Talk:Masoretic Text

Older comments

Do we really need to link to a (as yet uncreated) new article on the Masoretes themselves? I think it would be Ok to have just one article on them and their work. RK 13:18, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you check out wikipedia a bit more thoroughly, you may find that there are many links to articles which have yet to be created. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 13:34, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

---

The old Hebrew text was written in continuous script, without any breaks. -- This is a tradition that is not accepted by modern scholarship. All the earliest known fragments of Hebrew have separated words (usually by small marks rather than by spaces). There are other things in this 1903 passage that are no longer accepted also; I'll come back with some references when there is time. --zero 14:29, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

One thing missing is the introduction of nikud. Another is the issue of textual variation within the masoretic textual family. --zero 14:29, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

The old Hebrew text was written in continuous script, without any breaks. The division into words, books, sections, paragraphs, verses, and clauses (probably in the chronological order here enumerated); the fixing of the orthography, pronunciation, and cantillation; the introduction or final adoption of the square characters with the five final letters (comp. Numbers and Numerals); some textual changes to guard against blasphemy and the like; the enumeration of letters, words, verses, etc., and the substitution of some words for others in public reading, belong to the earliest labors of the Masorites. -- This paragraph is problematic from the point of view of modern scholarship. The first sentence reports a tradition that is not supported by archaeology (see Naveh, Israel Exploration Journal 23 (1973):206-208). Many of the other things, for example the division into verses, open and closed sections, and books, predate the Masoretes as we now know from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The adoption of the "square characters with the five final letters" (presumably the script derived from Aramaic that is still used) also predated the Masoretes. On the other hand, the Masoretes certainly standardized these things, and they did introduce the cantillation marks (nekudot). I deleted the first sentence, but the rest still needs revision.

Since no additions were allowed to be made to the official text of the Bible, the early Masorites adopted other expedients... That is also problematic because it supposes that there was in fact an official text before the Masoretes established one. The majority view today is that the Masoretes sought to establish an official text out of a more chaotic situation, even though they drew on a rich tradition. Evidence for this is that even centuries after the Masoretes had finished their task there were still many scrolls in circulation that contained significant variations. I didn't change anything in the article (yet). --zero 10:15, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A difficulty in bringing the 1903 text up to date is that it uses the word Masorete to refer to people from pre-Talmudic times (say 1st century) whereas the modern usage is to only use the word for the period from about the 5th or 6th century onwards. I'm not sure of the best way to handle this issue. --zero 07:16, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

The following is discussion and belongs on the Talk page rather than in the article itself. Btw, the "Modern work" mentioned near the top is not at all modern but is just traditional apologetics brought slightly up to date. --Zero 13:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, the name "Palestine" should bed corrected to Israel and/or Judea because there never has been a country officially named "Palestine" as this was the final insult given to Israel and Judea by Roman emperor Hadrian after the his conquest of the area in 135 A.D./C.E. "Palestine" is Latin for "Philistine", the only people that Israel could never conquer. To call Israel by this insulting name "validates" Hadrian's insult. As the LORD promised Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob/Israel, He would bless those who blessed him and curse those who cursed him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.75.99 (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Modern studies

Note: here is a good link on Modern work: http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html

Before direct research on the Aleppo Codex:

1. Heidenheim & Baer
2. CD Ginsburg's editions of the Hebrew Bible and its masoretic apparatus
3. BHK and BHS based on the Leningrad Codex (as well as the Dotan edition)

Since direct research on the Aleppo Codex became possible:

1. The research of the late Professor Moshe Goshen-Gottstein on the authenticity of the Aleppo Codex, and its identity as the most perfect exemplar of the masoretic text ever created by hand.
2. The extraordinary history of the Aleppo Codex
3. Various editions of the Hebrew Bible based on the Aleppo Codex from the Breuer school (scholars include Rabbi Mordecai Breuer and Dr. Yosef Ofer)
4. The monumental project Miqraot Gedolot ha-Keter, halfway through completion at Bar-Ilan University, Israel, which presents (for the first time in history) the text and mesorah of the Aleppo Codex. The missing parts of the codex are reconstructed using a slightly different method than that of the Breuer school.

Also need to include: What is a keter or a taj. Separate articles on cantillation, section divisions, special letters and signs, and other unique features of the masoretic text.

The image

The image caption is way out of date. There are earlier copies of the decalogue (10 commandments) in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and plenty of earlier examples of the square script. --Zero 11:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Zero. I reworded it and would appreciate if you or anyone else could provide a better image. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The image is not of a Masoretic text, but rather pre-Masoretic. The Masoretes devised the systems of vocalic and prosodic pointings (nequdot and teʽamim), which are clearly absent here, because they are 9 centuries posterior to the Nash fragments). If one wishes to include a Masoretic fragment (which includes the pointings, layout, and Masoretic notes, the magna/gedolot and parva/qaṭanot), there are many examples from the Cairo Genizah, as well as from the Aleppo codex, which would be more appropriate. I think a comparative group of images may be useful, including examples of Babylonian/Yemenite supralinear pointing.Jerchower 14:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

15 years later and I think it's finally time to correct this. Not only is the Nash Papyrus not example of the Masoretic Text because it predates the Masoretes, it's not even an example of the proto-Masoretic Text because it agrees with the Septuagint in many places against the consonantal text of the MT. Replaced image with one of the Leningrad Codex. Voteins (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the belated correction. Better late than never... warshy ^(¥¥) 14:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Aleppo Codex

What is the meaning of and evidence for "possibly the first ever complete copy of the Masretic Text in one manuscript"? If it is merely a reflection that it was a bound codex rather than a collection of scrolls, that meaning does not come through clearly. --Zero 05:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It means what it says - the first time that the Hebrew Bible was written in one bound codex. That was the view of Moshe Goshen-Gottstein (I'll try to find a reference). There are earlier codices with parts of the Bible, for example the whole Torah or whole Prophets. Its significance is that one man annotated the whole Bible in a consistent manner. RachelBrown 09:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Please find the citation and clarify the wording. The word "manuscript" does not imply "codex" necessarily, and there is a difference between material bound together (which could have multiple writers) and material prepared by one writer (which may be in the form of a bundle rather than bound together). Aren't there older traditions of individuals who wrote out the whole Tanach by themselves? --Zero 10:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I've made a x-ref to the Aleppo Codex article. I'm not aware of these traditions and presumably Goshen-Gottstein rejected them. RachelBrown 12:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Tiqqune Sopherim

