Leningrad Codex Research Articles

Constructed Rivalry

The majority of contemporary critical editions of the text of Hebrew Bible are based on one of two mediaeval manuscripts: the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex. Various claims have been made on the relative merits of each of these two codices. While these claims are often grounded in the language of textual criticism, there is a good deal more at play. The two codices have come to be constructed by some as oppositional artefacts. This article seeks to better understand this constructed rivalry by utilizing Watts’ conception of the relic text. It is proposed that the status of the Aleppo Codex as just such as relic text has been enhanced by diminishing the status of the Leningrad Codex. This oppositional relationship has been utilized by the state of Israel which currently houses the Aleppo Codex in the Israel Museum to enhance its status as the custodian of Jewish material culture.

Masoretic Forensics and Scribal Fingerprints

Abstract In recent years three bilingual Hebrew-Judaeo-Arabic Torah manuscript fragments have been tentatively identified as the work of the scribe Samuel b. Jacob (best-known for his production of the so-called Leningrad Codex): CUL T-S Ar.1a.2+; RNL EVR II A 640; Oxf. MS heb. f. 108/3. These identifications were made on the basis of script similarity alone. This study, premised on the work of the great Hebrew codicologist Malachi Beit-Arié, demonstrates that all three of these manuscripts have been mis-identified. Thereby, the study affirms Beit-Arié’s claim that, at least in the case of early Eastern Hebrew Bible codices, scribal identifications should not be made on the basis of script alone, but on a raft of textual and paratextual scribal features that remain demonstrably stable across a given scribe’s oeuvre.

Are Metaphors Getting Lost? – The Usefulness of Linguistic-Poetic Analysis of Old Testament Poetic Texts for Theological Interpretation

This paper presents an interdisciplinary experiment. The core of the experiment is to examine the Hebrew poetic text of the Old Testament through a textual analysis of its textuality prior to theological interpretation and to ask why and which linguistic-literary solutions, i.e. poetic procedures, are used in the construction of meaning. On this basis, a research design can be created that asks how linguistic-poetic analysis can help in the exegesis of Old Testament poetic texts (or of any other textual genre). Poetics is about the production of meaning: all of our verbal utterances are made with some kind of poetics or speech strategy in mind – our communications are not formulated randomly. The linguistic analysis proposed here examines not only whether a word or phrase in a particular poetic text of the Hebrew Bible is written correctly or not but also the poetic role of that phrase, word, sentence, and grammatical or other structure in the larger textual unit (i.e. the poem) under study. Keywords: linguistic-poetic analysis, Walter Brueggemann, Robert Alter, trial metaphor, laboratory translation, metaphor, conceptual metaphor, background metaphor, context, Leningrad Codex, massoretes

The Textual Problem of Proverbs 30:19

A textual problem in Proverbs 30:19 provides difficulty to both ancient and contemporary texts. The ancient translators understand the last word of Proverbs 30:19 differently: b’lmh or b’lmyw. Symmachus in Greek, and the Aleppo codex, Leningrad codex, Babylonian tradition, Targum Aramaic, and Latin Codex 650 translate the term as “maiden” (woman). Other translations comprehend the last word of Proverbs 30:19 as in (his) “youth:” The LXX, Syro-Hexapla, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate, manuscript 31, Amiatinus manuscript, Salzburg manuscript, Cavensis manuscript, Greek Manuscript 333, 562, 329, 571, 636, 352, 485, 464, 447, and most Latin manuscripts. Modern English Bible translators are also perplexed by the textual problem of Proverbs 30:19. Although most modern Bible English translations prefer the reading with a maid (woman), certain English translations favor the reading “in his youth”. For example, the American Standard Version (ASV), New Heart English Bible (NHEB), New International Version (NIV), Amplified Bible (AB), World English Bible (WEB), English Standard Version (ESV), Berean Study Bible (BSB), King James Version (KJV), International Standard Version (ISV), and NET Bible favor the reading with a maid (woman). The Good News Translation (GNB) and Contemporary English Version (CEV) even interpret the last word of Proverbs 30:19 as the love between a man and a woman. On the other hand, the Brenton Septuagint Translation (Douay-Rheims Bible [DRB], Literal Standard Version [LST], and Aramaic Bible in Plain English Young’s Literal Translation [YLT] have the translation of in his youth. This article undertakes a syntactical analysis of the Prov. 30:19 in an attempt to resolve this textual ambiguity.

