Pagan Religion

Continuing in The Religion of Israel, we focus upon pagan religion and what makes a religion uniquely pagan in scope.

~

Paganism in all its embodiments

involve one idea which is the distinguishing mark of pagan thought: the idea that there exists a realm of being prior to the gods and above them, upon which the gods depend and whose decrees they must obey. Deity belongs to, and is derived from, a primordial realm. This realm is conceived of variously- as darkness, water, spirit, earth, sky and so forth- but always as the womb in which the seeds of all being are contained. Alternatively, this idea appears as a belief in a primordial realm beside the gods, as independent and primary as the gods themselves. Not being subject to the gods, it necessarily limits them. The first conception, however, is the fundamental one. This is to say that in the pagan view, the gods are not the source of all that is, nor do they transcend the universe. They are, rather, part of a realm precedent to and independent of them. They are rooted in this realm, are bound by its nature, are subservient to its laws. To be sure, paganism has personal gods who create and govern the world of men. But a divine will, sovereign and absolute, which governs all and is the cause of all being- such a conception is unknown. There are heads of pantheons, there are creators and maintainers of the cosmos, but transcending them is the primordial realm, with its pre-existent, autonomous forces. This is the radical dichotomy of paganism; from it spring both mythology and magic. (Kaufman 21-22)

What is myth?

Myth is the tale of the life of the gods. In myth the gods appear not only as actors, but as acted upon. At the heart of myth is the tension between the gods and other forces that shape their destinies (Chana paraphrases: for example, fate). (Kaufman 22)

What is magic?

It is that which the pagan employs in order to "activate the forces of the metadivine" (Kaufman 24) which he must do because the gods themselves derive from a primordial force (hence a "more generalized power") and indeed "call upon forces outside themselves."

Why is being religious/ obedient to the will of the gods not enough for the pagan?

Because of the mythological nature of [paganism's] gods, because of their subjection to a primordial realm, paganism was necessarily and essentially magical as well. The sphere of the gods, the "religious" sphere, was always qualified by the sphere of powers beyond the gods. It is the mythological character of paganism's gods that provides the framework for its synthesis of magical and religious elements. (Kaufman 24)

What are examples of ways in which the gods are dependent upon that which lies outside them?

Their need for food and drink (milk from the breasts of goddesses, Indian soma, Germanic mead, the Greek nectar and ambrosia, magical foods and drinks that endow them with special powers, that heal them of sickness, that protect them against evil magic, that rejuvenate them, that act as aphrodisiacs and so forth). There are also magical objects that the gods employ for their needs and that are considered the source of their power. Babylonian "Tables of Destiny," Aphrodite's aphrodisiacal girdle, Hermes' magic wand, magic seals, crystals in which the future can be divined, magic weapons to ward off evil etc. (Kaufman 32)

What rules the gods?

Necessity: birth, procreation, growth, youth, age, death and the like. In Hindu thought, this is rita, the world order. In Persian, it's asha, with Greeks it's ananke (necessity) or moira (fate). The gods cannot control these things.

What does the wisdom of gods entail?

Not knowledge of itself and its effect on a world dependant upon it, but rather knowledge of the world and its mysterious properties, in which it only plays a part. (Kaufman 34)

Now let's talk about magic, divination and cult.

Magic, divination and cult are the three forms that practical religion takes in antiquity. The magician usually acts in the name of gods and spirits; his techniques have often been revealed to him by the gods, and he is effective through their power. From this viewpoint, magic may be counted among the phenomena of religion, and the magician regarded as a priest who acts with the sanction and help of a potent god.

MAGIC

But magic may also appear in a "pure" form in rites that have no connection with the will of the gods, but are viewed as automatically effective, or even capable of coercing the gods to do the will of the practitioner. There can be a magical basis even to rites involving an appeal to the gods- when they themselves are conceived as skilled magicians who know the secrets of the universe and how to put them to use. It is this ever present assumption of a realm of forces apart from the gods that makes pagan religion, even in its highest manifestations, amenable to belief in magic.

The distinctive mark of all pagan rituals is that they are not directed toward the will of the gods alone. They call upon self-operating forces that are independent of the gods, and that the gods themselves need and utilize for their own benefit. The ultimate symbol of divine subjection to transcendent powers is the god as magician or as diviner. (Kaufman 40-41)

DIVINATION

Divination is often defined as the discovery by various means of the will and decree of the gods. But this definition inadvertently imposes upon paganism a unified view of the universe that is foreign to its essence. It presupposes that both the disclosure (by means of a sign, or prophecy, etc) and the decree (the impending event) stem always from the will of the gods. But paganism was conscious of no such unity, for it did not attribute everything ot the will of the gods. Some events and conditions had nothing to do with the gods; others befell the gods themselves as decrees of overriding fate. Even where they reigned supreme, there was no necessary identity between the god who made decrees and the god who revealed them. Pagan divination does not assume, as a matter of course, that the disclosure to man comes from the same god who determines his destiny. Perhaps the most prevalent concept is that certain gods or spirits, who have a particular faculty for discovering what has been decreed, specialize as contacts with man. (Kaufman 43)

TYPES OF DIVINATION

INDUCTIVE DIVINATION- Works by observation of external signs, various phenomena of the external world.

INTUITIVE DIVINATION- The working of an inner power, a special faculty of the soul to foreknow or to see hidden things.

ONEIROMANCY- Characteristically practiced by means of the dream-riddle- while the dream is often a sign sent by the gods, it may also be a causal sign or a spontaneous premonition of things to come.

PROPHECY-Prophecy is a divine attribute in which man can share either by the favor of the gods or by his own magical efforts. It is grounded in a special psychic property which enables its possessor to know hidden things immediately. It is not necessarily dependent upon divine revelation; it may equally well represent a human faculty of sensing hidden things irrespective of the gods.

THE CULT

The characteristic mark of the pagan cult is not its plurality of worshiped beings, but its view of ritual as automatically efficient and intrinsically significant. The cult is not ordained by the supreme, free will of the deity; its end is not merely to express and embody man's adoration. It is rather a system of rites capable in themselves of working good and evil, whose potency derives from the realm above the gods. It sets into motion magical forces inherent in certain substances (the flesh of sacrifices, blood, incense, oil, water, fire, etc) certain activities (gestures, dances, processions, songs, dramas, prayers etc) and certain forms (numbers, figures, series of actions, pictures and symbols.)

There is always a magical element in the pagan cult, even when it aims at propitiating the gods. For the cult is regarded as playing a vital role in the life of the gods. Its purpose is to benefit man, but it achieves this by serving th eneeds of the upper realm. The pagan cult not only invokes the blessings of the gods, it also supports them and strengthens them through its rites.

SACRIFICE AND FESTIVAL- There are two main types. A) Those intended to propitiate and do homage to the gods B) Those that aim at acting upon or influencing hte life of the gods or the cosmos. (Both intentions can sometimes be mingled together.)

THE BATTLE OF GOOD AND EVIL- Paganism regards impurity or demonic evil as an autonomous, baleful realm as primary as the holy and the good. Death, disease, darkness and the host of evil spirits who seek to destroy gods and men are the domain of the unclean. The eternal struggle between these two realms is vividly reflected in the cult.

GODS AS PRIESTS- The fundamental idea of paganism is most strikingly set forth in the notion that the gods use the cult for their own benefit. Nothing illustrates so clearly the intrinsic value of the cult and the gods' dependence upon it (Kaufman 57). Example: Marduk is not only the arch magician, but also the "priest of the gods."

Let's conclude by talking about the pagan way to salvation.

Subjection of both men and gods to a transcendent realm is symbolized by myth and concretized in the cult. This common lot is what gives meaning to the magical, irrational cult; men share in the life and destiny of the gods, imitate their actions and rites, and commemorate events in their lives. These are the mythological foundations upon which the cult is grounded. And yet, it is a prevalent idea that the rites have autonomous value and innate efficacy. The groundwork is thus laid for bypassing the gods to address the ultimate realm upon which they themselves are dependent. This tendency does not represent a "magical stage" of religion; the notion of the intrinsic efficacy of the ritual is sufficient to turn attention to the meta-divine realm, and to arouse efforts to attain salvation directly through it.

The most advanced manifestations of paganism show a tendency to regard man as able to save himself by his own devices. The cult rises above the commonplace concerns of rain, produce, fertility, and victory to the vision of salvation. At this level, man may be viewed as the ally of the gods in their struggle with evil- that is, at bottom, as co-savior with the gods (Zoroastrianism). Or the tendency may be toward the magical, with the cult regarded as a system of rites capable of exalting man to divine rank and thus saving him from evil. Salvation, however, is his own concern, not the gods'; at most, they but help him find the hidden way (Brahmanism). But paganism may attain the philosophic and metaphysical level. Here, salvation is no longer a matter of ritual, but of knowledge of the secrets of being and non-being, life and death. Man liberates himself through his mind and spirit from the prison of the body and dreary cycle of death and rebirth (Gnosticism and Buddhism). The sublimest height is reached in the Platonic doctrine, which teaches man how to redeem himself through attachment to the realm of ideas.

