Chapter II: Part 2

An examination of the extant MSS. of the Hebrew Old Testament reveals two facts which at first sight are somewhat remarkable. The first is that the oldest dated MS., the _Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus_, only goes back to the year A.D. 916, though it is probable that one or two MSS. belong to the 9th century. The second fact is that all our Hebrew MSS. represent one and the same text, viz. the Massoretic. This text was the work of a special gild of trained scholars called Massoretes ([Hebrew: baalei hamasoreth]) or "masters of tradition" ([Hebrew: masorah] or less correctly [Hebrew: masoreth]),[2] whose aim was not only to preserve and transmit the consonantal text which had been handed down to them, but also to ensure its proper pronunciation. To this end they provided the text with a complete system of vowel points and accents.[3] Their labours further included the compilation of a number of notes, to which the term Massorah is now usually applied. These notes for the most part constitute a sort of index of the peculiarities of the text, and possess but little general interest. More important are those passages in which the Massoretes have definitely adopted a variation from the consonantal text. In these cases the vowel points attached to the written word (_Kethibh_) belong to the word which is to be substituted for it, the latter being placed in the margin with the initial letter of _Qere_ (= to be read) prefixed to it. Many even of these readings merely relate to variations of spelling, pronunciation or grammatical forms; others substitute a more decent expression for the coarser phrase of the text, but in some instances the suggested reading really affects the sense of the passage. These last are to be regarded either as old textual variants, or, more probably, as emendations corresponding to the _errata_ or _corrigenda_ of a modern printed book. They do not point to any critical editing of the text; for the aim of the Massoretes was essentially conservative. Their object was not to create a new text, but rather to ensure the accurate transmission of the traditional text which they themselves had received. Their work may be said to culminate in the vocalized text which resulted from the labours of Rabbi Aaron ben Asher in the 10th century.[4] But the writings of Jerome in the 4th, and of Origen in the 3rd century both testify to a Hebrew text practically identical with that of the Massoretes. Similar evidence is furnished by the Mishna and the Gemara, the Targums, and lastly by the Greek version of Aquila,[5] which dates from the first half of the 2nd century A.D. Hence it is hardly doubtful that the form in which we now possess the Hebrew text was already fixed by the beginning of the 2nd century. On the other hand, evidence such as that of the _Book of Jubilees_ shows that the form of the text still fluctuated considerably as late as the 1st century A.D., so that we are forced to place the fixing of the text some time between the fall of Jerusalem and the production of Aquila's version. Nor is the occasion far to seek. After the fall of Jerusalem the new system of biblical exegesis founded by Rabbi Hillel reached its climax at Jamnia under the famous Rabbi Aqiba (d. c. 132). The latter's system of interpretation was based upon an extremely literal treatment of the text, according to which the smallest words or particles, and sometimes even the letters of scripture, were invested with divine authority. The inevitable result of such a system must have been the fixing of an officially recognized text, which could scarcely have differed materially from that which was finally adopted by the Massoretes. That the standard edition was not the result of the critical investigation of existing materials may be assumed with some certainty.[6] Indeed, it is probable, as has been suggested,[7] that the manuscript which was adopted as the standard text was an old and well-written copy, possibly one of those which were preserved in the Court of the Temple.

But if the evidence available points to the time of Hadrian as the period at which the Hebrew text assumed its present form, it is even more certain that prior to that date the various MSS. of the Old Testament differed very materially from one another. Sufficient proof of this statement is furnished by the Samaritan Pentateuch and the versions, more especially the Septuagint. Indications also are not wanting in the Hebrew text itself to show that in earlier times the text was treated with considerable freedom. Thus, according to Jewish tradition, there are eighteen[8] passages in which the older scribes deliberately altered the text on the ground that the language employed was either irreverent or liable to misconception. Of a similar nature are the changes introduced into proper names, e.g. the substitution of _bosheth_ (= shame) for _ba'al_ in Ishbosheth (2 Sam. ii. 8) and Mephibosheth (2 Sam. ix. 6; cf. the older forms Eshbaal and Meribaal, 1 Chron. viii. 34, 35); the use of the verb "to bless" ([Hebrew: bareh]) in the sense of cursing (1 Kings xxi. 10, 13; Job i. 5, 11, ii. 5, 9; Ps. x. 3); and the insertion of "the enemies of" in 1 Sam. xxv. 22, 2 Sam. xii. 14. These intentional alterations, however, only affect a very limited portion of the text, and, though it is possible that other changes were introduced at different times, it is very unlikely that they were either more extensive in range or more important in character. At the same time it is clear both from internal and external evidence that the archetype from which our MSS. are descended was far from being a perfect representative of the original text. For a comparison of the different parallel passages which occur in the Old Testament (e.g. 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles; 2 Kings xviii. 13-xx. 19 and Isaiah xxxvi.-xxxix; 2 Sam. xxii. and Ps. xviii.; Ps. xiv. and liii., &c.) reveals many variations which are obviously due to textual corruption, while there are many passages which in their present form are either ungrammatical, or inconsistent with the context or with other passages. Externally also the ancient versions, especially the Septuagint, frequently exhibit variations from the Hebrew which are not only intrinsically more probable, but often explain the difficulties presented by the Massoretic text. Our estimate of the value of these variant readings, moreover, is considerably heightened when we consider that the MSS. on which the versions are based are older by several centuries than those from which the Massoretic text was derived; hence the text which they presuppose has no slight claim to be regarded as an important witness for the original Hebrew. "But the use of the ancient versions" (to quote Prof. Driver[9]) "is not always such a simple matter as might be inferred.... In the use of the ancient versions for the purposes of textual criticism there are _three_ precautions which must always be observed; we must reasonably assure ourselves that we possess the version itself in its original integrity; we must eliminate such variants as have the appearance of originating merely with the translator; the remainder, which will be those that are due to a difference of text in the MS. (or MSS.) used by the translator, we must then compare carefully, in the light of the considerations just stated, with the existing Hebrew text, in order to determine on which side the superiority lies."

