Ortwelfth-Century Masoretic Bible Codex

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110

brill.com/text

An Eleventh- or Twelfth-Century Masoretic Bible Codex (Jeremiah, Zechariah, Proverbs, and Chronicles): Its Place among Eastern Codices

Jordan S. Penkower Department of Bible, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel [email protected]

Abstract

This study analyzes BB (Bloomsbury Bible), an eleventh- or twelfth-century Eastern Masoretic Bible codex of Jeremiah, Zechariah, Proverbs, and Chronicles (all incomplete). Comparing BB in Jeremiah and Chronicles with other early Eastern Masoretic codices, we arrive at the following characteristics: (1) Text—BB is far from A (Aleppo Codex) (mostly plene-defective spelling), but not very far like the Ashkenazi based Son- cino 1488 edition; other Eastern codices are closer to A; (2) Sections—BB is far from A; so, too, other Eastern codices; (3) Sedarim—BB, as well as other Eastern codices, reflect one tradition, with only minor variants; (4) Poetic texts—two layouts, depending on column width: (a) each line represents a verse, with a space before the second hemistich; (b) each line does not represent a verse; there is a space before each hemistich (wherever it occurs on the line). BB follows the second layout.

Keywords

Eastern Masoretic Bible codex – text – sections – layout of Songs – Jeremiah – Chroni- cles – Proverbs

1 Background

Early Eastern1 Masoretic codices of the Bible, whether complete or partial, are rare.There are only three known complete Bibles of this type: the Aleppo Codex

1 Eretz-Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

(today incomplete), the Leningrad Codex of 1008CE, and MS (formerly) Sas- soon 1053 (some text now incomplete). There are only a few examples of early Eastern Masoretic codices in public institutions or in private collections. For example, the British Library has one such early Pentateuch: MS London, BL Or. 4445; and one partial Hagiographa: MS Or. 9879 (formerly: Gaster 151). The Sassoon collection had (formerly) one Pentateuch: MS Sassoon 507 (now in Jerusalem, The National Library of Israel, MS Heb. 2405702), and one Bible: MS Sassoon 1053. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, has one such Pentateuch: MS 88. The exception to the above is the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg, which contains the two Firkowitch collections. Paul Kahle2 called attention to fourteen early dated Eastern Masoretic codices in the second Firkowitch collection (4 Pentateuch; 2 Bible; 5 Prophets; 2 Hagiographa; 1 Former Prophets and Hagiographa; most of these are incomplete). During my visit to that library it became clear to me that Kahle’s list represented only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, these collections (especially the second) have a very large selection— mostly undated, and in various states of incompleteness—of early Eastern Masoretic codices of the Bible. Of this group, only a handful are manuscripts (incomplete) of Prophets and Hagiographa. In addition, the Karaite synagogue in Cairo preserved a number of such early Eastern Bibles: Pentateuchs and other MSS; for example the Cairo Codex of the Prophets. These manuscripts were briefly catalogued by Richard Gott- heil.3 The Bible analyzed here, preserving parts of the Latter Prophets and Hagio- grapha, belongs to the rare group of early Eastern Bible codices. Aside from the three complete Bibles noted above, and one other incomplete manuscript in the second Firkowitch collection (St. Petersburg, RNL Evr. II B 55 and 247), the Bible analyzed here is the only early Eastern codex preserving in one manuscript parts of Jeremiah and Chronicles.

2 Manuscript Description

Masoretic Bible, Prophets and Hagiographa; now preserving parts of Jeremiah, Zechariah, Proverbs and 1 and 2Chronicles. 127 leaves, written in an Eastern

2 Paul Kahle, Masoreten des Westens I (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1927; repr.: Hildesheim: Olms, 1967), 19. 3 Richard Gottheil, “Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo,” JQR 17 (1905): 609–655.

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access an eleventh- or twelfth-century masoretic bible codex 87 hand. Now bound in four volumes.This manuscript was bought by a private col- lector at Bloomsbury’s London 6 July 2016 auction.4 It will be designated here as BB (= Bloomsbury Bible). Date: 1050–1300. The date has been confirmed by a Carbon-14 test: 1 sigma: 1159–1206; 2 sigma: 1050–1082 (13%), 1127–1134 (1%), 1151–1219 (86%).5 Current content (some verses incomplete): Jeremiah (42 leaves): 4:29–5:6; 5:18–29; 6:21–7:2; 7:12–20; 9:5–10:22, 17:16– 25; 18:18–19:4; 37:13–41:2, 41:17–46:8; 46:19–49:3; 50:4–15; 51:11–22; 52:8–34. Zechariah (3 leaves): 7:13–8:19; 11:9–12:2. Proverbs (16 leaves): 8:4–12:14; 15:12–16:4; 16:26–18:4; 19:2–20:14; 21:25–23:7; 25:16–27:22. 1Chronicles (44 leaves): 5:9–6:41; 7:8–9:35; 10:4–13; 11:10–12:26; 12:39–13:6; 14:3–17:8; 17:19–19:14; 21:5–22:13; 26:32–29:23. 2Chronicles (22 leaves): 2:3–5:2; 12:15–13:8; 14:6–17:17; 23:12–24:9; 24:25– 25:6; 26:22–27:9; 28:9–26; 29:10–18; 30:20–31:1; 31:18–32:6. Chronicles has been listed above, after Proverbs, as is common in Hebrew printed Bibles. However, in BB it was definitely placed at the beginning of the Hagiographa, as was common in early Eastern codices, such as the three Bibles noted above. Quarto size: 14.5cm × 18cm (5.7inch × 7.08inch); one column, twelve lines per page; Masorah Parva in the outer margin, Masorah Magna in the upper and lower margin (one or two lines).The Masorah Magna contains both cumulative masorah, as well as enumerative masorah (only a few examples from a longer list). In a few cases, the quire number has been preserved at the beginning of the 1Chr 26:32b ;”ד“ 1Chr 10:4a ;” גי “ Jer 45:40 ;” אי “ quire, at the top right: Jer 37:13b -In all these cases, the scribe also added an arrow on a diagonal (with a bro .”ח“ ken shaft) above the quire number. He also added this type of arrow above the letter samekh (that he added in the margin) at the beginning of a seder. On the sedarim, see below. In a few cases, we find a quire catchword at the end of the quire, at the bot- 1Chr ; בשוי and the catchword ,( הוהי tom left; e.g., 1Chr 13:6b (page ending with

4 See auction catalogue: Western Manuscripts and Miniatures (Bloomsbury Auctions, London, Wednesday 6 July 2016), lot 45, 38–41, with photographs. In addition to Western manuscripts, the catalogue contains manuscripts of other origins as well. I examined the manuscript before it was sold and thank the previous owners for the opportunity. 5 The Carbon-14 text was conducted by the Geochronology Laboratory, Illinois State Geological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The results of the Carbon-14 test were on file at Bloomsbury Auctions, London.

