Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

3. Ab anno poft Chriftum 500, ad annum 1000. 4. Ab anno 1000, ad typographiam inventam, circiter 1450. 5. A typographiâ inventâ, ad hunc ufque annum 1780.'

The first Jewish teftimony is that of Jofephus; whofe defcription of the 22 books of the Old Teftament is here confidered and indeed, there was great propriety in prefixing to a Differtation on the Hebrew Text, a defcription of the books conftituting the Old Teftament, as given by this eminent Jewish priest, foon after the time of Chrift. We cannot help remarking, that the 13 books, which our accurate and learned Author fpecifies as comprehended under the second article of Jofephus, are judicioufly given, and afterwards proved by authorities: particularly, that Ruth was not confidered by the Jews as part of Judges; that Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles made three books that Nehemiah was part of Ezra; that Lamentations were added to Jeremiah; and that the 12 minor Prophets were confidered as one book, both by the Jews and in the New Teftament. We fhall, also, obferve by the way, though we do not perceive it to be taken notice of by Dr. Kennicott (nor, indeed, did his defign require it), that the Song of Solomon has no place in the lift of the facred Jewish writings drawn up by Jofephus.

s;

But because Jofephus and Philo fpeak of the Greek verfion, as perfectly agreeing with the Hebrew text in their time, which was not the cafe, and might lead to improper deductions; our Author here afferts the corruption of the Hebrew text before the time of these Jews, and alfo the very great importance of the Greek verfion. For the Pentateuch of this verfion being made about 280 years before Christ, and the other books being also tranflated into Greek about 100 years before Chrift (as is inferred from the prologue to Ecclefiafticus), this version must have had many true readings, where the Hebrew was afterwards. corrupted.

Dr. Kennicott begins, therefore, with Pfalm xvi. 10. where, though the word for thy holy One be now plural in the text of every copy expreffed Maforetically; yet the Greek verfion is fingular, as are no less than 180 copies, agreeably to the quotations of St. Peter and St. Paul. And because the argument of thefe Apoftles, urged upon the Jews, juft after the refurrection of Chrift, depends on this word's being truly fingular, he confiders this various reading as of greater moment than any other which was ever drawn forth from manufcripts. As the Greek verfion thus helps to prove the Hebrew text corrupted, when it differs from it; fo where the Hebrew text is corrupted, and that verfion agrees, it proves the corruption to be older than the verfion-unless the verfion has fince been affimilated to the Hebrew. Such very early corruptions our Author fuppofes in Deut. x. 6. Gen. xi. 32.; and Gen. xiv. 36. 31-43. In the firft of these places,

places, are omitted in the Hebrew text, and in all the verfions, many words which are preferved only in the Samaritan text. In the fecond inftance, the number 145 is corrupted into 205, in the Hebrew text and all the verfions; and it is right in the Samaritan text only. The third inftance contains 13 verfes; which, not being written by Mofes, were probably inferted from Chronicles, in fome manufcript of Genefis, into the margin, and thence taken into the text. This interpolation is fo very old, as to be found in all the verfions, and likewife in the Samaritan text.

Dr. Kennicott then specifies two great corruptions: one, where the Greek verfion has been affimilated to the Hebrew, by addition; and in the other, the Syriac verfion, by change. The first relates to 20 verses, probably interpolated, in 1 Sam. xvii.; and the second to the word for body, altered to the word for ears in Pfalm xl. 7.; on which word body the argument is grounded in the 10th chapter of the Epiftle to the Hebrews and a very old Syriac manufcript, in the Royal library at Paris, tranflated from the Hebrew, has preferved the true word for body.

Our able Critic having fhewn, that the advocates for the integrity of the Hebrew text have allowed that the Hebrew copies ufed for the Greek verfion were fometimes erroneous; and that thefe Jewish translators erred frequently in miftaking the fimilar letters; he justly infers, that thefe Jews might fo err in tranfcribing, as well as in tranflating. He adds likewife, exprefs teftimonies from Jews, as to corruptions in the Hebrew text, long before the time of Chrift.

That the Jews altered their ancient copies wilfully, is proved, by our Author, from the Hebrew text and Greek verfion of Ifaiah xix. 18. refpecting the temple at Heliopolis; and alío from their turning Mofes into Manaffes, in Judges xviii. 30.where (and it is very remarkable) the true word Mofes is ftill preferved in feveral Greek manufcripts, though the Vatican and Alexandrian manufcripts agree with the corrupted Hebrew.

