Descripción de las tecnologías candidatas

With the exception of the few fragmentary documents men-tioned in a previous chapter (III), the Bible remains the sole source of the early Hebrew language. A great many books now lost were written during the biblical period, some fifteen of which are quoted in the Bible, such as Sefer Ha-Yashar (Joshua 10.13), Sefer Milhamot Adonai (Numbers 21.11), Sayings of the Moshlim (ibid., 27), Dibrei ha-Yamim le-Malkhei Yehudah (1 Kings 14.29), Dibrei ha-Yamim le-Malkhei Yisrael (ibid., 16.5), Dibrei Shelomoh (ibid., 11.41), Dibrei Nathan ha-Nabi and Dibrei Gad ha-Hozeh (1 Chronicles 21. 29), Midrash Iddo ha-Nabi (2 Chronicles 13.22). Other books presumably composed during the biblical period are mentioned in the Talmud. These books must have been in vogue among the people, since some of the citations from them are fragmentary and even incomprehensi-ble, as if the writer of the existing books of the Bible assumed the reader’s familiarity with the context from which these ex-cerpts were taken.

Some books written during the late biblical period disap-peared in their original Hebrew form, but survive in translation;

such are the books of the Maccabees and other books in the Apocrypha. One of these books, the Proverbs of Ben Sira, has been in part recovered in the original Hebrew from the Cairo Genizah (a repository of discarded Torah scrolls, books and papers), although some scholars question its authenticity as the original text.

It is safe to assume that the so-called nebiei ha-sheker (false prophets), some of whom are mentioned and quoted in the Bible, were literary people who wrote prophecies which were not inferior, from a literary point of view, to those included in our biblical text. But since these prophecies failed to material-ize or to coincide with the accepted ethical, political, or reli-gious standards of the authoritative Jewish leadership during the period of biblical canonization,¹ they were discarded into the limbo of spurious or “uninspired” writings. They were, there-fore, “hidden away,” that is, they were withdrawn from circula-tion and eventually disappeared. Even some of the biblical books, such as The Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, and Proverbs, were exposed to the danger of being excluded from the canon.

Similarly the book of Job was subjected to scrutiny, because Job’s religious motives had been challenged. Fortunately, the authority of some of the rabbis prevailed, so that these books were admitted into the canon and were thus saved for poster-ity. Other books, however, failed to meet the canonical stand-ards and were excluded; they were consequently lost. Who can tell how serious this loss has been to Hebrew literature and language!

The wonder, however, is not that so many of the early He-brew writings have been lost, but that so much has survived.

The Bible, it must be remembered, is a book of great antiquity:

parts of it are about thirty-five centuries old. For about three thousand years these ancient records were preserved only in manuscript form, prepared by the hands of copyists. The ma-jority of the Bible manuscripts are of the twelfth and sixteenth centuries C.E., although there is one complete Bible manuscript

dating from 1009 C.E. and another, containing the Later Proph-ets, dating from 916 C.E. (Both these manuscripts are in Lenin-grad.) References to earlier manuscripts are found in the writ-ings of medieval scholars. The earliest scrap of Bible manu-script now extant is the Nash Papyrus,² probably of the second century C.E. This bit of parchment was found in Egypt some fifty-five years ago and brought to Cambridge, England, by Mr.

Nash, whose name it bears. It contains the beginning of the Shema’(Deuteronomy 6.4–5) and the Ten Commandments in a version which is different from both that of Exodus (20. 2–

17) and the one given in Deuteronomy (5.6–18). It seems somewhat of a conglomerate of both these versions, and it resembles largely the version which served as the basis of the Septuagint.

What is remarkable is the fact that all the manuscripts, re-gardless of the long intervals separating them, are substantially alike. Even the Samaritan text, which dates back to a very early period, probably not later than the period of Ezra (fifth century B.C.E.), differs little from our text. To be sure, a number of biblical citations given in the Talmud indicate slight devia-tions from our masoretic text. Similarly, a considerable number of biblical passages are quoted in medieval Jewish literature which are at variance with those found in our text. But in many instances these deviations may be explained by the fact that the rabbis and medieval scholars often quoted from memory, as is evidenced by occasional inconsistencies in their quotations.