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 11:55:22AM via free access 88 penkower

According to . תושעל :and the catchword ,( רומשתםא 22:13a (page ending with the script, these catchwords were added at a later date. As a fill-in mark at the end of lines a short diagonal line is used; e.g., 2Chr .Sometimes this line is followed by one or two more such lines . תראפתל / 3:6 Although the Bible text is in a square Eastern hand, the masorah is in a semi- cursive Eastern hand. See especially the aleph, shin, and ṣade. This is unique, as all the other Masoretic codices with the Bible text in a square hand also have the masorah in a square (and not semi-cursive) hand. In the Masorah Magna, to mark the end of a note, the scribe does not use a simple dot or circle. Rather his usual mark consists of two circles connected by a line. Often the line goes from the left top to the right bottom (thus the sign looks somewhat like a tilde); sometimes the line goes from the left to the right top.

2.1 Vocalization and Accentuation When a word ends with pataḥ and ʿayin, and is preceded by yod or vav, the pataḥ is not placed under the ʿayin, but to its right, under these letters. E.g., and similarly in 1Chr 8:4 ; עַירפה 2Chr 28:20 ; עַינכה 2Chr 28:19 ; עַיגמ 2Chr 3:12 Similarly, when a word ends with . עַוּדמ 2Chr 24:6 ; עַוּשיכלמ 1Chr 8:33 ; עַוּשיבאו pataḥ and het or he, the pataḥ is placed to the right, between the last two let- These . הַיבגמ Prov 17:19 , הַיבגת Jer 49:16 , חַונממ 1Chr 6:16 , חַורי ters. E.g., 1Chr 5:14 placements of the furtive pataḥ were a feature of early Eastern Masoretic Bible manuscripts,6 and later were changed with the placement of the pataḥ under the ʿayin, het, and he themselves. With respect to the official variants between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, as listed in Lipshütz’s edition of The Book of Ḥillufim,7 we find that BB shows some Ben Naphtali influence. In Jeremiah, of the eighteen cases that are preserved in BB, 14 (78%) agree with Ben Asher and 4 (22%) with Ben Naphtali; and after one correction the numbers are 15 (83%) and 3 (17%). In Chronicles, of the twenty cases that are preserved in 1Chronicles, 12 (60%) agree with Ben Asher, 6 (30%) with Ben Naphtali, and 2 (10%) with neither tradition. In 2Chronicles, of the ten cases that are preserved in BB, 6 (60%) agree with Ben Asher, and 4 (40%) with Ben Naphtali. Thus, of the thirty in total for Chronicles: 18 (60%) agree with Ben Asher, 10 (33%) with Ben Naphtali, and 2 (7%) with neither tradition.

6 Israel Yeivin, The Aleppo Codex: Its Vocalization and Accentuation (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1968), 21–22 (Heb.). 7 Lazar Lipschütz, “Mishael ben Uzziel’s Treatise on the Differences between Ben Asher and .(.Heb) ג– זנ :(Ben Naphtali,” Textus 2 (1962

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access an eleventh- or twelfth-century masoretic bible codex 89

Thus, in . רכששי BB reflects the Ben Naphtali vocalization with respect to and 1Chr 27:18 , רָכְשָׂשִׂי the two surviving cases of this word, we find: 1Chr 12:41 with the second shin) רָכשָשִּׂי :and not the Ben Asher vocalization ; רָכְשָׂשִׂיְל silent).8 The forms of several accent signs reflect their older forms.9 Thus: zarqa (e.g., pazer gadol (or: qarnei parah—Jer ,( םהילא pazer (e.g., Jer 43:10 ,( ךיניע Jer 5:3 In later manuscripts these forms .( הדוהי 2Chr 24:5 , ךלמה 1Chr 28:1 , ךילא 38:25 were modified, and the modified forms entered the printed editions. For example, zarqa changed its form, beginning in the second half of the 12th century. Originally the accent was in the form of a standing hook (like an upside down J), and later it leaned on its side to the right, until eventually it took the form of a tilde.10 With respect to light gaʿayot and heavy gaʿayot, these are only minimally marked in the manuscript.11 Somewhat unexpectedly the Masorete marked a nun hafukhah in the open section space before 2Chr 17:7. At 2Chr 3:17 there is a samekh in the margin, the letter which usually sig- nals a seder. However, this is not one of the recognized beginnings of a seder;12 furthermore, the decoration above the samekh is unlike the decoration in all the other cases in this manuscript of samekh marking a seder beginning. Here there are two tall vertical lines extending from the roof of the letter, yet everywhere else we find the form of an arrow on a diagonal pointing to the

8 Ben Naftali is quoted according to Simhah Pinsker, Liqutei Qadmoniot (Vienna: Adalbert or רכָשְׂשׂי della Torre, 1860), Appendices, 99 and 102; other sources give his reading as ”,(see Lazar Lipschütz, “Kitab al-Khilaf, The Book of Ḥillufim (with four plates ; רכָשְׂשׁי Textus 4 (1964): 1–29 (esp. 16–17). With respect to the Aleppo Codex, Ben Asher placed a dagesh inside the left side of the first shin. On the other hand, MSS L and S1 who, like Ben Asher, did not vocalize the second shin, omit the dagesh in the first shin. 9 Yeivin, Aleppo Codex (above, n. 4), 198. 10 Jordan S. Penkower, “The Form of the Biblical Accent Zarqa and the Dating of the Zohar,” Kabbalah 13 (2005), 271–291 (Heb.) = idem, The Dates of Composition of the Zohar and the Book Bahir: The History of Biblical Vocalization and Accentuation as a Tool for Dating Kab- balistic Works (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2010), 117–137 (Heb.). 11 For example, in 1Chronicles 8, of a potential forty-six cases of gaʿayot, the Aleppo Codex whereas BB marks ,( יֵֽנב - םלוא , ןתנוֹֽהי , היכָֽשׂ , תֶֽאו - ארעב :marks four cases (vv. 8, 10, 33, 40 none. In 1Chronicles 18, of a potential thirty-two cases, the Aleppo Codex marks eight ךלֶֽמּה - , םרוֹֽדה - ונב , םידומעָֽה , םיִֽרשע - םינשו , רהנִֽבִּ - תרפ , יהיַֽו :cases (vv. 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 10, 10, 11 .( וכרבלֽוּ , רהנִֽבּ - תרפ :whereas BB marks two (vv. 3, 10 ,( הוהיַֽל , וכרבלֽוּ , דיוד 12 See, e.g., Lipschütz’s edition of Mishael ben Uzziel,TheBookof Ḥillufim (above, n. 7), where the sedarim are listed at the beginning of every weekly reading (and are followed by the variants between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali).