Paganism in all its manifestations thus recognizes a transcendent, metadivine realm. There it seeks the key to the destiny of the world and the salvation of man. (Kaufman 58-59)

Pagan Mythology & Idolatry in the Bible

The Religion of Israel by Yehezkel Kaufmann, translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg, raises an interesting problem as its premise, namely, how is it that the Bible is filled with attacks on idolatry inasmuch as idolatry is a fetishism (creatures of stone, wood, gold and silver ought not to be worshipped) and yet does not include attacks on the mythology behind paganism? The problem is presented like so on page 20.

~

The Basic Problem

It seems incredible that Israel should have been totally unaware of the nature of pagan beliefs. For Israel was always in contact with its pagan neighbors, and moreover, had believing pagans in its midst. Certainly there were circles who knew about paganism more than is reflected in the Bible. What is shown by the fact that the Bible bases its whole polemic on the argument of fetishism is that the chief influence of foreign beliefs on Israelite religion did not involve mythological materials and that the age-long battle of the Bible with idolatry did not involve mythological polytheism. This compels us to examine anew the conventional views regarding foreign influences on Israelite religion during biblical times. Moreover, we shall have to re-examine fundamentally the nature of Israelite "idolatry" during this period.

It is clear now that the question as to the origin of Israelite monotheism has been erroneously formulated. We cannot ask whether it was during the preprophetic or prophetic age that the religion of YHWH came to deny the reality of the foreign gods. The Bible nowhere denies the existence of the gods; it ignores them. In contrast to the philosophic attack on Greek popular religion, and in contrast to the later Jewish and Christian polemics, biblical religion shows no trace of having undertaken deliberately to suppress and repudiate mythology. There is no evidence that the gods and their myths were ever a central issue in the religion of YHWH. And yet this religion is non-mythological. Fossil-remains of ancient myths cannot obscure the basic difference between Israelite religion and paganism. It is precisely this non-mythological aspect that makes it unique in world history; this was the source of its universal appeal.

The Bible's ignorance of the meaning of paganism is at once the basic problem and the most important clue to the understanding of biblical religion. It underscores as nothing else can the gulf that separates biblical religion from paganism. A recognition of this gulf is crucial to the understanding of the faith of the Bible. Not only does it underlie the peculiar biblical misrepresentation of paganism, it is the essential fact of the history of the Israelite religion.

The Biblical Texts Found in Qumran by Emanuel Tov

"The Biblical Texts Found in Qumran" in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emanuel Tov

~

The cool background to the Qumran story: The thousands of fragments found near Hirbet-Qumran, some 15km south of Jericho near the Dead Sea, were deposited there, as it seems by the group of people who dwelled there. Even though this assumption appears to be the most plausible of various options, it remains problematic (see p. 102). Any explanation of the Qumran finds will have to account for two types of data: the enormous quantity of texts found at the spot (fragments of approximately 900 biblical and nonbiblical scrolls once complete) and the wide textual variety reflected in the biblical texts (see pp. 112-117). Supposedly the original scrolls comprised a collection of texts, possibly a library, deposited by the Qumranites, but we possess no information regarding the role of these texts, or their use, if at all, in the daily life of the community over a period of more than two hundred years. The term library is applicable to the collection, mainly in regard to the texts found in cave 4, only if defined in the limited sense of a collection of books maintained by a certain community and if it is not assumed that all the books contained in this library received the same amount of credence, authority, and use. In this connnection it is relevant to note that the individual caves contain different collections of texts, but these collections cannot be characterized in any special way.

About 900 texts were found in Qumran, of which many are copies of the same composition. It seems that some of these texts were written in Qumran while others were brought there from outside. There's criteria suggested by Tov regarding how to tell which one is which based on orthography, morphology and scribal practice. "All the special writings of the Qumran covenanters were probably written according to the same system of orthography, morphology and scribal practice which is named here the Qumran practice or Qumran scribal school."

This is important because the texts found in Qumran thus reflect the textual situation of the Bible not only in Qumran, but also elsewhere in ancient Israel.

What constitutes the Qumran practice?

-ORTHOGRAPHY: Distinctive, having no equal among the known documents from other places (108) which is characterized by the addition of many matres lectionis whose purpose is to facilitate the reading.

-MORPHOLOGY: lengthened independent pronouns, lengthened pronominal suffixes, words which serve in the Masoretic texts as pausal forms which occur in these texts as free forms, lengthened future forms, verbal forms with pronominal suffixes, etc

-CONTEXTUAL ADAPTATIONS which reflect a "free approach to the biblical text"

-SCRIBAL PRACTICES such as the occurrence of scribal marks in large frequency, especially cancellation dots, the use of initial-medial letters in final position and the writing of the divine names of God sometimes in conjunction with another divine appelation and together with their prefixes in paleo-Hebrew characters in texts written in Assyrian script

There are five different groupings to Qumran texts.

1. Texts Written in the Qumran Practice (20% of Qumran biblical texts)
2. Proto-Masoretic or Proto-Rabbinic Texts (35% of Qumran biblical texts)
3. Pre-Samaritan or Harmonizing Texts (no more than 5% of Qumran biblical texts of the Torah)
4. Texts Close to the Presumed Hebrew Source of Septuagint (5% of Qumran biblical texts)
5. Non-Aligned Texts - ones that agree sometimes with Masoretic text, sometimes with Septuagint and/or disagree with other texts to same extent so don't really lean in one direction exclusively(35% of Qumran biblical texts)

The Contribution of the Qumran Texts to Biblical Research (117)

The Qumran texts contribute much to our knowledge of the biblical text at the time of the Second Temple- a period for which there was hardly any Hebrew evidence before 1947. Until that year, scholars based their analyses mainly on manuscripts from the Middle Ages. The Qumran evidence enriches our knowledge in the following areas.

(1) Readings not known previously help us to better understand many details in the biblical text, sometimes pertaining to matters of substance (for example, see chapters 4, 6, 7). The Qumran texts, though early, are still removed much from the original texts as defined in 3B.

(2) The textual variety reflected in the five groups of texts described above provides a good overview of the condition of the biblical text in the Second Temple period (see the discussion in chapter 3c).

(3) The scrolls provide much background information on the technical aspects of the copying of biblical texts and their transmission in the Second Temple period (see chapter 4).

(4) The reliability of the ancient translations, especially Septuagint, is strengthened by the Qumran texts. Septuagint is one of the important texts for biblical research (below pp 141-142) but since it is written in Greek, its Hebrew source has to be reconstructed from that language. The reconstruction of many details is now supported by the discovery of identical Hebrew readings in Qumran scrolls. See, for example, the reconstruction of Septuagint in Deut 31:1, 1 Sam 1:23, 1 Sam 1:24, 2 Sam 8:7 and also the examples on pp 113-114. This evidence provides support for the procedure of reconstructing the Hebrew parent text of the translations. (117)

The Old Testament at Qumran by Frank Moore Cross

"The Old Testament at Qumran" from The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies by Frank Moore Cross

~

"The Essene manuscripts, biblical and non-biblical, contribute new data to several areas of Old Testament study: the history of the Hebrew canon, the development of Hebrew (and Aramaic) dialects, scripts, orthographies, and scribal procedures, and- the fields which will be selected arbitrarily for treatment here- the historical criticism of the Old Testament, and the history of the Old Testament text." (121)

Due to finding the Dead Sea Scrolls we learn/ know/ gain information...

- We must cease to date any biblical work belonging to the Former or Latter Prophets (not to mention the Torah) later than the early second century BC

-The collection of canonical psalms was fixed by Maccabean times, bearing out the current tendency to date the latest canonical psalms in the Persian period

-Psalm studies are strongly affected by "the appearance in Essene circles of collections of hymns of Maccabean and Hasmonaean date" which include "many categories of material of which the Thanksgiving Hymns are but a single type" (122).

-Analyzing these hymns' literary types, prosody and the language/ theological motifs therein will expand knowledge of "late Old Testament psalmody" and will also illuminate "difficult problems in the study of the literary types and prosodic canons of New Testament psalms"

(So far it seems that the psalms of the Maccabean period are "much developed beyond the latest of Old Testament psalms; their language is neoclassical, not classical; sapiential forms and language have profoundly influenced hymnic style" (123). Older patterns of meter and rhyme have been largely broken down or lost.

The Essene psalms/ hymns are "patchworks of phrases from the Psalter, and notably from the Prophets; yet the mood and theological structure differ strikingly from canonical psalms" (123). Suitable parallels can be found in the Apocrypha and New Testament hymns.)

-One cool thing which sheds light on the "oral, or possibly literary sources behind the fixed edition of an Old Testament book" is the Prayer of Nabonidus. In this prayer, Nabonidus comes down with a disease because of God and is set apart from men for a seven-year-period in the Arabian oasis of Teima. A Jewish diviner (presumably Daniel, the text does not give his name) intervenes and speaks of the king's worship of 'gods of gold, bronze, iron, wood, stone, silver.' This is strongly reminiscent of the story of Nebuchadnezzar's being driven from men for seven years during which he learns that 'the Most High rules the kingdom of men' ending with the king blessing God.

