The
Masoretic Text (
MT) is a
Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible
(
Tanakh). It defines not just the
books of the Jewish
canon, but also the precise letter-text of the biblical books
in
Judaism, as well as their
vocalization and
accentuation for both public reading and
private study. The MT is also widely used as the basis for
translations of the
Old Testament in
Protestant
Bibles, and in recent years also
for
Catholic Bibles.
The MT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of
Jews known as the
Masoretes between the
seventh and tenth centuries AD.
Though the consonants differ little from the
text generally accepted in the early second century (and also
differ little from some Qumran
texts that
are even older), it has numerous differences of both greater and
lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century)
manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek
translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BC) of the Hebrew
Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Palestine and that
is often quoted in the Christian New Testament.
The Hebrew word ( , alt. ) refers to the transmission of a
tradition. In a very broad sense it can refer to the entire chain
of Jewish tradition (see
Oral law), but in reference to
the
masoretic text the word
mesorah has a
very specific meaning: the diacritic markings of the text of the
Hebrew Bible and concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later
printings) of the
Hebrew Bible which
note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of
words.
The oldest extant manuscripts of the Masoretic Text date from
approximately the ninth century AD, and the
Aleppo Codex (once the oldest complete copy of
the Masoretic Text, but now missing its
Torah
section) dates from the tenth century.
Origin and transmission
The inter-relationship between various
significant ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament (some
identified by their siglum).
LXX here denotes the original septuagint.
The
Talmud (and also Karaite mss.) states that a standard copy of the
Hebrew Bible was kept in the court of the Temple in
Jerusalem
for the benefit of copyists; there were paid
correctors of Biblical books among the officers of the Temple
(Talmud, tractate Ketubot 106a). This copy is mentioned in
the
Aristeas Letter (§ 30; comp.
Blau,
Studien zum Althebr. Buchwesen,
p. 100); in the statements of
Philo
(preamble to his "Analysis of the Political Constitution of the
Jews") and in
Josephus (
Contra Ap.
i. 8).
Another Talmudic story, perhaps referring to an earlier time,
relates that three Torah scrolls were found in the Temple court but
were at variance with each other. The differences were then
resolved by majority decision among the three.
Second Temple period
The
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
at Qumran, dating from
c.150 BC–AD 75, shows however that in this period there was not
always the scrupulous uniformity of text that was so stressed in
later centuries. The scrolls show numerous small variations
in orthography, both as against the later Masoretic text, and
between each other. It is also evident from the notings of
corrections and of variant alternatives that scribes felt free to
choose according to their personal taste and discretion between
different readings. However, despite these variations, most of the
Qumran fragments can be classified as being closer to the Masoretic
text than to any other text group that has survived. According to
Shiffman, 60% can be classed as being of proto-Masoretic type, and
a further 20% Qumran style with bases in proto-Masoretic texts,
compared to 5% proto-
Samaritan
type, 5%
Septuagintal type, and 10%
non-aligned. Furthermore, according to Haas, most of the texts
which vary from the Masoretic type, including four of the
Septuagint type manuscript fragments, were found in Cave 4. "This
is the cave where the texts were not preserved carefully in jars.
It is conjectured, that cave 4 was a
geniza
for the depositing of texts that were damaged or had textual
errors." On the other hand, some of the fragments conforming most
accurately to the Masoretic text were found in Cave 4.
Rabbinic period
An emphasis on minute details of words and spellings, already used
among the
Pharisees as bases for
argumentation, reached its height with the example of Rabbi
Akiva (d. AD 135). The idea of a perfect text
sanctified in its consonantal base quickly spread throughout the
Jewish communities via supportive statements in
Halakha,
Aggada, and Jewish
thought; and with it increasingly forceful strictures leading
ultimately to the statement in medieval times that a deviation in
even a single letter would make a Torah scroll invalid. Very few
manuscripts are said to have survived the destruction of Jerusalem
in
AD 70. This both drastically reduced the
number of variants in circulation, and gave a new urgency that the
text must be preserved. New Greek translations were also made.
