Full text of "Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible"

See other formats

THE LIBRARY

THE INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
TORONTO

PRESENTED BY

Rev. A. A. Vaschalde, C.S.B.

M -

INTRODUCTION

TO THK

MASSORET1OKRITICAL EDITION

HEBREW BIBLE

CHRISTIAN D. GINSBURG, L. L. D.

LONDON.
PUBLISHED BY THE TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY

.>-, NRW OXKOHl)
1897

MOV 1 0 1942
\X030

Drnck der k. u. k Hofhuchdnu-kerci C'arl Kroniinp in

EMILIE

WHOSE SELF-DENTAL AND SYMPATHY

AND EVER READY HELP

IN MY BIBLICAL LABOURS

HAVE

FOR WELL-NIGH THIRTY YEARS

BEEN OF UNSPEAKABLE COMFORT

I DEDICATE THIS BOOK

WITH
A HUSBAND'S DEEPEST AFFECTION.

PREFACE.

The present Edition of the Hebrew Bible, to
which this Volume is an Introduction, differs from all
others in the following particulars:

THE TEXT.

1 . The Text itself is based upon that of the First
Edition of Jacob ben Chayim's Massoretic Recension,
printed by Bomberg, at Venice, in the year 1 524-5.
Existing Hebrew Bibles, which profess to follow Jacob
ben Chayim's text, have admitted in the course of
years many unwarranted variations from it and many
errors.

2. No variations, however strongly supported by
Hebrew Manuscripts and Ancient Versions, are intro-
duced into the Text itself, which has been compiled
strictly in accordance with the Massorah collected from
the Manuscripts.

3. All variations are relegated entirely to the
margin.

4. While the modern divisions of chapters and
verses are noted for the sake of convenience, the text
is arranged according to the ancient chapters and

IV PREFACE.

sectional divisions of the Massorah and the MSS.. which
are thus restored.

5. It uniformly reproduces the Da^cslicd and
Raphcd letters, which are found in all the best
Massoretic Manuscripts, but \vhich have been omitted
in all the current printed editions of the Hebrew Bible.

(). The ancient Massoretic chapters, called Sedarim,
are also indicated throughout in the margin against their
respective places.

THE MARGIN.

7. It is well known that in the printed Texts the
variations called Kethiv and Keri are marked by the
word in the Text (Kethiv) having the vowel-points
belonging to the word in the margin (Keri). This
produces hybrid forms, which are a grammatical enigma
to the Hebrew student. But in this Edition the words
in the Text thus all'ected (Kethiv} are left unpointed,
and in the margin the two readings are for the first
time given with their respective vowel-points.

8. The margin contains the various readings of
the different Standard codices which are quoted in
the Massorah itself, but which have long since perished.

(). It gives the various readings found in the
Manuscripts and Ancient Versions.

10. It gives the readings of the Eastern and
Western Schools against those words which are
all'ected by them; lists of which are preserved, and
given in the Model Codices and in certain special
Manuscripts.

PREFACE. V

11. It also gives, against the affected words, the
variations between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali,
hitherto not indicated in the margin. These had
been consigned to the end of the large Editions of
the Bible which contain the Massorah of Jacob ben
Chayim.

12. It gives, in some instances, readings of the
Ancient Versions which are not supported by Manu-
script authority.

13. It gives., for the first time, the class of various
readings called Sevirin against every word affected
by them. These Sevirin in many Manuscripts are
given as the substantive textual reading, or as of equal
importance with the ofiical Keri. These readings have
been collected from numerous Manuscripts.

When compiling the notes to the Hebrew Bible,
1 at first gave the results of my collation without
regard to the work of others who also profess to edit
the Hebrew Text according to the Massorah. It was,
however, pointed out to me that as sundry parts of
Dr. Baer's edition of the text had been accepted by
students as exhibiting the Massoretic recension, and
since my edition differs in many respects from that of
Dr. Baer; it was my duty to specify the authorities
when my readings are in conflict with his. I acted upon
this advice which accounts for the Notes in my edition
of the Text being more extensive in the Prophets and the
Hagiographa than in the Pentateuch. To remedy this
inequality 1 have revised the notes to the Pentateuch
in order to bring them into harmony with those oi

VI PREFACE.

the second and third Divisions of the Hebrew Bible.
A specimen of the revised notes I give in Appendix IV.

In addition to my having read the proofs of the
Hebrew Bible four times, they have also been twice
read by the learned Dr. Mandelkern of Leipzig and
once by the Rev. George Margoliouth of the Oriental
Printed Books and MSS. Department in the British
Museum. Mr. Margoliouth., moreover, revised and
verified the references to the Ancient Versions of the
Prophets and the Hagiographa, and it is to his careful
revision that I am indebted for their accuracy, as well
as for some valuable suggestions. The results of his
revision of the notes on the Pentateuch 1 hope to
embody in my revised notes.

That in spite of our united readings, some
errors should still have been overlooked, those who
have ever printed Hebrew with the vowel-points
and the accents will easily understand and readily
forgive. Some of these errors I have already delected,
and some have been pointed out to me. These
have duly been corrected in the stereotyped plates.
The absolute correctness of such a text can only be
secured in the process of time, and by the kindly
aid of students. But whether pointed out in a friendly
or in a hostile way, I shall be most grateful for such
criticism.

To my friend the Rev. Dr. Bui linger, the learned
secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society 1 am entirely
indebted for the elaborate Indices as well as for his
help in reading the proofs.

PREFACE. VII

I cannot conclude this Preface without expressing
my deep gratitude to the officials of the British Museum
for the ready help I have received from them in the
course of my work. But for the special privileges
accorded to me by Sir Edward Maunde Thompson
K.C.B.,L.C.D., L.L.D. the Principal Librairia; Richard
Garnett C.B., L.L.D., Keeper of Printed Books; and
Robert K. Douglas, Keeper of Oriental Printed Books
and MSS.; I could not possibly have finished this
Introduction and my other works within the span of
life allotted to me.

Christian D. Ginsburg.

Holnilea, Virginia Water, Surrey

November 5 /.S'.%\

Table of contents.

Part I. - The Outer Form of the Text.

Page

Preface ..................... III-VII

Table of Contents .................. XI— XII

Chap. I. — The Order of the Books ......... I— 8

Chap. II. — The Sectional Divisions of the Text (the Open and •

Closed Sections) ............ 9 — 24

Chap. III. — The Division into Chapters ........ 25 — 31 t

Chap. IV. — The Sedarim; or Triennial Pericopes ..... 32 — 65 * %

Chap. V. — The Parasliiyotti ; or Annual Pericopes .... 66—67 / ,

Chap. VI. — The Divisions into Verses ......... 68 — 107

Chap. VII. — The Number of the Words ........ 108 — 113

Chap. VIII. — The Number of the Letters ........ 113

Part II. - - The Text Itself.
Chap. I. — Dagesh and Raphc ........... 114—136

Chap. II. — The Orthography ............ 13?— J57

Chap. III. — The Division of Words .......... 158—162 I,

Chap. IV. -- The Double and Final Letters ....... 163-164

Chap. V. — Abbreviations ............. 165—170

Chap. VI. — Homoeoteleuton ............ 171—182

Chap. VII. — The Keri and Kethiv ........... 183—186

Chap. VIII. — The Readings called Sevirin ........ 187—196

Chap. IX. — The Western and Eastern Recensions ..... 197 — 240

Chap. X. — The Differences between Bcn-Ashcr and Bcn-Naplilali 241— 286 -a

Chap. XI. — The Massorah: its Rise and Development: ~ *-

1 . The Introduction of the Square Characters 287—296

2. The Division of the Consonants into Words 296—297

3. The Introduction of the Final Letters 297— 299

__4, Thj^Introduction of the Ma I res Led ion is 209—300

5. The Consonants of the HebrewgTcxt ami the Septunginl 300 — ^6S

X I I Table of Contents.

Mikra Sopherim

Itur Sopherim

Words Read which are not Written in the Text .

Words Written in Text, but cancelled in Reading

The Fifteen Extraordinary Points

The Suspended Letters

The Inverted Nuns

The Removal of Indelicate Expressions and Anthro-
pomorphisms, &c., from the Text

The Emendations of the Sopherim

Impious Expressions towards the Almighty . .

The Safeguarding of the Tetragrammaton ....

The attempt to Remove the Application of the
Names of False Gods to Jehovah

Safeguarding the Unity of Divine Worship at Jerusalem
The History and Description of the Manuscripls .
The History of the Printed Text

Appendices.

Appendix I. On the Closed Sections

Appendix II. The Ih'ktliikc Ha-Teamim from the St. Petersburg

MS. (A. D. 1009)

Appendix III. Tables of Massorah, Magna and Parva

Appendix IV. Specimen of the Revised Notes on the Pentateuch

Indexes

46-)

77''

308

308
309

315
3i8

334

34'

345
349
363
367

399
404

778

I. Index of Manuscripts

JJ. Index of Printed Editions of the Hebrew Bible .

III. Index of Subjects

IV. Index of Persons

V. Index of Principal Texts

(>77

10OO
1 00 1

1003

1 000
1008

1016
102 1

Tables.

1. Table of Manuscripts Described

II. Table of Printed Editions Described and Enumerated

1031

Part I.
The Outer Form of the Text.

The principles by which I was guided in the pre-
paration of this Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew
Scriptures extend not only to the outer form, but to the
condition of the text itself. The extensive changes,
however, which these principles necessitated, are strictly
in accordance with the Massoretic MSS., and the early
editions of the Massoretic text. These deviations from the
modern editions of the so-called Massoretic Hebrew Bibles
I shall describe in detail.

Chap. I.
The order of the Books.

The most ancient record with regard to the sequence
of the books in the Hebrew Scriptures is that given in
the Babylonian Talmud. Passing over the Pentateitch,
about which there never has been any doubt, it is here
laid down on the highest authority that the order of the
Prophets is as follows: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Minor Prophets; whilst
that of the Hagiographa is as follows: Ruth, Psalms, Job,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations,,
Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.1

11 bxprrn n-fc-i1' D'abai bmyo D^BIETI punrr o'K'as hv pno 1
r6np -^twai SVKI n'^nn -IBDI rm o-airo bv JTTD • «^« nw
i "-am m:y -TTIDK n^joi bffji mrpi a-Trn Comp. Baba Bathra

2 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

Nothing can be more explicit than the directions given
in the canon before us as to the order of the books. Yet;
the oldest dated Biblical MS. which has come to li,urht
deviates from this order. The St. Petersburg Codex which
is dated A. D. 916 and which contains only the Latter
Prophets has yet a List of all the Prophets, both Former
and Latter, and in this List the order is given as follows :
The Former Prophets — Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings ; the
Latter Prophets — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor
Prophets. l Here, then, the sequence of the Latter Prophets
is not that which is prescribed in the Talmud.

The next MS. in chronological order is the St. Peters-
burg Codex, dated A. D. 1009. As this MS. contains the
whole Hebrew Bible, we see the discrepancy between the
Talmudic Canon, and the actual order adopted by the
Scribes to be still more glaring. We pass on from the
Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, which never vary
in their order, to the Latter Prophets and Hagiographa.
In these divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures the sequence
is as follows in this important MS. : Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
the Minor Prophets, Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs,
Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther,
Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah.2 The difference, here, is most
striking. What makes this deviation still more remarkable
is the fact that the Grammatico-Massoretic Treatise entitled
Adath Deborim (A. D. 1207) describes this order, as far
as the Hagiographa are concerned, as the correct one,
exhibiting the Western or Palestinian practice; and the
order which places Chronicles or Esther at the end of this

1 Comp. the Fac-simile edition by Professor Strack, fol. 224*1, St. Peters-
burg 1876.

- Katalog der hebraischen Bibelhandschriften der kaiserlichen offent-
lichen Bibliothek in St. Petersburg von Harkavy und Strack, No. B, 19*3,
p. 263 etc., Leipzig 1875.

CHAP. I.] The order of the Books. 3

division as the Eastern or Babylonian practice, which is
to be deprecated.1

The position, however, of Chronicles or Esther does
not constitute the only variation in the order of the
Hagiographa in the MSS. Besides these, there are also
points of difference in the sequence of the Latter Prophets
to which the notice in the Adath Deborim does not refer at all.
To facilitate the comparison of the difference in the order of
the books, both in the MSS. and in the early editions, it is
necessary to state that for liturgical or ritual purposes the
Pentateuch, together with the five Megilloth, has been trans-
mitted separately in many Codices and in printed editions.

As the Megilloth, which are a constituent part of
the Hagiographa, follow a different order in different MSS.
as well as in some early editions; and moreover, as they
do not appear again among the Hagiographa in those
editions of the complete Bibles which place them after
the Pentateuch, I must first describe their sequence when
thus joined to the Pentateuch.2 For this purpose I have
-collated the following nine MSS. of the Pentateuch with
the Megilloth in the British Museum, (i) Add. 9400;
(2) Add. 9403; (3) Add. 19776; (4) Harley 5706; (5) Add. 9404;
(6) Orient. 2786; (7) Harley 5773; (8) Harley 15283, and
(9) Add. 15282. These nine MSS. exhibit no fewer than
four different orders for the five Megilloth, as will be seen

1 The important passage bearing upon this subject is given by Professor
Strack and is as follows: D'pbn K' p^H" D'SlPOn renn 11 '3 DTI^KH ~\b*yO* JH

,mrp -nbrtp ^Ttrn TIP ,rm

:x ntr DIX DE? anxpa ,ppvn nt
Kim nnecn r6s jo pwK-c "rnn: nny »"i£on ns"inKn -IHDK rhM or nnspai
rbxi ,naKn rn ntt'K o-cnn xin "3 nirca ,bx-\vr pK ppn by .a'a-n -ist nac

thnblTI "lyjtT f-IK ja IPnpn "Dn2 neiD b? m»s Comp. Zeitschrift fur die

gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, Vol. XXXVI, p. 605. Leipzig 1875.

- For their sequence when they form their proper part of the Hagio-

grapha, see the Table below, page 7.

4 Introduction. [CHAP. 1.

from -the subjoined Table, in which I give also in the fifth
column the order adopted in the first, second and third
editions of the Hebrew Bible, viz., Soncino 1488, Naples
1491 — 93, and Brescia 1492-94; as well as that of the
second and third editions of Bomberg's Quarto Bible
(Venice 1521 and 1525) in all of which the five Megilloth
follow immediately after the Pentateuch.

The order of the Megilloth after the Pentateuch.

III

MSS.Nos. 1,2,3

MSS.Nos.4,5,6

MSS. Nos. 7, 8

MS. No. 9

Early Editions

Song of Songs

Esther

Ruth

Song of Songs

Ruth

Song of Songs

Ruth

Lamentations

Ruth

Ecclesiastes

Lamentations

Ecclesiastes

Lamentations

Ecclesiastes

Esther

Ecclesiastes

Esther

It will thus be seen that the early editions of the Hebrew
Bible adopted unanimously the order exhibited in the first
column. It is also to be remarked that the different sequences
do not belong to different countries. The three MSS. which
head the first column belong, respectively, to the German
and Franco-German Schools. The three MSS. in the second
column are German, Franco-German and Italian. The two in
the third column are Italian and Spanish, whilst the one MS.
at the head of the fourth column is of the German School.

The Latter Prophets.

As has already been stated, there is no difference in
any of the MSS. or in the early editions with regard to
the order of the Former Prophets. It is only in the Latter
Prophets and in the Hagiographa where these variations
obtain. In the Tabular exhibition of these variations I
shall give separately the MSS., and the editions which I
have collated for these two divisions, since the variations
in the Latter Prophets are reduceable to three columns,

CHAP. I.] The order of the Books. 5

whilst those in the Hagiographa require no fewer than

seven columns.

For the Latter Prophets I collated the following MSS.

and early editions exhibiting the result in four columns:
Col. I. (i) The Babylon Talmud; (2) MS. No. i National
Library, Madrid, dated A. D. 1 280; (3) Orient. 1474 ;
(4) Oriental 4227; and (5) Add. 1545. These have
the order exhibited in the first column.
Col. II. The order of the second column is that followed
in (i) the splendid MS. in the National Library,
Paris, dated A. D. 1286, and in (2) Oriental 2091
in the British Museum.

Col. III. The sequence in the third column is that of the
following eleven MSS.: (i) The St Petersburg
Codex, dated A. D. 916; (2) the MS. of the whole
Bible, dated A. D. 1009 also in St. Petersburg;
(3) Oriental 2201 dated A. D. 1246 in the British
Museum; (4) Arund. Orient. 16; (5) Harley 1528;
(6) Harley 5710- n; (7) Add. 1525; (8) Add. 15251;
(9) Add. 15252; (10) Orient. 2348, and (i i) Orient.
2626 — 28. These MSS. exhibit the order in the
third column.

Col. IV. In the fourth column I give the order which is
adopted in the five Early Editions, viz. (i) the
first edition of the entire Bible, Soncino A. D. 1488;

(2) the second edition, Naples A. D. 1491 — 93;

(3) the third edition, Brescia A. D. 1494; (4) the
first edition of the Rabbinic Bible edited by Felix
Pratensis, Venice A. D. 1517, and (5) the first
edition of the Bible with the Massorah, edited
by Jacob ben Chayim, Venice A. D. 1524—25.
It will be seen that all these editions follow the
order in the third column so far as the Latter
Prophets are concerned.

6 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

Table showing the order of the Latter Prophets.

III

Talmud
and three MSS.

Two MSS.
Paris and London

Eleven MSS.

Five Early Editions

Jeremiah

Isaiah

Ezekiel

Isaiah Jeremiah Jeremiah

Isaiah
Minor Prophets

Ezekiel
Minor Prophets

The Hagiographa.

The variations in the order of the Hagiographa are
far more numerous, as is disclosed in the following MSS.
which I have collated for this division. They exhibit the
order given in the various columns:

Col. I. (i) The Talmud; (2) the splendid Codex No. i in

the Madrid University Library, dated A. D. 1280;

(3) Harley 1528, British Museum; (4) Add. 1525;

(5) Orient. 22 12; (6) Orient. 2375, and (7) Orient. 4227.

Col. II. The following have the order of the second

column: (i) The magnificent MS. in the National

Library, Paris Nos. i — 3, dated A. D. 1286, and

(2) Orient. 2091 in the British Museum.

Col. III. The order of the third column is in Add. 15252.

Col. IV. The sequence in the fourth column is that of

(1) the St. Petersburg MS., dated A. D. 1009;

(2) in the Adath Deborim, A. D. 1 207 ; (3) Harley
5710—11, and (4) Add. 15251.

Col. V. The order in the fifth column is that of the

Model Codex, Arund. Orient. 16.
Col. VI. The order in the sixth column is that of the

magnificent MS. Orient. 2626 — 28.
Col. VII. Whilst the order given in the seventh column is

to be found in Orient. 2201, dated A. D. 1246.
Col. VIII. The five early editions which I have already describ-
ed, follow the order exhibited in the eighth column.

CHAP. I.J

The order of the Books.

in
M

"S s

a
o

W .2

•

r* « T3

> M
(H

Prover

o
i— >

O
M

a
o

C/5

Lamen

in
•

4>
43
tn

'3
o

O
0

in
fi

a
o

M pj

Psalms

43
O
t— I

Proverbs

Song of S

Lamentat

Ezra-Neh

Chronicle

oo
N

-5

a
o

M ^

t/j

^ \S

"*H

•

"5
in

u
0
|

O
1— >

a
o

Lamen

in
4>

•o

u
41

c«

in
V

> 0

Chronicle

Psalms

I— i

Proverbs

Ecclesiast

Lamentat

•

43
tn

43
u

a c/)

•C '73

o ^d

'§

43 <<

•> 1) 4)

M O "
4j 4j

5 s

Chronicle

Psalms

ja
o
i— >

Proverbs

Song of S

Ecclesiast

Lamentat

V
43

Ezra-Neh

u~>

\-l ^

I/!

•a

Psalms

i— >

Provert

CUD
a
o

'53

Lament

Daniel

4)
43
in

Ezra-N

1
43

t/i -§

a
o

in
O

_ ^ ^

'rt

•8

o «

! r | "j-j

Psalms

Prover

be
a
o

C/3

in
1
1

Lamen

-3

•o

•Q

S «i

C/)

a
i

in
41

M a &
i-fi

CQ (A

D-,

43
O
t— >

Proverb

Ecclesia

Lament

rt
M

43
U !

<r>

„

555
«i

8 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

It is to be remarked that in the eighth column which
•exhibits the order of the early editions, the five Megilloth
are not given again, in the first three editions, under the
Hagiographa, since, in these editions they follow im-
mediately after the Pentateuch, as explained above, on
page 3 &c.

The order which I have adopted in my edition of
the Hebrew Bible, is that of the early editions.

Chap. II.
The sectional divisions of the text.

In describing- the manner in which the Hebrew text
is divided in the MSS. and which I have followed in this
edition, it is necessary to separate the Pentateuch from
the Prophets and the Hagiographa. The Pentateuch is
divided in four different ways: - - (i) Open and Closed
Sections, (2) Triennial Pericopes, (3) Annual Pericopes, and
(4) into verses.

Open and Closed Sections.

I. According to the Massoretic order (i) an Open
Section (nmfIB) has two forms, (a) It begins with the
full line and is indicated by the previous line being un-
finished. The vacant space of the unfinished line must be
that of three triliteral words, (b) If, however, the text of
the previous Section fills up the last line, the next line
must be left entirely blank, and the Open Section must
begin a linea with the following line. (2) The Closed Section
(naifiD) has also two forms, (a) It is indicated by its be-
ginning with an indented line, the previous line being
either finished or unfinished: this minor break, therefore,
resembles what we should call a new paragraph. And
(b) if the previous Section ends in the middle of the line,
the prescribed vacant space must be left after it, and the
first word or words of the Closed Section must be written
at the end of the same line, so that the break is exhibited
in the middle of the line. In the Synagogue Scrolls, which

10 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

have preserved the most ancient practice, as well as in the
best and oldest MSS. in book form, this is the only way
in which the Open and Closed Sections are indicated.
The practice of putting a D [= fimnDl or D 1= nolflD] in
the vacant space, to indicate an Open or Closed Section,
adopted in some MSS. and editions, is of later date. I have,
therefore, disregarded it and followed the earlier MSS. and
editions. With some slight exceptions the MSS. on the whole
exhibit uniformity in the indication of these divisions in
the Pentateuch. Moreover, separate Lists have been pre-
served, giving the catchwords of each Open and Closed
Section throughout the Pentateuch.

But no such care has been exercised by the
Massorites in indicating the Open and Closed Sections in
the Prophets and Hagiographa, and no separate List of
them has as yet been discovered. Hence, though the
sectional divisions are tolerably uniform, it is frequently
impossible to say whether the break indicates an Open
or Closed Section. Moreover, some MSS. very frequently
exhibit an Open Section, whilst other MSS. describe the
same Section as a Closed one, and vice versa. The insertion,
therefore, of D [= nmriBl and D [= HQIflDl into the text of
the Prophets and Hagiographa, as has been done by
Dr. Baer, can at best rest on only one MS., which may
represent one Massoretic School, and is contradicted by
the majority of standard Codices, which proceed from more
generally recognised Schools of Massorites. This will be
seen from the description of these Sections in the MSS.,
and the manner in which Dr. Baer has treated them in the
edition of his so-called Massoretic text.

For the Sections in the Former Prophets, viz. Joshua,
Judges, Samuel and Kings, I have minutely collated the
following six standard Codices in the British Museum.
(i) Oriental 2201; (2) Oriental 2626 — 2628; (3) Arundel

CHAP. n.J The sectional divisions of the text. 11

Oriental 16; (4) Harley 1528; (5) Harley 5710—11; and
(6) Add. 15250. The catchwords of the respective Sections
in these MSS. and in Dr. Baer's edition I have arranged
in seven parallel columns, and the result shows what
Dr. Baer has omitted.

In Joshua Dr. Baer omitted twenty-nine Sections which
are plainly given in the MSS. They are as follows:

(1) Josh. I 12 is not only given in all the six MSS.,
but has 'D [= nmflDl in the vacant space in Arundel Or. 16;

(2) III 5 is given in 'all the six MSS.; (3) VI 12 is in
all the six MSS.; (4) VII 10 is in four MSS.; (5) IX 3 is in
all the six MSS.; (6) X 34 is in three MSS. and marked
TID in Arund. Or. 16; (7) X 36 is in five MSS. and marked
TID in Arund. Or. 16; (8) XI 10 is in five MSS. and marked
TIQ in Arund. Or. 16; (9) XII 9 is in all the six MSS. and
is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (10) XIII 33 is in four MSS.
(n) XV 37 is in five MSS.; (12) XV 43 is in four MSS.
(13) XV 52 is in five MSS.; (14) XV 55 is in five MSS.
(15) XV 58 is in five MSS.; (16) XV 60 is in four MSS.
(17) XV 6 1 is in five MSS.; (18) XX 5 is in four MSS.
(19) XXI 6 is in five MSS.; (20) XXI 7 is in five MSS.
(21) XXI 8 is in three MSS.; (22) XXI 13 is in four MSS.
(23) XXI 23 is in five MSS.; (24) XXI 25 is in four MSS.
(25) XXI 28 is in four MSS.; (26) XXI 30 is in four MSS.
(27) XXI 32 is in five MSS.; (28) XXI 38 is in five MSS.
(29) XXII 7 is not only in five MSS. but is marked TID
in Arund. Or. 16.

Besides these serious omissions Dr. Baer has one
break, viz. Josh. XXIV 21, marked in his text D which
is against the authority of five out of the six MSS. His
designation of some of the Sections is also against the
MSS. Thus Dr. Baer has put D in the break of Josh. XI 6,
whereas Arund. Or. 16 which is a model Codex, has TID.
The same is the case in XV i, where Dr. Baer has in-

12 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

serted D into the text, and Arund. Or. 16 has nnifiD. The
reverse is the case in Josh. XXII i. Here Dr. Baer has
inserted D, whereas Arund. Or. 16 marks it 71D.

In Judges Dr. Baer has omitted eighteen Sections.
(i) I 2-j which is in four MSS.; (2) I 29 is in four MSS.;
(3) I 30 is in all the six MSS.; (4) I 31 is in all the six
MSS.; (5) I 33 is in all the six MSS.; (6) III 7 is in all
the six MSS.; (7) VI 20 is in four MSS.; (8) VII i is not
only in four MSS., but has ilDiriD in the vacant space in
Arund. Or. 16; (9) VII 15 is in all the six MSS. and is
marked 71 D in Arund. Or. 16; (10) VIII 10 is in all the
six MSS.; (n) VIII 33 is in all the six MSS.; (12) IX i
is in all the six MSS.; (13) IX 6 is in all the six MSS.;
(14) 1X42 is in all the six MSS.; (15) XI 32 is in four MSS.
and is marked JimnS in Arund. Or. 16; (16) XX 3 is in
four MSS.; (17) XX 30 is in five MSS. and (18) XXI 5
is in five MSS.

Dr. Baer again has two Sections in his text, viz.
Judg. Ill 15; which he marks D, and XX 15 which he marks
D in the text, but which are not found in any of the six
MSS., whilst XXI 19 is supported by only one of the
six MSS. Moreover Dr. Baer has D in the vacant space
of the following four Sections: Judg. XI 29; XII i; XX
12 and XXI i. In all of them Arund. Or. 16 has 710.

In Samuel Dr. Baer has omitted fifty-one Sections:
(i) VIII 1 1 which is not only in four MSS., but is marked
in the vacant space 71D in Arund. Or. 16; (2) XII 18 is
in five MSS.; (3) XIII 13 is in all the six MSS.; (4) XIV 6
is in five MSS.; (5) XIV 8 is in four MSS.; (6) XV 17 is
in four MSS.; (7) XV 22 is in five MSS.; (8) XIX 4 is
in four MSS.; (9) XX i is in five MSS.; (10) XX 35 is in
four MSS.; (11) XXX 7 is in all the six MSS.; (12) XXX 27
is in five MSS.; (13) 2 Sam. XI 2 is in all the six MSS.;
(14) XI 16 is in five MSS.; (15) XI 25 is in four MSS.;

CHAP. 1I.J The sectional divisions of the text. 13

(16) XII 7 is in three MSS.; (17) XIII 28 is in five MSS.;
(18) XIII 32 is in all the six MSS.; (19) XIII 34 is in all the
six MSS.; (20) XIV 10 is in all the six MSS.; (21) XIV 21 is
in all the six MSS.; (22) XIV 24 is in all the six MSS.;
(23) XIV 28 is in all the six MSS.; (24) XV 19 is in five
MSS.; (25) XV 25 is in all the six MSS.; (26) XVI i is
in all the six MSS.; (27) XVI 10 is in four MSS.; (28) XVIII
4 is in four MSS.; (29) XVIII 1 8 is in four MSS.; (30) XIX 2 2
is in five MSS.; (31) XIX 23 is in five MSS.; (32) XIX 39
is in five MSS.; (33) XIX 41 is in five MSS.; (34) XX 6
is in five MSS.; (35) XX 23 is in five MSS.; (36) XXIII i
is not only in all the six MSS., but is marked "IDD in the
vacant space in Arund. Or. 16; (37) XXIII 25; (38)
XXIII 26; (39) XXIII 27; (40) XXIII 28; (41) XXIII 29;
(42) XXIII 30; (43) XXIII 31 ; (44) XXIII 32; (45) XXIII
33; (46) XXIII 34; (47) XXIII35; (48) XXIII 36; (49) XXIII
37; (50) XXIII 38 and (51) XXIII 29 are all in all the
six MSS.

Dr. Baer marks four Sections in the text which are
supported by only one MS., viz. 2 Sam. XIII 2 1 ; XVI 3 ;
XVII 22 and XXIV 16. He moreover marks three Sections,
viz. i Sam. V 1 1 ; 2 Sam. IX 4 and X 1 5 which are not in
any of the six MSS. The following fourteen Sections:

1 Sam. II 27; VI 25; VIII 7; XIII i, .5; XIV 7; XXIX u;

2 Sam. I 17; III 14; IV 4, ii, 22; VII i and XVI 15 are
given by Dr. Baer as D, whereas in Arund. Or. 16 they
are all marked 'DO.

As Dr. Baer's Kings has not yet appeared, I must
pass on to the analysis of the Latter Prophets, viz. Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. In the exami-
nation of the sectional divisions of this portion of the
Hebrew Bible I have had the invaluable help of the St.
Petersburg Codex, dated A. D. 916, which has been edited
in beautiful fac-simile by Professor Strack. This MS. strictly

H Introduction. [CHAP. II.

observes the rules with regard to the form of the Open
and Closed Sections already described (Comp. pp. 9, 10). So
-strict was the Scribe in exhibiting the nature of the Sec-
tions that in one instance, when an Open Section ends
with a full line at the bottom of the column, which accor-
ding to the rule necessitated an entire blank line, he
put a £5 [= nmnD] in the middle of the vacant space, to
show that there is nothing wanting, but that the blank
line indicates an Open Section.1

This Codex moreover shows that in early times the
Open and Closed Sections were as carefully indicated in
the Prophets and Hagiographa as in the Pentateuch, and
that the neglect to attend to the prescribed rules with
regard to the vacant spaces for these two kinds of Sections
is due to later Scribes.

In the case of the Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah I have
also carefully collated the beautiful Lisbon edition A. D. 1492,
the editors of which were the first to introduce into the text
of the Prophets the letters B and D to indicate the Open
and Closed Sections.

In Isaiah Dr. Baer has omitted twenty-four Sections.
They are as follows: (i) I 18 which is in six MSS. and in the
Lisbon edition; (2) II 12 which is in all the seven MSS.
and in the Lisbon edition; (3) III i is in all the seven
MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (4) III 13 is in all the seven
MSS. and in the Lisbon edition and is marked TIE) in the
text in Arund. Or. 16; (5) III 1 8 is in all the seven MSS. and
in the Lisbon edition; (6) V 24 is in five MSS. and in the
Lisbon edition; (7) VIII 3 is in four MSS.; (8) IX 7 is in
six MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (9) XVII 9 is in six
MSS. and in the Lisbon edition and is marked TlD in Arund.
Or. 16; (10) XVIII 7 is in three MSS. and in the Lisbon

1 Comp. St. Petersburg Codex, Jerem. L 46, fol. 1 1 5 b.

CHAP. II.] The sectional divisions of the text.

edition and is marked T1D in Arund. Or. 16; (n) XIX 2*

\ / *~ O

is in five MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (12) XXXIII i
is in all the seven MSS. and in the Lisbon edition;

(13) XXXVII i is in four MSS. and in the Lisbon edition;

(14) XL 6 is in five MSS. and in the Lisbon edition;

(15) XL 17 is in four MSS. and in the Lisbon edition;

(16) XLII i is in all the seven MSS. as well as in the Lisbon
edition and is marked TIB in Arund. Or. 16; (17) XLIII 23
is in five MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (18) XLIII 25 is
in two MSS. as well as in the Lisbon edition and is marked
TIB in Arund. Or. 16; (19) XLIV i is in all the seven MSS.
and in the Lisbon edition; (20) XLVII i is in four MSS.;
(21) XLIX 24 is in five MSS.; (22) LII n is in six MSS.
and in the Lisbon edition; (23) LVII 3 is in all the seven
MSS. and is marked in the Lisbon edition D D 0 and
(24) LXVII 12 which is in all the seven MSS. and in the
Lisbon edition.

Dr. Baer has two breaks, marked in the text by D, viz.
Is. VII 20 and XXXVI 1 i, which are supported by only one
MS. out of the seven. He moreover represents in the
text three sections by D, viz. XX VIII 6; XLIV i andLVIII i,
which are described as DS in Arund. Or. 16.

In Jeremiah Dr. Baer has omitted the following twenty
Sections: (i) VII 3 which is not only in six MSS. and in
the Lisbon edition, but is marked in the text TID in Arund.
Or. 16; (2) VII 12 which is in six MSS., (3) VII 16 which is
in four MSS. as well as in the Lisbon edition and is marked
nmflB in Arund. Or. 16; (4) VIII 4 is in five MSS. as well
as in the Lisbon edition and is marked T)D in Arund. Or. 16;
(5) VIII 17 is in four MSS.; (6) VIII 23 is in six MSS.;
(7) X 6 is in six MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (8) XI 20
is in five MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (9) XIII 18 is in
six MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (10) XIII 20 is in
four MSS. and in the Lisbon edition; (n) XV 17 is in four

1 (5 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

MSS.; (12) XVII ii is in five MSS. and in the Lisbon
edition; (13) XVII 21 is in four MSS. and in the Lisbon
edition; (14) XXIX 20 is in two MSS. and is marked TID
in Arund. Or. 16.; (15) XXIX 21 is in five MSS. and in the
Lisbon edition; (16) XXX 10 is in five MSS.; (17) XXXII 16
is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16;

(18) XXXIII 25 is in six MSS. and in the Lisbon edition;

(19) XLVI 20 is in five MSS. and in the Lisbon edition
and (20) L 18 which is in four MSS. and in the Lisbon edition.

Dr. Baer has one Section in the text marked D, viz.
Jerem. IX i which is not in any of the seven MSS. and one
Section XXXVII 17 marked in the text D which is sup-
ported by only one MS. out the seven.

He has moreover inserted into the text D against the
following twenty-four Sections : I 3 ; IX 16; X i; XI 6; XI 14;
XIV n; XVI 16; XVII 19; XVIII 5; XIX i; XIX 14;
XXI i; XXI n; XXII 10; XXIII i, 5, 15; XXIV i;
XXV 8; XXXI 23; XXXII 42; XXXIV i ; XXXVII 9, and
XL 7, - - all of which are marked TID in the text in Arund.
Or. 1 6. Again, two Sections, viz. XIII 8 and XXII n,
he marks D in the text, whereas they are marked TID in
Arund. Or. 16.

In Ezekiel Dr. Baer has omitted the following twenty-
one Sections: (i) V 10 which is in four MSS.; (2) VIII 12 is in
four MSS.; (3) X i is in three MSS.; (4) XI 2 is in six MSS.;
(5) XI 4 is in six MSS. ; (6) XIII 13 is in six MSS. ; (7) XIII 20
is in five MSS. (8) XIV 6 in six MSS. (9) XIV 9 which is
not only in all the seven MSS., but is marked TID in the
text in Arund. Or. 16; (10) XVI 51 which is in four MSS.
and is marked in the text TlD in Arund. Or. 16; (i i) XVIII 27
is in five MSS.; (12) XXI 31 is in five MSS.; (13) XXII 19
is in six MSS.; (.4) XXIII 1 1 is in five MSS.; (15) XXIII 22
is in all the seven MSS.; (16) XXIX 21 is in four MSS.;
(17) XXXIII 25 is in four MSS.; (18) XXXIV 10 is in

CHAP. II.] The sectional divisions of the text. 1 7

five MSS.; (19) XXXVIII 17 is in all the seven MSS.;
(20) XLVI 6 is in six MSS. and (21) XLVI 12 which is
in all the seven MSS

Dr. Baer has a break in the text with D in IX 7
which is against all the seven MSS., whilst in VIII 15 he
has a break with a D which is supported by only one
MS. He moreover has put D into the text against the
following six Sections: XXI i, 13; XXII i; XXIV 15;
XXVIII 20 and XXXIII 23, all of which are marked TID
in Arund. Or. 16

In the Minor Prophets Dr. Baer has omitted the
following twelve Sections: (i) Joel I 13 which is in five
MSS.; (2) Amos VII 12 is in six MSS.; (3) VIII 9 which
is in all the- seven MSS.; (4) Micah III i is in five MSS.;
(5) Zeph. Ill 1 6 is in three MSS ; (6) Hag. I 3 is in all the
seven MSS.; (7) I 12 which is in all the seven MSS.;
(8) I 13 is in four MSS. and marked "IDD in Arund.
Or. 16; (9) Zech. V 9 is in five MSS.; (10) VI i is in
five MSS.; (11) XIV 6 is in five MSS. and (12) XIV 12
which is not only in all the seven MSS., but is marked
TID in Arund. Or. 16. Dr. Baer has one Section marked
D which is not in any of the seven MSS., whilst two of his
Sections, viz. Amos V 3 and Jonah II 2, are supported by one
MS only. He moreover marks the following five Sections
in the text with D which are described as TID in Arund.
Or. 1 6; Hos. XIII 12; Zech. VIII 6, 7; IX 9 and XI 4.

The Psalms have no Sections, as each Psalm consti-
tutes a continuous and undivided whole. But special notice
is to be taken of the fact that according to the Massorah
the Psalter, Proverbs and Job are the three poetical
books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Accordingly they have
not only distinctive poetical accents, but in the best MSS.
the lines are poetically divided and arranged in hemistichs.
There is no other division between the separate Psalms

18 Introduction. TCHAI'. II.

than the heading which occupies the middle of the line
and there is no vacant space whatever between the end of
one Psalm and the beginning of the other. The number
of each Psalm is given in the margin. l This is the arrange-
ment in three of the six Model Codices which I have
collated for the sectional divisions, viz. Or. 2201 dated
A. D. 1246, Harley 5710 — 1 1, and Or. 2626 — 28, as well as
in Add. 15251 and in many other MSS.

In the first edition of the entire Hebrew Bible, Soncino
A. D. 1488, the editors, who were more bent upon saving
space than to exhibit the hemistichal division of the MSS.,
discarded the poetical arrangement of the lines. But in
the second edition of the entire Bible printed at Naples
circa A. D. 1491 — 93 the lines are duly arranged in hemistichs.
Instead of following this carefully printed edition which
reproduces the best MSS., later editors, for the same
economical reasons, followed the example of the Soncino
edition. Dr. Baer has adopted the same plan, whereas I
have followed the standard Codices, though I have not
always adopted their exact division of the lines especially
as the MSS. themselves vary in this respect.

For the sectional division of Proverbs I have also
collated the splendid MS. in the National Library of
Paris, marked in the Catalogue Nos. i — 3, which is dated
A. D. 1286. This MS. divides the book of Proverbs into
thirty-nine Sections. Thirty-two of these Sections are not
only preceded by a vacant line, but have against them in the
margin the letter 0 which describes them as Open Sections,
whilst the other seven are simply preceded by a vacant

1 It is, however, to be remarked that in some MSS. the Psalter has
only 147 Psalms since IX and X are one, LXX and LXXI are one, CIV
and CV are one, CXVII and CXVIII 4 are one, whilst CXVIII 5 begins
a new Psalm. This is the case in MS. No. 4 in the Imperial and Royal Court
Library at Vienna.

The sectional divisions of the text. 1 ;•

line without the letter D, or have a vacant space in the
middle of the line, which marks them as Closed Sections.
The following thirty-two Sections have the D against
them in the margin: (i) I 8; (2) I 20; (3) II i; (4) m i;

(5) III 5; (6) IV 20; (7) VI i; (8) VI 6; (9) VI 12;
(10) VII i; (n) VIII 32; (12) IX i; (13) XIX 10;'
(14) XXII 28; (15) XXIV ,9; (,6) XXIV 23; (17) XXIV 28;
(18) XXIV 30; (19) XXV 2; (20) XXV 14; (21) XXV 21;
(22) XX VI 9; (23) XXVI 22; (24) XXVII 23; (25) XXVIII ii ;
(26) XXVIII 17; (27) XXIX 18; (28) XXX 7; (29) XXX 10;
(30) XXX 18; (31) XXX 21 ; (32) XXXI IO. The following
four Sections are preceded by a vacant line without D:
(.) VI 20; (2) XVIII ,o; (3) XIX i and (4) XXXI i.
Whilst of the three remaining Sections two have a vacant
space in the middle of the line, viz. VII 24 and XXV i,
and one, viz. X I, has the single word i^tfO in the middle
of the line. I have not inserted three of these thirty-nine
Sections, though marked with D against them in the margin,
viz. XXV 2; XXVI 9; XXVIII n, because they are not
supported by any of the other six MSS., whilst I have
adopted the following thirteen Sections which are in the
other MSS. though they are not to be found in this Codex,
viz. (i) III n ; (2)111 195(3) IV i;(4)Vi; (5)V7; (6) VI 16;
(7) VIII 22; (8) XIII i; (9) XV 20; (10) XXII 22;
(n) XXX 15; (12) XXX 24 and (13) XXX 29.

Dr. Baer has omitted the following twelve Sections:
(i) III 5 which is in two MSS. and is marked D in P.;1 (2) VII 2 4
which is in six MSS.; (3) XIX 10 is in four MSS. and
marked Q in P.; (4) XXII 28 is in two MSS. and marked
D in P.; (5) XXIV 19 is in two MSS. and marked D in P.;

(6) XXIV 28 is in two MSS. and marked Q in P.; (7) XXV 14

i In this paragraph the letter "P." stands for the Paris Codex, referred
to above.

20 Introduction. [CHAI-. II.

is in six MSS. and marked B in P.; (8) XXV 21 is in
three MSS. and marked B in P.; (9) XXVI 22 is in
six MSS. and marked B in P.; (10) XXVII 23 is in six
MSS. and marked B in P.; (n) XXVIII 17 which is not
only in all the seven MSS., but is marked B in P. and
(12) XXXI 10 which is also in all the seven MSS. and
marked B in P.

Dr. Baer has the following nineteen Sections, and
has inserts D into the text, contrary to all the seven MSS. :
(i) III 27; (2) V 18; (3) VIII 6; (4) IX 12; (5) X 6;
(6)X n; (7) XIII 15; (8) XIV 4; (9) XIV 16; (io)XIV24;
(n) XV i; (12) XVI 3; (13) XVII 24; (14) XXII i;
(15) XXV 13; (i6)XXV25; (17) XXVII 21; (i 8) XXVIII 6
and (19) XXVIII 1 6.

Dr. Baer moreover has three Sections marked D in
the text, which are respectively supported by only one
MS., viz. IV 10 ; VIII i and XII 4.

In Job Dr. Baer has a break and inserts D in the
text, viz. XXXIX 14, contrary to all the seven MSS.

In CanticlesDr. Baer has omitted two Sections, viz. II 14
which is in all the six MSS., and IV 12 which is in four MSS.

In Ruth III 8 Dr. Baer has a break and inserts D into
the text against all the six MSS.

In the four alphabetical chapters in Lamentations all
the standard Codices have breaks between the verses
which begin with the respective letters as exhibited in
my edition. In Dr. Baer's edition the verses in question
are printed without any break

In Ecclesiastes Dr. Baer has omitted the Section in III 2
which is to be found in all the six MSS. He has a break
and has inserted B into the text in III i, which is contrary
to all the six MSS. He has the following three Sections
marked in the text by D, viz. Ill 14; V i; and XII 9,
against all the six MSS. He has two Sections, viz. IV i

CHAP. II.] The sectional divisions of the text. 21

and IX n7 marked D in the text which are supported by
only one MS.

In Daniel Dr. Baer has omitted three Sections: (i) II 37
which is in four MSS.; (2) V 8 which is in four MSS. and
(3) VI 7 which is also in four MSS. He has inserted four Sec-
tions and marked them in the text D, viz. (i) II 36; (2) III 30;

(3) VI ii and (4) X 9 contrary to all the six MSS.

In Ezra Dr. Baer has omitted the following eleven
Sections: (i) III i which is in four MSS.; (2) IV 12 which
is in five MSS.; (3) V i which is in all the six MSS.;

(4) V 3 is in five MSS.: (5) V 13 is in all the six MSS.;
(6) VI 1 6 is in all six MSS.; (7) VII 7 is in five MSS.;
(8) VII 12 is in four MSS.; (9) VII 25 is in four MSS.;
(10) VIII 20 is in five MSS. and (i i) X i which is in all the six
MSS. He has two Sections marked D in the text, viz. I 9;
and V 4, which are in only one MS.

In Nehemiah Dr. Baer has omitted eight Sections, viz.
(i) II 4 which is in four MSS.; (2) VI 14 is in five MSS.;
(3) X i which is in all six MSS.; (4) X 35 is in five MSS.; (5)
XI 19 is in four MSS.; (6) XI 22 is in four MSS.; (7) XI 24
is in four MSS. and (8) XIII 23 which is in five MSS.

In 1 Chronicles Dr. Baer has omitted seventy -two
Sections as follows: (i) I 18 is in four MSS.; (2) I 29 is in
four MSS.; (3) I 32 is in all the six MSS.; (4) I 33 is in
five MSS.; (5) I 35 which is not only in four MSS., but is
marked naiDD in Arund. Or. 16; (6) I 38 which is in all
six MSS.; (7) I 39 is in five MSS.; (8) I 40 is in four
MSS.; (9) II 5 is in five MSS.; (10) II 7 is in all six MSS.;
(n) II 8 is in four MSS.; (12) II 9 is in four MSS.;
(13) IV 19 is in five MSS.; (14) V 1 1 is in all six MSS.;
(15) V 29 is in four MSS.; (16) VI 24 is in five MSS.;
(17) IX 12 which is in four MSS. and is marked 71D in
Arund. Or. 16; (18) X n is in four MSS.; (19) XI 1 1 is in
five MSS. and is marked 71 D in Arund. Or. 16; (20) XI 22 is

22 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

in four MSS.; (21) XII 17 is in five MSS.; (22) XII 19 is not
only in all the six MSS., but is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16;
(23) XXI 27 is in four MSS.; (24) XXIV 19 is in four
MSS. { (25) XXV 3 is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16;
(26) XXV 4 is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund.
Or. 16; (27) XXV 10 is in five MSS. and is marked T>D
in Arund. Or. 16; (28) XXV n is in five MSS. and is
marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (29) XXV 12 is in five
MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (30) XXV 13
is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16;
(31) XXV 14 is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund.
Or. 16; (32) XXV 15 is in five MSS. and is marked TID in
Arund. Or. 16; (33) XXV 16 is in five MSS. and is marked
TID in Arund. Or. 16; (34) XXV 17 is in five MSS and is
marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (35) XXV 18 is in five MSS.
and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (36) XXV 19 is in
five MSS. and is marked T)D in Arund. Or. 16; (37) XXV 20
is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16;
(38) XXV 21 is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund.
Or. 16; (39) XXV 22 is in five MSS. and is marked TID
in Arund. Or. 16; (40) XXV 23 is in five MSS. and is
marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (41) XXV 24 is in five MSS.
and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (42) XXV 25 is in
five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or..i6; (43) XXV 26
is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund Or. 16;
(44) XXV 27 is in five MSS. and is marked TID in Arund.
Or. 16; (45) XXV 28 is in five MSS. and is marked TID in
Arund. Or. 16; (46) XXV 29 is in five MSS. and is marked
'HD in Arund. Or. 16; (47) XXV 30 is in five MSS. and is
marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (48) XXV 31 is in five MSS.
and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (49) XXVI 6 is in
three MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (50) XXVI 7
is in three MSS. and is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16;
(51) XXVI 10 is in four MSS.; (52) XXVI 29 which is in

The sectional divisions of the text. 2. 'I

all the six MSS.; (53) XXVII 2 is in fiveMSS.; (54) XXVII 4
is in four MSS.; (55) XXVII 7 is in four MSS.; (56) XXVII 8
is in four MSS.; (57)XXVII9 is in four MSS.; (58) XXVII 10
is in four MSS.; (59) XXVII 1 1 is in four MSS.;
(60) XXVII 12 is in four MSS.; (61) XXVII 13 is in four
MSS.; (62) XXVII 14 is in four MSS.; (63) XXVII 15 is
in four MSS.; (64) XXVII 17 is in four MSS.; (65) XXVII 18
is in four MSS. ; (66) XXVII 1 9 is in four MSS. ; (67) XXVII 20
is in four MSS.; (68) XXVII 21 is in four MSS.;
(69) XXVII 22 is in four MSS.; (70) XXVII 26 is in four
MSS.; (71) XXVII 27 is in four MSS.; and (72) XXVII 32
which is in four MSS.

Dr. Baer moreover has one Section and inserted D into
the text, viz. XXIII 12, which is against all the six MSS. He
has four Sections marked with D in the text, viz. I 8; VI 14;
XXI 28 and XXVI 19, which are supported by only one of
the six MSS. The following three Sections he describes as D :
i Chron III i ; IV 24; IX 35, which are marked TlDin Arund.
Or. 16; and four Sections which he marks D, viz. XV 3; n;
XIX i ; and XXIX 26, are marked CimnD in Arund. Or. 16.

In 2 Chronicles Dr. Baer has omitted the following
thirty-Jive Sections: (i) III 17 which is in three MSS.;
(2) IV 19 is in five MSS; (3) VII 5 is not only in four MSS.,
but is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16; (4) XVI 6 is in four
MSS.; (5) XVII 14 is in five MSS.; (6) XVII 15 is in all the
six MSS.; (7) XVII 1 6 is in all the six MSS.; (8) XVII 17
is in all the six MSS.; (9) XVII 1 8 is in all the six MSS.;
(10) XVII 19 is in four MSS.; (n) XXI 4 is in all the six
MSS.; (12) XXVIII 6 is in five MSS.; (13) XXVIII 7 is in
four MSS.; (14) XXVIII 8 is in all the six MSS.;
(15) XXVIII 12 is in all the six MSS.; (16) XXVIII 14 is
in all the six MSS.; (17) XXIX 14 is in four MSS.;
(i 8) XXIX 27 is in five MSS.; (19) XXX 10 is in all
the six MSS.; (20) XXX 20 is in all the six MSS.;

24 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

(21) XXX 22 is in all the six MSS.; (22) XXX 27 is in
four MSS.; (23) XXXI i is in five MSS.; (24) XXXI 2
is in all the six MSS.; (25) XXXI 3 is in five MSS.;
(26) XXXI 7 is in five MSS.; (27) XXXI 8 is in four MSS.;
(28) XXXII 21 is in five MSS.; (29) XXXIV 12 is in five
MSS.; (30) XXXIV 22 is in four MSS.; (31) XXXIV 24 is
in all the six MSS.; (32) XXXIV 29 is not only in all the
six MSS., but is marked TID in Arund. Or. 16.; (33) XXXV
7 is in five MSS.; (34) XXXV 8 is in five MSS. and
(35) XXXV 19 is in four MSS.

Dr. Baer moreover has a break in the text and inserts
D in four places, viz. 2 Chron. V 3; XIX 5; XXI 5 and
XXV 13, contrary to all the six MSS. The following three
Sections which he marks with D: IV 10, n; and VII n,
are supported by only one of the six MSS. He
marks one Section D (XVIII 28) which is marked 'DO in
Arund. Or. 16.

It will be seen from the above analysis that these
omissions, additions and misdescriptions in Dr. Baer's text
of the Open and Closed Sections, extend to almost every
page. As they exhibit a serious difference between his
text and mine, I have been obliged minutely to describe
the MS. authorities which caused this difference.

Chap. III.
The Division into Chapters.

The division of the text into chapters is not of
Jewish Origin. From a note appended to MS. No. 13 in
the Cambridge University Library it will be seen that
R. Salomon b. Ismael circa A. D. 1330 adopted the Chris-
tian numeration of chapters, and placed the numerals in
the margin of the Hebrew Bible, for controversial pur-
poses, in order to facilitate reference to particular passages. '
For the same purpose probably, later Scribes or private
owners of MSS. added these chapters in the margin of
early Codices. And though in the great majority of instances
the Christian chapters coincide with one or the other of
the Massoretic Sections, they nevertheless contradict in
many instances the divisions of the Massorah. This con-
tradiction is not so glaring in the practice adopted by
R. Salomon, since he simply places the number of the

D'-IBB onuri npa-iK bv E^iB'sp D-Knpsn a-u-t 'pie p ibx '
urb yvnb a-tK ^artr an"?p -isona D'npnym a:ur^a ISDI -IBD bs man
par by av baa vb B'^KIP antr Dm^KP by mna nnrn
nx dnsca IK D^K^aja jn niinn pidsa nr«n d'K"aai n»npn
UK pRi necna ^bits-sp -pi -jaa ^bs> iBoa Kintr ^I'TB p^£a tnpi run
^K-ia iBcggD-nprirn pb naiirn mna an1? a^n1?! tt6itrepn Kin na fl 9
t '^i a'arn ^a"i -:«? ,o'rtbx K-ia n'trKna p^K-i pis TT?. asicba At the end of

the List (fol. 2460) the following statement is made: T3 b?K B'lin -plE 'fcbv: /i^

u> na onbv a"-isan ja bKraa-K ja nobr "i amK p-nrm D-IBD

' mna naiWn Comp. fol. 245 a, also Catalogue of the Hebrew
Manuscripts in the University Library Cambridge by Schiller-Szinessy, pp. 17, 18,
Cambridge 1876.

26 Introduction. [CHAP. 111.

chapter in Hebrew letters in the margin, whether there
is a Massoretic Section or not, without introducing any
new break into the text to indicate the chapter in question.
The early editors of the printed text, however, up to 1517
adhered closely to the MSS., and had simply the Massoretic
divisions into Sections without any marginal indication of
the Christian chapters. The Christian editors of the Com-
plutensian Polyglot (1514 — 17) were the first who discarded
the Massoretic sections and adopted the Christian chapters
to harmonise the Hebrew text with the Greek and Latin
versions in the parallel columns. Though introducing new
breaks, they give the numbers of the chapters in Roman
numerals but still in the margin. Felix Pratensis, as far as
I can trace it, is the first who indicates in the margin the
Christian chapters in Hebrew letters throughout the whole
of his edition of the Rabbinic Bible published by Bom-
berg, Venice 1517. But he retained in the text the Masso-
retic Sections. This practice was not only followed in the
three quarto editions containing the Hebrew text alone,
which issued from the Bomberg press in 1517, 1521 and
1525, but was adopted by Jacob b. Chayim in his famous
edition of the Rabbinic Bible in four volumns folio, also
published by Bomberg, Venice 1524 — 25. It continued in all
the Hebrew Bibles not accompanied by translations up
to 1570.

As far as I can trace it, Arias Montanus was the first
who broke up the Hebrew text into chapters and intro-
duced the Hebrew numerals into the body of the text
itself, in his splendid edition of the Hebrew Bible with
an interlinear Latin translation, printed by Plantin in one
volumn folio at Antwerp 1571.

It was from this edition, as well as from the Poly-
glots, that this pernicious practice was adopted in the
editions of the Hebrew text published by itself. It makes

CHAP. III.] The Division into Chapters. 2?

its first appearance in the Hebrew Bible without vowel-
points also published by Plantin in 1573 — 74. Even Jewish
editors, who professed to edit the Hebrew text according
to the Massorah, introduced into the text itself these
anti-Massoretic breaks. In his beautiful edition of the
Hebrew Bible without points the distinguished Menasseh
ben Israel broke up the text and inserted the Christian
chapters into the vacant space.

Athias, in his celebrated edition 1659 — 61, not only
followed the same example, but went so far as to incor-
porate the numeration of the chapters in the Massoretic
Summary at the end of each book of the Pentateuch, and
to coin a mnemonic sign for it. As far as I am able to trace
it, he was the first who inserted the enumeration of the
chapters with the Massoretic computation. Thus, at the end of
Genesis, after giving the Massoretic number of verses, the
middle verse, the number of Annual Pericopes and of
the Triennial cycle, he states that this book has fifty
chapters, and that the mnemonic sign is l^lp "IT5 13211 v/>
[O Lord be gracious unto us; we have waited for thee
Isa. XXXIII 2] ; and then continues the Massoretic Summary.
The same he does at the end of Exodus, where he states that
it has forty chapters and that the sign is "O7S VnSs mm
[= the law of his God is in his heart Ps. XXXVII 31]; at
the end of Leviticus, which he tells us has twenty-seven
chapters and for which the sign is "]D"12KT "]BP iTHS"
[= and I will be with thee and will bless thee Gen. XXVI 3] ; at
the end of Numbers, which he tells us has thirty-six chapters
and for which the sign is DX? l^W IttDH 1^ [0 that they were
wise, that they understood this Deut. XXXII 29]; and at the
end of Deuteronomy, where he states that it has thirty-four
chapters and that the sign is 33^ ^33 »"' mix [/ 'will
praise the Lord with my whole heart Ps. CXI i]. All this
is pure invention palmed off as a part of the Massorah.

28 Introduction. [CHAP. III.

That Jablonski (ed. 1699), Van der Hooght (ed. 1705).
Opitius (ed. 1706), Maius (ed. 1716) &c. should have
copied Athias, both in his enumeration of the chapters
and in his invented mnemonic signs, is not surprising,
since they did not know which part of the Summary
was Massoretic and which was not. But that Raphael
Chayim, the editor of Norzi's excellent Massoretic text
with the Minchath Sha'i (">& finiS Mantua 1732-44),
should have been taken in by it, is an injury to the
memory of the distinguished Massoretic critic whose
work he undertook to edit.1 Raphael Chayim did not
simply copy Athias and his followers, as far as the Penta-
teuch is concerned, but went in for uniformity. Hence he
incorporated in the Massoretic Summaries the numbers of
the chapters at the end of every book throughout the
Prophets and the Hagiographa, and invented for them mne-
monic signs. It is remarkable that Heidenheim, who in his
excellent edition of the Pentateuch with the En-Hakore
(Xllpn pi?) published at Rodelheim 1818-21, denounces
this practice of incorporating the numeration of the chapters
into the Massoretic Summary, as mixing up the secular
[= non-Massoretic] with the sacred [= Massoretic],2 has
yet at the end of each book adopted this very mixture,
exactly as it appears in Athias and his followers. Still
Heidenheim was thoroughly conversant with what the
Massoretic text ought to be according to the MSS. and the
early editions. Hence, though he indicated the chapters

i Norzi's autograph MS. of the Minchath-Sha'i is in the British
Museum (Add. 27, 198), and it is almost needless to say that it does not
contain these innovations.

e'er 133-x -biE'BKpn -isca by ^ printf '3 rpiei JKS -ifitw na p1? 2

nfi- *6i is'bacR nbnpa'' vte nxm npibnn '2 "s mx-ipes K1? DJ panp CIST

cnpa p^in c'ssnb D'siinxn o'D'Enan *,vy Comp. Heidenheim, a'rr ~nsa wain

Vol. I, p. 86, Rodelheim 1818.

