Theologico-Political Treatise 1862/Chapter 9

much the preceding disquisition on the actual writer of the first twelve books of the Hebrew Scriptures aids us in understanding them appears sufficiently from the passages quoted in support of the views advanced. Without some such guide as we have attempted to supply, indeed, these books must remain an enigma to every one.

But, besides the writer, there remain many other things in the books themselves which demand animadversion, although superstition would persuade us to avert our eyes from too curiously scrutinizing their contents. Among the number of interesting subjects of inquiry is the one wherefore Ezra — whom I shall continue to speak of as the writer or compiler of the earlier books of Scripture, until another is discovered with better pretensions to the authorship — did not, as he certainly did not, put the finishing hand to the work he undertook? Ezra did little, in fact, but gather materials from other earlier writers, and then, without much examination or any care for arrangement, set down the results of his labours in a simple style; and it is in this inartificial and undigested state that the narrative compiled by him has been transmitted to posterity. What cause prevented Ezra from revising his work I am at a loss to conjecture, unless perchance it were a sudden or premature death. But that the matter is as I have stated it seems abundantly demonstrated by the few fragments of the earlier Hebrew historians that have come down to us. For the history of Hiskiah, from the 17th verse of chapter xviii. of the Second Book of Kings onwards, is derived from the narrative of Isaiah; and the whole of what is said about Hiskiah in Isaiah, is contained in the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, the same incidents being found narrated, with trifling exceptions, in the same words in both. From any diversity here, however, nothing more can be inferred than that there were different versions extant of the narrative of Isaiah, unless, indeed, it be imagined that there is some mystery lurking under the fact of the identity mentioned. Again, the last chapter of the Second Book of Chronicles is comprised in the last chapter of Jeremiah; and, further, the 7th chapter of the Second Book of Samuel is contained in the 17th chapter of the First Book of Chronicles; but the words in several places are encountered so singularly altered, as to make it evidently appear that these two chapters were derived from two different copies of the history of Nathan. Lastly, the genealogy of the Kings of Idumea which we have in the 36th chapter of Genesis is met with in the very same words in the 1st chapter of the First Book of Chronicles, although it is agreed that the author of this book derived the particulars he narrates from other historical records, and not from any of the twelve books which we here ascribe to Ezra. There is no reason to doubt, therefore, that if we had those historical records, the fact would be immediately ascertained to be as represented; but these ancient documents having all perished, we have no resource but critically to study the histories that have come down to us, to scrutinize their order and connection, the various repetitions in their course, and, finally, the discrepancies in the reckonings of years, in order that we may form a judgment of what remains.

We shall now, therefore, proceed to consider the chief of these matters, beginning with the account of Judah and Tamar, which the historian in the 38th chapter of the book of Genesis enters upon in these terms: "Now it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren." "At that time" necessarily here refers to some other time than that in which the historian is immediately speaking; but of the precise time, referred to we have no means of judging. For from the time when Joseph was carried into Egypt to that when the Patriarch Jacob also proceeded thither with the whole of his family, we can reckon no more than 22 years; for Joseph, when he was sold by his brethren, was 17 years of age, and when released from prison by order of Pharaoh he was 30; if to the difference between these two numbers, 13, we add the seven years of plenty and the two years of dearth, we have 22 years. But in this space of time no one can conceive that so many events could have happened as we find recorded; viz. that Judith begat three children one after another by one wife, whom he had just then espoused; the eldest, born of whom, when his age permitted, took Tamar to wife ; but he dying, a second brother espoused the widow ; and he also dying, Judah himself had knowledge of Tamar, and by her had twins, one of whom, within the interval mentioned, married and had children. Such a series of events is plainly impossible within the time specified in Genesis, and must therefore have occurred at some other time; Ezra, our historian, however, gave the story of Judah and his sons and Tamar, as he found it, without examining the matter very particularly, or making sure that it accurately fitted in with the other circumstances with which it was connected. But this is not the only tale that is derived from different records or traditions; the entire history of Jacob and Joseph appears to be similarly derived, so little do the several parts of it agree with one another. Thus, in the 47th chapter of Genesis it is recorded that Jacob, when first presented by Joseph, his son, to Pharaoh, was 130 years old; from which if 22 be taken, which he passed in sorrow on account of the loss of Joseph, and 17 for Joseph's age when he was sold by his brethren, and, lastly, seven which he served for Rachel, Jacob is found at a very advanced age, viz. 84, when he took Leah to wife; on the contrary, Dinah could scarcely have been seven when she was violated by Sechem; and Simeon and Levi, again, scarcely 12 and 11 when they ravaged a city and put all the inhabitants thereof to the sword.

