MASORETIC TEXT
K ser. 1st millennium AD in Heb. communities have developed a tradition of the so-called. cantillation - a special musical and recitative reception of the biblical text. Special symbols are introduced into biblical texts, which should indicate to the reader the correct melody of cantillation and placement of pauses. They are called cantillation marks, accentuation marks, or simply accents (Hebrew “teamim”, lit. - “taste shades”, in a figurative sense - “shades of meaning”, “meanings”). The simplest system of accents appears already in manuscripts with Palestinian vowels. A more complex system is presented in Babylonian and especially in Tiberian notation.
The movement of the melody during cantillation of the biblical text should reflect the syntactic division of the verse. Therefore, biblical accents can also be considered as music. signs, and as signs encoding the syntactic structure of the text. In modern euro communities have very different traditions of music. interpretation of accents; Sephardic traditions were influenced by the East. music, in Ashkenazi - Western. Restore music interpretation of biblical accents during the time of the Tiberian Masoretes is hardly possible.
As for the Masoretic accentuation as a system encoding the syntactic structure of the text, it (at least in the Tiberian version and in the advanced versions of the Babylonian notation) is a unique device for the Middle Ages for the syntactic analysis of the text, in many ways anticipating the syntactic concepts of the 20th century. (eg Noam Chomsky's grammar of immediate constituents).
Of utmost importance for understanding Masoretic accentuation is the division of accents into dividing (marking the last word of the rhythmic group) and connecting (marking words within the rhythmic group).
I. Formation of a system of accents. Palestinian accentuation system. According to Dotan (2007. P. 627), the Masoretes began to designate the melody (modulation) of the biblical text earlier than the vowel. The evidence, according to Dothan, is that the oldest Palestinian notation uses a simple dot as the main accent mark, while the vowel marks are more complex.
The end of a verse in Palestinian notation, as in Tiberian notation, is indicated by 2 dots (). The dot under the word in Palestinian accentuation corresponds to the main dividing accents of the Tiberian system, i.e., it marks the most important boundaries between rhythmic units in the verse. To indicate less significant boundaries between rhythmic units, a dot is used above the word; minor boundaries between rhythmic units can be indicated by more complex graphemes, sometimes reminiscent of Tiberias icons. There is no established repertoire of icons; different handwritten fragments are accented according to different rules. Unlike the Tiberian system, accents mark the entire word, not the stressed syllable.
A dot or slash between words can correspond to a Tiberian makkeʹf (connecting a proclitic with a subsequent word) or a Tiberian connective accent; Apparently, in the Palestinian system these 2 cases were not different.
In the few Palestinian manuscripts of the three “poetic” books—Psalms, Proverbs, and Job—one can see a repertoire of dividing marks that is different from the rest of the (“prose”) books. This feature makes the Palestinian accentuation similar to the Tiberian accent.
II. The Babylonian accentuation system is more developed. Unlike the Palestinian and Tiberian systems, the boundary of verses in this system is marked with an icon similar to a circle (◯). Accent icons are usually small letters above the line (= the first letters of the accent names). Scientists have identified several stages in the evolution of the Babylonian accentuation system; The work of A. Spanier (Spanier. 1927) remains of particular importance. Initially, accents, as in the Palestinian system, marked the entire word as a whole; later, accent marks began to be placed on the stressed syllable. The basic principle of dividing the text by dividing accents (the principle of consistent dichotomy) coincides with those of Tiberias; For the most part, the names of the accents also coincide (as can be seen from their abbreviated names above the line). The fundamental difference from the Tiberian system is the absence of connecting accents. The repertoire of accents for the 3 “poetic” books is the same as for the 21 “prose” books.
III. The Tiberian system of accentuation is distinguished by the most extensive repertoire of icons. Since all editions of the Hebrew Bible use the Tiberian accentuation, it is the best studied and described; even studies focusing on the more archaic systems (Palestinian and Babylonian) tend to use the Tiberian system as a point of reference.
