Old Testament (ἡ παλαία διαθήκη, Fetus Testamentum) is the popular designation of the books of the Hebrew Bible, in distinction from "the New Testament," or the Christian Scriptures, which has been borrowed from the title in the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate. SEE TESTAMENT.
I. History of the Text. — Under this head we shall consider only the successive steps by which the text seems to have reached its present form and condition according to the best light which modern criticism has thrown upon the subject. For the subdivisions into books, etc., SEE BIBLE; for the contents, see the several books (also SEE PENTATEUCH; SEE PROPHETS; SEE HAGIOGRAPHA etc.); and for the hermeneutical principles applied in different ages, SEE INTERPRETATION. The apparent or real citations from one part of the O.T. in another, and in the N.T., will be discussed under the head of QUOTATIONS.
1. Ante-Rabbinical Period — A history of the text of the O.T. should properly commence from the date of the completion of the Canon; from which time we must assume that no additions to any part of it could be legitimately made, the sole object of those who transmitted and watched over it being thenceforth to preserve that which was already written. Of the care, however, with which the text was transmitted we have to judge, almost entirely, by the phenomena which it and the versions derived from it now present, rather than by any recorded facts respecting it. That much scrupulous pains would be bestowed by Ezra, the "ready scribe in the law of Moses," and by his companions, on the correct transmission of those Scriptures which passed through their hands is indeed antecedently probable. The best evidence of such pains, and of the respect with which the text of the sacred books was consequently regarded, is to be found in the jealous accuracy with which the discrepancies of various parallel passages have been preserved, notwithstanding the temptation which must have existed to assimilate them to each other. Such is the case with Psalms xiv and liii, two recensions of the same hymn, both proceeding from David, where the reasons of the several variations may on examination be traced. Such also is the case with Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22, where the variations between the two copies are more than sixty in number, excluding those which merely consist in the use or absence of the matres lectionis; and where. therefore, even though the design of all the variations be not perceived, the hypothesis of their having originated through accident would imply a carelessness in transcribing far beyond what even the rashest critics have in other places contemplated.
As regards the form in which the sacred writings were preserved, there can be little doubt that the text was ordinarily written on skins, rolled up into volumes, like the modern synagogue rolls (Ps 40:7; Jer 36:14; Zec 5:1; Eze 2:9). Josephus relates that the copy sent from Jerusalem as a present to Ptolemy in Egypt was written with letters of gold on skins of admirable thinness, the joints of which could not be detected (Ant. 12:2,11).
The original character in which the text was expressed is that still preserved to us, with the exception of four letters, on the Maccabeaan coins, and having a strong affinity to the Samaritan character, which seems to have been treated by the later Jews as identical with it, being styled by them כתב עברי. At what date this was exchanged for the present Aramaic or square character, כתב אשורית, or כתב מרבע, is- still as undetermined as it is at what date the use of the Aramaic language in Palestine superseded that of the Hebrew. The old Jewish tradition, repeated by Origen and Jerome, ascribed the change to Ezra. But the Maccabeean coins supply us with a date at which the older character was still in use; and even though we should allow that both may have been simultaneously employed, the one for sacred, the other for more ordinary purposes, we can hardly suppose that they existed side by side for any lengthened period. Hassencamp and Gesenius are at variance as to whether such errors of the Septuagint as arose from confusion of letters in the original text are in favor of the Greek interpreters having had the older or the more modern character before them. It is sufficiently clear that the use of the square writing must have been well established before the time of those authors who attributed the introduction of it to Ezra. Nor could the allusion in Mt 5:18 to the yod as the smallest letter have well been made except in reference to the more modern character. We forbear here all investigation of the manner in which this character was formed, or of the precise locality whence it was derived. Whatever modification it may have undergone in the hands of the Jewish scribes, it was in the first instance introduced from abroad; and this its name, אשורית כתב, i.e.
