(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

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

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 1942 
\X030 



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



TO 

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 .... 6667 / , 

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 ........... 114136 

Chap. II. The Orthography ............ 13? J 57 

Chap. III. The Division of Words .......... 158162 I, 

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

Chap. V. Abbreviations ............. 165170 

Chap. VI. Homoeoteleuton ............ 171182 

Chap. VII. The Keri and Kethiv ........... 183186 

Chap. VIII. The Readings called Sevirin ........ 187196 

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

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

f 






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

1 . The Introduction of the Square Characters 287296 

2. The Division of the Consonants into Words 296297 

3. The Introduction of the Final Letters 297 2 99 

__4, Thj^Introduction of the Ma I res Led ion is 209300 

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-i 1 ' 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,u r ht 
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 "ion n s "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. 

A' 



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. 



I 


II 


III 


IV 


V 


MSS.Nos. 1,2,3 


MSS.Nos.4,5,6 


MSS. Nos. 7, 8 


MS. No. 9 


Early Editions 


Song of Songs 


Esther 


Ruth 


Ruth 


Song of Songs 


Ruth 


Song of Songs 


Song of Songs 


Song of Songs 


Ruth 


Lamentations 


Ruth 


Ecclesiastes 


Lamentations 


Lamentations 


Ecclesiastes 


Lamentations 


Lamentations 


Ecclesiastes 


Ecclesiastes 


Esther 


Ecclesiastes 


Esther 


Esther 


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. 152425. 
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. 



I 


II 


III 


IV 


Talmud 
and three MSS. 


Two MSS. 
Paris and London 


Eleven MSS. 


Five Early Editions 


Jeremiah 


Jeremiah 


Isaiah 


Isaiah 


Ezekiel 


Isaiah Jeremiah Jeremiah 


Isaiah 
Minor Prophets 


Ezekiel 
Minor Prophets 


Ezekiel 
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 
571011, 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 




in 








3 




"S s 








a 
o 







in 

u 






a 




W .2 




in 










Tn 






43 


B 






42 




IM 















u 


r* T3 

> M 
(H 


j3 

13 

in 

04 


Prover 


o 
i > 


O 
M 

a 
o 

C/5 


1 


Lamen 


in 


U 


4> 
43 
tn 

M 


'3 

9 

Q 


55 

CJ 

H 

U 


'3 
o 

a 












in 




in 






d 




O 










O 



in 
fi 


a 
o 






a 

4> 


in 


M pj 




Psalms 


43 
O 
t I 


Proverbs 


1 


Song of S 


a 


Lamentat 


8 

43 


41 

i 

Q 


Ezra-Neh 


Chronicle 


oo 
N 














in 


in 






-5 


1 


in 












a 
o 


O 


in 

B 




a 

4) 


M ^ 






in 








t/j 




in 




43 


^ \S 


U 




4^ 








"*H 









V 


U 

O 


a 



c 

43 

O 


J 

"5 
in 

cu 


u 

| 


O 
1 > 


"3 

9 

Q 


1 


O 

a 
o 

W) 


Lamen 


in 
4> 

o 

O 

U 


u 
41 


| 
























43 


o 












M 




in 






c 


* 


in 










8 


in 
V 


O 






a 


> 

h 


Chronicle 


"3 


Psalms 




I i 


Proverbs 


IM 

O 

a 


Ecclesiast 


Lamentat 




43 
tn 


'3 

rt 

Q 


43 
u 

rt 

M 


a c/) 












en 










3 


C '73 

o ^d 












00 

a 


in 


a 






' 


43 << 












o 




2 






V 


> 1) 4) 

M O " 
4j 4j 

5 s 


Chronicle 


Psalms 


ja 
o 
i > 


Proverbs 


a 


Song of S 


Ecclesiast 


Lamentat 


M 

V 
43 


'3 

9 

P 


Ezra-Neh 

i 












en 




in 






rt 




u~> 










a 


in 


g 






i 




t* 










o 


4) 








HI 


in 


\-l ^ 








M 


I/! 


in 


CD 






4) 




a 


4j 

"3 


Psalms 




i > 


Provert 


O 

CUD 
a 
o 


'53 

V 


Lament 


Daniel 


4) 
43 
in 

W 


Ezra-N 


1 
43 

CJ 


t/i - 










in 

a 
o 


<S 


in 
O 






C3 

'a 

B 


y 


_ ^ ^ 








in 

_Q 


w 

IM 


in 

a 


'rt 






8 


| 


o 

! r | "j-j 


4j 


Psalms 


| 


Prover 




be 
a 
o 

C/3 


in 
1 
1 


Lamen 


3 

tn 

W 


-3 

1 

Q 


rt 

i 

w 


e 



a 


o 












Q 


in 






I 




S i 

C/) 










in 

<u 


a 


a 
i 






4) 


in 
41 










in 






13 










M a & 
i-fi 

CQ (A 

H 


| 


a 

13 

in 

D-, 


43 
O 
t > 


Proverb 


Ecclesia 


60 


Lament 


H 

'3 

rt 

Q 


h 

V 

In 


rt 
M 




43 
U ! 




M 


- 


<r> 


- 


M 





- 


00 





O 


s 



555 
i 



^ 

?5 



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 571011; 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. 



15 



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 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 



B 



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 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 )V 7 ; (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. 



ir 



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)XIV2 4 ; 
(n) XV i; (12) XVI 3; (13) XVII 24; (14) XXII i; 
(15) XXV 13; (i6)XXV2 5 ; (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 n 7 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.; (5 7 )XXVII 9 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 nrn d'K"aai nnpn 
UK pRi necna ^bits-sp -pi -jaa ^bs> iBoa Kintr ^I'TB p^a tnpi run 
^K-ia iBcggD-nprirn pb naiirn mna an 1 ? a^n 1 ?! 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 "IT 5 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 p 1 ? 2 

nfi- *6i is'bacR nbnpa'' vte nxm npibnn '2 "s mx-ipes K 1 ? 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 'T 1 ? nyjn -ja inxi -nnbiro n:aa ccrur i ? 
: bK^'^'a nam nanwn bzh wn DJ no'sinb Comp. introduction, Vol. I, foi. 3 /> 

with fol. (>a-b Venice 152425; 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 r 11 3 

c 



'? 1 Introduction. (CHAIVIV. 

Seder. On III 22 it states >tP Ni ?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. 234s, folio 25^ 29^; Origin. 
23.39, folio iba is,/; Orient. 2350, folio 23*7 -2S t /; 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. 



86 



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 

c* 



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' PB3 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 D3B^ [TUft Qn , 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 Qm 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 T13K 1 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 nrn "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 pa330 inX ttK '.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 Jtp3t 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 nb1 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 nan 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^atjn"]^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 tBin = 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^ r l 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. 



49 



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 V03 XXIII 7, whereas all the MSS. mark it in 
the margin of the text against XXIII 6 and the Lists give 
iTTliT XWIfl V03 ? 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. 



51 



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 Da>3 = XXXIII 16 as the catchword. 
( 1 1) He gives the twenty-first Seder 3ttf:i *in3*7 ," 131 TH 
Q^em3'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 
^Xm> 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 "I3n 
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 *>?&> t pr6mi = XXII 16 as the catch- 



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

n- 



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 p n " 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? pn Obadiah i, 
whereas all the MSS. mark the Seder on Amos VII 1 5 and 
all the Lists give 1P1NQ " '3np1 = 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 n3 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 
trim 4 ? 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 
571011, 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 1B3 '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 1PX n3^ 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 fl33 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 IIP 4 ? 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 IT 1 ! 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 ^X3"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 f3in 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 ncnO 1 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'~ TU 1 "- "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. 94012 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. 



E" 



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 ri 
pr 1B3 11 Dinn im ,a"^nn bv a-'sn lyn j'T^ira Ttn nsacnr'Ac'pinB bv 

stn Kiddushin 30^. 



70 



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 verses 2 
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 unl 
Wissenschaft des Judenthums, vol. XXXIV, p. 97103, 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 3a. 

'' 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. 94019402 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 
X1 i ?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.Jl s tne mnemonic sign 



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

Or - J379. fo1 - 2 2rt; 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 3H (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'P 1== 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 n13D 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 ^JOJ? 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 (N T umb. 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. 

F 



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. 



F* 



84 Introduction. [CHAP. VI. 



(49) For Nn '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:nn (Deut. XXXII 152) 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 "I 1 ? "]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 a s nNi 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 ma 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 number 11 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. 



93 



(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) i 7 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 text 2 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) 

3 8 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 148586, Soncino 1488, and Naples 149193. 



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- J 5 -}- * * -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 verses 3 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 

G 



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 verse 3 Zech. 
X 41, which must be a mistake, since this gives for the first 
half 141 verses, viz. 17 4~ l l + IO 4- *4 + " + '5 4- 14 
-\- 23 -j- 17 4~ 3 I 4 I ? an d leaves the second half only 70 
verses, viz. 94- I 74" I 4-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) 5 i 4- (xix) i 5 4- (XX) 

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

(xxv) 22 4- (xxvi) 12 4- (xxvii) i 4 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) 2 5 + (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 = 8 5 . 

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 = I 54 . 

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 book 1 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 verses 3 
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. [CHAI 1 . 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) i 7 -f (vi) 22 + (vii) 28 + (viii) 3 6 + (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 verses 1 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 onnpe 1 ? 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'n 1 ? 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 
n 1 ? 11 xbi p 111 ! 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 Psalter 1 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 



S 

c 


r, 


V 


1 


P 


r 


X 


- 





r 


D 


I 


3 


D 


IS 


h 


1 


5 


1 


10 


n 


I 


7 
9 
8 


8 
3 

1 


2 
1 

* 


3 
2 
2 



* 
* 


i 
i 

* 



I 




* 
* 



1 
2 



i 
i 


* 
* 
4 


-V 
* 
* 



1 

1 


2 
1 

:; 


1 
* 

3 


1 
1 
3 


* 

1 

* 

A 


* 
* 



3 
2 

7 


* 

* 
* 


* 

2 

1 
* 


* 
* 
* 


9 










































* 














































9 












































2 


























1 










1 




1 




8 
9 


1 
1 


1 


2 
1 


1 
1 


* 


* 


* 





2 


* 


2 


* 


3 


3 
2 


3 


1 

* 


* 


9 
8 


* 





* 


* 
8 





1 


3 
3 


3 


* 


* 


* 





2 





1 





2 


i 


3 


* 
-: 


1 

:- 


9 




f 


* 

: 


* 
# 


5 










* 


-i- 


:'< 





:; 


:: 


: : : 


: : : 


























1 


























-. 






; 




* 


7 














































t 


1 


3 






















3 




-: ; 








# 


4 


11 





2 


3 
6 


: 

:. 


i 





* 


2 


6 


| 


* 


1 





2 


2 





I 


4 


* 


* 


3 


9 


* 


2 


3 
4 


* 


i 


1 







1 


4 


t 





2 





2 


2 


* 





3 


* 


* 

4 


2 

* 




-: 






































-; 




1 




2 
































2 








8 
1 
8 


2 
1 
2 


1 



2 

2 


3 

* 

3 
2 


* 

1 




i 


i 


* 




| 

* 
* 


* 

* 


i 
2 

1 


* 
* 
* 


2 

* 

1 


* 
1 
1 


3 
2 
1 


3 
2 
2 

1 


6 
3 
1 


* 
* 

* 


* 
* 

1 

.;. 


8 
5 
5 


* 
* 
* 


* 
* 
* 


* 
* 

* 




3 


i 


1 






















3 
















196 

1 
< 

cj 


>j 




. 
* 


OJ 

r* 


fC 

o 


o 


h* 


* 


o> 


* 





H 
H* 


X 


*- 

JO 


(IS 

x 


Oi 

fj 


*> 


-J 


u 

r 


CM 


co 


a 



CHAP. VII.] The Number of the Words. 

first page of the MS. 



ill 



Genesis I 116. 



28 
33 
32 
30 
35 
33 

6 

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

5 

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 ix 9 i 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 inrfc 1 ? yiT 

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



-by Txnb 
n'-fwan 'at 
-ni dln 



n yp"ia ni)p 'n^ d'.ibK iaK s i 14 

p rni nb^n pai d'; s n pa 
n yp"33 nnixa 1 ? vrn JD^^I 15 
o^n^K t>y 9 i 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. 


8 


r6en [= Gen. xxxii 4 xxxvi 43 


1976 


1996 


10 


ppa [= XLI i XLIV 17 


1871 


2022 


ii 


Wl [= XLIV 18 XL VII 27 


1469 


1480 


12 


m [= XLVII 28 L 26 


1149 


1158 


14 


X181 [= Exod. VI 2 IX 35 


1523 


1748 


34 


-rtar [= Numb. I I IV 20 


1893 


1823 


39 


npn [= xix i xxn i 


1445 


1245 


4i 


cnrs [= xxv 10 xxx i 


1886 


1887 


50 


K'SH-a [= Deut. XXVI I XXIX 8 


1746 


1747 


53 


::-! [= XXXII 1-5 


(">i4 


6S 






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 

H 



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 TllTH 122 

rarn ?ic2 n7 man m-mx *nu ^22 B:n;a p n'tpi2 'e rimerc ttiE2i 
n ja larn 1 ? -12 np'2i p-nn mnxtr ,12^,1 rx-2 nT- 
,i2'nn n'arn D'ara 1 ?! pics DP pmtra an'D'2 pee 'u-r 



CHAP. I.] Dagesh and Raphe. 117 

XXXI 54), 3^P to heart (Mai. II 2), ja 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 xv 3; ( 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 collated 1 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. 262628 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 ( S B^) \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 rn 
iiax pi :is nonx ms -layb ncna i "" i i 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-nn 1 ? D"an mirn n"iK ' 

T -l|- 

',-nan na-n r;n n"?K ji:: by iiea 1 ? 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 571011; 
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 152425. 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 148687; 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 151117. 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 
571011; 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 152425. 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 151117. 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. 

i 



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 571011; 
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 152425. 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. 
262628; 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 571011; 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 
152425. 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. 262628; 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 K 1 ? obvhi ri mm 1 ? 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 Massorah 3 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. 

*rW r "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^a 1 ? D-a-iB a-n ."tartyi "xhnb c-orts ash* -K-C mean "asm 2 

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

: mxp -pn 7'n>6 ncn nnr :x .ahw las nban ripnn xbv -iKr 1 ? 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 
12 1 ?, 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'B 1 ?** 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, 2628, 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 rnS3 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 I 1 ?, 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-ON 1 ) 
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 = np T 12C, 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. 

K* 



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 nni3, 

T T :' 

whereas the School of textual critics exhibited in the 
Samaritan and Septuagint read it i"iriiJ2. 

\ 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 end 2 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 3ttfl = 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, 1719, 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 X 1 ? 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), Dn 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 pp| 3t?1 s '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 wa y 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 rprvK 1 ? 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 H 1 ?-^ 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. 117121; 157166. 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 13Bn 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 WS 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 ~i2 


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 n 1 ? 






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" lajr 11 ' 


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. \ r ulg. Comp. 
Ps. XCIX 6. 




LXXVI 7 


B1D1321iai13 


DID '321 lail? 


B1B1 3211 D113 






Sept, Syr. Vulg. 




LXXXV 9 


nbcabisur^Ki 


nb B3 1 ? '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 Lists 1 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 


n 


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 


n 


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" p 1 ? 



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- 



L* 



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'JPO 1 ? "]riK 


1"3pa ^3 nx 


Zech. XI 7 


ftp T^/y Xavuavltiv = "riS 1 ? 


":r js 1 ? 


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 


*1 


oxn 


fol. qa 


XVII 20 


T 


<n?0tt> 


. 14 & 


., 26 


nt 


?9^7 


i. H* 


xvm 21 


nn 


I??*? 1 ? 


. 15'' 


XX 15 


^ 


o-ax 


iSa 


XXII 18 


13 


nsnni 


n 2Oa 


XXIV 17 


nn 


in,*) 1 ? 


21ft 


XXV 18 


a? 


ISO 


23^ 


XXVII 12 


?n 


" ~ *- 


-. 25^ 


XXXII 20 


DD 


Kxfaa 


32 /' 


XXXVI 18 


no 


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 


c 


'?rts-"i 


fol. 5/> 


* VII 3'rt 


:: 


r Cfr 


4 


1 


D31 

\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: 







ja 


Levit. XV 


31 


atso 


* XVIII 


3 


! w 


XXII 


2 


'IpK 


i) n 


3 


''' ^^? 





4 


D' 


XXIII 


19 


D 


1. 


36 


K 


XXVI 


25 


' 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 Q 1 ! = 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 niJID 1 ? "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 preceding 1 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 

f3l 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 XC^ shall 



CHAP. VJ'J Homoeoteleuton. 173 



be unclean .... NttCS' shall be unclean. The clause *^3l 

T : T : 

OB? 3f n V^P a#>* i 1Bto >7Sn aJ 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 S 3 

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 -ay 1 ? . , nnK isr 1 ?, 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 

y ml >y nivi 1 ? 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^ vni 



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'^C 1 ! ^' 



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 148586, 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 
! 5 2 5' 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 'is 1 ? ,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 naa nmnetra 1 ? 
patpn D":na ma*n n3ia <i n maip nan 11 "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 -iTr 11 

.^"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 "ll~ 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 NQ: 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), ^nn (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), 
la_ (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 together 4 &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 DH 1 ?, 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 u shall 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 (nriP 1 )) 
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 

N 



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. Frensdorff 1 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. 324329. 



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 placing 1 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< i wn 1 ' D-'WIT parns vn D^WTP s r3K 2 

/to ' r6ja 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 nisio 1 ? nn-rw "vyvb nsin pn 1 ? 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 
fj5 ^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-iya 1 ? .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, 10p l ?"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 -Ksipa 1 ? .'pi re n*?a *nn pp "?2in "Knrna 1 ? 3 

."tr ba pi ,-iap 1 ? -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. 262628; 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 149193 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-ira 1 ? ,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. 13. 

(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. 13. 

(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. 13. 

(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 i2 mo 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 571011; 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 'JJ5E*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-ia 1 ? ,'-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 73 1 ? 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 
nK3-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 149193; 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 

O' 



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. gi6 4 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 571011 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 571011, 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. 

3 



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 notes 2 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 s a~*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 rpprn = 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 an d 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 .'an 1 ? ( p bx rwa-by 2 
.mja-bp 'nob .nus-^K Tab 3 

-bK 'HO 1 ? .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 Dla 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 x 1 ?! TO x 1 ? '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. 13 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. 13 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 'ntt 1 ? .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 571011 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-ta 1 ? ." 

.rropn 'nab /"? rrenpn 

'nab /10n mrpn Ta 1 ?, 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 Westerns 4 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. 13 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 'na 1 ?, 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-ia 1 ? /ba pn^nn \s 

,'na npatri ( D 
,'pi 'nn KiW: 

1 'pi TlS ni^BI 'Jia 1 ? ,'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 Keri 1 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 nP2 in the counsel of as the textual 
reading (l^DD), and in the Keri DP3 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 'no 1 ? ,np rrupBi TO K-UPBI 'ysb, so the List in 

Orient. 4227 British Museum. Unless we assume that after DTD K~UPB1 TO 1 ? 
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 'no 1 ?, so an the Lists instead of rutrs 'no 1 ?. 

3 The MS Massorah which Dr. Baer adduces in support of the Eastern 
reading is simply KTir^fil -|"OC 2TC1 IT 1 ?. 



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 'ana 1 ? /np pi TO rry ir ' 

,npi "TO iar 'na 1 ? ,npi "re "ap 'pa 1 ? 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 

"IS 1 ? /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 'aa 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 ua 1 ? rrri irrr Tinp la-iarr 'jsba pan TP naa 
nnwi mxa n:iarc pp 1 ? 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^ip 1 ?! 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. 
10001004 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 an 11 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 pmr 1 nny apy m^.np ^xnv rn? nr p"-ny a^enn^ an^an ',n rm anex 
xb '.n 1 ? wnp nbd abiy nr n^aaia 11 ap^tt p^a: n,na a^aaiwn B"aann nbiao rnn 
nwnp nbna mas a^nan a^twn ^v ""T nnna r >6p naa br bxa 11 Kbi naa- 1 
-nny;a ^tran p mn x^an nwnp mas 'aa in^ptn 11 trtwm i.n^K 11 ^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 larsn 11 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 'xn 1 ' BTITI 
non ix nn" 1 nan in n\snb natrn ma 11 naa a^aanna naan 'braa nxn^ rnr naa 
mnb V^K im^an 11 ibxn a^ayena ayta IK nine IK aino IK nne IK mno IK 
ia pK ^K in ipann 11 K"?I laipab ima^in twnn 1 ? 1 ! nnpb Kb panni b^a^nni 
i ?Kn^' t ba byi iynr byi vby nana ja^o aitD ja^o imK a'tr bKntr 1 ' ^nbK 'm naiK 
by -rrn piatK n^a^ by o-'bnai Ka: by B^a pane "a ainatr Knpa rby a^pnn 
-3K ',nb nair nr a-'B 'ba 11 by a^anya n-scn paa in&aci mKatKac by ^nanm -jynT 
ia mniaKn manan bai naa 1 bKntr" atrai ( nb in 11 aina 11 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^in 11 ana p pKanaKbK aana bpnax l 

iaaia mnKi inaitt? -jina bKntr 1 "na piani naan abum' no-'aab anxa 
a" pjn ptrKn pbn TED pK nyi abiyb bKa 1 Kbi naa 11 Kb laa^aa ninxi inaio 

Q* 



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 rn 1 ?: 1 ? njn-ur DTSIXI mxa rsixi s^x rw x'm , 

rnBtfi psa 1 ? 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 'pa 1 ?!? 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 HID 1 ? 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, 603605; Vol. i, pp 576, 
581, 582. 

* : -n rw 'xnnai -IBM p ,'ba rov 1 -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 .nx 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?;. 


J ud g- 
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 "ltK 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 152425. 

(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) 13fr? 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 n 1 ? 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 pur 1 ? "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 
152425. 

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 152425. 
(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 149193; 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 152425. 

(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. 

Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient. 2696. 

Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 
2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451 ; Orient. 2626; Orient. 
4227; Harley 1528; Harley 571011; Add. 15250; 
Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; and all the 
early editions of the Pentateuch and the Bible. 

(8) Deut. XII 1 8. 

Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient. 2696. 



CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 259 



Orient. 2201 ; Orient. 2348; Orient 2349; Orient. 
2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626; 
Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 n; Add. 
15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; and all 
the early editions of the Pentateuch and the Bible. 

(9) Deut. XII 22. 

Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient. 2696. 

Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 
2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626; 
Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 n; Add. 
15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; and all 
the early editions of the Pentateuch and the Bible. 

(10) Deut. XII 22. 

Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient. 2696. 

Orient. 2201; Orient 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 
2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626; 
Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 11; Add. 
15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; and all 
the early editions of the Pentateuch and the Bible. 
(n) Deut. XII 24. 

Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient. 2696. 

Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 
2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626; 
Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 n; Add. 
15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; and all 
the early editions of the Pentateuch and the Bible. 
(12) Deut. XII 25. 

Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient. 2696. 

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. 



260 Introduction. [CHAP. X. 

(13) Deut. XV 20. 

Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Orient. 2696; Orient. 
4227. 

Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; 
Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 
2451; Orient. 2626; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 n; 
Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; Add. 15282; 
and all the early editions of the Pentateuch and 
the Bible. 

(14) Deut. XV 22. 

Add. 9401; Add. 15451; Add. 15282; Orient. 
2696. 

Arund. Orient. 2; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; 
Orient. 2349; Orient. 2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 
2451; Orient. 2626; Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 
5710-11; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; and 
all the early editions of the Pentateuch and the 
Bible. 

(15) Deut. XXVIII 39. 

Add. 9401; Add. 15451. 

Orient. 2201 ; Orient. 2348; Orient 2349; Orient. 
2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626; 
Orient. 2696; Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 
57 10 1 1 ; Add. 15250; Add. 15251 ; Add. 15252; Add. 
15282; and all the early editions of the Pentateuch 
and the Bible. It is to be added that Orient. 4445 
and Arund. Orient. 16 point it li^DSn with Tzere 
under the Lamed. 

The Prophets and the Hagiographa. To the MSS. 
which contain the whole Bible and which are quoted both 
for the Pentateuch and these two divisions of the Scriptures, 
I have here to add the following 1 Codices: the two magni- 
ficent model MSS. Arund. Orient. 16 and Orient. 2091 which 
contain the Prophets and the Hagiographa; Orient. 2210 



CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 261 

and Orient. 2370 which contain the Former Prophets; 
Orient. 1474 which contains the Latter Prophets and Orient. 
2212 which contains the Hagiographa. 
(id) 2 Kings VI 28. 

Add. 15451. 

Orient. 2091; Orient 2201; Orient. 2310; Orient. 

2370; Orient. 262628; Orient. 4227; Arund. Orient. 

16; Harley 1528; Harley 57101 1 ; Add. 15250; Add. 

15251; Add. 15252; and all the early editions of 

the Bible. 

(17) 2 Kings VI 29. 

Add. 15451. 

Orient. 2091; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2210; Orient. 
2370; Orient. 2626 28; Orient. 4227; Arund. Orient. 
16; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 n; Add. 15250; Add. 
15251; Add. 15252; and all the early editions of the 
Bible. 

(18) Isa. XXXI 8. 

Add. 15251; Add. 15451. 

Orient. 1474; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2626-28; 
Orient. 4227; Arund. Orient. 16; Harley 1528; Harley 
5710 n; Add. 15250; Add. 15252; and all the early 
editions of the Bible. 

(19) Ezek. IV 9. 

Orient. 2201; Add. 15451; and the first edition 
of the Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah by Jacob 
b. Chayim 1524 25. 

Orient. 1474; Orient. 2091; Orient. 2626 28; 
Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 1 1 ; Add. 
15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; and all the early 
editions of the Bible with the exception of the 
editio princeps with the Massorah by Jacob b. 
Chayim. 



262 Introduction. [CHAP. X. 

(20 and 21) Ezek. IV 10. 

Ij^SXn twice Orient. 2201; Add. 15451; the fourth 
edition of the Bible 1511 17; and Jacob b. Chayim's 
edition 1524 25. 

13^3Xn Orient. 1474; Orient. 2091; Orient. 2626 28; 
Orient. 4227; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 1 1; Add. 
15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; the first edition of 
the Bible, Soncino 1488; the second edition, Naples 
1491 93; the third edition, Brescia 1494; the 
Complutensian Polyglot; the Rabbinic Bible by 
Felix Pratensis 1517; and the Venice quarto Bible 
1521. 

(22) Ezek. IV 12. 

i"!3^pxn Orient. 2201; Harley 1528; Add. 15251; Add. 
15451; the fourth edition of the Bible, Pesaro 
1511 17; the Complutensian Polyglot; and the first 
edition of the Bible with the Massorah by Jacob 
b. Chayim 1524 25. 

rij^DNfl Orient. 1474; Orient. 2091; Orient. 2626 28; 
Orient. 4227; Harley 5710 n; Add. 15250; Add. 
15252; the first edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488; 
the second edition, Naples 1491 93; the third 
edition, Brescia 1494; the Rabbinic Bible by Felix 
Pratensis 1517; and the Venice quarto 1521. 

(23) Ezek. VII 15. 

Add. 15451. 

Orient. 1474; Orient. 2091; Orient. 2201; Orient. 
2626 28; Orient. 4227; Harley 1 528; Harley 5710 n ; 
Add. 15250; Add. 15251; Add. 15252; and all the 
early editions of the Bible. 

(24) Eccl. VI 2. 

not a single MS. 

Orient. 2091; Orient. 2201; Orient. 2212; Orient. 
2626 28; Orient. 4227; Arund. Orient. 16; Harley 



CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 263 

1528; Harley 5710 u; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; 
Add. 15252; and all the early editions of the Bible. 

The above analysis discloses the startling fact that 
by far the greater number of our MSS. and the early 
editions follow the Ben-Naphtali recension and not that 
of Ben-Asher as has hitherto been supposed. It shows that 
out of the fifteen instances which occur in the Pentateuch 
and for which I collated nineteen MSS. and nine early 
editions, the Ben-Asher reading has some considerable 
support in No. i alone. It has eight MSS. and four editions 
in its favour. But even here the Ben-Naphtali recension 
is exhibited in no fewer than eleven MSS. and five editions. 
In all the other fourteen passages the Ben-Asher reading 
is exhibited in only two, three or at most in four MSS., 
whilst the Ben-Naphtali recension is uniformly followed in 
fourteen or fifteen MSS. and in twelve passages it is the 
reading of all the early editions without exception. 

A similar result is obtained from the analysis of the 
instances in the Prophets and Hagiographa. Out of the 
thirteen MSS. which I have collated for these divisions of 
the Hebrew Bible, the highest number which support Ben- 
Asher's recension is in the single instance described in 
No. 22. Here Ben-Asher's reading is exhibited in four 
MSS. and in four editions. But here too Ben-Naphtali's 
recension has the greater support, inasmuch as it is ex- 
hibited in seven MSS. and five editions. In the other eight 
passages Ben-Asher's recension is followed by only one 
MS. or at most by two MSS. In the case of No. 24 not 
a single MS. or edition follows Ben-Asher, whilst Ben- 
Naphtali's recension is exhibited in seven to thirteen MSS. 
and in five out of the nine instances is followed by all the 
early editions and in No. 19 by all the editions except one. 
With this overwhelming evidence before me I did not 
feel justified in displacing the simple Sheva from the text 



264 Introduction. [CHAP. X. 

(D) in these forms and in substituting for it Chateph-pathach (2). 
The exception, however, which I have made is in Ezek. 
IV 10 12 Here as will be seen from the above analysis, 
this form is not only exhibited in several MSS., but in 
several of the early editions. In these passages, however, 
I have given the alternative punctuation in the notes. 

III. The third point of difference between Ben-Asher 
and Ben-Naphtali is with regard to certain forms of the 
verb Enj to drive away. As in the former case so here, 
wherever the forms of this verb occur with a suffix and 
the third radical has Segol (ttf), Ben-Asher points the second 
radical with Chateph-pathach (")) with one exception, viz. 
inchn and he drove him away (Ps. XXXIV i), where he 
also points the Resh with Chateph-pathach, though the Shin 
has Tzere; whereas Ben-Naphtali always points the Resh 
with simple Sheva ("I). 1 Apart from the exception in 
Ps. XXXIV i, there are only three passages which are 
affected by this difference between these two Massorites. 
From an examination of these three passages, however, 
it will be seen that the vowel-points of Ben-Naphtali are 
the rule both in the MSS. and in the early editions, whereas 
those of Ben-Asher are the exception. 
(i) Exod. XXIII 29. 

Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15282; Add. 



Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 
2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626 28; 

vhv pen nnn rrrrrc Kim srvi nne- -UPK p n-n mma pe 1 ? bai ' 
ebe pen by rrrr xb OKI .nn'riri -p:ea I:C-;;K *6 .ittroK era taya laa nnp: 
r6aa pn 'am rrra -re-urn ,ienri ntrxn ;a ibiri ias mn nne- sb m-ipj 
pi ; "i 1 ?"! inrnn K-m mips nbe pen nnn n-n- *6i nm nne 1 Kin ^ nriK 

J-OI njaa nmS n-n K 1 ? -bnCJ Comp. Orient. 2348, fol. 25^^; Orient. 2349, 
fol. i6a; Orient. 2350, fol. 23 b; Derenbourg, Manuel du Lecteur, page 109, 
Paris 1871. 



CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 265 

Orient. 2696; Orient. 4227; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; 
Add. 15252; Harley 1528; Harley 571011; the editio 
princeps of the Pentateuch, Bologna 1482; the first 
edition of the Bible, Soncino 1488; the Lisbon 
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 1521; 
and the first edition of the Bible with the Massorah 
by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 25. 
(2) Exod. XXIII 30. 

Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15282; Add. 



Orient. 2201; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 

2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626 28; 

Orient. 2696; Orient. 4227; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; 

Add. 15252; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 n; and all 

the early editions without exception. 
(3) Numb. XXII 6. 

Orient. 4445; Add. 9401; Add. 15282; Add. 

15451; and the third edition of the Bible, Brescia 

1494. 

Orient. 2201 ; Orient. 2348; Orient. 2349; Orient. 

2350; Orient. 2365; Orient. 2451; Orient. 2626 28; 

Orient. 2696; Orient 4227; Add. 15250; Add. 15251; 

Add. 15252; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 u; and all 

the early editions except one, viz. Brescia 1494. 
We now come to the exception where we are told 
that Ben-Asher points it intthri with Chateph-pathach under 
the Resh (1) though the Shin has Tzere (tf). From the 
following description, however, it will be seen that here 
too the reading of Ben-Naphtali is the rule in the MSS. and 
in the early editions, whilst the recension of Ben-Asher is 
very rarely followed. 



266 Introduction. [CHAP. X. 

Ps. XXXIV i. 

Add. 15251; Add. 15451. 

Orient. 2201; Orient. 2212; Orient. 2375; Orient. 
2451; Orient. 2626 28; Orient. 4227; Arund. Orient. 
16; Harley 1528; Harley 5710 u; Add. 15250; Add. 
15252; and all the early editions without a single 
exception. 

My own Codex No. i which is a beautifully written 
Spanish MS. and which also has IHEhjPI in the text, 
distinctly states in the official List of variations that the 
difference consists in Ben-Asher reading it inCHJ'l without 
Gaya and Ben-Naphtali pointing it IHEHri with Goya, and 
this variation I have given in the note on this passage. 
IV. The fourth point on which Ben-Asher and Ben- 
Naphtali differ is with regard to the Dagesh in the Tav 
in the forms of the word DTQ houses, when it has two 
accents. According to Ben-Asher the word in question 
occurs only twice with two accents and hence the Tav 

r \ 

has Dagesh in only two instances, viz. D'PQI and houses 
Deut. VI 1 1 and VFI3 the houses thereof i Chron. XXVIII 1 1. 
This is evident from his statement in the Massorah that 
there are only four words altogether in the Bible which 
have the two accents and Dagesh in the Tav and that the 
form DTQ houses, constitutes two out of the four instances. 
According to Ben-Naphtali, however, there are more in- 
stances where the form D'rQ houses, has two accents and 
has the extra Dagesh in the Tav,* viz. Exod. II 7; VIII 7; 

"inr wna aprrr *br\t>: p rrn D-apto ":ipa rrrr nrx DTQ pvb bai 
pn m by inc^rr -IPX pi :jrcan ,-it by D"ro Teg 81 'O'nan by iaa Dnbiia 
OT -3 .ITIS nxi nbixn man nK ,SIB *?a c % *6 o^nai mi mba -nca 
,rna ni .'Kba o-nai jm ptwnn naia Kipaa mba raiK "a nnioxaa 

tprrnbn "J^X X""DJ1 ,&bwbr\ na"ttn Comp. Orient. 2348, fol. 25 1; Orient. 
2349, fol. 160; Orient. 2350, fol. 23^; Derenbourg, Manuel du Lecteur, p. no, 
Paris 1871. 



CHAP. X.J The Differences between Ben Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 267 

Deut. VI n; i Chron. XXVIII 11; 2 Chron. XXXIV n. 
Here too both the MSS. and the early editions follow the 
recension of Ben-Naphtali, inasmuch as they exhibit the 
accent and Dagesh in all the five passages. 

V. The fifth point of difference between these two 
Massorites is with regard to the prefixes Beth (3) and \ 
Lamed (b) in words which begin with a Yod which has a 
Chirek ('). According to Ben-Asher the prefix in question 
takes Sheva and the Yod retains the Chirek. Thus 
Israel is ^&nto?3 in Israel, and ^X'W^ to Israel; 
Jezreel with the prefix Beth is ^KIHP3 in Jezreel, with Lamed 
it is ^XjnPb to Jezreel; I"1NT fear with the prefix Beth is / 
HXT3 in fear, and with Lamed it is PIKYv' to fear. According 
to Ben-Naphtali, however, the Chirek in question is taken by 
the prefix Beth or Lamed and the Yod loses its character 
as a consonant, ^N*ltP* with the prefix becomes ^JOfc^S or 

' T : " T : 

; so too ^XjnP becomes ^XinP3 or Sxin?^ and 
with the prefixes becomes HKT3 and HXTV As this 

T : T : 

pointing which affects hundreds of passages is in accordance 
with the Syriac, it seems to confirm Levita's statement that 
Ben-Naphtali belonged to the Madinchai or Eastern School 
of textual critics. 2 

In this category of differences between the two 
textual critics, the MSS. and the editions with very few 
exceptions follow the recension of Ben-Asher. We shall 
only mention two noticeable exceptions, since one of them 
has given rise to a difference in the interpretation of the text, 



rrn .rwv nx-pa -nK-vb !-IKTS , 

Trn -npr K^I ins^rr 'bnes: jm ,nes imx arm mban I^KS nrn -npr IIPK p 

: bsntp'a IM .IBS imK K-SV H^l Comp. Orient. 2348; fol. 25 b; Orient. 2349, 
fol. i6a; Orient. 2350, fol. 23 fc; Derenbourg, Manuel du Lecteur, p. HO, 
Paris 1871. 

2 Vide supra p. 247; and Levita, Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 114, ed. 
Ginsburg. 



268 Introduction [CHAP. X. 



viz. Ps. XLV 10. Though I have adopted in the text 
among thy honourable women, which is the reading of Ben- 
Asher, in accordance with some of the best MSS., viz. 
Harley 571011; Arund. Orient. 16; Orient. 2375; Orient. 
2451; Orient. 4227; Add. 15251, I must state that the 
majority of the MSS. which I have collated and the early 
editions exhibit Tmij?^, the recension of Ben-Naphtali. 
This is the case in Orient. 2201; Orient. 2212; Orient. 
2626 28; Add. 9401 2; Add. 15250; Add. 15252; Add. 
15451; Harley 1528; and all the early editions without a 
single exception. Hence the mediaeval Jewish interpreters 
(Saadia, Rashi &c.), who followed this reading, ignored the 
silent Yod and derived the word from 1J33 to visit, to serve. 
They took it as the plural of D"lJ53 (Levit. XIX 20) and 
translated it thy female servants.* 

The second instance where the Ben-Naphtali recension 
has prevailed over the Ben-Asher reading is Prov. XXX 17. 
The reading fini9^ to obey, is exhibited in all the best 
MSS., in Orient. 2201; Orient. 2212; Orient. 2375; Orient. 
2626 28; Orient. 4227; Arund. Orient. 16; Harley 1528; 
Harley 5710 1 1; Add. 15250; Add. 15251 ; Add. 15252; Add. 
21161 and in fact in all the Standard Codices which I have 
collated for this purpose. The same is the case with the 
editions. All the early editions without exception have 
this reading. With this overwhelming evidence before me I 
did not feel justified in displacing it from the text and 
substituting for it Ben-Asher's recension for which I could 
not find any authority. 

VI. The sixth point of difference between Ben-Asher 
and Ben-Naphtali affects the presence or absence of the 
Dagesh in the letters nB3"T33 under certain conditions. 
According to Ben-Asher, wherever >rH is followed by 



1 Comp. Ewald and Dukes, Bcitrage. p. 36 etc. 



CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 269 

flOJTQ and the accent connects it with \TY he has it 
Raphe in accordance with the rule which applies to JTix. 
Thus for instance he reads it PQE?5-'m Gen. XXIX 13; 
and so in similar cases. Now Ben-Naphtali differs from 
him in the following seven instances where he puts Dagesh 
in Caph after ,T1 Gen. XIX 17; XXXIX 15; Deut. II 1 6; 
Josh. IX i; Judg. XI 35; i Kings XV 29; and Esther V 2.' 

We have still to consider the official Lists of the \ 
differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali which I 
record the variants in each book separately under each / 
of the three great divisions, viz. the Law, the Prophets/ 
and the Hagiographa. 

The Pentateuch. As is usually the case, the Scribes 
have taken the greatest care in minutely recording the 
variations which obtained in the Pentateuch between these 
two redactors of the text. Hence in some MSS. not only 
is the precise number of variations given in each Pericope, 
but the nature of the difference is minutely described. 
This is notably the case in the splendid Codex No. i in 
the Madrid University Library dated A. D. 1280, folio 
81 a 82 b; in the Massoretico-Grammatical Treatise prefixed 
to the Yemen MSS. of the Pentateuch: Orient. 1379; Orient. 
2348; Orient. 2349 and Orient. 2350 in the British Museum, 
and in the Mukaddimat of Samuel Ha-Rophe. 

Samuel Ha-Rophe or Samuel el-Maghrebi was born 
in Maghrebi circa A. D. 1350 and died circa A. D. 1420. 
He was Dayin or Spiritual head of the Karaite community 



11 -rant p rrn m or paiia artsm riea -ua ay -paan IWK TTI y\ l 
m rv6a npawa ine^rp ^nsD pi /am pawa vn 1122 rvix tsatw: by 



pm ,i3D vn , 

t'aill 1H \T1 ^BJn ^D s m las <l 1 Comp. Orient. 2348, fol. 25 b; Orient. 
2349, fol. i6a; Orient. 2350, fol. 23 b; Derenbourg, Manuel du Lecteur, p. HO, 
Paris 1871. 



270 Introduction. [CHAP. X. 

at Cairo. Amongst other works he wrote circa 1380 the 
Mukaddimat or Introduction to the Pericopes of the 
Pentateuch. 1 At the end of each Mukaddima he not only 
gives a description, in Arabic of the number of Sedarim 
and verses in the Pericope in question, but gives a table 
in which he registers both the exact number of the 
variations between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali and the 
precise nature of each variant. This portion of the 
Mukaddimat is of great importance, inasmuch as its author 
by virtue of his position and office had the command of 
the celebrated Ben-Asher Codex which his community at 
Cairo possessed. It is from the Mukaddimat that I printed 
in my Massorah the portion which sets forth the variations 
between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 2 The Lists of the 
differences between these two textual critics appended to 
each of the Pericopes in my edition of the Bible are also 
from the Mukaddimat, collated with the Lists in the Madrid 
Codex No. i and the Massoretico-Grammatical Treatise in 
the Yemen MSS. 

Owing to the special care which the Scribes exercised 
with regard to the Massoretic materials appertaining to the 
Pentateuch, some MSS. which contain the whole Hebrew 
Bible and omit the Lists for the Prophets and Hagiographa, 
yet carefully record the Lists for the Pentateuch. This is 
the case in Orient. 2201 which is dated A. D. 1246, fol. 
iooa loib; Orient. 4227, fol. 2;oa 271 a; Add. 15251, 
fol. 3 b $b; in the splendidly illuminated MS. Orient. 
262628, Vol. I, fol. iSotf 184^; and MS. No. 7 dated 
A. D. 1299 in the National Library, Paris. Besides these 
MSS. which give the Lists for the Pentateuch alone, I 
have also collated Harley 1528 in the British Museum ; my 

1 Comp. Fiirst, Gcschichte des Karaerthmns, Vol. II, p. 283 etc., 
Leipzig 1865. 

2 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, 290^ 298^, p. 6- -14. 



CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 271 

own MS. No. i ; the Lists in the editio princeps of Jacob b. 
Chayim's Bible with the Massorah, Vol. IV, Venice 1525 26 
at the end; and the Lists in Walton's Polyglot, Vol. VI, 
p. 8 13, London 1657. The List of the variations given 
in the Summary at the end of each Pericope in my edition 
of the Bible I printed from the Mukaddimat or Liturgical 
Introduction to the Pericopes by Samuel Ha-Rophe al- 
Maghridi, Orient. 2482 84; compared 1 with the Massoretico- 
Grammatical Treatise prefixed to the above-named Yemen 
MSS. and with the List in the Madrid Codex No. i. 

Genesis. In the Lists of Samuel Ha-Rophe the 
twelve Pericopes into which Genesis is divided exhibit 
thirty-nine variations between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali.- 
These I have duly given at the end of each Pericope. 
They are as follows: (i) i -f- (2) 2 -f (3) i -f (4) 4 -f (5) i -\- 

(6) 7 4- (7) 3 + (8) 7 + (9) 2 + (10) 4 + C*0-5 + (")* 39- 
In Pericope No. 8 which according to this Treatise has 
only seven variations, 3 I have added an eighth in Gen. 

XXXVI 1 6: 

* ,m *K R"a 



This variation is given in the Massoretico-Grammatical 
Treatise prefixed to the Yemen MSS. From this Treatise 
as well as from the splendid Madrid Codex No. i, I have 
added in the Summary at the end of the first Pericope 
the instances in which Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali agree, 
which are omitted in the Massoretico-Grammatical Treatise. 

1 The Arabic List of variations between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali 
which I printed in the Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 6-14, is from this Liturgical 
Introduction. 

2 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, 590^, p. 6-7. The vowel points 
attached to the Biblical words throughout this Treatise in my Massorah are 
those which are given in Samuel Ha-Rophe's MS. 

3 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, 590 b, p. 6; with Derenbourg, 
Manuel du Lecteur, p. in 115. 



272 Introduction. [CHAP. X. 

The importance of this addition may be seen from 
the fact that in the very first Pericope (Gen. I i VI 8) 
where these MSS. emphatically state that Ben-Asher and 
Ben-Naphtali agree in the punctuation of "11X \T let there 
be light (Gen. I 4) and TUO3 ItPX whom I have created 
(Gen. VI 7), Dr. Baer gives them in his List of diiferences 
between these two rival critics without mentioning that 
they are expressly excluded in some of the official Lists. 1 

Exodus. - - The eleven Pericopes into which Exodus 
is divided exhibit twenty variations. In this number both the 
List of Samuel Ha-Rophe and the List in the Massoretico- 
Grammatical Treatise agree. 2 They are as follows: (i) i -j- 
(2)5 + (3)i + (4) 2 + (6)2 + (8) 3 + (9)2+ (10) i + (11)3 = 20. 
In two Pericopes, viz. No. 5 (TUV = Exod. XVIII i XX 26) 
and No. 7 (HOTin = Exod. XXV i XXVII 19) there are 
no diiferences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 

Leviticus. - In Leviticus which consists of ten Peri- 
copes, Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali exhibit sixteen points 
of difference. Here too the number given by Samuel Ha- 
Rophe and in the Massoretico-Grammatical Treatise in the 
Yemen MSS. agree. 3 The differences in the separate Peri- 
copes are as follows: (i) i -f- (3) i -)- (4) 2 -\- (5) i -j- (6) i -f- 
(?) ' H- (8) 7 -f- (9) 2 = 16. In two Pericopes, viz. No. 2 
OX == Levit. VI i VIII 36) and No. 10 (>npm = ; Levit. 
XXVI 3 XXVII 34) these two redactors of the text 
display no difference. 

Numbers. - - Numbers which is divided into ten Peri- 
copes, exhibits twenty-four variations between Ben-Asher and 
Ben-Naphtali. They are as follows in the respective heb- 

4 Comp. Genesis by Baer and Delitzsch, pp. 81, 82, Leipzig 1869. 

* Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, 592 b, p. 89; with Derenbourg, 
Manuel du Lecteur, p. 115118. 

3 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, 594 b, p. 910; wiih Derenbourg. 
Manuel du Lecteur, p. 118120. 



CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 273 

domidal Lessons: (i) i -f- (3) 5 -f (4) 7 -f (5) 2 -f (6) 3 -f- (7) 3 -+- 
(9) i -\- (10) 1. = 24. In two Pericopes, viz. No. 2 (Nt93 = Numb. 
IV 2 1 VII 89) and No. 8 (Dili'D = Numb. XXV 10 XXX i) 
there is no variation. The Massoretico-Grammatical Treatise 
gives only twenty-one differences and even these vary in 
four Pericopes from those given in the Mnkaddimat. In 
Pericope No. 4 (FbV = XIII i XV 41) the Yemen Treatise 
gives five differences instead of seven, omitting XV 14 
and 24. In No. 5 (nip XVI i XVIII 32) it gives one 
difference instead of two, omitting XVI 28. In No. 7 (p^3 = 
XXII 2 XXV 9) it has one more, four instead of three, 
viz. -^-p he shall pour out XXIV 7 and in No. 10 ('JJDC = 
XXXIII i XXXVI 13) it has one less, i. e. one instead 
of two 1 omitting XXXVI i. 

Deuteronomy. - In Deuteronomy which is divided 
into eleven Pericopes there are nineteen differences between 
Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. They are as follows according 
to the respective Pericopes: (2) 5 -j- (3) 4 -|- (4) 2 -f- (5) 2 -j- 
(6) 2 -f" (?) ! + (8 and 9) i -\- ( I0 ) 2=19. Two Pericopes, viz. 
No. i (onm - B Deut. I i III 22) and No. n (rD*Un flNM = 
Deut. XXXIII i XXXIV 12) are without any variation. 
The Treatise in the Yemen MS. emphatically states that there 
is also no variation in No. 7 (S13H '3 = XXVI i XXIX 8) 
and therefore omits XXVI 19. It will, however, be seen that 
the Mukaddimat declares as emphatically that this Pericope 
exhibits one difference between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali 
and that it carefully states in what the difference consists.- 

Before passing over to the other two divisions of the 
Hebrew Bible, I exhibit in parallel columns the differences 
between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali on Leviticus as they 



1 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, 596/7, p. 12 13; w i'h Derenbo'urg, 
du Lcctcnr, p. 120 123. 

2 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, 598 /;, p. 14; with Derenbourg, 
l tin Lecleur, p. 123 125. 



274 Introduction. [CHAP. X. 

are transmitted to us in the official Lists of seven MSS. 
and in the editio princeps of the Bible with the Massorah 
by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 25. By the side of these I give 
in the ninth column the readings in Orient. 4445 which 
The Variations between Een-Aslier and Ben- 





00 


oo * 


t- rr> 


rr> r* r* 


ro ro .0 


u^ 


CO 


ro 


M " B 


3 


p> 




R *-H 


c M 






I-H 






n 


M 

f 






^, X ^ 






M 








fl 


fi> n 


fiY" 


nfn !\ 


n r\ n 


fl 


fl 


n 


n n 




X 


V. 


x 




x \x 





X 


^ 


X ? 




2: 

u 


O- *'. 

h i 


p- fi ~ 

u 


:' .hi ii 
M -T- J~ 

" S u 

r i 


-r- ~r-" ij' 

1 ' * 

M 


HI 

JJ 


r 

g 

i. 


r 


XL x< 

i i 
X 
















i 






, 




Xi' 


X 1 " 7 




X' XL 








XL Xi 


O ^ 
rt 2 


o 


o [ 


r 


o o o 


i i 







o 


o 


i i 


^ c 




















a 




















S 
























X-" 


x~ 












XL 


B 




u 


fe 












S 


^ / 




f 


i 












1 


c -J) 


o 


1 


I o 


o o o 


o o o 


o 


o 





i 


>* 


















:, 


lorz - JQ 


2: 

i 


b- 

r~ o 


- 

o II 
U 


!! .f|T fl- 

I! J"- ^ 

U 


o o If 


1- 

S< 


r 


u 

r 











1 


I 


K 


n 








66zi -Q - v 
'el "I "N 


2i 


(to 


J< 

II 
U 


u ^ * ' 

U 


o o J-\ 


r.i 


ri 
r" 


n 
f 





! ? 

S 


a. 

i 


2: 

1 


0- 

' 

ii 


a n n-i 
n .r- j^ 

p 

i 


g 

n 


r.~ 
n 


ii 
r 


a 

r 


C 


5 8, 


i 


a 

i o 


S- 
u 


f!.. " " n 
u ' 


1 


w' 


fi 
r 


a 
r 


o o 








i 


r 


n 


i. 








* 



2: 

i 


o 


5 

o fl 


s jr- fr 


n 

H 


SL 


o 


o 





i? 






u 


u 


J\ 


JN 








o 









. 


i: 


n 








S 

S 


2: 


2i- 


*\" 

U 


f 5 . jr ^ 
P- 


O O J^ 

n 


I., 
n 


fl 

r 


fl 

r 





$1 


o 




S 
u U 


n 3 J! 1 - 


fl 

O O ^ 


S3 


M 


n 





T 3 .S 


1 


1 


p 


U- -T* 


n 


n 


r 


', 




i 


2l 

i 


f 


S- 

u 


i i i.l 

JN J% 


XL 

i 


J3 




p 


'('- 


u 








B 




fZ 








o 








r 













CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali . 275 

is the oldest MS. known at present, inasmuch as this will 
show the condition of the Hebrew text in the life-time of 
the two great redactors of the Bible as well as their 
respective relationship to the ancient text. 
Naphtali in the official Lists of different MSS. 



co 

K 


CO 

=J- 

c 


IO */"> IO -O Cl M C* C) 


CO ro O 

ri 

h- 1 
h- 1 


o 

rl 


M 


s 


Cl 


N 






x ^ 


> R C 


c 


K 




n 




n 
x 


n 


rtnnnpnnn 


n n n 

35 36 


11 


n 
x 


n 


ri 
x 


n 


n_ 


n 


is- o_ J6 : - ss ! i rv- t' nt rin 


ii l\~ ^ 


r\i- 


? 


fi 


XL 


X 


c 


c 


11 f p -T *T -T T x 
t t\ n n 


S S c" 


C 


i" 


r 


II 









g ^- I^. u jj 


E> E r- 


I*" 
















n n 








1 








n ii 
n n 














ri- a 




o o- n> nt 


il Fi~ ft!' 


IA: 










f- !: 


o 


. r r 

O 


P P 










o 





-~ 






i- n 












n 




Ou n- 


5" 










XL 
J^ 


n 


o 


c o o o o 


f^ o 


o 





o 






n ** 






r - 






















m 


^ 






'it; 7 






J3-_ 


ij 


p- 


JJ 


J^ 




c 


U 




c 


F 




r~ 






n_ 


n 


J3-_ O- ?: S-v- t%'- t^' 


SV 


t^r 


S-_ 


n 


X 


S6 : - 


C 


c 


^ r^ -T 


O O ~ 

c 


h 


r 


r 


1 


1 








1" 


i-- 










x 


35- 


U- f!-_ S^ : . IV fL W 
i i r*~ i^~ - x f^ 


g: 


^: 


S^ 


5 


x ; - 


XL 


8- 


n 

= 




o o j_. 


rv 


i 

: \ 


f 


1 




F 


i. 
















n_ 
Ei 


x- 

% 


P^- P' r ^" ^ fJ *~ **' 

1 ' ' ' i ~T o o 




o o J-.. 


w 
h^ 1 


P- 

r 


P 
r 


x- 


x_ 

'l 


c 






* r " 


r ~ 


i 


i 






ri 
Ei 

C 

r 


35- 

II 

Ei 
C 


J3- fl- X X J^ 1 - t\i 

! '. 1- I- -P- -T^ 

II"" 

pv Ji 

fc^ fc>- 


O J-" 


.|s- 


r 

r~ 


5 
r 

i 


X 

x 


1 


8- 


n- 



c 


X3-_ 13- J- J? v_ **' 

i i ii f' -I* 


c; 


c 


P- 

: \ 


5 
r 


35= 

i 


3S : 1 

i 


*~ 


* 


ti>- fc>- 


r=- 






i 






8 

c 


- 


Pi- P: * t* ! - ^'- ^' 

1 ' 1 I^~ 1 1 


o o P- 

c 


1- 


g- 

r 
r- 


S 
r 

r- 


X- 


36i 


* v 




f\- Xi- 

fe s h 


n- Ji; 
o P- 
s^ c 






P 


X- 
J^ 

n 




l^ 




h- & a 


E IP-- 






r^ 


-T- 








a H 















276 



Introduction. 



[CHAP. X. 








o 














a 


1-1 




r-i 




M 


i-i 


fO 


fO 


o 


S*< 




h- 1 I-H 


hH 










g 




c 


C C X C 3 C 












1 






H 


X 












M 


n 


n n 11 n n n 


n 


n n n n 


rt 


rt 


rt 




X 


r* 


x x x : 


x 


X *~* X 


- 


x 






o- 

F 

c 


a 
p 


x< x- r_< r.~ ft n 
! p p Ht n- 

n K -f- -r 

u u } 
ii 


X 

U 

h 
r" 


X' X- X- 'li' 

r~ r r~ : 

i i i u 

r~ 


i 
f. 
.b 


? 


ii 

LI 








u 


x 


x 








rt 






^ ? n ii r & fr 
u T -f 


f 


X< X" X' ^, 

IJ-- !: 'fJi J-" 

r r r u 

i i i 




I 


r 

c 


O 
rt 






u a a 




n 




u 


IJ 




















3 










r 








" 






t 




"- 








t/i 






x , x- 










&'- 








-f* 










II 


*j 






L 










c 


c 
u 


c 


o 


p 


o 


C U O O 





o 


!! 






















_ 






u 












f* ** 


0- 





X- XT 




j' 


u 


Ur 


u- 


[! C 


F 


c 


I 

o o o o 


o 


b 


i. 

.b 


il 

f i 


c 

II 


< 














U 


u 


6-' ^ 1 


o- 





V. V. , 




& 


& 


u. 


^,- 


Hslrf 


F 


F 


o o o o 


o 


F 


-L. 

-b 


II 

1. 
II 


ii 
c 
ii 


^ < 














u 


LI 


^ 


0- 





X- XT 




f 


{j 


fj' 


fjr 


O 00 


L, 


I- 


I "" 






u 


II 


n 


w ~ 






O C O 




LI 


. u 


i i 
U 


C 

ii 
u 




0- 


a 


x -x . 




:, 


- SJ 


i 


| jr 


2 


c 


F 


0000 





b 


. b 


11 

ii 


il 
C 

II 
















LI 


u 




o- 





X . X - 




">' 


i 


b- 


I 


C *** 

S * 


b 


t 


..- ,. 

O O O 


o 


. o H 


-L. 

. b 


II 
c 
M 


II 
n 


O 














u 


u 







0- 


XT X- 




t*- 


u, 


:, 


ii 


a" 


c. 


i. 


o o o o 


o 


b 


c. 
-b 


II 

M 

U 


n 

i: 


0. 

1 1 


0- 

F 


p 


X ~ -J 6 ' 

o o o o 





f 


& 
b 


H 

c; 
ii 


il 
n 


W a. 














u 


u 







p 


0- 

J 6 ' HH 


e 


X; 

J '& 




u, 




t: 






h 



i. 


II J" 
11 

c i 
a :^ 

g 


h 

U 


t S 




n 

i. 

Q 





CIIAI'. X. | The Differences between Bcn-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 



277 



-h -f 


'O *O ^O 





,^ 


^ 


t^ l^ ci ri 


n ri 


oo 


03 10 


>o 


* <* 


-, 








rO ro ^ ^- 


to >O 






M 


p I 


be 


c 


c 


c 


t> K C t- 


R t 


1 1 








* * 












< 




C 


II II 

X " 


n n n 


II 


II 

X 


11 


" n |i n 

X " X 5, 


H II 

X 


II 

X 


II II 

X 


II 


XL x 

i" i" 

a 

r 


1 1 ii j 

I* l^ 'r 
{'- !' f. 

Jj:, ti^ SJ 
IJ IJ H 


i. 
c 


II- 
13 

r^ 


P 
I- 


x : ' x- n- i-i- 
F F" { 5 
h ' f} 
u l 
a 
i- 


X X 

!i " 

fj 


X 

IJ 

13" 

ri. 


P F 
13' U 
F- I 
i., }! 


ht. 

i 




r; 


















XL X- 

F F 


n n 

P P 

n- ii' 




^ : 


P 


'/* '/' 

F K 


IJ 


13" 


1 


11 




! r o 


o 


13 


XJ 


o o 


II 


1 




^ 




a' u* 




1^ 


1- 




x 


II 


^ 


c 
















-J> 


















.- 


X 


r 
















c 




X 




x x- 


M 




JN" 




X : 


r-~ 








F F 


fr- 




P 




c 


IJ 










f~ O 


o 


J3 


o 




it 


Q 


o o 










u 


























n 










- 




r 


f\ 




_ 








c r. 


n 


1- 


ii 


!' 


c~ /! {'" {' 


X X 


r~ 


r 1 >' 


iii 




a u C 






n 














n 


l_ 


*? 


13 




1 ' 


sf 


a i 


1 








| 


r- 








(; 




x_ x 


n 

h 


i. 
L 


P" 
13 

F 


P 

13 

r~ 


X : l X> !!_ l-l- 

F F ' 


X X 

IJ IJ 

1 1 


13" 

tT 


1^ J.|" 

... i 
C 

c 


'i 


x /. 
n.~ c. 


n 

o o h 
x 


i_ 
i. 


P 

13 
C 
I 


P 

13 


X'_ X. ll_ M 

c c ; j 
i i 


x" x 

IJ IJ 


13' 

i 


II" 

l ** 


hi- 

i 


X_ X 

r. r. 
i i 


n 

o o h. 


!- 
i! 


J^_ 

P 
13 


n 

13 


V -X f I 

J& Xl.- II II 

c c j j 


X J6 

IJ IJ 


13 L 


f* h" 

i 


ni 

'i 


F F 


n 


I-" 


P" 


P 


f f r- P- 


X X 

n u 


13" 


f^ ,h 


hi 


o. o* 




i 


11 


n 




' ' 


fi_ 




1 








U 


L. 








iz 




X' X:- 

c~ r; 


n 

o C - 


!: 


IT 

13 


II 
13 


x=- X" n-_ n- 

F" F 


x x" 

p p 


13" 

i 


1*" j\" 
i 


1 


X : l X: 

F F 


o o C 

n 


f- 

i, 

i. 


ri~ 


n 

13 


x- x n-_ ii 

F" F { 


x x-_ 

p p 


13" 


a< n- 


h 

<> 


X" 

F" 


n p r 

1 1 ' - 






f 


F r 


x : 

u 


F-" 


1 






a 






r- 








r- 





278 Introduction. [CHAP. X. 

From the above Table it will be seen that the official 
Lists often differ among" themselves as to the precise nature 
of the variants even in the Pentateuch, where the greatest 
care has been taken to transmit the punctuation of Ben- 
Ash er and Ben-Naphtali. The attempt, therefore, to reduce 
these variants into a system, to formulate rules from these 
conflictingly recorded differences and to apply these rules 
to other passages of the Hebrew Scriptures so as to 
multiply instances which are not contained in the official 
registers, is a task far more in harmony with the super- 
fine ingenuity of some mediaeval grammarians than with 
sober textual criticism. It is probably due to this fact that 
the best Codices and even the MSS. which record the 
official Lists do not follow uniformly the punctuation of 
either Ben-Asher or Ben-Naphtali. Thus the oldest and 
most beautifully written Codex of the Pentateuch, viz. 
Orient. 4445 very rarely employs the Metheg or Goya even 
before Chateph-pathach, and yet it is the presence or ab- 
sence of the Metheg or Gaya which constitutes fully nine- 
tenths of the differences between these two redactors of 
the text. 

As regards the separate Treatise called in some MSS. 
Dikdiika Ha-Tcamhn which has come down to us in several 
Codices in the name of Ben-Asher, its text in the different 
MSS. and in the editio princeps is as hopelessly irre- 
concilable as that of the official Lists. The Treatise in 
question was first published in the editio princeps of the 
Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis, Venice 1517, where it 
is described in the heading as the compilation of Ben-Asher. 
A second edition of it was published by Leopold Dukes 
under the title of Kontres Ha-Massoreth, Tubingen 1846, 
from a MS. in the possession of Luzzatto. In this MS., 
however, no author's name is given to the Treatise. These 
two editions, moreover, differ essentially in the text, and 



CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 279 

the recension published by Dukes barely contains one 
fourth of the text in the editio princeps. 

(1) In my Massorah I published five other recensions 
of this Treatise. The first is under letter t2, 246, Vol. I, 
p. 654 660. This recension I printed from Add. 15251 
British Museum where it forms an appendix with other 
Massoretic materials to the Hebrew text folio 444 a 448 a. 
It will be seen that the compilation is here ascribed to 
Ben-Asher. The arrangement and text of this recension 
approximate more closely to the editio princeps though the 
latter contains about thirty-five more Rubrics. 

(2) The second recension which I printed under letter 
12, 44 75, in the third Volume of the Massorah, p. 41 43, 
is from the beautifully illuminated MS. Orient. 262628 
where it occupies the first and second lines of the 
ornamental square in Vol. I, folio ib 22b. Not only 
does the text of this recension differ materially from 
that of the other Treatises, but the Rubrics are fewer and 
are differently arranged. I could not, therefore, exhibit it 
in a parallel column with the other recensions. 

(3) The third recension which I have given in the 
third Volume of the Massorah is from Codex Tzufut- 
kale No. 15 for the transcript of which I am indebted 
to Professor Strack. The Epigraph which according to 
Strack proceeds from the clever hand of Firkowitsch, ' 
ascribes the Massorah to Aaron Ben-Asher. The Massorah 
itself consists of fifty-nine Rubrics of sundry Massoretic 
import and constitutes an Appendix to an ancient and 
valuable fragment of the Pentateuch. Of these only 
twenty-two correspond to recension No. i, whilst nine are 
to be found in the additions in the compilation of Drs. Baer 
and Strack. 

1 Comp. Baer and Strack, Dikduke Ha-Teamim, Einleitung, p. XXXIII, 
Leipzig 1879; with 'The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 295. 



280 Introduction. | CHAP. \ 

(4) The fourth recension which I also printed in the 
third Volume of the Massorah ' .is from Codex T/.ututkale 
No. 1 7 for a transcript of which I am indebted to Professor 
Strack. The Codex to which the Massorah in question 
forms an Appendix, contains an imperfect Pentateuch of 
213 folios and is one of the most important fragments of 
the Hebrew Scriptures. 

The Epigraph which assigns the date A. D. 790 
to this MS. making it to belong to the grand-father of 
Aaron b. Moses Ben-Asher, has manifestly been tampered 
with and the Shin (V = 300) according to the statement 
of Professor Strack has been made out of the original 
Tau (n = 400). But though no reliance whatever can be 
placed on the date, still the MS. is very important.' 2 The 
Rubrics which form the separate Treatise called DikJnki- 
Ha-Tcamhn are not grouped together in this MS. as a 
distinct whole. They simply constitute sundry parts of a 
somewhat extensive Massorah. As will be seen in my 
reproduction of it, the Massorah itself contains ninety-six 
Rubrics of diverse Massoretic import. The portions which 
correspond to the Rubrics in the Dikduke Ha-Teamhn in 
No. i are only nineteen and eleven correspond to the 
additions in the compilation of Drs. Baer and Strack. 

To exhibit in parallel columns the relationship of the 
parts in this Massorah which correspond to the Rubrics 
contained in the Dikduke Ha-Teamim I have numbered 
them according to the order in which they occur. 

(5) The fifth recension which I have given in the 
third Volume of the Massorah, is the Massorah Finalis in 
Codex Tzufutkale No. 19 for the transcript of which I am 



1 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, 1 96, p. 269 294. 

2 Comp. Baer and Strack, Dikdukc Ha-Teamitn, Einleitung, p. XXXIV, 
Leipzig 1879; with The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 294 where the Epigraph is given. 



UIAI'. X.| The Differences between lieu-Asher and Ben-Napht;ili. 281 

likewise indebted to Professor Struck. The Massorah which 
is incomplete consists of thirty-six Rubrics. 1 Of these, 
fifteen correspond to recension No. i and four to the 
additions in the compilation of Drs. Baer and Strack. 

Through the kindness of Professor Chwolson I have 
received a copy of this Treatise made from the St. Peters- 
burg Codex of A. D. 1009, which I give in exteuso in the 
Appendix. This exhibits the oldest homogeneous form of 
the compilation in question. And as the MS. is a copy 
of the Ben-Asher Codex made only about three or four 
years after the Codex itself was conveyed from Jerusalem 
.to Cairo, 2 it must finally decide the form and contents of 
the Treatise. On comparing the Appendix it will be seen 
that the Treatise consists of only forty-two Rubrics instead 
of seventy-six as given in the Dikduku Ha -Tea mi in of 
Drs. Baer and Strack and that they follow quite a different 
order. To give the student a proper idea of the import 
of this valuable Treatise, I have made it the basis of 
comparison with the other recensions. It, therefore, occupies 
the first column in the Table. 

Table I. 



1 o 
H "A 


3 M 

N ,O 


3 M 

H 1 


t: " 

O " 


.2 a 

." o 
-r) c 

g. 


a 


o 

CAI 




o 


O 


o 





o 





1 


^Knr- "rfox sribK nin 11 "jnn 


o 





21 


3 


K } 


3' 


2t 


niac'Kn nmn snpan -no 


- 


o 


22 


4 


4 


3^ 


2& 


a-K^asn "ino 


o 


o 


23 


5 


5 


3^ 


2C 


ffairen -no 





o 


2 


o 





2 


3 


-J120 HIT Dtt' '.T 





o 


3,4 


o 


o 


4 


4 


nbf 03 ,"nin nt^a "iir 


o 


55 


5 


o 


o 


9 


5 


minn me TID 


o 


41 


17 


o 


o 


10 


6 


mtaa ixia 1 ? -nnpD rat' 



1 Comp. Baer and Strack, Dikduke Ha-Tcainim, Einleitung, p. XXXV, 
Leipzig 1879; with The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 310 326. 

2 Vide supra, pp. 243, 244. 



282 



Introduction. 



CHAP. X. 



x 


3 o 

- X. 


a M 

N , 

H & 


c ^ 

4> CM 

c " 


Editio 1 
princeps 1 


in 

pa 


O) 
. 

c/> o 




o 


57 


6 


2 


2 


I7 


7 


D'aiin ~ICT D*:>T D'apan "ii'u? 


o 


58 


8 


o 





5 


8 


nrmxn nnbin fax 


o 


59 


8 





o 


5* 


9 


nrmxn nnbin fa* 





60 


o 


o 


o 


'5* 


10 


D'ayam nnp:n -no 


o 


61 


o 


o 


o 


15* 


" 


xnpan ^aa TID 





62 


o 


o 





36fl 


12 


xipan paix nnp: ~\vy 


o 


37 


o 





o 


36& 


13 


Diin e]i"i'ir "w 


27 

28 
29 


35 
34,43 


o 





o 





H 


niwxn ba 1 ? n-uran XIE -no 
-n trna ma-nn I-ID 
,Ti:p rxna itrx ^IriX ja'c 


19 

9 


26 


28 

o 


29 


15 
16 





o 


10 


6 


6 


19 


17 


nanxai nbw 1 ?^ ja'D 


o 





" 


8 


8 


2O 


18 


naixai nnan ja'c 


19 

o 
20 


33 
90 
39 


12 


9 


9 


33 


19 


nnx mra itrx mnx -nr ja^c 
rena \-\vb ja-o 


13 


13 


14 


53 


20 

21 


o 


o 


14 


o 


o 


18 


22 


njiau? D*aira "ij'tr 


o 


o 


o 


'4 


15 


24 


23 


D"~iBon nrbc' ja"c 





o 


o 


15 


16 


25 


24 


D'picsn ffyic ja'D 


o 


o 


o 


"' 


'7 


26 


25 


D'piDBn '^x-i 1 ? ja'D 





o 


o 


17 


'7* 


27 


26 


D'-iD n^bu?3 nnBi rnj ja'D 


3i 


36 


o 


o 





37 


27 


xnpaa nnaiai -jiao ja'D 


32 


o 





o 


o 


39 


28 


nmp: 'nra nnaiai -jiao ja'D 


35 


o 





IO 


10 


41 


29 


jai ji ja'D 


34 


o 


o 


" 


IJ 


42 


30 


nxi nx ja-D 


33 


o 








o 


40 


31 


nmp: TIEI nmp: trb^ ja'D 


o 





o 


o 


o 


56 


32 


wm 'B"i nabi nab ja'D 


o 


o 


o 


o 


14 


5' 


33 


nb'ax jitrb *?3 


21 


51 


o 


o 


14 


50 


34 


na'bn jurb ^3 


26 


o 





o 


14 


35 


35 


n'rr jiirb bs 


o 


o 


o 


o 


14 


45 


36 


ni3"in jirb ba 


25 


o 


20 


o 


o 


44 


37 


n33ia jiK?b bs 


o 





o 


12 


12 


47 


38 


bbi "?3 ja'D 








o 


'9 


19 


30 


39 


x-ipan b33 n'r'jn -jin 








o 





o 


S7 


40 


:na xr iwx m ja'D 


22 


88 


44 


o 


o 


3i 


4i 


nra rrra wn^i vm ba 


23 


89 


56 


o 




12 


42 


xir n'b -]'aDn nv ba 



CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 283 



Table II. Additions in the Compilation of Drs. Baer and 

Strack. 



4- O 

3 M 


*r t-. 

iH " 


1 


c 
'C "" 

o M 


; Editio 

princeps 
1 




en o 


H 










1 


1 


1 


o 


1 


D'arton 'pripia IBB ni 


o 











o 


o 


6 


nvniR raiR irnnR -p-i 


o 





24 


n 


o 


o 


8 


Ripaa -MR ma-nn TIB I-IB 





o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


'3 


b*r\wb iaa Ripaar na-n ba 








o 


23,24 


30,31 


o 


H 


B'ma naR nan E^-ISIB v 


o 


40 


16,18 


34 


25 





16 


a^arton matr -isrr D-5 





o 


o 


o 


o 





22 


nnatsb pa'"isa "DC^ 


o 


o 


o 


o 








23 


ntsira 1 ? "isiir IR nbiR fa"B 








o 


20 


20,23 





28 


pEan TiR-a 





o 


o 


o 





o 


32 


.TTJ nRT 1 ptrb ba 





44 


o 


18 


18 





34 


'ui B^anan n-npn "?a 


o 





o 


o- 


o 





38 


nany nnaa ,naiaE nba ^a 





o 





22 


29 


o 


43 


arn an ja^s 


o 





o 


o 


o 





46 


*?R-m K--IBS ^a 


o 





o 


o 





o 


48 


rrn by *?"aa ja^B 


o 


o 











o 


49 


bra irca nna ja-E 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


52 


ntt^a pw 1 ? ja<B 





o 


o 





o 





54 


trn iER"i n-ip ba 


o 








o 


o 





57 


B'naia "133 pba n"^ 


o 


o 


o 


o 


41 





58 


niTipj rrwy tran 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


59 


nnbn m-niR I^R 


o 


o 





o 


35 


o 


60 


miTisa nvniR ibxi 





52 





o 








6irt 


m*?Tu nrniR I^R 





53 


o 





o 





616 


mstsp nvmR I^KI 





o 








42 





62rt 


ja'na R^I pnpn pba ^ 





o 








43 





62fc 


pnp R 1 ?! janan pba 'n jin-aibm 


o 


o 


o 











63 


3TI3 *b"\ ""Ip "nE 


29 


o 





o 


o 


o 


64 


np R^I a^na sriT'B nn 
















-i-Ena Ripan nnB trii-a Rin nn 


30 


o 





o 





o 


65 


iwai 


o 


o 








o 





66 


ja^B vaip n'^a 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


67 


nmna mpaan 


18 





37 


o 


o 


o 


68 


B"piEan BIBB 



liiliuilucliun. 



