targumofonkelost00bern.pdf
Short Description
Download targumofonkelost00bern.pdf...
Description
709.H-
3261: A A
6 2 1
5 7
:
i
\
!
THE TARGUM OF
ONKELOS TO GENESIS A CRITICAL ENQUIRY INTO THE VALUE OF THE TEXT EXHIBITED BY YEMEN MS?.
COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE EUROPEAN RECENSION TOGETHER WITH
SOME SPECIMEN CHAPTERS OF THE ORIENTAL TEXT BY
HENRY BARNSTEIN.
•
LONDON
1S96
DAVID NUTT 270-271 STRAND.
Ph. D.
W.
DRUGULIN LEIPZIG.
DEDICATED TO
MY REVERED TEACHER AND FRIEND THE Rev. Dr. M. Gaster to
whom
I
owe an
everlasting
debt of gratitude for the
instruction received at his hands interest
he has shown
in
1187410
and the constant
my
welfare.
PREFACE. HE purpose
i
of this enquiry
the recension of the
Yemen
Targum
is
to critically investigate
of Onkelos preserved in the
Mss. and to establish a comparison between these
Mss. and the Western or European texts, present
represented
best
by
which are at
recent
edition.
Berliner did not avail himself, however, of these
Eastern
and
Mss.
his
edition
is
Berliner's
to a certain
therefore,
inadequate and can hardly be accepted as
final.
extent,
In order
to establish a critical edition this enquiry goes into minute details of
grammar,
differences of vocalization
graphy, additions and omissions,
and ortho-
interchange of particles
and variant readings. Part I contains the general outlines of this research and the results arrived at. Part II shows the
more
detailed
comparison
following the text of the Bible, investigation
the Targum Yemen Mss.
concludes text, It will
Table of Contents. effort
may
lists
of
examples,
according to the version given by the
probably
reflect the original Palestinian
It is
my
fervent
I
have given a detailed
hope
that this
humble
be appreciated by students of the Bible and
give an incentive to the true appreciation of the
of Onkelos.
The
with a few specimen chapters of
Instead of making an index
form.
may
and
chapter and verse.
work
—
CONTENTS.
PART CHAPTER
History of the Text
I.
Importance of the Translation
l)
I.
(l).
—
i— 3-
PP2)
Where
it
originated
(2).
Travels (2).— 3) Effects of travels upon text (2).— Present texts
CHAPTER
and
Ofikelos
II.
Translation
his
.
.
pp. 3
(2),
—
5.
Approximate date of work (3). —2) Character of his Targum (4).— 3) Halachic and Haggadic elements (4).— 4) Public recital l)
Targum
of
CHAPTER
(5).
Importance of the Yemen Mss.
III.
6— 11.
pp.
—
Hitherto their linguistic character alone studied (6). 2) Origin of Superlinear vocalization (6).— 3) Targum never neglected in 1)
Palestine (8).— 4)
Yemen
of
version
(lo).
CHAPTER CHAPTER Signs
l)
maic 45)-^
(14).
— 5)
—
IV.
V.
The Babylonian Redaction 6) They represent the
7)
Object of Investigation
Description of Mss. Superiifiear
employed
—
3)
in this
system
— — 4)
(13).
114).
—
5)
Differences
.
.
2)
.
— 13 —
.pp. .
11
pp.
13.
17.
Appropriate to Ara-
Absence of Segol
(15; 45
— — 46).
6)
No
(15;
sign
7) No sign for Dages or Rafe (16).— Aramaic and Syriac (17). 9) Agreement
(16).
to Biblical
.
Vocalization
Origin of system
—
original Palestinian
(10). .
Absence of Sewa Compositum
Approach
(9).
(10),
Sewa Quiescens
for 8)
Mss.
—
with Biblical Aramaic (17).
CHAPTER l)
VI.
Differences of Vocalization
Less frequent use of vowel letters
(iS).
.
.
pp.
18
— 25.
— 2) Superlinear system
ety-
mologicallymore correct(i8).-3)Interchange of vowels. Western texts
Patah=YemenQames(i8— {a)
Second number
responding portion
in
1
9; 46);
(7.
brackets
in Part II.
Monosyllabic words and particles.
refers to
the pages of the cor-
——
CONTENTS
VIII
b.
Per. Sin. Fret. Peal of ^"v.
3rcl
Mediae Geminatae. f. Suffix of 2nd
Per.
Sin.
e.
3rd Sin. Pret. Feminine.
Miscellaneous
g.
Pret. Peal of
3rd. Per, Sin.
c.
Present Participle,
«'.
Western
words.
= Yemen
Qames b.
Patah (19; 47). a. Suffix of 3rd Per. Sin. Fem. Vowel of 2nd Radical of Verb. c. Little change in Pause.
d.
Vowel before
Sere
=
— 5)
47}.
b.
and
"3
= Yemen
(20; 48).
= Yem.
Patah ==Yem. Sere.
=
Yem. Sere. Yem. Hireq. Yem. Qames.
Hireq.
c.
Sere (19;
Western Holem
(20; 47).
of the Imperfect (20; 4S).
=Yem.
=
Yemen
= Yem.
Holem.
West.
Holem
West. Sureq
=
West. Sureq
=
h. j.
Patah.
d.
ITolem. f. West.
West. Holem = Yem. Qames.
i.
— 4) Western
Yemen
West. Sere= Yem. Patah.
West. Patah
e.
=
West. Hireq
a.
48).
;
West. Sere
g.
Holem
— 6; The vowel
Various interchanges (21
West. Patah
Other instances.
e.
sj.
Western Hireq
(19; 47),
Western Sureq
= Yemen Sureq 7)
Suffixes
Yemen Hireq
=Yem.
Sere. /. West. Patah == Yem. Sewa (22; 48 — 49). a. West. Patah = Yem. Sewa. b. West. Qames = Yem. Sewa. c. West. Sere = Yem. Sewa. d. West. .Sewa = Yem. Sere. e. West. Hireq = Yem. Sewa. 10) General 9) The Yemenite Pronunciation (22).
Sureq.
West. Patah
k.
— 8) Interchange
of Vowels and
—
—
results (25).
CHAPTER
Variations in orthography.
VII.
25
pp.
— 28
49—53 a. Dialectical Variations,
similar words. letters,
e.
1)
Pael.
tafal. c. 7.
0.
/2.
State,
and Construct,
—
and
Afel.
and Imperfect.
Other
IX.
How
j.
Etpeel and ^i.
28
pp.
.
Number,
c.
2)
Additions (36—37;
4j
Contractions
— 35 Em
Gender.
— 39;
c.
60
— 62). — 3)
5)
The Tenses
/'.
Present
(Participle)
Other Differences. pp.
may be accounted
— Interchange 62 — 65) [Hebraisms
(38).
Etpaal.
and
Perfect
Variations
additions and omissions
Particles (38
b.
.
Absolute and
a.
—
i)
fix
a.
Imperfect and (Participle) Present,
CHAPTER
•z'-VTi-,
a. The Conjugations. «. Pea 60). 35; 57 Peal and Afel. 7. Peal and Etpeel, Etpaal or Et
[t^T)
Pael
Perfect
Interchange o
d.
1.
g.
Grammatical Variations
Absolute
The Verb
and
in
s"!5
to distinguish
Nhp. h. Mar Agreement of Mss. with Nehardean Tradition
i.
VIII.
/?.
of
f. nt;^n jra?.
The Noun (28—33; 53 — 57).
phatic. 2)
Use of vowel change
3rd Pers. Plu.
c.
Other changes,
ginal readings,
CHAPTER
b.
— 36).
— 38;
62).
Omissions (37
of Prepositions 65].
—
6)
35—39.
for (35
and other
Variations in Suf-
(39).
CHAPTER
X.
Exegetical Variations
pp. 39
— 42;
66
— 77.
.
CONTENTS
PART CHAPTER
I.
Remarks Upon n^; bs;
CHAPTER
II.
CHAPTER
III
Onp;
Examples of
IX
II.
words
the
i)^3p;
n^i.-^H^X
.
pp. 43
.
the rules contained in
pp.
Introductory
XXXI
(85)
Specimen Chapters remarks
XLI
(92).
(78).
Genesis
.... XVII
pp.
(79}.
— 45.
Part
J.
45—777S
— end.
XXVI
(81).
LIST A
OF ABBREVIATIONS.
•= Ms. Codex Montefiore.
= C= Z? = B. =
B
Bbl.
„
„
„
No. 502. „
508.
Museum. Or. No. 2363. Codex Gaster. No. 2. „ Berliner's Targum Onkelos (Berlin „
=
Brit.
1S84).
Babylonian.
= Aramaic. = Dagges. = Haggadic. Hal. = Halachic. H. = Hireq. Ht. = Hatef. Ho. = Holem. L. = Levy's Chaldaisches Worterbuch Luz. = Luzzatto's Philoxenos (Vienna O. = Onkelos. = = Q. = Qames. R. = Rafe. = Segol. = Sureq. = Sere. Se. = Sewa. = Superlinear. SbL = Sublinear. Trg. = Targum. Bib. Aram.