Scholars like Professor Lawrence Schiffman and Nehemiah Gordon (Karaite) strongly disagree with the idea that the Tiqqune Sopherim were actually changes within the Tanach text (with Nehemiah the context of discussion was the Tetragrammaton), and assert that the popular Christian David Ginsburg-->Bullinger concepts are simply a misunderstanding of the Massorah. Good articles on this controversy are sparse, few and far between. The Wiki article does leave open a good amount of nuance and interpretation, however it would be nice, albeit difficult, to give some focus on the actual controversy about evidences on whether the scripture text itself was ever changed. I would be happy to share my resources, few as they are. Example http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/message/3069 "Prof Schiffman wrote in response to the Bullinger emendations claim.. "In vol.4 Ginzberg correctly translated the heading of the first list, for the Pentateuch, as "Lord occurs twelve tines in the Pentateuch........ this is not a list of textual variants but rather a list of the times ad-onai is used when it is clearly an equivalent (in meaning) to the shem ha-meforash." 24.193.219.212 04:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Shalom, Steven Avery, Queens, NY schmuel@nyc.rr.com

Missing Hebrew text=

I've inserted a couple, by painstakingly cutting from Hebrew_alphabet, i.e. "three times the Pentateuch has the spelling אל where the reading is לר. " I'm going to bed now, but the source I used was the original Jewish Encyc article, Google cache, here: [1]

There's a lot missing from this article, perhaps someone more familiar with Yods and Alephs can check it out. Rich Farmbrough 23:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Middle verse

The text says "Thus (Leviticus 8:23) is the middle verse in the Pentateuch". As far as I know, the Talmud (Kidushin 30a) says that v'hitgalach (Leviticus 13:33) is the middle verse, while the masorah says the middle verse is Leviticus 8:8 (which btw is correct). So where is this "Leviticus 8:23" from? --Zero 02:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

unknown second C. text

why does the first paragraph compare the Masoretic text to unknown/lost text?--CorvetteZ51 12:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Septuagint older

The masoretic text is not the most ancient version of the Tanakh. Get over it and stop writing apologetics. 71.198.169.9 10:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am chronicling and removing intentionally vague language.

• "... dates from the tenth century, but there are many earlier fragments that appear to belong in the same textual family."

If you take "fragment" to have its usual meaning then this is so vague as to be meaningless. Also this implicit definition of "textual family" seems to be a backhanded way of saying that although the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic Text, the Masoretic Text is somehow representative of something which is also really old, so it's OK that the Septuagint is older. However, this is probably not true. If you have evidence for this then put it into the article.

• "For example, amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls and fragments found at other places in the Judean desert, there are some which differ from the Masoretic Text in only about 1 letter of each 1000 letters."

This is an attempt to say that the Dead Sea scrolls substantiate claims of the Masoretic Text's ancient pedigree. This is blatantly false: see here or here. The next sentence: "Of course, there are also fragments showing a much larger difference" is the only true one but it is very vague and clearly a failed attempt to make the entire paragraph more acceptable.

So I am removing these phrases altogether. 71.198.169.9 23:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There are older translations than the Septuagint. The Septuagint has been raped by many people. You are a fool to believe what people call the Septuagint today is what it orignally was. The Roman Church has openly admitted of raping it in ~300CE. There is no edition of the Septuagint which is older than the Masoretic Text.

Not to comment on any of the above but to say the first link says plainly "[Note that this is an essay written by an undergrduate at Mattersey Hall Bible College. It is therefore not appropriate to cite it directly as a source.]" Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What is meant by stichs?

The section 'Numerical Masorah' uses the term 'stichs.' I'm not sure what it's refering to in that context. Could someone who knows add a Wikilink? Thanks. -- Tmhand 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A link to Wiktionary:stich was added by Mike Schwartz (28/Mar/11). Thanks. -- -- -- 22:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Whoa! ...yeah, but that was a long time ago. This "DIFF" listing shows the edit -- dated circa "22:05, 27 March 2011‎". --Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nash Papyrus

How can a papyrus from the second century BCE contain a portion of the Masoretic Text when the Masoretes date from the seventh century CE onward?--12.109.41.2 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This particular text is much older. The article says "It was primarily compiled, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the seventh and tenth centuries CE" - but that doesn't mean that it all was written from scratch at that period. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What existed before the work of the Masoretes—the documents they worked from—isn't the Masoretic text. The form they put the documents into by compiling and editing them is the Masoretic text. That's the point of the definition. ←12.109.41.2 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The age/legitimacy of Masoretic

"The Biblical manuscripts found in the Qumran, are distributed as follows: 60% Proto-Masoretic texts, 20% Qumran style manuscripts, 10% Nonaligned texts, 5% Proto-Samaritan texts, and 5% Septuagintal type texts. Further more, the Qumran style manuscripts have their bases in the proto-Masoretic texts. The Masoretic type texts were dominant in the time of the Hasmonean period (about 160 B.C.E.). - Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls by Shiffman

"...Most of the texts that vary from the Masoretic (4 LXX manuscript fragments, for example, dating to the 1st and second century B.C.E.), come from cave 4. This is the cave where the texts were not preserved carefully in jars. It is conjectured, that cave 4 was a geniza for the depositing of texts that were damaged or had textual errors." - Gretchen Haas

It is a blatant lie that the DSS support the LXX. For one, whatever Septuagint the learned Jews translated for Ptolomy (they ONLY translated the five books of the Torah, all other books were translated by who knows who with who knows what credentials) never made it long into the Christian era, as even the early Christian fathers rejected the numerous editions that had been tampered and edited into what was their present condition.

The facts show that 60% of the DSS are proto-masoretic, while another 20% - Qumran style scripts - were also proto-masoretic based. The Greek Sep. texts found in Qumran are a measly 5%, and as Gretchen Haas says, most of the texts that diverge from the Masoretic come from cave 4, which were not preserved as the other majority of the DSS texts were, but had the characteristics of a burial of bunk texts.

I am not an editor, so I ask that someone legitimately signed up add whatever of this isn't already in the article. Don't allow it to be taken over by fanatics twisting and contorting the facts.

Thanks!

