other emendations than those of typographical errors. It was accompanied with a Latin version, and with various readings in the margin, from the Samaritan Pentateuch, expressed in the square Hebrew letter.

Properly speaking, the modern textual criticism of the Old Testament began with Kennicott, the first volume* of whose great work was printed in folio at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, in 1776.† Before his time, there had been a superstitious belief in the absence of all various readings, of any consideration, from the Masoretic manuscripts. Buxtorf had even asserted their absolute uniformity, and Capellus had not ventured to deny it; and the urgency of the Protestant divines to maintain the verbal exactness of the copies of the scriptures, in the original tongues, against the Catholic assumptions for the Vulgate, had contributed to maintain the belief. In part by the aid of other scholars, Kennicott collated for his edition, more than six hundred manuscripts, besides fifty previous editions. Fifty-one of his manuscripts he reckoned to be from six to eight hundred years old; to one hundred and seventy-four he ascribed an age of from four to six hundred years; and the rest he esteemed more modern. Kennicott's text is that of Vander Hooght, with a chain of various readings from the Hebrew manuscripts and the Samaritan Pentateuch.

The more extended collations of De Rossi, of Parma,

Containing the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and the books of

Samuel.

"Opus magnum, multoties annunciatum, avide expectatum, magnis curis vigiliisque et multis impensis accuratum, qui et antequam publicum in conspectum prodiit, sub censuram vocatum, accusatum, defensum, ad nostras pervenit manus, haud levi ære comparatum." Masch's edition of Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, Part. i. cap. 1, sect. 1, § 42. This work gives full descriptions of all the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible, down to the year 1783.

followed. In the preparation of his work, issued in 1784-8, he examined no less than three hundred editions, and seven hundred and thirty manuscripts. Some of these latter he supposed himself authorized to refer to so remote a period as the seventh or eight century; a conclusion which has not been commonly acquiesced in by the learned. But this specification cannot be further pursued. The convenient edition of Doederlein and Meisner, published at Leipsic, in 1793, has had an extensive circulation. That of Jahn* contains a selection of various readings, but is chiefly recommended by its convenient arrangement of parallel passages in the historical books. The manual edition of Augustus Hahn, issued at Leipsic in 1831, distinguished for the beauty of its page, as well as the general correctness of its typographical execution, has come into common use in this country.

The account which I have given of the history of the Text, is but a rapid and condensed outline; but it may serve for the basis of more particular remarks, as occasion will hereafter occur for such. We have seen occasion to allow, that, in the later ages, the Jews have given a remarkably minute attention to the preservation of the integrity of their sacred books; while, in the earlier times, we have found no proof that the natural causes of error on the part of copyists were in any way precluded from their usual operation; and have seen that both the occasional difference between the different early authorities, and phenomena, which cannot be mistaken, of the Hebrew text itself, indicate that errors in transcription did in fact occur.

* John Jahn, author of the "Introduction to the Old Testament," "History of the Hebrew Commonwealth," "Archæologia Biblica,” and other works. His Hebrew Bible was published at Vienna, in two volumes, in 1807.

The forming of a critical text of the Old Testament, after the accurate type of the critical text of the New, as prepared by Griesbach and others, is now an impossible work; inasmuch as, our Hebrew manuscripts being of Masoretic origin, there are many readings preserved in the older authorities, (the ancient versions, for example,) which no longer exist anywhere in Hebrew, and accordingly, to replace them in the text, they would need to be translated by the modern scholar into that language, a course which would obviously transgress all authorized bounds of critical discretion. But, though the preparation of such a satisfactory text, extending to the whole body of the sacred records, must needs be despaired of, a cautious interpreter is bound to forsake the Masoretic reading of any passage, wherever he sees reason to believe, that, from other sources, a better reading (that is, having more probability of being original and genuine,) may be supplied. I close this lecture with a brief reference to a few of these sources, simply exhibiting them, for our future convenience' sake, in one view, and avoiding for the present all those questions, (extending themselves over a wide range of inquiry, and necessarily leading to much difference of opinion,) which relate to their respective claims as arbiters of controverted readings.

