical  interpretation,  whether  suggested  by 
E.  Akiba  or  by  some  one  else.  But,  on  the  other  side,  the 
attacks  upon  its  canonicity  seem  plainly  to  show  that  this 
allegorical  interpretation  was  not  generally  accepted,  and  so 
there  remains  at  least  the  possibility  that  in  earlier  times, 
under  a  simple  understanding  of  it,  it  had  secured  in  the 
community  its  wide  circulation. 


THE 
HISTORY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  TEXT., 


PRELIMINARY   REMARKS. 


23.  Whoever  makes  a  study  of  the  history  of  the  Old 
Testament  text  must  put  up  with  very  defective  information 
in  many  directions.  'Not,  only  are  we  without  the  simplest 
and  surest  means  of  discovering  the  fortunes  of  the  text, 
namely,  the  original  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testament  them 
selves,  but  we  cannot  even  in  a  single  case  point  to  a  later 
text  in  manuscript  from  which  all  the  various  forms  of  text, 
as  they  now  lie  before  us,  may  have  been  derived.  And  so, 
indeed,  the  oldest  form  of  the  text  to  which  we  can  get  back, 
and  which  forms  the  common  source  of  all  texts  known  to  us, 
must  first  of  all  be  constructed  by  means  of  textual  criticism, 
and  that  certainly,  as  regards  various  passages,  with  varying 
degrees  of  certainty ;  and  between  the  oldest  text  attainable 
by  us  and  the  original  text  itself  there  now  lies  a  dark  space, 
where  all  objective  means  are  wanting  to  us  that  would  enable  us 
to  trace  the  external  and  internal  history  of  the  text.  In  order 
to  be  able  to  perform  its  task  within  the  sphere  thus  indicated, 
the  history  of  the  text  must  presuppose  all  along  the  line  the 
ascertained  critical  results  of  specialists.  Where  such  are 
wanting,  or  are  not  satisfactorily  established,  it  also  must  remain 
incomplete  and  fragmentary.  On  the  other  hand,  the  critical 
labours  of  specialists  will  be  regulated  by  the  history  of  the 
text,  and  will  find  even  through  it  a  firm  and  sure  method. 

A  sketch  of  the  means  that  are  at  our  command  for  the 
elucidation  of  the  textual  history  will  form  the  first  and  an 
essential  section  in  the  history  of  the  text.  Owing  to  the  fact 

79 


80  §  23.    PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

that  in  tracing  back  the  Old  Testament  text  the  direct  witnesses 
for  the  text,  after  a  relatively  short  time,  leave  us  without  the 
benefit  of  their  help,  the  secondary  sources  of  information,  the 
old  translations,  play  a  conspicuous  part,  so  that  a  quite  special 
attention  must  be  given  them.  At  the  same  time,  with  regard 

O  '  O 

to  them,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  in  the  history  of  the 
text  the  translations  come  into  consideration  only  according 
to  their  importance  for  the  text,  and  that  therefore  all  trans 
lations  which  originated  at  times  when  we  possess  direct 
witnesses  for  the  text  must  be  left  unmentioned.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  necessary  to  give  a  somewhat  full  description 
of  the  origination  and  character  of  the  other  translations ;  for 
only  in  this  way  will  the  uncritical  use  of  the  old  versions  be 
prevented,  of  which  the  history  of  exegesis  shows  so  many 
examples,  and  which,  in  a  restoration  of  the  original  of  a 
somewhat  wilful  character,  or  effected  by  outside  influences, 
discovers  immediately  a  witness  for  a  divergent,  and  for  its 
very  novelty  preferred,  form  of  text.  So,  too,  of  necessity  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  transmission  of  the  text  of  the 
translations  must  be  taken  into  consideration,  so  that  all  sorts 
of  readings  that  may  have  arisen  through  later  changes  may 
not  be  allowed  to  bear  false  witness  with  regard  to  a  form  of 
the  original  text  that  had  never  had  an  existence,  and  con 
versely,  that  no  real  but  later  variation  corrected  according 
to  the  original  text  may  be  lost  to  the  textual  critic. 

Compare,  in  addition  to  the  general  works  mentioned  in 
§  1,  the  following  writings : — 

Morinus,  Exercitationum  biblicarum  de  Hcbrcci  G-rcecique 
textus  sinceritate  libri  duo,  Paris  1669;  Cappellus,  Critica 
Sacra,  Paris  1650,  new  edition,  with  notes  by  Vogel  and  Schar- 
fenberg,  Halle  1775-86;  Humfredi  Hodii  De  UUiorum  texti- 
bus  originalibus,  versionibus  Greeds  et  latina  Vulgata  libri  iv. 
Oxf.  1705;  Hupfeld  in  TSK,  1830  and  1837;  the  second 
volume  of  Home's  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and 


§  23.    ITiELIMIXAltY  REMARKS.  81 

Knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  London  I860,  by  L)r.  Sain. 
Davidson ;  Dillmann,  "  Bibeltext  d.  A.  T."  in  Herzog's  Rcal- 
Encyclopacdie,  ii.  381  ff. ;  Strack,  Prolegomena  critica  in  V. 
T.  1873;  Weissmann,  Kanonisieruny  und  Fcststellung  dcs 
Tcxtcs  der  liciligen  Sehriflcn  A.  T.  nacli  primarcn  Quellcn 
(Hebr.),  Vienna  1887  ;  Cornill,  DasBuehdcs  Proplictcn  Ezccliid, 
1886,  pp.  1-175. 


I. 


MEANS  FOE  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF 
THE  TEXT. 

A. — THE  APPARATUS  PROPER. 

1.  Printed  Editions. 

24.  The  first  printed  editions  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
furnished  by  Jews.  First  of  all  in  the  year  1477  there  appeared 
a  very  defective  edition  of  the  Psalms  with  the  Commentary 
of  Kimchi;  next,  in  1488;  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament 
at  Soncino.  The  Brescia  Bible,  edited  by  E.  Gerson  ben 
Moses  in  1494,  dependent  upon  the  Soncino  edition,  was  the 
one  used  by  Luther  for  his  translation.  The  copy  used  by 
him  is  preserved  in  the  Eoyal  Library  at  Berlin.  It  was  not 
until  A.D.  1514-1517  that  the  Complutensian  Bible  referred 
to  below  appeared,  which  contained  the  first  edition  of  the 
original  Hebrew  text  issued  under  the  care  of  Christians.  It 
also  forms  the  real  editio  princeps  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
manual  edition  of  Bomberg  (Venice  1517,  1521,  and  often 
afterwards)  was  still  closely  related  to  the  Soncino  edition, 
whereas  the  manual  edition  of  Buxtorf  (Basel  1611)  rests 
partly  on  the  Complutensian  text,  partly  on  the  second  Bom- 
berg  Bible  spoken  of  below.  The  Athias  edition  of  J.  Leus- 
den  (Amsterdam  1661-67)  follows  these  editions,  but  with 
collation  of  several  manuscripts.  To  this  again  is  attached 
the  edition  of  E.  van  der  Hooght  (Amsterdam  1705),  on  which 
rests  the  widely  circulated  edition  of  Halm  and  Theile.  Of  a 

82 


§  24.    PRINTED  EDITIONS.  83 

more  independent  character  was  the  edition  of  the  text  issued 
under  the  charge  of  J.  H.  Michaelis  (Halle  1720).  In  more 
recent  times,  S.  Baer,  with  the  help  of  Franz  Delitzsch,  began 
the  editing  of  a  series  of  very  serviceable  separate  editions  of 
the  several  books,  corrected  according  to  the  Massoretic  text. 

Besides  these  special  editions  of  the  text  we  also  meet  with 
the  Hebrew  text  in  the  so-called  Polyglot  Bibles,  which, 
besides  the  original  text,  furnish  a  larger  or  smaller  number 
of  old  translations.  The  most  remarkable  of  these  is  the 
Complutensian  Bible,  edited  by  Cardinal  Francisco  Ximenes 
de  Cisnero  at  Alcala  (Complutum),  which  Conrad  Pellican 
rightly  hailed  as  marking  the  beginning  of  a  new  era  in 
linguistic  studies.  The  revision  of  the  Hebrew  text  is  indeed 
defective,  but  rests  on  good  Massoretic  manuscripts.  The 
great  Antwerp  Polyglot  contains  an  improved  reproduction 
of  this  edition. 

Lastly,  the  original  text  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  so-called 
Ptabbinical  Bibles,  where  it  is  accompanied  by  the  Targums 
and  various  Jewish  commentaries.  Among  these  the  first 
place  belongs  to  the  second  Bomberg  Bible  (1525-26),  the 
work  of  Jacob  ben  Chajim  ibn  Adonja,  because  of  its  text 
corrected  from  the  Massora  and  the  reproduction  of  the 
Massora  which  it  contains.  An  account  of  this  edition  is 
given  below.  The  edition  of  the  Old  Testament  published  at 
Mantua  1742-44,  resting  upon  a  Toledo  Bible  of  the  year 
1277,  is  also  deserving  of  mention,  because  in  it  is  incor 
porated  the  celebrated  commentary  of  Solomon  di  Nbrzi 
(Nurzia),  Minhath  Sai  (w  nrutt),  which  is  of  special  import 
ance  for  the  criticism  of  the  Massoretic  text.  The  same 
commentary,  composed  originally  in  1626  under  the  name 
Odder  pcres,  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  Vienna  Bible,  1813-16. 

Compare  De  Rossi,  Varies  lectioncs,  i.  p.  cxxxix  ff. ;  Le 
Long,  Bibliotlieca  sacra,  Paris  1723,  a  new  edition  by  Masch, 
Halle  1778-90;  De  Wette-Schrader,  EMeitung,  p.  217  ff; 


84  §  24.    ITJNTED  EDITIONS. 

Rosen  m  tiller,  Handluch  der  Litt.  d.  bill.  Kritik  und  Exegese, 
i.  189  ff.,  iii.  279  ff.  Of  the  Five  Megilloth  the  old  Mac- 
hazor  editions  ought  to  be  referred  to  ;  see  upon  these :  Baer, 
Quinque  volumina,  p.  iv.  To  the  works  named  in  De  Wette- 
Schrader,  Einleitung,  p.  217,  on  the  oldest  printed  Hebrew 
editions,  should  be  added :  F.  Sacchi,  /  tipographi  Elrei  di 
Soncino,  Cremona  1877.  On  Luther's  manual  edition  of  the 
Bible  compare  Delitzsch  in  the  Allgem.  Lutli.  Evany.  KZ,  1883, 
Nr.  51.  On  the  edition  of  the  Psalms  of  1477,  compare 
Baer,  Liber  psalmorum,  iv.  seq.  Of  Baer's  editions  there  have 
appeared:  Genesis,  1809;  Isaiah,  1872;  Jeremiah,  1890; 
Ezekiel,1884;  the  Twelve  Prophets,  1878  ;  the  Psalms,  1880; 
Proverbs,  1880;  Job,  1875;  the  Five  Megilloth,  188G;  Daniel, 
Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  1882  ;  Chronicles,  1888  ;  see  Euringer, 
Der  Masoratext  des  Kolicleth,  1890. 

Polyglots:  The  Complutensian  Bible,  1514-1517;  The 
Antwerp  Polyglot  ("  llegia "  or  "  Plantiniana,"  after  the 
Antwerp  printer  Christian  Plantin,  who  died  in  A.D.  1589), 
15G9-1572.  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  Billia  sacra, 
Hcbraice,  Greece  ct  Latine  ex  officina  Sanctandreana  1587  (1599 
and  1610  ex  officina  Commeliana).  Finally  the  Parisian  Poly 
glot,  1029-1645,  and  the  London  Polyglot,  1054-1657 
(1817-1828,  1831). — Franz  Delitzsch  has  dealt  with  the 
Complutensian  Polyglot  in  detail  in  three  Leipsic  Disserta 
tions  :  Studien  zur  Entstcliungsgescliiclite  der  Polygottenlilel  des 
Kardincds  Ximenes,  1871  (in  which  lie  gives,  p.  19  ff.,  a 
biographical  sketch  of  Ximenes,  and  at  p.  24  ff.  a  sketch  of 
his  fellow-workers  on  the  Polyglot) ;  Complutensisclie  Varianten 
zum  AlUcstam.  Texte,  1878  (with  investigations  about  the 
Hebrew  manuscripts  by  Ximenes) ;  Fortgesetzte  Studien  zur 
Entstcliungsgcscliichte  der  complutensischen  Polyglotte,  1886. 
See  more  particulars  below  at  p.  134. 

Ptabbinical  Bibles:  The  first  Bomberg  Bible,  edited  by 
Felix  Pratensis,  Vienna  1517-1518;  Second  Bomberg  Bible, 
edited  by  Jacob  ben  Chajim,  1525  ;  Buxtorf's  Bible,  Basel, 
1618-1619  ;  the  Billia  magna  r\m  mbnp  (rich  in  materials), 


§  25.    THE  SAMARITAN  TEXT.  85 

Am  sterdam   172  4-  1727;    Billia    hcbmica,    Warsaw   1875- 
1877. 

On  Solomon  di  Norzi's  Commentary  and  the  Mantuan 
edition,  see  Fiirst,  Bibliographisches  Handbucli  der  gesamten 
jiidischcn  Littcratur,  iii.  89  f.  Of  importance  in  connection 
with  the  Massora  is  the  edition  of  Genesis  by  Heidenheim, 
,  1818. 


25.  The  peculiar  form  of  the  Pentateuch  text  used  by  the 
Samaritans  (§  11)  was  printed  in  the  Parisian  and  London 
Polyglots,  and  was  published  separately  by  13.  Blayney 
(Oxford  1790)  in  a  quarto  edition. 

Compare  Kautzsch    in  Herzog's  Eeal-Encydopcedie'*,    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  con 
tained  in  it  there  lies  a  period  of  nearly  seventeen  hundred 
years.  The  reason  of  this  fact,  which  is  all  the  more  remark 
able  on  this  account,  that  we  possess  manuscripts  of  several 
translations  of  the  Old  Testament  of  a  much  earlier  date,  is 
found  in  this,  that  the  Jews,  far  from  manifesting  zeal  in  the 
preservation  of  old  Codices  of  the  Bible,  were  wont  rather, 
when  the  manuscripts  could  no  longer  be  used  on  account  of 
age,  and  were  therefore  laid  in  the  lumber  room  of  the  syna 
gogue  (nJV3),  to  accelerate  their  destruction,  because  they 
feared  lest  the  manuscripts  no  longer  in  use  might  be  in  any 
way  profaned.  Notwithstanding  the  considerable  number  of 
Old  Testament  manuscripts,  we  nevertheless  possess  only  a 
few  which  can  even  in  a  certain  sense  be  called  old,  and  of 
these  generally  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  the  age  of  the 
manuscripts  cannot  always  with  certainty  be  determined. 


86  §  27.    CLASSIFICATION  OF  MANUSCPJPTS. 

The  catalogues  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  are 
given  in  Strack's  Prolegomena,  pp.  29-33,  119-121.  To  this 
work  we  may  add  further  :  Steinschneider,  Die  hebrdischen 
Handscliriftcn  d.  k'onigl.  Bibliotliek  zu  Munchen,  1875  ; 
Harkavy  and  Strack,  Katalog  d.  heir.  Handschriften  in  St. 
Petersburg,  1875;  Schiller-Szinessy,  Catalogue  of  the  Hebrew 
Manuscripts  in  Cambridge,  1876  ;  Steinschneider,  Katalog  der 
hebr.  Handschriften  in  der  Stadtbibliothek  zu  Hamburg,  1878  ; 
Die  Handschriftenverzeichnisse  der  konigl.  Bibl.  zu  Berlin,  ii. 
1878  ;  Landauer,  Katalog  der  Bibliotliek  in  Strassburg. 
Orient.  Handschrifter,  i.  1881  ;  Neubauer,  Catalogue  of  the 
Hebrew  Manuscripts  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  1886.  On  the 
Erfurt  manuscripts  compare  Lagarde,  Symmicta,  1877,  p.  133 
ff.,  and  Baer,  Liber  XII.  Proph.  p.  vi.  Merx,  Chrcstomathia 
targumica  xv.  gives  a  list  of  manuscripts  with  the  Babylonian 
system  of  points.  Compare  generally  the  preface  to  Baer's 
editions  of  the  text  referred  to  in  §  24,  where  various  manu 
scripts  in  the  possession  of  private  parties  are  referred  to  and 
described.  On  the  Machazor  manuscripts,  compare  Baer, 
Quinque  volumina,  iv.  seq. 

On  the  Geniza  see  M.  Sab.  ix.  6  ;  Soph'rim  v.  14,  p.  xi ; 
Strack,  Prolegomena,  42,  and  compare  above  §  2. 

27.  The  age  of  manuscripts  can  be  determined  accurately 
only  when  they  have  come  down  with  a  dated  subscription,  and 
even  then  we  must  be  prepared  for  the  possibility  of  falsifications 
and  ante-datings,  which  some  editors  had  recourse  to  in  order  to 
give  increased  value  to  the  manuscripts.  In  recent  times  the 
Karaite,  A.  Firkowitzsch,has  obtained  a  particularly  unfortunate 
notoriety  for  this  sort  of  work.  Another,  not  so  decisive  mark 
is  afforded  by  certain  formulae,  especially  benedictions,  which,  as 
can  be  conclusively  proved,  were  first  introduced  at  particular 
periods.  On  the  other  hand,  determinations  as  to  the  age  of 
manuscripts  which  are  derived  from  the  form  of  the  letters  or 
other  graphical  peculiarities,  are  still  more  insecure,  whereas  by 
these  means  the  manuscripts  can  be  grouped  with  great  certainty 
according  to  the  place  of  their  origin  (German,  Spanish,  etc.). 


§  28.    OLDEST  MANUSCRIPTS.  87 

Compare  S track,  Prolegomena,  p.  33  ff . ;  ZLT,  1875, 
p.  601  f . ;  Zunz,  Zur  Gcsckichte  und  Litteratur,  1845,  pp.  207, 
214—230;  Tychsen,  Tcntamcn  de  variis  codicum  Helraicorum 
gcneribus,  Eostock  1872  ;  Idem,  Beurteilung  dcr  Jalirzalilen 
in  den  kcbraisch-biblischcn  Handscliriftcn,  Eostock  1786  ; 
Schnurrer,  De  codd.  V.  T.  cctate  difficulter  determinanda,  Tub. 
1772.  On  the  formulae  of  the  copyists  compare  also  Bleek, 
Einleitung  ^ ,  p.  565;  and  with  regard  thereto:  Theolog.  Litcra- 
turzeitung,  1878,  p.  571. 

On  the  forgeries  of  Firkowitzsch  in  general :  see  Harkavy 
in  Mtimoires  de  I' Academic  de  St.  Petersbourg,  vii.  24,  Nr.  1  ; 
Strack,  A.  Firkowitzsch  und  seine  Entdeckungen,  1876;  and 
ZDGM,  xxxiv.  p.  163  ff.  On  Chwolson's  otherwise  very 
learned  Corpus  inscriptionum  Hebraicarum,  St.  Petersburg 
1882,  wherein  an  attempt  is  made  partially  to  vindicate 
Firkowitzsch,  compare  Strack  in  LCB,  1883,  p.  878.  See 
also  §  76. 

On  some  peculiarities  of  the  pointing  in  the  oldest  manu 
scripts  ("  for  Qames  liatupli  and  the  employment  of  Daghesh 
lene  in  all  letters  ")  see  Baer,  Liber  Jcremice,  p.  viii  seq. 

A  picture  of  the  various  types  of  letters  is  given  in  Euting's 
Sclirifttafcl  in  Chwolson's  Corpus  inscriptionum  Hebraicarum. 
Compare  also  the  facsimiles  referred  to  in  §  28. 

28.  The  oldest  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testament  whose 
date  can  be  with  certainty  ascertained  belong  to  the  tenth 
century.  Notwithstanding  the  many  forgeries  of  Firkowitzsch 
(§  27),  we  owe  to  his  collections  of  manuscripts  from  the 
Crimea  the  oldest  Codex,  whose  age  can  be  given  with 
certainty,  namely,  a  Babylonian  manuscript  of  the  Prophetw 
Posteriores  of  the  year  916.  It  has  been  edited  in  a  photo 
lithographic  facsimile  by  H.  L.  Strack.  To  the  same  century 
belong  some  fragments  of  Karaite  Bible  manuscripts,  which 
were  obtained  by  Shapira  in  Hit  (on  the  Euphrates,  south 
west  of  Bagdad)  and  in  Cairo.  They  are  written  in  Arabic 
letters,  but  with  Hebrew  points.  The  oldest  manuscript  of 
the  entire  Old  Testament,  on  the  assumption  of  the  correctness 


88  §  28.    OLDEST  MANUSCRIPTS. 

of  the  date,  is  the  Codex  of  the  year  1010,  which  belongs  also 
to  the  Firkowitzsch  collection.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are 
some  manuscripts  which  claim  to  be  yet  more  ancient,  such 
as  the  often  referred  to  Standard  Codex  of  Aaron  ben  Asher 
(§  30)  in  Aleppo,  and  a  Codex  in  Cambridge  alleged  to  have 
been  written  in  the  year  856,  which  more  exact  investigations 
have  shown  to  be  of  more  recent  origin. 

Strack,  Prophetarum  postcriorum  Codex  Bctbylonicus  Petro- 
politanus,  St.  Petersburg  1876,  of  which  the  Russian  Emperor 
has  presented  copies  to  several  libraries.  Separately :  Hosea 
e.t  Joel  prophetcc.  Ad  fidmi  Cod.  Bahylonici  Petropolitani,  ed. 
H.  L.  Strack,  Leipsic  1875. 

Hoerning,  Descriptions  and  Collations  of  Six  Karaite  Manu 
scripts  of  portions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  in  Arabic  Characters, 
London  1889.  Of  the  whole  number  of  these  manuscripts 
now  to  be  found  in  the  British  Museum  there  are  six  here 
described,  and  one  (MSS.  Orient.  2540),  which  comprises 
Exodus  i.  i.— viii.  5,  is  reproduced. 

On  Aaron  ~ben  Aslicrs  Codex  compare  Michae'lis,  Orient, 
und  exeat.  BibliotheJc,  x.  63  ;  the  Jewish  traveller  Jacob 
Sappir's  Account  of  his  Travels  -PSD  px,  Lyck,  1866,  p.  12  if.; 
and  especially,  W.  Wickes,  A  Treatise  on  the  Accentuation  of  the 
so-called  Prose  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  1887,  wherein  a 
sheet  of  manuscript  is  reproduced  in  facsimile  by  photography, 
and  where  (pp.  vii— ix)  the  incorrectness  of  the  date  is  proved. 
According  to  Lagarde  (NGG  W,  1890,  p.  16)  it  belongs  to  the 
German  manuscripts  of  the  fourteenth  century. 

On  the  often  referred  to  Cambridge  Codex,  Nr.  12,  compare 
Neubauer  in  The  Academy,  1887,  p.  321,  against  Schiller- 
Szinessy's  article  in  the  same  paper,  p.  304. 

Wickes  denies  the  correctness  of  the  date  of  the  Bible  of  A.D. 
1010  or  1009.  In  his  Treatise  on  the  Accentuation,  etc.,  p.  ix, 
he  says:  "  I  have  myself  no  doubt,  from  personal  inspection,  that 
Codex  B,  19a,  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg,  dated 
1009,  is  much  younger,  although  the  editors  of  the  Catalogue 
[Harkavy  and  Strack,  pp.  263—274;  compare  also  Baer  and 
Strack,  Dihduke  Hateamim.  xxiv.  seq.]  accept  the  date." 


§  29.    SAMARITAN  MANUSCRIPTS.  89 

On  other  old  manuscripts  see  Strack,  ZLT,  1875,  p.  598  f.; 
Delitzsch,  Complutensische  Varianten,  1878,  p.  4  ff.,  and 
especially  the  prefaces  in  Baer's  editions  of  the  texts.  The 
celebrated  Eeuchlin  Prophet  -  Codex  dates  from  the  year 
1106.  Compare  the  description  of  it  in  Baer,  Liber  Jeremice, 
p.  vi  sq. 

Besides  the  already-mentioned  facsimiles,  we  also  meet  with 
reproductions  of  the  older  Old  Testament  manuscripts  in  the 
Facsimiles  of  Ancient  Manuscripts,  published  by  the  Paleo- 
graphical  Society,  Oriental  Series  iii.  sheets  40,  41,  iv. 
sheet  54  ;  also  in  Neubauer's  Catalogue  of  the  Hebrew  Manu 
scripts  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  p.  86.  In  his  Gcschichtc  ties 
Volkes  Israel,  p.  32,  Stade  gives  representations  of  Eeuchlin  s 
Prophet-Codex,  the  Erfurt  Bible  Manuscript  No.  3,  and  the 
above  referred  to  St.  Petersburg  Prophet-Codex.  Further 
literature  in  Steinschneider,  CentralUatt  filr  Bibliotliekwesen,iv. 
1887,  pp.  155-165. 

A  manuscript  fragment  of  Deuteronomy,  alleged  to  be  very 
old,  which  caused  some  excitement  in  the  year  1883,  is 
described  by  Guthe  in  Fraymente  cincr  Lcderhandschrift, 
mityctcilt  und  geprilft,  Leipsic  1883. 

In  the  Memoir es  de  I' Academic  imp.  de  St.  Peterslourg, 
series  vii.  tome  xxxii.  1884,  Nr.  8,  Harkavy  describes  some 
manuscript  fragments  from  Khodes  with  a  peculiar  alphabet, 
which,  however,  are  decidedly  spurious.  Compare  Derenbourg 
in  REJ,  x.  311,  and  Baer,  Quinyue  volumina,  vi.  sq. 

29.  To  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  of  the  Law  belong  also  the 
Samaritan  Codices  (§§  11,  25).  Since  these  manuscripts 
represent  a  text,  which  at  a  very  early  period  separated  itself 
from  the  Jewish  text,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  often 
a  great  importance  has  been  attached  to  them,  and  that  it  has 
been  thought  that  by  a  comparison  between  them  and  the 
received  text  an  important  step  might  be  taken  in  the 
reconstruction  of  the  text  of  the  Pentateuch.  But  the 
Samaritan  text  has  been  so  disfigured  by  errors  of  trans 
cription  and  by  arbitrary  treatment,  that  its  critical  import- 


90  §  30.    COLLECTIONS  OF  VARIATIONS. 

ance  is  very  much  restricted.  These  manuscripts  are  of 
greater  interest  on  account  of  the  letter  signs  used  in  them 
and  their  want  of  vowels,  whereby  in  another  way  they 
confirm  the  results  obtained  with  regard  to  the  external 
history  of  the  text. 

Compare  Eichhorn,  EMeitung*,  §§  378-389;  Rosen  in 
the  ZDMG,  xviii.  582  if.;  Strack,  Prolegomena,  p.  56  f . ; 
Herzog's  Real- Encyclopedic2,  i.  283,  xiii.  349,  334;  and 
Harkavy's  Katalog  der  Samaritan.  Pentateuch- Codices,  Peters 
burg  1874  (in  the  Russian  language).  Compare  also 
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  great  collections  of  variations  made 
during  last  century  by  Kennicott  and  John  Bern,  de  Rossi,  and 
by  means  of  the  apparatus  of  the  critical  editions,  we  have 
been  placed  in  a  position  to  make  use  of  manuscripts  which 
are  no  longer  themselves  extant.  We  come  into  possession  of 
variations  from  manuscripts  no  longer  extant,  which  the 
Jewish  traditional  text  has  preserved  (§  31).  We  may 
readily  set  aside  what  is  presented  us  in  the  readings  of  Rabbi 
Meir  and  of  a  Torah  Codex,  said  to  have  been  brought  from 
Rome  and  preserved  in  the  Severus  Synagogue  there.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Jewish  tradition  presents  a  series  of 
readings  which  various  standard  Codices,  drawn  up  by  cele 
brated  punctuators,  have  adopted.  Such  Codices  (sometimes 
called  Mahzoroth)  are :  the  Codex  Hilleli  (named  after  an 
unknown  R.  Hillel),  Codex  Zanbuki,  the  JericJio  Pentateuch, 
Sephcr  Sinai,  Keter  Schem  Tob,  Machzora  Ralba,  etc.  We  must 
also  mention  readings  from  various  authorities  during  the 
period  between  the  eighth  and  the  tenth  centuries,  like  R. 
Pinchas,  R.  Moses,  R.  Chabib,  etc.,  first  made  known  in  recent 


§  30.    COLLECTIONS  OF  VARIATIONS.  91 

times  by  means  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  Crimea;  and  finally, 
the  divergent  readings  of  the  two  celebrated  masters  from 

O  O 

the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century,  E.  Moses  ben  David  ben 
Naphtali  in  Babylon,  and  E,  Aaron  ben  Moses  ben  Asher  in 
Tiberias.  The  latter  has  become  the  most  distinguished 
authority  in  favour  of  the  received  text.  For  the  rest,  these 
variations,  for  the  most  part  varieties  of  vocalisation,  are  of 
more  importance  for  philological  than  for  textual  criticism. 

Although  Ben  Naphtali  lived  in  Babylon,  and  his  text 
sometimes  agrees  with  the  traditional  Babylonian  text,  his 
text  cannot  be  without  more  ado  regarded  as  representative 
of  the  Babylonian  text  in  its  opposition  to  the  Palestinian 
text  or  the  text  of  Tiberias.  On  the  contrary,  a  series  of 
variations  has  long  been  known  which  indicate  the  difference 
between  the  Eecensions  of  the  Babylonian  or  Palestinian,  or,  as 
they  are  commonly  named  in  the  history  of  the  text,  the 
Eastern  (^rono,  medinkdje)  and  the  Western  ('•KTUJB,  maarldje) 
schools.  It  was,  however,  only  the  discoveries  of  recent  times 
that  made  it  evident  how  far-reaching  this  distinction  was.  As 
the  Babylonians  and  the  Palestinians  both  had  their  Talmuds 
(Babli  and  Jeruschalmi),  their  editions  of  the  Targums  (§  61), 
their  arrangement  of  the  biblical  books  (§  10),  and  their  system 
of  pointing  (§  80),  so,  too,  they  both  had  their  Eecensions  of  the 
text.  The  earliest  known  list  of  these  variations,  we  owe  to 
Jacob  ben  Chajim,  who,  undoubtedly  on  the  basis  of  old  manu 
scripts,  communicated  it  in  his  Eabbinical  Bible  (§  24). 
Eecent  discoveries,  however,  have  not  only  shown  that  these 
lists  must  have  been  improved  and  enlarged,  but  have  also 
brought  into  light  manuscripts,  which  contained  the  Babylonian 
Recension  with  all  its  peculiarities  (§  28).  The  variations  extend 
over  all  the  Old  Testament,  and  refer  to  the  consonants  as  well 
as  to  their  vowel  pronunciation.  Finally,  in  some  few  passages 
there  are  also  reported  differences  between  the  readings  of  the 
schools  of  the  two  Babylonian  cities,  Nehardea  and  Sora. 


92  §  30.    COLLECTIONS  OF  VARIATIONS. 

The  question  as  to  how  far  (fre  and  Ketib  are  to  be 
regarded  as  actual  variations  will  be  discussed  in  §  33. 

Kennicott,  Veins  testamentum  hebraicum  cum  variis  lectioni- 
~bus,  Oxford  1776-1780  (treats  only  of  the  consonantal  texts)  ; 
the  therein  included  Dissertatio  generalis  is  edited  by  Brims, 
Brunswick  1783;  De  Eossi,  Varies  lectiones  Veteris  Testa- 
menti,  Parma,  1784-1788  ;  and  Scholia  critica  in  V.  T.  Libr. 
s.  supplementa  ad  varias  lectiones  sacri  tcxtus,  Parma  1798; 
Delitzsch,  Complutensische  Varianten,  1878.  The  critical 
apparatus  in  Baer's  editions  (§  24);  Strack  in  ZLT,  1877, 
p.  I7ff.  (on  Isaiah).  The  collations  in  Hcerning's  Karaite 
manuscripts  mentioned  in  §  28. 

The  reported  readings  of  E.  Meir  (see  in  regard  to  him, 
Jost,  Gescliiclite  des  Judcntliums,  ii.  86  ff.)  are  given:  Bcresliitli 
rb.  c.  9  (Gen.  i.  31;  ni»  instead  of  *itf£) ;  Idem,  c.  20  (Gen. 
iii.  21,  -viK  instead  of  -ny) ;  Idem,  c.  94  (Gen.  xlvi.  23,  pi 
instead  of  ^m) ;  jer.  Taan.  i.  1,  fol.  64a  (Isaiah  xxi.  11,  wi 
instead  of  non,  indeed  his  reading  rather  is  ^11  [Edom  being 
popularly  regarded  as  equivalent  to  Eome],  compare  Jerome 
on  the  passage).  With  these  readings  agree  at  least  once 
the  readings  of  a  Torah  roll  catalogued  in  a  manuscript 
Midrash,  Bercshitli  rabbati  (now  in  the  library  of  the  Israelite 
community  at  Prague),  which  was  brought  to  Eome,  and  there 
"  laid  up  in  the  BTMD&n  &W03."  This  roll  is  mentioned  by 
Kimclii  on  Gen.  i.  31,  who  writes  "the  Synagogue  of  Severus." 
Epstein,  who  in  the  MGWJ,  1885,  pp.  337-351,  quotes 
these  passages,  conjectures  that  it  may  have  been  the  roll  of 
the  Law  brought  by  Titus  to  Eome  (see  Josephus,  Wars  of  the 
Jews,  vii.  5.  5).  Compare  further,  Hochmuth  in  the  same 
journal,  1886,  pp.  274-279.  For  the  rest,  at  least  the  so- 
called  reading  of  E.  Meir,  JTID  for  IKE  in  Gen.  i.  31,  might  be 
regarded  rather  as  a  free  playful  modification  of  the  common 
text  than  as  a  reading  properly  so-called. 

On  the  ancient  standard  Codices,  see  Strack,  Prolegomena, 
14-29,  112-118,  and  ZLT ,  1875,  p.  613  f.  On  the  Codex 
ffilleli,  see  the  Academy,  1888,  p.  321. 

On  Ben  Asher  and  Ben  Naphtali,  compare  Strack,  Prolcgo- 


§  30.    COLLECTIONS  OF  VARIATIONS.  93 

mcna,  p.  24  ff.;  ZLT,  1875,  p.  616;  Herzog's  Ecal-Encyclo- 
pccdie2,  ix.  390  f f . ;  Berliner,  Targum  Onkelos,  1884,  ii.  139  ; 
and  especially  Baer  and  Strack,  Die  Dikduke  liateamim  des 
Akron  I.  M.  b.  Ascher,  1879,  pp.  x  ff.,  78  ff.  84.  These  various 
readings  are  given  in  a  manuscript  of  the  Tschufutkale-Collec- 
tion,  Nr.  13,  D1")^  rnjf  (see  Dikduke,  xxxii. ;  Baer,  Liber  psal- 
morum,  p.  vi ;  Liber  Ezecliielis,  p.  vi ;  Quinque  volumina,  p  v), 
and  in  the  nipjn  *Biin  of  the  Codex  de  Rossi,  Nr.  940  (see 
Baer,  Liber  Jeremice,  p.  x  sq.).  They  are  mentioned,  as  well 
as  the  following  variations,  in  all  the  editions  of  Baer.  Of 
the  three  passages  where  the  divergences  between  Ben 
Naphtali  and  Ben  Asher  are  said  to  have  referred  also  to  the 
consonants,  Jer.  xi.  7,  xxix.  22  ;  1  Kings  iii.  20  (see  ZLT, 
1875,  p.  611  ;  Dikduke,  xiii.),  the  two  first  are  not  established 
by  Baer's  edition. 

On  the  Eastern  and  Western  schools,  compare  Strack,  Prole 
gomena,  36-41,  121;  ZLT,  1875,  p.  608  ff.,  1877,  p.  22; 
Geiger,  NacJigelassene  Scliriften,  iv.  32  ff.  Lists  of  their 
divergent  readings  are  to  be  found  in  the  Codex  ben  Asher 
(see  Baer,  Liber  Duodccim,  p.  viii),  in  the  Bible  of  the  year 
1010,  and  in  the  Codices  Tsclmfidkale,  Nr.  7  and  ISa  (Baer, 
Quinque  volumina,  p.  v ;  Liber  Jobi,  p.  v).  It  is  to  be 
observed  that  the  South  Arabian  manuscripts  with  "  Baby 
lonian  "  vocalisation  contain  the  readings  of  the  Western 
school.  See  Wickes,  The  Accentuation  of  the  Prose  Books,  p. 
150. 

The  schools  at  Nehardea  and  Sora  (compare  on  these  cities, 
Neubauer,  Gtograpliie  du  Talmud,  350  f.,  343)  diverged  from 
one  another  in  their  Halacha  as  well  as  in  their  Targum 
criticism.  An  example  of  their  different  Bible  readings  is 
to  be  found  in  Neh.  iii.  37,  where,  according  to  the  Massora 
mafjna,  those  of  Nehardea  read  i?x,  those  of  Sora  ?N1.  Com 
pare  on  them,  Strack,  Prolegomena,  p.  40  ;  Berliner,  Die 
Massora  zum  Targum  Onkelos,  ii.  61  ff.  According  to  Berliner 
the  members  of  the  school  of  Nehardea  were  emigrant 
Palestinians,  and  consequently  they  followed  the  western 
readings. 


94  §  31.    THE  MASSORA. 

4.  Tke  Jewish  Massora. 

31.  The  want  of  old  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
to  some  extent  supplied  by  the  so-called  Massora  or  text 
tradition  of  the  Jews,  which  makes  it  possible  for  us  to  trace 
back  the  text  to  the  times  earlier  than  those  to  which  the 
^earliest  extant  manuscripts  belong.  The  proper  task  of  the 
Massora  was  the  guarding  of  the  Bible  manuscripts  against 
degeneration  through  carelessness  and  wilfulness  on  the  part 
of  transcribers,  and,  in  consequence,  the  most  painful  and 
minute  supervision  was  exercised  upon  them  ;  but  just  in  this 
way  the  Massora  affords  a  glimpse  into  the  form  of  the  text 
transmitted  from  early  times  which  cannot  be  too  highly 
valued.  Lists  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  text  from  all  points 
of  view  were  compiled,  all  singularities  were  registered,  so 
that  they  could  not  easily  be  obliterated  at  the  hands  of 
transcribers,  and  in  this  way  a  "  fence  "  was  built  up  around 
Scripture,  which  has  actually  resulted  in  this,  that  we  meet 
with  the  text  in  essentially  only  one  form  from  the  time  in 

which  the  scribes  began  to  watch  over  the  transmission  of  the 

i 

text  with  this  painstaking  exactness.  There  were  certainly 
at  the  various  centres  of  the  Jews  various  Massoras,  the 
memory  of  which  is  preserved  by  means  of  the  lists  of 
variations  of  the  Massora  that  had  won  general  acceptance 
(§  30),  but  these  differences  were  trifling,  and  affected  the 
received  form  of  text  very  little.  The  Massoretic  material  is 
made  up  of  marginal  notes  on  the  Bible  manuscripts,  and 
of  independent  works.  The  marginal  notes  (Massora  margin- 
alls)  stand  either  above  or  below  the  text,  and  are  then 
called  Massora  magna,  or  alongside  the  text,  and  are  then 
called  Massora  parva.  The  independent  Massoretic  works 
are  the  expansion  of  the  Massora  magna.  They  were  often 
added  at  the  end  of  the  Bible  text  in  manuscripts  and 
editions,  whence  the  name  Massora  finalis.  The  form  in 


§  31.    THE  MASSORA.  95 

which  the  Massoretic  material  was  communicated  is  that  of 
an  alphabetical  list,  or  of  statements  as  to  how  often  the 
forms  referred  to  are  met  with,  or  of  the  gathering  together 

o  O  O 

of  such  expressions  as  are  similar  to  one  another,  and  might 
therefore  be  readily  interchanged. 

Introductions  into  the  difficult  study  of  the  Massora,  that 
may  be  used  still  with  great  advantage,  are  afforded  by  Jacob  ben 
Chajim  in  the  preface  to  his  Eabbinical  Bible  (§  24),  by  Elias 
Levita  in  his  Massora  hamasorctk,  and  by  the  elder  Buxtorf. 

A  style  of  dealing  with  the  text,  which  reminds  us  of  that 
of  the  Jews,  is  met  with  among  the  Indians  ;  see  Max  Miiller, 
Lectures  on  the  Science  of  Language,  1861,  p.  107.  We  also 
meet  with  something  similar  among  the  Persians ;  see  Sitz- 
ungsbcriclite  dcr  konigl  laycrisclien  Akademie  d.  Wissenscli. 
1872,  p.  96. 

The  pronunciation  of  the  word  rmDD  or  miDD  is  uncertain, 
for  we  find  rniDtt  as  well  as  rniojp  (rniD»).  Both  forms,  which 
occur  in  Ezekiel  xx.  27,  are  remarkable,  since  the  word  is 
derived  from  "ipo,  tradere.  We  should  have  expected  n"jiDp5 
like  nito  (Earth,  Nominallrildung,  §  42«,  2).  We  prefer" the 
form  Massora,  which  may  have  originated  through  sharpening 
the  accentuation,  compare  nnp3  (Barth,  §  93a  /3),  whereas 
rniDB,  since  n^^  as  an  intransitive  is  not  parallel,  is  more 
difficult  to  explain.  Also  the  pronunciation  of  the  correspond 
ing  Aramaic  smDB  is  doubtful.  Compare  the  divergent 
hypotheses  in  Lagarde,  NGGW,  1882,  p.  168;  Dalman, 
Der  Gottesname  Adonaj.  1889,  p.  8;  and  S  track,  TheoL 
Litter  atu rblatt,  188 9,  p.  291. 

Elias  Le vita's  (§  9)  miDDn  nilDO  ISO  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).  Compare  especially  Bacher,  ZDMG, 
xliii.  231  ff.  Ginsburg  has  edited  Jacob  ben  Chajim's  preface 
in  Hebrew  and  English,  2nd  ed.,  London  1867. 


96  §  32.    HISTORY  OF  THE  MASSORA. 

Buxtorf,  Tiberias  sive  commentarius  masoreticus  triplex,~BdiSelt 
1620,  and  often  reprinted.  A  fragment  of  it  as  a  specimen 
of  the  mode  of  treatment  is  given  by  Bleek,  Einleitung*, 
p.  568  f.  While  Buxtorf  here  interprets  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  the  following  seven  chapters  are  commented  on  by 
J.  Hansen,  Interpretatio  masorce  mayncc  textualis,  Copenhagen 
1733-1737. 

32.  The  beginnings  of  the  Jewish  Massora  can  be  traced 
back  to  a  very  early  period.  How  far  indeed  E.  Akiba,  with 
his  saying  that  "  the  moo  is  a  fence  around  the  Law  "  (Pirke 
Aboth,  iii.  13),  is  thinking  of  the  text  transmission,  is  doubt 
ful  ;  but  in  any  case  we  meet  with  contributions  from  the 
Massoretic  material  even  in  the  Mislina,  and  then,  considerably 
increased,  in  the  Gemara  and  in  the  old  Midrashic  works, 
with  the  exception,  as  can  readily  be  understood,  of  all  that 
refers  to  the  later  system  of  pointing.  There  is  a  further 
increase  of  material  in  the  post-Talrnudic  tracts  Masseket 
sepJier  torak  and  Masseket  sopltfrim,  which  are  occupied  with 
the  rules  for  the  transcription  of  the  Torah  rolls.  With 
the  invention  of  the  system  of  pointing,  the  work  of  the 
Massoretes  received  a  new  impetus,  because  now  many 
delicate  points  which  previously  could  only  be  transmitted 
orally  could  be  fixed  in  writing.  Aaron  ben  Moses  ben 
Asher  of  the  tenth  century,  above  referred  to  (§  30),  who 
belonged  to  a  distinguished  family  of  punctuators  in  Tiberias, 
composed  a  treatise  which,  besides  all  sorts  of  purely 
grammatical  remarks,  communicated  a  series  of  Massoretic 
observations  and  rules.  This  work  was  imitated  in  many 
similar  half-grammatical,  half-Massoretic  tracts,  which,  under 
the  name  Horajatli  ha  korc,  gave  rules  for  transcription  and 
pointing.  In  the  following  ages,  when  a  purely  philological 
literature  had  been  developed,  the  grammatical  material  was 
separated  from  these  works ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  there 
arose  a  purely  Massoretic  literature  under  the  two  forms 


§  32.    THE  MASSORA.  97 

mentioned  above,  marginal  notes  and  independent  writings, 
by  the  latter  of  which  the  marginal  notes  of  an  almost 
enigmatical  character  were  often  for  the  first  time  made 
intelligible.  A  standard  work  of  the  independent  order  was 
the  celebrated  book  Ochla  weoclila,  so  called  on  account  of  its 
commencement,  which  placed  together  the  rfatf  of  1  Sam.  i.  9 
and  of  Gen.  xxvii.  19.  That  it  was  already  in  existence  in 
the  latter  half  of  the  twelfth  century  is  beyond  question, 
whereas  its  relation  to  the  Massora  of  Gerson  ben  Judah,  who 
lived  in  the  eleventh  century,  is  very  doubtful.  Its  great 
importance,  however,  consists  in  this  that  it  circulated  in  at 
least  three  different  editions,  of  which  two  are  still  extant  in 
their  original  form.  The  third  seems  to  have  been  used  by 
Jacob  ben  Chajim  in  the  Massora  magna,  which  he  appended 
to  the  end  of  his  Rabbinical  Bible  (§§  24,  31).  Elias  Levita 
also  (§  31),  who  was  almost  contemporary  with  Jacob,  used 
the  book  Ochla,  which  he  praises  as  "  small  in  size  but  without 
equal  in  the  department  of  the  Massora."  In  the  following 
century  the  great  Buxtorf  sought,  on  the  foundation  laid  in 
the  works  named,  to  make  Massoretic  studies  generally 
accessible  and  fruitful  (§  31).  At  this  time  also  appeared 
Menahem  di  Lonzano's  Or  tora,  1618,  while  jSTorzi's  above- 
named  critical  commentary  Odder  pcrcs  (§  24)  did  not  appear 
till  somewhat  later.  In  the  eighteenth  century  Massoretic 
studies  found  little  favour,  either  among  Christians  or  among 
Jews.  Only  in  our  own  century  has  new  life  been  imparted 
to  them  and  essentially  furthered  by  the  works  of  W.  Heiden- 
heim  (who  died  at  Eodelheim  in  1832),  L.  Dukes,  Frerisdorff, 
Baer,  Strack,  J.  Derenbourg,  Wickes,  and  C.  D.  Ginsburg, 
many  of  them  very  celebrated,  and  by  the  manuscripts  brought 
to  light  by  them.  The  fruits  of  these  minute  and  unwearied 
investigations  are  presented  in  Baer's  edition  of  the  text 
corrected  according  to  the  Massora,  and  in  many  monographs 
of  the  most  recent  Hebrew  grammarians. 


98  §  32.    THE  MASSORA. 

On  the  history  of  the  Massora  compare  Geiger  in  the  Jiid. 
Zeitschrift,  iii.  78  ff. ;  Strack  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyclopcedie'*, 
ix.  388  ff.;  L.  Blau,  Massoretische  Uniersuchunyen,  1891. 

The  statements  regarding  the  Massora  in  the  earliest  Jewish 
writings  are  collected  in  Strack's  Prolegomena,  73—94,  122  f., 
where  the  literature  will  be  found  fully  given. 

Seplicr  tora  is  published  in  Kirchheim's  VII.  libri  Talmudici 
parvi  Hierosolymitani,  Frankfurt  1851,  pp.  1-11.  Masseket 
sopherim,  edited  by  J.  Miiller,  Leipsic  1878.  Compare  also 
Adler,  Judceorum  codicis  sacri  rite  scribendi  leges,  a  libello 
Tkalmudico  D'HSlD  D3DD  in  lat.  converses  et  annot.  explicates, 
Hamburg  1779. 

On  Aaron  ben  Asher,  compare  further  §  80.  Of  his 
massoretico-grainmatical  lessons  a  part  was  printed  in  the  first 
Eabbinical  Bible  (§  24);  afterwards  L.  Dukes  gave  quotations 
in  his  Kontres  hamasoret,  1846.  Finally,  Baer  and  Strack, 
building  with  materials  supplied  by  many  contributors,  have 
edited  the  entire  collection  in  a  critical  text :  Die  dikduke 
iui-teamim  des  Akron  b.  M.  b.  A  seller,  Leipsic  1879. 

A  similar  treatise,  accompanied  by  valuable  notes,  has 
been  published  by  Derenbourg,  according  to  a  South  Arabian 
manuscript  written  in  A.D.  1390,  under  the  title  "Manuel  du 
Lecteur, "  in  the  Journal  Asiatique,  1870,  xvi.  309  ff.  The 
Jews  in  Yemen  called  such  a  compendium  which  frequently 
preceded  their  Bible  manuscripts,  jjOTin  mnn»,  "  Treatise  on 
the  Crown,  i.e.  the  Bible."  Among  the  other  Jews  the 
commoner  name  for  it  was  DiBJlp. 

On  the  grammatico-massoretic  writers  quoted  by  Elms 
Levita,  compare  Backer  ZDMG,  xliii.  208.  Especially  on 
the  book  Horajatli  Jia-qorc,  see  Wickes,  Accentuation  of  the 
Prose  Books,  p.  x  sq. 

Gratz  in  MGWJ,  1887,  p.  134,  attempts  to  prove  that 
the  book  Ochla  was  a  work  of  Gerson  ben  Judah,  who  died 
in  A.D.  1028.  See,  however,  the  opposing  arguments  of 
Neubauer  and  Bacher  in  the  same  journal,  pp.  299—309. 
The  one  form  of  the  text  of  the  book  is  to  be  found  in  a 
Halle  manuscript,  which  Hupfield  (ZDMG,  xxi.  202  ff.) 
describes;  the  other  in  a  Parisian  Codex,  which  Frensdorff 


§  3.3.    KET1R  AND  QEUE.  99 

lias  edited:  Das  Bucli  Ochlci  Weochla,  Hanover  1SG4.  That 
Jacob  ben  Chajini  used  a  third  form  of  text  of  this  work  as 
the  basis  of  his  Massora  final-is,  has  been  conjectured  by 
Griitz  among  others. 

Frensdorff  has  issued  in  a  separate  edition  :  Tip3n  'rrn 
rtorn  (by  Moses  the  Punctuator),  Hanover  1847,  and  the 
first  volume  of  a  Massora  magna  (Massoretisclies  Wortcrlucli), 
Hanover  18 70.  Unfortunately  this  Massoretic  Dictionary 
is  not  to  be  continued. 

Ginsburg's  laborious  edition  of  the  Massora  {The.  Massorah 
compiled  from  manuscripts,  alphabetically  and  lexically  arranged, 
i.-iii.  1880-1885)  has  been  very  severely  criticised  in  The 
Guardian,  1886,  p.  1049,  and  by  Baer,  ZDMG,  xl.  743  ff., 
and  described  as  quite  an  uncritical  compilation. 

An  improved  Massoretic  text  is  being  prepared  by  Baer 
for  the  great  Rabbinical  Bible,  Mikra  yadol,  which  will  be 
published  at  Wilna. 

Compare  also  the  literature  given  in  §  82. 

3:>.  While  the  portions  of  the  Massora  which  consist  in 
numbers  of  verses,  words,  and  letters,  in  lists  of  rare  and 
remarkable  forms  or  expressions,  which  might  be  readily 
interchanged  with  one  another,  are  in  part  made  mention  of 
in  the  following  sections,  we  shall,  in  so  far  as  it  has  riot 
already  been  done  in  §  30,  here  concern  ourselves  with  those 
parts  of  the  Massora  which  give  information  about  divergent 
forms  of  text,  and  are  therefore  of  special  interest  for  the 
history  of  the  text.  To  this  class  belong  the  distinctions 
recorded  in  the  Massora  between  K'tib  and  Q"re  (usually,  but 
wrongly  written  Q"'rl),  or  between  the  written  and  the  read 
text.  In  a  pretty  numerous  set  of  passages — 1314  according 
to  the  Massora — the  Jews  read  a  different  form  of  text  from 
that  which  has  been  transmitted  in  writing,  for  sometimes 
they  pronounce  another  word,  or  another  form  of  the  word — 
sometimes  they  add  something  to  or  take  something  away 
from  the  text,  or,  finally,  sometimes  they  arrange  the  letters 


100  §  30.    KETIB  AND  QEKE. 

differently.  A  trace  of  this  quid  pro  quo  can  clearly  be  traced 
back  to  the  times  before  Christ,  for  even  then  the  substitution 
of  nirr  for  "o^x  must  have  become  a  very  general  practice 
(compare  §  76).  At  a  later  period  we  find  the  practice 
growing  in  extent  in  the  Talmud,  Scplier  tora,  Masseket 
sopherim,  and  in  the  Massoretic  works.  The  utterances  of 
the  Massoretes,  moreover,  are  not  in  perfect  agreement  upon 
this  point,  for,  in  particular,  not  a  few  of  the  varying  readings 
of  the  Palestinian  and  Babylonian  Jews  (§  30)  consist  simply 
in  varying  statements  of  the  Qarjan.  The  Qarjan,  quoted  in 
the  Babylonian  Talmud,  twice  (Ruth  ii.  11  and  Jer.  xxxii.  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  we  meet  with  various  expressions  which,  on  various 
accounts,  people  could  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'lK  was  read  in 
place  of  the  unpronounceable  mrp  (without,  however,  in  the  case 
of  this  frequently-recurring  word,  writing  the  letters  >:HK  in 
the  margin),  33^  instead  of  the  unlucky  word  fttt?,  HKIV  instead 
of  D^in,  etc.  The  same  also  naturally  occurred  in  the  corre 
sponding  passages  of  the  Hagiographa,  which  received  a 
system  of  pointing  moulded  upon  the  mode  of  the  reading 
followed  in  the  synagogue.  Further,  it  is  easily  understood 
how,  with  regard  to  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  in  other  cases 
also  there  should  be  a  strong  tendency  to  hold  fast  to  the 
mode  of  reading  that  had  become  crystallised  by  repeated  use 


§  33.    KKTIB  AND  QKKE.  101 

in  the  synagogues,  even  where  it  diverged  from  the  authorised 
written  form  of  the  text.  And  so,  too,  the  Qarjan  of  those  books 
of  the  Hagiographa  that  were  not  read  in  the  synagogues  pro 
ceeded  from  the  old-established  use  and  wont  of  the  teachers 
who  were  accustomed  to  read  these  books.  In  so  far  it  may 
be  allowed  to  be  possible,  that  the  Qarjan  witnesses  to  the 
existence  of  older  forms  of  text  which  have  been  dislodged  by 
the  Textus  Receptus ;  and  upon  this  hypothesis  are  really  most 
easily  explained  such  double  forms  of  text  as  are  absolutely 
equal  in  value,  e.g.  Isa.  xxiii.  12,  K't-fb  D*na,  (frc  D'ns  ;  Ps, 
v.  9,  KTtb,  "I2>in,  Qerc  "^n.  Of  a  more  doubtful  nature 
are  the  cases  where  the  distinction  has  a  purely  gram 
matical  and  logical  significance.  Possibly,  in  the  traditional 
mode  of  reading  in  the  synagogue,  free  play  wTas  given  to  all 
sorts  of  subjective  treatment  of  the  text,  for  the  words  may 
have  been  differently  divided  according  to  the  conceivable  or 
actual  sense,  the  suffixes  may  have  been  changed  and  the  article 
taken  away.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  come  to  a  definite 
conclusion  with  regard  to  the  subjective  or  objective  character 
of  this  sort  of  Qarjan.  It  must  also  be  admitted  to  be  a 
possible  thing,  that  this  subjective  determination  of  the  mode 
of  reading  may  also  have  been  continued  in  accordance  with 
the  established  form  of  the  canonical  consonantal  text  in  the 
principal  schools.  But,  in  any  case,  it  soon  became  finally 
fixed,  since  even  Ben  Asher  treats  the  read  text  as  equally 
sacred  and  inspired  with  the  ICtib  itself;  while  the  almost 
contemporary  Saadia  also  regarded  all  recorded  variations  of 
the  text  as  resting  upon  revelation. 

Lists  of  literature  are  given  by  Strack,  Prolegomena,  p. 
80  ff.,  123,  who  quotes  also  the  cases  of  Q'rc  and  ICtib,  given 
in  the  Talmudical  writings.  Compare  the  partially-divergent 
hypothesis  of  Cappellus,  Critica  sacra,  iii.  c.  1-1 G  ;  Morinus, 
Exercitat.  bill.  p.  533  ff. ;  Geiger,  Urschrift,  p.  254  ff.  ; 
Noldeke,  in  ZWT,  1873,  p.  445;  ZDMG,  xxxii.  591; 


102  §  33.    KET1B  AND  QKRK. 

Dilrnann,  in  Herzog's  Real  -  Encyclopaedic,  ii.  387;  Bleek, 
Einleitung,  iv.  618.  The  records  of  Ben  Aslier  and  Saadias 
above  referred  to  are  given  in  Dikduke,  pp.  9  and  82  f. 

Frensdorff,  Oclila,  Nr.  97-170,  and  Baer  in  his  editions  of 
the  text,  give  the  lists.  Examples  : 

Ketib  and  Q8re :  ^K  for  nvr,  N<n  for  Kin  (§  92),  rnjtt  for  iW  ; 
for  '3Bh5»,  Ps.  ci.  5  ;  fe  for  n^  Jer.  ii.  21  ;  nyjr^ai  for 
Amos  viii.  8. 

e  2///0  Ketib  :  D'Ka  DVp;  for  n^,  Jer.  xxxi.  38. 
ufh  tyre :  T^.~^  for  T™  TH\  X  Jer.  Ii.  3. 

A  word  which  is  read  as  two :  3^3  ^n  for  D^rAn,  ps.  x.  10  ; 
Dn  e'KS  for  Dn»;ND,  Jer.  vi.  29. 

Two  words  which  are  read  as  one :  DW?  for  D'jy  '•D, 
Lam.  iv.  3. 

Words  whose  final  letters  are  connected  with  the  following 
word  :  no^n  nnnpi  for  n\^  nnnnoi,  Ezek.  xlii.  9,  2  Sam.  v.  2, 
Job.  xxxviii.  12. 

Words  whose  initial  letter  is  connected  with  the  preceding 
word  :  ifer^  «n_^;  instead  of  fe^\s  mc^  Ezra  iv.  12  ;  2  Sam. 
xxi.  12. 

The  omission  of  an  initial  letter  identical  with  the  final 
letter  of  the  preceding  word:  Wp?  new  for  Wpni  nosi, 
Jer.  iv.  5. 

For  euphemistic  readings,  compare  I.Meg.  25Z>;  Toseplita 
Meg.  iv.  p.  228  ;  all  expressions  written  in  such  a  way  as  to 
cause  shame  are  euphemistically  read. 

On  ^"IN  for  nirr,  see  the  monograph  of  Dalman,  Dcr  Goltes- 
namc  Adonoj,  1889,  pp.  36  ff*.  and  85  ff.  (the  Massora  on 
Adonai). 

As  marginal  notes,  these  Qarjan  are  sometimes  called 
D^^"n  see  Difahikc,p.  2,  line  8  ;  Griitz,MGlVJ,  1885,  p.  108. 

On  the  so-called  p'OD,  compare  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  ii.  c.  10  ; 
Cappellus,  Critica  sacra,  iii.  15.  18;  Geiger,  Urschrift,}*.  233. 

Passages  in  the  older  Jewish  literature  should  not  be 
confounded  with  Qfrc,  where  it  is  said  :  "  Eead  not  .  .  .  but 
.  .  ."  By  this  is  meant  not  other  readings  but  conscious  plays 
upon  letters.  See  Hupfeld,  TSK,  1830,  p.  554  f.  (e.g.  against 
Morinus,  Excrcitat.  bill  p.  581  fif.). 


§  34.    TIQQUNE  SOPHEBBI.  103 

34.  While  the  Qarjan  spoken  of  in  §  33  leaves  undis 
turbed  the  received  consonantal  text,  the  Massora  tells  of 
some  passages  where  a  euphemistic  Qere  is  said  to  have  been 
adopted  into  the  consonantal  text  so  as  to  lead  to  the  com 
plete  withdrawal  of  the  original  reading.  These  passages  are 
called  Tiqqune  sopherim,  the  improved  readings  of  the  scribes 
(compare  §  9).  In  the  Talmud  we  do  not  meet  with  them, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  found  in  the  old  Midrash  on 
Exodus,  Mechilta.  In  the  Massoretic  works,  whose  lists  are 
somewhat  divergent  from  those  of  the  Mechilta,  their  number 
is  given  at  eighteen.  The  later  Jews,  for  reasons  that  we  can 
readily  appreciate,  could  not  understand  such  liberty  being 
taken  with  the  text,  and  therefore  devised  the  ingenious 
theory  that  by  these  are  meant  only  passages  where  the 
authors  had  abandoned  the  purposed  expression  with  a  view 
to  the  readers,  in  order  to  express  themselves  more  per 
spicuously.  The  Soph'rim  had  then  only  registered  the 
expression  that  was  really  intended.  How  far  the  traditional 
statements  with  reference  to  these  passages  are  correct  and 
have  recorded  all  the  phenomena  belonging  thereto,  we  shall 
more  carefully  investigate  in  a  later  paragraph  (§  97). 

Even  in  the  Talmud  (b.  Nedarim  37&)  we  meet  with  the 
so-called  Itture  soph'rim,  i.e.  five  passages,  where  the  scribes 
have  omitted  a  ]  from  the  text.  Since  something  similar  also 
occurs  in  the  Qf're  (e.g.  Jer.  iv.  5),  and  it  is  not  possible  to 
discover  a  deeper  mystery  in  the  five  passages  referred  to,  this 
chapter  is  of  very  little  interest. 

See  Mechilta  on  Ex.  xv.  7,  p.  39«  in  Friedmann's  edition. 

Compare  the  older  literature  in  Strack,  Prolegomena, 
p.  86  f.  (particularly  Geiger,  Urschrift,  p.  308  ff.) ;  and  also: 
Nyholm,  De  onaiD  ppn  XVIII.  vocum  Scriptures  sacrce,  Copen 
hagen  1734;  Noldeke  in  GGA,  1869,  p.  2001;  Crane  in 
Helraica,  iii.  233-248;  Dikduke,  p.  44  f . ;  Frensdorff,  Das 
Buck  Ochla  Wochla,  Nr.  168,  217 


104  §  35.    PUNCTA  EXTKAOKDINARIA. 

The  modern  Jewish  exposition  is  given  among  others  by 
Norzi  (§  24)  on  Zech.  ii.  12  (translated  in  Delitzsch, 
Kommentar  zu  Habalwlc,  1843,  p.  206  f.). 

The  Tiqqune  soph'rim  are  according  to  the  Massora :  Gen. 
xviii.  22,  originally  noy  miy  mm ;  Num.  xi.  15,  originally 
"jnjTQ ;  Num.  xii.  12,  originally  I^BN  arid  unea;  1  Sarn. 
iii.  13,  originally  ^  instead  of  or6  ;  2  Sam.  xvi.  12,  originally 
Wjn;  2  Sam.  xx.  1  (1  Kings  xii.  16;  2  Chron.  x.  16), 
originally  vr6j6 ;  Jer.  ii.  11,  originally  nna ;  Ezek.  viii.  17, 
originally  ^sx  ;  Hos.  iv.  7,  originally  Him  and  won  ;  Hab. 
i.  12,  originally  ninn ;  Zech.  ii.  12,  originally  vy ;  Mai. 
i.  13,  originally  TUN ;  Ps.  cvi.  20,  originally  HUD  ;  Job  vii.  20, 
originally  T^j  J°^  xxxii.  3,  originally  1pH^""i ;  Lam.  iii.  20, 
originally  "jc?S3. 

