The Rise and Development of the Massorah

8/12/2019 The Rise and Development of the Massorah

1/36

The Rise and Development of the Massorah (Concluded)Author(s): Isidore HarrisSource: The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Apr., 1889), pp. 223-257Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1450219.

Accessed: 29/05/2014 10:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Pennsylvania Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Jewish Quarterly Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 177.1.1.49 on Thu, 29 May 2014 10:12:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1450219?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1450219?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn


2/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.

THE RISE AND DEVELOPMENTOF THEMASSORAH.

[Concluded from page 142.]WHAT proportions this basis had attained will be mademore clear after we have inquired in what shape the Scriptureswere written down in the time of the Talmud, and what formwas given to the Massoreticapparatus. As regards the Sciip-tures, it will be necessary to direct separate attention to thefollowing particulars:-(1) Letters, (2) words, (3) verses, (4)sections and paragraphs,(5) books, and (6) vowel and accent-signs.(1.) The peculiarities of the Hebrew square character, ledto an ornamentation of the letters in the shape of a spur pro-jecting from the apex. This projection is styled in the Tal-mud1 yip (thorn), lv' (the name of the letter of that shape)InD or tSnr (crown), and is identical with the "tittle" oricepataof Matthew v. 18. Such flourishes were most commonlyappended to letters whose apexes terminated in points, insteadof being bounded by a horizontal line, viz., sr,s,,:3,,,T,ml,, .Of these ten letters, the seven which formed the mnemonic:t~ r' were distinguished by requiring three 'v; ;2but s1 , being silent letters, were not considered of sufficientimportance to be so marked.3 In course of time, theseflourishes came to possess a mystic import. It is narrated in.Menachoth, 9 b, etc., that when Moses went up to heaven hediscovered the Deity engaged in binding crowns to the letters.At a loss to understand what this meant, Moses was assuredthat a sage-Akiba the son of Joseph-would one day ariseand explain the mystic significance of every single spur. Such

IMenachoth,29 b, Shabbath,104 b, Erubin, 13 a, Sotah, 20 a.2 Menachoth,29 b. At a later period, a simpler kind of ornamentation,con-sisting of a single stroke, was given to the four letters p l '1 1and sometimes' and n.3 J. Derenbonrg, Journal Asiatique, 1867, i., p. 244. Cf. S. M. Schiller-Szinessy's Cat. Heb. MSS. at Cambridge, I., p. 3.

223

This content downloaded from 177.1.1.49 on Thu, 29 May 2014 10:12:44 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/36

The Jewish QuarterlyReviec.being the importance of these appendages, they were carefullycopied in the sacred scrolls, the calligraphy of which wasrequired to be of a particularly neat character.1(2.) The text of Scripture was not written as a scriptiocontinua,but the words were separated from each other. Thisfollows from a variety of considerations. (a.) lfenachoth, 0 a,regulates the amount of space to be left vacant after eachword. This single proof (from which also it may be inferred thatwords were divided by interspacing, and not, as in the Sama-ritan Pentateuch, by interpunction) is as decisive as a hundred,still we may be permitted to add others. (b.) Sanhedrin,94 a,asks, "Why, when every z in the middle of a word iswritten ' open,'that in rnno7 should be'closed'? ";from whichthe inference is plain that words were not run into oneanother. (c.) The Talmud (Pesacrhim,117 a; Jer. Succah, ii.12; see Minchath Shai on Ps. civ.) discusses whether wordswhich end in rr (rnibb;n, njr=, rFrPT) shall be written as oneor two words. (d.) These word divisions obtain in our Syna-gogue scrolls, which preserve the mode of writing in use inTalmudic times. (e.) Jer. Megillah,i. 9, refers to final lettersas an ancient institution (n''r), and the use of such letterspresupposes at least the incipient stage of word-division.(f.) The word-division followed in the readings of the Talmudclosely agrees with that adopted in our textusreceplus. [Wemay suppose, then, that the custom of writing the text as ascriptio continuaceased shortly after the appearance of theLXX.] (g.) Word-division comes within the scope of Ieeri andChetib,which only takes note of such features as the text pre-sented in Talmudic times.3(3.) Verses:-Although the Talmud knows of such divi-sions under the name of nNpim,and they are even referred toin the Mishna (Megillah,ch. iv., ? 4), yet there were no visiblesigns for this purpose, such as even primitive Arabic pos-sessed. Versualisation was a matter of oral tradition, andconfined to experts-the Scribes and professionalreaders of theLaw. Besides that such divisions are not marked in the Syna-

1 The rules relating to these appendageswere compiled for the use of scribesby some unknown Nakdan or S(fer in a Massoretic treatise which he styledt'Xfn 'DD. A MS. of this work has been edited by J. Barges and S. Sacis(Paris, 1866). Whenthis work waswritten is not known, but it must have beenanterior to the time of Saadja Gaon,who makes explicit reference to it. Itappears originally to have contained also chapters treating of ninlnDnllIDO nlODInD See Derenbourg, op. cit.).2 Yet they were probably introduced after the date of the LXX., which wasmade from a text in which there were neither finals nor word divisions. (SeeEichhorn, Einleitung A. 1., ? 73.)a Dillmann, op. cit.. p. 391.

224



4/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.gogue scrolls, a striking proof is afforded in that passage fromKidushin 30 a), which has already been commented upon. Itis there proposed to settle a difficulty in versualisation bytaking a scroll and counting the verses. To this it is objectedthat the disputants are not competent for such a task, like theSoferim. Now, had there been any visible marks by whichverses were distinguished from each other, the merest school-boy-not to say eminent Rabbins-could have counted thenumber of them in the Pentateuch.With the poetical parts of Scripture it was different.Passages like the Song of Moses and the Song of Deborah,were, already in the time of the Talmud, written in a peculiarstichometrical form.1 The three poetical books-Psalms,Proverbs, and Job-also appear to have been arranged inhemistichs in early times.2(4.) The Pentateuch was divided into paragraphs or sec-tions (nwrb-r), which were either "open" (rnrnz'), or"closed" (nnn), and at a later period were marked bythe Massorites with the initials of these letters.3 The opensections commenced a new line; the closed sections werepreceded by only a small space. These intervals, whetherlarge or small, were denominated Il7:>p.4 The Talmud(Berachoth,12 b) describes these sections as being of ancientdate,5 and they are frequently mentioned in the Mishna.6Shabbath, 103 b, prescribes that the distinction between the

' Thus

This is called n'"I I= 2v ,1]'21 ,:: 1% Yn1. See Jer. Vegillah, iii.7, and cf. S&ferim, ch. xii. prope finer.X See S(ferim, ch. xiii. 1, and Jerome, Preface to Isaiah.3 When a section commenced any of the 54 Pericopes, it was marked withthree such letters.4 Sifra, i., ? 9.5 prpDD 1i1m nIltn IpornnsynQl n3.6 Bikurim, iii., ? 6, Joma, iii., ? 10, Taanith, iv. ? 3, Sotah, vii., ?? 2 and 8, etc.-The Parasha was not necessarily co-extensive with an open orclosedsection.At times the word was used in a less definite manner to denote any passagetreating of a specific subject, and such is the only sense in which it occurs inthe Mishna, which knows nothing of "open" or "closed" Parshioth (Geiger, inJiid. Zeitschr.,x., p. 197). The term was likewise applied in this wider senseto the Nebiim (Mcgillah, 24 a), and even the separatePsalms are so designated(Berachoth, 9 b, 10 a).-These divisions appear in our printed Bibles, butthey are only marked with D and Dfor the Pentateuch. Delitzsch and Baerhavehowever introduced these marks into their texts of the Prophets and Hagio-grapha. (See, in this connection, Ginsburg'sPreface to the 3rd volume of hisAassorah.)-Down to the fifteenth century, the Parasha was the only meansof reference used by Jewish writers in citing Scriptural quotations.

225



5/36

The Jewish QuarterlyReview."open" and "closed" paragraphs is to be strictly preserved.The object of this paragraphing was obvious. As the Sifrastates, it was to give the reader pause to reflect on the con-tents of a passage. At the same time, it was connected withthe ancient institution, which tradition traced back to Ezra(and even Moses), of reading the Law in public.'The usual distinction drawn between "open " and "closedsections is that the "open" sections are chief divisions, andthe "closed " sections sub-divisions. But this is not the entiredifference. It will often be found that the "open " sectionsare passages appointed to be read on particular occasions,or comprise various important groups of laws, or are passageswhich have an elevating and pleasing effect on the reader.Passages, on the contrary, which produce a displeasing effect,or which treat of unpopular persons or places, are "closed."Thus the story of the death of Aaron's sons and the accountof the death of Moses are "closed " sections. The passagesin Jacob's blessing, which refer to the sons of the handmaids,are "closed," the rest being "open."2These nr'lNw should be distinguished from the 54 WeeklyPericopes of the same name into which the Pentateuch hasbeen divided by the Synagogue since ancient times. Some-times the latter are called nlr'Tl, the term nArtiq beingreserved for their sub-division into seven smaller sections.Both should be differentiated aoain from the N-'nTOntowhich the Scriptures were divided by the earlier Massorites,and which are tabulated at the commencement of Jacob benChajiin's Rabbinic Bible. This division is younger than thatinto rnlnrD and nitinnD, and is therefore not preservedin our Synagogue scrolls. Still its comparative antiquity isattested by the correspondencewhich obtains between it andthe arrangement of chapters in the Midrash Rabba, parts ofwhich are as early as the sixth century. Approximatelyspeaking, the Sedarim may be regarded as the Massoreticanticipation of the Christian division into chapters,3 whichdates from the thirteenth century, and was first adopted byJews in the concordanceof R. Isaac Nathan (c. 1400). But theyappear to have had an ulterior significance. It is generallysupposed that the 154 Sedarim, into which the Pentateuchwas divided were connected with the Triennial Cycle of the

Jer. iliegillah, iv., ? 1.3 Not entirely; the blessing of Joseph is a "closed" section (see Miiller,op. cit., p. 29).-The theory of Dr. Hochstadter (Ben Chananya,1865, Nos. 39and 40) that Eindicates that the narrative has been taken from more ancientsources, and D a change of subject, is also worthy of attention.3 Derenbourg, Journal Asiatique, 1870, ii., p. 529; Baer, Genesis,p. 92.

