The Aleppo Codex and the Rise of the Massoretic Bible Text

The rediscovery'of the oldest codex of the complete Tiberian Hebrew Bible enables us to gain a new understanding of the rise of the Massoretic Bible. In this paper GoshenGottstein analy'zes the position of codices of the Hebrew Bible, recounts the detective work that led to the authentication of the Aleppo Codex, and details for the first time the manifold ramifications of this unique treasure of the past for broadening our grasp of the history of the Bible text.

he4

M. H. Goshen-Gottstein It is one of the fascinating pastimes of the historian of biblical studies to try and evaluate the interrelationship between material discoveries and new insights. Some decades, or even centuries, could not boast any discoveries, and most of the scholarly output consisted of rehashing formulations, harmonizing positions, and exploring further speculations. At other times, hard facts came in fast, and scholars hardly managed to integrate the evergrowing body of new information. For over a century Bible scholars have become used to a never-ending stream of treasures from the past. It is part of this process that the very term "biblical archeology" has slowly changed its contents, so much so that definitions such as Albright's, a generation ago, would seem to many present-day scholars rather all-embracing and overly comprehensive. Even so, many a scholar who considers himself a biblical archeologist would still regard, say, a biblical text from Qumran as part of his domain, possibly because it was "excavated," whether by a professional excavator or a Bedouin. Yet the recovery of a biblical text not hidden in the caves of the Judean desert but rather in the "Cave of Elijah" in the venerable synagogue of Aleppo would probably be regarded as belonging to another subspecialty of biblical studies. It may be a thousand years old; it may be a discovery of paramount importance-the biblical archeologist will tend to pass the find to the textual critic or to the specialist in matters massoretic.

ALEPPO CODEX the and of the Rise Bible Massoretic 9Text

REQUEST FROM THE AUTHOR This article contains some reproductions from the A leppo Codex for your convenience. In accordance with religious custom, as explained in Maimonides' Code, hiblical texts-even though only reproductions-should not he discarded in such a way that the divine name might be profaned. Kindly make sure that you keep this issue in a special/Iy saqfeplace.

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER1979

145

9

The Aleppo Codex is the oldest codex of the complete Hebrew Bible.

146

So much for the point of principle whether the most important discovery in the field of Hebrew "massoretic" manuscripts is a legitimate matter of interest for the "biblical archeologist." To be sure, our story does not rest entirely on a single discovery but rather integrates various discoveries and insights. Yet without the Aleppo Codex our reconstruction would have remained much more tentative and clouded by doubt. It is thanks to what can rightly be termed the miraculous recovery of this codex that we are now able to retell the story of the rise of the massoretic Bible. Let us start with some basic points. The rise of the codex form of the book in the early Christian era concerns books in various languages and scripts. Yet a codex of the Hebrew Bible is functionally different from a codex of the Septuagint or the Peshitta or most other texts. It both coexists and contrasts with another major form of textual transmission: the scroll. To be sure, scrolls of Hebrew biblical texts in our possession today predate Hebrew codices by more than a millennium. That is to say, we possess no codex of a Hebrew biblical text earlier than the last quarter of the 9th century C.E. This brings us within two or three decades of the Aleppo Codex itself. From a functional point of view there remains a basic difference between scroll and codex. The scroll was the original form of scribal tradition, and it remained the only one acceptable for liturgical use, at least within medieval Rabbanite Judaism. The outer form of the scroll did not change, nor the scribal conventions of its production. None of the scribal refinements we shall discuss-strokes and dots of various shapes, to indicate vowels and tonal accentuation-could ever be introduced into a scroll for liturgical use. However much the graphic notation was refined, however exact the details transmitted from generation to generation, they were only noted down in a codex. The codex became the model for student and scribe, to assist their memory in verifying

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER1979

details; it became the storehouse for all information to be studied. The knowledge thus mastered and committed to memory was applied when the sacred text was being read aloud from a scroll before the assembled congregation. It will therefore be understood why biblical texts in languages such as Greek or Syriac were transmitted in codex form fairly soon after the codex became a convenient and acceptable form. The Hebrew Bible, on the other hand, was copied into codices only as a result of what amounted to a revolution in the ways of its transmission. A further remark is in order. In the nature of things, the opening of a scroll at the right spot is not always easily achieved. The longer the scroll, the more cumbersome the process. Hence, the maximum length of any biblical scroll is, so far as we know, that of a major subdivision, such as the Pentateuch. A scroll of the entire Hebrew Bible could not be handled. This fact must be borne in mind when we speculate about the emergence of the first codex of the entire Hebrew Bible. The facts known from the study of the early Hebrew massoretic codices, penned between the end of the 9th century and the middle of the 10th, bear out what we would assume by analogy. Just as the first Hebrew printers, six centuries later, stuck to most conventions of scribes, so the scribes of codices stuck to various conventions of scrolls. They tended to produce codices of one book or of a part of the Bible, such as the Pentateuch or the Prophets. Penning for the first time a codex of the entire Hebrew Bible with its hundreds of thousands of separate graphic details must have been a mind-boggling undertaking, something to be achieved only after untold years of developing expert knowledge and skills. This should suffice as a background for a discussion of that very undertaking-the Aleppo Codex. "Song of David" (2 Samuel 22) as laid out in the Aleppo Codex with the usual occurrence of "massoretic notation" in the margins.

)~~~

o..r orc i..-4. iwJ ap 1.

*0

3 VAW

?AS

So.

o

9

-

11%

~T

9'

~6~uth~N'3. IP 9

iTqOLMW

i'S..~

4g1'~W7

7*~

3

~ w'm

*

'"44 4''"A

1'

''

~P 'y

'p~

~

P3' )~1

0?

?.

LA

F tl

iplt

~415~~Y~ 9~w?

u?*

-A

rYYY?

E~~pi~b~so0

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST SUMMER 1979

147

* 4

We are struck by the enormous effort that must have gone into copying those hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of details.