The Greek and Syriac verfions agree alfo with the Hebrew, as to the tranfpofition of 10 verfes from Exodus, ch. xxvi. to ch. 30; where the true order is preferved in the Samaritan. But the Syriac verfion concurs with fome Hebrew manufcripts, in correcting the transposition of a verse in Lamentations, ch. ii. iii. and iv. After fpecifying other tranfpofitions, Dr. Kennicott treats of the fpeeches in Exodus; which are now found only once, and very irregularly in the Hebrew text; but twice in the Samaritan, and rightly; as may be demonftrated from Exodus, ch. xi. Of great confequence are fome remarks, as to words anciently contracted, in writing; fuch as ' expreffed by the letter Yod; the for 13 in Pfalm cvii. 3. and the final fometimes omitted and fometimes inferted, Other REY, March 1781. miftakes

N

miftakes have been owing to numbers, expreffed by alphabetical letters; and, also, through the improper combination of letters, when whole lines of letters were anciently divided into words. Of these mistakes Dr. Kennicott gives two curious fpecimens, both before unheard of, in a King and an Angel. For Clemens Alexandrinus now reckons among the Jewish Kings Afaman, without the years of his reign; instead of AZA MA, Afa 41. And Eupolemus now fpeaks of the angel ΔΙΑΝΑΘΑΝΟΣ, Dianathanus ; inftead of, ΔΙΑ ΝΑΘΑΝ, per Nathanem.

After these and other remarks on the time before Chrift, our Author comes to the interval between the birth of our Saviour and the year 500. And here the first thing he takes notice of is exceedingly obfervable; that though the prefent Mafora feparates our 10th Commandment into two, agreeably to the divifion now made by the Roman Catholics; yet the unity of this Commandment, as made by Proteftants, is exprefsly confirmed by Philo and Jofephus: and the Maforetic mark of separation (at Exodus, xx. 17.) is abfent from at least 234 Hebrew copies. Jofephus is farther referred to, as confirming the ancient chronology in the Greek verfion, against that now in the Hebrew text; and likewise, as having a number much more credible, as to the gold and filver left by David. The fame hiftorian confirms, alfo, the reading in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, ch. vii. 4. from Genefis, xiv. 20. He confirms too, the Syriac verfion, and the edition of Sixtus, reading 4 in 2 Samuel, xv. 7.; and the Vatican manufcript, reading 4 in 1 Samuel, xvii. 4. Laftly, though the later Jews have taken Daniel out of their prophetical books, yet Jofephus calls him a Prophet, in the strongest terms.

The next teftimony, during this fecond period, is the Talmud; generally allowed to have been composed (text and double comment) between the years 150 and 500.. And this collection of oral traditions, which fome Jews formerly held in equal veneration with their Bible, contains information very useful to Christians. One inftance, quite effential to the present inquiry, proves that the Hebrew manufcripts then differed; and that the preference was given to that variation, which was in the greater number of manuscripts: fo that three manuscripts carried it against two, and twenty always against nineteen. Very abfurd as this criterion muft appear, it will still be fuppofed by good critics, that among the multitude of Scripture paffages quoted in the Talmud, there were at firft many readings then true, which have been fince corrupted; and that fome of these true readings may be ftill found in the Talmud, as printed. This is here confirmed by feveral inftances; particularly in Pfalm xvi. A remarkable anecdote is added by Dr. Kennicott,

Kennicott, in the following words: Ad finem variarum lectionum, quas in meum ufum ex Talmude perhumaniter collegerat reverendus doctufque Joannes Gill, ingenue confeffus eft:

jam retractandum erit, quod egomet ipfe affirmavi, et alii ante me [nimirum, vel nullas vel perpaucas reperiri varietates a textu vulgato, in Talmude allegatis ; et hafce nullius, faltem levis, effe momenti:] quum conftet ex præcedenti collatione, difcrepantias effe tantum non MILLE."