The Samaritan Pentateuch, notwithstanding the disputes concerning its date, the manner and occasion of its origin, and its more recent fortunes, is allowed on all hands to be of great antiquity, and is entitled to special consideration. The ancient Samaritan version affords no independent authority, as it was made from this text, which it follows with a servilely literal imitation.

The worth of the Alexandrine Greek version as a textual authority, has likewise been the subject of much discussion. Its correspondence with the Samaritan text in

the Pentateuch is a fact of the most striking and weighty character. Could we be sure that it exactly or essentially represented, in Greek, the sense exhibited in Hebrew copies existing at the time when it was made, it would be an evidence, from its greater antiquity, far outweighing, in cases of difference, any now extant Hebrew manuscripts. But the degree of attention and skill, with which its different parts were prepared, has been matter of disagreement; its own original text (since that, too, as much as the Hebrew, has been exposed to all the chances of time,) is itself a subject for critical inquiry; and it has been charged, in different quarters, with having sustained designed corruptions, at different eras, for the purpose of conforming it to the Hebrew standard, or, on the other hand, for the suppression of evidence which the Hebrew, and itself originally, afforded. -The histories of Josephus present, throughout, striking conformities with the Alexandrine readings. — To the class of Greek textual authorities belong also the quotations from the Old Testament, in the New, (as far as it can be made probable that these were designed to be exact,) and the parts of Greek versions, mentioned above as having been included in Origen's Hexapla.

Representations of the Hebrew text, as it existed in times long anterior to the Masorites, are also to be sought in the Syriac Peshitó version, and the oldest Chaldee Targums. -The former presents a repetition of the remarkable fact, observed in respect to the Samaritan Pentateuch; that of a general characteristic similarity to the Alexandrine readings, where the Alexandrine differ from the Hebrew. -The Targum of Onkelos is of great consideration as a textual guide. That of Jonathan, as being more paraphrastic, is less valuable for this use, as it was formerly remarked to be for the use of interpretation. But this class of authorities have also been

charged with having been remodelled, by Jews of the middle ages, after the Hebrew copies in their hands.

The Latin Vulgate is another of the most important ante-Masoretic authorities. In preparing it, Jerome neither wanted information concerning the Jewish readings, nor aid from the Jewish learning, of the time.* He himself confessed, however, that he occasionally forsook the Hebrew for the Greek; † and his work is thought to have suffered alterations in later times, for the sake of conforming it to the "Old Italic," and on the other hand, to the Masoretic Hebrew. Questions of this nature, in short, embarrass the use of all the old versions, in their application to textual criticism.

Quotations of Old Testament passages in the Talmuds are not seldom found to exhibit readings, varying from those of the Masoretic copies. The character of Rabbinical quotations, from the eleventh century downward, is that of coincidence with the Masoretic text. The Christian fathers are generally found to have taken their Old Testament quotations from the version used in their respective churches, whether the Syriac, the Greek, or the Latin.‡

* "Cum a me nuper literis flagitassetis, ut vobis Paralipomenon Latino sermone transferrem, de Tiberiade quendam legis doctorem, qui apud Hebræos admirationi habebatur, assumsi, et contuli cum eo a vertice, ut aiunt, usque ad extremum unguem, et, sic confirmatus, ausus sum facere, quod jubebatis." Hieronymi Prefatio ad Paralip.

+ Hieronymi Præf. ad Pent.; Præf. ad Com. in Eccles.

The arrangement of the books in our common Hebrew Bibles is that of the Masorites; in our English Bibles, that of the Latin Vulgate. For an exhibition of different arrangements (fifty in number), which have been used at different times, or are found in some writer, see "Wolf's Bibliotheca Hebræa," Part i. Sect. 1, ad calcem.