Masoretic text

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Codex Aleppo with Masoretic puncturing, ~ 920

The Masoretic Text (from Hebrew מסורה masora : "tradition"; abbreviated M or ?, MT or MasT) is a Hebrew text version of the Tanach , the Hebrew Bible. It is the result of the strictly regulated processing of older biblical manuscripts around the years 700 to 1000 by the Masoretes (punctuators, Nakdanim) . These Jewish scribes vocalized the consonant text fixed since the beginning of the 2nd century, marked variants, other readings, parallel passages and suspected errors with special characters, which are summarized as the Masora (spelling also Massora ) and which can be understood as text-critical commentary.

Of the various Masora systems, that of the Ben-Ascher family from Tiberias prevailed until the 11th century . The Codex of Aleppo (around 920) comes from her, which was the oldest completely preserved manuscript of the Tanach until it was damaged in 1947. The oldest, still fully preserved manuscript of the Masoretic text is the Codex Leningradensis from the year 1008. These two codices form the basis of all current scientific editions of the Hebrew Bible text.

The Tiberian-Masoretic text has been considered the biblical original text since the Renaissance . This assumption has been partially invalidated by the discovery of Bible manuscripts up to 1,100 years older under the Dead Sea Scrolls and elsewhere. At the same time, however, these findings confirmed that the Masoretic text for most of the Tanakh books is based on early Jewish biblical tradition and that it preserves it with astonishing accuracy.

The Masoretes

Two medieval groups of Jewish copyists and editors of Bible manuscripts are called Masoretes: on the one hand scribes from the Babylonian diaspora (eastern Masoretes), on the other hand rabbis from Galilee (western Masoretes).

The eastern Masoretes were the successors of learned Jews who had established influential teaching houses in Mesopotamia 100 years ago: especially in Sura , Nehardea (up to 259) and Pumbedita . They were close to the Karaites , who rejected the rabbinical tradition of interpretation gathered in the Mishnah and Talmud and only accepted the Tanakh itself as sacred scripture . They spread from Babylonia in the Mediterranean area from the 8th century and also gained influence in Palestine.

The two families Ben Ascher and Ben Naftali from Tiberias became particularly well-known among the western Masoretes . Between 780 and 930 they developed their own system to check the Bible text that had come down to them, to protect it against transcription errors, to determine its pronunciation and to protect it from arbitrary interference. This system became predominant in Europe.

Although the ben Naftali family's type of puncture appears to be more advanced, with the support of Maimonides that of the ben Ascher family prevailed in Europe from the 11th century. Her most important relatives included Ascher the Old or the Great, his son Nehemiah, his grandsons Ascher ben Nehemiah and Moses ben Ascher, and especially his great-grandson Aaron ben Moshe ben Ascher .


Canonization of the Tanakh

The Masoretes had before them the canon of the Hebrew Tanakh, which had finally determined the scope, sequence and revelatory theological weighting of the biblical books. The canonization of the Torah was already around 400 BC. The Nebi'im ( books of prophets) around 200 BC. Completed. The book of Jesus Sirach continued around 190 BC. A three-part Bible already preceded it, although the exact scope of the third part, the Ketuvim ("Scriptures"), is unclear. The 132 BC The Greek prologue added to it assumes the Greek translation of the Torah, which has been used since 250 BC. The Septuagint created by Jews had begun.

After the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, the common Bible became all the more important as the basis for all directions of Judaism. Since the Christians also referred to the Jewish holy scriptures at the same time, the rabbis finally decided around 100 that only Hebrew scriptures should belong to the Bible canon. Later writings in Greek or Aramaic , including those that had already been partially included in the Septuagint canon, were now excluded.

Fixation of the consonant text

The scribes (rabbis) took over the leadership and restoration of Judaism. Among them, the exegetical method of Rabbi Akiba , who had meticulously studied the Hebrew scriptures and was a staunch opponent of Christianity, gained great influence: every letter, every word order and every morpheme of the Bible text was significant for his interpretation . However, the exact results of Akiba's work are no longer available today.