1. Accent badges. Below are the disjunctive and conjunctive accents used in the “prose” books (the so-called book 21 accents, or “prose” accents), then the disjunctive and conjunctive accents used in the 3 “poetic” books (the so-called Job accents, Proverbs, Psalms, or “poetic” accents). Division of the text of the 24 books of Hebrews. canon into “poetic” and “prosaic” does not quite coincide with how modern ones are carried out. explore the boundary between poetry and prose in the Bible. All books, except the books of Job, Proverbs and Psalms, with t.zr. systems of accentuation are considered "prosaic" (including such apparently poetic passages as the Song of Deborah from the Book of Judges or the Song of Miriam from the Book of Exodus). Proverbs and Psalms are fully marked with “poetic” accents. In the Book of Job, “prosaic” accents mark the prologues and epilogue, and “poetic” accents mark the main part of the book.
The names are given in Russian. transliterations (alternative names in square brackets). Postp mark. in the table means that the accent symbol is placed at the last letter of the word, regardless of the place of stress; mark prep. means that the accent symbol is placed at the 1st letter of the word, regardless of the place of stress; That. outwardly similar graphemes are distinguished. To show exactly how the accent marks are positioned in relation to the letter, the location of the letter is indicated by a dotted circle. Some dividing accents differ from graphically similar connecting accents by placing a special dividing line after the word, which is externally similar to the “apiary” sign. To illustrate exactly how ordinary, postpositive and prepositive accents are placed in a word, the list of “prosaic” accents is provided with examples.
The classification of dividing accents by rank dates back to the 17th century. (first in the work of S. Bohl (Bohl. 1636)). By the 19th century it became generally accepted and was reflected, for example, in most lifetime publications, the most authoritative for the 19th century. Grammar of the Hebrew language by W. Gesenius. The dividing accents, according to this classification, were divided into “emperators” (“imperatores”: “silluk” and “atnah”), “kings” (“reges”: “zakef gadol”, “zakef katon”, “segolta”, “shalshelet” ”, “tifha”), “dukes” (“duces”: “revia”, “zarqa”, “pasta”, “yetiv”, “tevir”) and “counts” (“comites”: “geresh”, “garshayim” ", "pazer", "pazer gadol", "telisha gedol", "munah legarme"). The classification assumed that the rank of an accent correlated with its “dividing power,” however, since the concept of “dividing power” could not be specified, with Ser. XIX century this classification has been the subject of criticism. W. Weeks, who developed in detail the thesis that the main principle of Masoretic accentuation is “sequential dichotomy”, and thereby laid the foundations of modern. science of accents, considered the classification of accents by rank unnecessary and “fantastic” (Wickes. 1881; Idem. 1887). In the revised edition of Gesenius's Grammar (Gesenius. 1909), it became the standard textbook on Hebrew. language in Germany and formed the basis of the most famous English-language Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Idem. 1910), this classification is characterized as follows: “... the division of dividing emphasis into “emperors, kings, dukes and counts”, which became common among Christian grammarians, was the source of various errors , it’s better to leave it alone” (Idem. 1909. S. 62; cf.: Idem. 1910. P. 59. Not. 1).
In fact, Weeks’ principle of “sequential dichotomy” and the classification of dividing accents by rank are two complementary ways of describing the same phenomenon. Yeivin in the classic “Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah” (Yeivin. 1980; especially P. 168-169) also essentially “rehabilitates” the traditional classification of accents by rank (only replacing the “feudal” terminology with “numerical”: accents of the 1st rank, 2nd rank, etc.).
The table below of “prosaic” dividing accents gives their traditions. distribution by ranks (groups) with only one difference (not counting the replacement of “feudal” terminology with “numerical”) - the accents “geresh” and “garshaim” are separated into a special group (in traditional classifications they are combined into a group with the accents “paser”, “pazer gadol”, “telisha gedol” and “munach legarme”; for more details, see: Seleznev. 2006).
The classification of “poetic” accents by rank is carried out in accordance with the same principles as the classification of “prosaic” accents.