Assyrian writing, implies, though it may geographically require to be interpreted with some latitude. (The suggestion of Hupfeld that אשורית may be an appellative, denoting not Assyrian, but firm, writing, is improbable.) On the whole, we may best suppose, with Ewald, that the adoption of the new character was coeval with the rise of the earliest Targums, which would naturally be written in the Aramaic style. It would thus he shortly anterior to the Christian aera; and with this date all the evidence would well accord. It may be right, however, to mention that while of late years Keil has striven anew to throw back the introduction of the square writing towards the time of Ezra, Bleek also, though not generally imbued with the conservative views of Keil, maintains not only that the use of the square writing for the sacred books owed its origin to Ezra, but also that the later books of the O.T. were never expressed in any other character. SEE HEBREW LANGUAGE.
No vowel-points were attached to the text: they were, through all the early period of its history, entirely unknown. Convenience had indeed, at the time when the later books of the O.T. were written, suggested a larger use of the matres lectionis: it is thus that in those books we find them introduced into many words that had previously been spelled without them: קודש takes the place of דויד קדש of דוד. An elaborate endeavor has recently been made by Dr. Wall to prove that up to the early part of the 2d century of the Christian sera the Hebrew text was free from vowel-letters as well as from vowels. His theory is that they were then interpolated by the Jews, with a view to altering rather than perpetuating the former pronunciation of the words: their object being, according to him, to pervert thereby the sense of the prophecies, as also to throw discredit on the Septuagint, and thereby weaken or evade the force of arguments drawn from that version in support of Christian doctrines. Improbable as such a theory is, it is yet more astonishing that its author should not have been deterred from prosecuting it by the palpable objections to it which he himself discerned. Who can believe, with him, that the Samaritans, notwithstanding the mutual hatred existing between them and the Jews, borrowed the interpolation from the Jews, and conspired with them to keep it a secret? or that among other words to which by this interpolation the Jews ventured to impart a new sound were some of the best-known proper names; e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah? or that it was merely through a blunder that in Ge 1:24 the substantive חיה in its construct state acquired its final י, when the same anomaly occurs in no fewer than three passages of the Psalms? Such views and arguments refute themselves; and while the high position occupied by its author commends his book to notice, it can only be lamented that industry, learning, and ingenuity should have been so misspent in the vain attempt to give substance to shadow. SEE VOWEL- POINTS.
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 continuously, some have a point' after each word, except when the words are closely connected. The same point is used in the Samaritan manuscripts; and it is observed by Gesenius (a high authority in respect to the Samaritan Pentateuch) 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 Jewish scribes did not separate the words which were closely connected: it is in the case of such that the discrepancy 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 should be left (Gesenius, Gesch. der Heb. Sprache, § 45).
Of ancient date, probably, are also the separations between the lesser Parshioth or sections; whether made, in the case of the more important divisions, by the commencement of a new line, or, in the case of the less important. by a blank space within the line. SEE PARSHIOTH. The use of the letters פ and ס, however, to indicate 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 (Megill. 4:4) applied to the divisions in the Prophets as well as to those in the Pentateuch; e.g. to Isa 52:3-5 (to the greater Parshioth here correspond the Haphtaroth). Even the separate psalms are in the Gemara also called Parshioth (Berach. Bab. fol. 9, 2; 10, 1) Some indication of the antiquity of the divisions between the Parshioth may be found in the circumstance that the Gemara holds them to be as old as Moses (Berach. 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 Pesukiin, or verses, we find in the Talmud no mention; and even in the existing synagogue-rolls such division is generally ignored. While, therefore, we may 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 middle verse was computed to be Le 13:33; with our present verses it is Le 8:5. Had the verses been distinguished in the written text at the time that the Talmudic enumeration was made, it is not easily explicable how they should since have been so much altered: whereas, were the logical division merely traditional, tradition would naturally preserve a more accurate 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 diminution, by separation or aggregation. An uncertainty in the versual division is even now indicated by the double accentuation and consequent vocalization of the Decalogue. In the poetical books, the Pesukim mentioned in the Talmud correspond to the poetical lines, not to our modern verses; and it is probable, both from some expressions of Jerome, and from the analogous practice of other nations, that the poetical text was written stichometrically. 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, first, to the desire to save space, and, secondly, to the diminution of the necessity for it by the .introduction of the accents. SEE MANUSCRIPTS, BIBLICAL.