CODEX B 19A: STAGES OF LEGITIMATION OF THE MASORET BIBLE ANCIENT EXAMPLE

This article examines the cultural and historical circumstances of the appearance and introduction into the scientific circulation of the oldest manuscript code of the Hebrew Bible — the Leningrad Code B 19A. The authors of the article make an attempt to restore the contextual connections of the Code with Jewish philosophy and biblical textology. The concept of the research is built on the basis of genealogical analysis, which opened up the opportunity to first analyze the stages of legitimation of Codex B 19A that are closest to the present, and then move into the depth of chronology, right up to the moment of creation of the studied text. The result of the study was the identification and explication of internal links between the Codex B 19A, Masoretic schools, Rabbanites, Karaites and, finally, medieval critics of the biblical text. The research methodology is based on the principles of philosophical hermeneutics, the comparative historical approach of the genealogical method as applied to textual criticism. Revealing the cause-and-effect relationship in the legitimization of the Masoretic Bible showed that the need to create a single standard for the sacred text arose already by the middle of the 8th century, the time of the emergence of the Karaite movement. The refusal of the Karaites to submit to the authority of classical rabbinical literature led to a rethinking of the biblical text. Together with the status of the main sacred book, the Bible turned out to be a text around which philological, philosophical and theological discussions became possible. Awareness of the fact that the biblical text has different interpretations led the Rabbanites and Karaites to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a philological standard for the Bible. For this reason, the authority of the Masoretes as specialists in the vocalization of the text, the direct creators of the vocalization system, has sharply increased. The Ben Asher family of Tiberias emerged as the main Masoretic school, and its last representative, Aaron Ben Asher, became the most authoritative Masoretic. Aaron Ben Asher owns the Masorah system introduced in the Aleppo Codex and copied in the Leningrad Codex B 19A. Maimonides was the first among Jewish philosophers to appreciate the textual achievements of Aaron Ben Asher, which significantly raised the authority of the Masoret in rabbinic and Karaite intellectual circles.

Las páginas tapiz hebreas a partir de sus textos

En este artículo se examinan los textos escritos en forma de decoraciones micrográficas que aparecen en las llamadas páginas tapiz de dos de los códices bíblicos hebreos más antiguos, el códice de Profetas de el Cairo y el códice de Leningrado (B19a), para analizar su posible relevancia en la evaluación y comprensión de las páginas tapiz hebreas. La lectura de estos textos revela un contenido comprensible, lleno de sentido, que no ha perdido su función como transmisor de un mensaje. También revela que el tipo de texto más usado es el de la Masora. Teniendo en cuenta los resultados, se puede concluir que la finalidad de las páginas tapiz es doble, decorativa y funcional. Estas páginas desempeñan la misma función que los márgenes de los manuscritos: recoger el material extra textual relativo al texto bíblico hebreo.

A New List of Words that Occur Twice with Two Different Meanings Found in the Leningrad Codex B19a

Abstract This article presents the edition and study of a new list of words that occur twice with two meanings discovered at the end of the Leningrad Codex B19a. The list is written in a figurative shape and forms one of the designs on the first carpet pages in the manuscript (f. 473v).

알레포 사본과 레닌그라드 사본에 대한 비교 연구

알레포 사본과 레닌그라드 사본에 대한 비교 연구

Does the Yod of ‮נַפְשִׁי‬‎ in Ps 24:4 Represent a Minuscule Waw?

AbstractIn BHS, Ps 24:4 has a reading of ‮נַפְשִׁי‬‎ “my soul” in a context that logically demands a reading of ‮נַפְשׁוֹ‬‎ “his soul.” In several manuscripts and in the Rabbinic Bible, there is a kəṯîḇ ‮נפשו‬‎ “his soul” and a qərê ‮נַפְשִׁי‬‎ “my soul.” However, some prominent Masoretic scholars, Elias Levita, Solomon Norzi and Solomon Frensdorff, have rejected this qərê reading by suggesting that the yod of ‮נַפְשִׁי‬‎ is the result of a scribal error, and that it represents a so-called minuscule waw. This article surveys the history of this debate, examines the nature of the minuscule letters, and shows that new evidence in a Genizah fragment and in the Masoretic appendices to the Leningrad Codex offers support for this dissenting opinion. As a result, the best reading in the context would probably be ‮נַפְשׁוֹ‬‎.

