Skip to main content

Full text of "Dr. Ginsburg's Edition of the Hebrew Bible"

See other formats


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 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
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 




Dr. Christian D. Ginsburg has, for the last thirty- 
years, devoted all his indefatigable energies to the study 
of the Massora and the Hebrew text of the Bible. After 
a critical study of Rabbi Jacob ben Chajim's Introduction 
to his Eabbinical Bible, and Elias Levita's Massora 1 , he 
proceeded to the collection and explanation of all the 
available Massoretic material 2 . Dr. Ginsburg has now 
produced as the ripe fruit of all his labours a critical 
Massoretic edition of Holy Writ 3 , the scope and plan of 

1 Jacob ben Chajim Ibn Adonijah's Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, 
Hebrew and English ; with Explanatory Notes, second edition, 1867. The 
Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita, being an exposition of the Massoretic 
Notes on the Hebrew Bible, or the Ancient Critical Apparatus of the Old 
Testament. In Hebrew, with an English Translation and Critical and 
Explanatory Notes, 1867. 

2 The Massora. Compiled from MSS., alphabetically and lexically 
arranged. 4 vols., imperial folio, 1880-1897 (vol. TV in the press). In 
the " Massoretic Studies" which I contributed to this Review, 1896 and 
1897, I discussed, as occasion served, several points of this work. I reserve 
a full discussion till after the appearance of the fourth volume. The 
criticism is still called for, notwithstanding Baer's Notice (Zeitschrift cler 
Deutschen Morgenlandischen GeseUschqft, XL, pp. 743-758). Baer does not even 
mention the main defect : — the omission of the sources of these Massoretic 
Notes. He furthermore censures Ginsburg's scrupulous fidelity to his text, 
the mistakes and contradictions of which are left uncorrected. This, 
in my opinion, is rather a merit, for the Massora can only be studied with 
success if the sources are edited in their original form. Critical science 
has no hankering for a Massoretic code, from which textual criticism 
would derive little profit, as the material for study would not be the 
original Massora, but its revision. 

3 downi dtiidt 'D Vi miDnn H3 is ■scm d'P'itd vrpn nco rcnai cicy 
jtokt pto .masmi in n«o ww vavmrn D'pw t vro jo mnam d'diw or 
EW7 nan— rrw w pVr note — rnwm, London, 1894. The non-Massoretic 


which he has described in a voluminous work of 1028 pages, 
which appeared in London in 1897, under the title of 
Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the 
Hebrew Bible. As all questions relating to the new edition 
are exhaustively discussed in this Introduction, and even 
more material is submitted than is necessary in a preface, 
an analysis of this Introduction is naturally at the same 
time an appreciation of the entire edition. I do not wish 
this study to be regarded as a notice of the new edition of 
the Hebrew Bible. I confess that I have not yet specially 
studied this work, which on its first appearance did not, 
whether justly or otherwise, attract particular attention, 
and for the adequate examination of which there has indeed 
not yet been enough time. A satisfactory appreciation of 
the work, whose importance, from whichever side we 
regard it, is undeniable, can only be possible after close 
and protracted study ; and the final verdict of Biblical 
science on the new notes to the old Text should not be 
hurried. Dr. Ginsburg tells us that he has followed 
Jacob ben Chajim's Text. In his Introduction he expresses 
with commendable clearness and brevity the differences 
between his and other editions as follows : — 

"The Text 

1. The Text itself is based upon that of the first edition 
of Jacob ben Chajim's Massoretic Recension, printed by 
Bomberg, at Venice, in the year 1524-1525. Existing 
Hebrew Bibles, which profess to follow Jacob ben Chajim's 
Text, have admitted in the course of years many unwarranted 
variations from it and many errors. 

2. No variations, however strongly supported by Hebrew 
MSS. and Ancient Versions, are introduced in the Text 
itself, which has been compiled strictly in accordance with 
the Massora collected from the MSS. 

title of the edition I will discuss in the Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und 
Wissensch. d. Judenthums. 


3. All variations are relegated entirely to the margin. 

4. While the modern divisions of chapters and verses are 
noted for the sake of convenience, the Text is arranged 
according to the ancient chapters and sectional divisions 
of the Massora and the MSS., which are thus restored. 

5. It uniformly reproduces the Dageshed and Raphed 
letters, which are found in all the best Massoretic MSS., 
but which have been omitted in all the current printed 
editions of the Hebrew Bible. 

6. The ancient Massoretic chapters, called Sedarim, are 
also indicated throughout in the margin against their 
respective places. 

The Margin. 

7. Kethiv remains unpointed in the Text, but in the 
margin the words are punctuated twice according to the 
Kethib and according to the Keri, so that the differences 
cannot escape notice. (I have shortened this paragraph.) 

8. The margin contains the various readings of the 
different standard codices which are quoted in the Massora 
itself, but which have long since perished. 

9. It gives the various readings found in the MSS. and 
Ancient Versions. 

10. It gives the readings of the Eastern and Western 
Schools against those words which are affected by them, 
lists of which are preserved, and given in the Model Codices 
and in certain special MSS. 

11. It also gives against the affected words the variations 
between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali, hitherto not indi- 
cated in the margin. These had been consigned to the end 
of the large editions of the Bible which contain the 
Massora of Jacob ben Chajim. 

ia. It gives, in some instances, readings of the Ancient 
Versions which are not supported by MS. authority. 

1 3. It gives, for the first time, the class of various readings 
called Sevirin against every word affected by them. These 
Sevirin in many MSS. are given as the substantive textual 


reading, or as of equal importance with the official Keri. 
These readings have been collected from numerous MSS." 

Dr. Ginsburg followed the text of Jacob ben Chajim in 
his notes, which in reality form the kernel of his work. 
He works independently of other editors of the sacred text, 
relying upon a considerable number of early MSS. and edi- 
tions which were printed when the Press was in its infancy. 
Using only those sixty Bible codices and twenty -four 
editions described by him, he was equipped with a better 
critical apparatus than his predecessors, Jacob ben Chajim, 
Elias Levita in his Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, Menachem di 
Lonzano in Or Tdrah, Salomo of Norzi in Minchath Shai. 
The last two seem, by the way, to have been quite neglected 
by Dr. Ginsburg. Only with the views of Baer, his old 
and now deceased rival, does he in the notes to his Bible 
and in his Introduction tacitly and explicitly endeavour 
to harmonize his conclusions. This is, however, only the 
case with the notes to the last two parts of the edition, 
but not in the Pentateuch ; and hence a revision of the 
notes on the five Books of Moses is promised, in order to 
give the entire work uniformity and consistency. One 
must, perforce, be content with this procedure, as well as 
with the whole plan of the work sketched by the editor 
down to the Variae Lectiones of the Ancient Versions. 

Many will disagree with our author in the points to 
be mentioned. Not even those who in principle are agreed 
with Dr. Ginsburg on his use, for purposes of textual 
criticisms, of the ancient translation, but would feel some 
scruples about such thoroughgoing recourse to them, 
bearing in mind the present state of the Septuagint, 
Peschitta, and Targums. 

The absence of a critical edition of these versions, and 
the obscurity in which the method followed by translators 
is still wrapped, can hardly justify the deduction of varia- 
tions in the original text from variations in the translation. 
Isolated instances do not justify the assumption of a different 
text, till the character of the translation of a Biblical text 


has been determined by careful induction, according to the 
methods adopted by Wellhausen and Driver in their study 
of the LXX on the Book of Samuel, and by Baumgartner 
in his Etudes critiques sur Ve'tat du texte du Livre des 
Proverbes, which comprise a study of the LXX and Targum 
on that book. Besides, Dr. Ginsburg does not proceed 
systematically. He himself states (p. ]8o) that he had 
not yet finished the re-translation of the Greek Bible into 

The editor also adopts conjectural variations suggested 
by the textual critics ; and on the strength of these two 
.methods this edition of the Hebrew Bible is characterized 
as a critical as well as a Massoretic text. 

I am, however, of the opinion that Dr. Ginsburg has 
here attempted the solution of two problems, each of which, 
by itself, is justified, while both are mutually exclusive 
and cannot therefore be solved simultaneously. 

A Massoretic edition of the Bible can only give the 
Massoretic, i. e. the traditional, text, while a critical edition 
aims at the restoration of the original and its substitution 
for the traditional text. The Massora is the lower criticism, 
conjectural emendation belongs to the higher criticism. 
Even, however, if we discarded the points of opposition 
between these two tendencies we cannot approve of 
Dr. Ginsburg's procedure, because his " conj ectural " criticism 
is extremely defective, one might even say accidental and 
arbitrary. Besides, the interpolation of these suggested 
" emendations " disturbs the survey of an integral tradition. 

It would therefore have enhanced the value of this new 
edition if its editor had confined himself to the presentation 
of the Massoretic text, leaving other criticisms to Haupfs 
Rainbow Bible and similar works, like Gratz's Emenda- 
tiones in plerosque Sacrae Scripturae V. T. Libros, See. 

Before going into details I will add one more remark 
of a general nature. Neither the Hebrew Bible nor the 
Introduction is intended for the beginner. 

One might fairly expect that all the scientific work 


already accomplished in this field should have been utilized. 
This has not been done, though the Introduction runs to 
1028 pages. Dr. Ginsburg's Introduction, which deals only 
with a fragment of Biblical Isagogics, viz. the History of 
the Text, omitting the Ancient Versions, surpasses in 
compass all modern introductions, but is behind them in 
its scanty incorporation of Modern Literature. The whole 
work is characterized by an amplitude which occasionally 
becomes wearisome. 