Biblical
D. Hag.
P.
Plst.
S.
S. S.
Spl.
Patali.
Palestinian.
(Leipzig 1S66). 1830).
I.
It
I.
is
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
universally
acknowledged
the greatest veneration
upon
rests
to
the Exegesis
that of all the Trans-
name of Onkelos enjoyed
lations of the Bible that bearing the
from very ancient times; because
and
of the Tanaim,
is
it
considered
represent the original traditional Interpretation. Its
sanctity
was enhanced when the Amoraim invested
with great authority by making
an
it
official
decree that
it it
should be publicly read in the Synagogue side by side with
Hebrew original. The neglect of this Rabbinical decree was in later times This neglect of greatly blamed by some of the Geonim. the Targum was most noticeable among the Jews living in the
arabic-speaking
countries
supplanted the Aramaic
in
the Jewish
who have blamed
other authorities
carrying out the
arabic
the
after
,
as
principle
language
had
Among
vernacular.
the Jews for their laxity
of ai^ir nnsi
x^.p^
^'i'si
the
Hanagid and the GeoHai stand out most prominently. and nim Natronai had a salutary effect for throughout Their admonitions at the time present this precept is the middle ages and strictly adhered to, and this accounts for the veneration in
names of Jehuda
which
it
is
be added,
b.
Qoreis, Samuel
held by the Jews is
shared by
of the light which
all
—a
veneration
this translation
passages in the Bible, as well as for '
Cf. Delitzsch
1836, pp. 27
and
which,
it
may
Holy Writ, on account throws upon many obscure
students of
,,Zur Geschichte
its
intrinsic
merits
der jiidischen Poesie".
135.
A
'.
Leipzig
The Targum
2.
originated
where
coming, as
esteem,
we
Palestinian
clearly presently,
a
subgreat
Similarly
both of which are products of
great zest in Babylon,
In Babylon
learning.
enjoyed
Calendar and the Ritual pursued
find the study of the
with
it
from the Holy Land.
did
it
was
but
Palestine,
in
sequently transplanted to Babylon
we
as
,
redaction
fresh
more
see
shall
of the text was made,
in many respects, from the original Plst. From Babylon the Trg. travelled to Europe, first and then to Germany and Northern France, and
which differed
Version. to Italy
also
to
Spain and Provence. In
3.
the
course
of
became more and more in Europe the original the Sbl. system which
a change
which
its
Spl.
the
travels,
Some
corrupt.
for
^
of the Trg.
after
its
arrival
was exchanged for
vocalization
was used
text
time
the
Hebrew language, effect upon the
had the most pernicious
The evil was aggravated by the ignorance of the European scribes who inserted marginal glosses in the text and heaped errors upon errors until the text of the Trg. text.
became 4.
common the
text
result of this
use to-day.
expedients
all
an all-but-hopeless condition.
in
The
have been
with
is
seen in the texts which are in
These are tried
far
from
from time
perfect.
Various
time to improve
to
but indifferent success, the reason being that
the would-be amenders started from
an incorrect stand-
They all assumed that the European copies were based upon the original text, whereas they originate from point.
the
Bbl.
according
Redaction. to Bibl.
Buxtorf wished
to
remodel
the
text
Aram., quite ignoring the fact that a long
time had elapsed between the Aramaic of the Bible and that of the Trg. and that the Trg. was different circumstances,
Lagarde thought he
and
for
composed under
an entirely
entirely
different purpose.
would be serving the
interests
of
I At the beginning of the 12th century by Nathan B. Machir of Ancona, according to an epigraph of the Codex I2 of de Rossi
(v.
Berliner
„Targum Onkelos".
Berlin
1884, Vol.
II,
p.
134).
— science
way by omitting
best
the
in
his attention
confining
consonantal
but,
text,
—
3
and
vowel-signs
the
establishing a correct and critical
to
must be remarked, he did not even
it
attain this ideal.
Targum
Berliner's edition of the
*,
(B.)
which
is
a reprint
of the Sabionetta edition of 1554 suffers for the same reason
His sources are
European Editions.
as all other
Euro-
all
pean MSS. none of which exhibit the original text but the subsequent Babyl. redaction. It is undoubtedly superior to any of
and embodying the vestigation how our to MSS. unknown
which
serve
will
necessary
to
in-
is
predecessors in
B.'s
all
Before proceeding to the
may be improved by
Trg. texts
as
of
results
learning.
to B.
edition
does the products of a life-study
it
ripe
same branch of
the
which the
besides
predecessors,
its
valuable containing as
in-
reference
and hitherto all-but-neglected and
basis
for our
own
know something about
investigations his
O.,
it
is
and the
time
general character of his translation of the Pentateuch.
ONKELOS AND
ir.
As
I.
to
date
the
of
translation
this
much
difference
Frankel- and Geiger^ place
of opinion has existed. in
HIS TRANSLATION.
the time of the later Talmudists, but
its
date
by observing certain
of the translation B. has fixed the time as
characteristics
contemporaneous with or immediately following the time of second half of the second century. He bases opinion upon the Targumist's consistent avoidance of
R. 'Aqiba; this
anthropomorphisms
LXX),
the
words
'Aqiba's
time
I
9.
1857, p. 164.
Frankfort 1S92,
a
characteristic
of the
for aramaicising Greek words
in the original Greek in Targumic embodiment of 'Aqiba's
the
principles*.
„Zu dem Targum der Propheten".
Breslau
Urschrift und die Ubersetzungen der Bibel.
Breslau
2
Berlin: 1884.
1872, p.
also
being au conrant
— and
and hag.
hal.
is
necessity felt
little
— these
(which
3
4
1.
c.
p. 132.
pp.
102— loS.
Cf.
also
Zunz "Gottesd. Vort."
As
2.
regards
character of this Translation,
the
described with great clearness and minuteness by B.
Trg.
neither too literal nor too free;
is
agreement with the Massoretic Text^;
this
is
Our
^
it
shows a remarkable
it
always follows the
Qere leaving the Ketib unnoticed^ a characteristic which is also noticeable in a MS. of Daniel with Spl. vocalization
my
which came under be considered
will
original
the
which
are
to
occasionally endeavours
he
texf*;
The Targumist omits be found in the Hebrew
chapter VIII.
in
pleonasms
certain
and the importance of which
notice,
text
to imitate the sound of employs a rich store of synonyms, oc-
5,
makes use of circumlocution and simplifies figuraBoth the Tetragrammaton and u^nbn are
casionally
tive expressions.
rendered
which was written
"'"'^,
"i^"'
(until
this
was taken as
a sign for the Trinity), of which various modifications, such as
2"'"',
"^T,
"'Z'^
word
are found.
word c-nsx
like of the
is
The reason of
the Targumist's dis-
found
employment of
When
for strange gods''.
in the d%"i^n
this
occur together, the
"^^
Targumist must naturally reproduce them as they occur
Hebrew
the
According
3.
which applies mist renders affects
thus
are
to
is
be found,
that
— Whenever have
people pp.
p. 210,
206—224 5
the case
not
1.
c.
yet
1.
c.
p. 211.
must be
it
for
Targumist has
the
This
it.
(Prague: 1861)
runs
rule
to
meet
the
those
cases
wherein the
attained
a
complete
2
6
1.
1.
c.
c.
p.
207.
p. 223.
3 7
1.
c.
That
p. 11.
9
contra-
knowledge p.
209.
4
this is not
may be seen from Exodus 12, 12 where a'jU'^ "rfTS ^ In Kerem Eemed V, 223 and VI, 220
Wilna: 1874.
to
and
rejected,
in
r-yj.
n)3Ki tithv
tra-
or
dictory views of Sectarians,
"K'^U'D
occurs which
But so many exceptions
given.
by Adler^ substituted
given
1
law
a
each individual member of the community, the
rule
that
command
but where a
literally,
have
of justice the Targu-
administration
the
we
where
Rapoport^,
to
to
ditional explanation this
in
text.
is
of
1.
c.
always
rendered
also in i-iai
In the Introduction to his
15"?
nm
point
the
in
the
Tanaim themselves
the
Targumist gives the better of
the two traditions,
he
down no
general
the
rule,
a
unassailable
is
we can
lay
Halacha
the
rendering
literal
differ
says
employs
O.
but
tradition
however,
Singer,
where
translation
his
where
but
literally \
renders
upon
when
question,
or
the tradition,
would
in
remain
obscure-.
Great care was taken
4.
ensure
to
the
correct
recital
of the Trg., this being especially the case with the Trg. of the Pentateuch ^
was given out by the Reader in immediately followed by its Aramaic
A
verse
Hebrew, which was allowed
the
were
verses their
with
recital
the
before the
of the
solemn
however, a standard
official
demeanour,
which they held 5.