Reply: I don't know when this was posted, but there are a few inaccuracies. Clement of Alexandria and Iranaeus as well as Justin Martyr held the opposite viewpoint. They viewed the Septuagint as inspired. Just read the writings for yourself. I believe that Irenaeus talks about it in book 3 of his against heresies, but I could be wrong. I should also mention that they were in widespread use by Origen's time. See his letter to Julius Africanus Sextus about Sussanna. Also, the Apostles used the Septuagint or a text that aligned with it. Whenever the new testament quotes an old testament passage, it will either be identical in the Septuagint and Masoretic or more often than not it will corroborate the Septuagint(pdf). I cannot speak for the Qumran community, but I do know that Josephus and Philo had high respect for the Septuagint. Suppose cave four was a dump. Why would Qumran even have the Septuagint if they didn't value it at some level? What the Church Fathers rejected is Jewish attempts to modify the Septuagint (see Justin Martyr) which failed due to how widespread it was. So they changed the Hebrew text instead and got away with it. This last line has no reliable source behind it, it is just my opinion. To say the DSS supports something is a little bit of a dangerous claim. Statements like "the facts show" would probably not make it into a Wikipedia article. "Some have claimed" would probably be better. Also, some of the Hebrew fragments support the Septuagint rendition. Keep in mind that the Septuagint also aligns with the Masoretic a lot, so some of that 60% that corroborate the Masoretic also corroborate the Septuagint. JohnpaulÞ (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

References

History of the Antecedents of the MT

I have a problem with the article at the moment. It's headlined Masoretic text. But mainly it's about masorah -- because mostly it's derived from the old JE article on masorah. (And it really out to have an acknowledgement tag to that effect at the bottom).

Now that's all fine up to a point -- obviously, masorah is an important part of the story and maintenance of the Masoretic text.

But for an article on Masoretic text, for me there's a huge gap in the article at the moment: namely, what is the scholarly opinion on the roots of the Masoretic text -- what was the history of what became the MT, in the centuries before the Masoretes? The article seems to me very weak on this at the moment. It also makes the article really disorientating, to suddenly get thrown into the story of masorah, without really discussing what had happened to the text before they started, and what pre-existing traditions they were building on and augmenting.

At the moment we have:

The Talmud (and also Karaite mss.) states that a standard copy of the Hebrew Bible was kept in the court of the Temple in Jerusalem for the benefit of copyists; there were paid correctors of Biblical books among the officers of the Temple (Talmud, tractate Ketubot 106a). This copy is mentioned in the Aristeas Letter (§ 30; comp. Blau, Studien zum Althebr. Buchwesen, p. 100); in the statements of Philo (preamble to his "Analysis of the Political Constitution of the Jews") and in Josephus (Contra Ap. i. 8).

from the JE; to which has been added

Another Talmudic story, perhaps referring to an earlier time, relates that three Torah scrolls were found in the Temple court but were at variance with each other. The differences were then resolved by majority decision among the three (p. Taanit 68a, Tractate Soferim 6:4 etc).

What else can be added about the antecedent history of the MT text? The anon editor above noted the high proprtion of proto-Masoretic texts at Qumran.

The JE used also to say, but it hasn't been included here:

finally, from the fact that there seem to have been no differences of readings between Pharisees and Sadducees, it may be concluded that the Scriptural text, at least as much as then belonged to the canon, was already fixed, at the latest, about 200 B.C. and perhaps a century earlier.

Here is more on the prevailing view in 1903, from an article I was looking at on the then newly-discovered Nash Papyrus, which for the first time was a Hebrew document that showed close affinities with the Septuagint, rather than the MT [2]

We can trace the consonantal text of our printed Hebrew Bibles back to the time of Aquila of Sinope, to the time of the revolt of Bar-Cochba. From that time onwards there has been but little serious change in the Hebrew text of the Canonical Scriptures as accepted by the Synagogue... In other words, [the Nash Papyrus] is a relic of Jewish religious literature earlier than the age of Rabbi Akiva, who died in the year 135 A.D., and who was the founder of the accurate study of the Hebrew text...

The Massoretic text of the Bible, based as we believe it to be upon the spelling of a MS. of about 135 A.D., represents a mixture. It often preserves the archaic spelling of an earlier age, as is natural in a copy of any ancient writing: on the other hand, many spellings represent the usage of the second century A. D. ... The differences between our Papyrus and the Massoretic text show that the scrupulous care to preserve the words of the Law accurately, which prevailed among the later Jews, was not universally taken in the first century AD and preceding ages. Does the text approved by Aquila and the Massoretes, or the text of the Nash Papyrus and the Septuagint, more nearly represent the text of Exodus and Deuteronomy as (shall we say) Ezra left it? I am afraid, after all, that in this instance I must vote for the Massoretic text. So far as the Decalogue and the Shema’ go, the Massoretic text appears to me the more archaic and therefore the more genuine. In these passages the Massoretic text reads to me like the scholarly reproduction of an old MS. which happens here to contain no serious errors, while the Nash Papyrus is not the scholarly reproduction of a MS., but a monument of popular religion, giving a text of the Commandments with the grammatical difficulties smoothed down.

But I need to do more searching to see whether this is still the scholarly view today, with so much more archaeological material uncovered; and to flesh out more of the story.

As I understand it at the moment, the main stages seem to be

• Second Temple era and earlier

Various different texts in circulation and being copied perhaps a little haphazardly. ?A central official reference text at the Temple in Jerusalem. LXX translation based on a substantially different Hebrew text.

• Destruction of the Temple, and Rabbi Akiva

Much more emphasis on textual integrity. The principle that a single error makes a Torah scroll invalid. ?The old official reference text destroyed. ?A new reference text established, and disseminated, with much greater strictures on preserving its accuracy

• Masorah and the Masoretes (7th century onwards).

Variations have still crept in, but rather few. Increasingly sophisticated systems of error control developed. The different schhols, and their editions.

But I need to still find more links to see whether that is right, and better understand the evidences this story is based on. Jheald 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, there was not one by two major catastrophes in the transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures.First, Nebuchadnezzar's troops destroyed what was in Solomon's Temple. Depending on what the survivors managed to salvage, some number of scrolls might have been reconstituted from copies held in private hands and carried into captivity. There is also the factor that some of the Latter Prophets and Writings were probably not written down until the captivity or early in the Second Temple period, in the time of Ezra many suspect. Second, the Romans destroyed what was in Herod's Temple. This is all under a cloak of mystery as is what happened between 70 CE and 135 CE when Rabbi Akiba was involved. Tweedye (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Some more glosses on the history:

• Introduction to the Old Testament of the New English Bible, Sir Geoffrey Driver, 1970.
• Menachem Cohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talk • contribs) 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Gretchen Haas Comment

Gretchen Haas comment under "Second Temple period":

Furthermore, according to Haas, most of the texts which vary from the Masoretic type, including four of the Septuagint type manuscript fragments, were found in Cave 4. "This is the cave where the texts were not preserved carefully in jars. It is conjectured, that cave 4 was a geniza for the depositing of texts that were damaged or had textual errors."

seems to imply that some of the finding in cave 4 have "textual errors". However, 90% of all dead-sea scrolls came from this cave as the "Dead_Sea_scrolls" article says:

It is by far the most productive of all Qumran caves, producing ninety percent of the Dead Sea Scrolls and scroll fragments (approx. 15,000 fragments from 500 different texts), including 9-10 copies of Jubilees, along with 21 tefillin and 7 mezuzot.

