(of the twelfth century), and Josephus', read seventy men only, and omit fifty thousand. Seventy is evidently the true number; for, as Beth-shemesh was but a "small village," it is improbable that it could contain so many as fifty thousand inhabitants.*

The Masorah, Talmud3, and Talmudical writers are also sources of emendation, but of no great authority in readings of any moment.

With regard to the Masorah, the Jews prefer the Keris, while others have always retained the Khethibs: these extremes should be avoided; and that reading only is to be admitted from it which is supported by ancient versions, and is in perfect harmony with the context, the analogy of language, and parallel passages.

In Isai. ix. 2. (Heb. ; 3 of English version), we read, Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not the joy. The Khethib has 5, not, with which the Vulgate version and that of Symmachus agree; but the Keri reads 5, to him, or it, that is, the nation; and with this agree the Chaldee paraphrase, the Septuagint, the Vulgate version, the readings in the text of fifteen manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott, and six of those collated by De Rossi. The latter reading is not only best supported, but it is also excellently in unison with the preceding verse. Bishop Lowth has therefore adopted it, and translates thus, Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased their joy. [The late Prof. Lee read the, clause interrogatively: Hast thou not increased the joy? So also in Psal. c. 3., IN No1, the Keri has for. Thus the sense will be, And his we are, which is preferable.]

Readings derived from the Talmud and Talmudical writers are to be admitted only when they expressly cite the Hebrew text, and when their readings are confirmed by manuscripts. In judging of the various lections obtained from the Jewish writers, those which are collected from the Talmud (though few in number4) are of great value, and equal to those furnished by Aquila, Symmachus, the Syriac version, and the Chaldee paraphrase. But such as are derived from the commentaries and lexicons of the rabbins, who lived between the tenth and thirteenth centuries, are (according to Bauer) to be accounted equal with the readings of manuscripts.

[For valuable remarks on the use of ancient versions in criticism, Dr. Davidson 6 and Dr. Tregelles' may be consulted.]

V. PARALLEL PASSAGES afford a very material help in determining various readings, where all other assistance fails. Cappel and Dr. Kennicott have shown at great length what use may be made of parallel passages, in order to ascertain the genuine reading where may be dubious, or to restore it where it may be lost. Bauer has given an abstract of Cappel's collection of parallel passages in pp. 235-238. of his Critica Sacra.

it

1. Where parallel passages, together with the sense, support the reading of ancient manuscripts, they show that such reading is perfectly right.

Thus in Isai. Ixi. 4. we read, They shall build the old wastes; but the sentence is incomplete, as we know not who are the builders. After they shall build, four MSS. (two of which are

Ant. Jud. lib. vi. cap. i. § 4. tom. i. p. 313.

2 Kennicott, Diss. i. p. 532. Diss. ii. p. 208. Dr. A. Clarke and Dr. Boothroyd on 1 Sam. vi. 19. [Comp. Davidson, Bibl. Crit. vol. i. chap. xxviii. pp. 401–4.; Porter, Principles of Textual Crit., Lond. 1848, book ii. chap. vii. sect. ix. pp. 199-203.]

See an account of the Masorah in pp. 23-26. supra, and of the Talmud in a later part of this volume.

See the account of Gill's and Frommann's Collations in Davidson, Bibl. Crit. vol. i. chap xxii.

notes.

502,

Bauer, Critica Sacra, pp 444, 445.

Bibl. Crit. vol. i. chap. xix.

Vol. iv. chap. xxi.

See his Critica Sacra, lib. i. capp. ii.—xiv. vol. i. pp. 14—135., 8vo. edition, with Vogel's

In his first Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, pp. 13, 79, 198, 444, 457, 461, 481, 484, 510.

ancient) add, they that spring from thee; and this reading is confirmed by lviii. 12.; where the sentence is the very same, this word being added. Bishop Lowth therefore receives it into the text, and translates the sentence thus:

"And they that spring from thee shall build up the ruins of old times."

[It must, however, be said that the proposed reading is possible, rather than probable.] 2. In a text evidently corrupted, a parallel place may suggest a reading perfectly genuine.

