The Hebrew Bible that Jews read in synagogue and that scholars consult as the received text of the Old Testament has been transmitted through more than a thousand years in a form that is unusual among the religious literatures of the world. The text is not just the consonantal letters and the vocalization and accentuation marks that the Tiberian Masoretes developed in the sixth to tenth centuries. It is also a comprehensive marginal apparatus, a set of small and large notes that frame the text on every page, that record every unusual form and every statistical peculiarity of the text, and that summarise the structure of each book at its close. The Masorah Parva, the small Masorah, sits in the side margins next to the columns of text. The Masorah Magna, the large Masorah, runs across the top and bottom margins. And the Masorah Finalis, the closing or final Masorah, gathers the global statistics of each book, the totals of verses and words and letters, the location of the central verse, and a series of alphabetical and numerical lists that the scribes used to verify the integrity of the text they had just copied. The Masorah Finalis is the part of the Masoretic apparatus that is least familiar to general readers and most familiar to the scribes who produced the great codices, and it is the part of the apparatus that most clearly reveals the statistical and quantitative character of the Masoretic mind.<\/p>\n
The Masoretic apparatus is conventionally divided into three layers, each with a different function and each occupying a different place on the page of a properly prepared codex. The Masorah Parva is the smallest and the most local of the three. It consists of brief notes, often reduced to abbreviations, that are keyed to specific words in the consonantal text. A Masorah Parva note typically records the number of times a particular form appears in the text, or notes that a particular spelling is unique, or points to a parallel occurrence of a particular word in another book of the Bible. The notes are written in the outer or inner margin next to the column of text, and they are positioned so that a line drawn from the note to the corresponding word in the column would be a straight horizontal line. The Masorah Parva is, in effect, the local commentary on the text, and it is the part of the Masoretic apparatus that the reader is most likely to encounter when consulting a facsimile of one of the great codices.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Magna is the larger and more systematic of the three layers. It runs across the top and bottom of each page, in the space that is left blank by the columns of biblical text, and it consists of more elaborate notes that draw on the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible. A Masorah Magna note typically presents a complete list of the occurrences of a particular form, or a complete concordance of a particular rare word, or a complete enumeration of the qere and ketiv phenomena that occur at a particular passage. The Masorah Magna is, in effect, the global commentary on the text, and it is the part of the Masoretic apparatus that required the greatest labour to compile. The Masorah Magna was the principal product of the Tiberian schools, and the most extensive Masorah Magna notes are preserved in the great codices that were produced in Tiberias in the tenth and eleventh centuries.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Finalis is the third and the most distinctive of the three layers. It is positioned at the end of each book of the Bible, and it consists of global statistics that summarise the structure of the book and provide a series of numerical checks against which the scribe could verify the integrity of the text he had just copied. The Masorah Finalis of Genesis, for example, records the total number of verses in Genesis (1534, by the standard count), the total number of words (20,510 or thereabouts, depending on the manuscript), the total number of letters (and there is some variation in this number across manuscripts), the location of the central verse of the book, the middle word of the book, and the middle letter of the book. Similar records are provided for each of the books of the Hebrew Bible, and the records are written in a uniform format that allows the scribe to check his work against the standards of the tradition.<\/p>\n
The Masoretic apparatus is, at its core, a system of statistical safeguards. The Masoretes counted everything. They counted the verses of each book, the words of each book, and the letters of each book. They marked the central verse of each book, the middle word of each book, and the middle letter of each book. They listed the rare forms, the hapax legomena, the words that occur only once in the entire Hebrew Bible, and they noted the precise location of each such form. They recorded the qere and ketiv phenomena, the places where the written text differs from the read text, and they listed the precise number of such phenomena in each book. They catalogued the unusual spellings, the plene and defective orthographies, and they noted the precise number of each type of spelling in each book. They indexed the parallel passages, the places where the same text appears in two different books of the Bible, and they noted the precise location of each parallel passage. The Masoretes had a quantitative approach to the biblical text that was, for their time, extraordinarily sophisticated, and the apparatus they created has served as a model for subsequent generations of biblical scholars.<\/p>\n
