The diacritic signal dagesh forte is absent in the letter yôd in the masculine proper noun אֲדֹנִיָֽהוּ (Heb. ‘Adoniáhu’ [Adonijah]) in 1Kings 1:13 in the Codex M^L, as can be seen from the color and black-and-white images of this Masoretic manuscript ¹⁵ . In the other sources of Masorah, such as the codices M^A, M^C, M^M1, M^S1, and M²⁶²⁷ and the Second Rabbinic Bible, the name is vocalised as אֲדֹנִיָּֽהוּ (Heb. ‘Adoniiáhu’ [Adonijah]) with the dagesh forte signal in the character yôd. The occurrence is recorded by Dotan, but not by Breuer ¹⁶ .

In the critical apparatus of the BHS the following annotation is found on the case: sic L, mlt Mss Edd (i.e. the name is thus according to the Codex M^L, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg]) have the reading אֲדֹנִיָּֽהוּ [Heb. ‘Adoniiáhu’ [Adonijah]). The BHK does not have any note on the subject in its critical apparatus. The reading of the Codex M^L is reproduced, in a diplomatic way, in the BHS, however, in the BHK and the BHL, the reading of the other Masoretic sources is found (cf. above).

It is missing the diacritic mappîq in the letter hê in the theonym אֱלוֹהַ (Heb. ‘God’) in Deuteronomy 32:15 in the Codex M^{L 17} . It is possible to see that both from the color photograph and from the black-and-white photograph of the Codex M^L, the mappîq signal does not appear in the theonym. The Codex M^S5 has the same reading as the Codex M^L, but other sources of the Masorah have another reading, recording the diacritic signal in the character hê as אֱלֹוהַּ (Heb. ‘God’), in plene writing, according to the codices M^M1, M^S1, and M²⁶²⁶ and the Second Rabbinic Bible, or as אֱלֹהַּ (Heb. ‘God’), with defective writing, according to the Codex M^A. Dotan records the occurrence in his list, however, in Breuer’s list there is no record ¹⁸ .

The BHK, BHS, and BHQ editions reproduce the reading of the Codex M^L, while the BHL corrects the text to אֱלֹוהַּ (Heb. ‘God’). In the critical apparatus of the BHS there is the following observation about the highlighted theonym: sic L, mlt Mss Edd (i.e. the word is thus according to the Codex M^L, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg] have the reading אֱלֹוהַּ [Heb. ‘God’]). In the apparatus of textual variants of the BHK and the BHQ no note on the case is found.

There is an absence of the vocalic signal, the furtive pataḥ, in the letter ḥêt in the word בִּשְׁלֹח (Heb. ‘in to send’) in Isaiah 20:1 in the Codex M^L. The occurrence is found in Dotan’s list, but not in Breuer’s work ¹⁹ . By means of both images, the aforementioned vocalisation signal does not appear under the character ḥêt ²⁰ . The same is not true of the other Masoretic sources, such as the codices M^A, M^C, M^M1, and M²⁶²⁷ and the Second Rabbinic Bible, which show full vocalisation of the word, such as בִּשְׁלֹחַ (Heb. ‘in to send’), with the presence of the signal furtive pataḥ. In the BHL, Dotan corrected the wording, according to several Masorah sources.

In the BHK the same reading of the BHL is adopted, as בִּשְׁלֹחַ (Heb. ‘in to send’), with the following note in the critical apparatus: L לֹח- (i.e. in the Codex M^L the reading is בִּשְׁלֹח [Heb. ‘in to send’]). In the BHS the reading is diplomatic, reproducing the text of the Codex M^L, with the following annotation in its apparatus of textual variation: sic L, mlt Mss Edd לֹחַ- (i.e. the word is thus, according to the Codex M^L, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg] have the reading בִּשְׁלֹחַ [Heb. ‘in to send’]). The HUB also reserves an annotation in the third block of its critical apparatus on the same situation: בִּשְׁלֹח ל (i.e. in the Codex M^L the reading is בִּשְׁלֹח [Heb. ‘in to send’]).

