For the multiplication of copies, human copyists had to be employed. It is by no means contrary to our faith in the Bible to assume that, as far as the human work of these copyists is concerned, it must have been subject to the fate of all human work, to error and imperfection. And, in fact, there are many copies of the Bible that abound in mistakes; there are passages in Scripture that vary in the different manuscripts; hence the numerous variæ lectiones met with in the critical editions of the Bible. But, on the other hand, it would not be reasonable to assume that the holy literature and the national treasure, very limited in size, should have been neglected by the religious authorities of the time to such an extent that no reliable, correct copy was kept, to be consulted in case of doubt or difference of opinion. This being the case with all Biblical books, it applies with special force to the Torah or Pentateuch, which contains the Divine commandments. The least alteration made by copyists—unknowingly or knowingly—might involve a question of life and death. Must it not have been the duty of the judicial authority to keep a correct authorised copy in a safe place? It is certainly most reasonable to assume that such a copy was kept, and that there were in every generation among the priests or prophets men who had a thorough knowledge of the Law, and could easily detect any interference with the text. As the laws do not form a separate section of the Bible, but are interwoven with a historical account of important events from the Creation to the death of Moses, the entire Pentateuch, composed of both laws and history, was preserved with the same anxiety and watchfulness. That great care was taken in copying the Law we learn from the fact mentioned in the Talmud, that Ezra minutely examined the three scrolls he found in the Temple, and in three passages noticed different readings, of which he adopted the one found in two copies. The other books of the Bible are of less importance, but the exclusion of error on the part of the copyist, though it has not the same, has yet a high degree of certainty, inasmuch as they too formed part of the holy, national literature. If a mistake should be clearly proved, it would not be contrary to our religious principles to admit it. But we shall find, after thorough study and examination of the impugned passages, that there is in each case far greater doubt as to the correctness of any of the numerous emendations suggested than of the traditional and Massoretic text before us. It may frequently occur that some emendations appear strikingly correct, and yet after due reflection they are found more doubtful than the original. It is therefore our duty thoroughly to examine each proposed emendation, and to hesitate long before admitting the incorrectness of the received text and the correctness of the emendation.