INTRODUCTION

TO THE STUDY OF THE

OLD TESTAMENT

PRINTED BY
BFOTTISWOODB AND CO., NBW-STRBBT SQWABE
LONDON

c
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT

BY
JOHANN GOTTFRIED EICHORN

A PBAGMENT TEANSLATBD
BY
GEOEGE TILLY GOLLOP, ESQ.

PRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION

EDITOR'S PREFACE.

My Father acquired a knowledge of the German language
during his travels in the country in 1815-16. He trans
lated some of the minor poems of Schiller in 1823. Later,
his attention was directed to German Theology, and finding
there was no English version of Eichorn's ' Introduction to
the Study of the Old Testament,' he set to work to make
one. For this purpose he studied Hebrew and Arabic ;
with Greek he was well acquainted.
But he gave up the task when he had translated a
portion of the work, and he took no steps for printing
even this. Now, in his ninety-eighth year, he has asked
me to have the fragment printed. The translation was
made from an early edition of Eichorn's works.
From my ignorance of the languages of antiquity, it is
not within my competence to do more than to correct the
proofs of the translation. I regret that circumstances
prevent my calling in further help than has been kindly
afforded by the printer.
The progress of Biblical criticism in the last hundred
years is so great that Eichorn's ' Introduction to the Study
of the Old Testament ' may be of inferior interest to the

Vl INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
works of later writers, but Eichorn was a pioneer in the
field of Biblical Criticism. His writings are distinguished
by moderation, ingenuity, sound learning, and common
sense. They may therefore still be read with mterest
and advantage, and their value is not altogether lost, in
spite of the long period of time which has elapsed since
they were first published. CHRISTINE G. J. EEEVE.
62 Rutland Gate : December 1888.

PEEFACE

TO

THE THIRD EDITION.

However willingly I might have undertaken the labour
of giving an entirely new form to this new edition of the
' Introduction to the Old Testament,' my contemporaries
have hitherto afforded me small occasion to exchange the
results of my former researches against other convictions.
I am obliged, therefore, to confine myself merely to remedy
the defects of the former editions to the best of my judg
ment and power, and bring the present one up to the
level of the existing state of Biblical Literature. The
proposed alterations, then, affect less the entire work than
its details, and I hope to have omitted nothing essential
from new works which may have appeared, either to its
increase or improvement. May the public be only as well
pleased with the present as with past editions !
To its indulgence and the unseen blessings which, as
an author, I have hitherto reaped, am I alone indebted for
the courage with which undismayed I still proceed on

vill INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
my path of authorship, though vexed not seldom by the
unpleasant chances along the same which grudge and
greed have brought upon me. Even as regards this book
they have not been wanting. For although its rightful
publishers and author have done everything to place it as
cheap as possible in the hands of the public, and to that
end its five and a half quires (of the former editions) or
126 sheets, in spite of the dearness of printing, cost the
buyer, as the shop price, even without the least abatement,
only 4 rixdollars and 8 good groschen, yet still towards
this cheap book the ravenous hand of piracy was stretched,
and immediately after the appearance of the former
editions the value of their property was repeatedly re
duced to the publishers and author. Notwithstanding
this injury the publishers will only raise the price in
proportion to the increased cost of printing and paper
since 1788. Should it, however, now please the pirates,
according to their usual practice, to seize the property of
this new altered and improved edition, the necessary
measures are already, taken to reduce their false wares to
waste paper.
Immediately after the completion of this new edition
of the ' Introduction to the Old Testament ' the short and
popular form of the poetical scriptures of the Jews, of
which I published the Book of Job two years ago as a
specimen, will be sent to press, and this book also I shall
make it a duty to give to the public as cheap as possible.
Goettingen : April 17, 1803.

PEEFACE

TO

THE SECOND EDITION.

The merely theological use of the Scriptures of the Old
Testament has hitherto, more than might be imagined,
hindered the due estimation of these works of grey anti
quity. They were searched only for religious ideas, and
men remained blind to their other contents ; they were
read without regard to antiquity or its languages, almost as
if a work of modern times, and, according to the varying
strength of the readers' mental faculties, the most hetero
geneous results discovered in them. One class of readers
easily persuaded themselves that their religious notions
were not only communicated to the Hebrews by means of
many supernatural events, but that they were also, by means
„of a succession of similar wonders, preserved amongst them,
and so handed down to posterity. Another class, on the
contrary, who viewed with a clearer glance the nature of the
Jewish religion and its separate ideas, resented so far the
apparent improbability, incredibility, and in part the im-

X INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
possibility, of these representations, as to treat the Jewish
Scriptures with mockery and contempt, and even deny
them the mere justice extended to the commonest writings.
This treatment went on the supposition that the Jewish
Scriptures really contained everything quoted from them,
and which even to a reflecting glance might seem hardly
to be their necessary sense. Nothing but an expounder
of their contents was wanting to reconcile thinking men
to these extremely important monuments of the human
mind, and a champion of their importance who might
show that the greater part of the miracles and supernatural
events are not contained in the books at all, but were
introduced into them from mere misapprehension and
ignorance of the language and mode of representation
which they possess in common with all the works of remote
antiquity ; and to direct their attention to the fact that
these books contain so complete an account of the culture
and enlightenment of an ancient people as there exists
nowhere else ; that they exhibit this people to us under
circumstances which reach further back than the oldest
written records extant of any other known and far-famed
nation of antiquity, and that they give occasion for the
most important considerations to men and to human history.
These principles and objects, without keeping which
in view mistake is so easy in many parts of the Old Tes
tament, I had firmly grasped at an early period ; and to
point out the same was one of the purposes I proposed to
myself in the elaboration of this ' Introduction to the Old
Testament.' For this very reason I might have chosen
another plan and title had I not known how necessary it is

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION xi
(particularly to a young author), even with regard to the
external form of a book, to pay due regard to the reigning
tone of opinion amongst his contemporaries; and I hoped
that this innocent artifice of a title-page might draw
greater attention to my work and increase the resort to its
contents. According to the plan thus adopted, it became neces
sary to commence with a prefatory chapter on Literature,
in which I should strive to combine all information, both
ancient and modern, with regard to the external structure
of the Old Testament ; and, to the extent of my means,
throw light on dark matter, introduce some order into con
fusion, and reduce what was doubtful to a greater degree
of certainty. It was necessary to apply my chief pains to
a field hitherto unbroken, namely, to an inquiry into the
internal structure of the separate books of the Old Testa
ment by means of the higher criticism, a term strange to
no scholar. Whatever opinion may be formed of these
attempts, my conscience tells me nevertheless that they
are the result of anxious inquiries, though no one feels
a less prepossession for them than their author himself.
One man's strength will scarcely suffice to bring these
inquiries quickly to perfection ; they demand a mind
always alert and clear, and who can long retain this
amidst such toilsome researches ? They require the most
piercing insight into the inner nature of each book, and
what eye shall remain undimmed in the long run ? Many
sources from whence information might be drawn are no£
yet generally accessible. Who, then, at the present mo
ment can produce an entirely perfect work ? The materials

xii INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
which require to be wrought for these inquiries may be
gathered and utilised in the case of one or of a few books,
but whose perseverance in research can hold out to the
extent of all the books with like pertinacity and patience ?
Deeply impressed with this conviction, I wished to delay
the task of a new edition of these attempts over a space of
many years ; and in the meantime to forget entirely the
results of my former inquiries, in order to test them the
more freely, and be enabled the sooner to discover whether,
in weighing my proofs, I had gone too far and been too
hasty in my conclusions, or had failed to place my
opinions in the best possible light. With this view I had
settled with my friend, the late Reich, that instead of a
second edition of the First Part, which soon after its first
appearance became necessary, an exact copy, even to the
errata and old date, should be prepared ; and still more,
that the last Parts should be printed as they were at first.
In spite of these measures, the necessity for a new
edition of the whole work arrived much sooner than I
either wished or expected, and before I was become such a
stranger to my former researches as to venture on essential
alterations. There remained to me then no other resources but
the opportunities of time and circumstances for the
improvement and perfecting of my former work, of
which in the First general Part more traces are to be found
than in the Second special one, because the former, in con
sequence of the progressive discovery of new sources of
criticism, has been truly enriched, while for the latter
nothing has been done. Even the opinions which have

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION xill
reached me on the first edition, have failed to be as useful
as I had hoped. The Zurich critic has made use of his
Journal to enter more deeply into my subjects, and
I thought at first that my best means of evincing my
esteem and gratitude to him for his liberal remarks would
be to tell him with equal frankness why, with the excep
tion of a few passages, I must still differ from him, and
for that purpose I had proposed to insert his criticisms,
accompanied by my remarks, in every suitable place in
this new edition ; and, increased with these additions, the
First Part had been already despatched to Leipsic to be
printed. As soon, however, as I held in my hands the
first twelve sheets of the new edition, I felt what had
escaped me in running through my manuscript — a certain
heat in my objections, which displeased myself, arid a
certain indecorum which by means of polemical insertions
had found its way into a book which at its first appearance
had carefully refrained from all hostility. I immediately,
therefore, struck out all remarks of this nature which were
intended for the following Parts, and employed, only
silently as it were, the bright hints and remarks of my
friends Brown and Adler, which they had sent me for the
First Part in manuscript.
Jena : February 26, 1787.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER PAGE
I. Of Jewish Literature in General : of the Publi
cation, Preservation, Collection, Genuineness,
and Canonical Character of the Scriptures of
the Old Testament  1
II. History of the Texts of the Books of the Old
Testament  114
III. Aids to the Critical Elaboration of the Old
Testament ........ 237

INTEODUCTION to the
OLD TESTAMENT

CHAPTER I.
OF JEWISH LITERATURE IN GENERAL : OF THE PUBLICATION,
PRESERVATION, COLLECTION, GENUINENESS, AND CANON
ICAL CHARACTER OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT. Section 1. — General Considerations concerning
Jewish Literature.
If a nation can only be held to be original and to possess an
original literature which from the lowest step of education
has raised itself by its own strength gradually upwards,
has invented its own laws and religion, and the progressive
gradation of whose knowledge has never been interrupted
by aids from foreign learning, arts, and inventions, in
that case the Jews can pass for no original people and be
held to have no original literature. To be indebted to them
selves alone, they ought from the commencement of their
education to have been shut up in a peculiar and strictly
circumscribed land and have lived remote from the influence
of all other people. Now they wandered about from their

2 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
first rise, when they existed only at first in a small family,
as herdsmen, amidst various tribes ; adopted from them
manners, ideas, and opinions, and were subjected to
an influence from them sometimes stronger, sometimes
weaker. Afterwards, in Egypt, the family grew up to be a
people, and although, as herdsmen (a base pursuit, to
Egyptian notions), not in the closest relations with the
Egyptians, yet touched by them in so many various ways
that Egyptian ideas, views, and habits must have necessarily
passed over to them. How otherwise came free-born Jews
on their exodus from Egypt to be in possession of so many
arts and trades, quite foreign to a merely nomadic people,
which they exercised in Arabia in the structure and adorn
ment of their sacred tent ? How knew they to work in
silver and gold, to grave jewels, and to display dexterity
in many other ways, which always presuppose long
practice ? How in the Desert of Arabia, on the first
occasion, could they have used animal-worship if they had
brought with them from Egypt no love for it ? And
even supposing that an abode there of 430 years should
have given the shepherd-folk no Egyptian bias in all the
various points they were susceptible of, still Moses in
terrupted the regular progress of their political and
intellectual education, and carried over the lights and in
formation of an Egyptian scholar amongst them, through
his institutions and his laws. This agency effected a sort
of conflux of Egyptian with Hebrew mind, which, to
judge from the specimens in our possession, has left a per
manent influence on the literature of the latter.
But what people was ever primitive to such a degree as
we have supposed, or what nations, not merely of modern,
but of the most ancient times, could boast of having won
everything by unaided efforts? that their manners and
religion were ever free from foreign influences and their

CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING JEWISH LITERATURE 3
mind never fed and enlarged by imported ideas ? It is
enough for originality if a people have never descended to
slavish imitation, but have dealt with their borrowed and
foreign notions in so prudent a manner that when mixed
and dissolved with their own stores the joint materials
should form a homogeneous whole ; or should have given a
new nature to the foreign, and converted it to its own ; or
should have stamped a peculiar and fixed character on its
mode of thinking, manners, and mental productions, and
adhered to the same with unchangeable firmness.
And in this sense were the Jews in their manners
laws, religious and political constitution, and in their
entire literature, as far as we are acquainted with it,
original to the highest degree. The type impressed on
them by Moses they retained even as late as the
Babylonian Captivity. The design their lawgiver was
enabled to form for them, that they nearly corresponded to,
and on this side at least they never surpassed his views,
hopes, and objects; and as far as a spirit of angularity
and stiffness, of obstinacy and pride, is concerned, they
possessed also a sort of originality. It was the design of
Moses, by means of political and religious institutions, to
raise his nation from its infancy, and in the period of youth
as to mind and learning to which he had raised it, it always
afterwards remained. To the preservation of the higher sorts
of knowledge he destined the priesthood, and they continued
also the property of that order, and culture and knowledge
were never much extended or general to the extinction of
the Jewish State. Like all nations at the lowest step of
civilisation, the Jews gave expression to their thought and
feeling merely through the medium of song and poesy ;
their language remained always to the end of their power
in the state most convenient to the poet, highly figurative
and vague. But to true prose, in which the meaning of
B 2

4 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
every phrase is fixed and which for the purposes of the
higher branches of knowledge and of pure science is in
dispensable, their language only began to incline at the
end of their independence. At this time, too, the nation
itself was so deeply depressed through poverty, exhaus
tion, and the illtreatment of haughty conquerors, its
internal strength was so sunk and broken, that hence
forward even its poetry, heretofore quickened by high and
powerful genius, showed the loss of that life and force, and
when it was too late for the nation to hew out for itself
new paths, its political wisdom, far from surpassing that
of Moses, was seldom equal to it. Its philosophy consisted,
as with children and childlike nations, of proverbs, moral
saws, and riddles. Even their learned priesthood stood
with regard to intellect but a few steps higher than the
nation, and, with the advantage of all the wealth conferred
on them by Moses, never advanced as far as the cultivation
of the sciences. Their language was never more polished
nor fixed than that employed by Moses. Their historical
booksj in the choice and relation of events, were distin
guished by the partial and limited horizon of the order
itself, which regarded itself as the centre of the land and
of the nation. Every event was related only with regard
to themselves, to religious observances, feasts and sacrifices,
without a comprehensive view of the whole and without
regard to all kinds of remarkable political events ; and
never did the Jewish historians (if from the still extant
scanty extracts we may judge of the spirit of the larger
annals, which indeed has abundantly displayed itself in the
former) advance further in the art of historical writing
than the Greeks a considerable time before Herodotus.
He who should expect, from a nation which had re
mained so nearly in the state of its primitive organisation
and so little changed as to that of its intellect, a multi-

CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING JEWISH LITERATURE 5
farious literature of many aspects, or indeed erudition at
all, must, from unacquaintedness with other polite and un
polished nations, be ignorant of what is possible to the
human mind in its various states and conditions and make
demands in which history will not bear him out. Nearly
in all respects did the Jews fall short of the hopes and
wishes of their lawgiver ; was it likely that they should
have exceeded them in this ?
Moses had not laboured to provide for a multifarious
and varied literature and the eventual introduction of real
erudition, nor was it indeed in his power unless he had
wished to polish his nation without paying any regard to
its then situation. Before all things he must have induced
the still rude tribes by new arrangements to make the
difficult step from the wandering life of the herdsman to
the fixed state of the agriculturist ; but, as to the rest, to
leave it to favourable circumstances to determine whether
at some future time they may not burst the bonds of the
firm, strongly entangled and intricate civil polity, by
which he sought to hold them together, abolish the priest
hood as ordered by him, and, by the free admission of all
sorts of discoveries and knowledge, to make the second
great step towards the repute of a highly polished and
enlightened nation. Had not Egypt with its priesthood
been the great pattern set before him by Moses in his
legislation, the very necessity of the times would have
compelled him to such an institution. In their youth, all
the nations both of the ancient and of the modern world
required a guardian to deliberate on the results of
experience and the steps gained in the higher branches of
knowledge, as on the first dawn of their future wisdom
and native science. As long as a nation was not adult —
that is, as long as it only possessed single inventions, and
but a small number of the higher secrets of knowledge —

6 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
and the great mass continued still too rude and wild to be
susceptible of more than common ideas or equal to the
conservation of certain more exalted views which only
select persons could afford ; as long as only a few persons
were capable of comprehending the whole stores of
knowledge, and the state of population would allow no
superfluity of its members to devote themselves to the
advancement of the arts and sciences ; so long did the situa
tion of the world and of humanity require a chosen few of
noble minds to become the receptacle of the fruits of know
ledge hitherto won, and to transmit them in their families.
Therefore also usually neither the prudence and compre
hensive glance of the wisest men of a nation nor their law
giver has established such a body ; but much rather the
necessity of the times, that benevolent provider for the weal
of humanity in its most different states, has spontaneously
enforced it, and that too amongst nations differing the
most from one another and placed beyond the possibility
of imitation. Were no measures taken, by means of a
peculiar order, for the preservation of the steps of know
ledge won, they would soon be again lost, and the light of
the divinity imparted to wise men and great inventors for
the use of succeeding generations would have been lent to
the world quite in vain and nations backward in this
respect must have continued in perpetual infancy. Still,
however, a learned order of the possessors of all knowledge
was adapted only to the earliest stages of education ; as soon
as this is passed, such an order became extremely mis
chievous : it checked the progress of knowledge and pre
vented it from effecting the general diffusion of light
amongst the entire people. It was certainly not amongst
the least causes of Greek enlightenment and of the bloom
and greatness of the Greek mind that followed thereupon,
that the rise of its culture occurred in the times of more

CONSIDERATIONS CONCEENING JEWISH LITEEATUEE 7
adult humanity, when such an order might soon be dis
pensed with. With the Jews on the contrary, after the
regulations shaped by Moses, all knowledge was sacer
dotal, and in it no layman was initiated l and before they
attained to that strength and ripeness of mind to enable
them to abate this monopoly of the priesthood, and to
participate generally in the education of Moses, they
ceased to be an independent nation.
As long as the law which forbade all intercourse with
foreigners was binding, so long, under the most favourable
circumstances, would the attainments of the Jews fail to
exceed a very moderate height. By this means all foreign
inventions were lost for them ; their ideas were not in
creased by the knowledge of strangers, nor their under
standing enlarged ; on the contrary, they fell under the
dominion of a certain pride that mastered them like all
the exclusive nations of old and new times, which regarded
their land and nation as the first and most important in
the world, and ended in a narrow contempt of everything
foreign. Deprived of the influx of new discoveries from
without, and within extremely narrowed in their notions
by the order of priests, the great mass retained always its
childish ideas taken from the early centuries ; even the
education of Moses was confined to a part of the priest
hood and a few distinguished individuals besides them,
1 If we will not lose ourselves in conjectures, but adhere to what
may be traced in Jewish history, the education of the laity did not go
beyond music and poetry. In these consisted the education in the
schools of the prophets (Eichorn's General Library of BibUcal Litera
ture, Part x. § 1098), and in the order of prophets of the king
dom of Israel (same work, Part iv. § 193 ff.) ; and further than this
we find no traces in the ' Collection of Usages,' under which denomina
tion Nachtigal has brought together all the information possible
concerning the educational institutions among the ancient Hebrews
(in Eichorn's Library, Part ix. § 420 ff.).

8 INTEODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
who raised themselves high above their contemporaries and
the great mass by the extraordinary strength of their
intellect. Even the great idea of a single invisible Being
as Creator and Ruler of the world — the finest peculiarity of
the Jews, and which the sages of Greece and of Rome
might well envy them — was a point of the wisdom of the
Jewish lawgiver, not of the whole people, for whom such
an idea (as we learn from history) was far too spiritual
and sublime, as far down as the exile to Babylon. Already
in the desert of Arabia they discovered their propensity to
animal worship, which they had learnt from the Egyptians,
and in the land itself to the polytheism of the Canaanites,
from which they were at times merely restrained by force,
and always returned to it as soon as that force was with
drawn, and whose inaptitude as thinking beings was
only perceptible to a few great minds. It was only through
and after the impressions wrought upon the nation by
foreigners in its exile that its understanding by increased
ideas and knowledge became sufficiently expanded and
enlightened fully to comprehend this exalted notion, and
never afterwards by example or pretence whatsoever to
suffer itself to be deprived of it.
And any advantages from these which might have
resulted to education and learning were counteracted by
the situation and fortunes of the Jews. As long as they
wandered about as herdsmen along the free pastures of the
East, they were merely fitted to retain their traditions
and pastoral poetry. Under the forming hand, however,
of Moses, they were accustomed to much which must
necessarily precede the first steps in education ; but soon
after these preparations, during the times of the wandering
and hero-feats under the Judges, they again retrograded.
The wild freedom of the war and battle-song may have
grown in strength and power under these circumstances,

CONSIDERATIONS CONCEENING JEWISH LITERATURE 9
but the mind of the nation (as far as the term is applicable
to a people in this state) declined both in genius and re
finement. The Jews forgot even their dexterity in the
handicrafts which they had brought with them out of
Egypt, and Solomon was obliged soon after, for the build
ing of his temple and the works of art connected with it,
to send for foreign artists. After long-continued poverty
they attained at last a certain degree of wealth, and its
splendid consequences were soon displayed amongst the
Jews by the rapid rise of the arts which without wealth
can never flourish. David had much enriched his treasury
by the spoils of many of the nations conquered by him,
and which, according to the ancient wild war-right, he
had caused thoroughly to be plundered. It had soon after
by means of the flourishing trade on the Red Sea ad
ditional accretions, and Solomon came to the quiet pos
session of the treasures inherited from his father. Under
his government all the arts of luxury soon made their
appearance amongst the Jews : a proof of the capacity of
every nation, provided favourable circumstances be only
afforded it. Now under his encouragement and the sup
port of his riches, works of art were wrought, temple and
palace erected, and the capital embellished with as much
taste as was to be expected ere the Greeks flourished.
But the glory of the kingdom, together with that of all
the arts, ceased suddenly with his reign. Even before
the expiry of the reign of Solomon, the public treasures
were exhausted, and the otherwise only moderate means
of individual citizens consumed through participation
in the court luxury, and afterwards through royal exac
tions, and the entire State, through all ranks, enfeebled.
The dismembering of the State which followed, and the
incessantly destructive wars both from within and without,
sank both peoples in the deepest poverty, and from the

10 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
absence of all other sources of help down to the lowest
political weakness, which subverted at the same time the
national intellect. Thus after Solomon internal disorders
and wars with powerful neighbours completed the impos
sibility of regeneration. History, however, shows that in
the case of great and powerful kingdoms even all-destruc
tive wars cannot entirely cast down the monuments of
knowledge once firmly erected, nor can the arts and
sciences that already flourish be quite annihilated ; but with
a nation yet weak in intellect and political strength they
kill the early bud to which the time for its expansion has
been denied. Section 2. — Importance of Hebrew Literature.
These remarks are not intended to disparage the
monuments which we still possess of the Hebrews. He
who despises them because they descend to us from a
nation which never reached a high degree of civilisa
tion, and whose mental capacity was exercised only on
one side, such a man must manifest ingratitude for the
weightiest services, or be so unjust as to require from
the first weak glimmering of the dawn the broad daylight
of noon. Much more will every free and impartial reader who
has a taste in general for writings from Asia (a country so
little known to us), and also from such early times, be
powerfully attracted to them, both from their contents and
their primitive and original spirit, and never lay them
down without a feeling of reverence and gratitude for the
fortunate chance which has preserved them. Should we
not even be disposed to regard them as the archives of the
most rational religion of antiquity, in which we may trace
the gradual rise of the human understanding up to the

IMPORTANCE OF HEBREW LITERATURE }1
sublime doctrine of one God, and the contest of polytheism
for so many centuries with that great principle, still in
numerous points of view the Jewish Scriptures are of the
greatest importance. In them we find a rich collection of
true national poesy, which every judge of that kind of
composition must hold in high honour, and amongst it
kinds of which, even amidst the much richer remains of
Greek literature, scarcely anything of importance has sur
vived the spoil of time. Oracles, for instance, all nations
possessed up to a certain point of their civilisation ; and
who had more of them than Greece of the oldest date ? and
yet, from their abundance, only inconsiderable fragments
remain to us ; of the Hebrew oracles, on the contrary, a
considerable number of entire prophecies are preserved.
Who would not give a part of Pindar's songs of triumph for
his lost religious hymns, seeing that nearly all the Greek
poems of this kind have perished ? Of the Jews we possess
ancient temple songs, in a tone of solemn devotion and of
the highest originality. And no one, with a true feeling
for poetry and the power to realise the transactions of
bygone days, has ever read this and other species of
Hebrew poetry without admiring the old Oriental spirit
which they breathe, and rejoicing that we are at least
acquainted with it, though not in a satisfactory degree,
from the samples of an Eastern people. Another cir
cumstance of high value attached to the greater part of
these remains is their grey antiquity. The most belong
to times of which not a line besides is extant. The oldest
Hebrew historians existed for some years before the ac
quaintance of the Greeks with the art of writing, and their
latest historian was about contemporary with Herodotus,
the father of Grecian history. Moreover, the Hebrew his
torical and poetical books, as primitive works of Asiatic
intellect, are the most valuable archives for the history of

12 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
human development, for according to tradition and other
sources the human race sprang up on the soil of Asia, and
worked itself thereon slowly upwards. They contain like
wise, not merely the history of the Jews and a picture of
their culture and civilisation, but, by means of their collec
tions of the proverbs of their predecessors, aids towards
the history of the entire human race. Where else were
the books which preserve for us such pure sayings of the
childhood of humanity losing itself in the mists of time ;
or the monuments which teach an equally fine philosophy
concerning the origin of the universe, or are able in general
to supply the place of the Hebrew library in the history of
mankind ? How much poorer in important and credible
information would our otherwise sufficiently defective his
tories of the states and people of antiquity be without the
writings we inherit from the Hebrews ! And were it
fully within the purpose of the present work, it would be
possible to place in the clearest light the importance of
the yet extant fragments of Hebrew literature by an
enumeration of the amount of multiplied information
which lies scattered up and down in it, and which we
owe to it alone. Goguet * and Gatterer 2 have made a
fine beginning for such a work; let these speak for it
instead of myself.
Instead, then, of scoff and disparagement, let us
rather offer thanks to fortune for these yet extant blossoms
of Oriental mind, lamenting, however, at the same
moment that time, which has dealt so gently with so
much literary refuse, has swallowed up so many of the
most precious gems of literature, to which the Jewish
memorials certainly belong, and yet wondering on the
1 Goguet, Concerning the Origin of the Arts and Sciences amongst
the most Ancient People. Paris : 1758.
2 Gatterer, History of the World, Part i. Gottingen : 1764-72.

IMPORTANCE OF HEBEEW LITERATUEE 13
other side that so much has missed its gnawing tooth.
Egyptians and Chaldeans, Phcenicians and Hebrews, the
four most ancient civilised peoples, played for a long time
near each other distinguished parts in the theatre of
nations, and left to their posterity many written monu
ments of their civilisation and ancient splendour. None
amongst them all had to pass through a series of greater
and more universally destructive changes than the
Hebrews ; they were torn, after the old wild fashion by
their haughty conquerors, from their habitations and
transplanted to a foreign land, and ceased here, for a time
dispersed amongst strange tribes, to be even a peculiar
people. The former, however, even to their names, have
disappeared, whilst these have survived their State,
though scattered throughout the world, and are after the
lapse of centuries a distinguishable people. Of the former,
again, all the monuments of their literature to its very
last fragments are lost ; or, if some broken bits remain, so
wretched and unconnected as not at all to diminish the
loss of the rest ; of the Jews, on the contrary, an entire
library of the most important and ancient writers is still
extant — so ancient that the works of the Greeks in com
parison degenerate down to modern productions. As
with the Jews, so also in Egypt, Phoenicia, and Babylon,
all the higher branches of knowledge, as well as the most
important writings, were entrusted to the guardian care
of the priests ; and their entire literature l followed the
fate of the priesthood and of the temples in all the three
States. As soon as the priesthood was abolished, ensued
incontinently the destruction of all the hereditary intel
lectual stores of the nation and of the fruits of the industry
1 Meiner's History of the Rise, Progress, and Decay of the Sciences
in Greece and Borne, Part i. § 53, contains a fine number of instances
of the kind collected from the ancient history of Greece.

14 INTEODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
and experience of many centuries ; as soon as their temples
were destroyed, all the works of literature were buried
beneath the ruins. The preservation of so many and of
such considerable fragments of the Jewish literature under
like and in part more widely-wasting catastrophes than
befell these people appears absolutely a miracle of time.
What is the natural explanation of this phenomenon ?
Section 3. — Publication of New Writings amongst the
Ancient Hebrews.
It was through all antiquity the custom to deposit all
works of the intellect — as laws, contracts, inventions, and
even mighty works of literature — in a holy place, par
ticularly in the temples of the divinities, and, as works the
fruits of their own inspirations, to entrust them also again
to their protection for preservation and transmission to
posterity. Such conduct was held to be a manifestation
of the author's gratitude to his fostering divinity ; as a
means of procuring more respect to his work through the
sacred nature of its place of preservation and as the best
security against its early destruction. In particular also
was it usual with nations who had appointed the priest-
orders as the guardians of all the fruits of their experience,
as the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Chaldeans, to place
their writings, whether of priests or of laymen, in the
subterranean vaults of their temples.
According to this custom also, Moses commanded his
laws to be kept in the holiest place of that tabernacle
which he had constructed in the desert of Arabia, by
the Ark of the Covenant, and made thereby the God of
his nation to be, as it were, the guardian, upholder, and
establisher of the laws which had emanated, as he held,
1 Deuteronomy xxxi. 9, 26.

PUBLICATION OF NEW WRITINGS 15
from Himself. His example was followed by others, and
so the foundation was laid of a library of sacred writings,1
of whose enlargement in even our scanty books of Jewish
history we find some traces. The information concerning
the covenant which Joshua made with the Jews before his
death, and the mode in which he inculcated the exact
observance of their national laws, was laid in the holy
place by the side of the Laws of God.2 The agreement
of Saul, Samuel laid before Jehovah in the sanctuary ; 3
and the genealogical table of the Jews, that part of history
so important in the eyes of all Orientalists, was, at least at
later periods, preserved in the temple.4 Whether, however,
this national library, during the remaining times of the
State existence, was increased by the addition of new
writings ; whether the Jewish chronicles, the oracles of the
prophets, and every other kind of intellectual production
before the Babylonian exile were placed by the side of the
Covenant, and that their formal publication consisted in
such deposition in this holy place, which so many learned
men adopt as indisputable5 — to decide these questions,
since proof from old historians fails us, we are, alas ! some
centuries too late.
But probably it was so. If stories, which, through oral
tradition, have acquired a fabulous form, spring, however,
always from a ground of truth, we may perhaps venture,
from the reports of temple archives — of which some affirm
the rescue by Jeremiah on the conflagration of the temple,
others consign together with the temple to the flames 6 —
1 Upa ypa/i/iara, Upot \oyoi, signified also with other nations their
most ancient writings.
2 Joshua xxiv. 26.
3 1 Samuel x. 26.
' Michaelis' Lam of Moses, § 51.
B Rich. Simon, Histoire eritiaue du N. T. p. 30.
* Epiphanius, De Pond, et Mens. c. iv. p. 162 (Opp. t. ii.), where,

16 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
to infer the existence of a collection of holy books in the
temple; and was not, after the Babylonian exile, what
still remained of the writings of the old times collected
and, at a date soon after the foundation of the new State
on the banks of the Jordan, a library formed in the newly-
built temple, of which traces spring up even in the history
of its destruction by the Romans ? l And is it not natural
to conclude that this was only an imitation of an old
temple library of the times before the exile, of which the
memory after that event was not yet extinguished ? The
example of Moses, whom, even in matters which he had
not expressly commanded, they adopted so willingly as
their pattern, the advantage therein of every author, the
unanimity of ancient nations, even of those who had no
established order of priests, in this practice, the late tra
ditions concerning it, and the similar institution after the
exile, raise the conjecture of a temple library at Jerusalem,
in which the most important writings of the Jews before
the exile were to be found, to a high degree of probability.
SECTION 4. — Preservation of the still extant Jewish Writings.
In the meantime, whether we adopt or reject the theory,
little is gained or lost for the history of the Hebrew books
which are still extant. Was ever such a temple library
in existence, still our present Hebrew writings are not to
be considered as immediately descended to us therefrom,
however, his faulty text requires the following correction — Sih ovSe iv
rq 'Apwy avereBijirav, tout1 iffrtv 4y Tp rrjs Sui8tjk7js KtfioiTcp. Of the
tradition respecting the books burned with the temple and afterwards
restored by Esdras, see Augustin. I)e Mirabilibus, lib. 2, fine ; Basil, ap.
Froben (Opp. t. iii.), p. 532, ' Esdras, Dei sacerdos, combustam a Chal-
dseis in Archivis TempU restituit legem.'
1 Josephus, De Bello Judaico, c. 17 ; Antiq. lib. vii. c. 6 ; De Vita,
§ 75 ; Roland, De Spoliis TempU Hierosol. p. 51 not., p. 76 not.

PUBLICATION OF NEW WRITINGS 17
or as booty rescued from the flames of the temple. We
are more indebted for them to fortune than to any inten
tional preservation.
The story of Jeremiah's having removed to some place
of security the holy books, together with other sacred
property, before the burning of the temple, is indeed a
mere conjecture, employed for the purpose of completing
our accounts of the fate of our Hebrew writings, and of
connecting them with the older temple library, concerning
which the accounts were too well authenticated to admit of
doubt. Without it, I can well imagine, the preservation
of our Jewish monuments must have seemed to the inventor
of the tradition inexplicable, because no copy of them was
supposed to exist out of the temple ; or the story was in
vented with the pious view of giving to the new temple
the respectability and sacred character of the old. Had
Jeremiah really rescued the temple library, and was our
inheritance of Hebrew literature to be derived from the
treasures there discovered, it would have been, in all pro
bability, richer, more manifold, and comprehensive. In
the temple lay, probably, annals at large of the kingdom,
and our present historical books are either extracts there
from, or abridgments of other larger historical works which
approached the temple annals in regard to fulness and
compass. In the temple there was preserved, it is likely,
a far greater and more complete collection of prophecies
than we possess, since our present one, with the exception
of the more perfect prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
the other prophets who lived after the overthrow of the
State, consists partly of merely unconnected fragments of
prophetical poesy, and partly of pieces confined to the
short space of a few generations. Prom these circum
stances we are at liberty to conclude that through the re
maining far greater spaces of time there was no deficiency C

18 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
of prophecies, that they were, however, destroyed along
with the temple, and that we should have lost all the
prophetic poesy of the Hebrews had not accident preserved
for us a few books of prophetic anthology or extracts. Of
proper temple songs — of which, with a people so rich in
poetry, for their numerous festivals, their religious repasts,
and other solemnities, at which song and dance were the
chief points, there must have been a great supply during
the existence of the temple, and the various feasts therein
celebrated — we possess but a small number, which, more
over, appear partly to have been composed in modern
times, and those subsequent to the exile. Therefore the
series of Hebrew literature downwards must have been far
richer had we possessed an ancient temple library rescued
by Jeremiah. Much more probable is it that our present very poor
collection was preserved dispersed in separate pieces
amongst private persons ; and that on the restoration of
the Jewish State, after the conclusion of the exile, the
ancient temple library, as far as could be accomplished
by the collection of the dispersed separate writings, was
reestablished; and that, consequently, to mere chance
and to Cyrus we are obliged for our fragments of the
Hebrew literature. Had Cyrus withheld his consent to
the planting of a new colony on the Jordan, and the con
struction of a new temple, these fragments would have
never been brought together, and the absence of the
occasion for founding a sacred library (that is, the absence
of a temple, which according to the notions of antiquity
behoved also to be adorned with holy books), time, and
the continually decreasing familiarity with the language,
mode of thinking and manners of the old world, would
have deprived us of the little which we still possess.
All the circumstances at least lead to this hypothesis.

PUBLICATION OF NEW WRITINGS 19
A part of the present extant writings of the Jews existed
once, there are evident tokens, in numerous copies, and
were universally read. Of the laws of Moses — and, since
these could scarcely ever have been separated from the
rest of his works, of the writings of Moses in general —
many copies were indispensable, particularly after Jehosha
phat established tribunals in single cities, which were
bound to interpret the Mosaical laws. It is also natural
to suppose that religious Jews in good circumstances must
have had copies made for themselves of their law-book in
order to possess as their own property the greatest jewel of
the nation. Is it not, then, possible that copies of the
Mosaical writings in the hands of the judges, of their
families, or of other private persons, may have survived
the exile ? And since, as works of the greatest man known
to the people in the days of antiquity, they would be
esteemed above all other productions of the human mind5
and through reverence copied with far greater exactness
than other writings either contemporary or of recent
appearance, the copy of them received into the new
temple library after the Babylonian exile would have
been far more perfect and its text reached us in a
state more free from corruption than the other Jewish
Scriptures. The books of Samuel, of Kings, and of the Chronicles,
are summaries taken from the complete State annals which
are occasionally quoted, and, from their contents, must
have been intended as manuals of the history of the Jewish
monarchy, and according to this destination have been
undoubtedly current in numerous copies. The lives of
David and of Solomon were at first extant as an entire
work, of which we now possess two different editions,
whereof each is treated in its own manner and enlarged
by its new editor. Abstracting the new matter introduced, o 2

20 INTEODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
we shall find that the original work was so cast as to be
adapted to the general reading of the people ; whatever
might offend the royal house, all scandalous scenes in the
lives of David and Solomon, were passed over in silence.
This doubly edited work of the lives of the two kings was
placed at the head of two chronicles, one of the kingdom
of Israel, one of that of Judah, which again were so
epitomised as to appear meant to be a popular text-book.
It is evident from all sides that works of that nature imply
the existence of numerous copies. And if Isaiah, the
lesser prophets and the Psalms arose from a collection of
prophetic and lyrical poesy, as from a closer examination
of their contents is evident, then nothing is more probable
than that they came into the hands of the compiler of our
Old Testament in the shape of private manuscripts and
may serve as a new ground for the conjecture that before
the exile many of our now extant Jewish books circulated
in numerous copies.
And how, without this supposition, can the relation in
which the authors of the Old Testament stand with regard
to one another be explained ? Often they are in the rela
tion to each other of original and copy, and if the con
nexion between them is not so close, they still borrow
figures and expressions from one another — one alludes or
refers to the other or inserts whole passages from him.
Finally the present condition of the Hebrew text
favours this conjecture. Since the restoration of their
State under Cyrus, the Jews have watched with an in
credible care (which may be partly superstition, partly an
excessive reverence for the ancient works of their nation)
over their sacred scriptures, and sought to guard them from
all corruption, either accidental or from perverse intention.
They copied them through all the centuries through which
we can follow their pains, with an exactitude which,

PUBLICATION OF NEW WHITINGS 21
though it could neither remove nor render impossible mis
takes in single words and consonants, yet necessarily
prevented the occurrence of great gaps and omissions.
And yet it may be shown, to a high degree of critical pro
bability, that they have suffered in more than matters of
mere trifling moment : passages of greater or less length
are lost ; others are transposed, and so corrupted as to be
proof against restoration by the highest degree of critical
genius. Those errors, however, existed in the manuscripts
of the oldest Greek translators, who lived but a few
centuries later than the compilers of our Old Testament ;
and in case the original Hebrew manuscripts, in the few
centuries between Ezra and the Greek translators, as in
the many between them and us, were copied with the same
superstitious care, as appears probable, so the same faults
were, it is likely, to be found in the manuscripts which
were used at the collection of the Old Testament. Did
our Hebrew Scriptures originate from the copy in the
first temple, it were natural to suppose them derived to lis
from the manuscripts of the authors, or from one of
the first copies made from them, and in that case a far
richer and purer text was to be expected. Its present
condition and defects, for which no remedy is now to be
found, appear to result from very corrupted manuscripts,
such as private copies would probably be, which were not
made with that anxious nicety which began only after the
Babylonian captivity.
Section 5. — Collection of the Hebrew Scriptures after
the Babylonian Exile.
Soon after the termination of the Babylonian exile and
the foundation of the new State in Palestine, all the
remains of the ancient writings in the possession of the

22 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
exiles were collected, and in order to give to the newly-
erected second temple all the advantages of the first, a
library composed of these remnants of the Jewish litera
ture was founded, to which we give the general name of
the Old Testament. The existence of a temple library
after the exile is undeniable, for in still later times an
ancient temple copy is spoken of, and perhaps was even
carried by Titus in triumph to Rome. If a temple library
existed, would not its re-establishment be contemporary
with the completion of the new temple ? Would not Ezra
have commenced, and Nehemiah and other Hebrew
patriots have enlarged, it ? Moreover, all the Jews sent
from time to time from the Persian court to Palestine
exerted themselves to give solemnity to their divine
service. Under such circumstances, the tradition of the
Jews (taken at large indeed unsafe) which assigned to Ezra
and Nehemiah the collections of the scriptures still extant
in their time, cannot be denied all grounds of probability.
Still, however, no careful inquirer, and no one anxious for
historical truth, will give full credit to the fables of the
later Jews concerning a ' Synagoga magna,' and its multi
plied transactions both learned and unlearned ' ; but would
not true facts lie at the bottom of the information we
have respecting it (as is the case with most legends of the
kind), and which Jewish wit alone would have clothed in
romance ? Does Ezra, perhaps, who properly as a priest
should have been named from his office }ni3, bear the name
of 'the writer' ("igiD) because by means of his exertions
about the holy books of his nation he did good service which
distinguished and adorned him above the duties of his
1 Rau, De Synagoga magna, has absolutely demonstrated that the
greatest part of the information of the Jews concerning it bears the
stamp of improbability ; but the whole tradition must still have its
ground in a fact, otherwise it would never have come into existence.

TEMPLE LIBRARY 23
priest's office ? l And did not Nehemiah, according to an
early recorded tradition, found a holy library in the temple ?
Should all this intelligence be rejected because Josephus
does not repeat it ? Does he not speak here and there of
the library of the second temple ? Does he not mention
the merit of Ezra and Nehemiah in its completion and
embellishment? To the last belonged, according to the
universal opinion of the ancient world, a collection of
sacred books : was it necessary that he should mention by
name every ornamental portion? Or does an otherwise
early recorded tradition first become authentic when men
tioned by Josephus? How many tales current merely
through misunderstandings and credulity does he repeat
with a sincere countenance ? And has he not introduced
into his work much later traditions, particularly in his
history subsequent to the Babylonian exile for the first
time, as far as we know, as true historical fragments,
although they wear much more the appearance of fable
than of truth ?
I wish to decide nothing, but I cannot, with the satis
faction of my historical feeling, declare a tradition to be so
remote from possibility in whose favour, type of ancient
times (the old temple library), even temporal circumstances,
the situation of the Jews, and the objects of the founders
and reformers in Palestine speak so loudly.
Even the doubts which in modern times have been
brought .forward against this representation appear to me
of little moment. ' We cannot admit ' (says a new op
ponent of the same 2) ' that the Jews in the time of Ezra
1 With this also the other meaning of the word "igb is well con
sistent, which below (§ 497) is fully explained. The two meanings to
gether are required to exhaust the idea.
2 In the Library of the most recent Theological and Philosophical
Literature (Zurich : 1784-8), Part i. period i. § 176.

24 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
entertained such exalted notions of the rise and divine
character of their ancient books as in the days of Josephus
and in all subsequent times. And without this extra
ordinary veneration they would scarcely have taken the
measures for so solemn a collection of the remnants of
their literature and provided for their preservation in a
holy place, since not only the laws of Moses, the psalms,
the oracles and religious expositions of the prophets,
but also collections of philosophical sentences, extracts
from chronicles, an idyl and the story of Esther and
Mardochseus (a production whose object was rather to
give pleasure than instruction), are to be found therein.
What people even thought of gathering all their national
books — the newest not excepted if they are sufficiently
well known — to prevent them from being lost, as if
from that epoch no more were to appear ? If it be
said that the Jews saw that the days of the prophets
were past, I ask how they knew that in the times of
Malachi. And how came also so many writings into this
collection which are neither oracles nor have any relation
thereto ? '
This objection scarcely arose in old times. The
collection consisted of a deposit in a holy place, in the
temple: to this belonged no unprecedented character, it
was the imitation of ancient custom, some attention to the
necessities of the time and some obedience to its signs, which
directed attention to the adornment of a temple which
had risen again out of its ashes. The whole undertaking
required no long previous attention as to whether the
writings to be deposited in the temple were holy or
divine ; for in early times the ancient archives of a people
were all looked upon as holy and divine, and even the
Greeks described as holy and divine many sentences and
traditions either because they were really old or held to be

TEMPLE LIBRARY 25
such.1 It was not necessary to employ any previous
examination as to whether all the writings which it was
determined to deposit in a sacred place were of like
contents and value ; for the old world used to preserve
in holy places, not merely oracles and religious writings,
but also all the other works of the intellect by whatever
names they might be distinguished. Such was the place
assigned by the seven and other sages of Greece for the
reception of their apophthegms, enigmas, and riddles.
Here also the Egyptian, Phcenician, and Babylonian priests
placed their historical works, and the latter their astro
nomical observations, as did the former their receipts or
lists of household medicines, and others other kinds of the
works of intellect. When the determination was formed
to restore everything which had once existed, it became
necessary to think of re-establishing the ancient sacred
library, or, since it was impossible to recover the entire
store of ancient writings, and, after the lapse of a half-
century, even to show what writings were once contained
in the great temple library, to think of the restoration of
a library for the reception of all the ancient (that is, holy)
books which were yet to be met with, in order to render
it as like to the first, which had perished, as possible. To
this was added the account of the recent settlement of the
Hebrews on the Jordan, of the first constitution and sub
sequent reformations of this colony and of the origin of
the feast Purim, because with the ancients it was gene
rally usual to consign a work immediately after its appear-
1 So with the Chinese the ' Ring ' are only holy or (according to the
expression of the Jesuits) canonical books as far as they are national
archives ; and if their respect for them go so far as consecration, they
only follow therein the leaning of many nations, who convert all their
national traditions into divine revelations, whereby, through mistake,
they perplex altogether an ancient representation which belongs to
the childhood of the nation.

26 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
ance to the care of the Divinity. Ezra, perhaps, began
the collection, Nehemiah carried it on, and perhaps for
some space afterwards other Hebrew patriots ; but for
many centuries before the birth of Christ its further
increase was stopped : it was for a long time previously a
single entire and concluded work. He, then, who can still
ask, What nation ever thought of gathering all its national
writings down to the very last, which were, however,
sufficiently known ? must have accustomed himself to
regard things merely in the light of modern times and be
ignorant how difficult it was with the ancients to save
even a newly-published work from quick destruction, since
a few copies only could be provided at great cost ? Or he
who can ask whether the collection was made in the
opinion that from that epoch no further writings were to
appear, does not consider that for the most part mere
accidents, even in modern times, are sufficient to check the
increase of a public collection of archives ; or he has merely
thrown out this query for the sake of asking a great deal.
Shortly after the exile (proceeds the latest opponent of
this idea) ' the authors of the Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and of
the " Song of Songs," denied to be Solomon's, may un
doubtedly have been living. How, then, could the com
pilers have taken these books not for Solomon's work,
and neither by a change of the superscription nor by
added indices have pointed out the place to which both
belonged ? ' They did neither, because they did not wish
to destroy the deception. The name of Solomon, the
Preacher, belonged to poetry, and did any one, in the
ancient times, from the hymns of Orpheus downwards to
the latest poetical works, where any importance was
attached to the true name of the author, ever permit^ him
self to add to the name of the famous man in whose
mouth everything was put (without exactly perpetrating

TEMPLE LIBEAEY 27
a fraud) the name also of the real author ? And have
not the compilers (to judge from other marks) always
refrained from making any changes whatever in the dis
covered writings, even to the small matter of the inscrip
tions (section 532 below). And even were this not the
case, in what way is it to be demonstrated that the real
authors of the Song of Songs and of the Preacher were
known by name to the compilers ?
' But shortly after the exile, the older sources from
which the book of Samuel and the books of Kings and
Chronicles were taken, were undoubtedly still in exist
ence ; did indeed the extracts which were new, and far
less venerable, obtain a place in the temple library and
these sources not ? ' Truly, indeed, would they have gotten
such place, but certainly not alone, but in company, if the
more ancient annals had survived the Babylonian exile.
But probably they had long perished, and only short
feummaries, drawn from them in early times, had, in the
hands of private persons, escaped the depredations of
time. 'It is true' (concludes the author in his objections)
' already in the second book of the Maccabees the tradition
is mentioned, which purported to be found in certain
writings, that Nehemiah was the collector of the writings
of the Kings and Prophets, and of the gifts of the kings ;
but what fables are related at the same time out of these
same books about the sacred fire and the covenant ! '
What critical inquirer would not be far from defending
such fables as truths ? But would he dare on account of
some fables to break the staff over all the information con
tained in an author, without exception ? And what judg
ment must be passed upon Herodotus, Livy, and all
historians, who have recorded old traditions, which con
sist always of a mixture of truth and falsehood, if they

28 INTEODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
are to be treated according to these principles? And
should we venture, in the case of an author in other
respects fabulous, absolutely to reject a fact of the kind
whose truth or falsehood might have come to light, at each
moment, when he flourished ? Or have we grounds for
supposing the author of the second book of Maccabees to
have been so devoid of shame as to invent a falsehood of
which he might be immediately convicted ? He supposes
a collection of sacred writings in the temple. This, there
fore, must have existed in his time, and if we refuse to
believe, on the credit of his reputation alone, that Nehe
miah contributed to its formation, nevertheless the con
currence of many circumstances above brought forward
renders this so likely that the unsettled credit of the
historian, with regard to this relation at least, is much
strengthened. At what time the collection, which began with the
completion of the new temple, terminated, and no further
addition was made to the old books, cannot, however, at the
present time be determined, since no author has left any
express information on the point ; we must consider, how
ever, the termination to have occurred a considerable time
before the birth of Christ, because at so early a period
they were in some way distributed under three chief heads
by Palestinian and Egyptian authors, by Philo, Josephus,
and the New Testament. Had not the distribution of this
library been at that time firmly fixed the description of it
would not have been universally the same.
Section 6. — Name of the Collection.
For a considerable time before the birth of Christ,
the sacred writings of the Jews, differing so much as
they do from one another in regard to authors, contents,

THE HOLY WRITINGS 29
and the time of their composition, were spoken of
as one whole ; but not known, however, till the first
century after Christ by a fixed universal title. The
authors of these times, whose writings we still possess,
hesitate betwixt the general expressions 'Book,' or
' Writing ' in its most exalted sense, or ' Holy Writing.1
Sometimes they describe the whole collection according to
the parts of which it was composed, as 'the Law and
the Prophets,' or as 'the Law, the Prophets, and the
Psalms ' ; 2 sometimes they speak of ' faithful books,'
' books composed by prophets ' ; 3 sometimes of ' holy
writings which were preserved in the Temple ' ; 4 some
times of ' a holy library.' 8 Later, it was called, after the
example of the Apostle Paul (as was intended), the ' Old
Testament ' (nrctkaiav BulOtjktjv), in contradiction to the
New which Christ had established.6
Out of ¦jra.Xaia SiaOrjicr] the Church Fathers fashioned
1 fSifiALa, QilBD, 2 Timothy iv. 13 ; ypwpv, 2 Timothy iii. 16 ; lepa
ypan/MtTa, KHpn '"IBD, UfOi 2 Timothy iv. 15 ; ypaibcu kymi, Romans
i. 8. 2 Matthew v. 17, vo/jlos km irpotptirai ; Luke xxiv. 44, vo/wk, irpofirroi,
koi ifiaA/ioi ; Josephus, Maccab. xviii. vo/i., irpoip. km o\Ao (0i$\ia). So
also Sirach, Prol. 1 ; Josephus, Contra Ap. lib. i. c. 8, »•., ir. and vfivoi irpos
tov ®€OV koi tois avBpuirois vTodriKas tov fiwv irapexovTes. According to
Philo, De Vita Contemph (Opp. v. ii. p. 475, ed. Mang.,p. 893, ed. Francf.),
the holy books of the Therapeuta? were vo/wi, Aoyia SeairiaQevTa Sio
irpodniTav koi i/ivoi Kat to aAAa, oh briaTTiin) km eiicrejSeio avvavt,ovTM km
Te\eiovvrM. 3 Josephus, Contra Ap. lib. i. c. 8. Compare § 40 below.
* Josephus, Antiq. lib. v. C i. § 17, StjAoutoi 8io tuv avaKetfievaiv iv
Ttf Upcp ypafipaTav.
s 2 Maccab. ii. 13, Neejuas . . KarafiaWonevos 0i^Mo9t\ki]v iinavvr\yayt
to irepi Tav I3a.ffi\zciiv km TrpotyTyrav KM to tov AautS koi ^thttoAos (SaaiKtwv
jrepi avaSn/iaTav.
s 2 Corinthians iii. 14. Compare Matthew xxiv. 28. Only Paul
uses iraAoio SiadnKV in the passage quoted of the Mosaical writings, as
Sirach xxiv. 24, 25, 2 Kings xxiii. 2, in the LXX.

30 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
new names, as, Biadij/coypa^ia, svBiaOrjica /3i/3\ia, and so on.1
But, contrary to the sense of the Apostle Paul, the idea only
of a Testament was present to the minds by these expres
sions, in which the Vulgate by its sanguis novi testamenti
(Matthew xxvi. 28) had anticipated them. Chrysostom
was the first to give currency to the words ftiftXos, f3i/3\iov,
fiiftXia, sometimes of the Old Testament, but sometimes
of the Old and New, in like manner as Jerome and
Isidore had introduced the striking name Bibliotheca
Sancta.2 With the later Jews, besides the general words
'Book,' 'Holy Bocks'3 (K"ipD, enpn, nsD, DnsD), the
expression ' the Twenty-four Books ' (fljaito Dne>y) was
usual — the last as the title of the manuscripts as well
as of the editions of the Old Testament. For as the
Greeks arranged their Homer in twenty-four Rhapsodies
and Theophrast's writings in twenty-four books, according
to the number of the letters in the Greek alphabet, in like
manner the Jews in the old times divided their holy
writings, according to the real number of consonants in
their alphabet into twenty-two books (sect. 42). But soon
1 Origenes, Philocal. c. iii. p. 24 ; Suicer Thes. Eccles. v. Siofbj/oj.
2 Chrysostomus, Homil. ii. t. v. p. 7 ; Suicer, Thes. Eccles. t. i. p. 687 ;
Isidorus, Orig. lib. iv. c. 3.
3 The name SlpD arose from Nehemiah viii., where it is used of
the Law book of Moses, which was read in public ; and the Rabbins
also employ the word in this limited sense. In the larger sense it
signifies the entire collection of the holy books of the Hebrews, which
should be read as a duty as the first of all books, in the same manner
as the Mahometans name the collection of their religious doctrines
Koran ^\ \ (that is, the book of books, which deserves to be read
before all). Sometimes K"lj?D is contradistinguished from the Rabbinical
glosses and explanations, and then signifies ' the text ' which is being
explained: Rich. Simon, Hist. crit. du V. T. p. 59; Hottinger in
Thes. phil. p. 88. The modern Jews first used snpp in the sense of a
• pointed copy ' of the N. T. Repertorium for Bib. and Eastern Lit.
Pt. iii. § 116.

