The quality of Wikipedia is uneven. But it
sometimes provides better information than is found most everywhere else. Here is an
example.
In his 2004 introduction to the Hebrew Bible,
John Collins states, “The Cairo Codex of the Prophets (C) dates from 896 c.e., and a few other [masoretic]
manuscripts are from the tenth century.”[1] It
is not surprising that Collins puts matters this way. It was the common wisdom
until a few years ago.
In the revised 2001 edition of his
introduction to the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Emanuel Tov still
says, “The Cairo codex of the Prophets, abbreviated as C (896 CE). . . . For
doubts regarding the attribution of C to Moses Ben Asher, see Penkower.*”[2]
Tov’s statements are misleading. Both the 896
date and the attribution to Moses ben Asher a colophon of C provides were reported
to have been thrown in doubt by radiocarbon dating and other scientific
techniques in 1997 and in 1999 (see below for details). It is true that doubts about
the attribution of C to Moses ben Asher were voiced before that by Penkower, but
that tells less than half the story.
The evolution of informed opinion is
traceable by comparing the editions of Jeremiah (1997) and Ezekiel (2004) of
the Hebrew University Bible Project. HUBP Jeremiah lists C and dates it to 896
CE without a hint that the date might be open to question.[3] HUBP
Ezekiel states the following:
It was recently proven conclusively that the scribe and the naqdan
(vocalizer) of the Cairo Prophets codex cannot be identified as Moshe Ben-Asher,
and cannot be dated to 895 but rather to the 11th century ce. Cf. M. Beit-Arié et al., Codices
Hebraicis litteris exarati quo tempore scripti fuerint exhibentes (Monumenta
palaeographica medii aevi. Series Hebraica; Paris/Jerusalem: Brepols, 1997) 25-29;
D. Lyons, The Cumulative Masora: Text, Form and Transmission (Beer-Sheva:
Ben-Gurion University Press, 1999) [4]-7 (Hebrew).[4]
It is however misleading of the HUBP editors to list the Cairo Codex among the manuscripts that “represent the
Tiberian tradition in general, and the Ben-Asher tradition in particular”
(xli).
The “General Introduction” to Biblia
Hebraica Quinta, a project I cherish but whose realization so far I
criticize at length in this
review, puts the matter this way:
The Cairo Codex (MC) justly has received a
considerable amount of attention among critical scholars. In their recent work,
M. Beit-Arié, C. Sirat, and M. Glatzer (Codices Hebraicis Litteris Exarati,
1:25-39) provide a comprehensive codicological description of the manuscript. .
. . One of the two colophons in the manuscript attributes the copying of the
consonantal text and the vowels, accents, and Masorah to Moses ben Asher, and
dates and locates the production of the codex to 894/95 c.e. in Tiberias. A variety of factors, including the
results of radiocarbon dating, lead Beit-Arié, Sirat, and Glatzer to doubt the
authenticity of this attribution, and to date the codex to the end of the tenth
century or the beginning of the eleventh. . . . Sirat (Codices Hebraicis Litteris
Exarati, 1:28) reviews various discussions that point out a number of ways
in which MC does not conform to the ben Asher
tradition.[5]
Collins and Tov were not up-to-date when they
wrote what they wrote. Talmon et al. were wrong to suggest that C “represents . . . the
Ben-Asher tradition in particular.” The moral of the story: even excellent
scholars do not completely control the field of their expertise, and/or occasionally
make misleading statements.
The relevant Wikipedia entry,
however, gets it right on all of the above counts. Wikipedia, an improvement on
Tov, Collins, and Talmon? Truth, as they say, is stranger than fiction.
[1] John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004) 8.
[2] Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible:
Second Revised Edition (Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress/van Gorcum, 2001) 47.
The Penkower reference as Tov reports it: J.S. Penkower, “A Pentateuch Fragment
from the Tenth Century Attributed to Moses Ben-Asher (Ms Fircowicz B 188),” Tarbiz
60 (1991) 355-369 (Heb. with Eng. sum.).
[3] The Book of Jeremiah (ed. C. Rabin, S. Talmon, E.
Tov; ed. assistant, Galen Marquis; HUBP; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1997) xxxv.
[4] The Book of Ezekiel (ed. Moshe H.
Goshen-Gottstein, Shemaryahu Talmon; associate ed., Galen Marquis; HUBP; Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
2004) xli, note 116.
[5] Biblia Hebraica quinta editione . . . General Introduction
and MEGILLOTH (ed. A. Schenker et al., BHQ 18; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004) xxiii.
Of course it is very easy to ensure that Wikipedia reflects the truth, as you perceive it: you edit the entry yourself! In a field like this you are unlikely to be contradicted. Did you in fact do this, John? After all, it would hardly be surprising if what you wrote were, at least in your own eyes, "an improvement on Tov, Collins, and Talmon". ;-)
Posted by: Peter Kirk | October 30, 2007 at 03:27 PM
According to Jim West, even a monkey types the right thing once in a while, but no, I wasn't the monkey who did in this entry.
Very few people are in the loop on things like this; the monkey who got things right in this instance is probably someone both Jim West and I know. I will be sure to point out the person what Jim thinks of him/her if the occasion presents itself.
Posted by: John Hobbins | October 30, 2007 at 06:56 PM