STOP
Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content .
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.
Notes and Discussion. 78c
A Contribution to the History of the Term "Massorah."
— In the first chapter of his Commentarius Massoive Ilistoriens
(Tiberias, Part I.), Buxtorf says that the pronunciation now
generally in use among the Jews of the name of the Tradition
that dealt with the biblical text is miDO (after the form of
JTT133 Jer. iii. 7), and as sarnech has a sharp sound, the word is
written with a double s, Massorah. This manner of spelling the
word, although it was not adopted by Buxtorf himself, is still every-
where in vogue ; at the same time, however, one generally recalls the
possibility referred to by Buxtorf that the form of the word may be
TTV)DJ? (with a dagesh in the D). Buxtorf also mentions that the
word was by many read iTTDa or rHBtt and even rnpS? (by Pag-
ninus), while he himself adduces the form TTTlDft (compare rn'lt£72
n"^n;S7) as possible. This remarkable fluctuation in the pronuncia-
tion of a word of such frequent use, as well as in the grammatical
explanation of its form, still prevails. Compare F. Buhl, Kaiion uiul
Text des alten Testaments (Leipzig, 1891), page 95 seq. The very
foundation upon which the use of the word itself rests is extremely
uncertain. In the oldest sources (Talmud and Midrash) it is not to be
found at all, as in these only its equivalent miDQ is to be met with.
Similarly, later authorities speak only of the miDO, which expression
is very often employed to indicate the Massorah in its written form>
as, for example, by Abulwalid (see quotations in my Life and Works
of Abulwalid, Herman Ilm Q'anah, etc., p. 52). Elias Levita speaks
onstantly of the JTllDO not of the miDH, both in the title and in
he body of his great work dealing with the subject ; the Massorites
are with him, as with Ibn Ezra, miDan ''tMM. I am not in pos-
session of the requisite data to be able to explain how, in spite of all
this, the expression miDQ; for which alone there is foundation in
ancient usage and literature, has been displaced by the other terms.
Elias Levita himself makes use of the other expression, miDDi
(mostly written defective, mDO), in order to indicate both the
Massorah as " written down by the sages of the city of Tiberias," as
well as the written Massorah which is to be found in Bible MSS. (see
beginning of the Third Introduction ed. Ginsburg, p. 103, d/lSl
mDa rh lNHpl rTDrD -)t£N m-Ofc >a2nb, and towards the end
of the same Introduction, p. 138, nbmn mD»n and TOttp (TIDE
■icq.y. lie thus appears to recognise the name rnDO as applicable
' Instead of Ginsburg's riDSian fVYlDOn ^3 p. 138. the edition 1538,
p. 28, line 4, has nDSian rniDDn b.
780 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
only to the concrete form of the written Massorah, not to the Mas-
sorah in general. 1 Jacob ben Chayim, the first editor of the Massorah
(in Bomberg's Bible, 1518), speaks in the Preface as well as in the
prefatory remarks to the Massorah finalis, mostly of HIDJS (always
without 1 ), but also of miDQ, while he calls the written Massorah
consistently /"DDE, defective. His example will certainly have been
of the greatest influence in the further use and general adoption of
the word mDIQ. As regards its pronunciation, the word m"lDB,
resting, as it did, upon better testimony, was decisive, both words
being considered as similar substantive forms, distinguished only by
the feminine endings D„ and 71 t ; and, as Buxtorf asserts, the word
was pronounced JTVlDB. The question, however, arises whether this
was the original pronunciation of the form of the word written with
n. This may be doubted, since both Jacob ben Chayim and Elias
Levita, unquestionably relying upon MS. sources, always write the
word without a 1 ; while /"DID 73 is always written with a 1. This
doubt is strengthened by several very significant facts in the cognate
literature. I have already pointed out {Life and Works of AbulwalM)
that one of the two Oxford MSS. of Kilab-al'-Luma (No. 1,462) very
often instead of mDJ3 (or miDD) writes mDIQ, which spelling is
also found in an exegete of the fourteenth century. Since then I
have discovered that this variant spelling of such a well-attested
word as miDS can be explained by the influence of the form rnp'lE.