Thus in the common printed editions of Judg. vii. 18. we read, Say, of the Lord and of Gedeon. This is defective. The venerable English translators have, with great propriety, supplied the sword,, from the successful exploit of Gideon, related in v. 20. The word which those learned men thus supplied from a parallel place proves to be right; for it is found in ten manuscripts, besides the Chaldee paraphrase, and the Syriac and Arabic versions. In like manner they have supplied the word fourth in 2 Kings xxv 3 from Jer. lii. 6. to complete the sense; and this addition is also confirmed by the different versions. 3. To determine with accuracy the authority of parallel passages in the Old Testament, they should be divided into four classes; viz.

(1.) Passages containing the historical narration of an event which occurred but once, or the record of a prayer or speech but once uttered. Ex. gr. Josh, xix. 50., xxiv. 30. comp. with Judg. ii. 9. ; 2 Sam. xxii. with Psal. xviii.; the books of Kings with those of Chronicles; 2 Kings xxv. with Jer. lii. 9.; 2 Kings xviii. to xx. with Isai. xxxvi. to xxxix.

(2.) Passages containing a command, and either a repetition of it, or a record of its being obeyed: Exod. xx. 2-17. with Deut. v. 6-21.; Exod. xxv. to xxx. with xxxvi. to xxxix.; Lev. xi. 13—19. with Deut. xiv. 12-18.; Ezek. xii. 6. with 7.

(3.) Proverbial sayings, or expressions frequently repeated: Numb. xxi. 28, 29. and xxiv. 17. with Jer. xlviii. 45, 46.; Ezek. v. 7. with xi. 12.; Jer. v. 9. and 29. with ix. 9; Psal. xlii. 5, 11. with xliii. 5.; Jer. x. 25. with Psal. lxxix. 6, 7.; Jer. x. 16. with li. 19.; Isai. xxiv. 17, 18. with Jer. xlviii, 43, 44.

(4.) Records of the same genealogies: 1 Chron. with several chapters of Genesis, and Ezra with Nehemiah.

In any such passages as these, where there is a difference in numbers or names; where there is more than a verbal difference in records of the same transaction; or where there is even a verbal difference in copies of the same prayer or speech, in the printed text, but not in manuscripts and versions, there it is erroneous, and ought to be corrected.2

VI. QUOTATIONS from the Old and New Testaments in the writings of the fathers or heretics are an emendatory source which is by no means to be neglected. [As, however, these are almost exclusively available for the New Testament, it is sufficient here to refer to the observations of Dr. Tregelles, vol. iv. chap. xxxiv.]

VII. CRITICAL CONJECTURE is not alone a legitimate source of emendation, nor is it at all to be applied, unless the text is manifestly corrupted, and in the most urgent necessity; for the conjectural criticism of an interested party, in his own cause, and in defiance of positive evidence, is little better than subornation of testimony in a court of law.

1. Conjectural readings, strongly supported by the sense, connection, the nature of the language, or similar texts, may sometimes be probable, especially when it can be shown that occasion might easily have been given for the present reading; and readings first suggested by conjecture have sometimes been afterwards found to be actually in manuscripts, or in some version.

1 Gerard, Institutes, p. 273.; where the reader will find several additional illustrations of this canon.

2 Hamilton, Codex Criticus of the Hebrew Bible, p. 18. [There is an useful list of parallels in Davidson, Bibl. Crit. vol. i. chap. xx.; and his remarks on some of the rules given by various critics may be consulted with advantage, pp. 294-307.]

Thus, in Gen. i. 8. the clause, And God saw that it was good, is wanting to complete the account of the second day's work of creation, but it is found in the tenth verse in the middle of the narrative of the third day's work. Hence, many learned men have conjectured, either, 1. That the sentence, And the evening and the morning were the second day, has been transposed from verse 10. to verse 8.; or, 2. That the clause, And God saw that it was good, has been transposed from verse 8. to verse 10. The latter conjecture is confirmed by the Septuagint version [but neither can be considered probable]

2. A conjectural reading, unsupported by any manuscripts, and n authorized by similarity of letters, by the connection and context of the passage itself, and by the analogy of faith, is manifestly to be rejected.