I propose further clarification of the comment or the removal of it since it essentially says that a good portion of the dead-sea scrolls have "textual errors".

--Sfozra (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that Hass means "were judged at the time to have textual errors", but that isn't too clear. Another source of confusion: the fragments which match the (later standard) Masoretic text most accurately were found in Cave 4 too. Zero^talk 02:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about textual errors per se, but according to the Oxford Companion of Archaeology, "While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.140.81 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Zodiac

I removed two statements that were added today that said the Hebrew word mesorah was related to the word for Zodiac.[3] The source was a copy of the King James Bible. Per WP:REDFLAG, "exceptional claims require high-quality sources." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits of July 23

On July 23, an editor made significant changes to the first paragraph: [4] I reverted the changes because, overall, the new language is poorly written and confusing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

photo should be rotated

I don't know how to rotate the photo of the Nash papyrus; would someone who does do it? It looks a bit odd on its side and distorted as it is. Alex Roberts (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ben Asher family ... Karaites?

I removed the following statement, tagged as unsourced since July, 2011: Many believe that the ben Asher family were Karaites.

If anyone can support it with a reliable source, feel free to put it back, in which case it should probably go in an earlier section. Davidhof (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Good to see at least one other editor interested in these issues. I believe I have seen sources that "think" that Ben Asher "could have been" a Karaite, though retracking my steps in last coming across it may take some time. In any case, until I am able to do that, the article as is will not suffer too much. These sources would be tracked down in Karaite history, and that is what I was referring to above, when I wrote "these issues." If you are not all interested in Karaite history, just please disregard my comment. warshy^talk 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have some sources for and against this theory and will add something soon. Zero^talk 04:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The article on Ben Asher himself, which certainly needs a lot of additional work here, has the exact sentence that I now added to the ben Asher section. But I have added here a new source that should help in the future improve also that article (ben Asher). warshy^talk 23:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy

I'm concerned with a sentence right at the beginning- "Though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early 2nd century (and also differ little from some Qumran texts that are even older), it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint,...". How do we know the consonants differ little, for how do we know what was generally accepted in the 2nd century? (The later references to Qumran and the Septuagint at least give us something to compare with) - 101.169.255.253 (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion later in the article of Aquila and Theodotion. Aquila in particular is considered to have been created as a deliberately very very literal Jewish translation from Hebrew to Greek, to correct what the Jewish community had come to see as errors in the LXX, that had been adopted by the Christians. From Aquila and Theodotion it is therefore believed one can gain a very good idea of what was the generally accepted Hebrew text in the early 2nd century. Jheald (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Multiple citations needed

I will be placing citation needed tags for multiple sections in the article. There seems to be plenty of content on the article that need these tags. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Translated from what???

The masoretic had to be translated from the septuagint as there was no other full OT's in existence (the DSS were still buried in Qumran caves unless someone believes this is what the masoretes had then they hid them in the caves LOL) where do we add this as it is never mentioned and is important. Sellingstuff (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is that other copies existed that have since been lost. Some of the DSS texts are so close to the Masoretic text that it is impossible that that there was any translation between them. Zero^talk 07:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Other copies of different languages of the OT? What scholars say there was another OT in existence that has since been lost? What do you mean about 'impossible that there was any translation between them'? Sellingstuff (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The Biblical texts in the DSS are predominantly in Hebrew, and the Masoretic text is in Hebrew. The two text families are so similar (at least for some of the DSS texts) that there must be a continual path of Hebrew texts between them. It is not possible that they are independent translations from another language. As for texts in use between the DSS period and the Masoretic period, the details are unknown but the Talmuds for example are full of references to such texts. Zero^talk 10:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a reference for ' there must be a continual path of hebrew texts between them' and 'It is not possible that they are independent translations from another language" from some scholars. The DSS are in aramaic and the masoretic in hebrew so they are different languages let alone the alleged hypothetical proto hebrew of the original OT manuscripts so the DSS are irrelevant. Its impossible for the masoretic translation to be anything like the alleged hypothetical proto hebrew of the original OT as no such manuscripts were in existence 700-1000 AD which means the masoretic was translated from the septuagint making it secondary in authority to the septuagint if not completely worthless. Sellingstuff (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of the biblical texts among the DSS are in Hebrew, and only a minority in Aramaic or Greek. That's also true of the fragments found at Massada. You can find plenty of sources at Dead Sea Scrolls. You can also look here for a brief description. Since you are basing your argument on a false premise, it isn't valid. Zero^talk 19:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The DSS wiki page says 'assyrian block script' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

which then goes here and says its aramaic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashuri_alphabet

How about we add a section of "proposed text for translation" and add 'The masoretic may have even been translated from the septuagint' and then whatever arguments you have about the DSS/Massada etc. Sellingstuff (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to know the difference between language and script. This is a serious error. And the article is not for our arguments, see WP:V. Zero^talk 00:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no section on the sources it was used to translate from, how about starting one and sourcing things for what you said about DSS etc. Also what references are there in the talmud for information about the translation? Sellingstuff (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sellingstuff: Sorry, but you're being clueless.

Compare eg History of the Hebrew alphabet: "Following the Babylonian exile, Jews gradually stopped using the Hebrew script, and instead adopted the "square" Aramaic script (another offshoot of the same family of scripts). This script, used for writing Hebrew, later evolved into the Jewish, or "square" script, that is still used today."

Or eg Paleo-Hebrew alphabet: "It began to fall out of use by the Jews in the 5th century BCE when they adopted the Aramaic alphabet as their writing system for Hebrew, from which the present Jewish "square-script" Hebrew alphabet descends."

What changed was the way the alphabet was written, not the language. The DSS were written in Hebrew (predominantly). The Masoretic Text was written in Hebrew. There was no need for translation. Before the 5th century BCE Hebrew was written in Paleo-Hebrew script. Later (by the time the DSS were written) it was written using the squarer Aramaic alphabet. The script used by the Masoretes is a direct descendent of that squarer Aramaic alphabet (and can be used to write either Hebrew or Aramaic, just as present-day "Latin" script can be used to write either English or French).

