# **The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew**

### Volume I

### **GEOFFREY KHAN**

**OBP**

**1**

**The Tiberian Pronunciation**

**Khan**

**Tradition of Biblical Hebrew Vol. I**

The form of Biblical Hebrew that is presented in printed edi�ons, with vocaliza�on and accent signs, has its origin in medieval manuscripts of the Bible. The vocaliza�on and accent signs are nota�on systems that were created in Tiberias in the early Islamic period by scholars known as the Tiberian Masoretes, but the oral tradi�on they represent has roots in an�quity. The gramma�cal textbooks and reference grammars of Biblical Hebrew in use today are heirs to centuries of tradi�on of gramma�cal works on Biblical Hebrew in Europe. The paradox is that this European tradi�on of Biblical Hebrew grammar did not have direct access to the way the Tiberian Masoretes were pronouncing Biblical Hebrew.

Tradition of Biblical Hebrew (Vol. I)

The Tiberian Pronunciation

In the last few decades, research of manuscript sources from the medieval Middle East has made it possible to reconstruct with considerable accuracy the pronuncia�on of the Tiberian Masoretes, which has come to be known as the 'Tiberian pronuncia�on tradi�on'. This book presents the current state of knowledge of the Tiberian pronuncia�on tradi�on of Biblical Hebrew and a full edi�on of one of the key medieval sources, Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ 'The Guide for the Reader', by ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn. It is hoped that the book will help to break the mould of current gramma�cal descrip�ons of Biblical Hebrew and form a bridge between modern tradi�ons of grammar and the school of the Masoretes of Tiberias.

Links and QR codes in the book allow readers to listen to an oral performance of samples of the reconstructed Tiberian pronuncia�on by Alex Foreman. This is the first �me Biblical

As with all Open Book publica�ons, this en�re book is available to read for free on the publisher's website. Printed and digital edi�ons, together with supplementary digital

*Cover image: The Aleppo Codex. Courtesy of the Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem. Photographer: Ardon Bar Hama.*

ebook and OA edi�ons also available

book

**OPEN ACCESS**

Hebrew has been recited with the Tiberian pronuncia�on for a millennium.

e

material, can also be found at www.openbookpublishers.com

*Cover design: Luca Baffa.*

Geoffrey Khan

### To access digital resources including: blog posts videos online appendices

and to purchase copies of this book in: hardback paperback ebook editions

Go to: **https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/951**

Open Book Publishers is a non-profit independent initiative. We rely on sales and donations to continue publishing high-quality academic works.

# THE TIBERIAN PRONUNCIATION TRADITION OF BIBLICAL HEBREW

VOLUME I

# The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

*Including a Critical Edition and English Translation of the Sections on Consonants and Vowels in the Masoretic Treatise Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ 'Guide for the Reader'*

### Volume I

*Geoffrey Khan*

https://www.openbookpublishers.com

© 2020 Geoffrey Khan. Recorded material © 2020 Alex Foreman, CC BY.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the text; to adapt the text and to make commercial use of the text providing attribution is made to the authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information:

Geoffrey Khan, *The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew, Volume I.* Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2020, https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163

In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit, https:// doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163#copyright

Further details about CC BY licenses are available at, https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/

All external links were active at the time of publication unless otherwise stated and have been archived via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at https://archive.org/web

Updated digital material and resources associated with this volume are available at https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163#resources

Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright holders and any omission or error will be corrected if notification is made to the publisher.

Semitic Languages and Cultures 1, volume 1. ISSN (print): 2632-6906 ISSN (digital): 2632-6914

ISBN Paperback: 978-1-78374-675-0 ISBN Hardback: 978-1-78374-676-7 ISBN Digital (PDF): 978-1-78374-677-4 DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0163

Cover image: The Aleppo Codex, Courtesy of the Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem. Photographer: Ardon Bar Hama Cover design: Luca Baffa.

# Volume I

# Description of the Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition

### **CONTENTS**

### **PREFACE**

The term 'Biblical Hebrew' is generally used to refer to the form of the language that appears in the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible and it is this form that it is presented to students in grammatical textbooks and reference grammars. The form of Biblical Hebrew that is presented in printed editions, with vocalization and accent signs, has its origin in medieval manuscripts of the Bible. The vocalization and accent signs are notation systems that were created in Tiberias in the early Islamic period by scholars known as the Tiberian Masoretes. The text of the Bible that appears in the medieval Tiberian manuscripts and has been reproduced in modern printed editions is known as the Tiberian Masoretic Text or simply the Masoretic Text.

The opening sections of modern textbooks and grammars describe the pronunciation of the consonants and the vocalization signs in a matter-of-fact way. The grammatical textbooks and reference grammars in use today are heirs to centuries of tradition of grammatical works on Biblical Hebrew in Europe, which can be traced back to the Middle Ages. The paradox is that this European tradition of Biblical Hebrew grammar, even in its earliest stages in eleventh-century Spain, did not have direct access to the way the Tiberian Masoretes were pronouncing Biblical Hebrew. The descriptions of the pronunciation that we find in textbooks and grammars, therefore, do not correspond to the pronunciation of the Tiberian Masoretes, neither their pronunciation of the consonants nor their pronunciation of the vowels, which the vocalization sign system originally represented. Rather, they are descriptions of other traditions of pronouncing Hebrew, which originate in traditions existing in Jewish communities, academic traditions of Christian Hebraists, or a combination of the two.

In the last few decades, research of a variety of manuscript sources from the medieval Middle East, some of them only recently discovered, has made it possible to reconstruct with considerable accuracy the pronunciation of the Tiberian Masoretes, which has come to be known as the 'Tiberian pronunciation tradition' or the 'Tiberian reading tradition'. It has emerged from this research that the pronunciation of the Tiberian Masoretes differed in numerous ways from the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew that is described in modern textbooks and reference grammars.

In this book, my intention is to present the current state of knowledge of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition of Biblical Hebrew based on the extant medieval sources. It is hoped that this will help to break the mould of current grammatical descriptions of Biblical Hebrew and form a bridge between modern traditions of grammar and the school of the Masoretes of Tiberias. The main focus of the book is on the synchronic state of the Tiberian pronunciation when it was a living tradition in the early Islamic period. Some comparisons with other traditions of Hebrew from different periods are, nevertheless, made where this is thought to be appropriate.

The book is divided into two volumes. The introductory section of the first volume discusses the background of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition, with particular attention to its historical depth, its prestigious status and its relationship with other medieval reading traditions. It also describes the various extant medieval sources that are used in the book to reconstruct the pronunciation. Chapter 1 describes the pronunciation of the consonants. Chapter 2 presents a description of the pronunciation of the vowels and *shewa*, as well as an analysis of the syllabification and metrical structure of words. Chapter 3 describes the function of the diacritical signs known as *dagesh* and *rafe*. Chapter 4 examines various hybrid types of pronunciation, which arose due to imperfect learning of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition in the Middle Ages. Chapter 5 presents a summary of the reconstructed pronunciation and sample transcriptions of some Biblical passages. It is recommended that readers who would like a quick overview of the Tiberian pronunciation should look at chapter 5 first. It contains links to oral performances of the sample transcriptions by Alex Foreman.

The second volume presents a critical edition and English translation of the sections on consonants and vowels in the Judaeo-Arabic Masoretic treatise *Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ* ('Guide for the Reader') by the Karaite grammarian ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn (eleventh century C.E.). *Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ* is one of the key medieval sources for our knowledge of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition and constant reference is made to it in the various chapters of this book. Since no complete edition and English translation of the sections on the consonants and vowels so far exists, it was decided to prepare such an edition and translation as a complement to the descriptive and analytical chapters of volume one.

This book is a spinoff from a larger project on Biblical Hebrew to revise Gesenius' *Hebrew Grammar*. I am working on this project in collaboration with various other scholars, including Aaron Hornkohl, Shai Heijmans and Ben Kantor, who are co-authors. I cite some of their contributions to the Gesenius grammar project in this book with due acknowledgement. I am grateful to Aaron, Shai and Ben for their help with the preparation of the book in various ways. Shai created the attractive Arabic font with Hebrew vowels and accents, which I use for the Karaite transcriptions of Hebrew. Ben skilfully laid out my edition of *Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ* in the Classical Text Editor programme, which aligned text and translation, and carefully proofread the text and translation. Many thanks also to my graduate student Estara Arrant, who drew my attention to a variety of examples of Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization in Genizah manuscripts from the database she has created for her Ph.D. research project. I am very grateful to my graduate student Joseph Habib for his help with the proofreading of the book. I also greatly appreciate the comments and corrections sent to me by Aaron Rubin and Ben Outhwaite, who read an earlier version of the book. Finally, I am very grateful to Alex Foreman, who made an impressive oral performance of the sample transcriptions.

Some aspects of the work that forms the basis of this book were funded by research grants. A British Academy small research grant supported my investigation of manuscripts of *Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ*. A grant from the Leverhulme Trust (2013–2016) supported the posts of Aaron Hornkohl and Shai Heijmans when they were gathering material for the revision of Gesenius' *Hebrew Grammar*. I acknowledge here with gratitude the support of these institutions.

### **I.0. INTRODUCTION**

### **I.0.1. PRONUNCIATION TRADITIONS OF BIBLICAL HEBREW**

Hebrew is generally thought to have ceased to be a spoken vernacular around the beginning of the third century C.E., after the destruction of the final remaining Hebrew-speaking settlements in Judaea by the Romans following the Bar-Kochba revolt. This coincides with the end of the Tannaitic period in Rabbinic tradition.1 The surviving Hebrew texts that are datable to before this date would, therefore, have been written when Hebrew was still spoken. This includes the books of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran literature, Tannaitic Rabbinic literature, documents and epigraphy. There are references to the use of Hebrew as a vernacular in the second century C.E., for example the anecdote of the maidservant of Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi, who is said to have known the meanings of some Hebrew words with which the scholars of the time were not familiar (Babylonian Talmud, *Megilla* 18a, Palestinian Talmud, *Megilla* 2.2, 73a). The Bar Kochba documents in the first half of the second century C.E. contain a number of features that appear to reflect the spoken language (Mor 2013a; 2015).

Although Hebrew is thought to have ceased to be a vernacular language by the third century C.E., it remained alive in later

1 Kutscher (1982, 115–16), Saenz-Badillos (1996, 171–72), Schniedewind (2013, 191), Y. Breuer (2013).

periods in oral as well as written form. The oral recitation of the Hebrew Bible continued in a variety of traditions down to modern times. The Hebrew Rabbinic material of not only the Tannaitic period but also of the Amoraic period (220-500 C.E.) was composed orally. Furthermore, after Rabbinic literature was committed to writing, the oral dimension continued in reading traditions that have survived down to the present. There is a reference also to the use of Hebrew for 'spoken discourse' (לדיבור ( in a saying attributed to Rabbi Yonatan of Bet-Guvrin (Palestine, third century C.E.):

Rabbi Yonatan from Bet-Guvrin said there are four languages that are pleasant for use: Greek for singing, Latin for combat, Syriac for lamentation, and Hebrew for spoken discourse.2

Even as late as the tenth century one finds in a Masoretic treatise attributed to ʿEli ben Yehudah ha-Nazir (ed. Allony 1973) a description of how the author undertook fieldwork in the streets of Tiberias to verify his analysis of the *resh* in the Tiberian biblical reading, on the grounds that the Hebrew *resh* could still be heard in the local speech of the (Jewish) inhabitants of Tiberias. These references are unlikely to refer to vernacular speech. Hebrew continued to be used as a form of learned discourse among scholars in the Rabbinic period after it had ceased to be a vernacular (Smelik 2013, 109–16). It was, moreover, promoted as a language of everyday speech by the

2 אמ' ר' יונתן דבית-גוברין ארבעה :b71 ,)8(1.11 *Megilla* ,Talmud Palestinian לשונות נאים שישתמש בהן העולם ואילו הן לעז לזמר רומי לקרב סורסי לאילייא עברי .לדיבור

Karaite scholar Benjamin al-Nahāwendī (mid-ninth century C.E.) on ideological grounds (al-Qirqisānī 1939, VI 25.3; Khan 1992b, 157). Hebrew words and phrases, as well as Biblical Hebrew quotations, continued in the so-called 'Hebrew component' of the vernacular languages spoken by the Jews down to modern times, which, it seems, is what ʿEli ben Yehudah ha-Nazir was listening to on the streets of medieval Tiberias. A particularly large Hebrew component existed in Jewish secret languages, used mainly by merchants.3

When Hebrew was a spoken vernacular language before the third century C.E., it existed in a diversity of dialects, which differed on various linguistic levels (Rendsburg 2013a). This dialectal diversity existed synchronically at particular periods and there was also diachronic change in the various spoken forms of the language. Both of the synchronic and the diachronic differences in the spoken language were disguised to a large extent by the written form of the language, which was considerably standardized in its orthography and linguistic form (Rendsburg 1990; 2013b). Several differences are, nevertheless, identifiable from the surviving written evidence, some of which relate to pronunciation. We know from epigraphic evidence from the biblical period that diphthongs tended to be contracted in the northern (Israelian) dialects whereas they tended to be preserved uncontracted in the southern (Judahite) form of Hebrew, which is the basis of the standardized Biblical Hebrew language. In the Samaria ostraca, for example, one finds the orthography ין' wine',

3 See the entries on the Hebrew component of secret languages in the *Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics* (vol. 3, 511-520).

reflecting the pronunciation *yēn*, whereas the Arad ostraca from the south have the orthography יין corresponding to Masoretic Hebrew form ןִיַי) Bruck 2013). The shibboleth incident described in Jud. 12.1-6 is clear evidence of differences in pronunciation between the dialects of Transjordan and Cisjordan (Rendsburg 2013c). In the Second Temple Period, there were differences in dialects of Hebrew regarding the pronunciation of the guttural consonants (laryngeals and pharyngeals). In many of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran datable to this period, including those containing biblical texts, and Judaean inscriptions there is evidence of the weakening of the gutturals. This is shown by the fact that they are often either omitted or interchanged in the orthography. Such weakening was presumably due to Greek influence, which was spoken in Palestine during this period, especially in the educated or urban classes, since Greek did not contain pharyngeals in its sound inventory. The Bar Kochba documents, on the other hand, exhibit remarkably little weakening of the gutturals, despite the fact that they otherwise deviate quite radically from the standard language and orthography and appear to be close reflections of the spoken language. These documents are likely, therefore, to reflect a spoken dialect that had preserved the gutturals to a large extent.4 The biblical scrolls from Qumran which exhibit weakening of the gutturals, such as the Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa , therefore, reflect a particular dialectal variety of pronunciation, which was not general throughout Palestine.