A New Codex from the Scribe behind the Leningrad Codex: L17

Samuel b. Jacob was the scribe responsible for the production of the so-called Leningrad Codex (Firkowich B19a), currently our earliest complete Masoretic Bible codex. This article demonstrates that another codex from the Firkowich Collection, containing the Former Prophets only, is also the work of Samuel b. Jacob, despite the lack of a colophon to this effect. The argument is based on a combination of eleven textual and para-textual features shared between these two manuscripts, and other manuscripts known to have been produced by the same scribe.

The Masora Magna of Two Biblical Fragments from the Cairo Genizah, and the Unusual Practice of the Scribe behind the Leningrad Codex

As a rule, no two Tiberian Bibles are alike when it comes to their masoretic notes. Indeed, the masora magna notes can be thought of as part of the unique fingerprint of each individual manuscript. Notwithstanding, this study presents the first evidence of two Pentateuch codices containing identical masora magna, and explores how these codices relate to one another. Both these codices were the work of Samuel b. Jacob, the scribe who wrote the Leningrad Codex. Thus this study contributes to our understanding of the scribal habits of this important figure.

Innacurate Realization of Masoretic Annotations from Leningrad Codex B19a to the Biblia Hebraica Series: General Remarks

In this article are presented and analyzed some situations of inaccurate realization of masoretic annotations of Leningrad Codex B19a (L) in the Biblia Hebraica series (the Biblia Hebraica [BHK], the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia [BHS] and the Biblia Hebraica Quinta [BHQ]), published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, Germany. Besides these works, in this article are presented and analyzed, likewise, situations of inaccurate realization of annotation from masora magna of the Codex L in the Massorah Gedolah iuxta Codicem Leningradensem B19a, published by Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, Roma, Italy. The BHK, the BHS, the BHQ and the Massorah Gedolah are academic publications based on the Codex L, and each one aiming at being faithful to the masoretic manuscript. In this article are identified situations of inaccuracy and possible corrections are proposed, based on the facsimile edition of Codex L. One of the issues addressed in this article is that the study of the Masorah is of fundamental importance for the current Bible studies and the reproduction of the notes prepared by the masoretes in the medieval period shall be, insofar as possible, faithfully reproduced in modern printed editions.

YHWH Elohim. A Survey of Occurrences in the Leningrad Codex and their Corresponding Septuagintal Renderings. By BRUCE J. HARVEY.

YHWH Elohim. A Survey of Occurrences in the Leningrad Codex and their Corresponding Septuagintal Renderings. By BRUCE J. HARVEY.

YHWH Elohim: A Survey of Occurrences in the Leningrad Codex and their Corresponding Septuagintal Renderings – By Bruce J. Harvey

Reviews in Religion & TheologyVolume 19, Issue 4 p. 463-464 YHWH Elohim: A Survey of Occurrences in the Leningrad Codex and their Corresponding Septuagintal Renderings – By Bruce J. Harvey Doreen M. McFarlane, Doreen M. McFarlane St Catharines, Ontario, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author Doreen M. McFarlane, Doreen M. McFarlane St Catharines, Ontario, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 September 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9418.2012.01115.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume19, Issue4September 2012Pages 463-464 RelatedInformation

Review of Harvey, Bruce J., YHWH Elohim: A Survey of Occurrences in the Leningrad Codex and their Corresponding Septuagintal Renderings (LHBOTS 537; Hebrew Bible and its Versions 6; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2011). Pp. xx + 252. Hardcover. US$120.00. IS

Review of Harvey, Bruce J., YHWH Elohim: A Survey of Occurrences in the Leningrad Codex and their Corresponding Septuagintal Renderings (LHBOTS 537; Hebrew Bible and its Versions 6; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2011). Pp. xx + 252. Hardcover. US$120.00. IS

The Variant Textual Readings in the Hebrew University Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa b )

This article presents all the textual variants in the smaller Isaiah Scroll from Cave One (1Q8 or 1QIsa b ), also known as the ‘Hebrew University Isaiah Scroll’, which preserves material ranging from Isa. 7:20 to 66:24. With respect to textual character, 1QIsa b has been classified as proto-Masoretic in view of its general affinity with the received Masoretic Text. For the forthcoming edition of 1QIsa b (vol. 32 in the series ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert’), a variant reading is determined wherever 1QIsa b differs from another Hebrew witness (Qumran scrolls, such as 1QIsa a , the MT as in the Leningrad Codex, or other Masoretic manuscripts and editions). In a few cases, the collation is against the Septuagint, but difference from the Greek is not a fixed criterion for determining a variant reading.