The masculine proper name יֵשׁוּע (Heb. ‘Ieshû‘’ [Jeshua]) does not have the vocalic signal furtive pataḥ in the letter ʿáyin in Nehemiah 7:43 in the Codex M^L, which is visible from the pictures in this manuscript of the Masorah ²¹ . Again, Dotan includes the case in his “Manuscript Variants” list, but Breuer does not include the occurrence in his work The Biblical Text ²² . As is customary, Dotan in the BHL corrected the spelling of the name to יֵשׁוּעַ (Heb. ‘Ieshûa‘’ [Jeshua]). The normative spelling יֵשׁוּעַ (Heb. ‘Ieshûa‘’ [Jeshua]) is found in the codices M^M1 and M²⁶²⁸ and in the Second Rabbinic Bible.

The BHK, BHS, and BHQ editions present the same corrected reading as seen in the BHL, but without any note in the critical apparatus. Curiously, the BHS and the BHQ should reproduce the text of the Codex M^L in a diplomatic manner, even with the obvious scribal errors, and the normative wording should be provided only in annotations from the apparatus of textual variants, according to the publications’ own editors. However, in Nehemiah 7:43, such edits take another procedure, contrary to their own guidelines, correcting the text of the Codex M^L, something that should not have been done (?!).

In the Codex M^L, in Judges 19:23, there is the adverb of negation אַל־ (Heb. ‘not’) instead of the separable preposition אֶל־ (Heb. ‘to’). From the images of Zuckerman and Freedman et al., there is no doubt that the letter aleph does indeed have the vocalic signal pataḥ and not the vocalic signal segôl ²³ . Such a textual variant is mentioned in Dotan’s list, however, the occurrence is ignored in Breuer’s list ²⁴ . Dotan, departing from the Codex M^L, corrected the BHL in the aforementioned biblical passage, adopting the reading אֶל־בֵּיתִי (Heb. ‘to my house’) and not the original reading אַל־בֵּיתִי (Heb. ‘not my house’). In the other sources of the Masorah, such as the codices M^A, M^C, M^M1, M^S1 and M²⁶²⁷ and the Second Rabbinic Bible, the expression is reproduced as אֶל־בֵּיתִי (Heb. ‘to my house’).

In the BHK the same reading of the BHL is found, however, there is no note in the critical apparatus informing the correction made in the text of this edition. In the BHS the original reading of the Codex M^L is found, as אַל־בֵּיתִי (Heb. ‘not my house’), and in the critical apparatus there is the following annotation: sic L, mlt Mss Edd אֶל (i.e. the word is thus, according to the Codex M^L, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg] have the reading אֶל [Heb. ‘to’]). In the BHQ, the original reading of the Codex M^L is also adopted, with information concerning the variation of a textual nature in the critical apparatus: אַל־ M^L | M^A M^C G (V) S T (i.e. the reading אַל־ [Heb. ‘not’] is found in the Codex M^L; the reading אֶל־ [Heb. ‘to’] is witnessed by the M^A and M^C codices, the Septuagint, the Vulgate [this version agrees with the reading of the version mentioned, but differs from it in some textual detail], the Peshitta and the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel [...]). According to such an edition, the reading אֶל־ [Heb. ‘to’] is preferable, according to the testimony of the biblical sources mentioned in the annotation of the apparatus of textual variants.

The separable preposition אֶל־ (Heb. ‘to’) instead of the adverb of negation אַל־ (Heb. ‘not’) is the original reading of the Codex M^L in Deuteronomy 2:9 for the expression אֶל־תָּצַר (Heb. ‘to show hostility against’). The codices M^L17, M^M1, M^S1, M^S5, and M²⁶²⁶ and the Second Rabbinic Bible have the reading אַל־תָּצַר (Heb. ‘do not show hostility against’). From the images of the Masoretic manuscript, it is possible to see that there is a vocalic signal under the character aleph ²⁵ . The textual variant is listed by Dotan in his list, however, Breuer does not list the same occurrence in his book ²⁶ . As usual, the BHL contains the corrected reading and not the original reading of the Codex M^L, being אַל־תָּצַר (Heb. ‘do not show hostility against’).

