MASORAH, maYo-rd: The Jewish tradition regarding the textual readings of the Pentateuch in particular and of the Old Testament in general, meaning by this the consonantal text. Content After the return from the Exile the of the Law of Moses was the central point of Masorah. the common life of the people, and an absorbing care for the textual basis was the natural consequence. Instruction in the Law began in early youth, and in the synagogues passages were read from this part of Scripture, to which there came to be added also selections from the prophets. Very early there were formulated exact directions regarding the copying of the Scriptures; especially for the making of synagogue rolls. Soon there were devised also checks in order to control in the matter of accuracy. The verses, words, and letters of the entire Old Testament and also of parts of it were counted, and note was taken of the number of times single words occurred in the whole or in parts of the volume. Thus the tradition that there are in the Old Testament 23,203 verses is as old as the persecution under Hadrian. Moreover, peculiarities were noted and arranged in groups, as in cases where marginal readings were preferred (see Keri and Kethibh). In cases where these singularities were supposed to have particular significance, note was made of them so that omission or change became difficult or impossible, and sometimes an explanation of the phenomenon was given. Examples of these are the suspended "nun" in the name "Manasseh," Judges xviii. 30, aLd the two methods (scriptio plena and defectiroa) of spelling the proper name Ephron in Gen. xxiif. 16, of which fanciful explanations were given.

There is no indication in the Talmuds or in the older Midrashim that materials of this sort were committed to writing, but it is presumed that they were transmitted orally, at least until the seventh century. The division of the Law into paragraphs (in Palestine so as to be read through in three years, in Babylonia in one year) and into Oral Trans- verses was known at this early date, mission; indicated by the 290 open and 379

Textual closed sections. It appears that after Variations. the pronunciation handed down by tradition was indicated in the manuscripts, the notes of peculiarities and the results of the examination of the text began to be written on the margin of the manuscripts or at the end of the volume or of the individual books, sometimes, however, on separate manuscripts. The different development which Judaism underwent at home and abroad (in Palestine and Babylonia) produced variations and diversities in the texts, and thus a diversity of "authority" has been produced. Concerning these the Masorah is not wholly consistent, and the older manuscripts show great varieties of reading. The general agreement among most codices of the Old Testament is due to a leveling process under the influence of the Masoretes. The origin of the three systems of punctuation known to exist has not with certainty been discovered.

Masoretic studies were long prosecuted in Ti berias, a fact that is registered in marginal refer ences on the codioes to the "men of Tiberias," where in particular the family of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher was active from the end of the eighth century; and the Masoretie punctuation must have taken shape there, at least in its essentials. Many names of noted Masoretes are known,

Eminent among them the contemporary of Masoretes Aaron ben Moses ben Asher, Moses and Texts. ben David ben Naphthali, and something more than the name of Moses Mobeb and Rabbi Pinbas. A manuscript of singular notoriety is also known by name-the Mabazora rabba, cited as early as Ben Naphthali; and of other codices citations are extant which are still of value. The points in which Ben Naphthali differed from Ben Asher are preserved in lists and in numerous marginal notes. But the most celebrated of all the Masoretes is Aaron ben Moses ben Asher (flourished at Tiberias early in the tenth century), who is quoted as the highest authority upon the text; and it has been claimed that a codex from his hand, supplied with punctuation and Masorah, is extant at Aleppo. Modern textual criticism seeks particularly to employ the means left by Aaron ben Asher. After him come the so-called Nakdanim or punctuators, eminent among whom are Moses, Samson (both called Nakdan), and Jekuthiel ben Judah ha-Kohen. Later copyists and grammarians cite them and their model codices with frequency. Of the Masoretic handbooks named and cited since the middle of the twelfth century the most important is that called Oklah weoklah (Ocklahh weochlah), though an older work is the tract Sopherim. Mention should also be made of the codices from Yemen which combine grammar with masorah.

Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah undertook to

227

collect and arrange all the material accessible to him in manuscripts, the complexity of which task only the most expert can appreciate.