226



6/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.Reading of the Law which prevailed in Palestine.' And asregards the Sedarim of the Prophets and Hagiographa, Dr.Hochstiidter's theory (loc. cit., pp. 703-4), that they wereframed to furnish Haphtorahs for the Triennial Cycle is,perhaps, the best that has hitherto been advanced.(5.) The grouping of the Biblical books only partially corre-sponded to the later Massoretic arrangement. The Bible wasdivided,3 as now, into Torah, Nebiinm,4nd Chetubim.5 TheChetubim, gain, were divided into vtnWHn and 'nnm '3.6A portion of them were also divided into =nvr '/' (Psalms,Proverbs, Job), and =np '~'a(Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamen-tations). As has been shown by Strack,7 the current opinionthat Ruth and Lamentations were originally included in theProphets is without foundation.Both Talmud and Massorah recognised only 24 books ofScripture,8 reckoning one book of Samuel, one of Kings, andone of Chronicles; Ezra and Nehemiah as a single book, andthe Twelve Minor Prophets as one. The view of some of theRabbins, that the Pentateuch consists of seven books, hasalready been referred to.9

Derenbourg, loc. cit.; Friedmann, Beth Talimud,ii., p. 6 sq.; Rapoport inPolak's Ijp) nl1q] , pp. 11-20; A. Epstein, Beitrdge zur jiidischen Alter-thumslhunde, . 57 sq.; Ginsburg's llassorah, vol. ii., p. 463 a, No. 369; DieJllidraschimn urnPentateuch i. der dreijdiirige paldstinensiche Cyllus, by Dr.J. Theodorin Frankel-Graetz's MIonatsschrift,1885-6; and other authoritiesquoted by S. Schechter, in Jewish Chronicle,January 13th, 1888,p. 6.2 Mention should also be made of J. Briill's opinion (Beth Talmvud,., pp.108-110)that the Sedarim were readings into which the entire Bible (with theexception of some of the n/1n Ztnn)was divided for daily study. Briillthinks that the expression ''IVDp)Db(Shabbath,116b,152a. Yomra,7a, etc.),"'concluding the reading," has reference to these Sedarim.3 See Prologue to Sirac7h.4 The Massoritestermed the Prophets itnn'K--" completion" (Graetz,Geschichte,v., Note 23II.), "tradition" (D. Oppenheim, Jiid. Zeitschr.,xi., p.85)-dividing them into n'W1p IN and SnIl'nl ,.5 Kidluhib, 49 a, speaksof Zl11nI: ;W= N, whence the later Massore-tic formula '13'.6 Sota, 7 b.7 Art. Ka?ondes A. T., in Herzog, 2nd ed.8 Taanith, 8 a, etc.

9 As at presentdivided, the Bible consists of 39 books. The separation ofSamuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah into two books each is ofChristian origin (see Elias Levita's Introduction to his Bool of Remenz-brance,printed by Frensdorffin Frankel-Graetz'sMonatsschrift,1863, pp. 96-108). The enumeration of 22 books by Josephus and writers of the Alexan-drian school is due to their reckoning Ruth and Judges as one book, andincluding Jeremiah's Lamentations with his Prophecies. On the other hand,Epiphanius' list of 27 books results from separating the two books of Samuel,Kings, and Chronicles. Bamid. Rab., ch. xviii., reckons 35 books. Thiscomputation is made up as follows: Eleven Minor Prophets, Jonah, whichis regarded as a separate book, and the remaining 23 books.

227



7/36

The Jewish Quarterly1Reriew.The succession of books set forth in the Talmud (BabaBathra, 14 b) is, for the Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel,Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve MinorProphets; and for the Hagiographa: Ruth, Psalms, Job,Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel,Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles. Our Massoretic Bibles, how-ever, adopt this order: the Earlier Prophets, Isaiah, Jere-miah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (designatedD'~79), Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the Five Scrolls (in the orderin which they are read in the course of the year),Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles. The Spanish codicesusually follow the Massoretic arrangement, but the Germanand French agree with the Talmud.1(6.) Were the Scriptures provided with a written system ofvowel-points and accents ? In the present day, scarcely anyone (uestions the post-Talmudic origin of these signs; but inthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this was a keenlydebated question, and " the battle of the points," as it hasbeen called, engaged some of the most eminent scholars onone side or the other.One of the first to enunciate the theory of their late originwas Elias Levita2 in his Ilassoreth Harmassoreththird intro-duction). He showed that the current notion that Ezra wasthe inventor of these signs rested on a false interpretation ofthe expression Cn2~ p1oD n Ncdcarim, 7 b, etc., which signi-

I Elias Levita, Third Introduction to Massoreth IIanmasorctih. In somecodices the books of Chroniclesare placed at the head of the Hagiographa.Strack has discoveredamong the Tschufut-Kale collection of MassoreticMSS.a passage in a Massoretic compendium, entitled Adath Debariml fol. 33 b),which throws valuable light on this point. It is as follows:--5']~D yPq,Is ,nlSI.n ,1r 1n1 1DMPNn" pnins zinznnnznn IT mnt,-65NVYnt,VwIlVna(=Esther) , n11'p , nnp Wn-'etn '~" , nin , '$D, tippFnnt?ln,I *= r'IN (=Babylon) VWN1 '*NTP (=Ezra-Nehemiah)w~ lnn) nnyr nnsp n-nn1wins nrMU (=Chronicles) W Dn0rpD)13 zws 1} , nmintn .w Dn ^ I: DD tri D'Dtnl ,$x iD;1nIltl-Y'3 ]r ;in jipn I D (see Strack's article in Zeitschr. f. LuthTheolog.,1875.). For variouspoints connected with the Canon,consult Strack'sart. Kanon, loc. cit., and Fiirst, Der Kanon des altein Yestaments nach denUeberliefcrungen in Tallmud u. Midrasch.He had been precededon this point (1) by Mar Natronai II. (c. 860 c.E.),who, when asked whether a Sepher Torah might be punctuated, answeredthat the Law was not given to Moses pointed, but the Chachamim inventedthe points as signs--n]D$ 1n1y nDr~lnnquoted by Luzzatto from theMachsorVitry in Kcremn hlcmed, ii., p. 200); (2) by the author of the Khosari(iii., 31-see Rapoport,Erech Millin, s.v. DN); and (3) by Ibn Ezra, in hisninJ mD (Elias Levita, lMas.Ham., ed. Ginsburg, p. 45).

228



8/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.fies " elocutionary pauses," " traditional cadences," and not awritten accentuation.'

Elias Levita's theory produced little less than consternationin theological circles. It was considered necessary, in theinterest of the current views of Biblical inspiration, to provethat the vowels and accents were as old as the text itself.Indeed, Karaite writers had striven to push their origin backeither to Adam in Paradise or to Sinai; and even RabbinicalJews generally attributed their introduction to Ezra. In thecircle of his coreligionists, Levita's arguments were opposedby Azariah de Rossi (Meor.Enayim,ii., ch. 59). But, as maybe supposed, the question excited far wider interest amongChristian scholars, and particularly divines of the ProtestantChurch.2 Levita's most renowned opponent was the elderBuxtorf, who traversed the arguments of the MassorethHamassoreth n his Tiberias.3Buxtorf's work gave rise to a more learned treatise on theother side by Ludovicus Cappellus, entitled The Mystery ofthePoints Unveiled. Cappellus'work was answered by Buxtorfthe younger, in his treatise on the OriginandAntiquity of theVowels,4and this produced a counter-reply from Cappellus.Into the further history of the discussion there is no necessityto enter.5From the post-Talmudic date assigned to the vowels andaccents, it would follow that, during the age of the Talmud,the labours of the Massorites were confined to the accumula-tion of verbal traditions. Except that here and there aSome faulty editions of the Talmud appearto have read in the correspond-ing passage, Megillah, 3 a, lIpnl ItT? nDl'l (see Bachja on Gen. xxiii. 3).Nedarim,37 a, speaks of DWO plD.D7', the fee paid to teachers for givingoral instruction in the melody or cadences.2 To Rabbinical Jews and Roman Catholics the vowel controversy wasof less importance, because both of these parties could appeal to tradition asan inspired authority.The most important argument of Buxtorf (op. cit., ch. 9) was that theMassoritesnoted anomalies in the vocalization and accentuation. If they hadthemselves introduced the system, argued Buxtorf, instead of recording theseanomalies, they would have abolished them. This argument is fallacious.Levita nowhere implies that the hlassorites invented the pronunciation it-

self. He merely asserts that they devised the graphic signs by whichthe traditional pronunciation was fixed and preserved. The anomalies theycommented upon were obviously not anomalies in their own system, butsuch as were presented by tradition.4 Tractatusde Punctorum,vocaliumet acccntuum n libris Vet. Test.IIebraicisorigine, antiquitate et auctoritate.5 See Dr. P. G. Schneidermann'sDie Controrersicdes Ludovicus Cappellusmit den Buxtoifen iiber das Alter des hebr.Punctation, Leipzig, 1879; Gins-burg's Introduction to the Alas. Ham. of E. Levita; and for the literatureof the subject, De Wette, Lehrbuch d. historisch-kritischenEinleitung, etc.,ed. Schrader, 1869, ? 123, p. 214.