The  five  Itture  soplierim  are:  Gen.  xviii.  5,  xxiv.  55  ;  Num. 
xxxi.  2;  Ps.  xxxvi.  7,  Ixviii.  26. 

35.  Finally,  there  is  still  a  series  of  passages  to  be 
mentioned,  where  the  Jews  seem  to  have  expressed  their 
doubt  of  the  correctness  of  the  text  by  the  use  of  various 
diacritical  marks,  without,  however,  as  in  the  Qere,  reading 
another  text  than  that  handed  down  by  tradition.  The  value 
of  these  marks  is  considerably  detracted  from  by  the  fact  that 
the  critical  doubts,  at  least  in  most  of  these  cases,  seem  to  rest 
on  no  objective  foundation,  but  to  have  originated  in  subject 
ive  reflections,  which  have  for  us  a  solely  historical  interest. 
To  this  class  belong  the  so-called  puncta  extraordinaria  which 
we  meet  with  upon  particular  words.  We  find  that  already 
in  the  Mishna  (Pesachim,  ix.  2),  one  of  these  cases  is  known : 
Num.  ix.  10,  and  in  the  Talmud  and  the  Midrashim  several 
are  mentioned  ;  but  they  are  interpreted  partly  in  an  alle 
gorical  mystical  fashion.  Jerome,  too,  is  acquainted  with  one 
such  case,  Gen.  xix.  33,  and  gives  this  explanation  of  it: 
"  Appungunt  desuper  quasi  incredibile  et  quod  rerum  natura 
non  capiat  coire  queinquam  nescientem."  For  the  rest  it  is 
difficult  to  decide  in  particular  cases  whether  the  doubts 


§  35.    PUNCTA  EXTRAOEDIXAIIIA.  105 

indicated  are  of  a  textual-critical  or  of  a  historical-critical 
character.  —  The  so-called  :  inversum,  (compare  a  Baraitlm 
1}.  Sdbb.  115&)  seems  to  be  purely  textual-critical.  It  is 
introduced  in  JiTum.  x.  35  and  36  and  seven  times  in  Ps.  cvii., 
which  were  originally  parentheses,  and  seem  to  indicate  that  the 
passages  referred  to  were  out  of  their  proper  places.  Compare, 
It.  Sdbb.  115«  and  above  in  the  notes  to  §  6.  The  passages 
where,  according  to  tradition,  an  empty  space  within  the 
verse  should  have  been,  pIDD  JTOX2  KpDS,  seem  to  be  of  some 
what  greater  interest.  Probably  it  was  intended  by  means  of 
these  to  indicate  that  the  text  there  presented  was  defective  ; 
and  seeing  now  that  the  old  versions  in  some  of  these  passages, 
e.g.  in  Gen.  iv.  8,  xxxv.  22,  have  actually  something  more 
than  the  received  text,  these  statements  may  possibly  rest  on 
more  objective  foundations  than  the  former ;  but  from  this  it 
does  not  by  any  means  follow  that  the  versions  should  be 
unconditionally  preferred  to  the  traditional  text. 

Compare  Strack,  Prolegomena,  pp.  88-91  ;  Dikduke,  p.  45  f. 
The  two  words  distinguished  by  puncta,  extraordinaria  in 
Ezek.  xli.  20  and  xlvi.  22,  have  not  been  translated  in  the 
Targum  (Cornill,  Ezechiel,  p.  127).  So  too  the  inpB*  of 
Gen.  xxxiii.  4  is  wanting  in  several  manuscripts  of  the  LXX. 

On  j  inversum,  compare  Delitzsch,  ZKWL,  1882,  p.  231, 
and  on  Ps.  cvii.,  Dikduke,  p.  47. 

On  "  Pisqa  in  the  middle  of  the  verse,"  compare  Buxtorf, 
Tiberias,  ii.  11  ;  Dikduke,  p.  54,  and  especially  Griitz,  MGWJ, 
1878,  p.  481  ff.  ;  1887,  p.  193-200. 

Konig  in  ZKWL,  1889,  p.  225  ff.,  281  ff.  has  shown  the 
untenableness  of  the  attempt  of  von  Ortenberg  (Ueber  die 
Bedeutung  dcs  Paseq  fur  die  Qucllenscheidung  in  den  Biichern 
des  A.  T.  1887,  and  in  the  ZAW,  1887,  pp.  301-312),  to 
find  in  Paseq  a  sign  of  a  collection  of  various  documentary 
authorities. 


106  §  36.    QUOTATIONS  AND  TRANSCRIPTIONS. 

5.   Quotations  and  Transcriptions. 

36.  Among  the  immediate  aids  for  the  history  of  the  text 
are  also  to  be  reckoned  the  occasional  introduction  of  larger  or 
smaller  parts  of  the  text  into  the  earlier  Jewish  and  Christian 
literature,  in  so  far  as  they  reproduce  the  literal  original  form 
of  the  text.  Thus,  in  the  Talmud  and  in  Midrashic  works, 
there  is  to  be  found  a  great  number  of  quotations  from  the 
Old  Testament  writings,  which  may  be  of  service  in  affording 
us  a  glance  into  the  contemporary  condition  of  the  text. 
Yet,  in  order  that  he  may  not  misuse  the  aid,  one  should  not 
lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  such  passages  were  often  quoted 
from  memory,  so  that  they  may  not  be  absolutely  identical 
with  the  text  of  that  time.  Only  in  cases  where  the  argu 
ment  turns  upon  the  form  of  the  words  in  the  text,  can  we 
conclude  that  we  have  a  true  quotation.  Among  these  are 
to  be  reckoned  the  still  extant  fragments  of  the  second 
column  in  the  Hexapla  of  Origen  (§  43),  which  contains  the 
original  Hebrew  text  transcribed  in  Greek  characters,  and 
from  which  the  fathers  sometimes  quoted  portions,  together 
with  the  not  infrequent  transliterations  of  the  original  text  in 
Jerome.  These  transcriptions  are  specially  valuable  for  this 
reason  that  they  give  us  an  indication  of  the  pronunciation 
of  the  Hebrew  then  common.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
tolerably  numerous  passages  where  Theodotion  in  his  version 
has  left  the  Hebrew  word  untranslated  (§  53).  In  Josephus 
and  the  LXX.  the  transcriptions  are  limited  for  the  most  part 
to  proper  names,  but  even  these  are  of  great  importance, 
especially  for  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  language.  So  too 
the  transliterations  of  the  Hebrew  names  on  the  Assyrian  and 
Egyptian  inscriptions,  imperfect  though  they  are,  sometimes 
cast  light  upon  the  ante-Massoretic  pronunciation  of  Hebrew. 

On  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Talmud 
and  in  the  Midrashim,  compare  Cappellanus,  Mare  rabbinicum 


§  36.    QUOTATIONS  AND  TRANSCRIPTIONS.  107 

infidum,  Paris  1667;  Cappellus,  Critica  sacra,  v.  12;  Strack, 
Prolegomena,  pp.  59-72,  94-111,  122  ;  Briill,  Jahrliicher  fur 
jild.  Geschichte  und  Litteratur,  iv.  166;  Geiger,  Jud.  Zeitschrift, 
iv.  1886,  p.  165  ;  Nachgelassene  Sehriften,  iv.  27ff. ;  Deutscli, 
Spriiche  Salomos,  1885,  i.  63-78.  The  Tosephta  quotations 
are  given  by  B.  Pick,  ZAW,  vi.  23-29.  The  quotations 
from  Mechilta  and  Sifre  in  ZAW,  iv.  101-121.  But  see 
the  depreciatory  remarks  of  Derenbourg  in  regard  to  these 
collections  in  ZAW,  vii.  91—93,  where,  with  good  reason, 
he  warns  against  such  a  hunt  after  variations. 

On  the  transcriptions  in  Jerome   compare  Siegfried,  ZA  W, 

1884,  pp.  34-83.      On  the  transcribed  Hebrew  text  in  the 
Hexapla,   compare   Field,   Oricjcnis  hcxapla,  i.   Ixxi  sqq.      On 
Theodotion  compare  Field,  i.  xi  sq.      He  renders  the   nnpj  of 
Amos  i.  1,  e.g.  vwfceSeifj, ;  the  vm   of  Ps.  xxvii  2   by   &a(3eip, 
etc.     We  sometimes  meet  with  the  same  sort  of  thing  in  the 
LXX. ;  see  Cornill,  Das  Bucli  des  PropJi.  Ezechicl,  p.  96. 

The  proper  names  in  Josephus  are  treated  of  by  Siegfried 
\\\  ZAW,  1883,  pp.  38-41.  On  the  names  in  the  LXX. 
compare  Frankel,  Vorstudien  zu  der  Septuaginta,  p.  9  0  ff. ; 
Konnecke,  Die  Behandlung  der  helrdischen  Namen  in  der 
Septuaginta  (Progr.),  Stargard  1885;  and,  as  of  quite  special 
value,  the  collections  in  Lagarde's  Uebersicht  uber  die  im  Ara- 
mdischen,  Arabisclien  und  Hebrdisclien  tiblichc  Bildung  der 
Nomina,  1889.  Also  the  Onomastica  sacra  of  Eusebius  and 
Jerome,  as  edited  by  Lagarde  (2nd  ed.  1887),  should  be  taken 
into  account  here. 

On  the  Assyrian  translations  see  Schrader,  Keilinscliriflen 
und  das  Altes  Testament,  1883  [Eng.  trans,  in  2  vols., 
The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testament,  London 

1885,  1888].      On  the  Egyptian  and  other  transcriptions  see 
Merx,  Archiv  fur  wissenschaftl.  Forschung  d.  A.  T.  i.   350  ff. ; 
Bulletin  de  la  sodett  de  geographic,  1879,  pp.  209  ff.,  327  ff. 
Compare  also  Steindorff,  Die  keilinschriftliche  Wiedergabe  agyp- 
tischer  Eigennamen  in  the  Beitrcigen  zur  Assyriologie,  i.  1889, 
pp.  330-361,  where  repeatedly  mention  is  made  of  Egyptian 
names   occurring   in   the    Old  Testament.      On   the  names  of 
places  in  the  letters  found  in  the   Tel-il-Amama,  see  HaleVy 


108  §  37.    OLDEST  GREEK  TRANSLATIONS. 

in  EEJ,  xx.  199  ff. ;  Zimmern,  Zeitschrift  d.  Deutsch.  Palas- 
tinavercins,  xiii.  133  ff. 


B. — THE  OLD  TRANSLATIONS. 
1.   The  Alexandrine  Translation — TJte  Septuagint. 

37.  The  oldest  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  generally 
one  of  the  oldest  and  most  remarkable  attempts  to  translate  a 
writing  into  another  language,  is  the  translation  produced  by 
the  Alexandrine  Jews.  What  is  told  of  still  earlier  transla 
tions  of  the  Law  is  devoid  of  all  historical  value.  It  is  told, 
indeed,  by  a  Jewish  philosopher  that  lived  under  Ptolemy 
Philometor,  B.C.  180—145,  that  there  was  a  much  older 
rendering  (Diermeneusis)  of  the  Law  from  the  times  of  the 
Persian  sovereignty ;  but  even  if  the  fragments  ascribed  to 
Aristobulus  are  genuine,  which  we  have  no  sufficient  ground 
to  doubt,  that  alleged  translation  cannot  certainly  have  been 
anything  else  than  a  postulate  which  seemed  to  philosophically 
cultured  Jews  necessary  in  order  that  they  might  explain  the 
points  of  contact  between  Plato  or  Pythagoras  and  the  Mosaic 
law  from  the  acquaintance  of  these  philosophers  with  Mosaism. 
Still  less  can  a  confused  story  in  Masscket  soplfrim  (§  32)  of 
an  earlier  translation  of  the  Law  by  five  elders  lay  any  claim 
to  credibility.  Indeed,  the  very  uncertainty  of  the  text  in 
this  particular  passage  deprives  this  story  of  every  vestige  of 
historical  worth. 

On  the  Jewish  philosopher  Aristobulus  and  the  fragments 
of  his  work  preserved  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Eusebius, 
compare  Hody,  De  Bibliorum  textibus  originalibus,lib.  i.  cap.  ix. 
p.  49  ff.;  Valckenaer,  Diatribe  de  Aristobulo,  Leyden  1806,  and 
Schurer,  Geschichte  des  jud.  Volkcs,  ii.  764,  Eng.  trans.  Div.  ii. 
vol.  iii.  237,  where  further  lists  of  literature  are  given. 


§  y?.    OLDEST  GREEK  TRANSLATIONS.  109 

Among  those  who  contest  the  genuineness  of  those  fragments 
is  specially  to  be  named  Joel,  Blicke  in  die,  ReligionsgescJiicJite 
zu  An  fang  des  2  christl.  Jahrhundert,  i.  1880,  p.  79  ff. 

In  the  fragment  communicated  by  Clement  of  Alexandria 
(Stromata,  i.  22,  ed.  Potter,  i.  410)  and  Eusebius  (Prceparatio 
cvanyelica,  xiii.  12),  Aristobulus  writes  to  King  Philometor: 
Karr)Ko\ov0i]Ke  ce  /cal  6  TI\drwv  rfi  Kd9^  TUJLCL^  vojJLoOecrici  real 
TrepieipyacrafjLevos  eicacrra  rwv  eV  awry  \eyofjbevwv 
yap  Trpb  Arj^rpiov  St'  eTepcov,  rrpo  TTJS  A.\e%dv- 
cpov  Kal  Ilepawv  eTTiKpanjcrea)?,  TO.  re  Kara  rr]v  e^aycoyrjp  rwv 
Ej3paicov  rwv  ^fjierepwv  TroXtrcoz/,  Kal  TJ  rwv  <ye<yovora)v  arcdv- 
rwv  avrois  eTTiffxiveia,  KCLI  /cparTjcns  T^?  ^wpa^  KCLI  rr/s  6X779 
vofji,o6e<7ias  6TT€^yrjcn^'  wcrre  ev$r)\ov  eivai  rov  rrpoeLprnjievov 
(£>i\6cro(£>6v  eiXrifyevai  TroXXa'  yeyove  yap  rro\VfjLa6rj^,  KaOtos  KOI 
IlvOayopas,  7ro\\a  rwv  rrap  rjfuv  fjuerevey/caf;  els  7rjv  eavrov 
Soy /mar  OTTO  u'av  Kare^piaev.  *H  8'  0X77  epjJLrjvela  T&V  Sia  rov 
vouov  rrdvrwv  eVl  rov  TTpoaayopevOevros  ^L\aSe\(j)OV 
crov  $e  Trpoyovov,  rrpoo-eveyKa^evov  fj,e{%ova  <j)i\OTifj,iav, 
rpiou  rov  3>a\7]pews  Trpay/AarevaafAevov  ra  trepl  rovraiv.  For 
the  rest  a  certain  acquaintance  on  the  part  of  Plato  with  the 
Jewish  religion  need  not  be  regarded  as  absolutely  impossible. 
In  some  not  very  clear  words  ascribed  to  Demetrius  Phalereus 
by  the  author  of  the  Epistle  of  Aristeas  (Haverkamp,  Josephus, 
ii.  2.  107,  compare  Josephus,  Antiquities,  xii.  2.  3)  there  is 
certainly  no  reason  why  we  should  find  a  reminiscence  of 
earlier  attempts  at  translation  (against  Erankel,  Vorstudien, 
p.  24). 

Masseket  soph'r-im,  i.  p.  ii :  "  Five  elders  wrote  for  King 
Ptolemy  the  Law  in  Greek,  and  this  day  was  for  the  Israelites 
just  as  dark  as  the  day  on  which  the  golden  calf  was  made, 
for  the  Law  cannot  be  translated  with  impunity.  And  at  a 
later  time  the  king  gathered  together  seventy  elders,"  etc.  In 
some  manuscripts,  n\JpT  n^DH3,  and  the  older  tract,  Sepher  torn 
(§  32),  here  in  the  same  passage  D^pr  D^W.  Therefore  the 
use  which  Joel,  Blicke  in  die  Reglionsgeschichte,  p.  1  ff.,  makes 
of  the  story  in  the  Masseket  sopherim  is  very  precarious.  Com 
pare  also  Geiger,  Ursclirift,  p.  441;  Nachgdassene  Schriftcn, 
iv.  71  ;  Berliner,  Targum  Onkclos,  ii.  78  f. 


110  §  38.    THE  EPISTLE  OF  ARISTEAS. 

38.  From  the  Prologue  to  the  translation  of  the  Book  of 
Ben  Sirach  (§  4)  it  appears  that  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  part 
also  of  the  Hagiographa  must  have  existed  about  B.C.  130  in  a 
Greek  translation ;  and  that  this  translation  is  in  all  essential 
respects  identical  with  the  Septuagiut  as  known  to  us,  follows 
from  the  use  made  of  it  by  the  somewhat  earlier  Jewish  historical 
writer,  Demetrius,  as  well  as  by  the  Jewish-Hellenistic  writers 
of  the  last  century  before  Christ.  But  when  this  has  been 
said,  we  have  before  us  really  all  that  is  certainly  known 
respecting  the  origin  of  the  Alexandrine  translation.  There 
is  indeed  no  lack  of  very  particular  and  detailed  stories  about 
the  way  in  which  the  Septuagint  came  into  existence,  but 
unfortunately  they  are  of  such  a  kind  that  they  confuse  rather 
than  explain  our  conception  of  the  origin  of  this  important 
and  influential  work. 

The  oldest  writing  whicli  speaks  of  the  translation  of  the 
Law  into  the  Greek  language  is  the  celebrated  Epistle  of  Aris- 
teas,  a  Jewish- Alexandrine  work.  This  production  must  at 
least  be  older  than  Josephus  and  Philo,  possibly  even  than 
the  writings  of  Aristobulus  mentioned  at  p.  108,  as  we  have 
internal  reason  for  supposing  that  it  belongs  to  an  age  when 
the  Jews  had  not  yet  exchanged  the  Ptolemaic  sovereignty  for 
that  of  the  Seleucidean  dynasty.  Its  date  must  therefore  have 
been  earlier  than  B.C.  198.  The  little  book  represents  itself 
as  an  epistle  which  Aristeas,  an  officer  of  King  Ptolemy  II. 
Philadelphia  (B.C.  284-247),  and  therefore  a  Gentile,  had 
written  to  his  brother  Philocrates.  In  a  good  literary  style  it 
is  related  how  the  king's  librarian,  Demetrius  Phalereus, 
advised  his  master  to  have  the  Law  of  the  Jews  translated 
into  Greek,  in  order  that  it  might  have  a  place  given  it  in 
the  royal  library  of  Alexandria.  The  king  agrees  to  this 
proposal,  and,  besides,  emancipates  the  100,000  Jews  whom  his 
father  had  carried  to  Egypt  as  prisoners  of  war.  He  then  sent 
Aristeas  and  the  captain  of  his  bodyguard  to  Jerusalem  with 


§  38.    THE  EPISTLE  OF  ARISTEAS.  Ill 

rich  presents  and  a  letter,  in  which  he  prays  the  High  Priest 
Eleazar  to  supply  him  with  men  capable  of  undertaking  this 
work.  There  then  follows  a  spirited  description  of  Jerusalem, 
the  temple,  the  country,  and  above  all  of  the  noble  and  rea 
sonable  laws  of  the  Jews.  The  high  priest  is  filled  with  joy 
at  the  request  of  the  king,  and  seventy-two  men,  six  from 
every  tribe,  are  sent  to  Alexandria  with  a  copy  of  the  Law 
written  in  golden  letters.  During  seven  days  they  have  daily 
audiences  of  the  king,  and  excite  the  admiration  of  all  by 
the  wisdom  with  which  they  answer  the  seventy-two  questions 
proposed  to  them  in  philosophy,  politics,  and  ethics.  Thereafter 
they  are  transported  to  the  island  of  Pharos,  where,  in  a  beau 
tiful  residence,  they  engage  diligently  in  the  work  of  transla 
tion.  Every  day  they  all  translate,  each  one  by  himself,  a 
portion  of  the  Law,  and  then,  after  comparison  of  the  various 
renderings,  they  produce  a  common  text.  In  seventy-two  days 
the  work  is  completed.  The  Alexandrine  Jews  express  their 
admiration  of  the  work,  and  beseech  that  they  may  be  supplied 
with  a  copy  of  it,  while  they  pronounce  a  curse  upon  every 
one  who  should  presume  to  change  the  translation.  Finally, 
the  king,  who  was  greatly  astonished  that  this  noble  law 
should  have  been  unknown  to  the  Greeks,  sends  the  seventy- 
two  interpreters  home  laden  with  rich  presents. 

This  story,  though  anything  but  niggardly  in  its  supply  of 
admiration,  gifts,  and  symbolical  numbers,  was  not  sufficient 
for  the  taste  of  the  following  generation,  and  so  it  had  to  be 
further  adorned  in  various  directions.  In  Philo  we  meet 
with  an  important  addition  which  represents  the  interpreters 
as  inspired  (compare  §  12),  so  that  they,  for  example,  had  all 
used  in  their  several  translations  the  very  same  expressions. 
In  the  Church  fathers  this  is  still  further  improved  upon  by 
the  assertion,  that  each  of  the  seventy-two  interpreters  had 
wrought  in  his  own  cell  without  being  able  to  confer  with  his 
colleagues.  In  this  form  the  story  was  adopted  by  the 


112  §38.    THE  EPISTLE  OF  ARISTEAS. 

Talmud,  where  it  forms  a  rare  contrast  to  the  reservation,  not 
to  say  antipathy,  with  which  the  Alexandrine  translation  is 
elsewhere  referred  to  (§  40).  Yea,  even  the  Samaritans  have 
appropriated  the  story  with  these  legendary  excrescences.  At 
the  same  time,  in  opposition  to  the  express  statements  of  older 
authorities,  this  story  was  made  to  apply  to  all  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  which  even  Jerome,  who  views  the  whole 
narrative  with  a  rather  sceptical  eye  (§  51),  decidedly 
rejects. 

The  Epistle  of  Aristeas,  which  has  been  often  published 
(as,  e.g.  in  Havercamp's  Josepbus,  ii.  2.  pp.  103-132),  has 
recently  been  issued  with  a  critically  improved  text  by 
Moritz  Schmidt  in  Merx's  Arcbiv  fur  Wissenscb.  Erforscbung 
d.  A.  T.  i.  241  if.  Compare  generally  in  regard  to  this 
subject :  Hody,  De  BiUiorum  textibus  originalibus,  lib.  i. ; 
Noldeke,  Alttestamentliche  Littcratur,  p.  109  ff. ;  Griitz, 
MGWJ,  1876,  p.  289  ff. ;  Bleek,  Einkitung,  p.  571  ff .  ; 
Papageorgios,  Ueber  den  Aristcasbrief,  Munich  1880;  Lum- 
broso,  Recbcrcbes  sur  I  'Economic  politiqiie  dc  VJEgypte  sous  les 
Lagides,  Turin  1870,  p.  351  ff.  ;  Schiirer,  Gescbicbte  des  jild. 
Vblkes,  ii.  819-824,  Eng.  trans.  Div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  306-312, 
where  further  lists  of  literature  are  given. 

Philo,  ed.  Mangey,  ii.  139.  The  passages  of  the  fathers 
are  enumerated  by  Gallandi,  Bibliothcca  veterum  pat-rum,  ii. 
805-824,  and  by  Schiirer,  Gescbicbte  des  jild.  Tolkes,  ii.  823, 
Eng.  trans.  Div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  311.  On  the  chronological  state 
ments  of  the  fathers  about  the  year  in  which  the  LXX. 
was  translated,  see  Nestle,  Septuaffinta-Studien,  Ulm  1886, 
p.  12  f. 

B.  Megilla  9a,  Masseket  sopb'rim  i.  p.  ii.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Mechilta  on  Ex.  xii.  40  (p.  155)  about  this  says 
only  that  the  Law  had  been  translated  "  before  the  time  of 
King  Ptolemy."  On  the  Samaritans,  see  Yilmar,  Annales 
Samaritance,  1865,  p.  95  ff. 

Jerome  (Vallarsi  vi.  456):  "  Josefus  enim  scribit  et 
Hebra3i  tradunt,  quinque  tantuin  libros  legis  Moysi  ab  eis 
translates  et  Ptoleinseo  resi  traditos. 


^    §  39.    THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT.  113 

39.  As  to  the  historical  character  of  the  account  given  in 
the  Epistle  of  Aristeas,  there  prevails  at  this  day  general 
agreement  to  this  extent,  that  no  one  entertains  the  idea  of 
accepting  the  story  as  credible  in  all  its  details.  As  the 
author  himself  quite  evidently  was  a  Jew  writing  under  a 
heathen  mask,  there  is  also  much  in  his  book  which  is  clearly 
pure  invention  in  majorcm  gloriam  Judccorum.  On  the 
other  hand,  among  the  most  distinguished  investigators  there 
still  prevails  a  difference  of  opinion  with  regard  to  the  ques 
tion,  whether  the  whole  is  a  purely  fictitious  romance,  or 
whether  a  historical  core  lies  hidden  under  the  legendary 
form.  This  is  a  question  of  great  importance  in  the  history 
of  culture,  for  it  is  of  no  small  interest  to  know  whether  one 
of  the  first  attempts  to  translate  a  literary  work  into  another 
language  (an  attempt  which  had  a  sort  of  precursor  only  in 
the  older  polylingual  royal  decrees)  was  called  forth  by  the 
literary  craving  of  the  Hellenistic  race  for  knowledge  or  by  the 
practical  need  of  the  Egyptian  Jews.  Now  there  are  certainly 
very  serious  reasons  to  be  alleged  against  the  credibility  of  this 
story  even  when  it  has  been  reduced  to  very  much  more 
modest  dimensions.  On  the  one  hand,  attention  is  called  to 
the  jargon,  unintelligible  to  a  Greek,  in  which  the  translation 
of  the  Law  has  been  written.  Of  expressions  like  <yeia)pas 
(i.e.  "13,  or,  as  Lagarde  shows,  rather  the  Aramaic  "N"3),  i\da-Keo-0ai 
ra?  ao-e/3e/a?,  and  numerous  others  of  that  sort,  a  Greek  could 
absolutely  make  nothing,  not  to  speak  of  nirp  (§  76)  taken 
over  simply  in  its  Hebrew  form.  And  it  is  certainly  not 
easy  to  understand  why  this  barbarously  rendered  translation 
should  not  have  been  subjected  to  a  linguistic  revision,  if  the 
cultured  classes  of  Alexandrian  society  had  intended  to  make 
themselves  acquainted  by  its  help  with  the  Jewish  Law. 
Further,  it  is  also  in  a  high  degree  remarkable  that  the 
Alexandrine  Jews  should  have  given  liturgical  rank  to  a 

translation  of  their  holy  Law  carried  out  at  the  instance  of  a 

II 


114  §  39.    THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

heathen.  Had  there  been  indeed  no  account  of  the  origin 
of  the  Septuagint  handed  down  by  tradition,  then  certainly 
no  one  would  hesitate  to  account  for  its  existence  from  the 
need  of  the  Egyptian  Jews,  who  were  growing  ever  more  and 
more  unfamiliar  with  their  Hebrew  mother  tongue,  and  all  the 
more  so  as  such  a  need  did  certainly  very  soon  make  itself 
felt  (compare  Nehem.  xiii.  24).  And  in  order  to  satisfy  this 
need  just  such  a  translation  as  the  Alexandrine  was  required, 
which  used  the  peculiar  Jewish-Greek  jargon  and  contributed 
farther  to  its  development.  But,  notwithstanding  all  this, 
we  can  find  no  justification  for  the  wholesale  rejection  of  the 
credibility  of  the  story.  If  it  be  really  so,  as  cannot  well  be 
denied  (compare  §  38),  that  the  Epistle  of  Aristeas  \vas  written 
at  the  latest  about  B.C.  200,  and  therefore  scarcely  half  a 
century  after  the  death  of  Ptolemy  II.,  it  would  have  been  a 
bold  proceeding  on  the  part  of  any  writer  to  describe  the  origin 
of  the  translation  of  the  Torah  in  such  a  way  that  its  untruth 
must  have  been  apparent,  as  well  to  the  Alexandrians  as  to 
the  Jews.  The  same  is  true  of  the  passage  from  Aristobulus 
quoted  in  §  37,  whether  it  be  supposed  that  he  knew  or  did  not 
know  the  story  told  by  Aristeas.  And  even  if  we  should  feel 
justified  in  minimising  this  witness  by  adopting  the  idea  that 
the  writings  in  question  were  of  later  origin,  still  there  would 
remain  the  circumstance,  not  easily  to  be  accounted  for  by  us, 
that  the  explanation  given  in  the  Book  of  Aristeas  of  the 
origin  of  the  Septuagint,  considered  as  a  contribution  to  the 
history  of  culture,  is  of  far  too  original  a  character  to  be 
attributed  to  a  Jewish  fabricator.  Neither  should  we  over 
look  the  fact  that  the  second  of  the  reasons  which  have  been 
now  given  for  the  rejection  of  the  story  is  very  much  weakened 
by  this,  that  in  any  case  the  Jewish  author  of  the  Book  of 
Aristeas  and  the  Jews  following  him,  Fhilo  and  Josephus, 
have  taken  no  offence  at  the  thought  of  the  translation  having 
been  made  at  the  instance  of  a  heathen  prince.  Finally,  as 


§  39.    THE  OI1IGIN  OF  THE  SEPTTJAGINT.  115 

to  the  objection  which  has  been  advanced  against  the  his 
torical  truth  of  the  story,  to  the  effect  that,  according  to  the 
distinct  statement  of  Hermippus  Callimachius,  who  lived 
during  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  III.,  Demetrius  Phalereus  had 
been  banished  from  Alexandria  immediately  after  the  death 
of  Ptolemy  Lagus,  it  concerns  only  a  quite  separable  matter  of 
detail  in  the  story,  and  cannot  therefore  be  decisive  of  the 
main  point  of  the  question.  If  then,  after  an  exact  estimate 
has  been  made  of  all  reasons,  pro  and  con,  we  still  hold  by 
the  position  that  the  king  had  a  share  in  the  originating  of 
the  Septuagint,  it  is,  on  the  other  hand,  undeniable  that  the 
role  which  the  translation  of  the  Law  is  said  to  have  played 
in  the  learned  circles  of  Alexandria  is  wholly  undemonstrable  ; 
whereas  the  Greek  Torah,  in  connection  with  the  other  books 
subsequently  translated,  won  among  the  Alexandrian  and  all 
Hellenistic  Jews,  and  through  them,  among  the  members  of  the 
Christian  Church,  an  importance  of  which  the  men  who  first 
conceived  this  bold  idea  could  certainly  never  have  dreamed. 

The  usual  designation  in  the  fathers  and  in  the  Talmudical 
writings,  "  The  Translation  of  the  Seventy,"  which  is  applied 
to  the  translation  of  the  Law  as  well  as  to  that  of  the  other 
books,  rests  indeed  upon  the  Epistle  of  Aristeas  as  its  authority, 
for  seventy  is  simply  a  round  number  for  seventy-two.  But 
whence  the  Book  of  Aristeas  has  taken  that  number,  which 
plays  so  extraordinary  a  role  in  its  narrative,  and  is,  there 
fore,  certainly  not  an  invented  number,  remains  still  quite 
obscure. 

The  question  that  concerns  us  here  is  dealt  with  in  the 
works  of  Hody  and  Valckenaer  referred  to  in  §  37,  and  in 
many  more  recent  treatises.  The  following  admit  partially 
the  credibility  of  the  story  told  by  Aristeas  :  Valckenaer  ; 
Evvald,  Greschichte  du  Volkes  Israel 3,  iv.  322  fl'.,  Eng.  trans. 
v.  244  ;  Wellhausen-Bleek,  Eirileitung,  p.  5*71  ff. ;  Mommsen, 
Ebmische  Gcscldchte,  v.  490.  The  whole  story  is  rejected 


116  §  40.    THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  LXX.  BY  THE  JEWS. 

as  a  pure  fabrication  by :  Hody,  DC,  BiUiorum  Textibus ; 
Eichhorn,  Eepertorium  i.  266  ff . ;  Eeuss,  Geschichte  der  heiligen 
Schriften  dcs  A.  T.  §  436  ;  Noldeke,  ZDMG,  xxxii.  588,xxxix. 
342  ;  Kuenen,  Godsdienst,  ii.  392  ;  Frankel,  Vorstudien  zu  der 
Septuaginta,  p.  6  ff. ;  Schuurmans  Stekhoven,  DC  alexandrijnsche 
Vertaling  van  lid  Dodekapropheton,  p.  1  ff. ;  Oort,  Theol. 
TijdscJirift,  1882,  p.  287  ff. 

The  report  of  Hermippus  Callimacliius  is  given  in  Miiller, 
Fragmenta  hist.  Grcec.  iii.  47. 

In  explanation  of  the  name  "  Septuaginta "  various  con 
jectures  have  been  made.  Special  attention  has  been  called 
to  this  that  seventy  (seventy-one  or  seventy-two)  constituted 
the  normal  number  of  members  in  a  Jewish  High  Court  of 
Justice.  Compare  Num.  xi.  16,  and  further  Schiirer,  Gcscli- 
ichte  der  jild.  Volkcs,  ii.  151,  Eng.  trans.  Div.  ii.  vol.  i. 
174  ff.  It  has  therefore  been  conjectured  that  the  name 
referred  to  the  authorisation  of  the  translation  by  a  high 
court  of  justice.  Compare  Ewald,  Geschichte  der  Volkes  Israel, 
iv.  327,  Eng.  trans,  v.  249;  Schuurmans  Stekhoven,  DC, 
alexandrijnsche  Vertaling,  p.  4  f.,  and  the  other  works  above 
quoted.  But  nothing  of  this  sort  can  be  proved  in  connection 
with  Alexandria  in  the  times  of  the  Ptolemies.  Still  less 
satisfactory  as  accounting  for  the  name  is  the  hypothesis  that 
a  larger  number  had  actually  been  engaged  in  the  work 
(Wellhausen-Bleek,  Einleitung,  p.  576).  Compare  also  the 
treatise  of  Steinschneiders  on  the  "Number  Seventy"  in  the 
ZDMG,  iv.  145  ff. 

40.  To  the  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  were  soon  added 
translations  of  the  other  Old  Testament  writings.  Even  the 
translation  of  the  Torah,  as  it  seems,  was  not  the  work  of  one 
hand,  and  this  is  still  more  evidently  true  of  the  other  trans 
lations  which  were  executed  by  various  and  very  variously 
qualified  translators.  The  most  of  them  are  certainly  to  be 
regarded  as  private  attempts,  to  which  only  circumstances  lent 
authoritative  importance.  This  is  seen  notably  in  the  case  of 
the  Book  of  Ezra,  of  which  we  possess  two  translations  of 


§  40.    THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  LXX.  BY  THE  JEWS.  117 

varying  extent  (§  13).  An  instructive  picture  of  the  way  in 
which  such  translations  originated  is  given  in  the  preface  to  the 
Book  of  Ben  Sirach  (§  4),  which  at  the  same  time  is  interest 
ing  on  account  of  its  remarks  about  the  imperfections  of  the 
translations  of  Old  Testament  writings  that  then  existed. 
Besides  the  definite  dating  of  this  preface,  the  translation  of 
the  Book  of  Esther  also  contains  a  statement  as  to  the  date 
of  its  composition,  which,  however,  is  anything  but  clear. 

Notwithstanding  this  partly  private  origin,  the  whole  trans 
lation  soon  came  to  be  highly  esteemed  among  the  Alexandrian 
Jews,  and  was  in  later  times  regarded  as  inspired  (§  12).  It 
was  used  in  the  synagogue  service  wherever  Greek  was  the 
principal  language  of  the  Jews,  and  was  at  the  same  time  the 
means  by  which  the  ancient  civilised  world  was  subsequently 
made  acquainted  with  the  sacred  writings  of  Israel.  The 
dialect  of  the  Septuagint,  so  barbarous  in  a  Greek  ear,  has  in 
several  particulars  exercised  an  influence  upon  the  language 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  in  later  days  through  the  fathers, 
with  whom  it  often  completely  took  the  place  of  the  original, 
and  through  the  translations  of  following  generations,  which 
were  all  more  or  less  dependent  upon  it,  it  has  exercised  an 
influence  on  the  religious  phraseology  of  the  Christian  com 
munities  which  can  be  traced  even  in  the  most  modern 
languages. 

Among  the  Jews,  on  the  contrary,  it  only  gradually  secured 
its  position.  We  have  very  incomplete  information  as 
to  the  feelings  which  prevailed  at  the  first  among  the 
Palestinian  Jews  with  reference  to  this  new  attempt.  No 
certain  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  the  large  use  of  the 
Septuagint  made  by  Josephus  owing  to  the  peculiar  position 
of  that  author.  The  proofs  which  go  to  show  that  the  LXX. 
was  used  in  the  Palestinian  synagogues  are  rather  weak,  and 
have  been  vigorously  contested  by  modern  Jewish  authors. 
In  the  Talmud  we.  have  the  story  of  the  seventy-two  inter- 


118  §  40.    THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  LXX.  BY  THE  JEWS. 

preters,  a  story  which  has  as  its  presupposition  the  inspired 
character  of  the  LXX.,  set  quietly  beside  the  enumeration  of 
various  passages  in  which  its  divergences  from  the  genuine 
text  are  rejected.  On  the  other  hand,  the  steadily  growing 
struggle  with  Christianity  must  naturally  have  contributed 
largely  to  make  the  Jews,  who  were  always  considerably 
influenced  by  the  state  of  feeling  that  prevailed  in  Palestine, 
regard  with  aversion  a  translation  which  played  so  important 
a  role  in  the  Church.  Also,  apart  from  the  divergence 
between  the  Septuagint  and  the  Palestinian  Canon,  the  often 
excessive  freedom  with  which  the  Alexandrine  translation 
treats  the  Old  Testament  text  could  not  be  satisfactory  to  the 
Jews,  whose  very  life  and  being  lay  in  their  adherence  to 
letters  and  tittles.  We  possess  several  witnesses  to  the 
existence  of  this  antipathy.  Even  the  writings  of  Justin 
Martyr  show  that  the  difference  between  the  LXX.  and  the 
Hebrew  Bible  formed  a  chief  point  of  religious  controversy 
between  Jews  and  Christians.  Sefer  Tora,  i.  8,  declares  that 
the  day  on  which  the  Seventy  translated  the  Law  was  for 
Fsrael  as  doleful  as  the  day  on  which  the  golden  calf  was 
made  (§  37);  and  in  the  later  portions  of  the  Meyillath 
Taanitli,  c.  xii.  it  is  said :  "  On  8th  Tebet  the  Law  was  in  the 
days  of  King  Ptolemy  (^n)  written  in  the  Greek  language, 
and  darkness  covered  the  world  for  three  days."  The  best  proof 
of  this  feeling  among  the  Jews  against  the  Septuagint,  which 
occasioned  so  many  difficulties  to  the  Church  fathers,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  new  Greek  translations  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  obtained  currency  among  the  Jews,  and  of  which  a 
description  will  be  given  in  a  later  part  of  this  work  (§  51). 

On  the  question  whether  several  translators  had  taken  part 
in  the  Torah  translation,  compare  Frankel,  Ucber  den  Einfluss 
der  paldstinischen  Exegese  auf  die  alexandr.  Hermeneutik, 
1851,  p.  228  ff.;  Egli  in  the  ZWT,  1862,  p.  76  ff. 

In  the  Prologue  to  Ben  Sirach  the  translator  writes  :  "  Ye 


§  40.    THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  LXX.  BY  THE  JEWS.  119 

are  besought  to  make  allowance  where  we  seem  in  some 
words  to  have  failed,  although  the  translation  has  been  made 
with  care,  for  what  has  been  said  in  Hebrew  and  its  trans 
lation  into  another  language  cannot  perfectly  correspond  ;  also 
the  Law,  the  Prophecies,  and  the  other  books  are  in  their 
original  form  not  a  little  different  from  the  translation." 

The  subscription  of  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Book  of 
Esther  runs  as  follows :  "  In  the  fourth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Ptolemy  and  Cleopatra,  Dositheus,  who  is  said  to  have  been  a 
priest  or  a  Levite,  and  his  son  Ptolemy  introduced  the  letter- 
now  before  us  as  the  (ppovpai  [Purim],  which,  according  to 
this  statement,  had  been  translated  in  Jerusalem  by  Lysimachus, 
the  son  of  Ptolemy.  Compare  Fritzsche,  Kurzgefasotes  excget. 
Handbucli  zu  die  Apokryplicn,  i.  72  f . ;  Noldeke,  Alttesta- 
mentliclie  Litteratnr,  p.  88  ;  Wildeboer,  Hct  onstaan  xan  den 
Kanon,  2nd  ed.  p.  33. 

On  the  influence  which  the  Septuagint  has  exercised  in 
philosophy,  compare  Xb'ldeke,  Alttestamentliche  Liter atur,  p. 
249. 

On  the  question  of  the  use  of  the  LXX.  in  the  Palestinian 
synagogues,  compare  Eichhorn,  Einleitung  3,  i.  §  166;  Fritzsche 
in  Herzog's  Real- Encyclopedic 2,  i.  284;  Frankel,  Vorstudioi 
zic  der  Septuaginta,  p.  56  ff. ;  Berliner,  Targum  Onkelos,  ii.  80. 
The  chief  passages  are  jer.  Meg.  iv.  fol.  75&:  "The  foreign- 
speaking  Jews  did  not  observe  the  custom  prevailing  amongst 
us  to  divide  the  reading  of  the  Torah  among  several  persons, 
for  one  individual  reads  the  whole  Pamsha"  Also,  jer.  Sota 
vii.  1,  fol.  215,  on  the  Shema  ;  and  Justinian,  Novell.  146. 

The  passages  where  the  LXX.,  according  to  the  Jewish 
statement,  diverges  from  the  original  Hebrew  text,  are  to  be 
found  in  I.  Meg.  9,  jer.  Meg.  i.  9  ;  Mecliilta  on  Exodus  xii.  20, 
p.  15&,and  Masseket  sopWrim  i.  The  best  known  is  Gen.  i.  1, 
where  the  LXX.,  according  to  the  Talmudical  statement, 
translate,  as  though  it  had  been  to 3  D'nta  JW&TQ ;  this  pre 
supposes  that  the  native  Jews  themselves  interpreted  :  "  In  the 
beginning  when  God  created."  Compare  Frankel,  Vorstudien 
zu  der  Septuaginta,  p.  25  ff. ;  Geiger,  Urschrift,  p.  439  ff. ; 
Nacligclassene  Schriften,  iv.  50  f. 


120     §  41.    CHARACTER  OF  THE  ALEXANDRINE  TRANSLATION. 


Justin   Martyr   (ed.   Otto    II.    p.   232):    rot? 
\e<yeiv   rrjv  e£ij<yi}(Tiv,  TJV  e 
7Tpeo-(3vTepoi    Trapa    ITroAeyLuueo    ra> 
iwv  jBaaiXel  yevo/juevoi,  fjir]  elvau  ev  TIGIV  a\ijOr).    Compare 
also  the  same  work  at  p.  240,  and  Origen,  Ad  Africanum  §  5. 

41.  In  judging  of  the  Alexandrine  translation  we  should 
not  for  a  moment  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  it  was  a  first 
attempt  to  perform  a  difficult  task,  the  translating  of  a  writing 
out  of  one  language  into  another,  which  was  found  essentially 
different  from  the  first,  and  in  which  expressions  were 
altogether  wanting  for  numerous  ideas  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Besides,  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  demands  then 
made  of  a  Bible  translation  were  very  different  from  what 
would  now  be  made.  What  was  desired  was  a  practically 
useful  translation  which  would  take  account  of  the  circum 
stances  of  that  particular  time,  which,  above  all,  required  that 
the  form  in  which  the  sacred  writings  appeared  should  be  in 
keeping  with  the  advancing  religious  consciousness,  and  should 
obviate  the  objections  which  a  more  careful  and  sharper-eared 
generation  might  raise  against  the  original  form  of  the  writings. 
The  LXX.  shows  traces  throughout  of  the  influence  of  these 
factors.  It  avoids  completely  the  bold  anthropomorphisms 
and  the  striking  naivett  of  the  original  text,  and  shows  in 
this  particular  an  evident  relationship  with  the  other  old 
Bible  translations  of  the  Jews.  And  while  it  is  true  of  every 
translation  that  it  presupposes  a  special  exegesis  of  the  text  in 
question,  this  naturally  was  doubly  observable  at  a  time  when 
in  a  thoroughly  naive  manner  the  then  dominant  interpretation 
was  treated  as  the  one  possible  sense  of  the  text.  Hence  the 
LXX.  in  many  passages,  as  well  in  a  Halachic  as  in  a 
Haggadic  direction,  assumes  the  character  of  a  Midrash,  which 
mirrors  the  contemporary  conception  of  the  Bible,  and  is 
consequently  of  decided  importance  for  the  history  of  Old 
Testament  exegesis.  That  in  this  way  the  peculiar  circum- 


§  41.    CHARACTER  OF  THE  ALEXANDRINE  TRANSLATION.     121 

stances  and  spiritual  movements  of  the  Egyptian  Jews  are 
allowed  to  shine  through,  is  what  might  very  naturally  be 
expected.  Yet  even  in  this  connection  the  facts  have  been 
very  much  overstated,  and  the  endeavour  has  been  made  to 
find  more  than  the  LXX.  can  afford.  That  in  sections  which 
treat  of  Egypt  it  gives  evidence  of  thorough  acquaintance  with 
the  conditions  of  that  country  is  natural  enough  ;  and  so  too  the 
well-known  rendering  of  mnN  by  Sao-vTrov?  instead  of  Xo/yco? 
may  have  been  done  out  of  consideration  for  the  Lagido?. 
But  all  this  is  not,  in  any  case,  of  much  importance.  And 
specially  we  shall  seek  in  vain  after  any  real  influence  of  the 
Greek  philosophy  on  the  rendering  of  the  text.  At  the  most 
this  can  be  proved  only  in  quite  isolated  expressions,  like 
aoparos  KOI  aKaracrKevacrTOs  (Gen.  i.  2)  ;  but  upon  the  whole 
the  LXX.  is  a  purely  Jewish  work,  whose  authors  have  had 
only  a  very  superficial  connection  with  the  intellectual  and 
spiritual  life  of  Greece. 

If  we  keep  in  view  all  the  circumstances  which  have  been 
here  mentioned,  we  shall  guard  ourselves  against  making  the 
Alexandrine  translation  the  subject  of  a  sharp  criticism.  It 
must  rather  as  a  whole  call  forth  our  admiration  that  it 
should  in  any  sort  of  way  have  actually  accomplished  its 
task.  Only  that  kind  of  criticism  is  justifiable  which  makes 
the  better  sections  of  the  LXX.  the  standard  of  comparison 
for  those  that  have  been  less  successful.  There  will  be  found, 
even  within  the  compass  of  the  whole  translation,  a  remarkable 
diversity  among  the  several  books,  which,  however,  is  of 
interest  historically,  because  it  not  only  proceeds  from  the 
very  diverse  capacities  of  the  translators,  but  also  from  the 
adoption  of  diverse  hermeneutical  principles.  The  first  rank 
unconditionally  is  held  by  the  translation  of  the  Pentateuch, 
although  even  there  the  various  parts  are  dealt  with  somewhat 
variously  (compare  p.  116).  Also  the  Psalms,  of  so  much 
importance  for  the  community,  are  to  be  regarded  as  a  well- 


122     §  41.    CHARACTER  OF  THE  ALEXANDRINE  TRANSLATION. 

executed  piece  of  work.  So,  too,  the  generally  clear  contents 
of  the  historical  Prophets  made  it  possible  for  the  translators 
to  produce  a  useful  translation.  On  the  other  hand,  several 
of  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiographa  are  very  inadequately, 
sometimes  very  badly,  translated,  so  that  indeed  they  run 
through  the  whole  scale  from  the  freest  paraphrases  to  the 
most  rigid  imitation  of  the  very  order  of  word  and  phrase  in 
the  Hebrew.  "  Nactus  est  Isaias  interpretem  sese  indignum," 
remarks  Zwingli  with  good  reason,  for  the  translation  of  that 
book  is  in  fact  of  such  a  kind  that  one  has  more  cause  to 
admire  its  readers  than  its  author.  One  of  the  most  wilfully 
translated  books  is  the  Book  of  Job,  whose  translator  wished 
to  pose  as  a  poetarum  lector ;  while  among  those  that  have 
been  rendered  with  painful  literalness  are  :  Ezekiel,  Chronicles, 
The  Song,  and  Ecclesiastes.  The  two  last  named  remind  one 
strikingly  of  the  method  of  Aquila  (§  52);  yet  the  exact 
relation  between  them  and  that  translator  is  not  quite  clear. 

Compare  on  the  subject  of  this  section  as  a  whole :  Geiger, 
Nacligelasscne  Schriften,  iv.  7  3  ff. ;  Frankel,  Vorstudien  zur  der 
Septuaginta,  pp.  163-203. 

On  the  Palestinian  influence  compare  Frankel,  Ueber  den 
Einfluss  der  palcistinischen  Exegese  auf  die  alexandrinisclie 
Hermcneutik,  1857  (dealing  only  with  the  Pentateuch); 
Geiger,  Jild.  Zeitsclirift,  iv.  99  ff. 

Examples  of  the  treatment  of  the  text  affected  by  the 
times,  Isaiah  ix.  11:  "%vpiav  d<f>  fjKiav  avardX&v  KOI  TOL><? 
acf)  rjXiov  SW/JLUV  ;  Num.  xxiv.  7  : 
e/c  rou  (TTTepfjiaTos  avrov,  KOI  Kvpieva-ei, 
/cal  vtywOrjcrerai  rf  Tcoy  (3acri\eia  avrov ;  Josh, 
xiii.  22  :  "  Balaam  did  they  slay  mra,"  the  LXX.  ev  rfj  poTrfj, 
compare  the  Jewish  Haggada,  that  Balaam,  who  by  his 
magical  arts  had  fled  into  the  air,  was  brought  down  by 
Phinehas.  On  the  other  hand,  the  LXX.  in  Isaiah  xix.  18, 
with  their  TroXt?  daeSeK,  are  not,  after  all,  to  be  regarded  as 
Egyptising,  but  rather  as  preserving  the  original. 


§  41.    CHARACTER  OF  THE  ALEXANDRINE  TRANSLATION.    123 

On  the  influence  of  Greek  philosophy  see  Frankel,  Ueber 
den  Einfluss,  pp.  34—42  ;  Zeller,  Philosophic  der  Griechen,  iii. 
2.  p.  217  ;  Siegfried,  Philo  als  Ausleger  d.  A.  T,  1875,  p.  8  ; 
and  especially  Freudenthal,  in  The  Jewish  Quarterly  Review, 
ii.  1890,  pp.  205-222,  who,  after  a  thoroughgoing  investi 
gation,  has  arrived  at  a  purely  negative  result. 

It  is  worthy  of  being  observed  that  in  the  three  passages 
where  the  translators  of  the  LXX.  are  directly  spoken  of  (the 
Epistle  of  Aristeas,  the  Prologue  to  the  Book  of  Ben  Sirach, 
and  the  Postscript  to  the  Book  of  Esther),  the  seventy- two 
interpreters  of  the  Law  are  brought  from  Palestine,  the  trans 
lator  of  the  Book  of  Ben  Sirach  comes  from  Palestine  to 
Egypt,  and  the  translator  of  the  Book  of  Esther  lives  in  Jeru 
salem.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  most  cases  the  Palestinians  would 
have  understood  Greek  better  than  the  Jews  born  in  Egypt 
would  know  Hebrew,  so  that  certainly  the  translators  would 
mostly  be  recruited  from  the  recently  immigrant  Palestinians. 

Luther's  judgment  of  the  LXX.,  in  so  far  as  it  is  regarded 
as  a  historical  phenomenon,  is  too  severe :  "  Translating  is  a 
special  grace  and  gift  of  God.  The  seventy  Greek  translators 
have  so  translated  the  Hebrew  Bible  into  the  Greek  language 
as  to  show  themselves  inexperienced  in  and  unacquainted 
with  the  Hebrew,  their  translation  is  very  trifling  and  absurd, 
for  they  have  disdained  to  speak  the  letters,  words,  and  style  " 
(Erlangen.  Ausgabe,  Ixii.  112). 

Among  the  ever-increasing  special  treatises  on  the  several 
books  of  the  LXX.  the  following  may  be  named  (in  addition 
to  the  older  literature  given  by  Eichhorn,  Einleitung 3,  i. 
§  181):  Topler,  De  Pentateuchi  interpretations  Alex,  in  dole, 
1830  ;  Thiersch,  De  Pentateuchi  versione  Alexandrina  libri 
iii.  1841  ;  Erankel,  Ueber  den  Einfluss,  1851.  Hollenberg, 
Der  Character  der  alexandrinische  Uebersetzung  des  Buches 
Josua,  1876.  Schulte,  De  restitutione  atque  indole  genuince 
versionis  grcecce  in  libro  Judicum,  1889.  Wellhausen,  Der 
Text  der  Bucher  Samuclis,  1871.  [Studio,  Biblica,  1st  series, 
1885,  The  Light  thrown  by  the  Septuagint  Version  on  the 
Boohs  of  Samuel,  by  F.  H.  Woods.]  Scholz,  Die  alex- 
andrinischc  Uebersetzung  des  Buches  Jesaias,  1880.  Movers,  De 


124    §  42.    THE  EARLIEST  HISTORY  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT  TEXT. 

utriusque  recensionis  vaticiniorum  Jeremice  indole  et  origine, 
1834  ;  Wichelhaus,  De  Jeremice  versionis  alexandrines  indole  et 
auctoritate,  1846;  Scholz,  Der  masoretische  Text  und  die  LXX. 
Uebersetzung  des  Buches  Jeremias,  1875;  Workman,  The  Text 
of  Jeremiah ;  a  Critical  Investigation  of  the  G-reek  and  Hebrew, 
with  the  Variations  in  the  LXX.  retranslated  into  the  Original, 
and  Explained,  1889.  Cornill,  Das  Buch  dcs  Propheten 
Ezechiel,  1886,  pp.  13-103.  Vollers,  Das  Dodekapropheten 
der  Alcxandriner,  1880  (Nahum— Malachi),  and  in  ZAW, 
1883,  p.  219  if.,  1884,  p.  1  ff.  (Hosea-Micah) ;  Schuurmans 
Stekhoven,  De  alexandrijnsche  Vertaling  van  lid  Dodekapro- 
plieton,  1887;  Treitch,  Die  alexandrinische  Uebersetzung  des 
Buches  Hosea,  i.  1888;  llyssel,  Untersuchungen  ilber  die 
Textgcstalt  des  Buches  Micha,  1887.  Brethgen,  Der  text- 
kritische  Werth  der  alien  Uebersetzung  en  zu  den  Psalmen,  JPT, 
1882,  p.  407fF.  Lagarde,  Anmerkungen  zur  gricch.  Ueber 
setzung  der  Proverbien,  1863.  Bickell,  De  indole  ac  ratione 
versionis  Alexandrine  in  interpretando  libro  Jobi,  1862,  and 
in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  katholischc  Theologie,  1886,  p.  557  ff.; 
Hatch,  Essays  in  Biblical  Greek,  Oxford  1889,  pp.  215-246, 
On  Origens  Revision  of  the  LXX.  Text  of  Job  ;  Dillmann, 
"  Textkritisches  zum  Buche  Job "  in  Sitzungsberichte  der 
Konigleheuss  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften  zu  Berlin,  1890. 
[Cheyne,  "  Dillmann  on  the  Text  of  Job "  in  Expositor  for 
August  1891,  pp.  142-145.]  Compare  also  on  the  traces  of 
the  Greek  poets  in  this  translation,  Egli  in  the  Rhein. 
Museum,  xii.  414-448.  Jacob,  "  Das  Buch  Esther  bei  den 
LXX.  in  ZAW,  1890,  p.  241  ff.  On  the  Greek  translation  of 
Ecclesiastes,  compare  Freudenthal,  Hellenistische  Studien,  1875, 
p.  65;  Gratz,  Koheleth,  p.  175  f. ;  Eenan,  LEccUsiaste,  1882, 
p.  55f. ;  Wright,  The  Book  of  Koheleth,  1883,  p.  50  f. ; 
Klostermann,  TSK,  1885,  p.  153  ff.  ;  Bludau,  De  alexandrince 
interpretations  libri  Danielis  indole,  i.  1891.  See  also  the 
Prefaces  of  Jerome  to  his  Commentary,  and  below  at  §  52. 

42.  Besides  the  historical  importance  referred  to  in  the 
preceding  sections,  the  LXX.  has  the  signal  distinction  of 
being  the  oldest  complete  witness  to  the  text  of  the  Old 


§  42.    TIIK  EARLIEST  HISTORY  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT  TEXT.     125 

Testament.  It  opens  up  to  us  the  possibility  of  being  able 
to  work  back  to  the  Hebrew  text  that  lay  before  each  indi 
vidual  Greek  translator,  and  in  this  way  to  gain  acquaintance 
with  a  form  of  text  which  is  some  twelve  hundred  years 
older  than  the  oldest  Hebrew  Bible  manuscript.  The  com 
parison  of  the  text  thus  constructed,  the  Alexandrine  Text, 
with  the  Massoretic  Text,  introduces  us  to  the  most  important 
of  all  the  sections  of  the  history  of  the  text,  and  converts  an 
entire  series  of  problems  from  wholly  irrelevant  variations  into 
completely  divergent  recensions.  Under  these  circumstances 
it  is  in  the  highest  degree  deplorable  that  the  use  of  the  LXX. 
in  textual  criticism  should  be  so  seriously  prejudiced  by 
the  defective  condition  of  its  own  text,  the  restoration  of 
which  Stroth  called  "  the  squaring  of  the  circle."  The 
degeneration  of  the  Septuagint  text  began  very  early,  as  is 
shown  by  the  curses,  certainly  not  uttered  without  occasion, 
which  the  Epistle  of  Aristeas  represents  the  Jews  as  pro 
nouncing  upon  every  corruption  of  the  translation.  A  pro 
ductive  cause  of  this,  here  as  in  most  cases,  was  the  careless 
ness  and  awkwardness  of  the  transcribers,  aggravated  no 
doubt  by  the  occasionally  meaningless  character  of  the 
Alexandrine  translation ;  but  we  learn  expressly,  even  from 
Justin  Martyr,  who  died  about  A.D.  163,  that  many  conscious 
alterations  and  additions  had,  even  on  the  part  of  Christians, 
been  introduced  into  the  text.  A  well-known  example  of 
such  additions,  in  which,  moreover,  Justin  and  other  fathers 
considered  that  they  had  original  elements  of  the  text 
which  had  been  erased  by  the  Jewish  hatred  of  Christ,  are 
the  words  diro  rov  %vkov  in  Psalm  xcvi.  10,  which  long 
played  a  part  in  patristic  literature.  Gradually  the  dis 
crepancies  of  the  various  manuscripts  assumed  so  disturbing 
a  character  that  a  remedy  for  this  evil  became  a  necessity. 
The  first  who  undertook  to  perform  this  task  was  the  great 
Origen,  who  died  A.D.  254.  The  magnificent  conception  of 


126  §  43.  ORIGEN'S  TREATMENT  OF  THE  TEXT. 

his  work  in  textual  criticism  continues  still  to  excite  an 
admiration,  which  is  not  lessened  by  the  fact  that  it  is  not 
difficult  to  criticise  his  methods  now,  when  we  are  able  to 
glance  over  their  consequences.  But  it  is  a  fact  that  his 
undertaking  has  contributed  to  render  the  use  of  the  LXX. 
for  the  purposes  of  textual  criticism  yet  more  difficult.  The 
reason  of  this  was  that  Origen  sought  to  perform  another  task 
of  textual  criticism,  namely,  to  determine  the  relation  between 
the  Alexandrine  translation  and  the  Hebrew  text,  not  only 
contemporaneously  with  the  establishing  of  the  Septuagint 
text,  but  even  using  that  same  Septuagint  text  as  an  aid  in 
performing  that  task,  whereas  that  former  problem  should 
only  have  been  taken  up  after  he  had  secured  a  pure  and 
certain  Septuagint  text.  Although  the  LXX.  in  several 
passages  affords  the  means  of  improving  the  received  text  of 
the  Palestinian  Jews,  since  it  points  back  to  an  original  form 
of  text,  the  Palestinian  Jewish  authority,  half  against  the  will 
of  Origen,  exercised  so  great  an  influence  that  by  his  labours 
the  LXX.  lost  not  a  little  of  its  peculiarities. 

Compare  Justin  Martyr,  ed.  Otto,  ii.  p.  242  ff. 

The  position  of  Origen  on  this  question  formed  an  exact 
parallel  to  his  treatment  of  the  question  of  the  canon.  Also 
in  that  connection  there  were,  as  he  himself  expressly  remarks, 
frequent  disputations  between  the  Christians  and  the  Jews, 
which  moved  him  to  make  his  fellow-believers  acquainted 
with  the  Jewish  Bible  in  order  to  protect  them  against  the 
criticism  of  the  Jews  (compare  Ad  Africanum,  §  5). 

43.  As  then,  Origen,  notwithstanding  the  prominence 
which  he  gave  to  the  Jewish  Canon,  would  by  no  means 
surrender  the  Apocrypha  received  by  the  Church  (§  17),  he 
did  not  consider  the  Jewish  text  in  principio  as  the  only 
correct  text,  to  which  the  Alexandrine  translation  had  to  be  in 
all  cases  conformed.  In  the  passage  where  he  expresses 
himself  most  thoroughly  with  regard  to  the  principles  of  his 


§  43.  ORIGEN'S  TREATMENT  OF  THE  TEXT.  127 

textual    criticism    (Comm.  on    Matth.    xv.    14),   lie    says,   in 
express  opposition  to  such  an  idea,  that  he  might  not  find 
himself  justified    (ov    ToK^aavre^)    in    removing    from    his 
Septuagint  text  the  sentences  and  words  to  be  met  with  in 
the  LXX.,  but  not  in  the  Hebrew  text.     But  seeing  that  it 
was  at  the  same  time  his  aim  to  call  attention  to  the  relation 
between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint  text,  he  indicated 
such  passages  distinctly  by  marking,  in  accordance  with  the 
practice    of    the    grammarians    in   their   treatises    on   textual 
criticism,    their     commencement    by    means    of    a     prefixed 
obelus,  lemniscus,  or  hypolemniscus  ( —  or  -f-  or  -7-),  while  a 
metobelus  (\)  indicated  the  close  of  the  words  referred  to. 
Far  more  dangerous  was  his   procedure  when,  in  the  passages 
where  the  original  text  contained  more  than  the   Septuagint, 
he  made  additions  to  the  Septuagint  text  from  another  Greek 
translation,  most  frequently  from  that  of  Theodotion  (§   53). 
For  although  he  indicated  also  these  additions  by  diacritical 
marks  (placing  an  asterisk  before,  >x<  or  -i-j^-,  a  metobelus  at 
the  end),  the  danger  here  was  too  great  of  some  later  tran 
scriber  ignoring  the  marks,  as  in  course  of  time  to  a  great 
extent  actually  did  happen.      But  the  worst  of  all  was  that 
Origen,    as    he    himself    declares    very    distinctly,    used    the 
different  representatives  of    the   Hebrew   Tcxtus  licccptus  to 
correct  the  faults  of  the  Greek  text  and  to  find  his  way  amid 
the  confusions  of  the  various  Septuagint  manuscripts,  for  this 
must  have  had  a  very  detrimental  effect  in  the  determining 
of  the  standpoint  of  textual  criticism  with  regard  to  the  con 
struction  of  the  Septuagint  text.      It  is  at  any  rate  conceivable 
that  the  close  and  firm  unity  of  the   Hebrew  Tcxtus  Rcccptus, 
as  compared  with  the  vacillations  of  the   Septuagint  manu 
scripts,  must  have  made  an  impression  upon  Origen  like  that 
which  in  our  own  days  the  "  unity  "  of  the   lioman   Catholics 
has  made  on  some  Protestants,  but  just  on  this  account  has  he 
sacrificed  much  that  is  characteristic  and  original  in  the  LXX. 