There's a lot of support for believing that the real legend is that of Nabonidus and the story later got transferred to Nebuchadnezzar because that name is more familiar/ more important. Extrabiblical data suggests Nebuchadnezzar never gave up his throne for seven years whereas it's known that Nabonidus "gave over the regency of his realm to his son Belshazzar in order to spend long periods of time in Teima". Also, the legend that follows where Nebuchadnezzar is substituted for Nabonidus as father of Belshazzar is "most suggestive" (124). The prayer is not necessarily the source text for the Daniel story; rather it may derive from a more conservative line of orally transmitted material.

-Old Testament textual studies are affected. The new scrolls "give evidence of the antiquity of the type of textual tradition which has survived in the form of the traditional Hebrew Bible." They preserve "many new readings some of which are superior to received readings, some of which are inferior."

-The chief importance lies in the Dead Sea Scrolls' ability to yield data for the reconstruction of the textual history of the Old Testament (125)

To understand this, you have to see what the state of textual studies re: the Old Testament was prior to the Qumran and Murabba'at scrolls.

Paul de Lagarde stated that all medieval Hebrew manuscripts were descended from a common ancestor, a single master scroll. He dated it no earlier than the first century of the Christian era. That, according to him, was when the rabbis had fixed an authoritative Hebrew text and this official text destroyed all variant lines of tradition in normative Judaism.

The Pentateuch of the Samaritans preserved an alternate form of the Torah. It was not helpful to reconstructing the early history of the Hebrew text because it is a relatively late branch/ Hasmonean times. It's a derivative of Paleo-Hebrew script which was revived/ resurgent in the Maccabean era.

So they studied the Septuagint instead. They thought that maybe through reconstructing the Hebrew underlying this antique version, they might be able to reconstruct the Old Testament Bible. This was hard because a) they had to establish the original form of the Old Greek translation out of a maze of manuscripts belonging to Christian recensions of the Old Greek b) contamination of the transmission of the Septuagint by later Jewish Greek texts which had been revised back into conformity with the developing Hebrew text.

The question is, even if they could know the text of the Septuagint, can that be used as as witness to the archaic Hebrew text? Sharp debate in 19th century about this.

THEN came the Dead Sea Scrolls. "The recovery of more than one hundred twenty biblical scrolls from Cave IV came, therefore, as incredibly good fortune. Here at last was the material for sampling the textual types extant in virtually every book of the Old Testament. Here was a substantial basis for the establishment of the archaic, pre-Masoretic history of the Hebrew Bible" (132).

So they started studying. One of the first books they studied was Samuel. The text of Samuel contained "in the three scrolls from Cave IV is widely at variance with that of the traditional Masoretic Bible; it follows systematically the rendering of the Septuagint of Samuel." This helps to prove that the Septuagint's "divergent text was due less to 'translation idiosyncrasies' than to the type of text which it translated" (132).

More proof of this is found in the Jeremiah Qumran scrolls. Jeremiah is 1/8 shorter in the Septuagint and also has 4 verses omitted in chapter 10 with the fifth in a shifted order. The Qumran Jeremiah is exactly the same.

The texts demonstrate that the "proto-Masoretic tradition is sometimes old, and not merely the creation of the recensional activities of the rabbis, and that the appearance of one recension at Qumran does not exclude the presence of the other" (140). What this means in laymen's terms is like so: the Masoretic text refers to the uniform text of Tanakh as we have it today. Proto-Masoretic texts are those we have found that are dated earlier than the time when the Masoretic text was set down, canonized and uniform but which bear many features in common with the Masoretic text and are therefore its predecessors/ source texts. Alternative texts that differ can be the Samaritan texts, Septuagint and etc, which sometimes point to variant Tanakh text traditions.

Also proves that the text of Shmuel is a product of revision. Compare the Septuagint and Qumran scroll at 2 Samuel 3:7 which preserve the corrupt reading Mephiboshes with the text we have where the editor excised the corruption but did not replace it with Ishboshes, as he ought to have.

The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the "Alterations" Inserted Into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX

"The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the "Alterations" Inserted Into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX" by Emanuel Tov is a party and a half.

Okay, not really, but it's cool once you get past the fact that you don't understand what you are reading because it's academia and difficult to wrap your head around on no sleep. (And come on, which student actually sleeps?)

For newbies, the LXX is the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. If you're Jewish, you know Megillah 9a-b includes the story of 72 elders having been gathered by King Ptolemy, who placed them in 72 chambers and asked them to translate the Torah into Greek. Each scholar edited the text/ inserted certain variants identically.

Now, Emanuel Tov begins by telling you that various traditions (Megillah 9a, Yerushalmi Megillah 1,1,4, page 72a, Mek. Exod 12, 40; Midrash Hagadol Exodus 4,20; Abot de-R. Natan version B, chap 37; Sop. 1.7; Yalkut Shimoni Gen 3, Midrash Tanhuma Exodus para 22 and more) say 10, 11, 13, 15 or 18 alterations were made in the Greek translation of the Torah. You might think the shortest list is the "original formulation of the rabbinic tradition and that the longer list expanded it" (66) but this is not certain. The sources which state there were 13 or 15 alterations "are the most wide-spread and presumably reflect the central tradition." The lists having 16 or 18 alterations are the least reliable. 16 "came about as a result of the addition of biblical passages similar to those originally in the list, hence that list is secondary." When it comes to 18, it's influenced by "the list of 18 emendations of the scribes in the Hebrew text of the Bible" hence Tikkun Sofrim.

The base text is in Megillah and King Ptolemy's name is cited in all the sources. Now, these rabbinic texts suggest that the Greek translation was deliberately altered from the Hebrew. However, per the scholars, while "some of these differences do indeed stem from alteration" (72) others, which are in the majority, "stem from Hebrew variants, from translation technique and from an incorrect understanding of certain translation equivalents in the LXX" (72).

(As an interesting sidepoint, Christian tradition also focused on the differences between the Jewish and Greek Bibles, the Greek Bible being the Christian Bible from their point of view. However, in their case, a few Church Fathers "claimed the LXX reflects the true form of God's words, and that it was the Jews who had falsified them in their Bible" 72.)

Re: the list of alterations given in the Gemara, nine differ from the LXX and five agree with one passage being close. It could be that different translations stem from variant traditions that arose through the dissemination of the scrolls. There are no 2 scrolls nearly identical for any book of the LXX in pre-christian period. It seems that in many instances, changes were made to bring it more in line with Hebrew Bible, and so the list in the gemarah represents the original LXX.

The Background of the Differences between MT and the LXX Enumerated in the List (pages 82-83)

The lists in rabbinic literature speak of alterations that were inserted in the translation and it has already been stated above that at the time the sages regarded every difference between the Hebrew and Greek Pentateuch as a change inserted in the translation. In light of what has been stated above, the renewed discussion of the actual background of these differences now disregards the notion that they reflect alterations carried out by the translators). This renewed discussion is now made possible since the original text of the passages in the LXX (later corrected towards MT) has been reconstructed above.

The above-mentioned differences between the Hebrew Pentateuch and the LXX derive from the following factors: (a) translations deviating from MT based on Hebrew variant readings; (b) translations deviating from MT arising either from Hebrew variant readings or from exegesis; (c) exegetical translations; (d) Greek equivalents which were unjustifiably interpreted by rabbinic tradition as differences between the LXX and the Hebrew Pentateuch. This delineation raises most of the possibilities for the differences between MT and the LXX, both in the Pentateuch and in other books, aside from errors on the part of the translators and copyists.

The contents of lists of this type are largely a matter of chance, as is also the case with the list of the "emendations of the scribes" (see note 2). This list does not purport to represent the most conspicuous alterations and indeed the interested reader will easily find much more far-reaching differences between the LXX and MT, as for instance the order of chapters and subject matter at the end of Exod. On the other hand, what the biblical passages in the list have in common is that they pertain to some central issues. It is not hard to understand how post factum one would explain these differences as alterations (like the "emendations of the scribes", see note 2); however, this explanation holds true only in a few instances.

You'll have to read the whole article to see all the examples of the variants.

The Snaith Bible: A Critical Examination

Miles B. Cohen and David B. Freedman write a scathing review of the Snaith Bible, in which they basically attack the book and demonstrate its many errors. The conclusion to the piece serves as an excellent summary as well.

~

In conclusion, we have tried to show: (1) In matters of Masoretic spacing, vocalization, accentuation and use of Mem-Taf-Gimmel, Snaith's citing of the British Museum Manuscript Or.2626-8 as his basis is misleading, in view of the divergence of that manuscript and Snaith's printed text in an extraordinary number of instances (2) Snaith's claim that his text is independent of Biblia Hebraica is in need of substantiation (3) Snaith indicated his desired changes in a Letteris Bible which was not carefully checked to correct misprints and broken characters before it was submitted to the printer as the copy for Snaith's Bible (4) The typesetter was not made aware of the importance of some distinctions in the placement of certain accents (5) The proofreading was far below the caliber required for a project of this importance.

