Masoretic Text Research Articles (Page 1)

The figure of the snake in the second creation account of Genesis has sparked the imagination of many throughout (art) history. Mostly, this serpent has been labelled as a cunning and deceitful animal which played an important role in the so-called “fall of man.” This attributive quality has its roots in the Masoretic Text (MT) which introduces the snake as being the most ‘ārûm (crafty) of all animals in Gen 3:1. Remarkably, the Septuagint (LXX) translation of Genesis renders this lexeme by phronimos (wise). The fact that this is the only instance in the LXX corpus where ‘ārûm is rendered by phronimos is even more surprising. Although several scholars have described the translation technique of the LXX translator of Genesis in great detail, none have provided an explanation for why the translator opted for this specific rendering to denote the snake in Gen 3:1. Therefore, this study will examine this unique rendering and aims to provide a decisive conclusion to the question of why the translator opted to render ‘ārûm by phronimos to denote the snake’s nature in Gen 3:1.

Abstract The two Biblical Aramaic passages in Daniel 3:2–3 and Ezra 4:9 preserve occupation-based gentilic nouns amid professional titles and population names based on toponyms according to the Masoretic vocalization. From a text-critical standpoint, the nonethnic labels with gentilic vocalization appear “corrupt” due to scribal errors. However, a philological solution offers an explanation that takes two different modes of interpretation into consideration. By elucidating the mechanism of classification embedded in the category of gentilics through the notion of relational adjectives in cross-linguistic data, this article revisits Franz Rosenthal’s remark that considers the Aramaic gentilic vocalizations of the Masoretic text to be errors due to their semantic deviance. It argues that the inclusion of nonethnic labels among other gentilics reflects a logic of classifying ancient identities that do not necessarily align with what is normalized as an ethnonym in taxonomic nomenclature. Simultaneously, a different interpretation emerged through a reanalysis of the loanwords.

This article examines the Qurʾānic portrayal of Jesus (ʿĪsā al-Masīḥ) and the naṣārā in comparison with Samaritan and Nazarene/Ebionite profiles, situating them within the Arabicised debatespace of Late Antiquity and early Islam. Building on recent studies of Qurʾānic Christology and interconfessional exchange as well as Macdonald’s work on Samaritan theology and Thomas’s research on Christian–Muslim polemic, the study argues that overlaps in prophetology, law-centred piety, and divine transcendence reflect shared category availability rather than genealogical dependence. Methodologically, the analysis combines close readings of Qurʾānic passages (e.g., Q 4:171; 5:72–75; 4:157) with textual variants from the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Masoretic Text (MT), alongside patristic notices of Jewish–Christian groups. Evidence from Sinai Arabic MS 154, an early Christian apologetic treatise preserved at St Catherine’s Monastery, illustrates how Arabic-speaking Christians engaged Qurʾānic categories in staged dialogue. The findings clarify where conceptual overlaps (titles, law, divine unity) coexisted with decisive non-overlaps (worship, sonship, atonement), showing that the Qurʾān’s Christology participated in a common discursive field while maintaining distinct theological boundaries. On this basis, the article proposes a historically grounded “Bridge-First” model for Muslim–Christian dialogue, beginning with Qurʾān-affirmed titles for Jesus and advancing toward contested claims in sequence.

What is the meaning of ‘ועבר’ found in Nahum 1:12? The textual tradition is divided. The Septuagint (LXX) omits this Hebrew word, while the Vulgate translates literally as ‘et pertransibit’ in Nahum 1:12. Although the Peshitta has a similar translation with the Masoretic text and the Vulgate, it differs on the subject: they will go through or ‘ܘܥܒܪܘ’. Targum, on the other hand, interprets the Hebrew word as ‘ויעברון על פרת ית’ or ‘they passed on the Euphrates’. This disagreement raises important questions about the original wording of the verse, its interpretation and the sources of the various readings that emerged during its transmission. Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article employs textual criticism as its primary method, examining manuscript evidence, evaluating the chances of transcription and translation differences and considering contextual and linguistic factors. The aim is to determine the most likely original text and to investigate the possible reasons for the inconsistencies found among these ancient sources.

Abstract Recent research has suggested that the Teispid-Achaemenid empire, which held sway at the height of the period known as the Axial Age, did not attempt to change the archaic social conditions of their governed polities. The Persians innovated governance through the creation of a synthetic ethnic class, which reflected a prearchaic structure. The Persian imperial ideology of a universal kingship clearly opposed a Jewish theological and monotheistic worldview, which was more in consonance with the thought of the Axial Age, so conflict arose with the Jewish diaspora. This conflict is addressed differently in Biblical writings. While Haggai and Zechariah outline an eschatological model, Ezra and Nehemiah present Jerusalem as a spiritual center. The Masoretic text of Esther elucidates this transition to an “axialized” tribal/ethnic group within the Persian Empire. The book hints at a concomitant transformation to “axiality” within the Achaemenid empire itself, after which its policy shifts from conquest to consolidation.

