2. From the close of the canon till the destruction of Yerusalenz.—The state of the Hebrew text at the time when the Alexandrine version was made, cannot be accurately determined, because of the condition in which the version now exists. At present that translation is very corrupt. We only possess copies of the text of the in its de teriorated state. Under existing circumstances all that can be done is to take a certain text of the LXX. as approaching nearest to the original one, and from it to judge of the Hebrew text when first translated into Greek. With all the variations of the Septuagint from the Hebrew that must be attributed to transcribers, many should be taken as original.
3. From the downfall of the yewish state till the final establishment of the Masoretic text. —Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, though departing from the Masoretic text, do not disagree with it to the extent of the LXX. Josephus appears to have commonly used the Septuagint, not the Hebrew.
The text lying at the basis of the Peshito is sub stantially the Masoretic one. Yet there are many departures from it. Not a few readings better than the present Hebrew text exhibits, are sanc tioned by the Syriac. In some cases it approaches the text of the LXX.
From correct Palestinian copies flowed the Chaldee versions of Onkelos and Jonathan. The copies which were the source of the Masoretic text were also tile basis of these paraphrases. In the Hebrew column of Origen's Hexapla we find a text allied to the Masoretic. In the fourth cen tury Jerome employed Jewish teachers of Pales tine. MSS. of the same land formed the basis of his Latin version, whose text is very nearly con formable to the recension we now have.
From the second century and onward an in creasing number of writers busied themselves with oral explanations of the law and the systematic collection of them, afterwards called Mishna, from nzi, to repeat. It is supposed that Rabbi Judah, surnamed the holy (died 190, wrote out the Mishna for the first time. The two Genzaras subsequently appended to the Mishna by way of commen taries, viz., the Babylonian and the Jerusalem, make up with it the Talmuds known as the Babylonian and Jerusalem Tulmuds. They be long to the fifth and fourth centuries respec tively. In them we discern many traces of critical skill applied to the preservation of a pure text. Different readings in MSS. are mentioned ; precepts are given respecting biblical calligraphy ; and true readings are restored. By far the most important fact which they present is certain kinds or classes of critical corrections made at an earlier period, and which Morinus (Exercitationes p. 4oS) justly calls the fragments or vestiges of censions. These are—(t) 041]1D Ablatio scribarum. (2) n415ID oP'11 seri barium. (3) Punita extraordizzaria. (4) 161 41p n+nn K'ri K'thib. (5) n4117 v'lo K'ri. (6) The Talmud also mention's different readings which the Masoretes call v-ip uk'thib.
The writings of Jerome afford evidence, that, in the fourth century, the Hebrew text was with out vowel-points and even diacritic signs.
The learned Jews, especially those at Tiberias, where there was a famous school till the eleventh century, continued to occupy themselves with the Hebrew language and the criticism of the O. T The observations of preceding Rabbis were en larged, new remarks were r..ade, and a vowel system was invented, the origin of which can hardly be placed earlier than the sixth century. The name Masora has usually been applied to that grammatico-historical tradition, which, having been handed down orally for some centuries, be came afterwards so extensive as to require its com mittal to writing. Much of what is contained in the Masora also exists in the Talmud. Part of it, howeVer, is older than the Talmud, though not reduced to its present form till a much later period. The various observations comprised in the Masora were at first written in separate books, of which there are MSS. extant. Afterwards they were put in the margin of the Bible MSS.
When we speak of the Masoretic recension of the text, it is not meant that the Masoretes gave a certain form to the text itself, or that they un dertook and executed a new revision. They made the textus receptus of that day the basis of their remarks, and gave their sentiments concerning it. Had the text been altered in every case where they recommend ; had it been made conformable to their ideas of what it should be, it would have been appropriate to have called it the Masoretic recension. The designation, however, though not applicable in strictness, is customary.
The most important part of the Masora consists of the marginal readings or K'ris, which the Masoretes always preferred to the textual, and the later Jews have commonly adopted. The K'ris are critical, grammatical, orthographical, explana tory, and euphemistic. It has been a subject of dispute among scholars from what source the Masoretes derived the K'ris. It is highly probable that they were generally taken from MSS. and Inzdition, though they may have been in part the offspring of conjecture. It is but reasonable to suppose that these scholars sometimes gave the re sult of their own judgment. In addition to the K'ris the Masora contains an enlargement of criti cal remarks found in the Talmud. Besides, the verses, words, and consonants of the different books of the Bible are counted ; a task unparalleled in point of minute labour, though comparatively unprofitable. The application of the Masora in the criticism of the O. T. is difficult, because its text has fallen into great disorder. Some pages of it first appeared in the Rabbinical Bible of Born berg superintended by Felix Pratensis. In the second Rabbinical Bible of Bomberg, R. Jacob Ben Chayim bestowed considerable care on the printing of the Masora.