CHAP. III.] The Division into Chapters. • 29

by Hebrew numerals in the margin, he introduced no breaks
into the text against the numbers when the chapter
divisions did not coincide with the Massoretic text.

Though Dr. Baer eliminated the numbering of the
chapters with the invented mnemonic signs from the
Massoretic Summaries at the end of each book, yet after
denouncing them as arbitrary and without any Massoretic
authority/ he has introduced the breaks and the numbers of
the chapters into the text itself. How utterly this conflicts
with the Massoretic Sections, and how extensively these
divisions affect the Hebrew text will best be seen from an
analysis of the chapters themselves. Leaving out the Psalms,
the Hebrew Bible is divided into 7 79 Christian chapters. Of
this total 6 1 7 coincide with one or the other of the Massoretic
Sections, whilst no fewer than 162 are positively contrary to
the Massorah, inasmuch as the editors who introduced
them into the text have made breaks for them which are
anti-Massoretic.

The portions of Dr. Baer's text which have not as
yet been published are Exodus which contains nine of these
anti-Massoretic chapter-breaks, Leviticus which has two,
Numbers which has five, Deuteronomy which has six and
Kings which has seven, making a total of twenty-nine.
Deducting these from the 162 there remain 133 for the
other books. Now Dr. Baer has actually followed the
pernicious example of his predecessors in breaking up
the text in every one of these cases, and introduced into
the text itself, where there is no Massoretic division at
all, not only the Hebrew letters which denote the numbers,
but the equivalent Arabic numerals. Thus

In Genesis he has introduced into the text the following
twenty anti-Massoretic breaks: (i) III «; (2) VI. i;

1 Comp. his edition of Genesis, p. 92 note.

30 » Introduction. [CHAP. III.

(3) VII i; (4) VIII i; (5) IX i; (6) XIII i; (7) XIX i;
(8) XXVIII i; (9) XXIX i; (10) XXX i; (u) XXXI i;

(12) XXXII i; (13) XXXIII i; (14) XLII i; (15) XLIII i;
(16) XLIV i; (17) XLV i; (i8) XLVI i; (19) XLVII i
and (20) L i.

In Joshua Dr. Baer has introduced three breaks, viz.
in IV i ; (2) VI i and (3) VII i.

In Judges he has introduced two breaks, viz. (i ) VIII i
and (2) XVIII i.

In Samuel he has introduced six breaks, viz. ( i) VII i ;
(2) XVIII i ; (3) XXIII i ; (4 ) XXIV i ; (5) XXVI i and

(6) 2 Sam. Ill i.

In Isaiah he has introduced nine breaks, viz. (i) IV i;
(2) IX i; (3) XII i; (4) XIV i; (5) XVI i; (6) XLVI i;

(7) XL VII i ; (8) LXII i and (9) LXIV i .

In Jeremiah he has introduced seven breaks, viz.

1 i) III i ; (2) VI i ; (3) VIII i ; (4) IX i ; (5 ) XX i ; (6) XXXI i
and (7) XXXVIII i.

In Ezekicl he has introduced eight breaks, viz. (i) IX i ;

(2) XI i ; (3) XIV i ; (4) XLI i ; (5) XLII i ; (6) XLIII i ;
(7) XLIV i and (8j XLVII i.

In the Minor Prophets he has introduced fifteen breaks,
viz. (i) Hos. VI i; (2) VII i; (3) XI i; (4) XIII i;
(5) XIV i; (6) Joel IV i; (7) Jonah II i ; (8; IV i ;
(g) Hag. II i; (10) Zech. IV i; (n; V i; (12) X i;

(13) XIII i; (14) Mai. II i and (15) III i.

In Proverbs he has introduced fifteen breaks, viz.

(1) XI i; (2) XII i; (3) XV .; (4) XVI i; (5) XVII i;
1 6 ) XVIII i ; (7) XIX i ; (8) XX i ; (9) XXI i ; (10) XXII i ;
(n) XXIV i; (12) XXVI i; (13) XXVII i; (14) XXVIII i
and (15) XXIX i.

In Job he has introduced fifteen breaks, viz. (i) III i;

(2) V i; (3) VII i; (4) X i; (5) XIII i; (6) XIV i;
(7) XVII i; (8) XXIV i; (9) XXVIII i; (10) XXX i;

CHAP. III.] The Division into Chapters. 31

(n) XXXI i; (12) XXXIII i; (,3) XXXVII i; (14;
XXXIX i and (15) XLI i.

In the Five Megilloth he has introduced nineteen breaks,
viz. (i) Canticles II i; (2) V i; (3) VI i; (4) VII i;
(5) VIII i; (6) Ruth II i; (7) III i; (8) IV i; (9) Eccl. II i;
(10) III i; (n) VI i; (12) VIII i; (13) IX i; (14) X i;
(15) XI i; (16) XII i; (17) Esther V i; (18) VII i and
(19) IX i.

In Daniel he has introduced two breaks, viz. (i) IV i
and (2) XII i.

In Ezra-Nehemiah he has introduced two breaks, viz.
(i) Neh. VIII i and (2) XI i.

In Chronicles he has introduced ten breaks, viz.
(i) i Chron. XV i; (2) XXII i ; (3) 2 Chron. II i; (4) III i ;
(5) XII i ; (6) XVII i ; (7) XXI i ; (8) XXII i ; (9) XXIV i
and (10) XXVI i.

It must be distinctly understood that the question
here is not whether these breaks, or any of them, are
justified by the sense of the respective passages or not.
They may all be in perfect harmony with the context:
but what we maintain is that they are most assuredly against
the Massoretic division, and as such are to be repudiated
in an edition which professes to be in accordance with the
Massorah.

Chap. IV.
Sedarim.

II. The Sedarim (DHID) or the Triennial Pericopes ex-
hibit the second division of the text. The Grammatico-
Massoretic Treatise which precedes the Yemen MSS. of
the Pentateuch distinctly declares that the Sedarim are
the Pericopes of the Triennial cycle which obtained in many
communities. "There are/' it says, "places where they read
through the Law in three years. Hence the Pentateuch is
divided into one hundred and fifty-four Sections called
Sedarim, so that one Seder is read on each Sabbath. Ac-
cordingly the Law is finished at the end of every three
years." l As this was the Palestinian practice ( comp.
Megilla 2gb), and as the European communities follow
the Babylonian or Annual cycle, the Sedarim which exhibit
the more ancient division of the text have been totally
ignored in most MSS. Even the modern editions of the
so-called Massoretic Hebrew Bibles, which state at the end
of each book that it contains such and such a number of
Sedarim, give no indication whatever as to where, in the
text, any Seder occurs.

Jacob ben Chayim, the first editor of the Bible with
the Massorah (Venice 1524 — 25), assures us in his elaborate
Introduction that if he had found this Massoretic division

mash n-vrn n« ppbnai n-;c ribra mim n« pa'brar niaipa en '
•xi'ia:1! ,-nc ror ^m 'Kipnr -c e--nc p«-ip:n pi nvr-is nww c'rcm
:e-:r vhv ppcs mm n« pa-bra Or. 2348, foi. 25/7; Or. 2349, foi. i6a;

Or. 2364, foi. 12 a; Or. 1379, foi. 21 b.

CHAP- IV- I Sedarim. 33

•of the text he would have followed it in preference to
the Christian chapters which he adopted from R. Nathan's
! I. -brew Concordance. Having, however, obtained the List
when he had nearly carried the Bible through the press he
says: "I have published it separately so that it may not
be lost in Israel." '

But, though the Massoretic Treatise, referred to above,
distinctly tells us that the Pentateuch is divided into
154 Scdiirini, yet in the analysis of each book as well
as in the separate enumeration of each Seder it as
distinctly specifies 167 such Sedarim. Thus on Genesis
it not only says that it contains 45 Sedarim,- but gives
the catchword or verse for every one of them. The same
is the case with Exodus which it divides into 33 Sedarim;
with Leviticus which it divides into 25 Sedarim; with Numbers
which it divides into 33 Sedarim; and with Deuteronomy
which it divides into 31 Sedarim. Besides this minute
description and division given in the Massoretic Treatise
itself, the Massorah Parva of Or. 2349 gives in the margin
against the several places where such a Seder occurs in the
Annual Cycle, the number of each Seder. Thus on Peri-
cope Bercshitli [= Gen. I i — V 8| the Massorah Parva
remarks on Gen. I i // contains four Sedarim and this is
ilh first Seder.* On II 4 it has »itt? Y1D this is the second

ISD jn: pnr -a-i -neaa K-anr nrunBn npibna. trannb rc-m-i p? '

•bKi ,-n imp pi-1 pah ,';iba ja-ca ,*;iba K'asa ncas Tonai .x-aaTrprpn
pan inv "n"n ,topan *?2S nnoian •'bra ipbnc nr^-isn npibn KSIO T-.-T
•nniax TiabwH tsrar nastr nnKb 'T1? nyjn -ja inxi -nnbiro n:aa ccruri?
: bK^'^'a na«m nanwn bzh wn DJ no'sinb Comp. introduction, Vol. I, foi. 3 />

with fol. (>a-b Venice 1524—25; Jacob b. Chayim's Introduction to the
Rabbinic Bible, Hebrew and English, p. 8 1 &c. ed. Ginsburg, London 1867

Comp. :-ne a-raiKi nran abba ncns IKT a-zw nrn -ecn •: "" '

Or. 2348, foi. 25/7; Or. 2349, fol. Ida; Or. 2350, fol. 336; Or. 1379, fol. 2I/>.

.rnn -HB "; .a-n-ic 'i ns r11 3

•'? 1 Introduction. (CHAIVIV.

Seder. On III 22 it states >tPNi?tf 11D ///I- ////;\/ .SVi/ir and
on Gen. V i it has ^D"! TTD tlic fourth .SV</Vr. There can,
therefore, be no doubt that the Massoretic School, from
which these MSS. proceeded, divided the Pentateuch into
167 ScJiirim. It is, however, certain that other Massoretic
Schools divided it into 158 ScJarini and that others again
divided it into 154.

The different divisions which obtained in the different
Massoretic Schools with regard to the->e .SVJj /•/;;/, will best
be seen when the authorities which have transmitted them
are carefully analysed. And here again it is necessary to
separate the Pentateuch from the Prophets and Ilagiographa.

For the Pentateuch 1 have collated the following MSS.
in the British Museum: < )rient. 234«s, folio 25^— 29^; Origin.
23.39, folio iba— is,/; Orient. 2350, folio 23*7 -2St/; Orient.
2364, folio \2a- i $ a, and Orient. 1379, folio 2ia— 2jh. The
five MSS. of the Pentateuch are from Yemen and are preceded
by the Grammatico- Massoretic Treatise already referred to. It
is from these MSS. together with tlie List in the Madrid MS.
Xo. i that 1 have printed the Summary of contents at the
end of every hebdomadal Lesson (nttHD). I have moreover
collated the special Lists in Orient. 2201, folio itt — 347:
Orient. 4227, folio 273^— />, and Add. 15251, folio 2 </-/', as
well as the printed List in the first edition of Jacob b.
Cbayim Rabbinic Bible Vol. i, folio tu/. Venire 1^24 — 25.
Orient. 2201 which is dated A. D. 1246 is of special importance
since it not only has a separate List of the Sciiarini, but
marks every .SV</<.r in the margin of the text itself with
D against the place where it begins, thus leaving no doubt
as to which verse it belongs. The same is the case with
Oriental 2451 which contains the Pentateuch, the Haph-
taroth and the Psalms. In this MS., which is in a Persian
hand, the Xt'Jiirini are also marked in the margin of
the text.

CHAP. -IV.] Sedarim.

Genesis. - Not only do all the five Yemen MSS. state
that this book has forty-five Sedarim, but they give the
Pericope and verse for each Seder. Even Or. 2201 which
gives in the List forty -three Sedarim, states in the Masso-
retic Summary at the end of Genesis (folio 27/7) that Ge-
nesis has (iY,2 D'TID) forty-five Sedarim. The variations in the
other MSS. are as follows: (i) The sixth Seder, viz. VIII i
which is given in all the five Yemen MSS. and in all the
Lists, is omitted in the margin of the text in Oriental 2201
and in the editio princeps. (2) The ninth Seder, viz. XI i
which is not only given in all the five Yemen MSS., but
is marked in the margin of the text in Oriental 2201 is
omitted in all the Lists and by Dr. Baer. (3) There is
no Seder given for XII i in the Yemen MSS. and in the
List in Oriental 4227, though it is marked in the margin
of the text in Oriental 2201 and is given in the Lists of
Oriental 2201, of Add. 15251, of the editio princeps and of Dr.
Baer. (4) XVII i which is given in all .the Lists as the four-
teenth Seder is not marked in the Yemen MSS. nor in the
text of Oriental 2201. (5) XXI 22 is marked in the margin
of the text in Oriental 2201 instead of XXII i, which
is given not only in all the other MSS., but in the List
of this very MS. (6) XXII 20 which is given in all the
five Yemen MSS. as the nineteenth Seder is not given in
any of the Lists, nor is it marked in the text in Oriental
2201. (7) XL i is not only given in all the five Yemen
MSS. as the thirty-sixth Seder, but is marked in the margin
of the text in Oriental 2201. It is, however, omitted in all
the Lists and by Dr. Baer. And (8) XLIX 27 which is
given in all the five Yemen MSS. and is marked in the
margin of the text, both in Oriental 2201 and Oriental 2451,
is omitted in all the Lists and by Dr. Baer

It is to be regreted that Oriental 2451, which marks

the Sedarim in the margin of the text and manifestly exhibits

3G Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

a Persian recension, is imperfect. Of the twenty-three
Sedarim, marked in the Massorah Parva, eighteen coincide
with our recension, two, viz. XL i and XLIX 27, support
the Yemen recension, whilst three, viz. XXVI 13; XLII i
and 9, have hitherto been unknown.

Exodus. -- Both in the Summary of the contents of
Exodus and in the specific references to each Seder all
the five Yemen MSS., and Orient. 2451 state that this book
has thirty-three Sedarim. As Add. 15251, Orient. 4227 and
the printed List distinctly state that it has 29 Sedarim ,
whilst the List of Orient. 2201 as distinctly enumerates 27, it
is evident that the three different Lists proceed from different
Massoretic Schools. In the text itself, however, Orient. 2201
marks 30 Sedarim which approximates more nearly to the
Yemen recension. The following analysis will show wherein
these recensions differ: (i)The second Seder, viz. Exod. II i,
which is given in all the five Yemen MSS., is omitted in
Add. 15251, Orient. 4227, Or. 2201, both in the text and
in the List, in Oriental 2451 and in the printed List.
1 2 ) The sixteenth Seder, viz. Exod. XIX 6 is omitted in
the List of Orient. 2201. (3) The ninteenth Seder, viz.
Exod. XXIII 20, which is not only given in all the five
Yemen MSS., but is marked in the margin of the text in
Or. 2201 and Or. 2451, is omitted in Add. 15251, Or. 4227, in
the List of Or. 2201 and in the printed List. (4) The twenty-
fifth Seder, viz. Exod. XXXI, is omitted in the text of
Or. 2201. <5J The twenty-eighth Seder, viz. Exod. XXXIV i,
which is given in all the five Yemen MSS. and is marked
in the margin of the text in Or. 2451, is omitted in Add.
15251, Orient. 4227, Orient. 2201, both in the text and in
the List, as well as in the printed List. (6) The twenty-
ninth Seder, viz. Exod. XXXIV 27 is omitted in the
List of Orient. 2201 and in the printed List, whilst (7) the
•thirtieth Seder, viz. Exod. XXXIV 30 is omitted in

CHAP. IV.] Sedarim. ;;7

Add. 15251, Orient. 4227, in the List of Orient. 2201 and
in the printed List.

The Persian recension, though like the Yemen MSS.,
says in the Massoretic Summary at the end of Exodus that
it has thirty-three Sedarim, yet marks 34 in the Massorah
Parva. This recension omits two Sedarim, viz. Exod. II i ;
XVI 4 and has three which do not exist in our recension,
viz. IX i; XII i and XXXVI 8.

Leviticus. — It is equally certain that the difference in
the List of Sedarim extended also to Leviticus. Thus
whilst all the five Yemen MSS. distinctly state in the
Summary that this book has twenty-five Sedarim and
minutely enumerates each Seder under every Pericope, yet
Orient. 15251, Orient. 4227, Orient. 2801 in the List and
the printed List give the number as twenty-three. And
though Orient. 2201 also marks twenty-three in the text,
the Sedarim differ in several instances from the separate List
in this very MS. These differences will be best understood
by the following analysis: (i) Seder 3, viz. Levit. V i,
which is given in all the five Yemen MSS., is omitted in
Add. 15251, Or. 4227, Or. 2201, both in the text and in
the List, and in the printed List. (2) Levit. V 20 is marked
as a Seder in the text of Orient. 2201, but is not given in
any of the other MSS., nor in the List of this very MS.

(3) The same is the case with Levit. XXII i which is
marked as a Seder in Or. 2201, but is not given in any
of the other MSS., nor in the List of this MS. itself.

(4) Levit. XXII 17 which is given as a Seder in all the
other MSS., as well as in the List of Orient. 2201, is not
marked in the text of this MS. (5) The twentieth Seder,
viz. Levit. XXIII 9 which is given in all the five Yemen
MSS., is omitted in Add. 15251, Or. 4227, Orient. 2201,
both in the text and in the List, and in the printed List.
(6) Leviticus XXIII 15 is marked as a Seder in Add. 15251?

•'5H Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

Orient. 4227, Orient. 2201, both in the text and in the
List, as well as in the printed List, but is omitted in all
the five Yemen MSS., whilst (7) the twenty-third Seder,
which is given in all the other MSS. as well as in the
List of Orient. 2201, is omitted in the text of this MS.
According to the statement at the end of Leviticus the
Persian recension preserved in Oriental 2451, Leviticus
has only twenty-three Sedarhn. But, though it agrees
with the ordinary Lists as far as the number is concerned,
it differs in the places where these Sedarim occur. The
extent of this difference, however, cannot be fully ascer-
tained, since it only marks nineteen out of the twenty-three
in the Massorah Parva. The six ScJiirhn which are not
marked are as follows: XXII 17, XX 111 ,,, XXIV i,
XXV 14, 35 and XXVI 3. Two of these are from t^e
Yemen recension, viz. XXIII 9 and XXIV i. From th<^
ordinary recension, therefore, there are only four not
marked. But in the nineteen which this M.S. gives, there
are two variations, both from the Yemen and ordinary
recensions. Thus it omits the fourth St\fcr >- VI 12 which
all the other MSS. mark, whilst it gives XVI i as the
thirteenth Seder which is not to be found in any of th<-
other Lists.

X umbers. — Though the Yemen recension has only one
Seder more in Numbers than the other recensions, yet the
Lists exhibit variations in other respects as will be seen
from the following analysis: (i ) The sixth Safer, viz. VI i
which is given in «11 the five Yemen MSS., is omitted in
Add. 15251, Or. 4227, Or. 2201, both in the text and in the
List, as well as in the printed List. (2) The tenth, f 3 ) eleventh
and (4^ seventeenth Sedarhn, viz. Numb. X i; XI 16 and
XVII 1 6, are omitted in the text of Or. 2201, though th<-\
are given in the List of this MS. 15) Numb. XVII I j.s
is given as a Seder in Add. 15251, Or. 4227, Or. 2201, both

<;HAI'. IV. | Sedarim. ;{«i

in the text and in the List, as well as in the printed List,
but is no Seder in any of the five Yemen MSS., whilst
6 ) the eighteenth Seder, viz. Xumb. XIX i which is given
in all the five Yemen MSS., is omitted in Add. 15251,
Or. 4227, °r. 2201, both in the text and in the List, and
in the printed List. ( 7 ) The twentieth and ( 8j twenty-second
Sedarim, viz. Xumb. XXII 2 and XXV i, are omitted in
the text of Or. 2201, but given, in the List of this MS.

As Or. 245 1 which is defective after Number XXVIII 28,
marks only twenty-six out of the thirty-three Sedarim.
The variations exhibited in these twenty-six Sedarim are
as follows: (i) It marks the second Seder against II 10
and not against II i, which is given both in the Yemen
.M SS. and in the ordinary Lists. (2) Like the ordinary Lists
it does not mark VI i, which is the sixth Seder in the
Yemen MSS. And (3) it agrees with the ordinary recension
in giving XVIII 25 as the seventeenth Seder which is
omitted in the Yemen MSS. The . printed Massorah at the
end of Xumbers has it m imDTJTD ,1'^ VTID1.

Deuteronomy. — In Deuteronomy, too, we have two re-
censions of the Lists of Sedarim. The Yemen recension, which
is given in all the five Yemen MSS., distinctly states that
this book contains thirty-one Sedarim, and the Lists minutely
give the verse of every Seder in each Pericope, whilst the
recension in the other MSS. give twenty Sedarim which
are duly numbered. The following analysis will show
the differences in these recensions. Four Sedarim. viz. Xos.
5, 13, iSand 20, i. e. Deut. IV 25; X1LI 2; XVLII 14 and
XXI 10, which are given in the Lists of all the five
Yemen MSS., are omitted in the Lists of Add. 15251,
Oriental 4227, Oriental 2201, both in the List and in the
text, as well as in the printed List; whilst Seder No, 24
is omitted in the text of Oriental 2201, but is contained
in the List of this MS. Oriental 2451 is defective. It

40 Introduction. [CHA1> IV.

begins with Deuteronomy XI 18 and ends with XXX II 7.
As it only marks one Seder, viz. XXXI 14 it is impossible
to say whether the Persian recension had any variations
in this book.

As to the relation of the Sedarim to the Open and
Closed Sections, 151 out of 167 coincide with one or the
other of these Sections. Only 16 have no corresponding
break in the text. They are as follows:

12 in Genesis, viz. Sedan' in

(1) No. 6 = chap. VIII i :

(2) No. 9 = chap. XI i ;

(3) No. 15 = chap. XIX i:

(4) No. 2 - chap. XXIV 42 :
(5; No. 25 = chap. XXVII 28:
(6) No. 26 = chap. XXVIII 10;
17 ) No. 27 = chap. XXIX 3 1 :

(8) No. 28 = chap. XXX 22:

(9) No. 29 = chap. XXXI 3;
( 10) No. 38 = chap. XLI 38;
(i i ) No. 39 = chap. XLII 18;
(12) No. 40 = chap. XLIII 12.

i in Exodus, viz. No. 16 = chap. XIX 6;

i in Leviticus, viz. No. 22 = chap. XXV 14;

i in Numbers, viz. No. 2 1 = chap. XXIII 10; and

i in Deuteronomy, viz. No. 18 = chap. X VI 1 1 14.

For the Former Prophets I have collated the following
MSS.: Orient. 2210 and Orient. 2370. These are Yemen
MSS. and give the Sedarim in the margin of the text
against the verse which commences the Seder. I have
moreover collated Or. 2201 and Harley 5720, which also give
the Sedarim in the margin of the text against the respec-
tive passages, as well as Arundel Or. 1 6. This splendid M S.
not only gives every Seder in its proper place against
the text, but has a separate List of the Sedarim at tho

CHAP. IV. I Sedarim. 41

end of every book, giving the verse with which each
begins and the number of the Seder. Besides these I have
collated the List in Add. 15251 with the List in the edit in
princcjis of Jacob b. Chayim and with Dr. Baer's Lists,
given in the Appendices to the several parts of his
Hebrew Bible.

Joshua. — All the MSS. agree that Joshua has fourteen
Sedarhn, and there is only one instance in which the Ye-
men MSS. exhibit a different recension. Both in the t'-xt
itself and in the separate Lists the MSS., with the one
exception, mark the Sedarim substantially in the same
places and give the same verse for the commencement of
each Seder in the respective Lists. The List published
in the editio princeps of Jacob b. Chayim's Rabbinic Bible,
is a faithful reproduction of the MSS. other than of
Yemen recension.

The Yemen recension gives Josh. VIII i as the fourth
Seder and omits XIV 15 which constitutes the ninth Seder
in our recension, thus making up the fourteen Sedarim.

The List which Dr. Baer gives in the Appendix to
his edition of Joshua is in no fewer than six instances in
flagrant contradiction to the unanimous testimony of the
Massorah. They are as follows: (i ) Dr. Baer gives as the
third Seder Din fj^ inn ,to l^ffD TP1 V i, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against IV 24, and
all the Lists give Din |J?fi^ == IV 24 as the catchword.
(2 1 He gives the fifth Seder VIII 30, which is supported
by only one MS., viz. Orient. 2201, whereas all the other
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against VIII 33
and all the Lists give V:pn ^SW tol = VIII 33 as the
catchword. (3) He gives the seventh Seder p3' PB»3 W
Tltfn l^fi XI i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against X 42 and all the Lists give
On to nxi = X 42 as the catchword. (4) He gives the

Introduction. [CHAP. IV

ninth Seder mirp '33 nOQ^ ^Ttfn >m XV i, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XIV 15,
and all the Lists give D»3B^ [TUft Q«n •, XIV 15 as the
catchword. (5) He gives the eleventh Seder ^"lljn XX"
pUStt^ >jEM XIX i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XVIII 28, and all the Li>t-
give S|^Xi1 J^SCl = XVIII 28 as the catchword. (61 !!<•
gives for the twelfth Safer m^»n3n rftx inn ," 12T1 X X i
whereas all the MSS mark it in the margin of the text
against XIX 51, and all the Lists quote simply fl^nM n*?X
XIX 51 as the catchword. And 17) he gives the
fourteenth Seder nnx Q»m D'S^ 'iTI XX III i, whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against
X X 1 1 34, and all the Lists give plJO ^3 1X"lpr XXII 3 }
as the catchword. It will thus be seen that in half the
number of the Sei/iir/ni in Joshua Dr. P.aer's List con-
tradicts the Mas.-orah.

Jni/x'es. - There is no different recension preserved in
the Yemen MSS. of the Sei/iirim in Judges. All the
Codices state that this book has fourteen Sedtir'in and all
mark the same passages where they begin. In this book
too Dr. Baer in his List departs in no fewer than six
out of the fourteen instances from the unanimous testimony
of the Massorah, as will be seen from the following
analysis: (i) He gives ^D T13K1 p IfD! ^XW »33 "ICT"
1^3'IX VI i, as the fourth Seder, whereas all the MSS. mark
it in the margin of the text against V 31, and all the Lists
give *?D VT2X' p =--- V 31 as the catchword, u) He gives
for the fifth Seder pITtf Xin ^P3T1' D2^'l VII i, when-a-,
all the .MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against
VI 40, and all the Lists give p Q\"|Sx r^^l = VI 40 as the
catchword. (31 He gives for the sixth Seder pin3 NI"1
HjlIM VIII 4, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against VIII 3, and all the Lists give ODT2

CHAP. IV. | Sedarim. 43

j =: VIII 3 as the catchword. (4) He gives for
the tenth Seder XT! nnacn \WftD T.'l XIV i , whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XIII 24,
and all the Lists give p n«r«n "6ni = = XIII 24 as the
catchword. (5) He gives as the eleventh Seder nnx \T1
pt>2t> 33W1 irm ,p XVI 4, whereas all the MSS. mark
it in the margin of the text against XVI 3, and all the
Lists give simply ptPEtP 3D EH = XVI 3 as the catchword.
And (6) he gives Q'tMNn ntPEn 13 ^1 XVIII 7 as the
twelfth Seder, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of
the text against XVIII 6 and all the Lists give DH*? 12K'1
fron = XVIII 6 as the catchword. Here again Dr. Baer's
List contradicts in nearly half the instances the statement
of the Massorah.

Samuel. — In the MSS. and in the early editions of the
Bible Samuel is not divided. Hence the Massorah treats it
as one book, The Sedarim are, therefore, numbered con-
tinuously without any reference to i Samuel and 2 Samuel.
Here too all the MSS. are unanimous that Samuel has
34 Sedarim, and the Yemen recension exhibits only two
variations, viz. the sixth Seder which the Yemen MSS.
mark against X 25, whereas the other MSS. give it X 24 a
verse earlier; and the thirteenth Seder which the Yemen
MSS. mark against XX 5, whereas it is marked in the other
MSS. against XX 4, also one verse earlier. In Dr. Baer's
List, however, there are no fewer than fourteen deviations
from the Massorah: ( i) He gives for the second Seder
in'3 ^ nnQ-in n:pSs "p^ H n, whereas all the MSS. mark
it in the margin of the text against II 10, and all the Lists
give -ona inn' m,T = II 10 as the catchword. (21 He gives
as the fifth Seder ff'p IBtn pa»330 inX tt»K '.T1 IX i, whereas
all the MSS. mark the Seder in the margin of the text
against IX 2, and all the Lists give p ,Tn lVl = IX 2 as the
catchword. (3) He gives as the tenth Seder

44 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

'ff» ^X D'3l6» XVI 19, whereas all the MSS. mark the
Seder in the margin of the text against XVI 18, and all
the Lists give DnWHO THX fin = XVI 18 as the catchword.
(4) He gives as the fourteenth Seder X3 frwm "|^n Dpn X XI i ,
whereas all the MSS. mark the Seder in the margin of the
text against XX 42, and all the Lists give Til'? fnn.T IOX'1
= XX 42 as the catchword. (5) He gives as the seven-
teenth Seder " II-D ^PnX^ TH ISXn XXV 32, whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XXV 33,
and all the Lists give "ptfB JllTI == XXV 33 as the catch-
word. (6) He gives as the twentieth Seder Sx m xm
nto'l Jt»p3t XXX 26, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XXX 25, and all the Lists give
Xinn QVna >m = XXX 25 as the catchword. (7) He gives
as the twenty-first Seder X3¥ IP "13 p 1:3X1 2 Sam. II 8,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against II 7, and all the Lists give l"|jp?nn nnjn =a II 7 as
the catchword. (8) He gives as the twenty-third Seder
D'3i6a IX 1^0 D1TI nb»»1 V n, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against V 10, and all
the Lists give "ji^n m l*?n = : V 10 as the catchword.
(9) He gives as the twenty-fourth Seder 3EP1 TH "J^an JO"
VII 1 8, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against VII 16, and all the Lists give "jna^QOl "]fV3 p«:i
VII 1 6 as the catchword. (10) He gives as the twenty -fifth
Seder IBI? ItPN DPm 3KV t^jn X 13, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against X 1 2, and all the
Lists give p*nnyi p*n = X 12 as the catchword, (n) He
gives as the twenty-seventh Seder 3XV ^K "|^»n na«n XIV 2 1,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against
X 1 II 25, and all the Lists give Dl^tfax ^X "J^On IOK'1 -
XIII 25 as thfe catchword. (12) He gives as the thirty-
second Seder n^at»jn"]^an "13m XIX 41, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XIX 40,

CHAP. IV.] Sedarim.

1 ;,

and all the Lists give DIM ^3 131^1 = X I X 40 as the
catchword. (13) He gives as the thirty -third Seder
•tt'3X ^X TH "iSXn XX 6, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against XXI 7, and all the Lists
give l^on t»Bin = XXI 7 as the catchword. And (14)
he gives as the thirty-fourth Seder D^inXH TH >*m H^Xl

XXIII i, whereas all the MSS. mark the Seder in the
margin of the text against XXII 51, and all the Lists
give mW ^HJO == XXII 51 as the catchword.

Kings. — Like Samuel, the division of Kings into two
books, so far as the Hebrew text is concerned, is of modern
origin. It does not occur in the MSS. nor in the early
editions. The Massorah treats it as one book, and in the
enumeration of the Sedarim the numbers are continuous.
The separate Lists in Oriental 15251, Arundel Oriental 16,
as well as the one in the editio princeps of Jacob b. Chayim's
Rabbinic Bible, enumerate thirty-five Sedarim in the Book
of Kings. This is more or less confirmed by the following
MSS.: Oriental 2370, Oriental 2210, Arund. Oriental 16,
Harley 5720 and Oriental 2201, which mark the Sedarim
in the margin of the text against the respective verses
with which they begin. The two Yemen MSS., however,
exhibit several variations which have been preserved by
the School of Massorites to which they belong. Thus Seder
thirteen, viz. XV 9 is a verse earlier, viz. verse 8. For Seder
twenty-one which in our recension is 2 Kings IV 26,
the Yemen recension gives "p Din "IOX'1 =a 2 Kings VI 6,
which is also marked as Seder in the margin of the text
in Oriental 2201. Seder thirty is also a verse earlier, viz.
XVIII 5 instead of XVIII 6, whilst the following six
Sedarim are not marked at all: No. 7 = = VIII n; No. 21 -
2 Kings IV 26; No. 25 = 2 Kings X 15; No. 32 = 2 Kings
XX 8; No. 34 - 2 Kings XXIII 25 and No. 35 « 2 Kings

XXIV 1 8.

46 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

For the Latter Prophets I have collated the following
MSS.: Oriental 2211 which is the only Yemen MS. of the
Latter Prophets in the British Museum, and it is greatly
to be regretted that I have not been able to find another
MS. of this School, since it exhibits a recension of the
Sedeirini different in many respects from that preserved
in the other Codices. I have also collated ( )riental 2201,
Harley 5720 and Arundel Oriental 16, which also mark the
Sedarim in the margin of the text. Besides these I have
collated the separate Lists in Add. 15251, Arundel
Oriental 16 and in the cditio princess of Jacob b. Chayim's
Rabbinic Bible with Dr. Baer's Lists given in the
Appendices to the several parts of his Hebrew Bible.

fst.iiii/1. — All the Codices and the separate l.i.sis mark
the Sedariiu in Isaiah as twenty-six in number. The Yemen
recension, however, preserved in Oriental 2211 exhibit^
very striking variations. Thus in more than half the in-
stances the Sediiriin which are marked in the margin of the
text are in different places: ( r i The second Seder is pH¥ 112S
= 111 10 instead of IV 3. (2) The fourth Seder is VIII 13
instead of VI 3. 13) The tenth Seder is XXV 8 instead
of XXV i. (41 The twelfth SeJ^r is XXX s instead of
XXIX 23. (51 The thirteenth Sed^r is XXX II 17 instead
of XXXII iS. 161 The sixteenth Seder is XXX IX K instead
of XL i. 17) The eighteenth Seder is X I.I 1 1 31 instead
of XLIV 6. Harley 5720 has also this Seder in XLIII 31.
('8) The twentieth Seder is XLVII1 9 instead of XLVIII 2
(g) The twenty-first Seder is LI 11 instead of XLIX 26.
f loi The twenty-second Seder is LIV 10 instead of LII 7.
ii 'Hi.- twenty-third Seder is LVII 14 instead of LV 13.
u The twenty-fourth Seder is LIX 20 instead of LVII L 14.
Harley 5720 has also this Seder on LIX 20. (131 The twenty-
fifth Seder is LXIII 7 instead of LXI 9, (14), whilst the
twenty-sixth Seder is LXV 16 instead of LXV 9.

CHAP. IV. | Sedarim. 47

I )r. Baer, who professes to give the received List, has
in no fewer than nineteen instances altered the Massorah. Thus
i i) for the second Seder he gives {V3Cm:3 nX3C nx 'TTX pm DX
IV 4, whereas all the MSS., with the exception of course
of the Yemen Codex, put the Seder against IV 3 in the
margin of the texts, and the Lists give fVJtS "iXtPJH iViT
IV 3 as the catchword. (2) He gives the third Seder
D'DDH m!5X 11^1 VI 4, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against VI 3, and all the Lists give
n? *?X n» Xlpl =- V L 3 as the catchword. (3) He gives the fourth
Seder Spy 3 " rf?ttf 13"! IX 7, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against IX 6, and all the Lists give
mtPSn i"Q1 Db = IX 6 as the catchword. (4) He gives as
the fifth Seder Ttt' IKJQ *10n X2T1 XI. i, whereas all the MSS.
with the exception of Harley 5720, mark it in the
margin of the text against XI 2, and all the Lists give
" mi Vt>P nnn =j XI 2 as the catchword. (5) He gives
as the sixth Seder "p " H^H DV1 .TiTI XIV 3, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XIV 2,
and all the Lists give &SV Dinp^l == XIV 2 as the catch-
word. (6) He gives as the eighth Seder PITntfK fmn X3 n:t?I
XX i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XIX 25, and all the Lists give niPP "O"n ItPX =
XIX 25 as the catchword. (7) He gives as the ninth Seder
r.V:« iy?vn¥ NttO XXIII i, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against XXII 23, and all the Lists
give in' vnpprn = XXII 23 as the catchword. (8) He gives
as the tenth Seder -paTIX nnx M^»N " XXV i, whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XXIV 23,
and all the Lists give runSl mom = XXIV 23 as the catch-
word. (9) He gives as the eleventh Seder H1XJ mEtf 'in
XXVIII i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against XXVI [ 13, and all the Lists give
Sinn DV3 iT,TI = XXVII 13 as the catchword. (10) He gives

48 Introduction. [CHAI'. IV

as the twelfth Seder D'TIID D'33, 'in XXX i, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XXIX 23,
and all the Lists give VY>> 1DX13 ^ +* XXIX 23 as the
catchword, (i i) He gives as the fourteenth Seder 1?3"1X3 \Y1
n:tT mtPy XXXVI i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XXXV 10, and all the Lists give
pw miT " mfil = r XXXV 10 as the catchword. (12) He
gives as the fifteenth Seder pax p in W nto'1 XXXVII 21,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXXVII 20, and all the Lists give 13'PI^X " HDPl
XX XVII 20 as the catchword. (13) He gives as the nine-
teenth Seder WK *?X"lt^ "irm ,H3 >3 XLV 18, whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XLV 17,
and all the Lists give "3 Ptna ^Klttr • = XLV 1 7 as the
catchword. (14) He gives as the twentieth Seder matPX"in
VTCn rX2 XLVIII 3, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XLV1II 2, and all the Lists give
EHpil TPQ ^ "• XIA'l 1 1 2 as the catchword. (15) He gives as
the twenty-first Seder mnnD "IOD .1? 'X " 1QX H3 L i, whereas
all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against
X I .IX 26, and all the Lists give "piQ DX Y63Xm = XL I X 26
as the catchword. (16) He gives as the twenty-third .SV</(r
KD^2 liar ^ 1!3X .13 I^rl i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against LV 1 3, and all the Lists give
*"!¥J?:n nnn - - LV 13 as the catchword. (17) He gives as
the twenty-fourth Seder " T mxp Xt> |H LIX i, whereas
all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against
LVIII 14, and all the Lists give IflJJnn ?X = LVII1 14 as the
catchword. (18; He gives as the twenty-fifth Seder tPlf
"3 ff'WX LXI 10, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against LXI 9, and all the Lists give
^133 jni;* I-XI 9 as the catchword. And ( 19) he gives as
the twenty-sixth Seder ETlYnn X3CQ' "1^X3 »» 10X .13 LX V 8,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text

. IV.] Sedarim.

against LXV 9, and all the Lists give 3pJ?>2 'fiKJClfn =
LXV 9 as the catchword.

Jeremiah. - - Both in the margin of the text and in
the Lists of our recension the number of Sedarim in
Jeremiah is given as thirty-one. The recension preserved
in the Yemen Codex Or. 2211, however, not only gives
twenty-eight, omitting XXIII 6, XXIX 18 and LI 10 marked
in our Lists Nos. 12, 22 and 30, but has the following
important deviations: (i) The second Seder is III 12 instead
of III 4. (2) The third Seder is V 18 instead of V i.
(3) The sixth Seder is XI 5 instead of IX 23. (4) The
tenth Seder is XIX 14 instead of XVIII 19. (5) The
eleventh Seder is XXII 16 instead of XX 13. 16) The
fourteenth Seder is XXVI 15 instead of XXVI i. (7) The
eighteenth Seder is XXXI 35 instead of XXXI 33.

(8) The nineteenth Seder is XXXII 41 instead of XXXII 22.

(9) The twentieth Seder is XXXIII 26 instead of XXXIII 15.

(10) The twenty-eighth Seder is XLIX 2 instead of
XLVIII 12; |'ii) whilst the twenty-ninth Seder is L 20
instead of L 5. Of the twenty-eight Sedarim f therefore,
which this recension gives, it coincides in seventeen
passages with the received List.

In the received List there is a variation in the MSS.
with regard to the twentieth Seder. The Lists in Add. 15251,
and in the editio princeps give it JJtPID Di"in D^3 = Jerem.
XXXIII 1 6 and the Yemen Codex and Harley 5720 mark the
Seder in the margin of the text against this verse, whilst
Oriental 2201, which is one of the oldest dated MSS., marks
it in the margin of the text against ITQXX Dfin D'B>3
XXXIII 1 6 which I have adopted.

As to Dr. Baer's List, it is utterly at variance with
the Massorah in no fewer than fifteen instances. ( i) He gives
the second Seder D^S^> IIB^n irm ,^X " IBK'1 HI 6,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text

50 Introduction. | CHAP. IV.

against III 4 and all the Lists give nnP3 XlSl : : III 4
as the catchword. (2) He gives the sixth ScJcr QW HiH
^SirV nxr3 ax »3 inn ,B\X3 IX 24, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against IX 23 and
the Lists give nx?3 BX '3 " I * 23 as the catchword.
(3) He gives the eighth Seder ^>3H3 tPM in31 ,^» " ISX'l
B^jn XV i, which I have inadvertantly followed, whereas
all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XIV 22
and all the Lists give on:n ^3113 tTM XIV 22 as the catch-
word. (4) He gives the twelfth Seder 1D3T .B'X3 B'3' n:n [3^
rmrp Win V0»3 XXIII 7, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against XXIII 6 and the Lists give
iTTliT XWIfl V0»3 ?• XXHI 6 as the catchword. (5 ) He gives
the thirteenth S^ter nx D3 Tirften m31 ,.T.n 1WX 13in
3inn XXV i, whereas all the MSS., with the exception
of the Yemen Codex, mark it in the margin of the text
against XXIV 7 and the Lists give 3^ Drft Tin:! — XXIV 7
as the catchword. (6) He gives the fifteenth .SVJir
QpnT n:6aa n'WX13 XXVIl i, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against XXVII 5 and
all the Lists give ns TPtry '33X = XXVII 5 as the
catchword. (7) He gives the sixteenth Seder ," 1QX H3 ^3
Dl^f nx W1T1 "in3T XXIX 8, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text again.st XXIX 7 and all the
Lists give Dl^r DX Will • X X I X 7 as the catchword.
(8) He gives the seventeenth .SV</Vr ,H3J? XTn ^X nnxi
" nx 1135^1 in31 XXX 10, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against XXX 9 and all the Lists
give m,T nx VDin XXX <) as the catchword. (9) He
gives the nineteenth Seder ^X ni2X HnXl in31 ," 131 Mn
XXXII 26, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin ot
the text against XXXII 22 and all the Lists give fnm
pXH nx BP6 ^ XXXII 22 as the catchword, i 10) He gives
the twentieth SaUr tfrin ann ar2'3 in31 " 1SN H3 '3

<:HAP. IV.] Sedafim.

XXXIII 1 7, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of
the text either against XXXIII 15 or 16 and all the Lists
give PPVI Dfin D»a>3 = XXXIII 16 as the catchword.
( 1 1) He gives the twenty-first Seder 3ttf:i *in3*7 ," 131 TH
Q^em»3'XXXV 12, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XXXV 10 and all the Lists
give a^HX3 3tPyi. == XXXV 10 as the catchword. (12) He
gives the twenty-second Seder "f^Bi"! mm "ID 3*7 ," 131 \T1
^X»m> DX XXXVI 27, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against XXXVI 26 and all 'the
Lists give DX T^OPl mm = XXXVI 26 as the catchword.
(13; He gives the twenty-fourth Seder 1D31 ,iTn IPX "13"jn
IB^OX E5Q '3 XL i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XXXIX 18 and all the Lists
give 1Bt>OX Bt»» '3 = XXXIX 18 as the catchword. (14; He
gives the twenty-sixth Seder BJM ^3 ^X "liTET "I3«n
XLIV 24^ whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the
text against XLIV 20. (15) He gives the twenty-eighth Seder
" tiX H3 par ^3*? XLIX i, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against XLVII 1 2 and all the Lists
give D'K3 DW run |3^ = XL VIII 12 as the catchword.

Ezekiel. - - According to the ordinarily received Lists,
Ezekiel has twenty-nine Sedarim. In the Yemen recension,
however, preserved in Oriental 22 1 1, there are only twenty-
eight, the twelfth Seder, viz. XX 41 being omitted. Therfe
are also the following two variations: (i) The. fifth Sa/cr
is X i instead of X 9 and (2 ) the twenty-seventh Si Jet-
is XLIV 4 instead of XLIII 27.

Dr. Baer's List exhibits the following twelve departures
from the Massorah : (i) He gives for the thirteenth Seder
•p n^n:i -irm ," "I3T >m XXII 1 7, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against XXII 16 and
all the Lists give *>?&> tpr6mi = XXII 16 as the catch-

word. (2) He gives the fourteenth Seder "in31 ,1^X H3 '3

52 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

XXIII 28, whereas all the MSS. mark
it in the margin of the text against XXIII 27 and all the
Lists give -pa *]fia? YOffm^XXlII 27 as the catchword.
(3; He gives the fifteenth Seder .TiT) "IfO! ,DTK p Hnxi
D3^ ^XpilT XXIV 25, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against XXIV 24 and all the Lists give
DD*? *?XpTIT rPiT) = XXIV 24 as the catchword. 14 ) He gives
the sixteenth Seder -pDX mr63 VI31 ,» "13T »,T1 XXVII k,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXVI 20 and all the Lists give HTP DX •pn"T"1<irn
= XXVI 20 as the catchword. (5) He gives the seven-
teenth Seder fl"n DM^X p pl>31 » 131 M'T XXVIII n,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXVIII 1 3 and all the Lists give D\"6x p pU3 -

XXVIII 13 as the catchword. (6) He gives the eighteenth
Seder PPaiCK Xim QV3 inai ," "131 »nn XXX i, whereas
all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against

XXIX 2 1 and all the Lists give ITE^X X1HH DV3 = XXIX 2 1
as the catchword. (7) He gives the twentieth Seder

KEPT irx inxfcn ^3 inai ,n:w mw ^nc?3 »nn xxxm 21,

whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXXIII 16 and all the Lists give IPX inxEn ^O
= XXXIII 1 6 as the catchword. (8) He gives the twenty -
first Seder D^V nn3 DH^ 'm31 XXXIV 25, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XXXIV 26
and all the Lists give m3'3D1 DD1X Wiyi XXX LV 26 as
the catchword. ' (9) He gives the twenty-third Seder TH
jOan pX :i:T ,» "I31 XXXVIII i, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against XXXVII 28 and
all the Lists give >:x '3 D'ljri 1jm = XXXVII 28 as the
catchword. (101 He gives the twenty-seventh Seder
"["If -nx 3W1 XLIV i, whereas all the MSS.

1 The O has unfortunately dropped out of the margin in my edition.

€HAP. IV.] Sedarim 53

mark it in the margin of the text against XL III 27 and
all the Lists give D'Bn nx l^m = XLIII 27 as the catch-
word, (n) He gives the twenty-eighth Seder pixn DUH ^3
"ViT XLV 1 6, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against XLV 15 and all the Lists give ntn
fXtfn |0 riHX == XLV 15 as the catchword. And (12) he
gives the twenty-ninth Seder ^nj nj miT Tttt "I3K .13
XLVII 13, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of
the text against XLVII 12 and all the Lists give ^J?1 -
i*6jP ^ri3n = XLVII 12 as the catchword.

The Minor Prophets - - According to the MSS. and
the separate Lists, both MS. and printed, the Minor
Prophets, which are grouped together as one book, have
twenty-one Sedarim. In the received number, however,
there is the following variation. The nineteenth Seder
is marked in the margin of the text in Oriental 2201
against Zechariah VIII 4 instead of VIII 23 as in all the
other MSS. and Lists. For the twentieth Seder, viz.
Zech. XII i, Add. 15251 and the editio princeps give the
catchword mrn " "OT XttfB which is manifestly a mistake
for flBjl " "HI XtPS as mr3 does not occur in Zechariah
and as the other is the catchword in Arundel Or. 16.

The Yemen recension preserved in Oriental 2211
has only nineteen Sedarim in the Minor Prophets and
exhibits the following variations: (i) It has a Seder on
Hosea II 22 which is not in the received recension. (2) The
fifth Seder is Joel IV 8 instead of II 27. (3; The seventh
is Amos V 15 instead of V 14. (4) The tenth is Jonah IV 1 1
instead of Micah I i. (5) The eleventh is Micah IV 7
instead of Micah IV 5. (6) The thirteenth is Habakkuk I 12
instead of I i and (7) the fourteenth Seder is Zeph. 1 4
instead of I i.

Dr. Baer's List has the following fifteen departures from
the Massorah: (i) He gives the second Seder

•r>4 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

" \X Hosea VI i, whereas all the MSS. mark It in the
margin of the text against VI 2 and all the Lists give
P^O 1j"IT : VI 2 as the catchword: (2 ) He gives the
fourth Seder ^>«V ^K iTH "IWK " "121 Joel I i, whereas the
Massorah at the end of Joel distinctly declares that this
book has one Seder only (Kin X1TD) and gives II 27 as
the Seder in question and all the Lists give 21p »3 DflPTl "
Joel II 27 as the catchword. The actual fourth Seder is
given in all the MSS. and Lists ^»E3 fTilX = Hosea XIV 6.
(3) He gives the fifth Seder -pOttX p nPIK .T.TI
Joel III i, whereas all the MSS. and all the Lists
give Joel II 27 as the fifth Seder. (4) He gives the
sixth Seder DlfiP nm Amos I i, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against Amos II 10
and all the Lists give VV^JM 'D:«V- Amos II 10 as the
catchword. (5) He gives the eighth Seder rP131? p»n Obadiah i,
whereas all the MSS. mark the Seder on Amos VII 1 5 and
all the Lists give 1P1NQ " '3np»1 = Amos VII 15 as the catch-
word. (6) He gives the ninth Seder n:V *?N " "Ol \T1 Jonah I. i,
contrary to the Massorah which says at the end of Jonah
that (XTlD n»3 n^) // has no Seder. All the MSS. mark
this Seder in the margin of the text against ( )badiah 2 1
and all the Lists give D'PttnQ I^ITI «• Obadiah 2 1 as the
catchword. 171 He gives the eleventh Seder insi ,Xinn DV3
12^^ D'SPn ^D ^D Micah IV 6, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against IV 5 and all the Lists
give DT2Pi"l ^3 13 = IV 5 as the catchword. 1 8) He gives the
twelfth Seder "IDD mr: KttO Nahum I i contrary to the
Massorah which distinctly says at the end of Nahum that

*O1D ,T3 n^), /'/ has no Seder. All the MSS. mark this
Seder in the margin of the text against Micah VII 20 and
all the Lists give 3pP'^ D2X |nn = Micah VII 20 as the catch-
word. (9) He gives the fifteenth Seder ETVT6 DTJff n:t^n

in ^''ll Hag. I i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the

. IV. | Sedarim. 55

margin of the text against Zeph. Ill 20 and all the Lists
give X>3X Nin.l nr3 = Zeph. Ill 20 as the catchword, do) He
gives the sixteenth Seder r\W2 'i'Qttn EHI13 Zech. I \,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against Habakkuk II 23 and all the Lists give Xlilil DV3
" DX3 = Hab. II 23 as the catchword. ( 1 1) He gives the seven-
teenth Seder ,1X1 flDX HO ^X lOK'Tl ,111,1 1»^»n 3ttn Zech.
IV i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the
text against IV 2 and all the Lists give ,1X1 ,inx ,1S ^X IOX'1
= IV 2 as the catchword. (12") He gives the eighteenth Se<ster
trim4? mix n:#3 Mn Zech. VII i, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against VI 1 4 and all
the Lists give ilMfi fll&IMl = VI 14 as the catchword.
(13) He gives the nineteenth Seder IWIO ^Jill ," 12X ,13
Zech. VIII 7, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against VIII 23 and all the Lists give PD
D'^^n mN33C " 1t3X — VIII 23 as the catchword. (14) He
gives the twentieth Seder "J11H pXl " 111 JWO Zech.
IX i, whereas all the MSS. with the exception of Oriental
2201, mark it in the margin of the text against XII i and
all the Lists give HEjl " 131 NtPB = XII i as the catchword.
And (15) he gives the twenty-first Seder T3 " 131 XW2
»3i6a Malachi I i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against Zech. XIV 21 and all the Lists
give TD ^3 iTfT) = XIV z'i as the catchword.

The Hagiographa. — Yor the Hagiographa I have collated
the following MSS.: Oriental 2374 and Oriental 2375 both
of which are Yemen; Oriental 2201, Oriental 4237, Harley
5710—11, Arundel Or. 16 and Add. 15251 as well as the
Lists of the editio princeps in the Rabbinic Bible by Jacob
ben Chayim.

The Psalms. — Both the notes in the margin of the text
in the MSS. and the separate Lists give the number of
Sedarim in the Psalms as nineteen. It is very remarkable

5<> Introduction. | CHAI-. IV.

that the Sedariin preserved in the Yemen MSS. exhibit
features peculiar to the Psalter. Thus the Sedariin in
Oriental 2375 are identical with those in our recension,
whilst those preserved in Codex 2374 are totally different.
Though several leaves are missing yet this MS. has
preserved no fewer than sixteen Seduriui. not one of which
coincides with the received number, as will be seen from
the following List. Thus Seder (i) is Ps. XXXV i; (2) is
XXXVIII i ; (3) is LIX . ; (4) is LXV i ; (5) is LXIX i ;
(6) is LXXVIII i; (7) is LXXX i; (8) is LX XX VI i; (9) is
XCVII i; (10) is CIV i; (n) is CXI i; (12) is CX1X i;
(13) is CXIX 89; (14) is CXX i; (15) is CXXXIX i and
(16) is CXLIV i.

As to Dr. Baer's List, it contains the following thirteen
departures from the Massorah: ( i) He gives the second

Seder " pnx >D inn .rvrewn ty rwxh PS. xn 4 [?j,

whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XI 7 and all the Lists give " pntf ^ ^ XI 7
as the catchword. (2) As regards the third Seder, Oriental
2201 and Oriental 2211 mark it in the margin of the text
against Ps. XX 10 and this is confirmed by all the three
Lists, viz. Add. 15251, Oriental 4227 and the editio princeps,
whereas Harley 5710 — 11 and Arundel Oriental 16 mark it
against Ps. XXI i , which is followed by Dr. Baer. (3) Dr. Baer
gives the fourth Seder ?13^» fp " "imi ,TW "IISTO, a mistake
for IBl^, Ps. XXX i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against XXIX 1 1 and all the Lists
give f;V 10J^» ?P " = XXIX 1 1 as the catchword. (4) He gives

the fifth Seder funn »yie^n inn ,i3i£> nwb PS. xxx vi i,

whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXXV 28 and all the Lists give "]pi5C njfin ^W^
= XXXV 28 as the catchword. (5) He gives the sixth Seder

^>nr' »n^x " 7113 inm >DWO ns:a^» PS. x LI i i, whereas all

the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against

CHAP. IV.] Scdarim. 57

XLI 14 and all the Lists give t>X1ttT 'i"6x " -p"13 — XLI 14
as the catchword. (6) He gives the seventh Seder T)a?a
p' >6l 1p>3 01X "inm ,PpX^> Ps. L i, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against XLIX 19 and
all the Lists give 1"PD 1»B3 '3 = XLIX 19 as the catch-
word. (7) He gives the eighth Seder ,nntPn *?X nitta*?
D'aff *?$ PlOn irm Ps. LVIII i, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against LVII 12
and all the Lists give Q'aff ^ nan - : LVII 1 2 as the
catchword. (8) He gives the tenth Seder Ifm ,*|Dl6 "lia?a
111 m^on 1^3 Ps. LXXIII i, which I have inadvertandly
followed, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against LXXII 20 and all the Lists give
"Til nT?DD "63 = LXXII 20 as the catchword. (9) He gives

the twelfth Seder nix npx mx3¥ " *inm ,nip >:n^ n^:a^

Ps. LXXXV i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against LXXXIV 13 and all the Lists
give ntPX rV)JO¥ " : LXXXIV 13 as the catchword.
(10) He gives the thirteenth Seder DM^KH 1P»X n»3^ H^DD
Ps. XC i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of
the text against XC 17 and all the Lists give DJ?: \T1 =
XC 17 as the catchword. Though I have given the ScJcr
on XC 17 in accordance with the MSS. I have inadvertandly
also left it standing against XC i. (n) He gives the fifteenth
Seder ^X1ff> '<*6x " *]113 inm ,3113 ^ " 1TH Ps. CVII i,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against CV 45 and all the Lists give liar' 113^3 = CV 45 as
the catchword. (12) He gives the sixteenth Seder nttX f1*1^W1
Ham n^XI "in3T ,VX Ps. CXII i, which I inadvertandly
followed, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of
the text against CXI 10 and all the Lists give nOSH flMPXI
= CXI 10 as the catchword. And (13) he gives the
seventeenth Seder ':i3i13'1 WVV ^V Ps. CXIX 73, whereas
all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against

58 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

CXIX 72 and all the Lists give mm ^ 21£ == CXIX -2
as the catchword.

Proverbs. — All the MSS., both in the margin of the text
and in the separate Lists, assign eight Sedaritn to Pro-
verbs. Arundel Oriental 16 which in the other books gives
th,e Sedan' m, both in the text and in a separate List
at the end of each book, has no separate List in Pro-
verbs, though it carefully marks each Seder in the
margin of the text. There is, however, one variation in
this MS. which is to be noted. The seventh Seder
is marked in the margin of the text against DWtW XXV 14
instead of against fl3¥3 XXV 13, as it is in all the other
MSS., both in the text and in the separate Lists. Of the
two Yemen Codices, viz. Oriental 2374 and Oriental 2375;
the former does not mark the Sedarim, whilst the latter
agrees with the received recension.

Dr. Baer's List has the following two departures from
the Massorah. Thus Dr. Baer gives the third ScJ<. ;
"[^ fi23n fiSDn DX IX 12, which I have inadvertandly fol-
lowed, whereas all the MSS., with the exception of Arundel
Or. 1 6, mark it in the margin of the text against IX n
and all the Lists give JO' "QT >3 '3 = IX 1 1 as the catch-
word. And (2) he gives the sixth Seder Vl ^?JD ^N XXII 22,
which I inadvertandly followed, whereas all the; MSS. mark
it in the margin of the text against XXII 21 and all the
Lists give crp "pmr6 = XXII 2 1 as the catchword.