4 See Mor (2013b; 2013a), Fassberg (2013), Morgenstern (2013, 505– 6).

Some of the biblical scrolls from Qumran have an orthography close to that of the Tiberian Masoretic Text without omission or interchange of gutturals. This may be due to conservatism of orthography, but it is necessary to assume that some traditions of Biblical Hebrew at this period did preserve the gutturals and were the source of later traditions that preserved them. In the Second Temple Period there is further evidence of variation in the pronunciation of the gutturals in the Greek transcriptions of Hebrew words in the Septuagint (late first millennium B.C.E.), which reflect the preservation of the Proto-Semitic velar fricatives \**ḵ* and \**ġ*, e.g. Αχαζ 'Ahaz' (cf. Arabic *ʾakhadha* 'he took' = ז ָח ָא(, Γαζα 'Gaza' (cf. Arabic *Ghɑzzɑ*, = ה ָז ַע(. The Hebrew orthography represents the merger of the original velar fricatives with the pharyngeal fricatives ח and ע. This orthography, which was derived from Phoenician, may have concealed a distinction that was preserved in some Hebrew dialects, but it is clear that there must have been a merger in some dialects by the Second Temple Period. This is due to the fact that some sources from Qumran that are roughly contemporary with the Septuagint exhibit weakening of the pharyngeals irrespective of their historical origin.5

There were a number of differences in morphology across the various dialects of Hebrew when it was a spoken language. Of particular significance for the later reading traditions of Biblical Hebrew are the differences in pronouns and pronominal suffixes. In the Second Temple Period there is evidence from the

5 For a discussion of the chronology of merger of velar fricatives with pharyngeals see Steiner (2005a).

Dead Sea Scrolls for variation between vocalic and consonantal endings of pronominal forms, e.g. in the second person forms:

2ms suffixes: -ך /כה-, -ת /תה-

2mpl forms: אתם/אתמה, תם-/תמה-, כם/כמה-

Another case of variation is found in the 3ms pronominal suffix on plural nouns, which has the forms יו-, -ו or -והי) Qimron 1986, 58–59; 2018, 269-78; Reymond 2014, 153–64).

#### **I.0.2. THE BIBLE IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD**

The text of the Hebrew Bible that is reflected by the Qumran manuscripts and other sources from the Second Temple Period was pluriform and dynamically growing (Ulrich 2015, 18). There were variant literary editions of many of the biblical books, these being particularly numerous in the Pentateuch (Tov 2016). A sizeable proportion of the Qumran biblical manuscripts, however, exhibit a text that is close to that of the medieval Masoretic Text. These have been termed by Emanuel Tov 'proto-Masoretic' or, in his more recent work (Tov 2012, 107–9) as 'Masoretic-like' texts. These show us that great efforts were made in some circles, apparently the Temple authorities, to preserve a stable text. In Talmudic literature, there are reports of three scrolls of the Pentateuch that were found in the Temple court. These differed from one another in small details. They were carefully collated and differences were corrected towards the majority reading.6 These activities were motivated, it seems, by a desire to preserve

6 The sources are discussed in detail by Talmon (1962). See also Ofer (2019, 88).

and level variants in one particular type of text, but not necessarily to standardize and eliminate rival texts (Tov 2014; van der Kooij 2014). This is clearly shown by the fact that such Masoreticlike texts exist alongside other types of biblical texts in the Qumran corpus that exhibit a variety of substantial differences from the Masoretic Text. Furthermore, the Masoretic-like texts from Qumran themselves exhibit some degree of diversity, since minor textual differences are found from one manuscript to another. Some hold the view that the Masoretic-like texts did not represent a central authoritative type of a text but rather one of several forms of text that were of equal status. Doubts are cast on the existence of sufficient cohesion in Judaism in the late Second Temple Period or of a sufficiently acknowledged leadership to make it conceivable that a majority of Jews recognized a single authoritative text (Ulrich 2015, 19). Lim (2013, 126) draws attention to the fact that different types of text are sometimes cited side-by-side, which he presents as evidence that there was no preference for one particular type of text. A further issue is the selection of the text of the Masoretic-like manuscripts. It is now generally agreed that this text was selected largely by chance rather than due to the archaic nature of the text or its perceived accuracy.

Despite the pluriformity of the biblical text that is reflected by the Qumran manuscripts, after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. the Masoretic type of text was the only text tradition that continued to be transmitted in Jewish communities. Fragments of biblical scrolls discovered in sites outside Qumran datable to the first two centuries C.E. contain a consonantal text that is identical with that of the medieval Masoretic manuscripts, even in the smallest details of orthography and cancellation dots above letters. These include fragments found in Masada (first century C.E.) and the somewhat later sites of Wadi Sdeir (Naḥal David), Naḥal Ḥever, Wādī Murabbaʿāt and Naḥal Ṣeʾelim (early second century C.E.). The same applies to the recently published charred fragments of a scroll of Leviticus from En Gedi, which have been dated to roughly the same period (M. Segal et al. 2016). According to Tov (2008, 150), these texts from communities outside Qumran constitute an 'inner circle' of proto-Masoretic texts that derive directly from Temple circles and were copied from the master copy in the Temple court. The proto-Masoretic texts of Qumran, on the other hand, formed a second transmission circle copied from the inner circle, and so exhibits small differences.

The exclusive transmission of the proto-Masoretic tradition in Judaism is nowadays generally thought to be the consequence of historical events. Power and influence were gradually transferred from the priestly Sadducees to the Pharisees (Schiffman 1991, 112). The Pharisees, who as part of this process espoused the proto-Masoretic text from the priestly authorities, constituted the only organized Jewish group that survived the destruction of the Temple (Albrektson 1978; Tov 2012).

Several scholars have drawn attention to the interaction and interdependence of oral and written tradition in the formation and transmission of the Hebrew Bible through the first millennium B.C.E. down to the destruction of the Second Temple, for example Nyberg (1934), Niditch (1996), Person (1998; 2010)

and Carr (2005). Carr, in particular, stresses the fact that even after the textualization of Scripture in written form in the first millennium B.C.E., the written text remained combined with a tradition of oral reading. The oral tradition of reading was memorized and the texts were learnt as part of an educational process, which has parallels in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. Such a tradition of transmission relied not only on written texts but also on teachers to pass on the oral traditions to pupils. Such was the importance and self-sufficiency of the oral tradition of the text, claims Carr, that at times of crisis, such as the Babylonian exile, it may have been used to regenerate lost written forms of the text. Raymond Person argues that the oral mind-set of ancient Hebrew scribes influenced the way they copied texts, in that they did not feel obliged to replicate the texts word by word, but preserved the texts' meaning as a dynamic tradition like performers of oral epics, with numerous small adaptations. This resulted in a pluriformity of texts, which were nevertheless understood as faithful representations of the tradition.

#### **I.0.3. THE BIBLE IN THE MIDDLE AGES**

After the destruction of the Second Temple, the Hebrew Bible continued to be transmitted in a process similar to that attributed by Carr to the earlier period, i.e. there was an intertwining of written text and oral reading tradition. The written text was copied by scribes and the memory of the oral reading tradition was passed on from generation to generation by teachers. The fact that the Hebrew Bible lost its pluriformity in its surviving written consonantal text after the Second Temple Period does not mean it lost pluriformity also in its oral transmission. The aforementioned fragments of biblical scrolls from the period after the destruction of the Temple must have been recited with an oral reading tradition. Just as the consonantal text (*ketiv*) of the medieval Masoretic manuscripts corresponded to the written consonantal text of these early scrolls, it is likely that the medieval oral reading of the Middle Ages, which is represented by the Masoretic vocalization signs, also had a close correspondence to what was being recited orally at the beginning of the first millennium C.E. There is, indeed, evidence that the medieval reading tradition had its roots in the Second Temple Period (§I.0.8.).

The reading traditions of Biblical Hebrew that were transmitted after Hebrew ceased to be a spoken vernacular language exhibit diversity in phonology and morphology, some of which is likely to have had its roots in the dialectal diversity of spoken Hebrew at earlier periods.

We can distinguish broadly three stages of attestation of the later reading traditions:

(i) The pre-Masoretic Greek and Latin transcriptions datable to the first half of the first millennium C.E. The most important sources from this period are the Greek transcriptions found in the second column of the Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.) and the Latin transcriptions in the Vulgate and writings of Jerome (346–420 C.E.). In addition to these, transcriptions are sporadically found in late Greek translations, such as Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, and in the writings of the Church fathers.

*Introduction* 11

(ii) The medieval traditions reflected by vocalized manuscripts and other sources. In addition to the Tiberian vocalization system, medieval manuscripts are extant that contain other vocalization sign systems, which reflect different reading traditions.

(iii) The reading traditions that have survived in Jewish communities in modern times.

The reading traditions of the Bible in Palestine reflected by the Greek transcriptions of Origen and the Latin works of Jerome exhibit a number of features that can be correlated with some of the dialectal features mention in §I.0.1. They appear to have preserved the gutturals, although they are not directly represented by the Greek and Latin script, and so have their roots in dialectal pronunciations in which these consonants were not weakened. The 2ms pronominal suffixes are generally transcribed without a following vowel and so correspond to the variants ending in consonants reflected by the orthographies -ך and -ת in Qumran sources, e.g., σεδκαχ (Tiberian: ךָ ֶ֑ קְ ד ִצ' (your righteousness' (Origen, Psa. 35.28), φαρασθ (Tiberian: ָת צ ַ֥ ַר ָפ' (you have breached' (Origen, Psa. 89.41); *phalach* vs. ךָ ל ָע ָּֽ ָפ,' your work' (Jerome, Hab. 3.2), *calloth* (Tiberian: ָותֹ ָּֽל ַק' (you are vile' (Jerome, Nah. 1.14).7

The reading traditions of the Hebrew Bible that are reflected by the medieval systems of vocalization signs were transmitted orally for many generations during the first millennium C.E. Their commitment to written form by means of

7 See Sperber (1937), Brønno (1943; 1970), Sutcliffe (1948), Janssens (1982), Yuditsky (2013; 2017), Kantor (2017).

vocalization sign systems was a textualization of oral traditions. This was no doubt stimulated by the general increasing shift from oral to written transmission of knowledge in the early Islamic period.8 This is a phenomenon that affected the whole of society in the Middle East at this period. It is likely to have been brought about, in part at least, by the archival documentary culture of the Abbasid bureaucracy, which developed in the eighth century C.E., and the spread in the production of paper at that period.9

The systems of vocalization signs that were developed in the Middle Ages reflect three major traditions of pronunciation, which are normally referred to as the Tiberian, Babylonian and Palestinian traditions. The Palestinian pronunciation is reflected also by some manuscripts vocalized with Tiberian vowel signs. This latter type of vocalization will be referred to as Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization (§I.0.13.6.). Although the sign systems were a creation of the Middle Ages, the pronunciation traditions that they reflect had their roots in an earlier period and had been transmitted orally for many generations. There is some

8 For a detailed discussion see Schoeler (2006) and Bloom (2010).

9 For the documentary culture of the Abbasid administration see Sijpesteijn (2007), van Berkel (2014), Khan (2007, 13–65) and for the spread of paper at this period see Bloom (2001). An analogy can be identified in the increase of written culture in the kingdom of the Judean king Hezekiah in the eighth century B.C.E. According to Schniedewind (2004; 2013) this was stimulated by the increase in administrative bureaucracy and urbanization. The role of bureaucracy and documentary culture appears to have been a catalyst to written culture also in medieval Europe; cf. Clanchy (2013).

evidence that they originated in the Second Temple Period (§I.0.8.). They share more features among themselves than they do with the Samaritan pronunciation tradition, which was transmitted orally by the Samaritan community through the Middle Ages down to modern times. This suggests that they were more closely related, due to a common origin and/or due to convergence through communal contact. They nevertheless diverged from one another in a number of ways in phonology and morphology. The distinctness of the Samaritan tradition of reading reflects the fact that it split from the Jewish traditions with the separation of the Samaritan community from Judaism at an early period.

The various Jewish reading traditions had distinctive vowel systems. The Tiberian pronunciation tradition distinguished the vowel qualities [a] (*pataḥ*), [ɔ] (*qameṣ*), [e] (*ṣere*) and [ɛ] (*segol*). The Babylonian vocalization system lacked a sign for *segol* and generally used a *pataḥ* sign where Tiberian had *segol*, suggesting that Babylonian pronunciation did not distinguish between the qualities [a] and [ɛ], but only had the quality [a].10 The Palestinian pronunciation tradition did not distinguish between *pataḥ* and *qameṣ*, on the one hand, and between *ṣere* and *segol*, on the

10 The Babylonian tradition has been exhaustively described by Yeivin (1985), which is the most authoritative scholarly source. Important earlier studies of manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization were made by Kahle (1902; 1913; 1928). For an overview of the distinctive features of Babylonian vocalization and the reading traditions it reflects see Khan (2013f) and Heijmans (2016).

other, but rather had only one 'a' vowel and one 'e' vowel.11 There was, however, internal diversity within these traditions of pronunciation. This applied in particular to the Babylonian and the Palestinian traditions, which exhibit a considerable amount of variation both in the sign systems and the pronunciation these systems reflect in the medieval manuscripts. The Tiberian vocalization system and the pronunciation it reflects are more uniform and standardized than the other traditions, but, nevertheless, there is some internal diversity (§I.0.10).

#### **I.0.4. THE TIBERIAN MASORETIC TRADITION**

The textualization of the orally transmitted Tiberian reading tradition was carried out by a circle of scholars in Tiberias known (בַ עֲ לֵ י מָ סֹרָ ה as Hebrew in known (Masoretes The .Masoretes as were scholars who devoted themselves to preserving the traditions of writing and reading the Bible. Their name derives from the Hebrew term *masora* or *masoret*, the meaning of which is generally thought to be 'transmission of traditions'.12 The

12 There is no complete consensus concerning the original meaning or etymology of the term. It seems to be connected with the Rabbinic Hebrew verb ר ַס ָמ' to hand over', though this may be a denominal form. The noun ת רֹס ָמ occurs in Ezek. 20.37, which is generally understood today as 'bond' (< אסר(. One of its ancient interpretations, however, was 'number' (cf. Septuagint ἀριθμῷ). As we shall see, counting letters

11 The most important scholarly studies of the Palestinian vocalization include Kahle (1930), Dietrich (1968), Revell (1970a; 1970b; 1977), Chiesa (1978) and Yahalom (1997). For overviews of the system see Heijmans (2013b) and Yahalom (2016).