Samaritan.

_Versions._--In point of age the Samaritan Pentateuch furnishes the
earliest external witness to the Hebrew text. It is not a version, but
merely that text of the Pentateuch which has been preserved by the
Samaritan community since the time of Nehemiah (Neh. xiii. 23-31),
i.e. about 432 B.C.[10] It is written in the Samaritan script, which
is closely allied to the old Hebrew as opposed to the later "square"
character. We further possess a Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch
written in the Samaritan dialect, a variety of western Aramaic, and
also an Arabic translation of the five books of the law; the latter
dating perhaps from the 11th century A.D. or earlier. The Samaritan
Pentateuch agrees with the Septuagint version in many passages, but
its chief importance lies in the proof which it affords as to the
substantial agreement of our present text of the Pentateuch, apart
from certain intentional changes,[11] with that which was promulgated
by Ezra. Its value for critical purposes is considerably discounted by
the late date of the MSS., upon which the printed text is based.

Aramaic.

The Targums, or Aramaic paraphrases of the books of the Old Testament
(see TARGUM), date from the time when Hebrew had become superseded by
Aramaic as the language spoken by the Jews, i.e. during the period
immediately preceding the Christian era. In their written form,
however, the earlier Targums, viz. those on the Pentateuch and the
prophetical books, cannot be earlier than the 4th or 5th century A.D.
Since they were designed to meet the needs of the people and had a
directly edificatory aim, they are naturally characterized by
expansion and paraphrase, and thus afford invaluable illustrations of
the methods of Jewish interpretation and of the development of Jewish
thought. The text which they exhibit is virtually identical with the
Massoretic text.

Septuagint.

The earliest among the versions as well as the most important for the
textual criticism of the Old Testament is the Septuagint. This version
probably arose out of the needs of the Greek-speaking Jews of
Alexandria in the 3rd century B.C. According to tradition the law was
translated into Greek during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus
(284-247 B.C.), and, though the form (viz. the _Letter of Aristeas_)
in which this tradition has come down to us cannot be regarded as
historical, yet it seems to have preserved correctly both the date and
the locality of the version. The name Septuagint, strictly speaking,
only applies to the translation of the Pentateuch, but it was
afterwards extended to include the other books of the Old Testament as
they were translated. That the interval which elapsed before the
Prophets and the Hagiographa were also translated was no great one is
shown by the prologue to Sirach which speaks of "the Law, the Prophets
and the rest of the books," as already current in a translation by 132
B.C. The date at which the various books were combined into a single
work is not known, but the existence of the Septuagint as a whole may
be assumed for the 1st century A.D., at which period the Greek version
was universally accepted by the Jews of the Dispersion as Scripture,
and from them passed on to the Christian Church.

Versions of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion.

The position of the Septuagint, however, as the official Greek
representative of the Old Testament did not long remain unchallenged.
The opposition, as might be expected, came from the side of the Jews,
and was due partly to the controversial use which was made of the
version by the Christians, but chiefly to the fact that it was not
sufficiently in agreement with the standard Hebrew text established by
Rabbi Aqiba and his school. Hence arose in the 2nd century A.D. the
three new versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. Aquila was a
Jewish proselyte of Pontus, and since he was a disciple of Rabbi Aqiba
(d. A.D. 135), and (according to another Talmudic account) also of
Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, the immediate predecessors of Aqiba,
his version may be assigned to the first half of the 2nd century. It
is characterized by extreme literalness, and clearly reflects the
peculiar system of exegesis which was then in vogue among the Jewish
rabbis. Its slavish adherence to the original caused the new
translation to be received with favour by the Hellenistic Jews, among
whom it quickly superseded the older Septuagint. For what remains of
this version, which owing to its character is of the greatest value to
the textual critic, we have until recently been indebted to Origen's
_Hexapla_ (see below); for, though Jerome mentions a _secunda editio_,
no MS. of Aquila's translation has survived. Fragments[12], however,
of two codices were discovered (1897) in the genizah at Cairo, which
illustrate more fully the peculiar features of this version.

The accounts given of Theodotion are somewhat conflicting. Both
Irenaeus and Epiphanius describe him as a Jewish proselyte, but while
the former calls him an Ephesian and mentions his translation before
that of Aquila, the latter states that he was a native of Pontus and a
follower of Marcion, and further assigns his work to the reign of
Commodus (A.D. 180-192); others, according to Jerome, describe him as
an Ebionite. On the whole it is probable that Irenaeus has preserved
the most trustworthy account.[13] Theodotion's version differs from
those of Aquila and Symmachus in that it was not an independent
translation, but rather a revision of the Septuagint on the basis of
the current Hebrew text. He retained, however, those passages of which
there was no Hebrew equivalent, and added translations of the Hebrew
where the latter was not represented in the Septuagint. A peculiar
feature of his translation is his excessive use of transliteration,
but, apart from this, his work has many points of contact with the
Septuagint, which it closely resembles in style; hence it is not
surprising to find that later MSS. of the Septuagint have been largely
influenced by Theodotion's translation. In the case of the book of
Daniel, as we learn from Jerome (_praefatio in Dan._), the translation
of Theodotion was definitely adopted by the Church, and is accordingly
found in the place of the original Septuagint in all MSS. and
editions.[14] It is interesting to note in this connexion that
renderings which agree in the most remarkable manner with Theodotion's
version of Daniel are found not only in writers of the 2nd century but
also in the New Testament. The most probable explanation of this
phenomenon is that these renderings are derived from an early Greek
translation, differing from the Septuagint proper, but closely allied
to that which Theodotion used as the basis of his revision.