I hope this helps clear things up. Jheald (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. No one claims the masoretic was translated from the DSS though do they? The question is what was the masoretic translated from, if a scholar believes an existing hebrew text then they have to believe that they/it got lost after the translation 700-1000 AD, but i cant find any sources saying this, nor any sources saying scholars believe an unbroken chain of hebrew texts existed from 200 BC or whenever up until the masoretic translation.Sellingstuff (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

New evidence suggesting older date for MT

Not an editor, uncertain if/how this ought to be incorporated, but wouldn't the findings discussed in this article imply a significantly earlier date for the development (though not necessarily widespread use) of the MT, or at least a portion thereof? 73.201.149.149 (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Septuagint vs. Masoretic order

For info: there's a discussion about ordering at Talk:Septuagint, section "Septuagint vs. Masoretic order". Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Condensed lead section?

The lead for this article has, in my humble opinion, gotten a bit too long for itself. As it currently stands at over 3,000 characters covering six paragraphs, in comparison to the 2,500 character Septuagint lead and the 1,000 character Peshitta lead. I think it might be time to migrate some of the content to the body of the article, specifically discussions about surviving manuscripts and comparisons between textual variants. Since this is, perhaps, a fairly noticeable change to the lead I thought I'd put up my 2,100 character proposal for discussion before editing.

Current version

The Masoretic Text (MT or 𝕸; Hebrew: נוסח המסורה, romanized: Nusakh haMasora) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Tanakh in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the masorah. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE). The oldest extant manuscript fragments date from around the 9th century. The oldest-known complete copy, the Leningrad Codex, dates from the early 11th century while the Aleppo Codex (once the oldest-known complete copy but missing large sections since the 1947 Civil war in Palestine) dates from the 10th century. The ancient Hebrew word mesorah (מסורה, alt. מסורת) broadly refers to the whole chain of Jewish tradition (see Oral Torah), which is claimed by said tradition to be unchanged and infallible. Referring to the Masoretic Text, mesorah specifically means the diacritic markings of the text of the Hebrew scriptures and the concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Tanakh which note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of words. The Masoretic Text is the oldest, and only, complete text of the Hebrew Bible still extant in its original Hebrew. However, modern scholars and believers seeking to understand the writings of the Old Testament will often use a range of sources along with the Masoretic Text. These include early Greek (Septuagint) and Syriac (Peshitta) translations, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls and quotations from rabbinic manuscripts. Many of these are attested to in manuscripts older than the oldest surviving Masoretic text and occasionally present notable differences. Which of the three commonly known versions (Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch) is closest to the theoretical Urtext is disputed. The text of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Peshitta reads somewhat in-between the Masoretic Text and the old Greek. Although the consonants of the Masoretic Text differ little from some Qumran texts of the early 2nd century, it has many differences of both great and lesser significance when compared to the manuscripts of the Septuagint, which is a Ptolemaic Greek translation from the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, that was in popular use by Jews in Egypt and the Holy Land (and matches the quotations in the New Testament of Christianity, especially by Paul the Apostle). A recent finding of a short Leviticus fragment recovered from the ancient En-Gedi Scroll, carbon-dated to the 3rd or 4th century CE, is completely identical with the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is used as the basis for most Protestant translations of the Old Testament such as the King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and New International Version. After 1943, it is also used for some versions of Catholic Bibles, such as the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Proposed version

The Masoretic Text (MT or 𝕸; Hebrew: נוסח המסורה, romanized: Nusakh haMasora) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Tanakh in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the masorah. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE). The ancient Hebrew word mesorah (מסורה, alt. מסורת) broadly refers to the whole chain of Jewish tradition (see Oral Torah), which is claimed by said tradition to be unchanged and infallible. Referring to the Masoretic Text, mesorah specifically means the diacritic markings of the text of the Hebrew scriptures and the concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Tanakh which note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of words. The Masoretic Text is the only text of the Hebrew Bible still available in the original Hebrew. Manuscript fragments from the 3rd century and onward have been found that have identical wording to the final Masoretic Text. However the Septuagint, a Ptolemaic Greek translation made in the 2nd - 3rd century BCE, and the Peshitta, a Syriac translation made in the 2nd century CE, occasionally present notable differences from the Masoretic Text, as does a version of the Torah preserved by the Samaritans in Samaritan Hebrew, the Samaritan Pentateuch. Some of these differences are attested to in the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicating that multiple versions of the Hebrew Bible already existed by the end of the Second Temple era. Which is closest to a theoretical Urtext is disputed, if such a singular text ever existed at all. The Masoretic Text is used as the basis for most Protestant translations of the Old Testament such as the King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and New International Version. After 1943, it is also used for some versions of Catholic Bibles, such as the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Just to be clear about what I'm proposing, all the info removed from the lead won't be deleted, just moved into the main article body. Voteins (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I completely support your version above and the change/move of content you are suggesting. I also commend you for doing all this work to really improve and important article for WP. Kudos! Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

And edit is up! If anyone is thinking about editing the lead and stumbles across this conversation in the future, I'll say my personal opinion is that there could still be a few sentences added onto it without getting overly large. I purposely cut it down as much as I physically could to give future editors room to add onto it. Voteins (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for working on your proposal and improving the article by making the lede section shorter, and moving the additional content from the lede into the body of the article. Nice job! Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Aleppo Codex vs Leningrad Codex vs Masoretic Text vs Tanakh

This article, as well as other related, do not make clear the difference.

Can I go to a public library and ask for a Masoretic Text? Or, should I ask for a Tanakh? Is the content of the Masoretic Text the same as that of the Leningrad Codex? Is it "currently" a mixture of several sources? There is a Versions section in this article. Are all these versions different? If so, how different are they and why are they different?

The article reads that the "Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon". Does it mean it has been standardized? If so, all synagogues should have exactly the same text, do they? It also reads that the oldest copy is the Leningrad Codex. That would mean all codices must have exactly the same text, do they? If not, what is the "official" codex?

The whole article does not explain clearly what the source or sources of the Masoretic Text are? Because, if there are several Masoretic Texts, if there is not agreement, it should be explained here explicitly and, that would mean that there is not such thing as a Masoretic Text as there is not a canonized unique text. Maybe, at the most, an official list of books.

In the Christian world, there is not a "unique" Bible. Is it the same case for the Tanakh/Masoretic Text?

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

To answer all your questions (and there are quite a lot of them in your "question" above) one would have to go to the sources given in the article and see if they provide an answer to a specific question. If all the sources given do not provide a certain answer, then new sources would have to be searched, looking for a clearer answer to that specific question. You are welcome to do that work. And, if you find new sources that give a better answer to one specific question, then you can try to add that source here, with the better answer it gives to that specific question. That is how the basic text of a certain page in the encyclopedia is improved. Asking the right questions is just the first step. The real work of editing starts when you have a reliable source that answers that question.