Job. — This book too has eight Sedarim which are duly
marked, both in the margin of the text and in the sepa-
rate Lists. Arundel Oriental 16, which carefully marks each
Seder in the text, has no separate List at the end of this
book. It moreover exhibits the following variation: The sixth
Seder, which is marked in the margin of all the other MSS.
against XXIX 14 and is so given in all the separate Lists,
is in this MS. marked against IIP4? m"fl QW XXIX 15.

CHAP. IV.] Sedarim. 59

As to the two Yemen MSS., Oriental 2375 coincides
exactly with the received List, whilst Oriental 2374, in
which a few leaves are missing, both at the beginning and
at the end of Job, marks in the margin of the text the fol-
lowing eight Sedarim which are entirely at variance with
our recension: (i) Job VIII 7. (2) XII 12. (3) XV 19.
(4) XIX 25. (5) XXIII i. (6) XXXIX i. (7) XXXII 8 and
(8) XXXVI 1 6. Against Job I i the D has dropped out
from the margin in my edition.

Dr. Baer's List has the following four departures
from the Massorah: (i) Dr. Baer gives the second Seder

m:npn nx? n:n inm .avx (in vi i, whereas all the MSS.

mark it in the margin of the text against V 27 and all the
Lists give niilpri DX? n3H == V 27 as the catchword. (2) He
gives the third Seder tfD3 HS2 Dmpm inn ,3VX fU>1 XII i,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XI 19 and all the Lists give Tina pxi fl3C3TI =
XI 19 as the catchword. (3) He gives the fifth Seder
>p: 'X 8^Q> inn ,nVX JPn XXIII 1 1 (a mistake for XXIII i),
whereas all the MvSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXII 30 and all the Lists give >p3 \X efro' =
XXII 30 as the catchword. And <4j he gives the seventh

Seder ^ vzv nnx px ox inm .xin^x pn xxxiv i,

whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XXXIII 33 and all the Lists give JJBtP nnx px DX =
XXXIII 33 as the catchword.

The Five Migilloth. — The Massorah tells us that Can-
ticles, Ruth and Lamentations have no Sedarim. It is, there-
fore, only two out of the Five Migilloth, viz. Ecclesiastes
and Esther which have them. The former has four Sedarim
and the latter five. This is fully confirmed, both by the
Massorah Parva against each Seder and by the separate Lists. J

1 Oriental 4227 has, however, at the end of the List of the Sedarim
(fol. 198/7) the following: D'TttH IT1! nil D^lSEl HW D'DTO hv DniDH ^

60 Introduction. | CHAP. IV.

For the Lists I have collated Add. 15251 and Oriental 4227,
as well as the editio princeps. The MSS. which have the
Sedarim marked in the margin of the text and which I
have collated are Oriental 2201, Oriental 2375 and Arundel
Oriental 16. It is, however, to be remarked that not one
of these three MSS. has the Sedarim on Esther, though they
all carefully give them on Ecclesiastes. For Esther, there-
fore, I have been restricted to the three separate Lists. Only
one of the Yemen MSS., viz. Or. 2375, marks the SciLirhn
which entirely coincide with the received recension.

In Ecclesiastes Dr. Baer's List deviates from the
Massorah in one instance. Thus Dr. Baer gives the second
Seder D"TKn ^3 DJ! inm ,^3 >3 WT III 14, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against III 13
and all the Lists give OTXH *?D DJ1 III 13 as the
catchword.

In Esther Dr. Baer's List coincides with the
Massoretic Lists.

Daniel. — According to the Massorah, Daniel has seven
Sedarim. In Oriental 2201 and Oriental 2375, however, the
seventh Seder, viz. X 2 1 is omitted. But it is duly marked
in the margin of the text in Arundel Oriental 16 and is
given in all the three Lists, vi?.. Add. 15251, Oriental 4227
and in the editio princeps. Of the two Yemen MSS.
Oriental 2375 coincides with the received recension, whilst
Oriental 2374 is defective. But the fragment exhibits two
variations. Thus the second Seder is III i, instead of II 35;
and the third Seder is V i, instead of III 30.

In Dr. Baer's List there are three departures from the
Massorah. Thus (i) Dr. Baer gives the second Seder
"12X: mttDl \XCbn n:i II 36, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against II 35 and all the Lists
give mri3 Ipl pito = II 35 as the catchword. (2) He gives
the fourth Seder ^>JM ^K^l [HK3 V 13, whereas all the

CHAP. IV. ] Sedatim. 61

MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against V 12 and
all the Lists give im H ^3p ^3 == V 12 as the catchword.
And (3) he gives the seventh Seder tPVTl^ Dlttf n:tP3 '3X1
XI i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the
text against X 21 and all the Lists give ^ TJX ^x =
X 21 as the catchword. With regard to the fifth Seder
there is a variation. The three Lists give #T HD ^JOiT! =
VI 1 1 as the catchword, whilst the three MSS., viz. Oriental
2201; Oriental 2375 'and Arundel Or. 16, mark it in the
margin of the text against n^JCfl fin t>JWl = VI 29. If
this does not exhibit a different recension it is due to
an oversight of the compilers of the List, who mistook the
catchword ^X»3"ll, adding to it JTp '3 instead of r62Cfl fin.

Ezra-Nehemiah. — In the MSS. and in the early editions
of the Bible, Ezra and Nehemiah are not divided and the
Massorah treats them as one book under the single name of
Ezra. According to the Massorah Ezra, i. e. Ezra-Nehemiah
has ten Sedarim. This is confirmed by the following MSS.
which I have collated for this purpose: Add. 15351,
Arundel Oriental 16, Oriental 4227 and the editio princeps
which give separate Lists, as well as Oriental 2201,
Oriental 2375 and Arundel Oriental 16, which mark the
Sedarim in the margin of the text. Of the two Yemen MSS.
Oriental 2374 does not mark the Sedarim in Ezra, whilst
Oriental 2375 coincides with our recension, with the
exception of the tenth Seder, which this MS. and Arund.
Or. 1 6 mark in the margin of the text against Neh. XII 26
instead of XII 27.

Dr. Baer's List exhibits the following five departures
from the Massorah: (i) Dr. Baer gives the second Seder
flTlfV n¥ IPS VI Ezra IV i, whereas all the MSS. mark it
in the margin of the text against III 13 and all the Lists
give Q'TDQ DPfl pXl = III 13 as the catchword. (2) He gives
the third Seder riDDf! DX fl^Of! ';3 W1 VI 19, whereas all

62 Introduction [CHAP. IV.

the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against VI 18
and all the Lists give X'ifia ISTpni = VI 1 8 as the catchword.
(3) He gives the fifth Seder DM fD'3 enPD 'm Neh. II i,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against Neh. I 1 1 and all the Lists give N3 Mfi TIN
I 1 1 as the catchword. (4) He gives the sixth Seder
t3^33D VftV IV i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against III 38 and all the Lists give nx n:321
nOinn^III 38 as the catchword. And (5) he gives the
seventh Seder 13'3'1K ^D 123127 "itfND '.Tl VI 16, whereas all
the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against VI 15 and
all the Lists give ilEinn D^tWT) : -- VI 15 as the catchword.

< 'lironicles. — The division of Chronicles into two books
like the division of Samuel, Kings and Ezra and Nehe-
miah, is of modern origin, so far as the Hebrew Bible is
concerned. It does not occur in the MSS. nor in the early
editions, and the Massorah treats Chronicles as a single book.
Hence, in the enumeration of the Sedarini, the numbers run
on without any break. According to the Massorah the book
of Chronicles has twenty-five Sedarini. This is fully con-
firmed by the four Massoretic Lists which 1 have collated
and which are as follows: i i i in Add. 15251 ; (2) Orient. 4227;
(3) Arundel Oriental 16 and (4) in the editio priiiceps of the
Rabbinic Bible by Jacob b. Chayim. I have also collated
the following MSS where the Scdarim are marked in the
margin of the text: Oriental 2201; Oriental 2374; Oriental
2375; and Arundel Oriental 16; thus the latter MS. marks
the Sedan' in in the text, besides giving a separate List.

Oriental 2374 and Oriental 2375 are the Yemen MSS.
containing the Hagiographa, and have, therefore, preserved
the Yemen recension. The former marks only three of the
twenty-five Sedarim, viz. the ninteenth, the twentieth and
the twenty-fourth, and these fully coincide with our recension.
The latter marks twenty-three out of the twenty-five

CHAP. IV. ] Sedarim. 63

Scdiirim. The last pages containing the twenty-fifth Seder are
missing, whilst the twentieth Seder, viz. 2 Chron. XXII u,
which is duly marked in the former MS., is here not marked at
all, which is evidently due to an oversight on the part of the
vScribe. All the other Sedarim coincide with our recension.
The List manipulated by Dr. Baer contains the follow-
ing eighteen departures from the Massorah: (Y) He gives
the second Seder f»3in Xlpn inn ,fimr '3X 31^31 i Chron.
IV 1 1, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the
text against IV 10 and all the Lists give f*3J?> XljTl =
IV 10 as the catchword. (2) He gives the third Seder
V331 pHXI inn ,pnx '33 r6xi VI 35, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against VI 34 and all
the Lists give V331 pHXl = VI 34 as the catchword.
(3) He gives the fourth Seder VJTl mil ,1tPITnn ^XltP' ^31
D^IX '33 IX i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against VIII 40 and all the Lists give '33 I'ri'l
D^IN =: VIII 40 as the catchword. (4) As regards the fiflfi
Seder, for which Dr. Baer gives ^XIP' ^31 TV1 "]^1 XI 4,
though it is supported by the Lists in Add. 15251 and in the
c ditto princeps, it is manifestly a mistake, as is evident from
Arundel Oriental 16 and Oriental 2375, both of which mark
it in the margin of the text against XI 9, as well as from
the Lists in Oriental 4227 and Arundel Or. 16, which
give ^n;n "pSl TV1 ^n == XI 9 as the catchword. The
mistake is due to the fact that the catchword originally
was simply TIT *]^1 to which the Scribe added ^XW ^31
instead of ^Tll "]lSl. (5) Dr. Baer gives the sixth Seder pJVI
D^llpn D3T ")nm, Wl XIII i, whereas all the MSS. mark
it in the margin of the text against XII 41 and all the
Lists give D^STlpn D31 == XII 41 as the catchword. (6) He
gives the seventh Seder >nt>X " "|T13 in31 ,'3B^ D^ 3?n
^X"l^ XVI 37, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against XVI 36 and all the Lists give

64 Introduction. [CHAP. IV.

»nS* " "jllD « XVI 36 as the catchword. ( 7 ) He
gives the eighth Setter nptlTrUT p?n in3T, 3XV m XIX 14,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against XIX 13 and all the Lists give npflinai p?n =
XIX 13 as the catchword. (8) He gives the ninth Seder

0333^ i:n nnr inm ,[pr TITI xxm i, whereas ail the

MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XXII 19
and all the Lists give 0333^ i:n PIMP — XXII 19 as the
catchword. (9) He gives the tenth Seder D>33 1*?13 1:3 ITPae^n
XXVI 6, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against XXVI 5 and all the Lists give
*wn ^X'QP = XXVI 5 as the catchword. (10) He gives
the eleventh Seder " '3 .IflX? HXI "IH31 ,na^«6 Til [JV1
XXVIII ii, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin
of the text against XXVIII 10 and all the Lists give
" »3 nni> fix*! = XXVIII 10 as the catchword, (u) He

gives the twelfth Seder n:i3 ':x n:m cmn ^x no^tf ntrn

2 Chron. II 2, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the
margin of the text against II 3 and all the Lists give
TP3 nn3 ^X n:n Ba II 3 as the catchword. (12) He gives
the thirteenth Seder 0^,13."! 1^3' X^l in3"T .nO^CT 1!3X ?X
VI i, whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of
the text against V 14 and all the Lists give 1^3^ X^l
D^ri3n V 14 as the catchword. (13) He gives the
fifteenth Seder DW30 Dm 1D3T /IP31X .10^^ Mn IX 25,
whereas all the MSS. mark it in the margin of the text
against IX 24 and all the Lists give tf »X QW33 Dill ^ IX 24
as the catchword. (14) He gives the sixteenth Seder
IJttSrm 1D31 .DWm "J^an p?nm XII 13, whereas all the
MSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XII 12
and all the Lists give 1:32 3tf IWDHSI == XII 12 as the
catchword. (15) He gives the nineteenth Seder "f^l
fTO^a SptWVI irai, CDenfV XX 31, whereas all the MSS.
mark it in the margin of the text against XX 30 and all

CHAP. IV.] Sedarim. 65

the Lists give BBmT TO^O BptWll = X X 30 as the
catchword. (16) He gives the twenty -first Seder W p

m^x nx .133 Kin irm, n:t? mw xxvi 3, whereas ail the

ALSS. mark it in the margin of the text against XXYi 2
and all the Lists give m^X HX il33 Kin == XXVI 2 as the
catchword. (17) He gives the twenty-second Seder D^lSl IQlp^

i^trn ^>x nnr >33 inn ,nna xxix 12, whereas ail the MSS.

mark it in the margin of the text against XXIX 1 1 and all the
Lists give l^ttn *?X nr\V '33 = XXIX 1 1 as the catchword.
(18) He gives the twenty-third Seder 1D31 ,p3l"6 liTpfrp 13X'1
inn?r V^X laxn XXXI n, whereas all the MSS. mark it in
the margin of the text against XXXI 10 and all the Lists
give 1,T1?r V^X "lOX"! = XXXI 10 as the catchword.

From the above analysis it will be seen that the Hebrew
Bible contains 452 Sedarim, as follows: The Pentateuch has
167, the Former Prophets 97, the Latter Prophets 107 and the
Hagiographa8i;i. 6.167 4~97 + 107 -f- 8 1 = 452. Deducting the
167 Sedarim in the Pentateuch and the 35 in Kings; the Lists
of which have not as yet been published by Dr. Baer, we are
left to deal with 250 Sedarim. given by him in the Appendices
to the different parts of the Prophets and Hagiographa. Of
these no fewer than 126, i. e. half of the total number given
by Dr. Baer, are against the Massorah as marked in the
margin of the text in the MSS. and in the Lists. As this ex-
hibits a difference between Dr. Baer's text and my edition,
which extends to almost every page of the Bible, I have
been obliged to give this minute analysis, not to expose
Dr. Baer's departure from the Massorah, but to justify my
edition.

Chap. V.
The Annual Pericopes.

III. The Annual Pericopes constitute the third division
of the text of the Pentateuch. These divisions which consist
of fifty-four hebdomadal lessons, are called Parashivoih
, singular ncnO1 and are as follows:

Genesis has 12

Exodus

r I'

Leviticus

„ 10

Numbers

r 10

Deuteronomv

'„ II.

Each of these fifty-four Pericopes has a separate
name which it derives from the initial word or words.
With the exception of one Panisha, viz. Vayechi [ VP1 = Gen.
XLVII 28 etc.] all these Pericopes coincide with an Open
or Closed Section. ' Hence in the Ritual Scrolls of the
Pentateuch, where no letters of any kind, apart from those
constituting the consonants of the text, are allowed, these
hebdomadal lessons are sufficiently indicated by the pre-
scribed sectional breaks.

In most MSS of the Pentateuch in book form, however,
'D, '"ID or 'EHD is put in the margin against the commence-

1 In some MSS. there is also no sectional division between the end of
Pericope m^Tl, i. e. Gen. XXVIII 9 and the beginning of K5P1 = Gen.
XXVIII 10 as is stated in the Massorah Parva of the Model Codex No. i
in the Imperial and Royal Court Library at Vienna '*?*: r"U'~£ TU1 "- "X

.ETC '—Bin rvs- -r-s-r vr pr r~ -r— - - u-si

CHAP. V.] The Annual Pericopes. 67

ment of the respective Pericopes, whilst in the prescribed
vacant space of the Open or Closed Section, the mnemonic
sign, indicating the number of verses contained in the
Parasha, is given in smaller letters. This is the case in
most of the Spanish Codices. In the more ancient MSS.
from South Arabia Parasha (CUPID) is sometimes expressed
in the vacant sectional space in large illuminated letters,
followed by the mnemonic sign indicating the number of
verses. The insertion of Parasha in the text, but without
the mnemonie sign, was adopted in the editio princeps of
the Pentateuch, Bologna, 1482.

In many MSS. especially of the German Schools, the
Pericopes are indicated by three Pes (D D D) in the vacant
space in the text with or without the mnemonic sign. In
some MSS. the three Pes are followed by the first word or
words of the Pericope being in larger letters. ' The editors
of the first, second and third editions of the entire Hebrew
Bible (Soncino, 1485; Naples, 1491 — 93; Brescia, 1494),
have followed this practice. I have reverted to the more
ancient practice which is exhibited in the best MSS. and
in which 'ttHD is simply put in the margin against the
commencement of the Pericope.

1 Comp. Arundel Oriental 2 dated A. D. 1216; Add. 9401—2 dated
A. D. 1286. This is also the case in the beautiful and most important MS.
•No. 13 in the Imperial and Royal Court Library at Vienna.

Chap. VI.
The Division into Verses.

IV. The fourth division of the text is into verses. The
Scrolls of the Law, which undoubtedly exhibit the most
ancient form of the Hebrew text, have as a rule no
versicular division. ' These are found in all MSS. in book
form with the vowel-points and the accents. The most
cursory comparison of the Hebrew with the ancient versions
discloses the fact that verses and whole groups of verses
are found in the Septuagint which do not exist in the
present Hebrew Bible, and that the Septuagint translation
especially was made from a recension which in many
respects differed materially from the present Massoretic
recension.

When, therefore, the custodians of the Scriptures
fixed the present text according to the MSS. which
in their time were held as Standard Codices, they found
it necessary not only to exclude these verses, but
to guard against their inclusion on the part of Scribes.
To secure this end the Massorites both carefully marked
the last word of each verse by placing a stroke under
it (-) called Silluk (pl^D) and counted every such verse
in each canonical book, in accordance with the traditions

1 There are, however, some MS. Scrolls in which both the verse-
division and the pause in the middle of the verse, are indicated by marks of
a special kind evidently made to aid the prelector in the public reading of the
hebdomadal lessons. Corap. Catalogue of the Hebtew MSS. in the University
Library Cambridge by Schiller-Szinessey, p. 2 &C., Cambridge 1X70.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 69

which were preserved in the respective Schools. Hence
the Talmud tells us that "the ancients were called
Scribes [i. e. Sopherim or Cotmters] because they counted
all the letters in Holy Writ. Thus they said that the Vav in
prU [Levit. XI 42] is the middle letter in the Pentateuch,
that em em [Levit. X 1 6] is the middle word, that
[Levit. XIII 33] is the middle verse; that the y in
[Ps. LXXX 14] is the middle letter in the Psalter, and
that Ps. LXXVII 38 is the middle verse".1

In the division of the verses, however, as is the case
with other features of the Hebrew text, the different Schools
had different traditions. And though the verse-division, as
finally fixed by the Massorites, is that which has been
preserved and is followed in the MSS., yet traces of the
Palestinian and other variations are occasionally given in
different Codices and are indicated in the Massorah itself.
Thus the word n^Onm = Levit. XIII 33 which the Talmud
in the passage just quoted, gives as the middle verse
of the Pentateuch, is not the one given in the Massoretic
MSS. of the Bible, nor in the editions. The Massorah
gives DX Vb$ De^l r-= Levit. VIII 8 as the middle verse,
whilst Sopherim and the Palestinian Midrash give one^l
= Levit. VIII 23 as the middle verse. The same difference
is exhibited with regard to the total number of verses in
the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Hagiographa, as
will be seen from the following Table.

mircr nrrmn bz a-isie vrw a'lsia nmtwrn ix-ip: "p'tb '
r6anni ,rmTi bv p^n tern cm ,rmn IBD bv nrniK by patn prtn r«i
pr 1B311 Dinn «im ,a"^nn bv a-'sn lyn j'T^ira Ttn nsacnr'Ac'pinB bv

stn Kiddushin 30^.

Introduction.

| <:HAP. vi.

Sopherim and
Yalknt

Babylon. Talmud

The Itfcissorah

I. Pentateuch
middle verse
II. The Prophets

15842 verses '
Levit. VIII 23
2294 verses

5888 verses2
Levit. XIII 3

5845 verses
Levit. VIII 8
9294 verses

jIII The Hagiographa

ro6^

8064

'Psalms

5896 verses

[2527] ,

s88o

fi76;l .

total 23199 verses

total 23203 verses 3

We moreover learn from the Talmud that the
Palestinians had much shorter verses than the Babylonians,
and that the former divided the single verse in Exod. XIX 9
into three distinct verses.4 The oldest Massorah extant
informs us that whilst according to the Maarbai Deut.
XVII 10 is the middle verse of Deuteronomy, according
to the MiiJincliiii the middle verse is Deut. XVI t i2.5 The
traces of these variations I have carefully indicated in the
notes when I have found them in the MSS. '' since they
not only exhibit a more ancient School, but explain some
discrepancies in the numbers.

'r c'K-r: 're C-JTEE: .r'arrr

re ra'n

=-'C£ rr

:c"'snn 'EECI^*? ,exp ^K ri *?=rr ,rir E-E^X 'n c-r-r- h'c c-frcs:- .-Tiri

Comp. Yalkut on the Pentateuch No. 855. A very able article on this
subject by Graetz is to be found in the Monatsschrift fur Geschichte un»l
Wissenschaft des Judenthums, vol. XXXIV, p. 97—103, Krotoshin 1885.

-EPI nrar E-'rnn rbs ^.rr . . . . mm 'D -pxa ncrr C'E^K (n - r

n"CC D'CTI *"'-" ",W2 Kuldushin 3Oa; Xedarim 38^1.

3 This addition does not include the Psalms and Chronicles which
have been repeated here separately in order to exhibit the difference between
the computation of the Talmud and the Massorah in these two books.

•"EK" -p'CE sr^r s-p 'xr6 'pee KS^rar -ax N^K -ZKHK - xrs •: •

:}:P,"I Spr "\'b* Kr •=:« n:,"l ',"l Comp. KuLlitshin 30,*; Xedarim 3«a.

'' Comp. Oriental 4445, fol. I72/'.

« Comp. Gen. XXXV 22; Deut. XVJ 3; XVII 10, 12; XXXII 35, 39;
Judg. VIII 29, 30; Isa. XX 2; Jerem. XXXIV 2; XXXVIII 28; IV. XXII
5. 6; XXXIV 6; LII I, 2; LIII I, 2; XC I; CXXIX 5, C.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 71

The Pentateuch. - - Naturally the greatest care was
taken in guarding the verse-division of the Pentateuch.
Hence, not only is the sum-total of the verses in each book
given, but the verses of each Pericope are counted and
the number given at the end of each hebdomadal Lesson
(ntzno) of the Annual Cycle with or without a mnemonic
sign. It is, therefore, only natural to suppose that the Pales-
tinians also must have exercised equal care and counted
the verses in each Seder (T1D) of their Triennial Cycle, and
that in the neglect of the Sedarim the number of the
Palestinian verses has perished.

As has already been remarked, the number of verses
given at the and of each Parasha (nCHD) is followed by a
mnemonic sign. This generally consists of a proper name,
which is numerically of the same value. Here again we
must notice that the different Schools had different Lists
of these mnemonic signs from which each Scribe selected
one or more to append to each Pericope. Hence it is that
different MSS. vary in these signs, and that some Codices and
the editio princeps of the Massoretic Bible by Jacob b. Chayim,
have at times several of these mnemonic signs at the end of
one and the same Parasha. These we shall now explain
according to the order of the Parashas, as well as correct
the mistakes which have crept into the printed editions and
account for the discrepancies in the number of the verses.

The MSS. which I have collated for this branch of
the text are as follows: (i) Orient. 4445 which is the oldest
known at present. (2) Orient. 2201 dated A. D. 1246. (3) The
splendid MS. marked No. i in the University Library at
Madrid dated 1280. (4) Add. 9401—9402 dated 1286. (5) Orient.
1379. (6) Orient. 2348. (7) Orient. 2349. (8) Orient. 2350.
(9) Orient. 2364. (10) Orient. 2365. (11) Orient. 2626. (12) Add.
15251 and (13) the editio princeps of Jacob b. Chayim's
-Rabbinic Bible, Venice 1524 — 25.

7:2 Introduction. [CHAI>. VI.

Genesis. — (i) For rrtTK"D (Gen. 1 1 —VI 8) which has 1 46
verses, all the MSS. with the exception of Add. 9401, give
IT2COK =146 as the mnemonic sign. The latter, however,
has not only this name, but adds a second, viz. liTp'fT
which also exhibits the same numerical value. Hence
the two names in the editio princeps. The connection
between this MS. and the editio princeps, as far as the
mnemonic signs are concerned, is also seen in Nos. 7, 10,
iS> 3°, 31, 39, 45 &c.

(2) For 113 (Gen. VI 9 — XI 32) which has 153 verses,
all the MSS. have ^X^SfD, = 153. The editio princcps has
not only this name, but adds to it the sentence C31^ !"I3D> '2X
which is of the same numerical value, but which I could not
find in the MSS.

(3) For -p -p (XII i^-XVII 27) which has 126
verses, all the MSS. have ^313313 = 126. The editio princeps
has 1^>03 — 126 which I could not find in the MSS. and
31330 which is a mistake for '31330-

(4) In XT1 (XVIII i— XXII 24) we come to the first
apparent discrepancy. The Massoretico-Grammatical Trea-
tise which precedes the Yemen MSS. of the Pentateuch
state, both in words and in numerals, that this 1 \n\islni
has 146 verses and that the mnemonic sign is IJVpfPP =
146.' Yet the same five MSS. in the text itself at the

of the Pericope state that it has 147 verses and
X1i?Q^~i47 as the mnemonic sign. The latter computation
is also to be found in Orient. 2201, Orient. 2626 and Add.
15251 which give N^lp = 147 as the mnemonic sign- as
well as in Add. 9401, in MS. No. i in Madrid University
Library which gives% 1)1*3313 = *47.Jls tne mnemonic sign

') comp. -jrrpTrr atr p:an -;:: a .a-pr-x- nc-r nxe a-px-cn \yy-

Or- J379. fo1- 22rt; Or. 2348, fol. 26a; Or 2349, fol. i6a; Or. 2350, fol. 240,
and Or. 2364, fol. 12 a.

2 fn Oriental 2201 IT^' is a clerical error for tO^'p with K.

CHAP. VI. J 'J'lio Division into Verses. 73

and the edit to priuccps which gives p^QN ~--~- 147 as the
mnemonic sign. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the
two computations exhibit two different Massoretic Schools.

(5) For mtP "PI (Gen. XXIII i-XXV 18) which has

105 verses, all the MSS. as well as the cditio princeps
give JJTIiT = 105 as the mnemonic sign. It is, however, to
be noticed that Add. 9401 has reversed both the numbers
and signs in the preceding Pericope and in this, giving for
the former Pl3a> Pip and for the latter p:QK ?»p. This shows
that the numbers and the mnemonic signs for the Pericopes
were preserved in separate Lists and that the Scribes
occasionally assigned them to the wrong place.

(6) For mVin (Gen. XXV 19— XXVIII 9) which has

106 verses, all the MSS. give ^X^ST ="• 106 as the mne-
monic sign. In the editio princeps both the number of verses
and the sign are omitted altogether.

(7) For xn (Gen. XXVIII 10 -XXXII 3) which has
148 verses, all the MSS. give >p^n ^148 as the mnemonic
sign. Add. 9041, however, has the additional sign D^flE
which is of the same numerical value. Hence the two signs,
in the editio princeps.

In (8) n^l (Gen. XXXII 4— XXXVI 43) we have
another apparent discrepancy. All the MSS., both in the se-
parate Lists and at the end of this Pericope, distinctly declare
that it has 154 verses. This is confirmed by the different
mnemonic signs. Thus the five Yemen MSS. give Pl52^p r"
154 as the mnemonic sign in the separate Treatise and in
the text itself at the end of the Parasha they give
S|DNUN fQ'D 'ID'D i:p = 154. The former sign is also given
in Or. 2201 and in the editio princeps.* The Madrid Codex,
which gives j£» == 154 as the mnemonic sign, gives the

1 In Or. 2626 which has KtT^p J"p there is evidently a cler'cial error
due to the misspelling of the mnemonic sign.

74 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

same number. Yet there are only 153 verses in the Parasha.
viz. 30 -\- 2O-(- 31 -|- 29 + 43 = 153. The discrepancy is due
to the fact that XXXV 22 is two verses according to the
•NrmQ. Hence the number given at the end of the Parasha
is according to the Eastern recension, whereas the number
of the verses in the text is according to the Western
recension. Hence also the double accents in this verse,
one representing the Oriental and the other the Occidental

verse-division.

(9) For 3«H (Gen. XXXVII i— XL 23) which has 112
verses, all the MSS. give \T32J -- 112 as the mnemonic sign,
whereas the editio princeps has p3\ Oriental 4445 which
begins with Gen. XXXIX 20 also gives the number of
verses after each Parasha, but not the mnemonic sign. As
this is the oldest Hebrew MS. yet known, I shall hence-
forth include its numbers.

(10) For ppQ (Gen. XLI i - XLIV 17) which has
146 verses, all th«« MSS., with the exception of Add. 9401,
give liTpffP •" 146 as the mnemonic sign. The latter gives
rP3C2S — 146 as the sign. The editio princeps has no fewer than
three separate signs, viz. "DP ^ IT.T .PPXQX .liTpffT the first is
the one given in the majority of UK- MSS., the second is given
in Add. 9401 and the third I could not find in any MS.

(n) For Wl (Gen. XLIV 18— XLVII 27) which has
1 06 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
^N^ST = 1 06 as the mnemonic sign. It will be seen that
this sign is also given for the sixth Parasha which has the
same number of verses.

(12) For TP1 (Gen. XLVII 28— L 26) which has 85 verses,
all the MSS., with the exception of one, give n^T = 85 as
the mnemonic sign. Or. 2626, however, gives iTD'Q which
is numerically of the same value. It is to be remarked that
Or. 4445 gives 10 ~ 84 as the number of verses in this
Parasha probably exhibiting a different recension.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 7f>

All the MSS. agree that Genesis has 1534 verses and
that the middle verse is Gen. XXVII 40.

Exoc/its. — (13') For niatP (Exod. I i — VI i) which has
124 verses, all the MSS. give HPQ — 124 as the mnemomic
sign. The editio princeps, which also gives this sign, has
an additional one, viz. np'l = 124 which I could not find in
the MSS.

('14) For N"1X1 (Exod. VI 2— IX 35) which has 121 verses,
all the MSS. give ^S'P1== 121 as the mnemonic sign. In
the editio princeps, where the same sign is given, Jacob
b. Chayim has also Sij?^>j =121 which in this spelling does
not occur in the Bible. The hapax legomenon in the Hebrew
Scriptures is ^JJIU (Exod. IX 31) which is numerically 105.
I could not, however, find this sign in any M!S.

(15) For JQ (Exod. X i - XIII 16) which has 106 verses,
all the MSS., with one exception, give ^X^>iV = 106 as
the mnemonic sign. This sign we have already had twice,

•viz. in Pericopes m^lD and tWI. Add. 9401 gives the
number of verses in this Parasha as Hp -- 105 and has
the mnemonic sign >^£3 - no, which is evidently a
mistake. The editio princeps which also gives the number
of verses as Hp =~- 105 corrects the mnemonic sign into
Hjjv =i 105. If the number is right, we have here another
instance of the variations in the verse-divisions which ob-
tained in the different Schools. It is greatly to be regretted
that Oriental 4445 which, as we have seen, is the oldest
MS. known at present, does not give the number of
verses at the end of this Paraslia.

(16) For r6ff3 (Exod. XIII 17 -XVII 16) which has
116 verses, all the MSS. give nS3D == 116 as the mnemonic
sign. In the editio princeps, where this sign is also given,
Jacob b. Chayim has added ftaiBK V = 116 as another sign.
This sign, however, I have not been able to find in any
MS. The mnemonic sign n«13D in Oriental 2365 is a clerical

76 Introduction. (CHAP. VI.

blunder, since this name is numerically 122 and contradicts
the statement by which it is preceded, viz. nXljD 'ID^D Vp
This error is probably due to the fact that the Scribe
mistook it for the sign which belongs to Parasha SliTl
No. 22, where it is rightly given in all the MSS.

(17) In 1-liV (Exod. XVIII i— XX 26) we have another
discrepancy. All the MSS. distinctly say that it has 2JJ -
72 verses and give ^X^X = 72 as the mnemonic sign. The
editio priuceps, though giving another sign 21 3V 72
which I could not find in the MSS., gives the same number.
Yet the number of verses in our editions is 75 (i. e.
27 -(- 25 4- 23 -= 75). Indeed the ordinary editions of the
Hebrew Bible have 26 verses in chap. XX, since verse 13
is divided into four verses. The apparent discrepancy is
due to the diiferent ways of dividing chap. XX into verses
which obtained in olden days, one designed for public
reading and the other in accordance with the division of
the sentences. For public reading, when the Chaldee version
was recited by the official interpreter after every verse,
the Decalogue was divided into ten verses, so as to assign
a separate verse to each commandment. Hence with the
one introductory verse and the nine verses after the
Decalogue, this chapter according to the Massorah and the
MSS. has only twenty verses (i. e. i -f 10 -f- 9 = 20).
According to the sense, however, the Decalogue is
divided into 12 verses which with the one preliminary
verse and the nine following verses, give to chap. XX
twenty -two verses (viz. i -j- 12 -f 9 = 22), and Parasha
*nfV has 74 verses. The double accents exhibit the two
diiferent verse-divisions. The computation here is in accor-
dance with the former practice, whereas the sum-total at
the end of Exodus is in accordance with the latter practice.

(18) For D'EDffB (Exod. XXI i— XXIV 18) which
has 1 18 verses, all the MSS., with the exception of one,

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 77

give ^JWJJ =: 118 as the mnemonic sign. It is only Add.
9401 which gives ^:n = 118 as the sign. Hence the two
signs ^JO»J? and '3iri in the editio princeps.

(19) For nOTin (Exod. XXV i— XXVII 19) which
has 96 verses, all the MSS., with the exception of Add.
1525 1, give I^D = 96 as the mnemonic sign.1 The spelling
Xl^D with X in Oriental 2201 is a clerical error. The editio
princeps which also gives this sign has the additional sign
yyi = 96 which is manifestly taken from this Parasha
(Exod. XXVII 3), but which I could not find in the MSS.

(20) For rmn (Exod, XXVII 20— XXX 10) which
has 101 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
the mnemonic sign ^fcG'22 =B 101.

(21) For XffD >D (Exod. XXX ir— XXXIV 35) which
has 139 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
^N^n = 139 as the mnemonic sign.

(22) For Slpn (Exod. XXXV i— XXXVIII 20) which
has 122 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
HSIjD =; 122 as the mnemonic sign. This is the name
which is given by mistake for Parasha n^tP3 No. 16 in
Oriental 2365.

(23) For HlpD (Exod. XXXVIII 21 -XL 38; which
has 92 verses, eight MSS. out of the ten give iTfP = 92
as the mnemonic sign. The absence of the number of verses
and the sign at the end of this Parasha in Add. 9401 and
in Or. 2626, is due to the ornament which occupies the
space between the two books. Hence their absence in
the editio princeps, the editor of which had manifestly
before him MSS. with ornamental letters at the be-
ginning of Leviticus which excluded the signs at the end
of Exodus.

in which the Madrid Codex gives is manifestly a clerical error
since this MS. distinctly states that this Parasha has (ii '1C21) 96 verses.

78 Introduction. | O1AP. VI.

All the MSS. and the cditio princeps state at the end of
this book that Exodus has 1 209 verses and that the middle
verse is XXII 27. This computation is in accordance with the
practice of dividing the Decalogue into twelve and chap. X X
into 22 verses. In accordance with the practice which divided
the Decalogue into ten verses and chap. XX into 20 verses
the sum-total is 1207. For this two-fold division we must
refer to the remark on Parasha Tin* No. 17.

Leviticus. - - (24) X"lp'T (Levit. I i — V 26) which has
1 1 1 verses, all the MSS. give ^XlPl r 1 1 1 as the mnemonic
sign. The same sign is given below in Parasha 3pJJ No. 46
which has also in verses. The sign Ttf = 96 in the eilitio
princeps has manifestly been inserted here from the next
Parasha by an oversight on the part of Jacob b. Chayim.

(25) For 1¥ { Levit. VI i — VIII 36) which has 97 verses,
all the MSS., except one, give W13P = 97. Oriental 2626,
however, states that this Parasha has 1¥ = 96 verses and gives
"0^5 = 96 as the mnemonic sign. But this is evidently due
to the scribe who confused the name of the Parasha 11¥)
with the memonical sign. Having taken TJC as the number,
he was obliged to invent the mnemonical sign ID^E = 96 to
represent the same number. Jacob b. Chayim, who dropped
the mnemonic sign, erroneously retained 13C •= 96 to express
the numerical value.

(26) For WftD (Levit. IX i— XI 47) which has 91 verses,
all the MSS., with the exception of one, give liT^fi := 91
as the mnemonic sign. Add. 9401, however, gives XlSP^gi
as the mnemonic sign which is also given by Jacob b.
Chayim. The connection between the cditio princeps and
this MS. has already been pointed out in Parnsluis Nos. i,
7, 10, 1 8, 30, 39, 45 &c.

(27) For I>n?n (Levit. XII i— XIII 5) which has 67
verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give iTj3 <<;
as the mnemonic sign.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 79

(28) For jnxa (Levit. XIV i-XV 33) which has 90
verses, all the MSS. give ny> = 90 as the mnemonic sign.
")iy\ is the Kerl in 2 Chron. IX 29 the only place where
this name occurs, whereas the Kethiv is "HIT = 94. It will
thus be seen that the official Kerl is the only textual reading
recognised by the Massorites even in mnemonic signs.
1TJ? which is given in the editio princeps,, though numeri-
cally correct, does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor
is it given in any MS. as the sign. It is most probably due
to an erroneous transposition of the first two letters on
the part of the Scribe.

(29) For m» nn« (Levit. XVI i— XVIII 30) which
has 80 verses, all the MSS. give "faJJ = 80 as the mnemonic
sign. The editio princeps which also gives this sign, gives
^3 13 = 80 as a first sign, which I could not find in the MSS.

(30) For D'EHp (Levit. XIX i— XX 27) which has 64
verses six of the MSS., viz. Orient. 1379, Or. 2348, Or. 2349,
( )r. 2350, Or. 2364 and Or. 2365 give TTU — 64 as the
mnemonic sign, three MSS., viz. Orient. 2201, Orient. 2626
and Add. 15251 give flfo = 64 as the sign, one MSS., viz.
Add. 9401 gives the name DHf *>£ = 64 as the sign, the
Madrid Codex gives ^JOPl = 64 as the sign, and the editio
princeps gives two signs njjl — 64 and DH? 'Q — 64. The
first I could not find in the MSS. and the second is to
be found in Add. 9041. The connection between the
mnemonic signs in the editio princeps and Add. 9401 has
already been pointed out in Parasha No. i. Here again
we have a striking evidence that there were separate Lists
of these signs, and that each Scribe chose the one which
best commended itself to his taste.

(31) For ION (Levit. XXI i— XXIV 23) which has
124 verses, all the MSS. with the exception of Add. 9401,
give npa = 124 as the mnemonic sign. This MS., however,
gives mi^N as the sign. Hence also the editio princeps.

80 Introduction. [CHAH. VI.

(32) For -1,12 (Levit. XXV i— XXVI 2) which has 57
verses, all the MSS. as well as the editio princeps give ^'ttfl =
57 as the mnemonic sign. Jacob b. Chayim also gives
n?TlX^^57 as a second sign, which, however, I could not
find in the MSS., nor does this plene form occur in the
Bible.

(33) For Yipm (Levit. XXVI 3— XXVII 34) which
has 78 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
Xttf=-78 as the mnemonic sign. The spelling JTW in the
editio princeps is a clerical error, since this is numerically
82 and is evidently due to the substitution of n for N on
the part of the Scribe.

The sum-total of the verses in Leviticus accordingly
is 859, and the middle verse is XV 7. This entirely
agrees with the statement in the Massoretic Summary
given in the MSS. at the end of this book.

\ttmbers. — (34) For 13123 (NTumb. 1 i — IV 20) which has
1 59 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give liTp^n
^-159 as the mnemonic sign. The shorter form iTp^H which
is given in Orient. 2201 and Orient. 2349 is due to a clerical
error, since it is numerically 153 and contradicts the right
number by which it is preceded in these very MSS.

(35) For MM (Numb. IV 21— VII 89) which has 176
verses, all the MSS. give D1QJ? — 176 as the mnemonic sign.
The editio princeps which also gives it adds 2T3V3P— 176
as a second sign. This sign I could not find in the MSS. and it
has evidently been selected because it occurs in this Pani slut.

(36) For "jn^rna (Number VIII i— XII 16) which has
136 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
^S^SlO— 136 as the mnemonic sign. It is to be remarked
that Oriental 4445 gives the number of verses in this
Parasha as n^p=i35 being one verse less. This probably
exhibits a variation in the verse-divisions which obtained
in another School.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 81

(37) For Y? r6ff (Numb. XIII i-XV 41) which has
1 1 9 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
I2^S=ii9 as the mnemonic sign. This sign also occurs in
Parasha No. 45.

(38) For mp (Numb. XVI i- XVIII 32) which has
95 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
^X'l'H = 95 as the mnemonic sign. f[¥ = 98 by which the
sign is preceded in the editio princeps is manifestly a
mistake for H2C = 95

(39) For npn (Numb. XIX i— XXII i) which has 87
verses, all the MSS., except Add. 9401, give i-ty = 87 as
the mnemonic sign. This MS., however, gives ^^ = 87 as
the sign. Hence the second sign in the editio princeps. Jacob
b. Chayim has also as first sign X2Ttt^= 87 which I could
not find in the MSS., but which is evidently chosen because
it occurs in the Parasha. The only sign which is given in the
nine MSS., occupies in the editio princeps the third position.

(40) For p^3 (Numb. XXII 2 -XXV 9) which has
104 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
nljQ = 104 as the mnemonic sign.

(41) For DfD'B (Numb. XXV 10— XXX i) which has
1 68 verses, the different MSS, give three separate mnemonic
signs. Thus Add. 9401, Or. 2626, the Madrid Codex and the
editio princeps give 'in^p^Nl = 168; Or. 2201 and Add. 15251
give p^n^ = 1 68 which is also given in the editio princeps as
the first of the two signs, and is evidently selected because
it occurs inthisParas/m; whilst Oriental 1379, Oriental 2348,
Oriental 2349, Oriental 2350, Oriental 2364 and Oriental 2365
give D^n^pa = 1 68. Here again we have evidence of the
existence of separate Lists of these mnemonic signs from
which the different Scribes chose according to their liking.

(42) For niBB (Numb. XXX 2— XXXII 42) which
has 112 verses, all the MSS. with exception of Add. 15251

and the Madrid Codex give ^n'tf =112 as the mnemonic sign.

82 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

These MSS., however, give >J53 = 1 12 as the sign. Jacob b.
Chayim not only gives both these signs, but has a third, viz.
3|T which occupies the middle position, and which I could
not find in the MSS. The first sign 'J33 is manifestly a
misprint in the editio princeps.

(43) For >J?D» (Numb. XXXIII i -XXXVI 13) which
has 132 verses, all the MSS. give p^3 = 132 as the mnemonic
sign. Jacob b. Chayim hot only omits this sign, but gives
two signs, viz. n^HO = 83 and H^ln = 49 which together yield
132 and which I could not find in the MSS. The first was
evidently selected because it occurs in this Parasha, and the
second has been added to it to yield the requisite number.

In casting up the number of verses in the separate
Paraslias of Numbers it will be seen that this book contains
altogether 1288 verses, and that the middle verse is XVII 20.
This entirely agrees with the number given in the Masso-
retic Summary at the end of Numbers. The only exception
is Oriental 4445 which states at the end of the book 1 that
it contains 1285 verses. But as the numbers given at the end
of each Parasha in this very MS. agree, with one exception,
with those given in the other MSS. it is evident that the
Scribe committed an error in the summing up. The only
difference, as we have seen, is in Parasha "Jfl^PrQ No. 36
which according to Oriental 4445 has 135 verses instead of
136 given in all the other MSS.

Deuteronomy. — (44) For 0^131 (Deut. I i— III 22) which
has 105 verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
n*3^a =105 as the mnemonic sign.

(45) For pnnJO (Deut. Ill 23— VII u) which has 119
verses, all the MSS. with the exception of Add. 9401, give
tS^S = 119 as the mnemonic sign. It is the same sign which
is given for Parasha No. 37 for the same number of verses.
It is Add. 9401 which gives the mnemonic sign ^WW = 1 18.

ntram B'jian DTKIDI r\bx ins-en -pice p:a '

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 83

Hence, this sign in the editio princeps which gives the
number of verses in this Parasha as ITp = 118. It will be
seen that according- to the statement in all the MSS. this
Parasha has 119 verses, whilst according to the common
division of the verses it has 122 verses. The difference is
due to the different ways in which the Decalogue was
divided in chapter V. And as this question has already been
discussed, we must refer to Parasha T\tV No. 17.

(46) For Ipr (Deut. VII 12— XI 25) which has 1 1 1 verses,
the different MSS. give three different mnemonic signs.
Thus, Oriental 2201, Add. 9401, Add. 15251 as well as the
editio princeps give K^P? = in; Oriental 1379, Or. 2348,
Or. 2349, Or. 2350, Or. 2364 and Or. 2365 give twin = in;
and Or. 2626 gives >X^Q = -- in which is the Kefhiv in
Judg. XIII 1 8. The additional p'N in the editio princeps is
simply a transposition of X>p and is misleading, since there
is no such word in the Hebrew Scriptures.

(47) For run (Deut. XI 26— XVI 17) which has 126
verses, Or. 2201, Or. 1379, Or. 2348, Or. 2349, Or. 2350, 0^2364,
Or. 2365, the Madrid Codex and the editio princeps give PPN^S

= 126 as the mnemonic sign. Add. 15251 gives n3P3 = 127 and
Or. 2626 tWQ3 = 127. These two MSS., therefore, exhibit a
School which counted one verse more in this Parasha. The
remark at the end of the Parasha in Add. 9401 t'JWJJ B'p,
that this Parasha has 119 verses and that the sign is ^X'?J?

= 118 is not only contradictory in itself, but has evidently
been mixed up by the Scribe with the preceding Parasha.

(48) For D'BDff (Deut. XVI 18— XXI 9) which has
97 verses, the MSS. give two different mnemonic signs.
Oriental 2201, Add. 9401, Add. 15251 and Or. 2626 as well
as the editio princeps give NI^D ~ 97 as the sign, whilst
Or. 2348, Or. 2349, Or. 2350, Or. 2364 and Or. 2365 give
lilHaiJ = 97 as the sign. The sign PPTiJJ in Or. 1379 is a
clerical error.

84 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

(49) For N¥n '3 (Deut. XXI 10— XXV 19) which
has no verses, all the MSS. and the editio princeps give
ity as the mnemonic sign.

(50) For xinn >3 (Deut. XXVI i— XXIX 8) which
has 122 verses, all the MSS., except one, give '3230 = 122
as the mnemonic sign. '2330 in Or. 2349 is a clerical error,
due to a transposition of the middle letters, since such a
name does not occur. The sign 1H3P^ =122 given in the
editio princeps I could not find in the MSS.

(51) For D'32:: (Deut. XXIX 9— XXX 20) which has
40 verses, Or. 2626 gives the mnemonic sign JVTIiT = 40,
which does not occur in the Hebrew Bible, whilst the
editio princeps gives 133^ = 40 as the sign. All the other
MSS. count this and the following Paraslias together.

(52) For *|^1 (Deut. XXXI i — 30) which has 30 verses,
Or. 2626 gives nTlIT = 30 as the mnemonic sign. The remark
p'D iT31N T in the editio princeps, i. e. that "this Parasha
has 70 verses and that the sign is H'jlK *= 70", is misleading,

•

since this sign belongs to the two Paraslias counted to-
gether, as all the MSS. have it, with the exception of
Or. 2626. As Jacob b. Chayim has already given the number
of verses for the preceding Parasha by itself, there are
only 30 verses left for this Parasha. Hence, this number,
and the mnemonic sign which he gives here, are incorrect.
Orient. 2626 which, as we have seen, counts these Paraslias
separately with separate signs, remarks at the end of the
second Parasha PP3TK 'S'DT "53 WVttnO pmm N'plDD i. e.
the verses of the two Paraslias together are 70 and the
sign is iT3"TK = 7°.

(53) For i:n«n (Deut. XXXII 1—52) which has
52 verses, all the MSS. except one give 3^3 = 52 as the
mnemonic sign. In Add. 9401 both the number of verses
and the sign are omitted. Hence, they are also omitted in
the editio princeps.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 85

(54) For nmnn nxn (Deut. xxxm i— xxxiv 12)

which has 44 verses, all the MSS. as well as the editio princeps
give ^NlXi! = 41 as the mnemonic sign. Jacob b. Chayim
gives also ^>N = 41 as a second sign which I could not
find in the MSS.

Accordingly the sum-total of the verses in Deutero-
nomy is 955; and the middle verse is Deut. XVII 10. This
agrees with the statement in the Massoretic Summary
given in the MSS. at the end of Deuteronomy.

In accordance with the same MSS. the sum-total of
the verses in the entire Pentateuch is 5845 or 5843 and the
middle verses is Levit. VIII 8. The difference of the two
verses as we have seen, is due to the two-fold manner
in which the Decalogue is divided in Exodus XX and
Deut. V.

Before proceeding to discuss the verses in the
Prophets and in the Hagiographa I must give here the
following Table of the verses &c. which has been preserved
in the Yemen MSS. of the Pentateuch, and which professes
to be a copy from the celebrated Ben Asher Codex: -

"The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the Soul" [Ps. XIX 7].
The number of verses in Genesis is 1534, the sign is "I1? "]K = 1534.

The number of verses in Exodus is 1209, the sign is b"1K = 1209.

The number of verses in Leviticus is 859, the sign is ep3 = 859.

The number of verses in Numbers is 1288, the sign is nS"!K = 1288.

The number of verses in Deuteronomy is 955, the sign is p,"I = 955.

mm min

•ft "]« ja'D run-Mi avbv\ niK& warn t\bx rriwna IBB hv D-pio-en cire
ja-o a-piD'a TOOTH n<nK&i s^x niaw rf?xi IBB bv o-pio-en cro

jaT nran a-ratsn asnN»i PI^K ^ra nanaa nso br n-pio'en aisc
ja-a rroam a-warn mxa rrn anmn H^K.-IBB b^ Bpia-en

86 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

And observe that from Gen. I i to XXXIV 19 is 1000 verses.

From Gen. XXX 20 to Exod. XVII 15 is 1000 verses.

From Exod. XVII 16 to Levit. XI 8 is icoo verses. '

From Levit. XI 8 to Numb. X 16 is 1000 verses.

From Numb. X 17 to Deut. Ill 29 is 1000 verses.

And from Deut. IV I to XXXIV 12 is 845 verses.

The number of verses in the whole Pentateuch is 5845, the sign is lib Pp = 5845.
The number of the large Parashas in the Pentateuch is 53, the sign is Xin^X = 53.
The number of the Sedarim in the Pentateuch is 154, the sign is HtS'^p = 154.

The middle verse of Genesis is XXVIII 4.

The middle verse of Exodus is XXII 27.

The middle verse of Leviticus is XV 7.

The middle verse of Numbers is XVII 20.

The middle verse of Deuteronomy is XVII 10.

The middle verse of the entire Pentateuch is Levit. VIII 7.

The middle word of the Pentateuch is Levit. X 16, WT1 belongs to
the first half and C1T to the second.

The middle letter of the Pentateuch is the Vav in {1H3 Levit. XI 42.

1 l^rxn Vh E^rsa occurs both in Levit. XI 8 and verse n. It is,
therefore, difficult to say whether the reference is to the first or the second.

'D SI"?K -iien xn iy nTK-a ja jrn
I^K re cr by T "D -a? -nan xs-"i jai
»SK I'TIKT, *6 a-iraa nr T -r jai
=}bx pran nmm nr Dirsa jai
rar bmir nnn iy n-nm jai

nram CT±-S r-sa n:iaw n-nnn PJID nr raw ^K-IIF nnri jai
HO F)n je'c rran- CTS-IKI mwa nran C'E^K ran niinn "73 •?» n-piD-En ore
or ";an -u; nrtr-iE n'rani nwbw rrnn bv m^»n;n nrwnsn p:ai
DU p:an n;D nr-iKi D'ram nxa nnin bw onio |':aT
»rrnn "jann bri n'CK-a -,ED 'acn
? n'n"?K mar r6xi IBD "xn
.sin ntpsa num xnpr IEO '^n
-rx trxn ,T,-n -CTI IBB "xn
,-rnn 'B ^r nTm B"-onn nbx IBB 'xn
,prnn nx r^r ar'i c-p-c-sr n^-r n-nnn ^n
•nia cn-n ma w-n ,nwa WIT chn marc n-nnn 'i'n
.pn;-! v, nrmxn n-nnn -^n

» Or. 2350 adds -ITP '

CHAP. VI. | The Division into Verses. 87

The correct number of words in the Pentateuch is 79856, the sign is

linhrtb = 79856.

The correct number of letters in the Pentateuch is 409000, the sign is

pn = 409000.

The number of Closed Sections in the Pentateuch is 290.
And of Open Sections 379.
Altogether the Sections are 669.

All this is according to the model Codex which was in Egypt and
which was revised by Ben Asher wo studied it many years when correcting it.1

It will thus be seen that the Babylonian Parashas
or Annual Pericopes are treated in the MSS. as chapters
for the purpose of numbering the verses.

The Prophets and the Hagiographa. - - With regard
to the Prophets and Hagiographa no sectional divisions in
any book have been utilized for the purpose of counting the
number of verses in them. The MSS. simply state in the
margin of the text against the verse in question that it
is the middle verse of the book, and at the end of each
book the MSS. give a Summary saying that it contains so
many verses &c. &c. Hence, discrepancies or variations in the
sum-total of the verses given in the Massoretic Summaries
at the end of a book cannot easily be traced to the precise
section which is affected by the divergent statement in

D*«?am ran m«a nracn s\bK DTsisn nrtrn Dnrvax by mm bv man

pfi ja^D mxa wm e\bx nixa ys-iK nata min bv nrniKn ->Ecai
nr«?n mxa 2610 niainom /awm DTKE mm bz bw mmnsn nr^nsn psai

,nrtria nrtrm D'trtr mxa w bin
onsaa ,Tntr nson pp-n by ban
ias mm D-;^ 12 p^pit "itt'K p

1 This Summary is appended to Oriental 2349, fol. 1440; Orient.
2350, fol. 304^; Orient. 2364, fol. 184 b; Orient. 2365, fol. 2O2b and Orient.
1379, fol. 373 b.

88 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

the MSS. Instances of this difficulty will be seen in the
following analysis of each book.

Joshua. — All the MSS. state that Joshua has 656 verses 1
and that XIII 25 is the middle verse. This is perfectly
correct without the two verses in the text which are in
the margin in modern editions, as will be seen from the
following analysis of the number of verses in each of the
twenty-four chapters in this book: (I) 18 4 (II) 24 -j- (III)
17 4 (IV) 24 4- (V) 15 4 (VI) 27 4 (VII) 26 4- (VIII) 35 4-
(IX) 27 4- (X) 43 + (XI) 23 + (XII) 24 4 (XIII) 25-f-S^
4- (XIV) 15 + (XV) 63 4- (XVI) 10 4- (XVII) 18 4-
(XVIII) 28 +• (XIX) 51 + (XX) 9 4- (XXI) 43 + (XXII) 34
-f (XXIII) 1 6 4- (XXIV) 33 = 656. But the difficulty is
that those MSS. which have the two verses in the text
also give the sum-total as 656, and XIII 25 as the middle
verse. We must, therefore, conclude that the Massoretic
Summary at the end of the book has been taken from
Lists which belonged to a School that excluded these
verses from the text.

• Judges. - - In this book the statement of the MSS. in
the Summary at the end, that it has 618 verses, :t and that
the middle verse is X 7, i. e. the 3O9th verse is in accord
with the modern editions which affix the number of the
verses to each of the twenty-one chapters, as will be seen
from the following: (I) 36 4 (II) 23 +- (III) 31 4 (IV) 24 4-
(V) 31 4- VI 40 4 (VII) 25 + (VIII) 35 4 (IX) 57 + (X) 7 +

1 Thus the St. Petersburg Codex, at the end of the Prophets (fol. 224 a)
which gives a list of the verses, says C'plCB MW1 DTfiPfi mKfi CD 21P1!T.

2 Whereever two enumerations of verses are given (as in this case)
under one chapter, it denotes the division of the book; the first number of
verses belongs to the first half of the book, and the second number, belongs
to the second half.

3 Thus the St. Petersburg Codex, fol. 224 n n:SU"l niXtt UP "EEC

V .'CE

CHAP. VI.] Xhe Division into Verses. 89

11 + (XI) 40 -f (XII) 15 -f (XIII) 25 4- (XIV) 20 -f (XV)
20 4- (XVI) 3I 4- (XVII) 13 + (XVIII) 31 4- (XIX) 30 + (XX)
48 4- (XXI) 25 == 6 1 8. This computation, however, is in
accordance with the Western School; the Easterns read
VIII 29 and 30 as one verse.

Samuel. —With regard to the total number of verses in
Samuel all theMSS., except two, state that this bo ok has 1506
verses, which agrees with the number of the verses affixed to
the chapters in the modern editions, as will be seen from the
following analysis: (I) 28 -f (II) 36 -f (III) 21 -f (IV) 22 -f (V)

12 4- (VI) 21 -f (VII) 17 + (VIII) 22 -f (IX) 27 + (X) 27 4-
(XI) 15 4- (XII) 25 4- (XIII) 23 -f (XIV) 52 .-f (XV) 35 +
(XVI) 23 4- (XVII) 58 4- (XVIII) 30 4- (XIX) 24 -f (XX)
42 -|- (XXI) 16 -f (XXII) 23 -f- (XXIII) 29 4- (XXIV) 22 4-
(XXV) 44 4- (XXVI) 25 + (XXVII) 12 4- (XXVIII) 234-2
4- (XXIX) 1 1 4- (XXX) 3 1 -f- (XXXI) 1 3 4- (2 Sam. I.) 2 7 +
(II) 32 + (III) 39 4- (IV) 12 4- (V) 25 4- (VI) 23 4- (VII) 29
-f (VIII) 18 + (IX) 13 4- (X) 19 4- (XI) 27 4- (XII) 31 4-
(XIII) 39 4- (XIV) 33 4- (XV) 37 4- (XVI) 23 -f (XVII) 29 +
(XVIII) 32 -f (XIX) 44 4- (XX) 26 + (XXI) 22 4- (XXII) 5 1
4- (XXIII) 39 4- (XXIV) 25 = 1506.