In the light of the above evidence, Snaith's edition must not be considered a reliable Masoretic text. It should therefore be noted that this Bible can no longer serve to substantiate Snaith's hypothesis that the Ben Asher tradition "is to be found in the first hand in the best Sephardi [manuscripts]," although the hypothesis itself may still be true.

Norman Henry Snaith has been a very demanding critic of Bible printings, as can be seen from his description of another scholar's Bible as "tragedy almost unrelieved." We would hope that if he were to reexamine his own text in the light of our evidence, he would agree that much serious revision of his Bible is needed.

(pages 125-126 or 29-30 depending on the article)

~

P.S. The only other time I've seen a review as negative as this one was Dr. Grach's "Responsa: Literary History and Basic History" about Peter J. Haas's work. It is also possibly the funniest review you'll ever read.

The Second Rabbinic Bible

Did you ever want to know about the printing of the Bible? When did it start? Which books were printed first? Were the copies accurate or not? Well, all that information and more can be found in C.D. Ginsburg's Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, specifically pages 779-976. These are the pages you have to read for Dr. Leiman's class specifically.

In any case, today I am going to be excerpting from these pages regarding The Second Rabbinic Bible, mostly because I need to know it for my comps and somewhat because I think that everyone ought to know this. So enjoy.

~

Second edition of the Rabbinic Bible or the editio princeps of Jacob b. Chayim with the Massorah, Venice 1524-25

Though Bomberg's second edition of the Rabbinic Bible, this is the famous editio princeps of the Rabbinic Bible with the Massorah edited by Jacob b. Chayim Ibn Adonijah. This renowned Massorite became connected with the spirited and enterprising Venice printer about 1516-17, the very time when the edition of Felix Pratensis was published, and there can hardly be any doubt that Jacob the ultra orthodox Rabbinic Jew must often have pointed out to Bomberg the disadvantage of appealing to Jewish communities to purchase a Rabbinic Bible edited by a neophyte Augustinian monk and dedicated to the Pope. However that may be, the enthusiastic Massorite persuaded Bomberg in the course of a few years to undertake the publication of the justly celebrated Bible with the Massorah which finally settled the Massoretic text as it is now exhibited in the present recension of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Jacob b. Chayim's own account of this great enterprise in his elaborate Introduction to the Bible is as follows:

When I explained to Bomberg the advantage of the Massorah, he did all in his power to send into all the countries in order to search out what may be found of the Massorah, and praised be the Lord we obtained as many of the Massoretic books as could possibly be got. He was not backward, and his hand was not closed, nor did he draw back his right hand from producing gold out of his purse to defray the expenses of the books and the messengers who were engaged to make search for them in the most remote corners and in every place where they might possibly be found.

Having obtained these materials, Jacob b. Chayim at once earnestly set to work to reduce them to order and to distribute the Massoretic corpus on the different pages of the Bible in a manner that it might easily be comprehended by the Biblical student. The enormous labour connected with this task is, modestly described by the learned editor in the following words:

Behold I have exerted all my might and strength to collate and arrange the Massorah, with all the possible improvements in order that it may remain pure and bright and shew its splendour to the nations and princes; for indeed it is beautiful to look at. This was a labour of love, for the benefit of our brethren, the children of Israel, and for the glory of our holy and perfect Law, as well as to fulfil, as far as possible, the desire of M. Daniel Bomberg, whose expenses in this matter far exceeded my labours. And as regards the Commentaries, I have exerted my powers to the utmost degree to correct in them all the mistakes as far as possible and whatsoever my humble endeavors could accomplish was done for the glory of the Lord, and for the benefit of our people. I would not be deterred by the enormous labour, for which cause I did not suffer my eyelids to be closed long, either in the winter or summer, and did not mind rising in the cold of the night, as my aim and desire were to see this holy work finished. Now praised be the Creator who granted me this privilege to begin and to finish this work.

The results of this unparallelled labour and vast erudition are exhibited in the Massoretico-Rabbinic Bible which was published in four folio volumes by Bomberg, Venice 1524-25. It will be seen that the publication of this Bible almost synchronises with the expiration of the ten years special Licence commencing in 1515 which was granted by Leo X to Felix Pratensis and in which the Supreme Pontiff forbade under pains and penalties the printing of a Rabbinic Bible with the Targums. The following are teh contents of the four volumes.

Volume I. The Pentateuch.- This Volume, which contains the Pentateuch with the Targum of Onkelos, the Commentaries of Rashi and Ibn Ezra and both the Massorahs, Magna and Parva, is without pagination and without catchwords in the Hebrew and Chaldee, but has the catchwords in the Commentaries. It consists of 234 folios and 30 quires with signatures. The first quire has 6 folios and the last has 4 folios, whilst the other 28 quires have respectively 8 folios. The quires are numbered both in Hebrew and Arabic numerals, whilst the sheets composing the quires are marked with Hebrew and Roman numerals.

Every folio has as a rule four columns, the two middle columns give the Hebrew text and the Chaldee of Onkelos both being furnished with the vowel-points and the accents; in the upper and lower margins of these central columns the Massorah Magna is given which generally consists of three lines in the upper margin and which has no definite number of lines in the lower margin: the space between the two central columns is occupied by the Massorah Parva. The two outer columns contain respectively the Commentaries of Rashi and Ibn Ezra. Not unfrequently there is also a narrow column outside these four columns which contains those portions of the Massorah Parva which were too long for the space between the Hebrew and Chaldee columns.

Each book begins with the first wood in large letters which is enclosed in a decorative wood-cut border and this again is contained in a square composed of lines varying in number which comprise Massoretic Rubrics. At the end of each book is the Massoretic Summary which registers the number of verses, the middle verse &c in the book.

The fifty-four annual Pericopes into which the Pentateuch is divided are indicated in a four-fold manner. (a) Each Parasha is separated from the other by a textless space of about four lines (b) With the exception of four instances there is at the end of each Pericope a register of the number of verses in the Pericope with the mnemonic sign (c) This is followed by the word פרשה in large letters which occupies the centre of the column when the Pericope coincides with an Open Section which is normally the case. In the abnormal instances where the Pericope coincides with a Closed Section, three Samechs (ססס) take the place of Parasha, and (d) each Parasha begins with the first word in larger letters. The names of the Pericopes are given in running head-lines throughout the Pentateuch where, however, מקץ is a mistake for ויגש on fol 56a.

In the sectional division of the text, Jacob b. Chayim has not followed the ancient rule which prescribes the form of the Sections, and which is followed in the best Sephardic MSS. He exhibits alike Open and Closed Sections by unfinished lines, indented lines and breaks in the middle of the lines. To indicate, however, the nature of the respective Sections, he inserted into the sectional spaces the letters Pe (פ) and Samech (ס) throughout the Pentateuch. IN this respect, therefore, he has only partially followed the excellent second edition of the entire Hebrew Bible, Naples 1491-93.

The preliminary matter to this Volume consists of (1) a rhythymical eulogy of this stupendous work written by Joseph b. Samuel Zarphati; (2) Jacob b. Chayim's celebrated Introduction to the Bible which I have published with an English translation &c; (3) complete Lists giving the number of the Christian chapters in each book of the Bible with the words wherewith each chapter begins; (4) Lists of the Sedarim throughout the Bible with their respective initial words, and (5) Ibn Ezra's Introduction to the Pentateuch. This preliminary matter occupies a separate quire of 6 folios with a duplicate signature, since this sheet like the following one has the same signature, א=1. It was printed after the whole Bible had left the press.

Volume II. The Former Prophets.- This Volume contains the Former Prophets, i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. It consists of 26 quires of 8 folios each, with the exception of the last quire which has 9 folios, so that the Volume has altogether 209 folios. The signatures exhibit a continuation of those in the first Volume. Hence the 26 quires are numbered both in Hebrew and Arabic numerals from ל 30 to נה 55.

The names of the respective books are given in running head-lines throughout the Volume where we have for the first time the division of Samuel and Kings into two books each, indicated by 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings and 2 Kings. This is a further development on Felix Pratensis who simply marked the division in the text itself or in the margin, but not in the head-lines. Jacob b. Chayim, however, has omitted the remarks of Pratensis in which this division is ascribed to Christians.

The arrangement and contents of the columns are similar to those in the first Volume with the following exceptions. (1) The Chaldee Paraphrase is that of the so-called Jonathan b. Uzziel and though it has the vowel points it is without the accents. (2) The Commentary of David Kimchi takes the place of Ibn Ezra and (3) the Commentary of Ralbag (= R Levi B. Gershom) is added, generally in the lower part of the column occupied by Rashi.

As is the case in the first Volume, each book in this Volume begins with the first word in large letters which is enclosed in a decorative wood-cut border. Outside this border is a large square made up of lines varying in number which contain sundry Massoretic Rubrics. At the end of each book is the Massoretic Summary which registers the number of verses, the middle verse and the Sedarim in the book. But thought Samuel and Kings are severally divided into two books, they are Massoretically treated as constituting one book each, and hence 2 Samuel and 2 Kings do not begin with the first word in larger letters and the Massoretic Summary at the end applies to the undivided Samuel and Kings.

