The Masora of the Former Prophets of the Leningrad Codex 9781463205980, 1463205988

Citation preview

The Masorah of the Former Prophets in the Leningrad Codex

Texts and Studies

14 Series Editor H. A. G. Houghton

Editorial Board Jeff W. Childers Viktor Golinets Christina M. Kreinecker Alison G. Salvesen Peter J. Williams

Texts and Studies is a series of monographs devoted to the study of Biblical and Patristic texts. Maintaining the highest scholarly standards, the series includes critical editions, studies of primary sources, and analyses of textual traditions.

The Masorah of the Former Prophets in the Leningrad Codex

Volume 1 Joshua

David Marcus

gp 2017

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2017 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

‫ܗ‬

1

2017

ISBN 978-1-4632-0598-0

ISSN 1935-6927

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is Available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. v Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. vii Preface ............................................................................................................................... ix Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................... xiii The Leningrad Codex........................................................................................... xiii Previous Publications of The Masorah of The Leningrad Codex ................ xiv Recently Published Masorahs of Other Early Manuscripts ............................ xv The Masorah of the Cairo Codex ........................................................................ xv The Masorah of the Aleppo Codex .................................................................... xv The Masorah of JTS 232 ...................................................................................... xvi The Masorah of Codex Leningrad M ................................................................ xvi The Masorah of the Madrid Codex.................................................................... xvi Chapter Two: The Text of the Corpus....................................................................... xix a. Where a # has been erased to conform to the masoretic note .............. xx b. Where a ' has been erased to conform to the masoretic note .............. xx c. Where a # has been added to conform to the masoretic note ............... xx d. Where a ' has been added to conform to the masoretic note .............. xx The Accepted Masoretic Text = M.................................................................... xxi a. Contradiction between the masoretic note and the text of ML. .......... xxi b. Difference in enumeration between the masoretic note and the text of ML ............................................................................................... xxii c. Agreement of the notes with M as evident in parallel Mp and Mm notes. ............................................................................................. xxiii Chapter Three: The Transmission of the Masorah ................................................. xxv a. Selection of lemmas. ................................................................................. xxvi b. Scope of the lemmas ................................................................................ xxvi c. Choice of Mm notes in the mss............................................................. xxvii d. Where the catchwords differ in the Mm.............................................. xxvii Chapter Four: The Masorah of the Corpus ............................................................. xxix Alterations to the text of the Masorah ............................................................ xxix Type of Notes in the Masorah of ML ............................................................... xxx a. Enumerative notes ..................................................................................... xxx b. Collative notes ............................................................................................ xxx v

vi

THE MASORAH OF THE FORMER PROPHETS IN ML

c. .ʠʤËʦ/4ʠUÇ notes ......................................................................................... xxxi Distribution of the Mp Notes .......................................................................... xxxii Parallel Mp notes............................................................................................... xxxiii Checking on apparent errors ........................................................................... xxxiii Finding a reason for the note .......................................................................... xxxiv Discovering different aspects of a lemma ..................................................... xxxiv Relationship of the Mp and the Mm .............................................................. xxxv Elaboration of the Mp note ............................................................................. xxxv Correction of error in the Mp .......................................................................... xxxv Dealing with separate issues ............................................................................ xxxvi Catchwords and Mnemonics........................................................................... xxxvi Catchwords .................................................................................................. xxxvi Mnemonics.................................................................................................. xxxvii Aramaic mnemonics ..................................................................................xxxvii Problem notes ...........................................................................................xxxviii Chapter Five: Reasons for the Masoretic Notes ................................................... xxxix a. In the heading .......................................................................................... xxxix b. Additional notations..................................................................................... xl c. The statement of exclusion 0/:“apart from” .................................... xliii d. The rule of the minority ........................................................................... xliv e. Parallel passages .......................................................................................... xlv f. Undecided cases .......................................................................................... xlv Chapter Six: How the Corpus is Arranged .............................................................. xlvii Textual notes concerning the Mp......................................................................... lii Textual notes concerning the Mm ...................................................................... liv Works Cited ...................................................................................................................... lv Joshua.................................................................................................................................. 1

ABBREVIATIONS absol adj cj consec cstr def etc fem fol gen imper impf indef infin interrog lit masc M

MA MC ML Mf Mm Mp ms(s) n neg perf pers pl prep pron ptcp rel sfx(s) sg v(v)

absolute adjective conjunction consecutive construct definite et cetra “and others” feminine folio genitive imperative imperfect indefinite infinitive interrogative literally masculine The Accepted Masoretic text (see p. xxi)

vii

Aleppo Codex Cairo Codex Leningrad Codex Masorah finalis Masorah magna Masorah parva manuscript(s) note negative perfect person plural preposition pronoun participle relative suffix(es) singular verse(s)

