Gen. xxvii. 25.—“ §, in the cod. Hillel, says Lonzano, the accent darga is in the yod. In our editions it is in, or rather under, the beth. Baer and Delitzsch follow the cod. Hillel.

Gen. xxxix. 6.—, Norzi remarks that the Hillel codex writes

.with tsere מראה

Gen. xlii. 16.—, in the margin of an old codex, belonging now to Dr. S. Baer, the editor of the new edition of the Old Testament, in connection with Prof. Delitzsh, it is written i. e., in the cod. Hillel the reading is with segol.

Gen. xlvi. 13.—, on this word Lonzano remarks that in Hillel and other codd. the vau is raphe, i. e.,

Exod. x. 9.—p, in Hillel, remarks Lonzano, it is written

ובזקנינו,i. e., plene ייך

Exod. xxxvii. 8.—7, in Hillel and in some other codd., remarks Lonzano, it is written with a makkeph.

Josh. xxi. 35, 36.—Cod. Kennic. No. 357, reads in the margin

these two verses are not found in the ,..., אלו השני פסוקים בהללי

codex Hillel. Similar is the remark in a manuscript formerly belonging to H. Lotze, of Leipzig.

Prov. viii. 16. A great many codd. editions and ancient versions, as Syriac, Vulgate, Targum, and even the Graecus Venetus, read here PE, whilst the Complutensian and other codd. read

, ש' אֲרֶץ

which is also supported by Hillel codex, and is adopted in Baer's ed. of Proverbs.

The Codex Sanbuki

זנדיקי

instead of

, זנביקי

Nothing is known of the author, place and time when this codex was written. According to Richard Simon (Biblioth Critic. I., 367) the name Sanbuki (1) is derived from the owner of the MS., a Hungarian family. According to Hottinger (in Bibliothecario Quadripartito, p. 158, ed. Turic.), the name ought to be which is equivalent to Zadduki or Sadduceé. Dr. Baer, in a private note to Prof. Strack, remarks, “I have not as yet found cited in any codex. It seems to me to be'the name of a place like (perhaps the Italian Subiako?)." Mons. Fourmont, in his Dissertation sur les manuscrits Hébreux ponctués et les anciennes éditions de la Bible (in Mémoires de littérature 1. 1. xix. 236) says: “Les Rabbins font mention de plusieurs exemplaires de ces manuscrits authentiques, et placés á

1 See also my art. Sanbuki Codex in McClintock & Strong's Cyclop.

dessein en différens endroits connus; celui d' Hillel par exemple, à Tolède pour l' Espagne; celui de la captivité d' Egypte, au mont Sinai; celui de Ben Ascher, à Jérusalem; et l'exemplaire appelé Drenvouki à la Carthage, dans la contrée nommée Zevegitana." The codex is quoted in the margin of some MSS., as in Codex Kennic. 415; Cod. Kennic. 8 (Bibl. Bodl. Hunting, 69; comp. Brunsius Ad. Kenn., Diss. Gener. p. 345). Besides this codex is quoted three times by Menachem di Lonzano, in his commentary Or Thora, as on

Gen. ix. 14.- where he remarks (fol. 2b fin. ed. Amstel.):

the nun has the sh'va (:), but in the Codex Sanbuki the sh'va with the patach.

i. c., in the Codex Hillel בהללי הנין בשוא לבד ובזנבוקי בשיא הפתח

i. c., in שפל בזנבוקי הפא בפתח .(14 .fol) שָׁפָל .20 .Lev. xiii ,.i.

ו אך בסס" ואשכנז געיא בתי i. e., in the Spanish and German בהללי ובירושלמיים ובזנבוקי לא יש

the Codex Sanbuki thein is written with the patach. Lev. xxvi. 36.—an) (fol. 15"),

MSS. there is a gaya (i. e., a metheg) under the, but not so in the Codd. Hillel, Jerusalem and Sanbuki.

Concerning this

The Jericho Pentateuch.

Elias Levita writes thus: The Pentateuch of Jericho is doubtless a correct codex of the Pentateuch derived from Jericho. It discusses the plene and defectives as in "the abominations" (Lev. xviii. 27), which is in this Pentateuch without the second vau. So also, which occurs twice in the same chapter (Numb. xiii. 13, 22), of which the first is plene (written in the Jericho codex), and the second defective.

The Codex Sinai3

This codex,, which contains the Pentateuch, is a correct codex, and treats on the variations of the accents, as you, and he heard (Exod. xviii. 1) has the accent Gershaim, but in Sinai it has Rebiah; again, 77, the desert (v. s.), has Zakeph, while in Sinai it has Zakeph gadol. As to the name of the codex, whether it is so called from the author or from the place where it was written, is a matter of dispute. According to Levita, it would be the name of a codex. Fürst (Geschichte der Karäer, I. 22, 138) thinks that this codex derives its name from Mount Sinai, while Joseph Eshwe, the expositor of the Massorah, in his Mebin Chidoth (1, Amst. 1765) on Exod. xviii. 1, remarks: "As to the remark Sinai has Rebia, know that the inventors of the vowel-points and accents were mostly from the spiritual heads and the sages of Tiberias. Now the name of one of these

was Sinai, and he differed from the Masorah, which remarks that yo has Gershaim, and said that it has the accent Rebia." From this it will be seen that this great Massoretic authority does not take as Codex Sinaiticus, but regards it as a proper name of one of the inventors of the vowel-points and accents. Delitzsch (in his Hebrew translation of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, p. 41, note) thinks that the name 780 Sinai Codex, refers rather to the place where it was written or found.

The Codex Ben-Naphtali.