The St. Petersburg Codex and Arund. Orient. 16,
however, state that it has 1504. The latter also gives the
mnemonic sign to the same effect.1 If this is correct these
MSS. must exhibit a School in which some of the verses
were differently divided.

The real difficulty arises from the fact that Or. 2201,
Arundel Or. 16, Harley 5710 — n, Add. 15251 &c. state in
the Summary that i Sam. XXVIII 23 is the middle verse
and remark in the margin of the text against this verse

1 Thus the St. Petersburg Codex 'CS HWIKI mx» »»m ?\bx bMttff.

in Arund. Or. 1 6, foi. 74 b, it is rmsi m«» cam f}bx bMfcw "pics B-CC

,B'D

90 Introduction. [CHA1-. VI.

"the middle of the book". This is followed by all the
early and modern editions which record the Massoretic
divisions. But on examination of the verses in the respec-
tive chapters, as given above, it will be seen that if we take
p310 ^W PJtfX^I = XXVIII 24 to begin the second half
of the book, it leaves 754 verses for the first half and the
second half has only 752 verses. The difficulty, however,
is removed by the Massoretic Summary in Harley 5720. This
MS. which is one of the oldest known at present, not
only states at the end of the book that the second half
begins with XXVIII 23,' but has in the margin of the
text against this verse, that "the half is here". Hence, if
the other MSS. and the editions are taken to represent
a different School they do not harmonise with the present
numbering of the verses. For the sake of harmony we
must adopt the Massoretic note as given in Harley 5720.
Kings. — All the MSS. distinctly state that this book
has 1534 verses, and that i Kings XXII 6 begins the
second half.2 But from the following analysis it will be
seen that it has 1536 verses and that the middle shows that
each half contains 768 verses, thus yielding two verses more
then the Massoretic summary gives: (I) 53 -\- (II) 46 -j-
(III) 28 + (IV) 20 + (V) 32 + (VI) 38 + (VII) 51 + (vm)
66 + (IX) 28 + (X) 29 + (XI) 43 + (XII) 33 + (XIII) 34 +
(XIV) 31 + (XV) 34 + (XVI) 34 4- (XVII) 24+ (XVIII) 46
+ (XIX) 21 + (XX) 43 + (XXI) 29 + (XXII) 5 + 49 +
(2 Kings I) 18 + (II) 25 + (III) 27 + (IV) 44 + (V) 27 +
(VI) 33 + (VII) 20 + (VIII) 29 + (IX) 37 + (X) 36 + (XI)
20 + (XII) 22 + (XIII) 25 + (XIV) 29 + (XV) 38 -f (XVI)

1 Fol. 1 12 b IBKI JX8"! "

vsm ,prc -jx^-i ,nr2-,xi c'r'rn niKa ram S^K s-rcn -p-ce ci:c 2

The St. Petersburg Codex, however, gives it n'KE CCm S}bK "

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 9!

20 4- (XVII) 41 + (XVIII) 37 4- (XIX) 37 -f (XX) 21 +
(XXI) 26 4- (XXII) 20 4- (XXIII) 37 -j- (XXIV) 20 + (XXV)
30= 1536. The difference of the two verses between the
Massoretic Summary and the sum-total according to the
number of verses in each chapter I have been unable to trace.
Isaiah. — The Babylonian Codex, which is the oldest
dated MS. of the Former Prophets, gives the number of
verses in this Book as 1272. 1 Harley 5720, however, which
comes next in age of this portion of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures, states at the end of Isaiah that it has 1291 verses;2
and that XXXIII 21 begins the second half of the book
This is confirmed by Or. 2211, Arund. Or. 16, Add. 15251
and other MSS., which not only give the number in words,
but exhibit it in the mnemonic sign. This fully agrees with
the sum-total of the number of verses in each chapter, as
will be seen from the following analysis: (I) 31 -p- (II) 22 -\-
(III) 26 4- (IV) 6 + (V) 30 4- (VI) 13 4- (VII) 25 4- (VIII) 23,
4- (IX) 20 4- (X) 34 -f (XI) 16 -f (XII) 6 4- (XIII) 22 +
(XIV) 32 + (XV) 9 + (XVI) 14 4- (XVII) 14 4- (XVIII) 7 +
(XIX) 25 4- (XX) 6 -f (XXI) 17 -f (XXII) 25 -j- (XXIII)'
1 8 -f (XXIV) 23 -f (XXV) 12 + (XXVI) 2 1 4- (XXVII) 13 4-
(XXVIII) 29 -I- (XXIX) 24 -f- (XXX) 33 4- (XXXI) 9 -f
(XXXII) 20 4- (XXXIII) 20 4- 4 4- (XXXIV) 17 4- (XXXV).
10 4- (XXXVI) 22 4- (XXXVII) 38 4- (XXXVIII) 22 +
(XXXIX) 8 4- (XL) 31 4- (XLI) 29 4- (XLII) 25 + (XLIII).
28 4- (XLIV) 28 + (XLV) 25 4- (XL VI) 13 + (XLVII) 15 -f-
(XLVIII) 22 4- (XLIX) 26 4- (L) n 4- (LI) 23 -f (LII) 15 -f
(LHI) 12 -f (LIV) 17 + (LV) 13 4- (LVI) 12 4- (LVII) 21 +
(LVIII) 14 4- (LIX) 21 4- (LX) 22 4- (LXI) ii 4- (LXII) 12
-f (LXIII) 19 -f- (LXIV) ii 4- (LXV) 25 4- (LXVI) 24
= 1291.

1 The St. Petersburg Codex '5W1 DTSITI

2 Foi. 225.^ with 2oob insi DTirm DTIX&I r\bx "IBD hv n-piDsn m=

92 Introduction. [CHAI-. VI.

Oriental 2201, however, which is dated A. D. 1246
states as distinctly that Isaiah has 1295 verses and gives
the mnemonic sign to this effect.1 This is followed in the
Rabbinic Bible edited by Felix Pratenses, Bomberg 1517,
by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 5 and in all the modern editions
which give the Massoretic Summary, except by Dr. Baer.
As both the MSS. and editions which give this number
agree that XXXIII 21 begins the second half of the book,
they must exhibit a School which divided some of the
verses differently, so as to obtain four more verses than
the majority of the MSS. give.

Dr. Baer's statement that this book has 1292 verses
is against both the MSS., and the editions. The mnemonic
sign which he gives to support this number is his own
invention. How the first, second and third editions of the
Bible came to mark in the text XXXVI i as the second
half of the book I have not been able to trace.

Jeremiah. -- The total number of verses in this book,
viz. 1365, which I have given in the first part of the
Summary, is in accordance with the statement in most of
the MSS. which give it both in words and in the mne-
monic sign.2 This is the number given in Harley 5720;
Harley 1528; Oriental 2201 and Add. 15251 and this is also
the number given by Jacob b. Chayim in the first edition
of his Rabbinic Bible. The Babylonian Codex, however,
gives 1364 as the number11 which I have given in the
Summary as a variation. The latter agrees with the sum-
total obtained from a computation of the verses in our
chapters, as will be seen from the following analysis: (I) 19 -f-

nee bv c'p

DC DK '2 Fol. 208 b.

':a'c: rtrern trmn mxo vbvn e\b* nee bv n-picBn arc 2

3 This number "TCplirih is more fully given in the St. Petersburg Codex
at the end where it is stated as follows: nrriKl ETC! niKO vbw\ ff\b* in

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses.

(II) 37 4- (III) 25 + (IV) 31 -f (V) 31 4- (VI) 30 + (VII) 34

4- (vni) 23 4- (IX) 25 4- (X) 25 -f (XI) 23 4. (xii) i7 4-
.(xiii) 27 4- (xiv) 22 4- (XV) 21 + (xvi) 21 4. (xvii) 27

4- (XVIII) 23 4- (XIX) 15 + (XX) 1 8 4. (XXI) 14 4- (XXII)
30 4- (XXIII) 40 4- (XXIV) 10 4- (XXV) 38 -f (XXVI) 24
4- (XXVII) 22 4- (XXVIII) 10 + 7 -f (XXIX) 32 -f (XXX)
24 + (XXXI) 40 4- (XXXII) 44 + (XXXIII) 26 + (XXXIV)

22 4- (xxxv) 19 4- (xxxvi)- 32 4- (xxxvii) 21 4.

(XXXVIII) 28 4- (XXXIX) 1 8 4- (XL) ,6 4- (XLI) .8 4.
(XLII) 22 4- (XLIII) 13 4- (XLIV) 30 4- (XLV) 5 +(XLVI)
28 4- (XLVII) 7 + (XL VIII) 47 4- (XLIX) 39 4- (L) 46 +
(LI) 64 4- (LII) 34 = 1364.

It is remarkable that the Babylonian Codex which
is supposed to exhibit the Eastern recension, should have
one verse less than the Western MSS., inasmuch as accord-
ing to the Orientals, XXXIV 2 and XXXVIII 28 are
respectively divided into two verses, thus yielding a total
of 1367 verses. But this is one of the many facts which
show how precarious it is to adduce the St. Petersburg Codex
by itself in support of an Eastern reading. Here again we
have the inexplicable fact that the editio princeps of the
Prophets (Naples 1486 — 7); the first edition of the entire
Hebrew Bible (Soncino 1488); and the second edition
(Naples 1491 — 3) introduce into the text <>'Xn = haIf before
XXVI i, thus marking it as beginning the second half of
Jeremiah.

Ezekiel. — Not only the St. Petersburg Codex, but Or.
2201; Arundel Or. 16; Add. 15252 and Oriental 2627
distinctly say that this book has 1273 verses.1 This number
is also given by Felix Pratensis and Jacob b. Chayim.
Harley 5710- 1 1, however, as distinctly declares that it

1 At the end of the Prophets the St. Petersburg Codex, however,

gives it as 1270 = ypp f\bx bxpirp.

94 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

has 1274 verses.1 This statement is all the more remarkable
since XL 8, which is wanting in the Septuagint, the Syriac and
Vulgate is also wanting in this MS. Two verses must,
therefore, have been obtained in this Codex by a different
verse division. Still more remarkable is the fact that all
these MSS., including the St. Petersburg Codex and Harley
5710 — n, give Ezek. XXVI i as beginning the second
half of Ezekiel. Both the St. Petersburg and the Harley
MSS. also mark in the margin of the text against XXIV
24 that it is the middle of the book. Again, in the first,
second and third editions of the Hebrew text2 Ezekiel
XXV 15 is marked in the text as half of the book. These
variations undoubtedly preserve a difference in the verse
division which obtained in the different Massoretic Schools,
but which I have not been able to trace.

According to the current verse-divisions which are
supported by most MSS. and which I have followed,
Ezekiel has 1273 verses, and XXVI i is marked as beginning
the second half. This will be seen from the following
analysis: (I) 28 + (II) 10 + (III) 27 + (IV) 17 + (V) 17 +
(VI) 14 + (VII) 27 + (VIII) 18 + (IX) ii + (X) 22 4-
(XI) 25 -f (XII) 28 + (XIII) 23 4- (XIV) 23 4- (XV) 8 +
(XVI) 63 + (XVII) 24 + (XVIII) 32 4- (XIX) 14 -f (XX) 44 +
(XXI) 37 4- (XXII) 31 + (XXIII) 49 + (XXIV) 27 4-

(xxv) 1 7 4- (xxvi) 1 4- 20 4- (xxvii) 36 4- (xxviii) 26 4-

(XXIX) 21 -f- (XXX) 26 4- (XXXI) 18 4- (XXXII) 32 +
(XXXIII) 33 4- (XXXIV) 31 4- (XXXV) 15 + (XXXVI)

38 4- (xxxvii) 28 4- (xxxviii) 23 4- (xxxix) 29 4-

(XL) 49 4- (XLI) 26 + (XLII) 20 -f- (XLIII) 27 4- (XLIV)
31 4- (XLV) 25 + (XLVI) 24 4- (XLVII) 23 -f (XLVIII)
.35 = 1273-

.nrnKi DTren a-nxa-: f\b* bxpur -IEM-I K'pice pa '

-' Soncino 1485—86, Soncino 1488, and Naples 1491—93.

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 95

The Minor Prophets. — The St. Petersburg Codex groups
all the twelve Minor Prophets together as one book, and
states that it has 1 050 verses. 1 With this sum-total all the
other MSS. agree. As some MSS., however, give the
number of verses at the end of each book, and also quote
the middle verses and moreover as there are some variations
in the figures, I shall give each book separately.

Hosea. — All the MSS. agree that Hosea has 197 verses.
This coincides with the verse-division and the number of
verses given in each chapter of the book, as will be seen
from the following analysis: (I) 9 -J- (II) 25 -f- (III) 5 -f-
(IV) 19 + (V) 15 + (VI) ii + (VII) 1 6 + (VIII) 14 + (IX)
17 + (X) 15 + (XI) ii -f (XII) 15 -f (XIII) 15 + (XIV)
10 = 197. The mnemonic sign which I have given is in Arund.
Oriental 1 6, viz. ?"¥p fQ'DI. Dr. Baer's sign iT3C3p fBDl I could
not find in any MSS., and is probably his own invention.
Arundel Orient. 16 gives in the Massoretic Summary at the
end of this book VII 13 2 to as the middle verse which I have
printed. But as this is the ninety-sixth verse, viz. 9 -j-
2 5 4~ 5 4~ *9 4- J5 -}- * * -j- I2 = 96, it leaves the second part
with 100 verses. There must, therefore, have been some
difference in the Schools in the verse-division, if this
Massoretic half is not a mistake.

Joel. — All the MSS., except one, give the number of
verses in this book as 73. This agrees with the number in
our editions, which is as follows: (I) 20 -j- (II) 27 -j- (III)
5 -j- (IV) 21 =73. Arundel Or. 16, however, gives the
number as 70, and II 18 as the middle verse. Hence,
according to the ordinary computation, this leaves 38
verses for the first half of the book, and 35 verses for the
second half. That there can be no clerical error in this

i The St. Petersburg Codex gives the sum-total of the Minor Prophets

."308 TT15 "2

96 Introduction. [CHAK VI.

MS. is evident, since the number is given in words, and is
followed by a mnemonic sign of the same value.1 It is
from this MS. that I have given the alternative reading
in the Summary to my edition. The mnemonic sign ^"Jtt =
73 given by Dr. Baer is probably his own invention
as I could not find it in the MSS.

Amos. - - The statement in the Massoretic Summary at
the end of this book, and in most of the MSS., that it
contains 146 verses agrees with the sum-total of the verses
in the chapters in our editions, as will be seen from the
following analysis: (I) 15 + (II) 16 -f (III) 15 4- (IV) 13 +
(V) 27 + (VI) 14 -f- (VII) 17 + (VIII) 14 + (IX) 15 == 146.
Arundel Oriental 16, however, distinctly says that it has
144 verses, and gives the mnemonic sign to the same effect.2
This MS., moreover, gives Amos V 1 5 as the middle verse,
which allots 74 verses to the first half and 70 to the
second half, according to the ordinary computation of the
verses. It appears to me that these discrepancies can only
be reconciled on the supposition that the different state-
ments are taken from different Massoretic Schools, where
variants existed with regard to the verse-divisions.

Obadiah. — With regard to this book which has 2 1 verses,
Arundel Oriental 16, as far I can trace it, is the only MS.
which gives the middle verse, viz. verse n.

Jonah. — There is no difference in the MSS. as regards
the verses in Jonah. They all agree that it has 48 verses,
which coincides with our editions, as may be seen from the
following: (I) 16 -j- (II) 1 1 -f (III) 10 + (IV) 1 1 = 48. Arundel
Oriental 16 is again the only MS., which gives the middle
verse, viz. II 8.

•ram -IX-IK"? « K;p"i vxm .p"1 ja-Di ,CT-C bxvn *csc-t 'pics DI=D i

.1122 by
,-tap ja-ci nrs-iKi D-MIKI rwa ciarn mean pics a-ea 2

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 97

Micah. — All the MSS. agree that this book has 1 05 verses,
as follows: (I) 16 + (II) 13 -f (III) 12 -f (IV) 14 + (V) 14 -f
(VI) 1 6 -|- (VII) 20 = 105. Here again, Arund. Oriental 16 is
the only MS. which gives the middle verse, viz. II n. But
this is manifestly a mistake since it asigns only 27
verses to the first half of the book, and leaves the second
half with 78 verses. It will be seen that the Summary at
the end of this book in my edition is taken from this MS.

Nahum. - - In this book which according to the MSS.
has 47 verses, viz. (I) 14 + (II) 14 -(- (III) 19 — 47, Arundel
Oriental 16, gives II 10 as the middle verse.

Habdkkuk. — There is a difference of opinion with regard
to the number of verses in this book. Arundel Oriental 16
and Add. 15251 distinctly state that it has 57 verses,1
and give a mnemonic sign to the same effect, whilst
Oriental 2201 and Harley 1528 as distinctly state that it
has only 56 verses.2 The latter number, which is also given
by Jacob b. Chayim in the first edition of his Rabbinic
Bible, coincides with the number of verses in our editions,
as will be seen from the following: (I) 17 -}- (II) 20 -f-
(III) 19 = 56. Arundel Oriental 16 is again the only MS.
which gives the middle verse, viz. II 12.

Zephaniah. - - All the MSS. agree that this book has
53 verses. This coincides with the number of verses in our
editions which is as follows: (I) 18 -J- (II) 15 -f- (III) 20 = 53.
Here again, Arundel Oriental 16 gives the middle verse,
viz. II 9.

Haggai. -- The MSS. differ as to the number of verses
in this book. Thus, Arundel Oriental 16 states that it has
37 verses3 and gives the mnemonic sign to the same eifect,
whilst Oriental 2201 and Harley 1528 declare that it has

.p jtt'Di fftriam nprir Kis'cn "pics DISD l

,nwi a'tt'an pip-n K-S: bv 'pics -p 2

,rb fa-ci o-vbvn nysv KIECH -pra DI=D 3

98 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

38 verses. * This is not only given by Jacob b. Chayim,
but coincides with the number of verses in our editions,
as will be seen from the following: (I) 15 -f- (H) 23 = 38.
Arundel Oriental 16 which gives II 6 as the beginning
of the second half, assigns 20 verses to the first half of
the book and 18 verses to the second half, according to
the present computation of the verses. The Massoretic Sum-
mary at the end of this book in Add. 15251 2 is due to a
clerical error. The Scribe simply repeated here the Masso-
retic note from the previous book. Here again, Arundel
Or. 1 6 is the only MS. which gives the middle verse, viz. II 6.
Zechariah. — All the MSS. agree that this book has 2 1 1
verses, which are as follows: (i) 17 -}- (II) 1 7 -(- (III) i o -f-
(IV) 14 4- (V) ii -f- (VI) 15 4- (VII) 14 4- (VIII) 23 + (IX)

17 + (X) 12 4- (XI) 17 4 (Xii) 14 4- (Xiii) 9 4- (XIV) 21

= 211. Arundel Oriental 16 gives the middle verse3 Zech.
X 41, which must be a mistake, since this gives for the first
half 141 verses, viz. 17 4~ ll + IO 4- *4 + " + '5 4- 14
-\- 23 -j- 17 4~ 3 — I4I? and leaves the second half only 70
verses, viz. 94- I74"I4-j-94-2I=7°-

Malachi. — Arundel Oriental 16 says that this book has
54 verses and gives the mnemonic sign to the same effect.4
The other MSS. do not give the number of verses in this
book separately, but the first edition of the Rabbinic
Bible by Jacob b. Chayim, gives it as 55, which agrees
with the number of verses in our editions, as will be seen
from the following: (I) 14 4- (H) i? 4~ (HI) 24 = 55. Dr. Baer,
who also gives the number 55, affixes to it the mnemonic
sign Tbn = 55, which is his own making. Arundel
Oriental ;6 gives II 14 as the middle verse.

.rraan o'vbv K'SJ bv -pics D-CC '

,ja fa-ci nvbv\ D'tran MH nee bv "pice ic *

.nanba nrcp i:aa nrr iraa HDB iraa vxm 3

.|H ya-ci a'tram nm-iK •'rxba nscn •'pice arc 4

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 99

From the above analysis it will be seen that the
sum-total of the verses in the Minor Prophets, given in
the Massoretic List, which is preseved in the Babylonian
Codex (dated 916) agrees with the respective numbers
assigned to each book separately in the majority of the
MSS., which I have collated, viz. (Hosea) 197 -j- (Joel) 73 -f-
(Amos) 146 4- (Obadiah) 21 -{- (Jonah) 48 -j- (Micah) 105 -f
(Nahum) 47 -f- (Habakkuk) 56 -f- (Zephaniah) 53 -f (Haggai)
38 -f (Zechariah) 211 -f (Malachi) 55 = 1050. It will also
be seen that according to Arundel Oriental 16 which is
one of the most magnificent MSS. in existence, belonging to
the 1 3th century, and which is evidently a model Codex,
there are only 1044 verses in the Minor Prophets, accord-
ing to the separate number of verses assigned to each book
in the respective Massoretic Summaries. The difference in
the six verses, is due to the fact that in four books it has
seven verses less: viz. in Joel it gives 70 verses instead
of 73, in Amos it gives 144 instead of 146, in Haggai it
gives 37 instead of 38, and in Malachi it gives 54 instead
of 55, whilst in one book, i. e. Habakkuk, it gives 57 instead
of 56, or one more verse than in the other MSS. Yet in
the Massoretic Summary, which this very MS. appends to
the Minor Prophets, it gives the sum-total as 1050 verses,
and Micah III 12 as the middle verse l thus agreeing with
the other MSS. It is, therefore, only natural to assume that
the different Massoretic Summaries, which are appended
to the separate books, are derived from different Lists
belonging to Schools where other verse-divisions obtained.

The HagiogTapha. — Psalms. The Massoretic Summary
at the end of the Psalter states that it has 2527 verses, and that
Ps. LXXVIII 36 is the middle verse. This entirely agrees with

pat ozbbte pb rxm ,jrnn ja'Di .o-wam s\b* nwy -in "pins D-BD »

,E"inn mu
G-

100 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

the sum-total of the verses in the present Psalms as will be
seen from the following analysis: (1)6 -j- (II) 12 -f- (III) 9-)- (IV)

9 -f (V) 13 + (VI) ii 4- (VII) 18 -f- (VIII) 10 4- (IX) 21 4-
(X) 18 + (XI) 7 + (XII) 9 + (XIII) 6 4- (XIV) 7 + (XV) 5

4- (xvi) 1 1 -f (xvii) 15 4- (xviii) 5i 4- (xix) i5 4- (XX)

10 4- (XXI) 14 4- (XXII) 32 4- (XXIII) 6 4- (XXIV) 10 4-

(xxv) 22 4- (xxvi) 12 4- (xxvii) i4 4- (xxvni) 9 4-

(XXIX) ii 4- (XXX) 13 4- (XXXI) 25 4- (XXXII) n 4-
(XXXIII) 22 4- (XXXIV) 23 4- (XXXV) 28 -j- (XXXVI)
13 4- (XXXVII) 40 4- (XXXVIII) 23 4- (XXXIX) 14 4-
(XL) 1 8 4- (XLI) 14 4- (XLII) 12 4- (XLIII) 5 4- (XLIV) 27
4- (XLV) 1 8 4- (XL VI) 12 -f (XL VII) 10 4- (XL VIII) 15 4-
(XLIX) 21 4- (L) 23 4- (LI) 21 4- (LII) ii 4- (LIII) 7 +
(LIV) 9 4- (LV) 24 -f (LVI) 14 4- (LVII) 12 4- (LVIII) 12 4-
(LIX) 1 8 4- (LX) 14 4- (LXI) 9 4- (LXII) 13 4- (LXIII) 12 4-
(LXIV) ii 4- (LXV) 14 4- (LXVI) 20 4- (LXVII) 8 +
(LXVIII) 36 4- (LXIX) 37 4- (LXX) 6 4- (LXXI) 24 -\-
(LXXII) 20 4- (LXXIII) 28 4- (LXXIV) 23 + (LXXV) 1 1 4-
(LXXVI) 13 4- (LXXVII) 21 4- (LXXVIII) 36 4- 36 4-
(LXXIX) 1 3 4- (LXXX) 20 4- (LXXXI) 1 7 4- (LXXXII) 8 4-
(LXXXIII) 19 4- (LXXXI V) 13 4- (LXXXV) 14 4-
(LXXXVI) 17 4- (LXXXVII) 7 4- (LXXXVIII) 19 4-
(LXXXIX) 53 -f (XC) 17 4- (XCI) 16 4- (XCII) 16 4-
(XCIII) 5 + (XCIV) 23 4- (XCV) ii + (XCVI) 13 4-
(XCVII) 12 4- (XCVIII) 94- (XCIX) 9 4- (C) 5 4- (CI) 8 4-
(CII) 29 -f (CIII) 22 4- (CIV) 35 4- (CV) 45 + (CVI) 48 +
(CVII) 43 + (CVIII) 14 -f (CIX) 31 4- (CX) 7 + (CXI) 10 +
(CXII) 10 4- (CXIII) 9 4- (CXIV) 8 4- (CXV) 18 4-

(cxvi) 19 4- (cxvii) 2 4- (cxvui) 29 4- (cxix) 176 4-

(CXX) 7 4- (CXXI) 8 4- (CXXII) 9 + (CXXIII) 4 +
(CXXIV) 8 4- (CXXV) 5 + (CXXVI) 6 4- (CXXVII) 5 +
(CXXVIII) 6 + (CXXIX) 8 4- (CXXX) 8 + (CXXXI) 3 4-
(CXXXII) 1 8 -h (CXXXIII) 3 +.(CXXXIV) 3 + (CXXXV)
21 4- (CXXXVI) 26 4- (CXXXVII) 9 + (CXXXVIII) 8 4-

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 101

(CXXXIX) 24 4- (CXL) 14 + (CXLI) 10 -f- (CXLII) 8 +
(CXLIII) 12 + (CXLIV) 15 -|- (CXLV) 21 + (CXLVI) 10 +
(CXL VII) 20 -f (CXLVIII) 14 + (CXLIX) 9 -f (CL) 6 = 2527.
It is, however, to be remarked that this sum-total is accord-
ing to the Westerns. The Easterns have three verses less,
since they do not divide Ps. XXII 5, 6; LII i, 2; LIII i, 2
and CXXIX 5, 6, thus reading four verses instead of eight;
whilst they divide Ps. XC i into two verses which yields
a total of 2524, so far as their verse division is known
at present.

Proverbs. — The statement in the Massoretic Summary
at the end of this book that it contains 915 verses, and
that XVI 1 8 is the middle verse, coincides with the num-
ber of verses in each chapter in our editions, as will be
seen from the following: (I) 33 -f- (II) 22 -}- (III) 35 -f- (IV)
27 + (V) 23 + (VI) 35 -f (VII) 27 + (VIII) 36 -j- (IX) 18 + (X)

32 + (XI) 31 + (XII) 28 + (XIII) 25 + (XIV) 35 + (XV)

33 + (XVI) 18 + 15 + (XVII) 28 + (XVIII) 24 + (XIX)
29 + (XX) 30 + (XXI) 31 + (XXII) 29 + (XXIII) 35 -f
(XXIV) 34 + (XXV) 28 + (XXVI) 28 -f- (XXVII) 27 -f
(XXVIII) 28 4- (XXIX) 27 + (XXX) 33 -f (XXXI) 31

Job. — Harley 5710 — n, Arundel Oriental 16 which are
standard Codices, and Oriental 2375 which represents the
Yemen School, state in the Massoretic Summary at the end
of this book that it has 1070 verses, and that the middle
verse is XXII i6/ whilst Oriental 2201, which is a very
beautiful Spanish MS. dated A. D. 1246, and Add. 15251,
which is one of the latest MSS., as distinctly state that it
has 1075 verses and give the mnemonic sign to the same
effect.2 The sum-total of the verses, however, according to

.np *6i map -IPX vxm a'p-rc i ^^K toscn "pica isca '

mac 2

1 02 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

the present verse-division as indicated in our text, is 1071
as will be seen from the following analysis: (I) 22 + (II)
13 -f (III) 26 + (IV) 21 + (V) 27 + (VI) 30 + (VII) 21 +

(VIII) 22 + (IX) 35 + (X) 22 + (XI) 20 + (XII) 25 + (XIII)

28 + (XIV) 22 + (XV) 35 + (XVI) 22 + (XVII) 16 +
(XVIII) 21 -f (XIX) 29 + (XX) 29 + (XXI) 34 + (XXII)

16 + 144- (XXIII) 17 + (XXIV) 25 + (XXV) 6 + (XXVI)
14+ (XXVII) 23 + (XXVIII) 28 + (XXIX) 25+ (XXX) 3 1 -f
(XXXI) 40 + (XXXII) 23 + (XXXIII) 33 + (XXXIV) 37
+ (XXXV) 1 6 + (XXXVI) 33 + (XXXVII) 24 + (XXXVIII)
41 + (XXXIX) 30 + (XL) 32 + (XLI) 26 + (XLII) 17 = 1069.
There is, therefore, a difference of one verse only between
this number and the smaller sum given in the first named
MSS. It is remarkable that the MSS. which give 1075 verses
in this book, also mark XXII 16 as the middle verse. As
this assigns to the first half 536 verses, the difference
in the verse-division must to a great extent be in the
second half according to the Massoretic Summary appended
to these MSS.

Canticles. - • All the MSS. give 1 1 7 verses as the
number contained in this book, and IV 14 as the middle
verse. This coincides with the number exhibited in our
editions, as will be seen from the following: (I) 17 + (II)

17 + (III) ii + (IV) 14 + 2 + (V) 16 + (VI) 12 + (VII) 14
+ (VIII) 14-117.

Ruth. - - The MSS. are equally unanimous in stating
that this book has 85 verses, and that II 2 1 is the middle
verse. This coincides with the number of verses in each
chapter in our editions, viz. (I) 22 + (II) 21+2 (III) 18 +

(IV) 22 = 85.

Lamentations. — There is also no difference in the
MSS. with regard to the number of verses in this book
which is given as 154, and the middle verse of which is
stated to be III 34. This is exactly the number exhibited

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 103

in our editions as follows: (1)22 -}- (II) 22 -f- (III) 34 -f- 32

+ (IV) 22 -|- (V) 22 = I54.

Ecclesiastes, - - According to the MSS. this book has
222 verses, and the middle verse is VI 9. The editions
exhibit the same number, which is as follows: (I) 18 -f- (II) 26
+ '(III) 22 -f (IV) 17 + (V) 19 + (VI) 9 + 3 + (VII) 29
+ (VIII) 17 -f (IX) 1 8 -f- (X) 20 + (XI) 10 + (XII)

14 = 222.

Esther. — This book, according to the MSS., has 167
verses, and the middle verse is V 7. The following analysis
shows that the editions faithfully follow the MSS.: (I) 22
+ (II) 23 + (III) 15 + (IV) 17 + (V) 7 + 7 + (VI) 14 +
(VII) 10 + (VIII) 17 -f (IX) 32 -f (X) 3-167. The Masso-
retic Summary at the end of this book in Harley 5710 — 11
gives the number of verses in this book1 as 177, but this
is manifestly a mistake, for D^IDtPl ought to be ntPEH as is
evident from the mnemonic sign. These MSS. which group
the Five Megilloth together also give the sum-total of all
the verses as 745, and they give Esther V 7 as the middle
verse.

Daniel. — Oriental 2201; Harley 5710 — n and Oriental
2375 state that this book has 357 verses, and that the middle
verse is VI 17.2 This coincides with the verse-division in the
present text as will be seen from the following analysis : (I) 2 1
+ (II) 49 + (HI) 33 + (IV) 34 + (V) 30 + (VI) 11 + 18 +
(VII) 28 + (VIII) 27 + (IX) 27 + (X) 21 + (XI) 45 + (XII) 13
= 357. The statement in the Massoretic Summary at the
end of this book in Add. 15251 that it contains 308 verses3
is manifestly due to a clerical error, as is evident from the
fact that VI n is here given as the middle verse which

nrbrci BTSIPI .-IKS inoK nbja bv opifisn DISD »
.nrrun D'tram niK» vbv ^n bv -pica aisc 2
rsm ruopi m«» c6rc ^K'm 'pice DISD 3

104 Introduction. [CHAI1. VI.

assigns 179 verses to the first half, thus leaving 179 verses
for the second half making a total of 358. This is exactly
the number of verses according to the computation of
our present text. Jacob b. Chayim, who also states that this
book contains 357 verses, gives V 30 as the middle verse.1
This, nowever, is a mistake as is partly indicated in the
last word which does not occur in chap. V 30, but is to
be found in VI 12.

Ezra-NehemiaJi. According to Harley 5710 — n,

Oriental 2212 and Oriental 2375 this book has 685 verses and
Nehemiah III 32 is the middle verse.2 This coincides
with the sum-total of the number of the verses in the
separate chapters in the present editions, as will be seen
from the following analysis: (I) n -}- (II) 70 + (III) 13 -f-

(iv) 24 + (V) i7 -f (vi) 22 + (vii) 28 + (viii) 36 + (ix) 15

+ (X) 44 + (Neh. 1) 1 1 + (II) 20 + (III) 32 + 6 + (IV) 17
+ (V) 19 + (VI) 19 + (VII) 72 + (VIII) 18 + (IX) 37 +
(X) 40 -f (XI) 36 + (XII) 47 + (XIII) 31 = 685. Arundel
Oriental 16, however, and Add. 15251 expressly state that
it has 688 verses, and give the mnemonic sign to the same
effect.1' Jacob b. Chayim in the first edition of his Rabbinic
Bible combines the two statements, in the Massoretic
Summary at the end of the book. In expressing the numbers
he gives 688 verses, whilst in the mnemonic sign he has
685. The two different statements manifestly proceed
from different Massoretic Schools which preserved varia-
tions in the verse-divisions.

Chronicles. Harley 5710 — n, Arundel Oriental

16 and Add. 15251 state that Chronicles has 1765 verses,
and that i Chron. XXV 23 begins the second half of the
book. This coincides with the sum-total of the verses in

..»«.-- -^x^r "rt:p wb'bz ITS rxrn *

•nrin fs-c ntram a'sian rrxc rr -£= bv c'piD'en c-rc 2

,f)2'c cne jirc M-I:EC" £r:ar- IVXE re KTJH 'pics a^:c 3

CHAP. VI. J The Division into Verses.

105

the separate chapters as will be seen from the following-
analysis: (I) 54 -f (II) 55 + (III) 24 + (IV) 43 + (V) 41 +
(VI) 66 -f (VII) 40 -f (VIII) 40 -f (IX) 44 -j- (X) 14 -f (XI) 47
-f (XII) 41 -f (XIII) 14 -j- (XIV) 17 + (XV) 29 -f (XVI) 43
+ (XVII) 27 + (XVIII) 17 -f (XIX) 19 -f (XX) 8 + (XXI) 30
+ (XXII) 19 + (XXIII) 32 + (XXIV) 31 + (XXV) 31 +
(XXVI) 32 -f (XXVII) 24 + 10+ (XXVIII) 21 + (XXIX) 30
-f ( i Chron. I) 18 -f (II) 17 -f (III) 17 -f (IV) 22 -f (V) 14
+ (VI) 42 + (VII) 22 -f (VIII) 18 -f- (IX) 31 -)- (X) 19 +
(XI) 23 + (XII) 16 -f (XIII) 23 -f- (XIV) 14 + (XV) 19 -f-
(XVI) 14 + (XVII) 19 + (XVIII) 34 + (XIX) 1 1 -f (XX) 37
-f (XXI) 20 + (XXII) 12 +• (XXIII) 21 -)- (XXIV) 27 +
(XXV) 28 -f- (XXVI) 23 + (XXVII) 9 + (XXVIII) 27 +
(XXIX) 36 + (XXX) 27 -f (XXXI) 21 + (XXXII) 33 +
(XXXIII) 25 -f (XXXIV) 33,4- (XXXV) 27 -f- (XXXVI) 23
= 1765. The Massoretic statement, therefore, at the end of
this book in the editio princeps of Jacob b. Chayim's
Rabbinic Bible that it has 1565 verses1 must be a mis-
print. How Dr. Baer came to say that this Rabbinic Bible
stated the number of verses to be 16562 passes my com-
prehension.

Though no such detailed numbering of the verses of
the sectional divisions in the separate books exists in the
case of the Prophets and the Hagiographa, yet a List has
been preserved which not only divides each book into two
halves, but gives the middle verse of each of the groups
of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. It also divides
each such group into fourths so that the number of verses
in every subdivision may easily be ascertained. I subjoin
this List from a Yemen MS.3 of the Hagiographa in the
British Museum.

.rrcNom D'wi niKtt warn spK n^n nm IBD bv D'piesn DI:D 1

.nwi D'pBm mx& wi r\bx -

3 Oriental 2212, fol. 228 a.

106 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

The Pentateuch has 5845 verses.

The Prophets have 9294 verses.

The Hagiographa have 8064 verses.

The Scriptures altogether have 23203 verses.

The following two verses are the mnemonic sign:

'And all the days that Adam lived were 930 years.' [Gen. V 5.]

'And all the firstborn males by the number of names were 22373.'
[Numb. Ill 43] 930 -f 22273 = 23203.

The sign thereof is: 'Remember man that nothing must be put to it
nor any thing be taken from it: and God doeth it that men should fear
before him.' [Eccl. Ill 14.]

The middle verse of the Prophets is Isa. XVII 3.

The first fourth of the Former Prophets is Judg. XV 4.

The middle verse of the Former Prophets is 2 Sam. Ill 12.

The last fourth of the Former Prophets is I Kings XI£ 24.

The first fourth of the Latter Prophets is Isa. LXV 23.

The middle verse of the Latter Prophets is Jerem. XLIX 9.

The last fourth of the Latter Prophets is Ezek. XLI 7.

The first fourth of the Hagiographa is Ps. XX 10.

The middle verse of the Hagiographa is Ps. CXXX 3.

The last fourth of the Hagiographa is Prov. XXV 13.

no sp ntram BTanxi irxa nran B-B^X nran min bv D'piD'fin
•tint: ':a'a nraixi DTBTI BTixai B-E^X nrtrn B'X'a: bv a'pic'sn aiaa
,-rcn 'n:a'Ei nra-ixi n-rn B-E^X nraw B'aina by B'pia'Bn aiaa
n :a ja-c ntfibn a'nxai s\bx B'nuj?i mnbv 1^12 xnpan "?a
n;r mxa rrn 'n nrx CIK 'a- "?: rm D-pio-e "3ra

B'nrn onv onnpe1? r6pai rin pa mar nsaaa iai maa "?a -m
p 73 ^-Jr^*' « '0~«x' j" J E'nxa' ETatm n&bv

C i 0-1 I *"v2" I i i

"r nrp B'nbxm r'n1? px i:aai f\'c^b px rbr BTX -01 ja^a
rbu -cbr prar "j^'i B':cmn B'IEEH ranx bu

:-IH bx B-axba n:ax nbr-i B';trxin B-IBE ranx "sen
: Ea'nx ar lanbn x"?i ',brn xb •"" nax ':rn D^trxin B'-IBE raix n-yan
n1?11 xbi p111!1? irr- xb a-rnnxn B""IEC yr-x nT'ai
xi"?n tb 'xa a— i:a ax B-rinxn B-nscn ranx 'sn
naar nan-n B'mnxn B'IEE >a~ix bv "C'n r>""r~
:-rx-ip era ir:y -[ban nr*nn •"'•' e-ainan B'r"3"i
tnar' *a '"•' n- nacn niDir ax a*ainan "*n
jax: ^'i' Tsp ara :bv n:xa ":»n E-ainan nT'an

CHAP. VI.] The Division into Verses. 107

Apart from these sum-totals indicated in the margin
against the respective places, or in the Massoretic Summaries
at the end of each book, there is no numeration of the verses
in the MSS. or in the early editions of the Hebrew Bible.
The introduction of the numbers against each verse is of
comparatively late date. As far as I can trace it, the small
Hebrew Psalter published by Froben, Basle 1563, is the
first portion of the Hebrew Bible with the Arabic
numerals in the margin against each verse. But these
numerals which Froben adopted from the Latin Quin-
cuplex Psalter1 published by Stephens in 1509 do not
agree with the Massoretic verse-divisions.

According to the Massorah the titles are a constituent
part of the Psalm, and hence, have not only the ordinary verse-
divisions, but are counted as the first verse, or the first two
verses according to their length and contents. Thus the title
of Ps. LX has no number in the Froben Psalter, and
accordingly this Psalm has only twelve verses marked in
the margin, whereas in the Hebrew the title constitutes
two verses, and the Psalm has fourteen verses. If the
student were to test the Massoretic numbers by the
notation given in this edition, or for that matter by the
numerals exhibited in the Authorised Version, he would be
involved in hopeless contradiction.

Arias Montanus, who was the first to break up the
Hebrew text into the Christian chapters and to introduce
the Hebrew numerals into the body of the text itself, was
also the first who, seven years later, expanded this
plan. He attached the Arabic numerals in the margin
against each verse throughout the whole Hebrew Bible
published at Antwerp in iSyi. As far as the Jews were

1 For a description of this Psalter see Bibliotlteca Sussexiana Vol. I,
Part II, fol. 103 &c.

108 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

concerned he precluded the possibility of their using this
splendid edition with the interlinear Latin translation,
because he wantonly placed the sign of the Cross at
every verse-division throughout the whole Hebrew text.
The statement, therefore, which is often made, that
Athias, whose edition of the Hebrew Bible appeared ninety
years later (1659 — 61), was the first who introduced the
numerals against the verses, is inaccurate.

Chap. VII.
The Number of the Words.

Though the ancient authorities inform us that the guild
of Scribes who numbered the verses, also counted the
words/ it is beyond the scope of this Introduction to
enter into a datailed discussion on the accuracy or otherwise
of the sum- total of words in the whole Bible The case,
however, is different as far as the Pentateuch is concerned.
The splendid MS. No. i in the Madrid University Library
which is dated A. D. 1 280 and the Standard Codex No. i in the
Imperial and Royal Court Library Vienna give the number
of words in every Parasha throughout the whole Pentateuch.
Jacob b. Chayim had evidently no knowledge of the existence
of this Massoretic List, since it is only at the end of six
out of the fifty-four Paraslias that he gives the number of
words. As the numbers given both in the Madrid List and
in the fragments preserved by Jacob b. Chayim in the editio
princeps do not agree with the number I give at the end
of each Parasha I am obliged to notice the difference.

It so happens that I possess a MS. of the Pentateuch
in which every two pages are followed by a page con-
taining two tables. These tables register line for line, the
number of times each letter of the Alphabet occurs in the
two corresponding pages, as well as the number of words in
each line. At the end of each table, the sum-total is given of
each separate letter, and of the words in the pages in question.

1 Vide supra, p. 64.

110

Introduction. [CHAP. Yll.

Text and Table of the

7
9
8

8
3

2
1

3
2
2

•
*
*

i
i

•
I
•

•
*
*

•
1
2

•
i
i

*
*
4

-V
*
*

•
1

2
1

1
*

1
1
3

*
*
•

3
2

*
*

1
*

*
*
*

8
9

1
1

2
1

1
1

•

3
2

9
8

•

*
8

•

3
3

•

*
-:•

•:-

•

•:•

*
#

-i-

:'<

•

•:;

:•:

:::

-.•

•;•

-:;

•

3
6

:•

•

3
4

•

-:•

-;•

8
1
8

2
1
2

•

3
2

•
i

*
•
•

*
*

*
•
*

i
2

*
*
*

*
1
1

3
2
1

3
2
2

6
3
1

*
*

.;.

8
5
5

*
*
*

*
*

196

•1
<»

».
*

•

H»
H*

(IS

•x

*>•

-J

CHAP. VII.] The Number of the Words.

first page of the MS.

ill

Genesis I 1—16.

28
33
32
30
35
33

34
34
30
34
16
33
29
34
29
35
30
33
31

33
38
32
29
30

766

irni dinn
vr d'rt^K

torn inai inn nrrn pKni 2
. : D^ian ^a-by nan-ia d-rtbK 3
t dvibK K-PI mirvvi ni« 4

'•"nap 'rn n^isn ijina rp-j 'rr; &rfiyt i»x9i e
»K d?isn pai y^p^b nnna "itrtt d'lan

nnna n^an

-byia-iy-in^";:11)?'?

ynta a'^y xpn pxn Kscini tja^.Ti pxn 12

inrab ia-iynj IJTK ""la-nipy pyi inrfc1? yiT

n any-^.Ti :aita-'3 EVI^X KTI is

-by Txnb
n'-fwan '•at
-n«i dl»n

n yp"ia ni«)p •'n^ d'.ibK iaKsi 14

p rni nb^n pai d';sn pa
n yp"33 nnixa1? vrn JD^^I 15
o^n^K t>y9i tfa'W. P.^'"J 16

112 Introduction. [CHAP. VII.

To convey a proper idea of the minuteness and accuracy
with which this plan is worked out throughout the entire
Pentateuch, I give on pp. 1 10, 1 1 1 a copy of the first page of
the MS. containing Gen. I i — 1 6 with the table belonging to it.

By this means I have been able to control the
Massoretic Summaries with respect to the number of letters
and words in the Pentateuch, and it is from this MS.
that I appended the sum-total to each Paraslia, and at the
end of each book of the Pentateuch. It is with the aid here
afforded, that the inaccuracy of the sum-totals given in
some of the Parashas in both these MSS. as well as in
Jacob b. Chayim's Massoretic fragments become apparent.

Thus the Madrid Codex No. i, from which in con-
junction with the Grammatico-Massoretic Treatise in the
Yemen MSS. I printed the Summaries at the end of each
Parasha, no fewer than ten out of the fifty-four Parashas
have incorrect sum-totals of words. They are exhibited in
the following Table where the Arabic figures before each
Parasha describe its number according to the sequence
of the fifty-four Parashas in the Annual Cycle.

Table showing the variations in the number of words in the

Parasha.

Parashas

Madrid MS.

My MS.

r6en [= Gen. xxxii 4— xxxvi 43

1976

1996

ppa [= „ XLI i— XLIV 17

1871

2022

Wl [= „ XLIV 18— XL VII 27

1469

1480

•m [= „ XLVII 28— L 26

1149

1158

X181 [= Exod. VI 2— IX 35

1523

1748

-rtar [= Numb. I I— IV 20

1893

1823

npn [= „ xix i— xxn i

1445

1245

cnrs [= „ xxv 10— xxx i

1886

1887

K'SH-a [= Deut. XXVI I— XXIX 8

1746

1747

•:•:»-! [= „ XXXII 1-5

(">i4

6£S

15572

I572I

CHAP. VII.] The Number of the Words. 113

As the sum-totals in the forty-four Parashas agree with
the numbers in my MS., there is no doubt that the variations
exhibited in the Madrid Codex in these ten Parashas are due
to clerical errors. I have, therefore, substituted in all these in-
stances the numbers in accordance with the Tables in my MS.

From the Tables in my MS., moreover, it is also
evident that the sum-totals of words given in the printed
Massorah in the editio princeps of Jacob b. Chayim's
Rabbinic Bible at the end of six Parashas is incorrect and
must be corrected as follows:

(10) fpa [= Gen.XLI i— XLIV 17], which according to
the printed Massorah has 2025 words,1 ought only to have
202 2 words.

(38) mp [= Numb. XVI 1 1— XVIII 32], which the printed
Massorah tells us has 1462 words,2 ought to be 1409 words.

(39) flpn [= Numb. XIX i— XXII i], which according to
the printed Massorah has 1454 words,3 ought to be 1 245 words.

(40) p^a [= Numb. XXII 2— XXV 9], which it says has
1450 words,4 ought to be 1455 words.

(45) pnnxi [= Deut. Ill 23— VII 1 1], which the Massorah
states has z'Syo words,5 ought to be 1878 words and

(46) apP [= Deut. VII 12— XI 25], which the Massorah
tells us has 1746 words,6 ought to be 1747 words. 77T7T

The Number of the Letters. &

Still more glaring is the sum-total of the number of
letters in Genesis which the Massorah gives in the Summary
at the end of this book. Here the printed Massorah tells
us that Genesis has 4395 letters,7 whereas it has 87064.

*,T3 Q*2bx wrrrn l

»-nn ff\bx mam 3
«3Ti t\bx ninni 4
,jrnn eh* nam 5
rnrm 6

DTrni niKia BTOPi n'Bbtf "i rnrniKi 7

Part II.
The text itself.

Hitherto I have dwelt upon the outer form of the
text into which I have introduced changes in accordance
with the Massoretic rules. I shall now describe the con-
dition of the text itself and how far it has been affected
by the principles which have guided me in preparing it.

Chap. I.
Dagesh and Raphe.

In all Massoretic MSS. of all Schools, whether Spanish,
Italian, Franco-Italian or German, not only are the aspirated
letters (DDDllQ), uniformly denoted by Raphe, but the silent
Aleph (X) in the middle of a word, and the He (H), both in
the middle and at the end of words, are duly marked with
the horizontal stroke. Thus for instance "IQX'1 and he said
(Gen. I 3 &c.), TIltrnB Pedahzur (Numb. I 10 &c.) HTU H3X3
as thou contest to Gerar (Gen. X 19). The only exceptions
are (i) when the aspirate has a superlinear accent, in which
case it would be difficult to place both the horizontal
stroke and the accent on the top of the letter, and
(2) in the ineffable name m?T which never has the Raphe
on the final He. Indeed there are some MSS. which have
the Raphe even on the consonants with the superlinear
accents, though it mars the evenness of the lines.

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe 115

The editors of the first edition of the Pentateuch
(Bologna 1482) conscientiously endeavoured to reproduce
these Raphes in the first few folios, but owing to typo-
graphical difficulties which at that early stage of Hebrew
printing the compositors could not overcome, they used
it very sparingly after folios 46. The printers of Lisbon,
however, who nine years later published the magnificent
fourth edition of the Pentateuch in 1491, and who issued
from the same printing office the books of Isaiah and
Jeremiah, faithfully reproduced the Raphes as they are
exhibited in all the Massoretically pointed MSS. The less
skilful printers, however, could not easily express the
aspirates with the horizontal stroke. Hence, they dis-
appeared altogether in the editions subsequent to 1492.
But whatever excuse may be made for the early printers
on the score of typographical difficulties, there is no
justification for modern editors who profess faithfully to
reproduce the Massoretic text, for their departure from
the uniform practice of all the MSS. I have, therefore,
reverted to the correct Lisbon editions of 1491 and 1492
and restored in form the Massoretic text in accordance
with the Massoretic MSS., disregarding the enormous
labour which it entailed upon me of minutely examining
every consonant for the purpose of horizontally marking
all the letters which have the Raphe in the MSS. i

From time immemorial, the custodians of the Hebrew
Scriptures have enjoined it most strictly that those who
are engaged in public reading are to exercise the greatest
care to pronounce very distinctly every letter and to
impart to every consonant its proper value. But beyond
this injunction they have attached no visible sign to any
particular letter, which in their estimation might preclude
its being weakened or absorbed by another letter in close

conjunction therewith. At a later time, however, one or

H-

116 Introduction. [CHAP. I

two isolated purists resorted to the expedient of putting
a Dagesh into letters in certain positions to safeguard their
distinct pronunciation. Hence, Yekuthiel the Naktan states
that in some MSS. the letter Nun at the beginning of the
name in the phrase p3~p the son of Nun (Deut. XXXII 4)
has a Dagesh. Though Yekuthiel himself does not give
here the reason for this abnormal position of the Dagesh*
it is manifest that the purist who inserted it thereby
intended to guard this Nnn at the beginning of the word
against being absorbed or weakened in pronunciation by
the Nun which ends the preceding word.

Heidenheim, who first called attention to Yekuthiel's
remark, declares that this practice obtained wherever two
of the same letters occurred, one at the end of a word
and one at the beginning of the immediately following
word. In such a case a Dagesh is put in the initial letter
to guard it from being absorbed. In the Haphtara to
Bereshith, viz. Isa. XLII 5— XLIII 10, where he gives the
reason for putting a Dagesh in the Nun of nQEfa breath
(Isa. XLII 5), he also quotes the following: pt^-^OT and
every tongue (Isa. LIV 1 7), on^~^3N^ to ead bread (Gen.

1 It is remarkable that in the edition of the Klpn pj? in Heidenheim's
Pentateuch, Yekuthiel's words on Deut. XXXII 44 are as follows: C"I3ECK tt"

rb rciacn nn-cre rbnnn vbv "12 p:n n« ptrjna there are Spanish Codices

which have Dagesh in the Xun to guard it from being absorbed bv its
neighbour which is close to it This indeed makes Yekuthiel himself give the
reason, whereas in the two MSS. of Yekuthiel's Ayin Hakore in the British
Museum, it is simply 12T12 '1p ^31 ,n"Da2 pi cbwn pip pi «n pj 'afiDKH 'Spas
:p32 'ipl p3 p Comp. Add. 19776, fol. 2340, and Or. 853, fol. .(qb. Heiden-
heim s edition also differs materially throughout from these MSS. Heidenheim's
own words on Yekuthiel's remark are as follows: map a nM— H7 Tll—TH 122

rarn ?ic2 n«7 man m-mx *nu ^22 B:n;a p» n'tp«i2 'e rimerc ttiE2i
n ja larn1? -12 np'2i p-nn mnxtr ,12^,1 rx-2 n«T-
,i2'nn n'arn D'ara1?! pics DP pmtra an'D'2 pee 'u-r

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 117

XXXI 54), 3^P to heart (Mai. II 2), j»a D."6

from sorrow (Esther IX 22) &C.1

We shall now contrast the prototype with the copy
by Drs. Baer and Delitzsch which is as follows:

This Dagesh is in accordance with the correct MSS. and is in accordance
with the rule that when in two words which belong to one another, the
same two consonants follow each other, the one at the end of one word and
the other at the beginning of the next word, the second of these consonants
is furnished with Dagesh as a sign that this letter is to be read with special
emphasis, so that it may not be absorbed and rendered inaudible by careless
and hasty reading in the former identical letter In the current editions this
Dagesh is absent, because its import has not been understood.2

Delitzsch, moreover, illustrates this use of the Dagesh
by adducing the following six instances from the Psalms:

(i) >a>-^33 PS. ix 2; (2) •nttr^r xv3; (3) >na-Dj> xxvi 4;

(4) D'OX^ ^3in CV 44; and (5 and 6) D'3 DJI&6 1318 Off'
CVII 35, and he assures us that this is to be found in the
correct Codices. From the fact, however, that he relies upon
Heidenheim's remarks in corroboration of this statement,

1 Comp. the preceding note in Heidenheim's Pentateuch called
DTP with Yekuthiel's KllpH pT published in five Vols. Rodelheim 1818— 21.
The Haphtara in question is in the Appendix to Vol. I.

- Dieses Dagesch steht nach dem Vorbilde correcter Handschriften und
nach der Regel, dass, wenn in zwei zusammengehorigen Wortern zwei gleiche
Consonanten, der eine am Ende des ersten und der andere am Anfange des
zweiten Wortes, einander folgen, der zweite dieser Consonanten ein Dagesch
erhalt, und zwar als Merkzeichen, dass dieser Buchstabe mit besonderem
Ausdruck zu lesen ist, damit er nicht bei sorglos eiligem Lesen in den vorigen
gleichen Buchstaben verschlungen und unhorbar werde. * In den gangbaren
Druckausgaben fehlt dieses Dagesch. Man hat es vernachlassigt, weil man seinen
Zweck nicht kannte. Zeitschrift fur die gesammte lutherische Theologie und
Kirche, Vol. XXIV, p. 413, Leipzig 1863.

* Siehe Heidenheim's Besprechung der Sache in seinem Pentateuch-
Commentar zu Anfang der Haftarath Bereschith und Desselben Pentateuch-
Ausgabe Meor Enajim zu Deut. 32, 44.

118 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

it is evident that Delitzsch himself did not examine the
Codices, nor was he aware that Heidenheim's version of
Yekuthiel is contrary to the MSS.

But Yekuthiel, upon whom the whole of this fabric is
reared, treats only upon the single phrase p3~p and makes
no allusion whatever to the existence of the Dagesh in the
second of the two identical consonants in any other com-
bination. And even with regard to p3"p itself, he does
not say that this is the orthography in correct MSS., but
simply remarks "in some Spanish Codices the Nun has Dagesh".

What, however, is still more surprising, is the fact
that of the twenty-nine instances, in which p3"p occurs in
the Hebrew Bible, no fewer than sixteen are to be found
in the Pentateuch alone,1 and that Heidenheim himself, who
formulated this rule in connection with this very phrase,
has not inserted the Dagesh in the second Nun in a single
passage. And though this absence of the Dagesh is in
accordance with most of the Codices and with all the
editions, yet Dr. Baer has inserted it in all the passages
wherever p3~p occurs in the parts of the Hebrew Bible
which he has published.

The other instances adduced by Heidenheim and
Delitzsch in illustration of this supposed canon require a
more detailed examination since some modern Grammarians,
who have not had an opportunity to examine the MSS.
for themselves, have accepted this orthography as a fact.
The following are the five passages adduced by Heiden-
heim and the six instances quoted by Delitzsch arranged
in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible with the
MSS. which testify against their orthography.

1 Comp. Exod. XXXHI ii; Numb. XI 28; XIII 8, 16; XIV 6, 30,
38; XXVI 65; XXVII 18; XXXII 12, 28; XXXIV 17; Deut. I 38; XXXI 23;
XXXII 44; XXXIV 9.

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 119

(1) Gen. XXXI 54; XXXVII 25.

with Dagesh, Heidenheim and Baer.

without Dagesh, Orient. 4445 the oldest MS.
extant; Arundel Orient. 2 dated A. D. 1216; Orient.
2201 dated A. D. 1246; Add. 9401 — 9402 dated A. D.
1286; Harley 5710 — n; Add. 21160; Add. 15451;
Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252;
Orient. 4227; Orient. 2626 — 28; Orient. 2348; Orient.
2349; Orient. 2350; the first edition of the Pentateuch
Bologna 1482; the first edition of the entire Bible
1488; the Lisbon edition of the Pentateuch 1491;
the second edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93;
the third edition of the Bible, Brescia 1494; the
Complutensian Polyglot; the first Rabbinic Bible
by Felix Pratensis, Venice 1517; the second quarto
Bible, Bomberg 1521, and the first edition of the
Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim,
Venice 1524 — 25.

(2) Isaiah XLII 5.

[fi3 with Dagesh, Heidenheim.

ffiJ without Dagesh, Babylon Codex dated A. D.
916; Orient. 2201; Harley 5710 — n; Arund. Orient.
16; Add. 15451; Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add.
15251; Add. 15252; Orient. 1478; Orient. 2091;
Orient. 4227; Orient. 2626 — 28; the Lisbon edition
of Isaiah 1492 and all the early editions specified
under No. i. Now Orient. 1478 is the remarkable
Jerusalem MS. which Dr. Baer has collated1 and
which he quotes in his notes on Ps. Ill 7, yet he
omitted to state that this Codex has not the Dagesh
in question. Indeed he himself has violated this
eccentric rule by omitting the Dagesh here, though

1 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. II, Preface, fol. 3.