This form of the word is used almost exclusively to indicate the
Massorah in the so-called " Massorah from Teman," which Grinsburg
has edited in the third volume of his great work on the Massorah
(p. 53 scq.). Here JTTlDQ is only now and then to be met with (in
Gen. xliv. 6 ; Exod. xxix. 15), elsewhere, mD1»!"T, also Ni""D"l mDltt
and natOp mDID. This pronunciation is attested from very ancient
times. The Karaite exegete, Japheth ben Ali (end of the tenth
century) says in his commentary on Daniel ix. 29 (ed. Margoliouth,
p. 101, line 3), riDDIM nt3±n "it is fixed in the M." ; and the same
plural form of the word is also to be found in the renowned St.
Petersburg Biolccodex of the year 1010, where in the superscription of
a Massoretic section, the expression occurs m b*ra nilDHSl "1J3S3 N 7>1
maftp /Tnpba Nbl, the vocalisation being as here given, where,
however, strange to say, the word is written once with cholem and
once with kometz (see Baer and Strack, Dikduke Ha-Teamim, p. xxvi.j.
1 In Tishbi sub voc. "IDD he does not mention the form n"lDO at all, but
only says in reference to Aboth iii. 13, '"I3D 2'3D Hainan miDDn X^Hl
Nnpran.
Notes and Discussion. 787
A further proof of the age of the form of spelling STlD'na is fur-
nished by the circumstance that the Karaite lexicographer David ben
Abraham 1 calls the Massorah in Arabic jfnDN?2> HIDNObs ( see m Y
treatise : The Grammatical Terminology of Jehudah ben David ibn
Chajjag, p. 36) ; he thus forms the participle of the first conjuga-
tion of the verb "1DD after the Arabic manner, corresponding to the
Hebrew construction mDID as Kal participle. The Massora Magna
he also calls in Arabic rtTODbs niDMJibs ( see Pinsker, SU/kute
Kadmonijoth, p. 140 of the text). It is therefore proved that the
word TTIDE has been pronounced PHDO since the tenth century, and
one may assume that this is not an arbitrary pronunciation, but that
it was the original pronunciation of the form HIDD, which grew up
in addition to the older form miDB. The above-mentioned lexico-
grapher, David ben Abraham, also uses the Hebrew form mDJD (bN)
without 1 (see Neubauer : Notice sur la Lexicographie Hebraique,
p. 100, 1. 13), as in the St. Petersburg Bibleeodex.
It follows from the preceding that the form HIDB is not a later
invention of the Massorah- scribes, but is to be regarded as an
ancient term of the Massorites. I believe that the employment of
this ending was determined by the fact that one of the encampments
of Israel in the wilderness was called TTTOiO (Deut. x. 6), and
ni~lDb (Numb, xxxiii. 30 and 31). Nothing was more natural than
that this name should be used as a synonym for nTlDJD, whose plural
nVHDO also occurs. 2 It is, however, remarkable, that mDD is
written defective, -while n~lD1Q in Deut. x. 6 is -plene ; but perhaps
this is owing to DTlDZD being defective in Numb, xxxiii. 3
1 Formerly regarded as belonging to the tenth century. A later date
has, however, been assigned to him. (See P. F. Frankl, Article "Karaer '
in Erseh wild Orubem Allgemeino Encydopccdie, 2 Section, xxxiii. 17.)
' 2 Ibn Ezra in one place calls Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali S ~W ^W
nniDDH (see my Ibn Ezra al-t Grainmatihcr, p. 38, note 13), and his con-
temporary, the Karaite, Jehudah Hadassi, likewise speaks, referring to
Ben Asher, of the niTlDJO (see Baer und Strack, Dihdtike Ila-Teamim,
p. xiii., note 14 ; comp. Ibid., p. xxviii., line <> from the end ; Ibid, page
79, line 8). In llidraxh Timclimna, pnnXl, Jin., R. Jonathan (third
century) says • • • • nCJ'DD nt03nn JIITlDO 'PtS'O, for which passage the
Midrash Petirath Mosheh (Jellinek's Biib-fTamtdrasdi, vol. L, p. 127) has
HD^nn nilVlX l^D^, perhaps a mistake in transcription from niTDIO
nonnn. See also Bab. Megillak, 3a ; Nedarim, 37b ; nVTlDBn l"?«, for
which Jens. Megillali, 7iA,fn. has miDDD nt.