128  §  43.    OKIGEX'S  TREATMENT  OF  THE  TEXT. 

The  Septuagint  text  of  Origen,  constructed  in  this  way, 
formed  a  part  of  the  gigantic  work  produced  by  him  in  the 
Palestinian  seaport  town  of  Caesarea,  the  Hexapla,  the  purpose 
of  which  was  to  enable  Christian  readers,  by  means  of  a 
magnificent  apparatus,  to  take  a  survey  of  the  relation  between 
the  Greek  and  the  Hebrew  text.  In  six  columns  stand  the 
representatives  of  the  two  forms  of  text  alongside  of  one 
another.  The  Jewish  Textus  Receptus  was  represented  by  the 
Hebrew  text,  a  transcription  of  it  in  Greek  letters  (§  36),  and 
the  two  very  literal  translations  based  on  it  of  Aquila  and 
Symmachus  (§§  52,  54) ;  while  the  last  two  columns  contained 
the  revised  Septuagint  text  and  the  translation  of  Theodotion, 
which  was  a  sort  of  revision  of  the  LXX.  (§  53).  In  some  books 
there  were  added  a  fifth  and  a  sixth  Greek  translation,  so  that  the 
work  sometimes  bears  also  the  name  Octapla.  On  a  seventh 
translation,  compare  below  at  §  55.  Moreover,  this  co-ordina 
tion  resting  upon  the  Hebrew  text  was  already  an  injury  to  the 
Alexandrine  text  inasmuch  as  that  text,  in  passages  where 
the  Greek  translation  had  a  different  succession  of  portions  of 
the  text,  haa  to  be  corrected  according  to  the  Hebrew  text. 

That  such  a  gigantic  work,  consisting  of  somewhere  about 
fifty  large  volumes,  coul<4-not  be  multiplied  by  transcriptions, 
must  be  considered  as  certain.  The  cost  of  such  a  proceeding 
would  have  been  too  enormous.  Either  the  manuscript  itself 
in  Coesarea  must  have  been  used,  or  students  must  have  been 
satisfied  with  the  extracts  from  it.  Origen  had  indeed  at 
tempted  to  make  it  more  easily  accessible,  for  he  issued  a  new 
edition,  with  the  two  first  columns  left  out,  and  at  the  same  time 
with  some  critical  alterations ;  but  even  this  so-called  Tetrapla 
seems  not  to  have  existed  in  many  copies.  On  the  other 
hand,  at  a  later  date,  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  and  his  friend 
Pamphilus  caused  the  column  which  contained  the  Septuagint 
text,  with  the  diacritical  marks  and  the  marginal  notes  of  all 
kinds,  to  be  copied  out  apart  from  the  other  translations,  and  in 


§  43.  OPJGEN'S  TREATMENT  OF  THE  TEXT.  129 

this  form  the  Hexaplar  Recension  found  a  wide  circulation 
among  the  Latins.  In  opposition  to  this  revised  text,  the 
pre-Origenistic  form  of  the  text  was  called  KOIVYJ  or  vulgatct. 
The  Hexapla  itself,  which  Jerome  made  use  of  in  Ca^sarea 
(§  37),  was  still  to  be  found  there  in  the  sixth  century,  but 
afterwards,  in  some  unknown  way,  it  disappeared. 

Wellhausen  is  not  altogether  correct,  as  also  Reckendorf, 
ZA  W,  1887,  p.  67,  has  remarked,  when  he  writes  (Bleek, 
Einleitung,  p.  586):  "Proceeding  from  the  belief  that  the 
translation  must  have  agreed  with  the  original  as  he  knew 
it,  Origen  corrected  the  LXX.,  not  according  to  its  own 
standard,  but  according  to  the  Hebrew  truth."  In  principle 
Origen,  just  as  in  his  treatment  of  the  canon,  so  also  in  his 
textual  criticism,  recognised  a  double  truth. 

Origen,  Comm.  on  Matth.  xv.  14 :  Trji>  /j,ev  ovv  ev  rots 
avriypd^ois  T???  7ra\aids  ^laOi'iK^s  Sia^wviav,  Oeov 
evpo/2€V  IdaaaOai,  KpiTujpiq)  xprjad^evoi  rat?  \ui7rals  e 
.  .  .  KOI  TLVCI  p.ev  a){3e\i(ra^€V  ev  rw  'EjSpaiKM  /JLTJ  Kei/jieva  ov 
ToAyu,?}craz'Te?  aura  irdvra  7repL6\eiv,  K.T.\.  But  once  he  con 
fesses  to  have  obliterated,  with  the  Obelos,  a  word  that  seemed 
to  him  meaningless,  although  it  did  stand  in  the  Hebrew 
(compare  Cornill,  Ezcchiel,  p.  386). 

Compare  on  the  Hexapla  the  Prolegomena  to  Field's  Ori- 
rjcnis  Hcxaplorum  qiiw  supersunt,  18*75.  Chap.  i.  deals  with 
the  names  of  the  work  (besides  the  names  already  mentioned, 
we  meet  also  sometimes  with  those  of  Pcntapla  and  Heptapla) ; 
chap.  vii.  §  2-3,  the  diacritical  signs  and  their  significance  ; 
chap,  xi.,  the  later  fortunes  of  the  Hexapla.  On  the  latest 
form  of  the  Hwnpla,  compare  Birt,  Das  antike  Buchwcsen,  p. 
107. 

On  the  alterations  in  the  Septuagint  text  made  by  Origen 
without  remark,  compare  Field,  Prolegomena,  chap.  vii.  §  4. 
Many  a  time  the  collection  of  the  representatives  of  the 
Hebrew  text  helped  him  to  the  objectively  correct  reading, 
as,  e.g.,  in  Jer.  xv.  10,  where  he  read  <*>$ei\ria-a  instead  of 
w(j)e\7](ra ;  but  oftener  the  original  was  thereby  obliterated. 

The  Book  of  Job  has  suffered  more  than  all  the  rest  from 

I 


130  §44.    LUCIAN  AND  HESYCHIUS. 

the  intrusion  of  numerous  portions  of  the  translation  of  Theo- 
dotion  into  the  Alexandrine  text.  According  to  a  Scholium 
of  the  Codex  161  (Codex  Bibl.  Dresdensis,  No.  iii.),  the  book 
had  1600  o-rfyoi,,  but  with  the  additions  marked  by  asterisks, 
2200  crr/^ot  (Field,  Prolegomena,  Ixvi.).  But  possibly  a 
beginning  had  been  made,  even  before  Origen,  of  filling  up 
the  gaps  of  the  LXX.  by  means  of  the  renderings  of  Theo- 
dotion.  The  question  is  connected  with  the  question  of  the 
relation  of  the  Codex  Vaiicanus,  in  which  Job  is  already  very 
much  augmented,  to  the  Hexaplar  text  (compare  §  46).  That 
the  translation  of  Theodotioii  was  widely  circulated  at  an 
early  date  among  Christians,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  even 
Irenoeus  used  Theodotion  for  Daniel.  See  Zahn  in  Herzog's 
.Real- Encyclopaedic,  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-Hexaplaris,  compare  Field,  Prolegomena, 
chap.  xi.  On  the  circulation  of  this  recension,  compare 
Jerome  (Prcef.  in  Paralipom.):  "  Medke  inter  has  (i.e.  Antioch 
and  Egypt)  provincial  Palestine  (so  Lagarde  instead  of  Pales- 
tines)  codices  legunt,  quos  ab  Origene  elaborates  Eusebius  et 
Pamphilus  vulgaverunt."  His  own  preference  for  this  recen 
sion,  which  afforded  him  admirable  help  in  his  contention  for 
"  the  Hebrew  truth,"  i.e.  the  Hebrew  Text  us  Picccptus,  is  given 
expression  to  by  him  in  a  letter  (106)  to  Sunnias  and  Fretela  : 
tcoivr)  "  pro  locis  et  temporibus  et  pro  voluntate  scriptorum 
vetus  corrupta  editio  est,  ea  autem  qua;  habetur  in  e|a7r\oZ9  et 
quam  nos  vertimus,  ipsa  est  qiuc  in  eruditorum  libris  incor- 
rupta  et  immaculata  LXX.  interpretum  translatio  reservatur : 
quicquid  ergo  ab  hac  discrepat  nulli  dubium  est,  quin  ita  et 
ab  Hebrreorum  auctoritate  discordet."  Compare  further  the 
passage  quoted  in  §  44  from  the  same  Epistle ;  also  Epist.  89, 
Ad  Augustinnm ;  the  Prcffatio  in  Qualuor  Evanyg. ;  and 
Lagarde,  Librorum  V.  T.  grcece  pars  prior,  xiii. ;  Hooykaas, 
Jets  over  de  yrieksche  Ver idling  van  liet  0.  T.  p.  30  f. 

44.  Some  time  after  Origen,  the  Septuagiut  text  was  sub 
jected  to  two  new  revisions.  The  one  was  undertaken  by 


§  44.    LUCIAN  AND  HESYCHIUS.  131 

the  founder  of  the  Antiochiau  school,  Lucian  of  Samosata, 
who  died  as  a  martyr  in  A.D.  311,  during  the  persecution  of 
Maximus.  Tt  found  acceptance  in  Antioch,  and  was  from 
tlience  introduced  into  Constantinople,  where  especially  Chry- 
sostom  aided  its  circulation.  The  second  revision  was  made 
by  Hesychius,  who  is  usually  identified  with  the  Egyptian 
bishop  of  that  name,  who  also  suffered  a  martyr's  death  in 
the  year  311.  It  was  circulated  in  Alexandria  and  Egypt. 

Jerome  (Prccfatio  in  Paralipom.,  compare  §  43):  "Alex 
andria  et  ^Egyptus  in  LXX.  suis  Hesychium  laudant  auctorem, 
Constantinopolis  usque  Antiochiam  Luciani  martyris  exem- 
plaria  probat." 

On  the  Recension  of  Lucian,  compare  the  Synopsis  scriptural 
ascribed  to  Athanasius,  §  77:  TGUS-  TrpoyeypafjLfievais 
(d.  h.  Aquila,  Theodotion  and  Symmachus)  teal  rot? 
vrv^tDV  /cal  eVoTTTeucja?  /-tera  aicpifteias  ra  Aet- 
rj  KOI  TrepLTTa  T/}?  a\r]9eia<>  pij/jLara  /cal 
Iv  rot?  oliceiois  T&V  ypacfrwv  TOTTOLS  e^eBoTO  TO?? 
aBeXfak.  In  an  instructive  Scholium  of  Jacob  of  Edessa, 
which  Nestle  in  ZDMG,  xxxii.  p.  481  it  has  communicated, 
it  is  said  (pp.  489  and  498) :  "  Therefore  as  the  holy  martyr 
Lucian  has  taken  pains  about  the  text  of  the  Sacred  Scrip 
tures,  and  in  many  places  improved,  or  even  changed  particular 
expressions  used  by  the  preceding  translators,  as,  e.g.,  when 
he  saw  the  word  •ons  in  the  text,  and  the  word  '  Lord '  on  the 
margin,  he  connected  the  two  and  set  them  both  together,  he 
transmitted  them  in  the  Testament  which  he  left  behind  him, 
so  that  we  find  it  written  therein  in  many  passages :  "  Thus 
saith  'ons  the  Lord,"  where  we  have  given  both  the  Hebrew 
word  adonai  in  Greek  letters,  and  then  alongside  of  it  also 
the  word  Lord  [therefore  *A§wvai  Kvpios]."  Compare  what 
is  further  said  below  at  §  46.  Jerome,  Epist.  106,  Ad  Sun- 
niam  ct  Fretelam :  "  Sciatis  aliam  esse  editionein,  quam 
Origenes  et  Cnesariensis  Eusebius,  omnesque  Graecite  tracta- 
tores  KOivrfv,  id  est  communem,  appellant,  atque  Vulgatam,  et 
a  plerisque  nunc  AovKiavos  dicitur ;  aliam  LXX.  interpretum, 
quie  in  efaTrXot?  codicibus  reperitur,  et  a  nobis  in  Latinum 


132  §  45.    PRINCIPAL  MSS.  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

sermonem  fideliter  versa  est,  et  Jerosolymse  atque  Orientis 
ecclesiis  decantatur."  Here  therefore  the  Recension  of  Lucian 
as  not  belonging  to  the  Hexapla  is  connected  with  the  KOLVTJV. 
Further,  he  says  in  the  Catalogus  scriptorum  ecclesiasticorum : 
11  Lucianus,  vir  disertissinms,  Antiochense  ecclesise  presbyter, 
tantum  in  scripturarum  studio  elaboravit,  ut  usque  nuuc 
quiedam  exemplaria  Scripturarum  Lucianse  nuncupentur." 
His  remarks  in  the  Preface  to  the  Four  Gospels  contrasts 
strikingly  with  this  :  "  Pnetermitto  eos  codices  quos  a  Luciano 
et  Hesychio  nuncupatur,  paucorum  hominum  asserit  perversa 
contentio  ;  quibus  utique,  nee  in  toto  veteri  instrumento  post 
Septuaginta  interpretes  emendare  quid  licuit,  nee  in  novo 
profuit  emendasse :  quum  multarum  gentium  linguis  Scrip- 
tura  ante  translata  cloceat  falsa  esse  qusc  addita  simt." 

The  information  which  we  have  about  the  Recension  of 
Hesychius  is  extremely  scanty.  Besides  the  passages  quoted 
in  the  Prefaces  of  Jerome  to  the  Chronicles,  and  to  the  Four 
Gospels,  he  mentions  this  recension  in  his  Commentary  in  Isa. 
Iviii.  11:  "Quod  in  Alexandrinis  exemplaribus  in  principle 
hujus  capituli  additum  est :  '  et  adhuc  in  te  erit  laus  mea 
semper,'  et  in  fine  :  '  et  ossa  tua  quasi  herba  orientur,  et  pin- 
guescent,  et  heriditate  possidebunt  in  generationem  et  genera- 
tiones '  in  Hebraico  non  habitur,  sed  rie  in  LXX.  quid  em 
emendatis  et  veris  exemplaribus."  This  remark,  moreover,  is 
inexact,  inasmuch  as  the  words  et  ossa  tua  quasi  herba  orientur 
are  to  be  found  in  the  original  text  as  well  as  in  the  LXX. 

45.  In  the  course  of  time  not  only  did  each  of  these 
several  Recensions  become  corrupted  by  errors  of  transcription, 
but  the  Septuagint  text  especially  suffered  by  this,  that  the 
manuscripts  rarely  follow  one  particular  Recension,  but 
attach  themselves  sometimes  to  this  and  sometimes  to  that 
authority.  A  picture  of  this  quite  unbounded  confusion  is 
presented  in  the  great  collections  of  variations  which  the 
Oxford  scholars,  Robert  Holmes  and  James  Parsons,  published 
at  the  end  of  last  and  the  beginning  of  this  century.  They 
have,  at  least,  made  a  survey  of  the  whole  material  possible, 


§  45.    PRINCIPAL  MSS.  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT.  133 

and  so  liave  afforded  the  starting-point  for  those  who  in  future 
would  make  more  thoroughgoing  attempts  to  find  their  way  in 
this  labyrinth  by  means  of  grouping  the  various  manuscripts. 
In  so  far  they  have  been  of  use,  but  at  the  same  time,  owing  to 
the  errors  of  their  collaborateurs,  their  un  trust  worthiness  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  foul- 
following :  The  Complutensian  Bible,  A.D.  1514-1517  (§  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 
Codex  Vaticanus  330  (in  Holmes  108;  in  Lagarde  d)  and 
346  (in  Holmes  248).  This  text  was  repeated  in  the 
Antwerp  Polyglot  of  A.D.  1569-1572  (§  24).  The  Aldine 
edition  was  begun  by  Aldus  Manutius,  and  was  completed 
and  published  with  a  preface  after  his  death  in  A.D.  1515 
by  his  father-in-law,  Andreas  Asulanus.  What  manuscripts 
it  followed  cannot  now  be  certainly  determined.  The  Roman 
Editio  Sixtina,  the  work  of  Pope  Sixtus  V..  is  based  upon 
the  celebrated  Codex  Vcdicanus  Grcvcus  1209  (B,  in  Holmes 
ii.),  the  value  of  which  had  then  been  discovered  ;  but  from 
it  this  Sixtine  edition  departs  in  numerous  particulars. 
Another  celebrated  manuscript,  the  Codex  Alcxandrinus  (A,  in 
Holmes  iii.),  forms  the  basis  of  the  edition  of  E.  Grabe  ;  yet  it  is 
used  with  pretty  considerable  freedom.  These  two  famous  uncial 
manuscripts  have  now  become  available  through  more  reliable 
editions.  At  the  head  of  them  all  stands  the  beautiful  English 
facsimile  edition  of  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  (1881-1883), 
which  exactly  serves  in  place  of  the  manuscript  itself.  Not 
quite  so  reliable  is  the  great  Roman  edition  of  the  Codex 


134  §  45.    PRINCIPAL  MSS.  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

Vaticanus  by  Yerzellone  and  Cozza  (1868-1881).  To  these 
principal  editions  are  attached  a  series  of  editions  of  particular 
manuscripts  by  Tischendorf  (especially  Codex  Sinaiticns), 
Cozza,  &c. 

A  very  convenient  sketch  of  the  form  of  text  in  the  Cod-ex 
Vaticanus  and  Codex  Alexandrinus  is  given  in  the  very 
careful  collations  of  E.  Nestle  in  the  last  editions  of 
Tischendorf's  LXX.,  which  are  based  upon  the  Six  tine.  Also 
in  these  collations  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  has  been  compared, 
while  Tischendorf  himself  had  made  use  of  only  the  first 
discovered,  and  separately  edited  fragments  of  that  manu 
script,  Frederico-Angustanus,  and  especially  also  the  Codex 
Eplirccmi.  A  very  practical  edition  of  the  Septuagint  with 
various  readings  from  various  principal  authorities  has  been 
begun  by  the  English  scholar  Swete.  Finally,  some  separate 
critical  editions,  by  Fritzsche  (Esther,  Ruth,  Judges)  and 
Lagarde  (Genesis  and  the  first  Psalms),  deserve  to  be 
mentioned. 

The  older  literature  in  De  Wette-Schrader,  Elnleitung, 
p.  100  if.  —  Vet.  Testam.  cum  variis  lectionibus,  ed.  It.  Holmes, 
continuamt  J.  Parsons,  Oxf.  1798-1827,  in  5  vols.  Lagarde 
in  his  Librorum  V.  T.  canon,  i.  p.  xv.,  characterises  the  work 
in  the  following  words  :  "  Qui  judicium  neque  in  seligendis 
laboris  sodalibus  neque  in  disponenda  scripturarum  sibi  tradi- 
tarurn  farragine  probaverunt,  religionem  in  reddendis  eis 
qua3  acceperant  summam  prsestiterunt."  Compare  also  the 
opinions  quoted  by  Hooykaas,  Jets  over  d.  g.  vertaling  van  lid 
0.  T.  p.  6. 

Sketches  of  the  various  manuscripts  are  given  by  S troth 
in  Eichhorn's  Eepertorium,  v.  viii.  and  xi. ;  Tischendorf, 
Prolegomena  to  his  edition  of  the  LXX.  §  xxiv. ;  Lagarde, 
Genesis  grcece,  p.  3  ff. ;  Cornill,  Das  Buck  dcs  Propheten  Ezccliiel, 
pp.  13-24. 

The  Complutensian  Bible.  On  the  Greek  text  of  this 
Polyglot  compare  Vercellone,  Dissertazioni  Accademiclie  di 


§  45.    PRINCIPAL  MSS.  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT.  135 

rario  argumcnto,  Koine  1864,  p.  407  ff.  ;  Delitzsch,  Fortgesetzte 
Stiidien  zur  EntsteliungsyescJiwhte  der  ComplutensiscJien  Polyglotte, 
1886  (compare  above,  §  24).  Besides  the  two  named  Codices 
Vaticani,  330  and  346,  Delitzsch  makes  special  mention  of  a 
copy  of  a  Venetian  Codex,  the  original  of  which  he  seeks  in 
the  Codex  Marc.  v.  (Holmes  68). 

The  Aldine.  Biblia  grcece  Vend,  in  cedibus  Aldi  et  Asulani, 
1518.  Compare  Lagarde,  Genesis  grcece,  p.  6  ;  GGA,  1882, 
p.  450;  Mittheilungen,  \\.  57;  Delitzsch,  Fortgesetzte  Studien 
zur  Entstehungsycschichte  der  ComplutensiscJien  Polyglotte,  pp.  24, 
25;  Cornill,  Ezcchiel,  pp.  24,  79;  Schuurmans  Stekhoven, 
Der  Alcxandrijnschc  Vertaling,  p.  50  ff. 

The  Sixtine  Edition  and  the  Codex  Vaticanus.  Vet.  Testa 
ment,  juxta  LXX.  ex  auctoritate  Sixti  V.  cditum,  Home  1587. 
Compare  on  the  history  of  this  edition :  Nestle,  Septuaginta- 
studien,  Ulm  1886.  After  it  (1)  the  London  Polyglot 
1657  ;  (2)  Vet.  Testament,  ex  vers.  LXX.  interpr.  see.  exemplar. 
Vatic.  Bom.  ed.  etc.  cd.  Lamb.  Bos,  1709  ;  (3)  Vet.  Testament 
Gr.  juxta  LXX.  interpr.  ex  auct.  Sixti  V.  ed.  1587,  recus. 
L.  van  Ess.  1824,  new  edition  1887  ;  (4)  Tischeridorfs  editions 
since  1850  (compare  further  at  p.  136).  Vercellone,  Cozza, 
Melander,  Bibliorum  sacrorum  grcecus  Codex  Vaticanus,  Rome 
1868-1881.  Compare  also  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  §  xix. 

Codex  Alexandrinus.  Septuaginta  interpr.  ex  antiquiss. 
manuscripto  Codice  Alexandrine,  ed.  Grabe,  Oxford  1707- 
1720;  Fred.  Field,  Vetue  Testamentum  grcece,  1859; 
Facsimile  of  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  Old  Testament,  London 
1881-1883,  in  3  vols. 

Other  published  Manuscripts.  In  1846  Tischendorf  pub 
lished  a  part  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  under  the  name:  Codex 
Friderico-Augustanus  ;  the  rest  of  it  appeared  in  1862  as: 
Bibliorum  Codex  Sinaiticus,  St.  Petersburg  (the  Old  Testament 
forming  the  3rd  and  4th  of  the  four  folio  volumes).  Afterwards 
Brugsch  discovered  some  fragments  of  Leviticus  xxii.— xxiii., 
and  published  them  :  Neue  Bruchstilcke  des  Cod.  Sinaiticus, 
Leipsic  1875.  Tischendorf,  Codex  Ephrwmi  Syri  rescriptus 
sive  Fragmcnta  Vet.  Testament,  1845  (passages  from  Job, 
Ecclesiastes,  Proverbs,  and  The  Song).  A  series  of  fragments 


136  §  45.    PRINCIPAL  MSS.  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

and  manuscripts,  some  of  them  of  very  great  importance,  is  pub 
lished  in  Tischendorf  s  Monumenta  sacra  incdita,  Xova  Collectio 
i.-v.  The  following  deserve  specially  to  be  named :  Codex 
Sarravianus  (Holmes  iv.  v.),  with  passages  from  the  Octateucli 
(namely,  the  fragments  preserved  in  Leyden  and  St.  Petersburg; 
the  Parisian  fragments  were  published  by  Lagarde  in  the 
Abliandlungcn  d.  Gott.  Gcs.  d.  Wissensch.  1879);  Codex  March- 
alianus  (or  Claramontanus,  now  in  Vatican,  Holmes  xii.)  with 
portions  from  the  Prophets  ;  Psalterium  Turiccnse ;  Psalmorum 
fragm.  papyracea  Londincnsia ;  the  parts  of  the  Codex 
Cottonianus  saved  from  the  fire  (Holmes  i.,  containing  many 
fragments  from  Genesis).  Psalterium  Veronense  in  Blanch- 
inus,  Psalterium  duplex,  1740.  Compare  further,  Delitzsch, 
Die  Psalmcn,  p.  431  f.  Codex  Cryinoferratensis  (fragments 
from  the  Prophets),  ed.  Cozza,  Eome  1867-1877  ;  Proplidarum 
Codex  grcecus  Vaticanus,  2125  curante  Cozzi-Lugi,  Eome 
1890.  From  Codex  Cliisianus  E.  vii.  45  (Holmes  88)  have 
appeared  :  Vincent!  ide  regibus,  Jczccid  sec.  LXX.  ex.  Tetrapl. 
Orig.,  by  Coster,  1840,  and  Daniel  in  Cozza's  edition  of 
the  Codex  Crypt  of  err  atcnsis,  iii.  1877.  This  manuscript 
alone  gives  the  correct  Septuagint  translation  of  Daniel, 
while  the  others  contain  Theodotion's  translation  of  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  pal- 
impsestorum  Dublinensinm  (Isa.  xxx.  2— xxxi.  7;  xxxvi.  17- 
xxxviii.  1),  1880. 

In  the  two  last  editions  of  Tischendorf's  Vcteris  Testamenti 
grceci  juxta  LXX.  interpretes  (vi.  1880  and  vii.  1887)  Nestle's 
collations  will  be  found.  They  may  also  be  referred  to 
separately :  Vcteris  testamcnti  greed  codices  Vaticanus  ct 
Alexandrinus  ct  Sinaiticus  cum  tcxtu  rccepto  collati.  According 
to  his  statement  the  Sixtine  edition  differs  in  more  than  4000 
passages  from  the  Codex  Vaticanus.  For  Daniel  he  has  com 
pared  Cozza's  edition  of  the  Chisianus  above  referred  to. 

Swete,  The  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  i.  and  ii.  (Gen.-Tobit), 
Cambridge  1887-1891.  [The  third  volume,  completing  the 
work,  will  contain  the  Prophets  and  some  of  the  Apocrypha.] 


§  40.    RESTORATION  OF  RECENSIONS  OF  LXX.  137 

Besides  this  manual  edition    a   larger  edition   is  being  pre 
pared. 

Fritzsche,  Esther,  duplicem  libri  textum  emendavit,  Zurich 
1848  ;  Ruth  sec.  LXX.  1864  ;  Liber  judicum  sec.  LXX.  1867. 
Lagarde,  Genesis  Greece,  1868;  Novae  psalterii  Greed  editionis 
specimen,  1887  (from  the  Gott  Abhandlungen,  1887).  Com 
pare  also  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  in  his  :  Ankundigung  einer 
neuen  Ausgabe  der  griech.  Uebersctzung  d.  A.  T.  1882,  pp. 5-1 6. 

46.  The  editions  referred  to  in  the  preceding  section  have 
made  us  acquainted  with  a  number  of  manuscripts,  among 
which  are  the  most  celebrated  uncial  manuscripts.  The  first 
place  among  these  unquestionably  belongs  to  the  Codex 
Vaticanus.  So  long  as  one  is  satisfied  with  establishing  the 
text  of  the  LXX.  by  means  of  some  prominent  manuscripts, 
this  Codex  will  certainly  maintain  its  undisputed  supremacy, 
and  an  edition  based  on  it,  with  the  most  important  variations 
noted  down,  will  supply  a  convenient  apparatus  for  common 
use.  But  in  this  way  we  do  not  reach  beyond  a  mere 
provisional  apparatus.  In  recent  times  Lagarde  has  given  a 
specimen,  in  a  laborious  but  necessarily  too  irregular  way,  of 
the  advantage  that  may  be  gained  even  from  an  unmethodical 
use  of  the  Alexandrine  translation.  His  demand  is,  that 
instead  of  following  the  uncial  manuscripts  which  were  not 
domiciled  in  any  ecclesiastical  province,  we  should  secure  a 
sure  basis  for  further  critical  operations  by  restoring,  as  far  as 
that  can  be  done,  the  three  recensions  of  the  LXX.  signalised 
by  Jerome  (§§  43,  44).  We  are  therefore  in  this  way 
brought  to  the  question,  as  to  how  far  it  may  be  possible  to 
authenticate  and  reproduce  those  recensions. 

So  far  as  the  Hexaplar  Recension  is  concerned,  the  text 
edited  by  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus  is  to  be  found  more  or  less 
certainly  in  various  manuscripts  and  fragments  of  manuscripts, 
which  in  part  have  been  published.  The  rash  conjecture 
that  has  been  hazarded  by  Cornill,  that  the  celebrated  Codex 


138  §  46.    RESTORATION  OF  RECENSIONS  OF  LXX. 

Vaticanus  is  an  extract  prepared  with  great  circumspection 
and  at  a  relatively  very  early  date  from  the  Hexapla  of 
Origen  preserved  in  Ca3sarea,  has  been  withdrawn  again  by 
this  scholar  himself.  On  the  other  hand,  an  aid  for  the 
revision  of  the  Hcxapla  that  cannot  be  too  highly  valued  is  to 
be  found  in  the  Syriac  translation  of  the  Hexaplar  text,  the 
so-called  Syro- Hexaplar  is,  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  §  37,  are  of  use  for  the  restora 
tion  of  the  Hexaplar  Recension.  Finally,  as  of  special 
evidential  value,  there  are  the  quotations  of  the  fathers  living 
in  Palestine  and  the  Palestinian  liturgies. 

The  merit  of  having  discovered  the  Lucian  Recension  belongs 
to  Frederick  Field  and  Paul  Lagarde.  It  is  to  be  found  in  a 
group  of  manuscripts  of  which  the  Codex  Vaticanus  330,  the 
same  as  was  used  in  the  Complutensian  Bible,  is  one  of 
the  most  important.  Of  the  secondary  translations,  at  least 
the  Gothic  attaches  itself  to  it.  The  biblical  quotations  of 
Chrysostorn  and  Theodoret,  as  well  as  several  marginal  notes 
of  the  Syro-Hexaplaris,  furnish  decisive  proof  of  this.  The 
edition  of  the  Septuagint  begun  by  Lagarde  reproduces  this 
recension,  unfortunately  without  any  critical  apparatus.  It 
will  only  be  when  we  have  it  completely  before  us,  that  we 
shall  be  able  to  answer  the  question  about  Lucian's  relation  to 
the  Hexaplar  Recension  and  to  the  later  Greek  translations, 
as  also  about  his  sometimes  affirmed,  sometimes  denied, 
acquaintance  with  Hebrew. 

The  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  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,  how 
ever,  are  very  inexactly  made,  and  mostly  from  memory. 
Lagarde,  as  indeed  also  before  him  the  Danish  bishop  Fr. 


§  46.    RESTORATION  OF  RECENSIONS  OF  LXX.  139 

Miinter,  conjectured  that  the  Recension  might  be  found  in 
some  one  of  the  Coptic  translations  (§  49),  while  others 
look  for  it  in  the  Ethiopic  and  Arabic  version  of  the  LXX. 

Compare  Lagarde,  Gesammelte  Abhandlungen,  p.  86  IT.  ; 
Ankundigung  einer  neucn  Ausgale  d.  griecli  Uebersetzung  d. 
A.  T.  1882;  and  the  prefaces  to  the  Librorum  Vet.  Testament. 
Canonicorum  grcece  pars  prior,  1883.  Lagarde's  programme 
has  been  acknowledged,  among  others  by  Wellhausen  (Bleek, 
Einleitung,  p.  573)  and  Cornill  (Ezechicl,  p.  63),  while 
others  regard  it  as  too  finical  and  impracticable.  Compare 
Theolog.  Tijdschrift  1882,  p.  285  ff. ;  1888,  p.  Ill  ;  Swete, 
The  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  i.  p.  x.  sq.  Certainly  this  task 
demands  not  only  many  and  sure  hands  and  much  time,  but 
also  that  others  should  busy  themselves  with  the  needs  of  the 
present.  Compare  also  Hooykaas,  Jets  over  d.  g.  Vertaling 
van  het  0.  T.  p.  8  ff.  ;  Schuurmans  Stekhoven,  De  Alex- 
andrijnsche  Vertaling,  pp.  21-27. 

1.  The  Recension  of  the  Hexapla.  Of  the  manuscripts 
containing  this  form  of  text  according  to  the  common  hypo 
thesis  there  are  partially  printed :  The  Codex  Marchalianus 
and  the  Chisianus,  R.  vii.  45  (compare  above,  §  45  ;  here  also 
see  about  the  editions  of  the  Codex  Sarravianus,  of  which,  how 
ever,  Lagarde,  in  Abhandlungen  d.  Gott.  Ges.  d.  W.  1879,  p.  3, 
remarks :  "  Whether  the  text  actually  goes  back  to  Origen 
remains  to  be  investigated  ").  Further,  there  also  belong  to 
this  group  the  Codex  Barber inus  (Holmes  86,  containing  the 
Prophets,  with  the  exception  of  Daniel),  and  the  Codex 
Coislinianus  (Holmes  x.,  with  pieces  from  the  Octateuch), 
and  some  others  of  which  Pitra  speaks  (Analecta  sacra,  iii. 
552ff.).  Compare  on  these  manuscripts  generally,  Field,  i. 
p.  C.  sq.  ii.  428;  Wellhausen-Bleek,  Einleitung,  p.  588  f. ; 
Cornill,  Ezeehiel,  15,  16  ff.,  19.  Lagarde  speaks  of  a  Codex 
in  the  possession  of  a  private  individual  which  almost  cer 
tainly  produces  the  Ptecension  of  Palestine,  Mittheilungcn, 
ii.  56.  On  the  difficulties  which  beset  the  restoration  of  the 
Palestinian  Recension,  compare  Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  ii.  52, 
55  f.  The  conjecture  referred  to  of  a  relationship  between 


140  §  40.    RESTORATION  OF  RECENSIONS  OF  LXX. 

the  Codex  Vaticanus  and  the  Hcxaplar  Recension  had  been 
suggested  by  Cornill  in  his  Ezechiel,  pp.  80-95.  Eendal 
Harris  (John  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  iii.  29,  30,  March- 
April,  1884)  had  also  been  led  to  adopt  a  similar  opinion. 
This  hypothesis  was  meanwhile  refuted  by  Hort  in  The 
Academy  (1887,  ii.  424),  and  was  afterwards  abandoned  by 
Cornill  himself  (NGGW,  1888,  pp.  194-19G),  since  he  was 
convinced  of  the  fact  that  in  B  the  Hebraising  of  proper 
names,  which  is  characteristic  of  the  Hexapla  Recension 
(§  43),  is  wanting.  It  should  also  be  remembered  that  in 
Jeremiah,  B  has  not  the  genuinely  Jewish,  but  the  Alex 
andrine  arrangement  of  the  portions  of  the  text.  Cornill 
thinks  now,  with  Hort,  that  B  may  rather  have  been  a  copy  of 
a  manuscript  largely  and  preferentially  used  by  Origen  for  his 
Septuagint  text.  Compare  also  Lagarde,  Mittheilungen  ii. 
p.  55.  The  dependence  on  the  Hexapla  text  spoken  of  in 
the  Codex  Sinaiticus  in  the  subscription  to  the  Book  of  Esther 
is  referred  by  Tischendorf  (Novum  tcstamcntum  sinaiticum, 
xxxiii.)  to  later  corrections. 

2.  The  Lucian  Recension.  Compare  Field,  Prolegomena, 
Ixxxiv.  sqq. ;  Bickell  in  the  Zeitschriftfur  katholischen  Theologic, 
1879,  p.  407  f. ;  Lagarde,  Anlmndigung,  p.  26  f .  ;  Cornill, 
Ezechiel,  p.  65  f . ;  Eeckendorf,  ZA  W,  1887,  pp.  63-66; 
Schuurrnans  Stekhoven,  De  Alexandrijnsche  Vertaling,  pp. 
28-46.  [Westcott,  History  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament, 
4th  ed.  1875,  p.  388.]  When  Field,  Prolegomena,  Ixxxviii., 
adduces  as  a  criterion  of  the  manuscripts  belonging  to  this 
Kecension  the  remark  of  Jacob  of  Edessa,  quoted  above  in 
§  44,  about  the  way  and  form  in  which  Lucian  restored  the  Hirf, 
he  has  to  be  reminded  of  this  that  abwvai  icvpios  is  found  also 
in  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  in  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  in  the 
Ethiopia  translation  (Cornill,  Ezechiel,  pp.  73,  76,  172  ff.  ; 
Konig  in  ZKWL,  1887,  p.  288  f.).  About  the  manuscripts 
containing  the  Lucian  Recension,  moreover,  absolute  agreement 
does  not  prevail.  For  the  historical  books,  Field  points  to 
the  Codices  Holmes,  19,  82,  93,  108  (i.e.,  Chisianus,  E.  vi. 
38 ;  the  Parisian  Codex  Coislinianus,  iii.,  Arundelianus,  or 
Brit.  Mus.  i.  d.  2,  Vaticanus  330).  To  these  Lagarde,  who 


§  4G.    RESTORATION  OF  RECENSIONS  OF  LXX.  141 

designates  them  by  the  signs  h,  f,  in,  d,  adds  the  Parisian 
Codex  6  (Holmes  118,  Lagarde  p),  and  some  others.  For 
the  Prophets,  Field  names  the  Codices  Holmes,  22,  36,  48, 
51,  62,  90,  93,  144,  147,  233,  308.  Of  these,  Cornill  (and 
with  him  Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  ii.  52,  agrees)  strikes  out 
the  numbers  62,  90,  147,  233,  while  he  adds  23  (Codex 
Venctus,  i.).  Schuurmans  Stekhoven  names  for  the  Minor 
Prophets,  22,  36,  42,  51,  62,  86,  95,  147,  153,  185,  238, 
240,  231.  Yet  it  may  be  remarked  that  (according  to  the 
Theolog.  Literaturzeituny,  1890,  5)  in  the  Book  of  Ifuth 
Theodoret  agrees  with  the  Codices  54  and  75,  which  often 
diverge  from  Codex  108.  Lagarde,  Librorum  Veteris  testa- 
menti  canonicorum  grcece  pars  prior,  1883.  A  critical  appa 
ratus  is  to  be  found  only  in  the  two  texts  of  Esther.  We 
have  now  the  prospect  of  seeing  this  long-interrupted  work 
resumed;  see  Ucbersicht  iluer  d.  in  Aram  .  .  .  iiUicltc  Nominal - 
bilduny,  p.  186.  On  the  quotations  of  Chrysostoin,  compare 
Lagarde,  i.  p.  vii.  sq. ;  on  those  of  the  Emperor  Julian,  com 
pare  his  Ankiindigung,  p.  27.  On  Adrian's  use  of  the  Lucian 
Recension,  compare  Goessling,  Adrian's  eiaaywyr],  Leipsic 
1887.  [Scrivener,  Plain  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament,  Cambridge,  3rd  ed.  1883,  pp.  315-318.] 

3.  The  Hesycliian  Recension.  Fr.  Miinter,  Specimen  rer~ 
sionum  Daniel  is  coptiarum,  Rome  1786,  p.  20  f . :  "  Liceat 
tamen  conjecturam  exponere  cui  ipsa  S.  Hieronymi  verba : 
Alexandria  et  ^Egyptus  Hesychiuin  laudant  auctorern,  favere 
videntur :  recensionem  nimirum  sacri  codicis  Hesychianam 
in  una  alterave  versionum  coptiarum  nobis  superesse." 
Lagarde,  Ankundigung,  25,  libr.  v.  test  i.  p.  xv.  Cornill 
(Ezcchiel,  67  ff.),  finds  a  family  likeness  between  the  Coptic, 
Ethiopic,  Arabic,  Old  Latin  translations,  and  the  Codex  Alex 
andrians.  With  this  manuscript  are  related  the  Codices 
Holmes,  49,  68,  87,  90,  91,  228,  238,  which  often  agree 
with  the  quotations  of  Cyril.  In  this  group,  which  may  be 
said  almost  precisely  to  correspond  with  the  Aldine  edition, 
Hesychius  may  therefore  be  looked  for.  Keckendorf,  \\wx- 
evQr,iuZAW,  1887,  p.  68,  denies  that  there  is  any  agreement 
between  the  Ethiopic  translation  and  the  Aldine  edition.  The 


142       §  47.    QUOTATIONS  IN  FATHERS  AND  VERSIONS  OF  LXX. 

Ethiopic  translation,  according  to  him,  agrees  rather  with  the 
Codices  Holmes,  129,  56.  Compare  also  Schuurmans  Stek- 
hoven,  De  Alexandrijnsche  Vertaling,  pp.  47— 5 6,  and  especially 
Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  ii.  60.  [Smith's  Diet,  of  Christian  Bio- 
(jraphy,MQ\.\i\,  1882,  p.  8,  Article  "  Hesychius,"  by  Venables.] 

47.  The  quotations  in  the  fathers  form  important  aids  in 
researches  in  the  textual  criticism  of  the  LXX.,  as  lias  already 
appeared  from  the  last  paragraphs.  Yet  in  the  using  of  them 
it  is  necessary  to  proceed  with  great  caution,  since  they  may 
easily  lead  to  false  conclusions.  First  of  all,  in  dealing  with 
them,  it  has  to  be  remembered  that  the  fathers  very  often  quote 
from  memory,  and  that  these  quotations  therefore  are  absolutely 
demonstrative  only  when  they  lay  special  stress  upon  the  form 
of  the  passage  cited,  or  when  it  is  certain  that  they  have  had 
the  text  before  them.  But  if  occasional  deviations  from  the 
common  text  on  the  part  of  the  fathers  are  not  therefore 
always  decisive,  then  also,  on  the  other  hand,  as  Lagarde  has 
made  clear,  their  agreement  with  the  common  text  is  not 
without  further  corroboration  demonstrative,  seeing  that  the 
editions  of  their  works,  which  we  now  have,  sometimes  rest 
upon  later  revisions  which  may  have  in  all  sorts  of  ways 
modified  the  original. 

The  translations  made  from  the  LXX.  into  other  languages, 
of  which  some  are  very  valuable,  form  another  aid  to  the 
textual  study  of  the  Septuagint.  The  first  place  among  these 
daughter  versions  should  be  assigned  to  the  Old  Latin 
Bible,  if  it  were  not  that  the  results  of  the  investigations 
regarding  it  are  still  so  insecure  and  so  much  contested.  It 
is  even  yet  quite  a  matter  of  controversy  whether  we  can 
speak  of  a  Vetus  latina,  or  whether  we  have  to  do  with 
several  independent  Old  Latin  translations.  The  utterances 
of  the  later  fathers,  like  Jerome  and  Augustine,  even  if  they 
had  been  clearer  and  more  definite  than  they  are,  could  not 
have  settled  the  question,  because  those  fathers  evidently 


§  47.    QUOTATIONS  IN  FATHERS  AND  VERSIONS  OF  LXX.       143 

gave  expression  only  to  their  own  opinions  and  reflections, 
and  did  not  communicate  any  old  traditions.  In  particular, 
one  well-known  saying  of  Augustine  with  regard  to  the  Itala 
(De  doctrina  Christiana,  ii.  15),  not  only  has  not  contributed 
to  cast  light  upon  the  problem  before  us,  but  rather  has  called 
forth  a  new  and  intricate  question.  An  actual  decision  will 
be  reached  only  when  we  have  a  complete  collection  of  all  the 
Bible  quotations  of  the  Latin  fathers,  and  a  collection  of  the 
hitherto  constantly-accumulating  text  material.  But  even 
now  we  may  regard  it  as  an  undoubted  result  of  the  investi 
gations  that  have  been  carried  out,  that  the  circumstances  of 
the  case  will  not  be  met  by  the  hypothesis  of  a  single  trans 
lation  appearing  before  us  now  in  several  modifications,  but 
that  we  must  assume  several  independent  translations  of  the 
Alexandrine  text. 

The  widespread  notion  that  even  Tertullian  was  acquainted 
with  a  Latin  Bible  of  North  African  origin  has  been  confuted 
with  convincing  arguments  by  Theod.  Zahn.  On  the  other 
hand,  such  a  translation  certainly  did  exist  in  the  third 
century.  Generally,  indeed,  it  would  be  in  the  provinces 
that  the  need  of  a  Latin  Bible  would  be  soonest  and  most 
keenly  felt,  especially  among  the  poorer  classes  of  the  people, 
among  whom  Christianity  at  first  mainly  spread,  and  whose 
language,  "  lingua  vulgata,  rustica,  sermo  cottidianus,  plebeius," 
is  that  in  which  actually  the  Old  Latin  Bibles  were  written. 

A  first  collection  of  Old  Latin  Bible  texts  was  edited  by 
Sabatier.  In  later  times,  Ranke  and  Ziegler,  among  others, 
have  done  service  in  this  department. 

On  the  Bible  quotations  of  the  fathers,  compare  Cornill, 
fizechiel,  p.  58  f. ;  Lagarde,  Psalterium  Hieronymi,  viii., 
Mittheilungen,  ii.  53  f.  From  an  earlier  period,  the  collec 
tions  of  Strotli  in  Eichlwnis  Repertorium,  ii.  74  ff,  iii.  213  ff., 
vi.  124  ff.,  xiii.  158  ff. 

For  the  hypothesis  of  a  single  Old  Latin  Bible  translation, 


144       §  47.    QUOTATIONS  IX  FATHERS  AND  VERSIONS  OF  LXX. 

compare  Wiseman,  Essays  on  Various  Subjects,  London  1853, 
i. ;  Eichhorn,  Einleitung*,  i.  §  321;  Wellhausen  -  Bleek, 
Einleitung,  p.  595.  On  the  other  hand,  for  the  hypothesis 
of  several  translations  :  Ziegler,  Die  altlateinischen  Bibeluber- 
setzungen  vor  Hieron.  1879;  Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  ii.  5  8  ff. 
[In  Studio,  Biblica,  1st  series,  Oxf.  1885,  in  Paper  on  "  Corbey 
St.  James  and  its  relation  to  other  Old  Latin  Versions,"  p.  236, 
Sanday  says :  "  There  were  originally  two  main  versions,  two 
parent  stocks  from  which  all  the  texts  that  we  now  have  were 
derived  with  different  degrees  of  modification."] 

The  remarks  of  Augustine,  Jerome,  etc.,  on  the  Old  Latin 
translations  are  quoted  and  commented  on  by  Ziegler,  Die 
altlat.  Blbelubersetz.  p.  4  ff.  The  passage  quoted  from  Augus 
tine  runs  as  follows  :  "  In  ipsis  autem  interpretationibus  Itala 
ceteris  prseferatur,  nam  est  verborum  tenacior  cum  perspicui- 
tate  sentential "  (De  doctrina  Christiana,  ii.  15).  But  when 
further  on  he  says :  "  Sed  tamen,  ut  superius  dixi,  horum 
quoque  interpretum,  qui  verbis  tenacius  inhaeserunt,  collatio 
non  est  inutilis  ad  explanandum  scepe  sententiam,"  it  is 
evident  that  the  openly  expressed  doubts  of  the  correctness  of 
the  text  in  the  former  passage  are  not  wholly  unfounded,  and 
Bentley's  and  Corssen's  (JPT,  1881,  p.  507  ff.)  emendations 
•ilia  for  Itala  and  quce  for  nam  are  at  least  worthy  of  considera 
tion.  See,  however,  Zeigler,  Die  altlat.  Bibelubersetz.  p.  19  ff'. 

On  the  Bible  quotations  of  Tertullian,  compare  Zaliri, 
G-escliiclite  des  neutestamentlichen  Kanons,  i.  p.  51  ff.  But  on 
the  other  side,  Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  ii.  p.  59. 

On  the  dialectic  peculiarities  of  the  Old  Latin  translations, 
Ronsch,  Itala  und  Vulgata,  1869;  Zeigler,  Die  altlat. 
Bibelulersetz.  p.  22  f . ;  Cornill,  EzccUel,  p.  25  f. 

Sabatarii,  Bibliorum  sacrorum  Latince  versionis  antiqiice 
sew  vetus  Italica,  1751.  A  list  of  later  editions  is  given  by 
Zeigler,  p.  102  ff.  To  these  are  to  be  added:  Ulysse 
.Robert,  Pentateuchi  e  codice  Lugdunensi  versio  Int.  antiqua 
Paris  1881  ;  Ziegler,  Bruchstucke  einer  vorliieronymianisclien, 
Uebersetzung  d.  Pentateuclis,  Munich  1883  ;  Belsheiin,  Pa- 
limpsestus  Vindobonensis,  Christiania  1885;  Ranke,  Stutgar- 
diana  versionis  sacrarum  scripturarum  latincc  antehieronymiance 


§  48.    SYRIAC  TRANSLATIONS  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT.          145 

fragmenta,    1888  ;    Lagarde,   Probe    einer    neuen  Ansgabc  dcr 
lateinischen  Uebcrsctzungen  d.  A.  T.,  1885. 

48.  After  a  portion  of  the  Syrians  had  very  wrongly  begun 
to  abandon  their  old  independent  Bible  (§  68)  the  LXX.  was 
more  than  once  translated  into  Syriac.  Some  fragments  are 
still  preserved  of  the  rendering  of  Jacob  of  Edessa,  A.D.  704- 
705,  which  sought  to  steer  a  middle  course  between  the 
Peshito  and  the  Alexandrine  version  ;  as  also  perhaps  of  the 
translation  which  Bishop  Philoxenus  had  caused  Polycarp 
to  make  in  A.D.  508,  and  which  embraced  at  least  a  part  of 
the  Old  Testament  (after  the  Recension  of  Lucian).  But  more 
important  than  all  the  rest  is  the  Syrian  reissue  of  the 
Hcxapla  text  cited  by  Eusebius  and  Parnphilus  (§  43),  of 
which  by  good  fortune  not  a  little  has  been  preserved.  It 
was  executed  in  the  years  617—618  in  Alexandria  by  Bishop 
Paul  of  Telia,  and  contained  not  only  the  diacritical  marks  of 
Origen  but  also  fragments  of  the  other  Greek  translations,  as 
marginal  notes.  A  manuscript  still  extant  in  the  sixteentli 
century,  which  contained  a  portion  of  the  historical  books, 
was  subsequently  lost.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Ambrosian 
Codex,  which  Ceriani  has  had  reproduced  by  photo-lithography, 
comprises  the  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  The  Song, 
the  Book  of  Wisdom,  Sirach,  and  the  Prophets,  with  Baruch, 
the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah,  and  the  additions  to  Daniel.  To 
these  have  yet  to  be  added  fragments  in  Paris  and  London, 
which  have  been  issued  by  various  editors. 

On  the  translation  of  Jacob  of  Edessa,  compare  De  Sacy, 
Notices  d  cxtraits  de  MSS.  do  la  libl.  nation,  iv.  648  ft'.  ; 
Bickell,  Conspectus  rei  Syrorum  liter,  ii.  The  fragments  of 
Isaiah  to  be  found  in  British  Museum  (addit.  14,441)  have 
been  edited  by  Ceriani  in :  Monumcnta  sacra  et  prof  ana,  v. 
1  ff.  Fragments  of  the  translation  of  Daniel  are  to  be 
found  in  :  Bugatus,  Daniel  secundum  cditionem  LXX.  inter 
pret  urn  desumptum  ex  Codice  Syro-Esthranc/elo,  1788. 

K 


146  §  49.    OTHER  SECONDARY  TRANSLATIONS. 

On  Philoxenus,  compare  Assemanni,  Bill,  orient,  ii.  83  ; 
Bickell,  Conspectus  rei  Syrorum  liter,  p.  9.  A  fragment  in  the 
British  Museum  (addit.  17,106)  is  ascribed  by  Ceriani  to  this 
translator.  Compare,  however,  Field,  Hexapla,  i.  p.  xcii.  sq. 
[Smith's  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  vol.  iv.  1887, 
p.  392,  Article  "  Philoxenus,"  by  Venables.  Scrivener  (Plain 
Introduction,  p.  328)  says:  "  The  characteristic  feature  of  the 
Philoxenian  is  its  excessive  closeness  to  the  original :  it  is 
probably  the  most  servile  version  of  Scripture  ever  made."] 

On  the  Syro-Hexaplaris,  compare  Field,  Hcxapla,  i.  p.  Ixvii. 
sqq.  The  older  editions  are  given  in  De  Wette-Schrader, 
Einleitung,  p.  117.  Ceriani's  edition  of  the  Milan  Codex 
forms  the  seventh  volume  of  the  Monumenta  sacra  et  profana, 
1874.  In  the  second  volume  of  the  same  collection  are  to 
be  found  fragments  from  the  British  Museum.  Further  :  Skat 
Rordam,  Libri  Judicum  ct  Ruth  sec.  vcrs.  Syro-Hexapl.  Copen 
hagen  1859,  1861;  Lagarde,  Vcteris  testamenti  cib  Origene 
recensiti  fragmenta  ap.  Syros  scrvata,v.  (Ex.  Num.  Jos.  1  and  2 
Kings)  1880.  The  best  manuscripts,  among  them  the  Codex 
Ambrosianus,  have,  under  the  influence  of  Jacob  of  Edessa, 
jhjh  for  the  older  pipi  —  miT  (§  76).  Compare,  ZDMG,  xxxii. 
507  f.,  736.  In  the  year  1486  the  Syro-Hexaplar  version 
was  translated  into  Arabic  by  Hareth  ben  Senan.  Of  this 
translation  there  are  two  manuscripts  in  the  Bodleian  library. 
See  Field,  Hexapla,  i.  p.  Ixx.  sq. ;  ZDMG,  xxxii.  p.  468  f. 

49.  With  the  old  Latin  and  Syrian  daughter  versions  of 
the  LXX.  is  connected  a  series  of  other  translations  which  are 
of  importance  for  the  establishing  of  the  various  Eecensions. 
The  Gothic  translation  of  the  Bible  rests,  as  has  been  already 
said  (§  46),  on  Lucian's  revision  of  the  text.  How  far  the 
same  may  be  affirmed  regarding  the  Slavic  translation  is  not 
yet  established.  The  Coptic  translation  in  the  three  dialects, 
the  Sahidic,  the  Bohiric,  and  the  Fayumic,  will  perhaps  play 
an  important  role  in  the  restoration  of  the  text  of  Hesychius. 
Besides  these  we  must  name :  the  Ethiopic,  the  Arabic,  the 
Armenian,  and  the  Georgian  translations  ;  and  finally,  the 


§  49.    OTHER  SECONDARY  TRANSLATIONS.  14? 

interesting  fragments  of  a  translation   of  the  LXX.  into  the 
Aramaic  language  spoken  by  the  Christians  of  Palestine. 

Vori  Gabelentz  and  Loebe,  Ulfilas  V.  et  N.  T.  vers.  gothiccc 
fragmenta,  1863;  Ohrloff,  Die  Bruchstileke  vom  A.  T,  dcr 
Gothischcn  Bibdiilcrsctzung,  Halle  1876  ;  Lagarde,  Vderis 
Testam.  libri  canon,  i.  p.  xiv ;  Mitthettungen,  ii.  52  f.;  NGGW, 
1890,  p.  20  f. 

On  the  Slavic  translation,  compare  De  Wette-Schrader, 
Einleitung,  p.  121.  The  edition  (Moscow  1663)  to  be  seen 
in  the  Copenhagen  University  Library  has  the  following  title : 
"  The  Bible,  i.e.,  the  Books  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament 
translated  into  Slavic  according  to  the  translation  from  Hebrew 
into  Greek,  which  was  undertaken  at  the  command  of  the 
Egyptian  king  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  in  the  year  350  before 
the  incarnation  of  our  God  and  Redeemer,"  etc.  The  passages 
compared  by  my  colleague,  Prof.  Yerner,  do  not  agree  with  the 
Lucian  Recension  but  rather  with  the  Roman  edition. 

The  Coptic  Bible  fragments  that  have  been  discovered  down 
to  1880  are  given  in  Stern,  KoptiscUe  Grammatik.  1880, 
pp.  441—446.  Besides  this,  see  among  others,  Lagarde, 
jffigyptiaca,  1883  (Wisdom,  Sirach,  Ps.  cii.)  ;  Lemine,  Brach- 
stilckc  der  saliidisclicn  Bibdiibersdzung,  1885  (Jos.  xv.  7— xvii.  1). 
A.  Ciasca  Sacrorum  Mbliorum  fragmenta  copto-sahidica  musei 
Boryiani,  Rome  1885—1889.  Compare  also  Bickell,  Zeil- 
sclirift  fur  JcatJiol.  Thcologic,  1886,  p.  558,  with  reference  to  the 
Book  of  Job ;  and  on  the  general  question,  Fritzsche  in 
Herzog's  Real- Encyclopaedic-,  ii.  443  ;  Dillmann,  Textkritisclies 
ziim  Buclie  Jjob  (see  above  at  §  41). 

On  the  Ethiopia  Bible  translation,  compare  Dillmann  in 
Herzog's  Rcal-Encylopccdic",  i.  203  if.,  and  ZAWt  1887,  p. 
6 1  ff ;  Lagarde,  Materialien  zur  Kritik  und  Gescliichtc  d.  Pcnta- 
tenchs,  i.  3  f.  (according  to  which  the  Ethiopic  Bible  does 
not  rest  exclusively  upon  the  LXX.);  Ankundigung,  p.  28  ; 
Cornill,  Ezccldd,  p.  37.  Dillmann,  BiUia  V.  T.  sEthiop,  i.-ii. 
1853,  1861. 

Of  the  Arabic  translations  in  the  Parisian  and  London 
Polyglots  are  derived  from  the  LXX. :  the  Poetical  Books 


148     §  50.    CONCLUSION  OF  CRITICISM  OF  SEPTUAGINT  TEXT. 

(with  the  exception  of  Job)  and  the  Prophets  (Daniel  as  usual 
being  taken  from  Theodotion).  Compare  Gesenius,  Jesaja, 
98-106,  and  (on  Micah)  Kyssel  ZA  W,  1885,  pp.  102-138. 
According  to  Eyssel  the  translation  attaches  itself  to  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus,  but  with  the  use  of  the  Peshito. 

On  the  Armenian  translation,  compare  De  Wette-Schrader, 
Einleitung,  p.  120  f. ;  Fritzsche  in  Herzog's  Real-Encylopcedie 2, 
ii.  443  f.  On  the  Georgian  translation,  De  Wette-Schrader, 
Eirileitung,  p.  121;  Fritzsche  in  Herzog's  Real-Encylopcedie  2, 
ii.  444. 

The  fragments  of  the  translation  used  by  the  Palestinian 
Christians  have  been  edited  by  Land  from  manuscripts  of  the 
tenth  and  eleventh  centuries  in  London  (Psalms)  and  St. 
Petersburg  (parts  of  Deuteronomy,  Isaiah,  Job,  and  Proverbs) : 
Anecdota  syriaca,  iv.  1875,  pp.  103  ff.,  165  ff.,  222  ff.  The 
Greek  text  which  had  served  as  its  original  was,  as  might  be 
expected,  influenced  by  the  Hexapla.  Where  this  community, 
whose  translation  of  the  Gospels  had  been  known  even  earlier, 
dwelt,  whether  in  Jerusalem  or  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Jordan,  is  quite  uncertain.  Its  members  spoke  the  Palestino- 
Aramaic  dialect  (§  59),  but  employed,  at  least  in  later  times, 
the  Syriac  alphabet. 

[A  good  general  account  of  all  these  translations,  especially 
with  reference  to  the  New  Testament,  is  given  in  Scrivener, 
Plain  Introduction,  3rd  ed.  1883,  pp.  365-412;  Lightfoot 
contributing  the  account  of  the  Coptic  versions]. 

50.  After  we  have  succeeded  in  reproducing  the  Eecensions 
of  the  LXX.,  so  far  as  the  aids  at  our  disposal  reach,  with  the 
greatest  possible  purity  (§  46),  our  next  undertaking  must  be 
to  work  back  by  means  of  their  help  and  through  the  com 
parison  of  the  non-revised  witnesses  for  the  text  to  the  old 
KOI.VIJ.  In  general  what  is  common  to  all  the  Eecensions  will 
be  accepted  as  representing  the  original  document.  Where 
differences  are  met  with,  any  fundamental  divergence  from  the 
Hebrew  Textus  Receptus  will  have  to  be  regarded  as  the  original 
LXX.,  because  the  later  modifications  of  the  Greek  text  were 


§  51.    LATER  GREEK  TRANSLATIONS.  149 

mainly  intended  to  bring  it  into  conformity  with  the  Jewish 
text.  For  this  construction  of  the  genuine  LXX.  the  genuine 
quotations  of  Philo,  and  partly  also  those  met  with  in  the 
New  Testament,  will  afford  very  considerable  help. 

Finally,  in  the  pursuit  of  this  study,  in  order  that  we  may 
not  give  an  overdrawn  representation  of  the  facts,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  this  plan  sketched  by  Lagarde  concerns  the 
methodical  treatment  of  the  whole  LXX.  In  many  isolated 
passages  one  may  even  now,  by  the  careful  employment  of 
the  means  at  his  disposal,  make  use  of  the  Alexandrine  trans 
lation  in  investigations  into  the  history  and  criticism  of  the 
text.  In  other  passages,  however,  the  corruption  of  the  text 
is  so  great,  that  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case  it  cannot 
be  used. 

Compare  Lagarde,  AnmerTcungen  zur  griecliischen  Ueber- 
sctzung  der  Proverbicn,  p.  3  ;  Ankundigung,  p.  29  f . ;  Librorum 
Vet.  Tcstam.  i.  1 5  f. 

On  Philo,  compare  C.  F.  Hornemann,  Specimen  excrcitationum 
criticarum  in  vers.  LXX.  interpretum  ex  Philonc,  i.-iii. ; 
Copenhagen,  1774—1778  ;  Siegfried,  Philo  und  dcr  iiberlieferte 
Text  d.  LXX.  in  the  ZWT,  1873,  p.  217  ff,  and  Lagarde, 
Jlitthcihmgcn,  ii.  52-54. 


2.   Aquila,  Thcodotion,  Symmachus,  Qidnta,  and  Sexta. 

51.  The  growing  dissatisfaction  of  the  Jews  with  the  LXX., 
in  view  of  the  ever-increasing  importance  of  the  Greek-speak 
ing  Jews,  made  a  new  Greek  translation  necessary  (§  40).  In 
two  different  ways — the  one  radical,  the  other  conservatively 
mediating — the  attempt  was  made  to  satisfy  this  demand. 
Moreover,  there  had  arisen,  even  before  Origen,  several  other 
Greek  translations  of  the  Old  Testament,  of  which  one  set 
proceeded  from  the  Ebionite  party,  another  from  Christian 
circles.  Common  to  all  these  translations  was  a  closer  attach- 


150          §  51.  LATER  GREEK  TRANSLATIONS. 

ment  to  the  Hebrew  text,  as  that  was  then  received  among 
the  Jews.  For  the  knowledge  that  we  have  of  some  general 
facts  about  these  translations  we  are  indebted  above  all  to 
Origen,  who  adopted  them  into  his  great  Polyglot  (§  43). 
The  Hexapla  and  the  Tetrapla  have  indeed  perished,  but 
fragments  of  the  amplified  translations  have  happily  been 
saved  in  the  form  of  marginal  notes  to  the  copies  of  the 
Hexapla  text  (§§43-48),  and  in  the  commentaries  of  the  Church 
fathers,  especially  of  Jerome.  Whether  Lucian,  whose  text 
often  contains  interpolations  from  the  later  Greek  translations, 
had  used  this  independently,  or  whether  his  text  had  only 
been  wrought  over  by  Origen,  has  not  yet  been  thoroughly 
investigated  (§  46).  Morinus  began  to  collect  the  fragments 
which  still  remain.  The  work  was  continued  by  others, 
especially  by  Montfaucon,  and  is  now  provisionally  concluded 
by  Field's  classical  work,  in  which  not  only  the  immediate 
fragments  have  been  gathered  with  unwearied  industry,  but, 
above  all,  the  statements  of  the  Syro-Hexaplaris  have  been 
estimated  in  a  way  that  shows  a  thorough  mastery  of  the 
Greek  language. 