Under the third period, from the year 500 to 1000, the firft article relates to the Keri; a name for all those words in the margin different from thofe in the text; which words amount to about a thousand. As thefe marginal words fometimes give a fenfe very different from thofe in the text, and in general a much better fenfe; it must be of great confequence to know, whether they are Rabbinical conjectures, or really various readings. The latter has been of courfe denied by those who thought the text right; because the text must be falfe, wherever the margin has the true reading. The authority of these Keri is now afcertained; fince all of them, excepting fourteen, have been found in the text of manufcripts. As to the antiquity of this collection; the Rabbies afcribe it to Ezra, and the men of the great fynagogue. But who can believe that Ezra and Zachariah publifhed their own writings, with their margin differing from their text? On the contrary, our fagacious Author has fhewn, that in this collection are fome differences, found only in very late manufcripts; and that one word, which is found in the text of all the manufcripts, has been thruft into the margin, on account of a blunder in the edition of 1526.

[ocr errors]

The third period includes also a collection of 216 variations between the Oriental and Occidental manufcripts. Proofs of differences are next drawn from the old Jewish books, Rabboth, Pirke Eliezer, and Cozri. And as the Rabbies Saadias and Hai flourished about the year 1000, notice is alfo taken of them. Saadias is referred to, as having read differently from the printed text: and Hai followed thofe manufcripts which were defective in Joshua, ch. xxi.; where two whole verses, abfolutely neceffary (though expelled by the Mafora), have been found in 149 Hebrew copies.

The laft of the ancient verfions was the Arabic, generally ascribed to Rabbi Saadias; which, therefore, is regularly mentioned here, near the end of the third period. This verfion, which has hitherto been reputed only fecondary, as if always taken from the Greek or the Syriac, is honoured with the title of a primary verfion in feveral places; because it is found to agree with Hebrew manufcripts, where both Greek and Syriac differ from it. And this new proof is very seasonably discovered, when the Arabic verfion alone is fhewn to have fome readings

of great importance; particularly in preferving that word which expreffes the caufe of God's anger against Balaam; Numbers xxii. 22. This verfion is also important, where it is only fecondary; because it helps to determine the true reading of the Greek verfion, where the Greek manufcripts are now at variance as in Pfalm xviii. 14. lxviii. 19. Micah v. 1. and Zachariah xiii. 7.

After this teftimony to the Arabic, Dr. Kennicott confirms the general evidence arifing from all these verfions, by one example from each of the four; and all the four examples are from Jeremiah. The firft contains a furprifing vindication of the Greek verfion of Jeremiah xlvi. 15. where that verfion has fomething concerning Apis, which has been thought a fhameful deviation from the Hebrew text: whereas the true reading is here happily preferved to the honour of the Greek verfion, partly by the affiftance of 48 Hebrew manufcripts. The fecond inftance does honour to the Syriac verfion of ch. vii. 21-23. ; where the great difficulty, noted by Maimonides, and by all attentive readers fince, is entirely removed by this Syriac verfion. The third example is from iv. 1o.: and here, though the charge of God's deceiving the people is (in the Hebrew, &c.) afcribed to Jeremiah, it ftands charged by the Arabic version to the falfe Prophets; who faid it of God, in order to fave themfelves. The Vulgate alfo is fhewn to ftand alone, in having preferved a remarkable word, omitted in the other verfions, as well as in the Hebrew printed text, and yet which is preserved in twenty Hebrew manufcripts. But thefe verfions are not only of ufe, each now and then in particular, but often all together. All four agree against the Hebrew, as to the alphabetical verfe loft out of the Hebrew text in Pfalm cxlv. All four agree with the Samaritan against the Hebrew, in Genefis xliv. 24. ; and alfo in l. 25. All four agree with 30 Hebrew manufcripts, against the printed Hebrew, in 2 Samuel xiv. 4. All four correct the corruption in Ezekiel xi. 7.; as do 38 manuscripts: and likewife in xxxvi. 23. agreeably to 191 Hebrew copies. And all four agree in rejecting that monfter of modern corruption, in 1 Samuel xvii. 34. hic (inftead of agnus); a corruption not yet found in any one manufcript. Laftly, the end of this period is diftinguished for introducing the Hebrew manufcripts now extant; of which the two oldest and best, one at Oxford, and the other at Vienna, are afcribed to the interval between the years 950 and 1000.

The fourth period, from 1000 to 1450, begins with obferving, that the oldeft Hebrew manufcript which has a certain date (1106), though containing only 920 verfes, has above 6000, variations. The next witnefles are Aben- Ezra, Farchi, Maimonides, and Kimchi; who all flourished between 1150 and

« ZurückWeiter »