3 It should also be observed that ("HPTO JTnp'lKl in the sense of
rineulum, band (comp. Psalm ii. 3 ; cvii 14 ; cxvi. 16), was a very general
788 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
The pronunciation of miDft is likewise not free from doubt. True,
Buxtorf (Tiberias, loe. tit.), referring to the spelling rniDQ, says,
" Qum pronunciatio itidem communis est," and at the present day also
this mode of spelling is almost universally adopted as the correct one.
Levy (Neuheb. Worterbueh, iii. 178) adopts this punctuation, so also
Strack in the Dictum of Akiba, Aboth, iii. 13 (die Spriiche der Vater,
2, Auflage, p. 38). But in reality the spelling JTTtoip which has been
emphasized by Buxtorf, and which is based upon the expression
/man n~\piS2. (Ezek. xx. 37), appears to be more accurate. For
although the word in Ezekiel is not exactly derived from ">DO, but
from "IDM, to bind to fetter (=TVlDNO), as Abulwalfd already per-
ceived (Kilah-al'-Luma, p. 244, line 17 ; Bikma, p. 146), and as, fol-
lowing him, David Kimchi explains, yet the traditional rendering of
the word seems to have assigned to it the meaning " Tradition,
Handing down," in agreement with which Rashi explains iTH22
DjP TIDJ32X As a fact, the Targum retains the Hebrew word,
together with the corresponding Aramaic term (SWp miDKO), and
Theodotion translates, iv rrj n-apaooo-ei tj)s bia.6r]Kqs (see Field,
Hexapla II., 820a). Aquila, it is true, translates iv Sea-pois rrjs
diuBrjKTjs, and, following him, Hieronymus in Vinculis Foederis. Still,
for the dominant conception of the word in the time of the Tanaim
and Amoraim, the Targum, when it is unopposed by any other
explanation in the literature of tradition, is sufficiently convincing)
especially as its translation is supported by Theodotion, and as Rashi
gives evidence for the maintenance of the traditional view.
It is now more than probable that if the Tanaim employed the
expression miDH, not only for the text of the Scripture but also for
the traditions relating to it, they did not introduce a newly-formed
word into the terminology of the schools, but adopted the word from
the Book of Ezekiel as a welcome substantive to the verb "IDE,
which latter occurs only twice in the Bible (Numb. xxxi. 5 and 16),
but has passed from Aramaic into New-Hebrew, and which became, in
constructio pregnans, an expression in common use in the schools (see
Mishnah, Aboth, i. 1). For it is difficult to see why, for the purpose
of expressing the idea of " Tradition," a word of such rare occur-
rence, even in biblical Hebrew, as J"H.D9 (after the model of fTl'S?,
rn.Q3Y should have been formed from the verb 1DJS 1 instead of
expression in the language of the Mishnah (see Levy, iii., 53b), and was
even brought into connection with *)DD by the Babylonian Amorah Raba
(see Saba Meziah, 8b.)
