The division of the sacred text into chapters and verses is indispensable for convenience of reference. But the student should remember that these distinctions are wholly of human origin, and sometimes separate pa.s.sages closely connected in meaning. The first verse, for example, of Isaiah, ch. 4, is immediately connected in sense with the threatenings against "the daughters of Zion" contained in the close of the preceding chapter In the beginning of ch. 11 of the same book, the words: "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots," contrast the Branch of the Messiah with the a.s.syrian bough, the lopping off of which has just been foretold; chap. 10:33, 34. The last three verses, again, of Isaiah, ch. 52, evidently belong to the following chapter. The connections of the sacred text, therefore, must be determined independently of these human distinctions.

CHAPTER XIV.

THE ORIGINAL TEXT AND ITS HISTORY.

1. The original language of the Old Testament is _Hebrew_, with the exception of certain portions of Ezra and Daniel and a single verse of Jeremiah, (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Dan. 2:4, from the middle of the verse to end of chap. 7; Jer. 10:11,) which are written in the cognate _Chaldee_ language. The Hebrew belongs to a stock of related languages commonly called _Shemitic_, because spoken mainly by the descendants of Shem. Its main divisions are: (1,) the _Arabic_, having its original seat in the southeastern part of the Shemitic territory, and of which the aethiopic is a branch; (2,) the _Aramaean_ in the north and northeast, comprising the eastern Aramaean or _Chaldee_, and the western or _Syriac_; (3,) the _Hebrew_, occupying a middle place between the two.

The _Samaritan_ is essentially Aramaean, but with an intermixture of Hebrew forms; the _Phoenician_, or _Punic_, on the other hand, is most closely allied to the Hebrew. All these languages, with the exception of the aethiopic, are written from right to left, and exhibit many peculiarities of orthography and grammatical forms and structure.

2. The Hebrew characters in present use, called the _a.s.syrian_, or _square writing_, are not those originally employed. The earlier form is undoubtedly represented by the inscriptions on the coins struck by the Maccabees, of which the letters bear a strong resemblance to the Samaritan and Phoenician characters. The Jewish tradition is that the present square character was introduced by Ezra, and that it was of a.s.syrian origin. The question of the correctness of this tradition has been much discussed. Some wholly reject it, and hold that the present square writing came by a gradual process of change from a more ancient type. See Davidson's Bib. Crit., vol. I, ch. 3.

That the present square writing existed in our Saviour's day has been argued with much force from Matth. 5:18, where the Saviour says: "Till heaven and earth pa.s.s, one jot (_iota_) or one t.i.ttle (_keraia_) shall in no wise pa.s.s from the law, till all be fulfilled." The _iota_ (Hebrew _yod_) is the letter _i_ or _y_, which in the square writing is the smallest in the alphabet ([Hebrew: y]), but not in the ancient Hebrew, Ph[oe]nician, or Samaritan. The _keraia_, _little turn_, is that which distinguishes one letter from another; as [Hebrew: d], _d_, from [Hebrew: r], _r_; or [Hebrew: b], _b_, from [Hebrew: k], _k_. See Alford on Matth. 5:18. (The recent discovery in the Crimea of inscriptions on the tombs of Caraite Jews, some of them dating back, it is alleged, to the first century, proves that the a.s.syrian or square character was then in use. In these inscriptions the _Yod_ (iota) is represented by a simple point. See Alexander's Kitto, vol. 3, p. 1173.)

The _Rabbinic_ is a modification of the a.s.syrian or square writing, for the purpose of giving it a more cursive character.

3. The _Hebrew alphabet_, like all the other Shemitic alphabets--with the exception of the aethiopic, which is _syllabic_, the vowels being indicated by certain modifications in the forms of the consonants--was originally a skeleton alphabet, an alphabet of consonants, in which, however, certain letters, called vowel-letters, performed in a measure the office of vowels. The Shemite did not separate the vowels from the consonants, and express them, as we do, by separate signs. He rather conceived of the vowels as inhering in the consonants--as modifications in the utterance of the consonants, which the reader could make for himself. Various particulars in respect to the p.r.o.nunciation of certain consonants were, in like manner, left to the reader's own knowledge. For example, the three Hebrew letters, [Hebrew: sh], _sh_; [Hebrew: m], _m_; [Hebrew: r], _r_, ([Hebrew: shmr], to be read from right to left,) might be p.r.o.nounced, _shamar_, _he kept_; _shemor_, _keep thou_; _shomer_, _keeping_--the reader determining from the connection which of these forms should be used, just as we decide in English between the different p.r.o.nunciations of the word _bow_. As long as the Hebrew remained a living language, that is, the language of the ma.s.ses of the people, this outline alphabet was sufficient for all practical purposes. The modern Arabs read without difficulty their ordinary books, which omit, in like manner, the signs for the vowels. The regularity of structure which belongs to the Shemitic languages generally, makes this omission less inconvenient for them than a like omission would be for us in our western tongues.