The divergences exhibited in the manuscripts, as well as the deviations found in the biblical quotations in the Talmud and in medieval literature, are minor and insignificant, and we may regard our masoretic text as to all intents and purposes authentic. To quote Professor W. F. Albright, “ . . . no com-parable literary legacy from the past has come down to us so faithfully recorded and so little modified by the passage of time as the Bible.”

The Rise and Purpose of the Targumim

How was this preservation of the genuine form of the bibli-cal text achieved?

After the Jews were exiled from their native soil and their Temple was destroyed (586 B.C.E.), they began to turn to the Pentateuch and to the prophetic writings for inspiration and guidance. They would frequently gather in their meeting-places, especially on holidays and festivals, as well as on the Sabbath and on Monday and Thursday mornings (market days), to hear men well-versed in the knowledge of the Torah (Pentateuch) and the prophets read and interpret the “word of God” These neighborhood meetings, or ‘edahs (congregations), which sprang up in every nook and corner, even in Jerusalem in the neighborhood of the Temple, formed the beginnings of the institution of the synagogue. Interpretations of the Torah were given in Hebrew as long as it was the spoken language. When Aramaic came into vogue, it supplanted Hebrew in the interpre-tations, since it was more readily understood by many in the audiences. Thus the Targumim (Aramaic translations) gradually evolved, such as the Targum Onkelos, Targum Yerushalmi and Targum Jonathan ben Uziel.³ All the Targumim include layers dating back to a very early period, since for a long time they, too, were preserved only in oral form, and their appearance in written form centuries later was disapproved by the rabbis. When an Aramaic translation of the book of Job was brought to the attention of Rabban Gamaliel, the Elder, he ordered it im-mured beneath a layer of stones in the Temple, in order to put it out of circulation.⁴ Even as late as the fourth century C.E., when Rabbi Samuel son of Isaac entered the synagogue and found a scribe reading from a written Targum, he criticized him on the principle of “things handed down by word of mouth must be transmitted orally, while that which is written might be written.”⁵

The oldest and most authoritative of these Targumim is the Targum of the Pentateuch ascribed in the Babylonian Talmud

to Onkelos the proselyte, who is said to have prepared his version under the supervision of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua (around the second century C.E.). Although the authenticity of this statement in the Talmud has been challenged, internal evidence does seem to point to the second century C.E. as the most likely period for the writing down or editing of this Targum.

The term targum, originally signifying a translation, took on a restricted meaning in talmudic and post-talmudic literature, and was applied exclusively to the Aramaic translation of the Bible. But the Targumim were more than mere translations;

they actually represented the traditional interpretations of the Bible in vogue during the talmudic period, reflecting the homi-letic and legal ideas as well as the folklore of that period. It was apparently in that manner that the Bible was taught and ex-pounded to the masses and to the school children in the Ara-maic vernacular most widespread during that time.

The Work of the Scribes and the Masoretes

But while the Targumim were designed to convey the mean-ing of the biblical texts, the original text of the Bible was not neglected. Indeed, it was studied, cherished and treated with great care and solicitude. The correct reading of the text claimed major attention and emphasis. This text was after all the source of Jewish inspiration, law and conduct. Any change in reading might entail serious consequences.

The men proficient in the correct reading and responsible for the preservation of the Bible were called sofrim, “scribes.”

They are already mentioned in the early books of the Bible (Judges 5.14), but in a secular sense, namely, as writing ex-perts or secretaries. It was not until the period of Jeremiah that reference is made to the sofrim as writers or interpreters of the “Law of the Lord” (Jeremiah 8.8). Their activities must have extended during the Babylonian Captivity; and they must have been given special impetus and inspiration by Ezra, who was himself a “ready scribe” (sofer mahir: Ezra

7.6), “who had set his heart to seek the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances” (ibid., 10). He was accordingly regarded by the rabbis as almost equal in rank to Moses.