229



9/36

The Jewish QuarterlyReview.few private collections of scholia may have been compiled toassist the memory,' the notes and variants were not as yetformally collected and reduced to writing. No doubt theRabbinical maxim that "things taught by oral tradition maynot be written down" (Gittin, 60 b) would be held to apply toall appendages to the consonantal text of Scripture, except-ing, of course, pre-Talmudic marks like the "extraordinarypoints," and the inverted Nuns.

II.Let us now turn our attention to the post-Talmudicaltreatise Soferim, the contents of which have an importantbearing on our subject. Like the other post-Talmudicaltreatises, it is a Palestinian work, and based principally ondecisions contained in the Jerusalem Talmud. It consists ofthree parts. The first five chapters are a slightly amplifiedreproduction of the earlier MassechethSefer Torah. It is a

compendium of rules to be observed by scribes in the pre-paration and writing of Scriptural scrolls. The third part,commencing at chapter x., principally treats of ritualisticmatters.2 With neither of these divisions are we much con-cerned. Our interest in the book principally centres in itsmiddle section-chs. vi.-ix.-which is purely Massoretic.While Miiller and other authorities are disposed to assign toSoferim as late a date as the first half of the ninth century,this Massoretic portion appears to belong to an earlier period-let us say, with Graetz, the sixth or seventh century.3Hence, a comparison of this middle section with the Masso-retic references in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmudwhich have already been described, will enable us to see towhat extent the Massoretic system had been developedduring the century or hundred and fifty years immediatelyfollowing on the close of the Talmud.The lists of Keri and Chetibhave been systematically en-larged (chs. vi. 5 sq.,vii. and ix. 8). The Keri and ChetibofSb and * in the Torah is separated from that of the Prophetsand Hagiographa.4 The Massoretic expression n^rqSn occursLike the marginal glosses of R. Meir, a.lreadyreferred to.2 Parts, however, of chs. xii. and xiii. are cognate in subject to the firstfive chapters.

3 Loc. cit. and lffonatsschr., 1881, p. 363.4 Although Maas.Sofcrim, urnishes lengthy lists of Keri and Chetib,withthe exception of vi., ? 5, no statistics (which form such a prominent featurein the later Massorah)are given.

230



10/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.for the first time in Massoretic literature (vii., ? 1, etc.). Acritical comparison has been instituted (ch. viii.) betweenparallel passages in Scripture: Psalm xviii. and 2 Samuelxxii.; 2 Kings xviii. 13 to xx. 21 and Isaiah xxxvi.-xxxix.Rules are now given, for the first time, as to the unusualform in which certain letters and words are to be written ofwhich the Talmud had taken special note (ch. ix.). Thus theI of 7lrn, the middle letter of the Pentateuch, must beelongated, and the two middle words of the Pentateuchrttn :il' must respectively end and begin a line. Themiddle verse of the Pentateuch is not, as in the BabylonianTalmud, Lev. xiii. 33, but Lev. viii. 15, 19, or 23,1and tomark this the n of n:SI must be enlarged.2 Other majus-culae, such as the '3 of =N'vtn (Deut. xxix. 27), and the i ofb'ms (Numb. xiv. 17) are instituted. The letters of '^ rM-t,4of rns ..... n, and of the last word of the Pentateuch5(b5H't) are to be enlarged,6the verse tnnM"'a3Soccupying awhole line. The i of rwu (Deut. xxxii. 18) is to be minus-cular. Numb. x. 35 and 36 are to be written as a separatesection, " because they form a separate book, and some saybecause they are misplaced" (vi., ? 1). The stichometricalform in which the Scriptural songs are to be arranged isdescribed in the third part (xii., ? 8-xiii., ? 3) in fuller detailthan it had been in the Talmud (Jer. Megillah,iii., ? 7, Bab.Megillah,16b).Shortly after the close of the Talmud the interpunction ofverses was introduced. Both Soferim and Sefer Torah rulethat a scroll so marked may not be used in public worship.7The oldest accent was doubtless that which signified the closeof a period-the Sof Pasuk; and the next oldest the Ethnach.Whether these two accents are mentioned by name in

1 Soferimdoes not indicate which of these three verses is meant.n being the initial of vn. The direction of the Mfassorah lfagna is thatthe three tnrVl"'s in Leviticus ch. viii. shall be variously accented-nrbwv n 'nin nmn^Tnn^n nnpnynzs tniwn. Geiger(Jiid. Zeitschr. iii., p. 94) appeals to this fact as a proof that the accentscould not have been invented when Mfas.Sofcrimnwas written. Had theybeen in existence, there would have been no necessity, he thinks, to pre-scribe that ontvl should have been written with a large n.3 For an ingenious explanation of this large i, and of the small ' of 'ln,see Geiger, op. cit., pp. 93 and 94.4 The : is to be provided with four If3n.5 Thus the beginning, middle, and end of the Pentateuch are to be distin-guished by the calligraphist.6 Cf. the Massorah Magna on Gen. i.'13 p X'P DI=D; Wnp'' l1'l ID1 1DI (Soferim iii., ? 7;Sfer Torah, iii., ? 4).

231



11/36

The Jezcish QuarterlyReview.Soferim is a question upon which authorities are notagreed.'We may assume that as soon as the Talmud was closed andwritten down, at the commencement of the sixth century,increased attention began to be given to Scriptural and gram-matical studies. In Palestine, indeed, such studies had forsome time been supplanting Talmudical learning, whichfound a more favoured home in the academies of Babylon.But even from Babylon philological interests were not ex-cluded. Down to the middle of the seventh century themost intimate relations subsisted between the Saboraim andthe Nestorian Syrians, whose schools in the neighbourhood ofthe Tigris and Euphrates were in close proximity to the seatsof learning of the Babylonian Jews. The Nestorians gaveconsiderable attention to grammatical science, and it is butreasonable to suppose that these studies spread to the schoolsof the Saboraim.2 And when, in the latter half of theseventh century, the Jews lost their interest in Syrian culturein consequence of the Mahommedanconquests in Irak, the ten-dency which had previously been fostered by contact withthe Syrians was maintained and strengthened by contactwith the Arabs-partly by the example of the diligent carewith which the Arabic language was cultivated, and partlyby the controversies into which Jews were drawn with thefollowers of Mahomet, who insisted that they had discoveredreferences to their prophet in the Jewish Scriptures.One important outcome of this newly awakened interest inScriptural studies was the vocalisation of the consonantaltext, and the invention of diacritical marks for the doublingof letters and hardening of aspirates. And as a further aid tothe understanding of Scripture, the accent-signs, whereby thecurrent mode of intonation was fixed, came into use at aboutthe same time, or not long afterwards.Of course neither system of graphic signs could have been

1 For different views on this question and the related one, whetherSoferimnmplies the existence of a graphic vowel and accent-system, seeMiller, op. cit., p. 172; Fuerst, G. d. k., p. 20 ; Geiger, Jiid. Zeitschr. iii.,p. 94; Weiss, l'Nl'71 '1I I1I iv., p. 249; Rapoport, Aruch, s. vz.,D1 ;Derenbourg, IRevueCritique, 1879, p. 445; and Wickes, D N3D 'n'0oD, p. 7.These questions principally turn on the correct reading of Soferim,xiii., ? 1.According to some recensions the passage runs: nlnnOl (flSt' ) 'rinrD2l niPnli2, "the Scribe shall enclose the hemistichs of the poeticalsections with open spaces and letters belonging to the contiguous hemistichs(custodes linearurn)." But of seven MSS. which Dr. Ginsburg has hithertocollated for his forthcoming edition of IMas.Soferim, five read nrlnnlmplDDqloDINt Unim3n, 4 with open spaces at the Ethnachs and Sof Pasuks."2 Graetz, Monatsschr., 1881, p. 399.

232



12/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.introduced at a single stroke. They had to make their waygradually and tentatively. It is most likely, as Derenbourgsupposes,' that they were first employed in the instruction ofyoung children; and if this was so, we can understand howfor a long while the higher academies would take no notice ofthe invention, so that its origin soon became shrouded inobscurity.Even in the elementary schools only a few signs would beintroduced at first, and like the earliest Syrian 1.71, theywould be of a " diacritical" character, i.e.,employed to dis-tinguish homonymous forms. Such, as Graetz has shown(Monatsschr.,1881, p. 348, sq.), must have been the originalsignificance of the terms 5;nbv and vSn-t which the earlyMassorites employed to denote differences of vocalisation.One of these diacritical marks was the Dagesh,the inven-tion of which appears to have been anterior to that of thevowel points proper,2for which it partially served as a sub-stitute. This vicarious function it performed whenever, e.g.,it was employed to distinguish a status absolutus rom a statusconstructus,3r a Shevaquciescensrom a Sheva mobile,4 r whenit was used to supply the place of one of the matreslectionis.5But such diacritical points would soon be found to be in-sufficient for teaching purposes, and in course of time theywould be developed into a complete system of graphical nota-tion. This was doubtless the origin of our present vowel-signs, an examination of which will show that with theexception of Patachl, they are all formed from variousarrangements of points-even Kamez being simply a Patachsuperimposed upon a dot.6 A consideration of the Hebrew

Revue Critique,Jan. 21, 1879,p. 455, sq.; Berliner's Magazin. 1876; Z2rGeschichte der hebriischen Punktation, Cf. Graetz Gesch., v., p. 154; Weiss,loc. cit.2 There is a reference to the Dagesh of nlin Sl without the sign beingnamed in the Pesikta Ilabathi (commencement of the 6th chapter on the