120 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

Heidenheim adduces this passage in confirmation
of this canon.

(3) Isaiah LIV 17.

with Dagesh, Baer.

without Dagesh, Babylon Codex; Orient. 2201 ;
Harley 5710 — n; Arund. Orient. 16; Add. 15451;
Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252;
Orient. 1478; Orient. 2091; Orient. 4227; Orient.
2626 — 28 and all the early editions.

(4) Psalm IX 2.

with Dagesh, Baer.

without Dagesh, Orient. 2201 ; Harley 5710 — 1 1 ;
Arund. Orient. 16; Add. 15451; Harley 1528; Add.
15250; Add. 15251 ; Add. 15252; Orient. 2091 ; Orient.
4227; Orient. 2626 — 28; the first edition of the
Hagiographa, Naples 1486 — 87, and all the early
editions.

(5) Psalm XV 3.

W^'^V with Dagesh, Baer.

"IStP^'^l? without Dagesh, Orient. 2201 ; Harley 57 10 — 1 1 ;

Arund. Orient. 16; Add. 15451; Harley 1528; Add.

15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Orient. 2091; Orient.

4227; Orient. 2626 — 28 and all the early editions

(6) Psalm XXVI 4.

DP with Dagesh, Baer.

DV without Dagesh, Orient. 2201; Harley 5710— 1 1 ;
Arund. Or. 16; Add. 15451; Harley 1528; Add.
15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Orient. 2091; Orient.
4227; Orient. 2626—28 and all the early editions.

(7) Psalm CV 44.

with Dagesh, Baer.

without Dagesh, all the above named MSS.
and all the editions without a single exception.

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 121

(8, 9) Psalm CVII 35.

DW> with Dagesh, Baer.
Dtf' without Dagesh, all the MSS. and
all the editions without an exception.
(10) Malachi II 2.

D^"^r with Dagesh, Baer.

^?~^y without Dagesh, all the MSS. and all the editions

without exception,
(n) Esther IX 22.

pra Di"6 with Dagesh. \

p:*a D.-6 without Dagesh, all the MSS. and all the

editions without an exception.

It will thus be seen that not a. single one of the eleven
instances which Heidenheim and Dr. Baer have adduced
in illustration of the rule formulated by them, has the
slightest support from the MSS. and the editions. The
MSS. which I have collated for this purpose are mostly
model Codices and represent all Schools, and different
countries from the earliest date down to the invention of
printing. There may be one or two MSS. in which this
eccentric Dagesh has been introduced by some purist,
but I have not been able to find it in a single one among
the numerous Codices which I have collated. To introduce,
therefore, such an innovation throughout the Hebrew Bible
upon such slender evidence, if indeed it is to be called
evidence at all, is a most unjustifiable defacing of the text.
The Dagesh is also inserted by Dr. Baer in consonants
which follow a gutteral with silent Sheva. Delitzsch, who
defends this innovation, declares that it is to be found in
all good MSS. and hence lays down the following rule:

It is designed that the letter which is thus sharpened is to be pro-
nounced emphatically. It begins a new syllable since the preceding gutteral
is to be read with silent Sheva. The Dagesh warns us that it is not to be
pronounced D^JJri »1&J?tO fflDHtt, a pronunciation which is in itself admissible

122 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

but which in the passages in question is not correct according to tradition.
This Dagesh too, has been neglected in the current editions. Yet it is
attested most emphatically by the Massorah which indicates it mostly by
Dagesh (P31) in those places where it ought to be, and by Raphe (SB^) \vhere
it ought not to be. Thus for instance on ICtTI the Massorah has the following
remark ptM"l '21 ""B1 HPt '3 it occurs three times, once the Satnech (C) has
Dagesh, i. e. it does not begin a syllable, the syllable begins with the
preceding gutteral = "lbX~"1 (Gen. XLJI 24) and twice it has Dagesh, i. e.
it begins a syllable so that the gutteral by which it is preceded, has a silent
Sheva = "lb'K'1 (Gen. XLVI 29; Exod. XIV 6). To the same effect is the
Massorah on HCPIO which it says ptM"l "iKtTl |'B"1 '3, i. e. in three passages
it is HCnO (Joel IV 16; Ps. XLVI 2; LXII 29), but in the other instances
it is

But this statement is based upon a misunderstanding
of the expressions Dagesh and Raphe as used by the

1 Auch dieses Dagesch findet sich in alien guten Handschriften. Sein
Absehen geht darauf, dass der Buchstabe, den es scharft, ausdruckvoll ge-
sprochen werde; es beginnt ja eine neue Silbe, der vorhergehende Gutteral
soil mit ruhendem Sch'ba gelesen werden; das Dagesch warnt, dass man nicht
D'^rP dOrtS -rcnO ausspreche — eine Aussprache, welche an sich statthaft,

• T:,- •: |- V -!|-

aber in den betreffenden Stellen nicht die iiberlieferungsgeroass richtige ist.
Auch dieses Dagesch ist in den gangbaren Druckausgaben vernachlassigt. Und
doch hat es ausdriickliche Zeugnisse der Masora fur sich. Diese zeigt es da,
wo es steheu soil, meist mit W1 an, so wie sie da, wo es nicht stehen soil,
"B"i bemerkt. So raacht sie z. B. zu ICK'l folgende Note: J'tWl '21 'fil 1H '3,
d. h. dreimal komrot "nCK*1 vor; einmal ist das Satnech nicht dagessirt, so dass
also nicht mit ihm, sondern mit dem vorhergehenden Gutteral die neue Silbe
anfiingt pbX~*l Gen. XLII 24), zweimal ist das Saincch dagessirt, also silben-
eroffnend, so dass also der vorstehende Gutteral ein einfaches ruhendes Sch'ba
hat pfc'K'! Gen. XLVI 29, Exod. XIV 6). Ebenso bemerkt die Masora:
J'lWn 1KC1 pBI '3 ncniS, d. h. an drei Stellen ist HBHia zu lesen (namlich
Joel IV 16; Ps. XLVI 2; LXII 9), an den drei andern HBna. * Zeitschrift
fiir die gesammte lutherische Theologic und Kirche. Vol. XXIV, pp. 413, 414,
Leipzig 1863.

* Siehe Heidenheim's Meor Etiajim zu Gen. X 7 und die Zeitschrift
Kerem Chemed, Jahrg. IV, S. 119. So wie oben erkliirt ist hat man das
masoretische tP3"1 und 'fil in diesen Fallen zu verstehen; Elias Levita in seinem
Masoreth ha-masoreth (II 3. g. E.) weiss es nicht befriedigend zu erkliiren.

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 123

Massorah. Elias Levita, who is recognised as the highest
Massoretic authority and who was not only a contemporary
but a personal friend of Jacob b. Chayim the first compiler
and editor of the Massorah, explains it that Dagesh in the
terminology of the Massorah; denotes simple Sheva and
that Raphe means Chateph-segol or Chateph-pathach. Accord-
ingly when the Massorah says that IDK'1 has Dagesh in
two instances,, it means that the Aleph has simple Sheva,
i. e. is pointed IDK'l and that in the one instance where
it is Raphe, the Aleph has Chateph-segol or is pointed IDX'1 .
The same is the meaning of the Massorah when it says that
1tPI?a has Dagesh in three instances, i. e. the letter Ayin has
simple Sheva or is pointed "ItPJJft to distinguish it from those
places where it is Raphe or where the letter Ayin has
Chateph-paihach, i. e. ItPPfi. Levita's words are as follows:

I shall now return to my first subject and give you an example of a
Sheva which the Massorites call Dagesh. They make the following remark in
the Massorah : 'the expression Hfi^i? to conceal has always Dagesh,' that is, it
is always with simple Sheva, as la^JjP d^IH hiding they shall hide (Levit.
XX 4) &c. They also say that the word ,TDP! to trust has always Dagesh,
as riDPIX / shall trust (Ps. LVII 2), 'DPia my shelter (Ps. XCI 2) &c., except
in eight instances where it is Raphe, that is with Chateph-pathach or Chateph-
segol, as nCPia refuge (Joel IV 16), HDHK / shall trust (Ps. XVHI 3). They
also remark that *Ht?J7a tithe occurs three times with Dagesh, as lEty'a the
tithe of (Levit. XXVII 30) &c., whilst in all other instances it is Raphe,
that is with Chateph-pathach, as Itfga the tithe of (Deut. XIV 23) &C.1

This definition by the first and foremost expositor of
the terminology of the Massorah, it is almost needless to

mioaa nax ;rn ixnpp xitfn by btra -qb jnxi nijitwnn br inn n:m
"?a pi ijrpjaiT) la^jr a"??n axi laa ,ttiwa KIIW "ri ,^-ia nO^
-pisn 'n ja pn :j,Tam -ona ^h iaix -nonx I^DS hxz iaa r»n
iiax pi :is nonx ms -layb ncna i""ii ias ,^1:0 ff|tsra ix nns
iaa nns ?)an3 b"-i /a^iai nxw b>ai /biai pixn -iu?ya laa .a^wi

•lir XSam pm ijn "I8?j?a Comp. Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, pp. 203, 204 ed.
Ginsburg.

124 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

say, is in perfect harmony with the orthography of the
most correct MSS., and with all the early editions. It was
Heidenheim who, in his edition of the Pentateuch entitled
Meor Enayim (Rodelheim 1818 — 21], maintained that the
expression Dagesh in these instances denotes the visible
dot which is put in the letter following the silent Sheva,
and that Raphe means the absence of this dot in the letter
following the Chateph-pathach or Chateph-segol. "It is the
Mem," he says on HOP"! in Gen. X 7, "which has the Dagesh to
show that the Sheva which precedes it is simple, i. e. ilSin
and not like HOP? with Chateph-pathach and with Mem
Raphe." >

That Levita's explanation is the correct one and that
the sense assigned to these Massoretic expressions by
Heidenheim, Delitzsch and Dr. Baer is contrary to the
best MSS. will be evident from an examination of the
seven examples which these expositors have adduced to
prove their theory. To facilitate reference I shall again
arrange these passages in the order of the Hebrew Bible.

I. The first passage which Heidenheim quotes and on
which, as we have seen, he formulates this rule is i"IBJJ"l
Gen. X 7. This proper name he points nSPI- Dr. Baer,
who follows Heidenheim and also points it with Dagesh
in the Mem, did not even deem it necessary to make any
remark in the Notes, forming the Appendix to Genesis
that there is any variation here in the MSS. or in the
early editions. As this expression occurs six times, five
times as a proper name (Gen. X 7 twice; Ezek. XXVII 22;
i Chron. I 9 twice), and once denoting thunder (Job
XXXIX 19), Dr. Baer points it with Dagesh in the Mem

nay: 'as •::•»*• tru'E KTKP r:sbv KICH by m-nn1? D"an mirn n"iK '

T -l|-

',-nan na-n r;n n"?K ji:: by iiea1? mean byz -j-na pi <nsn D"am ETC
TIIK -ibK';_ nsn K"as pnn jinbis ica: iraaia PJBV nbioi by wi 'EQ jap"?

CHAP. J.] Dagesh and Raphe. 125

in every instance, and in no case does he mention in the
Appendices to the several parts that there exists a
difference in the pointing of this word. This, being a test
instance, I shall give in detail both the MSS. and the
early editions, respecting its orthography.

In the passage before us there are two different
orthographies of this expression. The majority of the MSS.
and the early editions which I have collated point it
nttJpJl with Sheva under the Ay in and without Dagesh in
the Mem. This is the case in Orient. 4445, which is the
oldest Codex extant; in Orient. 2201, which is dated A. D.
1246; Add. 9401 — 9402, dated A. D. 1286; Harley 5710—11;
Harley 1528; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Orient. 2348; Orient.
2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2626 — 28; the first
edition of the entire Hebrew Bible, Soncino 1488; the
Lisbon edition of the Pentateuch 1491; the second edition
of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the third edition of the
Bible, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot; Felix
Pratensis' edition of the Rabbinic Bible 1517; and the
quarto edition, Venice 1521.

The second way in which this expression is pointed,
is nOJpl with Chateph-pathach under the Ayin. This is the
case in Arund. Orient. 2, which is dated A. D. 1216; in Add.
15250; Orient. 4227 and in the first edition of the Pentateuch,
Bologna 1482. The only MS. which points it nSXH"] with
Dagesh in the Mem, as far as my collation extended, is
Add. 15451, but even this MS. points it HBP"] without the
Dagesh in the second instance of this very verse. It is
probably owing to this MS. or to one like it, that Jacob
b. Chayim appended in the margin '31 DE — Mem has
Dagesh and accordingly pointed it n^PT). But this is the
first and the only one of the early editions which has
adopted this orthography. The most remarkable fact,
however, in connection with the orthography of this

126 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

expression, has still to be stated. Heidenheim in his edition
of the Ayin Ha-Kore gives nSJJT) with Dagesh in the Mem
as the pointing of Yekuthiel, whereas in the two MSS. of
this Nakdan in the British Museum, one, viz. Orient. 19776,
has it nQlpl with Chateph-pathach under the Ayin, whilst
Orient 856 points it HOP"!! without Dagesh in the Mem,
thus exhibiting the two-fold orthography which is to be
found in almost all the MSS. and the early editions. And
yet this is the very passage in Yekuthiel upon which
Heidenheim reared his fabric.

The second instance in which this proper name occurs,
is in the latter half of this very verse, viz. Gen. X 7.
Here too the MSS. and the early editions exhibit two
kinds of orthography. The larger majority of MSS. and
editions point it HOP*! with Sheva under the Ayin and
without Dagesh in the Mem. This is the case in Orient. 4445 ;
Orient. 2201; Add. 9401 — 9402; Harley 5710 — n; Harley
1528; Yekuthiel Orient. 853; Add. 15251; Add. 15252;
Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365 and
Orient. 2626 — 28 as well as all the above named early editions.
The MSS. which exhibit i"10J?"l, the second kind of ortho-

T -I -7

graphy, are Arund. Orient. 2, dated A. D. 1216; Yekuthiel
in Orient. 19776; Add. 15250; Orient. 4227 and the first
edition of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482. It is remarkable
that Add. 15451, which, as we have seen, is the only MS.
representing nSPTl with Dagesh in the Mem, has here
nOjn without Dagesh, so that the first Rabbinic Bible with
the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim is the solitary early
edition which has HSP") with Dagesh.

The third instance in which this proper name occurs,
is Ezek. XXVII 22. Here all the MSS. with one exception
and all the editions also with one exception have HOP"!1)
without Dagesh in the Mem. This is the case in Orient.
2201; Harley 5710 — n: Arund. Orient. 16; Add. 15451;

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 127

Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Orient.
2626 — 28; the second edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93;
the Latter Prophets, Pesaro 1515; the fourth edition of
• the Bible, Pesaro 1511 — 1517; the Complutensian Polyglot ;
the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis
1517; the Venice quarto edition 1521 and the first edition
of Jacob b. Chayim's Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah,
Venice 1524—25. The only edition which exhibits Piajni
the second kind of orthography is that of Brescia 1494,
whilst there is one solitary MS. in the British Museum
which has n^PTl with Dagesh in the Mem, viz. Orient. 4227.
The remarkable fact in connection with this instance is that
both, Add. 15451 and the first edition of Jacob b. Chayim's
Bible with the Massorah which represent this orthography in
Gen. X 7, have in the passage before us nEJJIl without
Dagesh in the Mem.

The fourth passage in which this expression occurs,
but where it is not a proper name, is Job XXXIX 19.
All the MSS. with one exception exhibit the first ortho-
graphy, viz. i"lQP"l with Sheva under the Ay in and Mem
without Dagesh. So Orient. 2201; Harley 5710 — n; Arund.
Orient. 16; Or. 2091; Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add. 15251;
Add. 15252; Orient. 2212; Orient. 2626 — 28; the first edition
of the Hagiographa, Naples 1486—87; the second edition
of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the third edition of the
Bible, Brescia 1494; the Psalms, Proverbs, Job &c., Salonica
1515; the Complutensian Polyglot; the Rabbinic Bible
by Felix Pratensis 1517; the quarto Bible, Venice 1521;
and Jacob b. Chayim's first edition of the Bible with the
Massorah 1524 — 25. HOP"! the second orthography with
Chateph-pathach under the Ayin is exhibited in Orient. 4227;
in the first edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488; and in the
fourth edition, Pesaro 1511—17. From the above analysis
it will be seen that not one of the MSS. which I have

128 Introduction. [CHAP.. I.

collated, nor any of the early editions have i"18$n with
Dagesh in the Mem-.

The fifth passage where this expression occurs, but
where it is again a proper name, is in i Chron. I 9. As
is the case in the other instances the MSS. and editions
have here the two-fold orthography, but as they also ex-
hibit a variant in the spelling, it will be best to discuss
the authorities under the different forms in which it is
written.

The first form of this name in the earlier part of the
verses is NQPTI with Aleph at the end, and Sheva under
the Ayin without Dagesh in the Mem. This is the case in
Orient. 2201; Arund. Orient. 16; Harley 1528; Add. 15250;
Add. 15251; the second edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93;
the Complutensian Polyglot; and the first edition of the
Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim
1524-25. The same form with Aleph, but exhibiting the
second orthography, viz. NQP"11 with Cateph-pathach under
the Ayin, is to be found in Add. 15252; and in Orient. 4227,
but in none of the early editions.

The variant or the second form of this name is flQjm
with He at the end. This also exhibits the two-fold ortho-
graphy. Thus i"IOP"T) with Sheva under the Ayin, but
without the Dagesh in the Mem, is the reading in Harley
5710—11; Orient. 2091; Orient. 2212; the first edition
of the Hagiographa, Naples 1486 — 87; the first edition
of the Bible, Soncino 1488; the first edition of the
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517; and the quarto
Bible, Venice 1521, whilst flQjni the second orthography
with Chateph-pathach under the Ayin is the reading of the
third and fourth editions of the Bible, Brescia 1494 and
Pesaro 1511 — 17. It will thus be seen that XSPT] or na^T)
with Dagesh in the Mem is not the reading in any of the
MSS. or editions.

CHAP. 1. 1 Dagesh and Raphe. 129

We now come to the sixth or last instance of this
expression which occurs in the latter part of the same
verse, i. e. i Chron. I 9. As the MSS. and editions also
exhibit here a variant in the spelling, I shall separate the
two different forms. The form which has the greatest MS.
authority, is HftUI with He at the end. But like its fellow
in the other passages, it has been transmitted in a two-fold
orthography. The one best attested is HBJJI with Sheva
under the Ayin, He at the end and no Dagesh in the Mem.
This is the reading in Orient. 2201 ; Harley 5710 — 1 1 ; Arund.
Orient. 16; Orient. 2091; Harley 1528; Add. 15252; Add.
15451; Orient. 2212; Orient. 2626 — 28; the Complutensian
Polyglot ; the first Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517;
the Venice quarto 1521; and the first Rabbinic Bible with
the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524—25. The saino
spelling, but with Chateph-pathach under the Ayin, i. e.
niSI?"! is also exhibited in Orient. 4227; the first, third and
fourth editions of the Bible, Soncino 1488, Brescia 1494
and Pesaro 1511—17. The variant is XOP*] with Aleph at
the end, but this too has no Dagesh in the Mem and is
to be found in Add. 15250; Add. 15251; in the first edition
of the Hagiographa, Naples 1486 — 87; and in the second
edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93. Here too, therefore,
nay] or Xffljn with Dagesh in the Mem is not the reading
in any of the MSS. or early editions. But what is most
remarkable in connection with this orthography, is the fact
that the only MS. which points it with Dagesh in the Mem
in Gen. X 7 and the only early edition which exhibits the
same phenomenon, viz. Add. 15451 and the first edition
of Jacob b. Chayim's Rabbinic Bible, have it here without
Dagesh in the Mem in both parts of the verse, though
i Chron. I 9 is a duplicate of Gen. X 7.

The result, therefore, of the above analysis of the six

instances in which this expression occurs, is as follows.

130 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

In the first passage only one MS. and one edition have
the Dagesh. In the second passage, which is the second
clause of the same verse, the same single edition has it,
but no MS., not even the one which exhibits it in the first
clause. In the third passage only one MS. has it, but not
a single edition, whilst in the fourth, fifth and sixth passages
it is not to be found in any MS. or early edition.
II. Gen. XLVI 29.

"IDX'l with Dagesh, Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient.

4227.

"lDJ<n without Dagesh, Orient. 4445, which is the oldest
MS. extant; Arund. Orient. 2, dated A. D. 1216;
Orient. 2201, dated A. D 1246; Harley 5710—11;
Harley 1528; Add. 21160; Add. 15251; Add. 15252;
Orient 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient.
2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626 — 28; the first edition
of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482; the second edition
of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the Complutensian
Polyglot; the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible
by Felix Pratensis 1517; the quarto Bible, Venice
1521; and the first edition of the Bible with the
Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524—25. The ortho-
graphy "ibijp with Chateph-segol under the Alcpli is
exhibited in the first edition of the Bible, Soncino
1488; in the Lisbon Pentateuch 1491; and in the
third edition of the Bible, Brescia 1494.
Kxod. XIV 6.

with Dagesh, Add. 9401; Harley 5710 — n; Add.

without Dagesh, Orient. 4445; Arund. Orient. 2;
Orient. 2201; Harley 1528; Add. 21160; Add. 15251;
Add. 15252; Orient. 4227; Orient. 2328; Orient.
2329; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451;
Orient. 2626 — 28; the first edition of the Pentateuch,

CHAP. I ] Dagesh and Raphe. 131

Bologna 1482; the Lisbon edition 1491; the second
edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the Complu-
tensian Polyglot; the first edition of the Rabbinic
Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517; the quarto Bible,
Venice 1521; and the first edition of the Bible with
the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. IDNPI
with Chateph-segol is exhibited in Add. 15250, and
in the first and third editions of the Bible, Soncino
1488 and Brescia 1494.

In analysing the different MSS. on this word
in the foregoing two passages the following facts
are disclosed: (i) Orient. 4227, which has Dagesh
in the Samech in Gen. XL VI 29, has no Dagesh in
Exod. XIV 6; (2) Harley 5710 — 11, which has no
Dagesh in Gen. XLVI 29, but which has Dagesh
in the text in Exod. XIV 6, is corrected in the
Massorah Parva with the remark '*"lpl ''Q"l 'J, i. e.
in three instances it is Raphe in the Bible which either
means that it is one of the three passages where
it is IDX'l with Chateph-segol or IDN'l with Sheva
under the Aleph and without Dagesh in the Samech;
and (3) Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; and
Orient. 2365, which have the following Massorah
against it P]^X p'SB j6 Win "lt£^ t>3, show beyond
doubt that the Massorah on this word, whether it
is tWl or '£H, refers to the Aleph and not to the
Samech.
III. Levit. XX 4.

with Dagesh, Add. 9401, Add. 15451.

without Dagesh, Orient. 4445; Orient. 2201;
Harley 5710 — n; Harley 1528; Add. 21160; Add.
15251; Add. 15252; Orient. 4227; Orient. 2348; Orient.
2349; Orient.235o; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient.
2626—28; the first edition of the Pentateuch,

1 32 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

Bologna 1482; the first edition of the Bible, Soncino
1488; the Lisbon Pentateuch 1491; the second and
third editions of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93, Brescia
1494; the Complutensian Polyglot; the first Rabbinic
Bible by Felix Pratentis 1517; the quarto Bible,
Venice 1521; and the first edition of the Bible
with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25.
IQ^X^ D^I?n with Chateph-pathach under the Ayin is
the reading in Arund. Orient. 2, which is dated
A. D. 1216, and Add. 15250.

IV. Psalm X i.

D^PD with Dagesh, Add. 15451; the first and third
editions of the Bible, Soncino 1488, Brescia 1494.

D^Xtfl without Dagesh, Orient. 2201; Arund. Orient. 16;
Harley 5710—11; Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add.
15251; Add. 15252; Orient. 2091; Orient. 2626 — 28;
Orient. 2212; the first edition of the Hagiographa,
Naples 1486 — 87; the second edition of the Bible,
Naples 1 49 1 — 93 ; the fourth edition, Pesaro 1511 — 17 ;
the Psalms, Proverbs &c., Salonica 1515; the
Complutensian Polyglot; the first Rabbinic Bible
by Felix Pratensis 1517; the quarto Bible, Venice
1521; and the first edition of the Bible with the
Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. D^Pfl
with Chateph-pathach under the Ayin, is the reading
in Orient. 4227.

V. Psalm XXXIV i.

with Dagesh, Add. 15451.

without Dagesh, Orient. 2201; Arund. Orient. 16;
Harley 5710 — n; Harley 1528; Orient. 2091; Add.
15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Orient. 2212; Orient.
2626 — 28; the tfrst edition of the Hagiographa,
Naples 1486 — 87; the Psalms, Proverbs &c., Salonica
1515; the Complutensian Polyglot; the first edition

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 133

of the Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517;
the quarto Bible, Venice 1521; and the first edition
of the Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim
1524—25. iai?C3 with Chateph-pathach under the
Ayin is the reading in Orient. 4227; the first, second,
third and fourth editions of the Bible, Soncino
1488, Naples 1491 — 93, Brescia 1494, and Pesaro
1511 — 17.
VI. Psalm LXI 4.

with Dagesh, Add. 15451.

without Dagesh, Orient. 2201; Harley 5710 — n;
Harley 1528; Orient. 2091; Add. 15250; Add. 15251;
Add. 15252; Orient. 2212; Orient. 2626 — 28; the
first edition of the Hagiographa, Naples 1486 — 87;
the first edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488; the
second edition, Naples 1491 — 93; the third edition,
Brescia 1494; the fourth edition, Pesaro 1511 — 17;
the Psalms, Proverbs &c., Salonica 1515; the
Complutensian Polyglot; the first edition of the
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517; the quarto
Bible, Venice 1521; and the first edition of the
Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim
1524 — 25. The reading P1DI1Q with Chateph-pathach
under the Cheth is that of Arund. Orient. 16 and
Orient. 4227. The former has the Massorah against
it 'ttf^S '>Q*i TI eight times with Chateph-pathach in
this form. I have, therefore, adopted it in my
edition.
VII. Psalm CV 22.

with Dagesh, Add. 15451; Orient. 2091.

without Dagesh, Orient. 2201; Arund. Orient. 16;
Harley 5710 — n; Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add.
15251 ; Add. 15252; Orient. 4227; Orient. 2212; Orient.
2626 — 28; the first, second, third and fourth editions

134 Introduction. [CHAP. I.

of the Bible, Soncino 1488, Naples 1491 — 93, Brescia
1494, Pesaro 1511 — 17; the Psalms, Proverbs &c.,
Salonica 1515; the Complutensian Polyglot; the first
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517; the quarto
Bible, Venice 1521; and the first edition of the
Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim
1524 — 25. The reading "1DN^> with Chateph-segol is
exhibited in the first edition of the Hagiographa,
Naples 1486 — 87.
VIII. Psalm CIX 29.
with Dagesh.

with Chateph-pathach, Orient. 2201; Arund.
Orient. 16; Harley 5710 — u; Harley 1528; Add.
21161; Add. 15451; Add. 15250; Add. 15251;
Add. 15252; Orient. 4227; Orient. 2091; Orient.
2212; Orient. 2626—28; the first edition of the
Hagiographa, Naples 1486 — 87; the first, second
and third editions of the Bible, Soncino 1488,
Naples 1491 — 93, and Brescia 1494; the Psalms,
Proverbs &c., Salonica 1515; the Complutensian
Polyglot; the edition of the Rabbinic Bible by
Felix Pratensis 1517; the quarto Bible, Venice 1521;
and the first edition of the Bible with the Massorah
by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25.

These are the instances adduced by Heidenheim and
Delitzsch to establish their rule that the consonant which
follows a gutteral with Sheva is invariably with Dagesh.
The passages in which flSjn occurs marked No. I, I have
already analysed. Though No. II has the support of three
MSS., the most ancient and by far the larger number are
against this eccentric Dagesh. Amongst these are Standard
Codices of exceptional accuracy. Moreover all the early
editions, which Delitzsch himself describes as having the
same value as MSS., are against its presence. Equally so is

CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 135

No. Ill which is exhibited in two MSS., but which is
opposed to the oldest and Standard Codices as well as
to all the early editions. No. IV, which is found in only
one MS., is supported by two editions, but is against the
large majority of Codices and early editions. Nos. V and VI
have only one MS. in their favour and no early edition at all.
No. VII, which is supported by two MSS., has not only
all the Standard Codices against it, but all the early
editions, whilst No. VIII is a false reading, since I could
not find it in any MS. or early edition.

Levita's explanation, therefore, of the Massoretic use
of the terms Dagesh and Raphe is fully borne out by the
larger number of MSS., amongst which are the oldest and
Standard Codices. Hence, Delitzsch's declaration, that the
Dagesh in the consonant after a gutteral with Sheva is to
be found in all the best MSS., is based upon wrong
information for which, as the article in question shows,
Dr. Baer is responsible. To introduce, therefore, this
eccentric Dagesh throughout the Hebrew Bible, as has
been done by Dr. Baer, is a most unjustifiable innovation.
The only thing which can legitimately be done with the
evidence of the MSS. and early editions before us, is to
mention the fact that some mediaeval purists have inserted
it in several places.

Far less objectionable is the third category of words
in behalf of which Delitzsch in the same article pleads for
the Dagesh and into which Dr. Baer has actually inserted
it throughout the Bible in accordance with the rule laid
down by Ben Balaam and Moses the Nakdan that when
the two labials Beth Mem (01) follow each other at the
beginning of a word the Beth, when it has Sheva, has Dagesh
though it is preceded by one of the vowel-letters N1IT.
And though Joseph Kimchi who, in expanding this rule,
enforced it by the solemn declaration that whoso reads

136 Introduction. | CHAP. I.

33 (Gen. XXXII n) Raphe, has not the spirit of the
true grammarian in him,1 yet the grammarian Heidenheim
deliberately points it so in his edition of the Pentateuch
where he himself first called attention to this rule. Dr. Baer
who, as a rule, follows Heidenheim most slavishly, has
indeed in this instance departed from his great exemplar,
reverted to the statement of Kimchi and accordingly
points it ^p03 with Dagesh. This, however, is against the
celebrated Codex Hilali and against numerous Codices as
well as against all the early editions, as will be seen from
the following enumeration: Orient. 4445; Orient. 2201;
Ilarley 2201; Add. 15251; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349;
Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; and Orient. 2626 — 28. In all
these MSS. the Beth has the Raphe stroke over it (5) so
that there can be no mistake about it. It is also Raphe in
the first edition of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482; in the
first edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488; in the second
edition, Naples 1491 — 93; in the third edition, Brescia 1494;
the Complutensian Polyglot; the first edition of the
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517; the quarto Bible,
Venice 1521; and the first edition of the Bible with the
Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25-.

The other instances which come under this rule and
which Dr. Baer has invariably dageshed are treated in a
similar manner in the MSS. and early editions. As I have,
however, generally indicated the variations in their proper
places, it is not necessary to discuss them here.

(Gen. xxxu 1 1 , •'rpo? *: "ittr rrern rrzn c-a rr-inKi r\""z nrtwrn ox '
men rrs 'imp .IJIDTI nrru n'pipian pc^n *bvz rm J-K JTIBI nmx xiprr
: hs* eps nvnix •:& rrxir vi rrrm K1? obvhi ri mm1? nan

^BC Comp. Dr. Baer, Appendix to the Psalms, p. 92.

Chap. II.
The Orthography.

Without going the full length of those who maintain
that the Hebrew Codex, from which the Septuagint was made,
had no matres lectiones at all,1 it is now established beyond
a doubt that the letters >inx commonly called quiescent
or feeble letters, have been gradually introduced into the
Hebrew text.2 It is, moreover, perfectly certain that the
presence or absence of these letters in our text in many
instances is entirely due to the idiosyncracy of the Scribes.

This is by no means the result of modern philology.
Jehudah Chayug, who flourished circa A. D. 1010 — 1040 and
who is described as the founder of Hebrew Grammar, already
states that the insertion or omission of the tnatres lectiones
has always been left to the discretion of the scribes, and
that this practice still obtained in his days.3

Still more emphatic is the declaration of Ibn Ezra
(1093 — 1167). He assures us that the choice of plenes and
defectives was entirely left to the judgment of individual
copyists, that some scribes wrote certain words plene

1 Comp. Lagarde: Anmerkungen zur griechischen Uebersetzung der
Proverbien, p. 4, Leipzig 1863.

2 Comp. Chwolson: Die Quiescentes in in der althebrdischcn Ortho-
graphie in the third International Congress of Orientalists, Vol. II, pp. 459,
474 and 478, St. Petersburg 1876.

3 Comp. Jehudah Chayug's Grammatical works edited by Leopold Dukes
in the BeUrdge zur GescJiichte der Adtesten Auslegung und Spracherkldrung
des Allen Testamentes von Ewald und Dukes, Vol. Ill, p. 22, Stuttgart 1844.

138 Introduction. |~C HA P. II.

when in their opinion the text ought to be made a little
clearer, and that others wrote the same words defective
when they wanted to economise space. His words are as
follows:

The sages of the Massorah evolved from their inner consciousness
reasons why some words are plene and some defective which, however, only
serves to satisfy the ignorant who seek reasons for the plenes and defectives.
Behold the scribe could not do otherwise than write plene when he wanted
to preclude the word from being mistaken for its homonym as for instance
' or defective when he wanted to be shorter. '-

The following examples will suffice to illustrate this fact.

X. -- The Massorah itself has catalogued various Lists
of words in which Aleph is still wanting. From these Lists,
which I have printed in the Massorah3 I extract a few
instances exhibiting words in their original form.

^nyp "I have found" (Numb. XI n) the only instance
of the preterite first person which has survived without
Aleph. In all the other 39 passages in which it occurs this
radical letter has uniformly been inserted.

*rWr "I came out" (Job I 21) which has not only Aleph
inserted in the only other place where it occurs in this
very book (Job III n), but also in all the other five
instances where it is to be found in the Hebrew Bible.4

V6o "/ am full" (Job XXXII 18) which has Aleph
inserted in the other two instances where it occurs (Jerem.
VI ii ; Micah III 8).

1 That is D^IP is plene and not C*?P defective which might be
mistaken for D"?£ ,thy ,O^P or cbf - D^T.

^ x^a1? D-a-iB a-n ."tartyi "xhnb c-orts ash* -K-C mean "asm 2

pn rn:1? -lEiea re pK n:n ,-icr6i nba1? DPI: c-rprc cnr -^PIK 's --1? icn

: mxp -pn 7'n>6 ncn nnr :x .ahw las nban ripnn xbv -iKr1? n^n CK K^a

:'T t)1 n"1112 nEC? editio Lippmann, Furth 1839.

3 Comp. The Massorah, letter K, §§ 14-18. Vol. I, pp. 9-12.

4 Comp. Numb. XXII 32; Jerem. XIV 18; XX 18; Prov. VII 15;
Dan. IX 22.

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 139

Tnftl "and she laid hold" (2 Sam. XX 9) in which the
Aleph has been inserted in the only other passage where
this form is to be found (Ruth III 15).

^fi^ttf "thy petition" (i Sam. I 17). Here too the Aleph
has been introduced in the other three places where this
form occurs (Esther V 6; VII 2; IX 12).

Still more striking is the case where the same phrase
occurs twice in the same book, once exhibiting the primitive
form without Aleph, and once with Aleph inserted.

Thus for instance Gen. XXV 24 "and behold DOffi
twins in her womb" without Aleph, and Gen. XXXVIII 27
"and behold D'alKfi twins in her womb" with Aleph.

Jeremiah VIII n "and they have healed }BT1 the
hurt" without Aleph at the end of the word, and Jeremiah
VI 14 "and they have healed IKBI.n the hurt" with Aleph
at the end of the word.

David's Hymn of Triumph which is recorded in
duplicate, once in 2 Sam. XXII and once in Psalm XVIII,
affords a striking illustration of this fact.. In the former the
phrase "for thon hast girded me" ^"Ttm with strength for
the battle'' (2 Sam. XXII 40) exhibits the primitive form
without Aleph, whilst in the latter "for thon hast girded ine
'3*ffKrn with strength for the battle" (Ps. XVIII 40) there
is already the insertion of the Aleph.

In the list of David's heroes, of which we have also a
duplicate, one in 2 Samuel XXIII, and one in Chronicles XI,
Nahari the Beerothite is mentioned. In the one place it is
Vftan the Berothite without Aleph (\ Chron. XI 39), whilst
in other it is 'fPIKan the Berothite (2 Sam. XXIII 37) with
Aleph already inserted.

The examples of the absence of Aleph which are duly
noticed by the Massorah are of a still more instructive
character when we consider the following instances:

14:0 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

"1JD in Gen. XXX n is according to the Massorah
1J 3 = "13 N3 a troop cometh. It will be seen that not only
are the two words written continuously, but that in separating
them Aleph has to be inserted by the direction of the Massorah.

The same is the case according to the testimony of
the Massorites in Jeremiah XVIII 3 where irttfTl is separated
into two words, i. e. M 3m [= Kin nSPllJ and behold he and
where He is omitted in the first word, and Aleph in the
second. The Massorah itself records that whilst the Aleph
was being inserted by one School of Massorites, another
School adhered in some instances to the more primitive
orthography.

Thus, for instance in Jerem. XXIX 22 the Western
School read snXDI = 3nX31 and like Ahab retaining the
ancient mode of spelling, whilst the Eastern School have
this form only in the Kethiv and inserted the second
Aleph in the Keri, viz. aKPlNIH.

The same is the case in Psalm CXXXIX 20 where
the Westerns read THO' without Aleph, and the Easterns
read "plOJO with Aleph.

These typical illustrations suffice to show that the
primitive forms have not all been superseded by the
fuller mode of spelling.

Many other instances of the absence of Aleph occur
throughout the text which have partially been obscured
by the Punctuators, who, by not recognising this fact have
so pointed the words in question as to assign them to
different roots. By a careful use of the ancient Versions,
however, which were made prior to the introduction of
the vowel-signs we are not unfrequently able to ascertain
the primitive orthography, as will be seen from the following
illustrations :

In Gen. IV 15 the text from which the Septuagint
was made had p^ (without Aleph} = p tf? "not so" and this

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 141

reading is supported by the context. Cain tells God in the
preceding verse that as a fugitive his life was in danger,
and that any one who chances to meet him will slay
him. Hereupon the Lord assures him in the verse before
us that this shall not be the case. Accordingly the correct
reading of the verse is: "And the Lord said unto him, it
shall not be so (p xb) whosoever &c."

In 2 Kings VII 17 we have the primitive form
"j^Bn = "Sf^pn = ^'pan "the messenger" without Aleph as is
attested by the Septuagint and the Syriac. The passage
ought accordingly to be translated "when the messenger came
down to him". This is corroborated by the statement in the
preceding chapter, viz. VI 33 Exactly the reverse is the case
in 2 Sam. XI i where the Massorah itself tells us that the
redactors of the text inserted Aleph into this very word,
converting (D'S^SH) "kings" into (D^pN^Sn) "messengers".

Ps. XXXIII 7 the Septuagint translates "He gathered
the waters of the sea together as in a bottle" 133 = 113 = "1X33.
This form, which occurs in Ps. CXIX 83 with Aleph, was
manifestly written here without Aleph, but was originally
pronounced in the same way, as is also attested by the
Chaldee and the Syriac as well as by the parallelism. The
Massorites, however, who supposed that there is a reference
here to the passage of the Red Sea (Exod. XV 8) pointed
it 133 and thus obscured its etymology.

According to the testimony of the Septuagint and the
Syriac, "pE?1? in Proverbs III 8 ought to be pointed
1*1?^ = I'INEft and the word in question exhibits the
primitive form without the Aleph. The passage, therefore,
ought to be translated:

"It shall be health to thy body
And marrow to thy bones."

This reading which restores the parallelism is now
adopted by most critics.

142 Introduction. [CHAP. II

In the process of supplying the Aleph, however, the
redactors of the text have not unfrequently inserted it
where the Massorites themselves tell us, it is superfluous.
Hence the Massorah has preserved different Lists of sundry
expressions, in which, by the direcion of the Massorites the
Aleph is to be cancelled.1

Thus for instance they state that pspn which occurs
twice in Exodus, viz. V 7 and IX 28 has in the first
passage a superfluous Aleph, and this is corroborated by the
fact that in the only other two places where this form
occurs (Gen. XLIV 23; Deut. XVII 16) it has no Aleph.

The same is the case in 2 Sam. XI 24 D^JOlan 1ST!
"and the shooters shot" where the Aleph, according to the
Massorah, has superfluously been inserted in both words, and
this is confirmed by a reference to 2 Chronicles XXXV 23,
where this phrase occurs again without the Alc/^/i.

These again must be taken as simply typical instances.
Other examples may easily be gathered from the ancient
Versions of which the following is a striking illustration,
where Aleph has been inserted in 112C3 rock making it IX^lp
neck Ps. LXXV 6. The Septuagint exhibits the primitive
form without the Aleph and the passage ought accordingly
to be translated:

"Do not exalt your horn toward heaven
Nor speak arrogantly of the Rock."
X and y. - The same vicissitudes to which the feeble
Aleph was subject, are also traceable in the soft Ayin. Very
frequently it was riot expressed in the primitive forms. This
orthography is still exhibited in the name ^3 Bel = ^3
Baal which has survived in three instances (Isa. XL VI i;
Jerem. L 2; LI 44) apart from compound proper names,
and in the particle of entreaty '3 = ^I?3 / pray, 0! The

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter K, §§ 17, 18, Vol.1, pp. u, 12.

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 143

Massorah itself tells us that npttttl (Amos VIII 8) stands

for nrptfri.

According to the testimony ot the ancient Versions
121?, in Ps. XXVIII 8, is the primitive form of 1SJ^, "to
His people". This is attested by the Septuagint, the Syriac
and the Vulgate as well as by several MSS., and the parallel
passage in Ps. XXIX n. Accordingly the verse is to be
translated:

"Jehovah is strength to His people

And He is the saving strength to His anointed."

And it is now admitted by the best critics that 133 in
Micah I 10 stands for 133 = 13P3 the maritime city in the
territory of Asher (Comp. Judg. I 31). Accordingly Micah
I 10 reads:

"Declare it not at Gath

Weep not at Accho

In the house of Aphrah roll thyself in the dust."

This explains the otherwise inexplicable passage in
Hosea VII 6. Here ftP' simply exhibits the primitive
orthography, ftf» — ftfjj», and DHDX is to be pointed DHQX
as is attested by the Chaldee and the Syriac. Accordingly the
passage is to be translated:

"their anger smoketh all night." !

This not only relieves the verse, but agrees with the
context and parallelism.

Owing to their similarity in pronunciation and most
probably also to the similarity of their form in ancient
times 2 the redactors of the text, in supplying these two

' Comp. Deut. XXIX 19 and W. Robertson Smith in the Journal of
Philology. Vol. XVI, p. 72, London and Cambridge 1888.

2 That the X and y like the 3 and 3 the 1 and ' &c. must have been
similar in form in olden times is evident form the following caution given in
the Talmud to the Scribes pB2 pB2 fTl'S .J'B^K pri? ]VS f'B1?** Sin2' *6u'
J 'Ijn pn'3 Comp. Sabbath 103 b.

144 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

letters, have not unfrequently interchanged them. Hence
we have tyft to be rejected as polluted with Ayin in
2 Sam. I 21, and ^M3 with Alepli in Zeph. Ill i.

3M10 despised with 4y*» Isa. XLIX 7, and SXHQ with
.-1 /£/?/* Amos VI 8.

In Ps. LXXVI 8 it is -]'DK ?N — ft the power of thine
anger, and Ps. XC 1 1 "pQX ft.

Hosea VII 6 D31N3 is now regarded by some of the
best critics to stand for D2 "IP3, whilst imp Ps. XXXV i s

T •• ' : | T

is taken for 1X"lf5 "they cry out". Professor Cheyne, who
adopts this rendering, did not even deem it necessary
to notice the fact that it is with Ayin in the Massoretic text,
and that without this interchange of letters it denotes to
rend asunder. The Massorah has preserved sundry Lists of
words in which Alepli stands for Ayin and vice versa.1

il. — The greatest peculiarities exhibited in the ortho-
graphy of the Hebrew text are connected with the letter
He. The Massorah catalogues a number of Lists of words
which ought to have He at the beginning; and vice versa, of
words which have a superfluous He, and which, according
to the Massorah ought to be cancelled;2 words which want
He in the middle, and vice versa, words which have a super-
fluous He in the middle,11 as well as of words which have
a superfluous He at the end, and which the Massorites
condemn.4

Of great orthographical and lexical importance, more-
over, are the Lists containing sundry words throughout
the Hebrew Scriptures, in which this letter is interchanged

' Comp. The Massorah, letter K, § 514, Vol. I, p. 57; letter P, §§ 352,
360 &c.; Vol. II, p. 390.

2 Comp. The Massorah, letter Tt, § 9. Vol. I, p. 256.

3 The Massorah, letter H, §§ 26—28, Vol. I, pp. 268, 269.

4 The Massorah, letter H, §§ 33, 34, Vol. I, pp. 269, 270.

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 145

with the letter Alepli, and with the letter Vav, and vice
versa. '

These Massoretic Lists, however important as they
assuredly are, by no means exhaust all the passages. They
simply exhibit typical examples which may easily be
multiplied from the ancient Versions. Without attempting
to analyse the import of all the passages tabulated by the
Massorites, I will point out the influence which the intro-
duction of the He into the text has exercised both upon
the orthography and the sense by adducing a few illu-
strations.

I shall quote first a few passages from the parallel
records of the same event, narrated both in 2 Samuel V 9,
VII 9 and i Chronicles XI 7, XVII 8 inasmuch as there
can be no room for doubt here about the diversity of
orthography in identically the same phrases, recording
identically the same occurrence.

In 2 Sam. V 9 it is, "and David dwelt mtfSS in the

-!•.:-

castle and he called her- the city of David": whereas in
i Chron. XI 7 it is, "and David dwelt 1X03 in the castle;
therefore they called him 3 the city of David." There can,
therefore, be no doubt that the primitive form was
1¥,!32 = = rn¥$3 the feminine. The redactor of Samuel who
inserted the He, in accordance with the later mode of
spelling, pointed it rn¥S3 feminine, whilst the redactor of
Chronicles retained the primitive form without the He, and
hence pointed it 1^3, which is masculine. It will be seen that
this diversity of orthography necessitated also a change in
the gender of the pronominal suffix, third person singular.
This was more easily effected since it required no alteration

1 The Massorah, letter N, §§ 35, 47, 49, Vol I, pp. 270, 272, 273.

- rTT> i. e. the castle, which is feminine.

3 Here the castle is in the masculine and hence I1?, the masculine suffix.

146 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

in the letters, inasmuch as according to the ancient ortho-
graphy the He stood also for the suffix, third person mas-
culine. It was necessary only to pronounce it H*? in the
one case, and fl*? in the other.

In 2 Samuel VII 9 it is "and I have cast off (nn-ON1)
all thine enemies", whereas in the parallel passage
i Chronicles XVII 8, where the same event is recorded,
it is "and I have cut off (nnSNl) all thine enemies". This
diversity of spelling is manifestly due to the fact that in
the primitive text it was simply D1DX1, which the redactor
of Samuel resolved into nrnDNfl by adding He at the end,
whilst the redactor of Chronicles, demurring to this
unique form, resolved it into JV'lDN'l by inserting Yod in the
middle, thus making it conformable to the other three
instances where this Hiphil future first person singular
occurs.1

The absence of He in the primitive text explains a
variation in the present text which affects the translation.

In -2 Sam. XXIV 13 it is "or wilt thon flee (fD2J three
months before thine enemies?", whereas in i Chron. XXI 12
it is "or wilt thon be destroyed (HSp:) three months before
thine enemies". Originally the text was in both passages IDS,
without He, which was afterward introduced into Chronicles
by the redactor. It was a copyist, who at a later period
mistook 3 for D, as is evident from the Septuagint and
the Vulgate which still have ?jp:.

In Jeremiah XXIII 5 it is "I will raise unto David
(p^X HQ3C) a righteous branch" , whereas in the parallel
passage in the same book, it is "I will cause to grow
up unto David (Hfy'Tif l"!2¥ ' the branch of righteousness"
(\ \ XIII 15). The diversity in identically the same phrase, i-,
however easily explained. The text originally had simply pl^

<'omp. I Sam. II 33; Nahum I 14; Zech. XIII 2.

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 147

in both passages which the redactors of Jeremiah resolved,
in one place into |TT¥ = npT12C, and in the other into
jTT3C = p^Ttf. In tne one case they appended He (it), in
accordance with the later mode of spelling, and in the
other they inserted Yod 0) in the middle of the word, just
as they introduced the same letter into the middle of the
word in i Chron. XVII 8.

The Massorah registers instances where the He is
omitted at the end of the word, in the preterite third
person feminine. It states, for example, that in Gen. XIX 23,
Jerem. XL VIII 45, and Dan. VIII 9 xjp stands for
X2P = nxiP.1 But here again the passages must simply be
regarded as typical, since according to the testimony of
the ancient Versions other instances still existed where
this primitive orthography obtained, which are not
recognised by the Massorah. Another instance where X2T
stands for X2P = nX2T is 2 Sam. XX 8 which according
to the testimony of the Septuagint ought to be read
^Dm nX2T Xini "and it (i. e. the sword) came out and fell".

That in Gen. XXIX 34 xip stood for Kip = fl*nj3
"she called" is evident from the Samaritan and the Septuagint.

It is equally certain from the Samaritan, the Septuagint
and the Syriac that 1^> in Gen. XL VI 22 was read T^» =

J T : T

iTT^ "she bore".

The He was even omitted at the end when it was
suffix third person singular feminine, e. g. C^X =iW''X "her
husband" 2 Sam. Ill 15 as is attested by the Septuagint,
the Chaldee, the Syriac and the Vulgate, and is accepted
by the best critics.

I have already adverted to the fact that the suffix
third person singular masculine was written with He in the
primitive text instead of Vav, and that the Massorah itself

Comp. The Mas.sortjh, letter >, § 472, Vol. I, p. 731.

148 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

gives a List of words which have not been made conform-
able to the later orthography. In all these instances the
Massorah carefully directs that the words in question are
to be read with Vav instead of He.1 There was, however, a
difference of opinion in some of the Schools whether the
He in certain words expressed the suffix third person
singular feminine or masculine. A notable instance of it
we have in nnXSS Levit. I 16. The School of Massorites
which our recensions exhibit, resolved it into nn¥i3,

T T :'

whereas the School of textual critics exhibited in the
Samaritan and Septuagint read it i"iri¥iJ2.

\ — Far more arbitrary is the presence or absence of
the letter Vav as a vowel-sign in the middle of the word.
Even at the end of a verb the 1, which according to the
present orthography is uniformly used in the preterite
third person plural and the future third person masculine
plural, was not unfrequently absent in the primitive forms.
This is attested by the Massorah which gives a List of
preterites third person plural, and futures third person
masculine plural without Vav at the end2 and has given
rise to various readings. When the letter in question was
being gradually introduced into the text, a difference of
opinion obtained in the ancient Schools, whether certain
forms were singular or plural. A striking illustration of
this fact is to be seen in the duplicate Psalm, viz. XIV
and LIII. In the former the concluding verse is "Oh that
from Zion were come (fiSW') the salvation of Israel",
whereas in the duplicate it is "Oh that from Zion were
come (nlJNZ7>) the salvations of Israel". It will be seen that in
the one the noun is in the singular, whereas in the other
the Vav is inserted to make it plural. That this, however,

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter H, §§ 47, 48, Vol. I, pp. 272, 273.

2 Comp. The Massorah, letter % § 146, Vol. I, p 422.

€HAP. II.] The Orthography. 149

was the opinion of one School, and that another School
read it in the singular in both places is evident from
many MSS. as well as from the Septuagint and the Syriac.

In David's Hymn of Triumph of which there is a
duplicate, viz. 2 Sam. XXII and Ps. XVIII, we have
another striking illustration of the difference which obtained
in the Schools as to whether the Vav is to be inserted
or not. This difference which is not observed in the Autho-
rised Version, is exhibited in verse 26. In 2 Sam. XXII 26
it is "with (D'On 113;!) the upright hero, thou wilt shew
thyself upright", whereas in the parallel passage in
Ps. XVIII 26 it is "with (D'Bfi 133) the upright man
thou wilt shew thyself upright". The primitive ortho-
graphy was in both passages 133, without the Vav, but
the redactors of Samuel read it 133 hero, and hence inserted
the Vav to indicate this reading, whilst the redactors of
the Psalter read it 133 man of, and hence declined to
insert the Vav.

I shall now give a few typical examples of the
absence of the Vav at the end, in plural verbs, according
to the testimony of the ancient Versions, though not
recognised by the Massorah. Both in Gen. XXXV 26 and
XLVI 27 1^ stands for 1^ = VT^' were born the plural.
This is the reading of several MSS., the Samaritan and
the Septuagint, and in the former passage also of Onkelos,
Jonathan, the Syriac and the Authorised Version and is
undoubtedly the correct reading.

In Exod. XVIII 1 6 X3 stands for X3 = 1X3 they come.
This is attested by the Septuagint and is adopted in the
Authorised Version.

In Numb. XXXIII 7 3t?n is 3ttf»l = latfn and they
turned again as is evident from the Samaritan and the
context and is rightly exhibited in the Authorised
Version.

150 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

Whilst in Deut. XXXII 38 »,T is »iT == ViT te/
be, as is attested by Onkelos, the Samaritan, the Septuagint,
the Syriac, and the Vulgate. This is also exhibited in the
Authorised Version.

\ — The same want of uniformity is exhibited in the
present text with regard to the presence or absence of
the letter Yod, as a vowel sign, for Chirek and T~ere in
identically the same forms, thus showing that originally it
was absent altogether, and that its insertion was gradual.
The Massorah itself testifies to this fact inasmuch as it
catalogues Lists of words in which the Yod has not been
inserted after Chirek.^ Here again the Massorah must be
regarded as simply giving typical instances. The parallel
passages in the Massoretic text itself furnish far more
striking examples.

Thus for instance in Josh. XXI, where the cities of
refuge are described, it is in verse 15 nCHJQ'nxi f^h DN1
"and Holon with her suburbs", whereas in i Chron. VI 43,
where we have identically the same description it is TINT
WljavlKI f^n "and Hilen with her suburbs". It is evident
that originally the text had simply f^fl, which was pro-
nounced in some Schools j^h Cholon, and in other Schools
f^n Cliilen, and to mark this pronunciation, the latter
inserted the Yod. This very description also furnishes an
illustration of the gradual introduction of the Yod in
plural nouns with the suffix third person singular feminine.
With the exception of Josh. XXI 13, 40 HtP'lJQ her suburbs
is without the Yod in all the forty- three times in this chapter;
whereas in the parallel description in i Chron. VI 40 — 66
it is without exception iTChjQ with Yod in all the forty-
one instances. This primitive orthography has given rise
to differences of opinion with regard to the import of

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter i, §§ 17—19, Vol I, p. 678.

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 151

certain nouns, as is evident from nms in Numb. VIII 4.
The School of Massorites which has been followed by the
redactors of our text regarded it as a singular with the
suffix third person singular feminine and hence pointed it
nrns her flower. But the School which is represented by
the Samaritan and the Septuagint took it as a plural, i. e.
nrns = 'TCH? ^er fl°wers> an(^ tins is now accepted as the
perferable reading by some of the best critics.

In i Kings XXII 35 it is "and the king was (1320)
stayed up in his chariot", whereas in the parallel passage
in 2 Chron. XVIII 34 which gives identically the same
description, it is "and the king of Israel (TQJJB) stayed
himself up in his chariot". Originally the text in both
passages had natftt, which the redactors of Kings pro-
nounced "Tfttftt, whilst the redactors of Chronicles pronounced
it *7PPE. To mark this difference in the pronunciation, the
latter School of Massorites introduced the Yod.

In Jeremiah VI 15 it is "neither could they X*? D^?n
1J7T blush", whereas in the parallel passage in VIII 12,
where the same phrase occurs, it is 1PT X1? D^ani. Originally
both passages read D^3i"T, which one School pronounced
D^DH and the other D/3H, and marked the difference by
inserting the Yod.

A noticeable instance where the absence of Yod in the
primitive text has given rise to a difference of interpre-
tation is to be found in Exod. XXXV 21, 22. In both
these verses, which begin with 1X3'!, the redactors of the
present text regarded it as the Kal and hence pointed it
IJQ'1 "and they came".

It is, however, evident from the Samaritan and the
Septuagint that in the School which these ancient autho-
rities followed, it was regarded as the Hiphil, i. e. }JCJ1
"and they brought", a reading which is now accepted by
some of the best critics especially as this identical form

152 Introduction, [CHAP. II.

without the Yod has still survived in no fewer than thirteen
instances.1

In the plural termination for the masculine gender
which is now D' - the Yod was originally not expressed.
The primitive orthography has still survived in a consi-
derable number of words especially in the Pentateuch.
Apart from the forms which occur only once ~ I adduce
the following words which have retained the original
spelling in one instance and which are to be found in
other passages with the Yod inserted: Dllllp. inciiscrrants
(Gen. XXIV 35), QQin twins (XXV 24), Qjnto brandies
(XL 10), D33^ lice (Exod. VJII 12), Dttftcn ami captain*
(XIV 7), D^X3 among the gods (XV 1 i), QTB^n the light-
nings (XX 1 8), aasn doubled (XXVI 24), DKfettrn ami the
rulers (XXXV 27), D*inl3n thai were left (Levit. X 16),
OTJJ'tr^ unto the he goats or satyrs (XVII 7), Djlnrn and
those that pitch (Numb. II 12), D»»n the days (VI 5), D}':^
and as thorns (XXXIII 55).

That these simply exhibit the instances which have
escaped the process of uniformity, is evident from the
ancient Versions. These Versions not only shew that there
were many other passages in which the Yod was originally
absent, but that a difference of opinion obtained in the
Schools as to whether the Mem in certain cases denoted the
plural, or the suffix third person plural masculine. It is
evident that in Jerem. VI 15 it was originally D^DSD, which
one School read D^D35 "among them that fall" and hence,
to mark this reading inserted the Yod, i. e. 0^033, whilst

1 Comp. Numbers XXX 12, 54; Judg. XXI 12; I Sam. 1 25; V 2;
VII l; 2 Sam. IV 8; VI 17; XXIII 16; I Kings I 3; VIII 6; IX 2,S;
I Chron. I 1 8. Comp. The Massorah, letter ~, § 181, Vol. I, p. 175.

-' Dtt-Vg naked (Gen. Ill 7), Ctrt:'?' C— C;X Ashnriin cinJ Lettish! in
(XXV 3), CO'n hot springs (XXXVJ 24). Cr-flfi they offer (Levit. XXI 6),
C:"EXE Cr:'N ye did not believe iDeut. I 32) C^'rCS .s //'<»// niin (XXXII 2).