The Introduction falls into two parts. The first part 
discusses in eight chapters the external form of the Biblical 
Text (pp. 1 -1 13), the second, in thirteen chapters (pp. 114- 
976), deals with the text itself. 

The last two chapters, which contain a history of MSS. 
till the year 1513, and of ancient printed editions till the 
year 1528, may be regarded as an independent third part. 
This is followed by interesting appendices, detailed indices, 
and tables (pp. 977-1028). The history of the external 
division of the text is rightly treated in line of descent 
and not in chronological order, which would have rendered 
review more difficult and could not have been fixed with 

In the first chapter (pp. 1-8) the order of the several 
books is discussed. The oldest account is contained in the 
famous Boraitha T. B. Baba Bathra, 14 b, which, however, 
omits the Pentateuch. The second citation from the 
Boraitha, which names the authors of the Biblical books, 
beginning with Moses the writer of the Thora, shows, 
however, that the Boraithas must have Originally also 
contained the order of the five Books of Moses, though 
this is omitted in extant editions. This has already been 
noticed by Krochmal, Kerem Chemed, V, 57. 

Dr. Ginsburg is therefore incorrect when he says (p. 1) of 
this Boraitha : " Passing over the Pentateuch, about which 
there never has been any doubt." The five Megilloth which, 


like the Pentateuch, are used in the Liturgy are on this 
account in MSS., as they are also in the most ancient 
printed editions (and even in Norzi), often incorporated 
with the Pentateuch. The order in these MSS. and editions 
is the same as that in which they are read at the festivals. 
Dr. Ginsburg, without even mentioning this notorious fact, 
arranges in tabular form four different orders of the five 
scrolls. It is obvious that I and V, which are identical, 
are arranged according to the ritual ; III is chronological ; 
II follows the ritual but begins with Purim ; IV is chrono- 
logical, but Koheleth is placed after instead of before 

In reality, therefore, there are only two classifications, 
the ancient, according to chronology, and the modern, which 
follows the liturgy and is given in the appendix to the 
Pentateuch. The order of the early prophets exhibits no 
deviations. The later prophets, however, are found in 
three different classifications (p. 6). 

The largest number of variations are found in the order 
of the Hagiographa. A table on page 7 gives no less than 
eight different arrangements. Careful examination, how- 
ever, will reduce these to three. The differences between 
I, II, III, VII, VIII, are very slight : these can, therefore, 
be considered as practically identical ; IV and V are also 
similar ; VI is unique. Dr. Ginsburg is therefore right in 
accepting the traditional order, which is supported by most 
of the MSS. 

In chapters ii-v Dr. Ginsburg treats of the open and 
closed Parshioth, the division into chapters which we owe 
to the Vulgate, the Sedras of the Palestinian triennial 
cycles, and the Parshioth of the Babylonian annual cycle 
(pp. 9-67). 

As I intend shortly to publish an essay on this subject, 
to which I have devoted some considerable time, I will not 
on this occasion enter into detailed criticisms. The wealth 
of material which Dr. Ginsburg gathered from MSS. is most 
clearly set forth, and Baer, who had occupied himself with 


this branch of the Massora for several decades \ is corrected 
in several particulars. 

I do not understand why Dr. Ginsburg treats of the 
division into chapters before the much earlier divisions 
into Sedras. 

Limited space prevents discussion of the three following 
chapters on the verse-division, number of words and letters 
(pp. 68-113). 

My " Massoretic Studies," which appeared in this Review 
(1896-1897), deal with these topics; and an essay which 
will appear in this Review will discuss Dr. Ginsburg's 

We now proceed to the second part of the work under 


In the chapter " Dagesh and Raphe" (pp. 1 14-136) the rule 
about the placing of the Raphe line over n B a 1 J 3 and other 
quiescent letters poS^, " flSi "nB) is first clearly and decisively 
established. Dr. Ginsburg convincingly disproves Baer- 
Delitzsch's dictum that a Dagesh should be used : — 

1 . In every word beginning with the same consonant as 
that with which the previous word terminated, On? P3JO 
(Gen. xxxi. 54), ^ baa (Ps. ix. 2), &c. 

3. In every consonant after a guttural with quiescent 
sheva, e. g. rnsyi (Gen. x. 7), nfnp (Ps. xlvi. a). 

" Hence Delitzsch's statement that the Dagesh in a con- 
sonant after a guttural with Sheva is to be found in all 
the best MSS. is based upon wrong data, for which, as 
the article in question shows, Dr. Baer is responsible. 

" To introduce, therefore, this eccentric Dagesh through- 
out the Hebrew Bible, as has been done by Dr. Baer, is a 
most unjustifiable innovation. The only thing which can 
legitimately be done with the evidence of the MSS. and early 

1 Baer wrote already in the year 1851 : Our first aim in our work on 
the Massora was to arrange, elucidate and, where necessary, annotate the 
scattered statements concerning the number of Letters, Words, Verses, 
Chapters, &c. (Orient, XII, soi). 


editions before us, is to mention the fact that some mediaeval 
purists have inserted it in several places" (p. 135). 

3. In 3 at the beginning of a word when it has Sheva 
and is followed by D, even though the previous word ends 
in one of the quiescent letters (Vnn), e.g. vp»3 '•S (Gen. 
xxxii. 11). To this rule too Dr. Ginsburg offers objections. 
A very interesting and important chapter is the next, on 
the old Hebrew Orthography (pp. 137-157). It is universally 
recognized that the Semitic languages generally, and there- 
fore also Hebrew, were devoid of Matres Lectionis. 

These are supposed to have gradually found their way 
into the Biblical text (Chwolson, Die Quiescentes , inN in 
der althebrdischen Orthographie, 2nd volume of the Third 
International Congress, pp. 459, 474, 478). According to 
Lagarde (Notes on the Greek Version of the Proverbs, p. 7 ; 
Mittheilungen, I, 21) the Alexandrian Version is supposed 
to have been rendered from a text without Matres Lectionis. 

Chajjug, the father of Hebrew grammar, is already sup- 
posed to have shared this view, as has been inferred from 
his remark that the copyist was in his time (about tooo c. E.) 
permitted to write any word of the Bible plene or defective 
(p. 137) according to his fancy; this monstrous assertion, 
which Bardowicz circulated, will be discussed elsewhere. 
We will here only mention the illustrations cited to show 
the development of Hebrew orthography in ancient times. 
For the omission of the N thirteen examples are quoted : 
'mo (Num. xi. 11); tnni (a Sam. xx. 9), &c. On account 
of the absent Mater Lectionis, the Massoretes have some- 
times made a mistake in the vocalization, which can be 
restored from the LXX or Peschitta. (1) 2 Kings vii. 17, 
itam, according to the Massora ijWn — tjWii = i)$!»Bni : ; 
conversely 2 Sam. xi. 1, where Massora D^N^Dn should be 
corrected into Otebm . (2) Ps. xxxiii. 7 133 ("133 erroneously 
according to Exod. xv. 8) = "133 = "ttos , cf. Ps. cxix. 83. 
(3) Prov. iii. 8 jvh (ifi>$) = l^b = rk? 1 ? " <*> thy flesh." 
These emendations are reasonable and attractive, but not 
that of Gen. iv. 15 pi> (p^>) = p(K)^, according to LXX ; this, 



however, is not Biblical Hebrew, for on this supposition 
there ought to be n\"i\ In postbiblical Hebrew »3 p tib very 
frequently occurs, and the Greek translator may have been 
misled by his taste for new Hebrew, which also undoubtedly 
often influenced Palestinian teachers. Then, by way of 
contrast, two examples are given in which, according to 
the Massora, N should be eliminated, Exod. v. 7 fffipNn 
and 2 Sam. xi. 24 CN^iton an 5 !. But the Massora did not 
recognize that Ps. lxxv. 6 pfiJ? 1N1S3 = pny "flJfa, though 
" neck " does not make sense. 

Like X, v was also sometimes eliminated, e.g. ?a = ?#a, 
'a = 'ya (according to the Aramaic ?) ; Amos vii. 8 should 
read nyptwi (instead of nptwi) ; Ps. xxviii. 8 Swb (instead of tob, 
cp. Ps. xxix. 11 and the Versions); Mic. i. 10 I3j?a (instead 
of 133) ; Hos. vii. 6 |B*£ and DHDN (instead of DHDK, ;b»). 

Seven examples are given where t? and y have been 
interchanged. An attempt is finally made to prove by the 
Massora that n was not originally a Mater Lectionis. 
Examples are Gen. xxix. 34 Nip (Massoretic text N")p T ) = 
[n]ing ; ib., xlvi. 22 n^ (i^) = [n]"ij>j, &c. 

Dr. Ginsburg could on this point have referred to a small 
work of Mayer Lambert 1 , who proves that those words 
ending in n where the Massora reads u show traces of an 
obsolete form of the 3rd pers. plural feminine preterite, 
e. g. Deut. xxi. 7 nastr is really fiasE*. as in the Aramaic 
npttp ; 1 also was not originally used as Mater Lectionis, and 
the Massora gives a list of those words where in our Text 
a waw, which might have been expected, is missing. The 
absence of a 1 explains the difference in the two forms of 
the same text : 

Ps. xiv. 7 *?*W nine* and liii. 7 IB* rriy&»} . 