THE HOLY WRITINGS 31
after the birth of Christ the Jews, partly from whim ' and
partly to render it like the Greek in the number of conso
nants, introduced two Yods into their alphabet, and from
that time they reckoned twenty-four books. 2
Section 7. — Arrangement of the Collected Boohs.
The order in which the writings of the Old Testament
now follow each other appears to be of extreme antiquity.
Jesus Sirach the elder reckons out of the Old Testament
the famous men, who deserve the esteem of posterity, in
the very same order in which they succeed one another in
our editions : the twelve lesser Prophets he throws together
in one book and places it after Ezekiel (Sirach xlv-
xlix.). According to the New Testament, in the manu
scripts of that day the series of Hagiographa commenced
with the Psalms and the book of Chronicles closed the
entire collection. For Christ uses the term Hagiographa
of the Psalms, which He names as the first book thereof
(Luke xxiv. 44 3) ; and when He wishes to cite the first
and last instances of the shedding of innocent blood, from
1 They held it to be a matter of weight and importance that even
in their alphabet the name Jehovah should be to be found by means of
three Yods, by which the later Jews are accustomed to express it.
2 Hottinger, Thes. philol. p. 101, has collected the necessary proofs
to this point.
3 Truly only after an exegetical conclusion, which rests on the
following reasoning : ' because Josephus, Philo, and the modern Jews
indeed always divide the 0. T. into three parts, and we also here find
three names, Moses, Prophets, and Psalms. Secondly, since by the
two first parts with Josephus, Philo, and the modern Jews, Moses and
the Prophets (as here) are meant, so it is probable that the third term,
Psalms, also means the third part.' Now the only remaining point of
debate is whether the third part includes all the now so-called Hagio
grapha, or only as many books as Josephus sets in the third class, or as
Philo includes under ipvois km tois aWois. And here a very learned
pro and con may be carried on, into which, however, I must decline to
enter, since a way out is scarcely to be found ; therefore the above

32 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
the history of the Old Testament, He chooses the example
of that of Abel from Genesis as the first book of the Old
Testament, and that of Zachariah from the book of
Chronicles as the last book of all (Matthew xxiii. 35). •
Still these passages do not ascertain the collocation of each
single book. And perhaps as little in ancient as in modern
times was the precise identical position of single books in
the general series universally observed. In the Talmud,
the five books of Moses are followed by Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the twelve
minor Prophets, Ruth, the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, the
Preacher, the Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel,
Esther, Chronicles.2 The Masorites, on the contrary,
arrange the greater Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
according to the order of time observed by the exact
Spanish manuscripts. The Germans, however, adhere
to the order of the Talmud. In the Spanish manu
scripts the Hagiographa has the following order :
Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Preacher,
Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra. The Germans, how
ever, have the arrangement : Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song
of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Preacher, Esther, Daniel,
reasoning I deliver over to the general mercy. Only I should hold the
objection for unimportant, that the Psalms are by no means to be con
sidered a part of the Hagiographa because no piece thereof except
the Psalms contains any account of Christ's Passion. It may well on
the contrary be asked where, then, in Moses the prophecies concerning
Christ's Passion and Resurrection are to be met with, which, to the best
of my knowledge, no one, without sinking to the depths of the typical,
has yet discovered. Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms signify only
the Old Testament, without fixing the very books in which the pro
phecies are to be sought.
1 Acts of the Apostles vii. 42, Amos is cited : iv &i&\uf tuv wpocpriTav.
Hence does it follow that the N. T. also considers the lesser Prophets
as a book.
2 Baba bathia, fol. 14, b.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE HOLY WRITINGS 33
Ezra, Chronicles.1 And even from these arrangements
many variations are to be found in the manuscripts.
These diversities, however, spring often from mere
accidents, but sometimes the occasions were more im
portant, which are yet at present but seldom to be ac
counted for, and the explanation afforded by the Jews is
often of doubtful value. According, however, to the re
presentation of the modern Jews, Isaiah was placed after
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in order that, after two prophets
who speak so much of the destruction of the State and
temple, a book full of consolation might follow. Perhaps,
however, this reason was invented only because the true
one was preserved by no tradition. Perhaps Jeremiah and
Ezekiel were placed first because unity of authorship
characterised the prophecies of both, and Isaiah received
the third place because his prophecies were alloyed by the
addition of many others of an anonymous character and
the offspring of very modern times (section 520), and he,
on account of these recent additions, was considered un
worthy of the first place, but on the other hand, as a
prophetical anthology, was made to occupy, with a wise
regard to propriety, the place before the sectfnd prophetical
collection, that of the twelve lesser prophets.
Section 8. — Distribution of the Same.
The distribution also of the prophets of the Old Testa
ment into three parts, into ' Law (min), Prophets (D'JQJ),
and Hagiographa (D'3irD),' in the main extends as far back
as the collection itself. For the present usual disposition
of the separate writings is primitive (sect. 7), and traces
of the said division are to be found in the writings of the
Jews long before the birth of Christ. It is in fact implied
1 Elias Levites, Prcsfat. tertia ad Massoreth Hammassoreth. D

34 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
in the description of the Old Testament. Jesus Sirach the
younger, Philo, the New Testament, and Josephus use it
(sect. 6) ; only at that time no universally-adopted name
for the third part, the Hagiographa, existed. Therefore the
above-named were obliged to call it after the first book of
its contents, ' the Psalms,' as occurs in the New Testament ;
sometimes to distinguish it by the title ' Ethical Writings,'
and the like, as do Jesus Sirach, Philo, and Josephus. The
first trace of the name Hagiographa (D'aina) is to be found
in Epiphanius, who expresses it very literally by ypafaut,.1
However, it may appear that the Jews, after the birth
of Christ, placed many books among the Hagiographa which
were formerly assigned to the Prophets. For Josephus
reckons only four books to the Hagiographists, and on the
other hand enumerates thirteen Prophets (sec. 40) ; contra-
rily Jerome and the Talmud and the modern Jews count eight
Prophets and nine Hagiographists (sec. 55, 56). But doubt
less the division with Josephus is a classification quite pecu
liar to him, which was founded, not on the series of the single
books in the manuscripts, but on what was customary in
his time, the habit of assigning to prophets all books not
the composition of poets in the strict sense of the word.
However general amongst Jews and Christians the
division into ' Law,' ' Prophets,' and ' Hagiographa '' was,
still it was unsuitable. This was felt by its very inventors
the Jews. For since under the category of the Prophets
not only authors were included who had declared prophe
cies, but also the authors of the books of Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings, the necessity arose of making a
second distmction, namely prophets of the first and second
class, (D^PfcO) priores and (D^inK) posteriores.
After the birth of Christ the expression ' canonical and
apocryphal ' writings of the Old Testament began to be
used (sec. 15 foil.). 1 Epiphanius, in Panarium, p. 58.

WERE THE AUTHORS TERMED PROPHETS ?

Section 9. — How far can the Authors of the Old Testament
be termed Prophets ?
It was usual, after the example of Philo and Josephus,
to include the authors of the Old Testament under the
name ' Prophets' (DW33), Nebiim (sec. 28, 44). This ex
pression was confined in the beginning to its sense in the
Bible which applies the large appellation Nabi, or irpo-
$riTr}s, to authors of very different kinds. Gradually the
custom arose of using the expression in its highest sense,
and of indicating thereby a man taught by the immediate
instruction of the Deity ; and Josephus finally made the
credibility and certainty of Hebrew history to depend on
the fact of its authors being styled Nebiim (irpo<fyi]Tai).
Prophet, or Nabi, signifies with the Jews every con
fidant of the Divinity, according to the most various in
flections and modifications imparted to the word by the
shifting forms of human representation changing with
time and experience. The farther we go back into the
times of the old world the narrower do we find the know
ledge of men with regard to the nature of things and the
causes of their changes, destruction, renovation, and re
turn. It cost thousands of years to enable the human
intellect to comprehend that all changes are connected
with one another like the links of a long chain, and to
form an idea of eternally immutable laws by which all the
workings of Nature are regulated. Everything was much
more derived from the immediate agency of a powerful
and invisible being dwelling in the objects subjected to
change ; and all nature was animated with ghosts, daemons,
divinities, or by what other names each tribe might
distinguish these invisible beings. They not only ac
counted for the more terrible changes in nature by this
D 2

36 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
theory, such as thunder, lightning, hail, tempests, &c, but
not a tree stirred, nor soft breeze blew, without impressing
the oldest children of nature with the notion that these
appearances also arose from particular beings (a god of the
winds). Plants, flowers, trees, springs, grottoes, rivers,
hills — in short, everything, from the sea beneath up to the
stars above, was quickened and animated and inhabited by
invisible and powerful beings, a true world of spirits, a
widely diffused Polytheism !
Amidst such ideas the most ancient languages were
formed. Gradually does the rude child of nature step
from the first degree of education up to the next ; by
experience he learns the causes of changes separately ;
and his polytheism decreases as his store of knowledge
augments. At length the idea occurs to him of the in
fluence of a higher being on the occasion of those
phenomena which excite his astonishment or are dis
tinguished by a too great strength of function or extreme
difficulty of observation, till finally the high light of
mental illumination disperses also this last mist of igno
rance. In the meantime these traces of the days of
infancy do not so soon disappear ; they have become once
for all so deeply impressed on the language that even in
the times of more enlightened ideas and correcter views of
the causes of things and of their changes, the old puerile
representations continue in the expressions of all those
who speak the language ; though, without any intention,
on the part of the speakers, of pretending an assignment
of causes. In short the old hieroglyphic is there ; it has,
however, exchanged its old rude sense for a more intel
lectual one.
Just so narrowly began the notions of unenlightened
man concerning the changes which take place in the
spiritual world ; and just so slowly as in the physical did

WERE THE AUTHORS TERMED PROPHETS 1 37
they become enlarged and corrected. In the oldest times,
thoughts, inventions, and dexterity are never the property
of the individual, or the result of his natural powers, but
the gift of some higher being; events in the spiritual
world proceed in an unbroken chain just as little as in the
natural ; much more there seems to be no end to external
interruptions ; the free natural movement is nowhere to
be found, but everywhere foreign guidance step by step.
Thoughts are voices of the Deity in the inner man ; inven
tions and skill are His gifts ; the arts of agriculture and
the cultivation of the vine, and the most important contri
vances in the handicrafts are taught from above — in a word,
men are the confidants of the Deity and in constant com
munication with Him. Still, however, these thoughts are
only divine in the beginning ; with the increase of educa
tion the traces of mental progress are discernible, and the
manner and means in which skill is acquired are more
and more laid open, and from that time forward divine
intimations gradually decline. Now they are the limited
privilege of only extraordinary men, who in their intel
lectual power rise far above their contemporaries, and now
no longer common and everyday notions passed for divine
suggestions but great and important ideas, largely com
prehensive conceptions, great conclusions from present
circumstances, striking views into futurity and the like.
Men of great intellect, sages, prophets, and lawgivers, are
henceforth the confidants of the Divinity. He who
ventures on a connected discourse, either oral or written,
or with greater presence of mind and boldness, speaks
with force and energy, even in these times of already-
advanced education, undertakes a work beyond the usual
strength of the men of his day 1 and his superiority receives
from them the explanation of a special Divine assistance.
1 The appellation of such confidants of the Divinity is derived

38 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Supposing now in the progress of centuries and experience
the human understanding to have reached its pinnacle so
as no longer to esteem the immediate interposition of the
Deity necessary to the solution of such difficulties ; and
that it is also generally acknowledged that the difference
of parts amongst contemporaries depends upon difference
of natural capacity and its cultivation, and a thousand
other circumstances ; that to every man, indeed, a portion
of Divine power has been imparted, the developement of
which is superior and finer in one than in another, and ac
cording to the measure of whose distribution the operation
is more powerful in one than in another ; still upon that
account the old expressions respecting great men are not
altogether rejected, but acquire in the speech of enlight
ened days a sense entirely different from that in which
they were first employed.
If then these old popular ideas are to be applied to a
Hebrew Nabi, which to my knowledge no author has as
yet done, every author of whom we possess the least
fragment in the Old Testament would be entitled to that
appellation. But even the Jewish authors upon whose
authority we have retained the name, connected therewith
quite different ideas. They had formed a peculiar scheme
concerning their national sages of the old world, which,
looking to its origin, they could only account for by sup
posing a certain infusion of the Godhead, which, according
indeed from the oral discourses. With the Hebrews they are called
CX'IJ, as with the Greeks fiMvo/ievoi. They appeared in early times,
when from poverty of speech they were compelled to eke out their dis
courses by looks, mute expression, and gesticulations, and the whole
body co-operated in order to express the thoughts which they wished
to impart to their hearers. Every public discourse was, therefore, a
fiMV€o-6M, an insanire, yjfcv, 1 Samuel xviii. 10, Jeremiah xxix. 26,
which seems also to be the fundamental idea of K3J. Compare Simonis
Lex. Bebr. ex ed. I. G. Eichorn, Halaa, 1793, 8.

FORMATION OF THE LANGUAGE 39
to their system, was used from time to time to descend
upon them.1 If we imagine in prophets men who in
the very highest and only possible sense were subjected
to the influence of the Deity, the term can by no means
be made applicable to all the writers of the Old Testa
ment. The Jewish historians, for instance, could scarcely
have been under that high influence. If they wrote
the history of their own times, they recorded matters with
which, as contemporaneous, they were already sufficiently
acquainted ; if they described the adventures of bygone
times, they drew their materials from sources already in
existence ; and the internal structure of the books of
Jewish history shows that their origin, like that of the
other old and modern historical works of the East, is alto
gether human.
Section 10. — Some General Ideas concerning the Language
in which the Old Testament was written.
The language which the Hebrews spoke, and in
which the Old Testament was written,2 was a dialect of
the widely-spread Semitical language. It was also closely
related to the language of all the tribes which dwelt on
the shores of the Mediterranean sea, and with and amongst
whom the Phcenicians (Hamites by descent) settled ; con
sequently, therefore, related to the language of the greatest
commercial nation of antiquity, which not only was visited
by the, at that time, only known three parts of the world
for purposes of trade, but possessed also partly factories,
partly colonies, in Asia, Europe, and Africa, and, therefore,
because they had exchanged their Hamitical tongue for the
1 See only the passages from Philo, § 28.
2 Only in the books written during the abode of the Jews in Chaldasa
do any passages in the Chaldsean dialect appear. Daniel ii. 4, vii. 28 j
Ezra iv. 8, vi. 19, vii. 12, 27.

40 INTEODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
idiom in use on the shores of the Mediterranean, they gave
an extremely wide currency to the latter. This was as nearly
related to the two chief dialects of Asia — the Aramaean,
which was spoken in Syria, Babylon, Assyria, &c, and
the Arabian — as the Ionic dialect to the Doric and iEolic,
so that it cost these nations but little pains to communi
cate with each other in their speeches. Therefore the Old
Testament was written in the language of all the civilised
nations of that day except the Egyptians.
To fix the relationship of this widely extended dialect
with the languages of the other tribes of Asia is impos
sible, because its origin is lost in the mists of the earliest
times. Even the inquiry into its antiquity can amount to
but weak conjectures, and he who should determine to
pursue its history beyond the Noachian deluge would
venture on an enterprise whose result must be the
remotest probabilities. Still the Hebrew language claims
an extremely high antiquity and must have been the idiom
of very early civilised tribes. Not only in Moses' time
was it already fully perfected, but, as in his very first book
older verbatim inscriptions are introduced, it must, cen
turies before him, have received the polish necessary for
literary composition. About this time the high symbolical
spirit, breathed in the early infancy of languages, had already
evaporated, it had become subjected to the shackles of
written letters and of fixed grammar ; and although it was
fashioned by Polytheism (as its inner structure shows),
it had become at this time fully adapted to express all
the ideas connected with the unity of God and to the
exposition of other spiritual ideas for which rude languages
have no forms. He only who has followed the history of
the gradual formation of a language will be able by such
experience to acquire a true notion of the extremely high
antiquity of the Hebrew tongue or of that fruitful mother

FOEMATION OF THE LANGUAGE 41
of many daughters, the Semitic. How many centuries
are required to subdue a rude language — to round its
corners and cast away its stiffness and inflexibility ! How
long does it serve the purposes of poesy alone ! How long
does it possess expressions for merely external objects !
And when the number of words and expressions is become
ample enough, how long is it compelled to carry over
everything that is mental into the bodily world and still
ring for ever with images and parables in order to enun
ciate but a small number of intellectual ideas! And
what labours and preparations, and what series of cen
turies must not the Semites have expended, to compass
the possibility in the Hebrew language of only that Song
of Creation with which the writings of Moses commence !
The nature and internal structure of the Hebrew language
at the time of Moses compels us to believe that the art
of using letters for centuries in succession, combined
with convenient writing materials, must have worked
together for its perfection ; and because its influence had
already appeared in such great works and the old lofty
language of poetry had subsided to nearly the level of
prose, and become fettered by grammatical rules, it is to
be inferred that the use of letters and of convenient
writing materials was no longer a secret confined to a few
persons but that it had been already applied to the pur
poses of common life. Who, then, may undertake to fix
the number of centuries necessary to bring this important
work to this high degree of perfection ?

42 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

Section 11. — Various Idioms of the Hebrew Dialect.
Indisputably in the time of Moses the Hebrew dialect
was already divided into numerous idioms. In Egypt it
was spoken by the Jews under influences of an entirely
different nature, of an entirely different people, and of an
entirely different language from those under which it was
used by that part of the Hebrew nation which during the
sojourn of the rest in Egypt wandered up and down in
Arabia with their flocks and herds. With the latter an
education under the sway of a different nature, inter
course with a different Semitical tribe, the Arabs, and a
nomadic mode of life different from that of the Egyptians,
must have wrought their peculiar effect on the language
spoken by them ; there must have arisen, in the different
lands in which it was used, not only a variance in pronun
ciation, the employment of certain words and forms and
the like, but also the tongue itself in every land would
acquire a particular hue, or the fate of the Hebrew must
have been different from that of every other well-known
language in the world. But in what quarter and under
which tribes the language of learning was formed, or which
tribes preceded the others in cultivation and with its ad
vances improved also their language, extended it, and
rendered it best adapted for use in written records — these
inquiries (although they regard an important object),
since history is silent thereupon, we are no longer in a
situation to answer.
In the meantime, according to the nature of things
and the analogy of letters in other nations, Moses must
have written in the most polished Hebrew idiom,
which had been employed already in literary attempts,
which the ancient verbatim inscriptions quoted in the first

THE HEBREW DIALECT 43
book of Moses prove.1 And after him, all the still
extant authors, even to Malachi downwards, including
a space of more than twelve hundred years,2 wrote
in the very same Hebrew idiom, not, as if the Hebrew
tongue, contrary to the example of others, had for
ever continued unchanged — not as if centuries3 and
provinces4 had exerted no influence upon it — not as if
it had never degenerated into greater and lesser dialects,
as everybody knows was the case with the Arabic and
Greek languages. In all probability we ought to distin
guish between the learned language of the Jews and that
in common use.5 No idiom approached the former in flexi
bility, none wrapt itself more lightly and firmly around all
ideas, none possessed equal copiousness and regularity. It
was studied by Moses in the old national records just
1 In like manner the Ionic dialect was used by Hesiod, Herodotus,
Hippocrates, and other Greek authors, from whom, considering their
birthplaces, the use of an entirely different idiom was to be expected.
They employed, however, the former because it was the earliest and
most polished.
2 According to the usual reckoning, 1160 years.
3 K-ln and 1J7J in both genders, and perhaps l-ljns 5 B. Moses
viii. 3 (the preterite with a paragogic Nun, if it should not be pointed
HUT) are l010,5™ archaisms in Moses.
4 The Ephraimites pronounced always n?3D and the rest rbsfi
Judges xii. 6, and the guttural letters 5/nnN they pronounced without
distinction as x-
5 If S-in |D> 2 B. Moses xvi. 15, is to be translated 'which is that,'
the word used in common life was |D where authors used np. Much
of the variety of expression of individual authors must already be lost
to us, because all are provided with vowels according to the same rules,
and the same pronunciation is applied to all. For instance the Dual
in the Hebrew provinces was probably differently pronounced, of which
we possess some trace still in the double forms o;rj{J> and D'rjtJ',
0*X* and Q'J£J>; and would ever D?2''I"V have been written for
E'vE'lT, unless many persons had pronounced DJB'IT • Are not in
the German dialects ai contracted into ae, and ei into e 1

44 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
as Homer sought his style from the songs of the ancient
Greek bards, and the former again was with the Jews as
Homer with the Greeks, the principal source from whence
all following writers drew their language. In him rested
the first germs of the images, pictures, and descriptive
modes which after centuries became expanded in the heads
of the Jews, because he was their auctor classicus and
national handbook. Hence the provincialisms and barbar
isms at the times of the Judges, when the new colony in
Palestine existed half a wilderness ; hence the declension
from the usual language of the Bible in the passages where
words from common life were adopted, either accidentally
or intentionally ; hence soon after Moses the interrupted
cultivation of the Hebrew tongue ; it had through him,
as the Arabic through the Koran, already reached its
golden age, because the Jews regarded Moses, as the
Arabians their Prophet, as the pattern of the purest style
in writing. With all this, making allowance for those shades which
always distinguish one author from another, a certain
similarity of characteristic expression amongst the authors of
one province must be acknowledged which clearly divides
them from those of another.1 In short, the dialect of each
province affected the book-language, and the longer an
author lived after Moses the greater was its influence,
and towards the end of the State, from the traffic of the
Hebrews with the Chaldaeans, Chaldaeisms obtained Hebrew
burghership, in which at last the pure style of Moses was
wholly lost.2
1 Compare the Samaritanisms in Amos and Hosea : for instance,
Amos vi. 8, 3KDO instead of 2VDD ) Hosea vi. 6, -|NDNDN in the mas
culine suffix of the second person which the Samaritan Pentateuch
writes "|K, &c.
2 See for this, the introductions to single books of Jeremiah, Ezeziel,
and others.

GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES 45

Section 12. — Genuineness of the Scriptures of the Old
Testament.
I. — They come to us from no Impostor.
He who with knowledge and impartiality examines the
question whether the writings of the Old Testament are
genuine, will certainly be compelled to answer it in the
affirmative. 1. They cannot all be the invention of one impostor —
this every part of the Old Testament declares. What a
variety in language and expression ! As Isaiah writes, so
does not Moses, nor Jeremiah like Ezekiel, and between
these and each of the lesser Prophets a wide cleft of style
is established. The grammatical structure of the language
in Moses is very peculiar ; in the book of the Judges pro
vincialisms and barbarisms appear ; Isaiah casts the store
of words into new forms ; Jeremiah and Ezekiel are full
of Chaldaeisms ; in short, as we proceed from the authors
placed back in the early times onwards to the later, we
find the language in a gradual decay, till finally it settles
down into a shape absolutely Chaldaean.
Well then, what variety in the movement of ideas and
extent of imagery ! The harpstrings of Moses and Isaiah
give a rushing sound, but their chime is soft beneath the
hands of David. The muse of Solomon glitters in the
pomp of the most voluptuous court ; but her sister, clad in
careless array, wanders with David by brooks and banks,
on plains and with flocks around. One poet is original,
like Isaiah, Joel, and Habakkuk; another a copyist, as
Ezekiel. One wanders along the untrodden paths of
genius, whilst another steals by his side over beaten
ground. From one stream forth rays of erudition, whilst
from his neighbour a spark has never issued. In the

46 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
oldest author strong Egyptian colouring glitters through
out, in his successors it grows fainter and fainter, and
becomes quite extinguished in the last.
Lastly, also, in the manners — the finest gradation !
At first everything single and simple, as in Homer, and
still with the Bedouin Arabs; this noble simplicity be
comes gradually lost in luxury and effeminacy, and
vanishes at last in that most voluptuous court of Solomon.
Nowhere a leap ; everywhere a gentle gradual pro
gress ! Only ignorant or thoughtless sceptics can affirm
the Old Testament to be the work of one deceiver.
Section 13. — Also not the work of several Impostors.
2. But perhaps several impostors made common cause
and in some later century effected (at the same time) the
forgery of our Scriptures of the Old Testament ? But how
was it possible for them to invent a mode so adapted to
the progress of the human understanding ? How was it
possible in later times to obtain the language of Moses ?
This visibly exceeds all human power. Finally one
author presupposes the existence of another (sec. 4) ; they
could not, therefore, have arisen all together, but neces
sarily in succession.
' Perhaps, however, such deceivers arose at various
times and carried on their forgeries, from where their
false predecessors had left off ? which will account for the
references of one author to another, and explain the
striking gradation observed throughout.' But, first, how
was it possible that the cheat should remain undiscovered
undenounced, and the deceiver miss the mark of that
branding-iron which would have operated as a security to
posterity ? How was it possible that a nation should per
mit itself to be deceived more than once, at various times ?

GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES 47
And what purpose could the deceiver have in view ? To
aggrandise the Hebrew nation ? In that case his eulogies
turn into the coarsest pasquinades, for according to the Old
Testament a very unworthy part is always played by the
Hebrew people ? Or to degrade the Hebrews ? But how
in this case could the nation suffer books to be obtruded
upon it which contained calumnies, and as often as the
victorious stranger trod them with his feet to the ground,
consoled them with the dry narration ?
Section 14. — Marks of Genuineness.
1. Moreover, the Old Testament bears all the marks of
genuineness in itself. Just the same grounds which are
alleged in defence of Homer, support also the genuineness
of each separate book of the Old Testament. Why should
the justice which is granted to the former be withheld
from the latter ? If a particular age be assigned to a profane
author, and all the circumstances of his book both internal
and external coincide therewith; doubts upon the point
will be entertained by no impartial inquirer after truth.
Nay, where the age of an author is unfixed, is there the
least hesitation felt in deciding his date upon the internal
evidence afforded by his works ? Why, then, should the
critical inquirer hesitate to take this very road only with
regard to the Bible ?
2. No one has hitherto successfully disputed either the
honesty or credibility of any writer of the Old Testament ;
much more, every discovery in ancient literature hitherto
made has afforded fresh confirmation to the Old Testa
ment. Further, no one has yet shown that the style of
any author of the Old Testament is inconsistent, in point
of knowledge and circumstances, with the age in which he
is stated to have lived.

48 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
In short, all athe books of the Old Testament, the-
names of whose authors we know, have the stamp-marks
of the honesty of their writers. And with regard to the
books with whose authors we are unacquainted, internal
evidence will compel the admission of their genuineness.
The book of Joshua, for instance, whose author is unknown,
goes so deeply into the details of the oldest geography
that miracle upon miracle must have been wrought upon
an impostor to render such performance possible.
Let search be made with intelligence and without pre
judice, and I am sure every one must be convinced of the
genuineness of the books of the Old Testament.
It is, however, to be taken for granted, what for other
reasons was to be expected with regard to such ancient
books, that most of the writings of the Hebrews have
passed through various hands, before acquiring their pre
sent form, and that in them sometimes old and new are
found mingled; this will, however, not induce an im
partial judge to throw doubts on their genuineness.
1. There is no instance of any surviving ancient author,
of what nation soever, whose text has not undergone many
alterations and interpolations. Sometimes intentional
glosses were made, and old words and expressions and
geographical names exchanged for new, in order to clear
the sense to the modern reader ; sometimes remarks were
made on the margin, for the writers' or others' use, with
out any intention of their introduction into the text, but
which have been subsequently interpolated by the excessive
zeal of posterity. Before, then, the genuineness of a book
can be affected by such passages, a careful previous critical
examination must be made, as to whether they originally
stood where they now are, and really flowed from the
author's pen.
2. The intermingling of old and new passages and

MARKS OF GENUINENESS 49
sections arose by necessity from the very mode of origin of
many of the writings of the Old Testament. The smaller
number came to us in the form in which we now possess
them, from the hands of their author. With regard to
many, the substance was already extant in separate works,
before being bound up together, with certain parts now
added to them. Supposing the Mosaical books in their
present disposition not to be the work of Moses, still they
are composed of Mosaical materials, merely put into form
by a later hand. It will be demonstrated in its proper
place that the chief foundation of our present ' Samuel '
and ' Chronicles ' (particular lives of David and Solomon)
attained its actual form by passing through, at least, the
hands of two very different editors, of whom each increased
and enriched it with his own peculiar additions. For a
time the first sixteen chapters of the book of Judges
formed by themselves a whole, in which nothing further
was recorded than the feats of Hebrew heroes ; afterwards
an annexation was made of five chapters, perhaps (if we
may venture to assign the circumstance) because the piece
of skin or linen intended for this heroical record was not
yet full of such traditions, and had still capacity for a
supplement of some extent, and the economy observed with
regard to writing materials in old times would not permit
the blank space to remain unemployed. Similar subsequent
supplements were made to both Moses and Jeremiah.
Our Isaiah is a collection of various anonymous prophetical
poesy, of which much appears to belong to the time of the
Babylonian captivity, and to which the name of Isaiah
was given, that no part might be lost. Our Psalms,
according to their actual arrangement, attained their pre
sent extent after the exile, by the junction of several
larger and smaller Books of Songs. The materials of our
Daniel were at first extant in separate pieces, composed in

50 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
various idioms, and a later friend of the celebrated writer
first brought together all the discoverable separate pieces
of his or concerning him. The golden proverbs of
Solomon were from time to time increased by contribu
tions ; even in the time of Hezekiah additions were made
to them, consisting partly of the sayings of the Wise King
himself not hitherto collected, and partly of the apophthegms
of other wise men of the old world. In short, it was the
custom to arrange old and new together, and to connect
with one another what was capable of such disposition —
sometimes to increase the extent of separate books and suit
the rolls in size to one another, sometimes on account of
similarity of matter, and so on. And this, in all proba
bility, was the mode of proceeding in the old times before
the captivity, but chiefly afterwards on the occasion of
founding the new temple-library.
Were it now resolved to describe as forgeries all books
whose every part and passage fell short of congruity in
point of time, then truly very few genuine writings of
the Hebrews would survive such a sentence ; but at the
same time this would be a great blow to the classics of
both Greek and Roman antiquity. As with regard to the
latter so in the case of the former, it behoves the higher
criticism only to exercise its office and pronounce sentence
after separating, from internal evidence, what belongs to
different authors and times. He who blames a Biblical
scholar, or even sighs with pious apprehensions, when he
beholds him instituting with critical precision and judicial
severity an examination into each book of the Old Testa
ment with this object in view, such a person must be either
altogether unacquainted with antiquity, profane literature,
and the usual mode of dealing with it, or be so entirely
destitute of strength of mind as to be incapable of per
ceiving the serious consequence of omitting to apply a

THE HIGHER CRITICISM 51
test of this nature and also the otherwise invincible army
of doubts, which only by the method proposed can be
driven from their intrenchments. And he who, holding
such proof to be alike useful, important, and necessary,
should from sensitive and over-anxious piety wish to pre
scribe a law to the critical inquirer, only to separate
where external marks afford occasion or compel to such
division: such a person in the realm of crititism must
still be classed among the weak and would still endanger
the character for genuineness of the greatest number of
Hebrew writings. The ancients, however, had a custom at
times of marking the end of a book by a subscription : as,
for instance, Moses and Jeremiah did and the authors of
an old collection of Psalms, by means of the words,
' Here end the Songs of David.' Continuators also in
dicated the places where the continuation commenced, by
a marginal note, as in the Proverbs of Solomon, by the
words, ' These also are the Proverbs of Solomon, col
lected by the men of Hezekiah.' But such examples are
rare ; and for the most part it becomes necessary by
entirely other means and by the finest operations of the
higher criticism, to attempt to discover what through the
progress of time in an ancient work is interpolated and
appended. Section 15. — ^Canonical Authority of the Books of the Old
Testament — Canonical and Apocryphal Writings.
Soon after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian
captivity a collection was set on foot of all the still extant
writings of the Hebrew nation, held venerable and holy
for age, contents, and authorship by all the members of the
new State, and of them a holy library was formed in the
^temple, which at some very early period (the exact year is
E2

52 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
not known l) received no further accession (sect. 5).2
After the time of making the collection, authors of various
kinds, historians, philosophers, poets, and theological
romance writers, still arose amongst the Jews. They
possessed, therefore, books of very unequal contents and
of different periods : the ancient, as works of the Prophets,
they held as holy, the modern not, because they were
written when the continued series of Prophets no longer
existed ; 3 the ancient were kept in the temple (sect. 39),
1 If, according to Josephus, it closed with the reign of Artaxerxes
Longimanus, that is only his private opinion, founded on his represen
tation of the Book of Esther (see § 8, 41).
2 1 know not what probability can attach to the opinion in the
Zurich Library of the most recent Theological and Philosophical Litera
ture (B. i. § 180), that the Jews were not agreed with respect to
the number of their sacred books till after the compilation of the
Talmud. If a far earlier and in all respects settled collection had not
existed, how could Josephus, Philo, and N. T. have used such decisive
expressions concerning it, or Josephus have distinguished the ancient
writings of his nation into two kinds 1 He speaks of such as, being
written before the times of Artaxerxes Longimanus, were esteemed
credible (or divine), and of others composed after Artaxerxes Longi
manus, which were not considered equally credible ; must not, then, the
point, how many belonged to one class and how many to the other,
have been exactly defined ? ' It is, however, an established opinion that
amongst the orthodox Jews as various judgments prevailed from time
to time respecting their sacred books as amongst Christians. Is not
Daniel highly esteemed by Josephus, but disparaged by the other Jews,
Ezekiel almost rejected from the Canon, and the estimation of Esther
unequal 1 ' Certainly ; but how can later and private opinions be made
the test of what the old and national opinion was ? And we know well
what the grounds were which gave occasion to their derogatory judg
ments of the said books. Their contents were the rock of offence.
History afforded no grounds for their hostility ; would they not, in order
to get rid of books so grievous to them, have appealed to the times
when they were not included in the class of sacred national writings,
had ever so weak a tradition encouraged the provocation ?
3 Josephus, Contra Ap. lib. i. § 8, expresses himself as follows of
these modern writings : mo-Teas Se o\>x opouxs ^Jkdtoi ttjs irpo ojituv, 8io
to ,[«) 7ei<eo'9a! Ti)v tuv irpo<pTiTuv aKpifii) SiaSox>lv.

CANONICAL AUTHORITY 53
the modern not ; the ancient were formed into a public
collection, the modern, as far as I am aware, not, at least
not into a public one. And had not the Alexandrian
Christians been such warm admirers of the latter and
annexed them (if originally written in the Greek lan
guage) in the original, but if composed in Hebrew in a
Greek version, to the manuscripts of the Seventy, who
knows whether a leaf of all the modern Jewish writers
would be still in existence ? ' To these two kinds
1 The Zurich Library makes also some objections to this. « There
are proofs in existence,' it says (Part i. § 178), 'that the Greek Jews
extended gradually, to more writings than the Hebrew Jews possessed,
the honour of being classed as ancient, holy, and venerable monuments
from the times of the old world, nay even as primeval dictations of
the Holy Spirit. The Apostles, Apostolic Fathers, and doctors of the
Church, make no difference in their quotations between various coun
terfeits and the canonical writings of the 0. T. Jude cites the Anabasis
of Moses and the Books of Enoch; Paul, the Apocalypse of Elijah, and
probably also other Apocrypha; Matthew, an apocryphal work of
Jeremiah, which the Hebrew Christians possessed as late as the times
of Jerome ; Clemens, the false Ezekiel ; Hermas, the Eldad and Medad.
It is clear that these books were both known and honoured by the
converts from the Greek Jews. They were neither gifts from the
Apostles, nor first recommended by them. Moreover, the Church
Fathers, Clemens and Origen, who were in the habit of quoting the
Apocrypha without distinction, were not the introducers of this custom,
but found the taste for these writings established, and were compelled
to conform to it. Other Church Fathers, Irenaeus, TertuUian, Ambrose
of Milan, and others, would never have treated the Wisdom of Solomon,
the Books of Enoch, Baruch, Tobias, the false Esdras, the fragments to
Daniel, &c., as holy and inspired writings, had they not come to them
recommended as such from Jews.' It would go ill with the fixing of
our canon of the 0. T. were this so. But, first, it is false that the
Jews made no difference between the ancient sacred books of their
nation and the so-called apocryphal writings. Josephus, who was at
least acquainted with the Greek Jews, whose version he takes as his
groundwork throughout his entire writings, says, without any exception,
of all the Jews in general, ' We have only twenty-two books whose com
position extended down to Artaxerxes Longimanus. Since the time of
Artaxerxes, indeed, down to our days, abundance has been written, but

54 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
of writings later on, a considerable time after the birth of
Christ, chiefly with a view to the use made of them, dis-
these new books have not with us the reputation of the old.' And if
these later works were esteemed by the Greek Jews as holy, venerable,
and inspirations of the Holy Ghost, how comes it, then, that the Greek
Jew, Philo, made no allegories of them as he did of those writings
to which he attributed a higher origin 1 Secondly, it is false that
the Apostles made no distinction between canonical and apocryphal
writings. How happens it otherwise that, out of so many quotations
of the 0. T. into the New, so few can be shown to be taken from the
Apocrypha ? If of equal repute, alike would have been the use made of
them. Third, it is false that the inference from the value attached by
the Jewish Christians to the Apocrypha is that they were placed by the
Jews on an equal footing with their sacred writings. It is well known
that the former were held in such excellent estimation by the Jewish
Christians in regard to the abundant food afforded from them to their
enthusiastical ideas, hopes, and expectations. And if a comparison be
made betwixt this estimation and that, according to Josephus, accorded
to them by his nation, it will be clear that the Christians made many
steps in advance of the Jews. And what is to be concluded from the
opinions concerning them of the Church Fathers as to those of the Jews 1
Must the opinions of these last necessarily have been those of the
former ?
But ' in the Greek Bible-compilation many apocrypha were to be
found, as the Wisdom of Solomon, the third book of Esdras, Tobias,
Baruch, fragments to Daniel and Esther. This is also shown by the
use made by Josephus himself (doubtless to please the Greek Jews)
of some of thes& writings, and also the versions thereof made at an
early period for the use of the Western Churches, and the canonical
authority allowed to them by various councils.' (1) This objection
presupposes, without proof, that already before the birth of Christ the
Apocrypha had been added to the Greek Bible ; but from whence is
this inferred? From the use possibly made of them by Josephus.
Does his use of them prove more than this single point, their existence
at that time in the Greek version which we now have 1 May they not
have been in his hands in Greek, but as a separate work ? And since
Philo and the N. T. make so little use of the Apocrypha, is it at all
probable that they formed at that time a, part of the Greek Bible 1
Would they not in this case have been much more familiar to Philo and
the authors of the N. T. than we find they were 1 And would not their
attention have been directed to these passages by Christians first,
described as such great admirers of them 1 However, let it be so ; the

MEANING OF 'CANON' 55
tinctive names were assigned : the older were termed
canonical, the modern apocryphal books, and the whole
collection of the former was indicated under the name
Canon of the Old Testament.
Section 16. — What is meant by ' Canonical' ?
The word Kav<ov was long in use with the old Church
Fathers, and in very general senses, before it was applied
to signify a collection of sacred writings. Often with them
elder Greek- Jews, before the birth of Christ, may perhaps have done it ;
but nothing will follow hostile to the hitherto maintained Hebrew
Canon, since the Palestinian and not the Egyptian is our concern.
(2) And what do early translations of the Apocrypha for the use of the
Western Churches prove ? Only this, which nobody doubts : that they
were already in early times held by them in great veneration. What
is to be inferred from the conduct of the Councils, which granted
canonical authority to the Apocrypha 1 That they went further in
their esteem for these writings than the early Christians, and extended
to them a concession never to our knowledge made by the latter 1
(3) ' The Egyptian Jews invented fables in order to procure respect
to the false old muniments which they had forged to gratify their dis
position to enthusiasm and party spirit. The Jew that wrote the fourth
book of Esdras, in order by feigned visions to encourage the hopes of
the Messiah's kingdom amongst his countrymen, produces a story of
seventy hidden books, dictated to Esdras by the Holy Spirit. And this
tradition of seventy apocrypha is also to be found in the Gospel of
Nicodemus. That the fourth book of Esdras in its oldest form was
written by no Christian is evident from many signs, although Christians
may have interpolated and even increased it with many additions.'
Taking also for granted this account of the origin of the fourth book
of Esdras (liable, however, to so many objections), because an inquiry
into the point is foreign to this place, what follows from all this ? Only,
indeed, that individual Jews have set all springs in motion to
procure great respect to the productions of their pens. Is the appro
bation of all other Jews to this to be inferred 1 That out of complais
ance to these fables even a divine origin was attributed by all to the
works for whose sakes they were invented? But I stop, not to
strive too long against objections which affect so little the principles
disputed.

56 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
it meant nothing further than generally a ' book,' and an
' inventory,' 1 then, secondly, in particular, an ' inventory
of things belonging to the Church,' and also a ' Book
generally used in the Church.' 2 Hence a list of hymns
sung on festival days,3 as also the register in which the
names of all persons belonging to the Church were entered,
was called Kavcov.i Thirdly, in a still narrower sense the
word was used to signify a ' publicly authorised catalogue
of all books permitted to be read, on the occasions of
public assemblies of Christians, for instruction and edifica
tion.' 5 Finally, and fourthly, but not till in very late
times, a ' collection of godly and inspired writings ' was
understood precisely by the expression.
Almost all modern literati have adopted the last sig
nification ; they employ hence ' canonical ' and ' inspired '
(icavovticos and Osottvsvo-tos) as perfect synonyms.6 But
some understand by Canon of the Old Testament ' the
collection of holy and inspired writings which Christ and
the Apostles have declared to be holy and inspired.'
'Hence the diminutive Kavoviov means simply 'libellus.' See
Suidas, s. v. Kavoviov. M. Fred. Ferdin. Driik, Diss, de Ratione Historia
Canonis scribendce (Tub. 1778, 4).
2 Synodus Laodia. Canon 42.
3 Suicer, in Thes. Eccles. t. ii. p. 40, has verified this meaning by
many examples taken out of the Church Fathers. In this way for
instance Zonarus expresses himself, Ad Canon. Athanasii Damasceni :
Kavuv AeyeTOi, 6ti apio'fj.evov . . . e^ei to ififierpov ivvea a'Scas owTeAou-
fuevov. 4 Socrates, Historia Eccles. lib. i. c. 17, Tar wapSevovs toj avayeypap-
lievas iv t<( tuiv iKKKviriuv Kavovi. See Dufresne, Glossarium Media
et Infimce Grtecitatis, p. 579.
5 See Suicer, Thes. Eccles. s. v. Kavaiv, a Cotta ad GerJiardi locos theol.
t. ii. p. 244.
6 Suicer, v. Kavav. Frick, De Cura Vet. Eccl. circa Canonem,
p. 34 ff.

MEANING OF 'APOCRYPHAL' 57
Section 17. — What is meant by ' Apocryphal' ?
To the canonical books the apocryphal are opposed.
(1) At first ' darkly- written books ' were termed apocry
phal,1 therefore forbidden by the Church authorities to be
read in public assemblies of the Christians ; although not
only not forbidden, but their careful study enjoined upon
the learned as a positive duty. Hence (2) by apocryphal
writings, in contradistinction to canonical, were under
stood ' books laid aside, and of which no parts were per
mitted to be read in public' 2 (3) Even ' forged writings '
(pseudepigrapha) were sometimes for like reasons called
apocryphal, because of such wretched productions as the
Books of Adam, Methuselah, Enoch, and such others, no
public use was allowed.3 Finally (4), in like manner
as canonical and inspired were used as synonyms, so an
apocryphal book came to signify a ' book not inspired.'
1 Suidas, s. v. (pepeKuBrjs. Epiphanius, Hceres. li. Drfik, l.c. p. 8.
Compare with these the remark of Mr. D. Semler in the Treatise on the
Free Examination of the Canon, Part i. § 10, that cmoKpvipos was some
times used to signify a work allowed for the instruction of more
advanced Christians, but prohibited to others.
2 Rufinus, Expositio Symboli (inter opp. Cypriani), p. 26 ; Cyrillus,
Catech. iv. p. 68, ed. Toutt. In this case, however, ImoKpvtpos agrees
with the Rabbinical tl33> which also signifies ' writings laid aside and
forbidden to be read in the synagogue.' Wherefore the later Jews
placed the commencement of Genesis (in which a creation in six days
after a fashion so merely human was offensive to them), the Song of
Songs (whose contents they considered dangerous to youth), and
Ezekiel i. and xl. to xlviii. (because the contents of these chapters were
obscure to them, and the temple of Ezekiel did not coincide with their
second temple), amongst the )*f|3J forbidden to be read. Hottinger,
Thes. Phil. p. 521, Castelli and Buxtorf's Lexica on these words. But
on this account the belief is not required that the elder Jews by T13J
understood a book not canonical.
3 Athanasius in the Synopsis attributed to him, S. S. t. ii. p. 154.
Numerous passages in support of this sense have been collected by
Fabricius, Cod. Pseudep. V. T. t. ii. p. 208.

58 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Only the use of the word in this sense occurred very late,
and perhaps not before the time of Jerome. He, however,
writes in his prologue to Tobias : ' Librum Tobias quem
Hebrasi de catalogo divinarum Scripturarum secantes his
quae apocrypha memorant, manciparunt.'
Section 18. — Judgment on this Distribution nf the Books
of the Old Testament into Canonical and Apocryphal.
So various are the significations of the words canonical
and apocryphal. It became therefore the duty of modern
literati who have instituted examinations into the contents
of the canon of the Old Testament, to fix what meaning
they attached to ' canon.' This, alas, has frequently not
been done, and hence their examinations are deficient in
the requisite precision.
It were even desirable that the term canon had never
been applied to the Old Testament. A word of such
various meanings must necessarily produce misunderstand
ings ; and unfortunately the greatest number of meanings
it has received in the course of centuries are inapplicable
to the Old Testament.
First, if by canon of the Old Testament is to be
understood ' the collection of godly and inspired writings
of the Jews, the production of times previous to the birth
of Christ,' this would be a sense not in the minds of the
greatest number of Christian writers, and difficulties upon
difficulties encountered the inquirer who questioned the
Church Fathers upon the canon of the Old Testament.
Judith, Tobias, two books of the Maccabees, five books of
Solomon, and so on, for instance, were found reckoned
amongst the ' canonicas scripturas.' ' Frightened at this
1 Condi. Carthag. 3, can. 47 of the I. ' Placuit,' it says, ' ut prseter
canonicas scripturas nihil in ecclesia legatur sub nomine scripturarum

DIFFICULTY OF DECIDING 59
appearance, either the whole inquiry was given up, or, if
resolution enough were gathered to proceed, the inference
drawn was, that our present canon of the Old Testament
is of recent origin, and the arrangement in all its parts,
both great and small, not fixed in the ancient times.1
Or (2) if by canon of the Old Testament is to be
understood the ' books of the Jews, permitted before the
time of Christ to be read publicly,' this notion with
regard to the Old Testament would neither be pertinent
nor sufficient. With whom was the permission of reading
publicly these books ? With Jews, or Christians ? With
Jews : then in that case nothing would be more uncertain
than the number of books to be esteemed canonical ! For
canonical books and books for public reading were not
considered convertible. The Song of Songs, for instance,
was with them a sacred national work, and yet its public
reading in the synagogue was forbidden ! 2 Moreover, the
selection of books for this religious purpose depended on
their political situation. For a time the books of Moses
alone were read in public, but when the use of the
Mosaical books was prohibited by Antiochus Epiphanes,
the Prophets alone, afterwards, when the force of this in
tolerant prohibition had passed away, Moses and the
Prophets together. To this end also the five books of
Moses, the Prophets and the book of Esther, which on the
feast Purim was accustomed to be read with great
solemnity, behoved to be placed in the canon ; but not
divinarum ; sunt autem canonicis scripturse : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesus Nave, Judicum, Ruth, Regnorum
libri 4, Paralipomenon libri 2, Job, Psalmorum unus, Salomonis libri
quinque, libri 12 prophetarum minorum item, Jesaias, Jerem., Ezech.,
Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esdras libri 2, Maccabaaorum libri 2.'
1 Sender's Treatise on a Free Examination into the Canon, Part i.
§ 146. 2 Origen in his preface to the Song of Songs.

60 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
the Psalms, not the Proverbs, neither Job, nor the
historical books.
As understood by the Christians the canon of the
Old Testament would be still more uncertain. It would
be fixed at a time when it was no longer possible to
know what books were canonical ; for not till after the
lapse of the first centuries after the birth of Christ would
its disposition be made : by a party from whom no satis
factory settlement of the canon of the Old Testament was
to be expected, for such settlement required to be the work,
not of Christians, but of Jews ; without fixed principles by
which to test the estimation of a book ; for the New Testa
ment decides nothing as to the canon. The choice, there
fore, rested upon mere will, and was guided perhaps by
views of piety, which are frequently very equivocal, or by
insufficient authorities. Finally, if we compare the still ex
tant lists of the books of the Old Testament permitted to be
read publicly among Christians, we shall find also in the list
Judith and Tobias, to which for numerous reasons no
canonical authority can be extended ; so tottering is the
foundation upon which the important inquiry into the
canon of the Old Testament is made to rest !
Section 19. — In what Sense in this Inquiry the Canon
of the Old Testament is to be taken.
We proceed, therefore, in our examination of the sub
ject, merely from the time when Jesus and his Apostles
in their instruction to the human race referred to infor
mation recorded in the Old Testament. There existed at
that time in Palestine a collection which formed a com
plete whole, and was indicated by the New Testament,
sometimes by the title Scripture or Holy Scriptures, some
times described by ' Law and Prophets,' or ' Law, Prophets,

DIFFERENT CANONS 61
and Psalms.' This collection is to be our canon of the
Old Testament. We thus get rid of all theological and
dogmatical points and our inquiry becomes, as it ought to
be, purely historical.
Section 20. — Of the Egyptian and Palestinian Canon
in General.
After the Babylonian exile the Jews became divided,
according to the place of their residence, into Egyptian
and Palestinian ; in both they were in possession of a
collection of sacred national writings. And the inquiry
is worth the pains, whether in both countries this was of
equal or dissimilar extent, and what books as well as how
many both in Egypt and in Palestine were comprehended
in it? For our purpose, however, it is necessary to look
chiefly to Palestine, and endeavour to ascertain the com
ponent parts of the Palestinian canon at the epoch of
Christ and the Apostles. It may appear, therefore, that
an inquiry into the Egyptian canon may be dispensed
with, especially considering that though a full notice of it
could be given, the question of the Palestinian would still
remain to be decided. In the meantime, however, the
history of the canon would be defective without it ; with
out it many an illustration in the inquiry into the
Palestinian would have to be foregone. Finally, were a com
plete account of the Egyptian anywhere to be found, and
an agreement in all its parts with the Palestinian found
existing, in that case the important question whether the
Jews at the time of Christ were in possession of a
collection fixed as to all its parts, greater or less, or a com
plete canon, would be solved to the satisfaction of every
inquirer after truth.

62 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Should, however, either now or at some future time, a
sufficient number of fragments of the Egyptian canon be
discovered, to enable the formation of an entire whole,
regret will still remain that even here the mischievous
influence of rapacious time is manifest ; but the contents
of the canon will not on that account be the less certain.
Were even traces evident that apocryphal books openly
existed in the canon of the Egyptian Jews, these would
just as little attain the dignity of canonical books as the
Apocrypha inserted amongst the scripturce canonical by
the countenance of the Church Fathers (sec. 18). The
question here is to be decided not by Church Fathers but
by Jews, and those Jews the Jews of Palestine (sec. 19).
In like manner as the Samaritans came to possess a false
Joshua, which they placed by the side of the five books of
Moses, so similar accidents in Egypt may have raised one
or more apocryphal books into the rank of the canon.
I. The Canon of the Egyptian and Palestinian
Jews was One and the Same.
Section 21. — First Ground for the Presumption.
Still for manifold reasons is it extremely probable that
the canon of the Old Testament in Egypt and Palestine
Tras alike. First, the relations existing between the Jews in
both countries make this at once probable. Both were, if
not indeed at all times, in some, if not close, connection
and occasionally even in religious community ; l there was
1 Notwithstanding the jealousy which prevailed between the Jews
in both lands, religious communion went further than was to be ex
pected. To that purpose the celebrated author Philo himself was once
despatched to Jerusalem to offer up a sacrifice in the temple there in
the name of his brothers in the faith. Philo, Opp. t. ii. p. 646, ed.
Mang., or in Eusebius, Prop. Evang. lib. viii. c. xiv. p. 398, ed. Paris.
Ti)S Supior iiri 6oAott;7 iroAis itSTiv, 'AtrKaKwy ovo/ia- yevo/ievos iv toutjj Kofl'

THE CANONS NOT DIFFERENT 63
a rivalry between both for an equality in all things. The
Egyptians built a temple after the model of the temple at
Jerusalem and practised here as there their religion with
the same solemnities ; the Egyptians read publicly in
their synagogues the five books of Moses, as in Palestine ;
but as an intolerant edict of Antiochus Epiphanes sup
pressed the use of the Mosaical books in the synagogues,
and public readings out of the Prophets began then as a
matter of necessity, and afterwards, when the prohibition
ceased, Moses and the Prophets were read together each
Sabbath, the jealousy of the Egyptian Jews permitted
them not to be behind in this respect. Finally, Jerusalem
was the place to which the Jews referred everything ; the
customs and usages there at home they copied. Jerusalem
was the rallying point of all Jews who lived scattered
through Europe, Asia, and Africa, therefore that of the
Egyptian.1 Under such circumstances, is it not to be
presumed 2 that the Jews in both countries agreed with
bv xpovov els to iraTpaov lepov ioreXXo/j.7jv eii^ofievos Te km 6vpwv, afi-nxavov
ti ireAeioSay irArjflos . . . i6eao-a/iriv. Still this was something extra
ordinary, as the Egyptian Jews had their own temple in which, from the
time of its building, sacrifices were offered up. And I am unable to
persuade myself that the Egyptian Jews sent regular sacrifices to
Jerusalem, as Hornemann, De Canone Philonix, § 10, admits. Jews in
Rome and Italy did so in general because they possessed no temple in
that country, but with the Jews in Egypt the reason fails.
1 The thing is sufficiently well known. Though a matter of super
fluity, I still refer to Hornemann, De Canone Phil. p. 8, who has proved
this by some passages from Philo, Opp. t. ii. p. 524 ed. Mang., p. 971
ed. Francf., and so on.
2 In the former edition the passage stood as follows : ' By the fore
going reasoning nothing is to be considered as demonstrated, nothing
as judicially decided, the presumptive inference alone is drawn that the
Egyptian and Palestinian canon was probably of the same extent.'
When, however, the Zurich Library, Part i. § 178, objects, ' In spite of
the intercourse between the Palestinian and Egyptian Jews, the Alex
andrian synagogue may still have boasted of a more extensive collec
tion of sacred writings, in which were to be found works of Enoch,

64 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
regard to the collection of their sacred national Scrip
ture ?
Section 22. — Second Ground for the Presumption.
Jesus Sirach the younger, and Philo, the New Testa
ment and Josephus, as authors of Palestine and Egypt,
describe their ancient holy books, if not exactly with
the same words, yet still as to the main point and the
chief contents alike, by the expression, ' Law, Prophets,
and other writings.'
1. Jesus Sirach, the grandson, who, about the year
140 before Christ, after his arrival in Egypt translated the
proverbs of his grandfather out of the Hebrew into the
Greek, speaks in the first prologue, which from reasons
to be found within it, appears to be his own composW
tion, of the holy books of his nation which had been
already before his time translated into Greek and describes
them by ' Law, Prophets, and other books.' ' I beg you,'
says he to his readers,1 ' to read this translation with indul
gence and attention and to pardon me, if, like those who
have ventured on like versions before me, I should have
failed to employ expressions sufficiently pertinent. For
Moses, &c.,' what is to be replied 1 A ' may ' is placed in opposition,
which no one would think of denying. The Egyptian synagogue may
have boasted of a more extensive collection of sacred writings (although
no traces of such are to be found) ; the forged books of Enoch and
Moses are named as if they had been received into the Egyptian syna
gogues, although the remotest presumption for such a fact does not
exist. What answer can be given in such cases ?
1 Prologus prior Jesu Sirach ... 6 vo/ios, Kai al irpo<p7)Teioi koi to
Konra tcdv filfiXiuv ov fuxpav e^ei T7IV SicKpopai/ iv iavrois Keyopeva. That
this prologue must be very old is evident, amongst other reasons, from
this, that the Hagiographa, D'airo, is found rendered by to Aowra tuv
fSifiMwv. Before the birth of Christ a general name was wanting to
designate all the books together which are now called Hagiographa.
A periphrasis therefore was always necessary. See above (§ 8).