Moses ben David Naphtali, a cotemporary of Ben-Asher, flourished about A. D. 900-960. He distinguished himself by his edition of a revised text of the Hebrew Scriptures in opposition to Ben-Asher, in which he had no great success, inasmuch as the different readings he collated and proposed are very insignificant, and are almost entirely confined to the vowel-points and accents. The codex itself is lost, but many of its readings are preserved, e. g. by Kimchi in his Grammar and Lexicon, while a complete list of these different readings is appended to Bomberg's and Buxtorf's Rabbinic, and to Walton's Polyglot Bible. Fürst, In his Concordance, p. 137 sec. 48, has also given the variations between these two scholars.

The most important deviation of Ben-Naphtali from Ben Asher is the reading of anhy, Song of Songs viii. 6, as two words, whilst Ben-Asher reads it as one word, which makes no difference in the meaning. In a very convenient form these variations are given by Baer and Delitzsch in their edition of the different parts of the Old Testament, on Genesis p. 81, Job p. 59, Psalms p. 136, Proverbs p. 55, Isaiah p. 90, Minor Prophets p. 90, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 126.

Our printed editions follow for the most part the reading of BenAsher; very seldom, however, that of Ben-Naphtali is followed, with the exception of such codices as have the Babylonian system of punctuation, and which always follow Ben-Naphtali. The editions in which the reading anbu (i. e., Ben Naphtali's) is found, are: Bomberg's Rabbinic (1517) and his quarto edition (1518); Stephen's (1543), Münster's (1546), Hutter (1587), Antwerp Polyglot (1571), Bragadin's Hebrew Bible (1614), Simoni's (1767-1828), Jahn's (1806), Bagster's (1839), Basle edition (1827), Hahn-Rosenmüller's (1868).

See also my art. Sinai Codex Hebrew in McClintock & Strong.

in Josh. xvii. 15, 18, and Ezek. xxi. 24, xxiii. 47.

BY PROF. WILLIS J. BEECHER, D. d.

In these four verses the Piel of nowhere else in the sacred Hebrew.

occurs five times. It occurs These five instances are of inter

est mainly as evidence on the question whether the current Hebrew word for "create" has any more primitive signification, which requires to be considered in determining its scope.

When we think of God as originating anything, we may or may not, at the same time, think of the mediate processes, the secondary causes, if such exist, through which he originates it. When we think of divine origination apart from all mediate processes and second causes, we have in mind substantially the notion denoted by the Qal, the Niphal and the substantive of the Hebrew root. These words are indeed employed in many instances in which the origination is from preëxisting materials, and through the agency of second causes; but in these instances the word calls attention, not to the preëxisting materials and the secondary causes, but to the fact that the origination is distinctively divine.

It will hardly be disputed that this usage is absolutely uniform. Gesenius, indeed, in three instances, assigns to the Niphal the meaning "to be born," or "to be begotten." In Ezek. xxi. 35 (xxi. 30, Eng.) he would, apparently, translate the language concerning the Ammonite, "I will judge thee in the place where thou wast born, in the land of thy nativity." But, not to criticize this translation in any other particular, the passage becomes far more graphic and not a whit less clear if we assign to its usual sense, and make the meaning to be, "I will judge thee in the place where God originated thee, in the land of thy nativity." Similarly, when it is said of the King of Tyrus, Ezek. xxviii. 13, "in the day thou wast created," the meaning "in the day when God originated thee" is not less forcible or appropriate than the meaning "when thou wast begotten." And the same is equally true of the expression in Ps. civ. 30, "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created." There is no exception to the statement that in the Qal, the

Niphal and the substantive, once used, this root describes distinctive divine origination.

Are we to rest content with this, therefore, as the proper meaning? Or are we to look for some more ultimate signification, from which this is derived?

The current answer to this question is that we must look for such a meaning,--the meaning commonly settled upon being "to cut," "to cut out," and hence "to fashion."

If this were held as a mere etymological conjecture, it would hardly be worth while to dispute it. If originally meant "to carve," that would not change the fact that its current meaning in the sacred Hebrew is "to originate divinely." One might hold that the word had primarily a physical signification, and yet hold that that signification has practically vanished from view beneath the meaning to the conveying of which the word has become set apart. One might distinctly recognize divine origination as the true and only meaning of the word, and yet curiously note the probability that the word which the Hebrew Bible has selected to express this idea is a word which once meant "to whittle."

But it is one thing thus to accept this etymology as the plausible conjecture which, perhaps, it is; and quite another thing to regard it as a fact well enough attested to compel us to modify our definitions of the words of this root, and our opinions as based thereupon. In the question whether God's originating of heaven and earth is from nothing, this supposed primitive notion of carving or cutting out has been made to do duty in a great variety of forms. It is likely to play a yet more important part in the question how far the Old Testament conceptions, of any given date, are to be regarded as gross and materialistic, or how far they are to be understood as being on the same spiritualistic plane with those of the New Testament. An etymology which might be accepted as a mere matter of curious conjecture, does not thereby acquire a title to be counted as positive evidence in important matters. We raise the question, not whether the etymology in question is true or false, but whether it is well enough attested to justify the basing of important conclusions upon it. As a part of the answer to this question, we are to examine the five instances in which the Piel of occurs in the sacred Hebrew.

Apart from these five instances, the evidence commonly cited to prove that primarily means to cut, is certainly of the most slender description. It is composed mostly of particulars which might have some validity to confirm other proof, if there were any other proof for them to confirm, but which, standing alone, are too weak to support themselves.

Of this sort, for instance, is the presumption that the idea of divine origination is too refined an idea to have been primitively expressed;