Tiberian Masoretes were active over a period of several centuries in the second half of the first millennium C.E. The medieval sources refer to several generations of Masoretes, some of them belonging to the same family. The most famous of these families is that of Aharon ben Asher (tenth century), whose forebears were engaged in Masoretic activities over five generations.13 The Masoretes continued the work of the *soferim* ('scribes') of the Talmudic and Second Temple periods, who were also occupied with the correct transmission of the biblical text.14

and words to ensure the correct preservation of the text was one of the activities of the Masoretes. The word occurs also in Mishnah *Avot* 3.14 in a statement attributed to Rabbi Aqiva (c. 50-135 C.E.) לתורה סיג מסרת 'The *masoret* is a fence for the Torah', where it may have been originally used with the same sense (i.e. 'counting' of letters/words). Ben-Ḥayyim (1957b) has suggested that the verb מסר in Hebrew actually had the meaning of 'to count', as did its cognate in Samaritan Aramaic. The form ,מַ סֹרָ ה or מַ סֹר ת form The .noun the of pattern feminine variant a is מָ סֹרָ ה which is reflected in the English spelling 'Massorah', has no textual basis but is a modern reconstruction on the analogy of the pattern found in .'dearth 'בַ צֹר ת and' seat mercy 'כַ פֹר ת as such nouns

13 Asher 'the elder', the great-great-grandfather of Aharon, probably lived in the second half of the eighth century C.E.; cf. Kahle (1959, 75– 82; 1927, vol. 1, 39).

14 According to the Babylonian Talmud (*Qiddushin* 30a) the *soferim* acquired their name from the fact that they counted (Hebrew ספר (all the letters of the Pentateuch. As we have seen above the term ת רֹס ָמ was probably originally understood in the sense of 'counting'. This connection with the Talmudic interpretation of the term *soferim* may be more than coincidental, in that ת רֹס ָמ may have been intended originally

The Tiberian Masoretes developed what can be termed the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. This was a body of tradition that gradually took shape over two or three centuries and continued to grow until it was finally fixed, and the activities of the Masoretes ceased, at the beginning of the second millennium. During the same period, circles of Masoretes are known to have existed also in Iraq. It is the tradition of the Tiberian Masoretes, however, that had become virtually the exclusive Masoretic tradition in Judaism by the late Middle Ages and has been followed by all printed editions of the Hebrew Bible.

The Tiberian Masoretic tradition is recorded in numerous medieval manuscripts. The majority of these were written after 1100 C.E. and are copies of older manuscripts that were made in various Jewish communities. The early printed editions are based on these late medieval manuscripts. The most authoritative of these early editions was the so-called second Rabbinic Bible (i.e. the Bible text combined with commentaries and translations, known as *Miqraʾot Gedolot*) edited by Jacob ben Ḥayyim ben Adoniyahu and printed at the press of Daniel Bomberg in Venice between 1524 and 1525. These early Rabbinic Bibles appear to have been based on more than one manuscript (Penkower 1983). This came to be regarded as a textus receptus and was used as the basis for many subsequent editions of the Hebrew Bible.

to refer to the activity of the *soferim*. In the Middle Ages the term *sofer* acquired the narrower sense of 'copyist'. According to a medieval list of Masoretes published by Mann (1935, 2:44) the chain of Masoretes began with Ezra the scribe.

A small number of surviving manuscripts are first-hand records of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. These were written in the Middle East before 1100 C.E., when the Masoretes were still active in the tenth century or in the period immediately after the cessation of their activities in the eleventh century. They are, therefore, the most reliable witnesses of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. They all come from the end, or near the end, of the Masoretic period, when the Masoretic tradition had become fixed in most of its details. After 1100 C.E. the fixed tradition was transmitted by generations of scribes. Some of the modern editions of the Bible are based on these early manuscripts, e.g. the *Biblia Hebraica* from the third edition (1929–1937) onwards (the latest edition of which is the *Biblia Hebraica Quinta*, 2004–), *The Hebrew University Bible* (1975–), the editions by Aron Dotan (1973; revised 2001) and Mordechai Breuer (1977–1982) and the modern edition of the Rabbinic Bible by Menachem Cohen (known as *Ha-Keter*, Ramat-Gan, 1992–).

The Tiberian Masoretic tradition can be divided into the following components:

The first seven of these components are written, whereas the eighth existed only orally. The orally transmitted Tiberian reading tradition was passed on from one generation to the next. The reading tradition is only partially represented in graphic form by the vocalization and accent signs. These written components were created during the Masoretic period in the last third of the first millennium C.E. The most famous Masorete, Aharon ben Asher, who lived in the tenth century, represented the last generation. At the close of the Masoretic period at the beginning of the second millennium, the written components of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition had become fixed and were transmitted in this fixed form by later scribes. By contrast, the oral component, i.e. the Tiberian reading tradition, was soon forgotten and appears not to have been transmitted much beyond the twelfth century. As a result, the Tiberian vocalization signs came to be read according to the various local traditions of Hebrew pronunciation, most of them influenced by the vernacular languages of the communities concerned. The vocalization and accents were no longer direct representations of the way in which the biblical text was recited and they became fossilized written components of the text. Since the Tiberian oral tradition of reading did not survive down to modern times, the letters, vocalization and accent signs are symbols that require interpretation. This interpretation is little more than speculation unless we examine extant sources that were written by medieval scholars and scribes who had direct access to the Tiberian pronunciation when it was still a living oral tradition. The description of the Tiberian pronunciation that is presented in this book is based on such medieval sources. Our main concern will be with the pronunciation of the vowels and consonants.

The Tiberian Masoretic manuscripts are codices, i.e. books consisting of collections of double-leaves that were stitched together. A Bible codex was referred to in medieval Hebrew sources as a מחזור *maḥzor*, as opposed to a scroll, which was referred to as a ספר *sefer*. The term *maḥzor* later came to designate specifically a codex containing a prayer-book for festivals. Another term that was used for a Bible codex in the Middle Ages was מצחף *miṣḥaf*, which is an Arabic loanword (< Arabic *muṣḥaf*).15 The Hebrew Bible began to be produced in codex form during the Islamic period. The earliest surviving codices with explicitly dated colophons were written in the tenth century C.E. All of these originate from the Jewish communities in the Middle East. There is indirect evidence from some Rabbinic sources that

15 The Arabic word *muṣḥaf* is itself a loanword from Ethiopic *maṣḥaf*, which means 'book', or specifically 'Scripture', see Leslau (1987, s.v. *ṣaḥafa*).

the codex had been adopted for Hebrew Bibles already in the eighth century C.E.16

Previously, the Hebrew Bible was always written in a scroll. After the introduction of the codex, scrolls continued to be used for writing the Hebrew Bible. Each type of manuscript, however, had a different function. The scrolls were used for public liturgical reading in the synagogues, whereas the codices were used for study purposes and non-liturgical reading. The scroll was the ancient form of manuscript that was hallowed by liturgical tradition and it was regarded as unacceptable by the Masoretes to change the custom of writing the scroll by adding the various written components of the Masoretic tradition that they developed, such as vocalization, accents and marginal notes. The codex had no such tradition behind it in Judaism and so the Masoretes felt free to introduce into this type of manuscripts the newly developed written Masoretic components.17 The desire to commit to writing in the Middle Ages many components of the Masoretic tradition that had been previously transmitted orally was, no doubt, one of the main motivations for the adoption of the codex at this period. It had been available as a format of book production since the Roman period. It started to be used for the writing of Christian Bibles as early as the second century C.E. The earliest extant datable codices of the Qurʾān pre-date the dated codices of the Hebrew Bible by about two centuries. The fact that

16 See Beit-Arié et al. (1997), Glatzer (1989, 260–63), Outhwaite (2018, 323).

17 For the association of the scribal innovations with changes in the physical form of manuscripts see Khan (1990b).

one of the medieval Hebrew terms for Bible codex, *miṣḥaf*, is a loanword from Arabic (*muṣḥaf*) suggests, indeed, that the Jews borrowed the format from the Muslims. We may say that the liturgical scroll remained the core of the biblical tradition, whereas the Masoretic codex was conceived as auxiliary to this. This distinction of function between liturgical scrolls with no vocalization, accents or Masoretic notes, on the one hand, and Masoretic codices, on the other, has continued in Jewish communities down to the present day. Occasionally in the Middle Ages, Masoretic additions were made to scrolls if they had, for some reason, become unfit for liturgical use. The fact that the leaves of a codex were written on both sides, unlike biblical scrolls, and its overall practical format meant that the entire twenty-four books of the Bible could be bound together in a single volume. The less practical scroll format meant that the books of the Bible had to be divided up into a series of separate scrolls. In many cases, however, codices consisted of only sections of the Bible, such as the major divisions of Pentateuch (*Torah*), Prophets (*Neviʾim*) and Writings (*Ketuvim*), or smaller units.

The scrolls generally differed from Masoretic codices not only in the lack of vocalization, accents and Masoretic notes, but also in the addition of ornamental strokes called *tagin* ('crowns') to the Hebrew letters *shin, ʿayin, ṭet, nun, zayin, gimel* and *ṣade*.

In the Masoretic period, the task of writing codices was generally divided between two specialist scribes. The copying of the consonantal text was entrusted to a scribe known as a *sofer*, who also wrote scrolls. The vocalization, accents and Masoretic notes, on the other hand, were generally added by a scribe known as a *naqdan* ('pointer', i.e. vocalizer) or by a Masorete. This reflects the fact that the tradition of transmitting the consonantal text and the tradition of transmitting the Masoretic components were not completely integrated. According to the colophon of the Aleppo Codex, for example, the text was copied by the scribe Shlomo ben Buyāʿā and its vocalization and Masora were supplied by Aharon ben Asher.18 For the scribe who wrote the consonantal text the base of authority was constituted by an existing authoritative exemplar manuscript.19 For the *naqdan* the base of authority was a master teacher of the oral reading tradition. In the case of the Aleppo Codex, the *naqdan* and the master teacher were one and the same person. By contrast, the Codex Leningradensis, which was produced in the early eleventh century after the close of Masoretic period and the death of the last authorities of the Tiberian oral tradition, was written and vocalized by the same scribe, Samuel ben Jacob.20

18 The original inscriptions are now lost and survive only in copies (Kahle 1930, 7–12; Ofer 1989). The scribe Shlomo ben Buyāʿā also wrote the manuscript I Firkovitch II.17 (L1 according to the abbreviation of Yeivin 1980, 22-23), but the *naqdan* was different from that of A and so the vocalization and accentuation.

19 In one extant Judaeo-Arabic document from the Genizah the Persian loanword *namūdhaj* 'model, exemplar' is used to refer to such a model manuscript (Outhwaite 2018, 331).

20 There is evidence from colophons that other Masoretic codices, also apparently from the post-Masoretic period, were produced entirely by a single scribe (Outhwaite 2018, 329).

So far we have made a distinction between manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible written in scrolls and those written in Masoretic codices and also between the early Tiberian codices datable to before 1100 and later ones. In the early period, coinciding with or close to the time when the Masoretes were active, we can distinguish between various types of Hebrew Bible codices. The type of codex that has been referred to in the preceding discussion is what can be termed a 'model' codex, which was carefully written and accurately preserved the written components of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. Such manuscripts were generally in the possession of a community, as is shown by their colophons, and were kept in a public place of study and worship for consultation and copying (to produce both codices and scrolls). References to various model codices and their readings are found in the Masoretic notes, e.g. Codex Muggah, Codex Hilleli, Codex Zambuqi and Codex Yerushalmi (Ginsburg 1897, 429–33). Sometimes accurately written manuscripts also contain the text of an Aramaic Targum.

In addition to these model Masoretic codices, there existed numerous so-called 'popular' Bible codices, which were generally in the possession of private individuals. These were not written with such precision as the model codices and usually did not include all the written components of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. Often they contain no accents or Masoretic notes but only vocalization, and this may deviate from the standard Tiberian system of vocalization in a number of details. Some popular Bible manuscripts were accompanied by an Aramaic Targum or an Arabic translation and commentary.21

All popular manuscripts were not necessarily written carelessly. The crucial feature of their production was that the scribes felt less bound by tradition than in the copying of the model manuscripts. Many of them are distinguished from the model manuscripts also in their smaller dimensions and their different page-layout (Arrant 2020).

There were, therefore, three classes of Hebrew Bible manuscript in the early Middle Ages: (i) scrolls used for public reading in the liturgy; (ii) model Masoretic codices, the purpose of which was to preserve the full biblical tradition, both the written tradition and the reading tradition; (iii) popular manuscripts that aided individuals in the reading of the text.

We describe here briefly some of the surviving model Tiberian Masoretic codices that have come to be regarded as among the most important and are referred to in various places in this book. All of these manuscripts originate from the Middle East, as do the vast majority of the early codices. The early eastern manuscripts began to come to the attention of scholars in the nineteenth century, mainly due to the collection of eastern manuscripts assembled by Abraham Firkovitch (1787–1874), the majority of which were donated to what is now the National

21 For this type of medieval manuscript see Goshen-Gottstein (1962, 36– 44), Díez Macho (1971, 22), Sirat (2002, 42–50), Stern (2017, 88–90), Arrant (2020) and Outhwaite (2020). These scholars use different terms to refer to such Bible manuscripts. Sirat, for example, refers to them as 'common Bibles', a term that is adopted by Outhwaite (2020).

Library of Russia in St. Petersburg. An important breakthrough was also the discovery of the Cairo Genizah in the late nineteenth century, which contained many fragments of early eastern Bible manuscripts, the majority of which are now in the possession of Cambridge University Library. The earliest surviving codices that were written in Europe are datable to the twelfth century (Beit-Arié et al. 1997). The early medieval model codices with standard Tiberian vocalization all reflect a basically uniform Masoretic tradition, though no two manuscripts are completely identical. The differences are sometimes the result of scribal errors and other times due to a slightly different reading tradition or system of marking vocalization and accents that is followed by the *naqdan*.