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 11:55:22AM via free access 90 penkower letter with the shaft broken into three parts. One may assume that this case was an addition by a second hand. See below in detail about the sedarim in BB. In a number of cases (often agreeing with MSS A, L), we find the feature of pisqah beʾemṣa pasuq—a section space in the middle of a verse. In at least one case, 1Chr 15:17b, the scribe added before the section space two vertical dots to signify the end of the verse, even though the word was accented with etnahta (signifying the half mark of the verse). Four interesting Masorah Parva notes: noting that the manuscript is following—[ טפשמ׳עמל ,] טפשמו׳דמל Jer 9:23 .1 with prefix vav, and not the , טפשמו the Eastern (= Babylonian) reading of , טפשמ Western reading (Eretz-Israel, and so, too, the Aleppo Codex) of without the prefix vav. This difference is also listed in the official list of East-West variants, e.g., at the end of the Leningrad Codex. noting that the final nun in the word— ןבזשובנו — ןיריעזןינונ׳ג Jer 39:13 .2 is minuscular (looking somewhat like a zayin), and this is one of ןבזשובנו three such cases. ׳ה noting that in place of the text— ךיהלא׳ה — ׳יבס׳ב [ ןיר ] וניהלא Jer 42:5 .3 -and this is one of two such sug , וניהלא׳ה others suggested to read , ךיהלא gestions. BB vocalizes the shin with shewa and— הרמש - תאז — ףטח׳ל 1Chr 29:18 .4 qamaṣ, and notes that this is a unique vocalization. MS Sassoon 1053 (S1) and the Leningrad Codex agree with this vocalization, and add a similar The Aleppo Codex also adds . ׳בןמרב׳וכדםילתלכוףטח׳ל :Masoretic note such a note, but does not add the shewa; i.e., according to Ben Asher it was unnecessary to add a shewa to reflect the hataf qamaṣ. In cases where the scribe omitted a word by mistake, he completes it in the margin (e.g., 2Chr 3:8, 23:14, 27:2, 29:12). When the scribe is aware that an error of dittography occurred, he will mark תרמאוהלאתרמאו the repeated word(s) that should be ignored. E.g., Jer 5:19 תרמאו he added horizontal lines above the first occurrence of the words— הלא -he added a hori— ילהלילחילרמאיו and left them unvocalized); 1Chr 11:19) הלא .(and left it unvocalized) יל zontal line over the first

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access an eleventh- or twelfth-century masoretic bible codex 91

3 Textual Characteristics of BB

As Penkower has shown for the Pentateuch,13 in addition to the accurate early Eastern Masoretic codices (the Aleppo Codex and manuscripts close to it), there was another group of early Eastern Masoretic Bibles that varied considerably with respect to details of the text (mostly plene-defective spelling). As this is correct for the Pentateuch, a fortiori, one may assume that it is true for the Prophets and Hagiographa as well. Below we will determine the character of the text of BB as compared to the Aleppo Codex. We will examine the preserved text of Jeremiah (about 30% of the book), and of 1 and 2Chronicles in BB (about 40% of the book). In addition, in order to place BB within the traditions of the early Eastern manuscripts, we will compare the same texts with the following manuscripts14 and editions: Jeremiah—(1) MS Cairo (Masoretic codex of the Prophets), carbon-14 dated to the 11th century, although it contains a colophon from 895CE copied from another manuscript; (2) MS Sassoon 1053 (S1), a 10th century Masoretic Bible; (3) MS Leningrad of 1008CE, Masoretic Bible. Chronicles—(1) MS Cambridge, UL Add. 1753, Yemenite 16th century Maso- retic codex of the Hagiographa;15 (2) MS Sassoon 1053 (S1); (3) MS Leningrad of 1008CE. We will also examine, both in Jeremiah and Chronicles, two printed editions, each representing a different sub-tradition: (4) Rabbinic Bible, Venice 1525—following the Sefardi tradition;16 (5) Soncino Bible, 1488—following the Ashkenazi tradition.17

13 Jordan S. Penkower, “A Tenth-Century Pentateuch Manuscript from Jerusalem Corrected by Mishael ben Uziel (MS C3),” Tarbiz 58 (1988): 49–74 (esp. 61–63) (Heb.); idem, “A Bukha- ran Pentateuch Manuscript from the End of the Fifteenth Century (with an Appendix on MS Geneva, Geniza 99),” in Israel—Linguistic Studies in the Memory of Israel Yeivin, ed. Yosef Ofer and Rafael I. (Singer) Zer (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Bible Project, 2011), 155–178 (esp. 175–178) (Heb.). 14 In the manuscripts, we will note both the first hand (what the scribe wrote originally), and the second hand (i.e., after corrections in the manuscript, based upon another manuscript or upon masoretic notes; corrected scribal errors are not included). 15 This was shown by Yeivin to be close to the Aleppo Codex in the section divisions of Psalms; see IsraelYeivin,“The Division into Sections in the Book of Psalms,”Textus 7 (1969): 76–102 (esp. 80–90). 16 Jordan S. Penkower, “Jacob Ben Hayyim and the Rise of the Rabbinic Bible” (PhD diss., 2 vols., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1982) (esp. 148–190) (Heb.). 17 Menachem Cohen, “The Consonantal Type of the Early Printed Bibles: The First Bible Edition—Soncino 1488,” Bar-Ilan Annual 18/19 (1981): 47–67 (Heb.); Joseph Peretz, “The Pentateuch in Medieval Ashkenazi Manuscripts, Tikkunei Soferim and Torah Scrolls: Text,

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 11:55:22AM via free access 92 penkower table 1 Text variants in BB and other sources in Jeremiah Compared to the Aleppo Codexa

Source First hand Second hand

MS Cairo 11+1? 8+1? MS Sassoon 1053 (S1) 14+1? MS Leningrad B 19a (L) 20 16 RB 1525 34 = (34) MS Sassoon 1053 (S1) 35+1? BB 70 51 Soncino 1488 355 = (355) a In this table, as well as in the other tables below, the equals sign in the Second Hand column indicates that the number of variants in the second hand is equal to those in the first hand; i.e., there were no changes. In the Jeremiah tables, the form “x + y?” indicates that there are “x” definite variants, and also possible “y” variants (i.e., the latter readings are not entirely clear). In the Chronicles tables, the form “x + y” indicates that there are “x” variants in 1Chronicles, and “y” variants in 2Chronicles.

3.1 Text Variants—Jeremiah MS Cairo with 11+1? variants (8+1? second hand) is closest to the Aleppo Codex in the selections from Jeremiah as preserved in BB (about 30% of the book), both in the first and second hands (see Table 1, above). MS Leningrad is also fairly close with 20 variants (16 second hand); and similar is MS Sassoon 1053, second hand, with 14+1? variants. A little further removed is MS Sassoon 1053, first hand, with 35+1? variants, and similarly RB 1525 with 34 variants. BB is still further removed, with twice as many variants, 70, in the first hand. In the second hand, with 51 variants, BB moves closer to the Aleppo Codex, but is still more removed than the above sources. The extreme position is represented by Soncino 1488 (following Ashkenazi sources) with 355 variants—five times as

Open and Closed Sections and the Layout of the Songs” (PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2008), 351–358 (Heb.); Penkower, “Rabbinic Bible” (above, n. 12), 231–232 (text variants in ;(in the Pentateuch ןִבּ - ןוּנּ ) Joshua), 244–245 (accentuation variants in Proverbs), 271–272 Jordan S. Penkower, “A Sheet of Parchment from a 10th or 11th Century Torah Scroll: Determining its Type among Four Traditions (Oriental, Sefardi, Ashkenazi, Yemenite),” Textus 21 (2002): 235–264 (esp. 246 [text], 253 [sections], 260 [layout of the Song of the Sea]).