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 153

another School read it 0^023 and rendered it they shall utterly
fall when tliey do fall, so the Septuagint. The same is the
case in verse 29 of this very chapter. Here the original
spelling was Dim, which one School read DPTI and, therefore,
inserted the Yod, and another School read it Dim Hence

T T:

the rendering of the Septuagint novviQia avr&v ot)x iraxr}

their wickedness has not melted away or consumed --

•sffi: & Dim

In Jer. XVII 25 the primitive text had DD1D31, which
some resolved into DDIDDI and on horses and marked their
reading by introducing the Yod, whilst others, as is evident
from the Septuagint, xccl innois avrtbv, read it DDID^l
and on their horses.

So too in Ezek. VII 24, the original spelling was
manifestly D?P which some read DW the strong, and
afterwards fixed this reading by inserting the Yod, while
others read it DIP their strength. This is followed by the
Septuagint which renders it TO fp^vay^a. ffjg i6%vos a^r&r
the boasting of their strength = D-JI/* fliO and this is the phrase
which is to be found in XXIV 21.

According to the same testimony Ps. LVIII 12 had
originally DEQtP, which was pronounced DJSCfe^ i- e God is
judge by one School, and by another School DEOltf their
judge, Septuagint o fte bg XQIVCOV avrovg God that judgeth them,
which is now accepted by some critics as the correct reading.

The most striking illustration, however, of the absence
of the Yod plural in the primitive text is to be found in
Job XIX 1 8 where ^ ilDKD D>f?^y is rendered by the
Septuagint slg rbv di&vd (is KitenoiYfiavro = ^2 1DXS D^l^ for
ever they rejected me", thus showing that the text from
which this version was made, had simply D^IJJ, which
one School resolved into D^IP young children and fixed
this pronunciation by the insertion of the two Yods, whilst
the other School read it D^Ttf ever.

154 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

The same was the case with the Yod at the end of
words denoting- the plural construct. According to the
Eastern School of Massorites y&i in Judg. I 2 1 stands for
ytf* — '32^ tlie inhabitants of, whilst the Westerns read it
"2^ the inhabitant of in the singular.

Both the Eastern and Western Schools of Massorites
agree that T in 2 Kings XII 12 stands for V = ^T the
hands of, the plural, whilst the Massorah on 2 Kings XVII 3 1
remarks that n^K stands for rl^X = Yt^N the gods of, and
that ttKI Neh. XII 46 stands for «ftn = nftn chiefs of.1

This fact explains a number of conflicting readings
which the present text exhibits in parallel passages. Thus
in 2 Sam. V 6 it is p»p| 3t?1s 'Wfl the Jebusites flic
inhabitant of the land in the singular, and in i Chron. XI 4
i;jEr >D13\"T the Jebusites the inhabitants of the land in
the plural. The text had originally Dttf' in both places, one
School pronounced it yD^ and inserted a Vav, i. e. 2£'1%
whilst the other pronounced it yD^ = '!!#' and inserted a YnJ.

In the parallel passage, which describes the conduct
of Ahaziah, we are told in 2 Kings VIII 27 that he walked
HI"!** rP3 ^Tl.2 in tne way °f tne house of Ahab, the
singular and in 2 Chron. XXII 3 that he walked ITS ^"ns
3SHX in the ways of the house of Ahab in the plural. Both
passages had originally 3112, which one School pronounced
Tn3, and the other 3TT2 and appended the Yod to mark
this pronunciation.

The same is the case in 2 Kings XVIII 28, and
Isa. XXXVI 13, where identically the same description is
given, yet in the one passage it is ^VTJin "^Qmin IV^V
"Hear the word of the great king'' the singular and in the
other ^run "l^an nrnviX 1J?Or "Hear the words of the great
king" the plural. The primitive text in both places was

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter ', § 28, Vol. I, p. 681.

CHAP. 11.] The Orthography. 155

, which one School pronounced "HI, and the other
and hence appended the Yod to mark this pronunciation.

In some passages the different solutions of the
original spelling simply resulted in the difference of
orthography without affecting the sense at all. Thus in
the description of the solemn covenant which Josiah made
with the elders and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, we are
told in 2 Kings XXIII 3 that he pledged them fO^1?
miT "inx "to walk after the Lord", and in 2 Chron. XXXIV 3 1
where identically the same description is given, it is
'"11 rV ^HX ro^, thus showing that the primitive IflX was
pronounced in the one School IflX and in the other
"ins = r 'inN; and though this is the plural construct it
denotes exactly the same thing.

In other places, however, the different solutions of
the primitive orthography on the part of the Scribes
produced a marked difference in the sense in the parallel
passages, and it is sometimes difficult to decide which of
the two readings is to be preferred. Thus, in the ad-
monition which Gedaliah gives to the captains of the
army and to their people, he tells them, according to
2 Kings XXV 24 D'ltwn H3J?0 IKTrr^X "Fear not
because of the servants of the Chaldees", and in Jerem. XL 9,
where the same event is recorded, it is "IlDPE IXTn-^N
DHtPDPl "fear not to serve the Chaldeans". The variation
is easily explained. The primitive orthography in both
passages was "TDJJfi, which was resolved by the redactors
of Kings into "DJJE and they marked this reading by
appending the Yod, i. e. HSPE, whereas the redactors of
Jeremiah resolved it into "QJJtt and fixed this reading by
inserting the Vav, i. e. "jtoPE. The latter is more in harmony
with the context. The Septuagint, however, shews that in
the text which they had before them it was "T3PO
in both places.

156 Introduction. [CHAP. II.

The arbitrary treatment to which the orthography was
subject, due to the gradual introduction of the quiescent
letters, and to the expression of the different manner
of reading some words in the vowelless text was not
remedied by the rules which obtained in the Talmudic
period with regard to the matres lectiones. This will be
seen from the following canon:

Three mistakes [in each Column] may be corrected, but if there are
four the Codex must be buried. It is propounded: If the Codex has one
correct column it saves the whole Codex. R. Isaac b. Martha said in the
name of Rab if the greater part of the Codex is correct. Said Abayi to
R. Joseph if the Codex has three mistakes in one column what is to be
done? He replied. It must be given to be corrected and it is right. This
[i. e. the duty to correct it] is applicable to defectives only [i. e. when
plenes have been written defective], but in the case of plenes [i. e. when
plenes have been written instead of defectives] we need not trouble about it.

That is, when this is the case, no duty devolves
upon the Scribe to have the Codex corrected. (Mena-
choth 29 b.)1

According to this rule, therefore, to write a plene
defective, is a serious mistake which may be corrected
when only three such mistakes occur in one column, but
when there are four, the Codex must be surrendered to
the Geniza.z This canon, however, does not apply to cases
of a reverse nature. No serious mistake is committed when
defectives have been written plene. The result of this

pnr -rx ,T^r "?r nSxo na-'w nnx *p '2 B" ex x:n .nr "t ,prr r'rtr i

2*6 "ax "TX .TEST K'ECT m'n rren XTT sin rrara xma ns "?x:ac ~c

•3m fprra •rprvK1? rrrrrxi "rx^n "rx ,-xa r-ya vhv pp xnrc rrx •« *]C"

.::": niroia *.ra ]b r\'h n^"T' *?-« mi'cn •*?%

2 Maimonides describes the Gcniza as follows: 'TCSIC IK H1?-^ ri"C

in;':: in D'osn 'Ta"?n bxx imx ""flipi cin %l?:r T-X pn': a Codex of the

Law which is decayed or is rendered riltially illegal is to be put into an
earthen vessel and buried by the side of sages, and this constitutes its
Geniza. (Hilchoth Sepher Thorah X 3).

CHAP. II.] The Orthography. 157

rule was that when the Scribe was in doubt whether a
word is to be written plene or defective he naturally
wrote it plene since he thereby committed no mistake
even if the word in question ought properly to have been
written defective.1 This explains the fact that so many
cases of plene have with impunity crept into the MSS.
Hence in weighing the evidence, the benefit of the doubt
is generally to be given to the defective, though this
reading is numerically supported by fewer MSS. and
editions.

1 A very able article on the gradual development of the matres
lectiones in the Bible and on the Rabbinic law respecting it by Dr. Bardo-
wicz is given in the Monatssclirift filr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des
Jitdenthtims. Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 117—121; 157—166. Breslau 1894.

Chap. III.
The Division of Words.

From the fact that both in the Inscription of Mesha
and of Siloam the words are separated by a point, whilst
in the Inscriptions on gems and coins, as well as those in
Phoenician, there is generally no such separation, it is
fairly concluded that originally the words were not strictly
divided and that the process of division like that of the
scriptio plena was of gradual development. This derives
confirmation from the Massorah and the ancient Versions.

The Massorah gives two Lists of words which, accord-
ing to the School of Massorites whence they emanate,
ought to be differently divided. The first List catalogues
fifteen instances in which the text exhibits single words
whereas they ought each to be divided into two separate
words. The second List gives eight passages in which words
exhibit examples of a contrary nature. These words have
been wrongly divided into two, and' the Massorah directs that
they should respectively be read as one word.1 These words
are duly noticed as the official Keris, or various readings
in the margin of the Bible in the places where they occur.

Here, however, as is often the case with other Mas-
soretic Rubrics, the instances are simply to be regarded
as typical, or are to be taken as passages recognised by
the particular School which formulated the Lists in ques-
tion. That other Schools of textual critics had different and
longer Lists is evident both from the Massorah itself and the
ancient Versions. Thus according to the ordinarily received
Massoretic text i Kings XX 33 13£Bn ICS^rPl is the proper
division of these two words, and hence this passage is not

• Comp. The Massorah, letter r, §§ 482, 483, Vol. II. p. 54.

CHAP. III.]

The Division of Words.

159

included in the Lists, but we now know from MSS. that
the Easterns had divided them into W£S niB^fTI.

A careful comparison of the Septuagint with the
present Hebrew text undoubtedly shows that in the text
which the Greek translators had before them, there were
many more passages in which the words were otherwise
divided. In the following table I indicate some of the
passages in the order of the books in which they occur.

Original Text

The division in the
ancient Versions

Massoretic Division

I Sam. I 24

tt6trai23

K'V'tt'a ~i£2

ntfbv B'iaa

Septuagint and Syriac.

XIV 21

EJ133B ' E: 133D

B31 3'3D

Septuagint Syriac.

2 Sam. XXI I

B'ainn"3

D'ai nh'2

D'ain n1?

Sept.

Jerem. XXIII 33

Krananx

KBNsn anK

Kt'a-na-nK

Sept. Vulg. Rashi.

Ezek. XLVIIIii

'33aunpan "33 B'tripan

Chaldee, Sept. Syriac.

'33a tfipan

Hos. VI 5

"mGPfeWBtDl

ilK3 'psrai

UK Yp.Btfai

Chaldee, Sept. Syriac.

XI 2

Brr3sa an '3Ea

DI^*J— *•*

Sept. Syriac.

Ps. XI i

B2iH

las = a? 1,1

C»^i^

Chaldee, Sept. Svriac,
Vulg.

XVI 3

'i'iKinans:ix2 : = "> I'iKna nanic

"T^l '""r^1 n^?

nin' '

Septuagint.

„ LV 20

2uvia3in

2r" lajr11'

3D'1 D3J71

Sept. Syriac.

LXXI 3

nTQCT2MnK137

nmxa n"3^

n"?3f Tan Kisb

Sept. Vulg. Comp.
Ps. XXXI 3.

LXXV 2

"]a^2iipi

'^a^S K11|51 = 11151

•?iau? 311^1

Sept. Syr. \rulg. Comp.
Ps. XCIX 6.

„ LXXVI 7

B1D1321iai13

DID '321 lail?

B1B1 3211 D113

Sept, Syr. Vulg.

„ LXXXV 9

nbcabisur^Ki

nb B31? '3D ^Kl

T : ' i T :

Sept. Vulg.

Prov. XIV 13

nnatrnn'inKi

nna&n n-inxi

nnar nn'inKi

Chald. Sept. Syr. Vulg.

100 Introduction. [CHAP. 111.

These are simply typical instances. I adduce them
because they are now regarded as exhibiting more faith-
fully the original text than the Massoretic division, and
are adopted by some of the best Biblical critics. And
though I fully agree with their opinion I have adopted
these readings in the marginal notes only, on account of
my principle not to introduce any change in the body of
the Massoretic text itself. They are preceded in my notes
by the abbreviation *?"¥ = fivr6 T"l¥ // ought to be so, i. e. it is
the correct reading wherever the ancient Versions con-
firm such a re-division of the words.

There are, however, other passages where the context
suggests a re-division of some of the words, which most
accurate and most conscientious critics have not hesitated
to adopt, though they are not supported by the ancient
Versions. Thus for instance the last word in Gen. XLIX 19
and the first word in verse 20 which are in the Massoretic
text "11PKJ3 «3pP and which were originally "ItPXQDpI? are
re-divided into *lt9*X ID3J3IJ. This not only obviates the

•• T T I" -: <f

harshness of the construction and removes the anomaly
of "IttfX Asher alone beginning" with the preposition Mem
when all the other tribes begin without it, but yields an
excellent sense

"Gad, a troop shall press upon him,
But he shall press upon their heels;
Asher, his bread shall be etc."

The Revisers who have also taken over the Mem from
the beginning of the next verse have translated it doubly,
as the suffix to 3pJ? heel and the proposition of ItPN Asher.

i Kings XIX 2 1 is translated both in the Authorised
Version and in the Revised Version boiled their flesh. This
is simply an expedient to get over the difficulty in the
text which as it now stands means he boiled than the Jlcsh.

CHAP. III.] The Division 'of Words. 161

There is hardly any doubt that the primitive orthography
was ItwnO^ED and ought to be divided "lfe?an£ !?#3 he boiled
some of the flesh.

In Isa. IX 2, as the text now stands one hemistich
contradicts the other, inasmuch as it says:

"Thou hast multiplied the nation,
Thou hast not increased the joy.
They joy before Thee according to the joy &c."

The official Keri, which substitutes the relative pro-
noun 1% to him, for the negative ^7 not, and which the
Revised Version follows, is evidently due to a desire to
remove this contradiction at the sacrifice of the idiom
which requires that it should follow and not precede the
verb. All difficulty, however, disappears and the rhythm
of the passages is restored when we bear in mind that
the original orthography was xVjH = H^aPI which has
been wrongly divided into two words and the mater lec-
tionis Vav was introduced to mark this reading. The passage
ought, therefore, to be rendered:

"Thou hast multiplied their joy

Thou hast increased their rejoicing

They joy before Thee according to the joy in harvest,

And as men rejoice when they divide the spoil." '

Ps. LXVIII 1 8, which describes Jehovah's march
to transfer His throne from Sinai to the Sanctuary, is
obscured in the present text. In endeavouring to impart
sense to the passage, the Authorised Version renders the
second clause:

"The Lord is among them, as in Sinai in the holy
place."

1 It ought to be mentioned that the late Professor Selwyn in his
Horae Hebraicae, p. 27, Cambridge 1848, has come to the same conclusion.

162 Introduction. [CHAP. III.

The difficulty is not removed in the Revised Version
which has it:

"The Lord is among them, as in Sinai in the Sanctuary",
with the marginal note "Or Sinai is the Sanctuary".

The sense is perfectly plain when we resort to the
primitive orthography where it was '3'DQD = '3'pO = 3, i- e.

"The Lord hath come from Sinai into the Sanctuary."

For an exact parallel, where the Aleph is omitted in
such cases in the primitive orthography, see Gen. XXX 1 1 ;
and comp. above p. 140.

For these examples there is no support from the ancient
Versions, but they are suggested by the context and sense;
and Biblical critics are more or less unanimous in accept-
ing them. I have, therefore, given them in the marginal
notes preceded by the abbreviation V'3 = ^ n&O3 it appears
to me, I am of opinion, in contradistinction to those which
have the support of the Versions and are preceded by
*?"¥ it ought to be. They are designed to aid the student,
who can either accept or reject them.

Chap. IV.
The Double or Final letters.

The fact that the Hebrew Scriptures were originally
written in the ancient Hebrew or Phoenician characters,
and that this alphabet has no final letters, shows beyond
doubt that the double letters were gradually developed
after the introduction of the present square characters.
The Massorah itself has preserved two Lists of variants
which presuppose the non-existence of the double letters.
These Lists record instances where the text reads one
word and the margin reads two words; and vice versa,
passages in which the text has two words and the margin
one word. From these Lists1 I subjoin the following
examples in the order of the books in which they occur:

Text

Margin

i Sam.

IX i

pa' pa

pa-:Da

xxiv 9 ' myan ja

myana

2 Sam.

xxi 12 DTircbsn DP

DTUP^S nap

Isa.

ix 6 ; rcn cb

m-ob

job xxxvin i mrcn;a

,-nycn ja

XL 6 mpD:o

myo fa

Lament.

16 rc ja

nsa

Neh.

ii 13 1 D'mean

D'ms on •

i Chron

. XXVII 12

waafe

Tfi" p1?

These variants could not possibly have obtained if
the final letters had existed.

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter 5, §§ 482, 483, Vol II, p. 54-

164 Introduction. [CHAI-. IV.

It is moreover certain that the translators of the
Septuagint had no knowledge of these final letters. This
is attested by numerous passages in this Version from
which I select the following instances:

Septuagint

Alassiiretii-Tcxt

Gen. XXVIII 19

Oi>J.u[i/i.ov£ ^ tl^a^lK

Tib C^'K

Numb. XXXIV n

ana — sitfpaiutf) Btjin = nSa IGEtt'tt

n^ann DEiria

2 Kings 11 14

arptpcb = K1HEK

Kin PI«

Jerem. XXXI 8

tv £OQr7] = *iyiaa

mr na

Hos. VI 5

xai TO XfJt'/ia (iov tog qpwg =^ "11K2 "tOBlTSI

TIK 7BBW01

N.i hum I 12

xuTKfi^wv i'SixTcov = C'Q 'rC'a

ra^tr ex

Zeph. Ill 19

tv aol i-'vi-xi-v aov = "j'JPO1? "]riK

1"3pa ^3 nx

Zech. XI 7

ftp T^/y Xavuavltiv = "riS1?

":r js1?

Ps. XLIV 5

6 ^fds (iov 6 tvTsMfievog = maco "nbs

mac D'n'pK

LXIV 7

f&QfvvcbvTes f^fQfvvr'jafL = ITEn CU*En

trsntt u*sn

Prov. XII 4

nma ppa

rniaacpa

Neh. VII 34

'Htefm^ = TKB^P

inn c'rp

The fact, therefore, that the ancient translators fre-
quently read the same consonants as one word which the
present text reads as two words, in cases where the last
letter of the first word is one of the five final letters, shows
conclusively that these final letters did not exist at the
time when the Septuagint version was made. With a text
before them in which one form of a letter was used at
the beginning and in the middle of a word, and another
form at the end, these joinings together of two words
into one word would have been impossible on the part
of the Greek translators. I have deemed it necessary to
make this point clear because I have adopted in the notes,
some of the re-divisions of words preserved in the ancient
Versions, in passages where the final letters of the present
text might be thought absolutely to preclude such
re-divisions.

Chap. V.
Abbreviations.

All post-Biblical Hebrew writing's contain copious
abbreviations. Students of the Talmud, the Midrashim and
the mediaeval religious literature generally know frequently
to their discomfort, that there is hardly a page in which
these puzzling expressions are not to be found; and how
grateful they are for those special Treatises which have
been written to aid them in resolving these embarrassing-
abbreviations, which sometimes represent a whole sentence.

In the Biblical MSS. with the Massorah, it is well
known that the latter abounds in abbreviations. In the text
itself, however, these abbreviations are as a rule not
tolerated. When the line is insufficient to take in the
last word, the vacant space is generally filled out with
dots or is in unfinished letters. This is the case in Orient.
4445, which is the oldest portion of the Hebrew Bible
known at present, and in the St. Petersburg Codex of
the Latter Prophets dated A. D. 916. In the St. Petersburg
Codex, however, the word which is too large for the end of
the line is not unfrequently represented in an abbreviation
of one, two or even three letters at the end, but the whole
word is also repeated at the beginning of the next line. Thus
in Isa. VIII 13 fl stands for D3KT1B at the end of the line
and the whole word is repeated at the commencement of
the next line. In Isa. IX 8 31 stands for 'jl^l at the end, but
the whole word is also given at the beginning" of the next
line. The same is the case in XIV 2 where m stands for

166 Introduction. [CHAP. V.

ar6mnni; XXIII 3 where 31 stands for D'031; XXVI 8
where *?1 stands for "psftl; XXVII 8 where SD3 stands
for HNDKD3; XXXVII 10 where tfT stands for D^ttflT, and
in many more passages, but in all these instances, the
whole word is generally repeated at the beginning of the
next line.

There are, however, MSS. which have abbreviations
in the text, but in which the abbreviated part of the word
is given in the margin. Thus Codex No. 15 in the Imperial
and Royal Court Library Vienna, which contains the
Pentateuch, the Haphtaroth and the Five Megilloth and
which is a Model Codex, exhibits numerous instances of
this kind. I extract from it the following examples:

Gen. X 1 6

oxn

fol. qa

XVII 20

<n?0tt>

. 14 &

., 26

•nt

?9^7

i. H*

„ xvm 21

I??*?1?

. 15''

XX 15

o-ax

„ iSa

„ XXII 18

nsnni

n 2Oa

XXIV 17

in,*)1?

„ 21ft

XXV 18

ISO

» 23^

„ XXVII 12

" ~ *- —

-. 25^

„ XXXII 20

Kxfaa

» 32 /'

„ XXXVI 18

2 7^X

" 36rt

The same is the case in No. 5 of this Collection which
contains the Prophets, of which the following examples
will suffice:

Josh. VI u

'?rts-"i

fol. 5/>

* VII 3'rt

•:•:•

r Cfr

» 4

D3»1

\T-

i. 6/)

A very remarkable use of abbreviations with their
compliments is exhibited in Codex No. 3 in the Madrid
University Library. When a word is too long for the line,

CHAP. V.]

Abbreviations.

167

a portion of it is given in the text and the rest is either
put perpendicularly in the margin or is placed above the
abbreviated word as will be seen from the following
example:

Levit. XV

atso

* XVIII

! w

„ XXII

'IpK

i) n

''' ^^?

„ „

„ XXIII

„ XXVI

' n.^^i

In some instances the finishing part of the word is
not given in the margin so that the text exhibits a regular
abbreviation.

The question which, therefore, naturally arises is -
seeing that abbreviations are copiously used in the oldest
extra-canonical writings, and that they are not only to be
found on the Maccabean coins, but that they occur conjointly
with the fully written out word in Biblical MSS. - - Were
they ever used by themselves in the Hebrew text? As
we have no Biblical MSS. of the pre-Talmudic period, we
have to appeal for the answer to the ancient Versions
which were made from a text written prior to the ortho-
graphical laws laid down by the Scribes. Chief among the
ancient witnesses, which bear testimony to the use of ab-
breviations in the Hebrew text, is the Septuagint. From a
number of passages it is perfectly evident that the trans-
lators had a Hebrew text before them in which half

168 Introduction. [CHAP. V.

words and even single letters were used as abbreviations.
I subjoin the following" passages as typical examples:

In Gen. XLVII 3 VPIK = VTFN was read by the trans-
lators of the ancient Versions as an abbreviation for
P|p1' 'riK the brethren of Joseph. This is attested by the
Samaritan, Jonathan, the Septuagint and the Syriac and
is undoubtedly the correct reading. A similar abbreviation
occurs in 2 Sam. Ill 27 where VTIX stands for 3X1' VIK the

T • -I

brother of Joab as it is resolved in the Septuagint

In Exod. VIII 23 *)QK' is resolved by the Septuagint
into ION '' = 10K nliT as Jehovah said which is prefer-
able to the Massoretic reading.

In Levit. VI 10, according to the testimony of the
Samaritan, the Septuagint and the Vulgate, 'tPXO stands for
"• 'WKO = nliT 'tfxa the offerings of Jehovah. This is not only
confirmed by verse n, but by some MSS.

In Numb. XXIII 10 1DDQ1 is an abbreviation for
"1DD Q1! = 1DD '01 and who can number. This is the solu-
tion of the Septuagint and is the reading of some of the
Samaritan MSS. Accordingly the verse ought to be
rendered:

"Who can count the dust of Jacob

And who can number the fourth part of Israel."

It will be seen that this restores the parallelism which
is marred by the Massoretic solution.1

In Deut. XXXII 35 ^, as is evident from Onkelos,
the Samaritan and the Septuagint, is an abbreviation of Dl^
for the day. Accordingly the passage is to be rendered:

"Is not this laid up in store with me,
Sealed up in my treasuries?

' This solution is also implied in the explanation of this passage given
in the Midrash fC^nX niJID1? "»V '» ,]rk
rr Comp. HamiJbar Rab.. § 20.

CHAP. V.] Abbreviations. 169

For the day of vengeance and recompense,
For the time when their foot shall slip."

It will thus be seen that Dl^ for the day and npb
for the time obtain their natural parallelism and that the
third line corresponds to the first, and the fourth to the
second line in accordance with one of the laws of Hebrew
parallelism.

In 2 Sam. V 25 SftJB is an abbreviation of ffttojJO
from Gibeoti. This is not only attested by the Septuagint,
but is confirmed by the parallel passage in i Chron.
XIV 1 6, which records the same event. This removes the
discrepancy between the two passages which narrate iden-
tically the same occurrence.

In 2 Sam. XVII 1 1 21p2 is an abbreviation of
D21p2 in the midst of them, and the passage ought to be
rendered:

"and thou thyself shalt go in the midst of them."

This is not only the solution of the abbreviation in the
Septuagint and Vulgate, but is most suitable to the con-
text. Besides Dip is never used in Samuel for battle or

T| :

war which is invariably nOf"6a.

These are simply a few of the abbreviations which
are supported by the ancient Versions and which I have
adopted in the notes as affording a better solution than
those exhibited in the received text.

I have also suggested a few not given in the ancient
Versions. Thus for instance:

In i Kings XXI 23 ^PQ is manifestly an abbrevia-
tion of p^f!3 in the portion of. This is rendered certain
from the parallel passages in 2 Kings IX 10, 36 and is
adopted in the margin of the Revised Version.

In 2 Kings VI 27 the words PiliT '3pttf1»"^K which
literally denote let not Jehovah help thee, are simply per-

1 70 Introduction. [CHAP. V.

plexing. The rendering of the Authorised Version : "If the
Lord do not help thee", is contrary to the meaning of *?X.
Nor is the difficulty removed by the marginal rendering in
the Revised Version: "Nay, let the Lord help thee", since
this is a departure from the normal sense of this negative
particle. The sentence is relieved and the construction be-
comes grammatical if btf is taken as the abbreviation of
tV? DS which is the proper Hebrew equivalent for

If the Lord do not help thee.

In 2 Kings XVIII 2 and 2 Chron. XXIX i the same
narrative is recorded. In the former the name of the
mother of Hezekiah is given as '2X Abi, and in the latter
as (TDK Abijah. This discrepancy in identically the same
record, is removed by the fact that '38 is the abbrevia-
tion of iT3K. Such a name as 'DX Abi does not occur in the

T ' t • ".

Hebrew Bible.

In the abbreviations I have carefully distinguished
those which are supported by the ancient Versions from
those which I have suggested. The former are preceded
by V'JC = nvrft *p"13t it should be and the latter by V'} =
^ nx*13 it appears to inc.

Chap. VI.
Homoeoteleuton.

All those who are familiar with transcribing- know
by experience the omissions which are due to what is
technically called homoeoteleuton; that is when the clause
ends with the same word as closes a preceding1 sentence.
The transcriber's eye in such a case frequently wanders
from one word to the other, and causes him to omit the
passage which lies between them. The same effect is produced
when two or more sentences begin with the same words.
As this fruitful source of error has hitherto been greatly
neglected by those who have been engaged in the criticism
of the Hebrew text, it necessitates my discoursing upon it
at somewhat greater length. In proving the existence of
omissions arising from this cause, I shall arrange the in-
stances according to the age of the respective MSS. in
which I have found them, and not in the order of the books
wherein they occur. My reason for adopting this chrono-
logical plan is to show that this cause of error has been
in operation in all ages and in all countries from which
our Biblical MSS. are derived.

In Oriental 4445 (fol. 107 a\ which is the oldest Bibli-
cal MS. known at present, the whole of Levit. XXI 24
was originally omitted, because it begins with 13T1 find lie
spake and XXII i also begins with "QT1 and he spake. The
Scribe's eye wandered from one word to the other which
is identically the same. The verse has been added by a
later hand.

172 Introduction. [CHAP. V .

In the St. Petersburg or Babylon Codex, which is
dated A. D. 916 (fol. 90 a\ Jerem. XXXI 30 is omitted
because of the homoeoteleuton n3>fij3F) shall be set on edge
....iTPnpfl shall be set on edge. A later Scribe has supplied
the omission and disfigured the MS.

In the same MS. (fol. 139^), the last clause of Eze-
kiel XVIII 30 and the first clause of verse 31 are omitted,

viz. DD w'B-^s-nx Q3'!?pa iD^ttrn : fir ^itfap^ 02^ rp.T-^i

so iniquity shall not be your ruin: cast away from you your
transgressions, because of the homoeoteleuton Eyyv&yonr'
transgressions .... Dp'INP'B your transgressions. The passage
which lies between the same words and which has thus
been omitted, is supplied in the margin by a later hand.
In Arundel Oriental 16, a superbly written Franco-
German MS. of about A. D. 1250, nearly the whole
verse in 2 Chron. XXVI 9 and the first two words of
verse 10 are omitted, owing to the homoeoteleuton

towers D'^MQ towers, viz. -nasn IPtf "^P D.!?lp1T3

f3»l IDptPPl iritfjpsrr^jn K?3n irtf-^in in Jerusalem
at tite corner gate, and at the valley gate, and at the turn
ing of the wall, and fortified them. And he built towers
(comp. fol. 273 a). The omission, as usual, has been supplied
in the margin by a later Scribe. When it is stated that
this is a most carefully and sumptuously written MS.,
furnished with the most copious Massorah, and that it was
manifestly a model Codex, it is evident that it required
superhuman care to avoid the errors arising from this source.
In Add. 9401 — 9402 dated A. D. 1286 (fol. i8fl), the
whole of Gen. XVIII 32 is omitted, owing to the ending

ontwn "nara for forty's sake .... rnfrrn "iiara for ten's

sake verses 31 and 32. The omission as usual .has been
supplied by a later hand.

In the same MS. the second part of Levit. XV 4 is
omitted owing to the two clauses ending with X£C^ shall

CHAP. VJ'J Homoeoteleuton. 173

be unclean .... NttCS' shall be unclean. The clause *^3l

T : T :

«OB? 3f n V^P a#>*i1Bto >7Sn a«J a;fry //»«# whereon he sitteth
shall be unclean is added in the margin by a subsequent
reviser (comp. fol. 115^).

In Oriental 2091 a magnificently written MS. of the
German School, circa A. D. 1300, I found no fewer than forty-
three omissions due to homoeoteleuta, in the Prophets and
Hagiographa which this Codex contains.1

These omissions continued uninterapteally even in
the MSS. which were written after the invention of print-
ing. Thus in Add. 15251 a choice Spanish Co'dex, written
in 1488, the very year in which the first edition of the
entire Hebrew Bible was published, there is the omission
of the words uron pn« Dtf nxi nilBB"^ upon his rod;
And the name of Aaron thon shall write Numb. XVII, 17, 18,
due to the homoeoteleuton 3FOF). thou shall write . . . . HfOri
thon shall write (comp. fol. 93 a).

In the same MS. fol. 93 b, the second half of Numb.

xxvi 62 is omitted, i. e. Snfep 'is "sins r6m Dr6 rnr*6 S3

•• T : • •• t I : T •: - » T I ~ '

because there was not given them an inheritance among the
children of Israel, due to the two clauses ending in ^JOfe^
Israel . . . ^XWi Israel.

" T . *

These examples might be multiplied almost indefini-
tely. If the omissions , in the Hebrew text due to this
cause occur not only in the very first or oldest MS., but
continue in the succeeding MSS. produced in different
centuries and various countries, and also appear in the
very latest Codex copied by the human hand, it is perfectly
certain that the same source of error was in operation

1 The following are some of them: Josh. Ill 17, IV I fTTH . » « JTVn,

fol. 3«; josh, xv 63 ,rm;T ^n , ..rmrr ^s, fol. 13 a; judg. vn 19, 20
nneittD * , . rrnBiitn, fol. 26 a; judg. xvi 3 rfyhrt * * . nb'Si, fol. 33 *;
i Sam. xiv 40 nnx -ay1? . , « nnK isr1?, fol. 46 a\ i Kings vn 4, 5
, n-o^B vbv, fol. 90 a &c. &c.

171 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

in the production of the MSS. prior to those which we
now possess. In the absence of these MSS., however, the
only course left to us is carefully to examine the ancient
Versions which were made from a Hebrew recension older
by more than a millennium than the oldest MSS. of the
present Massoretic text.

A comparison of the present text with the ancient
Versions for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
Scribes have omitted passages due to homoeoteleuta from
the time of the Septuagint down to the date of our oldest
MS., just as they have omitted them from the period of
the oldest Codex down to the invention of printing, is far
more easy and much more certain in result than the
utilization of the Version for merely various readings. In
the case of retranslating into Hebrew a variant exhibited
in the Greek, scholars may diifer as to the exact Hebrew
equivalent for a single word. But there can be no question
in deciding whether the ancient Version has a whole sen-
tence more than is to be found in the present Hebrew
text, more especially if the sentence which is found in the
Greek, when re-translated into Hebrew, fits in between the
two words of similar ending. The certainty in this case is
as great as the proper fitting in of the pieces in a dis-
sected puzzle-map. Indeed it carries far more conviction than
the testimony of a few Codices in a mass of conflicting
MSS., as to the right reading in a given passage.

The first instance which I shall adduce to prove that
owing to the cause here stated, passages have been omitted
by Scribes in the MSS. produced after the Septuagint and
prior to the date of any Codex which we now possess, is
from the Book of Kings.

In i Kings VIII 16 the text now is

Hebrew

y-hy ni"r6 113 -iroxi

CHAP. VI.] Homoeoteleuton. 175

Septuagint

®yml>y nivi1? i? "inniO a# -atf rwrh B^tfn-a "1PDK1

From the simple exhibition of these two passages it
will be seen that the Septuagint has preserved the original
reading and that the Scribe's eye, in copying the Massoretic
text, has wandered from one irQ&O and I have chosen to
the other and I have chosen. Hence the omission of the
clause and I have chosen Jerusalem that my name might
be there. In this case, however, we are not left to the
Septuagint alone to establish the fact. In the parallel
narrative 2 Chron. VI 6, where the same incident is narrated,
the omission is literally given.

btnte'1 *%y-by ni'nb THS "irnxi DP -atf

•• T : • : • • T : T • :

"And I have chosen Jerusalem that my name might be
there and I have chosen David &c."

But though this omission is incidentally confirmed
by the parallel passage, the other instances, for which there
are no duplicate records in the Hebrew Scriptures, are
equally conclusive. Some of these I shall now give in the
order in which they occur.

Josh. II I Heb. ntfK JV2

Sept. rrete IT? "IJO'1 irr-v

Here the clause and the two young men came to Jericho
is omitted because of the similar words and they came ....
and they came. They are preserved in the Septuagint.

josh, ix 27 Heb ........... rrfrr rc

Sept. c'o '2$th D^y 'ran jiraj *3& vrn

Here, after the words "and for the altar of God", the
following words are omitted: "And the inhabitants of Gibeon
became hewers of wood, and drawers of water for the altar
of God" because of the two similar endings "the altar of

176 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

God" . ... the altar of God. They are preserved in the
Septuagint.

Josh. X 12 Heb

Sept. ^>K*W »_3a -sea

Here the words "«;/*<?« they destroyed them in Ciibeon,
and they were destroyed from before the children of Israel"
are omitted because of the two endings Israel .... Israel.
They are preserved in the Septuagint.

Josh. XIII 7 Heb ........... mWBTl

Sept. "?n:H ojn aj:nn naj bnan Djn-nr Hl-'TlP ntWB

ntwn EDP "xm B'BStfn rjtfbi :boan rrrr

Here the words "from the Jordan to the great sea west-
ward thon shall give it, the great sea shall be the boundary,
and unto the half tribe of Manasseh" are omitted because
of the two similar endings the half tribe of Manasseh . ... the
half tribe of Manasseh.

Josh. XXIV 6 Heb ............

Sept. D'lttOPI nnk ':?.»! ani DIJCPI 'rha "Ub D^ vn»i

Here the words "and they became there a great, populous
and mighty people and the Egyptian afflicted them" are
omitted because of the two similar endings in the Hebrew,
Egypt .... Egypt. The Septuagint has preserved them.

josh, xxiv 17 Heb ..... r6ran Kin
Sept. ,-6ra Kin o'rtbK Kin

Here the words /fe /s Go^ are omitted because of the
two endings he .... he. The Septuagint has preserved them.

judg. xvi 13 Heb. ......... in'D ypnm

Sept. nprn \& -? w tD-jicn nn>9 T^!1 ^O'^C1! ^'

Here the clause "then shall I be weak as another man.
And it came to pass when he was asleep that Delilah took
the seven locks of his head and wove them with the web and
fastened them with a pin" is omitted because of the two

CHAP. VI.] Homoeoteleuton.

177

similar endings and fastened them with a pin . . . . and fastened
them with a pin. That the Septuagint exhibits the primitive
text is moreover confirmed by the fact that the Massoretic
text as it now stands says nothing about Samson having
gone to sleep though verse 14 alludes to it.

Judg. XVIII 22 Heb. , . , , ro^a n'3tt

Sept. ra>a rani fO'Q rvaa

Here the words "and behold Micdk" are omitted because
of the homoeoteleuton Hlicah .... Micah. They are preserved
in the Septuagint.

T Sam. Ill 15 Heb. , , « , . 1p3H IP
Sept.

Here the words "and lie rose early in the morning" are
omitted because of the homoeoteleuton the morning ....
the morning. They are preserved in the Septuagint.

I Sam. X I Heb. «,,,».,,,., m!T

Sept. nnKi nirr 3373 -iacyn rtntfi i?>ntr-l?r iay-'?y TJ;^ mn>
niKn b nn 3^33)2 T3>* T» ur'trin

Here the clause "for a ruler over his people over Israel?
And thon shalt rule among the people of the Lord, and than
shalt save them out of the hand of their enemies, and this
shall be a sign to thee that the Lord has anointed thee" is
omitted. The omission which is due to the homoeoteleuton
the Lord . ... the Lord is preserved in the Septuagint.

I Sam. XIII 15 Heb. ..,..

Sept. r\tc$b bwv •nrtK r6r syn -urn

'p iKh'i nan^an BJ?

- .. -

Here the words "and went his way and the remnant of
the people went after Sanl to meet the men of war and they
came out of Gilgal" are omitted. The omitted clause which
is due to the homoeoteleuton out of Gilgal .... out of Gilgal
is preserved in the Septuagint.

178 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

Joshua XXI 36, 37. The omission of these two
verses in some MSS. is due to the fact that the following
verse begins with the same word, viz. ntSfiEl and out of the
tribe of. The transcriber's eye, as is often the case, wandered
from one ilCSSQI verses 36, 37 to the other ntSQQI in verse
38, thus skipping over the two verses in question. I have
reserved the examination of this omission for the last, both
because it is the most instructive illustration in this
category and because it requires a more lengthy discussion.
The context itself shows that the two verses have been
omitted by a clerical error, since without them the enumera-
tion is incomplete. We are expressly told in verse 7 that
the Merarites obtained twelve cities, i. e. four from each
of the three tribes, Reuben, Gad and Zebulun. The four
cities contributed by Zebulun are enumerated (verse 35),
so also are the four cities contributed by Gad (verses 38,
39). Now without Reuben and his four cities there are
only eight cities instead of twelve as stated in verse 40.
In this instance, however, we are not left to conjecture
to supply the omission, nor even to the ancient Versions
alone. Unlike the former omissions which are attested only
by the ancient Versions, this omission is proved by
many of the best MSS. and all the early editions. Not
only have the Septuagint and the Vulgate these two
verses, but they are found in some of the earliest dated
MSS., as will be seen from the following description.

Orient. 2201, which is dated A. D. 1246, has the two
verses in the text with the vowel-points and accents and
with the following remark in the margin: "these two verses
are not written in the text of the Codex called Hillali".^

The splendid MS. No. i in the Madrid University
Library, which is dated A. D. 1280, and which is manifestly
a Model Codex, has the two verses.

,'t?'?H K-p:n -.scs prrc p'K "p'cs —n "bn i

CHAP. VI.] Homoeoteleuton.

Add. 15250 in the British Museum, a beautiful MS. of
about the end of the i3th century, has not only the two
verses, but has a Massoretic note against 13f3~flK Bezer that
it occurs (H =) four times. This shows beyond doubt that
the School of Massorites from which this note proceeds
regarded the two verses as an integral part of the text.
For though 1X3 Bezer by itself occurs five times (Deut.
IV 43; Josh XX 8; i Chron. VI 63; VII 37 and the passage
before us), 13C3V1X with the accusative particle only occurs
four times, since in i Chron. VII 37 it is simply 1¥| without
the -fix.

Besides these Codices, I have to add the following
MSS. in the British Museum alone which have the two
verses: Arund. Orient. 16;' Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add.
15252; Add. 15451; Add. 9398; Add. 26897; Harley 1528;
Harley 5774; Orient. 1471; Orient. 2369; Orient. 2370; Orient.
2371; Orient. 2415; Orient. 2626 — 28; Orient. 4227.

Moreover these two verses are given in the text of
all the early editions: The first edition of the Prophets,
Soncino 1485—86, has them; so also the first edition of
the entire Hebrew Bible, Soncino 1488; the second edition,
Naples 1491 — 93; the third edition, Brescia 1494; the Former
Prophets, Pesaro 1511; the Complutensian Polyglot; the
first Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517; and in the
three quarto editions of Bomberg, Venice 1517, 1521 and
!525' Jacob b. Chayim was the first who omitted these

1 In Arund. Orient. 1 6 the two verses are not pointed and the
Punctuator has added the following note in the margin: IWfl 'plDS '3 fK

,-pa a-inna ^xi .annx D-nano a'pnrni arc-ia "a-i -iBDai "re IBM 'aina
•nia 'is1? ,prpn twoa nv r-naa ntrx a-ipT rr-n ax -a faipa n? px -|x
taw rrw BT\V D-ny "?-n» j^iai ntsaai nj naaai jaixn na»a nmnetra1?
patpn D":na ma*n n3ia<in maip nan11 "nia ^a inpb ^a yir in" iaoa ISKD ib'sa
a "a Ksaj p-mar ITTB nnai nnrr D'nr nain minx D^y mr inp^i -iTr11

.^"7 otr-ij (an -12031 TD naoa oiana Kb pin

180 Introduction. [CHAP. VI.

verses in the cditio princcps of his Rabbinic Bible with
the Massorah 1524 — 25.

The objections raised against the genuineness of these
two verses based upon the Massorah, viz. (i) that they are
against the Massoretic Summary which gives the number
of verses at the end of this book; (2) that their retention in
the text is against the Massoretic statement that Isa. XVII 3
is the middle of the 9294 verses contained in the Prophets
and (3) that "l¥l~ni* Bc~er and ^Ip-flX Kcdemoth are
not included in the Massoretic List which tabulates all the
instances of DX in Josh. XXI 11 — 37 — all prove that the
School, from which these Massoretic remarks proceeded,
did not recognise these two verses. Hence, these particular
Massorites guarded against them by the remarks in question.
The MSS., however, which exhibit these two verses in
the text proceed from another and more ancient School
of Massorites. The Codices upon which they worked were
anterior to the clerical blunder which omitted the verses
from the text, as is attested by the ancient Versions. Hence,
their Massorah is based upon the existence of these two
verses in the text. The analysis in the foregoing chapters
of the Sections, Verses, Division of words &c. &c. shows
beyond doubt the existence of different Massoretic Schools,
with different recensions of the Hebrew text. To adduce,
therefore, the arguments derived from one Massoretic
School only proves that this particular School worked
upon a particular text. These few instances which might
easily be multiplied must suffice. Some of them I have
given in the marginal notes, and I should have given them
all, but for the fact that I had not finished my re-translation
of the whole Septuagint into Hebrew when this edition of
the Hebrew Bible was being printed. '

1 Other instances will be fonnd in I Sam. XIV 42: XV 13; XVII 36;
2 Sam. VI 21; XIII 27, 34; XIV 30; XV 18, 20; XIX ii; i Kings II 29;

Homoeoteleuton. 181

It is to be remarked that not only does the Septuugint
exhibit passages which are omitted in the present Hebrew
text due to homoeoteleuta, but it shows that sentences are
also omitted in the Septuagint itself arising from the same
cause. The following instances will prove this fact:

Josh. VI 22 Heb. H^ Dfirstfj 1^3 fl*?

Sept. , , * -4 '•«•'« ab

Here the words "as ye sware unto her" are omitted in
the Septuagint because of the homoeoteleuton to her ....
to her.

Josh. VIII 25, 26 Heb. J1T2S HW "1OI IT r^T

Sept. ... ....... rjrn

Here the whole of verse 26: "For Jos/ma drew not liis
hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had
utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai" , is omitted in the
Septuagint because of the homoeoteleuton Ai . . . . Ai at the
end of verses 25 and 26.

judg. in 22, 23 Heb. -nriK N-V'l tnnjfnen

Sept. TDK K^'' .....

Here the words and the dirt went out are omitted in
the Septuagint because of the homoeoteleuton and he went
out .... and he went out.

1 Sam. XX 26, Heb. X1H "lintS '^2 &OH niplfi

Sept. » 4 «•«'•. ..... wn n-ipa

Here the words 7z£ /s wo/ c/t?a/^ are omitted in the
Septuagint because of the homoeoteleuton Xin » * + « NIH.

2 Sam. XXIII 28, 29 Heb. 'riDtoaH n:i;2-J2 S^P

Sept. , , , .....

The first part of verse 29, consisting of the words
"Hdeb the son of Baanah a Netophatliite" , is omitted in the

111 27; VIII 65; XVill 44; 2 Kings XVII 20, 32; XIX 20; XXII 16;
Isa. XXII 22 &c. &c.

182 Introduction. [CHAP. VI

Septuagint because of the homoeoteleuton Netophathite ....
Netophathite.

These instances too might easily be multiplied.1 Here,
however, it is more difficult to decide whether the authors of
the Septuagint had a Hebrew text before them in which
these passages were omitted; or whether the translators
themselves omitted them owing to the homoeoteleuta. All
the passages in this category which I have given in the
notes are preceded by [S2 N¥Q: JJ'TQ the Septuagint has
here &c.

1 Other instances occur in I Kings IV 13; VI 31 VIII 41; XV 6;
XVI n; 2 Kings XVI II; XIX IO, 15; Isa. XLI 14; LXIII 18 &c. &c.

Chap. VII.
The Keri and Kethiv.

In every book of the Massoretic Bible a number of
extraordinary forms are exhibited in the text which are
exceedingly perplexing to the student of Hebrew. These
abnormal forms and unpronounceable words are produced
by the vowel-points which are affixed to certain words, but
which are most inappropriate to the consonants, as will
be seen from the following instances: "HQN'I (Josh. VI 7),
N'JtlB nnvn (2 Sam. V 2\ ^ (2 Sam. XXI 9) Q'Efttf (2 Sam.
XXIII 13), ^n«n (i Kings VII 45), KX (Jerem. XLII 6),
ItfNS (Ezek. IX n), DfDt^ iinnnZtt (Ezek. XLII 9) nnjfT
in^ (Job. XXXVIII 12], (3 (2 Chrem. XI 1 8) etc. etc. In
some instances there are actually more vowel-points in
the text than consonants, and hence these signs are
without a consonant. Thus for instance rWV (i Sam. XX 2),
l£a_ (i Kings. XV 1 8), VH.l (Jerem. XVIII 25) &c. &c.

In Hebrew Grammars the student is told that the
vowel-signs which produce these abnormal forms and dis-
figure the text, do not belong to the words in question, but
to other words which are exhibited in the margin and
which are the authoritative reading. Accordingly the marginal
variant or the official reading, called the Keri 0"lp), is to
have the vowel-points, whilst the word written in the text,
called technically the Kethiv (yro), has no vowel-signs at
all. The Massorites, therefore, who have decided that the
marginal Keri is the correct one, have in all these instances

184 Introduction. [CHAP. VII.

deprived us of the vowel-signs which were originally affixed
to the words exhibited in the text.

Without entering into a discussion on the merits
or demerits of these official various readings as a whole,
it is now admitted by the best textual eristics that in many
instances the reading exhibited in the text (3^3) is pre-
ferable to the marginal variant Pip), inasmuch as it some-
times preserves the archaic orthography and sometimes gives
the original reading. The Kethiv or textual reading more-
over is in many instances not only supported by MSS.
and early editions, but by the ancient Versions. As accord-
ing to the testimony of the Massorah itself, the vowel
signs do not in these instances belong to the text, but
to the marginal reading, and moreover as the original
vowel-signs which did belong to the text have been sup-
pressed altogether, I have left the Kethiv entirely without
the vowel-signs, and have given in the margin both the
Kethiv and the Keri with their respective vowel-signs. This
principle I have adopted in fairness to the Biblical student
to afford him an opportunity of judging for himself as to
which is the preferable reading. Moreover to aid him in
his decision I have in most cases given the MSS., the
early editions and the ancient Versions, which support the
Kethiv and those which exhibit the Keri. I know that some
critics may in sundry cases differ from me as to the
proper pointing of the Kethiv, but in the absence of all
MS. authority I could do it only according to the best
of my judgment.

It is to be remarked that this corpus of official
various readings has been transmitted to us in three
different forms, (i) Originally each of these variations was
given in the margin of the text against the word affected
by it. The word in the text was furnished with a small
circle or asterisk over it, which directed the reader to

CHAP. VII.] The Keri and Kethiv. 185

the marginal variant. This ancient practice still prevails
in all Massoretic MSS of the Bible and is adopted in all
the best editions. (2) Later scribes collected these mar-
ginal readings and arranged them in separate Lists which
they appended to the respective books in Model Codices.1
These Lists, however, do not always agree in number
with those exhibited in the margin and the two classes
must frequently be utilized to supplement each other.
(3) The third form in which these official variants have
been preserved in the Massorah is more artificial, and in
some instances more perplexing. The whole corpus of
various readings has been classified by the Massorites under
different Rubrics. Thus for instance all those which affect
the same verb are put together in one Rubric under the
same root:'2 those which affect the same particle are collected
together in one Rubric:3 all the instances in which the
same letter is affected are grouped together4 &c. &c.

But all the three classes which supplement and con-
trol one another, by no means exhaust all the instances
embraced under the Keri and Kethiv hitherto printed,
simply because no single MS. contains them all either in
the margins, or in the separate Lists which are prefixed
and appended to the different Codices. The reason lies
in the fact that the different Schools of Massorites were
not agreed among themselves in the critical canons which
they respectively followed. Hence that which is exhibited
as Keri in the margin in a MS. proceeding from one School
is no Keri in the MSS. which emanated from another
School and vice versa. In order to exhibit, therefore, all
the Kens irrespective of the different Schools, it is absolutely

1 This is the case for instance in Arundel Or. 16.

2 Comp. The Massorah, letter K, § 796, Vol. i, p. 36, 8 § 843, Vol. i, p. 91.
:! Comp. The Massorah, letter X, §§ 513, 514, Vol. i, p. 57.

4 Comp. The Massorah, letter n, §§ 26, 27, Vol. i, p. 268.

186 latroduction. [CHAP. VII.

necessary to collate all the existing MSS. which at present
is almost an impossible task. I have, however, compared
as many MSS. both in the public Libraries of Europe,
and in the possession of private owners, as were accessible
to me, and have, therefore, been able to give a larger
number of Keris and Kethivs than those which are printed
in any other edition of the Hebrew Bible.

Chap. VIII.
Sevirin.

The corpus of various readings Denoted by the term
Sevirin (pT3D) as we shall presently show, is of equal
importance to the class of variants comprised in the official
Keri ('"lp), though it has hardly been noticed by modern
critics. Indeed in some respects it is more important than
the alternative readings which have hitherto been so scru-
pulously given in the margin of our Bibles under the
name of Keri by modern editors who have either entirely
banished the Sevir from the margin or have on extremely
rare occasions condescended to notice one of the numerous
readings introduced by the name Sevir. Yet in the MSS.
the alternate reading entitled Sevir is given in the margin
of the text in the same way as the variant described by
the term Keri.

To establish the fact that Sevir is really a kind of
Keri I have only to mention that the two terms are not
unfrequently used interchangeably. The variant which is
described in some MSS. as Keri is in other MSS. termed
Sevir and vice versa. Thus the oldest Massorah preserved in
the St. Petersburg Codex gives us a List of seven passages
in which the textual reading or the Kethiv is ^X unto and the
Keri hy upon, ' one of the seven instances is Ezekiel XIII 2,
against which the St. Petersburg Codex duly remarks in
the margin of the text the Keri is ^JJ upon.* In turning,

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter K, § 514, Vol. I, p. 57.

188 Introduction. [CHAP. VIII

however, to the margin of this passage in the editio princcps
of Jacob b. Chayim's Massoretic Bible the Massorah
remarks against it: "it is one of the five instances in which
the Sevir is *?V upon." l It will thus be seen that the identical
variant which is called Keri by one School of Massorites
is called Sevir by another School.

Isa. XXX 32 affords a still more striking illustration
of the interchangeable use of the terms Sevir and Keri.
The Massorah registers three instances in which the textual
reading [= Kethiv] is fl3 with her third person singular
feminine and the Sevir in each of the three passages
exhibits a different reading. In the passage before us the
Sevir is D3 with them, the plural masculine. In the Massorah
Parva, however, on this very passage this variant is called
Keri and the St. Petersburg Codex, which has D3 with
her in the text, simply tells us that the Babylonians read
H3 with them.' The same is the case with the other two
instances, viz. Jerem. XVII 24 and Ezek. XIV 4, which are
described as Sevirin in this Massoretic Rubric, but which
are respectively called Keri in the Massorah Parva.

I shall only adduce one more Massoretic Rubric to
illustrate the treatment which the Sevir has been subject
to on the part of the School of Massorites who, though
bound to give it as an integral portion of the Massorah,
have yet passed sentence against it. The Massorah gives
a Rubric of two passages where the Sevir is ^3*? before
the, children of, and the textual reading is »3D^ before the
face of, viz. Ps. LXXX 3 and Prov. IV 3-:i Instead of
Ps. LXXX 3, the Massorah preserved by Jacob b. Chayim

•hy ""TSC 'n '

- 'K^M*? F12. The Authorised Version follows the Kctlih', the Revised
Version the Sevir or Keri.

".zh "ipl "pb fTSC 'S Comp. Massorah, letter fi, § 145, Vol. II,
p. 446.

CHAP. VIII.] Sevirin. 189

gives Job XIX 7 as one of the two passages and the
compilers of this Rubic do not call tlie instances Sevirin
at all, but simply head the Rubric Two verses are misleading. ]
That is, the peculiar wording of the text is misleading, but
is not to be exchanged for the normal reading which one
would naturally expect. The most remarkable part, however,
is the fact that whilst Arundel Or. 16, both on Ps. LXXX 3
and Prov. IV 3, describes them respectively as one of the
four and one of the two verses where the Codices are
misleading,'1 the Massorah Parva in the editio princeps on
Prov. IV 3 describes it as one of the Sevirin and the
Massorah in Harley 5710 — n, which is a model Codex,
says it is one of the two passages where the Keri is
'33^ before the children of. This shows conclusively that
whilst one School of Massorites rejected the Sevir as mis-
leading, another School not only regarded it in the same
light as the Keri, but actually called it Keri.

From the Lists of variants between the Easterns and
Westerns we see that the Sevir was not simply an alter-
native reading, but it was actually the received reading of
the Babylonians. Thus D2^ in Numb. XI 21, viz. "I will give
you flesh", which in the Sevir instead of DH1?, i. e. "I will
give them flesh", is actually the textual reading of the
Eastern School. Again in i Sam. XVIII 25 instead of the
simple '3, the Sevir is DX"'? which is also the received
reading of the Easterns/5

But we have still further evidence that the Sevir
refers to the readings of actual MSS. and that these
variants are in many instances supported both by still

"IDS "2 Comp. The Massorah, letter B, § 145, Vol. II, 446.

/• ISD pro "T&ia "i 'fob, TBia "IDS '2 vet? z

?- This i| attested by the official List of differences between the
Westerns and Easterns in the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 1009, in
Add. 15251 and in the cditio prittceps.

190 Introduction. [CHAP. VIII.

extant Codices and by the early editions as well as by
the ancient Versions. I must of necessity confine myself
to only a few examples in proof of this statement and
leave the student to examine for himself the value of each
of the hundreds of Sevirin which I have collected from
various MSS. and given in the margin of the text against
the respective words to which the Sevir refers.

In Genesis XLIX 13 the Sevir is 1J? unto, instead
of the textual reading *?JJ upon. Accordingly the passage
ought to be rendered "and his border shall be or extend unto
Zidon", instead of "and his border shall be upon Zidon".
Now the Sevir which gives the intelligeable geographical
definition of the territory of Zebulun, is actually the textual
reading in many of the MSS. collated by Kennicott and
de Rossi. It is also the reading of the Samaritan text,
Onkelos in the editio princeps of the Bologna Pentateuch 1482 ;
the edition in the Ixar Pentateuch 1490, the edition in the
Lisbon Pentateuch 1461 &c., the Chaldee of the so-called
Jonathan, the Septuagint* the Syriac and the Vulgate. The
Authorised Version too, exhibits the Sevir, whilst the
Revised Version follows the received text.

In Exod. VI 27 the received text has "to bring out
the children of Israel from Egypt", whilst the Sevir is
D'lXa pKO "from the land of Egypt", as it is in the pre-
ceding verse, and the Sevir is not only the textual reading
in a number of MSS.,1 but is supported by the Samaritan,
the Septuagint and the Syriac.

In Exod. XXV 39 the received text is "of a talent
of pure gold (nfettP) shall he make", the third person. The
Sevir here is nfettfl "shaft thou make". The second person

1 When MSS. are quoted without specifying the Library in which
they are to be found and their number, the reference is to Keunicott's and
Rossi's collations published in Parma 1784 - 88 in 4 Volumes quarto, and
the supplement to these volumes also published in Parma in 1798.

CHAP. VIII.] Sevirin. 191

is not only demanded by the context, but the Sevir is
actually the textual reading in several MSS , is exhibited
in the Samaritan, in the Chaldee of Onkelos, in the Ixar
Pentateuch 1490, in the Septuagint and the Syriac.