#### 1. The Aleppo Codex (referred to henceforth as A)

In the colophon of this manuscript, it is stated that it was written by Shlomo ben Buyāʿā and the Masorete Aharon ben Asher (tenth century C.E.) added the vocalization, accents and Masoretic notes. This is confirmed by comparison with the statements concerning the traditions of Ben Asher and Ben Naftali in the Masoretic treatise known as 'The Book of Differences' (*Kitāb al-Khilaf*) of Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel (§I.0.13.1.). The Aleppo Codex agrees with Ben Asher against Ben Naftali in 94% of the cases of differences between the two Masoretes recorded in this work. It is indeed thought to be the manuscript that Maimonides examined when he pronounced that Ben Asher's tradition was superior to that of other Masoretes. It should be regarded, therefore, as the authorized edition in Jewish tradition after the time of Maimonides (Penkower 1981). When Maimonides saw the manuscript, it was kept in Egypt, possibly in the Ben-Ezra synagogue in Fusṭāṭ, which later became famous for its 'Genizah'. From the later Middle Ages, however, it was kept in Aleppo. In 1948 the synagogue in which it was kept in Aleppo was set on fire and only about three-quarters of the original manuscript were preserved. The surviving portions are now kept in Jerusalem in the library of the Ben-Zvi Institute (Shamosh 1987; Friedman 2012; Goshen-Gottstein 1960; Yeivin 1968). It has been published in a facsimile edition by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein (1976) and images are available online.22 This manuscript forms the basis of a number of Israeli editions of the Hebrew Bible, including the *Hebrew University Bible* (Goshen-Gottstein 1975), the edition of Mordechai Breuer (Jerusalem 1977–1982, reedited in 1996–1998 with inclusion of new information on the *parasha* divisions) and the modern Rabbinic Bible (*ha-Keter*) edited by Menachem Cohen (1992–).

2. Codex Leningradensis, St. Petersburg (Leningrad), National Library of Russia, I Firkovitch Evr. I B 19a (referred to henceforth as L).

This codex is still widely known as Codex Leningradensis. One of the colophons of the manuscript states that it was written in Fusṭāṭ, Egypt, and subsequently checked and corrected 'according to the most exact texts of Ben Asher'.23 Its date is given in the colophon according to five different systems of reckoning,

22 http://www.aleppocodex.org.

 .לפי הספרים המדויקים של בן אשר 23

which do not completely coincide, but a date in the region of 1008-1009 C.E. seems to be intended. It was, therefore, written after the close of the Masoretic period and was not the original work of a Masoretic authority, unlike the Aleppo Codex, which was vocalized by the Masorete Aharon ben Asher. It is, nevertheless, very similar to A and agrees with Ben Asher against Ben Naftali in 90% of the cases of differences between them that are recorded in the 'The Book of Differences'. The commissioner and first owner of the manuscript was a wealthy Karaite merchant known as Joseph ibn Yazdād. 24 The Codex Leningradensis differs slightly from the Aleppo Codex in a few minor details. There is a lesser degree of marking of *ḥaṭef* signs on non-guttural consonants than in A (§I.2.5.3.) and a slightly greater degree of marking of *gaʿya* on open syllables. Some of the original vocalization and accentuation has clearly been changed during the correction process referred to in the colophon and the corrections, in general, correspond to what is found in A. These consist of erasures, mainly of *gaʿya* signs, and additions, mainly of *ḥaṭef* signs under non-guttural consonants. The manuscript has been preserved in its entirety and it contains the complete text of the Bible. Paul Kahle made this the basis of the third edition of *Biblia Hebraica* (Stuttgart 1929–1937) and it has been used for all subsequent editions. For practical reasons, unless otherwise indicated, manuscript L is cited according to the edition in the fourth edition of *Biblia Hebraica* (*Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia*, abbreviated as

24 For the background of the manuscript and the interpretation of its colophon see Outhwaite (2018).

BHS). In places where there are problems with the reading reflected by BHS (see, e.g. §I.3.1.14.) the manuscript is cited directly. Manuscript L is also the basis of the edition of the Hebrew Bible by Aron Dotan (Tel-Aviv 1973, revised 2001).25

3. British Library, London, Or. 4445 (referred to henceforth as B) This manuscript contains leaves from different periods. The ones of greatest interest for the study of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition are the oldest leaves, which constitute most of the Pentateuch. These are generally thought to have been written at the same period as A in the first half of the tenth century, or possibly slightly earlier. This older section agrees with Ben Asher against Ben Naftali in 80% of the recorded cases of differences. It marks *ḥaṭef* signs on non-guttural consonants slightly more frequently than in the corresponding portions of L, in accordance the principles found in A. The marking of *gaʿya* in open syllables is, however, less frequent than in A. The *rafe* sign, furthermore, is used on non-בגדכפת consonants less often than in A (§I.3.2.). It appears, therefore, to represent a slightly less developed tradition than A.26

25 A facsimile edition of the manuscript was published by Loewinger (1970).

26 Yeivin (1968, 359–60), Ginsburg (1897, 469–74), Lyons (1983), Dotan (1993).

4. The Cairo Codex of the Prophets (referred to henceforth as C) This manuscript, which contains all of the books of the Prophets, was preserved down to modern times in the Karaite synagogue in Cairo. It has a colophon attributing it to the Masorete Moshe ben Asher, the father of Aharon ben Asher, with the date 895 C.E. There is now a consensus that the manuscript was written later, most likely in the eleventh century, and this is a later copy of an earlier colophon.27 The manuscript reflects a tradition that is closer to that of Ben Naftali than to that of Ben Asher. In places where a difference is recorded between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali, it agrees with Ben Asher in 33% of cases and with Ben Naftali in 64% of cases. C also reflects some features of vocalization that are attributed to Ben Naftali in the Masoretic sources. latter the ,ל יִש רָ אֵ ל of instead לִ יש רָ אֵ ל as such forms include These being the tradition of Ben Asher, which is found in A and L (§I.2.5.1.). Another case is the marking of *dagesh* in the *qof* of the verb ב ֹק עַי' he supplants' (Jer. 9.3) (§I.<IP_ADDRESS>.). It does not, however, correspond to the tradition attributed to Ben Naftali in all features. In general, it exhibits a more developed tradition than A and L. It marks, for example, *gaʿya* in open syllables (§I.<IP_ADDRESS>) and *dagesh* in consonantal *ʾalef* (§I.1.1.) more frequently than is the case in A and L.28 A facsimile of C was published by Loewinger (1971). A Spanish team directed by Pérez Castro (1979–

27 For the arguments regarding its dating, see Menachem Cohen (1982b), Glatzer (1989, 250–59), Lipschütz (1964, 6–7).

28 Yeivin (1968, 360–61).

1992) produced an edition of the manuscript together with its Masora.

5. Jerusalem National and University Library, Heb. 24, 5702 (formerly MS Sassoon 507) (henceforth referred to as S)

This is likely to have been written in the tenth century. The surviving sections contain most of the Pentateuch. It does not exhibit a predominant correspondence to either Ben Asher or Ben Naftali, in that it agrees with Ben Asher against Ben Naftali in 52% of the recorded cases of differences. The vocalization exhibits some features that are attributed to Ben Naftali, e.g. ל ֵא ָר יש ִב (§I.2.5.1.). In some features it is more developed than A and L, such as the greater marking of *rafe* and the greater marking of *gaʿya* in open syllables. Unlike A and L, however, it does not mark *ḥaṭef* signs on non-guttural consonants.29

Towards the end of the Masoretic period in the second half of the tenth century and the eleventh century, many Karaite scholars became involved with the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. Some studies have shown that the Masoretic notes in some Tiberian Bible codices, including the Aleppo Codex, contain some elements that appear to reflect Karaite rather than Rabbanite theology.30 Does this mean that the whole circle of Tiberian Masoretes were Karaites? There are several problems with such a simple assessment. The medieval sources refer to several

29 Yeivin (1968, 361-362), Shashar (1983).

30 For example, the gradual revelation of *miṣvot* to generations before Moses; cf. Zer (2003).

generations of Masoretes, some of them belonging to the same family. They indicate that the family of the famous Masorete Aharon Ben Asher had been involved in Masoretic activities over five generations. Aharon Ben Asher lived in the tenth century, and so Asher 'the elder', who is stated to be the great-greatgrandfather of Aharon, is likely to have lived in the second half of the eighth century C.E., before the emergence of Karaism on the historical scene. There is no evidence of a Karaite community in Tiberias during the Masoretic period. The immigration of Karaites to Palestine evidently began in the second half of the ninth century and was directed towards Jerusalem (Gil 1992, 182). Some of the Masoretes, furthermore, were closely associated with the Rabbanite Jewish authorities, e.g. Pinḥas Rosh ha-Yeshiva ('head of the Academy'), who lived in the ninth century. The 'Academy' (*Yeshiva*) was the central body of Rabbanite Jewish communal authority in Palestine. Some close parallels to the format and phraseology of the Masoretic notes can, in fact, be found in Midrashic literature composed before the Islamic period (Martín Contreras 1999; 2002; 2003). It is likely that these Midrashim were redacted by Jewish sages in Tiberias, which was a thriving centre of Rabbinic scholarship in the Byzantine period (Rozenfeld 2010, 120–26). All this suggests that Karaite scholars joined forces with an existing stream of tradition of 'Bible scholarship' in Rabbanite Judaism, enhancing it and developing it.

The Karaites contributed to the Tiberian Masoretic tradition in various ways. They sponsored the safekeeping of the model Masoretic codices produced by the Masoretes. This is shown by the fact that colophons of many of the surviving codices indicate that they had come into the possession of Karaite public institutions, such as study houses and synagogues. The Karaites also become involved in the production of accurate copies of Masoretic biblical codices, particularly in the eleventh century, after the cessation of the activities of the Tiberian Masoretes. In the late tenth and early eleventh century, they produced several Masoretic treatises (§I.0.13.1.) and developed the para-Masoretic philological activity of grammar (§I.0.13.4.).

Several of the colophons of the model Tiberian also indicate that the codices were used for liturgical reading by the Karaite communities on Sabbaths and festivals, e.g.

The Aleppo Codex (A):

'in order that they bring it [the codex] out to the settlements and communities in the holy city on the three pilgrimage festivals, the festival of Passover, the festival of Weeks and the festival Tabernacles to read in it'. 31

The Cairo Codex of the Prophets (C):

'This is the codex, the Eight Prophets, which Yaʿbeṣ ben Shlomo consecrated in Jerusalem … for the Karaites who celebrate the feasts at seeing the moon, for them all to read on Sabbath days, at new moons and at the feasts'. 32

כדי שיוציאוהו אל המושבות והקהלות שבעיר הקודש בשלשה :(3 1930,) Kahle 31 .רגלים חג המצות חג השבועות וחג הסוכות לקרות בו

זה הדפתר שמנה נביאים שהקדיש אותו יעבץ בן שלמה :(93 1959,) Kahle 32 בירושלים ... לקראין העושים המועדים על ראות הירח יקראו בו כלם בשבתות ובחדשים .ובמועדים

II Firkovitch Evr. II B 34:

'This Bible should be taken to one of the settlements in which there are Karaite communities on Sabbaths and festivals in the city of Cairo so that the congregation can read it each Sabbath and blessed festival'. 33

The use of Masoretic codices for liturgical reading distinguished the Karaites from the Rabbanites, who continued to use scrolls for this purpose (Allony 1979).

#### **I.0.5.** *QERE* **AND** *KETIV*

The medieval Tiberian Bible codices record the reading tradition not only in the vocalization sign system but also in marginal notes. These are known as *qere* notes. The term *qere* is the Aramaic passive participle י ֵר ק' read'. The notes were marked when there was a conflict between the orthography of the text, known as the *ketiv* (from the Aramaic passive participle יב ִת כ' written'), and the oral reading. The usual practice in the manuscripts was to write the vocalization of the *qere* on the orthography of the *ketiv* and then write in the margin the appropriate orthography of the *qere* without vocalization. The *qere* note in the margin is generally flagged by the word קרי) *qere*) under it or the abbreviation ק, e.g.

2 Kings 20.4

חָ צֵ ֖ ר as העיר *ketiv* the read .e.i חצר :Margin הָ עֵ י֖ר :L ק

יאסף זה המקרא אל אחת המושבות שיהיה בה קהלות :(77–74 1930,) Kahle 33 .הקראיין בשבתות ובמועדים במדינת מצרים לקראת הקהל בו בכל שבת ומועד ברוך

In some places in the manuscripts, the *qere* note is accompanied by a sign that resembles a final *nun* ן. This was evidently a device to draw the attention of the reader (Ofer 2019, 89–91).

*Qere* notes are unevenly distributed across the Hebrew Bible. They are less frequent in the Pentateuch than in the Prophets and Writings.34

When there is a regular conflict between the orthography of the reading in frequently occurring words and forms, as is the case, for example, with the Tetragrammaton (*ketiv* יהוה, *qere* יָנֹד ֲא (י רּושָ לַ יִם *qere* ,ירושלם *ketiv*' (Jerusalem 'name place the ,)אֱ ֹלהִ ים or and some morphological suffixes (see below), the vocalization of the word reflects the *qere* but there are no *qere* notes in the margins with the appropriate orthography.

It is important to distinguish between the *qere* notes and the *qere*. The term *qere* should properly refer to the entire reading tradition, reflected by the vocalization, whereas the *qere* notes concern selected cases where the reading tradition differs sufficiently from the orthography to lead to errors in reading. Errors in reading included not only errors in pronunciation but also errors in the understanding and parsing of a word.

As remarked, the transmission of the Hebrew Bible involved the intertwining of written text and oral reading tradition. The written text was copied by scribes and the memory of the oral reading tradition was passed on from generation to generation by teachers. The scribes and the teachers constituted two distinct groups and their activities were distinct. This is one of the reasons why discrepancies arose between the two channels

34 Barr (1981), Tov (2015, 157).

#### *Introduction* 35

of transmission. To understand further the phenomenon of a reading tradition (*qere*) of the Hebrew Bible that does not always correspond to the orthography of the written text (*ketiv*), it is helpful to compare the *qere* to the oral reading traditions of the Qurʾān, known as *qirāʾāt*.