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access an eleventh- or twelfth-century masoretic bible codex 93

table 2 Text variants in BB and other sources in Jeremiah compared to the Aleppo Codex (by categories)

MS 2nd MS S1 2nd MS L 2nd RB BB 2nd Soncino Cairo hand hand hand 1525 hand 1488

Plene/defective 10 7 30 9 13 11 32 63 41+3=44 285+1 spelling Variant letters 1 1 1 1 6+3 Metathesis 1 1 Qere-Ketiv 1+1? 1+1? 1 1 3 3 9 1–2 words 1+1? 1+1? 3 3 4 4 2 2 27; mainly דכובנ - רצאר , רזובנ - ןדא Variant words 1 1 6 Vav beg. word 1 3 +/- prefix 2 2 1 לא /ל Add letter 5 Sing./pl.; 7 person 2–3; verb tense Total 11+1? 8+1? 35+1? 14+1? 20 16 35 70 51 355

many as BB, first hand (seven times—second hand), and almost 30 times as many as MS Cairo, first hand. Let us look at these text variants by categories (see Table 2, above).18 This table shows that the overwhelming majority of the text variants, in all sources, are plene-defective variants. In most sources, they are over 80% of the variants: C, first hand and S1, first hand—83%; RB 1525—91%, BB, first hand—90%, second hand—88%, Soncino 1488—81%. Close to this is C, second hand—78%. Somewhat different (due to the number of variants of 1–2 words) are S1, second hand—60%, and L, first hand—65%, second hand—69%.

3.2 Text Variants—1 and 2Chronicles MS Cambridge Add. 1753 is close to the Aleppo Codex, with only 7 variants in the first hand, and 6 in the second hand (see Table 3, below). In the next group are MSS L and S1 with 31 and 37 variants respectively. Both of these manuscripts in

18 The sources are arranged according to their ascending number of the total variants with respect to the Aleppo Codex.

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 11:55:22AM via free access 94 penkower table 3 Text variants in BB and other sources in 1 and 2Chronicles compared to the Aleppo Codexa

Source First hand Second hand

MS Cambridge Add. 1753 4+3 = 7 3+3 = 6 MS Leningrad B 19a (L) 19+12 = 31 7+1, + 11 = 19 MS Sassoon 1053 (S1) 26 + 11 = 37 16 + 8 = 24 RB 1525 41+10 = 51 = (51) BB 77+6 = 83 62+3 = 65 Soncino 1488 135+53 = 188 = (188) a Although not found in Hebrew manuscripts, we have used the subdi- vision into 1 and 2Chronicles, common in printed Hebrew Bibles. their second hands are brought closer to the Aleppo Codex: L—19 variants, S1— 24 variants. RB 1525 (following Sefardi sources) is further removed at 51 variants, and BB is still further removed at 83 variants, first hand. In the second hand, with 65 variants, BB is brought closer to the Aleppo Codex, but still remains further removed than the aforementioned sources. Once again, the extreme position is represented by Soncino 1488 with 188 variants—2 1/4 times as many variants as BB, first hand (2.9 times—second hand), and almost 27 times as many as MS Cambridge Add. 1753, first hand. Let us look at these variants by categories in Table 4 below. This table shows that, once again, the overwhelming majority of text variants, in all of the sources, are plene-defective variants. In almost all of the sources, they are over 80% of the variants: Camb. Add. 1753, first hand—86%, second hand— 83%; L, first hand—81%, second hand—89%; S1, first hand—86%, BB, first hand—83%, second hand—85%, Soncino 1488—81%. Close to this is S1, second hand—79%. Somewhat different (due to number of variants of switched letters) is RB1525—69%. Both of these comparisons in the extended selections in Jeremiah and Chronicles show that BB does not belong to the manuscripts closest to the Aleppo Codex, like MSS C, L, S1 in Jeremiah, and MSS Camb. Add. 1753, S1, L in Chronicles. BB is further away than these manuscripts, even after the corrections in the second hand. On the other hand, BB does not belong to those sources that are very remote, like Soncino 1488, based on Ashkenazi manuscripts.

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access an eleventh- or twelfth-century masoretic bible codex 95 3+1=4 1+0 name form 5+0 3+3=6 1+0; graph. 3+0; silent final letter 6+0; others 2+0 0+1 2nd Soncino 2+0; graph. 2+0 2+1 hand 1488 name form 2+0; graph. 2+0 3+00+1 3+0 4+2=6 2+0 רזערדה graph. 7+1 mostly 0+1 1+0 2+0 2+1 1+1 1+0 hand 1+0 1+0 2+0; 1+2=3 1+2=3 1+0 1+0 hand 1+0 4+1= 5 0+1 MS Camb. 2nd MS4+2=6 L 3+2=5 2nd 14+11=25 7+10=17 MS S1 23+9=32 13+6=19 2nd 28+7=35 RB 1525 65+4= 69 BB 53+2=55 107+45=152 add. 1753 hand 6+1=7 5+1=6 19+12=31 8+11=19 26+11=37 16+8=24 41+10=51 77+6=83 62+3=65 135+52=187 Ketiv beg. word Vav +/- word(s) Total table 4 Text variants in BB and other sources in 1 and 2Chronicles compared to the Aleppo Codex (by categories) Plene/defective spelling Variant letters 0+1Omit 0+1 word 1+01–2 words Variant words +/- prefix - Qere

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 11:55:22AM via free access 96 penkower table 5 Section variants in BB and Other Sources in Jeremiah compared to the Aleppo Codex [100 cases]a

Source First hand Second hand

MS Cairo 18 = (18) MS Sassoon 1053 (S1) 41 = (41) BB 44 MS Leningrad B 19a (L) 47 = (47) BB 48 a For the total number of cases, we have counted all the cases of sections in the Aleppo Codex, as well as any sections in the other three manuscripts not in the Aleppo Codex.

4 Section Variants

The details of the Bible text, especially plene-defective spellings, were recorded in and later determined by the masorah notes and lists. Accordingly, the accurate Tiberian Masoretic codices were able to form a group of manuscripts which were similar to each other except for a relatively small number of variants (mostly in plene-defective spellings), i.e., the Aleppo Codex, and the manuscripts close to it. On the other hand, there were no Tiberian Masoretic lists recording the section divisions, neither in the Pentateuch, nor in the Prophets and Hagiographa. The result was that the accurate Tiberian Masoretic codices (= accurate with respect to the details of the spelling, etc.) differed considerably from each other with respect to the section divisions. Below we will determine the character of the section divisions of BB as compared to the Aleppo Codex. We will examine the preserved text of Jeremiah in BB (about 30% of the book), and of 1 and 2Chronicles (about 40% of Chroni- cles). In addition, in order to place BB within the traditions of the early Eastern manuscripts, we will compare these texts in the same manuscripts as we did above in the text variants:19 Jeremiah—(1) MS Cairo; (2) MS Sassoon 1053 (S1); (3) MS Leningrad of 1008CE; Chronicles—(1) MS Cambridge, UL Add. 1753; (2) MS Sassoon 1053 (S1); (3) MS Leningrad of 1008CE.

19 Corrections of section divisions are rare in these manuscripts. In our two selections, the only such corrections (“second hand”) occur in Jeremiah in BB.