I just went through the article again, and some of the sources given are not exactly optimal, in my view. I.e., not all sources given are first rate direct academic sources. The Jewish Encyclopedia material is used extensively, but the newer material contained in the Encyclopaedia Judaica is not yet used appropriately. Those would be, in my view, the first two sources to review again, because they also point to the academic sources they used. I just tried to sketch for you the way in which I would look for answers to my questions. Good luck to you and happy editing. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind. It is found in the EJ under "Masorah". Just the bibliography at the end is 4 full pages!. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

To answer your first question directly. If you want to see and understand the development of the academic (not the religious) Masoretic Text, just get a copy of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The introduction thereof will explain to you exactly where they got the different parts of the text from. The main source again for it, is the Leningrad Codex. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your replies, warshy. Are there two Masoretic Texts? A religious one and an academic one? George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(First time using the reply box that suddenly popped up here) I would say yes. The differences overall are not major, just minor issues here and there. But there are different versions of the Masoretic text. As far as I am aware there is no Jewish rabbinic religious version of the MT that uses the Leningrad Codex, for example. That is one reason I was suggesting the use of a version above that uses the Leningrad Codex completely. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The Masoretic Text is more of a text family than a particular text. It refers to the texts which were canonised by the Masorites, but the name "masoretic" is also applied to earlier texts which are highly similar. The boundary is poorly defined. Within the masoretic family there are a considerable number of minor variations. Most of them are just orthographic (spelling) changes that don't effect the meaning. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are fragments very close to the present text and scholars place them in the masoretic family but also texts which are different in major ways. Before the advent of printing there were probably no two Torah scrolls that were letter-by-letter identical. Now people who write scrolls work from a particular printed version. Zero^talk 01:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. And with the advent of printing there was a so-called Ferrara version in the 16th century (1547?), which compiled all the earlier extant versions of the Masorah up to that point. This particular version is still the basis for all the religious printed versions of the MT up to this day. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 14:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the Daniel Bomberg second edition of the Mikraot Gedolot, Venice, 1525.

Citation not supporting claim

Current revision states:

> The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century BCE, contained versions of the text that are radically different from today's Hebrew Bible.

Perhaps that is true. But it has this link given in support:

https://apnews.com/60785bb2031a478cb71ce9278782c320/scanning-software-deciphers-ancient-biblical-scroll

That article does not support the claim that modern versions are "radically different" because it instead states:

> The text discovered in the charred Ein Gedi scroll is “100 percent identical” to the version of the Book of Leviticus that has been in use for centuries, said Dead Sea Scroll scholar Emmanuel Tov from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who participated in the study.

> “This is quite amazing for us,” he said. “In 2,000 years, this text has not changed.”

Xj (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Xj: The source says "The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century B.C., featured versions of the text that are radically different than today’s Hebrew Bible." The reason for the confusion is that the DSS include some texts very far from the current text and some texts very close to it. The news story is about the discovery of a very close text, but that doesn't alter the fact that other texts are very far. Also, the very close texts found so far are quite small extracts and it is only conjectural that whole biblical books existed that were very close to the present text. The whole books that have been found, such as the Isaiah Scroll, have thousands of variations from the current text. Anyway, I'll try to find an academic source that gives a better overview. Zero^talk 01:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Conclusions Stated without facts

QUOTE: The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, dating from c. 150 BCE – 75 CE, shows that in this period there was no uniform text.

That is not just wrong, but it is misleading. The fact that a radical group in a community holed up in a desert community had a radically variant text that served its own political purposes says ***NOTHING*** about there being a uniform text at this period by the mainstream Jewish community. Does the existence of the sacred Mormon texts also mean that today we have standard text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.3 (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You don't have the right image. The scrolls found at Qumran show a wide variety of texts, including some very close to the modern text. They don't have just one "radically different text". Anyway, our article follows the overwhelming consensus of scholarly writing on this point. Zero^talk 00:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Oldest known copy

The article says "The oldest known complete copy, the Leningrad Codex, dates from the early 11th century CE." It seems that carbon dating has revealed that the Codex Sassoon is older. Quote from the following NY Times article: "Beginning in the 1960s, Mintz said, scholars began to believe that the Sassoon Codex was created a bit earlier, around the time of the Aleppo Codex, or perhaps earlier. A recent carbon-dating by the seller — reviewed and endorsed by Sotheby’s — affirmed that, giving the Sassoon plausible bragging rights as the oldest nearly complete Hebrew Bible." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/arts/hebrew-bible-auction-sothebys.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR2fjXEoPSue7ds-XTRMwM_buAXlgqpT_Cv1IC_POTQr0qdmS7o9Hykwm5U --GFauxPas (talk) GFauxPas (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Since this is pretty recent news just in the newspaper, I'd recommend we wait until some reliable secondary sources state the same to change the article here. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

We say "The oldest known complete codex" and Codex Damascus ("Sassoon") is incomplete. Other MSS are inarguably older, but also incomplete. Leningrad is complete. More generally, the NYT article is not by an expert and makes some truly strange claims ("During this period the Hebrew Bible was preserved and transmitted orally" !?!!?) and its only sources are the owner's marketing representatives. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Just coming back to note that (presumably for marketing purposes) Sotheby's has dramatically understated the extent of the damage to this MS, and the NYT just parrots their description. They say "about five leaves" are missing, which is kind of true, except that another 200+ or so are missing at least part of their outside column. Of the original 1,600 pages, only about 1000 retain all of their original text, and many of these are only "complete" because of later repairs. Leningrad is complete -- thus the description on this page. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

authoritative

To editor GordonGlottal: This needs to be reworded. Although MT is considered the authoritative text by Jews and many others, Wikipedia does not have an opinion on it and so it shouldn't be canonised as authoritative in wikivoice. In addition, the very notion of an authoritative (in the sense of most correct) text is questioned by scholars. Note also, as stated a few paragraphs later, in Christian circles variations on MT are sometimes considered more authoritative. For example, the King James Version and most editions derived from it, are only partly based on MT. (These examples also serve to demonstrate that "authoritative" is not a precisely defined concept.) Zero^talk 13:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not true with regard to the KJV, which had no access to any non-Masoretic source for the original language text. Although it sometimes follows a minority version of the MT which is different from the one used in most modern printings. Some Christian denominations prefer to use an authoritative Greek text (LXX) instead of an authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text (MT), but the only group with an alternative "authoritative Hebrew . . . text" is Samaritanism. The MT is authoritative in the sense that it forms the basis of every direct translation and edition of the Hebrew Bible which has been produced since its composition, excluding only Samaritan religious use and specialty academic publications of the DSS and ST which are not intended to replace editions of the MT. In any case, although the "authority" of the MT is in fact very large, we only say that it "is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible in Rabbinic Judaism." GordonGlottal (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Standard copy