But there is no occasion here to pass the whole of the Pentateuch under review; any one who but observes that in these five books precept and narrative are jumbled together without order, that there is no regard to time, and that one and the same story is often met with again and again, and occasionally with very important differences in the incidents, — whoever observes these things, I say, will certainly come to the conclusion that in the Pentateuch we have merely notes and collections to be examined at leisure, materials for history rather than the digested history itself. Nor is it only to the Pentateuch that these remarks apply; the seven books which remain, down to the destruction of Jerusalem, have the same character, and are made up or put together in the same way. Who can fail to see, for example, that from verse six of the 2nd chapter of Judges the writer is drawing from another record, in which the deeds of Joshua are also set forth, and from which the very words employed are probably derived? Our historian, after having in the last chapter of Joshua given an account of the death and burial of this great captain, and in the 1st chapter of Judges promised that he would next speak of what came to pass after Joshua's death, instead of doing so and going on with the thread of his story, connecting the incidents which he now begins to relate with those that had gone before, starts afresh, as it were, and repeats the tale of the death and burial of Joshua. In like manner are the 17th and 18th chapters of the First Book of Samuel taken from another record; in which a cause is assigned for David's frequenting the palace of Saul very different from the one mentioned in the 16th chapter of the same book; for we do not see that David went to Saul summoned to his presence on the recommendation of his servants (as we have it stated in the 16th chapter), but that David, having been casually sent by his father to his brothers in the camp of Saul, and having engaged and slain the Philistine giant Goliath in single combat, the fame of the deed reached the king's ears, and the youthful victor was consequently brought before him. I suspect also that in the 26th chapter of the same Book of Samuel the writer narrates from another source the same incident which he had already recorded in the 24th chapter. But I pass on to the consideration of the time which must have elapsed between one important event and another in the history of the Hebrew nation.

In the 6th chapter of the First Book of Kings it is said that Solomon built the temple in the 480th year after the Exodus; from the narrative of events, however, we conclude that a much longer period must have elapsed, for we have it stated that, —

To this number, moreover, must be added the years during which the Hebrew republic flourished after the death of Joshua, until it was subdued by Chusan Rishataim, which I believe to have been many; for I cannot persuade myself that immediately after the death of Joshua all who had seen the marvels wrought by him had died at once, nor that their successors by a single casualty could have been led to bid adieu to the law, nor, from the height of virtuous courage, could have sunk into the slough of vice and indifference, nor, finally, that Chusan Rishataim could with a word have enslaved them. Now since each of these events must have required almost an age to itself, there can be no doubt but that verses 7, 9, and 10, of the 2nd chapter of the Book of Judges comprise the history of very many years which are passed over in silence. There are further to be added the years during which Samuel was judge, the number of which is not given in Scripture. Still further must be added the years of Saul's reign, which I have not mentioned in the preceding enumeration, because from his history it is not sufficiently ascertained how many years he did reign. It is said, indeed, in chapter xiii. verse 1 of 1 Samuel, that Saul reigned for two years, but the text here is defective; and from the history itself we learn that he reigned during more than the number of years specified. That the text is truncated, no one acquainted with the merest rudiments of the Hebrew language can doubt; for it begins thus, — "Saul was [* * *] years old when he began to reign; and he reigned two years over Israel." Who does not see that the number of the years of Saul's age when he came to the kingdom are wanting here? But that a considerable number must be admitted is obvious from the narrative of events. For in the 7th verse of the 27th chapter of the same book we find that David dwelt among the Philistines, with whom he had sought refuge on account of Saul's anger, for one year and four months; all that happened, therefore, must have taken place according to this reckoning in no longer an interval than eight months, which I think no one will insist upon as probable. Josephus, indeed, at the end of the sixth book of his Antiquities, amends the text thus, — "Saul therefore reigned during the life of Samuel for eighteen years, and after the death of Samuel for two years more." The entire history of chapter xiii., however, agrees in nothing with what has gone before. At the end of chapter vii., for example, it is related that the Philistines had been so severely handled by the Israelites, that during the life-time of Samuel they had not dared to encroach upon the territories of the Jews; but here, in this 13th chapter, we are told that the Israelites were invaded by the Philistines (Samuel being still alive) and reduced to such extreme poverty and misery that they were not only without the arms necessary for their defence, but without the means of making them. I should however expend a vast amount of labour to little purpose were I to attempt so to reconcile the various tales that are told in this First Book of Samuel, as to make it appear that they were all arranged and written by one historian. I therefore return to my subject. The years, then, during which Saul reigned have to be added to the computation given above. Lastly, I have not included the years of the Hebrew anarchy because they are not given in Scripture. I say then that I do not know in what interval of time the events related from the 17th chapter to the end of the Book of Judges may have happened. From what precedes however it follows most clearly that no true reckoning of years can be derived from the histories themselves, nor that these histories can be regarded as accounts of the same or of corresponding events; they are often very dissimilar, or are even mutually opposed. Hence we conclude that they have been collected from a variety of sources, and transmitted to us in a crude and undigested condition.

