Donec flamma orbem populabitur ultima totum, Et mihi vel tellus optem prius ima dehiscat,' Quam te, sancte parens, lædam, aut tua jura resolvam.' 'Discite justitiam hinc moniti, et non temnere divum.' Quæque nefas infame manent, agnoscite pœnas. At quantis, Rex magne, tuæ miracula dextræ, Lætitiam nisi quæ ostendebat, lacryma abivit. WALPOLE. ON THE VARIOUS READINGS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE. LETTER IV. [Continued from No. LVII.] HAVING, in some preceding letters, given a short account of the progress which has been made in collating the Mss. of the Hebrew Bible, and applying them to the correction of the Hebrew text; I propose now to show, by classifying the various readings of some select passages of Scripture, what has been the actual result of the labors of Kennicott and De Rossiwhat degree of error and defect attaches to our common Hebrew Bibles, and how far they admit of correction by a careful and judicious selection of the various readings. It will be found on examination, that by far the greatest number of readings (except manifest errors in the collated copies) make little or no difference in the sense of the passage; but consist of the insertion or omission of the matres lectionis, different modes of spelling, the correction of grammatical anomalies, and other matters of no great importance: and that those comparatively few readings, which make a difference in the sense, and seem entitled, on principles of rational and sober criticism, to preference, generally harmonise with the context, and improve the passage. Without further preface I shall select a portion of Scripture from the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, and arrange all the various readings of the collated Mss. in each, under the following heads: 1st. Insertion or omission of the conjunction 1. The portions of Scripture selected for this examination are, Genesis iii, Psalm xxii, and Isaiah liii.1 The various readings in Genesis iii, inserted in Kennicott's Hebrew Bible, are Which may be thus arranged: 1st. Insertion or omission of the conjunction 150 2d. Insertion or omission of the matres lectionis In Ps. xxii, the readings in Kennicott's Bible amount to 181 Of these there belong to the 1st class 11 The various readings, therefore, which have any effect on the sense, in these three portions of scripture (omitting manifest errors), amount, in the whole, only to 19 out of 462. It has been remarked in a former letter, that the plan adopted by De Rossi was different in some respects from that of Kennicott: whilst the latter gave all the readings of the Mss. which he collated, De Rossi only selected those readings for publication which he deemed most important. "Selectum ego exhibere collationem aggredior," says De Rossi in his Prolegomenon, ex discrepantibus lectionibus eas tantum congero, quæ gravioris aut ullius saltem momenti mihi visæ sunt; quæ sensum vel mutant, vel afficiunt, et præsidium aliquod habent, non modo in Mss. codicibus, sed etiam in Samar. textu, et in versionibus antiquis." The readings, therefore, contained in De Rossi's Variæ Lectiones, and not found in the Mss. collated by Kenni 'In this collation no readings are given from the printed copies, though there are some in the early editions entitled to consideration; nor are any of the recent corrections of the Mss, given, which are distinguished by Kennicott by the word “nunc.” ? De Rossi, Prolegomenon, p. xliii. cott, in Genesis iii, Ps. xxii, and Isaiah liii, are only the fol Let us now examine the 19 readings in Kennicott's collation, and the 5 in De Rossi's, belonging to the 5th class, and see how far they are supported by the ancient versions and other authorities, and whether any, and how many of them, are preferable to the received text. היא read Gen. iii. 2. For ry, &c. " we may eat of the fruit," &c. one Ms. K. reads ry " No5, 66 we may NOT eat of the fruit," &c. This being the reading only of a single Ms., unsupported either by the context, or by any of the ancient versions, must be rejected. Gen. iii. 10. For NNI, “And I was afraid, because I was naked," one Ms. K. and the Syr. and Ar. versions read N," and I saw that I was naked." This makes a good sense, and agrees with the context; but the common reading does not require alteration, and is best supported by authorities. Gen. iii, 12. For NT, which, in the unpointed Hebrew, signifies "he," 17 Mss. K. and two primo, and Sam. In the Masoretic copies the textual reading is pointed (NT) like the feminine . In a very considerable number of passages in the Pentateuch, this word occurs in the sense, and with the punctuation of the 3d person singular feminine, but with instead of. It is not, perhaps, easy to determine, whether the feminine pronoun was anciently spelt with the same letters as the masculine, which seems to have been Secker's opinion, or whether has been corrupted into ↑, in all these passages, through the fault of transcribers. This opinion is entertained by Boothroyd and Hamilton, and it is supported in many instances by the Sam. text. Whichever reading we adopt, the gender is sufficiently distinguished by the vowel points. The same remark applies to v. 20, in which Sani. and some Mss. read No for N. Gen. iii. 15. For N, "it," two Mss. K. read, "she," and two others, and one De R. appear to have read the same. This reading is supported by an anonymous Greek version in Origen's Hexapla, by one Ms. of the Targum of Onkelos, by the printed Vulgate, and some of the later Latin Fathers. But the textual reading is supported by the context; by almost all the collated Mss.; by the Sam. T. and Vers.; by Copt., Æth., Ital.,' the Targums, Syr., Ar., Pers., and some Mss. of Vulg. No doubt, therefore, can be reasonably entertained as to the genuineness of the common reading.1 Gen iii. 19. For ", "for," one Ms. De R. prime reads N, "which." This makes a better sense, and though resting at present on the authority of a single Ms., I think is entitled to preference; being supported by all the ancient versions, excepting Sam. Gen. iii. 20. For DTN, literally," the man," one Ms. De R. and Sam. T. read DTN, "Adam." This word occurs uniformly with the article throughout the four first chapters of Genesis, except Gen. i. 26, "And God said, let us make man;” and ii. 5," there was not a man:" though our authorised version inconsistently translates, sometimes "Adam," sometimes "the man." The common reading here is preferable. In the 5th chapter the article is uniformly omitted. The word ought to be translated "the man" throughout the four first chapters of Genesis, excepting the two passages mentioned above, and "Adam" afterwards. Ps. xxii. 2. For ny, "hast thou forsaken me?" one Ms. K. reads now, "hast thou forgotten me?" This reading, however, receiving no support from the ancient versions, and not being required by the context, must be rejected. Ps. xxii. 2. For ny, "from my vation," or "from saving me," six Mss. K. and one primo read yup, "from my cry! This accords better with the usual construction of Hebrew poetry, and is preferred by Hare, Street, Secker, &c.; but it is not well supported by the ancient authorities: most of the Mss. and all the versions support the common reading. Ps. xxii. 4. For TP, "and thou continuest holy," Prayer-Book version, one Ms. K. 6, Vulg., Æth., and perhaps Ar., read WP, “ and thou dwellest in the sanctuary.” This reading seems entitled to preference. Ps. xxii. 17. For ", "as a lion," or, with a different punctuation, which some critics have proposed, "piercing," one K. and perhaps another, one De R. and one Marg. read 185, foderunt, "they pierced." Some Mss. read 175, omitting N. All the ancient versions, excepting Chald., read the word in the 3d person plural. This reading is also adopted in our English version. See a statement for and against its reception into the text in De Rossi's note in loc. This eminent critic concurs with Dimock, Street, Horsley, sal "Latina Veteri." De Rossi. 2 See De Rossi in loc. append, to vol. IV, of his Variæ Lectiones. |