No one should attempt this kind of emendation who is not most deeply skilled in the sacred languages; nor should critical conjectures ever be admitted into the text, for we never can be certain of the truth of merely conjectural readings. Were these indeed to be admitted into the text, the utmost confusion and uncertainty would necessarily be created. The diligence and modesty of the Masoretes are in this respect worthy of our imitation: they invariably inserted their conjectures in the margin of their manuscripts, but most religiously abstained from altering the text according to their hypotheses; and it is to be regretted that their example has not been followed by some modern translators of the Old and New Testaments (and especially of the latter); who, in order to support doctrines which have no foundation whatever in the sacred writings, have not hesitated to obtrude their conjectures into the text. This is particularly the case with the Greek and English New Testament edited by Dr. Mace in 1729, whose bold and unhallowed emendations were exposed by Dr. Twells, and also with the editors of the (modern Socinian) improved version of the New Testament, whose conjectures and erroneous criticisms and interpretations have been most ably exposed by the Rev. Drs. Nares and Laurence, the Quarterly and Eclectic Reviewers, and other eminent critics.'

§ 3. General Rules for judging of Various Readings in the Old and

New Testaments.

HAVING thus stated the causes of various readings, and offered a few cautions with regard to the sources whence the true lection is to be determined, it only remains that we submit to the reader's attention a few general rules, by which an accurate judgment may be formed concerning various readings.

1. We must take care that we do not attempt to correct that which does not require emendation. The earlier manuscript, cæteris paribus, is more likely to be right than the later; because every subsequent copy is liable to

new errors.

This rule will prevent us from being misled by an immoderate desire of correcting what we may not understand, or what may at a first glance appear to be unsuitable to

[In Cappel, Crit. Sacr. lib. vi. capp. viii. ix. tom. ii. pp. 1000, &c., the necessity of sometimes resorting to critical conjecture is argued, and certain rules are laid down; Vogel, however, in his notes, properly objects to several of the examples given. Compan Davidson, Bibl. Crit. vol. i. chap. xxvi. pp. 374, &c.]

Wherever,

the genius of the Hebrew or Greek language, or to the design of an author therefore, any difficulty presents itself, it will be necessary previously to consider whether it may not be obviated in some other manner, before we have recourse to emendation; and even ingenuously to acknowledge our ignorance, rather than indulge a petulant licentiousness of making corrections. Examples are not wanting of critics on the sacred writings, who have violated this obvious rule, particularly Houbigant, in the notes to his edition of the Hebrew Bible.

2. That reading in which all the recensions of the best copies agree, and which is supported by all the ancient versions, is to be accounted genuine.

3. Readings are certainly right, and that in the very highest sense at all consistent with the existence of any various reading, which are supported by several of the most ancient manuscripts, or by the majority of them, by all or most of the ancient versions, by quotations, by parallel places (if there be any), and by the sense; even though such readings should not be found in the common printed editions, or perhaps in any printed edition.1

Thus, in the common printed editions of 1 Kings i. 20. we read, And thou, my lord O king, the eyes of all Israel are upon thee, which is no sense. Instead of A, And thou, we have nу, And now, in ninety-one of the manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott, in the Chaldee paraphrase, and in the Arabic and Vulgate versions. This is the genuine reading, and is required by the sense.

4. Greater is the authority of a reading, found in only a few manuscripts of different characters, dates, and countries, than in many manuscripts of a similar complexion. But, of manuscripts of the same family or recension, the reading of the greater number is of most weight. The evidence of manuscripts is to be weighed, not enumerated; for the agreement of several manuscripts is of no authority, unless their genealogy (if we may be allowed the term) is known; because it is possible that a hundred manuscripts that now agree together may have descended from one and the same source.

5. Readings are certainly right, which are supported by a few ancient manuscripts, in conjunction with the ancient versions, quotations, parallel places (if any), and the sense; though they should not be found in most manuscripts or printed editions, especially when the rejection of them in the latter can be easily accounted for.

The common reading of Psalm xxviii. 8. is, The LORD is their strength, ; but there is no antecedent. In six manuscripts and all the versions, however, we read iny, of his people, which completes the sense. This emendation is pronounced by Bp Horsley, to be "unquestionable:" he has therefore incorporated it in the text of his new version of the Psalms, and has translated the sentence thus :

"Jehovah is the strength of his people.