Montfaucon,  Hexaplarorum  Origenes  quce  supcrmnt  multis 
partibus  auctiora  quam  a  Flaminio  Nobilio  et  J.  Drusio  edita 
fuerint,  Paris  1713. 

Fr.  Field,  Origenis  Hcxoplorum  quce  sifpersunt,  2  vols., 
Oxford  1875.  Valuable  supplements  are  given  by  Pitra, 
Analecta  sacra  specileyio  Solesmensi  parata,  iii.  188 3,  pp.  555— 
578.  Compare  also  Cornill,  Ezechicl,  p.  104  ff.  109. 

The  signs  are  'A  for  Aquila,  S  for  Symmachus,  O  for 
Theodotion,  E'  for  Quinta,  and  S'  for  Sexta.  Compare 
further,  Field,  Prolegomena,  cap.  x. 

It  is,  as  Nestle  has  shown,  worthy  of  attention  that  accord 
ing  to  the  catalogue  of  the  library  of  Constantino  Barinus  at 
Constantinople  (see  Verdier,  La  Bibliotheque  d'Antoine  dn 
Verdier,  Lyons  1685,  Supplement,  p.  60),  there  are  said  to 
have  been  in  that  collection  of  books  manuscripts  with 


§  52.    AQUILA.  151 

Symmachus'  translation  of   the   Psalms  and   other   books   of 
Scripture.      Compare  Hody,  De  bill.  text,  origin,  p.  588. 

52.  The  most  peculiar  of  these  new  translations,  and  in 
many  respects  an  extraordinarily  interesting  production,  is 
that  of  Aquila.  In  thorough  touch  with  the  new  spiritual 
movement,  which  from  Palestine  had  spread  out  among  the 
Alexandrine  Jews,  lie  not  only  took  as  his  basis  the  Pales 
tinian  Canon  and  the  Palestinian  form  of  the  text,  but  sought 
perfectly  to  reproduce  the  Hebrew  text,  and  to  make  the 
Greek  translation  as  suitable  for  the  basis  of  a  discussion  as 
the  original,  for  he  reproduced  and  imitated  the  original  text 
down  to  the  most  minute  details.  In  this  way  the  Greek 
idiom  was  indeed  boldly  violated,  and  there  arose  a  dialect 
which  to  a  Greek  must  have  seemed  more  outrageous  than  the 
Jewish- Greek  jargon  into  which  the  LXX.  had  been  translated. 
Thus  the  sign  of  the  accusative  nx  was  represented  by  <rvv, 
n  locale  by  the  enclitic  Se,  "ibtfj?  by  TCO  \eyeiv,  and  the  Hebrew 
system  of  roots  by  etymological  creations  like  oareovv,  and 
o<TT€M>05  for  Ejfy  and  ETOJJ  (from  EVy  oareov\  Ovpeovv  for  pj 
(from  $B  Ovpeov),  etc.  But  on  the  other  hand,  Aquila — 
eruditissimus  lingua  yrcccce,  as  Jerome  styles  him — displays 
such  skill  in  his  handling  of  the  Greek  language,  such 
fidelity  in  dealing  with  unusual  and  poetical  expressions, 
often  selecting  one  of  similar  sound  with  the  Hebrew  word, 
that  those  barbarisms  are  not  by  any  means  to  be  regarded  as 
indications  of  linguistic  deficiencies,  but  only  as  the  con 
sequence  of  adopting  a  principle  which  it  was  impossible  to 
carry  out.  This  can  be  satisfactorily  explained  only  by  a 
consideration  of  the  particular  period  in  which  Aquila  lived. 
It  is  quite  certain  that  he  was  an  old  man  when  the  treatise 
of  Irenreus,  Adv.  Hccres.,  was  composed,  between  A.D.  175  and 
A.D.  189,  where  he  is  mentioned  for  the  first  time.  But  even 
what  the  ancients  tell  about  him  is  in  part  deserving  of  full 
confidence.  Even  should  the  statement  of  Irenajus,  that  he 


152  §  52.    AQUILA. 

was  a  proselyte  "  from  Pontus "  have  to  be  given  up,  as 
arising  from  a  confusion  with  Acts  xviii.  2,  and  should  also 
the  stories  of  Epiphanius  about  him  be  set  aside,  all  the  more 
valuable  will  be  the  report  of  Jerome  that  Aquila  was  a 
scholar  of  the  celebrated  E.  Akiba  about  the  year  100.  With 
this  agrees  the  statement  in  the/er.  Talmud  (Kidd,  i.  fol.  59a) 
about  a  proselyte  D^py,  a  scholar  of  E.  Akiba,  while  the 
passage  jer.  Meg.  fol.  7lc,  which  makes  him  a  scholar  of  the 
contemporary  teachers  E.  Eliezer  and  E.  Joshua,  describes 
him  at  least  as  living  during  that  same  time.  Now  it  was 
E.  Akiba  who,  in  so  pre-eminent  a  degree,  impressed  his  mental 
and  spiritual  character  on  the  Judaism  of  his  day,  in  this 
respect  as  well  as  in  others,  that  he  introduced  in  his  exposi 
tion  of  Scripture  a  method  that  dealt  with  minutiae,  which 
laid  special  weight  on  all  sorts  of  small  details,  such  as  the 
particles  DJ,  JIN,  etc.,  and  therefore  just  such  minutiae  as  those 
which  Aquila  in  his  translation  wished  to  fix  attention  upon 
by  that  unrelenting  treatment  of  the  Greek  language.  In 
this  way  is  explained  the  preference  with  which  this  transla 
tion  of  Aquila,  which  probably  enjoyed  full  Palestinian 
authorisation,  was  used  for  a  long  time  by  the  Jews.  It  had 
shown,  as  is  said  in  jer.  Meg.  i.  fol.  7 la,  that  Greek  is  the 
one  language  into  which  the  Law  can  be  rendered  in  a  com 
plete  manner  (no  doubt  only  by  subjecting  it  to  a  very 
peculiar  treatment),  and  with  allusion  to  the  name  ob'py  and 
to  Japhet,  the  ancestor  of  the  Greeks,  it  is  told  that  one 
praised  Aquila  (iD^p  from  /caXco?),  and  applied  to  him  the 
language  of  the  45th  Psalm  :  rpQ''D<l  (Thou  art  fair,  or  thou 
art  become  a  Japhet)  before  the  children  of  men.  How 
widely  his  translation  had  spread  among  the  Jews  is  witnessed 
to  by  Origen  as  well  as  by  Jerome  and  even  by  No.  146  of 
the  Novellas  of  Justinian.  That  it  was  directed  polemically 
against  Christianity  might  evidently  be  expected  from  the 
very  nature  of  things,  and  is  proved  from  several  particulars, 


§  52.    AQUILA.  153 

e.g.  from  Isaiah  vii.  14,  where  it  has  veavis  instead  of  the 
irapOevos  of  the  LXX.,  and  from  its  endeavour  to  render  nTO 
by  another  term  than  ^/HO-TO?.  With  what  diligence  he 
wrought  appears  from  the  story  of  Jerome  that  he  produced 
a  second  improved  edition  of  his  translation.  Of  the  speci 
mens  of  his  translation  given  in  the  Talmud  some  at  least 
agree  precisely  with  the  Greek  fragments. 

Compare  R  Anger,  De  Onkelo  Chaldaico,  quern  fcrunt 
Pentateuchi  paraphraste,  Leipsic  1843  ;  Field,  Hexapla,  i. 
p.  xvi.  ff. ;  Wellhausen-Bleek,  Elnleitung,  p.  580  f . ;  Geiger, 
Nacligelassene  Scliriflen,  iv.  83  f . ;  Schiirer,  Gfeschichte  dcs 
jild.  Volkcs,  ii.  704  ff.,  Eng.  trans.  Div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  168; 
Cornill,  Ezechiel,  p.  104  ff . ;  Eyssel,  Untersuchungen  iibcr  die 
Textgcstalt  dcs  Buclics  Micha,  1877,  p.  18G. 

Iremeus,  Adv.  Hccres.  iii.  24  (Eusebius,  Hist.  Ecclcst.  v.  8. 
10):  ov%  ft)?  evioL  $acri  TWV  vvv  jjieOepfJi^veveiv  TO\j.ict)vTCi)i> 
'  IBov  rj  vedvis  ev  yaarpl  efet  KOI  re^erat  vlov,  GO? 
ripfJLr)vevcrev  o  '£(/>eo-io?  Kal  'A/cvXas  6  HOVTIKOS, 
^lovBaloi  TrpocrrjXvToi,  ot?  KarafcoXovdrjO'avTes  01 
et;  'Iwarjcf)  avTov  yeyeveaOai,  <pdaKovai.  Jerome 
on  Isaiah  viii.  14:  "  Scribae  et  Pharisaji,  quorum  scholam 
suscepit  Acibas,  quern  magistrum  Aquiloe  proselyti  autumant." 
Further,  Epistle  57,  Ad.  Pamm. ;  Epiphanius,  DC  mens.  et 
pond.  c.  13-17. 

On  the  hermeneutical  methods  of  R  Akiba,  see  Bereshith 
r.  1  and/er.  Bc-mcliotli,  9,  7  fol.  146,  according  to  the  latter  of 
which  passages  one  of  the  scholars  of  Akiba  was  instructed  by 
his  master  in  the  meaning  of  the  words  ns%  DJ,  "IS,  and  pi. 
Compare  Schiirer,  Gcschichte  des  jild.  Volkcs,  ii.  311,  Eng. 
trans.  Div.  ii.  vol.  i.  376. 

Origen,  Ad  Africanum  (i.  14,  I)e  la  line) :  'AtcvXas  .  .  . 
(f)i\OTt,fji6Tepov  TreTno-revfjievos  Trapa  'lou&ztot?  ^ 
T^V  ypa(f)rji>'  c5  fjid\i(7Ta  elct)6a(riv  oi  dyvoovvres 
$id\€KTov  xpfjaOat,  co?  irdvTwv  /j,d\\ov  eTTirerevyfjievw.  In 
No.  146  of  the  Novella  it  is  said  of  the  public  reading  of  the 
Scriptures  in  the  Jewish  synagogues :  "  At  vero  ii,  qui  gneca 
lingua  legunt,  LXX.  interpretuin  utentur  translation!,  qua3 


154  §  53.    THEODOTION. 

omnium  accuratissiina  et  ceteris  prrestantior  judicata  est  .  .  . 
Verum  ne  illos  a  reliquis  interpretationibus  secludere  videamur, 
licentiam  concedimus  etiam  Aquilse  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  at  least 
an  indirect  acquaintance  with  Aquila's  translation  of 
Isaiah  vii.  14. 

On  the  relation  of  Aquila  to  the  Books  of  Ecclesiastes  and 
The  Song  in  the  LXX.,  compare  above,  §  41.  In  reference  to 
this  question  the  statement  of  Cornill  (Ezechiel,  pp.  64,  104  f.), 
about  an  Oxford  Codex  for  Ezekiel  (Holmes  62),  which  has  in 
the  highest  degree  been  influenced  by  Aquila,  is  of  im 
portance.  It  is  also  worthy  of  note  that  the  Syrian  transla 
tion  has  the  sign  of  the  accusative  IV  only  in  these  two  books 
(elsewhere  only  in  Gen.  i.  1  and  1  Ghron.  iv.  41). 

[See  article  on  "  Aquila  "  by  Professor  Dickson  in  Smith's 
Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  vol.  i.  1877,  pp.  150,  151  ; 
also  Article  "Versions"  in  Dictionary  of  the,  Bible,  1863, 
vol.  iii.  1622.] 

53.  If  Theodotion,  as  is  usually  supposed,  was  younger 
than  Aquila,  the  appearing  of  his  translation  shows  that  not 
all  Greek- speaking  Jews  agreed  with  the  bold  hermeneutical 
principles  of  Aquila,  and  that  many  were  unwilling  wholly 
to  abandon  the  LXX.  with  which  they  had  been  so  long 
familiar.  The  work  of  Theodotion  is  indeed  to  be  regarded 
as  a  sort  of  comprehensive  revision  of  the  LXX.,  to  which  it 
also  attaches  itself  by  this,  that  it  retains  the  apocryphal 
additions  to  Daniel  and  the  postscript  to  Job.  It  is 
characteristic  of  his  method  that  not  rarely  Theodotion 
receives  into  his  translation  the  Hebrew  word  unchanged. 

Eegarding  his  personal  circumstances,  we  are  wholly  with 
out  information.  He  is,  like  Aquila,  older  than  the  composi 
tion  of  the  treatise  of  Irenasus,  Adv.  Hcereseos.  Irenseus 
himself  calls  him  a  proselyte  from  Ephesus.  This,  however, 


§  53.    THEODOTIOX.  155 

is  not  in  agreement  with  what  is  said  hy  Jerome,  who 
repeatedly  describes  him,  in  contrast  to  Aquila,  as  an 
Ebionite ;  but  in  other  passages  this  Church  father  names 
him  a  Jew,  and  mentions  his  Ebionism  only  as  the  opinion  of 
others.  Origen  made  use  of  him,  as  has  been  already  said, 
as  a  companion  to  his  Septuagint  column.  Among  the  Jews 
indeed  he  seems  to  have  played  no  important  part,  which 
probably  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  his  mediating  method. 
All  the  greater,  on  the  other  hand,  was  his  success  among  the 
Christians,  who  used  him  greatly  for  the  emendation  of  the 
LXX.,  partly  also  in  room  of  that  translation.  Even  Irerueus 
made  use  of  his  translation  of  Daniel,  which  afterwards 
completely  supplanted  the  Alexandrine  translation  of  that 
prophet.  The  possibly  even  older  custom  of  interpolating 
the  LXX.  with  passages  from  Theodotion,  was  carried  out 
systematically  by  Origen  (see,  e.g.  Jer.  xxxiii.  14-26),  and 
thereby  contributed  still  more  to  the  mixing  up  of  it  with  the 
Alexandrine  translation. 

Compare  Field,  Prolegomena,  cap.  iv. ;  Schlirer,  Gescliiclitc 
ties  jiid.  Volkcs,  ii.  708  ff,  Eng.  trans.  Div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  172; 
Kyssel,  Tcxtyestalt  des  Buclics  Micha,  p.  187. 

Irenseus,  Adv.  Ilceres.  §  52;  Jerome  on  Habakkuk  iii. 
11—13:  "Theodotion  autem  vere  quasi  pauper  et  Ebionita 
sed  et  Syinmachus  ejnsdem  dogmatis  pauperem  sensum  secuti 
Judaice  transtulerunt."  So,  too,  in  the  Preface  to  the  version 
of  Job.  On  the  other  hand,  Epistola  ad  Augustinum  112 
hominis  Judcei  atque  UaspJiemi ;  Praef.  comment,  in  Daniel: 
"  Illud  quoque  lectorem  admoneo,  Danielem  non  juxta  LXX. 
interpretes  sed  juxta  Theodotionem  ecclesias  legere,  qui  utique 
post  adventum  Christ!  incredulus  fuit,  licet  eum  quidani 
dicarit  Ebionitam,  qui  altero  genere  Juda?us  est."  The 
mediating  method  pursued  by  the  author  is  very  well 
characterised  by  Jerome  in  his  Comment,  on  John  ii.  2. 

According  to  Epiphanius  he  lived  under  Commodus,  A.D. 
180-192,  but  this  author's  stories  about  him  (De  mensuns  et 


156  §  54.    SYMMACHUS. 

ponderibus,  17-18),  like  those  about  the  other  translators,  are 
quite  worthless.  The  words  quoted  from  Iremieus  about  the 
importance  of  his  translation  among  the  Ebionites  rather 
show  that  it  must  have  been  written  some  considerable  time 
previously.  Schiirer  is  therefore  inclined  to  make  him  older 
than  Aquila.  If,  however,  he  is  led  to  the  adoption  of  this 
theory  by  the  idea  that  a  work  like  that  of  Theodotion's 
would  have  been  superfluous  after  Aquila's  had  won  accept 
ance,  this  is  not  decisive,  since  we  can  without  difficulty 
conceive  of  the  origin  of  his  translation  in  the  way  described 
in  the  above  section.  That  Irenaeus  names  him  before  Aquila 
may  simply  have  its  ground  in  this,  that  his  translation  lay 
nearer  Irenceus  than  that  of  Aquila,  as  indeed  he  actually 
made  use  of  Theodotion's  translation  of  Daniel  (§  43).  The 
coincidences  in  the  Apocalypse  of  John  are,  as  Schiirer  him 
self  remarks,  not  sufficiently  convincing  to  warrant  us  in 
building  anything  upon  them.  Of  greater  importance  is  the 
reminiscence  in  the  Shepherd  of  Hermes  (Vis.  iv.  2.  4),  of 
Theodotion's  rendering  of  Daniel  vi.  23  (compare  Theolog. 
Liter  aturzeitung,  1885,  146,  267).  But  see  also  ZWT, 
xxviii.  384.  Whether  Theodotion  or  Aquila  was  the  elder 
can  finally  be  decided  only  by  a  thoroughgoing  examination  of 
their  translations.  On  Theodotion  on  Isaiah  xxv.  8,  where 
some  think  they  find  traces  of  a  Christian  mode  of  thought, 
compare  Field  on  the  passage,  and  Kautzsch,  De  vet.  Testam. 
locis  a  Paulo  apost.  allegatis,  1869,  p.  104.  [See  a  particularly 
good  and  adequate  Article,  "  Theodotion,"  by  Dr.  Gwynn  of 
Dublin,  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Chr.  Biography,  vol.  iv.  1887,  pp. 
970-979.  On  the  apparent  use  of  Theodotion's  Daniel  in 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermes,  see  Hort  in  the  Johns  Hopkins' 
University  Circulars,  iv.  23,  and  in  opposition  to  the  attempt 
to  bring  Hermes  down  from  the  beginning  to  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  see,  besides  Gwynn,  Salmon,  Introd.  to  the 
New  Testament,  1885,  pp.  654-658.] 

54.  Symmachus,  of  whom  Irenaeus  does  not  speak,  was 
later  than  Aquila  and  Theodotion.  According  to  a  story  of 
Eusebius,  he  was  an  Ebionite,  who  seems  to  have  made  his 


§  54.    SYMMACHUS.  157 

translation  not  long  before  Origen,  and  also  to  have  composed 
other  works  whose  contents  were  of  a  Jewish -Christian 
character.  Jerome  also  calls  him  an  Ebionite.  Now  if  it  is 
thought  remarkable  to  find  a  Bible  translation  among  the 
Ebionite  Jewish  Christians,  the  astonishment  increases  when, 
on  a  closer  inspection  of  his  translation,  we  find  ourselves 
alongside  of  one  who  with  equal  mastery  deals  with  the 
Hebrew  and  with  the  Greek  languages.  Together  with 
Jerome,  who  has  made  great  use  of  him,  he  stands  among 
ancient  translators  nearest  to  the  modern  ideal  of  what  a 
translator  should  be.  Only  in  his  paraphrastic  circum 
locutions,  which  we  meet  with  here  and  there  in  the  case  of 
bold  or  dogmatically  offensive  passages,  does  he  show  himself 
a  genuine  child  of  his  age.  According  to  Jerome  on  Jer. 
xxxii.  30  and  Nah.  iii.  1,  he  also  published  a  second  revised 
edition  of  his  translation. 

Compare  Field,  Prolegomena,  cap.  iii. ;  Wellhausen-Bleek, 
Einleitung^Tp.  582  ff. ;  Cornill,  EzecMd,  p.  108  f. ;  Eyssel, 
Textgcstalt  des  Buches  Micha,  p.  187. 

Eusebius,  Hist.  Ecclest.  vi.  17:  TU>V  7^  /mrjv  epjjLTjvevTMv 
avTwv  8^)  TOVTWV  IcrTeov  ^Eftiwvalov  TOV  ^v^ayov  yeyovevai 
.  .  .  Kdl  vTrofjivrj/jLaTa  Be  TOV  SvfJLfjLa^ov  elaen  vvv  (freperai,  ev 
ot?  BOKGL,  7ry)o?  TO  Kara  MarOalov  aTToreivofJievos  €vayye\iov, 
rrjv  $e$rj\w  [juevriv  aipeaiv  Kparvveiv.  ravra  Se  6 

a   KCLL   a\\wv    et?    ra?   ypa(j)as    ep^veiwv    TOV 

Trapa  'Iov\iavr]s  TLVOS  eiXrjfyevai,  r)i>  KOI  (^r/crL  Trap' 
avTov  ^v/jLfjid^ov  r«?  (3l{3\ovs  StaSefacrat.  Jerome,  i.  §  5o. 
Whether  the  story  of  Epiphanius,  that  he  had  been  originally 
a  Samaritan,  rests  on  any  historical  grounds,  can  scarcely  be 
determined.  But  Lagarde  writes  very  strikingly  (Mittlicilungen, 
ii.  51):  "In  connection  with  this  it  should  not  be  forgotten 
that  if  Symmachus  was  a  Samaritan,  then  at  least  Symmachus 
does  not  unconditionally  witness  for  the  text  of  the  Jews  of 
his  time."  Certainly  as  "  a  Samaritan  "  he  would  have  had 
no  text  of  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiographa.  On  very 
weak  grounds,  Geiger  (Jilcl  Zcitsclirift,  1862,  pp.  62-64  ; 


158  §  55.    QUINTA  AND  SEXTA. 

Nachgelasscne  Schriften,  p.  88  ft),  sought  to  attach  him  to 
Judaism.  A  Syrian  story  about  him  is  communicated  by 
Nestle,  TSKt  1879,  p.  733  f. 

Examples  of  the  free  paraphrases:  Gen.  i.  27:  eV  el/covi 
Sia<popa,  opOiov  6  $eo9  GKTKrev  avTov  (which,  according  to 
Lagarde,  Psalterium  juxta  Hebrceos  Hicronymi,  165,  implies 
the  reading  of  D&21  D&3  instead  of  D^'2  iDbvn);  Gen.  xviii.  25  : 
6  Trdvra  dvOpwirov  diraLT&v  SucaioTrpar/eiv,  d/cpircos  (JLT)  Troirjo-ys 
rovro  ;  Ps.  xliv.  24:  Ivari  w?  virv&v  el;  Pdcht,  9,  13  :  rrjv 


55.  Of  the  two  anonymous  Greek  translations,  the  Quintet 
and  the  Scxta,  which  Origen,  as  Eusebius  says,  drew  out  of 
some  obscure  corner  and  received  into  the  Hexapla,  the  latter 
at  least,  according  to  the  express  declaration  of  Jerome  (in 
Habakk.  iii.  13),  was  of  Christian  origin.  Field's  investiga 
tions  have  reached  the  result  that  they  embraced  a  larger 
number  of  the  Old  Testament  books  than  was  previously  sup 
posed  to  be  the  case,  but  otherwise  we  know  nothing  precisely 
about  them.  Eusebius,  and  after  him  Jerome,  spoke  also  of  a 
"seventh  translation,"  and  Jerome,  on  Habakk.  ii.  11,  speaks 
of  duas  alias  editiones,  besides  the  Quinta.  But  with  the  ex 
ception  of  perhaps  Ps.  1.  3  (Septima,  KaraiyiaQtj),  no  trace  of 
this  translation  has  ever  been  found  elsewhere.  Whether  the 
o  'Effpaios  cited  sometimes  by  the  Church  fathers,  which  often 
renders  the  text  pretty  freely,  was  a  translation  in  the  proper 
sense,  cannot  now  be  definitely  determined. 

Compare  Field,  Prolegomena,  cap.  v. 

Eusebius,  Hist.  JScclest.  vi.  16  :  /cat  rcva?  erepas  Trapa  ra? 
Levas  epfjbijvelas  IvahXdrTOvcras,  TTJV  'Atcvkov  /cal 
KOI  ©eoScmWo?,  efavpeiv,  a?  ov/c  oIS'  oSei/  ex  TLVWV 
TOV  irakai  \av6dvovGas  xpovov  e/9  <£w?  dvi^veocra^ 
Trporjjayev  efi  wv  Sta  dBijXoTrjra  TLVOS  ap  elev  ovtc  elBa)$, 
avro  TOVTO  fjidvov  €7T€(7'r)fj,ijvaTO,  a)?  apa  rrjv  fjiev  evpoi  ev  T{J 
7T/305  'AKTLM  NitcojroXei,  rrjv  Se  ev  erepw  TOTT&J  roiwSe'  ev  ye 

recrcrapas 


50.    JEROME.  159 


,  ou  povov  TrefJLTffljv,  d\\a  Kal  eKrrjv  /cal 
piJLrjveiav,  eVl  yiua?  avOis  o-eo-ijfjLeicoTaL,  co?  Iv 
eV  iriOw  Kara  TOU?  ftpovovs  'Avrwvivov  rov  viov 
v  [211-217].  According  to  this  then  the  Quinta  was 
found  at  Nicopolis,  on  the  west  coast  of  Greece,  and  either  the 
Sexto,  or  the  Septima  at  Jericho.  The  passages  from  Jerome 
are  given  by  Field,  Prolegomena,  xliii.  According  to  his 
commentary  on  Titus  iii.  9,  the  Quinta,  Sexta,  and  Septima 
were  mainly  composed  of  the  poetical  books  (versu  compositi). 
Jerome  on  Hab.  iii.  13:  "  Sexta  editio,  prodens  manifestis- 
sime  sacramentum,  ita  vertit  ex  Hebrseo  :  egressus  es,  ut 
salvares  populum  tuum  per  Jesum  Christum  tuum  :  quod 
Greece  dicitur  ef?}X#e?  TOV  crcocrat,  rov  \aov  aov  Sia  'lecrovv 
TOV  Xpicrrov  aov"  The  same  on  Hab.  ii.  11  :  "  Reperi,  ex- 
ceptis  quinque  editionibus,  id  est,  Aquilse,  Symrnachi,  Septua- 
ginta,  Theodotionis  et  Quinta,  in  XII.  prophetis  et  duas  alias 
editiones,  in  quarum  una  scriptum  est  :  quia  lapis,  in  altera  : 
lapis  enim. 

On  6  'Efipaios,  compare  Field,  Prolegomena,  Ixxv.  sq. 


3.   Jerome  and  the  Vulgate, 

56.  Of  the  translations  which  were  intended  to  take  the 
place  of  the  LXX.,  no  one  has  obtained  such  historical  signi 
ficance  as  that  of  Jerome.  In  the  Greek  Church  indeed  the 
Alexandrine  translation  maintained  its  place,  and  among  the 
Jews  circumstances  gradually  took  such  a  turn  that  they 
generally  needed  no  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Western  Church  owed  it  to  Jerome 
that  it  learnt  to  know  the  Old  Testament  in  a  form  which, 
upon  the  whole,  was  much  purer  and  clearer  than  the  Septua- 
gint  or  the  Latin  Bible  translations  that  were  dependent  upon 
it  (§  47). 

Jerome,  born  A.D.  34G,  died  A.D.  420,  was,  if  a  fair  view  is 
taken  of  the  circumstances  of  his  time,  well  equipped  for  the 


160  §  56.    JEROME. 

work  which  he  ventured  to  undertake.  And  even  although 
the  astonishment  of  his  contemporaries  which  found  expression 
in  the  declaration  of  Augustine,  Quod  Hieronymus  nescivit, 
nemo  mortalium  unquam  scivit,  may  be  justifiable  only  when 
his  knowledge  is  compared  with  that  of  his  fellow-Christians, 
it  must  yet  be  acknowledged  that  he  spared  no  pains  to  make 
himself  familiar  with  the  Hebrew  language,  difficult  as  it  was 
by  reason  of  the  helantia  stridentiaque  verba,  and  with  the 
conditions  of  life  presupposed  in  the  Old  Testament.  Non 
parms  nummis  paid  he  for  his  instruction  under  various 
Jewish  teachers,  who  sometimes,  for  fear  of  their  countrymen, 
came  to  him  secretly  by  night,  "  like  Nicodemus,"  among 
them  Baranina,  he  whom  the  bitter  Eufinus,  as  a  reward  for 
the  stores  of  Bible  knowledge  which  the  Church  through  long 
ages  would  have  to  thank  him  for,  nicknamed  by  the 
opprobrious  designation  of  "  Barabbas."  In  addition  to  this 
Jerome  diligently  used  the  works  of  the  later  Greek  tran 
slators,  especially  that  of  Symmachus  (§  54).  That  the 
result  of  his  endeavours  was  nevertheless  in  many  particulars 
imperfect,  is  so  natural  a  consequence  of  the  circumstances 
in  which  he  was  placed,  that  the  reproach  of  a  defective 
scientific  method,  which  e.g.  Clericus  brought  against  him,  is 
no  more  justifiable  than  the  Catholic  attempts  to  elevate  him 
into  an  infallible  translator.  Compared  with  the  attainments 
of  those  around  him,  his  service  marks  an  extraordinary 
advance  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  his  mastery  of  the  Latin 
tongue,  obtained  by  means  of  continuous  study  of  the  classics, 
the  grave  tone  of  that  speech  moreover  suiting  his  purpose 
well,  qualified  him  for  his  work. 

Compare  Morinus,  Exercitationes  liblicce,  p.  156;  Clericus, 
Qacestiones  Hieronymiancc,  1700;  L.  Engelstoft,  Hieronymus 
Strid.  interpres,  etc.,  Copenhagen  1797  ;  Zockler,  Hieronymus, 
sein  Lebcn  und  Wirken,  1865,  pp.  342  ff.,  465  ff. ;  DeWette- 
Schrader,  Einleitung,  p.  136  ff. ;  Nowack,  Die  Bedeutung  des 


§  57.    REVISIONS  OF  OLD  TRANSLATIONS  AND  THE  NEW.        161 

Hieronymus  fiir  die  Alttestamentl.   TextJcritik,   1875,  p.  5  ff. ; 
Ryssel,  Textgestalt  des  Baches  Micha,  p.  I S  9  ff. 

On  the  influence  of  the  Jewish  exegesis  on  Jerome,  see 
Rahmer,  Die  hebraischen  Traditional  in  den  Werken  Hierony- 
mus,  i.  1861,  and  MGWJ,  1865,  1867,  1868;  Siegfried, 
JPT,  ix.  346  ff. 

57.  Jerome  at  the  beginning  intended  only  by  criticism 
of  the  text  to  establish  and  correct  the  Vctus  latina,  which 
was  widely  circulated,  but  had  then  assumed  many 
divergent  forms.  After  he  had,  at  the  call  of  Damasus, 
revised  the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  he  improved  in  A.D. 
383  at  Borne  the  translation  of  the  Psalms  licet  cursim,  and 
with  constant  reference  to  the  old  customary  form.  This 
Eecension  Damasus  introduced  into  the  Roman  liturgy,  so 
that  it  obtained  the  name  of  Psalter ium  Eomanum.  It  was 
in  use  in  Rome  down  to  the  sixteenth  century,  and  is  still 
used  in  the  Church  of  St.  Peter.  It  was  used  in  Venice  in 
the  chapel  of  the  Doge  down  to  A.D.  1808,  and  is  employed 
to  this  day  in  the  Ambrosian  ritual  in  Milan.  Some  time 
after  this  Jerome  left  Rome,  in  order  to  prosecute  his  studies 
in  the  East,  and  to  live  in  the  practice  of  religious  exercises. 
While  staying  in  Crcsarea  he  came  to  know  of  the  Hexapla 
of  Origen,  and  thereby  became  acquainted  with  one  form  of 
the  text  of  the  Septuagint,  which  he  subsequently  gave  the 
preference  to  before  all  others.  Dissatisfied  with  his  earlier 
revision,  he  began  a  new  rendering  of  the  Psalms  according 

o  o  o 

to  the  Hcxaplar  Eecension,  which  obtained  currency  in  Gaul, 
and  hence  bears  the  name  of  the  Psalterinm  G-allicanum.  This 
Psalterium  was  at  a  later  date  adopted  into  the  Roman 
Breviary  and  into  the  Vulgate,  and  is  therefore  the  authorised 
translation  of  the  Psalms  for  Catholics.  Other  Old  Testa 
ment  writings  also  he  wrought  over  according  to  the  Hexaplar 
text ;  but,  with  the  exception  of  the  Book  of  Job,  this  work 
has  all  been  lost.  Undoubtedly  the  fact  that  Jerome  himself, 

L 


162       §  57.    REVISIONS  OF  OLD  TRANSLATIONS  AND  THE  NEW. 

while  carrying  on  this  work,  became  pledged  to  a  far  bolder 
undertaking,  contributed  to  this  result.  By  means  of  his 
laboriously  acquired  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  he  wished  as  the 
first  among  the  westerns  to  translate  the  Old  Testament  from 
the  Hebrew  text.  And  even  if  his  designating  the  Hebrew 
text  of  his  time  (which  was  essentially  the  same  as  the 
Massoretic  text  of  the  present  day),  "  the  Hebrew  truth"  be  not 
absolutely  correct,  yet  this  text  stood  so  high  above  the 
Alexandrine  Bible  that  the  new  undertaking  marked  an  im 
portant  step  in  advance,  while  it  exposed  him  to  many  bitter 
attacks  on  the  part  of  his  unscientific  contemporaries.  He 
himself  with  his  victorious  logic  pointed  out  to  his  opponents 
that  the  Church  had  a  long  time  before  without  scruple  ex 
changed  the  Alexandrine  translation  of  Daniel  for  that  of 
Theodotion,  although  the  inspiration  of  the  Seventy  had  been 
a  universally  admitted  dogma  (§  38).  On  the  other  hand, 
the  powerful  opposition  which  this  man,  with  noticeable 
elements  of  weakness  in  his  character,  met  with  from  all 
sides,  succeeded  in  inducing  him  to  accommodate  himself 
generally,  wherever  it  was  at  all  possible  to  do  so,  to  the 
customary  translation.  He  seems  to  have  begun  the  great 
and  bold  work  in  the  year  390.  First  of  all  he  translated 
the  easiest  books,  Samuel  and  Kings ;  then  Job,  the  Pro 
phets,  and  the  Psalms;  and  finally,  in  the  years  393—405, 
the  rest  of  the  canonical  books,  and  to  please  his  contem 
poraries  (§  18),  of  the  Apocrypha:  Tobit,  Judith,  and  the 
additions  to  Jeremiah,  Daniel,  and  Esther.  An  epistolary 
correspondence  with  Augustine,  who  in  spite  of  his  expressed 
preference  for  the  old  translation,  did  not  wish,  without 
further  examination,  to  pass  judgment  on  the  undertaking  of 
Jerome,  gave  him  an  opportunity  for  vindicating  his  work 
(Epist.  112,  Ad  Augustinum).  The  vain  man  experienced  a 
great  triumph  when  separate  portions  of  his  translation  were 
rendered  into  Greek  by  Sophronius,  a  remarkable  reversal  of 


§  58.    THE  VULGATE.  163 

the    hitherto    prevailing    relation    between    the    Greeks    and 
Latins. 

L.  van  Ess,  Pragmatiscli-kritische  GescJiichte  dcr  Vulgata, 
Tub.  1824;  Kaulen,  Geschichtc  dcr  Vulcjata,  Mainz  1868; 
Fritzsche  in  Herzog's  Real-Uncyclopcedie2,  viii.  445-459. 

On  the  use  of  the  Psalterium  Romanum,  see  Schol/, 
Einleitung,  p.  486  f.,  and  Theol.  Littcraturllatt,  1874,  Xo.  19. 
In  the  tenth  volume  of  Vallarsi's  Opera  Hicronymi  are  to  be 
found  the  Psalterium  Pomanum,  Psalterium  Gallicanum,  and 
the  translation  of  the  Book  of  Job  according  to  the  Hcxaplar 
text.  Lagarde  has  published  a  translation  of  Job  based  upon 
a  manuscript  in  Tours  and  a  Codex  Bodlcianus  (2426); 
Mittheilungen,  ii.  193-237.  Caspar!  is  preparing  to  edit  a 
third  manuscript. 

58.  After  the  older  Latin  translation  and  that  of  Jerome  had 
for  a  long  time  been  used  alongside  of  one  another,  according 
to  the  choice  of  the  Churches  or  their  founder,  the  translation 
of  Jerome  came  into  general  use  by  the  seventh  century.  In 
the  thirteenth  century  it  became  customary  to  call  it  the 
Vulgate  (editio  vulgata),  a  name,  which  in  earlier  times,  e.g.  by 
Jerome  himself,  had  been  used  to  designate  the  LXX.,  especi 
ally  the  Kowrj,  or  its  Latin  rendering.  The  Vulgate  of  the 
Middle  Ages  was,  however,  by  no  means  identical  with  the 
genuine  translation  of  Jerome.  While  the  two  translations  had 
been  in  use  side  by  side,  the  manuscripts  of  the  new  translation 
in  their  whole  extent  were  subjected  to  alterations  from  the 
Veins  Intina,  especially  by  means  of  marginal  notes,  which  by 
and  by  were  incorporated  into  the  text  itself.  In  addition  to 
this,  in  the  following  ages  there  came  in  errors  of  transcription 
and  wilful  additions  of  various  kinds.  The  endeavours  of 
Cassiodorus  and  Alcuin  to  restore  the  text  from  its  corrupt 
state  were  unsuccessful,  and  the  so-called  Correctoria,  or 
Collections  of  Variations,  of  which  some  indeed  are  of  pre 
eminent  interest  from  a  historical  point  of  view  and  in  con 
nection  with  the  criticism  uf  the  text,  served,  in  the  hands 


164  §  58.    THE  VULGATE. 

of  unskilled  persons,  only  to  increase  the  confusion.  After 
the  invention  of  the  art  of  printing — the  Vulgate  was 
printed  before  the  Greek  New  Testament — Catholics  and 
Protestants  vied  with  each  other  for  a  long  time  in  the 
production  of  critical  editions  of  the  Latin  translation,  until 
an  incident  occurred  which  suddenly  cooled  the  zeal  of  the 
Protestants,  and  led  to  their  judging  of  the  work  of  the  old 
Church  father  in  quite  an  unreasonable  way.  The  Tridentine 
Council,  which  elevated  the  recognition  of  the  Apocrypha 
into  a  condition  of  salvation  (§  19),  and  thereby  destroyed 
what  Jerome  had  with  so  much  energy  upheld,  yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  ascribed  to  his  translation  a  quite  unmeasured 
importance,  for  it  authorised  the  Vulgate  in  puUids  lectionibus, 
disputationibus,  prcedicationibus  ct  cxpositionibus  (Sess.  iv.). 
Owing  to  the  condition  of  the  text  at  that  time,  the  Bible 
authorised  in  such  a  manner,  had,  as  Kaulen  expresses  it,  more 
of  an  ideal  than  of  a  real  existence,  and  the  Catholic  Church 
therefore  felt  itself  obliged  to  establish  a  form  of  text  which 
might  actually  claim  to  be  the  Vulgate.  The  Protestants,  for 
reasons  that  can  well  be  understood,  while  these  labours  were 
going  on,  acted  the  part  of  critical  spectators.  The  edition  of 
Sixtus  V.  in  A.D.  1590,  which,  according  to  the  Bull  printed 
in  front  of  it,  was  approved  even  for  private  use  apostolica 
nubis  a  domino  tradita  auctoritate,  and  declared  to  be  vera, 
Icfjitima,  authentica  ct  indubitata,  so  that  any  one  who  ventured 
without  papal  authority  to  change  it,  indignationem  omni- 
polcntis  Dei  ac  bcatorum  Pdri  ct  Pauli  apostolorum  cjus  se 
noverit  incursurum,  had  not  the  same  fortune  as  the  Sixtina 
of  the  LXX.  Clement  VIII.  was  obliged  to  take  notice  of 
the  demands  that  had  become  clamant  at  the  papal  court, 
and  therefore  allowed  a  new  text  to  be  edited,  which  at  last 
became  the  authorised  text  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
The  style  and  manner,  moreover,  in  which  these  editions 
were  prepared  do  not  admit  of  any  doubt  that,  while  the 


§  58.    TILE  VULGATE.  165 

editors  might  possibly  produce  a  practically  useful  text,  they 
•were  not  in  a  position  to  solve  the  difficult  problem  of  the 
restoration  of  the  genuine  text  of  Jerome.  And  even  in  recent 
times,  when  interest  in  the  translation  of  the  old  linguistically 
skilled  Church  father  has  again  revived  among  Protestants, 
we  still  find  ourselves  very  far  off  indeed  from  this  end. 
Only  the  unfortunately  incomplete  Collection  of  Variations  by 
Vercellone  affords  a  valuable  contribution  to  a  future  recon 
struction  of  the  Vulgate  text,  especially  in  this  way,  that  these 
variations  show  how  many  fragments  of  the  old  Latin  trans 
lations,  therefore,  from  the  LXX.  have  been  intruded  into  the 
Vulgate. 

Kaulen,  Geschichte  dcr  Vulgata,  pp.  150-494.  See  also: 
Berger,  De  I'histoire  cle  la  Vulgata  en  France,  1888  ;  Do 
Wette-Schrader,  Einleitung,  p.  144f. 

On  a  remarkable  Corrcctorium,  probably  from  the  thirteenth 
century,  which,  besides  a  rare  critical  insight,  shows  acquaint 
ance  with  the  distinction  between  French  and  Spanish 
manuscripts  of  the  Hebrew  text,  with  the  Targums,  the 
Itabbinists,  etc.,  compare  Vercellone,  Dissertazione  accademiche, 
Home  1864,  p.  53  ;  Kaulen,  Gcschichtc  tier  Vulgata,  p.  255  f. 

Under  Clement  VIII.  there  first  appeared :  JJiblia  Sacra 
I'ulgatce  editionis  Sixti  V.  jussu  recognita  atquc  cdita,  Rome 
1592.  Since  this  edition  contained  more  than  two  hundred 
errors  of  the  press,  a  new  one  was  issued  in  1593,  which 
"  indeed  corrected  some  of  the  printer's  errors,  but  left  a  still 
larger  number  uncorrected,  and  added  new  mistakes  of  its 
own"  (Kaulen,  Gcschichtc,  p.  470).  Only  the  third  edition 
of  1598,  by  reason  of  the  appended  indices  corrcctorii,  can 
be  regarded  as  conclusive.  Although  these  editions  differed 
from  the  text  of  Sixtus  V.  of  1590  in  almost  three  thousand 
passages,  they  still  continued  to  bear  the  name  of  that  pope 
on  their  title-page.  How  the  Protestants  judged  of  these 
proceedings  is  shown,  e.g.,  by  Tli.  James,  Bellnin  papale,  sivc 
concordia  discors  Sixti  V.  ct  dementis  VIII.  circa  Hicrony- 
mianam  editioncm,  London  1600. 


166  §  58.    THE  VULGATE, 

The  edition  of  Heyse  and  Tischendorf,  Biblia  sacra  latin  a 
V.T.  Hieronymo  interprete,  1873,  is  in  point  of  textual 
criticism  very  unsatisfactory.  Compare  ZWT,  p.  591  ft'. ; 
Lagarde,  Psalterium  juxta  hebrceos  Hieronymi,  Leipsic  1874, 
On  a  manuscript  not  used  by  Lagarde,  see  Bsethgen,  ZA  W, 
1881,  p.  105  ft'. 

Among  the  manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate  is  the  celebrated 
Codex  Amiatinus,  previously  in  the  Cloister  of  Mount  Amiata, 
now  in  Florence.  It  was  supposed  by  Tischendorf  and  others 
to  belong  to  the  sixtli  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,  Ezcchiel,  p.  158  f.  More 
recentl}',  however,  a  series  of  interesting  discussions  has 
appeared  in  The  Academy  (1887,  xxxi.  pp.  Ill,  130,  148  fl"., 
165  f.,  3091'.,  414  f.  ;  1888,  xxxiii.  pp.  239  f.,  307  f.). 
Light  has  been  shed  upon  this  question  especially  by  Ilort's 
contributions,  The  name  on  the  first  page  must  be  read 
C coif ricd  Anylortim-  ;  the  Codex  was  written  in  Jarrow  under 
the  Abbot  whose  rule  extended  from  A.D.  690  to  A.D.  710, 
after  the  pattern  of  older  Codices,  and  was  sent  from  England 
to  Borne  as  a  present  to  Gregory  II.  The  lirst  sheet,  however, 
with  its  three  lists  of  the  canon  and  pictorial  illustrations 
(compare  Corssen,  JPT,  ix.  p.  619ff.),  was  borrowed  from  a 
Codex  of  Cassiodorus  (of  the  Vetus  latino}  brought  to  England, 
From  this  manuscript,  Lagarde  (Mittluilungen,  i.  pp.  241-378) 
has  edited  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  arid  Sirach.  [For  an 
admirable  and  complete  account  of  the  Codex  Amiatinus,  see 
Mudia  Biblica  et  Ecclesiastica,  second  series,  Oxford  1890; 
(7)  "  The  Codex  Amiatinus  and  its  Birthplace,"  by  H.  J.  White. 
Appendix :  "  On  the  Italian  Origin  of  the  Codex  Amiatinus 
and  the  Localising  of  Italian  MSS.,"  by  W.  Sanday,  pp.  273- 
324.]  The  Codex  Tcetanus,  which  is  supposed  to  belong  to 
the  eighth  century,  was  collated  for  the  Sixtine  edition. 
This  collation  is  preserved  in  the  Vatican,  and  was  printed 
in  Migne's  Fatrologia,  Latina,  xxix.  879-1096.  Other  manu 
scripts  are  enumerated  by  De  Wette-Schrader,  Einleitung, 


§  59.    THE  ARAMAIC  AMONG  THE  JEWS.  167 

p.  143  f.  [See  list  of  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate  in  Scrivener's 
Plain  Introduction,  1883,  pp.  348-365.] 

Yercellone,  Varicv  Icctioncs  Vulgatce  led.  Bibliorum  cditionis, 
Koine  1860-1864  (only  the  historical  books).  Compare 
also:  Bukentop,  Lux  de  luce,  1710;  Thielmarin,  Bcitrage  zur 
Textkritik  d.  Vulg.,  insbcsondcrc  dcs  Buclies  Judith.  Programm 
dcr  Studicnanstalt  Speier,  188  3. 

On  the  daughter  versions  of  the  translation  of  Jerome,  see 
De  Wette-Schrader,  Einlcitung.  p.  147. 


4.    The  Jewish  Tar  gums. 

59.  The  Aramaic  language,  which  even  before  the  exile  was 
the  international  tongue  of  the  north  Semitic  peoples,  but  was 
not  understood  by  the  common  Jews  (Isa.  xxxvi.  11),  after 
the  exile  gradually  took  the  place  of  the  old  Israelitish 
language,  and  was,  in  the  times  of  Christ,  the  proper 
vulgar  language  of  the  Jews.  This  remarkable  change,  of 
which  Dan.  ii.  46-vii.  28,  and  Ezra,  iv.  8-vi.  18,  vii.  12,  26, 
are  the  first  witnesses,  was  one  element  in  a  great  and  sweep 
ing  movement.  In  the  Persian  age  we  meet  with  the  Aramaic 
as  the  properly  universal  language  of  that  period,  even  in  the 
inland  parts  of  Arabia,  and  as  it  was  adopted  by  the  Jews 
from  their  neighbours,  so  also  by  the  Arabian  tribes  which 
had  taken  up  their  residence  east  of  that  Jordan.  Naturally 
also  the  Palestinian  Christians  (§49)  spoke  from  the  first  a 
dialect  of  this  same  "West  Aramaic"  language.  Only  in  a 
few  villages  of  the  Anti-Lebanon  is  there  now  a  poor,  struggling 
remnant  of  this  once  dominant  speech. 

Noldeke,  Die  scmitischcn  Sprachcn,  pp.  28-34;  Kautzsch, 
Gmmatik  dcs  Biblisch-aramdischcn,  Leipsic  1884.  On  the 
Christian-Palestinian  dialect,  see  Noldeke,  ZDMG,  xx.  443  ft'. 
On  the  relation  between  the  Greek  and  the  Aramaic,  see 
Noldeke,  ZDMG,  xxxix.  313  ff.  [Studio,  BiUica,  first  series, 


168  §  GO.    THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  TARGUMS. 

Oxford  1885,  pp.  39-74,  Article  by  BTeubauer  "  On  the  Dia 
lects  spoken  in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Christ."] 

60.  In  the  same  proportion  in  which  the  popular  speech 
of  the  Jews  changed,  did  the  Holy  Scriptures  become  less 
easily  understood  by  the  multitude.  Only  the  scribes  kept 
alive  among  them  the  tradition  of  the  pronunciation  and 
the  understanding  of  the  text,  and  to  them  are  we  indebted 
for  our  ability  still  to  read  the  Old  Testament.  The  Law, 
however,  played  so  important  a  part  among  the  post-exilian 
Jews  that  the  understanding  of  it  could  not  remain  the 
peculiar  property  of  the  learned  class ;  while  the  weekly  read 
ings  from  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  made  it  necessary  that 
they  should  be  understood  by  the  people.  In  order  to  satisfy 
this  need,  there  arose  the  custom  of  the  reader  in  the  syna 
gogue  having  alongside  of  him  an  interpreter,  jojn^np,  who 
rendered  the  portions  read  into  the  language  of  the  people. 
Such  a  rendering  would  very  readily  assume  the  character  of 
an  expository  paraphrase,  which  sought  to  bring  the  read 
portion  nearer  to  the  requirements  of  the  religious  sentiments 
of  the  age.  Negatively  this  tendency  showed  itself  in  the 
leaving  untranslated  of  some  of  the  passages  that  were  offen 
sive  to  the  taste  and  feelings  of  these  later  times.  On  account 
of  the  circle  of  readings  being  regularly  repeated,  the  Aramaic 
rendering  must  readily  have  assumed  a  fixed  crystallised  form, 
which  would  be  transmitted  from  one  generation  to  another ; 
but  upon  this  basis,  wherever  there  was  no  manifest  antagonism 
to  it,  new  ideas  of  all  kinds,  called  forth  by  the  changing 
circumstances  of  the  times,  would  be  freely  deposited.  That 
the  Aramaic  translations  of  the  Old  Testament  which  are  still 
preserved  arose,  at  least  partly,  in  this  way,  can  be  proved  to 
demonstration  from  this,  that  in  several  of  them  we  can 
distinguish  such  layers  from  various  periods  as  prove  that 
the  recording  of  them  must  have  been  preceded  by  a  time  in 
which  they  had  been  transmitted  orally,  and  were  still  in  a 


§  GO.    THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  TARGUMS.  1G9 

fluid  state.  This,  however,  does  not  exclude  the  notion  that 
an  earlier  attempt  may  have  been  made  by  written  Ara 
maic  renderings  to  make  the  contents  of  the  Holy  Scrip 
tures  more  generally  known.  Indeed,  it  is  quite  evident  that 
this  must  have  been  the  case  with  the  Hagiographa,  which  was 
not  read  in  public,  since  there  is  mention  in  pretty  early  times 
of  Aramaic  translations  of  them.  Thus  there  is  mention  of  a 
written  translation  of  the  Book  of  Job  in  the  time  of  Christ 
(Sail.  1G);  I  Mcy.  oa  makes  evident  allusion  to  various  other 
translations  of  the  Hagiographa,  which  can  only  be  thought  of 
as  written  documents.  There  is  also,  as  it  seems,  mention  in 
the  Mishna  (Jadaim  iv.  5)  of  Aramaic  translations  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Upon  the  whole,  the  widely  spread  notion,  that 
in  the  earliest  times  it  was  forbidden  to  transcribe  the  Ara 
maic  translations  of  the  portions  read  in  the  synagogue,  is  not 
proved.  In  the  passage  that  has  been  quoted  in  support  of 
it  (jer.  Meg.  iv.  1)  what  is  really  said,  when  properly  under 
stood,  is  only  this,  that  such  written  translations  must  not  be 
used  in  the  synagogue  service  itself,  while  the  production  of  a 
written  record  is  not  itself  forbidden.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
may  be  fairly  concluded,  especially  from  the  first-mentioned 
reference  to  the  subject  (Sail).  16),  that  the  scribes  of  the 
earlier  days  regarded  with  disfavour  such  written  interpreta 
tions,  especially  those  of  the  Hagiographa,  which  can  be  easily 
understood,  because  such  writings  were  withdrawn  from  the 
control  of  the  spiritual  guardianship  exercised  by  the  Pharisees, 
and  might  be  the  means  of  spreading  all  sorts  of  heretical 
views  among  the  people. 

All  these  Aramaic  translations,  whatever  their  origin  may 
have  been,  bear  the  name  of  Targums.  What  has  been  already 
said  makes  it  clear  that  their  significance  was  essentially  in  the 
realm  of  the  history  of  religion  and  culture,  partly  also  in  the 
province  of  exegesis,  whereas,  owing  to  their  free  treatment 
of  the  text,  they  are  of  importance  for  textual  criticism  only 


170  §  60.    THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  TARGUMS. 

in  a  limited  degree.  Yet  in  not  a  few  passages  results  can 
be  reached  by  their  help  with  reference  to  a  text  diverging 
from  the  Eeceptus.  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 
Targuins  on  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  whose  oldest  layers 
may  have  originated  in  the  very  earliest  synagogical  readings. 
And  that,  especially  in  the  Babylonian  Targums,  we  have  to 
do  pre-eminently  with  ancient  materials  is  shown,  as  Cornill 
has  appropriately  remarked,  by  the  complete  absence  of  all 
polemic  against  the  Christians  in  the  Messianic  passages. 

Compare  Zunz,  Gottesdienstliclu  Vortrcige,  1832,  p.  7  ff. ; 
Noldeke,  Alttestamentliche  Littcratur,  p.  255  ff.  On  the 
untranslated  passages,  Geiger,  Ursclirift,  p.  368;  Berliner, 
Massora  zum  Targum  Onkelos,  p.  59;  ZDMG,  xxix.  320. 

M.  Jadaim  iv.  5,  "  JVQJJ,  which  is  written  as  Dinn,"  can 
only  refer  to  Aramaic  translations.  Tosephta  Sdbb.  xvi.  128  : 
"  When  the  elder  Gamaliel  sat  on  one  of  the  temple  steps  one 
brought  him  a  book  with  a  Targum  of  the  Book  of  Job ;  but 
he  ordered  a  builder  working  near  by  to  build  the  book  into 
the  wall  which  he  was  then  building."  Compare  b.  Sabb.  115  ; 
jer.  Sabb.  16,  fol.  loc;  Soptfrim,  p.  xi.  Nevertheless,  the 
grandson  of  Gamaliel,  according  to  this  story,  subsequently  read 
in  a  copy  of  this  same  book.  The  notion  of  Gra'tz,  MGWJ, 
1877,  p.  87,  that  this  Targum  was  a  Greek  translation,  is 
absolutely  without  foundation.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
not  impossible  that  it  was  identical  with  the  SvpiaKrj  /3//3Ao? 
mentioned  in  the  LXX.  at  the  close  of  the  Book  of  Job.  It 
is  also  not  impossible  that  the  Old  Testament  quotations  in 
the  New  Testament  may  in  some  cases  have  been  taken  from 
such  a  Targum.  Compare,  e.g.  on  Matt.  ii.  5,  Delitzsch, 
Messianische  Weissagungen,  1890,  p.  114,  Eng.  trans,  by 
Prof.  Curtiss,  Edinburgh  1891.  Compare  also  Lagarde, 
NGGW,  1890,  p.  104. 


§  61.    THE  TARGUMS  IN  PALESTINE  AND  BAP.YLON.          171 

5.  Meg.  oa  :  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel  (§  63),  \vho  had  translated 
the  Prophets  into  Aramaic,  wished  also  to  produce  a  Targum  on 
the  Hagiographa ;  but  he  told  how  he  had  heard  a  Bath-qol, 
which  said  :  "  What  thou  hast  translated  is  enough."  Compare 
Bacher,  MGWJ,  1882,  p.  120. 

Jcr.  Meg.  iv.  1  :  "  R  Haggai  said,  E.  Samuel,  son  of  II.  Isaac, 
visited  a  synagogue,  and  found  therein  a  Sopher  reading  his 
interpretation  from  a  book ;  then  said  he  to  him,  this  is  not 
permitted.  The  oral  orally,  the  written  by  writing."  Compare 
Berliner,  Targum  Onkelos,  ii.  p.  88  ff. 

On  the  origin  of  the  word  Targum  very  diverse  opinions 
prevail.  The  Assyriologists  (Fred.  Delitzsch,  The  Hebrew  Lan 
guage,  1883,  p.  50;  Haupt  in  Schrader,  Die  Keilinschriften 
u,  d.  A.  T.2  p.  517)  [see  Eng.  trans,  vol.  ii.  2G7]  refer  it  to 
an  Assyrian  word,  ragdmu,  to  shout,  to  cry  out.  Wellliausen, 
Skizzen  uncl  Vorarbeiten,  iii.  110,  153,  combines  *jc*-Os 
"  to  conjecture,"  with  some  sort  of  Mantic  custom  of  stone- 
throwing,  and  adds :  "  Perhaps  it  also  has  some  connection 
with  the  Aramaic  D:nn."  On  the  other  hand,  Lagarde  (Arm en. 
Studien,  §  847;  Mittheilungcn,  ii.  177  f.)  treats  }vr\r\  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  it 
from  the  Greek  rpiypos.  The  Arabic  ,^\^^.'J  is  in  favour  of 
the  secondary  nature  of  the  participle  f»:nn»,  and  consequently 
of  the  foreign  derivation  of  the  word.  See  Frankel,  Ara- 
mdische  Frcmdufortcr,  p.  280. 

61.  In  Palestine,  wliere  the  Targums  originated,  they  were 
never  recognised  as  proper  authorities.  They  continued  to 
occupy  a  place  by  themselves,  and  therefore  show,  however 
widely  they  became  known,  the  above-described  peculiarities 
in  their  full  extent.  When  they  were  quoted  in  the  Jerusalem 
Talmud,  this  was  done  only  that  they  might  be  confuted.  So 
jer.  Bcrachoth,  5.  4,  fol.  9c,  where  the  addition  to  Lev.  xxii. 
28,  "  As  I  in  heaven  am  merciful,  soon  earth  be  ye  merciful," 
to  which  the  Targum  known  to  us  as  the  Jerusalem  Targum 


172  §  G2.    THE  BABYLONIAN  TOIUII  TARGUM. 

contains  a  parallel,  is  rejected.  It  is  also  significant  that 
Jerome,  who  lived  a  long  time  in  Palestine,  and  was  depend 
ent  on  his  Jewish  teachers,  never  made  mention  of  a  Jewish 
Targum.  It  was  otherwise  in  Babylon.  The  Babylonian 
Jews  produced  no  independent  Targuin,  but  took  over  from 
the  Palestinian  Jews  their  Aramaic  translations  of  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets,  which  naturally  must  have  made  their  way 
to  them  in  a  written  form.  Witness  is  borne  to  this  by  the 
dialect  in  the  Babylonian  Targums,  which  is  the  Palestino- 
Aramaic,  with  an  East  Aramaic  colouring,  which  has  not 
essentially  changed  the  linguistic  character.  But  in  Babylon 
these  renderings,  which  were  used  in  the  synagogue  service, 
were  authorised,  and  in  this  way  were  preserved  from  further 
alterations.  In  consequence  of  this,  the  Babylonians  had 
only  Targums  on  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  only  one  on 
each  of  these  books  (compare  &.  Meg.  oa). 

On  the  language  of  the  Targums,  compare  Noldeke, 
Alttcslamentlichc  Litteratur,  p.  257  :  GGA,  1872,  p.  828  ;  Lit. 
CcntndUatt,  1877,  p.  305.  (Otherwise  Elias  Levita,  compare 
ZDMG,  xliii.  26.)  Geiger,  Jud.  Zeitschrift,  1871,  p.  93,  etc. 

62.  The  authorised  Torah  Targum  of  the  Babylonians, 
usually,  but  incorrectly,  bears  the  name  Targum  Onkelos.  The 
denominating  of  it  was  based  upon  I.  Meg.  3 a,  according  to 
which  passage  the  Aramaic  Torah  Targum  is  said  to  have  been 
"  composed  by  Onkelos  (DftpiN)  according  to  the  directions  ("^P) 
of  R  Eliezer  and  R  Joshua."  But  this  "  Onkelos  "  is  only  a 
variation  of  D^py  (Aquilas),  and  the  parallel  passage  jer.  Meg. 
1.  9,  fol.  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  made  an  Aramaic 
translator.  In  keeping  with  this  is  the  fact  that  the  name 
D^PXJ  occurs  also  elsewhere  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud  and  in 
the  Toseplita  in  the  form  DlS^S  (compare,  e.g.,  jer.  Demai,  vi. 


§  62.  THE  BABYLONIAN  TORAH  TARGUM.        173 

10,  fol.  2od,  with  Tosepkta  Demai,  vi.  p.  57,  1C).  There  is 
now  no  longer  any  ground  for  assuming  that  any  one  in 
Babylon  should  have  wittingly  named  the  redactor  of  the  Torah 
Targum  "  Aquila  "  in  order  thereby  to  show  off  his  hermeneutical 
art,  although  the  Onkelos  at  least  in  this  connection  is  an 

O 

"  Aquila  "  among  the  Targum ists.  Undoubtedly  we  have  to 
do  with  a  simple  confusion  which  was  readily  enough  caused 
by  the  word  "  Targum."  From  this  it  follows,  in  the  first 
place,  that  that  passage  is  not  to  be  understood  as  referring 
to  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the  Torah  Targum,  and, 
further,  that  the  actual  redactor  of  that  Targum  must  have 
been  unknown  to  the  Babylonians,  which  still  further  confirm 
the  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the  dialectic  character  of  the 
translation  (§  61).  Where  the  Babylonian  Talmud  quotes  the 
Targum  itself,  it  names  it  "our  Targum"  (b.  Kicld.  69a),  or 
says,  "  as  we  translate." 

The  question  therefore  arises,  whether  the  Babylonians  have 
so  agreed  with  the  Targum  which  they  adopted  as  they 
received  it,  or  whether  it  has  been  essentially  altered  by  them. 
It  is  certain  that  the  Babylonian  Targum  on  the  Law,  which 
in  comparison  with  that  of  the  Palestinian  is  remarkably 
literal,  gives  the  impression  that  it  originated  in  a  thorough 
recasting  of  an  older  precursor.  Also  the  assertion  of  Geiger 
and  Bacher  that  several  passages  in  it  are  so  abbreviated 
that  they  are  unintelligible  without  a  comparison  with  the 
Palestinian  Torah  Targums,  rests  for  the  most  part  on  an 
exaggeration ;  yet  it  is  nevertheless  evident  that  it  has  been 
formed  by  a  reduction  of  a  document  containing  a  greater 
abundance  of  Helachic  material,  which  still  in  many  places 
shines  through,  and  is  nearly  related  to  the  material  met  with 
in  the  Palestinian  Targums.  The  assertion  of  Berliner,  that 
the  brief  form  met  with  in  the  Babylonian  Targums  is  the 
more  original,  and  the  paraphrase  the  later,  does  not  corre 
spond  with  the  facts  of  the  case.  This  Targum  is  rather  a 


1*74        §  62.  THE  BABYLONIAN  TORAH  TARGUM. 

learned,  and  therefore  a  secondary  work  ;  while  the  Palestinian 
Targums,  which  certainly  were  concluded  considerably  later, 
contained  many  ancient  portions  which  were  omitted  in  the 
Babylonian  Tavgum.  But  for  the  hypothesis  that  this  reduc 
tion  had  been  first  undertaken  by  the  Babylonians,  there 
is  no  ground.  If  these,  as  the  dialectic  colouring  seems  to 
prove,  have  also  subjected  the  text  to  a  certain  amount  of 
revision,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ignorance  of  the  Baby 
lonians  with  regard  to  the  origin  of  their  Targum  distinctly 
disproves  the  idea  of  it  having  been  essentially  a  Babylonian 
work.  One  would  be  rather  led  to  assume  that  the  Targum 
reduction  in  question  was  a  fruit  of  the  minute  treatment  of 
Scripture  introduced  by  R.  Akiba,  and  therefore  that  it  had 
been  undertaken  in  Palestine.  In  so  far,  the  naming  of  the 
Targum  after  Onkelos-Aquila  has  a  certain  meaning,  but 
scarcely  that  anticipated  by  its  originator.  But  the  main 
point  is  that  this  work  of  reduction  remained  without  result 
in  Palestine  itself,  whereas  the  Targum  originating  from  it 
became  authorised  in  Babylon.  When  this  happened  we  do 
not  know,  yet  the  idea  readily  suggests  itself  that  the  Targum 
had  been  first  brought  to  Babylon  when  the  Babylonian 
school  began  to  flourish,  i.e.  in  the  third  Christian  century. 
For  the  rest,  this  question  is  not  of  great  interest,  for  in  point 
of  contents  the  Babylonian  Torah  Targum  represents  an  older, 
in  part  certainly  a  pre-Christian  age.  In  common  with  all 
Jewish  translations,  as  also  with  the  LXX.,  it  shows  a  careful 
avoiding  of  all  anthropomorphisms.  And  the  peculiar  custom 
of  receiving  into  the  text  all  sorts  of  Hebrew  words  untrans 
lated  is  to  be  found  also  in  the  LXX.,  and  still  more  in 
Theodotion. 