PREFACE In the early middle ages, in order to preserve and protect the text of the Hebrew Bible that had been transmitted to them by both oral and written tradition, Hebrew scribes began to insert notes on the sides of Hebrew manuscripts indicating how words should be written. These scribes were known as Masoretes, the text they preserved is known as the Masoretic text, and the notes they wrote are collectively called the Masorah. 1 The notes written on the sides of mss. are called masorah parva notes, and those written at the upper and lower margins of mss. are known as masorah magna notes. Each major manuscript has its own masorah, and its own sets of masoretic notes. 2 One of the most important of these manuscripts that the Masoretes annotated was the Leningrad Codex (ML), dated to 1008 C.E., that was rediscovered in the middle of the 19th century, and subsequently made the basis of the most widely used critical Hebrew Bible today, that of the Biblia Hebraica series. Part of the masorah of ML, that part known as the masorah parva (Mp), was first published in the third edition of Biblia Hebraica (BH3), and then again in the critical edition widely used today by students and scholars, that of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS). A second part of the masoretic notes known as the masorah magna (Mm) was published in a separate volume, and references to it were keyed to it in an apparatus in BHS. In the new revision of BHS, the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ), which is now in production, the masoretic notes of both the Mp and Mm are published in the text, with translations of the Mm and commentaries on selected forms presented in the back of the volumes. Recently Aron Dotan and Nurit Reich have made available electronically their magnificent Masora Thesaurus in modern Hebrew, which deals with every masoretic entry in ML often with detailed notes.

For a description of the work of the Masoretes, see the outstanding detailed surveys by Yeivin, “Masorah,” 130–59, and Dotan, “The Masorah,” 1401–82. A more recent update (2013) of the material may be found in Golinets “Masora,” 588–98, and there are shorter essays by Penkower, “The Development,” 2079–82, and by Khan, $6KRUW,QWURGXFWLRQ, 1–72. 2 Weil, “Prolegomena,” xiv; and see LQIUD, chapter three. 1

ix

x

THE MASORAH OF THE FORMER PROPHETS IN ML

The present work represents the first time that a major part of the masorah of ML, that of the Former Prophets, consisting of some nine-thousand notes, 3 is being published with an English translation and commentary. Every masoretic note in the Leningrad Codex that accompanies the text of the six books of the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel,1 Kings, and 2 Kings) is transcribed, translated and annotated. Every occurrence of each lemma is provided with its biblical references, and an indication is given as to where else in the ms. a note for any particular lemma may be found. Furthermore, and most originally, an attempt is made to suggest a reason for each note. Extensive cross-references have been employed to try to make the work seamless. Thus in a note on words written plene, readers are directed not only to parallel lemmas in the corpus, but also to opposite lemmas, that is, the same words written defective. The presentation employed in this work is user friendly. In Mp notes larger entries are grouped in units of five, and in Mm notes, catchwords are arranged horizontally to correspond to their biblical references. This arrangement not only enables readers to immediately see the contexts where lemmas occur, but also to see where the lemmas are distributed in various sections of the Bible. Another aid for students is that all Hebrew references, other than in the ms., are given in a fully vocalized form. Where appropriate, and always in cases where there are apparent errors or inaccuracies, the readings in two other ancient mss, those of the Aleppo Codex, and the Cairo Codex are consulted. All lemmas in the corpus that are featured in other Masoretic lists are noted, and reference is made not only to other Mm lists but also to the standard Masoretic lists according to the modern printed editions of Frensdorff, Díaz-Esteban, and Ognibeni. Constant reference is also made to modern Masoretic editions such as the Massorah of Christian D. Ginsberg, the Massorah Gedolah of Gérard E. Weil, The Biblical Text of Mordechai Breuer, The Masora Thesaurus of Aaron Dotan and Nurit Reich, and many others. The corpus is preceded by six introductory chapters. The first chapter surveys previous publications of the masorah of the Leningrad Codex (ML), and the masorahs of the Cairo Codex (MC), the Aleppo Codex (MA), and other early mss. The second chapter discusses the textual relationship between these early mss., and points out that whereas all mss. are in agreement with each other as far as the consonantal text of words is concerned, there are considerable differences among the mss. in the area of orthography, that is, of the use of plene and defective script. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated, particularly by Mordechai Breuer, that originally there was one accepted masoretic text (M) with respect to orthography. Indeed, one of the most significant features that emerge A hand-count by the author yielded an actual total of 8883, 7653 Mp notes, and 1230 Mm notes. 3

