B I B 



entitled " Vttiis Te(\am«ntum Hebralcum, cum varils Lec- 

 tionibiis." The ftcond volume, with the general differta- 

 tion, was publilhed in 1780. The text is that of" Eyerard 

 Van der Hooght, in 1705, already mentioned, which is very 

 corre>ftiy printed, with the funilar Hebrew letters, remark- 

 ably (harp and well defined ; riilTerini^ from it only in the 

 difpofition of the poetical p;irts, which Dr. Kennieott has 

 printed in hcmillichs, into which they naturally divide them- 

 fclves ; however, the words follow one another in the lan.e 

 order as they do in the edition of Van der Hooght ; fo that 

 any perfon may read thefe paflages as profe, if he is fo in- 

 clined } or may divide the hcmillichs difl'ercntly, according 

 to his own judgment. This edition is printed on an ex- 

 cellent type ; the Samaritan text, according to the copy in 

 the London Polyglott, is exhibited in a column parallel 

 with tiie Hebrew text ; thofe parts of it oidy being intro- 

 duced, in whicli it differs from the Hebrew: and the reft 

 of the Samaritan column being left blank, fo that the eye 

 perceives at once, with tlie utmoft eafc, the variations of the 

 Hebrew and Samaritan texts. The numerous variations, both 

 of the Samaritan manufcripts from the printed copy of the 

 Samaritan text, and of the Hebrew manufcripts from the 

 printed text of Van der Hooght, arc placed feparately at 

 the bottom of the page, and marked with numbers referring 

 to the copies from which they are taken. 



We fliall fubjoin to this articleabritf account of therife and 

 progrefs of that highly in terefting and meritorious undertaking, 

 for the completion of which we are indebted to the indefatiga- 

 ble indullry and perfeverance of the late Dr. Kennieott. A 

 very general opinion feemed to have prevailed among learned 

 men, till about the middle of the laft century, in favour of the 

 integrity of the Hebrew text : and Dr. Kennieott iugenu- 

 oufly conftfles, that he was mifled by the common error. 

 The Rabbins boldly afferted, and the Chrifliaus implicitly 

 believed, that the Hebrew text was free from error, and that 

 in all the M3S. of it, no inftance of any various reading of 

 importance could be produced. The firlt perfon, who feems 

 to have combated this notion in the way of a regular attack, 

 was Ludovicus Capellus. From the differences he obferved 

 between the Hebrew text and the verfion of the LXX, and 

 between the Hebrew pcutateucb and the Samaritan penta- 

 teucli, from the palpable and maniteil corruptions, which he 

 thought he faw in the text itfeif, and from the many reafons 

 which indi'.ced him to fuppofe that the vowel points and 

 the Mafora were both a modern and an uftlefs invention, he 

 was led to qiieftion the general integrity of the text ; and 

 his enemies allowed, that in his attack upon it, lie difcovered 

 much learning and ingenuity. Still, however, he acquicfced 

 and admitted the unitormity of the MSS. But the matter 

 was not brought to the tet^ of an aftual collation ot any 

 number of MSS. and verfions, and little was done, till Dr. 

 Keunicott's attention was dlreftcd in 1748, by the late 

 learned Dr. Lowth, bifhop of London, to an examination of 

 2 Sam. xxiii. 8. This circumftance convinced him of his 

 former error, and he vi'as ioon fatisfied that the Hebrew 

 text was far t'rom being perfeft, and that it was impoillble 

 to undcrdand this fingle verfe, without allowing that there 

 were in it four corruptions. Keunicott's expianati£)n of this 

 verfe having been approved by Dr. Lowth, he vv?ji requefted 

 to examine the fubfequent parts of the fame chapter ; which 

 was likewife performed, and the whole was publilhed in 1 753. 

