Before the Masora (review)

Hebrew Studies 42 (2001) 381 Reviews these premises, different observations may result-but this would already be a new book. Her handling of the intertestamental material is commend­ able and her work will provide the starting point for future studies on the subject. Additional comparative material would also enhance the study, al­ though this was not envisioned in the methodological layout of the. work and thus, the author cannot be faulted on this. Design and accuracy are typically Oxford standard and do not leave much to be desired. Notwith­ standing the slight critical remarks at the beginning of this review, Rooke should be congratulated on her accomplishment and her future contribu­ tions to religious studies of the Hebrew Bible and Judaism will be eagerly awaited. Gerald A. Klingbeil River Plate Adventist University Libertador San Martin, Entre Rios, ARGENTINA kling@uapar.edu BEFORE THE MASORA. By Frank Zimmerman. Pp. x + 559. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 200L Cloth, $72.00. This book is an attempt to explain the use of the masoretic sign now usually called paseq. The author concludes that this sign had its origin in the early methods used to ensure the transmission of the correct form of the biblical text, so that its use sheds light on those methods; hence his choice of title. The author displays considerable learning and ingenuity, but does not 'adequately consider arguments which might be raised against the points he makes, so that a reader looking for what can be said with cer­ tainty is scarcely advanced beyond the carefully worded paragraph on paseq in Joiion-Muraoka, A Grammar ofBiblical Hebrew §15.m. This does not, of course, show that Zimmerman's views are wrong; it reflects the complexity of the problem, and the dearth of relevant information in ancient sources. The author begins with a short description of the use of the sign (for which he prefers the earlier name pesiq), and a discussion of others' views on it, chiefly those of Wickes.A few pages explain his choice ofBHS as the textual basis for his study. Failure to use one of the excellent photographic facsimiles of good manuscripts now available is surprising. On pp. 15-23, he presents his own views: pesiq was an editorial sign developed in imita­ tion of Greek and Roman models, and used in passages in which some problem might be suspected to indicate that the text as written was "sure, established." The last paragraph of this section deals with the "whim of the Hebrew Studies 42 (2001) 382 Reviews transcriber," and consequent spurious or misplaced pesiqs, since, as with former studies, not all examples of the sign fit the categories of use set up. After a few pages on further developments in the use of the sign, the bulk of the book, pp. 29-551 (not 29-530 as stated in the table of contents), is taken up with the discussion of specific examples. Pages 552-558 give the author's views on "Earlier stages in the Evolution (so table of contents; p. 552 has Evolutions) of the Masoretic Text." The problems of the book are clearly displayed in the second paragraph on p. 163. In the first few lines, the failures of proofreading common in the book have resulted in the loss of some Hebrew words and the mis­ placement of others. The author's single-minded concentration on his own views is shown in his statement that the Masora Parva notes the use of a pesiq. This appears to refer to 1 Sam 7:14, where the purpose of the cir­ cellus between the words ysr'llysr'l and its note l(aU) is much more likely to mark that particular combination of words as unique than to note the presence ofpesiq. The paragraph presents examples of "the familiar pesiq for duplicated words," but half of it is taken up with an explanation of why pesiq does not occur in 1 Sam 2:3. Since the case in 1 Sam 3: lOis noted, we might also hope for an explanation of why the sign is not always used where a name is repeated in address, as in Exod 3:4, but none is...