2. Early Christian Period. — While great freedom in dealing with the sacred text was exercised at Samaria and Alexandria, SEE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH; SEE SEPTUAGINT VERSION, there is every reason to believe that in Palestine the text was both carefully preserved and scrupulously respected. The boast of Josephus (c. Apion. 1:8) that through 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 represent the spirit in which in his day his own country menacted. In the translations of Aquila and the other Greek interpreters, the fragments of whose works remain to us in the Hexapla, we have evidence of the existence of a text differing but little from our own: so also in the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan. A few centuries later we have, in the Hexapla, additional evidence 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, supplied 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 traditional unwritten vocalization of it.
This brings us to the middle of the Talmudic age. The learning of the schools which had been formed in Jerusalem about the time of our Savior by Iillel and Shammai was preserved, after the destruction of the city, in the academies of Jabneh, Sepphoris. Cesarea, and Tiberias. The great pillar of the Jewish literature of this period was R. Judah the Holy, to whom, is ascribed the compilation, of the Mishna, the text of the Talmud, and who died about A.D. 220. After his death there grew into repute the Jewish academies of Sura, Nahardea, and Pum-Beditha, on the Euphrates. The twofold Gemara, or commentary, was now appended to the Mishna, thus .completing the Talmud. The Jerusalem Gemara proceeded from the Jews of Tiberias probably towards the end of the 4th century: the Babylonian from the academies on the Euphrates, perhaps by the end of the 5th. That, along with the task of collecting and commenting on their various legal traditions, the Jews of these several academies would occupy themselves with the text of the sacred writings is in every way probable, and is indeed shown by various Talmudic notices. SEE MASORAH.
It is after the Talmudic period that Hupfeld places the introduction into the text of the two large points (in Hebrew סוŠ פסוק,. Soph-pasuk) to mark the end of each verse. They are manifestly of older date than the accents, by which they are, in effect, supplemented (Stud. und Krit. 1837, p. 857).
Coeval, perhaps, with the use of the Soph-pasuk is that of the lakkeph, or hyphen, to unite words that are so closely conjoined as to have but one accent between them. It must be older than the accentual marks, the presence or absence of which is determined by it. It doubtless indicates the way in which the text was traditionally read, and therefore embodies traditional authority for the conjunction or separation of words. Internal evidence shows this to be the case in such passages as Ps 45:5, וענוהאּצדק. But the use of it cannot be relied on, as it often in the poetical books conflicts with the rhythm; e.g. in Ps 19:9-10 (comp. Mason and Bernard's Grammar, 2:187).
3. Masoretic Period. — Such modifications of the text as these were the precursors of the new method of dealing with it which constitutes the work of the Masoretes. It is evident from the notices of the Talmud that a number of oral traditions had been gradually accumulating respecting both the integrity of particular passages of the text itself, and also the manner in which it was to be read. The time at length arrived when it became desirable to secure the permanence of all such traditions by committing them to writing. The very process of collecting them would add greatly to their number; the traditions of various academies would be superadded the one upon the other; and with these would be gradually incorporated the various critical observations of the collectors themselves, and the results of their comparisons of different manuscripts. The vast heterogeneous mass of traditions and criticisms thus compiled and embodied in writing forms what is known as the , מסרה, Masorah, i.e. Tradition. A similar name had been applied in the Mishna to the oral tradition before it was committed to writing, where it had been described as the hedge or fence, סייג of the law (Pirke Aboth, 3:13).
Buxtorf, in his Tiberias, which is devoted to an account of the Masorah, ranges its contents under the three heads of observations respecting the verses, words, and letters of the sacred text. With regard to the verses, the Masoretes recorded how many there were in each book, and the middle verse in each; also how many verses began with particular. letters, or began and ended with the same word, or contained a particular number of words and letters, or particular words a certain number of times, etc. With regard to the words, they recorded the Keris and Kethibs, where different words were to be read from those contained in the text, or where words were to be omitted or supplied. They noted that certain words were to be found so many times in the beginning, middle, or end of a verse, or with a particular construction or meaning. They noted also of particular words, and this especially in cases where mistakes in transcription were likely to arise, whether they were to be written plene or defective, i.e. with or without the matres lectionis; also their vocalization and accentuation, and how many times they occurred so vocalized and accented. With regard to the letters, they computed how often each letter of the alphabet occurred in the O.T.: they noted fifteen instances of letters stigmatized with the extraordinary points: they commented also on all the unusual letters, viz. the majuscule, which they variously computed; the minusculs, of which they reckoned thirty-three; the suspensce. four in number; and the inversae, of which, the letter being in each case נ, there are eight or nine.