INTRODUCTION

xi

from a study of the masorah of ML is that its masorah nearly always agrees with M rather than with its own text. The third chapter compares the masorahs of the earliest Tiberian mss. (MC, MA and ML) and demonstrates that, although the masorahs of these mss. are different, the actual notes themselves are not contradictory, but only represent differences in selection and scope. The fourth chapter offers a detailed description of the masoretic notes of the corpus. It surveys the different types of masoretic notes that occur in ML, and illustrates one of the significant features of this work, which marks it in contrast to BHS, in that it distinguishes between occurrences on which the Masorah comments in the ms. and those on which it does not. This chapter also discusses the relationship between the Masorah parva (Mp) and the Masorah magna (Mm), and notes the prevalence in the ms. of catchwords and mnemonics, which serve as memory aids. The fifth chapter comprises another of the distinctive features of this work in that it suggests that it is possible to determine a reason for the vast majority of the nine-thousand or so notes in the corpus, and posits a number of clues by which a reason for a note might be determined. The last chapter that precedes the corpus indicates how it is arranged. Using a sample entry from the book of Judges, it demonstrates that each entry in the corpus may consist of one or more of the following seven parts: (1) its lemma (2) a Masorah parva (Mp) note; (3) references for the Mp note; (4) a Masorah magna (Mm) note; (5) catchwords and references for the Mm note; (6) a commentary; and (7) textual notes.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION THE LENINGRAD CODEX Up to relatively recently all printed Hebrew editions of the Hebrew Bible used the 1525 edition of the Second Rabbinic Bible edited by Jacob ben Chayim (= Miqraʯot Gedolot). Over the years this edition was modifed and corrected by various scholars and became the textus receptus. 1 In the past century or so three early Tiberian mss. have come to light, the Cairo Codex of the Prophets, whose date has been placed from the mid-9th century to the 11th century, 2 the Aleppo Codex (930 C.E.), which contains the latter parts of Deuteronomy and most of the Prophets and some of the Writings, 3 and the Leningrad Codex (1008 C.E.), which has the entire Bible preserved. 4 All three of these early mss. have served, or are serving, as the basis for modern printed editions. The Cairo Codex served as the basis for the text of the Prophets in the Bible edited by Umberto Cassuto. 5 The Aleppo Codex is being used as the basis for the Hebrew University Bible Project, 6 and that of the Miqraot Gedolot edition of Bar-Ilan University. 7 The Leningrad Codex has been used as the basis for the Biblia Hebraica series since the third edition. It is the one that underlies BHS, which is the most commonly used critical Hebrew Bible edition today, and it is the one For the history and impact of the Second Rabbinic Bible throughout the centuries, see Goshen-Gottstein, “Introduction,” 3–20. 2 See the description of the manuscript in Beit-Arié/Sirat/Glatzer, CRGLFHV +HEUDLFLV /LWWHULV([DUDWL I:25–39. The accepted opinion today is that the manuscript was written in the 11th century, and its scribe copied the colophon from an earlier manuscript; see Ofer, &DLUR &RGH[, 769–70. 3 For a description of this Codex, see Beit-Arié/Sirat/Glatzer, CRGLFHV +HEUDLFLV /LWWHULV ([DUDWL, 1:65–72, and the official Aleppo codex website http://www.aleppocodex.org/. 4 The manuscript is housed in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg, previously known as the Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library of Leningrad. The most recent fascimile edition is by Freedman et al., 7KH/HQLQJUDG&RGH[The ms. is described by Lebedev in “The Oldest Complete Codex.” 5 Cassuto, 7DQDNK; see Breuer, 7KH$OHSSR&RGH[, xi. 6 See Goshen Gottstein, +8%3 7 Cohen, 0LTUDRW*HGRORWo+DNHWHUp 1

xiii

xiv

THE MASORAH OF THE FORMER PROPHETS IN ML

that is being used for the new BHQ that is presently in production. All three of these early mss. have well preserved masorahs, however, that of the Leningrad Codex has been selected as the basis of this work because not only is its masorah extant for the entire Bible, 8 but its masorah is complete and even more detailed than that of the other two early mss. 9

PREVIOUS PUBLICATIONS OF THE MASORAH OF THE LENINGRAD CODEX The masorah of ML was first published in the Biblia Hebraica series starting in 1937 in the third edition known as BHK or BH3. In this volume, only the Mp was published as a diplomatic representation of the ms. with occasional marginal emendations. A completely different approach was undertaken by Gérard Weil in the fourth edition of Biblia Hebraica, known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS). Weil introduced two new masorah features into BHS. The first was that he conceived of a complete or full masorah. All lemmas were given notes provided that these notes occurred somewhere in the ms. 10 Thus if a note for a lemma that occurred three times only appeared in the ms. at one location, Weil would insert that note at the other two locations as well. Weil also combined, expanded and standardized the notes so that the resulting Mp notes exceeded in size the previous BHK edition by two-thirds. 11 The second major innovation that Weil introduced was the production of the Mm in a separate volume, 12 references to which were keyed in to a special apparatus in BHS directly below the text. The new fifth edition in the Biblia Hebraica series, that of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ), has reverted to the diplomatic model of BHK with two innovations. One is that the Mm of the text is given on the same page as the Hebrew text, the second is that both the Mp and Mm are supplied with commentaries. The Mp commentary deals primarily with problems or inconsistencies, whereas the Mm commentary translates every Mm note with comments on the text, and problems associated with particular lemmas. Extremely important is the new Thesaurus recently published in electronic form by Aron Dotan and Nurit Reich. 13 This work lists alphabetically every masoretic note in the entire codex. It is a comprehensive and exhaustive work covering the See Lebedev, “The Oldest Complete Codex,” xxv. See Breuer, 7KH$OHSSR&RGH[, xliv, 281, Loewinger, “The Aleppo Codex,” 85–88, 95, and Revell, “The Leningrad Codex,” xlii. 10 “The reader will always find a corresponding note in the margin of %+6at each of the parallel passages where it should be expected” (Weil, “Prolegomena” xv). 11 “A comparison with %+. will show that adding these notes has nearly trebled the size of the marginal notations” (Weil, “Prolegomena,” xv). 12 Weil, 0DVVRUDK*HGRODK 13 Dotan/Reich, 0DVRUD 7KHVDXUXV. First published in 1977 as a sample volume on Genesis; see Dotan, 7KHVDXUXV. 8 9

INTRODUCTION

xv

entire Bible that not only references every lemma, but provides detailed comments on difficulties, and constantly compares the masorah of ML with other major mss. such as Cairo and Aleppo. The present writer has benefitted considerably from this Thesaurus, and reference is made to it throughout this work.

RECENTLY PUBLISHED MASORAHS OF OTHER EARLY MANUSCRIPTS In addition to the standard masoretic tools of Frensdorff 14 and Ginsburg, 15 based on the textus receptus, masoretic commentaries with accompanying biblical texts 16 have been published in different formats on the masorahs of a number of other important major codices.