THE CANONS NOT DIFFERENT 65
the Hebrew phrase loses extremely when exchanged against
words of another language. This remark will not be con
fined to this work, for also in the Law, Prophets, and
other books a great difference exists between the original
and the translation.' ' The collection of the Hebrew
national books as it existed at that time in a Greek trans
lation made in Egypt, forms the basis of this declaration ;
nothing is then more probable than that in this passage
a description of the canon of the Egyptian Jews is to be
sought for.
In another passage of this prologue the translator
boasts of his grandfather's study of 'the Law, the
Prophets, and the rest of the books of his nation.' 2 Now,
his grandfather Hved in Palestine and studied the Pales
tinian canon. And, since he here describes the Palestinian
canon as well as the Egyptian in the same words, must not
the Jews in both lands have had the same canon ? If the
one in Palestine were different from that in Egypt, Jesus
Sirach would have been compelled, by means of a few
additional words, or by the change of an expression, to
mark the distinction, in order to render himself more in
telligible to his nearest reader, the Egyptian.
1 Jesus Sirach distinguishes then the proverbs of his grandfather, this
now so-called Apocryphon, precisely from the Law, Prophets, and other
books; is it possible, then, that he should have classed the Hebrew
original of the proverbs with the ' other books ' (as he renders the Hagio
grapha), or even have conjectured that his version would be one day
included amongst them 1 Is this ancient passage not contradiction
enough to the ' may ' of the Zurich Library (Part i. § 177) ? ' What
does the denomination Moses, Prophets, and Writings prove, when by
this expression (namely, writings) all pseudepigrapha and apocryphal
books of later times may be comprehended ? ' What a nonentity is a
mere possibility when probable grounds for the contrary are in ex
istence !
2 Prolog . prior, S irairiros fiov 'Irjcovs eVi TrAeioy eavrov Sovs eis tc tijk
tov vofj.ov Kai tuv irpoiprtTwv Kai twv oAAwj' iraTptwv ^tfiKtwv avayvao'iv. F

66 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
2. According to Philo, a native of Alexandria, the
Therapeutas, a fanatical sect of Jews in Egypt, read in
their pious assemblies, not the fanatical writings of the
founder of their sect, but ' holy writings,' as ' Law, Oracles
of the Prophets, Songs of Praise to God, and other books
by which the knowledge and fear of God become exalted and
perfected.' ' Here, however, Philo speaks, not of the holy
books of the Egyptian Jews in general, but of those held
sacred by the fanatical Therapeutas, and taken by them to
their religious meetings. That, however, the Therapeutas
did not differ in regard to their holy books from the rest
of the Egyptian Jews, we are taught by the exact agree
ment, in their description of the canon, of Jesus Sirach
and the Palestinian writers.
3. In the same manner as Jesus Sirach divides the
Egyptian canon into three parts and describes it there
after, so does the New Testament distribute the Palestinian
into ' Law, Prophets, and Psalms ' (Luke xxiv. 44).
4. And with the Therapeutas in Egypt does Josephus
also agree in the closest manner, in his description of
the Palestinian canon. After it he gives the division,
' Books of Moses,2 Prophets, Hymns of Praise to God, and
books of a moral kind.'
1 Philo, De Vita Contempl. Opp. t. ii. p. 476 ed. Mang. p. 893 ed.
Frankft. 'Ev eKotrnj Se oiKia (according to the Frankfort edit. eKaaTif Se
iffTiv oiKijfia') tepov, 6 KaXeiTai o-efiveiov Kai p.ova<TTijptov, iv (p /xovovfievoi Ta
tov 0-ep.vov 0iov y.vdT'npia TeKovvrai, fiijBev elo~Kop.i£ovTes, fii} •kotov, /ttj
anov, /ArjSe ti tuv oAAuv bffa irpos Tas tov cwjUotos XPelas avayicaia,
dAAa vo/iovs Kai \oyia QeairiffBevTa Sio irpofprjTav Kai vpaiovs Kai to dAAa,
ots iiriOTitfif) Kai ei>(rejSeia ffvvav^ovTai Kai TeXeiovvTai . . . 'EvTvyxavovres
yap tois lepois ypa/j.[ia<ri, <pL\ooo<povat tijv iraTptov tyiXoaotfiiav, b.Wi\yopovv-
Tes, iireiSi) <ru/t/3oAa to ttjs fronts eppnveias vopi^ovm (pvffeas airoKeKpvp.-
uev-ns, iv virovoiais S7)Aou/uei/)jr. 'E<tti Se avTOis Kai 0-vyypaix/j.aTa iroAaiioi'
avSpaiv, ol tws ai'pij<rews hpxi\yeTai yevo/ievoi ttoAAo fi.viip.eia ttjs aAAiryo-
oovp-cvots ideas aireKnrov.
2 Josephus, Contra Ap. lib. i. § 8.

EGYPTIAN CANON 67
If the uniformity of the canon in both lands cannot
be formally demonstrated on these grounds, the pre
sumption that it was so proceeds to the highest degree
of probability. In order to attain to a higher measure of
certainty in this matter, we will endeavour to delineate
the canon of the Egyptian and Palestinian Jews out of
their own authors respectively.
II. Canon of the Jews in Egypt.
Section 23. — Sources.
We collect in the first place the evidence respecting
the canon of the Egyptians from Egyptian Jews. Pre
cision, and the prudence not to become entangled in a
labyrinth without outlet, require us absolutely to set
aside the opinion of the Egyptian Christians respectmg
the canon of the Old Testament. These are too recent to
be capable of offering formal evidence ; they judge, with
out sound principle, merely from self-chosen points of
view, concerning the value of single books of the Old
Testament and the use to be made of them ; and such
judgment can amount to no decisive value (sec. 18).
They gave their admiration also, as is known from
Origen, Jerome, Rufinus, and Augustin, to apocryphal
books, which with the Egyptian Jews, as we shall see
further on, stood in no estimation whatsoever.
Hence we cannot use the Church Fathers just named
as sources of information concerning the Egyptian canon ;
but only the Alexandrian version of the Old. Testament
and Philo.

F2

68 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

Section 24. — 1. Alexandrian Version.
I mention the Alexandrian version here because in
modern times it has been used as a source ; but for me it
is closed up.1
1. It is affirmed that the Alexandrian version in the
oldest times contained only as many books as we now
usually reckon to the canon of the Old Testament. This,
however, hitherto has not been proved, but merely decided
by authority. And how else is it to be shown ? ' From
information concerning the origin of the Alexandrian
translation ' ? Because Eleazer sent a Hebrew codex for
the preparation of this version to Egypt, is it necessarily
to be assumed that it was copied from an authentic
exemplar in Jerusalem and contained all our present
canonical books ? But is it even certain that Eleazer did
positively send for the help of the Alexandrian trans
lator a Hebrew manuscript to Egypt, as the romance-
writer Aristeas pretends ? 2 But allowing his tale of a
commissioned codex from Jerusalem to Egypt to be true,
is not the position taken for granted, which requires first
to be proved, that the Palestinian canon contained at that
time just as many books as we now reckon to it ? What
a circle in reasoning ! Nay, if any inference at all is to
be drawn from the history of Aristeas and his epitomiser,
Josephus, it must be that only the five books of Moses
composed the canon of the Alexandrians. For accord
ing to Aristeas and Josephus only a manuscript of the
vo/jlo9, the Pentateuch, was sent by Eleazer to Egypt.
1 Chr. Fred. Schmidii, Historia Antiqua et Vindic. Canonis V. et
N. T. p. 125.
2 Hodius, De Bibliorum Text. Orig. et Repertorium, Part i.
§ 266 ff.

EGYPTIAN CANON 69
Philo also allows at first the translation of only the five
books of Moses.
2. The Alexandrian translation arose gradually at
various times, upon various occasions, and by the labours
of different literati. Had it been shown by other evi
dence that all the books contained in our edition of the
Bible had always from the oldest times had canonical
estimation, and that the translation of all of them at the
same time had been accomplished either by one or by an
association of learned Jews in Egypt, the conclusion
would be then in some measure probable that they were
laid altogether before the Egyptian Jews in a translation
because the value and estimation conceded to them were
equal. But this did not happen, and Isaiah, for instance,
who must always necessarily have formed a part of our
canon, received a Greek investiture much later than
Moses. 3. And if they were all translated at once, a con
clusion founded on their canonical rank in all respects
would rest upon but tottering ground. For the first
occasion for this work is unknown. Had the desire of
the Jews to read in Greek their books of religion in their
synagogues given cause for this translation it might then
be presumed, and not without colour of reason, that the
canonical books would be selected for this purpose, and no
translation, at least at that time, bestowed on the un-
canonical. But all antiquity affirms the undertaking to
have been merely a literary one. Ptolemy Philadelphus
wished the ' Books of the Mosaical Law or the Jewish
Scriptures in general,' translated, however, into Greek,
because the original was unintelligible to the Egyptian
Greeks, to be placed in his library ; and for this purpose
many apocryphal books must have been just as important
as any book of inspiration, which in the library of a

70 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
heathen could obtain no preference over a mere human
work. 4. Finally, some of our apocryphal books were really
at a very early period laid in a translation before the
Egyptian Jews : for instance, the sentences of Jesus Sirach
the elder, the letter of Mardochaeus, concerning the Feast
the Purim, &C.1 Let it not be objected that this transla
tion would never have attained to such universal estima
tion unless it had contained all canonical books, to the
exclusion of all apocryphal ones ; for it is known that
the Alexandrian version was half invested with divinity
through beguilement of the fable that the spirit of in
spiration rested on the translators !
Section 25.-2. Philo (flor. A. C. 41).
Philo of Alexandria remains the only source from
whence we can draw materials for our inquiry into the
contents of the Alexandrian Canon. He lived exactly
at the time when our examination begins — namely, at the
time of Christ and the Apostles (sec. 19). He gives us,
however, nowhere in his writings an exact account of the
canon of the Old Testament ; but here and there he lets
fall, in passing, as it were, lost unconnected propositions
which betray to us his opinion, and probably also that of
his brothers in the faith, respecting the value and esti
mation of single books of the Old Testament. But these
exist only in scattered fragments, out of which it is im
possible again to construct a whole ; wherefore in the
absence of other and more perfect information, these
fragments must be regarded as of the highest value.
1 See Prologus prior of Jesus Sirach, and then the Greek version of
the book of Esther, at the end.

PHILO ON THE CANON 71
Section 26. — Philo on the Apocrypha.
Philo was acquainted with the apocryphal writings
of the Old Testament, for he borrows expressions from
them ; but he does not quote even once a single apocry
phal book, much less does he allegorise their contents or
prove his propositions out of them.1 That he takes no
notice of them, then, does not arise from a want of
acquaintance with them, which besides was not to be
expected from a man of his extensive reading, but
probably because he held them of little value, and —
were the conclusion too rash, should I add ? — because
he did not class them amongst the books esteemed in
his age holy and divine. For his disesteem of them
goes very far indeed. He does not even allow them the
respect which he extends to a Plato, Philolaus, a Solon,
Hippocrates, Heraclitus, and others, from whose writings
he often cites whole passages.1 If an examination be
1 So decisively does Hornemann speak ( Observations ad lllustra-
tionem Doctrina do Canone If. T. ex Philone, p. 28, 29), and as he gives
the assurance of having read Philo's writings entirely for the purpose
of ascertaining his opinion about the canon, he may require our accept
ance without hesitation of his decisive sentence. I shall follow him,
therefore, chiefly in this section, with the exception of some of his
views where I differ from him ; elsewhere his remarks will admit of
additional observations.
2 The Zurich Library (Part i. § 178) objects : ' Philo does not quote
the Apocrypha. But just as little as his silence about a canonical book
proves that it was not in the canon of the Egyptian Jews, just so
little does his silence about the Apocrypha prove this.' Quite right ;
an argument drawn from silence will be termed by no one strong ;
but, nevertheless, it merits not to be passed by with indifference.
It remains always certainly a striking circumstance that Philo quotes
not a single book of our Apocrypha, although they were so connected
with his purpose, and the contents of at least some of them so
valuable for his object. If neither of them were suited to his pas
sion for allegory, what argument could be made to rest upon their
non-employment ? But now his silence respecting them must draw

72 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
made of the indexes of the editions of Philo, particularly
of that of Mangey, so many passages from the apocryphal
books of the Old Testament will be found introduced as
to give the appearance of Philo having made considerable
use of them. But a startling deception results here as well
as elsewhere from the quotation of these passages in the
indexes. Some refer merely to remarks of the editor, in
at least attention towards them. ' In the first place the circumstance
that Philo never quotes these books does not yet prove his contempt
for them. The fame, perhaps, of some of them the most naturally
connected with the subjects of his meditation, as the Wisdom of
Solomon (which some persons even attribute to him), was not yet spread
abroad.' And yet does the writer declare in the very next page that it
had already occurred to Josephus to find the Wisdom of Solomon, the
tbird book of Esdras, Tobias, Baruch, and additional fragments to Daniel
and Esther connected with the Greek Bible. And the Greek Jew Philo
is not to be acquainted with these books ; the learned Philo is to be so
uninstructed in the writings of his nation I ' Others,' proceeds the
writer, ' he had never occasion to cite,' which of many apocryphal, as
well as of some canonical, books is certainly very probable. ' Further,
he might have contemned the Apocrypha without thereby furnishing a
clue to the judgment of the Greek synagogue respectmg them. He
held even the historical contents of the holy writings at not too high a
rate, and his mode of thinking, formed after the philosophy of Plato,
differed as much, perhaps, from that of other Jews, as the notions of
Maimonides, Orobius, and Moses Mendelssohn, from the ideas and
opinions of their Jewish contemporaries.' But would he dare in this
case to publish them in writing 1 Would he have dared to abandon
the belief of the whole of his nation without drawing down upon him
self the consequences, hard to bear, of a grievous heresy ? Have the
Jews named, or those not named, of distinguished enlightenment, ever
published in writing their abandonment of the national faith, or at
least without great opposition ? Moreover, the probability only that
his opinion of the canon was the national opinion is adopted ; his scat
tered expressions are collected with the view of ascertaining the opinion
held by the most learned and famous man amongst the Alexandrian
Jews concerning the Hebrew writings. And since no traces are to be
found that he abandoned, in writing, the belief and the opinions of his
nation, the conjecture is ventured on that the opinion of his Egyptian
contemporaries as to the canon coincided with his.

PHILO ON THE CANON 73
which sometimes a word, sometimes a reading, is cleared
up by some passage of an apocryphal book,1 sometimes a
reference is made because Philo had expressed some
similar sentiment 2 or something exactly the contrary. 3
Section 27. — Philo on the Canonical Books of the
Old Testament.
Hornemann arranges the books of the Old Testament
after the verdict of Philo into three classes : —
1. Books quoted with the express declaration that
they are of Divine origin.
2. Books which are simply cited.
3. Books of which no mention is made by him.
We will even here, however, collect Philo's sentiments
on the separate Scriptures of the Old Testament in the
given order, carefully keeping apart those books respecting
which Philo expresses no decisive opinion, which Horne
mann has not always done.
Section 28. — First Class. Scriptures to which Philo
attributes a Divine Origin.
All the books which, according to Philo, are of Divine
original are termed in his language ' Works of the Pro
phets.' Still he does not always apply to their authors
the name irpofprjTrjs, but alternates it with Trpo^nrris
avrjp, ispo<pavTrjs, dsairsatos avnp, M.covo-eas diao-mTrjs,
tis tcov cpoiTnTwv M.a)vo-S(os, M.a}vosa)s sraipos, tov
7rpo<f>t)TiKov OiacrmTijs j^povov, all which are current with
1 Hornemann, De Canone Philonis, § 31, note n, has made an excep
tion of the passages of this kind from the indexes, which, however, to
save space, I shall not copy.
2 See the collection of these passages at the place referred to, § 29,
note m.
' See the same, § 31, note mm.

74 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
him as perfect synonyms of TrpocfirjTrjs. The books them
selves he sometimes terms Upas ypacpas, sometimes hpas
/3t/3Xovs, sometimes lepov Xoyov, sometimes isparaTov
ypafifia, sometimes Ispo^avTrjOevTa, sometimes irpotynTiicov
Xoyov, or irpo<pTjTiKa prjfiaTa, sometimes \oytov only, or
also Xoyiov tov ®eov, sometimes xpno-fjuov or to xpriadev.
All these are convertibles with him, as is evident partly
from the expressions themselves and partly from the
passages in which they appear.
In order to comprehend these expressions in the spirit
of Philo, and to form an adequate conception of the
judgment conveyed in them as to the sacred books of his
nation, it is necessary to premise his exalted idea of a
prophet. Prophets, with him, mean interpreters of God
(spfirjvsis tov ©sou), instruments of God employed by
Him to make that known which it is His will should be
known. They proffer nothing of their own, but matter
altogether foreign to themselves, and communicated to
them internally by the operation of God. So long as the
state of a prophet be rapture, he knows nothing of him
self ; the Divine Spirit having once effected his subjection
operates on his intellect as well as on his organs of speech ;
on the former for the revelation of things unknown, upon
the latter to enable them to utter the words communicated
to them.1 1 Philo, De Monarehia, lib. i. Opp. t. i. p. 222 M., p. 820 Fr. After
he has spoken of Moses, he proceeds : epp.i\veis yap eloiv ol irpofyirrai
©eov, KaTaxpap-evov tois iKeivuv bpyavois irpos SijA&xrip av av i6ehi}(rn. . . .
De Legibus special. Opp. t. ii. p. 343 : irpo<p7)Tijs Se p.ev yap ouSex
ISiov awotpaiveTai [hiroipBeyyeTai] to irapairav, aAA' eoTiv epfiinvevs, virof3a\-
\ovtos eTepov iravd' d(ra irpoipepei, koi ko0' bv XPOVOV ivBovffia yeyovus
iv ayvota, p.eraviffTap.evov /xev tov \oyio~/iov Kai irapaKex<npilKOTOs tijv ti}s
ifivxys a.Kpoiro\iv. iirme^oiT-nKOTOs Se koi ivoiKinKOTos tou Beiov irvevp.aTos,
Kai iratrav tijs (paivns bpyavoiroitav KpovovTOs Se Kai ivnxovvTos els ivapyi)
Z-nKwoiv av irpo8eoiri(ei. Quis Rerum divin. Heres sit, Opp. t. i. p. 510
M., p. 517 Fr. : irpo(piiTi]s yap ISiov fiev ouSei/ i.iro(j>8eyyeTai, aAAoTpw Se

PHILO ON THE CANON 75
Finally, in his opinion, Moses was the greatest
prophet, and if it be the purpose of Philo to use ex
tremely strong language as to the inspiration of any
writer, he makes the prophetical spirit of Moses the
measure by which he metes out the spirit of prophecy
to others. Hence the expressions Meoiio-ems traipos,
Mwiiffgtas OiaacoTrjs, tis tcdv <f>OiTT}Ttov Mwiicrseos.
Section 29. — Five Books of Moses, Joshua, First Book
of Samuel, Ezra.
Of Moses and the first five books left behind by him,
Philo employs the strongest expressions. Moses he terms
sometimes a 7rpo<pr)TT]s, sometimes an UpotpavTr/s,1 and
so on ; his inspiration is the scale by which he estimates
that of other writers (s. 28). His writings he calls
7rpo<f>r)Tt,icov Xoyov, or Upas fitfiXovs.2 He writes glosses
upon some passages of all five books, and all references
to them are expressed in the same exalted style. Genesis
he calls Upas <ypa<f>as,3 the second book of Moses
iravra, iirnxovvTos erepou. De Prcemiis et Poenis, Opp. t. ii. p. 417 M.,
p. 918 F. ; eppvovevs yap iffTiv b irpotyi\Ti\s, ivSoBev vttijxovvtos Ta Acktco
tov ©eov.
1 Philo, Alley, lib. ii. Opp. t. ii. p. 66 ed. Mang.,p. 1087 ed. Frankf. ;
b irpoiprjTijs. All. lib. iii. Opp. t. i. p. 117 ed. Mang., p. 89 Frkf. : b
lepoipavrns. Ibid. Opp. t. i. p. 121 M., p. 92 Fr. : b lepoipavrns Kai irpo-
<pi)Tiis. De Gigant. Opp. t. i. p. 270 M., p. 231 Fr. : 6 lepo<pavTi)s bpyiav
Kai SiSoo-koAos Beiav, &c. Hornemann, § 34, 35, has gathered still
further passages in which the expressions quoted reciprocate with
others of like meaning, and which I for the sake of brevity pass by.
2 Alleg. lib. iii. p. 92 M., p. 68 Fr. : De Plant. Noe, Opp. t. i. p. 347
M., p. 230 Fr. : De Congressu queer. Erudit. gratia. Opp. t. i. p. 543 M.,
p. 448 Fr. : b irpotjniTiKos hoyos. De Vita Mosis, lib. iii. Opp. t. ii. p. 163
M., p. 681 Fr. : iepai 0if3\oi. Here are also many passages in support by
Hornemann, § 36, in which these expressions alternate with others of
similar meaning.
3 De Mundi Opif. Opp. t. i. p. 18 M., p. 16 Fr. See like expressions,

76 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Ispav fiifiXov,1 the third Upov Xoyov2 the fourth Upm-
TaTov ypafifia,3 the fifth book finally ^pnaixov* and
Upov Xo<yov.b
The book of Joshua is termed on the occasion of being
quoted — chap. i. 5 — Xoytov tov lXsw ©eou.6
From the first Book of Samuel, which with Philo, as
with all the writers who U3e the LXX interpreters, passes
for the first Book of Kings, chap. i. 1 1 is quoted with the
formula : ths 6 Upos Xoyos tyncriv?
From the Book of Esau, chap. viii. 2 is cited, and the
contents of the passage described as to sv fiacriXiKais
fiifiXois Upo(pavT7j6svTa.s
Section 30. — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Zechariah,
Psalms, Proverbs.
The prophet Isaiah is called by Philo tov iraXai irpo-
<f>r)Tr]v,9 and his prophecies irpo(f>vTi,Ka pv/iaTa.10
Jeremiah is with him Trpo4>r}Trjs, /j,vo-tt)s, UpocpavTijs,
and the passage (chap. iii. 4) which he cites he terms
Xprjo-fiov.11 In another place Jeremiah is described as a
member of the prophetical choir, that spoke in transport :
De Abrah. p. i. t. ii. M., p. 349 Fr. Resipuit Noe, t. i. p. 400 M., p. 281
Fr., and so on.
i De Migrat. Abrah. Opp. t. i. p. 438 M., p. 390 Fr., and so on.
2 Lib. iii. Alleg. t. i. Opp. p. 85 M., p. 1007 Fr. De Somniis, Opp
t. i. p. 633 M., p. 577 Fr.
3 De eo, quod Deus sit vmmutabilis, Opp. t. i. p. 273 M., p. 249 Fr.
De Migrat. Abrah. Opp. t. i. p. 457 M., p. 409 Fr.
4 De Migrat. Abrah. Opp. t. i. p. 454 M., p. 405 Fr.
5 De Somniis, Opp. t. i. p. 657 M., p. 601 Fr,
6 De Confus. Ling. Opp. t. i. p. 430 M., p. 344 Fr.
7 De'Temulent. 6pp. t. i. p. 379 M., p. 261 Fr.
8 De Confus. Linguarum, Opp. t. i. p. 427 M., p. 341 Fr.
9 De Somniis, Opp. t. i. p. 681 M, p. 1132 Fr.
10 De Mutat. Norn. Opp. t. i. p. 604 M., p. 1071 Fr.
11 De Cherubim, Opp. t. i. p. 147, 148 M., p. 116 Fr.

PHILO ON THE CANON 77
tov irpocprjTtKOv diao-mTrjs %opov 6s xaTairvsvo'dsts svdov
crimp avs<p6£<y!;aTo.1 And in another place he says that
' God, the Father of all things, has spoken through the
mouth of Jeremiah ' — 6 iraTTjp tcov 6\wv sOsaino-s Bia
TTpoepSTCKOV 0~TOfJ,aTOS 'Ispsfitov.2
Of the Lesser Prophets, in Philo's writings, only two
are quoted — Hosea and Zechariah.
Hosea xiv. 8 Philo terms %pr)o-0ev irapa nvi tcov irpo-
<j>r)TO)v,3 and Hosea xiv. 24 <TTop,aTi TrpofynTticw Qiwni-
adsvTa Biatrvpov yjpr\<TiMov.i
Zacharias, in the quotation chap. v. 12, is entitled
Mcovosios STaipos.5
The Psalms are abundantly quoted by Philo, but in
most cases with an intimation of their high origin. David
is distinguished by the same descriptions as Moses ; some
times he is called irpojyriTrjs,6 sometimes irpofptjTifs a.vrjp,'1
sometimes Oso-ttsctios avrjp,* sometimes ' colleague ' of
Moses, not his inferior, Mmiio-eoos SiaacoTrjs 6s ov%i tiov
r)p,sXr)fisvwv i)v,9 sometimes STaipos Mowo-stus.10
Expressions of a like high nature he employs of Solo
mon as the author of the Proverbs. He styles him a
member sk tov Ostov ftopov,11 and in another place Tiva
TWV epOlTr/TCOV Moovoscos.12
1 De Confus. Ling. Opp. t. i. p. 411 M., p. 326 Fr.
2 De Profugis, Opp. t. i. p. 575 M., p. 479 Fr.
8 De Plantat. Noe, Opp. t. i. p. 350 M., p. 233 Fr.
4 De Mutat. Norn. Opp. t. i. p. 599 M., p. 1066 Fr.
s De Confus. Ling. Opp. t. i. p. 414 M., p. 329 Fr.
6 De Agricult. Opp. t. i. p. 308 M., p. 195 Fr.
' Quis Rerum diviu. Heres sit, Opp. t. i. p. 515 M., p. 522 Fr.
8 De Plant. Noe, Opp. t. i p. 344 M., p. 218 Fr. Compare De
Mundo, Opp. t. ii. p. 608 M., p. 1157 Fr.
9 De Plant. Noe, ed. Francf. p. 219.
,0 Quod a Deo mittantur Somnia, Opp. t. i. p. 691 M., p. 1141 Fr.
11 De Ebrietate, Opp. t. i. p. 362 M., p. 244 Fr.
12 De Congressu queer. Erud. gratia, Opp. t. i. p. 544 M., p. 449 Fr.

78 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Section 3L — Second Class of Writings mentioned by Philo,
icitkout the intimation of a Divine Origin.
From the Book of Judges, styled by Philo f\ Tmv %pr)-
p.aTmv avaypa<fio/j-sp.Tj fiifiXos, chap. viii. 9, according to
the LXX, is quoted.1
Job xiv. 4 is introduced by him into his text without
further observation.2
The First Book of Kings (according to Philo and the
LXX, the third) is allegorised in several places.3
Also many separate Psalms, without the intimation of
a higher origin, are simply quoted by him.4
1 De Confus. Ling. Opp. t. i. p. 424 M., p. 339 Fr.
2 De Mutat. Norn. Opp. t. i. p. 584 M., p. 1051 Fr.
3 De Gigant. Opp. t. i. p. 274 M., p. 295 Fr. Compare 1 Samuel ii. 5.
De Ebriet. Opp. t. i. p. 380 M., p. 261, 262 Fr. Compare I Samuel i.
14, 15. De Migrat. Abrah. Opp. t. i. p. 467 M., p. 418 Fr. Compare
1 Samuel x. 22. De Mutat. Norn. Opp. t. i. p. 600 M., p. 1007 Fr.
Compare 1 Samuel ii. 5. Quod Deus sit immut. Opp. t. i. p. 293 M.,
p. 313 Fr. Compare 1 Kings xvii. 10, 18, ix. 9. De Migrat. Abrah.
t. i. p. 441 M., p. 394 Fr. Quis Rerum divin. Heres sit, Opp. t. i. p. 483
M., p. 491 Fr. Compare 1 Kings ix. 9.
' Quod Deus sit immut. Opp. t. i. p. 284 M., p. 304 Fr. Compare
Psalms ci. 1, lxxv. 8, and in the same compare the following pages with
Psalm lxiii. 11. De Migrat. Abrah. Opp. t. i. p. 460 M., p. 412 Fr.
Compare Psalms lxxx. 6, xiii. 3. De Mutat. Nom. Opp. t. i. p. 590 M.,
p. 1062 Fr. Compare Psalm xxii. 1. Quod a, Deo mitt. Somnia, Opp.
t. i. p. 632 M., p. 576 Fr. Compare Psalm xxvi. 1. De Confus. Ling.
Opp. t. i. p. 411 M., p. 327 Fr. Compare Psalm xliv. 13. De Profugis,
Opp. t. i. p. 545 M., p. 459 Fr. Compare Psalm cxiii. 25. De Somniis,
Opp. t. i. p. 691 M., p. 1141 Fr. Compare Psalm xlvi. 5. It is evident
from these passages that all the books of the Psalms, which at different
times had been brought into a whole, were quoted by Philo.

PHILO ON THE CANON 79
SECTION 32. — Third Class. Writings not mentioned
by Philo at all.
Philo never speaks (1) of Nehemiah, (2) Ruth, (3)
Esther, (4) Chronioles, (5) Daniel, (6) Lamentations of
Jeremiah, (7) Ecclesiastes, (8) the Song of Songs.
Section 33. — Some Bemarks upon and Result of the
preceding Inquiry.
I. To the Jewish writings whose Divine origin is
expressly acknowledged by Philo, with the highest pro
bability, and even in Philo's own sense, the following may
be added : —
1. The Second Book of Samuel and the two Books of
Kings. For the First Book of Samuel he terms Upov
Xoyov (s. 29). Now, he, as well as all writers who follow
the LXX, considers the two Books of Samuel and the two
Books of Kings as one entire work or single book, which
is again by them distributed into four parts or books.
Whoever, then, affirms the first of these four books to be
Upos Xoyos implies the same character to the remaining
three. 2. All the twelve Lesser Prophets. As far as we can
trace backwards the literary history of the Bible we find
the twelve Lesser Prophets always regarded as one book,
Sirach xlix. 10. Whoever, then, cites one of the Lesser
Prophets — and Philo cites two of them with the express
recognition of a Divine origin — cites in fact all.
II. Since, however, the apocryphal books were known
to Philo, but not one of them has been quoted by him
(s. 26), we may safely consider all the books of his nation
deemed by him worthy of quotation to be in his judgment
genuine, ancient, and holy writings. The mere citation of

80 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
a book is, then, to be taken as a proof that it was contained
in Philo's canon, and the books between which hitherto
for the sake of impartiality we have made a distinction
drawn from the formula of. citation, may henceforth with
out hesitation be thrown into one class.
III. Wherefore the following books may be taken as
having certainly belonged to the canon of Philo or of the
Egyptian Jews : —

1. Five Books of Moses.
2. Joshua.
3. Judges.
4. 2 Books of Samuel.
5. 2 Books of Kings.
6. Ezra.

7. Isaiah.
8. Jeremiah.
9. 12 Lesser Prophets.
10. Psalms.
11. Proverbs.
12. Job.

IV. The others may have also stood in the Egyptian
canon. Probably Ruth was an annex to the Book of
Judges, Nehemiah, the second part of Ezra, and the Lamen
tations of Jeremiah in all likelihood joined on to his
prophecies, as in Palestine (ss. 21, 22, and 53 &c).
Philo, however, says nothing on this point, or of the exist
ence of the books. Our knowledge, then, of the Egyptian
canon is imperfect. But neither this imperfectness, nor
the silence of Philo, can affect the canonical reputation
of any book as long as no other hostile grounds exist
(s. 25). Section 34. — Canon of the Therapeutce.
Finally, an inquiry into the canon of single Jewish
sects in Egypt is scarcely worth the pains ; it belongs
rather to the history of their opinions than to that of the
canon. For the purpose of our inquiry only the opinion
of the majority of the Jews can be of importance, and not
that of separate religious parties. In the meantime,

CANON OF THE SADDUCEES 8l
however, it is extremely probable that the fanatical
Therapeutas at least did not differ from the rest of the
Egyptian Jews with respect to the canon (sec. 22).1
III. Canon of the Jews in Palestine.
Section 35. — Sources : Canon of the Sadducees and
Samaritans.
At the time of Christ and the Apostles, amidst the
various sects and parties into which the Jews in
Palestine were divided, there appears to have been no
difference of opinion as to the number of their sacred books.
The Fathers of the Church have, however, at times declared
that the Sadducees probably rejected all the writings of
the Old Testament except the five books of Moses ;2 and some
modern critics consider this supposition as well grounded,
because Jesus, on a certain occasion, endeavoured to con
vince the Sadducees of the resurrection of the dead, con
cerning which they doubted, not out of the Prophets and
Hagiographa, but merely out of Moses, just as if they
allowed to the former no value, and no weight in the
decision of a disputed question.3
If the school of the Sadducees had arisen in times so
ancient that only a part of our present writings of the Old
Testament was then in existence, any difference of their
opinion as to the number of books constituting the collec
tion would admit of an easy explanation by reference to
the time of their origin : they had accepted only those
books acknowledged as sacred before their separation, and
1 See (§ 22) the passage quoted from Philo ; but Josephus De Bello
Jud. lib. ii. c. 8, § 6, at the end of § 12, cannot be used as a proof. It
says only that the Essenes possessed holy books.
2 Hieronymus, in Matth. Origenes, Contra Celsum, lib. i.
* Matth. xxii. 23. Rich. Simon. Hist. Crit. du N. T. lib. i. c. 16.
G

82 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
rejected all the rest, because proceeding from authors who
did not belong to their sect. But since they arose from
amid the multitude at a time when the sacred volume with
the Jews had long been fixed in point of extent, and the
completion of the canon effected ; since there was no in
superable difficulty in reconciling their doctrines with all
the writings of the Old Testament as soon as their compati
bility with the Mosaical books was shown ; a divergence
from the opinion of other Jews on this head would be un
expected and difficult of explanation with reference to the
time of their rise. Josephus, who was so intimately
acquainted with the doctrines of the Pharisees, knows of
no opinion peculiar to them in this respect ; he relates
merely that, with the rejection of all traditions, they held
only to the written Law, without declaring how many
books they reckoned to their sacred national writings ;
and when he mentions the doctrines which distinguished
the Sadducees from the Pharisees, he does not suffer an
expression to escape him from whence any difference of
opinion of these two sects as to the number of their sacred
books can be inferred. Would the dignity of the high-priest's
office have been accessible also to Sadducees, if their belief
on so important a point had varied from that of the entire
nation ? and since both before and at the time of Christ a
Sadduceean family had long appropriated this dignity, how
could they with propriety have enjoined the reading of the
Haphtaren together with the Parashen if denying to the
Prophets an equal estimation with Moses ? And if we
m^y build at all upon the disputes between the Pharisees
and the Sadducees in the Talmud, R. Gamaliel does not
prove the resurrection of the dead merely out of Moses,
but also from the Prophets and the Hagiographa, without
any exception on the part of his antagonists the Sadducees
against the value and weight of the latter in matters of theo-

CANON OF THE SADDUCEES 83
logical dispute ; on the contrary, admitting their validity,
they sought to weaken the strength of proof of the cited
passages on other grounds. Under such circumstances,
the opinion respecting the agreement of the Sadducees and
Pharisees upon the point of the number of their sacred
national books can by no means be weakened by a con
jecture of the Church Fathers ; and if Christ, upon the
occasion of a dispute with the Sadducees, proves the
resurrection of the dead only from Moses, this must be
altogether accidental.1
The Samaritans, then, alone accept only the Pentateuch,
and reject all the other books of our present canon. Were
¦the causes of this rejection on their part even not known
(sec. 383), nothing could be inferred from it against the
present extent of the Hebrew canon. They may in
struct us as to the private opinion of their party, but not
as to that of the Jews ; information concerning the latter
we can only acquire from the New Testament, Josephus,
the Christian Doctors of the first century aftar the birth
of Christ, Melito, Origen, Jerome, and the Talmud. Even
the later Church Fathers are too modern for our in
struction. 1 Basnage, Histoire des Juifs, t. ii. Part i. p. 325 ff., and out of him
Brucker, Hist. Crit. Phil. t. ii. p. 721, have decided this question in the
same way. Basnage may, for the sake of retaining the precious suffrages
of the Church Fathers, affirm the Sadducees to have conceded a much
greater respect to the writings of Moses than to other scriptures ; to
which Brucker has provided the right answer, that there are no proofs
to the point in existence, and that, for the sake of a few Church Fathers,
there was no necessity for grasping at such a desperate remedy. The
good Fathers may have erred.

84 INTEODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Section '36. — 1. The New Testament.
The New Testament appeals to the Old in innumerable
places, but nowhere does it enumerate the component parts
thereof. That, indeed, was not to be expected. When
Christ and the Apostles referred to the whole, everybody
at that time knew — or, if he did not know, had the certain
means of acquiring the information — what books and how
many were its constituents. Hence we must be satis
fied with deriving what aid we can from the incidental
citations of single passages ; and cannot expect, simply on
account of their incidental character, any complete idea
of the canon of the Old Testament in its full extent and
in reference to all its greater and lesser parts. If not a
single trace of many individual books of our present
canon of the Old Testament is to be found in the New,
their judgment of condemnation is not yet pronounced.
For the argument drawn from the silence respecting them
could only gain the strength of proof when it is shown
that Christ and His Apostles were under a necessity of
speaking of each book separately.
Section 37. — Gitata of the New Testament.
The citations from the Old Testament in the New are
of two kinds : some books are quoted for the establish
ment of religious truths — therefore, from the use made of
them, declared to be divine; these, therefore, without
hesitation are taken to be canonical. Others are merely
quoted sometimes for illustration, sometimes to furnish
parallel passages. To the first class belong beyond doubt
Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms ; to the second all
our other canonical books of the Old Testament excepting
the book of Judges, the Preacher, the Song of Songs,
Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah, which are never referred to.

OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 85
Section 38. — 2. Josephus (nat. A. C. 37).
Josephus, next to the New Testament, is the chief
author to be interrogated, in an inquiry into the Pales
tinian canon. He was a contemporary of the Apostles and
must as a priest have had the most perfect knowledge of
the canon of his nation, because, as it appears, an authentic
collection of the canonical books was preserved in the
temple (sec. 39). Moreover, he was an acute inquirer
after truth, and would never have enumerated amongst the
sacred books of his nation any work not universally
acknowledged as such, in order not to increase the sub
jects of reproach levelled against Jewish history.1 It is
therefore much to be lamented that he nowhere makes a
complete review of all the books of his canon, and, with
the exception of a general enumeration, merely lets fall
here and there, as if by accident, solitary expressions to
lead to a more precise designation.
Section 39. — Whether he puts forward the General Opinion
-o/ his Brothers in the Faith respecting the Canon of the
New Testament.
The word tcavtav was never applied by him to the
collection of the holy books of his nation. It was also in
his time not in use in this sense. But he speaks of ' holy
books composed by Prophets before the death of Artaxerxes
Longimanus, and preserved in the temple.2 This would be
Josephus's true idea of what is now termed icavcov. And
since he sets out with this idea it is evident that as a
Pharisee he cherished no opinion respecting the canon of
' Read his famous passage Contra Ap. lib. i. § 8, at the beginning.
2 See below (§ 46) note 2, and the passage Contra Ap. lib. i. § 8,
Airo Maiiiireais, &C

86 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
the Old Testament different from that of his brothers in
the faith; or, if even he were wedded to a particular
opinion he at least brings none such forward in the
passages named. Even the coherency of his evidence
respecting the canonical collection of the books of his
nation and the generalised nature of the expression leaves
no room for doubt on the subject. He says, for instance,
' After Artaxerxes down to our times, indeed, a record of
everything has been kept, but to these writings the same
faith is not attached as to those early compositions.' Had
Josephus wished to bring forward his private opinion, as
contradistinguished from the public opinion, of the canon,
he would doubtless have used a more limited expression —
' not in my opinion so worthy of faith as those,' or ' not in
the estimation of the Pharisees so credible as those ' — par
ticularly as it is his general practice to distinguish pre
cisely between public and private opinions. Finally it is
probable from many passages, in his Archasology at least,
that in the years of his manhood he left the Pharisaical
sect to which in his youth he had been attached. Now
since he wrote his books against Apion at a later time than
his Archasology, it is impossible that he should have
followed Pharisaical principles in this work.1
Section 40. — Chief Passage.
Josephus writes in the famous passage against Apion
to maintain at once the credibility of the Hebrew historians
and of the history itself. He appeals, therefore, partly to
the harmony of profane history with that of the Jews and
partly to the great accuracy with which the historical
books of his nation were written. None of the books of
Hebrew history are inconsistent with the rest, because
1 Spittler, De Vsu Versionis Alexandrines apud Josephwn (Goetting.
1779), pp. 4, 5.

OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 87
the record of Hebrew events was not competent to every
one, for Prophets alone were the historiographers of his
nation. Hereupon commences the important passage,
given also by Eusebius with some trifling variations.1
Ov <yap (ivpiaBss fiifiXiav slcri Trap' t)fuv, darv/itfxovwv
Kai /la^ofisvwv ' Bvo Be jiova irpos tois sIkocti ftifiXia, tov
iravTos fyovTa %povov ttjv avajpatpnv, Ta BiKaiws Osia2
TTSTTlO'TSV/jlSVa. Kai tovtcdv itsvts /msv sotti ra Mavoscos,
a tovs ts vofiovs irspisj(si Kai tt)v ttjs dvdpwrroyovias
irapaBoo'iv, p-sxpi ttjs avTov tsXsvttjs. Oiitos 6 %povos
airoXsnrsi Tpia-^iXicov oXiyov etwv. 'Atto Bs ttjs M.a>vo-ga>s
tsXsvtt]s p-s'xpi ttjs 'ApTal;spfjov, tov fiSTa EepiZyv Tispaav
fia&iXstos, dp)(rjs,3 01 p,STa Mioijcrrjv TrpotprjTai Ta kcit'
avTovs irpa^devTa o-vvsypayjrav sv Tpiai Kai Sstca fiifiliXiois.
AlBs Xoiirat Tsaaapss vpuvovs sis tov ®sov Kai tois avdpw-
ttois VTroOrjKas tov ftiov irsptS'ypvo'iv. 'Awo Bs 'ApTa^sp^ov
[is%pi tov KaO' f)fias ^povov ysypatnai fisv sKaaTa, tticttscos
Bs ov% ofioias rjl;ia>Tai tijs irpo avTcov, Bia to p/n ysvscrOai
rr/v tcov TrpotprjTcov aKpifirj BiaBoyrjv. ArjXov S' scttiv spyqi,
ircos r)p.sis tois IBiois ypafi/uiai irs'mo-TSVKap.sv. Togovtov
yap almvos r)Br) Trapm^rjKOTOs, ovts irpoaOsivai tis oiiBsv*
ovts dfpsXsiv 5 avTav, ovts p,STadsivai tstoX^tjks. Uacri
Bs o~vpuf>VTOV so~tiv svdvs sk ttjs irpcoTrjs ysvscrscos 'lovBaiois,
to vopi^siv6 avTa ®sov BoypuiTa, Kai tovtois s/ip,svsiv,7
Kai vTrsp avTwv, si Bsoi, OvrjaKsiv r)Bsa>s.
1 Josephus, Contra Ap. lib. i. § 8. Compare Eusebius in Histor.
Eccles. 10 p. m. 103, 104.
2 The word Oeia did not stand in the old editions of Josephus ; it was
interpolated into Eusebius in modern times.
3 The greater number of MSS. of Josephus and Eusebius leave this
apxvs out. See below, § 41.
4 OiSev is wanting in Eusebius. The sense remains the same.
" Eusebius has cupeAeiv air' avrav.
6 The false reading bvop.a£eiv outo has been corrected from Euse
bius. 7 Eusebius, hripeveiv.

88 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
' For we do not possess numberless books which con
tradict one another, but only twenty-two, which contain the
history of all past times and are justly entitled to credit '
(according to Eusebius, 'justly held to be divine '). ' Five
of these books come down from Moses, and contain laws and
the account of the origin of mankind, and go down to his
death. This space falls but a little short of 3,000 years.
From Moses' death to the reign of Artaxerxes ' (according to
Eusebius, ' from Moses' death to the death of Artaxerxes'),
' who after Xerxes reigned over the Persians, the events
of their times were recorded in thirteen books by the
prophets who lived after Moses. The other four books
contain hymns of praise to God and maxims of morals for
men. From the times of Artaxerxes down to our days, all
events have indeed been recorded, but these writings are
not held entitled to the same credit as those early histories,
because since that epoch no regular succession of Prophets
has existed. What credibility we ascribe to our books is
evident from our conduct. For notwithstanding the lapse of
so long an interval of time, no one has hitherto dared to
make any additions, diminutions, or alterations therein.
For it is the born duty of all Jews to acknowledge these
books for the lessons of God, firmly to stand by them,
and if need be to die for them with pleasure.'
Section 41. — Why Josephus closes the Canon of the
Old Testament with Artaxerxes Longimanus.
According to this passage Josephus reckons all those
writings under the head canonical which were written
from the time of Moses down to the reign of Artaxerxes
Longimanus. With the reign (dpxv) of Artaxerxes the
collection was closed — a very general determination, and
according to which books composed during the reign of

OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 89
Artaxerxes would belong to the canon. It is worth while
to inquire for what reason Josephus employed so general
a term. Had he been aware of a particular year in which
the canon was closed in a solemn manner, or acquainted
with a person who had effected its settlement, he would
certainly have given that preciser date. Most probably he
was uninformed in both respects. Now he was equally
compelled and disposed to state the time after which no
works entitled to credit in so high a degree were written ;
wherefore, nothing remained but to place the collection
before him, find out the latest book which belonged to it,
and declare the date to which it belonged. Now the book
of Esther, either really, or at least in the opinion of
Josephus, was this latest book ; it either belonged really,
or at least in his opinion, to the reign of Artaxerxes Longi
manus,1 and therefore he closed the canon with his reign.2
1 On this subject we have Josephus's own acknowledgment, Antiq.
xi. u. 6, § 1 ff. : 'E*ypoi^e Se MapSoxaios tois iv tij 'ApTo|ep£ou ^affiKeas
faffiv 'lovBaiois Tavras irapatyv\aoo'eiv Tas iifiepas Kai koprnv ayeiv abras,
and so on.
2 The Zurich Library (Part i. § 181) objects : ' The book of Esther
must be reckoned by Josephus to the canon like all other books written
in the reign of Artaxerxes, and the canon closed with it as if it could
not have concluded with Nehemiah, whose history goes necessarily
down to the beginning of his reign, or with Malachi, whose era is not
known. Both may have written under the Artaxerxes of Josephus.
The book of Esther was. probably written after Artaxerxes, in whose
reign the events are said to have occurred. Everything, indeed (as is
mentioned in the 10th chapter), which happened after the elevation of
Mardochaeus was recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Persia as
long as Mardochaeus remained at the helm. At least that is so declared.
And if regard be also had to the Greek subscription in the supplement,
the book was first made known by an uncertain hand, in a translation
at the time of the Ptolemies in Egypt.' So far the long objection, to
whose validity nothing else is wanting than the possibility of our opinion
as to the time to which the book of Esther, or the story recorded in it,
belongs, or that of the author of the Greek subscription on this point,
exercising any influence in determining the proposed question. The

90 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
But why does he not say rather, Esther was the latest
book ? Because, perhaps, this mode of fixing the time when
the canon was closed might not have been generally in
telligible, and the question would again necessarily arise,
to what period the book of Esther itself falls ; perhaps to
avoid the objection that Esther did not, in fact, stand at
the end of the collection. Esther, indeed, might be the
last written book, and yet not occupy the last place in the
canon, because, according to the plan of its compilers, the
complemental register to the entire biblical history, the
book of Chronicles, would form its necessary conclusion,
and did, in fact, according to the declaration of the New
Testament, at that time as well as in our editions, close it,
as has been (sec. 7) shown above.
How many difficulties are removed by these remarks
founded on the writings of Josephus, and how many ques
tions answered, may be felt by their application to modern
disputes respecting the canon.
According to Eusebius, and most manuscripts of
Josephus, the canon was not closed till the death of
Artaxerxes, a determination which varies but little from
the preceding one, at least in sense.
Section 42. — Why does Josephus adopt Twenty-two
Canonical Books ?
The Hebrews, according to Josephus, possessed twenty-
two holy books. So he counts, together with his nation,
according to the calculation of the Hebrew alphabet. For
whole matter depends on the relation of Josephus ; he must be his
own interpreter ; and according to his express declaration the book of
Esther belongs to the time of Artaxerxes. He could not close the
canon of the 0. T. with Nehemiah because he places him and his book
of history in the time of Xerxes. Malachi could not have been made
the latest book (had it even been really such) by Josephus, because -he
was not aware in what Persian reign his discourses were by him
published.

OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 91
that he referred in this matter to the number of consonants
in the Hebrew alphabet, both Origen and other Church
Fathers expressly declare (sec. 53, 55) ; also it is agreeable
to analogy, as has been shown above (sec. 6). Wherefore,
exactly reckoned, the number of Jewish books was not
limited to only twenty-two ; it was only possible by a cer
tain arrangement to reduce the existing writings within
that number. Section 43. — 1. General Calculation.
Five books belonged to Moses, thirteen were the work
of Prophets between Moses and Artaxerxes Longimanus,
also besides these four others were extant containing
matter of a moral nature.
If we may venture to follow a later author, Origen,
who, like Josephus, fixes the number of books of the
Old Testament at twenty-two, and counts them one after
the other, the thirteen books of the second class would
admit of the following arrangement : —

1.

Joshua.

8. Isaiah.

2.

Judges and Ruth.

9. Prophecies of Jeremiah

3.

2 Books of Samuel.

and Lamentations.

4.

2 Books of Kings.

10. Ezekiel.

5.

2 Books of Chronicles.

11. Daniel.

6.

1st and 2nd books of Ezra,

12. 12 lesser Prophets.

Ezra and Nehemiah.

13. Job.

7.

Esther.

The four books of moral contents would be —

1. Psalms.
3. Ecclesiastes.
2. Proverbs.
4. Song of Songs.
But was the source from whence Origen drew pure ? Did
not the great revolutions, which struck the Hebrew nation
between the time of Josephus and Origen, exert also a
92 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
prejudicial influence on their collection of canonical books ?
During this interval, whether from ignorance, accident, or
fraud, were not writings advanced into the canonical col
lection which had never been there before ? Thus may
one question ; and though much may be said at once in
reply, it is still more advisable, and worthy of the inquirer
after truth, to avoid this method, lest the imputation, with
even the smallest look of probability, should be made of a
disposition on his part to steal an advantage, or to build
all upon hypothesis. Josephus is entitled to be his
own commentator ; we will request his judgment upon
separate books of the Old Testament, and found a new
calculation on his answers, below.
Section 44.— Particular Beckoning.
Prolegomena.
In the first place, some remarks which may, perhaps,
shed light upon the passages which I shall extract from
Josephus, and which may lead our judgment respecting
them. 1. All writings referred by Josephus to Prophets
belonged to his canon, for he rests the exalted credit and
certainty of his national writings on the fact that they
were the work of Prophets (sec. 39, 46).
2. Indisputably he declares to be canonical all the
writings which he describes as Upas fiifiXovs, Tas twv
ispcov ypa<f>a>v /3t/3Xous, Upa ypap,p,aTa, Ta iv tu> Upm
dvaKsiyuSva ypap,fiaTa, and fiifiXovs irpocpriTsias. This
is shown by the selection of the terms, and the passages
which will be quoted below leave not a shadow of doubt
on the point.
3. With the above-quoted expressions, the following
are of like signification, as: ap^aia fiipXia, /3t/3\ot

OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 93
'Efipaimv, fiiffXoi 'JLfipa'iKai. This is undeniably certain
from numerous passages. Daniel, in his estimation, was a
very important Prophet, the exact fulfilment of whose
prophecies he applauds in very strong language (sec. 46).
And he includes his book merely amongst the fiiffXovs
'Efipauov and dpyaia jStjSXta from whence he drew the
materials of his history. After having drawn much in
formation from Daniel, he adds l : ' Let no one lay to me as a
charge that I have transferred everything into my writings
just as I found it in the ancient books (ev tois dpxaiois
fiifiXiois). For at the very commencement of my history
I sheltered myself against the apprehension of omissions or
a disposition to blame, by the announcement that it was my
intention merely to translate the Hebrew Books CEfipaimv
fiiflXovs) into Greek, without any additions or subtrac
tions of my own.' In another place he excerpts the adven
ture which happened to Jonas, in the manner recorded by
Jonas himself in the Prophets, mixed up, however, with
his own, partly false, explanations ; but he remarks on the
occasion 2 ' that his story of the Prophet is what he finds
related concerning him in the Hebrew Books ('JLfipaiKais
fiiffXois) ' — an evident proof that by /3t/3Xots '~Eij3paiKais
he understands the canonical writings of his brothers in
the faith.
4. All the writings which he in the history of his
nation down to Artaxerxes excerpts, must have belonged
to the canon of Josephus. For, firstly, Josephus even
rests the credibility of Jewish history from Moses to
Artaxerxes upon the circumstance that it was written
entirely and alone by Prophets, and declares that the Jews
possessed no other historical books than such as were
the composition of Prophets.3 Wherefore in the history
1 Antiquit. x. c. 10, § 6, p. 536. » Antiq. lib. ix. c. 10, § 2, p. 497.
3 Contra Ap. lib. i. § 8. Above, § 26.