Decalogue), where it is explained as ns'lnnll .-Steinschneider, op. cit.,? 16, note 23. Again, the Sefer Jezira (Sth century), which, while treatingof the mystic import of the letters of the alphabet, nevertheless makes nomention of vowel-points, explicitly refers to the two-fold pronunciation(with or without Dagesh) of the letters nnS1,vl--,:-T:2 nrlzl1 Y1Wnnm]wvnwv nlnrlnn jniim (iv.. 1).Ass ?3tfrom j1:t3.-Pinsker, Einleitung in das Babylonisch-IebriiischePunktationssystem,p. xiii.; Cf. J. D. Michaelis, Orient-Bibliothek,iv., 235.4 Whence the frequent Massoretic use of Dagesh in the significance ofSheva qgiescens,and Raphe in that of Sheva mobile. See Mas. Mag. on Ps.Ixii. 9; and Mas. Fin. s. v., It)D.6 Graetz, Monat.schr., 1887,p. 441, sq.6 See Derenbourg in Journal Asiatique, 1870, ii., p. 303, and cf. Graetz,fMonatsschr., 881,p. 403. R

233



13/36

The Jewish QuarterlyReview.term for "vowel," mnip: Syr. NTpi:],which literally signifies"a point," leads us to the same conclusion. Hence, theelaborate theory of Derenbourg (loc. cit.), which strangelyassumes that most of the vowels are formed from letters, as inthe so-called Babylonian punctuation,1 and in the same wayas in Arabic, Dhamma,Fatha, and Kesre are graphic develop-ments respectively of Waw, Eliph, and Ja, has by no meanscommended itself to scholars.It has already been incidentally suggested that the in-troduction of a graphic system of vowel-signs was due,principally, if not entirely, to the influence of the Syrians.The reasons for this view must now be given somewhat indetail.2We know, from the early period to which Syrian MSS. goback, that diacritical points were employed in Syriac longbefore the introduction of vowel-signs proper. The upperand lower point by which Dolath and Rish were distinguishedfrom each other has been shown to date from at least thesecond century C.E.3 And before the sixth century thesepoints were largely used for distinguishing homonymouswords and forms.4 In particular they served to distinguishstrong vowels (o, a) from weak ones (i, e), being written abovethe word in the former case, and below it in the latter,5 asthe following table of equivalents will show:-

=1 _ t Interrog.pron. 7? = t "from."s'l5; -n = ,, ,, s? MT,= "Thand."b:= s "uto er." nb - b "to him."

\-- S=inn?t "year." Sn2 = Sn?t "sleep."This explains why in Massoretic language bSbs (Syr.tb 1) is used for Patach and Eamez, while 3nb (Syr.nnnrr t) denotes Chirikor Sheva.

I Pinsker, Einleitung, p. 8.2 The two chief authorities on the Syrian punctuation, etc., are L'AbbeMartin: Histoire de la Ponctuation ou de la Massore chez les Syriens (JournalAsiatique, March, 1875), Jacques d'Edesse et les voyelles Syriennes (ibid.,1867, I.), La Massorechez les Syriens (Ibid., November, 1869); and Ewald:Ueberdas syrischePunktations-systemin the Abhandlungenzurorientalischenund biblischenLiteratur, also in the Zeitschrift fir die Kundedes Morgen-landes, 1837,pp. 205-212,1839,pp. 109-124.3 La Massorechez les Syriens, p. 101,note.4 The codex Brit. Mus.Addend., 12,150,written at Edessa, as early as theyear 411 C.E.,exhibits a partial punctuation of this character; so also doesAd. 14,425,written at Amid in Diarbekr, in 464 C.E., he earliest dated MS.of an entire book of Scripture.' Ewald, Abhandlungen,p. 61, sq.

234



14/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.In the fifth century, the Syrians split up into two divisions-the Nestorian schismatics or Orientals, having their chief

seats of learning at Nisibis and various cities on the Tigrisand Euphrates, and the Western Syrians, known as Jacobitesor Monophysites, having schools at Edessa and Antioch andin Armenia. When the Syriac diacritical points grew toonumerous and complex to be of service, they were abandonedin favour of vowel-signs. Jacob, Bishop of Edessa, or hisdisciples, shortly after his death (710 c.E.),adopted the Greekletters for this purpose, but the Chaldaeo-Nestorians estab-lished a system of vowel points. This system ormedthebasisofthe Hebrewvocalisation,r, at the very least, suggested the ideaof their use.l Several facts tend to confirm this view. TheAramaic terminology of the vowels and accents2 (see infra),the identity of the term for " vowel" (rinp-n in Hebrew andSyriac, the form and position of the Hebrew Tsere and Chirikas compared with that of the Syriac Rebozo and Chebozo,heo sound of Kamezwhich prevailed in Babylon (see infra), andthe double pronunciation of the letters n,/,,'t,,l-all pointclearly enough to Syrian influence. Originally the lettersnr: were always sounded as aspirates, even at the com-mencement of a word, as may be inferred inter alia from theTXX.'s transliteration of Hebrew names. The hardening ofaspirates took place in the latter half of the seventh century,under Syriac influence; Jacob of Edessa, having inventedthe Rukhokh or signs of aspiration of the letters b,g, d, k,f,th, which consisted in points placed below them.3In regard to the names of the vowel-signs, no more pro-bable explanation has been offered than that of Derenbourg(loc.cit.). In this scholar's opinion they were originally im-perative forms of Aramaic verbs, having arisen from thedirections given to pupils who were learning to pronouncethem. Thus, Patach and Kamez signify respectively "open"and "close" the mouth. Tsere imports "open wide" the

I The view which Graetz sets forth in his Die Anfdnge der Vocalzeichen mIebriischen (Monatsschr., 1881), that the Hebrew punctuation may havebeen introduced before, and indepeadently of, the Syrian is based on theassumption-since disproved by Wickes (see infra)-that the so-called Baby-lonian punctuation was introduced earlier than the so-called Palestinian,and was adopted throughout the East. And, inasmuch as the Babylonianpunctuation was developed from letters, it is clear that this could not havebeen based on the Chalda3o-Nestorianystem of points. But when it is seenthat the Palestinian system was the earlier, and not confined to the West,there is nothing to militate against the theory of its having been modelledupon the punctuation system of the Eastern Syrians.2 Derenbourg (loc. cit.); Geiger, Jiid. Zeitschr., x., p. 20; Z. d. M. G., vol.27 (1873),p. 148.3 Graetz,Monatsschr.,1887,p. 428.R2

235



15/36

The Jewish QuarterlyJRevier.mouth [Aram. s : "to tear open "]. Segol = "make (themouth) round" [b: (Heb. b'r) "to be round"]. Chirik isfrom Trin"to gnash the teeth." Cholem= "to press the lipstogether." Shurekis the Hebrew and Aramaic p'trw to hiss "or "whistle "-the sound produced when the lips are placedin a position to pronounce this vowel.It is generally believed that the vowel-signs were intro-duced at Tiberias, being the invention of the ;n'n 4nrror Massorites of Tiberias,about whom we shall have much tosay later on. But there are strong reasons for assuming thatthey emanated from Babylon rather than Palestine. (1.) Thecondition of the Palestinian Jews, under the Byzantineemperors was too harassed and depressed to render it likelythat they could have invented and diffused such a system.'(2.) The derivation of the term Kamez,just given, is onlyapplicable to the o, or German sound of Kamez; and thiswas the pronunciation which (under the influence of theSyrian Sekofo) prevailed in Babylon. In Palestine, on thecontrary, as among the Sephardic Jews of the present day,the Kamez was always pronounced like Patach. (3.) Theauthorities of Tiberias are known to have classified the lettern with the n'T=,3 and it has been mentioned that theSefer Jezira-a Palestinian work-does the same. Jewishgrammarians, however, do not treat n under this category,from which it would appear that the system of punctuationon which our grammars are based has not emanated fromTiberias, or any portion of Palestine.4Like the vowels, the accents (vttzr ) helped to fix thesense of the unpointed text, the vowel points indicating themeaning of individual words, and the accents showing theirsyntactical relation to each other. This relation had beenexpressed from the earliest times by a kind of modulation orcantillation, which was employed both in the school and thesynagogue, whenever the Scriptures were recited. The re-

Graetz, Monatsschr., 1881, pp. 400, 401: This argument partially anti-cipates what has to be said later on as to the period of the introduction ofthe vowel and accent system.Ibid., 1887, p. 429.3 Ibn Gannach in ; flOp-inl 1n, end of /ltZ-D-r~ p1 D: '171tD^1Y,I $n p'IV?3 WMn M nb ,1 1t 1nX DV:n2nVn. Thisdouble pronunciation of ' which prevailed in Palestine appears to havebeen due to the influence of the spiritus asper and lenis of the Greek p:Geiger in Jiid. Zeitschr., x., p. 21.4 Luzzatto (Dialogues, pp. 1103 and 107, and Proleqovmena, p. 13, sq.), whois of opinion that the vowel signs were the invention of the BabylonianWUi1:DP11.