THE MASORAH OF THE CAIRO CODEX The masorah of the Cairo Codex, variously dated from the 9th–11th century, which contains only the Prophets, was published by Federico Castro in seven volumes during the years 1979–88. 17 This work contains the biblical text of the ms. as well as masoretic notes supplied in an apparatus under the text. Every Mp entry is presented as in the ms, and is followed by the relevant biblical references. The catchwords for every Mm entry are transcribed horizontally followed by the biblical references inserted in parenthesis. The editor has also supplied editorial notes for difficult or problematic cases. There are three volumes of indices, one for Mp entries, one for Mm entries, and one for Mp notes (the ='+— notes) that only occur once.

THE MASORAH OF THE ALEPPO CODEX The masorah of the Aleppo Codex (930 C.E.) was first published by Loewinger in 1977. 18 It contained only the Mm and presented the catchwords from the ms. and their associated biblical references, which were supplied by Loewinger, in vertical form. The masorah of this codex is now being published in two major publications. One, in the Hebrew University Bible Project (HUBP), of which only three volumes have appeared to date. 19 The masorah accompanies the text, with the Mm entries given above the text, and the Mp entries on the side. Biblical references are not supplied, and there are no commentaries nor editorial remarks. Much more extensive is the masorah of this codex in the Miqraot Gedolot ‘Haketer’ project, which is being published both electronically and in a print verFrensdorff, 0DVVRUDK Ginsburg, 7KH0DVVRUDK 16 Some other studies discuss the masorah of their mss. but the masorah is not presented side-by-side with the biblical text; see, for example, Shashar’s analysis of the masorah of Sassoon 507 (6DVVRRQ, 166–323), and Lyon’s examination of the masorah of BM 4445 (Codex Or. 4445, 39–392). 17 Castro, (OFRGLFH. 18 Loewinger, 0DVVRUDK0DJQD 19 Isaiah (1995), Jeremiah (1997), and Ezekiel (2004). 14 15

xvi

THE MASORAH OF THE FORMER PROPHETS IN ML

sion. 20 In these volumes, the masorah not only accompanies the text as in the HUBP project, but there are two special appartuses devoted to the masorah, one for the Mm, which transcribes the catchwords, and one called Eyn Hammasorah, which gives the biblical references of both the Mp and the Mm. In addition this apparatus helpfully indicates in bold type which of the biblical references contains a Mm entry elsewhere in the ms.

THE MASORAH OF JTS 232 JTS 232 is a ms. of the Latter Prophets dated to the 10th century and possibly earlier. 21 In her PhD dissertation, Judy Weiss has published all the masoretic notes of the books of the Minor Prophets, and all the cumulative masorah notes found in the margins of the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, with a translation and commentary. 22 One of the features of this masorah, pointed out by Weiss, is that although this ms. is a Tiberian one, it displays many indications of Babylonian influence.

THE MASORAH OF CODEX LENINGRAD M Codex Leningrad M is a manuscript of the Pentateuch, and was written by the same scribe Shmuel ben Yaʿkov, who wrote the Leningrad Codex. It is also dated to the 11th century. Originally known as Cairo, Gottheil 14, 23 it is now in the collection of the Lehmann Foundation in New York. Its masorah magna was published by Breuer, 24 and is noteworthy because this masorah also contains many features of Babylonian masoretic traditions. 25 In a comprehensive Introduction, Breuer not only describes in detail the characteristics of this masorah, but also explains many of the difficult notes.

THE MASORAH OF THE MADRID CODEX The masorah of Madrid Codex M1 of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, which is dated to the 13th century (1280) and contains the entire Bible, is a good representative of the Spanish school. 26 So far only six volumes (Genesis–Joshua) have been published. 27 This commentary adopts the same mode of presentation as Cohen, 0LTUDRW*HGRORWo+DNHWHUp, and idem, 7KHo.HWHUp'DWDEDVHV. See Weiss, 0DQXVFULSW, 218–19. 22 Ibid., 230–320. 23 Gottheil, “Some Hebrew Manuscripts,” 629–30. 24 Breuer, 0DVRUD0DJQD. 25 See Ofer, “The Babylonian Masorah,” 269–83. 26 Martín-Contreras, “Rabbinic Ways,” 85. For a brief description of this ms., see Ortega-Monasterio, “Some Masoretic Notes,” 127–28. 27 By the Instituto de Filología of the Spanish National Research Council; see Azcárraga Servert, &ÐGLFH0. 20 21

INTRODUCTION

xvii

Castro’s edition of the Cairo Codex with one major exception namely, that the biblical Hebrew text has been omitted. In the following chapters we will review in detail the masorah of ML, but first it is necessary to examine the text of ML in the light of other early mss.