4. During the long Babylonish captivity the ma.s.s of the Jewish people, who were born and educated in Babylon and the adjacent regions, adopted of necessity the language of the country; that is, the Aramaean or Chaldee language. After the exile, the Hebrew was indeed spoken and written by the prophets and learned men, but not by the people at large.

In Nehemiah 8:8 we are told that "they read in the book in the law of G.o.d distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." This has been explained by some as meaning simply that they expounded to them the sense. But the more natural meaning is that they _interpreted_ to the people the words read from the law. We find, soon after the captivity at least, the old Hebrew supplanted as a living language among the people at large by the Aramaean or Chaldee. Why not date the change from the latter part of the captivity itself?

It was natural that the prophets and historians, all of whom wrote soon after the exile, should employ the sacred language of their fathers.

This fact cannot be adduced as a valid argument that the body of the people continued to speak Hebrew. The incorporation, on the other hand, of long pa.s.sages in Chaldee into the books of Daniel and Ezra implies at least that this language was known to the people at large. As to the children spoken of in Neh. 13:24, who "could not speak in the Jews'

language, but according to the language of each people"--the people, to wit, to which their mothers belonged--"the Jews' language" here is probably the language used by the Jews, as distinguished from that used by the people of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. Keil, Introduction to Old Testament, -- 18.

5. After the Hebrew had ceased to be the language of the common people, its traditional p.r.o.nunciation was carefully preserved for many successive centuries in the synagogue-reading. It was not till several centuries after Christ (somewhere between the sixth and the tenth centuries) that the vowel-signs and other marks of distinction were added in order to perpetuate, with all possible accuracy, the solemn traditional p.r.o.nunciation of the synagogue. This work is ascribed to learned Jews of Tiberias, called _Masoretes_, from _Masora_, _tradition_; and the Hebrew text thus furnished by them is called the _Masoretic_, in distinction from the _unpointed_ text, which latter is, according to Jewish usage, retained in the synagogue-rolls. From reverence to the word of G.o.d, the _punctuators_ (as these men are also called) left the primitive text in all cases undisturbed, simply superadding to it their marks of distinction. After giving with great minuteness the different _vowel-signs_ and marks (commonly called _diacritical_) for the varying p.r.o.nunciation of the consonants, they superadded a complicated system of _accents_. These serve the threefold office of guides in _cantillating_ the sacred text (according to ancient usage in the synagogue-reading); of indicating the _connection in meaning_ among the words and clauses; and of marking, though with certain exceptions, the _tone-syllables_ of words. In addition to all the above, they added a ma.s.s of _notes_, partly of a critical and partly of a grammatical character, relating to various readings, grammatical forms and connections, modes of orthography, and the like. These are called collectively the _Masorah_, of which there is a fuller Masorah called the _greater_ (found only in Rabbinical Bibles), and a briefer, called the _less_, the main part of which is found in common editions of the Hebrew Bible. To ill.u.s.trate the _Masoretic_ as contrasted with the _unpointed_ text, we give the first verse of Genesis, _first_, in its simple unpointed form; _secondly_, with the vowel-signs and diacritical marks for the consonants; _thirdly_, with both these and the accents, the last being the complete Masoretic text.

[Hebrew: br's.h.i.t br' 'lhim et hshmym vet h'rts]

[Hebrew: bere's.h.i.t bara' 'elohim et hashamayim veet ha'arets]

[Hebrew: o bere's.h.i.t bara' 'elohim et hashamayim veet ha'arets]

_ha-arets. ve-eth ha.s.shamayim eth elohim bara Beres.h.i.th

the-earth. and-it the heavens them G.o.d created In-the-beginning_

The round circle above the initial letter in the third line refers to a marginal _note of the Masorah_ indicating that it is to be written _large_.

Respecting the origin and antiquity of the Hebrew points a warm controversy existed in former times. Some maintained that they were coeval with the language itself; others that they were first introduced by Ezra after the Babylonish captivity. But their later origin--somewhere between the sixth and tenth centuries--is now generally conceded. It is further agreed that their inventors were able scholars, thoroughly acquainted as well with the genius and structure of the language as with the traditional p.r.o.nunciation of the synagogue; and that they have given a faithful representation of this p.r.o.nunciation, as it existed in their day. Their judgment, therefore, though not invested with any divine authority, is very valuable. "It represents a tradition, it is true; but a tradition of the oldest and most important character."