The compilation of the Masorah did not meet with universal approval among the Jews, of whom some regretted the consequent cessation of oral traditions. Others condemned the frivolous character of many of its remarks. The formation of the written Masorah may have extended from the 6th or 7th to the 10th or 11th century. It is essentially an incomplete work; and the labors of the Jewish doctors upon the sacred text might have unendingly furnished materials for the enlargement of the older traditions, the preservation of which had been the primary object in view. Nor must it be implicitly relied on. Its computations of the number of letters in the Bible are said to be far from correct; and its observations, as is remarked by Jacob ben-Chayim, do not always agree with those of the Talmud, nor yet with each other; though we have no means of distinguishing between its earlier and its later portions.
The most valuable feature of the Masorah is undoubtedly its collection of Keris. The first rudiments of this collection meet us in the Talmud. Of those subsequently collected, it is probable that many were derived from the collation of MSS., others from the unsupported judgment of the Masoretes themselves. They often rest on plausible but superficial grounds, originating in the desire to substitute an easier for a more difficult reading; and to us it is of little consequence whether it were a transcriber or a Masoretic doctor by whom the substitution was first suggested. It seems clear that the Keris in all cases represent the readings which the Masoretes themselves approved as correct; and there would be the less hesitation in sanctioning them could we assume that they were always preserved in documents separate from the text, and that the written text itself had remained intact. In effect, however, our MSS. often exhibit the text with the Keri readings incorporated. The number of Keris is, according to Elias Levita, who spent twenty years in the study of the Masorah, 848; but the Bomberg Bible contains 1171. the Plantin Bible 793. Two lists of the Keristhe one exhibiting the variations of the printed Bibles with respect to them, the other distributing them into classes-are given in the beginning of Walton's Polyglot, vol. 6. SEE KERI.
The Masorah furnishes also eighteen instances of what it calls תקון סופרים, "Correction of the scribes." The real import of this is doubtful; but the recent view of Bleek, that it relates to alterations made in the text by the scribes, because of something there offensive to them, and that therefore the rejected reading is in each case the true reading, is not borne out by the Septuagint, which in all the instances save one (Job 7:20) confirms the present Masoretic text.
Furthermore, the Masorah contains certain סבירין, "Conjectures," which it does not raise to the dignity of Keris, respecting the true reading in difficult passages. Thus at Ge 19:23, for יצא was conjectured יצאה, because the word שמש is usually feminine.
The Masorah was originally preserved in distinct books by itself. A plan then arose of transferring it to the margins of the MSS. of the Bible. For this purpose large curtailments were necessary; and various transcribers inserted in their margins only as much as they had room for, or strove to give it an ornamental character by reducing it into fanciful shapes. R. Jacob ben-Chayim, editor of the Bomberg Bible, complains much of the confusion into which it had fallen; and the service which, he rendered in bringing it into order is honorably acknowledged by Buxtorf. Further improvements in the arrangement of it were made by Buxtorf himself in his Rabbinical Bible. The Masorah is now distinguished into the Masora magna and the Masora parva, the latter being an abridgment of the former, including all the Keris and other compendious observations, and usually printed in Hebrew Bibles at the. foot of the page. The Masora magna, when accompanying the Bible, is disposed partly at the side of the text, against the passages to which its several observations refer, partly at the end, where the observations are ranged in alphabetical order: it is thus divided into the Masora textualis and the Masora finalis.