As,
virtue
in
had not then yet appeared, opportunity was given
translation to
which three
in
Meturgeman recited Both Reader and Meturgeman had to
translation'*.
the
of the Prophets,
together
taken
preserve a reverential office
]More laxity was
by the Meturgeman.
rendered
translation
Meturgemanim
to
insert
interpretation of
own
their
Meturgemanim blamed by
find
some of
this
account.
The
of the Misna
— was
the
writing
down of
only applied to the writing
down
the Rabbis^
the Trg.
at first prohibited",
and we
abused
This privilege was occasionally
text.
but
—
this
just
on
as that
prohibition
for the purpose of public
reading, but private copies could be held by the scribes for their
I
own E.
1.
niss seines 4
Cf.
use.
c.
pp. 224
Targums
Misna.
— 225.
2
Singer: „Onkelos und das Verhalt-
zur Halacha".
Halle 1881.
3
Megillah IV, 4 and Talmud. Bab.
Hayyim
Tr.
B.
1.
c.
p. 84.
Megillah 24 a.
and Maimonides rhsr r'ihr: XII, il. R. Nissim quotes a Jerusalemi^ Cf. Talmud of Babytan Talmud as the origin of this custom. Megillah 7 Cf. Talm. Jer. Tr. lon Tr. Megillah 23 b and 24 a. 5
Cf. Tur, Oral}
In Tal. Bab. Tr. Megillah
IV,
I
ch. 145
Cap.
III.
and Talmud Bab. Sabbath 115
a.
v.
Zunz.
1.
c.
p. 65.
—
IMPORTANCE OF THE YEMEN MSS.
III.
only European MSS. have
strange that hitherto
It is
1.
6
been studied
Since then how-
connection with the Trg.
in
ever a number of Targum MSS. have come to Europe from
South Arabia but have received having regarded them
scholars
attention;
of linguistic importance only.
one of them (which
way,
little
I
shall subsequently
In this
call
C) has
been employed by B. \ Merx^ and Margoliouth 2. At the outset of our investigation into the importance of these MSS. we must ask ourselves two questions. j.
Is
correct to call the Spl. system of vocalization the
it
Does
Babyl. system? the
redaction
of
the study of the Trg. in Babylon, or
version
a
necessarily imply that
Now
country, Palestine?
of the
Trg.
in
country
that
study was neglected in
its
mother-
its
the Spl. punctuation has been fre-
quently described as the Babyl. system'^, a nomenclature which
I
pp. 68
1.
c.
—
pp. 159
— 160.
103.
3
On
2
"Chrestomathia Targumica", Berlin 18SS,
the Supeilinear
vocalization (Transactions of
London 1893), pp. 46—56. Thus Neubauer connects the Yemen Jews with Babylon in his article on "The Literature of the Jews in Yemen" (Jewish Quarterly Review III, pp. 604 Speaking of the epitaphs which have been dis622). "These epitaphs, dated covered in Yemen, Neubauer says (p. 608)
the
Congress
9th
of
II,
Orientalists
4
—
:
according to the era of the contracts point to an acquaintance with the Babylonian schools, for the Italian era
of
the
addition,
destruction
of
the
early epitaphs date
2nd Temple
The Jews
the era of the creation.
and of
later
Yemen
from the
on bear,
in
continue up
day to date from the era of the contracts, using Aramaic Morepoint more to Babylonia than to Palestine. over, the use of superlinear vowel-points (usually called Assyrian Punctuation) in the pointed Hebrew Texts written in Yemen would argue
to the present
formulae, which
their connection with the Eastern Massoretic Schools rather than with
the Palestinian one at Tiberias".
But Margoliouth
of the Bbl. origin of the Spl. vocalization. the
originators
Schools of the
of the "sn:-;'^
superlinear
or "Easterns"
punctuation rests
is
not at
all
"The theory which partly
with
the
cert.ain
identifies
Masoretic
on an epigraph
he Parmese Codex de Rossi 12 of A. D. 1311, and partly
— or
in
rather
employed by
also
is
says:
but,
B.,
proofs have yet been
can be observed, no
far as
as
given
show
to
its
Bbl. origin
doubtful when the vowel-signs were
"it is
B.
'.
^
added
first
but probably they were added in Babylon, in which country peculiar
the
punctuation was
Spl.
advanced why we should make
assume
were added
that they
in
Babylon?
Is
reason
is
Then why
assumption.
were originally written
likely that they
No
use".
in
this
not just as
it
and came
in Palestine
over to Babylon with the Trg. text?
This seems the more probable after Noldeke's assertion ^
Targum although redacted
that "the authoritative
chiefly
— on
point vSpl.
the internal evidence afforded
of the
rubrics
out
that
Codex Babylonians" this is a
How
system.
subject.
how
out
p. 51).
But he proceeds to
very flimsy foundation
for the origin of the
can we
trust
a single
of the 14th century
scribe
system are
silent
Margoliouth especially singles out Saadia and points
inexplicable his silence would be were the superlinear system
of Bbl. origin. lonicus
Babylon
by the readings and marginal
c.
(I.
whilst the contemporaries of the originators of this
on the
in
it
As
for
the internal evidence
must be remembered that
from the Codex Baby-
MS. does not
this
the
exhibit
primitive Spl. system, but shows the Spl. punctuation in a highly
com-
posite and developed form which would naturally approach the Eastern or Bbl. forms of that jSIasoretic School.
argue refutes
from
MS.
this
various
to
prove
other theories
origin of this system,
but his
the
Hence
Bbl.
which have been
own theory
it
origin. set
is
hardly
fair
Margoliouth up
to
to
also
prove the
that this system represents
a mixed nestorian-jacobite punctuation appears to be very forced, and is
more than improbable
if
we
are
to
admit
this
system to be of
Cf. Seligsohn pp. 12, 19, 32.
Palestinian origin.
1 Likewise Dalman: „Zwar ist die superlineare Vokalisation der von dort neuerlich nach Europa gekonimenen Targumhandschriften keineswegs als aramaisclie \Viedergabe palastinischer Aussprache des Aramiiischen anzusehen. Vjelmehr wird sie einer in Babylonien gelehrten schulmassigen Behandhing des Onkelostargums entstammen, der gegeniiber der Konsonantentext der sog. jerusalemischen Targume ofters eine iiltere und urwiichsigere Form des Onkelostextes reprasentiert" (Grammatik des jiidisch-palastinischen Aramaisch, Leipzig 1894,
I,
p.
V — VI).
matik.
2
1.
Halle 1S75.
c.
p. 131.
Introduction
j
Th. Noldeke, Mandaische Gram-
p.
V.
— — a
exhibits
whose
dialect
—
8
fundamental
are
characteristics
Palestinian.
For the present
system should
the
then,
Superlinear (Spl.) system, without defining
we shall see further on more appropriate this system is to
Bbl. or Plst.
now
than the Sbl. system B.
3.
states
'
that
country and
we
V how much
chapter
the
Aramaic language
in use.
various
for
through the decay of the
in
be called the
further as either
it
reasons
Plst. schools, the
but
Trg.
principally
But are
study was transferred to Babylon.
its
sure that the Trg. ever
left
Palestine
native
left its
or that
study
its
was neglected by the Jews of the Holy Land? May it not have travelled to Babylon just as the Calendar and Ritual did
—
— and
It is
were greatly harassed
of Palestine
Jews
the
that
yet have been continued in Palestine?
true their
in
by political troubles which interfered with their liberty and yet we know that they were always the great leaders of the study of the Bible, a fact which the Massora that
studies
—
invaluable guide to the correct Text of our
Hebrew
and the various Midrasim bear witness to. Now we know that both the Massora and from Palestine.
hail
come down
to us^
Midrasim
the
the Jerusalem Trg.
Again,
Bible
which has
although differing in character from the
Trg. of O., shows at least that the study of the Trg. was
pursued hagadic
Now
in Palestine. in
character,
this
may we
Jerusalem Trg.
is
entirely
not then assume that side by
side with this hag. Trg. there existed a literal Trg., the
version, in fact, which
Palestine produced
by
side it
will
— the
original Plst.
I
1.
c.
p. 108.
Babylon?
same
Just as
probable that the two Recensions
and the hag.
will
be shown that text.
is
it
literal
This
side.
to
two such varied studies as those of the
Massora and Midras, of the Trg.
was transferred
— existed
in this
country
perhaps be seen more clearly after
Yemen MSS.
appear
to
contain the
— The
4-
natural
of the attention bestowed upon
result
the Trg. in Babylon
seen
is
—
9
redaction
that
in
which
of the text
version
although adhering to the original
a great
to
extent must have inevitably become somewhat corrupted in its language in course of time, in spite of the efforts of the
Rabbis of the time the
stamp
preserve the
to
text
intact
it.