2 Sam. xxii. 26 D'cn "rial and Ps. xviii. 26 D'on laa ; in 
Samuel read "133 with 1 inserted, whilst in Ps. "03 was read. 
Typical examples are given of the omission of the waw at 
the end of the word, e.g. Gen. xxxv. 26 1?' ; Ex. xviii. 16 N3 ; 

1 Vne Serie de Quire Ketib, elude grammaticale, Paris, 1891. 


Num. xxxiii. 7 3B»1 ; Deut. xxxii. 38 TV ; in all of which 
passages the forms should be plural with a waw at the end. 
Further it is emphasized that originally the suffix denot- 
ing the 3rd pers. sing, was n and not 1. Seven pages 
discuss the 1 as Mater Lectionis (pp. 150-157). It is pointed 
out that the plural originally ended in D", and not in D ,_ , and 
the Hiphil was written without the \ The Massora has 
not always recognized this and so made difficulties. The 
plural form of nouns was also originally written without 
a , ; hence the differences between 2 Sam. v. 6 p*tn 2&\'< and 
1 Chron. xi. 4 , aB i% (p. 154) ; 2 Kings xxv. 24 ^JH? and 
Jer. xl. 9 injlD. These instances seem to have been wrongly 
chosen, because they simply exemplify the transposition of 
letters and the mutation of 1 and \ Cf. Ex. xi. 6 vie?, 
Sevirin nto ; xxxvii. 8, Kethib imwp, Keri VfrtVp, where the 
» has been placed in Kethib before n and changed into 1. 
Examples of this kind are formed in the Keris. Also njnB* 
already mentioned (Ps. xiv. 7) and rriJJV<^ (Ps. liii. 7) can be 
explained in the same way. On page 156, n. 2, in reference 
to the burial of worn-out copies of the Torah in a scholar's 
grave, the author should have quoted not Maimonides but 
the original source, T. B. Megilla, 26 b. 

There is no doubt whatever that the Biblical text in 
its most ancient form had the scriptio continua. In the 
division of words, mistakes may, here and there, have 
been made, of which there are traces in the Massoretic text, 
cp. 1 Kings xx. 33, &c. And, in this regard, there are 
some differences between the Alexandrian, Syriac, and 
Aramaic versions and the Massoretic text. Fifteen striking 
examples unfavourable to the Massoretic text are exhibited 
on p. 159 in a tabular form. 

Criticism may justifiably avail itself of this expedient 
for clearing up difficult passages, even when the new division 
of words is unsupported by the ancient Versions. Very 
plausible are the following: Gen. xlix. 19, 20, Massoretic 
text we ', 3j?y, divided thus iBfc : Mj$ ; 1 Kings xix. 20, 
M. T. "ton d!?ko, divide "tono ^gfa (p. 160). I add one 

Q 2 


originating from S. D. Luzzato : Isaiah ix. 26, where bj> 'SKI 
DJTpari makes no sense, DD^an is &Tra£ \ey6fxevov ; he divides 
tin) 73P) ?y 'BKl, which removes the difficulties. 

The variations in word-divisions which are supported by 
ancient authorities are denoted in the Hebrew Bible with 
i»"s = TYCrb ")n* (better Hebrew Tib yi)t), the others 
i>"j = b rwr\3 (pp. 158-162). 

The question as to the age of the final letters is dismissed 
in two pages (pp. 1 63-1 64). Two tables are given which show 
that the Massoretic text had final letters in the middle of 
words, and, conversely, ordinary letters at the end of words ; 
further that LXX divides words against the authority of 
the final letters in the Massoretic text. I refer the reader 
to pp. ico-106 of my work Zur Einleitung in die 
Heilige Schrift, 1894, where I have shown that, till the 
end of the first century, the double letters were often 
used promiscuously, and that the Talmud calls them 12X30 
and not J*S3D3 in order to emphasize their value as finals. 

Originally iav:o did not mean 1?* JO = « f rom thy 
prophets," but *|BD JO = " the final letters," x being pro- 
nounced like D. 

Pages 165-170 deal with abbreviations. Valuable is the 
statement concerning MSS. " The vacant space is generally 
filled out with dots or in unfinished letters." 

Some MSS. place at the end of the line several letters of 
the following word, which is then rewritten in full on the 
next line. Others place the letters for which there is no 
room on the line, above the line or at right angles to it 
instead of on the line in the margin (e.g. Lev. xv. 31 

Ten typical examples are next given which are either 
supported by the ancient Versions or are purely conjectural. 
These are also marked *?""£ and i>"j respectively. The 
emendation of Exod. viii. 3 "iok into TONl/on]' is not an 
improvement, for the context demands a different sequence 
of words: mn* i:bx ion -wpns and not 6n 'n 'rr icno. 
Whether there were nian ^nt in the Bible has been 


discussed by F. Perles in his Analekten zur Textkritik 
des alten Testaments, Munich, 1895, an essay rich in 
brilliant ideas, to which I have made some additions in the 
Revue des Mudes Juives (pp. 154-157). An old source of 
copyists' mistakes is the homoiotelewton, from which the 
Bible text has also suffered considerably (pp. 171-182). After 
giving eight examples from the Codices, the author con- 
tinues: "These examples might be multiplied almost 
indefinitely. If the omissions in the Hebrew Text due to 
this cause occur not only in the very first or oldest MS., 
but continue in the succeeding MSS. produced in different 
centuries and various countries, and also appeal* in the very 
latest Codex copied by the human hand, it is perfectly 
certain that the same source of error was in operation by 
the production of MSS. prior to those which we now possess. 
In the absence of these MSS., however, the only course left 
to us is carefully to examine the ancient Versions, which 
were made from a Hebrew recension older by more than 
a millennium than the oldest MSS. of the present Massoretic 
text " (p. 1 73). This position is proved by twelve examples 
taken from the LXX (Joshua six, Judges two, Samuel three, 
Kings one). 1 Kings viii. 16 is to be completed according to 
LXX and 2 Chron. vi. 6. The parallels from Chronicles often 
diminish, however (p. 174), the value of the LXX as a guide ; 
for, like the Peschitta, the LXX often directly borrows its 
supplements from the parallel passages. Five examples 
(Joshua two, Judges one, Samuel two) are given of the 
converse, where the homoioteleuton has caused omissions 
in the LXX K 

Dr. Ginsburg believes (p. 178) in the genuineness of two 
verses, Josh. xxi. $6, 37, notwithstanding the statement in 
those codices which accept these verses, that the Book of 

1 Correct p. 176: DTDtfn -who in tfrr. jTjyi (t with dagesh) ; to* 
(q dagesh) ; rnann (n dagesh) ; ias:i in van ; nper\ (p dagesh) ; racran 
(d dagesh) ; p. 177 : to? (o dagesh) ; "ix»rj (2 without dagesh) ; lasnpin 
read iar ; rronteri (b without dagesh) ; top of p. 17a, instead of Jeremiah 
xxxi. 30 read 29 or 28 ; p. 176, instead of Joshua xxiv. 6 read xxiv. 4. 


Joshua consists of 656 verses, and the middle of the Book 
is chapter xiii. 26 (and not 25 as p. 88 says), contradicts 
this assumption, as has already been pointed out by Nozzi. 
Dr. Ginsburg thinks that the computation of the number 
of the verses as 656 is to be attributed to another Massoretic 
School. Where, however, is the number 658 given? 
Dropped-out words which Dr. Ginsburg restores from the 
LXX are marked in his Notes to the Hebrew Bible with 
the abbreviation j?n"3. 

The chapter on Keri and Kethib (pp. 183-186) is rather 
meagre. It is mentioned that these have come down to us 
in three forms — written on the border of the MSS., in 
separate lists, and in various collections compiled from 
various standpoints in the Massoretic works. The editor 
also states that the Codices vary materially, so that all the 
Kethib Keris could only be ascertained by examining all 
MSS. Dr. Ginsburg has noted all those he has used, which 
is more than most editions have done. 

Concerning the origin of the division into separate books, 
&c, which Elias Levita already discussed in the third 
preface to the Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, there is hardly 
any information. There is some plausibility in the theory 
that in the doubtful cases the consonants of the Text were 
left unpunctuated, and in the notes the punctuation was 
first given according to the Kethib and then according to 
the Keri (more correctly TIP like n?? part. pass. Peal, just 
like STD). Dr. Ginsburg only adopts this course wherever 
the Keri and the Kethib differ; otherwise the word is 
punctuated in the text, e. g. N7I j Sam. ii. 3, to which the 
note is added "y Sb); ii. 14^3, note »T i^ 2 ; Gen. xlix. 11 
riTy, note 'HP Vvy. Where therefoi'e Keri only corrects the 
orthography, the vowels are given in the text — so I think 
Dr. Ginsburg's procedure is to be interpreted. The following 
instances are, however, incomprehensible to me. 1 Sam. i. 1 7, 
the text reads yrfy?, note np ^nbsf . If the difference here 
between Kethib and Keri is not merely in the orthography 
but also in the reading, why does Dr. Ginsburg, against his 


own principles, punctuate the word in the text? In 
1 Chron. xii. 39 the text gives JTnc? and a note 3TD rvnB> 
np nnNE\ 

What is the distinction between "jr6t? and Jinc? that led the 
editor to punctuate the former word in the text, while he 
left the latter without vowels ? Why does he supply 
Job vi. 2 Ti*ni with vowels in the text, and add the note 
np Wil, while Isa. iii. a 6 mitDJ has no vowels in the text, 
and, in the note, it is stated ,- ip WB3 3TD niici, the difference 
in both cases being between 1 and , ? Job xxxi. 1 1 jom lacks 
the circulus rnasoreticus and ib. xxxviii. 41 3TO nb" 1 is a 
printer's error. On Job xxxix. 26 there is a note IMS 1N toj3 
3Ti3. Where does the author rind the justification for the 
form 1B33 since Chaggai ii. 1 2 reads iS3D3 ; Ezek. xvi. 8 
'BJ3, and Ruth iii. 9 ^233 *? Not surely from Baer's note of 
interrogation on teJ3 ibid., in his edition, p. 70. 

