This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Masoretic Text article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do we really need to link to a (as yet uncreated) new article on the Masoretes themselves? I think it would be Ok to have just one article on them and their work. RK 13:18, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The old Hebrew text was written in continuous script, without any breaks. -- This is a tradition that is not accepted by modern scholarship. All the earliest known fragments of Hebrew have separated words (usually by small marks rather than by spaces). There are other things in this 1903 passage that are no longer accepted also; I'll come back with some references when there is time. -- zero 14:29, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
One thing missing is the introduction of nikud. Another is the issue of textual variation within the masoretic textual family. -- zero 14:29, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The old Hebrew text was written in continuous script, without any breaks. The division into words, 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; the enumeration of letters, words, verses, etc., and the substitution of some words for others in public reading, belong to the earliest labors of the Masorites. -- This paragraph is problematic from the point of view of modern scholarship. The first sentence reports a tradition that is not supported by archaeology (see Naveh, Israel Exploration Journal 23 (1973):206-208). Many of the other things, for example the division into verses, open and closed sections, and books, predate the Masoretes as we now know from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The adoption of the "square characters with the five final letters" (presumably the script derived from Aramaic that is still used) also predated the Masoretes. On the other hand, the Masoretes certainly standardized these things, and they did introduce the cantillation marks (nekudot). I deleted the first sentence, but the rest still needs revision.
Since no additions were allowed to be made to the official text of the Bible, the early Masorites adopted other expedients... That is also problematic because it supposes that there was in fact an official text before the Masoretes established one. The majority view today is that the Masoretes sought to establish an official text out of a more chaotic situation, even though they drew on a rich tradition. Evidence for this is that even centuries after the Masoretes had finished their task there were still many scrolls in circulation that contained significant variations. I didn't change anything in the article (yet). -- zero 10:15, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
A difficulty in bringing the 1903 text up to date is that it uses the word Masorete to refer to people from pre-Talmudic times (say 1st century) whereas the modern usage is to only use the word for the period from about the 5th or 6th century onwards. I'm not sure of the best way to handle this issue. -- zero 07:16, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The following is discussion and belongs on the Talk page rather than in the article itself. Btw, the "Modern work" mentioned near the top is not at all modern but is just traditional apologetics brought slightly up to date. -- Zero 13:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
With all due respect, the name "Palestine" should bed corrected to Israel and/or Judea because there never has been a country officially named "Palestine" as this was the final insult given to Israel and Judea by Roman emperor Hadrian after the his conquest of the area in 135 A.D./C.E. "Palestine" is Latin for "Philistine", the only people that Israel could never conquer. To call Israel by this insulting name "validates" Hadrian's insult. As the LORD promised Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob/Israel, He would bless those who blessed him and curse those who cursed him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.75.99 ( talk) 07:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: here is a good link on Modern work: http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html
Before direct research on the Aleppo Codex:
Since direct research on the Aleppo Codex became possible:
Also need to include: What is a keter or a taj. Separate articles on cantillation, section divisions, special letters and signs, and other unique features of the masoretic text.
The image caption is way out of date. There are earlier copies of the decalogue (10 commandments) in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and plenty of earlier examples of the square script. -- Zero 11:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The image is not of a Masoretic text, but rather pre-Masoretic. The Masoretes devised the systems of vocalic and prosodic pointings (nequdot and teʽamim), which are clearly absent here, because they are 9 centuries posterior to the Nash fragments). If one wishes to include a Masoretic fragment (which includes the pointings, layout, and Masoretic notes, the magna/gedolot and parva/qaṭanot), there are many examples from the Cairo Genizah, as well as from the Aleppo codex, which would be more appropriate. I think a comparative group of images may be useful, including examples of Babylonian/Yemenite supralinear pointing.
Jerchower 14:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the meaning of and evidence for "possibly the first ever complete copy of the Masretic Text in one manuscript"? If it is merely a reflection that it was a bound codex rather than a collection of scrolls, that meaning does not come through clearly. -- Zero 05:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Scholars like Professor Lawrence Schiffman and Nehemiah Gordon (Karaite) strongly disagree with the idea that the Tiqqune Sopherim were actually changes within the Tanach text (with Nehemiah the context of discussion was the Tetragrammaton), and assert that the popular Christian David Ginsburg-->Bullinger concepts are simply a misunderstanding of the Massorah. Good articles on this controversy are sparse, few and far between. The Wiki article does leave open a good amount of nuance and interpretation, however it would be nice, albeit difficult, to give some focus on the actual controversy about evidences on whether the scripture text itself was ever changed. I would be happy to share my resources, few as they are. Example http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/message/3069 "Prof Schiffman wrote in response to the Bullinger emendations claim.. "In vol.4 Ginzberg correctly translated the heading of the first list, for the Pentateuch, as "Lord occurs twelve tines in the Pentateuch........ this is not a list of textual variants but rather a list of the times ad-onai is used when it is clearly an equivalent (in meaning) to the shem ha-meforash." 24.193.219.212 04:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Shalom, Steven Avery, Queens, NY schmuel@nyc.rr.com
I've inserted a couple, by painstakingly cutting from Hebrew_alphabet, i.e. "three times the Pentateuch has the spelling אל where the reading is לר. " I'm going to bed now, but the source I used was the original Jewish Encyc article, Google cache, here: [1]
There's a lot missing from this article, perhaps someone more familiar with Yods and Alephs can check it out. Rich Farmbrough 23:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The text says "Thus ( Leviticus 8:23) is the middle verse in the Pentateuch". As far as I know, the Talmud (Kidushin 30a) says that v'hitgalach (Leviticus 13:33) is the middle verse, while the masorah says the middle verse is Leviticus 8:8 (which btw is correct). So where is this "Leviticus 8:23" from? -- Zero 02:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
why does the first paragraph compare the Masoretic text to unknown/lost text?-- CorvetteZ51 12:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The masoretic text is not the most ancient version of the Tanakh. Get over it and stop writing apologetics. 71.198.169.9 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I am chronicling and removing intentionally vague language.
