REVIEWS

182
the reformation of the traditional legal system (pp. 6f.), and a late
priestly stratum (DP), which intended to emphasize the place of
the priest in ceremonies of war, in the judiciary and in the cult
(p. 7), but a later essay also distingishes a stratum (DS) which
introduced secular judicial elements into the Deuteronomic
legislation (p. 165), a stratum which is identified as earlier than
D2. All of this creates an unconvincing fragmentation in the
redactional history of Deuteronomy. In a significant way the
problem arises because of the narrowness of approach by which
the strata are identified and separated. At no point does Rofe
really address the question of the wider context to which
this redactional work belongs. In a highly critical review of
Weinfelds Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, a review
which is included as the last essay in the book, Rofe dismisses
wisdom circles as those responsible for Deuteronomy, and indeed
rightly draws attention to the fact that the Deuteronomic law (at
least in its D2 redaction) exhibits anything but the humanism
that Weinfeld claims for it, but the issue of context of origin
should still be addressed, and is perhaps even more urgent given
Rofes characterization of the intolerant and harsh ideology
expressed in D2. Rofes essays, interesting, insightful, and so
often convincing as they are, do not lead us into a much clearer
understanding of the circle(s) to which we owe this extraordinary
collection.
A.D.H. Mayes

Las masoras del libro de Deuteronomio: Codice M1 de la

Universidad Complutense de Madrid. By Mar a
Guadalupe Seijas de los Ros-Zarzosa. Pp. 226.
(Textos y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros de la Biblio
Polglota Matriense, 68.) Madrid: CSIC, 2002. isbn 84
00 08056 4. N.p.
This edition of the Masorah of Deuteronomy of Codex M1 (the
colophon of which locates its origin in Toledo, 1280 ce) of
the Complutensian University of Madrid is the third volume of
the research project Edicion de Textos Bblicos y Parabblicos,
directed by N. Fernandez Marcos in the Philology Institute of
the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas of Madrid,
the first two volumes, Las masoras del libro de Numeros (ed. M. J.
xodo (ed. M. T.
Azcarraga Servert) and Las masoras del libro de E
Ortega Monasterio), having already appeared in 2001 and 2002
respectively. This volume follows a similar format to the first

REVIEWS
183
two, namely the Masorah parva (MP) and Masorah magna
(MM) lemmas are listed in sequence in the right-hand margin,
with their respective contents featured in the main section of
each page. The biblical text of M1s Deuteronomy is not given,
apart from three facsimile pages at the end (it would have been
helpful to have had them identified as Deut. 28:3164; 31:28b32:17a, and 33:2034:12). Each of the biblical excerpts or
smanm is reproduced in Hebrew (or Aramaic as the case may
be), with its reference in parenthesis immediately following the
excerpt in question. Some brief explanatory notes occur from
time to time where the editor has deemed it necessary or useful.
These consist mainly of cross-references, or draw attention to
various omissions (cf. Deut. 9:1), repetitions (as in 7:21; 20:5;
24:8; 31:11 etc.), contradictions, and other inconsistencies or
complexities, as well as occasional references to the works
of S. FrensdorV, C. D. Ginsburg, B. Ognibeni, and G. Weil
among others. The work of a diVerent, less careful, hand is also
indicated wherever this occurs. These notes, while reduced to
a minimum, are very helpful. The edition is provided with two
indexes: the first consists of lemmas in alphabetic order, with
proper names at the end, and the second contains a list of
biblical references referred to in the Masorah.
The various MM and MP notes accompanying Deuteronomy
in this MS vary quite frequently from those contained in either
the Leningrad (L) or Aleppo (A) codices. A cursory comparison
of the MM and MP of one chapter (Deut. 33:129) in all three
MSS yields the following results:

[Deuteronomy 33:129]
Total in M1

MM: 9

MP: 38

Total in L

MM: 8

MP: 47

Total in A

MM: 7

MP: 75

Shared by all three MSS:

