Editions of the Hebrew Bible

...

Says Davidson:

(p. 137) The Psalter was the first part of the Hebrew Scriptures which was printed A.D. 1477 4to (probably at Bologna). ... (p. 138) The text is very erroneously printed, with many abbreviations and omissions, bearing all the marks of a first rude attempt at printing Hebrew.

The Pentateuch appeared in print for the first time in 1482 at Bologna, with the Targum of Onkelos and the commentary of Salomon Jarchi or Rashi. ... The text is very correct, with the exception of the matres lectionis [yod] and [vav]. Tychsen found but four mistakes in it, and says that the text agrees with Van Der Hooght's. ...

A few years later appeared the former prophets, viz., Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, with Kimchi's commentary. ... The volume appeared at Soncino in 1486, in folio, consisting of 166 leaves.

Soon after appeared, without date and place, the later prophets, viz. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor (p. 139) prophets, with Kimchi's commentary. This appears to be the second part belonging to the preceding volume, because the type, form, paper, and all other particulars exactly correspond. Hence it should be dated in the same year and at the same place. The text of both parts is not very accurate, and there are many abbreviations. It consists of 292 leaves.

The five Megilloth, i.e. Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, appeared the same year, also at Soncino and Casali. ... Before this edition there had appeared in 1482, folio, at Bologna, the five Megilloth, viz. Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, with the commentary of Jarchi; and Esther, with the commentary of Abenezra.

The Hagiographa first appeared at Naples 1487, small folio. ...

Thus all parts of the Bible had been printed before a complete and uniform edition of the whole had issued from the press.

(p. 140) The first entire copy was published at Soncino, A.D. 1488, in a folio volume, consisting of 373 leaves. ... What MSS. were used by the editor we do not know. Judging however from the general state of learning at the time, and particularly the character of sacred literature, it is not probable that the best of most ancient MSS. were employed. Kennicott says that its text differs from Van der Hooght's in more than twelve thousand instances -- an assertion which is properly regarded as extravagent. Most of its readings are in later editions. The text is incorrectly printed. Typographical errors are numerous. Entire words are sometimes omitted, and one verse has been taken from the 89th Psalm and inserted in the 76th.

Another edition of the entire Bible has neither date nor place, in folio. De Rossi conjectures that it appeared also at Soncino. ...

(p. 141) The third complete edition is that of Brescia, in small quarto, 1494. ... The edition has many peculiar readings which are neither in preceding nor succeeding editions. The editor, whose name was Gerson, had a Masoretic copy before him, but he did not follow it. It has often been said that it was taken from the Soncino edition; but there is no good reason for the affirmation. The differences of the two are striking. Nor does it appear to have been followed in subsequent editions, till Bomberg's second appeared, and supplanted all that went before it. The edition is now rare. The copy which Luther had in making his German version is still in the Royal Library at Berlin, where it is an object of curiosity to Protestants.

We have now to notice the efforts of Christians in editing and publishing the Hebrew Scriptures. Hitherto Jews alone had been occupied with such labours; but at the commencement of the sixteenth century, the zeal of others was excited, and works of the same kind proceeded from them.

The edition in the Complutensian Polyglott first claims our attention. This work was prepared at the expense of Cardinal (p. 142) Ximenes, who spent much time and money upon it, having purchased MSS. and got learned Jews who had embraced Christianity to superintend it. It was finished in the year 1517, but not published till 1522, at Alcala in Spain. ... The Hebrew text was taken from seven MSS.; but what they were it is impossible to tell.

Daniel Bomberg of Antwerp deserves still greater praise than the Cardinal for his exertions in making the Hebrew Scriptures more accessible and more correctly edited than they had been before. His press at Venice was devoted exclusively to Hebrew and Rabbinical literature. He incurred great expense in procuring Christian and Jewish scholars to superintend the text, so that it might be printed as accurately as possible. His chief assistants were Felix Pratensis, who had exchanged Judaism for Christianity; and Rabbi Jacob Ben Chayim of Tunis who continued a Jew. By the united exertions of Bomberg and his fellow-laborers, no less than eight editions were sent forth from the press, five in quarto, and three in folio.