(CIIAI 1 . X. 



^ " 


N 


H fc 


'" 


Editio 
princeps 


. 

to o 


t 
X 







o 


o 


o 


8850,51 


o 


869 


KBIT icai smica ton 


36 


8'2 


38 


o 


8848,61 


o 


70 


D'lEci hz" n^trn ica 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


871 


nixap nc 


o 


o 


o 





o 





872 


n- ( pa pnns! psap ja-c 


n 


894 


859 


" 


24 


o 


73" 


^T^a ,Tipa 'ma m 1 ? p'rn 

i i 





95 


o 


o 


825 





73^ 


p-6a prrc^m 


> 


93 


45 


" 


o ' 





74" 


*?K f'C 





8 93 


o 


o 





o 


74/> 


i^ * 7*n*" n* 


o 


825 


8-13 


o 





o 


75 


'ui pnar nar nx'ip Sa jac 




o 


842! 





76 


,31 win: ], . ixip .a jac 



Table 111. From Uic Editio princeps. 



<J c- 

3 " 

"? a 



26 

27 

832 

33 
836 

837 
838 

83') 

40 

844 
45 
46 

847 
849 
85- 
53 
54 



"i nm nt in a-s ja S U K 

a "na -tm 2 ( nr in in in ja a"K 

jnn pmpi nn na-n 

nn p-npi pnn "TO PI^TI 

s'n 'axa T'V "re in -in }a a"K 

T'XT -pi 
'axa '1 'nr in in ja n"K 'Bi'rm 

'pi ( 3'n 

imxa mpia p'ra j"D 
3'n 'ica TI TC in ( a 'a ja p:m f n 

'' 'na nm 
':ca 'X ( n: in 'a 'a ja pjn: a"' 

TI 'na im 'a-n 
pin npi xin n"?a 'nai re 
'r:n ac: 'aip 'a-n p'ra ( a 
aip ja ac: 'r:n p*?a -a 'Bi^m 
1^ pipi $b "TCI vis 
D'lain H'TK KIEBI xpcs 
a 'Sis: jai 
mar 



CHAP. X.] The Differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali. 285 











o o- 








3 M 


<5 


^2 M 


"& !? 


'5 S 


CO O 


Jl 




N ' 


3 6 


3 o 


5 Wl 




3? *" 






H X 


HX 


H X 


< M 


^ 'i. 


3 


BE) 







o 


o 





$55 


o 





-12-102 'bnsj pi -IITK p TIJI'TB 





o 








56 








rvn 














$ 57 




o 


D'T'trnT'ir ,. ~ n 


o 


o 


o 


o 


58 


o 


o 


rknp 





o 





o 


$59 


o 




map 


o 


o 


o 


o 


60 


o 


o 


n^o 





o 


o 





61 








ta-ia-i] , 



The above Tables disclose the following facts: 

(1) With the exception of the Treatise in the St. Peters- 
burg MS. of A. D. 1009, which occupies the first column ; 
in Add. 15251, which occupies the fourth column and editio 
princcps in the third column, none of the Rubrics exhibited 
in the other four columns follow any explicable order. 

(2) The Rubrics in question are simply so many divers 
parts of different Massorahs of the Dikduke Ha-Teamim 
exhibited in column two, which Drs. Baer and Strack 
have arbitrarily taken out from sundry MSS. and different 
positions to fall in with their preconceived notions of an 
independent Treatise. 

(3) Even now no two corresponding- Rubrics ab- 
solutely agree in their wording of the theme discussed 
therein, and words and whole phrases have often to be 
taken from one recension and inserted into the other. 

(4) The ascription on the part of the editors of the 
conglomerate Treatise exhibited in the second column 
to Ben-Asher is unjustifiable. 

(5) The Rubrics therein represent portions of the 
Massorah which have been gradually developed from a 
period much earlier than Ben-Asher to a time much later 
than this textual critic. 

(6) Many of the Rubrics exhibit various opinions 
about the vowel-points and accents propounded by different 



286 Introduction. [CHAP. X. 

Massoretic Schools before the vowel-points and accents 
assumed their present definite forms. 

(7) As far as my collation of the numerous MSS. 
goes I can safely state that I have not found a single 
MS. which uniformly follows the rules about the vowel- 
points and accents propounded in the name of Ben- 
Asher in the Treatise which Drs. Baer and Strack have 
compiled and have named "The Dikdiike Ha-Teamim of 
Ben-Asher". 

(8) If, therefore, Codices which in their Massoretic 
Appendices exhibit Rubrics ascribed to Ben-Asher, do 
not follow his rules in the text, it shows that either the 
rules do not belong to Ben-Asher or that they were not 
generally accepted and that the opinions of other Massoretic 
Schools were more popular. And 

(9) It is most uncritical to correct the definite statements 
in the official Lists which tabulate the precise nature of 
the differences between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali by the 
uncertain utterances in these highly artificial Rubrics. The 
reverse process is far more critical. Any views expressed 
in the conglomerate Treatise which do not harmonise with 
the official Lists must not be taken as proceeding from 
Ben-Asher. 



Chap. XI. 
The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 

The labours of the Massorites may be regarded as 
a later development and continuation of the earlier work 
which was carried on by the Sopheriw (Q^QID, ypa^arag) = 
the doctors and authorised interpretors of the Law soon 
after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity 
(comp. Ezra VII 6; Neh. VIII i &c.). And though it is now 
impossible to describe in chronological order the precise 
work which these custodians of Holy Writ undertook 
in the new Commonwealth, it may safely be stated that 
the gradual substitution of the square characters for the 
so-called Phoenician or archaic Hebrew alphabet was one 
of the first tasks. 

^. The introduction of the square characters. That the Old 
Testament was originally written in the characters which 
with some slight modifications have been retained by the 
Samaritans as exhibited on the Nablus Stone l is admitted in 
the Talmud. Nothing can be more plain than the declaration 
of the highest Talmudic authorities that the present square 
characters are an innovation and that the Old Testament 
was originally written in the Raatz, Libonaah or what is 
now called the Samaritan alphabet. 

Thus the distinguished R. Nathan, who was in the 
College of R. Jehudah I (A. D. 140163), and who compiled 

' Comp. Rosen, Zeitsclirifl der Detttschen Morgenlandischen Gcsellschaft 
XIV, 622 &c., Leipzig l&6o. 



288 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

a collection of Halachoth known by the name of the 
Mishna or Tosephta of R. Nathan, declares "the ],u\v 
was originally given in Raatz characters" with which his 
colleague R. Jose agreed. 1 Again Mar Ukba, the celebrated 
chief judge during the Patriarchate of R. Jehudah II A. 1). 
220 270 says: 

"At first the Thora was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in 
the sacred language, hut in the time of Ezra they obtained it in the Assyrian 
[= square] characters and in the Aramaic language. At last the sages chose 
the Assyrian [= square] characters and the sacred language for the Israelites 
and left the Hebrew characters and the Aramaic language for the idiots. 
Now who are the idiots? R. Chasda says the Samaritans. What characters are 
the Hebrew? R. Chasda says the Libonaah characters." '- 

In accordance with these declarations we are told 
that the present square characters "are called Assyrian 
because the Jews brought them with them from Assyria"/ 1 

To invest it with authority this innovation, like many 
other changes, was ascribed to Ezra himself. 

Thus R. Jose says Ezra was worthy that the Law should be given to 
Israel through his hand, were it not that Moses preceded him. For of Moses 
it is said: 'And Moses went up unto God' [Exod. XIX 3] and of Ezra it is 
said 'this Ezra went up from Ilabylon' [Ezra VII 6] Now as the expression 
'went up' is used in the one case with reference to the giving of the Law, 
so it is in the other. Of Moses it is said 'and the Lord commanded me at 
that time, to teach you statutes and judgments' [Deut. IV 14], and of K/.ra 
it is said 'for Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the Lord and 

1 Her 'is K'TIXI minn n:rr: pr-c niaix rn Jerusalem Megnia i, o. 

urk narrr Him tr-npn jur^i "cy -rcr SK-IIT*? n-nn n:n': n'rnrc ' i 



r-i:pn pcSi rr-ntrx snr f ?xic"'r \rb lira 'aix pr 1 ?' jvrtrx rrcs xnry "a'2 
'xa .\xnir xtcn 21 -IK mer-in jsa n-am pc? 1 ?! n-iar snr nitsr-in 1 ? in':Hi 
:nsrrS anr Ntcn nn IOK n"i2jr :r: SanJu-./r/n 22 1>. 
: rsa QTS n'rrr nc hy >1 '? % :~ -as . . . r vrx ^r s p: nzh- " 

./IT// v, i/i-iii Mcx'illit 1, 11; Hiihylnn S,inln;ln'n 21,1. 



CHAP. XI."| The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 289 

to do it, and to teach Israel statutes and judgments' [Ezra VII 10]. But 
though the Law was not given by him the writing was changed by him. 1 

Hence both Origen and St. Jerome who derived their 
information from their Jewish teachers, record the same 
thing. The former states: "They say that Ezra used other 
letters after the exile", 2 whilst the latter declares: "It is 
certain that Ezra the Scribe and teacher of the Law after 
Jerusalem was taken and the temple was restored under 
Zerubbabel, found other letters which we now use; since 
up to that time the characters of the Samaritans and of 
the Hebrews were the same". 3 

That the original characters of the Law should have 
been changed, and that the hated Samaritans should still 
be in possession of the sacred alphabet was, however, 
more than some of the patriotic Rabbins could endure. 
Hence we find R. Eliezer of Modin maintaining that the 
Law was given to Moses from the first in the Assyrian or 
the present square characters. He adduces as an argument 
for his declaration that in the square character alone can 
the name Vav for the sixth letter, denoting hook in Exod. 
XXVI 10 be justified, since it is only in the square character 
that the import of the name corresponds to the form of 
the letter, whilst there is no such correspondence in the 



IT by min \r\yr\v x-w rrn 'ixn naix 'cr 'i x'Dn ' 
x~w xin "iiaiK xin xnim ,Dv6xn "?x rby rurai IBIS* sin nrcaa ,nra inp 
xin rwaa ,min \br\b -naxn rvbv s\x ,n-nn jxs -naxn n"by nis 
xin Kiiya ,n"Qsrai D'pn DSHK niabb K n nn nrn m,T ms 
pin ^xntp's izbbi mc'rbi rn^x m,T nim nx vmb 122^ pan 

,"I3n3 ,1T by nmn nsn^ Xbtr 'S ^r f^XI Babylon Sanhedrin 21 Z>; 
with Jerusalem Megilla I 9. 

2 qoafft ya^ TOV "EaSgav tTtgois %Qrjaaa&Ki (ISTK Tr/v ulxiLctlwaiav 
Monfaucon, Hexapla II 94. 

3 Certumque estEsdram scribam legisque doctorem.post captaHierosolyma 
et instaurationem templi sub Zorobabel, alias litteras repperisse, quibus nunc 
utimur, cum ad illud usque tempus iidem Samaritatvorum et Hebraeorum 
characteres fuerint. Prolg. G'aleat. ad lib. Rcgtun. 



290 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

Samaritan. 1 But as even some of the most zealous sages, 
who regarded this question from a dogmatical point of 
view, saw this opinion was contrary to the then ascertained 
facts they tried to harmonise both statements. Hence 
R. Jehudah I says: "The Thora was at first given to Israel 
in square characters, but when they sinned, the characters 
were changed into Raatz [ Samaritan], and when they 
repented in the days of Ezra the square characters were 
again restored to them as it is written: turn you to the 
strong-hold ye prisoners of hope, even to day will I 
restore to you the forgotten characters of the Mishna = the 
Law" (Zech. IX 1 2). 2 In accordance therewith R. Jehudah I 
and those Rabbins who deny that the square characters 
are Assyrian take rVIHtfX to be an appellative and make 
it denote the happy, the blissful, erect or beautiful characters. 
The fact that the old Hebrew characters were still 
current B. ( 139 40, that the Mishna and the Talmud find 
such frequent occasion to forbid their use for ritual writings, 3 
that many of the mistakes in the Hebrew text itself, and that 
some of the variations between it and the Septuagint are 
distinctly traceable to a confusion of the letters which are 
similar in shape not only in the square characters, but in the old 
Hebrew = Phoenician, Palmyrene &c v shows most conclus- 
ively that all those alphabets which are simply tachygraphical 
and caligraphical variations of the same characters were 
simultaneously used and that the final conquest of the 
present letters over the rival alphabets was achieved slowly. 

an Ditra naKtr stone p n:r"?K 'an aura na nrr^K ja pra "an nn i 
min hv B^I ww omorn xan: nai ,minn n:rvj mcx aro Tman -vyb 

B'fiH Jerusalem Mcgilla I 9; Babylon Sanhedrin 22 a. 

-a-a tarcai pir6 \rb n,B.n: iKEntrri nninn n:rr: n'mirK naix -an 2 
i-\b a*WK ,n:ra n*:a nv.n D: n'nirK p 1 ? "B.nj Jerusalem MegWa i 9; Babylon 

Sanhedrin 22 a. 

3 Comp. Merlin \ S : If i, 2; Yaiiium TVs. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 291 

Judging from the mistakes which are to be found 
in the Hebrew MSS. produced by skilful and professional 
copyists during the middle ages despite the minute Mas- 
soretic directions, it is perfectly certain that the guild of 
Sopherim who were thus engaged in the delicate task of 
transcribing the text from the ancient alphabet into the 
square characters committed similar mistakes, especially 
when they had before them a script in which some of 
the letters resembled each other. It is therefore only natural 
to find that some of the errors in the present Hebrew 
text are due to the transcription. They may be rectified 
by going back to the old Hebrew characters where some 
letters are similar though they are dissimilar in the square 
alphabet. A few illustrations must suffice to establish this 
fact. 

(i) The similarity of A = X and A = D. 

That these two letters were not unfrequeHtly mistaken 
because of their resemblance to each other is evident from 
the Septuagint transliteration of proper names. Thus the 
name pX Ezbon in Gen. XL VI 16, is K6ofiav == ptfH in 
the Septuagint. There can be no doubt about it since the 
Tav (D) is expressed in the Septuagint by & as is evident 
from this very chapter where DHp Kchath in verse 1 i, is 
transliterated Kaaft, fUDK Ascnath in verse 20 is '/lawsd; and 
^nD3 Naplitali in verse 23 is Ne<pd-aM. 

i Sam. XXIV 10. The error here is due to the same 
cause. The text as it now stands is T^JJ DPiril and, or but 
she spared thee. As this yields no sense, both the Authorised 
Version and the Revised Version, following the example 
of the Vulgate, insert mine eye in italics. This, however, is 
contrary to the uniform usage of the verb. Besides the 
passage in question, Din to pity, to have compassion, which 
is only used in the Kal, occurs twenty-three times. In eight 

instances it expresses the direct action of the person, viz. 

T* 



292 Introduction. [CHAP. XT. 

7, thon or he, spared or pitied* whilst in fifteen instances 
it describes the sparing or pitying of the eye.' 2 Now in the 
passages where DIM to pity, is the predicate of the eye, the 
eye is invariably expressed. To supply it in this solitary 
passage is, therefore, contrary to the uniform usage. Hence 
there can hardly be any doubt that originally the text was 
DHX1 but I spared thec, and that the present reading is due 
to an exchange of Aleph (X) and Tav (n). When it is 
borne in mind that the Septuagint, the Chaldee and the 
Syriac have actually the reading with Aleph, the mistake 
will not be questioned. In accordance with my principle 
not to introduce any alteration into the Massoretic text, 
I have retained DPim but she spared, in the text and given 
the ancient reading in the margin. 

Jerem. Ill 8 is another instance of a mistake arising 
from the same source. The verse now stands in the Au- 
thorised Version as follows: 

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel com- 
mitted adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her 
treacherous sister Judah feared not. but went and played the harlot also. 

This is hardly intelligible. The prophet describes 
and contrasts the conduct of the two sisters Israel and 
Judah towards God, to whom they were both espoused. 
Israel had first gone astray and had been divorced for 
her unfaithfulness. But in spite of her guilt God was 
willing to forgive her and take her back if she would 
return. She refused, and as a punishment she was discarded. 
Now Judah who saw the treacherous conduct and the 
terrible sufferings of her sister, instead of taking warning 
thereby, defied all fear and acted in the same incontinent 

1 Comp. Jerem. XIII 14; XXI 7; Ezek. XXIV 14; Joel II 17; Jonah IV 
10, ii; Ps. LXXII 13; Neh. XIII 22. 

2 Comp. Gen. XLV 20; Deut. VII 16; XIII Q; XIX 13, 21; XXV 12; 
Isa. XIII 18; Ezek. V n; VII 4, 9; VIII 18; IX 5, 10; XVI 5; XX 17. 



CHAP. XI. J The Massorah, its Rise and Development. 293 

manner. Hence because she saw that the terrible sufferings 
of her sister were inflicted upon her by her offended God 
for her wickedness and yet in the face of all this acted 
in the same faithless and shameless manner, Judah is de- 
nounced as worse than her sister Israel, who had gone 
astray before her, and had, therefore, no such fearful ex- 
ample and warning (comp. Jerem. Ill n). Thus it is Judah's 
seeing her sister's conduct and punishment and not taking 
warning by them, which aggravated her guilt and it is 
upon her seeing all this that the stress is laid. To introduce 
God, therefore, as a new subject and to make Him say 
"and I saw" &c. is to mar the whole connection and flow 
of the passage. All this is obviated by restoring the Tav 
(n) for the Aleph (N). It at once becomes plain that Xlfll 
and she saw, is the protasis and "j^ril and she went, is the 
apodosis. Accordingly the passage ought to be rendered: 

Though she saw that for this very cause that backsliding Israel had 
committed adultery I had put her away and given her a bill of divorce, 
and treacherous Judah her sister feared not yet she went and she also played 
the harlot. 

The Vulgate is the only version which exhibits this 
sense and the Revised Version exhibits it in the 
margin. 

Ezra VI 4 exhibits a reverse instance, inasmuch as the 
Aleph (N) has here been mistaken for Tav (n). According 
to the present text we are told that Cyrus commanded 
the Temple to be built 

with three rows of great stones and a row of new timber 
thus implying that otherwise the builders would use old 
timber. To say nothing of the want of dignity implied 
in such a decree, any one looking at the construction of 
the two clauses of this passage in the original will see 
that the Aleph has here been mistaken for Tav and that the 
sentence is: 



'294 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

bb: p -H psa-n 



Kin rx " 

rows of great stones three 
and row of timber one. 

The Septuagint has preserved the original reading 
and the Revised Version exhibits it in the margin. 

(2) The similarity of <JT = * and fit = accounts for an- 
other class of errors. 

Exod. XIV 2, 9. It is owing to this cause that the 
proper name filTUl Hachiroth, which occurs three times, is 
twice rendered in the Septuagint by tnavhv = Dl^Pin the 
village (Exod. XIV 2, 9), taking the Yod for Tzadi. This is 
evident from the fact that ^navhv not only is the Septuagint 
equivalent for mxnn in Exod. VIII 9, but is the translation 
of "ln in no fewer than nineteen passages. 1 

In Isa. XI 15 we have the phrase imi D^D which 
by simple conjecture is usually translated with his mighty 
wind. But the word Q^P does not occur in the Hebrew or 
in the cognate languages. It is now generally admitted 
that as the Yod and Tzadi are alike in the ancient Hebrew, 
the text originally had iim DJHJ3. 

(3) The similarity of |i = 3 and J=Q. 

Ezek. XXII 20. In accordance with the present 
Hebrew text, this passage is .rendered both in the 
Authorised Version and in the Revised Version: 

As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead, and tin. into the 
midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather 
you in mine anger and in my fury and I will leave you there, and melt you 

It will be seen that in the first part of the verse three 
verbs are used, viz. gather, blow and melt ("JDj ,nD3 .j^p), 
and it is, therefore, only natural to expect, that the same 

i Comp. Levit. XXV 31; Josh. XIII 23, 28; XV 44, 47; XIX 8, 
38, 39; Isa. XLII II; LXII 9; Neh. XI 25, 30; XII 29; I Chron. IV 32, 
33; VI 41; IX 22; 25. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah ; its Rise and Development. 295 

three verbs will be repeated in the second part of the 
comparison. Instead of this only two are repeated, viz. 
gather (^3p) the first and melt ("jro) the third, whilst for 
the second to blow (1103) we have the tame expression 
leave you or lay you as the Revised Version has it, which 
mars the rhythm and parallelism. It is, therefore, certain 
that the original Pe was mistaken for Nnn and that TiniT 
and I will leave, should be Vinom and I will blow. This is, 
moreover, corroborated by the next verse, where the 
statement is repeated and where the three verbs in question 
are properly given. So glaringly does this mistake disturb 
the evenness of the passage that Houbigant, without kn6wing 
the cause of the error, actually adopts the reading TinQiTl 
and I will blow, and Bishop Newcome in his translation 
of Ezekiel renders it: 

So will I gather you in mine anger, and in my fury, and I will blow 
upon you and melt you. 

These few instances must suffice to indicate the great 
advantages which may accrue to Biblical criticism by a 
careful re-transcription of some of the difficult passages 
in the present square characters into the archaic script. 
Hassencamp and Luzzatto ' have shown the way in this 
direction, but as yet few have followed it. The question, 
however, about the development of the present square 
characters from the earlier Phoenician and their introduction 
into the Hebrew Bible, has been most ably discussed by 
scholars both at home and abroad. The Treatises on this 
points, which are most accessible to students will be found 
in the foot-note.' 2 

1 Comp. Hassencamp, Connnentatio Philologico-Crilica de Pcntateucho 
LXX &c., p. 57 &c., Marburg 1765; I>uzzatto, in Kirchheim s Karme Shomron, 
p. 106 &c. 

2 Comp. Gesenius, GeschichU dcr hcbriiischen Spntchc und Schrift, 
p. 137 &c., Leipzig 1815; Herzfeld, GeschichU des Volkes Israel, Vol. II, 



2 {Mi Introduction. [CHAP XI. 

The probable period during which this change was 
effected may be ascertained from the fact that the Samaritan 
Pentateuch which the Samaritans received from the Jews 
circa 430 B. C. was still written in Phoenician characters 
and that these characters were in use when Simon struck 
the first Jewish coins in 141 B. C. As some of the variations 
in the Septuagint are undoubtedly due to the similarity of 
the letters in the Phoenician, and others are traceable U> 
the square characters, the struggle for the victory between 
these two scripts must have continued for several centuries. 
It was not till the time of our Lord that the Aramaic 
characters finally prevailed over the ancient alphabets. 
This is evident from St. Matth. V 18 where the letter 
Yod (>) is described as the smallest in the alphabet, since 
this is inapplicable to the old Hebrew. 

'V/ ""H-. The division of the consonants into words. Having 
transliterated the text, the next function of the official 
redactors would naturally be the division of the con' 
sonants into separate words in accordance with the sense 
traditionally assigned to the respective documents. Like 
the work of transliteration, the process of the word- 
division was a gradual one and probably extended over 
several centuries after the Babylonish captivity. From this 
part of the Sopheric labours we definitely learn that the 
doctors of the Law who were periodically engaged in this 
task had different traditions about the meaning of certain 
passages and hence divided some words differently. This 
fact is revealed to us in the Massorah itself which has 
transmitted to us two or four Lists of words divided 
differently according to the School of Massorites whence 

p. 76 &c.; Graetz, Geschichte tier Judcn II n, p. 400 etc., Leipzig 1876; 
Driver, Notes on the Hebrew text of t/te Hooks of Samuel, p. IX &c., 
Oxford 1890; Neubauer, The Introduction of the square characters in ttiblical 
MSS. &c. in the Sltnlia Biblica el Ecclesislica, p. I &c., Oxford 1X91. 



CHA1'. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 

they proceed. 1 These Lists, however, contain only typical 
examples and there is no doubt that there were many 
more such instances. 

Incidentally we learn that i Kings XX 33 exhibits 
another instance about the division of which the different 
Schools of Massorites held different opinions. In this case 
we are distinctly told that the Western redactors divided 
the words in question one way, whilst the Easterns divided 
them differently. And though the records of other Schools 
have not come down to us, we know that the redaction 
of the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint translation 
was made exhibited a large number of passages in which 
the words were otherwise divided. 2 This shows that about 
200 B. C. the School from which the present word-division 
proceeds had not as yet established its authority over 
the rival Schools of textual critics. 

3 fit The introduction of the Final Letters. - - As a con- 
sequence of their anxiety to indicate more definitely the 
separation of some words and especially biliteral particles 3 
which were more liable to be read together with other 
vocables, the Sopherim introduced the double or five final 
letters. The gradual development of these letters we learn 
from a somewhat obscure anecdote in the Jerusalem Talmud 
which is as follows: 

Now as to the double letters in the alphabet the copyist must write 
the initial letters at the beginning of words and in the middle of words and 
the finals at the end. If he reverses them the Codex is illegal. It was said 
in the name of R. Matthew b. Charash "]S^2tt [= the five final letters] are 
a law of Moses from Sinai. What is "]22MI2? R. Jeremiah said in the name 
of R. Samuel who said it in the name of R. Isaac, they are what the Seers 
instituted ["]BSBti = "sjBi' J& from thy Seers}. Who are the Seers? It happened 



1 Comp. The Massorah, letter 3, 482, 483, Vol. II, p. 54, and vide 
supra p. 158 &c. 

2 Vide supra p. 159. 

3 e. g. PjK j)2 pK ,DS ,-|X &c. 



298 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

that in a veiy rainy day the sages did not assemble in the college and that 
"*^ the disciples did assemble. Whereupon they said let us constitute the college 
that it should not drop. They then said why is it that the Scriptures have 
two Mems, two Nuns, two Tzadis, two Pes and two Caphs? To indicate that 
the Law was given by God speaking to Moses, and Moses speaking to Israel 
[the a a being abbreviations of 1&K& "laKtt], the Faithful One to the faithful 
one [3 3 = JI3K3 |a3], by the Righteous One to the righteous [3i 2C = p-HX p'HX], 
by the Mouth to the mouth [B B = HB HE], by the hand of the Holy One, 
blessed be He. to the hand of Moses [2 2 = sp sp]. The sages took notice 
of these disciples, who afterwards became distinguished men and it is said 
that R. Eliezer and R. Joshua were of them. 1 (Jerusalem Megilla I 9). 

The whole of this anecdote shows that these double 
letters were then still a novelty and that they had not as yet 
finally established themselves. As R. Eliezer and R. Joshua 
lived at the end of the first century and at the beginning 
of the second century of the present era we cannot be 
wrong in concluding that these sages then determined to 
enact that the double letter should be adopted uniformly 
in writing the sacred Scriptures. As to the story in the 
Babylon Talmud that the D'Dltf Seers, are the Prophets, 
that these did not discover the double letters, but 
simply resuscitated them, and that they were originally 
given to Moses on Sinai, but that they had been forgotten 
in the course of time, 3 this is manifestly designed to 
impart to the new invention a divine and most ancient 
authority and is glaringly like the story about the square 



nrrn n'rnrc DTPX-CI ama rra e\bta D^IBSH mmn "?a ' 
1-18K cnn p rrna 'i ctra ,"?CB nrr DKI ,rrBica n'mnxn riKi nrnn 
-\b irpnnc na pnr 'i bxiar 'i nirn rra-v ( -i -|"Bi:;a ina ,'rca nrab n 
ic:23i nrin rrzh n'arn ic::: Kbtr i"i:c nrs nrra .J-BIX pbK jirx jsa 
-Da n u a rnsn p -na p-iax ,hvy K^-I Kirn n'a Tan pn'K piax .mpirnn 
-pn^ 1 ? p-tsa ,]G*:b jaK;a ,-iaNa 1 ? naxaa ,e]"3 s^"a ,n"B n"B , v '"ix "HX ,p3 j"i3 
jbia nan o-arn jniK la^ci ,nra bw IT ep 1 ? n"apn ? n 11 e^aa ,nB"? nsa 
..pnra pin rinrr '-n i7r'b -i jna D^H: DIN ':a 

2 Comp. Sabbath 104; Megilla 2bT > a. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 299 

characters. 1 The explanation, however, of the Jerusalem 
Talmud which makes the Double Letters the basis of, or 
rather the mnemonic sign for the giving of the Law on 
mount Sinai is not the only one which obtained currency 
among the ancients. The Massorah takes the Five Double 
Letters as setting forth the deliverance of the Patriarchs 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the redemption of Israel, the 
advent of the Messiah the Branch of Righteousness. 2 

^-fVT The introduction of the matres leciionis. To 
facilitate still further the study of the unpointed con- 
sonants on the part of the laity, the Scribes gradually 
introduced into the text the matres lecHonis which also 
served as vowel-letters. 3 But in this branch of their labours 
as is the case in the other branches, the different Schools 
which were the depositories of the traditions as to the 
import of the text, exhibited considerable diversity of 
opinion owing to the fact that the traditions themselves 
were not uniform. So great indeed was this diversity of 
opinion about the respective traditions and the import of 
the text of Scripture circa 300 B. C. that it gave rise to 
the division of the people into the two national sects the 
Pharisees and the Sadducees. These were not only the 
custodians of the diverse ancestral traditions, but of the 
Bible. They were the official interpreters and redactors 
of the text in accordance with the views of which their 
Schools were the representatives. It is, therefore, most 
important to ascertain what the condition of the consonantal 
text was on which these different Schools laboured and 
into which the Sopherim introduced the above-named 
changes in order to aid the laity in studying the Scriptures. 
But here we are faced with the difficulty arising from 

1 Vide supra p. 290. 

' 2 Comp. The Massorah, letter K, 228, Vol. I, pp. 36, 37. 

;; Vide supra p 137 157. 



300 Introduction. |<:ilAl'. XI. 

the fact that not a single MS. of the Hebrew text has 
survived which is of a date prior to the Christian era. 
We are, therefore, deprived of the direct MS. authority 
to tell us what the actual consonants were which the 
Sopherim transliterated into the square characters, which 
they divided into separate words and into which they 
introduced the Final Letters and the quiescent or vowel- 
letters, in accordance with the traditions deposited in their 
respective Schools. 

\S The consonants of the Hebrew Text and the Septuagint. - 
In the absence, however, of any MS. of the Apostolic 
age we have providentially the Greek Version which was 
made by the Jews circa 250 200 B. C. This Version certainly 
shows what was the amount, and approximately also 
indicates what were the consonants of the Hebrew text 
which obtained in some of the Schools at that period. 
But before we accept its testimony it will be necessary 
to examine into the character which this Version bore 
and what were the opinions which the Spiritual authorities 
of the Synagogue who had the custody and the redaction 
of the Hebrew original expressed about this Version. The 
story of the origin of this Greek translation is told in the 
so-called Epistle of Aristeas and is briefly as follows: 

Aristeas a Pagan, chief officer of the guards, and friend of Ptolemy 
Philadelphia (285 247 B. C.) writes to his brother Philocrates that he 
together with Andreas had been despatched by the king as ambassadors with 
a letter to Eleazar the high priest of Jerusalem to send to Alexandria seventy- 
two of the most learned men, six of each tribe, to translate for the Royal 
Library the Divine Law, out of the Hebrew into Greek. To secure this favour 
from the high priest. Ptolemy not only liberated IOO.OOO Jewish slaves, whom 
his father Ptolemy Lagos carried with him to Egypt, and paid 660 talents 
to their owners, but sent the following presents to Jerusalem. For the Temple, 
vessels of silver, value seventy talents; vessels of gold, value fifty talents; 
precious stones to embellish these vessels, value two hundred and fifty talents 
of gold. For sacrifices and other uses of the Temple one hundred talents. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. .".01 

At the receipt of the royal letter and the munificent presents, Eleazar dispatched 
seventy-two elders, six of each tribe, with a letter to Ptolemy and a present 
of his own copy of the Law written in letters of gold. After their arrival, 
and being feasted and toasted for seven days, during which these elders had 
to answer seventy-two questions, they were conducted by Demetrius to a 
superb mansion over the Heptastadium, where they executed the Version in 
exactly seventy-two days, when Demetrius wrote it down from their dictation. 
Demetrius then read the Version before the whole assembly of the Jews, who 
declared it to be an exact and faithful translation. Whereupon a copy of it 
was made in the presence of the seventy-two interpreters for the rulers of 
the synagogue; and the Jews, by the desire of Demetrius invoked an im- 
precation upon any one who should at any time make an alteration in the 
Version. It was then read over to the king, who was profoundly impressed 
with the sublimity of its contents and enquired why the poets and historians 
of other nations did not mention it. To which Demetrius replied that they 
dared not do it, because the Law is divine, and that the historian Theopompus 
and the poet Theodectes, who attempted to incorporate it in their writings, 
were afflicted by God, the one with the loss of his senses, and the other 
with the loss of his eye-sight. When the king heard this he worshipped God, 
commanded that the Version should be taken care of, gave each of the 
seventy-two interpreters three changes of the finest garments, two talents of 
gold, a cup of one talent, the entire furniture of a room, and sent to Eleazar 
ten tables with silver feet, and the apparatus thereunto, a cup of thirty 
talents, and ten changes of garments. Thus loaded with presents the seventy- 
two interpreters went back to Jerusalem.' 

It is now generally admitted that this Epistle which 
was written about 80. B. C. is apocryphal. Still it was 
accepted at the time by the official custodians of the 
Hebrew Scripture both in Palestine and Babylon as based 
upon current tradition. Philo not only believed in it, 2 but 
states that the Jews of Egypt up to his time annually 
celebrated the day on which the Septuagint was finished, 
and Josephus almost reproduces the story of Aristeas. 3 
The Babylon Talmud, which describes the origin of the 

1 A Critical edition of the Greek text of the Epistle of Aristeas by 
M. Schmidt appeared in Merx's Archiv, I 241 &c., Halle 1870. 

2 Comp. Vita Mosis, lib II, 57; ed. Mangey II 138 -141. 

3 Comp. Antiq. XII 2; Contra Apion II, 4. 



302 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

Greek Version, distinctly declares that it was composed 
under divine guidance and that in accordance with divine 
inspiration the seventy-two translators introduced into it 
certain variations from the Hebrew original as will be 
seen from the following: 

Our Teachers only allowed the Scriptures to be translated into Greek. 
R. Jehudah said when the Teachers allowed Greek it was only the Penta- 
teuch, and that because of a certain occurrence with respect to king Ptolemy. 
For we have propounded: It came to pass that king Ptolemy assembled 
seventy-two elders and placed them respectively in seventy-two cells and did 
not disclose to them why he had assembled them He then went to each one 
separately and said to him: Translate me the Law of Moses your teacher. 
Whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, inspired the heart of each of them 
so that they all came to the same opinion and made the following alterations: 
(I) Gen. I I; (2) Gen. I 26; (3) Gen. II 3; (4) Gen. V 2; (5) Gen. XI 7; 
(6) Gen. XVIII 12; (7) Gen. XLIX 6; (8) Exod. IV 2O; (9) Exod. XII 40; 
(10) Exod. XXIV 5; (il) Exod. XXIV n ; (12) Numb. XVI 15; (13) Deut. IV 19; 
(14) Deut. XVII 3; and (15) Levit. XI 6; Deut. XIV 7.' 

The Version then on which the official custodians of 
the Sacred original bestowed such high praise exhibits two 
striking features. It is both slavishly literal in some, parts 
and seriously departs from the present Hebrew in other 

irnian inrnra *|K mirr 'i -ax x':m .rrr 11 K'PK lana-ff inmn x 1 ? irman ' 
"jSan 'aS-c nrra x'rm "|San -aS-n nnra airai mm nsca x"rx inrn x 1 ? rr:r 
nnx "?a bxx c:ar jcra na hy on 1 ? n'ya x"?i nma aTa jo-jani n-ipi aT orar 
la^acm nsr inxi nnx ^ a*?2 n n apn jru naan nwa mm *h "arc an 1 ? iaxi THKI 
'ra 11 ! ,rra"Di nSjta BHK nrrx .n'tpxia xia n^n^x i 1 ? lanai nnx nm 1 ? J^ID 
nSaxi nmx nan -nxia iana x 1 ?! .ixna napr iar ,-r'airn nra man -ipn ova 
nra np'i ,c:ax npr csisnai "nr inn ncxa % a ,n"ai-ipa ,m pnsm -nns^ D^ 
a-nxaa iar" nrx ^xnc" 'sa awiai ,DIX ":a xn: ^>r da-aTi vsa nxi mtrx nx 
'3a "C^UXT nx nbEH ,nsw mxa ranxi n: &vbv ms-ix nxtrai 



nmx "I'.n'jx 'n pbn -IIPX -T.XC: ana nnx nan x 1 ? ,IT n 1 ?^ x 1 ? 'rxitt" ":a 

nx ih ian:i ,anar i ? rn'is x 1 ? nrx onnx a-n^x nayi "i 1 ?^ ,n'ayn ba 1 ? 
x'pr nar na:nx "a^n *?v inrxr "sa na:nsn nx if? iana xbi D'bnn 

:D"nin'n -a ipnc 1 nax' Comp. Babylon Megilla <)a; Jerusalem Megilla i <); 
Mechilta, Exod. XII 40; p. i5/> ed. Friedmann. For the import and cause 
of these alterations see the Appendix to this Introduction. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorab; its Rise and Development. 303 

parts. In some parts it not only follows the Hebrew order, 
but reproduces the smallest particles and the peculiar 
idioms, to such an extent that it can easily be retranslated 
into Hebrew without changing" the order of the words. 
Thus for instance Gen. XXIV i: 

Keel 'A^QKKfi fjv nQsa^vTSQOs fpT 



xul KVQIOS rjvioyrjas *]"1!J nifTI 

rbv 'A^QKKH KKTCC TtKVTCC B!"H3K DK 

On the other hand in the midst of literal translations 
we meet renderings which seriously deviate from the 
present Hebrew text. A striking illustration of this kind 
is to .be found in Gen. XLI 48. Here the Septuagint 
translates it: 

and he gathered all the food of the seven years, in which was 
the plenty in the land of Egypt 

whereas the Hebrew which is properly translated in the 
Authorised Version is: 

and he gathered up all the food of the seven years, which were 
in the land of Egypt. 

The most cursory examination of the Hebrew text 
shows that something has dropped out of it and that the 
Septuagint has preserved that which is missing. The Greek 
Version, moreover, is easily retranslated into Hebrew and 
restores the lacuna, viz. 

T&V KTtTK ET&V SV olg ^V // fV&tjmG V Tjj yjj AlfVTITOV 

D'-iaftt pa inton :rn IB?K a^n yys 

That the deviation of the Septuagint has here pre- 
served the text which obtained in those days in one 
School of textual redactors is corroborated by the Sama- 
ritan. The Samaritan recension has the very words which 
the retranslation of the Greek into Hebrew exhibits. We 
thus see that circa 200- B. C. the different Schools had 
different redactions. Moreover, from the fact that the 
Septuagint was held in such high estimation it is evident 



*04 Introduction. [CHA!>. XT. 

that the Hebrew recension from which it was made was 
then recognised as one of these redactions. The authorita- 
tive custodians of the traditions had not as yet decided 
to issue one uniform text. 

Several important events, however, in the develop- 
ment of the Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine now called 
for a uniform standard of the Sacred text. The people 
were distracted by their rulers who alternately represented 
the tenets of Pharisaism and Sadduceeism, each claiming 
to be the representatives and rightful interpreters of Holy 
Writ. Alexander Janai, aSadducee, was succeeded by Queen 
Salome, whose sympathies were with the Pharisees; she 
again was succeeded by Aristobulus II, a Sadducee; and 
he again was followed by his brother Hyrkanus II, who 
favoured the Pharisees. For an exact parallel we have to 
go to the commencement of the Reformation in England. 
England was in like manner distracted by the vacillation 
of Henry VIII, who one day became the defender of the 
Roman Catholic faith and another day espoused the cause 
of Protestantism ; by the alternate powers of More, Fisher 
and Gardiner and Cromwell and Cranmer; by Mary, who 
succeeded to the throne after the good Protestant Edward VI. 
As it happened in Palestine so it was in England, a standard 
text or Version was produced in almost every reign, till 
at last the recognised authorities fixed upon one which 
met with general acceptance. 

Another great event in the Jewish Commonwealth 
which contributed to bring about the same result was the 
establishment of public Schools throughout the country. 
Simon b. Shetach (80 B. C.) introduced Upper Schools or 
academies in every large provincial town and ordained 
that all young men from the age of sixteen were to visit 
them. 1 At the age of five, moreover, every boy had to 

' Comp. Jet: Kclhnbolh VIII 11. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 305 

learn to read the Bible. 1 As a consequence it was strictly 
enacted that the greatest care was to be taken that the 
copies of the sacred books from which the Sopherim 
imparted instruction should be accurately written. 2 It is to 
these facts that Josephus refers when he declares "our 
principal care of all is to educate our children". 3 

The institution of reading" the Pentateuch in triennial 
and annual Pericopes in every Synagogue with the 
corresponding lessons from the Prophets and the Hagio- 
grapha, 4 as well as the extensive use of the Psalter in the 
Temple service also contributed to the necessity of pro- 
ducing a uniform and standard text. The Sabbatic lessons 
were respectively divided into seven small sections which 
were read by seven different people who were called up 
to the rostrum by the congregation or its chief to per- 
form this function. 5 It would, therefore, have occasioned 
the greatest confusion in mind of the reader and indeed 
have shaken his faith, if the few verses which he had to 
read in one Synagogue exhibited one text, whilst the 
same portion which he should happen to read in another 
Synagogue disclosed a different recension. 

These combined circumstances imposed the respon- 
sible task upon the official custodians of the sacred text 
to undertake a thorough sifting of the various traditions, 
to collate the different recensions, and to give to the 
laity an authorised Bible. This redaction is substantially 
the same which we now possess. It was primarily directed 
against the MSS. which exhibited the recension from 

1 Comp. Aboth V 21. 

2 Comp. Pesachim 12 a. 

3 Josephus, Contra Apion. I 12. 

4 Comp. Acts XV 21; Josephus, Contra Apion. II 17; Mishna, 
Megilla IV 4. 

5 Comp. Mishna, Megilla IV 2. 



306 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

which the Septuagint Version was made, as well as against 
the Hebrew text of the Samaritans. The original MSS. 
which belonged to these Schools and which at that period 
could not have been many, were readily disposed of by 
consigning them to the sacred recepticle called the Geni:a. 1 
But the Greek Version itself, like the Samaritan recension, 
was beyond the control of the Sopherim, and hence could 
not be destroyed. To meet this emergency it was declared 
that it was not made by the seventy-two elders repre- 
senting every tribe of the whole Jewish nation, but by 
five and that the day on which it was made was as 
calamitous to Israel as the day on which the golden calf 
was substituted for the true God, because the Thorah 
cannot adequately be reproduced in a translation. 2 This 
anathema was afterwards emphasised by describing its 
accomplishment as a national calamity which was preceded by 
three days of darkness and by placing the day on which it 
was finished among the other dies nefasti on the eighth of 
Tebeih* It was during the period, therefore, which intervened 
between the ascription of divine authority to the Septuagint 
and its being publicly anathematised that the present 
textus receptus was being gradually developed and re- 
dacted by the Sopherim or the authorised custodians of 
the ancestral traditions. The portions of the Hebrew 
Scriptures which diverged most in the recension used by 
the translators of the Septuagint from the redaction put 
forth by the Sopherim are Samuel, Jeremiah, Proverbs, 
Job, Esther and Daniel. These were probably the primary 

1 Vide supra p. 156. 

npp Qvn rrm mr mm n j'ran 'abn 1 ? TSJISP D-;pi nrarn nrra 2 
:nrnat "?r n:-in~6 rbw rrnnn nrv.n K^tr b:vn is nvv:v 

Massechelh Sepher Thorah I; Sopherim I 7. 

D-D" : D^ip 1 ? inn KSI -j"?n 'abn "O'a mr mirn naro: natsn n 

Comp Halacholh Gedoloth Taanitli priuted at the end of Megillath Taaiiillt. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 307 

cause for the activity of the spiritual authorities to issue 
a uniform and standard text. 

The post-canonical authoritative Jewish writings record 
sundry rules by which the Sopherim were guided in the 
redaction of the text. Some of these canons are now an 
integral part of the Massorah, whilst others which are of 
supreme importance have only been preserved in the 
Talmud and in the Midrashim. These records reveal to 
us the reasons why certain letters, words, phrases and 
whole sections have an abnormal appearance both in the 
Massoretic MSS. and in the printed text; why some ex- 
pressions and proper names in parallel passages are appa- 
rently at variance with each other. It is, therefore, necessary 
to remark at the outset that these Sopherim were not 
simply copyists. They were the authorised revisers of the 
text. They not only decided which books are canonical, 
but which of the various readings are to be inserted into 
the text and which are to be put into the margin, which 
and in what manner certain of the Divine names are to 
be guarded against irreverence and which of the names 
of idols are to be stigmatized, which of the cacophonous 
expressions are to be changed into euphemisms &c. &c. 

One of the classical passages which record the 
functions of the Sopherim in this respect is to be found in 
the Babylon Talmud (Nedarim 37 & 38 a) and is as follows: 1 



"np *6i p'nai p'na K^I pnpi a'laia IIBTI anaia Kipa ' 
"]hr\ inx inayn IPIK D'IBIB IIET onsca aw px p ansic Kipa Tea 
inabai me pro *6i pip ? -nina inpnx ,B'3JU in* a-ntr ia-ip ^cKn IPIK 
^K "uin -urn DK nts^s-; rh nn:2Di D"K2 a-n^Kn 1312 ^K b 
micann nKi nban XD pip *6i jn^nsi p-na xbi pip pbn amy^m ^ 
:p'ip K^I p-na pbn ^KU s an ax ajD nxsn ran -piim -JUT Comp. also 

Sopherim VI 8, 9; J/tc Massorah, letter 2, 274; Geiger, Urschrift und 
Uebersetzungen der Bibel (whose corrections of the text I follow), p. 251 &c., 
Breslau 1857. 



308 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

The pronunciation fixed by the Sopherim, the cancelling [of Vav~\ by 
the Sopherim, words read which are not written in the text, and vice versa 
words written in the text which are cancelled in reading, are a law of Moses 
on Sinai [= according to a very ancient tradition]. The pronunciation fixed by 
the Sopherim are for example f^X land, country, which is pronounced fHK 
when preceded by the article, i. e. fHKH the land, D'fitf heaven, D'l^Q 
Egypt &c. [which have a dual form without being duals]. The cancelling [of 
Far] by the Sopherim is to be found four times in the word "iPtX after, viz. 
Gen. XVIII 5; XXIV 55; Numb. XXXI 2; Ps LXVIII 26; in T^?^ 1 ? % 
righteousness (Ps. XXXVI 7) &c. Words read which are not written in the 
text are IT1B Euphrates (a Sam. VIII 3), ti'K a man (2 Sam. XVI 23), 
D'XS they are coming (Jerem. XXXI 38), rh to her (Jerem. L 29), JIX 
(Ruth II u), '^K to me (Ruth III 5, 17). These words are read though they 
are not in the text. The following words on the contrary are written in the 
text, bat are cancelled in reading, X: / pray (2 Kings V 18); riKI and 
(Jerem. XXXII 11); T|1-lT let him bend (Jerem. LI 3); tfOP! five (Ezek. 
XL VIII 16); DX // (Ruth III 12). These words are written in the text, but 
are cancelled in reading. 

I. Hikra Sopherim. The first rule which relates to 
the pronunciation of certain forms is simply grammatical 
and does not constitute a difference of opinion between 
the Schools of redactors. 

II. Itur Sopherim (QHD1D "IISSP). - The second canon, 
however, which is called Itur Sopherim does affect the text 
inasmuch as it authoritatively declares that the words in 
question are to be read without the Vav conjunctive. The 
rule is manifestly directed against the recensions of the 
other Schools and notably against the Septuagint and 
Samaritan which read these words with the Vav conjunctive 
as may be seen from my notes on these passages. In 
common with the majority of the Massoretic MSS. and the 
editions, I have given the reading of the Sopherim in the 
text and the alternative reading in the margin, where the 
student will find the textual reading in each case described 
as being one of the Itur Sopherim. It will be seen that 
the record here does not specify the number of passages 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 309 

which come within this denomination. We must, therefore, 
not take it for granted that these are all the instances 
which exhibit the variations between the different Schools 
as to the presence or absence of the Vav conjunctive. The 
notes in my edition of the Massoretic text on Gen. XXXI 36; 
XLVII u; Exod. XVII 2, 10; XXII 29; XXIII 13, 28; 
XXIV 20 ; Levit. XX 1 8 ; Numb. VIII 4 ; Deut. XIV 1 6 &c. &c., 
show, beyond doubt, that the differences in the Schools 
comprised a much larger number and that the instances 
mentioned under the Itnr Sopherim are simply typical 
examples. Later Massorites, however, mistook these typical 
instances for an exhaustive List and hence added the 
heading to this Rubric four words or jive words are &c.' 
III. Words read which are not written in the text 
(pVO K^l P^p)' The third category consists of words 
which according to the Sopherim have dropped out of 
the text and which are to be supplied in reading. They 
are as follows: 

(1)2 Sam. VIII 3. - - From the fact that the Sopherim 
simply direct us to supply the word fHB Euphrates in 
reading, but did not themselves insert it into the text, it 
is evident that it was absent in the MSS. which obtained 
in their Schools. The textual reading 1H33 the River, with 
the article was quite intelligible. There could be no 
question that it denotes the Euphrates, since it is so used 
in this very book. 2 Some redactors, however, added n*lS 
Euphrates, to make it more explicit and hence this reading 
was exhibited in some MSS. As this is actually the textual 
reading in the parallel passage in i Chron. XVIII 3 the 
Sopherim direct that the two passages are to be made 



btt "I comp. The Massorah, letter y, 274, Vol. II, 

P- 384. 

2 Comp. 2 Sam. X 16; also Gen. XXXI 21 ; Exod. XXIII 31; Ps. 
LXXII 8 &c. 



310 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

uniform. This is the cause why the expression ms Euphrates, 
has found its way into the text here in some MSS., editions 
and ancient Versions as will be seen from the note in my 
edition of the Bible. The Authorised Version has also 
inserted it into the text, whilst the Revised Version relegates 
it to the margin. 

(2) 2 Sam. XVI 23. The text as it now stands 
denotes: "And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he coun- 
selled was in those days, as if he inquired at the oracle 
[or word] of God." According to another recension, however, 
there was the expression E^N a man, any one &c., in the 
text after the verb ^Nttf? he inquired, and the passage is, 
therefore, to be translated: "And the counsel of Ahithophel 
which he counselled in those days was as if a man [or 
any one] had inquired at the oracle of God." This reading 
is exhibited in some MSS., in several of the early editions 
and in the ancient Versions. The Authorised Version which 
follows the Keri in the former passage without taking any 
notice of the Kethiu [= textual reading], consistently does 
the same thing here, whereas the Revised Version which 
on the contrary follows the Kethiv [= the textual reading] 
in the former passages and relegates the Keri to the 
margin, inconsistently inserts the Keri here into the text 
and takes no notice whatever of the Kethiv [= the textual 
reading]. 

(3) Jerem. XXXI 38. - - Here the ancient redactors 
state that the word 0^3 are coming, has dropped out of 
the text and direct us to supply it in reading, but they 
themselves do not insert it into the text though its 
omission in this common phrase is most glaring. It is, 
however, in the text of many MSS., several of the early 
editions and in the ancient Versions as will be seen from 
the note in my edition of the Bible. The cause of its 
omission here is very instructive inasmuch as it throws light 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 311 

on similar omissions elsewhere. On looking at the text 
it will be seen that the word DN3, = D'JO are coming, and 
the expression DK3 saith, are extremely alike. Hence when 
the Scribe had written one and looked up again at his 
prototype he naturally thought he had already copied both 
and proceeded with the text. 

(4) Jerem. L 29. - - The variation here is simply re- 
censional and does not affect the sense of the passage. 
According to the Kethiv [== the textual reading] the phrase 
literally means "let there be no escape", i. e. let none 
escape, whereas according to the Kcri we are to supply 
in reading the expression fi^ unto her, which makes it "let 
there be unto her no escape". This variant is manifestly 
due to the difficulty felt by the later redactors in combining 
the masculine verb *IT with the feminine noun J"I2^?S escape, 
deliverance, especially in the face of verse 26 which is 
undoubtedly the cause of the alternative reading. But it 
is well known that when the verb precedes the noun it 
does not always conform to it in gender (comp. Deut. 
XXXII 38 &c.). It is to be remarked that the Septuagint 
and Vulgate which follow the Kethiv or the older recension 
read here ntp^S her escape. 

(5) Ruth II ii. - Here too the variation does not 
affect the sense of the passage, but is simply dialectical. 
According to the Kethiv it is simply ^3 all, and the Keri 
directs us to supply the accusative particle TIX before ^3 
and read ^3"DX. Though this is here distinctly given as 
one of the passages in which a word is to be supplied in 
reading it is not included in the Massoretic Rubric on this 
subject. The Massorah, however, describes the absence 
and presence of the particle in question as constituting 
one of the differences between the Western and Eastern 
recensions of the text. This is duly recorded in the note 
on this passage in my edition of the Bible. 



312 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

(6) Ruth III 5. - - The two recensions exhibited here 
affect the expression ^X unto me. According to the Kethiv 
it is simply "all that thou sayest", whilst the Keri directs 
us to insert in reading the word ^X unio me, i. e. "all that 
thou sayest unto me". The former recension without the 
expression unto me, is preserved in some MSS., in the 
Septuagint and in the Vulgate, the latter is exhibited in 
the text in many MSS., in several of the early editions, 
in the Chaldee and in the Syriac, though the Sopherim 
themselves did not venture to insert it into the text. The 
Authorised Version follows the Keri, whilst the Revised 
Version follows the Kethiv and gives the Keri in the 
margin. 

(7) Ruth III 17. The seventh and last instance 
given in the Talmudic record where we are directed to 
insert a word in reading which is not in the text affects 
the same expression ^K unto me. As in the preceding 
passage the Keri is exhibited in the text in many MSS., 
in several of the early editions, in the Chaldee, the 
Septuagint and the Syriac. Here too the Authorised 
Version adopts the Keri, whilst the Revised Version 
follows the textual reading and gives the Keri in the 
margin. 

It will be seen from the above that this ancient record 
does not specify the number of the passages where words 
have been omitted from the text. The instances are, there- 
fore, simply to be taken as typical. That there existed 
more passages in the recensions of other Schools where 
words had dropped out of the text is evident from the 
parallel Rubric in the Massorah which treats on the same 
subject. 1 Whilst the Massoretic List omits the fifth in- 
stance, viz. Ruth II 1 1 which is probably due to the fact 

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter 2, 487, Vol. II. pp. 54, 55. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 313 

that it constitutes one of the differences between the 
Westerns and Easterns, it adds the following four passages: 

(1) Judg. XX 13. - - Here the Massorah tells us the 
word '33 sons of, has dropped out of the text and directs 
us to supply it in reading. In looking at the text the 
cause of its omission is perfectly clear. It is due to the 
fact that the first half of the word f'33 Benjamin, by which 
it is immediately followed is '33 and the Scribe naturally 
thought that he had already written it. This affords an 
instructive illustration of the source of some clerical 
mistakes. As the sense of the passage is the same with 
or without the expression in question, the textual critics 
of the different Schools were not agreed upon its being 
an omission. Hence some MSS. and early editions have 
no Keri and they are supported by verse 20 of this very 
chapter, others have the Keri whilst other MSS. again 
have '33 sons of, in the text which is also exhibited in the 
Chaldee, the Septuagint and the Syriac, as will be seen 
in the note in my edition of the Bible. The Authorised 
Version adopts the Keri, whilst the Revised Version 
follows the textual reading and puts the Keri into the 
margin. 

(2) 2 Sam. XVIII 20. - - According to the testimony 
of the Massorah the expression |3 has here dropped out 
of the text and we are told in the Keri to supply it in read- 
ing, so as to make it conformable to the well-known phrase 
denoting for, therefore, because.^ Here again the omission 
is due to the same cause which gave rise to the former 
clerical error, p is immediately followed by |3 and as 
the two expressions are very much alike the Scribe 
omitted one. 

1 Comp. J3 hy-^3 Gen. XVIII 5; XIX 8; XXXVIII 26; Jerem. 
XXIX 27; XXXVIII 4. 



314 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

(3) 2 Kings XIX 31. - In the redaction of some 
textual critics the reading here simply was nliT flK3p the 
zeal Qf Jehovah, and thus differed from the parallel passage 
in Isa. XXXVII 32. In the codices, however, which the 
Massorites took for their standard the two passages were 
identical. Hence the direction in the Keri that nfX2 of hosts, 
should be supplied here in reading. Still the evidence for 
the former reading must have been very strong since the 
Massorites did not insert the word into the text though 
they believed it to have dropped out of it. Many MSS., 
early editions and the Versions have the Keri in the text 
as will be seen from the note in my edition of the Bible. 
The Authorised Version adopts the Keri, and the Revised 
Version translates the textual reading, but puts the Keri 
in the margin. 

(4) 2 Kings XIX 37. The fact that the Massorah 
directs us to supply the word V53 his sons, in reading, 
shows, beyond doubt, that according to the recension of 
some Schools it was absent from the text here. For this 
reason the Massorites themselves did not insert it into the 
text, but simply put down the Keri against it in the margin. 
That it was, however, the textual reading in the redaction 
of other Schools in harmony with the parallel passage in 
Jerem. XXXVII 38, is attested by many MSS., several of 
the early editions and the ancient Versions as will be seen 
from the note in my edition of the Bible. Here too the 
Authorised Version adopted the Keri, whilst the Revised 
Version translates the textual reading and puts the Keri 
in the margin. 

On a comparison of the ancient record in the Talmud 
with the Rubric in the Massorah it will be seen that the 
latter not only omits one instance and adds four new 
passages, but that in the heading to the Rubric it fixes the 
number of places where a word has dropped out of the 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 315 

text to ten. But as we have already seen, this number 
is based upon later redactions and in the earlier re- 
censions there were many more such omissions. The effect, 
however, of this Rubric on the external appearance of 
the text in these ten passages is remarkable. In many of 
the MSS. and editions there is a vacant space left in the 
text sufficient to contain the missing word and the vowel- 
signs which belong to the Keri in the margin occupy by 
themselves the lower part of the empty space. This device, 
however, which imparts to the text such an abnormal 
appearance cannot be of very ancient date. Two out of 
the ten passages in question occur in the Latter Prophets, 
viz. Jerem. XXXI 39; L 29. Now the St. Petersburg 
Codex dated A. D. 916 which contains this portion of the 
Hebrew Bible duly notes the Keri in the margin, but 
does not exhibit this phenomenal vacant space in the text. 
The later development of this vacant space according to 
my opinion is due to the fact that these missing words 
were inserted into the text in many MSS. and that the 
Massoretic Revisers scratched them out except the vowel- 
signs and put in the margin against each passage the 
Keri. To avoid the process of obliteration and to guard 
the Scribes against copying these words into the text 
they left the curious vacant space with vowel-signs below 
and accents above. On comparing Judg. XX 13; 2 Sam. 
VIII 3 and XVIII 20 in Oriental 2201 which is dated 
A. D. 1246 the student will come to the same conclusion. 
In accordance with my principle, therefore, I have left 
the Keihiv unpointed, given the vowel-signs of both the 
Kethiv and the Keri in the notes and have discarded the 
vacant space. 

IV. Words written in the text, but cancelled in read- 
ing. According to the same authoritative statement, we 
are assured that words have erroneously crept into the 



316 Introduction. [CHAP. XI 

text which must be cancelled. As in the former case, so 
here the ancient redactors did not themselves remove 
them from the text of their redaction, but marked them in 
the margin as spurious. They are as follows: 

(1)2 Kings V 1 8. - - From the MSS., the early editions 
and the ancient Versions it is evident that there existed 
a great difference of opinion in some recensions with 
regard to the presence or absence of the particle N3 now, 
I pray thee, in the verse before us. In Harley 5710 n 
which is one of the most beautiful and accurately written 
MSS. this particle is in both clauses after the verb H^D' 
and there is a separate Massorah against each of them, 
remarking that it is to be cancelled. In other MSS. the 
particle in question is absent in both clauses. This is also 
the case in the first edition of the Prophets, Soncino 
1485 -86; the first edition of the entire Bible, Soncino 1488; 
the second edition, Naples 1491 93; the third edition, 
Brescia 1494; the Chaldee, the Syriac and the Vulgate. In 
the majority of MSS., however, the particle XS only occurs 
in the second clause and it is here that we are told that 
it must be cancelled to make it uniform with the first 
clause. The Septuagint shows that it was in the second 
clause in the recension from which this Greek Version 
was made and that it was then not considered spurious. 

(2) Jerem. XXXII n. There can be no doubt 

that the ancient recensions differed here with regard to 
the presence or absence of the particle before nYtffin the 
legal document. According to the record preserved in the 
Talmud, the textual reading was originally m2ivnxi and 
the redactors direct us to cancel "DS1. But though the 
Massoretic Rubric which tabulates the spurious words 
does not contain the passage before us, the original 
reading m3CQiTTlN1 is still exhibited as the Kethiv or textual 
reading in the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 916 for 



CHAP. X!.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 317 

which the Keri substitutes niXSiT). The latter is the textual 
reading in the edilio princeps of the Prophets, Soncino 
1485 86, and in the first edition of the entire Bible, 
Soncino 1488. 

(3) Jerem. LI 3. - According to the testimony of 
this ancient record we have here an instance of dittography 
where the Scribe has by mistake copied the same word 
twice. Hence we are authoritatively directed to cancel the 
second "pT he shall bend, in reading. The condemned ex- 
pression is not exhibited in the text in Add. 21161, in the 
first edition of the entire Bible, Soncino 1488, nor in the 
third edition Brescia 1494. This, however, is not the only 
variation in the verse before us. The particles *?X and ^NT 
in the first and second clauses are in Add. 21161, Harley 
1528 &c. not pointed -^K against, and ~Sn and against, but 
~!?X not, and "^K") and not. Accordingly the verse is to be 
rendered: 

Let not the archer bend his bow 

Nor let him lift himself up in his coat of mail &c. 

This is also the reading in the first edition of the 
Bible, Soncino 1488; in the third edition Brescia 1494; the 
Chaldee in the second clause, the Syriac, and the Vulgate; 
and is adopted in the text of the Revised Version. The 
Authorised Version follows the Kethiv. 

(4) Ezek. XL VIII 16. - - We have here another in- 
stance of dittography, the scribe having by mistake written 

five twice. Hence we are directed to cancel the second 
in reading. Many MSS. have not got it in the text 
nor is it exhibited in the editio princeps of the Bible, 
Soncino 1488; the third edition, Brescia 1494; the Chaldee, 
the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate. 

(5) Ruth III 12. The direction that the particle 
DN here is superfluous after ^3 and is to be cancelled, is 



318 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

due to a dialectical use of it at a later period of the 
language. Hence some recensions in conformity with the 
earlier usage dropped it, whilst other redactors retained 
it. The Massorah has two Rubrics on the presence and 
absence of this particle. 1 

It will be seen that the record in the Talmud does 
not fix the number of these superfluous or spurious ex- 
pressions in the text, but simply leaves us to regard them 
as typical instances. The oldest separate Rubric in the 
Massorah on this point is contained in the St. Petersburg 
Codex dated A. D. 916. This important MS. gives the 
List twice, once on Jerem. XXXIX 12 and once on Ezek. 
XLVIII 1 6, and in both instances fixes the number at 
eight. The eight passages are made up by the addition 
of three more examples where the particle DK is described 
as superfluous and is to be cancelled (2 Sam. XIII 33; 
XV 21 ; Jerem. XXXIX 12); by the inclusion of Jerem. 
XXXVIII 1 6 where it tells us that the particle DN before 
ItPK is spurious and is to be elided, and by the omission 
of Jerem. XXXI u which is one of the five passages 
given in the earlier record in the Talmud. 

V. The fifteen Extraordinary points. Hitherto we 

have considered the ancient record with regard to words 
which have dropped out of the text and which are 
supplied in the margin of the MSS. and editions, as well 
as words which have crept into the text and which the 
marginal notes both in the MSS. and editions direct us to 
elide. These Massoretic glosses and directions leave no 
doubt as to their import. We now come to an equally 
ancient and probably a much older official document which 
is the cause of the abnormal appearance of no fewer than 
fifteen words in the Hebrew Bible, but about which the 

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter K, 742, 743, Vol. I, p. 82. 



CHAP. XI ] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 319 

marginal glosses give no solution. All the information 
which the puzzled student gets in the margin of the MSS. 
and the printed text against each of these enigmatic ex- 
pressions is that the letter or word in question has an 
extraordinary point. And yet these points are of supreme 
importance inasmuch as they exhibit the earliest result of 
textual criticism on the part of the Scribes. The record 
on this point has been transmitted in several of the post- 
Biblical writings. The oldest form of it which is in the 
Siphri on Numb. IX 10 is as follows: 1 

(1) Numb. IX 10. The He (It) in npm afar off, is pointed [to denote] 
that even he who is on a short journey and is defiled must not offer with 
them the Passover. So also 

(2) Gen. XVI 5. "The Lord judge between me and thee" [is pointed] 
because she [i. e. Sara] said this to him [i. e. Abraham], only with respect 
to Hagar. Some, however, are of opinion that it is with respect to those who 
caused strife between him and her. So also 

(3) Gen. XVIII 9. "And they said unto him where is Sara thy wife?" 
[is pointed] because they knew where she was. So also 

rwnp rrn vb xats Kim na-np -p-a "sx x"nn by -ipD rpirn "p-ia IK 1 
^aba -on by xbx "6 m&K xbtf *]rai -ra ( n Biair la KITS : preen nx onay 
rrw "tnrcx mv rrx V"?K i-iax 11 ! -a xsjva tnnb ira na'-ia "b'tfian by X"<i 
naawa -ia-6 napai by Tips napai naatra yr x"?i la xscra :x'n p'n HTTP 
na 1 ?,-! -laix TTP ja w"i -la 1 ? baa iptrj Kbr inp^i ia Ksra :yT napai yn 1 x 1 ? 
ia xara na 1 ? ^sa ipr:i nyo nmxa rani isens xbx apy 1 ? XDI&' iwytp yn-a 
xsi-a : na^y nx niyi 1 ? xSx i^bn *6w rby mpa orrax |x^ nx myn"? rnx is 1 ?'! 
^a ia xsva : p n'n ]bnbft e\xv vby tip: xan^a -iy iux nei: ny D'^;I ana 
ia Ksra :p3an ja pnx n\i x 1 ?^ rby mpa pnxi nwa nps icx a^bn ^ps 
ni-mosn ia x^ra tiaba inx p-rr x^x n-n x^c' [by] jnwr "tps jnw jnrr 
ymx ^x P|S n'l^n on^y b"x ,ipD obiy ny iD-iabi vb m^ajm irnbx 'nb 
nanp -j-na n-n "sxtr rby nps npin-i -|-na naix nnx jxa ^x ,m"inD3n nx oa 1 ? 

:nDSn nx D,"iay n^iy n\n X 1 ? XatS n-m Siphra, fol. l8a, ed. Friedmann, 
Vienna 1864; Comp. also Aboth di Rabbi Nathan, Recension I, cap. XXXIV, 
p. IOO and Recension II, cap. XXXVII, p. 97, ed. Schechter, London 1887; 
Midrash Rabba Numb. IX 10, Parasha III, No. 13, p. 20, ed. Wilna 1878; 
Sopherim cap. VI; Midrash Mishle XXVI 24. 



320 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

(4) Gen. XIX 33. "And he knew not when she lay down nor when 
she arose", the point on nOlpSl nor when she arose, denotes that he [i. e. 
Lot] knew not when she lay down, but that he did know when she arose. 
So also 

(5) Gen XXXIII 4. "And he kissed him" "HpttH [is pointed] because 
he did not kiss him sincerely. R. Simon b. Yochai says Esau was indeed 
hostile to Jacob, but his bowels had then changed and he did kiss him 
sincerely. So also 

(6) Gen. XXXVII 12. "And his brethren went to feed his father's 
flock in Shechem" is pointed because they only went to feed themselves. 
Likewise 

(7) Numb. XXI 30. "And we have laid them waste even unto Nopha" 
is pointed because from thenceforward it was likewise so. So also 

(8) Numb. Ill 39. "All that were numbered of the Levites, which 
Moses and Aaron numbered" is pointed because Aaron was not of those 
who numbered. 

(9) Numb. XXIX 15. "And a tenth a tenth" the points are on JlltM? 
tenth, because there was only one tenth measure in the Sanctuary. So also 

(10) Deut. XXIX 28. "The secrets unto the Lord our God and the 
revealed unto us and to our children for ever'', is pointed to denote that 
when ye shall perform the things which are revealed I will also reveal to 
you the things which are concealed. So also Numb. IX 10. 

Both the Midrash Rabba on Numb. Ill 39 and the 
Aboth di Rabbi Nathan supplement the enumeration of 
the ten instances with the following 1 important statement: 

Some say what do these points signify? Now Ezra [who has put them 
there] declares if Elias should come and say to me why hast thou written 
them [i. e. these spurious words?], I will answer him I have already furnished 
them with points. But if he should say thou hast written them correctly, 
then 1 will readily erase the points on them.' 

It will thus be seen that the points were regarded 
by the ancient authorities as marking the letters and words 
in question as spurious and that the Prophet Elias, who is 
to solve all doubts and difficulties, will give his decision 



JPIK roro no 1 ? -lax-i irrbx xr ox K-HP -ax -p x"?x -np: no 1 ? x""i ' 

jrrnnips pinox -ar rcrc nr '? lax" oxi orrhif Tnp: -as i 1 ? noix 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 321 

on them when he appears. The practice of using dots to 
stigmatize words as spurious was not restricted to those 
days. Later scribes continued the example of the ancient 
Sopherim, as may be seen by the student of Hebrew MSS. 
As the St. Petersburg Codex dated A, D. 916 is both the 
oldest dated MS. and is easily accessible to students in 
Professor Strack's fac-simile, I will restrict my references 
to this important reproduction. In Isa. LI 4, folio 41 the 
word b"N isles, is thus stigmatized in the text and *aP my 
people, is substituted in the margin. 1 In Ezek. XIV n, 
folio 133 the word **?JJfi from me, is dotted and '"TIXO from 
me, is given in the margin as the proper reading. 2 Here 
the superlinear position of the vowel-points precluded the 
dots from being put on the top of the word and they are, 
therefore, put inside the letter/' Students of Palaeography 
know that it was also the practice of scribes who copied 
Greek and Latin MSS., to indicate erasures by placing 
dots above words and passages. 4 

With these facts before us we shall be better able 
to examine the fifteen dotted passages in the Hebrew 
Bible. It will be noticed that the ancient authorities already 
quoted only tabulate the ten instances in the Pentateuch. 
The other five passages which occur in the Prophets and 
in the Hagiographa are minutely described in the Massorah. 



1 Though the combination of D"K isles, and OTKX people, is to be 
found in Isa. XLI I; XLIX i. 

2 The passage, however, in Ezek. XLIV IO favours the stigmatized 
reading. 

3 For other examples see Ezek. XIV 13, fol. 133; XX 7, fol. 1400; 
Hag. I II, fol. 209^; Hag. II 21, fol. 2iia; Zech I 3, fol. 2iiZ>. . 

4 Comp. Wattenbach, Schriftlafeltt zur griechischen PaJaeographie, 
plate V, col. i, line 24 where KAl is given as an instance from the Codex 
Sinaiticus; Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie pp.278, 279, Leipzig 1879; 

Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeographv p. 74. London 1893. 

V 



322 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

As the Siphri is the oldest document from which all the 
other Lists are derived, it is essential to examine the 
import of these instances according to the record in the 
original source. We shall, therefore, discuss the respective 
passages in the order in which they are given in the Siphri. 

(i) Numb. IX 10 which is the first passage is also 
given at the end of the List. In the first place it is stated 
that the He in the word npm afar off, is pointed, whereas 
at the end of the List after quoting again the phrase 
nprn 1*^2 in a journey afar off] we are simply told that 
it is pointed (1^1? llpj), without specifying which word or 
letter is thus distinguished. On comparing, however, the 
wording in Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10 it will be seen that the 
latter harmonises with the phrase commonly used in these 
instances, that it is the original formula and that the 
specifying of the He is due to a later explanation or 
expansion. 