According to early Islamic sources, immediately after the death of the prophet Muḥammad, Qurʾānic verses were preserved in both written and oral form. They were recorded in writing on small fragmentary objects, such as palm stalks and thin stones, and were transmitted in human memory 'in the hearts of men' (*ṣudūr al-rijāl*).35 The implication is that oral traditions accompanied written traditions from the very beginning of the process of transmission. After the written text of the Qurʾān had been officially stabilized and had undergone a process of standardization in the form of the edition of the caliph ʿUthmān (seventh century C.E.), considerable diversity still remained in the various traditions of orally reciting the text, despite the fact that ʿUthmān had commanded the written texts that did not conform to the new ʿUthmānic recension to be destroyed. These oral reading traditions exhibited different linguistic features, reflecting differences between the spoken Arabic dialects of the period, and also textual differences. Some of the differences were also due to grammatical errors by reciters. For approximately two centuries after the introduction of the ʿUthmānic standard written text, some textual differences in the reading traditions still deviated from the or-

35 See *ḥadīth* 4986 in the collection of al-Bukhārī (*Ṣaḥiḥ al-Bukhārī*) ed. Muḥammad M. Khan (1997).

thography of this standard text. The textual differences, therefore, were not only different interpretations of the written orthography but also, it seems, different readings that arose in oral transmission. By the third century A.H./ninth century C.E., however, the permitted forms of reading were strictly brought into line with the orthography of the text and with standardized rules of Arabic grammar. This was largely due to the activities of Ibn Mujāhid (d. 324 A.H./936 C.E.), who had the official backing of the government authorities. Ibn Mujāhid also reduced the number of authorized reading traditions to seven canonical ones, which were transmitted from a recognized authority and had a large number of tradents. The principle of conformity with the orthography of the ʿUthmānic text did not necessarily require correspondence to the reading originally intended by the orthography, but rather it was required that the reading could be accommodated by the orthography. The potential for variation was increased by the fact that what was fixed was the orthography without diacritical dots on the Arabic letters (known as the *rasm*). This is likely to have been intentional in order to accommodate a diversity of reading traditions. The text, therefore, could not serve as a stand-alone document but rather functioned as an *aidemémoire* for the oral reading (Graham and Kermani 2007, 116; Roxburgh 2008, 8). Various different dialectal forms of Arabic were permitted in the reading traditions, so long as they could be supported by the *rasm*. The orthography originally represented the western Arabian dialect of the Ḥijāz in which a glottal stop was elided. The word for 'well, spring', for example, was pronounced as *bīr* in the dialect of Ḥijāz (i.e. بير (and this is what was originally intended by the orthography رىى . This was how it was pronounced also in some of the canonical reading traditions. Other canonical reading traditions, however, read the *rasm* with a glottal stop, viz. *biʾr*, in accordance with the phonology of the eastern Arabian dialect (i.e. ريٴب( . Some of the most widely followed canonical readings in later centuries, in fact, followed the eastern type of pronunciation, which deviated from what the orthography was originally intended to represent.36

The *qere* of the Hebrew Bible was most likely analogous to the Qurʾānic reading traditions, especially those of the early Islamic period, which sometimes differed textually from the orthography.37 As with the Qurʾānic reading traditions, the *qere*  reflects an orally transmitted reading tradition of the written text, i.e. a memorized tradition of oral recitation. It need not be assumed that it is derived from a variant written tradition that had its origin in written manuscripts.38 Indeed allusions to Jewish education in the Second Temple Period refer to learning the Torah

38 We take the view here of scholars who have stressed the oral dimension of the text reflected by the vocalization; cf. especially Barr (1968, 194–222; 1981), Morag (1974), M. Breuer (1997) and Ofer (2019, 87– 89). A discrepancy between a reading tradition and the written text similar to the one found in the transmission of the Hebrew Bible is found

36 For a good overview of Qurʾānic reading traditions see Leemhuis (2017). See also Nasser (2013) and Graham and Kermani (2007).

37 Cf. Crowther (2018), who draws analogies between the diversity of Qurʾānic oral reading traditions with the pluriformity of biblical texts from Qumran.

by hearing the recitation of texts, which would be memorized and repeated orally. This acquired knowledge of the text would stand independently of the written text. Josephus (d. 100 C.E.) describes such a process of education as follows:

Let the high priest stand upon a high desk, whence he may be heard, and let him read the laws to all the people; and let neither the women nor the children be hindered from hearing.39

Such memorized oral traditions could potentially survive punctuations such as the physical destruction of written texts, as is likely to have happened after the destruction of the First Temple in the sixth century B.C.E.40 and as is reported to have happened during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who, according to 1 Macc. 1.56-57, ordered the destruction of books in the Temple in 168–167 B.C.E. In a similar manner oral traditions of the Qurʾān maintained textual traditions that were eliminated by the physical destruction of written non-ʿUthmānic versions (Zbrzezny 2019).

The *qere* notes in the medieval Masoretic codices are unlikely to have originated as written marginal corrections of specific words in the written text, as advocated, for example, by scholars such as Ginsburg (1897, 183–87) and Gordis (1971).

40 Cf. Carr (2005, 161–73).

also in the tradition of reciting the Talmud in the Yemenite Jewish community; Morag (1988).

39 *Antiquities* (4.214). The passage is discussed by Schniedewind (2013, 196). Josephus refers elsewhere also to the memorization of Psalms by the Levites (*Antiquities* 20.218).

Rather they constitute a system that was developed before the vocalization signs were created to alert the reader to places where the oral reading deviates from what is represented by the written orthography.

In the early Islamic tradition, the Qurʾān was typically recited only from memory during congregational prayers. In an attempt to bring the oral traditions more into line with the written text, Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf (d. 95 A.H./714 C.E.), the governor of Iraq, ordered the recitation to be made from a book rather from memory alone (Hamdan 2006, 172). Such an attempt to bring the recitation of oral tradition more closely together with the text is likely to have occurred also in Judaism in the process of fixing the text after the destruction of the Temple. The oral and written traditions of both the Hebrew Bible and the Qurʾān, nevertheless, continued to be separate levels of transmission. The oral reading was the oral performance of the written text, whereby the two levels were intertwined.

As is the case with Qurʾānic reading traditions, the *qere*  reflected linguistic differences from the *ketiv*, textual differences and sporadic errors in reading.

The linguistic differences often appear to reflect dialectal divergences. The *qere* of the pronominal suffixes ךָ-] -χɔː], ָת- [-tʰɔː] and יוָ-] -ɔːɔv], for instance, reflect different morphological forms from those reflected by the *ketiv*. The *ketiv* of the second person suffixes ך-, ת- reflect forms without a final vowel and the 3ms suffix יו- appears to reflect a suffix containing a front vowel, such as *-ēw* or the like. The forms of the *qere* are reflected in Qumran manuscripts and Hebrew epigraphic texts from the first millennium B.C.E. by spellings such as כה-, תה- and ו-) Cross and Freedman 1952, 53, 66–67; Qimron 1986, 58–60). The spelling of these suffixes with the normal Masoretic type of orthography is also found in Qumran and epigraphic texts.41 The *qere* of the suffixes ךָ-, ָת- and יוָ-, moreover, is reflected by the orthography of the consonantal text in a few sporadic cases, e.g. ה ָכ דָ֣ ָי' your חִִ֝ צָָּ֗ ו ,(21.23 .Gen' (sojourned have you 'גַ ַָ֣֥ר תָ ה ,(13.16 .Exod' (hand 'his arrows' (Psa. 58.8). It is not necessarily the case, therefore, that the linguistic differences between the *qere* and the *ketiv* always reflect later stages of development of the Hebrew language, but rather in many cases these may have been contemporary dialectal differences. Exceptional pronominal forms that appear in the *ketiv* but not in the *qere* and have been considered archaic are often attested in the orthography of Qumran manuscripts. This applies, for example, to 2fs pronominal forms with final *yod*:

*ketiv* אתי, *qere* ת ֖ ַא 1 Kings 14.2 'you (fs)'  *ketiv* הלכתי, *qere* ת כֶ֑ ָל ָה Jer. 31.21 'you (fs) went'

 *ketiv* לכי, *qere* ךְ֖ ָל 2 Kings 4.2 'to you'

The *yod* occurs on these pronominal forms in Qumran manuscripts where they do not occur in the *ketiv* of the Masoretic Text, suggesting that it was still a living linguistic feature in the late Second Temple period. Examples are particularly numerous in the scroll 1QIsaa , e.g.42

41 For a detailed discusssion of the attested forms of the suffix see Hornkohl (2020).

42 Material incorporated from the Gesenius grammar project contributed by Aaron Hornkohl.

QIsaa1 (אתי היאה 42.24 | BHS יא ִ֛ ִ־ה אַת Isa. 51.9 '[are] you [not] she')

QIsaa1 (לבכי 39.26 | BHS ךְ ֵב ִל Isa. 47.7 'your [fs] heart')

QIsaa1 (עליתי 17.4 | BHS ית ִַ֥ל ָע Isa. 22.1 'you [fs] have gone up')

In fact, the forms with *yod* occasionally occur in the *qere* of the Masoretic text, e.g. י ִכ יֶָ֣֑ ָי ַח' your (fs) life' (Psa. 103.4).

There are other less frequently occurring instances where there appear to be differences in morphology between the form represented by the orthography of the *ketiv* and the *qere* without it being felt necessary to write a *qere* note, e.g.

'him brought had I until 'עַ ד־ש ֶׁ֤ הֲ בֵ יאתִ יו 3.4. .Cant

'placed I and 'וָ אָ שִ ֶׁ֤ ם 24.47. .Gen

'separated have I and 'וָ אַ ב דִַ֥ ל 20.26. .Lev

Here the *ketiv* orthography is likely to reflect the forms orthography the ,Evidently .respectively וָ אַ ב דֵ ל and וָ אָ שֵ ם ,הֲ בִ יאֹתִ יו of the *ketiv* was considered to be acceptable as a representation of the *qere* due to analogy with orthography in other contexts, e.g. יא ַ֥ ֵב ָה' bring!' (1 Sam. 20.40), and defective spellings such as .43(14.7 .Exod' (officers 'ו שָ לִ שִ ֖ ם

With regard to textual differences between the *qere* and the *ketiv*, sometimes there is a difference in the whole word, e.g. 2 Kings 20.4, written העיר' the town', read ר֖ ֵצ ָח' the court' or the

43 The linguistic differences between the *qere* and the *ketiv* are particularly prominent in Biblical Aramaic, where in many cases each of these layers clearly reflects different dialects of Aramaic.

division of words, e.g. Ezek. 42.9, written האלה לשכות ומתחתה, isolated some In .'chambers these below 'מִ תַ ֖ חַ ת הַ ל שָ כ ֹות הָ אֵ ֶ֑ ל ה read cases the discrepancy amounts to omissions or additions of words הִ נֵ ִ֛ה יָמִַ֥ ים בָ אִ ֖ ים read ,הנה ימים written 31.38, .Jer .g.e ,phrases or 'behold the days are coming'.

In a few cases, a textual difference in the *qere* does not differ in its phonetic form from the reading offered by the *ketiv*. This applies, for example, to several instances where the *ketiv* is לו' to him' and the *qere* is אֹ ל' not' and vice versa, e.g.

```
 ו ְ֠קָ ם הַ בַַּ֨ יִת אֲ ש ר־בָ עִִ֜ יר אֲ ש ר־ל ֹ א חֹמָָּ֗ ה לַ צ מִ ית ִ֛ ת לַ קֹנ ַ֥ה אֹת֖ ֹו
```
אֲ ש ר־ל ֹו חֹמָָּ֗ ה *:qere*

'The house that is in a city with a wall (*ketiv*: a city that is not a wall) shall be made sure in perpetuity to him who bought it' (Lev. 25.30).

```
 ו אָ מַ ַ֥ ר ׀ ל ֹו כִִּ֚י עַ תָ ה תִ תֵ ן
```
ו אָ מַ ַ֥ ר ׀ ל ֹא :*qere*

'He would say "No, you must give it now"' (*ketiv:* 'He would say to him "You must give it now"' (1 Sam. 2.16).

In such cases, the conflict between the oral *qere* and the orthography of the *ketiv* is only a difference in its interpretation, which shows that the oral reading was transmitted together with an associated semantic content. So the note in the margins of medieval Masoretic manuscripts stating that the *qere* is ול where the *ketiv* has לא indicates that in the reading tradition this word *lō* has the meaning 'to it' and offers an orthography that is more appropriate for this than the orthography of the *ketiv* (לא(, which reflects a different meaning of *lō*, namely the meaning of the negative particle. In late antiquity, this semantic content was expressed by the Targums (Onqelos and Jonathan), which frequently reflect an interpretation of the *qere* and not the *ketiv*  (e.g. Onqelos to Lev. 25.30: שורא דליה דבקרתא ביתא' a house that is in town that has a wall'). In a number of cases, however, the Targums reflect the semantic content reflected by the orthography of the *ketiv*. This applies, for example, to the Targum to 1 Sam. 2.16, which reflects the *ketiv* לו' to him': ליה ואמר' and he said to him'. This reflects a diversity of interpretative traditions.

Another case where the *ketiv* and *qere* have the same phonetic form is 2 Sam 5.2: *ketiv* את והמבי, *qere* note את המביא' the one bringing in + object marker' (ת־ א יא ֖ ִב ֵמ ַה ו(. The *ketiv* seems to have arisen by haplography of an *ʾalef*. The *qere* note need not be taken as evidence that it has its origin in a written manuscript with the correct orthography, but rather indicates that in the reading tradition the *ketiv* המבי is interpreted as meaning המביא. The purpose of the note was to ensure that readers parsed the anomalous orthography המבי correctly. Similar cases of *qere* notes that do not reflect a different pronunciation but rather offer help in parsing words with an unusual orthography include Jer. 18.3 .Exod and) ו הִ נֵ ה־הִ֛ ּוא) 'he behold and 'והנה הוא note *qere* ,והנהו *ketiv* 4.2 *ketiv* מזה, *qere* note זה מה' what is that?' (ה ה־ז ַמ(. In these last two cases, the orthography of the *ketiv* has the purpose of reflecting the prosodic bonding of the words. Although this prosodic bonding indeed exists also in the *qere*, the *qere* note was considered necessary since such combinations of words are normally not represented in this way in the orthography.