The spliced reading אַל־תָּצַר (Heb. ‘do not show hostility against’) is found in the BHK, but there is no textual remark in the critical apparatus. In the BHS is found the original reading of the Codex M^L אֶל־תָּצַר (Heb. ‘to show hostility against’), with the following note in the critical apparatus: sic L, mlt Mss Edd אַל (i.e. the word is thus, according to the Codex M^L, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg] have the reading אַל [Heb. ‘not’]). In the BHQ, in the same way as in the BHS, the same reading is found, with the following note: אֶל־ M^L (err) | אַל־ M^L17 M^S5 G V S T | Smr (indet) || pref אַל־ M^L17 M^S5 G V S T (i.e. the reading אֶל־ [Heb. ‘to’] of the Codex M^L is a scribal error; the reading אַל־ [Heb. ‘not’] is witnessed by the codices M^L17 and M^S5, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Peshitta, and the Targum; in the Samaritan Pentateuch the reading is indeterminate [i.e. this Bible version does not sufficiently assist in the solution of the textual difficulty]). In the BHQ the original reading of Codex M^L is considered erroneous, because of the testimony of the other two Masoretic manuscripts of the Tiberian tradition and the ancient versions of the Bible. Moreover, the context and meaning of Deuteronomy 2:9 support the reading of the biblical sources cited in the critical apparatus note. In relation to the Samaritan biblical text, the reading is inconclusive, since the words אֶל־ (Heb. ‘to’) and אַל־ (Heb. ‘not’) are reproduced in a similar way ²⁷ .

There is the semivocalic signal ḥaṭef-pataḥ instead of the semivocalic signal audible shewaʾ in the letter kaf in the masculine proper name אַשְׁכֲּנַז (Heb. ‘Ashkanaz’ [Ashkenaz]) in Genesis 10:3 in the Codex M^L. Such variation in vocalisation is noticeable through the color and black-and-white photographs of the Masorah manuscript ²⁸ . Only the Codex M^S5 has the same wording as the Codex M^L, while other Masoretic sources such as the codices M^M1 and M²⁶²⁶ and the Second Rabbinic Bible have the wording אַשְׁכְּנַז (Heb. ‘Ashkenaz’). Both Dotan and Breuer do not record in their lists the proper name with such a method of vocalisation in the Codex M^L.

The BHK, BHS, BHQ, and BHL editions reproduce the original wording of the Codex M^L, as אַשְׁכֲּנַז (Heb. ‘Ashkanaz’ [Ashkenaz]). In the BHK and BHS they have annotations in their critical apparatus regarding the masculine proper name in Genesis 10:3, but the observation is of a literary rather than textual nature, and is not useful for the analysis of the vocalisation of the lexicographic item in this study.

The prominent masculine name appears a total of three times in the Hebrew biblical text: Gen 10:3; Jer 51:27; 1Chr 1:6. In the three biblical passages, Even-Shoshan records the name with the following vocalisation: אַשְׁכְּנַז (Heb. ‘Ashkenaz’) ²⁹ . However, in the Codex M^L two distinct forms of vocalisation are found: אַשְׁכֲּנַז (Heb. ‘Ashkanaz’ [Ashkenaz]) (with the semivocalic signal ḥaṭef-pataḥ) (Gen 10:3; 1Chr 1:6) and אַשְׁכְּנַז (Heb. ‘Ashkenaz’) (with the semivocalic signal audible shewaʾ) (Jer 51:27). In two editions based on the Codex M^A, the Ḥorev and the Jerusalem Crown, the name is spelled as אַשְׁכְּנַז (Heb. ‘Ashkenaz’) in the three biblical passages.

Yeivin, citing the case of the name אַשְׁכֲּנַז (Heb. ‘Ashkanaz’ [Ashkenaz]) in Genesis 10:3 in the Codex M^L, he comments that the use of the semivocalic signal ḥaṭef-pataḥ in non-guttural letters would be for phonetic reasons. He explains that Tiberian vocalisation regularly distinguishes shewaʾ between mobile (Lat. ‘audible’) and quiescent (Lat. ‘mute’) in guttural consonants. In many occurrences, still, the signal shewaʾ in non-guttural consonants is represented by the signal ḥaṭef to indicate that it is vowel, either for morphological or phonetic reasons ³⁰ .