CHAPTER TWO: THE TEXT OF THE CORPUS The text and the ms. of the Leningrad Codex (ML) has been described in detail elsewhere, most notably by Beit-Arié/Sirat/Glatzer, 1 by Revell in the Facsimile Edition, 2 and by the Editorial Committee in BHQ. 3 The Former Prophets occupy one hundred folios (two-hundred pages) of ML, from folio 121v to folio 220v. On the bottom of every tenth folio starting with folio 130v there are catchwords which link to the following folio. Thus on the bottom of folio 130v, at Josh 17:2, there is an ’ which links that folio to the followunvocalized catchword -=%6f/+ (-=œš %a’ f’ /– +), ing one 131r. Similar catchwords appear on the bottoms of folios 140v, 150v, 160v, 170v, 180v, 190v, 200v, and 201v, all linking up with the following folios. The text of ML is presented in the standard form of an ancient Tiberian ms., in three columns, with masoretic notes adjoining each column in the left and right margins, and also on the top and bottom margins. On folio 128v there is a departure from this standard form. Here the text is arranged only in two columns to allow for the traditional artistic presentation of the kings of Canaan, where there are two kings per line, each king separated by a number of spaces and followed by the spelled-out numeral one. This artistic presentation is also enhanced by the addition of masoretic notes stylistically surrounding the text. There are two poems in this corpus, and both are arranged in a special manner. The song of Deborah at Judges 5, and its following text is presented on folios 138v to 139v in one column, with the poem broken up into poetic stichography. 4 The Song of David at 2 Samuel 22, on folios 182r to 182v, is presented in a different poetic format with the following three lines of text in one column. Also the section in 1 Sam 30:27–31 on fol. 168r of the cities among which David divided the spoil, is arranged in a special way. The text of the Former Prophets has been reliably transmitted in ML. However, in chapter 21 of the book of Joshua two verses, preserved in other mss, have been omitted after v. 35. Since these verses have been inserted into BHS, for convenience sake, we have retained the verse enumeration system of BHS. CRGLFHV+HEUDLFLV/LWWHULV([DUDWL, 1:114–31. Revell, 7KH/HQLQJUDG&RGH[, xxix–xlviii. 3 “General Introduction,” xviii–xx. 4 In brick layout, see Khan, $6KRUW,QWURGXFWLRQ, 31–32. 1 2

xix

xx

THE MASORAH OF THE FORMER PROPHETS IN ML

As is acknowledged in the Codex itself, the text has been corrected by the scribe to conform to the text of Aaron ben Asher. 5 And the facsimile clearly shows that corrections have been made in many parts of the ms. 6 Here we will point out cases in our corpus (e.g., the Former Prophets) where the text of ML has been altered to conform to the masoretic notes accompanying the text. All these cases have to do with plene and defective writings, and so involve words containing waws or yods. In these cases the letter # or ' is either erased or added, but the alteration is clearly visible in the manuscript. a. Where a # has been erased to conform to the masoretic note x x

At 1 Sam 4:4, an original # has been erased from the word -'– :ž V’ !™ to make it conform to the masoretic note “twelve times defective.” At 2 Sam 2:5, an original # has been erased from the word -')– :ž C’ to make it 7 conform to the masoretic note “three times defective.” 36F

b. Where a ' has been erased to conform to the masoretic note x

x

At Judg 16:24, an original ' has been erased from the word K1’'L — to make it conform to the masoretic note “twice defective.” At 1 Sam 1:28, an original ' has been erased from the word K!k– +’ – f’ !– to 8 make it conform to the masoretic note “unique and defective.” 37F

c. Where a # has been added to conform to the masoretic note x

x

At 2 Sam 16:1, a # has been added to the word -'9K] – 8– to make it conform to the masoretic note “twice plene.” At 2 Sam 20:19, a # has been added to the word ' —1K/“ to make it conform to the masoretic note “unique and plene.”

d. Where a ' has been added to conform to the masoretic note x

At Josh 21:17, a ' has been added in the Mm note to the catchword 0'/'1 to make it conform to the masoretic note “seventeen times plene.”

5 The colophon at fol 479r states that the codex was written, pointed, and supplied with a Masorah by Shemuel ben Yaʿakob “from the books corrected and annotated by the master Aaron ben Moshe ben Asher.” However, as Weil has noted, there are many indications that many scribes participated in the collation of the Masoretic notes (“La nouvelle édition,” 270). 6 See Revell, “The Leningrad Codex,” xxix, and Dotan, “Studies in the Masorah,” 77. 7 Another example of this type is at 2 Sam 19:7 (+). ž 8 Other examples of this type are: at Judg 19:9 (U+˜ !œš +), ’ 1 Sam 1:3 (2%š ’16K), – 22:9 (K&%– ), ” 25:3 (+ –' š– ), ” 1 Kgs 1:3 (KšQ – ™#), and 2 Kgs 6:27 (T4— fL'). –

INTRODUCTION x

xxi

make it conform to At 1 Kgs 3:14, a ' has been added to the word ' –#Gto š the masoretic note “five times plene.”