Symmachus, according to Eusebius and Jerome, was an Ebionite;
Epiphanius represents him (very improbably) as a Samaritan who became
a Jewish proselyte. He is not mentioned by Irenaeus and his date is
uncertain, but probably his work is to be assigned to the end of the
2nd century. His version was commended by Jerome as giving the sense
of the original, and in that respect it forms a direct contrast with
that of Aquila. Indeed Dr Swete[15] thinks it probable that "he wrote
with Aquila's version before him, (and that) in his efforts to recast
it he made free use both of the Septuagint and of Theodotion."

Origen's 'Hexapla.'

As in the case of Aquila, our knowledge of the works of Theodotion and
Symmachus is practically limited to the fragments that have been
preserved through the labours of Origen. This writer (see ORIGEN)
conceived the idea of collecting all the existing Greek versions of
the Old Testament with a view to recovering the original text of the
Septuagint, partly by their aid and partly by means of the current
Hebrew text. He accordingly arranged the texts to be compared in
six[16] parallel columns in the following order:--(1) the Hebrew text;
(2) the Hebrew transliterated into Greek letters; (3) Aquila; (4)
Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; and (6) Theodotion. In the Septuagint
column he drew attention to those passages for which there was no
Hebrew equivalent by prefixing an obelus; but where the Septuagint had
nothing corresponding to the Hebrew text he supplied the omissions,
chiefly but not entirely from the translation of Theodotion, placing
an asterisk at the beginning of the interpolation; the close of the
passage to which the obelus or the asterisk was prefixed was denoted
by the metobelus. That Origen did not succeed in his object of
recovering the original Septuagint is due to the fact that he started
with the false conception that the original text of the Septuagint
must be that which coincided most nearly with the current Hebrew text.
Indeed, the result of his monumental labours has been to impede rather
than to promote the restoration of the genuine Septuagint. For the
Hexaplar text which he thus produced not only effaced many of the most
characteristic features of the old version, but also exercised a
prejudicial influence on the MSS. of that version.

Hesychius, Lucian.

The _Hexapla_ as a whole was far too large to be copied, but the
revised Septuagint text was published separately by Eusebius and
Pamphilus, and was extensively used in Palestine during the 4th
century. During the same period two other recensions made their
appearance, that of Hesychius which was current in Egypt, and that of
Lucian which became the accepted text of the Antiochene Church. Of
Hesychius little is known. Traces of his revision are to be found in
the Egyptian MSS., especially the Codex Marchalianus, and in the
quotations of Cyril of Alexandria. Lucian was a priest of Antioch who
was martyred at Nicomedia in A.D. 311 or 312. His revision (to quote
Dr Swete) "was doubtless an attempt to revise the [Greek: koinae] (or
'common text' of the Septuagint) in accordance with the principles of
criticism which were accepted at Antioch." To Ceriani is due the
discovery that the text preserved by codices 19, 82, 93, 108, really
represents Lucian's recension; the same conclusion was reached
independently by Lagarde, who combined codex 118 with the four
mentioned above.[17] As Field (_Hexapla_, p. 87) has shown, this
discovery is confirmed by the marginal readings of the _Syro-Hexapla_.
The recension (see Driver, _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of
Samuel_, p. 52) is characterized by the substitution of synonyms for
the words originally used by the Septuagint, and by the frequent
occurrence of double renderings, but its chief claim to critical
importance rests on the fact that "it embodies renderings not found in
other MSS. of the Septuagint which presuppose a Hebrew original
self-evidently superior in the passages concerned to the existing
Massoretic text."

Vulgate.

_Latin Versions._--Of even greater importance in this respect is the
Old Latin version, which undoubtedly represents a Greek original prior
to the _Hexapla_. "The earliest form of the version" (to quote Dr
Kennedy[18]) "to which we can assign a definite date, namely, that
used by Cyprian, plainly circulated in Africa." In the view of many
authorities this version was first produced at Carthage, but recent
writers are inclined to regard Antioch as its birthplace, a view which
is supported by the remarkable agreement of its readings with the
Lucianic recension and with the early Syriac MSS. Unfortunately the
version is only extant in a fragmentary form, being preserved partly
in MSS., partly in quotations of the Fathers. The non-canonical books
of the Vulgate, however, which do not appear to have been revised by
Jerome, still represent the older version. It was not until after the
6th century that the Old Latin was finally superseded by the Vulgate
or Latin translation of the Old Testament made by Jerome during the
last quarter of the 4th century. This new version was translated from
the Hebrew, but Jerome also made use of the Greek versions, more
especially of Symmachus. His original intention was to revise the Old
Latin, and his two revisions of the Psalter, the Roman and the
Gallican, the latter modelled on the _Hexapla_, still survive. Of the
other books which he revised according to the Hexaplar text, that of
Job has alone come down to us. For textual purposes the Vulgate
possesses but little value, since it presupposes a Hebrew original
practically identical with the text stereotyped by the Massoretes.