94 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
of the Hebrews to Artaxerxes Longimanus, it is im
possible that he can take any other authority than
these. And, secondly, it is also evident from inspection.
We find those historical books which he places, by simple
enumeration, in his canon, as — the five books of Moses, the
book of Joshua, the books of Kings (sec. 46), transferred
entire as to their contents into his Archaeology. Of just
the same value will have been also the other sources of
his national history to Artaxerxes. In the meantime,
however, it is not to be denied that even in the older
part of Hebrew history he mentions facts of which in the
historical books of the Old Testament not a trace is to
be found. Probably he drew these additions out of
national traditions, which in his time were abundantly
current from mouth to mouth, but which had not then
been reduced to writing. In like manner Paul, for in
stance, refers to a mere tradition when he makes Jannes
and Jambres strive for superiority in wonder-working
before Pharaoh (2 Tim. iii. 8), a tradition also which
Pseudo-Jonathan has introduced into his Targum, 2 Book
Moses i. 15, vii. 2.
5. All Hebrew books of all kinds extant in Josephus's
time but coming from times before the death of Artaxerxes
are with him without exception canonical. For he closes
his evidence respecting the canon of his nation with the
remark that all books whose authors lived after
Artaxerxes Longimanus were of far inferior estimation.
Now if he had not assigned to all books written before the
aforesaid time equal value and equal weight, he would not
have thrown all into one class, nor deduced all from
Prophets ; but with the very same foresight would have
cut off from the rest all those which were of inferior repute.
If, then, it can be shown of a book, first, that Josephus
was acquainted with it, and, secondly, that it was not

OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 95
written after the time of Artaxerxes, it belongs to
Josephus's canon.
6. Finally, all books composed after Artaxerxes must
in the sense of Josephus be deemed apocryphal, even if
their contents went back into the reign of that prince.1
Section 45. — Distribution of the Judgments of Josephus
respecting Single Books of the Old Testament.
After these remarks the judgments passed by Josephus
on single books of the Old Testament may with propriety
follow.2 But I arrange them, to facilitate the review, into
three classes : —
1. Books which he expressly enumerates amongst the
holy books of his nation.
2. Books of which, without this express evidence, he
merely makes use as an author.
3. Books which he passes over altogether with silence.
First Class. — Books Expressly Placed by Josephus
amongst the Holy Books of his Nation.
Section 4<6.—Five Books of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, Nahum, Haggai, Zechariah,
Joshua, Books of Kings, Psalms.
The Five Books of Moses are expressly named by
Josephus in the passage above given; and everywhere,
1 The doubts adduced by Spittler in his programme, De Urn Versionis
Alexandrines apud Josephum, § 18-22, respecting the validity of the
testimony of Josephus about the canon, are, in my opinion, removed, as
soon as a view has been taken of all the passages in which Josephus
either directly or impliedly passes sentence on the books of the 0. T-
Towards which object the following paragraphs, it is hoped, will assist.
2 To this purpose a handsome contribution has been already made
by Ch. Fred. Smith in two programmes, entitled, Enarratio Sententies
Flav. Josephi de libris V. T. ("Wittenb. 1777).

96 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
when his thoughts are directed towards them, he speaks
of them with high esteem and much reverence. He calls
them Upas fiifiXovs 1 and Tas tcov Upwv ypaefxav
pi/3Xovs.2 Isaiah. — His prophecies are termed by him, on the
occasion of imparting the information that the oracle
respecting himself had been read by Cyrus : fiifiXiov, 6
tvs avTov irpoepriTSias 'Ho-aias KaTsXiirs trpo Itwv
BiaKoo-icov Kai SsKa.3 In other places he is simply called
w/jo^t^j,4 and in the biography of Hezekiah, irpotyriTris,
trap' ov (TL&Kias) iravT1 aKpifias Ta p,sXXovTa sttvv-
davsTO.5 Jeremiah is with him ¦•rrpotyrfT'qs 6s Ta fisXXovra ttj
iroXsi Bsiva -n-posKripv^s,6 by which expression the contents
of his prophecies are accurately distinguished.
Ezekiel is cited by the title irpo<f>r]Tr]s, and his pro
phecies are brought into comparison with those of
Jeremiah.7 Our Daniel Josephus places amongst the ispa ypap,-
p,ara : 8 he terms his prophecies trpofyrjTsiav irpo TSTpa-

q. lib. i. p. 5, at the end of the preface ; lib. iii. c. 5, § 2,
p. 128 ; lib. iv. c. 8, § 48, p. 255 ; lib. iv. c. 2, § 2, p. 475 ; lib. x. c. 4,
§ 2, p. 517, ed. Haverc, which I always cite.
2 Contra Ap. lib. ii. § 4, p. 472. Many other passages show the
reverence with which Josephus and his brothers in the faith speak
of the Mosaical writings. Antiq. lib. i. c. 4, xx. c. 5, p. 966, iii. c. 6, p.
m. 135, iv. c. 8, p. m. 251, x. c. 4, p. m. 251, x. c. 4, p. m. 517, xvi. c. 6,
p. m. 800.
3 Antiq. xi. c. 1, § 2, p. 547.
' Antiq. x. c. 2, § 2, p. 514.
5 Antiq. xi. c. 13, § 3, p. 506.
6 Antiq. x. c. 6, § 1, p. 520. See the following note.
7 The same, Oiros b trpofyiyrns C\epep.ias) koi to fieKKovra t# iroKei
Seiva irpoeK'npv^e, iv ypap.p.ao'i KaToXiirwv, Kai tvv vvv e\p' ijfiav yevofievijv
a\ao~tv ti\v Te Ba{$v\aviav alpeciv. Ov fiovov Se obros irpoeBeairuTe touto
tois dx^ois, dAAa Kai b irpo<pi]T'ns 'le£eKiij\os.
8 Antiq. lib. x. c. 10, § 4, p. 535. After having made some quotation

OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 97
Kocnasv Kai oktco ysvop,sv7jv stcov,1 and expresses himself in
another place very strongly as to their truth.2
The twelve lesser prophets are regarded by Josephus
as one book ; he calls them 8<o8sKa tov dpidp,ov, and
places them, on account of the exact fulfilment of their
prophecies, by the side of the Prophet Isaiah.3 Some of
them he quotes also in an especial manner.
Jonah is declared by him to be a true prophet ;
whereupon he describes the singular accidents of his life
in such wise that it is evident he draws his materials
from the account prepared by Jonah himself, with a mix
ture, however, of his own partly false comments, although
his mode of reference be merely general, and to the
fiiifiXovs 'EijSpaiKas.^
Nahum also is named by him Trpo<pr)Tr)s, and is ex
tolled for the accurate accomplishment of his predic
tions.* Haggai and Zechariah are termed Bvo TrpocprjTai.6
from Daniel, he concludes with the following words : ' Whoever will
examine into this, (rirovSairaToi to (3if3\iov avayvavai tov AaviijKov • evpjiffei
5e touto ev tois lepois ypafifiairi.' Compare above, § 44, p. 95, note 1.
1 Antiq. lib. xii. c. 7, § 6. p. 617.
- Antiq. lib. x. c. 11, § 7, p. 544. Touto iravTa iKeivos, ©eov Sei^avTOS
avTip, trvyypatyas KareKeityev, aiTTe tovs avayivaiTKovTas Kai Ta ovfifiaivovTa
GKoirovvTas Bavp.a£eiv iiri tj7 iropa tov ©eov ti^itj tov AavtuiKov. More
over Josephus excerpts the eight first chapters of Daniel. Antiq. lib. x.
c. 10 and 11.
3 Antiq. x. c. 2, § 2, p. 515. Koi ovx ovtos jiovos b irpocjJTjTTis
CEo~mos), dAAa koi aKKoi SaSeKa tov apiBpiov to avTO iirovnffav. Kai itav,
etVe ayaBov eWe <pav\ov, yiverai irap i\p.iv, Kara tvv ixeivav airof3atvet
irpotpnTeiav. 4 Antiq. ix. c. 10, § 1, 2, pp. 497, 498. Toutiji (it runs § 1) irpoeipifrevo-e
tis 'lavas . . . He refers in the biography of Jonah to the PifiKovs
'EfSpaiKas (see above, § 44) and closes the 2nd section with the words
Ste£i]\Bov Se T7jv 7rep( o,vtov $iiiyi}(riv, us evpov avayeypafip.evy\v.
5 Antiq. lib. ix. c. 11, § 3, pp. 501, 502.
'' Antiq. lib. xi. u. 4, § 5, p. 557. H

98 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
The book of Joshua is mentioned by Josephus as one of
the books kept in the Temple.1
The Books of Kings. — The book in which the history
of the prophet Elias is recorded — that is, the books of
Kings — he places by the side of that which tells us of
Enoch — that is, by the first book of Moses ; both he
terms Upas /3i/3Xovs.2
Psalms. — They are in the above passage expressly
distinguished by the title ifivoi sis tov ®sov, and Josephus
mentions them also elsewhere by the name Songs of
David, because David was their chief author.3
Second Class. — Books Quoted by Josephus without
Additions, or those of which He avails Himself
merely as an author.
Section 47. — Lamentations, Judges, Ruth, Books of
Samuel, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.
The Lamentations of Jeremiah, which in the opinion
of Josephus were written on the occasion of the death of
King Josiah, are by him quoted as a then extant poem.4
Compare sec. 44, n. 5.
Judges and Ruth. — Both contain the incidents of far
remote antiquity, and must have been written long before
the time of Artaxerxes. Josephus is not only ac
quainted with them both, but in the fifth book of his
' Antiq. lib. v. c. 1, § 17, p. 273. 'On Se to /hjkos ttjs rifiepas
iireSaKe tote, Kai tov ffvvndovs iirXeovaoe, StjAoutoi 5ta Twy avaKeifievav
iv tu lepa ypap.fJ.aTav.
2 Antiq. lib. ix. c. 2, § 2, p. 475. nepi fievroi ye 'HAio koi 'Evaxov
tov yevofievov irpo ttjs iirofxfipias iv tois lepais avayeypaiTTai fitfi\ois, bri
yeyovamv hipaveis, BavaTov 5' ainav oiideis olhev.
3 Antiq. lib. vii. c. 12, § 3.
' Antiq. lib. X. c. 5, § 1, p. 520. 'lepefxias S' d irpoa>i\Tr)s eiriKifSeiov
aiirov ffvveTai^e ueAos Bpi\vt\TiKov, b Kai fiexpi vvv Siafievet.

OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 99
Archaeology makes abundant use of them. Compare
sec. 44, n. 5, 6.
The two Books of Samuel were extant in their present
form long before Artaxerxes ; we find them also word for
word transferred from the fifth to the seventh book of his
' Antiquities.' ' Compare sec. 44, n. 5, 6.
The two Books of Chronicles are used by Josephus in
his ' Antiquities ' from the seventh to the tenth book, only
the second more abundantly than the first, because the
former supplies more aids to Hebrew history than the
latter.2 Ezra and Nehemiah. — According to Josephus, the
events contained in these books belong to the times of
King Xerxes ; 3 and since the canon was not closed till
the time of his successor, Artaxerxes, they may be both
safely placed in his canon. He makes also abundant use
of both.4 Finally, Esther was certainly a part of his canon. For
he places the contents of the book in the reign of Xerxes
Longimanus, and closes the canon with his reign, because
this book was the most recent found by him in the col
lection of the national sacred writings (sec. 41). He makes
extracts also from the contents of this book.5 These are the
writings of the second class. And if one of them is to be
1 So is also the lamentation on the death of Saul and Jonathan,
2 Samuel i., Antiq. viii. c. 1, § 1.
- Antiq. lib. viii. u. 12, § 4, p. 453, compare 2 Chronicles xiv. 8.
Antiq. lib. viii. c. 15, § 1, 2, p. 466, compare 2 Chronicles xvii. 7, &c.
3 Antiq. lib. xi. c. 5, § 8, p. 566. Josephus is speaking of Jeremiah,
and concludes with the words : Touto fiev obv e'in Hep|ou BamXeus
iyeveTO. Lib. xi. c. 5, § 1, 2, p. 560. 'EcrSpas . . . yiverai ipiXos tu
BaonXei Hepljj, and immediately after follows a letter of Xerxes to
Ezra. 1 Particularly Antiq. lib. xi. But he mixes with it also matter from
the third book of Ezra. See Antiq. lib. xi. c. 3.
s Antiq. lib. xi. c. 6. H 2

100 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
struck out of Josephus's canon, since the same grounds
exist for all, aU the rest must lose their places, and how,
then, are the thirteen prophetical books to be made up ?
Third Class. — Books which Josephus Passes over in
Silence.
Section 48. — Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,
Job.
Of Solomon as an author Josephus speaks, but only in
general terms ; 1 by name he quotes neither Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, nor the Song of Solomon.
Just as little mention does he make of the book of
Job or its hero. Section 49. — Some Remarks.
According to these observations, then, Joshua, Judges,
Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings,
and the two of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, including both the Prophecies and
Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve lesser
Prophets belonged certainly to the canon of Josephus ;
and all these books must be placed in the second class,
forming the thirteen prophetical. For they consist partly
of prophecies, partly history, and the latter as well as the
former mean with Josephus and other writers both before
and after his time works of prophets2 partly because the
events of their times have been really recorded by some
prophets, partly because sou signifies often a writer in
general. Now let the reckoning be made as it may, the
only doubtful point still remaining is whether Josephus
> Antiq. lib. viii. c. 2, § 5, p. 419.
2 Philo, above, § 28. Theodoretus in Preefat. ad Libros Regum.
Euseb. Presparatio Evang. Abarbanel, Preef. in Josuam.

OPINIONS OF JOSEPHUS 101
includes Job in the class of prophetical books, supposing
Job to have formed a part of his canon.
Now no one has hitherto entertained a doubt that Job
at the time of Christ and the Apostles held a place in the
collection of holy books of the Jews ; Philo and the New
Testament are acquainted with the book ; it was extant
doubtless long, long before the fixing of the canon ; and
though Josephus mentions neither the work nor its hero,
it by no means follows that the work itself was not found
by him amongst the collection of national books. Was he
under a necessity of speaking of it, since, according to the
usual opinion of antiquity, he regarded probably the hero
of the story as a foreigner, an Arab, and was it not in his
competence to write a complete book of Hebrew history
without suffering even a syllable upon the subject to fall
from him ? And if it was known to Josephus and by him
found amongst the sacred books of his nation, it was in
all probability placed by him in the second class, amongst
the thirteen prophetical books. For he arranged all the
historical books in the second class ; and to that number,
belonged Job, because its contents were regarded by all
antiquity as true history clothed in a poetical form.
Section 50. — Result of the Preceding Inquiry.
Without any danger of mistake, we may then arrange
the thirteen prophetical books of the second class, with
Origen, in the following manner : —

1.

Joshua.

8.

Isaiah.

2.

Judges and Ruth.

9.

Jeremiah, Prophecies and

3.

2 Books of Samuel.

Lamentations.

4.

2 Books of Kings.

10.

Ezekiel.

5.

2 Books of Chronicles.

11.

Daniel.

6.

Ezra and Nehemiah.

12.

12 Lesser Prophets.

7.

Esther.

13.

Job.

102 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
The four books of the last class, whose contents are
ethical, there can be no mistake about, although Josephus
mentions only Psalms, for there are but four remaining
books to arrange.

1. Psalms.
2. Proverbs.

3. Ecclesiastes.
i. Song of Solomon.

Section 51. — 3. Melito (for. Sec. II.) .
The next author to Josephus who affords us informa
tion respecting the canon of the Palestinian Jews is
Melito, Bishop of Sardes in the second century after the
birth of Christ. He travelled into the East for the purpose
of obtaining information, from the Jews there resident, of the
contents and number of their sacred books, and acquainted
his brother Onesimus with the result of his inquiries in a
letter which Eusebius has preserved in his History of the
Church (Euseb. iv. 26) :—
M.sXitodv 'Ovnaip,cp to) dBsXcpep yaipsiv ' hirsiBr) iroXXa-
kis r/^iacras cnrovBri ttj irpos tov Xoyov ¦%pa>p,svos ysvsadai
aoi sKXoyas sk ts tov vop,ov Kai tcov irpo<f)7)Ttt>v irspi tov
o~coT7)pos Kai iraar/s ttjs itmttsqos rjficcv, sti Bs Kai p.a8siv ttjv
tiov iraXaicov /3i/3Xia)v Sf3ovXrj0ss aKpi/3siav, iroaa tov
dpi6p,ov, Kai OTroia ttjv Ta^iv slsv, sairovBacra to toiovto
irpagai, siricrTafisvos aov to erirovBaiov irspi ttjv itiittw,
Kai epiXofiadss irspi tov Xoyov, 6ti ts p,a\iaTa iravTtov
iro8a> t<o irpos &sov TavTa irpoKpivsis irspi ttjs alaviov
aeoTTjpias ayrovi^opsvos • dvsXOmv ovv sis ttjv dvaToXrjv,
Kai stos tov tottov ysvopsvos svda SK-opv^drj Kai sirpaydv,
Kai aKpiftcos p,ada>v Ta ttjs iraXaias BiadvKr/s fiifSXia,
iiTOTa^as sirsfi-^ra ejoi " div haTi Ta ovop,aTa. M<b{J<7£o>s
irsvTS- ysvso-is, s^oBos, Xsvitikov, dpi8p,oi, BsvTspovopiov
'Irjaovs vavrj, Kpnai, povd, /3aatXsio)v Tsaaapa, irapaXi-
irop-svav Bvo, -^raXficov Baf3iB, aaXop.oovos irapotp,iai, r/ Kai

OPINIONS OF BISHOP MELITO 103
o-ocf>ia, SKKXrjo-iao-TiK-ns, acrp,a ao-p,aTa>v, Ioj/3, irpocpriTcov,
fjaaiov, Upsfiiov • tkhv BwBsKa Iv p-ovo^ijSXfp' BavirfX,
U^SKirfX, iaBpas • si; <hv Kai Tas SKXoyas siroiijaafirjv, sis
e£ /SifSXia BisXav.
'Melito wishes all health to his brother Onesimus.
Since, out of great affection for the word, thou hast often
desired to have extracts from the Law and the Prophets,
which regard the Redeemer and our entire faith ; and also
to obtain exact information both as to the number and
arrangement of the ancient books ; I have exerted myself
to satisfy you in this respect, knowing your zeal in the
faith and earnest desire of knowledge of the word; and
that in your strife after immortal happiness through desire
towards God, you did prefer the same to all other con
siderations. Wherefore, having come into the East and
being where this was both preached and practised, and
having made myself intimately acquainted with the books
of the Old Testament, I send you the list of them annexed.
The names are as follows : — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy, being the five books of Moses.
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of
Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon,
also called Wisdom,1 Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs,
Job, the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve in one
book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, and Esdras. Out of these I have
made my extracts and divided them into six books.'
1 According to Strotti's version of this passage : but here it is aban
doned because probably neither t) koi ooipia, nor tj coipia is the true
reading, but according to Strotti's conjecture, % Kai aoipia. Melito,
and after him Eusebius, wrote, indeed, without either accents or aspi
rates, tj koi o-ocpia. For the reading in Nicephorus was already koi,
and Rufinus translates, ' qua} et sapientia.' Afterwards, when accents
were used, out of -n the postpositive tj koi croipio was made. Now %
could no longer be referred to BiBXia which goes before ; koi was also
left out, and tj aotpia written, as some editions still read, though the
matter might have been made easier with V) koi ootpia.

104 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Section 52. — Elucidation of this Passage.
In this list, however, Nehemiah and Esther are want
ing ; but if the passage be read with discrimination, both
will be found there. Melito here arranges the books of the
Old Testament evidently according to the time in which
they were written, or in which their contents occurred.
Hence he places Ruth after the Book of Judges, Daniel
and Ezekiel towards the end of his list, and Ezra quite
last, because he wrote after the Babylonian captivity. And
in like manner as he above throws the Books of Samuel
and Kings together under the general name of Books of
the Kings, because they contain the history of the Hebrew
kingdom, from Saul to Zedechiah, or to the Babylonian
captivity, so he appears under the name of Ezra to com
prehend all historical books whose contents fall in the times
after the captivity of Babylon. As it is, moreover, quite
usual to embrace Ezra and Nehemiah in one book, why
may not Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther have been also
regarded as forming one entire work? If to this presump
tion be added that, according to Josephus (sec. 47), Nehe
miah and Esther must be held to form a part of the canon,
and that other important Fathers of the Church, as Origen
(sec. 53) and Jerome (sec. 55), include them both ex
pressly, the reception of the two above-named books into
the canon of the Old Testament by Melito will be doubted
by no impartial inquirer.1
1 Schmid, Hist, et Vindic. Canonis, c. i., admits, amongst other points,
that Esther may have been omitted by the fault of a transcriber, and
therefore originally included in Melito's list. I doubt it, however, since
no traces of the matter are to be found, and Athanasius, Gregory
Nazianz., and others who follow Melito, likewise omit Esther. See
Schmid, c. i. pp. 171, 173, 193. Bruns, in his edition of Kennicotti Diss.
Gener. p. 178, is also of my opinion.

OPINIONS OF ORIGEN 105
Section 53. — 4. Origen (nat. A.D. 185 ; mort. A.D. 253).
The next Church Father to whom we must listen is
Origen, whose list of the canonical books of the Old Testa
ment has been preserved by Eusebius (' Church His
tory,' vi. 25). It is of extraordinary importance, because
borrowed from the Jews, as Origen himself expressly
declares at the commencement.
Toi> p.sv Toiys irpcoTov i%iryovp.svos tyaXpov, iK$saiv
irsiroiiyrai tov tcov ispcov ypacfxov ttjs iraXaias BiaOrjKrjs
KaTaXoyov, cbBs ircos ypafycov KaTdXsfyv • ovk dyvorjTSOv B'
slvai Tas ivBiadrjKOvs fiifiXovs, cos 'E/3joato{ irapaBiBoaaiv,
Bvo Kai siKoai • ocros 6 dpi0p,os tcov trap' avTOis cttoi^skov
scttiv • s'na p,STa Tiva, iiriepspsi Xsycov • slcri Bs al sIkocti Bvo
fiifSXioi Kad' 'Eftpaiovs alBs. i) irap' r)p,iv ysvsais iiri-
ysypap,/j,svi), irapa Bs 'Efipaiois a.7ro tijs dp^rjs Tr/s/3t/3Xou
fipijcriO, oirsp iaTiv iv dpyr/ • igoBos, ovaXsapicoO, oirsp imi
TavTa Ta 6vop.aTa • Xsvitikov, ov'iKpa Kai iKaXscrsv ¦ dpi-
Ofioi, dfj,p,sa(j)SKcoBsi/j, ¦ BsvTspovopiiov, sXXs dSBs/3apip,,
ovtoi oi Xoyoi • 'lrjcrovs vios Navr/, 'Icoaos fisv Now •
KpiTai, povO, irap' avTOis iv svi, craxpsTi/j,. fiacriXsicov
irpronrj BsvTspa. irap' ainois sv ^ap,ovrfX, 6 6sokXtjtos •
ftacrCXsimv TpiTi) TSTapTrj iv svi, ovap,p,sXs% 8a/3iB, oirsp
sctti i3acriXsia BafiiB • HapaXsiirofisvcov irpcoT rj BevTSpa iv
svi BifipTjaiafiip,, oirsp sctti Xoyoi rj/nsprnv • icrBpas irpaiTOS
Kai BsvTspos iv svi, i^pa, 6 sctti fio<t]Qos • /3t/3Xos ¦^raXpiajv
crsefisp OiXXip.. 'XaXop.covos irapoipuiai, p,iaXcod, iKKXr)
o-iacrTiKrjs, koosXsB • acrp,a dafiaTcov, crip ao-aipip, • rjcralas,
'Isaala. 'Ispefiias crvv Bpr/vois Kai Ty iiriaToXrj iv svi
'Ispsp,ia, AavirjX, AavirjX, 'Is^SKir/X, '1s£skit)X, 'Ico/3, 'lco/3
Hcrdr/p, 'ILaGrjp. iijco Bs tovtcov icrTi Ta Ma/c/ca/3at«:a;
dirsp iiriysypairTai ~2ap/3rj0 crapfiavs sX.
In the course of explaining the first Psalm he (Origen)
gives a catalogue of the sacred books of the Old Testament

106 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
on which occasion he expresses himself as follows : ' It is
to be noted that the canonical Scriptures, after the reckon
ing of the Jews, consist, like the number of their letters, of
twenty-two books.' ,A little further on he proceeds:
' These twenty-two books are, according to the Hebrews,
as follows : — The book by us called Genesis, but by the
Hebrews, after the beginning of the book, Breshith, which
signifies " In the beginning." Exodus, Velleshemoth, that
is, " These are the names." Leviticus, " Vikra," " And he
calledout." Numbers, "Hammishpekodim." Deuteronomy,
Ellehaddebarim, " These be the words." Jesus the son of
Nave, Jehosua Ben Nun, Judges, Ruth, with them in
one book, Shopetim.1 The First and Second of Kings, in
one, Samuel, " The called of God." The Third and Fourth
of Kings, in one, Vammelek David, that is, " And the
King David." The First and Second of Chronicles, in one,
" Dibbre hayamim," that is, " Day-books." The First and
Second Esdras in one, Ezra,2 that is, " The helper." The
Book of Psalms, " Sepher Thillim." The Proverbs of
Solomon, "Mishloth." Ecclesiastes, "Koheleth." The
Song of Songs, "Shir Hashirim." Isaiah, "Yesaiah."
Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and Epistles, in one
Book, " Yirmeyah." Daniel, " Daniel." Ezekiel, " Yeze-
kiel." Job, "Yob." Esther, "Esther." Besides these,
1 Trace thereof is to be found in the Masora finalis of a Spanish
MS. (with Kennicott No. 3), where Ruth, from the beginning of the
book, is called D'OStJTI tOSt? "ISD- See Bruns, ad Kennicotti Dissertat.
General, pp. 18, 19, note.
2 Proofs to this purpose are to be found in the modern Hebrew MSS.
Many still have the two books of Samuel, the two of Kings, the two of
Chronicles, as well as Ezra and Nehemiah, written altogether, without
intervening space. Hence all these books in the oldest editions, which
foUowed with the closest accuracy the MSS., are printed together, till
Daniel Bombey introduced tbe separation thereof, now become usual.
See § 359.

OPINIONS OF ORIGEN 107
there are also the Books of Maccabees, which are entitled
"Sarbeth, sarbane El." ']
Section 54. — Elucidation of this Passage.
In this catalogue of the canonical books of the Old
Testament the twelve lesser Prophets are wanting. Baruch,
on the contrary, has a place there. The first difficulty
vanishes as soon as a comparison be made between Rufinus
(his Latin translation) and Hilary's Prologue to the Psalms.
The first has, in the quoted passage of Eusebius, the
twelve lesser Prophets in the place after the Song of
Songs ; and the latter, who, according to an observation
already made by Jerome, drew the materials of his Pro
logue to the Psalms for the most part out of the said
passage, mentions the twelve lesser Prophets amongst the
canonical writings of the Old Testament.2 The other
difficulty is not so easy to remove. Nowhere is there a
trace of Jeremiah's Epistle ever having formed a part of the
Jewish canon. Origen was mistaken, and perhaps had
before him a MS. of the Seventy, in which, as usual, Baruch
was placed immediately after Jeremiah, and was thereby
led into his mistake.3
1 According to Strotti's translation.
2 Here is the remark of Valesius on this place : ' Omissus est in hoc
catalogo liber duodecim Prophetarum . Quo factum est, ut cum viginti
duos libros se numeraturum promiserit Origenes, unus duntaxit et
viginti reperiantur. In Rufini versione, recensetur hie liber statim post
Canticum Canticorum. Nee aliter Hilarius in prologo enarrationis in
Psalmos, et Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus. Cseterum sacra scripturae libri
longe alio ordine hie recensentur quam ab Epiphanio et Hieronymo et
Melitone, cujus locum supra retulit Eusebius in fine lib. iv. Hilarius
vero, in prologo commentariorum in Psalmos, cum Origene prorsus con-
sentit. Nee id mirum, cum totus fere prologus ille Hilarii translatus sit
ex commentariis in Psalmos, ut testatur Hieronymus.'
8 This becomes more probable when the circumstance is mentioned
that the Egyptian Christians, those great admirers of apocryphal
writings, make Baruch follow the Lamentations. See below, § 310.

108

INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

Section 55. — Jerome (A.D. 422).
Jerome reckons, according to the number of the con
sonants of the Hebrew alphabet, twenty-two books, and
places them in his Prologus Galeatus in the following order,
which is also followed by the Bibliotheca Divina : —

lto5.

Five Books of Moses.

14.

Job.

6.

Joshua.

15.

Psalms.

7.

Judges and Ruth.

16.

Proverbs.

8.

2 Books of Samuel.

17.

Ecclesiastes.

9.

2 Books of Kings.

18.

Song of Solomon.

10.

Isaiah.

19.

Daniel.

11.

Jeremiah's Prophecies

20.

2 Books of Chronicles.

and Lamentations.

21.

Ezra in 2 books, i.e. Ezra

12.

Ezekiel.

and Nehemiah.

13.

12 Lesser Prophets.

22.

Esther.

' Viginti et duas literas ' (he says in his Prologus
Galeatus), ' esse apud Hebraeos, Syrorum quoque lingua
et Chaldaeorum testatur, quas hebraeae magna ex parte
confinis est. Nam et ipsi viginti duo elementa habent,
eodem sono et diversis characteribus. . . . Porro quinque
literas duplices apud Hebraeos sunt, Caph, Mem, Nun, Pe,
Sade. Unde et quinque a plerisque libri duplices existi-
mantur, Samuel, Melachim, Dibre hayamim, Esdras,
Jeremias cum Cinoth, id est Lamentationibus suis. Quomodo
igitur viginti duo elementa sunt, per qu83 scribimus
hebraice omne quod loquimur, et eorum initiis vox humana
comprehenditur : ita viginti duo volumina supputantur,
quibus quasi Uteris et exordiis in Dei doctrina, tenera
adhuc et lactens viri justi eruditur infantia. Primus apud
eos liber vocatur Beresith, quem nos Genesin dicimus.
Secundus, Vialle Semoth. Tertius Vajicra, i.e. Leviticus.
Quartus Vajedabber, quem Numeros vocamus. Quintus Elle-

OPINIONS OF JEROME 109
haddebarim, quiDeuteronomium prsenotatur. Hi sunt quin
que libri Mosis : quos proprie Thora, id est Legem, appellant.
' Secundum Prophetarum ordinem faciunt et incipiunt
ab Jesu filio Nabe, qui apud eos Josue ben Nun dicitur.
Deinde subtexunt Sophetim, id est Judicum librum ; et in
eundem compingunt Ruth, quia in diebus Judicum facta
ejus narratur historia. Tertius sequitur Samuel, quem nos
Regum primum et secundum dicimus. Quartus, Melachim,
id est Regum, qui tertio et quarto Regum volumine con
tinetur. Meliusque multo est Melachim, id est Regum,
quam Melachoth, id est Regnorum, dicere : non enim
multarum gentium describit regna sed unius Israelitici
pOpuli, qui tribubus duodecim continetur. Quintus est
Esaias. Sextus, Jeremias. Septimus, Ezechiel. Octavus,
liber duodecim Prophetarum qui apud illos vocatur
Thereasai. ' Tertius ordo Hagiographa possidet. Et primus liber
incipit a Job. Secundus a David, quem quinque inci-
sionibus et uno Psalmorum volumine comprehendunt.
Tertius est Salomon, tres libros habens, Proverbia, quae illi
Misle, id est, Parabolas, appellant. Quartus Ecclesiastes,
id est, Coheleth. Quintus Canticum Canticorum, quem
titulo Sir hassirim praenotant. Sextus est Daniel. Septimus
Dibre hajammim, id est, verba dierum, quod significantius
Chronicon totius divinas historias possumus appellare, qui
liber apud nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus inscri-
bitur. Octavus Esdras : qui et ipse similiter apud Graecos
et Latinos in duos libros divisus est. Nonus Esther.
' Atque ita fiunt pariter Veteris Legis libri viginti duo,
id est, Mosis quinque, et Prophetarum octo, Hagiogra-
phorum novem.
' Quamquam nonnulli Ruth et Cinoth inter Hagiographa
scriptitent et hos libros in suo putent numero supputandos
ac per hoc esse priscae Legis viginti quatuor. Hic prologus

110 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
scripturarum quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris^
quos de Hebraeo vertimus in Latinum, convenire potest :
ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos esse, inter apocry
pha ponendum est. Igitur Sapientia, quae vulgo Salomonis
inscribitur, et Jesu filii Sirach liber, et Judith et Tobias et
Pastor non sunt in canone. Machaboeorum primum librum
hebraicum reperis, secundus grascus est, quod ex ipsa
quoque phrasi probari potest.'
He divides, then, the entire collection into three parts,
Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa, and reckons eight
Prophets and nine Hagiographa ; and remarks also that
some make twenty-four books, and in order to complete
this number enumerate specially Ruth and the Lamenta
tions; and concludes with this observation, that all Jewish
Scriptures, beyond those named are to be placed amongst
the Apocrypha. Section 56.— Talmud (Sec. II. -IV.).
The Jews from mere whim shifted two Yods into their
alphabet, in order to make out (in its favour also) the
number of twenty-four consonants. Hence the Talmud
reckons twenty-four canonical books, in the following
order : ' —

-5.

Five Books of Moses.

15.

Psalms.

6.

Joshua.

16.

Job.

7.

Judges.

17.

Proverbs.

8.

2 Books of Samuel.

18.

Ecclesiastes.

9.

2 Books of Kings.

19.

Song of Songs.

10.

Jeremiah.

20.

Lamentations.

11.

Ezekiel.

21.

Daniel.

12.

Isaiah.

22.

Esther.

13.

12 Lesser Prophets.

23.

Ezra (and Nehemiah)

14.

Ruth.

24.

Chronicles.

1 Buxtorfii Tiberias, cap. xi.

FINAL OPINION 111
The chief passage is to be found in the treatise ' Bava
Bathra.'1 After dividing the Biblical Scriptures into
(1) mm, (2) DW33, and (3) D"3iro, and making many
observations on them not here to the purpose, it names the
books of each part separately and gives those of the two
last parts in the following order : — uE'in* D'K'aa b& JT1D
hv p-pD • ¦ ¦ ¦ iw d»:b»i n*w ^prm rpcv D^D3i d'bbie'i
^wi nirpi onw tb> n"?np ^cdi avsi D^nn isdi nn oaim
•D»o'n nam s-iry nriDX rtaoi
Section 57.— Result. History declares all the Books of our
Edition of the Hebrew Bible to be Canonical.
From the information hitherto gathered, it appears to
me indisputable that, at the time of Christ and the
Apostles, the Jewish Canon, as far as extent is concerned,
agreed with our present edition of the Bible. And if it
be desired to show that, before then, in the space of time
between the end of the Babylonian captivity and the birth
of Christ, a smaller number of books was ever contained
in it, the necessity would then arise of either denying
the truth of the picture drawn by antiquity of the mode
of thinking among the Jews with regard to their sacred
books, or of affirming that never at any time was an inten
tional and in all its parts settled collection of their national
writings prepared by the Jews. The first step would
signify the contradiction to their faces, without the
slightest reasons, of the most credible witnesses of
antiquity, and the last a dispute against all evidence.
The Jews burned ever with holy reverence towards
their national Scriptures. ' With their birth,' says
Josephus, ' was also born the belief to hold them for
Divine teachings ; they ventured not, he assures us, either
to add to or take from them, or to change them, although
1 Bava Bathra, fol. 13, 14, ed. Venet. 1548.

112 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
many thereof had already attained a very high antiquity '
(sec. 40). Even amidst the greatest sufferings brought
upon them by the unreasoning spirit of persecution, on
account of their sacred books, their reverence towards
them was not diminished.1 How was it possible that a
nation of this mode of thinking should place beside their
sacred books such as were of inferior worth and estimation
— provided that the point had been made evident and
universally decided, how many and what books deserved
the estimation of sacred ?
And this was settled. As far as we can go back in
their history, immediately where the Apocrypha connect
again the broken thread of Hebrew literature, a sacred
national library of the Hebrews is expressly spoken of, as
if the separate parts of it were already accurately fixed.
It appears then to have been established soon after the
Babylonian captivity, or that out of the writings which with
regard to contents, authors, and the time of their com
position varied so much, an entire whole was formed with
the object of hindering for the future any new writings
from being added thereto (sec. 5), although from want of
information we are not now able to state in what year and
for what reason the increase of the collection was termi
nated. In short, it is the voice of history, that after the Baby
lonian captivity, and, indeed, soon after the new foundation
of the Hebrew state in Palestine, the canon was firmly fixed
and all the books were at that time received into it which
we now find in it. And yet have modern scholars attempted
to prove that the canon of the Old Testament was not fixed
till in very late times ; that many books of the Old Testa
ment now held by us as canonical had no place for
merly in the canon, but were first raised to that dignity by
Fathers of the Church and later Jews.

FINAL OPINION 113
A favourite system was the cause of this. Speculations
had been formed in dbstracto as to the characteristics of a
book of the Bible, and in the absence of all materials a
building was constructed in the air. Now the adopted uni
versal idea of the nature of a Bible-book was contradicted
by innumerable manifestations. Without pulling down the
old house itself and providing materials for a firmer
structure, they built a castle in the air and rejected from
the canon books which did not comply with their theory
though already consecrated by time.

114 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

CHAPTER II.
History of the Texts of the Books of the
Old Testament.
Section 58. — General Considerations.
A complete history of the Hebrew text would enumerate,
with reference to causes and consequences, all the essential
and accidental changes, whether for good or evil, which it
has undergone in the process of thousands of years and in
its passage through men's hands, from the time of its first
composition down to the latest periods ; meanwhile both
honesty and criticism combine to place on an immovable
foundation and incontestably to demonstrate that, even
amidst the imperfections of our present text, it becomes us
nevertheless to reverence the exceeding wisdom of the
Divine dispensation.
The essential variations — that is to say, those which
affect the sense — have awakened the spirit of inquiry
amongst men and led to discoveries. And the accidental
changes are of evident use to us. Had the writings
of Moses been always copied in their original character,
they might perhaps have been illegible to posterity,
according to the fate of so many important monuments
of antiquity which have become ultimately quite lost.
And had they even been preserved, they might have been
for us perhaps but unmeaning hieroglyphics. As long
as the Hebrew continued a living language, the sense
of their sacred books might have been sufficiently clear by

THE HEBREW TEXT 115
the application of vowel-points to passages only of a
double signification. What gratitude do we not owe to an
all-directing Providence for the provision, that soon after
the Hebrew became a dead language, it should be fur
nished with vowel-points throughout, whilst aids for this
work still existed which at the present day are wanting.
The general preservation of our small Hebrew library
is in itself a true miracle of Time. Who could expect
from his hand to receive a work free from every defect ?
Let it suffice that, with defects beyond the reach of
prevention, we have also inherited the means for their cor
rection. Section 59. — Sources of this History.
The whole matter would be clear beyond controversy
were it possible to give a complete history of the Hebrew
text from century to century. The sources thereto are
extant, but they run shallow ; they may possibly be only
obstructed in part, and the streams hereafter may flow
more copiously, provided human industry be first applied
to the removal of impediments. I reckon for this purpose
the old authors of versions, who have made use of the
original text : Philo, Josephus, and the Church Fathers,
and among them in particular Origen and Jerome ; the
Talmud and the Masora, manuscripts and Bible editions.
Section 60. — Arrangement of the Materials for this
Purpose.
In the absence of previous researches I am only
able to produce a kind of plastered framework of such
a history. I must begin by premising a short description
of the original external shape of the Bible-books of the
Old Testament, after which the first outline of such a
history shall follow. I 2

116 introduction to the old testament
First Part. — Original External Form of the
Scriptures of the Old Testament.
Section 61. — Review.
None of all the books which now form the canon of
che Old Testament could by possibility in its journey
through time retain the external shape first bestowed upon
by its author. They have all of them not merely been
jompelled to complete the cycle of changes which human
lands have wrought upon a Homer and the rest of the
great series of classical writers — partly to the injury, partly
to the advantage, of posterity, sometimes from mere chance,
sometimes from necessity — but their original structure
has subjected them to some further changes, quite peculiar
to themselves. And if Moses were now to arise from the
dead, he would with difficulty recognise himself in the
company in which he is placed, and his writings in the
materials used for writing and the consonants with their
accompaniment of vowel-points and accents, and the
divisions into separate words, verses, and chapters, as
presented by manuscripts and editions.
Section 62. — 1. Collection.
Many writings of the Old Testament did not acquire
their present form till after the death of their authors
(sec. 2). Probably before the Babylonian captivity there
existed small collections of the books of the Old Testament
(sec. 4), but our present complete collection took its origin
from the times subsequent to that event (sec. 5-7).

WRITING MATERIALS 117
Section 63. — 2. The Oldest Writing-materials.
The historical inquirer and the critic are both indeed
anxious to know the material upon which the authors of
the Old Testament first wrote their books — the former in
order to trace the progress of human art, the latter to be
able to calculate the duration of autographs ; but owing
to the great distance of time and the silence of history it
cannot be stated with certainty.
Still a guess may be ventured about linen and the
skins of beasts. For all other writing-materials besides
these were either unknown to the old world, or of use
only in other lands too remote from Palestine. And of
the two mentioned linen seems the more probable. For
though it be the work of already advanced art, still animal
hides in a fit state for writing upon imply also artificial
preparation. Now the art of giving raw skins the proper
dressing for a writing-material was first acquired in the
age of King Attalus ; on the other hand the invention of
linen- weaving was of a much earlier date. Wherefore
also in Egypt in the oldest times linen was used as a
material for writing upon, as appears from the mummy-
bandages, which are covered all over with illegible cha
racters. It was found also by Pliny (xiii. 11), in the old
authors from whom he made extracts, that the use of
linen for writing precedes the destruction of Troy.1
And is it not probable that Moses, who was born and bred
in Egypt, the native country of linen, and probably of the
written records imprinted thereon, employed this con
venient material in the composition of his five books ?
1 A reviewer in the Universal German Library, Part 46, § 347, says,
in noticing the above passage, ' The reviewer believes certainly to have
found traces of it in Homer, in the third generation before the Trojan
war.' Pity that the author of this is no longer alive and able through
me to impart to my readers his remarks upon the subject.

118 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
And in this case, would not linen, after his example, have
been used for subsequent writings, and indeed for all trans
actions in writing — linen which, moreover, at that time was
prepared to superfluity ? Finally, in Jeremiah xxxvi. 23,
where a manuscript is burnt in the king's chamber, skin
would not be a probable material, on account of the smell
it would have occasioned in the fire.
From all these considerations it seems to me extremely
probable that the Jews, like the Romans in the oldest
times, were in possession of their libros linteos.
Section 64. — 3. Original Alphabet.
The character used by Moses was, on the whole —
allowance being made for the changes necessarily inflicted
by time and human dealing in the course of a thousand
years — the same alphabet employed in writing by all
authors down to the time of the Babylonian captivity.
Whether, however, Moses used the Chaldean square writ
ing in which our Bibles are printed, or the old Samaritan
alphabet with which we are acquainted on coins, is a
question on which our antiquarians have not hitherto been
able to agree.
Is the whole inquiry into the primitive alphabet of
the Hebrew to be classed, as by some modern scholars,
amongst the pseudo-important speculations of trifling
pedants ? Be it so ! Only let it be considered what
excuse should be offered to Biblical criticism in de
fence of such a dictum of authority. Does not this
inquiry, then, belong to a history of the text of the Old
Testament? Does not many a principle of criticism
depend upon it ? And allowing our ancestors to have
conducted it with the most unlucky results, does it follow
that their successors, with the new aids at their service,

CHARACTERS USED IN WRITING 119
must be equally unfortunate ? And supposing it should
so turn out, should they have denied their fortune with the
new aids even a chance ?
Section 65. — The Ancient Hebrews employed the Phcenico-
Egyptian Characters in Writing. — 1. Proof from
History.
Jacob and his family brought probably with them no
knowledge of the art of writing into the land of Goshen ;
at least, in their history as few traces thereof appear as in
that of their ancestors. Their nomadic mode of life
enabled them also to dispense with it ; and their powers of
memory, unimpaired from youth upwards by written
accounts, must by constant exercise on various occasions
have acquired such strength as fully to compensate for
the absence of writing.
If the greater part of the Hebrew nation became ac
quainted with the art of writing before the Exodus (a
circumstance which appears to me highly improbable),
they must have acquired it under Egyptian tuition, and
become necessarily accustomed to the Egyptian written
character. But, if the art of writing had been acquired by no
single Hebrew previous to the departure from Egypt, still
Moses, their great leader, was an adept therein, and he
wrote certainly with no other than Egyptian characters,
for he had received in the Court of Pharaoh an entirely
Egyptian education. Now Moses was the father of all
Hebrew authors, the auctor classicus of his nation ; he was
the sacred source out of which all subsequent Hebrew writers
drew their language, imagery, and conceptions : would
they not have adhered also to the form of letters employed
by him?

120 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Now the Egyptians, in the very earliest times, had
adopted the Phcenician character, partly rediscovered by
Count Caylus and Buttner on the half-illegible mummy-
bandages : the Hebrew writers, then, used the Phcenico-
Egyptian characters.1
Section 66. — 2. Proof from Tradition, and (3) from
Old Coins.
Herewith also agrees the ancient tradition preserved
by Jerome : ' In antiquis Hebraeorum litteris,' says he on
Ezekiel ix., ' quibus usque hodie utuntur Samaritani ' (as the
good Church Father imagined), ' extrema Thau litera cruris
habet similitudinem.' This is evident in the Egyptian
alphabet on mummy-bandages, in the Phcenician on coins,
in the so-called ancient Samaritan on coins, and in the
uncial writing of the Greeks brought by Cadmus with
him into Greece — everywhere has the Thau retained its
ancient cruciform figure.2
Finally, with the Phoenician-Egyptian alphabet the
features of the writing used in the legends on the so-called
1 Caylus, Recueil d' Antiq. Egypt, t. i. p. 65 f., t. v. p. 77. Biittner's
Tables of Comparison of the Kinds of Writing of various Nations im Past
and Present Times, vol. i., Goettingen, 1771, tab. ii. n. 2 ; only all the
single consonants introduced into the comparison-tables are not, accord
ing to their significations, sufficiently developed, and hence also not so
arranged as to leave no doubt about them. Compare Biittner's own con
fession, §§ 12, 13.
2 Biittner's Comparison Tables, vol. i. tab. ii. n. 2, compare with
n. 1, col. 2 ; further, Explication de quelques medailles de peuples, de
villes et de Rois Grecques et Phenioiennes, par M. L. Dutens (a Londres,
chez John Thane, 1773). In his third copper-plate Dutens has brought
together those consonants which according to the unanimous opinion of
scholars are held to be purely Phoenician. This plate has been copied
in Michaelis's Oriental and Exegetical Library, Part viii. § 16. The
most important work on Phoenician coins is that of Francis Percy Bagen,
De nummis Hebreso-Samaritanis (Valentise Edetanorum, MDCCLXXXI),

CHARACTERS USED IN WRITING 121
Samaritan coins are nearly allied. They are engraved
certainly by Jews and not by Samaritans. For in the
most part, on one side is found an urn with manna and
the inscription 7RW1 bp&, ' a shekel of Israel ' ; on the
other side is the almond-rod of Aaron, with the words,
nfcHpn them'; < Jerusalem the Holy City.' As to the rest,
certainly all the extant specimens of these coins are not the
work of fraud, busy about them as it may have been :
doubtless many exist struck after the model of real ancient
exemplars.1 The genuine old coins, even if struck after
the Babylonian captivity, may still afford evidence concern
ing the alphabet in use among the Hebrews before that
event. For in the case of coins and inscriptions it was
customary to employ the old character, although it may
have been long superseded by a new style. Thus the
Arabs used the Kufic letters on their coins long after the
introduction among them of the Nes-chi.
For the reasons produced it appears to me of the
highest probability that the Hebrew writers wrote with the
letters of the Phoenico-Egyptian alphabet. If a desire
still exist to call it the old Samaritan, because an
acquaintance with a variety of it was first gained from the
so-named Samaritan coins, the term will be at least used
in a very improper sense, and occasion easily given, as ex
perience already shows, to confound the old Samaritan
1 The specimens of these coins found and described, together with the
works which treat of them, have been tabulated by Everh. Dav. Hauber.
See his information concerning the Jewish (generally called Samaritan)
coins, and the works published respecting them, together with copper
plate representations. Copenhagen, 1778. 8. The genuineness of these
coins has been disputed by Wagenseil, in Soter, p. 575. (See Carpzov,
Crit. S. pp. 235, 236, and Basnage in the ' History of the Jews,' and 01.
Gerh. Tychsen in a small piece entitled Concerning the Spuriousness of
the Jewish Coins with Hebrew and Samaritan Letters, Rostock, 1779. 8.
Of the controversies concerning them in modern times there is an
abstract in Eichorn's Gen, Lib. of Bib, Ut. Part vi 534-649,

122 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
writing on coins with the modern in the Jewish-Samari
tan Pentateuch.

Section 67. — Introduction of the Chaldean Square
Character after the Babylonian Captivity.
This Phoenician or Phoenico-Egyptian alphabet was
the oldest form of letter-writing, and common to the entire
East, in which the new Samaritan in the Hebraeo-
Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Chaldean square writing
in our Bible-editions, lay as embryos, to be in time
developed by the lapse of millennia and the work of
men's hands. The changes suffered by single letters in
the countries where this character was used, were so great
that finally the original agreement of the alphabet in use
in Palestine and Chaldea was scarcely discernible by the
smallest traces.
When the best part of the Hebrew nation were com
pelled by Nebuchadnezzar to exchange their ancient abode
on the Jordan for a new one on the Euphrates and the
Chaboras (Habor?) an entire metamorphosis was under
gone by the Jews. Mixed up and in perpetual inter
course with the native inhabitants of Chaldea and Assyria,
they became accustomed to a new language and a new form
of writing. Seventy years after, a great part returned
indeed to the land of their ancestors ; but a return to ancient
manners, the old language and written characters was
beyond imagination, and the national writings brought by
the colonists with them back were for the multitude sealed
hieroglyphics, to which but a few possessed the key —
namely, an acquaintance with the ancient alphabet.
Soon after the planting of the new State in Palestine,
the venerable remains of the Hebrew literary world before
the Babylonian exile were collected ; what more prudent

CHALDEAN SQUARE CHARACTER 123
step could be then taken than to exchange the old and
obsolete alphabet for the new one already in use ? The
old tradition in Jerome and the Talmud attributes this
useful service to Ezra. ' Certum est,' says Jerome, in the
Prologus Galeatus, 'Esdram scribam legisque doctorempost
captam Hierosolymam et instaurationem templi cum
Zorobabele, alias litteras reperisse ' (so far as the man who
introduces or brings something new into fashion is fre
quently termed its inventor) 'quibus nunc utimur, cum
ad illud usque tempus iidem Samaritanorum et Hebras-
orum characteres fuerint. Et tot litteris Pentateuchus a
Samaritanis descriptus est quot Hebraeus, quae figuris
tantum et apicibus differunt.' Just so also speaks the
Talmud, ' Tract. Sanhedrim,' sec. 2.
I consider this tradition so consonant with the situa
tion of the Jews and all their external circumstances that
according to my historical feeling I am unable so directly
to reject it. The difficulties in the transcription of the
Bible would not be greater than those encountered when
the uncial letters of the Greek and Latin manuscripts were
exchanged for the cursive character.1
1 To avoid mistakes, I repeat again expressly, that the square letters
introduced after the Babylonian captivity are not to be considered as
an entirely new kind of writing, quite different from the ancient, but
only as a variety thereof ; that our present Chaldean square letters
must have been different in many points from those in the time of
Ezra, and approached very closely the old writing in use before the
Babylonian captivity (and also our present Samaritan in many of the
consonants). On the stay of the Jews in the land of their conquerors
their old writing became either adulterated with that variety of a
common mother they had made acquaintance with in their exile, or the
Jews adopted altogether the style in use in Chaldea ; in both cases the
Hebrew writing became extremely vacillating and uncertain. Ezra put
an end to this uncertainty in the form of writing, or use of a double
though allied alphabet, the Chaldean or the Hebrew mixed with it ;
introduced, on the founding of the new national library, a fixed form
of writing, out of which, in the course of centuries (for under human

124 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
' But Josephus and Philo are silent upon the matter.'
As if they were under a necessity of speaking upon it !
They are silent also upon the collection of the writings of
the Old Testament after the Babylonian captivity ; and yet
it will be denied by no one that such collection was made
soon after the occurrence of that event. Finally, at the
bottom of such traditions a real fact usually exists, even
should it not answer in detail to the strictest historical
truth. ' But did not Ezra act unwisely in rendering at once
all previous manuscripts useless ? ' As if the Old Testa
ment before had been so often transcribed ! The Books of
Moses, perhaps also some few besides, may have been extant
in numerous copies ; but were there numerous copies also
of a complete collection of all the books written before the
captivity ? Finally, the books composed during and after
the Babylonian captivity were, in all probability, written
agency, which is always altering, improving, and destroying, no alpha
bet can remain the same) the square alphabet of our Hebrew writing
was formed. Ezra then fixed the writing in which thenceforth the
holy books were to be copied ; this appears from the above reasons ex
tremely probable ; but whether the character of their conquerors
adopted by the Jews in their captivity, or a corrupt style from the
mixture of two allied descriptions of writing, the old Hebrew and
Babylonian, was the cause moving him thereto, must be left to the
judgment of every one. In either case, however, the undertaking
of Ezra was most valuable. Still it was not in the power of Ezra to
prevent all future changes in the alphabet ; more especially does it ap
pear liable to mutations as long as it was the common character used
on all occasions of business in every-day life before the formation of a
more appropriate running-hand out of it. Whether, however, the
changes were great or small which affected the separate consonants up
to that time, cannot be determined ; but with great certainty it may be
assumed that since the Talmud and Jerome the features of our square
writing have remained essentially unaltered, for isolated trifles, hookings
together, and embellishments, which leave the shapes of the consonants
but little changed, cannot here come under consideration.

VOWEL-POINTS 125
in the Chaldean square character, which was familiar to
their authors. From this consideration does not the adopted
transcription of the Old Testament become probable ? '
Section 68. — 4. Vowel-points.
The Phcenico-Egyptian character had vowel-marks, as
may be seen from Biittner's ' Tables of Comparison.' The
Hebrew authors may at that time then have provided their
writings with vowels.
But it was no necessary matter. In like manner as the
Arabs in the first centuries after Mahomet wrote their Koran
entirely without vowels, and yet read and understood it,2
and as the Persians in our own times read fluently their
books without vowel -points,3 just so might a born Jew, by
virtue of his language being still a living one, have under
stood without much difficulty his ancient national books,
even if written without points.
1 Respecting the controversy concerning the primitive alphabet of
the 0. T. as far as it has hitherto been carried on, sufficient information
may be obtained from the following works : — For the age of the square
alphabet Jo. Buxtorf. Dissert, w. philologioo-theologicee ; Steph. Morinus
De Lingua Primiesva, Part ii. c. 4, p. 187 ; Wolfii Biblioth. Hebr.
t. ii. p. 419. Their arguments are in part wretched. 1. Matt. v.
17, 18. 2. The (counterfeit) Jewish coins with Chaldean inscriptions.
3. The (fictitious) epitaphs of Abraham, Isaac, and other patriarchs.
4. The variations of the Hebrew- Samaritan Pentateuch from the
Hebrew-Jewish, which should occur most frequently where in the
Chaldean alphabet the consonants are very nearly allied in figure. For
the age of the old Samaritan alphabet the authorities have been com
pletely collected by Walton, Proleg. ad PoVygl. (Londin.). Many of these
are also wretched, as for instance, that from Daniel i. 4. The latest
work which has reduced the reasonings of both parties into a satisfactory
abridgment is that of Joseph Dobrowsky, De Antiquis Hebresorum
Characteribus Dissertatio, in qua speciatim Origenis Hieronymique fides
Josephi Flavi testimonio defenditur (Pragse, 1783. 8). The author is an
advocate for the high antiquity of the Samaritan letters.
2 Herbelot, Biblioth. Orient, p. 87 ; Sale, Proleg. in Coran.
3 Chardin, Voyage en Perse, t. iii. p. 148.