The purpose of the statistical apparatus was not merely to record the structure of the text. It was to provide a system of checks that would allow a scribe to verify the integrity of the text he had just copied. If a scribe completed a copy of the book of Genesis and counted the verses in his copy, he could compare his count with the count in the Masorah Finalis. If the two counts agreed, the scribe could be reasonably confident that his copy was accurate. If the counts disagreed, the scribe would know that he had either omitted a verse or duplicated a verse, and he would have to go back and check his work. The statistical apparatus was, in effect, an early form of error-detection code, and it was remarkably effective. The Masoretic apparatus has preserved the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible with a fidelity that is unparalleled in the history of the transmission of any ancient text.<\/p>\n
The Masoretic approach to the text was also a kind of reverence. The Masoretes believed that the text of the Hebrew Bible was divinely inspired, and they believed that every letter and every word of the text was significant. The statistical apparatus they created was, in part, a way of honouring the text by counting every letter and every word. The apparatus was also a way of preserving the text against the kinds of inadvertent changes that occur in any text that is copied by hand over many centuries. The combination of reverence and technical sophistication is one of the distinctive features of the Masoretic project, and it is one of the reasons that the Masoretic Text has been transmitted with such fidelity.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Finalis of a typical biblical book includes several distinct types of information. The first is the simple count of verses, words, and letters. The verses are usually counted by the standard verse divisions, the words are counted by the standard Tiberian vocalization, and the letters are counted by the standard Tiberian orthography. The counts vary slightly from one manuscript to another, but the variations are usually within a small range, and the standard counts are widely accepted. The middle verse, the middle word, and the middle letter are also recorded. The middle verse is often identified by a short citation, and the middle word and middle letter are often identified by a similar citation. The middle verse, word, and letter serve as additional checks for the scribe, who can verify that the middle of the book is in the expected place.<\/p>\n
The second type of information is the list of rare forms. The Masorah Finalis typically includes a list of the hapax legomena, the words that occur only once in the entire Hebrew Bible. The list is arranged in the order of the books of the Bible, and each entry is identified by the book and verse in which the word occurs. The list of hapax legomena is a remarkable piece of scholarship, and it is one of the most distinctive products of the Masoretic project. The list was compiled over many centuries, and it was refined by successive generations of Masoretes until it reached the form that is preserved in the great codices.<\/p>\n
The third type of information is the list of qere and ketiv phenomena. The Masorah Finalis typically records the total number of qere and ketiv phenomena in each book, and it often provides a complete list of the phenomena with the precise location of each one. The qere and ketiv phenomena are the places where the written text differs from the read text, and they are one of the most distinctive features of the Masoretic Text. The Masoretes believed that the qere and ketiv phenomena were part of the revealed text, and they recorded the phenomena with great care. The Masorah Finalis of a book like Jeremiah, which has a particularly high number of qere and ketiv phenomena, contains a long list of these phenomena, with detailed annotations.<\/p>\n
The fourth type of information is the alphabetical acrostic. Many of the great codices include, at the end of each book, an alphabetical acrostic that summarises the structure of the book. The acrostic takes the form of a series of short phrases, each beginning with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet, that summarise the contents of the book or list the distinctive features of the book. The acrostics are often poetically constructed, and they serve both as a mnemonic device and as a kind of poetic commentary on the text. The acrostics are not present in every manuscript, but they are present in the great codices that were produced in Tiberias in the tenth and eleventh centuries.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Finalis as we know it today is, in significant part, an innovation of Jacob ben Chayim ibn Adonijah, who edited the Second Rabbinic Bible, also known as the Mikraot Gedolot, that was printed by Daniel Bomberg in Venice in 1524 to 1525. Ben Chayim took the alphabetical and numerical lists that had been scattered through the Masorah Magna of the great manuscripts and gathered them at the end of each book of the Bible in a single consolidated section. The consolidated Masorah Finalis was a new departure in the presentation of the Masoretic apparatus, and it has become the standard form of the Masorah Finalis in subsequent printed editions of the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n