Here is found the vocalic signal segôl instead of the vocalic signal pataḥ in the letter bêt in the feminine proper name בַת־שֶׁבֶע (Heb. ‘Bat-Shéve’ [Bath-sheba]) in 1Kings 1:15 in the Codex M^L. In the other sources of the Masorah, such as the codices M^A, M^C, M^M1, M^S1, and M²⁶²⁷ and the Second Rabbinic Bible, the aforementioned proper name is spelled in a normative manner as בַת־שֶׁבַע (Heb. ‘Bat-Shéva’ [Bath-sheba]). Dotan records the occurrence in his list; however, Breuer ignores the occurrence in his list ³¹ . From the color and black-and-white images, it is evident that it is indeed the vocalic signal because of the shape, color, and size of the graphic signal, and is an occurrence unique to the Codex M^L in relation to the other Masoretic codices and editions of the Hebrew Bible ³² .

The BHK and BHL editions, departing from the Codex M^L, maintain in their texts the corrected form, such as בַת־שֶׁבַע (Heb. ‘Bat-Shéva’ [Bath-sheba]). The BHK does not inform the critical apparatus of the correction made in its text. The BHS retains the form found in the Codex M^L as בַת־שֶׁבֶע (Heb. ‘Bat-Shéve’ [Bate-Seba]) and with the following annotation in the apparatus of textual variants: sic L, mlt Mss Edd שׁבַע (i.e. the name is thus according to Codex M^L, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg] have the reading בַת־שֶׁבַע [Heb. ‘Bat-Shéva’ {Bath-sheba}]).

Here, there is a changing of the position of the vocalic signal hîrîq with the semivocalic signal shewaʾ in the letters pê and lámed in the plural gentile adjective וּפִלְשִׁתִּים (Heb. ‘and Pilshittines’ [and Philistines]) in Judges 15:14 in the Codex M^L, being a metathesis situation ³³ . In the codices M^A, M^C, M^M1, M^S1, and M²⁶²⁷ and in the Second Rabbinic Bible the wording is normative, as וּפְלִשְׁתִּים (Heb. ‘and Pelishtines’ [and Philistines]). Dotan records the occurrence in his list, but Breuer ignores it in his work ³⁴ . Examining the photos in color and black-and-white, it is noticeable that this is indeed a metathesis situation, with a change in the position of vocalic signals in the two characters mentioned above, being an exclusive occurrence of the Codex M^L in relation to the other manuscripts of the Masorah and editions of the Hebrew-Aramaic biblical text ³⁵ .

The BHK, BHS, and BHL editions correct the text to וּפְלִשְׁתִּים (Heb. ‘and Pelishtines’ [and Philistines]), but the BHQ, retaining the wording of the Codex M^L, owns the wording וּפִלְשִׁתִּים (and Pilshittines [and Philistines]). The BHK and BHS editions do not provide any annotation in the apparatus of textual variants about the editorial situation of the Codex M^L, however, the BHQ has the following note in its critical apparatus regarding the occurrence: וּפִלְשִׁתִּים M^L (err) | וּפְלִשְׁתִּים M^A M^C (i.e. the lecture וּפִלְשִׁתִּים [and Pilshittines {and Philistines}] is a Codex M^L error; the lecture וּפְלִשְׁתִּים [Heb. ‘and Pelishtines’ {and Philistines}] is recorded in the codices M^A and M^C).

The vocalic signal qameṣ instead of the vocalic signal pataḥ in the letter ʿáyin in the masculine proper name יְהוֹשֻׁעָ (Heb. ‘Iehoshúa’ [Joshua]) in the Codex M^L in Joshua 10:12. In the same biblical passage, the other Masoretic sources, such as the codices M^A, M^C, M^M1, and M²⁶²⁷ and the Second Rabbinic Bible, have the same name with normative vocalisation, such as יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Heb. ‘Iehoshúa’ [Joshua]). Dotan registers the occurrence, but Breuer does not ³⁶ . However, Dotan expresses doubts about such vocalisation, indicating the question mark (?). By both the color image and the black-and-white image, the vocalic signal under the character ʿáyin is similar to the vocalic signal qameṣ ³⁷ . An important detail that should be commented in the Codex M^L is that the vocalic signal qameṣ consists of a small horizontal bar with a diamond-shaped dot, different from the graphic pattern of modern printed editions of the Hebrew-Aramaic biblical text, in which the same vocalic signal is formed by a small horizontal bar with a drop-shaped dot (as in BHK, BHS, BHQ, and HUB) or a ball-shaped point (as in BHL). Apparently, the signal would not be a mere stain on the manuscript, for the shape and coloration are very similar to some signal of vocalisation as in the other words of the manuscript on the same folio. However, it is not possible to say with certainty whether it is the vocalic signal qameṣ or whether it is a stain on the manuscript, even if its physical dimensions are peculiar. The doubt is expressed both in the BHL “Manuscript Variants” list and in the LéxATI.