"that a standard copy of the Hebrew Bible was kept in the court of the Temple in Jerusalem for the benefit of copyists"

I cannot find anything about this standard copy in the specified sources, neither in Josephus, nor in Aristeas nor in the Ketubot. 37.209.107.234 (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing this out. I have replaced the sources with correct ones. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Reference 11: work by Joseph A. Fitzmyer cannot be found

Reference 11 calls out a work by Joseph A. Fitzmyer that is not among the major titles of his published works, to wit: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: After Forty Years. Is this an article or chapter in one of his published works? The material in this article covered by this citation is referenced in many places on the Web, but they all simply refer to the Wikipedia article rather than to a definitive work by Fitzmyer. What is the proper citation? Tweedye (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It exists but WorldCat can't name a single library which has it. This citation should be replaced. Zero^talk 14:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The statements attributed to Fitzmyer are very valuable for Bible scholarship, but their origin needs to be verified. Please help us update this citation. I suspect as stated before that this is an article in a larger collection. The entry on OCLC says it is an article. Unfortunately, I cannot find any Web site, book seller or other, that lists the contents of Fitzmyer's works, so I am going to have to buy a couple of them to see if he published an article under this title. The entry on OCLC/Worldcat is only partial cataloging. Articles are always contained in something larger: a collection in a book, a journal, or some other periodical. Does anyone know how to form this into a proper citation: if a book, then add date, place, and publisher; if an article within another work, then add title of containing work, date of publication or volume/number, publisher, imprint if applicable? Tweedye (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tweedye: I found it in a DSS bibliography. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (1987). "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: after Forty Years". America. 157: 300–303. I expect that the periodical is America (magazine), a Jesuit magazine. I don't think we should use sources like that but instead should use one of Fitzmyer's many academic publications. There are a large number to choose from. Zero^talk 02:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Perfect! Tweedye (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Misleading and Unsupported Claim ("unreliable scriptural source")

The very first sentence of this Wiki page is misleading. It relies on a poor reading of a cited source and makes a claim contradicted elsewhere on this page. The text is as follows:

The Masoretic Text (MT or 𝕸; Hebrew: נֻסָּח הַמָּסוֹרָה, romanized: Nūssāḥ hamMāsōrā, lit. 'Text of the Tradition') is an unreliable scriptural source [1] dating from the 9th century C.E. onwards that is used as the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) in Rabbinic Judaism. 

The popup tooltip for citation 1 is:

[1] "There are a number of times when you might have the Syriac, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Targums, and the Vulgate that are at odds with the Masoretic Text; the preferred choice should not be the MT." - "Key Differences Between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible", Updated American Standard Bible>

§1: Poor Reading of Cited Source

When we look at the cited page, the full paragraph containing the quoted sentence makes the exact opposite claim being made by Wikipedia: the Masoretic text is fundamental to Biblical scholarship and that "the primary weight of external evidence" points to the Masoretic being both reliable and "almost always preferred". The full paragraph is:

The primary weight of external evidence generally goes to the original language manuscripts, and the Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex are almost always preferred. In Old Testament Textual Criticism, the Masoretic text is our starting point and should only be abandoned as a last resort. While it is true that the Masoretic Text is not perfect, there needs to be a heavy burden of proof if we are to go with an alternative reading. All of the evidence needs to be examined before concluding that a reading in the Masoretic Text is corrupt. The Septuagint continues to be very much important today and is used by textual scholars to help uncover copyists’ errors that might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts either intentionally or unintentionally. However, it cannot do it alone without the support of other sources. There are a number of times when you might have the Syriac, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Targums, and the Vulgate that are at odds with the Masoretic Text; the preferred choice should not be the MT.

Note that the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex are both Masoretic copies.

The specific sentence quoted in the tooltip is pulled out of context to imply the opposite of what the author is actually stating. The author is claiming that the Septuagint "is used by textual scholars to help uncover copyists' errors" in the Masoretic but that "it cannot do it alone without the support of other sources", and that specifically when "the Syriac, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Targums and the Vulgate ... are at odds with the Masoretic Text" the Masoretic should not be "preferred".

§2: The Premise is Bad!

Finally, the idea that the Masoretic is "reliable" or "unreliable" is fallacious: there was probably no single Urtext of the Bible, as both this Wikipedia page and the (very short) Urtext (biblical studies) page correctly notes. The claim that the Masoretic is "unreliable" should be removed entirely as misleading. This Wikipedia page in the second paragraph states:

The differences attested to in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that multiple versions of the Hebrew scriptures already existed by the end of the Second Temple period [2]. Which is closest to a theoretical Urtext is disputed, as is whether such a singular text ever existed.[3]

[2] Tov, Emanuel (1992). Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

[3] Shanks, Herschel (4 August 1992). Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls (1st ed.). Random House. p. 336. ISBN 978-0679414483.

______

The text and tooltip should be corrected to say the following:

The Masoretic Text (MT or 𝕸; Hebrew: נֻסָּח הַמָּסוֹרָה, romanized: Nūssāḥ hamMāsōrā, lit. 'Text of the Tradition') is a Hebrew-language scriptural source[1] whose formal codification dates from the 9th century C.E. onwards[2] that is used as the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) in Rabbinic Judaism. 

[1] "The primary weight of external evidence generally goes to the original language manuscripts, and the Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex are almost always preferred. In Old Testament Textual Criticism, the Masoretic text is our starting point and should only be abandoned as a last resort. While it is true that the Masoretic Text is not perfect, there needs to be a heavy burden of proof if we are to go with an alternative reading. All of the evidence needs to be examined before concluding that a reading in the Masoretic Text is corrupt." - Edward D. Andrews (8 September 2024), "Key Differences Between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible", Updated American Standard Bible

[2] "The oldest source of the MT Bible is the Aleppo Codex (Keter Aram Tzova) from approximately 925 C.E. Although it is the closest text to the Ben Asher school of Masoretes, it survived in an incomplete form, as it lacks almost all of the Torah. The oldest complete source for MT is Codex Leningrad B 19A (codex L) from 1009 C.E" - Tov, E. (2017). "The Bible and the Masoretic Text," TheTorah.com>

______

Citation 2 is to an article by Prof. Emanuel Tov of Hebrew University; he is cited as a reliable source multiple times in this Wikipedia page (as either "Tov, Emanuel" or "Tov, E."). The article was published on TheTorah.com, which is a reliable source regarding biblical criticism and academic scholarship of Jewish religious texts. From their about page:

TheTorah.com’s mission is to make academic biblical scholarship accessible and engaging to readers from all backgrounds. We solicit original essays on the Torah portion and holidays from academic scholars whose expertise includes history, archaeology, ancient Near Eastern studies, Egyptology, Semitic languages, textual criticism, and literary approaches. These essays are reviewed and edited by our in-house scholars, to ensure the highest academic standards as well as maximum readability for the general audience. Thus far, TheTorah.com has published over 500 scholars and is the world’s leading educational platform for Torah study informed by contemporary scholarship. StoneDante (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

While looking into this, I also found an article by E. Tov about other Judean Desert scrolls which were found outside of Qumran, the site of the Dead Sea Scrolls. (News article about this find is here.)