The first edition in quarto appeared a year after the Complutensian Polyglott was printed, viz. 1518. In this edition the final Masorah is given at the end of each book. It consists of two parts or volumes. The various readings are few in the Pentateuch, but more numerous in the other books. The type is clear and distinct. It is certain that the editor used MSS.; whether he employed printed editions is doubtful.

The second quarto edition appeared in 1521. It is like its (p. 143) predecessor in appearance, but the text is a little different, having received new readings from a collation of MSS.

The third quarto edition was published in 1525-1528. The fourth, after being partly printed, seems to have been suppressed. No person has yet seen it, but its existence is inferred from the numeral fifth being on the title page of the next one which was issued in 1544.

Of far greater importance than these were the Rabbinical editions which issued from the same press. As early as 1518, the very year in which the first quarto edition was published, came forth the first Rabbinical Bible of Bomberg in folio, edited by Felix Pratensis. ... It is evident that the editor made us both of MSS. and of printed editions. Elias Levita spoke severely of the edition, chiefly it seems because Felix had forsaken Judaism. For this reason, it was not acceptable to the Jews, notwithstanding its value and the elegance of its type. It is now rare.

As the Jews found great fault with this edition, Bomberg (p. 144) made preparations for another, and entrusted the editing of it to a learned Jew from Africa, Rabbi Jacob Ben Hayyim. This was published in four volumes folio at Venice, 1525-1526. The great improvement in it consists in the insertion of the Masorah, with which work the editor was intimately acquainted. Into it he introduced something like order. He also made considerable changes in the Hebrew text by bringing it into agreement with the Masorah. He altered the order of the books from the first edition, and added other commentaries of learned Jews. On the whole it may be said that the text is regulated by the precepts of the Masoretes. The editor made use of Spanish MSS. ...

A second edition of Ben Chayim's Bible was printed A.D. 1547-1549, in four volumes folio, being the third Rabbinical Bible issued from the press of Bomberg. It differs from the former in several respects. ... (p. 145) On the whole, this is the most copious and most correct Rabbinical Bible extant. As the name of another editor appears, it is thought that Ben Chayim had died before.

There is little doubt that this edition has had more influence on succeeding ones than any other. The printed text was finally settled after the Masorah.

Here Davidson spends some space listing various editions based on Ben Hayyim.

The Antwerp Polyglott, 1569-1572, 8 vols. folio, of which Arias Montanus was the chief editor, contains the Complutensian text collated with Bomberg's. It was followed by Plantin's editions with a Latin translation at Antwerp, 1571, 1584 folio ...

(p. 146) Among those whose names are deservedly conspicuous in this department stands the elder Buxtorf, whose small Hebrew Bible was published at Basel in 1611-1612 8vo. The precepts of the Masorah were followed in the preparation of this volume. From it was taken the edition of Jansson at Amsterdam 1639 8vo. But the smaller and now rare edition was afterwards eclipsed by Buxtorf's Rabbinical Bible, which must ever maintain a high rank among those furnished with a critical apparatus. The work was published at Basel in 1618, 1619, in four parts or volumes folio. The model which the learned editor followed was the third Rabbinical Bible of Bomberg. But he did not content himself with simply repeating what had already been done. He changed various things, omitted some, and added others. ... (p. 147) The appendix contains ... the various readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, and of the Oriental and Occidental Jews ...

The most recent Rabbinical Bible, and in some respects the most complete, is the Amsterdam edition edited by Moses Ben Simeon of Frankfort, 4 vols. folio, 1724-1727. ...