Nor does there appear to be less discrepancy between the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel; thus, in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel it is said that Jehoram, son of Achab, began to rule in the second year of the reign of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings i. 17); but in the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah we read that Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, began his reign in the fifth year of the reign of Jehoram, son of Achab (Ib. viii. 16). And whoever will be at the pains to collate the narratives of the Book of Chronicles with those of the Book of Kings will discover many similar discrepancies, which I do not think it worth while to criticize, still less the comments of various writers who have attempted to reconcile these narratives with one another. The Rabbins seem to me to be absolutely insane, and the commentators whom I have read to dream, so constantly do they contrive purely imaginary solutions of difficulties, at the cost not infrequently of plainly corrupting the text of the narrative. To give a single instance, — when in the Second Book of Chronicles we read that Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began his reign, we are informed that the years here are to be reckoned from the reign of Omri, not from the birth of Ahaziah. Now if it were possible to show that such was the purpose of the author of the Book of Chronicles, I should not hesitate to add that he knew not what he said. In this same way and manner are many other imaginations set before us, which, were they well founded, would lead me to say, unhesitatingly, that the ancient Hebrews were both ignorant of their mother tongue and violated the plainest rules of historical narrative. I should further add that neither rule nor reason was to be acknowledged in interpreting the Scriptures, but that every one was to feel himself at liberty to invent and interpolate whatever he chose.

Should it be thought, however, that I here speak in terms too general, and on grounds insufficient, I entreat the objector to show us anything like distinct arrangement in these writings, such as historians in the present day might imitate with advantage. If such a one, whilst explaining and reconciling facts, (keeping all the while with due closeness to the text, having respect to the genius of the Hebrew tongue, and proper regard to the manner in which the narratives are connected,) succeeds in so presenting matters that his system of interpretation may be generally followed, to that man, I say, I will freely give my hand, and take him for my Magnus Apollo, my guide; for I confess that, however anxiously and long I have myself inquired, I have been unable to discover anything like a guiding principle out of the labyrinth of difficulties I encounter. I add, further, that I set down nothing here which I have not long and seriously meditated; and although from my youth I was imbued with the common opinions concerning the Scriptures, I have been compelled in my manhood to abandon these, and to espouse those views which I promulgate in this place. But there is no reason why I should detain the reader with such matters, or seek to push him upon a desperate undertaking; it was right however that I should propose the thing in order to manifest my own mind more clearly; and I now proceed to speak of the other matters which I think deserve to be considered in connection with the fortune of these books.

Now it is to be observed that, besides the peculiarities which have been already discussed, the books of the Old Testament have by no means been so very carefully preserved by those into whose hands they fell successively, but that blemishes have crept into them. Even the more ancient scribes have animadverted upon various doubtful readings, and on several imperfect or truncated passages besides; and very certainly they have not noticed all of these that occur. But whether the imperfections are of such magnitude as to throw serious obstacles in the reader's way I shall not stay to question; for my own part, I regard them as of lighter moment, to those at least who read the Scriptures with unbiassed judgment; and this much I can safely affirm, that I have not met with any error, nor any variety of reading in connection with the moral doctrines, which would thereby be rendered either obscure or doubtful.