Unlike the Septuagint, large-scale deviations in sense between the
Greek of
Aquila and
Theodotion and what we now know as the Masoretic
text are minimal. Detailed variations between different Hebrew
texts in use still clearly existed though, as witnessed by
differences between the present-day Masoretic text and versions
mentioned in the
Gemara, and often even
Halachic
midrashim based on spelling
versions which do not exist in the current Masoretic text. (Mostly,
however, these variations are limited to whether particular words
should be written
plene or defectively - i.e.
whether a
mater lectionis consonant
to represent a particular vowel sound should or should not be
included in a particular word at a particular point).
The Age of the Masoretes
The
current received text finally achieved predominance through the
reputation of the Masoretes, schools of
scribes and Torah scholars working between the 7th and 11th
centuries, based primarily in Palestine in
the cities of Tiberias
and Jerusalem
, and in Babylonia.
These schools developed such prestige for the accuracy and
error-control of their copying techniques that their texts
established an authority beyond all others. Differences remained,
sometimes bolstered by systematic local differences in
pronunciation and
cantillation. Every
locality, following the tradition of its school, had a standard
codex embodying its readings.
In Babylonia the school of Sura
differed from that of Nehardea
; and similar
differences existed in the schools of the Land of Israel as against
that at Tiberias, which in later times increasingly became the
chief seat of learning. In this period living tradition
ceased, and the Masoretes in preparing their codices usually
followed the one school or the other, examining, however, standard
codices of other schools and noting their differences.
ben Asher and ben Naphtali
In the first half of the tenth century
Aaron ben Moses ben Asher and
Moshe ben Naphtali (often just
called ben Asher and ben Naphtali) were the leading Masoretes in
Tiberias. Their names have come to symbolise the variations among
Masoretes, but the differences between ben Asher and ben Naphtali
should not be exaggerated. There are hardly any differences between
them regarding the consonants, though they differ more on vowelling
and accents. Also, there were other authorities such as Rabbi
Pinchas and Moshe Moheh, and ben Asher and ben Naphtali often agree
against these others. Further, it is possible that all variations
found among manuscripts eventually came to be regarded as
disagreements between these figureheads. Ben Asher wrote a standard
codex (the
Aleppo Codex) embodying his
opinions. Probably ben Naphtali did too, but it has not
survived.
It has been suggested that there never was an actual "ben
Naphtali"; rather, the name was chosen (based on the Bible, where
Asher and Naphtali are the younger sons of Zilpah and Bilhah) to
designate any tradition different from Ben Asher's. This is
unlikely, as there exist lists of places where ben Asher and ben
Naphtali agree against other authorities.
Ben Asher was the last of a distinguished family of Masoretes
extending back to the latter half of the eighth century. Despite
the rivalry of ben Naphtali and the opposition of
Saadia Gaon, the most eminent representative of
the Babylonian school of criticism, ben Asher's codex became
recognized as the standard text of the Bible. See
Aleppo Codex,
Codex
Cairensis.
The Middle Ages
The two rival authorities, ben Asher and ben Naphtali, practically
brought the Masorah to a close. Very few additions were made by the
later Masoretes, styled in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries
Naḳdanim, who revised the works of the copyists, added the vowels
and accents (generally in fainter ink and with a finer pen) and
frequently the Masorah. Many believe that the ben Asher family were
Karaites .
Considerable influence on the development and spread of Masoretic
literature was exercised during the eleventh, twelfth, and
thirteenth centuries by the Franco-German school of
Tosafists. R.
Gershom, his brother
Machir,
Joseph ben Samuel Bonfils (Tob
'Elem) of Limoges, R. Tam (
Jacob ben
Meïr),
Menahem ben Perez of
Joigny,
Perez ben Elijah of
Corbeil,
Judah of Paris,
Meïr Spira, and R.
Meïr of Rothenburg made Masoretic
compilations, or additions to the subject, which are all more or
less frequently referred to in the marginal glosses of Biblical
codices and in the works of Hebrew grammarians.
Masorah
By long tradition, a ritual
Torah scroll
shall contain only the Hebrew consonantal text - nothing may be
added, nothing taken away. However, perhaps because they were
intended for personal study rather than ritual use, the Masoretic
codices provide extensive additional material,
called
masorah, to show correct pronunciation and
cantillation, protect against scribal errors,
and annotate possible variants. The manuscripts thus include
vowel points,
pronunciation
marks and
stress accents in the
text, short annotations in the side margins, and longer more
extensive notes in the upper and lower margins and collected at the
end of each book.