So I am removing these phrases altogether. 71.198.169.9 23:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There are older translations than the Septuagint. The Septuagint has been raped by many people. You are a fool to believe what people call the Septuagint today is what it orignally was. The Roman Church has openly admitted of raping it in ~300CE. There is no edition of the Septuagint which is older than the Masoretic Text.
The section 'Numerical Masorah' uses the term 'stichs.' I'm not sure what it's refering to in that context. Could someone who knows add a Wikilink? Thanks. -- Tmhand 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
How can a papyrus from the second century BCE contain a portion of the Masoretic Text when the Masoretes date from the seventh century CE onward?-- 12.109.41.2 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Biblical manuscripts found in the Qumran, are distributed as follows: 60% Proto-Masoretic texts, 20% Qumran style manuscripts, 10% Nonaligned texts, 5% Proto-Samaritan texts, and 5% Septuagintal type texts. Further more, the Qumran style manuscripts have their bases in the proto-Masoretic texts. The Masoretic type texts were dominant in the time of the Hasmonean period (about 160 B.C.E.). - Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls by Shiffman
"...Most of the texts that vary from the Masoretic (4 LXX manuscript fragments, for example, dating to the 1st and second century B.C.E.), come from 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." - Gretchen Haas
It is a blatant lie that the DSS support the LXX. For one, whatever Septuagint the learned Jews translated for Ptolomy (they ONLY translated the five books of the Torah, all other books were translated by who knows who with who knows what credentials) never made it long into the Christian era, as even the early Christian fathers rejected the numerous editions that had been tampered and edited into what was their present condition.
The facts show that 60% of the DSS are proto-masoretic, while another 20% - Qumran style scripts - were also proto-masoretic based. The Greek Sep. texts found in Qumran are a measly 5%, and as Gretchen Haas says, most of the texts that diverge from the Masoretic come from cave 4, which were not preserved as the other majority of the DSS texts were, but had the characteristics of a burial of bunk texts.
I am not an editor, so I ask that someone legitimately signed up add whatever of this isn't already in the article. Don't allow it to be taken over by fanatics twisting and contorting the facts.
Thanks!
Reply: I don't know when this was posted, but there are a few inaccuracies. Clement of Alexandria and Iranaeus as well as Justin Martyr held the opposite viewpoint. They viewed the Septuagint as inspired. Just read the writings for yourself. I believe that Irenaeus talks about it in book 3 of his against heresies, but I could be wrong. I should also mention that they were in widespread use by Origen's time. See his letter to Julius Africanus Sextus [1] about Sussanna. Also, the Apostles used the Septuagint or a text that aligned with it. Whenever the new testament quotes an old testament passage, it will either be identical in the Septuagint and Masoretic or more often than not it will corroborate the Septuagint [2](pdf). I cannot speak for the Qumran community, but I do know that Josephus and Philo had high respect for the Septuagint. Suppose cave four was a dump. Why would Qumran even have the Septuagint if they didn't value it at some level? What the Church Fathers rejected is Jewish attempts to modify the Septuagint (see Justin Martyr) which failed due to how widespread it was. So they changed the Hebrew text instead and got away with it. This last line has no reliable source behind it, it is just my opinion. To say the DSS supports something is a little bit of a dangerous claim. Statements like "the facts show" would probably not make it into a Wikipedia article. "Some have claimed" would probably be better. Also, some of the Hebrew fragments support the Septuagint rendition. Keep in mind that the Septuagint also aligns with the Masoretic a lot, so some of that 60% that corroborate the Masoretic also corroborate the Septuagint. JohnpaulÞ ( talk) 20:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
References
I have a problem with the article at the moment. It's headlined Masoretic text. But mainly it's about masorah -- because mostly it's derived from the old JE article on masorah. (And it really out to have an acknowledgement tag to that effect at the bottom).
Now that's all fine up to a point -- obviously, masorah is an important part of the story and maintenance of the Masoretic text.
But for an article on Masoretic text, for me there's a huge gap in the article at the moment: namely, what is the scholarly opinion on the roots of the Masoretic text -- what was the history of what became the MT, in the centuries before the Masoretes? The article seems to me very weak on this at the moment. It also makes the article really disorientating, to suddenly get thrown into the story of masorah, without really discussing what had happened to the text before they started, and what pre-existing traditions they were building on and augmenting.
At the moment we have:
from the JE; to which has been added
What else can be added about the antecedent history of the MT text? The anon editor above noted the high proprtion of proto-Masoretic texts at Qumran.
The JE used also to say, but it hasn't been included here:
Here is more on the prevailing view in 1903, from an article I was looking at on the then newly-discovered
Nash Papyrus, which for the first time was a Hebrew document that showed close affinities with the Septuagint, rather than the MT
[2]
But I need to do more searching to see whether this is still the scholarly view today, with so much more archaeological material uncovered; and to flesh out more of the story.
As I understand it at the moment, the main stages seem to be
But I need to still find more links to see whether that is right, and better understand the evidences this story is based on. Jheald 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Some more glosses on the history:
Gretchen Haas comment under "Second Temple period":
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."
seems to imply that some of the finding in cave 4 have "textual errors". However, 90% of all dead-sea scrolls came from this cave as the "Dead_Sea_scrolls" article says:
It is by far the most productive of all Qumran caves, producing ninety percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls and scroll fragments (approx. 15,000 fragments from 500 different texts), including 9-10 copies of Jubilees, along with 21 tefillin and 7 mezuzot.
I propose further clarification of the comment or the removal of it since it essentially says that a good portion of the dead-sea scrolls have "textual errors".