The edition of Sebastian Münster deserves a separate notice. It was published at Basel in 2 vols. 4to, 1536. Besides having the final Masorah at the end of the separate books, the editor gives a collection of various readings which must have been taken in part from MSS., and in which the hand of a Jew is seen occasionally. It is this critical apparatus which consitutes the chief value of the work; for in type it is far inferior to Bomberg's editions. The text is supposed to be based on that of Brescia, but from which it also departs in many places. Bomberg's, as well as the Brescian text, contributed to the formation of Münster's. This edition must not be confounded with another of Münster accompanied by a Latin version and published Basel in 1534-35 folio.

The next edition which claims distinct mention is that of Athias published at Amsterdam ...

In like manner, the second edition of Athias formed the (p. 149) basis of Van der Hooght's, published at Amsterdam and Utrecht, 1705 8vo. This edition has always been celebrated for the beauty and distinctiveness of its type, the accuracy of its text, and the convenience of it for ordinary use. The editor however does not profess to have collated any MS. for it, but to have made use of the best standard editions besides Athias's. The final Masorah with a Latin translation is given, and a list of various readings at the end collected out of the editions used by the editor.

Van der Hooght's text is contained in the very accurate edition published at Amsterdam in 1724 8vo, by Salomon Ben Joseph Props, for the use of the Jews; and in that of Sebastian Schmid, with a Latin version, published at Leipzig, 1740 4to. The same text was also printed, but without points, in the edition of Charles Francis Houbigant, which appeared at Paris in 1753 ...

(p. 150) The text of Van der Hooght was also followed by Simonis in two editions published at Halle, 1752 and 1767 8vo. The latter is much more correct than the former, and more valuable.

Of greater importance was the edition published at Halle by J. H. Michaelis in 8vo and 4to, 1720. In the preparation of this edition, the editor compared twenty-four of the best editions published, and five Erfurt MSS. But it has been found that his collations of the MSS. were not thorough; and hence it has been inferred that the printed copies were hastily examined. The text of Jablonski's first edition was taken as the basis. Notwithstanding all the care bestowed, the text is not perfectly free from mistakes; nor does it look so pleasing to the eye as Van der Hooght's. But it is certainly superior to it in value and accuracy. ...

(p. 151) But all the preceding editions were behind the wants of the age. They exhibited nothing more than a text derived from a few MSS., and those too junior ones. It was known that a great number of codices were lying in libraries unexamined. No good critical edition had yet appeared, because the copious materials necessary for its production had not been collated.

The first person who seemed to have a right apprehension of the edition required and did much towards it accomplishment was a learned Jew of Mantua, Salomon Norzi. His work, containing a copious critical commentary on all the Old Testament books, the fruit of many years' labour, was published at Mantua in 1742, 4 vols. 4to, with the title ... Minchath Shai. Norzi himself did not live to see the fruit of his learned labours printed. About 116 years after the completion of the task he had undertaken, a rich Jewish physician, Raphael Chayim, had it published.

The critical commentary which Norzi intended to accompany the text, was the result of much reading and collation of copies. Having collected as many printed Bibles as he could obtain, with correct MSS. of the text and of the Masorah; having consulted the Talmud, the Midrashim, and the commentaries of the most learned Rabbins, he drew up his commentary. Raphael Basila the editor inserted some annotations of his own in the critical commentary of Norzi, and added others at the end of the volumes. ...

About the middle of the eighteenth century, Dr. Kennicott of Oxford directed public attention to the state of the Hebrew text, and encouraged the hope that something might be done for the criticism of the Bible, commensurate with the labors of Walton, Fell, and Mill in the department of the New Testament. Having published two dissertations on the state of the printed Hebrew text, and being encouraged by the liberality of the British nation in bearing the expense of such an edition as he proposed, he published the first volume in 1776. The second issued from the same Oxford press in 1780, both in folio. The number of codices collated by himself and his fellow-laborers, the chief of whom was Professor Bruns of Helmstadt, amounted to 694. This includes MSS., editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, and Rabbinical works, particularly the Talmud. The text is Van der Hooght's, without vowel-points or accents, from which all variations in the authorities are marked, consistuting the various readings. The pages of the Pentateuch are divided into two columns; (p. 153) the first giving as much of the Samaritan text in Hebrew letters as differs from the Hebrew; the latter the Hebrew text. Below the text are placed the various readings with a specification of the MSS. and old printed copies in which they are found. ... This was reprinted by Bruns, accompanied by many observations of his own and published at Brunswick.

