Masoretic Text Variations from DSS, GOT, Samaritan Pentateuch, Apocrypha and internally. - Masorah with the MT - 1 Kings 8:16

Steven Avery

Administrator
No idea, but some empirical studies seems to support the gradual expansion of OT, see e.g.

Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible,
eds. R. Müller, J. Pakkala & Bas ter H. Romeny,
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 2014)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
2014 through Introduction

good review


 

Steven Avery

Administrator
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
AI

Yes, several prominent scholars make a sharp distinction between a Hebrew manuscript that follows the correct textual tradition and one that officially qualifies as the
Masoretic Text (MT)
based on the presence of the Masorah.
Scholars often use a "strict" or "narrow" definition of the term to distinguish medieval codices from their earlier precursors.
  • Elvira Martín-Contreras: Argues that, strictly speaking, the term Masoretic Text refers specifically to a biblical manuscript accompanied by a Masorah—the apparatus of marginal notes intended to preserve the text's integrity.
  • Emanuel Tov: Notes that the name "Masoretic Text" was given to this specific group of manuscripts because of the apparatus of the Masorah attached to them. In his Textual History of the Hebrew Bible, he distinguishes between the "MT group" (medieval manuscripts with the Masorah) and "proto-Masoretic" texts, which are identical in consonants but lack the Masoretic notes and vowel points.
  • Aron Dotan: Defines the Masorah in two categories: the graphemes (vowels and accents) and the marginal notes. He distinguishes between the "Medieval Masoretic Text" (which includes the full apparatus) and the earlier consonantal tradition.
  • General Scholarly Consensus: Many scholars use the term in two senses. The broader sense refers to the textual tradition dominant after the 1st century C.E. The stricter sense includes not just the consonants, but the specific vocalization, cantillation, and marginal apparatus (Masora) added by the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries.
Without the Masorah, a manuscript is often more accurately described by specialists as proto-Masoretic or pre-Masoretic.
Would you like to know more about the different types of Masorah notes, such as the Masorah Parva versus the Masorah Magna?

  • The Masoretic Text — History, Structure, and Authority
    Dec 8, 2025 — What Is the Masoretic Text? The phrase “Masoretic Text” can be used in two related senses. First, it refers to the conservative He...

    Updated American Standard Version

  • Chapter 12 “Proto-Masoretic,” “Pre-Masoretic,” “Semi ... - Brill
    Aug 28, 2019 — In this conceptual study, I will try to understand when these terms were first used, what they imply, in which sources they are fo...

    Brill

  • "Medieval Masoretic Text: Overview", in Textual History of the ...
    Martín-Contreras) 1.5. * Background Strictly speaking, the term Masoretic Text (MT) refers to any biblical manuscript that is acco...

    Academia.edu

    1769774459049.jpeg
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Rick Norris

James VanderKam and Peter Flint wrote: “In 1 Kings 8:16, however, [Dead Sea scroll] 4QKings preserves a passage that was lost from the Masoretic Text when a scribe’s eye skipped from one phrase to a similar phrase below” (Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 116). About this example at 1 Kings 8:16, Christian Ginsburg wrote: “From the simple exhibition of these two passages it will be seen that the Septuagint has preserved the original reading and that the Scribe’s eyes, in copying the Massoretic text, has wondered from one and I have chosen to the other and I have chosen. Hence the omission of the clause and I have chosen Jerusalem that my name might be there. In this case, however, we are not left to the Septuagint alone to establish the fact. In the parallel narrative 2 Chronicles 6:6, where the same incident is narrated, the omission is literally given” (Introduction, pp. 174-175). Christian Ginsburg asserted: “This omission is incidentally confirmed by the parallel passage” (p. 175).

AI
In 1 Kings 8:16, a textual error known as homoioteleuton (skipping from one phrase to a similar one later) exists in the Masoretic Text (MT). A significant portion, "neither chose I any man to be a ruler over my people Israel," was lost, but is preserved in the parallel text of 2 Chronicles 6:5b-6a
.
  • The Error: The scribe skipped from the phrase "I chose no city...to build a house" to the ending of a similar phrase, causing the omission of the clause regarding the choice of a ruler.
  • The Evidence: The Qumran fragments (4Q54, 5Q2, 6Q4) and the Old Greek (OG) translation indicate the text in 1 Kings 8:16 should be longer, incorporating the text found in 2 Chronicles 6:5-6.
  • Context: The verse is part of Solomon's speech during the dedication of the temple, highlighting that God chose both a place (Jerusalem) and a leader (David).
================================

In textual criticism,
1 Kings 8:16
is a classic example of homoioteleuton (a scribal error caused by "similar endings"). This error resulted in the omission of a significant phrase in the Masoretic Text (MT), which is preserved in the parallel passage of 2 Chronicles 6:5–6 and the Septuagint (LXX).

The Nature of the Error
The scribe's eye likely jumped from the first instance of a phrase to a similar one later in the text, skipping the intervening words.

  • Masoretic Text (Shortened): "...I did not choose a city... to build a house that my name might be there, but I chose David to be over my people Israel".
  • Restored Text (based on 2 Chronicles 6:5-6): "...I did not choose a city... to build a house that my name might be there, neither chose I any man to be a ruler over my people Israel: but I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people Israel".

Significance
  • Missing Content: The omission removes the explicit mention of Jerusalem being chosen as the city for the Temple.
  • Textual Evidence: The longer version is supported by Qumran fragments (4Q54), confirming that the text was originally more extensive before the scribal slip.
  • Theological Impact: The full text creates a balanced parallel: God chose a specific city (Jerusalem) and a specific person (David).
Would you like to see a comparison of the Hebrew text for these two versions to identify the exact words that caused the eye-skip?

Thinking
Searching



In Hebrew, the homoioteleuton in
1 Kings 8:16 was likely triggered by the repetition of the phrase "לִֽהְי֥וֹת שְׁמִ֖י שָׁ֑ם" ("that my name might be there") or the phrase "עַל־עַמִּ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל" ("over my people Israel").

The Hebrew Comparison
Compare the Masoretic Text of 1 Kings 8:16 with the parallel in 2 Chronicles 6:5–6. The bolded text below shows the words that the scribe's eye likely skipped in the Kings manuscript.

Version Hebrew Text (Simplified)Translation
MT 1 Kings 8:16...לִבְנ֣וֹת בַּ֔יִת לִהְי֥וֹת שְׁמִ֖י שָׁ֑ם וָאֶבְחַ֣ר בְּדָוִ֔ד לִֽהְיֺ֖ות עַל־עַמִּ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל...to build a house that my name might be there, but I chose David to be over my people Israel.
 
Top