Abstract
Geoffrey Khan offers a succinct, yet thorough, overview of the composition, history, and layout of the Tiberian Masoretic Bible, which is also generally known in academic circles as the Hebrew Bible. Khan makes a helpful contribution to the academic study of the Hebrew Bible. There is a considerable dearth of material available in English on the transmission and history of the Masoretic Texts and their textual traditions.
Khan discusses the Tiberian Masoretic tradition in some detail. He defines the term Masoretic as “transmission of the traditions,” and describes the work of the pre-medieval Masoretes and their role in the transmission and preservation of the Hebrew texts. This definition is somewhat different to what I have traditionally understood. In a seminar with the late Page H. Kelley, our definition for the word Masorete related more to the idea of “fencing in” or “safeguarding,” which is related to, but a little different than, the definition offered by Khan. Khan ascribes the work of the Masoretes to the latter part of the first millennia BCE. He introduces the readers to the two competing traditions within the Tiberian Masoretic tradition: the Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali schools. These competing traditions date back to two dominant figures in the last century of the work of the Masoretes: Aharon ben Asher and Moshe ben Naphtali. The differences between these two competing traditions are outlined in a work commonly referred to in English as The Book of Differences (Lipshütz, Lazar, Kitab al-Khilaf: Mishael ben Uzziel’s Treatise on the Differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965]). Khan relates the stories of the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex because they represent the two major Bibles stemming from this tradition. Khan refers to the Leningrad Codex as the St. Petersburg Codex, reflecting the current name for the Russian city that serves as the home for this manuscript housed at the National Library of Russia. Though technically accurate, it seems a little odd to see the new name used to refer to this manuscript generally referred as “L,” reflecting the usage of the nomenclature of the older name Leningrad.
The consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible provides the focus for Khan’s second chapter. He walks the reader through the history and development of these texts, emphasizing the eventual development of two competing textual traditions, described as the Sephardi (Spanish, Portuguese, and Eastern) manuscripts and the Ashkenazi (European) manuscripts. The novice reader is introduced to the understanding that the earliest Hebrew texts were solely consonantal texts and it is only through the work of the Masoretes that we now have the addition of vowels and diacritical marks used for pronunciation and accentuation. Khan briefly discusses the orthographical changes that have taken place in the writing of various letters as they have occurred over time.
Khan briefly touches on unique features of the texts of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition describing the layout of the manuscripts, the marking of paragraphs for aid in lexical or periodic reading, and the use of accents throughout. In a relatively lengthy chapter, Khan addresses the vocalization of the Masoretic texts and their reading tradition. Khan explains in minute detail the significance of the Masoretic symbols or signs written below, in, or above the consonantal text. These symbols aided in pronunciation and emphasis, but also went beyond phonology to syntactical usage as well.
Inexplicably, Khan only gives three pages to the Masoretic notes of the Masorah Parva and the Masorah Magna. Both of these features of the Masoretic tradition are the direct result of scribal commentary, notation, and theological constructs such as the Tiqune Sopherim, noting the intentional changing of the texts for theological or other reasons. Also in brief fashion, Khan concludes his treatise with three chapters addressing Masoretic Treatises, Masorah and Grammar, and the Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition.
Khan is to be commended for his efforts in writing a succinct, but informative treatise on the Tiberian Masoretic Bible. It is well-written, concise, and full of helpful information surrounding the origin, compilation, and purposes for this Masoretic textual tradition.
One question that I believe naturally arises is the question of audience. Who is this written for? If you are able to follow the discussion provided by Khan, there is a good chance you know firsthand much of the material covered in this manuscript. If you are not an advanced student of the Hebrew language and biblical Hebrew tradition you may have a difficult time keeping up or appreciating the hard work Khan as put into this work. It is a highly specified, technical piece of writing.
With that question aside, I really enjoyed this work. It helped me remember the days when I was enrolled in a seminar on the study of the Masorah offered during my seminary days. There are many programs today that de-emphasize the study of the Masoretic traditions in favor of only studying the texts themselves. Khan’s work reminds us that the Hebrew Bible is much more than simply the texts at hand. The Hebrew Bible is a document and tradition that has been worked, re-worked, and been manually passed down for multiple generations. This book will be most effectively used by those who have at least an intermediate grasp of the Hebrew Bible and its language. I would not personally recommend it for beginning students or lay people. It is best appreciated by those who are able to at least “speak” the language of the Masoretes.