What is the Masoretic Text?

When the Arabs conquered those parts of the world where these learned Jews were chiefly settled, and when the earlier Caliphs in the eighth and ninth centuries patronised all kinds of learning;— a great impulse was given to the cultivation of the Hebrew language and literature, and to the critical study of the Bible. A succession of Jewish doctors then flourished in the East, who are styled the Masoretes, because their collection of writings is called the masorah or tradition. They directed their attention almost exclusively to the text of the Bible, selecting the best manuscripts, and rejecting what was corrupt. The scrupulous care they took may be judged from the fact that they have counted the number of words, and the number of letters in the Bible or in any particular parts. They have left on record what is the middle word, or the middle letter of the entire book; how many words begin with a particular letter, and many other minute labours of the same kind, trifling indeed, but still showing most remarkably how careful they were of even words and letters.

When the Arabs conquered those parts of the world where these learned Jews were chiefly settled, and when the earlier Caliphs in the eighth and ninth centuries patronised all kinds of learning;— a great impulse was given to the cultivation of the Hebrew language and literature, and to the critical study of the Bible. A succession of Jewish doctors then flourished in the East, who are styled the Masoretes, because their collection of writings is called the masorah or tradition. They directed their attention almost exclusively to the text of the Bible, selecting the best manuscripts, and rejecting what was corrupt. The scrupulous care they took may be judged from the fact that they have counted the number of words, and the number of letters in the Bible or in any particular parts. They have left on record what is the middle word, or the middle letter of the entire book; how many words begin with a particular letter, and many other minute labours of the same kind, trifling indeed, but still showing most remarkably how careful they were of even words and letters.

Bomberg's Rabbinical Bible of 1526 was edited by Jacob ben Chajjim. This is the Hebrew Text settled by the Masora — or Massorah, the body of Jewish traditional textual criticism — rather than by MSS. It has however been the staple of later editions. It contains Rabbinical commentaries opposite to the original Text, and what is called 'the Great Masora,' besides some variant readings.

The consonants alone represent the Hebrew Text. Relics of the past, such as Inscriptions, Stones and Coins, have only consonants. As late as Jerome's day the Text was still unpointed. The Talmud, closed in the fifth or sixth century, never alludes to vowel-points: it gives instances of the different ways in which words were vocalised. In the appendices to Baer's editions will be found lists of ancient readings, which relate only to the consonants, and are called respectively 'Oriental' (or Babylonian) and 'Western' (or Palestinian) readings. On the other hand, in Walton's Polyglott, besides the Rabbinical Bibles and Baer's editions, we meet with lists associated respectively with the names of Ben Naphtali (Babylonian) and Ben Asher (Palestinian), which relate to the vowels and accents, and are said to belong to the eleventh century (A.C.)

The vowels had in the meantime been added by the Masorites, or authors of the Masora, who were Jewish critics between the sixth and tenth centuries. After the close of the Talmud, their work began in the Jewish Academies, as at Tiberias. Aben Esra says, 'We have received the whole punctuation from them:' see Bacher's 'Abraham Ibn Esra als Grammatiker' (1880), p.37 note. Another system of vocalisation appears to have obtained in the Babylonian schools, exhibited in the ancient MS. of which a facsimile was published by Strack in 1875. It is called the 'Codex of St. Petersburg.'

The Masorites then, amongst other things, laboured honestly to fix the pronunciation of the Text when Hebrew was becoming a dead language. This appears to have been their earliest and their best work. They must also have invented the elaborate system of accents which, besides being phonetic symbols, provide an analysis of the sentence, showing what words go together. The interpreter is rash who departs from them without very good reason. Amongst the minative with which the Masorites occupied themselves was the counting of words and letters; the attention of the reader is directed to the middle word of a book, and so on. They took note of every 'jot and tittle.' The points must have been intended as the permanent expression of the traditional pronunciation. Notwithstanding that they have been subject to much controversy from the days of Buxtorf (seventeenth century), all scholars agree in following them in the main. Thrupp says, 'Nothing can be more remote from the truth than that we are at liberty to supply vowels to the text at our own unfettered discretion'; and De Wette, 'On the whole, the Masoretic text is a much better witness for punctuation than the often ignorant versions and hasty critics.' The accents stand upon the same footing.

We must now consider the history and condition of the Text represented by the MSS. The existing MSS. are based upon a strictly Jewish arrangement of the Text belonging to Christian times. Upon this 'Recension' — if the expression be correct have we to depend; so that there is no such variety of MS. evidence for any Hebrew readings of Old Testament texts as may be obtained for Greek readings in the New Testament writings. This doubtless damps the ardour of critics, which finds vent in an often too free use of versions: this is all that they have to fall back upon. The Text must for the most part have acquired a fixed form before the birth of Christ, as Aquila and the other Greek translators, of whom we shall have more to say, depart from it less than do the LXX. Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel, the Targumists, or Chaldee Paraphrasts, also follow it very closely. The essential agreement of the Hebrew MSS. of the Old Testament is beyond comparison greater than that of Greek MSS. of the New. The former do on the whole give the same Text, that is, the Text which underlies the Masora: it is in the truest sense substance of tradition (cf. chap. 10). The Jews have so far been faithful to their trust. We may contrast with it the corrupt state of Mahommedan texts of which Arabic scholars complain. A proof of the general accuracy of the Hebrew Text we possess is afforded by the variation that exists between parallel passages, in which the temptation to alter would be strong: cf. Pss. 14 and 53; Ps. 18 and 2 Sam. 22. The state of the Greek Text of the New Testament in this respect stands on a much lower level.