-- Sfozra ( talk) 00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about textual errors per se, but according to the Oxford Companion of Archaeology, "While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.140.81 ( talk) 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed two statements that were added today that said the Hebrew word mesorah was related to the word for Zodiac. [3] The source was a copy of the King James Bible. Per WP:REDFLAG, "exceptional claims require high-quality sources." — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
On July 23, an editor made significant changes to the first paragraph: [4] I reverted the changes because, overall, the new language is poorly written and confusing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to rotate the photo of the Nash papyrus; would someone who does do it? It looks a bit odd on its side and distorted as it is. Alex Roberts ( talk) 03:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following statement, tagged as unsourced since July, 2011: Many who? believe that the ben Asher family were Karaites.
If anyone can support it with a reliable source, feel free to put it back, in which case it should probably go in an earlier section. Davidhof ( talk) 19:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The article on Ben Asher himself, which certainly needs a lot of additional work here, has the exact sentence that I now added to the ben Asher section. But I have added here a new source that should help in the future improve also that article (ben Asher). warshy talk 23:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned with a sentence right at the beginning- "Though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early 2nd 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,...". How do we know the consonants differ little, for how do we know what was generally accepted in the 2nd century? (The later references to Qumran and the Septuagint at least give us something to compare with) - 101.169.255.253 ( talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I will be placing citation needed tags for multiple sections in the article. There seems to be plenty of content on the article that need these tags. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 20:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The masoretic had to be translated from the septuagint as there was no other full OT's in existence (the DSS were still buried in Qumran caves unless someone believes this is what the masoretes had then they hid them in the caves LOL) where do we add this as it is never mentioned and is important. Sellingstuff ( talk) 07:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Other copies of different languages of the OT? What scholars say there was another OT in existence that has since been lost? What do you mean about 'impossible that there was any translation between them'? Sellingstuff ( talk) 07:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a reference for ' there must be a continual path of hebrew texts between them' and 'It is not possible that they are independent translations from another language" from some scholars. The DSS are in aramaic and the masoretic in hebrew so they are different languages let alone the alleged hypothetical proto hebrew of the original OT manuscripts so the DSS are irrelevant. Its impossible for the masoretic translation to be anything like the alleged hypothetical proto hebrew of the original OT as no such manuscripts were in existence 700-1000 AD which means the masoretic was translated from the septuagint making it secondary in authority to the septuagint if not completely worthless. Sellingstuff ( talk) 12:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The DSS wiki page says 'assyrian block script' /info/en/?search=Dead_Sea_Scrolls
which then goes here and says its aramaic
/info/en/?search=Ashuri_alphabet
How about we add a section of "proposed text for translation" and add 'The masoretic may have even been translated from the septuagint' and then whatever arguments you have about the DSS/Massada etc. Sellingstuff ( talk) 00:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no section on the sources it was used to translate from, how about starting one and sourcing things for what you said about DSS etc. Also what references are there in the talmud for information about the translation? Sellingstuff ( talk) 01:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. No one claims the masoretic was translated from the DSS though do they? The question is what was the masoretic translated from, if a scholar believes an existing hebrew text then they have to believe that they/it got lost after the translation 700-1000 AD, but i cant find any sources saying this, nor any sources saying scholars believe an unbroken chain of hebrew texts existed from 200 BC or whenever up until the masoretic translation. Sellingstuff ( talk) 20:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Not an editor, uncertain if/how this ought to be incorporated, but wouldn't the findings discussed in this article imply a significantly earlier date for the development (though not necessarily widespread use) of the MT, or at least a portion thereof? 73.201.149.149 ( talk) 05:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
For info: there's a discussion about ordering at Talk:Septuagint, section "Septuagint vs. Masoretic order". Feline Hymnic ( talk) 21:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The lead for this article has, in my humble opinion, gotten a bit too long for itself. As it currently stands at over 3,000 characters covering six paragraphs, in comparison to the 2,500 character Septuagint lead and the 1,000 character Peshitta lead. I think it might be time to migrate some of the content to the body of the article, specifically discussions about surviving manuscripts and comparisons between textual variants. Since this is, perhaps, a fairly noticeable change to the lead I thought I'd put up my 2,100 character proposal for discussion before editing.