Volume III. The Latter Prophets- The third Volume contains the Latter Prophets in the following order: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve Minor Prophets, which is the sequence exhibited in Column IV of the Table on page 6. It consists of 27 quires of 8 folios each with the exception of the last quire which has only 3 folios. The Volume has, therefore, altogether 211 folios. In this Volume too, the quires exhibit a continuous numeration from the former Volume and the numbers of the 27 quires are in the Hebrew and Arabic from 56 to 82.

The arrangement of the columns with the Hebrew and the Chaldee in the centre, the two commentaries in the two outer columns, the massorah Magna in the upper and lower margins witih the Massorah Parva occupying the space between the two central columns, is exactly the same as in the former Volumes. It is in the two outer columns which exhibit the Commentaries where alternate changes take place. In Isaiah the Commentary of Ibn Ezra takes the place of Kimchi, and in Jeremiah and Ezekiel Kimchi takes the place of Ibn Ezra, whilst in the Minor Prophets Ibn Ezra takes again the place of Kimchi. The Commentary alone uniformly occupies one of the columns throughout the Volume.

Volume IV. The Hagiographa- The fourth Volume contains the Hagiographa in the order exhibited in Column VIII of the Table on page 7. It consists of 37 quires of 8 folios each, with the exception of the last quire which has 10 folios. Accordingly this Volume has 298 folios. Here too the numeration of the quires runs on from the previous Volume and the 37 quires are numbered from 83 to 119.

The changes both in the arrangement and contents of the columns in this Volume are considerable. Up to Daniel the arrangement of the columns is the same and it is only in the contents of the columns which exhibit the two Commentaries where the alternate changes occur. In the Psalms the two columns contain Rashi and Ibn Ezra, in Proverbs and Job, Ralbag takes the place of Rashi, whilst in the Five Megilloth Rashi resumes his place. The Commentary on Proverbs, however, which is described in the heading as Ibn Ezra's, belongs to Moses Kimchi.

From Daniel to the end of Chronicles which is the last book of the Hebrew text, there is a change in the arrangement of the columns. As the last three books, viz .Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles are without the Targum, each page is henceforth divided horizontally into two sections, with two columns in each. The two columns in the upper section contain the text with the Massorah Parva in the intervening space, the Massorah Magna is given in the upper margin and below the text which horizontally divides the two sections, whilst the two columns in the lower section exhibit the two Commentaries.

In Daniel the two columns are respectively occupied by the Commentaries of Saadia and Rashi, in Ezra-Nehemiah Ibn Ezra's is the companion Commentary to Rashi, whilst in Chronicles Rashi is the sole occupant of both columns. Here again the Commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah which is ascribed in the heading to Ibn Ezra, belong to Moses Kimchi as is now established beyond the shadow of a doubt.

At the end of Chronicles or as an Appendix to Volume IV, Jacob b. Chayim gives in 65 folios of four columns each, that part of the Massorah Magna which was too long for the upper and lower margins of the text. As I have reprinted the whole of his recension I need not describe it here. Suffice it to say, that his conscientious and laborious application of the different Rubrics to the sundry pssages of the Bible faithfully exhibits the Hebrew text with all the phenomenal letters, words &c according to the Massorah and that this is the only authorised Massoretic recension. No textual redactor of modern days who professes to edit the Hebrew text according to the Massorah can deviate from it without giving conclusive justification for so doing.

A few of the characteristic features which distinguish this edition from its predecessors will suffice to show its merits.

(I) It is the first edition in which the consonants of the official readings are given in the margin with the express remark ק or Keri. Hitherto the editors have simply affixed the vowel points of the keri to the consonants of the Kethiv without any indication in the margin of the real consonants to which these graphic signs belong. Felix Pratensis, who alone gives the official readings, has mixed them up with the various readings from other Codices, and as he omits to mark the official variant with ק - Keri, it is difficult to distinguish between the two classes of variants.

(2) Jacob b. Chayim is also the first who has given in his edition of the Bible a large number of the important variants which are known by the name Sevirin

(3) He has, moreover, carefully collated a number of Codices and frequently gives their variants in the margin of his edition. The following instances from Genesis will show the nature and extent of the variations which he records (see page 964- I'm not typing it up)

These important glosses are no part of the Massorah, but record the result of Jacob b. Chayim's own collation. They disclose the fact that some of the model Codices and the Massoretic Annotators not unfrequently differed in their readings, and that Jacob b. Chayim had to exercise his own judgment as to which was the better reading. In this respect a modern editor is not bound to abide by Jacob b. Chayim's decision. A striking illustration of this fact we have in the two verses of Joshua XXI viz 36, 37. We have seen that some of the best MSS and all the early editions without exception have these two verses. Jacob b. Chayim, however, decided to omit them in accordance with a certain School of Massorites, but we are perfectly justified in restoring them on the authority which we have adduced.

Moreover Jacob b. Chayim with all his exertions had only been able to obtain a comparatively small portion of the Massorah, and many important Rubrics were entirely unknown to him as may be seen from a comparison of his edition of this Corpus with the Massorah which I published. The distribution and application of the contents of these new Lists among the various passages of the text, which constitute the Rubrics in question, not unfrequently yield new readings. But even here a modern editor has to give explicit data for departing from the Massoretic text as edited by Jacob b. Chayim.

Jacob b. Chayim himself has not unfrequently wrongly deviated from the Massorah which he printed. Hence his own text is occasionally in conflict with the Rubric which accompanies the textual phenomena. Thus on Gen IX 21 where we have one of the instances in which אהל, tent, with the suffix third person singular masculine, exhibits the archaic termination He (ה) instead of the normal Vav (ו), the Massorah Parva states that it is so written in four instances, and the Massorah Magna on this very passage not only mentions the same fact but enumerates the four passages, viz. Gen IX 21; XII 8; XIII 3; XXXV 21. And though the Massorah Parva remarks against each of the instances that it is one of the four exceptions, yet Jacob b. Chayim's text also reads אהלה with He in Gen XXVI 25 contrary to the unfirom Massorah Parva in the four passages. In the Massorah Finalis where he gives the heading of this Rubric he indeed states that there are five such instances, and refers to Gen IX 21 where he says the Massorah enumerates them in full. Bu thtis Massoretic Rubric, as we have seen, expressly states that there are only four and the enumeration coincides with the heading. This conflict between Jacob b. Chayim's textual reading and his Massorah is manifestly due to the fact that some Massoretic Schools had preserved more instances of this archaic form and that Gen XXVI 25 is one of them. Still his reading in Gen XXVI 25 contradicts his Massorah.

A still more striking instance of conflict between Jacob b. Chayim's text and his Massorah is to be seen in Gen XXVII 11 where the unique orthography of שער, hairy, occurs and where the Massorah Parva duly remarks that this defective form does not occur again. In verse 23 of this very chapter שערת hairy, the plural feminine of this adjective occurs which is also defective. Here the Massorah Parva remarks "there are three instances of defective orthography of this expression in the Bible". As usual the Massorah Parva simply gives the number, but does not give the passages. The Massorah Magna, however, on this very pssage not only states that there are four such instances, which contradicts the Massorah Parva, but minutely enumerates them, viz. Gen XXVII 11, 23; Levit XVI 18, 21. Accordingly the other two instances are in Levit XVI 18, 21. On referring, however, to these two passages, it will be seen that they are both plene in Jacob b. Chayim's text which is in conflict with his Massorah. The contradiction is due to the same cause. The plene orthography emanates from one School of textual redactors and the defective spelling was transmitted by another School. AS the majority fo the MSS which he collated exhibited the defective orthography he inserted it into his text, but having also found this Massorah he felt it his conscentious duty to record it. Still his textual readings contradict his Massorah.

In the face of such conscientious proceedings which made Jacob b. Chayim scrupulously to record Massorahs even when they were in direct conflict withthe readings he adopted in the text, it is astonishing to find that some eminent critics have accused him of being a party to a "pious fraud" and that he had falsified the text in the interest of Christianity to please his Christian employer. This accusation is based upon the Massorah Parva on Numb XXIV 9 and Psalm XXII 17, but more especially on his remarks in the Massorah Finalis with reference to teh quadriliteral expression כארי which occurs four times in the Bible, twice with Kametz under the Caph and twice with Pathach.

(1) On Numb XXIV 9, where it first occurs and where it has Pathach, the Masorah Parva simply states that it occurs four times, twice with Kametz and twice with Pathach. As this simply registers the number of times without giving the passages, nothing is to be deduced from t his matter of fact statement. The Massorah Magna, however, on this very passage which notices the two instances where it is with Pathach, gives this as the first and Ps. XXII 17 as the second passage with the important remark that the textual reading or the Kethiv in the latter place is כארו with Vav at the end, which most unquestionably makes it a verb third person plural, the Kethiv in Jacob b. Chayim's text is not only k'ari with Yod at the end, but that the Massorah on this passage makes no mention whatever of the existence of such a variant.

