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
The MS. exhibits over fifty instances of omission
which are entirely due to homoeoteleuton.
(1) Exodus XXXIV 27, Vol. I, fol. 91 b.
(2) Leviticus XV 4, fol. 115*; (3) XX 20, fol. 122 a.
(4) Numbers II 9, fol. 134*; (5) IV 6, fol. 136*; (6) VI 3, fol. 139/7;
(7) VIII 22, fol. 144*1; (8) XXIX 28, fol. i66b; (9) XXXIII 41, fol. 172 b;
(10) XXXIV 7, fol. 1730.
(u) Deuteronomy XXIU 8, fol. 2000; (12) XXVIII 52, fol. 205 b.
(13) Psalm XCVII 5, Vol. II, fol. 4Oa; (14) CXVIII II, fol. 48*7.
(15) Job X 14. fol. 650; (16) XXXIX 28, fol. 8o<r.
(17) Daniel II 33, fol. 1030; (18) II 48, fol. 1040; (19) V 13,
fol. io8a; (20) V 19, fol. io8a; (21) IX 16, fol. 1130; (22) XI 28, fol. 115^.
(23^ Ezra-Nehem. II 29, fol. Ii8a; f24) II 42, fol. iiSrt; (25) II 68,
fol. 1 19</ ; (26) VI 16, 17, fol. I22b; (27) Neb. I u, fol. 127^; (28) VII 9,
fol. 132 b; (29) VII 73, fol. 1340.
(301 Chronicles V 35, fol. 1480; (31) VI 7, 8, fol. 148^; (32) VI 10,
fol. 148^; (33) VI 43, fol. 1491; (34) VI 45, fol. 149^1, (35) XII 27,
fol. 156/1; (36) XXIII 9, fol. 164*1; (37) XXIII 13, fol. 164$; (38) XXIV I,
fo). l66<j; (39) XXV 14, fol. i66a; (40) XXV 29, fol. i66b; (411 2 Chron.
II 27, fol. 172 />; (42) III 8. fol. 1730; (43) VIII 8, fol. 178^; (44) VIII 12,
fol. 1780; (45) XII 7, fol. i8iZ>; (46) XXIX 22, fol. 179^; (47) XXIX 31,
fol. 179^; (48) XXX 23, fol. 1990; (49) XXXIV 22, fol. 2O2&;
(50) Jeremiah XVII 27, fol. 223 b.
As is usually the case, some of these omissions have
been supplied by the original Scribe and some by the
different revisers. It is remarkable that most of the MSS.
in which the omissions due to homoeoteleuton are very
numerous are of the German School.
1 Comp. Gen. XIV 5, 9, Vol. I, fol. 14^.
CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 549
No. 15.
Add, 9403.
This is another of the Codices which constituted the
Hagen Collection bought by Dr. Adam Clarke. It consists
of 230 folios of which, however, 212 folios represent the
original portion of the MS. They contain the Pentateuch
in which Gen. I i 25 is missing, the Haphtaroth for the
whole year to which are added the Chaldee for Pericope
Tzav [1 = Levit. VI i VIII 36], as well as for the Feasts
of Passover and Pentecost, the Five Megilloth in the
order exhibited in Column I in the Table on page 4, and
the Three Poetical Books, viz. Psalms, Proverbs in which
XVIII 20 XXIX 2 are missing and Job in which XLII
ii 17 has disappeared.
Each folio has three columns and each column has
31 lines. The text is furnished with the vowel-points and
accents. The upper margin on 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 give the Massorah Parva.
The text of the Pentateuch is divided into the fifty-
four canonical Pericopes. Each of these commences with
the first word in large letters which occupies the middle
of the column with the exception of the two following
Parashiyoth: (i) Pericope Vayishlach (r6t^1 = Gen. XXXII
4 &c.) which has simply a vacant \ine with two Pes (5 5)
one at each end of the vacant line, but with the word
itself written like the rest of the text, and (2) Pericope
Vayechi (^ITl = Gen. XLVII 28 &c.) which though beginning
with the large word does not stand by itself in the middle of
the column, nor is there a vacant space between the lines.
The division of the text into Open and Closed
Sections (DlttlflDI mnifiD) is not only indicated in several
5. r >0 Introduction. [CHAP. XII.
ways, but deviates in many respects from the received
text. In a number of instances there is simply a vacant
space at the end of the Section, and the next Section
begins with an indented line. Hence it is difficult to say
whether the break in question is meant for an Open or
Closed Section. 1 In the majority of passages, however, the
Massoretic Annotator indicated the Open Sections by the
letter Pe [B = nmDO] or by two PCS (B B) or by the two
words (mittf rnflB) in the vacant space of an Open Section
occupying the two ends of the line in question. 2 The
Closed Section is not only expressed by the usual letter
Samech (D), but by the unusual expression Sedurah (mTTD). :!
The extent to which this Codex differs from the
Sectional divisions in the received text will be seen from
the following analysis of Genesis.
MS.
Open Sections
rrntp rtrnnc
E
E
[]
M,
Closed
C Gen.
C
D
C
. T.
Sections
XVII 15
XXI I
XLIV 18
XL VI 8
MS.
Open Sections
n-ntr mns
"W TIE
M
Closed
C Gen.
o
= *
C
c
. T.
Sections
VII 13
VIII 15
XI 24
XV I
XVI I
In one instance the reverse is the case. Thus Gen. XLI i
which is expressly marked in the text of the MS. as a-
Closed Section (D) is in the received text an Open Section (D).
The MS., moreover, exhibits no fewer than five
Sections in Genesis alone which do not occur in the
received text, viz.
1 Comp. Gen. I 21; III 16, 17, 22; V I, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 25, 28,
32; VI 5; XXV I. 12; XXVI i, 34; XXVII I; XXXIII 18; XXXIV i;
XXXV i, 9; XXXVI i. 20, 31; XXXVIII i; XXXIX i; XL i; XLVI
28; XLVIII i; XLIX i, 5.
2 Comp. Gen. X i; XI 10: XIV I; XVI I; XVIL 15; XXI i;
XXII i; XLIV 18.
3 Comp. Gen. XVII i. fol. H/>; XXIV I. fol. i2/>.
CHAP. XII.] Description of the Manuscripts. 55 1
irr nr6n n^xi Gen. xxxvi 9 my DIK y-H r.en. iv 25
D-a-n -IHK -m XXXTX 7 n 
TVNews
OpenLibrary