Current version
|
---|
The Masoretic Text [a] (MT or 𝕸; Hebrew: נוסח המסורה, romanized: Nusakh haMasora) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Tanakh in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the masorah. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE). The oldest extant manuscript fragments date from around the 9th century. [b] The oldest-known complete copy, the Leningrad Codex, dates from the early 11th century while the Aleppo Codex (once the oldest-known complete copy but missing large sections since the 1947 Civil war in Palestine) dates from the 10th century. The ancient Hebrew word mesorah (מסורה, alt. מסורת) broadly refers to the whole chain of Jewish tradition (see Oral Torah), which is claimed by said tradition to be unchanged and infallible. Referring to the Masoretic Text, mesorah specifically means the diacritic markings of the text of the Hebrew scriptures and the concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Tanakh which note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of words. The Masoretic Text is the oldest, and only, complete text of the Hebrew Bible still extant in its original Hebrew. However, modern scholars and believers seeking to understand the writings of the Old Testament will often use a range of sources along with the Masoretic Text. [2] These include early Greek ( Septuagint) and Syriac ( Peshitta) translations, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls and quotations from rabbinic manuscripts. Many of these are attested to in manuscripts older than the oldest surviving Masoretic text and occasionally present notable differences. [3] Which of the three commonly known versions (Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch) is closest to the theoretical Urtext is disputed. [4] The text of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Peshitta reads somewhat in-between the Masoretic Text and the old Greek. [5] Although the consonants of the Masoretic Text differ little from some Qumran texts of the early 2nd century, it has many differences of both great and lesser significance when compared to the manuscripts of the Septuagint, which is a Ptolemaic Greek translation from the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, that was in popular use by Jews in Egypt and the Holy Land (and matches the quotations in the New Testament of Christianity, especially by Paul the Apostle). [6] A recent finding of a short Leviticus fragment recovered from the ancient En-Gedi Scroll, carbon-dated to the 3rd or 4th century CE, is completely identical with the Masoretic Text. [7] The Masoretic Text is used as the basis for most Protestant translations of the Old Testament such as the King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and New International Version. After 1943, it is also used for some versions of Catholic Bibles, such as the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. |
Proposed version
|
---|
The Masoretic Text [c] (MT or 𝕸; Hebrew: נוסח המסורה, romanized: Nusakh haMasora) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Tanakh in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the masorah. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE). The ancient Hebrew word mesorah (מסורה, alt. מסורת) broadly refers to the whole chain of Jewish tradition (see Oral Torah), which is claimed by said tradition to be unchanged and infallible. Referring to the Masoretic Text, mesorah specifically means the diacritic markings of the text of the Hebrew scriptures and the concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Tanakh which note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of words. The Masoretic Text is the only text of the Hebrew Bible still available in the original Hebrew. Manuscript fragments from the 3rd century and onward have been found that have identical wording to the final Masoretic Text. [8] However the Septuagint, a Ptolemaic Greek translation made in the 2nd - 3rd century BCE, and the Peshitta, a Syriac translation made in the 2nd century CE, occasionally present notable differences from the Masoretic Text, as does a version of the Torah preserved by the Samaritans in Samaritan Hebrew, the Samaritan Pentateuch. [9] Some of these differences are attested to in the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicating that multiple versions of the Hebrew Bible already existed by the end of the Second Temple era. [10] Which is closest to a theoretical Urtext is disputed, if such a singular text ever existed at all. [4] The Masoretic Text is used as the basis for most Protestant translations of the Old Testament such as the King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and New International Version. After 1943, it is also used for some versions of Catholic Bibles, such as the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. |
Just to be clear about what I'm proposing, all the info removed from the lead won't be deleted, just moved into the main article body. Voteins ( talk) 08:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
And edit is up! If anyone is thinking about editing the lead and stumbles across this conversation in the future, I'll say my personal opinion is that there could still be a few sentences added onto it without getting overly large. I purposely cut it down as much as I physically could to give future editors room to add onto it. Voteins ( talk) 07:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
References
This article, as well as other related, do not make clear the difference.
Can I go to a public library and ask for a Masoretic Text? Or, should I ask for a Tanakh? Is the content of the Masoretic Text the same as that of the Leningrad Codex? Is it "currently" a mixture of several sources? There is a Versions section in this article. Are all these versions different? If so, how different are they and why are they different?
The article reads that the "Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon". Does it mean it has been standardized? If so, all synagogues should have exactly the same text, do they? It also reads that the oldest copy is the Leningrad Codex. That would mean all codices must have exactly the same text, do they? If not, what is the "official" codex?
The whole article does not explain clearly what the source or sources of the Masoretic Text are? Because, if there are several Masoretic Texts, if there is not agreement, it should be explained here explicitly and, that would mean that there is not such thing as a Masoretic Text as there is not a canonized unique text. Maybe, at the most, an official list of books.
In the Christian world, there is not a "unique" Bible. Is it the same case for the Tanakh/Masoretic Text?
George Rodney Maruri Game ( talk) 17:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your replies, warshy. Are there two Masoretic Texts? A religious one and an academic one? George Rodney Maruri Game ( talk) 12:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Current revision states:
> The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century BCE, contained versions of the text that are radically different from today's Hebrew Bible.
Perhaps that is true. But it has this link given in support:
That article does not support the claim that modern versions are "radically different" because it instead states:
> The text discovered in the charred Ein Gedi scroll is “100 percent identical” to the version of the Book of Leviticus that has been in use for centuries, said Dead Sea Scroll scholar Emmanuel Tov from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who participated in the study.
> “This is quite amazing for us,” he said. “In 2,000 years, this text has not changed.”
Xj ( talk) 20:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
QUOTE: The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, dating from c. 150 BCE – 75 CE, shows that in this period there was no uniform text.
That is not just wrong, but it is misleading. The fact that a radical group in a community holed up in a desert community had a radically variant text that served its own political purposes says ***NOTHING*** about there being a uniform text at this period by the mainstream Jewish community. Does the existence of the sacred Mormon texts also mean that today we have standard text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.3 ( talk) 19:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The article says "The oldest known complete copy, the Leningrad Codex, dates from the early 11th century CE." It seems that carbon dating has revealed that the Codex Sassoon is older. Quote from the following NY Times article: "Beginning in the 1960s, Mintz said, scholars began to believe that the Sassoon Codex was created a bit earlier, around the time of the Aleppo Codex, or perhaps earlier. A recent carbon-dating by the seller — reviewed and endorsed by Sotheby’s — affirmed that, giving the Sassoon plausible bragging rights as the oldest nearly complete Hebrew Bible." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/arts/hebrew-bible-auction-sothebys.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR2fjXEoPSue7ds-XTRMwM_buAXlgqpT_Cv1IC_POTQr0qdmS7o9Hykwm5U -- GFauxPas ( talk) GFauxPas ( talk) 18:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
To editor GordonGlottal: This needs to be reworded. Although MT is considered the authoritative text by Jews and many others, Wikipedia does not have an opinion on it and so it shouldn't be canonised as authoritative in wikivoice. In addition, the very notion of an authoritative (in the sense of most correct) text is questioned by scholars. Note also, as stated a few paragraphs later, in Christian circles variations on MT are sometimes considered more authoritative. For example, the King James Version and most editions derived from it, are only partly based on MT. (These examples also serve to demonstrate that "authoritative" is not a precisely defined concept.) Zero talk 13:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Masoretic Text article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do we really need to link to a (as yet uncreated) new article on the Masoretes themselves? I think it would be Ok to have just one article on them and their work. RK 13:18, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The old Hebrew text was written in continuous script, without any breaks. -- This is a tradition that is not accepted by modern scholarship. All the earliest known fragments of Hebrew have separated words (usually by small marks rather than by spaces). There are other things in this 1903 passage that are no longer accepted also; I'll come back with some references when there is time. -- zero 14:29, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
One thing missing is the introduction of nikud. Another is the issue of textual variation within the masoretic textual family. -- zero 14:29, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The old Hebrew text was written in continuous script, without any breaks. The division into words, 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; the enumeration of letters, words, verses, etc., and the substitution of some words for others in public reading, belong to the earliest labors of the Masorites. -- This paragraph is problematic from the point of view of modern scholarship. The first sentence reports a tradition that is not supported by archaeology (see Naveh, Israel Exploration Journal 23 (1973):206-208). Many of the other things, for example the division into verses, open and closed sections, and books, predate the Masoretes as we now know from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The adoption of the "square characters with the five final letters" (presumably the script derived from Aramaic that is still used) also predated the Masoretes. On the other hand, the Masoretes certainly standardized these things, and they did introduce the cantillation marks (nekudot). I deleted the first sentence, but the rest still needs revision.
