BIB
BIB
m
Jewish rabbi, named Mordecai Nathan, about 144a. This rabbi,iu imitation of Hugo Cavdinalis, drew up a concordance to theHebrew Bible, for the use of the Jews . But though lie followedHugo in his division of the books ir.to chapters, he refined uponhis invention as to the subdivision, and contrived that by verses :this being found to be a much more convenient method, it has beenever since followed. And thus, as the Jews borrowed the divisionof the books of the holy scriptures into chapters from the Chris-tians, in like manner the Christians borrowed that of the chaptersinto verses from the Jews The order and division of the booksof the Old and New Testament , according to the disposition madeby the council of Trent, by decree I. session iv. are as follow :(Those books to which the asterisms are prefixed, are rejected bythe Protestants as apocryphal.)—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus ,Numbers, Deuteronomy , Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 1 Samuel, or
1 Kings, 2 Samuel, or 2 Kings, 1 Kings , otherwise called 3 Kings,
2 Kings, otherwise called 4 Kings, 1 Chronicles , 2 Chronicles,
1 Esdras, (as the LXX and Vulgate call it,) or the book of Ezra,
2 Esdras, or (as we have it) the hook of Nehemiah, * Tobit ,* Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of So-lomon, * The book of Wisdom, *Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah and * Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah ,Nahum, (which we place immediately after Micah , before Ha-bakkuk,) Jonah, (which we place immediately after Obadiah, )Micah, Hubakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah , Malaclii,*1 Maccabees, *2 Maccabees.—The books of the New Testament are, the Go-pels of St. Matthew , St.Mark, St.Luke, and St. John;The Acts of the Apostles ; The Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans,f Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians , Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians , 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy,Titus, Philemon , and the Hebrews; The general Epistles of St.James, 1 St. Peter, 2 St. Peter, 1 St. John, 2 St. John, 3 St. John, St.Jude; and The Revelation of St. John. The apocryphal booksof the Old Testament , according to the Romanists, are the hookof Enoch , (see Jude 14,) the 3d and 4th hooks of Esdras, the 3dand 4th books of Maccabees, the prayer of Manasseh , the Testa-ments of the 12 Patriarchs, the Psalter of Solomon , and some otherpieces of this nature. The apocryphal books of the New Testa-ment are the epistle of St. Barnabas, the pretended epistle of St.Paul to the La'odieeans, several spurious gospels, Acts of theApostles, and Revelations ; the book of Hennas, intitled, theShepherd, Jesus Christ’s Letter to Abgarus, the epistles of St.Paul to Seneca, and several other pieces of a smilar kind asmay be seen in the collection of the apocryphal writings of theNew Testament made by Eabrieius. The books cited in the OldTestament which are now lost, are these ; the book of Jasher, asour version has it, (Josh. x. 13. and 2 Sam. i. 18.) or of theRighteous ; the book of the wars of the Lord; (Numb. xxi. 14.)and the .annals of the kings of Israel , so often cited in the books ofthe Kings and Chronicles : The authors of these annals were theprophets who lived in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel . We havelikewise but a part of Solomon ’s 3000 proverbs and his 1003songs; (1 Kings iv. 32.) and we have entirely lost what he wroteupon plants, animals, birds, fishes, and reptiles.
Bibles, Hebrew , are either MS. or printed. The best MS.Bibles are those copied by the Jews of Spain . Those copied by Ithe Jews of Germany are less exact, but more common. Thetwo kinds are easily distinguished from each other; the formerbeing in beautiful characters, like the Hebrew Bibles of Romberg,Stephens, and Plantin; the latter in characters like those ofMunster and Gryphius . Dr. Kennicot, in his Dissertatio Ceneralisprefixed to his Hebrew ' Bible, observes, that the most ancientMSS. were written between the years 900 and 1100 : but thoughthose that are the most ancient are not more than 800 or 900 yearsold, they were transcribed from others of a much more ancientdate. The MS. preserved in the Bodleian library is not less than800 years old. Another MS. not less ancient, is preserved in theCaesarean library at 'Vienna. The most ancient printed Hebrew Bibles are those published bv the Jews of Italy , especially of Pe-saro aud Bresse. Those of Portugal also printed some parts of theBible at Lisbon , before their expulsion.