The explanation which follows, stating the reason 
why the phrase before us is pointed, clearly indicates 
where the points are to be. We are here told that even 
he who is on a short journey, if he is defiled must not 
offer the Passover. This shows beyond doubt that there 
was in the original text a letter or word which when 
cancelled yielded the sense required for this legal inference. 
On comparing this verse with verse 13 we see that the 
original reading in verse 10 was "spllll. As the Vav is 
ordinarily the conjunctive, the passage may have been 
taken by some to denote that only he is to offer the 
second Passover who was at the time of the first Passover 
both defiled and on a journey. Hence the Vav in *]YT3T 
which is sometimes disjunctive ' was pointed to indicate 
that it should be 1R or, and it is this 1K which now stands 

i Comp. Exod XII 5; XXI 15, 17; I Kings XVIIF 27 &c. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 323 



for the originally pointed Vav (i) in "Spllll or on a journey.* 
From the uniform reference to the He (n) in all the 
ancient documents which treat on the extraordinary points, 
it is evident that the variation in the passage before us 
also extended to the word Hpm afar off, which some MSS. 
read with He and others had it pm without He. As "-ITI 

I | V V 

way, journey, which is epicene is more frequently construed 
with a masculine adjective, the He was pointed to denote 
that here too the larger number of MSS. had it without 
He and that it is, therefore, to be elided. Instances where 
both nouns and verbs read in some MSS. with He at the end 
and in other MSS. without, are also discussed in other parts 
of the Talmud and whole Lists of them are given in the 
Massorah. 2 At a later time when the spiritual guides of 
the nation were anxious to diminish the number of spurious 
letters and words in the Hebrew Scriptures, the reference 
to the reading "splILI and "if "113 IK was dropped and the 
variation with regard to the He alone was retained. It was 
then that the legal inference deduced from the reading 
"["1131 = "JTT3 IX was assigned to the pointed He (H) which 
has been the cause of all the confusion. 

(2) Gen. XVI 5. It will be seen that here this 
early record simply quotes the sentence "the Lord judge 
between me and thee" as pointed, without specifying the 
letter or word which is spurious. The explanation, however, 
which follows, clearly shows that the Yod and Kapli ("p) 
are to be pointed and, therefore, are to be elided, since it 
supplies the letter He (il) in their place reading it n^21 

1 Comp. the able discussion on this point by Blau, Masoretische 
Untersuchnngen, p. 25 &c. Strassburg 1891 to which I am greatly indebted. 
Dr. Blau properly emphasises the fact that the explanation which follows the 
respective passages indicates the dotted letters and words. 

2 Comp. Jerusalem Meg-ilia 19; IV 10; Sopherim VI 4; and vide supra 

p. 144 &c. 

V* 



324 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

and her, i. e. Hagar. Accordingly the passage is to be 
rendered: "the Lord judge between me and her". This fully 
agrees with the immediately preceding verse. According to 
the opinion of others the Kaph (*]) is to be pointed and 
He and Mem (DH) are to take the place of the elided 
letter, thus reading it DiTIP31 and them, and the passage is 
to be translated: "the Lord judge between me and them", 
i. e. my traducers, those who stir up strife. The Massoretic 
note in some MSS. JOfO IV ^V "Pp3 the second Yod is 
pointed, is probably due to a later mistaken solution of 
the original V*?r Tlp3 which was misread XVQ 'V *?V Up:. 

(3) Gen. Jfi^fu 9. - - Here too the Siphri simply quotes 
the sentence "and they said unto him where is thy wife 
Sarah?" as pointed, without saying which word or letters are 
stigmatized. The explanation, however, which contains the 
reason for the extraordinary points indicates the word. It is 
pointed we are told because "they knew where she is", which 
plainly declares that the interrogative expression i"PX where, 
is dotted and is to be elided, and that the sentence ex- 
hibits a positive statement Accordingly the passage is to 
be rendered: "And they said unto him, As to Sarah thy 
wife and he [interruptingly] said behold she is in the tent - 
and he [i. e. the angel resuming] said I will certainly 
return unto thee according to the time of life and Sarah 
thy wife shall have a son". This is confirmed by the second 
recension of Aboth di Rabbi Nathan cap. XXXVII, p. 97, 
and Sopherim VI 3, which distinctly say that the dotted ex- 
pression is the interrogative IV K where. The reading, 
however, exhibited in these ancient authorities is not the 
only variant which obtained in the MSS. The Codices in 
other Schools indicate that it is the word V^X unto him, 
which is dotted and hence is to be elided in accordance 
with some redactions 1 or that the letters Aleph and Yod 

1 Comp. Dikthikl- Sopherim on Baba Metzia 87 a; DikJiike Ha-Teamiin 46. 



CHAP. XI.J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 325 

(>X) in V'^X unto him, have the points, thus reading it 1^ to 
him. It may be that the dots extended also to the Vav 
in IIOK'1 (i. e. 'XI) and that the original reading was 
1^ Itttf'l and lie said to him. This is confirmed by the 
Septuagint. 

(4) Gen. XIX 33, 35. - The classical passage in the 
Siphri tells us that in the sentence "and he (Lot) knew 
not when she lay down nor when she arose", which occurs 
in verses 33 and 35, the word naipDI nor when she arose, 
is pointed (= is to be elided) "because he did know when 
she arose". The desire on the part of later redactors to 
reduce as much as possible the number of spurious letters 
in the Bible gave rise to the opinion transmitted in the 
Massorah that it is simply the second Vav in the first 
passage where nplpl} nor when she arose, in verse 33 
it is plene, which has the dot, distinguishing it from 
nsplll in verse 34 where it is defective, because Lot knew 
only when the elder daughter arose, but did not know 
when the younger one arose. The device, however, is too- 
transparent since the presence of the letter Vav could not 
possibly indicate the restoration of consciousness on the 
part of Lot to know the infamy of the act into which he 
had been ensnared. Indeed in some MSS. the whole word 
n1p31 is dotted. 1 

(5) Gen. XXXIII 4. - - Here the word lilptf'l and he 
kissed him, is dotted because it was not in the MSS. of 
the text. The passage is, therefore, to be rendered: "and 
he fell on his neck and they wept". This is in accordance 
with the usage in Genesis of the combined verbs "to fall 
on the neck and weep" (XLV 14; XLVI 29) without kissing. 

(6) Gen. XXXVII 12. In the primitive record in the 
Siphri the passage "and his brethren went to feed their 

1 Comp. Kashi on this passage in Berliner's edition 18 6. 



326 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

father's flock in Shechem" is adduced with the remark that 
/'/ has dots. But though it does not state on which letters 
the dots are, it is manifest from the reason given for the 
dots in question, viz. they only went to feed themselves, that 
the words which have the points and which are to be 
elided are D.T3X (xS'flK their fathers flock. This yields the 
sense required by the reason given for the dots, viz. "and 
his brethren went to feed in Shechem", and this is in 
harmony with the phrase in the following verse where it 
is stated DDtfa D'jn ?pn NlSl are not thy brethren feeding 
in Shechem? Owing to the anxiety, however, to diminish 
as much as possible the indication of spurious words in 
the Bible, later authorities though retaining the same reason 
for the dots restrict them to TIN the simple sign of the 
accusative, regardless of the incongruity that the absence 
of this particle is made to yield the sense they went to eat 
and to drink and to be merry (mnonn^l mntP^T ^IDN^). 1 

(7) Numb. XXI 30. - - It is remarkable that the Siphri 
which has hitherto plainly indicated the dotted letters or 
words in the reason assigned for the extraordinary points, 
fails us in this instance. After quoting the passage D^ttttl 
K3T3 ir "IPK HO: IP and we have laid waste unto Nopha 
which is unto Medeba, this primitive record remarks "it has 
dots because even from thence forward it was also thus". 
All we can deduce from this explanation is that by the 
dotting or cancelling of some letter or word in the passage 
in question, we obtain a rule which is to guide the con- 
querors in future how to treat the conquered people or 
cities. But what the original reading was which yields 
this sense it is impossible to say. The first recension of 
the Aboth di Rabbi Nathan emphatically states that it is 

3 Comp. Midrash Rabba on Numb. IX 10 and Aboth di Rabbi Nathan 
first recension cap. XXXIV, p. IOO, ed. Schechter. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 327 

the letter Resh (1) in "IPX which, which has the dot, to 
teach us that the Israelites destroyed the people, but did 
not destroy the cities, 1 whereas the Midrash which also 
says that the Resh has the point, on the contrary declares 
in the name of the minority it is designed to teach us 
that the conquerors did not destroy the people, but only 
the cities. 2 No amount of ingenuity, however, can in the 
present day deduce this sense from the presence or ab- 
sence of the simple dot on the letter Resh. 

That the present text is defective and that some dots 
were originally designed to indicate its imperfection of 
which the Resh in "lt!?X exhibits one of the variants, is 
demonstrated by the Samaritan and the Septuagint. The 
recension from which the Septuagint was made was: 

p"i ij? pawn -rax nr?i ' 
axia-^r vx ns3 -rr D'WJI 

And their seed shall perish from Heshbon to Dibon 
And the women have yet kindled a fire against Moab. 

This Version, therefore, cancels the dotted Resh, and 
with this the Samaritan coincides. It is, moreover, to be 
remarked that the Talmud not only reads tPK fire, but 
takes nDj as a verb denoting to blow, to fan, to kindle* 

As the Septuagint undoubtedly shows that D*tWl in 
the first clause was read in some MSS. D'Efr] and women, 
the plural of n$X, it is far more in consonance with the 
parallelism and the rhythm of the line to point tPK in the 
second clause E?X = t^X men. An exactly parallel case where 
the Resh in "itPN, according to the Massorah, is superfluous 



niab ntrxaw wn hy "ti; xaTa iy npx nsis -IP DT:I 



ne; nr DTJI 2 
.mj^ia 6x maixn is-n-n 

Comp. the explanation or Numb XXI 30 in Baba Bathra 79*1 1'J 

ma": nans nrxr trx xanr IP ne: 



328 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

and where EJN denotes men, is to be found in 2 Sam. XXIII 21. 
Accordingly with only one of the readings exhibited in 
the Septuagint we obtain the following sense: 

We have shot at them, 
Heshbon is destroyed even unto Dibon 
The women also even unto Nopha 
And the men even unto Medeba. 

It is probably this reading which underlies the ancient 
opinion transmitted to us in the Aboth di Rabbi Nathan that 
only the people were destroyed and not the cities since 
they took Heshbon to denote inhabitants of that city to 
harmonise with what follows. 

(8) Numb. Ill 39. - - After quoting the passage "all 
that were numbered of the Levites which Moses and Aaron 
numbered" the Siphri remarks, it is dotted because Aaron 
was not of those who numbered. It will be seen that though 
the Siphri does not specify the word which is thus 
stigmatized, the reason assigned for the dots indicates 
beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is pilKT and Aaron, 
which has the points. The dotted word which is thus 
simply, but unmistakeably indicated in the classical passage 
before us, is expressly mentioned in the List of the Aboth 
di Rabbi Nathan. Both in the first and second recensions 
of this Treatise we are told that it is pHX Aaron, 
which has the points. The cause for the existence of the 
two redactions of the Biblical MSS., one omitting pHNl 
and Aaron, and the other inserting it, is not far to seek. 
The command to number the Levites was given to Moses 
alone (Numb. Ill 14, 15), and in accordance with this command 
we are told (verse 16) Moses alone effected the numbering. 
In Numb. IV 41, 45, 46, however, it is stated that Aaron 
took part in the numbering, whilst in Numb. I 3, 4 he is 
expressly mentioned in the command to engage with 
Moses in the numbering of the other tribes. Hence the 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 329 

two textual recensions, one based upon Numb. Ill 14, 15 
and the other upon Numb. IV 41, 45, 46. The Samaritan 
and the Syriac which exhibit the MSS. of the former 
School, omit the word pnxi in accordance with the dots, 
whilst the Chaldee and the Septuagint follow the latter 
School and retain pilNl in the text. We have already 
referred to the anxiety manifested on the part of some 
Schools to diminish as much as possible the number of 
dotted or stigmatized letters. The Midrash in the passage 
before us affords a striking illustration of this fact. In 
spite of the explicit statement in the older document the 
Midrash states that it is simply the Vav conjunctive in 
pnxi which is pointed. 

(9) Numb. XXIX 15. In the passage before us 
the Siphri distinctly declares that the whole word plfrl? 
tenth deal, is dotted and hence is to be elided, because there 
was only one tenth deal measure in the Sanctuary. This 
is also the declaration in the List of the second recension 
of the Aboth di Rabbi Nathan. In the chapter before us 
the tenth deal measure occurs three times, viz. XXI 4, 
where it is simply p'"fE?Pl and a tenth deal; in verse 10, 
where it is plipl? P'"^# reduplicated a several tenth deal, 
and in the passage here, viz. verse 15, where the MSS. 
manifestly differed. Some redactions read it here singly 
in conformity with verse 4, whilst others read it in the 
reduplicated form in harmony with verse 10. According 
to the testimony of the Siphri and the Aboth di Rabbi 
Nathan it is to be read here as in verse 4. The conflict- 
ing statements in the later authorities that it is only the 
Vav plene in ["HtPJM which is pointed does not account for 
the inference that there was only one tenth deal measure 
in the Sanctuary and is, moreover, due to the anxiety to 
diminish as much as possible the number of the stigmatized 
letters. 



330 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

(10) Deut. XXIX 28. - The Siphri after quoting 
this verse says that it has the dots and without specifiying 
where the dots are, remarks that the reason for their being 
here is to indicate that "when ye shall have performed 
the things which are revealed I will also disclose to you the 
things which are concealed". This plainly shows that the dots 
here referred to are to be on the words I^H^X HlIT^ to the 
Lord our God, and that the words in question are to be elided. 
When these are cancelled we obtain the sense: "The secret 
things and the i evealed things belong to us and to our children 
for ever if we do all the words of this Law." That is the 
secret things or the doctrines which have not as yet been 
revealed (comp. Deut. XXX 1 1 14) belong to us and our 
children or will be disclosed to us if we do all the 
words of this Law which have been revealed to us. It is 
remarkable that Rashi already expresses the opinion that 
the words 13H^X ("HiT^ to the Lord our God, ought to have 
been pointed, but that the reverence for the Divine name 
prevented its being done. ' Whether it was the reverence 
for the Divine name or whether it was due to some other 
recension, it is certain that a later tradition obtained ac- 
cording to which the four words D^IP'IP W33^ IjS to us 

T - - T : T 

and to our children for ever, were pointed, or simply the 
two words ^33^ 13^ to its and to our children. This is 
exhibited in the first recension of the Aboth di Rabbi Xathan, 
the Midrash Rabba and in the Massorah. The remark that 
the Ay in (V) alone of the particle IV unto, is also pointed is 
manifestly an error since the solitary Daleth (1) which remains 
of the third word yields no sense and undoubtedly shows 
that it is the remains of the redaction in which all the 
four words were dotted. According to the recension in 
which the four words are stigmatized, the sense of the 

1 Comp. Sanhcdrin i3/>; Blau, Masoretiscltc UntersiichiiHgcti. p. 31. 



CHAP. XI.] The Afassorah; its Rise and Development. 331 

passage is: "The secret and revealed ways of events are 
in the hands of the Lord our God to accomplish all 
the statements of this Law", or according to the redaction 
which dots the two words: "The secrets and the revealed 
things are for ever with the Lord our God to fulfil all 
the words of this Law." It is, however, to be remarked 
that these later recensions are utterly at variance with 
the promise deduced from this verse that the secret 
things belong to us and to our children or will be revealed 
to us, which these redactors still retain from the older and 
classical record in the Siphri. 

Though the Talmud and the Midrashim do not discuss 
the four passages which have the extraordinary points in 
the Prophets and only refer to the one instance in the 
Hagiographa, viz. Ps. XXVII 13, the St. Petersburg Codex 
of A. D. 916 which is the oldest dated MSS., gives the 
list of the fifteen instances no fewer than three times, ' and 
all the other MSS. which I have collated coincide with this 
ancient recension. In discussing, therefore, the remaining five 
passages I shall follow the Massoretic Rubric and continue 
the numeration. 

(11) 2 Sam. XIX 20. --In the supplication of Shimei 
to the king recorded in this verse, the suppliant as the 
text now stands, addresses the monarch in the third person 
let him not impute (~Dttfrp -t ?X), then suddenly passes over to 
the second person and do not thou remember (ISiFT^Nl), and 
then again as suddenly reverts to the third person when 
he went out (K2C'~1tfx). The dots on this word, therefore, 
indicate that it is to be cancelled and that nX> thou 

T T T 

tventesl out, the second person is to be substituted in 
accordance with another recension and in harmony with 
thou remember, which immediately precedes it. 



1 Comp. the Massorah in this Codex on Isa. XLIVg; Ezek. XLI 2O; 
XLVI 22; and my edition of the Massorah, letter 3, 521, Vol. II, p. 296. 



332 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

(12) Isa. XLIV 9. Here nbh is dotted and is to be 
cancelled since it is simply dittography of DH with which the 
preceding word DiT"TJPl and their witnesses ends. Hence also 
its absence in the Syriac. Accordingly the passage ought 
to be rendered: 

As for their witnesses they [= the idols] see them not nor 
know them. 

That there was another recension of the text in which 
more words were stigmatized and elided is evident from 
the Septuagint where the whole of this sentence DiTlJJl 
IPT'^5-1 IXT'^3 nan is omitted. As the passage is so mani- 
festly defective we may adopt the small alteration sug- 
gested by Dr. Blau, viz. to insert the single letter Beth 
(2} in the word DiTlPI and their witnesses, and we thus 
obtain DiT"TfZli?1 and their worshippers. This yields the ap- 
propriate sense: 

They that fashion a graven image are all of them vanity 
Their delectable things shall not profit 
As for their worshippers they see them not nor know 
That they [i. e. the worshippers] may be ashamed. 

(13) Ezek. XLI 20 where ^D'Tin the temple at the end 
of the verse is stigmatized, we have another instance of ditto- 
graphy. The Scribe simply wrote it twice, once at the end 
of this verse and once at the beginning of the next verse. 
After its elision the last word of this verse (Tpl) is to 
be construed with the first word of the next verse (^Hil) 
and the passage is to be rendered: 

And as for the wall of the temple, the door posts were squared; 
and as for the face of the Sanctuary &c. 

This is the alternative rendering given in the margin 
of the Revised Version. 

(14) Ezek. XLVI 22. It is now admitted by the best 
textual critics that the hybrid expression niJJipno at the 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorati; its Rise and Development. 333 

end of this verse which is rendered in the Authorised 
Version corners (margin cornered] and in the Revised 
Version in the corners, but which is here stigmatized by 
the Massorites, is spurious and hence is to be elided. Its 
absence from the ancient recension is also attested by the 
Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate. Accordingly the 
passage is simply to be translated: 

these four were of the same measure. 

(15) Ps. XXVII 13. - - In the Talmud (Berachoth 4 a) 
where the points on X^b are discussed, the following 
statement is made in the name of R. Jose who flourished 
in the second century: 

It is propounded in the name of R. Jose xblb has dots to indicate 
that David spoke before the Holy One. blessed be He, Lord of the universe. 
I believe in Thee that Thou wilt richly reward the righteous in the world to 
come, but I do not know whether I shall have my portion among them 
or not. 1 

From the words, therefore, but / do not know, or / 
do not believe, it is evident that he took the dots to cancel 
the first part of this expression and that he read it 
VUBNn tib I do not believe. In other recensions, however, 
the word was entirely elided as is attested by some MSS., 
the Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate. Accordingly 
the passage ought to be translated: 

I believe that I shall see 

The goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. 

The italic words / had fainted, both in the Authorised 
Version and in the Revised Version are an exegetical gloss. 
The words riBB^BI r60B^B or j6ff T'l [B pH PIBB^Bl fl^B^O 
X T1J33 which are found in some Massoretic Rubrics 



ra"pn *:sb TH I&K xbib by tips nab DV 'am rrawa torn 
jnv TK bz Kia 1 ? -\T\yb D'p-Hs: 1 ? am -OP obvn nn*w "[2 'JK ntamo abiy bv 

.IK"? Di Dirra p"?n *b c" DK 



334 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

are a later addition. They do not occur in the oldest re- 
cension of this Rubric which is contained in the St. Peters- 
burg Codex of A. D. 916, nor in the best MSS. 

These instances, however, must not be regarded as 
exhausting the List of spurious words. That there were 
many more expressions which were thus stigmatized, we 
incidentally learn from the differences which obtained be- 
tween the Western and the Eastern Schools of textual 
critics. Thus we are told in Codex Harley 5710 n British 
Museum, that whilst the Westerns have the Kal pxijfl to 
hinder, to dissuade, in the text (= 3TO) in Numb. XXXII 7 
and the Hiphil P&03H in the margin (= Kerf), the Easterns 
have pxijfi with the Massoretic note on it that the first 
Vav is dotted. 1 Again on Job XXXIX 15 the Massorah 
Parva in the Cambridge MS. Add. 465 remarks that the 
Easterns have dots on the Che fit (n) and Yod (' ) in DTP 
and the beasts of.* How many more such dotted words may 
still be found when other MSS. come to light, it is at 
present impossible to say. The important part of this record 
is the admission by the Sopherim themselves that the dots 
on the letters and words mark them as spurious, and that 
this admission is corroborated by the ancient Versions 
where some of the stigmatized expressions in question are 
actually not represented. 

VI. The suspended Letters. - The abnormal appearance 
of the pendent letters in certain words of the text exhibits 
another expedient to which the Scribes resorted to record 
the variations which obtained in the different Schools. Both 
the Talmud and the Massorah specify four passages in 
each of which a word has a suspended letter/ 1 They are 
as follows: 



'ci '-ip 'i by ipj jix':n 'xix-ia 1 ? ,-p px % :n -re pxi:n 

.-rh rvn *?r np: 'nnab rrm 2 

3 Corap. The Massorah, letter X, 230, Vol. I, p. 37 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 335 

(i) Judg. XVIII 30. The history of the .suspended 
\itji (3) in the passage before us is both important and 
instructive inasmuch as it throws light upon one of the 
principles by which the Sopherim were guided in the 
redaction of the Hebrew text. We are told that a wan- 
dering young Levite who is afterwards incidentally de- 
scribed as Jonathan the grandson of Moses (Judg. XVII 7 
with XXIII 30), became the priest of an idolatrous worship 
at a salary of ten shekels or twenty -five shillings a year in 
the house of Micah (XVII 8 13). Five spies of the tribe 
of Dan are sent to spy out the land for their tribe, and 
when they enter the house of Micah they recognise Jonathan. 
After saluting him they craftily entice him to enter into 
conversation with the chiefs of their army at the entrance 
of the court (XVIII i 16). Whilst Jonathan is thus busily 
engaged in talking, these spies clandestinely enter the upper 
chamber or chapel and steal the ephod, the teraphim and 
the images both graven and molten (17 18). Whereupon 
Jonathan not only sanctions the sacrilegious theft, but 
accompanies the Danite raiders. The Danites who thus 
become possessed of the stolen essentials of worship as 
well as of the officiating priest, establish a regular service 
and appoint the said "Jonathan the son of Gershom, the 
son of Moses" and his descendants to the priestly functions 
in the tribe of Dan (19 31). 

That this wandering Levite, this young Jonathan was 
the actual grandson and not a later descendent of Moses 
is evident from XX 28 where his contemporary Phineas 
is admittedly the grandson of Aaron. The two second 
cousins, therefore, lived about the same time. The fact, 
however, that the grandson of the great lawgiver should 
be the first priest of idolatry was considered both de- 
grading to the memory of Moses and humiliating to the 
national susceptibilities. Hence in accordance with one of 



336 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

their canons to avoid all cacophony the redactors of the 
text suspended the letter Nnn (j) over the name Moses 
(nttfQ), thus making it Manasseh. This is admitted by 
the most distinguished Jewish interpreters. Thus Rashi 
(1040 1 105 A. D.) states: "Because of the honour of Moses 
was the Nun written so as to alter the name. The A' mi, 
however, is suspended to tell thee that it is not Manasseh, 
but Moses." ' This was all the more easily effected since 
we are told that names were not unfrequently transferred 
from one individual to another, not because they indicate 
natural consanguinity or identity of person, but metaphori- 
cally to denote similarity of character. Jonathan was called 
the grandson of Manasseh because he did the deeds of 
Manasseh the idolatrous king (2 King XXI) and thus be- 
longed to the family of Manasseh. In illustration of this 
principle the Talmud adduces the following passages: 

'He shall lay the foundation thereof in his first-born and in his youngest 
son shall he set up the gates thereof [Josh VI 26]; so also it is said: 'In 
his days [i. e. Ahab's] did Hiel. of the house of Eli. build Jericho' (i Kings 
XVI 34]. Was not Hiel of the house of Joshaphat and was not Jericho in 
the territory of Benjamin? Why then is it put on Ahab? It is to indicate 
that sin is put upon the sinner. Similarly it is said 'aiid Jonathan, the son 
of Gershom, the son of Mafcasseh' [Judg. XVIII 30]. Was he then the sou 
of Manasseh and was he not the son of Moses? And why then is this matter 
put on Manasseh? It is to indicate that sin is put upon the sinner 2 (Tosephta 
Sanhedritt XIV 7, 8, p. 437, ed. Zuckermandel, Trier 1882). 

For this reason the name of Manasseh has actually 
been inserted into the text by one School of redactors 
without mentioning the suspended Nun, though in their 

'vb mSn pcnr:i DOT nx r\i:vh pi: ana rwa bv maa ':Ba ,nB p ' 

.mro K"?K niwa rrn X"?B> 

n-a btrn nja va-a naix xin pi rrnbi a-r vrpaei PC-ID" i-naaa 2 
x"?x axnxa rfrrv: no 1 ?! p<:a Swo irrvi BBWJTB bx'n x"?m irrv DK "^KH 
sin mp:o p '31 rur;o p orn: p fn:im 12 K^rr ,a'na nain p^intr nn^a 
.a^nr na-n pb'nr na'ro K'TK n:aa 121 n^n-: nia 1 ?! Kin nra p 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 337 

explanations they emphatically declare that it stands for 
Moses, 1 whilst another School have Moses with the sus- 
pended Nun over it. 2 It will thus be seen that whether 
they mention the suspended Nun or not, all the ancient 
authorities agree that Manasseh (ntWW) stands here for 
Moses (nttfft) and that it is so written to spare the repu- 
tation of the great lawgiver. This also accounts for the 
exclusion of Jonathan's name from the family register of 
Moses given in i Chron. XXIII 15, 16 and XXVI 24. 
Indeed the Chaldee paraphrase asserts that Shebuel (t'JOttf), 
which in the passages in question takes the place of 
Jonathan, is the name given to Jonathan after his con- 
version from idolatry and returning to the true God 
(*?iOtP = *?X y& he returned to the true God). Hence "it is 
Shebuel that is Jonathan the son of Gershom the son of 
Moses returned to the fear of the Lord". 3 The Septuagint, 
the Chaldee and the Authorised Version represent the 
redaction which has nttfjft Manasseh in the text, whilst the 
Vulgate and the Revised Version follow the School which 
read fltPE Moses. The early editions are divided. The first 
edition of the Prophets, Soncino 1485 86; the editio princeps 
of the entire Bible, Soncino 1488; the third edition of the 
Bible, Brescia 1494; the Complutensian Polyglot, and 
the Venice quarto 1521 have ntWQ without the suspended 
Nun, whilst the second edition of the Bible, Naples 1491 93; 
the Earlier Prophets, Pesaro 1511; the Rabbinic Bible by 
Felix Pratensis 1517; and the first edition of the Bible 

1 Comp. Baba Bathra 109 b; Aboth di Rabbi Nathan first recension 
XXXIV, fol. 500, ed. Schechter. London 1887; Mechiltha, Pericope IIIT 
XVIII i, fol. 57 &, ed. Friedmann, Vienna 1870. 

2 Jerusalem Berachoth IX, 2 ; Jerus. Sanhedrin XI, 7 ; Midrash Rabba 
on the Song of Songs II, 5, Wilna 1878; Aboth di Rabbi Nathan second 
recension XXXVII, fol. 49 b, ed. Schechter. 

7L Kr^T! 1 ? an neto -a nteha -s jro" xin tyra^ :t 

w 



338 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 1524 25 have 
nEttO with the suspended Xnu. 

(2) Ps. LXXX 14. The almost unanimous explanation 
of this passage by the ancient authorities as recorded in 
the Talmud and in the Midrashim supply us with the clue 
to the condition of the primitive text. In its briefest form 
the explanation is given in the Midrash Rabba on Levit. XI 

and is as follows: 

y 

The Ayin is suspended in IX'a to indicate that when Israel is in- 
nocent it will only be assailed by the swine of the River, but when it is 
guilty it will be destroyed by the boar from the forest. The river animal 
which comes out of the River is weak, whilst the animal which comes from 
the forest is strong.* 

In a more expanded form the same explanation is 
given in the Midrash on the Psalms and on the Song of 
Songs III 14 as well as in the Aboth di Rabbi Nathan. 
In the latter the explanation is as follows: 

The textual reading (2TI2) is the swine from the River and [the Keri 
is] the swine from the forest. When Israel does not act in accordance with 
the will of God, the nations, like the swine of the forest, will be upon them. 
Just as the boar of the forest kills man and tears animals and plagues the 
children of man, so all the time that Israel does not act in harmony with 
the will of God, the nations will kill them, damage them and hurt them. 
Bnt all the time that the Israelites do the will of God, the nations will not 
domineer over them no more than the swine of the River. Just as the swine of 
the River does not kill men nor destroy animals, so all the time that Israel 
performs His will, no nations nor tongue will kill them, damage them or hurt 
them. For this reason the textual reading is the swine from the River. 2 



Kin IJTM ia ib DXI IIXM ja DMT ax m^n pr ira i'in n 

:x'2aa XM rrb xrnn ja xpbc x'2aa K-n xin: ja xp*rB '2 xnvn Comp. 

Midrash Rabba Peniope '"81P Parasha XIII, fol. 19**, ed. Wilna 1878. 

bvnvr pxu jai2B? ,['p] ira inn ,138012" ,2712 nx"a i":n njao^ 11 J 
amn ir*a I-TH na ira TTPC avby man abirn maix Dipa bv I3i2i 
mpa bv 151*1 a'cir *?xic" pxtr ja: *?2 1,2 nix '22 npbai nrian nx p'tai 
^tr 1511:1 BTT 'PX-CT jar *?2i -jnix pp^ai ah: pp'rai ana p:nn a^iyn maix 
jnn irx TX- 're i"n na nx' bv Tiro pa r'rwia a'rirn rraix px Bipa 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 339 

This leaves it beyond the shadow of a doubt that the 
twofold reading in question is due to the primitive ortho- 
graphy in which, as we have already seen, both the silent 
or feeble letters Aleph (X) and Ay in (V) were frequently 
not expressed * The word in question was originally written 
TO which one School of textual redactors read TO = TX'O 
from the River, supplying Aleph and the other School read 
it TO = "1X??P from the forest, supplying Ay in. An instance 
of T standing for 1J^ in Phoenician is given by Schroder 
from the Tucca Inscription.' 2 This reading "!X0 from the 
River, was the more popular one in Palestine as is evident 
from other parts of the Talmud, where Ps. LXXX 14 is 
adduced to prove that iTjp fi-TI the wild beast of the reeds 
(Ps. LXVIII 31) is identical with the "ikp T?fl the swine 
of the River? The swine of the River like the beast of 
the reeds is most probably the hippopotamus and is here 
used as the symbol of Egypt or the empire of the Nile- 
valley. The comparative harmlessness which these Hagadic 
interpretations ascribe to this animal is due to the fact 
that under the Ptolomaic dynasties the Jews enjoyed many 
privileges, and many of them occupied positions of high 
rank. It was under the Roman occupation of Palestine 
and the Roman oppression of the Jews that the alterna- 
tive reading "IJJ'O TflPJ swine of the forest, became more 
popular. The Boar was the military sign of the Roman 



ins p-nn prcbi naiK p* i;iin pro? ^nww jai ta -p rrrna 1 ? p'ta irxi 

niK'tt Tin 3rGD "p^ jniK ppba Kb', jra pp'lfcl Comp. Rabboth di Rabbi 
Nathan first recension, cap. XXXIV, fol. 50 b, ed. Schechter, London 1887. 

1 Vide supra pp. 138 144. 

2 Comp. Die Phonizische Sprachc by Dr. Paul Schroder, p. 19, 
Halle 1869. 

3 "i:n Tin nsao-is^ STQ-I o-jpn pa n-nw ,Tn TUN nsp n"n -ir: PesacMm 

118 &; Comp. Graetz, Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des 

Judenlhums. Vol. XXIII, p. 389, Breslau 1874. 

W 



340 Introduction. [CHAK XI. 

legions and though Marius afterwards introduced the 
Eagle, the Boar still continued as the sign in some legions 
and especially of the army which was quartered in Palestine. 
The Romans then became as repulsive to the Jews as the 
swine and the ll^P Ttn the Boar, the symbol of Rome 
not only became the more acceptable reading, but was 
regarded as identical with the iron yoke of Roman tyranny. 
Hence the Septuagint, the Chaldee and the Vulgate 
read the boar out of the wood. As to its treatment in the 
early editions, the editio princeps of the Hagiographa, 
Naples 1486 87; the editio princeps of the entire Bible, 
Soncino 1488; the second edition of the Bible, Naples 
1491 93; the third edition of the Bible, Brescia 1494; the 
Complutensian Polyglot and the three quarto Bomberg 
editions 1518, 1521, 1525 have simply 117*0 and take no 
notice of the suspended letter Ay in. The Salonica edition 
of the Hagiographa 1515, as far as I can trace it, is the 
first which exhibits the suspended letter. It is also given 
in the first edition of the Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah 
by Jacob b. Chayim Venice 1524 25. It is remarkable that 
Felix Pratensis in his Rabbinic Bible 1517 makes the 
Ay in a majuscular letter. This is probably due to the fact 
that some ancient authorities regarded it as the middle 
letter of the Psalter. 1 

(3 and 4) Job XXXVIII 13, 15. In these two verses 
the expression D^ttf"! wicked, occurs and in both instances 
the letter Ayin (V) is suspended. Here too the explanation 
given by the ancient authorities indicates the state of the 
text. The remark on this passage is as follows: 

Why is the Ayin suspended in the word DTttH wicked? To indicate 
that if one has become chief upon earth, he will be poor in heaven In such 
case the Ayin should not have been written at all? R. Jochanan said it was 

1 Comp. Kiddushim 30 a. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 341 

written so as not to offend the dignity of David and R. Eleasar said rot 
to offend the dignity of Nehemiah son of Hachaliah ' (Sanhedrin 10, 3&). 

Whatever may be our opinion as to the value of 
this homiletic interpretation of the verse before us, 
there can be no doubt that according to the emphatic 
statement of these ancient authorities the Ayin (P) ori- 
ginally formed no constituent part of the word in 
question and that it was afterwards suspended over the 
word (D'tPI) out of respect for the two distinguished per- 



sonages in the Jewish commonwealth. The passages in 
question, therefore, afford another illustration of the fact 
that in the primitive orthography the feeble letters were 
frequently not expressed. Hence some Schools read it 
D^'l or Q^ttfNI poor, or chiefs, whilst in other Schools it 
was read D?ttf "1 = D'JJttf *l wicked. The latter is the reading ex- 
hibited in all the ancient Versions. As far as I can trace it, 
Jacob b. Chayim is the first who in the first edition of the 
Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah, Venice 1524 25, exhibits 
the suspended Ayin in both verses. The editio princeps of 
the Hagiographa, Naples 1486-87; the first, second, third 
and fourth editions of the entire Bible (Soncino 1488; 
Naples 149193; Brescia 1494; Pesaro 151117), the 
Salonica edition of the Hagiographa 1515, the Compluten- 
sian Polyglot, the first edition- of the Rabbinic Bible, by 
Felix Pratensis 1517 and all the three Venice quartos 
(1518, 1521, 1525) have the ordinary expressions D > J?tp l 1 and 
D'PtP'*10 without noticing in any way that according to the 
MSS. and the Massorah the Ayin is suspended in both 
these words. 

VII. The Inverted Nuns. Other remarkable pheno- 

mena exhibited in the Massoretic text are the Inverted 



bv p"T no ""jBa -own nan ynn D-IIK D<cna wa^i aroi na 4 
jsnr 'i bbz nsroj t6i -nbyiaba ttn rum ntsaba tin mx nriw JVD 
..T'wn p n-'an: bv mss mrca "ia im mi bv inns "jsa ia in -nybx ( -n 



342 Introduction. | < '/ 1 

Nuns (j) which the student will find in no fewer than nine 
passages ' and of which he obtains no solution in the 
margin except the bewildering remark against it An in- 
verted Nun (nSIDH [13) or A separated Nun (mtt30 pi). Yet 
these inverted letters or their equivalents are also among 
the earliest signs by which the Sopherim designed to indicate 
the result of their textual criticism. They are simply 
intended to take the place of our modern brackets to 
mark that the passages thus bracketed are transposed. 

That this is their original design is attested by the 
earliest authorities. Thus the Siphra on Numb. X 35 em- 
phatically declares that "these two verses are marked at 
the beginning and at the end to show that this is not their 
proper place". Though R. Jehudah the redactor of the 
Mishna in accordance with the later feelings would not 
admit that there is any dislocation in the sacred text and 
hence resorted to the fanciful explanation that the marks 
in question are designed to show that Numb. X 35, 36 
forms a separate book and that the Mosaic Law does not 
consist of Five, but of Seven Books, yet his father R. Simon 
b. Gamaliel still maintained the ancient view of dislocation 
and that the signs denote transposition. 2 In the Talmud 
(Sabbath \\$b ii6a) where the same ancient view is 
recorded as the teaching of the Rabbis that the signs 
indicate dislocation, and where the later opinion of 
R. Jehudah is also given, the verse "Wisdom hath builded 
her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars" in Prov. 



1 Comp. Numb. X 35, 36; Ps. CVII 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 40, and 
see The Massorah, letter 3, 15, Vol. II, p. 259. 

"2i iapa ,17 rrn hv :B8 ntsabai ''rraba rhy ip: pxn noj2 *rn 2 

nrniK ,TB 12 i-nrsi pnwtp IBC -nttx jtca iaa:rs IBD xintr -jBa nai 
':ea ntsabai nbra^o rbr ipa 'IK wi ,B'T,I n* sataa pxn ncn MI 

.22 Pjl 1C KpC'E 21 '21 "1BD nttpfi H7 HM 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 343 

IX, i is adduced 1 to show that the seven pillars denote 
the Seven Books of the Law which are obtained by taking 
Numb. X 35, 36 as constituting a separate book. For this 
makes the book Numbers into three books, viz.: (i) Numb. 
1 1 X 34; (2) Numb. X 35,36; and (3) Numb. XI i XXXVI 13. 
Nothing, however, can be more emphatic than the decla- 
ration of R. Simon b. Gamaliel who in accordance with 
the ancient view adds in the passage before us that "in 
future this Section, viz. Numb. X 35, 36, will be removed 
from here and be written in its proper place". 2 Its proper 
place, according to a later Talmudist, is in the description 
of the journeys and encampment of the tribes. The two 
verses belong to the journey of the Levites with the 
tabernacle and ought to follow immediately after Numb. 
II ly. 3 That the Inverted Nuns indicate here a dislocation 
of the text is also attested by the Septuagint. In the 
recension from which this Version was made, verses 35, 36 
preceded verse 34, so that the order of the verses in 
question is Numb. X 35, 36, 34 and this seems to be the 
proper place for the two verses. 

The other seven Inverted Nuns are confined to Ps. CVII. 
They bracket verses 23 28 and verse 39. But though the 
best MSS. and the Massorah distinctly mark the verses 
in question with the sign of dislocation, neither the Tal- 
mudic authorities nor the ancient Versions give us any 
indication as to where the proper place is for the bracketed 

nrwo m"pn n"? nrcy i: rums rwa -*n pn you TH ps-i un > 
'3sa *6x n: Kin DIPH ja *6 naiK "21 ,naipa nt p*w lai*? ntsabai nbra^a 
jnjr TX jam -a 'rKiaip ( -i ia*n n xhix jxas -laaty ^ea xin siwn nsctr 
.IB pp rotf :min "isc nraw ibs nratr n-nar naxn 
natr p'y :naipaa nnam jxaa npr^ntr IT ntrns n-i-nr iaix r'a r"i 2 

,D pp n 1 ? pis K xnoi3 jns S 2"n nnxi :cp p)i 

3 Comp. Sopherim VI, I ; Geiger, Jiidische Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaft 
und Leben, Vol. Ill, p. 80 82, Breslau 186465. 



344 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

sections. The Talmud which notices the fact that this 
Psalm has the signs, simply explains it homiletically. It 
says that "verse 23 &c. is furnished with signs like the 
particles of exception but and only in the Bible to indicate 
that the prayer of those who are in danger of shipwreck 
is only heard before the event is decreed by God, but is 
not heard after it has been decreed". 1 This is in accordance 
with the sentiments of the later Rabbins who, as we 
have often seen, manifested the greatest anxiety to obli- 
terate altogether, or to diminish as much as possible any 
indication that there are spurious words or letters in the 
text or that any 'of the sections are dislocated. Hence they 
explained away allegorically all the critical signs of the 
ancient redactors of the text. 

But though it is now difficult to say to what part of 
the Psalm the magnificent description of the sea-voyage 
belongs, it is comparatively easy to rearrange the 
passage in which the dislocation is indicated towards the 
end of the Psalm. As the text now stands the transition 
from verse 38 to 39 is inexplicable. The verses exhibit 
no logical sequence and verse 39 is without a subject. If, 
however, we avail ourselves of the critical indication given 
us by the ancient redactors that the verse before us 
is dislocated and put verse 40 before verse 39 we not 
only obtain a logical order, but have the missing subject 
for verse 39. We have thus 

Verse 40: He poureth contempt upon princes, 

And cause th them to wander in the pathless waste. 

39: And they are diminished and bowed down 
Through oppression trouble snd sorrow; 

41: But he setteth the needy secure from affliction, 

And maketh like a nock the families [of the afflicted]. 

ppx -j 1 ? -loi 1 ? miror ppni pse nvra-c jr6 TOP "lai nr:s DTI -H-IV 

.r n:n EK-I :ppj jrx ?-t -iw -inxb ppx pspj pn ITJ amp 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 345 

It must, however, not be supposed that the nine 
passages tabulated in the Massoretic Rubric as bracketed 
exhaust all the instances comprised in this category of 
critical remarks. We incidentally know from the Massorah 
Parva on Gen. XI 32 in the editio princeps of the Rab- 
binic Bible with the Massorah by Jacob b. Chayim 
Venice 1524 25 that there is also an Inverted Nun at the 
end of the chapters in question. This indicates that the 
death of Terah which is recorded in the last verse does 
not chronologically come before the Lord's command to 
Abraham to leave Haran with which chapter twelve begins 
and that it must have taken place after the departure of 
the patriarch. The verse in question must, therefore, be 
transposed. 1 

The treatment which these Inverted Nuns has received 
on the part of some of the later Massorites affords another 
striking illustration of the anxiety to obliterate all the 
early traces of critical signs as to the condition of the 
text. Instead of placing these brackets at the beginning 
and at the end of the verses which they are designed to 
indicate as dislocated, in accordance with nearly all the 
best Codices, some MSS. exhibit the inverted Nun in a 
word in the text itself which contains this letter in each 
of the nine passages. This curious device I have given in 
the Massorah. 2 

VIII. The Removal of Indelicate Expressions, Anthropo- 
morphisms &c. from the Text. Hitherto we have traced the 
phenomenal signs furnished in the text by the Sopherim 
themselves as indications of various readings which obtained 
in the Codices of the different Schools. These abnormal 



1 Comp. Geiger, Jiidische Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaft und Leben, 
Vol. I, p. 120, Breslau 1862. 

2 Comp. The Massorah letter 5, 15 a, Vol. II, p. 259. 



346 Introduction. fCHAI'. XI. 

appearances of the text though plain enough to decipher 
with the clue which the ancient records supply us, have 
yet evoked a difference of opinion on the part of some 
modern critics because later Talmudists allegorised or 
homiletically explained what was primarily intended as 
textual criticism. No such difference of opinion, however, 
can possibly be entertained about the statement made by 
the redactors of the text with regard to the principles 
by which they were guided in the work of redaction. 
The classical passage which sets forth these principles 
is as follows: 

In every passage where the text has an indelicate expression a euphemism 
is to be substituted for it. as for instance for nj'W ravish, violate, outrage 
[Deut. XXVIII 30; Isa. XIII 16; Jerem. Ill 2; Zech. XIV 2] n333BT to 
lie with, is to be substituted; for D'^Cr posteriors [Deut. XXVIII 27; 
I Sam. V 6; VI 4] read D'"i'nt3 emcrods; for D'3V"1PI dung, excrements or 
D'JV 'IPt doves' dung [>. Kings VI 25] read D'JVSI decayed leaves; for 
or arrin excrement [2 Kings XVIII 27; Isa. XXXVI 12] substitute 
deposit; for D!T3T urine [2 Kings XVIII 27; Isa. XXXVI 12] read 
"aa water of the feel; .for niKIHO 1 ? middens, privies [2 Kings X 27] 
substitute n'KJTtt 1 ? sewers, retreats.* Comp. Megilla 25 b; Jerusalem MegillalV. 

In accordance with this rule not only does the 
Massorah duly register these stigmatized expressions, 2 but 
all the MSS. of the Bible with the Massorah and every 
edition of the Massoretic text give in every instance the 
authoritative substitute as the official reading in the margin 
and furnish the consonants of the text itself with the 
vowel-signs which belong to the marginal reading. These, 
however, are simply typical examples and we shall see in 
the sequel that this principle was applied by the authori- 



p nsvh jrnx pip '*:> miro piron mx-ipan ?2 pan i:r\ l 
nmr -aa ns mnrbi nrr-nn HK bizxh D'srst n'jrin n-nntsa 
.re r6 '.mana 1 ? niK-ina 1 ? orr^n *a'a n mnw^i 

'* Comp. The Massorah, letter r, 722, Vol. II, 416; letter V, 138, 
Vol II, p. 607. 



CHAP. XI.] TheMassorah; its Rise and Development. 347 

tative redactors of the Sacred Scriptures far more ex- 
tensively to remove indelicate expressions and antropo- 
morphisms. 

IX. The Emendations of the Sopherim, The editorial 
principle thus laid down that indelicate expressions and 
anthropomorphisms are to be removed is also illustrated 
in the examples which the Sopherim have given of the 
passages altered in harmony with this canon. In the best 
MSS. there are remarks in the margin against certain 
readings calling attention to the fact that they exhibit 
"an emendation of the Sopherim". Thus in the St. Petersburg 
Codex of A. D. 916 which is the oldest dated MS. known 
at present, the Massorah Parva notices it in four different 
places. On Ezek. VIII 17 it states that it is "one of the 
eighteen emendations of the Sopherim". 1 On Zech. II 12 
the remark is somewhat different in form, but the same 
in purport and is as follows: "one of the eighteen emenda- 
tions of the Sopherim, the sages, their memory is for 
good and for a blessing"; 2 whilst on Mai. I 13 and III 8 
the Massoretic remark is the same as in the first instance. 
In two of these four passages the Massorah Magna gives 
the complete List of these eighteen alterations, viz. 
Ezek. VIII 17 and Zech. II 12. But though the Massoretic 
List gives the passages as emended, it does not state 
what the original text was which the Sopherim altered. 
Apart from the Massorah we possess no fewer than four 
separate and independent records which chronicle this 
important fact, and which illustrate it by adducing the 
passages wherein the alterations have been made. The 
variations in the number of the illustrations and the 
difference in the order in which the instances are adduced 



pp'n rr jo l 
raita 1 ? TB\ D'laan 'BID Ti rr ?a 2 



348 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

show that the records in question are independent of each 
other and that they are derived from different sources. 

The oldest record of these alterations is given in the 
Mechiltha on Exod. XV 7 and is as follows: 

(1) Zech. II 12 (A. V. v. 8): "For he that toucheth you toucheth the 
apple of his eye," but (he text is altered. So also 

(2) Mai. I 13: ''Ye said also, Behold what a weariness is it. 1 and ye 
have snuffed at it." but the text is altered. So also 

(3) I Sam. Ill 13: "For the iniquity which he knoweth. because his 
sons made themselves accursed." but the text is altered. So also 

(4) Job. VII so: "Why hast thou set me as a mark against thee so 
that I am a burden to myself? the text is altered. So also 

(5) Habak. I 10: "Art thou not from everlasting O Lord my God. 
mine Holy One? we shall not die." the text is altered. So also 

(6) Jerem. II 1 1: "Hath a nation changed their gods which yet are no 
gods? but my people have changed their glory." the text is altered. So also 

(7) Ps. CVI 20 : "Thus they have changed their glory into the similitude 
of an ox." the text is altered. 

(8) Numb. XI 15: "And Let me not see my wretchedness" the text 
is altered. So also 

(9) 2 Sam. XX i: "We have no portion in David .... every man to 
his tents O Israel"? the text is altered. 

(10) Ezek. VIII 17: "And lo, they put the branch to their nose," 
the text is altered. 

(n) Numb. XII 12: "When he cometh out of his mother's womb" 
should be otir mother's, the text is altered. 1 Mcchiltha 39#, ed. Friedmann. 
Vienna 1870. 

x"?x naix irx pp nass naix mirr 'si irp nsaa p:uo nna pm-n 
n:n bmaxi is xrra : siren nrar xbx nbpa 'B^a "?ia'aa STO irp naaa 
a-b^pa 'a PT IPX ppa is xrra tainan nrar x*?x imx anacm nxbna 
'JP rrnxi -\b rjca 1 ? "jnar na 1 ? ia wrva :ainan nrar *6x "ui a-6 
nra mas K^I DTI^X ""' mpa 'a^a nnx 6n n xn^a :ainan nra xtrab 
nj-a maa n-an "an D',-6x x 1 ? nani D'n"?x 'u -ram ia xxra : siren 
nra Tuna nxnx bxi : siren nj^a -w n^ana omaa nx in^a^i la xxva :ainan 
asm tainan nra bmr v^nx 1 ? trx fir] *ma p"?n ub px is xxra :ainan 
lai 1 ? ib mn uax nn-ia lax nn-ia inxsta :ainan nra DCX bx niiarn D'nbir 
nbra -c^a ^la'aa irr naas rrsa is r:un iaix nnx jxa t]x :ainan nra 
tob T xnb"aa "IBD : siren nratr xbx nana sinan 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 349 

In the Siphre (fol. 22 b; ed. Friedmann, Vienna 1864), 
where the same fact is recorded, only seven of the 
instances are adduced, since Nos. 2, 3, 7 and g which 
are given in the Mechiltha List are here omitted. For 
completeness sake I subjoin the text of the Siphri in the 
note. 1 It is also important to notice that the order in which 
the passages are enumerated differs in the two documents. 

The third record is contained in the Yalkut Shimeoni 
on Exod. XV 7, 247, p. 151, ed. Warsaw 1876. Though 
the List here given contains ten passages and might thus 
be almost considered identical with that given in the first 
record, a close examination of it will show its independence. 2 

It is the fourth record, given in the Midrash Tanchuma 
also on Exod. XV 7 (p. 83 a, ed. Wilna 1833) which is of 
the utmost importance in the discussion of the alterations 
of the Sopherim. The List in this document not only 
contains six more instances, viz. Gen. XVIII 22; 2 Sam. 
XVI 12; Hos. 10 7; Job. XXXII 3; Lament. Ill 20; 

nipa ^v iry naaa x"?x naxa uto py naa irr naaa yaaa ona ym-i ba 
'by rrnKi -]b yizftb -watt? nab ia xarra : ainan m-sw xbx rteye 's'ra "?ia<aa 
: ainan nrstr x"?x asx "?x niiarn nx a'n^irc nani 13 xatva : 'man nrsw sbx xtra 1 ? 
ia Kxra jainan nrsw *6 max K^I "rnp %-I^K 'n onpa nnx K^n -Q xrra 
nx naa am ia xatva :ainan nrbw "? aw baiK m n^ana omaa nx Trw 
tainan nraw x^x Tr-ia nxnx "?xi T'rra jn ^nxaa DX ann xa aain ^ nnr 
,33 B)i ned :ainan na^ats xbx ntra S 2n ^ax^ lax annia inxsta itrx ia xatr3 
x"?x -IB-IK la^x pr naaa iaix mirr ( -i la^y naaa raia naa raian "a 2 
isnx nnx ia x-3 tainan njsw xbx nata ainan nbro ''a^a bia^aa irr naaa 
pra iaix nnx ia xarvs : ainan naatr xbx mix anasm nx^na nan aniaxi 
xin nnx x"?n naix nnx ia sacra : ainan naarc xbx on 1 ? a^pa -a r-f itt>x 
'iai D^n'rx ^ia n^a^nn ia xarra : ainan naar x^x maa x 1 ? 'trnp \n^x *n anpa 
px 13 xarr3 : ainan naair xbx 'iai aniaa nx in^a 11 ! ia xafra : ainan naar xbx 
x^x 'iai lax onna inxara "itrx ia xarra :3inan naatr x^x 'iai ii-ia pbn lab 
: ainan na'atr xbx DBX 'rx nman nx n^n^ir nam 13 xacra tsinan naatr 
p)t nba n^-is x pbn "airatr taipb 11 t 'iai oaa yaian c'ra) ^ iaix nnx jxa ^x 

.70-1 W 



350 Introduction. [CHAP. 

2 Chron. X 16, but gives the original text in eleven out 
of the seventeen passages which it adduces and emphati- 
cally declares that the primitive readings were altered by 
the Members of the Great Synagogue or the Spiritual 
authorities who fixed the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. 1 
For the completion of the materials relating to this 
important branch of textual criticism and before discussing 
the merits of these alterations we have yet to mention 
the fact that the Massorah itself gives us a List of these 
alterations of the Sopherim with the original reading in 
every passage. The List is preserved in the following 
three of the Yemen MSS. in the British Museum; Orient. 1379, 
fol. 268 ; Orient. 2349, fol. io8a; and Orient. 2365, fol. 138 . 
In all the three MSS. the Massorah in question is given 
on Numb. XII 2. In Orient. 1397 and Orient. 2349 these 
alterations are not only ascribed to the Sopherim, but it 
is declared that according to the opinion of some Schools 
they were made by Ezra himself. As I have printed this 



inw x"?x -iaib i 1 ? rrn '3'JJ irp nsss y:i: 033 v:vn -3 naix xin pi ' 
nc33 'tt?;x D'-IBID pp'n xirro siren mm j"?ra 'B^s bis-ss -iai"?3 siren 
3 xan"s : siren mssw xbx Y11K Drown nxbna njn oniaxi 13 xrrs :nVn:n 
nab is xirs : siren in;sp xbx ns nns xbi 1-53 nnb D'bbpa '3 yr nux prs 
onpa nnx xbn is xrrs :ainsn injsw xbx xwo 1 ? TJ^J? .T.-IKI i 1 ? yjca 1 ? "jnatr 
K 1 ? nam D-nbx "u -rann is xrrs : siren in:3tr X^K DIQ^ x 1 ? ^np ^nbx 'n 
nx iTa-i 13 xrrs : siren injsr xbx b'rv xbs H133 n-an "an D'nbx 
xbx n-ax pbps H133 is xrrs : siren in33 xbx try b3ix nur n-:sn3 
STX nx irm nrra ixxa xb ^x *?r icx mn vjn ntfbtroi is xscvs : siren 
xn-s : siren rwsr x*?x *n ":E^ nair imr onnsxi is xsrs : siren inwtr xbx 
:"nri3 nx-ix bxi ~|"rrs jn -nxsa ox :inn x: "jnn '"? nnr nnx ,133 DXI is 
inisr xbx 13*1^3 "xn bsx'i 13SK orna inxxs irx nas Tin xj bx is xitrs 
nxi nnr bmw T'bnx 1 ? 'x " jS3 nbro xbi tins pbn i: 1 ? na is xn^s : siren 
"^p nwm ni37n "IIST JW^H n-a^n nstsi :i" t ?nx t ? bxnr 1 -"i mi 



mian nx D"nVtw ojrn pi timx j"nm nmnstr nvmx "?3 D-IBID vmr D-IBIC 
xainsn nno :3'P nssspji: ossrjisn "3 pe ^xi !D9X bx upn cm 

.rxpn nsr XD 1 ?"!! :JB *n 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 



351 



List in the Massorah 1 it is unnecessary to reproduce it 
here. I must also mention that a List of these Alterations 
with the original readings has been preserved in Orient. 1425 
which contains the MS. of the Hebrew Grammar called 
Maase Epliod by Prophiat Duran. In the heading (fol. 114^) 
the List is described as exhibiting the alterations made 
by Ezra and Nehemiah. 2 As it gives only fifteen instances 
and does not mention any number, it is evident that it 
emanates from a source prior to the Massoretic recension 
when the number was already fixed. In the excellent 
edition of this valuable work published by Friedlander 
and Kohn, Vienna 1865, the List is not given probably 
because it was not in the MSS. which these learned 
editors collated. 

It will be seen that in none of the documents in 
which these alterations are enumerated is any definite 
order followed in the respective instances adduced. The 



1 Comp. The Massorah, letter n, 206. Vol. II, p. 710 



rpami xi 


rp nnoio ppn 2 


sins ,T,I *:tb 1)212 v>1 i 


vi ^a^ noiy i3-ny nnnaxi 


'ins ,IM yona 


"nyia niK bxi 


'ins n<n 13BK BIT-IB 


IBK ania 


ins rrn ib 


rsa an 1 ? n^^ps ^s 


ins rrn vnb&6 WK 


bKiu' 1 rbnx 1 ? tr^K 


'ins ,IM mas 


mas "ran 'an 


'ins n^n ^SK bx 


BBK b& niian 


'ins ffn w 


ryy nsss r;i3 ana r^isn 


'ins ,IM 'nix 


miK D'bbnKt anxi 


'ins rrn "niK 


mix anssm 


'ins nM "j^r 


Ktra'? 'by .Tnni 


'ins rrn rrw 


>rya v "' nKT 1 ^IK 


'ins n^n iB3 


't^BS ^TT mtrm 


ins ,T,I i3ia 


118O 'Sn bSK 11 ! 


'ins nM a'ttrc ar 


av n lyipn 11 ! 



ppn an 



352 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

List in each of the records has a sequence of its own. 
For the convenience of the student, however, I shall 
discuss the passages in the order in which they occur in 
the Hebrew Bible. 

(i) Gen. XVIII 22. -- "But Abraham stood yet before 
the Lord." Of the Lists in the four records, the Tanchuma 
List is the only one which adduces this passage as 
exhibiting an alteration of the Sopherim. It is also given 
in both Lists of the oldest Massorah 1 contained in the 
St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916 and in all the three 
Massoretic Rubrics in Orient. 1379, Orient. 2349 and 
Orient. 2365 in each of which it is emphatically stated 
that it ought to be, or that the original reading was "but 
the Lord stood yet before Abraham" only that the text was 
altered. 2 To the same effect, but in somewhat simpler 
language is the declaration in the ancient List preserved 
in the Maase Ephod that the text was originally and the 
Lord still stood before Abraham, but that it was altered 
by Ezra and Nehemiah into its present from. With such 
an emphatic declaration before us, both in the ancient post- 
Biblical records and in the Massorah itself, it seems almost 
superfluous to point out that it would be most incomprehen- 
sible for the redactors of the text to state that they have 
here altered the text and also to give the original reading 
when they had in fact done no such thing. The context, 
moreover, and the logical continuity of the narrative show 
beyond doubt that the primitive text was what the 
Sopherim and the Massorah state it to have been. It was 
the Lord who came down to see and to tell Abraham 
whether the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah had acted 
in accordance with the bitter cry which went up to 



Comp. the St. Petersburg Codex Ezek. VIII 17 and Zech. II 12. 

.2iron nrse 1 *6K orrax *ith tar imp mm -IKI rrn 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 353 

heaven; it was the Lord, therefore, who stood before 
Abraham; it was to the Lord's immediate presence that 
Abraham drew nigh, and it was the Lord who departed 
from Abraham when the patriach left off interceding with 
Him (Gen. XVIII 21, 22, 33). As the phrase to stand 
before another is sometimes used in the Scriptures to 
denote a state of inferiority and homage 1 it was deemed 
derogatory to the Deity to say that the Lord stood before 
Abraham. Hence in accordance with the above rule to 
remove all indelicate expressions the phrase was altered 
by the Sopherim. 

(2) Numb. XI 15. All the four ancient records and 
the Massoretic Lists give this passage as exhibiting an 
alteration of the Sopherim. The three Yemen MSS. and 
the Massorah preserved in the Maase Ephod state the text 
originally was "kill me I pray thee out of hand if I have 
found favour in thy sight that I may not see ("jmnD) thy 
evil", i. e. the evil or punishment wherewith thou wilt visit 
Israel. As this might be so construed as to ascribe evil 
to the Lord, the Sopherim altered it into "that I may not 
see (^nins) my evil" which the Authorised Version and the 
Revised Version render "my wretchedness". From the 
rendering of the Jerusalem Targum "that I may not see 
the evil of thy people" it is evident that in some Schools 
the textual reading was TSJJ Dins or DnPID. 2 

(3) Numb. XII 12. - - "Let her not, I pray, be as the 
dead born child which when it comes out of its mother's 
womb, has half its flesh consumed." This we are told by 
all the ancient authorities is a correction of the Sopherim 
and that the text originally was: "Let her not, I pray, be 
as the dead born child, which when proceeding from our 

1 Comp. Gen. XVIII 8; XLI 16; Deut. I 38; X 8; XVIII 7 &c. 



354 Introduction. [CHAP. XI 



mother's (13SN) womb the half of our flesh (Wlfett) is con- 
sumed." This was regarded as derogatory to the mother 
of the great lawgiver by depicting her as having given birth 
to a partially decomposed body. The simile was, therefore, 
altered from the first person plural into the impersonal. 
(4) i Sam. Ill 13. - - "Because his sons did bring a 
curse upon themselves and he restrained them not" or as 
the Authorised Version has it "because his sons made 
themselves vile" margin "accursed". It is now admitted 
that this rendering cannot legitimately be obtained from 
the text as it now stands since the Piel ^p does not 
mean to bring a curse upon any one, but to curse and is 
never followed by the dative, but the accusative. All the 
ancient authorities, however, emphatically declare that this 
is not the original reading, and that the text exhibits one 
of the alterations of the Sopherim. According to some 
authorities, the text originally was ^ D^pB they cursed me, 
i. e. God. But though this undoubtedly yields the original 
sense and supplies the reason for the alteration, it is 
exposed to the same grammatical difficulty as the present 
text since ^p is never construed with the dative. There 
can, therefore, be no doubt that the Septuagint has 
preserved the original reading D^rt^N God, viz. "because 
his sons cursed God" (comp. Exod. XXII 27), which is 
also exhibited in the margin of the Revised Version and 
is now accepted by the best critics. In their effort to 
soften the offensive statement that the sons of Eli openly 
blasphemed God, and that he did not reprimand them the 
Sopherim were most anxious to alter the text as little as 
possible. They, therefore, restricted themselves to the 
simple omission of the two letters Aleph (X) and Yod (') 
and indeed of only the one letter Aleph since the Yod, as 
we have seen, was frequently absent in the primitive 
orthography thus converting Dil^N Goa into Di"l^ them. 



CHAP. XI. J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 355 

(5) 2 Sam. XVI 12. Before considering the alteration 
which the Sopherim introduced into this passage it is 
necessary to remark that the text here exhibits three different 
recensions. We have in the first place the textual reading 
or the Kethiv "the Lord will look (^IPS) on mine iniquity", 
which is interpreted "the iniquity" or "wrong done unto 
me" and which is adopted in the Revised Version. Then 
we have the official Keri "the Lord will look ('rS?3) on 
mine eye", which is explained to stand for "my tears" and 
which is followed in the margin of the Authorised Version. 
And then again we have the reading "the Lord will look 
0?3P3) on my affliction" , which is exhibited in the Septuagint, 
the Syriac and the Vulgate, and which is followed in the 
text of the Authorised Version, and is noticed in the 
margin of the Revised Version. It will be seen that in 
both the textual reading or Kethiv (^1^3) on mine iniquity, 
and the official reading or Keri (^I?3) on mine eye, we 
have to resort to artificial explanations to obtain a tolerable 
sense. In tlie first instance we are told that "mine iniquity" 
stands for the iniquity or wrong done to me and in the 
second instance it is stated that "mine eye" stands for 
my tears. The ancient authorities, however, emphatically 
declare that the passage before us exhibits an alteration 
of the Sopherim and that the text originally was "the 
Lord will behold (1^173) with his eye". In harmony with the 
recensional canon that anthropomorphisms are to be 
removed, the reading that the Lord will see with his 
own eye was altered by the simple process of substiting 
the letter Yod (">) for Vav ("]) at the end of the word 
thus converting the suffix third person into the first 
person. 

(6, 7 and 8) 2 Sam. XX i . "Every man to his tents, 
O Israel" we are told in the Mechiltha, which contains the 

earliest record on*this subject, that this is not the original 

x* 



356 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

reading, but that it exhibits an alteration of the Sopherim. 
Originally the text read "every one to his gods, O Israel". 
The rebellion against the house of David was regarded 
as necessarily involving apostasy from the true God and 
going over to idolatry. It was looked upon as leaving 
God and the Sanctuary for the worship of idols in tents. 
But this impudent challenge of Biehri the man of Belial 
was regarded as a contemptuous defiance of, and derogatory 
to the God of Israel which apparently escaped with 
impunity. Hence the Sopherim transposed the two middle 
letters of the word and Vl"6x^ to his gods, became vSlX 4 ? 
to his tents. For this reason the ancient authorities tell us 
the expression in question was also altered in the same 
phrase in i Kings XII 16 and 2 Chron. X 16 which record 
a similar event. 

(9) Jerem. II 1 1 . - The ancient records emphatically 
declare that the original reading here was: "but my people 
hath changed (H133) my glory", and that the Sopherim 
altered it into: "but my people hath changed (11133) his 
glory. The same reverend motive which underlies the 
alteration with regard to the name of God in the preceding 
passage determined the change here. The expression 1133 
glory, was considered to denote the visible manifestation 
of the Deity, i. e. the Shechinah. To say, therefore, that 
the Israelites changed this Supreme Glory for an idol was 
deemed too bold a statement and derogatory to the Lord. 
Hence the alteration of the suffix first person to the third 
person which was easily effected by the substitution of 
the Vav (1) for the Yod (). And though "his glory" may 
also refer to the Lord yet it leaves room for a divergence 
of opinion and at all events removes the harshness of the 
sentence. The ancient Versions exhibit this alteration of 
the Sopherim which is also followed both in the Authorised 
Version and in the Revised Version. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 357 

(10) Ezek. VIII 17. -- "And lo, they put the branch 
to (DSK) their nose", we are told by all the ancient autho- 
rities is a correction of the Sopherim and that it was 
originally: "and lo, they put the branch to (BK) my nose", 
i. e. face. To understand the alteration here effected it is 
necessary to examine the context. The Lord here enumerates 
the great abominations which the house of Judah has 
committed in His very Sanctuary. He states that they 
have not only profaned His altar by introducing the 
idolatrous sun-worship into the Temple of the Lord, "but 
still further to provoke me to anger they scornfully display 
the branch which is used as an emblem in this abominable 
worship into ('SX) my very nostrils". This bold anthropo- 
morphism was afterwards regarded as derogatory to the 
supreme Deity and hence in accordance with the prescribed 
canon was altered by the Sopherim. 

(n) Hosea IV 7. "I will change their glory into 
shame" exhibits another alteration of the Sopherim. The 
ancient authorities state that the original reading here 
was H1D3 my glory, instead of D1133 their glory. But it is 
evident from the context that this only exhibits partially 
the alteration which the Sopherim introduced here, since 
"I will change my glory into shame" is both against the 
context and against the principle which underlies these 
alterations. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the 
alteration also included the verb which as the Mechiltha 
rightly points out was originally TOPI or 'ITDH Hiphil 
preterite third person, i. e. they have changed, instead of 
TON future first person singular, i. e. / will change. Accord- 
ingly the text originally read: 

My glory they have changed into shame 

which the Sopherim altered into: 

Their glory I will change into shame. 



358 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

This is in perfect harmony with the alteration recorded 
in No. 9. 

(12) Hab. I 12. - "Art thou not from everlasting, 
O Lord my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die." All 
the ancient records emphatically state that this exhibits 
the corrected text by the Sopherim and that the original 
reading was: 

Art thou not from everlasting? 

O Lord my God, mine Holy One, thou diest not. 

The parallelism plainly shows that this is the correct 
reading. The address in both clauses is to the Lord who 
is described in the first clause as being from everlasting 
and in the second clause as never dying or enduring for 
ever. The introduction, therefore, of a new subject in the 
plural with the predicate "we shall not die" thus ascribing 
immortality to the people is contrary to the scope of the 
passage. Not only has the Chaldee preserved the original 
reading by paraphrasing it "thy word endureth for ever", 1 
but Rashi (1040 1 105) makes it the basis of his explanation. 
"The prophet says why art thou silent to all this. Art 
thou not from everlasting my God, mine Holy One, who 
diest not." 2 It is very remarkable that the Revised Version 
which has not noticed any other of the alterations of the 
Sopherim has the following note in the margin on this 
passage: "according to an ancient Jewish tradition thou 
diest not". The reason for the alteration is not far to seek. 
It was considered offensive to predicate of the Lord 
"thou diest not". Hence "we shall not die" was sub- 
stituted. 

.]'K>byb D'p "pa'a ' 

1CK THJ5 TfeK B-Ipa HHK X*?n TKT bzb STlflD HIS 1 ? nn*l X'SJn 10K 2 

pi 'iron ru-str Kin x^paar D-IBID -sipna inx ma: x 1 ? nnatr rrn man xb 
x*?n nmTB inT a-iBian jip-n 'tbi ^IB-BS a-tp-nsan nsin p- ^ni anneni 

.ITS maS 'D:nn ^x Tinp a-ipa -nbx nnx 






CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 359 

(13) Zech. II 12 in the Hebrew II 8 in the Authorised 
Version. Here the original reading, which was : "he that 
toucheth you toucheth the apple of (^J?) my eye", has 
been altered by the Sopherim into: "he that toucheth you 
toucheth the apple of (1^1?) his eye", i. e. as if one were 
to touch the apple of his own eye. Though "the eye of 
the Lord" is not unfrequently used in the Bible l yet "the 
apple of my eye" ('^$7 rD3) occurs no where else. It was, 
therefore, regarded derogatory to the Deity that he himself 
should ascribe to himself so pronounced an anthropo- 
morphatic feature. 2 Hence in accordance with the rule 
which underlies these alterations the Yod ('<) was changed 
into Vav (1) as in the case of the alteration exhibited in 
No. 9. 

(14) Malachi I 13. All the ancient authorities 
emphatically declare that the original reading here was: 
"ye have snuffed (^rilX) at me", and that the Sopherim 
have altered it into: "ye have snuffed (InlX) at it", because 
it was regarded derogatory to the Lord to apply to him 
such an offensive predicate. That the text had originally 
'rilN at me is, moreover, attested by Rashi who plainly 
says: "this is one of the eighteen alterations of the 
Sopherim. The textual reading TDlX at it, was originally 

at me, but the passage was altered and they [i. e. 



1 Comp. Ps XXXIII 18 with Jerem. XXIV 6; Ezek. V ii; VII 4 &c. 

2 In Deut. XXXII 10 the phrase is not exactly the same since it is 
here UT J1$K? which is also translated as the apple of his eye. There was 
no necessity for any alteration here because the expression does not necessarily 
refer to God. The passage may mean God kept Israel as one keeps the apple 
of his eye. The Septuagint, the Jerusalem Targum and the Syriac omit the 
article altogether, i. e. he kept Israel as the eye-apple, whilst Onkelos, who 
translates the passage in the plural, renders the suffix also in the plural, i. e. 
he kept them as the apple of their eye. Comp. Geiger, Urschrift und Ueber- 
setzungen der Bibel, p. 324, Breslau 1857. 



360 Introduction. [CHAI. XI. 

the Sopherim] substituted for it IfllN at it". { St. Jerome 
must also have known this fact since he thinks that we 
might read Tlltf at me? and indeed this reading is found 
in many MSS. 

(15) Ps. CVI 20. "They changed (DnlaS) their glory." 
This we are told exhibits one of the alterations of the 
Sopherim. The original reading was: "they changed (H133) my 
glory", but it was altered because the statement that the 
Israelites changed God's visible Shechinah for the image of 
an ox was deemed derogatory to the Divine Being. The 
reason, therefore, which underlies this alteration is exactly 
the same which induced the changes in the passages marked 
Nos. 9 and n. It is to be remarked that both some MSS. 
of the Septuagint and the Vulgate exhibit the reading 1*Tl33 
his glory, in the third person, i. e. God's glory or Shechinah. 

(16) Job. VII 20. - According to the testimony of 
the ancient records the original reading of this passage was: 

Why hast thou set me as a mark for thee 
And why have I become a burden unto thee? 

This reading is still preserved in the Septuagint and 
is demanded by the parallelism and the context. The 
declaration, however, on the part of Job that he had 
become a burden to God was considered by the redactors 
of the text as bordering on blasphemy. Hence the Sopherim 
altered T^P unto thee, into ^y unto myself, by the simple 
process of omitting the single letter Caph ("]). Ibn Ezra 
(1088 1177) one of the most distinguished Jewish commen- 
tators of the middle ages boldly declares that "though 

na"2 x"?x arc: TIIK mix nnnen ,'nciD ppn hv "n-n IT-IS nn it i 

imK nroi "iron 

3 Ut in Hebraeo legi potest. et exsufflastis me, haec dicendo, non 
sacriticio, sed mihi cui sacrificabatis. fecistis injuriam. Comp. the article on 
the Tikun Sopherim by the Rev. Oliver Turnbull Crane in the Hebraica, 
Vol. Ill, p. 243, 1887. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 361 

*^y unto myself is an alteration of the Sopherim neverthless 
in explaining the passage it is best to ignore this alteration". 1 

(17) Job. XXXII 3. - - "And yet they had condemned 
(31'N) Job", exhibits an alteration of the Sopherim. According 
to the List of these alterations preserved in the Maase 
Ephod the text originally was "and because they had 
condemned (DTl^N) God." The context shows that the 
original reading is preferable to the emendation. Job's 
three friends came to prove that God's providential dealings 
towards the afflicted patriarch were perfectly just, inasmuch 
as his sufferings were the merited punishment for his 
sinful life. But instead of vindicating the Divine justice 
they ceased to answer Job because he was right in their 
eyes (DiT^PSl as the Septuagint rightly has it) and they 
thereby inculpated the conduct of God. The expression, 
however, "and they condemned God" was considered 
blasphemous and hence Job was substituted for God. 