Since no additions were allowed to be made to the official text of the Bible, the early Masorites adopted other expedients... That is also problematic because it supposes that there was in fact an official text before the Masoretes established one. The majority view today is that the Masoretes sought to establish an official text out of a more chaotic situation, even though they drew on a rich tradition. Evidence for this is that even centuries after the Masoretes had finished their task there were still many scrolls in circulation that contained significant variations. I didn't change anything in the article (yet). -- zero 10:15, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
A difficulty in bringing the 1903 text up to date is that it uses the word Masorete to refer to people from pre-Talmudic times (say 1st century) whereas the modern usage is to only use the word for the period from about the 5th or 6th century onwards. I'm not sure of the best way to handle this issue. -- zero 07:16, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The following is discussion and belongs on the Talk page rather than in the article itself. Btw, the "Modern work" mentioned near the top is not at all modern but is just traditional apologetics brought slightly up to date. -- Zero 13:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
With all due respect, the name "Palestine" should bed corrected to Israel and/or Judea because there never has been a country officially named "Palestine" as this was the final insult given to Israel and Judea by Roman emperor Hadrian after the his conquest of the area in 135 A.D./C.E. "Palestine" is Latin for "Philistine", the only people that Israel could never conquer. To call Israel by this insulting name "validates" Hadrian's insult. As the LORD promised Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob/Israel, He would bless those who blessed him and curse those who cursed him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.75.99 ( talk) 07:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: here is a good link on Modern work: http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html
Before direct research on the Aleppo Codex:
Since direct research on the Aleppo Codex became possible:
Also need to include: What is a keter or a taj. Separate articles on cantillation, section divisions, special letters and signs, and other unique features of the masoretic text.
The image caption is way out of date. There are earlier copies of the decalogue (10 commandments) in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and plenty of earlier examples of the square script. -- Zero 11:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The image is not of a Masoretic text, but rather pre-Masoretic. The Masoretes devised the systems of vocalic and prosodic pointings (nequdot and teʽamim), which are clearly absent here, because they are 9 centuries posterior to the Nash fragments). If one wishes to include a Masoretic fragment (which includes the pointings, layout, and Masoretic notes, the magna/gedolot and parva/qaṭanot), there are many examples from the Cairo Genizah, as well as from the Aleppo codex, which would be more appropriate. I think a comparative group of images may be useful, including examples of Babylonian/Yemenite supralinear pointing.
Jerchower 14:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the meaning of and evidence for "possibly the first ever complete copy of the Masretic Text in one manuscript"? If it is merely a reflection that it was a bound codex rather than a collection of scrolls, that meaning does not come through clearly. -- Zero 05:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Scholars like Professor Lawrence Schiffman and Nehemiah Gordon (Karaite) strongly disagree with the idea that the Tiqqune Sopherim were actually changes within the Tanach text (with Nehemiah the context of discussion was the Tetragrammaton), and assert that the popular Christian David Ginsburg-->Bullinger concepts are simply a misunderstanding of the Massorah. Good articles on this controversy are sparse, few and far between. The Wiki article does leave open a good amount of nuance and interpretation, however it would be nice, albeit difficult, to give some focus on the actual controversy about evidences on whether the scripture text itself was ever changed. I would be happy to share my resources, few as they are. Example http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/message/3069 "Prof Schiffman wrote in response to the Bullinger emendations claim.. "In vol.4 Ginzberg correctly translated the heading of the first list, for the Pentateuch, as "Lord occurs twelve tines in the Pentateuch........ this is not a list of textual variants but rather a list of the times ad-onai is used when it is clearly an equivalent (in meaning) to the shem ha-meforash." 24.193.219.212 04:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Shalom, Steven Avery, Queens, NY schmuel@nyc.rr.com
I've inserted a couple, by painstakingly cutting from Hebrew_alphabet, i.e. "three times the Pentateuch has the spelling אל where the reading is לר. " I'm going to bed now, but the source I used was the original Jewish Encyc article, Google cache, here: [1]
There's a lot missing from this article, perhaps someone more familiar with Yods and Alephs can check it out. Rich Farmbrough 23:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The text says "Thus ( Leviticus 8:23) is the middle verse in the Pentateuch". As far as I know, the Talmud (Kidushin 30a) says that v'hitgalach (Leviticus 13:33) is the middle verse, while the masorah says the middle verse is Leviticus 8:8 (which btw is correct). So where is this "Leviticus 8:23" from? -- Zero 02:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
why does the first paragraph compare the Masoretic text to unknown/lost text?-- CorvetteZ51 12:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The masoretic text is not the most ancient version of the Tanakh. Get over it and stop writing apologetics. 71.198.169.9 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I am chronicling and removing intentionally vague language.