This may be observed in general, that the best Hebrew Bibles are those printed under the inspection of the Jews ; there''eing so many minutiae to be observed in the Hebrew language,d'at it is scarcely possible for anv other to succeed in it. In theBeginning of the 16th century,’ Dan. Boniberg printed several
Hebrew ' Bibles in folio and 4to. at Venice, most of which areesteemed both by the Jews and Christians : the first in 1517, whichis the least exact, and generally goes by the name of Felix Pra-tensis, the person who revised ’it. 'Phis edition contains the He-brew text, the Targum, and the commentaries of several rabbins.In 1528, Boniberg printed the folio Bible of rabbi Benchujim, withhis preface, the Masoretical divisions, a preface of A ben Ezra, adouble Masora, and several various readings. The 3d editionwas printed in 1618 ; the same with the 2d, but much more cor-rect. From the former editions, Buxtorf, the father , printed hisrabbinical Hebrew Bible at Basil , in 1618; which though there aremany faults in it, is more correct than anv of the former. In1623 appeared at Venice a new edition of the rabbinical Bible,by Leo of Modena, a rabbin of that city, who pretended to havecorrected a great number of faults in the former edition; but,besides that it is much inferior to the other Hebrew Bibles of Ve-nice, with regard to paper and print, it has passed through thehands of the inquisitors, who have altered many passages in thecommentaries ot the rabbins. Of Hebrew Bibles in 4to, that ofR. Stephens is esteemed for the beauty of the characters ; but it isvery incorrect. Plantin also printed several beautiful Hebiew Bi-llies at Antwerp : one in 8 columns, with a preface by AriasMontanus , in 1571, which far exceeds the Coinplutensian in pa-per and print, and contents ; this is called the Roy al Bible, be-cause it was printed at the expence of Philip II. king of Spain :another at Geneva in 1619 ; besides many more of different sizes,with and without points. Manasseh Ben Israel, a learned Portu-guese Jew, published two editions of the Hebrew Bible at Amster-dam ; the one in 4to. in 1635 ; the other in Svo. in 1639 : the firsthas two columns, and for that reason is commodious for the rea-der. In 1639, R- Jac. J.omhroso published a new edition in 4to.at \ enice, with small literal notes at the bottom of each page,where he explains the Hebrew words bv Spanish words. ThisBible is much esteemed by the Jews at Constantinople : in the textthey have distinguished between words where the point carnets ivto be read with a camets-hatuph, that is, by o, and not an a. Ofall the editions of the Hebrew Bible in Svo. the most beautiful andcorrect are the two of Jo. Athias, a Jew of Amsterdam . The first,of 1641, is the best paper; but that ot 1667 is the most exact:that, however, published since at Amsterdam by Vander Ilooght,in 1705, is preferable to both. After Athias , three HebraizingProtestants engaged in reviving and publishing the Hebrew Bible ;viz. Clodius , Jablonski, and Opitius. Clodais’s edition was pub-lished at Franckfort in 1077, in 4lo. At the bottom of the pageit has the various readings of the former edition; hut tiie authordoes not appear sufficiently versed in the accenting, especially inthe poetical books; besides, as it was not published under his eye,many faults have crept in. That of Jablonski in 1699, iu 4to. atBerlin, is very beautiful as to letter and print ; but, though theeditor pretends he made use of the editions of Arias and Clodius ,some critics find it scarcely in any' thing different from the 4lo. edi-tion of Boniberg. That of Opitius is also in 4to. at Keil, in 1709;the character is large and good, but the paper bad : it is done witha great deal of care; but the editor made use of no MSS. butthose of the German libraries; neglecting the French ones, whichis an omission common to all three. TTiey have this advantage,however, that besides the divisions used by the Jews , both generaland particular, into paraskes and pesukim, they have also those ofthe Christians, or of the Latin Bibles , into chapters and verses; thekeri ketib, or various readings, Latin summaries, &<•. which madethem of considerable use, with respect to the Latin editions andthe concordances. The little Bible of R. Stephens, in lCto. isvery much prized for the beauty of the character. Care, however,must be taken; there being another edition of Geneva exceed-ingly like it, excepting that the print is worse, and the text is lesscorrect.
To these may be added some other Hebrew Bibles withoutpoints, in 8vo. and 24to. which are much coveted by the Jews ;not that they' are more exact, but more portable than the rest, andare used in their synagogues and schools : of these there are twobeautiful editions, the one of Plantin, in 8vo. with two columns,and the other in 2 Ito. reprinted by Raphalengius at Leyden, in1610. There is also an edition of them by Laurens at Amsterdam ,in 1631, in a larger character ; and another in 12mo. at Franckfort,in 1694, full ol faults, with a preface til M. Leusdcn at the headof it-.
4
Houbigant