236



16/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.ferences to cantillation in the Talmud 1prove that the customis at least as old as the commencement of the second century.When, however, written signs were introduced, they servedthe additional purpose of marking by their position the tone-syllable of each word,-whence the name "accents,"by whichthey are at present known. The origin of the accent systemis too abstruse a subject to be treated here. In addition tothe works of Wickes and other writers in this department,the reader who is interested in the inquiry may be referredto a suggestive article of Graetz (who here, as on so manyother questions of Massoretic history, llas done thankworthypioneer work), entitled Ursprungder Accentzeichen m Hebrii-schen Monatsschr.,882). Suffice it to say that in the Hebrewaccents, as in the vocalisation, we can trace the influenceof the Syrian grammarians, who, as early as the fourth cen-tury, had commenced to elaborate a system of interpunctua-tion, which they completed about the commencement of theseventh century. As among the Hebrews, the Syrian accen-tuation was used for the purpose of regulating the rhythmicaldeclamation of the Scriptures.2As to the age of the introduction of punctuation signs,very various views have been held by different scholars.However, the consensus of learned opinion is in favour ofassigning it to the seventh century and to the formerrather than the latter half of it. By this time, as we haveseen, the Syrians had developed their systems of vocalisationand punctuation, and the Syrian and Greek Churches hadperfected a method of musical notation. The greater com-

' See Wickes' Introduction to his D'M[D &' tUY.2 Ewald, Abhandlungen, pp. 103-156; and Zeitschr. f. d. Kunde desMorgenlandes loc. cit.) ; Martin, Histoire de la Ponctuation ou de la Massorechez les Syriens (pp. 181-2).-It is possible that the influence of the Syriansis likewise to be traced in other departments of the written Massorah. Inthe seventh and following centuries, the Nestorians and Jacobites pro-duced a work which was strikingly analogous in several respects to thatof the Jewish Massorites,and which was denominated "Mashlemonutho"( = Aramaic Kn1l'D S "tradition,"-the Hebrew ilDt). The principalcentre of learning where these studies were cultivated was Karkaph, a townnear Bagdad,which may not inaptly be styled the Syrian "Tiberius." Likethe Hebrews, the Syrians also noted differences of reading between theOrientals and Occidentals. (See Martin, Tradition Karkaphienne ou laMassorechez les Syriens (Journal Asiatique, 1869,II.). Among the NestorianSyrians, Joseph of Chuzai (sixth century), the first Syriac grammarian,andthe inventor of some of the signs of interpunction, compiled an alphabeticallist of homonyms (Art. "Syriac Literature" in Encyc. Brit., 9th ed., p.836 b), and this may well have suggested to later Jewish Massoritesthe ideaof framing similar lists. The numerical Massorahof the Syrians likewisepresents an analogy to that of the Hebrews. See Ewald, Abhandlungen,p. 57; Wiseman, HoraeSyriace?,p. 213.

237



17/36

T/heJewcishQuarterlyRevieu.plexity of the Hebrew system, as compared with the Syrian,shows that the Hebrew was the later development of thetwo. Other considerations for fixing the date are: (1.) TheHebrew punctuation, being based on the Syrian, must havebeen introduced and partially developed before the influenceof the Arabians began to dominate Jewish letters, and there-fore hardly later than the first half of the seventh century.1(2.) Several facts point to the punctuation-system having beenhighly developed in the age of Asher the Elder, the founderof the famous Massoretic family of that name; and he livedin the secondhalf of the eighth century.2 (8.) Aaronben Asher,who may be supposed to give his father's views, erroneouslyassigns the invention to the Men of the Great Synagogue (Dik-dukeHateamim,ed. Baer and Strack, ? 16, etc.), so that by theend of the ninth century the signs must have been old enoughfor their origin to have been forgotten.3 (4.) The well-knownanswer of Mar Natronai II. (Gaon, 859-869) to the questionwhether a Sepher Torah might be punctuated, favours thesame view. He replied that this would not be permitted,because the Law was not given to Moses punctuated, butthe Chachlamimnvented hepoints as signs. The origin of thepunctuation was evidently shrouded in obscurity towards theend of the ninth century. (5.) Nissi ben Noach (c.E. 840),and Mar Zemach ben Chajim (Gaon, 889-896) refer to thenumerousdifferences which obtain between the Eastern andWestern systems of punctuation. A considerable time musthave elapsed since the introduction of written signs beforethese differences could have grown up.4 (6.) The writtenvocalisation must have been invented by the middle of theeighth century, when Karaism arose; for Anan's prin-ciple, "Search diligently the Scriptures," would have beenalmost an unmeaning formula, had not a system of punctua-tion to aid the understanding of Holy Writ been already inexistence.5 The last-and by no means the least important-consideration is this: that the St. Petersburg codex,6whichwas finished in the year 916, exhibits a perfect system ofvowels and accents, together with a Massorah upon them.And it is obvious that some two or three centuries at leastmust have elapsed from the introduction of graphic signs

I Graetz(loc. cit.) employs a converse argument,inferring the Syrian originof the punctuation from the date. The question of origin being the lessdoubtful of the two, it seems to me that Graetz's reasoning should bereversed.2 See Strack in Theol. Stud. u. Kritik., p. 746. 3 Wickes, op. cit., p. 5.

4 Ibid., p. 6. 5 Graetz,Aonatsschr., 1881, p. 362. 6 See infra.

238



18/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.before they could have become in their turn the basis of awritten Massorah.1It has been shown that the punctuation of the Scripturesemanated, in all probability, from the elementary schools,andlikewise that the schoolmaster and the Massorite were oftenone and the same person; fromwhich it would follow that thevowel and accent signs were the invention of the Massorites.But even if this be not allowed, it is quite certain that a veryshort time would elapse before the new method would betaken up and elaborated by the Massorites and pressed bythem into the service of the Massorah. For, as their materialsgradually increased, it must have been found impossible forthem to perfect their system without the aid of punctua-tion marks. As Weiss happily expresses it (op. cit., IV.,p. 251), "Vocalisation and accentuation are the two pillars onwhich the Massorah rests."Were the vocalisation and accentuation of the Scripturesconstructed independently of tradition, as Masclef 2 and othershave asserted ? No question can have a profounder interestfor Jews than this. For if it be answered in the affirmative,then our current and so-called " traditional" exegesis is de-prived at a stroke of all authority and certainty. It was thefear that such might prove to be the case which inducedthe Buxtorfs and their party to exhaust their eruditionin the endeavour to prove that the punctuation was con-nate with the consonantal text. However, there is everyreason to suppose that the graphic signs invented by the Mas-sorites were employed for the sole purpose of fixing the tradi-tional vocalisationand punctuation. The Massoretic systemdoubtless reproduced, with as much exactitude as possible,the precise mode of pronunciation and cantillation whichhad been in force since time immemorial. The substantialagreement in regard to punctuation between the Babylo-nian and Palestinian schools, notwithstanding that theyworked in independence of each other, is itself a proof thatthe system common to both was shaped on the lines of

Derenbourg notes (Revue Critique, June 21, 1879, p. 455), that theSefer Jezira (eighth century), although it treats of the letters of the alphabet,makes no mention of vowels, from which he would infer that they were notintroduced before the eighth century. And Zunz calls attention (0. V., p. 264)to the fact that, as late as the twelfth century the word Ml'13 in Canticles i.11 is not explained by the Midrash in loco to signify vowel points, but calli-graphic flourishes. But we must beware, as Wickes has shown (loo. cit.), ofpressing the argumentume silentio too far.2 Gramnzatica Hebraica aliisque inventis Massorethiois libera. See in par-ticular VoL II., ch. 8.

239



19/36

The Jewish QuarterlyReview.tradition.' It was this fidelity to tradition which gave theMassorites their name.After the introduction of the vowel and accent signs, thedevelopment of the Massorah was chiefly carried on atTiberias in Palestine, where a learned school of Biblical criticshad flourished with some intermissions since the close of thefirst century.2 They were known as ni'nn ,nmn or ,1sMnMlnt "The (Wise) Men of Tiberias." But the elaboration ofthe Massorahwas not confined to Palestine. The students ofthe Babylonian academies pursued similar studies indepen-dently of their brethren in the West. In the same way as theBabylonian and Palestinian schools differed with regard totheir ritual customs, marriage laws, and mode of reading theLaw,3and had separate chronologies, separate Talmuds, andseparate Targumim, so likewise there grew up two distinctMassoretic schools-the school of S,nmY or Occidentals, andthat of rintnv or Orientals. Gradually, however, the Pales-tinian school overshadowed her rival, and finally extinguishedher. So complete, indeed, was this sxtinction, that theMassorah is often regarded as the exclusive production of thescholars of Tiberias. The differences between the two schoolsreach back to the third century. They relate to Keri andChetib, Scriptio plena et defectiva, word division, additions,omissions and transpositions of letters and words; and a fewof them concern vocalisation nd accentuation.4But they seldom

' Even the conflicting traditions of various schools were at times mergedby the Massorites in a kind of composite vocalisation, as i''-. (Ps. vii. 6),combining two variant readings-ll'n? andcq'?), and t.W?.P (Ex. ix. 18),compoundedof mnq.Z1nd I .. As an example of two-fold accentuation(pointing to conflicting traditions of the schools) may be cited I13K,which, as in Ps. cxvi., is accented both Milngel and Milrang. Pinsker,Binleitung, pp. 12, 13, 156, 157. But see Delitzsch's Commentary on thePsalms in loc.' Buxtorf, Tiberias,ch. iv., and Steinschneider, op. cit., ? 16, note 27.' See $X'pt? Yy ^' ::3 : 3 DW,lN)qP5n, edited by Dr. J. Muller,Vienna, 1878.The statement which has been current since the time of Elias Levita

(Third introduction to MfassorethHamassoreth),that these differences do notextend to vowels (or accents) is wrong. Not only do two of them relate toMappik (Jer. vi. 6, ;PIYOr., l3 Oc.; Amos iii. 6, MiM1Or., i 'y Oc.),-which may, however, be regarded as distinct from the vowels, and older-but others involve unmistakeable differences of vocalisation; e.g., Zechariah,xiv. 5, where the Occidentals read DZDl and the Orientals 0PID1 Thev -* - :o :well-known variation between -13-0 and It= is another case in point.The Occidentals (like the current Hebrew) made no distinction between13DO"from him" and 13D "from us "; but the Orientalsdid. They readbZDD?(pronounced .13-0) " from him," and 313.0 "from us." And the same