As
upon
authority
of their
by placing
became
texts
more mistakes must have gradually crept in. As the words were also, in all probability, differently pronounced in Babylon, their orthography became changed, and the orimultiplied
must
vocalization
ginal
stitution literal
have
been
considerably
least
at
Another tendency became noticeable
modified.
of hag.
explanations
In time a reaction set in in favour of the
rendering.
and
Version;
original Plst.
in the sub-
of the original
place
the
in
movement
this
represented
is
by the so-called Nehardean tradition, in contradistinction to the tradition of Sura, which is substantially represented
by the
When
text
which we find to-day
the Trg.
came
to
was then punctuated
it
the original Spl. vocalization which in
Some
Palestine.
zation
was altered
Hebrew
time after
in
our European editions.
in
Europe its
it
in
had probably received this Spl.
arrival',
favour of the Sbl. system
vocali-
in use
with
for the Trg. text
This inevitably led to great confusion ^ had already undergone considerable modi-
fications after
arrival in
the
text.
its
Babylon, and
ration taking place w^hich practically
of the text in
its
now
involved
entirety the result can easily
As copies were increased in Europe fied and was greatly aggravated by the scribes, of the
another the
alte-
rewriting
be imagined.
became magniignorance shown by
the evil
the
Aramaic language; the
result of all this
we have already seen in the various devices made by scholars to amend the corrupt text. These were all unsuccesful because the scholars depended upon the Babyl. recension I
whilst
V.
B.
old
1.
c.
p.
editions
134.
2
««Our
editions
are
greatly
and MvSS. have superior readings".
Nachgelassene Schriften, Vol.
4,
Berlin 1876, p. 104.)
neglected, (A.
Geiger:
—
—
lO
which must have been a considerable modification of the original.
PIst.
Of
5.
to
late years
a rich store of treasure has been brought
most of which are punctuated with the which
fact
from a
more
examining these MSS.
These variations occur not only
in the vocali-
pronunciation and orthography but also in the exe-
of
the
text
itself,
several important hag.
usual
lation.
On
most far-reaching and profound differences are
to be found.
zation,
the
Spl. vocalization, a
the student to their study if only
in itself invites
linguistic point of view.
closely
gesis
Yemen
by the discovery of MSS. of the Trg. from
light
especially
interpretation
the
in
and poetical passages,
hag. interpretation
replaced by a
is
of
which cases
in
literal
trans-
point to?
It is
'
What then do the
all
that
of their
own although
thern Arabia
a
at
communities
in
facts
Yemen had a peculiar we know that they settled
very early
Mohammed
before
centuries
these peculiar
Jews of
unlikely
period. there
North Arabia
"Certain
were
tradition in Sou-
it
powerful
as well as in
is
that
Jewish
South Arabia or
Yemen" ^ 6. The various differences which are noticeable in these Trg. MSS. induce one to believe that they represent the The changes in vocalization, pronunoriginal Plst. text. and orthography remind us
ciation
chapters
V
to VIII
— of
the Bib.
—
as will be shown in Aram, and Syriac grammatical
forms and approximate more closely to the Nehardean
tra-
we may perhaps call it the Nehardean recension. The preference shown for a literal translation may be acdition,
or
counted
7. I
by observing
for
Trg. which
The
entirely hag.
is
that in
the
Plst.
Jews had another
tendency.
object, then, of this investigation
is
Geiger although ascribing a Babylonian origin
of Onkelos points out that
its
as a later protest
the fanciful
exegetists.
1.
c.
against
vol. 4,p. 104.
character
2
v.
is
literality,
1.
endeavour the
to
Targum
which he regards
interpretations
Neubauer
to
c.
of p.
the
605.
earlier
— to
way
so pave the
now
of the original Trg. of O.
the true character
show
for a
how
of that Trg.
edition
critical
of the
each
with
separately
deal
above, and show in
—
II
I
and will
enumerated
points
far these characteristics strengthen
our views as to the original and
Plst.
character of the Trg.
But before entering into the examination of these MSS., a short description of those I have made use of these MSS.
of,
may be now
given.
THE YEMEN
IV.
MSS.
Codex Montefiore, No. 502; which
I.
I
call
A
is
peculiar
in having a Sublinear vocalization for the Aramaic as well as for the Hebrew text, which may perhaps be regarded
as an unsuccesful attempt
the
two
other.
of
differs
from the
systems also
It
Hebrew
text
on the part of the scribe
vocalization
large
in
to bring
harmony with each other MSS. in having the into
square characters
the
in
middle of
Arabic translation are placed
and and the commentary of Rasi below. It conThe sists of 133 folios and extends till the end of Exodus. writing is bold, square and pointed; and the paper stout and dark. It is probably of the i8th century and is written whilst the Trg.
the page,
on the
sides
throughout quires
custos
both
in
consist
the
translations
length
number lations
Hebrew at
every
but nearly
leaves,
7
The number of
the bottom.
at in
The
one hand (except the marginal notes). of
and
text,
the sides,
in
the
lines in
has the
each p^ge,
Aramaic and Arabic
varies
naturally
leaf
according
to
the
of the commentary of Rasi below, but the average is
19 lines
and about 8
for
the
for the
Hebrew
has an average of 8 word.s to the soretic directions except that at the
number of mnemonic.
text,
commentary. line.
30
is
text
There are no mas-
end of every Parasa the
verses contained in that portion It
for the trans-
The Hebrew
is
given with a
one of the characteristics of Eastern MSS.
— have
that they
little
no
or
—
12
illuminations^
and
all
these
MSS.
(except C) have only an ornamental figure on the margin at
end of every Parasa.
the
2. is
Codex Montefiore, No. 508. I call and clear MS. and
a remarkably fine
found
be valuable
to
It
of 159
consists
custos,
being
24 Hnes
to
MS. B.
This
be frequently
in retaining the original literal render-
an haggadic interpretation
ing, whilst
this
will
folios,
inserted on the margin.
is
making a quire;
leaves
4
given at irregular intervals
a page and 10 words to a line.
the
average
an
^
paper and the oldest part in bold and round hand. unfortunately in a very imperfect condition and in
no
less
extends from
f.
3
to
be quite modern.
— 87,
98
— 102
and 104
both Hebrew and Aramaic,
throughout,
The
— 155),
103 and III Spl.
— 159)
is
78
(f.
It
— 79,
round and bold; and
less
is
dates
Hebrew
has the Sbl. vocalization for the
for the Trg.
Spl.
is
probably
it
perhaps of the 17th or i8th centuries, the third
156
is
hand
oldest
— no and
from the i6th or 17th century; the second hand
is
It
written
is
than four distinct handwritings, of which the third
and fourth appear
and the
of
Thick, oriental
(f.
i
—
2,
much more minute and is or 19th century. The fourth hand
Sbl. throughout;
has added probably i8th numerous marginal readings as well as Genesis 44, 10 15. Many verses in the second hand are left entirely unpunctuated. Again the only Massoretic note is the number of verses contained in each Parasa. The MS. extends till Exodus 24, 2. Each Hebrew verse is followed first by its Targum. and then by its Arabic translation.
—
C
3.
fully
is
the British
Z> was placed at
4.
(Codex Heb. Gaster No. of
Museum MS.
Or. 2363 and has been
described by Dr. Berliner^.
all;
scribes'
my 2)
disposal
and
is
the
errors being few
and
sign being used either for Dag. or R.
I
1.
c.
pp. 132, 134 (Note
4),
137,
by the Rev. Dr. Gaster
most perfect and far
between;
The paper
159 and 160.
is
reliable
and no thinner
— than that of
A
—
13
and the
or B,
writing
clear
beautifully
is
and round; probably 17th century. It consists of 159 folios, written throughout in one hand and extends till the end of Exodus. There are about 27 lines to each page and about 14 words to each it
The MS. has been rebound, hence
line.
impossible to
is
but every
quires,
the
tell
page has the
There are frequent marginal notes by a
custos.
hand;
later
number of verses at the number of mmra and n'-awo
the only Massoretic notes being the
end of every Farasa and the A note at the end of each Book. that the scribe's
notice inside the original cover
was
seems
somebody's possession
in
(ri)x^i
•p-iirri
(mnt:)ujb
"f
pir
sbx "pnn raa
This
"im.
at the
nnn-^ -p xiirc
name was
-(rrxi
It
adorned with a
Menorah,
the
the
year 21 21
V. I.
its
Each verse
Arabic translation.
will first
is
figure
having
of
an
followed by
All
the
MSS.
consider the system of vocalization used
MSS.
we have
are written above the consonants. (P.), Sere" (S.),
Besides
large
page
and have been very much used.
In the Spl. vocalization
Fatah"
a
of the
last
THE SUPERLINEAR VOCALIZATION \
We
in these
with
The
branch of the candlestick
Trg. and then by
are Folios
MS.
mm
runs vhn
to
cabalistic devise
each
whilst a
(? u:"nrt) iu:inb -paii -las
points
appropriate scriptural quotation. its
nao;
"nx
Seleucidan era, corresponding to 1809 C. E. is
end informs us
to point that the
1809.
in
-
these
signs
Hireq' (H.), a
six
Holem
horizontal
vowel- signs
These are Qames" line
which (Q.),
'(Ho.) and Sureq'^(S).
represents
the
Sewa
This system has only been lately discovered, being brought to by the Karaite Rabbi Firkowitsh about 50 years ago. It represents the older system, since it is more simple and primitive than the sublinear system (cf. also the expression hy -ijjj) and it is unusual to regress from a well developed to a primitive vocalisation. I
light
and
Mobile
B
A,
C
in
C
and
—
14
indicates the
a slanting line
make
also
Rafe
sign.
use of the Dag. point
occasional
within the letter.
must
The
Aramaic language.
the
to
of punctuation
This system
2.
peculiarly appropriate
is
inevitable
Hebraisms which
occur in a text punctuated with vowel-signs which were
Hebrew language are As an example, we may
taken direct from those in use in the
not noticeable in the Spl. system.
absence
the
take,
and
of any particuliar sign to represent the
This semi-vowel
Hatef.
in Biblical
Hebrew.