So I am removing these phrases altogether. 71.198.169.9 23:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There are older translations than the Septuagint. The Septuagint has been raped by many people. You are a fool to believe what people call the Septuagint today is what it orignally was. The Roman Church has openly admitted of raping it in ~300CE. There is no edition of the Septuagint which is older than the Masoretic Text.
The section 'Numerical Masorah' uses the term 'stichs.' I'm not sure what it's refering to in that context. Could someone who knows add a Wikilink? Thanks. -- Tmhand 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
How can a papyrus from the second century BCE contain a portion of the Masoretic Text when the Masoretes date from the seventh century CE onward?-- 12.109.41.2 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Biblical manuscripts found in the Qumran, are distributed as follows: 60% Proto-Masoretic texts, 20% Qumran style manuscripts, 10% Nonaligned texts, 5% Proto-Samaritan texts, and 5% Septuagintal type texts. Further more, the Qumran style manuscripts have their bases in the proto-Masoretic texts. The Masoretic type texts were dominant in the time of the Hasmonean period (about 160 B.C.E.). - Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls by Shiffman
"...Most of the texts that vary from the Masoretic (4 LXX manuscript fragments, for example, dating to the 1st and second century B.C.E.), come from 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." - Gretchen Haas
It is a blatant lie that the DSS support the LXX. For one, whatever Septuagint the learned Jews translated for Ptolomy (they ONLY translated the five books of the Torah, all other books were translated by who knows who with who knows what credentials) never made it long into the Christian era, as even the early Christian fathers rejected the numerous editions that had been tampered and edited into what was their present condition.
The facts show that 60% of the DSS are proto-masoretic, while another 20% - Qumran style scripts - were also proto-masoretic based. The Greek Sep. texts found in Qumran are a measly 5%, and as Gretchen Haas says, most of the texts that diverge from the Masoretic come from cave 4, which were not preserved as the other majority of the DSS texts were, but had the characteristics of a burial of bunk texts.
I am not an editor, so I ask that someone legitimately signed up add whatever of this isn't already in the article. Don't allow it to be taken over by fanatics twisting and contorting the facts.
Thanks!
Reply: I don't know when this was posted, but there are a few inaccuracies. Clement of Alexandria and Iranaeus as well as Justin Martyr held the opposite viewpoint. They viewed the Septuagint as inspired. Just read the writings for yourself. I believe that Irenaeus talks about it in book 3 of his against heresies, but I could be wrong. I should also mention that they were in widespread use by Origen's time. See his letter to Julius Africanus Sextus [1] about Sussanna. Also, the Apostles used the Septuagint or a text that aligned with it. Whenever the new testament quotes an old testament passage, it will either be identical in the Septuagint and Masoretic or more often than not it will corroborate the Septuagint [2](pdf). I cannot speak for the Qumran community, but I do know that Josephus and Philo had high respect for the Septuagint. Suppose cave four was a dump. Why would Qumran even have the Septuagint if they didn't value it at some level? What the Church Fathers rejected is Jewish attempts to modify the Septuagint (see Justin Martyr) which failed due to how widespread it was. So they changed the Hebrew text instead and got away with it. This last line has no reliable source behind it, it is just my opinion. To say the DSS supports something is a little bit of a dangerous claim. Statements like "the facts show" would probably not make it into a Wikipedia article. "Some have claimed" would probably be better. Also, some of the Hebrew fragments support the Septuagint rendition. Keep in mind that the Septuagint also aligns with the Masoretic a lot, so some of that 60% that corroborate the Masoretic also corroborate the Septuagint. JohnpaulÞ ( talk) 20:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
References
I have a problem with the article at the moment. It's headlined Masoretic text. But mainly it's about masorah -- because mostly it's derived from the old JE article on masorah. (And it really out to have an acknowledgement tag to that effect at the bottom).
Now that's all fine up to a point -- obviously, masorah is an important part of the story and maintenance of the Masoretic text.
But for an article on Masoretic text, for me there's a huge gap in the article at the moment: namely, what is the scholarly opinion on the roots of the Masoretic text -- what was the history of what became the MT, in the centuries before the Masoretes? The article seems to me very weak on this at the moment. It also makes the article really disorientating, to suddenly get thrown into the story of masorah, without really discussing what had happened to the text before they started, and what pre-existing traditions they were building on and augmenting.
At the moment we have:
from the JE; to which has been added
What else can be added about the antecedent history of the MT text? The anon editor above noted the high proprtion of proto-Masoretic texts at Qumran.
The JE used also to say, but it hasn't been included here:
Here is more on the prevailing view in 1903, from an article I was looking at on the then newly-discovered
Nash Papyrus, which for the first time was a Hebrew document that showed close affinities with the Septuagint, rather than the MT
[2]
But I need to do more searching to see whether this is still the scholarly view today, with so much more archaeological material uncovered; and to flesh out more of the story.
As I understand it at the moment, the main stages seem to be
But I need to still find more links to see whether that is right, and better understand the evidences this story is based on. Jheald 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Some more glosses on the history:
Gretchen Haas comment under "Second Temple period":
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."
seems to imply that some of the finding in cave 4 have "textual errors". However, 90% of all dead-sea scrolls came from this cave as the "Dead_Sea_scrolls" article says:
It is by far the most productive of all Qumran caves, producing ninety percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls and scroll fragments (approx. 15,000 fragments from 500 different texts), including 9-10 copies of Jubilees, along with 21 tefillin and 7 mezuzot.
I propose further clarification of the comment or the removal of it since it essentially says that a good portion of the dead-sea scrolls have "textual errors".