(3) It is the alphabetical Massorah Finalis at the end of the fourth volume where Jacob b. Chayim records and discusses the various readings in Ps. XXII 17. In letter Aleph he gives the Massoretic Rubric withthe four passages in full in which this quadriliteral occurs,a nd appends to the following important note in Rabbinic characters:

In some correct Codices, I have found כארו as the Kethiv and k'ari as the Keri but I have searched in the List of words which are written with Vav at the end and are read with Yod and did not find it included therein. Neither did I find it noticed among the variations which exist in the Bible between the Easterns and the Westerns. Thus far.

The cause of offence which provoked Hupfeld's charge of falsification against Jacob b. Chayim is in the first place the Massorah Parva on Ps. XXII 17, which as we have seen states that kari with Kametz under the Caph occurs twice in two different senses. As it undoubtedly denotes like a lion in Isa XXXVIII 13, the remark is naturally designed to convey the idea that in Ps. XXII 17, which si the twin passage, it is a verb. For this reason Hupfeld concludes that it is not a genuine Massorah, but a fradulent addition by Jacob b. Chayim.

Nothing short of documentary evidence could justify so serious a charge. As there was no other printed Massorah in Hupfeld's time by which to test the accuracy of Jacob b. Chayim's Massorah he was in duty bound to investiage MS Lists. He would then have found that every important Condex with the Massorah gives the Alphabetical List of words which respectively occur twice in two different senses and that כארי in Isa XXXVIII 13 and PS XXII 17 is an essential constituent of this List. In confirmation of this statement I refer to the Ochlah Ve-Ochlah edited by Frensdorff and to my edition of the Massorah. But what makes this charge inexcusable is the fact that hte MS. of the important recension of the Ochlah ve-Ochlah is in the University Library at Halle where Hupfeld resided and where he was Hebrew Professor. If he had consulted this MS, which was his duty to do, he would have found this list with kaari in it as having two different senses in Isa XXXVIII 13 and Ps XXIII 17.

As to the important note in the Massorah Finalis, Hupfled boldly declares that "Jacob b. Chayim was very much pressed by the Christian printer in whose pay he was to insert the reading כארו into the text "for the glory of God" which he indeed did not do, but to please his employer he was induced to designate the MSS. In which he found this reading as careful or correct Codices contrary to the truth.

Having proved the genuineness of the Massorah Parva on Ps. XXII 17, which according to Hupfeld himself conveys the same sense as the Kethiv mentioned by Jacob b. Chayim in the Massorah Magna and in the note appended to the Rubric in the Massorah Finalis, I might here dismiss the charge with regard to this Kethiv. The existence, however, in ancient times of the reading which Jacob b. Chayim gives as the Kethiv which is beyond the shadow of a doubt, not only vindicates the character of the first editor of the Massorah, but is important to textual criticism.

Leaving out the reading in the Septugint which critics of the Hupfeld School ascribe to a Christian hand, this reading is attested by Aquila who renders it - they have made hateful- which was sufficient evidence even for Graetz that "at the time of the earlier Tanaites in the beginning of the second century the text of some Codices had כארו. The reading כארו as a verb preterite third person plural is, moreover, perserved in the Midrash on the Psalms where it is rendered by הוכרו, they made hateful, or according to others they made happy. There is, therefore, no doubt that the two rival readings were preserved in two different Schools of textual redactors and that by way of compromise one was put into the text and the other in the margin. Indeed from the Chaldee rendering of this passage it would appear that at one time both these readings were in the text which is not at all improbable since it not unfrequently happened that one of pairs which are alike, is dropped out of the text. Accordingly the text in some MSS was כארו כארי ידי ורגלי - like a lion they tore my hands and feet.

Such a paranomasia is of frequent occurence and is regarded as imparting force to Hebrew diction.

As had already been remarked, the text of Jacob b. Chayim's edition exhibits most scrupulously the Massoretic recension. It is therefore of supreme imporatnce to see how far the innovations which have been introduced into some modern editions called Massoretic are in harmony with this Massoretic editio princeps.

There is not only a hiatus in Gen IV 8, but the Massorah Parva on it distinctly remarks that it is one of the twenty-eight instances in which there is a break in the middle of the verse. בשגם in Gen VI 3 is with Kametz under the Gimel. With regard to the orhography of Chedor-laomer which occurs five times the editor is inconsistent, since it is in two words in three instances and in one word in two instances. Beth-el, however, is not only uniformly printed in two words in all the seventy passages in which it occurs in the Hebrew Bible, but is in two separate lines in no fewer than ten instances, Beth being at the end of one line and El at the beginning of the next line. AS has already been stated, this is the first printed edition of the Hebrew Bible in which the two verses are omitted in Josh XXI viz 36, 37 neither has it Neh VIII 68.

It cannot be too much emphasized that this Standard edition of teh Massooretic text is against the innovation of (1) inserting Dagesh into a consonant which follows a guttural with Sheva (2) into the first letter of a word when the preceding word with which it is combined happens to end with the same letter or (3) of changing Sheva into Chateph-Pathach when a consonant with simple Sheva is followed by the same consonant, as will be seen from the following examples (see list yourself on page 974).

As to the relation of this edition to that of Felix Pratensis, though Jacob b. Chayim never refers to it, there is no doubt that he was greatly indebted to it. We have seen that Felix Pratensis was the fist who not only printed the Keri in the margin but also variants from MSS. Jacob b. Chayim does the same, but more regularly and consistently. From the edition of Felix Pratensis, Jacob b. Chayim reprinted the TArgums on the Prophets and the Hagiographa which, however, he did not improve inasmuch as he omitted the Targum of Jonathan on the Pentateuch and the second Targum of Esther, which appeared for the first time in the edition of Felix Pratentis. Moreover, Jacob b. Chayim omitted the Dikduke Ha-Teamim which is also given for the first time by Felix Pratensis, though he promised to give it when mentioning it in the Massorah Finalis under letter Cheth. At the end of Volume IV, however, he etells us that he omitted it because he regarded it as superfluous.

Of this edition I collated two copies, one in the British museum, press mark 1900, 1. 3-6, and the second copy is in my own possession.

~

I now skip to: All subsequent editions are in so far Massoretic as they follow the Standard edition of Jacob b. Chayim. Every departure from it on the part of editors who call their texts Massoreetic has to be explained and justified on the authority of the Massorah and MSS which exhibit the Massoretic recension of the text.

Introduction To Bible: The Order, Chapters, Text & Vocalization of the Bible

The Adept is a brilliant man who allows me to disseminate his Torah so long as I don't reveal his name. If you know his name, I'd appreciate it if you also refrained from revealing it. In order to understand the following notes, you MUST HAVE a copy of Tanakh with you (and an online Tanakh will not cut it.) It is preferable that you have the Koren Tanakh (the standard one, in layperson's English) in addition to another kind so that you can compare and contrast the two as indicated. As usual, these are my notes and any and all mistakes are mine. Prepare to have The Adept blow your mind. (And if you learn anything, you really ought to donate something to Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies, because they are flipping awesome.)

~

The Order of the Biblical Books

There's a passage in Mesechet Bava Basra where the Talmud details the order of the books of the Torah. Open up to Bava Basra 14b. Now, first they list the order of the books of Tanakh: Bereishis, Shemos, Vayikra, Bamidbar, Devarim. So far so good. But now notice this statement:

ת"ר סדרן של נביאים יהושע ושופטים שמואל ומלכים ירמיה ויחזקאל ישעיה

Now take a look at your Tanakh. What comes after Melachim (The Book of Kings) in your Tanakh?

*insert our minds boggling* Isaiah! Every Tanakh in our class is against halakha. Now I will cite you from the Rambam to Hilchos Sefer Torah 7:15:

טו מותר לדבק תורה נביאים וכתובים בכרך אחד, ומניח בין כל חומש וחומש ארבע שיטין, ובין כל נביא ונביא שלוש שיטין, ובין כל נביא ונביא משנים עשר שלוש שיטין--שאם בא לחתוך, חותך. וסידורן של נביאים, כך הוא--יהושוע, ושופטים, שמואל, ומלכים, ירמיה, ויחזקאל, ישעיה, ותרי עשר; וסדר הכתובים--רות, ותילים, ואיוב, ומשלי, וקוהלת, ושיר השירים, וקינות, ודנייאל, ומגילת אסתר, ועזרא, ודברי הימים.

There's no machlokes in the Gemara: the unanimous opinion is that Jeremiah comes before Isaiah. It's also in every edition of Shulchan Aruch. Look at Yoreh Deiah, RP"G, Chapter 283, Siman Hey (5). (רפג – שיכול לדבק תורה נביאים וכתובים יחד )

סדרן של נביאים יהושע שופטים שמואל מלכים ירמיה יחזקאל ישעיה תרי עשר וסדר הכתובים רות תהלים איוב משלי קהלת שיר השירים קינות דניאל מגילת אסתר עזרא דברי הימים - it's a pesak halakha that says Jeremiah, then Ezekiel, then Isaiah. And in every manuscript of haftoros ____.

The Adept is pointing out something that should trouble us! We have to figure out who preserved the manuscripts, printed Tanakh. etc.

