EDITIONS
288
EDITIONS
1661, 1667). The editor revised Chayim's text ac-
cording to the readings of two codices, one of which
was said to be about 900 years old. This edition,
printed by Athias, was revised by George Nissel ac-
cording to the readings of Hutter's Bible (Leyden,
1662). Nissel makes no pretence of having collated
any codices, so that his work is noted for its scarcity
rather than its critical value. Clodius, too, endeav-
oured to correct Athias's text according to earlier edi-
tions, but was not always successful (Frankfort, 1677,
1692, 1716). Jablonsky corrected the second edition
of Athias according to the readings of several codices
and of the better previous editions, paying special
attention to the vowels and accents (Berlin, 1699,
1712) ; his first edition is commonly regarded as being
one of the best. Van der Hooght corrected the second
edition of Athias according to the Massorah and the
previously printed editions (Amsterdam and Utrecht,
1705); his attention to the smallest details and the
printer's care accoimt for the general favour with
which the etlition was received. A still more perfect
reprint of the edition was published by Props (Amster-
dam, 1724). Simonis, too, published correct and
cheap reprints of Van der Hooght 's Bible. Opitz
corrected the edition of Athias according to the read-
ings of seventeen of the best previous editions and of
several manuscripts (Kiel, 1709; Zilllichau, 1741).
He supervised the proof in person, and even the type
was remarkable for its size and clearness, so that the
edition was considered the most accurate extant. J.
H. Michaelis edited the first Hebrew text with vari-
ants (Halle, 1720). He based it on the text of Jab-
lonsky which he compared with twenty-four earlier
editions and with five manuscripts preservetl in Er-
furt. The more important variants he added at the
bottom of the page. It has been found that the com-
parison was made rather superficially as far as the
printed editions were concerned, and there is no good
reason for supposing that more care was taken in the
comparison of the manuscript text. Still, the edition
remains valuable, because it is the first of its kind, and
some of its variants deserve attention even to-day.
The Oratorian Father Houbigant tried to produce a
text far superior to the commonly received one. Tak-
ing Van der Hooght 's text for his basis, he added his
own corrections and conjectures in critical notes. His
apparatus consisted of a number of manuscripts, the
ancient versions, and the Hebrew context. The pre-
cipitancy of his inferences and the rashness of his con-
jectures did much to create a prejudice against his
method, though the merit of his work has been duly
appreciated by scholars. His "Notae Criticie" were
printed in separate form in Frankfort (1777), after the
full edition had appeared in Paris (1753).
Here may be mentioned the work of the Italian Jew, Salomo Norzi. He began in the early years of the .seventeenth century to compare Bomberg's text with the best of the printed editions, with a number of good manuscripts of both Bible and Massorah, ^-ith the Biblical citations found in the Talmud, the Midrashim, and in other rabbinic writings, and with the critical annotations of the more notable Jewish commentators; the results of his long study he summarized in a Mas- soretico-critical commentary intended to accompany the text of the Hebrew Bilile, which had been rather scantily corrected. The title of the work was to be "Repairer of the Breach" (Is., Iviii, 12). but the author died before he could publish his book. Nearly a century later, a Jewish physician named Raphael Chaj'iin Italia had Norzi's work printed at his own expense under the title "Offering of the Gift" (Man- tua, 1742-44). Among Christian scholars it appears to have remained unnoticed until Bruns and Dresde drew attention to it. In spite of his best intentions, Norzi at times rather corrupts than corrects the He- brew text, because he prefers the readings of the Mas- sorah to those of the manuscripts.
3. Crilical Editions. — The editions thus far emmaer-
ated can hardly be called critical, since their editors
either lacked the necessary apparatus or did not con-
sider it prudent to correct the received Hebrew text
according to the full light of their textual information.
Later on, two classes of scholars published really cri-
tical editions of the Hebrew text ; some endeavoured
to restore critically the most correct Massoretic text
obtainable; others tried to find the most accurate pre-
Massoretic text.
(1) Critical Editions of the Massoretic Text. — In order to restore the correct Massoretic text it was ne- cessary first to collect the apparatus. About the middle of the eighteenth century this need was felt very keenly by Benjamin Kennicott, a canon of Christ Church, Oxford, who determined to remetly the evil. Beginning in 1759, he collated either in person or through others as many as 615 Hebrew manuscripts, 52 printed editions, and the Talmud, continuing this preparation until the year 1773. Then he began the printing of the work (Vetus Testam. Hebr. cum var. lectionibus, 2 volumes, Oxford, 1776-SO) based on Van der Hooght's Hebrew text as editetl by Simonis. The variants, with their respective sources, were indi- cated below the text. In the introductory dissertation of the second volume the author gives the history of his enterprise and justifies its methods. He found this necessary because, after the appearance of the first \olume, his critics had charged him with lack of care and discernment in the choice of the manuscripts used, of the variants noticed, and in the treatment of the Massorah.
Bernardo de Rossi, professor at Parma, tried to con- struct an apparatus that should not be open to the exceptions taken against Kennicott's work. The mate- rial on which de Rossi worked exceeded that of Ken- nicott by 731 manuscripts, 300 printed editions, and several ancient versions. In his work (Varia? lectiones Vet. Testam., 4 volumes, Parma, 1784-SS) and its sub- sequent supplement (Supplementa ad varias s. text, lectiones, 1798) he noted the more important variants, gave a brief appreciation of their respective sources and their values, and paid due attention to the Mas- sorah. He follows Van der Hooght's text as his basis, but considers it known, and so does not print it. All of de Rossi's critics are at one in admiring the laborious- ness of his work, but they deny that its importance bears any proportion to the labour it implies. Perhaps the author himself, in his "Dissertatio pra^liminaris" to vol. IV, gives a fairer opinion of his work than his critics do. It can hardly be denied that de Rossi at least showed what can be done by a study of the manu- scripts and of the old editions for the correction of the received Hebrew text.
The apparatus of the textual, or lower, criticism of the Okl Testament text (see Criticism, Biblical) is not limited to the works of Kennicott and de Rossi; it comprises also the above-mentioned work of Salomo Norzi, re-edited in Vienna, 1813; the writings of Wolf ben Simson Heidenhaim; Frensdorff's "Ochla W' Ochlah" (1864), and "Massora Magna" (Hanover, 1876); the prophetic "Codex of St. Petersburg", dating back to 916, phototyped by Strack in 1876; all the recently discovered or recently studied codices and fragments, together with the works of the ancient Jewish grammarians and lexicographers.
But even with these mcons at their command, the editors of the Hebrew text did not at once produce an edition that could be called satisfactory from a critical point of view. The editions of Doderlein-Meisner (Leipzig, 1793) and Jahn (Vienna, 1807) only popular- ized the variants of Kennicott and de Rossi without utilizing them properly. The edition published under the name of Hahn and prefaced by Rosenmiiller (Leipzig, 1834) is anything but critical. The stereo- type editions of Hahn ( Leipzig, 1839) and Theile (Leipzig, 1849) remained for many years the best