Connected with the Keris are the Sevirin (pp. 187-196) 
which "in many instances preserve the primitive textual 
readings" (p. 193). We accept this view which Geiger 
strongly championed. 

The Sevirin (= P^d), one might think, would have 
preserved the original reading, Gen. xlix. i3 "li? instead of 
|jy. This is supported by MSS., the Samaritan Text, 
Onkelos, LXX, the Syriac, and the Vulgate ; Exod. vi. 27 
orvto pan (instead of D^vee) ; ib. xxv. 39 and xxvi. 31 
n2>j)Pi (instead of nfc>$j:) ; Num. xxxiii. 8 nrvnn *a» (instead of 
nwnrt ^ao), &c. The Sevirin, which represent a luminous 
textual criticism, were gradually suppressed and quite 
ignored. Jacob ben Chajim only knew 200 PUD, which 
Frensdorff in Masora Magna, I, 369-373, collected without 
increasing their number. Dr. Ginsburg, on the other hand, 
has noted about 350 — quite a respectable increase. These 
may be further supplemented from the pJHDC, as they were 
hostilely styled, and also from the Codices. 

Several piUD are given in Biblical MSS. as np and vice 
versa. Dr. Ginsburg therefore says, " It will thus be seen 
that the identical variant which is called Keri by one 


School of Massoretes is called Sevir by another School" 
(p. 188). Perhaps after all we have only before us the 
same notices under various names. 

In any case Dr. Ginsburg deserves thanks for securing a 
just appreciation of the Sevirin and noting them in locis. 
Baer only added them at the end. Hahn's Bible (reprinted 
Leipzig, 1893) has only two Sevirin on its margin which 
have also been copied in Letteris' edition, published by the 
English Bible Society. 

Very instructive is the collection and discussion of the 
differences between the Maarbai (Western Palestinian) and 
Madincha (Eastern Babylonian) readings. Dr. Ginsburg has 
here (pp. 197-240) not only placed at our disposal an 
increased mass of material gathered from the original 
MSS., but has also, as far as I can judge, most critically 
sifted this material and improved several notes in his 
editions of the text. 

Our editions follow, as is known, the Palestine Recension. 
Judaism recognized the Palestinian authority for Scripture 
and the Babylonian Talmud for that of Oral law. 

There follows an account of the differences between 
Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali (pp. 241-286). Dr. Ginsburg 
opposes the view which has prevailed since Levitas, that 
the extant Biblical text represents Ben Asher's Recension 
and that of the " Westerns," for it also contains readings 
of Ben-Naphtali. Thus, too, MSS. should not be classified 
on their accidentally exhibiting readings of Ben Asher or 
Ben Naphtali 1 (p. 247). 

Dr. Ginsburg gives a most minutely detailed account of 
the variations between these two schools. (1) lace* (pp. 
250-2.54). (2) Certain forms of the root ?3N (pp. 255-263). 
The discussion of all passages and reference to MSS. and 
ancient printed editions proves that in the large majority 
of cases Ben Naphtali's reading is accepted (p. 263). 
(3) Forms of EHJ (pp. 264-266) ; (4) the Dagesh in DTD (pp. 

1 Maimonides already made the remark: l.-wip to pnic wish pi 
^nm p rwnp to poiD mm tmni rhttn nisixn toa [ton p Vc]. 


264-265) ; (5) about words with 3 and b followed by a » 
(pp. 265-268), e.g. b$# ?3 or bynipz, &c; (6) the use or 
omission of the Dagesh in ns3"TJ3 in different cases. 

Next are given carefully prepared tables of the differences 
between the two schools and a synoptical list of the 
paragraphs of the Dikduke Hateamim. Nine items sum 
up the results of Dr. Ginsburg's comparison of the MSS. 
(pp. 285, 286). He condemns Baer-Strack's edition as not 
corresponding with the traditions embodied in the MSS. 
Dr. Ginsburg gives here, as in other passages of his Introduc- 
tion, the sources of several traditions which he has copied 
in his Massora. I will now devote a separate section to 
"The Massora, its rise and development," which takes up 
five chapters, the fifth chapter consisting of thirteen sub- 

Through a printer's error, the section dealing with the 
Massora discusses matter which had already been dealt 
with. Compare sub-chapter 2, " The division of consonants 
into words," with chapter iii, " The division of words " ; 
sub-chapter 3, " The introduction of the final letters," with 
chapter iv, " The double and final letters " ; sub-chapter 7, 
" The introduction of the Matres Lectionis," with chapter ii, 
"The orthography." I also cannot understand why chapter 
vii, " The Keri and Kethib " ; chapter viii, " The readings 
called Sevirin " ; chapter ix, " The Western and Eastern 
Recensions " ; chapter x, " The differences between Ben 
Asher and Ben Naphtali," do not belong to the Massora, 
as their discussion antecedently to the treatment of the 
Massora would lead us to infer that the consolidated treat- 
ment of these heads would have saved space and been more 
convenient to the reader. 

First of all the introduction of the square characters is 
discussed (pp. 277-296). As I have treated these points 
most minutely in my Zur Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift 
(pp. 48-80), a work which appeared in 1894, but has not 


been noticed by Dr. Ginsburg, nor even mentioned in his 
Index of Literature, p. 295, n. 1, I refer the reader to 
that essay and confine myself to several corrections. 

Inaccurate is the statement (p. 28) that R. Jehuda I, the 
Patriarch, flourished 140-163 c. E., and that a Halachic 
Collection by R. Nathan is known under the title : Mishna 
or Tosephta di R. Nathan. Dr. Ginsburg probably thinks 
of Aboth d. R. Nathan. The Patriarch Jehuda I died 
certainly not earlier than 189 c. E. and in the year 140 had 
not yet become patriarch. Mar Ukba was a Babylonian 
and not a Palestinian as the reader is led to believe (p. 288, 
1. 4). The Ancient Hebrew Text was probably called }>jn 
and not f$n. The uncertainty of the latter reading pin 
should at least have been noted. 

Dr. Ginsburg does not quote all the data of the Jewish 
tradition bearing on the subject, nor does he exhibit any 
systematic demonstration of his statement that the ancient 
Hebrew text was still extant in the second century. Never- 
theless he comes (p. 290) to the same conclusion at which 
I arrived. 

As the Ancient Hebrew characters had been so long in 
use, it was natural that, in its gradual transformation into 
the square writing, several mistakes should have crept in. 
Dr. Ginsburg points out (pp. 291-96) several instances where, 
in our text, N and n, n and "i, 2 and E are interchanged, these 
letters having a marked similarity of form in the Phoenician 
writing. Generally known is Luzzato's conjecture that 
Isa. ii. 15 should read inn D¥$D and not 'i D^JD. After 
discussing the introduction of the separation of words and the 
differences in this regard (pp. 296, 297), the question of the 
introduction of final letters is again discussed (pp. 297-299). 
Here, too, I may refer the reader to my Zur Einleiturtg, 
pp. 100-105, with the results of which Dr. Ginsburg partly 
agrees. The citation p. 289, n. 1 pw ~i ^ODC? '1 DC2 should be 
corrected pnr "O bsiDC 'n DBa. The translation : "R. Jeremiah 
said in the name of R. Samuel who said it in the name of 
R. Isaac," should therefore be altered into : " the son of 


Isaac," for pnv at in T. P. Megilla 7 1 d 35 is a printer's 
error for prw "Q. The introduction of the Matres Lectionis is 
again briefly discussed, and the more than courageous view 
is propounded that this formed one of the points of 
disputation between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Then 
follows a fifth sub-chapter : " The Consonant of the Hebrew 
Text and the Septuagint " (pp. 300-468). This collects and 
discusses in thirteen sections the Massoretic data in the 
Talmud and Midrash. 

The LXX is dealt with less fully. Only one passage 
is translated from Aristeas' letter and one from the Talmud. 

The varying attitude of the Jews to the Greek Version 
and the Greek language has been treated by Joel in his 
Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte, I, 1-42, to which the 
reader may be referred. An appendix on the deviations of 
the LXX from the Hebrew texts noted in the Talmud, 
promised on p. 302, n. i, is not given. The word ?33 is 
missing on page 303, line 9. 

Dr. Ginsburg shows that the development of the schools 
had, as its chief result, the fixing of the Hebrew text of 
the Bible, and that this was originally directed against the 
Samaritan and Greek versions. Although several essays 
have been written on the History of the Jewish school system, 
Dr. Ginsburg's short account contains several mistakes. 
He says (p. 304, towards the end), "Simon b. Shetach 
(80 b. c.) introduced upper schools or academies in every 
large provincial town, and ordained that all young men from 
the age of sixteen were to visit them " (cp. T. Jer. Kethuboth, 
VIII, 11). The reference given says nothing of the kind, 
but only that Simon b. Shetach introduced three institutions, 
of which one was iSDD n^b phn mpwin WB> "that the 
children should attend elementary schools." There is no 
mention of upper schools or " academy." And how could 
an order that every one over sixteen should attend an 
Academy be practically enforced ? This would be equivalent 
to compelling every young man in modern times to attend 
a University. 


