The Usefulness of the Masorah for Readers of the Hebrew Bible

The Masoretes are characterized as the scribes who put together the present Hebrew Bible, entered all the vowel markings for those who might not know Hebrew well enough to read it without them, divided the text into verses, inserted all of the vocalization accents, created a commentary that later was divided into two parts called the Masorah, and counted all of the letters of the books of the Bible (and indeed the whole Hebrew Bible itself) making careful notes about the final number of the words of the books of the Bible, the midpoints of the book, and how many different seder readings there were in the given text. Many Hebrew students in Christian universities feel these are unhelpful notes that show the ridiculousness of too much study of the Bible that leads one to the unhelpful at best, the convoluted and eisegetical at worst (some students will note how some less academic modern groups try to find the “central verse” of the Bible and pretend it has any special significance). The usual arguments for the usefulness of the masoretic notes are weak – that the masoretes guarded and preserved the text so that it was authentic. However, there are practical problems to this theory as well as many easier ways to reach the same goal. If the goal is only to remind the reader that it is authentic, the masorah become something that was useful long ago, but largely insignificant now. A careful study of the masorah as a whole shows that they are eminently practical and necessary for modern readers of the text.

The term Masorah comes from Ezekiel 20:37: “I will make you pass under the staff, and will bring you within the bond of the covenant.”[1] The term masorah here etymologically means something like a bond or a fetter. The idea for this to be named for the scribes was the bondedness of the scribes to the text. This is not surprising that covenant is understood in the context of the text as second temple and rabbinic Judaism focused on study of Torah as the primary way of being religious (the expression of the covenant) seen the first time in Nehemiah 8 when Ezra reads from the Torah publicly as an act of worship.

The second key note about the Masoretes is that they were not one group of people. To talk about the “masoretes” at all is a bit of a misnomer – it was not a specifically defined group at a specific time period. Some will argue that the masoretic tradition (a better term than the masoretes themselves) goes as far back as 200 CE. While this is likely an exaggeration, it does seem to be a natural outgrown of rabbinic Judaism. The Talmud does not suggest a specific knowledge of the vowel system in the Hebrew Bible which has led many to think that the Masoretes were an outgrowth shortly after the 5^th-6^th century when the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds were composed.[2] Further, they did not seem to be a particular group, but rather were a tradition of studies that were gradually brought together over the course of 400 years.

The usual arguments for the value of the Masoretic notes are insufficient. The first and most common argument revolves around authenticity. The argument centers on the fact that the masoretic tradition shows the painstaking care that was taken to ensure the text was not corrupt. The Masorah is seen as the product of the rules of copying and textual tradition which are so rigid that they might even count the numbers of letters in the text to ensure they had not missed one.[3] While this is certainly true – the masoretic tradition did ensure that the text was carefully copied, this would not account for the majority of the work of the masoretes or the methods they used – there are far better ways of ensuring one did not make a mistake than simply counting letters. Further, viewing the masorah as work that “has been done” but is now no longer relevant with the advent of the printing press so that manuscriptal errors would not occur creates the masorah as a cultural artifact of a time gone by rather than a useful resource for current readers and leading to its eventual irrelevance.

The second argument for the usefulness of the masoretic notes centers around the isolation of the work of the vowel markings. Without the vowel markings, most Christian readers of the text (who are usually not native Hebrew speakers and likely will not become fluent in modern Hebrew – rather they will only learn to read the text) would have much difficulty discovering the meaning behind the text. As most people know, true Hebrew (and indeed modern Hebrew) is consonantal with only one of the vowels being written. The masoretes developed a system for writing vowels that would be inserted below or above the consonants which could aid a reader to the correct interpretation. While this work of the masoretes again is quite useful, it again is work that has been done long ago, and while a reader might be willing to challenge the reading of a particular vowel marking (recognizing it is a secondary tradition to the consonantal text), the vowels are generally followed, again long ago preserving that meaning that was originally present.    

These arguments for the validity of the usefulness of the masorah fail because they emphasize the usefulness of the masorah for authentic transmission rather than authentic reading. Focusing on the readers of the text invites the person in the present day to use the masorah in dynamic ways. The evidence that the masorah ever was a system for manuscriptal copying is rather slight. The evidence that the masorah was developed so that the text could be accurately read is paramount. For instance, there is not an argument ever presented that the vowel markers are developed so that the text might be properly transmitted from one generation to the next. Rather, the vowel markers were developed in order that readers at any age in history (including our own) would understand the text.

While the vowel markers could be considered easily as reader directed, the marginal notes (masorah parva and masorah magna) are mostly seen as superfluous. The majority of the marginal masorah parva in the BHS (the standard Hebrew Bible used by most American universities) signify to the reader the number of occurrences that of a particular form of word and sometimes the number of occurrences of a particular accentual notation. This is seen as only necessary for scribes – it is necessary for them to notice that the form they see is distinct so as to avoid the standard scribal practice of correcting errors (changing an unusual form to a more usual one).[4] However, a careful reader of the text makes the same mistake – if one does not recognize that a form is unusual, it is markedly easy to read what one is used to reading. The comments on the scribal margin are necessary for a reader to recognize an odd form and to avoid misreading the text.