148

The Aleppo Codex is the oldest codex of the entire Hebrew Bible-traditionally termed the 24 books-fully vowelled, accentuated, and adorned with marginal notes according to a Tiberian massoretic tradition. Its status is borne out by the overall evaluation of many technical details. Our judgment happens to tally with the contents of an authorship note appended to the codex about a century after it was written, but by no means depends on it. There are older Hebrew manuscripts-after all, the Qumran texts predate the codex by more than a thousand years. Also, we possess one Tiberian massoretic manuscript that definitely predates our codex. That is the beautifully executed manuscript of the Prophets known as the Cairo Codex, belonging to this very day to the Karaite community in Cairo. The production of that manuscript had been undertaken by the great master, Moshe ben Asher, the father of the great master, Aaron [ben Moshe] ben Asher, none other than the massorete in charge of producing the Aleppo Codex. The claim is, then, that the Aleppo Codex is the oldest codex containing the entire Tiberian massoretic Bible, that is to say, the oldest we possess and the oldest of which we know. May one claim more than that? With all the caution due when arguing from silencemost probably, yes. Given that Hebrew books suffered through pogroms, war, or persecution as much as Jewish communities themselves, one cannot attach too much weight to the fact that this is quite simply the earliest codex of that kind that survived. Slightly more weighty is the argument that no contemporary or earlier source mentions any such massoretic codex of the entire Bible as being penned or supervised by a master-massorete. More important, still, is the fact that all our sources point positively to Ben Asher's oeuvre as being the decisive event. To be sure, we cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that there is a

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

reference pointing to a lost codex penned by the father, Moshe ben Asher. But the evidence against such an assumption is compelling. Without getting involved in a full-dress technical discussion, we may state for the moment that there is excellent reason to maintain that the Aleppo Codex is not only the oldest manuscript of its type of which we know, but the oldest Tiberian massoretic codex of the entire Bible. A further consideration is in order. If we study a later codex of an entire massoretic Bible-the work of a copyist who does not have to do any spade work-we are struck by the enormous effort that must have gone into copying those hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of details. Whereas some copyists produced several copies of the same part of the Bible, there are almost no instances in which the same copyist produced two copies of the entire Bible. Even though work was often divided between the scribe who penned the letters and the scribe-massorete who supplied vowels, accents, and massoretic notation, the effort involved was so immense that hardly any professional copyist ever managed to produce more than one copy of the entire Bible. If this holds true with regard to later copyists, it would be especially so with regard to the superhuman effort of the last scion born to the house of "the old Rabbi Asher," who had founded a dynasty of master-massoretes. Now that we hold the original codex in our hands, we can appreciate the unbelievable akribia necessary and the never-ending toil involved in checking and rechecking all the details for the entire Bible. Up to this point we have used terms such as "massoretic notation" without further explanation. If we look at a page of a massoretic model codex, as reproduced here, we see various letters or abbreviated words on the left or right margins as well as between the columns. These correspond to tiny circlets written over a word of the text. Also, at the top and at the bottom of the page we find units of short

shorthand notes as to the specific orthography of a word was perhaps the major achievement of the massoretic endeavor. It has been known for generations that in all massoretic codices there are thousands of discrepancies between the text itself and the notes that go with it. As centuries passed by, copyists copied both texts and \ )'" *i* notes, but those did not tally. The X401 copyists understood less and less of what they were doing. In fact, very VIIIA often they turned the notes into I't fanciful figures of ornamentation, without any remnant of textual value. Even if the notes were left intact, they no longer served with absolute precision the basic text to which they were attached. The the of 32 Detail from Deuteronomy question of absolute precision and characteristictiny marginalnotations relative correlation between text and which appear in the left margin of the massoretic notation thus became a text on p. 157. major touchstone for judging the quotes centered around a word (not quality of a codex. Though the evaluation of the always spelled out) which are a sort of concordancoid, mnemotechnical Aleppo Codex is very complicated, the problem of methodology-of aid. Marginal notations usually how one goes about this evaluaconsist of a Hebrew letter, the tion-is not in itself complicated numerical value of which indicates since it rests on various typological the number of occurrences of that graphic unit in that selfsame orthog- tests. It is the only manuscript of raphy. Or else, it might be the letter the entire massoretic Bible in which lamed, indicating "letha," i.e., not in the correspondence between text and massoretic notation is practically existence elsewhere. in this notes these perfect. If we ignore the inevitable Deciphering signs of human frailty, the codex day and age of computer-arranged turns out to be the only example concordances is not everybody's cup in existence of almost complete of tea; but for the history of stabiharmony between text and massora. lizing the tiniest massoretic details, It is largely this internal evidence they are of the utmost importance. is Bible the substantiates our claim with letter of that Every second Almost every regard to the uniqueness and meaningful. word raises a problem of plene or authenticity of this codex. We may now come back to our defective spelling, i.e., whether a vowel is indicated by a mater previous observation and, perhaps, lectionis or not. Each spelling, rephrase it from a different point of according to Rabbinic tradition, may departure. The first production of a be indicative of some deeper codex of an entire massoretic Hebrew Bible was a major event in meaning. Hence, in theory, scruthe history of the development of pulously guarding the exact orthogour Bible text. No later copying or raphy and informing future scribes in a framework of running marginal adaptation would be quite the same.

There is considerable merit to the argument that if the father, Moshe ben Asher, had succeeded in producing such a codex, he would have been credited with such an unparalleled achievement; and Maimonides might well have chosen his codex as his standard. But there is not the slightest reason to assume that such a codex ever existed. As far as our reconstruction of events goes, the man who actually achieved that distinction, obviously basing himself on the family tradition, was the son, Aaron [ben Moshe] ben Asher. The codex he produced was what centuries later became known as the Aleppo Codex. At this juncture another detail ought to be examined. We have stressed time and again the difference between a codex of the entire Bible and a codex of one book or one part of the Bible. What are the facts with regard to the Aleppo Codex? A look at the facsimile will show that there are 294 folios. A quick count will indicate that roughly the following parts are missing: most of the Pentateuch, a few chapters from II Kings, Jeremiah, Minor Prophets, Chronicles, and Psalms, as well as the entire final part of the codex, containing much of Song of Songs, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. If we reckon the parts missing proportionally to the entire text, we arrive at the conclusion that in its present state the codex is reduced to about three quarters of its original contents. If we speak, then, of this codex as the oldest one of the entire massoretic Bible, we speak of its original status, of the basic achievement of Aaron ben Asher. It is less than gracious-as some people have done-to confuse the issue by playing upon words and maintaining that the Aleppo Codex is not the oldest codex of the entire massoretic Bible. But from the point of view of

m1 4,,,49 pWtt 4 b i ?m4l. I*cprr' 97tt $9 g cms/9111939 (et~"""~

"concordancoid,mnemotechnicalaid" which appearsat the top of the text on

s 4 y1"W Y 4WPg

,'i~

tV

Detail from Deuteronomy 32 of the

p. 157.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

149

Contrary to widespread belief, the Leningrad Codex does not mirror the tradition of Aaron ben Asher with absolute fidelity.

