Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/333

 EDITIONS

287

EDITIONS

(7) A complete Hebrew Bible, in folio, printed in 1488 at Soncino, without any commentary. Its text, accompanied by both vowels and accents, is based partly on the previously printed portions of the Hebrew Bible, partly on Hebrew manuscripts, but it lacks accuracy.

(8) A folio containing the Hebrew and Chaldee Pen- tateuch with Rashi's commentary, printed in 1490 in Isola del Liri.

(9) A most accurate and highly esteemed quarto edition of the Pentateuch, printed at Lisbon in 1491.

(10) A second complete edition of the Hebrew text, in quarto, printed in 1494 at Brescia. The editor calls himself Gerson ben Mose of Soncino. The text, which i.s accompanietl by its vowels and accents, ex- hibits many peculiar reailings not found in any other edition. The type is small and indi.stinct, the proof- reading most slovenly; in a word, the edition is ut- terly defective. Luther based his translation on it.

(11) The foregoing text is repeated in an octavo edition printed at Pisa in 1494.

(12) A folio edition of the Hebrew Bible, printed on parchment, bears no indication of its date or place of printing; it probably appeared in Constantinople about 1500.

(13) To these may be added Seb. Miinster's Hebrew- Latin Bible, printed in folio at Basle, 1534 and 1546, since its text is based on that of the 1488 and 1494 editions. Here also belong, for the same reason, the "Biblia Rabbinica Bombergiana", first edition (see below), the editions of R. Stephanus (1539-44, 1546), and the manual editions of Bomberg.

2. Common Editions. — By these we understand edi- tions of the Bible reproduced either from manuscripts or previous printed editions without the aid of critical apparatus and the application of critical principles. While the editions of the Hebrew text thus far enum- erated owed their publication to Jewish enterprise, those that follow were, at least in part, due to Chris- tian scholarship. For practical purposes we may divide the common editions into two classes : ( 1 ) those not depending on other printed editions (independent editions) ; (2) those depending, at least partly, on a previously printed text (dependent, or mixed, edi- tions).

(1) Independent editions. — This class of editions comprises two principal ones: (a) the "Biblia Poly- glotta Complutensia"; (b) the "Biblia Rabbinica Bombergiana", second edition. Here we can give only a summary of their principal features.

(a) "Biblia Polyglotta Complutensia". — In the year 1502, Cardinal Ximenes engaged several learned scholars to prepare the edition of a polyglot Bible called variously after the name of its ecclesiastical patron and the place of its publication (Alcald, in Lat. Complutum). The editors of the Hebrew text were Jewish converts. Ancient manuscripts, estimated at the value of 4000 florins, and probably also the best extant printed copies of the Hebrew text, were placed at their disposal. Thus the cardinal's scholars pro- duced a text quite different from the other printed texts of his time. They marked the vowels, but not the accents. The Polyglot was finished in 1517, but was published only in 1520 or 1522, according to Greg- ory (Canon and Text of the New Testament, New York, 1907). The pure form of its text was only once reprinted in the so-called " Biblia Polyglotta Vatabli", or "Polyglotta Sanctandreana", or again, "Bertram's Polyglot" (Heidellicrg, 1586, 1599, 1010).

(b) "Biblia Rabliinica Bombergiana", .second edition. — Daniel Bomberg, of Antwerp, who had established a printing-office for Hebrew and rabbinic literature in Venice, published, in 1518, two important editions of the Hebrew text: (a) an edition for Christian readers, in quarto, which was reprinted in 1521, 1525- 28, 1533, 1544; ifi) an edition for Jewish readers, edited by the Jewish convert Felix Pratensis. It con-

tained the Targumim, the Massorah, and many Jewish commentaries, but did not satisfy the Jews. Hence Bomberg found it advisable to publish another edition under the editorship of R. Jacob ben Chayim, the most celebrated Jewish scholar of his time. He brought the text into closer agreement with the Mas- sorah, and added several more Jewish commentaries The work appeared in Venice, in four folio volumes, 1525-26, and was justly regarded as the first Massore- tic Bible. It won the approbation of both Jewish and Christian scholars, so that it had to be republished in 1547-49, and 1568; the last edition was brought out under the direction of John de Gara. In spite of the great merits of the work, it is not wholly free from de- fects; Ben Chayim paid too much attention to the Massorah and too little to reliable old manuscripts. The principal codex he followed fell afterwards mto the hanfls of de Rossi, who testifies that it is quite de- fective and has not been carefully edited. Chayim printed it without correcting its most glaring mistakes. The subsequent editions were influenced princi- pally by Ben Chayim 's text, and only secondarily by the Complutensian Polyglot. Thus the former text was repeated by Bragadin (Venice, 1617), and, in a slightly modified form, by Justiniani (Venice, 1551, 1552, 1563, 1573), the editors of Geneva (1618), John de Gara (Venice, 1566, 1568, 1582), Plantin (Antwerp, 1506), Hartmann (Frankfort, 1595, 1598), the editors of Wittenberg (1586, 1587), and Tores (Amsterdam, 1705). Long before the last publication appeared, John Buxtorf edited first the Hebrew text in manual form (Basle, 1611), then Chayim 's rabbinic Bible in four folio volumes (Ba.sle, 1618, 1619). Though he corrected .some of Ben Chayim's mistakes, he allowed others to remain and even introduced some new ones. He ought not to have regulated the vocalization of the Targumim according to the vowels in the Chaldee fragments of the Bible, and it was at least inconsistent to change the Massorah according to the Hebrew text, seeing that Ben Chayim, whose text he professed to follow, had modified the Hebrew text according to the Massorah.

(2) Dependent, or Mixed, Editions. — In the editions thus far mentioned the text of one or the other of the two principal forms of the Hebrew Bible was repro- duced without any notable change. We have now to consider the attempts made to correct the text either according to the reading of other editions or according to that of ancient manuscripts.

(a) Texts Corrected according to Printed Texts. — The first mixed text of the Hebrew Bible appeared in the Antwerp Polyglot (1569-72); the same text was repeated in the Paris Polyglot (1629-45), in the Lon- don Polyglot (1657), in that of Reineccius (Leipzig, 1750-51), the smaller Plantin editions (Antwerp, 1580, 1582; Burgos, 1581; Leyden, 1613), the manual edition of Reineccius (Leipzig, 1725, 1739, 1756), and in the Vienna Bible (1743). The beautifully printed Bible of Hutter (Hamburg, 1588) presents a peculiarly mixed text. Here may be added the names of a few editors who published a Hebrew text without vowels and without pretence to critical accuracy: Plantin (Antwerp, 1573, 8vo and 12mo; Leyden, 1595, 16mo; 1610, r2mo; Hanau, 1610, 24mo) ; Menasse ben Israel (Amsterdam, 1630, 1639, 8vo); Leusden (1694, 8vo); Maresius (1701, 8vo) ; Jablonsky (Berlin, 1711, 24mo); Forster (Oxford, 1750, 4to).

(b) Texts Corrected according to Codices and Printed Texts. — The mixture of Chayim's text with the Complutensian could not give permanent satisfac- tion. Every comparison of the mixed text with that of any good manuscript brought to light many dis- crepancies and suggested the idea that a better He- brew text might be obtained by the help of good codi- ces. The first attempt to publish a Hebrew text thus corrected was made by John Leusden with the co- operation of the printer Jos. Athias (Amsterdam,