The conquest of the land in 2 Kgs 17:5 is the key element in the account of the fall of Samaria (2 Kgs 17:3–6). The source analysis of this verse leads to the conclusion that its shorter version, witnessed by the Old Latin Palimpsestus Vindobonensis (La115) where the conquest of the land is not mentioned, may be the oldest recoverable form of this text, allowing for the reconstruction of the true Old Greek text and its Hebrew Vorlage, in this regard alternative to the longer version attested to by the Masoretic text. The survey on the possible reasons underlying the postulated textual expansion in 2 Kgs 17:5MT indicates that the men­tion of the attack on the entire country adds drama to the events narrated, emphasises the totality of the As­syrian invasion, and makes the capture of Samaria more significant. In contrast, the lectio brevior of the OL appears to be less dramatic and somehow ‘flat’ from the narrative point of view. In this way the narrative of the lectio longior takes on an increasingly anti-Samarian tone disclosing possible pragmatic motives un­derlying postulated textual expansions. Historical contextualisation of the events narrated in 2 Kgs 17:5MT completes the picture, which seems to be much more complex than the straightforward biblical narrative would suggest. The final literary context in which these events are narrated indicates that the biblical editor is mostly interested in theodicy to depict the total defeat of Samaria and the definitive end of the Kingdom of Israel in theological terms. In this regard, the remark about the conquest of the land in the MT, in later Greek versions, and the Targum, intensifies the anti-Samarian rhetoric of the biblical text in comparison with those textual versions which do not mention it (OL and several Greek testimonies).

The article seeks to bring the effect of the encounter with the Neo-Babylonian Empire on the oracles in Jeremiah 50–51 Masoretic text (MT) to the fore. In these oracles, the Babylonian imperial claim of global rule from Babylon as a manifestation of the kingship of Marduk is countered with the counter-imperial claim that Yahweh is king. Babylon was merely a golden cup in the hand of Yahweh. The city of Babylon, which was built by Marduk, would suffer a fate similar to that of Jerusalem. It is argued that Empire Studies offer fresh insights into the apparent tension between the Oracles against Babylon and the pro-Babylonian sections of the book of Jeremiah. The contrast between them lies primarily in the manner in which the Babylonian imperial claims are dealt with. While the pro-Babylonian sections of the book of Jeremiah present a disguised transcript of resistance, the oracles against Babylon openly confront the Babylonian imperial claims. Utilising insights provided by Empire Studies, the article scrutinises the effect of the encounter with the Neo-Babylonian Empire on the oracles in Jeremiah 50–51 MT. Finally, the contrasting ways in which the oracles against Babylon and the oracle in Jeremiah 27:5–11, which is seemingly the most pro-Babylonian part of the book of Jeremiah, confront the imperial claims of Babylon, are considered. Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: The research highlights the effect of the encounter with the Neo-Babylonian Empire on the oracles in Jeremiah 50–51 MT. Unlike the oracle in Jeremiah 27:5–11, which represents a disguised transcript of resistance, the oracles against Babylon openly confront the Babylonian imperial claims.

This study analyzes how Ps 137 reflects the profound experience of exile of the Israelite people, emphasizing the intersection between divine justice and theological identity in a context of oppression and despair. The importance of the Ps 137 is contextualized, as it expresses lament and a desire for restoration, revealing the constant struggle of the people to maintain their faith and identity in a hostile and desolate environment. The comparative analysis between the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) highlights textual variations that can significantly enrich the interpretation of the Ps 137, evidencing the different traditions of transmission and interpretation over the centuries. The critical notes provided in this study offer a detailed view of specific verses, exploring the linguistic and cultural nuances that enrich the understanding of the text. The historical context is fundamental to understanding the implications of the Babylonian exile on the formation of Israel’s national and spiritual identity, reflecting the pains, struggles, and hopes of the people. Literary criticism and form analysis address the construction of the Ps 137, while the conclusion connects the quest for divine justice to the affirmation of Israel's identity. Thus, the Ps 137 not only laments loss and pain but also cries out for redemption and reaffirms faith in a God who is just and present, even in times of crisis and despair.