Etymology
The Hebrew word
masorah is taken from
Ezekiel 20:37 and means originally "
fetter". The fixation of the text was considered to
be in the nature of a
fetter upon its
exposition. When, in the course of time,
the Masorah had become a traditional discipline, the term became
connected with the verb ( = "to hand down"), and acquired the
general meaning of "tradition."
Language and form
The language of the Masoretic notes is partly Hebrew and partly
Aramaic. The Masoretic annotations are found
in various forms: (a) in separate works, e.g., the
Oklah we-Oklah; (b) in the form of notes
written in the margins and at the end of codices. In rare cases,
the notes are written between the lines. The first word of each
Biblical book is also as a rule surrounded by notes. The latter are
called the Initial Masorah; the notes on the side margins or
between the columns are called the Small or Inner Masorah; and
those on the lower and upper margins, the Large or Outer Masorah.
The name "Large Masorah" is applied sometimes to the lexically
arranged notes at the end of the printed Bible, usually called the
Final Masorah, or the Masoretic Concordance.
The Small Masorah consists of brief notes with reference to
marginal readings, to statistics showing the number of times a
particular form is found in Scripture, to full and defective
spelling, and to abnormally written letters. The Large Masorah is
more copious in its notes. The Final Masorah comprises all the
longer rubrics for which space could not be found in the margin of
the text, and is arranged alphabetically in the form of a
concordance. The quantity of notes the marginal Masorah contains is
conditioned by the amount of vacant space on each page. In the
manuscripts it varies also with the rate at which the
copyist was paid and the fanciful shape he gave to
his gloss.
In most manuscripts, there are some discrepancies between the text
and the masorah, suggesting that they were copied from different
sources or that one of them has copying errors. The lack of such
discrepancies in the Aleppo Codex is one of the reasons for its
importance; the scribe who copied the notes, presumably
Aaron ben Moses ben Asher,
probably wrote them originally.
Numerical Masorah
In classical antiquity,
copyists were paid
for their work according to the number of
stichs (lines of verse). As the prose books of the
Bible were hardly ever written in stichs, the copyists, in order to
estimate the amount of work, had to count the letters. For the
Masoretic Text, such statistical information more importantly also
ensured accuracy in the transmission of the text with the
production of subsequent copies that were done by hand.
Hence the Masoretes contributed the Numerical Masorah. These notes
are traditionally categorized into two main groups: the marginal
Masorah and the final Masorah.The category of marginal Masorah is
further divided into the Masorah parva (small Masorah) in the outer
side margins and the Masorah magna (large Masorah), traditionally
located at the top and bottom margins of the text.
The Masorah parva is a set of statistics in the outer side margins
of the text. Beyond simply counting the letters, the Masorah parva
consists of word-use statistics, similar documentation for
expressions or certain phraseology, observations on full or
defective writing, references to the Kethiv-Qere readings and more.
These observations are also the result of a passionate zeal to
safeguard the accurate transmission of the sacred text.
The Masorah magna, in measure, is an expanded Masorah parva. It is
not printed in
BHS.
The final Masorah is located at the end of biblical books or after
certain sections of the text, such as at the end of the Torah. It
contains information and statistics regarding the number of words
in a book or section, etc.
Thus (
Leviticus 8:23) is the middle verse
in the Pentateuch; all the names of Divinity mentioned in
connection with Abraham are holy except (
Genesis 18:3); ten passages in the
Pentateuch are dotted; three times the Pentateuch has the spelling
לא where the reading is לו. The collation of manuscripts and the
noting of their differences furnished material for the
Text-Critical Masorah. The close relation which existed in earlier
times (from the
Soferim to the
Amoraim inclusive) between the teacher of
tradition and the Masorete, both frequently being united in one
person, accounts for the Exegetical Masorah. Finally, the invention
and introduction of a graphic system of vocalization and
accentuation gave rise to the Grammatical Masorah.