(18) Lamentations III 20. - - "And my soul ('ttJ'Di) is 
humbled in me," according to the testimony of the ancient 
authorities and the Massorah is another alteration of the 
Sopherim. The original reading was: "and (f^Di) thy soul 
will mourn over me" or "will condescend unto me". The 
most cursory examination of the context will disclose the 
fact that the original reading restores the logical sequence, 
the true rhythm and the pathetic beauty of the text. We 
need only read the three verses together which form the 
stanza to see it: 

Verse 19: Remember my misery and my forlorn state 

the wormwood and the gall. 
20 : Yea verily thou wilt remember 

and thy soul will mourn over me. 
21: This I recall to my heart. 

therefore, I have hope 



pp'n *6n Kin -wia im-wip BTK ontio pp-n Kwab "hs rrnxi l 



362 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

The expression, however, "ihy soul (?[IPD3) will mourn" 
as applied to God ; was considered an offensive anthropo- 
morphism and, therefore, the Sopherim in harmony with 
the rule which underlies all these corrections, altered it 
into my soul (^'D3) and thus marred the beauty and pathos 
of the stanza. 

These passages, however, are simply quoted as 
typical instances and are by no means intended to be 
exhaustive. Hence none of the above named ancient 
documents specify the exact number of the Sopheric 
alterations, but simply adduce sundry examples to illustrate 
the principle that indecent and anthropomorphatic ex- 
pressions are to be altered by the authoritative redactors 
of the text. Hence too the different records vary in the 
number of the examples which they respectively quote. 
The Siphri adduces seven passages, the Yalkut ten, the 
Mechiltha eleven and the Tanchuma seventeen passages. 
That there were other passages in which identically the 
same or similar phrases occurred in the primitive text 
and that they too underwent the same process of alteration 
in accordance with the canon to remove indelicate and 
improper expressions will be seen from the following 
considerations. 

The oldest Massorah in the St. Petersburg Codex of 
A. 0.916, which registers these alterations of the Sopherim, 
adds two more examples which are not given in any of 
the ancient documents. And though the catchwords are 
simply given without mentioning what the original reading 
was which the Sopherim altered, there is no difficulty in 
ascertaining it by the light of the other Sopheric alteration 
and by bearing in mind the principle which underlies these 
changes. 

The catchword for the first change is D^PIQ = 
Malachi I 12. This indicates that originally the text was: 



CHAP. XI ] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 363 



"ye have polluted me" (comp. Ezek. XIII 19), 
and that 'filX me has been altered into IniX him, in ac- 
cordance with the same alteration which we are told the 
Sopherim made in verse 13, for though this does not 
alter the sense it softens it by obviating the direct 
reference to God. Possibly the alteration may also have 
included the catchword itself. The original reading may 
have been Vl1X D^ptt ye have cursed me, and the Koph 
(p) has been changed into Cheth (PI). 

The catchword for the second change is D*J?lp which 
manifestly refers to Malachi III 9. The original reading 
here was: "with a curse ye have cursed" (D'*nX), the active 
participle as is evident from the parallelism: 

Ye have cursed with a curse 
And ye have robbed me. 

As this cursing was pronounced against God which 
was blasphemy in the highest degree, the active was 
changed into the passive by the substitution of Nun (3) for 
Mem (ft) which now makes this clause quite detached 
from the rest of the sentence. The anxiety to mitigate 
this clause is also seen from the recension which the Greek 
translators had before them since the Septuagint exhibits 
DW DDK PIX'ISSl in a vision ye have seen. 

X. Impious expressions towards the Almighty. We 

have now to adduce a few passages into which changes 
have been introduced by the authorised redactors of the 
text, but which are not expressly mentioned in the 
official Lists. Foremost amongst these are instances in 
which the original reading described blasphemy or cursing 
God. Such profane phrases were deemed offensive to the 
ears of the devote worshippers when the Scriptures were 
read publicly before the congregation. It was the anxiety 
to mitigate these harsh and impious expressions towards 
the Almighty which gave rise to the editorial canon in 



364 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

accordance with which the Sopheric alterations were 
made. 

2 Sam. XII 14. - - "Howbeit, because by this deed 
thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the 
Lord to blaspheme." In looking at the context it will be 
seen that David is charged by the Prophet with having 
committed the twofold crime of adultery and murder for 
each of which the Divine Law imposed the penalty of death 
(Levit. XX 10; XXIV 17). As an absolute monarch none 
of his subjects dared to enforce the penalty. Hence it 
was David himself who by his scandalous violation of 
God's Law preeminently blasphemed the Lord though in 
a secondary sense he also gave occasion for others to follow 
his example. Such harsh conduct towards God, however, 
which in ordinary cases offended the feelings of the pious, 
was in this particular instance more especially intolerable. 
The direct predicate that the Shepherd King, the sweet 
Singer of Israel that he had blasphemed the Lord was, 
therefore, mitigated by the insertion of the expression 
^fc the enemies of, so that the original reading thou 
hast greatly blasphemed the Lord became "thou hast given 
great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme". 
That this is an official alteration is attested by Rashi, one 
of the most illustrious Jewish expositors of the middle 
ages and the most faithful depository of the ancient 
traditions. He emphatically declares: "This is an alteration 
due to the reverence for the glory of God." 1 The alteration 
is, moreover, indicated by the fact that f>K3 the Piel, which 
occurs no fewer than thirteen times, never denotes to cause 
to blaspheme, but to blaspheme, to curse, to contemn, to 
provoke &c. and is universally rendered so even in the 
Authorised Version and in no single instance in the sense 



-1133 -pi ,-n Kin 'i 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 365 

of the Hiphil. 1 The text, therefore, as it now stands can 
only mean "because thou hast greatly blasphemed the 
enemies of the Lord" which is nonsense. 

Ps. X 3. Still more remarkable is the instance 
before us which exhibits the same phrase. This verse 
literally translated is as follows: 

For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, 

And the robber blesseth blasphemeth the Lord. . 

It will be seen at once that the expression Ipa he 
blesseth, is a marginal gloss on the word f*JO he blasphemeth, 
which in accordance with the principle underlying these 
alterations, is designed to remove the harsh and impious 
phrase "he blasphemeth the Lord". The text, therefore, 
exhibits a blending of the two recensions which obtained 
in two different Schools, viz. the School which had the 
primitive reading HliT P&O he blasphemeth the Lord, and the 
School which substituted for it HlfT "rpjl he blesseth the Lord.' 2 

t : | - - 

Some idea of the extraordinary expedients to which trans- 
lators and commentators, by ignoring this fact, have 
resorted in order to make an intelligible sense from the 
text as it now stands may be gathered from the Authorised 
Version and the Revised Version. The Authorised Version 
renders the verse: 

For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire 
And blesseth the covetous whom .the Lord abhorreth 
Margin Or. 

And the covetous blesseth himself he abhorreth the Lord 

1 Comp. Numb. XIV II, 23; XVI 30; Deut. XXXI 20; I Sam. II 17; 
Isa. I 4; V 24; LX 14; Jerem. XXIII 17; Ps. X 3, 13; LXIV 10, 18. 

2 In verse 13, however, of this very Psalm where the same phrase 
occurs, there does not seem to have been any euphemistic gloss and hence 
the redactors left the original reading alone. The same is the case in Isa. I, 4. 
Like the other editorial principles this canon for reasons which we cannot 
at present discuss, was not uniformly acted upon. 



36 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

whilst the Revised Version translates it: 

For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire 
And the covetous renounceth yea contemneth the Lord 
Margin Or. 

And blesseth the covetous, but revileth the Lord. 

Still more objectionable and more offensive to the 
ear was the phrase "to curse the Lord". The official 
redactors of the text have, therefore, substituted in cases 
where it occurred, the same euphemistic expression "pD 
to bless, for the original reading ^?p to curse, or fllJ to 
blaspheme. 

i Kings XXI 10, 13. We are told here that 

Jezebel suborned two worthless fellows to testify that 
Naboth had blasphemed both God and the king for which 
the Law imposed the penalty of death (Levit. XXIV 16; 
Deut. XIII 9, 10). But the Hebrew as it now stands, says 
the very reverse, inasmuch as it literally means: "Thou 
didst bless (PO"12) God and the king". In both the Authorised 
Version and the Revised Version the principle which 
underlies this reading in the original is entirely obscured, 
because the verb in question is rendered blaspheme, 
renounce, curse &c. The verb "p3 to bless, has no such 
antiphrastic and euphemistic sense. The assertion that 
because it is used as a salutation both in meeting and 
parting, 1 therefore, it came to denote by a process of 
evolution to renounce, to blaspheme, to curse &c. is contrary 
to the very nature of its usage. Both in meeting and 
parting it expresses the kindliest sentiments, wishes for 
happiness and friendship and not a single instance can be 
adduced in which it is used even by implication to denote 
parting for ever in a hostile sense, much less to convey 
the idea of blaspheming or cursing. Such desperate 

' Comp. 2 Kings IV 29; Prov. XXVII 14; I Chron. XVI 43 &c. 



CHAP. XI | The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 367 

expedients at artificial interpretation would never have 
been resorted to if the canon adopted by the redactors 
of the text had been sufficiently attended to. Some of the 
best modern critics, however, now acknowledge that the 
original reading here was either Dp^ll as the Chaldee has 
it or n^p as it is in the Syriac and these are the two 

T : - I- <> 

alternative readings which I have given in the notes on 
this passage in my edition of the text. 

The sense of Ipa to Ness being now definitely 
extablished and the redactorial principle which underlies 
its substitution for ^p to curse, in the text having been 
duly set forth, it is superfluous to discuss the instances 
in Job in which the same Sopheric alterations have been 
introduced. Some of the best critics now admit that the 
original reading in all the four passages in question was 
^p, 1 whilst others unhesitatingly exhibit it in the text. 
In accordance with my principle, however, not to alter 
the Massoretic text I have given the primitive reading in 
the notes with the introductory remark V'3 = // appears to 
me, I am of opinion, it ought to be, because though the 
reading is perfectly certain there is no MS. authority 
for it. 

XI. The safeguarding of fhe Tcfragrammaton and other 
Divine Names. - - Without entering into a discussion on the 
pronunciation or signification of th.e Divine Name mfT which 
is beyond the scope of this section, we have yet to call 
attention to the fact that the Jews from time immemorial 
have regarded with the utmost sacredness and reverence 
this incommunicable Name of the most High God, and that 
the awe manifested for the Tetragrammaton has played an 
important part in the redaction of the text. Throughout 
the Hebrew Bible wherever miT occurs by itself, it has 

1 Comp Job. 15. II; II 5, 9. 



368 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 



not its own points, but those which belong to ^1X Lord, 
only that the Yod (^) has the simple Sheva instead of the 
Sheva Pathach == Chateph Pathach (') and is pronounced 
Adonai == KVQIOS, and when miT '31X occur together iYliT 
is pointed in the Massoretic text n1n > with the vowel points 
which belong to D^rt^X God. 1 Owing to this extreme re- 
verence for the Ineffable Name the redactors of the text not 
unfrequently safeguarded it by substituting for it either ^1K 
Lord, which is followed throughout the Septuagint and the 
New Testament, or DTl^X God. 

In illustration of this fact I shall restrict myself to 
a few of the parallel passages which record identically 
the same events and about which there cannot possibly 
be any doubt. Both in 2 Sam. V 1725 and i Chron. 
XIV 8 17 David's encounter with the Philistines is 
described. In Samuel the Tetragrammaton (HliT) is used 
throughout the description, whereas in Chronicles God 
(D^rfttf) is substituted for it as will be seen from the 
following: 

2 Samuel V I Chronicles XIV 

V 19 And David enquired of (!"ll!"P) XIV 10 And David enquired of 

the Lord (DVI^K) God 

20 the Lord hath broken forth upon _ ii God hath broken in upon 

mine enemies mine enemies 

23 and David enquired of the n 14 and David enquired again 

Lord of God 

24 for then shall the Lord go out 15 f r G d is g ne out before 

before thee thee 

25 and David did so as the Lord 16 and David did as God corn- 

commanded him. manded him. 

The same is the case in the description of the removal 
of the ark to the city of David of which we have also a 
duplicate record, one in 2 Sam. VI and one in i Chron. XIII 
as will be seen from the following: 

* Comp. The Massorah, letter X. 116. Vol. i. p. 26. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 369 

2 Samuel VI I Chronicles XIII 

VI 9 And David was afraid of (HlIT) XIII 12 and David WAS afraid of 



the Lord (B'.I^X) God 

9 the ark of the Lord n 12 the ark of God 

II and the ark of the Lord con- 14 and the ark of God continued 

tinued 

17 and they brought in the ark of XVI I and they brought in the ark 

the Lord of God 

17 and David offered .... before i and they offered .... before 

the Lord. God. 

The duplicate Psalm in the Psalter itself, viz. XIV 
and LIII illustrates the same fact. In the former the 
Tetragrammaton is used, whilst in the latter the expression 
(D'rftx) God, is substituted for it as will be seen from the 
following comparison: 

Psalm XIV Psalm LIII 

XIV 2 The Lord (HirP) looked down LIII 3 God (D^K) looked down 

from heaven from heaven 

4 and call not upon the Lord 5 they call not upon God 

7 when the Lord bringeth back 6 when God bringeth back the 

the captivity. captivity. 

There are, however, a number of compound names 
in the Bible into the composition of which three out of 
the four letters of the Incommunicable Name have entered. 
Moreover, these letters which begin the names in question 
are actually pointed 1iT Jeho, as the Tetragrammaton itself 
and hence in a pause at the reading of the first part of the 
name it sounded as if the reader was pronouncing the 
Ineffable Name. To gaurd against it an attempt was made by 
a certain School of redactors of the text to omit the letter 
He (n) so that the first part of the names in question has 
been altered from Jeho (1iT) into Jo (I 1 '). It was, however, 
only an attempt on the part of a certain School for as we 
shall see from the following analysis, the alterations were 
only partially carried out and in most cases the primitive 



370 



Introduction. 



[CHAP. XI. 



2.0 







6* 



orthography has survived. In the examination of them I 
shall give these names according to the order of the Hebrew 
alphabet and must premise that for the purposes of this 
investigation no notice can be taken of the fact that two, 
three or more persons have often the same name in the Bible. 

(1) *nNliT Jehoacliaz - - whom Jehovah sustains, which 
occurs twenty-four times, has retained the primitive ortho- 
graphy in twenty passages, viz. 2 Kings X 35; XIII i, 4, 
7, 8, 9, 10, 22, 25, 25; XIV 8, 17; XXIII 30, 31, 34; 
2 Chron. XXI 17; XXV 17, 23, 25; XXXVI i and it is 
only in four places that it has been altered into 

?nx1* Joachaz, viz. 2 Kings XIV i ; 2 Chron. XXXIV 8; 
XXXVI 2, 4. With the exception of 2 Kings XIV i the 
marked distinction between the two different * spellings 
which the Hebrew exhibits is obliterated in the Authorised 
Version. 

(2) tftfliT Jehoash = whom Jehovah bestowed, which occurs 
sixty-four times, has only retained the original spelling in 
the following seventeen passages: 2 Kings XII i, 2, 3, 5, 

/ /M 7, 8, 19; XIII 10, 25; XIV 8, 9, n, 13, 13, 15, 16, 17, whilst 
;' - no fewer than forty-seven passages 

/ tPNl' Joash is exhibited in the altered orthography, viz. 

Judg. VI u, 29, 30, 31; VII 14; VIII 13, 29, 32, 32; 

1 Kings XXII 26; 2 Kings XI 2; XII 20, 21; XIII i, 9, 
10, 12, 13, 13, 14, 25; XIV i, i, 3, 17, 23, 23, 27; Hos. I i; 
Amos I i ; i Chron. Ill 1 1 ; IV 22; XII 3; 2 Chron. XVIII 25; 
XXII 1 1; XXIV i, 2, 4, 22, 24; XXV 17, 18,21, 23, 23, 25,25. 
The altered form, therefore, has prevailed in this name. 

(3) "D?1iT Jehozabad = whom Jehovah bestowed, which 
-f occurs thirteen times, has the primitive spelling in only 

four instances, viz. 2 Kings XII 22; i Chron. XXVI 4; 

2 Chron. XVII 18; XXIV 26; whereas 

"TDp^ Jozabad the altered orthography is exhibited in 
the following ten passages: Ezra VIII 33; X 22, 23; Neh. 



CHAP. XI. J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 



371 



VIII 71 XI 16; i Chron. XII 4, 20, 20; 2 Chron. XXXI 13; 
XXXV 9. Here again the altered spelling prevails. 

(4) pnliT Jehohanan = whom Jehovah graciously gave, which 
occurs thirty-three times, retained the original orthography 
in the following nine instances: Ezra X 6, 28; Neh. VI 18; 
XII 13, 42; i Chron. XXVI 3; 2 Chron. XVII 15; XXIII i; 
XXVIII 1 2 ; whereas the text exhibits the altered spelling 

pnl' Johanan in no fewer than twenty-four passages, 
viz. 2 Kings XXV 23; Jerem. XL 8, 13, 15, 16; XLI n, 
13, 14, 15, 16; XLII i, 8; XLIII 2, 4, 5; Ezra VIII 12; 
Neh. XII 22, 23 ; i Chron. Ill 15, 24 ; V 35, 36 ; XII 4, 1 2. Here 
too the altered orthography prevails. In the Authorised 
Version the original spelling is obliterated. 

(s) PTliT Jehoiada = whom Jehovah knoweth, which 

w/ TT : 

occurs forty-seven times, has the primitive orthography in 
the following forty-two passages: 2 Sam. VIII 18; XX 23; 
XXIII 20, 22; i Kings i, 8, 26, 32, 36, 38, 44; II 25, 29, 
34; 35; 46; IV 4; 2 Kings XI 4, 9, 9, 15, 17; XII 3, 8, 10; 
Jerem. XXIX 26; i Chron. XI 22, 24; XII 27; XVIII 17; 
XXVII 5, 34; 2 Chron. XXII n; XXIII i, 8, 8, 9, n, 14, 
16, 18; XXIV 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 25, and 
the abbreviated form 

PT1 1 Joiada in the following five instances: Neh. Ill 6; 
XII 10, n, 22; XIII 28. 

(6) p3*1IT Jehoiachin = whom Jehovah hath appointed, which 
occurs eleven times, retains the original orthography in ten 
passages, viz. 2 Kings XXIV 6, 8, 12, 15; XXV 27, 27; 
Jerem. LII 31, 31; 2 Chron. XXXVI 8, 9; and it is in one 
instance where 

p^1' Joiachin the altered spelling is exhibited, viz. 
Ezek. I 2. The Authorised Version confounds the -different 
spellings also in this name. 

(7) D^liT Jehoiakim = whom Jehovah hath set up, which 

occurs forty-one times, has retained the original ortho- 

v 



35 r, 




II 



372 



Introduction. 



[CHAP. XI 







graphy in no fewer than thirty-seven places, viz. 2 Kings 
XXIII 34, 35, 36; XXIV i, 5, 6, 19; Jerem. I 3; XXII 18, 
24; XXIV r; XXV i; XXVI i, 21, 22, 23; XXVII i, 20; 
XXVIII 4; XXXV i; XXXVI i, 9, 28, 29, 30, 32; 
XXXVII i; XLV i; XLVI 2; LII 2; Dan. I i, 2; i Chron. 
Ill 15, 16; 2 Chron. XXXVI 4, 5, 8; and it is only in 
four passages where 

D'p'1' Joiakim, the altered form is to be found in 
Neh. II 10, 10, 12, 26. 

(8) ^TljT Jehoiarib - whom Jehovah defends, which 
occurs seven times, the text exhibits the primitive ortho- 
graphy in only two instances, viz. i Chron. IX 10; XXIV 7, 
whilst in five passages the altered form 

D*T1' Joiarib, is exhibited, viz. Ezra VIII 1 6 ; Neh. XI 5, 
10; XII 6, 19. 

(9) 313liT Jehonadab = whom Jehovah gave spontaneously, 
which occurs fifteen times, has the original spelling in the 
following eight passages: 2 Sam. XIII 5; 2 Kings X 15, 
1 5> 2 3; Jerem. XXXV 8, 14, 16, 18, and in seven instances 
the text exhibits the altered form 

3"]31* Jonadab, viz. 2 Sam. XIII 3, 3, 32, 35; Jerem. 
XXXV 6, 10, 19. This difference is obliterated in the 
Authorised Version. 

(10) M"l3lrP Jehottafhatt whom Jehovah gave, which 
occurs one-hundred and twenty-one times, has the original 
spelling in no fewer than seventy-nine passages, viz. 
Judg. XVIII 30; i Sam. XIV 6, 8; XVIII i, i, 3, 4; XIX 
i, 2, 4, 6, i, 7, 7; XX i, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, n, 12, 13, 16, 17, 
18, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 37, 38, 38, 39, 40, 42; 
XXI i; XXIII 16, 18; XXXI 2; 2 Sam. i, 4, 5, 12, 17, 
22, 23, 25, 26; IV 4, 4; IX i, 3, 6, 7; XV 27, 36; XVII 17, 
20; XXI 7, 7, 12, 13, 14, 21 ; XXIII 32; Jerem. XXXVII 
15, 20; XXXVIII 26; Neh. XII 18; i Chron. VIII 33, 34; 
IX 39, 40; XX 7; XXVII 25, 32; 2 Chron. XVII 8, and 



CHAl'. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 373 

in the following forty-two instances the text has it in the 
abbreviated form 

]r\}V Jonathan i Sam. XIII 2, 3, 16, 22, 22; IV i, 3, 
4, 12, 12, 13, 13, 14, 17, 21, 27, 29, 39, 40, 41, 42, 42, 43, 
43, 44, 45, 45, 49; XIX i; i Kings I 42, 43; Jerem. XL 8; 
Ezra VIII 6; X 15; Neh. XII n, n, 14, 35; i Chron. II 32, 
33; X 2; XI, 34. In the Authorised Version this distinction 
is absolutely obliterated. 

(i i) P|p1iT Jehoseph only occurs once, viz. Ps. LXXXI 6, 
and in all the numerous passages where this name is to 
be found in the Bible it is 

PjDl^ Joseph. In the Authorised Version the distinction 
is obliterated. 

(12) E1liT Jehozadak Jehovah maketh just, which 

N ' I T T : 

occurs thirteen times retains the original orthography in 
the following eight passages: Hag. I i, 12, 14; II 2, 4; 
Zech. VI 1 1 ; i Chron. V 40, 41, whilst it has the abbreviated 
form 

pl^l^ Jozadak, in five instances, viz. Ezra III 2, 8; 
V 2; X 1 8; Neh. XII 26. The distinction is confounded in 
the Authorised Version. 

(13) Dllrp Jehoram - -- whom Jehovah exalted, which 
occurs forty-nine times, has the original orthography in 
the following twenty-nine passages: i Kings XXII 51; 
2 Kings I 17, 17; III i, 6; VIII 'i6, 25, 29; IX 15, 17, 21, 
21, 22, 23, 24; XII 19; 2 Chron. XVII 8; XXI i, 3, 4, 5, 
9, 16; XXII i, 5, 6, 6, 7, 1 1, and the abbreviated form 

D"lV Joram, in the following twenty passages: 2 Sam. 

VIII 10; 2 Kings VIII 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 28, 29, 29; 

IX 14, 14, 1 6, 16, 29; XI 2; i Chron. Ill n; XXVI 25; 
2 Chron. XXII 5, 7. 

(14) EDCh'iT Jehoshaphat = whom Jehovah judgeth or 

T T : 
pleadeth for, which occurs eighty-five times, has the original 

orthography in the following eighty-three passages: 2 Sam. 



'3 }" f 




r 



374 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

VIII 16; XX 24; i Kings IV 3, 17; XV 24; XXII 2, 4, 4, 
5, 7, 8, 8, 10, 18, 29, 30, 32, 32, 41, 42, 46, 49, 50, 50, 51, 
52; 2 Kings I 17; III i, 7, n, 12, 12, 14; VIII 16, 16; IX 2, 
14; XII 19; Joel IV 2, 12; i Chron. Ill 10; XVIII 15; 
2 Chron. XVII i, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12; XVIII i, 3, 4, 6, 7, 7, 
9, 17, 28, 29, 31, 31; XIX i, 2, 4, 8; XX i, 2, 3, 5, 15, 
18, 20, 25, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37; XXI i, 2, 2, 12; XXII 9, 
whilst it has the abbreviated form 

EDIZ^ Joshaphat, in only two instances, viz. i Chron. 
XI 43 ; T XV 24. 

As far as I can trace it there are only four names which 
are compounded with Jeho (1!T) and which have entirely 
retained their primitive orthography: (i) fnxMiT Jehoadah 
= whom Jehovah adorns, which occurs twice, i Chron. VIII 
36, 36. (2) pTJJliT Jehoaddan, the feminine of the former 
name, which also occurs twice, once in 2 Kings XIV 2 in 
the Keri and once in 2 Chron. XXV i. (3) JJDtflJT Jehosheba 
= Jehovah is her oath, i. e. a worshipper of Jehovah which 
occurs once in 2 Kings XI 2 and its alternative form 
nPIHPliT Jehoshabat which occurs twice in 2 Chron. XXII 1 1 
and (4) JJttfliT Jehoshna == Jehovah his helper, which occurs 
over two-hundred and fifty times. It will thus be seen 
that with these rare exceptions some of the Schools of 
textual critics have made efforts to substitute 1* Jo, for 
1IT Jeho, in every name which begins with the Tetra- 
grammaton. 

In no fewer than seven names, however, the redactors 
of the text have completely succeeded in obliterating the 
initial 1.T Jeho, by substituting for it the simple 1> Jo. 
(i) 3S1 1 Joab = Jehovah is his father, which occurs about 
one-hundred twenty-seven times. (2) nj*1' Joah = Jehovah is 
his brother, i. e. confederate, which occurs eleven times: 
2 Kings XVIII 1 8, 26, 37; Isa. XXXVI 3, n, 22; 
i Chron. VI 6; XXVI 4; 2 Chron. XXIX 12, 12; XXXIV 8. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 375 

(3) IVV J e d Jehovah is his witness, which occurs once in 
Neh. XI 7. (4) "IfPl* Joezer = Jehovah is his helper, which 
also occurs once in i Chron. XII 6. (5) 2ft?1> Joash 
Jehovah hastens, i. e. to his help, which occurs twice in 
i Chron. VII 8; XXVII 28. (6) n_1> Jorai = Jehovah teacheth 
him, which occurs once in i Chron. V 13 and (7) DDl* Jotham 
= Jehovah is upright, which occurs twenty-four times: Judg. 
IX 5, 7, 21, 57; 2 Kings XV 5, 7, 30, 32, 36, 38; XVI i; 
Isa. I i; VII i; Hos. I i; Micah I i; i Chron. II 47; III 12; 
V 17; 2 Chron. XXVI 21, 23; XXVII i, 6, 7, 9. Of these 
names not a single instance remains in the present Masso- 
retic text in which the original form 1iT Jeho, is exhibited. 

The great reluctance manifested by the ancient autho- 
rities to pronounce the Tetragrammaton was also extended 
to Jah (IT), which is the half of the Ineffable Name, and 
though they found it difficult to substitute another ex- 
pression for this monosyllable as in the case of In- 
communicable Name they adopted safeguards against its 
being carelessly profaned. These means to which the 
Sopherim resorted account for several of the phenomena 
in our present Massoretic text. 

In discussing the treatment which this monosyllabic 
Divine name has received from the redactors of the text 
it is necessary to separate the twenty-two instances in 
which IT Jah, is unanimously recognised by the ancient 
Schools to stand for the fuller form n1(T Jehovah, from 

T : 

those passages about which there is a difference of opinion 
in these Schools. By so doing we shall be better able to 
understand certain peculiarities which are visible throughout 
the Hebrew Scriptures both in the MSS. and in the editions. 
The twenty-two passages, in which all the Schools 
agree that Jah (IT) is the Divine Name, are as follows: 
Exod. XV 2; Isa. XII 2; XXVI 4; XXXVIII 1 1, n; 
Ps. LXVIII 5, 19; LXXVII 12; LXXXIX 9; XCIV 7, .2; 



376 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

CII 19; CXV 17, 18; CXVIII 5, 14, 17, 18, 19; CXXII 4; 
CXXX 3; CL 6. In all these cases the He (H) has Mappik, 
viz. iT which not only indicates its divinity, but is designed 
to conceal the original pronunciation of this Ineffable Name. 
With the solitary exception in Ps. LXVIII 5 [4] where it 
is Jah, the Authorised Version translates it Lord, being the 
same expression by which Jehovah is rendered without 
any remark in the margin to call attention to the fact that 
it is not the usual Tetragrammaton. The Revised Version 
which follows the Authorised Version in Ps. LXVIII 4 [5] 
has also Jah in Ps. LXXXIX 8 [9]. The Revisers, however, 
consistently remarks in the margin against every instance 
"Heb. Jah". 

The essential difference between the ancient Schools 
is with regard to IT Jah, in the expression iTT^H Hallelujah. 
To understand the controversy on this subject it is 
necessary to refer to some of the canons by which the 
Scribes had to be guided in copying the Sacred Scriptures. 
Wherever, the Scribe in transcribing the text, came to 
one of the divine names he had to pause and mentally to 
sanctify the sacred name. If he made a mistake in copying 
a divine name, writing the Lord instead of God &c. he 
was not allowed to erase it, but he had to enclose it in a 
square to show that it is cancelled. Moreover he was not 
allowed to divide a divine name writing one half at the 
end of the line, and the other half at the beginning of 
the next line. 

As Hallelujah is a typical expression and as the 
controversy about it affects a whole class of words 
terminating withjah (iT), and moreover, as this is reflected 
in the MSS. and in the editions, we subjoin the discussion. 
In the -Jerusalem Talmud it is as follows: 

About Hallelujah there is a difference of opinion between Rab and 
Samuel, one says it should be divided into two words, the other says it 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 377 

should not be divided. According to the one who says it is to be divided 
IT Jiih must not be erased, whilst according to the other who says it should 
not be divided !T jah may be erased and we do not know which is which. 
Now from what Rab said I heard from my uncle [R. Chiga] if any one 
were to give me the Psalter of R. Meier I would erase all the Hallelujahs 
because he did not sanctify the word in writing it, wrongly regarding IT jah 
as common, it is he [i. e. Rab] who said that Hallelu-jah is in two words. 
However, the opinion of the teachers is divided for R. Simon says in the 
name of R. Joshua b. Levi the Psalter uses ten different expressions for 
praise ...... and Hallelujah is the most sublime of them all because the 

Divine name and praise are both combined therein (Jerusalem Megilla I, 9). 1 

In the Babylon Talmud, however, where the same 
canon about the orthography of Hallelujah is discussed we 
are told that it is Rab who in accordance with the Codex 
of his uncle R. Chiga divided it into two words, viz. 
,-p i^n = praise ye the Lord, as will be seen from the 
following statement: 

It was asked: How is Hallelujah written according to Rab? It was 
answered: Because Rab said I have seen the Psalter of my uncle [R. Chiga] 
in which Hallelu was written in one line and jah in another line [hence he 
divided it]. Now in this he differed from R. Joshua b. Levi, for R. Joshua 
b. Levi said the meaning of Hallelujah is praise ve exceedingly. In this. 
however, R. Joshua is inconsistent with himself because R. Joshua b. Levi 
had said the Psalter uses ten different expressions for praise ...... and 

Hallelujah is the most sublime of them all for the Divine name and praise 
are combined herein (Pesachim 117 a). 2 



rr i^bn Tfi rvbbr\ n&K nmrn IT i^n ia in ^xiatri m 
*n lax [Kfci xn -iax jxa pin 1 &6i pbm irm pnas m^n ra pna: irxi 
'DK pma a"-i bv D^TI nso D-IK ^ jrv DK ^an ja rrjraip m natn na ja 
Tin pr^B ps-n pir^a mbbn lax -n rn i^np 1 ? pi:ro *b nu' .Tibbn ba nx 
pr32 mraa -ntr 1| Kn o^'n IED naw naur btr mDU? 1 ? mtwn ^"an otra jia-o 
o^ntr n^bbn Dbiaat' ntrixan na-iaa nb^sna n-nna ns^-ia "?a^na -naraa Ta 

ia p^i^a nairm 

3"nan "a"an "an '"rn nrrn a-i nan trn 'Ka anb m^bn in 1 ? trya'x 2 
n'l'rbn \sa 'iS p 'THI ''i 1 ? ja rin.T '-n 'rbsi KD"J nna rr'i KD'J tnaj^bn ina 
natz? ^tr rrnasa n"iwa ^b p "i"K"t ,TTIK TTI wbei nain d^ib'na n"\bbn 
n"?'sna nb'nna ntrsa T-tra maiaa jvaraa pr:a n^"3a D'^nn IED nas: 
.nns naa na^i arc ^irp n-i^Sn j^iaa ^HJ m^na 'N-nrta 



378 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

We are not called upon to reconcile the apparent 
contradiction in the views recorded in the names of these 
great Talmudic luminaries. That which is of the utmost 
importance to us, inasmuch as it explains the variants 
exhibited in the Biblical MSS. and in the Massoretic 
editions of the text, is the fact that three distinct traditions 
represented by three diiferent Schools are here set forth. 
According to the tradition in one School, Hallelujah consists 
of two separate words and the second word or the 
monosyllable jah is the Divine name. Hence in writing it 
the Scribe must treat it as such, sanctify it when copying 
it and in case of an error must not erase it which he is 
allowed to do with an ordinary mistake. In harmony with 
this School, therefore, "l^n Hallu is the imperative plural, 
IV jah the Divine name is the object, and the phrase must be 
translated praise ye Jehovah. And % there can hardly be any 
doubt that this exhibits the primitive reading which is 
uniformly followed in the Authorised Version and in the 
Revised Version. 

According to the second School, however, Hallelujah 
is one inseparable word and the termination jah simply 
denotes power, might, i. e. powerfully, mightily, just as Ss 
is used to denote excellence, beauty &c. in the combination 
of ^K *?"1K which the Authorised Version translates goodly 
cedars in Ps. LXXX 10 [n]. Hence in writing it the 
Scribe need not sanctify it and may erase it in case he 
wrote it by mistake. It is simply a musical interjection 
like the now meaningless Selah. In accordance with this 
view the Septuagint and the Vulgate simply transliterate 
it as if it were a proper name. Most unaccountably the 
Authorised Version only exhibits this view in the margin 
in eight instances, viz. Ps. CVI i ; CXI i ; CXII i ; CXIII i ; 
CXLVI i; CXLVIII i; CXLIX i; CL i, taking no notice 
whatever of this alternative view in the other sixteen 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 379 

passages. The Revised Version, however, consistently 
exhibits the transliterated form in the margin. 

Whilst according to the third School, Hallelujah 
though undivided still contains the sacred name and is, 
therefore, divine. R. Joshua who represents this School 
maintains, therefore, in opposition to Rab and R. Ishmael 
that the sacredness of the word jah is not at all affected 
by Hallelujah being written as one word. Hence the MSS. 
and the editions greatly vary in the treatment of Hallelujah. 
Some have it iTI^S"! as one word with Dagesh in the He, 
some have it iT'^H as two words with Makkeph and 
Dagesh in the He and some as fP^Sl as one word without 
Dagesh in the He, thus obliterating the Divine name 
altogether. 

The diversity in the orthography of the term 
Hallelu-jah, however, is not the only effect traceable to 
the reluctance on the part of the Sopherim to pronounce 
the Ineffable Name even in this abbreviated form. Having 
reduced it to a simple interjection its exact position in the 
respective Psalms became as great a matter of indifference 
as the musical expression Selah. We have seen that Hallelu- 
jah originally denoted Praise ye Jehovah. This is incon- 
testably established by the parallelism in Ps. CXXXV 3: 

Praise ye Jehovah, for Jehovah is good ; 
Make melody unto his name, for it is pleasant. 

As such the phrase was a summons by the prelector 
addressed to the worshipping assembly in the Temple or 
in the Synagogue to join in the responsive praises to the 
Lord just as is the case in Psalm. XXXIV 4, where the 
Psalmist calls upon the congregation: 

O magnify Jehovah with me 

And let us exalt his name together. 

Hallelu-jah had, therefore, a liturgical meaning and 
as such it naturally stood at the beginning of the respective 



380 Introduction. [CHAP. 

Psalms which are antiphonous and in the recital of which 
the congregation repeated the first verse after each 
consecutive verse recited by the prelector. This is attested 
by the Septuagint which never has Hallelu-jah at the end 
of the Psalms, but invariably begins the Psalm with it as 
will be seen from the following analysis. Altogether 
Hallelujah occurs twenty-four times in the Massoretic text. 1 
Deducting the one passage where it is in the middle 
of the text, viz. Ps. CXXXV 3, Hallelujah only begins 
the Psalm in ten instances, 2 whereas it now ends the 
Psalm no fewer than thirteen times 3 and as a natural 
consequence it has entirely lost its primitive liturgical 
meaning, that is the summons to the congregation to 
engage in the responses. In the recension of the Hebrew 
text, however, from which the Septuagint was made, 
Hallelujah which ends the Psalms in the present Massoretic 
text, began the next Psalm in seven out of the thirteen 
instances in question, 4 whilst in the remaining six instances 
Hallelujah was absent altogether. 5 It is to be added that 
the Septuagint has in two instances Hallelujah which are 
not exhibited in the present Massoretic text, viz. Psalms 

' Comp. Ps CIV 35; CV 45; CVI i, 48; CXI i; CXII i; CXII1 i, 9 
CXV 18; CXVI 19; CXVII 2; CXXXV I, 3, 21; CXLVI I, IO; CXLVII i. 20; 
CXLVIII i, 14; CXL1X i. 9; CL i. 6. 

2 Comp Pa. CVI i; CXI I; CXII i; CXIII i; CXXXV i; CXLVI I; 
CXLVII i; CXLVIII i; CXL1X I; CL I. 

3 Comp. Ps. CIV 35; CV 45; CVI 48; CXIII 9; CXV 18; CXVI 19; 
CXVII 2; CXXXV 21 ; CXLVI IO; CXLVII 20; CXLVIII 14; CXLIX 9; 
CL 6. Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 4. 

* Comp. (i) Sept. Ps. CV i == Heb. CIV 35; (2) Sept. Ps CVII I = 
Heb. CVI 48; (3) Sept. Ps. CXIV I = Heb. CXIII 9; '41 Sept. Ps. CXVI I = 
Heb. XV 18; (5) Sept. Ps. CXVII I = Heb CXVI 19; (6 Sept. Ps. 
CXVIII i = Heb. CXVII 2 and (7) Sept. Ps. CXXXVI I = Heb. CXXXV 21. 

1 Comp Ps. CV 45; CXLVI IO; CXLVII 20; CXLVIII 14; CXLIX 9; 
CL 6. 



CHAP. XI/j The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 381 

CXVI 10 and CXLVII 12, thus showing that in the 

Hebrew recension from which it was made 131K 

/ believed, therefore, have I spoken, and nirpTIN 

Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem, each began a new Psalm and 

that these two Psalms were originally four Psalms. 

The exact position of Hallelujah, however, is not 
simply a point of difference between the Hebrew recension 
from which the Septuagint was made and that exhibited 
in the present Massoretic text. As late as the third century 
of the present era the controversy still continued between 
the celebrated doctors of the Law. The head of one School 
still maintained that Hallelujah must always begin the Psalm 
as it is in the Septuagint, whilst the chief of another School 
contended as strongly that it must always end the Psalm 
of which, however, we have no examples in the MSS. at 
present known. To reconcile these two opposite traditions 
the head of a third School declared that he had seen a 
Psalter in which Hallelujah was always in the middle 
between two Psalms (Pesachim ii'ja)^ because it was 
difficult to decide whether it belonged to the end of the 
preceding Psalm or to the beginning of the following 
Psalm. This is exactly its position in some of the best 
MSS. which have no vacant space between the separate 
Psalms and it is this which I have endeavoured to exhibit 
in my edition of the text. 2 

As has already been remarked Hallelujah is simply 
a typical instance illustrating the anxiety on the part of 
the redactors of the text to deprive the monosyllable jah 
of its divine import wherever this could feasibly be done. 



IISK win an na nan spTa eyio m^n *non an na i 
ma avian an na pan an 'an ^rb ir6 win *non an nax 

2 A most able article on Hallelujah by the late Professor Graetz 
appeared in the Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 
Vol. XXVIII. p. 193 &c.. Krotoshin 1879. 



382 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

Hence the ancient authorities have also discussed other 
groups of words which end in jah (IT), and as the different 
Schools of textual critics could not agree about the ortho- 
graphy of these expressions both the text and the Massorah 
exhibit variations in the writing of sundry words throughout 
the Hebrew Bible. Of these differences we can only adduce 
a few examples. 

Exod. XVII 1 6 exhibits one of the attempts to deprive 
jah (IT) of its primitive sense. The Westerns or the 
Palestinians we are distinctly told read it iTD3 as one 
word with He Raphe* and the passage is accordingly 
translated "for the hand is upon the precious throne" as 
the Chaldee has it, thus obliterating the divinity from the 
syllable jah. As we follow the Western School I have 
given this reading in the text. The Septuagint which also 
exhibits the reading of one word takes it as iTD3 concealed 
from HDD to hide, and hence renders it "for with a hidden 
hand will the Lord war with Amalek". The Easterns or 
the Babylonian School, however, divide it into two words 
and retain the primitive reading jah =-- Jehovah. Accord- 
ingly the passage is to be rendered "for the hand is upon 
the throne of Jehovah" which is explained to mean the 
sign of an oath. This reading, in accordance with the 
principles of the Massoretic text, I have given in the notes. 
The difficulty, however, in which it lands us, may be seen 
from the forced alternative renderings exhibited in the 
margins of both the Authorised Version and the Revised 
Version. 

Now adhering to the primitive jah (IT) == Jehovah, 
which the Sopherim tried to obliterate, it is evident from 



i Thus the Massorah IT ppea *bl f^tt ( Pt ftt 1H KlHI Kin 
in MS. No. i 3 in the National Library Paris, comp. The Massorah, letter \ 
1 60, Vol. I. p. 709. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 383 

the phrase "Jehovah nissi" (>Q3) = Jehovah is my banner, 
of which iT D3 is the usual explanation following the name, 
that we ought to read Di banner for D3, which occurs 
nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible and the passage is to 
be translated: 

And Moses built an altar and called the name of it Jehovah is my 
banner for he said surely the hand is on the banner of Jehovah; the war of 
Jehovah against Amalek is to be from generation to generation. 

And though this reading is required by the context 
and is now accepted by some of the best critics yet as 
there is no MS. authority for it, I have simply given it in 
the notes with the introductary remark V'i the reading 
appears to me to be &c. 

Josh. XV 28 is another instance in which the oblite- 
ration of the monosyllable jah in its separate existance for 
Jehovah has taken place. According to the Westerns which 
we follow, Bizjothjah (iTrn > ?2) the city in the south of Judah 
has its meaning partly obscured by the reluctance on the 
part of the redactors to exhibit the Divine, name in its un- 
mistakable form in such a combination. The Eastern School 
of textual critics, however, manifested here also no such 
awe and hence preserved the orthography iT'Dl^Si Bizjoth- 
jah = ihe contempt of Jehovah in two words. The recension, 
however, from which the Septuagint was made undoubtedly 
exhibits the original reading IVriiD'l and towns or villages 
thereof. This is not only confirmed by the fact that it is 
the formula used in this very chapter (comp. verse 45) and 
is generally employed in the enumeration of the districts 
especially in the book of Joshua, 1 but from the parallel 
passages in Neh. XI 27, where this very verse is almost 
literally given and where it is as follows: l&OD'l ^Pltf "IV!?? 51 

1 Comp. Josh. XV 47, where it occurs twice, and XVII n, where it 
is used four times in the same verse. 



384 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

iTrilDI yy& and at Hnzar-shual and at Beer-sheba and the 
villages thereof. And though there can hardly be any doubt 
that this is the correct reading as is now acknowledged 
by some of the best critics, I have only given it in the 
notes with the usual introductory phrase ^" = the proper 
reading is, when it is supported by the ancient Versions. 
Jerem. II 31 strikingly illustrates the reluctance on 
the part of one School of redactors to exhibit the name 
Jehovah when it could possibly be obviated. According to 
the Eastern School the passage before us is to be trans- 
lated as follows: 

O generation, see ye the word of Jehovah, 
Have I been a wilderness unto Israel? 
Is the land the darkness of Jehovah? 

The Lord expostulates here with his backsliding people 
by emphatically declaring that whilst they submitted to 
his guidance the land never failed to yield its rich harvests. 
The interrogative form as is often the case is used for an 
emphatic negative, figuratively asserting the very reverse, 
viz. "I have been a paradise to Israel, the land was 
brightened by the light of Jehovah." 4 To predicate, however, 
darkness of Jehovah was regarded by the Eastern School 
of redactors as unseemely. Hence they closely combined 
jah (iT) with ^>Dxa darkness and by this means deprived 
it of its divinity. It is due to this fact that some inter- 
preters take it simply to be the feminine form of ^DXS, 
i. e. H^DXO darkness, which is manifestly the view exhibited 
in the Authorised Version, whilst others assign to jah (iT) 
the meaning of intensity as is done in the text of the 
Revised Version. The common rendering which as usual 

1 It is hardly necessary to remark in justification of our rendering that 
DX H are not unfrequently used together in two consecutive clauses in con- 
tinuation of the interrogative without being a disjunctive for H H. Comp. 
Gen. XXXVII 8. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 385 

is based upon the Western recension, mars the rhythm 
and is against the parallelism of the passage. 

Ps. CXVIII 5. - - According to the canon laid down 
by the Sopherim and the Massorah iTsrT'lBl is one word 
and is simply another form of 3111X32 (Hos. IV 16; Ps. 
XXXI 9), denoting literally in a large place, with room,* 
and then figuratively with freedom, with deliverance, just as 
"12f which means strait, is used tropically for distress, affliction 
in the first clause of this very verse and in Ps. IV 2; 
XLIV 6 &c. This is the reading of the textus receptus 
which follows the Western recension. The verse accord- 
ingly is to be translated: 

Out of my straits I called on Jehovah 
He answered me with deliverance. 

This reading is also exhibited in the recension of the 
text from which the Septuagint was made. According to 
the Easterns or Babylonians, however, the reading is 
iT-^rnftD two words and hence the verse in question ought 
to be rendered: 

Out of my straits I called on Jehovah 

He answered me with the deliverance of Jehovah. 

That is with a freedom or deliverance which Jehovah 
only can vouchsafe. It is, therefore, evident that we have 
here another instance where the Western School of textual 
critics have tried to safeguard the shorter form of the 
Ineffable Name by fusing it with the preceding word since 
the phrase iT~3rnO the wideness of Jehovah, in its literal 
form appeared to them too bold a metaphor. It is remarkable 
that the Authorised Version and the Revised Version, as 
well as many modern expositors depart here from the 
received Massoretic text without even giving the alternative 

1 For similar duplicate forms comp. nb' 1 '?? work Ps. XIV i &c. and 
n^by work Jerem. XXXII 19; -^B judging Job XXXI 28 and H'^B 
judging Isa. XXVII 7. 



386 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

reading in the margin. By detaching, moreover, IT from 
srnftS and by needlessly transferring it from the end to 
the beginning of the line they are obliged to assume that 
we have here a constructio praegnans and to supply the 
words "and set me" which mar the parallelism. 

Song of Songs VIII 6. Owing to the same reluctance 
to exhibit the shorter name of Jehovah, the Western School 
of textual critics whom we follow in the textus receptus 
read JTronVtP in one word which is explained to mean 

T : T : - 

intense flame or as the Authorised Version renders it "which 
hath a most vehement flame". In the recension from which 
the Septuagint was made these consonants were also read 
as one word and they were pronounced iTron^EJ = ykvyes 
ttvrfis the flames thereof. According to the Eastern recension, 
however, which is also the reading of Ben-Naphtali and 
several early editions it is iTVQn^ttf the flame of Jehovah, 
and the whole verse is to be rendered: 

For love is strong as death 
Affection as inexorable as Hades 
Its flames are names of fire 
The flames of Jehovah. 

That is loving flames kindled in the human heart emanate 
from Jehovah. The anxiety, however, on the part of the 
Sopherim not to describe Jehovah as the source of human 
love, and especially not to exhibit him in parallelism with 
Hades has caused the Western redactors of the text to ob- 
literate the name of God in the only place where the Divine 
name occurs in this book. The Revised Version, though 
contrary to the textus receptus, exhibits the true reading in 
the text and gives the alternative translation in the margin. 

We have seen that in the case of proper names which 
are compounded with the Tetragrammaton and where it 
begins the name, the He (i"l) has been elided to preclude 
the pronunciation of the Divine name. For the same reason 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 387 

Jolt (IT) the shorter form of Jehovah has been safeguarded 
in those proper names into which it has entered into 
composition and where it constitutes the end of the proper 
name. To effect this, the redactors of the text have adopted 
the reverse process. Instead of eliding a letter they have 
added one and converted the monosyllabic Divine name 
into a bisyllabic word. 

The one hundred and forty-one proper names in 
the Hebrew Bible which according to the Massoretic text 
end with Jah = Jehovah are divisible into three classes: 
(i) The first consists of fifty-nine names, which have in 
many instances the Vav appended to them so that they 
respectively occur in duplicate form sometimes terminating 
in Jah and sometimes in Jahu. They are as follows: 

n*SK Abijah = whose father is Jehovah: i Sam. VIII 2; i Kings XIV I; 

Neb. X 8; XII 4, 17; I Chron. II 24; III IO; VI 13; VII 8; 

XXIV 10; 2 Chron. XI 2O, 22; XII 1.6; XIII I, 2, 3, 4, 15, 17, 

19, 22, 23; XXIX i. 
1.T3X Abijaku: 2 Chron. XIII 20, 21. 
n s ns Adonijah = my Lord is Jehovah: 2 Sam. Ill 4; i Kings I 5, 17, 

18; II 28; Neh. X 17; I Chron. Ill 2. 
inn Adonijahu: i Kings I 8, 9, n, 13, 24, 25, 41, 42, 43, 49, 50, 51; 

II 13, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24; 2 Chron. XVII 8. 

Vrijah = my light is Jehovah: 2 Sam. XI 3, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 
12, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 26, 26; XII 9, 10, 15; XXIII 39; 
I Kings XV 5; 2 Kings XVI IO, II, II, 15, 16; Isa. VIII 2; Ezra 

VIII 33; Neh. Ill 4, 21; VIII 4; i Chron. XI 41. 
Urijahii: Jerem. XXVI 20, 21, 23. 

,-pmK Akazjah = upheld of Jehovah: 2 Kings I 2; IX 16, 23, 27, 29; 

XI 2; 2 Chron. XX 35. 
lITiriX Akazjaku: I Kings XXII 40, 50, 52; 2 Kings I 18; VIII 24, 25, 26, 29; 

IX 21, 23; X 13, 13; XI i, 2; XII 19; XIII i; XIV 13; I Chron. 

III II; 2 Chron. XX 37; XXII I, I, 2, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, II, n. 
n'lTR Akijak = brother of Jehovah: i Sam. XIV 3, 18; i Kings IV 3; XI 29, 

30; XII 15; XIV 2, 4; XV 27, 29, 33; XXI 22; 2 Kings IX 9; 
Neh. X 27 ; I Chron. II 25 ; VIII 7 ; XI 36 ; XXVI 2O ; 2 Chron. IX 29. 
IH'hK Akijaku: i Kings XIV 4, 5, 6, 18; 2 Chron. X 15. 



388 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

M'bK Elijah = my God is Jehovah: 2 Kings I 3, 4, 8, 12; Ezek. X 21, 

26; Mai. Ill 23; i Chron. VIII 27. 

IHJ^K Elijahu: I Kings XVII i, 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23. 23, 24; XVIII i, 
2, 7, 7, 8, ii, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 25, 27, 30, 31, 36, 40, 40, 
41, 42, 46; XIX i, 2, 9, 13, 13, 19, 20, 21; XXI 17, 20, 28; 
2 Kings I 10, 13, 15, 17; II I, I, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, II, 13, 14, 14, 
15; III II; IX 36; X 10, 17; 2 Chron. XXI 12. 
rntttK Atnazjah = whom Jehovah strengthens: 2 Kings XII 22; XIII 12; 

XIV 8; XV i; Amos VII 10, 12, 14; i Chron. IV 34; VI 30. 
1IT3WX AmazjahTt: 2 Kings XIV I, 9, II, II, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23; XV 3; 
i Chron. Ill 12; 2 Chron. XXIV 27; XXV I, 5, 9, 10, n, 13, 
14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27; XXVI I, 4. 

rrHttK Amarjah = whom Jehovah said, i. e. promised q. d. Theophrastus: 
Zeph. I i; Ezra VII 3; X 42; Neh. X 4; XI 4; XII 2, 13; 
i Chron. V 33, 33, 37, 37; VI 37; XXIII 19. 

^rr-lttK Amur jahu: \ Chron. XXIV 23; 2 Chron. XIX ii; XXXI 15. 
fT23 Benajah = Built up of Jehovah : 2 Sam. XX 23 ; Ezek. XI 1 3 ; Ezra X 25, 
30,35,43; i Chron. IV 36; XI 22, 31; XXVII 14; 2 Chron. XX 14. 
VVja Bcnajahn: 2 Sam. VIII 18; XXIII 20, 22 30; I Kings I 8, 10, 26, 
32, 36, 38. 44; n 25, 29, 30, 30, 34, 35, 46; IV 4; Ezek XI I; 
i Chron. XI 24; XV 18, 20, 24; XVI 5. 6; XVIII 17; XXVII 
5, 6, 34; 2 Chron. XXXI 13 
n;2-i| Berechjah = Blessed of Jehovah: Zech. I i ; Neh. Ill 4, 30; VI 18; 

i Chron. Ill 20; IX 16; XV 23. 

rP3"l3 Berechjahii: Zech. 17;! Chron. VI 24; XV 17; 2 Chron. XXVIII 12. 
Gedaljah = Magnified of Jehovah: Jerem XL 5, 8; XLI iG; Zeph. 

I i; Ezra X 18. 

Gttlaljaku: 2 Kings XXV 22, 23, 23, 24, 25; Jerem XXXVIII I ; 
XXXIX 14; XL 6, 7, 9, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, iG; XLI i, 2, 3, 
4, 6, 9, 10, 18; XLIII 6; I Chron. XXV 3, 9. 
Gcmarjah = Perfected of Jehovah: Jerem. XXIX 3. 
1."P"]&3 Gcmarjahn: Jerem XXXVI 10, ii, 12, 25. 

Ddajah = Freed of Jehovah: Ezra II 60; Neh. VI 10; VII 62; 

i Chron. Ill 24. 

Delajahu: Jerem. XXXVI 12, 25; I Chron. XXIV 18. 
Hodavjah = Praise of Jehovah: Ezra II 40; i Cbron. V 24; IX 7. 
Hodavjahii: i Chron. Ill 24. 
Zebadjah = Jehovah gave: Ezra VIII 8; X 20; i Chron. VIII 15, 

17; XII 7; XXVII 7. 
rjST Zebadjahu: i Chron. XXVI 2; 2 Chron. XVII 8; XIX ii. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 389 



HSt Zecharjah = whom Jehovah remembers: 2 Kings XIV 29; XV ii; 
XVIII 2; Zech. I I, 7; VII I, 8; Ezra V I ; VI 14; VIII 3, Ii, 16; 
X 26; Neh. VIII 4; XI 4, 5, 12; XII 16, 35, 41; I Chron. IX 21, 
37; XV 20; XVI 5; 2 Chron. XVII 7; XXIV 2O; XXXIV 12. 
Zecharjahu: 2 Kings XV 8; Isa. VIII 2; I Chron. V 7; XV 18, 24; 
XXIV 25; XXVI 2, n, 14; XXVII 21; 2 Chron. XX 14; 
XXI 2; XXVI 5; XXIX I, 13; XXXV 8. 

Hezekijah = my strength is Jehovah: 2 Kings XVIII i, 10, 14, 14, 
15, 16, 16; Zeph. I I; Prov. XXV i; Neh. VII 21; X 18; 

1 Chron. Ill 23. 

Hezekijdhu: 2 Kings XVI 20; XVIII 9, 13, 17, 19, 22, 29, 30, 31, 
32, 37; XIX i, 3, 5, 9, 10, 14, 14, 15, 20; XX I, 3, 5, 8, 12, 
12, 13, 13, 14, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 2i; XXI 3; Isa. XXXVI I, 
2, 4, 7, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22; XXXVII I, 3, 5, 9, IO, 14, 14, 15, 
21; XXXVIII I, 2, 3, 5, 9, 22; XXXIX I, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 8; 
Jerem. XXVI 18, 19; i Chron. Ill 13; 2 Chron. XXIX 18, 27; 
XXX 24; XXXII 15. 

Hilkijah = my portion is Jehovah: 2 Kings XVIII 37; XXII 8, 
10, 12; Jerem. XXIX 3; Ezra VII I; Neh. VIII 4; XI ii; XII 
7, 21 ; I Chron. V 39, 39; VI 30; IX ii; 2 Chron XXXV 8. 

Hilkijahu: 2 Kings XVIII 18, 26; XXII 4, 8, 14; XXIII 4, 24; 
Isa. XXII 20; XXXVI 3, 22; Jerem. I I; I Chron. XXVI II; 

2 Chron. XXXIV 9, 14, 15, 15, 18, 20, 22 

Jin Hananjah = whom Jehovah has graciously given: Jerem. XXVIII i, 
5, 10, II, 12, 13, 15, 15, 17; XXXVII 13; Dan. I 6, 7, ii, 19; 
II 17; Ezra X 28; Neh. Ill 8, 30; VII 2; X 24; XII 12, 41; 

I Chron. Ill 19, 21; VIII 24; XXV 4. 

Mri Hananjahu: Jerem. XXXVI 12; I Chron. XXV 23; 2 Chron. 

XXVI ii. 

ttJri Hashabjah = whom Jehovah regards: Ezra VIII 19, 24; Neh. Ill 17; 
X 12; XI 15, 22; XII 21, 24; I Chron. VI 30; IX 14; XXV 19; 

XXVII 17. 

Hashabjahu: I Chron. XXV 3; XXVI 30; 2 Chron. XXXV 9. 
Tobijah my good is Jehovah: Zech. VI 10, 14; Ezra II 60; Neh. 

II 10, 19; III 35; IV i; VI i, 12, 14, 17, 17, 19; VII 62; 
XIII 4, 7, 8. 

Tobijahii: 2 Chron. XVII 8. 

D1&T Jaazanjah = whom Jehovah hears: Jerem. XXXV 3; Ezek. XI I. 
$$- Jaazanjahu: 2 Kings XXV 23; Ezek. VIII ii. 



390 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 



Joshijah = whom Jehovah heals: Zech. VI 10. 
irrtfK 11 Joshijahu: i Kings XIII 2; 2 Kings XXI 24, 26; XXII I, 3; 

XXIII 1 6, 19, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 34, 34; Jerem. I 2, 3, 3; III 6; 
XXII II, II, 18; XXV I, 3; XXVI i; XXXV I; XXXVI I, 
2, 9; XXXVII I; XLV I; XLVI 2; Zeph. I i; I Chron I1J 14, 
15; 2 Chron. XXXIII 25; XXXIV i, 33; XXXV I, 7, 16, 18, 
19, 20, 20, 22. 23, 24, 25, 25, 26; XXXVI I. 

.Tjr Jezanjah = whom Jehovah hears: Jerem. XLII i. 
*"7?!? Jezanjahtt: Jerem. XL 8. 

n*|?7fT Jehizkijah (Hezekiah) Jehovah strengthens: Hos I i; Micah I I; 

Ezra II 1 6. 
<n|5TPP Jehizkijahu: 2 Kings XX 10; Isa. I I; Jerem. XV 4; I Chron. 

IV 41; 2 Chron. XXVIII 12, 27; XXIX I, 20, 30, 31, 36; 

XXX i, 18, 20, 22; XXXI 2, 8, 9, II, 13, 2O; XXXII 2, 8, 

9, n, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 26, 27, 30, 30, 32, 33; 

XXXIII 3. 

Jecholjah = able through Jehovah: 2 Chron. XXVI 3. 

Jccholjahu: 2 Kings XV a. 

JechoHjah - whom Jehovah has appointed: Jerem. XXVII 20; 

XXVIII 4; XXIX 2; Pother II 6; I Chron. Ill 16, 17. 
JcchonjahTi: Jerem. XXIV I. 

Jerijah = founded of Jehovah: i Chron. XXVI 31. 
Jerijahu: i Chron. XXIII 19; XXIV 23. 

Jcremjah = whom Jehovah setteth up: Jerem. XXVII i; XXVIll 5, 
6, 10, ii, 12, 15; XXIX i; Dan. IX 2; Ezra I i; Neh. X 3; 
XH I, 12, 34; i Chron. V 24; XII 4, 10. 

Jeremjahii: 2 Kings XXIII 31; XXIV 18; Jerem. I I, ii; VII I; 
XI i; XIV I; XVIII i, 18; XIX 14; XX I, 2, 3, 3; XXI I, 3; 

XXIV 3; XXV i, 2, 13; XXVI 7, 8, 9, 12, 20, 24; XXVIII 12 ; 

XXIX 27, 29, 30; XXX i; XXXII I, 2, 6, 26; XXXUI I, 19, 
23; XXXIV i, 6, 8, 12; XXXV I, 3, 12, 18: XXXVI I, 4, 4, 
5, 8, 10, 19, 26, 27, 27, 32, 32; XXXVII 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 
14, 15, 16, 16, 17, 18, 21, 21 ; XXXVIII i, 6, 6, 6, 7, 9, 10, n, 
12, 12, 13, 13, 14, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28; XXXIX ii, 

14, 15; XL I, 2, 6; XLII 2, 4, 5, 7; XLIII I, 2, 6, 8; XLIV I, 

15, 20, 24; XLV I, i; XLVI I, 13; XLVII I; XLIX 34; L i; 
LI 59, 60, 6l, 64; LII i; I Chron. XII 13; 2 Chron. XXXV 25; 
XXXVI 12, 21, 22. 



CHAP. XT.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 391 



Ishijah whom Jehovah tended: Ezra X 31; i Chron. VII 3; 

XXIII 20; XXIV 21, 25, 25. 
Ishijahtt: i Chron. XII 6. 

Ishmajah = whom Jehovah heareth: i Chron. XII 4. 
Ishmajahti: I Chron. XXVII 19. 

Jeshajah = help of Jehovah: Ezra VIII 7, 19; Neh. XI 7: I Chron. 

Ill 21. 
Jeshajahu (Isaiah): 2 Kings XIX 2, 5, 6, 20; XX i, 4, 7, 8, 

9, II, 14, 16, 19; Isa. I i; II i; VII 3; XIII I; XX 2, 3; 

XXXVII 2, 5, 6, 21 ; XXXVIII I, 4, 21; XXXIX 3, 5, 

8; i Chron. XXV 3, 15; XXVI 25; 2 Chron. XXVI 22; XXXII 

20, 32. 

rTM3 Chenanjah = whom Jehovah placed: i Chron. XV 27. 
1JT333 Ckenanjaku: I Chron. XV 22; XXVI 29. 

.T^a Michajah = who is like Jehovah: 2 Kings XXII 12; Jerem. XXVI 

18; Neh. XII 35, 41. 

in^a Michajahu: 2 Chron. XIII 2; XVII 7. 
in^a Michajhu: Judg. XVII I, 4; I Kings XXII 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 24, 

25, 26, 28; Jerem. XXXVI n, 13; 2 Chron. XVIII 7, 8, 12, 

13, 23, 24, 25, 27. 

a Malchijah = my king is Jehovah: Jerem. XXI i ; XXXVIII i; 

Ezra X 25, 25, 31; Neh. Ill n, 14, 31; VIII 4; X 4; XI 12; 

XII 42; I Chron. VI 25, IX 12; XXIV 9. 
a Malchijahu: Jerem. XXXVIII 6. 

j?a Maazjah = consolation of Jehovah: Neh. X 9. 
pa Maazjatiu: I Chron. XXIV 18. 
>& Maasejah = work of Jehovah: Jerem. XXI i; XXIX 21, 25; 

XXXVII 3; Ezra X 18, 21, 22, 30; Neh. Ill 23; VIII 4, 7; 

X 26; XI 5, 7; XII 41, 42. 
la Maasej'aku: Jerem. XXXV 4; I Chron. XV 1 8, 20; 2 Chron. XXIII I; 

XXVI n ; XXVIII 7; XXXIV 8. 

Meshdemjah = whom Jehovah repays: i Chron. IX 21. 
Meskelemjaku: I Chron. XXVI I, 2, 9. 

prifc Mattanjdh = gift of Jehovah: 2 Kings XXIV 17; Ezra X 26, 27, 
30, 37; Neh. XI 17, 22; XII 8, 25, 35; XIII 13; I Chron. IX 15; 
2 Chron. XX 14. 
rwa MattanjaM: I Chron. XXV 4, 16; 2 Chron. XXIX 13. 



392 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 



a MatUthjah = gift of Jehovah: Ezra X 43; Neh. VIII 4; i Chron. 

IX 31; XVI 5 . 

ia Mattithjahu: I Chron. XV 18, 21; XXV 3, 21. 
ng NcrijaH = /n/ /am/> /s Jehovah: Jerem. XXXII 12, 16; XXXVI 4, 

8; XLIII 3; XLV i; LI 59. 
i Ncrijahu: Jerem. XXXVI 14, 32; XLIII 6. 

Ncthanfah given of Jehovah: 2 Kings XXV 23 25; Jerem. XL 
14, 15; XLI I, 2, 6, 7, 10, II, 12, 15, 16, 18; I Chron. XXV 2. 
\Tjn3 NelhanjahTi: Jerem. XXXVI 14; XL 8; XLI 9; I Chron. XXV 12; 

2 Chron. XVII 8. 

Obadjah = servant of Jehovah: Obad. i; Ezra VIII 9; Neh. X 6; 
XII 25; . Chron. Ill 21; VII 3; VIII 38; IX 16, 44; XII 9; 
2 Chron. XVII 7. 
Obadjahu: I Kings XVIII 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16; I Chron. XXVII 19; 

2 Chron. XXXIV 12. 
Adajah = ornament of Jehovah: 2 Kings XXII I; Ezra X 29, 39; 

Neh. XI 5, 12; i Chron VI 26; VIII 21; IX 12. 
Adajahu: 2 Chron. XXIII I. 
HMJ7 Uzzijah = my strength is Jehovah: 2 Kings XV 13, 30; Hos. I i; 
Amos I i ; Zech. XIV 5; Ezra X 21; Neh. XI 4; I Chron. VI 9. 
1,-Wr Uzzijahu: 2 Kings XV 32, 34; Isa. I i ; VI I ; VII I ; I Chron. 
XXVII 25; 2 Chron. XXVI I, 3, 8, 9, n, 14, 18, 18, 19, 21, 
22, 23; XXVII 2. 

rP~i:j? Azcirjah helped of Jehovah: 2 Kings XIV 21; XV i, 7, 17, 23, 
27; Jerem. XLIII 2; Dan. I 6, 7, II, 19; II 17; Ezra VII I, 3; 
Neh. Ill 23, 24; VII 7; VIII 75X3; XII 33; I Chron. II 8, 38, 
39; III 12; V 35,35,36, 37,39,40; Vl2l;IXli; 2 Chron. XXI 2; 
XXIII i. 

Azarjahu: I Kings IV 2, 5 ; 2 Kings XV 6, 8; 2 Chron XV i; 
XXI 2; XXII 6; XXIII i; XXVI 17, 20; XXVIII 12; XXIX 
12, 12; XXXI 10, 13 
Athaljah = afflicted of Jehovah: 2 Kings XI I, 3, 13, 14; Ezra 

VIII 7; I Chron. VIII 26; 2 Chron XXII 12. 
rXC; Athaljahn: 2 Kings VIII 26; XI 2, 20; 2 Chron. XXII 2, 10, n; 

XXIII 12, 13, 21 ; XXIV 7. 
Pedajah redemption of Jehovah: 2 Kings XXIII 36; Neh. Ill 25; 

VIII 4; XI 7; XIII 13; I Chron. Ill 18, 19. 
Pedajahu: I Chron. XXVII 20. 

Pelatjah = deliverance of Jehovah: Neh. X 23; i Chron III 21 ; IV 42. 
rtpbB Pelatjahu: Ezek. XI I, 13 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 393 



Zidkijah (Zedekiah) = my justice is Jehovah: i Kings XXII 1 1 ; Jerem. 

XXVII 12; XXVIII i; XXIX 3; Neh. X 2; I Chron. Ill 16. 
Zidkijahu: I Kings XXII 24; 2 Kings XXIV 17, 18, 2O; XXV 2 f 

7, 7; Jerem. I 3; XXI I, 3, 7; XXIV 8; XXVII 3; XXIX 21, 

22; XXXII i, 3, 4, 5; XXXIV 2, 4, 6, 8, 21; XXXVI 12 ; 

XXXVII i, 3, 17, 18, 21 ; XXXVIII 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 24; 

XXXIX 1,2,4, 5, 6, 7;XLIV30; XLIX34; LI 59; LII I, 3, 5, 8, 

10, il; i Chron. Ill 15; 2 Chron. XVIII 10, 23; XXXVI 10, 11. 
Zephanjah Hid or protected of Jehovah: Jerem. XXI i; XXIX 

25 29; LII 24; Zeph. I i; Zech. VI IO, 14; I Chron. VI 2i. 
Zephanjahu: 2 Kings XXV 18; Jerem. XXXVII 3. 
Rehabjah = whom Jehovah enlarges: i Chron. XXIII 17, 17. 
Rehabjahu: I Chron. XXIV 21, 21; XXVI 25. 
Serajah = warrior of Jehovah: 2 Sam. VIII 17; 2 Kings XXV 18, 

23; Jerem. XL 8; LI 59, 59, 6l; LII 24; Ezra II 2; VII i; 

Neh. X 3; XI il; XII I, 12; I Chron. IV 13, 14, 35; V 40, 40. 
Serajahu: Jerem. XXXVI 26. 
Shebanjah = caused to grow up of Jehovah: Neh. IX 4, 5 ; X 5, 

n, 13; XII 14. 
Shebanjatiii: I Chron. XV 24. 
Shechanjah = habitation of Jehovah: Ezra VIII 3, 5; X 2; Neh. 

Ill 29; VI 18; XII 3; I Chron. Ill 21, 22. 
Shechanjahu: I Chron. XXIV n; 2 Chron. XXXI 15. 
Shelemjah = recompensed of Jehovah: Jerem. XXXVII 3, 13; Ezra 

X 39; Neh. Ill 30; XIII 13. 

ShelemjaM: Jerem. XXXVI 14, 26; XXXVIII i; Ezra X 41; 

I Chron. XXVI 14. 
Shemajah = Heard of Jehovah: i Kings XII 22; Jerem. XXIX 31, 

3l, 32; Ezra VIII 13, 16; X 21, 31; Neh. Ill 29; VI 10; X 9; 

XI 15; XII 6, 18, 34, 35, 36, 42; i Chron. Ill 22, 22; IV 37; 
V4; IX 14, 16; XV 8, II; XXIV 6; XXVI 4, 6, 7; 2 Chron. 

XII 5, 7, 15; XXIX 14. 

Shemajahu: Jerem. XXVI 20; XXIX 24; XXXVI 12; 2 Chron. 

XI 2; XVII 8; XXXI 15; XXXV 9. 

Shemarjah Guarded of Jehovah: Ezra X 32, 41; 2 Chron. XI 19. 
Shemarjahu: I Chron. XII 5. 
!TtpB2> Shephatjah = judge of Jehovah: 2 Sam. Ill 4; Jerem. XXXVIII i; 

Ezra II 4, 57; VIII 8; Neb. VII 9, 59; XI 4; i Chron. Ill 3; 

IX 8. 
Shephatjahu: I Chron. XII 5; XXVII 16; 2 Chron XXI 2. 



394 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

Both in the Authorised Version and in the Revised 
Version the distinction between these two forms of the 
same name is entirely obliterated. By ignoring the last 
syllable and by transliterating both forms alike, the trans- 
lators have deprived the student of the means to ascertain 
how far the process of safeguarding the name Jehovah or 
Jah has been carried out in the different books. 

(2) The second class consists of proper names 
compounded with Jah (IT) which have uniformly been 
lengthened into jahu (1JT). Of these we have the following 
eleven examples: 

Azaljahu = reserved of Jehovah: 2 Kings XXII 3; 2 Chron. 



XXXIV 8. 

inj52 Bukki/ahn = emptying of Jehovah: i Cbron. XXV 4, 13. 
Jcbcrcchjahn = he will be blessed of Jehovah: Isa. VIII 2. 
Igdaljahu Jehovah will make him great: Jerem. XXXV 4. 
Jehdcjahit = Jehovah will make him joyful: i Chron. XXIV 20; 

XXVII 30. 

1.T53 Cotijahu = established of Jehovah: Jerem. XXII 24, 28; XXXVII I. 
1TP333 Cottanjahu (the Keri), 2 Chron. XXXI 12, 13; XXXV 9. 
Mikncjahti = possession of Jehovah: i Chron. XV 18, 21. 
Semachjahu = sustained of Jehovah: i Chron. XXVI 7. 
liTTTJ? Azazjahit = strengthened of Jehovah: i Chron. XV 21; XXVII 20; 

2 Chron. XXXI 13. 

H^On Remaljahu == Adorned of Jehovah: j Kings XV 25, 27, 30, 
32, 37; XVI i, 5; Isa. VII i, 4, 5, 9; VIII 6; 2 Chron. 

XXVIII 6. 

It will be seen that with the exception of the last 
name all the others are of infrequent occurrence. It is 
probably due to this fact that the process of uniformity 
has been successfully carried out by the redactors of the 
text. Here again both the Authorised Version and the 
Revised Version have taken no notice whatever that these 
names end in jahu (irp) and have transliterated them as if 
they terminated in jah (IT). 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 395 

(3) The third class consists of the names compounded 
with the Divine name jah (IV) which the redactors of the 
text have not attempted to safeguard by converting the 
ending into jahn (liT). There are no fewer than seventy-one 
such proper names which have retained their primitive 
orthography and as they have not undergone any change 
I need not enumerate them. 