126 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
But it is not at all probable that the authors of the
writings of the Old Testament supplied them with vowel-
points throughout; for, 1. The old translators altogether,
the Seventy interpreters, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion,
Jerome, the Syrian, Chaldean, Arabian, in translating
from the Hebrew, vary, in all the books of the Old Testa
ment, in endless passages, not merely from our present
punctuation, but also amongst themselves from one another
in pointing single words. Is it probable that not one of
them all could obtain a pointed manuscript, or might have
possessed one accidentally, even allowing that pointed
codices at their time were extremely rare ? Is it not rather
much more to be inferred that at that time not a single
manuscript existed supplied throughout with vowels ? The
Chaldean paraphrase, however, agrees in the punctuation
of single words, much oftener than all the other ancient
versions, with our pointed Masoretic text — sometimes for
tunately, sometimes otherwise (that is, even where the
most modest and considerate critic must reject the punctua
tion) — but not because its authors had manuscripts pro
vided with vowels before them (for even they endlessly
vary from our points), but because subsequent punctuators
availed themselves of their labour as a commentary, or
because they had before them the sense of the Old Testa
ment according to their church version, as our expositors
in their labours had often Luther's translation, since they
from their youth upwards had been accustomed to that as
we to this.
2. Origen or whoever was the author of the Hebrew
text printed in Greek characters, adopted by every critic,
in the Hexapla, was not in possession of a thoroughly
pointed manuscript, and hence wrote the Hebrew words
after a very fluctuating pronunciation and differing from
our present pointing. Let a comparison anywhere in

VOWEL-POINTS 127
Montfaucon's Hexapla be made — for instance, Hos. xi. 1,
¦)(i vsp 'IcrparfX ovsafir/ov oi fiep,p,scrpaifi KapaQi ftavi,
where "BJ3 is given as the expression instead of "IV3 and
inan&l instead of -wan'so.
3. Jerome expresses himself in such a manner of his
Hebrew MS. that it could not possibly have been pointed
throughout : sometimes he finds both the pronunciation
and the sense of words unfixed for the want of vowels, but
soon after everything is plain by their presence. Thus he
speaks of Habak. iii. 5 : ' Pro eo quod nos transtulimus
mortem, in Hebraeo tres litterae sunt positae, 13T absque
ulla vocali ; quae si legantur dabar, verbum significant,
si deber, pestem.' l On the other hand, 1 B. Moses xlvii. 33,
his manuscript decided by certain points, nap (bed), is to be
read and not ntgD (sceptre). ' Hoc loco,' he says, ' quidam
frustra simulant, adorasse Jacob summitatem sceptri
Joseph, quod videlicet honorans filium potestatem ejus
adoraverit, cum in Hebrceo multum aliter legatur, " et
adoravit Israel ad caput lectuli." ' Compare ' Quaastiones in
Genes.' xxvi. 12.
4. Also the Talmud in its disputes respecting single
passages of the Old Testament sometimes supposes pointed
words and elsewhere unpointed. When the Talmudists
contend whether Moses 2 B. xxi. 8, is to be read i"lji33
Pin or FI3 il?33,2 or Moses 3 B. xii. 5, Dtyat? or D'jntp,3
1 Compare Jerome ad Jerem. ix. 22 ; Ep. ad Evagr. 126 ; Question.
in Genes, xxxvi. 24, &c. Concerning the vowels in Jerome's Hebrew
MS. see Repertorium for Bib. and Eastern Lit. Part ii. § 270 : and on
the other hand 01. Gerh. Tychsen, Recollections, in the same, Part iii.
§ 127 f.
2 Tract. Kidush. c. 1, fol. 18, a, b.
3 Tract. Sanhedrim, c. 1, fol. 4, p. 1. See also 01. Gerh. Tychsen
respecting the age of the Hebrew points in the Repertorium for Bib.
and Eastern Lit. Part iii. § 105 ff . Of his learned remarks I can quote
many for my opinion, although different from his.

128 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
the notice of these different pronunciations, since both
times the same consonants appear, presupposes certain
signs by which the variation of the utterance is decided.
But on the other side had thoroughly pointed manuscripts
existed in the times of the Talmudical doctors, they
would not have differed respecting the pronunciation of so
many single words; appeals would have been made to
manuscripts and the disputes decided by them, or a contest
would have arisen respecting the value of manuscripts which
pointed the same passage in various ways. But on these
occasions manuscripts are not at all mentioned ; it is
recorded, however, that Joab finished the strife with his
teacher as to whether 5 B. Moses xxv. 19, ia{ or "I3.t was
the right reading in the same manner as Alexander solved
the possibility of loosing the Gordian knot by the sword.
Finally, the treatise ' Sopherim ' is quite silent about
points. Why, then, did it order the transcriber of the
Thora not to leave his copy without points ?
Section 69. — Probably Vowel-points were used by the
Authors here and there.
The result of these remarks is that, down to the fifth
century after the birth of Christ, there are many appear
ances which contradict the idea of a complete punctuation
of all words in the Bible. Still in Jerome and the
Talmud traces enough of vowel-points and isolated pointed
words and passages occur. In order to reconcile these
contradictory appearances, it will be necessary to admit
that originally vowel-points were applied only here and
there to single words and sentences by the authors them
selves, or at least in early times by the readers of their
writings. 1. It was useful here and there, by means of vowel-

VOWEL-POINTS 129
marks, to fix sense and pronunciation. Still, however, in
most cases, a native Jew was just as able to read without
difficulty an unpointed book as an ancient Arab or a
modern Persian (sec. 68). But still ambiguous passages
occurred, where there was danger of missing the sense of
the- author, as 1 B. Moses xi. 3, TOr6 drh rvn ionn, or
4 B. Moses xii. 6, n&OD. The application of a few vowel-
points in such cases, while the Hebrew was a living
language, would prevent all mistakes.1 And after it became
a dead language, all future misunderstandings which might
now have arisen in a book composed of consonants without
vowel-marks, were prevented by an all-wise Providence,
which raised up grammarians to provide, guided by their
mother-tongue, words with vowel-points.
2. It was agreeable to analogy. In the Arabic and
Syrian manuscripts the sense of ambiguous passages
is here and there fixed by the application of vowel-points,
whioh probably originate with the authors.
3. It was possible. For it is a groundless opinion that
in the invention of the most ancient Oriental alphabets no
provision was made for vowels.2 Syllable-writing accord-
1 Without the supposition of certain marks in many places, the
origin of the selected punctuation is inexplicable. Job xxxi. 36, fl'nt3J7
is in the plural, when the connection rather requires niDUi an<I
Zech. vi. 11, the removal of the plural nilDSJ is still more desirable, and
yet the LXX must have found a mark which decided for the plural, since
they translate o-reipavovs. In other places our vowels are placed with
such propriety, as to lead the mind unconsciously to foreign aid from
the hand of the author. For instance, 1 Samuel ii. 20 5J}J ; 2 B. Moses
xxxi. mijff, &o.
2 Herder, in the Spirit of Hebr. Poesy, Part i. § 28, says very strik
ingly : ' Who would write letters without aspiration, which animates
them 1 since upon the last everything depends, and it in reality is
easier to denote in a general way than the various sounds of the organs.
K

130 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
ing to the progress of human inventions, as described
by history, must have preceded letter-writing. And then
also in all the kinds of Oriental writing with which we have
a nearer acquaintance, three vowel-marks are to be seen.
I. The Phcenico-Egyptian alphabet on the mummy-
bandages is supplied with vowel-points, and in my opinion
indeed with three (Biittner's ' Tables of Comparison,' tab. ii.
n. 2, compare sec. 13).
II. Just so with the Syrian alphabet, (a) The Sabaso-
Syrian syllable-character, used by the Nabataeans (Chris
tians of St. John, Mendai Ijai), has three consonants
united with vowels (Biittner's ' Tables of Comparison,'
tab. i. n. 3).
(b) The Syrian alphabet, in which the manuscript -of
the Syrian Bible-version was written, used by Ephraim
the Syrian in the fourth century, had also vowel-points
by which the expression and sense of such words were
distinguished as in point of consonants only were the
same. ' Sciendum est,' he writes on 1 Book Moses xxxvi.
24, ' quod in utroque hue usque testamento semper
IXqjo (Chemre) invenerimus, non autem ^£»Q-»j (Chmore),
ut putant aliqui ex inscitia.' x Now it is evident from
this passage that the Syrian alphabet both before and
in the time of Ephraim had vowel-points, but not how
many. But from the history of the Syrian alphabet
it becomes extremely probable that three only were
capable of application. For after the sixth century, when a
Syrian Cadmus, Mar Amer, penetrated into Arabia, the
Syrians were then unable to communicate to their scholars
in the art of writing, the Arabians, more than three vowel-
If the more difficult were once accomplished, the easier task, upon
which, too, the whole object of the labour rested, would not be left un
completed.' 1 Ephraem Syri Opp. t. i. p. 184. In Catena.

VOWEL-POINTS 131
marks, for the Cufic character possessed at that time no
more.1 Nay, in the year of Christ 770 they possessed not so
many vowel-points as the Greeks had vowels. For when
at that time the Maronite Jacob of Edessa wished to
translate Homer into the Syrian, he found himself deficient
in vowel-marks to express with sufficient accuracy in
Syrian letters the Greek nomina propria. He was there
fore compelled to place the Greek vowels over the Syrian
consonants.2 Now the Syrians before Ephraim probably used the
writing in which the Palmyrenean inscriptions are com
posed, which in part at least took their origin in the first
centuries after the birth of Christ. This writing is purely
Hebrew, and nearly allied with our square alphabet.3
Our square character, then, in which subsequent to the
Babylonian captivity the books of the Old Testament were
written, must have been in like manner supplied with
three vowel-marks. On the Palmyrenean inscriptions, how
ever, no vowel-marks are visible ; and on coins and stone
inscriptions such trifles, which are difficult to introduce,
are generally entirely omitted.
Or, if it be preferred to make the Syrians before
Ephraim use rather the Estranghelo, this latter, for the
above reason, was in possession of three vowel-points.
Now the Estranghelo bears so strong a resemblance to
the features of the Palmyrenean character that one must
necessarily be derived from the other ; and my inference,
drawn from the structure of the square character intro-
1 Adler, Descriptio Codicum quorundam Cuficorum, p. 30 ; compare
the second plate annexed to this treatise.
2 Abulfuragii Historia Dynastarum, p. 40, c. 228 ; Assemani
Biblioth. Orient, t. i. pp. 64, 521.
3 Biittner's Tables of Comp. tab. i. n. 1, col. 1.

132 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
duced after the Babylonian captivity, remains immovably
estabhshed.1 III. Even the punctuation now in use proceeds on the
supposition of three vowel-marks - 1. The Sheva is only
joined with A, E, and 0 (which may be compared with
the three vowel-points of the Arabs — Fatha, Kesre, and
Dhamma) ; why not with more, why not also with Khirik
and Kibbuts, if our present numerous points were already
in use in very ancient times ? 2. The forms of the verbs
proceed upon three chief forms in combination with three
vowels ^>DpT 3iiK ^bj as in the Arabic. With the nouns,
however, the reference to their principal forms is far more
difficult and entangled ; but where there is still a possi
bility of coming at the basis, three chief-forms with A, E,
and 0, are visible, as with the nominibus sw.golatis ?p9,
?PS, and ?ps,2 and which is again the case in the Arabic.
3. The arbitrary change of vowels — that is, that which is
not occasioned by any consonant producing anomalies, nor
by any other cause which can be assigned out of the other
1 Schultens, in order to confirm the previous theory of the gradual
origin of our present numerous vowel-points, cites from the book Cosri
' that originally only three vowel-points could have existed, since in
the seventh century they had been converted into three classes of
vowels, into which the seven vowels of the Greeks had been inserted :
fl. Komats = o ,, p . , _
1. Komats-^ 2. Cholem = u 2. Patachs^ *- £ata°n - °
U.Shurek =» \5.Segol =e
o oi.,,, / 6. EMrek = i
3. Sheba | 7 Tgere =ri,
"• See Schultens' Institut. L. H. p. 48. After him this remark was
used by Joh. David Michaelis in the Observationes de Syrorum Vocalibus
ex Ephreemo (in the Com.mentationes in Societ. Reg. Scient. Goetting.
per annos 1755-1762 presleetce, Bremse, 1784, § 167 ff.). But after
what has been advanced against it by Dresde (in the preface to the
Elementa Sermonis Hebr.), and Trendelenburg (in the Repertorium of
Bibl. and Eastern Lit. Part xviii. n. 2), this argument must be given
up.

VOWEL-POINTS 133
Oriental languages — appears to bring back our present
numerous vowel- points to three chief ones, and to declare
the rest for signs only of the finer graduations of the
principal sound. At pleasure are made to reciprocate with
one another N, 8, and 8 ; also X, !<, and tf ; and finally
i, 1, S, and K Khattiph,1 out of which three vowel-classes
arise: 1, to class A, which agrees with the Fatha of
the Arabians, belong Kam6ts, Pathakh, and Seg6l ; 2, to
class E, the Kesre of the Arabs, Khirik, and Segfil ; 3, to
class 0, the Dhamma of the Arabs, belong Shurek,
Kamets-Khatuph, and Kibbiits ; 4, and this entire repre
sentation is perhaps confirmed by the division into simple
and composite vowels, made by the Jewish grammarians.
This, perhaps, became usual after not merely the principal
but the inferior tones also were provided with signs, and
was transmitted to the later Rabbins by oral tradition.
According to Ebn Ezra, Kholem, Khirik, and Pathakh are
simple vowels ; the rest, the composite, arose out of these
by the combinations of many points and strokes. If then
in the oldest times, the most simple of our present vowel-
marks of each class served for all kinds of tones, a
point over the word indicated doubtless the class 0, a point
under the word the class E, and a fine stroke under the word
the class A, according to a simplicity observed also by the
Cufic and present Arabian alphabet with regard to the signs
and situations of vowels. Is not the entire East in favour
of this representation? 2
1 We say at pleasure Sppn and !?DpP, V. and TJ, K>n and B>n,
$ and J3, D31! and D3T, T\'bfq'0 and TvbfQQ, Vpfo. and Klh.,
DIP) and Dip;, D'")X and D'"VIX, 33^0 and 33£?>n, DPO and Dpjin,
n|?^rj and D^fn, &c.
2 What, suitably to my purpose, I could only here touch upon, has
been clearly and fully demonstrated by Von Trendelenburg in the

134 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Section 70. — Result of the Previous Inquiry.
From the foregoing observations we may conclude to a
certainty in my opinion that the ancient Hebrews possessed
vowel-points, but not the entire number now in use, in
all probability only three; that the old Hebrew authors
may have supplied their books with vowels indeed, but not
throughout ; and that our present system of punctuation
arose late, probably not till the Hebrew had become a dead
language. Until that event sufficient care to secure the
sense of a word and the true pronunciation of a word would
have been taken, if in general the chief sound intended to
be heard in any syllable were indicated by a point, and the
task left to the living language to mark the finer gradua
tion of tone, each time meant to be joined with the general
vowel-point. But when the Hebrew began to be a dead
language, or had become already such, it was difficult to
hit always the right sound of the general vowel-mark, and
assign to each word its due fineness of intonation ; and it
became a necessity to separate the various possible sounds
belonging to each vowel-point, and to attach, as far as
possible, to each shade of the same some peculiar mark.
But because, either (through the complete death of the
Repertory for Bibl. and Eastern Literature, Part xviii. § 78 ff. Gene
rally speaking, the high antiquity of our artificial system of punctuation,
just on account of its very subtilisation, would have been long ago
brought into doubt had the examination been less in the hands of
mere closet-students, for whom nothing can be too fine drawn, and who,
from mere self-deception, imagined that all sounds are capable of
being expressed in writing, or used to be so expressed. Who has ever
yet invented signs for every vowel of every dialect of our tongue, and
who uses them ? They ought besides to be only general signs. Every
one modifies the sounds they indicate according to his organs; and was,
in fact, the pronunciation of the Hebrews so finely regulated as we
fancy 1 Perhaps it was just as lawless as the old German language
according to Ditfried.

VOWEL-POINTS 135
Hebrew language now already accomplished) it was no
longer possible in every case to give the exact tone of the
vowel formerly heard, or because the ear of the Jews who
commenced our system of punctuation was by the influence
of other dialects already too much untuned ; or because,
frequently even in the Ufe of the Hebrew language, in
certain syllables certain allied vowel-tones reciprocated
with each other ; or because it was not possible accurately
to express in writing the delicacies of every shade, in the
carrying out of the punctuation, in the same word in
different places, vowels of the same class were at pleasure
exchanged with one another. This was the true cause of
that arbitrary change of vowels, which now encumbers with
such difficulty an accurate acquisition of the Hebrew lan
guage, and forms the great difference between the Hebrew
and other Oriental dialects.
History of the Controversy respecting the Age
of our Hebrew Vowel-Points.
Jacob Percy de Valencia in his commentary on the
Psalms first denied the so-called divine authority of our
present punctuation. Elias Levita next to him has ex
pressed the same opinion ; therefore Deyling might have
spared his congratulations to all Christendom, that no
Christian but a Jewish head (Elias Levita as he supposed)
hatched the fancy of the recent origin of our present usual
punctuation. Since that time the question of its antiquity
has become a ball for the amusement of philosophical
polemics. The contest assumed its liveliest phase between
the two Buxtorfs, father and son, and Cappellus. Buxtorf,
the father, brought forward his system in the ' Tiberias '
(cap. viii. p. 880 ff.), in reply to which Cappellus wrote
his ' Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum,' which Buxtorf, the

136 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
son, answered in the ' Tractatus de Punctorum Origine,
Antiquitate,' &c. This last work was rejoined to by Cap
pellus in the ' Vindiciae Arcani Punctat. Revel.,' printed to
gether with his first work in Cappelli ' Commentarii et Not.
Critic' (Amstel. 1689, fol.). Since that time sides only
have been taken in this matter — some scholars have adhered
to Buxtorf, others to Cappellus. Buxtorfs proofs for the
high antiquity of our punctuation were : 1, without
vowel-points the sense of the Old Testament would be
uncertain; 2, Matthew v. 18, by the words p,ia Kspaia
vowel-points must be understood; 3, some passages out of
the Book Zohar and the Talmud. Cappellus, on the
other side, and his followers refer : 1, to the old Samaritan
alphabet on coins, which is without vowel-points ; 2, to the
unpointed manuscripts, and particularly the unpointed
Thora ; 8, to the old Bible translators ; 4, to Origen and
Jerome, who knew as little about pointed manuscripts as, 5,
the Talmud and the Corpus Cabbalisticum. (See Tychsen
concerning the age of the Hebrew vowels, in the ' Reper
torium for Bib. and Eastern Literature,' pt. iii. sec. 102 ff.)
In modern times, as far as I am aware, Schultens first
brought anything fresh to bear on the subject. He takes,
according to the analogy of the other Eastern alphabets,
some vowel-marks as primitive and used by Hebrew
authors; only he nowhere supports his opinion at large
(Schultens' 'Institut. Ling. Hebr. 'praef. 3, pp. 48-62 ff).
Since his time Joh. Dav. Michaelis has published his
unsatisfactory grounds for the high antiquity of our
present punctuation in the second part of his miscella
neous writings. In order to test the satisfactory grounds
adduced by me, compare besides the above-named works
Dupuy,' Dissertation philologique et critique sur les voyelles
de la langue hebraique,' in the ' Histoire de l'Academie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,' &c, t. 36 (Par. 1775, 4);

ACCENTS 137
Matth. Norberg,' Dissert. de'Hebraeorum Vocalibus ' (Lund.
1784, 4) ; Trendelenburg, Treatise in the ' Repert. for Bibl.
and Eastern Lit. ' pt. xviii. n. 2.
Section 71. — 5. Accents.
If the present series of vowels did not exist in the
oldest times, the whole entangled train of diacritical points,
together with the fixing of the accents connected with
them, falls to the ground.
Our accents, according to their present number and
application, cannot possibly be contemporary with the
writers of the Old Testament. Now they serve to show
the syllable of emphasis and the relation of one word to
another. Is it possible that a language in its life-time
can require such crutches to keep up its accent, especially
since, as experience teaches, the pronunciation can never
be marked with sufficient accuracy by signs, and is acquired
most easily and exactly by the ear ? Is it possible that
such signs for accentuation could ever be in use amongst
a people the major part of whom were never learned,
and of whom very few possessed the ability of reading
written characters, when language, whilst spoken, was
never elaborated by grammarians? Finally, can the
Hebrews have fixed the accentuation in so uniform a mode
and exactly in that prescribed by the accents ?
And first the quantitas relativa, indicated by the
accents ; would any people encumber its living language
with such wretched fancies ? Is it not absurd to suppose
that every author should cut up his text into verses, and
then subsequently accent it ? Theories of this kind
come forth the indelibly-stamped painful progeny of
indolent grammarians ! Finally, with our present accen
tuation what is taken for granted? Separate position of

138 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
each word, and division into verses — all of which is later
than the origin of the Hebrew Writings (sec. 73-77) ; can,
then, the high age of our order of accents be compatible
with this ?
Still, if not all at present in use, yet the greatest part
of our accent-forms must have been introduced into some
at least, if not into all, the books of the Old Testament by
the ancients. Without this supposition I should be quite
at a loss to explain the singular idea of marking by means
of signs the relation either near or remote in which a word
should stand connected with its next neighbour. Certain
signs being already in existence whose true original appli
cation nobody was any longer acquainted with, Jewish
heads may be imagined to have played with them a long
time in good Rabbinical wise ; a Rabbi of eminence then
arose, who out of the separate recreations formed a system
atic whole : thus the origin of so singular an invention may
be more easily realised.
Now the Hebrews had attained a certain proficiency
in music. David and Solomon maintained regular choirs.
Here nothing was to be done without musical notes.
It is therefore a very probable tradition that our accent-
figures were placed as notes under their songs by the
poets (who in the old world were always at the same
time their own composers), in order to regulate the course
of singing and of the accompanying instruments.
But in that case accents could only be expected in
songs and metrical books ; in prose works, on the contrary,
they would be absent. Not till later, at a time when the
old destination of notes was long forgotten, it was thought
necessary to apply them to prose books. Since in the East
even now prose is oftener sung than read, how intelligible
is the conception of applying these notes to prose books also,
and to fix the quantitatem relativam, as well with regard to

ACCENTS 139
modulation as the explanation and permanence of the
sense. The prose books, however, contain longer periods ;
therefore the invention of new accent forms and a new
prosaical accentuation, differing from the metrical, could
not be dispensed with.1
However new our present accentuation may be, it
still follows in many places primitive divisions, and expla
nations grounded thereupon, which must have been pre
served by tradition. Without this supposition at least no
explanation can be imagined why many ancient translators
agree with our accents as to divisions whose incorrectness
is evident on the slightest inspection. Thus we find
Aquila carried on, according to our accents, Psalm x. 15,
1HJ quite improperly to the second member of the verse :
Aj| ¦ 1 ->>Q oo^jA^j \l> ]j-2j] Oli^OJ *DQi ' vainly
does he inquire into his impiety ' (wt5H WTifl vii) ' that it
may not be found.' 2 In the fragment of the oldest manu
script of the LXX (perhaps the oldest in the world) in
the Cottonian Library are found characters for distinction
which are applied quite conformably to the Hebrew
accents — 1 Book Moses xxxv. 10 : — Kai slirsv avTm 6ti
to ovofxa crov 'IaKcoj3, ov KXr)8rjcrsTai sti 'la/cco/3 dXXa
'lo-parfX ; and in the Hebrew it stands ~pW Ijjff*. 1 Book
Moses xlviii. 6, Grabe marks croi icrovTai ' cum signo
distinctionis ' (VfV ~p) as in the Hebrew, since in the
printed Greek the break is put after dBsXcpcov aiiTcov.3
1 Jablonski, Praef . ad Bibl. Hebr. § 22 f. ; Christian Bened. Michaelis,
Dissertatio qua Ritualia Sacra ex Corano illustrantur, § 15 ; Chardin,
Voyage en Perse, t. i p. 127. The meaning of accentus with Jerome, see
in the Repertorium for Bibl. and Eastern Lit. Part ii. § 281 f. ; Part iii.
§ 141 f.
2 Repert. for Bib. and Eastern Lit. Part xiii. § 185.
' Repert. for Bib. and Oriental Lit. Part xiv. § 35.

140 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Section 72. — 6. Diacritical Points.
With the vowel-points and accents the other diacritical
points sink down to a lower age. I find in Jerome little
trace of the distinctive point of Shin from Sin, or of the
Dagesh strong and low, and Mappik and Raphe ; I find
many more passages which render their presence in his
manuscript improbable. (See below, sec. 125.)
Section 73. — 7. The Hebrews wrote Word to Word.
Greeks and Romans in the oldest times wrote word to
word, letter to letter, without leaving a small space between
single words. Grammarians first introduced separation of
words into the manuscripts of those authors which they used
as school books. This arrangement characterised also the
sacred Books of the Hebrews, and if an empty space was any
where left, it was only at the commencement of the principal
sections. 1. For otherwise what explanation can be adduced
why the oldest translators, not merely here and there (for in
that case they might have done it for the sake of the sense),
but in every book in numberless places, differ in their word-
divisions ? that they express in their versions sometimes a
more suitable separation of words and more adapted also to
the author, and sometimes one less convenient than that of
the Masoretical edition ? Here follow some examples out of
the many which I could cite. Hos. vi. 5 requires, accord
ing to the LXX, the Syrian, and the Chaldean, to be
divided NX! ""*« ^Stfp, and Jeremiah xxiii. 33, with the
LXX and Vulgate, «fipn nw instead of Kt?©-np-nN as it is
printed. 1 Chron. xvii. 10, Hebr. ^ n^J, the LXX tcai
aigrjcrco as, iV^KL Proverbs ii. 7, Hebr., Vulg., Chald.,
Syr., Dh '3?'np, the LXX, on the contrary, as one word,
DTV3^rfe ; compare Nahum ii. 6, Ps. lxviii. 25. Ps. cvi. 7,
DJ"?y the Hebrew, with all ancient texts, except the

NO DIVISION OF WORDS 141
LXX, who pronounced WW. Hos. xi. 2, Hebr. with all
ancient texts except the LXX, Dp^Bp ; the LXX in two
words, DO ^BP. Zeph. iii. 19, Hebr. ,i|!Jyp-l?3-n«! ; LXX on
the contrary TJ-VP? ^W sv croi kvsicsv crov. Cappellus, ' Crit.
Sac' lib. iv.,has collected more examples out of the LXX.
Only the Chaldean versions harmonise, in most in
stances, with our Masoretical division of words— sometimes
because here and there divided words were already found by
them (sec. 76) ; sometimes because in the division of words,
as well as in the punctuation (sec. 68, 1), they have been
followed ; sometimes because since their time the division
of words introduced by the Masorites has been altered.
With this view I will excerpt merely one page of the
Bible. Ps. xiii. 6, the final words of the two following
verses, ver. 12 and ver. 5 of Ps. xliii. show that some manu
scripts, the LXX, Vulgate, the Arabian, and Ethiopian,
conclude the verse more properly with 'rpN,1!. ^B, than the
printed text, with the Chaldean, Aquila, and Symmachus.
Ps. xliii. 2, Hebr., Syrian, and Chaldean ^yp 'tf'g ; the
LXX on the contrary, together with Jerome, the Vulgate,
and the Arabian, VV D'roN. Ps. xliv. 5, the printed text
and the Chaldean nJV O'lpN.; LXX, on the contrary
(Vulgate, Arabian, and Ethiopian), and the Syrian divide
more correctly, according to the parallelism, nj¥P *n?§.
2. Should not, then, the traditional saying of the
Jews be allowed to testify to this original shape of the
sacred books of the Hebrews, that ' formerly the whole
Law was merely one word,' or, according to another, one
verse only ? ' a saying which becomes so much more
1 Elias Levita, Matsoreth Hammassoreth, prssf. iii. ; R. Mose Ben
Nachman, Proem. Commentat. in Legem ; Hassenkamp's reasons against
E.ennicott's remarks upon 1 Sam. vi. 19, § 68. No wonder, then, that
even the Masorites do not everywhere agree in the division of words,
as Job xxxviii. 12 and other places. New divisions of words are there-

142 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
probable, since on the Samaritan and Phcenician coins and
Palmyrenean stone-inscriptions letter is linked on to
letter. 3. Nay, the ancient usage amongst the Jews of
writing a certain fixed number of consonants in each
line, and of suffering none to contain either more or less
than the rest, would not admit of this division of the words.
If a series of short words had come to stand in one
line, the room necessary for the separation of one word
from another would have occupied so much space that
the introduction of the fixed number of consonants would
have been impossible.1
4. Finally is it probable that amongst the ancient
nations, who all of them ranged letter on to letter, the
Hebrews should form an exception ? !
Section 74. — Whether the Final Consonants may not be
Considered Word-parters.
' But perhaps the known "final figures" were employed
to mark the end of single words. Were they in use as word-
dividers with the Hebrews — to what purpose then a space
between single words ? The final letter pointed out to the
reader how and where he should make his division.' But
1. Are the 'final figures' contemporary with the oldest
Hebrew authors ? The Talmud 3 and Jerome 4 are acquainted
fore a very happy means of clearing up unintelligible passages, and of
restoring the proportion of the members deranged by false combi
nations. 1 Tract. Menachot. c. 3, fol. 34 ; Morini Exercit. Bibl. p. 445.
2 Montfaucon, Palesographia Grceca, lib. i. c. 4, p. 32 ; Gattereci
Elementa Artis Diplomat, t. i. p. 52 ; Baringii Clavis Diplomatica,
p. 174. Kennicott, Dissert. Gener. § 28, mentions several Greek and
Latin MSS. written continua serie.
' See Kennicotti Dissert, super Rat. Text. Hebr. i. p. 520, ii. p. 200 ff. ;
Dissert. Gener. p. 56, § 28, ed. Bruns., particularly under § 114.
' Repert. for Bib. and East. Lit. Part iii. § 140.

FINAL CONSONANTS 143
with them ; they are found also on the monuments whose
inscriptions coincide with the birth of Christ, and are allied
with the square alphabet or the Palmyrenean stone-in
scriptions.1 Nay, they were already found in the Hebrew
manuscripts of the Alexandrian translators. But in the
Phcenician writing there is no trace of them either upon
mummies or coins ; is it probable, then, that they were
in use in the most ancient times ?
2. But, granted they were as old as the oldest Hebrew
author, is it likely that they were then in use as final
letters? How insufficient to the purpose would five
'final figures' have been, since the words occurring in the
Bible end with just as many consonants as are found
existing in the alphabet. Consequently not five but twenty-
two 'final figures' would have been necessary for this pur
pose! 3. Lastly, it is no longer conjecture but almost beyond
doubt, that words in the old times were not concluded by
final consonants, but that the office of letter-numerals was
filled by them when the number to be expressed was so
great as to be beyond the reach of the twenty-two con
sonants. As long as the ' final figures ' served as letters, in order to
avoid mistakes, it was not usual to end words with them.
But after the numerals were written at length, it was a
natural thought to use them as final letters.
In the Hebrew MS. of the LXX, where a number
1 Biittner's Tables of Comparison, tab. 1, n. 1, col. 1 ; Kennicotti
Dissert. General. § 28. The latest Palmyrenean inscription belongs to
year of Christ 263, Philosophical Transact, vol. xlviii. § 697. Respect
ing the final figures of the Palmyrenean inscriptions I should like
more certainty than I now possess. Kennicott affirms that in the
Palmyrenean inscriptions no words are set apart ; can they then
possess final figures 1

144 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
was expressed by consonants, and it was so high as to
exceed the reach of the twenty-two usual consonants, they
did the office of numerals. 1 Kings v. 16, the Hebrew text
has 300, the LXX, on the other hand, 600 ; B> 300 is ex
changed for D 600. 1 Chr. xii. 35, the printed text 600,
but the LXX, 800 ; here D 600 and *| 800 are trans
posed. Nehem. vii. 70 ; the Hebrew text 530 ; the LXX,
however, have only the small number 30. It is easy to
imagine how the large number 500 may disappear when
expressed by ~\ 500. On the other hand, the omission of
niND won is of more difficult solution. 1 Sam. xxiii. 13,
the printed text D 600 ; on the other hand, the LXX,
400 n. See Faber's 2 Programmes : ' Literas olim pro voci-
bus in numerando a scriptoribus V. T. esse adhibitas (1775,
4). On the other hand, words were not concluded by these
figures in the manuscript of the LXX. Ps. xliii. 2, and
xliv. 5, the division of words is opposed to the final
syllables. See above (sec. 73). Ps. lxiv. 7, the printed
textt^EinD can, the LXX stjspsvvcovTSs i^spsvvrjcrsi according
to a different division B>Bn DK>an. Zechar. xi. 7, the printed
text "iy p?, the LXX as one word sis ttjv XavaaviTiv.
Zechar. xi. 11, the printed text "JB p ; the LXX
oi ¥Lavavaioi. See Hassencamp's reasons against Kennicott
on 1 Sam. vi. 20 (sec. 38).
Section 75.— The Metrical Books also were written
Continua Serie.
It is not even probable that the purely metrical books
were at first written in verses, according to the metre ; at
the utmost a few songs in the historical books will form
an exception. 1. It is agreeable to analogy. For the Greek poets
also did not write their odes and songs according to the

WORDS NOT DIVIDED 145
number of syllables ; and their present adopted division
into verses, both in editions and manuscripts, originates
with the industry of grammarians.1
2. And how without this hypothesis is the phenomenon
to be explained that the old translators so often give
expression to a reading which implies a different division
of the members from that in use ; nay, that the Masoretical
division in manuscripts and editions is often entirely false
and opposed to the arrangement and structure of the
poem ? If at first all songs had been written in verses,
it must be admitted that subsequent to the time of the
authors no more attention has been paid to their metrical
divisions, and that from that time forth these have been
written continuously like the prose-books. Afterwards,
when again word was divided from word by inter
vening spaces, the members must first have suffered a false
division. But to what purpose all these circuitous routes
which are so little probable? Compare the false separa
tion Ps. xiii. 6 (above, sec. 73), and Ps. xiv. 12 (below,
sec. 77). Ps. xxxii. 9, the division would be more correct
as follows :
1123 D1D3 Vnn ?N Ne sitis instar equi mulique
31103 J^n px qui, frseno nunquam eruditus
Dl?3^ Viy JD11 aut capistro ornatus ad constringendum,
"p?N 311p 73 haud cuiquam appropinquare audet.
Psalm Ixxxvii. 1, 2 must be divided —
mrv 3ns trip mm irniD<
3ipy niwB'D ^>3D jvs nya>
See Schnurreri ' Animadversiones in quaedam loca
Psalmorum,' fasc. i. sec. 24, 34.
3. In our manuscripts and editions, whence the divi-
1 Schneider's Experiment on Pindar.

146 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
sion into verses in some songs ? Why did the Jews
prescribe to their caligraphists to write these alone and ho
others metrically ? Is it not likely that these alone
received this form from their authors, and that the Jews
enjoined its preservation only in obedience to the apparent
dictate of antiquity ? *
Section 76. — Wlien was the Continua Scriptio abolished?
The century when the words were first separated
cannot, for want of information, be fixed.2 Probably
it happened, as in Latin and Greek manuscripts, gradually ;
probably the empty space in the beginning extended only
to passages where a sentence or a section ended, but at
last to every word. History is silent also as to its first
occasion. Perhaps it arose from the custom of writing
only a certain number of consonants in a line ; perhaps
from the manner in which the Old Testament was read in
the synagogues.
In the older manuscripts the number of consonants for
each line was fixed, and the rule observed through the
entire manuscript. But still it was not possible to put the
same number of consonants in every manuscript, because
all were not of equal breadth. If the space of a new manu
script were too small to contain as many consonants in a
line as that from which a copy was being made, perhaps as
an index of the number of consonants in the codex used as
1 Massechet Sopherim. Yet even here at times mistakes have occurred,
which for the sake of impartiality I cannot pass over. For instance,
Judges v. 13, nifP Dy, evidently according to the LXX and parallelism
belongs to the second member. But such instances are for the most
part oversights of the MS. from whence our vulgar text is derived,
This is also the case here according to the Halle Bible.
2 Tychsen, Tent. p. 140, maintains that as early as David's time
word-divisions must have been in use because the alphabetical songs
suppose separate words; the ground of which I cannot perceive.

WORDS DIVIDED 147
exemplar an empty space was left where in the latter the
lines ended. Or perhaps the number of consonants in a
principal manuscript was preserved in the copies made
from it, in somewhat the same manner as, after the fifth
century, was the use with regard to the division of the
New Testament introduced by Euthalius.1
Or possibly, in the manuscripts destined for public use,
a space might have been left where the reader was to
stop and the interpreter with his explanation of the pre
vious reading to follow.2
Enough that about the birth of Christ the division of
words in manuscripts was not yet general, much less was
it extended to every word ; for the old authors of versions
after the birth of Christ vary in numberless instances
from the present accepted divisions of words.
In the above-quoted instances (sec. 73) ; the Syrian and
Chaldean, Hos. v. 5 ; Syr. and Chald., Ps. xliii. 2 ; the Syrian,
Ps. xliv. 5. Is. xvi. 8, the printed text, niD1!2>, Theodotion
aypoi 6a.va.Tov, that is TWO HE\ Is. lxiv. 1, the printed text
D'DOn, Symmachus exam; fj OaXacrcra, that is D» DOH. Ps. xlviii.
15, the printed text DID bv, the Chaldean (with LXX and
the Vulgate), Xl'loVy, <fcc.
Still traces of divided words are to be fonnd in the
Hebrew manuscript used by Jerome : ' Cur autem,' he writes
on Zech. xi. 11, 'pro eo, quod nos interpretati sumus
sic pauper es illi (the LXX) dixerunt Chananaeos, causa
manifesta est. Apud Hebraeos enim sic Chen dicitur ;
Anie pauperes ; illi duo verba in unum copulantes, pro eo,
quod est sic pauperes, hoc est Chen Anie, nomen Chan-
anaaae gentis interpretati sunt.' The ' duo verba ' with
Jerome must be declared forced if he were not able to
1 Michaelis' Introduction to the N. T. § 753, 3rd edit.
2 Morini Exercitationes Biblicce, p. 444 f . i. 2

148 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
refer to any divided words at all in his manuscript. See
Jerome's commentary on Isaiah xxxiii. 7.
And if, already in the first centuries after Christ, a
commencement here and there in the division of words
was made, the cause becomes also manifest why modern
translators of the Bible take part with our Masoretical
word-division where it is left by the elder.
Of the Syrian and Chaldean this is undeniable, if the ex
amples be only considered which were collected (sec. 73 f.), by
no means with the purpose of proving this point. Jeremiah
xxiii. 33, the expression in both as opposed to the LXX is
NCD ilD ns ; Ps. xliii. 2, Chaldean and Syrian agree with our
printed text ; Ps. xliv. 5, the Chaldean sides with the printed
text against the LXX and the Syrian.
Progress in this work was made from century to
century, for it was found very convenient not to be obliged
to have to divide the words of a dead language whilst it was
being read. Between the sixth and the tenth centuries,
when the present system of punctuation and accenting
was introduced, this laborious task must have been fully
accomplished, since accents in their present designation
and divided words are inseparably connected.
Section 77. — 8. Division into Verses.
If Moses and the Prophets had surrounded their text
with Athnakh and Silluk, together with its companion
Soph Pasuk, and the whole series of accents, it might
naturally follow that their books were already divided by
them into the small portions which we call verses,
D'plDB- But our accents in their present application, and
probably also as to their number, can scarcely be quite a
thousand years old (sec. 71) ; consequently our distribution
into verses, since that depends on them, bears the same date.

DIVISION INTO VERSES 149
1. Generally speaking, it is so unnatural to cut up a
writing, particularly a prose-composition, into such small
portions as verses are, that amongst the many singular
minds in the author-class of all known times and people, no
one has yet been found strange enough to cut up his own
writings in such a manner.
2. The ancient Bible-translators were not in possession
of a text with a division into words, much less into verses ;
they vary much from our verse-division, not merely where
the interpretation is concerned, but even also where our
verse-distribution is the result of a superior hermeneutical
tact. Thus, for instance, the LXX, Ps. xiv., join the
11th and 12th verses Kai irpoo-Kvvrjaovaiv aiiTco OvyaTspss
Tvpov, and spoil the fine passage of the original.
3. And if our distribution into verses originated with the
authors, the possibility of the introduction of divisions in
numberless instances entirely false and militating against
all sense would be incomprehensible.
See the above-cited passages, Ps. xiii. 6 (sec. 73), Ps.
lxxxvii. 1, 2 (sec. 75). Ps. Iv. 16, D31p3 belongs to verse 17.
Obad. 9, tapD, with the LXX, Vulg., Arabian, and Syrian,
should be carried on to the 10th verse. Esther ix., verses 16
and 17 should have been divided, by which the sense is only
rendered more difficult.
4. In Jerome and the Talmud no traces of verses are
visible. Jerome, however, divided the Latin translation into
cola and verses ; not, however, because the Hebrew text
gave occasion thereto, but from mere imitation of a like
division in Greek and Latin manuscripts. The Greeks
and Romans, in order to be able to calculate the extent of
a writing, were in the habit of writing their authors by the
line and of fixing a certain number of words to each line.

150 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
This custom was followed by Jerome, as he himself can
didly says in his preface to Isaiah : ' Nemo cum prophetas
versibus viderit descriptos, metro eos existimet ab Hebraeis
ligari, et aliquid simile habere de Psalmis et operibus
Salomonis ; sed quod in Demosthene et in Tullio fieri solet
ut per cola scribantur et commata qui utrique prosa et
non versibus scripserunt : nos quoque utilitati legentium
providentes interpretationem novam, novo scribendi genere
distinximus.' l
The Talmud also understands by verses, D^plDS, and by
lines, niD'B' or J'tW, merely such lines as I have just
described from Jerome ; hence the number of verses in the
Talmud does not agree with that in the Masora ; and
although some verses cited in the treatise Sopherim may
commence as ours at present in the Masoretical division,
this does not affect my supposition. For the quoted verses
are just of the kind with which Par ashen begin.2
5. Finally, perhaps also the Jewish expression that
formerly the whole law was one verse means that at that
time no division existed in the Book of the Law.
In short, our division into verses is contemporary with
our present accentuation.3
1 The passages quoted in the Repertory for Bibl. and Eastern Lit.
Part iii. § 140, seem to me to show the contrary.
2 Morini Exercitat. Bibl. pp. 442, 455.
* Still a notice is wanting to show how the indication of the verse
by ciphers was gradually introduced into the editions of the 0. T. The
Bomberg editions (whether all, however, I know not) are said already
to mark by number the recurrence of the fifth and tenth verses. Accord
ing to De Rossi, the Sabbionetan Pentateuch, of the year 1557, must
have been the first, or one of the first, editions in which the fifth verse is
always marked by its number (AnnaVi Ebreo-tiprografici di Sabbioneta,
p. 23). Athias' edition with Leusden's preface (Amsterd. 1661) is said
to have been the first in which all the verses were numbered with their
proper ciphers.

DIVISION INTO SECTIONS 151
Section 78. — 9. Par ashen.
After the Babylonian captivity synagogues were every
where established, in which portions from the Books of
Moses were required to be publicly read (Nehemiah viii.,
Acts of the Apostles xv. 21). This institution gave the
first occasion to the division of the Books of Moses into
fifty-four sections, called Parashen (nwis), because in a
leap year there are fifty-four Sabbaths.
The end of the preceding and the commencement of
the following Parash was marked by leaving in the manu
scripts (it is not known how long before the Talmud) a
vacant space. If the remaining space of the line, in which
the preceding Parash was closed, was left empty, and the
following began in a new line, the Parash begun in the
mode described was called an opened, nnina, and this was
shown in the space left empty by a B, wherefore also in
manuscripts nninB will be found written in small letters
on the margin. But if upon the same line in which the
preceding Parash ended further writing after a small in
terval took place, the new Parash was called a close, rtDinD,
and a D was placed in the vacant space, on which account
in numerous places in the margin of manuscripts the entire
word will be found written in small characters.
Such a portion, which was read entirely on a Sabbath,
was termed a great or Sabbath Parash ; separate parts of
the same, consisting often of only a few verses, were
named smaller Parashen, and these were again divided, in
the significations above given, into open and shut.
Section 79. — 10. Haphtharen.
Antiochus Epiphanes, out of an impolitic zeal for
reform, forbade the Jews to read the writings of Moses
publicly in their synagogues. Now in order to avoid

152 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
acting in opposition to this command, and at the same
time to prevent their sacred books from being forcibly
banished from their public assemblies, they began to read
the Prophets in their synagogues. When afterwards the
obligation to obey this intolerant edict ceased, they joined,
in their Sabbath meetings, the exposition of the Law to
that of the Prophets (Acts of the Apostles xiii. 15-27).
Since which time the Prophets have been also divided
into portions, called Haphtharen (niltSBn). When the
Haphtharen were legally fixed is not known, probably
already before the birth of Christ; Luke iv. 17, where
Christ takes a passage from the Prophets, which He wishes
to expound, proves nothing, because His explanation was
an extraordinary one.
Section 80 A. — 11. Division into Chapters.
Our division into chapters is also recent, and originates
with Hugo di San Caro in the twelfth century, whose
' Biblia cum Postilla ' was the first Bible with chapters.
Daniel Bomberg adopted them first in his edition of the
Hebrew Bible,1 and took the Vulgate entirely as his guide
in the matter.2
Before the introduction of chapters, great difficulties
occurred with regard to citations ; and in order to avoid
quotations of so vague a nature as those of the Greeks
and Romans, reference was made to whole sections by a
1 Elias Levita in Presf. ad Massoreth Hammassoreth.
1 In MSS. which had been in the hands of Christians, chapters are
sometimes noted (Lilienthal, De Codd. Regiom. p. 67). Something
similar to our chapter-division — certain sections, distinguished perhaps
by the interval of a vacant space — was found by Jerome. They seldom,
however, coincide with our distribution of chapters. Jerome, on
Micah vi. 9, says : ' In Hebraicis alterius hoc capituli exordium est,
apud LXX vero finis superioris.'

DIVISION INTO CHAPTERS 153
leading word, or by a summary of contents.1 In this
manner quotations are made by Philo, the New Testament,
and the Rabbins. Instead of 1 Book Moses iii. Philo
says, ' The Law in the Cursings,' and the New Testament
cites 2 Book Moses iii. by the expression, ' in the Thorn-
bush.' 2
Since our division into chapters has not the authority
of antiquity in its favour, it is abandoned by the exposi
tor as often as his tact in translation requires.
Hos. vi. 11, merely the chapter division has prevented the
translators from penetrating into the sense of the prophet.
Place the first half of the 11th verse, i? TXp ne> mirv D3,
to the 10th verse ; with the second half begin the 7th chapter,
as the position of the words, the relation of the members,
and facility of interpretation require. See further Isaiah ii.
22 ; compare lxiii. 19 with lxiv. 1 ; Daniel iii. 31-33 with
iv. 1 ff. ; Ecclesiastes viii. 1 compare with vii. 29 ; iv. 17
with v. 1. Our own editions differ already from one another
in the division of chapters ; with Is. xlvi. 12 the Plautinian
edition begins a new chapter ; also Joel iii., and elsewhere,
the editions are different.
Section 80 b. — 12. Division into Books.
Finally not even the now universally received division
into books is contemporary with the collection of the
canon ; nor till the sixteenth century, with regard to the
Hebrew text, was it fully completed. According to the
express testimony of Origen (sec. 53) and Jerome (sec. 55),
1 In this manner the books of Samuel appear to be quoted,
1 Chron. xxix. 29. See § 470.
2 Philo, De Agricultura, Opp. t. i. p. 316 ed. Mang., p. 203 ed. Francf. :
\eyei yap (vo/j-os) iv rais ipais. The N.T. Mark xii. 26, compare
2 B. Moses iii. ; Romans xi. 2 ; Romans iv. 18, compare 1 B. Moses,
xv. 5. So speaks Abn Ezra on Hos. iv. 18: 'It is written in Eli;'
and Raschi on Hos. ix. 19 : 'It is Gibeon in the Concubine.'

154 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
the two Books of Samuel, the two of Kings, the two of
Chronicles, as well as Ezra and Nehemiah, were not divided
by the Jews in their time ; also the later Jews to the most
recent times have written the above books in their manu
scripts close together without leaving any space between.
And probably many other books, which are now separated,
were formerly undivided. There was, indeed, a time
when the twelve lesser Prophets, Judges and Ruth, and
many other books were spoken of as a single work, in
like manner as Ezra and Nehemiah are mentioned as one
book, the two Books of Samuel as one, and also those of
Chronicles and Kings ; were they not written as closely
and continuously together as the supplement to the Book
of Judges in the last five chapters is at present ?
Be the matter as it may, in early times our pre
sent division was introduced into the Alexandrian version,
which was followed by the Vulgate ; and Daniel Bomberg
distributed the books united (before his time) in the
manuscripts and editions of the Hebrew text, in his edition
of the Vulgate in the manner in which they are now
printed in all editions.
Second Part. — History of the Text of the
Old Testament.
Section 81. — External Circumstances of the Autographs.
The autographs, or, if these were never extant, because
either the authors dictated or never collected their works,
the original copies of the writings of the Old Testament
in the time before the Babylonian captivity were, if not all,
at least a part of them, written on linen (sec. 63), in
Phcenico-Egyptian characters (sec. 64), with vowel-marks
applied here and there (sec. 68), without diacritical points
(sec. 72), and word joined to word (sec. 73). Accents

autograph or copy 155
were added not to all the books but to songs only which
were set to music (sec. 71) ; the text also was not
divided into chapters (sec. 80), verses (sec. 77), Parashen
(sec. 78), nor Haphtharen.
Section 82. — Internal Shape of the Autographs.
1. Double Editions from the Authors themselves.
Of some parts of the Old Testament a second recension
was executed by the authors themselves, or a second
edition revised from beginning to end and here and there
altered. We possess also still both revisions of some in
the original language ; of others one in the original
and the other in a translation. Besides these still more
may have been extant in repeated and altered editions,
only in this case one of the two has become the prey of
time. Two editions of the same song have been preserved in the
14th and 53rd Psalm in the original language ; and the second
edition of the Prophecies of Jeremiah in the Alexandrian
version (' Repertory for Bibl. and Eastern Lit.' Pt. i. sec. 141).
Indeed more than two editions of many pieces of the Old
Testament must have been formerly extant, as, for instance,
of the 18th Psalm, sung by David after a victory as a song of
triumph, and in which passages occur of which David, in his
triumph over Saul, could not possibly have been the author.
But here and in the parallel instance, 2 Sam. xxii., only one
of the many editions forms the ground-work, enriched with
readings and additions suggested to the muse of the poet by
different adaptations of the Psalm on the occasion of new
victories. The union of the various editions is, however, so
complete as to exceed the powers of any critical genius, how
ever happy, to separate them again from each other.
In the cases described many autographa or original
copies existed, which in the details were different from

156 introduction to the old testament
one another — which constitutes the essence of a new
edition. Words were exchanged, more polished expres
sions selected, additions inserted, &c.
For instance, the difference of the two editions of the
same song, Ps. xiv. and Iiii., consists in the following
particulars : — 1. Words are exchanged. Of God, Ps. xiv.,
2, 4, 7, uses the expression nin' ; Ps. Iiii., in the parallel
passages, DM^K. 2. More select phrases are used Ps. Iiii.
(probably the 2nd edit.). Ps. xiv. 1, nWy, for which
Ps. Iiii. 2 has the more precise ?iy. Ps. xiv. 3, the
usual ID; Ps. Iiii. 4, the more rare 3D. Ps. xiv. 3, 731,
for which Ps. Iiii. 4, 1?3, which appears to have afforded
more satisfaction to the ear. 3. Quite different expres
sions are found Ps. xiv. 5, compared with Ps. Iiii. 6.
For the illustration of the proceeding in a new edition of
an old work, the double lives of David and Solomon in the
books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles may be used
(sec. 468, 480). The results of such a comparison are
remarkable. Section 83. — 2. Repetition of Single Passages by
later Authors.
It was also not unusual in later times to make a new
literary use of old writings. Single passages, for instance,
were taken from the works of many poets differing from
one another, and new poems composed out of the same.
The Prophets of later times, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
compiled many prophecies from the works of earlier
Prophets. In this, however, they did not proceed like
slavish copyists; they made omissions, additions, and.
exercised a choice as to readings which were more
poetical, suitable to their genius or to the immediate
occasion. Let a comparison be made of Ps. cviii., which

FAULTS IN MANUSCRIPTS 157
is composed of Ps. Ivii. 8-12, and lx. 7-14. Let
Jer. xlviii. be compared with Is. xv., xvi ; Jer. xlix. 7-17
with Obadiah. Of the alterations allowed to themselves
by authors in these repetitions, a sufficient idea may be
obtained by a comparison of the cited passages. For
proof of which, just one example. The style of Obadiah
is fierce and fiery ; his thoughts are all clothed in ques
tions and exclamation, and he jumps from one person
to another. All this was opposed to the character of
Jeremiah. Hence when he brings the former forwards
and retains his words, in one case he omits the interro
gatory form (Jerem. xlix. 9 ; Obad. 5), in another the
exclamatory (Jerem. xlix. 10 ; Obad. 6), avoids the tran
sitions from one person to another (Jer. xlix. 16 ; Obad. 3),
and reduces into a small compass the varied representa
tions of Obadiah.
Section 84. — The Manuscripts were not Free from
Faults. First Source of Faults.
Some of the faults of our present Hebrew texts are
older than any aids still extant applicable to the critical
elaboration of the Old Testament, and are in all proba
bility derived entirely, in part certainly,1 from the
original exemplars.
The faults which affect merely single consonants have
1 Let no one take umbrage at the word ' certainly.' In the passage
below occurring, taken out of Amos, one only of two things is possible :
either Amos made a mistake in writing, or the errors are derived from
the first copy of his autograph, which have been since propagated in all
subsequent copies. Is it not, however, much more probable that a
man entirely destitute of learning, as Amos was, should commit ortho
graphical mistakes, betrayed thereto by his ear, than a copyist, ex
pert in the art or writing, in virtue of his calling, and so conscientious
as sooner to imitate three faults in his original MS. than to make one
now one?