But many will not allow that error or mistake has crept into any part of Scripture whatsoever. They maintain that God, by his special providence, has preserved the whole Bible incorrupt; the various readings of the text that are extant they declare to be signs of inscrutable mysteries; so are the asterisms which occur in the middle of 28 paragraphs of Scripture; nay, they contend that there are great arcana connected with the tops of the Hebrew letters! But whether all this have been said from simple foolishness, or idiot piety, or from arrogance and malice, to make it appear as though they were the sole depositaries of the mysteries of God, I know not; but this I do know and aver, that I have met with nothing that savoured of mystery in their writings, but only with puerile imaginations. I have, moreover, read the works of some of the more recent cabalistic triflers, whose folly I can never sufficiently admire. But that errors, blemishes, mistakes, as said above, have crept into Scripture, no one possessed of sound judgment can in my opinion deny who reads the passages referring to Saul, which I have already quoted (1 Samuel xiii. 1), and the 2nd verse of the 6th chapter of the Second Book of Samuel, where we find it stated that "David arose and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God." Every one must see that here the place to which they went, namely, Kirjath-jearim, whence the ark was brought, is omitted. Nor do I think it can be denied that the 37th verse of the 13th chapter of the Second Book of Samuel is confused and truncated: "And Absalom fled and went to Talmai, the son of Ammihud, King of Geshur. And David mourned for his son every day. So Absalom fled, and went to Geshur, and was there three years." In the same way, I know that in former times I noted various other passages, which at this moment do not occur to me.

With regard to the marginal annotations constantly met with in all the Hebrew codices, I think no one can question their having reference to various or doubtful readings, who attends to the fact that most of them are connected with, or have arisen from, the great similarity which many of the Hebrew letters bear to one another. The resemblance of כ Kaf to ב Bet, י Jod to ו Vau, ד Dalet to ר Res, &c., cannot be overlooked. Thus, in the Second Book of Samuel, the penultimate verse of the 5th chapter in the common version reads, — "when thou hearest," opposite which in the margin stands, — "where thou hearest," In the 22nd verse of the 21st chapter of Judges we read, — "When their fathers or their brethren come to us," the marginal note supplies the "to complain" [which is adopted in the English version]. In the same manner many things have arisen from the use of the letters which are styled quiescent, — letters which are for the most part slurred, or scarcely indicated in speaking, and which in Hebrew are taken indifferently one for another. For example, in Leviticus xxv. 30 it is written, — "The house that is in the walled city shall be established to him," &c.; in the margin, however, the reading is, — "that is not in the walled city."

Now although these things are clear enough of themselves, it is nevertheless necessary to reply to the views of certain Pharisees, who try to persuade themselves and us that the marginal readings of the Hebrew Scriptures have a mysterious meaning, and were attached by the writers of the books themselves to their completed works. The first of these assumptions, to which indeed I pay little attention, is derived from the custom or practice followed in reading the Scriptures. "If," they say, "these marginal notes are appended on account of a variety of readings, the best of which posterity have not been able to decide on, whence comes it that the marginal word is the one which in reading the Scriptures is constantly employed? Why, say they, has the sense which the writer desired should be adopted been noted in the margin? The text, on the contrary, should have been found as it was meant to be read, the correct reading and proper sense not noted in the margin." The second of the Pharisees' reasons, which seems to have a certain speciousness about it, is derived from the nature of the thing itself. The defects and errors of the text they say cannot have been introduced of set purpose, but have crept by accident or inadvertence into the codices, and that this is the case appears from various considerations. In five different places, for example, in the Bible, the Hebrew word for girl, or young woman, is met with, and in each of these, with a single exception, the letter ה He, against all grammatical rule, is omitted; in the margin, however, the defective aspirate is regularly supplied. Now shall the error here be set down to the score of the writer or writers of the Bible? By what fatality could it have happened that the pen slipped as often as it had to write the Hebrew word for young woman? The error in the text could easily and without misgivings have been corrected, in conformity with a simple and definite grammatical rule. Since, therefore, these readings have not occurred from chance or accident, since such obvious errors have not been simply corrected, the Pharisees conclude that they were introduced by the first scribes of set purpose, and that they have a certain significance. But it is easy to reply to such assumptions, for the argument they derive from the custom among the Jews of using the marginal words in viva voce exercises, whilst they continue to employ the textual one in writing, causes me no difficulty: perchance the superstitious observance referred to has arisen because both readings being esteemed equally good or passable, it was thought proper always to write one, and always to read the other, in which way both would be preserved. It was doubtless thought presumptuous, in a matter of so much moment as a phrase in Holy Writ, to come to any positive determination, whereby something false might be taken for the uncertain truth, and they therefore escaped the dilemma of seeming to prefer one version to another by regularly writing the one and constantly reading aloud the other. It is note-worthy, however, that the marginal readings are not inscribed on the sacred rolls [from which the reading takes place in the Synagogue], because perchance it was willed that things, although correctly set down in the text, should nevertheless be otherwise read in public, namely, as they were noted on the margin, and so it came to be universally ruled that when the Bible was read aloud the marginal words or phrases should be delivered.