The task of these scribes was not limited to the reading, investigation and interpretation of the Bible; it included also the function of copying carefully the biblical texts and of pre-serving them in their original form. They were in effect the bearers of the oral tradition of the Law, as well as the guardian of its written form.

As the Oral Law progressed and expanded, the tannaim (teachers) came upon the scene, whose function it was to study and investigate the Torah, as well as to teach the Oral Law in the advanced academies. The task of the scribes was accord-ingly restricted to copying and teaching the Scriptures in the synagogue and the elementary school, which was designated Bet- ha-Sofer (the House of the Scribe) or Bet- ha-Sefer (the House of the Book).

The scribes were expected to be thoroughly familiar with the authentic manuscripts of the Bible and to study the biblical texts in the minutest detail, even to the extent of counting the number of words and letters. This process of counting words and letters in the biblical texts was resorted to, when need arose, even in the advanced academies. To cite an example: a question was raised in the Academy as to whether the letter waw in the word iujd (Leviticus 11.42) marked the midpoint in the number of the letters in the Pentateuch. The rabbis did not move from their seats, we are told, until the matter was settled by a count of letters in the scroll of the Pentateuch which was brought in for that purpose.⁶

According to a talmudic statement,⁷ there were kept in the Temple Court three scrolls of the Torah, which are respectively designated as the me‘onah, the za’atutei and the hi’ scrolls.

One of them had the reading ma‘on (Deuteronomy 33.27) and two the reading me‘onah, “dwelling place”; one contained the reading za’atutei (Exodus 24.5) and two the reading na‘arei

“young men”; in one hi’ (in place of hu’) was found nine times, and in two, eleven times.⁸ The minority reading in all these cases was discarded, and the majority reading was adopted.

The official text may have become established after the Maccabean victory,⁹ and must have served as the model or archetype for the scribes, the copyists and the teachers. Oral tradition guarded the transmission of the scriptural words with utmost vigilance. Veritable “fences” (seyagim) were established by means of marginal notations and diacritical marks (dots), meant to ward off the slightest change or innovation in spelling which had not been sanctioned by tradition. The biblical in-junction of lo’ toseph ‘alaw (Deuteronomy 13.1), “thou shalt not add thereto,” was the guiding principle. Typical of this attitude is the admonition given by Rabbi Ishmael to Rabbi Meir, who was a scribe by profession, warning him to be very careful in his work, for the omission or the addition of a single letter might mean the destruction of the whole world.¹⁰

The three different manuscripts referred to above, each con-taining a number of variant readings, were very likely at the basis of our masoretic text, of the Samaritan Pentateuch (the text preserved by the Samaritans to this day), and of the text used by the Alexandrian translators of the entire Bible into Greek (the Septuagint). The variations found in any of these manu-scripts were caused largely by incompetent copyists and partly, too, by the ulterior motives of the sects or parties to which the copyists belonged. Since the Bible was used by all sects and parties as a source of inspiration and doctrine, the rise of vari-ous parties during the Second Commonwealth, such as the Sa-maritans, Hellenists, Sadducees and Christians, must have moti-vated numerous falsifications and corruptions in the biblical texts. This evil was doubtless disconcerting to the scribes and prompted them to redouble their zealous efforts to guard the original texts. Manuscripts were studied, compared and eval-uated. Those which were credited with some degree of authen-ticity were taken into account. Readings that were common to most of these manuscripts received the stamp of authenticity.