A  properly  critical  edition  of  this  Targum  does  not  exist. 
Formerly  one  had  to  content  himself  with  the  very  defective 
text  in  respect  of  vocalisation  given  in  the  Polyglots  and 
rabbinical  Bibles.  Now  a  step  in  advance  has  been  taken  by 


§  G2.    THE  BABYLONIAN  T011AH   TAKGUM.  175 

Berliner's  publication  of  the  Recension  of  tlie  excellent  editio 
Salibioneta  of  the  year  1557.  Merx  has  published  some 
fragments  from  various  Babylonian  manuscripts  in  the 
British  Museum.  These  manuscripts  contain  the  Babylonian 
system  of  pointing  (§  80),  while  Berliner's  edition  presents  a 
picture  of  the  time  during  which  the  Babylonian  pointing  was 
being  changed  for  the  Palestinian,  in  which  some  peculiarities 
of  the  former  were  still  preserved.  An  important  aid  toward 
the  establishment  of  the  text  is  afforded  by  the  Massoras  on 
Onkelos,  which  at  the  same  time  show  with  what  care  this 
translation  was  treated  by  the  Jews. 

Compare  Luzzato,  Oheb  Ger.  1830  ;  Geiger,  J'iid  Zeitschrift, 
1871,  pp.  85-104,  1875,  p.  290;  Nachgelassene  Schriften, 
iv.  104,  106  ff.  ;  Bacher,  ZDMG,  xxviii.  59  ff . ;  Frankel. 
Zeitschrift  fur  die  relig.  Inter essen  d.  Judenthnms,  1846,  p. 
110  f f . ;  Wellhausen-Bleek,  Einkituny,  p.  607;  Berliner, 
Targuni  Onkelos,  ii.  100  ff.,  114-128;  Schiirer,  Geschichte 
(les  jud.  Volkes,  i.  117,  Eng.  trans.  Div.  i.  vol.  i.  134. 
Further  literature  in  Berliner,  Targum  Onkelos,  pp.  175-200. 

On  the  beginnings  of  the  Babylonian  school,  compare  Jost, 
Geschichte  dcs  Judentlmms,  ii.  134  ff.  Yet  it  is  said  there, 
p.  132  f.  :  "We  find  even  in  Babylon,  in  the  time  of  Akiba, 
individual  Palestinian  teachers  of  the  Law,  especially  descend 
ants  of  the  family  Bethera." 

On  the  character  of  the  translation,  compare  Berliner, 
Targum  Onkelos,  ii.  200-245  ;  ATolck  in  Herzog's  Real- 
Encyclopcedie2,  xv.  366  ff.  ;  Singer,  Onkelos  und  das  Verlialtnis 
seines  Targums  zur  Halachc,  1881  ;  Maybaum,  Die  Antliro- 
pomorpliien  und  Anthropopathien  lei  Onkelos  und  den  spdtcren 
Targumim.  1870.  The  substitution  of  "  Salamites  "for  ^*p 
in  Gen.  xv.  19,  and  elsewhere,  as  also  in  the  Targum  on 
the  Prophets,  is  interesting,  since  that  people  was  con 
temporary  with  the  Nabateans  (Euting,  Nabatdischc  Urschriflen , 
p.  28  f.) ;  thus  therefore  the  ancient  times  distinctly  colour 
the  text.  Examples  of  the  free  treatment  of  passages:  Gen. 
iii.  22,  "Behold,  the  man  is  unique  in  the  world,  for  he  out 


176  §  G3.    THE  BABYLONIAN  PROPHET  TARGUM. 

of  his  own  self  can  know  the  good  and  the  evil."  Compare 
Symmachus :  iBe,  6  'Aba/A  yeyovev  ofiov  afi  eavrov  yivcocrKetv 
Ka\ov  KOI  Trovrjpov,  and  R.  Akiba.  Also  MecJiilta  on  Exod. 
xiv.  29  (p.  33<z).  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  are  given  by  Berliner,  Massora 
zum  Tar  gum  Onkelos,  p.  57. 

First  edition:  Bologna  1482  (Pentateuch  edition).  On 
the  following  editions,  among  which  those  of  Lisbon  1491,  the 
Rabbinical  Bible  1517,  the  Antwerp  Polyglot  (Regia)  1569, 
and  the  Sabbioneta  edition  1557, are  deserving  of  special  remark, 
compare  De  Wette-Schrader,  Einleitung,  p.  125;  Berliner, 
Tar  gum  Onkelos,  p.  187  if.  —  On  Berliner,  Tar  gum  Onkelos, 
Berlin  1884  (I.  Text,  II.  Introduction  and  Notes),  compare 
Noldeke's  review  in  Lit.  Centralblatt,  1884,  39,  and  especi 
ally  Lagarde,  Mittlicilungen,  ii.  163-182,  386.  From  the 
Babylonian  manuscripts  in  the  British  Museum,  Merx  (Chres- 
tomcttliia  Targumica,  1888)  has  edited  after  the  Codex  de 
Rossi,  12,  Lev.  ix.  1-11,  47;  Num.  xx.  12-25,  9;  Deut. 
xxvi.  1-10,  xix.  27-29,  8,  c.  32-34.  Gen.  c.  1-4,  c.  24-25, 
6,  c.  49.  Ex.  c.  15,  c.  20-24  and  Deut,  xxxii.  16-26.  Com 
pare  the  favourable  remarks  of  Landauer,  ZA,  iii.  263  ff. 
On  manuscripts  see  Berliner,  ii.  245  ff. ;  Merx,  Chrcsto- 
mathia,  p.  x.  sq.,  xv.  sq. 

For  exposition  :  Schefftel,  Biure  Onkelos,  Scholicn  zum 
Targum  Onkelos,  licrausgeg.  von  Perles,  1888  (in  Hebrew). 
Compare  also :  Merx,  Johannes  Buxtorfs  cles  Vaters  Targum- 
commentar  Babylonia,  ZWT,  1887  and  1888. 

Berliner,  Massorah  zum  Targum  Onkelos,  1877;  Landauer, 
Die  Masorti  zum  Onkelos  nach  neuen  Quellen,  Israelitische 
Letterbode,  Amsterdam,  Jalirg.  viii.  xi.  Compare  Lagarde, 
MittJieilungcn,  ii.  167  ff. 

63.  Of  the  Babylonian  Targum.  on  the  Prophets  practically 
the  same  may  be  said  as  of  the  Targum  on  the  Law.  It  also 
usually  bears  a  name  which  is  derived  from  the  same  passage 
of  the  Babylonian  Talmud  (Meg.  3a),  but  it  has  just  as  little 


§  153.    THE  BABYLONIAN  PROPHET  TARCUM.  177 

historical  value  as  the  name  Onkelos.  The  Aramaic  transla 
tion  of  the  Prophets  is  there  ascribed  to  the  well-known 
scholar  of  Hillel,  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  and  hence  the  Prophet 
Targum  is  commonly  cited  as  the  Targum  of  Jonathan.  But 
where  passages  are  quoted  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud  from  the 
translation  of  the  Prophets,  they  are,  as  a  rule,  ascribed  to 
Pi.  Joseph  ben  Chija,  who  died  in  A.D.  333,  and  never  to  that 
Jonathan,  nor  is  there  ever,  in  the  Palestinian  Talmud,  any 
mention  made  of  a  translation  by  Hillel's  pupil.  But  seeing 
that  a  Palestinian  parallel  to  the  note  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud 
about  the  Targum  on  the  Prophets  is  wanting,  the  unravelling 
of  this  point  is  scarcely  possible.  The  conjecture  of  Luzzatto 
is  very  ingenious,  that  Jonathan  is  another  name  for  Theodotion 
(§  53),  as  Onkelos  was  for  Aquila  ;  but  this  is  nothing  more 
than  a  clever  guess.  On  the  other  hand,  we  might  perhaps, 
from  the  above  referred  to  mode  of  quotation  in  the  Babylonian 
Talmud,  conclude  that  the  Babylonian  Joseph  ben  Chija,  "  the 
blind,"  had  taken  part  in  the  redaction  of  this  Targum,  which 
therefore  would  belong  to  the  fourth  century.  With  this  also 
would  agree  the  limit  of  time  conjectured  (§  62)  as  marking 
the  final  redaction  of  the  Targum  on  the  Law,  supposing  that 
actually,  as  is  commonly  assumed,  the  coincidences  between 
the  translation  of  the  Prophets  and  the  parallel  passages  in 
the  Targum  on  the  Law  prove  the  dependence  of  the  former 
upon  the  latter.  But  these  similarities  may  just  as  well  have 
come  down  from  the  oral  lectures  and  the  older  forms  of  the 
Targums,  and  therefore  prove  little. 

Moreover,  the  question  here  also  about  the  date  of  the 
redaction  is  of  very  slight  interest,  for,  as  has  been  already 
remarked  above,  the  material  of  the  Targum  is  undoubtedly 
very  much  older.  In  comparison  with  the  Torah  Targum 
this  translation  is  far  freer  and  more  paraphrastic.  Compare, 
e.g.  the  extremely  loose  rendering  of  Isa.  liii.  But  this  is 
caused  in  part  by  the  difference  in  the  contents  of  the  books 

M 


178  §  G3.    THE  BABYLONIAN  PROPHET  TARGUM. 

translated,  as  indeed  even  Onkelos  himself  in  poetical  and 
prophetic  passages  assumes  a  less  literal  and  more  para 
phrastic  character  than  elsewhere.  Compared  with  the 
Palestinian  Targum  on  the  Prophets  the  Babylonian  must 
always  be  described  as  observing  the  proper  mean,  while  also 
in  a  remarkable  way  a  strong  adherence  to  the  letter  goes 
side  by  side  with  that  freedom. 

A  good  help  in  study  is  afforded  by  Lagarde's  careful 
reprint  of  the  text  in  the  Codex  Rcucldin  (§  28),  especially 
when  taken  in  connection  with  Cornill's  Collations.  Some 
pieces  with  Babylonian  pointing  have  been  published  by 
Merx. 

Compare  Frankel,  Zum  Targum  der  Prophetcn,  1872; 
Geiger,  Urschrift,  p.  164;  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  iv.  105; 
Bacher,  ZDMG,  xxvi-ii.  1  if.,  see  also  xxix.  1  57  if.,  319  ff. ; 
Berliner,  Targum  Onkelos,  p.  124;  Volck  in  Herzog's  Real 
EncycloTjccdie2 ,  xv.  370  ;  Goi'nill,  JZzechiel,  p.  110  ff.  Especially 
on  Micha:  llyssel,  Untersuchungen  uber  die  Textgcstalt  des  Buches 
Micha,  1887,  pp.  163-169.  On  the  date  of  composition 
also  Frankel,  JPT,  1879,  p.  756  ff.  [On  the  paraphrastic 
rendering  of  the  Prophet  Targum  see  Driver  and  Neubauer, 
The  Fifty -third  Chapter  of  Isaiah,  according  to  the  Jewish 
Interpreters,  Oxford  1877.] 

b.  Meg.  3a.  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel  composed  the  Targum 
on  the  Prophets  according  to  the  traditions  f  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  ?  But  Jonathan 
remained  standing  upright,  and  said,  It  is  I !  Thou  knowest 
that  I  have  done  it  neither  for  my  own  glorification  nor  for  my 
family's  but  for  Thine  honour,  in  order  to  prevent  divisions 
in  Israel  (compare  further  §  60).  The  expression  here  is 
remarkable,  "  from  the  mouth  of  the  last  prophets."  The  same 
^S?  appears  also  in  the  story  about  "  Onkelos  "  in  the  same 
passage  of  the  Talmud  (§  62).  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Palestinian  parallel  passage  has  "oa^  instead  of  *D£  "  under 


§  G4.    T1IK  PALESTINIAN  TO  UAH  TAKGUM.  179 

their  sight."  Wellhausen-Bleek  (Einleitung,  p.  GO 8)  makes 
the  acute  remark  that  in  analogy  with  "  from  the  mouth  of 
the  last  prophets,"  we  might  conjecture  in  the  Onkelos 
passage  an  original  "  from  the  mouth  of  Joshua  and  Eleasar  " 
(the  followers  of  Moses),  which  afforded  a  suggestion  of  names, 
out  of  which  were  afterwards  made  the  liabbis  Eliezer  and 
Joshua.  But  in  the  Jerusclialmi  (^zh !)  the  names  of  the 
liabbis  at  least  are  genuine,  so  that  one  at  furthest  might 
assume  an  original  Babylonian  reading :  N.  1ST.  has  interpreted 
the  Law  from  the  mouth  of  Joshua  and  Eleasar,  which  may 
then  have  been  confounded  with  the  passage  in  the  Jeruschalmi. 

The  passages  quoted  in  the  Talmud  are  given  by  Zunz, 
Gottesdienstliclie  Vortrage,  p.  63.  On  Joseph  ben  Chija,  com 
pare  Jost,  Gcschichte  des  Judcnthums,  ii.  184  f . ;  Bacher, 
Aggada  dcr  babylonischen  Amor  Her,  1878,  p.  101  f. 

Older  editions  are  named  by  De  Wette-Schrader,  Einleitung, 
p.  127.  Lagarde,  Prophetce  chaldaice,  1872,  without  vowels 
(compare  Noldeke,  Lit.  Centralblatt,  1872,  p.  1157,  and 
especially  Klostermann,  TSK,  1873,  pp.  731-767);  Nach- 
trcige  aus  ciner  Erfurter  Handsel wift  :  Symmicta,  i.  139. 
Variations  from  the  Antwerp  Polyglot  and  the  Bomberg- 
Buxtorf  are  given  by  Coruill,  ZAW,  1887,  p.  177  ff. ; 
JBzechiel,p\).  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  llcucldin,  Hab.  iii.  (vocalised).  On  the 
readings  of  Elias  Levita,  compare  ZDMG,  xliii.  230. 

64.  The  Palestinian  Targums  carry  us  into  another  sphere 
(§  61).  Of  the  Palestinian  translation  of  the  Law  we  have 
two  different  forms  —  one  complete,  another  which  consists 
only  of  fragments.  The  correct  names  for  these  would 
have  been :  for  the  complete  one  Jeruschalmi,  and  for  the 
other  the  Targum  Fragments,  or  Jeruschalmi  i.  and  ii. ;  but 
here  also  through  misunderstandings  other  designations  became 
current.  While  by  Jeruschalmi  is  frequently  understood  the 
Targum  Fragments,  the  other  is  called  Targum  Jonathan 


ISO  §  G4.    THE  PALESTINIAN  TORAII  TARGTJM. 

(Pseudo-Jonathan),  which  originated,  however,  only  through 
a  false  interpretation  of  the  abbreviation  '•"n  (i.e.  'D^BYP  Dinn). 
Of  the  complete  Targum,  which  was  first  printed  in  Venice  in 
1591,  no  manuscripts  have  up  to  this  time  been  found.  On 
the  other  hand,  of  the  Taimun  Fragments,  which  had  even 

J  O  O 

earlier  (in  1518)  been  published  in  the  Bomberg  Bible,  two 
manuscripts  are  extant. 

The  relation  between  the  complete  Jeruschalmi  and  the 
Babylonian  Torah  Targum  has  been  referred  to  above  (§  62). 
It  is  impossible  to  determine  whether  the  former  should  be 
regarded  as  older  or  as  younger  than  the  Babylonian,  because 
although  it  bears  a  more  original,  still  uncontracted  character, 
yet,  on  the  other  side,  it  secured  its  present  form  at  a  much 
later  period.  If,  indeed,  the  translation  of  Gen.  xxi.  21 
alludes  to  the  wives  of  Mohammed,  this  shows  that  the 
present  form  of  the  Targum  cannot  be  older  than  the  seventh 
century ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  in  Dent,  xxxiii.  11  are  found 
the  words,  "  The  enemies  of  the  high  priest  Johanan  shall  not 
survive,"  which  could  only  have  been  so  formulated  in  the 
days  of  John  Hyrcanus.  The  origin  of  the  work  known  as 
the  Targum  Fragments  is  much  more  open  to  controversy, 
and  even  up  to  this  day  has  by  no  means  been  clearly  ex 
plained.  While  some  see  in  it  fragments  of  an  originally 
independent  Targum,  others  regard  it  as  a  collection  of  glosses 
and  supplements  to  some  Aramaic  translation  of  the  Law. 
This  much  in  any  case  is  certain,  that  it  is  not  closely  related 
to  the  Babylonian  but  to  the  Palestinian  Targum,  and  there 
fore  is  to  be  taken  into  account  here.  Both  are  of  a  free 
Midrashic  character,  and  so  are  fundamentally  distinguished 
in  their  treatment  of  the  text  from  the  Targum  Babli. 

Seligsohn,  De  duabus  Hierosolymitanis  Pentatcuclii  para- 
phrasibus,  1859;  Gronemann,  Die  jonathansche  Pentateuch- 
ubersetzung  in  ikrem  Verhaltnisse  zur  Halaclia,  1875;  Seligsohn, 
and  Traub  in  MGWJ,  1857,  pp.  96  ff.,  138  ff. ;  Schiirer, 


§  G5.    PALESTINIAN  PROPHET  TARGUMS.  181 

Geschichte  dcs  jild.  Volkcs,  ii.  118  f.,  Eng.  trans.  Div.  ii. 
vol.  i.  135,  and  the  literature  referred  to  under  §  02. 

Elias  Levita  himself  only  knew  one  Targum  Jeruschalmi, 
but  reports  that  others  quoted  a  Pentateuch  Targum  of 
Jonathan  (ZDMG,  xliii.  220).  Paul  of  Burgos  (A.D.  1429), 
Petrus  Galatinus,  and  Azaria  de  Eossi  (who  died  A.D.  1578) 
were  acquainted  with  this  "  Jonathan,"  whose  translation, 
however,  was  rarissima.  See  Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  ii. 
165  f.  Unfortunately  the  manuscript  used  for  the  Venice 
edition  of  1591  has  since  disappeared.  The  one  manu 
script  of  the  Targum  Fragments  is  in  Vatican  440.  Com 
pare  Zunz,  Gottesdienstliche  Vortriigc,  pp.  70—77  ;  Lagarde, 
Mittheilungen,  p.  165  ;  Berliner,  Tare/urn  Onkelos,  ii.  123. 
On  it  is  based  the  Bomberg  edition,  1518.  Another,  the 
Nuremberg  manuscript,  is  described  by  Lagarde,  NG-GW, 
1888,  pp.  1-3. 

Both  Targums  are  to  be  found  in  the  London  Polyglot  in 
the  fourth  volume. 

65.  Of  the  Targum  or  the  Targums  of  the  Palestinians  on 
the  Prophets  there  remain  only  fragments,  partly  as  quotations 
in  the  works  of  the  Eabbis  of  the  Middle  Ages,  partly  as 
marginal  glosses  in  manuscripts,  so  especially  in  the  Codex  of 
Eeuchlin  referred  to  in  §§28  and  63.  They  have  a  similar 
character  to  the  Palestinian  Targums  on  the  Law.  Sometimes 
they  contain  ideas  that  might  be  traced  very  far  back,  e.g. 
when  a  fragment  on  2  Sam.  xvii.  1 8  renders  DDmy  by  "  Bill 
of  Dismissal  or  Divorcement."  Compare  the  notices  by  E. 
Joseph  in  b.  Sail.  5  6  a. 

Zunz,  Gottcsdicnstliclic  Vorlmgc,pp.  77-79  ;  Bacher,  ZDMG, 
xxviii.  1  ff. ;  Geiger,  Nachgelassene  Schriftcn,  iv.  109.  The 
glosses  of  the  Codex  Rcuchlin  are  given  by  Lagarde,  Prophetce 
chaldaicc,  vi. -xlii.  passim;  compare  some  improvements 
thereon  suggested  by  Baer,  Liber  Jeremicc,  p.  6.  A  sheet  of 
a  Palestinian  Targum  on  Isaiah  was  laid  by  Ginsburg  before 
the  members  of  the  Vienna  Congress  of  Orientalists,  1886. 


182         §  GG.    PALESTINIAN  TARGUMS  ON  IIAGIOGRAPHA. 

GO.  The  Targums  on  the  Hagiographa  are  peculiar  to  the 
Palestinians.  They  have  also  been  found  among  the  South 
Arabian  Manuscripts  in  the  British  Museum,  although  these 
make  use  of  the  "  Babylonian  "  pointing.  With  the  exception 
of  the  two  Old  Testament  writings  in  which  Aramaic  sections 
are  found,  Daniel  and  Ezra,  there  are  Targums  on  all  the 
other  Ketubim,  and  on  the  Book  of  Esther,  which  was  a 
special  favourite,  there  are  three.  Official  significance  they 
never  had,  but  are  to  be  considered  individual  works  of  the 
same  kind  as  the  oldest  Targums  referred  to  above  in  §  GO. 
It  only  need  further  be  said  that  they  are  distinguished 
from  one  another  by  important  differences,  and  follow  wholly 
divergent  principles.  Whereas  some,  like  the  Targums  on  The 
Song,  Ecclesiastes,  and  one  of  those  on  Esther,  are  already 
almost  purely  Midrashic  works,  others  are  of  a  literalistic 
character,  like  the  third  Targum  on  Esther,  the  Targum  on 
Proverbs,  and  the  Targum  on  the  Psalms,  which,  however, 
becomes  sometimes  rather  Haggadic,  e.g.  on  Ps,  xci.  The 
Targum  on  the  Proverbs  seems  to  be  a  free  rendering  of  a 
Syriac  translation  of  that  book.  The  date  of  the  composition 
of  these  works  can  only  be  indicated  in  a  vague,  general  way. 
As  the  Targum  on  the  Psalms  presently  stands  it  is  later  than 
the  ninth  century,  since  in  its  rendering  of  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  7  it 
mentions  the  Hungarians.  The  Targum  on  Job  is  much  later 
than  the  writing  referred  to  in  §  60.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
material  in  these  Targums  is  naturally  much  older,  which 
sometimes  can  be  quite  precisely  authenticated,  e.g.  when 
Targum  ii.  on  Esther  contains  a  statement  which  Masseket 
Soph? rim,  13.  6,  p.  xxii.,  attributes  to  E.  Joseph  (§  63). 

The  text  of  these  Targums  has  been  made  easily  accessible 
by  Lagarde's  reprint  of  the  text  of  the  first  Venetian  Eab- 
binical  Bible  of  1517-1518  (§  24).  Instructive  monographs 
on  the  several  Targums  are  begun,  but  might  be  carried  out 
much  further. 


§  07.    SAMARITAN  TORAII  TARGUM.  183 

Lagarde,  Hayiographa  chaldaicc,  1873.  Among  the  older 
editions  is  specially  to  be  mentioned  the  Antwerp  Polyglot. 
Compare  Merx  in  the  Ver  hand  lung  en  des  Orient.  Congresses 
zur  Berlin,  1882,  p.  157.  In  the  Jud.  Liter  aturllatt,  1889, 
J.  Riess  has  published  a  series  of  contributions  to  the  textual 
criticism  of  the  Megilloth  according  to  a  Breslau  Codex. 
Compare  the  same  on  Esther  in  MGWJ,  1881,  p.  473  ft'. 
The  dream  of  Mordecai  has  been  edited  by  Merx  in  his 
Chrcstomatliia  Targumica. 

About  the  Targums  on  Proverbs  see  Noldeke  in  Merx, 
Archiv  fur  iviss.  Erforsclmng  d.  A.  T.  ii.  246-249;  Geiger, 
Nacligelassene  Schriften,  iv.  112  f.  On  Job,  Bacher  in  MG-  WJ, 
1871,  p.  208  ff.  On  the  Psalms,  Bacher,  MGWJ,  1872, 
p.  408  ff.,  and  Baethgen  in  JPT,  1882,  pp.  447-455  ff. 
On  Chronicles,  Kohler  and  Rosenberg,  Jud.  Zeitschrift,  1870, 
p.  72  ff.  Targum  ii.  on  Esther,  Riess  in  MGWJ,  1876, 
p.  161  ff.  Munk,  Targum  ScJieni  z.  Bucli  Esther,  1876; 
P.  Cassel,  Das  Bucli  Esther,  i.  1878,  p.  239  ff. ;  Bertheau- 
Ryssel,  Esra,  Nechemiaund  Ester,  1887,  p.  366. 

On  the  Jewish  Targum  on  Chronicles,  which  has  been 
received  into  the  Syriac  Bible,  compare  §  71. 

67.  The  Samaritans  also  possess  an  Aramaic  Targum,  which, 
as  might  be  expected,  embraces  only  the  Pentateuch,  and 
attaches  itself  to  the  form  of  text  peculiar  to  the  Samaritans 
(§§  11,  29).  It  is  somewhat  more  literal  than  the  Jewish 
Targums,  but  equally  with  them  jealous  in  guarding  against 
all  anthropomorphisms.  In  regard  to  its  origin  and  authority 
we  know  nothing.  The  most  serious  difficulties  met  with 
here  arise  mainly  from  the  wretched  condition  of  the  text, 
which  even  the  more  recent  editions  have  not  succeeded  in 
remedying. 

The  Greek  fragments  which  were  quoted  on  the  margin  of 
the  Septuagint  manuscripts  by  the  Church  fathers  under  the 
title  TO  ^a^apeiTiKov,  and  which  Field  has  collected,  corre 
spond  as  a  rule  with  this  Targum,  and  are  therefore,  in  some 
sort  of  way,  related  to  it.  Where  the  fathers  got  these  frag- 


184  §  07.    SAMARITAN  T011AH  TAKGUM. 

ments  is  not  certain ;  yet,  seeing  that  the  Samaritans  even  in 
the  times  before  Christ  were  in  possession  of  a  Greek  litera 
ture,  there  is  nothing  to  render  it  absolutely  impossible  that 
they  may  have  had  a  translation  of  their  Targurn  into  Greek. 
The  Samaritan  Targum,  as  we  find  it  in  the  Polyglots,  shows 
also  a  relationship  in  another  direction,  namely,  with  a 
Samaritan-Arabic  translation,  which  had  been  composed  in 
the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century  by  Abu-Safid.  But  this  cor 
respondence  rests,  as  Jvohn  and  Vollers  have  shown,  on  the 
later  revision  of  the  Samaritan  text  according  to  an  Arabic 
translation.  The  manuscripts  not  infected  in  this  way  are 
divided  by  Vollers  into  an  Aramaising  and  a  He  braising  group. 

Editions  :  Briill,  Das  samaritanische  Targum  z.  Pentateuch, 
1873  —  1875  ;  Varianten  zu  Genesis  des  samaritanisclien 
Targum,  1876;  Petermann,  Pentateuchus  Samaritanus)~BQY\ii}, 
i.-ii.  1872,  1882,  iii.-iv.  (by  Vollers),  1883,  1885;  Heiden- 
heim,  Bibliotlicca  Samaritana,  i.  1884  (Genesis),  with  which 
should  be  compared  the  severe  criticism  in  ZDMG,  xxxix. 
165ff.  Gen.  i.-iv.,  Exod.  xx.  7-17  in  Petermann's  Brevis 
lingucc  Samaritance  Grammatica,  1873.  The  Oxford  Frag 
ments  (Lev.  xxv.,  xx vi.  ;  Num.  xxxvi.  9)  are  edited  by  Nutt, 
1874.  Moore,  "On  a  Fragment  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
in  the  Library  of  Andover  Theological  Seminary."  Proceed 
ings  of  the  American  Oriental  Society,  1882,  xxxv. — A  list 
of  manuscripts  is  given :  LiteraturUatt  filr  Orient.  Philologie, 
ii.  92. 

Winer,  De  vcrsionis  Pentateuchi  Samaritans  indole,  1817  ; 
Kohn,  Samaritanische  Studien,  1868  ;  Zur  Sprache,  Lit.  und 
Dogmatik  der  Samaritaner,  1876;  Noldeke,  GGA,  1865, 
St.  53;  Jud.  Zeitschrift,  1868,  p.  213;  ZDMG,  xxx. 
343  ff. ;  Geiger,  Nachgelassene  Schriftcn,  iv.  121  ff. ;  Kautzsch 
in  Herzog's  Real- Encyclopaedic'2',  xiii.  350. 

On  the  Samareitikon  :  Field,  Hexapla,  i.  p.  Ixxxiii.  329  f. ; 
Gratz,  MGWJ,  1886,  p.  60  ff.  On  the  Samaritan-Greek 
literature:  Schurer,  Geschichte  des  jud.  Volkes,  ii.  750,  Eng. 
trans.  Div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  211,  225. 


§  G8.    01IIGIN  OF  THE  PESIIITO.  185 

Of  Abu  Sa  id's  translation  Kuenen  has  published :  Liber 
Gcncseos  sec.  Arab.  Pent.  vers.  ab  Abu  Said  conscriptam,  Leyden 
1851  ;  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  1854.  Compare  Kolin,  Zur 
Sprache,  Lit.  und  Doyin.  d.  Samaritancr,  pp.  134-140. 
Kautzsch  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyclopcedie2,  xiii.  350. 


5.   The  Syriac  Translation  of  the  Bible. 

68.  The  name  by  which  the  Syriac  translation  is  usually 
referred  to,  }/\f\ »  •  ^  (pronounced  Pfsitd  without  t ;  with  the 
English  article  the  P^l-tta)  is  to  be  met  with  first  in  manu 
scripts  of  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries.  The  usual  explana 
tion,  "  the  simple,  literal,"  or  "  usual,"  is  scarcely  correct. 
Much  more  probable  is  the  explanation  suggested  by  Field 
and  Noldeke,  dirXa,  by  way  of  contrast  to  the  Syro-Hexaplar 
translation,  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 
Hebrew  text  shows  that  it  owed  its  existence  to  Jewish 
labour,  which  is  further  confirmed  by  the  sympathy  shown  in 
it  for  the  traditional  Scripture  exposition  of  the  Jews.  From 
this,  however,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  was  the  result  of 
Jewish  contrivance.  It  is  indeed  quite  possible  that  it  had 
its  origin  in  a  Christian  undertaking,  for  the  Jewish  character 
might  be  explained,  either  from  the  fact  that  the  Jews  had 
taken  part  in  the  work  (as  in  the  translation  of  Jerome,  §  56), 
or,  still  more  probably,  by  the  fact  that  the  translators  were 
Jewish  Christians.  The  possibility  must,  indeed,  generally 
speaking,  be  conceded  of  the  Jews  residing  in  the  "border 
lands  between  the  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  §  08.    ORIGIN  OF  THE  PESHITO. 

portions  of  the  Peshito  are  purely  Jewish  productions ;  such 
as  the  translation  of  Proverbs,  which  elsewhere  had  not  been 
received  among  the  Palestinian  Targums  (§  66),  and  that  of 
Chronicles,  which  had  been  originally  a  Jewish  Targum.  But, 
on  the  other  side,  no  Jewish  writing  speaks  of  such  a  Bible 
translation  of  the  Syrian  Jews,  whereas  they  make  frequent 
mention  of  the  LXX.  and  of  Aquila,  as  well  as  of  the  Targums. 
The  Pesliito  has,  on  the  contrary,  always  been  recognised  by 
the  Syrian  Christians  of  the  earlier  times  as  their  Bible  trans 
lation.  Therefore  probability  is  strongly  in  favour  of  the 
idea  that  it  owed  its  origin  to  Christian  effort,  while,  to  some 
extent,  fragments  of  older  Jewish  translations  have  been  made 
use  of  in  it,  and  for  the  rest,  the  translation  was  made  by 
Jewish  Christians.  For  a  direct  proof  of  the  Christian  origin 
of  the  translation  we  might  point  to  the  various  purely  Chris 
tian  passages  which  it  contains,  if  only  in  regard  to  these  we 
were  sure  that  they  had  come  immediately  from  the  hand  of 
the  translator,  which,  upon  the  whole,  is  probable,  but  cannot 
be  certainly  proved. 

Compare  Perles,  Meletemata  Peschitthoniana,  Prague  1859  ; 
Geiger,  Nachydassene  Scliriften,  iv.  96  ;  jSTb'ldeke,  Alttes- 
tamentliche  Literatur,  p.  262;  Nestle,  in  Herzog's  Real- 
Encyclopedic*,  xv.  192  ff. 

On  the  relationship  with  the  Jewish  tradition  :  Schonfelder, 
Onkelos  mid  Pcscliittlw.  1865;  Berliner,  Targum  Onkelos,  ii. 
126  f. ;  Sebok,  Die  syrisclie  Uebersetzung  dcr  12  Ideinen 
Prophelen,  1887,  p.  7  ;  Cornill,  EzeclM,  p.  154  f.  [On  the 
Syriac  Textus  Receptus,  see  Studio,  Biblica,  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. 
3 1  (according  to  Hebrews  viii.  8  ;  as  the  contrary,  Jer.  xi. 
3);  Hosea  xiii.  14;  Ps.  xix.  5,  ex.  3. 

On  the  form  |Afc  »  -  ^  see  Noldeke,  Kurzgefasste  syrisclie 
Gframmatik,  §  2  6  B.  On  its  meaning :  Field,  Hexapla,  i. 


§  G9.    COMPOSITION  AND  HISTORY  OF  TESHITO,  187 

p.  ix. ;  Noldeke,  ZDMG,  xxxii.  589.  In  support  of  the 
opposite  view,  Nestle  in  Herzog's  Real-Ency.  xv.  192,  199, 
who  translates  "  usual  "  ;  but  even  this  is  not  =  "  simple." 

69.  If  we  consider  the  Syriac  translation  as  a  whole  to  be 
a  Christian  work,  then  we  shall  have  to  assume  the  founding 
of  the  Christian  Church  in  that  region  about  A.D.  150  as  the 
terminus  a  quo  of  its  origin.  The  first  certain  witnesss  that 
we  have  for  its  existence  is  given  by  Aphraates  about  two 
hundred  years  later  (§  15)  ;  but  without  any  doubt,  seeing  that 
Greek  had  not  spread  in  that  eastern  region,  a  translation  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  into  the  language  of  the  people  would,  very 
soon  after  the  founding  of  the  Church  in  that  land,  be  felt  to 
be  a  necessity.  We  should  have  had  a  direct  proof  for  the 
early  existence  of  the  Peshito,  if  the  o  %vpos  once  cited  by 
Melito  (§  7)  were  identical  with  it.  But  what  is  to  be  under 
stood  by  this  2vpo<$,  often  quoted  by  the  Church  fathers,  is  still 
very  uncertain.  If,  as  by  the  arguments  of  Field  has  been 
at  least  made  probable,  6  2vpos  was  a  translation  of  the 
Old  Testament  into  Greek  circulated  in  Syria,  we  shall  have  to 
look  first  of  all  to  the  West  Syrian  regions,  where  in  Melito's 
time  we  should  scarcely  expect  to  hear  of  a  Greek  translation 
of  the  Peshito.  Moreover,  the  passage  quoted  by  Melito 
(Gen.  xxii.  13,  Kpe^dfjievo^  ev  crafteK)  does  not  at  all  agree  with 
the  present  Peshito  text.  Should  we  therefore  even  assume 
that  the  Bible  had,  as  early  as  in  the  second  century,  been 
translated  into  Syriac,  it  is  still  impossible  to  produce  a  proof 
that  that  old  translation  was  the  Peshito  ;  but  this  will  always 
be  regarded  as  probable  since,  at  least  in  reference  to  the  Old 
Testament,  there  are  no  indications  pointing  to  a  contrary 
conclusion.  About  the  composition  of  the  translation,  apart 
from  some  worthless  traditions,  we  know  only  this  one  thing, 
which  is  also  confirmed  by  Ephra?m  and  Jacob  of  Edessa,  that 
it  was  the  work  of  several  translators.  That  the  Apocrypha 
was  originally  wanting  is  a  new  proof  of  the  Jewish  character 


188  §  70.    RELATION  OF  PESHITO  TO  SErTUAGINT. 

of  the  translation ;  while,  on  the  other  side,  the  absence  of 
the  Book  of  Chronicles  indicates  a  peculiar  attitude  on  the 
question  of  the  canon  (§  15).  At  a  later  period  a  large 
portion  of  the  Syrians,  with  little  reason,  abandoned  their  old 
independent  translation  through  admiration  for  the  over 
estimated  LXX.,  which  was  several  times  translated  into 
Syriac  (§  48).  The  chief  leader  in  this  movement  was 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  who  repeatedly  reproaches  those  who 
esteemed  more  highly  an  unknown  translator  (eva  TIVCL 
afyavrj)  than  the  seventy-two  inspired  interpreters.  Yet  even 
in  the  following  generations,  when  the  Syrian  language  had 
ceased  to  be  spoken,  the  Peshito  was  preserved  and  studied 
by  the  Jacobites  as  well  as  by  the  Xestorians,  until  in  modern 
times,  through  the  labours  of  missionaries,  it  has  been  wakened 
into  a  new  life. 

On  the  origin  of  the  Syrian  Church  proper,  compare  Nb'l- 
deke,  GGA,  1880,  p.  873  ;  Zahn,  Gcscldclitc  d.  Neutestamentl. 
Kanons,  i.  369. 

On  6  2vpo$,  see  Field,  Hexapla,  i.  p.  Ixxvii.  sqq.  He  calls 
attention  to  the  note  of  Diodorus  on  Gen.  xxxix.  r)v  <yap 
dvrjp  e7riTvy%dva)v  ?}  Kara  rov  2,vpov  fcarevoSov/jLevos  ;  where 
evidently  eTnrvy^dpfDv  would  suit  as  well  as  /carevoSov/jLevos 
to  represent  the  Syriac  wK*A^Lo,  were  it  only  by  means  of  a 
Greek  translation  possible  to  mark  this  distinction. 

On  the  legends  about  the  origin  of  the  Peshito,  compare, 
e.g.,  Wiseman,  Horce  syriaccc,  1828,  p.  103. 

The  statements  of  Theodore  referred  to  will  be  found  in 
Mai,  Nov.  Pair.  UUiotlicca,  vii.  i.  241,  252  f.,  263. 

70.  Although  the  Peshito  attaches  itself  to  the  original 
text,  it  still  shows  here  and  there,  especially  in  some  books,  a 
sort  of  similarity  to  the  LXX.,  so  that  a  dependence  in  this 
direction  must  necessarily  be  assumed.  But  how  far  the 
agreement  is  capable  of  explanation  by  the  supposition  that 
the  translators  during  their  work  may  have  used  the  LXX.,  or 
that  it  had  been  occasioned  only  by  later  revisions  according  to 


§  70.    HELATION  OF  PESIIITO  TO  SEPTUAGINT.  189 

the  Alexandrine  translation,  has  not  been  as  yet  determined, 
and  will  probably  always  remain  doubtful.  The  similarity  with 
the  LXX.  is  in  all  essential  respects  equally  strong  in  all,  even 
the  oldest,  manuscripts,  and  in  the  quotations  of  Aphraates,  so 
that  such  a  recasting  must  in  any  case  have  taken  place  at  a 
very  early  date.  There  is  not  the  least  probability  in  favour 
of  the  hypothesis  of  a  thoroughgoing  revision  after  the  time 
of  Aphraates. 

On  the  quotations  of  Aphraates,  compare  §  15.  On  those 
of  Ephrsem  :  Spohn,  De  ratione  text  us  biblici  in  Ephrcemi  Syri 
commcntarii  obvii,  1786.  Further,  as  to  how  the  text-words 
from  Jacob  of  Edessa  must  be  distinguished  from  the  quota 
tions  of  Ephrajm,  compare  Noldeke,  ZDMG,  xxxii.  589. 
[Studia  fiiblica,  1885,  p.  168  f.,  and  note  by  F.  H.  Wood  in 
same  article,  p.  173.] 

Against  the  idea  of  a  revision  of  the  older  translation, 
especially  of  such  a  revision  made  on  the  basis  of  the  original 
text,  in  the  days  after  Aphraates  and  Ephroem,  Noldeke 
remarks  (ZDMG-,  xxxii.  589):  "First  of  all,  the  text- words 
in  Ephrsem  have  no  special  relation  to  the  quotations  from 
memory  by  Aphraates  in  part  very  imperfectly  remembered, 
so  that  we  could  set  the  text  of  these  two  as  a  unity  over 
against  the  later  text.  Further  a  revision  of  the  Syrian  Bible 
on  the  basis  of  the  Hebrew  after  the  time  of  Ephrsem  is  quite 
inconceivable.  Knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  was  for  ever  lost 
among  the  Syrians  with  the  complete  sundering  of  the  Church 
of  Edessa  from  Judaism.  Even  Jacob  of  Edessa,  and  men  of 
scientific  ardour  like  Jerome,  had  only  learned  a  few  scraps 
of  Hebrew.  And  how  is  it  to  be  explained  that  the  Syrians, 
split  up  by  civil  and  confessional  divisions,  Roman  and 
Persian  subjects,  Catholics,  Monophysites,  and  Nestorians, 
should  yet  all  have  the  same  Bible  if  it  had  owed  its  origin 
to  so  late  a  revision  ?  liahlfs  (ZAW,  ix.  171)  has,  on  the 
other  hand,  called  attention  to  a  late  revision  of  the  trans 
lation  of  the  Psalms  in  some  manuscripts  undertaken  upon 
the  basis  of  the  commentary  of  Barhebneus. 


190  §  71.    CHARACTER  OF  THE  PESHITO. 

On  the  Syriac  Bible's  dependence  upon  the  LXX.,  com 
pare  Rahlfs  in  ZA  W,  ix.  161  ff.,  where  the  assertion  of 
Gottheil  that  the  Bible  manuscript  used  by  Barhebraeus  had 
been  modified  in  accordance  with  the  Syrian  Hexapla  (§48) 
is  refuted.  Sebok,  Die  Syrisclie  Ucbcrsetzung  der  12  kleinen 
PropJietcn,  p.  7  ;  and  Cornill,  Ezccliiel,  p.  153  f.  It  is  worthy 
of  mention  that  the  translation  of  the  Book  of  Chronicles 
(§  71)  is  not  interpolated  on  the  basis  of  the  LXX.  (JPT, 
v.  758). 

Some  Psalm  translations  in  the  Old  Syrian  manuscripts 
(Codex  Ambrosianus,  and  Wright,  Catalogue  of  Syriac  Manu 
scripts  in  British  Museum,  i.  1870,  Nos.  169,  179)  are 
remarkable,  according  to  which  the  Psalms  are  said  to  have 
been  translated  "  from  Palestinian  into  Hebrew,  and  from 
thence  into  Greek,  and  finally  into  Syriac."  The  light  which 
this  passage  seems  to  cast  upon  the  origin  of  the  LXX.  is, 
however,  according  to  Baethgen's  researches,  a  false  light 
(JPT,  1882,  p.  422  f.).  In  particular,  Bsethgen  has  proved 
that  the  Palestinian  translation  referred  to  in  §  49  can  have 
formed  no  link  midway  between  the  LXX.  and  the  Peshito. 
Very  noticeable  is  the  freedom  with  which  the  original 
superscriptions  of  the  Psalms  are  left  out  from  the  Syrian 
translation,  which,  however,  according  to  the  statements  of 
the  Syrians,  was  first  done  through  the  influence  of  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia.  The  superscriptions  which  we  find  in  the 
manuscripts  and  editions  are  characterised  by  many  variations, 
and  are  taken  from  the  commentaries  of  the  Church  fathers, 
especially  from  those  of  Theodore.  Compare  Boethgen, 
ZAW,  1885,  p.  66  ff. ;  Wright,  Catalogue  of  Syr.  MSS.  in 
Brit.  Mas.  i.  116  ff. 

71.  Considered  as  a  translation,  the  Peshito,  as  a  whole, 
takes  no  mean  rank.  If  it  does  not  reach  the  elevation  of 
the  LXX.  in  its  best  parts,  it  never  sinks  so  low  as  the 
Alexandrine  translation,  which  may  be  convincingly  proved  if 
one,  e.g.,  compares  the  Syriac  Isaiah  with  the  Greek.  Almost 
everywhere  it  conveys  an  intelligible  meaning,  even  though  it 
be  not  always  that  of  the  original,  and  oftentimes  one  meets 


§  71.    CHARACTER  OF  THE  PESHITO.  191 

with  translations  which  rest  upon  good  tradition  or  happy 
divination.  Here  and  there  its  value  is  lessened  by  con 
fusions  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Aramaic  dialect,  which 
is  surely  excusable  considering  the  relationship  of  the  two 
languages.  Worse,  and  more  dangerous  for  inexperienced 
critics  of  the  text,  is  the  freedom  with  which  suffixes  and 
verbal  forms  are  sometimes  interchanged.  In  addition  to 
this,  there  is  another  circumstance,  already  adverted  to, 
whereby  the  importance  of  the  Peshito  for  textual  criticism  is 
very  seriously  depreciated,  namely,  its  dependence  upon  the 
LXX.  Where  Syrian  and  Greek  agree  against  the  Massoretic 
text,  we  can  seldom  be  sure  whether  the  Syrian  witness  is 
only  an  unimportant  reduplication  of  that  of  the  LXX.,  or 
whether  the  original  text  on  which  the  Syriac  was  based  had 
actually  so  read.  While  the  Peshito  is  otherwise  thoroughly 
distinguished  from  the  Targums  by  its  literalness  and  close 
attachment  to  the  original,  an  exception  in  this  respect  is 
found  in  the  translation  of  the  Book  of  Chronicles.  In  this 
writing,  which  originally  did  not  belong  to  the  Peshito 
(§  15),  a  mere  Jewish  Targum,  with  all  the  peculiarities  of 
such  a  work,  is  made  use  of.  Friinkel,  who  has  examined  it 
carefully,  conjectures  that  it  had  been  composed  by  Jews  of 
Edessa  in  the  third  century. 

Prager,  De  vcteris  Testamenti  vcrsionc  syriaca  quccstioncs 
critical,  1871. 

On  the  Pentateuch  :  Hirzel,  De  PentateucUi  vcrsionis  Syr. 
quam  Pcscliito  vacant  indok  commcntatio,  1825.  On  Isaiah: 
(Jesenius,  Commentar  ilberd  en  Jcsaja,\.  SI  if.  On  Ezekiel : 
Cornill,  Ezcclncl,  pp.  136-156.  On  the  Minor  Prophets: 
Credner,  De  proplidarum  minor,  vcrsionis  Syr.  quam  Pcscliito 
vocant  indole  diss.  i.  1827;  Sebcik,  Die  syrische  Ucbcrsctzuny 
der  12  lidnc.n  Prophdcn  und  ilir  Vcrhiiltniss  zu  dcm  massord. 
Texte,  1887.  Specially  on  Micah :  Eyssel,  UntersucJiungen 
iiber  die  Textgestalt  dcs  Buclies  Miclm,  p.  169  if.  On  the 
Psalms :  Ikctligen,  Untersuclmngen  ubcr  die  Psalmcn  nacli  der 


192  §  72.    CRITICISM  OF  THE  PESIIITO  TEXT. 

PescJiito  (Schriften,  der  Kieler  Universitiit,  xxv.)  and  JPT, 
1882,  p.  422  if.  On  Job:  Stenij,  De  Syriaca  libri  Joli 
interpretatione,  i.,  Helsingfors  1887.  On  Ecclesiastes  and 
Ruth :  Janichs,  Animadversiones  criticcc  in  versionem  Syr. 
Pescliittlionianaiii  librorum  Koheldh  d  Ruth,  1871.  On 
Chronicles:  Friinkel,  JPT,  1879,  p.  508  ff.  Compare  also, 
Nestle  in  Herzog's  liGcd-Encijclopccdie-,  xv.  192  ff. 

72.  Although  the  critical  establishment  of  the  Peshito  text 
is  indeed  still  in  its  infancy,  it  is  even  already  clear  that  no 
important  results  are  to  be  expected  from  any  future  criticism 
of  the  text.  The  two  chief  Recensions  of  the  Peshito,  the 
Nestorian  and  the  West  Syrian,  are  represented  respectively 
by  the  Oroiniah  Bible  of  the  American  missionaries  of  the 
year  1852,  and  by  the  text  of  the  Parisian  Polyglot  edited 
by  Gabriel  Sionita.  The  latter,  after  being  collated  with 
other  manuscripts,  was  reissued  in  the  London  Polyglot,  and 
repeated  in  Lee's  edition  for  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society.  The  West  Syrian  group  must  then,  according  to 
Eahlfs,  be  further  divided  into  three  families,  the  Jacobite,  the 
Melchitian,  and  the  Maronite.  One  of  the  most  notable  of  the 
West  Syrian  manuscripts  is  the  Codex  Amlrosianus  of  the 
sixth  or  seventh  century,  which  has  been  published  by  Ceriani 
in  photo-lithography.  By  comparing  the  West  Syrian  with 
the  East  Syrian  group  we  shall  be  able  to  conclude  that  there 
had  been  a  common  Syriac  text  in  the  times  before  the 
division  of  the  Syrian  Church  in  A.TX  485,  which  has  then  to 
be  compared,  partly  with  the  quotations  of  Aphraates  and 
EpliKem,  partly  with  a  manuscript  in  the  British  Museum  of 
the  year  464,  therefore  of  the  period  before  the  division. 

A  further  aid  in  study  is  the  Monophysite  Massora  on  the 
text  which  bears  the  name  of  the  "  Karkaphensian,"  and 
proceeded  from  the  cloisters  at  Chaboras  in  Mesopotamia. 
Further  also,  the  daughter  versions  of  the  Peshito  may  be  used 
for  the  establishment  of  its  text. 


§72.    CRITICISM  OF  THE  PESHITO  TEXT.  193 

The  Apocrypha,  first  received  at  a  later  period  into  the 
Syriac  Bible,  has  been  edited  by  Lagarde. 

The  imvocalised  edition  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society  by  Lee,  1823,  is,  along  with  the  Oromiah  Bible,  the 
most  useful  help  for  immediate  use.  The  Psalms,  vocalised, 
were  edited  by  Lee,  London  1825.  Compare  on  other 
editions:  Bickell,  Conspectus  rei  Syrorum  liter ar ice,  1871, 
p.  6  ff. ;  Nestle,  Brevis  linguce  Syriacw  r/ranimatica,  1881, 
p.  13  ff. 

For  criticism,  of  the  text,  compare  especially  the  treatise  of 
Eahlfs  in  ZAWt  1889,  pp.  161-210. 

On  the  oldest  manuscripts,  see  Ceriani,  Mcmoire  del  P. 
Institute  Lonibardo  di  Science  e  Letter  at  u  ret,  ser.  iii.  vol. 
xi.  2  ;  Wright,  Catalogue  of  Syr.  MSS.  in  Brit.  Mus.  i.  3  f. 
On  the  Codex  Ussher,  a  copy,  as  it  seems,  of  an  old  Maronite 
manuscript  made  in  the  years  1626-1628,  now  in  Oxford, 
see  Eahlfs  in  ZAW,  1889,  p.  195  ff.  Ceriani,  Translatio 
syra  Pescitto  Vet.  Testamenti,  Milan  1876-1883.  Cornill 
(Ezechiel,  p.  140  ff.)  would  deny  all  value  to  this  manuscript, 
which  judgment,  however,  Eahlfs  (p.  181  ff.)  vigorously 
contests.  [Gwilliam,  "  Account  of  a  Syriac  Biblical  MS.  of 
the  Fifth  Century,"  in  Studio,  Biblica,  first  series  1885, 
pp.  151-174.] 

On  the  Syrian  Massora,  see  Wiseman,  Horcc  Syriacw, 
p.  119  ff . ;  Martin,  Tradition  KarJcapliienne,  Paris  1870; 
G.  Hoffmann,  ZAW,  1881,  p.  159  f.,  ZDMG-,  xxxii.  745  ; 
Weingarten,  Die  syrisclie  Massora  nacli  Bar  Hebrceus.  Dcr 
Pentateuch,  1887.  [Scrivener,  Plain  Introduction,  p.  333  f .  ; 
Prof.  W.  Wright  of  Cambridge  in  Encyclopaedia  Brittanica, 
1887,  vol.  xxii.  826.] 

On  the  derivative  versions  (in  the  Arabic  language),  com 
pare  De  Wette-Schrader,  Einleituwj,  133.  In  the  Polyglots 
are:  Judges,  Euth,  Samuel,  1  Kings  i.-xi.,  2  Kings  xii.  17- 
xxv.,  Neh.  ix.  28-xiii.,  Job,  Chronicles. 

Lagarde,  Veteris  testamenti  apocryplii  syriace,  1861. 


N 


104              §  73.    AIDS  FROM  WITHIN  THE  TEXT  ITSELF. 
0. AIDS  FROM  WITHIN  THE  TEXT  ITSELF. 

73.  Since  none  of  the  aids  mentioned  in  the  foregoing 
paragraphs  go  back  to  the  times  of  the  biblical  authors,  textual 
criticism,  before  it  can  regard  its  work  as  brought  to  a  close, 
must  investigate  whether  means  may  be  found  in  the  text 
itself  which  may  serve  for  the  regulating  of  the  text.  Indeed, 
as  soon  as  textual  criticism  began  to  strike  out  a  path  for  itself, 
it  was  immediately  made  very  evident  that  the  Old  Testament 
writings  do  in  fact  at  several  points  supply  such  aids  as  would, 
if  they  were  used  with  prudence  and  circumspection,  un 
doubtedly  lead  to  sure  results.  As  an  example  of  the  sort  of 
aid  thus  given,  we  may  mention  the  parallel  sections  in  the 
Old  Testament,  which  contain  the  same  text,  and  where  the 
repetition,  if  the  intentionally  changed  expressions  were  left 
out  of  account,  would  have  a  significance  similar  to  what 
various  manuscripts  elsewhere  have.  E.g.,  Isa.  xxxvi.-xxxix. 
—  2  Kings  xviii.  30— xx.  19;  Jer.  lii.  —  2  Kings  xxv. ; 
Ps.  xviii.  =  2  Sam.  xxii. ;  Ezra  ii.  =  Neh.  vii. ;  also  the  Book 
of  Chronicles  in  comparison  with  the  older  Historical  Books, 
and  the  reminiscences  of  earlier  prophets  in  Jer.  xlvi.  ff., 
etc.  Further,  the  forms  of  Hebrew  poetry  not  seldom  afford 
to  the  textual  critic  the  means  of  discriminating :  of  this 
order  are  the  generally  prevailing  parallelism  of  the  clauses, 
the  peculiar  rhythm  of  the  Hebrew  elegiac  poetry,  the  use 
here  and  there  of  the  alphabetic  system,  the  refrains,  etc.  By 
means  of  these  forms  characteristic  of  the  Old  Testament  we 
are  led  finally  to  the  last  criteria  of  all  textual  criticism,  the 
universally  applicable  laws  of  thought  and  language,  the 
handling  of  which,  indeed,  opens  the  door  to  all  manner  of 
arbitrariness,  but  which,  nevertheless,  above  all  in  writings  like 
those  of  the  Old  Testament,  must  be  regarded  as  indispensable. 

Compare  Cappellus,  Critica  sacra  Lib.  i.  cap.  3  ;  Eichhorn, 
Eirileitung*,  i.  §  139. 


II. 
RESULTS  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

A. — THE  EXTERNAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  TEXT. 

1 .    Writing  Materials. 

74.  We  know  very  little  about  the  material  and  form  of 
the  Old  Testament  autographs.  The  word  IB?  signifies 
originally  The  Glazed  or  Smoothed,  and  indicates  nothing 
about  the  material ;  that  it  may  also  mean  a  book  roll  is 
shown  by  Isa.  xxxiv.  4.  By  ppn  we  are  reminded  of  the 
times  when  writings  were  engraved  or  scratched  in  on  a  solid 
substance,  but  in  its  secondary  meaning  it  is  used  of  any 
kind  of  marking  (Isa.  xlix.  16).  The  same  is  true  of  the 
synonymous  term  tnn ;  while  the  root  meaning  of  ana  is 
uncertain.  That  in  even  later  times,  on  particular  occasions 
at  least,  tablets  of  a  solid  substance  were  used  is  shown  by 
these  passages:  Isa.  viii.  1,  xxx.  8;  Hab.  ii.  2.  Perhaps 
during  the  Assyro-Babylonian  age  brick  tablets  were  known 
even  in  Palestine,  as  Ezekiel  refers  to  them  (Ezek.  iv.  1,  n^?.?). 
If  it  was  desired  to  make  the  engraving  of  any  writing  in  a 
very  special  degree  durable,  then  the  stylus  or  graver  (toy, 
Jer.  xvii.  1,  or  B"jn,  Isa.  viii.  1),  with  a  diamond  point  (Jer. 
xvii.  1),  was  used.  But  ordinarily  lighter  materials,  such  as 
were  undoubtedly  used  for  the  writing  of  letters  (2  Kings 
xix.  14),  were  also  naturally  employed  in  the  writing  of  books. 
Since  Herodotus  (v.  58)  describes  the  "  Barbarians  "  as  making 
use  of  &i<]>0€pai  as  writing  material,  and  as  the  Persians  also 

105 


19G  §  74.    WHITING  MATERIALS. 

constantly  employed  material  of  this  sort  (compare  Ezra 
vi.  1  f.),  the  Jews  likewise  in  all  probability  used  the  same. 
This  supposition  is  confirmed  by  Numb.  v.  23,  according  to 
which  passage  what  had  been  written  could  be  washed  out 
with  water.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  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 
smoke  through  the  chamber.  Perhaps  the  use  of  the  papyrus 
(New  Hebrew,  "W)  was  even  then  known,  seeing  that  it  grew 
in  some  places  in  Palestine  itself,  as,  e.g.  at  the  Merom  Lake. 
On  this  material  writing  was  made  by  means  of  a  dark  fluid 
(to,  Jer.  xxxvi.  18,  compare  npij,  a  vessel,  a  scribe's  vessel,  an 
inkstand,  Ezek.  ix.  2),  which  was  applied  by  a  sharp-pointed 
(Jer.  xxxvi.  23)  writer's  reed  or  pen  (toy,  Jer.  viii.  8  ;  Ps. 
xlv.  2).  The  usual  form  of  the  book  was  a  roll,  n?jp  (compare 
Jer.  xxxvi.  14;  Ezek.  ii.  9  f. ;  Zech.  v.  1;  Ps.  xl.  8;  and 
Jer.  xxxii.  14,  where  a  sealed  document  is  preserved  in  an 
earthen  vessel).  The  rrin^n  mentioned  in  Jer.  xxxvi.  23 
signify  the  several  columns  of  the  roll. 

In  later  times  the  Epistle  of  Aristeas  and  Josephus 
(Antiquities,  xii.  2,  10)  mention  the  Si<f>0epai,,  and  the  Talmud 
names  several  kinds  of  more  or  less  prepared  skins  of  animals. 
For  the  copies  of  the  Law  only  skins  of  clean  beasts  were 
used  (jer.  Meg.  i.  fol.  7 Id).  The  roll  form  was  the  usual  one 
(compare  Luke  iv.  17,  20),  and  is  even  yet  the  obligatory 
form  for  manuscripts  which  are  to  be  used  for  reading  in  the 
synagogues.  But  by  and  by  another  form,  that  of  the  Codex, 
came  more  and  more  into  use.  When  this  book  form,  now 
the  ordinary  one,  which  some  have  wrongly  supposed  to  have 
been  found  as  early  as  in  the  Epistle  of  Aristeas,  became 
usual  among  the  Jews  we  do  not  know.  With  regard  to  the 
idea  of  the  canonicity  of  Scripture  this  change  was  of  import 
ance,  inasmuch  as  the  Codex  form  made  it  possible  to  have 
all  the  sacred  writings  written  out  in  one  volume,  and  thereby 


§  74.    WHITING  MATERIALS.  197 

to  give  outward  expression  to  the  fact  that  the  canonical 
books  were  in  a  peculiar  manner  bound  together  in  such  a 
way  as  excluded  all  others.  Perhaps  in  the  tradition  from 
b.  Baba  bathra,  fol.  13&  referred  to  above  at  §  10,  where  the 
permissibility  of  the  collection  of  several  or  all  of  the  sacred 
writings  into  one  manuscript  is  discussed,  and  various 
authorities  from  the  second  and  from  the  end  of  the  first 
century  are  cited,  we  have  a  reminiscence  of  the  change  in 
the  practice  of  writing  called  forth  by  the  introduction  of  the 
Codex  form.  For  the  restoring  of  the  synagogue  rolls  and 
the  correct  copying  of  the  text  precise  rules  are  prescribed  in 
Sepher  Thora  and  Masseket  Soph6 rim  (§  32).  The  form  and 
material  of  Bible  manuscripts  of  later  times  are  to  be  seen  in 
the  oldest  preserved  Codices  themselves.  They  are  either 
synagogue  rolls  of  parchment  or  leather,  or  private  manu 
scripts,  most  frequently  in  the  Codex  form,  of  parchment, 
leather,  or  cotton  paper.  The  oldest  manuscript,  the  Baby 
lonian  Codex  of  the  Prophets  (§  28),  is  written  on  parchment, 
in  Codex  form,  with  two  columns  on  each  page. 

Wahner,  Antiquitates  Ebrceorum,  sect.  i.  cap.  45  ;  L.  Low, 
Graphische  Ilcquisiten  und  Erzcugnissc  lei  den  Jadoi,  Leipsic 
1870,  1871;  Schlottmann  in  Kiehm's  Handworterbuch,  pp. 
1416-1431  ;  Strack,  ZLT,  1875,  pp.  598-601  ;  Herzog's 
Real  Encyclopaedic2,  xiii.  689  ff.  With  reference  to  similar 
customs  among  the  Christians,  see  especially  Zahn,  Geschichte 
des  Kanons  d.  N.  T.  i.  61  ff. ;  The  Academy,  xxxi.  1887, 
p.  4155. 

The  hypothesis  that  the  Israelites  had  used  papyrus 
becomes  all  the  more  probable  when  we  remember  that  the 
Greeks  became  acquainted  with  it  through  their  intercourse 
with  the  Phoenicians.  This  is  also  shown  by  the  very  name 
)3t/3Ao?,  which  is  connected  with  the  city  of  Byblus  (Sitzungs- 
berichte  der  Wiener  Academic,  philol.-hist.  Class.  1888,  cxvi. 
p.  636).  Only  at  a  later  date  was  the  name  /3//3Xo?  exchanged 
for  the  name  irdirvpos.  On  the  signification  of 


198  §  75.    THE  OLD  AND  NEW  ALPHABETS. 

compare  Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  ii.  260  f.  Compare  generally 
with  regard  to  papyrus  and  paper :  Oesterr.  Monatsblatt  fur  d. 
Orient.  1885,  p.  162  ff.,  1886,  p.  159  ff.  On  the  etymology 
of  §i$6epa  compare  Lagarde,  Ges.  Abhandl.  p.  216,  where  also 
i"1^  is  considered  as  belonging  to  the  same  root.  Bock,  Perga- 
ment,  eine  culturgcsch.  Studie ;  Oesterr.  Buchlidndler  -  Corre- 
spondenz,  xxvi.  1886,  Nos.  3-6  (not  accessible  to  me). 

