100 



BIBLE. 



BIBLE. 



110 



examination of the Samaritan text by Gesenius ('De Pentateuch! 

 Samaritani engine, indole et autoritate Commentatio Philolol. erit. 

 3cripsit Guil. Gesenius ; * Hal. 1815, 4to) has shown that the assertions 

 of the zealots against the Codex Samaritanus, although produced with- 

 out reason, were not substantially wrong. Its character is uncritical ; 

 most of its characteristic readings have arisen from injudicious 

 grammatical corrections, inserted glosses, explanatory conjectures, 

 grammatical and historical additions and alterations according to 

 parallel passages, Samaritanisms in language and doctrine, as for 



instance the substitution of Garizim, D'TPIJ, for byy in Deut. 

 xxvii. 4. 



The Jews in Babylon and Palestine appear to have been more 

 critical than those in Egypt and the Samaritans, because Aquila, and 

 the other Greek translators after Christ, and Onkelos and Jonathan 

 agree more with the Masoretical text than the Septuagint. About 

 the time of the birth of Christ arose schools of learning, especially in 

 law, grammar, and criticism. After the destruction of Jerusalem these 

 schools were transplanted to Jabne, Ziphoria, Lydda, Csesarea Palestina, 

 formerly called Straton's .Tower, on the coast of the Mediterranean, 

 Tiberias, and at a later period to Sora, Pumpeditha, and Nahardea on 

 the banks of the Euphrates. 



Origen, in composing the Hexapla, perused a Masoretical manuscript 

 in the 3rd century after Christ, and in the 4th century Hieronymus 

 employed Palestine teachers and MSS. The present received text 

 originates from Palestine. Therefore the interpretations and readings 

 of Hieronymus are nearly allied to the present received text. Many 

 passages indicate that Hieronymus employed an unpointed text. 



Eight MSS. form the basis of the text of the Old Testament. They 

 are : the Codex Babylonicus, the Codex Palestinus or Egyptus, the Codex 

 Sinai, an Egyptian MS. supposed to have been written at Jerusalem 

 and carried to Egypt, the Pentateuch of Jericho, thought to be the 

 most correct, the Codex Sanbaki, and the book Tagin containing the 

 Pentateuch only. The Hebrew MSS. are superior on the whole to the 

 Samaritan, yet the Samaritan was followed in the Septuagint and our 

 Saviour has quoted from it, and the differences are but slight. It has 

 been a question whence the Samaritans obtained their copy of the 

 Pentateuch. Gesenius thinks that when the tribes were carried away 

 captive to Assyria, some copies may have been left with the remnant, 

 which passed into the hands of the mixed race afterwards called 

 Samaritans. 



The Talmud contains precepts of biblical calligraphy (Tr. Gittm, 

 f. 45, c. 2), mentions a comparison of manuscripts (Hieros. Tr. Taanith, 

 1. 68, c. 1, compare Tr. Sopherim, vi. 4), and refers to certain classes of 

 biblical emendations prior to the Talmud, called by Morinus 'frag- 

 menta' or 'vestigia recensionum;' by Eichhorn, ' Revisiones.' These 

 classes are 



I. D <l ~l5"iD "1V.21?. ablatio scribarum, concerning the omission of 

 vau 1 in Gen. xviii. 5, xxiv. 55; Num. xii. 14 ; Ps. Ixviii. 26,xxxvi. 7. 

 See Nedarim, f. 37, c. 2. 



II. C'H.P'iD tlpR correctio scribarum, concerning sixteen or 

 eighteen erroneous passages, for example, Gen. xviii. 22 ; 1 Sam. 

 iii. 13. 



III. Puncta extraordinaria in fifteen words, for example, Ps. xxvu. 



13> tft ^>- Tr - Sopherim, vi. 3. 



IV. a^n? rfVl. *?!?, if there was anything to be read which was 

 not written,'2 Sam. viii. 3, xvi. 23. Nedarim, f. 37, c. 2. 



V. "HJ7 rfbl 2^03. if there was in reading to be omitted what 

 wag written in the text, as in 2 Kings v. 18. 



VI. S^rQ 1 ! "Hfli various readings, as Job xiii. 5, Hagg. i. 18. 

 After the conclusion of the Talmud in the 6th century, the Jewist 



scribes continued, especially in Tiberias, to propagate their critical 

 traditions, at first orally, afterwards by writings ; these writings were 

 afterwards placed in the margin of the manuscripts. Subsequently 

 those critical remarks were improved and augmented by the so callet 



mWO ^3 "the lords of the Masora," who also counted the 

 number of the verses, of the words, and of the consonants in the 

 biblical books. 