The same is the case in Exod. XXVI 31 where the
received text has nttf_XT the third person, i. e. "shall lie
make". To avoid the incongruity of this isolated appearance
of the third person when all the other verbs throughout
the context are in the second person the Authorised
Version, which the Revised Version follows, converted
the active verb into the impersonal, i. e. shall it be made.
Others again who adhere to the literal meaning ushall he
make", refer it to the artificer who has suddenly to be
brought on the scene, though he is not mentioned at all
in these directions. The Sevir, however, is nfeWri "thou shalt
make", which not only relieves the context from all unnatural
interpretations, but is the textual reading of several MSS.,
the Samaritan, the Chaldee in the Ixar Pentateuch 1490,
the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate.

In Numb. XXXIII 8 the received text is "and they
journeyed ('350) from before Hahiroth" as the Revised
Version correctly renders it. But n'Tnn Hahiroth by itself
does not occur. In the only other three passages where this
proper name is to be found, it is the compound DTnn '5
Pi-hahiroth.'1 It will be seen that one of the three instances
is in the very verse which immediately precedes this one,
and to which indeed the verse before us refers, by repeating
the name of the place from which the Israelites departed
after the encampment was broken up. This is the case
throughout the description of the journeyings in this chapter
where the verse, which gives the departures simply,
repeats the identical name of the place of encampment.

1 Comp. Exod. XIV 2, 9; Numb. XXXIII 7.

192 Introduction. [CHAP. VIII.

Now the Sevir is fPPnn ''BQ from Pi-hahiroth. Here too
the Sevir is the textual reading in many MSS., in the
Samaritan, the Chaldee, the Septuagint, the Syriac and the
Vulgate. The translators of the Authorised Version who
adopted the Sevir, also retained the reading of the received
text and hence produced the hybrid rendering "and they
departed from before /V-hahiroth".

In Joshua I 15 instead of "which the Lord your God
giveth (DH^) them" the Sevir is "which the Lord your God
giveth (D3^) you", as it is in the second clause. Here again
the Sevir is the textual reading in many MSS., in the first
edition of the Prophets (Soncino 1485), the first edition of
the entire Bible (Soncino 1488), the third edition of the entire
Bible (Brescia 1494) and in the Chaldee. It is very remark-
able that in some MSS. in which the Sevir is the textual
reading, it is actually the subject of a Keri, directing it to
be read DH^ to them.

••• T

In i Kings I 18 the received text is "and now (nriP1))
my lord the king" for which the Sevir has "and ihou
(nFlNl) my lord the king". This Sevir is not only the textual
reading in numerous MSS., but is in the first edition of the
Prophets (Soncino 1485), the first edition of the entire
Hebrew Bible (Soncino 1488), the Complutensian Polyglot,
the Chaldee, the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate.
It is rather remarkable that the Revisers adopted the
Sevir as the textual reading, and relegated the received
text into the margin. But though this Sevir is so strongly
supported by MSS. as the primitive reading, by the early
editions and the ancient Versions, yet the Massorah adds
to it pro D'PBOI they (i. e. the MSS. or Scribes) are misled
thereby, that is in writing nns thon instead of PIFIP now.

In 2 Chron. XXI 2 Jehoshaphat is described as king
of Israel (^lOfer "j^O), whereas he was king of Jtidah
(comp. i Kings XXII 41 — 51). To get over this contra-

CHAP. VIII ] Sevirin. 193

diction some have maintained that Israel is here used in
the sense of Judah. But whatever may be the secondary
sense in which Israel is used, when it is combined with
^0 king, it always denotes the sovereign of the ten
tribes who constituted the kingdom of Israel in opposition
to iTnrP ^a the king of Judah, whose kingdom consisted
of Judah and Benjamin. Here again the Sevir solves the
difficulty, inasmuch as it is HTliT Judah, and here too the Sevir
is the textual reading in many MSS., in the first edition
of the Hagiographa (Naples 1486 — 87), the Complutensian
Polyglot, the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate. The
same applies to the Sevir in 2 Chron. XXVIII 1 9 which has
miPP Judah, instead of ^X*lfe^ Israel, since Ahaz was king of
Judah and not of Israel. Here again the Sevir is the textual
reading in several MSS. and in the editio princeps of the
Hagiographa. The various readings are due to the fact
that originally the text simply was Yod (')and that this abbre-
viation was resolved into ^JOfr' Israel, by one School of

•• T : • J

Massorites and into HTIPP Judah, by another School.

Without expanding it into a separate Treatise it is
impossible for me to discuss in detail every one of the
three hundred and fifty Sevirin which I have succeeded in
collecting from the margins of various MSS. The few,
however, which I have analysed will sufficiently show the
correctness of my contention that according to the testi-
mony both of the MSS. and the ancient Versions the Sevirin
in many instances preserve the primitive textual readings.
As I have tried to give in every instance the MSS., the
editions and the ancient Versions, which support the Sevir
on every word where it occurs, the student will hence-
forth find it an easier task to test the value of this much-
neglected class of various readings.

Owing to the fact that the later redactors of the
Massorah looked upon the text as finally settled, they

194 Introduction. [CHAP. VIII.

regarded the Sevir with disfavour. Hence the various
readings preserved under the name Sevirin, have never been
properly collected. Like the official Kerf, the extra-official
Sevir was originally given in the margin of the text against
the word for which it exhibits an alternative reading. Later
Scribes, however, collected and grouped together these
Sevirin under different headings or Rubrics. In this form
each Rubric comprises the number of instances in which
the same verb, noun, particle or proper name has the
same Sevir, with or without the editorial condemnatory
clause that // is misleading (pPCB). Jacob b. Chayim was
the first who arranged the groups alphabetically in his
alphabetical Massorah at the end of the fourth Volume
(Venice 1524 — 25). He, moreover, gives some of the groups
in the marginal Massorah on the words which are affected
by the Sevir. But he only succeeded in collecting altogether
about two hundred Sevirin which indeed is more than
could have been expected even from his untiring industry
under the extraordinary difficulties which he had to en-
counter. Frensdorff1 has simply brought together and
alphabetically arranged under a separate Section the Rubrics
which are dispersed throughout Jacob b. Chayim's edition
of the Massorah. Although Frensdorff has appended to the
Sevirin very valuable notes correcting mistakes in the editio
princeps of the Massorah yet this indefatigable Massoretic
scholar has added no new instances. In my edition of the
Massorah I have been able to give a much larger number
which I collected from different MSS.2 The continuous
collation of new MSS., however, has enabled me to make
considerable additions to the Sevirin and the number
which now appears in the margin of my Massoretico-

1 Die Massora magna, Vol. I. p. 369 — 3/3, Hannover und Leipzig 1876.

2 Comp. The Massorali, letter C, Vol. II, p. 324—329.

CHAP. VIII.] Sevirin. 195

critical edition of the Bible amounts to about 350, or nearly
more than half as much again as the number given by Jacob
b. Chayim. Nor can even this largely increased number be
considered exhaustive. Careful students of MSS. of the
Hebrew Bible will discover many new ones. The great
difficulty in detecting them arises from the fact that
later redactors of the Massorah, owing to their hostility
to the Sevir, have often discarded the word TDD = Sevir
with the alternative reading, and simply substituted for it
'P6D8 "2 ,'I?BO '3 two or three misleading, without giving the
variant. The passage which exhibits this nameless sentence
in some MSS. has to be carefully compared with the parallel
passage in other MSS., where the nature of the Sevir is
often given, because the particular Scribe was not possessed
by the same degree of hostility to the Sevirin.

As to the treatment of this important corpus of
various readings by modern editors of the so-called Mas-
soretic Bible, this is best illustrated by an examination of
the three editions which are now accepted by scholars.
(i) Hahn's edition of which a new issue has just been published
Leipzig 1893. (2) Letteri's edition published by the British
and Foreign Bible Society and (3) Dr. Baer's edition
of which Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and
Kings are still due. Out of 350 Sevirin Hahn gives two
in the margin of his text, viz. i Sam. II 16 and XII 5 and
these two, Letteris simply repeats from Hahn's edition.
In Dr. Baer's edition not a single one of the Sevirin is
given in the margin of the text against the words to
which the Sevir refers, though this is its proper place by
the side of the official Keri as is the case in many of
the Massoretic MSS. Dr. Baer, however, notices many of
them in the Latin notes which form Appendices to the
different books which he edited. But he does not discuss
the value of the respective Sevirin, nor does he state

196 Introduction. [CHAP. VIII.

whether they are supported by MSS., the early editions
or the ancient Versions. By placing1 them in the margin
of the text, which is a new feature in my edition, I hope
to enable the student easily to see the extent and value
of this important corpus of various readings.

Chap. IX.
The Western and Eastern Recensions.

As early as the third century we are told that
there existed differences between the ('Nnsi8 =) Westerns
or Palestinians and the ('WIPE ==) Easterns or Babylonians
which affected not only the orthography, but the exegesis
of certain words. We know now that many of the deviat-
ing renderings of the Septuagint and the Chaldee Version
of the Prophets are due to the variations which obtained
in these Schools of textual critics.1

An instructive incident affecting the difference in the
orthography of the text, which obtained in these Schools
is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, where it is related
that in Jerusalem the Scribes arbitrarily appended Or
omitted the He local. To illustrate this fact it is said that
they wrote no^BTIT instead of D^tPIT, likewise fi:iB3C instead
of pax and n3Q'fl instead of {OY1 (Jerusalem Megilla I 9)*
The Samaritans who adhered to the ancient tradition
followed the same practice, which elicited the following
censure from Simon b. Elasar: '"I said to the Samaritan
Scribes: What made you commit this error that you have
not adopted the principle of R. Nehemiah?" For it is taught
in the name of R. Nehemiah that every word which should
have Lamed at the beginning and has is not, must have

1 Comp. Geiger in the Keretn Chemed IX 69: Ursclirift und Ueber-
setzungen der Bibel, p. 481 etc.

IBS nrvc-n pTBpa rn *6i na<iwn1' D-'WIT parns vn D^WTP sr3K 2

/to '« r6«ja troa'n ja-n nrux

198 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

He appended to it at the end, as for instance i*l2ttn for
pp6, likewise mw for Ttftt^ and nfTOlD for rroiD^
(Jerusalem Jebamoth I 6).1

It is very remarkable that though the Samaritan
Pentateuch still exhibits some of the peculiarities against
which R. Simon here raises his voice, the instances adduced
to show the arbitrariness of the Jerusalem Scribes do not
exist in the present recension of the Hebrew text. Passages
of rWQ'ri where it ought to be fQ*D do not occur now,
nor have we no^tflT which should be D^tPIT. The only
five instances in which HQ^tPTV occurs (i Kings X 2;
2 Kings IX 2S; Isa. XXXVI 2; Ezek. VIII 3; 2 Chron.
XXXII 9),'- the He local is absolutely wanted, inasmuch
as it takes the place of the Lamed at the beginning. In
this instance, therefore, as is the case with many other
features, the process of uniformity has successfully been
carried through in so far as the Massoretic text is con-
cerned.

The real nature and extent of the variations between
these two Schools of textual critics we must learn from
the instances which have been transmitted to us in the
official Lists and in the margin of the MSS. against the
words on which the variants are recorded. Before entering,
however, into an examination of these Schools it is
necessary to remark that Madinchai OXfttlD =) the Easterns
is the name for the Jews who resided in Babylon because
Babylon lies to the east of Palestine in contradistinction
to the Maarbai ('K31PQ =) the Westerns which denotes the
inhabitants of Palestine. The term Eastern or Madinchai,
however, denotes the principal School of Massorites which

•:m rren: '-0 pttm JTIK rr^n nrch c:b an: -a DTTO neiob

KTI "b JIT: "\b jrr: xbi in'rnnfi TO^ -px KITO 121 "?a rrans "i DEC
.'• 'K man- ^-trrre nisio1? nn-rw "vyvb nsin pn1? p;r

- Comp. The Massorah, letter *, § 619 Vol. I, p. 740

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 199

was divided into several subordinate Schools; one of these
is often quoted by the name Nehardai (WirD) and the
other Surai (>&O1D) after the names of the cities where the
respective Schools were held. The MSS. as a rule and
the printed texts exhibit the Maarbai or Western re-
cension.

The Pentateuch. — In the examination and analysis
of these variations it is necessary to discuss those which
occur in each of the three great divisions of the Bible
separately, since some of the official Lists extend to one
or two of these divisions and all of them omit the Pentateuch
altogether. This omission, however, which is entirely due
to the first compiler, has given rise to the assertion on
the part of Elias Levita that there is not a single difference
between the Easterns and the Westerns in the Pentateuch.1
But this learned expositor of the Massorah, must have
overlooked the passage in the editio princeps of Jacob b.
Chayim's Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah in praise of
which he himself composed a Hebrew poem which is
appended to the fourth volume. In the Massorah Magna
on Gen. XLVI 20 it is distinctly stated that pp ^S'lfl Tribal-
Cain (Gen. IV 22) constitutes one of the differences between
the Easterns and Westerns, the former read it as one word
PJ^SIFl Tubalcain, and the latter read it in two words
f»j5 ^rnPl Tubal Cain.'2

But though the official Lists do not give the differences
which existed in these two Schools of textual critics as
far as the Pentateuch is concerned, these variants are
given in the margin of different MSS. against the respective
passages. It is from these scattered marginal remarks as well
as from sundry Massoretic Rubrics that I have collected

1 Comp. Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 261, ed. Ginsburg, London 1867.

pi are p^a pin -Ka-iya1? .pnpi arc tnn nn^'

200 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

the variants in this division of the Hebrew Scriptures,
From these sources we learn that the differences between
the Eastern and Western recensions are both far more
numerous and far more important than those contained in
the official Lists.

A few illustrations will suffice to establish this fact.
According to the Maarbai ('JQ1PQ) recension which we
follow there is no difference in our text between the
vowel-points in 1300 from him, third person masculine and
from us, first person plural. It is in both instances pointed
13SQ. According to the Madinchai (>KrD"T£), however, it
is li~£S Raplie in all the twenty-three passages in which it
denotes from, us, the first person plural.1 This fact which
we have hitherto only known from MSS. is of double
importance. It is in the first place a valuable contribution
to Hebrew Grammar, and in the second place it shows
that the variations between the Westerns and 'Easterns
extended to the Pentateuch, since nine out of the twenty-
three instances occur in the Pentateuch.2

Of equal importance is the Massorah Parva in Codex
No. 13 in the Vienna Imperial and Royal Court Library
on Gen. IV 22. We are here told that according to the
Maarbai ^KVP3 Beth-el, like pp~^Mn Tubal-cain, nienxn
Hazcr-maveth, 10pl?"T]3 Chedor-laomer, and 1P"^5 Gal-ed, is
in two words, whereas according to the Madinchai it is ^WV3
Bethel one word.3 As this name is to be found no fewer
than seventy times in the Hebrew Scriptures it will at
once be apparent that its correct orthography is essential,

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter 12, §§ 549, 550, Vol. II, page 234.

2 Comp. Gen. Ill 22; XXIII 6; XXVI 16; Exod. I 9; XIV 12 ;
Numb. XIII 31; XXXI 49; Deut. I 28; II 36

pi ,rva isn pi p^a 'a -Ksipa1? .'pi re n*?a *nn pp "?2in "Knrna1? 3

."tr ba pi ,-iap1? -nr pi -'TK rrs

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 201

especially since Dr. Baer has printed it in one word
throughout his text.

The first passage in which this name is mentioned is
Gen. XII 8 where it occurs twice. Now besides the
Massoretic declaration in the Vienna Codex No. 13 the
following MSS. in the British Museum and early editions
have it ^N~fV2 Beth-el in two words: Orient. 4445 which is
the oldest MS. known at present; Orient. 2201 dated A. D.
1246; Harley 1528; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252;
Add. 15282; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient.
2365; the editio princeps of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482;
the Ixar edition 1490; the Lisbon edition 1491; the second
edition of the entire Hebrew Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the third
edition, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot; the first
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517; the quarto Bible,
Venice 1521; and the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible
with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. Three
out of the ten MSS., viz. Orient. 2201; Harley 1528; and
Orient. 2350 have it actually in two lines, i. e. ~fP3 Betk
at the end of one line and ^K el at the beginning of the
next line. This is also the case in the Complutensian
Polyglot. When it is added that Add. 15282 and Orient.
2696 have it ^N rP2^ with the following Massorah n^J3
JOTB fi'l'? the accent in n'^> is Mercha, and that the third
and fourth editions of the Bible (Naples 1491 — 93; Brescia
1494) have it here with Mercha, the evidence of its being
in -two words in accordance with the Maarbai is fully
established.

It is, however, to be remarked that in the case of
^X'fPSl Beth-el as is the case with other words with respect
to which the Western and Eastern recensions diifer, some
MSS. follow the Madinchai reading. Hence ^JMVa Bethel
in one word is to be found in Arund. Orient. 2; Add. 9401 ;
Add. 15451; Harley 5710 — n; Orient. 4227 and in the first

202 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

edition of the Hebrew Bible, Soncino 1488. But as we,
including Dr. Baer, profess to follow the Maarbai, the de-
liberate ejection of ^N~rP2 Beth-el from the text, especially
when with one exception it is in all the early editions,
is to be deprecated.

The treatment of 1QJ^>~TI3 Chedor-laomer, the fourth

it T :

name in the Rubric which registers the variations between
these two Schools of textual critics, is still more remarkable
and illustrative of the fact that the Maarbai recension is
not uniformly followed in all the MSS. or editions. As
this name occurs five times and in the same Section, and
moreover as it is treated differently by the same MSS.
and editions, it will be more convenient to examine each
passage separately.

(i) In Gen. XIV i where it first occurs, the following
MSS. and editions have it laj^-TTS Chedor-laomer in two
words according to the Maarbai: Arund. Orient. 2 dated
A. D. 1216; Harley 5710 — n; Add. 15451; Orient. 4227;
Orient. 2365; the editio princeps of the Pentateuch, Bologna
1482; the first edition of the entire Bible, Soncino 1488; the
third edition, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot: the
first edition of the Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517;
the Venice quarto 1521, and the first edition of the Bible
with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. It is to
be remarked that Harley 5710 — n which is one of the
most beautiful and accurate MSS. and is evidently a Standard
Codex, has it not only in two words, but in two lines,
*H3 Chedor is at the end of one line and IQJJ^ laomer

t : ' T

begins the next line.

The following MSS. and editions have it 10^*113
Chedorlaomer in one word according to the Madinchai:
Orient. 4445 which is the oldest MS. known at present;
Orient. 2201 dated A. D. 1246; Add. 9401 dated A. D. 1286;
Harley 1528; Add. 15251; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient.

CHAP. IX] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 203

2350; Orient. 2626—28; the Lisbon Pentateuch 1491 and
the second edition of the entire Bible, Naples 1491-93.
It is also to be added that Add. 15251, which has it in
one word has against it in the margin here KIP! n"7S3 =
one word.

(2) In Gen. XIV 4 the following MSS. and editions
have it "1BJ7^~TT3 Chedor-laomer in two words in accordance

v T T '

with the Western recension: Arund. Orient. 2; Harley
5710— 1 1; Add. 15451 ; Orient. 4227; Orient. 2365; the Bologna
Pentateuch 1482; the first and third editions of the Bible,
Soncino 1488, .Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot;
the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis
1517; and the Venice quarto 1521. Moreover Orient. 4227 as
also the editions of 1494, 1517 and 1521 have it in two lines,
viz. *H3 Chedor at the end of one line and "Ittjj'? laotner
at the beginning of the next line.

The following MSS. and editions have it lOi^-HS
Chedorlaomer in one word in accordance with the Eastern
recension: Orient. 4445; Orient. 2201; Add. 9401; Harley
1528; Add. 15251; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350;
the Lisbon edition of the Pentateuch 1491; the second
edition of the Bible 1491—93 and the first edition of the
Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim
1524 — 25. It is remarkable that Jacob b. Chayim who has
it in two words in all the other four passages has it in
one word in this solitary instance.

(3) In Gen. XIV 5 the following MSS. and editions
have it "IBJ^"TT3 Chedor-laomer the reading of the Maarbai:
Arund. Orient. 2; Add. 9401; Harley 5710 — n; Add. 15451;
Add. 15250; Orient. 4227; Orient. 2365; the Bologna edition of
the Pentateuch 1482; the first and third editions of the Bible,
Soncino 1488, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot;
Felix Pratensis Rabbinic Bible 1517; the Venice quarto Bible
1521; and the first edition of the Bible with the Massorah

204 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. — Add. 9401 and the editions
of 1494, 1517 and 1521 have it in two lines. Now on
comparing the MSS. quoted under Nos. i and 2 it will be
seen that Add. 9401, which follows the Eastern recension
in these two instances, not only exhibits in the passage
before us the Western reading, but has it in two lines,
"H3 Chedor at the end of one line and "IQj?^ laomer at the
beginning of the next line.

The following MSS. and editions exhibit the Eastern
recension IQj^llS Chedorlaomer in one word: Orient. 4445;
Orient. 2201; Harley 1528; Add. 15251; Orient. 2348; Orient.
2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2626 — 28; the Lisbon edition
of the Pentateuch 1491; and the second edition of the
Bible, Naples 1491 — 93.

(4) In Gen. XIV 9 the same MSS. and editions follow
respectively the Western and Eastern recensions as ex-
hibited in No. 3. Here again Add. 9401 not only follows
the Western reading, but has it in two separate lines as
in No. 3, though in Nos. i and 2, the Eastern reading is
adopted.

(5) Gen. XIV 17 which is the fifth instance where
this name occurs, exhibits no peculiarities, the same six
MSS. and the same seven early editions which follow the
Western recension in No. 4 follow it here, and the same
seven MSS. and two early editions have the Eastern reading.

Delitzsch in his Preface to Dr. Baer's edition of the
Five Megilloth, prints a Massorah which reverses the
Schools whence this divergent reading emanates. It is the
Eastern recension we are here told which reads "lOI^'lTS
Chedor-laomer in two words, whilst the Western reads its
Chedorlaomer in one word.1 As this Rubric was

pmn 'xnna^ .X-ICIBWS .rnrrm -rrrarter .

:jma mn n'ra -xs-ira1? ,p'na p*?a Comp. Preface to the n^a tran, p. v,

Leipzig 1886.

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 205

communicated to Delitzsch by Dr. Baer and no place nor
number is given where the MS. is to be found I can
not place absolute confidence in Dr. Baer's Massoretic
communications from my experience of the manner in which
he manipulates Massorahs. If this Rubric, however, is a
faithful transcript from a MS. it only shows what I have
often contended for, that similar Massorahs are not only
based upon distinct recensions of the text, but that the
same Rubric or reading is sometimes transmitted to us in
the names of opposite Schools of textual critics.

As regards the remaining thirty- one variations which
I have given in the notes, they are as follows:

(1) Gen. X 19 is in Or. 2696, British Museum.

(2) „ XXVIII 3 is in the Madrid Codex No. i ;

and in Add. 15251, British
Museum.

(3) „ XLIII 29 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1—3.

(4) Exod. XVII 4 is in Norzi's Minchath Shai on

this passage.

(5) „ „ 1 6 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

(6) Levit. VII 1 6 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

(7) „ XII 6 is in the St. Petersburg Codex

dated A.D. 9 1 6, Jer. XXV 12.

(8) „ XIII 4 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

(9) n „ 7 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.
(i o) „ XIV 12 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.
(n) „ XVI 33 is in Norzi's Minchath Shai on

this passage.

206 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

(12) Levit. XXVII 24 is in Orient. 2626, British Mu-

seum; and in the Codex
Leicester, fol. 62 b.

(13) Numb. I 48 is in Orient. 2626.

(14) „ XI 21 is in de Rossi in loco.

(15) „ XIII 6 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

(16) „ XXII 37 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

(17) „. XXVI 33 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

(18) „ XXX 13 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

(19) „ XXXII 7 is in Harley 5710 — n, British

Museum.

(20) „ XXXIV 19 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

(21) Deut. I ii is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

(22) r „ 28 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1—3.

(23) „ XVI 3 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. 1 — 3.

(24) „ XVII 10 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

(25) „ „ 12 is in Orient. 4445, British Mu-

seum.

(26) „ XIX 1 6 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

(27) „ XXXI 27 is in the National Library Paris

.Codex No. 1—3.

(28) „ XXXII 6 is in de Rossi in loco.

(29) „ „ 35 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 207

(30) Deut. XXXII 39 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

(31) „ XXXIII 5 is in the National Library Paris

Codex No. i — 3.

The Former Prophets. — For this division of the
Hebrew Bible I have collated the following official Lists:

(1) The St. Petersburg Codex B iga dated A. D. 1009 which
gives the Lists for all the Prophets and the Hagiographa.

(2) Codex No. i in the Madrid University Library dated
A. D. 1280. This MS. gives the List for Kings only; the
variations in Joshua, Judges and Samuel are given in the
Margin on the respective passages, thus forming part of
the Massorah Parva. (3) The beautiful little MS. in 16 vo-
lumes i2mo dated A. D. 1487 in the Madrid Royal Library
which, with the exception of Psalms and Chronicles, gives
the Lists for the Prophets and the Hagiographa. (4) The
MS. kindly lent me by the late Dr. Merzbacher of Munich
which gives the Lists for the Prophets and Hagiographa.
(5) Bodley MS. No. 10 — n which also gives the Lists for
the Prophets and the Hagiographa. (6) Arund. Orient. 16
British Museum which gives the Lists at the end of each
book and (7) Add. 15251 which gives the Lists for the
Former Prophets only. These MS. Lists together with the
Lists in the editio princeps in Jacob b. Chayim's Bible with
the Massorah I have carefully collated. Of course there
must be other MSS. which have these Lists, but to which
I have not had access.

With the exception of more or less clerical errors these
Lists are simply copies of one another and add very little
to the extensive differences which we know from the MSS.
themselves, have existed between the Western and Eastern
recensions of the text. The slavishness with which the
Scribes copied one another may be seen from the fact
that the Scribe of the List dated A. D. 1009 has the instance

208 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

from Ezra X 3 out of its proper place, since he put it as
the last in ,the List after Neh. XIII 10 and all the other
MSS. and even the editio princeps follow suit in this
disorder. .,-.-

Joshua. — In Joshua I have obtained four new variations
between these two Schools from the MSS., viz. VIII 16;
X i; XXIII 15 and XXIV 15. The first is from Code*
No. 1 — 3 in the National Library Paris, and Add. 15251,
British Museum, whilst the remaining three are in the Paris
Codex alone. Dr. Baer gives the following six variations:

(1) in' 4 -pi ana rrai '

(2) iv 1 8 "ipi 2TC mbr? -nab

(3) vi 15 np mbps ,STC m^ra *na^

(4) vn i *K-rora 'nab ,bK-iBr ^aa 'npab

(5) xv 22 pba 'a rn^-rri 'nab

(6) xv 29 pba 'a jprrbNi 'nab

These I have not adopted because I could not verify
them. Those variations which Dr. Baer in his List ascribes to
the Easterns and which I could verify, viz. np Din .^DD DTI

• * I T : ' • T :

XV 53, belong to the ordinary Keri and Kdhiv. It is so
in the Paris Codex No. i — 3 which is dated A. D. 1286;
in Harley 5710—11; Arund. Orient. 1 6; Harley 5720; Add.
15251 and in the editio princeps.

Two, viz. rmBltEO VI 20 and T^fFP^KI XV 30; XIX 4
in two words, are simply various readings. The former is in
the text in Orient. 2201 which is one of the best MSS. and
is dated A. D. 1246; in the editio princeps; the first edition
of the entire Bible, Soncino 1488; the Former Prophets,
Pesaro 1511; the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible by
Felix Pratensis 1517; and in the first edition of the Bible
with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25. The latter
is in Harley 5710 — u and in all the early editions.

As to VIII 13 which Dr. Baer says is VX?b of the city,
in both parts t)f the verse according to the Westerns, but

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 209

according to the Easterns it is only the Kethiv or the
textual reading which has it in both clauses, whilst the
Keri is itf? of the city,* no official Lists, MSS., Massorahs,
or early editions which I have seen have any variation on
this verse. Both the MSS. and the Lists which exhibit any
variation at all, not only mark it on Tl^> of the city, in
verse 12, but vary in their statements as to the nature
of the difference and as to the School to which it
belongs. This will be seen from the following analysis
of the Massorah Parva: (i) Orient. 2201 which is dated
A. D. 1246 and Harley 1528 have in the text in VIII 12
TJJ^ of the city, and in the margin against it 'p ^ the Keri
is of Ai. The same is the case in Harley 5710 — n where
the Massorah Parva has against this verse 'np^J the Resh is
to be cancelled = the Keri is ty*? of Ai, thus treating it as
an ordinary Keri of the Western School. (2) Arund. Orient. 16
and Add. 15451 which are superb MSS., have no Keri at all,
but simply remark against it in verse 12 'JJ£5E*T H four times
misleading, which is the condemnatory appellation for Sevirin.
Equally certain is verse 12 indicated in the official Lists,
which tabulate the differences between the Westerns
and the Easterns. I must first notice the fact that the
two oldest official Lists, viz. the St. Petersburg Codex
dated A. D. 1009 and the Madrid Codex No. i, record
no difference whatever either in verse 12 or 13. The Lists,
however, which register this difference not only assign it
to verse 12, but remark that according to the Westerns it
is Ttf^ of the city, in two verses both in the Kethiv and in
the Keri, whilst according to the Easterns the Kethiv in
these two verses is TJ^> of the city [or TP city], but the
Keri is if)*? of Ai or ># Ai, viz. verses 12 and i6.2 To the

/-ip iyb ,3TO "vrb 'Jiab -picsn prrmn ,'ipi arc
.'ip *yb TO T»^ 'D-ia1? ,'-ip pi 17^ TO

210 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

same effect are the official Lists in Arund. Orient. 16; Add.
15251 ; Bodley No. 1 1 , the MS. in the Royal Library Madrid;
Codex Merzbacher; and in the cditio princeps. Having" altered
PplDS '3 two verses, into pIDBl piTTiri in both clauses of
the verse, Dr. Baer was obliged to palm it on verse 13, since
it is the only verse in this Section where TXJ^ of the a'/r
occurs twice.

Dr. Baer gives DD^I Josh. X 26, as the passage which
constitutes the difference between tho Westerns and Easterns,
whereas the official List in the St. Petersburg Codex dated
A. D. 1009 gives Q3'1 731? B^OH ^ flNl as the catchword
which is XI 17 and the official Lists in the other MSS.
confirm it.

In three instances, viz. VIII 12; XVIII 14 and XXII 18
the Chaldee exhibits the Eastern recension. On VIII 1 2 my
note T'tn [31 is to be corrected into "ifll »"3 B^BB nxp03 pi.

Judges. - In Judges I have been able to add from
Codex No. i — 3 in the National Library Paris the important
fact that verses 29 and 30 in chapter VIII are one verse
according to the Easterns.

This implies a different accentuation as well as different
numbering of the verses in this book. In two instances,
viz. I 21 and XX 36 the Chaldee exhibits the Eastern
readings. Of the five passages which Dr. Baer includes
in his List one (VIII 22) is a Sevir, and the other four
(VI 25; X 4; XV 5; XX 20) are various readings exhibited
in the text of our recensions.

Samuel. • In Samuel I have only found one new
variation which constitutes a difference between the Westerns
and Easterns, viz. i Sam. XVIII 25 where the Oriental reading
is r6")I? defective. This is given in the official List in Arund.
Orient. 16. As regards the other difference in this verse,
the oldest List in the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 1009
distinctly gives it as follows:

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 211

mbir riKaa <a
nK»3-DK "a '

It will thus be seen that the difference between these
two Schools is the absence and presence of the particle
"DX in the text. This is confirmed by the List in Add. 15251
and in the editio princeps. Dr. Baer's statement, therefore,
that the Eastern variation is

np nK&a "a ,3,Ti3 nwaa-Dx "3
is to be rejected.

Equally wrong is Dr. Baer's manipulation of a supposed
difference between these two Schools in i Sam. XIX 23
which he formulates as follows:

npi 3TG ni'Da '
,n nia ,aTo rmsa '

All the best MSS. and early editions give this Kethiv
and ATm as belonging to the Western recension. They
have fV133 in the text and against it in the margin
'p n1^3. This is the casein Orient. 2201; Harley 5710 — n;
Arund. Orient 16; Add. 15451; and Add. 15251, all of which
are Standard Codices. The second and third editions of
the entire Bible (Naples 1491—93; Brescia 1494); the Former
Prophets, Pesaro 1511 and the Rabbinic Bible by Felix
Pratensis 1517, as well as the quarto Bible, Venice 1521
exhibit fHlD in the text with the vowel points of the
Keri which is their usual way of indicating the Keri, whilst
the editio princeps of the Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah
by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25 has rP13D in the text and
against it in the margin 'p DV3D.

As to the other eleven instances which Dr. Baer ex-
hibits in his List as constituting variations between these
two Schools, five I was unable to verify (i Sam. XIX 13;
XX 33; 2 Sam. XIII 5; XXII 45; XXIII 31) and, therefore,
hesitated to accept them. The six instances, however, which

212 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

I could test do not belong to this category of variations.
They are given on the authority of Codex Reuchlin No. 2
where the Massorah Parva's remark against each of them
is as follows:

(1) i Sam. xix 13 rb* -by

(2) • „ xxii 6 r

(3) „ xxiv 4 r^B -

(4) „ XXVIII 19

(5) 2 Sam. Ill 29 r^B

(6) „ vii 25 r^B nnxi

It will thus be seen that Dr. Baer takes 3^0 or
as the equivalent for 'KfmO = Eastern, which it
most assuredly is not. The expression is of frequent
occurrence in the Massorah and it simply denotes there is
a difference of opinion here, or a variation, which may either
be exhibited in the MSS. or in special Codices revised
by known textual critics. Thus on ri^JJ burnt offerings
Exod. XXIV 5 the Massorah Parva remarks nf?J7 TOI^D
a variation fil^XJ, which simply means that in some MSS.
it is plene. On rftjP wagons Numb. VII 3 the Massorah
Parva explains this technical expression by adding: "It is
three times defective in this Section [Numb. VII 3, 6, 8],
but there is a difference of opinion about it since some
say it is here nlt>3P plene".* It will thus be seen that the
Massorah itself explains J^D or KDJn^D by some say, or
some hold a different opinion, i. e. certain textual critics
say it is plene, or some MSS. exhibit the plene form.

On i1T¥ venison Gen. XXVII 3 for which the Kcri
is TIC the Massorah in Add. 15251 remarks iT3 J^DI, but
there is a variation here, that is some MSS. or textual
critics have no Keri. That this is the meaning of IP^D is,
moreover, evident from the expanded Massorah in the

noK '= rrby TW^BI -en

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 213

editio princeps on this very passage which is as follows:
"the He is superfluous, but it is a variant of R. Nachman",1
i. e. according to this textual critic the He is not redundant,
but is as in Josh. IX 1 1 and Ps. LXXVIII 25. Here we
have a clear proof that the simple 4^>Q in one MS. is in
another Massorah described as a variation of a particular
redactor. Unless, therefore, J^D is followed by the name
of the individual or of the School to whom or to which the
variation belongs it is most unjustifiable to take it as an
equivalent for ^PITTD the Eastern School?

The following two readings of the Madinchai are ex-
hibited in the text of .the Chaldee i Sam. IV 15 and 2 Sam.
XIII 33. In the variations of these two Schools I have
inadvertently omitted 2 Sam. VI 19 where the Westerns
read ttf'KJS^ and the Easterns ttfx without Lamed.3

Kings. - - In Kings I have added the following five
variations which are not contained in the editio princeps.
(i) i Kings III 12 which is given in the Massorah Parva in
Orient. 2626 — 28. (2) III 26 which is in the List of the
St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 1009. (3) XVI 19 which is in
the List of the same Codex. (4) XX 43 which is in the
St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. gi64 and (5) 2 Kings X 31
which is in the List of Add. 15251. I can now add a sixth
instance, viz. DiT^JJl and their children 2 Kings VIII 12
which according to the Easterns is plene, as will be seen
from Massorah Parva in Harley 5710—11 on Ps. XVII 14.

•jians aii roi^s bnx "Trr 'n »

2 If any other proof were needed I have simply to point out the fact that
TtSP in i Sam. XXII 6 which is described as Pbt is actually given as K"D
in Harley 5710—11, whilst ~^JP1 2 Sam III 29 is not only one of the Sevirin,
but is exhibited in the text of Arund. Orient. 1 6.

3 Comp. The Massorah, letter K, § 442 a, Vol. I, p. 52.

4 Comp. the St. Peterburg Codex on Ezek. XIII 2, and The Massorah,
letter K, § 514, Vol. I, p. 57.

214 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

The Massorah here tells us that according to the Easterns
DiT^U? with the suffix third person plural masculine is plene
in all the four instances in which it occurs,1 viz. 2 Kings
VIII 12; Isa. XIII 16; Hos. XIV . ; and Ps. XVII 14. In
our or Western recension, however, it is only plene in
one instance (Ps. XVII 14). Hence we obtain three more
passages than we have hitherto known (2 Kings VIII 1 2 ;
Isa. XIII 16; and Hos. XIV i) which exhibit differences
between the Eastern and Western recensions.

I. From these MS. Lists and the MSS. themselves I
have also been able to make the following corrections.
Though the official Lists in the St. Petersburg Codex of
A. D. 1009, in the Madrid Codex of the Royal Library, in
Bodley No. 1 1, in the Merzbacher MS., in Add. 15251 British
Museum and in the editio princeps distinctly state that
n^ttf' i Kings III 20 is plene according to the Westerns
and that according to the Eastern School it is njt^
defective, yet some of the best MSS., and all the early
editions have the defective form in the text. But as we
invariably follow the Western recension I have given the
plene in the text and the variant in the margin in accordance
with the uniform practice. The MSS. and the editions,
however, demonstrate the fact to which I have often had
occasion to advert that the Eastern reading and not the
Western is not unfrequently exhibited both in the MSS.
and editions.

II. The variation which the Massorah Parva in the
editio princeps places against i Kings XVI i belongs to
verse 12 of the chapter in question. This is not only
attested by the official Lists in the MSS., but by the List in
the editio princeps itself where the proper catchword is
given not IBtt'l 'PB^ = XVI 12.

'"?»

CHAP.' IX.] The Western and Eastern Receusions. 215

III. In i Kings XVII 4 the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 1009 reverses the variation, giving DtP there, as
the Western recension and nattf with the paragogic He as
the Eastern reading. But as all the other Lists distinctly
state the contrary there must be a clerical error in the
St. Petersburg List.

In four passages the Chaldee exhibits the text of the
Eastern recension, viz. i Kings XVI 12; 2 Kings XVIII 37;
XIX 9, 20.

The Latter Prophets. - - With the exception of Add.
15251 which gives the Lists for the Former Prophets only,
all the Lists which I have collated for the Former Prophets
I also examined for this division of the Bible. I have,
moreover, carefully collated the text of the Babylonian or
St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 916 which embraces this
portion of the Hebrew Scriptures and which is supposed to
exhibit the text of the Eastern recension. Whether this claim
put forward on the part of Biblical scholars is justified or
not will be seen from a comparison of the Eastern variants
as transmitted to us in the official Lists and in the Margins
of the MSS. with the readings in the text of this Codex.
Isaiah. — From the official List in the St. Petersburg
Codex dated A. D. 1009 I have been able to add two new
instances, viz. Ill 24 and XIV 26. The first instance shows
that rnin girdle Isa. Ill 24, which according to the Westerns
is defective, ought to be in the text, since we follow the
Maarbal recension. This reading is actually in the text in
some of the best MSS., viz. Orient. 2201 dated A. D. 1246;
Harley 5710 — n; Harley 1528; Add. 15250; and Orient.
2626 — 28, as well as in the Complutensian Polyglot. Arund.
Orient. 16, however,1 Add. 15451; Add. 15251; Add. 15252,

1 This MS. remarks on it in the Massorah Parva 'bfi 'D = twice plene,
but as rnJH is unquestionably defective in the second instance where it occurs,

216 Introduction. |CHAP. IX.

as well as all the early editions with the exception of the
Complutensian Polyglot, have iTlUH plene in the text which
is the Eastern reading. We have here, therefore another
proof of the fact, so often adverted to, that the MSS. and
the early editions which profess to follow the readings of
the Maarbai not unfrequently exhibit the Madinchai re-
cension.

From the Massorah Parva in Orient. 2201 I have also
been able to increase the number by three more instances.
On Isa. XXVII 8 this Massorah informs us that the Baby-
lonians = Easterns read 11113, that they read "ijN^Q in
XXXVII 36 and that they read nP!B53 in XLVIII 13. I am
now able to add a sixth instance, viz. DiT^jn Isa. XIII 16
which according to the Easterns is DJT^IPl plene.1 Orient.
2201; Harley 5710 — n; and Add. 15451, as well as the
Lisbon edition of Isaiah 1492 and the Complutensian Polyglot
have the plene form in the text, thus affording another
illustration of the fact that the Eastern recension is often
exhibited in the text of some of the best MSS. and editions
which profess to follow the Western recension.

As regards the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 916
which some critics maintain exhibits the text of the Oriental
recension, this can best be tested by a comparison of the
Eastern readings transmitted to us in the official Lists and
in the Massorahs with the readings in this MS. In this
examination I shall confine myself more especially to Isaiah
since the result of this investigation will equally apply to
Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets which constitute
the rest of this remarkable Codex.

The official Lists and the MSS. give thirty-one passages
in Isaiah in which the Easterns have a different reading

viz. 2 Kings III 21 and, moreover, as it is so written in this very Codex
'^0 '3 is manifestly a mistake.

1 See above pp. 213, 214.

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 217

from the Westerns. Of these the St. Petersburg Codex in
question exhibits only fifteen,1 whereas in the other sixteen
instances this Codex follows the Western readings.2

From the fact that the St. Petersburg Codex has half
the number of the Eastern readings, no valid argument can
be adduced that the MS. exhibits the text of the Eastern
recension, especially when it is borne in mind that even
the acknowledged Western MSS. often exhibit in the text
the readings of the Eastern School. All that can be fairly
inferred is that at this early period the Massorites and
those textual critics who were engaged in the redaction
of MSS. did not as yet minutely classify the various read-
ings of the two Schools.

Besides the fifteen variations in the St. Petersburg
Codex which happen to agree with the Eastern recension,
it has no fewer than two hundred other readings which
differ from the Western text in Isaiah alone. As far as
I know no critic has as yet been bold enough to assert
that these two hundred exhibit the differences between
the Eastern recension and the Western text. With such a
vast number of variations it would indeed be surpassing
strange if a small proportion did not agree with the Eastern
School the text of which was only in the process of being
separated from the recension of the Western School.

Codex Heidenheim remarks in the Massorah Parva
on Isa. XX 2 that it is two verses according to the Easterns,3
yet the St. Petersburg Codex not only reads it as one
verse, but emphatically states in the Massorah that the

1 Isa. VI 13; XIV 26; XXIII 12, 12; XXVII 6; XXXVII 9;
XLIV 27; XLIX 5; LI 7; LIII 4; LIX 4, 9, n; LXIV 6; LXVI 2.

2 Isa. Ill 17, 24; XIII 16; XIV 19; XX 2; XXI 14; XXIII 12;
XXXVII 8; XXXVIII 14, 14; XLV 18; XLVI 8; LVI 3, 7; LVII IO;
LIX 6.

218 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

textual reading is according to the Westerns who connect
the two verses into one.1

The St. Petersburg Codex reads D2 with them, in the
text in Isa. XXX 32 and remarks in the Massorah Parva
that according to the Easterns it is H2 with her, thus show-
ing that it designates its text as exhibiting the Western
recension and hence gives the alternative Eastern reading
in the margin (^22*? .13).

The conclusion, therefore, which we may legitimately
draw from these facts is that this Codex neither exhibits
a distinctive Eastern nor a definite Western recension, but
that it is a mixture of the two recensions which obtained
prior to the time when the texts of the two Schools were
more sharply divided. To adduce, therefore, a variant
from this Codex alone in order to prove an Eastern reading
is to be deprecated, unless indeed the variant is expressly
described as such in other MSS., and unless we are
prepared to describe all the hundreds of various readings
in this MS. as Eastern in contradistinction to the Western
recension.

For this reason the following passages which Dr. Baer
gives in his Lists and in the Prefaces to the various parts
of his editions and some of which I have adopted, as
differences between the Westerns and the Easterns, must
be taken as simply exhibiting ordinary variants.

In Isa. XVIII 2, 7 the St. Petersburg Codex reads
Ip'lp in two words as it is in the ordinary MSS. and
editions. It has, however, against it in the Massorah Parva
the Kethiv is one word and the Keri two words? in spite of
the fact that the Kethiv here exhibits two words. This
variant which I have not as yet been able to find in any

nrci TO "in i-i

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 219

other MS. is not to be taken as exhibiting a difference
between the two Schools, but must be regarded as an
ancient Kethiv and Keri. My note on this passage is,
therefore, to be corrected into 'p pin Ip'lp TO TPf Iplp X"DD.

In Isa. XXIII 12 I have adopted the variation given
by Dr. Baer 'p 'aip T« IBIp Tia^ which is to be cancelled,
since even the St. Petersburg Codex has simply ^aip in
the text without any Kethiv and Keri. It must, therefore,
be regarded as a simple variant.

In Isa. XLVII 10 the St. Petersburg Codex had
originally D^ftX in the text as it is in our MSS. and editions.
The Reviser, however, placed a Yod over it and remarked
in the margin against it pb* = the Yod is to be cancelled.
But this variant is not peculiar to the Eastern School as is
evident from Orient. 1478 which has DIEX in the text with the
following Massorah against it: In the Mug ah it is vnatf and the
Massorah on it is the Yod is redundant.* Hence the statement
of Dr. Baer in the Preface to the Five Megilloth, p. VI,
which I have adopted in my notes2 must be cancelled.

Isa. LIV 9 is given by Dr. Baer in his Preface to
Jeremiah, p. XI, as exhibiting one of the differences between
the Westerns and the Easterns. He says that the Westerns
read sa~*3 two words and the Easterns ^3 one word.3
But this is an ordinary variant as is attested by the MSS.
Hence Orient. 1478 remarks against it: It is the subject of
a various reading, some write it one word and some two
words.* To the same effect is Kimchi whom Dr. Baer
wrongly quotes to support the variation as existing between
the two Schools and the printed Massorah Parva.5 The

.TV "TV n^br "Dai 'max rrnaa '

/ip niax STO max 'nab -niax 'irab ^

.xin nba ••a"? 'nab f ba pin 'a-rsi 'irab 3

.pba "in rot nw sin nba roi n'K "•rbs 4

.Kin nba wz rebnna '•>

220 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

St. Petersburg Codex, the Chaldee, the Syriac and the
Vulgate have it in one word, whilst the Septuagint and
most of the MSS. and all the early editions have it in
two words. Being an ordinary variant I have not described
it as constituting a difference between the Westerns and
Easterns.

In the Preface to the Five Megilloth, p. VI, Dr. Baer
gives "nltPnri plene Isa. LVIII i as one of the differences
between these two Schools because it is plene in the
St. Petersburg Codex, which I have adopted. The Codex
had originally WflPl defective and the Reviser placed the
Vav over it with the remark in the margin against it
TD '^B = it is plene. But this is simply an ordinary variant
and is by no means peculiar to the Easterns as is evident
from the MSS. some of which have it so in the text. It
is plene in the editio princeps of the Prophets, Soncino
1485 — 86; in the first edition of the entire Bible, Soncino
1488; in the third edition of the Bible, Brescia 1494; and
in the Pesaro edition of the Prophets 1511. The part of
my note, viz. K^O ^Ittfnfi '31Q^ is, therefore, to be cancelled.

Dr. Baer states in his List that Isa. LXIII 6 exhibits
a difference between the Westerns and Easterns, that the
former read D13EW1 with Kaph and the latter D12tPN1 with
Beth. Though this is supported by Geiger ' it is not given
in any of the Lists. Orient. 1478 has the following remark
against it in the Massorah Parva: // is written with Kaph
and it is derived from Shakar and those who read it with
Beth are mistaken? It is simply a variant which is exhibited
in some MSS. and is to be found in the editio princeps
of the Bible, Soncino 1488 and in the Chaldee. The
St. Petersburg Codex had it originally in the text and

1 Comp. Urschrift und Uebersdzungen dcr Bibd, p. 414.

/re rraa npn JK&I r\nsv 'ivhn Kim epa p >

<JHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 221

the Reviser altered it into D"13vPKT with Kaph. I have,
therefore, given it as an ordinary variant.

The following two passages are wrongly given in
Dr. Baer's List. Isa. XLV 7 ought to be XLV 18 and LVI 6
ought to be LVI 3 as is attested by all the official Lists.

Jeremiah. - To the instances of variants which ob-
tained in the Western and Eastern recensions and which
have been transmitted to us in the official Lists in Jeremiah
I have been able to add nine new ones, viz. (i) Jerem. II 20
from the Massorah Parva in Add. 15251; (2) VIII 7 from
the official List in the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D.
1009; (3) XII 14 from the Massorah Parva in Add. 15251;
(4) XIII 14 from the List in the St. Petersburg Codex of
A. D. 1009; (5) XXXIV 2 from the Massorah Parva in
Orient. 1474; (6) XXXV 3 from the Massorah Parva in
Add. 15251; (7) XXXV 17 from the List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009; (8) XXXVIII 1 6 and (9) XL VIII i
both from the Massorah Parva in Add. 15251.

As to the relation of the St. Petersburg Codex dated
A. D. 916 which, as we have already pointed out, is supposed
to exhibit the Eastern recension, I have to add the following
facts to those adduced in the discussion on the condition of
the text of Isaiah. In twenty-seven passages this Codex agrees
with the Western readings and is against the Eastern re-
cension,1 whilst in the same number of instances it coincides
with the Eastern and is against the Western recension.2

1 Comp. Jerem. II 20; IV 30 originally; VI 6, 6; VII 28; VIII 7;
X 13 originally; XIII 14, 18; XXV 2; XXVII 5, 12; XXVIII 3, 17;
XXXII 12 originally; XXXIV 2, 3; XXXVJII 16; XLII 6; XLIV iS;
XLVI1I 3, 44 originally; XLIX 12; L 9, II, 29; LII 2.

2 Comp. Jerem. V 8; IX 23; X 18; XIII 20, 20 second hand; XVII 4;
XXVI 8; XXVII i, 19; XXIX 22 second hand; XXXII 19 second hand;
XXXII 34; XXXIV 2; XXXV 17; XXXVI 23; XXXIX 3, 3, 11; XLVI 2;
XLVIII i, 18, 36; XLIX ly, 20; L 6, 2O; LII 2.

222 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

Out of the large number of variants which occur in
this Codex Dr. Baer has selected nineteen and incorporated
them in his List as exhibiting differences between the
Westerns and Easterns.1 But the selection is simply arbitrary
unless we take it that all the variants in this MS. are Eastern.
As in the case of Isaiah (XXX 32) so here the Massorite
describes the text as Western. In Jerem. XLVIII 31 the
text has the Western reading HSiT he shall mourn, third
person singular masculine on which the Massorah Parva
remarks : this is the reading of the Westerns, the Babylonians =
the Eastern read n3PIX / shall mourn, first person singular
masculine,2 thus giving the Maarbai as the substantive
reading and relegating the Eastern variant into the margin
as an alternative.

We have still to note the following variants in the
St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916 which add further
proof that it does not exhibit the Eastern recension.

In Jerem. XI 1 1 the Kethiv in this MS. is ^81 and the
Keri \fo\ whereas all the official Lists with one exception
as well as the editio princeps state the very reverse, that
^NH is the Kethiv according to the Easterns and &?} is
the Keri. The MS. No. i in the University Library Madrid
gives the Eastern Keri as ^ so that the variation consists
in the absence of the Vav conjunctive.

In Jerem. XXVI 24 the St. Petersburg Codex has
~f3 son of, in the text which is in accordance with the
Western recension, but the Massorite put against it the
textual reading (3TO), is '33 sons of, the plural and the
Keri is '[3 son of, the singular.3

1 Comp. Jerem, IV 20; V 6; VIII 4; IX 21; XIII 25; XV 14, 21;
XVIII 17, 21 ; XIX 3; XXII 14, lf>; XXIV I; XXXVI 23; XXXVII 19;
LI 29, 59.

.p TIK hssh ,'yzh 'p rr 2

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 223

In Jerem. XXIX 7 this Codex has TP^n in the text
which is the Western reading, but the Massorite has
against it the Kethiv n^JlH and the Keri VT^Jin.1 It will
thus be seen that the textual reading put down by the
Massorite is neither in accordance with the Westerns nor
with the Easterns.

In Jerem. XXXII 1 1 the textual reading in this MS.
is mitZpnVIX') which is in accordance with the Western
recension. But the Massorite put against it two distinct
notes. The first is 'p tfS fiN = : the particle DX is to be
cancelled and the second is 'p rp¥£prn = tne Keri is

In Jerem. XXXIII 3 this MS. has Dll^ in the text
which is the Western reading, but the Massorite put against
it 'p '¥31 — the Keri is f)1"13C-fy and though this variant makes
no difference in the sense, since the one makes it conformable
to the phrase in Deut. I 28 and the other to Isa. XLVIII 6,
still all the official Lists state that in the Eastern recension
nlllC^ is the textual reading and that fThXIfl is the Keri.
This is the very reverse of what is given as the Kethiv
and the Keri in the St. Petersburg Codex.

In Jerem. XLVIII 4 1 the official List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009, in the Merzbacher MS., in
Bodley No. 1 1 and in the editip princeps, emphatically states
that ItPDDj the third person plural, is the textual reading
and that the Keri is mPDfD third person singular according
to the Easterns, yet the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916
has the very reverse, since ntPSfli is in the text with the
remark 'p ItPSro = the Keri is the plural.

In Jerem. XV 14 Ip'fl the Kal future, is given as the
Kethiv and "Tplfl the Hiphal future as the Keri according to
the Eastern recension in the following official Lists: in the

224 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009; in the MS. No. i in the
Madrid Royal Library; the Merzbacher MS.; and in Bodley
No. 1 1 . The MS. No. i in the University Library Madrid,
however, gives the same variant on XVII 14. I have, there-
fore, given it on both passages.

The following three variations given in Dr. Baer's
List are the very reverse of the official Lists. On Jerem.V 17
Dr. Baer says that the Westerns have 11632 defective and
the Easterns read it nfila plence, whereas all the Lists as
well as the editio princeps state the very reverse. The same
is the case in Jerem. X 18 which Dr. Baer tells us the
Westerns read VTlXm defective and the Easterns VTHtfrp
plene. This I have inadvertently followed. All the official
Lists, however, state the very reverse, that the Westerns
have it plene and the Easterns read it defective. So also in
Jerem. XXXV 1 1 where Dr. Baer says that the Westerns
read pKJV^X and the Easterns pxrr^P which I have
also inadvertently followed. The Rubric in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009 which is the only official List
wherein this variation is tabulated, distinctly declares that
the Westerns read 'ty and the Easterns ~^X. In Jerem. L 9
where both Dr. Baer and I give the difference between
the Westerns and the Easterns to be that the former read
^>33~^P and the latter ^^3~^K, the only two official Lists
which register this variation state the very reverse. Thus
the List in the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009
and in Bodley No. 1 1 say that the Westerns read "t'N and
the Easterns ~^y.

Ezekiel. — In Ezekiel I have found in the Massorah
Parva of the diflferent MSS. nine variations between the
Westerns and Easterns which do not appear in the official
Lists, (i) Ezek. VI 14 is from the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 916; (2) VIII 3 is from Add. 21161 in the British
Museum; (3) so is the second variant recorded on this

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 225

verse; (4) X 21 is from Add. 15251; (5) XIII 16 is from
the St. Petersburg Codex dated 1009; (6) XXIII 17 and

(7) XXIII 1 8 are from Orient. 2201 in the British Museum;

(8) XXV 8 is from Add. 15251; and (9) XXXVI 23 is from
Orient. 2201.

From a comparison of the text in the St. Petersburg,
Codex of A. D. 916 with our Western recension it will be
seen that almost identically the same results are yielded in
Ezekiel as we have obtained from the analysis of Isaiah and
Jeremiah. Thus of the twenty-seven undoubted differences
between the Westerns and the Easterns this Codex agrees
in fifteen passages with the Maarbai, i. e. our recension
or the Western School,1 whilst in twelve instances it ex-
hibits the Madinchai or Eastern recension.2

We have still to discuss five passages in the official
Lists of the differences between the Westerns and the
Easterns which show the character of the text in the
St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916.

Ezek. V 1 1. — All the official Lists state the Westerns
read here XnjN I w^ diminish, with Resh and that the
Easterns have jnjj* / will cut off, with Daleth in the text
for which the Keri substitutes jn3N with Resh.3 Now the
text in this Codex had originally JHJK with Daleth which
is also the reading in Harley 5710 — 1 1 ; in the second edition

1 Comp. Ezek. I 13 first hand; VII 7, 10, 22; VIII 3; X 21; XIV 19;
XVI 13; XXIII 17, 18; XXV 8; XXXVI 23; XXXVII 24; XLJII 26;
XLIV 3.

2 Comp. Ezek. XI 6 second hand; XIII 16; XIV 22; XVII 7; XXI 19;
XXV 9; XXVII 31; XXIX 4; XXXI 12; XXXII 4; XLII 8 second hand;
XLIII 20.

3 'p P1JK TO JH3K 'nab ,jnJK '9Kb, so the List? in the St. Petersburg
Codex of A. D. 1009; in Codex No. I in the Madrid University Library; in
the MS. of Royal Library Madrid; in the Merzbacher MS.; in Bodley No. II ;
in Arund. Orient. 16; and in the editio princeps.

226 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

of the entire Hebrew Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; and in the
third edition Brescia 1494. The Annotator, however, put
against it the following Massorah: "the Kethiv is with Resh
and the Keri with Daleth" ,* and though this variant is
against all the Lists, Dr. Baer exhibits it in this form as
one of the differences between the Westerns and the
Easterns. It will thus be seen that according to the
testimony of the Massorite, the textual reading or the Kethiv
in this Codex exhibits the Western recension.

Ezek. XIII 17. -- This Codex tells us that the Easterns
read ~^P in the text and that the Keri is -I?K, whereas
according to the Westerns the reverse is the case, the
textual reading is -^K and the Keri is ~^P.2 The oldest
official List, however, of A. D. 1009 states that the textual
reading according to the Easterns is '^JJ without any Keri and
that the Westerns read ~^N also without any Keri.9 And
though this difference between the two Schools of textual
critics is reversed in the other Lists, inasmuch as they state
that the Easterns read *^K and the Westerns ~by 4 still they
all agree that there is no Kethiv and Keri on this particle
here. The Massoretic note, therefore, in the Codex in
question is at variance with all the official Lists and can
only be regarded as exhibiting the Massorah of one of
the several Schools of Massorites which obtained in
the East.

Ezek. XXII 4. — This Codex which has "1JJ in the
text, remarks in the Massorah Parva that the Easterns
read DP and that the Westerns read "IP.5 All the official

,'p r-i -ro m

shy 'pi TO"? TO -hx .'an1? (p bx rwa-by 2
.mja-bp 'nob .nus-^K Tab 3

-bK 'HO1? .rrcS-1?? Tab, so the Merzbacher MS. ; Bodley No. 1 1 ;
Arund. Orient. 16; and the editio princeps.