It
is
unknown
is
Aramaic
it
remarkable that
sulted in the British
in the
Aramaic language
must have been taken from the
Museum
in a Bible
MS. which
Daniel and Ezra which seemed
have
to
I
con-
words in
(Or. 2374), the only
particular
a
sign
Sewa compositum are mp and 3"-P which are written This appropriateness of the Spl. system thus 2"ip and 5"rp. to Aramaic leads us to think that it was invented for the Aramaic language in Palestine as was suggested by Dr. for the
Gaster in the course of his lectures at Montefiore College;
and
that
Spl.
system to the Hebrew language
MSS. do
consequently, just as incorrect to apply the
is,
it
— as
it
is
to
— as
some of
Yemen
the
apply the Sbl. system to the Aramaic
language. 3.
made
Various suggestions have been but
the origin of this system, jecture.
Strack^ remarks
accurately
this
"The
the Superlinear
is
still
with respect to
a matter of con-
so-called Babylonian or
punctuation
the
more
vowel-signs
which are simplified forms of the matres lectionis
x,
1
of
and
"^
and the detached accents of which usually have the shape of the letters with which their
name begins was
non- Palestinian Jews of Asia".
the
statement
is
Margoliouth^
forthcoming. tries
to
We
have
in
already
prove that the system
is
among
use
But no proof
for this
noticed
that
of a mixed
Nestorian-Jacobite character. I
2
1.
c.
"Einleitung in p. 47.
das alte Testament".
NSrdlingen 1888,
p.
74.
— — In
4-
we must unknown in the
place
first
tlie
vowel-sign Segol
-
15
is
signs being substituted for
S. is
his
in
and even by
P., S.
the
that
Spl. system, other vowel-
MSS. which
In the Yemenite
it.
Derenbourg saw and described in P. was invariably used for S.; but replaced by
once notice
at
B
"Manuel du Lecteur" ' the MSS. which I used the particular vowel
.,
being in most cases justifiable by reference to the word's etymology or by comparing the word in the cognate Semitic This shows that the scribes must have been languages. very careful
and
the correct original orthography
preserving
in
another argument in favour of the greater antiquity
is
and authenticity of the Trg. detailed S. is
by
A
Yemen MSS.^
the
in
5.
will
few
Instances
be found
replaced by P. in
rrs
'ns'3 2, 8,
Besides having no
remarked
—
is
S.,
or a Full Vowel.
in
Se.
Quiescens 17,
7.
or
— In
more
— as
full
4,
Pi.;
the
MSS.
rarely
by
has been
Hebrew and
of the
is
it
in
usually
Quiescens
Se.
Mobile replaces Ht.-P.
replaces
A
This sign
characteristic
replaces Ht.-Q. in "^a^p
"•'in^b
by
the Spl. system of vocalization
not of the Aramaic language'*. replaced by Se. Mobile,
but
replaced
S. is
11, 7.
Very rarely 14,2, xfb-'ED 25,9. the word ai^nn 28, 17 (Greek iSicoxt];).
previously
Se.
given here^,
are
of
texts
in Part 11.
has no sign for Sewa Compositum.
It
the
in
"i£x-iy
in
S.
e. g.
lists
exhibited
as
r-n
i, 2.
10 and Ht.-S. in ts^JX 36,11.
Ht.-P.
vowel
in is
|"'~n3
found
2,
in
10 the
and
Ht.-S.
MSS. where
Compositum in such words as x^n 29, 34. Strange to say, Se. Compositum is found m a few isolated examples which have either crept into the MSS. by
B.
writes a Se.
I
Journal Asiatique.
1870.
2
Sixieme S^rie.
Cf. VI, 2.
3
In
all
Tome XVI.
examples which
No. 61. will
Paris
be quoted,
Targum is the one referred to for the European readings, but the readings quoted are those given by the MSS 4 Cf. also the absence of any sign in Christian Palestinian Aramaic for Se. Compositum, Noldeke, Beitrage zur Kenntniss der aramaiscenh
Berliner's edition of the
Dialecte.
ZDMG.
XXII,
p.
507.
—
—
i6
were found
error^ or, are exactly taken as they
A
D
and
of these
majority
the
text;
both write b-ipb^ 33,
more consistently
C,
A
6.
the
is
B
MSS.
(the other 2
8
and
b"-pi^"')^.
sign which
third
calization
1
Hebrew
in the
being Proper Names.
instances
not represented in the Spl. vo-
is
which
Quiescens;
Se.
wantmg
also
is
in
Syriac.
The
7.
or R. and there
no doubt
is
Aramaic language had no signs pronunciation
softer
had no sign
Spl. punctuation as originally written
either for D.
of
the
that originally the
the harder
indicate
to
rSDnsa.
letters
remarks ''The oldest-known MSS. only use the D.
Hebrew, but not that
the D.
that
it
the Trg.,
a fact which
system.
has
Or. 2363
may
fitly call
the Trg. this sign of the R.
in
no more very necessary"
He
j.
composite developement of dicated by the
adds
and can only be
£
This
the letter.
explained by
system of a feature belonging
is
in fitfully
employing the D. point and
and
as Margoliouth
Many
transcribes
C
has remarked.
This MS.
A.
are a few exemples ""i^^i
4
1.
c.
Cf. VI, 8. p. 49.
b^ir^r.
2
regularly uses the
D
Cf.
neither
in this
P'^kI i, 24,
'rr!r\_
Dalman
2,18, 1.
c.
using the Sbl.
N^-Cirn p.
46.
MS.
^^'^'"7"
2,19,
may
This
the Sbl.
into
Spl.
i, 7,
2,16,
has
instances of the D. are to be
although apparently the
Of
slight corruption
But
account for the frequency of the D. point 1,26, xrn- 2,11,
in-
really not necessary,
show a
unfortunately
the one nor the other. in
not only
the adoption into the Spl.
A
vocalization
is
the Sbl. punctuation".
to
our MSS.
R. sign
D.
largely
as being
'Tn the more
further"^
system,
this
dropped
is
over the is
form of the preceding vowel-sign but also
by the point within
I
"^£"1
rs:n;2 but in later MSS. in which the Dg.
adopted
found
the Sbl. vowel-
for the
sign
special
a
to
from the other system of
into the text
punctuation, which one
the
in
show such% but
seems
not a part of the Spl. system as
is
was adopted
Hebrew letters
in
or
Margoliouth
i,
Here
26,
x^a-is 2, 3
1.
c.
"i?'n
23.
p. 46.
— By it
—
17
many examples
the existence of so
two chapters
in
might perhaps be thought that the sign was very frequently
employed throughout
MS.;
the
but
the
breaks
scribe
off
suddenly and we find whole series of chapters which do not contain a solitary D.
The rn'nf2
a few examples from B.
following are i\,
i,
x-rr^
i,
28,
h~r\
-1:^'^
29,
\,
i,
"i3^ i, ii,
^
31.
has none
of these! chapter appended to this
In the specimen I
D
have followed
which
investigation
most perfect MS. and has
the
is
neither D. nor R. sign.
The absence of all these signs, shows that the AraYemen MSS. is much more closely akin to the
8)
maic of the
Bb. Aram, and Syriac than editions
of the Trg.,
and
the
is
case with our European
may be
it
seen
how
appropriate
Aramaic language. Our MSS. agree with Bb. Aram, in many grammatical
the Spl. vocalization 9)
is
to the
points. a. 2,
b.
and
3rd. Pers. Sin. Fern. Suffix ends in n^-,
ist Pers.
its 3
5, 5
d.
Cf.
and
nj^£3
22
to
the Bb.
2, 9
Daniel
f.
of Verb
are
resp.
"^33
''rsyi'inn.
Perf.
of Verb
ends
in
n.
Cf.
Cf.
Dan.
\ is
punctuated with Q.
-yhyi.
Our MSS. punctuate many words with Aram, form with xabn p~b5 xitn rn-a.
e. g.
Suffixa
PI.
Dan.
2nd. Pers. Sin. Suffix
4,
e.
Sin.
with P.
3rd. Pers. Plu. Fern.
c.
Dan.
in
Cf.
nrn^.
II
S. whilst B.
Miscellaneous words such as
x:;?'>r
P.
corresponding
punctuates with H.
x^sb^ ist
'I'nsrxi
agree
the two dialects.
I
Or.