This, however, is not the only way in which the 
redactors of the text guarded against the pronunciation of 
the abbreviated form of the Tetragrammaton. Instead of 
adding a syllable they often elided the He (i"l) altogether 
or substituted another letter for it. Thus 



iTlX Abijah, which is sometimes lengthened into li 
Abijahu has the letter He (fl) dropped altogether and is 
abbreviated into ^X Abi. This is evident from a comparison 
of i Chron. XXIX i with 2 Kings XVIII 2 where the 
mother of Hezekiah is called by two apparently contra- 
dictory names in these two passages. 

^ttttf? Ishmerai in i Chron. VIII 18 is now acknow- 
ledged to stand for IV"18tt^ = kept by Jehovah. Not only 
has the He (n) here been elided which deprives the last 
syllable of the divine name Jah ( ( V), but the vowel-points 
have been adapted to this altered form. 

Exactly the same process has been adopted in Ezra 
X 34 where HPft Maadai simply exhibits an altered form 
of iV"JPQ Maadjah = ornament of Jehovah, which occurs in 
Neh. XII 5, and in the name ^flQ Mattenai. This name 
which occurs three times (Ezra X 33, 37; Neh. XII 19) is 
simply an abbreviated form of (T3F10 Mattanjah = gift of 
Jehovah, with the divine name Jah obliterated. 

HHDP Obadjah = worshipper of Jehovah, which has in 
several places been altered into 'IJV'ISJJ Obadjahtl, and which 
occurs in its original orthography in i Chron. IX 16 as the 



396 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

descendant of the Levites, is spelled fcttllJJ Abda = servant 
in Neh. XI 17 though it describes the identical person. 

The same is the case with JTPOtf Shemajdh = heard 
of Jehovah, a son of Galal who is mentioned in the lists 
of the Levites in i Chron. IX 16, whilst in the list in 
Neh. XI 17 the name of this son of Galal is spelled JJiattf 
Shammua = heard, with the monosyllable Jah = Jehovah 
entirely gone. Such was the anxiety to safeguard the 
Tetragrammaton. 

The extent to which this process of undeifying jah 
(fp) has been carried, and the effect it had upon the 
redaction of the Hebrew text may be judged from the 
fact that the ancient authorities went so far as to take it 
in the sense of the Greek interjection lcb, tov and regarded 
it as an exclamation of sorrow and pain. Thus the Midrash 
Rabba on Gen. XLIII 14 remarks as follows: 

R. Phineas said in the name of R. Hosejah: It is not said here "blessed 
is the man whom thou chastenest, O Jehovah" [Ps. XC1V 12], but "blessed 
is the man whom thou chastenest O Jah". That is just as one who is sentenced 
by the judge cries out in his pain and says iw tov enough, enough! so Jacob 
said He who will say of the sufferings it is enough will also say of my 
sufferings it is enough! Because it is said God Almighty give you mercy before 
the man &c.' 

The ancient redactors of the text have also tried to 
safeguard the other Divine names, notably Elohim (D'rt^N) 
and El (^K) God, though not to the same extent as they 
have protected the Tetragrammaton. Without entering 
minutely into all the results arising from the protection of 
these names I shall only advert to some of the phenomena 
in the Hebrew text due to this cause. 



JKD 3'rO pK Tl 13-iDTl "ItPK "O3H "ntPK "IK KTttTH ^1 DBD DH3B ^"l ' 

*p ."H H !T IT "laiKl -iPElttai pri3f pHH "OB 1 ? p13 XliTO HO ,T IDID^n "HTK s'TK 

onb |rv "-jw bxi IISKDIP -n niD'b niaK 1 ' Kin n nmo- 1 ? n-nrtr 2pr s "iia 
:n3t nine ppa nai ?~na '131 WKH ^s 1 ? n^arn ed. wiiina 1878. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 397 

The proper name Daniel occurs eighty-one times in 
the Bible, thirty times in the Hebrew text and fifty-one 
times in the Chaldee portion of the book of this celebrated 
prophet of the Babylonish captivity. Both in the Authorised 
Version and in the Revised Version there is nothing to 
indicate in the transliteration of this name that the original 
exhibits a great peculiarity in the orthography. The name 
denotes my judge is God, or judge of God and yet it is 
not pointed and pronounced ^N*3*T Dani-el, according to 
the analogy of such compounds, 1 but is invariably pointed 
and pronounced ^N"^ Dani-iel, which obliterates the 
Divine name ^N El altogether. This is according to the 
canon laid down in the Massorah that "the Tzere must be 
under the letter Yod () in accordance with the celebrated 
Codex in the country of Eden". 2 Hence this remarkable 
phenomenon in the MSS. and in the printed editions of 
the text. 

In Hosea X 14 a town is mentioned of the name of 
Beth-Arbel ^K3"tHrfl*2. Leaving the Septuagint which ex- 
hibits here the reading oixov rov IEQV^OK^L = DPST fP3 the 
house of Jeroboam, and confining ourselves to the received 
text it is admitted that the name in question as we have 
it in the Massoretic reading denotes House of the ambush 
of God, i. e. ^g3* 1 JK"fl*3. It was, however, deemed offensive 
to ascribe to God the laying of an ambush. Hence it is 
pointed and pronounced ^X3"1N Ar-bel so that the name 
of God (\S) El, is entirely disguised. 

In the name Ishmael ^XttW = whom God heareth, we 
have another instance in which the Divine name El (^X) God 
is disguised. The reason for it is not far to seek. Besides 



1 Comp. bVPb* I Chron. V 24; VI 19; VIII 20 &c.; by?*\S Numb. 
XIII 10; hVPm I Chron. XXIII 9; ^H^ I Chron. IV 36; IX 12; XXVII 25. 

2 pr nriias riTn awn j& nan TT by nan bwy* comp. Orient. 2350, 

fol. 270 British Museum. 



398 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

the five passages in which it is the name of three different 
persons, 1 Ishmael occurs forty-three times throughout the 
Hebrew Bible, twenty times it denotes the first born of 
Abraham by Hagar 2 and in no fewer than twenty-three 
instances it is the name of the murderer of Gedaliah. 3 Now 
it was not so much "the wild ass of a man" whose "hand 
was against every man, and every man's hand against him" 
(Gen. XVI 12), but Ishmael the son of Nathaniel who is 
the cause of the obliteration of *?# God, in this compound 
name. The horrible treachery and villainy which are re- 
corded in Jerem. XL 7 XLI 15 have made his name 
execrable in the annals of Jewish history and the memory 
of the massacre which he perpetrated is perpetuated by 
the fact of the seventh month (Zech. VII 5; VIII 19) which 
the Jews keep to this day on the third of Tishri. This 
underlies the punctuation ^XJJQt^ instead of ^XtfQttf' whom 
God heareth. This punctuation has also been uniformly 
carried through in all the eight passages in which it is the 
patronymic, 4 viz. ^NPOE^ the Ishmaelite, and indeed in one 
instance the letter Aleph (N) in the Divine name has been 
elided altogether (i Chron. XVII 30). 

The obliteration of El (t>X) God, in the compound 
name ^KPIP God planteth, is probably due to the infamous 
and bloody deeds perpetrated in Jezreel and to the fact 
that the final overthrow of the kingdom of Israel took 

1 Comp. Ezra X 22 where Ishmael is the name of a priest who had 
taken a strange wife; in I Chron. VIII 38; IX 44 it is the name of the sons 
of Azel; and in 2 Chron. XIX II Ishmael is the name of the father of 
Zebadiah. 

2 Comp. Gen. XVI II, 15, 16; XVII 18, 2O, 23, 25, 46; XXV 9, 15, 
13, 13, 16, 17; XXVIII 9, 9; XXXVI 3; I Chron. I 28, 29, 31. 

8 Comp. 2 Kings XXV 23, 25; Jerem. XL 8, 14, 15, 16; XLI i, 2, 
3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, n, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, i8. 

* Comp. Gen. XXXVII 25, 27, 28; XXXIX i; Judg. VIII 24; 
Ps. LXXXIII 7; I Chron. II 17; XXVII 30. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 399 

place here. 1 It will be seen that the Divine name is here 
more effectually disguised than in Ishmael inasmuch as it 
is always pointed ^fc^"!*' with Segol under the Ay in (JJ) and 
it is only the patronymic which has Tzere under the Ay in 
(P). In one instance the Divine name is entirely obliterated 
by the omission of the letter Aleph (tf) in the patronymic 
where the Keri directs us to insert it. Comp. i Sam. XXX 5. 

This reluctance to pronounce the Divine names and 
the consequent attempts to disguise or to obliterate them 
have been a fruitful source of various readings. In some 
Schools of textual critics, the elision of the letter He (n) 
at the beginning or the addition of the letter Vav (1) at 
the end of proper names in compounds with Jah (iT), i. e. 
the abbreviated form of Jehovah (nliT), was more extensively 
carried through than in others. The same was the case 
with the substitution of Adonai (^1X) Lord, or Elohim 
(D'ri^X) God, for the Tetragrammaton, and with the removal 
of the vowel-point Tzere from the names in compounds 
with El (*?X) God. Hence the MSS. frequently exhibit 
various readings both with regard to the Tetragrammaton 
and the other names of the God of Israel, as will be seen 
in the notes to my edition of the Hebrew Bible. This also 
accounts for the extraordinary phenomenon exhibited in 
the orthography of the Divine names in the early editions. 
Thus the editio princeps of the entire Hebrew Bible has 
Elodim (D'l^N) for Elohim (D'rftg) God, and Jehodah Cjlrp) 
for Jehovah, substituting Daleth (l) for He (n) not only in the 
pronounceable, but in the unpronounceable name to disguise 
them both alike. The same process of disguise is adopted 
in the third edition of the Bible printed at Brescia in 1494. 

XII. The attempt to remove the application of the names 
of false gods to Jehovah. - We have seen that the safe- 

1 Comp. I Kings XXI I 16; 2 Kings IX 2337: X I II; Hos. I 4 



400 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

guarding of the Divine names in the proper names of 
human beings is the cause of a difference in the ortho- 
graphy. Still, as a rule, the identity of the names and 
persons is easily recognised. In the anxiety, however, on 
the part of the Sopherim to prevent the application of 
the names of idols to the true God, changes have been 
effected in the text which often preclude the identification 
of the individual and thus produce apparent contradictions 
in parallel passages. 

The most significant changes are those connected 
with Baal. The appellative Baal (^P3) which denotes Lord, 
Owner, like the appellatives Adon (|1"TX) Lord, Owner, and 
El (*?X) the Mighty, was originally one of the names of the 
God of Israel. This is evident from the fact that names 
compounded with Baal are of frequent occurrence in the 
families of Saul and David who were zealous defenders of 
the worship of Jehovah. Thus Eshbaal (^X?2t^X) = the man 
of Baal or the Lord, is the name of the fourth son of Saul 
king of Israel (i Chron. VIII 33; IX 39), and Beeliada 
(1?T^P2) == for whom Baal or the Lord careth, is the name 
of the son of David born in Jerusalem (i Chron. XIV 7). 
As names were given by parents with special reference to 
God in recognition of mercies vouchsafed, it will hardly 
be contended that both Saul and David dedicated their 
children to the false God Baal and not to the true God 
of Israel. We also find that one of David's heroes who joined 
his army at Ziklag was called Bealjah (iT^P2) = whose Baal 
or Lord is Jehovah (\ Chron. XII 5), and that one of David's 
chief officers was called Baal-hanan (fjn~^jt?3) Baal or 
the Lord of mercy (\ Chron. XXVII 28). 

But Baal was also the name of the supreme deity of 
the surrounding nations who in conjunction with Asherah 
was afterwards worshipped with obscene rites. 1 Prior to the 

1 Comp. i Kings XVIII 19; 2 Kings XXIII 4. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 401 

Babylonish captivity the Jews were frequently seduced by 
this libidinous form of idolatry and introduced Kedeshim 
and Kedeshoth into their worship. 1 During their exile, 
however, they were completely weaned from going astray 
after other gods and on their return to the Holy Land 
under Ezra and Nehemiah every effort was made by the 
spiritual guides of the people to obliterate if possible the 
very name of the idols whose worship was associated with 
licentiousness. Hence Jehovah himself in describing the 
purified state of religion declares: "It shall come to pass 
at that day that thou shalt call me Ishi [= my husband] 
and shalt call me no more Baali [= my Baal or Lord]: 
for I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth 
and they shall no more be mentioned by their names" 
(Hosea II 16, 17). It is due to this declaration that the 
authoritative custodians of the sacred text interpreted the 
precept "and make no mention of the names of other gods" 
(Exod. XXIII 13) in a most rigid sense as implying that the 
very name of Baal should be cancelled even in compound 
proper names. For this reason names compounded with 
Baal have been altered either in a good sense or principally 
by way of ridicule into compounds with Bosheth (nttf2) = 
shame. Thus 

(i) Jerubbaal (t>lJ2lT) = Baal contends, the name which 
was given to Gideon by his father Joash when the people 
wished to kill him, and which occurs fourteen times, 2 is 
altered in 2 Sam. XI 21 into 

Jerubbesheth (nttf|l*V) = with whom shame contends, i. e. 
the shameful idol. The fact that the Septuagint, the Syriac 
and the Vulgate exhibit here t>JJ3T Jerubbaal, shows that 



1 Comp. I Kings XIV 22-24; XV 12; XXII 47; 2 Kings XXIII 7; 
Hos. IV 14; with Numb. XXV 13; XXXI 16; Josh. XXII 17. 

2 Comp. Judg. VI 32; VII I ; VIII 29, 35; IX I, 2, 5, 5, 16, 19, 24, 

28, 57; i Sam. XII II. 

AA 



402 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

they had still a recension before them in which this 
alteration had not been made, or that the Codex from 
which these Versions were made belonged to a School 
which retained the ancient reading. 

(2) Eshbaal (^P3E?N) = the man of Baal, the name of the 
fourth son of Saul king of Israel which occurs twice 
(i Chron. VIII 33; IX 39), is altered into 

Ish-bosheth (nCte'E^N) = the man of shame, in all the 
other twelve passages where it occurs. 1 

(3) Ashbel (^>2ttfN) = the man of Baal, the second or third 
son of Benjamin which occurs three times, viz. Gen. 
XLVI 21 ; Numb. XXVI 38; i Chron. VIII i, is altered into 

Jediael (^NJ^T) == known of God, in the other three in- 
stances where this name occurs for the son of Benjamin, 
viz. i Chron. VII 6, 10, n. It will be seen that in the case 
of this name the alteration is in a good sense. 

(4) Merib-baal (^303 3^*10) = my Lord Baal, the name of 
Jonathan's lame son and Saul's grandson as he is three times 
called, viz. i Chron. VIII 34, 34; IX 40, but more properly 
Meri-baal (^PST^O) in i Chron. IX 40, is altered into 

Mephibosheth (ntfS'pO) = the exterminator of shame, in 
all the other fourteen passages where it occurs 2 thus making 
it denote the very reverse of its original meaning. Mephi- 
bosheth also occurs once as the name of a son of Saul 
by his concubine Rizpah the daughter of Aiah (2 Sam. 
XXI 8). It is, therefore, to be presumed that it is also 
an alteration from Meri-baal. 

(5) Beeliada (tfT^P3) = whom Baal or the Lord knows, 
i. e. cares for, the name of a son of David which only 
occurs once in the first List, viz. i Chron. XIV 7, is altered 
into 

1 Comp. 2 Sam. II 8, 10, 12, 15; III 7, 8, 14, 15; IV 5, 8, 8, 12. 

2 Comp. i Sam. IV 4; IX 6, 6, 10, n, 12, 12, 13; XVI i, 4; XIX 24, 
25, 30; XXI 7. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 403 

Eliada (JJT^X) = whom God knows, i. e. cares for, in 
the other two Lists which repeat the names of David's sons 
born in Jerusalem contained in 2 Sam. V 14 16 and i Chron. 
HI 5-8. 

(6) 2 Sam. XXIII 8. The most remarkable instance 
of confusion, however, which has been produceed in the 
Massoretic text by this anxiety on the part of the Sopherim 
"to take away the names of Baalim" (comp. Hos. II 17) 
is exhibited in 2 Sam. XXIII 8. In the List of David's 
chief heroes which is repeated three times, viz. (i) 2 Sam. 
XXIII 8 39; (2) i Chron. XI n 41; and (3) i Chron. 
XXVII 2 15, the name of the first hero who heads this 
catalogue is given in 2 Sam. XXIII 8 as 'i&snfi fUttfa Dt?\ 
This extraordinary name is rendered in the Authorised 
Version the Tachmonite that sat in the seat, with the alter- 
native in the margin "Or, Josheb-bassebet the Tachmonite". 
This curious marginal rendering is inserted into the text 
of the Revised Version with the remark against it in the 
margin "the verse is probably corrupt. See i Chron. XI n". 
The corruption, however, which is here acknowledged is 
simply confirmed by the parallel Lists, but cannot be 
corrected by them. It is the Septuagint which supplies 
the clue to the correction since it exhibits the reading 
'/5/3o<?# = ntfatf = nttfa tf'X Ishbosheth, i. e. the man oj 
shame, which is also the name of the fourth son of Saul. 
But as Ishbosheth itself, as we have seen, is already an 
alteration of the original name ^J?2tt^ or ^P3ttfX Ishbaal, 
i. e. the 'man of Baal, there can hardly be any doubt that 
it was the primitive reading here. This is attested by the 
Lucian recension of the Septuagint which has 'Isafiacd = 
Sj?2tp> Ishbaal, With these facts before us we at once see 
that the name of this first hero in the parallel catalogues 
must also have been originally ^JJ3t^ Ishbaal, and indeed 

the Lucian recension of the Septuagint has actually J It66- 

AA* 



404 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

/3/l = ^3ttf? in i Chron. XI 1 1 and B. has 'Isea^ccdcc which 
is probably an error for '/,E0/?aAa. In the Hebrew the 
name was probably written both in i Chron. XI 1 1 and 
XXVII 2 'JW which was resolved by one School into h$yp 
Isltbaal, and by another School disguised into DUStP* Joshobam. 
Whether the Levite DUDE^, the descendant of Korah whose 
name is once mentioned in i Chron. XII 6, was originally 
also ^JHttP, or whether this name has made it easier for 
the redactors of the text to resolve 'V3W [= tylW 1 ] into 
DIDtt' in i Chron. XI 1 1 ; XII 2 it is now difficult to 
ascertain. 

XIII. Safeguarding the unify of the Divine Worship at Jeru- 
salem. - - To understand the anxiety of the spiritual guides 
of the Jewish Commonwealth to guard against any rival 
to the central Sanctuary at Jerusalem, and the effect which 
this solicitude has had upon the redaction of the text it 
is necessary to advert to the events in the history of the 
Jews during this period. 

During the terrible wars which raged in Palestine 
between the Jews and the Syrians and the consequent 
persecutions B. C. 164, Onias IV, the young son of 
Onias III, the legitimate High Priest, fled to Alexandria 
accompanied by Dositheus who was likewise of priestly 
descent. 1 As Onias III had always espoused the cause of 
the Egyptians against the Syrians, Ptolemy Philometor 
received his son with great hospitality. Egypt, however, 
was then distracted by intestine war. The brothers Philo- 
metor and Physcon, were arrayed against each other in 
deadly conflict fighting for the crown. Onias and Dositheus 
sided with the former and became generals of divisions. 
Through their high position and influence they were 

i Comp. Josephus, Antiq. XIII 3, 13; Wars VH 10, 3; Against 
Apion II 5. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 405 

followed by the Egyptian Jews into the battle-field and 
greatly contributed to the success of Philometor over 
Physcon. As a reward for his services Philometor made 
Onias prince over the Jewish community in Egypt with 
the hereditary title of Ethnarch and Alabarch. 

As prince over the community, Onias was determined 
to build a Temple for his numerous Jewish brethren who 
had settled in Egypt since the Sanctuary at Jerusalem had 
been profaned, and Alcimus, a usurping High Priest, was 
politically appointed over the heads of the legitimate 
priestly family. Being a descendant of that long line of 
High Priests, whose family dated from the time of David 
and Solomon, who officiated in the first Temple and who 
exerted themselves in the building of the Second Temple 
after the return from the Babylonish captivity, Onias IV 
was not suspected of schism and hence was greatly en- 
couraged by his brethren in his contemplated design. He, 
moreover, pointed out a prophecy which foretold that a 
Temple should be built in Egypt (Isa. XIX 19). When 
Onias made his design known to Philometer this monarch 
forthwith gave him a plot of land at Leontopolis, in the 
Prefecture of Heliopolis for the site of the Temple. He 
also assigned the revenues of the whole of this province 
for the permanent maintenance of the divine service. And 
it thus came to pass that in the vicinity of Goshen, on 
almost the identical spot where the descendants of Jacob 
had light when the rest of Egypt was suffering from the 
plague of darkness, so many centuries before, the Israelites 
had now a Temple wherein they worshipped the God of 
Abraham for more than two hundred years (circa'B. C. 160 
A. D. 71), when it was closed by the decree of Vespasian. 

The Jerusalem Jews, who during the distracted state 
of Judea and the profanation of the Sanctuary in the 
metropolis received the tidings of the building of the 



406 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

Temple in Egypt with joy, were afterwards extremely 
jealous of its existence when the Temple at Jerusalem 
had been purified and when its true worship was restored 
by the Maccabeans, since the new Sanctuary in Egypt 
disturbed the central point of unity. The Alexandrian Jews, 
however, to whom this new Temple had been a great 
comfort when the metropolitan Sanctuary was profaned, 
clung to their sacred edifice most tenaciously. Hence the 
alterations by the redactors of the Hebrew text of any 
passage which might favour the Egyptian Temple, as will 
be seen from the following illustration. 

Isa. XIX 1 8. This verse as it now stands in the 
textus receptus is correctly translated in the Authorised 
Version : 

In that day shall live cities in the land of Egypt speak the language 
of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts; one shall be called, the city 
of destruction. 

The whole of this Section (XIX 18 25) predicts the 
glorious future of the five Egyptian cities when they shall 
use the sacred language in which the worship of God is 
conducted and when they shall swear fealty to Jehovah. 
And now we are told that the most distinguished of these 
cities thus converted and consecrated and dedicated in so 
special a manner to the worship of Jehovah is to be called 
City of Destruction, which is a perfect contradiction to the 
whole tenor of the passage in question. The Septuagint, 
however, solves the difficulty inasmuch as it clearly shows 
that the Hebrew recension from which it was made read 
City of Righteousness (nohg &0edtx = pltfn TI>). From a 
pious desire notto bring the name of any other place in 
competition or even in juxtaposition with the sacred city 
the metropolis of the Holy Land, the Alexandrian trans- 
lators of the Septuagint, as is often the case, did not 
venture to translate the word at all, but simply trans- 



CHAP. XL] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 407 

literated it. The Palestinian redactors, however, who were 
jealous for the distinction of Jerusalem which bore this 
name (comp. Isa. I 26) would not consent that this title 
should be given to any other place, especially out of 
Palestine. 

Hence they substituted for it "the City of the 
Sun", which is still to be found in the most ancient 
traditions/ in many MSS., in some of the ancient Versions 
and in the margins both of the Authorised Version and 
the Revised Version. But afterward when the Jerusalem 
Temple was cleansed of its pollutions and the true service of 
Jehovah was restored, the Onias Temple was not only deemed 
unnecessary, but schismatic, another School of textual 
critics altered the name "City of the Sun" or Heliopolis, 
into the opprobrious name "City of Destruction". This was 
done all the more easily since it simply exhibited a kind 
of alliteration, which is very common in Hebrew, and only 
required the slightest change in a letter, or the exchange 
of two letters Chefh (n) and He (il) which are almost identical 
in form and are frequently mistaken for each other both 
in the MSS. and in the editions of the Hebrew text. 2 

1 Comp. Menachoth lioa, so also Symmachus, the Vulgate and the 
Chaldee. The latter, however, exhibits both recensions D"in sun and D"lll 
destruction, inasmuch as it paraphrases it the City of Beth-shemesh [== dwelling 
of the sun, Heliopolis] which is to be destroyed, shall one of them be called 

.pnao Kin K<n i&xrv D-inab KTOJH waw ira Kmp 

2 How difficult it is to justify this reading which is followed by Aquila, 
Theodotion and the Syriac may be seen from the expedient to which Kimchi 
was driven in the interpretation of the passage. It shall be said to one of 
them City of Destruction, that is, they will all so cling to the faith of the 
true God that they will agree together that in case one of the five cities should 
forsake the worship of God it shall be said to her City of Destruction, i. e. 
the others will rise up against her and destroy her *?3 nnK 1 ? "l&K 11 Blfin TJ7 

urn BK arrra la'aenp -tr bxn nsiiaxs a'pan V,T ~a 
niB-im rvhy iTarrc naiba a-inn Ty r6 



408 Introduction. [CHAP. XT. 

It will be seen that the formulization of these principles 
and the redaction of the text in accordance with them, 
presuppose functions which really belong to revisers rather 
than editors. But no exception can be taken to the conduct 
of these divinely appointed depositories of the traditional 
text. In accepting their transliteration of the text into the 
present square characters, their division of it into separate 
words, verses and sections, their orally transmitted pro- 
nunciation of the consonants which determines the sense of 
the Hebrew Scriptures and their finally fixing the canon 
of the Old Testament, we already concede to these spiritual 
guides of the Jewish Church a divine authority which 
almost amounts to co-authorship. Their specific authority, 
however, as textual revisers ceased about a century before 
Christ and there can hardly be any doubt that the received 
text which we now have is substantially the same which 
was finally settled at that period by these authoritative 
redactors. Copies of these authorised Scriptures were de- 
posited in the Court of the Temple and these were not only 
used for public reading, but as Standard Codices whereby 
other MSS. were corrected. Thus we are told in the 
Jerusalem Talmud (Taanith IV 2): 

Three Codices [of the Pentateuch] were in the Court of the Temple, 
Codex Mean, Codex Zaattite and Codex Hi. In one the reading was pPtt 
refuge [Deut. XXXII [ 27], and the other two Codices read ."DIPS [with 
the final He}, the reading of the two was accepted and that of the one Codex 
was rejected. One Codex read ""tSltSJJT [= ^T^TJJS] enquires of [Exod. XXtV 5] 
and the other two Codices read "HJ73 young men of, the reading of the two Codices 
was accepted and that of the one Codex was rejected. In one Codex the 
reading KTt [with Yod} occurred nine times and in the other two Codices it 
occurred eleven times, the reading of the two Codices was accepted and that 
of the one Codex was rejected. 1 



-into xvi -IBDI -aiert IBBI [pra] ?'3ipa IBD mrpa uaa DTIBD 'j 
,inx ibo-ai &w la-vsi nip v6 royo =iro D-WSI Dip vbx pro airo 
'32 nyj DK n^K- 1 ! airo D'Jttni 'rxiBP 'as 'DitsjN nx nbcH airo itaa nnxn 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 409 

This notice reveals to us the important fact that the 
Codices in question must have been completed anterior 
to the introduction of the Five Final Letters when the 
orthography in Deut. XXXIII 27 was still 31J?ft which one 
School of textual critics read MJJQ = fltftt, whilst another 
School read it 31JJQ = ri3lJ?B. After the Final Letters were 
legally established, this variation could not have obtained 
since the final Nun ([) determines the length of the word. 

It, moreover, shows that at this early period the 
linguistic peculiarities were already counted. In the Penta- 
teuch where the pronoun third person singular S1H with 
Vav occurs about 656 times, and where it is used 457 times 
for the masculine gender and 199 times for the feminine, 
we are told that the majority of the Temple Codices read 
Wil with Yod (>) in eleven passages. 

But what is most instructive in this classical record 
is the fact that we are here told for the first time that 
the redactors of the text at this period collated MSS. and 
that they decided in favour of the reading which the 
majority of Codices exhibited. In selecting, however, the 
reading which was found in the larger number of Codices 
they did not destroy the variant of the minority and have 
thus enabled us to test the merit of the rejected reading. 
We have already seen that in other instances too, where 
the official reading is given in the margin, the stigmatized 
words are not obliterated, but left in the text, though the 
redactors do not specify the exact process by which they 
arrived at their conclusions. 

The classical record of these Temple Codices, however, 
by no means implies that there were no other MSS. in the 
precincts of the Sanctuary or that the instances adduced 
exhausted the variations. Josephus tells us that Titus 



xvi x 1 " 1 rro awm x'n rtrn airo ixatia inxi ,inx ibwzi tnv wpi 

Jinx "foW3\ DW l&"pl comp. Jerusalem Taanith IV 2; Sopherim VI 4. 



410 Introduction. [CHAP. XL 

presented him with Codices of the Sacred Scriptures from 
the spoils of the Temple/ and we know that there were 
others in the possession of distinguished doctors of the 
Law, which exhibited readings at variance with the present 
textus receptus. In the course of this examination we shall 
have occasion to refer to the readings in the Codex of 
R. Meir, the celebrated desciple of R. Akiba which are so 
often quoted both in the Talmud and in the Midrashim. 
In the Midrash attributed to R. Moses Ha-Darshan 
at Narbonne, which was compiled before A. D. 1280, and 
the MS. of which is now in the possession of the Jewish 
community at Prague, a List is given of thirty-two various 
readings taken from a copy of the Pentateuch which was 
carried away by the Romans after the capture of Jerusalem. 
Josephus records that among the trophies which Vespasian 
brought from the Temple to Rome was the Law of the 
Jews. This he ordered to be deposited in the royal palace 
circa 70 A. D. About 220 A. D. the emperor Severus 
who built a synagogue at Rome which was called after 
his name, handed over this MS. to the Jewish community, 
and though both the synagogue and the MS. have perished, 
a List of variations from this ancient Codex has been 
preserved. This List I printed in my Massorah from the 
able article by the learned Mr. Epstein. 2 Since then I 
have found a duplicate of this List in a MS. of the Bible 
in the Paris National Library No. 31 (folio 399 a) where it 
is appended as a Massoretic Rubric. 3 The List in this 

1 Comp. Josephus, Life 75. 

5 Comp. Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft ties Juden- 
Ihums, Vol. XXXIV, p. 337351, Krotoschin 1885; with The Massorah, 
Vol. Ill, p. 348. 

3 This List is also printed in the Monatsschrift, Vol. XXXVI, p. 508, 
Krotoschin 1887. Comp. Neubauer, Sludia Biblica, Vol. Ill, p. 19 &c , Ox- 
ford 1891. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 411 

Codex, though consisting of the same number of variations 
and enumerated almost in the same order, differs materially 
from the one preserved in the Midrash as will be seen 
from the following analysis of the two records, exhibits 
the primitive Rubric. The heading of the Paris List is 
as follows: 1 

These verses which were written in the Pentateuch Codex found in 
Rome and carefully preserved and locked up in the Synagogue of Severus, 
differ as regards letters and words. 

(i) Gen. 131. Instead of "behold it was very good" 
the text read "behold death was good". That this reading 
was not confined to the Severus Codex is evident from 
the record in the Midrash Rabba on this passage where 
we are told that the Codex of the celebrated R, Meir 
also read it death (mtt) instead of very (ISO) 2 and Rashi 



ntiaa urn -wo rarwm xrv-nK isoa pavo nm K'pIDD p\S l 
nani nw iiwt "?a n avfeK mi twam nvmx "wa Di-ran xntraaa 
nxan nnpracan taina rrn: liana .BEO'TI nir nuns tains ,TH ma ,ia aits 
taina ,-rn mxai ,B,-nax ^ix \i^x " "iatn tairo n^n Bn^atsn ^baw^x 
rim :aina n^n 'naav -'nip? KJ nsn :ama ,TH in-iaa .apjrb in-naa n la^i 
pi taina .TH wr 11 /m"? 11 naa^HKii w taina ,T,I me ,nnr rr-o ^a n^ 
TB^K taina rrn nnxa ,,-itt' i -ii:a HTI iiaip-'i :aina n\i tiyir' 1 ,ir ^a rn n^xn 
aw ,DW rrapKi :aina rrn nrie ,nrnt^ as 1 ? -wan taina rrn myaa ,nir ja 
'ja iro 11 ! taina n s n a-nata /nanata o\san ^Kitp 11 'ja niatr M'TKI taina n"n 
mab .btrw 1 vzh "fjni apr- n^ab -iaxn na taina n\i ( oar*na ,Dcajna bKntr 1 ' 
,Dia pan npbi to^-a aina rm b w^pb BTrna nrani fi.Tiin aina n\n 
nnstr na nnx ntraai taina ,TH B"n D"aa ,atn p-r ai taina n^n 'ana 
taina ,TH an ,nn-i Kaacb sa ^a taina rrn o-'a-'an 



ins B"nan nxa b-itt? 1 ' ^:a napa npa taina n 

ia aina n\n K 1 ? ,my ba *?i ntra b ixa^i taina rrn 
rrn ( an ,an aa iwi taina n\i 'an^ax -mbr 1 ? on^ax K^I taina ,TH epv p 
Tna^aaxn .o^aan "?y nsn npnxb taina ,Tn niasn ^iaxn Ta iam nnb taina 
n-n naeaa ,BIIB nx a^nbx naenaa taina n s n nB"irc .HBIIP nbai nnsa taina 
.la 1 ? la^i .la^a^a nnnaa pnat n-na na^i taina n"n an \s r\x ,B,TKBK "nnax t 'ina 
2 nia aita nam na aita nani aina ia:a TKa ^an btr innina 

Rabba, Parasha IX, fol. 24 b, ed. Wilna 1878. 



412 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

(1040 1105), in his gloss on the Midrash so far from taking 
exception to this reading, adduces Eccl. VII 9 in support- 
ing it. The variant (TinD iTH mQ) is inadvertently omitted 
in the Prague recension of this List. This is also attested 
by Kimchi in his Commentary on this passage. 1 

(2) Gen. Ill 21. - - According to this List the reading 
of the Severus Codex in the passage before us was simply 
"and the Lord God made unto Adam and to his wife coats", 
without specifying the material of which the said garments 
consisted. Here again the Prague List which adduces the 
same catchword does not give the variant. From the 
Midrash Rabba on this passage we learn that the Codex 
of R. Meir exhibited here another variant. Instead of , "coats 
of skin" ("111?) this celebrated Codex read "coats of light" 
("11K), i. e. luminous, bright or precious coats, having Aleph 
(K) instead of Ayin (U) 2 and Onkelos appears to support 
this reading. 3 

(3) Gen. XVIII 21. Instead of "according to the 
cry of it" (nflpJ^CDH) with the suffix third person singular 
feminine, the Severus Codex read "according to their cry" 
(DnpP3n) with the suffix third person plural masculine. 
This is manifestly the primitive and better reading as is 
evident from DriKC3n their sin, in the preceding verse and 
as is attested by Onkelos, the Jerusalem Targum and the 
Septuagint. 

(4) Gen. XXIV 7. In the passage before us the Prague 
List has preserved the proper catchword and the more 



Kn3 nrvri KTTI -an 1 ? nx'snario Krr-njo siro Kim 2iro TiKxa "3Ki 

tma 21t3 njm D1-P1DK-t KTUT322 naTlDI Comp. Commentary on Gen. I 31. 

D-an jrro jiirxin n-m "H32 I"?K -IIK nisro 211-12 IKXS a"i ^r imim 2 

tn'rraba p-in ntaaba D'2Pn DrB 1 ? Comp. Midrash Rabba, Parasha XX, 
folio 47 a, ed. Wilna 1878. 

3 113H2 in the List of the Paris National Library is manifestly a clerical 
error for 013712. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 413 

correct variant exhibited in the Severus Codex. According 
to this Rubric the Severus Codex had here "who took me 
from my house and from my country" ('inNQI W30) in 
harmony with this phrase in verse 4, instead of the more 
lengthy phrase "who took me from the house of my 
father and from the land of my birth" which is the reading 
of the textus receptus. Though the catchword in the List 
of the Paris National Library is wrong, inasmuch as it 
refers to Gen. XXIV 12, the expression 'PINBI = MtnKO} 
and from the land exhibits the remains of the right variant 
contained in the Prague recension. 

(5) Gen. XXV 33. - The Severus Codex read here 
"and he sold his ware" (1fl130) or price, instead of his 
birth-right (in*133). 

(6) Gen. XXVII 2. The reading here in the Severus 
Codex, though yielding no diiference in the sense from 
that in the textus receptus, is of great orthographical interest 
inasmuch as it exhibits the primitive text prior to the 
division of the words and to the introduction of the final 
letters. In the Prague recension of this List these features 
have been obliterated through a clerical error. For a 
similar instance which exhibits the same orthographical 
features see below No. n. 

(7) Gen. XXVII 7. The value of the variation here 
consists in the fact that it discloses to us a period in the 
orthography of the text when in the absence of the dia- 
critical mark which now distinguishes Shin (ttf) from Sin 
(fr) the letter Samech (D) was more frequently used by 
some Schools of textual critics. In the Prague recension 
of the List the point in question is obliterated through a 
clerical error. 

(8 and 9) Gen. XXXVI 5, 14. The variation here 
affects the orthography of the proper Name Jeush (Efttf)). 
This name which occurs nine times in the Bible is spelled 



414 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

in two different ways. In six passages it is Jeush (ttf'IJ^) 
with Vav, 1 and in three instances the textual reading or 
the Kethiv is Jeish (VW) with Yod, z for which the official 
reading or the Keri substitutes tftJJ* Jeush with Vav to 
make it conformable to the six instances. Now according 
to the Severus Codex the textual reading in both these 
instances was tfW Jeish with Yod and without the official 
Keri. According to the Prague recension, however, the 
textual reading in both passages was ttHP* Jeush with Vav. 

(10) Gen. XLIII 15. This variation refers to the 
presence and absence of the local He (n) in the word 
D S "1Q Egypt. Trite as the difference may seem it discloses 
to us the orthographical changes which the text underwent 
in the different Schools of textual critics. The Rubric 
distinctly tells us that the Severus Codex read it here 
D >g lQ Egypt, without the local He (n) in contradistinction 
to the acknowledged MSS. which read it i"WlB with He. 
In our present textus receptus, however, the textual reading 
is now DH3CO as it is in the Severus Codex and it is only 
the Sevir according to the Massorah which has nO*"13CO with 
He? We thus see that according to the testimony of the 
Severus Codex the present Sevir was originally the textual 
reading. The Prague List gives simply the catchword 
without specifying the variation. This has misled the learned 
editor who takes it for Gen. XLVI 6 and hence concluded 
that the Severus Codex read it here n")*1 lOlp^T and they 
rose up and went down, instead of the simple }Xil and 
they come. For a similar variation see below No. 14. 

(n) Gen. XXXVI 10. -- Here again the variation is 
of great orthographical interest. The Codex Severus we 

1 Comp. Gen. XXXVI 18; I Chron. I 35; VII 39; XXIII JO, ii; 
2 Chron. XI 19 

2 Comp. Gen. XXXVI 5, 14; I Chron. VII 10. 

3 Comp. The Massorah, letter 0, 700, Vol. II, p. 242. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 415 

are told, read rntf~f|l the son of Adah, as one word, viz. 
mittD which is a survival of the primitive text prior to 
the division of the words and the introduction of the final 
letters. For a similar instance see above No. 6. The Prague 
List simply gives the catchword without specifying the 
variation which has again misled the erudite editor who 
takes it to refer to Gen. XXXVI 12 where he thinks that 
the Severus Codex read my p ?D^K Eliphaz the son of 
Adah, instead of WV p ?D^X Eliphaz the son of Esau. 

(12) Gen. XLV 8. The Severus Codex read here 
"and he made me iljJ"l3 1X^ a father of Pharaoh" , instead 
of a father to Pharaoh i"ljJ"lB^ 2N^. This variant makes no 
difference in the sense and the reading in the Severus 
Codex is simply according to the construction in Gen. 
XVII 4. According to the Prague recension, however, 
the variation consists in the Severus Codex having read 
^ttf'1 and he lent me, from ClCfa to lend, instead of ^'1P*1 
and he made me, from DW to put, to make. This was also 
the reading of R. Meir's Codex. 1 It is probable that the 
Prague recension has here adopted the reading of R. Meir's 
Codex as the compiler of the List was not certain about 
the real variation in the Severus List. 

(13) Gen. XLVIII 7. Here again the variation 
exhibits the survival of the primitive orthography inasmuch 
as it shows that the Severus Codex still retained the 



ja xin p inms nv* *WK iaot& s* wi airo TKa ( n 

xna mm wb npboi Kmattn nbttvn 1 ' ja npBDi xrmo 

in the Codex of R. Meir the reading was and he lent me as a 
father, as it is written 'every one who lendeth to his neighbour' [Deut. XV 2]. 
This is one of the words which were written in the Codex that went front 
Jerusalem into exile and departed to Rome, and was deposited in the Synagogue 
of Asverus. Comp. the Prague Midrash Rabba on Gen. XLV 8 and Epstein 
in the Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, Vol. 
XXXIV, p. 339, Krotoschin 1885. 



416 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

spelling QtP there, with what we now call the medial Mem 
(ti) at the end of the word, instead of the final Mem (Q) 
which obtained at a later period. For a similar instance 
see below No. 26. The Prague recension of this List simply 
gives the catchword of the verse in which the variant 
occurs without stating what it is. This has caused Mr. 
Epstein to enter into a learned disquisition as to the 
probable nature of the variant. 

(14) Gen. XL VI 8. The variation here is exactly the 
same as that exhibited in No. 10 and affords another 
instance of the absence of the local He (n) in the primitive 
orthography. Originally it was Q^llfO which one School after- 
wards read n = HOn^O and the other School read it 

T : - : T : - : 

a?12ta = DHlfQ. Hence the origin of the Rubric which 
tabulates the Sevirin on the diversity of the orthography 
of this proper name as well as the Massorah which registers 
the number of instances where it is spelled nOHXP with the 
local He. 1 The simple catchword in the Prague recension 
without the variant itself has again called forth a learned 
and conjectural note from the editor as to the reading 
in the Severus Codex which is set aside by the explicit 
statement in the Paris List. 

(15) Exod. XII 37. - Nothing can be more clear 
than the declaration in the Paris List as to the precise 
nature of the variant here. The Severus Codex we are 
told had the abbreviation 'DBPIB from Rames, instead of 
the full expression DDOJ710 from Rameses. This important 
statement yields an additional proof that abbreviations 
were originally used in the Hebrew Scriptures. 2 The absence 
of the variant in the Prague recension has again produced 
a learned note from the editor which is rendered nugatory 
by the explicit statement here. 

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter 12, 700, 703, Vol II, p 242. 
8 Vide supra, chap. IV, p. 163 170. 



CHAP. XI. J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 417 

(16) Exod. XIX 3. - - Instead of "and tell the children 
of (*32^) Israel" the Severus Codex read it "and tell the 
house of (JV3^) Israel", thus having the same expression in 
both clauses of the verse. That the phrases ^Xlfe^ ^tl the 
children of Israel, and t'X'lfe^ rV2 the house of Israel, frequently 
interchanged in the Codices is evident both from the ancient 
Versions and the Massorah. This is the reason why the 
Massorites found it necessary to fix the instances in which 
the respective phrases occurred in the Bible according to 
the Standard MSS. from which their Lists are compiled. ' In 
the Prague recension the expressions n^^ and ^^ are 
simply transposed. 

(17) Exod. XXVI 2-j. In the textus receptus the 
expression bars (DIT'lS) occurs twice. The Severus Codex, 
however, had it only once. It omitted it in the second 
clause and simply read "and five" (fltStoni) as it is in the 
preceding verse. The Prague recension gives the same 
variation. 

(18) Levit. IV 34. According to our List the Severus 
Codex read here ft"TB. This may either be an abbreviation 
of fltt^p from its blood, which would make the variation 
to consist in the reading of nO^IQ from its blood, instead 
of flXtSnn D^P from the blood of the sin offering, thus making 
it comformable to verse 30 where exactly the same phrase 
is used. Or the variation simply consists in exhibiting the 
primitive orthography of the so-called medial Mein (0) at 
the end of the word as is the case in Gen. XLVIII 7 
marked here No. 13. The Prague recension favours the 
former. In either case, however, we have here an important 
orthographical contribution. According to the former we 
have another instance where the primitive text exhibited 



1 Comp. The Massorah, letter 2, 254256, 363, Vol. I, pp. 179, 

180, 186. 

BB 



41 8 Introduction. (CHAP. XI. 

abbreviations, whilst according to the latter the medial 
letters were still used at the end of words. For a similar 
instance see below No. 27. 

(19) Levit. XV 8. - Instead of "and he shall bathe 
in water" the Severus Codex read "and he shall bathe in 
(0"n) running water", as it is in verse 13. The catchword 
*inC3' ^y\ == XV 13 in the Prague recension is manifestly 
a mistake, since the textus receptus has here D"n 0^3 in 
running water and, therefore, exhibits no variation. 

(20) Levit. XIV 10. - - The Severus Codex read DC'23F) 
without blemish, the plural in both clauses of this verse 
and not nO'OF) the singular in the second clause as it is 
in the received text. 

(21) Numb. IV 3. - The phrase "all that enter into 
the host" occurs five times in this chapter. In four instances 
the verb in this combination has the article, viz. N2H 
(IV 30, 35, 39, 43), whilst in one single instance it is X3 
without the article (IV 3) in the received text. Now the 
Severus Codex read it also here X2H with the article and 
there can hardly be any doubt that this is the correct 
reading. 

(22) Numb. XV 21. The Severus Codex read here 
DD'TT^ in your generation, in the singular instead of D^fill^ 
in your generations, the plural as it is in the received text. 
The singular noun with suffix second person plural does 
not occur in the present Massoretic text. 

(23) Numb. XXXI 2. - - After quoting the words 
"avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites" [= Numb. 
XXXI 2] the Paris List states that the text of the Severus 
Codex had here im "IPX which was. But where this phrase 
is to be inserted or for which words in the verse it is to 

be substituted it is difficult to say. The Prague recension 
does not afford us the slightest assistance. The note of 
the editor is beside the mark and totally ignores the 



CHAP. XI.] xhe Massorah; its Rise and Development. 419 

expression "IttfN which follows the catchword and which 
is not in the received text. 

(24) Numb. XXX 12. -- Instead of "and unto all the 
congregation", the Severus Codex had simply "and unto 
the congregation" without to all. This variant is exceedingly 
interesting inasmuch as it shows that the particle in question 
was in the then received text from which the reading in 
the Severus Codex differed. And though it is absent in 
the present Massoretic text, many MSS. and the ancient 
Version support the statement in this List as will be seen 
from the note on this passage in my edition of the Bible. 
Our present textus receptus, therefore, follows the reading 
of the Severus Codex. The Prague recension simply gives 
the catchword without the variant which has again misled 
the erudite editor. 

(25) Numb. XXXVI i. - - For "the sons of Joseph" 
the Severus Codex read "the son of Josephus". The Syriac 
also exhibits the singular which derives support from 
verse 12. 

(26) Deut. I 26. - - The variant here exhibits another 
instance of the survival of the primitive orthography prior 
to the introduction of the final letters. Whilst the then 
current text read Dfl^DK X^T and ye would not, with final 
Mem (o), the Severus Codex had it still QJVDX with what 
is now called the medial Mem (0). For a similar instance 
see above No. 13. 

(27) Deut. Ill 20. We are expressly told that the 
Severus Codex read it QH they, which may either be an 
abbreviation of nOH, the same plural pronoun with paragogic 
He (H) as it is in Josh. I 15, or it may exhibit another 
instance of the primitive orthography prior to the intro- 
duction of the final letters. In either case we have here 
an important contribution to the ancient orthography similar 
in character to the one in No. 18 



420 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

(28) Deut. I 27. -- According to our List the Severus 
Codex read here "noxn the Amorite, the abbreviated form 
instead of the fully written out ^OKH, whilst according to 
the Prague recension the Severus Codex read it Q'HlQXn 
in the plural which does not occur in the Hebrew Bible. 

(29) Deut. XXII 6. - - Instead of "thou shall not take 
the dam with (0*33n) the young' 1 the Severus Codex read 
it "thou shalt not take the dam upon (O'OSXn) the laying 
nest", i. e. before she has finished laying her complement 
of eggs, the same expression which occurs in Exod. I 16. 

(30) Deut. XXIX 22. - - Instead of nDlff as it is in 
the received text the Severus Codex read it nDltP which 
is simply a difference in form and does not affect the 
sense of the passage. The Prague recension exhibits the 
same variation. 

(31) Deut. XXIX 22. -- In the same verse the Severus 
Codex read rOBED like the over throw, without the He (i"l) 
instead of nDDilOD which is simply an orthographical 
variation without altering the sense. The Prague recension 
does not give this instance. 

(32) Deut. XXXII 26. Instead of DITXBK / will 
scatter them afar, or / will blow upon them, the Hiphil 
future first person singular with the suffix third person 
plural, from ilKB to breathe, to blow, the Severus Codex read 
it in three words DH \X P]S / said in anger where are they? 
This division of the single expression into three distinct 
words is also exhibited in the Chaldee and in the Siphri. 1 
The Severus Codex has, therefore, preserved the ancient 
traditional reading which obtained in one School of textual 
critics. 

1 Comp. Onkelos prT 1 ?? 'Tan hllT and the Siphri DH !TK 'BK2 "max. 
The Samaritan divides it into two words DH 'BK they arc mine anger, i. e. 
they are the object or cause of mine anger, so also the Syriac which renders 
it p3K TO'S = nn XGK where are they'! 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 421 

It will be seen from the last line of this List that so 
far from being regarded with indifference, the Massorite 
expresses the pious hope that the Righteous Teacher, i. e. 
the Prophet Elias who alone will solve all difficulties, and 
whose speedy advent is anxiously expected, will decide 
whether these readings are to be preferred to those in 
the received text. 

We thus see that the registration of anomalous forms 
began during the period of the second Temple. The words 
of the text, especially of the Pentateuch were now finally 
settled, and passed over from the Sopherim or the redactors 
to the safe keeping of the Massorites. 1 Henceforth the 
Massorites became the authoritative custodians of the 
traditionally transmitted text. Their functions were entirely 
different from those of their predecessors the Sopherim. 
The Sopherim as we have seen, were the authorised revisers i ^ | 
and redactors of the text according to certain principles, 
the Massorites were precluded from developing the prin- 
ciples and altering the text in harmony with these canons. 
Their province was to safeguard the text delivered to 
them by "building a hedge around it", 2 to protect it against 
alterations or the adoption of any readings which still 
survived in MSS. or were exhibited in the ancient Versions. 
For this reason they marked in the margin of every page 
in the Codices every unique form, every peculiarity in the 
orthography, every variation in ordinary phraseologies, 
every deviation in dittographs &c. &c. 



1 The term !TViD)3 Massorah (from Iptt to deliver, to transmit) denotes 
tradition and hence technically the traditional text, the traditionally transmitted 
text of Holy Writ. The older form of it used in the Mishna is rnlDtt Massoreth 
(Aboth III 20). The two forms are according to the analogy of the nouns 
.-PSD Bazzarah and rnitS Bazzoreth, from 1X3 to ait off. 

'* Comp. rmrh ro niioa Aboth in 20. 



422 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

In the case of the Pentateuch, the Massoretic work 
was comparatively easy since its text, as we have seen, 
was as a whole substantially the same during the period of 
the second Temple as it is now. Being the Divine Law 
which regulated both the religious and civil life of the 
Jewish commonwealth, the greatest care was naturally 
exercised by the spiritual guides and administrators of 
its precepts and statutes to guard and preserve it accord- 
ing to the ancient traditions. This, however, was not the 
case with the second and more especially with the third 
part of the Hebrew Scriptures. These were not so popularly 
known and the ancient Sopherim were, therefore, not so 
careful in the redaction of the Prophets and the Hagio- 
grapha. This is abundantly demonstrated in the books of 
Samuel and Kings, in the books of Kings and Chronicles &c. 
which contain duplicate records of identically the same 
events. Hence great differences obtained among the sundry 
Schools as to the precise reading of certain passages, and 
hence too Standard Codices proceeded from these Schools 
which more or less reflect other recensions And although 
the recension which is now exhibited in the texttis receptus 
has finally superseded the other recensions, the Massorah 
itself frequently records the readings of other Standard 
Codices. Indeed the Massorites so far from correcting any 
variations in the duplicate records or any manifest blunder 
which had crept into the text, have carefully collected them 
and guarded them most religiously by their wonderful 
system of annotation, against any attempt at reconciliation 
or emendation on the part of professional copyists. The 
present text, therefore, is not what the Massorites have 
compiled or redacted, but what they themselves have 
received from their predecessors and conscientiously guarded 
and transmitted with the marvellous checks and counter 
checks which they have devised for its safe preservation. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 423 

To accomplish this gigantic work in the absence of 
any Grammar, Lexicon or Concordance, the Massorites 
commenced their labours by minutely analysing the 
peculiarities of each book which they divided into Sections 
for the purpose of registering every expression or phrase 
in the margin of the respective Codices. These brief and 
separate remarks in the central margins which are called 
Massorah Parva were afterwards collected and in accord- 
ance with their similarity of import, arranged into distinct 
Lists or Rubrics. The larger Rubrics occupy the upper 
and lower margins of the same page and are called the 
Massorah Magna. As some of these large Lists are too 
lengthy, for the margin of the page on which one of the 
registered peculiarities occurs, the Massorites have both 
prefixed and appended a considerable number of them to 
different MSS. They cannot, therefore, be called Massorah 
Finalis as they are partly placed at the beginning and 
partly at the end of the MSS. and partly also at the end 
of each of the three great divisions. 

To give the student an idea of this stupendous task and 
the years which it must have taken to carry it out, I give 
at the end of the chapter a specimen of the Massorah from 
the two oldest MSS. which have as yet come to light, viz. 
Orient. 4445 British Museum and the St. Petersburg Codex 
of A. D. 916. The British Museum Codex which is not later 
than the middle of the eighth century contains the greater 
portion of the Pentateuch in its original form extending 
from Gen. XXXIX 20 to Deut. I 33. The Massorah, 
however, though by a subsequent annotator, is about a 
century later, i. e. about the middle of the ninth century. 
The St. Petersburg Codex contains the Latter Prophets, 
viz. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve Minor Prophets. 
Its age is not disputed since it is dated A. D. 916. 
These two Codices, therefore, contain about half of the 



424 Introduction. [CHAI>. XI. 

entire Hebrew Bible with the Massorah both Parva and 
Magna. 

With the specimen of the Massorah Parva and Magna, 
which I subjoin from Orient. 4445, folio 94 & containing 
Levit. XI 4 21, I exhibit in parallel columns the Massorah 
on the same verses from nine MSS., as well as from the 
editio princeps so that the student may see how this safeguard 
has been treated by the different Massorites. In the last or 
the twelfth column I give the references to my Massorah 
where the respective Rubrics are given in full with the 
chapters and verses appended to them. The Massorah 
Parva as exhibited in the Tables is in each column an 
exact reproduction of the MSS. Of the Massorah Magna, 
however, which is in each instance followed by the catch- 
words of the passages in the MSS. I could naturally only 
reproduce the headings of the respective Rubrics. The 
passages adduced in each of the Lists the student will 
easily find in my Massorah according to the plan which 
I have adopted in the Tables. 

It will be seen that the subjoined four Tables exhibit 
both the Massorahs Magna and Parva of fourteen MSS. These 
MSS. belong to various Schools and different countries; 
they range from circa A. D. 850 to 1488, the very year in 
which the first edition of the entire Hebrew Bible was 
printed in Soncino. The first column in the four Tables, 
moreover, discloses the fact that as early as the ninth 
century of the present era both the Massorah Parva and 
Magna were already fully developed. The St. Petersburg 
Codex alone contains no fewer than 574 different Rubrics 
of the Massorah Magna. 1 As this MS. covers the smaller 
quarter of the entire Hebrew Bible it may safely be 

1 Alphabetically arranged they are as follows: K 79 + 327 + 38 -j- 



= 574- 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah ; its Rise and Development. 425 

calculated that if we had the whole Bible of this School 
it would exhibit according to this proportion upwards of 
2000 Rubrics. 

In estimating the value of this stupendous work as 
a safeguard for the preservation of the text which passed 
over to the keeping of the Massorites it is essential to 
bear in mind that even after the text was fixed it was by 
no means absolutely uniform. The different Schools still 
continued to retain some of their former readings. These 
they more or less exhibited in their Standard Codices. 
Some of the Massorites themselves belonged to one or 
the other of these Schools and framed their Massoretic 
notes and Rubrics in accordance with the recensions which 
obtained in their Schools. Hence it happens that Massoretic 
remarks and Lists not unfrequently contradict one another 
simply because each faithfully records the readings of the 
text from which the Massorites in question made the 
Rubrics. Hence too the Massorites not only record the 
variants in Codices which were redacted by authoritative 
Scribes, but adduce readings from renowned MSS. which 
obtained in certain communities and which are distinguished 
by certain names. From these sources they not un- 
frequently supplement the Lists made by their colleagues 
after certain recensions with other examples calling them 
either another Massorah or outside this Massorah.^ 

The Massorah itself has preserved lengthy Lists of 
various readings from the Eastern recensions which are 
several hundred in number and extend over the whole 
Hebrew Scriptures. They not only affect the orthography 
but the division, insertion and omission of certain words. 2 
These variations also extend to the redivision of verses 



or Km-ioaa 

2 Vide sup fa, cap. IX, p. 197 &c. 



426 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

which necessarily include a difference in the vowel-points 
and in the accents, 1 and though I have succeeded in con- 
siderably increasing" the number in the official Lists, as 
may be seen from the notes in my edition of the Bible, 
many of these recensional variations are still dispersed 
throughout the MSS. and await further investigation. 

A striking illustration of conflicting Massorahs due to 
the fact that the Massorites who compiled the respective 
Lists worked upon different recensions, may be seen in the 
Rubric which registers the number of times the exceptional 
phrase nsnn D^O^D in those days occurs in contradistinction 
to the normal form DHH D'E'3 without the paragogic He. 
According to our Massorah the heading of the Rubric 
in question distinctly declares that the abnormal phrase 
with the paragogic He (nsnn) occurs eight times which it 
duly specifies, 2 whilst in the St. Petersburg Codex of 
A. D. 916 where this Massorah occurs three times 3 the 
heading in each instance as distinctly declares that there 
are nine such passages and duly enumerates them in all 
the three Rubrics. The note on Jerem. L 20 in my edition 
of the Massoretic text explains this contradiction, inasmuch 
as it is shown that the Easterns read here HSJin with the 

T " T 

paragogic He. The Massorites, therefore, who give eight 
instances worked on Western recensions which we follow, 
whilst the Massorites who register nine passages laboured 
on the Eastern recensions. 

The variations in the Massorah, however, are not 
confined to the recensions of the Western and Eastern 
Schools. The Massorahs which proceed from the Westerns 
and from which our textus receptus was compiled also 

1 Vide supra, cap. VI, p. 70. 

Viz. Jerem. Ill 16, 18; V 18; L4; Joel III 2; IV i; Zech. VIII 23; 
Neh. XIII 15. Comp. The Massorah, letter \ 254, Vol. I, p. 716. 
3 Comp. Jerem. Ill 16; L 4; Joel III 2. 



CHAP. XI J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 



42' 



exhibit conflicting registers which undoubtedly show that 
there were different Schools among the Westerns themselves 
and that these derived their respective materials from 
Standard Codices. These conflicting Massorahs not only ex- 
hibit orthographical variations, but actual various readings. 
A few illustrations must suffice to establish this fact which 
has hitherto been ignored by those who appeal to the 
Massorah on the supposition that it always exhibits uniform 
remarks. The Massorahs which I subjoin are from the 
splendid MS. in the Paris National Library No. i 3. It is 
dated A. D. 1286 and is evidently a Standard Codex: 



2 


Sam. II 21 


fan NI So S' ^biKbto 




XVIII 20 


wan-J* 




XXII 35 


So nni bm S % ntrns 

T >. i 




. 48 


So i jni:n 




XXIV 22 


So h nhwh 


I 


Kings II 32 


Htfuha 




vi 32 


So V T naai 


2 


Kings IV 6 


fan hi So S' mt&aa 




28 


' ba So t Klbn 




X 15 


n23ion~SK np S^i fan S' TOD-iiarr 1 ?!? 




XXII 20 


mpon-Si: h ii Biparr^R 


Ps 


XV i 


pr^w 


n 


XVII 5 


i fan S - ntt>x 


n 


XVIII 34 


So h J "nlB3 

T 


i) 


XXXV i 


ki S- -an 1 - 

T -T : 


n 


5 


So, V nnl. 


n 


XXXVIII 7 


. . , ?oi / "nintr 
So ini fan S' "nnttf 



It is remarkable that the Massorite cancelled the original 
readings in all these instances and placed the Massoretic 
note against the emended text. I could fill pages with 



428 Introduction. | CHAP. XL 

conflicting Massorahs from this Codex alone, but the above 
instances will suffice to prove my contention that different 
Massorites worked upon different Standard Codices and 
hence produced contradictory Rubrics. 

But even when the Massorites of one School specify 
a certain number of instances which constitute a definite 
List, other Massorites not unfrequently supplement the 
Lists with more passages of a similar nature which they 
found in other Codices. Thus for instance the Massorah 
on Levit. XI 21 in Orient. 4445 which exhibits the oldest 
form of the List of the passages where the textual reading 
or the Kethiv is &? not, the negative particle, and the marginal 
reading or the Keri is 1^ to him, preposition with the suffix 
third person singular masculine, declares that there are 
fifteen such instances. But at the end of the enumeration of 
the fifteen passages we find the following remark: 1 and 
there are two other passages outside this Massorah, viz. Isa. 
XLIX 5 and 1 Citron. XI 20. This positive statement is 
confirmed by the Massorah Parva on Isa. XLIX 5 in the 
St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916. This ancient MS. has 
the negative particle (X^) in the text or the Kethiv and 
against it in the margin the suffix third person singular 
as the Keri ( ( p "b). Other Massorites, however, describe 
these two passages as constituting a difference of opinion 
between the different Schools of textual critics. 2 This 
clearly shows that the diverse treatment of this important 
Massorah cannot possibly proceed from the same Massoretic 
School. 

We have already seen that during the period of the 
second Temple, Scribes collated their copies with the 

iran nan 'o-p ncr6c DP *6i ^CR- *6 "?x-uri nmoa ja "a 1 ? fini ' 

2 prr'rr nrubB "im Comp. The Massorah, letter b, 77, Vol. II, 
p. 124. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 429 

Codices which were deposited in the Temple Court. The 
Massorites too, in the redaction of the text and in the 
compilation of the Massoretic glosses carefully consulted 
the Standard MSS. which were in the possession of the 
different communities and which for their excellency were 
distinguished by special names. Hence they often quote 
the MSS. in support of a certain reading which they have 
adopted in the text and as often give an alternative read- 
ing in the Massorah with the name of the MS. in which 
it is to be found. 

(i) The Codex Mugali. The earliest Codex quoted 
by the Massorites, as far as I can trace it, is the Mugak 
(naiB). On Exod. XXXIX 3343 where the particle DK 
occurs several times in each verse and where it is some- 
times with and sometimes without the Vav conjunctive the 
Massorah in Orient. 4445 most minutely indicates its presence 
and absence and at the end of the Rubric quotes "the 
Codex Mugah" in support of the order thus indicated. As 
this Massorah exhibits the peculiar manner in which the 
Massorites safeguarded the text and, moreover, as it is 
calculated to give some idea of .the plan and difficulties 
of a Massoretic Rubric, I subjoin it with the necessary 
explanation in order to supply the student with a key to 
similar Massorahs: 



,nxi nx nx \rhvi ,nxi nxi nx pixn -nxi nx nx ppan nx x'rrn JO<D 
nx nxi nxi nx nx -ixnn Tbpn ,piDB hi nxi nx ntrrtn rarai ,nxi nxi nx nx 
*?3: ,nxi nx nx -nun HJQI ,-iro n^pn by nar r6xi pn i ? jfc'D pios tm ,nxi 
rui!a xna'DD p^x pios rr^ia nxi pics nxtpi -nx rmnn-n ,nx nx msc ntrx 

The Sign or Register: by and they brought the tabernacle [== Exod. 
XXXIX 33] it is twice nX and the third time nXI; by the ark [= verse 35] it is 
first nx and in the second and third instance nXI; by the table [= verse 36] it is 
nX in the first instance and nXI the third time ; by the candlestick [= verse 37] 
it is nx the first and second time and nXI the third and fourth time; by the 
brasen altar [= verse 39] where this particle occurs six times it alternates nx 
and nXI throughout the verse; by the hangings of the court [= verse 40] 



430 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

where it also occurs six times it is J"IX the first and second time, HX1 the third 
and fourth time, HX the fifth time and flXl the sixth time. There is one verse 
which serves as a mnemonic sign thereto, viz. Deut. XXVII 13 where the 
names of six tribes occur with exactly the same variation in the presence and 
absence of the Vav conjunctive. By the cloths of service [= verse 41] where 
it occurs three times it is HX in the first and second instances and nxi in the 
third instance; by according to all that He commanded [= verse 42] where it 
occurs twice it is DS both times, and in the following verse, where it occurs 
once it is nx, but in the other verses [viz. verse 34 where it occurs three 
times and verse 38 where it occurs four times] it is HX1 throughout. This is 
according to the Codex Mugah. 

The object of this Massorah and the reason for the 
appeal to the Mugah Codex will be seen by a reference 
to the notes in my edition of the Massoretic text. Both 
the MSS. and the ancient Versions exhibit variations in 
almost every verse with regard to the use of the con- 
junctive in this Section and the Rubric in question is 
manifestly a protest against these variants which obtained 
in other recensions. 

In the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916 which 
exhibits the next oldest Massorah, the authority of the 
Codex Mugah is appealed to in no fewer than eight 
instances in support of particular readings. 1 By referring 
to the notes in my edition of the text it will be seen that 
though with the exception of one passage (Jerem. LI 46) 
this MS. adduces the Codex Mugah in support of the 
readings in the textus receptus, there are variants in every 
instance which are exhibited not only in other Standard 
Codices, but in the early editions and in the ancient 
Versions. Here too, therefore, the Mugah is quoted as a 
protest against the various readings which obtained in 
other Massoretic Schools. 

1 Comp. Jerem. VI IO; LI 46; Hos. I 7; II 21; XI 9; Joel I 12: 
Amos V 2; Habak. I 5. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 431 

The Codex Mugah is henceforth to be found referred 
to as an authority in almost every MS. of importance 
either by the full title Codex Mugah (njHB 1DDD) or simply 
in the Mugah (ilJiaa), Mugah (nUO). In the splendid MS. 
in the Cambridge University Library Add. 465 it is quoted 
several hundred times. 1 Its readings are often contrasted 
with the readings of rival Codices and in the third Volume 
of the Massorah I give a List of variations between the 
Codex Mugah and the celebrated Codex Hilleli which 
extends over the whole Bible and which I have found in 
the Munich Codex.' 2 The Mugah was copied by the heads 
of Schools in various communities and in different ages 
as is evident from the fact that it is quoted by textual 
critics in districts far apart. Hence the earlier copies of 
it are not unfrequently referred to in contradistinction 
to later copies. 3 

(2) Codex Hilleli (^Sl *1DD). The Codex which in 
importance rivals the Mugah and which is frequently 
quoted in the Massorah in support of certain readings is 
the Hilleli. According to Zakkuto this famous Codex was 
written by R. Hillel circa A. D'. 600. In the Chronicle 
which he compiled about A. D. 1500 Zakkuto tells us as 
follows: 

la the year 4957 A. M. on the 28th of Ab [= Aug. 14, 1197 -A-. D.] 
there was a great persecution of the Jews in the Kingdom of Leon from 
the two Kingdoms that came to besiege it. At that time they removed thence 
the twenty-four sacred books which were written about 600 years before. 
They were written by R. Hillel b. Moses b. Hillel and hence are called 
after his name the Hilleli Codex, if was exceedingly correct and all other 
Codices were revised by it. I saw the remaining two parts of it containing 
the Former and Latter Prophets written in large and beautiful characters 

1 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 23 36. 

2 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 130 134. 

3 Comp. pla-IpH mitt Isa. VIII 8; XXVIII 12 in Orient. 1478 British 
Museum. 



432 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

which were brought by the exiles to Portugal and sold at Bugia in Africa 
where they still are, having been written about 900 years ago. Kimchi in his 
Grammar on Numb. XV 4 says that the Pentateuch of the Hilleli Codex was 
extant in Toledo. 1 

And though like the Mugah this famous Codex is 
now lost, both the Massorites and subsequent Grammarians 
frequently appeal to it in support of their readings either 
as Codex Hilleli or simply as the the Hilleli? In two 
instances I have found it referred to as the Hilleli of Leon* 
Besides the List of variations between the Mugah Codex 
and the Hilleli already adverted to, I have given a List 
from this celebrated Codex setting forth the plenes and 
defectives throughout the Pentateuch which I have found 
in the Merzbacher MS. Jacob Saphir has printed a similar 
List in the second Volume of his work entitled Eben 



(3) Another Standard Codex which is often appealed 
to in the Massorah Parva is the Zambnki ( > p'O3*)- This name 
the Codex probably obtained because it belonged to 
the community in Zambuki on the Tigris. Its readings are 
frequently adduced side by side with the Hilleli Codex, 



WB pR' 1 ? maboa S-n: nar rrri ax rrr 1 ? na ova [/. ib] iaphh n:n ' 
mp D'aina vntr D'-IBD "Tan arca ix-m mi nnx nataaa orrbv ixatr 

x~p: IDE ^pi bbn p nro p hhrt ( n nmK arcip rt:r mo w iiaa p 1 ? 
D'K'a: mKipa '3trn -n'Kn ':KI n-icon ba o^rrjia nnoi np'na vnw 
[ J bKrtsiic nnao ix-anw np'^nai mbn: nvmx na'nao n^nnKi 
nip pnpin pbna "nopm lanasr n:w mK 'o nnr c-c nn ni npncsa 
n^ts'biBS rrn ^'^'nn jo iroirn "a 'ix natn jra 1 ? pnp-in by nanw Comp. 

Juchassin, p 220 ed. Filipowski, London 1857; and Neubauer in Studia Biblica, 
Vol. Ill, p. 23, Oxford 1891. 

2 *hbn 1CD ,'^n Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 2336. 

8 JV 1 ? by 'bbrt Comp. I Kings I 18; Jerem. V 6; in Add. 15251, 
British Museum. 

4 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 106 129; and Eben Saphir, Vol. II, 
p. 192 213, Mainz 1874. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 433 

especially in the superb MS. Oriental 2626 28 in the 
British Museum/ as will be seen in the notes to my 
edition of the Hebrew Bible. Like the other Standard 
Codices it is known only through the quotations in the 
Massorah. 

(4) Another Standard MS. which is frequently quoted in 
the Massorah and which has also become a prey to time is 
the Jerushahni (^tPTV) or the Jerusalem Codex. This MS. 
was largely used by the celebrated Grammarian and Lexico- 
grapher R. Jonah Abu-Walid as is attested by Kimchi, 
who states (Michlol, p. 184^, ed. Fiirth 1793) that he has 
constantly quoted it as his authority for certain readings 
and that it was for many years in Saragossa. 2 In the 
Massorah this Codex is frequently quoted as exhibiting 
a different orthography to that of the Codex Hilleli. :f 

(5) The Codex Jericho (in 1 "!') which is also often 
referred to in the Massorah seems to have embraced only 
the Pentateuch, since in the references to it, it is sometimes 
called the Jericho Pentateuch (TPT tPEin). The List from 
this Codex which I have printed in my edition of the 
Massorah/ I collected from the Massorah Parva in Oriental 
2696 in the British Museum. 

(6) The Codex Sinai (^D *1DD or simply ^D) is an- 
other of the Standard MSS., which is referred to in the 
Massorah, but which has also perished. In the superb MS. 
Arund. Orient. 16 in the British Museum which is itself a 

1 Comp. Orient 262628 on Gen. IV, 17; IX 14; XL1I 2, 21; XLIII 10, 
21; XLV 10; XLVI 29; XLIX 10; L II and especially Exod. XLVI 29; 
XXXI 27; Numb. XXXLV 4, Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 2336. 

IPIK -ISM vhx p uriDK irriDKxa *6i nan yen "IKE ^ arc njr -o-n ^ 
,TK-I K'att sin ^ rrav "si rhy -|&D -IEK neon Kim rin pap ngn rrrxi a'wr 1 
nap s-p ^sa ISD ;ms-i D<DP nT xtsDipiw rrntr irni 'la'wiT xipaa ran 

.:npn rw x-nva 

? - Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 106 &c. 

4 Comp. The Massorah, Vol. Ill, p. 135. 

CC 



434 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

Model Codex, the Sinai Codex is appealed to in the 
Massorah Parva on six different occasions in confirmation 
of certain readings. Thus (i) on Josh. XXI 36 it is quoted 
to justify the omission of the two verses 36 and 37.* 
(2) On 2 Kings VI 25 it is adduced in support of the reading 
D'3V 'in doves' dung in two words. 2 (3) On 2 Kings XXIII 3 1 
it is referred to in support of the textual reading of the 
proper name ^CSIQn Hamutal without a Keri.' A (4) On 2 Kings 
XXV 1 1 the Massorah Parva states that the Codex Sinai 
uniformly reads the proper name pTK1? : Q3 Nebnzaradan as 
one word. 4 (5) On Jerem. XXXIX i it is quoted as 
having here no section. 5 And (6) on Amos V 6 the Massorah 
Parva remarks that Beth-El is always in two words in Codex 
Sinai. 6 

In the printed Massorah Parva too, this Codex is 
quoted twice, once on Exod. XVIII i where it is stated 
that the word PQE^I and he heard, occurs twice with the 
accent Gershain at the beginning of a verse in the Penta- 
teuch and that it is in Sinai with the accent Rebia" 1 and 
once on Exod. XVIII 5 where it is stated that "DIBIT^X 
into the wilderness, which has the accent Sakeph in the textus 
receptus, is with the accent Sakeph-gadol in Codex Sinai. s 
As both these instances occur in the Pentateuch, and 
moreover, as they both refer to the accents, Elias Levita 
concluded that the Codex Sinai contained only the 
Pentateuch and that it treated simply on the variations 



"31 1BD31 "re 1BD3 '3irO ifl 'pIDB "2 J'K ' 
.JTIX ''"in TD 1BD3 TO p 2 

.btoittn ana Tea -JK 3 
.rv^ia nnx nan *yo ana < 
.name K 1 ?! nmns Kb spcs JKS p -roa 5 
/roa man 'a o^ia birrTa 1 ? bK-rra 6 
TC -nna B"-I j-wn: <: -rtsa 'a rawi 7 
spra la-ion "ro nanan 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 435 

of the accents. 1 The passages, however, which I have 
adduced from the books of Joshua, Kings, Jeremiah and 
Hosea show beyond doubt that this Codex contained the 
whole Hebrew Scriptures. 