This, as well as the delimitation from the biblical exegesis of other groups, including the Christians, required a fixation of the consonant text. This was the job of the so-called Sofrim , who copied Bible manuscripts. From then on the consonant text was no longer changed; deviating versions were either corrected according to precise regulations or solemnly buried as unusable. The main concern was to protect the revelation documents from arbitrary manipulation: “Masoraet is a fence for the Torah” (Akiba, approx. 135).

From the consonant text, which has been fixed since 100, only fragments and individual quotations from rabbinical literature are known today. Which text versions of the Bible were available to the Sofrim, which they favored and which criteria they used to determine the valid set of sentences, words and letters can only be roughly deduced by comparing the Masoretic text with different Bible translations of the time and older Hebrew Bible manuscripts. This shows their tendency to push back versions with a popular and simplistic ("vulgar") language in favor of differentiated and ancient Hebrew language. Aramaic words and passages have been replaced with more original Hebrew text versions.

This led to the fact that from now on only one of the previously many text versions of biblical manuscripts was copied and all others were displaced. However, this also made the Hebrew Bible text almost untranslatable. The Jewish revisions of the Septuagint that had taken place up to 200 were later rejected and forgotten. At the same time, knowledge about the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew was increasingly lost.

This so-called proto- or pre-Masoretic text was then also found by the Masoretes and, for their part, passed down very precisely over the centuries.

The Masora

Masora is the term used to summarize all the signs and notes that the Masorae added to the traditional consonant text. The masora marginalis on the surrounding margins of the text columns consists of annotations on the side margins (Masora parva) and on the upper and lower margins (Masora magna) . Further notes can be found at the beginning and end of a book (Masora finalis) . The Masora contains a lot of textual observations and useful information. She marks z. B. Rare words or certain word forms that only exist once, refer to parallels and designate the middle word of a section. The masora can be used like a concordance or a commentary. However, the Masora works with many abbreviations and with Aramaic terms, so that the use requires intensive training.


The Hebrew consonant text remained fairly constant in the older Bible manuscripts, but contained hardly any references to its pronunciation, so that letters ( matres lectionis ) gradually used as vowels grew. This happened inconsistently and unsystematically and therefore led to many spelling variants, transcription errors and ambiguous readings. Fewer and fewer readers were also familiar with the pronunciation of the Hebrew consonant text.

The Masoretes were faced with the task of preserving the oral reading of their templates, of standardizing and eliminating ambiguities without changing the stock of letters. To do this, they noted Teamim - dots and lines - above (supralinear) and below (infralinear) the consonant.

A distinction is made between the supralinear Babylonian and Palestinian from the infralinear Tiberian vocalization system. This finally prevailed. With him, the grammar of Biblical Hebrew was standardized and established. This was controversial then and is still partly controversial today, since the living Hebrew colloquial language had already moved quite far away from the biblical Hebrew up to the Masoretic vocalization.


The Masoretes closed sections of meaning (Paraschot) with an empty line after the last word, before the following section began with a new line. They subdivided these units again with up to nine letters wide spaces between words or sentences. In doing so, they followed old, Hebrew-Aramaic and non-biblical Greek tradition.

The division presupposes conscious exegesis and reflects this. In the Torah, new sections usually coincide with the beginning of literal speeches from God. Apart from that, the Masoretic classification differs by around 20% from older manuscripts, and also slightly from one another. Today's editions follow a treatise by Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, II. Hilchot Sefer Torah, 8) .

Parashots were never shorter than three verses, as the Talmud required a minimum length for reading practice in the synagogue . The Masoretes marked the end of verses with an accent (Silluq) . But neither did they number the verses or chapters.