Horne's Introduction, vol. 2, p. 15, edition of 1860.

6. The deep reverence of the Jews for their sacred books manifests itself in their numerous rules for the guidance of copyists in the transcription of the rolls designed for use in the synagogue service.

They extend to every minute particular--the quality of the ink and the parchment (which latter must always be prepared by a Jew from the skin of a clean animal, and fastened by strings made from the skins of clean animals); the number, length, and breadth of the columns; the number of lines in each column, and the number of words in each line. No word must be written till the copyist has first inspected it in the example before him, and p.r.o.nounced it aloud; before writing the name of G.o.d he must wash his pen; all redundance or defect of letters must be carefully avoided: prose must not be written as verse, or verse as prose; and when the copy has been completed, it must be examined for approval or rejection within thirty days. Superst.i.tious, and even ridiculous, as these rules are, we have in them a satisfactory a.s.surance of the fidelity with which the sacred text has been perpetuated. Though their date may be posterior to the age of the Talmudists (between 200 and 500 after Christ), the spirit of reverence for the divine word which they manifest goes far back beyond this age. We see it, free from these later superst.i.tious observances, in the transactions recorded in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah, when Ezra opened the book of the law in the sight of all the people, "and when he opened it, all the people stood up." The early history of the sacred text is confessedly involved in great obscurity; but in the profound reverence with which the Jews have ever regarded it since the captivity, we have satisfactory proof that it has come down to us, in all essential particulars, as Ezra left it. Of the primitive text before the days of Ezra and his a.s.sociates we have but a few brief notices in the historical books. But in the fidelity and skill of Ezra, who was "a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord G.o.d of Israel had given," as well as in the intelligence and deep earnestness of the men a.s.sociated with him, we have a reasonable ground of a.s.surance that the sacred books which have come down to us through their hands contain, in all essential particulars, the primitive text in a pure and uncorrupt form.

7. As to the _age_ of Hebrew ma.n.u.scripts, it is to be noticed that not many have come down to us from an earlier century than the twelfth. In this respect there is a striking difference between them and the Greek and Latin ma.n.u.scripts of the New Testament, a few of which are as old as the fourth and fifth centuries, and quite a number anterior to the tenth. The oldest known Hebrew ma.n.u.script, on the contrary, is a Pentateuch roll on leather, now at Odessa, which, if the subscription stating that it was _corrected_ in the year 580 can be relied on, belongs to the sixth century. One of De Rossi's ma.n.u.scripts is supposed to belong to the eighth century, and there are a few of the ninth and tenth, and several of the eleventh. Bishop Walton supposes that after the Masoretic text was fully settled, the Jewish rulers condemned, as profane and illegitimate, all the older ma.n.u.scripts not conformed to this: whence, after a few ages, the rejected copies mostly perished. The existing Hebrew ma.n.u.scripts give the Masoretic text with but little variation from each other.

Earnest effort has been made to find a reliable ante-Masoretic text, but to no purpose. The search in China has thus far been fruitless. When Dr.

Buchanan in 1806 brought from India a synagogue-roll which he found among the Jews of Malabar, high expectations were raised. But it is now conceded to be a Masoretic roll, probably of European origin. Respecting the ma.n.u.scripts of the _Samaritan_ Pentateuch, see below, No. 9.

(A synagogue-roll has recently been discovered in the Crimea of the date answering to A.D. 489. See Alexander's Kitto, vol. 3, pp. 1172-5.)

8. In respect to _form_, Hebrew ma.n.u.scripts fall into two great divisions, _public_ and _private_. The public ma.n.u.scripts consist of _synagogue-rolls_ carefully written out on parchment, as already described, without vowel-points or divisions of verses. The Law is written on a single roll; the sections from the prophets (Haphtaroth, ch. 12. 6) and the Five Rolls--Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther (ch. 12. 4)--each on separate rolls. The private ma.n.u.scripts are written _with leaves_ in book form--folio, quarto, octavo, and duodecimo; mostly on parchment, but some of the later on paper. The poetical pa.s.sages are generally arranged in hemistichs; the rest is in columns which vary according to the size of the page. The text and points were always written separately; the former with a heavier, the latter with a lighter pen, and generally with different ink. The square or a.s.syrian character is employed as a rule, but a few are written in the rabbinic character. The Chaldee paraphrase (less frequently some other version) may be added. The margin contains more or less of the Masorah; sometimes prayers, psalms, rabbinical commentaries, etc.