The innovation of Ben Chayim was not without controversy. The great manuscripts of the Tiberian period did not include a consolidated Masorah Finalis in the form that Ben Chayim introduced. The Tiberian codices, including the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex, included statistical notes at the end of each book, but the notes were more limited in scope and were not gathered into a single consolidated section. Ben Chayim’s Masorah Finalis was a compilation drawn from a variety of sources, and it included material that was not in any single manuscript. The result was a Masorah Finalis that was more comprehensive than anything in the manuscript tradition, but also less directly tied to any single manuscript.<\/p>\n
The Bomberg Bible of 1516 to 1517, edited by Felix Pratensis, did not include a consolidated Masorah Finalis. The Second Rabbinic Bible of 1524 to 1525, edited by Ben Chayim, did. The Ben Chayim edition became the basis for nearly every subsequent printed Hebrew Bible, and the consolidated Masorah Finalis became a standard feature of the printed Bible. The printed Hebrew Bibles of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and nineteenth centuries all include a Masorah Finalis that is derived, more or less directly, from the Ben Chayim edition. The critical editions of the twentieth century, including the Kittel Biblia Hebraica and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, also include a Masorah Finalis that is derived from the Ben Chayim tradition.<\/p>\n
The Ben Chayim edition was not the only printed Hebrew Bible of the sixteenth century, but it was the most influential. The Plantin Antwerp Polyglot Bible of 1569 to 1572, edited by Arias Montano, included a Hebrew text with a Masoretic apparatus, but the apparatus was less comprehensive than the Ben Chayim edition. The Paris Polyglot Bible of 1629 to 1645, edited by Guy Michel Lejay, also included a Hebrew text with a Masoretic apparatus, but again the apparatus was less comprehensive. The Buxtorf Bible of 1618 to 1619, published in Basel, was based on the Ben Chayim edition and included a similar Masoretic apparatus. The Hebrew Bibles published in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were, for the most part, reprints of the Ben Chayim edition or of editions derived from it.<\/p>\n
The Aleppo Codex, written in Tiberias in 929 CE by Solomon ben Buya’a and vocalized and accentuated by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher, is the most authoritative single manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, and it includes one of the most complete Masoretic apparatuses of any surviving manuscript. The Masorah of the Aleppo Codex includes a Masorah Parva in the side margins, a Masorah Magna in the top and bottom margins, and a Masorah Finalis at the end of each book. The Aleppo Codex was damaged in the riots in Aleppo in 1947, and approximately one-third of it, including the entire Torah, was lost. The surviving portions of the codex, which include the Latter Prophets, the Writings, and a portion of the Torah, have been the subject of intensive study, and a facsimile edition of the surviving portions has been published.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Finalis of the Aleppo Codex is of particular interest because it represents the Tiberian tradition at its most authoritative. The Masorah Finalis of the Aleppo Codex includes the standard counts of verses, words, and letters, the location of the central verse, and a series of alphabetical and numerical lists that are characteristic of the Tiberian tradition. The Masorah Finalis of the Aleppo Codex is, in significant part, the work of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher, and it is the Masorah Finalis that Maimonides cited as authoritative in the Mishneh Torah. The Masorah Finalis of the Aleppo Codex is, in a real sense, the standard against which other Masorah Finalis traditions are measured.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Finalis of the Aleppo Codex is not, however, identical to the Masorah Finalis of the Leningrad Codex, which is the other great Tiberian manuscript. The two codices differ in some of the counts, in the arrangement of the lists, and in the inclusion or exclusion of particular entries. The differences are not large, and they are mostly within the range of variation that is expected between manuscripts of the same tradition. The differences do, however, illustrate the fact that the Masoretic tradition was not perfectly uniform, and that the great codices of the Tiberian period each had their own distinctive features.<\/p>\n