There exists also in the rabbinical bibles of Bomberg and Buxtorf 

 and in the sixth volume of the London Polyglott, a list of various 

 readings by Rabbi Aharon Ben Asher, and Rabbi Jacob Ben Naphthali 

 of the llth century. The readings of Ben Asher are preferred b; 

 the western, and those of Ben Naphthali by the eastern Jews. From 

 the circumstance that their observations regard exclusively the vowels 

 and .accents, we conclude, that the punctuation of the text was 

 already accomplished in their days, and that they employed punctuate 

 manuscripts. 



After the origin of the Masora, the MSS. were probably often alterec 

 accordingly. But we have reason to think that no material chang 

 took place, because even the complaint of Meir Hallevi aboxit th 

 corruption of the manuscripts refers . especially to abbreviations whicl 

 do not affect the sense. The famous MSS. of the rabbins in th 

 middle ages, aa that of Hillel, Ben Asher (called the Egyptian o 

 Hierosolymitan), and that of Ben Naphthali and others, adhered to th 



lasora. The following are among the more important editions of the 

 arious texts : 



The earliest editions of the Hebrew bible were imitations of ancient 

 nanuscripts, and have therefore critical authority. The oldest Hebrew 

 rints contain only parts of the Old Testament. The oldest specimen 

 >f Hebrew typography contains the Psalms with the Commentary of 

 [imchi, 1477, probably printed at Bologna. A very old specimen o 

 lebrew typography was presented by Dr. Pellet, in 1735, to the 

 ibrary of Eton College, containing the Cethubim or Hagiographa, 

 jrinted at Naples in 1487. This edition was burnt by the Jews, 

 irobably on account of its readings frequently differing from the 

 rlasora, which was considered already at that period the standard of 

 Directness. The copy at Eton is printed on vellum, and is considered 

 he only one that escaped the flames. 



I. The first complete edition of the Hebrew bible was printed at 

 Soncino, in the Cremonese territory in the dukedom of Milan, 1488, 



mall fol. The edition of Brescia, 1494, 4to. which Luther translated, 

 generally follows the text of this Editio I'rinceps. (See J. G. Palm de 

 ?odicibus Veteris et N. T. quibus b. Lutherus in conficienda interpret. 

 ~erm. usus est, Hamb., 1753. B. W. D. Schulz vollst. Kritik iib. d. 

 jewohnlichen Ausgaben d. Hebr. Bibel nebst einer Nachricht v. d. 

 lebr. Bibel welche Luther bei s. Uebersetzung gebraucht, Berlin, 

 766, 8vo.) To this first edition of printed bibles belong also, Bibl. 

 labbinica, Bombergii ed. Felix Prateusis, 1517, and the smaller 

 editions printed by Bomberg in 1518, and in 1521, 4to : the edition of 

 lobert Stephanus, 1539-1544, 4to : and Bibl. Hebraica stud. Seb. 

 tfiinsteri, Basileae, 1534-1536, 4to, two volumes. 



II. An independent text, which became the basis of other editions, 

 s contained in the Biblia Polyglotta Complutensia, finished in 1517, 

 >ut not published till 1522. Alvarez Gomez de Gestis Francisci 



Ximenii (Compluti. 1569, fol. L. ii. p. 47) says that there were bought 

 'or 4000 aurei, seven Hebrew MS. copies from various countries, and 

 that these copies were preserved at Complutum (Alcala). From this 

 second edition proceeded Bibl. Polygl. Bertram! ex offic. Sanctandr. 

 1586, fol. (also ex offic. Commelin, 1599, 1616). 



III. Bibl. Rabb. Bomberg. II. Cur. R. Jac. B. Chajim, Veuet. 1525- 

 26, fol. Although Jacob Ben Chajim in this edition followed the 

 Vlaeora more than the MSS., it influenced strongly most of the 

 subsequent editions, and the following belong entirely to this 

 third recension: Biblia Rabb. Bomberg. III., Venet. 1547-1549, 

 :ol. ; Bibl. Rabb. per Jo. de Gara, Venet. 1568, fol.; Biblia Rabb. 