240



20/36

The Rise and Developmnentf the Massorah.involve any appreciable alteration in the sense. They coverthe entire Bible, includingthe Pentateuch,although Jacob benChajim's list of 216 variations takes no note of the latter.The Eastern readings generally agree with those followedin the Babylonian Talmud and Targums, while the Westernreadings as usually follow the corresponding Palestinianauthorities.1The Biblical and Massoretic MSS. brought from Tschufut-Kale in the Crimea some fifty years ago by the Karaite chief,Abraham Firkowitsch, and since deposited in the ImperialLibrary of St. Petersburg,2have attained a wide reputation inconsequence of a few of their number being marked with asuperlinear system of punctuation which before 1840 wasscarcely known to scholars. It has been styled WrMr,nTnp,~t:8n "Ptp1n-"he Assyrian" or "Babylonian punctuation,"in contradistinction to the current system of signs which isknown as trr Vs 'TipI, n'z 'Tp3-"The Tiberian" or"Palestinian punctuation," and identified with the Massoreticsystem of >~s}rz. But Dr. Wickes has incontestably provedin his recent work on the Hebrew accents (t2c'D N"D ~DtO,1887), that this view, though held by all scholars who had pre-ceded him, is erroneous. Dr. Wickes establishes the conclusionthat this superlinearmethod of punctuation lies altogether out-side the differences between Orientals and Occidentals, andthat while it was an Oriental system, it was not the Oriental

applied to the parallel form 133). This fact explains the passage in Sota(35 a) : 1.]O NtN 13nDn.pn ,F "Read not 'from us' but' from him.' " SeeIbn Ezra on Ex. i. 9; Pinsker, Einleitung, pp. 2 and 104; Geiger in KeremChemed, x., pp. 69-71. For an example of accentual variations, see glosson Gen. xxxv. 22 in Ginsburg's Massorah, i., p. 292 a. Geiger (Urschrift,p. 236; and Z. d. M. G.,vol. xxviii., p. 676) has noted one difference betweenOriental MSS. and our textus receptus, which is of the deepest interest;while in the Prophets, the Palestinian Massorites have changed the archaioKl,' into WMn,n the feminine, the Orientals have left the epicene form.-Several of the deviations from the textus receptus in the LXX., and Jonathanon the Prophets, are to be traced to the Eastern readings. (Cf. Pinsker, op.cit., 124, with Weiss, op. cit., iv., pp. 253, 254.)In our Bibles, both the Western readings and the Western Massoraharefollowed. (See Norzi on 2 Kings xviii. 29.) Now and again, however, Easternreadings and glosses of Eastern Massorites have found their way into ourWestern recensions. (Pinsker, op. cit., pp. 122-3.)2 For an account of these MSS. see Harkavy and Strack's Catalog derHebriiischen Bibelhandschriften der Kaiserlichen Offentlichen Bibliothek inSt. Petersburg ; Die Biblischen u. d. Massoretischen Handschriften zuTschufut-kale in der Krim, by Dr. Strack, in the Zeitschr. f. d. LutherischeTheologie, 1875; and Die T8chufutkaleschen Fragmente; Eine Studie zurGeschichte der XVasora,by Ad. Merx, in Verhandlungen des 5 internationalenOrientalistenkongresses. Part II., Sec. 1, pp. 188-225(Berlin, 1882).

241



21/36

The Jewish/ Quarterly Review.system.' It was merely an attempt to simplify the olderpunctuation.2 Hence the current terms rb=n= 'Ti: andnltwin 'np3are misnomers.3Before this paper is completed, it will be seen thatMassoretichistory is full of such theories-theories which atone time were currently adopted, and have since had to beabandonedin the light of recent research. It has been stated, e.g.by Graetz (Gesch.v., Note 23 II.) and other writers, that the so-called Babylonian signs were invented by a certain Moses thePunctuator4,in the sixth century, and the Palestinian by two

The Babylonians had not a uniform system among themselves. Theauthorities at Sura differed from those at Nehardea, inter alia, as to thedivision into nlnln1inandnl1]1nlD,and as to whether fil (Deut. xxxii. 6) wasto be read "$ M (Sura) or " 7; (Nehardea).-Strack, Prolegomena,p. 40;Luth. Zeitschr., 1875, p. 609 ; Ginsburg, Massora, I., p. 611 b; De Rossi, Prole-gonena, ? 35 ; Graetz, XMouatsschr.,1871, p. 50; Mas. Mlag., Nehemiah iii. 37.2 The prevalent opinion that the Babylonian system was earlier than theTiberian is incorrect. See Strack, Zur Text Kritih des Jeschaiahs in theZeitschr.f. Luth. Theol., 1877, p. 21.3 The following are some of the chief proofs of the non-identity of theOriental system, and the superlinear vocalisation: (1.) The Orientals read231yni in Ezek. xxiii. 5; but the superlinearsystem has no Segol. (2.) Jewishauthorities, when referring to the differences (lDl*n) between the Orientalsand Occidentals never make mention of a superlinear system of punctuation.(3.) The superlinear signs are often found in combination with the vowelsand accents of the Palestinian readings (Wickes, op. cit., Appendix II.).-For the opinion that the superlinear system was invented by the Karaites,see Ewald, Jahrbuch, 1848,p. 161. The earliest authority who refers to theBabylonian readings is Nissi ben Noach (first half of ninth century):MiI NW:K$nnml n-nmnmnwnvu p:nic nin-wn nrmp3 q5sS

(Pinsker, n'Wl] pjip1, p. 41). The D13tV Dnt1 in the Decalogueare supposed by Pinsker (op. cit., pp. 1, n;) and First (Geschichte d.Karderthums, pp. 15, 16) to be remnants of the superlinear system. ButGeiger (Jiid. Zeitschr., x., pp. 24 and 25), with greater probability, connectsthe double accentuation of the Decaloguewith the two-fold mode of dividingit into verses, which prevailed in ancient times.-For a further account of thesuperlinear punctuation and the differences between the Orientals and Occi-dentals, see Pinsker's Einleitung in das Babylonisch-Hebrdische Punktation's-system; Fuerst, 0 d. K.; Luzzatto in Kerem Chemed, v. 203, and in Hali-choth Kedem, p. 23, sq.; Geiger, Urschrift, Excursus iii.; Pinner, Prospectusder Odessaer Gesellschaftfiir Geschichte u. Alterthiiner gehiirenlden iltestenhebriischen u. rabbinischen Manuscripten ; Kalisch's Hebrew Grammar,vol. ii.; Fuerst in Z. d. il. G., xviii., p. 314-323; Olshausen, Monatsb. d.Berlin Akad., July, 1865; and a few other authorities given in Harkavyand Strack's Catalog der IHebrdischen Bibelhandschriften d. Kaiserlichenoffentlichen Bibliothek in St. Petersburg, pp. 223, 224.4 '1n7in181t p: trD -ppn Wn^ 3 rrnn' t:.Again,, fnn0n$ n5 'p nl r1pnf ppn pp1'Tw n' 1^w1 ninNnn, K2np1n nnp ntnPI. See Graetz, I. c.; Pinner, Prospectus, p. 6;Chwolson, 18 Grabschriften, p. 124; Weiss, op. cit., iv., pp. 257, 258;Neubauer in the Jewish Quarterly Review, I., pp. 25-28.

242



22/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.Karaites, Moch6 and his son Moses,' towards the end of theeighth century. They have been misled by the forgeries ofFirkowitsch, whose services to Hebrew literature have beenwell-nigh counteracted by the habitual unscrupulousness withwhich he tampered with documents which passed through hishands.2 Indeed such statements are antecedently improbable,for the vowel signs were introduced half-a-century or morebefore the rise of Karaism, and the so-called Babylonian signswere a later development than the Palestinian.Equally untrustworthy are the traditions which assign theinvention of the Babylonian vowel system to Rab Acha ofIrak at the commencement of the sixth century,3 and assertthat Rab Ashe wrote a b'Tin rn:pnmn>:at the end of the fourthor commencement of the fifth century.4 The former statementis of Karaite origin, while the latter rests on no betterauthority than Moses Botarel's Commentary to the SeferJezira.5

Fortunately, some of our sources of information, albeit form-ing a part of the discoveries of Firkowitsch, are of a morereliable character. The Tschufut-Kale collection (Codd.Massor.,Nos. 9 and 14) furnishes a goodly list of names of authoritieswho were active during the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuriesin giving completeness to the punctuation system, and develop-ing the superstructure of the Massorah. Of these, the mostnoteworthy, exclusive of the Asher family, were Rab Pinchas,Rab Jonathan, and Rab Chabib ben R. Pipim.6 Rab Pinchaswas the head of a Massoreticschool at Tiberias. It is presumedthat he was identical with a Pinchas who was the seventh des-cendant of the sp'ju r:nn Mar Zutra II., who immigrated toPalestine in the early part of the sixth century, and that heflourished in the middle of the eighth century, subsequently tothe introduction of the vowel and accent system. But thedifferentiation of Sheva into Shevamobile, and Sheva quiescensi *~Xn't,1 11p3, plDn 'n,1n 1311 ?nlrn. "Moche and his son Moseswere the 'inventors' of the Tiberian system," on the supposed authority ofSolomon ben Jerucham's Introduction to the Decalogue, quoted by Pinsker(op. cit., p. 62). The expression ]pO21may, however, mean-not that theywere the inventors of the system, but that they introduced it into the Karaiteschools. See Pinsker, Einleitung, p. 10; Weiss, op. cit., iv., p. 255. Graetzhas since conceded the spuriousness of this passage. (Monatsschr., 1881,p. 403.)2 See Harkavy, Memoire de l'Acad. Imp. des Sciences de St. Petersburg,xxiv., 8 ff., and Strack, Luth. Zeitschr.,1875,p. 619.3 Pinsker, op. cit., p. 'n ; Fuerst, op. cit., pp. 15 and 133.4 Ibid, pp. 15, 134, and 135.5 With reference to Botarel's falsifications, consult Weiss, op. cit., iv., pp.190 and 247. On the other side, see Pinsker, p. 2'D.0 Pinsker, op. cit., p.'.