The same beraita in Bava Basra says regarding Kesuvim that the order is: סידרן של כתובים רות וספר תהלים ואיוב ומשלי קהלת שיר השירים וקינות דניאל ומגילת אסתר עזרא ודברי הימים

Now look at Tehillim in your Tanakh. The class sees that at least some of us have Tanakhs which have the order of Tehillim, Mishlei and then Iyov. The Adept notes that only 2 major Tanakhs have a different order. He cites the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which has everything the way we said it (is based on the Leningrad manuscript.) And if you look at the order of Kesuvim in your Tanakh, what order do you have? Some people in the class (including me) have the Koren Tanakh. Thus, our order is Shir HaShirim, Rus, Eicha, Koheles, Esther but nothing that accords with the order we are supposed to have. Others in the class with fancier Tanakhs have different orders.

So even in terms of ordering the biblical books, there's significant variation. Now let's look at the chapters of the biblical books.

The Chapters of the Biblical Books

Please open your Tanakh to Genesis 31:55 in the Koren Tanakh. You have that verse. Others in the class have that as the first verse of Chapter 32.

Now look at Jeremiah 30:25 in the Koren Tanakh. You have that verse. Others in the class have that verse as Jeremiah 31:1.

Chazal, of course, knew no chapters. The Tanaim and Amoraim knew Tanakh by heart and thus knew where things were. These chapters are not of Jewish origin. They appear in no Hebrew manuscript. These are Christian in origin. There's much more in Tanakh that is Christian in origin, so you have to be careful (regarding what you are reading.)

The Adept gave us a handout, but there weren't enough copies so I don't have it. (This is a shame, as otherwise I could have scanned it. For the record, the edition I assume The Adept was using isn't in Gottesman Preserve (all the other volumes are) but only in the Rare Book Room, and currently that room's locked. Even if I come back before 5:00 PM on Monday, I'm doubtful they'll let me photocopy it. So someone else in my class should please provide me with the scan.) Thanks so much to the wonderful guy who scanned this for me! Courtesy of our anonymous friend, you can all understand what I am referring to now. Here is the handout:
Modah L'Bina Masoretic Summary Bereishis

In any case, this handout is a page from the end of Sefer Bereishis that comes from the Chumash Modah L'Bina in a rare & out-of-print 19th century version. And in the middle of the page on the right it gives you the sikkum pesukei d'sefer Bereishis. And it tells you as follows: There are 1534 verses in Bereishis. Now see how it gives you this statement: אך ל"ד סימן? So the gematriah of אך is 1000 for the aleph plus 500 for the chaf. And ל"ד is 34. So this is a סימן to remember that there are 1534 verses in Bereishis. And the middle point of these pesukim is Genesis 27:40. And there are 12 parshiyos. What do they refer to when they reference parshiyos? They mean: Bereishis, Noach, Lech Lecha, etc. Now it says: זה שמי לעולם is a סימן. You see, זה is the gematriyah of 12 and thus a sign for the 12 parshiyos. Next it states that there are 43 סדרים. What does that mean?

Those of you who have a Koren Tanakh, please open it up. Now, you will notice that there are two sets of chapter numbers in the Koren Tanakh. That's because one of these sets refers to the sedarim of the Baalei HaMesorah and the other refers to the Christian chapter divisions. The number of the sedarim of the Baalei HaMesorah in Sefer Bereishis is 43 (see how there's a מג there?)

(Adds The Adept: And that's why it's a mitzvah to own a Koren Tanakh even though it is far from the best edition.)

Returning to this page from Moda L'Bina: it says here that there are 29 peskitos. What's that? Look at Genesis 1:5. Look at the verse. You see that little vertical line after the words וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים ? What is that line? That's a pesikta.

And then it says (per the Baalei HaMesorah) that there are 50 chapters. And there they are referring to the Christian chapters!

Now look at the bottom of the page. The editor who is publishing this Tanakh is astounded by what he just read. His name, adds The Adept, is Wolf Heidenheim. He published the best Machzor & Siddur and is one of the great Baalei HaMesorah of Frankfort. So he said: "Many people have no idea how to read this paragraph. They don't know what sedarim are because no edition of Tanakh mentions this. Here I'll inform you of what it's all about." (He gives a history of where the chapters came from in the Latin Bible. Basically, Jews had to have public debates with Christians and had to respond to Christians with exact references, thus the use of Christian chapters.) Heidenheim discusses the true chapter divisions, aka the 43 sedarim that belong to the Baalei HaMesorah.

(The Adept went into a fascinating digression here about the mistakes people make when they assume things are from Sinai, but I can't repeat it without publicly shaming a Gadol. I don't think The Adept would like me to do that, so if you want to know about it, you can ask me to email it to you. I'm going to refrain from making the information available forevermore upon the Web.)

In case we are ever on a quiz show and need to know, Jerome helped invent biblical chapters and Stephen Langton perfected them. All of this is discussed in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible.

The Text of the Biblical Books

Please open to Deuteronomy 23:2. Look at the verse.

ב לֹא-יָבֹא פְצוּעַ-דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה, בִּקְהַל יְהוָה. {ס} 2 He that is crushed or maimed in his privy parts shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD.

If you have the Koren Tanakh, you've got the word 'daka' spelled with a 'hey.' Everybody else has an aleph. The question is: Which one is right? This can make the Torah pasul! These aren't small matters.

Please open up to Mishlei 8:16. Look at the verse.

טז בִּי, שָׂרִים יָשֹׂרוּ; וּנְדִיבִים, כָּל-שֹׁפְטֵי צֶדֶק. 16 By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

Here, some of you have the verse ending with the word 'tzedek.' But others have the word 'aretz.'

Look at I Samuel 30:30- there's a list of towns there.

ל וְלַאֲשֶׁר {ר} בְּחָרְמָה {ס} וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּבוֹר-עָשָׁן, {ס} וְלַאֲשֶׁר {ר} בַעֲתָךְ. {ס} 30 and to them that were in Hormah, and to them that were in Bor-ashan, and to them that were in Athach;

If you have the Koren Tanakh, you will see that verse says 'BECHOR Ashan,' while others have 'BeVOR Ashan.'

Here's a fun one. Look at Joshua 21:35-36. Some of you have 'm'mateh Gad' but others have 'm'mateh Reuven.' And if you have the Lublin edition of the Mikraos Gedolos (aka the one with the navy blue cover) you have two whole extra verses there!

The Vocalization of the Biblical Books

Let's look at Jeremiah 11. The differences here are legion. Verse 11:2, for instance, either has v'dibartem or v'dibartam depending on your Tanakh. That's a difference between singular or plural! That's a tremendous difference!

~

So we've raised the issues. But how to resolve them? For that we have the readings on this section which will provide the background material to answer this. The first readings are:

1. C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London, 1897; reissued: New York, 1966), pp. 779-976.

2. M B. Cohen and D.B. Freedman, “The Snaith Bible -- A Critical Examination of the Hebrew Bible Published in 1958 by the Brtitish and Foreign Bible Society,” HUCA 45(1974)97-132.

3. M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ed., The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah — (Jerusalem, 1995), English section, pp. xi-xlviii.

4. M. Cohen, “(Hebrew) Mavo LiMahadurat HaKeter” appended to “Mikro'ot Gedolot HaKeter: Yehoshua/Shofetim”, Ramat Gan, 1992, pp. 1-100.

~

Since the advent of printing (which was approximately created in 1415), you would think the text would be frozen and yet you see that is not so! The ultimate goal of the Baalei HaMesorah was to preserve a perfect copy of Tanakh. Printing should have accomplished this goal but it didn't.

The most important reading of the four mentioned above is C.D. Ginsburg's. He was a meshumad and a pretty good scholar. It's worth reading his books. The late R' Yaakov Kamenetsky in his Emes L'Yaakov quotes C.D. Ginsburg. And don't think he didn't know he was a meshumad! R' Kamenetsky, whenever he had a doubt about vocalization, etc, looked at C.D. Ginsburg Bibles.

What Ginsburg properly recalls is that all printed bibles simply reflect the manuscripts. The manuscripts differed from each other (some were poor; others were better) and printers added printers' errors to add to the mess. There were many first printed editions of Tanakh that were based on terrible manuscripts. The great turning point came in 1524/ 1525 when the Venice Edition of the Mikraos Gedolos was published. It has masoretic notes (which are crucial.) There, for the first time, the editors made a deliberate effort to gather together many manuscripts of Tanakh in an attempt to publish the perfect copy. And that's the model for our Tanakh nowadays.

The Baalei Mesorah would write notes saying how many times certain words (like for example ays vs. es or David with a yud vs. without) would appear in Tanakh and the spelling thereof and would list the places for you. So a sofer writing every book of Tanakh will know that they did this for every word of Tanakh!

We are fortunate to be living in the 21st century. For the first time, Jews are becmoing independent, have their own printing houses (don't have to answer to the Russian cencor, etc.) They can try to publish the perfect copy of Tanakh. Of course, that means one must determine which manuscripts are trustworthy and which are not.

