Editing Masoretic Text (section)

== Origin and transmission ==
[[File:Texts of the OT.svg|thumb|right|350px|The inter-relationship between various significant ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament (some identified by their [[wikt:siglum|sigla]]). "Mt" here denotes the Masoretic Text; "LXX", the original [[Septuagint]].]]

The oldest manuscript fragments of the final Masoretic Text, including vocalications and the masorah, date from around the 9th century.{{efn|A 7th 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]]''.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Rare-scroll-fragment-to-be-unveiled |title=Rare scroll fragment to be unveiled |newspaper=Jerusalem Post |date=21 May 2007}}</ref>}} The oldest-known complete copy, the [[Leningrad Codex]], dates from the early 11th century. The ''[[Aleppo Codex]]'', once the oldest-known complete copy but missing large sections since the [[1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine|1947 Civil war in Palestine]], dates from the 10th century. However, codification of the base consonants appears to have begun earlier, perhaps even in the [[Second Temple period]].{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}}

=== Second Temple period ===
The discovery of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]] at [[Qumran]], dating from {{nowrap|c. 150 BCE – 75 CE}}, shows that in this period there was no uniform text. According to [[Menachem Cohen (scholar)|Menachem Cohen]], the Dead Sea scrolls showed that "there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT."<ref name="Cohen1979"/> 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.<ref name="Cohen1979">{{cite book |first=Menachem |last=Cohen |url=http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/CohenArt/ |article=The idea of the sanctity of the biblical text and the science of textual criticism |title=HaMikrah V'anachnu |editor-first=Uriel |editor-last=Simon |publisher=HaMachon L'Yahadut U'Machshava Bat-Z'mananu and Dvir |place=Tel-Aviv, Israel |year=1979}}</ref>

The text of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Peshitta read somewhat in-between the Masoretic Text and the old Greek.<ref name="Tov"/> 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 [[Lawrence Schiffman]], 60% can be classed as being of proto-Masoretic type, and a further 20% Qumran style with a basis in proto-Masoretic texts, compared to 5% proto-[[Samaritan Pentateuch|Samaritan]] type, 5% [[Septuagint]]al type, and 10% non-aligned.<ref>{{cite book |first=L. |last=Schiffman |title=Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls |publisher=Yale University Press |edition=illustrated |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-300-14022-4}}{{page needed|date=January 2015}}</ref> [[Joseph Fitzmyer]] noted the following regarding the findings at Qumran Cave&nbsp;4 in particular: "Such ancient recensional forms of Old Testament books bear witness to an unsuspected textual diversity that once existed; these texts merit far greater study and attention than they have been accorded till now. Thus, the differences in the Septuagint are no longer considered the result of a poor or tendentious attempt to translate the Hebrew into the Greek; rather they testify to a different pre-Christian form of the Hebrew text".<ref>{{cite book |first=Joseph |last=Fitzmyer |title=The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: After Forty Years |page=302}}</ref> On the other hand, some of the fragments conforming most accurately to the Masoretic Text were found in Cave&nbsp;4.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Ulrich, E. |author2=Cross, F. M. |author3=Davila, J. R. |author4=Jastram, N. |author5=Sanderson, J. E. |author6=Tov, E. |author7=Strugnell, J. |year=1994 |article=Qumran Cave&nbsp;4, VII, Genesis to Numbers |title=Discoveries in the Judaean Desert |volume=12 |publisher=Clarendon Press, Oxford}}<!-- Not clear from the original plain text citation whether this is a book or a journal article. The citation renders exactly as the original plain text cite. --></ref>