The division of chapters, still without counting, was started by the English bishop Stephan Langton in the 13th century. He summarized several Masoretic Parashot into chapters. The beginnings of these divide sections of meaning at some points in the Tanakh: Thus the first account of creation Gen 1 actually ends in Gen 2,4; Ex 21.37 belongs to Ex 22.1–3; the Moserede Dtn 5 already begins in Dtn 4.44; Deut 11: 31f belongs to Deut 12; Dtn 16.21 to 17.1 and others.

In 35 places, noted in the marginal Masora to Gen 35:22, the Masoretes divided the text not at the end but in the middle of a verse (Pisqah Be'emsa Pasuq) . In doing so, they indicated a content break at which the reader should pause. Later these places were also marked with a Silluq . These interruptions can be found in two thirds of all cases in the Samuel books, so that there is no uniform exegesis of the Tanakh here.


Using up to 48 different characters ( Teamim ) , the Masoretes gave the readers hints about the speech melody of a verse, stresses within a word and syntactic relationships between words. Here too there was a Babylonian, Palestinian, and Tiberian system. In the latter, several traditions co-existed and special systems for the Psalms , the Book of Job and the Book of Proverbs .

Separating accents were divided into four groups after the pause ("Emperors, Kings, Dukes, Counts"), roughly analogous to today's punctuation marks, dots with hyphens, dots, semicolons, commas. Connecting accents also followed a stereotypical sequence.

As in the ancient and rabbinical tradition, the stresses and pauses clarified the references and statements and were therefore expressions of exegetical judgments. In some cases, these differed so greatly from one another and from older Bible manuscripts that other statements result. Later exegetical comments were mostly based on the Tiberian accent system.

Puncta extraordinaria

In 15 places in the Tanakh, ten of them in the Torah, the Masoretes noted special points above individual letters, once (Ps 27:13) below. These points appear three times ( Gen 33.4  EU ; Num 3.39  EU : “and Aaron”; Isa 44.9  EU ) above each letter of a word. All 15 places were noted in the Masora magna at Num 3.39.

In one of Qumran's manuscripts, one of these marked words was raised a little above the line. It is missing in later pre-Masoretic manuscripts; the letters dotted by the Masoretes are also missing in some of the more recent manuscripts. From this one concludes that the dots should mark letters that were originally to be left out for subsequent scribes.

The rabbis judged some of these words to be inappropriate or incorrect. However, the Masoretes did not dare to intervene in the traditional text and instead handed down the points as marks of dubious passages. The fact that they agree in all their manuscripts shows the unity among them and was previously interpreted as an indication that they preserved and handed down the biblical original text.

Well inversum

Some text sections bracketed the Masoretes in front and behind with an inverted (inverse) letter Nun . In doing so, they followed a Greek scribing practice that used an inverted sigma to mark places that were considered misplaced. In Masoretic manuscripts, however, this only applies to the “loading claims” in Num 10.35f; Ps 107: 23-28 and 21-26, 40; in some also Gen 11,32.

The Talmud passed on exegetical discussions about Num 10.35f: for some rabbis Num 11.1f should be its place. These concerns are supported by corresponding variants in old manuscripts. Similar marks can be found in fragments from Qumran (1QM III, 1; 1QS VII, 8).

Masora parva

The masora parva or marginal masora on the side margins of each column of text indicates:

  • the frequency of special spellings and vocalizations. Only once occurring expressions or curiosities were noted with “nowhere else”, rare variants were indicated;
  • other readings (qere) for the written (ketib) ;
  • Warnings against wrong readings and indication of the actually expected word form (sebirin) ;
  • Lists for puncta ordinaria. and now inversa ;
  • Landmarks for checking correct transcripts, such as indicating the shortest or middle verse of a section, book, or the entire Torah.
  • The marginal masora also has roughly the function of a concordance.