Each accent icon must correspond to a specific melody (song). Currently These melodies vary from time to time in different communities.
2. Additional icons of the Tiberian accentuation system. When describing Tiberias accentuation, the “Makkef” and “Meteg” icons are usually considered along with accent badges.
In the flow of speech, words can lose their independent stress and, turning into a proclitic, merge into one phonetic word with the following one. In the Tiberias manuscripts of the Bible, this is conveyed by the “makkef” icon (looks like a horizontal dash - ⎺), for example. - “above the face” (Genesis 1.2). So in MT chains of 3 or more words connected by “makkef” can be formed, for example. - “everything-he-had” (Genesis 25.5).
The article, as well as certain particles, conjunctions and prepositions () always merge into one phonetic word with the following one. This is reflected graphically by the fact that they are always written as one word, and “makkef” is not included.
“Meteg” (another name is “gaia”) looks like a vertical dash under the letter -. He emphasizes the need to carefully pronounce the corresponding unstressed vowel (with a stressed vowel, “meteg” is not placed). Very often this icon marks a short or long vowel before a syllable with a super-short vowel (for example, Gen. 1.3); sometimes - an ultra-short vowel, which should not be dropped during pronunciation. Often "meteg" marks a secondary stress in a word in certain positions. A detailed overview of the various "metag" functions is given in standard grammars. Some grammarians call this symbol either “meteg” or “gaia”, depending on its function, but an attempt to meaningfully contrast these two terms can hardly be called successful.
Graphically, “meteg” looks the same as “silluk”, but it is impossible to confuse these icons, since “silluk” always appears on the stressed syllable of the last word of the verse.
In some cases, the secondary stress can be about, but full-fledged accents, for example. "munakh" accent, "makkel" accent (similar in shape to the "pasta" accent), or "mayela" accent (similar in shape to the "tifha" accent).
Sometimes, along with accents, the “apiary” icon (vertical dash - l), which has a number of different meanings, is also considered: for example, it separates identical or similar words standing in a row, contrasting words (“God” and “sinner”), words, of which the 1st letter ends with the same letter with which the 2nd word begins, etc. “Apiary” should not be confused with a vertical line that is part of the graphically complex accents “shalshelet”, “munakh” legarme", "makhpah legarme", "azla legarme". Perhaps the placement of “apiary” in biblical texts began even before the systems of accentuation and vocalization were formed. The Masoretic tracts provide lists of places where “apiaries” are found in the Bible (about 400 in total).
3. Laws of Masoretic accentuation. Despite the fact that certain aspects of accentuation were discussed in the Middle Ages. Masoretic treatises, the principles of emphasizing were not explicitly formulated in them. The reconstruction of the rules and principles of Masoretic accentuation is the result of research by Hebraists of the New Age.
The principle of consistent dichotomy (that is, the consistent division of a biblical verse into two) was undoubtedly the main principle of Tiberias accentuation. It was first formulated explicitly in the 17th century. (Florinus. 1667). In the 19th century The works of Wickes (Wickes. 1881; Idem. 1887) were dedicated to him, which formed the basis for the subsequent study of Masoretic accentuation.
According to the principle of sequential dichotomy, a biblical verse as a rhythmic unit is divided into 2 smaller rhythmic units - 2 hemistiches; each hemistich is divided into 2 halves (rhythmic units of a lower level); each of the 2 halves - into 2 more halves (rhythmic units of the next level) and so on until the entire verse is broken down into elementary rhythmic units. If the verse is short, then the consistent dichotomy is brought to the level of words. In a verse of medium length, the sequential dichotomy continues until it is broken down into elementary rhythmic units of 1-2 phonetic words in length. Long poems can include elementary rhythmic units - 3 or more phonetic words long. The place in the text where a particular rhythmic unit is divided into two depends on its syntactic structure.
Each division implies a certain logical “pause” between the halves; the word preceding this pause (i.e., the last word of the rhythmic unit) is marked with a dividing accent. Each phonetic word that is not marked with a dividing accent (i.e., located within an elementary rhythmic unit of several words) is marked with a connecting accent.