150

the present generation, the fact cannot be denied: what was a codex of the entire Bible for over a thousand years has been desecrated, torn, and partly burned by Syrian pogromists who vented their hatred three decades ago, after the establishment of a Jewish state was determined. They stormed the synagogue in Aleppo and nearly succeeded in destroying the entire codex. Whether one terms it a miracle or proof of supreme Jewish self-sacrifice, whatever has been salvaged was literally pulled out of the fire. The Aleppo Codex, as extant today, has ceased to be a codex of the entire Bible. Hence, we face the irony of history also in the field of Bible codices. When the late Paul Kahle realized, back in the 1930s, that the Jewish community of Aleppo would never grant him permission to use Aaron ben Asher's original manuscript, he decided to use a substitute. Henceforth, the editions of Kittel's Biblia Hebraica were based on the so-called Leningrad Codex (see below). Now that vandals have burned part of the Aleppo Codex, that substitute remains, indeed, the oldest extant codex of the entire Hebrew Bible. Thus, when we were able, for the first time, to study side by side the two oldest manuscripts of the entire Hebrew Bible-the codices named after the cities of Aleppo and Leningrad-only one remained intact. Yet at the same time, comparison showed the two codices for what they are: the Aleppo Codex-the perfect original masterpiece which authenticates itself by internal criteria; the Leningrad Codex-a none-too-successful effort to adapt a manuscript of a different Tiberian subgroup to a Ben Asher Codex. The very attempt of the "harmonizing" massorete of the Leningrad Codex is the most telling proof one can imagine that Aaron ben Asher's text was used as a model a few decades after his death. No scribe in his right mind would go to the trouble to adapt an existing manuscript to another model unless he recognized its superiority. This is

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

what the (second) scribe of the Leningrad Codex attempted. Yet such an undertaking was doomed to failure because the scribe could, at the very best, deal with differences of some methegs or even accents and matres lectionis. But he could not change the layout of sections and Songs. The history of internal disharmony among manuscripts started then and there. By various counts, the consonantal text of the Leningrad Codex-wrongly proclaimed to this day as practically identical with Aaron ben Asher's codex-has been shown to be about the furthest removed from that subtradition, if we count the identical and the different features of early codices. It is only after two decades of intensive comparative study of various indicators that we are able to back up earlier hunches with numerical data. Since even specialists in other subfields of biblical philology are usually unable to appreciate minutiae of massoretic argument, it is quite easy to confuse the issue with a few clever sounding bon mots. It is not a very encouraging sign for the state of biblical philology that some scholars have been able to get away with general statements without ever having spent the years necessary to acquaint themselves with the facts. Rather than cataloging baseless misstatements, we should now take a look at the decisive statement of Maimonides which has remained the basis for scholarly inquiry for many centuries. This is what that towering halachist had to say on the subject, and it is from here that the search started: Since I have seen greatconfusionin all the scrollswhich 1 looked into for these matters, and also the Massoreteswho compose[writings]to makeknownopen and closed sections contradict one another according to the books on which they base themselves,I saw fit to note down here all the sections of the Law, closed and open, as well as the layout of the Songs [viz Exodus 15,

Deuteronomy32] so as to correctall the books accordingly.The book on which we basedourselvesin thesemattersis the

identification. Local traditions are not scholarly proof. It was one of the major achievements of modern philological detective work to show that the legend was true. While the technical proof cannot be detailed here, we shall come back to some of the points involved in this identification. Meanwhile, we may ponder the rather daring step taken by a We ought to stress immediately master-halachist like Maimonides. that this statement of Maimonides He was struck by the considerable a with he deals that leaves no doubt between books in his day differences avoid should we and specific issue, occurrence and type the as He does loose regards generalizations. any of sections. In order to remedy that not speak about orthography, or about vowels, accents, or differences confusion, he relied on one of metheg, or about massoretic particular codex which happened to be available to him in Cairo (or, notation. He does not say whose whose rather, Fustat). That codex served as book he would not accept or This a model for the Torah scroll he had system seems untrustworthy. written for himself in order to fulfill needs stressing because it is rather the demands of the Divine law. how to see reputable disconcerting Moreover, he seemed to expect that scholars have invented completely if he copied the details into his different statements allegedly made Code, scribes would accept those by Maimonides in this context. He features as normative. Henceforth, states unequivocally what has mistakes would be eradicated, and decisions become the basis of later the correct way of writing Torah Jewish within the accepted legal scrolls would be restored. he deals expressly system (halacha); Was Maimonides really so with the issue where a section naive, or was there more to the should be marked, what type the section is, and how the two large story than meets the eye? In order to explore the probPentateuchal poems should be laid to out. The lending of his authority lem, it is not enough to approach it on from the point of view of the a certain model codex is done him tradition of the Bible text. We must to known it is the basis that that everyone used to rely on it. The study it primarily in the light of his halachic reasoning and procedures. description has a causal flavor: Ben The historian of halacha is well Asher spent many years to ensure utmost correctness, so everyone used aware today that only a small number of halachic rulings handed to accept his book as authoritative. down by Maimonides are not clearly Hence, Maimonides accepts that based on a statement from Talmudic codex as authoritative and copies or Gaonic literature. Sometimes we to so as details out the relevant make that particular tradition suspect that the reason for a halachic difference between him and, halachically binding. At this juncture I should add say, his great critic Rabbi Abraham another piece of information, small but decisive. Local lore of Aleppo Jewry had it for centuries that the model codex they cherished and held in awe in the "Cave of Elijah" was none other than the very codex prepared by Ben Asher and declared authoritative (as regards the details mentioned) by Maimonides. As with other tales of local lore, scholars were justified in doubting that pious one well knownin Egyptwhichcontains all the twenty-fourbooks, which was formerly in Jerusalemas a model for correcting books. Everybody used to accept it as authoritative,for Ben Asher went over it mostexactlyfor manyyears and correctedit many times . . ." (Maimonides, Code, Laws of Torah Scrolls VIII, 4).