Masorah The results are employed in the second Parva, of Daniel Bomberg's Bibles (4 vols.,

Magna, and Venice, 1524-25), and the text of the

Marginalia. Masorah given there, practically reproduced as it is in the later rabbinic Bibles, must in spite of its incompleteness and gaps be considered the textus receptus of the Masorah. The Masorah is distinguished into Masorah perm and magna (together called Masorah marginalia). In rabbinic Bibles text and Targum are printed in parallel columns, between which stands the Masorah parva, which concerns the Keri and gives the number of occurrences of a form. Above and below the text stands the Masomh magna, which contains references to the parva and general matters such as concordances of words which have certain peculiarities. At the end of the fourth volume is the Masorah finalia, a kind of lexicon in alphabetical order containing also references to the Masorah marginalia and statements of differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naphthali and between Oriental and Occidental readings. This is practically the arrangement of the manuscripts, though there are differences both of content and of order. That the eastern or Babylonian Jews differed in their text from the western or Palestinian Jews was known in early times only through Jacob bon Iiayyim's list of 216 variants. It is now known that variations exist in the Pentateuch and concern vowels and accents, that they show differences from the Masoretic tradition, and that the Orientals were not in entire agreement with each other. See Bible Text, I., 1-2.

(H. L. Strack.)

Bibliography: References to the earlier literature are given in Hauck-Herzog, RE, xii. 393 sqq. On the intro duction to the Masorah the best single work is C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, pp. 1-488, London, 1897. Helpful studies are: A. Geiger, in Jüdische Zsitschrift für Wissenschaft and Leban, iii (1884-86), 78-118; E. Is $avouteux, kudea historiques et exEpEtiqusa our l'A. T., pp. 191224, Paris, 1887; I. Harris, in JQR, i (1889), 128-142, 223-2b7; W. Bscher, in Winter and WiSnaehe, Dice jüdische Litteratur, ii. 121-132, Troves, 1894; idem, in JQR, iii (1891), 788-790. Elise Levits'e work, Sepher masaoreth hawnaeeorefh was published, Venice, 1536, Basel, 1539, cf. C. D. Ginsburg, The Maaeoreth a-maaaorsth of Elias Lauita, . . in Hebrew with Enp, transl. and . . . Notes, London, 1887; idem, The Masaorah Compiled from MSS. alphabetically and lexically Arranged, vols., i.-iii., London, 1880-85. On the Syrian punctuation consult: J. P. Martin, Histoire do la ponduation ou de la Masaors chew lee Syrians, Paris, 1875; A. Max, Hitt artia grammaCico: aped Syron, Leipsic, 1882; G. Diettrich, Die Maasorah der caUiclun and weetlichan Syrar, London, 1899. On punctuation in general consult M. Schwab, Des pointerooysliea dons les longues aEmitiquee, Paris, 1879. On the euprslinear system consult: F. Prsatorius, in ZDMG, liii (1899), 181-198; G. Margoliouth, in PSBA, 1893, pp. 184-205. On s third system read: C. Levies, is Amer ican Journal for Semitic Language and Literature, xv (1898-99), 1b7-184; and P. Kahle, in ZATW 1901, p6. 273-317. On the accents: A. BUehler, UnTertachung xur Entetehung and Entwickelung der hebroidchen Accents, Vienna, 1891; W. Wickes, Treatise on the Accentuation of the . . . Poetical Books of the O. T.. . ~ . grad of the . Prose Books, 2 vols., Oxford, 1881-87; F, Preetoriue, Ueber die Herkunjt der hsbrlliechen Accents, Berlin, 1901; P. Kahle, in ZDMG, 1901 pp. 187-194.

For discussion of points touched on in the text consult: Zuns, Zur Geschichte und Litteratur, pp. 105-122, Berlin, 1845 (on the punctuators); 8. Pinsker, Einleitung in don babyToniaeh-hebräiecke Punktationseystom, Vienna, 1883, and H. L. Straek in G. A. Kohut, Semitic Studies, pp. 580-572, Berlin, 1897 (on the eastern Masorah): 8. FrenedorH, Das Bush Ochlah W'ochlah, Hanover-, C. D. Ginsburg, Jacob ban Chajim On Adonijah'a Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, Hebrew and English, with Explanatory Notes, London, 1887; L. Law, Graphisehs Requiaitsn and E rzsupnisse bei don Juden, p. 71, Leipsic, 1870 (on the care exercised on the text); the tract Sopherim was edited by Joel MOller, Leipsic, 1878; H. T, de Grsaf, De Joadechewetgelaerdenin Tiberias 70-.§00 A.D., Groningen, 1802 (on Jewish learning in Tibeliso); P, KahlO, DGf maaoretiachs Text doe A. T.'s nosh der Ueberliefsrung der babylon-Men Juden, L eipaic, 1902,