The masoretes not only wanted a reader to notice odd forms, they invite the reader to join in the skeptical reading of the text himself. The example is understood by the quere readings in the text. The masoretes, recognizing there was an unusual form that does not make sense, make a note of a possible secondary reading and put it in the margin. Nearly every instructor of the Hebrew Bible will encourage students to recognize these as such – suggestions. Rather than vilifying the masoretes for arrogantly presenting alternate readings, one ought to recognize that such skepticism is exactly what the masoretes wanted. They suggest an alternate form and challenge the reader to think about other possible alternates. This plan then affirms the value of the reader while at the same time protecting the text.

The masorah is also poorly understood when one looks at the vowels, accents, counting, and marginal notes as separate entities. The work of the masoretes was intended to be read holistically. Arguments about the nature of the Hebrew Bible suggests that the vowels were developed for the reader, the accents for the cantor in synagogue, the marginal notes for the careful scribe, and the counting for the editor of the transcription. To divide these into units challenges the work of the masoretes. The simpler solution is one that integrates all aspects of masoretic work into one central argument. The question then is what could be that purpose?

To understand the purpose of the masorah, it is helpful to begin by considering a long considered superfluous element – the sum total of the number of verses (and even words) at the end of the books. At the end of the book of Jeremiah, the Hebrew text reads in smaller font, “The total number of verses this book has is 1,364. The midpoint is “And Hannaniah said in their presence…” and there are 31 seder readings (in this book).” This form is at the end of every book of the Hebrew Bible.

Many people too quickly move on after seeing these tabulations and assume this was a scribal note that denoted the end of the book and that the scribe ought count through the book to verify that no verse is missing. However, this does not make much good sense – if one were to proofread a text, it is unlikely that one would choose the mere counting as a plan.

The question becomes even more difficult in that some books have more included than just the number of verses in the one book. The end of Deuteronomy, for instance, discusses the number of verses in the whole Torah (after it discusses the number of verses in Deuteronomy itself): “The total number of verses the Torah has is 5,845. All the seder readings of the Torah are 167. The total number of the words of the Torah has is 97,856. The total number of letters the Torah has is 400,945.” Rather, the argument made is more precise. They count them not because they want to verify the text, but because they want to make the argument that every verse matters in this book. If the Torah were to have only 5844 verses, it would be incomplete. If the only goal was to verify the text on the proofreading table, there would be no reason to spend the time to count up the entirety of the Torah. Indeed this same trend continues at the very end of the entire Hebrew Bible (Chronicles in the Hebrew ordering): “The total number of verses in the whole mikra (Bible) is 13,108.” At the end of the Bible, they felt it was necessary to point out how many total verses were included. The argument is that every verse is necessary (and by proxy every book). The beginning to the end are all one in one total count.

The reason the masoretes came to this conclusion is not only because they wanted to make the argument that everything is included in the text, but it also had a practical function. The counts were usually ordered by numbers of verses. In order for this kind of demarcation, there have to be divisions of verses themselves. The masoretes divided the verses, but they did not do it in order to quickly find a particular passage, in fact there were no numbers attached to the verses. A careful reading of the Hebrew text shows that the silluq (the marker of the end of a verse) is only one of a complex series of different accents (over 21 different types). Each of the letters of the Hebrew Bible has a particular accent. The accents are closest in meaning to punctuation in English. They tell the reader when to stop and start reading. Punctuation is probably more important to the reader than the vowel markers, without them, meanings can change wildly.

Accents in the Hebrew Bible not only provide a type of punctuation, but they also present the emphasis of the text. The Hebrew Bible has a standard accentual vocalization of conjunctive and disjunctive accents in a particular system.[5] As these work in a harmony, they depend upon sequence. Usually one has one or more conjunctive accents and then there is a strong disjunctive accent that tells the reader to stop and look for a new phrase. If there are more disjunctives than usual, this leads the reader to look for a disjunctive of emphasis – indicating to the reader that there are hierarchies of stress in the text. In order for this to be preserved, the text must not be missing a single word – the whole text is necessary.

The masoretes’ work was holistic – the counting was done to emphasize that each verse was necessary – from beginning to end. The accents are presented that depend upon each of the verses actually being there – if one is missing, the system falls apart. The vowels are presented because without the proper vowel pointing, the accentual emphasis would not function in the precise way that they do. The marginal notes, invite the reader to think critically about the text while at the same time as ensuring the reader does not gloss over issues and keep from taking seriously the precise meaning.

The masorah is not necessary for reading the Hebrew Bible (it is possible to read from only a consonantal text), but it is a mistake to try and take one of the aspects of the work of the masoretes and ignore the rest. The Hebrew Bible in its final form needs to be taken seriously as a complete manuscript, not pieces that can be jettisoned. Of central importance, then is to look carefully at the interpretation of the masoretes as a whole when reading the text.

 I would like to acknowledge the kind conversations with my mentor in all things Hebrew, Hans Spalteholz, for introducing me to the world of the Masorah and the guidance he has shown me in this process.

---

[1] NRSV

[2] E. J. Revell, “Masoretes” Anchor Bible Dictionary

[3] Indeed both Israel Yeivin (Introduction the Tiberian Masorah) and Page H. Kelley, Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford (The Masorah of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 1.) begin with this argument.

[4] Kelley, Masorah of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 46.

[5] For a full discussion of the accents and their precise system, see Price, James D. The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity (27). Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990 and Wickes, William. Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament. New York: KTAV Publishing House Inc, 1970.