The Leningrad Codex, dated to 1008 CE, is the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible that has survived. The codex was acquired by the Imperial Public Library in Saint Petersburg in the nineteenth century, and it was identified by Paul Kahle as a Ben Asher manuscript. The Leningrad Codex is the principal witness for the Hebrew text in the third edition of Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica and in the fifth edition of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, and it is the most widely cited manuscript of the Hebrew Bible in modern critical editions.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Finalis of the Leningrad Codex is more complete than the Masorah Finalis of any other surviving manuscript. The Masorah Finalis of the Leningrad Codex includes the standard counts of verses, words, and letters for each book, the location of the central verse, the middle word and middle letter, the list of hapax legomena, the list of qere and ketiv phenomena, and a series of alphabetical and numerical lists that are characteristic of the Tiberian tradition. The Masorah Finalis of the Leningrad Codex is, in effect, the most complete surviving example of the Masorah Finalis of the Tiberian tradition, and it is the basis for the Masorah Finalis that is printed in the critical editions of the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n
The Leningrad Codex has been available in facsimile since 1971, and the facsimile is widely used in academic settings as a substitute for the manuscript itself. The facsimile makes it possible for scholars to study the Masorah Finalis of the Leningrad Codex without travelling to the Russian National Library, and it has been a major resource for Masoretic scholarship since the 1970s. The facsimile has also made it possible to apply computational tools to the Masorah Finalis, and a number of research projects have used the facsimile to analyse the structure of the Masorah Finalis and to compare the Masorah Finalis of the Leningrad Codex with the Masorah Finalis of other manuscripts.<\/p>\n
The critical editions of the Hebrew Bible that have been published since the nineteenth century have all included a Masorah Finalis, but the form of the Masorah Finalis has varied from one edition to another. The third edition of Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, published in 1937 and edited by Paul Kahle, included a Masorah Finalis that was derived from the Leningrad Codex. The Masorah Finalis was printed in a separate section at the end of each volume, and it was keyed to the biblical text by a system of reference letters. The fourth edition of Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, published in 1967 to 1977 and edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph, included a similar Masorah Finalis. The fifth edition of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, published in 1997 and edited by Adrian Schenker, also includes a Masorah Finalis, but the form has been revised to incorporate material from additional manuscripts.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Finalis of the modern critical editions is, in effect, a synthesis of the Masorah Finalis traditions of the great manuscripts. The editors have drawn on the Masorah Finalis of the Leningrad Codex, the Masorah Finalis of the Aleppo Codex (as preserved in the surviving portions), the Masorah Finalis of the British Codex, and the Masorah Finalis of other manuscripts, and they have combined the material into a single comprehensive Masorah Finalis. The result is a Masorah Finalis that is more comprehensive than any single manuscript, but also less directly tied to any single manuscript.<\/p>\n
The modern critical editions have also added material that is not in the manuscript tradition. The critical editions include a critical apparatus at the bottom of each page that records variants from other manuscripts and from the ancient versions. The critical apparatus is, in effect, a new layer of Masoretic material that has been added to the traditional Masorah. The critical apparatus has become an essential tool for the study of the Hebrew Bible, and it has transformed the way that scholars approach the text.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Finalis has entered a new phase in the twenty-first century, as the surviving manuscripts have been digitised and as the digital editions have made the Masoretic apparatus available to a wider audience than ever before. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem has digitised the Aleppo Codex and made the digital images available to scholars through the FoxyReader interface. The Russian National Library has digitised the Leningrad Codex and made the digital images available through the Russian National Library’s website. The British Library has digitised the British Codex and made the digital images available through the British Library’s website. The digital editions have made it possible for scholars to compare the Masorah Finalis of different manuscripts side by side, and they have made it possible for students to study the Masorah Finalis without travelling to the libraries that hold the manuscripts.<\/p>\n