 Bragadini, Venet., 1617-18, fol. ; Bomberg's quarto editions of 1528, 

 1533, and 1544; the edition by R. Steph., Paris, 1544-46, in 16mo; 

 some alterations were made in the Justinian editions, Venet., 1551, 

 4to; 1552, 18mo; 1563, 4to ; 1573, 4to; B. Hebr. Genev., 1618, in 

 4to, 8vo and 18mo; B. Hebr., per J. de Gara, Venet., 1566, 4to; 

 1568, 8vo; 1682, 4to ; B. Hebr. typ. Bragadin., Venet. 1614-15, in 4to 

 and 12mo, 1619, 4to, 1628, 4to, 1707; Bibl. Hebr. Chr. Plantin. Antv. 

 1566, in 4to, 8vo, and 16mo ; Biblia Hebraica, Hartmauni Frcf. ad 

 Viadr. 1595, in 4to, 8vo, and 16mo ; 1598, 4to ; B. Hebr. Zach. Cratouis 

 Viteb. 1586 (1587), 4to. 



IV. Bibl. Polyglott., Antwerp, 1569-72, fol., represent a text com- 

 posed of the two last recensions. This polyglott contains in the first 

 four volumes the Old Testament with the apocrypha interspersed. 

 From this proceeded the Plantine Hebrew and Latin, Ant., 1571, fol. ; 

 1584, fol. ; L. B. 1673, 8vo ; B. Hebr. Lat. Burg. Aurac. in Hisp., 1581, 

 in fol. ; B. Hebr, Lat., Genev., 1618, fol. ; Bibl. Hebr. Lat. sumt. Fr. 

 Knoch Frcf. ad Moen., 1618, fol. ; Bibl. Hebr. Lat, Vienn., 1743, 8vo; 

 Bibl. Polyglott. Par., 1645, fol. ; Bibl. Polyglotta, Lend. ed. Brian Walton, 

 1657, fol.; B. S. quadriliugua, accur. Christ Reineccio, Lips., 1750, 

 fol., and the manual editions by Reineccius, Lips., 1725, 8vo; 1739, 

 8vo, and 4to; 1756, 1793, 8vo. 



V. Bibl. Hebr. cura et studio Elite Hutteri, Hamb., 1587, fol. (1588, 

 1596, 1603), contains a text compounded of the Venice, Paris, and 

 Antwerp editions. Butter's text is repeated in Hutter's Polyglotta, 

 Nurnberg, 1591, fol. (this Polyglott was not completed), and in Nisselii 

 B. Hebr. 1662, 8vo. 



VI. Buxtorf's octavo edition, Basel, 1611, was the prototype of B. 

 Hebr. typis Menasseh Ben Israel, sumt. Jansonii, Amst. 1639, 8vo. 

 (The editions by Menasseh Ben Israel in 1630-31 and 1631-35 have 

 another text.) Bibl. Rabb. Buxtorf, Bas. 1618-19 ; Bibl. Rabb. op. 

 Mos. Francfurt, Amst. 1724, fol. 



VII. B. Hebr. correcta et collata cum antiquissimis et accuratissimia 

 exemplaribus manuscriptis et hactenus impressis (cum pnefat. Johannis 

 Leusden), typis Jos. Athiae, Amst. 1661, 8vo, and 1667, 8vo. From 

 this edition originated the following : B. Hebr. Clodii Francf. ad 

 Moenum, 1677, 8vo, recogn. a J. H. Majo et ultima resv. a J. Leusdeno, 

 Francf. a M. 1692, 8vo ; Biblia ad optimorum tain impressorum Clodii, 

 Jablonskii, Opitii, quani manuscriptorum aliquot codicum fidem collata; 

 direxit opus J. H. Majus, collat. instituit. G. Chr. Biirclin, Frcf. a M. 

 1716, 4to; B. Hebr. ex rec. Dan. Ern. Jablonskii, Ber. 1699, 8vo, maj. 

 This sometimes deviates from Leusdeu according to the authority of 

 manuscripts and the cardinal editions, namely, Bombergiana, Venet. 

 Regia, Basileensis Buxtorfii, Hutteriana, Menaasis, ed. 2, Berlin, 1772, 

 12mo. After this B. Hebr. J. H. Michaelis, Hal. M. 1720, 8vo, maj. 

 Cardinal editions are those "quse reliquarum quasi cardinalea vide- 

 bantur, ' the authority of which was followed by others. After Athias 

 also B. Hebr. stud, et op. Henr. Opitii Kil. 1709, 4to ; and after this 