The most important of the Masoretic notes are those that detail the
Kethiv-
Qere that are
located in the Masorah parva in the outside margins of BHS. Given
that the Masoretes would not alter the sacred consonantal text, the
Kethiv-Qere notes were a way of "correcting" or commenting on the
text for any number of reasons (grammatical, theological,
aesthetic, etc.) deemed important by the copyist. [Reference:
Pratico and Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew, Zondervan. 2001.
p406ff]
Fixing of the text
The earliest labors of the Masoretes included standardizing
division of the text into books, sections, paragraphs, verses, and
clauses (probably in the chronological order here enumerated); the
fixing of the orthography, pronunciation, and cantillation; the
introduction or final adoption of the square characters with the
five final letters (comp. Numbers and Numerals); some textual
changes to guard against blasphemy and the like (though these
changes may pre-date the Masoretes - see Tikkune Soferim); the
enumeration of letters, words, verses, etc., and the substitution
of some words for others in public reading.
Since no additions were allowed to be made to the official text of
the Bible, the early Masoretes adopted other expedients: e.g., they
marked the various divisions by spacing, and gave indications of
halakic and haggadic teachings by full or defective spelling,
abnormal forms of letters, dots, and other signs. Marginal notes
were permitted only in private copies, and the first mention of
such notes is found in the case of R. Meïr (c. AD 100-150).
Tikkune Soferim
Early rabbinic sources, from around AD 200, mention several
passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that
the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present
text. The explanation of this phenomenon is given in the expression
("Scripture has used euphemistic language," i.e. to avoid
anthropomorphism and
anthropopathy).
Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (third century) calls these readings
"emendations of the Scribes" (
tikkune Soferim; Midrash
Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made
the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the
majority of Masoretes. In Masoretic works these changes are
ascribed to
Ezra; to Ezra and
Nehemiah; to Ezra and the
Soferim; or to Ezra, Nehemiah,
Zechariah,
Haggai, and
Baruch. All
these ascriptions mean one and the same thing: that the changes
were assumed to have been made by the Men of the Great
Synagogue.
The term
tikkun Soferim has been understood by different
scholars in various ways. Some regard it as a correction of
Biblical language authorized by the Soferim for homiletical
purposes. Others take it to mean a mental change made by the
original writers or redactors of Scripture; i.e. the latter shrank
from putting in writing a thought which some of the readers might
expect them to express.
The assumed emendations are of four general types:
- Removal of unseemly expressions used in reference to God; e.g.,
the substitution of ("to bless") for ("to curse") in certain
passages.
- Safeguarding of the Tetragrammaton; e.g. substitution of "Elohim"
for "YHVH" in some passages.
- Removal of application of the names of pagan gods, e.g. the
change of the name "Ishbaal" to "Ishbosheth."
- Safeguarding the unity of divine worship at
Jerusalem.
Mikra and ittur
Among the earliest technical terms used in connection with
activities of the Scribes are the "mikra Soferim" and "ittur
Soferim." In the geonic schools, the first term was taken to
signify certain vowel-changes which were made in words in pause or
after the article; the second, the cancellation in a few passages
of the "vav" conjunctive, where it had by some been wrongly read.
The objection to such an explanation is that the first changes
would fall under the general head of fixation of pronunciation, and
the second under the head of "Qere" and "Ketiv". Various
explanations have, therefore, been offered by ancient as well as
modern scholars without, however, succeeding in furnishing a
completely satisfactory solution.
Suspended letters and dotted words
There are four words having one of their letters suspended above
the line. One of them, (
Judges
18:30), is due to an alteration of the original out of reverence
for
Moses; rather than say that Moses'
grandson became an idolatrous priest, a suspended nun was inserted
to turn Mosheh into Menasheh (Manasseh). The origin of the other
three (
Psalms 80:14;
Job 38:13, 15) is doubtful. According to some,
they are due to mistaken majuscular letters; according to others,
they are later insertions of originally omitted weak
consonants.
In fifteen passages in the Bible, some words are stigmatized; i.e.,
dots appear above the letters. (Gen 16:5, 18:9, 19:33, 33:4, 37:12,
Num 3:39, 9:10, 21:30, 29:15, Deut. 29:28, 2Sam 19:20, Isaiah 44:9,
Ez 41:20, 46:22, Ps 27:13) The significance of the dots is
disputed. Some hold them to be marks of erasure; others believe
them to indicate that in some collated manuscripts the stigmatized
words were missing, hence that the reading is doubtful; still
others contend that they are merely a mnemonic device to indicate
homiletical explanations which the ancients had connected with
those words; finally, some maintain that the dots were designed to
guard against the omission by copyists of text-elements which, at
first glance or after comparison with parallel passages, seemed to
be superfluous. Instead of dots some manuscripts exhibit strokes,
vertical or else horizontal. The first two explanations are
unacceptable for the reason that such faulty readings would belong
to Qere and Ketiv, which, in case of doubt, the majority of
manuscripts would decide. The last two theories have equal
probability.