The digital editions have also made it possible to apply computational tools to the Masorah Finalis. A number of research projects have used computer-assisted analysis to study the structure of the Masorah Finalis, to identify patterns in the counts and lists, and to compare the Masorah Finalis of different manuscripts. The computational analysis of the Masorah Finalis is still in its early stages, but it has already yielded new insights into the transmission of the Masoretic tradition. The computational analysis is also transforming the way that scholars study the Masoretic Text, and it is likely to play an increasingly important role in Masoretic scholarship in the years to come.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Finalis remains the most distinctive part of the Masoretic apparatus, and it is the part of the apparatus that most clearly reveals the statistical and quantitative character of the Masoretic mind. The Masorah Finalis was the product of centuries of work by the Tiberian Masoretes, and it has been transmitted to the present day through the great codices, through the printed editions, and now through the digital editions. The Masorah Finalis is, in a real sense, the fingerprint of the Masoretic tradition, and it is one of the most remarkable products of medieval Jewish scholarship.<\/p>\n
The Masoretic apparatus did not appear fully formed in the work of the Tiberian schools. The tradition of marginal notes and statistical compilations around the biblical text has a much longer history, and the Tiberian Masoretes were the inheritors and refiners of a tradition that had been developing for several centuries before they began their work. The earliest evidence of marginal notes around the biblical text comes from the Second Temple period, when the soferim, the scribes who copied the biblical books, developed a series of rules about the correct way to write the consonantal text. The rules included specifications about the number of letters per line, the position of particular words, and the special treatment of certain sacred names. The rules were transmitted orally and were not committed to writing in the form of a marginal apparatus, but they were the seed from which the Masoretic apparatus eventually grew.<\/p>\n
The transition from oral tradition to written Masoretic apparatus took place gradually over several centuries. The earliest surviving written Masoretic notes are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which include some marginal annotations that are similar in form to the later Masoretic notes. The most striking of these early annotations are the cross-references in the Great Isaiah Scroll, 1Q Isaiah a, which include a series of marginal notes that point to parallels in other books of the Bible and to variant readings. The cross-references are not exactly the same as the later Masoretic notes, but they show that the tradition of marginal annotation was already established by the second century BCE.<\/p>\n
The Babylonian and Palestinian schools of Masoretic scholarship developed their own versions of the marginal apparatus, but the versions were less systematic than the Tiberian version that eventually became standard. The Babylonian Masoretic notes were primarily concerned with the correct pronunciation of the consonantal text, and they included detailed instructions about the reading of the Hebrew letters. The Palestinian Masoretic notes were primarily concerned with the correct vocalization of the consonantal text, and they included a system of vowel points that was different from the Tiberian system. The Tiberian Masoretic notes, which eventually became the standard, were the most comprehensive of the three traditions, and they were the only ones to develop a fully systematic Masorah Magna and Masorah Finalis.<\/p>\n
The Masoretic apparatus was not merely a scholarly tool. It was also a part of the religious life of the Jewish community, and it served a number of liturgical and devotional functions that are less obvious to the modern reader. The Masoretic apparatus was, in the first place, a guarantee of the accuracy of the text that was read in the synagogue. The Torah scrolls that were used in the synagogue reading were required to be copied with extreme care, and the Masoretic apparatus was the standard against which the accuracy of the copy was judged. A Torah scroll that did not conform to the Masoretic standard was disqualified for liturgical use, and the Masoretic apparatus was the means by which the standard was enforced.<\/p>\n
The Masoretic apparatus was also a part of the Jewish tradition of study. The Talmud and the Midrashim contain many references to the Masoretic notes, and the study of the Masoretic apparatus was an integral part of the Jewish curriculum in the Middle Ages. The most famous of the medieval Jewish scholars, including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Nachmanides, were all familiar with the Masoretic apparatus, and they all used the apparatus in their commentaries on the Bible. The Masoretic apparatus was, in effect, the standard reference work for the study of the Hebrew Bible, and it was the basis for the grammatical and lexical traditions that developed in the Middle Ages.<\/p>\n
The Masoretic apparatus was also a focus of Jewish piety. The Masoretes believed that the text of the Hebrew Bible was divinely inspired, and they believed that the statistical apparatus they had created was a way of honouring the text. The tradition of counting the verses, words, and letters of each book of the Bible was not merely a scholarly exercise but also a devotional practice. The act of counting the letters of the Torah, for example, was a way of honouring the divine origin of the text. The Masoretic apparatus was, in this sense, both a scholarly tool and a religious practice, and the two functions were inseparable in the mind of the medieval Jewish community.<\/p>\n
