THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
I. The Old Testament.
1. The Premasoretic Period. The Masoretie Text (§ 1). The Earlier Text (§ 2). Change in Style of Writing (§ 3). Attempts to Fix the Text (§ 4). The Pronunciation Fixed, but the
Text Still Unvocalized (§ 5). Word-Division (§ 6). Division into Verses (§ 7). Division into Sections (§ 8).
2. The Masoretie Period. The Masoretes (§1). Their Work (§ 2). Codices (§ 3).
3. The Postmasoretic Period. Tae Chapter-Division (§ 1).
Old Testament Manuscripts (§ 2). The Printed Text (§ 3). Critical Works and Commentaries (§4).
BIBLE TEXT.
II. The New Testament.
1. History of the Written Text.
The Autographs of the New Testament Books (§ 1).
The Manuscripts (§ 2).
Their Material and Form (§ 2).
The Ammonian Sections (§ 4).
Early Divisions of the Text (§ 5).
Divisions for Liturgical Reading (§ 6).
Early Corruption of the Text (§7).
Varieties of Text Produced by Early Criticism (§ 8).
The Uncial Manuscripts (§ 9).
The Cursive Manuscripts, Evangelistaries, etc. (§10).
2. History of the Printed Text. Complutensian and Erasmian editions (§ 1).
Editions of Stephens and Beza (§2)
Editions between 1657 and 183(j
(§3). Griesbach and his Followers (§ 4) Lachmann (§ 5). Tischendorf (§ 6). Tregelles (§ 7). Westcott and Hort (§ 8). Other Critics of the Text (§ 9). More Recent Tendencies (§ 10).
3. Principles of Textual Criticism The Basal Rule (§ 1).
Other Canons (§2).
4. Results of the Textual Criticism of
the New Testament. III. Chapter and Verse Divisions. Chapter Divisions (§ 1). Verse Divisions, Old Testament
(§ 2). _
Verse Divisions, New Testament
(§3).
1. The
Masoretie
Text.
I. The Old Testament. — 1. The Premasoretic Period: The extant Hebrew text of the Old Testament text is commonly called the Masoretie, to distinguish it from the text of the ancient versions as well as from the Hebrew text of former ages. This Masoretie text does not present the original form but a text which within a certain period was fixed by Jewish scholars as the correct and only authoritative one. When and how this official Masoretie text was fixed was formerly a matter of controversy, especially during the seventeenth century. One party headed by the Buxtorfs (father and son), in the interest of the view of inspiration then prevalent, held to the absolute completeness and infallibility, and hence the exclusive value, of the Masoretie text. They attributed it to Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue, who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were supposed to have purified the text from all accumulated error; added the vowelpoints, the accents, and other punctuation-marks (thus settling the reading and pronunciation); fixed the canon ; made the right division into verses, paragraphs, and books; and, finally, by the providence of God and the care of the Jews, the text thus made was believed to have been kept from all error, and to present the veritable Word of God. This view of the text prevailed especially when Protestant scholasticism was at its height, and may be designated as the orthodox Protestant position. It was opposed by another party headed by Jean Morin and Louis Cappel, who, in the interest of pure historicity or in Antiprotestant polemics, combated these opinions, maintained the later age of the Masoretie text, and sought to vindicate value and usefulness for the old versions and other critical helps. They fell into many errors in respect to the details of the history of the text and overrated the value of Extramasoretic critical helps; but their general view was supported by irresistible arguments and is now universally adopted. This view, instead of deriving the existing text from a gathering of inspired men in Ezra's time, assigns it to a mucli later date and quite different men, and, instead of absolute completeness, claims for it only a relative one
2. The
Earlier Text.
with a higher value than other forms of the text. A glance at the history of the text will show how this agreement has been brought about.
Concerning the oldest history of the text of the Old Testament writings there exists almost no positive information. The books were written probably upon skins, perhaps also on linen; as paper was used from very early times in Egypt, it is possible that it was employed; parchment appears to have been used later. The roll seems to have been the usual form (Ps. xl, 8; Jer. xxxvi, 14 sqq.; Ezek. ii, 9; Zech. v, 1); the pen was a pointed reed (Jer. viii, 8; Ps. xlv, 1); the character was the Old Hebrew, which was almost identical with the Phenician and Moabitic (on the Moabite Stone, q.v.). Specimens of this writing are also preserved in the Siloam inscription (c. 700 B.C.), on gems (of the eighth or seventh century), on coins of the Hasmoneans and those belonging to the time of the Jewish-Roman war, and, in somewhat different form, in Samaritan writings. Like the Phenicians and Moabites, the Hebrews separated the words by a point or stroke, but these signs do not seem to have been used regularly, since the Septuagint often makes word-divisions different from tiiose of the Masoretie text. Jewish tradition mentions several passages in which the separation of words was regarded as doubtful.
The difference between ancient and modem texts consisted in this, that the former were written without vowels and accents. The Hebrew writing, like Semitic writing in general, was essentially consonantal; vowels were not written. AVliile the language lived, this occasioned no difficulty to the speakers or readers. No details are at hand concerning the way in which the text was multiplied and preserved; but inasmuch as the writings did not then have in popular estimation the character they came later to possess, it is likely that they were less carefully handled, and that the same amount of pains was not taken in copying them. This statement rests upon the fact that those parts of the Old Testament which we possess in double forms vary in ways that indicate a corruption of the text reaching back to precanonical times when copies were neither made nor corrected so laboriously.