2374 writes thus, although Merx's edition of Daniel [Leipzig,
1882) has the Ketib *pE3 but Q'rd npE:.
—
VOCALIZATION.
VI. Before
1.
considering
changes
the
which
Sbl. punctuation^
do not show
that the
As
editions'.
Spl. to
the
Yemen MSS.
which
that superfluity of vowel-letters
Targum
our
may be remarked
it
pronun-
the
underwent on being transferred from the
ciation
in
—
i8
is
found
remarks "this redundancy
B.
of vowel-letters points back to a time when no vowels were yet written and these
letters
giving rise to
when
the vowel-signs were subsequently
have been
should
much
such words as
struck out,
As
confusion"^.
and
"'37
which
"'bli'n^J
added
their retention
instances
we may
notice
and
"'xVj'iS'
the
MSS.
B. writes iX3t
where the x merely points out the a sound. In
2.
considering
the
differences
and the European-Babylonian words
to
their
texts
it
shown by
will
be seen by tracing
etymologies that the former present a more
Now
accurate pronunciation.
as
it
is
extremely improbable
that the scribes were acquainted with the etymologies of the
words which they wrote, been conscientious
shows
this
in preserving
the
they must have
that
correct original ortho-
graphy. B.'s
3.
edition
of the Trg. has
with P. which appear in the
words and Particles: na (Syriac 2, 19.
bi5
(Syriac
Peal of the Verbs to the Syriac
^)
n!
I'r.
Form.
from the Syriac
3, 8.
in
—
c.
the
—
b.
2, 3,
On
many words punctuated
MSS. with Q. >a^')
2, 9.
nnT
6, 6.
'J
I
the
case
loi>-)
This corresponds
the other hand, the
Verba Mediae Geminatae^ e. g. would here punctuate the with Petaha.
3S.^d. In
(Syriac
3rd Person Singular Preterite
MSS.
differ
3rd Person Singular Preterite Peal
of the
2j
Monosyllabic
a.
nib'
b^i
Syriac
16, 4.
But
cf.
p'l
of the Present Participle the
Dan.
MSS.
Likewise in Christian Palestinian Aramaic the matres lectionis
Noldeke I.e. p. 447.) 2) Berliner 1. c. p. 133. For the contrary process we may compare the Hebrew ta Zechar. 4, 10 (Pret. of T-a) as if it were from TT3 and nu (for ntj) Isaiah 44, 18. are less used. (Cf. 3
— —
—
19
again show agreement with the e.g. 'ir^T
4, 20,
corresponding Syriac 17,
the 3rd Person Singular Feminine of. K"b
difficult
is
The
f.
Spl.
explain \
to
System
n-ri
Cf.
20
3,
r~,--
undoubtedly more correct
is
form,
16.— e. The Q, of the Preterite of Verba
4, 21, 'puVbT
"^sn^T
ing the Suffix of the 2nd Pers. Sin. with Q.
25.
4,
punctuat-
in
Cf- ~\^i 45, 9,
~\m
17, 5,
—
Miscellaneous words, the majority of which agree with
g.
-j-BsJ
So also B. Aram.
19, 15.
the
corresponding Syriac forms.
n:^
8, 9
many
in
On
(Syriac IZIm).
—
quently nian^
The vowel of
p.
just
i?
clearly
isn^i
29,
below,
has
write P.:
3,
corresponding
7.-0.
pause
the
This agrees
2nd radical of a verb
the
the
in
the Q.
Suffix of
a.
Dan.
Cf. fr^^s Daniel 4, 14, re-n-^
b.
as
6, 13.
(Syriac iJ^i),
11
i,
Singular Feminine M^'^n 4, 12.
with the B. Aram. form.
11^
iV^x
other hand B.
MSS.
instances in which the
the 3rd Person
2,
the
Dan.
cf. "(i^
Since,
has
as
words
in
be
seen
will
influence
little
is
more
the
in
fre-
Syriac
Spl.
punctuation herein showing the small influence of the Mas-
Hebrew
sorah of the
where
cases
s>JL»
would be pronounced
Similarly ""Nri'2-
as if
it
were
accordingly be
—d)
We
some-
times find interchanges of letters consistently occurring; thus
D
used by the MSS.
is
latter is
is
A
Hebrew.
the
be read
to
and
has
viz.
9,
but
is
The
io.
imported from
13
and
X";&'^p
The Rest
42.
ip-i.
19, 17.
—a and
All have
I'lS
:.
UJ
B
31, 27.
which the author of the Pathsegen'* has already pointed
more usual "fs, MSS. read
out as standing for the s. V.
cases where B. writes
letter at all,
incorrectly in two places where a
it
voj?
D have Dpi 31,
B. tis
in
not an Aramaic
in
his
Massorah.
All
as "^n^
Landauer remarks where B. and L.5
^ s. V. 2 "Massorah zum Onkelos nach neuen Quellen", Letterbode VII &c. always with 3 In Biblical Aramaic the Ketib is s but the Qere with -. Cf. j''-,s- (Qere "^"''^ Daniel 2,38; 3,31;
6,
26,
iQere
'-;vr^
(Qere
;-r'^)
Schreibungen wie den,
dass k
^;;-^)
Ezra
7,
Daniel
r:''-5;>3
4, 23, "'os|?
Cf.
25.
fiir
also
rsV;'^, D'-p fiir
zwischen zwei Vokalen
gesprochen wurde". S s. V. L c.
4
(Qere
Dalman's als
]"?".5)
Daniel
Grammar
3, 3,
-j-js-!
45 '*Aus c-sp darf geschlossen werp.
stimmhafte Gaumenspirans
Published in Adler's edition of the Targum
— — — xn-
give
nrhf\
The n
has
e)
it.
word
B
is
writes n^isbms
and
-n:
"i^aii'b
D
srbV 40, \^. B. B and C and likewise Aram, although Bb. Hebraism, a
A
12.
i6,
—
27
14,
and z^^rsr
3, 16 fj
give ^z-ii if-in^i
The MSS.
which B. writes
12, 13 in all of
divide the
time, was looked upon
at a later
this,
as the correct traditional writing ^
D
Cand
A,
i.
The Yemen MSS. do not know of
"'z'^-^nr^
&c.
the so-called EiJ-n
',r:::>
which gives us such forms as x;^^- and rrir-j-is but write
Hebrew
these words as they are found in the niaini
Text.
—
The
stand in the Trg. just as they occur in the Hebrew.
MSS. however appear *rix
read
D
not
(and
read ni^aSi
Hebrew Vin
ignore
^n-x)
34,
27,
x-s'-^
^
n-"'.
to
B
23,
"^V:^
read
C
have
A
14.
C
C
and
and
follow
the
on the margin but have S'1^^ but ij" and
wS:nbs
D
and
and Z)
£
it
may
C
x^=-i
and Z> be
n^'i
c—ni-i
39,
^nj-i
^
i.
15,
any
were only
rate,
and
and
18
9^
6.
once seen that the scribes
at
could not have recognised these rules of ciann x^p, they
all
A
46.
27,
Tetragrammaton instead of n-n5X4
writes the
these examples
By
B
x-nl-i,
=--:i-2-
B
finally
A,
6.
riNrn
19,
Thus they
Rule.
this
but here
2
and
n^iir in the Text 3 26,
C
By
g)
xip the Massorah meant that several passages should
with
acquainted
slightly
or,
at
them.
h) Marginal Readings have already been pointed out occasion-
These glosses are important since they are all added by a later hand and explain the origin of many words which These afterwards became incorporated with the Text itself. ally.
marginal readings also constitute an argument for the greater
age and originality of the texts with Superlinear vocalization
which have been preserved
C
has
I
Cf.
Ezra
16
4,
where
IluUin 65a. estenus
(v.
6,
13) 3
2,
by
the
the
—
Yemenite Jews. 3, 23 of which has been
text
stands for the
r;:r::s
Or. 2374 has s^;' si'c" (Dan.
Siyn (Dan.
to us
on the margin,
"^"^crXT
where Baer has r-yr.
The reading sinVe
Part II, Ch.
II,
J).
more usual s:r:s
so
47) where Baer reads n^j^ rryy\ and
^
is
cf.
2
Cf.
Talmud Babli
Tr.
quoted by Theodorus MopsuB.
1.
c.
p.
216.
— corrected by a later hand to is
given by Berliner
which means that
P"'5 p;"r&xi (Etpaal)
appears
Isy^i
confirm
to
B.
nn^b'^'i^
B
The
^h"^.
is
—
34
C
and
23
2 6,
The Hebrew
.
the first-mentioned read-
h-iB-inw (Etpeel) 46, 22.
first-mentioned reading,
giving the sense of the original,
less literal
is
although
than the passive
construction.
Pael and Afel.
6)
MSS.
B. in-^x
among
places the reading '^n^x
Both these
^li^x 34, 19.
forms have the same meaning, but Berliner, the
in his
Massorah^,
of instances included
list
under the head of Qiaim xip and we have already seen that
MSS. appear
the
L. gives
"in'^x
to take
no notice of
very rarely whilst the Afel
MSS. appears
the
fairly
is
B.
the reading of
MSS.
r^^^yj-^.
we read
nNi'iS'i
is
with "1^; the
^
Hebrew
frap
(Hebrew
tjn).