' nr '

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 227

Lists, however, positively state that the textual reading
of the Easterns, i. e. the 1TD is DP and that the Keri
is "rr.1

Ezek. XXIII 19. — On this passage this Codex which
has CDim in the text, states in the Massorah Parva that
the Easterns read 3"irn and that the Westerns read n3*lf)l.2
All the official Lists, however, most emphatically state
that the Eastern textual reading (3TI3) is llftl and that
the Keri is n3*lp)l.3

Ezek. XLIV 3. - The List in the St. Petersburg
Codex of A.D. 1009 states that the Westerns read here ^3X^
defective which is the textual reading in the editio princeps of
the Bible, Soncino 1488, and that the Easterns read it ^?13K^
plene. As this is the only official List which has preserved
this record we must accept it as final. The text, therefore,
in the Codex in question, i. e. the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 916 which reads ^3X^ exhibits in this instance also
the Western recension.

Dr. Baer has included in his List of the differences
between the Westerns and Easterns no fewer than forty-
eight variations 4 simply because they occur in the St. Peters-
burg Codex dated A. D. 916. But it is sufficiently evident
from the above analysis that this MS. does not exhibit

1 '-Ip 1? TO DP "T&1? ,-pnW-ir lm\yKb, so the List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009; the Merzbacher MS.; the Madrid MS. in the Royal
Library; Bodley No. II; Arund. Orient. 16; and the editio princeps.

,'p mini 'ra^i /p :nrn "szb nmrn 2

3 'p rOirn TO Sini Tttb ,,-O-ini "Stb, so the List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009; the Merzbacher MS.; the MS. No. I in the Royal
Library Madrid; Bodley No. II; Arund. Orient. 16; and the editio princeps.

* Comp. Ezek. V 12, 13; IX 8; XI 7, 19; XII 14; XIII 2; XIV 17;
XVI 4, 29, 46, 48; XVII 7, 14, 15; XVin 2, 20; XXI 2, 9, 14, 19; XXII 12,
12, 13; XXIII 35, 46; XXVI 17; XXVIII 26; XXX 18; XXXI 4;
XXXII 16, 26; XXXIII 33; XXXIV 23; XXXVI 5; XXXIX 28; XL 2,

3, 25; XLIV 3; XLVI 6, 6, 8, 9, 21; XLVII 6, ii; XLVIII 28.

P-

228 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

the Eastern recension. Hence no various reading which
occurs in it can legitemately be characterised as
Eastern.

The Minor Prophets. — In the Minor Prophets I have
only been able to add one instance to the differences
between the Westerns and Easterns, viz. DIT^jj their
children, Hos. XIV i which according to the Western School
is defective, whilst according to the Eastern recension it
is D.T^lr plene.1

As to the relation of the St. Petersburg Codex of
A. D. 916 to the two recensions, it is to be remarked that
of the twenty-three passages in which a comparison can
definitely be instituted no fewer than thirteen agree with
our text or the Maarbai;2 whilst it is only in ten instances
that this Codex coincides with the Eastern recension or
Madinchai?

In two passages this Codex differs both from the
Eastern and Western recensions. Thus on Nah. II 6 all the
official Lists state that the textual reading (2TD) according
to the Westerns is DfiDlSlS with Vav and that the Keri is

T T 1 -

Dfip^nS with Yod, but that the Easterns have DfO^fia with
Yod both in the Kethiv and Keri, whereas this Codex reads
DroSlD with neither Vav nor Yod. Again on Habak. Ill 19
the official Lists declare that the Westerns read TH'3^333

T • : •

without any Keri and that the Easterns read >ril3l'JI33 in the
text (3T1D) and that the Keri is 'fil3^33, whereas this Codex
has in the text 'fl}*333 with both Vavs defective to which

1 This Massorah is the Margin on Psalm XVI I 14 in Harley 5710 — 11
Vide supra p. 214.

5 Comp. Hos. IV 12; XIV I, 5 first hand; Amos III 6; VI 8; Micah VI 5
first hand; VII 5, 5; Nahum II 12 first hand; Zeph. Ill 7; Zech. XII IO;
XIV 4; Malachi I 14.

3 Comp. Hos. VIII 13; IX 6; Joel I 12; IV 7; Micah V 12; Nah.
Ill 8; Hab. II 16; Zech. IX 17; XIII 7; XIV 13.

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 229

the later Massorite added a note in the margin to make it
conformable to the Eastern Ketkiv.1

That the text in this Codex does not exhibit the
Eastern recension, but that a later Annotator tried in
several instances to make it conformable to the readings
of the Madinchai is, moreover, evident from the following
passages.

On Hosea IV 12, the official List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009 states that the Westerns read
here l^j^ai and his staff, and that the Easterns read it
1^1|5p1 and from his voice. Thus Codex of A. D. 916 like
our text reads ibjtJBI, yet the Annotator remarks in the
Massorah Parva that the textual reading is l^lfjpl (which is
contrary to the text) and there is a difference of opinion
about it?

Hosea IV 5. — Here the official Lists state that the
Westerns read 13230 from them, but that the Easterns have
'3$p from me in the text (3TID), and that the Keri accord-
ing to some Lists is 'ISSQ. On a close examination of the
MS., however, it will be seen that this Codex had origi-
nally "DOtt in the text, which is the Western reading, and
that the Annotator altered it into »3QQ and remarked
against it in the margin Read 13tt£,3 which makes it con-
formable to the Eastern recension. It is, however, to be
stated that the official List in the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 1009 simply remarks that the Easterns read ^0X3
from me, without any alternative or Keri and that this is
also given in Bodley No 1 1 and in the editio princeps.

On Micah VI 5 the Lists state that the Westerns
read HQ what, and that the Easterns have ^ who in the

1 On the textual reading T^JiS the Annotator remarks TH3V3S which
contradicts the text.

TO ibpai -tepBi 2

.'p ID g'^WD i !3»!S 3

230 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

text (3T13), but that the Keri is na what. The text,
however, in this Codex is na as it is in the Western
recension, but the Annotator put against it in the margin
the Kethiv is »a and the Keri is na,1 thus contradicting
the text in order to make it conformable to the Eastern
reading.

Nahum II 12. -- According to the offical Lists the
Western reading here is Kin nuiai, whilst the Easterns
have N>n in the text (3'fO) for which the Keri is Kin.
Here too this Codex has KM the Western reading in the
text, but here again the Annotator put against it the
contradictory note the textual reading is with Yod (fcOH), but
the Keri is with Vav (Kin).2.

Zechariah XIV 4 affords the most conclusive proof
that this Codex exhibits the Western recension and not
the text of the Madinchai. The official Lists distinctly
state that according to the Western recension this verse
reads "irr^P Ninn Dl»a V$>:n TTOjn and his feet shall stand in
that day upon the mount &c. and that the Eastern text
has it "irr^P V^n nain and his feet shall stand upon the
mount &c. leaving out the words Sinn D1'3 in that day.
This Codex, however, does not leave out the words in
question according to the Easterns, but reads the verse
exactly as the Western recension has it. The Annotator
who states the difference between the two Schools of
textual critics in this verse tells us that he found Ninn D1'2
which the text exhibits, to be the Western reading and
that the Babylonians do not recognise this phrase as
either Kethiv or Keri.3 He, therefore, distinctly describes
the text in the Codex before us as exhibiting the Western
recension.

.•p na TO <a pr-na »
«'p 'i '3 "• Kin nnai 2
«"ip x1?! TO x1? 'sbaa :na rorcx ns /npa 'i ,in

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 231

Dr. Baer has greatly obscured the issue of the
investigation as to which of the two Schools of textual
critics this remarkable Codex belongs by unjustifiably
incorporating in his Lists of the differences between the
Westerns and Easterns many of the variants in this MS. and
by exhibiting them as Eastern readings. He has thus
increased his List for the Minor Prophets alone by no
fewer then twenty-nine passages,1 simply because they
occur in this MS., whereas many of them are also to be
found in our acknowledged Western Codices and in the
early editions.2

The Hagiographa. — For this division of the Hebrew
Bible I have collated the following official Lists: (i) The
List in the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009; (2) in the
Merzbacher MS.; (3) Bodley No. 11; (4) Bodley No. 93;
(5) Orient. 4227 British Museum and (6) in the editio
princeps. Neither the Madrid Codex No. i nor the splendid
MS. Arund. Orient. 16 in the British Museum gives the
differences between the Westerns and Easterns for the
Hagiographa.

Psalms. — To the Psalms I have been able to add
eight new instances which are not given in the official
Lists. They are all from the Massorah Parva in MS.
No. 1—3 in the Paris National Library and are as follows:
(i) Ps. XXII 5, 6; (2) LII i, 2; (3) LIII i, 2; (4) LIV 2;
(5) LXXIX 10; (6) XC i; (7) CI 5 and (8) CXXIX 5, 6.
J)r. Baer's statement that the difference between the

1 Comp. Hosea IX 9, 16; X II; XIII 9; Joel. I 12; II 7, 22; Amos
III II; V 2, 20; IX 7; Micah IV 3; V I ; VII 16; Nab. II 5; in II; Hab.
II 5; Zeph. II 7; III 9, 11, 18; Zecb. I 4; II 12; IV 10; XI 10; XIV 18;
Mai. Ill n, 14, 22.

2 Comp. the notes in my edition on Hos. IX 9, 16; Joel I 12; II 7;
Amos III II; Micah IV 3; VII 16; Zeph. Ill 9, 18; Zech. 14; XI 10;
XIV 1 8 &c.

232 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

Westerns and the Easterns on Ps. CI i consists in the
former reading 1lQ?Q plene and the latter "IB'Q defective j is
contrary to all the official Lists and to the Massorah. The
List in the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009 emphatically
states that according to the Westerns it is 1Q?Q entirely
defective, whilst according to the Easterns it is llfiTO
plene.* This is also the case in all the other Lists
both in the MSS. and in the editio princeps. And Add.
15251 has in the Massorah Parva against it that it is the
only instance in which lb?Q is defective according to the
Westerns. 3

Proverbs, — In Proverbs I have added one new
instance, viz. XXX 6 from the Massorah Parva in MS.
No. i — 3 in the National Library Paris. According to the
Merzbacher MS. and Bodley No. 1 1 the difference between
the Westerns and Easterns in Prov. XII 18 is that the
former read it i"IC313 with He at the end, and the latter
KC313 with Aleph, and this difference I give in the Notes
on the text of my edition. The List in the St. Petersburg
Codex of A. D. 1009, however, distinctly states that the
Easterns have as Kethiv no*3 with Yod and as Keri Ht313
with Vav. Hence an Aleph or He at the end is not at all
the point at issue, and this is supported by the List in
Orient. 4227 in the British Museum and in the List of
the editio princeps. The List in the St. Petersburg Codex
also differs from the other Lists in its statement as to
the nature of the variation between the two Schools with
regard to Prov. XVIII 20, inasmuch as it declares that both
the Kethiv and the Keri are DfcODn with Yod, according to
the Easterns.4

-ibta "rrh Ts ,xa -viata

mara 'nab ,iam 'on ibta Tab 2
.'irab 'on -b -IBIB 3
.'pi TO rwan 'nab •»

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 233

Job. - - In Job I have added one new instance, viz.
XXXVI 1 8 from the Massorah Parva in MS. No. 1—3 in
the National Library, Paris. It is also to be remarked that
the official Lists do not agree among themselves as to
the exact nature of the differences between these two
Schools with regard to some of the words. Thus for
instance in Job II 7 the List in the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 1009, the Merzbacher MS. and Bodley No. n
state that the Easterns have "1JJ1 and unto, with Vav con-
junctive both as the Kethiv and Keri, l and this in the form
in which I have given the variant in the Notes. According
to the Lists, however, in Bodley No. 93, in Orient. 4227
British Museum and in the editio princeps the textual
reading (1TO) is "TJJ1 and unto, and the Keri is "1J7 unto,
without the Vav conjunctive which is the very reverse
of the Western recension.2

In Job XXVI 1 2 all the Lists agree that the Westerns
have IfDIlfpl both as Kethiv and Keri, but they differ
greatly with regard to the Eastern variant. Thus the List
in the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009 states that the
Eastern Kethiv is IfTttlflDl. Bodley No 1 1 says it is
; Bodley No. 93 and the editio princeps give it
V thus making it exactly like the Kethiv and Keri
according to the Westerns and doing away with the variant
altogether. The Merzbacher MS. and Orient. 4227, however,
emphatically state that according to the Easterns the Kethiv
is 1fl Jl'fDI and the Keri is IfUllfOI. 3 This variant probably
exhibits the recension of one School of Massorites, whilst
the one which I give in the Notes on this passage pro-
ceeds from another School who included the word in

/-ipi yro 15

2 According to these Lists the difference is as follows: "IV "

."ip 1? STO nri 'nab /np iri STO
.•HP insiarai STO injaTQi 'ntt1? .vuisrai '

234 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

question in the List of words wherein the letters are
transposed. '

The Eastern variant which I have given on Job
XXXIX 1 5 is from Add. 465 in the Cambridge University
Library. The Massorah Parva in this MS. emphatically
declares that these extraordinary points are on both letters
Cheth and Yod;* whereas Dr. Baer marks the Yod alone. As
this passage is not included in the Massoretic List of
words which have extraordinary points,3 it affords another
proof of the oft-stated fact that the different Schools of
Massorites had different Rubrics, and that the instances
which they exhibit are not exhaustive, but are simply to
be taken as typical.

The Five Megilloth. - - In the Megilloth I have added
two new instances, viz. Ruth II 7 from Harley 5710 — n
and Esther II 3 from Add. 465 in the University Library
Cambridge. I have still to examine the following passages
which Dr. Baer has incorporated in his List and which
I have inadvertently adopted as exhibiting the Eastern
readings.

In the note on Canticles II 17 which I give as an
Eastern variant, the word ^xnno'? according to the Easterns,
is to be corrected into X"D other MSS.} another reading is.
Though the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009 on
Ezek. XIII 2 gives it as one of the seven instances
where the Kethiv is ~^K unto, and the Keri ~by upon,* this
by itself, as my analysis of this Codex has shown, does
not constitute it a variant of the Madinchai unless it is
expressly described as such in another MS.

,3TO inSSlWl; comp. The Massorah, letter 2, § 480;
Vol. II, pp. 53, 54.

,TM rvn by nip: rVrn

3 Comp. The Massorah, letter 3, § 521, Vol. II, p. 296.

4 Comp. The Massorah, letter X, § 514, Vol. I, p. 57.

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 235

In my note on Ruth III 15 I followed Dr. Baer in
describing M3H as Milel according to the Madinchai.
Dr. Baer who says that the Westerns read it as the
Hiphil from 8*0 to come, whilst the Easterns read it as the
imperative Kal from 2iT to give, refers to the printed
Massorah Parva on this passage and to the Massorah
Magna on Jerem. XXXIX 9 in corrob oration of this
statement. But the Massorah Parva simply remarks that
the verb 8*0 to come, is in nine passages defective of the
radical Alepli and that about this instance which is one
of the nine, there is a difference of opinion. * To the same
effect is the Massorah Magna on Jerem. XXXIX 9, which
after enumerating the nine passages and giving Ruth III 15
as the last instance, remarks there is a difference of opinion
about this last one,'1 i. e. whether it is defective or not.
We have, however, seen that the expression XDJl^D = there
is a difference of opinion, does not by itself denote Eastern
unless it is so specified.

Lamentations I 21. -- For the same reason ^XflDTtt^
according to the Easterns, on Lament. I 21 where I have
followed Dr. Baer, is to be corrected into X"D = other
MSS. have, or another reading is, since it rests upon the
same expression 'Jl/Q = a difference of opinion.

Eccl. VIII 2. I have inadvertently followed Dr. Baer
and given libttf defective, as the Western reading and *)lBttf
plene, as the Eastern. According to the List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex the Western recension reads TiQtP plene, and
the Easterns have it "ibttf defective. This is corroborated
by Harley 5710—11 which not only has llQttf in the text,
but remarks against it in the Massorah Parva plene accord-
ing to the Westerns*

.p by xruibBi .-Mrs 'wba 'on to i
x-ira 2
marc 3

23f> Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

Eccl. XII 13. Here too I have inadvertently

followed Dr. Baer giving TiQtf plene, as the Western
reading and "ibtP defective, as the Eastern, whereas
according to the St. Petersburg Codex which is the only
MS. that gives it in the official List the reverse is the
case, the Westerns have it defective and the Easterns
plene.

In the following instances the official Lists differ
among themselves as to the exact nature of the variants
which obtained between the Westerns and the Easterns
with regard to the words in question.

On Ruth I 6 the List in the St. Petersburg Codex
of A. D. 1009 states that according to the Easterns both
the Kethiv and the Ken are DlpFll.1

I T -

Ruth II n. -- According to Bodley No. n; Bodley
No. 93 and the Merzbacher MS. the Easterns read here
^2~DK, whilst the Westerns have simply "^D.2

Ruth III 5. - - Here too the same difference obtained
between these two Schools of textual critics according to
the Lists in the Merzbacher MS.; in Bodley No. 93; and
in Orient. 4227 in the British Museum.

Eccl. Ill 13. — According to the List in the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1 009 the Westerns read nfen'JJn plene,
and the Easterns have it nfewn defective? whereas accord-
ing to the Lists in the other MSS. and in the editio
princeps the reverse is the case, the Westerns have it
defective and the Easterns plene.4

Eccl. IV i. - - According to the same List in the
St. Petersburg Codex D^pltPtfil which occurs twice in this

."Ipl TO Dip™ TCKh t

.'-ip -urx *?3-nx 'D-ta1? ."

.rropn 'nab /"?» rrenpn

'nab /10n mrpn Ta1?, so the Merzbacher MS ; Bodley
No. n; Bodley No. 93; and Orient. 4227 British Museum.

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 237

verse is plene in both instances in the Eastern recension,1
whereas all the other official Lists state that it is defective
in both instances according to the Easterns.'2 Moreover,
all the Lists state that according to the Westerns the
second D'plttfaJn alone is plene, whereas the first is D^pttfJJPl
defective.* But the Massorah Parva in the editio princeps
emphatically states that it is plene in both instances
according to the Westerns4 and in the text follows the
Eastern recension, having it defective in both clauses.

Daniel. — In Daniel I have added no fewer than
seven new variations between the Westerns and the
Easterns. Six of the instances (Dan. IV 16; VI 5, 19, 27;
VII 4; XI 44) are from MS. No. 1—3 in the Paris National
Library, and one variant (XI 6) is from the Lists in the
Merzbacher MS.; in Bodley No. 93; and in Orient. 4227.
One new instance which occurs in the List of the St. Peters-
burg Codex of A. D. 1009 I have omitted. In Dan. XI 44
the Easterns according to this MS. read fljJQEn defective:*

In one instance the Lists do not agree as to the exact
nature of the difference between these two Schools ot
textual critics. According to the List in the St. Petersburg
Codex, the Westerns read FntfBI in Dan. V 8, whilst the
Easterns read JOtPBI.6 But according to three other Lists
the Westerns have in the text K*ltf B1 with Aleph, for which
the Keri substitutes H^'DI with He, whilst the Easterns
have iTtfBI with He both as Kethiv and Keri.' Another

.'•JB '3 apiwr 'nab '

2 ff-lDP! pm-in D'pWH 'na1?, so the Merzbacher MS. ; Bodley No. 1 1 ;
Bodley No. 93; Orient. 4227; and the editio princeps.

•x^a wan D "
.'on pm-in \snr-ia1? /ba pn^nn \s

,'na npatri (D
,'pi 'nn KiW:

1 'pi TlS ni^BI 'Jia1? ,'p nitPBI 'na Klf SI 'y&b, so the Merzbacher MS.;
Bodley No. 1 1 ; and Bodley No. 93.

238 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

List, however, which agrees with these MSS. as for as
the Western reading is concerned, states that the Easterns
have X'ltffpl with Aleph both in the Kethiv and Keri1 and
in this respect, therefore, agrees with the List in the
St. Petersburg Codex.

Ezra-Nehemiah. • In Ezra X 3 the note should be
"the Easterns have n¥P2 in the counsel of as the textual
reading (l^DD), and in the Keri D¥P3 according to the counsel
of" instead of simply "the Easterns read HVV3 according
to the counsel"?

In Nehemiah XIII 15 I have followed Dr. Baer and
given a variation between the Westerns and Easterns on
D^DQJJI and they were lading. But as this simply rests on
the expression XDJl^DT and there is a difference of opinion
about /7,3 and as we have already shown that this word by
itself does not denote Madinchai, my note is to be corrected
into D'frOJn N"D other MSS. have or another reading is D'ttfQjn
with Sin as in Neh. IV 1 1 .

Chronicles. In Chronicles I have been able to

increase the number of variations between the Westerns
and Easterns by the following eleven instances: i Chron.
IV 15, 20; VI 41; VII 38; XV 24; 2 Chron. II 17; V 12, 13;
VII 6; XIII 14; and XVII 8. The following three instances
I have adopted from Dr. Baer's List: i Chron. V 27;
VII 1 8; and 2 Chron. XXIV 19. These, however, I could
not verify. In four passages the official Lists differ
among themselves as to the exact nature of the variations

1 •npi TO KIWBI 'no1? ,np rrupBi TO K-UPBI 'ysb, so the List in

Orient. 4227 British Museum. Unless we assume that after DTD K~UPB1 TO1?
the words "Hp fVlWBl have dropped out of the first line the edilio princeps
differs from all the other Lists.

2 'p natra TO nitra 'no1?, so an the Lists instead of rutrs 'no1?.

3 The MS Massorah which Dr. Baer adduces in support of the Eastern
reading is simply KTir^fil -|"OC 2TC1 IT1?.

CHAP. IX.] The Western and Eastern Recensions. 239

which obtained between these two Schools of textual
critics.

i Chron. VII 28. — According to the List in Arund.
Orient. 16; in Bodley No. 93; and in the editio princeps, the
Westerns read JT3P~"1J? unto Aiyah, in two words and the
Easterns rVIHP Adayak in one word. The latter though
the Easterns recension, is exhibited in the fourth edition
of the entire Bible, Pesaro 1511- 17; in the first edition of
the Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517; and in the
Bomberg quarto Bible of 1521. According to the List in
the Merzbacher MS , however, in Bodley No. 1 1 and in
Orient. 4227 British Museum, the Westerns read i"ttJJ— 1JJ
unto Adddli in two words, whilst the Easterns read it rnXHJJ
Adadddh or rnjnp Adadah in one word (comp. Josh. XV 22).
Dr. Baer indeed quotes Codex No. 18, Tzufutkale which
gives a third variant. According to this MS. the Westerns
read i"pj? 13? unto Aiyah, whilst the Easterns have this as
the textual reading (DTD), but substitute for it in the Keri
ntP Gaza.1

T -

i Chron. XVII 6. According to the List in the

Merzbacher MS.; Bodley No. n; Bodley No. 93; Arund.
Orient. 1 6 ; and the editio princeps, the Westerns read here
>SX7 my people, and the Easterns have 13J? his people in the
text (2'fO), for which they substitute ">fty my people in the
Keri. But the List in Orient. 4227 emphatically declares
that the Westerns have >2pP as Kethiv and Keri, and that the
Easterns have 1SJJ his people, as Kethiv and Keri.^

i Chron. XXV 27. — The official Lists greatly differ
about the Western and Eastern orthography of the proper
name in this verse. They exhibit no fewer than four
varieties each of which is claimed as the genuine reading
of the respective Schools, (i) According to the List in

«'p my TO rpy 'ana1? /np pi TO rry ir '

,npi "TO iar 'na1? ,npi "re "ap 'pa1? 2

240 Introduction. [CHAP. IX.

the Merzbacher MS. and the Aleppo Codex quoted by
Dr. Baer, the Westerns read it nfl'^S^ to Eliyathah, and the
Easterns read it nriX^K^ to Eliathah, with an Aleph after
the Yod, thus making it conformable to verse four of this
chapter. (2) According to the Lists in Bodley No. 1 1 and
Bodley No. 93 the Westerns spell it Hfl^N^ with He at
the end. and the Easterns JWV^N^ with Aleph at the end.

T T • •••: v

(3) According to the Lists in Arund. Orient. 16 and Orient
4227 the Westerns write it nnN^K^ and the Easterns

T T • V! V

NfiX^K^. The two recensions agree in having Aleph after
the Yod and diifer about the ending, the former having He
at the end and the latter Aleph. And (4) the List in the
editio princeps which states that the Westerns have nriX^K^
with Aleph after the Yod and He at the end, whilst the
Easterns read it Kn'^X^ without Aleph after the Yod, but
with Aleph at the end instead of He.1

2 Chron. XV 2. — The five Lists which I have collated
for this division of the Bible as well as the List in the
editio princeps distinctly state that the Westerns read here
9 hear ye me, defective and that the Easterns read it
plene.2 In my note on this passage I have in-
advertently followed Dr. Baer and given the reverse as
exhibiting the respective Schools.

In giving the variations of these two Schools of
textual critics on each word which is the subject of the
variant, I have not only reverted to the practice of the
best MSS., but have enabled the student to see at a glance
the nature of the various reading. The official Eastern
readings now occupy their rightful position by the side of
the official Keri.

."ipi ma nnx'1?*1? '^xh ,'npi TO nrv^Kf

"IS1? /EH '3yi2tf "SVh, so the Merzbacher MS.; Bodley
No. II; Rodley No. 93; Arund. Orient. 16; Orient. 4227; and the editio princeps.

Chap. X.
The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali.

In the early part of the tenth century Ben-Asher and
Ben-Naphtali, two rival textual critics, were engaged in the
redaction of two rival recensions of the Hebrew Bible
which they respectively furnished with vowel-points, accents
and the Massorah. Without entering into the controversy
whether Aaron Ben-Asher who flourished circa A.D. 900 — 940
was a Karaite or a Rabbinic Jew which is outside the scope
of this chapter, it is sufficient to state that he had derived
g'reat advantages in his Biblical studies from his father
Moses Ben-Asher who had already edited a Codex of the
Bible circa A. D. 890 — 95.

The Codex of Moses Ben-Asher or Ben-Asher the elder
as we shall henceforth call him, still exists and is in the
possession of the Karaite community at Cairo. It now
contains bnly the Former and Latter Prophets or the second
of the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible. According to
the Epilogue at the end of the Minor Prophets, which is
in the hand writing of Ben-Asher the elder and which Jacob
Saphir copied, the writer of this MS. describes himself as
Moses Ben-Asher and states that he finished it in Tiberias
in the year 827 after the destruction of Jerusalem.1 This is

'by niton \-6K -ra 'a by x-ipa bv -mnan m Tiara ntrx p nrca 'DX l
•'unnp 'n mm n'trru my iranwa nbbnn TTH rmata my a nrnaa asm -IKS
•nrra Kb rtjaK •'IWK pnicn *b*K naan 110 on^atpam nnno: ba DTaan wnb*
p"an ibnam la^rm cnb -loastp na by 'a«a IB'DIH xbi nnb \mv naa -on
ns iim CTVBS ^str ••area cnraxa DHD^I

242 IntroductioD. [CHAP. X.

according to the Jewish chronology, which according to
our reckoning synchronises with A. D. 895. A copy made
from this Codex was purchased by Moses Isserles for
100 Ducats in the year 1530 and is now deposited in the
Synagogue at Cracow. It is minutely described by
M. Weissmann in the Hebrew Weekly called Magid.*

The Codex of Aaron Ben-Asher or Ben-Asher the
younger is in the possession of the Jewish community at
Aleppo. This MS. which contains the whole Hebrew Bible,
like its predecessor is furnished with vowel-points, accents
and both Massorahs Parva and Magna. In the Epilogue we
are told that it is not the autograph of Ben-Asher, but that
the celebrated Scribe R. Salomon b. Bevieh made this
copy and that the original was sacredly consigned by
R. Israel of Bozrah to the Karaite community at Jerusalem
in trust of the two brothers, the Princes Josiah and Hezekiel
who flourished circa A.D. 980, under the following conditions:

(1) It is to be produced before the Congregation of the
Holy City on the three great Festivals, Passover, Pentecost
and Tabernacles for publicly reading therefrom the Lessons.

(2) In case the said two Princes leave Jerusalem they are
to give the MS. into trust to two other trustworthy and
pious men. And (3) any Jew of the Rabbinic persuasion
may use it for comparing and correcting by it other MSS.,
but not for the purpose of study. -

-tabbi ibbh imina ua1? rrri irrr Tinp la-iarr 'jsba pan TP na«a
nnwi mxa n:iarc pp1? anaa .jox "?»ntr ba^i narsn pBaai D"?P abs
mpx "laxa irwi o-ama rby DIED niatw tarn naxT ":vrt ivan pTi-6 n'ju
"a^ip1?! obiyb pnr *6i D-IIT xbi trnr xbv n^ipa p:a abw paa natai T'CDI
.a mar "i" ^n JUPKI p*?n TEC jan :jax bww "?a "a-ai u^a^a mnaa D'abir

1 The description is given in the Supplement (nE13ET) Nos. 47, 48,
pp. 1 86, 190, Lyck 1857, where the Epilogue agrees almost literally with the
one contained in the Eben Saphir, Vol. I, fol. 14 b, Lyck 1886.

nabtr «:am *ona TIIK ana» D-IED nraixi ontrr *?«? o^wn ^natan ni 2
"ixa '.mx icai npr i:rr:n 'n rrn Tnan IBICH lomT ja IKI xrK"ia ja

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 243

According to a note on page i; the Codex with
the permission of the two said Princes was transferred
from Jerusalem to the community in Egypt circa A. D.
1000—1004 f°r the Jerusalemite Synagogue before the
capture of the Holy City to save it from destruction.1

In the year 1009, that is three or four years after it
was conveyed to the Jerusalem Congregation at Cairo
and most probably in the life-time of the first Trustees,
a certain Samuel b. Jacob copied this Standard Codex of
Ben-Asher for Meborach Ibn Osdad. This very important

•wan a-naban roni a^aann -axi a-nt-ian p-rc paan earn binan naban y&n
mnx WB3 wi ntpK an na p pnx an na vninna Tmn rbysaa paan vwaa
maxn mnKn binan -urn mix wnpn .D^monm a^nacm a^aan ay a^nn ninata
iban '.n an11 a^nan nwn monn paam oann bKnty ba nnxen ^Knw Kaam wna
an na ja mnyo an na p nnarc an na p nnata nanaa my n^aan in?a pac pain
^ra pmr1 nny apy m^.np ^xnv rn? nr p"-ny a^enn^ an^an ',n rm anex
xb '.n1? wnp nbd abiy nr n^aaia11 ap^tt p^a: n,na a^aaiwn B"aann nbiao rn»n
nwnp nbna mas a^nan a^twn ^v ""T nnna «r >6p naa br bxa11 Kbi naa-1
-nny;a ^tran p mn x^an nwnp mas •'aa in^ptn11 trtwm i.n^K11 ^tran nnn mn
*?xi ma^^n bx im^arrtr •'na a^nn yy nnn r"aa a^nn mnara nmnat atrsa
mnpb maan am rwiarcn am matan an a-'ban nur'rra trnpn n-raw mn\npn
an na a^-nan a^^an ^a^ ixm BKI innan larsn11 ntrx na laaa nanni jaiannni ia
a^aiaai a^p^nar a^a« ••atr ar irw inps^u nnnatnn n,nna amac o^m imprnn irrvw
WH psm BKI onprnai anaana itrr raca \saitf nax •'irax a^nnx •'xn1' BTITI
non ix nn"1 nan in n\snb natrn ma11 naa a^aanna naan •'braa nxn^ rnr naa
m«nb V^K im^an11 ibxn a^ayena ayta IK nine IK aino IK nne IK mno IK
ia pK ^K in ipann11 K"?I laipab ima^in twnn1?1! nnpb Kb panni b^a^nni
i?Kn^'t ba byi iynr byi vby nana ja^o aitD ja^o imK a'tr bKntr1' ^nbK 'm nai»K
by -rrn piatK n^a^ by o-'bnai K»a: by B^a pane "a ainatr Knpa rby a^pnn
-3K ',nb nair nr a-'B 'ba11 by a^anya n-scn paa in&aci mKatKac by ^nanm -jynT
ia mniaKn manan bai naa1 bKntr" atrai (nb in11 aina11 nn apy atra Knp-- nti
pTKn yaw ^ ba byi vby anban ba byi iynt byi rby inuin iimfi iKian ibim
n,ina a-'abiy •'bbiybi abiyb B^B" Kbi as-'bm Kbi nbKn anana nwn a"trpn
.a"n y ep pirKn pbn n-so pK :JBRI PK abiyb '-n
bnpb piani naan wmpn n-'y nb^in11 ana p pKanaKbK aana bpnax l

iaaia mnKi inaitt? -jina bKntr1 "na piani naan abum' no-'aab anxa
«a" pjn ptrKn pbn TED pK nyi abiyb bKa1 Kbi naa11 Kb laa^aa ninxi inaio

244 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

copy is now in the Imperial Public Library at St. Peters-
burg. The name of the Scribe, the place where the copy
was made, the honoured person for whom it was transcribed
and the date on which it was finished are all most
minutely given in the Epigraph of the MS. They are
written in the same hand-writing as the MS. itself.

In the long Epigraph which was published by Pinner
who was the first to call attention to this Codex when it
was in the possession of "the Odessa Society for History
and Antiquities" and which is republished in the Catalogue
of the Hebrew MSS. in the Imperial Library in St. Peters-
burg, the year in which it was finished is given according
to five different eras, (i) In 4770 of the creation which
synchonises with A. D. 1009 — 10. (2) In the year 1444
after the exile of King Jehoiachin which is uncertain.
(3) In the year 1319 according to the Seleucidien era or
the era of Contracts (1319 minus 311) == 1008. (4) In the
year 940 after the destruction of the second Temple
(940 -}- 68) 1008 and (5) in the year 399 of the
Muhammedan era == A. D. 1009.'

Equally emphatic and distinct is the statement of
the Scribe as to the person for whom he made the Codex
and the prototype which he followed. "I Samuel b. Jacob,"
he says on folio 474 a, "have written, vowel-pointed and
Massoretically annotated this Codex for the honoured

man nc' ruini rmciaai nnipa -10:121 are: nbir xipa -mnan m >
nx'-D*? rev DTSWI mxa ran D-B^X nranx rw bv JTD KHPQ D"?IWI nnara
rw x'm pirr -jban rn1?:1? njn-ur DTSIXI mxa rsixi s^x rw x'm ,

rnBtfi psa1? xvro D':r rrabab nv mvy rtrm mxa cnb
mxa wbv r\:v XTTI w n^n pnnb n'jmxi mxa rtrn n:cr X\TI ,nxin:n

pp ms^a^ rCTn Comp. Pinner, Prospectus der Odessaer Gesellschaft
fiir Geschichle nnd Alterthiimer, p. 81 &c.; Odessa 1845; Harkavy and Strack,
Catalog der Hebrdischen Bibelhandschriften der kaiserlichen offenilichen
Bibliothek in St. Petersburg, p. 265 etc., Leipzig 1875.

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 245

Rabbi Meborach the Priest b. Joseph surnamed Ibn Osdad,
may the Ever-living one bless him."1 Again in the Epy-
graph on folio 479 a it is stated: "Samuel b. Jacob copied,
vowel-pointed and Massoretically annotated this Codex of the
Sacred Scriptures from the correct MSS. which the teacher
Aaron b. Moses Ben-Asher redacted (his rest is in Paradise!)
and which constitute an exceedingly accurate Exemplar." 2

Of Ben-Naphtali nothing is known and no Codex
which he redacted has as yet come to light.3 The passages,
therefore, in which he differs from Ben-Asher are only
known from the official Lists which have been transmitted
to us exhibiting the variations of these two rival scholars.
The examples in these Lists may occasionally be supple-
mented by sundry remarks in the margin of the MSS.
and by notices in Massoretico-Grammatical Treatises of
mediaeval Grammarians. The latter source, however, cannot
always be relied upon, since the Grammarians not un-
frequently palm off their super-fine theories on the vowel-
points and accents as developments of the respective
systems of Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali.

Though the variations between Ben-Asher and Ben-
Naphtali refer to the vowel-points Dagesh, Raphe, the
Metheg or Gaya and the accents, yet I have found in one
MS. four instances in which these two textual critics
differ in the consonants and textual readings.

1123^ s]nxbrt rn 'cai Tnpji •'nans spr p

/n iroi:r -IKITK p rvrn t\or p pan

nnaon p 'pa1?!? nin -mi-ion nx 10121 np3i sro sipr p "?xiap 2
rtna xtm :pr pa irru -itrx p nrcto p pns -ttoban niw? -IPX /-ix-oan nvtnan

i2t2T! 1X2 Comp. Pinner, Prospectus, pp. 85, 86; Harkavy and Strack,
Catalog, p. 269.

3 Like the Ben-Ashers there seem to have been several Ben-Naphtalis.
Fragments of a Treatise of one of them I give in the Appendix to this
Introduction .

246 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

Thus on Numb. XXVI 23 the Massorah Parva in Add.
15251 states that Ben-Naphtali reads HID1? ofPuvah, which
is the textual reading in this MS., but that Ben-Asher

reads n30^> of Punah.

t \ ••

(2) On Isa. XXX 23 it states that Ben-Asher reads
"the rain of ("]P*1?) thy seed" which it has in the text, and
that Ben-Naphtali reads it "the rain of ("pHK) thy land." '

(3) On Jerem. XXVII 19 it states that Ben-Asher has
"that remain in this (TJ?2) city" which is the textual reading,
but that Ben-Naphtali has it "that remain in this (p"lXD) land"*

And (4) on Ezek. XIV 16 the Massorah Parva in
this MS. states that Ben-Asher reads "but the land
(HQBtP iTnn) shall be desolation" and that Ben-Naphtali
reads it "but as for the land (rpnn HQQtP) desolation shall
it be,"3 making it conformable to Ezek. XII 20. I have only
noticed the last two variations in the notes of my edition,
but I have duly given all the four instances in the Massorah.4

Professor Strack has found three other variations
between these two redactors which also affect the textual
reading of the consonants.

On i Kings III 20 Codex Tzufutkale No. 87 states
that Ben-Naphtali like the Westerns reads Hi^'* she was
asleep plene, whilst Ben-Asher like the Easterns reads it
ri3ttf' defective.5

T ** :

Trite as this difference may appear it affects two
important statements which bear upon the redaction of

p ,"pni itrx p *
p ,TJ?S -IBM p 2
«rrnn naatr TIBS p 3

4 Comp. The Massorah, letter PI, §§ 595, 603—605; Vol. i, pp 576,
581, 582.

* : -n rw 'xnnai -IBM p ,'ba rov1 -jnaxi ^nej pi 'nnrab Comp.

Strack, Zeitschrift fiir die gesammte lulherische Theologie und Kirche,
Vol XXXVI, p. 611, note I, Leipzig 1875.

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 247

the current text. Maimonides emphatically declares "that
the recension of our MSS. is according to the well-known
Codex in Egypt, which contains the twenty-four sacred
books, and which had formerly been in Jerusalem for many
years in order that other Codices might be corrected by
it and that both he and all others followed it because
Ben-Asher corrected it and minutely elaborated it for
many years and revised it many times, as it has been
transmitted to us" and Levita who quotes this passage
from Maimonides adds "the Westerns in every land follow
Ben-Asher, but the Easterns follow the recension of Ben-
Naphtali."1

The Massoretic note from the Tzufutkale MS., which
is fully confirmed by the unanimous testimony of the
official Lists, as far as the difference between the Westerns
and Easterns on the passage in question is concerned,,
discloses two important facts with regard to Ben-Asher
and Ben-Naphtali. It shows in the first place that Ben-
Asher and the Easterns have here identically the same
reading, which is contrary to the usual statement that our
Codices follow Ben-Asher who exhibits the Western
recension. And in the second place it is apparently against
the above cited declaration of Levita that it is the
Easterns who follow the text of Ben-Naphtali. The real
inference from this Massorah, however, is that it yields
an additional proof of the fact to which we have often
alluded, that our text does not uniformly exhibit the
recension of the Westerns and of Ben-Asher. It not un-

T3 bbis xn» D'-iraa PITH IBD sin -\bx ona-a rh>y naiDDtp nsci i
n vn fby\ -D^BDH ID^S mnb &:v n&a» abiPTva rrrw
lisa man D'&ra imm ,nann D^W 13 pnpm .n»x p
mnxn ban inxnp by paiaio urwx pi ^insbns <narop n-nn nsoa

fbnBJ p nx'-lp by paaiD nnta ^3S1 .n^Sn Comp. Levita, Massoreth Ha-
Massoreth, p. 114, ed. Ginsburg; and see below p. 267.

248 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

frequently follows the Easterns and Ben-Naphtali. Hence
it is unsafe to describe any MS. as Western and exhi-
biting the text Ben-Asher or as Eastern and following
the recension of Ben-Naphtali, simply because some of
its readings happen to coincide with what are believed
to be the redaction of one school or the other.

The second passage on which Professor Strack found
a Massorah, also referring to the consonants is Jerem. XI 7.
Codex Tzufutkale No. 10 states that Ben-Naphtali reads
here "and" or "even unto the city" and that Ben-Asher reads
it simply "unto the city." l Here too the MSS. and the
early editions are divided. For though the majority follow
Ben-Asher, still some MSS. and some of the best editions
follow the reading of Ben-Naphtali as will be seen from
my note on this passage. Yet it is perfectly certain that
the MSS. and editions which exhibit here Ben-Naphtali's
reading do not as a whole follow his recension. The most
interesting and instructive part of this Massorah, however, is
the fact which it establishes, viz. that the difference between
these two redactions consists in the presence or absence of
the Vav conjunctive and not in the presence or absence of
a Metheg under the Vav as is stated by Dr. Baer.a

Jerem. XXIX 22 is the third instance quoted by
Professor Strack where the difference between these two
redactors affects the textual reading. Codex Tzufutkale
No. 84 states that according to Ben-Naphtali the textual
reading here is "and like (3HK31) Ahab" and that the Kcri
is "and like (vnfcOl) his brethren"* Here we have an important

1 : 'IPX \sh 1171 ruia 'BC21 ,-1P '^riBD \Sh Comp. Baer and Strack, Dikduke
Ha-Teamim, p. XIII note.

2 Comp. Baer and Delitzsch, Jeremiah, p. 125, Leipzig 1890.

:np pi ma anxri nwx p ,np vrwai STO antoi irr-piao "^ns: p 3

Comp. Zeitschrift fiir die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, Vol.
XXXVI, p. 6ll, note I, and S. Pinsker, Einleittmg in das Babylonisch-
Hebraische Punklalionssyslem, p. 126, Vienna 1863.

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali.

24!»

new Keri which is entirely different from the one exhibited
in the recension of the Madinchai as will be seen from
my note on this passage.

There is another record of some of the differences
between Ben-Asher and the rival redactors which is not
given in the official Lists, but which has an important
bearing' on the discussion of the nature of these variations.
On Gen. XLIX 20 Orient. 4445, fol. 40^, has the following
Massorah:

D'naix EH

"IPX p

Gen.
Deut.

XLIX 20
XXXIII 28

7^12~^£^>*

•?jp IB-IS?;.

Judg-
Isa.

XX 33

XL 18

yaa-rnyaa

yaa nnyea

The difference, therefore, between Ben-Asher and
other redactors of the text is that he has Mercha in all
the four instances, whilst the others, probably the followers
of Ben-Naphtali, connect these two words with Makeph
and have Gay a under the first words. As this MS. is
undoubtedly of the early part of the ninth century, and,
moreover, as the Massorah in this Codex was added about
a century later, there can be no question about the real
difference in these passages between Ben-Asher and the
other Schools, though we have hitherto had no knowledge
of these variations. Indeed from the manner in which the
Massorite quotes this distinguished textual critic, viz. "the
great teacher Ben-Asher", without the usual benedictory
phrase "his rest is in Paradise, which accompanies the
mention of the departed,1 yields additional evidence that

1 Comp. the Epigraph pj? pa iniD "lt»K p !WO p pHK
St Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009.

in the

250 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

the Massorah in question was written in the life-time of
Ben-Asher.

With these preliminary notices before us we shall
be better prepared to enter into an examination of the
differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali which are
recorded in the official Lists. The Massoretico-Grammatical
Treatise which is prefixed to the Yemen MSS. of the
Pentateuch give the most lucid Summary of these differences
not only with regard to certain words which occur in sundry
parts of the Bible, but especially in the Pentateuch. With
regard to the Pentateuch it describes most minutely the
precise nature and the exact number of these variations in
each of the fifty-two Pericopes into which it is divided.
The differences between these two redactors of the text
which affect words occurring throughout the Bible are
given in this Treatise under the following six categories.

I. The proper name IDtPtt^ which with its different
prefixes occurs forty-three times in the Bible ' constitutes
the first point of difference. According to Ben-Asher the
first tP only is pointed and is pronounced Sin (fe?) and the
second is entirely passed over being neither pointed nor
pronounced, viz. IDttftP Isachar; whilst according to Ben-
Naphtali both are pointed and pronounced, viz. "OfrtP
Issachar.2 It will be seen that according to this Treatise

' Gen. XXX 18; XXXV 23; XLVI 13; XLIX 14; Exod. I 3;
Numb. I 8, 28, 29; II 5 5; VII 18; X 15; XIII 7; XXVI 23, 25;
XXXIV 26; Deut. XXVII 12; XXXIII 18; Josh. XVII lo, II; XIX 17,
17, 23; XXI 6, 28; Judg. V 15, 15; X l; i Kings IV 17; XV 27; Ezek.
XLVIII 25, 26, 33; I Chron. Hi; VI 47, 57; VII I, 5; XII 33, 41;
XXVI 5; XXVII 18; 2 Chron. XXX 1 8.

rpaan pea mx K'am ptwrn pen -oarer nbaa -npr IPX p rrn -a m a

pi jjrcan m by ofyoi -otr las HDD mix x'rr x*?i npjn ja wn pirn
102 proa os'im D'3BH tpr xin "a •ne^rr Orient. 2348, foi. 250;

Orient. 2349, fol. i6a; Orient. 2350, fol. 23 a — b; Derenbourg, Manuel dt
Lecteur, p. 109, Paris 1871.

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 251

the Sin which Ben-Asher points has no Dagesh and this
reading is exhibited in MSS. Nos. 65, 6&, 80, 122 &c. of
the St. Petersburg Collection.1 In the Adaih Deborim
where the same fact is recorded, the remark about Ben-
Asher is almost identical, but the point of difference on
the part of Ben-Naphtali is entirely at variance with
the statement here, inasmuch as it says that Ben-Naphtali
pronounces the first Shin (ttf) and the second Sin (tP), viz.
"IDtPtt^ Ishsashar, and that it is Moses Mochah who points
and reads it "OttffeT Issachar with two Sins.'2 "Ofrt^ Ishsachar,
which is here stated to be the orthography of Ben-
Naphtali is the reading of MSS. Nos. 49, 54, 57, 59, 70 &c.
in the St. Petersburg Collection, :* whilst "OttMP* Issachar,
which is here stated to be the orthography of Moses
Mochah is the reading of Codex Nr. 110 in the same
collection. There is yet another record about Ben-Naphtali's
orthography of this name. In the Treatise entitled Points
of Difference between the Karaite and Rabbinic Jews* we
are assured that Ben-Naphtali reads it 13tPtP'. and this is
confirmed by the Massorah Parva on Gen. XXX 18 in
Orient. 2626 — 28 in the British Museum. These, however,
do not exhaust all the varieties in the orthography of
this name as exhibited in the MSS. The St. Petersburg
Codex which is dated A. D. 916 reads its *Ottft^ without

* T T •

points in the first & in all the passages in Ezekiel (XLVIII

1 Comp. Harkavy and Strack, Catalog, pp. 71, 82, 84, 86, 93 &c

pa "Witi ptpa ptwnn mtvi 'an -npr ^ oiiwa in\x ffbrr ^nss pi 2
DTD (aa Dtn[ri 'an ipjia rrn nma rnr&i ,jnsian m ibyl bian rnn "i?w^ 'M

:n"?an ID DBlbn nn '"la'^l 'M Comp. Strack, Codex Babylonictts, p. 29,
St. Petersburg 1876. According to Pinsker, however, Moses b. Mochah reads
it "OfeftP Comp. Lickute Kadmoniot, p. 98, Vienna 1880, so that here too the
statement in the Adaih Deborim is at variance with other records.

3 Comp. Harkavy and Strack, Catalog, pp. 90, 92, 104, 155 &c.

4 Comp. DMatTI D\^lpn pl^H in Pinsker's nnifinp 'tsp^, P- 102,
Vienna i860.

252 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

25, 26, 33) and this is also the reading in the Pentateuch
in Arund. Orient. 2 which is dated A. D. 1216.

We have thus no fewer than six varieties in the
orthography of this name exhibited in the MSS. and in
the early editions.

(1) "OENS^ with Dages/i in the Sin Add. 4445; Add. 15451;

Add. 9401; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252;
Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 4227 ;
the Complutensian Polyglot; the Rabbinic Bible
by Felix Pratensis 1517; the Venice quarto Bible
1521 and the editio princeps of the Bible with the
Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524—25.

(2) IDtPt^ without Dagesh in the Sin, Ben-Asher, Orient.

2201; Harley 5710 — 11; Harley 1528; MSS. Nos. 65,
68, 80, 122 &c.; in the St. Petersburg Collection; the
first edition of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482; the
first edition of the entire Bible, Soncino 1488; the
second edition, Naples 1491 — 93; and the third
edition, Brescia 1494.

(3) "IStPC^ the first Sin without vowel points, the Babylon

Codex A. D. 916; and Arund. Orient. 2 dated A. D.
1216.

(4) "OfeMP? with vowel points under both Sins, Moses b.

Mocha and MS. No. 100 in the St. Petersburg
Collection.

(5) 13»fr? Ben-Naphtali.

(6) "OtMP'V also given as Ben-Naphtali, is the orthography

in MSS. Nos. 49, 54, 57, 59, 70 &c. in the St. Peters-
burg Collection.

These variations which have no parallel in any other
proper name among the sons of Jacob are due both to
the birth of Issachar and to the part he played in the
history of the twelve tribes. The original orthography was
undoubtedly "Ofrfe^ == "OtP Nt£^ which denotes he bringeth

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 253

reward, referring to Gen. XXX 18, and he taketh or receiveth
hire (comp. Ps. XXIV 5; Eccl. V 18; Esther II 9 &c.),
alluding to Gen. XLIX 14, 15. A similar instance of the
double signification of a name, the first referring to the
circumstances connected with the birth and the second
alluding to events in after-life, we have in the case of the
father of Issachar. He is called Jacob (3ptf') = Heel-catcher,
because at the birth he caught hold of his brother's heel
(Gen. XXV 2 6), and he is afterwards Jacob (3pJ^) = Trickster,
because he deliberately tricked him out of his paternal
blessing (Gen. XXVII 36). It is the latter circumstance
which underlies all the variations in the orthography.
Owing to his love of ease and comfort Issachar we are
here told preferred to recognise the supreme power oi
the original inhabitants of the land and pay tribute rather
than engage in the struggle to expel them, as the other
tribes were endeavouring to do. For this reason Jacob
brands him as a hireling, a burden-bearer to strangers:

Issachar [= the hireling] is the ass of strangers,

Couching down among the folds;

When he saw the rest that it was good

And the land that it was pleasant

He bowed his shoulder to bear the burden

And became a servant unto tribute.

In after time when this stigma cast upon Issachar
[= the hireling] wounded the national susceptibilities,
all sorts of interpretations were resorted to, to conceal or
obliterate this censure, as will be seen from the ancient
versions and the variations in the vowel-points of the text
itself adopted by different redactors.

Hence the variations in the orthography of "!3tPE^
Issachar, have been adopted by the different redactors to
preclude the meaning he taketh hire, i. e hireling. D13

254 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

the ass of strangers, which was the original reading, as is
attested both by the Samaritan text and the Samaritan
Targum, has been altered in the Septuagint into rb KK^W
fae&vfjirjasv = D"13 10PI he desired that which is good, substitut-
ing Daleth (f) for Resh (1) in the first word and Samech (D)
for Mem (D) in the second. What this good represents is
manifest from the Jerusalem Targum II, which exhibits the
same alteration of letters and which renders it = D"13 "IQn

VT - T

Xn'nixa Tan he desired the Law. The Jerusalem Targum I
paraphrases it P]^J5H NBDttf a strong tribe, whilst Onkelos
renders it pp333 TFlP rich in wealth. As for the stigma
that he became "a servant unto tribute" the Septuagint
makes it into yeayyos a husbandman. The Jerusalem Targum
paraphrases it "his brethren shall bring him presents
because he bowed his shoulder to master the Law/'1 whilst
Onkelos makes this clause say the very opposite to that
which the Hebrew text declares. According to the Chaldee
Version it means "he will conquer the provinces of the
nations, destroy their inhabitants, and those that remain
will serve him and render him tribute."2 To such expedients
have the ancient Versions and the redactors of the Massoretic
text resorted in order to obscure and obliterate the other-
wise plain meaning of the faithfully transmitted consonants.3
In the ten passages where Issachar occurs in Chronicles
(i Chron. II i ; VI 47, 57; VII i, 5; XII 23, 41; XXVI 5;

-pea -inx n'? iini xrr-nxa -ra? -ens psnx p pn x-n xa'Dn DIIX '

prbn n1? prr pra pixnwim pn-p-rrr TEH x'aor "Tina vzy\ 2

.poo "pciai

3 For a full discussion on the alterations and import of this passage
we must refer to Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersdzungen der Bibel, 359 etc.,
Breslau 1857; Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschafl, XVIII,
658 etc., Leipzig 1864; Jiidische Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaft und Leben, X,
101, Breslau 1872.

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 255

XXVII 18; 2 Chron. XXX 18), I have omitted to give in
the Notes the usual variant of Ben-Naphtali. The student
must, therefore, bear in mind the alternative orthography.

II. The second point of difference between Ben-Asher
and Ben-Naphtali is with regard to certain forms of the
verb t>DX to eat. According to Ben-Asher wherever a form
of this verb occurs with a suffix and the Lamed has Segol
(^>), the Caph has Chateph-pathach (3), except in one instance
(Eccl. V 10), whereas Ben-Naphtali always points it with
simple Sheva (p).1 There are only six forms of this verb
which are affected in the vowel-points by this variation.
But as they respectively occur more than once, amounting
altogether to twenty-four instances, and, moreover, as
several of the identical forms are treated differently in the
same MSS. and early editions, it is necessary to describe
each passage separately in the order of the books in which
they occur.

It is only by so doing that Ben-Asher's rule can properly
be tested. The importance of this minute examination
will be seen when it is stated that some textual critics have
maintained that the punctation of these forms constitutes
a test whether a given MS. exhibits the Ben-Asher or Ben-
Naphtali recension.

In the examination of the passages which exhibit the
forms of this verb I am obliged to separate the fifteen
instances in the Pentateuch from the nine which occur in
the Prophets and in the Hagiographa, since many of the
MSS. which I have collated for this purpose only contain
the Pentateuch, whilst several have the Prophets and the
Hagiographa without the Pentateuch.

by spn Pins*1 itrx p rrn H^SK pur1? "MI »
:nan nsaa nms rrn *6 ^naj pi ,y:n xwn Comp. orient. 2348, foi. 250;

Orient. 2349, fol. i6a; Orient. 2350, fol. 23^; Derenbourg, Manuel du Lecteur,
p. 109, Paris 1871.

256 Introduction. [CHAP. X.

The Pentateuch. The following ten MSS. have
only the Pentateuch: Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2348; Orient.
2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient.
2696; Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; and Add. 15282.

(1) Gen. Ill 17.

n^DXD Add. 9401 dated A. D. 1286; Add. 15451; Add.
15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; Orient.
'2626; the Lisbon edition of the Pentateuch 1491;
the second edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93;
the Complutensian Polyglot; and the first edition
of the Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim
1524—25.

nS^DSf) Orient. 4445, the oldest MS. known at present;
Orient. 2 20 1 dated A. D. 1246; Orient. 2348; Orient.
2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 4227; Orient.
2451; Orient. 2629; Harley 5710 — n; Harley 1528;
the editio princeps of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482;
the first edition of the Hebrew Bible, Soncino 1488;
the third edition of the Bible, Brescia 1494; the
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517; and the
Venice quarto edition 1521. For the treatment of
the same form in Ezek. IV 12 which is the only
other instance where it occurs, see below No. 20.

(2) Levit. VI 1 1 .

Add. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15451; and the
first edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488.

Arund. Orient. 2 dated A.D. 1216; Orient. 2201;
Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient.
2365; Orient. 2451 ; Orient. 2626; Orient. 2696; Orient.
4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 — 1 1 ; Add. 15250;
Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; the first edition
of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482; the Lisbon edition
of the Pentateuch 1491; the second edition of the
Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the third edition, Brescia

CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher acd Ben-Naphtali. 257

1494; the Complutensian Polyglot; the Rabbinic
Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517; the Venice quarto 1521 ;
and the first edition of the Bible with the Massorah
by Jacob b. Chayim 1524—25.
(3) Levit. VI 19.

Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15282; Add.

Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348;
Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451 ;
Orient. 2626; Orient. 2696; Orient. 4227 ; Harley 1528 ;
Harley 5710 — n; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add.
15252; the first edition of the Pentateuch, Soncino
1482; the first edition of the Bible 1488; the Lisbon
edition of the Pentateuch 1491; the second edition
of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the third edition,
Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot; the
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis 1517; the Venice
quarto Bible 1521 ; and the first edition of the Bible
with the Massorah 1524 — 25.
(4) Levit. VII 6.

Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15282; the first
edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488; and the third
edition, Brescia 1494.

Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348;
Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient.
2451 ; Orient. 2626; Orient. 2696; Orient. 4227; Harley
1528; Harley 5710— ii ; Add. 15250; Add. 15251;
Add. 15252; the first edition of the Pentateuch,
Bologna 1482; the Lisbon edition 1491; the second
edition of the Bible, Naples 1491—93; the Complu-
tensian Polyglot; the Rabbinic Bible by Felix
Pratensis 1517; the Venice quarto Bible 1521; and
the first edition of the Bible with the Massorah by
Jacob b. Chayim 1524 — 25.

258 Introduction. [CHAP. X

(5) Numb. XVIII 10.

Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient.
2696.

Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348;
Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient.
2451; Orient 2626; Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley
5710 — 1 1 ; Add. 15250; Add. 15251 ; Add. 15252; Add.
15282; the editio princeps of the Pentateuch, Bologna
1482; the editio princeps of the Bible, Soncino 1488;
the Lisbon edition of the Pentateuch 1491; the
second edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 — 93; the
third edition, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian
Polyglot; the Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis
1517; the Venice quarto Bible 1521; and the first
edition of the Bible with the Massorah by Jacob
b. Chayim 1524—25.

(6) Numb. XVIII 13.

Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient.
2696.

Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348;
Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient.
2451; Orient. 2626; Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley
5710 — 1 1 ; Add. 15250; Add. 15251 ; Add. 15252; Add.
15282; and all the early editions of the Pentateuch
and the Bible.

(7) Deut. XII 15.