The BHK, BHS, and BHL editions reproduce the masculine proper name in Joshua 10:12 as יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Heb. ‘Iehoshúa’ [Joshua]), with the vocalic signal pataḥ, unlike what is found in the Codex M^L. The BHK and BHS editions do not mention the occurrence in their apparatuses of textual variants, not informing the reader about the possible unusual situation of an editorial nature in the Codex M^L.

Here is seen the vocalic signal pataḥ instead of the vocalic signal segôl in the letter lâmed in the word לַשֶּׁלַג (Heb. ‘to the snow’) in Job 37:6 in the Codex M^L. The codices M^A, M^M1, M^S1, and M²⁶²⁸ and the Second Rabbinic Bible record the normative wording לַשֶּׁלֶג (Heb. ‘to the snow’) with the vocalic signal segôl in the character lâmed. Breuer does not mention such textual variant in his work, but Dotan records it in his list ³⁸ . Both the color image and the black-and-white image of the Codex M^L reveal that it is clearly the vowel sign pataḥ under the letter lâmed in that word ³⁹ .

In Job 37:6 the BHK and the BHL, departing from the Codex M^L, contain the corrected word as לַשֶּׁלַג (Heb. ‘to the snow’) and the BHS keeps its word, as stated in the Codex M^L. The BHK does not dedicate any note on the situation in its apparatus of textual variants, but in the critical apparatus of the BHS the following information about the aforementioned occurrence is found: sic L, mlt Mss Edd לֶג- (i.e. the word is thus according to the Codex M^L, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg] have the reading לַשֶּׁלֶג [Heb. ‘to the snow’]).

The vocalic signal segôl instead of the vocalic signal pataḥ under the letter rêsh in the masculine proper name קֹרֶח (Heb. ‘Qôreh’ [Korah]) in Numbers 16:27 in the Codex M^L. The reading קֹרַח (Heb. ‘Qôrah’ [Korah]), with the diacritic pataḥ, is found in the codices M^B, M^M1, M^S1, M^S5, and M²⁶²⁶ and in the Second Rabbinic Bible, being the normative wording. Such textual variation is recorded by Dotan in his list, but Breuer does not mention it in his book ⁴⁰ . The vocalic signal segol is noticeable in the masculine proper name in Numbers 16:27, both through the color image and through the black-and-white image of the Codex M^L. The diacritic has the same dimension and color as the other vocalic marks, in other words, on folio 85v of the aforementioned Masorah manuscript ⁴¹ .

The corrected wording as קֹרַח (Heb. ‘Qôrah’ [Korah]) is found in both BHK and BHL and the original form of the Codex M^L, such as קֹרֶח (Heb. ‘Qôreh’ [Korah]), is found in the BHS. Regarding the textual occurrence, the BHK dedicates the following annotation in its critical apparatus: L קֹרֶח (i.e. the Codex M^L has the reading קֹרֶח [Heb. ‘Qôreh’ {Korah}]). On the same subject, the BHS dedicates the following note to its apparatus of textual variants: sic L, mlt Edd קֹרַח (i.e. the name is thus according to the Codex M^L, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg] have the reading קֹרַח [Heb. ‘Qôrah’ {Korah}]).