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access an eleventh- or twelfth-century masoretic bible codex 97

4.1 Section Variants—Jeremiah Once again we see that MS Cairo is closest to the Aleppo Codex, this time with 18 variants (seeTable 5, above).The other three manuscripts, including BB, with more than 2 1/2 times the variants of MS C, are similar in their number of section variants (although the variants are not necessarily the same): S1—41 variants; L—47 variants; BB—48 variants. Let us look at these variants by categories in Table 6 below. In MS Cairo, the largest group of variants are cases of a closed section where there was no section in the Aleppo Codex (12 = 67%). In MS Sassoon 1053, there is an almost even spread of variants of the types: open (Aleppo)—closed (S1); closed (A)—no section (S1); no section (A)—closed (S1)—each about 29%. In MS Leningrad, the largest group of variants are cases of a closed section where there was an open section in the Aleppo Codex (21 = 45%). The other large group (see above MS C) are cases of a closed section where there was no section in the Aleppo Codex (14 = 30%). In BB, first hand, the largest group of variants are cases of an open section where there was a closed section in the Aleppo Codex (19 = 40%). The other large group (see above MS L) are cases of a closed section where there was an open section in the Aleppo Codex (12 = 25%). It is to be noted that BB has four corrections of section divisions: closed > no section—19:3b and 42:18; no section > open—38:17a and 38:17b. Nevertheless, even after the corrections, BB remains remote from the section divisions in the Aleppo Codex. table 6 Section variants in BB and other sources in Jeremiah compared to the Aleppo Codex (by categories)

MS Cairo MS S1 MS L BB 1st hand BB 2nd hand open (A)— 6 11 21 12 = (12) closed closed (A)— 3 6 5 19 = (19) open closed (A)— 5 12 3 7 5 no section no section (A)— 12 12 14 7 5 closed no section (A)— 4 3 = (3) open total 18 41 47 48 44 % of 100 sections 18% 41% 47% 48% 44%

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 11:55:22AM via free access 98 penkower

When we consider the total number of cases of sections in this selection from Jeremiah (as found in these manuscripts), we note that the percentage of variants from the Aleppo Codex is a large one. MS Cairo, which is the closest to the Aleppo Codex, has 18% variants, whereas, the remaining three manuscripts have 41%–48% of variants.

4.2 Section Variants—1 and 2Chronicles table 7 Section Variants in BB and other sources in 1 & 2Chroni- cles compared to the Aleppo Codex (282+74 = 356 cases)a

Source First hand (no corrections)

MS Cambridge Add. 1753 53+13 = 66 MS Leningrad B 19a (L) 73+12 = 85 BB 80+16 = 96 MS Sassoon 1053 (S1) 84+35 = 119 a All sections in the Aleppo Codex, as well as sections in the other manuscripts not in the Aleppo Codex.

We see that none of these manuscripts is close to the Aleppo Codex, not even MS Cambridge Add. 1753, which was the closest to the Aleppo Codex with respect to text variants (7—first hand; 6—second hand). Each of the manuscripts examined has more variants than the next, with BB (96 variants) third of the four manuscripts We now turn to these variants by categories (see Table 8, below). In MS Cam- bridge Add. 1753 the two largest groups of variants are cases of a closed section where there is no section in the Aleppo Codex (29 = 44%), and the reverse: no section where there is a closed section in the Aleppo Codex (24 = 36%). In MS Leningrad, the largest group of variants are cases of no section where the Aleppo Codex has a closed section (46 = 54%). In BB, first hand, the largest group of variants are cases of a closed section where the Aleppo Codex has no section (53 = 55%). In MS Sassoon 1053, the largest group of variants (see MS L) are cases of no section where the Aleppo Codex has a closed section (53 = 46%); and the next largest group (see MS Cambridge), half as large as the previous group, are the reverse cases of a closed section where the Aleppo Codex has no section (27 = 23%). Both of these comparisons, in the extended selections in Jeremiah and Chronicles, show that BB is not close to the Aleppo Codex with respect to the

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access an eleventh- or twelfth-century masoretic bible codex 99 table 8 Section variants in BB and other sources in 1 & 2Chronicles compared to the Aleppo Codex (by Categories)

MS Cambridge MS Leningrad BB 1st = MS Sassoon add. 1753 B 19a (L) 2nd hand 1053 (S1) open (A)— 2+2 = 4 6+3 = 9 0+1 11+6 = 17 closed closed (A)— 1+3 = 4 9+2 = 11 11+2 = 13 11+2 = 13 open closed (A)— 19+5 = 24 42+4 = 46 15+1 = 16 38+15 = 53 no section open (A)— 3+1=4 4+0 0+2 3+3=6 no section no section (A)— 28+1 = 29 10+3 = 13 44+9 = 53 20+7 = 27 closed no section (A)— 0+1 2+0 10+1 = 11 1+2 = 3 open Total 53+13 = 66 73+12 = 85 80+16 = 96 84+35 = 119 % of 356 19% 24% 27% 33% sections section divisions, just like the other Eastern codices MSS C, L, S1 in Jeremiah, and MSS (Camb. Add. 1753), S1, L in Chronicles. Although MS C is somewhat close to the Aleppo Codex in Jeremiah, with 18 variants, the other manuscripts, including ours, have 41–48 variants. In Chronicles, all the four manuscripts are not close to the Aleppo Codex, ranging from 66 variants (MS Cambridge—a Yemenite manuscript) to 119 variants (MS S1), with BB in the third place, with 96 variants.

5 Sedarim

5.1 Background In the early Eastern Masoretic codices, the Masoretes marked throughout the Bible at various intervals a samekh in the margin. This samekh marks the beginning of a seder. This division of the Bible into sedarim reflects in the Pentateuch the division into weekly liturgical readings (according to the Eretz-Israel custom of a weekly three-year cycle of a public liturgical reading of the Penta-

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 11:55:22AM via free access 100 penkower teuch). With respect to the Prophets and Hagiographa this division somewhat similarly reflects a division for weekly reading or learning of the biblical text.20 The transmission of the sedarim divisions was considered part of the masorah, and, as noted above, the Masoretes marked a samekh in the margins of the codices opposite the beginning of the sedarim. In addition, the sedarim were recorded in separate lists. Thus, we find in the Leningrad Codex, at the end of each of the three main sections of the Bible, a list of the sedarim in that section, with each book listed separately (e.g., in the Prophets, the sedarim of Joshua, Judges, etc.). In addition, in these lists the sedarim are numbered consecutively, each book beginning the numbering anew. The sedarim, together with their numbers, were also included by Mishael ben Uziel in his work: The Book of Ḥillufim between Ben-Asher and Ben-Naphtali.21 In the Leningrad Codex, not only in the sedarim lists, but also in certain bib- etc.) was ,א, ב, ג :lical books (e.g., Chronicles), the seder number (in Hebrew added; this time in the margin next to the samekh (and sometimes: inside the samekh). In contrast to the section divisions, the sedarim divisions were carefully transmitted, both in lists and in the margins of the early Eastern Masoretic codices. As a result, when one compares the sedarim details in the lists and in the early Eastern Masoretic codices, one sees that there is one unified tradition, with only very minor variants. This is in contrast to the transmission of the section divisions in the early Eastern Masoretic codices. As we saw above, there was neither a unified tradition nor a separate section list in Eretz-Israel. Thus, no two codices agreed in their section divisions.