The Hebrew word ‘אפים’ in Samuel 1:5 presents significant challenges for both ancient translations and modern English translations of the Bible. In ancient texts, the Masoretic text presents ‘אַפָּיִם’ or ‘nostrils’ (face or anger). The Aramaic Targum offers a different perspective, rendering it as ‘בחיר’ or ‘(one) approved (portion)’, while the Syriac Peshitta opts for ‘ܐܦܥܐ’ or ‘double’. The Latin Vulgate provides a thought-provoking interpretation, using the word ‘tristis’ or ‘sad’. The LXX, however, prefers ‘πλήν’. In modern English Bible translations, the Jewish Publication Society renders it as one portion (cf. New Living Translation [NLT] ‘only one choice portion’), whereas the New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible (NASB) and New International Version (NIV) describe it as a double portion. The King James Version (KJV), on the other hand, interprets it as a worthy portion. Contribution: Consequently, this research attempts to unveil this mysterious Hebrew word with textual criticism as its methodology.

The Asante-Twi Bible’s translation of ‘āḇaḏ, and šāmar, can be misleading and a source of motivation for environmental degradation among Asante communities in Ghana. Incidentally, Ghana faces serious environmental crisis where many of her water bodies and forest cover are being destroyed due to illegal mining activities. If a misinterpretation arises out of such a translation of the biblical text, it could be considered as a stimulus for ecological misbehaviour. Was it the case of unavailability of suitable clauses in the receptor language or a choice of translational approach by the local translators? This study employed a historical-critical method and an exegetical approach, where Genesis 2:15 was contextually, textually and morphosyntactically analysed and its translations in the Asante-Twi Bible assessed. Having scrutinized ancient texts such as the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and their parallel with Asante-Twi Bible regarding the text, it is argued in this paper that the Hebrew phrase, ‘āḇaḏ, and šāmar, could be suitably translated as ɔnyɔ mu adwuma na ɔnhwɛ so yie, “he should cultivate and keep it well,” in the Asante-Twi. It is believed that this would advance mother-tongue theologizing regarding Christian environmental discourse among Asante-Twi readers. This study has contributed to the field of Mother-tongue Biblical Hermeneutics, Bible Translation Studies, Old Testament Exegesis, Biblical Studies and Linguistics.

Abstract Vat. Pers. 61, found in the Vatican library, is a Judeo-Persian translation of the Torah. It has been variously described as a 13th, 14th, or 15th century text. This study aims to more accurately pinpoint its age and establish whether it is a direct translation of the Masoretic Text or whether it is based on Targum Onqelos. Based on a limited corpus of this manuscript (the Decalogue and a few other verses), this study also provides a more detailed description of the language variety of the manuscript and discusses the Aramaic and Arabic loanwords found in it. The study concludes that Vat. Pers. 61 is largely based on Targum Onqelos, and the language of the text is found to be generally pre-Mongolian Early Judeo-Persian, which is rare for a religious Rabbanite text.

The term אמצים as encountered in Zech 6:3 and 6:7 has been interpreted in various ways by ancient translators, including the LXX, Peshitta, Targum, Vulgate, and the Masoretic Text. The ambiguity surrounding אמצים is further highlighted in Origen’s Hexapla. Importantly, there is no agreement on the translation of אמצים in Zech 6:7. Aquila’s translation is particularly significant, as it offers a unique interpretation of אמצים in Zech 6:3 that differs from his rendering in Zech 6:7. This article argues that Aquila’s version of Zech 6:7 does not correspond to the Hebrew text that underlies the Masoretic Text, whereas both Symmachus and Theodotion are consistent with the Hebrew reading of the Masoretic Text. Textual criticism is utilized to support this claim.

Abstract This contribution proposes several new readings in 4Q111, seeking to present the text on its own terms, not from the perspective of the Masoretic Text or of a hypothetical original form. With this orientation, it becomes easier to make sense of several readings as well as other seemingly incoherent and/or unexpected words and phrases.

Abstract The Hebrew Bible contains three references to the export of wheat from Israel to Tyre. Difficult and suspiciously similar phrases occur in the Masoretic Text of each: חִטִּים מַכֹּלֶת in 1 Kgs 5:25 (Eng. 5:11); חִטִּים מַכּוֹת in the parallel 2 Chr 2:9 (Eng. 2:10); and חִטֵּי מִנִּית in Ezek 27:17. Moreover, in each passage, the ancient translations reflect further variant readings. This paper integrates textual criticism with information on wheat in antiquity in order to clarify all three passages. The paper may contribute to our understanding of international trade in the first half of the first millennium BCE.

Abstract The various textual witnesses reveal more than one portrait of Uzziah. Two distinctive portraits of Uzziah emerge, one within the Masoretic tradition and another in the Syriac Peshitta. The present article aims to explore these portraits in order to demonstrate the shape of each portrait of Uzziah in light of Jotham and to determine what these portraits reveal about the nature of the textual transmission of the account of Uzziah in Chronicles.