Glossário de Termos Massoréticos no Códice de Leningrado B19a (L)

Este texto foi apresentado em forma de comunicação no XX Congresso do International Organization for Masoretic Studies (IOMS), realizado em 16 de julho de 2007, em Liubliana, na Eslovênia. Título original da comunicação: “A Glossary of the Masoretic Terms in the Leningrad Codex B19a (L)”.

Corpus Linguistics and Textual History: A Computer-Assisted Interdisciplinary Approach to the Peshitta (review)

Hebrew Studies 48 (2007) 390 Reviews explained as analogous to “the popularity of Hasmonean dynastic names for males.” His question shows both scholarly creativity and an awareness that women did play a part in ancient Jewish nationalism. Finally, this book is very well written and edited. It, however, presumes that the audience has access to maps elsewhere and uses a puzzling mix of original scripts and transliterated Hebrew and Greek. In short, this book belongs in the library of every scholar who studies Hebrew literature and the Second Temple period, and it will surely inspire continuing explications of ancient Jewish nationalism that employ not only the ancient sources but also theoretical considerations seen up to this point only in studies of modern nationalism. Honora Howell Chapman California State University, Fresno Fresno, CA 93740 hchapman@csufresno.edu CORPUS LINGUISTICS AND TEXTUAL HISTORY: A COMPUTER-ASSISTED INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO THE PESHITTA. Edited by P. S. F. van Keulen and W. Th. van Peursen. SSN 48. Pp. ix + 367. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006. Cloth, 98,50. $126.15. This anthology, which was submitted to Van Gorcum for publication in 2005, offers the first fruits of a suggestion that Konrad Jenner had made to Eep Talstra, the director of the Werkgroep Informatica Vrije Universitet (WIVU, Amsterdam), to establish a joint research project to explore the application of computer-aided corpus linguistics to the study of the Peshitta translation of the Hebrew Bible. This collection is redacted from two sources. The first section contains seventeen papers from a seminar of the Computer-Aided Linguistic Analysis of the Peshitta, the research project founded by Jenner and Talstra, which took place on April 3–4, 2003. This research project reflects an already established trend in Hebrew and Greek biblical literature, attested in publications such as J. Cook, ed., Bible and Computer. The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference. Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible et Informatique “From Alpha to Byte” University of Stellenbosch 17–21 July, 2000 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), not to mention the work that has been done on Syriac lexicography published by Gorgias Press in its Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics series. The second section offers an illustration of methods of computer analysis and the types of questions such analysis can provide, taking the Peshitta of 1 Kings [4 Reigns] Hebrew Studies 48 (2007) 391 Reviews 2:1–9, David’s speech to Solomon from his deathbed, as the experimental subject. This work presents a sophisticated level of engagement of Peshitta studies with the computer-assisted analysis of the Hebrew Bible that was the focus of WIVU. This book, particularly the first section, presents specific topics that reflect questions of importance for the researchers and is thus by no means a comprehensive introduction to the application of computer technology to the Peshitta. Technical vocabulary found in these articles is usually not explained, nor are the basic concepts of computer-assisted linguistics. The papers of section one are in a thesis-response format, so that the reader has some sense of continuity and debate that the questions generated by keynote papers were generated in the seminar. Many of the articles in the first section address methodological questions that arise in converting the text of the Peshitta into a machine-readable format, including what information should be associated with each level of grammatical parsing. The two papers read by Talstra, Jenner, and Van Peursen form the backbone of the first section. The first, entitled “CALAP: An Interdisciplinary Debate Between Textual Criticism, Textual History, and Computer-Assisted Linguistic Analysis” presents the history and research program of CALAP, introduces fundamental methodological questions, and questions basic assumptions : concerning the relationship between the MT of the Leningrad Codex and the Peshitta generally and the Leiden edition in particular, as well as the theoretical assumptions concerning what elements constitute a description of a human language grammar. The second paper, “How to Transfer Research Questions into Linguistic Data Types and Analytical Instruments,” describes how the techniques developed by WIVU were refitted for use with the Peshitta, which would include generating data for new questions, especially concerning translation, as well as the software that was designed to present and compare Hebrew and Syriac data. That software generated...

