MASORA. — The complex of critical observations on the original text of the Old Testament. Partly transmitted orally in the rabbinic schools from the time of the scribes (especially from the 2nd century B.C.), they were expanded and committed to writing from the 6th century onward, after the Talmud had been compiled. This body of observations determined the uniform and unchanging form of the biblical text (the Masoretic Text).
The term M. (masōrah = tradition), from Neo-Hebrew măsar = to transmit; a later form for masōreth, which has nothing in common with the Hebrew word in Ezek. 20:37, măsōreth = ma'ăsōreth = bond (cf. P. Kahle, in H. Bauer-P. Leander, *Hist. Grammatik der hebr. Sprache des Alt. Test.*, I, Halle 1922, § 6 b); it expresses the traditional character of the compilation. The Masoretes (ba'ălē ham-masōrah = masters) or “authors of the M.” were the Jewish scholars (9th–10th centuries) who devoted themselves to II.
Masolino da Panicale – *The Pietà* – Empoli, Collegiate Church.
The M. thus presupposes and continues: a) the centuries-long work of the scribes (2nd century B.C.–5th century A.D.) in fixing the consonantal text; b) the work of the *nagadāmi* (= pointer-men, from nēgādāh = pointing), the Jewish scholars (7th–8th centuries) who, by means of numerous signs (dots), especially fixed the vocalization. The content of the M. is therefore very varied. To a) belong the division into verses, their enumeration, and the elimination of any divergent reading; to b), in addition to vocalization, certain rules for the pronunciation of consonants, syllabic division, accents, the linking of words, pauses, and modulation.
The M. provides the exact number of verses and words (total: 23,206; the Book of Ezekiel, for example, contains 1,273), of words, and of consonants; the index of verses (e.g., Gen. 27:40; Ex. 22:28; Lev. 15:7, etc.), of words, and of syllables that fall exactly at the midpoint of each book. Other details include: e.g., that a verse (Lev. 21:7) has 42 words and 160 letters; that in four verses (Gen. 18:5; 24:55; Num. 12:14; Ps. 36:7) there is an extra word added by scribal error, which must be disregarded; etc.
An excellent principle was followed: the consonants of the text were not altered, but marginal notes recorded textual corrections, the preferred reading, with the *qērē* (q, qr = to be read) and *kēthib* (kth = written; cf. P. Jōūon [see bibliography], § 16 f). Full and defective spellings are noted. A small circle is placed over the term to which the observation refers. The observations were written in the margins and at the end of biblical manuscripts, or in separate lists. The language of the M. is partly Neo-Hebrew, partly Aramaic.
This work was not carried out uniformly. Notable differences existed in the reading of the sacred text between the Eastern Masoretic schools (Babylonian) and the Western (Palestinian or Tiberian). Among the latter, the school of Ben 'Āšēr (q.v., early 10th century) prevailed and imposed itself over its contemporary rival, that of Ben Naphtālī (q.v.), and it is this Masoretic Text that became the received text.
As to form, a distinction is made between the “Great” and the “Small” M.; the latter, found in rabbinic Bibles alongside the columns of text, gives the *qērē*, marks the *apax legomena* (l=“there is no other occurrence”), etc., while the former, placed in the upper and lower margins, explains the latter more fully. Both are called “marginal M.” in contrast to the “final M.,” which is placed at the end of each book, with verse numbering, etc.; it also contains, by way of an appendix, a kind of dictionary in which all the observations of the marginal M. are taken up in alphabetical order; finally, it includes variant readings and observations from Ben Naphtālī and the Babylonian schools.
The M. was truly the “fence” around the sacred text (*si'āg lē-Thōrāh*). The critical authority of the Masoretic consonantal text, even in comparison with the Chester Beatty papyri, is increasingly recognized by scholars. It must be regarded as the foundation of every critical recension, which is all the more reliable the less it deviates from II. Although the pronunciation fixed by the *nagadāmi* involves a certain research, a certain emphasis, and more or less artificial details, there is no reason to suspect it as a whole. The internal coherence of the system and comparison with related languages speak in favor of the vocalizers (P. Jōūon, § 1 b).