5.2 Sedarim—Jeremiah In BB, the following sedarim are preserved in Jeremiah (the numbers next to the samekh were added by a later hand): the number is unclear). The next seven sedarim)—18:19 ;ו—9:23 ;ג—5:1 ; ׳כ׳ו —46:27 ; ׳כ׳ה —44:24 ; ׳כ׳ד —42:12 ; ׳כ׳ג —were misnumbered:22 39:18 . ׳כ׳ח —50:5 ; ׳כ׳ז —49:2

20 Nathan Fried, “A New HebrewText of Megillat Antiochus,” Sinai 64 (1969): 97–107 (on reading the Hagiographa on various Sabbaths), 124–133 (divisions of the sedarim for Proverbs, Job, Daniel, and the Five Megillot according to different customs) (Heb.); Joseph Ofer, “The Sedarim of the Prophets and Hagiographa,” Tarbiz 58 (1989): 155–189 (esp. 155–169) (Heb.). 21 Lipschütz’s edition (above, n. 7). 22 They are short by two in each case; e.g., in the first case, the number should be 25, and not 23 as marked.

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access an eleventh- or twelfth-century masoretic bible codex 101

These sedarim are the same as the ones marked in the Aleppo Codex, Lenin- grad Codex (in the margin), Cairo Codex, MS Sassoon 1053, and as listed in the Leningrad Codex and The Book of Ḥillufim. The numbers attached to the Jeremiah sedarim in the margins of the Leningrad Codex are from a second hand and are inaccurate. In the Aleppo Codex, Leningrad Codex, first hand, Cairo Codex and MS Sassoon 1053 there are no numbers attached to the samekh letters. One exception to the above sedarim agreements occurs at Jeremiah 44:24. BB’s seder agrees here with the Aleppo Codex. However, the Leningrad Codex, Cairo Codex and MS Sassoon 1053 have marked this seder four verses earlier, at Jer 44:20. This disagreement was caused by the fact that both verses begin with 23. םעהלכלאוהימרירמאיו :the words

5.3 Sedarim—Chronicles In BB (and in all other manuscripts) the sedarim numbers run consecutively through 1 and 2Chronicles, which is considered one book. In BB, the sedarim numbers were once again added by a second hand, but still later they were all erased. The following sedarim are preserved in Chronicles in BB:

—16:36 ;ו—12:41 ;ד—1Chr 6:34—samekh missing [this is seder 3]); 8:40) 2Chr 3:17—second hand later wrote a non-official) ; אי —28:10 ;ח—19:13 ;ז . בכ —29:11 ; זי —samekh); 15:15

Once again, these sedarim are the same sedarim as marked in the Aleppo Codex, Leningrad Codex, MS Sassoon 1053, as well as MS Cambridge Add. 1753, and as listed in the Leningrad Codex and The Book of Ḥillufim.24 This is to exclude the first case above, where by mistake the scribe of BB did not mark the seder. In the case of Chronicles, the sedarim numbers are once again not marked in the Aleppo Codex, MS Sassoon 1053; and so too MS Cambridge 1753. However, the Masorete of the Leningrad Codex added the sedarim numbers in

23 Indeed, based upon the list in The Book of Ḥillufim, and upon the list at the end of the Prophets in the Leningrad Codex, one cannot decide between these two verses, because which could refer to either of the two , והימרירמאיו both lists simply gave the catchwords הנהןכל verses. With respect to the similar case of the seder that begins with the words all the manuscripts (A, L, C, S1, BB), mark the second case, Jer 49:2, and , ׳הםאנםיאבםימי not the earlier 48:12. On the other hand, Lipschütz, in his edition of The Book of Ḥillufim (above, n. 7), 33 marked this as the earlier Jer 48:12, and not 49:2. 24 The editor of the printed edition (above, n. 7), 41 marked seder 6 as 1Chr 12:40, but that should be 12:41.

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 11:55:22AM via free access 102 penkower the margin (unlike his custom in Jeremiah), and they are accurate. These cases of samekh with the relevant seder number were also printed in the BH3 edition. In the last case of 2Chr 29:11, the seder number was written inside the samekh in the Leningrad Codex. An exception to the above sedarim agreements occurs at 2Chr 15:15. BB’s seder agrees here with the Aleppo Codex, Leningrad Codex, MS Cambridge Add. 1753, The Book of Ḥillufim list, and the Leningrad Codex list at the end of the Hagiographa. However, MS Sassoon 1053 marks the seder one verse earlier, at 2Chr 15:14. One may assume that this was a scribal slip up; i.e., marking the samekh in the margin a few lines early.25

6 Layout of Songs, Lists and Repetitive Texts

6.1 Background The Jerusalem Talmud (Meg. 3:7, 74b) and the Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 16b) determine that one must write certain songs, lists, and repetitive texts in the Bible in a specific layout. Thus, the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15) and the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) have to be written in a “brick form,” ʾariaḥ ʿal gabei levenah.26 The lists of the kings of Canaan (Joshua 12) and the sons of Haman (Esther 9) are to be written ʾariaḥ ʿal gabei ʾariah ulevenah ʿal gabei levenah.27 The post-Talmudic work, Massekhet Soferim (1:11; 12:7, 8), also determined how to write the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32). Aside from the texts noted in the two Talmuds, there are numerous other lists and repetitive texts in the Bible, some shorter, some longer. Various scribes dealt with these other texts each according to his own fashion;28 several of them following the lead of the two examples of the kings of Canaan and the sons of Haman.29

25 In addition, MS Sassoon 1053 alone did not mark a seder at 1Chr 16:34. This seems to be an error. 26 Every two lines in the following manner: the first line in three parts, the second line in two parts, with the texts of the second line beginning and ending the line, and also lining up with the empty spaces of the first line. 27 Essentially two columns of text separated by a space, with the repeating word(s) lined up in a column, one word under the next. 28 Mordechai Breuer, “The Layout of the Songs according to Halakhah and the Masorah,” in The Aleppo Codex and the AcceptedText of the Bible (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1976), 149–189 (Heb.). 29 In other words, they tried to arrange these texts in two columns such that the repeating word(s) would appear one under each other.

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access an eleventh- or twelfth-century masoretic bible codex 103

6.2 Jeremiah In the following two examples, scribes uniquely laid out a repetitive text. occurs eight times. The scribe of MS Sassoon 1053 יתצפנו ,In Jer 51:21–23 appears at the end of eight יתצפנו arranged these verses in two columns, so that consecutive lines together with a space preceding this word. None of the other manuscripts (A C L BB) wrote these lines in such a fashion, but rather as regular prose, with no attention to the repeating word.30 On the other hand, the scribe of MS Cairo treated these verses somewhat dif- occurs ten times. He laid out these ךב ferently. He noticed that in Jer 51:20–23 begins ten consecutive lines (and with no necessity ךב verses so that the word of adding section spaces, in contrast to the above example of MS S1). The reason why such layouts were possible is because the texts in the aforementioned manuscripts were written in three columns of narrow width per page, with about four words to the line. Some scribes took advantage of the narrow columns (S1 C), others did not (A L). However, such layouts were not possible in BB because the text was written in one wide column of six or seven words to the line.