158 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
often arisen from the circumstance that writing took
place by the ear without any fixed rules of orthography.
If the author dictated (as Jeremiah to his Baruch), how
easily the scribe might mishear ; ¦ and even if the author
revised the copy, how easily he might overlook the error,
able only to be discovered by a person versed in the art of
writing and orthography, which perhaps he was not ! But
even if the author wrote himself, orthography might be
no familiar matter with him ; he wrote, then, merely by the
ear, unorthographically, or to speak more learnedly, his
writing was anomalous. Such orthographical mistakes
may, however, be laid to the charge of the later copyists.
But if in one book many faults of the kind are found, and
in another very few or almost none at all, is it then still
likely that the clerk is the real offender ? Why did he/
commit such oversights in one author, and in another so
few or scarcely any ? Why is no trace to be found with
the Masorites that in such passages the manuscripts were
different ? Have all scribes erred in these passages, and
exactly in the same manner ?
On the other hand, much more natural and easy is the
solution of this problem if the faults be referred to the
original exemplar ; the copy of one book was written in a
more orthographical manner than that of another.
Concerning the variations of Hebrew orthography in
ancient times, no remarks occur in Teller's ' Dissert, de Judicio
super variis Lectionibus Codicis Hebraei recte faciendo,' sec. 8
in his ' Opuscula,' pp. 33, 40. The Prophet Amos affords
many instances of incorrectly written words, which in all
probability are to be derived from the original copy. I
will excerpt only the four last chapters in proof of this.
1 Perhaps 1 Thess. ii. 8, bfietpofievoi (which still seems to be the
oldest reading) may be explained this way, unless it be a faultinspeeoh
of the Apostle instead of the more correct Ifietpofievoi.

FAULTS IN MANUSCRIPTS 159
Amos v. 11, D3DSM3 instead of D3DD13, where the false ortho
graphy has misled all the ancient translators to conjecturing ;
vi. 8, 3SHI? instead of 3j/rjp,a complete Ephraimism (sec. 97) ;
vii 9, pntf. instead of ppy. The LXX, by means of the
orthographical errors, were already misled to translate
pnB" D1D3 by /3a>fj.oi tov -ytXajros, the Vulgate by ' excelsa idoli
(ridiculi quid),' and the Syrian by ]^..n «-~, )m£2 ' fana risus
(ridicula) ; ' vii. 16, pntJ" again, for pnV, compare Ps. cvii. 8,
Jer. xxxiii. 26 ; viii. 4, ]V3K>2 according to the ear, for WZ&ijb
compare 2 Kings ix. 15, the Keri and Chetiv. So, perhaps,
'IovSa was written instead of 'Ioirc-a, by the ear, Luke i. 39.
Section 85. — Second Source of Faults in the Manuscripts.
If a writing in the first instance, either entirely or
in part, was written down from the mouths of the
people — which perhaps was the case with regard to many
Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, which were collected in
Hezekiah's time, and the additional maxims joined on to
the Book of Proverbs in the two last chapters — how im
possible was it to reduce them to writing without an
admixture of false, though perhaps neither senseless read
ings nor such as changed the sense ! To prove all this by
examples free from all objections is indeed just as im
practicable as to bring back the ancient primitive text
again; the reading, then, where not without meaning,
must have been unequal to the spirit of the author. In
this case it is still competent to the acuteness of the
higher criticism to discover the faulty passages and to
restore them, at least so far as to be suitable to the spirit
of the author. Therefore we are compelled to rest
satisfied with general considerations.
Many Psalms, not merely the more ancient, but also
the more modern, not merely the dark and difficult, but

160 introduction to the old testament
also the easy and intelligible, contain the most manifest
errors in considerable number, for which there is no aid,
either in old versions, manuscripts, or other critical
authorities. On the other hand, by their side are placed
old primitive songs, which either require no corrections at
all, or, if they seem to require such, may easily be amended
from critical sources still extant; others, finally, have come
down to our time with a text so correct as to excite astonish
ment, as for instance, the certainly by no means modern
Psalm cxix., which by its length and the sameness of its
176 sentences might have wearied the industry of the
most patient copyist, and yet bears scarcely any traces of
its high antiquity. Is it, then, probable that the Jewish
copiers, who have given elsewhere such singular proofs of
untiring industry, and even all of them, should be so
remarkably negligent in the same passages ? Must not the
Psalms which contain such perplexing passages originate'
from the exemplar which is the source of our present
Psalter ? and since with regard to other Psalms this source
runs so pure, must not the faulty songs flow from a
troubled spring which runs into the former ? and under
these circumstances, is it too bold a hypothesis to suppose
that they were taken down from the mouths of the people :
at a time when it was no longer possible to correct the
half-accurate passages, where memory was at fault, and
either nothing more was desired or the mind was forced
to rest satisfied with what was imperfect ?
Section 86. — Third Source of Faults in the Autographs.
Finally at times when old matter had been cast into new
form by authors, or had undergone the process of epitome,
this was not done without orthographical failures. This
may be shown to the highest grade of probability in some
passages of the Old Testament.

FATE OF MANUSCRIPTS 161
To bring forward many examples, of which this has not
elsewhere been proved, would occasion too wide a digression.
Only a few then. The author of the information respecting the
Noachian Deluge, 1 Book Moses vi.-ix., who from two ac
counts has formed one narrative, must in writing down the
passage 1 Book Moses vii. 9 have committed an oversight —
compare 16. See ' Repertory for Bibl. and East. Lit.,'
Part v. sec. 209. A similar oversight was detected by the
deceased Professor Vogel, 1 Chron. i. 17 ff. In this pedigree,
he says, there lies a double mistake of the author of the Book*
of Chronicles. First he declares the following as sons of
Shem : — Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud, Aram, Uz, Hul,
Gether, and Meshech,1 although the four last are not the
sons of Shem but his grandsons through Aram ; then he
mentions Arphaxad's son Shelah ; Shelah's son Eber ; then
Eber's sons Peleg and Joktan. Verses 20-23, he names
Joktan's sons as they are given 1 Book Moses x. 26-29.
Afterwards when he is about to enumerate Peleg's posterity,
instead of joining this pedigree to the preceding by means of the
words J7S 1J31 ' Peleg's posterity were,' he goes back again to the
commencement and names all the ancestors of Peleg from
Shem. The author, that is to say, has merely copied the genea
logies as they stand 1 Book Moses x.-xi., and merely because in
the 11th chapter the line of Peleg recommences from Shem
and his descendants the ancestors of Peleg ; in like manner,
after having written off ch. x. 21-29, he has immediately copied
on to it from chap. xi. 10-26 the descendants of Shem through
Peleg. But see sec. 490.
Section 87. — Destruction of the Original Manuscripts.
How and when the autographs perished no one knows.
For what is said of them by the Church Fathers, as to
being burnt in the Temple, is a false conjecture (sec. 3).
1. It is possible that before the Babylonian captivity,
the autographs of many authors were lost. For at that
1 Another possible representation, see § 490. M

162 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
time, as in all antiquity, for want of critical eyes, small
attention was paid to autographs, as evidently appears
from the literary history of that of Moses, which, although
as the Book of the Law of double importance, neverthe
less for a long time lay hid in a corner, till an accident
rescued it from oblivion (2 Kings xxii. 8, 2 Chroni
cles xxxiv. 14). And who can say whether the material
for manuscripts used in the oldest times was of a texture
fitted for long duration ? In the times of Pliny a codex
with moderate use lasted at the very longest 200 years —
in remote antiquity, most probably a still shorter time, for
the ability to select a sufficiently durable material for
writing, or one on which the writing itself could take
place, did not then exist.
2. The early destruction of the manuscripts, at least of
some books, was a matter of necessity. If an ancient
writing underwent revision at a very early period and
became the basis of a new work enlarged by means of
insertions and additions, would it not be natural after
such alteration to prefer the richer and more perfect work
to the meagre and shorter one, and to leave the defective
original to decay? If, however, the ancient Hebrew
books from the times before the captivity were preserved
merely in private hands (as above seemed to be probable)
and were not rescued from the first Temple library, it
follows that with regard to the greatest part of the Hebrew
Scriptures, the autographs, at least, perished at the com
mencement of the captivity.
And the manuscripts which survived the captivity must
have perished soon after that event. Thereafter the Jews
established a library of their sacred books and transcribed
them out of the old character in use before the captivity
into a modern one derived from the former (sec. 67). After
this change is it likely that the autographs, written in a

FATE OF MANUSCRIPTS 163
character which, in a hundred years after probably, became
generally illegible, in an age when ideas of the critical use
of such manuscripts did not exist, should still be held in
estimation ? They were but little esteemed at first, and
subsequently were quite forgotten. And even if in the first
instance they have been objects of regard, age would still
have rendered them useless — the character would have
suffered spontaneous extinction.
Section 88. — New Transcript after the Captivity.
Temple Copy.
After the Babylonian captivity all the sacred books pre
viously composed by the Hebrews were copied anew and,
together with others, placed in a library in the Temple
(sec. 5, 15, 39). Whether Daniel and Ezra, Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi, and Nehemiah and Esther were
laid there in the original manuscripts of their authors,
there are no materials either for affirming or denying.
Section 89. — Character of this Temple Copy Internal
and External.
1. It was not Free from Faults.
Of the external character of this copy, the representa
tions which appeared to me most probable have been
stated above (Chap. II. sec. 1).
With regard to its text, if the remarks above adduced
(sec. 84-87) be well founded, false readings must already
at that time have crept into many passages, whether the
autographs themselves, or copies made from them, were
placed in the Temple library.
Various readings also must have existed in the books,
which were previously extant in numerous copies, unless
ii 2

164 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
the hands of the caligraphists had been guided miracu
lously. But these two kinds of readings were not noted in
the Temple copy. The first, if they disturbed not the text,
it was not within the competency of a person uninstructed
from above to remark ; and if the stamp of falseness
appeared not evidently on their face, only the finest criti
cism was equal to their perception, neither of which was to
be expected from the compiler and second editor after
the Babylonian captivity.
The last, the various readings, were easy to be dis
covered if the existing copies were but collated.. But in
the old world verbal criticism did not exist, because at that
time interpretation by grammatical rules was unknown;
and least of all was it to be sought amongst the Jews,
among whom, before the birth of Christ, not a spark of
criticism had appeared. Of all the readings then afforded
by the Masora, and in our manuscripts placed on the
margin, not a trace was doubtless to be found in the
genuine Temple copy.
Section 90. — 2. The Temple Copy was written with
Abbreviations. Numeral Letters instead of Words.
The question whether in this new copy abbreviations
were used may with great probability be answered in the
affirmative, if, from the nature of the exemplar used by the
Alexandrians in their version of the Bible, we dare refer
to the latter and reckon numeral letters put for numeral
words amongst abbreviations.
The employment by the authors of the Old Testament,
who wrote with Phoenico-Egyptian letters, of a kind of
ciphers, when numbers were to be expressed, is possible,
since Count Caylus affirms his discovery of ciphers on
mummies, which were written closely all over in this

ABBREVIATIONS 165
character.1 And in this case it was also natural, in the
new copy made after the Babylonian captivity, to express
numbers not with words, but, having regard to the cha
racter of the original exemplar, by ciphers, or in their
deficiency by numeral letters.2
Now the passages of the Old Testament in which num
bers occur are frequently subject to grave doubts. Fre
quently the number given exceeds all belief of the rational
thinker ; but if that be not the case, still the numbers in
parallel passages are often contradictory, or a great differ
ence is found between the numbers of the original text
and those of the oldest Bible interpreters, the LXX.
According to 1 Chron. xxii. 14 David appoints from his
poverty (myi) only one hundred thousand talents of gold and
a million talents of silver ; and according to 1 Chron. xxix. 3, 4,
he has saved a treasure of 3,000 talents of the gold of Ophir
and 7,000 talents of refined silver for the purpose of incrust-
ing the walls of the Temple, and this at a time when gold and
silver from America were not in circulation ! Jehoram dies
in his fortieth year, and his son, a prince of forty-two years,
succeeds to his throne — compare 2 Chron. xxi. 20, and xxii. 2
Other passages of the sort are 2 Chron. xvii. 14 ff. :
2 Sam. viii. compared with 1 Chron. xviii. 4 ; 1 Kings iv. 26
1 Memovres de Trevoux, A. 1740 in Marz, Artie, xxi. ; Lettre a M.
Rigord, Commissaire de la Marine, where a plate of such a mummy is
given ; Count Caylus, Recueil d'Antiquites Egypt. &c. t. i. pp. 65-76,
tab. xxi.-xxvi. ; Gattereri Elementa Artis Diplomat, t. i. p. 71 ft.
2 On the Samaritan coins with the names of Jonathan and Simon,
numeral letters are already found, e.g.. 2 V13ni ^lUil |n3i1 |ny
' Jonathan the high priest, and those joined with him. Troo ' (in the
second year). Swinton, De Nwmeris Samarit. pp. 67-72. Memoires de
VAcad. des Inscriptions, t. xxiv. pp. 52, 61. Upon another coin pub
lished by Bayer with the name of Simon, stand y&, i.e. in the second
year. Kennicotti Diss, gener. § 27, on which passage Bruns remarks
further that on an old Syrian MS. written in Estranghelo on parchment,
and which belongs to the Barberini Library, Judges xviii. 17, the
number 5 is expressed by n )»133n = 6 men.

166 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
compared with 2 Chron. ix. 25. See Kennicott * Super Ratione
Textus Hebr. Dissert.' i. p. 523; ii. 189, 201. Similar
phenomena in the chronology of the Bible are remarked in
the ' Tractatus Theologico-Politicus,' Hamb. 1670 ; Dan.
Heinsii ' Operum Historicorum Collectio,' i. ed. 2, Lugd.
Bat. p. 168 f. ; Langen's 'Dialogue between a Courtier and a
Priest' by Cramer (Copenh. 1768. 8).
These statements are in most cases inexplicable from
numeral words written at large ; on the other hand, their
causes become evident if recourse be had to numeral letters.
In short, this hypothesis will endure the proof by which
the probability of every hypothesis is tested ; it solves all
difficulties and is open to no objections.
1. It clears up contradictions in single passages.
According to 2 Sam. xxiv. 13, there should come to pass a
famine of seven (V3C) years ; according to the LXX in this
passage, as well as the Hebrew text 1 Chron. xxi. 12, a famine
of three (ci^t?) years. A change of verbal numerals here is
not to be imagined, but only one of the numeral letters J, 3,
and t, 7. 1 Kings xii. 21, Rehoboam gathers 180,000 men
according to the Hebrew text, according to the LXX 120,000.
The numeral expressions D'aDB' 80, and D'HCy 20 are not, it is
true, permuted, but S indeed=80 and 3 20. 1 Kings ix. 28,
after the Hebrew text, Solomon's fleet brings back from Ophir
420 talents of gold, but according to the LXX 120 talents.
Not nXD and D1KD iniK, but p 100 and fl 400 are changed
1 Sam. ix. 22, Hebr. &wh& 30 ; the LXX and Josephus
(Antiq. vii. 4. 1) Dij73B> 70 ; here b 30 is changed for V 70.
1 Sam. xi. 8, and 2 Sam. vi. 1, the printed Hebrew text has
both times D'G^>B> 30, the LXX both times D,173C 70 : here,
again, ? 30 and v 70 have been interchanged. 1 Sam. iv. 18
compared with the LXX, 3 and O ; Ezra ii. 28 compared with
the LXX, D and 1 ; 1 Sam. iv. 15 s and J?, comp. with the LXX
are interchanged. Still further passages of the kind are to be
found by collating the LXX with 1 Kings vii. 21-23, vi. 1 ;

ABBREVIATIONS 167
Nehem. vii. 33 ; 1 Kings x. 26 ; 1 Sam. viii. 4 ; 2 Sam. vi. 13 ;
1 Chron. xv. 6 ; 2 Kings vi. 25 ; 1 Sam. xxiii. 13, xvii. 4 ;
Nehem. vii. 34 ; 1 Kings xvi. 29, v. 16, x. 16 ; 1 Sam. xi. 8,
xv. 4 ; 1 Chron. xii. 36 ; Esth. ix. 15.
2. Supposing the numbers to have been written in
numeral letters it is also conceivable why so many numbers
have suffered or been lost altogether. The numeral letters
in these cases were similar to each other in the manuscripts,
or crouched beneath their larger neighbours, with their
little figures.
whv 30, D"V3ty 70 are so httle ahke and yet so often
changed for one another, as 1 Sam. ix. 22, xi. 8 ; 2 Sam. vi. 1 ;
U 70 and ? 30 in manuscripts are often confessedly alike. So
also B> 300, and D 600, but not indeed r»KD wht? and ITlKD BT5>,
as 1 Kings v. 16, x. 16 ; 1 Sam. xi. 8. To what danger was
not the number ' ten 'exposed ! The number- word "WV was not
the cause thereof, but the little numeral letter ', which may
so easily be lost. Ezra ii. 39, Esther ix. 14, iii. 12, the number
' ten ' is wanting in the LXX. It is wanting also 2 Chron.
xxxvi. 9, as is evident from the parallel passage 2 Kings
xxiv. 8 ; it is wanting 2 Sam. xvii. 10, in which verse it is
twice expressed in the LXX.
3. Finally, this hypothesis affords the reason why in
compound numbers, sometimes the first, sometimes the
last, now the greater, now the lesser fails : a single conso
nant, how easily hustled or hidden by its next neighbour !
Of D1ND SPDn D»B'Se', Nehemiah viii. 70, the LXX express
only the number 30, leaving out the number 500. How far
more comprehensible is the omission of a "j (500) than the
numeral words JTlKD E^Dn. In like manner also is wanting
with the LXX 1 Kings xx. 15 D^t? ; 2 Chron. xvi. 13 JinK,
2 Chron. Tnmi. 20 niKDn, Nehem. vii. 68, 69, thirteen numbers
are wanting. On the other hand numbers were also found by
the LXX where since their time, according to our Hebrew

168 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
text, they are lost, as Nehemiah vii. 72, 1 Kings xv. 9, Esth.
vii. 12, 2 Chron. xxviii. 1, 2 Kings i. 18, 1 Kings vii. 23.
Still it does not follow from the observations hitherto
applied, that no number at all is anywhere written out.
If in this matter we may rely on the old authors of
versions, it seems much more probable that numbers
were expressed at pleasure either by means of words or of
numeral letters. For, accustomed to numeral words
written at length, numeral words were often found by
them where according to the sequence of ideas of the
authors, and our present punctuation, none are admissible ;
sometimes our numbers are accompanied with such inti
mations as imply numeral words written at length.1
Nehem. v. 11 f)D3 flND, the LXX diro tov apyvpiov flSP
t|D3 ; Ps. xvi. 11 V3B* (fulness), Symmachus kirra J!3#;
Proverbs xxvi. 16 iiylWQ, Symmachus wep orra, LXX tou ev
Tr\r]o-fji.ovri ; Ecclesiastes viii. 12, JIXD, Symmachus, Aquila, and
Theod. aireOave, because they regarded the X as nearly a ' mater
lectionis' (Lesemutter, Germ.), means of enunciation, and
derived the word from J1-1D. See 1 Samuel ii. 5, 1 Book
Moses xli. 47, viii. 4, Ezekiel xiv. 5, Habak. iii. 2, the ancient,
translators. The employment of consonants as in general use in
their time for numeral letters, is implied by the Talmud 2
and by Jerome 3 in many places.
1 Concerning this matter, see Kennicott, i. p. 523, ii. p. 189, 201 ;
Hassencamp's remarks against Kennicott concerning 1 Samuel vi. 19,
§ 44. This subject is misty indeed, for light to two Programmes of Faber,
Literas olim pro vocibus in numerando a scriptoribus V.T. esse adhibitas
(Onoldi, 1775. 4).
2 According to Kennicott, Dissert. Gener. p. 63, § 27, ed. Bruns,
this was proved by Leusden in Philologo Hebr. p. 128.
3 Yod (says Jerome) ' apud Grascos et Hebraeos denarium numeram
significat,' Jerome's Opp. t. i. col. 318, t. iii. col. 1754, ed. Benedict.
Paris, 1693.

NUMBER OF COPIES 169
Section 91. — Destruction of the Temple Copy.
How early or late the so far described Temple copy,
otherwise called the Codex of Ezra, perished, it is impos
sible to determine. Its longer or shorter duration de
pended on the material employed and the rare or frequent
use. At the time of Christ and the Apostles it was cer
tainly no longer extant ; 1 it is neither mentioned by the
Talmud nor by a Father of the Church ; it was neither to be
found at Cairo nor at Chalon-sur-Saone nor at Bologna
with the Dominicans,2 as was formerly suggested by coarse
fraud or ignorance and received by holy simplicity.
Section 92. — Increase of the Copies.
After the founding of the new state in Palestine, it
became necessary to provide a multitude of copies of the
Old Testament, since it was thought good to establish
synagogues in cities, towns, and villages. It was the
1 Titus Vespasian took the then extant Temple copy with him to
Rome. Josephus, De Bello Jud. lib. vii. c. 5, § 5, p. 415, Sieirpeire Se
iravTuv to iyKaTaXiftp&evTa tu iv '\epoo-o\vfiois lepu' xPvtr7l T€ Tpairefa . . .
Kai Xvxvia xPvffov . . . b Te vofios b tuv 'lovSaiuv iirt tovtois ifpepero tuv
Xaipvpav TeXevraiois . . compare Antiq. vii. 6. Reland, De Spoliis
Templi Hierosol. p. 51 notes, p. 76 notes. And if (as probably may be
taken) this was the exemplar which Josephus afterwards begged and
received as a present from Titus, the expression vofios must stand for
all the holy boohs of the Jews. For concerning the copy presented to
him, he says, De Vita sua, § 75, p. 38, aWifo-iv iiroiovfvnv Titov xai BiBXiuv
lepav iXaBov xapi<rafj.evov Titov. Probably this was already a later copy
of the Old Temple exemplar.
2 It is probably a common roll of the Law, written in the eleventh
or twelfth century. Both ancient and modern scholars are agreed on
the point. With Kennicott it is marked No. 527. See Kennicott,
Dissert. Gener. Codex 527, p. 504 ed. Bruns; Adler's Short Sketch of his
Biblical- Critical Travels, § 52. Also this codex has been treated by
Montfaucon, in Diario ItalAco, p. 309. Kennicott, in Diss, super Rat.
Textus Hebr. t. i. p. 299.

170 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
custom at first to have only a copy of the five Books of
Moses, because at that time Moses alone was read. But an
intolerant edict of the King of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes,
in virtue of which the Books of Moses were banished from
the synagogues, was the occasion that the Prophets fur
nished the public readings, and afterwards when the edict
fell into desuetude Moses and the Prophets were read
together ; consequently each synagogue required a copy of
the Prophets also.
Whether, however, the Hagiographa about this time
was frequently copied, may seem doubtful. But if it be
considered that the book of Esther at least, which was the
subject of solemn lecture at the feast Purim, must have
been extant in numerous copies ; that the desire of every
synagogue must have been to possess the entire Temple
library ; and that the Jews before the birth of Christ, in
their allusions to the Holy Scriptures, describe them always
under three heads (sec. 6) as if they had always been pre
served in the same form — it must be inferred with the
highest probability that complete collections of all these
writings existed in numerous exemplars. Here then we
stand at the very origin of our various readings : and it
will be most convenient to inquire here immediately into
its various sources.
All kinds of various readings may be classed under
two heads — Corrections and Faults in Writing. Amongst
corrections may be reckoned — 1. Intentional corruptions;
2. interpolated remarks and scholia; 3. alterations accord
ing to the Midrashim, Targumim, Jewish commentaries
(Perushim), and grammar ; 4. improvements suggested
by conjectural sagacity ; 5. and all sorts of orthographical
liberties, in which the alternatives for choice were those
enumerated from sec. 97 to 101. Amongst written faults —
1. Omissions arising from like words (6p,oiotsXsvtov) ;

VARIOUS READINGS 171
2. exchange of similar consonants ; 3. false division of
words; 4. transpositions ; and 5. wrong interpretations of
abbreviations and numeral letters. But in many cases
the choice of the category would be difficult, because the
origin of many readings may be derived from more than
one source ; those arising from parallel passages may flow
just as well from faults in writing or memory as from
express corrections. Hence it seems more suitable to
take all single cases separately, and leave to every one
its solution, in order to avoid a construction either too
limited or one-sided.

Section 93. — First Source : Twice-recurring Passages.
Many passages in the Old Testament occur twice :
Psalm xiv. and Psalm Iiii. ; Psalm xl. 1 4 f. and Psalm lxx. ;
Psalm xviii. and 2 Samuel xxii. ; Psalm cviii. and Psalms
Ivii. 8-12 and lx. 7-14 ; Psalm cv. and 1 Chronicles
xvi. 8-22 ; Psalm xcvi. and 1 Chronicles xvi. 23-33 ;
Isaiah xxxvii., xxxviii. and 2 Kings xix., xx. ; Jeremiah
Iii. and 2 Kings xxiv. ; and those passages in the Books of
Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles which are literally repeated
(see sec. 468, 480). The compilers of the Old Testament
after the Babylonian captivity may have found some pas
sages already introduced twice ; others may have first
inserted them a second time. In the first case, a double
edition by the author himself is the source of such second
insertion (sec. 82) ; but sometimes the second edition was
the work of a later author, or a new work was composed
from materials drawn from a more ancient one (sec. 83,
468, 480). In both cases words may have been changed,
new and more valuable readings selected, and, in short,
those changes made which constitute the essence of a
revised edition (sec. 82).

172 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
But in particular since the Babylonian exile some
historical passages have obtained a double place in the
Old Testament ; in the first instance in the entire works
of the authors to whom they were assigned, and afterwards
in the chronicles of the Hebrews, where they were inserted
for the sake of completeness, as Jeremiah Iii. and 2 Kings
xxiv. ; Isaiah xxxvii., xxxviii. and 2 Kings xix., xx. The
editor who reduced the historical passages to order might
permit himself all sorts of liberties ; here he might trans
pose some matter, there reduce some other by abridgment ;
at one time he might change certain expressions, at
another the orthography.
Finally, many a thought is repeated in and from
passages the most different, sometimes expressed by the
same, sometimes by similar words, either because they
were analogous to one another, or because with regard to
many thoughts there exists but one natural, suitable, and
sufficient expression for them (sec. 139. 6).
He, then, who in manuscripts and old versions, or, in
their absence, in our printed editions, examines sections
and passages of the kind, will find that such recurring or
like passages have been compared and corrected by and
out of one another ; or if the mode of proceeding has not
been quite so daring, that the variations of both texts have
been noted by the industry of some observer at first in the
margin and by the later hand of some scribe or small critic
inserted in the text itself. This, however, was not the case
in all manuscripts, and even in those where it occurred,
not to the recurring passages throughout, but sometimes
here, sometimes there, with reference to single expressions.
Such was the rise of the various readings.
In Isaiah (xxxviii. 21, 22) in the relation of the healing of
King Hezekiah, the discourse of the King with the Prophet is

VARIOUS READINGS 173
abridged and the circumstance passed over of the order of
application of figs to the plague-boils by Isaiah, as mentioned
2 Kings xx. 7, 8. But this information taken from the
parallel passage was carried to the margin of a manuscript of
Isaiah, and from thence inserted in a place where it had no
right to stand, namely, Isaiah xxxviii. 21, 22. 1 Book Moses
7, 6, D'D seems to be a gloss, sprung from a parallel passage
(' Repertory for Bibl. and East. Lit.' Part v. sec. 215). Isaiah
lxiii. 5, many manuscripts have 'nplSl instead of TlDm because
in transcribing, the first word, from Is. lix. 16, was in the mind
of the copyists. 1 Book Moses xliii. 9, the reading »3X? for
"]b arose from an exchange with 1 Book Moses xliv. 32. See
sec. 99. Ps. xiv. 5, the words, ins linQ DC are rendered by the
LXX by €kei eSciXiao-av <j>o/3a>, oi ovk ty </>o/3os, as in Ps. Iiii. 6
in the second edition of our Psalms. Many examples are
afforded by Kennicott's Bible from 1 Sam. xx., and the other
passages above quoted ; from manuscripts ; from ancient
versions ; the ' Repert. for Bibl. and East. Lit.' Part iv.
sec. 109 ff. ; from our Bible-editions ; Vogel's remarks on
' Capelli Crit. Sacr.' sec. 30 ff. ; Bruns on Kennicott's ' Diss.
Gen.' sec. 61. Section 94. — Second Source : Scholia.
Already in very early times scholia were written on the
margins of manuscripts. In the childhood of the author-
world, when precision in expression was not aimed at, the
phrase for a later reader is deficient in meaning; the
author had no anticipation that his later reader would miss
an idea, since its absence was not perceptible to himself.
Often, even for the sake of a euphemism, something was
omitted. In both cases the possible supplement was
written by some officious hand on the margin, and by
another transferred to the text.
Such a scholium is the mBTl roVj, 1 Book Moses iv. 8, which
is yet found in the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch and ex-

174 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
pressed by the LXX, the Syrian, Itala, and the Targums of
Jerusalem and Aquila (' Repert.' &c. Pt. ii. sec. 243). 1 Book
Moses xxxv. 22, an ancient but silly scholium is given
by the LXX, which bears the mark of a foolish commen
tator : /cai irovrjpov i<f>avrj ivavriov ovtov. Compare 1 Book
Kings ii. 32.
Section 95 a. — Third Source : Midrashim.
Already in very early times, detached words, phrases,
and passages of the Old Testament were played with by
the Jews, and all kinds of spiritual or allegorical meanings
therefrom brought to light, which were termed D'KHID
(allegorical explanations). These fancies were carried by
them before the birth of Christ sometimes into the text
with all kinds of signs, sometimes only to the margins of
manuscripts ; and subsequently, either through accident or
ignorance, thence into the text itself. As signs of their
allegorical chimeras, the Jews employed literas majusculas
inversas, suspensas, finales in the middle of words, and
medianas at the end of them ; • they dismembered the text
in the most arbitrary way ; perpetrated abscissions, addi
tions, interlineations ; as was most suitable to their
allegorical diversion.
See Olai Gerh. Tychsen, ' Tentamen de variis Codd. Hebr.
Novi Testamenti MSS. generibus,' sec. 197 ff. Judges xviii. 30,
nB^D was already fouud by the LXX instead of riCD lest any
one at the first view of this passage might suppose that the
son of Moses was the first idolator. In the Talmud the read
ing ntMD is mentioned (' Bava Bathra,' fol. 109.6, ed. Venet.
1548). See Kennicott, ' Diss. Gen.' sec. 21. And one of the oldest
and most important manuscripts of the LXX has Movacr<nj.
1 3 B. Moses vi. 4, may serve as a proof, where *ip is an exegetical
gloss to remind of a dictum classicum, as *u in the 2 B. Moses.

VARIOUS readings 175
See ' Repert. for Bibl. and East. Lit.' Part ii. sec. 223. A
greater allegorical gloss, E"K spK D^on, had already before the
time of the LXX, 1 Sam. vi. 20, wrought its way into the
text. See Tychsen, ' Tentamen,' sec. 211 ; Hufnagel, ' Dissert.
super 1 Sam. vi. 19 ;' De Rossi, 'De Typogr. Hebr. Origine,'
Erlang. 1778. See De Rossi, ' Cod. Pontif.' p. 85 ; ' Repert.
for Bibl. and East. Lit.' Part xv. 172. If Isaiah xxxii. 2, &6
should stand for i? even according to the Masora, this would
be then probably a cabalistical trifling, which, however, has
not found its way into the manuscripts, since Kennicott
quotes his codex in favour of SO. According to the treatise
Peah, c. 5, Mish. 6, Proverbs xxii. 25, out of dVijp by means
of explanatory play d?w? is formed. See Rabe's translation,
sec. 88. Compare also Judges xv. 10, with xvi. and Talmud
'Hierosol. Tract. Sota,' fol. 17, which will have Judges xvi. 30
to be read according to an allegorical explication D'JQIX, a
reading which fortunately no accident has introduced into the
Hebrew text. Tychsen has further Midrashim from the
Talmud (which, however, have not crept into the BibUcal text)
in 'Tent.' pp. 202,203, 211.
Section 95 b. — Fourth Source: Alterations after Targumim,
Perushim, and Grammar.
After the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the
Chaldean, a reading frequently obtruded itself uncon
sciously on the copyists, in the midst of their labours,
which gave expression to the Targum against the Hebrew
text ; sometimes, indeed, they endeavoured to reconcile the
reading of the Hebrew text with the expression of the
Targumim by a deliberate alteration ; sometimes because
the sense of their church version was more familiar to
them than that of the Hebrew text, sometimes because
both were written by them verse-wise immediately after
one another.
Ps. liv. 5, Luther in his edition read D»"]J ' proud people,'

176 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
instead of DHf 'feroigners,' as the Chaldean only has it ; hence
this edition, or the manuscript which was its basis, seems to
have been altered from the Targum. Joel ii. 23, )lK>sn3 ' as
formerly,' which the LXX and cod. 335 have, is perhaps to be
preferred to |1CK13 ' in the first mouth,' which has probably
become the prevailing reading only by means of the Chaldean.
See sec. 134, 218.
In like manner also readings in the text of the Bible
emanated from certain explanations usual among the Jews
(Perushim) either because they had them in their minds at
the time of copying, or they were found by them in the
margin of the manuscript which was the subject of their
labours. 5 Book Moses xxvii. 26, »131 fix is cited Gal. iii. with a
?3> wacri, which is wanting in the present editions. But $>3 was
found by Kennicott in four Hebrew and in numerous Chal
dean manuscripts (Kennicott, ' Dissert Gen.' sec. 84. 3), into
which, according to the opinion of Bruns (in the ' Repert. for
Bibl. and East. Lit.' Part xv. sec. 171) it came from the Peru-
shim : ' The reading,' says he, ' may have come so much the
more readily into the Hebrew and Chaldean manuscripts as
R. Bechai and Rashi certainly, and perhaps other Jews, will
have this curse extended to all the commands of the Law.'
5 Book Moses xxiii. 3, one codex of Kennicott's reads ltDID
instead of 1TOD, respecting which Bruns, in the passage quoted
from the ' Repertory,' remarks : ' Michaelis wished to find this
reading, and Dathe fouud it, but Rambam explains this word
by dividing it It DID (see Mendelssohn's version, with a Rab
binical commentary, and Vogel upon this passage). And the
Jewish explication mentioned floated in the thoughts of the
Jew who wrote 1TD1D instead of HDD.' Codex 345 appears,
1 Book Moses xiv. 20, to have had 1tJ»$)D D138 1;>-|rvi accord
ing to a usual Jewish interpretation, that Abraham gave
tithes to Melchizedek, as Hebr. vii. 4 ; Rashi says
1CVD Dni3K 1^> 1JV1 ' et dedit ei Abraham decimas.' Bruns ad

SOURCES OF ERRORS 177
'Kennicotti Dissert. Gener.' sec. 31. Cod. 507, 5 Book Moses
xxxii. 43, has 1D1? nx ; and since it is a German manuscript
Rashi's interpretation was in the mind of the copyist,
talB" nK niDlKn ime» JDTn ^riNT1?, ' hoc tempore laudabunt
Israelem gentes,' which led him to 'DJ) nx. Bruns ad ' Kenni
cotti Diss. Gener.' sec. 84. 5, p. 196. Compare the quota
tion, Rom. xv. 10.
Finally, that, since the rise of a system of Hebrew
grammar, learned Jews have taken the liberty in the case
of deviations from their rules to make alterations, and to
introduce constructions and forms more regular, will
further on be supported with examples (sec. 135).
Section 95 c. — Fifth Source : Conjectures ex Ingenio.
Some writings of the Old Testament appear to have
come into the hands of the compilers in very faded copies ;
and many gaps and irreparably injured passages, with
respect to which the ancient translators as well as the
latest interpreters appear to have been equally at a loss,
are derived probably from such exemplars. The com
pilers of our canon read and guessed to the best of their
ability ; but what was quite lost was beyond their means
to restore, since their labours in this regard were scarcely
guided by a miraculous leading of the Deity.
In the following centuries the transcribers were in the
same difficulty, and the illegible text was restored by them
as seemed best to their judgment, and with as much acute
ness and conjectural talent as they possessed. Since they
did not always hit the mark, variations unavoidably arose
between a copy containing such conjectures and other
exemplars. Kommershausen, in his ' Introduction to the Old Testament,'
sec. 153, has an example which I will here give in his words :
N

178 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
' The Syrian (and the old versions are as good as manuscripts,
for the versions show evidently what their readings were)
varies in the Books of the Chronicles very abundantly from
the Hebrew text. A plain example is to be found 2 Chron.
i. 15. Here in the Hebrew it runs: " Et fecit rex Salomon
argentum et aurum Hierosolymis ut lapides, et cedros dedit ut
sycomoros, D'DpSSO, quae in planitie sunt innumerae." But the
Syrian has it : " Et cedros dedit ut arenam quae ad littus maris
copia summa." Instead of D^Dpt? he has arenam ; DptJ' can
never mean arenam. But did he read it differently ? Perhaps
bin instead of D'DpB1 2 That is incredible, for the two words
have no resemblance. One can scarcely see the possibility
how ?in should come out of D*DpB> or the contrary. Much
more likely is it that a very ancient manuscript lay before the
Syrian translator of the Books of Chronicles, from whence
he made his version. This old manuscript had many holes.
This also happened in our passage. The Syrian, doubtless,
found in his Hebrew manuscript : 1E>K  3 }r\: D'tisn
311? r6ae>3 " et cedros dedit tanquam . . . ." (r6se> he took
from the sea-shore) ; sand, therefore, which is countless, naturally
occurred to him. He filled up the gap and threw in sand ;
now it would be absurd to hold up this as a various reading-
It is merely a mistake of the Syrian, a bad guess.'
Section 95 d. — Sixth Source : Deliberate Corruption.
Little cause as there exists to call into doubt the
evidence of Josephus as to the high reverence with which
the Jews were accustomed to deal with their sacred
national books ; small as down to his time the alterations
they may have ventured on either as to diminutions or
additions ; and evident as the traces are, after his time, of
the transcription of their sacred books by them with the
most anxious honesty, the inference will nevertheless
only be that deliberate changes were never carried to
excess; and the conjecture will not be destroyed, that

SOURCES OF ERRORS 179
individual Jews for private ends may have made altera
tions in single passages. In the meantime, however, I am
aware of only two passages where this accusation against
the Jews will lie. Ps. xxii. 17, HS3 seems to have been
written by them for the purpose of removing the striking
similarity between the death of Christ and this passage ;
and Is. xix. 19 was probably interpolated by the Egyptian
Jews for the purpose of having something concerning a
temple at Leontopolis to be found in Isaiah.
Section 95 e. — Seventh Source : Transposition of Single
Words and Entire Sections.
In still-existing manuscripts of the Hebrew text in
stances enough are to be found of the transposition of
longer and shorter sections and detached words, by the
negligence of transcribers, of which marginal notices are
often given by them.1 And faults of this kind were com
mitted in the oldest times, as the passages show, where,
however evident the transpositions may be, still every
trace of a pre-existing different arrangement has vanished.
Job xl. 32 — xli. 3 may afford an example, of which passage
many reasons may be adduced to show that it now fills a false
place and ought to conclude chap. xli. But no trace of this
transposition is held out by any ancient version. Is. xxxviii.
1 Codex 437, by the side of Ps. lvi. is written PIT 3in3^ Tin3E>
D^n isdd id sd luern iniK Tansi aba rw by rvsmb iidtd!
'Oblitussum scribere hunc Psalmum lvi., eumque scripsi numero alius
ordinis ' (inN 11D- sc. Ixiv.) ' libri Psalmorum.' And on the margin of the
55th Psalm, which was written after the 63rd, the scribe again remarks
3in3 stic ~\)ib ^ocd nwm n-imb mso mis pip iididh nt
ilj J13ETI3, ' Hunc Psalmum legunt post, qui incipit 'b 'D '3 '? qui
signatur numero lv.,' and at the end of the Psalm irinSB'B' HDTDJI Hr
13 l13E>n3 nbinb iniK SirO1?, ' Hic est Psalmus quem oblitus sum
scribere supra numero lvi.' Compare Bruns ad Kennicot. Dissert.
General. § 23. N 2

180 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
21, 22 is evidently in a wrong place (sec. 93). I pass over
the transpositions in Jeremiah and many not improbable in
stances adduced by Kennicott in ' Dissert. Gen.' (sec. 22,
23, 71). Section 96. — Eighth Source : False Sight.
1. Certain consonants of the Hebrew square alphabet, in
manuscripts, and even in our oldest Bible editions, which
follow the type of the manuscripts very closely, look so like
one another as to be very difficult of distinction, especially
if without points, t and t for instance, can often only be
distinguished by the help of the Dagesh lene and Raphe,
and 3 and a not at all. Hence consonants, related to each
other merely by the figure, are exchanged in numberless
places. 2. Others, however, have acquired only an accidental
resemblance, sometimes through an irregular stroke of a
transcriber, sometimes by the extinction of a stroke, some
times by the unskilful renovation of a faded text, or by
some accident fitted to deform a letter.
Without pretending to completeness, which would be
only possible in a space of ten years, I will bring the
changes of this sort into an alphabetical list, and for this
purpose cite chiefly the variations to be found in every
edition of the Bible, Keri and Chetiv, that each person,
without the aid of Polyglot and Kennicott, may satisfy
himself respecting their permutations. Quotations from
other sources will be particularly noted.
3 for 1- Jos. xv. 47 ; Nehem. vii. 34, Hebr. 254, LXX 252.
So 3> 2, 1, 4, are interchanged 1 Kings vii. 15, Hebr. 12,
LXX 14 ; Esther iii. 7, Hebr. 12, LXX 14, both times 3,
2 interchanges with 1> 4.
3 with 3. Jos. vi. 5 ; 1 Sam. xi. 16 ; 2 Sam. v. 24, xii. 31 ;
¦1 Kings iii. 24 ; Prov. xxi. 29 ; Ezr. viii. 14 ; Nehem. iii. 20 ;

SOURCES OE ERRORS 181
Ps. lxxviii. 69, Hebr. pK3, LXX, the Arabian, Vulgate,
Itala, the Syrian, editions and manuscripts, on the other
hand, p«3.
3 with 1> Ezekiel iii. 15.
3 with 1> 4 Book Moses iii. 28, where perhaps, on account of
the sum total in ver. 39, niND E^C ought to stand, instead of
fllKD Bt!>, so that 3> 3, and 1> 6, seem to have been exchanged, as
2 Chron. iii. 16, many manuscripts have CJJ' instead of CWC.
1 for t. Ezekiel xxv. 7 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 13, D'OP V3E>, or t
7, LXX Tpva. in}, as 1 Chron. xxi. 12, 0*36? mb& or J, 3.
1 exchanged with 3» see above 3 with 1-
1 with n, see below n with 1-
1 with V 1 Kings xiii. 33 ; 1 Sam. xvi. 4, Hebr. 6
1, LXX and Josephus ('Antiq.' vi. 9. 1)4, 1-
1 with 1» 2 Kings xvi. 6 ; Proverbs xix. 19 ; 1 Sam. iv. 13 ;
2 Sam. xiii. 37 ; Jerem. ii. 20 ; the great Masorah being com
pared with Jerem. xxxi. Ps. xix. 14, Hebr. D*1tD, LXX d.7ro
aXXoTpLiov. 1 with n. 1 Kings xix. 4 ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 8 ; Is. lxvi. 17.
n with 1> Jerem. xxii. 6, ii. 14, 15.
n with n» Proverbs xx. 21 ; 2 Sam. xiii. 37 ; Daniel ix. 24 ;
2 Kings xx. 21 ; Song of Songs i. 17, where the Masora is to
be looked into. See also Hieronym. ' Qusestiones in Genesin,'
xiv. 5.
n with 3> Jerem. xxi. 12, xlix. 30.
n with D or D. Is. xxx. 32; 2 Kings viii. 17; 2 Sam. xiii. 13.
n with n» Jer. xxviii. 1, xliv. 25, Iii. 21 ; 2 Kings xxiv. 14,
xxv. 17.
n with |'li Proverbs xxv. 20.
'n with n-1> 2 Kings xvii. 31.
»D with B>> Is. xvi. 9 1TTJ, instead of which the Chaldean
and Jerem. xlviii. 42 have 11K>-
1 with 3i see above 1 with V
1 with 1. see above 1 with 1-
1 with t> see below T with 1-
1 with i in numberless places ; for instance, Jerem. vi. 25 ;
Josh. vi. 9 ; Ps. lxxi. 20, &c.

182 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
J-1 with n> see above n with |-V
n-1 with *n> see above <n with n-V
f with 3> see above J with 1-
t with 1, 2 Sam. vi. 13, Hebr. 6, 1, LXX and Vulgate
7, t ; Malachi i. 6, Hebr. 70, Vulgate and Chaldean *fja,
but the Syrian i?T3.
n with 3. 1 Kings xvi. 29, Hebr. 38, rb> LXX only 2, 3,
because 30, 7> in their manuscript had disappeared ; 2 Sam.
xxiv. DTinn, LXX 6apao-a>v.
n with n> see above n with IT
n with n> Ps. xviii. 35, Hebr. nnra, LXX, on the other
hand, Vulgate and Jerome nnnp.
D with B>> 1 Sam. xiv. 32.
i with 1> see above 1 with »•
* with b when ' in being copied was made too large,
1 Sam. xv. 4, Hebr. 10,000, ....?> but LXX 30,000, . . . b-
•> with V' Esther ix. 15, Hebr. 75,000, . . . njf. but LXX
15,000, ... rv-
3 with 3> see above 3 with 3-
3 with Di see above n with 3-
3 with D. 1 Sam. iv. 18, Hebr. 40, D.but LXX 20, 3; fur
ther, 2 Chron. xxii. 2, Hebr. 42, LXX 20 (perhaps 22), and
D. 40, 3> 20.
3 with 3> Ezek. xxvii. 7, Hebr. D3> LXX D3> compare
Clericus on 2 Book Moses xvii. 16, and Cappellus on Is.
xxxiii. 2 ; 1 Chron. xv. 6, some have 20, D> others 50, 3-
3 with D. 1 Kings xii. 21, Hebr. 180,000, LXX, on the con
trary, 120,000 ( B. 80 ; 3, 20) ; 1 Sam. xix. 22, Hebr. 13B>, LXX
o-e<£i, IBB'.
b with JJ, 1 Sam. xix. 22, Hebr. the number 30, 7> LXX
with Josephus (' Antiq.' vi. 4. 1) 70, ]} i 2 Sam. vi. 1, Hebr.
30,000, b, but LXX 70,000, ]) ; 2 Kings xxiii. 8, jna. LXX
yaiftaX, *?33 ; 1 Kings vii. 21 TJJ3. LXX /3o\o>£ T73 ; 1 Sam.
viii. 18 733. LXXyaySae, as 1 Sam. xiv. 5 is written by them 5732-
D with n> see fl with D-
D with 3> see 3 with D-

SOURCES OE ERRORS 183
D with Bi Is. Ixiv. 4, see below sec. 97 .
D or D with 3 or "|> 1 Kings i. 47.
D or D with 13. Jos. v. 1. Is. xxxiii. 2, Hebr. DJJ1T ; on the
contrary, according to the context, the Vulgate, the Syrian,
the Chaldean 13jnt. Ps. xii. 8, Hebr. DIDETl ; on the contrary,
according to the context, LXX, Vulg., Arabian WIDE'n ; and
immediately after again Hebr. 131 Vfl, Chald. DISn. Similar
cases see Is. x. 9 ; Ps. lxxx. 7 ; Ps. ixiv. 6, with the Syrian ;
Ps. lxxx. 7, with the LXX and Syrian.
ID with D, Ps. xi. 1, Hebr. D3in ; on the other hand, the
context, LXX, Aquila, the Syrian, the Chaldean, the Vulgate
1D3 in ; in the same manner, according to some interpreters,
Is. xxxiii. 11, instead of 1D3JT11, D3ni1 is to be read.
D with f|> see below S| with D-
D with SJ'i see below E> with D-
D with Tl> see below n with D-
3 with 3, see above 3 with 3-
3 with B. 2 Kings vi. 25, Hebr. 80, B-LXX 50, 3-
1? with S see above ' with y-
V with 7i see above 7 with ti
ll with S» 2 Kings xx. 4 ; see below S with y> andsec. 97.
B with 3> see above 3 with B-
B with D> see above D with B-
B with 3> see above 3 with B-
t[ withD. 1 Chron. xii. 35, Hebr. 28, 600, LXX 28, 800
(D 600, f) 800) ; Nehem. vii. 11, Hebr. 2,818, but LXX 2,618
according to the first recited permutation ; 1 Chron. ii. 51,
Hebr. f|in> LXX api/j..
S with i/> see above V with S ; 1 Sam. iv. 15, Hebr. 98, the
Syrian and Arabian 78 (70 », 90 S ).
p with 1> see below 1 with p-
p with n. 1 Kings ix. 28, Hebr. 400, n> but LXX 100, p ;
1 Sam. xxii. 5, Hebr. mn> LXX pin. o-apuc.
1 with 3> see above 3 with >
1 with 1. see above 1 with 1-
1 with p. 1 Sam. xviii. 27, Hebr. 200, 1, LXX 100, p.

184 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
1 with n. Ezr. ii. 28, Hebr. 200, 1, LXX 400, n ; 1 Chron.
i. 51 nrv> LXX leOep IIVi compare iv. 17 ; 2 Sam. xi. 3, xii. 24,
Hebr. JOE'TO. LXX p-qp-o-afiee. ; 2 Sam. xx. 14, 15, Hebr.
n31?D 11*3, LXX <pep/j.aKa.
S5> with Tli see above TI with E>-
W with D. 1 Kings v. 16, Hebr. 300, B>, LXX 600, D ; 1 Sam.
xi. 8, Hebr. 300,000, LXX 600,000, so 300, C , and 600, D. are
changed ; 1 Kings x. 16, Hebr. and LXX differ again about
this number.
n with 1. see above 1 with IV
fl with n> see above n with ri
ft with D, 1 Sam. xxiii. 13, Hebr. 600, D, LXX D, 400.
n with |> 1 Chron. xi. 18.
n with p. see above p with n-
n with li see above 1 with n-
»n with n. Ps. xvi. 6, Hebr. 117113. LXX, on the other hand,
Vulgate, the Arabian, the Syrian, and our vowel-points
,rl?D3. Ps. cxviii. 14, Hebr. niDt ; on the contrary, according
to parallelism and the points TI1DT ; Is. xii. 2, Hebr. mat,
LXX, Vulgate, Chaldean, Syrian, and the vowels 'nipt.
Compare 2 Book Moses xv. 2, but see about *mDT> sec. 102.
Let this list be compared with sec. 352.
3. Also some consonants easily escape the eye, from
the smallness of their size, and are lost among their larger
neighbours. Thus, i for instance, is frequently either
lost or overlooked.
Esther ii. 39, Hebr. 1,017, LXX 1,007 ; the overlooked
number 10 was not expressed in the Hebr. codex of the LXX
by the word icy- but by i- Esther ix. 14, Haman, according to
the Hebr. text, has 10 0) sons, the LXX leave the number
out. Other examples of the kind have been already adduced
(sec. 90. 2).1
1 For this section let a comparison be made with Faber's Programs,
in which he shows 'literas olim pro vocibus in numerando a scriptori
bus N. T. esse adhibitas.'

SOURCES OE ERRORS 185
4. Yet with regard to this source of various readings
we are not to dwell merely on the figures which now bear
resemblance to one another in the Hebrew alphabet, espe
cially if it be desired to throw light on the true origin of
these variations, which are to be found already in the
most ancient critical authorities. The figures of the
Hebrew consonants underwent only some further slight
change since the time of Jerome and of the Talmud ; but in
the centuries before their time consonants which now have
nothing common in their features, bore great similarity to
one another in figure, and were subjected to abundant
permutation. Thus the exchange of pK and 73N inter
preted already by Symmachus as 'A/3g\ (1 Samuel vi.
18), admits of an easier explication by the Phcenician,
Palmyrenean, and Samaritan alphabet, in which b and j
are similar, than from our square alphabet.1
Section 97. — Ninth Source : False Hearing.
Some consonants of the Hebrews have a close alliance
in sound and pronunciation ; with regard to others a
different pronunciation was possible ; others, again, were
unpronounceable by several sections of the Hebrew nation,
from a defect in the organs of speech. To the first class
belonged b>, t- and d> and the like ; to the second, y,
which was sometimes pronounced like the c of the
Arabians, and sometimes like the £; and hence, also,
sometimes expressed by the Greeks by y ; or also, to give
another example, N> which, according to the Syrian dialect,
might be sounded between two vowels, like »¦ To the last
class belonged the aspirate letters V n n K, which in the
1 Kommershausen, Introduction to the 0. T. § 151, 1 B. Moses xiv. 2,
Hebr. p73, LXX. y73 according to an easy exchange of p for y in
the Samaritan and Phcenician alphabet.

186 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
mouth of the Galilean and Samaritan all sounded like s,1
a fault from which also many Jews of another tribe were
not quite free.
If now a transcriber read aloud to himself, or another
to him, the text indistinctly, or with the faults before
mentioned, changes of single consonants would necessarily
take place in copying, and various readings of this kind
be the result, of which here follow some examples taken
from the sources in sec. 96 in alphabetical order.
X with S between two vowels, according to the Syrian pro
nunciation, as 3X11 with 3.VI1 1 Sam. xxii. 18, compare 22 ;
Daniel ii. 38, iii. 32, vi. 26. ISiKH with IS'ITI, Zechar. xi. 13,
in the same way as 1V'S,J is grown out of 1DN1 Zech. iv. 2.
See Christ. Bened. Michaelis, ' Syriasmus,' sec. 4, § 3, a.
K with y, as 7y with 7N> Is. xxxvii. 9, compare 2
Kings xix. 9.
3 with 1, both pronounced like V, as |pi with J331
Dan. vii. 10.
3 with Di which with the Orientals must have had a great
similarity in pronunciation, as Dibon and Dimon, 133D and
1D3D, rete, Becca Mecca. Jos. iii. 16, xxiv. 15, iv. 18, vi. 15 ;
Judges xix. 25 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 33, v. 12 ; 1 Sam. xi. 9 ;
Dan. ix. 15, compare sec. 96. (Golius ad Alfragan v.
Mecca.) 1 with fl- especially if 1, having sometimes a hissing sound,
is pronounced like j of the Arabians and n (the EngUsh
' th ') of the Hebrews : 1 Kings xix. 4. See also sec. 96.
1 with 3, see above 3 with V
t with E>> Ps. lix. 10, Hebr. HIDE'S ; on the other hand, the
LXX, Vulgate, .^Ethiopian, and Chaldean niDTN-
n withyi Ps. xcvii. 12, Hebr. yit ; LXX, on the contrary,
Chaldean, manuscripts, &c, mt- 3lh and 3iy, Zeph. ii. 14,
compare Is. xxxiv. 11.
' See Buxtorf, in Lexico Chald.-Tlialm. s. v. p^j. Wetstein, Ai .
Matth. xxvi. 73.