On  the  Codex  form,  compare  Birt,  Das  antike  Buchwcsen, 
pp.  62,  93,  100,  107,  113.  Birt  is  wrong  in  supposing  that 
in  the  word  reu^o?,  in  the  Epistle  of  Aristeas  (Merx,  Arcliiv.  i. 
p.  67),  ne  finds  a  proof  of  the  employment  of  the  Codex  form; 
for  that  rei)%o<?  is  used  in  that  passage  of  a  roll  is  shown  by 
an  earlier  passage  in  the  Epistle  (p.  44).  Compare  Zahn, 
Gescliiclite  des  Kanons  d.  N.  T.  p.  66.  According  to  the  last- 
named  passage,  the  roll  of  the  Law  referred  to  was  made  of 
the  skins  of  animals  prepared  and  joined  together  in  a 
miraculous  way.  Birt  is  also  wrong  when  he  seeks  the 
reason  for  the  spread  of  the  Codex  form  in  the  fact  that 
skins  were  cheaper  than  papyrus.  Compare  Marquardt, 
Privatalterthumer  d.  Earner,  ii.  785  ;  Theolog.  Literatur-zeitung , 
1883,  p.  459  ;  Wiedemann,  Agyptisclie  Geschichte,  p.  29  ;  Zahn, 
Gescliiclite  des  Kanons  d.  N.  T.  p.  71  f. 

Descriptions  of  the  older  Old  Testament  manuscripts  have 
been  given  above  in  §  28. 


2.   History  of  the  Hebrew  Letters. 

75.  Were  it  possible  to  compare  the  original  manuscripts 
of  the  Old  Testament  with  our  present  texts,  the  first  difference 
that  would  attract  our  attention  would  be  the  different  forms 
of  the  letters.  Instead  of  the  square-shaped  writing  which 
we  have  in  our  present  texts,  and  which  is  found  as  the 
prevalent  form  even  in  our  oldest  manuscripts,  we  would 
have  seen  in  these  autographs  an  Old  Hebrew  style  of  writing, 
such  as  is  now  known  to  us  through  the  Siloah  inscription  of 
the  eighth  century  before  Christ,  some  seals  and  weights 


§  75.    THE  OLD  AND  NEW  ALPHABETS.  199 

found  in  Nineveh,  the  coins  of  the  Maccabees  and  of  Bar 
Cochba,  and  the  Samaritan  manuscripts.  All  these  monu 
ments  are  inscribed  with  a  kind  of  written  characters  which 
belongs  to  the  Phoenician  branch  of  the  Semitic  alphabet ; 
whereas  the  square-shaped  writing  is  a  development  of  the 
Arabic  branch,  which,  just  like  the  Aramaic  language  (§  59), 
obtained  a  wide  currency  during  and  after  the  period  of  the 
Persian  dominion. 

The  Jews  named  the  old  Hebrew  writing  simply  S"PV  3ns, 
"  Hebrew  writing,"  or  sometimes  rT!  3T\3  and  nwtep  ana,  has 
variously  explained  expressions,  of  which,  however,  the  first 
probably  means  "  inscription  on  a  coin,"  with  reference  to  the 
use  of  the  old  writing  on  the  coins  of  the  Maccabees.  The  new 
writing  is  called  by  the  later  Jews  ysnp  ana,  "  square-shaped 
writing,"  in  respect  of  the  regular  form  of  the  letters,  and  in  the 
Talmud,  ^W*  ar)3;  "  Assyrian  writing."  The  latter  designation 
is  historically  suitable  when  one  remembers  that  Assyria, 
even  after  the  overthrow  of  Nineveh,  continued  in  use  as  the 
common  name  of  the  districts  belonging  to  the  old  Assyrian 
empire,  and  that  it  was  just  in  these  regions  that  Aramaic, 
throughout  an  ever-increasing  radius,  became  the  dominant 
language. 

Compare  Buxtorf  (the  younger),  Dissertat.  philol.  theol.  iv. 
Basel  1662;  Cappellus,  Diatribe  de  veris  et  antiquis  Ebrworum 
literis,  1645  ;  Dobrowsky,  De  antiquis  Hebrworum  charac- 
teribus,  Prague  1783  ;  Kopp,  Bilder  und  Scliriften  der  Vorzeit, 
1821,  ii.;  Hupfeld,  TSK,  1830,  p.  289  ff. ;  De  Vogue, 
Melanges  d' archeologie  orientale,  Paris  1868  ;  E.  K  Gust, 
Linguistic  and  Oriental  Essays,  London  1880,  xii.-xiii.; 
Driver,  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Boohs  of  Samuel, 
1890,  i.-xxix.  [Studio,  Biblica  ct  Ecclesiastica,  3rd  series, 
Oxford  1891,  Article  ii.  by  Neubauer,  "  The  Introduction  of  the 
Square  Characters  in  Biblical  MSS.,  and  an  Account  of  the 
Earliest  MSS.  of  the  Bible  (with  three  Facsimiles),  pp. 
1-36.] 


200  §  75.    THE  OLD  AND  NEW  ALPHABETS. 

The  Phoenician  style  of  writing,  from  which  the  European 
alphabets  and  the  South  Arabic-Ethiopic  writing  are  derived, 
was  made  use  of  by  the  Phoenicians  and  other  Canaanites. 
The  most  important  memorial  of  it  is  the  Moabite  Stone  of 
Mesha  of  the  ninth  century  before  Christ  (Smend  and  Socin, 
Die  InscJirift  des  Konigs  Mesa  von  Moab.  1886).  The  Aramaic 
style  of  writing,  of  which  the  oldest  representatives  are  some 
seals  and  weights  found  in  Assyria  and  Babylon,  and  the  old 
Aramaic  Taimain  style  of  writing  (Bericlite  der  Berliner 
Academic,  1884,  p.  815)  are  found  widely  spread  among  the 
Palmyrenes  and  ISTabateans,  and,  during  the  Persian  age,  also 
in  Egypt.  From  this  Aramaic  writing  are  derived  the  Syriac, 
Cufic,  and  Arabic  alphabets,  as  well  as  the  Pehlewi  alphabet, 
and  also  the  Avesta  writing  (Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  ii.  38  ff.). 
On  the  Siloah  inscription:  ZDMG,  xxxvL  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; 
Acaddmie  des  inscr.  et  dcs  belles  lettres,  1882,  p.  199  ff.  On 
iixing  the  dates,  see  also  Quarterly  Statement  of  Palestine 
Exploration  Fund,  1889,  p.  35  ff.  On  the  seals  and  weights 
with  Hebrew  writing:  Levy,  Siegel  und  Gemmen,  1869; 
Ganneau  in  Journal  asiatique,  1883,  i.  123  ff,  ii.  304  ff'. 
On  the  coins :  De  Saulcy,  Recherches  sur  la  numismatique 
Judaique,  1854;  Madden,  History  of  Jcwisli  Coinage,  1864; 
Schiirer,  Geschiclite  dcs  jiid.  Volkes,  i.  19,  Eng.  trans.  Div.  i. 
vol.  i.  23. 

On  the  Jewish  names  for  the  two  alphabets,  see  Low, 
Graphisclie  Eequisiten,  ii.  5  3  ff. ;  Berliner,  Beitrdge  zur  liebr. 
Grammatik  in  Talmud  und  Midrascli,  187  9,  p.  6 ;  and  especially 
by  Hoffmann,  ZA  W,  1881,  p.  334  ff.  Instead  of  yjn,  the  word 
is  often  read  fjn,  but  the  correctness  of  the  former  reading 
is  proved  by  the  statement  of  Epiphanius  (i  deession,  which 
is  interpreted  insculptum"  (Opera  ed.  Dindorf,  1863.,  iv.  215). 
The  Somahirenus  writing,  there  also  referred  to,  is  inter 
preted  by  Lagarde  (Mittheilungen,  ii.  257)  to  mean  T'n?  ^-P- 
Libbonaa  (b.  Sank.  21&)  is  connected  by  G.  Hoffmann  with 
the  city  runi?,  Judges  xxi.  19  (now  El-Leberi),  south  of  Nablus, 
where  probably  there  was  a  Samaritan  school.  Halevy, 


§  70.    INTRODUCTION  OF  SQUARE-SHAPED  WRITING.        201 

Melanges  de  Crit  1883,  p.  435,  conjectures  in  place  of  n«^3, 
the  form  nfc&a'O,  i.e.  "  from  Neapolis  "  or  Shechem. 

On  the  name  Assyria  in  later  times,  compare  Lam.  v.  6 ; 
Ezra  vi.  22;  Herodotus,  i.  106,  192,  iii.  92;  Strdbo,  xvi. 
1.  1  ;  Josephus,  Antiquities,  xiii.  6.  7  ;  Hupfeld,  TSK,  1830, 
p.  289  ff.;  ZAW,  ii.  292  ff,  iv.  208. 

76.  When  the  Talmud  ascribes  the  introduction  of  the 
new  style  of  writing  to  Ezra,  this  is  in  the  first  instance  an 
example  of  the  Jewish  inclination  to  associate  the  change 
with  a  celebrated  name,  but  there  certainly  lies  in  the  tradi 
tion  this  element  of  truth,  that  the  change  was  brought  about 
not  by  the  people,  but  by  the  scribes,  who  walked  in  the  steps 
of  Ezra.  On  the  other  hand,  the  use  of  the  old  style  of 
writing  on  the  coins  of  the  Maccabees  was  a  thoroughly  popular 
and  national  act,  which  moreover  presupposes  that  at  that 
time  the  old  alphabet  must  still  have  been  to  some  extent  in 
practical  use.  It  was  not  until  the  time  of  Christ  that  the 
Aramaic  writing  became  that  of  the  people  (Matt.  v.  18). 
We  have,  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  interesting  inscription  of 
the  year  176  before  Christ,  which  is  found  in  the  tower 
built  by  Hyrcanus  at  Arak- -el-Emir,  east  of  the  Jordan,  brief 
as  it  is, — it  contains  only  the  word  ITQIQ, — a  mixed  form, 
in  which  both  styles  are  combined,  which  perhaps  was 
typical  of  the  practice  of  that  time.  But  in  the  Bible  manu 
scripts  of  that  day  the  new  style  of  writing  had  already 
long  been  in  common  use.  Unfortunately  we  are  not  able 
to  follow  out  the  course  of  development  in  detail.  That  the 
Samaritans  in  their  Bible  manuscripts  adhered  to  the  use 
of  the  old  alphabet,  though  indeed  in  a  peculiar  form,  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  the  Torah  rolls  were  still  being 
written  in  the  old  style  when  the  Law  was  adopted  by  the 
Samaritans  (§  11).  On  the  other  hand,  the  much  discussed 
question  as  to  whether  the  texts  used  by  the  Alexandrine 
translators  were  written  in  the  old  style  of  writing  or  in  the 


202        §  76.    INTRODUCTION  OF  SQUARE-SHAPED  WRITING. 

new,  must  be  answered  in  favour  of  the  latter  alternative, 
since  the  confounding  of  letters  which  occur  here  and  there 
throughout  the  translation  favours  such  a  supposition.  It  is 
also  in  agreement  with  this  that  the  name  mrp  read  at  first, 
as  it  seems,  in  the  Alexandrine  translation  unchanged  was 
read  111111  by  the  Greeks  and  others,  which  was  possible 
only  as  the  transcription  of  the  word  written  in  the  new 
style,  since  the  name  in  the  old  Hebrew  writing  had  a  quite 
different  appearance.  Probably  the  fact  was  this,  that  the 
new  writing  had  even  by  that  time  been  long  in  use  in  the 
Bible  manuscripts,  while  the  two  styles  of  writing  continued 
alongside  of  one  another  for  ordinary  purposes.  That  the 
synagogue  inscriptions,  and  the  inscriptions  on  the  tombs  of 
priests  from  and  after  the  time  of  Christ  are  in  the  new 
style  of  writing  is  what  might  be  expected. 

On  the  opinions  of  later  Jews  regarding  the  introduction 
of  the  square-shaped  writing,  compare  jer.  Meg.  i.  11,  fol. 
7 lie;  I.  Sank.  21&;  Origen  ii.  5294  (Lagarde,  Novce  Psal- 
terii  greed  cditiones  specimen  9)  :  ecm  Se  TU  TerpaypdfjLfjLa- 
TOV  av6K(p(Jt)vr)Tov  Trap  aurot?  .  .  .  Kal  \eyerai  ^ev  rfj 
Trpoo-rjyopla,  ov^l  TOVTOV  yejpa/jifJLevov  eV  TOO  Terpa- 
dTW,  Trapa  Se  'E\\7](Ti  rfj  Kvpios  eKcfrwveirai,'  Kal  ev 
rot?  a/cpi/SecTTepois  Se  r&v  avnypd^wv  eftpaloi 

TO  ovo/^a,  €J3paLKol<;  8e  ov  rot?  vvv,  aX\a  rot?  a 
'  (fiaal  yap  TOV  "Ecrbpav  ev  Ty  al^fJid\wo'ia  erepovs 
auros  xapa/crrjpas  Trapa  rov<?  Trporepovs  Trapa&eSwKevai. 
Jerome,  JPpistola  25  ad  Marcellam :  "  Nonum  (nomen  dei)  est 
tetragrammaton,  quod  ineffabile  putaverunt,  quod  his  literis 
scribitur  Jod,  E,  Vau,  E.  Quod  quidam  non  intelligentes 
propter  elementorum  similitudinem,  quam  in  Grsecis  libris 
repererint,  Pi  Pi  legere  consueverunt."  Prolog,  galeatm : 
"Viginti  et  duas  esse  litteras  apud  Hebrasos  Syrorum 
quoque  et  Chaldasorum  lingua  testatur  qua3  Hebrasse  magna 
ex  parte  confinis  est,  nam  et  ipsi  viginti  duo  elementa  habent 
eodem  sono  sed  diversis  characteribus.  Samaritani  etiam 
Pentateuchum  Mosi  totidem  literis  scriptitant.  figuris  tantum 


§  76.    INTRODUCTION  OF  SQUARE-SHAPED  WRITING.         203 

et  apicibus  discrepantes.  Certumque  est  Ezram  scribam 
legisque  doctorem  post  capta  Hierosolyrna  et  instaurationem 
templi  sub  Zorobabel  alias  literas  reperisse  quibus  mine 
utimur,  cum  ad  illud  usque  tempus  iidem  Samaritanorum  et 
Hebrseorum  characteres  fuerint.  .  .  .  Et  nomen  Domini  tetra- 
grammaton  in  quibusdam  grsecis  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  §  75, 
see  Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  ii.  256  f.)  says  :  "  Hesdra  ascen- 
deiis  a  Babylone,volensque  discernere  Israel  a  reliquis  gentibus, 
ut  genus  Habrahsc  non  videretur  esse  permixtum  cum  habit- 
atoribus  terrse  [pxn  Dy],  qui  tenent  quiden  legein,  non  tamen 
et  prophetas,  immutavit  pristinam  formam  relinquens  deessenon, 
propter  quod  ea  forma  a  Samaritanis  pra3occupata  jam  fuerat." 
But  it  is  less  probable  that  the  Samaritans  should  have  tran 
scribed  the  Law  adopted  by  the  Jews  in  the  earlier  characters, 
than  that  they  should  have  ignored  the  transcription  intro 
duced  after  their  adoption  of  the  Law.  If  it  be  therefore 
improbable  that  Ezra  should  have  already  introduced  this 
change,  this  makes  it  all  the  more  likely  that  the  change 
originated  in  the  school  of  Scripture  expositors  imported  from 
Babylon,  of  whom  Ezra  was  the  type  (Ezra  viii.  1 6  ;  Neh. 
viii.  7,  9),  and  that  the  members  of  this  school  were  led  to 
take  this  step  for  polemical  reasons.  Much  more  hazardous 
is  the  conjecture  made  by  G.  Hoffmann  in  ZAW,  i.  377, 
after  Scheppig,  based  upon  Isa.  viii.  1,  that  the  Aramaic 
writing  had  been  in  use  among  priests  and  statesmen  even 
before  the  exile. 

On  the  inscription  of  Hyrcanus,  compare  De  Vogue,  Temple 
de  Jerusalem,  1864,  pp.  38-42,  pi.  xxxiv.— xxxv.,  and  especi 
ally  Noldeke's  Note,  ZDMG,  xix.  640,  which  seems  still 
unknown  to  the  authors  of  the  Survey  of  Eastern  Palestine, 
1889,  pp.  65-87,  where  the  ruins  of  Arak-el-Emir  are  fully 
described.  The  Jewish  inscriptions  are  now  collected  in 
Chwolson's  Corpus  inscriptionum  Hebraicarum,  1882  (with  a 
large  table  of  different  styles  of  writing  by  Euting).  [See 
also  table  of  early  Semitic  alphabets  by  Professor  Briinnow, 


204        §  7G.    INTRODUCTION  OF  SQUARE-SHAPED  WRITING. 

as  frontispiece  to  Stadia  Biblica  et  Ecchsiastica,  3rd  series, 
1891.]  Compare  also  Clermont-Ganneau,  Jfipitaphes  helrai- 
qiies  d  grecques  stir  les  ossuaires  juifs,  Paris  1883,  and  the 
Palmyrene  synagogue  inscription  in  the  Bericlite  der  Berliner 
Academic,  1884,  p.  933  ff.  On  the  forgeries  of  Firkowitzsch, 
compare  what  is  said  above  in  §  27. 

On  the  importance  of  the  Septuagint  for  the  question 
treated  in  the  above  paragraph,  compare  Bb'ttcher,  Ausfuhr- 
liclics  Lclirlucli  d.  hebr.  Spraclie,  i.  37  f . ;  Bickell,  ZDMG, 
xviii.  379  ;  De  indolc  ac  ratione  versionis  alex.  in  inter- 
pretando  libri  Jobi,  p.  8  ff . ;  Merx,  Hiob.  Ixiii.  ff. ;  JPT, 
1883,  p.  70  ;  Vogue,  Melanges  de  Grit.  p.  167  ;  and  especially 
Vollers,  ZAWt  1883,  p.  229  ff. 

On  I1IIII  in  the  LXX.  and  among  the  fathers,  compare 
the  remarks  of  Origen  and  Jerome  quoted  on  p.  202  ; 
Lagarde,  Novce  Psalterii  grceci  editiones  specimen  9  ;  Euagrius 
in  Lagarde,  Onomasticon  i.  205  f.,  and  especially  ZDMG, 
xxxii.  466  ff.  Noteworthy  is  the  remark  of  Origen  that  the 
name  of  God  in  the  Greek  Bibles  (for  so  the  passage 
is  certainly  to  be  understood,  see  ZDMG-,  xxxii.  467)  was 
written  in  "Old  Hebrew"  characters.  Wellhausen - Bleek 
(Einhituny,  p.  629)  is  certainly  wrong  in  seeking  to  vindi 
cate  this  statement  by  a  reference  to  the  inscription  of 
Hyrcanus  ("  it  is  therefore  certain  that  the  LXX.  had  found 
Jahve,  not  in  the  characters  111111,  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, 
niiT,  although  the  latter  must  still  have  been  the  presupposi 
tion  of  mill,  and  that  Jerome,  who  expressly  speaks  of  the 
mill,  simply  repeats  what  Origen  had  said,  it  is  probable  that 
the  remark  of  Origen  rests  on  a  misunderstanding,  which  perhaps 
arose  from  this,  that  the  mrf  had  been  written  after  a  some 
what  old-fashioned  pattern.  On  the  other  hand,  its  appear 
ance  in  Old  Hebrew  is  shown  on  the  Mesha  tablet,  line  18. 


§  77.    TYPES  OF  SQUARE-SHAPED  WPJTING.  205 

It  is  interesting  also  to  find  that  this  Pipi  was  adopted  by 
the  Hebrew-speaking  Jews,  see  jer.  Nedarim,  fol.  42c.  The 
conjecture  of  Griitz,  MGWJt  1886,  pp.  60-73,  that  the  form 
mill  was  to  be  met  with  in  a  Septuagint  manuscript  inter 
polated  with  Samaritan  additions,  is  wrong,  because  conflicting 
with  the  words  of  Origen  :  rot?  dfcpi^earepo^  TWV  avnypd- 
(f>wv.  Besides,  TIITII  is  also  met  with  outside  the  Pentateuch. 

77.  Among  the  Jews  the  Aramaic  alphabet  assumes  the 
regular  and  distinct  forms  of  the  square-shaped  character,  and 
has  continued  in  this  form  pretty  nearly  unchanged  down 
the  present  day.  The  variations,  of  which  occasionally 
mention  is  made,  are  very  trifling,  as  e.g.  that  n  in  the  earliest 
times  looked  like  n  (jer.  Meg.  i.  9),  which,  moreover,  IIITII 
for  mrp  also  testifies  to  (§  76).  In  the  manuscripts  a  distinc 
tion  between  the  somewhat  rectangular  "  Tarn  "  writing  nn  nro 
of  the  German  and  Polish  Jews  and  the  rounded  "  Welsh  " 
writing  ^>"il  3rD  of  the  Spanish  and  Oriental  Jews  (compare 
§  27).  Sometimes  also  manuscripts  were  written  in  other 
styles  of  writing,  e.g.,  the  so-called  Eashi  writing,  a  kind  of 
cursive  hand.  Of  a  quite  singular  description  are  the  manu 
scripts  of  the  Karaites,  mentioned  above  in  §  28,  from  the 
tenth  to  the  fourteenth  century  written  in  Arabic  letters. 

The  so-called  "  final  letters  "  are  often  referred  to  in  the 
Talmud  (e.g.  b.  Sail.  104a;  Sank.  94«,  986;  Meg.  21,  3a  ; 
jer.  Meg.  i.  11,  fol.  71c;  compare  Soplfrim  ii.  p.  v.),  as  also  by 
Jerome  (§  7).  From  a  portion  of  the  numerous  instances 
in  which  the  LXX.  divides  the  words  otherwise  than  is  done 
in  the  Massoretic  Text — e.g.  B.  Nah.  i.  12  D^C?  DN  LXX. 
Zech.  xi.  11  LXX.  »w&  :  Ps.  xvi.  3,  LXX.  nn&o 
;  Zeph.  iii.  19,  LXX.  -pwb  ^ntf  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  33,  LXX. 
HB>Dn, — we  might  conclude  that  these  letters  were  foreign 
to  the  Hebrew  texts  used  by  the  Alexandrine  translators. 
Yet  this  conclusion,  although  probable,  is  not  absolutely 
certain,  since  the  divergent  division  may  have  originated  in 


206  §  77.    TYPES  OF  SQUARE-SHAPED  WHITING. 

older  manuscripts  prior  to  the  time  of  transcription.  The  last- 
named  examples  show  besides  that  Makkef  is  a  sign  that  was 
only  subsequently  introduced.  The  final  letters,  the  existence 
of  which  is  witnessed  to  by  inscriptions  prior  to  the  birth  of 
Christ,  were  formed  only  to  suit  the  convenience  of  writers, 
since  their  number  (five)  is  quite  arbitrary. 

In  the  days  of  Jerome  the  diacritical  point  over  t?  was 
not  in  use,  nor  was  the  point  Daghesh.  Both  signs  are 
connected  together  with  the  more  recently  introduced  system 
of  points. 

With  great  fidelity  the  irregularities  of  form  and  size  in 
particular  letters  were  preserved  in  the  manuscripts,  and 
subsequently  in  the  editions.  To  these  belong  the  so-called 
literoB  majusculce  (e.g.  Deut.  xviii.  13,  xxxii.  6;  Ps.  Ixxx.  16, 
Ixxxiv.  4  ;  Ruth  iii.  13).  Even  in  the  Talmud  some  of  these 
are  referred  to  (b.  Kidcl  666:  Num.  xxv.  12;  I.  Kicld.  30a: 
Lev.  xi.  42;  Meg.  166:  Esther  ix.  9),  and  in  the  book 
Soplfrim  ix.  p.  xv.  we  already  meet  with  their  technical  name. 
Further,  the  so-called  literce  suspenses,  which  are  mentioned  as 
early  as  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud  (Kidd.  30ft :  Ps.  Ixxx.  14  ; 
Sank.  1036:  Job  xxxviii.  13—15),  to  which  also  may  be 
added  Judg.  xviii.  30  (§  97).  An  irregular  final  p  is  met 
with  in  Exod.  xxxii.  25;  Num.  vii.  2.  The  so-called  j 
inverses  and  puncta  extraordinaria  have  been  already  referred 
to  in  §  35.  Compare  further,  §  99. 

The  ornamental  little  strokes  ("  crowns "  DnrD,  pin,  JW) 
which  are  to  be  met  with  in  manuscripts  over  particular 
letters,  are  mentioned  even  by  6.  Mcnachoth  296,  Sabb.  9a, 
105«.  In  the  Crimean  Synagogue  rolls  they  were  in  an 
unusual  way  placed  over  some  words,  especially  over  words 
written  too  high. 

The  Talmudical  remarks  on  the  form  of  the  letters  are 
collected  in  Berliner,  Btitrdge  zur  hcbr.  Gramm.  in  Talmud, 
p.  15  ff.  On  the  later  types  of  writing,  compare  Hupfeld, 


§  78.    ORIGIN  OF  THE  VOWEL  SIGNS.  207 

TSK,  1830,  p.  278  ;  Levy,  Gescldchtc  dcr  jiid.  Miinzen,  1862, 
p.  145  ;  Zunz,  Zur  Geschichte  und  Literatur,  1845,  p.  206  f. ; 
Eichhorn,  Einleitung,  iii.  §  377;  Baer,  Liber  Jesaice,  vii. ;  Low, 
Graphische  Requisite^  ii.  72  ff .  ;  Eating,  ZDMG,  xlii.  313  ff. 
and  above  §§  27-28. 

On  the  final  letters  see  Hupfeld,  TSK,  1830,  p.  256  ff . ; 
J.  Miiller,  Masseket  Soph'rim,  40  ;  Wellhausen-Bleek,  Ein- 
leitung,  p.  637  ;  Berliner,  Beitrage,  p.  25  if.  and  the  table  of 
written  characters  by  Euting  in  Chwolson's  Corpus  inscript. 
heir,  [or  the  Table  by  Professor  Briinnow  in  Studio,  Biblica, 
3rd  Series,  1891,  frontispiece].  On  &  compare  Jerome  on 
Hab.  iii.  4  ;  Amos  iv.  13,  viii.  12.  On  Daghesh,  Jerome  on 
Gen.  xxxvi.  24  (iamim=maria). 

The  literce  majusculce  and  minusculce  are  given  by  Frens- 
dorff,  Ochla  Weochla,  Nos.  82-84  (compare  No.  161).  Further, 
Strack,  Prolegomena,  pp.  91-93  ;  Baer  and  Strack,  Dikduke, 
p.  47  f. 

On  the  "crowns,"  Hupfeld,  TSK,  1830,  p.  276  f . ;  Barges, 
Sepher  tagin,  Paris  1866  ;  Journal  asiatique,  1867,  ix. 
242  ff.  ;  ZLT,  1875,  p.  601;  Low,  Graphische  Requistien, 
ii.  68. 

3.    Vocalisation  and  Accentuation. 

78.  The  signs  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs  were 
composed  originally  exclusively  of  consonants,  while  the 
vowels,  as  in  the  other  oldest  branches  of  the  Semitic 
languages,  were  left  wholly  without  any  written  visible 
indication.  The  vowel  signs  now  commonly  used  were  only 
introduced  at  a  later  date,  and  so  they  are  even  to  this  day 
excluded  from  the  rolls  that  are  written  out  for  use  in  the  syna 
gogues  (§  74),  while  in  other  manuscripts  at  least  the  rule  was 
observed,  that  the  one  who  added  the  points,  rji?3,  was  another 
than  the  transcriber  proper,  iftfD. 

The  recollection  of  the  later  origin  of  the  vowel  points  was 
never  altogether  lost  sight  of.  Mar  National  II.,  Gaon  in 
Sura  859-869,  says  expressly,  that  the  pointing  was  not  given 


208  §  78.    ORIGIN  OF  THE  VOWEL  SIGNS. 

contemporaneously  with  the  Law  on  Sinai,  but  had  its  origin  in 
later  times.     And  in  the  following    century,  Menahem  ben 
Sarug    and    Judah    Chajjug    express    themselves    in    similar 
terms.      Christian  writers  also,  like  Eaimund  Martin  in  the 
thirteenth  century  and  Nicholas  von  Lyra  in   the  fourteenth 
century,    maintained     the    historically    correct    view,    which 
finally  found  an  acute  and  able  vindicator  in  the  learned  Jew 
Elias  Levita  (compare  §  31).     From  these  men  the  Eeformers 
adopted  the  correct  theory,  which  found   in   succeeding  ages 
distinguished    representatives    in    Sebast.    Mlinster,    Fagius, 
Piscator,  Scaliger,  Drusius,   Cappellus,  etc.      But,  meanwhile, 
another   theory    had   been   spreading,  first   among    the    Jews 
(especially  among  the  Karaites),  and  then  subsequently  among 
Christians,  according  to  which  the  vowel  points  were  equally 
with  the  consonants  an  original  element  in  the  Scriptures.     In 
a  special  manner,  too,  the  purely  mechanical  development  of 
the   Protestant   theory   of  inspiration  led  many  to  do  battle 
against  a  view  which  made  possible  a  distinction  between  the 
original  sense  of  the  text  and  the  apprehension  of  it  fixed  by 
the   pointing.      As    the    most   distinguished    Christian   repre 
sentatives  of  the  theory  of  the  originality  of  the  vowel  points 
we  may  name,  Matth.  Flacius,  Junius,  Gomarus,  J.  Gerhard, 
and   especially   the   two   Buxtorfs.       Owing  to   the    dogmatic 
significance  which  the  question  had  come  to  assume,  a  concus 
sion  became  absolutely  inevitable.  An  occasion  was  given  by  the 
publication  of  the  treatise  of  Cappellus,  Arcanum  punctationis 
revelation,  which  Erpenius,  without  mentioning  the   author's 
name,  published  in    1624.       Not   till    1648    did   the   reply 
appear   of   the   younger  Buxtorf,   Tractatus   de  punctorum   ct 
accentuum    in    libris    V.    T.    licbraicis    crigine,    antiquitate   et 
auctoritatc,  in  which  he  sought  to  vindicate  against  Cappellus 
the   theory  that  had  been  maintained  by   his   father.     This 
theory    found    also     an    advocate     in     Denmark     in     J.    J. 
Bircherodius,  who   in  1687  published  a   treatise   Punctorum 


§  78.    ORIGIN  OF  THE  VOWEL  SIGNS.  209 

Ebraicorum  authenticce  et  liblicce  vindicicv.  The  arguments 
of  Cappellus,  however,  in  spite  of  some  flaws,  proved  so  con 
clusive,  that  all  opposition  was  vain.  Equally  unavailing 
was  the  acknowledgment  on  the  part  of  the  Swiss  in  their 
confessional  writings  of  the  authority  of  the  traditional 
pronunciation.  The  view  maintained  by  Cappellus  prevailed 
more  and  more,  and  had  indeed  already  been  long  an  acquisi 
tion  acknowledged  by  all,  when  new  discoveries  confirmed 
it  in  a  surprising  manner,  and  at  the  same  time  began  to 
spread  light  to  some  extent  upon  the  dark  question  of  the 
origin  of  the  pointing. 

Compare  Schnedermann,  Die  Controverse  des  L.  Cappellus 
mit  den  Buxtorfern,  1879  ;  Hersmann,  Zur  Gescliiclite  des 
Strcites  uber  die  Entstehung  d.  hebr.  Punctation.  Progr.  d. 
llealgymn.  Iluhrort.  1885  (unknown  to  me). 

The  saying  of  Mar-Natronai's  referred  to  is  quoted  by  Luz- 
zatto,  Kerem  ckemed,  iii.  200.  On  other  Ptabbis,  compare  Journal 
asiatique,  1870,  xvi.  468,  and  Ginsburg's  edition  of  Elias 
Levita's  Massoreth  ha-massoreth  referred  to  in  §  31.  For  an 
opposite  statement,  we  may  refer  to  Aaron  ben  Asher,  see 
Baer  and  Strack,  Dikduke,  p.  11. 

Eairnund  Martin  (Pugio  field,  Leipsic  1687,  p.  697)  on 
Hosea  ix.  12,  Scribce  punctarunt  s"ii^'a  (i.e.  incarnatio  mca  ct 
derivatur  a  "IBQ  q.e.  caro)  sicut  pundatur  m^o  quod  cst :  in 
rcccsso  meo. 

Luther  on  Gen.  xlvii.  31  (Opera  lat.  Erlang.  xi.  85): 
"  Tempore  Hieronymi  nondum  sane  videtur  fuisse  usus  punc- 
torum,  sed  absque  illis  tota  Biblia  lecta  sunt.  Eecentiores 
vere  Hebrieos,  qui  judicium  de  vero  sensu  et  intellectu  linguae 
sibi  summit,  qui  tamen  non  arnici,  sed  hostes  Scriptural  sunt, 
non  recipio.  Ideo  sa3pe  contra  puncta  pronuntio,  nisi  con- 
gruat  prior  sententia  cnm  novo  testamento."  Compare  Calvin 
on  Zechariah  xi.  7  (Prcelectiones  in  12  Prophctas,  1581,  p.  676), 
and  Zwingli,  Prccfatio  in  apologiam  complanationis  Isaice  (Opera 
ed.  Schuler  and  Schultheis,  v.  556). 

Formula  cons.  Helvet.  Can.  ii. :  "  In  specie  autem  Hebraicus 
Veteris  Test.  Codex,  quern  ex  traditione  ecclesioe  Judaicse,  cui 

o 


210  §  79.    HALF  VOWELS  AS  VOWEL  SIGNS. 

olim  Oracula  Dei  commissa  sunt,  accepimus  hodieque  retine^ 
rnus,  turn  quoad  consones,  turn  quoad  vocales,  sive  puncta  ipsa, 
sive  punctorum  saltern  potestatem,  cet." 

79.  The  Hebrew  writing  was  at  first,  like  its  Semitic  sisters, 
exclusively  a  consonantal  writing,  a  sketch  with  the  pen  of 
the  speech,  familiarity  with  which  as  a  living  language, 
together  with  the  connection  of  context,  without  difficulty 
contributed  the  colour,  i.e.  the  vowels.  It  was  only  when 
Hebrew  became  a  dead  language,  in  which  tradition  and  study 
supplied  the  place  of  the  knowledge  that  comes  from  daily  use, 
the  need  was  felt  of  devising  a  system  of  visible  vocalisation. 

The  first  means  devised  consisted  in  a  wider  development 
of  the  germ  already  lying  in  the  old  system  of  writing.  In 
those  passages  where  the  written  indication  of  the  vowel 
sound  seemed  specially  desirable,  letters  were  added  without 
hesitation,  which  originally  were  signs  of  the  consonants  con 
nected  with  the  vowels,  as  direct  signs  of  the  corresponding 
vowels.  They  were  riot  then  in  any  danger  of  affixing  to  the 
text  their  own  private  interpretation.  That  these  letters  (vn, 
less  frequently  K),  which  are  often  designated  by  the  less  cor 
rect  name  matrcs  lectionis,  were  subsequently  used  to  a  very 
much  greater  extent  than  they  were  originally,  is  clearly 
proved  from  a  variety  of  facts.  On  the  Moabite  Stone  of 
Mesha  (§  75)  they  are  practically  not  present  at  all.  On  the 
Siloali  inscription  they  appear  only  as  signs  of  diphthongs ; 
while  the  coins  of  the  Maccabees  have  indeed  D'Hin'1,  alongside 
of  nn.T,  but  only  irnn  pan.  The  old  versions,  above  all  the 
LXX.,  translate  often  in  a  way  which  would  have  been  simply 
impossible  had  the  text  already  at  that  time  had  the  scriptio 
plena  which  it  has  now;  for  example,  Amos  ix.  12,  DT1K, 
LXX.  DIN:  Hosea  xii.  12,  D'-W,  LXX.  nnt? :  Kali,  i.  10, 
Dn'D,  Trg.  Syr.  Dno  :  Ezek.  xxxii.  29,  DHX,  LXX.  D-IS.  In 
the  Babylonian  Talmud  (Kidd.  30a)  it  is  expressly  said  :  "  We 
have  not  more  exact  information  about  the  scriptio  plena  and 


§  79.    HALF  VOWELS  AS  VOWEL  SIGNS.  211 

defectiva ;  and  finally,  the  diversities  between  the  manuscripts 
in  almost  all  cases  arise  from  the  different  placing  of  the  half 
vowels." 

How  incomplete  even  these  means  were  is  shown  from  the 
fact  that  the  short  vowels  were  left  wholly  without  any  mark 
ing,  and  the  special  tone  of  the  long  vowels  could  not  be  made 
plain  to  the  eye.  Thus  1  might  be  either  u  or  6,  *  might  be  i 
or  e,  n  final  might  be  either  6  or  d  or  e.  Yet  Hebrew  writing 
continued  to  occupy  this  standpoint  for  more  than  five  hundred 
years  after  Christ.  Proof  of  this  is  afforded  in  abundance  by 
the  older  Jewish  and  Christian  memorials.  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  like  Origen  and  Jerome,  knew,  indeed,  a  particular 
pronunciation  of  the  Hebrew  text,  but  they  had  only  their 
Jewish  teachers  to  thank  for  this,  and  not  any  system  of  signs. 
Whenever  any  exact  statement  had  to  be  made  about  vocalisa 
tion,  the  use  of  a  half  vowel  was  the  only  graphic  means 
whereby  this  could  be  visibly  represented.  So,  too,  in  the 
Talmud,  which  in  controversial  cases  either  used  the  half 
vowels  or  left  it  to  the  readers  to  determine  the  intended 
pronunciation  (e.g.  1}  Sank.  4«-).  Also  Sephcr  Thorn  and  Massclcct 
Sophcrim  prove  the  same  thing  by  their  silence ;  since  they 
forbid  the  use  of  the  Soph  pasuk  in  the  Torah  rolls  (§  84), 
they  would  have  still  more  determinedly  have  forbidden  the 
use  of  the  vowel  signs,  had  these  then  really  been  in  existence. 
A  faithful  picture  of  the  state  of  matters  at  that  time  is  given 
in  the  synagogue  rolls,  where  all  later  marks  of  pointing  are 
wanting,  while  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  manuscripts  (§  29) 
are  satisfied  with  indicating  the  special  pronunciation  of  par 
ticular  words  by  means  of  a  diacritical  line  over  the  consonants. 

Compare  Chwolson,  Die  Quiescenten  ^n  in  der  althclrdischcn 
Orthographic,  Verhandl.  Oriental  Congress,  ii.  459-490; 
Wellhausen-Bleek,  Einleitung,  p.  634  ff.  In  the  other 
Semitic  languages  also  half  vowels  were  commonly  used  as 
vowel  letters,  but  in  various  degrees.  The  Arabic  employed 


212  §  79.    HALF  VOWELS  AS  VOWEL  SIGNS. 

them  strictly  only  for  long  vowels,  while  in  an  increasing 
measure  we  find  them  used  for  short  vowels  in  the  Syriac 
writings  of  Palestinian  Christians  and  Jews.  This  means  of 
vocalisation  was  finally  carried  out  in  a  systematic  way  in 
the  Mandean  writing,  where,  however,  y  also  in  several  cases 
appears  as  a  vowel  sign  (Noldeke,  Mandaische  Grammatik, 
p.  3  ff.).  Further,  also,  of  a  similar  character  is  the  use  of 
N^iy  in  the  Jewish  transcription  of  modern  languages,  and 
finally,  the  use  of  the  letters  sniry  in  the  Greek  alphabet. 
Compare  Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  ii.  39  ff.,  who  at  the  same 
time  treats  of  the  A  vesta  writings  in  this  connection.  The 
Karaites  constructed  a  most  peculiar  phonetic  style  of  writing 
in  their  Bible  manuscripts  written  with  Arabic  letters.  See 
Hoerning,  Sechs  Jcarait.  Manuscr.  ix.  sqq.  The  warning  of 
Noldeke  (ZDMG,  xxxii.  593)  against  considering  the  ortho 
graphy  of  the  Mesha  tablet  without  further  examination 
as  Old  Hebrew  has  recently  been  justified  by  the  Siloali 
inscription.  While  the  diphthongs  on  the  stone  of  Mesha 
are  not  indicated  by  signs,  the  Siloah  inscription  has  niy,  ^%1D, 
etc.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  still  vx  for  p%  ^P  for  i>ip,  iv 
for  iiv.  Compare  ZDPV,  v.  206.  So,  too,  trfcO  in  this 
inscription  shows  that  cases  in  the  Old  Testament  like  mn 
for  Truxn,  TO*  for  "nxs*,  where  an  etymological  N  has  been 
omitted,  must  be  treated  as  exceptions.  Of  special  im 
portance  in  connection  with  textual  criticism  is  the  question, 
whether  the  final  vowels  in  Hebrew  had  been  originally  un 
marked.  Compare  Gramm.  xxv.  p.  33. 

The  Talmudic  frnpfti?  EN  mater  lectionis  indicates  a  proof 
drawn  directly  from  the  traditional  reading  in  opposition  to 
rnDoi>  DS,  which  is  used  if  the  proof  is  drawn  from  the 
abstract  possibilities  of  the  text.  See  Hupfeld,  TSK,  1830, 
p.  556  ;  Strack,  Prolegomena,  p.  69  ;  Wellhausen-Bleek, 
Eirileitung,  p.  616.  And  on  the  other  side,  e.g.  Levy,  Neuheb. 
Worterbuch,  i.  92. 

Ewald  (Lelirbucli  d.  hebr.  Spraclie,  §  20  f.)  is  wrong  in  con 
cluding  from  the  words  of  Origen  (De  la  Rue,  iv.  141) :  Trd\iv 
ra>  lov&a  Trap  rjfuv  fjiev  o  Bevrepos  ' Avvav  elvat,  Xeyerat,  irapa 
Be  'Eftaiois  ' flvdv  o  ecrriv  TTOVOS  avrcoi',  "that  our  Massora 


§  80.    THE  NEW  VOWEL  SIGNS.  213 

then  existed  essentially  in  the  one  form  or  in  the  other.  The 
true  relationship  is  seen  from  the  remarks  of  Jerome.  He 
also  frequently  points  (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 
his  remarks  (e.g.  on  Hab.  iii.  5)  :  "  Pro  eo  quod  nos  trans- 
tulimus  mortem  in  Hebrteo  tres  literse  positae  sunt :  Daleth, 
Beth,  Res,  absque  ulla  vocali,  quae  si  legantur  dadar  '  verbum ' 
significant,  si  deber  'pestem';"  (on  Hosea  xiii.  3):  "  Apud 
Hebrseos  locusta  et  fumarium  iisdem  scribitur  literis  Aleph, 
Kes,  Beth,  He.  Quod  si  legatur  arbe  ' locusta'  dicitur,  si 
aroba,  '  fumarium/ "  By  vocales  he  understands  the  half 
vowels  referred  to,  e.g.  on  Isaiah  xxxviii.  14:  "Media  vocalis 
litera  Vau  si  ponatur  inter  duas  Samach,  legitur  '  sus '  et 
appellatur  equus,  si  Jod  legitur  '  sis  '  et  hirundo  dicitur."  The 
word  acccntus  means  with  him  the  pronunciation  of  the  word, 
e.g.  Epist.  73,  Ad  Euagrium :  "Nee  refert  utrum  Salim  aut 
Salem  nominatur,  cum  vocalibus  in  medio  literis  perraro 
utuntur  Hebnei,  et  pro  voluntate  lectorum  atque  varietate 
regionum  eoclem  verba  diversis  sonis  atque  accentibus  pro- 
ferantur."  Compare  Hupfeld,  TSK,  1 8 3 0,  p.  5  7 1  ff.  Nowack, 
Die  Bcdeutung  d  Hier.  fur  d.  Alttcstamentl.  Textkritik,  p.  43  ff. 
In  the  Talmud  rmpj  means,  either  the  abnormal  points 
mentioned  in  §  35,  or  the  angles  and  corners  of  the  letters, 
e.g.  jer.  Cliag.  ii.  2,  fol.  77c. 

80.  The  insufficiency  of  the  means  described  in  §  79  led 
the  Jews  to  seek  out  a  new  and  more  certain  system,  which, 
as  Aaron  ben  Asher  (§  32)  expresses  it,  might  help  the 
reader  to  avoid  confounding  *™  with  N^J,  i"nib>  with  rryiD, 
ite  with  -^.  In  the  choosing  of  a  means  for  the  attainment 
of  this  end,  owing  to  the  view  of  Scripture  then  prevailing,  all 
systems  were  CL  priori  excluded  which  would  have  involved  an 
alteration  of  the  traditional  letters,  so  that,  e.g.,  there  could  be 
no  thought  of  such  an  invention  as  the  Ethiopic  alphabet. 
What  had  to  be  done  rather  was  to  discover  a  system,  which 


214  §  80.    THE  NEW  VOWEL  SIGNS. 

would  not  make  the  vowel  signs  appear  of  equal  importance 
with  the  old  letters.  In  this  way  the  present  well-known 
vowel  system  had  its  origin.  It  consists,  as  we  know  it,  of 
simple  points  and  strokes,  and  so  for  the  most  part  reminds 
one  of  the  East  Syrian  pointing.  And  seeing  now  that  this 
system  of  signs  can  be  traced  back  to  the  fifth  century,  it 
must  be  always  regarded  as  a  possibility  that  the  inventors  of 
the  Hebrew  system  had  been  influenced  by  the  Syrian. 

Although  the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  system  of  pointing  still 
lies  in  obscurity,  it  has  yet  become  possible  by  means  of 
Firkowitzsch's  rich  collection  of  manuscripts  to  mark  within 
limits  to  some  extent  the  period  of  its  origin.  While  indeed, 
as  already  remarked,  the  post-Talmudic  treatises  Seplier  Thora 
and  MasscJcet  Sopherim  knew  of  no  system  of  signs,  it  is  proved 
i'rom  statements  in  these  manuscripts  that  the  punctuator 
Aaron  (§§  30.  32),  living  in  the  first  half  of  the  tenth  century, 
belonged  to  a  family  which  occupied  itself  through  five 
generations  with  the  pointing  of  the  text,  whose  oldest 
member,  Asher  ha-Zakken,  must  have  flourished  as  early  as 
the  eighth  century.  According  to  this  the  origin  of  the 
pointing  must  be  assigned  to  the  seventh  or  eighth  century. 

The  sign  for  a  in  the  usual  system  might  be  considered  an 
abbreviated^,  as  in  the  system  spoken  of  in  §  81.  But  in 
many  manuscripts  (as  in  the  South  Arabic,  compare  Journal 
asiatique,  1870,  ii.  363,  and  in  the  Karaite  facsimiles  of 
Hoerning),  Kametz  has  the  form  — ,  which  probably  was  the 
original. 

On  the  forefathers  of  Aaron,  compare  TSK,  1875,  p.  745  ; 
ZL T,  1 8  7 5,  p.  6 1 2  f. ;  Baer  and  Strack,  Dikduke,  x.  In  opposi 
tion  to  the  ordinary  view,  Griitz  seeks  with  unwearied  zeal  to 
prove  that  Aaron  was  a  Karaite.  See  Geschichte  der  Juden, 
v.  533  ff. ;  MGWJt  1881,  p.  366,  1885,  p.  102  f. 

A  Syrian  Codex  of  the  year  412,  written  in  Edessa 
(British  Museum  12150),  has  already  the  vowels  marked  by 
means  of  points.  Compare  besides  on  the  Syrian  pointing : 


§  81.    THE  SUPEPiLINEAll  SYSTEM.  215 

Evvakl,  Abhandluncjcn  zur  orient,  und  bill.  Literatur,  1832, 
p.  53  ff.;  ZKM,  1837,  p.  204  ff.,  1839,  p.  109  ff. ;  Martin, 
Histoire  de  la  punctation  chcz  les  Syriens,  1875  ;  Jacobi 
Epistola  de  orthoyraphia  syriaca,  1869;  Journal  Asiatique, 
1867,  i.  447  ff.,  1872,  i.  305  ff . ;  Nestle,  ZMDG,  xxx. 
525  ff. ;  Wright,  Catalogue  of  the  Syr.  MSS.  in  British 
Museum,  iii.  1168  ff. 

That  the  usual  system  only  attained  by  degrees  its  present 
wonderful  nicety  is  proved  by  various  indications.  Compare 
above,  §§  27,  30  ;  Dillmann  on  Gen.  xliii.  26. 

81.  Besides  the  system  of  pointing  that  is  now  common, 
another  system,  differing  from  it  in  some  respects,  has  come 
to  light  since  the  year  1840.  This  second  system,  resting  as 
it  does  on  statements  in  various  Bible  manuscripts,  is  usually 
called  the  "  Babylonian,"  and  is  regarded  as  that  which 
prevailed  in  the  Babylonian  schools.  The  situation,  however, 
is  not  so  simple,  as  recently  Wickes,  on  good  grounds,  has 
pointed  out.  The  divergent  system  has  become  known  to  us 
from  Babylonian  and  South  Arabian  manuscripts ;  but  that  it 
was  not  the  only  Babylonian  system,  and  that  the  Babylonians 
in  general  did  much  rather  use  the  ordinary,  so-called 
"  Tiberian "  or  Palestinian,  can  be  proved  to  demonstration. 
Xot  only  does  Saadia,  who  from  A.D.  928  wrought  in  Baby 
lon,  therefore  shortly  after  the  time  in  which  the  Codex  of 
the  Prophets  provided  with  the  divergent  system  of  pointing 
was  written  (see  §  28),  speak  as  little  as  the  Massoretes  and 
Rabbis  of  such  a  system  as  characteristic  of  the  Babylonians, 
but  the  traditional  readings  of  the  "  Babylonians"  (§  30)  are 
sometimes  of  a  kind  that  the  "  Babylonian  "  system  of  point 
ing  would  have  been  absolutely  incapable  of  expressing 
graphically  the  distinction  indicated.  The  facts  of  the  case, 
therefore,  are  more  correctly  represented  by  saying  that  this 
second  system  had  been  made  use  of  in  Babylon  alongside  of 
the  received  system,  but  not  to  such  an  extent  that  it  attracted 
any  particular  notice  from  the  other  Jews.  Until  future 


216  §  81.  THE  SUPERLINEAR  SYSTEM. 

discoveries  lead  to  further  conclusions,  we  had  better  denomi 
nate  the  divergent  system  by  the  name  of  the  "  second,"  or, 
in  accordance  with  its  peculiar  form,  the  "  superlinear " 
system. 

For  the  more  exact  determining  of  the  points  of  difference 
between  the  two  systems,  we  are  directed  to  the  conclusions 
to  be  drawn  from  their  peculiar  forms.  Now  the  character 
istic  of  the  second  system,  besides  the  placing  of  the  vowels 
•above  the  letters,  is,  that  the  signs  for  d  (o)  and  $  consist  of  a 
reduced  reproduction  of  the  letters  K  and  1,  the  sign  for  a,  as 
it  seems,  of  a  small  y.  If,  then,  we  should  further  consider 
the  point  by  which  i  is  indicated  a  contracted  \  and  the 
double  point  :  for  d  as  a  bisected  1,  we  should  then  have  a 
completed  system  which  reminds  us  of  the  West  Syrian 
system  of  pointing  by  means  of  the  Greek  vowel  signs  used 
since  A.D.  700,  and  which  may  be  considered  an  independent 
invention  alongside  of  the  received  system.  But  this  con 
ception  of  it  is  not  confirmed  on  closer  examination.  The 
superlinear  signs  for  i  and  £  (N  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  is  even  by  this  made 
probable.  This  impression  is  further  strengthened  by  the  fact 
that  some  manuscripts  for  il  phnc  scriptum  use  simply  the 
ordinary  sign  i.  Since  then  the  recently  published  Karaite 
manuscripts  (§  28),  which  in  part  had  their  origin  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Bagdad,  follow  upon  the  whole  the  common 
system,  but  designate  the  u  by  an  Arabic  damma,  i.e.  a 
small  1,  it  is  natural  to  assume  that  even  the  above-mentioned 
peculiarities  of  the  superlinear  system  should  be  regarded  as 
an  after  growth  and  a  further  development  of  the  Arabic 
system  of  indicating  the  vowels,  in  which  indeed  1,  and 
partially  K,  appear  as  vowel  signs.  According  to  this,  there 
fore,  the  superlinear  system  would  be  a  secondary  modification 


THE  SUPERLINEAR  SYSTEM.  21  7 

of  an  older  system  essentially  identical  with  the  received. 
Perhaps  also  in  this  way  the  position  of  the  signs  over  the 
letters  can  be  explained,  for  by  this  a  collision  with  the  older 
system  would  be  avoided,  which  would  then  also  enable  us  to 
understand  how  the  double  point  was  made  the  sign  of  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.  Finally,  Wickes 
also  has  come  to  the  same  result  by  means  of  a  comparison 
of  the  superlinear  accentuation  with  the  received. 

The  older  literature  on  the  "  Babylonian  "  pointing  (among 
which  especially  see  :  Pinsker,  Einfiilirung  in  die  Babylon  Heir. 
Pnnctation,  1863)  is  given  in  Strack's  edition  of  the  Babylonian 
Prophet-Codex,  p.  vii,  and  Strack-Harkavy's  Katalog.  der  heir. 
Bibelhandscliriften  zu  St.  Petersburg,  1875,  p.  223  f.  Further, 
we  may  mention:  ZLT,  1875,  p.  619  ff.,  1877,  p.  ISff.  ; 
Derenbourg,  Revue  crit.  1879,  p.  453  ff.  ;  M.  Schwab,  Act. 
de  la  soc.  phil.  vii.  165-212;  Griitz,  MGWJ,  1881, 
p.  348ff.;  Strack  in  the  Wissesnch.  JahresbericUt  iiler  d.  morgenl. 
Studien  in  Jahre,  1879,  p.  124;  Merx,  Verlmndlungen  d. 
Berl.  Orient.  Congr.  i.  188  ff . ;  and  especially  Wickes, 
Accentuation  of  the  so-called  Prose  Books,  1887,  p.  142  ff. 
The  manuscripts  with  "  Babylonian "  pointing  are  given  in 
Strack's  edition  of  the  Prophet  Codex,  in  Merx's  Chrestomatliia 
targumica,  p.  xv,  and  in  Baer's  Liber  JoU,  p.  iv  sq. 

In  an  epigraph  to  a  Pentateuch  Codex  with  Targum  to  be 
found  at  Parma,  where  mention  is  made  of  the  superlinear 
system  (rbytf?  Ipuo),  it  is  ascribed  to  the  "iiC'N  fitf.  See 
Zunz,  Zur  Gescliichte  und  Literatur,  p.  110;  Giiitz,  Gfescliichte 
der  Juden,  v.  556  ;  Wickes,  Accentuation  of  so-called  Prose 
Books,  p.  142.  So,  too,  in  the  Massoretic  notes  in  the 
Tschufutkale  manuscript.  Sometimes  the  superlinear  vowel 
system  is  designated  the  "  Oriental."  See  Wickes,  Accentua 
tion,  p.  145ft.  Indeed,  the  Babylonian  Prophet  Codex  is 
also  a  witness  to  the  fact  that  this  system  was  used  in 


218  §  82.    SIGNS  OF  ACCENTUATION. 

Babylon.  But  with  perfect  right  Wickes  emphasises  the  fact 
that  if  in  Ex.  xxiii.  5  32yprt  is  handed  down  as  a  "  Baby 
lonian  "  reading  in  contrast  to  3ayrn  the  "Western,"  the  super- 
linear  system,  which  had  no  proper  sign  for  Segol,  would  not 
have  been  able  in  this  case  to  give  expression  to  the  traditional 
pronunciation.  So,  too,  Saadia  knows  Segol  as  one  of  the 
Hebrew  vowels,  which  is  irreconcilable  with  the  Babylonian 
system. 

Although  up  to  this  time  relatively  few  manuscripts  with 
the  superlinear  pointing  are  known,  there  are  yet  to  be  found 
in  these  a  considerable  diversity  in  regard  to  details.  In  the 
South  Arabian  manuscripts  the  following  signs  are  met  with  : 
&  a  and  o,  N  i,  K  e,  K  u,  K  0,  K  a  and  §=N  (the  horizontal 
stroke  indicates  Sheva).  In  the  Job  Codex,  of  which  Baer's 
Liber  Jobi  contains  a  facsimile,  and  in  the  Prophet  Codex  the 
system  is  complicated,  for  the  sign  for  Sheva  is  also  combined 
with  the  other  vowels.  See  Stade,  Lekrbuch  der  hebr. 
Grammatik,  §  37.  In  this  way,  no  doubt,  originated  a  sign 
for  e  (namely  x) ;  but,  as  it  seems,  it  was  only  used  if  an  e 
lost  the  tone ;  otherwise  a  or  %  stood  for  Scgol.  While  the 
Prophet  Codex  represents  il  by  \  the  sheet  produced  by 
facsimile  from  Job  has  sometimes  this  sign,  sometimes  the 
superlinear. 

On  the  Karaite  manuscripts,  compare  Hoerning,  Seeks 
Karait.  Manuscr.  p.  1 0  f. 

82.  In  all  probability,  contemporaneously  with  the  intro 
duction  of  the  vowel  signs  the  text  was  provided  with  a 
system  of  accentuation  marks,  which  played  the  double  role 
of  indicating  the  tone  syllable  of  the  words  and  their  logical 
superordinatiori  or  subordination  in  the  verse  as  a  whole. 

In  the  Talmud,  Masseket  Sopherim,  the  Synagogue  rolls  and 
the  Samaritan  manuscripts,  these  signs  are  as  completely  un 
known  as  are  the  vowel  signs.  The  superlinear  vowel  system 
is,  as  already  indicated  in  §  81,  accompanied  by  a  divergent 
system  of  accents,  in  which  the  accents  are  indicated  partly 
by  the  initial  letters  of  their  names.  This  is  found,  as  it 


§  83.    SEPARATION  OF  WORDS.  219 

seems,  in  all  books,  whereas  the  received  system  of  pointing 
has  for  the  three  poetical  books,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  and  the 
Book  of  Job  (K"»n),  a  separate  system. 

There  are  five  words  mentioned  in  I).  Joma  52a,  the  con 
nection  of  which  in  the  verse  were  doubtful  (namely,  HN^, 
Gen.  iv.  7  ;  DHp^c,  Ex.  xxv.  35  ;  IHD,  Ex.  xvii.  9  ;  TPN, 
Gen.  xlix.  7;  Dpi,  Deut.  xxxi.  16),  which  speaks  against  the 
existence  of  a  system  of  accentuation.  Compare  Berliner, 
Beitrdgc  zur  liebr.  GframmatiJe,  29  f. 

On  the  accents,  compare  Heiclenheim,  Scplier  Mischpcte 
hateamim,  1808  ;  Jhuda  b.  Bal'ams,  Abhandlung  uber  die 
poetischen  Accente,  eel.  Polak,  Amsterdam,  1858  ;  Baer,  Thorath 
Emeth,  1852  ;  and  on  the  position  of  Metheg.  in  Merx,  Archiv 
fur  wiss  E.  d.  A.  T.  i.  55  ff. ;  Griitz,  MGWJ,  1882,  p.  385  ff.  ; 
Wickes,  A  Treatise  on  the  Accentuation  of  the  Three  Poetical 
Books,  London  1881,  and  A  Treatise  on  the  Accentuation  of 
the  Twenty-one  so-called  Prose  Books,  Oxford  1887.  Compare 
Baer  and  Strack,  DiJcduke,  pp.  16-33  ;  and  on  the  Accentuation 
in  Codex  Rcuchlin :  Baer,  Liber  Jcremice,  p.  ix.  On  the 
Babylonian  system:  ZLT,  1875,  p.  606,  1877,  p.  31  ff.  ; 
Wickes,  Accentuation  of  the  Prose  Books,  p.  142  ff. 


4   The  Divisions  of  the  Text. 

83.  Several  Semitic  peoples,  like  the  South  Arabians, 
Ethiopians,  Samaritans,  and  in  part  also  the  Phoenicians,  mark 
the  separation  of  individual  words  in  a  piece  of  writing  by 
means  of  a  point  or  stroke  inserted  between  them.  The 
conjecture  naturally  suggests  itself  that  at  one  time  the 
Hebrews  also  had  separated  the  individual  words  of  their 
sacred  text  in  a  similar  way,  partly  because  not  only  the 
Mesha  tablet  but  also  the  Siloah  inscription  (§  75)  has  a 
point  between  the  several  words,  partly  because  the  double 
point  dividing  verses  (Soph  pasuk,  §  84)  can  be  most  simply 
conceived  of  as  originating  through  the  doubling  of  such  a 


220  §  84.    SEPARATION  OF  VERSES. 

point.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  certain  that  this  point 
in  any  case  has  not  been  regularly  used,  because  we  could  not 
then  account  for  the  frequent  cases  in  which  the  LXX. 
divides  the  words  otherwise  than  the  Massoretic  text  (com 
pare  §  77),  and  we  have  seen  also  in  §  33  that  the  Jewish 
tradition  itself  alludes  to  certain  passages  in  which  the 
division  of  words  was  uncertain.  In  the  Babylonian  Talmud 
(b.  McnacJwth  30 a,  compare  Massekct  Sopherim,  ii.)  a  point  for 
separating  words  is  unknown.  It  is  rather  required  that 
between  the  several  words  an  empty  space  should  be  left  as 
large  as  a  letter,  while  the  space  left  between  letter  and  letter 
within  the  word  should  just  be  the  breadth  of  a  hair.  Yet 
the  hypothesis  that  in  earlier  times  a  scriptio  continua  had 
been  in  use  in  the  Old  Testament  texts  is  unproved.  How 
easily  the  letters  might  be  falsely  divided  is  shown  by  the 
common  Bible  manuscripts  themselves,  which  yet  labour  after 
the  observing  of  the  Talmudical  prescriptions. 

On  the  divergent  systems  of  dividing  words  that  appear  in 
Jerome,  see  Nbwack,  Diz  Bedeutung  d.  Hicr.fiir  d.  Alttestamentl. 
Textkritik,  p.  41  f. 

Oil  the  final  letters,  compare  §  77. 

84.  The  double  point,  Soph  pasuk,  for  marking  the  division 
of  verses,  is  made  mention  of  for  the  first  time  in  Seplier  Thora 
and  Masseket  Sop/ierim,  but  the  prohibition  on  the  part  of  these 
writings  against  the  use  of  this  double  point  in  the  synagogue 
rolls  shows  at  the  same  time  that  originally  it  had  been  foreign 
to  the  text.  With  this  also  agree  the  older  witnesses.  Even 
in  the  Mishna  "  verses  "  are  spoken  of,  P*DB  pi.  D^DS ;  but 
from  statements  in  the  Talmud  and  other  ancient  writings  it 
is  evident  that  among  the  Jews  much  diversity  of  usage  pre 
vailed  with  regard  to  the  dividing  of  the  several  verses,  and 
that  among  others  the  Babylonian  Jews  in  this  respect 
observed  a  different  rule  from  the  Palestinians.  The  same 
vacillation  shows  itself  when  we  compare  the  old  translations, 


§  84.    SErAKATION  OF  VERSES.  221 

especially  the  LXX.,  for  these  frequently  have  another 
system  of  verse  division  from  that  of  the  Massoretic  text. 
Since  those  differences  affect  also  the  poetical  books,  the 
practice  of  writing  in  lines  or  stichoi  cannot  have  been  in 
use  in  these  times,  which  yet  seems  so  natural  a  method  of 
writing  Hebrew  poetry.  On  the  other  hand,  perhaps  about 
the  time  of  Jerome,  this  system  had  found  its  way  into  the 
poetical  books,  while  the  colometric  style  of  writing  intro 
duced  by  this  father  of  the  Church  into  his  translation  of 
the  other  books  \vas  an  imitation  of  the  editions  of  classical 
writers. 