ben David of Posquieres is to be found in a variant text in their sources, rather than in different interpretations of a Talmudic text. But in general, halachic decisions by Maimonides are based in one way or another on an identifiable Rabbinic source. The one major exception in the huge field covered by Maimonides' Code is the issue of writing a Torah scroll. There he takes, as it were, one codex and declares, "Only this one is correct." This is not a matter of interpreting a Rabbinic text. It is a matter of throwing his authority behind a certain fact and denying recognition to all other facts. Even more surprising: whatever the later developments, no rabbinic authority, contemporary or otherwise, ever declared that Maimonides was wrong and that another model codex should be adopted. To be sure, the modern student of biblical antiquities has the right and duty to raise questions. For him the decision of Maimonides is a subject of inquiry. It does not affect the modern student if the conclusion of his scholarly analysis would turn out to be that Maimonides was illinformed. But he will have to bear in mind that in order to elevate the layout of one particular codex to the position of an absolute halachically perfect model, Maimonides must have had extremely compelling reasons. This was no matter for arbitrary whims, and the halachic opponents of Maimonides were not the men to acquiesce in such a whim. Let us look at a point which is decisive in the context of our story. Maimonides looked for a model for writing his scroll of the Law, and he dealt with the laws concerning Torah scrolls. It stands to reason that he should have chosen a model codex of the Pentateuch. As stated above, codices of parts of the Bible were in existence and were easier to come by. But this is not what he did. Only one particular codex was authoritative for him, and that was a codex of the entire Bible, although the nonpentateuchal parts were of no relevance for his purpose.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

151

4,,

ZI Alrv%1N9wr1$

Jvrn

J

OWN 4rr

'

W

m'nrr Vtw V1V

wnlx v"0

#AptWtI 9map

IMIC

Ir

4r

W,

VV 4v1

tr

-

IV

,1Ij

t~~y

I;~lSa~?i AA

4rIrJ w low,*'a 'VI

43 AL

I

ft

f

'Jw-I tv -' *

~1

.. n 4,

ai5#inEtama *M10 twrp F

i

AM r r~t~)3"a~P w wIwa) 3 *P * "AOL *Ll

rT

*

mw? A?*AA-X~

~;.'p

v'

1p

'4I

~

4

Aw dii

152

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

t

M

0"b

L

t'

p9~v

In 'rt~in~Fv

*t*

%4f

I&-

All

Ak &A mtj&

P44i

-A

64"AA

ic~~ig Is*j~Tf9

i

'

I

#*

n,! '9\~?rf '3

r'*tTrt? y?:

SW

~2*

-'a?t

..

,1, "C, 3

~t~

ll91to11101

TONO

Am bl'K

r?? ie

*?.vTa~

s

=~r4 tw

3WtVb ot

Ar P7Tnyn)1

nm Y~~S~KU

3 nfnp

htrt~

v7J.1

DN

?4K Ir

V.-I

_vt~

NKXfr~5~

J

~yr~rf?cLrO n

crb~~3

n~tC

fopetn

I

4T

ionola

#\ pr

-7~ft

'.4

-'

1A

*MthP?

'C

.

M,\ r7 f~ ~~M ~rs~j~l~au ?N t4v

'"

:

Ito

ni tr .~

pr'4IC~

,4

yS

*l_ '

rw4t'

''

s w-

N

in

'1nv t

y IO

-v

t'~

O

~'

rutrwb, ~SiD~fr

1

0

pvtr,.

5 r~14NV

*

w

7

44

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST SUMMER 1979

153

Vowel signs were invented because the exact liturgical tradition of reciting the Hebrew Bible was in danger of being lost after the Muslim conquests ca. 700 C.E.

It is no coincidence that that very codex turns out-when measured by our criteria of inner consistency and correlation with otherwise established Ben Asher readings-to be unique, indeed. After years of painstaking, detailed comparison the modern critic has to concede not only that the Aleppo local lore is correct, but he is compelled by the circumstances to admit that Maimonides knew exactly what he was talking about. What looks to the critical eye at first blush like an arbitrary decision was in reality based on a tradition about the unique trustworthiness of the codex of Ben Asher. We may now proceed one further step. We have already remarked on the fact that whereas the modern philologist tends to dwell on differences of readings with regard to vowels, accents, and methegs, Maimonides' concern was different. The major point of halachic interest-as we can see for instance in tractate Megilla of the Palestinian Talmud-concerns the question of proper division into sections. The real importance of that particular feature was perhaps not quite clear until very recently, for only now do we possess various scrolls or fragments of the same biblical text, as written or kept at Qumran. These fragments enable us, for the first time, to deal with some important details of scribal tradition in writing a sacred text over two thousand years ago. Only today are we able to put forward some educated guesses as to why certain features were endowed with halachic importance and why, in the end, Maimonides put his authority behind one particular codex in that regard. The following observation rests on an examination of parallel texts of Isaiah from Qumran, as well as tentative results of some other comparisons. Most of the fragmentary material, though not all of it, comes from Cave IV. The striking Facingpages of prosetext (pp. 152-53)in the Aleppo Codex showinga section from 1 Kings(11:8b-12:7).The circletat the extremeright marginof the right page is considereda massoreticcorrectionmark.

154

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

fact is that in spite of quasirecensional differences-not to speak of textual and orthographic changes-there exists a considerable unity of tradition as to the place of a section, that is to say, where to leave some empty space to mark off a textual subdivision. This is true both with regard to Qumran fragments among themselves and to the stubbornly guarded tradition kept alive for a thousand years from, let us say, 150 B.C.E. till 850 C.E.

The place of a section seems pretty well fixed, although far from being absolutely uniform, whereas the type of section-open, closed, or otherwise-seems more open to variation. To put it differently, we are beginning to gather some material for the history of fixed scribal responsibilities and customs. Such activities developed over a thousand years beyond the limits of textual differences. Cutting the textual continuity into sections turns out to have been one of the earliest and most basic responsibilities of the ancient scribes, or as they are called, the soferim-that is, possibly, counters of letters. Now that we can see for the first time the results of scribal tradition in the Qumran period, we can appreciate why the exact position and type of section space became the halachically decisive feature. It remains to be seen whether one day we also shall recover some fragments of Pentateuchal Songs. A thousand years had passed since the days of Qumran. When Aaron ben Asher finally attempted to utilize the combined experience of his family for the preparation of the codex which was to become known by his name, he was obviously most careful in matters of primary massoretic responsibility, i.e., spelling and preservation of textual layout. Meanwhile, further fields of specialization had developed: the tradition of special orthography (types of letters), the tradition of vocalization, accentuation, and methegs (gacyas), the tradition of massoretic marginal notation. By the 9th century, layer upon layer had grown until the