Inverted letters
In nine passages of the Bible are found signs usually called
"inverted nuns," because they resemble the Hebrew letter
nun ( נ ) written in some inverted fashion. The
exact shape varies between different manuscripts and printed
editions. In many manuscripts, a reversed nun is found—referred to
as a "nun hafucha" by the masoretes. In some earlier printed
editions, they are shown as the standard nun upside down or
rotated, because the printer did not want to bother to design a
character to be used only nine times. The recent scholarly editions
of the masoretic text show the reversed nun as described by the
masoretes. In some manuscripts, however, other symbols are
occasionally found instead. These are sometimes referred to in
rabbinical literature as "simaniyot," (markers).
The primary set of
inverted nuns is
found surrounding the text of Numbers 10:35-36. The Mishna notes
that this text is 85 letters long and dotted. This demarcation of
this text leads to the later use of the inverted nun markings.
Saul Lieberman demonstrated that
similar markings can be found in ancient Greek texts where they are
also used to denote 'short texts'. During the Medieval period, the
inverted nuns were actually inserted into the text of the early
Rabbinic Bibles published by Bomberg in the early 16th century. The
talmud records that the markings surrounding Numbers 10:35 - 36
were thought to denote that this 85 letter text was not in its
proper place. One opinion goes so far as to say that it would
appear in another location in a later edition of the Torah!
Bar Kappara is known to have considered
our Torah as comprised of 7 volumes in the Gemara "The seven
pillars with which Wisdom built her house (Prov. 9:1) are the seven
Books of Moses". Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus and Deuteronomy as
we know them but Numbers was really 3 separate volumes Num 1:1 to
Num 10:35 followed by Number 10:35-36 and the third text from there
to the end of Numbers.
The 85 letter text is also said to be denoted because it is the
model for the least number of letters which constitute a 'text'
which one would be required to save from fire due to its
holiness.
History of the Masorah
The history of the Masorah may be divided into three periods: (1)
creative period, from its beginning to the introduction of
vowel-signs; (2) reproductive period, from the introduction of
vowel-signs to the printing of the Masorah (1525); (3) critical
period, from 1525 to the present time.
The materials for the history of the first period are scattered
remarks in Talmudic and Midrashic literature, in the
post-Talmudical treatises
Masseket Sefer Torah and
Masseket Soferim, and in a Masoretic chain of tradition
found in ben Asher's "Diḳduḳe ha-Ṭe'amim," § 69 and
elsewhere.
Critical study
Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah,
having collated a vast number of manuscripts, systematized his
material and arranged the Masorah in the second Bomberg edition of the Bible (Venice
,
1524-25). Besides introducing the Masorah into the margin,
he compiled at the close of his Bible a concordance of the
Masoretic glosses for which he could not find room in a marginal
form, and added an elaborate introduction – the first treatise on
the Masorah ever produced. In spite of its numerous errors, this
work has been considered by some as the "textus receptus" of the
Masorah (Würthwein 1995:39), and was used for the English
translation of the Old Testament for the
King James Version of the
Bible.
Next to Ibn Adonijah the critical study of the Masorah has been
most advanced by
Elijah Levita, who
published his famous "Massoret ha-Massoret" in 1538. The "Tiberias"
of the elder
Buxtorf (1620) made
Levita's researches more accessible to a Christian audience. The
eighth prolegomenon to Walton's
Polyglot
Bible is largely a réchauffé of the "Tiberias". Levita compiled
likewise a vast Masoretic concordance, "Sefer ha-Zikronot," which
still lies in the National Library at Paris unpublished. The study
is indebted also to R. Meïr b. Todros ha-Levi (RaMaH), who, as
early as the thirteenth century, wrote his "Sefer Massoret Seyag
la-Torah" (correct ed. Florence, 1750); to
Menahem Lonzano, who composed a treatise on
the Masorah of the Pentateuch entitled "Or Torah"; and in
particular to
Jedidiah Norzi, whose
"Minḥat Shai" contains valuable Masoretic notes based on a careful
study of manuscripts.
