r
greatly distress themselves about the latter ; for, a century and a half elapsed before Ken-
nicott proclaimed how — “ the Hebrew Bible was printed from the latest, and consequently
the worst manuscripts;” (177) thus corroborating his previous acknowledgment — “ that the
Sacred Books have not descended to us, for so many ages, without some mistakes and ernn
of transcribers’ ’(178) He enlarges upon the certainty of corruptions in the printed Hebre»
Text, powerfully refuting those who claim textual unity; and then passes on to establish
the absurdity of attributing perfection, either, to the manuscripts- ^179)^ -
Of all men down to his epoch, 1780, Kennicott had the best right to speak decisively;
his conclusions being drawn from the collation of no less than 692 manuscripts of the
Hebrew tex t; whereof about 250 were, collated by himself personally, and the remainder
by Mr. Bruns, under his direction. Of the most ancient relics, but two were assigned by him I
to the tenth century after Christ .; to the eleventh or twelfth centuries, only three; while all
the rest ranged between the years 1200 and 1500 A. D. (180) The bulk of his work, its
eostliness and comparative rarity, combine with its Latin idiom, to render it inaccessible to
ordinary readers, save at second-hand. But few of the facts established by this great and I
upright scholar are popularly known; or they have been misrepresented, more or less, by |
some of the ecclesiastical mediums (181) through which they have reached the public eye. i
Cardinal Wiseman, (182) for example, would lead his readers to infer, that the innumerable
variants and corruptions of the Hebrew Text, verified by Kennicott, were of small importance;
and even the Rev. Moses Stuart (188) slurs lightly over those depreciatory results ]
which it will be archmology’s duty presently to enumerate, in saying: —
“ Indeed, one may travel through the immense desert (so I can hardly help namingii).
of Kennicott and De Rossi, and (if I may venture to speak in homely phrase) not ini
game enough to be worth the hunting.” So again, “ Have they (the Jews) added to, ot
diminished from, their Scriptures during all this period of 1800 years ? Not the least...,
Their Bible has remained inviolate.”
Now, to .continue the sagacious Professor’s simile, the quantity of-game to be found ini
giyen wilderness frequently depends upon the keenness of the huntsman; its quality upon
his individual tastes; some sportsmen being partial to tomtits, whilst others sigh fill
nothing fiercer than grizzly-bears encounters their ferine combativeness. And, with respeil
to ‘the “ inviolate” state of the Text, Kennicott shall speak for himself, after we haw
opened a volume of De ILossi.
G. Bernardo de Rossi, of Parma, was that august Italian critic who resumed investigi-
tion into the actual condition of the Hebrew Text at tlm point where his English predecessor
had left off.; recasting also (wherever the same MSS. could be reached by him) thi
work of the illustrious Oxonian. Written in Italian, and intended solely for the lettered,
his books are not very familiar to the general reader. A quotation or two, therefore, mffl
place matters in their proper light:
“ Here it suffices to observe, that the totality of manuscripts collated is 1418, of editions]
374; that to the English 577, and 16 Samaritan, I have adde'd 825; of which my cabinit
alone furnished 691, and 333 editions; besides the ancient versions, the commentaries, M
works of criticism and other sources that are also themselves in the greatest number. M
In another work he states:— “ Of the manuscript codices most ancient of the s (
Text” . . . the oldest, that of Vienna, dates in a . d, 1019; the next is Reuohlin’s, of CaS
ruhe ; its age being A. d. 1038. There is nothing in manuscript of the Hebrew Old Teste-]
(177) State o f the printed Hebrew Texet; 2d Dissert.; Oxford, 1709; p. 470. %
(178) Ibid.; 1st Dissert.;. 1753; Introd.
(179) Ibid.; pp. 234, 268.
(180) Dissertatio Generalis in Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum; Oxford, 1780; in fblio; pp. 110-113.
(181) “ By ‘ecclesiastical persons’ are understood such as are indeed subjects, yet their office and works Hi
[sic/] in matters of Religion; they act between God and man, as messengers, and mediators between tlieuiJ
They deliver God’s mind to men; and offer men’s prayers and gifts to G o d ” ; says the Rev. G e o r g e L aw so «
Protestant Rector of More (Politico Sacra et Oivilis; London, 1660; p. 230).
(182) Connection between Science and Revealed Religion; 1844; ii. pp. 168, 169.
(183) Grit. Hist, and Defence of the O. T. Canon / Andover, 1845; pp. 193, 239.
