There is reason to think that in the text of the O. T., as originally written, the words were generally, though not uniformly, divided. Of the Phoenician inscriptions, though the majority proceed continuousU', some have a point after each word, except when the words are closely connected. The same point is used in the Sa-
maritan manuscripts; and it is observed by Gesenius (a high authority in respect to the Samaritan Penta- teuch) that the Samaritan and Jewish divisions of the words generally coincide. The discrepancy between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint in this respect is sufficiently explained by the circumstance that the Jew- ish scribes did not separate the words which were closely connected : it is in the case of such that the dis- crepancy is almost exclusively found. The practice of separating words by spaces instead of points probably came in with the square writing. In the synagogue- rolls, which are written in conformity with the ancient rules, the words are regularly divided from each other; and indeed the Talmud minutely prescribes the space which shoidd be left (Gesenius, Gesch. der Ileh. Spi-ache, §45).
Of ancient date, probably, are also the separations between the lesser Pdrshioth or sections; whether made, in the case of the more important divisions, by the com- mencement of a new line, or, in the case of the less im- portant, by a blank space within the line. See Parshi- OTH. The use of the letters S and D, however, to indi- cate these divisions is of more recent origin : they are not employed in the synagogue-rolls. These lesser and earlier Parshioth, of which there are in the Pentateuch 669, must not be confounded with the greater and later Parshioth, or Sabbath-lessons, which are first mentioned in the Masorah. The name Parshioth is in the Mishna {Meyill. iv, 4) applied to the divisions in the Prophets as well as to those in the Pentateuch ; e. g. to Isa. Hi, 3-5 (to the greater Parshioth here correspond the Haph- taroth). Even the separate psalms are in the Gemara also called Parshioth (Bemch. Bab. fol. 9, 2; 10, 1). Some indication of the antiquity of the divisions be- tween the Parshioth may be found in the circumstance that the Gemara holds them to be as old as Moses {Be- rach. fol. 12, 2). Of their real age we know but little. Hupfeld has found that they do not always coincide with the capitula of Jerome. That they are, nevertheless, more ancient than his time is shown by the mention of them in the Mishna. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, their want of accordance with the Kazin of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which are 966 in number, seems to indicate that they had a historical origin ; and it is possible that they also may date from the period when the O. T. was first transcribed in the square character. Our present chapters, it may be remarked, spring from a Christian source. See Chapter.
Of any logical division, in the written text, of the prose of the O. T. into Pesukim, or verses, we find in the Talmud no mention; and even in the existing syna- gogue-rolls such division is generally ignored. While, therefore, we maj' admit the early currency of such a logical division, we must assume, with Hupfeld, that it was merely a traditional observance. It has indeed, on the other hand, been argued that such numerations of the verses as the Talmud records could not well have been made unless the written text distinguished them. But to this we may reply by observing that the verses of the numbering of which the Talmud speaks could not have thoroughly accorded with those of modern times. Of the former there were in the Pentateuch 5888 (or, as some read, 8888) ; it now contains but 5845 : the mid- dle verse was computed to be Lev. xiii, 33 ; with our present verses it is Lev. viii, 5. Had the verses been distinguished in the written text at the time that the Talmudic enumeration was made, it is not easily ex- plicable how they shoidd since have been so much al- tered : whereas, were the logical division merely tradi- tional, tradition would naturally preserve a more accu- rate knowledge of the places of the various logical breaks than of their relative importance, and thus, without any disturbance of the syntax, the number of computed verses would be liable to continual increase or diminu- tion, by separation or aggregation. An uncertainty in the vei-sual division is even no\v indicated by the double
OLD TESTAMENT
340
OLD TESTAMENT
accentuation and consequent vocalization of the Deca- logue. In tiie poetical books, the Fcsukim mentioned in the Talraud correspond to the poetical lines, not to our modern verses; and it is i)robable, both from some expressions of Jerome, and from the analogous practice of other nations, that the poetical text was written sti- chometrlcally. It is still so written in our manuscripts in the poetical pieces in the Pentateuch and historical books ; and even, generally, in our oldest manuscripts. Its partial discontinuance may be due, lirst, to the de- sire to save space, and, secondly, to the diminution of the necessity for it by the introduction of the accents. See Manusckipts, Biblical.
2. Eai-bj Christian Period.— WhWe. great freedom in dealing with the sacred text was exercised at Samaria and Alexandria [see Samaritan Pentateuch; Sei>- TUAGisT Version], there is every reason to believe that in Palestine the text was both carefully preserved and scrupulously respected. The boast of Joseph us (c. Apion. i, 8) that tliroiigh all the ages that had passed none had ventured to add to or to take away from, or to transpose aught of the sacred writings, may well repre- sent the spirit in which in his day his own countrymen acted. In the translations of Aquila and the other Greek interpreters, the fragments of whose works re- main to us in the I/exapla, we have e\"idence of the existence of a text differing but little from our own : so also in the Targums of Oukelos and Jonathan. A few centuries later we have, in the Ilexapla, additional evi- dence to the same effect in Origen's transcriptions of the Hebrew text. And yet more important are the proofs of the firm establishment of the text, and of its substantial identity with our own, s\ipplied by the translation of Jerome, who was instructed by the Palestinian Jews, and mainly relied upon their authority for acquaintance not only with the text itself, but also with the tradi- tional unwritten vocalization of it.