Ketib and Qere

Between 848 and 1566 Masoretic marginal notes indicate that the reader should read the consonant text ( Ketib , Aramaicכְּתִיב kətiv "written") by other words ( Qere , Aramaicקְרֵי qəre “Read!”). When it came to pronunciation, the ketib was either left unvocalized or vocalized with the vowels of the Qere noted in the margin . Usually this concerned words with almost the same consonants, such as matres lectionis to be omitted or supplemented , the spelling of which is also known from other manuscripts.

A few times the comment qəre wəla 'k Einigetiv indicates a non-existent, missing additional word whose vowels without consonants were then added in the text. Conversely, the remark kətiv wəla 'qəre calls for disregarding an existing word. This then remained unfocalized.

Most of the Qere notes were probably first non-binding correction notes based on variants that the Masoretes found in other manuscripts or biblical passages. A text from the Chronicle agrees with the Qere to an identical, earlier Samuel text : The Masoretes may have suggested the Chronicle version for the Samuel version. The respective Qere can reflect the most common variant found, since only one Qere is suggested for a ketib . This would also explain that not all Qere comments fit better into the context than the original wording and do not displace it.

Later, however , Qere instructions were taken as mandatory correction instructions, so that some manuscripts replaced the ketib with them. However, this happened inconsistently, so that some Ketib passages in the same manuscript were not replaced. Some manuscripts also gave the Qere of other manuscripts as Ketib and vice versa.

Some reading suggestions should soften drastic, vulgar expressions with euphemisms , as already in the Talmud for Dtn 28.27  EU (“ulcers” instead of “hemorrhoids”) or Dtn 28.30  EU (“lying with her” instead of “enjoying them”) and similar passages were discussed. A permanent replacement word was at God's name YHWH calls (so-called "Qere Perpetuum"), the single with the vowels of the Aramaic שְׁמָא - Hebrew Hashem ( "the Name"), but alternatively with the vowels of Elohim , or those of Adonai vocalized has been. This erroneously resulted in the wrong reading of Jehovah .


In 70 to 200 cases the Masoretes warned the reader with the formula “it was wrongly suggested” (sebirin) against reading a word in the text differently than it was there. This referred to passages that might appear incomprehensible in the context but were considered correct by them. Unlike the Qere proposals, however , the Sebirin words remained non-binding opinions. It has not been proven whether they go back to Qere words in other manuscripts that were judged to be incorrect .

Masora magna

The Masora magna lists all other references for special expressions, word sequences or peculiarities in the Tanach, the frequency of which the Masora parva indicates. The Masoretes also differentiated between synonymous expressions (e.g. "House of Israel" and "Children of Israel") and listed names without additions separately from the same names with additions. In doing so, they followed the rabbinical exegesis of interpreting Bible passages with parallel passages, and encouraged them. This is considered the beginning of a comprehensive Bible concordance .

In six to 18 places throughout the Tanach, mostly listed at Ex 15.7, the Masora magna listed "Corrections of the scribes" (tiqqune soferim) : words that still appeared in older, unimproved documents, but were left out by their predecessors or themselves were.

Masora finalis

At the beginning and / or end of a book, Masoretic manuscripts offer sometimes extensive lists, for example for “open” (parashes) and “closed” (verses) classifications, for the differences in punctuation between Ben Naftali and Ben Ascher and the middle verses , Words and middle letters of each book. The Soferim had already started counting words . The Masoretes expanded and standardized these in order to check the accuracy of their copies and to oblige future generations to use them. The system used also makes it possible to find out where in the text a possible error is to be found.

The Second Rabbinical Bible of 1524 expanded this final Masora to include further lists for variants, including those from non-Masoretic sources, and also stated the number of letters in each book in order to prevent even individual letters from being lost or inserted. This is considered to be the early forerunner of the checksums used in computer science .

Preserved manuscripts

Over 6000 Hebrew Bible manuscripts are assigned to the protomasoretic and masoretic tradition. About 2700 of them are dated and were made before 1540. These include six well-known codices from the 10th, eight from the 11th and 27 from the 12th century.