243



23/36

The JewtishQuarterlyReview.had not yet taken place. Pinchas appears to have taken partin this, and to have given the name and form of Chataf-patachto the former of these two Shevas.'Other and less known names are Rikat, Abraham benRikat, Abraham ben Perath, Zemach ben Abu Shiba, Zemachben Zevara, Achijahu Hakahen, Fellow of a College (nr,nn)at Moeziah (Tiberias), Zemach Abu Selutum, Abu el Umaitar,R. Moshe Moch4, Mosh6 Hanakdan of Gaza, and R. Mosh6Gimzuz.2The allusion recently made to the Karaites suggests the in-teresting question: What part did they take in this literarymovement ? Graetz is of opinion that the written Massorahis,for the most part, a Karaite work, and that the Rabbanitesdid not concern themselves with the study of Massorah andgrammar before the time of SaadjaGaon. In favour of this viewmay be urged (1.) the close affinity between the work on whichthe Massorites were engaged, and the Ananite principle-' Searchdiligently the Scriptures." The Massorahwas eminentlya work which would be likely to engage the attention of theKaraites. (2.) The development of the Massorah after theclose of the Talmud had a tendency, as Weiss (op.cit., iv., pp.242, 243)3has shown, to undermine Rabbinical authority, inthat it differed at times from readings on which the Talmudicexegesis was based.4 On the other hand, it may be advancedthat (1.) This tendency was not very pronounced, and wasmore than counterbalanced by the harmony which subsistedbetween the Massoretic comments and the Rabbinical exegesisin general. (2.) It is highly probable that the very contro-versies which arose between the two sects would necessitateincreased attention to grammatical science on the part of theRabbanites. (3.) Men who devoted themselves to Biblicalstudies were often, for this very reason,set down as Karaites;the name sip being often applied in Talmudic literature to

'1 1 ,3V]r= N; i,:l'p Vn' Dnfl m' (Graetz, Aonatsschr., October, 1887,p. 439; Briil, Jahrbuch, 1883, p. 44; Dikd. Hat., B. and S., pp. 14.and 84).2 Ibid., pp. 78, 79; Strack, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des HebrdischenBibeltextes, in Theol. Stud. u. Krit, 1875, p. 736, sq., and Die Bibl. u. Massoret.Handschriften der Krim, in Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theonl.,1875, p. 612 ; A. Harkavy,Masoreten Verzeichniss, in Briill's Jahrb., 1876, p. 174 ; ,iYQnl, 1874,No. 15; Ad. Merx, Die Tschufutkaleschen Fragmente.- Verhandlungen des5 Internationalen Orientalisten-Congresses, Part II., Sect. 1, p. 188-225(Berlin, 1882.)3 Cf. Luzzatto, Dialogues, p. 96.4For an account of these variations, see Weiss, loc. cit.; Jacob benChajim, Introduction to his Rabbinical Bible; Strack, Prolegomena, pp.94-111 ; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopddie, II., p. 1219; M'Clintock and Strong'sCyclopcvdia, Art. " Quotations of the 0. T. in the Talmud "; D1iDD nnD.,by S. Rosenfeld. (Wilna, 1883.)

244



24/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.one who had made a special study of Scripture, like R.Chanina w"p(Ketuboth56 a, Taanith27 b), and Levi bar Sisi(Jalkut on Hosea, No. 533). The view to which I inclineafter carefully weighing these pros and cons, is as follows:The activity of the Massoritesand the perfection of a punctua-tion system in the seventh century must have given animpulse to the rise of Karaism in the following century, andit is exceedingly likely that the followers of Anan would beanxious to repay the debt they owed to the Massoreticschool by identifying themselves with their labours.But if the Karaites were prominently, or even partially,associated with the construction of the Massorah,we have toexplain how the Massorites came to follow in the wake ofRabbinical tradition, and their system to find acceptance withthe Rabbanites. This difficultyhas been met by Graetz (Gesch.,v., p. 502), who shows that both parties adopted each other'steachings, and, generally speaking, exercised a mutual influ-ence on one another.It is from the introduction of a graphic system of vocalisa-tion and interpunctuation that we must date the distinctionwhich began to obtain, and gradually grew more marked, be-tween the synagogue scrolls which were used in public wor-ship, and copies of the Pentateuch and Bible for private use.Hitherto, the possibility had to be taken into account thatprivate MSS. might be used in public worship, and thereforethe rules for writing them were almost as stringent as thosewhich related to the synagogue scrolls. But now that thetext of private Bibles could be vocalised, accentuated andinterpunctuated, while no innovations were suffered in themode of transcribing the scrolls for public worship, the distinc-tion between the two was unmistakable, and there was no-thing to prevent it becoming more marked as time progressed.Private Bibles were now usually written in book form. Therecould no longer be a question1 as to whether the Law mightbe bound up with the Prophets and Hagiographa. The Tar-gums began to be added, either in separate columns or aftereach verse. The Keris and Chetibs,too, which had hithertobeen preserved by oral tradition, were now marked in themargin; the vowels of the Keri being embodied in the textitself. Then other Massoretic notes were introduced in themargin, succinctly by the side, and at greater length above andbelow the text. This would seem to have taken place as earlyas the ninth century, for codices supposed to be written

1 Cf. Soferim, iii., ? 1.

245



25/36

The Jewish QuarterlyReview.in 895 and 916 C.E. exhibit the Massorah marginalis in thistwo-fold form. Such Bibles, when entire, were often knownby the name of -ntnri or wr ntrmn "the great cyclicalwork," and were so called because they were compiled forthe use of the Karaites, who were in the habit of readingthe entire Bible through in their synagogues in the course ofa year.lSome account of the two codices just mentioned will benecessary to an understanding of our subject. That dated895 comprises the earlier and later Prophets, and is said tobe still preserved in the Karaite synagogue at Cairo. Itwas written by Moses ben Asher, the father of Aaron benAsher, and as its genuineness has not, up till now, beenseriously called in question by experts,2it may be regarded asthe oldest Biblical MS. extant.3 The codex dated 916 containsthe later Prophets only, and owes much of its importance tothe fact that it is punctuated with the superlinear signs, beingthe oldest existing MS. so written. It forms part of theTschufut-KalI collection, and was at first deposited at Odessa,where it was describedby Pinner in his "Prospectus"(B. No. 3,p. 18, sq.). Subsequently it was transferred to the ImperialLibrary of St. Petersburg, whence it became known as theCodexBabylonicus Petropolitanus. It has been photo-litho-graphed by Dr. Hermann L. Strack, under the auspices of theRussian Government.4Moses ben Asher was a distinguished Massorite, and con-tributed in an important degree to perfect the Massoreticsystem. But his name has been eclipsed by his still more

'Fuerst, G. d. K., note 97, p. 138; Pinsker, p'&,pp. tO' K'6 ''. Somescholars are of opinion that itnlD was the name of some particular codexor codices. Baer conjectures (Genesis, p. 83, note 3), that it may have beenidentical with the codex of Ben Naphtali-not an unlikely supposition,considering that there is a substantial agreement between the variants of the'?D(see Ginsburg,Massorat, i., p. 611 a), and those of Ben Naphtali. Graetzthinks (AMonatsschr.,871, pp. 51, 55) that the Ben Asher codices are sostyled. The view of Geiger (Jiid. Zeitschtr., ii., p. 98), that 'Do signifiesa separatebook of Massoreticnotes, is scarcely probable.2 See, however, Dillmann in Herzog (2nd ed.), Art. " Bibel text des A. T.,"p. 397.3 See Eben Sappir, i., 1 fol. 14 afin. sq.; ii., 186, 187, 221, 225; Graetz,Jl[onatsschr., 1871, p. 4, sq. The epigraph is as follows :--' ]:2 ,n't I;N311i11X1tg ni^n .N13 n ^ $y vnpn $W mltnn,nt inamnD"Clu niND 1;1Mp?o mnn: .. .i6n;n vym 3nlnDmntYnr3nn1'l n2,;1 -in$1 D3w yP2w1. The expression 'IlT1nD;ln'1 proves thatMoses ben Asher must have written the entire Bible, though only theProphets can now be identified.4 CodexBabylonictusPetrolpolitanus. Leipzig, 1876.

246



26/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.distinguished son-Aaron ben Asher,l who, together with hisrival, Ben Naphtali, is generally credited with having fixedthe Massorah (in the form in which we at present possess it)in the first half of the tenth century.2Aaron ben Moses ben Asher--bnr' n t'bzr as he is styled,3-was, as we have seen, the last of a distinguished family ofMassorites and Punctuators, extending back to the latter halfof the eighth century. Both Aaron and his father appear tohave been Karaites, if the views of Graetz,4Pinsker,5 Fuerst,6and Pineles7 may be regarded as decisive.8 Aaron (like hisfather) is described as a native of Moeziah, which was another

1 Cod. Massor. Tschsf., No. 9, gives, in addition to the Massoritesalreadymentioned, the family tree of the Ashers as follows:-Asher, 5Y1U1jptl, died cir. 805.Nehemiah (Ninphash = 'lYp23 1= mln),d. c. 830.Moses-ben-Nehemiah,d. c. 855.Asher-ben-Moses,d. c. 880.Moses-ben-Asher,d. c. 905.Aaron-ben-Moses-ben-Asher,. c. 930.-Baer &Strack,Dik. Hat.,p. 78; Ad. Merx,op. cit.