THE ACCEPTED MASORETIC TEXT = M All early mss. are in agreement with each other as far as the consonantal text of words is concerned. However, there are considerable differences among the mss. in the area of orthography, that is of the use of plene and defective script. 9 By meticulously comparing a number of early mss. and the textus receptus and their masorahs, Mordecai Breuer has demonstrated that originally there was one accepted masoretic text (M) with respect to plene and defective script and that, apart from isolated exceptions, 10 the Aleppo Codex, where it is extant, practically always represents M. 11 Breuer employed his method in his two Bible editions, 12 and it was adopted as the text of the Jerusalem Crown of the Hebrew University. 13 Breuer’s method was also used in part to restore the missing portions in the Miqraot Gedolot ‘Haketer’ edition, 14 and will also be used for the forthcoming edition of the Twelve Prophets for the Hebrew University Bible Project to reconstruct the missing sections of Aleppo. 15 One of the most significant features that emerge from a study of the masorah of ML is that its masorah nearly always agrees with M rather than with its own text. This can be seen in two ways. One is in blatant contradictions between the masoretic note and the text of ML, the other is in differences in enumeration between the masoretic note and the number of occurrences of the lemma in ML. In all these cases the note agrees with the text of M against the text of ML. a. Contradiction between the masoretic note and the text of ML It has often been noted that the text of ML sometimes contradicts its own masorah. 16 There are sixteen lemmas in our corpus where the masoretic note that accomThere are scores of places in the Prophets where ML differs from M in the area of plene and defective writing; see Breuer, 7KH $OHSSR &RGH[, xxv, 102, and idem, 7KH %LEOLFDO 7H[W, '. 10 See Ofer, “Preparing,” 94–100. 11 See his $OHSSR&RGH[xxi–xxv, and idem, 7KH%LEOLFDO7H[W, '¡&. Breuer’s method has recently been summarised by Y. Ofer in “Establishing the Biblical Text,” 147–61. 12 Those published by Mosad Harav Kook (1977–82), and Horev (1996–98). 13 Breuer listed the principles of his system in an Appendix entitled “Concerning the Textual Principles of this Edition” at the end of the edition; they are also described by Ofer in the Companion Volume “The Jerusalem Crown,” 51–59, and in his “Preparing,” 87–117. 14 See Cohen, 0LTUDRW *HGRORW o+DNHWHUp -RVKXD-XGJHV, 53*–55*, and Ofer, “A New Edition,” 168. 15 Zer, “The Preparation,” 69. 16 Sperber, 3UREOHPV, 56–58, idem Sperber, 7KH SUH-0DVRUHWLF %LEOH, xxii, §35, Rubinstein, “Singularities,” 124–25, idem, “Problem of Errors,” 23–25, and Breuer, 7KH $OHSSR &RGH[, xxiv. 9

xxii

THE MASORAH OF THE FORMER PROPHETS IN ML

panies the lemma does not agree with the text of ML. 17 All these are cases of plene and defective writings. Either a lemma is written plene but the note concerns defective writing, or the opposite, a lemma is written defective, but the note concerns plene writing. In all these cases, the masoretic note agrees with the text of M and not the text of ML. Here are some examples. x At Josh 21:17 (0/š' – ’1), – ML writes the lemma defective second ', but the masoretic note reads “seventeen times plene (second ').” However, M reads 0'/– 'š ’1C– in accordance with the note. x At Judg 1:14 (+Lf’ +), – ML reads the lemma plene #, but the masoretic note reads “six times defective (#).” However, M reads +œf’ +– in accordance with the note. x At 1 Sam 10:11 (-Lf+’ f), – ML reads the lemma plene #, but the masoretic note reads “four times defective (#).” However, M reads -œ f+’ f– in accordance with the note. x At 2 Kgs 10:5 (T'+– /’ ™1), the text of ML reads the lemma plene ', but the masoretic note reads “unique and defective (').” However, M reads T+– /’ ™1 in accordance with the note. 18 47F

b. Difference in enumeration between the masoretic note and the text of ML A number of previous observers 19 have noticed that there are a quite a number of differences between the enumeration of occurrences given in the masoretic notes and that found in the text of ML. But what has not previously been noticed is that practically in all these cases the enumeration of the masorah agrees with the text of M and not with ML. 20 Here are some examples: x At Josh 13:9 (0L'G), – the masoretic note reads “three times plene (#).” But ML has five occurrences of this lemma, not three. However, M has only three occurrences of this lemma written plene, and so agrees with the note. This is a good example where a masoretic note in ML supports the enumeration inherent in the text of M rather than in the text of ML. x At 2 Sam 6:3 ( šO4ž ’#), the masoretic note reads “three times written with .” But ML has a fourth occurrence of this lemma whereas M only has three. This is another example where a masoretic note in ML supports the enumeration inherent in the text of M rather than in the text of ML. 17 These contradictory lemmas are marked in the translations and accompanying commentary with an asterisk. 18 The other cases of this type are at Judg 10:6 (K62œ– Q ™#), 1 Sam 9:22 (-'fY – f’ V), – 28:15 (-' – – ’^!), ™ 2 Sam 14:17 (!%K1 š /’ +), – 16:16 (-Yfš @), ’ 20:22 (:6L š i™C), 22:34 ('=L/ ™ C), š 1 Kgs 8:29 and 8:52 (=L%=ž 6), ’ 12:16 (-!' ˜ +— ), ” 20:34 (=L8K% ’#), and 22:27 (K!+'ž )– ” !™ ’#). 19 See Dotan, “Studies in the Masorah,” 79–82, Rubinstein, “Singularities,” 126–28, and idem, “Problem of Errors,” 17–23. 20 In the corpus all differences between the text ML and M are indicated by an asterisk.