The oldest surviving codices of the Tanach come from the last two generations of the Ben Ascher family: In 895, Mosche ben Ascher wrote and dotted the Codex Cairensis (also: Cairo Prophet's Code ) after the final colophon . It includes the Nevi'im , i.e. the books from Joshua to Malachi. However, if one follows the traditional lists of the differences between the two Masorete families, the vocalization is closer to the Ben Naftali tradition than the more recent Ben Ascher tradition.

Around 900 Sch'lomo ben Buya'a wrote the Codex of Aleppo , which Aaron ben Moshe ben Ascher dotted with particular care in 925. It was intended as a model code for further copies, should only be read out at the three highest Jewish festivals and only serve to clarify issues, not for study. About a quarter of its size was lost in 1947 in anti-Jewish riots in Aleppo . The text is based, among other things, on the Hebrew University Bible .

The Codex BM Or 4445 (approx. 900–950), written by strangers, contains large parts of the Torah. Codex C3 from a Cairo Karaite synagogue was also created in the 10th century and contains the entire Torah. It was first vocalized with the Ben Naftali system, but by Mischael ben Usiel it was completely adapted to the vowel and accent system of Ben Ascher so that he represents it exactly.

Codex Sassoon 507 , also called "Damascus Pentateuch", contains the Torah, Codex Sassoon 1053 contains the entire Tanach. Both date from the 10th century.

In 1008, Samuel ben Jacob wrote a manuscript of the whole Tanakh, which is today together with numerous other valuable manuscripts collected by Abraham Firkowitsch in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg ( Codex Petropolitanus ЕВР IB 19 A ), mostly or simply Codex Leningradensis L is called. According to a colophon, it was corrected and punctured using a handwriting by Aaron ben Moshe ben Ascher , possibly from the Codex of Aleppo . It includes all the books of the Tanakh and is therefore the oldest and best complete manuscript in the Hebrew Bible. The Biblia Hebraica published by Rudolf Kittel from the third edition as well as its successor editions, the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Biblia Hebraica Quinta, are primarily based on him .

The Second Rabbinical Bible (also called Bombergiana ), designed by Jacob Ben Chajim , was published in 1524/25 and printed by Daniel Bomberg in Venice . She printed the Masora parva and magna for the first time, as well as a targum and two rabbinical commentaries recognized by Jews at the time. This edition represented the generally accepted textus receptus hebraicus , which became the basis of most other Hebrew Bible editions by Jewish and Christian editors, including the first two editions of the BHK in the 20th century.

The various manuscripts and printed editions of the Masoretic tradition, despite some deviations in the punctuation and in the marginal Masora, have only minimal deviations in the consonant text, not a single one that noticeably changes the meaning of the text.

Masoretic manuals

The text observation of the Masora tradition was continuously developed in the following centuries, so that notes, punctuations and lists on the biblical text soon appeared in separate manuals.

Elijah Levita particularly described the spelling of the Masoretic text in Massoret ha-Massoret in 1538 . The largest collection Oklah we-Oklah contains 398 lists, starting with a list for consecutive doubled words, after which it is named. Based on two early modern manuscripts, it was first published in print in 1864 and reprinted in 1969 and 1975.

Since these handbooks often passed on Masora apparatuses handed down separately from the associated manuscripts and combined with other apparatuses, they became a frequent source of errors for the spelling of words in later Bible editions based on them. This is why critical editions have returned to using a single code and the associated Masora.

Christian David Ginsburg published an important compilation of the Masora of the Second Rabbinical Bible with tracts from the Masora from 1880 to 1905. The marginal masora (small Masora, Masora Parva) of the Codex Leningradensis are printed in the margin of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia , the large Masora (Masora Magna, Massorah Gedolah) stands in separate blocks around the text and was published in 1971 as a separate volume to supplement the BHS .