Jacob b. Isaac of Zousmir, who wrote a little ex- 
pository Treatise on the Massorah which was first published 
at Amsterdam in 1649, and a second edition of which 
appeared at the same place in 1702, maintains that Sinai 
is the name of one of the redactors who revised the 
Pentateuch with the same accuracy as if it proceeded from 
Mount Sinai. 2 Joseph Eshwe, who compiled a Commentary 
on the Massorah, not only espoused this view, but vouch- 
safed more definite information on this subject. His state- 
ment on Exod. XVIII is as follows: 

As to the remark Sinai has Rebia, know that the inventors of the 
vowel-points and the accents were mostly from the spiritual heads and the 
sages of Tiberias. Now the name of one of these was Sinai, and he differed 
from the Massorah, which remarks that yatZ^I and he heard, in the two 
passages in question has Gershaim, and said that it has the accent Rebia. 3 

The authors of these fanciful explanations, however, 
did not know that in the MSS. the full name 'j^D 1DD is 
given which can denote only the Codex Sinai, just as 1DD 
^D^tPIT denotes the Jerusalem Codex, and 1CPT "1DD the Jericho 
Codex. 

(7) The Great Machsor (JO"1 K"ll?nO) is the name of 
another Standard Codex which is frequently quoted in the 



mr yatf s i pa ^aytan npibnaa -ana p^rta pain arc ro 
TITT *6i ^na *|pn "roai t]pn -snarr^* rwa hx DP myi ;yaia Kin "ron 

iianan KIM ^a Comp. Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 259, ed. Ginsburg, London 
1867. 

by WITB rroa nsns K\-I ibss nnin -IBD ,Tjm onnnan ja -IHK TD 2 

.'3 -nar ': ?)t niioan 

vn d^n-i d^artam ip^n 'jpna ^ya 'a yn yai rd -iaxtr nai 3 
niba -w naxt niidan by rba Kim 'j'd ia rrn dna nnKi ,K"-ata aan 



.' n 1 " 1 mar ,nnn paa tyan dytsn ontr Kin naKi .d^r-ia dytsa nan 'ran 

cc* 



436 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

Massorah. 1 Machsortha or Machsor is the common name 
of the Jewish Ritual which comprises the whole annual 
cycle of the Daily and Festival Services. The Cycle, which 
is the literal meaning of Machsortha (from 1*H to go round], 
was generally written by the most distinguished scholars 
of the respective Communities in the various parts of the 
world embodying the local usages and hence obtained the 
name of the special place where it was written and of 
the practice which it sets forth. Thus the celebrated 
Machsor Vitry, which was compiled by R. Simcha circa 
noo A. D., describes the Ritual of the Synagogue of 
Vitry in France. It is from this Machsor which is in the 
British Museum (Add. 27200 27201) that I published the 
Taagim or the Crowned Letters in the Pentateuch. 2 These 
Rituals or Machsorim not only contained the Prayers and 
Hymns, but frequently gave the text of the whole Bible 
so that they became the models after which copies were 
made. It is owing to this fact that the Bible Codex by 
itself was called Machsor inasmuch as it contained the 
Annual or Triennial Cycle of lessons which were read on 
the week days, Sabbaths, feasts and fasts. 3 The "Great 
Machsor" was manifestly the name of a special Codex to 
distinguish it from any other Biblical MS., which was 
simply called Machsor. 

From the readings of the Great Machsor, which are 
adduced in the Massorah Parva, it would appear that this 
celebrated Codex exhibited the recension of Ben Naphtali. 
Thus for instance the Massorah Parva in Add. 15251, 
British Museum, quotes 'nj?3ttfo / sware, with Kainetz Deut. 



1 Comp. Harley 5720 on 2 Kings XIX 25; Add. 15251 on Deut. 
XXXI 21; I Sara. XXII 17; 2 Kings XIX 25; 2 Chron. XXXII 30 &c. 
J Comp. The Massorah, Vol. II, p. 680701. 
1 Vide stipm, Part II, pp. 241, 244 &c. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 437 

XXXI 21 as the textual reading in the Great Machsor 1 
which is also the reading of Ben Naphtali. The same is 
the case in i Sam. XXII 1 7 which we are told the Great 
Machsor reads JJ]^ to strike, with the Gimel Raphe and 
which is also the reading of Ben Naphtali. Indeed this 
appears to be the case in the other three instances 
contained in the Rubric of the Massorah given in my MS. 2 

(8) The Codex Ezra (&O?P 1DD) is another Standard 
MS. which is quoted in the Massorah Parva. The only 
MS. which I have as yet seen,, professing to be a copy 
of the Ezra Codex, is in my possession. A more detailed 
description of it will i>e found in chap. XII of this 
Introduction. In the Massorah Parva of this MS. the Codex 
Ezra is referred to twice, once on Numb. XXI 14 in support 
of the reading DHTDN in two words 3 and once on Deut. 

XXXII 6 in confirmation of the division JTIJT Si. 4 

T : 

('9) The Babylonian Codex (^DD 1DD). The twelve 
quotations from this Codex which I have been able to collect 
are of the utmost importance . inasmuch as the Babylon 
Codex exhibits the Eastern recension. With the exception 
of i Kings XX 33 they have not hitherto been known 
as Eastern readings. Their importance is still more enhanced 
by the fact that nine of the readings in question are to 
be found in the Latter Prophets and thus enable us to 
test the assertion that the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916, 
which contains this portion of the Hebrew Scriptures, has the 
text of the Eastern recension. The eleven instances are 
as follows: 



.Kan K-mnaa 

a In my MS. the Massorah Parva on Deut. XXVI 12 has the following 

Rubric niaob vpyb p-np xnataai ifisb nirnS aaoS nwb pip xa"i K-ntnaa 

tfjna 1r6a nltfnbl 37iBb Comp. The Massorah Vol. Ill, p. 25. 

.K-W isca aina maTi TUP anrnK a 
own h ro'n bn mij? -leea x^ man -in < 



438 Introduction. [CHAP. XI 

(1) Numb. XXVI 33. - - In Codex No. 1 3 in the 
Paris National Library, which is dated A. D. 1286, the 
Massorah Parva tells us that the Westerns read here and 
Tirzah with Vav conjunctive and that the Babylon Codex = 
the Easterns, reads it Tirzah without the Vav. As the 
Massoretic remark which indicates this variation in the 
two recensions will give the student some idea of the 
cryptography of the Massorah and the difficulty in 
deciphering it, I subjoin it with the necessary explanation 

bsa "IBD '-D narna .nnra ; D lama 

That is, according to the Westerns = Palestinians the 
mnemonic sign here for the order of the five daughters 
of Zelophehad is 

(njpim =1 1 .[roSa =] a ,[,-6:n =] n ,[ny:i =] i ,tr6na =] a 

and Tirzah Milcah Hoglah and Noah Mahalah 

According to the Babylon Codex it is 

[nann =] n .trcba =] a -[r6jn =] n .[nrsi =] i .[r6na =] a 

Tirzah Milcah Hoglah and Noah Mahalah 

(2) i Kings XX 33. - The Authorised Version of 
this verse is simply a loose paraphrase and does not 
indicate that there is an official various reading here. The 
real difficulty in the text may he seen in the Revised 
Version when the rendering in the text is compared with 
the alternative given in the margin. According to the 
Babylon Codex which is the Eastern recension, the words 
are divided 130Q niB^m and the passage is accordingly 
to be rendered 

Now the men divined and hasted [i. e. quickly divined] 

and they pressed whether it was from him and they said &c. 

According to the Western recension, however, or 
the textus receptus it is only in the textual reading or the 
Kethiv that the words in question are divided 13QQn 
and the Keri or the official reading divides them 
Accordingly the passage is to be translated 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. -439 

Now the men divined and basted [i. e. quickly divined] 
and they pressed it out from him, and they said &c. 

The Chaldee Syriac and Rashi follow the word division 
of the Keri. The fact that the textus receptus exhibits 
here the Babylonian or Eastern recension we learn from 
the Massorah Parva in Orient. 1478, fol. 44 b } British Museum. 1 

(3) Isa. XXVII 8. The Massorah Parva on this 
passage in Orient. 2201 British Museum, which is dated 
A. D. 1246, distinctly states that the Babylonian Codex 
reads here Plttfpn miD with A rough spirit, without the 
suffix third person masculine. 2 The St. Petersburg Codex 
of A. D. 916, however, like our textus receptus or the 
Western recension reads nttfpH "frm? with his rough spirit. 

(4) Isa. LVII 6. The Massorah Parva in the same 
MS. remarks on fV^tfn thou hast offered, that the Babylon 
Codex points it ri^>XJn with Tzere* whereas the St. Peters- 
burg Codex of A. D. 916 has it as our text. 

(5) Jerem. XXIII 18. - In the textus receptus, the 
textual reading or the Kethiv here is "who hath marked 
my word" (^3^1) for which the official reading or the 
Keri is his word ("hi 1 !). 4 It is remarkable that the St. Peters- 
burg Codex of A. D. 916 originally also had 113^1 his word, 
and that the Massorite altered it into HIH my word, in the 
text and put the marginal Keri 1irn his word, thus making 
it conformable to our Western recension. In my note on 
this passage N"D31 is to be cancelled and the note is to 

be "i;n pi pi ro nm ^aaa. 

(6) Jerem. XLIV 25. - - In the same MS. the Massorah 
Parva states on DHX^O ye have fulfilled or filled, the Piel 



-TO uaan itsbrn 'aipa 'noai ,'i6aa 'BCD p wean 

,'P Ijaa Comp. also Harley 571011 on i Kings XX 33. 

2 m-Q ^MS Comp. fol. I96a. 

3 rrbgn 'baan Comp. fol. 205 &. 
^ nan 'bsaa Comp. foi. ii2a. 



440 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

preterite that the Babylon Codex reads it DflX^Q in the 
Kal, 1 whereas the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916 
reads it in the Piel as it is in the Western text or in the 
textus receptus. 

(7) Ezek. VIII 3. In Additional 21161 British 
Museum the Massorah Parva remarks that all the Codices 
read here nO^ttHT to Jerusalem, with local He (n) excepting 
the Babylonian Codex which has D^EHT without the local 
He in the text = Kethiv, and n^>EnT with the local He 
as the official reading = Keri, in the margin. 2 The St. Peters- 
burg Codex of A. D. 916, however, like the textus receptus 
or the Western recension has nO^ttnT in the text without 
any Keri. 

(8) Ezek. VIII 3 The Massorah Parva on the 
same verse, in the same MS. states that ^QD likeness, or 
image, is pointed ^SD with Segol under the Samech in the 
Babylon Codex. 3 This certainly implies that the Babylonians 
used the infralinear punctuation side by side with the 
superlinear one, since the latter system has no Segol [= -]. 
The inference would not be so conclusive but for the fact 
that in all other instances where the variations from the 
Babylonian recension are given they differ from the 
St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916 which is supposed to 
exhibit the Babylonian text. 

(9) Ezek. XXIII 17. In Orient. 2201 the Massorah 
Parva remarks on DilO HVD3 Ppfll and her soul was alienated 
from them, that the Babylonian Codex reads here DH3 instead 
of DHQ, 4 whereas the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916 
like the textus receptus or the Western recension reads 



a *?aaa Orient. 2201, fol. 222 b. 

2 p na'wn 1 ' re nbriT '^aaa jia na^n-p nncon baa Comp. Add. 

21161, fol. 97 fl 

3 l^B bttD -'jasa Comp. Add. 21161, fol. 97rt. 

4 nna '^aaa Comp orient. 2201, fol. 236 b. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 441 

(10) Ezek. XXIII 1 8. - - The Massorah Parva in the 
same MS. remarks on fV^J?8 ^'B3 Ppm then my mind was 
alienated from her, that the Babylon Codex reads then her 
mind was alienated from her, Httf D3 instead of 'ttf S3 ! as in 
the preceding verse, whereas the St. Petersburg Codex 
of A. D. 916 reads here as the textus receptus. 

(n) Ezek. XXXVI 23. - - Instead of "when I shall 
be sanctified in you before their eyes", Orient. 2201 reads 
"when I shall be sanctified in them before your eyes", with 
the Massoretic remark that the Babylonian Codex reads 
"in you before their eyes" 2 which is the reading exhibited 
in our text. This is the first instance in which the 
St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916 has the reading which 
is ascribed to the Babylonians in Orient. 2201. It is to 
be remarked that in the passage before us we do not 
follow the Western reading which is exhibited in the text 
of Orient. 2201 but contrary to the usual practice we 
have adopted the Eastern recension. 

It will thus be seen that in ten instances out of the 
eleven the St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916 deviates 
from the readings which the Massorah in the MSS. positively 
describes as Babylonian or Eastern. They must, therefore, 
be added to those which we have already adduced in 
support of our contention that the designation of Codex 
Babylonians which is given to this MS. is incorrect since 
the Codex in question does not exhibit the Babylonian 
recension. 3 

Besides the Babylonian recension the Massorah Parva 
also refers to other Eastern Standard MSS. which were 
in the possession of different communities. Add. 15251 in 



1 ,-IWBJ ^Ma Comp. Orient. 2201, fol. 236 b. 

2 Drrrrb DM ^aSS ^a^ry^'dm Comp. Orient. 2201, fol. 242 a. 

3 Vide supra, Part II, chap. IX, p. 215 231. 



442 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

the British Museum appeals to the Codex of Bagdad and 
the Codex Sharki. Thus for instance 

(1) 2 Kings XVIII 9 where the name Shalmaneser 
occurs which is pointed in the textus receptus lOX3Z^?tf = 
Shahnan-eser, the Massorah Parva remarks that in the 
Bagdad Codex the orthography of this name is IDJOQ^tf = 
Skalma-neser. 1 This spelling would naturally also apply 
2 Kings XVII 3 the only other passage where this name 
occurs. 

(2) In 2 Kings XIX 37 the Massorah Parva in the 
same MS. remarks on the name "H^aTTX Adrammelech, that 

| r t - : - 

in the Bagdad Codex it is 'if^Q'llK Adarmelech? As this 
name also occurs in 2 Kings XVII 31 and Isa. XXXVII 38 
this orthography must have obtained in all the three 
passages. 

(3) On D^V grapes, Isa. V 2 the Massorah Parva 
states that the Sharki Codex reads it D'liP with a Nun 
instead of Beth. 3 

(4) Isa. LI 10. In the textus receptus the reading 
here is nofrn that hath made, Kal preterite third person 
singular feminine from DltP to put, to make, with the prefix 
He (n). For this the Sharki Codex according to the 
Massorah Parva in the same MS. reads HSfrn with Dagesh 
in the Mem (a). 4 

(5) Ezek. IV 1 6. On rUfrrpI and with care, the 

AT T : 

Massorah Parva in the same MS. tells us that the Sharki 
Codex reads it HJK13T with the accent under the Aleph. 5 

It will thus be seen that this Model Codex according 
to the testimony of the Massorah itself exhibited deviations 



"1K-|J2 *?K <B IDKJfibtf Comp. Add. 15251, fol. 211 a. 

2 "Ttn^K "E "^a-nX! X"3 Comp. Add. 15251, fol. 2i2fc. 

3 D'ljy *pir 'rK "B Comp. Add. 15251, fol. 217^. 

* DttH tWI "pltf "?K "B ."listen ,nOten Comp. Add. 15251, fol. 2340. 

"pnw bx *B n^nai Comp. Add. 15251, fol. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah ; its Rise and Development. 443 

from the received text both in the vowel-signs and the 
accents. The variations in the sundry Standard MSS. are 
thus adduced in the Massorah as alternative readings without 
any expression of an adverse opinion against them, though 
the preference in all these cases is presumeably given to 
the textual readings. The Massorites, however, who 
compiled the Rubrics from the sundry Standard Codices 
necessarily produced Lists which though in harmony with 
their respective exemplars could not fail to differ from 
each other. 

A striking illustration of this fact is to be found in 
the Model Codex Harley 5710 n in the British Museum. 
In the account of the lives of the patriarchs two phrases 
are used which, though translated alike, are different in 
the Hebrew, inasmuch as one is W ^3 '(T1 and all the days 
were (was in the Hebrew), where the verb is in the singular, 
and the other is W t>D ViTl, where the verb is in the 
plural. The Massorah Parva in the MS. in question remarks 
on Gen. V 23 that the phrase where it is in the singular 
occurs three times and gives the mnemonic sign for the 
three passages Enoch, Lamech and Noah, 1 viz. Gen. V 23, 
31; IX i. In the same MS. and on the very same passage 
the Massorah Magna states that the phrase in the singular 
only occurs twice, viz. in connection with Enoch and 
Lamech (Gen. V 23, 31) and that all the Massorites who 
give the mnemonic sign for the three passages are 
positively wrong, since in the case of Noah (Gen. IX i) 
the verb is in the plural in the correct MSS. till Elias 
the prophet comes who will clear up all doubts. 2 Now on 
turning to Gen. IX i which is the passage in dispute 



1 Jfi'D f?ri 'a^S Wl Comp. Harley 571011, fol. 40. 

ffi'D }hh poiai "rrpsn "M ">svas\ -jab -pjn ,\WD hn a *& * vri 2 
.VT^K *sv nr w *?3 vm " i p i) Ha oneoa sin m hy\ ja'D ^n "3 DTD sin 



444 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

this very MS. not only has ViTl the plural in the text, 
but has the following Massorah on it: 

Here all the Punctuators err for they Massoretically remark the 
mnemonic sign is J^ri = Enoch, Lamech, Noah [i. e. in Gen. V 23, 31; 
IX 3 1 il is Vl'l in the singular] and this is a mistake on their part for their 
eyes were closed from looking into the Jericho Pentateuch, and into the 
Sephardic MSS. where the mnemonic sign is ^h = Enocb, Lamech, 1 viz. 
Gen. V 23, 3t. 

Accordingly there are only these two instances where 
the verb in the phrase in question is in the singular. We 
have thus two conflicting Massorahs in the same MS. One 
Rubric proceeds from the School whose recension had 
W ^3 'iTI in the singular in three passages and >Q> *?3 VJT1 
the plural in seven passages- and the other emanates from 
the School the Codices of which had the singular in only 
two instances and the plural in eight passages. 

A most important part of this stupendous Corpus 
is the graphic system of accents and vowel-signs which 
the Massorites invented and with which they have furnished 
every expression of the Hebrew Scriptures. With the 
vowel-signs they most minutely fixed the pronunciation 
and meaning of each separate word in accordance with 
the tradition handed down to them from time immemorial, 
whilst with the accents they indicated the logical and 
syntactical relation of the words to one another and to 
the whole clause and verse. 

But just as in the case of the consonants, the different 
Schools redacted the text in accordance with the traditions 
which obtained amongst them so also was it with the 
punctuation and accentuation. The Eastern School with 
its subordinate colleges and the Western School with its 



DT3 Kin rwDi ta-a j^n p-ciai o-npsn he "rea jxs n w ho vm > 

.ja-o "?n "a D'TIBDSI IPPT trains m*na tsryy into 

- Comp. The Massorah, letter HI 204, Vol. I, p. 310. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 445 

diverse academies elaborated their respective systems 
independently of each other, in harmony with the views 
transmitted to them by their authoritative spiritual guides. 
Hence the difference in the vowel-points and accents 
which are exhibited in some of the most ancient and best 
Codices. Hence too the variations between the ancient 
Versions and the present Massoretic text in numerous 
instances which exhibit identically the same consonants 
but which are entirely due to a difference in the pro- 
nunciation and construction of the consonants, thus 
indicating- a difference in the traditions with regard to the 
vowels and meaning of the words in question. 

That the graphic signs are not coeval with the 
consonants is now generally admitted, though the precise 
date of their introduction cannot be ascertained. It is 
certain that they did not exist in the fifth century. This 
is attested by St. Jerome both in his commentaries on the 
Hebrew Scriptures and in his numerous other writings. 
From the sundry remarks of this celebrated Father it is 
evident that the Hebrew text which he used had no 
graphic signs for the vowel-points. Fully to appreciate 
the force of the evidence derived from his writings it is 
necessary to realise the circumstances under which he 
wrote. 

St. Jerome was frequently obliged to describe most 
minutely the condition of the Hebrew text in a very 
elementary manner in order to convey to his Latin 
contemporaries an idea of the peculiarities of the Semitic 
original. As his translation differed from the Versions of 
the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and the 
Quinta, and also from the Vetus Itala, with which his 
readers were familiar; and moreover, as these Versions 
frequently differed among themselves, St. Jerome was 
compelled on almost every page not only to justify his 



446 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

own peculiar renderings, but to explain the cause of the 
variations in the Versions as well as to expose their errors. 
To effect this he discusses the orthographical and 
linguistical peculiarities of the Hebrew text, and in his 
explanations he frequently analyses the words. He states 
how many consonants there are in the word, and names 
each letter by its Hebrew name. He describes how the 
same consonants are differently pronounced according to 
the arbitrariness of the Hebrew reader, or according to 
the dialect of the Province to which he belongs; how it 
is that the same word has different meanings and how the 
same consonants express two or three different ideas. And 
yet he never mentions the names of our vowel-signs in 
the numerous exegetical writings nor does he give us the 
slightest hint that any graphical or diacritical marks were 
used in the Hebrew Scriptures to indicate the difference 
in the pronunciation of the same consonants when they 
are intended to convey a different sense upon which he 
dwells so much, and which he is so anxious to explain to 
his readers. A few illustrations from his expositions will 
demonstrate this fact. 

(i) Commenting on Melchizedek he says: 

It matters little whether we pronounce it Salem or Salim because the 
Hebrew words have very seldom a vowel [-letter = mater lectionis] in the 
middle [== stem, or root] and they are pronounced differently according to 
the requirements of the context and according to the various pronunciations 
of the provinces. 1 

1 Nee refert, utrum Salem an Salim nominetur, cum vocalibus in medio 
litteris perraro utantur Hebraei, et pro volutate lectorum, ac varietate regionum, 
eadem verba diversis sonis atque accentibus proferantur. Comp. Eptst. 126 ad 
Evagr. Vol. II, Col. 574, ed. Martinian, Paris 1699. By vocalibus in medio 
litteris is meant the matres lectionis ^K in the middle of a word in contra- 
distinction to the suffixes at the end. Hupfeld has conclusively shown that 
accenins means pronunciation. Comp. Theologische Studieti ud Kritiken 1830, 
p. 582586. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 447 

It will be seen that if the graphic signs for the e and 
7 had existed in his days this learned Father would 
assuredly have said when the word in question has Tzere 
under the Lamed (b) it is pronounced Salem and when it 
has Chirek (^) it is pronounced Salim. Even the diacritical 
sign which now marks the distinction between Sin (ttf) 
and Shin (V?) had not as yet been introduced for he pro- 
nounced it Salem instead of Shalein. 

(2) Gen. XXXVI 24. - - On the words "this was the 
Anah that found jamim in the wilderness" he remarks: 

Others assign to it the meaning of sea because it is written with the 
same letters which signify both. 1 , 

With the vowel points affixed to the expression in 
question it cannot possibly denote both. 

Isa II 22. - - The last clause of this verse St. Jerome 
renders because he was highly thought of, and remarks: 

The Septuagint omits this clause and Origen added it with an asterisk 
from the edition of Aquila Where we have it he was highly thought of, Aquila 
renders it wherein thai man was thought of. The Hebrew word is Bama 
and may either denote vtycofici = high, as we read it in Kings and Ezekiel, 
or certainly wherein. Both are written with same letters Beth, Mem, He, and 
the sense is according to the context. If we wish to read it wherein we 
pronounce it Bamma, and if high or highly we pronounce it Bama.- 

1 Allii putant a jamim maria appellata. lisdem enim litteris scribuntur 
maria, quibus et nunc hie sermo descriptus est. Et volunt ilium dum pascit 
asinos patris sui in deserto, aquarum congregationes reperisse: quae juxta 
idioma linguae Hebraice maria nuncupentur: quod scilicet stagnum repererit, 
cujus rei inventio in eremo difficilis est. Nonnulli putant aquas calidas juxta 
Punicae linguae viciniam, quae Hebraeae contermina est, hoc vocabulo 
signari. Question. Heb. in Genesim Vol. II. Col. 539. 

2 Quia excelsus reputatus est ipse. Hoc praetermisere LXX et in 
Graects exemplaribus ab Origene sub asteriscis de editione Aquilae additum 
est; quod in Hebraeo ita legitur: Hedalu Lachem men Aadam Aser Nasama 
Baaphpho chi Bama nesab hu. Ubi nos dixemus: excelsus reputatus est ipse: 
Aquila interpretat-as est, in quo reputatus est iste. Verbum Hebraicum Bama, 
v.l ihptofict dicitur, id est; excelsum; quod et in Regnorum libris et in 



448 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

Leaving out the exegesis of the passage which this 
learned Father advances, the statement conclusively shows 
that the text upon which he commented could not possibly 
have had the vowel-points, for the graphic signs preclude 
this double pronunciation. 

(4) Jerem. Ill i . - - "But thou hast played the harlot 
with many lovers" or says St. Jerome "with many shepherds," 
because he adds: 

The Hebrew word Reim which is spelled with the four letters Res, 
Ain, Jod, Mem, denotes both lovers and shepherds. If we pronounce it Reim, 
it means lovers, and if Roim it signifies shepherds. 1 

If the Hebrew text before him had the graphic vowel- 
points he could not have propounded this double 
pronunciation. 

(5) Jerem. IX 21. On the passage "Speak, Thus 
saith the Lord" St. Jerome remarks as follows: 

The Hebrew word which is written with three letters Daleth, Beth, 
Resh, has no vowel-signs in the middle. It is only the context and the 
arbitrary opinion of the reader which determines the pronunciation. If it is 
pronounced dabar it denotes a word, if deber it is death, if daber it is speak. 
Hence both the Septuagint and Theodotion join it with what precedes and 
render it 'they drove the children out of doors, the young men from the 
streets of death, ' whilst Aquila and Symmachus translate it speak? 

Ezechiele legimus; vel certe in quo; et eisdem litteris scribitur Beth, Mem, 
He; ac pro locorum qualitate, si voluerimus legere, in quo, dicimus Bamma; 
sin autem, excelsum vel cxcelsiis. legimus Bama. Vol. Ill, Col. 30. 

1 Et iu fornicata es cum amatoribus multis (sive pastoribus). Verbum 
enim Reim quod quattuor litteris scribitur Res, Ain, Jod, Mem, et amalores, 
et pastores utrumque significat. Et si legamus Reim amatores significat; si 
Roim paslores. Comp. Vol. Ill, Col. 541. 

2 Loquere, haec ilicil Dominus: . . . Verbum Hebraicumquod tribus litteris 
scribitur Daleth, Beth, Res (vocales enim in medio non habet) pro consequentia 
et legentis arbitrio si legatur Dabar, sermouem significat; si deber, mortem; 
si daber, loqncre. Unde et LXX et Theodotio junxerunt illud praetetito capitulo, 
ut dicerent: Disperdcnt parvulos de forts; juvenes de plateis morte. Aquila vero 
et Symmachus transtulerunt Itilyaov, id est, loquerc. Comp. Vol. Ill, Col. 576. 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 449 

Accordingly this diversity of rendering, St. Jerome 
tells us is due to the fact that the three unpointed 
consonants in may be pronounced in word, in [pestilence, 
or in speak. With the vowel-points already affixed to 
the word in question no such diversity of pronunciation 
and interpretation could possibly have obtained. 

(6) Hosea XIII 3. On the words "and as the 
smoke out of the chimney" St. Jerome remarks as follows: 

It may be asked why the Septuagint has locust for chimney which 
Theodotion renders xanvod6%ov? The Hebrews spell locust and chimney with 
the same four letters Aleph, Res, Beth, He. If it is pronounced arbe it denotes 
locust and if orobba it means chimney, which Aquila renders xarccQaxTOv and 
Symmachus foramen an opening made in the wall for the escape of the smoke. 1 

No such diversity of pronunciation and interpretation 
is possible with the vowel-signs affixed to the four 
consonants. 

The evidence from the Talmudic and Midrashic 
writings is to the same effect. No mention is made either 
in the Talmud or the Midrashim of the names of the 
graphic-signs, though in one notable instance they would 
most assuredly have been referred to if they had existed 
in those days. R.Abba b. Cahana andR. Achawho flourished 
in the fourth century of the present era in their allegorical 
interpretation of Song of Songs I 11 tell us as follows: 

With studs of silver. - - R: Abba b. Cahana says this denotes the 
letters. R. Acha says it means the words. Others say "we will make thee 
borders of gold'' denotes the writing, "with studs of silver" means the ruled lines. 2 

1 Quaerimus autem quare LXX pro fitmario quod Theodotio transtulit 
xKnvodo%ov locustas interpretati sunt? Apud Hebraeos, locusta et fumarium, 
iisdem scribitur litteris Aleph, Res, Beth, He. Quod si legatur arbe, locusta 
dicitur-, orobba, fumarium; pro quo Aquila XCCTCCQKXTOV, Symmachus foramen 
interpretati sunt. Comp. Vol. Ill, Col. 1325. 

6x iaK xn "an .nrniKn I^K -I&K tona -a KSK 'an .span rnipa oy - 
:briDn nt ,epan rrnpj or .anan ru ,-]b ntwtt an: nin K"i .mann Comp. 

Midrash Rabba on the Song of Songs I II, fol. lib, ed. Wilna 1878. 

DD 



450 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

It will be seen that though these sages in their 
allegorical exposition propound the verse in question to 
describe the letters, the words, the writing and the ruled 
lines of Holy Writ, they make no mention whatever of 
the vowel-signs. This remarkable omission is all the more 
striking when it is borne in mind that term DlTlpi points, 
upon which they comment, is the very name for the 
graphic signs. 

The anecdote in the Talmud, referred to by Elias 
Levita, is another proof of the fact that the graphic signs 
did not exist in the Talmudic period. R. Dine, of Nehardea, 
maintained that he only should be appointed teacher of 
youths who had a good pronunciation, even if he was not 
very learned since it is very difficult to unlearn an acquired 
mistake. To enforce this principle the sage refers to the 
story which describes Joab's slaying the whole male 
population in Edom recorded in i Kings XI 15, 16 and 
in connection with which we are told as follows: 

When Joab returned to David the latter asked him: What is the 
reason that thou hast thus acted? [i. e. slain the males only]. To this Joab 
replied: Because it is written, Thou shalt blot out the males of Amalek 
[Deut. XXV 19]. He [David] then said to him: We read Secher = {he 
memory, to which he [Joab] replied, I have been taught to read it Sacfiar = 
males, and went to enquire of his Rabbi, asking him: How didst thou teach 
me to read it? To which he replied Secher = memory. Whereupon he [Joab] 
seized his sword to slay him. He [the Rabbi] asked why? To which he 
replied: Because it is written, 'Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord 
deceitfully' [Jerem. XLVIII 10]. Upon which he [the Rabbi] said: Away with 
him who lays hold of a curse. He [Joab] said again: It is written, 'And 
cursed be he who keepeth back his sword from blood' [Jerem. XLVIII 10]. 
Some say that he did slay him and some say that he did not slay him. 1 
(Comp. liable Bathra 21 a b). 



nnan a-rc-i rrb nax -an mar xfcra "xa rrb nax -ii-n rvapb xnx 'a < 
rra-6 nrb"v f?tx p-npx -m x:x "rx frip -CT px xm rrb nax pbay -01 nx 
*rx -xax rrb IJDK rr^tsp'ia'? XTCEC bptf -CT rrb nax jmpx -]X'n rrh nax 



-rnxa Dip-^n x^a; x-rnS rrpar b"X .-ran TI rcxba nnr m-ix a-nai 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 451 

This anecdote conclusively shows that the consonants 
p3?) were then without the graphic signs, for with the 
vowel-points attached to the letters the different readings 
n question could not have obtained. 

The evidence for the non-existence of the vowel- 
points extends to the sixth or even to the beginning of 
the seventh century. The Treatise Sopherim which belongs 
to this period and the first half of which is of Massoretic 
import makes no mention whatever of the graphic signs 
though it discusses the crowned letters, the majuscular 
letters, the verses, the sections, the dittographs &c. A 
striking instance of the difficulty which the compiler of 
this Treatise had to encounter in the explanation of 
certain words, due to the absence of the vowel-points 
may be seen in chapter IV, 8, 9. Here the Divine 
names are described and canons are laid down for the 
scribes of Holy Writ with regard to these sacred 
appellations. Among these is the monosyllabic word *?$ 
which without points may either denote God or may be 
.the particle unto. The compiler is, therefore, anxious to 
point out passages where it stands for the Sacred Name 
and where it is the particle. Among the instances which 
he adduces is EDtPEn \X ^N "prf? J ob xxx * v 2 3 and ne 
states that the first monosyllable is secular = the particle 
and that the second is sacred, i. e. the Divine name, God.* 
It will at once be seen that, if the graphic signs had 
existed, there would have been no necessity whatever for 
this explanation. The different points unmistakably indicate 
this, since the particle is pointed ^X, and the Divine name 
^N. Moreover, he would not have been driven to use the 



,K-irc KM trrbtapK 1 ? naK-i tcrKi rrbtap niaxi KTK o-ta "Din ysia *vnKi aro 

:22'K3 Comp Elias Levita, Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 128, ed. Ginsburg, 
London 1867. 

in bin juwnn tssran *?K bx "^r 



DO" 



452 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 



awkward expressions ^in secular, and ttnp sacred to mark 
the difference, for he would simply have said the first has 
Segol and the second Tzcrc. 1 

The introduction of the graphic signs, however, must 
have taken place about a generation after the compilation 
of the Palaeographical Treatise Sopherim or about 650 -680. 
A. D. This is to be inferred from the following facts. 
( i ) Codex 4445 of the British Museum which contains the 
Pentateuch and which was written about 850 A. D. already 
exhibits the text with the vowel-points and accents in a 
highly developed form. (2) In the Massorah of this Codex, 
which was added about 950 A. D., the vowel-points and 
the accents are an integral part of this Corpus, and minute 
regulations are to be found on almost every page as to 
the points and accents of certain words which are spelled 
alike. A century at least must have elapsed between the 
introduction of the graphic signs and their becoming the 
object of Massoretic glosses. And (3) the same inference 
is to be drawn from the fact that about the middle of the 
ninth century the origin of the vowel-points and accents. 
was already shrouded in darkness, and the innovation as 
usual, was ascribed to the sages and the Men of the 
Great Synagogue. Several centuries must, therefore, have 
elapsed before the system could thus be canonised. 

As the object of inventing the vowel signs and the 
accents was to aid the professional teachers of Holy Writ 
in their function of imparting instruction to the laity in 
the correct pronunciation and in setting forth the traditional 
sense of the consonants, the Massorites did not at first 
confine themselves to elaborate one uniform system of 
graphic signs. The different Schools of Massorites formulated 
several systems. Hence, besides the current system according 



. i: -rrrr TIJC trx-n tsetro:: h 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 453 

to which the graphic signs are placed under the consonants 
and which is called infralinear, Massorites of other Schools 
developed a system which not only consists of different 
signs, but according to which the vowel-signs and the 
accents are placed above the consonants and which is, 
therefore, called superlinear. 

The existence of the superlinear punctuation was not 
known till about fifty years ago. The first published notice 
of it was derived from the epigraph to a MS. of the 
Pentateuch with the Chaldee Paraphrase in the De Rossi 
Library No. 12 In this important document we are distinctly 
told that the superlinear system is that which was current 
in Babylon as will be seen from the following: 

This Targum with its vowel-points was made from a MS. which was 
brought from Babylon and which had the points above according to the 
Assyrian system of punctuation. It was changed by R. Nathan b. Machir of 
Ancona son of R. Samuel b. Machir of Aveyso [in Portugal or of Aveyron 
in France], son of Solomon who destroyed the power of the blasphemer in 
Romagna by the aid of the name of the Blessed One, son of Anthos b. Zadok 
Ha-Nakdan. He corrected it and made it conformable to the punctuation of 
the Tiberian system. 1 

That the superlinear system was the system which 
was current in Babylon and was called the Oriental is, 
moreover, corroborated by the notices of the variations 
between the Westerns and the Easterns which Professor 
Strack has collected from the various Tzufutkale MSS. 
The Massorah on i Sam. XXV 3; 2 Sam. XIII 21; Ps. 
CXXXVII 5 in describing the differences in the words, 
vowel-points and accents between these two Schools, gives 
the text of the passages in question according to the 



ipiaa rrm "?3S pa sin IIPK ISDO pnra iTipas nr main ' 
-via rwHBB TSE is ^KIBW is wipawa i'sa is jro 'i isam IWR p 
is Dinax is -[-man DPS man ps partenan pp na itwt xin nabtr is 

; '1ST Dlpan 'DlStS "llpa 1 ? inwi Warn pp3,1 pliat Com-p. Targum OnMos, herans- 
gegeben und erlatttert von Dr. A. Berliner. Vol II, p. 134, Berlin 1884. 



454 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

infralinear punctuation as that of the Occidentals [i. e. 
Maarbai, or Westerns] and according to the superlinear 
punctuation as that of the Orientals [i. e. Madinchai or 
Easterns or Babylonians]. 1 

The Massorah, however, in describing the superlinear 
system as the Oriental, is not confined to the MSS. derived 
from the Crimea. In the Model Codex No. i 3 in the 
Paris National Library, which has furnished us with so 
many new readings from the Oriental redaction, I have 
found two other Massoretic remarks to the same effect. 
On Levit. VII 16, where the received text or the Westerns 
read l3Hpn with Pathach under the He, the Massorah 
remarks that the Eastern or Babylonians read it with 
Chirek and accordingly gives the variant with the super- 
linear punctuation. 2 The same is the case in Levit. XIII 7 
on the word 1fnnc6 for his cleansing, where the Massorah 
gives the Babylonian variation with the superlinear 
punctuation. 

In the face of this evidence from different ages and 
separate lands it simply discloses a case of special pleading 
to argue that the superlinear system is not the product 
of the Babylonian School of Massorites. Nothing was more 
natural for the Babylonian authorities who had a distinct 
recension of the consonantal text than to formulate a 
system which should exhibit in graphic signs the ancient 
pronunciation in accordance with the traditions in their 
possession. The same was to be expected from the 
Jerusalem or Tiberian School. The two guilds of the two 
Schools of textual critics who elaborated these systems 
were not antagonistic to each other, but simply endeavoured 
in friendly rivalry and according to the best of their 

1 Comp. A Treatise on the Accentuation by William Wickes D. D., 
p. 145, Oxford 1887. 

.ina pp linpn b in'-^n 2 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. , 455 

ability to reproduce by graphic signs the same pro- 
nunciation of the consonants which was orally delivered 
to them from time immemorial. The infralinear and super- 
linear signs were, therefore, two trial systems to compass 
the same difficult task, which accounts for the fact that 
several modifications of the superlinear punctuation are 
exhibited in someMSS. 1 Hence MSS. produced in countries 
outside Babylon exhibit both 'systems by the side of each 
other. A striking illustration of this fact we have in the 
oldest dated superlinear system exhibited in the St. Peters- 
burg Codex of A. D. 916. Here the Massorah has fre- 
quently in the first part? of its Massbretic gloss the first 
word with the infralinear punctuation and the second 
word in the second part of the same Massoretic remark 
with the superlinear punctuation; 2 whilst in other passages 
the Massorah entirely exhibits the infralinear system. 3 
Ultimately, however, the Western system prevailed over 
its rival, just as the Western recension of the text itself 
has been adopted as the textus receptus and has so 
completely superseded its Eastern competitor that not a 
single copy of a purely Eastern, i. e. Babylonian recension 
has as yet come to light. 

This final conquest is no doubt due to a great extent 
to the more easy and simple nature of the infralinear 
system. From the primitive single dot and horizontal line, 
the only two graphic signs which obtained prior to the 
introduction of the present vowel-points, the Western 
Massorites ingeniously developed all the vowel-signs in 
the infralinear system. The one dot under the consonant 

1 Comp. Orient. 1467 and Orient. 2363 in the British Museum with 
the St. Petersburg Codex of 916 A. D. 

2 Comp. Isa. I 25; II 12; VII 16; VIII i; XXVII n; XXXIV 5 
&c. &c. 

3 Comp. Isa I 19; III 7; V 2, 8; XIV 2; XVIII 6; XXIII 7 &c. &c. 



456 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

(-) is Chirek. The same dot in the middle (-1) is Shurek 
and above the letter (-) is Cholem. Two dots in a horizontal 
position (-) are Tzere and in a perpendicular form (-) are 
Sheva. Three dots in a triangular form (-} are Segol and 
in a diagonal form inclining to the right (T) are Kibbutz. 
The simple horizontal line (-) is Pathach and with the dot 
under it (-) is Kametz. The composite signs Chateph-Segol, 
Chateph-Pathach and Chateph- Kametz are indicated by the 
simple addition of the two perpendicular dots to the 
single vowel-signs, viz. -, -, T\. 

The superlinear or Eastern system is far less simple. 
The signs for Kametz and Pathach which we are told are 
formed of broken letters are sometimes not easy to 
distinguish and are more difficult to write than the 
corresponding two signs in the infralinear system. The 
Shurek which consists of the letter Vav (1) occupies a 
very awkward position. The use of the same horizontal 
line (5) to denote Raphe, the audible Sheva (Itt XltP), and 
the quiescent Sheva (CD JOttf) is exceedingly inconvenient; and 
though in the variation of this system, as exhibited in 
Orient. 1467, this awkwardness is partly avoided by 3 
representing Raphe and 5 the audible Sheva, still the 
quiescent Sheva is not indicated at all. This system, 
moreover, does not distinguish betwen Pathach and Segol 
and has no furtive Pathach at all. Thus for instance P'T 

T 

he shall cry (Isa. XLII 13) stands for JPT. By their position 
the graphic signs also come inconveniently in conflict 
with the superlinear accents. 

The solution of the tangled question as to which of 
the two systems is the older, or whether the one is a 
development of the other, or whether both have been 
developed simultaneously but independently of each other 
is outside the range of this chapter. So is an analysis 
of the merits and demerits of the two systems. The attempt 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 457 

to accomplish this would occupy a Treatise of considerable 
dimensions. I must, therefore, refer the student to works 
which discuss these points. 1 

The fact that the graphic signs determine the sense 
of the consonants in accordance with the traditions of 
their predecessors the Sopherim, naturally implies that the 
principles, by which the authoritative custodians of the 
Hebrew Scriptures were guided in the redaction of the 
consonantal text, were faithfully followed by the Massorites 
who invented the vowel-points. This is fully attested by 
numerous passages in the Massoretic text. From these I shall 
only adduce a few instances which are now admitted by 
the best critics and expositors as having the vowel-signs 
in harmony with the redactorial canons of the Sopherim. 

The expression "to see the face of the Lord" was 
deemed improper, inasmuch as it appeared too anthro- 
pomorphitic. Besides it was supposed to conflict with the 
declaration in Exod. XXXIII 20. Hence the Massorites in 
accordance with the Sopheric- canon pointed the verb in 
the Niphal or passive in all these phrases. "To see (i"JN"V) 
the face of the Lord" was converted by the vowel-points 
into "to be seen" (i"INT) or "to appear before the Lord." 2 



1 Comp. Pinsker, Einleitung in das Babylonisch-Hebraische Punctations- 
system, Vienna 1863; Ewald, Jahrbiicher der Biblischen Wissenschaft 1844, 
pp. 160172; Graetz, Monatsschrift fur Geschichte nnd Wissenschaft des 
Judenthums, Vol. XXX, p. 348-367, 395 - 405. Krotoschin 1881 ; Vol. XXXVI, 
p. 425 451, 473 497. Krotoschin 1887; W. Wickes, A Treatise on the 
Accentuation, p. 144 &c. Oxford 1887; Isidor Harris, in the Jewish Quarterly 
Review, p. 241 &c. London 1889; G. Margoliouth, The superlinear Punctuation, 
its origin &c. in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 
p. 164 &c. London 1893; Bacher, Die Anfange der Hebraischen Grammatik 
in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenla'ndischen Gesellschaft, Vol. XLIX, 
pp. I 62. Leipzig 1895. 

2 Comp. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, pp. 337 339> 
Breslau 1857. 



458 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

But passages like Exod. XXIII 15; XXXIV 20; Isa. I 12, 
which are most difficult to construe with the accusative, 
plainly show that the natural vocalization of the verb in 
all these phrases is the Kal. Accordingly the proper 
punctuation in Exod. XXXIV 23 and Deut. XVI 16 is 
nST shall see, and not Hip* shall appear, and the passages 
in question are to be translated 

Three times a year shall all thy male children see the face of the Lord. 

This also shows that in the third passage where this 
command is repeated (Exod. XXIII 17) the original reading 
was TIX as is attested by the Samaritan recension and not 
^X as it is in the textns receptns. 

The same euphemistic pointing is to be found in 
Exod. XXIII 15 and XXXIV 20 which ought to be 
translated 

and ye shall not see (1K"I") my face empty handed. 

This euphemism has also been introduced into Exod. 
XXXIV 20, and Deut. XXXI n where fifing to see, the 
Kal infinitive is pointed HlKI^ to be seen, to appear, the 
syncopated infinitive Niphal, a form which some of the 
best Grammarians do not admit. Accordingly the passages 
in question ought to be translated 

to see the face of the Lord thy God. 

That the points in DlX"^ to appear, in Isa. I 12 are 
euphemistic and should be fl1X"i^ to see, is now admitted 
by some of the most distinguished critics. The passage, 
therefore, ought to be rendered 

when ye come to see my face 

The same is the case in Ps. XLII 3 where HX^XI 
and I shall appear before, ought to be nN"lK'l and I shall 
see, and the verse is to be translated 

when shall I come and see the face of God. 

In the passage before us we have an instance which 
testifies to the oft-repeated fact that the different Schools 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 459 

of textual critics followed different traditions. Thus whilst 
the present Massoretic text follows the School which laid 
down the euphemistic canon that it is to be pronounced 
in the passive (nX'HNl) which is also exhibited in the 
Septuagint and in St. Jerome, another School of textual 
critics did not regard the active form or the Ral as harsh 
and hence adhered to the natural pronunciation (nsnxi). 
This is attested by some MSS., the Chaldee, the Syriac, 
and the editio princeps of the Hagiographa, Naples 148687. 
This School recognised the fact that the phrase "to see 
the face of the Lord" simply denotes the Divine presence 
as manifested in the Sanctuary. Thus when the Psalmist 
assures the upright that they will enjoy spiritual communion 
with God, he declares 

The upright shall behold his face (Ps. XI 7) 

as it is rightly rendered in the Revised Version. The 
great hope of the Psalmist who worships God without 
any prospect of material gain is 

As for me I will behold thy face in righteousness (Ps. XVII 15). 

And Hezekiah when he expected to depart this life 
expressed his distress 

I shall not see the Lord, the Lord in the land of the living (Isa. XXXVIII 11). 

The expression "-f^b Molech, as it is pointed in the 
Massoretic text occurs eight times, 1 and with one exception, 2 
has always the article, which undoubtedly shows that it 
is an appellative and denotes the king, the king-idol. The 
appellative signification of the word is confirmed by the 
Septuagint which translates it KQ%&V prince, king, in five 
out of the eight instances. 3 As this, however, was the 

1 Comp. Levit. XVIII 21 ; XX 2, 3, 4, 5; I Kings XI 7; 2 Kings 
XXIII 10; Jerem. XXXII 35. 

- Comp. "^bbl I Kings XI 7 which is probably a mistake in the 
punctuation and ought to be "^fe^l as it is in the other passages. 

3 Comp. Levit. XVIII 21 ; XX 2, 3, 4, 5. 



460 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

title of Jehovah who alone was the true King of Israel, 1 
and, moreover, as the Jews had frequently fallen a prey 
to the worship of this odious king-idol with all its appalling 
rites of child-sacrifice, the authoritative redactors of the 
Hebrew text endeavoured to give a different pronunciation 
to these consonants when they denote this hideous image. 
Hence the Massorites who invented the graphic signs 
pointed it ^b molech, to assimilate it to the word nttf'2 
shameful thing, the name with which Baal was branded.'^ 
The authoritative redactors of the text, however, 
simply indicated the euphemistic principle, but as in the 
case of Baal and other cacophanous expressions, they did not 
attempt to carry it through the whole Hebrew Scriptures. 
Hence there are passages in which the original appellative 
melech 0^0) is left without any alteration in the points 
which some of our best critics have taken to stand for 
Molech 0?[^b). Thus for instance Isa. XXX 33 which is in 
the Authorised Version "yea for the king it is prepared" 
is translated by Professors Delitzsch, Cheyne &c. 

it is also prepared for Moloch 

and Dr. Payne Smith, the late Dean of Canterbury, 
remarks, "I have little doubt that the right vocalization 
of Isa. XXX 33; LVII 9 is ^b Molech, not ^0 king."* 

In accordance with this principle of euphemism the 
Massorites pointed 03^0 Milcom, making it a proper 
name in three passages where this appellative occurs with 
the suffix third person plural instead of DS'pa their king- 
god* That the Hebrew text from which the ancient Versions 

1 Comp. Numb. XXIII 21; Deut. XXXIII 5; Jerem. XXXIII 22; 
Ps. V 3; X 16; XXIX 10 &c. 

2 Vide supra, Part II, chap. XI, pp. 401-404, and Comp. Geiger, 
Urschrift und Uebcrsetzung der Bibel, pp. 299308. 

3 Comp. Bamptott Lectures, p. 323 note, London 1869. 
* Comp. I Kings XI 5, 33 ; 2 Kings XXIII 13. 



CHAP. XI.J The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 461 

were made exhibited variations in these three passages 
is attested by the Septuagint which has Molech [= l6b] 
in two out of the three passages, viz. i Kings XI 5, 35. 

But malcam [= D3^M their king], with the normal 
points of the suffix third person plural, occurs in at least 
six passages in the Massoretic text where it is taken to 
denote the king-idol. 1 The modern critics, however, who 
admit that the king-idol = Moloch, is here intended, have 
advocated an alteration of the Massoretic punctuation of 
the expression in these passages in order to convert the 
appellative with the suffix into a proper name, viz. Melcam 
or Malcam, following the example of some of the ancient 
Versions. But the passage in Amos V 25 where 033^3 
your king, occurs with the pronominal suffix second person, 
which is now recognised to mean your king-idol i. e. your 
Moloch, shows conclusively that there is no necessity for 
departing from the Massoretic punctuation of D3^B their 
king-idol, with the suffix third person. However as DDS^Q 
your king-idol, and D3^tt are. undoubtedly forms of "-f^Q 
king, with the second and third persons pronominal suffix, 
they show that the original expression for this king-idol was 
^Q melech, and that in the passages where it is now If^O 
molech, the Massorites have assimilated the punctuation to 
nt?3 shame, in accordance with the ancient tradition. 

Ecclesiastes III 21 exhibits another remarkable 
punctuation by the Massorites which is due to euphemism. 
The different Schools of textual critics had a different 
pronunciation of the He (!"l) which precedes the two 
participles n^j? goeth upward, and rn*V goeth downward. 
According to one School it was the interrogative (H . . . il) 
and denotes whether it [i. e. the spirit of man] goeth 

1 Comp. 2 Sam. XII 30 with the parallel passage in I Chron. XX 2; 
Jerem. XLIX I, 3; Amos I 15; Zeph. I 5. 



462 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

upward . . . whether it [i. e. the spirit of the beast] goeth 
downward. This School recognised the fact that the verse 
before us is part of the general argument, and that the 
proper answer to this question is given at the end of the 
book. The Chaldee, the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Vulgate, 
Luther, the Geneva Version and the Revised Version 
follow this School, and take the He (i"l) interrogatively. 
Another School of redactors, however, with a sensitive 
regard for the devout worshippers who had to listen to 
the public reading of the passage, were anxious to obviate 
the appearance of scepticism and hence took the He (n) 
as the article pronoun and interpreted the clauses in 
question that goeth upward .... that goeth downward. It is 
this School which the Massorites followed in their 
punctuation of the two participles, viz. filTH . . . n^JJH. 
Coverdale, the Bishops' Bible and the Authorised Version 
strictly exhibit the present Massoretic punctuation which 
as we have seen, is due to the principle of euphemism. 

With the introduction of the graphic signs and their 
incorporation into the Massoretic Apparatus, the work of 
the Massorites ceased circa A. D. 700. From this guild of 
anonymous, patient, laborious, self-denying and godly 
toilers at "the hedge" which was designed henceforth to 
"enclose" and preserve the sacred consonantal text delivered 
into their keeping by their predecessors the Sopherim, the 
now pointed and accented text with the stupendous 
Massoretic corpus passed over into the hands of another 
guild called the Nakdanim (D'yipi) = the Punctuators or 
more properly the Massoretic Annotators. 

Unlike the Massorites who had to invent the graphic 
signs, to fix the pronunciation and the sense of the 
consonantal text, and formulate the Lists of the correct 
readings in accordance with the authoritative traditions, 
the functions of the Nakdanim were not to create, but 



CHAP. XI.] The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 463 

to strictly conserve the Massoretic labours. They revised 
the consonantal text produced by professional copyists 
and furnished it with the Massoretic vowel-signs and 
accents, as well as with the Massorahs both Parva and 
Magna as transmitted to them by the Massorites. 

To this effect each distinguished Nakdan of 
acknowledged reputation supplied himself with a copy of 
the Hebrew Scriptures which he generally made himself in 
accordance with the Massorah and which became a Model 
Codex. The first Nakdanim who have produced such Model 
Codices and whose date we know are the two Ben-Ashers 
father and son, and Ben-Naphtali (circa A. D. 890 940).' 
The Nakdanim also procured or compiled for themselves 
independent Collections of Massoretic Rubrics from which 
they transferred a greater or lesser quantity of these Rubrics 
into the Codices which they revised proportioned to the 
honorarium they received from the rich patron or the 
community for whom a Codex was made. Hence Standard 
Codices as well as independent Massorahs are constantly 
referred to by Massoretic Annotators, Jewish Grammarians 
and expositors from the middle of the tenth century 
downwards. The separate Massoretic compilations which 
the Nakdanim produced were designed as Manuals. They 
were exceedingly convenient for selecting from them the 
portions of the Massorah which the Massoretic Annotator 
had determined to transfer into the Codex he revised. 

The order adopted in these Compendiums generally 
depended upon the taste of the compiler. As a rule, 
however, such an independent compilation began with the 
long alphabetical List of words which respectively occur 
twice in the Bible once without Vav (1) conjunctive and 
once with it. As the first pair of words in this List are 

1 Vide supra, Part II, chap. X, pp. 241 286. 



4G4 Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

r63X eating (i Sam. I 9), and P63K1 and eat (Gen. XXVII 19), 
these Manuals in accordance with the ancient Jewish practice 
were called Ochlah Ve-Ochlah after the words with which 
they begin. 1 Two such Compendiums in separate books 
without the regular text of the Bible are still extant in 
MS. The one in the Paris National Library has been 
published with learned notes by Frensdorff, Hanover 1864, 
and the other which is a far larger compilation is still in 
MS. in the Halle University Library. This MS. is of 
special interest to the Massoretic student since it belonged 
to the celebrated Elias Levita according to a partially 
defaced note on the first page and is the Ochla Ve-Ochla 
which he tells us Jacob b. Chayim largely used in the 
compilation of the Massorah in the edition of the Rabbinic 
Bible, Venice 1524 2$.* By the kind permission of the 
Halle University authorities I made a fac- simile of this 
MS. in 1867, and incorporated many new Massoretic Lists 
in my edition of the Massorah. A separate compilation of 
the Massorah Parva is also still extant in MS. in the 
Royal Library of Berlin No. 1219. 

These Nakdanim or Massoretic Annotators also wrote 
Treatises on the vowel-points and accents as well as ex- 
planations of the Massorah itself. This independent authorship, 
however, opened up to the Massoretic Annotators a wide 
field for ingenious speculations and soon developed fine- 
spun theories about the vowel-points and accents which 
may or may not be correct, but which were never 
contemplated by the Massorah. The results of these 
theories the Massoretic Annotators frequently introduced 
into the Massorah itself as a constituent part of this ancient 

' For this List see The Massorah, letter 1, 3453, Vol. I, 

PP- 391396. 

2 Comp. Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 93 &c., ed. Ginsburg. London 1867 



CHAP. XI. | The Massorah; its Rise aud Development. 4(i5 

corpus either with the name of the particular authority 
or without it, so that in many cases it is now difficult to 
say which Rubric belongs to the old Massorah, and which 
is the product of later theorists or Grammarians. A few 
examples will suffice to illustrate this fact. 

We have a List transmitted to us in the name of 
R. Phinehas, the President of the Academy at Tiberias 
circa A. D. 750 registering eighteen expressions in which 
this Massoretic Annotator substitutes Chateph-Pathach for 
the simple and primitive, Sheva.* Though these instances 
are adduced without giving any reason for this peculiar 
punctuation, an analysis of the words in question shows 
that the following principles underlie this proposed 
deviation from the Massoretic system. 

(1) When a consonant with Sheva is followed by the 
same consonant he changed the simple Sheva into Chateph- 
Pathach. This is evident from Nos. r, 2, 4, 5 and 6 in 
the List. 

(2) When Resh (1) stands between two Kametzes, or 
between a Kametz and Chirek or Shurek he changed the 
simple Sheva into Chateph-Pathach, as is evident from 
Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and n in the List. 

(3) When the copulative Vav has Shurek (}) he changed 
the simple Sheva into Chateph-Pathach. This is to be seen in 
the examples Nos. 3, 12, 13, 14 and 16 in the List. And 

(4) When nouns from the iY^ stems have Yod 0) at 
the end, e. g. '33 weeping (Deut. XXXIV 8 &c.) the simple 
Sheva under the first consonant is changed into Chateph- 
Pathach. This is implied in No. 15 and in the punctuation 



onrs n 

ratri ^JDI ,DTcnn .cnrnn .'J?'2in ,nrrnn nnn '2 
y^ .Dnrp- .Djnrm mcr wan ,nn oyn 'tp|3 b jen 

:n;:rCK Comp. The Massorah, letter 12, Vol. I, p. 658, 24. 

HE 



46H Introduction. [CHAP. XI. 

of H2 a kid (Exod. XXIII 1 9), which is one of the instances 
given in another recension of R. Phinehas's List. 1 

With these facts before us we shall be able to test 
the value of these principles, whether they have been 
adopted by other members of the guild of Massoretic 
Annotators, and how far they have been followed in the 
best MSS. 

As regards the first principle with respect to the 
double consonant we have a record from another Massoretic 
Annotator in Orient. 1478, fol. ib, British Museum, which 
is as follows: 

Mnemonic sign: The Earlier ones [i. e. Massoretic Annotators] have 
ordained that whenever two of the same letters occur together as for instance 

praise ye [Jerem. XX 30 &c.]; B*22D covering [Exod. XXV 20]; 
when he prayed [Job XLII 10]; l^T they are languid [Isa. XIX 6] 
and all similar cases, they have Chateph-Pathach. But I have not found it 
so in the correct Codices. 2 

It will be seen that this Massoretic Annotator 
emphatically declares that in none of the Model Codices 
which he investigated was this principle followed: and 
I can corroborate this fact. The Standard MSS. which 
I have collated, as a rule have no Chateph-Pathach in these 
cases. Dr. Baer who quotes this identical Rubric in support 
of the Chateph-Pathach theory has entirely suppressed the 
important words of the Massoretic Annotator, but I have 
not found it so in the correct Cot/ices. 3 It is, moreover, to be 
remarked that the few Nakdanim who have espoused this 

1 Comp. Baer and Strack, Dikdukc Ha-Tcamim. 14, p. 15, Leipzig 1879. 

D-32D i^n pn K-i 1 ? tn pan nrniK pmn hzi o-aiaipn upn ja-o 2 
p-o K:K n'rawt *6i TIB p]tsro -aw tei . 1 6 l n .iron nrs I^BR-O .DITBDM 

D'HJIO D'-lCDS Comp. The Massorah, letter 3, 533, Vol. II, p. 297. 

raiio ,ibn pas -K-6 x-i pa-n nvniK pmn ^21 a^iaipn i3pn ,JB'D 3 
.nne ^tsns -ntw^ri i 1 ?^ .iron nrs ib^Bnns .nn"B3 This is what Dr. Baer 

gives of the Rubric in question in his edition of the Psalms p. 84, 
Leipzig 1880. 



CHAP. XI | The Massorah; its Rise and Development. 47 



principle consistently also point *33n behold me, 1 which 
Dr. Baer and those who follow him emphatically, though 
inconsistently reject. 

We have also a record with regard to the second 
principle which affects the punctuation of the letter Resh 
(1). In the Massoretico- Grammatical Treatise which is 
prefixed to the Yemen Codices of the Pentateuch it is 
stated as follows: 

Again according to some Scribes when Resh (~\) stands between two 
Kamdzes, or between Kametz and, Chirek or Shurek the ~heva under it is 
made Chateph-Pathach, as for instance ttfa2in the foods [Gen. XIV 21 &c.]; 
r% res P ite [Exod. VIII 11]; B'KB't? the giants [Deut. Ill ir &c.]; 
B'yEHH the wicked [Exod. IX 27 &c.]; B'T"n7 the vails [Isa. Ill 23]. 2 

It will be seen that in the record before us this 
is simply described as a practice which obtained among 
a few Scribes, and is by no means represented as a rule 
binding upon those who are engaged in the multiplication 
of MSS. 

As for the principle which underlies the instances 
adduced in the third category it may safely be stated 
that, with few exceptions, I have not found any Standard 
Codices which point the consonant with Chateph-Pathach 
after 1 copulative. I very much question whether any 
modern editor of the Hebrew -Bible would be bold enough 
uniformly to introduce this punctuation which the statement 
of R. Phinehas certainly suggests. The same may be said 
of the principle implied in the punctuation of the nouns 
adduced in the fourth category. 

1 Comp. Add. 15451 British Museum, Gen. VI 17; IX 9; XLI 17: 
XLVIII 4 &c. &c. 

pop pn IK pxiap "3ty pa ,T,T IPX cm bs ^ a'nBion rupfc 1 ? Tin 2 
B'T'"^ BW'n a'KEnn nnvri tt'isnn 1)22 rnnn n^K KICH nns* pntp IK p-im 

:i3tt1pnw nnpTH 'a 1 ? nt bm 'am Comp. Orient. 2343, fol. l$a; Orient. 2349, 
fol. io&; Derenbourg, Manuel du Lecleur, p. 68, Paris 1871. 



468 Introduction. (CHAK XI. 

The conceit of another Nakdan who formulated a 
rule that whenever two of the same letters occured one 
at the end of a word and one at the beginning of the 
immediately following word the latter is to have Dagesh, 
has already been discussed. 1 Other Nakdanim are mentioned 
in Chapter XII in connection with the MSS. which they 
have produced and Massoretically annotated. 

1 Vide supra, Part II, chap. I, pp. 115 121. 




u 7 



L IX '"-ix ^ W ^ *" -T- - " .< p , J- f 

"*^ ^^ '" >^ '4 c 1 * ' >xi*vl'iVLl\\\Jr YYn r~ v *^ I 

^sfiNwaiPJiN) '^fej 1 ^ rqfes*W? ^ 

tS^v - ^fe^ fegg v IE 

L -'-^i ^i^OT^^aaK -ii 




is H 

* . t>i 
M Vt->ai> 



i <m N , 
a V W 



REDUCED FACSIMILE OF MS. (ORIENTAL, No. 44^5, IN THE BRITISH 
MUSEUM LIBRARY), SHOWING LEV. xi. 4-21. 

; Collotype is kindly presented to the Trinitarian Bible Society by the REV. WM. BRAMLEY-MOOKE, M.A., Cantab. 



Chap. XII. 

The Manuscripts used in the Massoretico-Critical edition 

of the Bible. 

In describing the Manuscripts which I have collated 
for my Massoretico-Critical text, I find it more convenient 
to classify them according to the Countries and the Libraries 
in which they are found; and according to the order in 
which they are given in the Catalogues of the respective 
collections wherever that is possible. The exception to 
this rule which I make is in the oldest two Codices, viz. 
Orient. 4445 in the British Museum and the St. Petersburg 
Codex dated A. D. 916. 

No. r. 

Oriental 4445. 

This MS. contains the Pentateuch and consists of 
1 86 folios, 55 of which are missing and have been added by 
a later hand. Folios i to 28 containing Gen. XXXIX 20 
to Deut. I 33; folio 125 containing Numb. VII 46 to 73; 
folio 128 containing Numb. IX 12 to X 18; and folios 160 
to 1 86 containing Deut. I 4 to XXXIV 12 making in all 
55 folios, have been added, and are dated A. D. 1540. The 
original portion, therefore, which consists of 129^ folios 
runs on continuously from Gen. XXXIX 20 to Deut. I 33 
with the exception of folios 125 and 128, containing Numb. 
VII 46 to 73; IX 12 to X 18. 

Though not dated, the original MS. was probably 
written about A. D. 820 - 850. The text is written in large, 



470 Introduction. [CHAP. XIT. 

bold and beautiful characters and is furnished with vowel- 
points and accents. Each page is divided into three 
columns and each column, as a rule, has twenty-one lines. 
The lines at the left side of the column are irregular as 
the dilated letters (o n *? H X), which are now used to 
obtain uniformity in the length of the lines, did not then 
exist, and are indeed a modern device. The upper margin 
on each page has generally two lines oftheMassorahMagna, 
and the bottom margin four lines; whilst the outer margins 
as well as the margins between the columns contain the 
Massorah Parva. Both the Massorahs Magna and Parva 
have been added about a century later by the Massoretic 
Annotator or Nakdan who revised the text. The Massorah 
which is here exhibited in its oldest form frequently uses 
a terminology different from that employed in MSS. of 
the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It was probably 
added in the life-time of the Ben-Ashers circa A. D. 
900 940.' 

The consonantal text with the vowel-points and 
accents is identical with the Western or Palestinian 
recension which is the present textus receptus. The deviations 
simply extend to the form or arrangement, the most 
noticeable of which are as follows: 

In the division of the text into Open and Closed 
Sections it differs materially from the present Massoretic 
Sections as will be seen from the following analysis : 

Genesis. In the small portion of Genesis which is 
original, this MS. has three Closed Sections where our text 
exhibits Open Sections, viz. XLIX 8, 13, 14. 

1 Vide supra, Part II, chap. X, pp. 249 - 250. To the passage there given is to 
be added the remark of the Massoretic Annotator which occurs on Levit. XX 17, 
fol. I06fl, and which is as follows ttH lOKVa IK V2X rG "I1PK p ^Itm "l&^tt 

a J >' 

laX-rC-lX V3X m n'lOK, It will be seen that here too the Punctuator speaks 
of Ben-Asher without the benedictory phrase which is used of the dead. 



CHAP. XII.J Description of the Manuscripts. 471 

Exodus. - In Exodus this Codex has no Section in 
seven places where our text exhibits them. 1 In two 
instances 3 it has Closed Sections where our text has none. 
In two places it has Open Sections where our text has none. 3 
In eleven places it has an Open Section where our text has 
a Closed Section, 4 whilst in thirteen places it has a Closed 
Section where the present text exhibits an Open Section. 5 

Leviticus. In Leviticus this Codex has no break in 
three instances where our text exhibits Sections' and in 
three passages has a Section where our text has none. 7 In 
ten instances it has an Open Section, where our text has 
a Closed one, s and vice versa it has six Closed Sections 
where our text exhibits Open Sections. 9 

Numbers. In Numbers it has no Section in XXXI 21 
where our text has one, and has five Sections which our 
text has not. 10 It has twenty-one Open Sections in places 
where our text exhibits Closed Sections; 11 and vice versa 
has three Closed Sections where our text has Open 
Sections. 12 



' Comp. Exod. IV 27; VI 14; IX 13; XII 51; XXI 16, 17; XXIII I. 

2 Comp. Exod. II II; XXIII 2. 

3 Comp. Exod. XXVI 7; XXXHI 5. 

4 Comp. Exod. VI 29; VII 14; XI 4, 9; XII 29; XVI 28; XXVII 20; 
XXXI i; XXXVIII i; XXXIX 6; XL 24. 

5 Comp Exod. IV 18; IX 8; XII 37, 43; XIV 15; XXI 28; XXIV I; 
XXV 23; XXXIII 12, 17; XXXIV i, 27; XXXIX 8. 

Comp. Levit. XV 25; XXII I; XXV 29. 
' Comp. Levit. V 7; XI 9, 24; XXV 14. 

8 Comp. Levit. IV 13; V 14; VI 7; IX i; XI 29; XXI 16; XXIII 26; 
XXIV 10; XXV 8; XXVII 9. 

9 Comp. Levit. Ill 6; VII it; X 12; XII I; XIII 9; XXIII 23. 
i" Comp. Numb. X 22, 25; XXI 8, 34; XXV 4. 

n Comp. Numb. II 10, 17, 25; XVII i; XXVI 23, 26; XXVIII 16, 26; 
XXIX 12, 17,20, 23, 26,29, 32, 35; XXXI 13, 25; XXXII 5; XXXIII 40 50. 
'2 Comp. Numb. I 48; V II; XVII 6. 



472 Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

It will thus be seen that the omissions, additions, 
and differences in the Open and Closed Sections in the 
ten chapters of Genesis, in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers 
exhibit no fewer than 116 variations between this MS. 
and the textns receptus. The remarkable part in connection 
with these variations is the fact that the Massoretic 
Annotator who revised the text and furnished it with the 
Massorah corrects only six Sections out of the 1 16 variations, 
and that in one of these six instances where the MS. 
agrees with our present text he deliberately alters it 
against the texlus receptus. Thus for instance in two passages 
where this Codex exhibits Open Sections, the Reviser 
puts in the vacant space // should be read straight on, i. e. 
without a Sectional break. 1 In two other passages where 
the MS. has no Sectional break at all, he remarks that it 
should be a Closed Section. 2 In one instance the text 
exhibits a homoeoteleuton and the suppletive occupies 
the original Sectional space. The Annotator, therefore, 
rightly remarks against it that there is here an Open 
Section/' In Exod. IX 13, however, where this Codex like 
our text has a Closed Section, the Massoretic Annotator 
remarks against it that // ought to be an Open Section* 
thus deliberately disagreeing with the textus receptus. 

TheTrienniel Pericopes, or the Sedarim, are indicated by 
the letter Samech (D) in only two instances, viz. Gen. XLIII 
14 and XLVI 8. The latter, however, does not occur in the 
official Lists nor in any other MSS. which I have collated.- 5 

1 Comp. Exod. VIII I, fol. 48*;; and XXXIII 5, fol 76^1, where the 
Massoretic Annoter remarks *pX "WO. 

2 Comp Exod. XII 51, fol. 54 b; Levit. XV 25, fol. ioia, rrcHD 

pat no'nc and nemo rreno. 

3 Comp. Levit. XXIII I, fol. 107*1, where he remarks mriB pDB and 
vide supra. Part II, chap. VI, p. 171. 

4 Comp. Exod. IX 13, fol. 5001, where he remarks "p 

5 Vide supra, Part II, chap. IV, p. 35. 



CHAP. Xll.J Description of the Manuscripts. 473 

The Annual Pericopes coincide with those in the 
textus ivceptus; they are marked by the required vacant 
space which is generally occupied by the letters representing 
the number of verses in the Pericope in question. The 
word Parasha (feno) is also put in the margin to indicate 
the beginning of the hebdomadal Lesson." 

The verse-divider (plDD FpD) which in all the MSS. 
I have collated, is represented* by a kind of colon (:) was 
originally entirely absent in this Codex, and the end of 
the verse is simply marked by the Silhik (-} under the 
last word of the verse which is closely followed by the 
word that begins the next verse. Hence where the later 
Massoretic Annotator has added the two dots, they are 
frequently forced in between the verses for want of space. 

The following letters are different in form from those 
in the ordinary MSS. 

n. - - The left shaft of the He (n) like that of the Cheth 
(PI) is not open at the top, and the only difference between 
the two letters is that in the case of the He the left shaft 
begins a little inside the horizontal or head line; whilst in 
the Cheth the horizontal line is within the two shafts, as 
will be seen in the word D^ri3C3n the body-guard (Gen. XLI 10, 
12, fol. 30 a). D^Stpinn the magicians (Gen. XLI 24, fol. 30^). 

\ The shaft of the Yod (') is longer than that of the 
ordinary Yod. Comp. 5t?" // shall be well (Gen. XL 14, 
fol. 2gb). 

*?. - - The shaft to the left of the horizontal line in 
the letter Lamed (*?) is exceptionally long and is hooked 
towards the outside as will be seen in the words f?~"T^ 
born nnto him (Gen. XLII 27), rftttf he sent (Gen. XLII 28, 
fol. 37*). 

f. - The final Nun (f) is simply the length of the 
medial letters and is hardly distinguishable from the letter 

1 Vide supra, Part II, chap. V, pp. 66, 67. 



474 Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

Zayin (?). Comp. ftf'n and he slept (Gen. XLI 5, fol. 300), 
J31X1 and Onan (Gen. XLVI 12, fol. 37^). 

The aspirated letters (nWlJD) as well as the silent 
letter He (n) both in the middle and end of words are 
marked with the horizontal stroke. 