INTRODUCTION

xxiii

x

At 1 Kgs 13:24 (K!=' — /’' – ™#), the masoretic note reads “eight times plene (').” But ML, contrary to M, has three more occurrences of this lemma written plene. Once again the masoretic note supports the enumeration inherent in the text of M rather than in the text of ML. This agreement of the masoretic notes with M, rather than with ML, is also seen in parallel Mp and Mm Notes. c. Agreement of the notes with M as evident in parallel Mp and Mm notes x At Josh 8:29 (K)'+– f’ ™Q ™#), the masoretic note reads “four times plene (')rBut ML has five occurrences of this lemma, not four. M, which only has only four occurrences of this lemma, agrees with the note. However, in this case there are parallel Mp and Mm headings for this lemma, and these parallel headings support the enumeration of “four” inherent in the text of M. These parallel Mp notes read “four times plene,” and the two parallel Mm notes list only four sets of catchwords all agreeing with the text of M, not with the text of ML. x At 1 Sam 4:4 (-'– :ž V’ !), ™ the masoretic note reads “twelve times defective (#).” However ML, contrary to M, has a thirteenth occurrence of this lemma. Nevertheless, all the parallel Mp headings for this lemma read “twelve times defective (#)” once again supporting the enumeration inherent in the text of M. The next chapter discusses the transmission of the Masorah, and in particular compares the masorahs of the earliest Tiberian mss. (MC, MA and ML).

CHAPTER THREE: THE TRANSMISSION OF THE MASORAH Unlike the consonantal text of the Bible (see above) there was never a process of standardization of the Masorah. 1 The accumulated collection of masoretic notes was built up over the course of many years, 2 and included the work of different schools and individuals, with different opinions, 3 and constituted a corpus from which scribes drew to annotate their respective mss. Only a selection of notes from the corpus appears in any one ms., 4 hence no two mss. contain the same masorah. 5 Practical considerations determined the quantity of notes and type of presentation in any given ms. 6 so that there was great flexibility in the selection of lemmas, in the type of note to be inserted, and the frequency in which notes were to be placed. When one compares the masoretic notes of the earliest Tiberian mss. (MC, MA and ML) it can be seen that, although the masorahs of these mss. are different, the actual notes themselves are not contradictory, but represent differences in selection and scope. 7 See Yeivin, “Masorah,” 144, Dotan, “The Masorah,” 1426–27 (1971 ed.), 620 (2007 ed), idem, “Prolegomenon,” xxxii; and Sanders, “Text and Canon,” 16. The fact that the Masorah was not homogeneous is a point often stressed by Ginsburg, see his ,QWURGXFWLRQ, 425, and the “Preface” to vol. 4 of his 7KH0DVVRUDK 2 Yeivin, “Masorah,” 150, Dotan, “Prolegomenon,” xxii, and Revell, “Masorah,” 593. 3 Yeivin, ,QWURGXFWLRQ, 131. Some of these different traditions, such as those between Easterners and Westerners, can be seen in our corpus at Josh 10:24 (K)+’ !š !), ˜ Judg 16:24 (K1’'L), — 1 Sam 8:12 (=Lg4” +™ ’#), 20:29 (ʬʔʲ), 23:5 (!™ ’1 –Q ™#), 28:9 (' –1œ3G’ –Q!), ™ 2 Sam 2:23 (#kš %’ k), ™ 1 Kgs 3:10 (' š1œ ), ” and 3:20 (! š1f— ’'). Occasionally, disputed forms are marked in the notes by the term +#6 = =#+6 “dispute,” see at Judg 5:16 (-'+L – ’E). Other differences of opinon mentioned in our commentaries are at Judg 14:3 (T+L!), — 15:18 (šk=™ š1), 1 Sam 3:1 (:4™ ™^!™ ’# +K/ — f), ’ 26:13 (9œ%:š /), — 2 Sam 1:21 (=œ/K:=), ’ and 1 Kgs 22:43 (K^]˜ /). – 4 Revell, “Masorah,” 593. 5 Sanders, “Text and Canon,” 16, and Martín-Contreras, “Rabbinic Ways,” 81. 6 Revell, “The Leningrad Codex,” xxxix. 7 In 7KH $OHSSR &RGH[, Breuer devotes an entire chapter to examples of how various Masoretes present in their respective mss. the same note in different ways (pp. 193–284), and 1

xxv

xxvi

THE MASORAH OF THE FORMER PROPHETS IN ML

a. Selection of lemmas x Sometimes all WKUHH mss. will agree on the choice of a lemma as, for example, in v. 1 of the second chapter of Joshua, where all three have a note on the word f:˜ %,˜ in v. 2 all three comment on the form :/™ š —Q ™#, and in v. 3 all three have a note on :œa%’ +.™ x Sometimes, WZR mss. will agree on the choice of a lemma but the third will ” –' ™1f, ’ but MC not. For example in v. 1, ML and MA have notes on -'f– š1¡does not; in the same verse MC and MA comment on L%':– ’'¡=˜ ’#, but ML does not; in v. 3 MC and ML have notes on :œa%’ +,™ but MA does not. x And sometimes only RQH ms. will comment on a particular lemma. For  ™ fL! ž ’' %+™ f’ –Q ™#, but MA and ML do not; in example in v. 1, MC has a note on µ A the same verse M has a note on Kœ šQ ™# K)+’ —Q ™#, but MC and ML do not; and in v. 12, ML has a note on =/˜ “ =L, but MC and MA do not. Even when there is agreement on the choice of a lemma, not all the mss. will comment on it every time it occurs. For example, the lemma 3/™ f’ –^ ™# occurs three times (Josh 2:11; Jer 35:8; 35:10), but only MC comments on it at all its three occurrences. ML has notes at Josh 2:11 and at Jer 35:8, but no note at all at Jer 35:10, while MA has notes at Josh 2:11 and Jer 35:8, but no note at Jer 35:10. Another example of this type is with the lemma K/'9– šQ ™# that occurs three times (Josh 7:26; 8:29; Judg 18:30). Only MA has notes at all three occurrences; MC has notes at Josh 8:29 and Judg 18:30, whereas ML only has a note at Josh 8:29. b. Scope of the lemmas In this category, all three mss. comment on the same lemma but they differ in the details that they offer about the lemma. This difference in scope is also to be seen within the mss. themselves. Their overall conclusion is the same, but they differ in how they present the details. Here are some examples: x At Josh 2:1, all three mss. note that the lemma f:˜ %occurs ˜ twice (at Josh 2:1 and 1 Chr 9:15) to distinguish it from the more numerous occurrences of this lemma with a g(g:˜ %). ˜ MA and ML read “twice,” but MC reads “twice 8 written with f,” explicitly noting the difference in writing between f:˜ % ˜ and g:˜ %.˜ Furthermore, the Mm of ML here, and at 1 Chr 9:15, reads “twice in two meanings,” noting the fact that the lemma f:˜ % ˜ is a homonym meaning “in secret” at Josh 2:1 but a personal name “Heresh” at 1 Chr 9:15. Thus all three mss. agree on the essential fact that f:˜ %occurs ˜ twice, but ML adds the detail of the difference in writing of the lemma with frather than ˜ a homonym. g, and MA adds the detail about f:˜ %being in the Introduction to 7KH%LEOLFDO7H[W, he presents twenty-eight of these examples (pp. ¡' $/). 8 At 1 Chr 9:15 both the headings of Mp and Mm of ML read with slightly different wording “twice with f”.