SOURCES OF ERRORS 187
D with 3i see above 3 with D-
D with B> see above 3 with D- Is. Ixv. 4 ; 1 Kings vi. 1,
Hebr. 80, B- LXX 40, D. Jos. ix. 3, Hebr. HBSD, LXX
teaa-o-vp, riDSD.
y with n. see above n with y-
y with S> which in the utterance of the Orientals must have
been nearly allied, because in the Hebrew many words occur
spelt with both y and S> as y31 and ^31. yyi and psi. and in
the Syrian and Chaldean an y is often found for the Hebrew
S- for instance pN. Chald. nyiK> Syrian \±j] ; 2 Kings xx. 4 ;
1 Kings iv. 14, Kiy, o-a.88a) ; 1 Chron. 4, criovav.
B with D. see above D with B-
¥ with y. see above y with S-
E> with t> see above t with E>-
n with 1. see above 1 with fl-
Compare with this sec. 98, 352.
Generally speaking, the pronunciation of the transcriber,
or, if he was dictated to, that of his reader, had a greater
influence on the text which was being given than might
be thought ; it was the occasion of several words being
thrown together into one, or of one being divided into
several. In this manner, 4 Book Moses xxiii. 10, the
single word 1BDD arose out of 1BD *D. See Venema ad
Malach. i. 13.

Section 98. — Tenth Source : The Custom of Reading
Different from what is Written.
Many consonants of the Hebrew alphabet are incapable
of pronunciation from their nature, as K and the otiose
final n ; or from carelessness or a quick utterance they are,
as it were, swallowed ; nay, even among the Jews cases
occurred where, instead of the written word, quite a
different word was read. If, then, copying took place

188 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
by the ear, how easily would consonants sometimes he
omitted, sometimes entirely different words written !
run' interchanges endless times with 'OIK. and sometimes
with DT17K1 because, instead of nin,> '31K was always pro
nounced by the Jews, and in case of '31K being followed by
nin*, D*H7K was the pronunciation. And this mutation is of
remote antiquity. The LXX interpreters hence already ex
press nin* by Kuptos, and the Talmud speaks of such change
as a matter quite established (Kiddushin, fol. 71 a, lin. 29 ;
Pesachim, fol. 50, a ; Tychsen, ' Tent.' p. 288 ; Kennicott
'Diss. Gen.' sec. 25, fin.).
T3r6 with 1»37, 2 Kings ix. 15, in some way after the
Syrian pronunciation.
PIS'1, with 7nj, Is. xiii. 20, because it was perhaps usual to
read 7riX^ after a Syrian pronunciation. 7nN> is agreeable to
parallelism, together with Symmachus, the Vulgate, Syrian,
and Chaldean.
ri3D with ri3 JD, Lament, i. 6.
nm with m.
H33 with "J3- Compare with this sec. 99, 352.
Section 99. — Eleventh Source : Faults from Memory.
Transcribers who copied not letter by letter mechanic
ally, but grasped whole sentences and lines in their
memories and then wrote them down, must at times,
through a fault in their retentiveness, have exchanged
words of like signification for one another. The same
thing would happen if a passage chanced to be known to
them by heart, and they wrote rather from memory than
from the manuscript lying before them.
Judaicum ediscunt et servant et metuunt jus,
Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses.
Juvenal, xiv. 101.
73 with K7 : 5 Book Moses xxiv. 19,31ETI 73, 'Tract. Peah.'

SOURCES OF ERRORS 189
c. vi. s. 4 ; our editions, on the contrary, 31ETI N7. So also
73 with 7K : 3 Book Moses xxv. 36, ' Bava Mezia,' c. v. sec. 11,
npn 73 ; the printed editions npn 7N.
7« with ns.
7 with 7S-
D with JD.
DI with DDn, 2 Sam. xxi. 9.
|n with n3n, Is. Hv. 16.
IDN'1 the Oriental and 13T1 the Western manuscripts,
2 Kings i. 10.
nin* with '31K, of which an instance occurs already in the
Talmud. ' Tract. Berachoth,' c. vii. sec. 3 has, Ps. lxviiL 27,
nin* instead of the printed *31K. See another example in the
edition of Hoog, Ps. lxxxvi. 3. And in the same way these
words vary in the Eastern and Western manuscripts,
Lam. v. 22. Vogel on ' Cappelli Critiea Sacra,' pp. 30-51,
has gathered sufficient evidence on this point. Compare also
sec. 93.
Section 100. — Twelfth Source : Arbitrary Use of the
Matres Lectionis.
The use of the guides to reading, ^ and >, depended
entirely on the pleasure of the transcribers. Hence in
their respects manuscripts differ so abundantly from one
another, that the half of Kennicott's collection of variations
consists in a notice of the plenarum and defectivarum.
Still the transcribers have seldom introduced more than
two matres lectionis into a word susceptible of a greater
number ; only the introduction or omission of the matres
lectionis into any passage seems to have been left to their
discretion.1 1 Vogel, Dissertatio de Matribus Lectionis Librariorum Arbitrio olim
relictis, which as to the chief matters is repeated in Cappelli Critiea
Sacra, p. 53 ; Michaelis, Orient. Libr. Part ii. 237, 238 ; xii. § 109 ;
xiii. § 210 ; xviii. § 119 ; xx. § 97.

190 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

Section 101. — Thirteenth Source: An Acquaintance with
other Oriental Dialects.
If a transcriber were intimate with other Eastern dia
lects, he carried the orthography as well as the words,
with which from them he was more familiar, into his copy
of the Hebrew Bible.
IV for nK is often found in manuscripts.
* as the sign of a vowel, as nE>yn instead of nE>yn 2 Book
Moses xxv. 31, "PTDH instead of "p,Dn> Ps. xvi. 10, both ac
cording to a Chaldean Rabbinical orthography. ' Bept. for
Bibl. and East. Lit.' Part i. sec. 170 ; Part v. sec. 137.
K after 1 in the third person of the preterite plural, as
N13K instead of 13N, Is. xxviii. 12 ; N137nn instead of
137iin, Jos. x. 24, after an Arabian orthography. Also DNp
f *IjY Hos. 14, is an Arabism.
* according to a Chaldean fashion placed after the feminine
termination of the second person feminine of the personal
pronoun, and of the preterite and participle. Jer. x. 17,
Ceth. *n3E»l\ Keri mtPV ; Jer. iii. 5, xiii. 21, &c. This
orthography is probably to be placed to the account of the
copyists almost always in old books, as in Micah, where for
instance iJlE'jBrirj must be read (as the marginal notice, which
is merely an exegetical scholium, however, says), and iv. 13,
»npinrji.

Section 102. — Fourteenth Source: Fake Solution of the
Abbreviations.
In our still extant manuscripts, with regard to certain
words, and those which are also of frequent occurrence,
abbreviations are not altogether unusual ; also in the oldest
Bible editions, which follow closely the arrangement of the
manuscripts, many words are found abridged. Is it not

SOURCES OE ERRORS 191
probable that in the most ancient times such abbreviations
of words were customary, and that thence, either by a false
explanation of them or an entire omission thereof, various
readings sprang up ? At least by this hypothesis the rise
of many variations admits of a natural explanation. (See
above, sec. 90.)
»y from 1*y, Josh. viii. 16, Ker. and Keth.
»n and 7*n, 2 Sam. xxiii. 20, K. and Keth.
E>X and IK'S, 2 Sam. xxiii. 21, K. and Keth.
*3D perhaps from D^D, Ps. xiv. 9.
tx (expressed already by the LXX) formed perhaps out of
HT »3N. Ps. Ixix. 5.
¦ »js. from rilS, Ps. lxxxiv. 48.
7K1E" TV3 perhaps from 7K JV3, Amos v. 6. Venema ' In
Psalmos,' t. i. p. 210.
7K )T3 perhaps from D»PJ7X. Tip, Zech. vii. 2.
' by itself, instead of nin', hence '13y3 may come from
nin? 13y3 if it were abbreviated by "' 13y3. Symmachus,
Is. xiii. 19, has interpreted nin* 13y3 by 6 SoiAos fnov. Ken
nicott, 'Dissert. Gen.' sec. 25, has still further instances of
this abbreviation.
mn* Don, Jerem. vi. 11, was formerly written *nDn, for the
LXX translate Ovpxiv pov. ^JIXJE', Ps. xxxi. 7, is interpreted
by all the ancient translators and Cod. 170 by nin; nX3.E>.
^1X3, 1 Book Kings ix. 18, perhaps from rniS DlfcH.
Compare 2 Chron. viii. 2, 3.
IN for lix, Job xxii. 11, as still expressed by the LXX : to
0(i)S croi ctkotos thrtf3r].
T\ was often abbreviated, as the above-cited examples
(sec. 96) show. Either i was attached to the upper stroke of
the TI. as often occurs in manuscripts ; or perhaps, according
to a trick of the Rabbins, placed within the belly of the n , or
PljniDt was formerly written together in one word, with a
Yod, and its duplication left to pronunciation. But the

192 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
pointers omitted the duplication, and as they divided the word
into two, contrary to speech, parallelism, &c, they wrote
n< nipt.1
Section 103. — Fifteenth Source: False Division of Words.
The old Hebrews wrote letter to letter, without any
intervening spaces (sec. 73 f.). When afterwards the words
were divided many mistakes were likely to occur, which
probably thereafter admitted of discovery and correction.
Now in some manuscripts the ancient errors were propa
gated, in others the amended text was adopted.
DID bv instead of niD^y, Psalm xlviii. 15. The last
reading is contained in many manuscripts and editions,
and amongst the ancient ones the LXX, the Vulgate, and
the Chaldean.
intj> nnyv, Kethib, and inE>n nyi», Keri, Job xxxviii.
12 ; niD'E"' and HID K>E», or *B», Psalm lv. 16, Ker. and
Keth. In our Bible editions variations of the kind are
found in the following places : 1 Chron. xxvii. 12 ; Judges
xvi. 25; Lam. iv. 3, 16; 1 Chron. ix. 4; 1 Book Moses
xxx. 11; Jeremiah vi. 29; Isaiah xliv. 24. And at
m E"K, 5 Book Moses xxxiii. 2, the lesser Masora remarks
that in fifteen places two words are combined into one
which require to be divided in reading.
FIJ nipt, the printed text ; n; 'nipt, the old translators ;
Isaiah xii. 2, 2 Book Moses xv. 4 ; compare sec. 96, 102.2
1 Stack, in Odis Davidis, t. i. p. 27, gathers many examples out of
the old translations of the Psalms of misinterpreted abbreviations.
2 See some further examples in Kennicott, Dissert. General. § 28.

SOURCES OE ERRORS 193
Section 104. — Sixteenth Source : Guardians of the Lines.
The transcribers of the Hebrew Bible did not permit
themselves the liberty of dividing words, and of writing
in the following line such consonants as the previous one
would not contain ; but just as little did they allow them
selves to leave a vacant space in any line. Now if at the
end of a line a space still remained, but insufficient for
the next word, the vacant space was filled at times with
any consonants at pleasure, but in general with the initial
letters of the next word, which, however, was written over
again at full length in the next line. Supposing a tran
scriber to be inattentive to this arrangement, or too
ignorant to recognise the ' custos,' he carried these mere
stop-gaps into his new copy.
Thus, Isaiah xxxv. 1, 131D DIE'E" has arisen from
131D 1E>E" merely through a ' custos ; ' and perhaps Psalm
ii. 7, yi, from a repetition of the last syllable of *31XD.
On the other hand learned copyists thought sometimes:
to find such expletives where they did not exist, and left
out words which belonged to the text.
Thus, 2 Book Moses xxxi. 9, 73 is left out (V73 for
1*73 73), because the copyists mistook it for a 'custos.'
The Samaritan, LXX, the Syrian, Arabian, and Chal
dean, according to a manuscript in the British Museum,
express the 73. (Kennicott, ' Dissertat. super Rat. Textus
Hebr.' sec. 177.)
Section 105. — Seventeenth Source : 6p,oioTsXsvTov.
Moreover, in profane literature, it is sufficiently known
that the recurrence of the same word is a manifold source
of omission. And traces enough are to be found in the
infancy of criticism of the Hebrew text. o

194 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
2 Sam. xxiii. 9, 10, 11, there stood formerly DE> 1BDN3 • • <
&c. IT ny3» »3 iu DW7B3 ti Dp «m (10) ! 7S1E" 17B»1 nDn7D7
•niE'n npbn de* »mv non7D7 irn? DW7B ibdn'i (11)
So formerly as to the chief matter stood 1 Chron. xi. 13.
But the twice-recurring non7D has given occasion to a great
omission. For now the passage is merely nDn?D7 DE* 1BDK3 • •
niE'n np"?n *nni (see ' Repert. for Bibl. and East. Lit.' Part ii.
sec. 258 f.). So also Ps. xxxvii. 28, the first half of the verse,
which should begin with y, namely, DiyE>1 yit! ¦IIDE'3 D'7-iy
ni3'', retained still by the LXX, Vulg., Arab., and Symma
chus, has disappeared, because the so similar words IIDE'3 D7iy7
immediately preceded it. See ' Repert.' &c. Part vi. sec. 13.
The two verses Jos. xxi. 36, 37 are both gone, because vers.
36 and 38 began with ntSDD-l. After Jos. xv. 59, one verse, if
not more, is omitted, occasioned by the constantly recurring
JIH^ni : compare the LXX. Similar instances occur,
Judges xvi. 13 ; 2 Kings vii. 13, xxiii. 16.
Section 106. — Eighteenth Source: Fondness for
Beautifully-written Manuscripts.
Finally a beautifully-written manuscript was a jewel
in the eyes of the Hebrews, worthy of payment in solid
gold. Hence the chief exertions of transcribers were
directed rather to beauty of execution than fidelity to their
exemplars, and crossings out were reluctantly made. If
the scribe, however, were moved enough by conscience to
make them, the strokes used were of so fine and somewhat
embellishing a character, as easily to elude the eye of an
inexperienced and not over-attentive copyist. Hence in
very early times false readings appear to have arisen.
When, however, afterwards the Bible was supplied
with points throughout, the punctuator came to the
rescue, left false readings as well as improperly repeated
words without points, and placed the improved readings,
together with the omitted words, in smaller characters on

SOURCES OE ERRORS 195
the margin. But this method — which was adopted in
aid of the beauty of manuscripts — was not a convenient
one. How easily, in the current of his work, might not
the marginal insertion of the faulty or omitted word be
forgotten by the punctuator; or if made, the small character,
perhaps, of the consonants used, or their distance from the
place of the omission, fail of their due impression ; in short,
many an improved reading escape the view of an indif
ferent transcriber. Finally, since consonants and vowel-
points were not written together, but each part separately,
would not the transcriber's eye be of necessity principally
fixed on the consonants ? How easy the oversight of the
punctuator's mark of condemnation, consisting in the
omitted addition of the vowel-points !
The preference for the external beauty of a manuscript un-
deformed by blottings must have appeared soon after the
Babylonian captivity. For by the omissions of such cancellings
the most ancient false readings were forced into the Hebrew
text ; in this manner, perhaps, the repetition of T,1ini, Ps. Ixv. 5,
took place, which was expressed, however, already by the LXX
and other ancient translators. From this source also I derive
the explanation of the iteration of the two verses of Ezr. i.
1, 2, at the end of the Books of Chronicles (xxxvi. 22, 23).
At first the author wished to make the history contained in
Ezra a continuation of the Books of Chronicles ; but after
wards altered his mind and determined to make a separate
work of it, when he had already commenced appending it to
the Books of Chronicles. In order to avoid defacing his
manuscript, he did not strike out the verses already written,
but merely copied them afresh in his new roll.
Section 107. — Alexandrian Version.
After the collection of the writings of the Old Testa
ment and their depositing in the Temple, history is silent
concerning their fate for some hundreds of years. First
o 2

196 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
about the year 285 B.C., on the occasion of the prepara
tion of the Alexandrian version, they came again into the
light. From this version it is clear that the Hebrew manu
scripts from which it originated had been already deformed
by allegorical crotchets (sec. 95), but not yet supplied with
points throughout ; that they possessed neither separate
words (sec. 73), nor division into verses (sec. 97), nor
everywhere numeral words at length (sec. 90) ; but that
they were written with consonants, which agreed for the
most part in shape with our square alphabet, and in all
the kinds of various readings which have been hitherto
enumerated differed from our present text.1
Section 108. — Neglect of the Original Text.
After the expiry of a century, the Alexandrian version
had come into almost general esteem, not only in Egypt,
but also in Palestine (sec. 166) ; reliance was placed on
it alone, and the Hebrew text consequently almost entirely
neglected. In order to justify this excessive use of the
Septuagint, the fable was invented that the Holy Spirit
rested on the translators in like manner as it .had done on
the original authors.
1 The Tract. Megillah in the Babylonian Gemara, fol. 3, col. 1, speaks
of thirteen passages, which (in a, copy (or version ?) made for Ptol.
Philadelphus, of the Pentateuch) were intentionally altered. The
passages require only to be read to exhibit tangibly the mixture of
fables and errors. To save space I will not quote the entire long pas
sage here. The meaning given to it by 01. Gerb. Tychsen in the Tenta
men, p. 48 ff., had received light from Michaelis in the Orient, and
Exegetical Bible, Part v. § 41 ff. Dresde also, in his Essay De locis 13
a Judteis in Codice Ebreso Ptolemmo regnante prtstermissis (in his Triga
Commentationum academicarum), wished to elucidate the relations
mentioned, but in the execution of his design proceeded no farther than
the citation of the passage itself.

THE ALEXANDRIAN VERSION 197
Section 109. — New Testament : Philo and Josephus.
Hence, with all authors at the time of the commence
ment of our Christian era who use the Old Testament, the
Greek text of the LXX lies at the root, and not that of the
Hebrews. The New Testament quotes passages from the Old,
commonly from the Greek version,1 and the commentaries
of Philo have reference always to its text. If he be in
pursuit of emphases, he raises them not in Hebrew, but
in Greek words. Josephus, finally, draws from it his
entire Jewish history ; and departs from it only in the
article of chronology when the Hebrew suits his turn
better than the Greek.2
Philo divides, after his Greek manuscript, Moses into
five books (sec. 29) ; and since this division is probably as
old as the Alexandrian version, it may be well imagined
that it was so found by the translator in the Hebrew
exemplar employed by him.
In Josephus' time it was customary to write the
manuscripts of the Old Testament on parchment; also
there existed at that time no law condemning manu
scripts written on coloured parchment to the fire ; for
1 See Koppii Novum Testam. vol. iv. excurs. i. ad Epist. ad Romanos,
where this is shown very clearly with regard to Paul's epistles. Of the
quotations from Hosea this is shown by Steudlin in the Aids for the
Elucidation of the Bible Prophets, Part i. § 129 ff. Cf . the Gospels and
the Acts of the Apostles, and J. G. Eichorn's General Libr. of Bibl. Lit.
Part ii. § 947 ff.
2 Michaelis is strongly inclined for the opinion that Josephus used
the Hebrew text in his historical works (that he was in possession even
of the Temple copy; see above, § 91). Compare Michaelis, East, and
Exeget. Bibl. Part v. in the supplement. Of most of the passages there
quoted, Scharf enberg in Prolusio de Josephi et Versionis A lexandrines
Consensu (Leips. 1780, 4) has proved the contrary, namely, that the Greek
version was their source. See below (§ 339 a).

198 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Josephus, in aid of the Alexandrian translators, causes
a copy of the Pentateuch, together with the pseudo-
Aristeus, to be made on coloured parchment in golden
letters, as if no objections against such writing mate
rials were entertained.1 Finally, Josephus reckons four
Hagiographa and thirteen Prophets (sec. 8), according
to a classification peculiar to him, and which rested on a
custom of his time, to refer all books which did not
originate with poets — in the strictest sense of the word —
to prophets.
Section 110. — Restoration of the Study of the Original Text.
Even after the birth of Christ, the excessive use of
the Septuagint continued for some time, in the polemical
strife between the Christians and Jews. Whereby the
Jews, being generally the losers, came gradually to detest
the Alexandrian version, and for that reason, as it seems,
reverted to the study of the Hebrew language and the
original text again. Now, amongst them new translators
of the Bible arose, and the Christians, not to be behind
them, laboured also in the production of new versions.
This was the immediate cause of the labours of an Aquila,
Symmachus, Theodosian, and the other Greeks with whom
we are still acquainted through the medium of Hexaplarian
fragments. Section 111. — Corruptions of the Original Text by the Jews.
About this time the Jews must have deliberately falsi
fied their sacred national writings, if this reproach so often
cast against them have any possible foundation. But how
is it to be reconciled with the high reverence they are
alleged to have entertained towards them (sec. 40, 57) ?
1. Before the birth of Christ they undertook no delibe-
1 Josephus, Antiq. lib. xii. c. 2, § 11.

THE ORIGINAL TEXT 199
rate corruptions of the original text, certainly ; for they
had no motive so to do.1 The Palestinian Jews were re
proached, however, with having, before the birth of Christ,
5 B. Moses xxvii. 4, changed Gerizim into Ebal,2 and
Is. xix. 18, Dinn ~cy (urbs solis) into Dinn fy (urbs per-
ditionis); the first out of hatred to the Samaritans, in
order that the curse uttered should fall upon Gerizim, the
temple-hill of the Samaritans; the second from hostility
to their Egyptian brethren, to slur the city in which stood
the temple of the Egyptian Jews.3 But their innocence
is evident. On the mountain where the Jewish people
swore to the Law with cursings and sacrifices, the altar
behoved to be erected. This was the hill Ebal, and upon
it the Hebrew Jewish text makes the altar rightly to have
been built. On the other hand, upon the hill Gerizim,
upon which the Samaritan text makes the erection of the
altar, and over which a blessing had been spoken — for the
people swore not there with sacrifices, but answered only
Amen — no altar was to be expected.4 And in the second
place, a wilful alteration from hate to the Egyptian Jews
is still less to be imagined, for Dinn yy is a literal transla
tion of Leontopolis,5 where the Jewish temple in Egypt
was built.6
2. After the birth of Christ the polemical rage of the
* Even if Is. xix. 18, nnS7 IDS'1 Dinn yy should be false, still
the words certainly did not come into the text by an intentional cor
ruption. 2 Kennicott, Dissert, ii. c. 1, the Lat. Edit.
3 StarMi Carmina Davidis, t. i. p. 9.
4 Verschuir, ' Dissert, critiea, qua lectio Hebraai codicis in loco celebri
Deuter. xxvii. 4, defenditur,' in his Dissertationes Philologicoexe-
geticts. Leovard and France, 1773, n. 3.
5 Itemin Dissert, de Dinn 1*17 in dissertationibus philologieo-theolo-
giois, n. 19.
6 Josephi Antiq. Jud. lib. xiii. c. 3. Compare Christian Muller,
Satura Observatiommphilologicarum, p. 65. tj~Jo signifies in Arabic a
lion.

200 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Jews might have seduced them to corrupt passages used
by the Christians, in their disputes with them respecting
the already appeared Messiah, as proofs, in order to pre
vent their being employed as such altogether, or at least
for the Christians. But then (1) they must have been
devoid of all understanding to change only the places
which speak in the least decisive way concerning the
Messiah, and to leave the most evident ones unaltered.
(2) And if the examination into the passages be proceeded
with, by which hitherto this accusation has been supported,
the appearances will admit of a much more natural ex
planation without this supposition.1 (3) Finally, the
Church Fathers, by whom these charges of falsifications
are cast upon them, impute to them always the corruption
of the Septuagint, and never of the original Hebrew text.
If now it be wished to support these accusations, which
have not hitherto been sufficiently proved, and to infer
from their alleged dealings with the Septuagint some
similar conduct with regard to the original text — what a
leap, and withal then merely a bare possibility !
Section 112. — Hebrew-Greek Manuscripts.
About this time also the Christians began to apply
themselves to the study of the Bible in the original.
After the death of the Hebrew tongue even the Jews en
countered difficulties sufficiently great in learning to read
the Hebrew Bible not supplied with points throughout ;
1 General German Libr. B. 35, § 72 ; compare Starkii Carmina
Davidis, 1. o. The only passage where with any grounds an intentional
change for the purpose of depriving the Christians of a prediction of
the Messiah can be imagined is Ps. xxii. 17, in i"|X3- But this read
ing has been condemned by the most learned Jews, and the admission
made that they themselves have retained !")iO in the Masora as the
better reading. Kennicott, in Dissert. Gener., is, however, still for in
tentional corruptions of the Jews in many places.

POLYGLOT VERSIONS 201
but to them they were lightened by means of their mother-
speech, the Syro-Chaldean. But for the Christians, who
understood no Chaldean, these difficulties were multiplied
a thousandfold. To lessen these, it seems, Hebrew Bibles
written in Greek letters, or Codices Ebrseo-Grasci, were
prepared. Hitherto this meritorious service has been
attributed to Origen ; but a modern scholar has attempted
to prove that Codices Ebrseo-Grseci are older than Origen.1
Since the transcription of the Hebrew text in Greek
character was accompanied with many difficulties, the Alex
andrian version was abundantly used in his labours by
the inventor of the Hebrew-Greek copy as a commentary.
Hence, for instance, Ps. ex. 3, he writes, Mwpsp, p,scrcraap
XaK 6aX isXsBs8sx, that is, wf?i ba 1,7 HlB>p Dprip, because
the LXX had rendered !« yacrrpos irpo scocrcpopov iysv-
vrjeraers Wjb] IDB'P D0X>.
Section 113. — First Polyglot by Origen.
About the year 231 the first Polyglot was prepared
by Origen, and the first ground laid among Christians for
the critical elaboration of the Bible on the best principles.
His chief object, however, in this work was the critical
elaboration of the Septuagint ; of this, not of the Hebrew
text, he made a new recension, and placed the Hebrew
text in the first column of his Polyglot, only for the pur
pose of rendering more easy the comparison betwixt the
ancient translators. And hence is wanting all information
concerning the nature of his Hebrew text, and at present
we can merely refer to the Codex of Jerome in order to
ascertain the value of the Hebrew column in the Hexapla.
But if the text of the Septuagint were brought nearer to
its form in the Hexapla, that of itself would throw great
' See 01. Gerb. Tychsen's first appendix to the free Tentamen, § 33 ff.

202 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
light on the quality of the Hexapla Hebrew text. For
instance, Joshua xxi. 36, 37, in the Septuagint of the
Hexapla was marked with an obelus, as Mansius in his
Joshua remarks ; consequently both verses must have been
wanting in the Hebrew text of the Hexapla, as in Jerome,
the Masora, and many modern manuscripts. On the other
hand, Ps. xviii. 14, CN »7n31 113 stood in the Hexapla
Hebrew text, because Origen, on the assurance of Jerome,
substituted the Greek translation of these words with an
asterisk in the Septuagint.1
It is surprising, and, to most modern critics who are dis
posed to concede a greater worth than they really deserve to
our still extant manuscripts, extremely offensive, to find the
Hebrew-Greek column of the Hexapla and the Hebrew text
used by Origen in his recension of the Alexandrinian revision,
almost everywhere agreeing with the Masora, where by the
more modern manuscripts it is deserted.
Proofs of this are afforded by all manuscripts of the
Septuagint in which its Hexapla text has in any degree
been correctly preserved. Bruns has often had occasion to
make this remark in the ' Curis Hexaplaribus in iv. Librum
Regum ' (in the ' Repert. for Bibl. and East. Lit.' Part ix. c. 10).
The following examples taken from his treatise will find their
proper place here : —
2 Kings vi. 20, now npB ; many manuscripts add X3, which
Origen did not find there, hence he marks Sij with an obelus.
1 Here are some examples. Because Origen in his Hebrew, as in our
Masoretical, text (IB. Moses iv. 8) has nothing of the discourse between
Cain and Abel, so he marks with an obelus the addition in the LXX ;
Aie\dufxev els to ireSiov iv tu 'Ef3pa'iKu ov yeypairTai, he writes, Operum
t. ii. p. 30. Also he ' obelises ' (quite agreeably to our Masoretical text)
Kai elSev b ®eos bn KaXov, which words cannot have stood originally in
Moses. See the Primitive History in the Repertorium for Bibl. and
East. Lit. Part iv. The great interpolation, I B. Sam. xvii., was already
to be found in the Hebrew manuscript of Origen. Compare Kennicott,
Diss. Gener. § 80. 2.

POLYGLOT VERSIONS 203
2 Kings viii. 5, the present Masoretical text, non nx n*nn;
a modern codex (n. 174) has non n33 JIN ; Origen (according
to the Masoretical text) has marked with an obelus vlov.
2 Kings viii. 16, the Masorites DIM' ; the e/?p. 'loiapa/ji (con
trary to the Oriental reading DIV, and which contradicts the
Masorites). 2 Kings ix. 4, the Masor. text N»33n Iy3n 1U3n 1,7*1 ; some
manuscripts leave the second iy3n out, which was, however,
found by Origen.
2 Kings x. 1 , the Mas. text D»3pW ; some codd. D*3pTn-7K.
Origen obelises irpos (before tous wpecr/Jurepous).
2 Kings x. 14, D"n DlE'Bn'l according to the Masora ; some
manuscripts leave the words out, because the same words
recur : the Hebrew text of Origen has them. * A, Kai o-vv-
tXafiovTO avrovs ^onras.
2 Kings xvi. 6, the Kethib D'DIIKI (the Syrian) confirms
Origen in the Syro-Hexaplarian codex by **"> • Lo3]
2 Kings xviii. 17, the words of the Masoretical text
1N3*1 17y'1, which for many reasons there may be a disposition
to hold as interpolated, are in Origen * kcu dj/e/Jiyo-av Kai rjXOov
Kai io-rrjo-av.2 Kings xix. 23, *31X of the Masorites is confirmed by
Origen ; on the other hand, many modern manuscripts have
nin*. Moreover, the Hebrew-Greek column in the Hexapla
was regarded as the most authentic and exact pattern of
the Hebrew-Greek manuscripts, and when Jerome wished
to obtain an exact text of the Hebrew-Greek transcript, he
corrected his manuscript of it out of the Hexapla in the
library at Cesarea.1 1 Hieronymi Comment, in Titum iii. 9.

204 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

Section 114. — Condition of the Hebrew Text between the
Third and Sixth Century.— 1. The Tahvud.
About the middle of the third century we derive the
information that in the manuscripts of the entire Old
Testament the separate books followed each other exactly
in the order in which we have them in our present Bible
editions. The Talmud, for instance, which was compiled
after the year 220, divides the whole collection into three
parts, and enumerates eight Prophets and nine Hagio
grapha. But probably this arrangement is of much older
date — older than the birth of Christ, and contemporary
with the compilation of the Old Testament (sec. 7, 8);
only we are deficient in express information on the subject
from earlier times.
Calligraphical rules were also already laid down for
transcribers, from whence it is as clear as the sun at noon
day, that the consonants at that time had already attained
their complete present forms.1
The Talmud forbids, in the process of transcription,
the letters 3 and 3. 3 and ¥> 1 and 1- n and n. 1 and '>
T and 3> D and B. D and D. to be confounded together.
Also it is acquainted with the final letters, and speaks of
a double Mem (D and D). At that time also the Parashen
were marked in the manuscripts, and divided into open
and shut.2
1 Tychsen, Tentamen de variis Codicum hebraicorum V. T. generibus,
p. 18. In the Tract. Gittinit runs : 'ipo 733 DH33n )D piBD ppl^
3m3 nw p*x3 ins n333 'E»yDi tns^ns pins vn<E> '3731
13DD np'7 33 "EH 1'nni D*1BD- ' Manuscripts may be received from
strangers from all parts, if they are but written according to the Pat
tern. When formerly a stranger at Sidon wrote manuscripts, their pur
chase was permitted by R. Simeon, the son of Gamaliel.'
2 See above, § 79. Tract. Shabbath, fol. 103, 2, lin. 33. Tychsen,
Tentamen, p. 347. The passage then is as follows : NnnE* 'n3n31

THE HEBREW TEXT 205
Also a classification of manuscripts is already ventured
on by the Talmud, according to the different kinds of
transcribers, and the materials with which, and upon
which, the transcription was made, and the manuscripts
of monks, Sadducees, proselytes, &c, written with gold
and chequered colours, and on coloured parchment are
rejected.1 Only I am not aware whether one may venture
to take for granted the real existence of all these kinds of
manuscripts at that time. The verdicts quoted appear to
me almost to belong to Talmudical casuistry, and as in
tended to condemn the described manuscripts, in case such
should ever be prepared, to the fire, to the grave — in short,
to annihilation.
Section 115. — Critical Elaboration of the Bible by the Jews.
The controversy with the Christians had brought the
Jews again back to the study of the original text (sec. 110),
and this roused the spirit of criticism amongst them. It
is already told by the Talmud that the Jews collated manu
scripts, and gave preference to the readings contained in
the greater number of them. ' Libri tres,' it says, ' inventi
pv pa pa |W3 p7« p«y p*y p7K nina* xbw non na»n3
pv |'ii pM iwn jwn jwn pn?n pn pn p"?i pa pis
PIE'S plS3 psD p'a p'B IWB pwT pj P3 P'T J'll pV
pinD pins pins pinD p*D pdd pdd p'D p>B3 pipe
nnina n3E»y sb noinD noinD n3E»y» K7 nnins 'Ens- 'To write
manuscripts in a perfect manner care must be taken to write no N for
y, and no y f or N ; no 3 for 3 i no 3 for X. and no X for 3 ; no -| for -|,
and no ^ for ^ ; no n for n, and no n for n 5 no l for », and no i f or \ ;
no f for J, and no J for t ; no o for a, and no a f or a ; no crooked
letters for straight ; no o for D, and no D for D ; no open Parash for
a shut one, and no shut Parash for an open one.'
1 Tychsen, Tentamen, p. 10.
2 Talm. Hieros. Tract. Taanith, fol. 68, col. 1. The passage appears

206 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
sunt in atrio (templi), codex '3WD (cognominatus), codex
^D'DyT, et codex KM. Quorum in uno invenerunt scriptum
Dip M7K pD> Deut. xxxiii. 27, in duobus autem scriptum
erat '131 TD'yD ; confirmarunt duos codices (consentientes) et
unicum rejicerunt. Similiter in uno invenerunt scriptum
et misit 'OlDyt, i.e. magnates filiorum Israel; in duobus
autem scriptum erat Exod. xxiv. 5, *iy3, juvenes filiorum
Israel ; confirmarunt igitur duos et unicum rejicerunt.
Porro in unico invenerunt scriptum KM yE'n, novem ilia,
in duobus autem scriptum erat niE'y nnK, undecim ilia,
Genes, xxii. 23 ; quare duos ratos habuerunt et unicum
rejecerunt.' From such collations of manuscripts arose also the
critical revisions of the Hebrew text mentioned in the
Talmud.

Section 116. — First Critical Revision of the Original Text:
D'iDb ]-lpM, Correctio Scribarum.
The first of the revisions of the Hebrew text is called
D'IDD ppTlj correctio scribarum. Besides the Talmud, this
is referred to by the Masora, and when by it spoken of in
general the number of corrected passages is reckoned at
eighteen ; but in the two places in 4 Book Moses i. 1
and Ps. cvi. 20, where they are enumerated, only sixteen
of the eighteen passages promised are mentioned.
From the nature of the readings themselves, it is
in nearly the same words in the Cod. Sopherim, c. 6. According to the
Crat. edit, it runs : -fiDI 'DlDyt 1BD1 *31yD 1BD ni?y3 1KXD D*1B '3
Dip M7K n3iyD 3in3 D'3E>31 Dip M7K tlyD 3in3 1KVD inK3 KM
'33 'DiDyt nK n7E»i una ikvd inK3 : nnK 17D'31 d^e- iD'*pi
170*31 D*3E» lD'*pl 7K1E»* '33 *iy3 nK n7E"l 3in3 D'3E»31 7K1E"
K'n niE'y nns 3ina D'3E,3i km yE'n 3ina ikvd inK3i tins
inK 17D'31 D'3E> !D"pl- See Kennicott, Dissert. Gener. § 3L

REVISION OF ORIGINAL TEXT 207
evident that this recension had reference to a peculiar
class of faults which by means of transcribers had crept
into the text, and were discovered by the collation of
manuscripts. For the readings preferred by the authors
of this recension were already to be found with the old
Alexandrian translators. The corrections themselves
thanks probably to the Masora, have been preserved down
to our times. Here are some samples : — '
False Reading. Correction of the Scribes.
1 Book Moses xviii. 22, nin' nin* 'b 'v 'y Dni3K, LXX,
Dni3K '3B7 'y '»• Vulg., Onkelos, Pseudo-
Jonathan.
4 Book Moses xi. 15, *nyi3. Dnyi3, according to the LXX,
Vulg., Onkelos, Pseudo-
Jonathan, and both Sa
maritans.
4 Book Moses xii. 12, 13DK and 1DK and HE'S as the LXX,
131EQ. Vulg., Onkelos, Pseudo-
Jonathan, both Samari
tans.
1 Samuel iii. 13, D'77pD '7. D.17 D'77pD, as the LXX.
Section 117. — Second Revision : D»")Bb l-ltsy, Ablatio
Scribarum.
The Talmud, and after it the Masora, mentions another
critical revision of the Bible, by the name of D'IBD lioy,
ablatio scribarum. This had reference, as may be seen
from the examples still extant, merely to the extirpa
tion of the binding particle 1 in certain places where, in
the judgment of the revisers, it required to be removed.
The Masora remarks, however, on 1 Book Moses xviii. 5,
1 All these passages are found collected in Morinus, Exercitt. Bibl.
lib. ii. exerc. xii., and in the new Edit, of Cappelli Critiea Sacra,
Halse, 1755, § 444 ft. Buxtorfli Lex. Tahn. v. jlp'n, P- 2630.

208 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
that the ablatio scribarum applies to five passages ; but no
where enumerates them. They have been collected by
Buxtorf out of the holes and corners of the Talmud and
Masora, where they lay hid. They are the five fol
lowing : — l
False Beading. Ablatio Scribarum.
1 Book Moses xviii. 5, inKl 113yn inK, according to the
113yn. lesser Masora.
1 Book Moses xxiv. 55, mxi "pn InK, as the lesser Masora.
-ibn.
4 Book Moses xii. 14, inKl spKn mx, according to the
epKn, 'Repert. for Bibl. Tract. Nedarim, fol. 17, 2,
and East. Lit.' Part iii. and the Masora on Ps.
sec. 116. xxxvi. 7, and yet our
vulgar editions haveinKl.
Ps. lxviii. 26, D*33!3 inKl. D*3313 inK.
Ps. xxxvi. 7, -pBE>Dl. ¦pBE'D, according to the Ma
sora.
Section 118. — Third Revision: Puncta Extraordinaria.
Farther, at the time of the Talmud, the extraordinary
points in manuscripts were already to be found, with
which, in our Bible editions and still extant manuscripts,
and as to the latter even in the form of small lines, fifteen
works are marked. They evidently do not belong to the
diacritical marks of the Bible ; their object must have been
of a critical nature.
To distinguish by such points, words or letters sus
pected by criticism, is agreeable to analogy ; for they are
found employed even by Greek critics.2 If, therefore, the
1 Tract. Nedarim, fol. 37, col. 2, 1. 18. See Morini Exercitt. Bibl.
lib. ii. exerc. xxii. c. 1, § 6, and the new edit, of Cappelli Critiea Sacra,
p. 443. Buxtorfii Lex Talmud-, v. "l1J3y, p. 1597.
2 Blanchini Evangeliar urn lV.-plcx, t. i. vol. ii. p. 502.

CHANGES OF WORDS 209
passages be compared where these marks occur, this point
is as good as decided. For either the words and letters so
marked are even now condemned by critical witnesses, if
not perhaps by the very same persons who took as their
pattern the inventor of these points ; or it is evident that
they may be left out, without injury either to the con
nection or sense. And in the last case their sentence of
condemnation has probably been pronounced by critical
witnesses lost to our knowledge. Here are examples : —
Ps. xxvii. 19 K7l7is wanting in the LXX, Vulgate, Arab.,
and the Syrian. Ezek. xli. 20, 73>nn is wanting in the LXX
(the Arabian, Vulgate), and the Syrian. 4 B. Moses iii. 39
jinKl is wanting in both Samaritans and the Syrian. 4 B. Moses
xxi. 30, Sex ; and E*K without the 1 is expressed by both the
Samaritans and the Alexandrian. The other passages in
which the marks of condemnation have not survived the
hand of time are 1 B. Moses xvi. 5, xviii. 9, xix 33, xxxiii. 4,
xxxvii. 12; 4 B. Moses ix. 10, xxix. 15; 5 B. Moses xxix. 28;
2 Sam. xix. 20 ; Is. xliv. 9 ; Ezek. xlvi. 22. See Hiipeden's
new probable conjectures respecting the true cause and signi
fication of the extraordinary points (Hanover, 1751. 4).
Section 119. — Origin of the Kethib velo Keri and of the
Keri velo Kethib.
About this time also certain passages had been re
marked by the Jews where, for the better illustration of
the sense, a word might be inserted, and also others where,
without injury to the sense, a word might be omitted.
For the first class they prepared a suitable supplement,
which they entitled Keri velo Kethib, i.e. a word which
might be inserted (mentally), although not written in
the text. On the other hand, the superfluous word of the
second class was called by them Kethib velo Keri, i.e. a
word, though to be found in the text, yet not necessary to
P

210 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
the sense, and capable of omission in the reading. Of the
Keri velo Kethib, seven passages are noted by the Talmud,
namely : 2 Sam. viii. 3, xvi. 23 ; Jer. xxxi. 38, 1. 29 ;
Ruth ii. 3, iii. 5, 17. On the other hand, only five of the
Kethib velo Keri : namely, 2 Kings v. 1 8 ; 5 Book Moses vi. 1 ;
Jer. li. 3 ; Ezek. xlviii. 16 ; Ruth iii. 12.1 The words of
the second class are, of course, to be found, since they were
really in the text, even in the old translations, and in
Jerome ; on the other hand, of the first nothing is known
by Jerome, a strong proof, as it appears to me, that the
Keri velo Kethib in his time had not yet been added to the
Bible, and that it was afterwards done by the Masorites.
Section 120. — Keri and Kethib in the Talmud.
The Talmudists also were acquainted with the double
readings of at least some of the passages of the Old Testa
ment preserved by the Masorites under the name Keri
and Kethib ; still the conclusion is not immediately to be
drawn that they were marked also in the margin of their
manuscripts. Thus, for instance, the Talmud cites Job.
xiii. 15. 7n*'K 17 *3?Dp* p, and immediately adds : ' Pendet
tamen adhuc res (in dubio), num (sensus sit) ego sperabo
(7n**K 17), an vero ego nons perabo ' (prp'K ab, as the Kethib
purports.)2 As to the rest, the Talmud is divided between our
Keri and Kethib ; sometimes it has oar text, sometimes
our marginal readings ; still the latter oftener than the
former. In the printed Mishna the Keri is first quoted : Sota, c. 5,
sec. 5, Job xiii. 15, 17; in the same, c. 7, sec. 6,1* V, 3 Book
Moses ix. 22 ; in the same, c. 9, sec. 6, and Mass. Tamid. c. 7,
sec. 2, \5W, 5 Book Moses xx. 7 (English xxi. 5); Middoth,
1 Tract. Nedarim, c. 6, fol. 37, p. 2.
2 Tract. Sota, c. 5, § 6.

THE VERSION MADE BY JEROME 211
c. 3, sec. 1, 7K*1Kni, Ezek. xliii. 16 ; in the same, c. 4, sec. 4,
y*¥M, 1 Kings vi. 6; Jadaim, c. 4, sec. 4, 1*33, Is. x. 13. (2) the
Kethib, on the other hand, Berachot, c. 1, sec. 7, K7, 2 Book
Moses xxi. 8, as also Symmachus and Theodotion have it, but
the LXX the Keri 17 ; Jadaim, c. 4, sec. 4, Dn»ni1*nyi,
Is. x. 13.
At that time, finally, flourished in their golden age the
allegorical interpreters of the Old Testament ; l and if all
such their allegorical chimeras were marked in the manu
scripts themselves by signs and caricatured letters of all
descriptions, numerous errors must have found their way
into the Hebrew text by that means.
Section 121. — 2. Jerome: Critical Elaboration of the
Hebrew Bible at Tiberias about the Year 400.
But the critical labours of the Jews hitherto described
were but the forerunners of the dawn which broke on
Biblical criticism after the fifth century. At that time both
Jews and Christians did good service in the cause. Tiberias
was at that time in possession of the correctest manuscripts
and the most enlightened critics. Hence, when Jerome was
uncertain as to the accuracy of the text in the Book of
Chronicles, and was desirous of obtaining an accurate text of
them, particularly with regard to the nomina propria, before
he proceeded to the correction of the old Latin version,
he caused to come to him a Jew from Tiberias, collated
with him the text from beginning to end, and then first
began' his version. ' Cum a me,' he writes in the preface to
the Books of Chronicles, ' nuper Uteris flagitassetis, ut vobis
librum Paralipomenon latino sermone transferrem, de Tibe-
riade quemdam legis doctorem, qui apud Hebraeos admira-
1 See the passage in Tychsen, Tentamen, Sec, p. 197 ff. ; also above,
§ 98, where I have cited out of the Talmud instances of readings pro
duced by means of the Midrashim. p 2

212 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
tioni habebatur, assumpsi et contuli cum eo a vertice, ut
aiunt, usque ad extremum unguem, et sic confirmatus
ausus sum facere quod jubebatis.'
Amongst the Christians the Hebrew Bible was studied
with the spirit of an Origen by Jerome ; and he collated
all the ancient Greek authors of versions, as the Jews at
Tiberias did manuscripts. But since he had no imitators,
the critical elaboration of the Hebrew Bible by Christians
proved but a passing meteor.
Section 122. — Nature of the Manuscripts at that time.
Jerome, in his commentaries, lets fall occasionally,
here and there, data, out of which a sufficiently clear idea
of the character of the then existing manuscripts may be
formed. And since it may be admitted, that previous to
his time no great changes had been effected in the manu
scripts — for it was not till after him that the critical
elaboration of the Bible by the Jews came into full opera
tion — the picture he draws is undoubtedly that of the
external form of the Hebrew manuscripts about and
perhaps even before the birth of Christ. Hence it is worth
the pains to give here a short description of the character
of his manuscript. Section 123.— 1. Extent.
Jerome's manuscript contained all our books of the
Old Testament in the same order in which they follow one
another in our present Bible-editions ; he reckons, like the
Talmud, eight Prophets and nine Hagiographa (sec. 55).
Also the single books were of no greater extent than at
present. He speaks, however, seven times ' de codicibus
hebraeis, qui multa de veteri legunt, qua? in nostris codi
cibus non habentur.' But in these passages he compares,

SHAPES OF CONSONANTS 213
not Hebrew manuscripts with Hebrew, but with manu
scripts of the LXX ; he maintains on this occasion that
many citata from the Old Testament in the New may be
derived, not from the LXX, but from the Hebrew text,
and in another place (namely, in his commentary on
Is. xi. 1) recalls this opinion, after, by means of a careful
comparison of the New Testament with the Old, he had
become convinced of its unsoundness. Accordingly, in his
preface to the commentary on the Pentateuch, he says:
' In codicibus hebraeis multa legimus, quae in nostris :
(that is in the LXX) ' non habentur, ut est illud Ex
JEgypto vocavi filium meum ' (Matthew ii. 15, compare
Hos. xi. 1, Hebrew '33, the LXX TSKva avTov) ; ' et
Quoniam Nazarenus vocabitur ' (Matt. xi. 23, compare
Is. xi. 1, Hebrew 1X3, the LXX dvOos) ; ' et Videbunt in
quem confixerunt' (Joh. xix. 37, compare Zech. xii. 11,
Hebrew npl 1E»K nK, the LXX dv& eov KaTcopyrjcravTo) :
' et Flumina de ventre ejus fluent aquce vivce ' (John vii.
38, perhaps Prov. xviii. 41) : ' et Quee nee oculus vidit, nee
auris audivit, nee in cor hominis ascenderunt ' (1 Corinth.
ii. 9, compare Is. Ixiv. 3) : ' et multa alia ' (yet he is never
able to quote more than these five passages) ' quae proprium
crvvTaypu desiderant. Interrogemus ergo eos, ubi haec
scripta sint, et cum dicere non potuerint, de libris Hebraeis
proferamus.' Section 124. — 2. Consonants.
The consonants of his Hebrew manuscript in point of
figure coincided exactly with those in which our manu
scripts are written ; he remarks the similarity of the shapes
of 1 and 1> of n and n, of 1 and * and so on ; he is ac
quainted with final characters, and mentions the likeness
between 1 and > D and D» &C.1
1 Repertorium for Bibl. and Eastern Literature, Part iii. § 140.

214 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
In his time also consonants in irregular shapes must in
some passages have been used, since shortly after his time
such are enumerated by the Masorites ; I am not, however,
informed whether they are anywhere mentioned by Jerome.
Section 125. — 3. Marks for Reading : Points.
Jerome found vowels in many passages, but his manu
script does not appear to have been provided with them
throughout (sec. 68).
I. With our diacritical points he was altogether un
acquainted. He knew nothing of the point over E» (E> and
E>) ; only three forms of the letter S were known to him :
' una quae dicitur Samech, D. et simpliciter legitur quasi per
S nostram literam describatur ; alia Sin, E>> in qua stridor
quidam non nostri sermonis interstrepit ; tertia Zadi, X-
quam nostri aures penitus reformidant.'
2. He also knows nothing of Dagesh, at least nothing
of its alleged influence on the consonants nB3133- Of B> for
example, he declares the pronunciation to be everywhere
that of F ; and when in a foreign nomen proprium B is used
for P, he remarks the pronunciation as a particular excep
tion. ' Palaestinorum,' he writes on Is. ii. 5, ' quasi Philis-
tinorum, quia P literam sermo hebraicus non habeat, sed
Morini Exercitationes Biblices, pp. 61 and 144. See Jerome on Genes.
iii. 1, xiv. 5 ; Jer. xiii. 12 ; Hos. v. 13, ix. 7, 13 ; Zech. xii. 10 (Epist.
ad Sunniam, Ps. cxxx. 4 ; Presf. ad Libb. Samuel et Regg.~). The pas
sage, ' Caligantibus oculis seneotute, ad nocturnum lumen nequaquam
valemus Hebrseorum volumina relegere : quse etiam ad solis dieique
fulgorem literarum parvitate nobis csecantur ' (Opp. iii. col. 842), is
always obscure. May not the modest man by 'literarum parvitas'
have meant his own learning 1 Of reading-marks he could not possibly
have dreamt. Michaelis understands by the expression small character
of the consonants, and supposes Jerome's Hebr. Codex to have been
written in a kind of running hand, in which there are also modern
manuscripts to be found (§ 377 ; Orient, and Exeget. Bibl. Part xviii.
§ 104).

THE VERSION MADE BY JEROME 215
pro eo graeco cp utitur.' And of U*]?N, Daniel xi. 45 ;
' Notandum autem, quod cum P literam hebraeus sermo
non habeat, sed pro ipsa utatur B. cujus vim graecum cf>
sonat, in isto tantum loco apud Hebraeos scribatur quidem
Bi sed legatur P (apatno).' And if he doubles the con
sonants which according to our present punctuation re
quire the marks of duplication, this is still no reason for
his recognition of our points of duplication in these con
sonants ; he was acquainted with the necessity from the
information he had obtained at various times from four
several Hebrew teachers, or from the Hebraeo-Greek codex,
revised by himself after the Hexapla at Cesarea, for the
purpose of having by him a fixed formulary of the Hebrew
pronunciation.1 Section 126. — -4. Words and Division into Verses.
Here and there, not generally, as it appears, there was
a division of words in his manuscript (sec. 76) ; but of our
distribution into verses he was altogether ignorant (sec. 77),
also I have no recollection of reading in him any account
of our accent-marks.
Paragraph breaks were already found by him in his
Hebrew codex ; but, as far as we know, not always
where in our editions paragraphs and chapters commence.
Amos vi. 9, for instance, he writes : ' In Hebraicis alterius
hoc capituli exordium est ; apud LXX vero finis supe-
rioris.' Section 127 a. — 5. Critically Revised.
Finally, Jerome's manuscript also underwent critical
revision. He found the puncta extraordina/ria already
added ; the readings in it adopted, introduced by the
emendatio scribarum ; perhaps also some Keri and Kethib
1 Hieronymi Comment, in Titum iii. 9. Repert., Sec, Part iii. § 142.

216 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
were already noted. 'Appingunt desuper,' he says on
1 Book Moses xviii. 35 of the extraordinary points,
1 quasi incredibile quid.' Hos. ix. 12, 13 he read *1-1E>3, as,
according to the tradition of the Jews, the emendatio
scribarum purports, not 'IK'S, according to Ihe LXX and
Theodotion. And Is. lxiii. 9, he appears to have found
already the Keri and Kethib, K7 and 17. mentioned by the
Masora at, for instance, 3 Book Moses xi. 21. For he
remarks on the cited passage of the prophet Isaiah, ' In
omni tribulatione eorum non est tribulatus,' ' quod hebraice
dicitur IV K7 DniX 733 ; negantis est adverbium, et pro
non legi potest 17 — i.e. ipse, ut sit sensus, in omni
tribulatione eorum ipse est tribulatus.' On the other hand,
Is. xlix. 5, he knows nothing of the reading 17. although
already expressed by Aquila ; he even accuses Aquila of a
corruption of the text, for rendering 17 instead of K7.
Section 127 b. — 6. In Readings little different from the
text of the Masora.
Finally, if we cast an eye over, in respect to the read
ings, the really uncertain or apparently uncertain passages,
concerning which Jerome tells us expressly what he had
found in his Hebrew manuscript, he appears almost always
to keep close to the Masoretical text. If the new inter
preters, together with the ancient authors of versions,
should read Hab. ii. 5, D*1J3, Jerome's manuscript is ex
pressly for D;'l33 ; Hab. ii. 17, he had the anomalous
10*0*, against which the voices of the old translators seem
to be for TJlM'. Yet for proof, extracts from a larger book,
Isaiah, may serve better.1
1 I hope, indeed, of the passages where Jerome has expressly cited
his Hebrew text in Isaiah, that few such have escaped me : in the
meantime, however, they have been merely collected by me as occasion
served. His codex appears to me, if I may trust my observation, only

THE VERSION MADE BY JEROME 217
Is. viii. 9, LXX lyi ; Jerome as at present lyi.
Is. xiv. 32, LXX *37D ; Jerome as Masor. text *3K7D.
Is. xxiv. 23, LXX nDin ; Jerome as the Masor. text non.
Is. xxvii. 1, LXX nEHpn ; Jerome as the Masor. text
nE>pn. Is. xxviii. 9, LXX nyi ; Jerome as the Masor. text nyi.
Is. xxxiii. 7, Jerome D7K1K undivided as the Masor. text.
Is. xxxviii. 14, LXX, Theodotion, Symmachus 113y D*D ;
Jerome and Aquila as the Masor. text 113y DID.
Is. xliv. 28, LXX *yi ; Jerome as the Mas. text *yi.
Is. xlvii. 2, LXX "|)17DE', and with like variations other
ancient translators ; Jerome as the Mas. text IJlDlf.
Is. xlix. 5, K7 without Keri.
In short, it may confidently be taken that Jerome's
Hebrew codex is as true to the Masora as even a more
modern Spanish manuscript, and such are known more
exactly than others to coincide with the Masora.
At least, against the many passages which do not vary
from the Masoretical text, the few where the opposite is
the case are of no importance, and can pass only for
exceptions. The examples are : 1 B. Moses xiv. 5, now Dn3 ;
Jerome : ' LXX dp,a avTois putaverunt scribi per He ; per
Heth inpraesenti scriptum est (0n3) ;' as also seven Sama
ritan manuscripts with Kennicott have it. Ps. xxxv. 10
now nin* once; Jerome: 'Sciendum, quod multa sunt
exemplaria apud Hebraeos, quae ne semel quidem Domi
num habent.' Ps. lxxviii. 69 now pK3 ; Jerome : ' in
Hebraeo sis ttjv ynv ' (pN3). Ps. lxxix. 1 now D*»y7 ;
in two instances to swerve from our Masoretical one, and even in these
passages the matter is not certain. Is. xix. 18, it had, perhaps, Din-
In this case Jerome, however, remarks immediately below, that in other
manuscripts of his day Din was to be found; not, indeed, as a
reading of manuscripts themselves, but only as a conjecture of certain
Jews.