Here the word הַהִוא (Heb. ‘that’) is spelled with the letter waw instead of the letter yôd in the Codex M^L in Isaiah 39:1. The wording הַהִיא (Heb. ‘that’), written with the letter yôd, it is found in the codices M^A, M^C, M^M1, M^S1, and M²⁶²⁷ and in the Second Rabbinic Bible. Dotan does not record the occurrence in his list, as he adopts the original spelling of the Codex M^L in the BHL, but Breuer does. However, in his work, Breuer expresses doubts about the wording found in the Codex M^L, recording how? ל:הַהִוא ⁴² . Possibly, for Breuer, the letter yôd would have been elongated to be transformed into the character waw, which would have generated doubts for this scholar of the Masorah in relation to the original wording of the word. However, Breuer does not explain the reason for his doubt in his book. Visually, the character presents a somewhat distinct graphic pattern in relation to the normative spelling adopted by Samuel ben Jacob when writing the letter waw. In fact, the head of the character is very similar to the letter yôd, but with a somewhat unusual stem in relation to Samuel ben Jacob’s own orthographic pattern. Be that as it may, the color and black-and-white images of the aforementioned Masoretic codex corroborate that the reading is indeed הַהִוא (Heb. ‘that’), with the character waw, even if it was the result of the wording of the prima manus (Lat. ‘first hand’) or the secunda manus (Lat. ‘second hand’) ⁴³ .

In the BHK the word is corrected as הַהִיא (Heb. ‘that’), but in the BHS and in the BHL the wording is הַהִוא (Heb. ‘that’), according to the Codex M^L. Regarding the occurrence, the BHK has the note L ההוא (i.e. the Codex M^L has the reading הַהִוא [Heb. ‘that’]) and the BHS has the annotation sic L, mlt Mss Edd ההיא (i.e. the word is thus according to Codex M^L, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg] have the reading הַהִיא [Heb. ‘that’]).

The inseparable preposition בְ (Heb. ‘in’) instead of the inseparable preposition כְ (Heb. ‘as’) in the word וּבְתוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶן (Heb. ‘and in their abominations’) in the Codex M^L in Ezekiel 16:47. Through the color and black-and-white images of the Masorah manuscript under study here, it is possible to perceive the inseparable preposition בְ (Heb. ‘in’), being the reading of the prima manus ⁴⁴ . The same wording is also perceptible by the color image of the facsimile edition of the Codex M^A, and is also the reading of the prima manus. However, the reading of the secunda manus is וּכְתוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶן (Heb. ‘and according to their abominations’), because it is possible to notice, even though it is very subtle, a small scrape in the letter ב, transforming it into the character כ ⁴⁵ .

The BHK, moving away from the text of the Codex M^L, has the reading וּכְתוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶן (Heb. ‘and according to their abominations’) in Ezekiel 16:47. In the apparatus of textual variants of this edition is found the following annotation for the word in the aforementioned biblical passage: MS ������ וְלֹא כְת׳ (i.e. a medieval Hebrew manuscript, the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate have the reading [by way of retroversion] וְלֹא כְתוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶן [Heb. ‘and no according to their abominations’]).

The BHS maintains the reading of the Codex M^L as וּבְתוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶן (Heb. ‘and in their abominations’) in the same biblical passage (cf. above). In the critical apparatus of this publication, the following note for the above-mentioned word is found: sic L, וּכְ׳ Cod Alep ������ opt Mss (i.e. the word is thus in accordance with the Codex M^L; the reading וּכְתוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶן [Heb. ‘and according to their abominations’] is found in the Codex M^A, the Second Rabbinic Bible, the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, the Septuagint, and excellent medieval Hebrew manuscripts) (note: the reading of the Aramaic and Greek biblical texts is given in the BHS by means of retroversion).

In block iii of the critical apparatus of the HUB there is the following annotation regarding the word highlighted in Ezekiel 16:47: ובתועבותיהן :א׳ ל ל30 (i.e. the codices M^A [text of the first hand {prima manus}], M^L and M^L30 have the reading וּבְתוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶן [Heb. ‘and in their abominations’]); וכתועבתיהן :פ׳ ר (i.e. the codices M^P [text of the first hand {prima manus}] and M^R have the reading וּכְתוֹעֲבֹתֵיהֶן [Heb. ‘and according to their abominations’]); וּכְתוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶן : מ (i.e. the Second Rabbinic Bible has the reading וּכְתוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶן [Heb. ‘and according to their abominations’]).