INTRODUCTION x x

x

xxvii

At Josh 2:2, all three mss. note that the lemma :œa%’ +™ occurs three times (Josh 2:2; 2:3; Isa 2:20). ML and MA read “three times” but MC here, and at Isa 2:20, expands the note to read “three times and defective.” At Josh 2:11, all three mss. note that the lemma 3/™ f’ –^ ™# occurs three times with the # consec. (Josh 2:11; Jer 35:8; 35:10) to distinguish these occurrences from the three occurrences of this lemma with a # cj. (3/™ f’ –1 ’#). ML and MA read “three times,” but MC here, and at Jer 35:8 and 35:10, reads “three times with GDʬHx” implicitly noting the difference between this form with the # consec. and its contrasting form with a # cj. (3/™ f’ –1 ’#). At Josh 5:5, all three mss. note that the lemma -'Z – –Q!™ occurs three times (Josh 5:5; 2 Sam 5:14; Jer 16:3 [-'L+ – –Q!]). ™ However, all three have different headings here. ML reads “three times,” MA reads “three times, twice defective and once plene,” and MC reads “three times once plene.”

c. Choice of Mm notes in the mss. What applies to the choice of lemmas of Mp notes among the mss. also applies to Mm notes. Here we give examples from Joshua chapter 5. ™ )š ’#), v. 4 (:š Gš !™ ! ˜$ ’#), v. 6 (3C™ f’ –1 :f˜ ” x ML has eight Mm notes: at v. 1 (')— +’ /¡+ -=L š ” +™ ! š#! ’'), v. 7 (-!' ˜ —1C¡= ’ ˜ ’#), v. 8 (ʣ६ʲ), ʔ v. 14 (#' š1a¡+ š ), ˜ v. 14 (K%kšv f’ –Q ™#), and v. 15 (U+˜ ’:). ™ x MA has six Mm notes: at v. 2 (+œ/), v. 5 (-'Z – –Q!), ™ v. 7 (-!' ˜ —1C¡= ’ ˜ ’#), v. 12 (=œCf’ –Q ™#), v. 12 (-+š )’ š C), ’ and v. 14 (K%kšv f’ –Q ™#), x MC has five Mm notes: at v.1 (')— +’ /¡+ ™ )š ’#), v. 1 (-:š ’ 4), š v. 5 (-'Z – –Q!), ™ v. 7 (¡=˜ ’# -!' ˜ —1C) ’ and v. 14 (#' š1a¡+ š ). ˜ There is no unanimity among the mss. as far as these Mm notes are concerned. Only with the lemma -!' ˜ —1C¡= ’ ˜ ’# in v. 7, do all three mss. have Mm notes. With four of the notes, two mss. have a Mm note while a third does not. With ')— +’ /¡+ ™ )š ’# in v. 1, – –Q!™ in v. 5, MC and MA have MC and ML have Mm notes, but MA does not; with -'Z š ˜ in v. 14, MC and ML have Mm notes, but Mm notes, but ML does not; with #' š1a¡+ A L M does not; with K%kšv f’ –Q ™# in v. 14, M and MA have Mm notes, but MC does not. d. Where the catchwords differ in the Mm Even when the three mss. have Mm notes on the same lemma, the catchwords given in the three mss. differ. Here is an example from the catchwords given in all three mss. on the lemma :@f’ –1¡œ+ ’#. The lemma occurs four times at Josh 8:17; 2 Kgs 10:21; Dan 10:8; and 2 Chr 21:17. At both Josh 8:17 and 2 Kgs 10:21 all three mss. have Mm notes at both references (six listings in all), and in all six listings the catchwords are different.

xxviii

THE MASORAH OF THE FORMER PROPHETS IN ML Here is the way the catchwords appear in the mss. at Josh 8:17.

Biblical verse Josh 8:17

MC (Cairo)

MA (Aleppo)

ML (Leningrad)

'3

'3