[[Tannaitic]] sources relate that a standard copy of the Hebrew Bible was kept in the court of the Second Temple for the benefit of copyists<ref>Y. Sanh. 2:6, y. Shek. 4:3, m. MK 3:4, m. Kelim 15:6.</ref> and that there were paid correctors of biblical books among the officers of the Temple.<ref>B. Ket. 106a, y. Shek. 4:3, y. Sanh. 2:6.</ref> The [[Letter of Aristeas]] claims that a model codex was sent to [[Ptolemy II Philadelphus|Ptolemy]] by the [[Eleazar (High Priest)|High Priest Eleazar]], who asked that it be returned after the [[Septuagint]] was completed.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Blau |first=Lajos |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0-4UAAAAYAAJ |title=Studien zum althebräischen Buchwesen und zur biblischen Litteraturgeschichte |date=1902 |publisher=E.K.J. Trübner |pages=100 |language=de}}</ref> [[Josephus]] describes the Romans taking a copy of the Law as spoil,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews 7.96-7.162 |url=https://lexundria.com/j_bj/7.96-7.162/wst |access-date=2024-07-21 |website=lexundria.com}}</ref> and both he and [[Philo]] claim no word of the text was ever changed from the time of Moses.<ref>{{Cite book |author=Eusebius of Caesarea |author-link1=Eusebius |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nt_YAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP7 |title=pars 1. Libri I-IX anglice redditi; pars 2. Libri X-XV anglice redditi |date=1903 |publisher=Typographeo Academico |pages=357a |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Josephus: Against Apion I |url=https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/apion-1.html |access-date=2024-07-21 |website=penelope.uchicago.edu}}</ref>

In contrast, an [[Amoraim|Amoraic]] narrative relates that three Torah scrolls were found in the Temple court, at variance with each other. The differences between the three were resolved by majority decision.<ref>Y. Taanit 4:2; Soferim 6:4; Sifrei Devarim 342.</ref> This may describe a previous period, although [[Solomon Zeitlin]] argues it is not historical.<ref>For a discussion see: {{cite journal |author=Zeitlin, S. |date=April 1966 |title=Were there three Torah-scrolls in the Azarah? |journal=[[The Jewish Quarterly Review]] |series=New Series |volume=56 |issue=4 |pages=269–272 |doi=10.2307/1453840 |jstor=1453840}}</ref>

=== Rabbinic period ===
An emphasis on minute details of words and spellings, already used among the [[Pharisees]] as basis for argumentation, reached its height with the example of [[Rabbi Akiva]] (died 135&nbsp;CE). The idea of a perfect text sanctified in its consonantal base quickly spread throughout the Jewish communities via supportive statements in [[Halakha]], [[Aggadah]], and Jewish thought;<ref name="Cohen1979"/> and with it increasingly forceful strictures that a deviation in even a single letter would make a Torah scroll invalid.<ref>[[Maimonides]], The Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzot, and Torah Scrolls, 1:2</ref> Very few manuscripts are said to have survived the [[Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)|destruction of Jerusalem in 70&nbsp;CE]].<ref>{{cite book |first=Godfrey Rolles |last=Driver |author-link=Godfrey Rolles Driver |url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/driver1.html |title=Introduction to the Old Testament of the ''New English Bible'' |year=1970}}</ref> This drastically reduced the number of variants in circulation and also gave a new urgency that the text must be preserved. Few manuscripts survive from this era, but a short [[Leviticus]] fragment recovered from the ancient [[En-Gedi Scroll]], carbon-dated to the 3rd or 4th&nbsp;century&nbsp;CE, is completely identical to the consonantal Masoretic Text preserved today.<ref name="Associated Press"/>

New Greek translations were also made. Unlike the Septuagint, large-scale deviations in sense between the Greek of [[Aquila of Sinope]] and [[Theodotion]] and what we now know as the Masoretic Text are minimal. Relatively small 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 [[Halakha|halachic]] [[midrash]]im based on spelling versions which do not exist in the current Masoretic Text.<ref name="Cohen1979" />

=== 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 in the [[Rashidun Caliphate|Rashidun]], [[Umayyad Caliphate|Umayyad]], and [[Abbasid Caliphate]]s, based primarily in the cities of [[Tiberias]] and [[Jerusalem]] and in [[Mesopotamia]] (called "Babylonia"). According to Menachem Cohen, these schools developed such prestige for the accuracy and error-control of their copying techniques that their texts established an authority beyond all others.<ref name="Cohen1979"/> Differences remained, sometimes bolstered by systematic local differences in pronunciation and [[Hebrew cantillation|cantillation]]. Every locality, following the tradition of its school, had a standard codex embodying its readings. In the [[talmudic academies in Babylonia]], the school of [[Sura (city)|Sura]] differed from that of [[Nehardea]]; and similar differences existed in [[talmudic academies in Syria Palaestina|those of Syria Palaestina]] 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 one school or the other, examining, however, standard codices of other schools and noting their differences.<ref name="Jewish">{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=Jewish Encyclopedia |url=http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10465-masorah |article=Masorah}}</ref>

==== Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali ====
The Masorah for the most part ended in the 10th&nbsp;century with [[Aaron ben Moses ben Asher]] and [[Ben Naphtali]] who were the leading Masoretes of the time. Ben&nbsp;Asher wrote a standard codex (the ''[[Aleppo Codex]]'') embodying his opinions. Ben&nbsp;Naphtali likely did as well, though it has not survived. However, the differences between the two are found in more or less complete Masoretic lists and in quotations in David Ḳimḥi, Norzi, and other medieval writers.<ref name="JEBA">{{cite web |last1=Ginzberg |first1=Louis |last2=Levias |first2=Caspar |title=Ben Naphtali - JewishEncyclopedia |url=https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2884-ben-naphtali |website=www.jewishencyclopedia.com}}</ref>

The differences between Ben Naphtali and Ben Asher number about 875, nine-tenths of which refer to the placing of the accents, while the rest relate to vowels and consonantal spelling. The differences between the two Masoretes do not represent solely personal opinions; the two rivals represent different schools. Like the Ben Ashers there seem to have been several Ben Naftalis. The Masoretic lists often do not agree on the precise nature of the differences between the two rival authorities; it is, therefore, impossible to define with exactness their differences in every case; and it is probably due to this fact that the received text does not follow uniformly the system of either Ben Asher or Ben Naphtali.<ref name="JEBA"/>

Ben Asher was the last of a distinguished family of Masoretes extending back to the latter half of the 8th&nbsp;century. Despite the rivalry of ben&nbsp;Naphtali and the opposition of [[Saadia Gaon]], the most eminent representative of the Babylonian school of criticism, ben&nbsp;Asher's codex became recognized as the standard text of the Hebrew Bible. Notwithstanding all this, for reasons unknown neither the printed text nor any manuscript which has been preserved is based entirely on Ben Asher: they are all eclectic. Aside from Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, the names of several other Masorites have come down; but, perhaps with the exception of one—Phinehas, the head of the academy, who is supposed by modern scholars to have lived about 750—neither their time, their place, nor their connection with the various schools is known.<ref name="Jewish"/>

Most scholars conclude that Aaron ben&nbsp;Asher was a [[Karaite Judaism|Karaite]] rather than a Rabbinical Jew, though there is evidence against this view.<ref>{{cite EJ |author=Ben-Hayyim, Zeev |article=Ben-Asher, Aaron ben Moses |volume=3|pages=319–321 |via=Gale Virtual Reference Library |article-url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ben-asher-aaron-ben-moses}}</ref>{{efn|For more details, see
[[Aaron ben Moses ben Asher#Was ben Asher a Karaite?]]}}

=== The Middle Ages ===
The two rival authorities, ben&nbsp;Asher and ben&nbsp;Naphtali, practically brought the Masorah to a close. Very few additions were made by the later Masoretes, styled in the 13th and 14th&nbsp;centuries ''Naqdanim'', 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.<ref name="Jewish"/>

During the 11th, 12th, and 13th&nbsp;centuries the Franco-German school of [[Tosafot|Tosafists]] influenced in the development and spread of Masoretic literature. [[Gershom ben Judah]], his brother [[Machir ben Judah]], [[Joseph ben Samuel Bonfils]] (Tob 'Elem) of [[Limoges]], [[Rabbeinu Tam]] (Jacob ben Meïr), [[Menahem ben Perez]] of [[Joigny]], [[Perez ben Elijah]] of [[Corbeil-Cerf|Corbeil]], [[Judah ben Isaac Messer Leon]], Meïr Spira, and [[Meir 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.<ref name="Jewish"/>