The
Dead Sea Scrolls have shed new
light on the history of the Masoretic Text.
Many texts found
there, especially those from Masada
, are quite
similar to the Masoretic Text, suggesting that an ancestor of the
Masoretic Text was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century
BC. However, other texts, including many of those
from Qumran, differ
substantially, indicating that the Masoretic Text was but one of a
diverse set of Biblical writings (Lane Fox 1991:99-106; Tov
1992:115).§Among the rejected books by both the Judaic and
Catholic canons was found the Book of Enoch, the Manual of
Discipline or "Rule of the Community" (1QS) and the "The War of the
Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness." (1QM).
Some important editions
There have been very many published editions of the Masoretic text;
this is a list of some of the most important.
- The second Rabbinic Bible, which
served as the base for all future editions. This was the source
text used by the translators of the King James Version in 1611 and the
New King James Version in
1982.
- Nearly all 18th century and 19th century Bibles were almost
exact reprints of this edition.
- As well as the van der Hooght text, this included the Samaritan Pentateuch and a huge
collection of variants from manuscripts and early printed editions;
while this collection has many errors, it is still of some value.
The collection of variants was corrected and extended by Johann Bernard de Rossi (1784–8),
but his publications gave only the variants without a complete
text.
- The 1852 edition was yet another copy of van der Hooght. The
1866 edition, however, was carefully checked against old
manuscripts. It is probably the most widely reproduced text of the
Hebrew Bible in history, with many dozens of authorised reprints
and many more pirated and unacknowledged ones.
- The first edition was very close to the second Bomberg edition,
but with variants added from a number of manuscripts and all of the
earliest printed editions, collated with far more care than the
work of Kennicott; he did all the work himself. The second edition
diverged slightly more from Bomberg, and collated more manuscripts;
he did most of the work himself, but failing health forced him to
rely partly on his wife and other assistants.
- Snaith based it on Sephardi manuscripts such as British Museum
Or.2626-28, and said that he had not relied on Letteris. However,
it has been shown that he must have prepared his copy by amending a
copy of Letteris, because while there are many differences, it has
many of the same typographical errors as Letteris. Snaith's printer
even went so far as to break printed vowels to match the broken
characters in Letteris. Snaith combined the accent system of
Letteris with the system found in Sephardi manuscripts, thereby
creating accentuation patterns found nowhere else in any manuscript
or printed edition.
- Started by Moshe
Goshen-Gottstein, this follows the text of the Aleppo Codex where extant and otherwise the
Leningrad Codex. It includes a wide
variety of variants from the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Septuagint, early Rabbinic
literature and selected early mediaeval manuscripts. So far, only
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel have been published.
- The text was derived by comparing a number of printed Bibles,
and following the majority when there were discrepancies.
See also
References
- A seventh century fragment containing the Song of the Sea
(Exodus 13:19-16:1) is one of the few surviving texts from the
"silent era" of Hebrew biblical texts between the Dead Sea Scrolls
and the Aleppo
Codex. See "Rare scroll fragment to be unveiled," Jerusalem
Post, May 21, 2007.
- Menachem Cohen, The
Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text and the Science of
Textual Criticism in HaMikrah V'anachnu, ed. Uriel
Simon, HaMachon L'Yahadut U'Machshava Bat-Z'mananu and Dvir,
Tel-Aviv, 1979
- Shiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls
- Gretchen Haas
- Ulrich, E., Cross, F. M., Davila, J. R., Jastram, N.,
Sanderson, J. E., Tov, E. and Strugnell, J. (1994). Qumran Cave 4,
VII, Genesis to Numbers. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 12.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
- Rambam, The Laws of
Tefillin, Mezuzot, and Torah Scrolls, 1:2
- Sir Godfrey Driver, Introduction to the Old Testament of the New English
Bible, 1970
- Mansoor, Menahem. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, Michigan
and Driver, G. R., The Judaean Scrolls. Great Britain: Oxford,
1965.
- "Introduction to the Ginsburg Edition of the Hebrew Old
Testament", British and Foreign Bible
Society, 1928.
Literature cited
External links
.jpg/180px-Aleppo_Codex_(Deut).jpg)
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search