JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

too, warned against teaching from “uncorrected” books (Pes.
112a) and emphasized the importance of the protective devices
(masoret) for the Torah text (Avot 3:13). Further, it was in Akiva’s
day that the question arose as to whether the established
consonantal text or the traditional manner of reading was to
determine the halakhic interpretation (Mak. 7b; Sanh. 4a; Pes.
86b; Kid. 18b). R. *Ishmael, his contemporary, formulated the
13 *hermeneutical norms (Sifra 1:1) which presuppose a fixed
recension. He also advised R. Meir to be extraordinarily meticulous
in his work of transcribing sacred texts lest he omit or
add a single letter (Er. 13a). This period is distinguished from
its predecessors in that a single stabilized text attained unimpeachable
authority and achieved hegemony over all others.
This development seems to have occurred in the course of the
first century C.E., probably as a consequence of the need for
religiocultural cohesion and national unity following the destruction
of the Temple. Before long, all other Hebrew recensions
were discarded and passed into oblivion, leaving only
a few traces behind.
It is true that in the generation after R. Akiva copies of
the Torah made by R. Meir might still contain a few textual
oddities (Gen. R. 9:5; 20:12), and medieval tradition could retain
a record of variant readings found in a Torah scroll stored
in the synagogue of Severus in Rome (Bereshit Rabbati, ed.
Albeck, p. 209). It is also true that rabbinic literature has preserved
several hundred deviations from the received text in
scriptural quotations and in reconstructed readings underlying
a specific piece of midrashic exegesis, while the same phenomenon
may be discernible in citations in Jewish Palestinian
apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature, in the New Testament,
and in the Church Fathers. Even in the third century
C.E., R. Ammi, a Palestinian amora, might still find it necessary
to warn against the retention of “uncorrected books” for
more than 30 days (Ket 19b). Nevertheless, at this period all
this constitutes a survival and not a living tradition.
The hegemony of the masoretic-type text is amply attested,
apart from halakhic sources, by two independent classes
of witnesses. On the one hand, the Hebrew biblical scrolls
and fragments discovered at Masada (66–73 C.E.), at Wadi
Murabbaʿat, and at Naḥal Ḥever (both from c. 132–35 C.E.) are
all practically identical with the received text. On the other
hand, the Jewish Greek translation of the Minor Prophets
found in Naḥal Ḥever, and the second-century Greek translations
of the Bible attributed to *Aquila, *Symmachus, and
Theodotion all testify to revisions of the Septuagint attempting
to bring it closer to a masoretic-type Hebrew text which
had become exclusively authoritative. Whether this development
resulted from an official promulgation by accepted religious
authorities, or whether it was the culmination of a long
period of growth during which the masoretic type had always
represented the mainstream of tradition can no longer be determined.
Whatever the case, no further developments of any
significance in the biblical Hebrew consonantal text took place
during the 600 years that elapsed between the latest manu-
bible
scripts from the tannaitic period (c. 200 C.E.) and the earliest
medieval ones (c. ninth century C.E.). None of the medieval
manuscripts and codices, and not even the thousands of Bible
fragments from the Cairo *Genizah represent a recension different
from the received text.
See also *Masorah, *Poetry in the Bible.
Bibliography: F. Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Testament
(1892); C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition
of the Hebrew Bible (1897), repr. 1966 with a prolegomenon by
HM Orlinsky; V. Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur
(1906–15); H.E. Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament (1909);
H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (19682); L.
Ginsberg, in: JBL, 41 (1922), 115–36; M.L. Margolis, Hebrew Scriptures
in the Making (1922); G.F. Moore, Judaism… (1927–30); A. Geiger, Urschrift
und Uebersetzungen der Bibel… (1928); S. Zeitlin, in: PAAJR,
4 (1932), 169–223; R. Gordis, Biblical Text in the Making (1937); J. Ph.
Hyatt, in: BA, 6 (1943), 71–80; E. Urbach, in: Tarbiz, 17 (1945/46), 1–11;
B.J. Roberts, Old Testament Text and Versions (1951); Y. Kaufmann,
Toledot; E.A. Parsons, The Alexandrian Library (1952); M.H. Segal,
in: JBL, 72 (1953), 35–47; idem, Mevo ha-Mikra (1956); L.J. Liebreich,
in: HUCA, 25 (1954), 37–40; C.H. Robert, in: British Academy Proceedings
(1954), 169–204; M. Weitemyer, in: Libri, 6 (1955–56), 217–38
(Eng.); M. Greenberg, in: JAOS, 76 (1956), 157–67; P. Katz, in: ZNW, 47
(1956), 191–217; M. Haran, in: Tarbiz, 25 (1955/56), 245–71; I.L. Seligmann,
ibid., 118–39; P.W. Skehan, in: VT Supplement, 4 (1957), 155–60;
W. Hallo, in: IEJ, 12 (1962), 13–26; idem, in: JAOS, 83 (1963), 167–76;
88 (1968), 71–89; S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (1950);
D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila (1963); F.M. Cross, in: HTR,
57 (1964), 281–99; idem, in: IEJ, 16 (1966), 81–95; idem, in: BA, 28
(1965), 87–100; E. Wuerthwein, Text of the Old Testament (1957); M.H.
Goshen-Gottstein, Text and Language in Bible and Qumran (1960);
idem, in: Textus, 2 (1962), 28–59; 5 (1966), 22–23 (Eng.); idem, in: A.
Altmann (ed.), Biblical and Other Studies (1963), 79–122; idem, in:
Biblica, 48 (1967), 243–90 (Eng.); P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (19592);
S. Talmon, in: Textus, 1 (1960), 144–84; 2 (1962), 14–27; 4 (1964),
95–132 (Eng.); F.G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts
(19654); N.M. Sarna, in: Essays in Honor of I.E. Kiev. Add. Bibliography:
Traditional commentaries on the Torah: Torat Ḥayyim:
Ḥamisha Ḥumshe Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy complete in 7 vols),
Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook: 1986–1993; The English translation
of the Bible by the Jewish Publication Society of America was completed
as follows: Torah: 1962; The Prophets: 1978; The Writings: 1982.
The entire work is now in one volume: Tanakh: A New Translation of
the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text, Philadelphia/New
York/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1985. All of the
following contain extensive bibliographies. The most recent work on
the textual history and criticism of the Bible is: Emanuel Tov, Textual
Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis: Fortress Press and Assen/Maastrict:
Van Gorcum, 1992. A major reference work in biblical
studies is the now-complete Enẓiklopediyyah Mikra’it in Hebrew: E.L.
Sukeinik (dec.), U.M.D. Cassuto (dec.), H. Tadmor, and Sh. Ahituv,
editors, Enẓiklopediyyah Mikra’it (= Encyclopaedia Biblica), Vols. 1–9,
Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1950–1988. Other reference works in biblical
studies are: David Noel Freedman, editor-in-chief, Anchor Bible
Dictionary, complete, Vols. 1–6, New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/
Auckland: Doubleday, 1992; G.J. Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and,
Heinz-Josef Fabry, editors, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,
Volumes 1–7 covering א through ל, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1974–1995 (trans. of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Tes-
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 585