-£;
Jv>Ns).
(Exodus 3, 21
'ipi-i
10,
9
27, ^'"'"''
TX^"P.-
42,
the correct reading
I
'what'
is
write the words
which
is
are in-
n5:n"a
and
form of
or,
5tr;s
')>
as
form may perhaps ac-
L. allows
Q. of x^p
by side
side
i;!
we may compare
22, 5).
(Syr.:
(Hebrew 13
and
1=
a contraction of 5
latter
MSS.
justify the
23 where,
'f:n"D
I
is
Miscellaneous words (VI, 3g) "^t
[i.
^
which
the
in
whilst to
v. "^"5
really a shortened
this '5 is
count for the Q.
s.
^isf).
'^0-
2, 18.
^^^''
'X'ir\
18,
'pn-JN'^
12
9;
7
(Syr.
3,
18
(Syr.: yi.sj).
however, L. says we must punctuate
and 36 &c. where, according "^riin^?,
but when
it is
as they appear in the
also written v**-
to
L.,
noticed that the
MSS.
2
Cf. Syriac
^
word
T\'h
merely a contraction of r^x x; may
is
b)
Vowel of
l^rsn-i-
rnrsi
'''^fn
4, 13.
Before
7.
x:tirinr
7.
2,
the
ns
3, 9.
x:
and
suffixes
^:
b=i^3'
3 c)
n,
3d) x:3
(VI,
20.
9,
njiip
7.
20.
18,
"'r-'JDN
=-;•£
2.
MSS.
with
15,
I
C'p5
16.
each
In
27.
18,
20 Chapters)
first
of the
punctuation
II,
'I'nb-j-'Tii
'•r.'z-:
of these
have compared which
of L. with
that
always agrees except nb'^np which L, prefers with a
•^tnr^.
nl^bsrx
=
H.
d) B. 5, 22.
4.
r-ofx''
=
•'ic'
9.
29.
i,
29.
5,
examples (taken from the
it
^~t: 8, 19.
11.
6,
Absence of Se. Compositum (VI, 3e) ili'^sb' 2, 3. ^rr-x 3, 13. MSS. H. (VI, 4) rniV 3, 22. c) B. S.:
0.
3, 12.
the
nVnrnx"
11
4,
15.
14,
p5uj73b?3
17,
P.
2nd Radical of a Verb (VI, 3b) unrzrn'-
Absence of Pausal Influence (VI,
p.
9,
MSS.
the
3, 8.
ly^'i^'-i
7.
3,
=
Q.
B.
not
this fact
which the MSS. read?
justify the Q.
a.
—
47
6,
10,
14.
15,
4.
18, 13
(y^
and
'ppi^T
'nr^ 19, 25.
C
S.
16,
T'i"!^"
8, 21.
c-'D-x
xr;-zV
25.
T^b'^nn
MSS.
u,
3.
6.
x:-r
here T'b^x).
ns-^zir'-i
19,
33.
'Tir-
n,
n^zr 18,
n^rp^r:
7.
"'iox
16, 7.
-;-Vn-
n1-Tnx= 9, 16.
13.
9,
-ssr:
S.
b-^nr 3, 14.
6.
2,
-iix 16,
12,
xr^-s^s
17.
13.
iVx
10.
19, 24.
19, 34.
All these agree with L., with the exception of ";ox ri"^=ai
and
rr^rpuj:
vowel with
which L. punctuates with H.
and
xns-'sb
correct as B.'s
I'^b'^x
xn'^nsia
He
admits either ibx
but prefers H.
since the Imperfect Peal of
and the Imperfect Afel
is
^^5•x which
A
and
C
is
"ib-
as inis
A
read.
some errors, punctuating the following words with S. of H. xrrm 2, 21. Tr\^^ 6, 15. -^rr S, 11 and b-nn B. S. MSS. Ho. (VI, 5) b-r-^r 2, 16. e) 19.
I
e.
g.
nn^'in 5,
i.
i-inp
8,
4.
xz--" 8,
Likewise Nestorian Syriac has the
v«»Jai.
7.
rso'^'
'
has
instead 18, 19.
=
3,
t^'sx
2-nr 17.
8,
sound with \'erba
\
—
jt'i'ipT
22.
8,
3'nirii
x^''n"i
Of
19, 32.
of x^in rnbin
30.
"TSD^.
g) B.
H.
10,
",iBay
=
=
n'lxn'
5.
9,
siip but prefers S. with ii^p
MSS.
S. -nil:?
has
compare Syriac
17.
15,
>i:^
'pi^^?
For
13.
7,
= with.
Of
sirn.
miri'^'i
xri^T
7.
4,
Of these L. only punctua.tes MSS. P. (VI, 7a) x^on 6,
^
15, 9.
i^-u;'''^'!
these L. admits either vowel in the case
xn-iiS"
Ho.
B.
f)
2 2.
8,
-
48
8,
n"J
22.
Ho.
"p^rJ with
n?5n
12.
the
8,
9.
we may
latter
the others L. justifies only
and x^bsa.
tiba-i
=
h) B. P.
=
B. S.
i)
MSS. H.
Aram. form.
the Bib.
MSS.
(VI, 7b)
(Dan.
4,
ns:^^
15.
is
13).
4,
(VI, 7c)
P.
x52U5b-
n^in
d5^5
7.
6,
9,
6.
nnp 19, 9 (Z> nnp) by"^i5 19, 31. s'-in 21, 6. aip these Of alone appears to be incorrect, since intransi-
nn^a 12,
6.
Verbs usually have S.^
tive
18, 19
"ih"!;)"!
has
S.
instead of
17
47^
of the examples
all
16,
and
2
"^^'n.
may
-jn^i'^sn
pronounce the Ho.
the
in
manner
same
is
tend to con-
about the Yemenite Jews
firm Derenbourg's statement^
they
has r?3
(VI, 7f.) inn^=5 25, 31, iVso^n 44, 23
''"iT
confirmed by L. ; and
that
A
(VI, 7d).
S.
= MSS.
^
I'lSO'-.n).
MSS.
both of which are wrong.
Ho.
k) B.
(C
=
B. P.
j)
viz.
as the
Polish Jews. 4) iriax
16,
(B
The Vowel of 6,
2
r=rix
7.
(C
"^'inrx).
aitrirs).
for S.
(C
"£nx).
-''n&'.
17,
8
those
In
the Imperfect (VI, 6) n^rn5u:^T 4,
23
14,
(C
examples with
nl^-rx 13,
alrirx
"^nnx^). initial
15.
15.
--frx 19,
20
x the P. stands
which would be the Sbl. punctuation. V
5) Interchange of Se. and a) rr^-in^^
b) 4, 10.
MSS.
Se.
14, 22.
MSS. -pbi-i'^
=
'p^xar 19, Se.
full
Vowel.
B. P. (VI, 8 a) in^ir^T 12, 5.
=
6, 20.
iTfi
7.
Q.
B.
I^nx 13, 8.
-iv5
9, 23.
4,
'xanis'
7.
-^rx
10, 13.
4,
9.
^:2np
"ixninx 10, 18.
however not always the case "Non solum intransitiva velut 5St« Dan. 2, lo, uVip Dan. 3, 27 in Zere 2 Manuel du Lecteur p. 511. terminari possunt" Baer: (I. c.) P. LIX. I
3';p
This
is
sed etiam transitiva velut
n'^px
16.
wsn5
(Z>
C!Ti has ^''n'
and
appearing
punctuation
writes
L.* admits either vowel but prefers H.
)i3'>ba^!
The same MS. has Tr^ immediately followed by 30, 31, but the P.
system.
(with-
Occasionally the punctuation of the
19, 24. to
n"iS'5
We
is
occasionally meet
J,
B
D
have xryin
C
B
Thus
Sbl. vocalization.
and
here correct since
"prrin in
stands for S. in the Sbl.
forms which remind us of the
has a^rxn 24, 50 and
-[Biiinx^
write
v/ith
it
28, 15
(but
D
bii'^N^
-jD'^ivx'i)
27, 25.
A
and
we may take as a Hebraism; the others more correctly Nnrnn. The MSS. read xnVnT and xrlna but xrbni and xrisn^ would be more correct forms since in Syriac these words are written with JLil,^o^», MSS. read xs^S. 23, 15. B. has "^rn. L. says that in this word and in xix the suffix of the In 14, 10 the MSS. imitate ist Person Singular is wanting^.
»
].
3
So
c.
s.
V.
19 which
2
1.
c.
s.
V.
also in Christian Palestinian
Person Singular (cf.
3,
is
wanting
in the
Noldeke's Article in the
word
ZDMG.
1.
Aramaic the \^\ which
suffix of the First
=
c.
p.