Relationship to other texts

A comparison with the Greek Septuagint , a collection of early Jewish translations of the books of the Hebrew Bible, which in Christianity very soon pushed the Hebrew text into the background (most of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament correspond to their version), reveals numerous small and some also theological ones significant differences.

The Biblical Scrolls from the Dead Sea partly agree with the Masoretic text, partly with the Septuagint, partly with neither of the two texts, but mostly with both. In some cases, however, they have the same reading against the Masoretic text together with the presumed original of the Septuagint. This makes it probable that the Septuagint passed on separate and partly more original Hebrew readings in these passages , and it allows the conclusion that this also applies to some of the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text for which there is no comparable material from Qumran.

The Masoretic text is the text form of the Tanach used in Judaism today . However, it is not the only canonical Hebrew Bible text, as the Samaritans know another Hebrew text form of the Torah , the so-called Samaritanus . Samaritan translations (such as the Samaritan Targum ) are therefore based on the Samaritanus, while modern Jewish translations of the Bible , such as the Buber-Rosenzweig translation , translate the Masoretic Bible text.

In Christianity , in addition to the Masoretic text, the Septuagint played and continues to play an important role. Most of the Christian Bible translations of the first centuries, for example into Coptic , Armenian or Ethiopian , are, like the Vetus Latina , subsidiary translations of the Septuagint. Most modern Christian translations, on the other hand, adhere primarily to the Masoretic text. Since the Masoretic text is the only original version of the text that includes all the books of the Old Testament - in Qumran only the book of Isaiah is completely preserved ( 1QJes a ) and the Samaritanus only concerns the Pentateuch - there is no serious alternative either. However, the translators also take other readings into account, which they consider to be more original. Some make greater use of this possibility (e.g. the standard translation ) , others to a lesser extent (e.g. the Elberfeld Bible ). Often, but not always, the deviation from the Masoretic text is pointed out in a note. In scientific commentaries (e.g. the Biblical Commentary ), on the other hand, a text that has first been developed critically is often translated, with the commentator giving an accurate account of whether he prefers a different reading than that of the masoretic text or makes a conjecture .

Editions of Masoretic Writings (selection, available online)

Masoretic Bible text

Editions of the Masoretic Text are listed here with regard to the rendering and order of the books as well as the Masoretic vocalization and cantillation symbols:

Masoretic text with Masora Parva

Issues are listed here, which also reproduce the Masoretic marginal notes:

Text of the Masora Magna

  • The Massora magna, according to the oldest prints with the addition of old manuscripts ; 1st part: The Massora in alphabetical order; Hanover 1876;
    Digital copy :
    Frensdorff 1876 .

Masoretic notations in accompanying books



  • The Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita , being an exposition of the Massoretic notes on the Hebrew Bible, or the ancient critical apparatus of the Old Testament in hebrew, with an English translation, and critical and explanatory notes, London, Longmans, 1867;
Digitized: Ginsburg, 1867: The Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita .
  • Christian David Ginsburg : The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged. London 1868 (Reprint: KTAV, The Library of Biblical Studies, New York 1975, ISBN 0-87068-020-X ).
  • Christian David Ginsburg: Introduction to the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible. With a prolegomenon by Harry M. Orlinsky: The Masoretic text: a critical evaluation. Ktav Publishing House, New York 1966, ISBN 0-87068-060-9 .
  • Israel Yeivin: Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature and the International Organization for Masoretic Studies, University of Michigan 1980, ISBN 0-89130-373-1 .
  • Shnayer Z. Leiman: The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader. The Library of Biblical studies, American Oriental Society, 1974, ISBN 0-87068-164-8 .
  • Emanuel Tov : Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Revised edition. Brill Academic Publications, 2005, ISBN 90-232-3715-3 .