_Syriac Versions._--The Peshito (P'shitta) or "simple" revision of the
Old Testament is a translation from the Hebrew, though certain books
appear to have been influenced by the Septuagint. Its date is unknown,
but it is usually assigned to the 2nd century A.D. Its value for
textual purposes is not great, partly because the underlying text is
the same as the Massoretic, partly because the Syriac text has at
different times been harmonized with that of the Septuagint.

Syro-Hexaplar.

The Syro-Hexaplar version, on the other hand, is extremely valuable
for critical purposes. This Syriac translation of the Septuagint
column of the _Hexapla_ was made by Paul, bishop of Tella, at
Alexandria in A.D. 616-617. Its value consists in the extreme
literalness of the translation, which renders it possible to recover
the Greek original with considerable certainty. It has further
preserved the critical signs employed by Origen as well as many
readings from the other Greek versions; hence it forms our chief
authority for reconstructing the _Hexapla_. The greater part of this
work is still extant; the poetical and prophetical books have been
preserved in the _Codex Ambrosianus_ at Milan (published in
photolithography by Ceriani, _Mon. Sacr. et Prof._), and the remaining
portions of the other books have been collected by Lagarde in his
_Bibliothecae Syriacae_, &c.

Of the remaining versions of the Old Testament the most important are
the Egyptian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Gothic and Armenian, all of which,
except a part of the Arabic, appear to have been made through the
medium of the Septuagint.

AUTHORITIES.--Wellhausen-Bleek, _Einleitung in das alte Testament_
(4th ed., Berlin, 1878, pp. 571 ff., or 5th ed., Berlin, 1886, pp. 523
ff.); S.R. Driver, _Notes on Samuel_ (Oxford, 1890), Introd. Sec.Sec.3 f.;
W. Robertson Smith, _Old Testament in the Jewish Church_ (2nd ed.,
1895); F.G. Kenyon, _Our Bible and the Ancient MSS._ (London, 1896);
T.H. Weir, _A Short History of the Hebrew Text_ (London, 1896); H B.
Swete, _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_ (Cambridge, 1900);
F. Buhl, _Kanon u. Text des A.T._ (English trans., Edinburgh, 1892);
E. Schuerer, _Geschichte des juedischen Volkes_ (3rd ed., 1902), vol.
iii. Sec. 33; C.H. Cornill, _Einleitung in das alte Testament_ (4th ed.,
1896), and _Prolegomena to Ezechiel_ (Leipzig, 1886); H.L. Strack,
_Einleitung in das alte Testament, Prolegomena Critica in Vet. Test._
(Leipzig, 1873); A. Loisy, _Histoire critique du texte et des versions
de la bible_ (Amiens, 1892); E. Nestle, _Urtext und Uebersetzungen der
Bibel (Leipzig, 1897); Ed. Koenig, _Einleitung in das alte Testament
(Bonn, 1893); F. Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt_, &c.; A.
Dillmann and F. Buhl, article on "Bibel-text des A.T." in _P.R.E._ cubed
vol. ii.; Ch. D. Ginsburg, _Introduction to the Massoretico-critical
edition of the Bible_ (London, 1897) and _The Massorah_ (London,
1880-1885). (J. F. St.)

3. _Textual Criticism._

Distinction between Textual and Higher Criticism.

The aim of scientific Old Testament criticism is to obtain, through discrimination between truth and error, a full appreciation of the literature which constitutes the Old Testament, of the life out of which it grew, and the secret of the influence which these have exerted and still exert. For such an appreciation many things are needed; and the branches of Old Testament criticism are correspondingly numerous. It is necessary in the first instance to detect the errors which have crept into the text in the course of its transmission, and to recover, so far as possible, the text in its original form; this is the task of _Textual_, or as it is sometimes called in contradistinction to another branch, _Lower Criticism_. It then becomes the task of critical exegesis to interpret the text thus recovered so as to bring out the meaning intended by the original authors. This _Higher Criticism_ partakes of two characters, literary and historical. One branch seeks to determine the scope, purpose and character of the various books of the Old Testament, the times in and conditions under which they were written, whether they are severally the work of a single author or of several, whether they embody earlier sources and, if so, the character of these, and the conditions under which they have reached us, whether altered and, if altered, how; this is _Literary Criticism_. A further task is to estimate the value of this literature as evidence for the history of Israel, to determine, as far as possible, whether such parts of the literature as are contemporary with the time described present correct, or whether in any respect one-sided or biased or otherwise incorrect, descriptions; and again, how far the literature that relates the story of long past periods has drawn upon trustworthy records, and how far it is possible to extract historical truth from traditions (such as those of the Pentateuch) that present, owing to the gradual accretions and modifications of intervening generations, a composite picture of the period described, or from a work such as Chronicles, which narrates the past under the influence of the conception that the institutions and ideas of the present must have been established and current in the past; all this falls under _Historical Criticism_, which, on its constructive side, must avail itself of all available and well-sifted evidence, whether derived from the Old Testament or elsewhere, for its presentation of the history of Israel--its ultimate purpose. Finally, by comparing the results of this criticism as a whole, we have to determine, by observing its growth and comparing it with others, the essential character of the religion of Israel.

In brief, then, the criticism of the Old Testament seeks to discover what the words written actually meant to the writers, what the events in Hebrew history actually were, what the religion actually was; and hence its aim differs from the dogmatic or homiletic treatments of the Old Testament, which have sought to discover in Scripture a given body of dogma or incentives to a particular type of life or the like.

