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.

R' Samson Raphael Hirsch's Position: Torah and Derekh Eretz Was Not A Hora'at Sha'ah

A friend once asked me why it was that I affiliated myself with the Torah U-Madda perspective within Judaism. I had never really considered it before, and my friend argued that this perspective was recent and not really supported throughout our tradition. I was disturbed by this idea but didn't really know how to argue it. In a quest to learn more about this, I read Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm's book, Torah UMadda (and wrote about it here). Always curious, however, I was elated to discover that Professor Shnayer Z. Leiman had written a book entitled Rabbinic Responses to Modernity (the full text is available for download in PDF format here). I read it tonight in Gottesman (it's fantastic) and found a section that particularly resonated. You see, victim of a Bais Yaakov education, I had been taught that R' Samson Raphael Hirsch's perspective on Torah u'derekh eretz was, in R' Hirsch's point of view, a situation of horaat sha'a (timebound stance). Under other circumstances, I was assured, Hirsch would never have supported such an idea. Leiman proves this is totally incorrect.

I've scanned the relevant pages so that you can see his argument, but more importantly, see the footnotes where he directs you to further sources regarding the rebuttal of this point. He makes a distinction between others disagreeing with R' Hirsch and claiming that R' Hirsch himself believed his actions were dictated by hora'at sha'ah.

Rabbinic Responses to Modernity- Samson Raphael Hirsch

Here is Dr. Leiman's explanation of the purpose of the book (from his introduction):

The aim of this essay is to present, if only in outline form, a representative account of gedolei yisrael in the early modern period (i.e., the nineteenth century) who sought to relate Torah teaching to general culture. Our focus will be primarily, if not exclusively, on their differing viewpoints vis-a-vis general culture, on the institutions they engendered, and on their impact on the Jewish community at large. This essay does not purport to be an exercise in either history or biography; nor does it make any claim toward comprehensiveness. Rather, it is an attempt to engage in intellectual prosopography, i.e., to present a portrait of one aspect- albeit a crucial one- of the attitudes of a select group of gedolei yisrael who confronted modernity with an openness to general culture. Any attempt to portray all gedolei yisrael in the modern period who, in one form or another, reacted positively to general culture would have resulted in a lengthy monograph, at the very least. Such a volume would surely have tested the patience of most readers, and - in any event- would have moved well beyond my ability.

No hidden agenda need be sought in the presentation. It is intended to be largely descriptive and, hopefully, accurate. Wherever possible, the positions of the gedolei yisrael will be presented in their own words.

One final word. Feelings run high about some of these figures and their respective positions on Torah and general culture. In the heat of argument, their positions have often been misconstrued and misrepresented. It will be no small accomplishment if their views are set out dispassionately and accurately. To the extent that there is an agenda in this presentation, it is a transparent one: to demonstrate that the positions described in this essay are real, not imaginary. They are legitimate alternatives within Orthodoxy, to be accepted, rejected, but not ignored by those genuinely committed to traditional Jewish teaching.

~"Rabbinic Responses to Modernity" by Dr. Shnayer Z. Leiman, pages 9-10