The locus classkus is T. B. Baba Bathra, 21 a, where the 
introduction of Elementary Schools, but not of Higher 
Schools, is credited to Josephus' contemporary Josuah b. 
Gamala, who, at the same time, adopted a regulation that 
children should be taken to school at the early age of six and 
seven and not when sixteen years old as had hitherto been the 
case, because these grown-up youths proved often intractable. 
Simon b. Shetach is mentioned in T. B. Kidduschin, 66 a, 
as having restored learning to the country after the massacre 
of the Sages by Jannai. I must also correct the quotation 
on p. 305, n. 2, where instead of Pesachim, 12 a, it should 
read 112 a. Further, the citations on p. 305, note 4, are 
not relevant to the text. After the discussion of DnaiD tnpD 
and D^iBID "IIDJJ, which I submit is not full enough to satisfy 
the standard set up by Geiger, Dr. Ginsburg discusses, on 
pp. 309-316, the Lecta sed non scripta, and on pp. 317-319 
the Scripta sed non lecta. 

In reference to 2 Sam. viii. 3 Dr. Ginsburg copies without 
acknowledgment the view first enunciated by me in my 
Masoretische Untersuchungen, p. 52. The original text of 
2 Sam. xviii. 20 was, I suggested, the Kethib. The word p 
crept in and was corrected by a note p tib) 3*03 p. This 
note was misunderstood and was taken to mean that the p 
which was not written was to be the reading. 

Acceptable is the suggestion (p. 310) that Jer. xxxi. 37 
(not 38) should be DN3 (= CN?), a dittography of DNJ. 
On the puncta extraordinaria (pp. 3 1 8-334) Dr. Ginsburg 
has fully accepted the views which I have expressed in my 
Masoretische Untersuchungen. A lengthy notice of these 
pages is therefore unnecessary. 

The age of these " extraordinary points " I have discussed 
in my Zur Einleitung (pp. 11 3-1 20), which also con- 
tains several supplements that have apparently escaped 
Dr. Ginsburg's attention. I must refer the reader to my 
work and leave to him the task of comparison between 
Dr. Ginsburg's and my treatment of this topic. I will only 
note that Dr. Ginsburg quotes from the MSS. a Massoretic 


note on Ps. xxvii. 13 where nttB7Dl n?yD?e is missing. 
Of my view that the punctuation of this verse shows 
a dislocation of the Biblical text Dr. Ginsburg has not even 
thought it worth while to make mention. The origin of the 
four suspended letters discussed on pp. 334-341 I have tried 
to explain in my Masoretische Untersuchungen, p. 46 sqq. 
In my Zur Einleitung, p. 106 sq., I have pointed out 
that the Talmud does not know the suspended y in Job 
xxxviii. 13 and that it is probably due to a misunderstood 
note, as mbfi OWio '2 'v, which was taken to mean: 
"Both Ain in D'ycno to be suspended," whilst what was 
really meant was " the Ain in the second CjrenD, i. e. in 
xxxviii. i v 5, is to be suspended." The suspended y in Ps. 
lxxx. 14 is a big Ain 1 , which, according to Kiddushin, 30 a, 
originally marked the division of the letters of the Psalter. 
But, as the Psalms possessed an uneven number of letters, 
it was said m^n pyni, which was wrongly taken to mean 
that the " Ain " was suspended. 

So too Judges xviii. 30 may owe the suspended Nun to 
a note phn frcoca J 2 . We need only assume (Job xxxviii. 15) 
that a scribe in a copy which became a model for future 
copyists wrote the enlarged y above the line, and that thus 
the suspended y became perpetuated. 

Closer examination of the passages shows that Dr. Ginsburg 
has copied a mistake in translating the words : wn fU3 vdu 
*i>Kn JTO (1 Kings xvi. 34) ; he translates : " In his days 
(i. e. Ahab's) did Hiel of the house of Ell build Jericho 
(p. 330)." It should, however, be rendered "Chiel of 
Beth El." 

Contrary to his custom, from which he only occasionally 
deviates, Dr. Ginsburg gives here the sources of the Hebrew 

1 It is noteworthy that the Rabbinic Bible of Felix Pratensis (1517) 
contains indeed in tt'o an Ain majusculum, as Dr. Ginsburg mentions, 
p. 340. 

2 Koenigsberger, in his Aus Massorah- und Taimud-Krilik, asks, in 
objection to my opinion, whether I really think that Jonathan was 
a grandson of Moses. His objection should be addressed to the compiler 
of the Book of Judges, who was certainly of that opinion. 


quotations (p. 342, n. 2, p. 343, n. 1 and 2, p. 344, n. 1, and 
p. 346, n. 1) in the Hebrew language ; he usually translates. 
He does not count on readers who could verify such 
quotations in the original. For the explanation of the 
Talmudic citations see my Masoretische Untersuchungen, 
p. 56, particularly on the one quoted by Dr. Ginsburg, 
p. 341, n. 1. Dr. Ginsburg also repeats the old views 
concerning the Nun inversae (pp. 342-345). He does not 
think it worth while to mention my opinion that these 
reversed Nuns were first introduced in the eighth century, 
whilst originally Num. x. 35 and 36 and Ps. cvii. 23-28, 40, 
had only points, and that 3 is an abbreviation of TipJ, 
although a scholar like Neubauer approves the suggestion 
and supports it with proofs (see the Jewish Quarterly 
Review, III, 1891, p. 540). 

In R. Simon ben Jochai's remark on inpK> s 1 (Gen. xxxiii. 4) : 
131 vorn lasnj t6x apj)^ toie> wys' jma nzbn the word m?n 
is not clear. In my Masoretische Untersuchungen, p. 23, 
I have suggested nbpn, but I do not maintain this suggestion. 

Professor Bacher communicated to me some time ago his 
view that the reading might have been WP3 mbn. It 
seems to me that originally it only said roiri, which is 
also synonymous with moo traditions, as one sees from 
T. B. Nazir, 30 a, and yiTa is an explanatory comment. 

Dr. Ginsburg's statement (p. 343) that the Patriarch 
Jehuda I said that the Thora consists of seven books is 
wrong. The two quotations, referred to in the note, only 
state that an Amora enumerated this view, basing it on the 
opinion of the Patriarch (Sabbath, 115 b), (not Yo mc as is 
wrongly given on p. 343, n. 1, where besides ^"O JND3 is to 
be added). 

Dr. Ginsburg (p. 342, n. 1) appeals to Sifre on Numbers, 
p. 22 a, edit. Fz-iedmann, and does not notice the difficulty 
presented by this passage. It is as follows : — 
icipD nr rvn t6v "osd nmbm n^ytota vbv mpJ pan ywa wi 
n\n ttbw ■osd natbm rbyzbn vby iipj ioin t/'n 131 -on *n 

noipo nt 


The same explanation is given twice in one and the same 
passage! Once anonymously, and again in the name of 
Simon ben Jochai. Possibly the text is defective and 
should be corrected according to T. B. Sabbath, 1 16 a, where 
the same Boraitha is quoted as follows : — 
JN3D npyw it ntna nrny -idin (instead of k>"i) a"aen 

: n&ipca anani 

I shall be grateful if a more satisfactory explanation is 

After the euphemistic readings, e. g. TttbiV^ : ruaat?*, have 
been mentioned in sub-chapter viii (pp. 346, 347) the author 
proceeds to treat of "Corrections of the Sopherim." He 
gives three lists : Mechilta, 39 a (n); Sifre, 22 b (7) ; 
Tanchuma on Exodus, xv. 7 (17). Jalkut, I, § 247 * is 
derived from the Mechilta, but one Tikkun Soferim has 
dropped out, hence Dr. Ginsburg regards this list as an 
independent one. It must be emphasized that the original 
reading was airon nsa, a s Mechilta and Sifre show. The 
Midrash Tanchuma also consistently has ainan ruae> K^x 
and only in the introduction do we find : Kinc ainan toaai 
rbmn nwa "'tws onaiD ppvi. 

Ben Asher also says (Dikduke Hateamim, p. 44) : D w ltPi 
onsiD "ira nnpn? (cp. the emendations of the whole 
quotation in Masoretische JJntersuchungen, p. 49), and 
employs the technical expression ainan nanc tibtt. When 
therefore the Massora only speaks of DnaiD fipTi n'^ it is 
doubtful whether these are " emendations," i. e. definite 
corrections, as Dr. Ginsburg insists they are. There is much 
probability in S. Pinsker's supposition that, in ancient 
times, only eleven paraphrases were known, viz. those given 
in the Mechilta, where, however, by a confusion N 1 = n' 18 
(Kerem Chemed, IX, 52). Dr. Ginsburg does not mention 
this view, which does not fit in with his system. He deals 
with this question minutely in order to show that changes 
of text have here been made designedly (pp. 347-363, not 
p. 349 as in the index). 

1 Dr. Ginsburg gives in the text (p. 349) p. " 151 "and in the note w F]"i(.?)- 


On this part we will only make a few remarks. To 
avoid repeating what has already been said elsewhere, I will 
refer the reader to Masoretische Untersuchungen, pp. 50 et 
seqq., where the "corrections " on Num. xi. 15 ; Mai. i. 12 ; 
Zech. ii. 12; and 2 Sam. xvi. 12 are discussed. That all 
Tikkune Soferim are not improvements is clearly evident 
from the Massoretic note on Num. xii. 12, where our text 
is undoubtedly original ; '151 1DN QniD inNSl -ie>N fits much 
better with the context than iotw Udk DiriD inNTtt "iK>N 
lnea '•sn, which is senseless. So, too, Jer. ii. 11 iTQ3 fits 
better with the context than ^TOS, as the first half of the 
verse shows. The same is true of Ps. cvi. 20, where ffiUD 
is also not a supplementary emendation. 