Another case of the *qere* note apparently differing only in orthography from the *ketiv* is

 1 Chron. 11.17. L: ו ַ֥ ָא תִי ַו' and he desired', *qere* note: ויתאיו, .וַ יִת אָ ַ֥ יו is *qere* the .e.i

Here the spelling of the *qere* note with final יו) imitating the orthography of the 3ms pronominal suffix on plural nouns יו - ָָ ( is likely to be a device to ensure that the ending of the word is read as a final diphthong. Similar *qere* notes for this verb are found in Prov. 23.6 and Prov. 24.1. An analogous type of note is found in Jer. 17.11: *ketiv* ימו, *qere* ימיו' his days' ( יו ָמָי(. The orthographies ויתאו and ימו would, in principle, be possible for the representation of a final diphthong consisting of *qameṣ* and consonantal *vav* [ɔːɔv]. The point is that the *vav* in orthographic sequences such as או- and מו- at the ends of words would normally be read in the biblical corpus as a vowel. The *qere* note warns against following the normal practice, which would result in an error of reading.

In a few cases, the *qere* has a *qameṣ ḥaṭuf* or *ḥaṭef qameṣ* where the *ketiv* has a vowel letter *vav*, e.g.

 Neh. 4.9. L: בו ָשֶׁ֤ ָנ ַו' and we returned', *qere* note: ונשב, i.e. the .וַ נָ ֶׁ֤שָ ב is *qere*

The purpose of the *qere* note is to supply a more appropriate orthography for the short vowel of the reading tradition since the orthography of the *ketiv* with *vav* could cause an error in reading.

In some cases falling into the category of those just discussed, in which the *qere* note presents a more frequent variation of orthography rather than the orthography of a completely different word, there is a Masoretic note relating to orthography rather than a *qere* note, which serves the same purpose, e.g.

 Ammonite ,Ashdodite 'אַ ש ד ודִ י ֹות ועַ מ נִ יֹ֖ות :L 13.23. .Neh women', note ו יתיר') the *vav* is redundant'), i.e. the *qere* is .אַ ש ד דִ י ֹות עַ מ נִ יֹ֖ות

In these types of cases the manuscripts occasionally differ, some having a *qere* note and others a Masoretic note relating to orthography (Ofer 2019, 92), e.g.

:תַ ח תָ ו 16.8. .Sam 2

A: חס ד' one of four cases in which the orthography (of this suffix) lacks (*yod*)'

Notes such as those just described, in which the *qere* is pronounced the same or similarly to the *ketiv*, suggest that the *qere* notes were originally compiled before the creation of the vocalization signs, since the vocalization would have ensured that such an error of reading was not made. References to differences between *qere* and *ketiv* are, in fact, already mentioned in Rabbinic literature (Yeivin 1980, §105; Ofer 2008; 2009).

In a large proportion of cases where the *qere* differs from the *ketiv,* the *qere* represents an easier reading than the *ketiv.* The reading may be textually easier. The *qere*, for example,

'תַ ח תָ יו is *qere* the 'תחתיו ק :L

sometimes has a *vav* where the *ketiv* has a *yod* that is textually difficult and has evidently arisen through scribal error, as in:

 Jer. 13.20. L: ם יכ ֵינ ֵע י ֶׁ֤א ש' lift up your (pl) eyes' (where the *ketiv* reflects י ִא ש' lift up (fs)'), *qere* note שאו, i.e. the *qere* is ש אֶׁ֤ ּו

In some places, the *qere* inverts the letters of a *ketiv* of an obscure form to produce a familiar form, e.g.

 2 Sam. 20:14. L: וּ ה ֲל ָקִי ַו' and they assembled', *qere* note .וַ יִקָ הֲ ל ּו is *qere* the .e.i ,ויקהלו

In such cases in the Aleppo Codex the vocalization signs are not marked in the order required by the *qere* but rather are marked on the letters of the *ketiv* in a different order from the form of the *qere* that they are intended to represent, i.e. וּ ֲה ל ָקִי ַו (Yeivin 1962). Here each individual letter has the vocalization required by the *qere* but the sequence of vowels is still according to the order of the letters in the *ketiv.* This may reflect the notion that the *qere* here is correcting a mistaken orthography, which is scrambled in the *ketiv*.

The *qere* may be socially easier, in that it supplies a euphemism in place of a less socially polite *ketiv*, e.g.

 Deut. 28.30. L: ה ָנ ל ָג שִי' he will ravish her', *qere* note ישכבנה, i.e. the *qere* is ה ָנ ב ָכ שִי' he will lie with her'.

It may be theologically easier by, for example, supplying a substitution for the sacred Tetragrammaton or avoiding an anthropomorphism, as in

שָ ל ֹוש פ עָ מִ ים ׀ בַ שָ נָָ֡ ה יֵרָ א ַּ֨ ה כָ ל־ז כּור ָךִ֜ א ת־פ נֵ י ׀ י הוָ ה :L 16.16. .Deut ךָי ָּ֗ להֹ ֱא' Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord, your God'.

Here the verb ה ַּ֨ א ָרֵי is read as a *nifʿal*, but the *ketiv* יראה appears to have originally represented a transitive *qal* verb 'he will see (the face of the Lord)'. The reading tradition was less anthropomorphic and so theologically more acceptable.

In a few cases, however, the *qere* contains textual differences that appear to be more difficult than that of the *ketiv* and have arisen by an error, e.g.

 2 Sam. 16.12. L: ֵע יובֶ֑ ִנ , *qere* note בעיני, i.e. the *qere* is יֶ֑ ִינ ֵע ב 'upon my eye'.

The *ketiv* reflects the word י ִונֹ ֲע' my punishment', and this would seem from the context to be the original reading here (C. McCarthy 1981, 81–83) and the reading 'my eye' has arisen by אּולַ ִ֛י יִר א ַ֥ ה י הוָ ֖ה ב עֵ ונִ ֶ֑י )קרי בעיני( :word the of reading erroneous an will Lord the that be may It 'ו הֵ שִַּ֨ יב י הוָ ַ֥ה לִ י טֹובָ ה תַ ַ֥ חַ ת קִ ל לָ ת֖ ֹו הַ יַֹ֥ום הַ ז ָּֽה׃ look upon my punishment (*qere* my eye) and that the Lord will repay me with good for this cursing of me today.' The Septuagint translates ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει μου 'in my humiliation', which is clearly a rendering of the *ketiv*. The interpretation of Targum Jonathan, however, reflects the reading of the *qere*: דמעת יי קדם גליא אם מא עיני' what if the tear of my eye is revealed before the Lord?'. Another example is

 Gen. 8.17. L: ַה או ֵצ' bring out', *qere* note היצא, i.e. the *qere* is . צֵ אי הַ

The *qere* here is the morphologically difficult form א ֵצ י ַה, whereas the *ketiv* reflects the expected form א ֵוצֹה. Here again, the *qere* seems to have arisen by an erroneous reading of a *yod*  instead of a *vav.* The letters *vav* and *yod* were often difficult to distinguish in the Hebrew square script used in the Second Temple Period (Tov 2012, 228–32).

Difficult *qere* readings such as י ִינ ֵע ב and ַה אי ֵצ , which apparently arose from a confusion of written letters, do not necessarily originate in scribal errors in written texts but rather could have been due to misreadings of a written text in the oral recitation. This would imply that the oral reading tradition, although memorized and potentially independent of the written text, in practice had some degree of dependence on it. As remarked, it is best characterized as an oral performance of the visible written text. The tradition of this oral performance was evidently less fixed in antiquity and could adjust to the visible written text, even when this was misread. At a later period, the Tiberian reading tradition was fixed in its textual form, but it nevertheless continued to have the status of an oral performance of the written text and so have some degree of dependence on it. This is reflected, in particular, in the phenomenon of orthoepy in the Tiberian reading tradition, i.e. the effort to ensure that the distinct elements of the written text are given their optimal realization (§I.0.11.).

The intertwined nature of the oral reading tradition and the written text is reflected also in the interpretation exhibited by the early versions and by the interpretation traditions that existed during the first millennium C.E. when the Tiberian reading was still a living oral tradition. In the ancient versions, such as the Septuagint, the Peshitta and the Vulgate, the renderings of passages with *qere* and *ketiv* differences in the Masoretic tradition in some cases reflect the Tiberian *qere* and in other cases reflect the *ketiv*. 44 Even Greek transcriptions of Hebrew proper names in the Septuagint in some cases reflect the *ketiv* rather than the *qere*. 45 It is possible that in the source text and source reading tradition of the Septuagint in the Second Temple Period the *qere* and *ketiv*  variations were distributed differently from what came to be fixed in the Masoretic tradition. This is less likely, however, in later versions such as the Peshitta and Vulgate, and it appears that the translators were basing themselves on either the *qere* or the *ketiv*. In the Talmudic period, indeed, the Rabbis based their interpretations of Scripture on both the *qere* and the *ketiv*, and traces of this practice continued into the Middle Ages.46

#### **I.0.6. THE ACCENTS**

The *qere* became canonical and fixed. After the canonization of the *qere*, another level of oral reading was superimposed on the *qere* in the form of the divisions of the *qere* text expressed by cantillation. These divisions, which came to be represented graphically by the medieval accent signs, expressed a particular

44 According to Gordis (1971, 66) the Peshitta and Vulgate versions reflect approximately 70% *qere* readings and the Septuagint approximately 60%.

45 Myers (2019, 285–86).

46 Goldberg (1990), Naeh (1992; 1993).

interpretation of the text.47 Occasionally the accent divisions do not correspond to the tradition of the written text. This applies to some cases where there is a conflict between the accents and the paragraph divisions, known as *parashiyyot*, in the Tiberian Masoretic text. These paragraph divisions in the layout of the written text are found in the manuscripts from Qumran, both biblical and non-biblical. There is a large degree of agreement between the paragraphing of the Qumran biblical scrolls and that of the medieval manuscripts, which indicates that the tradition can be traced back to the Second Temple period. In a number of places, however, the paragraph divisions in the medieval manuscripts do not coincide with the end of a verse according to the accents. This is known as פסוק באמצע פסקה' a paragraph division within a verse', e.g. Gen. 35.22, 1 Sam. 16.2. The reason for this appears to be that the paragraph division of the written text and the division expressed by the cantillation are two different layers of exegetical tradition, which occasionally do not correspond with one another. In a number of cases, the cantillation divisions conflicted with the *qere*, as is seen by the fact that in a number of verses a division in the *qere* represented by a pausal form in the vocalization has a conjunctive accent in the cantillation.48

47 There is evidence that the written accent signs were introduced before the vocalization signs in the various traditions of notation of reading traditions (Dotan 1981).

48 For this phenomenon see Revell (1980; 2015), I. Ben-David (1995) and Khan (2013a, 59–60). According to Dresher (1994) and DeCaen and Dresher (2020) this phenomenon is motivated by the system of prosodic division, which obliges conjunctives to be used in long verses in

The cantillation is a layer of reading that has roots in late antiquity. There are references to the teaching of biblical cantillation in Talmudic literature. One passage (Babylonian Talmud, *Berakhot* 62a) mentions the use of the right hand by the teacher or leader of the congregation to indicate the accents of the reading. The term טעמים פסקי' stops of the accents', which is found in Talmudic literature, reflects the function of the accents to mark syntactic division. The association of the chant with the interpretation of the meaning of the text was recognized, as is shown by the Talmudic interpretation of Neh. 8.8 '[And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly;] they gave the sense ,(ו ש ֹום ש כ ל וַ יָ בִ ֖ ינּו בַ מִ ק רָ ָּֽ א) 'reading the understood) people the (and which is said to refer to the reading with accents.

Evidence for the division of the biblical text by accents in the Second Temple period is found in a Septuagint manuscript from the second century B.C.E. that has spaces corresponding to the major pausal accents of the Tiberian tradition (Revell 1971). In addition to the Tiberian accent signs, there was also a tradition of marking cantillation divisions by accents in manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization. Divisions of the Babylonian cantillation in most cases coincide with those of the Tiberian tradition (Shoshany 2003; 2013). This can be interpreted as reflecting that they had a common origin in antiquity.

There is evidence that in the Second Temple period the exegesis of the syntax of the biblical text did not always

some places where they are not expected. This would imply that the prosodic accent system was imposed on an earlier inherited reading tradition.

correspond to that of the Tiberian accents. This is seen in the Septuagint translation, which often reflects a different syntactic division of the verse. From the Pesher commentaries found in Qumran, moreover, it appears that the delimitation of biblical verses did not always correspond to the placement of the final pausal accent (*silluq*) in the Tiberian tradition. It should be taken into account, however, that, just as there was a large range of consonantal textual traditions at this period, it is likely that there were a variety of exegetical traditions regarding the syntax of the text.