massorete's eye had to coordinate and survey hundreds of thousands of minute details. To be sure, the Aleppo Codex was singled out by Maimonides because of its reliability as regards the one feature halachically relevant. Today we can appreciate that the achievement of Ben Asher was just as amazing in other areas of his massoretic activity. For the first time, Bible scholars are able today to study the oldest codex of the entire Hebrew Bible side by side with the first published parts of the large critical edition of the Hebrew University Bible which collates in one of its apparatuses the differences from all the early massoretic codices. It becomes immediately clear that the quantity of differences stands in an inverse relationship to the historical development of massoretic activity. There are comparatively few differences with regard to cutting into sectionsalthough the differences in the books of the prophets are noticeably more than in pentateuchal codices. A larger number concerns differences of plene and defective orthography; the bulk deals with differences of methegs-just as we would assume from the quotes in Mishael ben Uzziel's "Treatise on Differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali" (see below). How do these findings relate to the historical development? For three centuries--roughly between 1500 and 1800-there raged a controversy about the nature and "inspirational" position of the Hebrew vowels, largely as part of theological feuds between the Catholic and Protestant churches. Today it is practically impossible not to accept the results of prolonged study: that the massoretes active between ca. 700 and 900 C.E. added a new dimension of activity in order to achieve their goal. That goal was to devise a reliable and exact graphic notation for indicating details of the liturgic reading of the Bible in public. How can one indicate which words should be read together? How to indicate main stress and secondary

stress? When to lift one's voice or to lower? How to note which syllable is in danger of being swallowed-hence one ought to linger for an additional split second? There were differences between individuals, as well as between rival studios, concerning the minutiae. But what seems minute to us is not too trivial to note if the word of God is concerned. Even if two massoretes grew up in the same studio or workshop, they never perceived exactly the same thing. Yet the slightest hesitation or holding back in the enunciation of a syllable was worthy of note, hence the immense number of differences as regards methegs, differences which the ordinary student of the Bible today hardly notices. It boggles the mind to realize how those students of the Bible text, over a thousand years ago, toiled for generations in order to refine their system of graphic notation.

the codex produced by Aaron ben Asher. The "differences" between those two masters concern the very last divergences which could not be resolved. The graphic notation had been refined to its tiniest tittles and had become practically unanimous. Even so, some slight differences remained, almost all of them with regard to the use of a metheg. Yet those last minute differences were still deemed so important for the correct tradition of Bible reading that they were collected in lists in order to make sure that all future generations would remain aware of all the smallest details of public Bible reading, even those which were not accepted by Ben Asher, whose particular brand of tradition was generally accepted. We have dwelt on the position of the Aleppo Codex, written about 900 C.E. It is an educated guess that it must have taken about 200 years for the graphic system to develop to perfection. That takes us back to about 700 C.E.-if

Putting side by side the Aleppo Codex, the Hebrew University Bible, and the "Treatise on Differences" will resolve an age-old misconception. We knew all along the names of some master-massoretes, but hardly anything more than their names. Over the centuries the names of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali had become synonymous with the issue of textual differences. Late medieval writers and modern scholars had gotten into the habit of relating any kind of textual divergence to the alleged feud between the two. Any list of variants, whatever its true origin, was related to them. Today the picture has changed, and so has our understanding of the essence of massoretic activitylargely, though not exclusively, thanks to the fact that we possess

we bear in mind

the list of names of Aaron's forefathers, back to the "old Asher." We possess no direct evidence as to the very onset of the invention of graphic notation, nor do we have any hard facts to connect the invention of massoretic graphic notation with the misnamed Syriac "massora," as was claimed a century ago. In any event, why was it about 700 C.E. that graphic notation became necessary? The correct answer was probably given in the first generation of Renaissance Hebraists, yet nobody paid attention to it because it was not given in a technical treatise on Bible or language, nor was the author a scholar of great repute. In his disputation against his former coreligionists, entitled Shebhile Tohu (Itinera Deserta, Venice 1539), wrote Gerardus Veltwych-then recently baptized-referring to the opinion which Elija Levita had published a year earlier in his Massoreth Ha-massoreth with regard to the late origin of vowel signs: ThereforeI hold thatafterthe religionof Ishmael had been victorious in all the

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

155

countries of the Orient and there was some peacein the landof Israel,... they put their minds to it and spent every effort to make the lost languagereadable. ... If we translate Veltwych's idea into a historical hypothesis, it roughly amounts to this: the invention of vowel signs is one of the instances where traditional inhibitions were overcome because of external danger. They were invented because Hebrew was in danger of being lost after the Muslim onslaught, yet they could not be devised during wartime, but rather in a period of relative quiet, because such an invention requires time and leisure. Veltwych's observation, which ought to be read in its full context, reflects a keen historical mind. It explains the why and when of graphic notation. Without being based on all the evidence we possess today-culminating in the monumental achievement of Aaron ben Asher-it strikes us as amazingly to the point. Up to now we have taken it for granted that the Aleppo Codex is, indeed, the very model codex declared authoritative by Maimonides. Again, we cannot reopen the discussion of all the technical details, the more so since they are of an intricate halachic nature. But I should like to dwell on the major evidence because it is of far-reaching interest for understanding the process of both textual and halachic development. At this juncture, it will be useful if the reader will look at the reproductions of the relevant pages of the codex. One ought to remember two basic facts. On the one hand, all evidence is restricted a priori to the

S 156

Pentateuch, since Maimonides was only concerned with that part of the Bible. On the other hand, we have already noted that practically the entire Pentateuch part of the Aleppo Codex was destroyed in a pogrom 30 years ago. To be exact, only 11 pages out of the existing 588 of the facsimile belong to the Pentateuch. Whatever proof we wish to offer must come from these few leaves-a rather difficult demand. As it happens, the crucial evidence has survived, in a most unlikely fashion. It is a clearly stated halachic precept that in a Torah scroll the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 must be laid out in 70 lines. We are told exactly how to start the prose lines at the top of the column and how to divide the Song into 70 lines. This is normative teaching, as laid down in Rabbi Joseph Caro's code, Shulhan cAruch, based in turn on what we find printed in Maimonides' code, Mishne Torah. Counting the lines in the reproduction of the Aleppo Codex will show that the song is laid out in 67 lines. This is such an obvious discrepancy that one must immediately reach the conclusion that the Aleppo Codex cannot be the codex mentioned by Maimonides. It stands to reason that this was the very fact that caught the eye of the late Umberto Cassuto, who was the only modern Bible scholar with rabbinic training who was allowed to look at the codex when it was still in Aleppo. His announcement in 1946, subsequent to his visit to Aleppo in 1944, caused much consternation. Cassuto flatly denied the possibility that the Aleppo Codex could have been the codex used by Maimonides. Most tantalizingly, however, he never indicated the reasons for his judgment because as he said, they were of too technical a nature for a public announcement. Cassuto was the only modern scholar to be allowed by the Aleppo community to study the codex at some length, even though he was not allowed to take notes. When it was announced in 1948 that the precious manuscript had been destroyed, it was inevitable that his