The graphic sign Kametz has its primitive form which 
is simply the Pathach with a dot under it in the middle 
(K). Comp. VT3 fiaixa anything in his hcmd (Gen. XXXIX 23, 
fol. 29^); n^aan ana Miriam ike prophetess (Exod. XV 20, 
fol. 5 7 a). 

The Metheg or Goya is very rarely used and very 
irregularly. Even the vowels before a composite Sheva 
have no Metheg though modern Grammarians describe it 
as indispensable. The following examples will suffice to 
establish this fact 

Dn*nb to their lord Gen. XL I 

0'2:jH the grapes n 

and restore Ihec 13 

itt my dream 16 

food for , 17 

//it- work of 17 

//'" /Aw XLI 3 

It is very remarkable that even in D^ITl and he 

:-|- 

dreamed (Gen. XLI 5), where the Vav has Metheg, the Yod 
is without it though it precedes the Chateph-Pathach. The 
same is the case in irftcw and I will send thee Exod. Ill 10 
which is pointed Tjn^CW with Metheg under the Aleph, but 
not under the Lamed. As this is a most accurately written 
MS. and as the accuracy extends both to the vowel-points 
and accents, it is evident that it belongs to a period when the 
superfine speculations about the Metheg and the Gaya had 
not as yet asserted themselves. An autotype facsimile page 
of this important MS. is given at the end of this Introduction. f 

1 The Rev. G. Margoliouth of the British Museum has described 
some features of this MS. in the Academy for April 1892. 



CHAP. XII. | Description of the Manuscripts. 47f> 

No. 2. 

The St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916. 

This Codex is dated A. D. 916 and is, therefore, the 
oldest dated MS. of any portion of the Hebrew Scriptures 
which has as yet come to light, though the text of the 
preceding undated MS. is at least half a century earlier. 
The Codex consists of 225 folios, each folio has two 
columns and each column has 2 1 lines with the exception of 
fol. i a and fol. 22^ab which are occupied with epigraphs. 
It contains the Latter Prophets, i. e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel and the Twelve Minor Prophets. It has as a rule 
two lines of the Massorah Magna in the lower margin of 
each page 1 and gives the Massorah Parva in the outer 
margin and between the columns. It is of the same impor- 
tance to the criticism of this portion of the Hebrew 
Scriptures as the former MS. is to the criticism of the 
Pentateuch. It is remarkable that the Palaeographical 
features which this Codex exhibits are almost identical 
with those in Oriental 4445. It has the same peculiar 
He (n), the same Yod (/), the same Lamed (V) and the 
same final Nim (?). It has, however, already the verse- 
divider or SophPasuk (:) which is still absent in Orient. 4445. 

That which distinguishes the St. Petersburg Codex 
is the fact that it exhibits the oldest dated text with the 
superlinear system of the vowel points and accents which, 
as we have seen, was for a time the rival to the Babylonian 
infralinear system. 2 Because it exhibits the Babylonian 
punctuation some critics have concluded that it also ex- 
hibits the consonantal text of the Babylonian or Eastern 
recension. This, however, as we have shown is not the 

1 For the number of tbe Massoretic Rubrics in this Codex see above 
p. 424 note. 

2 Vide supra, Part II. chap. XT, pp. 453 457- 



476 Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

case. 1 It is a mixed text and embodies both the Eastern 
and Western readings before they were definitely separated. 
This mixture is also exhibited in the Massorah itself. 
According to this very MS. the order of the Latter 
Prophets is Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor 
Prophets. Yet, in enumerating the instances in which 
certain words occur in the Bible, Jeremiah is placed before 
Isaiah in some Lists.' 2 In others the order is Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel and Isaiah/' whilst in others again it is Ezekiel 
Isaiah and Jeremiah 4 which is the Western or Palestinian 
order. 5 

For the Sectional divisions of the text this Codex is 
invaluable, inasmuch as it strictly indicates the traditional 
Sections of this portion of the Hebrew Scriptures which 
have been greatly neglected in later MSS/ 1 The importance 
of this MS. for textual criticism has been described by 
Geiger, Strack and others. 7 The MS. has been reproduced 
in beautiful facsimile by Professor Strack with Prefatory 
notes by the learned editor, St. Petersburg 1876. 

1 Vide supra, Part II, chap. IX, pp. 216 230; chap. XI, pp. 239 242. 

2 Comp. -11*6 13 times; Jerem. XIII 16; XXXI 35; XL1X 6; 
-IOX 1 ? 9 times Jerem. XXV 5; XLII 14; Amos VIII 5; Zech. XI 3; KW1 
II times Isa. XLI 25; 133 5 times Mai. I 10 &c. &c. 

3 Comp. TTK 32 times plene Jerem. XXXV 6. 

Comp. JTIJl 7 times Isa. XXXVII 19; Ezek. XXIII 46. 

5 Vide supra, Part I, chap. I, pp. 2 8. 

8 Vide supra, Part I, chap. II, pp. 1317. 

7 Comp. Geiger, Jiidischc Zeilschrift fiir Wissenschaft ttd Leben. 
Vol. II, pp. 137146, Breslau 1863; Strack, in the Zeitschrift fiir die ge- 
satnmtc liilhcrische Theologic nnd Kirche, Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 17 52. 
Leipzig 1877; also Harkavy and Strack, Kaialog der Hebraischcn Bibelhand- 
schriften der kaiser lichen offentlichen Bibliolhek in St. Petersburg, No. B 3. 
pp. 223-235, St. Petersburg 1875. 



CHAP. XII. | Description of the Manuscripts. 477 



MSS. in the British Museum. 
No. 3. 

Harley 1528. 

This MS. which was written circa A. D. 1300 is a 
large quarto in 424 folios and contains the whole Hebrew 
Bible. It is written in a beautiful Sephardic hand and is 
furnished with the vowel-points and accents. With the 
exception of the poetical portions and the three poetical 
books, each folio has three columns and each column has 
32 lines. The upper margin has two lines of the Massorah 
Magna, and the lower margin has three; whilst the Massorah 
Parva is given in the outer margins and between the 
columns. Folios \b 4^ and ga loa have the Lists of 
the variations between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali which, 
however, only extend from Gen. to Ps. LVIII 7. The words 
which constitute the differences are carefully pointed and 
accented. They exhibit to a large extent a different record 
of the variations between these two great redactors of the 
Hebrew text. I have adopted them in my notes to the 
Bible from Joshua to the Psalms as far as they go. The 
Annual Pericopes are carefully indicated by the word 
Parasha (fr*10) at the commencement of each hebdomadal 
Lesson throughout the Pentateuch, but there is no 
indication of the Sedarim or Trienniel Cycle. The Open 
and Closed Sections are indicated by the prescribed vacant 
space without the insertion of the letters Pe (D) and 
Samech (D) in the text. At the end of the MS. there is a 
List of the Haphtaroth (miBBn) : : the Sabbatical and 
Festival Lessons from the Law and Prophets, written by 
a later Scribe. I have collated this MS. for the consonants, 
the vowel points, the accents, the Keri and the Kethiv, the 
Sectional Divisions, and the order of the books. The latter 



478 Introduction. | CHAP. XII. 

is given in Column III of the Table. 1 This MS. has the 
two verses in Joshua XXI (verses 36, 37) with the regular 
vowel-points and accents to which, however, a later reviser 
has added in the margin against the first word of verse 36 
fXDQ from here, and against the last word of verse 37 
fJO IV to here, as well as the following marginal gloss: 

we have not found these two verses in a correct Bible and so also 
has Kimchi remarked. 2 

Other glosses by a later hand are to be found 
throughout the MS. 

This MS. is No. 100 in Kennicott's List. 

No. 4. 

Harley 57105711. 

This splendid MS., which contains the whole Hebrew 
Bible, is in two volumes folio. Volume I has 258 folios and 
contains Genesis to Kings, whilst Volume II, which has 
301 folios, contains Isaiah to Ezra-Nehemiah. The order 
of the books is that exhibited in Column IV in the Table. 
It was written circa A. D. 1230 and is in an excellent 
Italian hand, beautifully illuminated. The illuminations are 
not only at the beginning of every book, but in the case 
of the Pentateuch, the first word of every one of the fifty- 
four Pericopes is inclosed in a coloured design. The same 
is the case with the first word of every Psalm and the 
first word of every section in the Book of Job. At the 
end of the Pentateuch (fol. 136 a) there is also an illuminated 
representation of the seven-branched Candlestick which 
extends over the whole folio. 

Each folio has two columns and each column has 
29 lines. As a rule there are three lines of the Massorah 

1 Vide supra. Part I, chap. I, p. 5. 

- Comp. fol. I25 and Vide supra, Part II, chap. VI, pp. 178 180 

sro pi o-picc *yor\ ib'x uxxo vh 



QIA1'. XII ] Description of the Manuscripts. 470 

Magna in the upper margin of each folio and five lines in 
the lower one. Occassionally there is also a long List of 
the Massorah Magna in the outer margin. The Massorah 
Parva occupies the outer margins. In the first two divisions 
of the Bible, viz. in the Pentateuch and the Prophets, the 
Massorah has been supplied by two different Massorites 
whilst in the third division, i. e. the Hagiographa, it is 
uniformly by the same Nakdarr who was manifestly the 
original Annotator of the Law and the Prophets. The 
Rubrics which emanate from this Annotator, whose name 
is not given, are almost identical with those in the 
St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 916. The name of the 
second, however, is Hezekiah the Nakdan. This he himself 
has disclosed to us in eight passages of the Annotations 
where he takes exception to the readings in this MS. As 
these readings are of importance, inasmuch as with the 
exception of one they exhibit variations from the textus 
receptus, I subjoin them with the animadversions of the 
glossator. 

(i) On DJVX^n see ye (i Sam. X 24), which has Dagesh in the Resh, 
he remarks "it appears to Hezekiah the Nakdan that this Dagesh is not 
according to rule." ' (2) On DTPHtTtt corruptcrs (Jerem. VI 28), which is 
entirely plene in this MS., he says "it appears to me that it is without the 
second Yod according to the Massoreth, Hezekiah the Nakdan." 2 (3) On TUP 
bemoan (Jerem. XVI 5) the Massoretic gloss is that it is unique and is 
defective which contradicts the text where it is plene in this MS. and the 
Annotator also adds "it appears to me Hezekiah the Nakdan it should be Tjri 
the apocapated form " 3 (4) In Jerem. XXXII 12 this MS. reads ffainSH that are 
written, the Kal participle passive on which he remarks "it appears to me 
Hezekiah the Nakdan that it should be D^riiSn that wrote," the active 
participle. 4 In the textus receptus, however, when it is also the active participle 



1 p"D xbv 'man K'ntp ppjn "pin ': b":i'3 Drr^nn Comp.Voi. i, foi. 179 &. 

2 ppsn "pin miDian 's by nra TP bn xinp b": Dvrnttto Comp. Vol. n, 

fol. 35 b. 

3 tin ppsn (<i pm r'n 'om 'b Ton Comp. Vol. 11, foi. 41 b. 

4 o'nnian ppjn "pin b": n'Dinsn Comp. Vol. n, foi. 53 b. 



480 Introduction. [CHAK XII. 

it is defective which does not agree with the correction of the glossator. 

(5) In Ezek. XX 5 the glossator animadverts upon the accent under the 
adverb H3 thus, which is Mahpach in the MS. (.13), bat which he, i. e. 
Hezekiah the Nakdan says ought to be Muttach (!"!3) according to the 
Massorah. 1 In the textus receptus, however, it has neither the one nor the 
other accent, but is simply connected by Makkeph with the following word. 

(6) In Ezek. XXIII 22 this MS. reads D'ntani and I will bring them, on 
which he remarks "it appears to me Hezekiah that it should be DTUC!"I1." - 

(7) In Ezek. XLV 4 where this MS. reads OTQ^ for houses, the glossator 
remarks "it appears to me Hezekiah that it should be DTGp according to the 
Massorah." 3 And (8) in Hosea IV 19 when this MS. reads DnlPQTa 1EO"1 
their altars shall be put to shame, which as will be seen from my edition 
of the Bible is also the reading of other MSS. as well as of several early 
editions and which is adopted in the margin of the Revised Version, the 
glossator remarks "it appears to me Hezekiah that it should he DniPQMS 
according to the Massorah," J i. e. and they shall be ashamed because of I he it- 
sacrifices, as it is in the Authorised Version.' 1 

As to the date of this Hezekiah Nakdan we find in 
an epigraph to a MS. Selichah in the Hamburg Library 
(Cod. No. 1 6) that his son R. Joseph Nakdan finished the 
Codex in question in A. D. 1338. He, therefore, flourished 
at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Accordingly the 
activity of his father Hezekiah must have extended over 
the second half of the thirteenth century. Hezekiah, as we 
have seen, is the second or later Annotator. This coincides 
with the date, viz. circa A. D. 1230 which I assign to this 
important MS. of the Bible." 

1 hioan nsa "pin b"i IK ns Comp. Vol. n, foi. Sib. 

2 "pm D*neni *r: D'ntorr Comp. Vol. n, foi. 84 b. 

3 hican naa "pm D-rc 1 ? b": OTIS'? Comp. Vol. u, foi. ioob. 

4 moan rca "pm nriirqia b": onlnata Comp. Vol. n, foi. 104 ft. 

; > Comp. The Massorah, letter n, 649, Vol. I, p. 605. 

6 The epigraph which is given by Dukes is as follows ff]DV "!T3fc"l '3S 

rotf nra -c . . . "6 mir^on ibx -mpr 'nans ppsn icion pan n"pm 'sis 

IQbiy nK'13 1 ? n"X1 O'C'rK nron Comp. Uteraturblatt des Orients, Vol. IV, 
Col. 232233 note, Leipzig 1843. 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 481 

The text of the Pentateuch is not only divided into 
the fifty-four canonical Pericopes or Parashas, but into 
the prescribed Open and Closed Sections. In the vacant 
space of these Sections the nature of the Section is carefully 
indicated by the expression nmflQ Open Section, or n01fiD 
Closed Section, fully written out in small letters. The 

number of verses in the respective Pericopes is not given 

* 
at the end of each Parasha as is the case in Orient. 4445 

or MS. No. i in this Chapter, but the sum-total of the 
verses in each book is given at the end of the respective 
books. This is followed by an epigraph in which the 
special name and character of each book are described. 
As this description is of rare occurrence I subjoin the 
epigraphs. 

At the end of Genesis (fol. 34 &) it is 

Here endeth the work of the First Book which is the Book of the 
Creation of the world and the genealogy. * 

At the end of Exodus (fol. 62 ) it is 

Here endeth the work of the Second Book which is the Book of the 
Exodus from Egypt and the Giving of the Law. 2 

At the end of Leviticus (fol. 83 a) it is 

Here endeth the work of the Third Book which is the Book of the 
Priestly Code and the Sacrifices. 3 

At the end of Numbers (fol. nob) it is 

Here endeth the work of the Fourth Book which is the Book of the 
Mustered and the Journeyings. 4 

At the end of Deuteronomy (fol. 135^) it is 

Here endeth the work of the Fifth Book which is the Book of the 
Repetition of the Law and the departure of our Master Moses. 5 

.Dmm abir nim IBD Kim ptwn nso na6a cbvm ' 
.mm jnai ffixo nirar IBD Kim TW IBD roKba cbvm 2 

ni32ipm n^ro mm IED Kim nr^E IBD roK^a nbtwii n 



n^iipsn -IBD Kim T:TI "IBD naK'w Dtwii 4 



.irnn ntwa rn'EBi mm n:ra IEC Kim "iran ~c nrK^e obvm ' 

FF 



482 Introduction. [CHAP. XII 

This is followed by a brief Massoretic Treatise in 
the hand-writing of the first Annotator, describing the 
rules which are to be followed in writing MSS. of the 
Scriptures. This Treatise I have printed in the Massorah. 1 

Besides the other remarkable features of this MS. is 
to be mentioned the fact that throughout the entire 
Pentateuch all the Tittled or Crowned Letters of the text 
are carefully reproduced in the margin. They are placed 
against the respective words which are thus distinguished 
and form part of the Massorah Parva. 

From the proceedings of the second Annotator we 
have already seen that this MS. exhibits readings which 
are at variance with the present textus receptus. But whilst 
this glossator tries to remove them, the first Massorite fre- 
quently multiplies them by quoting readings from ancient 
Codices which differ from those exhibited in the text. 
These he gives as a part of the Massorah Parva with the 
introductory remark N"D according to other MSS. as will be 
seen from the following List. 



I, fol. 


m&b 


najn XT 


na; josh. xvi 3 


I, B 


148^ 


najn XD 


nir xvi 6 


I, . 


l$2a 


ensrn x"o 


E2' XXII I 


I, B 


1520 


cn^> XT 


D=y XXII 4 


I, B 


164^1 ": 


prbx x"D 


'?P?r J u( ^8- XI 7 


I, B 


172?; ion V ^ 


'X^t2 XT 


"?jntrs xxi 25 

" T~ -T 


I, B 


i8i/' 


,-l3' XT 


,-IDD I Sam. XIV 4 


I, r 


202 b -:aa nnx XT 


C1X "JOB' 2 Sam. X II 

T-: - 


I, 


206 /> 


-CX XT 


-OKI B XIV 32 


I, 


2i6fc nrib 


ij^an XT 


ijban DriS' I Kings 1 33 


I, B 


235 * 


-h% XT 


-pTr'rx B xx 38 


I ) n 


249 <j ! 


rnrj?b "B 


n'Tjr 1 ? 2 Kings XV 13 


I, 


249 b 


rton XT 


rWr xv 29 


I, B 


2$lfr 


ID?? " c 


inn; xvii 31 


I. B 


252/? 


'TB XT 


i-va xvin 29 


I, B 


253* 


ir6ip XT 


rht' xix 16 


Comp. 


Tin- Massorah 


. letter D, 


174. Vol. II. p. 337. 



CHAP. X1I.J Description of the Manuscripts. 483 



Vol. II, fol. 6 a pKH-rS N"D pKH Isa. X 23 

II, 51 a -"?K K"D nSBnan-^r " Jerem. XXIX 26 

II, 56 a -? K"D pXTT^S* XXXV II 

ii, 6-3 & nto'npn R"o m^iton XLVI 4 

n, -Jib JTUX K"D JTttK Ezek. V 11 

II, Sob nro K"D THKO XVIII IO 



Those which I have marked with an asterisk are at 

* 

variance with the textus receptus. These different readings I 
have given in the notes to my edition of the Bible where 
I have underlined the introductory remark, viz. N"D other 
Codices, to show that it is the Massorah itself which adduces 
the Codices in contradistinction to X"D without the under- 
lining which indicates MSS. I have collated myself. 

This MS. exhibits no hiatus in the middle of the 
eighteenth verse of Gen. IV nor has it the two verses in 
Joshua XXI ; viz. 36, 37; and though it omits Neh. VII 68 
from the text yet it has the verse in the margin with the 
following condemnatory remark: 

I have found in one Codex "their horses, seven hundred thirty and 
six; their mules, two hundred forty and five"; but according to the Massorah 
this is evidently a mistake. 1 

In the Hagiographa, which, as we have seen, is by the 
first Annotator, the Sedarim are not unfrequently marked in 
the margin by the letter Samech (D). 2 In the three poetical 
books, viz. the Psalms, Proverbs and Job the lines are 
poetically divided and arranged in hemistichs, as exhibited 
in my edition of the Hebrew Bible. 

The graphic sign Kametz still exhibits the primitive 
form which is simply the Pathach with a dot under it in 
the middle (), as it is in Codex No. i. This MS. exhibits 
a larger number of the Keri and Kethiv than any other 



orr-nB ntftfi D'tfbtf nia rntf D.TDID nnx pnrra TISWM * 

y,- T -! A T : j- ^- j- : : - 

.rnyta KITO nx-o rmoan *ehi tnetapn D'rsnx Comp. Vol. n, p. 297 a. 

2 Vide supra, Part I, chap. IV, pp. 32-65. 

FF- 



484 Introduction. [CH.M-. XII. 

Codex which I have collated. The Codex Mugah ('310 1DD) 
I have only found referred to in one instance. In Numb. 
XXXI 43 this MS. reads nPltf seven, without Vav conjunctive 
which is to be found in many MSS., editions and ancient 
Versions, as will be seen in the note to my edition of the 
Hebrew Bible. The glossator supports this reading by an 
appeal to the Mugah Codex. 1 In two instances it also 
uses the technical expression HD* correctly so, in approbation 
of the textual reading. Thus on 3TX^1 and lie forsook 
(2 Kings XXI 22) the Massorite declares that it is correctly 
without Gay a? and on Isa. I 18 where this MS. reads 
IQHWDX though they be red, without the Vav conjunctive 
which is exhibited in some MSS., editions and ancient 
Versions, as may be seen in the note in my edition of 
the text, the glossator remarks against it that it is correctly 
so without Faf. :t 

Incidentally we learn from the Massorah Parva in 
this MS. the interesting fact that there was a Model Codex 
written by Abraham Chiyug. On Dfr>l and he put (Gen. L 26), 
Kal future third person singular, the glossator states that 
in the Chiyug Codex it was Dfefl'1 and he was put, Hophal 
future third person singular, as the Kethiv or textual reading 
is in Gen. XXIV 33. 4 Jehudah Chiyug the prince of 
Hebrew Grammarians who flourished circa A. D. 10201040 
is well known, but not Abraham Chiyug. The note, therefore, 
discloses to us the fact that there was a family of Chiyugs 
who redacted the text, just as there was a family of 
Ben-Ashers and a family of Ben-Naphtalis. 

The Massorah in this MS. is most accurate and 
important. I have, therefore, made it the basis of my 

' Comp. Vol. I, fol. 1070. 

2 K'Jtt K*?2 HC" Comp. Vol. I, fol. 255^7. 

3 ."IB 11 Comp. Vol. II, fol. I a. 

< :-n an-CK - r:r -EC: irs jr rs Bfrvi Dt"i Comp. Vol. i, fol. 34/>. 



UIAI'. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 485 

edition of this Corpus. It was only in those cases where 
it failed in certain Lists that I reproduced the Rubrics 
from other MSS. which I duly indicate in this chapter. 
This MS. is No. 102 in Kennicott's List. 

No. 5. 

Harley 5$ 20. 

This important MS. is an imperfect exemplar of the 
Former and Latter Prophets written circa A. D. 1 10020. It 
consists of 322 folios and begins with Joshua VII 22 and 
ends with Ezek. XLV 19. It wants XI 22 XIII 6; Judg. 
II 8 III 7 ; Ezek. XXVI 1 7 -XXVII 30 ; XLV 1 9 -XLVIII 1 5 
and all the Minor Prophets. The order of the Prophets 
is that exhibited in Column III in the Table given on 
page 6. It is written in a large and beautiful Sephardic 
hand. Each folio consists of three columns and each 
column has 2 1 lines. The lines on the left side of the column 
are irregular, which is due to the fact that the practice of 
using dilated letters (D fi ^ PI X)'to obtain uniformity of the 
lines did not then exist. It is furnished with vowel-points 
and accents. It has as a rule one line of the Massorah 
Magna in the upper margin and two lines in the lower 
margin. The outer margins and the margins between the 
columns contain the Massorah Parva. The Sedarim are 
marked in the margin throughout the MS V whilst the Open 
and Closed Sections are carefully indicated by the 
prescribed vacant space. The Summary at the end of 
each book gives the number of verses, the middle verse 
and the number of the Sedarim in the book in question. 

The letters He (Pi) and Chefh '(PI) as well as the letter 
Lamed (?) exhibit the same calligraphical peculiarities which 
are noticed in Codices Nos. i and 2. The aspirated letters 
(n 3 1 3 3) as well as the silent He (Pi) both in the middle 
and at the end of words are duly marked with the 



48f) Introduction. [CHAP. Xll. 

horizontal stroke. The graphic sign Kametz is simply the 
Pathach with a dot under it in the middle. Comp. nO^Bftl 
to heaven (Josh. VIII 20, fol. 2 a) !JHDP thy servants (IX 8, 
fol. 3 a) fynfep-^gi and all Israel (X 15, fol. 4$). 

The Metheg or Goya is not used before a composite 
S/ieva or S^o/ as will be seen from the following 
examples : 

l^n: they inherited Josh. XIV i 
their inheritance 2 
as 2 

"50* a f ter " " 8 

rrnn jtcp/ o//w 10 

i'nx 1 ? of Ahitioam 2 Sam. Ill 2 



^K~rV3 Beth-el is written uniformly in two words and 
in some instances is actually in two lines, i. e. VV3 Beth 
is at the end of one line and ^X el at the beginning of 
the next line (Comp. Josh. XVIII 13; Judg. XXI 19). This is 
the reading of the Westerns or the Palestinians which is 
the textus receptus* 

It has not the two verses in Joshua, viz. XXI 36, 37 
and though it is one of the most beautifully and carefully 
written MSS. being manifestly a Model Codex, there are 
homoeoteleuta in it; 2 , and in one passage we have an 
instance of dittography where two lines are written twice 
over. 3 Of the Standard Codices usually referred to in the 
Massorah, the Great Machsor is the only one quoted. 4 In 
four instances the readings of the Oriental recension are 
adduced; one of these, however, is by a later Annotator 

1 Vide supra, Part II, chap. IX, pp. 200 202. 

' Comp. folios 5&; 206; 26b; 316^. 

8 Comp. Judg. XI 5, fol. 33 a. 

* On nlr6 (2 Kings XIX 25) without Dagcsh in the Shin which is 
the textual reading, the Massorah Parva remarks mET! 1 ? "^Cr 1 ? K211 
Comp. fol. 1696. 



CIIAI'. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 47 

and is at variance with our Lists. 1 In three instances the 
Massorite quotes readings of other Codices with the 
introductory remark N"D = according to other MSS. Thus 
Jerem. XV 8 the last words of which are "anguish and 
terrors" in the received text, the Massorite states that 
these words are followed in ( other Codices by the 
words: 2 

Woe unto us! for the day declineth, for the shadows of the evening 
are stretched out; 

the very sentence with which Jerem. VI 4 ends. 

The second instance is in Jerem. XVII i where the 
received text has your altars on which the Massorite 
remarks according to other Codices it is their altars.* 

The third instance simply affects the orthography 
and is so far interesting since the textual reading upon 
which the Massorite makes the remark exhibits a unique 
form. 4 In one passage the Massorite himself suggests an 
alteration which he gives with the prefatory remark b"l = 
it appears to me. In Jerem. VI 9 the MS. reads on the 
vine, as in VIII 13 for which he suggests as a vine* which 
is that of the textns receptus. More often, however, he 
supports the textual reading against other Codices with 
the approbatory remark i10' = correctly so, properly so. 

i Comp. 2 Sam. VI 23, foh 88fc; Isa. XLIX 5, fol. 213^; Jerem. 
XLIV i, fol. 2joa; Ezek. XXII 4, fol. 299 b. It is in the first instance 
where the gloss is by a later hand. The text of the MS. has here 1^ 
(2 Sam. "VI 23) in accordance with the Western recension which has no 
Keri. The later Annotator, however, remarks upon it ''Ipl HIS ibl TO 



2 sip *bhx lar H 3 Dm rue "3 i: 1 ? "nx K"D tnibroi TJ? Comp. fol. 239 a. 

3 D,TmmT& K"D Comp. fol. 240 b. 

4 The textual reading in Jerem. XV. 1 1 is n^l ni73 in the time of 
evil, on which the Massorite remarks HJ71 K"D Comp. fol. 239^. 

5 Pp OS JBJ3 b": JBW Comp. fol. 230 b. 



488 Introduction. [UIAK XII. 

The following are the ten instances which the 
Massorite distinguishes by his special commendation of 
the textual reading with the expression HD' correctly so: 



1 nv o'pi^an judg. vii 6, foi. 2701 

2 no" " l?3 "^ * Sam - xxv 2 '. 75 b 

3 HB< -nanm 24, 75 & 

4 TOWW nrrrn . 29. 756 

5 ,TW K* JIB" 3^ 2 Kings XXI 22, 17 it 

6 HE 11 ^P *T2# Jerem. VI 14, 230 & 

7 riB" airrr^a nxi xxv 20, 248 & 

8 h:nK xba ne- nipj '121 te-nxi 25, 248 & 

9 HC" 1 D3PT kb Ezek. XIV 23, 291 a 
10 ,-' 6PO DC> XVII 20, 



From these ten instances we learn the two important 
facts that (i) the conceit of putting a Chateph-Pathach 
where a consonant with Sheva is followed by the same 
consonant finds no favour here. This is not only evident 
from No. i which is pointed D'pp^Qfl that lapped (Judg. 

VII 6) and which punctuation is declared by the Massoretic 
Annotator to be the correct one, but from D^fTB piped 
(i Kings I 40), 3^p cursed me (i Kings II 8), D33D 
compassing (i Kings VII 24), iV^SDm and they pray (i Kings 

VIII 33, 35, 44), 'USnnm and they make supplication (i Kings 
VIII 33, 47) &c. &c. In all such cases the first of the 
two consonants which are the same has the simple Sheva 
throughout this MS. And (2) that the fad of putting a 
Dagesh into the first letter of a word when the preceding 
word ends with the same letter has equally no support 
from this model Codex. In addition to the instance exhibited 
in No. 10. I refer to "lj~[2 son of Ncr (i Kings II 5), 
ttSO D'abl and better than he (i Kings II 32), nma D'KfaO 
they brought presents (i Kings V i or IV 21 A. V.), DlpO Dtf 
there a place (i Kings VIII 21), DID^'^pa with all their 
heart (\ Kings VIII 48) &c. &c. In all these and similar 



Description of the Manuscripts. 



48!) 



instances the initial consonant has no Dagesh in this 
important Codex. 

Equally instructive are the twenty-four variations 
which the Massoretic Annotator registers under Ben-Asher 
and Ben-Naphtali, as ^B == x:pt>B a difference of opinion, 
a variation and / ?nna = pB^nfiQ which denotes the same 
thing. They are as follows: 



I 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 1I-IK1 

7 
8 

9 
10 
ii 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

17 
18 

19 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 



twn yarca ^nsD p ratfa i Kings 
nsni SB nrnrn 



f^ai 2 Kings 

-ntfx <:6B *tf 



bs 



-1SD2 
" 



1BD3 

" 



'**,.-, 

T . hna I^TI Jerem. 

f?nna ^JK n^aa B 
^nna ^rn i| '^K'i n 

|V : 

'trai Vnna bi 
i ^nna m 
"B^nna nnbatri 



nya 



XIII 4, fol. 1330 



XIX 5, 


141 a 


XX 3, 


142 a 


9, n 


i42a 


Vis, 


I52a 


, 18, n 


152^ 


VII 2, 


'54 


xi 17, 


i6oa 


XII 19, 


i6ob 


XIV 6, 


i62a 


XVII 40, 


i66b 


XVIII 25, 


i68rt 


XIX 18, 


169^ 


22, 


i6ga 


XLIV 28, 


270 a 


^LVIII 13, 


2720 


LI 3, 


2760 


46, 


277 & 


LII 12, 


2790 


XIV 15, 


290 1 


XVI 33, 


292^ 


r 33, 


292 b 


XVII 10, 


294 a 


XXIII 5, 


300 a 



But though the Massoretic Annotator mentions the 
names of Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali in only two out of 



11H) Introduction. JCIIAI'. Ml 

the twenty-four variations, viz. Nos. i and 6, a comparison 
of this List with the parallel variations in the official Lists 
which record the differences between these two textual 
redactors, will disclose the fact that he uses the terms 
;p^D and pD^nDS interchangeably with Ben-Naphtali and 
his School whose redaction exhibited the variations in 
question. This is incontestably proved by Nos. 9, 12, 19, 
21 and 23. In all these five instances the variations 
described by our Massorite as *j6o and '^nfiQ are not 
only expressly called Ben-Naphtali in the official Lists, 
but exhibit the identical differences which obtained between 
these two redactors. As thirteen other variations, which 
exactly correspond to the instances given in the official 
Lists, exhibit a difference in the precise nature of the 
variant in the identical words, 1 we obtain here additional 
evidence that the tradition about the differences in question 
was not uniform.- From the above analysis it will also be 
seen that five of the variations recorded in this MS. have 
hitherto been unknown. 3 

Amongst the variations with regard to the accents 
is also to be mentioned 2 Kings XVIII 32 which is in 
this MS. as follows: 



K-'TK nrnx 

on which the Massoretic Annotator remarks : I have found 
that in another Codex this verse is accented 



which is the accentuation of the tcxtus receptns. 

i Cotnp. I Kings XX 3, 9; 2 Kings V 15, 18; VII 2; XI 17; XIV 6; 
XVII 40; XIX 18; Jerera. XLIV 28; XLVIII 13; Ezek. XIV 15; 
XVI 33. 

5 Vide supra. Part II, chap. X, pp. 249278. 

3 Comp. i Kings XJX 5; 2 Kings XIX 22; Jerem. LI 3, 46; Ezek. 
XXIII 5. 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 491 

It is noticeable that the Emendations of the Sopherim 1 
are called in the Massorah of this MS. the Eighteen 
Emendations made by Ezra and Nehemiah.- 

There are also glosses in this MS. which have been 
made by a later hand about the end of the fifteenth or 
beginning of the sixteenth century. They are evidently 
the product of a Nakdan who knew Arabic 3 and are easily 
distinguished from the Massorah which proceeds from 
the original Nakdan and which is contemporary with the 
text of the Codex itself. These notes are of peculiar in- 
terest since they all consist of emendations of the text 
in accordance with the readings of Klmchi and show how 
later Nakdanim endeavoured to cancel the earlier variations. 
The following List collected from the margins of the MS. 
' exhibits both the original readings of the Codex and the 
nature of the Nakdan' s corrections: 



r m XIBO KH lairx 11 Tuapn 'aa i&Etor jerem. IE 3, foi. 226^ 

2 Ttt'nn Tiapn 'sa "vaxr n, 226 a 

3 innri Ti&pn a-in 12, 226 

4 "i-b MI-IK TTS -JK-V Trap,-! TIX^ x 7, 234 b 

5 "ns niters nbnn j?ja, 'a-n 'napn -a a-n xn 16, 236^ 

6 a-a-in TP "ion a^str 'napn 's D^.atr xiv 6, 238 a 

7 D'rm nr -ion 133 135 w ww "napn-a irr;i; 7, 238 a 

8 p ij-ian -napn "as ^an v 16, 239 a 

9 -iv K^n i33ir "napn tm<a "ais xvi 10, 240* 
10 -ir ncn unxtsn pi irnxen n 10, 240^ 
ir "snn ir ncn nmsa 'napn ^a .TPISIS xix 8, 2426 

12 mKiBB "nxm prn papa 'pratrnapn's "p^ xxn 20, 245 a 

*]tsn f apn 

13 reia iBcs-bs is pK 'napn Bn"B "xn a^a-bs xxv 22, 248^ 



1 Vide supra, Part II, chap. XI, pp. 347363. 

2 rrann *rW pp"n rP Comp. I Kings XII 16, fol. 132 a; Jerem. II II, 
fol. 2 26 a. 

3 The Arabic note which is on MSb i Sam. XXII 1 7 is as follows : 

ft im "|bi ^p ppena wai dm -an yJab "bna; pi IWK pb n^nitn 'TK -a 

Comp. fol. 72 a. 



4<J2 lutioduction. [CHAP. Ml. 

14 \sh vnn papa n:ar.38 -napn -a nsara* jerem. xxxi 33, fol. 255 fr 

nnai xiec "^ne: p^i -IPX 

15 -TO PK-J Tiapn "B3 YW r xxxvn 19, 263,1 

16 *?rcn tab kh nipaa ^xn Nana -napn ne^a xxxvni 4, 263** 

17 KTT7 J1J piCTiaj -napn pN-ttiaj XXXIX 13, 265 a 

1 8 "napn -ea ic or c-"?ira a-^r? XL 14, 2660 

19 par -:a"nx -napn -aa par "JS-'TK XLI 10, 266 & 

20 ]3n TTQ '-p^na 'necn -napn -a 'inns XLVI 23, 271 a 

rsn 'K-npn K-n nxn K-na mara 

21 ?]cn rapa win nn-ic: -napn -as nnnc: B XLIX 7, 273 a 

22 K-S nepn -as pan -a Ezek. xxxix n, 



It will be seen that with the exception of the last 
passage, this Nakdan devoted his revision and corrections 
to the text of Jeremiah. A still later Nakdan also applied 
himself, but to a much more limited extent, to occasionally 
annotating this Prophet and exhibiting various readings . 
from other Codices. As the Codex or the Massorite to 
whom he refers is indicated by a peculiar expression and 
as this term has given rise to an apparent discovery, I 
subjoin all the passages in which it occurs. 

1 m-nas -IET jsa nrcs jerem. XLI 17, fol. 267 a 

2 $ pK pr, B'rl^K^ XLIV 3, 268 b 

3 -*r pa BSTwrerSt B f 7, 268 fr 

4 ajr.n p pa arni a-.na 13, 2690 

5 "iw pa nirnwn m^nen XLVI 4, B 270 & 

Now whatever may be the import of the enigmatical 
expression p3 there can be no doubt as to the nature of 
the alternative reading which this glossator sets forth in 
each of the five passages before us. In No. i the Nakdan 
tells us that instead of D1"133 iu the habit/on of (]erem.~KLI 17), 
Ken reads fi1*na3 in or by the hedges of, the very expression 
which occurs in Jerem. XLIX 3, and indeed the phrase 
camping or dwelling in the hedges (nlTIS? D'Sinn) is to be 
found in Nah. Ill 17. In No. 2 the glossator tells us with 
equal explicitness what the variant is. He not only marks 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 493 

^> 

the Lamed with the usual small circle [= ?] to indicate 
that it is the object of the gloss, but distinctly states that 
Ken reads it without the Lamed, so that the phrase exactly 
corresponds to Josh. XXIV 16. Equally explicit is the 
glossator' s remark in No. 3 where Men reads ^J? upon, instead 
of ~^K unto, as it is in the textus receptus. A reference to the 
Massorah, 1 and to the notes in my edition of the Hebrew 
Bible will show how often the MSS. and the ancient 
Versions read the one particle instead of the other. In 
No. 4 he states that Ken reads the phrase "by the sword 
and by the pestilence" (Jerem. XLIV 13) without the 
word 3JJ121 by the famine, whilst in No. 5 Ken reads n1y"lt^n 
the brigandines or coats of mail, with a Sin (t>) instead of 
Samech (D) which is not only an orthographical variant 
of not unfrequent occurrence, but is an ordinary Massoretic 
gloss which also occurs in other MSS. noticing this reading. 2 
I have deemed it necessary to set forth minutely the 
nature of these variants because Mr. Margoliouth of the 
British Museum has ingeniously conjectured that Ken (p) 
which is numerically seventy, (viz. 3 20 and 3 50), denotes 
the Septuagint and that the Massoretic Annotator refers 
here to this ancient Version which exhibits the variations 
in question. 3 Had Mr. Margoliouth seen all the five notes, 
and noticed the variants which the glossator explicitly 
and most unmistakably gives as the alternative readings 
in Ken, he would not have hazarded this tempting con- 
jecture. With the exception of No. 3 none of the readings 
given by the glossator occur in the Septuagint and indeed 
the variant in No. 5 is not only an ordinary Massoretic 
variant exhibited in the margin of other MSS., but could 



1 Corap. The Massorah, letter K, 514, Vol. i, p. 57. 

2 Vide supra, Codex No. 4, p. 483. 

3 Comp. The Academy, Nov. 26 1892, p. 484. 



494 Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

not possibly be expressed in the Greek which makes no 
distinction between the Hebrew consonants Samech (D) 
and Sin (V). The enigmatic expression p like some other 
Hebrew abbreviations defies solution at present. The Nun 
is most probably the ordinary abbreviation of ppi Nakdan 
and the Caph stands for the name of the writer of a 
certain Codex who is at present unknown. 

In importance Harley 5720 is next to the St. Petersburg 
Codex of A. D. 916. I have given a facsimile of fol. 169^, 
containing 2 Kings XIX 22 35 in the Oriental Series of 
the Palaeographical Society, Plate XL edited by the late 
Professor Wright, London 1875 1885. 

This MS. is No. 114 in Kennicott's List. 

No. 6. 

Harley 57745775. 

This MS., which consists of two volumes quarto, 
contains the Prophets and the Hagiographa in the order 
given in column No. i of the Table of Comparison, only that 
Proverbs precedes Job. 1 It is written in a Sephardic hand; 
and in the epigraph at the end of the Second Volume the 
name of the Scribe and the date are given as follows: 

Written at Castion d'Amporia and finished in the month of Elul in 
the year 5156 of the creation [ A. D. 1396] and the writing is the writing 
of Ezra b. R. Jacob son of Adereth of blessed memory. 2 

The first volume which contains the Prophets consists of 
322 folios; and the second, which gives the Hagiographa has 
217 folios. Each folio has two columns and each column has 
25 lines. The MassorahMagnais given in two lines in the upper 
margin and in three lines in the lower, whilst the Massorah 
Parva is given in the outer margin and between the columns. 

1 Vide supra, Part I, chap. I, p. 7. 

/ram nxai D'cSx ran r\:v bi^x snrc ohvn xmcaxn jrtatppa sros 2 

."r: mix p rpr 'is x-w srea srcarr rrrr'r cr- 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 495 

The Massorah is frequently given in ornamental and fantastic 
designs which makes its decipherment very difficult. 

It has the two verses Josh. XXI 36, 37 with the 
proper vowel-points and accents and without any marginal 
remark that they are absent in other Codices; whilst it 
omits Neh. VII 68 which ; however, has been supplied in 
the margin by another hand. It frequently adduces various 
readings from other MSS. (X"D) which affect the consonants, 
the vowel-points and the accents, as will be seen from 
the following examples in each of these three categories. 

(1) The consonants. On pISP deep (Ps. LXIV 7) which is plene 
in this MS. the Massorah remarks DP! p&J? K"D according to other Codices it 
is defective. On "pa 1 ? my heart (Ps. LXXIII 13) it remarks ^T* X"D according 
to other Codices it is *3h the shorter form which occurs more frequently in 
the Psalter. On nilOhna as out of the depths (Ps. LXXVIII 15) it remarks 
n1lnna K"D according to other Codices it is in the depths. On Ps. XCVH 6 
where the text of this MS. reads D^atP ITJil heavens declare, the Massorah 
remarks D?a$n 1T3H K"D according to other Codices it is the heavens declare, 
with the article. In Neh. VII 43 where this MS. reads FCFftrb of Hodeva, the 
Massorah, instead of the Keri simply states JT'lln'p K"D that according to 
other Codices the textual reading is of Hodeijah, 

(2) The vowel-points. In Ps. LXIV 6 this MS. reads lab-IKf shall 
see them, without Dagesh and the Massorah remarks against it tPna lIST 1 S"D 
according to other Codices it is la 1 ? with Dagesh. On !TTl1"OK} and her 
pinions (Ps. LXVIII 14) it remarks iTTmaXl K"5 another recension is 
nTlYiaKl with Pathach under the Aleph instead of Segol. On 'DPlS my trust 
(Ps. LXXIII 28) it remarks <l pntt K"P according to other Codices the Cheth 
has Chateph-Pathach instead of Sheva. On d^^xa of idols (Ps. XCVII 7) 
it remarks d^bxa K"D according to other Codices the Beth has Pathach and 
the Aleph Chateph-Pathach. On i Chron. XXIV 16 where the text has 
^K???!T^ io Jehez-el, with Sheva under the Koph and Tzere under the Aleph, 
contrary to the recensional canon to guard the Divine name "?K El, the Massorah 
remarks ^KpJfV^ K"D according to other Codices it is to Jehez-kel, the Koph 
has Tzerc and the Aleph has no vowel-sign at all. 1 

(3) The accents. On "'TOS rniy Ps. LVII 9 the Massorah remarks 
K"D. On "IW'SKI (Ps. LXXIII 23) it remarks '^l K"D. On "Ta DID '3 

1 Vide supra, Part II, chap. XT, pp. 397 399. 



496 Introduction. [CHAI>. XII. 

(Ps. LXXV 9) it has T2 CID^D K"D. On "|3rCK (Ps. LXXXI 8) the Massorah 
remarks nSPOK K"D. On Whlf (Ps. CIX 10) it has Ittm 1 ) K"D. 

I: ( T : T: V : Tl : 

At the end of each book there is a Massoretic 
Summary specifying the number of verses, the middle 
verse and with the exception of Joshua, Ezekiel, Proverbs 
and Job, the number of the Sedarim in each book. 

The text exhibits homoeoteleuta (comp. Vol. I, folios 
32 b; 57 b; 242 a; 282/7; 284/7; 2850 &c.) which, however, 
have duly been supplied in the margin by the Massoretic 
Annotator. A Massoretic note adducing the Codex Mugah 
in five passages in support of the textual reading is of 
special interest. In Jerem. IX 23 (fol. 204 />) this Codex 
like the received text reads ^K not, without the Vav 
conjunctive, but as a number of MSS. and ancient Versions 
have it ^iO with the Vav , the Massorite justifies his reading 
by stating that it is the right one according to the Mugah 
Codex (n^O "1DD3 HO'). Exactly the same remark he makes 
on the same particle in Jerem. XXII 3 (fol. 213/7); on $? 
not Jerem. XXXIII 3 (fol. 225 a); on ^^O falsely Jerem. XL 16 
(fol. 232/7) and on 'NTn thou sh alt fear Zeph.III 15 (fol. 31 1 a}. 
This leaves it beyond the shadow of a doubt that HO' is not 
the name of a Codex, but denotes good, right, correct, and that 
the phrase in question means correctly so in Codex Mugah or 
rightly so according to the Mugah Codex. Hence when the 
Massorah has HD* by itself against a reading which is not 
unfrequently the case, it means to call attention to the fact 
that the reading exhibited in the text is the right reading. 

These two volumes are Nos. 113 and 1 19 in Kennicott's 
List. 

No. 7. 

Arundel Oriental 2. 

This imperfect MS., which is written in a beautiful 
Italian hand, contains the Pentateuch with the Chaldee of 
Onkelos, the Haphtaroth and the Five Megilloth. It begins 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 497 

with Gen. VI 21 as far as the Pentateuch is concerned 
and ends with Deut. XXXIV 12. Besides, however, the 
missing folios at the beginning of Genesis there are also 
missing Gen. XIV 10 XXI 9; L 4 26 and Exod. Ill 
1 8 V 8. There are also several folios torn in the middle, 
and partly imperfect. 

In its present form the MS. consists of 301 folios, 
each folio has two columns and each column, as a rule, 
contains 19 lines. In Deuteronomy, however, the columns 
have more often 1 7 and 1 8 lines. The outer margin and the 
bottom one of each folio in the Pentateuch give the 
Onkelos Targum. Both the Hebrew text and the Chaldee 
Paraphrase are furnished with vowel-points and accents. 
Immediately after the end of the Pentateuch (fol. 27 1&) 
begin the Haphtaroth, in the outer and bottom margins of 
which are the Five Megilloth in the following order: Song 
of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther and Ecclesiastes, 
breaking off with II 20. It will be seen that this does not 
coincide with any one of the orders exhibited in the Table. ' 

In the sectional divisions of the text, this MS. 
materially differs from the Open and Closed Sections of 
the textus receptus. Thus for instance in Genesis alone it 
has seven new Sections, 2 whilst it omits four which are in 
the received text. 3 

The Annual Pericopes or Parashiyoth (nVEHD) are 
mostly indicated by three PCS (D D Q) in the vacant space 
in the text, which are followed by the first words of the 
new Pericope in large letters. Some Pericopes, however, 
begin with only the first words in large letters and have 

1 Vide supra, Part I, chap. I, p. 4. 

2 Comp. Gen. X 13; XXV 7, 13; XXXVI 9; XXXIX 7; XLI 38; 
XLIX 3. 

3 Comp. Gen. X 15, 21 ; XXXIV i; XXXV I, Vidt supra, Part I, 

chap. 11, p. 9 &c. 

GG 



49S Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

no Pes at all, some have one PC, and some have two Pes. 
Besides the two Pericopes K2T1 = Gen. XXVIII 10 and 
^m = Gen. XLVII 28, which do not coincide with an 
Open or Closed Section and, therefore, begin with only 
the first words in large letters/ w 1 ] = Gen. XLIV 18 
and mjcn == Exod. XXVII 20 have no Pe at all, 
Gen. XLI i, Tin* Exod. XVIII i and 
Exod. XXI i have each one Pe; whilst JO = Exod. X i 
and n^tPD = : Exod. XIII 17 have each two Pes. It is 
noticeable that nOTlfl == Exod. XXV i (fol. 87), which is 
supplied by another hand and is not divided into columns, 
has 'EHD Parsha in the text. This analysis of Genesis and 
Kxodus will suffice to show the absence of uniformity in 
indicating the Pericopes. 

Exodus is the only book at the end of which there 
is a summary giving the number of verses in this book. 
The first two words of this epigraph are on fol. 114^ and 
the rest is contained in four large hollow letters H H fo IE 
Simcha, which occupy the centre of fol. 114^. The epigraph 
is as follows: 

The number of verses in Exodus is 1250. this is the sign Isaac b. 
Simcha his rest is in Paradise A. M. [5] 967 = A. D. I2i6. 2 

Accordingly this is one of the oldest dated MSS. of 
the Pentateuch. It is, however, to be remarked that the 
number of verses assigned here to Exodus exceeds by 
forty-one the number given in the Massorah, 3 and that 
Isaac b. Simchah is not the Scribe of this Codex, but the 
son of the Scribe. This is evident from the following 
epigraph which occurs at the end of Deuteronomy: 

1 Vide supra. Part I, chap. V, pp. 66, 67. 

oj?2 nnotf p pnr ja'e m DTQIT D'riKzr *]? matt? rbwz 'pioe p:a 2 

Cnca iPpnn The expression D2 is the abbreviation of T)IT:a pp p2 his rest 
is in Paradise. 

3 Vide supra. Part I. chap. VI, p. 78. 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 499 

Courage and strength Simchah the son of Joseph ' 

which is the customary formula appended by the Scribe 
as a pious utterance at the end of the MS. or at one 
of the three Divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures. The 
Scribe's name is also indicated in the text itself. Thus the 
expression nnfttP 3 with Simchah, which occurs in Gen. 
XXXI 27 is enclosed by dots, viz. ; ilPjbttf? i 

The letters He (P|) and Clieth (PI) exhibit almost the 
same calligraphical peculiarities which are noticeable in 
Codices Nos. i, 2 and 6; whilst the Beth (3) and the Caph 
(3) are in many instances indistinguishable. The aspirated 
letters (D Q 3 1 3 3), however, as well as the silent He (i"l) 
in the middle and at the end of words are treated most 
inconsistently, inasmuch as they are sometimes marked 
with the horizontal stroke and are sometimes without it in 
one and the same verse. Thus for instance we have Dm5x 
Abraham, and DPHIIK in Gen. XXV I 5. xytf Sheba, and 
^y\ and the sons of, in the same verse (Gen. XXV 3): 
n01j5 eastward, and D"T|"3 in Gen. XXV 6 ; n^SDJpn Machpelah 
and PIDi^ for, in Gen. XXV 9, 2 1 ; DPISt? handmaid of, and 
tfD3 Naphish, in Gen. XXV 12, 15; ^Klfis Bethuel, and filPJX 
sister of, in the same verse Gen. XXV 19. 

The final letters (V Pj 1 *]) are, as a rule, no longer 
than the medial ones. The graphic sign Katnetz is simply 
the Pathach with a dot under it in the middle. As to the 
other vowel-signs Pathach and Kametz, as well as Tzere 
and Segol they are frequently interchanged, and not only is 
the Dagesh lene often absent, but the Dagesh/orte after the 
Vav consecutive is not expressed, as may be seen from 
the following examples from fol. 27 b. 

n|5^ and he took Gen. XXXI 45 
jTl and they took 46 

at *'l they made 46 



p:nn:i p:n Comp. fol. 

GG- 



Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

&n[ri and he called Gen. XXXI 47 

njn -un /Aw A<rop 48 

'"3 "IP is witness between me 48, 50 

m.T S)3T the Lord watch 49 

^:n nsn foAoW /Aw AM/? 51 

reran n:ni and behold the pUhtr 5 1 

T!"?! ^ ' wt ' c Cas t n n 5 1 

n2San niP/i rf /Aw pillar be witness 52 

PZr*] and he sware 53 

But on the same page we have also 
-iBK'l and he said Gen. XXXI 46. 

The Metheg and the Gay a never occur. The accents, 
too, differ frequently from those exhibited in the textiis 
rcceptns. The Kef hi v has the vowel-signs of the Keri, 
though this official alternative reading is not given in the 
margin except in a few instances where it has been added 
by a later hand. In the consonants too, the text often 
differs from our textus receptns. It often exhibits homoeo- 
teleuta. Comp. Gen. VII 23, fol. ib\ XXIX 28, 29, fol. 2$a; 
LeVit. XIX 28, fol. 142*7; XXI 21, fol. i 45 a &c. &c. All 
these, however, have been supplied in the margin by a 
later reviser. As the MS. is without the Massgrah there 
are no other Codices adduced in the margin. 

In Kennicott's List this MS. is No. 129. 



No. 8. 
Arnndel Oriental 16. 

This magnificent MS. in huge and broad folio is 
manifestly a Model Codex. It is written in a beautiful 
German hand, circa A. D. 1120. It consists of 389 folios 
and contains the Prophets and the Hagiographa, with 
vowel-points, accents, and both the Massorah Parva and 
the Massorah Magna. The order of the books is that 



CHAl'. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 501 

exhibited in Column V in the Table. 1 Each folio has three 
columns and each column has 30 lines. There are four 
lines of the Massorah Magna in the upper margin of each 
folio, and seven lines in the lower one; whilst the outer 
margins as well as the margins between the columns contain 
the Massorah Parva. 

It is greatly to be regretted that the folios containing 
Jerem. XLI 12 LIT 34; Ezek. I i -XIV 3; Dan. XI 
3 XII 13 and Ezra I i II 27 are missing. 

The text is carefully divided into Open and Closed 
Sections which are frequently indicated by the expressions 
"IDS = Open Section, and "1DD == Closed Section, in the 
sectional vacant space of the text itself when the redactor 
of the Codex thought that there might be any doubt as 
to the nature of the Section. As this is of extremely rare 
occurrence in the MSS. of the Prophets and the Hagio- 
grapha and moreover as it will enable the student to test 
the accuracy of the insertion of the letters Pe (D) and 
Samech (D) into the text in Dr. Baer's edition, I subjoin 
an analysis of the passages in which the Sections are thus 
described in this Model Codex. 

In Joshua the expressions '1DD Open Section, and 
"iflD Closed Section, occur nine times in the body of the 
text. The former occurs in the following seven instances 
Josh. I 12; VIII 20; X 36; XI 6, 10; XII 9; XIII i; and 
the latter in two passages, viz. Josh. IV 4; X 34. 

In Judges they occur eight times, "ifiO Open Section, 
occurs six times, viz. Judg'. XI 29, 32 ; XII i ; XIX i ; 
XX 12; XXI i and "1DD Closed Section twice, viz. Judg. 
VII i, 15. 

In Samuel they occur thirty-three times, ")f)D Open 
Section, occurs in the following twenty passages: i Sam. II, 27 ; 

1 Vide supra, Part 1, chap. I, p. 7. 



502 Introduction. [CHAI 1 . XII. 

VI 15; XI i ; XIII i, 15; XIV 17; XVIII 6; XIX 1 1 ; XXI i; 
XXVI 10; XXIX i ; 2 Sam. I 1 7 ; III 14; IV 4, 1 1, 17, 22 ; VII i ; 
XVI 15; XXIII i and HHD Closed Section, occurs thirteen 
times, viz., in i Sam. V 9; VIII 1 1 ; XXI iob; XXIII 2, 13, 19, 
21; XXIV i; XXV 32; XXVII i, 5; XXI 8; 2 Sam. XII i. 

In Kings they occur twenty times, ")DD Open Section, 
occurs sixteen times, viz. i Kings III 3; IV i; VI i; 

VII 13, 51; X 14; XI i; XIII i, 20; XIV 21 ; XVI 21, 
23; XXI 12; XXII 3; 2 Kings XXI 12; XXII 3 and 
"IfiD Closed Section, occurs four times, viz. i Kings IV 2; 
VII 27; XXV i; 2 Kings XXV i. 

In Isaiah they occur fifteen times, 'IfiD Open Section, 
occurs seven times, viz. Isa. Ill 13; XXVII 7; XXVIII 16; 
XLII i; XLVII4; LIV i; LVIII i and '1HD Closed Section, 
eight times, viz. Isa. VII 9; XVIII 7; XXVI 16; XLIII 
25; XLIV 25; XLVIII 20; XLIX 8. 

In Jeremiah which is imperfect, wanting eleven 
chapters, the expressions occur forty-four times, '1DO Open 
Section, occurs twenty-eight times, viz. Jerem. I 11; II 4; 
IX 16; X i; XI 6, 14; XIV 1 1 ; XV i ; XVI 16; XVII 19; 
XVIII 5; XIX i, 14; XXI i, n; XXII 10; XXIII i, 5, 
15; XXIV i; XXV 8; XXIX 20: XXXI 23; XXXII 16, 
42; XXXIV i; XXXVII 9; XL 7 and '1DD Closed Section, 
sixteen times, viz. Jerem. I, 7, 13; VII 3; VIII 4; XIII 8; 
XVI 3; XXII ii ; XXIII 19, 30, 37, 39; XXIV 8; XXVI 
n; XXX 12, 18; XXXII 26. 

In Ezekiel where thirteen chapters are missing, these 
expressions occur twenty-three times, '1DD Open Section, 
occurs in the following eleven passages Ezek. XIV 12; 
XXI i, 13; XXII i; XXV 15; XXVIII 20; XXX 20; 
XXXI i; XXXIII 23; XL i; XLIV 16; and '1DD Closed 
Section, in twelve passages, viz. Ezek. XIV 9; XVI 51, 59; 
XVIII 24; XX 27; XXVII i; XXXIV i; XXXV 14; 
XXXVI 5; XXXIX n; XLIII 18; XLVI 16. 



CHAT. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 503 

In the Minor Prophets they occur eighteen times, 
"1DD Open Section, occurs nine times, viz. Hosea III i ; 

XIII 12; Amos VII i; Zech. VIII 6, 7; IX i, 9; XI 4; 

XIV 12; and HDD Closed Section, nine times, viz. Hosea II 
16; Joel IV 9, 18; Amos IV i; Zeph. I 8, 12; Hag. I 13; 
II 14; Mai. I 14. 

In Ezra-Nehemiah, where Ezra I i II 27 is missing, 
'inD Closed Section, occurs twice, viz. EzraVi6 and Neh. V g. 

In Chronicles these expressions occur seventy-seven 
times, 'IfiO Open Section, occurs nine times, viz. i Chron. 

II i ; XV 3, ii ; XVI 23, 34; XIX i; XXIX 26; 2 Chron. 
XVIII 28; XXXIV 29; and 'IfiD Closed Section, occurs 
sixty-eight times, viz. i Chron. I 13, 35, 42; II 3, 21, 27; 

III i, 24; IV 24, 28; VI 3, 45, 46, 50, 57, 59; VII i, 2, 8, 
10; VIII 33; IX 12, 35; X 6; XI 14, n, 26, 40; XII i, 
15, 19; XIII i; XV 6, 26; XVII i ; XXV 3, 4, 10, 1 1, 12, 

13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 2 9 , 30, 31; 

XXVI i, 2, 6, 7; 2 Chron. Ill 8; VI 32; VII i, 5; X 12, 
\8b; XIV -jb; XVIII iS. 1 

In the Psalms, Proverbs, Job and the Five Megilloth 
these expressions do not occur in the text of this Codex. 

The Sedarim are not only indicated in their proper 
places against the text, but are registered in a separate List 
at the end of every book, giving the verse with which each 
Seder begins and the number of the Sedarim in each book. 
At the end of each book, moreover, are Lists registering 
the number of verses, the middle verse, 2 the Paseks^ the 
Variations between the Easterns and Westerns, 4 the Ken's 

1 Vide supra, Part I, chap. II, pp. 1031. 

* Comp. The Massorah, letter B, 195215, Vol. II, pp. 45 453. 
and Vide supra, Part I, chap. VI, pp. 88108. 

3 Comp. The Massorah, letter B, 205223, Vol. II, pp. 648652. 

4 Comp. The Massorah, letter Pi, 622640, Vol. I, pp. 592599, 
and Vide supra, Part II. chap. IX. pp. 208 240. 



r >04 Introduction. |cil,\l'. Ml 

and the Kcthivs, 1 and sometimes also the differences in the 
phraseology of the parallel passages or the dittographs 2 
of the book in question. These I have reproduced in my 
edition of the Massorah under the letters indicated in the 
notes below. It is, however, to be remarked that some of 
these Lists do not occur at the end of every book. With 
the exception of Kzra-Nehemiah and Chronicles they are 
absent in the Hagiographa. 

It has the two verses in Josh. XXI, viz. 36, 37 
without the vowel-points and the accents; and the second 
Annotator added the lengthy note in the margin which I 
have already given/' It, however, omits altogether Neh. 
VII 68. The text as a whole differs in many respects from 
the textns receptns in the orthography, the vowel-points 
and the accents, though it has been thoroughly revised 
by Jacob Nakdan in accordance with the celebrated Codex 
Sinai. This is stated by the Reviser himself.- Thus for 
instance on i Chron. II 4 where the text has 'ODD Sisamai, 
with Pathach, the Reviser corrects it in the margin into 
'2DD with Kauuiz with the remark that it is in accordance 
with the Codex which I haJ before me, Jacob. 4 That Jacob 

1 Comp. Tlic Massorah. letter 2, 493 522. Vol. 11, pp. 5674. 
- Comp. Tlic )fassi-ah, letter n, 496588, Vol. I, pp. 521571. 

3 Vide supra, Fait II, chap. VI, p. 179 note. 

4 pP" 'ri Comp. fol. 238 /'. That "?~ is an abbreviation of '3B 1 ? J2 so 
/'/ was before me, meaning the Codex before me according to which the correction 
is made, is stated by K. Jacob himself, since he uses this solution of the 
abbreviation in a number of his notes. Thus for instance on Jerem. XII 3 
where the text originally had Df!!Tn />// them uiit. plene, he corrected it into 
Dprn defective, remarking against it in the margin 'IE 1 ? p Comp. fol. l$5'i. In 
Jerem. XXXI 4 where the text originally was 1"IX1Z" and limn shall go forth, 
with Kamdz under the T~a,li (jj) as it is in the te.\ins nreflas. he corrected 
it into nxi'" with Pathach and has against it "B 1 ? p Comp fol. i66&. Again 
Jerem. XXXII 27 where the text has "SOOH from me? with Gaya, he states 
*'t,h t~ /'/ is so in tilt' <'m(t:\- bt-f'orc me. Comp. fol. i68/>. For other instances 



CMAI'. XH.] Description of the Manuscripts. 505 

was the Reviser is, moreover, attested by the note on 
rniD^ for the increase of (Isa. IX 6) which is pointed in 
the text, rn"ltt^ with Segol under the Beth and on which 
the Annotator remarks "according to the Codex before 
me it is with Tzere, Jacob"; l as well as by the remark on 
Song of Songs I i where it is stated by another Reviser 
in quite a different hand-writing "this Column [consisting 
of Song of Songs I i 9] was not pointed by Jacob". 2 

It is equally certain that the Codex which R. Jacob 
had before him and according to which he revised the 
whole text, is the Codex Sinai. Thus on Judg. VIII 27 
where Arund. Or. 16 exhibits the vacant space of a break 
which R. Jacob could not remove, he corrects it by 
remarking against it "there is no Section here in Codex 
Sinai". 3 The same is the case in Jerem. XXXIX i. Here 
too the MS. exhibits in the text the vacant space of a 
sectional break and here also R. Jacob remarks: "In 
Codex Sinai there is here no Section whatever, either 
Open or Closed." 4 In the MS. the Song of Songs follows 
immediately after the Psalms, which is against the order 
of the Sinai Codex. R. Jacob could not of course alter 
it to make it conformable to his Sinai Model. The only 
expedient, therefore, to which he could possibly resort 
was to indicate the deviation from his examplar. Accordingly 
he states at the end of the Psalms "Here in Codex Sinai 

where the Reviser uses this full form instead of the abbreviation see Ezek. 
XXVI 20; XXIX 10; Amos III 12; V 6 &c. &c. In one instance where 
-1321 and harp, is pointed 1J51 Ps. CXLIX 3 he remarks "jSb T)p3 p // is 
so pointed in (he Codex before me. Comp. fol. 321 a. 

1 pr *?? Comp. fol. 122 b. 

2 pi" 1 "Ip3 X 1 ? HT -nr Comp. fol. 348 b. The hand-writing of this note 
is identical with that of the lengthy note on Josh. XXI 36. Vide supra, 
Part II, chap. VI, p. 179, note. 

3 <i roa 'nine jxa px Comp. fol. 24 b. 

4 nainc xbi nmna xb xpea jxr px N rcr Comp. fol. 173?'. 



506 Introduction. [CIIAI'. XII. 

follow the book of Ruth and the rest of the Five Megilloth 
one after the other." 1 

In some instances R. Jacob justifies the reading of 
the Sinai Codex which he adopts by appealing to other 
MSS. Thus for instance on 3pl^ he shall supplant (Jerem. 
IX 3) without Dagesh as it is in the text of Arund. Or. 16 
which R. Jacob corrects, he remarks "so it is in the Codex 
before me [i. e. the Sinai], the Coph with Dagesh and so it is 
also in other MSS." 2 In Prov. VII 18, where the text in 
Arund. Or. 16 has D^2nN3 with loves, with Chateph-Pathach 
under the Aleph, R. Jacob corrects it in the margin into 
Chateph-Kametz in accordance with the Sinai Codex which 
he had before him and justifies this correction by stating 
that it is so in other MSS. also/ 1 

In other instances, however, where he supports the 
textual reading of the MS. because it is in accordance 
with the Sinai Codex which he had before him, he tells 
us that other MSS. are against the reading. Thus in 
Amos III 12, Arund. Orient. 16 reads iTliT '31N 13X 113 thus 
said the Lord Jehovah, as it is in the immediately preceding 
verse. Being preceded by ^1X Lord, the expression Jehovah 
in such combination is pointed HliT. A previous Nakdan 
marked 'SIX Lord, as spurious and left it unpointed. But 
R. Jacob defends the pointing of Jehovah (nliT) which 
carries with it the reading of ^"[^ Lord, on the ground that it 
is so in the Sinai Codex which he had before him and 
which was his model. He, however, frankly states that it 
is not the reading of other MSS. 4 

In one instance he tells us that the reading of 
Arund. Orient. 16, which agrees with his Model Codex, is 

' i: -in* i: p-foe 'n "?si p:i nee 'res nnr |2 Comp fol. 348 b. 
2 KXS pi ?ppn trn "?: Comp. fol. 153 a. 

:i K"DS pi b^ Comp. fol. 338 b. 

1 X"Cr S 1 ?' "Zh p Comp. fol. 206</ 



CI1AI'. XII. | Description of the Manuscripts. 507 

both against the Massorah and against other MSS. and he, 
therefore, hesitates about accepting it. Thus 'M^Slfll and 
break me in pieces (Job. XIX 2), which is pointed with 
Sheva under the Caph, and Goya under the Vav, R. Jacob 
states that this is the pointing of his Model Codex, but 
in his opinion the Caph ought not to have the Sheva 
because the Aleph is not pronounced according to the 
.Massorah, and also according to other MSS. 1 

As R. Jacob Nakdan flourished circa A. D. ii3O 2 
and, moreover, as he was the second Reviser these notes 
disclose to us the important fact that (i) Arund. Orient. 16 
must have been written about A. D. 1120, (2) that the 
Codex Sinai was then still extant and served as a Model 
Codex, and that (3) the systematic corrections of the 
British Museum MS. to make it conformable to the readings 
of the Sinai MS. virtually constitute Arund. Orient. 16 a 
representative of the now lost famous Codex Sinai. 

The supreme importance which R. Jacob attached to 
the Codex Sinai may also be seen from the fact that 
though he constantly corrects the MS. by it he never 
quotes any of the other famous Standard Codices which 
are mentioned by the other Nakdanim. The appeal to the 
Codex Mugah which is twice made in this MS. proceeds 
from the first Massoretic Annotator. 3 The single reference 



ntnp; xn J-K "2 ffpn nnn KW *6s 'yiibnrn b"y\ ":zb p 
s"cn p on n-nean "sb Comp. foi. 327 b. 

2 Comp. Biesenthal and Lebrecht's edition of Kimchi's Lexicon, 
Introduction p. 15. Berlin 1847; Geiger in Ozar Nechmad II, p. 159 &c., 
Vienna 1857; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden "VI, p. 131 &c., Leipzig 1861; 
Levita, Massordh Ha-Massoreth, p. 258, ed. Ginsburg, London 1867. Jacob 
Nakdan also redacted a standard Codex which is frequently quoted in Massoretic 
Annotations by the name Rin (f""l) being the abbreviation of pp3 SpS^ "O^ 
R. Jacob Nakdan. 

3 Comp. Isa. XXXVI 15, fol. 133 b; Nah. Ill 7, fol. 213*1. 



508 



lutroduction. 



[CHAP. xn. 



to R. Phinehas also proceeds from the first Reviser. 1 
The writing of the two Annotators is very easily 
distinguished. That of the first Reviser is larger and in a 
German hand, whilst that of the second is exceedingly 
small and partly cursive. The first seems chiefly to have 
confined himself to corrections of the various readings 
exhibited in the consonants and in the orthography, the 
second devoted himself principally to the vowel-points 
and the accents. The following analysis of the treatment 
to which these two Annotators have subjected the text 
of Isaiah will best show their respective functions. 



First Reviser. 

Corrected Original Reading 



cncz 



rcbrn 



PPT x 1 ? 

mrr 



nnn:x- i ?z 



nx 



Jsa. 



n-itcs 



pp-i" kbi 

-xsx ,TT 

rcbaei 



ji'tttfj nstf 

prrx jstfx 

' Comp. Ezek. XXXI 7, fol. l862>. 



1 9 

III 9 

VII 6 

XIV 19 

XVI 8 

,. 10 

XVII 6 

XIX 2 
XXI 2 

XXIV 21 

XXIX 13 

XXXVII 6 

XLV 14 

L1V 3 

LVII 9 

* 1 S 



Xil.J Description of 


the Nfanuscripts. 


Second 


Reviser. 


Corrected Original 


Reading 


[Tptr =] Si 


TJBtf Isa. VII 25 


[anpw =] Si : 


^i?$ "VIII 3 


[Ss =] Si 


K 1 ?? IX 5 


npi:n Si ' 


IB^Kr X () 


[mayn =] Si 


nbi?n B xiv 3 


[nSySxi =] Si n' 


?r>xi xvi 9 


nrn Sj? naaS ju:n Si c 


j;nap xxv 6 


'ySo S -iica K'cni naS Si 


"1Kb XXVI 10 


[ufcy =] Si* 


'jtoy xxix 1 6 


[093 =] Si 


abs xxxi 3 


[niri =] nigi Sptr:: Si 


nirra xxxii 4 


[nns =] "D 


rins xxxui 14 


i':n naS n Si* 


rrW xxxiv 14 


[j,*B<i =] nns >S ^n2 


ypi xxxvn 37 


' W ' 


^n n xxxvin 14 


0:-ip_ =] S'i 


nip T XLI 21 


nnni =] Si 


inrn 29 


ns'na =] Si ' 


l^na XLII 1 6 


[na =] Si 


1K XLIII i 


[=S =] Si 


2K 1 ? r XLV 10 


[cnsa =] Si i 


r-tffc 14 


['man =] Sa 


>rnri XLVI n 


['nisaS =] Si 'r 


iiia^ XLVIII 1 8 


[inanaw =] Si in; 


yiZM r> LI 2 


[nsi> =] Si 


1ST LIV 17 


[pl=]Si 


r: LVI 12 


[o^ =] Si 


DT LIX 7 


[ir;aa =] Si : 


^B 19 


[caiyn =] Si n 1 


'2"!iT1 - LXV ii 


[nin-isn =] Si n: 


nisn LXVI 14 


[a'pmn =1 Si c- 


phin ,,19 



510 Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

Variations from the received text not corrected by either of 

the Nakdanim. 

Isa. XXXIII 23 DD-in Isa. Ill 23 

XXXIX 4 V?*? " VI 5 

XLI 10 rntfn x 13 

XLIV 21 vh ^ntfH xiv ii 

XLV n map] xxix & 

XLIX 7 "TCCi??! i. xxxin i 

LIII i irnrair 1 ? 20 



From the above analysis it will be seen that originally 
the text of this Codex exhibited no fewer than 52 variations 
from the received text in Isaiah alone, that 16 were made 
conformable to the textus receptus by the first Reviser, 
and 32 by the second Reviser, whilst 14 still differ from 
the Massoretic text. 

The graphic sign Kametz is simply the Pathach with 
a dot under it in the middle as is the case in Orient. 4445 
(Codex No. i) and all the other ancient Codices. 

