The oldest Hebrew MS. at present known be longs to A. D. no6 (No. 15.4 of Kennicott). It is true that some others are supposed to be older, but simply by conjecture. As far as certainty is concerned, this is certainly the oldest. Loehnis (Grundzfige der Biblischen Hermeneutik und Kritik, Giessen, 18,39) affirms that some reach as far back as the eighth century, an assertion grounded merely on the conjecture of De Rossi and Kennicott. So much uncertainty attaches to the internal marks adopted by these two Hebra ists, that the ages to which they assign several Hebrew MSS. are quite gratuitous. No Hebrew MS. possessing an indubitably accurate register of its antiquity, goes farther back than the twelfth century (see the third sectionof Tychsen's Mac men dc variis Codicunt Hebraicorum Vet. Test. MSS. generibus, etc., Rostock, 1772, 8vo, in which the learned writer examines the marks of antiquity assumed by Simon, Jablonski, Wolf, Houbigant, Kennicott, and Lilienthal, and shows that the Masora alone is a certain index for determining the age and goodness of Hebrew MSS).
Private MSS. written in the Rabbinical char acter are much more recent than the preced ing; none of them being older than soo years. They are on cotton or linen paper, in a cursive character, without vowel-points or the Masora, and with many abbreviations.
The MSS. found among the Chinese Jews are partly synagogue rolls, partly private copies, whose text does not differ from the Masoretic. The Pentateuch of the NIalabar Jews brought from India to England by the late Dr. Buchanan, and described by Mr. Yates, resembles on the whole the usual synagogue rolls of the Jews, ex cept that it is written on red skin. Its text is the Masoretic, with a few unimportant devia tions.
Eight exemplars are celebrated among the Jews for their correctness and value. They are now lost, but extracts from them are still pre served. From Jewish writings, and from the margin of some MSS., where a reference is made to them, we learn that they were highly prized for their singular accuracy. They formed the basis of subsequent copies. They are: (i ) The codex of Hillel; (2) the Babylonian codex; (3) the codex of Israel; (4) an Egyptian codcx ; (5) codex Sinai; (6) the Pentateuch of Jericho; (7) codex Sanbuki; (8) the book Taggin. For a more copious account of Hcbrew MSS. we refer to Eichhorn's Einleitung (Introduction), vol. ii.; Kennicott's Dissertatio gencralis; Walton's Pro legomena to the Polyglott, which have bcen sepa rately edited hy Dathe and Wrangham:. Tychsen's Tentamcn; De Rossi's Voria. Lechoncs Vet. Test. etc.; and his Scholia critica in V. T. llbros, etc.; De Wette, Lchrbuclz der Historisch-K.rit ischen Einleitung; and Davidson's Lectures on Biblical Criticism, in which last the best books are pointed out.
2. Manuscripts of the Greek Testament. Those that have descended to our time are either on vellum or paper. The oldest mate rial was the Egyptian papyrus; but even so early as the fourth century, the New Testament waE written on the skins of animals. This writ ing material continued in use till the eleventh century, when paper began to be employed. Till the tenth century, MSS. were usually written in capita/ or uncial letters; then the cursive charac ter came into use. The most ancient copies have
no divisions of words, being written in a con tinued series of lines. Accents, breathings, and iota subscript are also wanting.
The whole New Testament is contained in very few MSS. Transcribers generally divided it into three parts; the first containing the four gospels; the second, the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles; the third, the Apocalypse of St. John. The greatest number of MSS. are those which have the four gospels, because they were most frequently read in the churches. Those containing the Acts and epistles are also nu merous. Such as have the book of Revelation alone are extremely few, because it was seldom read in public.
A. Codex Alexandrinus, presented by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Alexandria, and afterwards of Constantinople, to Charles I, now in the British Museum. lt contains the whole Bible, the Sep tuagint version of the Old Testament in three folios, and the New Testament in one. It has various chasms. A facsimile of the New Tes tament portion was published by Dr. lAroide, in a folio volume, London, 1786. Mr. Baber of the British Museum executed the Old Testament in the same manner, in four folio volumes, London, r8io. This MS. was probably written at Alex andria, and belongs to the fifth century.
B. Codex Vaticanus, 1209, in the Vatican Li brary at Rome, containing the Old and New Tes taments. It is defective in several places; and portions have been supplied by a modern hand. Hug has proved that it belongs to the middle of the fourth century. In regard to the internal value of its readings, it is probably superior to the Codex Alexandrinus.
C. Codex Regius, or Ephracini.—This is a rescript or palimpsest MS., i. c. the ancient writ ing has been erased to make room for some other. The works of Ephrem the Syrian were over the original. In endeavoring to ascertain the charac ter of what was first written on the parchment, and washing off the latter letters, it was found that the NIS. contained originally the Old and New Testaments in Greek. In many places it is so faded as to be illegible. There are numerous chasms in it. Several forms of words seem to in dicate that it was written in Egypt: it probably belongs to the sixth century, and is now in the Royal Library at Paris, where it is inarked D. Codex Cantabrigiensis, or Becw.—This NIS. was presented, in 1581, to the University of Cam bridge, by Theodore Beza. It is a Greek-Latin MS. of the four gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, with a single fragment of the Catholic epistles. Its age is probably the seventh tury, though many have assigned it to the fifth. Kipling, Hug, and Scholz think that it was writ ten in Egypt; but Scholz has given some reasons for assigning it to the south of France, which are not without weight. Credner assents to the latter opinion, as far as the MS. is concerned, while he thinks that the text is of Jewish-Chris tian origin, and attributes it to Palestine. Great diversity of opinion has prevailed respecting the quality of its readings. Bishop Middleton, at the end of his work on the Greek article, depre ciated it. Mattluei had done so before. Both have unduly lessened its value. Dr. Kipling pub lished a facsimile of it at Cambridge, 1793, 2 vols. folio.