(For those of you who are going to say holchim achar ha'rov, the rule is that you ONLY follow the majority when you are not sure. You only do it when you are not certain. It is a last resort! When we do know which manuscripts are better, we want to focus on those. For example, if we had a manuscript authorized by Rambam, that would be much better than the majority. You could have a sofer who copies poorly who floods the market, etc, so majority means nothing.)

Deliberate attempts were made to produce perfect copies of Tanakh. The best editions of Tanakh are:

1. The Hebrew University Bible Project (they're publishing every book of Tanakh per the best manuscripts.) They read every manuscript just to check who is a sloppy scribe/ who are the best scribes (you can tell this by looking to see which manuscripts have correct or incorrect spelling, pesukim repeating or left out, etc.) They have columns giving every variant reading in Chazal, then every variant reading per the good manuscripts, etc. The one drawback is that they are functioning for about 60 years and yet they've only finished Isaiah, Jeremiah & Ezekiel. At this rate they will not be finished until the Messiah comes.

2. Bar-Ilan's הכתר which publishes a wonderful text of Tanakh, the masoretic text, and some of the mefarshim as well. (Menachem Cohen is in charge of this and they've put out about 15 volumes.)

The only thing that rivals these texts are actual copies of the Aleppo Codex or Leningrad Codex. (No other Tanakh, including Breuers, is based on one single text.)

History of the Jews' Creative Torah-Derived Literature

Rabbi Professor Elazar Hurvitz is brilliant. He is also a kind and grandfatherly person who makes me really happy. The stuff he taught was way too cool not to share, so here are the notes. (Notes and not quotes. I paraphrased parts.) Did you ever want to know who exactly the Amoraim/ Tannaim were and what they did/ why they did it? Here's a crash course. As usual, all mistakes are mine.

~
Tanakh

The essence of Israel is embodied through their creative capacity. Thus, throughout the ages, Israel has chosen to proceed in the field of literary study, always choosing to create. At the beginning, God gave us the Torah. By this we refer to the Five Books of Moses. But was that all? What about Nach? How did we receive Nach?

The Neviim said things and only later did they decide to write down their prophecies. The Anshei Kneses HaGedolah and Sofrim decided to put together what was said in some coherent way. And what of Kesuvim? In contrast to Navi, Kesuvim was given written down. When it came to Neviim, the transmission of prophecy was oral and then they made a record of it. Kesuvim means whoever created the book wrote it down.

Chazal decided that they were going to treat the whole Tanakh as one unit: everything is legitimate. What do we mean when we say everything is legitimate? That if they bring a proof of a certain point that they want to say, they can bring the proof from Mishlei to reflect upon Bereishis. They made everything one unit at the time of the end of prophecy. After the last Navi prophecied, that was the cutting line- nothing else can go into the text of Tanakh.

Torah She'Baal Peh: Tannaim

After Tanakh comes Torah She'Baal Peh. How? Well, the question of the time was: What can we get out of the Torah? Is it emotional points of view or laws? Well, narrative doesn't yield a composite of laws. So they said to themselves, "Let's see how practical we can be when studying the text of the Torah. What's the halakha from the pasuk? Can we dig up the halakha of the pasuk?" All the Tanaim were interested in was halakha. They were interested in halakhic consequences. So their desire was to find the halakha as a result of what we know till now.

At that point in time, they realized that when a person reads the Torah, he cannot tell which mitzvos are where and derived from what. So they decided to take all the mitzvos and classify them in an enyclopedic way in order to tell people the subject matter of the halakha. If you look at Shabbos, Berachos, Yuma, you will say that they are all arranged according to subject matter. Sometimes you encounter an argument but basically it's halakhos based on subject matter, which yields Mishnayos.

So Mishnayos are halakhos of the Torah classified according to subject.

When they finished this, that was the end. But the problem now was: they neglected the actual text of the Torah! Where are these halakhos coming from? The Chumash! So they said, now we must go to the Chumash and learn HOW the halakha was created. We must give you the process of recovering the halakhos from the Torah.

When you learn Mishna, the pasuk does not play a role in the Mishnayos. It doesn't say 'she'neemar' (or when it does, the percentage of 'sheneemars' is very low). That wasn't the issue here. When it comes to learning the text of the Torah, there they decided to figure out the origins. This is the distinction between Midrash Halakha and Mishna. The Midrash is the research on each pasuk: where the halakha stems from. Non-halakhic material was not of interest to then, though (which is why they did not cover Genesis.) When they finished the process of arranging everything and going through the text of the Torah, that was the end of Tekufas HaTanaaim.

Amoraim

Halakha was already arranged by subject matter. The Tannaim also showed you how they got to the idea. So what should the Amoraim do? They decided to go back to the Mishnayos and draw a comparative study between the Mishna and the Medrish. They were curious to see if the consequences of the halakha in Midrash Halakha will match the Mishna. You see, the Tannaim had done two different things separately:

1. First, they had created an encyclopedic assembly of halakhos (Mishnayos.)
2. Secondly, they had explained how those halakhos derived from the Torah (Midrash Halakha).

The Amoraim came to say: Can we compare those two texts to each other?

In the Mishna itself there was a Tosefta. It was a supplement rather than a major text. So the Amoraim re-check this. After that, they went to the baraita and want to see how Midrash Halakha quotes the halakha- how it got it. After the mishna comes the baraita to interrogate and see if what the Mishna is saying is a healthy consequence of the Midrash. Thus, they created the Talmud. The first layer of Gemara after the Mishna is the beraita, then questions and everything else. Everyone was adding until one day someone said, 'Enough.' That comparative study between Mishna and Midrash Halakha is the first layer of the Gemara.

Every Amora jumping on a mishna is trying to find a discrepancy between the mishna and midrash. Only in the Shas Vilna at the end of ___ meforah that makes a list of midrashim whenever talking about a beraita.

Now the question becomes: What did the Amoraim do with Chumash? Can they touch the Chumash or not?

Tannaim already did everything! So Amoraim decided to take the non-halakhic material and only dealt with Aggadah. So Sefer Bereishis they could do (because the Tannaim had not touched that.) The Amoraim tried to work with non-halakhic material. Their question was: Can we explain the Torah from the emotional/ philosophical point of view? That was the art.

Then added a pesikta on Chagim, Pirkei D'Rebbe Eliezer, etc, and the one guiding principle in all of these was: no halakha.

But who was the audience for everything the Amoraim were doing? Can this be taught in the classroom? No. You cannot put aggadah in a yeshiva environment. The reason why is because by aggadah anything goes. By halakha, we have machlokes. Therefore the Amoraim's main contribution was to the outside world of people who couldn't learn Chumash/ where halakha was not their piece of bread.

So Tannaim are operating for the elite students who are in the yeshiva/ classroom. The Amoraim are working with the Chumash to create something you can learn with people in the synogogue. So to get that clear:

Midrishei Tanaim: Halakha
Midrishei Amoraim: Aggadah

How did it work in the system in the community? Well, when a person's in shul, you have to give him variety. It can't just be gefilte fish in every dish. According to the Rambam, in very early times everyone used to daven what he felt. But then we got the nussach ha'tefillah (long subject we are not addressing right now) and what was the centerpiece of it? Kerias HaTorah. But someone is in shul, so why should he only know Torah and not Navi? So okay, we'll give you pieces every Shabbos of Navi, and that's how we get the Haftorah. (This is dedicated to the knowledge of the people.) What's missing? Kesuvim. Well, that too was given to us! Because the biur of the Parshas Ha'Shavua was based on Kesuvim.

(Take Bereishis Rabbah- you can see it yourself. [He pulls out a Bereishis Rabbah and gives it to us- sure enough, every opening statement is taken from Mishlei, Tehillim, Daniel, etc- all from Kesuvim.])

And in the Gemara sometimes the Amoraim would overflow. They would tell their students during the week what they gave as a derasha in shul, and that's how we get aggada in the Talmud Bavli. They include mashal, sippur, everything. So Talmud becomes an open door as long as it fits in somehow. So you have sections of Aggadah, sometimes united, sometimes not. Mesechet Megillah is a whole peirush on Megillas Esther.

So the Amoraim finish their job. What happens then?

Savoraim

The Savoraim polish things. It's like when someone digs up a diamond and transports it to a different place; it's the raw diamond and has to be polished. But you didn't create the diamond. So the Savoraim don't create- they just polish the text linguistically, etc. (R' Sherira says so.) They also may add a sugya to ask questions but no halakha.

Geonim

Then came the Geonim who start a new type of literature which is called 'Shaalos and Teshuvos.' Also Parshanut HaTorah in Arabic, Hebrew, etc- flood of parshanim until today. And what happened with the Talmud? Chiddushim (Ran, Nimukei Yosef, everyone until today.)

Today every Rav in the world, if he wants to exist on the map, has to write Shaalos and Teshuvos.

Today

Alas, today people are not creative anymore; they're just encyclopedic. It's all Kol Bo. Since the 2nd World War, creativity is going down- I'm not referring to literature. When it comes to literature, the poems and the books that we have! I'm talking about rabbinic texts. We need people to contribute, not to inform. To have something original. We are lacking this.