9. There is also a _Samaritan Pentateuch_; that is, a Hebrew Pentateuch written in the ancient Samaritan characters, and first brought to light in 1616, respecting the origin of which very different opinions are held. Some suppose that the Samaritans received it as an inheritance from the ten tribes; others that it was introduced at the time of the founding of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim; others that it was brought by the Israelitish priest sent to instruct the Samaritans in the knowledge of G.o.d, 2 Kings 17:27, 28. It is agreed among biblical scholars that its text has been subjected to many alterations which greatly impair its critical authority. These, however, are not sufficient to account for its remarkable agreement with the Septuagint version against the Masoretic text, in numerous readings, some of them of importance. The explanation of this phenomenon must be the agreement of the original Samaritan codex with the ma.n.u.scripts from which the Alexandrine version was executed. Probably both were of Egyptian origin.

See Alexander's Kitto, art. Samaritan Pentateuch.

In a brief compend, like the present work, it is not thought necessary to notice particularly the _printed_ editions of the Hebrew Bible. The reader will find an account of them in the "Bibliographical List"

appended to the fourth volume of Horne's Introduction, edition of 1860.

The text of Van der Hooght's Hebrew Bible, (Amsterdam and Utrecht, 1705,) which was chiefly based on the earlier text of Athias, (Amsterdam, 1667,) is generally followed at the present day, and may be regarded as the received text of the Hebrew Scriptures.

CHAPTER XV.

FORMATION AND HISTORY OF THE HEBREW CANON.

1. The Greek word _canon_ (originally a _straight rod or pole_, _measuring-rod_, then _rule_) denotes that collection of books which the churches receive as given by inspiration of G.o.d, and therefore as const.i.tuting for them a divine rule of faith and practice. To the books included in it the term _canonical_ is applied. The Canon of the Old Testament, considered in reference to its const.i.tuent parts, was formed gradually; formed under divine superintendence by a process of growth extending through many centuries. The history of its formation may be conveniently considered under the following divisions: (1,) the _Pentateuch_; (2,) the _historical_ books; (3,) the _prophetical_ books in the stricter sense of the term; (4,) a somewhat miscellaneous collection of books which may be designated in a general way as _poetical_.

I. THE PENTATEUCH.

2. In the name applied to the Pentateuch--"the book of the law," and more fully, "the book of the law of Moses," "the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel"--we have from the beginning the general idea of the canon. A canonical writing is one that contains a communication from G.o.d to men, and has therefore the impress of divine authority. In its outward form it may be preceptive, historical, or meditative. But in all these different modes it still reveals to men G.o.d's character, and the duties which he requires of them. The Hebrews never admitted to the number of their sacred books a writing that was secular in its character. Even those who deny the canonical authority of certain parts of the Old Testament acknowledge that the Jews received these parts because they believed them to be of a sacred character.

3. In Deut. 31:9-13, 24-26; 17:18, 19, we read: "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy G.o.d in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your G.o.d, and observe to do all the words of this law: and that their children which have not known anything, may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your G.o.d, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it:" "and it came to pa.s.s, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side" (that is, not _within_, but _by the side_.

Compare Josh. 12:9; Ruth 2:14; 1 Sam. 20:25; Psa. 91:7; where the same word is used in the original) "of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your G.o.d, that it may be there for a witness against thee;" "and it shall be when he"--the king whom the Israelites in some future age shall set over themselves--"sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the Lord his G.o.d, to keep all the words of this law and the statutes, to do them."

These pa.s.sages are of the weightiest import; for they teach us how the _nucleus_ of the canon of the Old Testament was formed, and give us all the particulars that enter into the idea of a canonical writing. It is given by G.o.d as an authoritative rule of faith and practice; it is committed to the custody of his people through their recognized officers, and that for all future time; it is to be published to the people at large, and diligently studied by the rulers, that they and the people together may know and do the will of G.o.d. It is not necessary to decide the question how much is included in the words "this book of the law," Deut. 31:26, whether the whole Pentateuch, or only the book of Deuteronomy. The arguments to show that the four preceding books came, in all essential respects, from the pen of Moses have been already given (Ch. 9, Nos. 7-9), and need not be here repeated. We only add that even if the reference is to Deuteronomy alone, as some suppose, the rule for this book would naturally be the rule for all the previous writings.

They also would be laid up by the side of the ark; for it is plain that the priests and Levites, who had charge of the sanctuary, were made the keepers of the sacred writings generally.