After Dr. Ginsburg has quoted some examples of the 
removal of " Impious expressions towards the Almighty " 
(pp. 363-367) he discusses in detail the textual alterations 
that originated in a sense of the holiness of the Tetra- 
grammaton (pp. 367-399). 

A comparison between 2 Sam. v. 19-25 and 1 Chron. 
xiv. 10-16 and of 2 Sam. vi. 9, it, 17, and 1 Chron. xiii. 12, 
14 ; xvi. 1, &c, shows that mrp has been replaced by DVita. 
Interesting is the demonstration that names beginning with 
lit 1 , like tnton*, &c, have, out of reverence for God's name, 
often been converted into names beginning with v, like 
rnNV, &c. In this demonstration the author is very thorough, 
and not less so in his treatment of the word n , l??n and of 
proper names ending in TV and in*, of which 141 have been 
found. The transformation of idolatrous into inoffensive 
names is also made clear (riB'B'i* = ?$??"}}, &c.) (pp. 400-404). 
The desire to emphasize the Unity of the Temple Service 
in Jerusalem is also responsible for many a change in 
the text (pp. 404-407). At this point Dr. Ginsburg 
enunciates his conclusion that our text is essentially 
identical with the text fixed 100 years before the Christian 
era. In this connexion the Talmudic account of the three 
codices found in the temple-court is discussed, and the 
interesting statement is made that in the Pentateuch tort 


occurs 656 times, of which 457 are masculine and 199 
feminine (p. 409). The thirty-two variants of the " Severus 
Codex" (Epstein, Monatsschrift, XXXIV, 337-351, and 
Neubauer in Studia Biblica, III, 1 9) are severally quoted 
and discussed. The Soferim were the editors and revisers 
of the text ; the Massoretes a are the conservators of the 
tradition, but not revisers. 

The Massora Parva, Massora Magna, and Massora Finalis 
are now shortly described, and their contents illustrated by 
several specimens. Dr. Ginsburg shows, at the same time, 
that the Massora Parva and Magna were already fully 
developed in the ninth century. The differences between 
the Massoretes are pointed out, and it is demonstrated that 
they have taken their accounts from different codices. 
Variations exist not only between the Occidentals and the 
Orientals, but even among the representatives of the 
Occidental School, from which our textus receptus is 
derived. This is shown by the Variae Lectiones of the 
authoritative codices quoted by the Massora. Such are : 
(1) djid nsD; (2) #>n ibd ; (3) '•puJt; (4) nsWv; (5) inn 1 " 
(also inn" wmri) ; (6) WD (also WD isd), according to Levitas' 
view only the Pentateuch ; (7) S31 toimo ; (8) tntV ~>SD ; 
(9) "633 iSD. As the Massoretes often dispute concerning 
vowels and accents, Dr. Ginsburg takes the opportunity of 
giving his opinion on the age of these written signs. He 
does not tell us anything new. That the signs in question 
were not yet in existence in the fifth century is proved 
from the Midrash Rabba on Canticles i. 11-11 b, Wilna, 
as Rappoport has already pointed out, though Dr. Ginsburg 
does not mention it. According to Levitas this can be 

1 Dr. Ginsburg, p. 421, n. 1, writes still rniEn and remarks: "The older 
form of it used in the Mishna is rniDO Massoreth (Aboth, III, 20) ," although 
Bacher (Jewish Quabtebly Review, III, 785-790) has shown that tht> 
only correct vocalization is rnpo, and that miDD represents a com- 
paratively later formation of men. I notice that S. Baer, also, in his 
later work (Orient, vol. XII, and elsewhere*), almost always writes 
"Messoreth" and not "Massorah," conscious of the correct and original 
form of the word. 



demonstrated from Baba Bathra, 21 a b, and Soferim, 
IV, 8, 9. Levitas is of the opinion that accents and vowels 
came into existence about 650-680. The section on the 
Massora, consisting of 182 pages, closes with a short dis- 
cussion of the supra-linear system of punctuation and a list 
of the punctators. 

One of the most important and learned chapters is the 
History and description of the MSS., which occupies 
210 pages and discusses sixty MSS. 

It would have been desirable to have had a decisive 
statement of the mutual relations of the codices, or, to use 
the technical phrase, their affiliation. Only thus could 
correct conclusions be arrived at ; for, however numerous 
the copies of a standard MS. are, they can only be regarded 
as one witness. 

Dr. Ginsburg unfortunately has not done this. He writes 
in the introductory remark to this paragraph (p. 469) : 
"In describing the MSS. which I have collected for my 
Massoretico-critical text, I find it more convenient to classify 
them according to the countries and libraries in which they 
are found ; and according to the order in which they are 
given in the catalogue of the respective collections where- 
ever that is possible." That a description according to 
these principles cannot be called history no one will question. 
It is a mere accident whither the MSS. of the Bible drifted. 
In spite of this fundamental error, we are grateful to the 
author for the information which he offers us, because he 
affords us an insight into the character of the existing 
codices, and lays the foundation for an investigation of 
Scriptural tradition. 

We do not doubt but that a careful study of this material 
which Dr. Ginsburg has collected will yield rich results. 
Our author only makes an exception in the case of the 
ancient MS., 2445 Brit. Mus., which contains the Penta- 
teuch, and is said to have been written 820-850 c. e., and 


of the famous St. Petersburg codex of the Prophets, which is 
dated the year 916. 

Dr. Ginsburg also prints, in his Introduction, a facsimile 
of the former ; he does not, however, strange to say, append 
the paleographic description to this facsimile, but to another 
facsimile which is omitted. 

Dr. Ginsburg says (p. 474) " an autotype facsimile page 
of this important MS. is given at the end of this Introduc- 
tion." He can only refer to the page before his description 
of the MSS. because no other is given. Why does Dr. Ginsburg 
not start with this facsimile ? 

The assertion (p. 473) that this codex originally had no 
p^DS *|1 D is well worth mentioning. I find here a confirma- 
tion of my assertion that, in ancient times, the p1BQ t?K"i was 
of importance, and the p1BS PpD only became current later 
on (Jewish Quabterly Review, IX, 129, n. 7). The author 
has put together in tabular form the sixty MSS. he describes. 
Whilst referring the reader to this table I shall limit my 
remarks to the material furnished by Dr. Ginsburg. I have 
endeavoured to show (Zur Einleitung, p. 44 ff.) that the 
Greek names of the separate books of the Pentateuch are 
translated from Hebrew names : Deuteronomion=mih i"WD; 
Arithmoi(Numeri)=Dnpsn twin; Levitikon=D ,, 3n3 min (cp. 
1. c. 45, n. 3); Exodus = D^vd n^y "iSD (Dikduke Hateamim, 
p. 57) ; Genesis = iWNih (nryo) nsD . 

Dr. Ginsburg (n. 481) quotes from a Biblical codex of the 
thirteenth century for Genesis : ahy nana ">sa Kim JWNi ">BD 
DlTni, which corresponds still closer with riveais koo-jaov (Alex.) 
and with the Syriac name NJTna. The same codex has for 
every one of the five books of Moses a double name ex- 
pressive of the contents. Exodus = nttVF "isd Nim w isd 
mm jriDi anvo ; Leviticus, nunpm uvm rnin 'a ; Numeri, 
royaam ampan 'a ; Deut., wa-i nt?o rwasi mm rwo 'a. 

The words " Departure of our teacher Moses " imply 
that the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, where Moses' 
death is related, belong to the Law of Moses, a point on 
which there already existed a difference of opinion amongst 

R 2 


the Tannaites (Baba Bathra, 14 b) ; this is alluded to by 
Ben Asher (Dilcduke Hateamim, p. 1): miro minn dvd, i. e. 
the eight concluding verses belong to the rest of Thora, 
and are ascribed to Moses. As the names of the books of 
the Pentateuch correspond with those of the LXX they are 
certainly very ancient and not invented by the Massoretes 
or the copyists. Dr. Ginsburg's assertion that follows, con- 
cerning the MS. in question, is correct. " The Massorah in 
the MS. is most accurate and important. I have therefore 
made it the basis of my edition of this Corpus. It was only 
in those cases where it failed in certain lists that I re- 
produced the rubrics from other MSS. which I duly indicate 
in this chapter" (p. 484). 

The author, at the beginning of the second part of his 
work (pp. 114-136), shows most minutely that the Dagesh 
exceptions like ^ ^32 (Ps. ix. 2), mayi (Gen. x. 7), &c. are 
not justified. He is so bitterly opposed to Baer that, though 
he does not name him, he never misses an opportunity, when 
he cites a MS. or an edition, of pointing out that it tells 
against certain punctuations. These constant reiterations 
become at last wearisome and take up valuable space, which 
might have been filled to better purpose. It would have 
been sufficient if Dr. Ginsburg had said once for all : " Of the 
Bible codices examined by me only a few support Baer's 
emendations, while the majority are opposed to them." 
Further, he ought not to have ignored the fact that Baer 
relies on Ben Asher's authority (cp. Liber Genesis, ed. S. Baer, 
Lipsiae, 1869, Praefatio, p. vii f.). The author's descrip- 
tions become very monotonous, as the intrinsic value of 
the MSS. is only discussed from this and a few other stand- 
points. At least, this is so in the majority of cases. 