Title page of the Bomberg Bible (Venezia, 1525)
Title page of the Bomberg Bible (Venezia, 1525)
The end of the verse is marked with the accent "silluk" ("zero rank"). The end of the 1st hemistich in prose is marked with the accent “atnakh” (“zero” rank). The rules for placing accents during further division of the text can be generalized in the following form: when a rhythmic unit, the end of which is marked with an accent of the nth rank, is divided in two, then the end of the 1st half is marked with an accent of the n+1st rank.
The choice of a specific accent depends on a number of parameters, including the length of the verse, the number of dichotomies in the verse, etc. So, for example, the choice of an accent of the 1st rank in prose texts is regulated by the following rules. In a series of dichotomies marked with an accent of the 1st rank, the last one is always marked with the accent “tifha”, the rest, as a rule, with the accent “zakef katon” (if a rhythmic unit consisting of more than one phonetic word is marked) or “zakef gadol” ( if a rhythmic unit consisting of one phonetic word is marked). When dividing the 1st hemistich in particularly long verses, the 1st dichotomy of the 1st rank can be marked with the accent “segolta” (if a rhythmic unit consisting of more than one phonetic word is marked) or “shalshelet” (if a rhythmic unit consisting of one phonetic word). Similar rules exist regarding the use of all other accents. Thus, for the structure of dichotomies (that is, ultimately for the syntactic analysis of the verse), it is not the choice of a particular accent that is important, but only its rank.
The use of accents can be illustrated by the example of the verse Genesis 1. 2. In the table below, each elementary rhythmic group begins on a new line. In the right column is the Hebrew. text, on the left - his Russian. translation, in the middle column - the names and ranks of accents marking the end of the rhythmic unit. The words that make up the Hebrew text, a single phonetic word, in Russian. in translation they are connected to each other by a hyphen.
In accordance with the stated rules, the last word of the verse as a whole is marked with the accent “silluk”, and the last word of the 1st hemistich is marked with the accent “atnakh”.
The accentuation division of the 1st hemistich includes 3 stages.
1. The hemistich is divided into 2 sentences. Since the end of the hemistich is marked with the accent “atnakh” of “zero rank”, the end of the 1st sentence is marked with the accent “zakef katon” of the 1st rank.
In the right column of the table below, the division of the hemistich into its component parts is graphically depicted as the division of the rightmost bracket into brackets of the 2nd (left) row.
2. Both sentences are divided into a subject group and a predicate group. Since the end of the 2nd sentence is marked with the "zero rank" accent "atnah", the end of the 1st half of this sentence is marked with the "tifha" accent of the 1st rank. Since the end of the 1st sentence is marked with the accent “zakef katon” of the 1st rank, the end of the 1st half of this sentence is marked with the accent “revia” of the 2nd rank.
In the right column of the table below, the 2nd step of the sequential dichotomy corresponds to the division of the 2nd row brackets on the right into the 3rd row brackets on the right.
3. The predicate of the 1st sentence is divided into 2 homogeneous members (“it was formless”, “and-empty”). Since the end of the broken phrase is marked with the accent “zakef katon” of the 1st rank, the 1st part is marked with the accent “pasta” of the 2nd rank.
In the right column of the table, the 3rd step of a sequential dichotomy is reflected by the appearance of the 4th row of brackets on the right.
The accentuation division of the 2nd hemistich includes 2 stages.
1. Division into a subject group and a predicate group. Since the end of the hemistich is marked with a silluk accent (a “zero rank” accent), the end of the 1st half of this sentence is marked with a 1st rank “zakef katon” accent. 2. Division of the predicate group into the predicate itself and the adverbial adverb. Since the end of the broken phrase is marked with the accent “silluk” (accent of “zero rank”), the 1st part is marked with the accent “zakef katon” of 1st rank. It should be noted that the ranks of accents do not necessarily correlate with the steps of a sequential dichotomy. In accordance with the above rules, such a correlation occurs if the division of a rhythmic unit goes from the end to the beginning of the hemistich; cf.: Gen. 2. 12a.