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/SUMMER1979

judgment had to be accepted. There was nothing to argue about-he had never stated his reasoning and nobody was aware of the facts, anyway. Very soon afterward he passed away. This is where matters stood until the codex reappeared. The importance of what has emerged since then does not just lie in the facts themselves. It lies also in what we learn about the dynamics of textual change and halachic decision, about the power of local traditions which turn out to be stronger than all the care which an authority such as Maimonides exercised in order to get matters straight. It is true that our printed editions of Maimonides' Code state that Deuteronomy 32 should be laid out in 70 lines. This as well as some other obvious discrepancies between the facts of the codex and the text of the Code is, in all probability, what made Cassuto deny the identity of the Aleppo Codex with the one used by Maimonides. However, if we refuse to rely on printed editions and take the trouble to check the copy of the Code prepared by Maimonides himself-the Bodleian MS Hunt 80, which fortunately has survived-we are in for a surprise, for the text reads 67 lines! If we go on to check other ancient manuscripts of the Code, we see how "correctors" crossed out 67 and wrote 70 and then changed some of the catch words so as to fit the number. In other words, Maimonides' original wording and list fit exactly the facts of the Aleppo Codex! Yet those facts ran directly contrary to a widespread custom of certain massoretes; so some copyists of the Code substituted precisely the kind of division and arrangement which Maimonides had set out to prevent in the first place. Thus, as irony would have it, they caused him to turn into accepted halacha precisely the opposite of what he had really The layout of the "Song of Moses" is shown in the next three photographs. Here the Song is laid out in 67 lines, which matches the original "precorrected" version in Maimonides Code.

K I

.

kZp

. *?.

4? X~r;

kCr iw

*Or"tmv

.1

t03

Vil

jA?)W•,, ,• P•.•,,,,4i yb?

o

,;

Y7 t

v

v offc~

4))YY))V 4w04"V ?mcsv3y

?~

'r

•

• ALA As _, T17,'wi.., D

o

.

Co ; o

?• .

?~![•,,•"O

Cll

•QtO

b

*9

,••

,•

Fa0 " •

'

i

t:•,ttj••.;•,-r

"A--

0 ow A

U

do

I *

V.

,. am

I -t I -wit

or v

E)r~

4bo~i Alm;

~~

Is

Ir.

I

Sj

.

.

4

Is

Oo

A A

t

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

157

written. We can only assume that this was a pia fraus-that those copyists could not imagine, for good reasons, that Maimonides had really meant what he had written. Surely he must have erred-and hence they tactfully and tacitly corrected the text of the Code. The facts of the Code, then, fit the facts of the Aleppo Codex perfectly. The unbelievable mishap that befell Maimonides' true ruling goes a long way to suggest that the facts may fit uniquely. Since we can see from various medieval discussions that the correct number (67) and arrangement of catchwords seemed to experts like an exercise in squaring the circle, we have fairly convincing evidence that if there ever was another manuscript that fitted the description exactly, none of the medieval scholars had seen it or was even ready to admit the possibility of its existence. We must realize, however, that while Maimonides knew exactly why he accepted the layout of that one codex as binding, the forces against him were greater. It was neither his authority that was openly disputed nor the facts of the Codex. It was simply that a different system was quietly substituted and made out to represent his decision. To make the irony complete, being convinced that this was, indeed, the ruling of the master, the scribes of later manuscripts, as well as the printers of the Code, caused the authority of Maimonides to be thrown precisely behind the kind of tradition which he had declared faulty. We have stressed sufficiently that the halachically authoritative position of the Aleppo Codex is not based on details of orthography and methegs. But the study of internal correlations leaves no doubt that massoretes around 1000 C.E. had good reason to hold in highest esteem "the correct codices prepared by the master Aaron [ben Moshe] ben Asher." On the other hand, rival traditions were deeply rooted and could not easily be brought into line. Precisely because the differences were not very obvious, non-Ben Asher traditions easily were mixed

158

into the stream, and most copyists produced what were technically codices mixti. It would carry us too far afield were we to analyze the ways in which the medieval responsa-literature dealt with these obvious discrepancies. The responsa-literature clears up some other misapprehensions. Throughout the Middle Ages, Jewish scholars were fully aware that there were differences between codices. To be sure, they did not think in terms of readings and recensions. They spoke of "correct" or "reliable" codices. It was self-understood that just as God is one, so also his Torah is one. That was not to deny the obvious, i.e., that there are more-or-less reliable scribes and more-or-less correct manuscripts. Within the Jewish tradition there were no such terms as "Massoretic Text" or "Textus Receptus. " Such terms were completely alien to the conceptual framework of massoretic scholars or halachists. It will be the final task of the present paper to explain how these terms grew to denote the realities of the Tiberian Bible text, of which the Aleppo Codex was the earliest and most renowned model codex. We may start by trying to trace the turning point in the history of understanding the nature of the Bible text. That point was the very moment when a relatively fixed printed form emerged and when Christian Hebraists took over from their Jewish masters and started to speculate about the nature of the Hebrew text as part of their innerChristian debates about the authority of the Bible.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

In a certain sense we may fix the year 1525 as the turning point, i.e., the year when Bomberg's printing press turned a particular Tiberian subcrystallization, as edited by Jacob ben Hayim, into the Hebrew Bible text. To the naked eye there are hardly any differences between the Aleppo Codex and that Venice publication of Ben Hayim's Rabbinic Bible. Today, however, once the apparatus of the Hebrew University Bible enables us to see the innumerable differences, we can begin to appreciate their importance. We have already intimated that the problem was a Christian one. The text as printed in 1525 became an absolute model because the time was ripe for a theological misinterpretation which has partly been carried over into modern times. In the context of the Christian debate, the text as transmitted by the massoretes came to be regarded in certain Christian quarters in the 16th century as absolutely correct and divinely guarded. The "Massoretic Text" was conceived of axiomatically not only as the original text, but "original" was interpreted to include all those graphic refinements which had been devised by the massoretes. The very tittles of vowel and accent signs had been transmitted by the massoretes from the time of Moses. To speak of the "correct Massoretic Text" implied, as it were, the continuous chain of pure divine word from Sinai. The array of forces was rather amazing, and throughout the 16th century, positions were explored both by Catholic and Protestant churchmen. Whereas Elija Levita was generally recognized as the masterHebraist whose word was accepted by all Christians, his astonishingly accurate picture of the late rise of vowel- and accent-signs was not accepted by most Protestant scholars in the outgoing 16th and early 17th centuries. Since the slogan of sola scriptura was interpreted to refer to what now became the "Massoretic Layoutof the middleportionof the "Song of Moses"(continuedfrom previousphotograph).