We will now cite one passage where the author is brief, 
and which at the same time gives a fair idea of the points 
most discussed : — 

" The MS. exhibits no hiatus or break in the middle of 
the verse in Gen. iv. 8, nor has it any marginal remark that 
Borne codices have it. It reads DJBO with Pathach under 


the Gimel in Gen. vi. 3. Though the scribe omitted the 
two verses in Josh, xxi., viz. 36, 37, the Massoretic 
annotator deliberately supplied them in the margin with 
the proper vowel-points and accents. It has not Neh. vii. 68, 
nor is there any notice in the margin that this verse occurs 
in any other codices. ■ 5 &P"i , t? Bethel is invariably written 
in two words. The innovation of (1) inserting Dagesh into 
the consonant after the guttural with Sheva, or (2) into the 
first letter of a word when the preceding word happens to 
end with the same letter, or of (3) changing the Sheva into 
Ghateph Pathach when a consonant with a simple Sheva is 
followed by the same consonant, has no support in this 
MS." (p. 592)- 

Whether idjiHid and pp blin are written in one or two 
words is generally noted. 

Each description begins with a statement whether the 
writer was a Spaniard, German, Frenchman, Italian or 
Oriental, — a practice which is very commendable. Then 
we are told that Exodus xv, Deuteronomy xxxii, Judges v, 
and 2 Samuel xxii are, according to rule, written in verse 
form. Upon this follows a comparison of the divisions of 
the Lections (Parshioth) with those in the textus receptus. 
When Oaya and Metheg are inserted, we are told where 
and how much of the Massora is given in the codex, &c. 
Naturally special peculiarities of the different codices and 
editions are occasionally discussed, but the plan of the 
description is to deal with the points just noted ; and I 
cannot refrain from the remark that clearness of review and 
succinctness would have been served by a tabular statement. 

Dr. Ginsburg has dealt in separate chapters with the 
external division of the Text, Part I, chapters ii, iv, v. It 
would have been of advantage to the reader if all the 
material had been put together. Any one who wishes to 
study the problem of the external division of the Bible 
has first to collect and arrange the material from the 
various parts of this work, a task which Dr. Ginsburg with 
his remarkable skill in this direction could have accom- 


plished most ably. Still, I will not on account of this 
omission deny my acknowledgments for the large mass of 
interesting matter here printed. 

I wish to draw attention to a few data which show 
that our Hebrew text, although ancient in regard to its 
consonants, did not, as late as 1000 years ago, possess the 
same exterior form as Jacob ben Chajim's edition has since 
given it. It is believed that the final letters always had 
the same form as they now possess, and Biblical students 
think that the Greek translators were ignorant of them, or 
else they would not, in so many cases, have decided against 
the word-division of the Massora. It is therefore astound- 
ing to read that Dr. Ginsburg says : " The final letters 
Y *1 II are, as a rule, no longer than the middle ones " 
(p. 634 and in several scrolls). 

The Franco-German scroll especially, dating from the 
middle of the twelfth century (Brit. Mus. an 61), is one 
of the most important which has ever been described. There 
is naturally no trace of the dilatable letters D n 7 n s which 
came later into use. 

The lines are therefore not of the same uniform length. 
There is no distinction between D and D ; n and b have 
a peculiar form ; B> = W and t5> = £>. " Sometimes the point 
is both in the letter and above it so that it has the appear- 
ance of Dagesh, and sometimes it is not only without the 
point but without the Raphl stroke " (p. 634). 

Of the individual punctuations an opinion can be formed 
by studying the following words : — 

Tin, t6(D, nniS; nrui (= rnai), natb, reran,- ngni; yp^i 
jjvrof yn?fn ^ri); «n (=«?_), v?k (=va«) ; £? (=^>), 
rm , n'(=»n) (pp. 636,637). 

Similar punctuations Dr. Ginsburg quoted (p. 769 seq.) 
from a codex in the National Library in Paris, which 
dates from the year 1286 : — 

i«in\ i-nte> ( = >t\ Tibran nbe\ jnnn, lairni, jra, vnK. 


Very interesting is the remark that several scribes often 
ornament the word which coincides with their names, e. g. 
sj^a Gen. xiv. 19, Deut. vii. 14 (p. 631). This circum- 
stance enables Dr. Ginsburg to discover the name of many 
a copyist. 

Here it should be mentioned that Baer, in order to 
support his punctuation of the word w.n, &c, cites a quota- 
tion from the codex, but omits the appended remark : "But 
I have not found it so in correct codices " (p. 662). 

I will now make a few less important remarks. 
Page 544, n. 1, mpin is translated " Creator." It seems far 
more correct to say : " He who existed from the very 
beginning."— p. 547 n., nniDTD iDp" ban ID (cf. also p. 777). 
It should be noticed that tradition also counts 147 Psalms 
(T. J. Sabbath, 15 c, cp. M tiller, Massecheth Soferim, p. 222). 
— On p. 564 csbx is to be placed after won. JD'oa na is not 
to be translated "in the month of Nissan" but "on the 
eighth da j r of Nissan " ; for JD'oa na is not an abbreviation of 
jdij (BH)na. — P. 573, n. 2, n»a nbiyn fcoab nap. Dr. Ginsburg 
has not translated the word n'O, as is frequently his practice 
when a word does not appear clear. The meaning is " He 
who created the world with the name nj." The idea is 
traceable to the Talmud. 

Astounding is the mistranslation of JDK idn^i Jin iiV pi 
(p. 582, n. 1): " May He thus find favour" ; as if JlJna had 
been written. The sense is: "And may it be God's 

P. 586, n. 2: DTINDI D^N nCDn DW )W3 lmTD nd?® 
njwi. This, according to Dr. Ginsburg, means that the 
writer completed the codex in the year 5208 for R. Solomon. 
Whence did Dr. Ginsburg get the R. Solomon 1 Surely not 
out of nxhwl The meaning of tfBON left untranslated by 
Dr. Ginsburg I do not at the present moment know. 
Perhaps some one can explain. 

Dr. Ginsburg also leaves untranslated the words 'an n:ca 
nme>a, which correctly give the character of the year as 
Dr. Brann has informed me. 


A MS. remarks on Job xii. 21 :— nnHJO WniN B tftr*U. 
Dr. Ginsburg (p. 631) says: "From the Massorah on Job 
xii. 21 we learn the interesting fact that the school of 
Massoretes from which this MS. emanates included the 
verse in the number of passages with Separated or Inverted 
Nun." By no means. For, in that case, it should have 
said : " there are inverted Nuns." Here we have only an 
instance of misunderstanding of the annotator, who had 
lurking in his memory the fact that an inverted J not 
only occurs in the phrase D^irpj? TU *]at? in Ps. cvii. 40 
but also in Job xii. 21. He has mistakenly appended here 
this Massoretic note. — P. 741 we read in the epigraph : 
nnnn bs spD ny 'jnt inn Tin 'on rfr cwnai na narb ■oar dot. 
Dr. Ginsburg has not translated the two underlined words. 
They do not seem to be a misprint. Still they ought to be 
corrected so as to read n? canal, "and in similar works." 

A very beautiful MS. in the possession of the author is 
described pp. 734-743, which contains "The mnemonic 
name of each of the 54 pericopes into which the Pentateuch 
is divided, with a detailed list of the Sedarin therein, as 
well as the number of verses, words, and letters, which 
I have printed at the end of the respective Parashas in my 
edition of the Hebrew Bible" (p. 742). This is of great 
importance and deserves more notice than Dr. Ginsburg 
gives it. 

This MS. contains : " A Massoretic treatise by Jacob 
ben-Naphtali which is new and will be found in the 
Appendix to this Introduction" (p. 743). The promised 
Appendix has unfortunately not been given, like so many 
other things which the author has promised in this work. 

In the epigraphy p. 748, n. 1 , one also finds the quotation 
sn» nt^lNDa, which Dr. Ginsburg in his literal translation 
passes over in silence. This name, apparently of a French 
place, is not noted in Gross' Gallia Judaica, and I cannot 
identify it. 

P. 773, n. 1. "The number of the letters" is surely 
a mistake for "the number of words," for the former 



Dr. Ginsburg Las given us in four lines. The Vienna Codex 
(Imperial and Royal Library, no. 4) gives the Hagiography 
in the following order : — 1. Song of Songs, a. Ruth, 
3. Lamentations, 4. Ecclesiastes, 5. Esther, 6. Psalms, 
7. Proverbs, 8. Job, 9. Daniel, 10. Ezra, Nehemiah, and 
11. Chronicles (p. 377). Dr. Ginsburg says that this order 
is not found in his collection on p. 7. And yet this order 
is identical with that of the five oldest editions, and with that 
which Dr. Ginsburg himself accepts in his Hebrew Bible, 
except that the five scrolls are placed at the beginning and 
are arranged according to their Liturgical order. — On the 
same page W~\pn niTTip IDiru is inaccurately rendered : 
" The sacred synagogues were destroyed " instead of 
" communities." 

Almost 200 pages are taken up with the history of the 
printed Hebrew Text. Under twenty-four numbered 
headings, the author critically describes and discusses all 
printed editions from the year 1477, when the Psalms 
appeared, till the year 1525, when Jacob ben Chajim's 
Rabbinic Bible and the Massora saw the light. 

In this part the author gives not a mere description but 
a real history, in which the mutual relation of the different 
editions is determined and the critical value of each is 
closely defined. Although the material which is derived 
from the MSS. is the more valuable, still we contend that 
in this chapter, in which Dr. Ginsburg is able to rely on 
previous workers, he is most successful. 