Biblical criticism, and in some respects more especially Old Testament criticism, is, in all its branches, very largely of modern growth. This has been due in part to the removal of conditions unfavourable to the critical study of the evidence that existed, in part to the discovery in recent times of fresh evidence. The unfavourable conditions and the critical efforts which were made in spite of them can only be briefly indicated.

Growth of criticism.

For a long time Biblical study lacked the first essential of sound critical method, viz. a critical text of the literature. Jewish study was exclusively based on the official Hebrew text, which was fixed, probably in the 2nd century A.D., and thereafter scrupulously preserved. This text, however, had suffered certain now obvious corruptions, and, probably enough, more corruption than can now, or perhaps ever will be, detected with certainty. The position of Christian (and Jewish Alexandrian) scholars was considerably worse; for, with rare exceptions, down to the 5th century, and practically without exception between the 5th and 15th centuries, their study was exclusively based on _translations_. Beneath the ancient Greek version, the Septuagint, there certainly underlay an earlier form of the Hebrew text than that perpetuated by Jewish tradition, and if Christian scholars could have worked through the version to the underlying Hebrew text, they would often have come nearer to the original meaning than their Jewish contemporaries. But this they could not do; and since the version, owing to the limitations of the translators, departs widely from the sense of the original, Christian scholars were on the whole kept much farther from the original meaning than their Jewish contemporaries, who used the Hebrew text; and later, after Jewish grammatical and philological study had been stimulated by intercourse with the Arabs, the relative disadvantages under which Christian scholarship laboured increased. Still there are not lacking in the early centuries A.D. important, if limited and imperfect, efforts in textual criticism. Origen, in his _Hexapla_, placed side by side the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, and certain later Greek versions, and drew attention to the variations: he thus brought together for comparison, an indispensable preliminary to criticism, the chief existing evidence to the text of the Old Testament. Unfortunately this great work proved too voluminous to be preserved entire; and in the form in which it was fragmentarily preserved, it even largely enhanced the critical task of later centuries. Jerome, perceiving the unsatisfactory position of Latin-speaking Christian scholars who studied the Old Testament at a _double remove_ from the original--in Latin versions of the Greek--made a fresh Latin translation direct from the Hebrew text then received among the Jews. It is only in accordance with what constantly recurs in the history of Biblical criticism that this effort to approximate to the truth met at first with considerable opposition, and was for a time regarded even by Augustine as dangerous. Subsequently, however, this version of Jerome (the Vulgate) became the basis of Western Biblical scholarship. Henceforward the Western Church suffered both from the corruptions in the official Hebrew text and also from the fact that it worked from a version and not from the original, for a knowledge of Hebrew was rare indeed among Christian scholars between the time of Jerome and the 16th century.

But if the use of versions, or of an uncritical text of the original, was one condition unfavourable to criticism, another that was not less serious was the dominance over both Jews and Christians of unsound methods of interpretation--legal or dogmatic or allegorical. The influence of these can be traced as early as the Greek version (3rd century B.C. and later); allegorical interpretation is conspicuous in the Alexandrian Jewish scholar Philo (q.v.); it may be seen in many New Testament interpretations of the Old Testament (e.g. Gal. iii. 16, iv. 21-31), found a classical exponent in Origen, and, in spite of the opposition of the school of Antioch, pre-eminently of Theodore (d. A.D. 428), maintained its power virtually unbroken down to the Reformation. It is true that even by the most thorough-going allegorists the literal sense of Scripture was not openly and entirely disregarded; but the very fact that the study of Hebrew was never more than exceptional, and so early ceased to be cultivated at all, is eloquent of indifference to the original literal sense, and the very principle of the many meanings inherent in the sacred writings was hostile to sound interpretation; greater importance was attached to the "deeper" or "hidden" senses, i.e. to the various unreal interpretations, and when the literal sense conflicted with the dogmas or tradition of the Church its validity was wholly denied. The extraordinary ambiguity and uncertainty which allegorical interpretation tacitly ascribed to Scripture, and the ease with which heretical as well as orthodox teaching could be represented as "hidden" under the literal sense, was early perceived, but instead of this leading to any real check on even wild subjectivity in interpretation and insistence on reaching the literal sense, it created an ominous principle that maintained much of its influence long after the supremacy of allegorism was overthrown. This is the principle that all interpretation of Scripture must be according to the _Regula fidei_--that all interpretation which makes Scripture contradict or offend the traditions of the Church is wrong.

The spirit and the age of humanism and the Reformation effected and witnessed important developments in the study of the Old Testament. It was still long before any considerable results were achieved; but in various ways the dogmatic and traditional treatment of Scripture was undermined; the way was opened for a more real and historical method. It must suffice to refer briefly to two points.

