MASORA. – A collection of critical observations on the original text of the Old Testament. Partly transmitted orally in the rabbinical schools from the time of the scribes onward (especially from the 2nd century B.C.), they were augmented and committed to writing from the 6th century onward, after the compilation of the Talmud. This body of observations determined the unified and immutable form of the biblical text (the Masoretic text).
The term M. (massōrāh “tradition,” from neo-Hebrew māsar “to transmit”; a recent form of massōreth, which has nothing in common with Ez. 20:37 māsōreth = ma'āsōreth “bond”; P. Kahle, in H. Bauer-P. Leander, Hist. Grammatik der hebr. Sprache des Alt. Text., I, Halle 1922, § 6 b) expresses the traditional character of the compilation; and Masoretes (ba'ālē ham-massōrāh “masters” or “authors of the M.”) was the name given to the Jewish scholars (9th–10th centuries) who devoted themselves to II.
The M. therefore takes up and presupposes: a) the centuries-long work of the scribes (2nd century B.C.–5th century A.D.) in establishing the consonantal text; b) the work of the naqdanim (= punctuators, from nēqūdah “punctuation”), the Jewish scholars (7th–8th centuries) who, with numerous signs (points), established above all the vocalization. The content of the M. is consequently very varied. To a) belong the division into verses, their enumeration, and the elimination of every divergent reading; to b), in addition to vocalization, certain features in the pronunciation of the consonants, syllabic division, accents, the linking of words with one another, pauses, and modulation.
The M. gives the exact number of pericopes and verses (total: 23,206; the book of Ezekiel, for example, contains 1,273), of words and consonants; the index of verses (e.g., Gen. 27:40; Ev. 22:28; Lev. 15:7, etc.), of words and syllables that stand exactly at the midpoint of each book. Other precisions include, for example, that one verse (Jer. 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 a wāw added through the fault of the scribes, which must not be taken into account; and so forth.
The principle of not altering the consonants of the text, but noting in the margin the textual correction, the selected reading, with the qērē (q, qr = to be read) and hēthib (kth = written; cf. P. Joüon [V. BIBLICA.], § 16 e and f), was an excellent one. The plene and defective spellings are noted. A small circle is placed over the term to which the observation is directed. The observations were written in the margin and at the end of biblical manuscripts, or in separate lists. The language of the M. is partly neo-Hebrew and partly Aramaic.
This work was not carried out uniformly. Considerable divergences existed in the reading of the sacred text between the eastern (Babylonian) and western (Palestinian or Tiberian) Masoretic schools. Among the latter, that of Ben 'Āšēr (v. , beginning of the 10th century) prevailed, and it superseded its contemporary and rival, that of Ben Naphtālī (v.); it is the text masoretico receptus.
As regards form, a distinction is made between the “large” and the “small” M.; in rabbinical Bibles, the latter stands at the side, between the columns of the text; it gives the qērē, marks the hapaxlegomena (l' = lēth “there is not” elsewhere), etc.; the former, arranged in the upper and lower margins, explains the preceding one more extensively. Both are called “marginal M.” in opposition to the “final” M., relegated to the end of each book, with the enumeration of the verses, etc.; it also contains, by way of an appendix, a kind of dictionary in which all the observations of the marginal M. are repeated in alphabetical order; and finally there follow the variant readings and observations of Ben Naphtālī and of the Babylonian schools.
The M. was truly the “hedge” of the sacred text (si'āg lē-Thārāh). The critical authority of the Masoretic consonantal text, also in comparison with the Chester-Beatty papyri, is increasingly acknowledged by critics. It must be regarded as the foundation of every critical recension, which inspires greater confidence the less it departs from II. If the pronunciation established by the naqdanim entails a certain degree of elaboration and emphasis, and has details that are more or less artificial, there is nevertheless 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. Joüon, § 1 b).
Jacob ben Hajjim prepared the editio princeps of the Masoretic Bible (Biblia magna Rabbinica, Bomberg, Venice 1524–25), after extensively searching the manuscripts and collecting and arranging the Masoretic material. Although he had at his disposal only codices from the 14th–15th centuries, he performed foundational work and established the text masoretico receptus. Critical editions: B. Kennicott (Oxford 1776, 1780); J. B. De Rossi (4 vols., Parma 1784–1888); Chr. D. Ginsburg (4 vols., London 1908–26). By contrast, the Hebrew Bible of Kittel (v. BIBLICA) in its 3rd ed. offers, thanks to P. Kahle, the text and the M. of Ben 'Āšēr according to the Leningrad manuscript (B 19 A) of 1008, approximately 600 years older than those used by Ben Hajjim; a faithful copy of the archetypal codex preserved at Aleppo.