-- Sfozra ( talk) 00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about textual errors per se, but according to the Oxford Companion of Archaeology, "While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.140.81 ( talk) 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed two statements that were added today that said the Hebrew word mesorah was related to the word for Zodiac. [3] The source was a copy of the King James Bible. Per WP:REDFLAG, "exceptional claims require high-quality sources." — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
On July 23, an editor made significant changes to the first paragraph: [4] I reverted the changes because, overall, the new language is poorly written and confusing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to rotate the photo of the Nash papyrus; would someone who does do it? It looks a bit odd on its side and distorted as it is. Alex Roberts ( talk) 03:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following statement, tagged as unsourced since July, 2011: Many who? believe that the ben Asher family were Karaites.
If anyone can support it with a reliable source, feel free to put it back, in which case it should probably go in an earlier section. Davidhof ( talk) 19:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The article on Ben Asher himself, which certainly needs a lot of additional work here, has the exact sentence that I now added to the ben Asher section. But I have added here a new source that should help in the future improve also that article (ben Asher). warshy talk 23:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned with a sentence right at the beginning- "Though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early 2nd 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,...". How do we know the consonants differ little, for how do we know what was generally accepted in the 2nd century? (The later references to Qumran and the Septuagint at least give us something to compare with) - 101.169.255.253 ( talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I will be placing citation needed tags for multiple sections in the article. There seems to be plenty of content on the article that need these tags. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 20:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The masoretic had to be translated from the septuagint as there was no other full OT's in existence (the DSS were still buried in Qumran caves unless someone believes this is what the masoretes had then they hid them in the caves LOL) where do we add this as it is never mentioned and is important. Sellingstuff ( talk) 07:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Other copies of different languages of the OT? What scholars say there was another OT in existence that has since been lost? What do you mean about 'impossible that there was any translation between them'? Sellingstuff ( talk) 07:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a reference for ' there must be a continual path of hebrew texts between them' and 'It is not possible that they are independent translations from another language" from some scholars. The DSS are in aramaic and the masoretic in hebrew so they are different languages let alone the alleged hypothetical proto hebrew of the original OT manuscripts so the DSS are irrelevant. Its impossible for the masoretic translation to be anything like the alleged hypothetical proto hebrew of the original OT as no such manuscripts were in existence 700-1000 AD which means the masoretic was translated from the septuagint making it secondary in authority to the septuagint if not completely worthless. Sellingstuff ( talk) 12:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The DSS wiki page says 'assyrian block script' /info/en/?search=Dead_Sea_Scrolls
which then goes here and says its aramaic
/info/en/?search=Ashuri_alphabet
How about we add a section of "proposed text for translation" and add 'The masoretic may have even been translated from the septuagint' and then whatever arguments you have about the DSS/Massada etc. Sellingstuff ( talk) 00:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no section on the sources it was used to translate from, how about starting one and sourcing things for what you said about DSS etc. Also what references are there in the talmud for information about the translation? Sellingstuff ( talk) 01:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. No one claims the masoretic was translated from the DSS though do they? The question is what was the masoretic translated from, if a scholar believes an existing hebrew text then they have to believe that they/it got lost after the translation 700-1000 AD, but i cant find any sources saying this, nor any sources saying scholars believe an unbroken chain of hebrew texts existed from 200 BC or whenever up until the masoretic translation. Sellingstuff ( talk) 20:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Not an editor, uncertain if/how this ought to be incorporated, but wouldn't the findings discussed in this article imply a significantly earlier date for the development (though not necessarily widespread use) of the MT, or at least a portion thereof? 73.201.149.149 ( talk) 05:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
For info: there's a discussion about ordering at Talk:Septuagint, section "Septuagint vs. Masoretic order". Feline Hymnic ( talk) 21:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The lead for this article has, in my humble opinion, gotten a bit too long for itself. As it currently stands at over 3,000 characters covering six paragraphs, in comparison to the 2,500 character Septuagint lead and the 1,000 character Peshitta lead. I think it might be time to migrate some of the content to the body of the article, specifically discussions about surviving manuscripts and comparisons between textual variants. Since this is, perhaps, a fairly noticeable change to the lead I thought I'd put up my 2,100 character proposal for discussion before editing.