The first dichotomy separates the subject group (“and-gold of that land”) from the predicate (“good”); The 2nd divides the group of the subject into the actual subject (“gold”) and the definition of it (“that land”).
In accordance with the general principles of placing accents, the dichotomy of the 1st step is marked with an accent of the 1st rank, and the dichotomy of the 2nd step is marked with an accent of the 2nd rank.
A different picture is observed if the division of the rhythmic unit goes from the beginning to the end of the hemistich. Thus, in Gen. 1.2b both dichotomies will be marked by accents of the same rank.
This example demonstrates an important rule: if there is a series of dichotomies marked by accents of the same rank, then the closer one or another dichotomy is to the beginning of the verse, the “more important” it is (that is, it relates to an earlier step of the dichotomy). This, however, is not a separate rule, but merely a logical consequence of the principle of sequential dichotomy, as formulated above.
4. Masoretic accentuation as a device for syntactic text analysis is a unique type of text analysis for the Middle Ages. But its principles do not always coincide with those accepted in Europe. grammars. Sometimes (as in the examples above) syntactic units are naturally divided into two. But often the natural breakdown of a syntactic unit involves division into a larger number of parts: for example, a sentence may include a predicate group, a subject group and several. additions. (It should be noted, however, that a striking analogue of the Masoretic ideas about language, as far as they can be reconstructed, is Chomsky’s “grammar of immediate constituents,” also based on the principle of “sequential dichotomy.”)
In the case when a syntactic unit of MT is divided into 3 or more parts, the following rule applies: first, the last part is separated through dichotomy, then the penultimate, etc. (from end to beginning). An example is Gen. 2.8a.
The first dichotomy isolates the last member (adverbial), the 2nd dichotomy isolates the penultimate member (direct object), the 3rd dichotomy isolates the subject. We can call these dichotomies homogeneous, since from the point of view. syntax, they all perform the same function: they divide the sentence into members that make it up. In accordance with the basic rules of Masoretic accentuation, homogeneous dichotomies are marked by a kind of “descending ladder” of accents: first the accent of the 3rd rank, then the 2nd and 1st. This “descending ladder” pattern is observed when we are faced with homogeneous dichotomies.
For example, the sequence of 4 sentences in Gen. 27.4a is interpreted in a similar way.
The first dichotomy separates the last sentence from a series of 4 sentences, the second - the penultimate, the third - the 3rd from the end.
A comparison of these 2 examples shows that accentuation is influenced not by the nature of syntactic connections between words, but only by the hierarchy of dichotomies. The division of a hemistich into 4 sentences and a sentence into 4 parts is formed almost identically (the “Garshaim” accent can be considered a musical variant of the “Geresh” accent).
Masoretic notation does not allow us to understand where “homogeneous” dichotomies occur and where they do not. This can be demonstrated by comparing the examples already given with Gen. 26. 11b.
The first dichotomy divides the hemistich into a subordinate clause and a main clause. The remaining dichotomies divide the subordinate clause into clause members.
The division of rhythmic units usually corresponds to the syntactic structure of the text. However, some features of how Masoretic accentuation reflects the syntactic structure of the text should be taken into account.
(1) Prepositions and conjunctions usually merge with the following word into an elementary rhythmic unit (very often - generally into one phonetic word, which is reflected in writing with the “makkef” symbol). This happens, in particular, when with t.zr. In syntax, a preposition or conjunction refers not only to the word following it, but to the entire (sometimes quite long) syntactic unit.
(2) Verb forms, according to Masoretic accentuation, usually merge with the subsequent word into one elementary rhythmic unit (occasionally into one phonetic word) - the “predicative core” of the sentence.
Using the example of Gen. 1.20a, you can see this rule in action twice: in the 1st and 2nd rows of the table below.