1 In New-Hebrew there is no substantive of this form so far as I know,
and Siegfried, in his Lehrbuch der Newhebraisehen Spraohe (1884) is only
Notes and Discussion. 789
rrv»pa or rrjiD»; even rnpa (comp. rrpj), tttid» (comp.
iT]WD) } and rnpa (comp. nifTl?), -would have been more con-
formable to analogy. The linguistic process probably took the fol-
lowing course : on the one hand ~1DD, having become a familiar
verb, led to Ezekiel's word rnpZp being used in the sense of
Tradition. 1 On the other hand, the word was admitted into the
terminology of the schools in order to form a substantive corre-
sponding to the verb "1DS2. Had the word in Ezekiel not reached
us with the Massoretic punctuation, it could certainly have been
read rnblj quite as well as fPlfalJ, after the aaalogy of
tr^STS (from v3M), 1 Kings v. 25, as indeed Abulwalid also remarks
(Joe. cit.) that in DIDD the N of the root has become softened,
quiescent, but has not assimilated with the D. As, however, we must
assume that the word in Ezekiel was already read in the manner in
which We find it punctuated in the earliest periods of the transmission
of the text, it follows that the New-Hebrew expression based upon
the word in Ezekiel must also be so pronounced, viz., /TliDB. He
who speaks and writes rniDB is therefore guilty of no inaccuracy,
as the word in Ezekiel might also sound thus, but he has against him
the facts as above presented in their historical development. Under
no circumstances may finiBB be regarded as a direct noun-form
derived from "1DJ3, and independent of the biblical word .
I wish further to draw attention to the interesting fact that Elias
Levita, in the explanation of the word n"HDO, at the beginning of
the third introduction to his Masoreth Hamasoreth, points only to the
verb "IDE, but makes no mention whatever of the passage in Ezekiel, 2
no doubt because he explained the biblical word according to its right
meaning of fetter, band, and he therefore saw in it no connection with
the end-form miDti.
The following may serve as a brief summary of the results of the
above investigations into the history of the name of the Massorah : —
1. From Ezek. xx. 37 the noun JTYlDB, as if it was derived from
able to adduce as examples of the ground-form qatt&l the " Fern. fTnlSD.
rniDJ? " (p. 44.) The form had long lost its propagative power, and even
among the Payetanim, who had the courage to revive many a rare form,
it is not represented by a single example. See the register of noun-forms
in Zunz, Die Synag. Poesie des Mittelalters, pp. 383-409.
1 Comp. opinion of Eaba referred to above, p. 787 note 3.
2 What Levy (Worterbuoh, iii. 179 b) cites in the name of Levita
appears to rest upon some confusion with another author.
790 The Jewish Quarterly Review.
the verb "ID 12, was adopted as the expression to designate oral tradi-
tion, 1 but especially the tradition fixing the pronunciation of the bibli-
cal text. (Compare specially the expression JTTlDfiib DM Sipab OS.)
The term is also used in the plural.
2. In post-Talmudic times another substantive, also a biblical word,
was applied with a similar meaning to the verb "1DJ3, viz., i"HD/D, pi.
niipb. It was regarded as participle Ital, and accordingly was cast
in Arabic form. Under the influence of this word arose also the
form mDia instead of miDS.
3. The form miDJi remained until modern times, and even with
Elias Levita, as the usual term to designate the Massorah. The form
!"HDD or miDD, its pronunciation rt"jiDD being copied from miDJi,
gradually became the customary designation of the Massoretic dis-
cussions (first edited by Jacob ben Chayim), and displaced the
expression M&sSreth.
4. The pronunciation rniDD has no historical justification.
5. Fox n~lDD the pronunciation rnplH alone is attested from
ancient times ; the forms of spelling /"HiDS and /TTiBZJ rest only
upon the analogy of the two styles of spelling iTODD.
6. The transliteration Massorah or Masorah owes its right to further
existence only through its having been long naturalised in scientific
literature. 2
W. Backer.
1 It is to be observed that halachic tradition is never indicated by this
expression. See the examples in Levy, iii. 178 seq.
2 So also one may continue to write " Agadah " as the transcription
based upon long and general usage for mJX=mJi1 (Haggadah, Aggadah)
just as foreign proper names are retained in the transliteration in which
they have become usual, although they be not scientifically correct. Zunz,
in his great work on the history of the A-ggadah [Die Gottexdienslichcn
Vortrage) writes Hagada (with one g), and similarly in his later works
which is even less correct than Agada, as one may suppose a root UN for
(TUN, and may punctuate the word TTTSfc?,
