The Masoretic.— The earliest text of at least the oldest Old Testament Scriptures was in the Canaanite Script (called Rdats,* or Libona'ah by the Rabbis), of which six lines dating apparently from Hezekiah's reign (ca. 700 p.c.), discovered (1880) in a tunnel of the Siloam pool, resemble that of the Moabite Stone, though slightly more cursive.. The oldest known specimen of what developed into the present Aramaic script (kethob, called by the Rabbis tnerubbd, square, or Asshuri, Assyrian) is a single word of five letters, discovered at Araq-al-amir (fortner castle of Hyrcanus, east of Jordan), dating from 176 a.c. Somewhere about this time the portions of the Old Testament then existent were copied from the Canaanite-Moabite form into the oldest form of square script. It was impossible that minor mistakes of copying should not creep in, and as many copies were doubtless made, a somewhat uncertain form of text must have resulted. Whence, then, came the standard consonantal Hebrew text? From a critical comparison of various copies? By no means! Some one copy was adopted, what one we know not, for reasons also un-.. known. This text thus chosen was long after ward regarded as sacrosanct, not to be al tered in a single Jod ("or tittk," keraia, "horn," is apparently interpolated, Mt. v. 18). As the ancient holy tongue sank lower in the consciousness of the people, the guardians of tradition (Massorah) devoted themselves to preserving the text inviolable not only in let ters but also in pronunciation, and according ly- from the 5th century on they intervocalized the text with a system of vowel signs (de rived from the Syrian?),— as if we should write permanent or prominent or preeminent — at the same time interpunctuating with an elaborate system of signs as guides to proper cantillation. Thus they superposed a vowel text upon the adopted consonants and there with established for millenniums an interpre tation thereof. Moreover, they not only vocal ized, but also verbalized, for the earliest manu scripts were doubtless written continuously without any evident division into words, as if thus: Yhyhthstsrcchnndknntm (Yahveh, thou hast searched me and know me).—Three sys tems of such signs are now known, Babylonian, Palestinian, Tiberian, developed between 500 and 900 A.D. But much earlier a number of so-called vowel letters (consonants tending to quiesce into vowels, as in English draw, dray, from drag; plow, though, etc.) had been intro duced as guides to vocalization, though form ing no part of the earlier text, so that wher ever such a letter is present the question may be raised, Is it original or a Masoretic in sertion? The oldest dated manuscript of this so-called Masoretic Text (denoted by MT) is the Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus of 916 A.D., but a very few others may be a century older. In any case it would seem that the Masorites have handed down with remarkable accuracy and fidelity the text that had estab lished itself with the sturdy Rabbi Aqiba (d. 132 A.D.). Where they felt called on to sug gest a new reading, they did so by keeping the old consonants (the g'thiv,)) written) and writing with them the vowels of the suggested consonants written in the margin and called Q're (legend, to be read). They also made many other minor emendations of little inter est except as evidence of painstaking study and unspealcable devotion.
Variants.— But before Hadrian's time or the death of Aqiba, there was no small diver sity in the numerous copies of the sacred ccm sonantal undivided text, a fact attested in many ways. VVhat copy Aqiba chose and why he chose it, no one knows; perhaps it was merely the best written that was accessible. We may be stire there was no critical adjust ment of contesting. claims, for the means thereto were wanting. Accordingly, to rely on the printed pointed text is to rely on a Masoretic interpretation of an unIcnown square Hebrew copy of an unknown cursive Canaan ite text. It is not strange that Protestant scholarship, represented especially by the Swiss lexicbgraphers, the Buxtorfs,* long held to the inspiration and divine authority of the Masoretic points as well as of the consonantal text; for it seemed to be the sheet anchor of the whole doctrine of verbal inspiration,— a position long since abandoned. It now seems
to be no radicalism but merely common sense when Kittel in the Preface to his (Biblia He braica) raises at the start the question whether to attempt a continuous emended text (such as may have existed 300 or 100 a.c.) or to use the Masoretic as the base, subjoining emenda tions in footnotes. Though he decides for the latter, the former remains the goal of further study.
Septuagint.— The means that help mightily forward are the existing versions in other tongues. Made at various periods over a 'long stretch of time, these are now considered in valuable in establishing the pre-Christian He brew text. Oldest and most authoritative is the so-called Septuagint (LXX), so named from the story related at much length in the romantic 'Letter of Aristeas,' of how Ptolbmy Philadelphus (283-247 ac), at the suggestion of his librarian, Demetrius Phalereus, wishing to gather all literature into his library at Alex andria, called by embassy on the Jews for their sacred books in a Greek translation, and how the High Priest Eleazer at Jerusalem re plied by sending him 72 experts, six from each tribe (as requested), who were then, after preliminary seven days' symposium, dismissed each to his own hut on the Island of Pharos, where each made independently his transla tion, and finally on comparison it was found they all agreed exactly, whereupon, by unani mous approval of Alexandrian Jews, the trans lation was proclaimed canonic, henceforth to be received as authoritative, with a curse against any modification (as in Rev. ,xxii, 18, 19).
Its Origin and Character.— Back of this extravagance (describing everything as in describable), which indeed refers to the Law only and is marked at every step by ample arch aological knowledge and a plentiful display of local color, there may lie some semblance of the fact that there was a felt need for a Greek translation of the Scriptures, felt however among the Jews themselves, though their in struction in Holy Writ was oral, and the trans lation may have begun as early as 260 s.c. and extended slowly from book to book through two or three hundred years. The presence of many hands is indeed not doubted, the charac ter of the version varies within wide limits in different sections: Sometimes it is almost word for word, as in the Song of Songs, in Chronicles, in Ecclesiastes; again, it is exceed ing loose, with considerable apparent additions, i as in Daniel and Job. The more narrative pore tions, especially the Pentateuch, seem to be rendered best, while the chief Prophet, Isaiah, has suffered most. The change in style be comes most notable on comparing younger with older portions. In general there is fair agree merit with the MT, which, however, does not exclude disagreement at countless points ta in definite extent. In the Pentateuch the conform ity is in general good, but toward the close of Exodus (cc. 35-40) the departures grow wide and frequent, both in words and arrangement, an indication of late composition, the text hav ing not then attained a fixed form (p. 614)). Still more marked the divergencies in Samuel, Kings, Job, Proverbs (particularly in the or der, the Prophets, as Ezekiel, and most of all Jeremiah, eremiah, where many chapters are differ ently numbered, with a total of some 2,700 words wanting. Such variations show clearly that another Hebrew text, in general shorter than the Masoretic, underlay the Septuagint, which indicates that in the border centuries (150 ac. to 150 a.n.) the Holy Writ was still alive and undergoing development. Occasion ally the translators ventured to go beyond the (present) Hebrew text; thus they added con siderable to Daniel, from what Hebrew orig inal, if any, cannot be said.