This is seen in the case of Isa. 40.3. In the New Testament, 'the voice of one crying in the wilderness' of Matt. 3.3 reflects an interpretation that is different from the one reflected by the Tiberian accents. In the *Manual of Discipline* from Qumran (1QS 8.13-14), however, the introit 'a voice calls' is omitted and the teacher uses the verse to exhort the sectarians 'to prepare a way in the wilderness', i.e. establish a community there. This shows that the Masoretic interpretation of the syntax was also current at that period. The version found in Matt. 3.3 is apparently an exegetical reworking to support the call of John from the wilderness (Fishbane 1988, 367–68). Another case is Deut. 26.5. The interpretation in conformity with the accents 'An Aramaean was seeking to destroy my father' can be traced to the Second Temple period. Midrashic literature, however, indicates that there was also an ancient tradition of interpreting it 'My father is an Aramaean about to perish' (Goldschmidt 1960, 34ff.).49 It is likely

49 The Septuagint translation (συρίαν ἀπέβαλεν ὁ πατήρ μου 'my father abandoned Syria') seems to reflect a slightly different consonantal text.

that the exegetical tradition of the Masoretic accents has its origin in the teachings of mainstream Pharisaic Judaism. Within the accent system itself one can sometimes identify different layers of tradition. One example of this is the decalogue in Exod. 20.13-16. The accentuation of this passage is unusual in that most words have two different accents. The explanation of this double accentuation is apparently that it reflects two layers of tradition. According to one layer of tradition, the four commandments are presented in four separate verses, whereas in another they form together one accentual unit.50

The Targums frequently reflect an interpretation of the text that corresponds to the divisions of the cantillation. In Deut. 26.5, for instance, the disjunctive accent on the first word of the clause the from separated syntactically is it that indicates אֲ רַ מִ י אֹבֵ ד אָ בִ י following word and so the two should be interpreted as subject and predicate rather than a noun and attributive adjective. The sense reflected by the accents, therefore, is 'An Aramaean (i.e. Laban) was seeking to destroy my father'. This is a Midrashic interpretation, which is reflected by Targum Onqelos ( ארמאה לבן .(בעא לאובדא ית אבא

We may say, therefore, that three layers of textual tradition became fixed and canonized, one written, i.e. the *ketiv*, and two oral, i.e. the *qere* and the cantillation tradition. It is not known whether there was a difference in the historical depth of the two oral layers of tradition. The accents, however, clearly relate more closely to the *qere* than the *ketiv*. When, for example, the *qere*

50 For the existence of different layers of accent systems see Menahem Cohen (1987).

contains words that are not written in the *ketiv*, these words have accents and, vice versa, words that are written but not read have no accents. When a word that occurs in the *qere* is omitted in the *ketiv,* some manuscripts write the accents, e.g. in Jer. 31.38, the behold 'הִ נֵ ִ֛ה יָמִַ֥ ים בָ אִ ֖ ים is *qere* the and הנה ימים is *ketiv* the where days are coming', L writes the accents of the *qere* ים ֖ ִא ָב on a filler sign:

# L:

This phenomenon of two oral traditions may be compared to the toleration of pluriformity in the oral reading traditions (*qirāʾāt*) of the Qurʾān. As we have seen above, attempts were made to restrain this pluriformity, but it was not eliminated altogether and a limited diversity of reading traditions were legitimated. The most direct analogy to the different Qurʾānic *qirāʾāt* is the existence of reading traditions that were distinct from the Tiberian one, namely the Babylonian, Palestinian and various non-standard Tiberian traditions. One could, however, also regard the existence of distinct oral layers within the Tiberian tradition as a manifestation of the legitimation of a pluriformity of reading traditions.

### **I.0.7. THE REPRESENTATION OF THE** *QERE* **IN WRITTEN FORM**

As is well known, the Targums sometimes go beyond the oral reading reflected by the medieval Masoretic tradition and make further adjustments for purposes of exegesis or the resolution of perceived textual difficulties. One may regard them, therefore, as a further layer of tradition, refining the oral cantillated *qere*. It is of interest that some features of the oral *qere* and the adjustments of the Targums actually appear in the written text of some Qumran Hebrew Bible manuscripts.51 This may be compared to the situation in the early years of the transmission of the Qurʾān. There are references to the existence of early codices of the Qurʾān that deviated from the ʿUthmānic text. Some of the readings attributed to these codices that differed from the ʿUthmānic text survived as oral reading traditions after the ʿUthmānic recension had become the standard written form of the text.52 Even in some medieval manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, the reading of the *qere* was written in the text in place of the reading of the *ketiv*. These were predominantly manuscripts written for private use. Such manuscripts, which are mainly preserved in the Genizah in fragmentary form, often deviate from the traditional Masoretic tradition in other respects. Many, for

51 For the reflection of the *qere* in the *ketiv* of 1QIsaa from Qumran see Kutscher (1979, 519–21). The correspondences between the adjustments of the Targum and the *ketiv* of Qumran manuscripts have been discussed by Gottlieb (2016).

52 See Leemhuis (2017).

example, exhibit features of Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization or lack accents. An extreme case of such private medieval manuscripts is a corpus of Hebrew Bible manuscripts written by Karaite scribes in Arabic transcription (§I.0.13.3.). These regularly represent the *qere* in the transcription rather than the *ketiv*. By contrast, monumental manuscripts, which were typically deposited in public institutions, preserved the traditional distinction between the *ketiv* and the *qere*.

Biblical manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization, which in general should be considered to be private texts, frequently have the *qere* form written in place of the *ketiv* (Revell 1977, 164– 65)*.* Manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization, most of which can be assumed to have been written in Iraq, correspond to the Tiberian consonantal text very closely and differ only in a few details. These differences are generally related to orthography and include, in some cases, the harmonization of the *ketiv* with the *qere*. Such small divergences between the 'Easterners' (*Madinḥaʾe*) and the 'Westerners' (*Maʿarbaʾe*) are mentioned in the Tiberian Masoretic notes and also in lists appended to Tiberian manuscripts.

### **I.0.8. THE HISTORICAL DEPTH OF THE TIBERIAN READING TRADITION**

There are a number of indications that the Tiberian reading tradition, i.e. the *qere* of the Tiberian Masoretic Text, which came to be represented by the Tiberian vocalization sign system, had its roots in the Second Temple Period.

As has been remarked, the textual differences between the reading and the written text are referred to in Rabbinic literature. Furthermore, some of the Qumran scrolls from the Second Temple period have in a number of places the text of the Tiberian *qere*. 53 One may trace back the text of *qere* forms even further, into the period of literary growth of the biblical books. There is internal evidence for this in the distribution of *qere* and *ketiv*  within the Masoretic text. This is found, for example, in the fact that the *ketiv* of the text of Chronicles often corresponds to the *qere* of its earlier biblical source. An example of this is the word ָיה ש ָר ג ִמ' surrounding pasture-lands', which is used in association with the lists of Levitical cities in Josh. 21 and 1 Chron. 6. The Chronicler is clearly using the text of Josh. 21 as his literary source. In the original text in Joshua, the word is always written as a singular form but it is read in the reading tradition as a plural: ָה ש ָר ג ִמ. This reflects a later interpretation of an originally singular form as a plural (Barr 1984). This 'later' interpretation, however, is no later than the consonantal text of Chronicles, where it is written as a plural. Even if we do not attribute this interpretation to the author of the Chronicles passage, there are good grounds for arguing that the text of the reading tradition of Josh. 21 is as old as the consonantal text of 1 Chron. 6.54

53 This is found particularly in 'popular' texts such as 1QIsa a ; cf. Kutscher (1979, 519–21).

54 For the antiquity of the reading tradition see the discussion in Barr (1968, 207–22) and Grabbe (1977, 179–97). Maimon Cohen (2007) argues that the *qere* variants listed in the Masoretic notes are linguistic

In Late Biblical Hebrew, certain verbs with a reflexive or non-agentive meaning appear as *nifʿal* in the past suffix conjugation form (perfect) whereas they appear as *qal* in Classical Biblical Hebrew. The intransitive form of the verb 'to stumble' (כשל(, for example, appears in the *nifʿal* ל ַש כ ִנ in the book of Daniel (ל ַ֥ ַש כ ִנ ו' and he will stumble' Dan. 11.19) but in the *qal* form ל ַש ָכ elsewhere. In the prefix conjugation (imperfect), however, the verb is vocalized as a *nifʿal* throughout the Bible. This is because the *ketiv* of the prefix conjugation (יכשל (is ambiguous as to the verbal conjugation and could, in principle, be read as *qal* or *nifʿal*. The Tiberian reading tradition treats the verbal forms as *nifʿal*  where this would be compatible with the consonantal text, but the occurrence of the *qal* form in the suffix conjugation in Classical Biblical Hebrew suggests that the verb was originally read as *qal* in all forms. This is clearly the case in the infinitive form of this verb וֹ ָּ֗ל ש ָכ ִבִ֝וּ) Prov. 24.17), where the consonant text lacks the initial *he* of the *nifʿal* (ל ֵש ָכ ִה (and so must have represented the *qal,* but it is nevertheless read as a *nifʿal*. The crucial point is that the replacement of the *qal* by the *nifʿal* is reflected by the consonantal text itself in Late Biblical Hebrew in the book of Daniel. In some cases, the evidence for the development of an original *qal* verb into a *nifʿal* form that is independent of the vocalization is found in the Qumran manuscripts from the Second Temple period many centuries before the creation of the vocalization sign system. This applies, for example, to the verb נגש' to approach'. On account of the assimilation of the initial *nun* in this

variants that date back to the time of the composition of the biblical books.

verb when in contact with the following consonant, the orthography of the prefix conjugation can only be read as *qal* (ש ַגִי(, since a *nifʿal* reading would require the insertion of a *nun* in the consonantal text (ש ֵג ָנִי(. The orthography of the suffix conjugation form (נגש(, however, could be read as either *qal* or *nifʿal,* and it is the *nifʿal* reading that was adopted in the reading tradition (ש ַג ִנ(. In the Qumran text 4Q512 (40–41, 2) the infinitive of this verb appears in the form בהנגשו, which is unambiguously a *nifʿal* (וֹש ג ָנ ִה ב ( (Ariel 2013, 947). Similar distinctions between the suffix conjugation and prefix conjugation of passive forms are found, whereby the former is vocalized as *puʿal* whereas the latter is vocalized as *nifʿal* (e.g. ף ַרֹט' was torn apart' vs. ף ֵר ָטִי(. Furthermore, the vocalization interprets certain verbs as *piʿel*, which are likely to have been originally *qal*. The verb גרש' to drive out', for example, is normally vocalized as *piʿel* in the prefix and suffix conjugations (ה ָש ר ֵג, ש ֵר ָג ת(, in which the orthography is ambiguous between a *qal* or *piʿel* reading. In the participles, however, where the orthography of *qal* and *piʿel* would be distinct, the original *qal* is preserved (ש ֵרֹג, ה ָושּר ג(. The shifts of *puʿal* to *nifʿal* and *qal*  to *piʿel* are developments that are attested in Post-biblical Hebrew already in Second Temple sources.55

Another case of correspondence of the *ketiv* of late books with that of the *qere* of earlier books is the word 'Jerusalem'. The

55 For these issues relating to the vocalization of verbal forms see Ginsberg (1934), Ben-Ḥayyim (1958, 237), Qimron (1986) and Fassberg (2001). For further re-interpretations of the Masoretic orthography in the Samaritan reading tradition see Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, 338–339) and Schorch (2004).

regular *ketiv* or this word in the earlier books is ירושלם, whereas the *qere* is ם ַל ָושּר י] jaʀ̟uːʃɔːˈlaːjim] with the final syllable broken by a glide. In some of the late books, there are a few examples of the *ketiv* of this work spelt with a *yod* before the final *mem*, e.g. .(2.6 Esther (מִ יר ּושָ לַ יִם

External evidence for the antiquity of the *qere* includes the fact that in many cases where there is a semantic difference between the *qere* and the *ketiv*, the meaning of the *qere* is reflected by the Greek Septuagint. A clear example of this is the exegetical alteration in the reading tradition whereby an original expression of 'seeing the face of God' is changed into the theologically more acceptable 'appearing before God' by reading the verb as a *nifʿal* שָ ל ֹוש פ עָ מִ ים ׀ בַ שָ נָָ֡ ה יֵרָ א ַּ֨ ה כָ ל־ 16.16 .Deut .g.e ,*qal* a as than rather shall males your all year a times Three 'ז כּור ָךִ֜ א ת־פ נֵ י ׀ י הוָ ה אֱ ֹלה ָּ֗ יָך appear before the Lord, your God'. This change is clear where the verb is an infinitive and it lacks the expected initial *he* of the *nifʿal* בַ עֲ ֹלָּֽ ת ָךָּ֗ לֵ רָ אֹות א ת־פ נֵ י 34.24 .Exod .g.e ,text consonantal the in form ךָי להֹ ֱא ה ָהו י' When you go up to appear before the Lord, your God'. This change in the reading tradition is reflected not only in the Targums but also already in the Septuagint (C. McCarthy 1981, 197–202), the Pentateuch section of which is normally dated to the third century B.C.E.

One example that demonstrates the conservative nature of the phonology of the Tiberian reading is the pronunciation of the *pe* in the word וֹ נ ד ַפ ַא' his palace' (Dan. 11.45). According to medieval sources, this was pronounced as an emphatic unaspirated stop, whereas the letter *pe* with *dagesh* in all other places in the reading tradition was pronounced as an aspirated stop, i.e. a stop followed by a short flow of air before the onset of the voicing for the ensuing vowel (§I.1.17.). The hard pronunciation of the *pe* is also mentioned by Jerome, who states that it is the only 'Latin' *p* in the entire Bible (*p* in Latin was regularly pronounced as an unaspirated stop).56 The hard pronunciation is also reflected by the Greek transcription Απαδανω by the Church father Theodoretus (fifth century CE). Here the Hebrew letter is with Greek *pi*, which, like Latin *p*, was pronounced as unaspirated [p].57 The word is in origin a loan from Old Persian. The unaspirated pronunciation of the *pe*, which is uncharacteristic of Hebrew, evidently preserves a feature that existed in the pronunciation of the source language.58 The fact that this feature, which conflicted with normal Hebrew pronunciation, should have been preserved from the original

56 Notandum autem quod cum pe littera hebraeus sermo non habeat, sed pro ipsa utatur phe cuius uim graecum φ sonat—in isto tantum loco apud Hebraeos scribatur quidem phe sed legatur pe. 'But it should be noted that while Hebrew speech does not have the letter *pe* (i.e., Latin *p* [p]), but instead of it uses *phe*, the force of which is approximated by the sound of Greek φ (i.e., [ph])—in that particular place (i.e., Dan. 11.45) among the Hebrews *phe* (i.e., פ] ph]) indeed is written but it is read as *pe* (i.e., Latin *p* [p])'. Translation by Ben Kantor. Cf. Sutcliffe (1948, 124–25).

57 Some Greek transcriptions represent the Hebrew *pe* with Greek *phi*  (i.e. aspirated [pʰ]), e.g. εφαδανω (Theodotion, second century C.E.), εφαδανω / αφαδανω (Polychronios, fifth century C.E.). These could be interpreted as reflecting variant reading traditions. The Greek data were supplied by Ben Kantor.

58 Steiner (1993).

period of composition right down to the period of the Masoretes, centuries after contact of the transmitters of the tradition with the source language had ceased, demonstrates great conservatism in the Tiberian reading tradition.