The editions discussed are tabulated ; those to which 
reference is made are noted. We refer the reader to the 

Our Biblical text represents the German recension, 
because Germans were the first to institute printing-presses, 
and printing was generally known as a "German Art." 
Cp. Chwolson, bn~W>2 Diann ne>j?D IVKWi, translated from 
the Russian by M. Eisenstadt, Warsaw, 1897, n. 6, where 


there also is discussed the difficult passage TiD W "inoa '3N 
rnaDia which forms the second half of the verse in the 
epigraph of the first printed Hebrew work, the CHID nyans 
of Jacob ben Asher (1475, Pieve di Sacco). Chwolson cites 
from De Rossi mjD'o, from nopn vpb of Moses Chagis on 
Eben Haezer mniDD and emends ma do ; Dr. Ginsburg prints, 
p. 780, n. 1, rnaDia, which cannot by any possibility be 
grammatically correct. 

A few remarks of minor significance. On p. 866 the 
abbreviation W is translated, " May his God and Redeemer 
protect him," whilst on p. 604 the same abbreviation is 
more correctly rendered, "May his Creator preserve and 
protect him." The full sentence is irvrn VilX in-iOB» and not 
ihnm. The words of an epigraph Vy m« VO"6l 'rb rw£> T\V 
are, on p. 879, incorrectly translated as follows : " That it 
is time to work for the Lord and for His xvord which is the 
light of mine eyes." It would be more correct to say " And 
His words light up his eyes." l"U*6l is not dependent on 
JWy? and rtit* is a verb and not a noun. 

The third edition of the whole Bible was finished, according 
to the epigraph : Y~^ n ^ 3 nN ' n * t133 ^^ ^ nat6o r6a d^btii 
'ti^a na Tia vbsb nae>. Dr. Ginsburg translated this, p. 879, 
" Thus the whole work was completed, and let the glory of 
the Lord fill the whole universe, in the year 254 ( = A.D. 1494) 
here at Brescia." He has failed to see that vhtn '"© refers 
to the week's portion "]*? rbw where the verse quoted, Num. 
xiv. 21, occurs. 

In the edition of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and Daniel, dated 
1 51 5, it is stated that the last book has seventy Sedarim 
omD 'y. 

It is correctly remarked (p. 891) that thiB is a mistake, 
for this book only has seven divisions. Undoubtedly the 
printer read 'yae> as D^ac? instead of nyat? and then printed 
an y. In the epigraph of the same edition it is stated that 
it was finished on the 4th of EUul rr\*)rb rnjjri na^o , which 
Dr. Ginsburg, p. 894, translates : In the year 280 of creation. 
This should be corrected into 275, for n means 5,000. 


On p. 896, n. 4, it is said in the epigraph "'J'lyD'' VDrro Kim 
'wi Winnb, which is translated "and, &c, he helped me to 
begin, &c," whilst correctly it should be: "He will help 
me." The reference is not to past but to future action. 

On p. 934, 1. 14, Amsterdam is a misprint for Antwerp 
( = tWVV)K). 

Incorrect is the translation of the words "Oion >nn NVOJH, 
p. 934, 1. 22. 

In the October number, 1897, of this Review (X, 175 f.) 
I expressed the view that the Pope was the father of Jewish 
literary approbations, which derive their character from 
his authorization of the edition of the Vulgate published in 

In T. B. de Rossi's Annates Hebraeo-typographici I found 
no reference to an approbation. I rejoice now to read in the 
work under notice, p. 936, that already in 1515 the Pope 
issued an authorization of the first edition of the Rabbinical 
Bible (Venice, 15 15) on which Felix Pratensis worked, and 
in which the Christian world was highly interested. It 
already contains the characteristic features of most rabbinical 
approbations and reads as follows: "Ne quis hosce libros 
cum targum ; vel absque targum ; Bibliaeque expositores 
hebreos ; ad decennium A. M. D. XV imprimat ; vel impri- 
mendos curet ; Leo X Pont. Max. sub excommunicationis ; 
et in terris Sanctae Roma Ecclesiae librorum quoque 
amissionis poena ; cavit." 

In reference to the history of the rabbinical approbation 
I find in R. Zuckermann's Katalog der Seminar-Bibliothek, 
First Part, Preface, MSS., Printed Works, Bible (Breslau, 
1870, in the annual report of the Jewish Theological 
Seminary in Breslau), the following statements : " Rabbinical 
Approbations of literary works r)1D3Dn, which have come into 
fashion since the seventeenth century, are a fruitful source 
for the study of Jewish History. I therefore add to the 
description of every work which contains approbations, 
the names of their writers, as well as the places and dates 
where they were issued " (n. IX). 


Zuckermann has also drawn up for his own use an 
alphabetical list of the names of all those who have issued 
approbations. Its publication would supply the want of 
an Index Approbationum. The epigraphs published by 
Dr. Ginsburg confirm Zunz's assertion, which was based 
on the MSS., "that the rhyming formula accompanying 
signatures pP K? ~©lDn, ptnrui ptn, as well as the figure of 
a donkey climbing the ladder, belong to the third part of 
the thii'teenth century " (Gesammelte Schriften, III, 78). 

This he uses to determine the age of the Cassel Biblical 
MSS., Kennicott 157 (the references for this formula are: 
Introduction, p. 617, n. 1 ; 619, n. 2 ; 634, n. 2 ; 759, n. 1). 

With this as a starting-point, we cannot agree with 
Dr. Ginsburg's date 1200 (p. 605) as the period of the un- 
dated Codex Brit Mus. Add. 15751 (in G., No. 25), for this 
MS. has the mark above mentioned (p. 614, n. 4). The 
same is found in Brit. Mus. Add. 9399 (in G., No. 12, p. 534, 
n. 1 and 2). 

We cannot accordingly accept here the date 1250 to 

We now note the printer's errors which have come 
under our notice and which we have corrected as follows : 
P. 3, note 1, is^an • is^nn, D'airon nann (?) ; 156, n. 2, 
win pro j pnu ; 179, n. 1, D'pnyni jDTipnym; 197, n. 2, 
IBS : J13V ; 241, n. 1, aiDn :3UNi; 242, n. 1, Eben Saphir 
Lyck, 1886: 1866; 243, L 5 in the note, nts :ntJ; 251, 
n. 2, Lickute Kadmoniot, Vienna, 1880 : i860; 306, n. 2, 
nrDB> :i:inx>; 325, 1. 17, nraprw jncpai; ib., inpw if; 
327, n. 1 and 2 three times, UTnnt? : unnnc ; 336, n. i , 
rDron : mrD3l ; 341, n. 2, Sanhedrim, 10, 3 b: 103 b; 377, 
n. 2, n"tn ^"-iNT ;. ib., v 6 p Y'to Pl£ p ^"iNT ; ib., JV3CD3 : 
b'2&m; 409, n., riiro saina; 432, n. 1, nm; 484, n., 
TO tiWV\ Dfe** • in the text Crtw ; 498, n. 22, 967 : 976 
( = 1j?pnn as the date of the year); 543, n. 2, niND jnen «^N 
rvan p"ir6 • leave out niKD, then the date is 1007 as 
Dr. Ginsburg gives it in the text, and which agrees 
with 1387 Aera Contractuum and 4836 a. m. ; 562, n. 20, 


*}p t ?jn ; 564, n. 1, onnsra : 'xa ; 597,11. 1, rbvbvn : rb&bun 
(Toledo) ; 606, n. 3, Kama : Nan '•a ; 619, n. 2, D"e!> .iia : 'si? hip 
(= 1395, as correctly in the text) ; 624, third line from end, 
man!? ; msn!); 630, Esther iii. 12 and viii. 9, ManriKTiK , surely 
a printer's error and not deviating orthography of ^JSTiktin, 
as Dr. Ginsburg does not mention such a word in the Hebrew 
Bible ; 70a, n. 2, nvby : HD by ; 707, Jehuda Ibn BaZsam : 
Balaam ; 805, 1. 6, the note minnDI : the whole phrase is 
a little difficult, but probably should be read minn, and 1M 
dittographic of the preceding any lb ; ib., 1. io, nijmn 13 p»' 
n? roan!? p^DSon : p^aDon .... \»yb ; ib., 1. 13, ma : nta ; 829, 
n. 6, nbnp : r£np (Koheleth); 846, n. 19 and 20, "inx : -\m • 
886, n. 1, TWV : with 1 after 1 (?) ; 886, n. 1, mnm : nnini (or 
is this a printer's error already to be found in this edition 
of the Later Prophets?); 955, n. 13, Gen. iv. 18: iv. 8; 
964, 11. 2 and 4 from the end, 1DIM : "pM ; 970, n. 1, DJ13KTD : 
'ETI3; 970, n. 18, Neh. viii. 68: vii. 68. In Appendix II 
we also find printer's or author's errors, e.g. § 2 (p. 983), 
WTin one d'tidi : nmn ono onioi . However, I will omit 
further discussion of these, as this critical notice has already 
gone to too great length, though I have left untouched many 
points on which the author and I disagree. 

In conclusion, I must say that while, on the one hand, 
the prolixity and the looseness with which Dr. Ginsburg 
has treated the problems in question are not to my taste, 
while the needless repetitions are tiring, and his silence 
concerning fellow-workers in the same field, as well as 
the institution of original investigations instead of the 
utilization of results already existing, are to be deprecated, 
still I cannot, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge 
the author's high merit in having described sixty most 
important MSS. and given us their rich results. His 
account of the origin and development of the Massora and 
of the more ancient printed editions of the Bible I most 
fully appreciate. 

His Introduction, as well as his beautifully printed 


Hebrew Bible, must be pronounced achievements of 

The industry, extending over decades, and the untiring 
zeal which Christian D. Ginsburg has devoted to the 
unploughed field of the Massora, not only deserve 
appreciation but most genuine admiration. 

Ludwig Blau.