Variant readings were recorded in the margins. Certain expres-sions in the text which were regarded in the light of the ethical or theological standards of the times as vulgar or obscene were rendered euphemistically, a synonym or equivalent milder in tone or implication being used. Archaic formations which were no longer understood or recognized were emended. But these emendations were not incorporated in the text, since the sacred text was not to be tampered with. They were merely noted down in the margins by the technical term Kere (

hre

), “to be read” as against Ketib (

chúf

_), “what is written,” that is, the word or expression found and left in the text. Words or expressions which required special comment were provided with some device for calling the attention of the reader to them, such as dots at the top or at the bottom of a letter or a word.¹¹

The dot, because of its inconspicuous form, was apparently regarded as too “harmless” or insignificant to infringe upon the precept of lo’ toseph. In point of fact, the dot had been in use, according to Ludwig Blau, in the ancient manuscripts in the orient, as well as among the Romans. It was designed to call to the reader’s attention certain words or letters in the text which were suspected of being misplaced or extraneous. Blau sug-gests that these dots were already employed in the three Torah texts of the Temple Court, mentioned above, to indicate the suppression of discarded readings. Instead of expunging extra-neous or unacceptable readings from the sacred texts, the scribes may have resorted to the much “safer” and more reverent procedure of leaving the rejected readings in the text, but with the designation of dots above or below the readings. Since these Temple texts were obviously based on much older manu-scripts, the view of the rabbis, that these dots are traceable all the way back to Ezra, is not at all implausible. They apparently served the purpose of indicating variations in reading or in spelling, as well as of calling attention to dubious readings or spellings which lend themselves to homiletical or midrashic interpretations.

Ten places provided with such dots in the Bible are

men-tioned in the Talmud.¹² Ezra’s motive for pointing these in-stances is quaintly explained as follows: Ezra figured that in case Elijah the Prophet comes to criticize him for what he has written down, he will reply, “I have already provided these instances with dots” But if Elijah says, “Your written text is cor-rect,” the dots could be removed.¹³

Similarly, in the book of Numbers (10.35–37), there are sev-eral verses which were designated in the Torah texts of the talmudic period by dots above and below the letters in order to indicate its irrelevant character. “The Holy One blessed be He provided this portion with signs above and below in order to indicate that this is not its proper place,”¹⁴ for it really belongs, by its context, in the first chapters of this book.¹⁵ This section in our masoretic Text is marked off by an inverted nun (

) at the beginning and at the end, almost like modern parentheses. The nun is construed by Ludwig Blau as the initial of nakud (pointed), and refers to the dots which had been in the text originally above and below the letters in this section, but which were later eliminated to prevent confusion resulting from the letters and dots running into one another. The inversion of the nun was a precautionary device against the danger of regard-ing it as a part of the text.

In the course of time, especially at the close of the talmudic period, a body of rules and regulations relative to the copying of the biblical texts evolved, and the work of the scribes be-came further specialized. The teaching functions, formerly ex-ercised by the scribes, were taken over by special elementary teachers (melammedei tinokot), while the scribes devoted them-selves to the study of manuscripts and the different deviations in the versions which had accumulated in the course of trans-mission. The designation of sofer (scribe) was accordingly re-placed by that of masorete (an authority on the masorah or traditional version).¹⁶

Masoretic activity must have been in progress all through the talmudic period and several centuries thereafter. There is, however, scant documentary evidence available that might shed

light on its extent, especially during the early part of the post-talmudic period. We do know, however, that after the Bar Kokhba debacle (135 C.E.), a number of masoretic scholars fled from Palestine to Nahardea in Babylonia and pursued their studies there. Divergences in biblical readings between the schools of Palestine and Babylonia can be traced as far back as the period of Rab Joseph (died in the year 323 C.E.) and even farther back to that of Judah ha-Nasi (2nd century C.E.).

With the advent of Christian supremacy in Palestine, the center of all Jewish learning, including masoretic studies, was shifted to Babylonia, where the academies of Sura and Nahardea flourished. Babylonian scholarship and authority continued to hold sway until about the seventh century, when under friendly

With the advent of Christian supremacy in Palestine, the center of all Jewish learning, including masoretic studies, was shifted to Babylonia, where the academies of Sura and Nahardea flourished. Babylonian scholarship and authority continued to hold sway until about the seventh century, when under friendly

In document Diseno de un Middleware Basico para el Intercambio de Informacion de un sistema Supervisor de Procesos Automatizados. (página 32-40)