The Masorah itself was but one of the fruits of the labors of the Jewish doctors in the Masoretic period. A far more important work was the furnishing of the text with vowel-marks, by which the traditional pronunciation of it was imperishably recorded. That the insertion of the Hebrew vowel-points was post-Talmudic is shown by the absence in the Talmud of all reference to them. Jerome also, in recording the true pronunciation of any word, speaks only of the way in which it was read; and occasionally mentions the ambiguity arising from the variety of words represented by the same letters (Hupfeld; Stud. und Krit. 1830, p. 549 sq.). The system was gradually elaborated, having been molded in the first instance in imitation of the Arabian, which was itself the daughter. of the Syrian. (So Hupfeld. Ewald maintains that the Hebrew system was derived immediately from the Syrian.) The history of the Syrian anid Arabian vocalization renders it probable that the elaboration of the system commenced not earlier than the 7th or 8th century. The vowel-marks are referred to in the Masorah; and as they are all mentioned by R. Judah Chiyug in the beginning of the 11th century, they must have been perfected before that date. The Spanish rabbins of the 11th and 12th centuries knew nothing of their recent origin. That the system of punctuation with which we are familiar was fashioned in Palestine is shown by its difference from the Assyrian or Persian system displayed in one of the Eastern MSS. collated by Pinner at Odessa.
Contemporaneous with the written vocalization was the accentuation of the text. The import of the accents was, as Hupfeld has shown, essentially rhythmical (Stud. und Krit. 1837): hence they had from the first both a logical and a musical significance. With respect to the former they were called טעמים, "senses;" with respect to the latter, נגינות, "tones." Like the vowel-marks, they are mentioned in the Masorah, but not in the Talmud.
The controversies of the 16th century respecting the late origin of the vowel-marks and' accents are well known. Both are with the Jews the authoritative exponents of the manner in. which the text is to be read: "Any interpretation," says Aben-Ezra, "which is not in accordance with the arrangement of the accents, thou shalt not consent to it, nor listen to it." If in the books of Job, Psalms, and Proverbs the accents are held by some Jewish scholars to be irregularly placed (Mason and Bernard's Grammar, ii, 235; Delitzsch's Com. on the Psalter, vol. ii), the explanation is probably that in those books the rhythm of the poetry has afforded the means of testing the value of the accentuation, and has consequently disclosed its occasional imperfections. Making allowance for these, we must yet on the whole admire the marvelous correctness in the Hebrew Bible of both the vocalization and accentuation. The difficulties which, both occasionally present, and which a superficial criticism would, by overriding them, so easily remove, furnish the best evidence that both faithfully embody, not the private judgments of the punetuators, but the traditions which had descended ton them from previous generations.
Besides the evidences of various readings contained in the Keris of the Masorah, we have two lists of different readings purporting or presumed to be those adopted by the Palestinian and Babylonian Jews respectively. Both are given in Walton's Polyglot, vol. 7. The first of these recensions was printed by R. Jacob ben-Chavim in the Bomberg Bible edited by him, without any mention of the source whence he had derived it. The different readings are 216 in number: all relate to the consonants, except two, which relate to the Mappik in the ה. They are generally of but little importance: many of the differences are orthographical, many identical with those indicated by the Keris and Kethibs. The list does not extend to the Pentateuch. It is supposed to be ancient, but post-Talmudic. The other recension is the result of a collation of MSS. made in the 11th century by two Jews, R. Aaron ben-Asher, a Palestinian, and R. Jacob ben-Naphtali, a Babylonian. The differences, 864 in number, relate to the vowels, the accents, the Makkeph, and in one instance (Song 8:6) to the division of one word into two. The list helps to furnish evidence of the date by which the punctuation and accentuation of the text must have been completed. The readings of our MSS. commonly accord with those of Ben-Asher.
It is possible that even the separate Jewish academies may in some instances have had their own' distinctive standard texts. Traces of minor Variations between the standards of the two Babylonian academies of Sura and Nahardea are mentioned by De Rossi (Proleg. § 35).
From the end, however, of the Masoretic period onward, the Masorah became the great authority by which the text given in all the Jewish MSS. was settled. It may thus be said that all our MSS. are Masoretic: those of older date were either suffered to perish, or, as some think, were intentionally consigned to destruction as incorrect. Various standard copies are mentioned by the Jews, by which, in the subsequent transcriptions, their MSS. were tested and corrected, but of which none are now known. Such were the Codex Hillel in Spain; the Codex Egyptius, or Hierosolymitanus,
of Ben-Asher; and the Codex Babylonius of Ben-Naphtali. Of the Pentateuch there were the Codex Sinaiticus, of which the authority stood high with regard to its accentuation; and the Codex Hierichuntinus, which was valued with regard to its use of the mates lectionis; also the Codex Ezra, or Azarah, at Toledo, ransomed from the Black Prince for a large sum at his capture of the city in 1367, but destroyed in a subsequent siege (Scott Porter, Princ. of Text. Crit. p. 74).