2 Gedaljah (;1$jpnnTl ), Jacob Sappir and others incorrectly placeAaron ben Asher in the eleventh century. See Graetz, loc. cit.; Strack,Prol., p. 44 note; Baer and Strack, op. cit., p. xi.3 In Arabic codices he is called 1'PD 1'25.-Ib. p. x.4 Gesch.,v., p. 556; lonatsschr., 1871, p. 2, sq.6 Likute' Kadmonioth,p. 2'5.6 G. d. K., i., p. 115.' 1i1n~'$ , p. 271.8 On the other hand, David Oppenheim (Jiid. Zeitschr., 1874, p. 79, sq.-Ben Ascher u. der angebliche Ditfferenzpunktn der Betreff der Heiligkeit

der Bibel zwischen Rabbinissmus . Karaisnus ; '?i]ln, 1870, No. 46, p. 365 b)has sought to show that the Ashers must have been Rabbanites. Of thesame view are Jacob Sappir (Eben. Sap., i., p. 16 b., ii., pp. 185-191), andS. Gottlieb Stern (Supplement to J)1M7MOnl Dn1nn nq1al n 1no,Vienna, 1870). Graetz's main arguments are :-(1.) The Karaite, JehudaHadassi, speaks of him as a fellow Karaite. (2.) He is styled DTOn-aKaraite title. (3.) The superscription to his DlIDptl Vpljlp includes himamong the D B'~D, again a Karaite title. (4.) In the same work he speaks,in Karaite fashion, of the Prophets and Hagiographa, as if they were parts ofthe Torah. (5.) In the epigraph to Moses ben Asher'scopy of the Prophets,it is said that he wrote the entire Bible (r11Tnl)for use in the Synagogue.The custom of reading the entire Bible in public worship was speciallyKaraitic. [A similar argument drawn from the epigraph to the supposedAaron ben Asher codex at Aleppo falls to the ground, since it hasbeen proved that this codex was not written by Aaron ben Asher (seeinfra).] (6.) Saadja's opposition to the principles of Ben Asher. On theother side, it is argued that:-(1.) Ben Asher writes from the Talmudicalstandpoint. (2.) He makes considerable use of the Sefer Jczira. (3.) Theexpression ' TD2D s not peculiar to the Karaites. (4.) Maimonides wouldnot have set so high a value on the Ben Asher codex had its authorbeen a Karaite. (5.) The Karaites were not alone in regarding the Pro-phets and Hagiographa as part of the Torah.

247



27/36

Thle Jewish QuarterlyReviewc.name for Tiberias.' Both father and son devoted themselvesto the task of collating Scriptural MSS., and editing them inaccordance with the Massoretic rules which they perfected.The work of Aaron ben Asher provoked much oppositionfrom his rival, Ben Naphtali, as well as from Saadja Gaon, themost eminent representative of the Babylonian school ofcriticism.2 But despite their strictures, the codex Ben Ashersoon became recognised as the standard text of the Bible.Maimonides expressly tells us in his MishnehTorah,3 hat hefollowed its readings in the copy of the Pentateuch he madefor himself in Egypt. Until quite recently, it was generallyassumed, on the authority of Jacob Sappir, that the codexI Inasmuch as in the epigraph to the Moses ben Asher codex, Tiberiasis already designated Moeziah, it is clear that this name could not havebeen derived, as Graetz thinks (ilonatsschr., 1871, p. 5), from that of theFatimite Caliph Moez,who lived in the latter half of the tenth century-unless, indeed, this epigraph is spurious. See Baer and Strack, (p. cit., pp.80 and 81, where more probable derivations of the name are given.2 'tX t B in11l1n, Graetz, v., note 20, I. f.-Saadja Gaon may beregarded as the first who employed the Massorah in the services ofBiblical exegesis.-The statement of Elias Levita (Third Introd. to Mifas.1nam.)that Ben Naphtali was the representative of the Babylonian school ofcriticism (Ben Asher representing the Western), although subscribed to bymost scholars, is quite unfounded. A comparison of the differences betweenthe Occidentals and Orientals with those between Ben Asher and BenNaphtali is of itself sufficient to show the groundlessness of this view.Moreover, Strack (Luth. Zeitschr.,1875, p. 611) quotes the following Mas-soretic note to 1 Kings iii. 20, showing that Ben Naphtali sometimes sidedwith the Occidentals (and Ben Asher with the Orientals): n3I 1:1h'Iyobn n'lnlYnr = iVKt 3 n nMw nn1 1. In Cod. Bibl. Tschufut., 10,also, he has discovered the following Massoretic note to Jerem. xi. 7, where,our textus 'rccptus reads-illnt D=1'I 'Il, while the Babylonian textshave tPl, etc.:-'V ^z '3)1 1?n bQD:1 Baer and Strack, olp.cit., p. xi., note 12, p. 13,note 13). An auto-epigraphof B. N. (Cod. Tschuf. 34, as amended by Firko-witsch, see ib.) makes him a resident of Arar Zobah,but Ad. Merx (op.cit.)conjectures that, like B. A., he lived at Tiberias. In his elaborate paperonthe Tschufut-Kale collection, Merx has attempted to show that there weretwo rival schools in Tiberias itself; that they flourished from about 650 to930 C.E.; that Pinchas Rosh Jeshiba was the earliest head of the one school,and that his contemporary rival was Chabibben Pipim; and that the lastcontemporary heads were Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali. The minutecharacter of the differences between the two authorities is in favour of thisview.Hil. Sepher Torah,ch. viii., ? 4.' Eben Sappir, i., p. 12 b. Sappir's statement was followed by Graetz(Monatsschr., 1871,p. 6, and 1887,p. 30), and Strack (Prolegomena,pp. 44and 46). Graetz has since accepted Wickes' conclusion (Afonatsschr.,Oct.,1887,p. 434, note). The lengthy epigraph to this codex, which is as follows,is of course a Karaite fabrication: ,V3-1' 1 Dstl-1t $2W I,t nrlnYn MItmni vmvi 'wonD n a pI2 rnri r0 x nvin inmix nr ol'D'nln'll;t :91D;PK'1= j:nttl:;l ilOVW;ztz1?DQnlX 1n21t D'inDot?nn, r^smO: p:n, I`w):i mnDn Pn-5nn WSn DD^n;l ^i;1 '31nsD;n

248



28/36

The Rise and Developmentof the Massorah.Ben Asher had been preserved in the Karaite synagogue atAleppo. This opinion has now been disproved by Dr. Wickesin his recent work on the Prose Accentuation, already referredto (pp. vii.-ix.). This splendid scholar has shown that theAleppo codex exhibits readings at variance with the well-known principles of Ben Asher.Aaron ben Asher1 likewise wrote short treatises on thevowel points and accents, the consonants, Dagesh andRaphe, in which he employed the results of the Massorah,and at the same time laid the foundation of the gram-matical studies of his successors. These treatises areembodied in a work, partly Massoretic and partly gram-matical, written in obscure Neo-Hebraic rhymes. The workis variously known as v:tn,n 'prln Tr r nrmniDn ':tn1p.It was printed in the first edition of the BombergRabbinical Bible (Venice, 1518) with the superscription

n11?nn ItVN 1 -1pn7s 'I 71lnnn^rw vn3vn >pnmyplnn IDno nz?'ll ni'11 n/l~-3in Hmr.2 He also compileda list of "EightyHomonyms" (t:lq ::ltt^)s which was afterwards incor-porated in the MassorahFinalis, s.v., 's and the OchlahVe-Ochlah.4Aaron ben Asher may be regarded as the connectinglink between the Massorites and tle Grammarians.5l":Yrn ' 3 D13C:;ni 231'nD nmln3'i:1. Equally untrustworthy isthe statement of Samuel ben Jacob that he copied the complete Bible codexof the year 1010 (1009) from Aaron ben Asher's Bible :- pY' 12 ~SxlD''i1n12n2 DinOnlDln Dln inpo r fti ninni n&DN 1pm i32l:trn ,3 n ,NDKill : I2 n2 ;3:M n,n$n1ri n nyVV:. (Cod.Bibl. Hebr. Petropol. B. 19 a, p. 479 a; see Harkavy and Strack's Catal.,

p. 263 sq., and Pinner's Prospectus,p. 86 sq.). This statement is disproved bythe several deviations from the usage of Ben Asher, which the codex pre-sents in regard to Metheg, Chataf patach and Dagesh lene: Baer and Strack,op. cit., pp. 24, 25.1 Or his father (Graetz. Mlonats.chr.,1871,p. 10, sq.). Even the " variationsbetween Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali" (see infra) might, Graetz supposes,beascribed to the father equally as well as to the son.2 The work has since been separately edited (a) by Leopold Dukes, underthe title of V'2'1 't 'CS $ Dnl'Dn nImiDDI DtDlitp (Tiibingen, 1846);and (b) by Baer and Strack ('A'3 12 IOD 2 filiN"1 DOnDyun'1p1p19DO-Leipzig, 1879). Kimchi often cites a ' f13nI2f13n; but Baer con-jectures that this is a misreading for DY$2 2 nn1nn. Op. cit. p. 14,note 17.3 Hadassi, Eshkol Iak(opher, Nos. 163, 173,--:'D 'ippni ,nIpn N>XK ji3 nlJli 2'w31n $v 3Din tnn3 ;inn.

4 No. 59,- t1W' IIln lilrIn l ;fln i'nn tn1k". The Massorah Finalisand the Ochlah Ve-Ochlahenumerate ninety-nine assonances.6 The relation between Massorah and Grammar s to be inferred inter alia,from the expression p'Ip'l, which originally meant nothing more than" precision," "exactitude," such as distinguished the labours of theMassoretic transcribers of the Bible.-Steinschneider, J. L., ? 16, p. 138.S

249



29/36

The Jeu,ish QuarterlyReieuw.Jacob ben Naphtali1 was a contemporary of Aaron benAsher, and probably, as Merx supposes (see supra), the headof a rival

Documents

The Rise and Development of the Massorah