Dr. Kennicott's edition, which is the most im portant yet published, appeared at Oxford—the first volume in 1776, the second in 1780. The number of codices collated by himself and his associates, 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. In addition to his collation of MSS. and printed editions, he followed the example of various edi tors of the Greek Testament in having recourse to Rabbinical writings. The immense mass of various readings here collected is unimportant. It serves, however, to shew that, under the influence of the Masora, the Hebrew text has attained a consider able degree of uniformity in all existing MSS.
In 1784-88, John Bernard de Rossi published at Parma, in 4 vols. 4to, an important supplement to Kennicott's collection. These various readings were taken from S8 MSS, used by Kennicott and collated anew by De Rossi, from 479 in his own possession and r rc) in other hands, from many editions and Samaritan MSS., and also from ancient versions. In 179S a supplemental volume appeared at Parma, in 4to, containing extracts of the same kind from new sources. De Rossi's collec tion of various readings is superior to every other.
In 1793, Doederlein and Meisner published at Leipzig, 2 vols. 12mo, an edition intended in some measure to supply the want of the extensive colla tions of Kennicott and De Rossi. It contains the more important readings.
Of much greater value is the edition of Jahn, published at Vienna in 4 vols. 8vo, r8o6. The text is Van der Hooght's, with the exception of nine or ten places. The value of the edition con sists in the select various readings found below each page, with the authorities distinctly given, MSS., versions, and printed editions. Only the principal accents are retained in the text.
In 1821 appeared Hamilton's codex criticus of the Hebrew Bible, which was the first attempt, properly so called, to form a standard text of the 0. T.
In 1855 was published Davidson's work, en titled The Hebrew text of the 0. T revised from critical sources ; being an attempt to present a purer and more correct text than the received one of Van der Hooght, by the aid of the best existing materials, etc., etc., 8vo. This author not only goes beyond Hamilton's plan, but departs from it in various ways. It is an attempt to do for the Hebrew text what Griesbach did for the Greek of the N. T.
The most accurate edition of the Masoretic text is that of Theile, Leipzig 1849, 8vo (stereotype edition).
The text of Van der Hooght is now regarded as the textus receptus. (See Le Long's Bibliotheca, edited by Masch ; Rosenmiiller's Handbuch fir die Literatur der biblischen .Kritik stud Exegese, vol. 1; Davidson's Treatise on Biblical Criticism, vol. 1; the last edition of De Wette's Einleitung in das alte Testament; Bleek's Einleitzmg in das alte Testament ; and Davidson's Text of the 0. T revised, etc., 1855, 8vo.) We shall now give a brief history of the N. T. text in its imprinted and printed form. The criticism of the N. T. is rich in materials, especi ally in ancient MSS. But, although the history of N. T. criticism records the industrious collection of a large amount of materials, it is not equally abundant in well-accredited facts, such as might be of essential benefit in enabling us to judge of the changes made in the text. History is silent respect ing the period when the two parts of the N. T., viz., the da-y-yOuov and cirbaroXos, 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 3d cen tury, it is certain, that all the books of the N. T. which we now possess were commonly regarded as canonical. The parts of the N. T. not usu ally included in the collection at that time, were the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, the Second Epistle of Peter, that of Jude, the Second and Third Epistles of John. These were known and quoted. They were probably looked upon as authentic and canonical by some persons in all countries where they were circulated ; but they had not attained to the position of the others. They were not considered of equal authority. Al though, therefore, the canon was virtually formed in the early part of the 3d century, it was not fully and finally settled in all its parts. Six books or epistles were not established in public estimation as sacred or inspired. Origen did not revise the text of the N. T., though it was corrupt in his day. Neither did Hesychius or Lucian, though Hug thought that they were the authors of recen sions. It would rather appear from the language of Pope Gelasius that Hesychius and Lucian in terpolated the Gospels. It is probable, however, that Gelasius, relying on Jerome's unfavourable opinion of what they did, and examining no far ther, wrote accordingly.