The main dichotomy divides the hemistich into introductory words (“And God said”) and the direct speech of God (the phrase “let the water bring forth living creatures with reptiles”). At the next step, this phrase is divided into a “predicative core” (predicate + subject) and an object. The complement, in turn, is divided into the top of the noun phrase (“reptiles”) and the appendix (“living creatures”). The predicative core forms an elementary (hereinafter indivisible) rhythmic unit.
(3) Sentences consisting of 2 phonetic words are, as a rule, interpreted as an elementary (i.e., further indivisible) rhythmic group.
(4) In some cases, one of the members of the sentence “stands apart”, as if separating from the sentence. Most often this happens with nominal groups in the syntactic role of casus pendens (the so-called hanging case - a nominal group that has undergone topicalization) and other members of the sentence, which are placed in preposition in relation to the verbal predicate. An example is Gen. 3. 12b.
A major dichotomy separates the noun phrase in the casus pendens ("The wife you gave me") from the remainder of the hemistich. At the next step, the attributive clause (“which you gave to me”) is isolated from this noun phrase. The rest of the hemistich is divided into 2 composed sentences (“she gave me from the tree”, “and I ate”). The last step of the sequential dichotomy isolates in 1 of these 2 sentences the subject, which is in preposition to the verbal predicate.
5. Accentuation and biblical exegesis. In a number of cases, when the Hebrew text can be understood in different ways, the accentuation shows exactly how the Masoretes interpreted it. An example is Ezekiel 1.11a.
This passage describes the cherubim as the prophet saw them. Ezekiel when God appeared to him. The first dichotomy breaks the hemistich into two essentially denominative sentences: one about faces (“And they have faces”), the other about wings (“And their wings are divided at the top”). Thus, “separation” concerns only the wings. Without taking into account accentuation, other interpretations are possible, for example. the one reflected in the Synodal translation: “And their faces and their wings from above were divided” (“separation” in this interpretation applies to both faces and wings). It is the Masoretic accentuation that the medieval Jewish scholars Rashi and Radak refer to in their comments on this passage (Yeivin. 1980. P. 220).
The Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible: Different Ages, Different Worlds
The Masoretic Text and the Septuagint do not diverge from each other in the same way that, say, the Alexandrian and Codex Sinaiticus diverge from each other. They belong to different eras, different worlds.
The chief virtue of the Hebrew Old Testament (as far as we can reconstruct it) is that it is original. This is a voice from the world in which the Old Testament was written. The Masoretic text, for all its differences with the protograph, retains its ancient Near Eastern flavor.
The main advantage of the Greek Old Testament is not that it can serve as a source for editing the Hebrew text in several dozen or even hundreds of places. The Greek Bible (more precisely, Greek Bibles, if we take into account the variability of the Greek tradition) is evidence of how the Bible sounded and was understood in the Hellenistic-Roman world, in the era of the New Testament. This is the first Bible of the Christian Church, the Bible of the Fathers, the Bible of our liturgy.
Each of these two textual traditions is important to us in its own way, and this duality is rooted in the dual nature of the Old Testament itself in the Christian canon. On the one hand, the Old Testament is a Hebrew text that came to us from the world of the ancient Near East, pre-Christian, even pre-Hellenistic. On the other hand, the same Old Testament is part of the Christian Holy Scripture.
From this point of view, even those readings of the Greek Bible that are the result of cultural or theological editing by translators are still valuable and interesting for us.
The principle “the earlier, the more important,” characteristic of Protestant textual criticism, is by no means indisputable for the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. The Creed dates back to the 4th century; this does not bother anyone in the Orthodox Church, and it does not occur to anyone to “defend” the Creed by trying to prove that its author is Jesus Himself. The text of the Creed is later than the confession of faith of the Ante-Nicene fathers. What of this? Our religious tradition lives in time. And Scripture lives in time.
Our faith in its religious depth goes beyond the boundaries of history. But its verbal expression lives in history. A theologian could speak in this case about the divine-human nature of Scripture and the Church, draw analogies with Christological dogmas... But I am not a theologian, but a philologist.