(184) Compendia di CriMca Sacra; Parma, 1811; ii. p. 37.
mentnow extant of an earlier date than the eleventh century after Christ. (185) And, “ of
the most ancient manuscripts of the Greek Text of the New Testament,” . . . the oldest
are the Alexandrian and Vatican, which may ascend to the fourth, hut cannot be much
later than the fifth century after Christ.
-Considering such circumstances, our Credulity is not strained by accepting what De
Rossi asserts, as rather more authoritative than the fiats of some “ teologini ” we might
name; for he, at least, had advanced by studious discipline to the positive stage of philosophy.
These are his Italian views rendered into English:—under the head of “ Premure
degli Ebrei per loro Testo: ” —
“ It is known [,? ] with what carefulness Esdrfs, the most excellent critic they have had,
had reformed {the Text] and corrected it, and restored it to its primary splendor. Of the
many revisions undertaken after him none are more celebrated than that of the Massoretes,
who came after the sixth century [a n n is d .] ; who, in order that the Text should not in
after time become altered, and that it might be preserved in its integrity, numbered all the
verses, the words, the letters of each book, together with their form and place. But their
fatigues being well analyzed, one perceives that they had more in aim to fix the state of
their Text, than to correct i t ; that, of infinite interesting and grave variants they do not
speak; and that, ordinarily, they do not occupy themselves but with minutiae of orthography
of little or no weight: and all the most zealous adorers and defenders of the Massora,
Christians and Jews, while rendering justice to the worthiest intentions and to the enormous
fatigues of its first authors, ingenuously accord and confess that it [the Massoretic
Text], such as it exists, is deficient, imperfect, interpolated, full of errors; . . . a most unsafe
guide.” (186)
Why, “ the single Bible of Soncino [earliest printed Text] furnishes morelhan twelve thousand
(variants)! ” Which said, our authority continues through above eleven 8vo pages
to deplore and make manifest “ the horrible state of the Text,” resulting from his own comparisons
of 1418 Hebrew manuscripts, and 374 printed editions. Such being the truth,
published a quarter-century before the Rev. Dr. Hales’s ‘^Analysis of Chronology,” (187)
the reader can qualify the following attestation of an ecclesiastic by what epithet he
pleases: —
“ It is not more certain that there are a sun and moon in the heavens, than it is, that not
a single error of the press, or of a Jewish transcriber, has crept into the present copies of
the -Masorete Hebrew Text, to give the least interruption to its chronological series of
years.” 1
And yet, so devoid of consistency is this theologer, that he designates the Hebrew chronology
as “ spurious,” and actually follows that of the Septuagint!
From the loud denunciations of one of the most learned Church-of-England Protestant
| divines, and the sterner sorrow of an Italian Catholic cenobite, turn we to the wild despair
f of the Hebrew R a b b isS p P e r u it consilium! Computruit sapientia nostra! Oblivioni
traditee sunt leges nostras! Multse etiam corruptelce, et errores, ceciderunt in Legem nos-
. tram sanctam!_” (188)
But Kennicott substantiates that the disorderly condition of the Hebrew Text, and its
multitudinous vitiations, resile from the works, or are lamented in the language, of all
claimants to biblical knowledge for 1700 years previously to the Rabbis and himslf; equivalent
to 1730 prior to De Rossi. Here is a skeleton of his list, omitting citations: —
“ Justin Martyr, died a . d . 165—Tertullian, 220 — Clemens Romanus, 102—Origen, 254
' Eusebius Csesarienensis, 340 — Eusebius Emisenus, flourished 350 — Ephraim Syrus, died
[ 878 — Hieronymus, 420.” We pause to illustrate.
1st. King James’s version.— P a u l , Galatians, iii. 13: — “ for it is written, Cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree.” [The English of the Greek passage in Griesbach’s
text is, apud Sharpe, “ (for it is written; cursed is every one that is hanged on a tree;)”~\.
(185) Introduzione alia Sacra Scrittura; Parma, 1817; pp. 34, 47.
(186) Compendia; ch. iv. p. 7; and pp. 9-22. De R ossi furthermore proves these positions in his “ Specimen
Variorum Lectionum Sacri Textus ” ; Rome, 1782.
(187) Analysis; 2d edit.; 1830; i. p. 277.
] (188) Hebrew edition of 1751; the preface, cited in Dissert. Genercdis ; p. 27.