  • Timothy G. Crawford, Page H. Kelley, Daniel S. Mynatt: The Masora of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Introduction and annotated glossary. German Bible Society, Stuttgart 2003, ISBN 3-438-06009-4 .
  • Paul Kahle : Masoretes of the East. The oldest dotted manuscripts of the Old Testament and the Targume. Leipzig 1913 (reprint: Olms, Hildesheim 1984/2001, ISBN 3-487-01248-0 ).
  • Paul Kahle: Masoretes of the West. Two volumes, Stuttgart 1927–1930 (reprint: Olms, Hildesheim 2005, ISBN 3-487-01815-2 ).
  • Hanna Liss : scholarly knowledge, drollery or esotericism? First reflections on the Masora of the Hebrew Bible in its different material designs in the High Middle Ages. In: Jewish Lifeworlds and Jewish Thought. Festschrift presented to Karl E. Grözinger on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Edited by Nathanael Riemer. Wiesbaden 2012, pp. 27-40.
  • Hans-Georg von Mutius : The Masoretes as text falsifiers? New reflections on a known problem in Genesis 1:20. In: Biblical Notes. 81 (1996), ISSN  0178-2967 , pp. 15-20.
  • Johann Maier : Studies on the Jewish Bible and its history (Studia Judaica 28). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin a. a. 2004, ISBN 3-11-018209-2 .
  • Emanuel Tov: The Text of the Hebrew Bible: Manual of Textual Criticism. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1997, ISBN 3-17-013503-1 .
  • Gérard E. Weil (Ed.): Massorah Gedolah iuxta codicem Leningradensem B 19 a elaboravit ediditque Gérard E. Weil. Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome 1971.

Single receipts

  1. ^ A b Frederic William Bush, David Allan Hubbard, William Sanford LaSor, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids 1996, p. 612.
  2. Emanuel Tov: The text of the Hebrew Bible. 1997, pp. 40-43.
  3. Emanuel Tov: The text of the Hebrew Bible. 1997, pp. 54-58.
  4. Emanuel Tov: The text of the Hebrew Bible. 1997, p. 44f.
  5. Emanuel Tov: The text of the Hebrew Bible. 1997, p. 43f.
  6. a b Page H. Kelley u. a .: The Masora of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Introduction and annotated glossary, Stuttgart 2003 ( ISBN 3-438-06009-4 ), 13-14.
  7. ^ Frank Matheus: Introduction to Biblical Hebrew: Study Grammar. 7th, revised edition, 2017, pp. 18, 22, 26.
  8. Emanuel Tov: The text of the Hebrew Bible. 1997, pp. 46-51.
  9. Emanuel Tov: The text of the Hebrew Bible. 1997, p. 51f.
  10. Emanuel Tov: The text of the Hebrew Bible. 1997, p. 52.
  11. ^ M. Beith-Arié: Some Technical Practices Employed in Hebrew Dated Medieval Manuscripts. Leiden 1978, p. 72.
  12. ^ Paul Kahle: The Hebrew Ben Asher Bible Manuscripts. In: Vetus Testamentum 1 (1951), pp. 161–167, here p. 167.
  13. Jordan S. Penkower: A Tenth-Century Pentateuchal MS from Jerusalem (MS C3), corrected by Mishael Ben Uzziel. In: Tarbiz. 58: 49-74 (1988).
  14. Emanuel Tov: The text of the Hebrew Bible. 1997, p. 38.
  15. ^ So in the foreword of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia .
  16. Emanuel Tov: The text of the Hebrew Bible. 1997, pp. 60f.
  17. ^ Christian David Ginsburg: The Massorah Compiled From Manuscripts, Alphabetically and Lexikally Arranged. Volume I – IV, London / Vienna 1880–1905; various reprints
  18. Gérard E. Weil (ed.): Massorah Gedolah iuxta codicem Leningradensem B 19 a elaboravit ediditque Gérard E. Weil. Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome 1971.
  19. Jason Evert: In Which Passages Does Jesus Quote the Septuagint, and Where Does the New Testament Allude to the Septuagint? , Catholic Answers.