6.3 1Chronicles In addition to the regular prose text, 1Chronicles also contains Psalm texts and lists to which the scribes of BB and of the other Eastern Masoretic codices paid attention.

6.3.1 1Chr 16:8–22; 23–36 These verses are parallel to Ps 105:1–15 and Psalm 96 (however, vv. 34–36 in 1Chronicles 16 have no parallel in Psalm 96). In the Aleppo Codex, both of these poetic texts in 1Chronicles were laid out over the width of two columns, instead of the usual one narrow one. This enabled the scribe to lay out both of the texts in two columns with a space between them. The scribe left a complete empty line between the two texts (in essence showing that these are two separate texts). In the first text, each line represented a full verse, with a space between the hemistichs. In the second text (vv. 23–36), most of the lines represented a full verse (with a space between the hemistichs), excluding v. 29 which has three parts, and was laid out in three parts (i.e., a line and a half, with the appropriate spaces). In addition, v. 35 was laid out in four parts, and v. 36 in three parts (all with the appropriate spaces). The result was that these two texts were laid out in two columns with a space between them (similar

.of v. 20 into his scheme יתצפנו Note that the scribe of MS S1 did not attempt to work 30

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 11:55:22AM via free access 104 penkower to the Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 32). It should be noted that in the book of Psalms, the scribe of the Aleppo Codex did not lay these texts out in this manner, because he wrote them in the format of the book of Psalms (which has two columns to the page), in one column, which did not allow for the two column layout with the space between them. (Rather, there a closed section space was placed preceding the beginning of a verse and the beginning of a hemistich). The Leningrad Codex followed the same layout as in the Aleppo Codex for the first text (vv. 8–22). For the second text, the Leningrad Codex also followed (for vv. 23–35a) a layout of two columns with a space between them, but his internal layout is different than in the Aleppo Codex, with fewer total lines. Its lines do not always begin or end with the beginning or conclusion of a phrase. And vv. 32–33 are missing the space between the hemistichs. Furthermore, its and on the next page the codex ,( ונצבקו column ends with v. 35a (including reverts to the three narrow column layout. The result is that the rest of v. 35 and v. 36 are written in seven narrow lines, with only three of them having the layout of a word(s) at the beginning, a word(s) at the end, and a space between them. (In this format, the parts of the verse are separated by a space, including the beginning of a verse). Thus, the internal breakup of these lines is also different from the Aleppo Codex. MS Sassoon 1053 also follows the above layout (as found in A, L), for the first text. In the second text, it follows the above layout, as found in A, for most of the text (vv. 23–35a), which ends the column, and then reverts to a narrower width column on the next page, and writes the remaining text (vv. 35b–36) as prose (in four lines). In contrast to these three manuscripts, MS Cambridge Add. 1753, laid out these texts in the format that we find in Psalms: a closed section space was placed preceding the beginning of a verse and the beginning of a hemistich. Since the column is narrower than the double column layout in the Aleppo Codex, the number of lines is also greater for each of the two texts (19 lines and not 15; 23 lines and not 16). Also its internal breakup of vv. 35–36 differs from the Aleppo Codex. BB, which is always laid out in one column per page, has a layout similar in technique to that later found in MS Cambridge Add. 1753; i.e., a closed section space preceding the beginning of a verse and the beginning of a hemistich. However, the details of the layout of the lines are different than the layout in MS Cambridge. Thus, the first text is laid out in 21 lines in BB (versus 19 lines in MS Cambridge), and the second text is laid out in 24 lines (versus 23 lines in MS Cambridge). Also the internal breakup of vv. 35–36 differs in BB from that in MS Cambridge, as well as those in MSS A, L, S1.

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access an eleventh- or twelfth-century masoretic bible codex 105

One should note the following distinction between the two types of layout of 1Chr 16:8–22; 23–36: (1) MSS A, L, S1; (2) BB and MS Cambridge Add. 1753. In the first type of layout (each line, with two parts and a space between the hemistichs, usually represents a complete verse), both the end of the lines and the spaces determine the breaks (this is also true for the Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 32). In the second type of layout (spaces preceding the beginning of verses, and preceding the second hemistich), only the spaces determine the breaks. The end of the lines do not determine breaks, but rather the text is read from the end of the line to the beginning of the next line, until the break (this is also true for the list of the sons of Haman).

6.3.2 1Chr 11:26–47 This is a list of David’s warriors.31 The basic layout principle in all of the sources is to leave a space before each new name (except that MSS A, L do not have a space before the beginning of v. 47). Nevertheless, the various scribes laid out these lines in different ways. In the Aleppo Codex, the names are laid out mostly like the sons of Haman; i.e., the column (in this case: very narrow) is broken into two by a space, the name begins on the left side, and is continued on the next line on the right side, until the next space. Sometimes, if the name is too long, it fills up the second line (e.g., vv. 31a, 39b, 42). But the result in general is of two columns (often of one word each) separated by a space (like in the list of the sons of Haman). The whole list is written in 45 lines. In the Leningrad Codex, the scribe has chosen to write a space towards the end of the line and also at the beginning of the next line (this is one of the ways to write a space for a closed section). The result is that each name begins in the middle of a line, after a space on that line (and a space towards the end of the previous line). Thus, this layout is also symmetrical, but in a different way than in the Aleppo Codex. The list is written in 48 lines. In MS Sassoon 1053, the basic principle of a section space preceding each name is followed. However, there is no effort to achieve any type of symmetrical layout. The list is written in 38 lines. Similarly, MS Cambridge Add. 1753 adheres to the principle of a space before each name. But here too there is no effort to achieve any type of symmetrical layout. As the width of the lines is wider here than in MS Sassoon 1053, the 27 lines of the list, are less than the 38 in MS Sassoon 1053.

31 The above-noted texts of the kings of Canaan and the sons of Haman are lists of names, but also contain a repetitive element.

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 11:55:22AM via free access 106 penkower

BB, like MS Sassoon 1053 and the later MS Cambridge, also leaves a space before each name, but here too there is no effort to achieve a symmetrical layout. As the width of the lines is wider than in MS Sassoon 1053, the 27 lines of the list, are less than the 38 in MS Sassoon 1053. Although the number of lines in BB is the same as the number in the late MS Cambridge Add. 1753, the internal layout differs between these two manuscripts. Interestingly, the last nine lines have the same internal layout in these two manuscripts. From this latter example of the list of names, we see that the various scribes knew the principle of leaving a space before each name in the list (except the last one in MSS A, L). However, only the scribes of the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex achieved a symmetrical list (in different ways) while employ- ing this constraint. From the earlier example of the two poetic texts, we see that there were two types of manuscripts with respect to the layout. (1) MSS A, L, S1 divided these texts in the symmetrical manner of the Song of Moses: two columns separated by a space, with each line representing a full verse (and a few cases where the verse went beyond one line). (2) BB and MS Cambridge Add. 1753 divided these texts in the manner of the Psalms layout (which in effect was the origin of these texts): a space before the beginning of each verse and each hemistich. Symmetry was not a goal of these scribes. In this latter layout, only the spaces determined the breaks. In the former layout, the ends of the lines as well as the spaces determined the breaks.