MM: 1

MP: 20

Common to M1 and L

MM: 0

MP: 01

Common to M1 and A

MM: 1

MP: 10

Common to L and A

MM: 3

MP: 24

Unique to M1

MM: 7

MP: 08

Unique to L

MM: 4

MP: 02

Unique to A

MM: 2

MP: 22

REVIEWS
184
Noteworthy is the abundance of MP notes in A, as well as the
fact that roughly half the MP notes in both L and M1 are also
found in A. However, the most striking aspect is perhaps just
how diVerent the selections accompanying each of the three
MSS are.
Striking also in M1 is the considerable length of some of the
MM associated with the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:143) as
compared with those of either L or A. Another interesting
feature of the MM of Deuteronomy in M1 is the significant
number of Aramaic Mnemonics it contains (29 in Deuteronomy
alone) in contrast to L (which attests only three in
Deuteronomy: 8:7; 13:3 and 29:4, and 38 in the entire Bible)
and A (25 in all). A further diVerence between these MSS is
that, whereas L gives only the references in Aramaic for the
so-called Aramaic Mnemonics, M1 does this only for Deut. 14:7
and 26:2, but features both Aramaic and Hebrew sets of
references in all the other instances, beginning with the Aramaic
sets in the case of Deut. 1:5, 38; 3:4, 8, 22; 4:1, 10, 37; 5:5, 16,
23; 6:18; 7:5, 10, 13; 9:9; 12:31; 19:9; 21:23; 27:6; 30:7; 31:26,
and with the Hebrew sets first for Deut. 1:7, 35; 7:15; 26:8;
28:63.
Puzzling (to this reviewer at least) is the statement in the
introduction (pp. 12 and 16) that the book contains 29
diVerences between Ben Asher (BA) and Ben Naftali (BN), all
of them without circellus except if they also have masorah.
According to the text as it appears in this edition, there are in fact
41 instances throughout Deuteronomy for which M1 features
precise diVerences between BA and BN (eight of these carrying a
MP note in addition). The bulk of the diVerences noted are
concerned with the presence or absence or position of meteg
(29!); but there are other variations concerned with maqqep (3),
paseq (1), rape (2), vocalization (1) and certain accents (6) also in
M1; and, in one of the 41 cases (Deut. 3:24), two separate
diVerences are noted (rape and meteg).
On p. 69 there appears to be a misprint in the citation of the
sman for Deut. 10:8 (dalet printed in place of resh, without
comment), while there is an electronic mismatch on pp. 1516
between footnote numbers in the main text and those at the
bottom of the page. In what is otherwise a very fine edition,
it is regrettable that its brief English introduction contains
not only many orthographic misprints, but also some very inept
translational options.
The research projects director and the diVerent editors
making all of this material available in a more accessible form are

REVIEWS
185
to be congratulated. Not only is the tradition represented by
M1 of value in itself as witnessing to the Sephardic, Tiberian
Masoretic tradition of the thirteenth century, it also makes
comparison with the MM and MP data of other Tiberian mss of
high quality, in particular, with those of L and A, considerably
easier. In some instances M1 can help to unravel with greater
confidence some of the complexities, frequency errors and
incomplete notes to be found in L. Thus, publication of the
Masorah of this manuscript is to be warmly welcomed as one
further step in making the riches and the complexities of the
Masoretic traditions as a whole more accessible.
Carmel McCarthy

The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations. By Carol

A. Newsom. Pp. xii301. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003. isbn 0 19 515015 5. 32.50.
This book marries literary theory and philosophical inquiry and
applies them to the book of Job. Newsom argues for Job as a
polyphonic text, using the language of Bakhtin. This refers to
diVerent voices within the text that are not necessary historical
voices, according to older scholarly patterns of historical
criticism, but are able to be identified on the level of genre.
Newsom argues that each section of Job has its own distinctive
genre (except chapters 2931, for which she cannot find a
satisfactory genre classification, and the Elihu speeches) and that
each section provides its own viewpoint on the issues at stake
in Job. The only section that she finds to be secondary, on
traditional literary-critical grounds, are the speeches of Elihu
and she regards him as the first reader of the book. She is
particularly concerned with issues of method, arguing for her
own which is a halfway house between more traditional
approaches, which she does not ignore, and more selfconsciously postmodern, unifying treatments with which she
engages. Her views have a good deal in common with those of
Zuckerman who speaks of the clashes between diVerent sections
of the book of Job (in particular the prose story and dialogue)
and yet who speaks in terms of parody, a concept she sidelines
as one technique amongst many that characterize the dialogue
section.
Traditional attempts to find an overall genre for the book of
Job have generally failed and Newsoms method of finding
diVerent genres for diVerent sections helpfully circumvents that