6. Of two readings, both of which are supported by manuscripts, the best is to be preferred; but, if both of them exhibit good senses, then that reading which gives the best sense is to be adopted. But, in order to determine the nature of the whole passage, the genius of the writer, and not the mere opinions and sentiments of particular interpreters, must be consulted.

In Psal. ii. 6., there are two readings, one of which is found in the Masoretic copies; and the other in the Septuagint version. The former may be literally translated thus: Yet will I anoint my King upon my holy hill of Sion. This reading is supported by weighty evidence, viz. the Masorah, the reference to it in Acts iv. 27., the Greek versions of Aquila and Symmachus, the Chaldee paraphrase, and Jerome. The other reading, which is found in the Septuagint, may be thus rendered: But as for me, by him I am appointed King on Sion, his holy mountain. Now here the authority for the two readings is nearly equal; but, if we examine their goodness, we shall see that the Masoretic lection is to be preferred, as being more grammatically correct, and more suited to the context.

7. A good various reading, though supported by only one or two witnesses of approved character, is to be preferred.

'Gerard, Institutes, pp, 266-268.

8. In the prophetical and poetical books of the Old Testament, as well as in the New Testament, that reading is best which accords with the poetical parallelism.

9. Of two readings of equal or nearly equal authority, that is to be preferred which is most agreeable to the style of the sacred writer.

10. That reading is to be preferred which is most agreeable to the context, and to the author's design in writing.

11. A reading, whose source is clearly proved to be erroneous, must be rejected.

12. Of two readings, neither of which is unsuitable to the sense, either of which may have naturally arisen from the other, and both of which are supported by manuscripts, versions, and quotations in the writings of the fathers, the one will be more probable than the other, in proportion to the preponderance of the evidence that supports it; and that preponderance admits a great variety of degrees.1

13. Whenever two different readings occur, one of which seems difficult and obscure, but which may be explained by the help of antiquity, and a more accurate knowledge of the language, whereas the other is so easy as to be obvious to the meanest capacity, the latter reading is to be suspected; because the former is more in unison with the style of the sacred writers, which, abounding with Hebraisms, is repugnant to the genius of the pure · or strictly classical Greek language..

No transcriber would designedly change a clear into an obscure reading, nor is it possible that an inadvertency should make so happy a mistake as to produce a reading that perplexes indeed the ignorant, but is understood and approved by the learned. This canon is the touchstone which distinguishes the true critics from the false. Bengel, Wetstein, and Griesbach, critics of the first rank, have admitted its authority; but those of inferior order generally prefer the easy reading, for no other reason than because its meaning is most obvious.

14. If for a passage, that is not absolutely necessary to the construction, various readings are found, that differ materially from each other, we have reason to suspect its authenticity; and likewise that all the readings are interpolations of transcribers who have attempted by different methods to supply the seeming deficiency of the original.

This rule, however, must not be carried to the extreme, nor is a single variation sufficient to justify our suspicion of a word or phrase, though its omission affects not the sense, or even though the construction would be improved by its absence; for, in a book that has been so frequently transcribed as the New Testament, mistakes were unavoidable, and therefore a single deviation alone can lead us to no immediate conclusion.

15. A reading is to be rejected, in respect to which plain evidence is found that it has undergone a designed alteration.

Such alteration may have taken place (1.) From doctrinal reasons; (2.) From moral and practical reasons; (3) From historical and geographical doubts (Matt. viii. 28. compared with Mark v. 1.); (4.) From the desire of reconciling passages apparently contradictory with each other; (5.) From the desire of making the discourse more intensive; hence many emphatic readings have originated; (6.) From the comparison of many manuscripts, the readings of which have been amalgamated; (7.) From a comparison of parallel passages.2

16. Readings, which are evidently glosses or interpolations, are invariably to be rejected.

(1.) Glosses are betrayed, 1. When the words do not agree with the scope and context of the passage; 2. When they are evidently foreign to the style of the sacred writer; 3. When there is evident tautology; 4. When words, which are best absent, are most unaccountably introduced; 5. When certain words are more correctly disposed in a different.

1 Gerard, Institutes, p. 275.

2 Stuart, Elements of Interpr. p. 113.