.i

i

i

M\

t~t~)Y~~'rt~--.v-w

I

•-Pab I.

T."v

" ,? Or - -s

1

tX\T~tt~SPlYie

N

lem

.

.14j dr

4T

v.

?j -

AIN'

rIlk ,

Ik

-4C. low

4

1\31h

-

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

159

Speaking of the "Massoretic Text" as a fountain kept in pristeen purity was not a Jewish concept.

160

Text," as a whole, including signs for vowels and accents, reformers were driven in the direction of turning the "Massoretic Text," down to its smallest detail, into the pure receptacle of divine inspiration. As is well known, this process culminated in the self-defeating claims of the renowned Basel Hebraist, Johannes Buxtorf. It is worth stressing again that this idea of the "Massoretic Text" was not a formulated Jewish position, although it happened to fit ideologically with medieval Karaite views. Again, since Kabbalistic writings made much of the hidden meanings of points-and Christian Hebraists had been drawn in the first place to the study of Hebrew because of their attraction to the hidden teachings of Kabbala-the axiom of the "purity" of the massoretic text was strengthened from various sides. On the other hand, Catholics, as a rule, were driven to find proofs against the reliability of that text and against the early origin of graphic notation. The full details of that history will be discussed elsewhere. Suffice it to say that we have today a pretty good idea how the concept of the "Massoretic Text" spread in Christian Hebraist circles, how the Tiberian Bible text developed, and how the subcrystallization perpetuated in the early printed texts related to an originally different Tiberian subcrystallization, as can now be seen from Aaron ben Asher's codex. Even more astonishing is the use of the well-established term Textus Receptus, which to many. scholars has become synonymous with "Tiberian" or "massoretic." Thus the text of the Aleppo Codex could be termed today at once Tiberian, massoretic, and Receptus, and possible differences have become blurred. As in various other instances, terms originating within the framework of the study of the New Testament were easily adapted to that of the Old Testament, and their origin and specific meaning were quickly forgotten.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

We might pause for a moment and remind ourselves that there were severe problems with the first edition of the Greek New Testament which Erasmus published rather hastily for his Basel publisher, for reasons of marketing competition. Roughly speaking, that was the time when Jacob ben Hayim published his Hebrew text, while the Alcala Polyglot had already been printed but not yet published. To be sure, the textual problems with regard to the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament are of a totally different order, but no Christian scholar at the beginning of the 16th century could have had any inkling of that. The full details of that history will be discussed elsewhere. Suffice it to say that we have today a pretty good idea how the concept of the "Massoretic Text" spread in Christian Hebraist circles, how the Tiberian Bible text developed, and how the subcrystallization perpetuated in the early printed texts related to an originally different Tiberian subcrystallization, as can now be seen from Aaron ben Asher's codex. Between the mid-16th century and the beginning of the 17th a generally accepted Greek text emerged, largely thanks to the influence of the renowned Paris printer Stephanus (hence the Greek sigma tau as a symbol). Even specialists in New Testament textual studies do not quite seem to have realized that when the 1633 Elzevir edition of the Greek New Testament appeared, the author of the preface-lately said to have been Scaliger's disciple Heinsius-did not yet use textus receptus as a term, but rather built a descriptive syntagma: textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum... "Herewith you have the text now accepted by every one." Unless some student of the history of New Testament studies proves otherwise, I am inclined to

Layoutof the final part of the "Songof Moses"(continuedfrom previoustwo photographs).

xvr4D4vr

L'

4f-..

rr

i•,-•.•

*n~ .v

.

i

'nalr

ror

7.

..i..'

ii•

A1

". " " "•

.

d _>

mbft,.100

r,•

.

Is

r•

t~L~lt se; 'tI

"

•

,• WIT

V

."

I?L•

.

.

. .

: ,-

" ": ""•: ; i.; . ,-•. ?' .

. s•l

BIBLICAL

SUMMER 1979 ARCHEOLOGIST,/

161

suggest that Textus Receptus as a term came into vogue about a century later, in the writings of Bengel or Wettstein. In other words, Textus Receptus became a meaningful term in 18th-century New Testament textual studies. I submit that only after the term Textus Receptus was adopted in New Testament studies was it taken over into Old Testament textual criticism, in spite of structural and typological differences. Thus it became part and parcel of the issues which Kennicott set out to study and which have kept scholars busy ever since. Our survey of some of the major issues connected with the position of the Aleppo Codex and the rise of the Massoretic Bible text has taken us far afield. On the one hand, these seem the driest of dry questions-details of orthography and tiny accent strokes. Yet they become of decisive importance in the struggle to guard traditions of liturgical reading in a chain from millennium to millennium. As students of biblical antiquities, we have noted how biblical fragments from Qumran, written 2000 years ago, link up with the story of the dynasty of the "old Asher," which for generations toiled to save the purity of the Torah in the face of the encroachment of Islam. Another two centuries, and the towering figure of Maimonides attempted to create order out of the chaos of rival traditions by lending his authority to Ben Asher's codex-and failed. This paper was not meant to explore halachic ramifications; but the lesson we learned from the substitute readings in Maimonides' Code was a very basic one, both for the history of biblical philology and of halacha. From there we moved to the great Bible printings of the early 16th century, which, by the very nature of the process, turned a particular Tiberian subtype into what became the "Massoretic Text" or finally, "Textus Receptus. It was the stress on sola scriptura in Protestant circles that turned that subtype-including all its accent

