non conservato solum, sed etiam ornato, tamen ad tua in me unum innumerabilia merita, quod fieri jam posse non arbitrabar, maximus hoc tuo facto cumulus accesserit.

MANUSCRIPTS,

BIBLICAL, CLASSICAL, AND BIBLICOORIENTAL.

No. XI.—[Continued from No. XXXV. p. 95.]

We have made arrangements for collecting an account of ALL Manuscripts on the foregoing departments of Literature, which at present exist in the various PUBLIC LIBRARIES in GREAT BRITAIN. We shall continue them till finished, when an INDEX will be given of the whole. We shall then collect an account of the Manuscripts in the ROYAL and IMPERIAL LIBRARIES on the Continent.

BUCHANAN EASTERN MSS.

IN the last NUMBER we mentioned our intention of giving, on ́some future occasion, an account of the Syriac and other Eastern MSS. presented by Dr. Buchanan to the Public Library of the University of Cambridge. This was to have been done in continuation of the account already given of his other manuscripts: and here the order would naturally proceed. We, however, beg

omnibus rebus conservare, quæ Ernestio videtur ne Latina quidem esse, corrigenti trausponendo; ut me a te non conservato solum, sed etiam omnibus rebus ornato, etc. Aliud vitium constructionis fefellit Ernestium, quem tot alia fefellerunt in Cicerone suo. Nam in ipso discessu ridicule ruit magister: Sic tibi gratias ago, UT ad tua in me innumerabilia merita hodie maximus cumulus ACCESSERIT. Ruit denique etiam Scholiastes, de ornato hanc notulam subscribens: Quia Dictator Cicero factus est Italia-dignissimus annotator Scriptore suo.

leave to make a short pause, in order to give a more particular description of a Manuscript of Dr. Buchanan's already noticed, and barely noticed: but it is one so curious in itself, so valuable for its beautiful characters and antiquity, and of such importance to biblical critics, that we shall transgress our usual rule, which is, in general, to give little more than the title of the manuscript. The title of the manuscript now alluded to, as already given, is, an Indian Copy of the Hebrew Pentateuch.

It is thus intitled in a prefixed label: "This manuscript, on a roll of goatskins dyed red, was found in the record chest of one of the Black-Jews, in the interior of Malayola in India, by the Rev. Claudius Buchanan, in the year 1806." It does not appear, however, that the Jews, from whom it was obtained, could give any satisfactory account of it: whence, therefore, it was actually derived, and its particular age (for many reasons) cannot be positively ascertained, and must be left, in a great measure, to inferences, probabilities, and conjecture. We are not, therefore, to be surprised, that the gentleman, who made the collation, of this most singular manuscript with Vander Hooght's and Athiar's Bibles, whatever opinion he might entertain of the original, from which it might be derived, is cautious of giving an opinion of the age of this copy.

1

On comparing together the most ancient Greek manuscripts known (the Codex Bezæ in the University Library of Cambridge, the Alexandrine in the British Museum, and the Acta Apostolorum, in the Bodleian) with the most ancient Hebrew manuscripts, in the Oxford and Cambridge Libraries, it will be found by comparing the state of the vellum and of the letters with each other, that the former must be more ancient than the latter by several centuries. But there is less difficulty in fixing the age of Greek manuscripts than of Hebrew, for the following reasons. It is known, by inscriptions, that the most ancient Greek manuscripts must have been in the square character (or Uncial, as they are called) and the progress may be gradually traced from the Uncial to that of the smaller size. Add to this, that a few years later there are Greek manuscripts with a specific date, and by these the ages of others may be pretty correctly ascertained. So that though the very best critics may perhaps, be mistaken by a century or two, in giving their opinion as to the precise age of the most ancient Greek manuscripts (and they have given different opinions) yet in following the rules laid down by Montfaucon, they would probably not go

Antiq. Asiaticæ Christianam Eram Antecedentes, &c. per Edmundum Chishull.

very wide from the truth.-Vid. Montfaucon's Palæogradia Græca.

But the age of Hebrew manuscripts cannot be ascertained by these rules. They are written in one uniform square character, (I am not speaking of the Rabbinical Hebrew,) and they are all, (I am speaking of ancient manuscripts,) without dates. Dr. Kennicott supposes, that the oldest Hebrew manuscript is not beyond the age of 800 or 900 years. See his Dissert. Ġeneralis.

All that can be ascertained of Hebrew manuscripts then is, whether they have, or not, the points and accents, &c. and the marginal notes called keri? whether or not, they are written in columns, with all the spaces and other peculiarities of the best masoretic copies; and whether the skins are ornamented, or not, with the corone at the top of a few of the letters: in short, whether they have, or not, the undoubted evidence of their being derived from ancient synagogue copies: for this is the criterion by which the Jews are directed in estimating the value of the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. But with respect to the precise antiquity of particular copies, they do not seem to possess any precise rules by which they form their judgment: to what, however, they call private copies they pay little regard.