Another relevant issue in this context is the pronunciation of the letter ש, which is read in the Tiberian reading tradition in two ways, distinguished in the vocalization by points, namely either as [ʃ] (*shin*) or as [s] (*sin*), the latter being equivalent to the sound of the letter ס) *samekh*). It is clear that the reading tradition of ש differed from the original pronunciation of the letter in the pre-exilic period when Hebrew was first committed to writing, otherwise the letter ס would regularly appear in the orthography where the reading tradition pronounces the sound [s].59 It is noteworthy, however, that roots and words that were

59 This orthographic phenomenon can be interpreted in two ways. The pre-exilic ש may have been pronounced as a single sound, presumably [ʃ], in all contexts. Possible evidence for this is the fact that in the Samaritan reading tradition the letter is always pronounced [ʃ], including where the Tiberian tradition has *sin*. This feature of the Samaritan reading tradition may have its roots in a type of pronunciation that existed side by side with the Tiberian type in the Second Temple Period. Alternatively, the letter ש in the pre-exilic orthography may have been intended to represent two sounds, which, according to this interpretation, are normally thought to have been [ʃ] and a lateral sibilant resembling the lateral *s* [ɬ] of Modern South Arabian languages. In the Second Temple Period the lateral sibilant would have shifted to [s]. It should be taken into account, furthermore, that both of these alternative types of pronunciation of ש may have existed in the pre-exilic period. The necessity to use a single letter to

regularly spelt with *sin* in pre-exilic books are occasionally spelt interchangeably with *sin* and *samekh* in later books, e.g.

שֹכ רִ ים 24.12 .Chron 2 .vs' hire they and 'ו סֹכ רִ ִ֧ ים 4.5: Ezra

The letters *sin* and *samekh* occasionally interchange in proper names in the late books, e.g.

אַ ר תַ ח שַ ס ת א 7.1 Ezra .vs' Artaxerxes 'אַ ר תַ ח שַ ֖ ש ת א 4.11: Ezra

Such cases of interchange between the written letters *sin* and *samekh* are sporadic and most likely unintentional deviations from the standard orthography that reflect the interference of contemporary pronunciation.

In Rabbinic literature, the *qere* of *sin* is sometimes referred to as *samekh* and its *ketiv* as *shin*. 60 In these sources, the reading (*qere*) of the letter *sin* is identified with that of *samekh.* Interchanges of orthography such as ים ִ֧ ִר כֹס ו and ים ִר כֹש, therefore, constitute another case of the *qere* being datable to the Second Temple Period by orthographic variations internal to the consonantal text.

In some manuscripts with Palestinian and Babylonian vocalization, the letter *sin* is distinguished from *shin* by writing over *sin* a miniature ס) *samekh*) and over *shin* a miniature ש) *shin*) (Revell 1970a, 87; Kahle 1902, 11). In some manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization written in abbreviated form (known as

represent two sounds arose from the fact the alphabet used to write Hebrew was in origin the one that was developed to represent Phoenician, in which the two sibilant sounds in question were not distinguished.

60 Steiner (1996).

*serugin*) a letter *samekh* is written in place of *sin* (Revell 1977, 66).

There is some evidence that the placement of *samekh* over the letter ש as a diacritical sign for *sin* was an ancient practice with roots in the period in which the *ketiv* was being stabilized, i.e. the Second Temple period. One persuasive case is the variant spellings of the following proper name in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra:

Neh. 7.52. L: ים ִָּֽס ש ִָּֽפ ונ , *qere* note: נפישסים, i.e. the *qere* is . ינ פִָּֽ ש סִָּֽ ים

. ּונ פ סִָּֽ ים is *qere* the .e.i ,נפוסים note *qere* , ינ פ סִָּֽ ים :L 2.50. Ezra

If we leave aside the difference between the *ketiv* and the *qere* regarding the medial vowel in this name, the spelling with the added *shin* in Neh. 7.52 ים ִָּֽס ש ִָּֽפ ונ could be explained as the result of the fact that the spelling was originally ים֯ נפוש with a superscribed *samekh* over the ש to indicate that it should be read as *sin*. The *samekh* was subsequently incorporated into the line of the text by scribal error.61 The reading of the first letter of the sequence שס as *shin* is likely to have been a later orthoepic measure to ensure that the two letters were read distinctly (§I.0.11.). The form ים ִָּֽס פ ינ in Ezra 2.50 with *samekh* is presumably an orthographic variant of the original form נפישים with *sin*. If this is the correct explanation, then this is further evidence for the equivalence of *samekh* and *sin* at an early period.

It should be pointed out that in *qere* notes in the medieval manuscripts a *sin* of the *ketiv* is spelt ש and not ס, e.g.

61 Cf. Honeyman (1944).

 is *qere* the .e.i ,ששת :note *qere* ,אַ ר תַ ח שַ ש ת א :L 4.23. Ezra .אַ ר תַ ח שַ ש ת

.ו יַעֲ שָ י is *qere* the .e.i ,ויעשי :note *qere* ,ו יַעֲ שָ ו :L 10.37: Ezra

.נָ ש א֖ ּו is *qere* the .e.i ,נשאו :note *qere* ,נָ ש א֖ י :L 10.44. Ezra

In such cases, the focus of the *qere* note is not on the *sin* but rather on other letters in the *ketiv*. It may be for this reason that it has not been replaced by *samekh* in the note. Moreover, the purpose of the *qere* notes was to supply an appropriate orthography of the *qere*. Within the norms of the biblical orthography, ש was an appropriate orthography of [s] and so there was no need to alter it.

Another indicator that the roots of the Tiberian reading tradition were in the Second Temple period is its close relationship with the Babylonian reading tradition, which is reflected by manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization. This close relationship between two branches of tradition transmitted in different geographical locations is most easily explained through the comparative method of historical linguistics as the result of a common genetic connection in a single location at an earlier period. The most obvious place of origin would be Second Temple Palestine. Just as the written text of both the Babylonian tradition and the Tiberian tradition has its origins in a proto-Masoretic text of the Second Temple Period,62 it is likely that there was a proto-Masoretic reading tradition, which likewise split into an eastern and western branch. This proto-Masoretic

62 For the phenomenon of the proto-Masoretic text-type in the Second Temple sources see Tov (2012).

reading tradition was clearly distinct from the Samaritan reading tradition, which itself exhibits some features that can be correlated with Second Temple sources, such as the long pronominal forms (*attimma*, *-kimma*).63

As remarked, there is evidence of great conservatism in some elements of the Tiberian reading tradition, such as the *pe* of וֹנ ד ַפ ַא) Dan. 11.45), but a comparison of the Tiberian and Babylonian branches of the biblical reading tradition shows that in some features the Babylonian reading appears to be more linguistically conservative. This is shown by the fact the Babylonian tradition sometimes has parallels with earlier sources that are lacking in the Tiberian tradition. For example, the preservation of an */a/* vowel in unstressed closed syllables that is found in the transcriptions of the Septuagint, Origen and Jerome is a feature of Babylonian pronunciation, whereas this vowel is more widely attenuated to */i/* in the Tiberian tradition, e.g. Septuagint Μαβσαρ 'Mabsar' (Tiberian: ר ָּֽ ָצ ב ִמ, 1 Chron. 1.53),64 Origen's Hexapla λαμαλαμα 'for the battle' (Tiberian: ה ֶ֑ ָמ ָח ל ִמ ַל Psa. 18.40),65 מ בצ ַר Babylonian ,66)מִ ק נ ה :Tiberian' (cattle'*macne* :Jerome [mavˈsˁɑːr]. 67 Babylonian corresponds to Origen and Jerome and also to some Qumran texts in preserving the unstressed */o/* vowel

63 Morag (1971), Ben-Ḥayyim (2000).

64 Sperber (1937, 191).

65 Brønno (1943, 387).

66 Siegfried (1884, 50), Sperber (1937, 192).

67 Yeivin (1985, para. 41.46).

in prefix conjugation verbs where it is reduced to *shewa* in Tiberian, e.g. ַ לִַ ינ ֹטבִת] tiṭboˈleːniː] (Job 9.31, Tiberian: י ִנֶ֑ ֵל ב ט ִת' you will plunge me');68 cf. Origen ιεφφολου (= וּ ָּ֗ל פִִ֝י Psa. 18.39),69 Jerome *iezbuleni* 'he will honour me' (Tiberian: י ִנ ֵל ב זִי Gen. 30.20),70 and the frequent occurrence of *vav* in the Qumran manuscripts after the second radical of prefix conjugation verbs where Tiberian has .יקטולהו ,אקטולה ,יקטולו .g.e ,*shewa* 71

Some features of the Tiberian reading that differ from Babylonian may have developed under the influence of the vernacular Aramaic of the Jews of Palestine. It is not clear whether this applies to the aforementioned features, but we can identify a possible case of influence in the pronunciation of consonantal *vav.*  We know from medieval sources that in the Tiberian reading tradition of Biblical Hebrew the default pronunciation of this letter was a labio-dental [v] (§I.1.6.(. In Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, *vav* appears to have had the same labio-dental pronunciation. This is shown by the interchange of *vav* and fricative *bet* in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic texts and Rabbinic Hebrew of sources of Palestinian provenance. The fact that fricative *bet* in these texts also sometimes shifts to *pe* due to devoicing shows that it must have

68 Yeivin (1985, para. 16.36).

69 Janssens (1982, 92).

70 Siegfried (1884, 48), Sperber (1937, 158).

71 Qimron (1986, 50; 2018, 195-196), Reymond (2014, 209–21). For the parallels between these Qumran forms and the medieval Babylonian tradition see Yeivin (1972).

been labio-dental and this implies that *vav* also was labio-dental.72 There is also evidence of the pronunciation of *vav* as a labiodental in Mishnaic Hebrew, in that *vav* in some words corresponds to *bet* in Biblical Hebrew and *vav* and *bet* interchange in the orthography of some manuscripts, e.g.

 ִנ וּהּ ָל' he has disfigured her' (*Soṭah* 1.7); cf. Biblical Hebrew נב׳׳ל) M. H. Segal 1927, 34–35)

(61-62 2015, Asher-Bar' (geese 'אֲ בָ זִ ים ~ אֲ וָ וזִ ים

The shift in the pronunciation of *vav* to a labio-dental in Aramaic and Hebrew in late antique Palestine is likely to be due to convergence with a shift of [w] to [v] in Greek at this period (Kantor and Khan forthcoming).73

The Babylonian tradition itself appears to have undergone some change due to the influence of the local vernacular, which resulted in a number of features that differed from Tiberian due to their being innovative rather than conservative. One such feature that is characteristic of the Babylonian pronunciation tradition is the shift of *ḥolem* to *ṣere*, which is reflected in the vocalized

73 Possible evidence for the embryonic merging of *vav* and fricative *bet* in Palestine is found already in some Qumran manuscripts, see Qimron (2018, 122) (I am grateful to Noam Mizrahi for drawing my attention to this).

72 A. Ben-David (1960, 255), Kutscher (1976, 16–17), Sokoloff (1968, 30), Epstein (1964, 1223–26). This pronunciation of *vav* can also be reconstructed in the Samaritan tradition of Hebrew (Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 33).

#### *Introduction* 69

manuscripts by an interchange of these two vowels.74 The Karaite scholar al-Qirqisānī writing in the tenth century C.E. attributes this feature to influence from the language of the 'Nabaṭ', i.e. the Aramaic speaking population of Iraq.75 The fronting of back vowels is still a feature of modern vernacular Iranian dialects in western Iran, including those spoken by Jews (Borjian 2012, 9, §D14).

One aspect of Tiberian vocalization that several scholars have identified as an indicator of the antiquity of the reading tradition is the apparent historical layering of variant types of vocalization of words with the same orthography across different Biblical books. These are differences in vocalization between words in late biblical books and corresponding words in earlier biblical books. In such cases, the vocalization found in the later books often corresponds to a type of vocalization that is characteristic of Rabbinic Hebrew or Aramaic, i.e. languages associated with the language situation in the Second Temple Period rather than the pre-exilic period. In two cases in Chronicles, for example, the *nifʿal* of the verb ילד is vocalized in an unusual way, with *shureq* rather than *ḥolem* and *dagesh* in the middle radical: וּד ולּנ' they were born' (1 Chron. 3.5, 20.8). This morphological feature is not found in the vocalization of the earlier books but is found in some traditions of Rabbinic Hebrew.76 The vocalization of these forms apparently reflects a dialectal form of morphology

74 Yeivin (1985, para. 11.6).

75 Cf. al-Qirqisānī (*Kitāb al-ʾAnwār w-al-Marāqib*, ed. Nemoy 1939, vol. 2: 140).

76 Cf. Yalon (1964, 152–57) and the references cited in Morag (1974, 310).

that was current in the time of the Chronicler. By implication, the vocalization of the earlier books must reflect a different, presumably slightly earlier tradition (Morag 1974). A further example is the difference in vocalization between ל ַַ֫ל מ א' feeble' (Psa. 6.3) and ים ֖ ִל ָל ֵמ ֲא ָה' the feeble' (Neh. 3.34). The vocalization ים ֖ ִל ָל ֵמ ֲא ָה in the late biblical book reflects the one that is used in Rabbinic sources (Boyarin 1988, 63–64). The dual of the noun ן ר ק is vocalized םִיַָ֣֥ ַנ ר ַק in Hab. 3.4, with the normal pattern of the dual, but םִי ַנ ָר ק in Dan. 8 (verses 3, 6, 20), with the pattern of the stem of plural nouns, as is found in early vocalized manuscripts of the Mishnah (Kister 1992, 47, n.9; 1998, 246, n.9). The form י ִב ָר ֲע' Arab(ian)' occurs in pre-exilic sources, whereas the word has the vocalization י ִב ר ַע, corresponding to that of Aramaic, in post-exilic sources (Nehemiah and Chronicles) (Steiner 2016, 313). There is a difference in vocalization between ים ִודּל י ַה) 1 Chron. 14.4) and ים ִַ֥לדִֹּי ַה in the parallel passage in 2 Sam 5.14. The .Neh' (corruptly acted have we 'חֲ בֹ֖ ל חָ בַ ל נּו phrase the in חבל word 1.7) is vocalized with the vocalic pattern of an infinitive construct in a context where the vocalic pattern of an infinitive absolute may have been expected in earlier books. In Dan. 11.20 the construct of the noun ר ָד ָה' glory' is vocalized ר ד ה, rather than ר ַד ֲה, which is the vocalic pattern of the construct in earlier books.77