The  division  of  verses  that  is  now  common,  which  is  based 
on  the  parallelism  prevailing  in  the  poetical  books,  for  in  the 
other  writings  it  divides  paragraphs  of  the  size  of  a  poetical 
double  clause,  is  neither  the  Babylonian  nor  the  Palestinian, 
but  a  third  which  seems  to  have  been  fabricated  by  the  old 
Massoretes,  since  it  comes  to  view  first  of  all  in  the  above- 
mentioned  Massoretic  work  of  Aaron  ben  Asher  (§  32). 

Seplier  Thora,  iii.  4  (ed.  Kirchheim,  p.  6)  :  A  manuscript  in 
which  the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  marked  by  a  point  could 
not  be  used  for  public  reading.  Masseket  Soph* rim,  iii.  6. 
In  a  remarkable  way  the  synagogue  rolls  of  the  Crimea 
disregard  this  rule ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  four  Crimean 
private  manuscripts  have  no  Soph  iwsuk.  See  ZLT,  1875, 
p.  601. 

In  the  Mishna  (Meg.  iv.  4)  it  is  said :  "  The  readers  should 
read  not  less  than  three  Pesukim  of  the  Law.  Also  he  should 
not  read  more  than  one  Pasuk  at  a  time  to  the  interpreter 
(§  60).  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Prophets,  he  should  read 
three  Pesukim  at  a  time,  yet  only  if  the  three  Pesukim  are  not 
three  Parashas.  Compare  Wiilmer,  Antiquitates  Ebrceorum, 
i.  97  f .  ;  S track,  Prolegomena,  p.  78  ff.  ;  Geiger,  Urschrift, 
373  ;  Jud.  Zeitschrift,  ii.  140,  iv.  113,  265,  x.  24;  Nacli- 
gelassene  ScJiriften,  iv.  24. 

On    the   various     systems     of    verse     divisions,    compare 


222  §  84.    SEPARATION  OF  VERSES. 

especially  Gratz,  MGWJ,  1885,  p.  97  ff.  It  is  expressly 
said  in  1.  Kidd.  305  that  a  full  understanding  of  verse 
division  is  not  to  be  had.  According  to  this  passage,  which 
refers  to  the  Babylonian  division  of  verses,  the  Law  has  5888, 
the  Psalms  5896,  and  the  Chronicles  5880  verses.  At  the 
same  time  it  is  said  that  the  Palestinians  had  another  division, 
for  they,  among  other  differences,  divide  Exodus  xviii.  9  into 
three  verses.  Compare  MasseJcet  Sopherim,  ix.  3,  where  we 
probably  meet  with  the  Palestinian  division,  according  to 
which,  not  Lev.  xiii.  33,  but  Lev.  viii.  23  was  the  middle 
verse  of  the  Law.  Examples  of  passages  in  which  the  LXX. 
and  other  versions  divide  otherwise  than  the  Massorete  text, 
are  the  following :  Ps.  xvii.  3  f.,  xxiii.  5  f.,  Ixv.  8  f.,  xc.  2  f., 
xc.  11  f.,  xcv.  7  ;  Lam.  iii.  5  ;  Hos.  iv.  1 1  f . ;  Isa.  i.  12  f. 
Compare  Cappellus,  Critica  sacra,  lib.  iv.  cap.  3.  It  may 
also  be  mentioned  that  of  the  words  mentioned  in  §  82, 
whose  relation  is  doubtful,  one  stands  quite  at  the  beginning 
of  the  verse :  Gen.  xlix.  7  (compare  §  91). 

On  the  Massoretic  division  of  verses  compare  Baer  and 
Strack,  Dikduke,  p.  55  f. 

In  the  Babylonian  Talmud  (Meg.  16a)  mention  is  made 
of  a  kind  of  writing  in  lines  which  was  used  in  particular 
poetical  passages  ;  but  it  cannot  have  been  thoroughly  carried 
out  in  ancient  times  on  account  of  what  is  referred  to  in  the 
above  sections.  Compare  further,  Delitzsch,  Psalmen,  1883, 
p.  187;  Levy,  NeuheLrciischer  Worterbuch,  i.  163;  Strack, 
Prolegomena,  p.  80.  On  the  colometric  style  of  writing  in 
Origen,  compare  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  vi.  16  ;  Epiphanius, 
De  ponderibus  et  mens.  iv.  In  the  Preface  to  Isaiah  Jerome 
says  :  "  Nemo  cum  prophetas  versibus  viderit  esse  descriptos, 
metro  eos  restimet  apud  Hebraeos  ligari  et  aliquid  simile 
habere  de  psalmis  et  operibus  Salomonis ;  sed  quod  in 
Demosthene  et  in  Tullio  solet  fieri,  ut  per  cola  scribantur  et 
commata,  qui  utique  prosa  et  non  versibus  conscripserunt, 
iios  quoque  utilitati  legentium  providentes  interpretationem 
novam  novo  scribendi  genere  distinximus."  Compare  Morinus, 
Exercitationes  liblicce,  p.  476  ff.,  and,  in  general,  Birt,  Das 
antike  Buchwesen,  1882,  p.  180.  The  single  lines  bear  also 


§  85.  SEPARATION  OF  PARASHAS.  223 

in  Jerome  and  Augustine  the  name  versiculi  or  versus,  which 
Morinus  has  misunderstood,  p.  481  f. 

85.  Sections  embracing  a  larger  portion  of  the  text,  the  so- 
called  Parashas  (™~l%,  pl»  ™s^1^)  were  marked  by  the  Jews 
by  means  of  intervening  spaces,  which  in  the  case  of  a 
specially  complete  sundering  of  the  passage,  leave  all  the  rest 
of  the  line  empty,  whereas,  in  the  case  of  the  sundering 
indicated  being  less  thoroughgoing,  this  ended  in  the  middle 
of  the  line.  In  the  former  case,  the  Parashas  that  ended  in 
that  way  were  called  "  open,"  nimna,  in  the  latter  "  closed/' 
rtonp.  Subsequently  it  was  customary  to  indicate  by  a  a  or 
a  D,  to  which  class  the  Parasha  belonged.  In  the  editions 
and  in  most  of  the  manuscripts  the  use  of  these  signs  is 
confined  to  the  Law,  whereas  Baer  has  carried  it  out  in  his 
editions  (§  24)  even  in  the  other  books.  According  to  the 
received  divsion,  the  Law  contains  298  open  and  379  closed 
Parashas.  The  Karaite  manuscript,  written  in  Arabic  letters, 
edited  by  Hoerning,  diverges  in  part  from  this  division,  as 
also  elsewhere  in  this  direction  a  certain  vacillation  prevails. 

As  concerns  the  antiquity  of  this  division,  mention  is  made 
of  open  and  of  closed  Parashas  in  both  Talmuds.  See  lab.  Sabb. 
1035;  jer  Meg.  715.  Also  the  separate  Psalms  were  some 
times  (b.  Bcraclwtli  95,  10a)  called  Parashas.  In  the  Mishna 
there  is  no  mention  of  the  two  kinds  of  Parashas,  but  the 
Parasha  division  in  general  is  spoken  of,  and  particular 
examples  are  given  which,  if  not  always,  yet  at  least  for  the 
most  part,  agree  with  the  later  divisions  (Taanith,  4.  3  ; 
MenachotJi  3,  7,  and  often).  The  Mishna  knew  also  of 
Parashas  of  the  Prophets  (Meg.  4.  4).  Whether  these 
Parashas  were  outwardly  marked  as  early  as  the  times  of  the 
Tannaites,  as  at  any  rate  they  seem  to  have  been  in  the  time 
of  Jerome,  cannot  be  conclusively  decided.  And  that  there 
must  have  been  a  time  in  which  the  Psalms  were  not  in  a 
single  instance  distinguished  from  each  other  by  means  of 


224  §  85.    SEPARATION  OF  PARASIIAS. 

clear  intervals  may  be  concluded  from  the  vacillation  in 
reference  to  their  number  and  division  in  the  old  authorities 
for  the  text,  and  even  in  later  manuscripts. 

On  the  whole,  the  received  Parasha  division  is  to  be 
characterised  as  proper  and  fitting.  Instances  like  Ex.  vi. 
28,  Hag.  i.  15,  where  evidently  verses  that  go  together  are 
separated,  or  Isaiah  Ivi.  9,  where  the  separation  rests  on  an 
incorrect  exegesis,  are  comparatively  rare. 

Compare  Morinus,  Excrcitationes  BiUiccc,  p.  491  ff. ;  Hup- 
field,  TSK,  1837,  p.  837  ff.  ;  Strack,  Prolegomena,  p.  74  ff.  ; 
Geiger,  JilcL  Zeitsclirift,  x.  197  ;  Nacligelasscne  Schriflen,  iv. 
22  f.  ;  Gratz,  MGWJ,  1885,  p.  104  f. 

Originally  Parasha  only  means  a  section  in  general, 
specially  one  larger  than  a  verse.  Compare  b.  Berachoth  Q3a, 
where  "  a  verse  "  is  called  "  a  small  Parasha."  The  passage 
from  the  Mishna  (Meg.  4.  3),  referred  to  in  §  84,  proceeds  on 
the  assumption  that  sometimes  a  Parasha  may  consist  only  of 
one  verse,  which  actually  is  the  case  in  Isaiah  lii.  3  ff. 

The  Capitula  of  Jerome  sometimes  correspond  exactly  with 
the  Parashas,  e.g.,  Micali  vi.  9,  on  which  passage  he  expressly 
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,  TSKt  1837,  p.  842. 

On  the  division  of  the  Psalms,  compare  J.  Miiller, 
Masseket  Sopherim,  p.  222  f.;  Bsethgen,  in  the  Scliriften  d. 
Universittit  Kiel,  1879,  p.  9.  The  division  now  common, 
which  is  met  with  also  in  Luther,  makes  the  number  of  the 
Psalms  150.  This  is  also  the  number  in  the  LXX.,  but  it  is 
there  reached  in  another  way,  namely,  by  joining  Psalms  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.  Sail.  16.  1,  fol. 
15c,  gives  147  Psalms,  while  several  old  manuscripts  have 
also  less  than  150,  for  they  frequently  join  Psalms  xlii.  and 


9,9; 


§  8G.  DIVISION  INTO  CHAPTERS. 

xliii.,  and  cxiv.  and  cxv.  In  olden  times,  too,  Psalm  i.  was 
often  not  counted,  or  else  connected  with  Psalm  ii.  (see 
b.  Berachotli,  95;  Acts  xiii.  33  ;  Justin  Martyr,  \.  40),  so  that 
the  10th  Psalm  is  once  referred  to  (b.  Meg.  175)  as  the  9th. 

We  must  not  confound  with  the  Parasha  division  spoken  of 
in  the  above  section  the  liturgical  division  of  the  Law  into 
Parashas,  and  of  the  Prophets  into  Haphtaras  (moan).  This 
system  of  readings  was  connected  with  the  practice  of  the 
Babylonian  Jews,  which  overtook  the  reading  of  the  Law  in 
one  year  (b.  Meg.  315);  whereas  in  Palestine  a  three  years' 
course  had  been  introduced  (b.  Meg.  295  ;  compare  on  this 
matter  §  80).  Yet  the  now  authorised  fifty-four  liturgical 
Parashas  were  not  made  finally  valid  before  the  14th  century. 
They  were  only  externally  marked  in  the  Law,  and  this  was 
done  by  writing  a  or  D  three  times  in  the  empty  space  pre 
ceding  its  beginning.  With  the  exception  of  the  one  passage 
(Gen.  xlvii.  28),  their  beginnings  always  corresponded  with  the 
beginning  of  an  open  or  closed  Parasha.  Baer,  however,  in 
his  edition  of  Genesis,  gives  them  their  full  title,  ~p  nisna 
m  nz?"ia,  1^,  etc.  Compare  Jost,  Gcscliiclite  d.  Judenthums,  ii. 
137;  Strack,  Prolegomena,  p.  76  f . ;  Journal  asiatique, 
1870,  p.  531  ff. ;  and  especially  EEJ,  iii.  282-285,  vi. 
122  ff,  250  ff.,  vii.  146  ff. 

86.  It  has  usually  been  supposed  that  in  the  division  of 
the  text  into  Sedarim  D*~nD,  as  it  was  made  known  specially 
by  Jacob  ben  Chajim's  Bible  of  A.D.  1525,  we  have  an  attempt 
on  the  part  of  the  Jews  to  carry  out  an  actual  arrangement 
of  the  Old  Testament  in  chapters.  Eecently,  however, 
Theodor  has  sought  to  show  that  this  division  was  originally 
a  liturgical  one,  for  it  is  said  to  correspond  with  the  three 
years'  Palestinian  cycle  of  the  reading  of  the  Law  (§  85).  The 
Sedarim  division  of  the  other  writings  would  then  have  to  be 
regarded  as  a  later  imitation  of  the  Law  division.  In  any 
case,  and  to  this  others  have  already  called  attention,  this 
division  agrees  remarkably  with  the  order  of  the  old  Midrashim, 
which  decidedly  give  the  impression  of  having  been  homilies 

p 


226  §  86.  DIVISION  INTO  CHAPTERS. 

based  upon  these.  Moreover,  the  Sedarim  division  varies  not 
a  little.  The  Jerusalem  Talmud  (Sail.  16.  1,  fol.  15c,  com 
pare  Masseket  Sopherim,  16.  10,  xxx.)  gives  to  the  Law  175 
Sedarim.  On  the  other  hand,  the  division  made  known  by 
Jacob  ben  Chajirn  has  447  Sedarim,  of  which  154  are  in  the 
Law.  This  numbering  is  now  found  to  have  manuscript 
authority  in  a  Bible  Codex  of  the  year  1294.  Finally,  the 
Sou tli  Arabian  Massora  manuscript  edited  by  Derenbourg 
(§  32)  has  167  law  Sedarim,  with  which  the  Bible  of  the  year 
1010  is  in  substantial  agreement. 

The  division  into  chapters  which  now  has  secured  actual 
recognition  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  was  borrowed  by  the  Jews 
from  the  Christians.  After  a  variety  of  earlier  attempts,  the 
text  of  the  Vulgate  was  divided  into  chapters  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  in  order  that  it  might  be  possible  to  prepare  practical 
Bible  concordances.  This  division,  which  varies  here  and 
there  in  details,  was  used  first  of  all  by  Isaac  Nathan  in  his 
Hebrew  concordance,  prepared  1437-1448,  and  published  in 
1523,  and  subsequently  it  was  adopted  in  the  second  Bomberg 
Bible  in  A.D.  1521.  Unfortunately  in  many  passages  the 
work  was  done  just  in  a  haphazard  way,  and  though  we 
must  always  evidently  hold  by  it,  it  is  yet  to  be  recommended 
that  in  editions  of  the  text  and  translations,  the  portions  of  the 
text  should  be  otherwise  grouped,  when  the  blunders  are  so 
evident  and  generally  admitted  as  in  Gen.  ii.  1  ff. ;  Isa.  ix. 
1_6,  x.  1-4,  lii.  13-15. 

The  numbering  of  the  verses  naturally  presupposes  the 
division  into  chapters.  It  is  met  with  for  the  first  time  in 
the  Sabbioneta  edition  of  the  Pentateuch,  A.D.  1557  (§  62), 
and  applied  to  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  first  in  the 
Athias  Bible  of  A.D.  1661. 

On  the  Sedarim,  compare  Miiller,  Masseket  Sopherim, 
p.  220  ff.  ;  Journal  asiatiquc,  1870,  p.  529  ff. ;  Geiger,  Jud. 
Zcitsclirift,  1872,  p.  22  ;  Baer,  Liber  Genesis,  p.  92  ;  Theodor, 


§  87.  DIVISION  INTO  BOOKS.  227 

MGWJ,    1885,    p.    351    if.,   1886,    p.    212    ff.,    1887,   p. 
35  ff. 

On  the  chapters,  compare  Morinus,  Exercitationcs  bibliccc, 
pp.  484  f.,  487  f.  The  determining  of  the  date  as  given  we 
owe  to  Genebrardus,  Chronographia  (ed.  Paris  1660,  p.  631). 
In  the  following  century  Nicholas  von  Lyra  (quoted  by  Merx, 
Joel,  p.  320)  complains:  "  Signatio  capitulorum  in  bibliis 
nostris  est  frequenter  defectiva,  quia  frequenter  non  sequitur 
signationem  hebraicam  nee  etiam  Hieronymum,  ut  prsesertim 
in  antiquis  bibliis  secundum  Hieronymum  signatur." 

87.  There  was  mention  originally  of  a  division  into 
"  Books  "  with  reference  only  to  certain  particular  writings  of 
the  Old  Testament,  namely,  the  Pentateuch,  the  Book  of  the 
Twelve  Prophets,  the  Psalms,  and  Ezra-Nehemiah.  This 
division,  which  in  the  case  of  the  Twelve  Prophets  was  easily 
enough  understood,  is  also  in  those  other  writings  very  old. 
Thus  the  dividing  of  the  Psalms  into  five  books,  which  again 
without  doubt  presupposes  the  five-fold  division  of  the  Law, 
was  indirectly  witnessed  to  as  early  as  by  the  Chronicles 
(compare  1  Chron.  xvi.  8  ff.  with  Ps.  cvi.).  The  Talmud 
(b.  Baba  bathra,  lob)  requires  an  empty  space  of  four  lines 
between  the  Books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  of  three  lines 
between  the  Books  of  the  Minor  Prophets.  At  the  same 
time,  since  it  had  then  become  customary  to  write  all  or 
several  writings  in  one  volume,  four  empty  lines  are  required 
between  each  of  the  prophetic  writings.  In  some  manuscripts, 
e.g.  in  the  Bible  of  the  year  1010  (§  28),  one  empty  line  is 
found  between  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

In  the  printed  Bibles  it  became  customary  to  make  a 
further  division  of  particular  works.  In  Alexandria,  the  city 
of  literature  par  excellence,  the  practice  began,  even  in  the 
years  before  Christ,  of  substituting  short  and  convenient  rolls 
for  the  old  and  often  very  long  ones,  and  consequently  it  was 
found  necessary  to  divide  the  great  literary  works  into 


§  88.  LINGUISTIC  VALUE  OF  POINTING. 

vseparate  books.  Thus  it  also  happened  with  the  Alexandrine 
translation,  for  the  Book  of  Samuel,  the  Book  of  the  Kings, 
the  Book  of  Chronicles,  and  the  Book  of  Ezra,  were  each 
divided  into  two  books,  whereas  even  the  longest  prophetic 
writings  were  left  undivided.  Although  the  occasion  of  this 
division  was  removed  when  the  use  of  rolls  was  abandoned  in 
favour  of  the  Codex  form  (§  74),  it  was  still  retained,  and 
subsequently  was  adopted  from  the  Vulgate  into  the  Boniberg 
Bible  of  1521  (compare  §  86). 

Mention  is  made  of  the  five  books  of  Psalms  even  in 
I.  Kidd.  o'3a.  The  otherwise  so  well  instructed  Jerome 
strangely  enough  wished,  as  the  Preface  to  his  translation  of 
the  Psalms  shows  (Lagarde's  edition,  p.  1  f.),  to  reject  this 
division  as  one  not  genuinely  Jewish. 

On  the  Alexandrine  practice,  compare  Birt,  Das  antike 
Buchwesen,  p.  479.  Yet  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that 
mention  is  made,  though  indeed  more  rarely,  of  several 
"  books  "  being  in  one  roll,  and  of  one  "  book  "  consisting  of 
several  rolls  (compare  Eohde,  GGA,  1882,  p.  1541  f.). 


R — THE  INTERNAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  TEXT. 
1.    The  Linguistic  side  of  the  Transmission  of  Scripture. 

88.  Since  the  Massoretic  system  of  pointing  was  invented 
only  at  a  comparatively  late  date,  the  question  arises  as  to 
how  the  pronunciation,  that  was  made  visible  and  clear  by 
this  means,  is  related  to  the  actual  pronunciation  of  the 
Hebrew  as  a  living  language.  This  question  is  naturally  of 
fundamental  interest  in  connection  with  the  minute  study  of 
the  Hebrew  tongue,  but  it  will  also  reward  the  student  of  the 
history  of  the  text,  if  he  will  give  a  glance  at  it.  Here  now 
two  facts  are  firmly  established.  In  the  first  place,  we  never 
elsewhere  meet  with  a  system  of  pronunciation  so  thoroughly 


§  88.  LINGUISTIC  VALUE  OF  POINTING.  229 

characterised  by  inner  logical  consistency  as  that  which  lies 
before  us  in  the  Palestinian  system  of  pointing.  And,  in  the 
second  place,  it  is  certain  that  this  system  is  not  one  that  first 
takes  form  artificially  through  later  reflection,  but  is,  in  all 
essential  respects,  in  accordance  with  the  early  tradition.  This 
follows,  partly  from  the  incapacity  of  the  oldest  Massoretes  to 
understand  actually  the  system  of  pronunciation,  partly  from 
its  essential  agreement  with  the  transcriptions  in  Jerome  and 
Origen  (§  36),  and,  finally,  from  the  testimonies  regarding  the 
pronunciation  of  the  allied  Phoenician  language.  Only  the 
pronunciation  of  d  as  a,  which  is  presupposed  by  the  pointing, 
because  it  uses  the  same  sign  for  6  and  d,  is  to  be  considered 
as  a  novelty  which  is  to  be  met  with  in  Jerome  merely  in 
isolated  cases,  while  even  later  only  the  Polish-German  Jews 
so  pronounce  it,  whereas  the  Spanish  Jews  have  a  pure  «. 
On  the  other  hand,  with  regard  to  the  Sheva  it  is  not  to  be 
forgotten,  that  we  have  it  expressly  stated  by  Aaron  ben 
Aslier  and  other  rabbis,  that  this  sign  represents  various 
vowels  or  vowel  sounds  according  to  the  syllable  following, 
sometimes  e,  sometimes  i,  sometimes  a,  by  which  means 
apparent  differences  between  the  pointing  and  the  old  tran 
scriptions  transmitted  to  us  have  repeatedly  arisen. 

But  by  this  it  is  only  proved  that  the  system  of  pointing 
gives  visibility  to  what  had  once  actually  been  the  ordinary 
pronunciation  of  the  Hebrew,  and  indeed  the  best  now  acces 
sible  to  us,  but  by  no  means  that  the  Massoretic  pronunciation 
is  absolutely  the  oldest,  let  alone  that  it  is  the  only  one  that 
has  ever  been.  In  the  transcribed  proper  names  in  the  LXX. 
(§  36)  we  meet  with  a  style  of  pronunciation  considerably 
different  from  that  of  the  Massoretes,  which  no  doubt  may 
often  have  arisen  through  the  awkwardness  of  the  transcribers, 
and  through  a  certain  degeneration  of  the  language  on  the 
part  of  Jews  living  among  foreigners ;  but  nevertheless  here 
and  there  it  does  retain  the  original  form.  According  to 


230  §  88,  LINGUISTIC  VALUE  OF  POINTING. 

Jerome  (Epist.  73,  Ad  Evangduni)  it  was  admitted  that  in 
Hebrew  pro  varietate  regionum  eadem  verba  diversis  sonis  atque 
accentibus  were  pronounced.  To  this  are  to  be  added  further 
the  proofs  which  the  Massoretic  pronunciation  itself  affords  in 
favour  of  the  fact,  that  it  belonged  to  a  later  development  of 
the  language,  for  it  is  intelligible  only  through  the  postulating 
of  older  forms  from  which  the  present  had  their  origin.  That 
in  the  linguistic  investigations  in  connection  with  this  subject 
even  those  Greek  transcriptions  must  have  their  value  is 
clear,  but  the  systematic  and  thorough  use  of  these  means 
and  apparatus,  upon  the  necessity  of  which  Lagarde  has  laid 
special  stress,  is  still  in  its  infancy,  and  demands,  moreover,  in 
its  use  a  very  particular  measure  of  circumspection.  The 
same  is  true  in  a  still  higher  degree  of  the  transcriptions 
which  are  found  in  the  old  inscriptions  (§  36),  which  also  here 
and  there  can  shed  light  upon  an  antique  stage  of  the  Hebrew 
language,  and  especially  on  the  original  pronunciation  of  the 
proper  names. 

Compare  Schreiner,  Zur  Gescliichte  der  Ausspraclie  des 
Hebraischen,  ZAW,  vi.  213-259;  Kautzsch,  ZDMG,  xxxiv. 
388,  and  the  writings  referred  to  in  §  36. 

On  the  similarity  between  the  Massoretic  pronunciation  of 
the  Hebrew  and  the  pronunciation  of  the  Phoenician  known 
through  Plautus,  compare  Schroder,  Die  phonizische  Sprache, 
1869,  p.  120  ff. 

In  Jerome  K  is  pronounced  generally  as  d,  more  rarely 
as  o,  e.g.  ~bosor  "ij>3  (Isa.  xxxiv.  6),  zochor  "9J  (Isa.  xxvi.  14). 
Moreover,  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  the  transcriptions 
in  Jerome  are  not  rarely  vacillating,  which  in  many  cases 
must  be  ascribed  to  his  Jewish  teachers,  but  certainly  in 
many  to  his  own  inaccuracy. 

The  rules  with  reference  to  the  pronunciation  of  the  Sheva 
mobile  at  the  beginning  of  the  word  are  given  thus  by  ben 
Asher  (Dikduke,  ed.  Baer  and  Strack,  pp.  12  f.,  31  f.) :  before 
yod  it  is  i,  e.g.  Dto,  bijdm  (compare  Jerome  on  Isa.  xvii.  11 


§  88.  LINGUISTIC  VALUE  OF  POINTING.  231 

biom),  but  it  is  c,  if  the  yod  itself  has  i,  e.g.  7N~ib'v,  tfjisrdel 
(in  these  cases  ben  Naphtali  writes  7K"ipy,  which  undoubtedly 
agrees  with  the  old  pronunciation  Israel,  not  Jisrael ;  compare 
Haupt,  Beitrdye  zur  Assyriologie,  i.  17,  260  ;  the  practice  of 
b.  Naplitali,  moreover,  has  made  its  way  into  several  editions  of 
the  Tcxtus  Receptus :  Ps.  xlv.  10  ;  Prov.  xxx.  17  ;  Jer.  xxv.  26  ; 
Eccles.  ii.  1 3  ;  when  it  has  Metheg,  it  sounds  a,  e.g.  Nta3,  laid 
(compare  the  frequent  a  instead  of  Sheva  in  Jerome,  ZA  W,  iv. 
p.  29  f.)  ;  or  finally,  before  a  guttural  it  takes  the  vowel 
of  the  guttural,  e.g.  INp,  m°6d.  Elsewhere  it  sounds  e.  Compare 
on  the  somewhat  modified  rules  of  other  teachers,  ZA  W,  vi. 
237  f . ;  Gesenius-Kautzsch,  Gframmatik,  xxv.  §  10,  p.  48. 

On  the  significance  of  the  Greek  transcriptions  in  the 
Hexapla  and  in  the  LXX.,  compare  Lagarde,  Mittlieilungen,  ii. 
361  f . :  "  Uebersicht  liber  die  im  Aram.  .  .  .  ubliche 
Bildung  der  Nomina,"  passim.  If  the  orthography  of  the 
Siloah  inscription  (in  opposition  to  the  tablet  of  Mesha,  §  75) 
represents  the  original  pronunciation  of  i  as  au,  then  should 
forms  like  Avvav  instead  of  jjiN,  Avar)  instead  of  JMpta  (Num. 
xiii.  8),  be  regarded  as  an  older  pronunciation,  all  the  more  as 
the  Assyrians  write  ausi'a  (ZA,  ii.  261).  But  if  one  should 
bethink  him  that  the  Syrians  not  rarely  resolve  6  into  au  (e.g. 
ausar  instead  of  dsdr,  mraum  instead  of  Cri^£,  compare  Stade, 
Grammatik,  p.  120),  it  might  still  be  discussed  whether  a 
Greek  au  might  not  many  a  time  have  originated  in  a  similar 
way.  Further,  the  conclusions  drawn  by  Lagarde  from  forms 
like  SoSo/jLa,  SoXo/iow,  etc.,  in  favour  of  a  typal  form  qutul, 
ingeniously  as  they  are  vindicated,  are  yet  somewhat  pro 
blematical,  since  here  there  must  be  subsumed  a  pronunciation 
coloured  by  the  assimilating  of  the  mobile  vowel,  as  the  Mas- 
soretes  admitted  was  the  case  before  the  gutturals  (see  above). 
Compare  nifilim,  etc.,  in  Jerome,  ZAW,  iv.  80.  Finally,  it 
has  also  to  be  kept  in  mind  in  this  connection  that  even  the 
most  recent  translations  of  Arabic  place-names  show  how 
difficult  it  often  is  in  the  case  of  a  non-Semitic  ear  to  define 
precisely  a  sound  that  is  vibrating  between  a,  e,  i,  o.  Compare 
what  is  said  in  the  above  §  81  about  the  Babylonian  system 
of  pointing. 


232  §  89.  DEVELOPMENT  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

On  the  significance  of  the  names  transcribed  on  the  inscrip 
tions,  compare  Stade,  ZA  W,v.  168  f . ;  Haupt,  Beitrdge,  zur 
Assyriologie,  i.  169  f.  To  the  examples  there  named  may 
be  added :  Rasunu,  which  corresponds  to  the  Paaaawv  of  the 
LXX.  against  the  }^1  of  the  Massoretic  text. 

Many  niceties  of  the  Massoretic  pronunciation  can  only 
have  been  finally  established  by  the  introduction  of  the 
pointing,  among  these  also  various  superfine  forms.  Thus  we 
would  certainly  not  make  the  old  genuine  language  responsible 
for  a  form  like  ^,  Ps.  vii.  6,  or  D'nunn,  Zech.  x.  6.  The 
same  is  true  indeed  of  differentiating  forms  like  "T'SN  and  T3K, 
DS?B  and  DTO,  :£b  and  ?fe  SJ'1K  and  T^,  which  probably  rest 
on  artificial  forms,  although  these  may  have  been  found 
already  in  existence  by  the  Massoretes,  as  certainly  was  the 
case  with  the  sensible  pronunciation  H|p^  (LXX,  a- via 
Oavdrov).  Sometimes  errors  in  the  consonantal  text  have 
occasioned  impossible  forms,  e.g.  !STeh.  ii.  14;  Jer.  xv.  10. 


2.   The  Transmission  of  the  Text  according  to  its  real 
Contents. 

89.  In  the  form  in  which  the  Old  Testament  Textual 
Criticism  is  presently  conducted,  it  is  a  young  phenomenon. 
The  Eeformed  theologian  Cappellus  (t  1658),  and  Morinus 
(t  1659),  who  went  over  to  Catholicism,  had  indeed,  already 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  sketched  the  outlines  of  a 
criticism  of  Old  Testament  Text ;  but  this  remained  for 
a  long  time  disregarded,  and  only  now  has  a  beginning  been 
made  in  earnest  to  take  in  hand  the  necessary  preliminary 
labours.  Even  among  the  Jews  of  the  Middle  Ages  we  meet 
with  a  conception  of  Scripture  which  led  them  as  a  matter  of 
principle  to  exclude  all  criticism  of  the  text,  because  it 
regarded  all  traditional  divergences  of  the  text,  e.g.  the  Baby 
lonian  and  Palestinian  reading,  as  resting  on  independent 
revelations.  In  later  times  the  rigid  theory  of  inspiration  in 


§  89.  DEVELOPMENT  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM.  233 

the  older  Protestantism  contributed  to  the  branding  of  any 
attempt  to  improve  the  traditional  text  as  a  dangerous  under 
taking.  Indeed,  the  Formula  consensus  Hdvdici  (§  78),  with 
scrupulous  exactness,  expressly  rejects  all  that  apparatus  for 
textual  criticism  which  by  earlier  and  later  critics  of  the  text 
has  been  declared  indispensable.  And  even  in  modern 
times  have  there  been  several  scholars  who  in  practice  are 
disinclined  to  any  thoroughgoing  criticism  of  the  text,  or  who, 
where  it  is  at  all  possible,  hold  out  for  the  traditional  form  of 
the  text.  Now,  although  this  conservative  tendency  forms  a 
wholesome  drag  upon  the  not  infrequent  recklessly  revolu 
tionary  "  textual  emendations  "  of  some  critics,  and  it  remains 
a  not-to-be-forgotten  truth  that  the  traditional  Hebrew  text 
will  ever  have  an  advantage  over  the  text  that  lias  only 
indirectly  been  reached,  yet  the  opinion  always  more  and 
more  gains  ground  that  a  methodical  criticism  of  the  text  is  to 
be  regarded,  not  only  as  a  right,  but  also  as  a  duty  which  we 
owe  to  the  Old  Testament  writers,  and  to  the  noble  works 
which  they  have  left  behind.  The  evil  lies,  not  in  the  use  of 
the  apparatus  of  textual  criticism,  but  in  the  circumstance 
that  often  that  apparatus  is  insufficient. 

It  was  in  particular  the  result  of  the  great  collations  of 
manuscripts  undertaken  by  Kennicott  and  de  Eossi  (§  30)  which 
for  a  long  time  afforded  confirmation  to  the  notion  that  the 
traditional  form  of  the  text  should  be  considered  without  more 
ado  as  authentic.  The  Hebrew  manuscripts  exhibit  indeed  so 
remarkable  an  agreement,  that  a  strong  impression  is  produced 
of  the  care  which  the  Jews  had  expended  on  the  reproduction 
of  the  sacred  text.  But  even  although  this  imposing  agree 
ment  has  been  still  more  evidently  supported  docurnentarily 
by  the  oldest  recently  discovered  manuscripts,  yet  a  thorough 
going  examination  proves  that  the  text  preserved  with  such 
extraordinary  care  is,  after  all,  only  a  Tcxtus  Rcceptus,  the 
relation  of  which  to  the  original  text  still  remains  a  question 


234  §  89.  DEVELOPMENT  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

for  discussion.  And  that  these  two  forms  of  the  text  are  not 
without  further  inquiry  to  be  identified,  a  variety  of  circum 
stances  incontestably  proves.  Specially  convincing  are  the 
texts  which  in  the  Old  Testament  itself  lie  before  us  in  a 
double  form  (§  73),  and  which  often  in  details  differ  in  such 
a  way  that  only  the  one  form  can  be  correct.  But  even 
elsewhere  passages  are  met  witli  which  in  the  received  form 
are  absolutely  impossible  and  admit  only  of  one  explanation, 
namely,  that  of  an  error  of  the  text.  Even  if  the  state  of 
matters  were  such  that  only  a  single  instance  of  this  sort 
could  be  proved,  it  would  be  thereby  made  good,  that  the  text 
as  we  have  it  is  not  absolutely  in  harmony  with  the  original, 
and  so  there  originates  the  task,  which  cannot  be  put  aside,  of 
using  all  means  within  our  reach  in  order  to  make  clear  at 
all  points  the  relation  of  the  Textus  Rcceptus  to  the  oldest  text 
objectively  accessible  to  us ;  and  only  when  this  work  has 
been  done,  can  the  question  be  answered  as  to  whether  the 
task  of  Old  Testament  criticism  can  be  hereby  solved,  or 
whether  we  must  still  call  to  our  aid  a  well  considered 
conjectural  criticism. 

Tn  consideration  of  the  peculiar  history  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment  text  (§  78),  the  development  of  the  vowel  system  and 
the  consonantal  text  must  in  the  following  sketch  be  treated 
separately,  since  they  belong  to  two  different  periods,  and  do 
not  come  forward  with  the  same  authority. 

Compare  among  others,  Olshausen's  Prefaces  to  his  edition 
of  Hirzel's  Job  and  to  his  own  Commentary  on  the  Psalms, 
pp.  1 7-2  2  ;  Dillmann  in  Herzog's  Real- Encyclopaedic  2,  ii. 
399  f.;  Konig,  ZKWL,  1887,  pp.  273-297. 

Compare  the  interesting  statements  of  Saadia  about  the 
variations  in  the  Old  Testament  text  in  Baer  and  Strack, 
Dikduke,  p.  8  2  f.  Formula  consensus  Helvetici,  Canon  iii. : 
"  Eorum  proinde  sententiam  probare  neutiquam  possumus,  qui 
lectionem,  quam  Hebraicus  Codex  exhibet,  humano  tantum 


§  89.   DEVELOPMENT  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM.  235 

arbitrio  constitutam  esse  definiunt,  quique  lectionem  Heb- 
raicam,  quam  minus  commodam  judicant,  configere,  eamque 
ex  LXX.  seniorum  aliorumque  versionibus  Grsecis,  Codice 
Samaritano,  Targumim  Chaldaicis,  vel  aliunde  etiarn,  imo 
quandoque  ex  sola  ratione  emendare  religione  neutiqnam 
ducunt,  neque  adeo  alinm  lectionem  authenticam,  quam  qua3 
ex  collatis  inter  se  editionibus,  ipsiusque  etiain  Hebraici 
codicis,  quern  variis  inodis  corruptum  esse  dictitant,  adhibita 
circa  lectiones  variantes  human!  judicii  Kpicrei,  erui  possit 
agnoscunt." 

Examples  of  parallel  texts,  of  which  only  the  one  can  be 
correct :  Gen.  x.  4,  D^nrr,  1  Chron.  i.  7,  D'nn  ;  Gen.  xxxvi.  23, 
\byy  1  Chron.  i.  40,  pi?y;  Judges  vii.  22,  mix,  1  Kings  xi.  26, 
rrm;  2  Sam.  xxiii.  27,  •uzn,  1  Chron.  xi.  29,  '330  ;  2  Sam. 
xxiii.  13,  Tsp,  1  Chron.  xi.  15,  ivn ;  2  Sam.  xxii.  11,  &m,  Ps. 
xviii.  11,  NTI,  etc. 

Examples  of  passages,  which  on  logical  grounds  must  be 
incorrect:  Josh.  xv.  32,  36,  xix.  6,  15,  xxxviii.  21,  36  f., 
where  the  number  at  the  end  of  the  names  referred  to  does  not 
represent  the  actual  sum  total ;  the  meaningless  expression, 
2  Sam.  xxiii.  18  f.;  Jer.  xxvii.  1,  where,  according  to  xxvii. 
3,  and  xxxviii.  1,  Zedekiah  should  be  read  for  Jehoiachim. 
On  grammatical  grounds  we  cannot  accept  the  nj  of  Ezek. 
xlvii.  13,  etc. 

Besides  the  works  of  Cappellus  and  Morinus  named  in 
§  23,  the  special  treatises  on  the  LXX.  mentioned  in  §  41, 
and  Lagarde's  Specimen  spoken  of  in  §  45,  the  following  may 
be  referred  to  among  the  more  important  modern  works  as 
textual  criticism :  Houbigant,  Notce  criticce  in  univ.  Vet.  Test, 
libros,  1777  (in  opposition:  Kallius,  Prod,  examinis  criseos 
Houb.  in  Cod.  Hebr.,  Copenhagen  1763,  and  Exam-en  criseos 
Hoiib.  in  Cod.  Hebr.  1764);  Kennicott,  Dissertatio  generalis 
in  the  second  volumn  of  V.  T.  Hebr.  cum  variis  lectionibus; 
Spohn,  Jeremias  e  versione  Judccorum  Alex,  ac  rcliquorum  in- 
terpretum  grcecorum  emendatus,  1794-1824;  Olshausen, 
Emendationen  z.  A.  T.,  Kiel  1826  ;  Beitrdge  zur  Kritik  des 
iiberlieferten  Textes  im  Buche  Genesis,  1870  ;  Wellhausen,  Text 
d.  Backer  Samuelis,  1871  ;  Driver,  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text 


236  §  90.  CORRECTNESS  OF  THE  VOCALISATION. 

of  the  Books  of  Samuel,  1890;  Taylor,  The  Massoretic  Text  and 
the  Ancient  Versions  of  Micah,  1891;  Baethgen,  Der  Textkriti- 
sche  Werk  der  Alien  Uelersetzungen  zu  den  Psalmen  in  JPT, 
1882,  pp.  405  ff.,  593  ff. ;  Merx,  Der  Werk  der  Septuaginta 
fur  die  Texikritik  der  Alien  Tcstamentcs  in  JPT,  1883,  p. 
65  ff. ;  Cornill,  Das  Bucli  des  Prophcien  Ezechiel,  1886;  the 
peculiar  works  of  Krochmal,  Haksaw  ive  hamichtow,  1875. 
Also  the  various  commentaries  (e.g.  Lowth's  Isaiah  and  Kloster- 
mann's  Bilcher  Samuelis  und  der  Konige),  and  innumerable 
articles  referring  to  matters  of  detail  in  reviews  and  in 
Lagarde's  works. 

a.    Vocalisation. 

90.  If  we  consider  the  Massoretic  system  of  points,  not 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  science  of  language,  but  simply  as 
a  means  of  discovering  the  meaning  of  the  text,  the  differ 
ences  presented  by  the  manuscripts  and  the  Massoretic 
collections  of  variations  are  of  extremely  little  importance. 
Such  complete  divergences  as  Hosea  x.  9,  flNtpn  and 
Judges  xx.  48,  Dnp  and  Qhp  ;  ps.  Lxxv.  7,  if]J?p  and 
Eccles.  ii.  7,  njpp  and  n:?i?p ;  Jer.  xxvii.  17,  nrm  and  nrm,  are 
very  rare,  and  even  these  are  without  any  essential  influence 
upon  the  exposition. 

Of  greater  importance  is  the  difference,  when  we  compare 
the  Massoretic  vocalisation  with  that  of  the  old  translations. 
So  long  as  we  speak  of  the  different  vocalisations  as  totalities, 
no  one  will  deny  that  the  understanding  of  the  text  put  before 
us  in  the  Massoretic  pointing  by  far  transcends  in  value  the 
forms  represented  by  the  old  versions.  None  of  the  old 
translators,  with  the  exception  possibly  of  the  Targumists, 
whose  testimony,  however,  is  weakened  by  their  free  treatment 
of  the  text,  has  had  so  clear  an  insight  into  the  sense  of  the 
text,  and  has  understood  it  down  to  its  nicest  peculiarities  in 
accordance  with  the  traditional  reading  as  it  lies  before  us  in 
the  Massoretic  system  of  pointing ;  and  the  obligation  under 


§  91.  INCORRECTNESS  OF  VOCALISED  PASSAGES.  237 

which  we  lie  to  the  received  vocalisation  and  accentuation  for 
our  understanding  of  the  Old  Testament  text  cannot  in  fact  be 
overestimated.  But,  nevertheless,  it  ought  not  to  be  overlooked 
that  the  apprehension  of  the  text  which  has  been  stereotyped 
by  the  Massoretes  is  historically  mediated,  and  is  inseparably 
connected  with  the  history  of  Jewish  exegesis,  and  hence  the 
possibility  that  it  may  reproduce  in  one  passage  or  another 
a  later  conception  should  never  be  lost  sight  of. 

As  examples  of  the  difference  between  the  vocalisation  of 
the  Massoretes  and  that  of  the  old  translations  a  few  well- 
known  instances  may  serve:  Gen.  xlvii.  31,  n^P  ;  LXX.  Syr. 
ntso;  xlix.  10,  rife;  LXX.  Aq.  Sym.  Targ.  bob.  und  jer.  Syr. 
rife;  Isa.  vii.  11,  nW  ;  Aq.  Sym.  Theod.  Jerome,  nbfct?';  Hos. 
ix.'l2,  *??*;  LXX.  Tkeod.  nba ;  Ps.  ii.  9,  DJfin;  LXX.  Syr. 
Jerome,  tixnn ;  x.  17,  p??  ;  LXX.  Syr.  Sym.  pan ;  xi.  3,  nntfn; 
LXX.  Syr.  nntfn;  xv.  4,  jnr6;  LXX.  Syr.  3nni>;  Prov.  iii. 'l2, 
3601;  LXX.  3X31;  Isa.  ii.  20,  nhBiar£;  Theod.  ^ap^apwO. 
A  specially  interesting  example  of  the  variety  of  meanings 
which  may  be  given  to  the  consonants  is  afforded  by  Ps.  ci. 
5,  fcnK  s6  iris,  but  LXX.  t:riN%  fc6  inx.  Compare  Cappellus, 
Critica  sacra,  lib.  iv.  cap.  2,  lib.  v.  cap.  2,  4,  8  ;  Cornill,  Jfzech. 
p.  127;  and  on  the  whole  question,  the  remarks  of  Well- 
hausen-Bleek,  Einleitung,  616. 

91.  The  state  of  matters  is  most  correctly  conceived  when 
we  continually  regard  the  vocalisation  as  a  Qere  (§  33),  the 
relation  of  which  to  the  Ketib  has  to  be  more  closely  con 
sidered.  Although  many  expositors  as  a  rule,  and  not 
wrongly  (see,  however,  §  92),  give  the  preference  to  the  Ketib 
over  the  Qere,  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  Qere  in  passages 
where  the  read  word  presupposes  no  other  consonants  than 
the  traditional  word.  And,  in  fact,  there  are  cases  where  the 
factors  operating  upon  the  traditional  Qarjan  (§  33)  have  been 


238  §91.  INCORRECTNESS  OF  VOCALISED  PASSAGES. 

actually  at  work  in  producing  the  usual  reading  of  the  text, 
e.g.  the  nervous  dread  with  which  in  later  times  the  anthro 
pomorphisms  or  otherwise  offensive  expressions  were  regarded, 
or  the  introduction  of  later  ideas  and  modes  of  presentation  into 
the  text.  In  other  passages  where  such  considerations  do 
not  enter,  other  conceptions  than  those  of  the  Massoretes  may 
be  brought  forward  as  more  natural,  in  regard  to  which  the 
old  translations  (§  90)  may  here  and  there  afford  some  help. 

The  case  is  similar  with  the  diacritical  marks  of  the 
Massoretes,  e.g.  with  the  point  over  w  (§  7  "7),  and  with  their 
accentuation  and  verse  division  (§  84),  which  indeed  as  a  rule 
disclose  a  singularly  fine  insight  into  the  connection,  but  yet 
here  and  there  must  give  way  before  more  simple  theories. 

Compare  Geiger,  Ursclirifl  und  Uebersetzungen  der  Bibel, 
1857,  pp.  157  if.,  337  ff. 

Examples  of  a  vocalisation  probably  in  favour  of  precon 
ceived  views  :  Eccles.  iii.  21, "  Who  knoweth  the  spirit  of  man, 
nbiyn,  which  ascendeth  heavenwards  !  "  instead  of  the  intended, 
and  by  the  translators  presupposed,  njtyn,  «  whether  it  rises 
upwards?"  Jer.  xxxiv.  18,  ^,  Aq.  ^ ;  Isa.  i.  12,  Ex. 
xxxiv.  24,  Deut.  xxxi.  11,  nxii?,  instead  of  n*r6  (to  behold 
God);  Ps.  xc.  2,  ^nn,  as  3  fern,  instead  of  ^nn  (for  God 
could  not  *riri);  Isa.  vii.  11,  fvKB^  instead  of  nbtfBJ  (in  order 
to  avoid  the  idea  of  invoking  the  dead),  etc.  Eelated  to  these 
are  the  traditional  forms  of  some  proper  names,  as  Isa.  vii.  6, 
btfStt ;  perhaps  pn,  instead  of  P^"],  §88;  ijjfa  after  the  analogy 
of  HBO;  rnrra.  Ps.  xci.  6,  W  (compare  DHP  and  the  LXX.) 
is  perhaps  a  popular  dogmatic  allusion.  Harmless  passages, 
which  might  be  improved  are :  Mai.  ii.  3,  JHT,  better  in  LXX. 
Aq.  Jerome,  JTiT ;  1  Sam.  xviii.  11,  bpj,  better  /b»l ;  Isa.  xxx. 
8,1$,  LXX.  Syr.  Trg.  Jerome,  1$;  Job  xvi.  21,  ?a,  better 
i3=r3.  Sometimes  vowel  letters  are  misunderstood  (§  79): 
D'BKtP,  read  D'BKP  from  f)1^',  Amos  ii.  7,  Ps.  Ivi.  2,lvii.  4; 
read  Bfe6,  2  Sam.  xix.  4. 

w  is  not  correctly  distinguished  :  Eccles.  iii.  1 7  (read 


§  92.  RESULT  OF  COLLATION  OF  MANUSCRIPTS.  239 

Isa.  xxxii.  12  (read  OHE?) ;  Ezek.  xxxix.  26  (read  m*\).  Com 
pare  Job  ix.  17,  where  Lagarde  proposes  ^sibn. 

A  case  in  which  the  accentuation  has  been  certainly  deter 
mined  by  the  desire  to  favour  a  particular  view  is  met  with 
in  Tsa.  i.  9,  where  oyDD  is  drawn  towards  what  follows.  On 
Isa.  xlv.  1,  compare  Griitz,  MGWJ,  1874,  p.  45.  The  view 
of  Delitzsch  and  others  that  the  accentuation  of  Isa.  ix.  5  was 
determined  by  preconceived  views  of  the  meaning  of  the  text 
is  denied  by  Wickes,  Accentuation,  p.  49.  A  very  free  ren 
dering,  with  a  play  upon  the  words  of  the  text,  is  found  in 
I.  Berach.  4&.,  according  to  which  in  Palestine  they  read  Amos 
v.  2,  as  follows  :  "  Fallen  is  she ;  further  she  will  not  [fall] ; 
raise  thee,  0  daughter  of  Israel  ! " 

Passages  where  the  verse  division  might  be  improved  :  Ps. 
xcv.  7,  xlii.  6  f.,  xvii.  3  f.,  xxii.  31  f .  ;  Gen.  xlix.  24  f.  ; 
Isa.  lix.  15. 

It.    The  Consonantal  Text. 

92.  It  has  been  already  remarked  above  (§  89)  that  the 
Hebrew  manuscripts,  as  also  the  Massora,  represent  in  reality 
only  one  single  form  of  text,  for  the  variations  that  are  met 
with  are  of  an  extremely  trifling  kind,  and  are  mostly  without 
any  influence  upon  the  sense  of  the  text.  One  of  the  principal 
roles  among  the  variations  is  played  by  the  divergences  that 
arise  out  of  the  scriptio  plena  and  defectiva  which  are  explained 
in  the  remarks  made  in  §  79.  In  addition  to  these  we  meet 
here  and  there  interchanges  of  letters  similar  in  appearance, 
like  n  and  "i,  3  and  3, 1  and  \  etc.  Besides,  we  have  inter 
changes  of  synonymous  expressions,  especially  under  the 
influence  of  parallelism,  and  divergences  with  respect  to  the 
(fre  and  Ketib,  which  form  a  frequent  difference  between  the 
western  and  the  eastern  texts.  Only  one  of  these  latter  cases 
is  of  any  general  interest,  namely,  that  the  Babylonians  have 
not,  like  the  Palestinians,  the  well-known  Qerc,  Kin,  only  in 
the  Pentateuch,  but  here  and  there  also  in  the  other  books. 


240  §92.  RESULT  OF  COLLATION  OF  MANUSCRIPTS. 

The  Qere  itself,  which,  according  to  §  33,  may  be  regarded  in 
a  certain  sense  as  a  various  reading,  has  usually  only  a 
historically  explicable  value,  but  hits  sometimes  upon  the 
right  thing,  whether  by  divination,  or  in  accordance  with  a 
genuine  old  tradition.  On  the  manuscripts  of  the  Samaritans, 
compare  §  94. 

Cornill,  Das  Bitch  Ezecldel,  p.  7  ff.,  rightly  styles  the  result 
of  his  comparison  of  the  common  text  with  the  Codex  Babylon. 
as  quite  surprising :  "  In  a  biblical  book  of  forty-eight,  for  the 
most  part  quite  long,  chapters,  the  text  of  which  has  been 
transmitted  in  a  notoriously  faulty  condition,  the  oldest  of  all 
known  manuscripts,  compared  with  the  first  and  best  printed 
editions,  yields  only  sixteen  actual  variations."  It  should  not 
on  this  account  be  denied  that  here  and  there,  by  means  of 
collations  of  manuscripts,  we  may  give  an  emendation  of  the 
text,  e,(j.  Isa.  xxx.  18,  where  two  manuscripts  have  DT  instead 
of  DV,  Isa.  xxvii.  1,  "ion,  but  some  manuscripts,  "ion ;  but,  for 
the  most  part,  the  variations  are  quite  insignificant,  or  consist 
in  inaccuracies  of  particular  manuscripts  which  immediately 
show  themselves  to  be  such.  Examples  (apart  from  the 
innumerable  deviations  in  the  use  of  the  vowel  letters,  the 
interchange  of  ?K  an(l  'A  etc-) :  PS-  °ii-  4,  jt?jn— ftrjn  ;  Isa. 
ii.  6,  n^n—  H^U  ;  xv.  2,  nym— nynj ;  Ixiii.  11,  njn—  'jn;  Jer. 
xviii.  4,  n»ra— -i»ro ;  Ps.  ix.  7,  nB7U— • n^DJ ;  xviii.  43,  Dpns— 
DpHN*;  xcvii.  11,  rnr— jnr ;  Eccles.  ii.  25,  UBD— <JDD;  Hag. 
ii  10,  ^-(Codex  Hilleli,  §  30)  T? ;  Ps.  cii.  13, -pan— -JKMI 
(compare  Lam.  v.  19);  Ps.  ci.  24,  ntajJ'K— •jbwx  (compare 
xxxii.  8).  Zeph.  iii.  18,  n^y,  Cod.  Bab.  7^;  Zech.  xiv.  18, 
D^orrnx  B.  D^oyn-^3"nK ;  Zech.  xiv.  4  omits  in  B.  sinn  DV3 ; 
Ezek.  vi.  5,  Dn^i^— oa11^ ;  a  different  Qere,  Neh.  ii.  6  ;  Zeph. 
ii.  7,  etc. 

On  the  (fret  ^in>  compare  Geiger,  Urschrift,  p.  236.  The 
Massoretic  remark  that  the  Babylonians  have  this  reading 
only  in  three  passages  outside  of  the  Pentateuch  (1  Kings 
xvii.  15;  Isa.  xxx.  33;  Job  xxxi.  11)  is  incorrect,  as  Ezek. 
i.  13,  xi.  7,  xiv.  17,  xvi.  46-48,  xviii.  20,  xxi.  19,  xxvi.  17, 
xxx.  13,  xxxii.  16  ;  Jer.  xxii.  16,  xxviii.  17,  show.  The 


§  93.    POST-CHRISTIAN  WITNESSES  FOR  THE  TEXT.          241 

idea  that  Kin  occurs  only  in  the  Pentateuch,  which  has  been 
quoted  against  the  correctness  of  the  theory  in  the  criticism 
of  the  Pentateuch  which  distinguishes  a  variety  of  documents, 
thus  falls  to  the  ground. 

Examples  of  passages  in  which  Qere  is  undoubtedly  the 
correct  reading  are:  Amos  viii.  8  nypm  ;  1  Sam.  xvii.  34, 
nc>;  2  Sam.  v.  2, 


93.  If  we  compare  the  form  of  text  obtained  by  means  of 
the  manuscripts  and  the  Massora  with  older  witnesses  for  the 
text  from  the  time  after  Christ,  such  as  the  Talmudical 
quotations,  the  Hexaplar  transcriptions,  and  the  post-Chris 
tian  translations,  we  shall  find  indeed  variations  not  much 
more  numerous  than  in  the  manuscripts,  but  the  variations 
found  in  these  exhibit  a  more  characteristic  physiognomy. 
While  the  variations  of  the  manuscripts,  in  almost  all  cases, 
consist  only  in  an  inexact  reproduction  of  the  Tcxtus  Receptus 
(§  92),  those  witnesses  now  referred  to  contain  not  unfrequently 
valuable  readings,  the  collation  of  which  is  of  real  interest. 
But,  at  the  same  time,  there  appears  a  characteristic  difference 
between  these  witnesses.  The  quotations  in  the  Talmud 
correspond  for  the  most  part  with  the  text  that  now  lies 
before  us,  especially  if  we  keep  in  view  that  they  are  often 
made  from  memory.  So,  too,  the  texts  used  by  Jerome  and 
the  later  Greek  translators  are  very  nearly  the  same  as  our 
own.  In  the  Aramaic  versions,  on  the  other  hand,  we  not 
unfrequently  meet  with  interesting  variations.  The  Targums 
especially  sometimes  afford  good  readings,  which,  however, 
may  be  explained  by  what  has  been  stated  above  in  §  GO, 
partly  by  the  extreme  antiquity  of  the  Targumic  material. 
On  the  other  hand,  according  to  §  70,  it  remains  often  un 
certain  whether  the  variations  obtained  from  the  Syriac 
translation  represent  actually  the  condition  of  the  text  in 
post-  Christian  times,  or  are  only  repetitions  of  the  pre- 
Christian  (Alexandrine)  form  of  the  text. 

Q 


242  §  94.    PUB-CHRISTIAN  WITNESSES  FOR  THE  TEXT. 

Compare  Cappellus,  Critica  sacra,  lib.  v.  cap.  2,  5,  6,  9-11  ; 
Nowack,  Die  .Bedeutung  ties  Hicron.  fur  d.  alttestamentl. 
Textkritik,  p.  23  ff. ;  Baethgen,  Der  tcxtkritische  Worth,  d.  alt. 
Ucberstz.  d.  Ps.  in  JPT,  1882,  pp.  405  ff.,  593  ff. ;  Cornill, 
Ezecliiel,  pp.  128  ff.,  156.  A  thoroughgoing  comparison  of 
the  post-Christian  translations  with  the  Massoretic  text  is  a 
decided  desideratum  (compare  Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  ii.  51). 

A  couple  of  examples  may  at  least  give  a  tolerable  illus 
tration  of  the  matters  referred  to  in  the  above  sections.  Isa. 
xxvi.  2  ff.,  D^  -ran  TIDD  -iv  :D':IDK  10^  pnv  ^  sn  Dny^  inns 
D^y  nix  mn11  n^n  ^  ny  ny  mrvn  intan  :niD2  12  "u  D^,  the 
Greek  transcription  according  to  Epiphanius  (compare  Field, 
Hcxapla,  ii.  473  f . ;  Lagarde,  Mitthcilungcn,  ii.  p.  362) :  $6oov 
aaapeLfj,  ovafico  ywi  aa$iK  acofjLTjp  efjifiovvei^.  tecrpo  (m^11) 
o-a/jLw%  Oecrap  craXwfj,  craXw/j,  yju  ftarc  ftaroov  (inD^).  fferov 
{3aa$covai  a8a  cod  yi  ftaia  a'&wvai  acoB  (liv)  a)\e/i6i{jb.  Hab. 
ii.  17,  T.  M.  and  Jerome,  frrrp,  Targ.  Syr.  (LXX.),  ^ns ;  Hos. 
v.  11,  T.  M.  Jerome,  IV,  Syr.  Targ.  (LXX.),  F  J  zeph.  iii.  18, 
vn,  Targ.  (LXX.),  "in  ;  Hos.  vi.  5,  T.  M.  Jerome,  IIK  TBB^ID, 
Syr.  Targ.,  II^D  ^a^o ;  Jer.  xxv.  38,  fnn,  Targ.  (LXX.),  mn  ; 
Ezek.  xxvii.  11  ;  Gen.  i.  26,  pKfri?:ni,  Syr.  (by  correct 
divination  ?),  p^n  HTl^Dll.  Ps.  xi.  1,  cmn,  all  versions  (with 
the  LXX.),  ioa  in.  Ezek.  v.  15,  nn^ni,  Targ.  Syr.  Jerome 
(LXX.),  rrm.  Isa.  xxv.  2,  -I^D,  all  versions,  Ty. 

94.  If,  finally,  we  go  back  to  the  witnesses  for  the  text  in 
pre-Christian  times  (to  which,  as  was  remarked  in  §  93,  the 
Targums  in  part  belong),  the  variations  grow  in  the  intensive 
as  well  as  in  the  extensive  sense.  The  chief  witness  here  is 
the  Alexandrine  translation,  in  so  far  as  it  succeeds  in  setting 
forth  the  text  in  its  original  form.  It  not  only  affords 
numerous  variations,  some  of  them  highly  important  in  regard 
to  details,  but  sometimes,  as  in  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  and  in 
Proverbs,  it  assumes  the  character  of  a  different  liecension. 
That  these  divergences  have  not  arisen  through  arbitrary 
treatment  on  the  part  of  the  translators  of  a  text  identical 
with  our  own,  but  witness  to  the  actual  existence  of  an 


§  94.    PRE-CHRISTIAN  WITNESSES  FOR  THE  TEXT.  243 

exemplar  with  a  divergent  text,  is  proved  partly  from  the 
character  of  the  variations  themselves,  partly  from  the  fact 
that  several  of  these  divergences  are  also  to  be  found  in  other 
witnesses  for  the  text  before  the  time  of  Christ,  as  in  the  text 
of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  (§  29),  in  the  oldest  parts  of  the 
Targums  (§  G4),  and  in  pre-Christian  works,  such  as  the  Book 
of  Jubilees  that  had  its  origin  in  Palestine  (§  13).  Indeed, 
even  in  the  translations  from  the  times  after  Christ  the  forms 
of  the  text  translated  by  the  LXX.  are  here  and  there  witnessed 
to  as  being  then  still  read  (§  93).  It  is  therefore  evident 
that  the  relation  between  the  later  and  the  pre-Christian  text 
forms  one  of  the  most  important  chapters  in  the  history  of  the 
text  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  a  systematic  comparison 
with  the  LXX.  must  be  a  main  task  of  textual  criticism. 

Compare  the  writings  referred  to  in  §  41  and  §  89. 

While  in  earlier  times  it  was  especially  the  Catholics  who 
gave  preference  to  the  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, 
quibus  manifeste  deprehenditur  LXX.  et  aliter  et  melius  turn 
legisse,  turn  distinxisse,  quam  Kabbini  postea  vel  legerint  vel 
distinxerint"  (Opera  ed.  Schuler  et  Schultheiss,  v.  555-59). 

On  the  remarkable  agreement  between  the  LXX.  and  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch,  compare  (besides  the  literature  referred 
to  by  l)e  Wette-Schrader,  Einleituny,  p.  205  f.)  the  London 
Polyglot,  vi.  19  ;  Morinus,  Exercitationes  ecclesiasticce  in 
utrumquc  Samaritanorum  Pentat.,  Paris  1G31  ;  Cappellus, 
Critica  sacra,  lib.  iii.  cap.  20  ;  Alexius  a  S.  Aquilino,  Fcnta- 
tcuclii  Hcbr.  Sam.  prcestantia,  1783  ;  Gesenius,  DC  Pentateuchi 
Samaritani  origine,  indolc  ct  auctoritate  comment.,  1815  ; 
Geiger,  Urschri/t,  pp.  8-19,  99  if.  ;  Jiicl.  Zcitsclirift,  iv.  I860, 
p.  42 ;  Nachgelassene  Schriflcn,  iv.  54  ff. ;  Noldeke,  Alt- 
testamentliche  Liter cdur,  pp.  42,  240  ;  Dillmaim  in  Herzog's 
lical-Encyclopccdic,  ii.  386  ;  Fritzsche  in  Herzog,  i.  283  ; 
Pick,  Bibliotli.  Sacra,  1877-78  ;  E.eidQnliQim,£iUiotheca  sama- 


244  §  95.    VALUE  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

ritana,  ii.  xxi.  sqq.  That  the  Alexandrine  translators  did 
not  use  a  Samaritan  copy  of  the  Law  is  clear ;  but  equally 
improbable  is  the  supposition  that  the  Samaritans  may  have 
altered  their  Hebrew  manuscripts  in  accordance  with  the 
LXX.  The  agreement  between  the  two  rather  shows  that 
the  reading  which  they  have  in  common  was  then  widely 
circulated.  Moreover,  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  the 
LXX.  in  just  as  many  passages  agrees  with  the  Massoretic 
text  against  the  Samaritans. 