 He proceeded to examine two parallel chapters in the lull 

 tiook of Cliror.icles, and the fecond book of Samuel, and 

 found an OT-riiilion in the former of no lefs than 3.J. ITcbrcw 

 words. Although fuch great corruptions were proved from 

 the printed lext itfeif, and from the anc'cnt verfions, yet it 

 had iiol at tliat time been fufpctlcd, that there were now 



B I B 



extant any Hebrew MSS. which would at all anill fn cor. 

 reding the faulty palTages of the Old Tcftamcnt. In the 

 feque', however, this was found to be aftually tlie cafe, for 

 Dr. Kennieott, on examining fomc of the Hebrew MSS, 

 in the Bodleian library, found that they contained, in the 

 chapters above cited, feveral of the readings which he had 

 recommended as genuine, before he had iiifpeAed thefe 

 MSS. A dilcovery fo important to facred literature being 

 tlius begun in 1753, and extended to 70 Hebrew and Sama- 

 ritan MSS. in Oxhjrd, it was foon much improved by con- 

 fulting a number of others at Cambridge, and in Loudon, 

 The inquiry was promoted by means ot a catalogue of all 

 the other Hebrew and Samaritan MSS. which were then 

 known to exift in dilfercnt parts of the worl:!, publifliej 

 bv Dr. Kennieott in 1760, in a fecond diflertatiou ou the 

 Hebrew text. In this work he endeavoured to produce a 

 general convittior, as to the certainty of the Hebrew printed 

 copies being much corrupted, and the great adiJuta.'.-*-:i*. 

 be derived trom MSS., by funufliing many various rcadingj, 

 oi confcquence, which are the true ones ; and by confirming 

 the ancient verfion in a multitude of inllances of little mo- 

 ment in themfelves, and therefore not likely to have origi- 

 nated from defign. It was alfo proved, that the Samaritan 

 Pentateuch was of great importance ; that its MSS. would 

 ferve to corredl a variety of typographical errors, which 

 difgraced the two printed editions ; and tha.t the Samaritan 

 copies were frequently confirmed even by the Hebrew MSS. 

 In confequence of thefe interelling difcoveries. Dr. Ken- 

 nieott was folicited by the late archbifliop Seeker, and many 

 other learned perfons, and by feveral focieties of literary men,, 

 particularly by the uiiiverlity of Oxford, to whofe counte- 

 nance andeucouragement the undertaking was recommended 

 by the late Dr. Hunt, profeffor of Hebrew and Arabic in 

 that uuiverfity, to undertake a collation of all the Hebrew 

 and Samaritan MSS. in our own country. Dilcouraged at 

 firll by the profpeft of fo arduous an undertaking, he at laft, 

 in 1760, CDnfeiited to engage in it. Of his progrcfs, and 

 the circumftances that attended it, we have a detailed account 

 in the " DifTertatio Geiieralis," publiflied with the fecond 

 volume of his Bible. Having propofed ten years as the 

 time which, he thought, would be necefTary for collating the 

 Hebrew and Samaritan MSi*-., he was enabled by his lingu- 

 lar afFiduity to fulfil his own ex Deflations and thofe of the 

 public. Patronir-ed by his Majeily, and by a great number 

 of liberal friends and weli-wifhers to the uudertakino-, both- 

 at home and in foreig.n countries, in the lilt of v\-hom are no 

 fewer than feven crowned heads, feveral princes, cardinals,, 

 archbilhopf, and bifliops, befides univerlities, publiclibrarics, 

 and many of the moil eminent literati in various parts of 

 Europe ; Dr. Kennieott inllituted various and cxtenfive in- 

 quiries after MSS. at Conllantinople, Warfaw, Venice, 

 Bologna, Mantua, Pavia, Genoa, Lilhc^n, Geneva, Utrecht, 

 Erfurt, Berlin, Stockholm, and Hamburgii. I'he numerous 

 Hebrew MSS. of the latter place were collated by the ceL-- 

 brated Reimarus, who not only concuired in, but applauded 

 the undertaking. In the profeculion of this work, it was- 

 difcovered, that the printed editions oi the Hebrew Bible, 

 which had been fuppofed to agree, and on the agreement of 

 which the notion of the integrity of that text had been 

 founded, very much differed from one another; and particu- 

 larly,^ that the oli/j'/ editions agreed moll with the oldcft and 

 but MSS., and the mor/ern editions with the latefl and worit 

 MSS. As one proof of this, it i, aliedged, that the variations 

 in the firft edition (in I48i().fu)'n Vander Hooght (in 1705) 

 amount to twelve thoofand. In the year 1767, Dr. Ken- 

 nieott derived great advantage from his own examination o£ 

 the Paris MSS., both Hebrew and ijamaritan, and from 



Dr. 



\ 



i 