As soon as the first volume appeared, the expectations which had been formed respecting the edition were considerably disappointed. Perhaps they were unreasonably high. Amid the mass of various readings collected by Kennicott with so great labour, few were found to be of much value in amending the text. The majority appeared to be the lapsus of transcribers. In this respect he was unjustly censured, as if he could have given more and better readings than what his authorities supplied. If the result of so much industry and toil be of little importance, the painstaking editor should not be blamed. He collated what MSS. were within his reach; and he could do no more. One thing his edition proved and that is of importance in the history of the Old Testament text. viz., that existing Hebrew MSS. belong to a late period and exhibit but one text. They are all conformed to the Masorah; so that they belong to that recension which was made by the learned Jews of Tiberias. Their uniform state is owing to the influence of the traditions embodied in writing by these ancient Jews. Had there been no Masoretic labour on the text, this sumptuous edition would have presented greater and more important diversities of reading. ...

(p. 154) But .. he can hardly be exonerated from blame. In specifying the sources of his readings he is not always consistent with himself or uniform in his method, as he ought to be. ... Neither was he very accurate in extracting various readings from his copies, though rigid accuracy is the highest quality in a critical editor. ... And Van der Hooght's text has not been accurately given, since the marginal K'ris, the vowel-points, and the accents have been left out ... (p. 155) The edition wants extracts from ancient sources, which is a serious defect. ...

A work of a similar kind, but in many respects superior to Kennicott's, was published by John Bernard de Rossi, professor of Oriental languages at Parma, in 1784-88 four vols. 4to. The learned editor, perceiving the defects and omissions of his predecessor, was led to undertake the very laborious task of examining many important MSS. and ancient editions which had escaped the attention of Professor Bruns ... Accordingly, the various readings contained in the four volumes were taken not only from Kennicott's collection, but from many MSS. collated for Kennicott re-examined, and the extracts from them rectified; (p. 156) from 731 MSS. and additional MSS., and from three hundred editions; from the ancient versions, the writings of the Rabbins and the Masorah. The text with which his materials were compared was Van der Hooght's; but he did not print it. One especial feature by which the work is increased in value is the repetition of Kennicott's most important readings, as well as the statement of his own. ... in 1798, a supplemental volume was also published at Parma in 4to, containing extracts of the same kind from new sources.

The immense collection of various readings contained in the five volumes of De Rossi was made with marvellous industry and singular care ... There is greater accuracy in his collations. ...

There can be no doubt of the superiority of De Rossi's to every other collection of various readings. Those who can (p. 157) dispense with Kennicott's edition cannot do so with the present. It stands at the head of all similar works before or since. It is a matter of regret that De Rossi did not collate his MSS. throughout word for word, but only in select places.

(p. 159) In 1831, Dr. Hahn superintended a manual edition exhibiting Van der Hooght's text but freeing it from as many errors as could be detected. A still more correct edition was published at Leipzig in 1832, which was stereotyped by Tauchnitz. Both appeared in an octavo form. The type is remarkably clear and good; and the edition very convenient, correct, and useful.

Van der Hooght's text was also retained in a very accurate edition published at London and superintended by Judah d'Allemand in 1822 8vo. A second edition of the same was revised by Hurwitz.

On the whole, the text of Van der Hooght may be regarded as the textus receptus; just as the Elzevir text is the textus receptus of the Greek Testament. Almost all our modern editions exhibit it; the manuals in common use invariably.

Davidson concludes that a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible still did not exist in his time, and said some words in favor of someone taking up the task.