Dotan records the reading of the Codex M^L in his “Manuscript Variants” list, but does not adopt it in the BHL text ⁴⁶ . The same occurrence is recorded by Breuer, who reports the following: וּכְתוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶן (Heb. ‘and according to their abominations’) is found in the codices M^A, M^C (?) and M^S1 and in the Second Rabbinic Bible; the Codex M^L has the reading וּבְתוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶן (Heb. ‘and in their abominations’) ⁴⁷ .

Here is seen the masculine proper name חֲגָבָה (Heb. ‘Hagavá’ [Hagaba]) spelled with the letter hê instead of the character aleph in the Codex M^L in Nehemiah 7:48 ⁴⁸ . The other sources of the Masorah, such as the codices M^M1, M²³⁷⁵, M²⁶²⁸, and M⁵⁷⁰² and the Second Rabbinic Bible, have the name written with the letter aleph, as חֲגָבָא (Heb. ‘Hagavá’ [Hagaba]). Only the Codex M⁸² has the same spelling as the Codex M^L for Nehemiah 7:48. Dotan does not record the occurrence in his list, as he adopts the reading of the Codex M^L in the BHL, but Breuer records it in his work ⁴⁹ .

The four editions based on the Codex M^L, the BHK, BHS, BHQ, and BHL, adopt the spelling חֲגָבָה (Heb. ‘Hagavá’ [Hagaba]) in their texts. The BHK has the note �� חֲגָבָא (i.e. the Second Rabbinic Bible has the spelling חֲגָבָא [Heb. ‘Hagavá’ {Hagaba}]) in his critical apparatus. The BHS and the BHQ also have annotations in their apparatus of textual variants, but the observation is not related to the spelling of the masculine name in Nehemiah 7:48.

The masculine proper name מִיכָה (Heb. ‘Miká’ [Micha]), being spelled with the character hê instead of the letter aleph in Nehemiah 11:17 in the Codex M^{L 50} . Dotan does not record the occurrence in its list, because it adopts the reading of the Codex M^L in the BHL, but Breuer identifies the orthographic difference in its list ⁵¹ . The masculine name is written with the character aleph as מִיכָא (Heb. ‘Miká’ [Micha]) is found in several sources of the Masorah, as the codices M^M1, M^S1, M⁸², M²³⁷⁵, M²⁶²⁸, and M⁵⁷⁰² and the Second Rabbinic Bible.

The BHK, BHS, BHQ, and BHL adopt the spelling of the aforementioned male proper name as מִיכָה (Heb. ‘Miká’ [Micha]), according to the Masoretic source of such editions, the Codex M^L. The BHS and the BHQ editions do not provide any observations on the occurrence in their critical apparatuses, but the BHK has the following annotation: �� כָא- (i.e. the Second Rabbinic Bible has the spelling מִיכָא [Heb. ‘Miká’ {Micha}]).

Here is seen the tetragrammaton יְהוָה (Heb. ‘YHWH’) instead of the theonym אֲדֹנָי (Heb. ‘Lord’) in the Codex M^L in Psalm 68:27 ⁵² . Dotan does not record the occurrence in his list, as he adopts the reading in the BHL, but Breuer does so in his work ⁵³ . The opposite situation is verified in other sources of the Masorah, such as the codices M^A, M^M1, M^S1, M²³⁷⁵, M²⁶²⁸, M⁵⁷⁰², and the Second Rabbinic Bible, which adopt the theonym אֲדֹנָי (Heb. ‘Lord’) instead of the tetragrammaton יְהוָה (Heb. ‘YHWH’) in Psalm 68:27.

The editions based on the Codex M^L, such as BHK, BHS, and BHL, adopt the reading יְהוָה (Heb. ‘YHWH’) in Psalm 68:27. The BHK and the BHS report that there are differences in wording of the aforementioned biblical passage in biblical manuscripts from the Middle Ages and editions of the Hebrew-Aramaic biblical text: the BHK has the note MSS אֲדֹנָי (i.e. medieval Hebrew manuscripts have the reading אֲדֹנָי [Heb. ‘Lord’]) and the BHS has the annotation mlt Mss Edd אֲדֹנָי (i.e. many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg] have the reading אֲדֹנָי [Heb. ‘Lord’]). However, both editions do not specify in which Masoretic manuscripts (at least some) from the medieval period such a difference can be verified.