It is almost needless to state that in this Model 
Codex there is no Dagesh in a consonant at the beginning 
of a word if the same consonant happens to terminate the 
immediately preceding word. Thus it is ?6~^Xttf ask thec, 
and not Tj'p'^XtP Isa. VII 1 1 ; 33^'^Dl and every heart of, 
and not 33^-^31 Isa. XIII 7 &c. &C. 1 Nor is a Dagesh 
inserted into a consonant which follows gutterals with 
silent Sheva. Thus it is D^PK / will hide, and not D^PK 
Isa. I 15; 13ttr6 our own bread, and not 'lisn^ Isa. IV i; 
npno!? 5 ! and for a skelter, and not HDPTO^ Isa. IV 6 &c. &c. 2 
Nor is the Sheva changed into Chateph-Pathach when a 
consonant with the simple Sheva is followed by the same 
consonant. In this Codex it is D^IlD rebellions, and not 

1 Vide supra. Part I, chap. I, pp. 116 121. 
! Viiie supra, Part II, chap. I. pp. 121 135. 



f.HAI'. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 511 

D'*lTiD Isa. I 23; D^jjJI and soothsayers, and not D^SJJl 
Isa. II 6; D'ppnn that decree, and not D'ppfin Isa. XI &c. &c.' 
Like Orient. 4445 (= No. i) the vowels before composite 
Sheva have no Metheg. Thus 

Isa. I 20 IJXttn Isa. I 2 13*1101 



21 ruaw 9 

26 -nnK ,,io 13-710 

26 roaxj 13 

31 i . : 'i 16 



This MS. exhibits a remarkable instance of punctuation 
in Ps. CXLIX 3 where the expression 1331 awrf //^^ harp, 
is pointed lip}. That this is no clerical error is perfectly 
certain, for the careful Annotator R. Jacob assures us that 
it was thus pointed in the celebrated ancient Codex Sinai 
which he had before him as his model. 2 But according to 
our present orthography the Vav conjunctive has Sheva 
(1) or is sounded Ve. It is only changed into the vowel n 
before the labials Beth (2), Mem (0) and Pe (0) or before 
words whose first consonant has the simple Sheva. From 
Origen's transliteration of the Hebrew into Greek, however, 
we see that in olden days the Vav conjunctive was as a 
rule pronounced n. This is manifest from Gen. I i 4 
which is as follows: 

Rgsaid- @HQK f/.coi[i F& aaKfiaiu ove& [= HX^] CCK^FG. OvceaQfs 

[= n^c"] ai&K 

&oov ovfioov [= irai] ovwa% [= "SJtPni] aA cpvf frfcop OVQOVS 

[= frm] sicafifi 

jitapatqcf^ 1 cd cpvf. apuaifi. OvicofiFQ [= IttKM] j-Atot/t let cop 

[= '^] COQ. 

OVICCQ [~ K")^] ficain t& acoQ %t TCO@ oviafiSfl [= 
@sv aoiQ ovfizv awa%. 

These two independent records confirm one another 
that the primitive pronunciation of the Vav was . 

1 Vide supra, Part II, chap. XI. pp. 465466. 

2 "S,b "lip; p Comp. fol. 



512 Introduction. [CHAP. XII 

Besides the sundry Massoretic Rubrics at the end of 
each book, this MS. has extensive Lists of the variations 
in the dittographs in the Prophets and the Hagiographa. 
These Lists which are given at the end of the Minor 
Prophets and which occupy fol. 225 233 b; 235 236/7, 
I have reproduced in the Massorah. 1 

The Lists of the differences between Ben-Asher and 
Ben-Naphtali in the Prophets which are given between 
the dittographs in the Prophets and the Hagiographa and 
which occupy fol. 234^ 235 , simply contain the catchwords 
and do not specify the nature of the differences. 

From the above description it will be seen that the 
Massorah in this MS. is most copious. This MS. has 
yielded me numerous Rubrics which do not occur in 
Harley 5710 11 or No. 4 of this Description. My edition 
of the Massorah is substantially taken from the Massorahs 
in these two important Codices supplemented by Lists 
from other MSS. 

Besides the three Massoretic Annotators who elaborated 
this Codex at different times in olden days, a studious 
owner at the beginning of the seventeenth century added 
the names of the separate books as running head lines to 
the respective folios. He also indicated in Hebrew letters 
the number of each chapter both against the text where 
such a chapter begins and on the top of each column. 

.This MS. is No. 130 in Kennicott's List. 

No. q. 

King's 1. 

This folio contains the whole Hebrew Bible and 
consists of 439 leaves. According to the Epigraph it was 
written at Solsona, by Jacob b. R. Joseph of Ripoll of 

1 Comp. The Massorah, letter PI, 501 587, Vol. I, pp. 522-568. 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 513 

blessed memory for R. Isaac b. Jehudah of Tolosa in the 
month of Kislev in the year of the creation 5145 = A. D. 

1385.' 

The first folio contains the title and history of the 
MS. in Latin. Folios 2 a 8 a consist of illuminations ex- 
hibiting respectively amidst sundry Biblical texts the 
Tetragrammaton, the name of the owner for whom the MS. 
was written, the seven-branched candlestick, the Table of 
Shew-Bread, the Temple utensils, the Massoretic Lists of 
the Majuscular and Minuscular letters, and the Title page. 
The text itself begins with fol. 8b. 

Each folio has two columns, and each column has 
32 lines. The text is provided with the vowel-points and 
the accents. The order of the Prophets is that exhibited 
in Column III of the Table on page 6. With the exception 
of Ruth being detached from the Five Megilloth and 
being placed between the Psalms and Proverbs, the order 
of the Hagiographa is that which is followed in the 
early editions and is exhibited in Column VIII of the 
Table on pag - e 7. It is remarkable that the Massorah 
Magna is given only on Joshua I II and Judges XVI 
i i Sam. XII where the upper margin has two lines 
of this Corpus and the lower margin three lines. 2 It has, 
however, the Massorah Parva throughout, but in an 
exceedingly scanty form. 

The Open and Closed Sections are indicated by the 
required vacant space without the insertion of Pe (D) or 



is prtar -i 1 ? lit D'-iw nmiK -ISD b"i bism spr na spy 'SK Tcro ' 

'S^K uan rw ;i:u6itp ns r'jca unra b"i nKtri^itsi mirr 
ora a^p-H uni jnn imn in is nun 1 ? ircr oipan m'Tb nram 
*6 -pen viorc -IPK '-o-n -pbr IIPK TIII rnrr I^K aniK ^n^-a n7 ^KI 
: jttK I^K abir im nnya mn 11 ISK "irni jm ^aai "jrit 'eai -fstt itritt' Comp. 

fol. 427 a. 

2 Comp. fol. 105 & io6a; 127^136^. 

HH 



514 Introduction. [CHAP. XH. 

Samech (D) into the text; l whilst the Pericopes are marked 
with the simple letter Pe (D = i"HP"lD) in the margin against 
the beginning of the respective hebdomadal Lessons. The 
three Poetical books, viz. Psalms, Proverbs and Job are 
in hemistichs. With the exception of clerical errors, the 
text is the same as the textus receptus. 

In Gen. VI 3 this MS. has DStPD with Kametz under 
the Gimel as it is in the Codex Hilleli. This makes it the 
infinitive Kal of J3tf to transgress, to sin, to err, with the 
suffix third person plural. Accordingly the passage is to 
be rendered 

in their going astray he [i. e. the man] is flesh 

as it is substantially in the margin of the Revised Version. 

^N~fV2 Beth-el is written throughout in two words. 
Like the earlier Codices, this MS. has no Metheg under 
the vowels before composite Sheva. It has the two verses, 
viz. 36 and 37 in Joshua XXI with the proper vowel-points 
and the accents, and indicates in the margin against the 
word 12 Bezer, in verse 36 that "13"ia3 in the wilderness, 
has been omitted from the text by mistake. It has not 
Neh. VII 68. 

In 2 Sam. XIII 37, this MS. has two words which 
are not in the textus receptus nor indeed in any other MS. 
which I have collated. It has 

ua-^p tenm TW pBBft 

And David heard it and mourned for his son. 

But these two words are marked by the Scribe 
himself or the Annotator as spurious and as having been 
written by mistake. 

In the scanty Massorah Parva the Annotator quotes 
once, a variant from the Codex Mugah. He tells us that in 



1 Vide supra, Part I, chap. II, p 9 &c. 



CHAP. XII. | Description of the Manuscripts. 515 

Gen. IX 29 this celebrated Codex read Vfl'1 the plural 
instead of 'fTl the singular. 1 

On Gen. XXII 1 7, where the expression ^ICDI and as 
the sand, occurs, the Massoretic Annotator states that this 
exact form occurs only twice and in two different senses, 
viz. here and in Job. XXIX 18; but that according to the 
Western School and that of Nehardea it occurs only once, 
since in Job. XXIX 18 they point it ^fDI and it denotes 
the phenix? 

On K1H i"Dm and behold, Gen. XXIX 25, which is 
pointed HSni with Tzere under the Nun and K1i"I is with Vav, 
he tells us that it has Segol in the Great Machsor and that 
this celebrated Codex reads K>n with Yod. z He also 
adduces variants .from the Hilleli Codex in three instances, 
but these are already known. 4 He, however, quotes one 
variant from other Codices which is not recorded in other 
MSS. Instead of "and great pain shall be (nJVni) in Ethiopia" 
he informs us that according to other Codices it is "and 
great pain shall befall (r6Bil) in Ethiopia". 5 

The remarkable feature of this MS. is that the 
chapters and verses are marked in the margin throughout 
the whole Bible in red Hebrew letters. In the margin 
against Gen. I i the Scribe frankly avows that he has 
taken the chapter and verse division from the Christians 
and by a play upon the word D1TX Edont, which denotes 
both Christian and red, he tells us he indicated them in 



1 Wfl Tl*ttt!3 mia -IBDS Comp. fol. 1 1 b and the note in my edition of 
the Bible on this passage. 

pipi "on rfb 'm-n^i "Ks^ria 1 ? w rcnK biroi 'wb nra i bin? 1 ! * 
:s]iy DIP sim D 11 ^ ,-Q-IK ^roi Comp. fol i6b. 

3 s^n-nsni xan irnan Comp. fol. 20 b. 

4 Comp. Judg. VI 5, fol. 127^; 2 Sam. VIII I, fol. 151 b; I Kings 
XIII 22, fol. 173^ and the notes on these passages in my edition of the Bible. 

3 n^BDi K"D nrrrn Comp. fol. 260 a. 

HH' 



516 Introduction. [CHAP. XII 

distinct and red ink so that he who readeth may run and 
be enabled to answer those who turn white into black and 
green into red, as well as to cope with unbelievers. 1 

These divisions as well as the titles of the respective 
books in the head lines, the pagination and the various 
tables embracing folios 2 a 8 a; 427 b 429 a, were added 
by D'Arvieux into whose possession the MS. came in 1683. 

The MS. which is in a Sephardic hand is carelessly 
written. It makes hardly any distinction between the Beth 
(D) and the Caph (D); it seldom and very arbitrarily uses 
the Raphe mark; it frequently omits the Dagesh not only 
after the article, but after the Vav conversive ("]) in the 
third person future, and has plenes instead of defectives 
and vice versa. The following few verses from the beginning 
of Judges XV will amply corroborate this statement. 

"I? 1 !! Judg. XV 4 IpS'l Judg. XV i 

=H' . 4 Kbj> I 

V? 4 rDJnxi 2 
6 njtspn 2 
6 <nn 2 

6 TIBS 3 

- 7 Tty. v 4 

The MS., moreover, exhibits many omissions due to 
homoeoteleuta. Comp. Exod. I 17, fol. 31^; XXIX 27, 
fol. 446; Numb. XXIX 9, fol. 8oa; i Sam. XXIV n, 
fol. 144^7; Isa. XXXVII 14, fol. 208 a; Jerem. XXXII 8, 
fol. 234^; Jerem. XLIV n, fol. 240^; Jerem. XLVIII i, 
fol. 2420; Ezek. VIII 8, fol. 248*7; Ezek. XXXIV 10, n, 
fol. 262 ; Ezek. XL 23, fol. 2660; Hosea II 9, fol. 271 a 
&c. &c. These omissions have 4uly been supplied in the 
margins by different Revisers. 

DHKI ns v-o n-nsns omp^no 1 ? an pan onxa K2 ni ni'ir-is IBCO 
-lax 1 ? pnac mv man 1 : n-nK 1 ? pn" 1 ) tirwb pb D'SBinb a-wn^ 12 nip p 
na n-nn -na*? 1 ? mpw 'in "rr inaxr na *?r Toao ,DHKH onsn ;a : " 
rnran: nait: ,1:15^1 Dimp-eK r,K rrn Comp. foi. 8/'. 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 517 

With these facts before us it is rather startling to 
find the following description by Kennicott in his own 
handwriting prefixed to this MS. 

The Hebrew MS. purchased for The Royal Library, contains the 
whole Hebrew Bible; and is elegantly written, finely illuminated, and very 
valuable on different Accounts. It is particularly curious, as having belonged 
to a Synagogue of Jews at Jerusalem ; where it was preserved as a most 
Sacred and Venerable Treasure, till, on account of some Persecution from the 
Turks, the Jewish chief carried it to Aleppo: and there, after the Death of 
this chief, his widow, thro' extream Distress, sold it. It afterwards came into 
the possession of the celebrated D'Arvteux, Consul for France and Holland 
at Aleppo, in 1683. This Account is found in Latin, on the Back of the 
Title-page; it is attested by 3 Rabbies at Aleppo, and witnessed by 2 Christians. 
At the End of the Book is an Account, in Hebrew, given by the Writer of 
the MS. that it was written by Jacob the son of Joseph De Riphul; in 
the year from the Creation 5145, which answers in the Christian JEra. to 
the year 1385: and the MS. is, therefore, 383 years old. 

The 3 Poetical Books of Psalms, Job, and Proverbs are here written 
(not, as in most MSS. and printed Copies, like Prose, but) like Poetry; the 
2 parts of each verse being ranged in 2 distinct Columns. 

Some later hand has inserted parts of the Masora, at the Top and 
Bottom, only from Judges ch: 16 to I Samuel ch: 12 ; and has placed 
some Variations in the Margin. But several words of consequence, which are 
only in the Margin of the Common Bibles, are here happily found in the 
Text itself. And it has in one place, Two whole Verses, which are most 
certainly genuine, and yet are now to be found in very few MSS. 

Dr. Kennicott, after the Examination he has already made of this MS. 
in a few places, has no doubt, but it will be found, upon a perfect Examination 
of it, to contain many Various Readings, and some of great Importance. And 
he, therefore, humbly prays, that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to 
entrust him with it; in order that an entire Collation of it may be made, 
for the Honour of his Work, during the present Year. 

This description and petition Dr. Kennicott addressed 
to George III in 1768. The only explanation which I can 
vouchsafe of this glowing description of what un- 
questionably is a second-rate MS., is Kennicott's extreme 
hostility to the Massorah and the deplorable state in which 
the knowledge of Hebrew Palaeography was in his time. 



518 Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

A minute collation of these constituent parts of the text 
together with the consonants would have undeceived him. 
The gorgeous illuminations which occupy the preliminary 
pages and which are by a later hand led the learned 
Doctor to think that the MS. itself was equally valuable. 
This MS. is No. 99 in Kennicott's List. 

No. 10. 
Add. 4708. 

This MS., which consists of 213 folios large quarto, 
contains the Latter Prophets. It is written in a bold 
Sephardic hand and the order of the books is that ex- 
hibited in Column III on page 6. It is slightly imperfect 
since Jerem. XXXII 7 -XXXIII 4 and Ezek. XL 27 XLIII 
13 are missing. Each folio has two columns and each 
column has 20 lines. It is furnished with the vowel-points 
and the accents, but has no Massorah Magna. Up to Ezek. 
XLIII 23, fol. i6ia, it has not even the Massorah Parva and 
only gives the Keri, indicates the Haphtaroth and supplies 
the words which the original Scribe has omitted from the 
text and which are rather numerous. From fol. ibib to i88a, 
however, we have occasionally remarks from the Massorah 
Parva by a later Nakdan. By a later Nakdan also are the 
Massoretic Summaries at the end of Isaiah (fol. 48 b], Jeremiah 
(fol. i\2b) and Ezekiel (fol. i68), which record the number 
of verses and the middle verse in the respective books. 
The first Summary also gives the number of the Sedarim 
in Isaiah. The numbers given in these Summaries agree 
with the statements in the best attested Massorahs. 1 So 
too are the three instances in which other Codices are 
appealed to for various readings in Ezekiel. 2 

1 Vide supra, Part I, chap. VI, pp. 9194. 

2 Thus on nDK'W Ezek. XXIII 49 which is here the textual reading 
the Nakdan remarks against it nj'KtWI p^nfc "1HK "1BD3 (fol. 140^); on 



CHAP. XII.J Description of the Manuscripts. 519 

The writing, as already stated, is that of the Sephardic 
School and the letters exhibit the development noticeable 
in MSS. of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The 
difference between the Beth (3) and the Caph (2) is marked 
by a thin stroke projecting upwards in the lower horizontal 
line of the Beth. The difference between the Gimel (3) and 
the Nun (3) is indicated by the bottom line being almost 
semicircular. The He (H) and the Cheth (n) exhibit the 
latest form of development. The left shaft of the He is 
no longer closed at the top like the Cheth as is the case 
in Codices Nos. i and 2 of this List, but is quite open. 
The final letters too are not as short as in these early 
MSS., but are elongated far below the lines of the medials. 
There is not only a considerable space left between the 
verses, but the verse-divider (:) which is absent in the 
ancient Codex No. i is here prominently introduced and 
forms part of the original text. 

The text itself is strictly of the Western recension 
which is the same as our textus receptus. It is, however, 
carelessly written as may be seen from the number of 
omissions due to homoeoteleuta and to sheer negligence. 
The following examples will suffice to prove this statement. 

(i) Omissions due to homoeoteleuta. - There are 
no fewer than twenty-five omissions due to this cause. 

(i) isa. VI 5 ntf 11 * ..... * + *** '33K fol. 50 



ipb ip 126 

I-T I- - T 



(2) XXVIII n l|3b 

(3) xxix 8 

pprn nntf nail 1 ) 

(4) XLVI 4 DJpaxi .......... * D!St 35 a 



XXIV 12 he remarks 13)3)2 p"H!2 -1SDS1 (fol. 140^) and on H31, which is the 
original reading in XXXIII IO, he states DD1 "IfiS 1SD3 (fol. 



520 Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 



(5) Isa. LVI 2 1T ........ . ..... "lO fol. 41 a 

lOfen ib^na natf 

(6) M pan ....... . ..... WT ato 41 & 

WT &6 D'jn marn runt- 

For other instances see: (7) Jerem. Ill 9, fol. 51 a; 
(8) Jerem. XXXIII 8, fol. 8 4 a; (9) Jerem. XXXIII n, 
fol. 840; (10) Jerem. XXXVIII 36, fol. 90^; (n) Jerem. 
XLIV i, fol. 97fr; (12) Ezek. XX 30, 31, fol. 134*; (13) 
Ezek. XXV 3, fol. 141 b; (14) Ezek. XXVI 18, fol. i 4 3a; 
(15) Ezek. XXVIII 24, 26; XXIX 4, fol. 145^; (16) Ezek. 
XXXIII 22, fol. 151^; (17) Ezek. XXXVI i, fol. 153*; 
(.8) Ezek. XXXIX n, fol. 158*7; (19) Ezek. XLVI 2, fol. 
164^; (20) Ezek. XL VIII 13, fol. 167^; (21) Hosea III 4, 5, 
fol. 170^; (22) Zeph. II 2, fol. 197^; (23) Zeph. Ill 20, 
fol. 198^; (24) Zech. Ill 7, fol. 202fc; (25) Zech. XIV 19, 
fol. 2io&. In all these instances the Nakdan who revised 
the text duly supplied the omissions in the margin. 

(2) Omissions due to negligence. Of the numerous 
omissions which are due to the carelessness of the Scribe 
I subjoin the following examples. In Isa. XXV 1 1 nnfrn 
the swimmer, is omitted, which spoils the sense and mars 
the rhythm. In XXVII 9 3J3JP Jacob, is left out and the 
passage now states "by this, therefore, shall the iniquity 
of be purged". In XXIX 6 Ipsri thou shall be visited, is 
omitted, and the clause is simply "from the Lord of hosts 
with thunder". In XXXII 16 BSttfO judgment, is left out 
and we have it "then shall dwell in the wilderness" and 
we are not told what is to dwell there. In XXXVI i 
'"IJJ the cities of, is omitted and the passage as it now 
stands makes the clause impossible to construe. To 
indicate all the careless omissions which make the text 
talk nonsense would fill several pages. The Nakdan, how- 
ever, who revised the consonantal text of the Scribe, has 
in all these passages supplied the omissions in the margin. 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 521 

In the sectional divisions of the text, this MS. differs 
materially from the textus receptus. Thus for instance in 
Isaiah alone it has no section in 24 instances in which the 
present text has a Section 1 and vice versa it has a Section 
in ten passages in which there is no Section in the 
received text. 2 

A remarkable feature of this MS. is the absence of 
the Raphe stroke over the aspirated letters (D C 3 1 3 3), a 
fact which I have hitherto not noticed in any other 
Massoretic Codex. 

The graphic sign Kametz, however, has here its 
primitive form which is simply the Pathach with a dot 
under it in the middle as it is in the other MSS. 

The Mettieg or Goya is very rarely used and even the 
vowels before a composite Sheva have no Metheg, as will 
be seen from the following examples which I take from 
one page (fol. 23 a). 

as a hiding from Isa. XXXII 2 

it will work 6 

to practice 6 

thai are at ease 9, n 

and gird u 

shall come up 13 

the work of 17 

and the service of 17 

The Yod (') of the third person future after Vav 
conversive (1) has frequently no Dagesh. Here again I 
simply take the illustrations from one page of the MS. 
(fol. 95 a). 



1 Comp. Isa. I 18; V 22; VIII 3, 19; XVI 5; XVII 9; XIX 8; 
XX 3; XXIII 15; XXXV I; XXXVI I, 16; XXXVII I, 15, 36; XL 17, 
25; XLII 14; XLVII i; XLVIII 3; XLIX 24; LIII I; LXII 6; 
LXIV 15. 

2 Comp. Isa. XIII 5, 1 6, 17; XVII 7; XXIV 9; XXVII 5; XXX 26; 
XLIII 25; LVI 7; LXVI 15. 



522 Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

and he carried away captive Jerem. XLI 10 

and he carried them away captive 10 

and they took 12 

and they went 12 

and they found 1 2 

and they were glad 13 

The conceit of putting a Chateph-Pathach where a 
consonant with Sheva is followed by the same consonant, 
or of putting a Dagesh into the first letter of a word 
when the preceding word ends with the same letter, or 
into consonants which follow a gutteral with silent Sheva, 
finds no support in this MS. 1 as will be seen from the 
following examples. 

D'"l"lb Isa. I 23 "^b'bxV Isa. VII II B'^l!? Isa. I'I$ 

Q'PI?hn x i zb-bv XL 2 ^an 1 ? iv i 

T?? 3 1 Sb'bV n XLn 2 5 '"'D'?' 1 " 6 

32D . 34 2^"^3 Ezek. XXI 12 12?^ V 28 

XI 13 injjnrja Jerem. XL 8 ptt^n . VII n 

Beth-El, which occurs ten times in the Latter 
Prophets, is not only written uniformly in two words, but has 
in five instances two distinct accents 2 and in one instance 
is in two separate lines Beth (fV2) being at the end of 
one line and El (b$) at the beginning of the next line. 3 

A most important contribution which this MS. makes 
to Biblical criticism is the fact that it has still retained 
the abbreviated form of writing in at least one instance. 
Thus in Isa. XLIV 21 (fol. 23 a) we have the abbreviation 
If for ^JOf Israel. 4 

The relative positions which the Kethiv (3TI3) or the 
textual reading and the Keri (np) or the official and 

1 Vide supra, Part II, chap. I, pp 116134. 

2 Comp. Jerem. XLVIII 13; Hosea X 15; Amos V 5, 6; VII 13. 

3 Amos VII 10, fol. 183 b. 

4 Vide supra, Part II, chap. V, p. 166 &c. 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 523 

authoritative marginal substitute occupy in this MS. have 
still to be considered, inasmuch as they throw light upon 
the treatment which these variants have received in other 
MSS. and especially in the early editions. An analysis of 
these official variations in Isaiah will enable the student 
to form an approximate conclusion as to their proper 
position in the other books of the Hebrew Scriptures. 

In Isaiah there are no fewer than sixty-one of- 
ficial Keris or different marginal readings which the 
Massorah directs us to substitute for the textual reading 
or the Kethiv. Of these, thirty actually occupy the text 
itself or are the substantive readings in this MS. and there 
is no indication whatever that they are the Keri.* In 
seventeen instances the Kethiv or the consonants in the 
text have not only the vowel-points of the alternative 
reading, but have against them in the margin the Keri or 
the vowel-less consonants of the official reading 2 as the 
vowel-signs are already given with the textual consonants 
to which they do not belong, whilst in fifteen instances 
we have the strange appearance of the Kethiv or the 
consonants of the text exhibiting vowel-points which 
belong to other consonants or to the Keri without the 
official reading to which these graphic signs belong being 
given in the margin. 3 

The interest which attaches to this MS. arises from 
its supposed great antiquity. At the end of the Codex 

i They are: Isa. Ill 8, 16; V 29; IX 2; X 6, 13, 13, 13, 32; XII 5; 
XIV 9; XVI 3; XXIII 12; XXV IO; XXVI 20; XXVIII 15, 15; XXIX II; 
XXX 6; XXXII 7, 15; XXXVII 30; XLI 23; XLII 20, 24; XLV 2; 
XLVII 13; XLIX 13; LVII 19; LVIII 14. 

* They are as follows: Isa. Ill 15; IX 6; XIII 16; XVI 3; XXIII 13; 
XXX 32; XXXVI 12, 12; XLIV24; XLVI II; XLIX 5; LII 5; LIV 16; 
LXIII 9; LXV 4, 7; LXVI 17. 

3 Comp.Isa. XV 3; XVI 7; XVIH4; XXVI 20; XXX 5, 32; XXXV 2; 
XXXIX 2; XLIV 17; XLIX 6; LII 2; LV 13; LVI IO; LX 21; LXII 3. 



524 Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

(fol. 213^) there is a slip of parchment with the following 
words : 



DT ira-i T na'na 

The Latter Prophets 
A MS. of Rabenu Tarn. 

It is self evident that the slip could not have been 
written by this celebrated Scholar who was the grandson 
of Rashi and who was born circa A. D. 1 100 and died 
1171, since he would not describe himself as Rabenu Tarn == 
Our Pious Rabbin. 1 If this slip has not been attached by a 
later owner in order to exhance its value, it describes the 
MS. as having formed part of Rabenu Tarn's Library and 
in that case the Codex would at least be of the twelfth 
century. Whilst Kennicott, who devotes to it two and half 
lines of description, ascribes it to the beginning of the 
1 5th century, 2 the late Dr. Margoliouth, as will be seen 
from the following extract, assigns it to the sixth century. 

The work bears internal evidence that it was written at different times 
and I say without reserve that the greatest part of the MS. is of the sixth 
century. I have investigated all the known MSS. in Europe and Asia and 
have in consequence become acquainted with their different calligraphies. I, 
therefore, claim the right to pass a judgment independent of Kennicott and 
De Rossi. Kennicott was most assuredly led astray by the inscription of 
the MS. Dn irm T mTO a MS. of Rabamt Tarn. I have collated the very 
oldest MS. at Guber in the neighbourhood of Damascus which the Jews 
ascribe as belonging to the third century. The older portions of the MS. in 
question [i. e. Add. 4708] agree with that Codex in the writing. Moreover, 
I have seen the splendid and valuable MS. at Damascus which the Jews 
assert to be 1300 years old. Our MS. [i. e. Add. 4708] is much older than 
that one. The MS. at Guber and the first part of 126 [= Add. 4708] are 
according to my opinion of the sixth century. 3 

1 Comp. Kitto, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature s. v. Tarn, Vol. Ill, p 945. 

2 Comp. Dissentatio Generalis, Cod. 126, p. 387, ed. Bruns Bronwik 1783. 

3 Das Werk tragt selbstbestimmende Spuren an sich, dass es zu ver- 
schiedeuen Zeiten geschhebeu wurde, und ich sage ohne Zuriickhaltung, dass 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 525 

It will be seen that Dr. Margoliouth bases his 
conclusion solely upon the calligraphy of the MS. 
Dr. Heidenheim ; however, who has subjected the Codex to 
an extensive collation in four separate articles, 1 says that 
though he does not venture with Dr. Margoliouth to place 
it in the sixth century, still maintains that it may have 
been written between the sixth and the eighth centuries 
and that at all events it is the oldest Codex in Europe. 
His reasons for assigning it to this early period are (i) 
the form of the letters and (2) the variations which occur 
in this MS. and which agree with the Septuagint. He, 
therefore, concludes that it must date from a time when 
the Jews were not only still familiar with the Septuagint, 
but when Judaism still acknowledged the authority of this 
ancient Version. 

As regards the first statement, we have already 
adverted to the fact that the characters exhibited in this 
MS. are a later form of development than those in Codices 

der grosste Theil des Manuscripts aus dem sechsten Jahrhundert ist. Ich 
habe alle bekannten Manuscripte Europas und Asiens untersucbt und bin 
hierdurch mit den verschiedenen Kalligrapbien derselben vertraut geworden. 
Ich glaube darum das Recht beanspruchen zu diirfen, cin von Kennicott und 
De Rossi unabhangiges Urtheil zu fallen. Kennicott wurde ganz gewiss 
durch die Aufschrift des Manuscripts Dfl IJ^S"! T fliTO irre geleitet. Ich 
habe das sehr alte Manuscript zu Guber in der Nahe von Damaskus, das 
die Juden als aus dem dritten Jahrhundert stammend ausgeben, collaticnirt. 
Die alteren Theile des in Frage stehenden Manuscripts Kennicott 126 
stimmen mit diesem Manuscript hinsichtlich der Schreibweise iiberein. Ferner 
habe ich das pracht- und werthvolle Manuscript zu Damaskus gesehen, wofiir 
die Juden ein Alter von 1300 Jahren beanspruchen. Unser Manuscript (d. h. 
Ken. 126) ist viel alter als jenes. Das Manuscript von Guber und der erste 
Theil des von 126 Ken. sind meiner Ansicht nach aas dem sechsten Jahr- 
hundert u. s. w. Comp. Heidenheim, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fur Englisch- 
theologischc Forschung, Vol. I, p. 263, note! Gotha 1861 - 62. 

1 Comp. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift &c., Vol. I, pp. 259274; 
396405; 552 562; Gotha 1861 62. Vol. II, pp. 7279, Gotha 1865. 



526 Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

Nos. i and 2 of this List which belong to the ninth and 
tenth centuries. Indeed the writing is such as we meet 
with in the Sephardic Codices of the twelfth and thirteenth 
centuries. This is the period to which the Codex would 
now be assigned by any student who is acquainted with 
the present state of Hebrew Palaeography. The second 
argument which Dr. Heidenheim bases upon the variations 
in this MS. ignores the fact that the Codex is carelessly 
written and the few among the numerous omissions, which 
happen also to be omissions in the Septuagint, were either 
supplied by the Scribe himself or by the first Nakdan 
who certainly was a contempory of the original Scribe. 
This Codex is No. 126 in Kennicott's List. 

No. II. 

Add. 9398. 

This MS., which is a huge folio and consists of 316 
leaves, is written in a beautiful German hand probably of 
the 1 4th century. It contains the second and third divisions 
of the Hebrew Scriptures, i. e. the Prophets and the 
Hagiographa with the exception of the Five Megilloth. 
Though the Megilloth form a constituent part of the 
Hagiographa they have been removed from the third 
division and appended to the Pentateuch for ritual purposes 
which is often the case both in MSS. and in the early 
editions. 1 This shows beyond doubt that the MS. before 
us is the second Volume of the original Codex and that 
the first Volume, which consisted of the Pentateuch and 
the Five Megilloth and probably also of the Haphtaroth, 
is missing. 

The order of the Prophets is that exhibited in 
Column I in the Table on page 6, whilst that of the 

1 Vide supra, Part I, chap. I, p. 4. 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 527 

Hagiographa is the same as in the early editions which is 
shown in Column VIII in the Table on page 7 only without 
the Megilloth. The text is furnished with vowel-points and 
accents. Each folio is divided into three columns, and 
each column, as a rule, has thirty- four lines. The upper 
margin on each page has two lines of the Massorah Magna 
and the bottom margin three lines, whilst the outer 
margins and the margins between the columns contain the 
Massorah Parva. The first word of each book is in large 
letters. The Massoretic Summary, giving the number of 
verses, the middle verse and the Sedarim, which is usually 
appended to each book, is not given at the end of the books. 

Though the text as a whole is that of the Western 
School which is the textus receptus, it exhibits many 
variations from the Massoretic recension in its orthography, 
the vowel-points, the accents and the readings. Thus for 
instance when a word is too large for the end of the line 
not only is the abbreviated form of it used to fill up the 
line and the whole word is repeated at the beginning of 
the next line, but the abbreviated part is sometimes given 
in the margin as is the case in Josh. XII 20, 22, 23. Here 
the expression "IPIX one could not be got into the line. 
The Scribe, therefore, put in all the three instances the 
letters Aleph (S) and Cheth (n) into the text and gives the 
Daleth (1) in the margin. 1 

The extent to which the text deviates from the 
present Massoretic recension in the .consonants and the 
vowel-points may be approximately inferred from the 
following collation of one chapter. 

M. T. MS. M. T. MS. 

nton^n josh, n 6 mwrrpa ,-IWR-^R Josh, n i 

ttatf 8 . nenb "itenb * 3 

pRn-nR pRM-^a-nR ,9 n1a P^ 

1 Vide supra, Part II, chap. V, pp. 165166. 



528 Introduction. [CHAP. XU. 

M. T. MS. M. T. MS. 

<-nx josh, ii 1 8 firp^ flrrob josh, n 10 

19 onix nnx 10 

19 p -rnnx Tnnx WIT* 13 

n n 2O "ITEI IJ-C'BS n 14 

20 iTan ""T?? B n J 4 

xin-js xin-js 21 

13T3 WT3 24 

p rj'ai irai vrai in 4 
n^aa rnaa 4 



Some of these variations have been altered by the 
original Scribe and some by the Nakdan who revised the 
Codex. 

It has the two verses in Joshua XXI, viz. 36, 37, 
with the usual vowel-points and accents, without any remark 
that they are absent in other Codices. It also has Neh. 
VII 68, but without the vowel-points and accents, and 
with the Massoretic Annotator's remark in the margin that 
this verse does not belong to the description here given. 1 

^>S~fV3 Beth-el is uniformly written in two words, and 
though the Metheg is expressed before a composite 
Sheva or Segol it is used most arbitrarily, as will be seen 
from the following examples taken from two pages. 



\T1. Josh. II 5 irXS Josh. I 3 

D'tP3ni 7 J^axi 7 

'"ioxn _ 10 mwp^? n _7 

V. T T :|- 

nnainn w 10 B'3xn r n 3, 4, 5 

* .. _ w 7 _. _ . n n T* j 



The Dagesh in the suffix third person singular is not 
placed in the body of the He (Pi), but under it as if it were 
the graphic sign Chirek (n), e. g. HOttft and her name Josh. 
II i; r6 to her Josh. II 6, 14; nfpa her house Josh. II 15 &c. 



:cn rirn p nn-iBi D'CID Comp. foi. 276 </. 



CHAP. XII.J Description of the Manuscripts. 521) 

This is a feature which is generally characteristic of MSS. 
belonging to the German School. 

It has no Dagesh in a consonant at the beginning of 
a word if the same consonant happens to terminate the 
immediately preceding word, as will be seen from the 
following: 

ptrb-bK Josh. XVIII 19 prp Josh. I I &c. 

a xxn 5 ntfa-np 5 &c. 

-js 27 ina D2'32 iv 6 

-!a dripim xxin 6 onatao anxan v 5 

D'nataa D'Km 6 

It has no Dagesli in a consonant which follows 
gutturals with .silent Sheva. Comp. Vjfonb Josh. IX 12; 

irr xm 25, xxi 37; Darto xv 39 ; r6na xvn 3 . Nor 

is the Sheva changed into Chateph-Pathach when a 
consonant with a simple Sheva is followed by the same 
consonant. Comp. WSJ Josh. VIII 27, XI 14. It has, however, 
^DD Josh. VI 15, fol. 6 a, and IICSTI Judg. X 8, fol. 24 fc, 
thus showing that this practice was already beginning 
to be introduced into MSS. of the German Schools. 

In one instance the Massoretic Annotator gives the 
alternative reading of Spanish Codices. Thus in Jerem. LI 3, 
where this MS. reads Ssn . . . ^K the negative particle, the 
Reviser tells us that this reading is in accordance with 
Rashi, but that the Spanish Codices read it "^XT unto, 
against : 1 

In another place, where the text of this MS. reads 
^/On (Ezek. XXIII 15) the participle passive plural con- 
struct, the Massoretic Annotator states that he had found 
it in other Codices ^Tttn adjective plural construct, which 
is the reading of the textiis receptns, though he does not 

1 ^Kl 'DECK "IBC^ ^JO ; E 'tin Comp. fol. 131 rt. For the important 
difference in the sense of the passage which this variation yields see above 

Part II, chap. XI, p. 317. 

II 



530 Introduction. [CHAP. Xll. 

specify the MSS. 1 On three occasions the Massoretic 
Annotator appeals to the Massorah, twice against the 
reading's in the MS. and once in support of it and against 
Rashi. Thus on Nah. I i, where the MS. has flTf! vision, 
the absolute, he states that according to the Massorah it 
is |1*n the vision of, in the construct. 2 On Nah. II 14, where 
the MS. has H33"! her chariots, he states that Rashi ex- 
plains it without the suffix, but that the Massorah supports 
the MS. reading. 3 On Neh. XI 17 again, where the MS. 
reads rD'Q Michah, with He at the end, he states that 
according to the Massorah it is with Aleph (WQ). 4 

Besides other omissions, this Codex contains no fewer 
than thirty-two which are entirely due to homeoteleuta. 5 
One of these omissions is of special interest inasmuch as 
it confirms the instance we have adduced from i Kings 

VIII 1 6. We have shown that the phrase omitted in 
Kings is preserved in the parallel passage in 2 Chron. 

1 '-Ifjn 'Ita "Tun Comp. fol. 1440. 
' f!7PI Can }1in Comp. fol. 194/7. 

3 n "EG cam nnnn ETB 'en res-} Comp. fol. 194^. 

4 K "re can ( xa nra Comp. fol. 278 b. 

5 Comp. (i) Josh. II 16, fol. 2*7; (2) Judg. IX 2, fol 23^; (3) Judg. 

IX 20, fol. 250; (4) i Sam. X 18, fol. 37*1; (5) i Sam. XV 3, fol. 410; 
(6) I Sam. XXIII 18, fol. 46^; (7) 2 Kings II 13, 14, fol. 850; (8) 2 Kings 
III 4, fol. 85/7; (9) 2 Kings IV 43, fol. 870; (10) 2 Kings VII 4, fol. 88Z>; 
(u) 2 Kings XI n, fol. gib; (12) Jerem. XXV 35, 36, fol. iis/>; (13) 
Jerem. XXXII 37, fol. I2O&; (14) Ezek. VIII 5, fol. 136*7; (15) Ezek. XIV 
22, 23, fol. 1390; (16) Ezek. XX 5, fol. 142*7; (17) Ezek XXXI 18, fol. 
148^; (18) Ezek. XXXVII 16, fol. 152^; (19) Ezek. XL 44, fol. 154^; 
(20) Isa. XXXVII 29, fol. 1720; (2i) Isa. XXXIX 4, fol. I73a; (22) Hosea 
XIV 7, fol. l86; (23) Jonah III 3, 4, fol. 1920; (24) Ps. CXXIX 2, 3, 
fol. 2320; (25) Neh. I, 2, 3, fol. 2720; (26) I Chron. VI 20, 21, fol. 283/7; 
(27) i Chron. VI 59, fol. 284*7; (28) i Chron. VIII 32, fol. 285*7; (29) 
I Chron. XXIII 5, fol. 292^; (30) 2 Cbron. VI 6. fol. 2o8/>; (31) 2 Chron. 
XXIII 8, fol 307^: and (32) 2 Chron. XXV 25, fol. 309*1 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 531 

VI 6. 1 Now in this MS. the Scribe has not only omitted this 
very passage which the ancient Scribe omitted in i Kings 
VIII 1 6, but the whole verse, because both verses five 
and six end with the same expression, viz. ^5Ofe^ Israel, 
Some of these omissions have been supplied in the margin 
by the original copyist and some by different Nakdanim 
who periodically revised the text. 

There is one feature, though not peculiar to this MS., 
which is yet to be noticed. The Scribe or the Nakdan has 
often erased a reading because it was either a mistake or 
contrary to the Massorah and left the erased space 
vacant. 2 When a; subsequent reviser supplied the missing 
word or words he could not always fit them into the 
space and he was, therefore, obliged to write the suppletive 
smaller. This accounts for PIN Isa. XVI i being smaller 
in Codex No. 9, from which Dr. Heidenheim has drawn such 
a remarkable conclusion 3 as to the antiquity of the MS. 

A remarkable omission occurs at the end of Jeremiah. 
On fol. 132^ Jeremiah LII 29 34 are omitted and the 
suppletive is by a much later hand. The cause of the 
omission is due to a practice which obtained among the 
copyists and which was followed by the early printers. 
When the Scribe wanted to finish a book within a certain 
number of leaves and was anxious to begin the text of 
the next book on a fresh folio, he not unfrequently had 
only one or two columns on the last folio and left the 
space of the other columns entirely blank. If the text 
which was to occupy the last leaf was small in quantity 
the Scribe gradually diminished the length of the lines 
and thus produced a kind of tapering apex, as will be 

1 Vide supra, Part II, chap. VI, pp. 174, 175. 

- Comp. folios T,6b; 37^; SCa-b; 113^; H4<7; 173^ &c. &c. 

3 Comp. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fiir Etig/ische TheoJogie, Vol. I, 

p. 267, Gotha 1861. 

IT 



532 Introduction. [CHAP. Xll. 

seen on folio loiab of this very Codex where the end 
of Kings is so arranged. The Scribe of the MS. before 
us had manifestly reserved the last six verses of Jeremiah 
for such an arrangement on a special folio which he, 
however, omitted to insert. 

According to a note on fol. 113/7 this MS. was 
purchased for ten gold florins in the year 1436, by 
Abraham b. Joel Cohen who records that he effected this 
transaction on the second of Sivan of that year. 1 From a 
memorandum which is signed by Dr. Adam Clarke and which 
is attached to the MS. we learn that this Codex was one 
of a collection of ten MSS. and this distinguished Divine 
acquired the whole collection in 1823. As this memorandum 
is of interest to Biblical students I subjoin the following 
extract. 

These MSS. have been long preserved in two families; first in that of 
Stiultens, and since the year 1726 in that of Mr. John Van der Hagen. 

They seem to have been an heirloom in the latter family; and to 
have descended regularly to that son in the family who should enter into 
the sacred Ministry, but on the death of the Revd. John Van der Hagen, 
about the year 1797, the son who was expected to enter the sacred Order, 
having refused to do so, the family agreed to sell the Library, containing 
these Ten MSS., by public auction, and they were accordingly advertised to 
be sold at Utrecht in June 1823. 

I requested the late Mr. Wm. Baynes, to go over and buy them for 
me. They were marked in the Cat. as ten different Lots; at his request, the 
ten lots were sold in one . . . 

Mr. Baynes, who was then my agent, said "he had difficulty to buy 
them, as some of the Professors in that University wished them not to 
go out of the Country; but when they learnt that they were for me, they 
were satisfied, as they concluded, they would then be sacred to the use of 
Biblical Criticism". 

Haydon Hall, Pinner, Middlesex Adam Clarke. 

April 1 6 1832. 



(?) "TDK jpaVn rb"b\ BOV 12 -mm -sin: mcr ira Trip IECH nt < 

: j"E i B" 2.-C:- -:EK .... rrrran prn bs" -^ sn-nx -;K a-ic*? Comp. fol. 1 13 b. 



CHAP. XII ] Description of the Manuscripts. 533 

The whole of this important Collection consisting of 
the ten MSS. were bought by the British Museum from 
the Rev. J. B. Clarke the son of Dr. Adam Clarke in 
February 1834. 

No. 12. 

Add. 9399. 

This Codex is the second of the Collection of ten 
MSS. which Dr. Adam Clarke purchased at Utrecht. Like 
its predecessor (No. 10) it is a large folio written in a 
beautiful German hand circa A. D. 1250 and contains 
Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets and the 
Hagiographa. The text which is that of the Western 
recension and which is furnished with the vowel-points, 
the accents and both the Massorahs Parva and Magna, 
deviates in many respects from the textus receptus. 

In its present form the MS. consists of 249 folios. 
Each folio has three columns and each column, as a rule, 
has 30 lines. The upper margin of each folio has two lines, 
of the Massorah Magna and the lower margin three lines, 
whilst the outer margins and the margins between the 
columns contain the Massorah Parva. The order of the 
Hagiographa is Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, 
Lamentations, Esther, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel, Ezra- 
Nehemiah and Chronicles. It will be seen that this order 
does not coincide with any of the sequences exhibited in 
the Table on page 7, though when taken separately the 
Five Megilloth coincide with the order of Column III in 
the Table on page 4, whilst the rest of the Hagiographa 
coincide with the sequence exhibited in Column VIII 
in the Table on page 7 which is followed in the 
early editions. It is to be regretted that Ezek. XXVIII 
1 3 XXXIX 2; 2 Chron. XVI 5 XXVIII ga and 
XXXVI 12 23 are missing. The first word in Isaiah 



f>34 Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

and in all the books in the Hagiographa is in large 
ornamental letters. In the other books of the Prophets 
the blank space reserved for the ornamental initial word 
has not been filled up. 

Both the writer of the Codex and the original owner 
for whom it was written are mentioned in diiferent parts 
of the MS. Whilst at the end of the Psalms the Scribe 
simply finishes the book with the pious ejaculation Be of 
good courage, and let us be courageous, may the Scribe 
never be hurt* which is frequently appended to a book, 
or to one of the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
or to the end of the whole volume especially in MSS. of 
the German School, he gives in two places his own name 
in this customary phrase. Both at the end of Malachi and 
at the end of Job he adds Be of good courage and let us 
be courageous, may Solomon the Scribe never be hurt.~ In 
accordance with the custom which obtained in the German 
School he also indicates his name in the text itself. Thus 
in i Chron. XXIII i and 2 Chron. VI i where nb*?ttf Solomon 
begins the line, he marked it with a flourish in both 
instances to show his name. :i The name of the patron for 
whom he wrote the Codex, the Scribe gives in hollow 
letters in the large ornamental word Tttf Song, with which 
the book of Canticles begins. Within the thick strokes of 
the letters are the words Jacob the son of the Saint 
R. Joetz.*> 

The text itself which is that of the Western School 
exhibits a number of variations from the present Massoretic 
text in the orthography, in the consonants, in the vowel- 
points and the accents, the most important of which I have 

1 pr K 1 ? -IBICH pmnr p:n Comp. foi. 147^. 

2 prr x 1 ? iBicn na^p prnnr prn Comp. foi. 83 a, 

3 Corop. foi. 227 & and 235/7. 

, ...... ,. r -.-tp- p -py Comp. foi. 86 b. 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 535 

noticed in the notes to my edition of the Bible. The 
following collation of the first chapter of Ezekiel with the 
Massoretic text will show approximately the extent of 
these variations: 

Massor. Text MS. Massor. Text MS. 

Ezek. I 1 6 T|1rn ^1n3 Ezek. I i 

Bna.ai 18 '^rty "i??"^2 l 
nkba nixSa 18 ^an nb:h nbian ni^ab 2 

6 ~ : !/? - <T : Iv^v - j T : 

r3Bixn B'afikn ,,19 ""inj"b^ "Hj'bj? * 3 

PX *?p iiPK'^j? 20 bfcvynn batrnn 4 

~ -: j- T : - - 

3'3BiKrri B"|iBni ,,20 B.TB33 nnna Bn-sssannna 8 
anarb aniairb 20 riranx nran r 8 

^'Dr 1 n .. 22 ' F 1 ?^? I^ 1 ?^? n 9 

Bn-nl'ia ,, 23 nlialn ninan .. n 

I-TBar n3'B"inDn'E33n3 <i B"in ,,24 H3n''n' 1 ia narfri'ia r n 

ptrntnas trx njnaa f 27 B^B^H a^'s^n 13 

ijra }3ra . 28 nabnna x-n nabnna x^ni ,,13 

n^a 1 ! man 28 B'SBixn B'afikn r 16 

One of the remarkable features of this MS. is its use 
of actual abbreviations when a word is too long to be 
got into the line. As this is an important contribution to 
textual criticism, corroborating what we have stated on 
this point, 1 I subjoin the following examples: 

fol. 33 a HKiaa = ioaa Ezek. I 27 

40 b Yr6atn = "nbaxn xvi 19 
40 & nBK3an = ???'?? n 3 2 

40 b TniJina = Tvwna 33, 3 6 



1 Vide supra. Part II, chap. V, pp. 165170. 



53G Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 



foi. 41 b infp^s = np-i:::: tzek. xvi 52 

44 a TNpfctf? 1 ! = Btfsi xx 35 

48 a rnyawnS < atfr . xxiv 26 

51 a nhos = inas XL 28 

57<i DTlxai = TIXM XLVI1I 17 

57 a nnxian = nxinn 18 

. 57 a irrn-) = T?"? . 20 

238.1 rttsoan = ^sotan 2 chron. vin 6 
. 238,1 nrvhotpa = natfa 2 14 

In all these instances a later reviser has supplied the 
letters in a smaller hand. 

Another remarkable feature in this MS. in the division 
of the Psalter into 159 Psalms. The variation in the number 
is due to several causes, as will be seen from the following 
explanation. Up to Psalm LVI the MS. and the printed text 
coincide. Owing, however, to the homoeoteleuton in Psalms 
LVII i and LVIII i the Scribe omitted Psalm LVII. Hence 
from Psalm LVII to Psalm LXXVII the numbering in 
the MS. is one Psalm less, that is Psalms LVIII LXXVII 
of the printed text are Psalms LVII LX XVI in the MS. 
As Psalm LXXVIII of the printed text is divided into two 
Psalms in the MS., viz. (i) verse 137 and (2) verse 3872, 
this restores the evenness in the numeration between the 
MS. and the printed text up to Psalm XCIII. But here again 
a divergence takes place, since Psalms XCIV and XCV 
of the printed text are one Psalm in the MS. so that 
Psalms XCVI CXIV of the printed text are Psalms 
XCV CXIIl in the MS. Hence Psalms XCVI CXIV are 
Psalms XCV CXIII or one number behind in the MS. 
Henceforth the divergence is gradually increasing in the 
MS. Thus Psalms CXV and CXVI are each two Psalms in 
the MS , viz. CXV i - 1 1 is CXIV in the MS. CXV 1218 
is CXV; Psalm CXVIi n is CXVI in the MS. and CXVI 
1219 is CXVIII in the MS. Psalms CXVII to CXVII1 4 
are one Psalm, i. e. CXVIII in the MS. and Psalm 



CHA1'. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 537 

CXVJII 5-29 is two Psalms in the MS., viz. CXVIII 
5 24 is Psalm CXIX, and Psalm CXVIII 25 29 in the 
printed text is Psalm CXX in the MS.; Psalm CXIX 
of the printed text constitutes eight Psalms in the MS. 
CXXI CXXVIII. Hence Psalms CXX CXXVII are 
Psalms CXXIX- CXXXVI. The two Psalms CXXVIII 
and CXXIX are one Psalm, i. e. CXXXVII in the MS. 
so that Psalms CXXX CL are CXXXVIII - CLIX in the 
MS. The following Table will exhibit the difference between 
the MS. and the Massoretic text. 





Printed text 




MS. 


Psalms 


I LVI 




= I LVI 


P 


LVII 




= 





LVIII - LXXVII 




=; LVII LXXVI 





LXXVIII 


i 37 


= LXXVII 





n 


38-72 


== LXXVIII 





LXXIX - XCIII 




= LXXIX XCIII 





XCIV XCV 




=-. XCIV 


n 


XCVI-CXIV 




= XCV CXIII 





cxv 


I II 


= CXIV 








1218 


= cxv 





CXVI 


I - II 


= CXVI 


n 


,, 


1219 


= CXVI I 


n 


CX VII CXVIII 


4 


= CXVIII 


n 


CXVIII 


5-24 


= CXIX 





cxvur 


25-29 


= CXX 





CXIX 


i -16 


= CXXI 


n 


n 


1740 


= CXXII 


n 





41-64 


= CXXIII 


n 


n 


65-88 


= CXXIV 


n 





89 - 112 


= cxxv 





n 


113-136 


= CXXVI 


n 


n 


137160 


= CXXVII 


n 


n 


161 - 176 


= CXXVIII 





CXX CXXVII 




= CXXIX -CXXXVI 


,. CXXVIII- CXXIX 


== CXXXVII 


w 


cxxx-cr. 




== cxxxvm-cr.ix 



538 Introduction. [CHAP. XII 

This is the first MS. in the List which has ^NfV3 
Bethel, uniformly as one word. This is in accordance with 
the Eastern recension. It does not, however, countenance 
the fad of putting a Chateph-Pathach where a consonant 
with Sheva is followed by the same consonant/ nor of 
putting a Dagesh into the first letter of a word when the 
preceding word ends with the same letter 3 nor of inserting 
a Dagesh into a consonant which follows gutturals with 
silent Sheva. 3 The Metheg and the Goya are more generally 
and more regularly used in this MS. as indeed is the case 
in Codices which emanate from the German Schools. 

At the end of Ruth the Massoretic Annotator gives 
the old tradition that Samuel wrote the Books of Ruth, 
Judges and Samuel. 4 Only in one instance have I found 
the Nakdan quote a variant from other Codices. Thus on 
Isa. XX 5 where the MS. reads 01220 their expectation, as 
it is in the textus receptus, the Nakdan states that according 
to other MSS. it is DBDQ with Segol under the Memf On 
Ezra VIII 30 where the MS. reads ^|3tfQ weight, with 
Kametz, which is against the textus receptus, he supports it 
by appealing to the authority of Parchon (flour, circa 
A. D. 1130 1 1 80) in justification of it. 6 

We have still to call attention to the remarkable 
number of omissions in the text of this MS. which are 
entirely due to homoeoteleuta. There are no fewer than 



1 Comp. 'bbtt Ezek. IV 12 ; *h\ IV 15; 03'^n VI 4; 
VI 13; '^V* XXVI 12 &c &c. 

2 Comp. 3b-h*\ Ezek. xi 21; nena-Ki xxi 14; orS bxpirr 
xxiv 24; c'n'nb-bs xxvn 5 &c. &c 

3 Comp. blanK Ezek. V 11, VII 4, 9; iOnb XVIII 7, 16; -ay.T XXI 36, 

xxii 31; npno xxrv 16, 21, 25; in'bpn xxii 26 &c. &c. 

4 I-IECI D'ttBd m-i ICC rrC hKVZV Comp. fol. 86 a. 

5 DC2O X"D Comp. fol. lofc. 

6 pmfis bp ^ra Comp. fol. 197^. 



CHAK XII j Description of the Manuscripts. 539 

sixty-eight such instances. As this is a subject which has 
been almost entirely ignored in the criticism of the Hebrew 
text, I subjoin the passages. 

(i) Isaiah XVII 13, fol. 9/7; (2) XXV 6, Ibl. lib; (3) XXX 23, fol. 
1511; (4) XXXI 17, fol. i6a; (5) XLVIII 5, fol. 24^; (6) LII 2, fol. 26a. 

(7) Ezekiel VI 5, fol. 35 a; (8) VII 19, fol. 36 a; (9) XV 5, fol. 40/1; 
(10) XL 30. fol. 50/7; (11) XLIII 3, fol. 53^; (12) XLIV 10, fol. 540; 
(13) XLV 14, fol. 55; (14) XLVI 10, fol. 55*; (15) XLVIII 17, fol. 57a; 
(16) XLVIII 20, fol. 57 a 

(17) Hosea II 18, fol. 58/7; (18) Jonah I 8, fol. 6Sa; (19) Hag. II 14, 
fol. 75 b; (20) Zech. IV 6, fol. 77 a; (21) VIII 9, fol. 78 b; (22) XII 12, 
fol. 80 b. 

(23) sMer II 19, fol. 99 a; (24) III 12, fol. 99 b. 

(25) Psalms XXIV 10, fol. 109,3; (26) XXIX 8, fol. noa; (27) XLIV 4, 
fol. 115^; (28; LVII, fol. 118/7; (29) XC 17, fol. 130/7; (30) XCVII 9, 
fol. 132^; (31) CI 5, fol. 132/7; (32) CXIX 48. fol. 139/7; 133) CXX 3, 
fol. 141 a; (34) CXXV 3, fol. I42a; '35) CXXXIX II, J2, fol. 1440. 

(36) Proverbs XI 9, 10, fol. 152^; (37) XIV 12, 13, fol. 153/7; 
(38) XXVII 20, fol. 1 60 a. 

(39) Job XXIV 16, 17, fol. 17 1 b. 

(40) Daniel I 8, fol. 179*2; (41) I 15, fol. 179/7; (42) III 3, fol. 181/7, 
(43) V 3, fol 184^; (44) VI 24. fol. l86rt; (45) VIII 5, fol. 187^; (46) VIII 
13, fol. 187/7; (47) X 17, fol. 189/7; (48) XI 18, fol. 190^. 

(49) Ezra II 70, fol. 193^; (50) X 25, fol. 199/7; (51) Neh. VII 16, fol. 
204^; (52) VII 18, fol. 204; (53) XI 5, fol. 2o8a; (54) XII 39, fol. 2OoZ>. 

(55) / Citron c/es XI 6, fol. 219/7; (56) XIX 17, fol. 225/7; (57) XXV 15, 
fol. 228/7; (58) XXV 30, fol 229<z; (59) XXVII 29, fol 231 a; (60) 2 Chron. 
IV 12, fol. 235^1; (6i) VIII 6, fol. 2380; (62) VIII 8, 9, fol. 2380; (63) IX 4, 
fol. 238/7; (64) XIJI 15, 16, fol. 241/7; (65) XXIX 6, fol. 243/7; (66) XXIX 19. 
fol. 244; (67, XXIX 22, fol. 244^; (68) XXXIV 27, fol. 248/7. 

Besides these omissions, some of which have been 
supplied by the Scribe himself and some by successive 
Revisers, the Scribe wrote one column twice containing 
Ps. LXXXIX 1 6 a 2 8 a. This, the Nakdan not only left 
without points and accents, but describes in the margin 
against the first word as due to dittography. ' 



~pis6 K^D mn miayn * Comp. fol. 129/7. 



540 IntroductioD. [CHAl>. XII. 

The MS. has not Neh. VII 68 and no statement is 
made in the margin that it is to be found in some Codices. 

No. 13. 
Add. 9400. 

This is the third of the Collection of ten MSS. which 
belonged to the Hagen family. and which was purchased 
by Dr. Adam Clarke. It consists of 337 folios. It contains 
the Pentateuch with the Targum of Onkelos in alternate 
verses, the Five Megilloth and the Haphtaroth. The order 
of the Megilloth is that which is exhibited in Column I 
in the Table on page 4 and which is followed in the early 
editions. 

Each folio has three columns and each column has 

28 lines. The text which is written in a beautiful German 



hand circa A. D. 1250 is furnished with vowel-points and 
accents. The Chaldee of Onkelos too has not only the 
vowel-points, but the same accents as the Hebrew Original. 
Though the Scribe has left five ruled lines in the bottom 
margin on each folio for the Massorah Magna, the Massoretic 
Annotator has not furnished the Codex with this portion 
of the Corpus. Even the Massorah Parva, which is given 
in the outer margins and in the margins between the 
columns, is of an extremely scanty nature. 

The text generally exhibits the vowel-points of the Keri 
where such a variant exists and where the official reading 
is given in the margin. The fifty-four Parashiyoth (fiVEHD) or 
hebdomadal Lessons according to the Annual cycle into which 
the Pentateuch is divided are indicated in the margin by 
the letters 'ID or simply by D [= ntPID] which are generally 
surmounted by a pen-and-ink design representing the head 
of some animal. The Open and Closed Sections are 
indicated simply by a vacant space and indented lines. 
Those, however, show only the paragraph, but do not 



CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 541 

enable us to decide whether it is an Open or Closed 
Section. 

On Levit. X 16 the Massorah Parva remarks that it 
is the middle word in the Pentateuch, that the word tPTT 
seeking, rendered "diligently" in the Authorised Version, 
is the last word of the first half and that the second ttfll 

- T 

lie sought, begins the second half. 1 On Levit. XI 42 the 
Massorah Parva states that the letter Vav (1) in the word 
p'na belly, is the middle letter in the Pentateuch. 2 

As to the calligraphy of the MS., though the final 
letters are not much longer than the medials, the characters 
are very distinct. The difference between the Beth (3) and 
the Caph (3), between the Gimel (3) and the Nun (3), 
between the Dalefh (]) and the Resh (1), the He (,-|) and 
the Cheth (f[) &c. is almost impossible to mistake, and the 
writing as a whole exhibits a perfect state of development. 

Though the text is that of the Western School, it 
exhibits considerable variations from the textns receptus in 
the consonants, the vowel-points and in the accents. That 
which will strike the student most is the use of the Dagesh 
and the Raphe mark. Letters at the beginning of words 
have Dagesh without any apparent cause, as will be seen 
from the following examples: 

rtyKfp n&mn-fai Gen. vi 20 ns rr6in rb* Gen. vi 9 

nans in enwa vn 23 p'ia trx ns 9 

aiKn tfarnx ix 5 pnai rraa ,,14 

The same inexplicable use is made of the Raphe 
stroke over the letters, viz. 

nax D'5n 'Gen. vi 15 nnntwnjni Gen. vi 12 

nann nnai 16 \3B^xa 13 

f 13 



^tt cm nwna niinn "an Comp. foi. 140^. 
2 nmnn nrmx 'an pnrt " Comp. foi. 142 fc. Vuic supra, I'art i, 

chap. VI, p. 69. 



'V 



542 Introduction. [CHAP. Xli. 

In the Chaldee Paraphrase which follows each verse 
of the Hebrew text, the Dagesh and the Raphe are still 
more copiously employed. This shows the length to 
which some of the Nakdanim have been carried by the 
fine-spun theories of eccentric purists. 

The following collation of Pericope Noah [H3 = Gen. 
VI 9 XI 32] will show the variations in the consonants, 
the vowel-points and the accents between this MS. and 
the revised text. 

M. T. MS. M. T. MS. 

'0' 'bz TT wb? vn'i Gen ix 29 rnfmsn ,-nrnsn Gen. YII 8 

en err em DC x 2 "<tfx "?ri -icK-tei 8 

* 3 '5#n 'F&J " 

i. n 5 ni3T ro'ya .11 

no break [HOTIC] D'~!3Jtt1 ' w 13 p"?n p?H r VIII 6 

OIT132 orr^32 20 2^? nrV 2"ip-nr l ? , 1 1 

va'5 "2 T*2 '2 .25 DTI'TK ns"ti CTT^K i2Ti 15 

T f : T T J L* T( J" ~ I" v: i" -i~ " " 

JtSp" 1 I^p' ri 25 "13J" "lit* n 21 

26 T"iJ?2l2 VTIJ?S8 f 21 

28 -n Kin-ntfK -mm ntf< B ix 3 
jttp; I9J5;, 29 nb2K^ rf>6 n . 3 

DT f >h l pinb orhb'nb ,,32 nan?; nan22i 10 

nnri nny , xi 6 rr i r>' < ") !| C'TX"!' l6 

In Gen. VI 3 the MS. has D2^'3 with Pathach under 
Gimel, i. e. /or ///#/ ^^ a/so. The name Beth-el is uniformly 
written ^XfV3 Bethel as is mostly the case in MSS. of the 
German School. Only in one instance have I found that 
the Massoretic Annotator who altered some of the variants 
appeals to other Codices. Gen. XXIV 28 the MS. has 
pnrn and she ran, with Mtinach, and the Nakdan remarks 
against it that other Codices have it with Pashta * which 
agrees with the received text. On the Chaldee Paraphrase, 

1 f"V K'C P"^r* Comp. fol. 29^1. 



CHAP. XII.) Description of the Manuscripts. 543 

however, the Nakdan in several instances adduces variations 
from other MSS. 1 

On fol. 273^ there is an Epigraph at the bottom of the 
first column written in cursive Rabbinic characters which 
is now very faded, but which has been transcribed into 
square characters in the second column and is as follows: 

I Jechiel son of Jacuban have written this Codex in the City of Con- 
stantinople in the year 1007 after the destruction of the Temple, that is 1387 
of the era of contracts which is 4836 A. M. = A. D. 1 076.2 

If the Epigraph were genuine, the MS. would be 
one of the oldest dated Hebrew Codices which have as 
yet come to light. But the most cursory examination of 
it shows that it is a forgery of the sixteenth if not 
the seventeenth century. Besides, the whole character 
of the MS. itself, the developed calligraphy, the ortho- 
graphy" and the disposition of the text show beyond 
doubt that it was written by a Scribe of the German 
School circa A. D. 1250 at the earliest. Dr. Adam Clarke's 
descriptive note on the fly leaf which endorses the early 
date of the Epigraph and which pronounces the MS. as 
emanating from the Spanish School is due to the imperfect 
knowledge of Hebrew Palaeography at the beginning of 
this century. 

No. 14. 

Add. 94019402. 

These two large volumes, containing the Pentateuch, 
the Five Megilloth, the Haphtaroth, the Hagiographa as 
well as Isa. XXXIV i XXXV 10; Jerem. I i XXIII 6, 
constitute the fourth and fifth volumes of the Collection 



1 Comp. Exod. XXI 14, fol. 97 b. 

mm ^K pnsntwp TJO IBDH m Toro pip 11 -o ^K'rr '3 2 
n:tr XTUP rrnttttH p&S D"iatr raw niKa vhv *\bx KTIIP rvan pin 1 ? 

nratr 



544 Introduction. [CHAP. Xlt. 

of ten MSS. which belonged to the Hagen family and 
which Dr. Adam Clarke purchased. The first volume 
consists of 297 folios and contains the Pentateuch, the 
Five Megilloth and the Haphtaroth. Folios 2, 4, 7 and 9, 
which were missing, have been supplied by a later hand. 
The leaves, which contained Eccl. IX lo-XII 14, the 
whole of Lamentations and Esther I 13, are missing 
altogether. The second volume, which contains the Hagio- 
grapha (except the Five Megilloth), Jerem. I i XXIII 6 
and Isa. XXXIV i XXXV 19, consists of 229 folios. 

The order of the Megilloth is that exhibited in 
Column I in the Table on page 4, whilst that of the 
Hagiographa is that of Column VII in the Table on 
page 7. Each folio has, as a rule, three columns and each 
column has 25 lines. There are two lines of the Massorah 
Magna in the upper margin of every folio and three lines 
in the lower one, whilst the outer margins and the margins 
between the columns contain the Massorah Parva. The 
text which is written in a beautiful German hand is 
furnished with the vowel-points and the accents. 

At the end of the second volume there is the following 
Epigraph written in large characters, consisting of eleven 
lines and occupying the whole page: 

I Isaac son of Judah the Scribe, have written this Pentateuch, the 

Hagiographa and Jeremiah for R. Mordechai son of in the year 5046 

of the creation of the world [= A. D. 1286] and on the twenty-second day 
of the month Elul being the fifth day of the week. May the Lord permit 
him to transmit it as an inheritance to his children and children's children to 
the end of all generations. Amen, Amen, Amen, Selah. Blessed be He who 
giveth power to the faint, the Holy One, the Creator. Blessed be He who 
created men. Courage, and let us be courageous. 1 

a-no '~\b rrtiT D'sins wainn nt -pare leion rrnrr -a pmr : 1 
rrrb D':en D'ltrr obiy PK- a 1 ? nwi D-rsix' C'E^K nran n:tr: . ... is 
;K P'i"n "?r spc -ir T:S vib; vjs 1 ? itri-n 1 ? ^rcr apart T'n 
PK ir TK -pis D-p:,T np:n xrr :n= r\yb ]mr, x*n -pis 



CHAP. Xil.J Description of the Manuscripts. 545 

Accordingly the name of the Scribe was Isaac and 
the Codex was finished A. D. 1286 for R. Mordecai. 
This explains the peculiar appearance which the text 
exhibits in no fewer than nineteen passages where the 
name pHV' Isaac occurs at the beginning or at the end 
of the line. In all these instances there is a foliated 
ornament over the beginning or end of the patriarch's 
name to indicate that this was also the name of the 
Scribe of the MS. 1 

The Pentateuch is divided into the usual fifty-four 
Parashiyoih (DVttnS) or hebdomadal lessons. They are 
indicated by three Pes (0 D B) at the beginning of each 
Pericope as well as by the first word being written in 
large letters and occupying the middle of the line. The only 
exceptions are the two Pericopes Vayetze [N^l = Gen. 
XXVIII 10] and Vayechi [TP1 = Gen. XL VII 28] which have 
not the three Pes and which simply begin with a large word 
without any intervening vacant space to mark off the 
preceding Parasha? The number of verses in each Pericope 
with a proper name as the mnemonic sign is generally 
given in the margin against the last line of the Parasha, 
but sometimes in small letters between the three Pes. The 
Open and Closed Sections are indicated throughout the 
text by a vacant space without the letter Pe [B = 



M pm :mn Comp. fol. 229^. The words yh ISICn at the end have 
been added by a much later hand. 

i Comp. Gen. XXI 4, Vol. I, fol. 2oa; XXII 2, fol. 21 a; XXVJI i, 
fol. 28 b; XXXV 27, fol. 38 b; XLVI i, fol. 50 fc; L 24, fol. 55 b; Exod. II 
24, fol. 57&; VI 8, fol. 6ia; XXIII 2, fol. 89^; Numb. XXXII n, fol. 
170^; Deut. I 8, fol. I76Z>; VI 9, fol. i84; IX 5, fol. i86fc; IX 27, fol. 
187*;; XXX 20, fol. 208&; XXXIV 4, fol. 2i2b; I Chron. I 28, Vol. II, 
fol. I43&; XXIX 18, fol. 170^; 2 Chron. XXX 6, fol. 1980. 

'i Vide supra, Part I, chap. V, pp. 66, 67, and comp. The Massorah, 

letter S. 378, Vol. u, p. 468. 

KK 



546 Introduction. [CHAI 1 . XII. 



or Saniech [D = nQIfID]. And as both these paragraph 
divisions begin with an indented line, it is difficult to say 
whether they are intended for an Open or Closed Section. 
At the end of Genesis and of Numbers there are the Mas- 
soretic Summaries giving the number of verses, Pericopes 
and Sedarim in these two books, but it is absent at the 
end of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In the 
Hagiographa the Summary is given only at the end of 
Ezra-Nehemiah. 

As is generally the case in MSS. which proceed 
from the German Schools, the Metheg and the Gay a are 
more uniformly used in this Codex and the name Beth-el 
is written as one word (^XJV2). The innovation, however, of 
inserting Dagesh into consonants which follow a guttural 
with Sheva, { or into the first letter of a word when the 
preceding word happens to end with the same letter 2 
derives no support from this Codex. 

Though the text is essentially identical with the 
present Massoretic recension, yet it exhibits interesting 
orthographical and Palaeographical features as well as 
some readings which are of importance. The He (n) and 
the Cheth (n) are more like these letters in Codices Nos. i 
and 2 in this List, and the final letters do not descend 
much below the line. The Kametz is simply the Pathach 
with the dot in the middle of the line, whilst the Dagesh 
of the suffix third person singular feminine is a Chirek 
under the He (n). 8 

This Codex has preserved to us the interesting fact 
that in ancient days words were divided in Hebrew as in 

' Comp. nen:i Gen in 6; nwn x 7; Harn xxix 31; xxx 22 &c. 

2 Comp. tsintt-DK Gen. xiv 23; on^sx 1 ? xxxi 54; zh m by 

XXXIV 3 &c. 

3 Comp. HCttn her head or top Gen. XXVIII 18; Httpab in her ;>/<fir 
Gen. XXIX 3, fol 30,7. 



CHAP. Ml. | Description of the Manuscripts. 547 

other Semitic Scripts. In Jerem. VIII 1 8 the word TPIP^B 
Oh that I could comfort myself, is divided into two words, 
^38 is at the end of one line and TPJ is at the beginning 
of the next line. It needs hardly to be added that a later 
Massoretic Reviser altered this division. 1 

Another contribution which this MS. makes to textual 
criticism is the indication of the passages where there is 
a hiatus- in the Pentateuch. The List of these "Breaks in 
the middle of the Verse", as they are Massoretically called, 
embracing the whole Hebrew Bible, is of extreme rarity. 
I have found it in only one MS. 2 The printed Massorah 
of Jacob b. Chayim gives only the List of the five passages 
in the Pentateuch. Our MS. marks the hiatus in four out 
of the five instances and among these is Gen. IV 8. 
Against each of the four passages the Massoretic Annotator 
has in the Massorah Parva JbJHQ = Ntt^PIB jrp^yfia, itQayfia, 
break, hiatus? the expression which was such a puzzle to 
the distinguished Massorite Elias Levita. 4 

In Deut. XI 4 where the textual reading of this MS. is 

as they pursued after them ( 

instead of 

as they pursued after you ( 

as the present Massoretic text has it, the Massoretic 
Annotator justifies it by appealing to the authority of 
the Sephardic Codices. 5 

At the end of the Psalms the Massoretic Annotator 
states that the Psalter consists of 147 Psalms. 6 

i Comp. Jerem. VIII 18, Vol. II, fol. 2150. 

>- Comp. The Massorah. letter B, 185, Vol. II, p. 449- 

3 Comp. Gen. IV 8, Vol. I, fol. 6a; XXXV 22, fol. 38a; Numb. 
XXV 19, fol. 1630; Deut. II 8, fol. 1780. 

4 Comp Massoreth Ha-Massordh, pp. 242, 262 ed. Ginsburg. 

in p DrrnnK DST-Q Comp. Vol. i, fol. i88&. 
;ap ban "p Comp. Vol. n, fol. 59 b. 

KK- 



548 Introduction. [CHAP. XII. 

In accordance with most MSS. and the present 
Massoretic recension, this Codex has not Nehemiah VII 68. 
The Codex, moreover, has not only IQj^'TTS Chedor-laomer 
in two words which is the Western recension, but in two 
lines T13 Cliedor at the end of one line and lap 1 ? laomer 

: t : T 

at the beginning of the next line. 1