162

signs-into the one-and-only correct and true text, and it took generations of modern scholars to appreciate the correct facts-up to the reemergence of the original manuscript of Aaron ben Asher, the justly famous Aleppo Codex. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE Some material on the subject matter of this paper can be found in other publications of the present writer and others. Only publications by scholars who have used the codex at least in part have been mentioned. Ben-Zvi, I. 1960 The Codex of Ben Asher. Textus 1: 1-16. Breuer, M. 1976 The Aleppo Codex and the Accepted Text of the Bible. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook (Hebrew). Cohen, M. 1973 Orthographic Systems in the Ancient Massora Codices. Unpublished Ph.D. Hebrew University dissertation, (Hebrew). Dotan, A. 1977 Ben Asher's Creed. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. 1960 Text and Language in Bible and Qumran. Jerusalem: Orient Pub. House. 1962 The Missing Part of the Aleppo Codex. Textus 2: 53-59. 1963 The Rise of the Tiberian Bible Text. Pp. 79-122 in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altman. Cambridge: Harvard University. 1965 The Aleppo Codex and the Scribe Ibn Buy~ca. Tarbiz 33: 149-56 (Hebrew). 1965 The Book of Isaiah: sample edition with Introduction. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. 1966 A Recovered Part of the Aleppo Codex. Textus 5: 53-59. 1967 Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts. Biblica 48: 243-90. 1972 Biblica Rabbinica. (Introduction to the reprint of the 1525 edition.) Jerusalem: Makor. 1975 The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah, Vol. I. Jerusalem: Magnes Press for Hebrew University Bible Project. 1976 The Aleppo Codex: I. Facsmimile. Jerusalem: Magnes Press for Hebrew University Bible Project. Lipschiitz, L. 1965 Kitab al-Khilaf. Publications of the Hebrew University'Bible Project 2. Loewinger, D. S. 1960 The Aleppo Codex and the Ben Asher Tradition. Textus 1: 59-111.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

Penkower, 1. in Maimonides and the Aleppo Codex. press Textus 9. Yeivin, 1. 1968 The Aleppo Codex of the Bible-A Study of its Vocalization and Accentuation. Publications of the Hebrew University Bible Project 3 (Hebrew).

Men and Terms Abraham ben David: Rabbi in Posquieres (12th century), eminent halachic opponent of Maimonides. Alcala Polyglot: First polyglot Bible, also known as Complutensis, authorized by the Pope for publication, with delay, in 1522. Aleppo Codex, authorship note: Note appended (in lieu of colophon) at the end of Aleppo Codex and lost in the 1948 pogrom. The contents of this note now are borne out by internal evidence. It reads (as published by I. Ben-Zvi 1964: 14): "This complete copy of the twenty-four Books, which was written by our Master and Teacher Solomon known as Ben Buydac .. .and pointed and given a full Massorah by the great scholar and wise sage, lord of scribes and father of the sages and chief of the scholars, etc. Master Rab Aaron the son of Master Rab Asher, etc." Bengel: 18th-century New Testament scholar. Biblia Hebraica: Widely used student edition of the Hebrew Bible with textcritical notes, edited originally by Kittel, offering since the third edition a text based on the Leningrad Codex. Bomberg: Famous 16th-century Venetian Christian printer of many major Hebrew texts. Buxtorf: Renowned 17th-century Basel Hebraist and foremost champion of the belief in the origin of vowel points in biblical times. Cassuto: Late Professor of Biblical Studies in the Hebrew University. Cave of Elijah: Niche in the Aleppo synagogue in which the chest with the codex was kept. codices mixti: Manuscripts that do not preserve a text of undisturbed lineage, but exhibit influences from various sources. Elija Levita: Foremost wandering teacher of Hebrew to Christian scholars in the early 16th century and most penetrating student of massoretic matters before modern times. Erasmus: Renowned Rotterdam preReformation humanist and editor of the first printing of the Greek New Testament. Gaonic literature: Writings of legal and exegetical nature by the heads of academies of the post-Talmudic period. halacha: System of legal tradition, reasoning, and decision as developed

from the Talmudic period onward and codified in the Middle Ages. Kabbala: System of esoteric theological teaching, developed for centuries by Jewish sages, which was widely held, around 1500, to contain the solution to the problems of the ailing Church. Karaite: Jewish sect, as developed in the Gaonic period, which rejected the oral tradition of the Talmudic sages and recognized verbatim interpretation of the written Law only. Kennicott: 18th-centuryBritishscholar who was responsible for a large-scale textual collation of medieval Hebrew biblical manuscripts. Maimonides: Most widely acclaimed all-round medieval scholar (Spain and Egypt, 12th century), active in halacha, philosophy, and medicine alike. metheg: Small vertical stroke, written next to vowel and indicating slight tonal accent or secondary stress. Mishael ben Uzziel: Compiler of most trustworthy list of minute differences still remaining between the texts of the two massoretic masters, Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali. Mishne Torah: The code of halacha written by Maimonides, the first of the two major medieval codifications. Palestinian Talmud: Literary crystallization of Rabbinic tradition as discussed and taught in the academies of Palestine, roughly between 200 and 350 C.E. Peshitta: Bible version in the Syriac language, as created for and used by the Aramaic-speaking Church of Edessa. Rabbanite: Tradition of mainstream Judaism which recognizes both written and oral Law, in contrast to Karaites. Rabbinic Bible: Edition of Hebrew Bible and its major traditional commentaries, as first printed in 1518 and 1525 by Bomberg in Venice. responsa: Literary genre of written replies to questions concerning specific issues of halacha. Scaliger: Most renowned of humanist philologists (around 1600) who turned the then recently founded University of Leiden into a major center of Reformed scholarship. Septuagint: Greek version of the Bible, originally reflecting the state of the text in Egypt ca. 200 B.C.E. sola scriptura: "scripture only"-slogan of the Reformation in its fight against the tradition of Catholic Church

doctrine, as held binding by Rome. Shulhan CAruch: The code of halacha written by R. Josef Karo (16th century), the final major medieval codification. Syriac "Massora": Tradition of reading difficult words in the Bible text as taught in academies of the Syriac Church and laid down in special manuscripts (about 1000 C.E.), which has some superficial similarities with the system of Hebrew Massora. Textus Receptus: "The received text," i.e., by the authority and unbroken tradition, as it were, of Church or Synagogue. Tiberian tradition: One of the three graphic traditions of Hebrew vowel and accent signs, and the one most accomplished and finally accepted by all Jewish communities. Tractate: Any of the dozens of subdivisions of the Talmud, arranged according to subject matter. Veltwych: Jewish 16th-century convert, Orientalist, and statesman. Wettstein: 18th-century New Testament scholar.

O

o

o o

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ SUMMER 1979

163