As to this Indian Hebrew manuscript, it unquestionably possesses all those marks of peculiarity, correctness, and surprising minuteness, which, in the estimation of a Jew constitutes the prime excellence, and stamps the value of a synagogue copy. It has also many marks of antiquity. It is also accompanied with this additional circumstance, which will give it consequence among Christians. Dr. Kennicott observes, It is certain, that almost all the Eastern Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament, which are known at present, were written between the years 1000 and 1457; which makes it probable, that all the manuscripts written before the periods 700, or 800, were destroyed by some decree of the Jewish Senate, on account of their many differences, then declared genuine.'

I shall not inquire now into the exact truth of this opinion; nor of some others delivered by Dr. Kennicott. But as this learned writer, and many others, have expressed an earnest wish, (the manuscripts of the western Jews being in their judgment corrupted) that copies of the Hebrew Scriptures among the Indian and Chinese Jews could be procured, (who had carried on no intercourse with the western,) this being the case, the present Indian Hebrew manuscript, it is presumed, cannot fail of being considered a treasure: it is the great desideratum; yet, according to the present collator, it differs in nothing which is material from the western copies, whether Jewish or Christian.

But our present business is not so much with criticism, as with statement: we shall therefore hold to our readers the balance, as it were, of opinions, by presenting them with a copy of a note, from the Rev. Dr. Marsh, Margaret Professor, to the Collator, Mr. Yeates.'

"A manuscript roll of the Hebrew Pentateuch, apparently of some antiquity, and found among the black in the interior of India, must be regarded at least as a literary curiosity, deserving the attention of the learned in general. And, as this manuscript appears on comparison to have no important deviation from our common printed Hebrew text, it is of still greater value to a theologian, as it affords an additional argument for the integrity of the Pentateuch. The Hebrew manuscripts of the Pentateuch preserved in the West of Europe, though equally derived, with the Hebrew manuscripts preserved in India, from the autograph of Moses, must have descended from it through very different channels; and therefore the close agreement of the former with the latter is a proof that they have preserved the original text in great purity, since the circumstances, under which the manuscript was found, forbid the explanation of that agreement on the principle of any immediate connexion. It is true, that as this manuscript, (or rather the three fragments of which this manuscript is composed,) was probably written much later than the time when the Masoretic text was established by the learned Jews of Tiberias, it may have been wholly derived from that Masoretic text; and in this case it would only afford an argument, that the Masoretic text had preserved its integrity, and would not affect the question, whether the Masoretic text itself were an accurate representative of the Mosaic autograph.

But, on the other hand, as the peculiar circumstances, under which the manuscript was found, render it at least possible, that the influence of the Masora, which was extended to the African and European manuscripts by the settlement of the most distinguished Oriental Jews in Africa and Spain, never reached the mountainous districts in the South of India; as it is possible, that the manuscript in question was derived from manuscripts anterior to the establishment of the Masora; manuscripts even, which might have regulated the learned Jews of Tiberias in the formation of their own text; the manuscript appears for these reasons to merit particular attention. A déscription and collation of it, therefore, must certainly interest every Biblical critic."

Camb. Dec. 10, 1810.

HERBERT MARSH."

Collation of an Indian Copy of the Pentateuch, &c. by Thomas Yeates. Cambridge, 1812.

Thus far on this Indian manuscript of the Hebrew Pentateuch. We proceed to the Syriac manuscripts, given by Dr. Buchanan, Class Oo.

1. A Bible that contains the Old and New Testaments, together with the Apocrypha, and fragments of the books of Clemens. It is in what is called the Estrangelo character in 2 vols. fol. No. 1. 2.

2. The Pentateuch; folio, in a large character. No. 8. 3. The Pentateuch; a Nestorian copy, in quarto. No. 26. 4. The Pentateuch; a Nestorian copy, quarto. No. 27. 5. Judges, Samuel, Kings, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Job, and Ecclesiasticus, in large quarto. No. 10. 6. Esdras, second and third of Maccabees, the Apocalypse, Esther, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, large quarto. No.

14.

7. The major and minor Prophets, Baruch, and Story of Susanna, a Mesopotamian copy, in folio. No. 7.

8. The major and minor Prophets, The Story of Susanna; a Nestorian copy in quarto. No. 18.

9. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, in octavo.

No. 39.

10. The Four Gospels, with the Acts of the Apostles, an Antiochean copy in quarto. No. 25.

11. Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, and John, in quarto. No. 31.

12. Psalms and Liturgy, quarto. No. 22.

13. Psalms, and some Canticles, in duodecimo. No. 40.

N. B. Should there be any omissions in these manuscripts, they shall be supplied at some future opportunity.

G. D.

Ο Βασιλικός Ὕμνος,

God save the King.

Ὑπὸ Σπυρίδωνος Τρικούπη ἐξελληνισθεὶς,

Τῷ αὐτῷ μέτρῳ, ῥυθμῷ καὶ μέλει.

Σώζου Γεώργιε Αρχέ!

Πολυετής εἴης ̓Αρχέ!

Σώζου 'Αρχέ!