Abstract This article considers the cumulative effect of the variants in the Greek text of Joshua 24 under the understanding that its Hebrew Vorlage represents a text distinct from what became the Masoretic Text (MT). The best explanation for the textual phenomena in Joshua 24 may be the persistence of two Hebrew texts that were mutually informative among the communities that received the book of Joshua and the Former Prophets. This essay will attempt to demonstrate the value of text pluriformity in text-critical decisions and in the compositional strategy represented in these texts.

Proverbs 1 verses 1–7 encompasses an important section of the Hebrew bible related to ancient didactic wisdom terminology. This article analyses the Masoretic Text in Hebrew to categorise and examine the terminology concerning the theory of the scribal schools that developed in ancient Israel. The issue is the absence of an undisputed indication of the text’s Sitz im Leben. Consequently, the proposal concerning the Sitz im Leben in this text pertains to the scribes. The employed method is textual exegesis, aimed at investigating the text’s background through historical analysis. The study is conducted by examining the terms in each verse, considering their textual meaning and historical contexts, with an emphasis on their usage in scribal schools, to reveal the text’s historical background.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This study examined the significance and application of educational terminology in ancient Israel as presented in the introductory passage of the book of Proverbs. This article contributes to historical studies of the ancient education system and biblical studies.

Abstract Two doublets are present in the Greek witnesses to Hos 14:3. Additionally, the Lucianic text contains two alternative translations that have been conflated, resulting in the formation of a two-word short doublet within a two-sentence long doublet. These readings are found in Greek manuscripts, as well as in the Targum Jonathan, in Old Latin, Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian translations, and in Greek and Latin patristic quotations, either as alternative or as conflations. Some witnesses exhibit individual translations that diverge from the actual Masoretic text (MT), which can be regarded as earlier forms according to Lagarde’s third axiom for the text-critical evaluation of Greek readings. Where a translation that is isomorphic with the Hebrew text replaces the older one or is conflated with it, it may be inferred that a process of revision has taken place. This article analyses these various readings and thus provides insight into the process of formation and conflation of competing translations in a period when the Hebrew text had not yet reached its current form.

The Pentateuch provides several meaningful connections between legal and narrative texts which serve to articulate and lend authority to the law. Beyond the notion of divine law, biblical law is thus embedded in various contexts of meaning which also relate to its normativity. A comparison of the textual traditions of the Masoretic text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the Peshitta, shows that law, along with its legitimating contexts, contributed to the creation of group-specific identities and to the differentiation between different groups of agents between the late Second Temple period and late antiquity. The aim of this article is to describe, by way of example, how the normativity of the laws of the Covenant Code (Exodus 20:22–23:33) is constituted within the pentateuchal narrative, at the interfaces of narrative and legal texts, and in textual history. As a result, it will become clear that the ancient textual witnesses attest to a productive adaptation of law within different conceptions of Torah. The various textual traditions reveal shifts in concepts which were transferred to the texts during the processes of their transmission, translation, and adaptation.

In the introduction to the book of Job, God allows Satan to inflict terrible devastation and suffering on his prominently righteous, pious, and prosperous God-fearing servant, Job. In response to his suffering, Job’s three well-meaning friends assert various Deuteronomistically oriented “sin and retribution” theological answers. The result is not comfort for Job, but ongoing nightmares. At Job 7:20 Job addresses God in response to his nightmares, but here a text-critical problem arises: There is a crucial difference between the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) versions. The MT states “I have sinned … (why am I) a burden against myself?” (KJV). The Greek (LXX) version has: “If I did sin … (why am I) a burden on you?” (my italics). Modern English Bible translators have responded to text-critical research by rejecting the majority MT version of Job7:20, and chosen to render the LXX version instead. The hypothesis of this article is that the difference in these two versions of Job7:20 makes a significant difference in terms of the understanding of theodicy in the book of Job; the MT version of Job 7:20 allows for an exegesis which goes a long way towards resolving the underlying problem of theodicy. Furthermore, the rejection of the MT version by text-critical scholars as reflected in modern English translations may point to significant implications in terms of the “parting of the ways” between Christianity and its Jewish origins. This article uses an interdisciplinary and intertextual methodology to explain the hypothesis. The main source is the monistic exegesis of the book of Job in the set of engravings by the artist/poet William Blake (1757–1827). Two apocryphal books, Tobit and 4 Ezra, are used to explain Blake’s exegesis because they confirm certain important aspects of Blake’s exegesis.