1. Ignorance gave place to knowledge of the languages in which the Old
Testament was written. In 1506 the distinguished humanist, Johann
Reuchlin, who had begun the study of Hebrew under a Jewish teacher
about 1492, published a work entitled _De Rudimentis Hebraicis_
containing a Hebrew lexicon and a Hebrew grammar. In 1504 Konrad
Pellikan (Pellicanus), whose study of Hebrew had profited from
intercourse with Reuchlin, had published a brief introduction to the
language. In 1514 the Complutensian Polyglott began to be printed and
in 1522 was published. Various Jewish editions of the Hebrew Bible had
already been printed--in part since 1477, entire since 1488; but this
work contained the first Christian edition of the text. Certainly the
editors did not intend hereby to exalt the original above the
versions; for they placed the Vulgate in the centre of the page with
the Hebrew on one side, the Greek on the other, i.e. as they
themselves explained it, the Roman Church between the synagogue and
the Greek Church, as Christ crucified between two thieves. Yet even so
the publication of the Hebrew text by Christian scholars marks an
important stage; henceforth the study of the original enters
increasingly into Christian Biblical schojarship; it already underlay
the translations which form so striking a feature of the 16th century.
Luther's German version (Pentateuch, 1523) and Tyndale's English
version (Pentateuch, 1530) were both made from the Hebrew. At first,
and indeed down to the middle of the 17th century, Jewish traditions
and methods in the study of Hebrew dominated Christian scholars; but
in the 17th and 18th centuries the study of other Semitic languages
opened up that comparative linguistic study which was systematized and
brought nearer to perfection in the 19th century (which also
witnessed the opening up of the new study of Assyrian) by scholars
such as Gesenius, Ewald, Olshausen, Renan, Noeldeke, Stade and Driver.
This has done much to render possible a more critical interpretation
of the Old Testament.

2. An increasing stress was laid on the _literal_ sense of Scripture.
The leading Reformers--Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon--frequently
expressed themselves against the prevailing view of the manifold sense
of Scripture, and in particular questioned the legitimacy of
allegorical interpretation--except for purposes of popular and
practical exposition. The effort to get at and abide by the literal
sense is characteristic of Calvin's extensive exegetical works. True,
practice did not always keep pace with theory, and the literal sense
had to yield if it came into conflict with the "Faith": the
allegorical method for long obscured the meaning of the _Song of
Songs_, and any departure from it was severely condemned; just as
Theodore of Mopsuestia drew down on himself for maintaining the
literal sense of the _Song_ the condemnation of the Second Council of
Constantinople (A.D. 553), so Sebastian Castellio owed (in part) to
the same indiscretion his expulsion from Geneva in 1544. Even in the
16th and 17th centuries scholars like Grotius and Michaelis met with
violent opposition for the same cause.

But, however slowly and irregularly, the new conditions and the new
spirit affected the study of the Old Testament. It became subject to
the same critical methods which since the Renaissance have been
applied to other ancient literatures. Biblical criticism is part of a
wider critical movement, but it is noticeable how, from stage to
stage, Biblical scholars adopted the various critical methods which as
applied to other literatures have been proved valid, rather than
themselves initiated them. The textual criticism of the classical
literatures made way before the textual criticism of the Old
Testament: Bentley's _Phalaris_ (1699) preceded any thorough or
systematic application of Higher Criticism to any part of the Old
Testament; Niebuhr's _History of Rome_ (1811) preceded Ewald's
_History of Israel_ (1843-1859).

Conditions of Textual Criticism in the Bible.

The fundamental principles of the Textual Criticism of the Old Testament are the same as those which apply to any other ancient text and need not be described here (see the article TEXTUAL CRITICISM). There are also, however, certain conditions peculiar to the text of the Old Testament. The significance of these and the extent to which they must govern the application of the general principles have even yet scarcely obtained full and general recognition. These, then, must be briefly described.

The earliest Hebrew MSS. of the Old Testament date from not earlier than the 9th century A.D., or nearly one thousand years after the latest parts of the Old Testament were written. These MSS., and the Hebrew Bibles as usually printed, contain in reality two perfectly distinct texts--the work of two different ages separated from one another by centuries: the one is a text of the Old Testament itself, the other a text of a later Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. The text of the Old Testament consists of consonants only, for the alphabet of the ancient Hebrews, like that of their Moabite, Aramaean and Phoenician neighbours, contained no vowels; the text of the interpretation consists of vowels and accents only--for vowel signs and accents had been invented by Jewish scholars between the 5th and 9th centuries A.D.; the text of the Old Testament is complete in itself and intelligible, though ambiguous; but the text of the interpretation read by itself is unintelligible, and only becomes intelligible when read with the consonants (under, over, or in which they are inserted) of the text of the Old Testament. But the fact that the later text makes use of the earlier to make itself intelligible in no way destroys the fact that it is as entirely distinct a work from the earlier as is any commentary distinct from the work on which it comments. The first task of Old Testament textual criticism after the Reformation was to prove the independence of these two texts, to gain general recognition of the fact that vowels and accents formed no part of the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The conflict that arose over this question in the Christian Church was prolonged and bitter--in part because it unfortunately became inflamed by the contending interests of Roman Catholic and Protestant. The coeval origin of consonants and vowels had indeed been questioned or denied by the earliest reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin), but later, in the period of Protestant scholasticism and under the influence of one school of Jewish Rabbis, Protestant scholars in particular, and especially those of the Swiss school, notably the Buxtorfs, had committed themselves to the view that the vowels formed an integral and original part of the text of the Old Testament; and this they maintained with all the more fervency because the ambiguity of the consonants without the vowels was a troublesome fact in the way of the extreme Protestant doctrine of the inspiration, verbal infallibility and sufficiency of Scripture, while it was by no means unwelcome to Catholic theologians with their doctrine of the need for an authoritative interpretation. Still in the end it was due in large measure to the learning and argumentative power devoted to this subject by the French Protestant scholar, Louis Capell, and, amongst others, by the English Protestant scholar, Brian Walton, that by the end of the 17th century this particular controversy was practically at an end; criticism had triumphed, and the later origin of the vowels was admitted. Yet, as often happens, the influence of tradition lingered long after it had been proved to be false; thus the R.V., instead of being an independent translation of the Hebrew text, is intended (with rare exceptions, as e.g. in Is. lix. 19, where R.V. translates the Hebrew text and R.V. margin the Jewish interpretation) to be merely a translation of the Jewish interpretation; and to the present day it is usual, though obviously uncritical and wrong, to describe perfectly legitimate translations of the received consonantal text, if they happen to presuppose other vowels than those provided by Jewish tradition, as based on emendation; even in the English edition of Haupt's _Sacred Books of the Old Testament_ (see below) the possibility of this unfortunate misunderstanding is not altogether removed.