A Woman at Prayer: A Critical Note on Psalm 131:2b

(ProQuest Information Learning: denotes non-USASCII text omitted.) In Psalm 131, the speaker initially tries to convince YHWH that he or she has not been arrogant or haughty: the speaker's heart is not lifted up, nor the eyes raised high, nor has he or she been occupied with thoughts too great marvelous for (v. 1). In the next verse, the negative protest changes to a positive one: But I have calmed quieted my soul, a weaned child ... (v. 2).1 Based on this image, the speaker then exhorts the nation to hope in God: O Israel, hope in YHWH, from this time on forevermore (v. 3). The precise translation of v. 2b is a notorious crux. This has more to do with the problematic syntax than with any major textual variant.2 The disputed phrase compares a weaned child with its to the author's soul: In the scholarly discussion, two major emendations have been proposed-one to modify the second occurrence of ..., one to delete the second part of the phrase entirely. According to Sigmund Mowinckel, the second should be changed to ....3 Thus, Hans-Joachim Kraus translates the phrase, a quieted child with its mother, so is quieted (...) my soul within me.4 Other scholars claim that the repetition indicates a scribal error delete the phrase.5 In opposition to both of these suggestions, Gottfried Quell has argued that parallelism in the text is deliberate, thus the phrase (with the two appearances of ...) must be retained.6 The parallelism should also guide the translation such that, since is read with in v. 2b... (as a weaned child with/on its mother), in v. 2b... the term should not be read with (my soul with me is a weaned child), but rather with as it is in the previous cola (like a weaned child with/on me am I [literally, 'is my soul']). On the basis of parallelism with the preceding line, in accordance with the text pointing in the Leningrad Codex, Quell translates the colon as follows: As a weaned child on its mother; As the weaned child on me am I.7 According to Patrick D. Miller, the point of the simile that this translation emphasizes is not just that the author's soul is a weaned child, but rather that it is like a weaned child on/with its mother (emphasis Miller's).8 Quells translation is followed by most recent commentators.9 Significantly, all of the various interpretations named above follow the pointing in the Leningrad Codex with regard to the two appearances of first as (usually understood as a form of the preposition ..., found in poetic contexts translated as something similar to upon),10 then as (usually understood as the preposition ..., with the first common singular suffixed pronoun translated as something similar to upon me).11 The problem with this reading is that, regardless of the poetic examples, is rare in the Hebrew Bible, one expects simply to denote the spatial relationship (so Isa 49:22: your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders (...); 2 Kgs 4:20: and he [i.e., the child] sat on her lap [...] until noon).12 Since is sometimes used in poetic contexts to indicate this spatial relationship, the distinctive pointing is not illegitimate. Yet it could also be argued that the parallel structure of the two lines (with the two occurrences of standing in identical places in both cola of v. 2b) leads one to expect a similar pointing. Regardless of the poetic examples, it does not strain the text to repoint the first occurrence of as (on/with me) in parallel with v. 2b.... This repointing not only makes logical sense in the line, it also renders parallel the two appearances of in v. 2b: Like a weaned child on me (...) its mother, Like the weaned child on me (...) is my soul. If the above emendation of to represents the original pointing, then the pointing of the Leningrad Codex can be explained. …

Die Mosetora als Schrift

This study deals with the Mosaic Torah as a text in its received form. Whoever announces the sacred Torah speaks firstly with heavenly authority. In Israel many people claimed this. The recording of their words lends the message permanent authority. In the corpus Ex-Dtn we read many times that Moses put into writing or read out the instructions of Yhwh, but the extent and content of the Torah are not exactly determined. Even the Torah quotations in Jos. 8,32.35 (24,26), 2Kgs 22f., and Neh 8 cannot be directly related to the model text of Ex-Dtn. Current analyses of the Mosaic Torah are mostly based on the Leningrad Codex of the 11th century. Its text, however, deviates in many ways from the relevant Qumran fragments. Moreover, the critical edition and the translations of the Mosaic Torah confirm its textual polymorphism. Hence, any document that claims to be the Mosaic Torah must firstly be individually analysed. This applies to the model text of Gen-Dtn as also to the Book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll. The Qumran texts confirm that the Mosaic Torah in the form of Gen-Dtn enjoyed a special status, as nearly all the Torah citations correspond with it. Thus the authorship and the recipients determine the kind of written Mosaic Torah that is chosen and transmitted in the process of Yhwh's continuing revelation to Israel.