Scholarly analysis of these scrolls strongly support the claim that there were multiple Torah texts as of the 1st Century CE - i.e. that there was no single Biblical Urtext - and that the Masoretic Text has a direct connection to one of those traditions. Tov, E. (2017), "The Essence and History of the Masoretic Text".

We should probably add this information to the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Urtext (biblical studies) page.

____

The most critical information can be found on pp.12-15 and is quoted below:

"Strictly speaking, MT is a medieval text with roots in antiquity. The principal component of MT is that of the letters, evidenced in antiquity in the fragmentary Judean Desert texts, and to this text other elements were added during the early Middle Ages. Therefore, although the medieval form of MT is relatively late, its consonantal framework reflects an ancient tradition that was in existence more than a thousand years beforehand. Scholars usually designate the consonantal base of MT (evidenced in the Second Temple period) as proto-Masoretic although sometimes also, anachronistically, as the Masoretic Text. The terms proto-rabbinic and rabbinic are used less frequently, although they actually describe the nature of MT and its forerunners more precisely.

The medieval shape of MT contains: 1. The consonantal framework already attested in proto-Masoretic texts from the Judean Desert; 2. Vocalization; 3. Para-textual elements, such as Ketiv-Qere and the division of the text; 4. Accentuation (te’amim); 5. The apparatus of the Masorah."

"Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found scholars were not aware that the MT existed in the exact same form already in the last centuries BCE. This has now been established from the finds in the Judean Desert. These proto-MT texts were not the only texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, as we shall see below, but we focus first on the proto-MT texts.

Since the medieval MT consisted of several layers, and since some of them were created in the Middle Ages, the medieval layers can be removed and the base layer, that is, the consonantal text can be compared with the Judean Desert texts. Because the medieval texts differ very slightly among one another, scholars usually take the most complete medieval Masoretic source that is closest to the Ben-Asher school of Masoretes, as a yardstick for comparison, namely the codex Leningrad B 19A (codex L) from 1009. The second source for comparison is the Aleppo codex from approximately 925, closer to the Ben Asher school, but lacking the Torah. We find a striking difference between the Judean Desert scrolls from places other than Qumran and the Qumran scrolls. The Qumran scrolls display textual diversity, while the twenty-five texts that were found in the Judean Desert at sites other than Qumran display almost complete identity in consonants with codex L.12.

The latter texts were found at both the earlier site of Masada (texts written between 50 BCE and 30 CE)13 and the later sites of Wadi Murabba‘at, Wadi Sdeir, Naḥal Ḥever, Naḥal ‘Arugot, and Naḥal Se’elim, dating to the period of the Bar Kochba revolt in 132–135 CE (texts copied between 20 and 115 CE). 4QGenb , probably deriving from one of the Judean Desert sites, needs to be added to this group, as well as the recently opened En-Gedi scroll agreeing with codex L in all of its details. ... Recognizing that few differences exist between L and the other medieval sources of MT, we note that these differences are of the same nature as those between L and the Judean Desert texts. Therefore, the relation between L and the ancient Judean Desert texts is one of almost complete identity since the consonantal framework of MT changed very little over the course of one thousand years.

And the article concludes on P.23-25 with the following:

The Masoretic Text does not stand by its own. NJPS compares small details with the contents of other textual sources on a very small scale, while scholars compare on a large scale. When comparing, one finds thousands of small differences between MT and the LXX, SP, Dead Sea Scrolls and all the other sources, and it is natural that scholars try to form an opinion on the reading that is “better” or “more original.” ... Scholars express different views on the comparative value of MT and the other texts. I hesitate to present my own views, not only because they change all the time, but also because it is very difficult to summarize one’s views in a few words. I will nevertheless present a few headlines.

a. Grosso modo, MT is an excellent text, and it is therefore no coincidence that this text has become the central text of Judaism. It has been copied very carefully from a certain point onwards, although we cannot pinpoint that moment. It probably preceded the time of our earliest evidence, namely the third century BCE.

b. Before that time, MT was copied less precisely, and these imprecisions in content (e.g., mistakes in 1 Samuel) and spelling (see §7) have beencarefully [sic] preserved in the proto-MT scrolls and the medieval MT. ...

d. In several books, the LXX, in the case of Jeremiah joined by two Qumran scrolls, differs from MT not in small textual details, but in groups of related features that reflect a different stage in the literary development of the book than MT, probably preceding MT. These are exceptional within MT, relating to the short (and somewhat different) texts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the different text of Joshua, and sundry shorter or different texts. In other cases the Hebrew texts underlying the LXX were in the nature of exegetical texts commenting upon MT (1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel).

... The upshot of this analysis is that MT is a mixed bag containing units that reflect a conservative tradition and those that do not, units that seem to be later than the LXX (Joshua, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), and units that are earlier than the Vorlage of the LXX (1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel). Each Scripture book was produced at a different time by a different scribe, displaying his personal character. StoneDante (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You relate from Tov: In other cases the Hebrew texts underlying the LXX were in the nature of exegetical texts commenting upon MT (1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel).

I believe what you cite from Emanuel Tov could be correct. I know this is from another realm, but similar things have happened in other circumstances. Legge (1865: 116 note 8, 177) states that something similar happened with the editing of the Zhúshū Jìnián. Myths and legends got mixed into the historical record as if they were a part of it. See Legge, James. 1865. "The Annals of the Bamboo Books," in "Prolegomena." The Chinese Classics, volume 3, part 1. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press (1960): 105–188.

For something similar to have happened with the LXX, i.e., commentary/exegesis included as if textual, is especially possible if the translations were done by someone other than trained scribes.

Another thing to consider is that the Vorlage of both the MT and LXX could have been identical in many places, so to say that the LXX texts included comments on the MT is possibly anachronistic. They would have been comments on a common Vorlage, perhaps. Tweedye (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)