As a matter of simple convenience the book of Deuteronomy was written on a separate roll ("in a book," Deut. 31:24). But if this book, when finished, was laid up with the earlier portions of the law at the side of the ark, so as to const.i.tute with them a single collection, and if, as we may reasonably suppose, Moses, in writing the book of Deuteronomy, contemplated such a collection of all the parts of the law into one whole; then, when the law is mentioned, whether in Deuteronomy or in the later books, we are to understand the whole law, unless there be something in the context to limit its meaning, as there is, for example, in Joshua 8:32 compared with Deut. 27:1-8. The command to "read this law before all Israel in their hearing," "at the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,"

was understood in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah of the whole law, and not of Deuteronomy alone (Ch. 9, No. 4); and so Josephus plainly understood it: "But when the mult.i.tude is a.s.sembled in the holy city at the septennial sacrifices on the occasion of the feast of tabernacles, let the high priest, standing on a lofty stage whence he can be plainly heard, read the laws to all." Antiq. 4.8, 12. "The laws," in the usage of Josephus, naturally mean the whole collection of laws.

II. THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

4. The history of these is involved in obscurity. In respect to most of them we know not the authors, nor the exact date of their composition.

There are, however, two notices that shed much light on the general history of the earlier historical books. In the last chapter of the book of Joshua, after an account of the renewal of the covenant at Shechem, it is added: "And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of G.o.d, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak that was by the sanctuary of the Lord." Josh. 24:26. Again, upon the occasion of the establishment of the kingdom under Saul, we are told that "Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord." 1 Sam. 10:25. From the first of these pa.s.sages we learn that a theocratic man after Moses, who had the spirit of prophecy, connected his writings (or at least one portion of them) with the law. This addition by Joshua, though never formally regarded as a part of the law, virtually belonged to it, since it contained a renewal of the covenant between G.o.d and his people. From the second pa.s.sage we learn that the place for other important doc.u.ments pertaining to the theocracy was "before the Lord," where the law was deposited.

Hence we infer with much probability that, besides the addition made to "the book of the law of G.o.d," important historical writings, proceeding from prophetical men, like Joshua and Samuel, were in process of collection at the sanctuary all the time from Moses to Samuel.

5. If now we examine the books of Joshua and Judges, we must be satisfied that the men who compiled them made use of such materials. In the book of Joshua is recorded, with much detail, the allotment of the land of Canaan among the several tribes. A doc.u.ment of this nature must have been written at the time, and by Joshua himself, or under his immediate direction. The same may be reasonably supposed of other portions of the book. If then it was put into its present form after the death of Joshua, as some suppose, the materials must still have been furnished by him to a great extent. The book of Judges covers a period of more than three centuries. Who composed it we do not know, but the materials employed by him must have existed, in part at least, in a written form. The book of Ruth may be regarded as an appendix to that of the Judges.

6. The two books of Samuel (which originally const.i.tuted one whole) bring down the history of the Theocracy from the birth of Samuel to the close of David's reign--a period of about a century and a half. The author, therefore, can have been, upon any supposition, only in part contemporary with the events which he records. Yet if we examine the biographical sketches of Saul, Samuel, and David contained in these books, the conviction forces itself upon us that they must have been written by contemporaries. Their freshness, minute accuracy of detail, and graphic vividness of style mark them as coming from eye-witnesses, or from writers who had received their accounts from eye-witnesses. Who were authors of these original doc.u.ments we cannot determine. It is certain that Samuel was one of them. 1 Chron. 29:29. Who composed the books, again, is a question that we are unable to answer. It was probably a prophet living not very long after the separation of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. From the days of Samuel and onward there was a flourishing school of the prophets at hand which could furnish, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, both the writers of the original materials and the author of the books in their present form.

The attempt has been made to set aside the evidence that the writer of the books of Samuel made use of earlier doc.u.ments, from the example of such men as Swift and Defoe, who composed works of fiction with all the simplicity and circ.u.mstantial detail of those who write authentic history as eye-witnesses. But, unless the design be to cla.s.s the books of Samuel with "Gulliver's Travels" and "Robinson Crusoe," the argument is wholly irrelevant. With Swift and Defoe simplicity and minuteness of detail were a matter of conscious effort--_a work of art_, for which they naturally chose the region of fiction; and here they, and other men of genius, have been eminently successful. Shakespeare has portrayed _ideal_ scenes in the life of Julius Caesar with more vividness and circ.u.mstantiality than any authentic historian of Caesar's age. But _real history_, written simply in the interest of truth, never has the graphic character, artless simplicity, and circ.u.mstantiality of detail which belong to these inimitable narratives, unless the writer be either an eye-witness, or draw his materials from eye-witnesses.