But the original text of the Old Testament long before it was combined with the text of the Jewish or Massoretic interpretation had already undergone a somewhat similar change, the extent of which was indeed far less, but also less clearly discoverable. This change consisted in the insertion into the original text of certain consonants which had come to be also used to express vowel sounds: e.g. the Hebrew consonant corresponding to w also expressed the vowel o or u, the consonant h the vowel a, and so forth. For reasons suggested partly by the study of Semitic inscriptions, partly by comparison of passages occurring twice within the Old Testament, and partly by a comparison of the Hebrew text with the Septuagint, it is clear that the authors of the Old Testament (or at least most of them) themselves made some use of these vowel consonants, but that in a great number of cases the vowel consonants that stand in our present text were inserted by transcribers and editors of the texts. Again, and for similar reasons, it is probable that in many cases, if not in all, the original texts were written without any clear division of the consonants into words. In view of all this, the first requisite for a critical treatment of the text of the Old Testament is to consider the consonants by themselves, to treat every vowel-consonant as _possibly_ not original, and the existing divisions of the text into words as original only in those cases where they yield a sense better than any other possible division (or, at least, as good). Certainly all this brings us face to face with much ambiguity and demands increased skill in interpretation, but anything short of it falls short also of strict critical method. A perception of this has only been gradually reached, and is even now none too general.

Apart from these changes in the history of the text, it has, like all ancient texts, suffered from accidents of transmission, from the unintentional mistakes of copyists. This fact was, naturally enough and under the same dogmatic stress, denied by those scholars who maintained that the vowels were an integral part of the text. Here again we may single out Capellus as a pioneer in criticism, in his _Critica sacra sive de variis quae in sacris V. T. libris occurrunt lectionibus_, written in 1634, much studied in MS. by scholars before its publication in 1650, and unavailingly criticized by Buxtorf the younger in his _Anticritica seu vindiciae veritatis hebraicae_ (1653). Capellus drew conclusions from such important facts as the occurrence of variations in the two Hebrew texts of passages found twice in the Old Testament itself, and the variations brought to light by a comparison of the Jewish and Samaritan texts of the Pentateuch, the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, the Hebrew text and New Testament quotations from the Old Testament.

In order that the principles already perceived by Capellus might be satisfactorily applied in establishing a critical text, many things were needed; for example, a complete collation of existing MSS. of the Jewish text and of the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, the establishing of a critical text of the Septuagint, a careful study of the several versions directed to determining when real variants are implied and what they are. Some of this work has been accomplished: much of it remains to be done.

The Hebrew MSS. were collated by Kennicott and de Rossi at the close of the 18th century, with sufficient thoroughness to justify the important conclusion that all existing MSS. reproduce a single recension. The Samaritan MSS. are still very imperfectly collated; the same is true of the Syriac and other versions except the Septuagint. In regard to the Septuagint, though the work is by no means complete, much has been done. For collection of material the edition of Holmes and Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827), with its magnificent critical apparatus, is pre-eminent; the preparation of a similar edition, on a rather smaller scale but embodying the results of fresh and more careful collation, was subsequently undertaken by Cambridge scholars.[19] These editions furnish the material, but neither attempts the actual construction of a critical text of the version. Some important contributions towards a right critical method of using the material collected have been made--in particular by Lagarde, who has also opened up a valuable line of critical work, along which much remains to be done, by his restoration of the Lucianic recension, one of the three great recensions of the Greek text of the Old Testament which obtained currency at the close of the 3rd and beginning of the 4th centuries A.D.

More especially since the time of Capellus the value of the Septuagint for correcting the Hebrew text has been recognized; but it has often been used uncritically, and the correctness of the Hebrew text underlying it in comparison with the text of the Hebrew MSS., though still perhaps most generally underestimated, has certainly at times been exaggerated.

Results of Criticism.

It has only been possible here to indicate in the briefest way what is involved in the collection and critical sifting of the extant evidence for the text of the Old Testament, how much of the work has been done and how much remains; and with equal brevity it must suffice to indicate the position which faces the textual critic when all that can be done in this way has been done. In so far as it is possible to recover the Hebrew text from which the Greek version was made, it is possible to recover a form of the Hebrew text current about 280 B.C. in the case of the Pentateuch, some time before 100 B.C. in the case of most of the rest of the Old Testament. By comparison of the Hebrew MSS. it is not difficult to recover the recension which with few and unimportant variants they have perpetuated, and which may safely be regarded as differing but slightly from the text current and officially established before the end of the 2nd century A.D. By a comparison of these two lines of evidence we can approximate to a text current about 300 B.C. or later; but for any errors which had entered into the common source of these two forms of the text we possess no documentary means of detection whatsoever. The case then stands thus. Except by the obviously absurd assumption of the infallibility of copyists for the centuries before c. 300 B.C., we cannot escape the conclusion that _errors lurk even where no variants now exist_, and that _such errors can be corrected, if at all, only by conjectural emendation_. The dangers of conjectural emendation are well known and apparent; large numbers of such emendations have been ill-advised; but in the case of many passages the only alternative for the textual critic who is at once competent and honest is to offer such emendations or to indicate that such passages are corrupt and the means of restoring them lacking.

