In examining jMSS. and comparing their characteristic readings, it is not ca.sy in every instance to arrive at the true original form
l^ ^'^u*} ^^^- ^"-*'"-'^' ""'^ (•"utain.'! Acts xiii", 18-20 (Scrivener p Tgs' Tal;,. i i" a*>Q^'^- ^' <■'■'"" "•''•l«'a" Evnugelistary, No. S.-^O, contains John 1, 1-^3 (Scrivener, p. 157, No." 115"). Pig. 4, from Burnev Lec- tiouary, 22, contains John i, 1-3 (Scrivener, p. 220, No "'yiorvj
be taken into accoimt, and many cautions to be observed. They arc more useful in de- tecting interpolated passages than in restor-
MAOCH
(29
MAPLETOFT
ing the correct reading. The reading of an older MS. is preferable cceteris paribus. In determining the age of a MS. internal marks are chiefly followed, such as the form of the letters, the divisions, abbreviations, the nature of the lines, the presence or absence of the accents, etc. These particulars, however, are not safe criteria. Age alone is not sufficient to insure the value of the text of a MS. The copyist may have been guilty of negligence or inattention. In proportion to his accuracy or carelessness the authority of the codex will be greater or less. Again, a document certainly copied from one which is very an- cient will have greater authority than an earlier taken from another of no great antiquity. Thus a MS. of the eii/hth century may have been directly copied from one of the ,fift/i, and consequently the former will be entitled to greater estimation than one belonging to the 7th century transcribed from one of the Gth. In deter- mining the value of a codex, it is usual to refer to the country where it was written. Griesbach and others pre- fer the African ; Scholz, the Constantinopolitan. Those written in Egypt are the best. With respect to He- brew MSS.. it is admitted by all that the Spanish are the best. The Italian, again, arc superior to tlie Ger- man. The reading contained in the greater number of MSS. is preferable to that of a less number. ]\[ere ma- joritij. however, is not a safe criterion. A majority arising from independeut sources, or, in other words, of those belonging to different recensions, can alone be re- lied on as decisive. But here critics are not agreed as to the number of recensions belonging to Greek MSS. Some have proposed four, some three, others two. Be- sides, the same MS. may belong to a different recension m different parts of itself. In others, the characteristic readings of two or three recensions are mingled togeth- er, rendering it difficult to determine which recension or family prejionderates. Hebrew i\ISS. belong to one and the same recension. It is true that some have distin- guished them into ]\[asoretic and Ante-masoretic, but the existence of the lattey is a mere fiction. One great family alone, viz. the Miisorefic, can be distinctly' traced. Since the time of Lachmann's first edition, greater im- portance has been attached by N.-T. critics to the age of MSS. It has been the object of his followers in the same department to adhere for the most part to the old- est copies. This is right within certain limits. The true text of the N. T., as far as ;ve can now obtain it, lies in the MSS. of the 4th till the 8th centuries, accom- panied and modified by the testimony of ancient ver- sions and fathers during that period. But within this period we can easily distinguish MSS. of a second order in goodness, viz. E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, from those of the first class, X, A, B, C, Z (see Davidson's Biblical Criticism, vol. ii). See Ckiticism, Biblical.
Ma'och (Heb. Maoh', ~i"'9, comjwessed; Sept. Afij.u'i\,\v\Q. Mnocli), the father of the Achish king of Gath to whom David repaired for safety (1 Sam. xxvii, 2). B.C. ante 1054. By many he has been confounded with the Maacaii of 1 Kings ii, 39. See Achish.
Ma'on (Heb. Mnijn', '|1"'0, habitation, as often; Sept. M«(.ji'), the name of a man and of a place. See also Maoxite.
1. The son of Shammai, of the tribe of Judah and famil}' of Caleb, and the " father" (i. e. founder) of Beth- zur (1 Chron, ii, 45). B.C. prob. post 1(518.
2. A to\TO in the tribe of .Tudah (Josh, xv, 55). which gave name to a wilderness (i)art of the desert of .Judiea), where David hid himself from Saul, and around which the churlish Nabal had great possessions (1 Sam. xxiii, 24, 25; XXV, 2). Josephus calls it Emma ('E/(jU«, Ant. vi, 13, 6). Eusebius and Jerome place it to the east of Daroma {Onomast. s. v. Marwr, ]\Iaon). Irby and Man- gles were in the neighborhood in 1818. but did not de- tect this and other ancient names. Kobinson finds it in the present Main, which is about seven miles south by east from Hebron. Here there is a conical hill about
200 feet high, on the top of which are some ruins of no great extent, consisting of foundations of hewn stone, a scpiare enclosure, the remains probably of a tower or castle, and several cisterns. The view from the sum- mit is extensive. The traveller found here a band of peasants keeping their flocks, and dwelling in caves amid the ruins {Bibl. Researches, ii, 190-190). With this identification De Saulcy {Narrative, i, 441) and Schwarz {Palestine, p. 100) agree. See Meiiuni.^i.