But all the marginal annotations of the Bible can by no means be regarded as varia, or doubtful readings; there are many which have come down from remote antiquity that do not fall under such a category; and I shall therefore proceed to show why the scribes were induced to preserve both classes of annotations. Now many of the marginalia contain explanations of obsolete words, and sometimes they are substitutions of more delicate for coarser words, which the improved taste or manners of the times did not permit to be uttered in public; for the old writers were not wont to beat about the bush in courtly phrase, but to call things by their most common names. When times of greater refinement arrived, however, expressions that were used without a thought of their indelicacy by a former generation began to be regarded as obscene; to avoid these without altering the text of the sacred volume itself a marginal note supplied the word or words that were required as substitutes in the open lecture; and so the sensitiveness of the public in regard to the integrity of the text was respected — the written word remained, the spoken phrase did not offend the ear. Whatever the motive for the practice of using the marginals in reading the Scriptures may have been, it certainly was not because the words in these contained the true readings, or that all interpretation was to be made in conformity with them. For, besides that the Rabbins in the Talmud often differ from the masoretic writers, and have other readings which they approve, as I shall soon show, there are, over and above all these, other things in the margin, which seem to be less in consonance with the genius of the Hebrew language. In the Second Book of Samuel, for example (xiv. 23), it is written, "In that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant;" a construction which is regular, and agrees with that in verse 15 of the same chapter; but opposite to it stands the marginal variation, "of thy servant," which does not agree with the person of the verb that is used. So, again, in the last verse of the 16th chapter of the same book it is written, "As if a man had inquired at the oracle of God," and opposite in the margin stand the words, "who had inquired," &c., the "who" supplying the nominative to the verb; which, however, is not judiciously or properly done, for the common custom in this language is to assume impersonal verbs in the third person singular of the active verb, as is perfectly well known to grammarians. In like manner, numerous other marginal notes are met with which can in no way be preferred to the words of the text.