The Masoretic apparatus was largely unknown to Christian European scholars until the sixteenth century, when the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible made the apparatus available to a wider audience. The earliest Christian scholars who studied the Masoretic apparatus were the Renaissance humanists, who were attracted to the apparatus by its antiquity and by its systematic character. The most important of the early Christian students of the Masorah was Guillaume Postel, a French scholar who published a series of works on the Hebrew language in the sixteenth century. Postel was one of the first European scholars to recognise the importance of the Masoretic apparatus, and he published extracts from the Masorah in his works.<\/p>\n
The systematic study of the Masoretic apparatus began in the seventeenth century with the work of Johann Buxtorf the Elder, a Swiss scholar who published a series of works on the Masoretic apparatus. Buxtorf’s most important work was the Tiberias, published in 1620, which was a study of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. Buxtorf’s work was the first comprehensive study of the Masoretic apparatus by a Christian scholar, and it established the framework for subsequent Masoretic scholarship. Buxtorf’s son, Johann Buxtorf the Younger, continued his father’s work and published a series of important studies of the Masoretic apparatus in the seventeenth century.<\/p>\n
The modern study of the Masoretic apparatus began in the nineteenth century with the work of Christian David Ginsburg, a Christian scholar who devoted his life to the study of the Hebrew Bible and the Masoretic apparatus. Ginsburg’s most important work was the Masoretically Defective Hebrew Bible, a series of critical editions of the Masoretic apparatus that was published in the late nineteenth century. Ginsburg’s work was the first modern critical edition of the Masoretic apparatus, and it established the framework for subsequent Masoretic scholarship. Ginsburg’s work has been superseded by more recent critical editions, but it remains an important resource for the study of the Masoretic apparatus.<\/p>\n
The contemporary study of the Masoretic apparatus is carried out by a number of scholars and institutions around the world. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem has been a major centre for Masoretic scholarship since the mid-twentieth century, and it has published a series of important studies of the Masoretic apparatus. The University of Cambridge has also been a major centre for Masoretic scholarship, and it has published a series of important studies of the Masoretic apparatus. The study of the Masoretic apparatus continues to be an active field of biblical scholarship, and new insights into the Masoretic apparatus are being published regularly.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Finalis remains an integral part of the printed Hebrew Bible, and it is included in the standard printed editions that are used by Jewish communities around the world. The Koren Jerusalem Bible, the Hebrew University Bible, the Judaica Press Tanakh, the ArtScroll Tanakh, and the standard Israeli school editions all include a Masorah Finalis that is derived from the Ben Chayim tradition. The form of the Masorah Finalis varies from one edition to another, but the basic content is consistent across the editions, and the Masorah Finalis remains a familiar feature of the printed Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Finalis is also a part of the digital editions of the Hebrew Bible that are now available. The digital editions of the Hebrew Bible that are available through the Hebrew University, the Russian National Library, and other institutions all include the Masorah Finalis, and the digital editions have made the Masorah Finalis more accessible to a wider audience than ever before. The digital editions also include computational tools that make it possible to search the Masorah Finalis and to compare the Masorah Finalis of different manuscripts.<\/p>\n
The Masorah Finalis is, in a real sense, the fingerprint of the Masoretic tradition. The counts of verses, words, and letters, the lists of hapax legomena, the lists of qere and ketiv phenomena, and the alphabetical and numerical lists that make up the Masorah Finalis are the result of centuries of work by the Tiberian Masoretes and their successors. The Masorah Finalis is one of the most remarkable products of medieval Jewish scholarship, and it remains an essential part of the Hebrew Bible as it is read and studied today.<\/p>\n
The Hebrew Bible that Jews read in synagogue and that scholars consult as the received text of the Old Testament has been transmitted through more than a thousand years in a form…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":477,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[35,512,23,511,18,75],"class_list":["post-472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-scripture-interpretation","tag-aleppo-codex","tag-ben-chayim","tag-leningrad-codex","tag-masorah-finalis","tag-masoretes","tag-rabbinic-bible"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/472","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=472"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/472\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/477"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}