7 The Layout of Proverbs in the Early Eastern Manuscripts

Massekhet Soferim 12:12 noted that skilled scribes laid out Psalms, Job, and Proverbs in a special way; spacing the verses symmetrically, according to the beginnings, middle pauses, and endings. However, the exact details were not determined. Below we will examine the layout of a sample text in Proverbs as found in four manuscripts: MSS S1, BB, A, and L.

7.1 Proverbs 10 in S1 The scribe of MS S1 took great care with the layout. He determined that each line should represent a verse, and each verse should be broken into hemistichs, separated by a space. Thus each of his thirty-one lines has a space, its place depending on the place of the hemistich.32 The one exception to the above lay-

32 By mistake he skipped one line, v. 31.

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access an eleventh- or twelfth-century masoretic bible codex 107 out is the line preceding this unit, which consists of the centered stand-alone . המלשילשמ :title

7.2 Proverbs 10 in BB The scribe of BB has similarly taken great care with the layout. His principles are the same as those in MS S1 (and he, too, has the centered title line). However, in a few cases this scribe has veered from the layout principles; in five of his 34 lines, he did not leave a space, as there were too many words in the line (lines 2, 3, 5, 11, 23). In addition, in two verses he did not start the line with the beginning of a verse: (a) v. 13 begins on the left side of line 13, after a space, because the scribe exceptionally wrote the final word of v. 12 at the beginning of that line. He then continues v. 13 on line 14 (dividing it so that it will end that line, and line 15 will begin with v. 14). (b) Verse 18 begins on the right side of line, but as the second word (!), because the scribe exceptionally wrote the final word of v. 17 at the beginning of that line. Verse 18 itself is spread out over three lines. It follows, that in one case, v. 18, the beginning of that verse, although not at the start of a line, is not preceded by a space.

7.3 Proverbs 10 in the Aleppo Codex The principles of layout of Proverbs 10 in the Aleppo Codex differ somewhat from the above two manuscripts. There is no effort to have one line represent a verse. Rather the principles of layout are to have a space before the beginning of every hemistich; i.e., at the beginning of the verse (which can occur anywhere on the line), and before the middle of the verse. As in the aforementioned two manuscripts, there is a centered title line. This is followed by 41.5 lines (on line 42, the right side of the line is the last word of v. 32, and after a space the left side is the first hemistich of Prov 11:1). In four lines (5, 14, 21, 41), the scribe did not manage to leave a space before a hemistich; i.e., these lines have no space at all. In two of these cases (lines 5, 21), the result is that there is no space before the beginning of the verse (vv. 5, 18). The major practical difference between the above two types of layout is that in the second type (the Aleppo Codex) the spaces alone determine the breaks, whereas in the first type (MS S1 and BB), both the end of the lines and the spaces in the middle of the lines determine the breaks.

7.4 Proverbs 10 in the Leningrad Codex As in the Aleppo Codex, lines do not represent verses. The text begins with a right-justified title line, followed by 42 lines. There is a “formal” layout of a space on each line. However, in this manuscript, the space is not necessarily determined by the hemistichs. In addition, in eleven cases (lines 1, 3, 8, 14, 18,

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 11:55:22AM via free access 108 penkower

24, 30–32, 37, 41) the scribe has not managed to leave a space on the line. In fourteen cases (half are included in the above eleven cases), he has not left a space before the beginning of a verse (vv. 3, 4, 6–7, 10, 12, 14–15, 24, 26–27, 29– 31). Thus, almost half of the verses of this chapter lack the proper preceding space.

7.5 Proverbs 10 in Printed Editions Based on MSS L, A Biblia Hebraica 3 (BHS)33 based on MS L, did not follow the peculiar layout of Proverbs as found in L. Rather, the editor laid out the text in accordance with modern approaches: each line represents a verse, and each line is divided into hemistichs by a space.34 The editor also presented the title line separately, and centered. As we have seen above, all of the above details are in fact, the layout as found already in MS S1, and in BB (with a few exceptions). In Aron Dotan’s edition of MS L,35 the editor did not follow the peculiar layout in MS L, and decided to forgo altogether with a special layout of Proverbs 10, and presented the text as prose. However, he presented the title on a separate line, right-justified (as in MS L).36 Mordechai Breuer’s first edition, based on the Aleppo Codex.37 The editor has decided not to follow the layout in the Aleppo Codex, but that of BH3; he laid out the text in accordance with modern approaches: each line represents a verse, and each line is divided into hemistichs by a space.38 The editor also printed the title line separately, and centered. As noted above, the above layout is found already in MS S1, and in BB (with a few exceptions). The separate title line also agrees with the Aleppo Codex. Mordechai Breuer’s second edition, based on the Aleppo Codex.39 Similar to Dotan’s edition, the editor printed Proverbs 10 as prose.40 However, he printed the title on a separate line, right-justified (as in the Aleppo Codex).

33 Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1937. 34 Similarly, with respect to 1Chr 16:23–36 discussed above, BH3 did not follow the details of the layout in MS L, but laid out the text according to modern approaches. 35 Tel-Aviv: Adi, 1974. 36 With respect to 1Chr 16:23–36, contrary to BH3, Dotan reflects the layout of MS L, with all of its peculiarities (however, due to the width of the printed page, he laid out vv. 35b–36 in four lines, instead of seven narrow lines). 37 Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1989, 19933. 38 As this was also the layout in the Aleppo Codex in 1Chr 16:23–36, Breuer reflects there the layout of the Aleppo Codex. 39 Jerusalem: Horev, 1997. 40 However, with respect to 1Chr 16:23–36, Breuer did not change from his first edition; the layout in the second edition still reflects there the Aleppo Codex.

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access an eleventh- or twelfth-century masoretic bible codex 109

8 Conclusion

When comparing BB in Jeremiah (30% of the book) and Chronicles (40% of the book) with other early Eastern Masoretic codices, we arrive at the following characteristics: (1) Text—BB is far from the Aleppo Codex (mostly plene- defective spelling variants), but not very far like the Soncino 1488 edition based on Ashkenazi sources; other Eastern codices are closer than BB to the Aleppo Codex. (2) Sections—BB is far from the Aleppo Codex; other Eastern codices are also far from the Aleppo Codex and do not reflect one tradition. (3) Sedarim—BB, as well as the other Eastern codices, all reflect one tradition, well preserved, with only minor variants. (4) Songs, poetic texts—there are two basic layouts, depending on the width of the written column: (a) each line represents a verse, with a space before the second hemistich;41 (b) each line does not represent a verse; there is a space before each hemistich (wherever it occurs on the line). BB follows the second layout (see Fig. 1, below).

41 As noted above, the Leningrad Codex formally looks like it is following the first type, but in fact places the space on each line randomly. Therefore, printed editions based on L ignored its layout and published the correct first type of layout.

Textus 27 (2018) 85–110 Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 11:55:22AM via free access 110 penkower

figure 1 Bloomsbury Bible, Prov 27: 13–22

DownloadedTextus from 27 Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 85–110 11:55:22AM via free access