Jacob ben Hājīm produced the first printed edition of the Masoretic Bible (*Biblia magna Rabbinica*, Bomberg, Venice 1524–25), after extensive research among manuscripts, collecting and organizing the Masoretic material. Though he had only manuscripts from the 14th–15th centuries at his disposal, he did fundamental work and established the received text. Critical editions: B. Kennicott (Oxford 1776, 1780); J. B. De Rossi (4 vols., Parma 1784–1788); Chr. D. Ginsburg (4 vols., London 1908–1926). In contrast, the Hebrew Bible of Kittel (q.V. in bibliography) in its 3rd edition, thanks to P. Kahle, offers the text and Masorah of Ben 'Āšēr according to the Leningrad manuscript (B 19 A) of 1008, about 600 years older than those used by Ben Hājīm; a faithful copy of the type of codex preserved in Aleppo.
MASPHA (Hebrew Mispāh, “watchtower”). — Name of various localities in the Holy Land.
1. Given by Abraham to a heap of stones north of the Jabbok River (= ez-Zerqā) at the time of his separation from Laban (Gen. 31:44–54).
2. A village in Gilead, Jordan (Judg. 10:17; 11:11), which is sometimes identified—though not necessarily—with Mizpah of Gilead (ibid. 11:29) and with Ramoth-mizpeh (Josh. 13:26). Jephthah had his residence there (Judg. 11:34), and it was there that his daughter, unaware of the rash vow made by her father, was informed of the death destined for her.
The location of M. is uncertain. Some, influenced by the *Itinerarium* of Egeria, who saw Jephthah’s tomb at Tishbeh, favor some locality not far from Wādi Jābis, e.g., Ṣūf; others place it further south, e.g., at Khirbet Jel’d.
3. A place situated at the foot of Mount Hermon (Jos. 11:3), also called the land of M. (ibid., 11:8). Identification is uncertain; Metullah and Qal'at es-Subejbeh are proposed.
4. A village in the south of Judea (Jos. 15:38). The *Onomasticon* indicates two localities in the territory of Eleutheropolis (= Beit Jibrin) and St. Jerome places one on the road from Beit Jibrin to Jerusalem. As identification, Hirbet es-Sāfijjeh, 3 km northeast, and Sufijjeh, 10 km from Beit Jibrin, are proposed.
5. A city in the tribe of Benjamin, not far from Ramah (Jos. 18:25–26). It was the gathering place of the Israelites after the incident at Gibeah, where the Levite’s concubine suffered a shameful death (Judg. 20:1–2), and later of others (1 Sam. 7:5–14; 10:47). It was fortified by Asa as a defense against northern tribes (1 Kgs. 15:22; 2 Chr. 16:6). After the destruction of Jerusalem, Gedaliah settled there on behalf of the Babylonians (2 Kgs. 25:23–25), and many Jews came to live there, including Jeremiah (Jer. 40:6–16; 41:1–16), who met his death and whose body was cast into the pool built by Asa. After the return from exile, M. contributed to the restoration of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:7, 15, 19).
It was once proposed to identify M. with Nebi Samwil, but today the identification with Tell en-Naṣbeh prevails. The position of this tell, on the Jerusalem–Nazareth road, 13 km from the former, on a hill, corresponds well to the literary notices about M., while excavations there have revealed an important city with a large enclosing wall, inhabited from the Chalcolithic period to the middle Bronze Age and from the early Iron Age to the Hellenistic period. Among the seals found is one with the inscription: *“‘Ahaziah (son) of Mattaniah”*, and another: *“Jazziah, servant (= official) of the king”*, i.e., with Hebrew names though they cannot be precisely identified with the biblical figures bearing these names. Other stamps bear the word *le-melekh* and others the letters *jh*, or *jhd*, or *msh*.