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.' 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 2d. Insertion or omission of the matres lectionis 150 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 "nune." 2 De Rossi, Prolegomenon, p. xliii. cott, in Genesis iii, Ps. xxii, and Isaiah liii, are only the fol lowing: 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, 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 "N", "And I was afraid, because I was naked," one Ms. K. and the Syr. and Ar. versions read NN," 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 N, which, in the unpointed Hebrew, signifies "he," 17 Mss. K. and two primo, and Sam. In the Masoretic copies the textual reading is pointed (7) 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 Sam. and some Mss. read N 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.* Gen iii. 19. For ", "for," one Ms. De R. prime reads WN, "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 DT, 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 ", "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 salvation," or "from saving me," six Mss. K. and one primo read ny, "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 WP, "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 18, foderunt," they pierced." Some Mss. read 1, 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, 2 "Latina Veteri." De Rossi. See De Rossi in loc. append. to vol. IV. of his Variæ Lectiones. &c. in preferring 1785, and Hamilton has very properly admitted it into the text in his Codex Criticus. Ps. xxii. 22. For D, which, according to the Masoretic punctuation, signifies "unicorns," or the animal usually designated by this English word (though it never occurs elsewhere without N), 26 Mss. and one Marg. K., 26 Mss., eight primo, and one Marg. De R. read DON, supported by the context, 6, Vulg., Æth. One Ms. and Ar. read in the singular. Syr. seems to have read 66 is ראמים .ראמים and רמים lofty, and Targ. retains both doubtless the best authenticated reading, and is rightly adopted by Hamilton in his Codex Criticus. Ps. xxii. 25. For y, "of the poor," one Ms. K. reads ", " of the poor and needy." But this reading receives no other support. Ps. xxii. 27. For 3, "your heart," one K. and perhaps one primo De R. and Syr. read Da, "their heart." 6, Vulg., Ar., have also the pronominal suffix D, but they have the noun in the plural number. Though this reading is countenanced by the context, yet the change of person is so usual in Hebrew poetry, that Secker and Horsley, authorities of considerable weight, prefer the common reading. Ps. xxii. 28. For T, "before thee, one Ms. K., supported by ó, Vulg., Syr., Æth., Ar., and Jerome, reads before him." This reading is preferred by Dimock and Houbigant; and adopted by Hare, Street, and Horsley. לפניו ، ,לטבחיו Isaiah, ch. liii. In this important prophecy, out of 137 various readings, 5 only, except manifest errors of the transcribers, have any effect on the sense: and these, indeed, in a very slight degree. Isai. liii. 7. For 2, "to the slaughter," one Ms. K. reads M, "to his slayers." This reading cannot be admitted; resting, as it does, on the authority of a single unsupported Ms. Isai. liii. 8. y,' literally, "strokes [were inflicted] upon him," one K. perhaps read, "was he cut off." This also must be rejected, from its resting on the authority of a single Ms. Isai. liii. 9. For ", "in his death,” two Mss. De R. and one primo point ", "his tomb," or "monument," point, as De Rossi translates the word. This reading is approved by some critics, but receives no support from the ancient versions. Isai. liii. 10. For by, "shall prosper," two Mss. De R. read by," shall cause-to prosper:" but it is not sup יצלח It may here be observed, that ó, Ar. read for, which Bishop Lowth adopts in his elegant version of Isaiah, and supports by some strong arguments adduced from Dr. Kennicott. |