Current version
|
---|
The Masoretic Text [a] (MT or 𝕸; Hebrew: נוסח המסורה, romanized: Nusakh haMasora) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Tanakh in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the masorah. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE). The oldest extant manuscript fragments date from around the 9th century. [b] The oldest-known complete copy, the Leningrad Codex, dates from the early 11th century while the Aleppo Codex (once the oldest-known complete copy but missing large sections since the 1947 Civil war in Palestine) dates from the 10th century. The ancient Hebrew word mesorah (מסורה, alt. מסורת) broadly refers to the whole chain of Jewish tradition (see Oral Torah), which is claimed by said tradition to be unchanged and infallible. Referring to the Masoretic Text, mesorah specifically means the diacritic markings of the text of the Hebrew scriptures and the concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Tanakh which note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of words. The Masoretic Text is the oldest, and only, complete text of the Hebrew Bible still extant in its original Hebrew. However, modern scholars and believers seeking to understand the writings of the Old Testament will often use a range of sources along with the Masoretic Text. [2] These include early Greek ( Septuagint) and Syriac ( Peshitta) translations, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls and quotations from rabbinic manuscripts. Many of these are attested to in manuscripts older than the oldest surviving Masoretic text and occasionally present notable differences. [3] Which of the three commonly known versions (Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch) is closest to the theoretical Urtext is disputed. [4] The text of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Peshitta reads somewhat in-between the Masoretic Text and the old Greek. [5] Although the consonants of the Masoretic Text differ little from some Qumran texts of the early 2nd century, it has many differences of both great and lesser significance when compared to the manuscripts of the Septuagint, which is a Ptolemaic Greek translation from the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, that was in popular use by Jews in Egypt and the Holy Land (and matches the quotations in the New Testament of Christianity, especially by Paul the Apostle). [6] A recent finding of a short Leviticus fragment recovered from the ancient En-Gedi Scroll, carbon-dated to the 3rd or 4th century CE, is completely identical with the Masoretic Text. [7] The Masoretic Text is used as the basis for most Protestant translations of the Old Testament such as the King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and New International Version. After 1943, it is also used for some versions of Catholic Bibles, such as the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. |
Proposed version
|
---|
The Masoretic Text [c] (MT or 𝕸; Hebrew: נוסח המסורה, romanized: Nusakh haMasora) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Tanakh in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the masorah. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE). The ancient Hebrew word mesorah (מסורה, alt. מסורת) broadly refers to the whole chain of Jewish tradition (see Oral Torah), which is claimed by said tradition to be unchanged and infallible. Referring to the Masoretic Text, mesorah specifically means the diacritic markings of the text of the Hebrew scriptures and the concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Tanakh which note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of words. The Masoretic Text is the only text of the Hebrew Bible still available in the original Hebrew. Manuscript fragments from the 3rd century and onward have been found that have identical wording to the final Masoretic Text. [8] However the Septuagint, a Ptolemaic Greek translation made in the 2nd - 3rd century BCE, and the Peshitta, a Syriac translation made in the 2nd century CE, occasionally present notable differences from the Masoretic Text, as does a version of the Torah preserved by the Samaritans in Samaritan Hebrew, the Samaritan Pentateuch. [9] Some of these differences are attested to in the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicating that multiple versions of the Hebrew Bible already existed by the end of the Second Temple era. [10] Which is closest to a theoretical Urtext is disputed, if such a singular text ever existed at all. [4] The Masoretic Text is used as the basis for most Protestant translations of the Old Testament such as the King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and New International Version. After 1943, it is also used for some versions of Catholic Bibles, such as the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. |
Just to be clear about what I'm proposing, all the info removed from the lead won't be deleted, just moved into the main article body. Voteins ( talk) 08:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
And edit is up! If anyone is thinking about editing the lead and stumbles across this conversation in the future, I'll say my personal opinion is that there could still be a few sentences added onto it without getting overly large. I purposely cut it down as much as I physically could to give future editors room to add onto it. Voteins ( talk) 07:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
References
This article, as well as other related, do not make clear the difference.
Can I go to a public library and ask for a Masoretic Text? Or, should I ask for a Tanakh? Is the content of the Masoretic Text the same as that of the Leningrad Codex? Is it "currently" a mixture of several sources? There is a Versions section in this article. Are all these versions different? If so, how different are they and why are they different?
The article reads that the "Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon". Does it mean it has been standardized? If so, all synagogues should have exactly the same text, do they? It also reads that the oldest copy is the Leningrad Codex. That would mean all codices must have exactly the same text, do they? If not, what is the "official" codex?
The whole article does not explain clearly what the source or sources of the Masoretic Text are? Because, if there are several Masoretic Texts, if there is not agreement, it should be explained here explicitly and, that would mean that there is not such thing as a Masoretic Text as there is not a canonized unique text. Maybe, at the most, an official list of books.
In the Christian world, there is not a "unique" Bible. Is it the same case for the Tanakh/Masoretic Text?
George Rodney Maruri Game ( talk) 17:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your replies, warshy. Are there two Masoretic Texts? A religious one and an academic one? George Rodney Maruri Game ( talk) 12:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Current revision states:
> The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century BCE, contained versions of the text that are radically different from today's Hebrew Bible.
Perhaps that is true. But it has this link given in support:
That article does not support the claim that modern versions are "radically different" because it instead states:
> The text discovered in the charred Ein Gedi scroll is “100 percent identical” to the version of the Book of Leviticus that has been in use for centuries, said Dead Sea Scroll scholar Emmanuel Tov from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who participated in the study.
> “This is quite amazing for us,” he said. “In 2,000 years, this text has not changed.”
Xj ( talk) 20:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
QUOTE: The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, dating from c. 150 BCE – 75 CE, shows that in this period there was no uniform text.
That is not just wrong, but it is misleading. The fact that a radical group in a community holed up in a desert community had a radically variant text that served its own political purposes says ***NOTHING*** about there being a uniform text at this period by the mainstream Jewish community. Does the existence of the sacred Mormon texts also mean that today we have standard text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.3 ( talk) 19:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The article says "The oldest known complete copy, the Leningrad Codex, dates from the early 11th century CE." It seems that carbon dating has revealed that the Codex Sassoon is older. Quote from the following NY Times article: "Beginning in the 1960s, Mintz said, scholars began to believe that the Sassoon Codex was created a bit earlier, around the time of the Aleppo Codex, or perhaps earlier. A recent carbon-dating by the seller — reviewed and endorsed by Sotheby’s — affirmed that, giving the Sassoon plausible bragging rights as the oldest nearly complete Hebrew Bible." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/arts/hebrew-bible-auction-sothebys.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR2fjXEoPSue7ds-XTRMwM_buAXlgqpT_Cv1IC_POTQr0qdmS7o9Hykwm5U -- GFauxPas ( talk) GFauxPas ( talk) 18:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
To editor GordonGlottal: This needs to be reworded. Although MT is considered the authoritative text by Jews and many others, Wikipedia does not have an opinion on it and so it shouldn't be canonised as authoritative in wikivoice. In addition, the very notion of an authoritative (in the sense of most correct) text is questioned by scholars. Note also, as stated a few paragraphs later, in Christian circles variations on MT are sometimes considered more authoritative. For example, the King James Version and most editions derived from it, are only partly based on MT. (These examples also serve to demonstrate that "authoritative" is not a precisely defined concept.) Zero talk 13:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).