(1.) Monster's edition appeared at Basle in 1686, 2 vols. 4to. The text is supposed to be founded upon that of Brescia, 1494, 4to, which resolves itself into the Soncino edition of 1488.
(2.) Jablonski's edition was published at Berlin in 1699, 8vo, and again at the same place in 1712, 12mo. It is founded upon the best preceding editions, but chiefly the second edition of Leusden (1667). The ed- itor also collated various MSS. The text is remarka- bly accurate.
(8.) Van der Hooght's edition appeared at Amster- dam 1706. The text is taken firom Athias's (1661 and 1667). The Masoretic readings are given in the mar- gin ; and at the end are collected the various readings of the editions of Bomberg, Plantin, Athias, and others. (4.) The edition published by J. H. Michaelis in 1720 is accompanied with the readings of twenty-four edi- tions which the editor examined, besides those of flve MSS. in the library at Erfurdt There is a want of accuracy in his collations.
(6.) In 1768, C. F. Houbigant published a new edi- tion in folio. The text is that of Van der Hooght, without the points. In the margin of the Pentateuch the Samaritan readings are added. For it he collated, but hastily, twelve MSS. He has justiy been blamed for his rash indulgence in conjectural emendation.
(6.) Dr. Kennicott's edition, which is the most im- portant hitherto published, appeared at Oxford, in fo- lio—the ^t volume in 1776, the second in 1780. The number of MSS. collated by himself and his asso- ciates, the chief of whom was Professor Bruns of Helmstadt, amounted to 694. In addition to his colla- tion of MSS. and printed editions, he followed the ex- ample of various editors of the Greek Testament in having recourse to Rabbmical writings, especially the Talmud. The inmiense mass of various readings here collected is unimportant. It serves, however, to show that, under the influence of the Masora, the Hebrew text has attained a considerable degree of uniformity in all existing MSS.
(7.) In 1784-88, John Bernard de Rossi published at Parma, in 4 vols. 4to, an important supplement to Ken- nioott's collection. These various readings were taken from 88 MSS. used by Eennicott and collated anew by De Rossi, from 479 in his own possession and 110 in other hands, ftom many editions and Samaritan MSS., and also from ancient versions.
CRITICISM
670
CRITICISM
(8.) In 1793, D6derleiii and Meisner published at Leipzig an edition intended in some measure to supply the want of the extensiye collations of Kennicott and De RossL It contains the roost important readings. The edition of Jahn, published at Vienna in 1806, is yeiy valuable and convenient.
(9.) The roost accurate editions of the Masoretic text are tiiose of Van der Hooght, as lately edited by Hahn and by Theile, at Leipzig, and stereotyped. The text of Van der Hooght may now be reckoned as the textus receptug, (For full lists of the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible, the reader is referred to Le Long's BibUothecOj edited by Masch, and to Rosen- mailer's ffandbuch/ur die LUeratur der biblischen Kri- tik und Exeffete, i, 189-277. See also Darling's Cjfclo- pcedia BibUographica, voL on the **Holy Scriptures," col. 46 sq.)
Notwithstanding all these editions, something is still wanted. In the best of them there are passages requiring emendation. It is curious to observe how contradictions are allowed to remain on the fS&ce of the Old-Testament history. It may be that the Masora has produced so great a uniformity that extant MSS. do not sanction any departure from the present text, but, where passages are manifestly corrupt, it is proper that they should be rectified. The criticism of the Hebrew Bible is still behhid that of the Greek Testa- ment. The latter was earlier begun, and has been more vigorously prosecuted. We remain nearly in the same state with regard to the Old-Testament text as that in which Kennicott and De Rossi left us, and it is time that some advance should be made in this de- partment The only important recent work in this direction is Dr. S. Davidson's Revision qftke Heb, Text of the 0. T. (London, 1855, 8vo). See Sobiftures, Holt.
B. We shall now give a brief history of the New- Testament text in its unpritUed and printed form. The criticLsm of the New Testament is rich in materi- als, especially in ancient MSS. But, although the history of New-Testament criticism records the indus- trious collection of a large amount of materials, it is not equally abundant in tDeU-accredited facUj such as might be of essential benefit in enabling us to judge of the changes made in the text. History is silent respecting the period when the two parts of the New Testament, viz., the evayyiXiov and iirooToXoCt or, in other words, the four Gospels, and the Pauline and re- maining epistles, were put together, so as to form one whole. About the beginning of the third century, it is certain that all the books of the New Testament which we now possess were acknowledged to be divine and regarded as canonical. See Canon.
1. In the middle of the same century Hesychius and Lucian undertook to amend the MSS. of the New Testament. Of their critical labors Jerome seems not to have entertained a high opinion. The MSS. they revised did not meet with general approval, and pope Gelasius issued a decree against them. It is highly probable that they were not the authors of recensions which were widely circulated or generally adopted. Origen did not revise the text of the New Testament.