»*ai
5i4\
D
"my
father'
Hebrew
the
original reading p"'i ^"'3 but Pathsegen reads
and
B. viz I'^T?
of
perhaps assume either the Masculine
A
C
xn'N as B,
B
has VXG, says L.
^
D
and
and
V'-nx^.
18, 15
18, 21,
J^pnrj.
C
3i"ip.
(V. Pt.
L.
verse
has
Cand
B,
TO'-'Ti,
of the Pathsegen
is
which
is
B. and
have
likewise
C
the Arabic in which 19, 15 which
w*«'s
by reference
confirmed
is
B. nu-p.
ii"^-p,
and
(VIII, B.
i
a,
3j.
"'b=XT (L.,
2,
9
and
likewise).
C
missing.
(B)
Number
(VIII,
able with the verb
C
and
upon
the
B,
D
i
mn.
give pn'^ns
reading
of
must be remarked
as
Several
b).
In I'fln.
the
i,
14
^
variations
^'s reading
Hebrew
text
is
probably based
nrx-2
Luz. has already pointed
in Adler's Edition of the
1
Contained
2
Cf. also Daniel 3, 26
a-)!.
are notice-
has x-in: -n- whilst B.,
Targum.
'n-;
but
out
in
it
his
— ia
nnx
that
in
the Plural,
In
the
Hebrew and Arabic languages
29;
is
justified
ing
,"in>
indeed
MSS.
given
is
is
whether
to use
describing
C
nxislai
1x3^35
A
"^.?'^2ti
given by
also
B,
"^T?"].
C,
D
B
^ir^
latter 'T!)?T'^.,
gular Plural
B,
is
B
A,
in",iii
again
is
"^nin
(incorrectly) 27,
C,
and B. xrin.
in
as the other
xn'^D'i.
27
and
B.
"iTH
The
D
B, C, MSS.
latter
is
read "p"- in
27,
12
the
B.
C
and
D
i6
with ^r in Aramaic.
construed
was
B,
B.,
A,
The
B. viz ^'^^x:^p 18, 29.
%Ti^"ip
'^'^3,
and Z>
preferable
is
His presence" and not
(incorrectly)
C
A,
B.,
ii^hi',
on the other hand, £'s reading Hi^r
but,
"^ri'br
-
64
we must
sign of the
B
27, 37
N=n
place
time than
reading seems faulty.
A
The Hebrew is "im n!!< and A gives the sense of this relative more clearly. B (incorrectly) xni 31, 5, B., A, C, D -IN. Hebrew is ''S. B (incorrectly) '$z. Rest s "pb" 4, 15. The 21.
QuJ
•'rinn
the
rest read "li.
C
has
2-p"^
37, iS.
D
It
should be s-'T.
itSTr 26, nhave nxbn^ 35, 21 &c. B and raism ir 38, I and that of all the MSS. "i-rn 43,
All
B's Heb6
have
^
when speaking of
already been noticed above,
the variations
use of the Particles.
in the
A
Variant readings (X).
(J)
B
II.
1,
—
66
As a mere
p"'En.
D
and
niiinn
(so
also B.)
Hebrew words
translation of the
'O^'^ ^^1*^ ^^^ version of JS would suffice "Let the But as the Trg., in most cases^ earth bring forth green".
^^^.
not only
way
translate the original but actually goes out
to
tries
obtain an
of
its
D
and B. seems superior.
A
8
2,
to
"^W^
B
A's reading
jects to
form,
identical
and B>
B.
"inrx^f.
the
reading of A,
"^yii^).
Pathsegen ob-
xpI DJin i-i^xi" Nevertheless
"'^itt;'!
A
gives
more literal rendering of the Hebrew diu;;'! than does the which means "And he made to dwell". 2, 14 word "'iiUNi and B. n^an. A is probably a Hebraism, B, A ^i^'^^, of the Tigris being rts'i. name Syriac i^;. the Aramaic a
—
D
Sl^J.
Arabic
Assyrian Tiglat^
A
24 B.,
2,
B
tri-cx
literal
iax
n^i
and
Akiba4.
rendered
is
to the
Pathsegen
jAaai.
is
The
A
rest
n">aKi
have
B
vSamaritan
LXX. TiYpu.
rts^n
^'^1iN
from bs3.
"^SaTiJa
reading
latter
has
version
but
trri
being
The Hebrew
former.
quite
text
reference
to
is
a
of these words by the Rabbis Eliezer
To understand MSS. n-'iti. we may compare 27, 35 where
d^n^,
B.
MSS.,
irasTinS
t]''2n
is
in
the
iT'
(1.
c.
p. 38).
Hebrew is f^C?^'the word nni^a
-
C-J
^- ^"^ Pathsegen
both give
means 'offering' But it must be borne
here
if
correct translation.
this
^ = to
snmipn is bad, as when speaking of persons making
Luz. says the reading
God
other and never in connection with
A
133^1,
B
C
•)1'a^,
D
lt"cn,
As
ll^n-i.
that the
-* *»
word can also mean a present (Arabic this would justify both A and Cs reading. used
B
this
4,
The Hebrew
that the reading "p^^i
D,
in B.,
B or
ben.
is is
word 2
justifies
original
can find no sense
I
/^'s
A
had
cf.
Berliner p. 128
this
word
the text, but
in
afterwards erased and ps^i placed on the margin in
Probably the whole phrase xbns ois br text as superfluous.
lations cf. 3, 21; 4,
49, 8 in the latter n-i?
5, 3 B.
Hebrew is Of course
A
tr^n^,
It is
n-^ox sb
great
D
a treble rendering.
n-^s
B
-^-iDnn,
is
the
s.
A,
C,
D.
whilst
B,
C.
z.%
difference
5,
D
probably
The
n-^^s-B.
most
literal.
Hebrew
24 B. has insert x?
has
its
n^Tax
on the
origin
in
Luz. in Philoxenos^ remarks "he (Enoch)
point.
living for
one tradition
1
C,
and hence ^'s reading
n't^3,
Trg.
correct
The Trg.
\
alive
still
and without troubling ourselves about the we can see by the original Hebrew text
sbi
different traditions,
that i(^
—
68
The
3">63i.
first
first-
more correct 5. There are two Aramaic Hebrew root npb (i) "la'i when
is
Verbs corresponding
to the
speaking of to lead from one place to another (2) 303 simply
nn*!
14,
in
21
Again
"nm.
but in
all
it
means
B
n3"'63"^,
D i)
13,
the
MSS. here
67
B
24,
Here
and
But some confusion
marry.
Aramaic
the use of these two
30, 9
incorrect,
= to
ttnrx
to take, or with
noticeable
to B.,
9 B.
hence
marry,
A,
C,
and
Hebrew
-Iscix".
has
36^.
D C
L. here again reads
A,
"ilin,
B
D
C,
and
wrong.
is
jegen supports the former version.
This
Infinitive.
expression
15, 18
reading
Future, and therefore the manuscript
the different the
B.'s
may perhaps be
reading, though inferior,
that
is
reading appears preferable, although so great
this
17, 2 B.,
another instance
A,
C,
''"•a"'^
'p^,
of the Targumist's constant
endeavour to avoid anthropomorphic expressions; whilst translates literally.
=
this
in
D
SJ^EPX,
snsnx
The Hebrew
xs".
text
commentators have remarks passage.
ficult
Text "I
»
of the ist Person Singular
suffix
word and in xnx according to ''ra. 18, 21 B. and C (text) have xV A, B, C (margin) and read T^i^n cx^
wanting
xra
The
will
c.
1.
maritan
p.
'J-a.
suffix in
his
is
to
L.
T^i^n csi
T^i-n
simply nrnx xb cx\
make on
this
is
Hence
5
ox-
B
xb"*
nx
All the
peculiarly dif-
Luz., Pathsegen and Adler all justify B.'s (make an end with you, come to terms with
2 To this verse. 4 Sa3 Samam.iu rzr'. Dalman likewise mentions the avoidance of this grammar p. 162 "Die Form des .SiifT. der Pers. Sing.
35.
5
i
nach vokal. Auslaut soUte wohl T sein. Sie wird aber geflissentlich vermieden und bei as (und ns) durch die det. P'orm ersctzt". But he places
k:"3
weakened
under those words in which the diphthong
to a.
Thus Nra
= Ta
of.
also 'i-ys
=
•>3"""'y.i
ai Sec.
became
— you) forgive you,
you repent but
if
end with you) destroy you, repent,
is
is
33
19,
A
s^ Targum is according to B
of such an interpretation.
been noticed.
24,
1X3 of which the
62.
—
'•v.^'i'i-ii
Knin ns whilst the other versions give
We
and
B
D
has x^3^o
xrx which
inir.i-6^
have xn:n^
is
rnx'i' x-^in-ipV,
snxb" xoiT^pV.
i':5
more
A
'2t;
literal.
25, 6 B.,
r:xb x-sm-^p whilst
The Hebrew
text
is
no-ip
and most literal translation and 25, 25 supported by the authority of L. and Pathsegen.
A
fi'np 7"^!!
View more...
Comments