Besides doubtful readings, the scribes noted obsolete words; for there can be no question but that in the Hebrew, as in other tongues, time and later usage rendered many words obsolete or antiquated; and these being found in the Bible by the more recent scribes, who marked everything, as has been said, they were annotated in order that the reading might be given before the people in accordance with usage and custom. This is the reason why the word nahgar is noted wherever it occurs, because more anciently it was of common gender, masculine or feminine. So, too, the metropolis of the Jews was written Jerusalem — not Jerusalim. The same thing has to be said of the pronouns himself and herself, later writers having turned the Vau into Jod (a change that is of frequent occurrence in Hebrew) when they wished to indicate the feminine gender; but this was not done by the ancients, who were not accustomed to distinguish the masculine from the feminine except by the vowel sounds. Thus of the anomalies of certain words, some belong to the ancients, some to the moderns, and, lastly, the ancients in their day often used the paragrammatic letters with singular elegance. All of these points I could illustrate by many examples; but I am unwilling to trespass longer on the patience of the reader. If any one inquires, however, how I came to know what I have stated above? I reply that I often met the words and particulars which have been indicated in the most ancient of writings — in the Bible itself — and that the only reason for words and phrases becoming antiquated and obsolete is their disuse by successive writers; in other languages, as well as in the Hebrew, although long ago dead, obsolete words are nevertheless recognized. But, some one may still insist, since I admit that the greater number of the marginals refer to doubtful readings, and ask how it happens that there are never more than two variations to one word or phrase? why not occasionally three or more? And, again: that as some things in the text are so plainly repugnant to grammatical rule, which are duly corrected in the margin, it is not to be believed that the scribes could have hesitated as to which was the correct version. But it is easy to answer these queries and suggestions. To the first I say that the readings were often many more than those we find noted in our codices. In the Talmud there are many which are neglected by the Masoretes, and these often differ so much from one another that the superstitious corrector of the Bamberg Bible confesses in his preface that he found it impossible to reconcile them. He says, "Here I know not what to answer, unless it be to repeat what I have already said, viz. That it is the wont of the Talmudists to contradict the Masoretes." Wherefore, I cannot admit the assumption that there never were more than two variants to one place; although I readily concede — nay, I believe — that no more than two are ever found in any one codex, and this for two reasons: 1st, Because the main cause of the various readings is not more than two-fold in its nature; being due in the first place to the resemblance of one Hebrew letter to another; and it is, in fact, an ever recurring question, when there is any room for doubt, whether ב Bet or כKaf, י Jod or ו Vau, ד Dalet or ר Res, &c., is the proper letter to be used; and as these are among the most constantly employed in the language, it frequently happens that either indifferently will make tolerable sense with the context. Then, whether the syllable should be long or short is determined by the quantities of those letters which we have spoken of as quiescent or slurred. Add that all marginals do not refer to doubtful readings; many, we should say, had been appended from conscientious motives, and, as has been said, for the sake of explaining obsolete or antiquated words. 2nd, Another reason wherefore the readings are limited to two, I conceive may have been connected with the scarcity of MSS.; few scribes could be supposed able to command the use of more than one or two, or three at most, to transcribe from. In the 6th chapter of a Hebrew book entitled "Tract of the Scribes" no more than three MSS. are mentioned, which are said to have been discovered in the time of Ezra, — the scribes indeed maintain that the marginalia were all added by Ezra. However this may be, if there were three codices extant, we can readily imagine that in any one place two of these always agreed; and, on the contrary, it could not be held otherwise than very strange had three copies only of the same book given three different readings of a great number of passages. That copies of the Hebrew Scriptures became excessively rare after the time of Ezra will cease to be matter of wonder to whosoever reads the first chapter of the First Book of Maccabees, or the seventh chapter of the Twelfth Book of Josephus's Antiquities. It is rather wonderful, after the long and terrible persecution the Jews endured, that they should have been able to preserve anything whatsoever; a truth which I think no one will be inclined to question who reads with the slightest attention the history of their sufferings. We therefore seem to see causes enough why no more than two variants are preserved of any passage; and in this fact we find no support for those who infer that the Bible in the noted passages is intentionally written obscurely, and covers certain important mysteries. With regard to certain passages written so incorrectly as to outrage the usages of verbal composition in all times, and which ought therefore to have been corrected absolutely, and not noted in the margin, I have nothing to say; nor can I divine what sentiment of respect withheld the hand of the scribe from setting them right. Perhaps it was through scrupulousness, and a desire to transmit to posterity these ancient writings as they themselves had received them, and to note the discrepancies of the originals as various readings rather than as matters of doubtful import; nor, indeed, have I myself spoken of them as doubtful, but because I have in truth found almost all of them to be so, and have often been puzzled to conclude which reading was to be preferred.

In addition to all these doubtful different readings, the scribes have further noted many defective or truncated places — gaps in the middle of paragraphs, &c. — the number of which is given by the Masoretes at twenty-eight; I am not aware whether they connect anything mysterious with this number or not. The Pharisees, however, religiously preserve certain spaces in their transcripts of the Scriptures. I give a single example as an illustration. Thus we find the 8th verse of the fourth chapter of Genesis written as follows, "And Cain said to his brother Abel … and it came to pass whilst they were in the fields that Cain," &c. The blank space is left at the point where we might have expected to learn what Cain said to his brother. In this way the spaces left by the scribes, besides those we have made the subject of particular remark, are twenty-eight in number; though many of the passages where they occur would not really appear truncated were the interposed spaces omitted. But of such matters enough.