The subsequent history of the O.T.text is discussed under SEE CRITICISM, SACRED.
II. Commentaries. — The following are the special exegetical helps on the entire O.T. exclusively (in addition to the Rabbinical Bibles [q.v.]), the most important of which we designate by an asterisk prefixed: — Augustine, Exegetica (in Opp. iii); Damianus, Collectanea (in Opp. 4:74 sq.); Antonius, Expositio [mystical] (in Opp. St. Francis, p. 464); Sol. ibn- helek, מַכלִל יֹפַי (Constantinople, 1533, fol.; ed. Abendana, n. d.; ed. Uri ben-Ap., Amst. 1661, fol.; ed. D. Tartas, ib. 1685, fol.); Munster, Biblia Latina [chiefly Rabbinical] (Basil. 1546, fol.; also in the. Critici Sacri); Broughton, Treatises [on various parts] (in Works); *Osiander, Expositio (Tilb. 1578-86, 7 vols. 4to, and often afterwards); Drusius, Commentarii [on most of the books] (at various places in parts, 1595 sq., mostly 4to); also, Vet. interpret. Grcecorum filagmenta (Arnob. 1622, 4to); Pareus, Commentarii (in Opp. i); Althing, Commentarii [on certain parts] (in Opp. ii); Maldonatus, Comnentarii [on most of the books] (Par. 1643, fol.); Abram Nicolai, Pharus [dissertations] (Par. 1648, fol.); Malvenda, Commentarii (Lugd. 1650, 5 vols. fol.); Anon., Adnotationes (Cantab. 1653; Amst. 1703, 8vo); Richardson, Observations (Lond. 1655, fol.); Cappel, Commentarii (Amst. 1689, fol.); Burmann, Erkldrung [Genesis to Job] (Frankf. 1709, fol.; earlier in Dutch in parts); Jarchi (i.e.Rashi), Commentarius (ed. Breithaupt, Gotha, 1710, 5 vols. 4to); Le Clerc, Commentarius (Amst. 1710 sq., 4 vols. fol.); Pyle, Paraphrase (Lond. 1717' sq.; 1738, 4 vols. 8vo); Patrick and Lowth, Commentary (Lond. 1738,4 vols. fol.; earlier in parts separately); *Michaelis, Annotationes (Hal. 1745, 3 vols. 4to); Menoche, Commentarii (Vienna, 1755, 4to); Houbigant, Notce (Franc. 1777, 2 vols. 4to); Alfonso Nicolai, Dissertazioni (Ven. 1781-2, 12 vols. 8vo); Schulze, Scholia (Norimb. 1783-90, 9 vols. 8vo); Kennicot, Remarks [on certain passages] (Oxf. 1787, 8vo); Digbv, Lectures (Dubl. 1787, 8vo); Orton, Exposition
[practical] (Shrewsb. 1788; Lond. 1822, 6 vols. 8vo); *Rosenmüller, Scholia (Lips. 1788 sq., and several times since, 23 vols. 8vo); Paulus, Clavis (Jen. 1791-1827, 2 vols. 8vo); Augusti and Hopfne. Exeq. Handb. (Lpz. 17971800, 9 pts. 8vo); De Rossi, Scholia (Parm. 1799. 8vo); Boothroyd, Notes (Pontef. 1810-16, 2 vols. 4to); *Hitzig, Knobel, Thenius, and others, Kurzgef. Exeg. Handb. (Lpz. 1833 sq. 17 pts. 8vo); Bottcher, Aehrsenlese (Lpz. 1833-5, 3 vols. 8vo); Holden, Expositor (Lond. 1834, 12mo); *Maurer, Commentarius (Lips. 1835-8. 4 vols. 8vo); Philippson, Erldut. [Jewish] (Lpz. 1839-56,1858, 3 vols. 4to); *Keil and Delitzsch, Commezntar (Lpz. 1861 sq., and several editions, to be completed in about 20 vols. 8vo; tr. in Clark's For. Library, Edinb. 1866 sq.). SEE COMMENTARY.