218 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Jerome : ' in Hebraeo Liin ' (!**y7). Ps. cii. 7 now D13 ;
Jerome : ' in Hebraeo Bos ' (D13, a mere erratum). Ps. cxxx.
4 now Klin ; Jerome : ' in Hebraeo thira ' (NiM), merely an
erratum.1 Theod. et Symm. min vopios. Hos. v. 13 now
31*. ; Jerome : ' Pro eo, quod nos exponimus Jarib, 3*1*.,'
merely a variety in spelling, ' alii male legunt Jarim ' (d*t).
Amos iv. 13 now in'g'MD ; Jerome : ' Etsi LXX verterint
¦XPicttov avTov ex m*E'D, tamen (he says) literas esse in*B> nD '
(only a difference in orthography). Hab. ii. 19 0-1V731. ;
' Sciendum, in quibusdam Hebr. voluminibus non esse
additum omnis sed absolute spiritum legi.' Habak. iii. 2
now -ln*.s.n ; Jerome : ' In Hebraeo legimus Heinu ' (U**n, which,
however, also according to the sense, may be the same
thing with our in*M). Zephan. ii. 9 now D7iy 7K ;
Jerome : ' Lolam ' (D71U7).2
Section 128. — Chaldean Paraphrases.
About this time the knowledge of the Greek language
amongst the Jews was already lost, and the Greek versions
were become nearly useless to them. Hence a progress
was made to versions in the Chaldean tongue, which soon
acquired such consideration as to become the universal
resort of the Jews in their study of the Bible ; after the
Chaldean paraphrases in the sequel even the Hebrew text
was pointed, accented, and corrected.
1 Zech. v. 6, where he wishes to explain how the LXX came to the
reading D3iy, which they, as he thinks, have instead of D3*y, because
they render afiiKia ainuv, he expresses himself with regard to the origin
of this error as follows : ' Hic error frequenter inolevit, ut quia 1 et i
literse eadem forma, sed mensura diverste sunt, altera legatur pro
altera.' 2 In Kennicott, Diss. Gener. § 84. 13, these instances are also to be
found j I do not think that a gleaning of many more is capable of being
made. /

THE MASORA 219
Section 129. — Masora : Establishment of the Reading
as to the Consonants.
About the commencement of the sixth century, the
reading of the Hebrew text as to the consonants was fixed
through the Masora, for which we are indebted to the
critics at Tiberias. They removed the errors which had
crept into the original text down to their times, so far as
was feasible and to the best of their abilities, with the aid
of the critical apparatus invented by them from their
ancestors and offered for their use by the times. This
critical work was the foundation upon which the Jews of
the next succeeding generation continued to build ; it was
the book of Collectanea, in which they introduced their
new critical observations, but, alas, without evidence where
the chief work stopped and the additions began ; in short
the first chief Masoretical recension became so thoroughly
mixed up with modern recensions, as to render a separa
tion out of the question.
Thus subsequent to the sixth and the next following
centuries, all kinds of remarks on the number of verses,
words, and consonants, on particular phenomena in verses
and points (reading-marks), were reduced to paper. These
materials, as well as the Tikkun and Ittur Sopherim, and
words with extraordinary points, Keri and Kethib, Keri
velo Kethib and Kethib velo Keri, and Piska were recorded
in extenso, at first in certain books, afterwards written on
the margins of Hebrew manuscripts — at first, however, in
an abridged form with many abbreviations, but subse
quently in extenso by the aid of all sorts of liberties (see
the section on the Masora, sec. 140-158).

220 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Section 130. — Influence of the Masora on the Manuscripts.
The influence of the Masora on the external and inter
nal condition of the Hebrew manuscripts was considerable.
Previously their margin was clear, subsequently crowded
with numerous variations ; formerly a manuscript alone
was the model in his corrections for a reviser, but now a
manuscript in connection with a Masora. But in con
sequence of the inconvenient method in which the latter
was composed, it has never been found possible to amend
a manuscript in all respects conformably to the Masora.
Section 131. — Comparison of the Manuscripts in Palestine
and Babylon.
In the eighth century a collation was made of the text
of the Old Testament usual in the West (that is, in Pales
tine) with the Oriental (that is, the text in use at Babylon),
and the result of this collation was the Oriental and Western
readings, said first to have been printed by Jacob Ben
Chayim, without, however, indicating the source of their
derivation. Probably the two flourishing academies in
the East and the West, at Babylon and Tiberias, sent each
other the most exact copy possible of their text as fixed
by each, and thereupon differences were discovered in from
218 to 220 passages. None of these variations are from
the five Books of Moses ; all have reference to consonants ;
only two mention a n raphatum, Jerem. vi. 6, n^y, Amos
iii. 6, nE'y. Hence it is conjectured that this collation was
made at a time when our present punctuation was not yet
introduced — in about tlie eighth century — and that probably
the two remarks concerning the n raphatum, which sup
pose a pointed text, were, at some later period, interpolated
into this collection of variations.

POINTS AND ACCENTS FIXED 221
As to the text, tbe various readings here collected do
not by any means affect the sense, but concern only ortho
graphy, form of the word, and other trifles. And since in
our common Bible-editions the Eastern reading for the
most part is adopted, either the Oriental text itself must
have obtained the preference amongst the Western Jews,
or our Bible-editions were accidentally derived from such
manuscripts as followed the Oriental revision.
In proof I will quote the three most considerable readings
of this collection : 1 Sam. xv. 6, Western i»y 1B*D1K ID,
Orient. *Dy; 1 Sam. xviii. 25, West. nKD3 *3, East. nKD3 DK *3;
2 Sam. xvi. 3, West. ^*131, East. 1131 in the singular.1
Section 132. — Completion of our present Pointing and
Accentuation : Fixing of the Reading as to the Points.
Between the eighth and tenth centuries our present
system of points and accents was introduced, and on this
occasion the word-division was perfected which had been
begun at some earlier period. Already in the earliest
times the pronunciation of ambiguous words had been
fixed by simple signs ; now the finer shades of sound were
more precisely indicated by peculiar signs, and its pronun
ciation attached to every word (sec. 70). Accents had
been already applied to songs which had been set to
music (sec. 71); now entire books of the Bible were cut
up into verses, and the accent-figures increased by some
new ones, and the quantitas relativa referred to them
which they now indicate. Both labours advanced the
general division into words. But how many Jews did
good service in our present system of pointing and accen
tuation has not been recorded by history.
' Cappelli Crit. Sac. lib. iii. c. 17. Zeibich, De Dissensionibus Orient.
et Occident, in Oehlrich. Coll. opuscull. t. ii.

222 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
We find merely information concerning the termina
tion of this labour on the readings mentioned by Rabbi
Ben Asher and Rabbi Ben Raftali.
Both, about the year 1034, were at the head of high
schools of the Jews ; Ben Asher of the Academy at
Tiberias, and Ben Raftali of that at Babylon ; both appear
to have put the last hand to the Masoretical punctuation,
and to have conferred together respecting doubtful pas
sages. At least their readings have a mutual reference.
Thus, for instance, Song of Songs viii. 6, Rabbi Ben Asher
proposes to read iTnsppE' in one word ; on the other hand,
Rabbi Ben Raftali will have it divided into two words.
Section 133. — Destruction of the Ancient Manuscripts.
Thus then, by the contributions of so many centuries, did
the Hebrew text finally attain the shape, internal and ex
ternal, presented by its manuscripts now before our eyes.
Now it was no longer necessary, in reading, painfully to
separate word from word, or to be troubled with thoughts
about the punctuation ; the preparation of the manuscripts
was as convenient for the reader as possible. Is it then
a matter for astonishment if the ancient manuscripts, so
awkward in use, were resigned to decay? if no more
copies were made after the antique form, and the modern
shape was preferred ? and if now no manuscript is extant
of greater antiquity than 800 years ? l
Truly the manuscripts of the ancient pattern were
worthy of preservation for the sake of their critical value.
But at that time criticism was regarded in a different
point of view from that of our days. The Jews believed
themselves to have furnished manuscripts better, and con-
1 Of this opinion is also Michaelis in the Orient, and Exeget. Bibl.
Part xviii. § 102.

OLD MANUSCRIPTS SUPERSEDED 223
taining more information, than those of their ancestors,
and to have imparted to the former all that was valuable
in the latter; they were flattered also at beholding the
manuscripts of their creation adopted and preferred. How
probable then, under such circumstances, is the disuse and
neglect of the older manuscripts. And even if at first
they were held in estimation, would they not necessarily
experience in themselves their own destruction if no
further copies of them were made ?
Section 134. — Fate of the Hebrew Text till the Invention of
Printing. — 1. Alterations made in it after the Targums.
Here properly ends the history of the written text ;
for the chief work was accomplished, and the Hebrew text
continued now, some insignificant changes excepted, true
in all its copies, to its once-for-all established pattern, as
is clear from Kennicott's ' Collection of Variations.'
1. In the meantime if the elder Masorites had suffered
a reading to remain, opposed to the Chaldean Bible-version,
the learned possessor of a manuscript altered it so as to
make its text correspond with that version. Thus many
manuscripts were made to conform in point of punctuation,
word-division, and the reading of the consonants with the
Chaldean paraphrase ; other manuscripts, on the contrary,
propagated the other readings which varied from it. As
often then as manuscripts in this wise are different, strong
suspicion of a later modification must arise, which sooner
or later the special criticism of the Old Testament will
confirm. See the section on the Targums.

224 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

Section 135. — 2. Alterations made in it in deference to
Grammar.
After so much previous labour and the collection of
so many separate grammatical remarks on the Hebrew
language, finally Rabbi Soadias Gaon, teacher in the Aca
demy at Babylon (t 924), ventured the first attempt at a
Hebrew Grammar, which, by the repetition of such at
tempts, was soon brought to perfection. In its application
to single passages of the Old Testament, expressions were
necessarily met with which would sustain no grammatical
ordeal, because the language of the authors of the Old
Testament was not always grammatically correct. Now,
in deference to grammar, 17} was changed into n"j7J,
1 Chron. ii. 48, and 4 Book Moses xxvii. 7, Dn*3K into
|n*3K, respecting which Kennicott's Bible mentions the
manuscripts. As often as our manuscripts differ in such
cases, the correction of a later period is to be suspected.
Section 136 A. — 3. Alterations of it in deference to celebrated
Manuscripts.
Finally, in order to be certain of the greatest possible
accuracy of the copies taken, exemplars were selected,
celebrated for their correctness, either when the copies
were being made, or, if that was not possible, as a means
of correcting the copies subsequently. Of this kind was
1. Hill el's manuscript, which, even if it were from the
hand of an impostor and merited no critical estimation,
yet, from the name of the man assigned to it, had obtained
high consideration. For its author is uncertain. Some
Jews derive it from Hillel, who is said to have lived
100 years before the birth of Christ ; others from Hillel
the Prince, who about the year 340 was famous in Pales-

ANCIKNT MANUSCRIPTS 225
tine. Morin, on the contrary, will not allow it a greater
antiquity than 500 years. Kimchi in the thirteenth, and
R. Zaduk in the fifteenth century, mention it as still
extant.1 2. A Babylonian manuscript abundantly referred to by
the Rabbins in their writings. Perhaps their reference is
to a recension, executed by R. Ben Raftali, teacher of the
Academy at Babylon (sec. 131).
3. A manuscript of ' Israel ' is mentioned by the
Rabbins. This possibly contained the recension of R.
Ben Asher in Palestme (sec. 131), and is the same with the
codex elsewhere termed the Manuscript of Jerusalem.
4. From an Egyptian codex, brought from Jerusalem
to Alexandria, the ' open ' and ' shut ' Parashen were
apportioned by Maimonides. It was written at Jerusalem,
corrected (as reported) by R. Ben Asher, and served as
an exemplar in Egypt for the revision of manuscripts.
Maimonides himself made a copy of the Pentateuch from
it.2 5. Sinai was the name of a codex of the Pentateuch,
held in esteem for its extraordinary accuracy in the punc
tuation.3 6. The Pentateuch of Jericho was esteemed the most
accurate manuscript in the application of the matres
lectionis (of the plenarum and defectivarum).4
7. Codex Sanbuki, which, together with Hillel's manu
script, is quoted on the margin of a manuscript of Richard
1 Kennicott, Dissert. Gener. § 56 ; Hottinger in Thes. Phil. 1. c,
who speaks also of the other celebrated manuscripts.
2 Kennicott, Dissert. General. § 54.
8 Tychsen, Tentamen, p. 215.
* Hottinger in Thesaurus Philologicus, pp. 106-110. Joh. Heinr.
Michaelis De Codicibus Erfurtensibus, p. 35, conjectures that the critics-
who in the margins of manuscripts mention this famous MS. had
before them merely excerpts from the same. Q

226 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Simon, and cited also by Menachem de Lonzano in the
Or Thora and Norzi in the Mantuan Bible (sec. 374).
8. Liber Taggin (|*3Kn) placed by the side of the Rabbi
Jacob Ben Chayim's preface to his edition of the most
accurate manuscripts ; but which went no further than
the Pentateuch.
Section 136 b. — The most famous Jewish Critics in Europe.
Till the commencement of the eleventh century Jewish
schools flourished in the East, in particular in Palestine
and at Babylon, which beyond all others appear to have
distinguished themselves by their meritorious services on
the Bible, since every trace of critical labours on the
Old Testament, as the Masora, the Oriental and Western
Readings, and those of Rabbi Ben Asher and Rabbi Ben
Raftali down to the eleventh century, is derived from
those quarters. But about A.C. 1040, the Eastern Jews
were compelled by the Arabs to seek out other settle
ments. A great part of them fled to Europe, espe
cially to Spain, which from that time became the true
seat of the critical study of the Bible, and the native soil
of the correctest manuscripts of the Old Testament. From
this centre, the science of criticism became extended
amongst the Jews in Germany and Italy, and in the twelfth
century Solomon Jearchi (at Treves, f 1180 or 1211) and
David Kimchi (f about the year 1240), in point of learned
and critical acquaintance with the Bible, were competent
to vie with an Abu Ezra (at Toledo, f 1174 or 1190) and
Maimonides (of Cordova, who afterwards lived in Egypt,
f 1901 or 1205). However imperfect hitherto our infor
mation concerning their critical views may be, since an
entire account of them has not been presented from their
works, it is, however, certain that for the most part they

JEWISH CRITICS 227
result l from sound principles, although not free from the
superstitious credulity and manifold superstitious fancies
of their nation.2 They disputed about division 3 and
punctuation 4 of words in the manuscripts of their time ;
made a different division into verses than the usual one ; 5
adhered to those manuscripts which had the reputation of
the nicest accuracy,6 and consulted the famous manuscripts
of the olden time, such as those of an Ezra, of a Hillel,
and others, either immediately, or by means of extracts
from them.7
Still about their time the copyists must have fallen
into a carelessness which their early predecessors had
endeavoured with anxious industry to avoid ; at least, the
abundant deviations of the modern manuscripts from the
ancient induced the learned Meyer Hallevi, of Toledo
1 Abu Ezra, for instance, says in his preface to the Pentateuch, that
the placing of the matres lectionis is left to the discretion of the
copyists : D7y3 niK IDn* DyBl '1K13D HK?Dn 3in3* DyB 3nian *3
ni Vp 111 fnK7i ' the scribe writes at one time, for the sake of clearness,
a word plene, at another time he suppresses the consonants (l or i),
for the sake of brevity.'
" On 2 B. Moses xxv. 31 Abu Ben Ezra says of nE"y*n, that the ' i '
which in the French, Spanish, and other MSS. of his time was wanting,
had been already found and noted by the Masorites ; and that it was
intended to mean the number 10. Still, on the sound principles con
cerning the placing of the matres lectionis in the preface to the Pen
tateuch, how could he here judge so erroneously I See Kennicott,
Disser. Gener. § 52.
3 Abu Ezra, Ps. cxxiii. 4, will have D*31* *K37 read as one word ;
Temkhi, on the contrary, is for the division into two.
4 Compare 01. Gerb. Tychsen's extracts from Rashi, Butsovian
Leisure Hours (Butzovische Nebcnstunden), Part ii. § 65, ff., and
Eichorn's Repert. for Bib. and East. Lit. Part i.
5 Abu Ezra relates that R. Mose Cohen divided many verses dif
ferently. R. Simon, Hiatoire Critique du N.T. liv. i. ch. 28.
6 They speak always of thoroughly corrected manuscripts (D*i131D)>
which were held by them in much higher repute than those that had
the reputation of being merely accurately written (D*p*11D)-
' See the passages, § 136. Q 2

228 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
(Haramah), at the commencement of the thirteenth cen
tury, to undertake a critical work for the purpose of
clearing the Pentateuch from the gross blunders of the
modern transcribers.1 He complains in it that the manu
scripts of his day are often in contradiction with the
Masora ; yet, judging from his own showing, more in the
insertion and omission of the matres lectionis than in the
change of consonants, which, however, also occurs not
unfrequently. Remarkable it is, however, that according
to his own account the older the manuscripts the less
their variations from the Masora ; hence, also, the oldest
manuscripts are always preferred by him. Less trust
might perhaps be placed in the decision of the learned
Rabbin if the same observation were not forced on the
notice in the perusal of the Hebrew manuscripts still
extant ; and the oldest manuscript of the Pentateuch, for
instance, with the date 1144 (Kennicott, No. 293), which
in Haramah 's time was already a hundred years old, keeps
not very close to the Masora, and, whenever the modern
codices vary, coincides with the readings found by Hara
mah in elder manuscripts.
Amongst the modern Jews R. Menachem de Lonzano
1 The title is min7 3*D miDD 'D. Liber Masorce Sepis Legis. An
account of this work is to be found in Bartoloccii Bib. Rabbin, t. iv.
p. 20 ; Wolfli Bib. Hebr. t. i. p. 746, ii. p. 536 ; Fabricy, litres
Primitifs, t. ii. p. 354. The most important information is given by
Bruns, Ad Kennicott. Dissert. General. § 57. A shorter account with
some corrections by De Rossi, Ad Varias Led. V. T. t. i. proleg. § 36.
It was used by the Jews for a long time only in manuscript, or by
R. Menachem de Lonzano and Salom. Norzi. Finally it was printed
in small folio by a Polish Jew, Jacob Levita, from a MS. of a learned
Rabbi, Israel Benjamin Bassani, at Florence in 1750. A copy of it
was printed, not without errors, Berlin, 1761. The author, according to
an abbreviation usual amongst Jews, is generally called Haramah,
nD "in : De Rossi calls him always Todrosius, because his father's
name was Todros.

JEWISH CRITICS 229
and Solomon Norzi have particularly distinguished them
selves by their critical labours on the Old Testament.
R. Menachem de Lonzano performed a special journey,
assisted on the occasion by letters of recommendation from
his brothers in the faith, especially the Jews of Constanti
nople, for the purpose of collating Hebrew manuscripts
of the Pentateuch, and published his extracts in a
work entitled the ' Or Thorah.' l With the edition
of Bomberg of the year 1544 (in quarto) he com
pared ten, chiefly Spanish, manuscripts, of which some
were 500, others 600 years old. Still older than the
rest were two codices of Jerusalem : one 540 years old,
another still older, and certainly belonging to the eleventh
century, but without a date. He cites also in the text of
the work the celebrated codices of Ezra, Hillel, Jerusalem,
Jericho, and Egypt, German manuscripts, and others
written in Arabia. The Jews of Constantinople, by means
of their letters of recommendation, promoted his object,
because the editions of the Old Testament, which had
hitherto appeared then, with respect to the matres lectionis,
and the readings resulting from parallel passages, were
not suitably adjusted, and because, even in the manu
scripts of the Masora, many errors were to be found.
Solomon Norzi, finally, has left all Jewish critics far
behind him, as well with regard to the extent of his work
as the correctness of his judgment. (See sec. 402.)
1 min 11K, at first printed in mi* *nE', Venice, 1618, 4to., a scarce
piece, but printed, not quite correctly, at Amsterdam, 1659. Compare
Kennicott in Dissert. Gener. § 61 ; De Rossi, Prolegom. ad Variai
Lectt. V. T. t. i. § 37.

230 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Section 136 C. — General Judgment concerning the Present
Condition of the Hebrew Text.
These fragments of the history of the Hebrew text
appear to present a very advantageous view of its present
state. Never, since the birth of Christ, was so much in
dustry exerted on a work of antiquity as on the copies of the
books of the Old Testament ; reverence towards them and
superstition had, already in the earliest times, prescribed
laws for the copyists, difficult in their observance even for the
most patient industry, which must, however, have secured
the Hebrew text from many perils to which it would have
been otherwise exposed, and without which the oldest and
best amongst the modern manuscripts would be far more
removed in their readings from those found by Jerome
and Origen in their manuscripts in the third and fifth
centuries (sees. 113, 121). Also in the centuries before
Christ, the industry and accuracy of the Jews could be
scarcely less energetic and patient. The First Book of
Moses and Job were from the first transcribed with such
religious fidelity, that even then the names of God,
nin* and DM7K, with regard to which exchanges were so
probable and pardonable, are most correctly applied, as
may with the highest degree of probability be shown, and
in the later books of the Old Testament a newer ortho
graphy prevails which, in those where greater antiquity
can be demonstrated, is not at all to be found.
In the meantime, notwithstanding this industry, it is
impossible to deny that many passages of the Old Testa
ment have come down to our times very incorrectly.
Many, without much difficulty, admit of remedy, since they
are of later origin, and the means of correcting them are
still in our hands. Although in Job xii. 9 nin* is printed,
which can be God's name only in the prologue and

VALUE OF HEBREW TEXT 231
epilogue, and which should not occur in the poem itself,
still we possess manuscripts which contain the right read
ing '31K ; for 11*n, Is. xvi. 9, the parallel passage Jerem.
xlviii. 32, still gives the correction no, and for 3in,
Zeph. ii. 14, the parallel passage, Is. xxiv. 11, again
supplies the more correct 3iy, &C.1
But in another, alas ! and far greater multitude of
passages, the application of criticism is of much greater
difficulty. The errors are manifest, but their rectification
is so much the more uncertain, as all extant aids towards
the correction of the Hebrew text agree in upholding them.
Undeniable it is that 1 B. Moses xxxvi. 31-36 a series
of names is interpolated; that, however, the Samaritan
text contains the interpolated names which belong else
where, and that this insertion goes back to the most
remote antiquity must strike with extreme surprise. In
the alphabetical Psalms (as e.g. Ps. xxvi. 6, 18) entire
verses are wanting, which also not a single ancient version,
to say nothing of manuscripts, has preserved ; who will
now attempt to restore them ? The genealogies, 1 Chron.
iii. 19, 24, were, in the earliest times, even before the com
mencement of our critical aids to the Old Testament, in
creased by many names which the authors of the books
could not possibly be acquainted with ; how far does the
text go which is from the hand of the author ? Job xiv. 1 1 ,
half or an entire verse fell off at so early a period, and
Job xl. 32 was so early transposed with xli. 3, that we
can come to the help of both passages with conjectures
merely.2 Still more, in many books, sometimes greater,
sometimes less, errors are found as in nests ; and by their
1 More passages of the kind are collected by Kennicott in Disser.
Gener. § 48, to whose decision, however, I cannot always assent.
1 § 437, and in other places of this work, instances of another kind
will be adduced.

232 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
side other books which have come down to us so faithfully
and so accurately that the present condition of the first
remains an insoluble riddle, unless we may venture to
suppose that such passages, beyond the help of all existing
remedies, are derived from the exemplar which the com
pilers of the Old Testament after the Babylonian exile
placed in their library.
Where the still extant fragments of the Old Testa
ment were collected after the Babylonian captivity, there
existed perhaps only a single copy of many authors,
which on one occasion had suffered much from the inferior
quality of the writing materials used in making it, and
was here and there faded away, and upon another was
perhaps, as the property of a merely private family, hastily
written and not with the greatest accuracy. Many
writings of the Old Testament were, perhaps earlier or
later, either before or after the Babylonian captivity, taken
down from the mouths of the people, and the true sense
was become here and there doubtful. Now the compilers of
our canon, who brought to their labours neither the inspi
ration of the Holy Spirit nor the aids of critical skill, have
delivered to us not merely the materials they were in
possession of, but also the shape of those materials ; must
not then necessarily faults occur in the original exemplar,
from which our copies are derived, for which there is no
longer any remedy ?
In short, our critical apparatus where unnecessary is
superfluously abundant, and elsewhere poor and remediless
where we are in the greatest need of its assistance.1
1 See upon this subject Eichorn's preface to Koecher's Analecta ad
Biblioth. Wolfianam, 2nd vol.

PRINTING 233
Section 137. — Printed Text.
We close this section with a general genealogy of the
editions. Soon after the invention of printing, Hebrew
books by its means began to grow common.1 The first
Bible-book was a Psalter with Kimchi's commentary,
printed a.d. 1477 (probably at Bologna) (sec. 392). In
1482 the Pentateuch issued from a Bolognian press ; 1486
at Soncino appeared the first and latest Prophets ; 1487
at Naples the Hagiographa ; 1488, finally, at Soncino the
entire Bible. This and the most part of the editions of
the fifteenth century were printed from manuscripts, and
possess, as long as we are ignorant whether the exemplar
manuscript be still extant, besides the value of extreme
rarity, also that of individual manuscripts (see sec. 392).
I. After this, the Brescian edition of the year 1494,
from which Luther made his version, forms an epoch,
because this was the basis of at least some of the principal
editions, if, as is assumed by some learned men,2 the
greatest part of the subsequent editions were not derived
from it.
II. After a short interval, the preparation of a Rab
binical Bible was undertaken by R. Ben Chayim, for
the school (officina) at Bombay, A.D. 1526, from manu
scripts. The Masora, at the publisher's discretion, was
his chief landmark. It is almost to be conjectured, how
ever, that his labours were extended to the correction of
the consonant and vowel points. He confined himself in
his work chiefly to Spanish manuscripts ; and since his
text became the chief basis of all subsequent editions,
and at one time without any alterations (sec. 395), at
1 The latest intelligence concerning the first experiments in this art
is given by De Rossi De Typographia Hebreso- Ferrariensi, p. 2 f.
2 Thus, for instance, Schelling in Desoript. Cod. Stutgard. § 13.

234 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
another with some small changes (sec. 396), and at a
third time was printed with a strong admixture of foreign
readings (sec. 397 f.), we need feel no surprise that our
vulgar text should almost always adhere to Spanish
readings.1 III. The following have a mixed text : — (1) The
Antwerpian polyglot from the year 1569-1572 ; (2) the
Hutterian edition, 1587 ; (3) Buxtorf's edition, 1611 ;
(4) that of Manasseh Ben Israel, 1630 ; and (5) that of
Joseph Athius, 1661. From all these recensions (the
fourth excepted) many other editions have flowed (sec.
395-401). IV. Besides this, some literati — without, however,
making any alteration in the text, have added collections
of various readings to their editions : (1) John Reuchlin
(his seven penitential Psalms, Tubingen, 1512); (2) Felix
Pratensis (1518); (3) Rabbi Jacob Ben Chayim (1526—
Western and Oriental readings) ; Sebastian Munster
(Basle, 1536, 4to) ; (5) Van den Hooght (Amsterdam,
1705, in the Appendix) ; (6) John Hen. Michaelis
(Halle, 1720); (7) Rabbi Norzi (Mantua, 1742-1744);
(8) Charles Francis Houbigant (Paris, 1753) ; (9) Benj.
Kennicott (Oxford, 1776 f.).
Finally, without the Hebrew text, critical apparatus
has appeared alone : (1) In Haramah's min? 3*D nilDD 'D
(sec. 136b); (2) in R. Menachem de Lonzano 'Or
Thorah ' (sec. 136 b) ; and in De Rossi ' Varise Lectiones
V. T.' (Parma, 1784 ff. 4to, 4 vols, with a supplemental
volume). 1 Repertorium for Biblical and Oriental Literature, Part xii. §§ 249,
257, tos.

RESULT OF INVESTIGATIONS 235

Section 138. — Conclusions.
From this brief, and, alas, owing to the absence of
previous labours, imperfect information respecting the
history of our Hebrew Bible-editions, it follows that all of
them, with the exception of the first impressions, neces
sarily coincide with one another almost entirely in the
text. And this vulgar text harmonises also excellently
with Buxtorf's Masora, because it had been thereafter
corrupted by him.1 Now since the learning of many
scholars of bygone times did not extend back to the source
of this astounding harmony, the report so injurious to
the criticism of the Old Testament became rife that the
biblical text of the Old Testament had continued in con
stant uniformity, and a space of many years was necessary
to convince the theological world that the Old Testament
as well as the New and other writings of antiquity
required the aid of critical elaboration.
The first steps to this end have been taken in our own
times ; various readings from manuscripts and editions
have been collected by Kennicott and his assistants, to
which apparatus further additions have been made by
De Rossi by new excerpts from manuscripts and editions.
The next thing to be done would be to set to right the
ancient authors of Bible-versions, and to examine with the
utmost possible care their declensions from our printed
text ; finally, the Masora should be excerpted from some
of the most perfect manuscripts of it, and after these
previous labours the entire critical materials tested by a
prolonged application of that critical acumen which has
1 I begin to doubt this ; still, however, I have not sufficient ground
for retracting this charge. It must, therefore, remain till further
examination.

236 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
been formed in the already established criticism of the
New Testament and of profane literature. After this and
not sooner is an edition of the Old Testament to be hoped
for which shall bring back the Hebrew text as near to
its original character as is now generally possible.

237

CHAPTER III.
Aids to the Critical Elaboration of the Old
Testament.
Section 139 A. — General List of the Critical Aids.
The holy Scriptures of the Hebrews, as we are informed
by history, have experienced the fate common to all
written monuments of antiquity ; by means of accidents
and the errors of transcribers, much of their original
shape has been lost. Criticism must therefore exercise
its office, if that original form, though not entirely, yet in
part is to be restored.
Aids to this end are in existence, and, though in
sufficient, perhaps, for the extermination of a very large
portion of the most ancient errors, are nevertheless of the
last importance towards the discovery and extirpation of
those which have arisen in the last 2,000 years. They
may be divided, according to the nature of the assistance
they afford, into three classes —
1. Faults of the earliest times are discovered by the
parallel passages, and with regard to the books of Moses
by the Samaritan Pentateuch.
2. The later variations down to the completion of the
Masoretical recension by the ancient authors of versions
(Philo and Josephus), the Church fathers (Ephraim the
Syrian), Origen and Jerome, the Talmud, and the Masora
itself.

238 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
3. Various readings of the Masoretical recension are
found in the modern Rabbins, manuscripts, and editions.
4. When these means for the correction of corrupted
passages are insufficient, recourse must be had, for the Old
Testament as well as all other writings of antiquity, to
conjecture. I. — Parallel Passages.
Section 139 b. — Short Notice of this Means.
Parallel passages are not only sources of variations,
but also an excellent means to determine their adjudi
cation, also for discovering and correcting errors which
may have arisen — as soon, however, as it is settled that
allied passages do not require for their character to har
monise in all particulars. Allied passages, as I have
elsewhere shown (sec. 93), from various causes not
necessarily here to be repeated, may degenerate into varia
tions, without inculpation of time or carelessness of
transcribers. They are divided by Owen ' into five classes : (1)
genealogies, lists of names, &c, which occur twice ;
(2) repeated historical relations ; (3) repetitions of
thoughts and ordinances ; (4) quotations from one pro
phet into another ; (5) quotations or repetitions by a
prophet of himself. They may, however, better be brought
under a smaller number of heads.
1 D. Henr. Owen, Critiea Sacra, a Short Introduction to Hebrew
Criticism in The British Theologian, Part i. § 77 ff. (at first in English
anonymous). Owen treats merely of the use of parallel passages,
although more is implied in the title.

PARALLEL PASSAGES 239
1. Historical Sections which Recur.
a. Genealogies.
1 B. of Moses v. 3-32 Compare 1 Chronicles i. 1-4
x. 2-4 i. 5-7
x. 6-8, 13-18 i. 8-16
x. 22-29 i. 17-23
xi. 10-26 i. 24-27
xxv. 2-4 i. 32-33
xxv. 13-16 i, 29-31
xxxvi. 10-14 i. 35-37
xxxvi. 20-28 i. 38-42
xxxvi. 31-39 i. 43-50
xxxvi. 40-43 i. 51-54
2 Samuel xxiii. 8-39 xi. 10-47
Ezra ii. 1-70 Nehemiah vii. 6-73
b. Narratives.
A large part of the First Book of Moses. See sec. 416-426.
1 Samuel xxxi. 1-13 Compare 1 Chronicles x. 1-12
2 Samuel v. 1-3 xi. 1-3
v. 17-25 xiv. 8-16
vi. 1-11 xiii. 5-14
vi. 12-16 xv. 25-29
vi. 17-19 xvi. 1-3
vii. 1-29 xvii. 1-27
viii. 1-18 xviii. 1-17
x. 1-19 xix. 1-19
xi. 1, xii. 30, 31 xx. 1-3
xxi. 18, 22 xx. 4-8
xxiv. 1-25 xxi. 1-27
1 Kings iii. 5-13
vi. 1-3
vi. 19-28
vii. 15-22
vii. 23-26
vii. 38-51

2 Chro

nicies i. 7-12

iii. 1-4

iii. 8-13

iii. 15-17

iv. 2-5
iv. 6-v. 1
240 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

1 Kings viii. 1-11

Compare 2 Chron. v. 2-14

viii. 12-50

vi. 1-39

viii. 62-66

vii. 4-10

ix. 1-9

vii. 11-22

ix. 10-23

viii. 1-10
ix. 26-28
viii. 17-18
x. 1-29
ix. 1-28
xii. 1-19
x. 1-19
xii. 21-24
xi. 1-4
xiv. 21, 29-31
xii. 13-16
xv. 1, 2, 7, 8
xiii. 1, 2, 21,
22Heb.(=xiv. 1 Ang.)
xv. 9-15
xiv. 1-6 (11-
14?)
xxii. 2-35
xviii. 1-34
xxii. 41-50
xx. 31-37,xxi.
1
xxi. 5-10, 19,
2 Kings viii. 16-24
20
viii. 25-29
xxii. 1-6
xi. 1-3
xxii.10-12
xi. 4-40
xxiii. 1-21
xi. 21, xii. 21
xxiv. 1-27
xiv. 1-6
xxv. 1-4
xiv. 8-14, 17-20
xxv. 17-28
xiv. 21, 22, xv. 2-7
xxvi. 1-4, 21-
23
xv. 32-38
xxvii. 1-9
xvi. 1-20
xxviii. 1-27
xviii. 1-3
xxix. 1-2
xviii. 13, 17-37
Isaiah
xxxvi. 1-22
xix. 1-37
xxxvii. 1-3,
2 Chr. xxxii.
1-21
XX. 1-11
xxxviii. 1-8
xx. 12-21
xxxix. l-8,2Chr.
xxxii. 24-33
PARALLEL PASSAGES

241

2 Kings xxi. 1-6
xxi. 17-26
xxii. 1-20
xxiii. 1—3
xxiii. 21-23
xxiii. 29-30

xxiii. 30-37, xxiv. 1-6
xxiv. 8-17
xxiv. 18-20

2 Chronicles xxxvi. 22-23

Compare 2 Chron. xxxiii. 1-9
xxxiii. 18-26
xxxiv. 1-28
xxxiv. 29-32
xxxv.l, 17-19
xxxv. 20-24,
xxxvi. 1
xxxvi. 2-8
xxxvi. 9-10
Jer. Iii. 9-10, 2 Chron.
xxxvi. 11-21
Ezra i. 1-3

2. Laws, Songs, and
2 B. of Moses xx. 2-17
3 B. of Moses xi. 2-19
Psalm xviii. 2-50
cv. 1-15
xcvi. 1-13
cvi. 47, 48
xiv. 1-7
xl. 13-17
Ivii. 7-11
lx. 5-12
lxxx. 3, 7, 19
cxv. 4-8
Isaiah ii. 2-4
xv. 5
xvi. 6, 7 ff.
xxiv. 17, 18
Hi. 7
Jeremiah x. 25
xxvi. 18
xlix. 14-16
xlix. 27
Habakkuk iii. 18, 19
Zephaniah ii. 15

Prophecies that Occur Twice.
Compare 5 B. of Moses v. 6-21
xiv. 4-18
2 Samuel xxii. 1-51
1 Chron. xvi. 8-22
xvi. 23-33
xvi. 35, 36
Psalm Iiii. 1-6
lxx. 1-5
cviii. 1-5
cviii. 6-13
cvii. 8, 15, 21, 31
cxxxv. 15-18
Micah iv. 1-3
Jeremiah xlviii. 2
xlviii. 29-31
xlviii. 43, 44
Nahum i. 15
Psalm lxxix. 6, 7
Micah iii. 12
Obadiah 1-4
Amos i. 4
Psalm xviii. 33
Isaiah xlvii. 8 R

242

INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

3. Thoughts, Sayings, Proverbs, &c, which are Repeated,
4 B. of Moses xxiv. 3, 4

xxiv. 9
Isaiah v. 25
xi. 6, 7
xviii. 2
xxxv. 10
Jeremiah ii. 28
vii. 30, 31
vii. 33
vii. 34
xv. 2
xv. 13, 14
xxi. 10 f.
xxiii. 5, 6
xxxiii. 7, 8
xxix. 5
xxx. 10, 11
xlviii. 40, 41
xlix. 19, 21
Ezekiel i. 15-21
iii. 17-19
xi. 18-20
xviii. 25
Habakkuk ii. 8
Zechariah iv. 5
Proverbs viii. 8
xx. 16
xxi. 9
xxii. 3

Oompare 4 B. Moses xxiv. 15, 16
1 B. Moses xlix 9,
xxvii. 29
Isaiah ix. 12, 17, 21, x. 4
Ixv. 25
xviii. 7
li. 11
Jeremiah xi 13
xxxii. 34, 35
xvi. 4, xix. 7,
xxxiv. 20
xvi. 9, xxv. 10
xliii. 11
xvii. 3, 4
xxxviii. 2 f.
xxxiii. 15, 16
xvi. 14, 15
xxix. 28
xlvi. 27, 28
xlix. 22
1. 44-46
Ezekiel x. 8-17
xxxiii. 7-9
xxxvi. 25-28
xviii. 29, xxxiii.
17, 20
Habakkuk ii. 17
Zechariah iv. 13
Proverbs xx. 22
xxvii. 13
xxv. 24
xxvii. 12

By the comparison of such allied passages the most
important discoveries may be made by both the higher

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 243
and lower branches of criticism. By their aid a clue may
be obtained — by the former as to the mode of origin of
many books and separate sections of them, and in what
way in later times new works were wrought out of old
materials ; and results gained by the latter for the history
of the Hebrew text (sec. 136 c), and proofs that a large
proportion of striking errors may be traced up to the
most ancient times (sec. 102, 473). Since this means has
been employed abundantly further on in the examination
of separate books, in order to avoid repetitions I shall
adduce no examples here.
III. — Samaritan Pentateuch.
Sections 382, 389 c.
The observation of detached parallel expressions,
parallel verses, and entire sections, was already regarded
by Jewish critics as of importance towards the decision of
readings and the correction of the text, and hence such
passages had been brought together in lists. Codex 196
of Rossi's, of the fifteenth century, prefixes such a list
(«)l7n) to the Hebrew text itself (De Rossi, ' V arise Leet.,'
T. i. p cii.). Concerning the use of this means Bruns ad
Kennicotti ' Dissertat. Gener.' § 61. 2 Sam. xxiii. 4 : the
printed text, BW niP ; in a manuscript of Kennicott's
£>DE> nin* mf, which reading is regarded as very impor
tant by J. D. Michaelis ; it ran, however, into the copier's
pen probably from nin'1 nir, which occurs in a Haphtar
frequently in the mouth of the Jews. Is. lx. 2 : after he
had written nin11, he became aware of his mistake, dared
not, however, either to erase or mark as erroneous the
sacred name nin', but trusted that the added and cor
rect word E>Ot? would discover the error. Ps. xxviii. 8 :
the printed text, 107 Ti; ; many manuscripts, 1DJJ7 Ti/ ; an
B 2

244 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
insinuating reading ! But did it not arise from the printed
text of Ps. xxix. 11, where lOlf? TV is to be found ? These
and some other examples from 4 Book Moses xxii. 5 ;
Is. Iiii. 8. Jerem. xxxiii. 15, compared with xxiii. 5, have
been separately given by Bruns, in Ammon's Haulein and
Paulus' ' New Theological Journal,' B. vi. c. 8, § 752-754,
for the use of such readers as require assistance in such
inquiries. The treatise on the Samaritan Pentateuch
should be placed partly here, partly further on. But in
order to avoid repetitions and the confusion in citations
inevitable from the transposition of paragraphs, I have
preserved the old arrangement. IV. — Masora.
Section 140. — The Name.
In like manner as the commentaries of the Greek and
Latin grammarians were for a long time propagated orally,
before they acquired a written form, so over many cen
turies the passage of all kinds of remarks by the Jews
on their Bible, palasographical, critical, exegetical, and
grammatical, was from mouth to mouth. Finally, to
rescue them from destruction or corruption, they were
brought into a collection, which from the form of their
preservation down to that time, was called Masora, ni'DO,
or niiDD, the Tradition. At a later period, the text of
the Hebrew Bible was bound up with these annotations
(sec. 154) ; this gave occasion to the taste of the Jews for
etymological play, to derive the word niDD (Masora) from
1DN, to bind, and to interpret it by the expressions, vin
culum, claustrum ; the volume also received the name of
niinn 3'D, sepimentum legis.

THE MASORA 245
Section 141. — Origin and Authors of the Masora.
Not from Moses, not from Ezra and the pretended
Great Synagogue, but from later Jews these annotations
took their rise. The primary basis is older than the
Talmud ; the richest contributions were afforded by the
centuries between the third and the sixth ; subsequently
there is not one without some individual contribution.
1. Many remarks are already adduced by the Talmud
which are parts of the Masora. Both mention the
Tikkun and Ittur Sopherim ; both speak of Keri velo
Kethib, and of Kethib velo Keri ; the middle consonants,
the middle word, and the middle verse in the Pentateuch !
are reckoned in the Talmud, as is the case with the Masora
in every book.
Already before the third century some of these
remarks, by means of all sorts of signs, as for instance
consonants of different shapes, and extraordinary points,
were brought into the text of the manuscripts. They
were none of them, however, written in extenso before the
time of the Talmud 2
1 Tract of the Kidduschvm, c. 1, fol. 30.
2 The subscriptions of many manuscripts make a certain Rabbi
Menakai to be the author of their Masora, who communicat ed it to the
R. Ada and the R. Hammenuna, and fix the origin of the (Babylonian)
Masora under Hadrian or Vespasian. The subscription was com
municated (imperfectly) first by Fourmont, from a MS. belonging to the
Royal Library at Paris, in his Dissertation Critique sur VEpoqne de la
Ponctuation Hebraique (Memoires de la Litterature tires de Registres
de V Academic royale des Inscriptions et des Belles-lettres, T. xiii. p. 491 ff.)
Houbigant in Prolegomena, T. i. p. cii. (cap. iii. art. 11, § 2). From
another manuscript of Rossi in Prolegom cod. 196 (but with some
variance), according to Michaelis's version, which appears to be the
most correct, the passage runs as follows : ' This is the Masora delivered
by Dusa, the son of Eleazar, the son of the R. Affe. It was received
by him from the R. Joda, the Babylonian, who had it from his father
Simeon. His father Simeon received it from R. Ada. R. Ada in his

246 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
2. After the composition of the Talmud these remarks
increased from century to century ; the treatise Sopherim,
written between the Talmud and the Masora, speaks
already more fully of some kinds of them, but nevertheless
it does not altogether agree with the Masora. The Talmud
reckons fi.ve Kethib velo Keri, the treatise Sopherim six,
the Masora (Ruth iii. 12) eight ; the difference indeed
becomes more striking, if it be noted that out of six pas
sages from the treatise Sopherim, only two agree with
those cited from the Talmud.
During this interval all kinds of signs were employed
in the manuscripts to refer to existing critical annotations.
The litterai majusculee, minusculm, suspenses, &c, are at
least older than the written Masora.
3. Finally at the commencement of the sixth century
the commentaries already in existence, but scattered, were
day was a distinguished scholar in the scriptures He got it from
R. Hammenuna, who had made it known at Nehardea. Both R. Ham-
menuna and R. Ada recaived it from R. Menakai, who went into exile
fiom the land of Israel. They were led by Rufus into captivity ex
pressly that the Law might no more be found in Palestine. And by
them the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa have been fixed, four-
and-twenty books in all, without mistake or error in their examinat ions,
22,177 verses, neither more nor less.' Since the R. Menakai is other-,
wise not known, the time at which he lived must be ascertained by
that of Rufus. Now, there were two Roman generals of that name, who
made the Jews experience the severity of the Romans: (1) Terentius
Rufus, left by Titus Vespasian in command of the army at Jerusalem,
a ter he had captured the city ; and (2) Fenius Rufus, under Hadrian, oE
whom Jerome writes at Dan. ix. 24 : ' jElius Hadrianus rebellantes
JudEeos pugnante Rufo magistro exercitus superavit.' Now, if we take
either the first or the last as the one meant, Menakai must have flourished
either under Vespasian or Hadrian, but history will not allow us to carry
the written Masora so far back. At the utmost it can only be allowed
that notes of all kinds were communicated by him to his pupils, which
afterwards became parts of the Masora. Michaelis's miscellaneous
works, Part ii. § 37 ff.; Orient. Bibl. Part ix. § 69; Part xx. § 44;
Part xxiii. § 91.

THE MASORA 247
collected and bound up in a single volume, called Masora,
by the Jews of Tiberias. At Tiberias there flourished
confessedly, after the birth of Christ, an academy of the
Jews; here, in particular, great industry was exerted
towards the critical elaboration of the Bible (sec. 121) ;
from what other place was a collection of the hitherto
merely traditional notes on the Bible then to be expected
more than from Tiberias ?
4. But the Masora was not yet considered as a finished
work. From time to time either notes entirely new were
introduced, or the old ones were supported by additional
examples. Hence the Masora does not agree, in the
number of passages cited for every commentary, either
with itself or with our Masoretical editions (sees. 143,
149, 152, 153). Hence it were to be wished that it were
possible to distinguish the Masoretical chief revision of
the sixth century, or the ancient, from the new Masoretical
recensions since the sixth century. But the new are so
thoroughly mingled with the old as to render a separation
impossible.1 Since, however, we are no longer in a situa
tion to separate the principal work from later additions,
I have determined, in spite of a full consciousness of the
inconvenience of the method, nevertheless, in the descrip
tion of the contents of the Masora, to deal with the com
mentaries of all kinds and all times at once.
1 Jablonski, Presf. ad Biblia Hebr. § 32. It is assumed by Stark,
in Carm. David. T. i. p. 40 note, that the Masora had undergone from
two to three revisions. ' Bis et ter Masoram revisam fuisse probatu
haud difficile est. Primum Tiberiade, deinde in Babylonia circa A.c.
1037, quibus temporibus To Achla debemus, quod quantum scio typis
nunquam impressum est ; denique post tempus R. Jonse a quibus inde
temporibus in systema quoddam reducta est grammatica ad imita-
tionem Arabum.' If the compiler, in the section of the Masora, had
clearly shown what he thought so easy of proof, it would have been
well.

248 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Section 142, — General Indication of the Contents of the
Masora.
The contents of the Masora are partly palasographical,
partly critical, partly exegetical, partly grammatical. To
palasography belongs the counting of the verses in each
book, as well as in the entire Bible, and the indication of
consonants in an unusual form, in part ; to criticism, the
Ittur and Tikkun Sopherim, the extraordinary points, a
part of the consonants in unusual figures, and a part of
the Keri and Kethib. To the exegetical category belongs
a part of the commentaries on the reading-signs, the indi
cations how often a word in a given form occurs to be
construed in this or the other signification, a part of Keri
and Kethib, the Piska, Keri velo Kethib, and Kethib velo
Keri. Finally, of grammatical contents there appears to
be some Keri and Kethib, and a part of the commentaries
on the reading-signs and forms of words. The matter
incapable of inclusion under these heads is either useless
play-work, or mere Jewish whimsicalities.1
Section 143. — Separate Parts of the same.
1 . Number of the Series.
The Masorites reckoned the verses, and noted their
amount in each single book and in its greater and lesser
sections, and at what verse the middle of the book was
found. But neither the Talmud nor the Masora nor our
present editions of the Bible agree with regard to the
number of the verses in scarcely any book thereof. According
to the Talmud,2 for instance, the five Books of Moses contain
5,888 verses ; the Psalms had eight verses more (therefore
1 With regard to this entire section Buxtorf's Tiberias is the chief
authority. 2 Tract. Kidduschim, fol. 30 a.

THE MASORA 249
5,896), and the Books of Chronicles eight less (therefore
5,880). On the other hand, according to the Masora, the
Pentateuch in Buxtorfs Bible has 5,245, the Psalms 2,527,
&c. In our editions the number of verses in the Penta
teuch varies still more. According to the edition of Felix
Pratensis the Pentateuch contains 5,945 ; according to that
of Buxtorf, which follows the Masora, 5,245 ; and of Elias
Levita 5,842.
In order to clear up these variations, it is necessary to
consider that formerly the reckoning was made by lines
(lines, which were called verses) ; and since the number of
lines depended on the breadth of the manuscripts, would
not the numbering of the so-called verses always fall out
different ? At least, in the Talmudian reckoning of the
verses in the Books of Chronicles, it is impossible that our
present verses can form the ground-work, otherwise how
was it possible that in this book the number of verses could
reach eight below the number of verses in the Penta
teuch ? Or were the first chapters in the first book of
Chronicles written genealogically ?
Also in fixing the middle verse of a book, the modern
Masorites differ from the ancient. According to the
ancient, for instance, 3 Book Moses xiii. 33 was
the middle verse, but to the modern 3 Book Moses
viii. 8.
Section 144. — 2. Peculiar Phenomena in the Verses.
The Masora then notes certain peculiar phenomena in
single verses. Thus it reckons 26 verses in which all the
consonants of the Hebrew alphabet occur ; three verses
which contain 80 consonants ; one verse (Jerem. xxi. 7)
which consists of 42 words and 160 consonants, &c. — mere
trifles scarce worth the trouble of being noted.

250 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
Section 145. — 3. Counting of the Words and Consonants.
The Masora, moreover, counts the consonants partly
for the purpose of detecting the middle consonant in
single books, and partly how often each consonant occurs.
At the same time, it collects their unusual shapes, namely,
the literee majusculce, minusculce, inverses, suspenses ; in
short, finals in the middle, and middle letters at the ends of
words, which remind the inquirer sometimes of old critical
or exegetical remarks, and at other times of wretched child's
play of the Jews (as in the case of 4 Book Moses x. 35).
Here follow examples. Thus : 3 Book xi. 42 the
l in jm3 is to be the middle consonant in the Pentateuch
in like manner as in the Psalms, Ps. lxxx. 14, the v in
lira. N occurs 42,377 times, 3 38,218, 3 29,537,
1 32,530. Literal suspenses, Judges xviii. 30 ; Ps.
lxxx. 14 ; Job xxxviii. 13. Inverses, 4 Book Moses x. 35 ;
Ps. cvii. 23. Finals in the middle of a word, Is. ix. 7.
Middles at the end of a word, Nehem. ii. 13 ; Job
xxxviii. 1. Majusculce, 3 Book Moses xi. 42. Minusculce,
1 Book Moses ii. 4.
Words are counted in order to show how often the
same word occurs in the Bible, in this or that sense, under
this or that form, written plenb or defective, this or the
other way joined, how often at the beginning, in the middle,
or end of the verses.
1 Book Moses xix. 8, the Masora remarks that 7X
occurs eight times as prenomen. Jonah iii. 6, 13#»1 is
found nine times. 1 Book Moses ii. 7 1V"1 occurs only
once plenh (with two Jods) ; Jonah ii. 4 ^330' is found
nine times defective, otherwise always plenb ('iSl'D').
1 Book Moses xiii. 18, XI* is joined (construed or con
structed) with D'n^n DK. 1 Book Moses i. 30, 7371 com
mences the verse four times ; 1 Book Moses i. 1, yy&n three
times ends the verse.

THE masora 251
Section 146. — 4. Reading- signs, Vowels, Accents,
Daghesh, and Mappik.
Remarks are scattered up and down in the Masora
concerning vowels and accents. Thus 1 Book Moses i. 5
at the word HN7 it is said J'XDp 'r, ' seven times it is written-
with Kamets.' And 1 Book Moses iii. 11, at lb, '1.7 occurs
in the Pentateuch fourteen times with the accent
Sakeph.' Daghesh is mentioned at Ezra viii. 6, with
the reminiscence ' N has the Daghesh four times : Ezra
viii. 6 ; 1 Book Moses, xliii. 26 ; 3 Book Moses xxiii. 7 ; Job
xxxiii. 21.' At other passages it announces that n? occurs
without Mappik once in the Pentateuch, once in the
Prophets, and once in the Hagiographa ; namely,
4 Book Moses xxxii. 42 ; Zechariah v. 10 ; Ruth ii. 14.
Section 147. — 5. Tikkun and (6) Ittur Sopherim ;
(7) Extraordinary Points ; (8) Conjectures.
In the next place, the remains . also of the critical
revisions of the Bible, already mentioned by the Talmud,
have been incorporated by the Masorites into their work
as, 1, the Tikkun Sopherim (sec. 116) ; 2, the .Ittur
Sopherim (sec. 117) ; and 3, the words marked by extra
ordinary points (sec. 118). Also conjectures occur amongst
the Masoretical observations particularly numerous when
the analogy of the language is not closely kept and any
unusual grammatical construction is found, as if no liberty
in the arrangement of words was admissible, and no faults
in expression had been committed by the Old Testament
writers. These observations are marked by pi*3D, putantur,
existimantur. For instance, 1 Book Moses xix. 23, at the words
psn bv N?: WQfiJ it is remarked nsx; jn/qp '3. l in three

252 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
places it is considered the meaning must be nsy.V' — namely,
here because in other places G2*D$? is used in the feminine
gender, Jerem. xlviii. 45, because it is construed with £•$ ;
and Daniel viii. 9, because it is joined with Jl.i7. A better
knowledge of grammar makes these conjectures very dis
pensable. More passages are adduced by Buxtorf in
' Tiber.' p. 35, fol. a.

[My Father's translation of Eichorn's work proceeded no
farther than this. — C. G. J. R.]

PRINTED BY
SP0TTI3W00HK UST) CO., NliW-STBBIT SQCABB
LOXDOM