The Sopherim followed rules for copying the Text prescribed by the Talmud. They appear to have been most scrupulous in retaining what doubtless they felt were errors of transcription made in earlier days. Of such errors the following are the chief:

As for the Hebrew, so for the Greek, there are three sources to which we can turn to help us to an understanding of what the text originally was, viz., MSS., versions, and quotations from early Christian writers. A more formidable difficulty, however, presents itself at the outset, when we come to inquire about the Hebrew text, than when we examine into the accuracy of the common Greek text. The Hebrew MSS., though by no means few in number, are nearly all of one recension, exhibiting for the most part the readings approved of by the Masoretic Scribes. Their age, too, when compared with the antiquity of some MSS. of the New Testament, is comparatively modern. The Hebraeo-Samaritan Pentateuch, i.e., the Pentateuch in Samaritan characters, preserved by the small and decreasing sect of the Samaritans, which we might have expected would have been of the greatest use as a concurrent witness of what Moses wrote, often differs from the Hebrew so much, that its readings would require support ere being accepted in preference to that text handed down by the Jews. In one place it has substituted Gerizim for Ebal (Deut. 27:4), to favour the Samaritan worship. In others, its accuracy is open to grave suspicion.

In what we have said about the text, it must be understood that we refer chiefly to the New Testament. That of the Old Testament remains what it was, the Massoretic text, manuscripts of which are not so ancient even as those of the New Testament, and which have so little variety in them as practically to be a unit. The Septuagint and other versions are too uncertain for us to allow them at present to affect the integrity of the text as we have it.

The Hebrew Text has of course been inherited by us from the ancient Jews. The Text which has long been the common working-book of students is that of Van der Hooght (1703), revised by Hahn, Theile, and others. No one seems yet to have dealt with the criticism of the Old Testament Text in the same masterly way as has been done for the New Testament by Griesbach, Lachmann, and their followers. It is wise not to depart from the 'Masoretic Text:' so thought even the free critic De Wette. Some compensation for the want of a standard critical Text is to be found in the carefully edited Texts of Baer, already alluded to, brought out under the auspices of Professor Delitzsch. They are furnished with useful critical notes, and ample use has been made both of MSS. and Editions. The following are all that have as yet appeared: Genesis, Ezra and Nehemiah (with Daniel), Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, and the Minor Prophets.

[14] In Hebrew consonants alone are normally used in writing; vowels are omitted and simply added when texts are read. However, this resulted in ambiguity, since several words contained the same consonants in the same order (e.g. DM can mean either aDaM or eDoM). In the 8th century B.C. the Masoretes introduced a system of pointing: dots and tiny symbols above or below the consonants indicated which vowels were to be inserted. If there was more than one possibility of vocalizing a word, a decision had to be made. This was the case here. In the original text stands ‘NZR’ – the question is whether NeZeR (crown) or NaZiR (Nazarite) is the correct reading.

For the vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew and Chaldee the best Lexicon in English is Tregelles' edition of Gesenius; those acquainted with German should use Gesenius' 'Handworterbuch,' 8th edition by Muhlau and Volck (1878). Gesenius' 'Thesaurus' (in Latin) is a κτῆμα ἐς ἀεί (ktema es aei). As to pronunciation, we may rest content with the Masoretic, which, to use Ewald's words, is 'in general the finest and most correct' (p.39, English edition). The Spanish and Portuguese Jews are supposed to have preserved this best. The Hellenistic is regarded by Gesenius as a 'dialectic difference.'

It is now well established that the Hebrew language was originally written without vowel points. It is judged that the translation of the LXX must have been made from MSS without these points, and without any spaces between the words. There were no points to the Hebrew as late as the time of Jerome. Neither were they there when the Talmud was written (see TALMUD). For instance, it is questioned whether in Isa. 54:13 it should be read 'thy children' or 'thy builders' — a question which the vowel points would have decided.

It is supposed they were introduced about the seventh century, though there may have been a few marks to doubtful words before that date. While the Hebrew was a living language the vowel points were not needed. It is judged that the purity of its pronunciation began to fail during the Babylonian captivity. In the tenth century the vowel points were well known, and had been apparently in use some time. Comparatively lately some MSS of the Karaite Jews in the East have shown that there was another system of vocalisation and accentuation very different from that found in the common Hebrew Bible. The synagogue rolls of the sacred books are still written without vowels and accents. There can be no doubt in studying Hebrew as a dead language the vowel points give great help and precision.