On  the  text  of  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  compare  Bonsch,  Das 
Bucli  der  Julilicien,  Leipsic  1874,  and  especially  Dillmann  in 
the  Sitzunysbcricliten  der  Berliner  Academie,  1883,  p.  324  ff., 
where  about  twenty- seven  cases  are  quoted  in  which  the 
text  of  the  Book  of  Jubilees  agrees  with  that  of  the 
LXX. 

95.  As  certainly  as  the  deviations  of  the  LXX.  from  the 
received,  text  consist  in  great  part  of  deviations  in  the  copy  of 
the  Hebrew  text  used  in  the  work,  so  certain  is  it  that  the 
Alexandrine  readings  in  not  a  few  passages  deserve  to  be 
preferred  above  the  Massoretic  readings.  Especially  in  some 
writings,  such  as  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Ezekiel,  the  received 
text  can  be  variously  amended  by  a  thoroughgoing  collation  with 
the  LXX.  We  can  easily  understand  how  one  feels  himself 
shut  in  at  every  step  by  the  confused  state  of  the  Greek  text, 
but  nevertheless  its  use  has  already  led  to  all  sorts  of  discoveries, 
less  or  more.  Naturally  in  using  it  the  most  painstaking  care 
is  necessary,  and  never  should  the  critic  of  the  text  lose  sight 
of  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew  text,  as  the  immediate  authority 
on  the  text,  is  always  to  be  regarded  as  worthy  of  preference 
to  an  indirect  auxiliary,  and  that  the  treatment  of  the 
exemplar  text  on  the  part  of  the  Greek  translators  was  often 
one  that  cannot  be  determined.  But  thereby  only  the  demands 
upon  the  critic  of  the  text  are  raised,  while  the  justification 
of  his  task  is  by  no  means  lowered. 

On  the  other  side,  it  is  not  less  certain  that  the  deviations  of 


§  95.    VALUE  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT.  245 

the  LXX.,  in  spite  of  the  extreme  antiquity  of  this  translation, 
are  not  throughout  always  of  equal  importance  for  the  emenda 
tion  of  the  text.  Rather  in  numerous  passages  the  received 
text  is  to  be  unconditionally  preferred.  The  most  remarkable 
feature  of  the  case  is  that  such  instances  also  occur  just  where 
the  witness  of  the  LXX.  is  reinforced  by  the  other  witnesses 
from  pre-Christian  times  (§  94).  Thus,  it  is  a  generally  acknow 
ledged  fact  that  several  of  the  readings  which  the  LXX.  and  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  have  in  common  are  of  less  value  than 
the  Massoretic  readings.  It  therefore  appears  also  here  again 
very  remarkable,  that  in  the  criticism  of  the  text  the  extreme 
antiquity  and  the  wide  circulation  of  a  reading  in  and  by  them 
selves  afford  no  decisive  proof  of  its  correctness,  but  that  later 
witnesses  for  the  text  may  here  and  there  more  correctly 
transmit  the  original. 

In  the  following  passages,  for  example,  the  Alexandrine 
readings  are  to  be  unconditionally  preferred:  Gen.  xli.  56, 
Dm  "iE>&ri>3,  LXX.  D'nnEfcn  (or  a  similar  word  for  o-irofio- 
A&W?) ;  1  Sam.  ix.  25  f.,  oy  ~QY1,  LXX.  ^?"!!1,  and  IEO^I, 
LXX.  33  Eh ;  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8,  roE^E-"1,  LXX.  (mediately), 
nebs*;  Isa.  xvii.  9,  YDS.II  tnnn,  LXX.  '*nm  -nbgn ;  Isa. 
xliv.  12,  Ehn,  LXX.  Bnn  Yin  •  jer<  Xxiii.  33,  KE'IDTIBVIK, 
LXX.  Kferan  DriN;  ps.  xlii.  6  f.,  TI^K  :v:s,  LXX.  ^Vl  ''?; 
Ps.  Ixix/  27,  iiBDS  LXX.  iB'pi';  Neh.  iii.  14,  PIM-I,  LXX. 
rnrv  Zeph.  iii.  17,  E"nn\  LXX.  E»nn\  The  LXX.  and  the 
Samaritans  have  good  readings  in  the  following  passages  :  Gen. 
xxxi.  29,  Y3K,  instead  of  D^3N  ;  Ex.  v.  9,  W&\,  instead  of 
lb>JT  (so  too  the  Syriac) ;  Ex.  xiv.  25,  nos^,  instead  of  ID^I  ; 
Deut.  iv.  37,  Dnnnx  Djnil  (  =  0nk.  Syr.,  Jerome);  Deut. 
xxxii.  43,  noiK,  instead  of  inDlK.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Massoretic  text  is  to  be  preferred  to  their  united  witness  in 
e.g.  Ex.  xii.  42,  xiii.  6;  Num.  xxiv.  7,  xxvi.  12  (compare 
further  the  writings  referred  to  in  §  94). 

To  the  dangers  attending  the  use  of  the  LXX.  in  textual 
criticism  belong  the  corruptions  that  arose  within  the  Greek 
itself  (e.g.  Jer.  xv.  10;  Ps.  xvii.  1 4 ;  Cod.  Vat.) ;  and  above 


246  §  9G.    CONJECTUKAL  CKITICISM. 

all,  the  duplicate  translations  of  the  same  passage  that  arose 
from  interpolations,  of  which  Isa.  ix.  5  in  Cod.  Alex,  affords 
an  interesting  example. 

96.  Although  the  use  of  the  old  translations,  especially  of 
the  LXX.,  forms  one  of  the  most  essential  tasks  of  Old 
Testament  textual  criticism,  the  critic  of  the  text  must  not 
suppose  that  with  this  his  work  is  ended.  Even  a  very  general 
survey  of  the  field  teaches  this.  The  Alexandrine  translation 
carries  us  back  only  to  the  third  century  before  Christ,  a  time, 
therefore,  which  was  separated  from  that  of  many  of  the  Old 
Testament  writers  by  a  long  period.  The  presence  of  various 
errors  of  the  text  in  the  times  following  compels  us  to  make 
the  fundamental  admission  of  the  possibility  of  such  having 
had  an  existence  even  in  the  texts  of  those  much  earlier  times. 
Hence  conjectural  criticism  cannot  be  excluded  from  the 
investigations  about  the  Old  Testament  text.  Here,  too,  we 
enter  upon  a  region  where  only  a  few  select  spirits  are  at 
home,  while  just  for  those  who  are  unfit  it  has  a  great  fascina 
tion.  Yet  even  here,  amid  the  great  multitude  of  arbitrary 
and  useless  fancies,  we  meet  with  several  happy  proposals 
which,  in  spite  of  the  want  of  objective  evidence,  are  so  strik 
ing  and  simple,  that  the  favour  which  they  have  found  may 
lend  to  them  an  almost  objective  character.  At  the  same 
time,  it  must  here  be  remembered  that  the  Old  Testament  itself, 
as  we  have  already  indicated  above  at  §  73,  affords  at  some 
points  a  firm  basis  of  operation  which  lends  to  the  conjectures 
a  greater  security.  Also  the  divergent  readings  of  the  old 
witnesses,  even  if  they  should  be  just  as  little  serviceable  as 
those  of  the  Massoretes,  sometimes  indirectly  supply  an  aid 
to  the  correction  of  the  text,  because  the  unknown  x  can  be 
more  easily  found  by  means  of  two  known  quantities.  And 
even  where  ingenuity  must  simply  create  the  conjectures  out  of 
itself,  the  presupposition  lying  at  the  foundation  of  them,  that 
the  ancient  authors  have  expressed  themselves  clearly  and 


§  97.  "TENDENCY"  ALTERATIONS  OF  TEXT.  247 

fittingly,  is  a  presupposition  justifiable  indeed,  but  to  be  used 
with  circumspection. 

Several  of  the  proposed  alterations  of  the  text  are  un 
doubtedly  to  be  regarded  as  improvements  in  the  writings, 
and  so  evidently  are  they  such,  that  only  a  blind  prejudice 
can  without  more  ado  reject  them.  Thus.  Ps.  xxii.  30,  v  f\K 
for  ifas  ;  Jer.  xv.  10,  ^ttp  Dr6a.  For  our  estimate  of  the 
character  of  David,  the  reading  in  2  Sam.  xii.  31  of  "l"1?.^, 
instead  of  TQjjn,  is  not  unimportant.  Also  we  have  improve 
ments  in  vHK,  instead  of  vnx  in  Gen.  xxxi.  25  (Lagarde) ; 
nDSD  mvy  rof>  in  Isaiah  xxi.  6,  etc.  The  parallel  passage 
2  Sam.  xxii.  5,  suggests  in  Psalm  xviii.  4,  "nn^D  for  ^in  ; 
poetic  parallelisms  in  Ps.  x.  6  recommends  T^K,  and  in  Job  x. 
15,  ty  nn  ;  the  prevailing  rhythm  in  Psalm  xcii.  ff.  suggests 
in  Psalm  xciii.  4,  ^crap  "^  or  (p.  253)  i-QC?bD  "*  Tntf,  instead 
of  nntrD  D^vix.  How  a  glance  at  the  rhythm  of  the  Lamenta 
tions  may  lead  to  good  emendations  of  the  text  has  been 
shown  by  Budde  on  Isaiah  xiv.  The  alphabetical  form 
teaches  that  n£>n  of  Psalm  ix.  7,  with  a  word  that  has  fallen 
out  of  the  text,  must  belong  to  verse  8.  On  the  contrary, 
when  "MS  of  Isaiah  iii.  11  is  attached  to  verse  10,  it  leads  to 
the  substitution  of  ^K'K  fur  IIDK  ;  the  parallelism  between 
Isaiah  viii.  12  and  13  suggests  B'7P,  instead  of  -|^p,  etc.  The 
genuine  LXX.  has  in  2  Sam.  xxiv.  6  a  ^erreifju  KaBrjs,  instead 
of  the  senseless  wp  DTinn  ;  but  since  the  Hittite  Kadesh  was 
here  unsuitable,  Ewald  ingeniously  conjectured  ^bin,  instead 
of  ^"ip.  [See  Wellhausen,  Der  Text  dcr  Buclies  Samuelis, 
pp.  217,  221  ff.,  or  Thenius  in  Commentary.]  All  the  docu 
mentary  authorities  have  in  Gen.  iv.  8,  iwi,  to  which,  in 
order  to  obtain  a  meaning,  Sam.  LXX.  Syr.,  etc.,  supply 
mtrn ;  but  certainly  it  was  originally  "iD^l,  instead  of 
(Olshausen),  etc. 

97.  An  essential  condition  of  a  methodical  criticism  of  the 
text  is  an  exact  insight  into  the  nature  of  the  textual  errors 
to  be  met  with  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  specially 
required  that  the  question  be  answered  as  to  whether  the 
Old  Testament  text  has  been  intentionally  altered,  or 


248  §  97.  "TENDENCY"  ALTERATIONS  OF  TEXT. 

whether  we  have  to  do  only  with  purely  unintentional 
errors  of  transcription. 

The  assertion  that  the  Jews  have  on  purpose  corrupted 
their  text  is  an  old  one.  The  Church  fathers,  who  were 
dependent  on  the  LXX.,  must  naturally  have  been  led  to 
such  a  conclusion  with  regard  to  the  occasional  deviations  of 
the  Jewish  text ;  and  even  Jerome,  who  elsewhere  zealously 
contends  for  "  the  Hebrew  truth,"  expresses  himself  once  in  a 
similar  way.  In  the  Middle  Ages  these  changes  were  often 
repeated,  e.g.  by  Eaimund  Martin,  and  in  later  times  they  were 
uttered  with  yet  greater  violence  and  bitterness  by  anti- 
Protestant  critics  like  Morinus.  Yea,  even  in  modern  times, 
Lagarde  has  expressed  the  conjecture  that  the  chronological 
statements  of  Genesis  were  falsified  by  the  Jews  in  the 
interests  of  their  polemic  against  the  Christians.  For  the 
charges  thus  formulated  there  have  meanwhile  never  been 
any  actual  proofs  brought  forward.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
question  about  the  presence  of  alterations  made  on  purpose 
has  emerged  in  recent  times  in  another  form,  to  which  a 
treatise  by  a  Jewish  scholar,  Abraham  Geiger,  has  given 
occasion.  Geiger,  to  whom,  among  others,  Dozy  and  !N". 
Briill  have  attached  themselves,  affirms  that  in  the  received 
text,  just  as  well  as  in  the  old  translations,  numerous 
alterations  are  to  be  found,  which  had  their  origin  in  the 
religious  solicitude  and  dogmatic  views  of  later  times,  and  had 
therefore  been  undertaken  in  a  kind  of  apologetic  interest. 

That  this  latter  formulating  of  the  thesis  is  not  altogether 
unfounded  is  undeniable.  The  same  religious  dread  which 
can  be  proved  in  the  case  of  all  old  translations,  and  in  many 
Qarjan  of  the  Hebrew  text  (§§  33,  91),  as  also  the  tendency 
of  modern  translations  to  give  expression  to  their  indignation 
against  manifestations  of  antipathy  by  means  of  the  word  of 
Scripture,  did,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  lead  the  Jews  in  ancient 
times  to  alter  here  and  there  the  consonantal  text.  A 


§  or.  "TENDENCY"  ALTERATIONS  OF  TEXT.  249 

reminiscence  of  such  attempts  is  preserved  in  the  Jewish 
tradition  itself  in  the  collection  of  the  so-called  Tiqqunc 
SopWrim,  which  was  referred  to  ahove  in  §  34.  Although 
some  of  the  cases  collected  under  that  name  are  doubtful,  and 
others  evidently  wrong,  and  even  although  the  accounts  given 
of  the  original  sound  of  the  word  may  not  always  be  correct, 
yet  the  fact  that  such  changes  had  been  made  is  incontest 
able,  and  some  of  the  cases  reported  are  perfectly  correct,  e.y. 
Job  vii.  20,  where  the  LXX.  had  still  the  original  -fiy ;  Zech. 
ii.  8  (compare  Dent,  xxxii.  10  and  the  LXX.  rendering  of 
it);  Hab.  i.  12  ;  Ezek.  viii.  17  ;  Lam.  iii.  20  ;  Xum.  xi.  15  ; 
while  in  1  Sam.  iii.  13,  not  ^  but  DTi^tf  is  to  be  read  (compare 
LXX.).  On  the  other  hand,  as  often  happens  in  similar  cases, 
the  enumeration  is  not  exhaustive,  for  in  other  places  such 
Tiyqunim  may  be  discovered.  The  most  interesting  example 
is  the  interchange  of  baal  with  bosheth  in  many  proper  names. 
In  the  older  Israelitish  times  the  word  ?$p  was  used  quite  as 
harmlessly  of  the  God  of  Israel  as  the  synonymous  word  jfttf, 
which  is  shown  by  this  that  many  old  proper  names  had  this 
name  of  God  incorporated  with  them,  e.g.  Ish  ba'al,  the  son  of 
Saul  (1  Chrou.  viii.  33),  Baaliada',  the  son  of  David  (1  Chron. 
xiv.  7),  Meriblaal,  the  son  of  Jonathan  (1  Chron.  viii.  34).  But 
in  later  times,  when  the  name  Ba'al  had  become  a  symbol  of 
Caananitish  heathenism,  such  names  gave  offence  (compare 
Hos.  ii.  18,  20),  and  people  began  therefore  to  change  the 
names,  when  they  occurred  in  the  books  used  in  the  syna 
gogues,  in  various  ways ;  and  so,  at  the  same  time,  the  oppor 
tunity  was  taken  to  give  expression  to  one's  sympathy  with,  or 
antipathy  against,  the  persons  concerned.  David's  son,Baaliada 
became  Eliada  (2  Sam.  v.  16),  whereas  in  the  case  of  those 
belonging  to  the  race  of  Saul,  in  accordance  with  Hos.  ix.  10, 
Baal  was  exchanged  for  ri^a,  "  shame "  (compare  1  Kings 
xviii.  19,  25,  LXX.).  Thus  arose  the  now  well-known  names 
IsJibosheth  (2  Sam.  ii.  if)  and  Mepliiboslictli  (2  Sam.  ix.  G). 


250  §97.    "  TENDENCY  "  ALTERATIONS  OF  TEXT. 

Besides  this  change,  of  which  a  distinct  view  is  afforded  us  in 
the  Book  of  Chronicles,  where  the  names  remain  unchanged, 
there  are  still  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 
changes  in  the  original  text  bordering  on  monomania.  And 
as  the  instances  are  limited  in  number,  so  also  must  have 
been  the  time  in  which  they  originated.  The  Qarjan,  with 
a  "  tendency "  character,  such  as  we  meet  with  in  the 
Talmuds,  shows  this,  and  therefore  belongs  at  the  latest  to 
the  fourth  century  after  Christ.  At  the  time  when  they 
had  their  origin,  the  text  had  already  assumed  so  immutable 
a  character  that  it  could  not  be  touched  even  in  offensive 
passages. 

Jerome  on  Gal.  iii.  13  :  "Ex  quo  mihi  videtur  aut  veteres 
HebKCorum  libros  aliter  habuisse,  quam  nunc  habent,  aut 
Apostolum  sensum  scripturarum  posuisse,  non  verba,  aut  quod 
magis  est  sestirnandum,  post  passionem  Christ!  et  in  Hebrreis 
et  in  nostris  codicibus  ab  aliqno  Dei  nomen  appositum,  ut 
infamiam  nobis  inureret,  qui  in  Christum  maledictum  a  Deo 
credimus"  (compare  also  on  v.  10). 

Eaimund  Martin,  Pugio  field  (ed.  16 87),  p.  095  ff. 
[On  "  Martin "  or  "  Martini,"  see  article  by  Neubauer  in 
Expositor,  3rd  ser.  1888,  vol.  vii.  pp.  100  ff.  179  ff. ;  and 
article  by  Schiller-Szinessy  in  The  Journal  of  Philology,  xvi. 
No.  31,  p.  130  ff.]  Morinus,  Exercitationes  billiccc,  pp.  7-19. 

Lagarde,  Materialien  zur  Kritik  und  G-eschichte  dcs  Penta- 
tenchs,  1867,  i.  p.  xii :  "The  chronology  of  the  patriarchs 
before  Noah  is  evidently  falsified  in  the  Massoretic  text,  and 
indeed  falsified  for  the  purpose  of  opposing,  with  the  help  of 
the  LXX.,  the  calculations  made  by  the  Christians,  according 
to  which  the  Messiah  had  appeared  in  the  year  of  the  world 
5500.  Such  falsifications,  as  the  fathers  so  often  charged 
against  the  Jews,  are  only  conceivable,  if  they  could  be  traced 
back  to  one  copy  from  which  all  the  other  transcriptions  of 
the  text  had  to  be  taken."  Compare,  however,  against  this 


§  98.  UNINTENTIONAL  ERRORS  OF  TEXT.        251 

view,  Kuenen,  Verslagen  en  Mcdedelingen  dcr  k.  Akademie, 
Letterkunde,  ii.  3,  1873,  Amsterdam,  p.  296. 

Geiger,  Urschrift  und  Uebersctzungcn  der  Bibel,  1857. 

On  bosheth  for  baal,  compare  Geiger,  ZDMG,  xvi.  730  ff. ; 
Wellhausen,  Text  des  Buclics  Samuel,  pp.  xii.  and  30  f.  ; 
Kuenen,  Verslagen  en  Mededelingen,  iii.  5,  1888,  p.  176.  A 
confirmation  is  found  in  the  exposition  of  Num.  xxxii.  38, 
where  &&  rooiD  can  only  be  a  parenthesis,  which  recommends 
that  the  reading  with  the  word  Baal  should  be  changed.  On 
some  Arabic  parallels,  which,  however,  are  divergent  in  this, 
that  the  names  are  combined  with  actual  names  of  gods, 
compare  Wellhausen,  Skizzen  und  Vorarbeiten,  iii.  178.  A 
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-^vvr)  was  used  (compare 
Dillman,  Monatsberichte  d.  k.  Academic  d.  W.  zu  Berlin,  1881). 

To  the  same  category  belong  probably  also  the  name 
Jezebel,  which  originally  indeed  can  scarcely  have  been  com 
bined  with  br.  Compare  Hoffmann,  ZAW,  1883,  p.  105. 
Further,  on  nirp  Tpn  as  a  euphemism  for  ^P,  compare  Psalm 
x.  3  ;  Job  i.  11,  ii.  1)  ;  1  Kings  xxi.  10,  with  Isaiah  viii.  21; 
1  Sam.  iii.  13.  Perhaps  also  iynn,  instead  of  nynn,  Gen. 
xx.  13.  Of  another  sort  is  Judges  xviii.  30,  where  Moses 
was  changed  into  Manasseh  (compare  b.  Baba  bat/ira,  109&). 
In  this  case  the  added  n  is  written  higher  up  than  the  other 
letters,  and  the  change  therefore  was  not  discovered. 

Of  purposely  made  changes  that  have  been  alleged  to  exist 
in  other  places,  some  are  of  a  not  very  convincing  char 
acter,  because  the  word  said  to  have  been  changed  is  fre 
quently  to  be  found  close  by  :  e.g.  Gen.  xxxi.  49,  where  nsya 
is  said  to  be  a  change  for  n^'P,  whereas  this  word  is  itself  to 
be  found  in  verses  45,  51  ff.  To  this  it  may  be  added  that, 
according  to  Lagarde's  happy  conjecture,  navon  (verse  21) 
ought  probably  to  be  inserted  after  the  word  im. 

Against  Geiger,  compare  especially  the  appropriate  remarks 
of  Wellhausen  in  Text  des  Buchcs  Samuel,  p.  32. 


98.   While  the  changes  made  in  the  Old  Testament  with 


252        §  98.  UNINTENTIONAL  ERRORS  OF  TEXT. 

deliberate  intention  are  not  very  numerous,  by  far  the  greatest 
number  of  errors  in  the  text  owe  their  existence  to  causes 
that  are  met  with  in  all  other  sorts  of  writings,  namely,  the 
inaccuracies  and  the  misunderstandings  of  transcribers.  Here 
naturally  there  is  much  that  cannot  be  put  on  record,  and 
much  that  defies  all  calculation,  but,  notwithstanding,  we  shall 
find  it  not  unprofitable  to  cast  a  glance  over  the  errors  that 
most  frequently  recur  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  order  to  be 
able  to  estimate  in  some  measure  the  possibilities  of  proposed 
emendations.  In  doing  so,  we  must  always  keep  in  view 
special  characteristics  and  peculiar  fortunes  of  the  Hebrew 
writings  that  have  been  described  above. 

Moreover,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  a  sketch,  like  that 
upon  which  we  have  been  here  engaged,  in  the  very  nature 
of  things,  must  give  prominence  to  the  shady  side  of  the  text, 
whereas  it  has  no  occasion  to  refer  to  passages  in  which  the 
text  is  in  good  order,  and  so  easily  a  one-sided  comfortless 
representation  of  the  facts  may  be  given.  Only  the  reading 
of  the  Old  Testament  itself  can  dispel  this  illusion.  This  will 
show  that  textual  criticism  can  indeed  in  many  cases  con 
tribute  in  an  important  manner  to  the  greater  clearness  and 
beauty  of  the  text,  but  does  not  alter  the  contents  from  those 
already  known  in  any  essential  respect.  And  even  though 
passages  are  found  of  the  soundness  of  which  we  cannot  but 
entertain  a  doubt,  it  is  yet,  upon  the  whole,  a  matter  of 
astonishment  that  so  old  a  literary  work  as  the  Old  Testament, 
written  in  a  character  so  little  practised  and  so  much  exposed 
to  serious  risks,  should  still  be  so  readable  and  so  intelligible. 

Letters  which  are  very  similar  in  appearance  were  readily 
interchanged.  Even  the  ancients  were  aware  of  this  danger, 
and  b.  Sabb.  103&  expressly  warns  against  the  confusion  of  N 
with  y,  of  2  with  3,  of  a  with  ¥,  of  1  with  i,  of  n  with  n,  of 
1  with  \  of  r  with  :,  of  n  with  a,  of  D  with  D.  Examples  of 
such  interchanges  have  been  occasionally  referred  to  above. 


§  98.  UNINTENTIONAL  ERRORS  OF  TEXT.        253 

The  confusion  of  "i  and  T  was  particularly  common.  So,  too,  the 
confusion  i  and  3.  On  n  and  n  compare  above,  §  77;  and 
specially  on  E  and  D,  Isaiah  xxx.  4,  DJH,  LXX.  D3n.  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  may  have  led  to  interchanges.  Ex 
amples  are:  Zeph.  iii.  13,  where  the  received  nyiED  *tt  might 
easily  originate  in  the  old  system  of  writing  from  the  original 
(as  preserved  in  the  LXX.)  IVio  Dto  ;  also  Isaiah  xix.  18, 
where  D"in  might  in  a  similar  way  originate  from  \rvs ;  and 
Isaiah  xvii.  9,  upon  which  Lagarde,  Semitica,  i.  31,  should  be 
consulted. 

Abbreviations  were  misunderstood.  In  particular,  it  cannot 
be  doubted  that  mm  even  in  ancient  times  had  been  sometimes 
written  only  as  ".  Then  the  LXX.  presupposes  in  Jer. 
xxv.  37,  ^SK  for  mm  sjx,  and  conversely  the  LXX.  had  read  in 
Jonah  i.  3,  mm  nny,  instead  of  nay,  and  in  Ps.  xvi.  3,  mm 
mnsriE,  instead  of  ••TIN  n»[n].  Compare  also  Hitzig  on  Jer. 
iii.  19  and  vi.  11.  So,  too,  it  would  seem  that  here  and  there 
in  the  Scriptures  transcribers  made  use  of  contractions  for 
the  grammatical  endings,  in  which  cases  then  the  marks  of 
abbreviation  might  easily  have  been  overlooked.  Thus  Lowth 
and  Cheyne  conjecture  in  Isaiah  v.  1,  DHH,  instead  of  nn,  and 
Derenbourg,  in  Ps.  cxlvii.  17,  Tiny  DVD,  instead  of  iDy  •»». 
So,  too,  in  Isaiah  li.  4,  read  W®V  for  W.  Compare  also 
Klostermann  on  1  Sam.  xiv.  34 ;  and  in  general,  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  Orient,  und  excgct.  Biblioth.  20.  37;  Low,  GrapMsclic 
Eequisiteny  pp.  44-53  ;  Erankel,  Vorstu-dien,  p.  215. 

Sometimes  errors  in  the  text  rest  upon  wrongly  supplied 
vowel  letters  (§  79),  e.g.  2  Sam.  xiii.  18,  where  E/Wp  should 
be  read  instead  of  D^sy£.  Perhaps  also  the  Qere  Kin  referred 
to  in  §  92  should  be  so  judged,  for  originally  it  would  be 
written  &?n. 

The  false  dividing  of  words  plays  a  very  considerable  role, 
the  possibility  of  which  may  be  seen  from  what  is  said  in 
§  83.  Not  infrequently  is  a  letter  separated  from  its  own 
word  and  added  to  the  next.  Even  the  Jewish  tradition  was 
aware  of  some  of  these  cases,  as  we  have  already  seen  (§  33), 


254  §98.    UNINTENTIONAL  ERRORS  OF  TEXT. 

for  their  corrected  readings  in  such  passages  as  2  Sam.  v.  2, 
Job  xxxviii.  12,  Jer.  iv.  5,  Ezra  iv.  12,  are  quite  right. 
But  we  meet  with  this  phenomenon  very  frequently.  Thus 
in  the  already  cited  passages,  Hos.  vi.  5,  Jer.  xv.  10, 
xxiii.  33,  Ps.  xlii.  6  f.,  and,  further,  in  Neh.  i.  12,  read 
ITO ;  Ps.  Ixii.  4,  read  mm  mi: ;  Ps.  xliv.  5,  read  mro 
(.Ten.  xlix.  19  f.,  read  "iD'K  Dnpy ;  Eccles.  vii.  27,  read  r6npn 
etc.  Of  a  somewhat  similar  kind  are  the  cases  where  a  letter 
which  concludes  one  word  and  at  the  same  time  begins  the 
second,  is  through  an  oversight  only  written  once  :  e.g.  2  Sam. 
v.  2,  read  nx  N^sn  ;  Jer.  liii.  10,  read  K^nn  ;  Zech.  iv.  7,  read 
inn  nns;  Ps.  xlii.  2,  read  n^ao  ;  Ps.  civ.  18,  read  D^nn ;  Job 
xxxiii.  17,  read  niryDB ;  Eccles.  ii.  24  f.,  ^tf^D,  etc.  And  such 
cases  as  those  in  which  an  initial  and  final  letter  has  been 
wrongly  reduplicated:  e.g.  Jer.  vi.  20,  read  nitD ;  Neh.  ii.  14, 
read  *pa6o ;  Ps.  xxii.  31,  read  «n\  etc. 

Passages  where  letters  have  been  transposed  are  found  in : 
Ps.  xviii.  4G,  i:nrM,  on  the  contrary,  2  Sam.  ii.  22,  rorn ;  Ps. 
Ixxii.  o,  TISTI,  read  •pifrOi ;  Isa.  viii.  12,Tj;p,  which  probably  is 
to  be  altered  into  trip  (with  i  for  i).  False  repetitions  are 
found  in  Jer.  iv.  25,  where  DV  [a11]  has  arisen  out  of  D*N*QJn 
by  repeating  final  sound  ;  Jer.  viii.  3,  where  the  second 
D'ntf&'jn,  and  Isa.  xli.  1,  where  ro  is^brp  (compare  xl.  31),  are 
to  be  struck  out  (compare  also  Ps.  xviii.  14). 

A  well-known  cause  of  textual  errors  is  the  similar  begin 
ning  of  two  clauses,  of  which  then  the  second  came  to  be 
overlooked.  An  example  is  found  in  Josh.  xv.  59,  where  a 
whole  series  of  names  of  places  has  disappeared  from  the 
Massoretic  text  (compare  the  LXX.).  Not  less  was  the 
danger  attending  the  adding  of  omitted  passages  of  the  text  in 
the  margin,  because  the  signs  of  correction  might  easily  be 
misunderstood.  In  this  way  are  explained  passages  where 
the  succession  of  clauses  is  evidently  in  confusion,  e.g.  2  Sam. 
xix.  12,  where  the  words  l,tan  .  .  .  1:111  belong  to  v.  11 
(compare  the  LXX.),  and  Ps.  xxxiv.,  where  v.  16  and  v.  17 
must  be  transposed.  While  in  these  cases  a  simple  trans 
position  is  sufficient,  there  are  other  passages  to  be  met  with, 
where  various  portions  foreign  to  the  original  text  have  been 


§  99.    REVIEW.  255 

introduced  through  the  incorporation  of  marginal  notes. 
Thus  originated  the  words  standing  in  a  falsified  passage, 
Isa.  xxxviii.  21  f.,  introduced  from  2  Kings  xx.  7  f.  Many 
passages  of  this  sort  are  indeed  subjects  of  controversy,  but  the 
existence  of  interpolations,  e.g.  in  Isa.  vii.  8,  ix.  13  f., 
xxix.  10,  has  DOW  at  last  been  placed  beyond  all  doubt. 
In  Dan.  ii.  4,  indeed,  rrniK  was  originally  a  parenthesis  apply 
ing  to  the  whole  passage  ii.  4-vii.  28,  the  adoption  of  which 
into  the  text  brought  with  it  the  change  of  noaH  into  VOTI. 
(compare  also  Ezra  iv.  V). 

99.  It  only  remains  for  us  now  to  bind  together  in  one 
comprehensive  description  of  the  historical  development  of  the 
Old  Testament  what  has  been  brought  out  in  the  preceding 
sections  (§92  ft).  It  has  been  shown  that  the  form  of  the 
text,  as  it  now  lies  before  us,  in  all  essential  respects  can  be 
traced  back  to  the  first  century  after  Christ,  while  we  have 
sure  witnesses  to  prove  that  in  the  time  before  Christ  a  form 
of  text  did  exist  which  diverged  considerably  from  the  one  we 
now  possess.  As  concerns  the  Pentateuch,  this  pre-Christian 
text  had  been  widely  circulated,  though  indeed  in  various,  and 
in  part  divergent,  copies,  and  yet  this  old  text  cannot  be 
characterised  as  one  superior  to  the  one  that  subsequently 
became  the  received  text.  So  also  in  regard  to  the  other 
book,  for  which  only  the  LXX.  is  the  oldest  witness,  some 
times  the  Alexandrine  translation,  sometimes  the  subsequently 
received  text,  has  preserved  the  original.  Already  this  dis 
tinction  of  the  pre-Christian  and  post-Christian  age  suggests 
the  conjecture,  that  the  domination  of  the  received  text  is  to 
be  ascribed  to  the  endeavours  of  the  same  men  who,  shortly 
after  Christ,  finally  settled  the  question  as  to  the  extent  and 
range  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon  (§  6).  The  necessity  that 
everything  that  concerned  Scripture,  the  peculiar  source  and 
centre  of  Jewish  life  and  activity  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
should  be  made  perfectly  certain  and  immovably  steadfast, 
carried  with  it  also  the  demand  that  the  text  must  receive  a 


256  §  99.    REVIEW. 

fixed  form,  which  was  of  consequence  especially  in  con 
troversies  with  the  Christians,  who  were  dependent  upon  the 
LXX.  If,  therefore,  we  were  to  refer  to  men  such  as  E.  Akiba 
and  his  like-minded  contemporaries,  as  those  who  have  on  this 
point  also  procured  for  the  Jews  certainty  and  unity,  it  would 
be  in  perfect  consistency  with  this  view,  that  we  should  meet 
for  the  first  time  with  this  form  of  the  text  which  has  held 
the  sway  from  that  time  onwards  in  Aquila,  who  was  dependent 
upon  E.  Akiba  or  his  immediate  contemporaries  (§  52).  How 
strongly  the  Jews  felt  themselves  in  subsequent  times  bound 
to  this  authorised  text  is  shown  in  a  striking  manner  in  this, 
that  no  one  ventured  to  change  it,  even  in  passages  where  he 
rightly  felt  convinced  of  its  incorrectness,  whether  it  be  that 
this  insight  had  been  obtained  by  means  of  reflection  or 
by  the  remembrance  of  other  and  in  part  more  suitable 
readings  (§  33). 

Of  the  style  and  manner  in  which  this  authorised  text  was 
constructed  we  unfortunately  know  nothing  definitely.  This 
much  only  is  plain,  that  the  very  conception  of  such  an 
authorised  form  of  text  implies  the  existence  of  a  definite 
standard  manuscript,  which  was  pronounced  the  only  allow 
able  one.  In  so  far,  the  relatively  recent  but  already  wide 
spread  theory,  that  all  extant  manuscripts  point  back  to  one 
single  archetype,  is  decidedly  correct.  Such  a  standard 
manuscript  might  secure  currency,  either  by  means  of  direct 
transcription,  or  by  means  of  this,  that  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree  the  extant  manuscripts  were  corrected  in  accordance 
with  it  (IP  n^n,  e.g.  jer.,  Sanhed.  ii.  fol.  20c);  and  so  we  see 
also  this  established  text  pushing  its  way  in  a  remarkably 
short  time  wherever  the  Pharisaic  influence  extended.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  equally  widespread  theory  that  this 
primitive  Codex  obtained  this  position  by  mere  arbitrary 
choice,  or  by  the  manuscripts  of  the  several  books  that  by 
chance  were  at  hand  being  bound  together  into  one  standard 


§  99.    REVIEW.  257 

Bible,  is  by  no  means  certain.  Even  if  this  may  have  been 
the  case  with  particular  books, — for  example,  with  the  Book 
of  Samuel  (§  95),  where  surely  the  manifest  errors  of  the  text 
would  scarcely  have  been  allowed  to  stand  if  the  authorised 
text  had  been  established  by  means  of  the  collation  of  several 
manuscripts, — it  certainly  had  not  been  the  only  principle 
employed,  least  of  all  in  the  case  of  the  Law.  The  Jewish 
tradition,  indeed,  expressly  declares  that  in  the  establishing  of 
the  Pentateuch  text  various  manuscripts  were  collated,  and 
that  only  in  this  way  was  an  authentic  form  of  the  text 
produced  (jer.  Taanith  iv.) ;  and  we  have  absolutely  no  right 
to  regard  the  tradition  as  a  fiction.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
quite  correct  to  say  that  the  critical  activity  in  these  matters 
was  reduced  to  a  minimum,  so  that,  e.g.,  the  parallel  texts  of 
the  Old  Testament  (§  73)  were  not  brought  into  harmony, 
and  that  in  no  case  was  an  endeavour  made  to  bring  about 
correspondence  between  the  authorised  text  and  the  ancient 
spoken  form  of  the  text,  which  lay  at  the  foundation  of  the 
distinction  between  the  Qere  and  the  Ketib.  But  this  fidelity 
to  the  objective  witnesses  for  the  text  is  in  fact  to  be  con 
sidered  as  a  great  benefit,  since  at  that  time  a  more  subjective 
criticism,  through  its  dependence  upon  dogmatic  motives  and 
unhistorical  principles,  would  have  been  productive  of  in 
curable  mischief.  Inadequate  as  the  method  of  textual 
criticism  certainly  was  which  is  indicated  in  the  passages 
quoted  from  the  Talmud — namely,  in  the  choice  of  readings, 
to  let  the  matter  be  determined  by  the  number  of  the 
witnesses — the  several  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  that 
have  been  intentionally  changed  show  (§  97)  what  the  result 
would  have  been  if  a  subjective  criticism  had  had  freer  play 
in  the  establishing  of  the  authorised  text. 

By  means  of  the  hypothesis  of  such  a  primitive  exemplar, 
from  which  all  later  manuscripts  were  transcribed,  we  may 
finally  explain  a  part  of  several  abnormal  forms  which  with 


258  §  99.    REVIEW. 

pedantic  scrupulosity  have  been  preserved  down  to  our  own 
days  (§  77).  The  irregularly  large  or  small  letters,  of  which 
mention  is  to  some  extent  already  made  in  the  Babylonian 
Talmud,  may  have  been  occasioned  by  inequalities  or  some 
other  defect  in  the  material  of  that  standard  manuscript,  for 
later  copyists  out  of  reverence  for  their  pattern  slavishly 
imitated  them.  Also  the  so-called  litterce  suspenses  may 
indeed  in  part  be  omitted  letters  which  in  that  manuscript 
were  added  above  the  other  letters. 

Eich.  Simon  (Histoire  Critique  du  V.  T.  liv.  i.  chap,  xviii., 
ed.  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 
Traduction  des  Septante,  n'a  commence  qu'apres  plusieurs 
disputes  qu'ils  eurent  avec  les  Chretiens ;  et  ce  fut  principale- 
ment  dans  ce  temps-lii  que  les  Juifs  s'appliquerent  au  sens 
litteral  de  1'Ecriture  et  a  rendre  les  exemplaires  hebreux  les 
plus  corrects  qu'il  leur  fut  possible." 

The  derivation  of  all  manuscripts  from  one  Archetype  has 
been  maintained  by  Bosenmuller  (  Vorrede  zur  Stereolypausgabe 
des  A.  T.  1834),  Olshausen  (Die  Psalmen,  1853,  pp.  17  f., 
337  f.),  Lagarde  (Anmerkungen  zur  griecli.  Uebers.  d.  Pro- 
verlien,  1863,  p.  1  f. ;  GGA,  1870,  p.  1549  if.),  Noldeke 
(Alttestament.  Literatur,  p.  241),  etc.  Compare  also  ZAW, 
ix.  303;  and  on  the  other  side,  ZWKL,  1887,  p.  278  ff. 
Lagarde  has  formulated  this  theory  in  a  quite  peculiar  style  in 
the  Preface  referred  to  in  §  97  ;  but  compare  Kuenen's  reply 
there  also  referred  to.  Against  the  hypothesis  that  the 
standard  manuscript  consisted  of  manuscripts  arbitrarily  put 
together,  compare  Dillmann  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyclopcedie, 
ii.  388. 

Jer.  Taanitli,  iv.  fol.  685:  "Three  Torah  Codices  were 
found  in  the  temple  Court,  Codex  pyo,  Codex  *BiBjft,  and  Codex 
fcon.  In  one  there  was  pyo  (Deut.  xxxiii.  27),  while  the  two 
others  had  ruijflD ;  one  had  '•DIW  (Ex.  xxiv.  5  ;  compare  Levy, 
Neulielrdisches  Worterbuch  i.  507),  the  other  two  njtt ;  one 


§  00.    KEVIEW.  259 

had  nine  times  ton,  the  others  eleven  times  son.  In  all  three 
cases  the  two  were  held  to  and  the  one  rejected."  Compare 
Massekct  Soplierim  vi.  4,  p.  xii.  Fiirst's  Remarks  on  an  Ezra 
Codex  (Kanon  d.  A.  T.  p.  117)  rest,  as  Strack  has  shown,  on 
a  wrong  reading,  1.  Moecl  Kat.  186;  compare  liabbinovicz, 
Varice  Lectiones  in  Mischnam,  ii.  61. 

The  similarity  of  the  post-Christian  forms  of  the  text 
spoken  of  in  the  above  section  is  naturally  true  only  upon  the 
whole,  and  does  not  exclude,  as  follows  indeed  from  the  facts 
already  set  forth  in  §§  92-93,  all  sorts  of  small  divergences. 
An  important  question,  the  exhaustive  answer  to  which,  how 
ever,  requires  the  performance  of  the  task  referred  to  in  §  93, 
is  to  determine  the  exact  relation  between  the  Massoretic  text 
and  the  Archetypal  texts  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Jerome. 
In  a  remarkable  way  the  Hebrew  manuscripts,  which  certainly 
were  derived  from  the  most  diverse  regions,  seem  to  form  a 
unity  over  against  those  translators,  because  the  variations 
present  in  these  are  only  extremely  seldom  repeated  in  any 
one  manuscript.  Evidently  the  rigid  stability  of  form  which 
resulted  from  the  labours  of  the  Massoretes  called  into  being 
new  standard  texts,  on  which  the  manuscripts  are  directly 
dependent,  which,  however,  were  themselves  collateral  with 
the  manuscripts  used  by  those  translators. 


MORRISON'   AND   GIBB,    PUJNTEIIS,    EDINBURGH. 


PUBLICATIONS     OF 

T.       &       T.      O    L    .A.    IR,    IKI, 

38    GEORGE     STREET,     EDINBURGH. 
LONDON:  SIMPKIN,  MARSHALL,  HAMILTON,  KENT  £  CO.  LIMITED. 

Adam  (J.,  D.D.)— AN  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES.    8vo,  9s. 

Ahlfeld  (Dr.),  etc. — THE  VOICE  FROM  THE  CROSS.     Cr.  8vo,  price  5s. 

Alcock  (Deborah) — THE  SEVEN  CHURCHES  OF  ASIA.     Is. 

Alexander  (Prof.  W.Lindsay) — BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY.   Twovols.  8vo,  21s. 

Alexander  (Dr.  J.  A.) — COMMENTARY  ON  ISAIAH.     Two  vols.  8vo,  17s. 

Allen  (Prof.  A.  V.  G.) — LIFE  OF  JONATHAN  EDWARDS.     Fcap.  8vo,  5s. 

Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library — A  COLLECTION  OF  ALL  THE  WORKS 
OF  THE  FATHERS  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  Piuon  TO  THE  COUNCIL  OF 
NiaasA.  Twenty-four  vols.  Svo,  Subscription  price,  £6,  6s. 

Augustine's  Works — Edited  by  MARCUS  DODS,  D.D.      Fifteen  vols. 

8vo,  Subscription  price,  £3,  19s.  nett. 

Bannerman  (Prof.)— THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Bannerman  (D.  D.,  D.D.)— THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH.    8vo,  12s. 
Baumgarteu  (Professor) — APOSTOLIC  HISTORY.     Three  vols.  8vo,  27s. 
Beck  (Dr.) — OUTLINES  OF  BIBLICAL  PSYCHOLOGY.     Crown  Svo,  4s. 

PASTORAL  THEOLOGY  IN  THE  XEW  TESTAMENT.    Crown  Svo,  6s. 

Bengel — GNOMON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.     With  Original  Notes, 

Explanatory  and  Illustrative.     Five  vols.  Svo,  Subscription  price,  31s.  6d. 
Cheaper  Edition,  the  five  volumes  bound  in  three,  24s. 

Besser's  CHRIST  THE  LIFE  OF  THE  WORLD.     Price  6s. 
Bible-Class  Handbooks.     Crown  Svo. 
BINNIE  (Prof.)— The  Church,  Is.  6d. 
BROWN  (Principal) — The  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  2s. 
CANDLISH  (Prof.) — The  Christian  Sacraments,  Is.  6d.— The  Work  of  the 

Holy  Spirit,  Is.  6d. — Christian  Doctrine  of  God,  Is.  Gd. 
DAVIDSON  (Prof.)— The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  2s.  6d. 
DODS  (Prof.) — Post-Exilian  Prophets,  2s.     Book  of  Genesis,  2s. 
DOUGLAS  (Principal) — Book  of  Joshua,  Is.  6d.     Book  of  Judges,  Is.  3d. 

Obadiah  to  Zephaniah,  Is.  (kl. 

HAMILTON  (T.,  D.D.) — Irish  Presbyterian  Church  History,  2s. 
HENDERSON  (ARCHIBALD,  D.D.) — Palestine,  with  Maps,  2s.  6d. 
INNES  (A.  TAYLOR)— Church  and  State.  :>s. 

KILPATRICK  (T.B.,  B.D.) — Butler's  Three  Sermons  on  Human  Nature,  Is.  6d. 
LINDSAY  (Prof.) — St.  Mark's  Gospel,  2s.  6d.— St.  Luke's  Gospel,  Part  I.,  2s.; 
Part  II.,  Is.  3d.— The  Reformation,  2s.— The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  two 
vols.,  Is.  6d.  each. 
MACGREGOR  (Prof.)— The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  Is.  6d. 

—  Book  of  Exodus.     Two  vols.,  2s.  each. 
MACPHERSON  (JOHN,  M.A.) — Presbyterianism,  Is.  6d.     The  Westminster 

Confession  of  Faith,  2s.     The  Sum  of  Saving  Knowledge,  Is.  6d. 
MURPHY  (Prof.)— The  Books  of  Chronicles,  Is.  6d. 
REITH  (Gso.,  M.A.) — St.  John's  Gospel.     Two  vols.,  2s.  each. 
SCRYMGEOUR  (WM.) — Lessons  on  the  Life  of  Christ,  2s.  6d. 
STALKER  (JAMES,  D.D.)— Life  of  Christ,  Is.  6d.     Life  of  St.  Paul,  Is.  6d. 
SMITH  (GEORGE,  LL.D.) — A  Short  History  of  Missions,  2s.  6d. 
THOMSON  (W.  D.,  M.A.)— Christian  Miracles  and  Conclusions  of  Science,  2s. 
WALKER  (NORMAN  L.,  D.D.)— Scottish  Church  History,  Is.  6d. 
WHYTE  (ALEXANDER,  D.D.) — The  Shorter  Catechism,  2s.  6d. 
Bible-Class  Primers.     Paper  covers,  6d.  each ;  free  by  post,  7d.     In 

cloth,  8d.  each ;  free  by  post,  9d. 

CKOSKERY  (Prof.) — Joshua  and  the  Conquest.  GIVEN  (Prof.) — The  Kings  of  Judah. 
GLOAG  (PATON  J.,  D.D.) — Life  of  Paul.  IVEKACH  (JAMES,  M.A.) — Life  of  Moses. 
PATERSON  (Prof.  J.  A.)— Period  of  the  Judges. 


T.  and  T.  Clark 's  Publications. 


Gieseler  (Dr.  J.  C.  L. ) — ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY.    Four  vols.  8  vo,  £2, 2s. 
Gifford  (Canon) — VOICES  or  THE  PROPHETS.     Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d. 
Given  (Kev.  Prof.  J.  J.) — THE  TRUTHS  OF  SCRIPTURE  IN  CONNECTION 

WITH  REVELATION,  INSPIRATION,  AND  THE  CANON.     8vo,  6s. 
Glasgow  (Prof.)— APOCALYPSE  TRANSLATED  AND  EXPOUNDED.  8vo,  10/6. 
Gloag  (Paton  J.,  D.D.) — A  CRITICAL  AND  EXEGETICAL  COMMENTARY 

ON  THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.      Two  Vols.  8vO,  21s. 

—  THE  MESSIANIC  PROPHECIES.     Crown  8vo,  7s.  6d. 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES.   8vo,  12s. 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  CATHOLIC  EPISTLES.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

EXEGETICAL  STUDIES.     Crown  Svo,  5s. 

Godet  (Prof.) — COMMENTARY  ON  ST.  LUKE'S  GOSPEL.  Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

COMMENTARY  ON  ST.  JOHN'S  GOSPEL.    Three  vols.  Svo,  31s.  6d. 

COMMENTARY  ON  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

COMMENTARY  ON  IST  EPISTLE  TO  CORINTHIANS.  2  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

LECTURES  IN  DEFENCE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  FAITH.     Cr.  Svo,  6s. 

Goebel  (Siegfried) — THE  PARABLES  OF  JESUS.     Svo,  10s.  6d. 
Gotthold's  Emblems ;  or,  INVISIBLE  THINGS  UNDERSTOOD  BY  THINGS 

THAT  ARE  MADE.     Crown  Svo,  5s. 

Grimm's  GREEK-ENGLISH  LEXICON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  Trans 
lated,  Revised,  and  Enlarged  by  JOSEPH  H.  THAYER,  D.D.  Demy  4to,  36s. 

Guyot  (Arnold,  LL.D.) — CREATION;  or,  The  Biblical  Cosmogony  in  the 
Light  of  Modern  Science.  With  Illustrations.  Crown  Svo,  5s.  6d. 

Hagenbach  (Dr.  K.  R.) — HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINES.  Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  REFORMATION.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

Hall  (Rev.  Newman,  LL.B.) — THE  LORD'S  PRAYER.   2nd  Ed.,  cr.  Svo,  6s. 
GETHSEMANE  ;  or,  Leaves  of  Healing  from  the  Garden  of  Grief. 

Crown  Svo,  5s. 

Hamilton  (T.,  D.D.) — BEYOND  THE  STARS;  or,  Heaven,  its  Inhabitants, 

Occupations,  and  Life.     Second  Edition,  crown  Svo,  3s.  6d. 

Haiiess  (Dr.  C.  A.) — SYSTEM  OF  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.    Svo,  10s.  6d. 
Harris  (Rev.  S.,  D.D.)— THE  PHILOSOPHICAL  BASIS  OF  THEISM.   8vo,  1 2s. 

THE  SELF-EEVELATION  OF  GOD.     Svo,  12s. 

Haupt  (Erich) — THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  JOHN.     8vo,  10s.  6cl. 
Havernick  (H.  A.  Ch.) — INTRODUCTION  TO  OLD  TESTAMENT.     10s.  6d. 
Heard  (Eev.  J.  B.,  M.A.)— THE  TRIPARTITE  NATURE  OF  MAN — SPIRIT, 

SOUL,  AND  BODY.     Fifth  Edition,  crown  Svo,  6s. 

OLD  AND  NEW  THEOLOGY.   A  Constructive  Critique.  Cr.  Svo,  6s. 

Hefele  (Bishop) — A  HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCILS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

Vol.  I.,  to  A.D.  325  ;  Vol.  II.,  A.D.  326  to  429.     Vol.  III.,  A.D.  431  to  the 
close  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  451.     Svo,  12s.  each. 

Hengstenberg  (Professor) — COMMENTARY  ON  PSALMS.    3  vols.  Svo,  33s. 

—  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  BOOK  OF  ECCLESIASTES,  ETC.     Svo,  9s. 

—  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  EZEKIEL  ELUCIDATED.    Svo,  10s.  6d. 
THE  GENUINENESS  OF  DANIEL,  etc.     Svo,  12s. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD.    Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

CHRISTOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.    Four  vols.  Svo,  £2, 2s. 

ON  THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  JOHN.    Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

Herzog — ENCYCLOPEDIA  OF  BIBLICAL,  HISTORICAL,  DOCTRINAL,  AND 

PRACTICAL  THEOLOGY.     Based  on  the  Real-Encyldopddie  of  Herzog,  Plitt, 
and  HaucL    Edited  by  Prof.  SCHAFF,  D.D.      In  three  vols.,  price  24s.  each. 

ENCYCLOPEDIA  OP  LIVING  DIVINES,  ETC.,  OF  ALL  DENOMINATIONS 

IN  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA.  (Supplement  to  Herzog' s  Encyclopaedia. )  Imp.  Svo,  8s. 

Hutchison  (John,  D.D.) — COMMENTARY  ON  THESSALONIANS.     Svo,  9s. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Hutchison  (John,  D.D.) — COMMENTARY  ON  PHILIPPIANS.     8vo,  7s.  6d. 
Janet  (Paul) — FINAL  CAUSES.     By  PAUL  JANET,  Member  of  the  In 
stitute.     Translated  from  the  French.     Second  Edition,  demy  8vo,  12s. 

THE  THEORY  OF  MORALS.     Demy  Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Johnstone  (Prof.  E.,  D.D.)— COMMENTARY  ON  LST  PETER.    Svo,  10s.  6d. 
Jones  (E.  E.  C.) — ELEMENTS  OF  LOGIC.     Svo,  7s.  6d. 
Jouffroy— PHILOSOPHICAL  ESSAYS.     Fcap.  Svo,  5s. 
Kant — THE  METAPHYSIC  OF  ETHICS.     Crown  Svo,  6s. 

PHILOSOPHY  OF  LAW.     Trans,  by  W.  HASTIE,  B.D.    Cr.  Svo,  5s. 

PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS,  etc.     Crown  Svo,  2s.  6d. 

Keil  (Prof.)— COMMENTARY  ON  THE  PENTATEUCH,  3  vols.  Svo,  31s.  6d. ; 

JOSHUA,  JUDGES,  AND  RUTH,  Svo,  10s.  6d.  ;  BOOKS  OF  SAMUEL,  Svo,  10s.  6d.  ; 
BOOKS  OP  KINGS,  Svo,  10s.  6d.;  CHRONICLES,  Svo,  10s.  6d. ;  EZIIA,  NEHEMIAH, 
ESTHER,  Svo,  10s.  6d.  ;  JEREMIAH,  2  vols.  Svo,  21s.  ;  EZBKIEL,  2  vols.  Svo, 
21s.  ;  DANIEL,  Svo,  10s.  6d.  ;  MINOR,  PUOPIIETS,  2  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

MANUAL    OF    HISTORICO-CUITICAL    INTRODUCTION    TO    THE 

CANONICAL  SCRIPTUKES  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  ARCHAEOLOGY.    Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

Keymer  (Rev.  N.,  M.A.) — NOTES  ON  GENESIS.     Crown  Svo,  Is.  6d. 
Killen  (Prof.) — THE  FRAMEWORK  OF  THE  CHURCH.     A  Treatise  on 

Church  Government.     Svo,  9s. 

THE  OLD   CATHOLIC  CHURCH  ;   or,  The   History,   Doctrine, 

"Worship,  and  Polity  of  the  Christians,  traced  to  A.D.  755.     Svo,  9s. 

THEIGNATIAN  EPISTLES  ENTIRELY  SPURIOUS.    Cr.  8vo,  2s.  Gd. 

Konig  (Dr.  F.  E.)— THE  RELIGIOUS  HISTORY  OF  ISRAEL.   Cr.  Svo,  3s.  Gd. 
Krummacher  (Dr.  F.  W.) — THE  SUFFERING  SAVIOUR;  or,  Meditations 

on  the  Last  Days  of  the  Sufferings  of  Christ.     Eighth  Edition,  crown  Svo,  6s. 

DAVID,  THE  KING  OF  ISRAEL.     Second  Edition,  cr.  8vo,  6s. 

AUTOBIOGRAPHY.     Crown  Svo,  Gs. 

Kurtz  (Prof.) — HANDBOOK  OF  CHURCH  HISTORY.     Two  vols.  Svo,  15s. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  OLD  COVENANT.     Three  vols.  Svo,  31s.  Gd. 

Ladd  (Prof.  G.  T.) — THE  DOCTRINE   OF    SACRED    SCRIPTURE  :    A 

Critical,  Historical,  and  Dogmatic  Inquiry  into  the  Origin  and  Nature  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments.  Two  vols.  Svo,  1600  pp.,  24s. 

Laidlaw  (Prof.)— THE  BIBLE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN.     Svo,  10s.  Gd. 
Lane  (Laura  M.) — LIFE  OF  ALEXANDER  VINET.     Crown  Svo,  7s.  Gd. 
Lange  (J.  P.,  D.D.) — THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST.     Edited 

by  MARCUS  Dons,  D.D.     2nd  Ed.,  in  4  vols.  Svo,  Subscription  price,  2Ss. 

COMMENTARIES  ON  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS.     Edited 

by  PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D.  OLD  TESTAMENT,  14  vols.  ;  NEW  TESTAMENT,  10 
vols.  ;  APOCRYPHA,  1  vol.  Subscription  price,  nett,  15s.  each. 

—  ON  ST.  MATTHEW  AND  ST.  MARK.     Three  vols.  Svo,  31s.  Gd. 

ON  THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  LUKE.     Two  vols.  Svo,  18s. 

ON  THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  JOHN.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 


Leehler  (Prof.  G-.  V.,  D.D.) — THE  APOSTOLIC  AND  POST- APOSTOLIC 

TIMES.    Their  Diversity  and  Unity  in  Life  and  Doctrine.    2  vols.  cr.  Svo,  16s. 

Lehmann  (Pastor) — SCENES  FROM  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS.  Cr.  Svo,  3s.  Gd. 
Lewis  (Tayler,  LL.D.)— THE  Six  DAYS  OF  CREATION.  Cr.  Svo,  7s.  Gd. 
Lichtenberger  (F.,  D.D.) — HISTORY  OF  GERMAN  THEOLOGY  IN  THE 

19TH  CENTURY.     Svo,  14s. 
Lilley  (J.  P.,  M.A.) — THE  LORD'S  SUITER  :  Its  Origin,  Nature,  and 

Use.     Crown  Svo,  5s. 

Lisco  (F.  G-.) — PARABLES  OF  JESUS  EXPLAINED.     Fcap.  Svo,  5s. 
Lotze  (Hermann) — MICROCOSMUS  :  An  Essay  concerning  Man  and  his 

relation  to  the  World.     Fourth  Edition,  two  vols.  Svo  (1450  pages),  36s. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Luthardt,  Kahnis,  and  Bruckner — THE  CHURCH.     Crown  8vo,  5s. 
Luthardt  (Prof. ) — ST.  JOHN  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THEFOURTH  GOSPEL.  7s.  6d. 
ST.  JOHN'S  GOSPEL  DESCRIBED  AND  EXPLAINED  ACCORDING 

TO  ITS  PECULIAR  CHARACTER.     Three  vols.  Svo,  31s.  6d. 

—  APOLOGETIC  LECTURES  ON  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  (6  Ed.\  SAVING 

(5  Ed. ),  MORAL  TRUTHS  OF  CHRISTIANITY  (3  Ed.}.    3  vols.  cr.  Svo,  6s.  each. 

HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.     Vol.  I.,  Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Macdonald— INTRODUCTION  TO  PENTATEUCH.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

THE  CREATION  AND  FALL.     Svo,  12s. 

Mair  (A.,  D.D.) — STUDIES  IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES.     Second 

Edition,  crown  Svo,  6s. 

Martensen  (Bishop) — CHRISTIAN  DOGMATICS  :  A  Compendium  of  the 

Doctrines  of  Christianity.     Svo,  10s.  6d. 

CHRISTIAN    ETHICS.      (GENERAL  —  INDIVIDUAL  —  SOCIAL.) 

Three  vols.  Svo,  10s.  6<1.  each. 

Matheson  (Geo.,  D.D.) — GROWTH  OF  THE  SPIRIT  OF  CHRISTIANITY,  from 

the  First  Century  to  the  Dawn  of  the  Lutheran  Era.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

AIDS  TO  THE  STUDY  OF  GERMAN  THEOLOGY.    3rd  Edition,  4s.  6d. 

Meyer  (Dr.)  —  CPJTICAL  AND   EXEGETICAL  COMMENTARIES  ON  THE 

NEW  TESTAMENT.     Twenty  vols.   Svo.     Subscription   Price,  £5,   5s.    nett ; 
Non- Subscription  Price,  10s.  6d.  each  volume. 

ST.  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL,  two  vols.;  MARK  AND  LUKE,  two  vols.;  ST. 
JOHN'S  GOSPEL,  two  vols.  ;  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES,  two  vols.  ;  ROMANS,  two 
vols.  ;  CORINTHIANS,  two  vols.  ;  GALATIANS,  one  vol.  ;  EPHESIANS  AND 
PHILEMON,  one  vol.  ;  PHILIPPIANS  AND  COLOSSIANS,  one  vol.  ;  THESSA- 
LONIANS  (Dr.  Lunemann],  one  vol.  ;  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  (Dr.  Huther), 
one  vol.  ;  HEBREWS  (Dr.  Lunemann),  one  vol.  ;  ST.  JAMES  AND  ST.  JOHN'S 
EPISTLES  (Huther),  one  vol.  ;  PETER  AND  JUDE  (Dr.  Huther),  one  vol. 

Michie  (Charles,  M.A.) — BIBLE  WORDS  AND  PHRASES.     18mo,  Is. 
Monrad  (Dr.  D.  G.) — THE  WORLD  OF  PRAYER,     Crown  Svo,  4s.  6d. 
Morgan  (J.,  D.D.) — SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY  TO  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  7s.  6d 

EXPOSITION  OF  THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN.     8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Milller  (Dr.  Julius) — THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN.     An  entirely 

New  Translation  from  the  Fifth  German  Edition.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

Murphy  (Professor) — COMMENTARY  ON  THE  PSALMS.    8vo,  12s. 

A  CRITICAL  AND  EXEGETICAL  COMMENTARY  ON  EXODUS.    9s. 

Naville  (Ernest)— THE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL.     Crown  Svo,  4s.  6d. 

—  THE  CHRIST.   Translated  by  Rev.  T.  J.  DESPRES.   Cr.8vo,4s.6d. 

MODERN    PHYSICS:    Studies    Historical    and    Philosophical. 

Translated  by  Kev.  HENRY  DOWNTON,  M.A.     Crown  Svo,  5s. 

Neander  (Dr.) — GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION  AND 

CHURCH.     Eight  vols.  Svo,  £2,  2s.  nett. 

Nicoll  (W.  R.,  LL.D.)— THE  INCARNATE  SAVIOUR:    A  Life  of  Jesus 

Christ,     Crown  Svo,  6s. 

Novalis — HYMNS  AND  THOUGHTS  ON  RELIGION.     Crown  Svo,  4s. 
Oehler  (Prof.) — THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.    2  vols.  Svo,  21s. 
Olshausen  (Dr.  H.) — BIBLICAL  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  GOSPELS  AND 

ACTS.     Four  vols.  Svo,  £2,  2s.     Cheaper  Edition,  four  vols.  crown  Svo,  2*&. 

-  ROMANS,  one  vol.  Svo,  10s.  6d. ;  CORINTHIANS,  one  vol.  ?- 
9s.  ;  PHILIPPIANS,  TITUS,  AND  FIRST  TIMOTHY,  one  vol.  Svo,  10s.  6d. 
Oosterzee  (Dr.  Van) — THE  YEAR  OF  SALVATION.      Words  of  Life  for 

Every  Day.     A  Book  of  Household  Devotion.     Two  vols.  Svo,  6s.  each. 

MOSES  :  A  Biblical  Study.     Crown  Svo,  6s. 

Orelli — OLD  TESTAMENT  PROPHECY  OF  THE  CONSUMMATION  OF  GOD'S 

KINGDOM.     Svo,  10s.  6d. 

COMMENTARY  ON  ISAIAH.   Svo,  10s.  (5<1.   JEREMIAH.  Svo,  10s.  6d.