Conjectural emendations were offered by Capellus in the 17th, and by scholars such as C.F. Houbigant, Archbishop Seeker, Bishop Lowth and J.D. Michaelis in the 18th century. Some of these have approved themselves to successive generations of scholars, who have also added largely to the store of such suggestions; conjectural emendation has been carried furthest by upholders of particular metrical theories (such as Bickell and Duhm) which do not accommodate themselves well to the existing text, and by T.K. Cheyne (in _Critica Biblica_, 1903), whose restorations resting on a dubious theory of Hebrew history have met with little approval, though his negative criticism of the text is often keen and suggestive.

A model of the application of the various resources of Old Testament textual criticism to the restoration of the text is C.H. Cornill's _Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel_ (1886): outstanding examples of important systematic critical notes are J. Wellhausen's _Der Text der Buecher Samuelis_ (1871) and S.R. Driver's _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ (1890). Haupt's _Sacred Books of the Old Testament_, edited by various scholars, was designed to present, when complete, a critical text of the entire Old Testament with critical notes. The results of textual criticism, including a considerable number of conjectural emendations, are succinctly presented in Kittel's _Biblia Hebraica_ (1906); but the text here printed is the ordinary Massoretic (vocalized) text. The valuable editions of the Old Testament by Baer and Delitzsch, and by Ginsburg, contain _critical_ texts of the Jewish interpretation of Scripture, and therefore necessarily _uncritical_ texts of the Hebrew Old Testament itself: it lies entirely outside their scope to give or even to consider the evidence which exists for correcting the obvious errors in the text of the Old Testament as received and perpetuated by the Jewish interpreters. See also the authorities mentioned in the following section. (G. B. G.*)

4. _Higher Criticism._

We now pass on to consider the growth of literary and historic criticism, which constitute the _Higher Criticism_ as already explained. Down to the Reformation conditions were unfavourable to such criticism; the prevailing dogmatic use of Scripture gave no occasion for inquiry into the human origins or into the real purport and character of the several books. Nevertheless we find some sporadic and tentative critical efforts or questions. The most remarkable of these was made _outside_ the Church--a significant indication of the adverse effect of the conditions within; the Neo-platonist philosopher Porphyry[20] in the 3rd century A.D., untrammelled by church tradition and methods, anticipated one of the clearest and most important conclusions of modern criticism: he detected the incorrectness of the traditional ascription of Daniel to the Jewish captivity in Babylon and discerned that the real period of its composition was that of Antiochus Epiphanes, four centuries later. In the mind even of Augustine (_Locutio in Jos. vi. 25_) questions were raised by the occurrence of the formula "until this day" in Jos. iv. 9, but were stilled by a rather clever though wrong use of Jos. vi. 25; Abelard (_Heloissae Problema_, xli.) considers the problem whether the narrative of Moses's death in Deut. contains a prophecy by Moses or is the work of another and later writer, while the Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra (Abenezra), in a cryptic note on Deut. i. 1, which has been often quoted of late years, gathers together several indications that point, as he appears to perceive, to the post-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. Even rarer than these rare perceptions of the evidence of the quasi-historical books to their origin are such half-perceptions of the literary origin of the prophetical books as is betrayed by Ibn Ezra, who appears to question the Isaianic authorship of Is. xl.-lxvi., and by Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century, who, according to Diestel (_Gesch. des A. T._, 169), raises the question why the sixth chapter of Isaiah, containing the inaugural vision, does not stand at the beginning of the book.

The Reformers.

Even after the Renaissance and the Reformation tradition continued influential. For though the Reformers were critical of the authority of ecclesiastical tradition in the matter of the interpretation and use of Scripture, they were not immediately interested in literary and historical criticism, nor concerned to challenge the whole body of traditional lore on these matters. At the same time we can see from Luther's attitude how the doctrine of the Reformers (unlike that of the Protestant scholastics who came later) admitted considerable freedom, in particular with reference to the extent of the canon, but also to several questions of higher criticism. Thus it is to Luther a matter of indifference whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch; the books of _Chronicles_ he definitely pronounces less credible than those of _Kings_, and he considers that the books of _Isaiah, Jeremiah_ and _Hosea_ probably owe their present form to later hands. Carlstadt again definitely denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch on the ground that Moses could not have written the account of his own death and yet that Deut. xxxiv. cannot be separated from the rest of the Pentateuch. The later scholastic Protestant doctrine of verbal infallibility necessarily encouraged critical reaction and proved a widely extended retarding force far down into the 19th century. Nevertheless criticism advanced by slow degrees among individuals, now in the Roman Church, now in the number of those who sat loosely to the restrictions of either Roman or Protestant authority, and now among Protestant scholars and theologians.

Hobbes.

It would be impossible to refer here even briefly to all these, and it may be more useful to select for somewhat full description, as showing what could be achieved by, and what limitations beset, even a critical spirit in the 17th century, the survey of the origin of the Old Testament given by one such individual--Thomas Hobbes in his _Leviathan_[21] (published 1651) c. xxxiii. As far as possible this survey shall be cited verbatim:--

"Who were the original writers of the several books of Holy Scripture
has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other
history, which is the only proof of matter of fact; nor can be, by any
argument of natural reason: for reason serves only to convince the
truth, not of fact, but of consequence. The light therefore that must
guide us in this question, must be that which is held out unto us from
the books themselves: and this light, though it shew us not the author
of every book, yet it is not unuseful to give us knowledge of the time
wherein they were written."