The masculine proper name יוֹזָבָד (Heb. ‘Iozavad’ [Jozabad]) instead of יוֹזָכָר (Heb. ‘Iozakar’ [Jozachar]) in the Codex M^L, in 2 Kings 12:22, is a clear reading through the photographs of the manuscript ⁵⁴ . The codices M^A, M^C, M^M1, and M^S1 record the reading יוֹזָכָר (Heb. ‘Iozakar’ [Jozachar]), however, the Codex M²⁶²⁷ has the same reading as the Codex M^L, as יוֹזָבָד (Heb. ‘Iozavad’ [Jozabad]). The text of most manuscripts in 2 Kings 12:22, as יוֹזָכָר (Heb. ‘Iozakar’ [Jozachar]), it is also confirmed by Even-Shoshan ⁵⁵ . Dotan does not record the case, as it adopts the wording יוֹזָבָד (Heb. ‘Iozavad’ [Jozabad]) in the BHL, but Breuer does, but expresses doubt regarding the spelling of the Codex M^L in 2 Kings 12:22 ⁵⁶ . Possibly, Breuer felt insecure about the last two letters of the name: the consonants ב and ד, which could be interpreted, perhaps, as כ and ר. Moreover, the case is mentioned in the same way by Revell, in comparison of the Codex M^L with the codices M^A and M^C, which confirms the textual variant between these manuscripts of the Masorah ⁵⁷ .

The BHK, BHS, and BHL have the wording יוֹזָבָד (Heb. ‘Iozavad’ [Jozabad]) in their texts, according to the Codex M^L. Two editions, the BHK and the BHS, inform in their critical apparatuses that there is a reading variant in other sources of the Masorah: the BHK has the note C�� MSS ויוזכר (i.e. the Codex M^C, the Second Rabbinic Bible and medieval Hebrew manuscripts have the wording וְיוֹזָכָר [Heb. ‘and Iozakar’ {and Jozachar}]) and the BHS has the annotation mlt Mss זָכָר- (i.e. many medieval Hebrew manuscripts have the wording יוֹזָכָר [Heb. ‘Iozakar’ {Jozachar}).

There is the use of the letter yôd after the letter ḥêt, modifying the number of the word, from singular to plural in the word מְשִׁיחֶיךָ (Heb. ‘your anointed ones’) in 2 Chronicles 6:42 in the Codex M^L. In the same biblical passage, the reading מְשִׁיחֶךָ (Heb. ‘your anointed one’), as a singular, it is found in the codices M^A, M^M1, M^S1, M²⁶²⁸, and M⁵⁷⁰² and in the Second Rabbinic Bible. As Dotan adopts the reading of the Codex M^L in the BHL, he does not record the textual variant in his list. Breuer records in his list the aforementioned variation of the textual nature ⁵⁸ . The yôd character is clearly perceptible in the images of the Codex M^L, in the case of the writing of the prima manus ⁵⁹ .

Regarding the reproduction of the word in the scholarly editions of the Hebrew-Aramaic biblical text based on the Codex M^L, the following situation is verified: the BHK, the BHS, and the BHL reproduce the word in the plural, as מְשִׁיחֶיךָ (Heb. ‘your anointed ones’), according to the original text of the Codex M^L. The BHK devotes the following note to such an occurrence: sic L, l c mlt MSS חֶךָ- (i.e. the word is thus according to the Codex M^L, read according to many medieval Hebrew manuscripts, which have the reading מְשִׁיחֶךָ [Heb. ‘your anointed one’]). The BHS has a similar annotation: sic L, l c mlt Mss Vrs et Ps 132,10 חך- (i.e. the word is thus according to the Codex M^L, read according to many medieval Hebrew manuscripts, classical biblical versions, and Psalm 132:10, which have the reading מְשִׁיחֶךָ [Heb. ‘your anointed one’]).

The inclusion of such a textual variant in the LéxATI was due to the fact that this lexicographic work is based both on the BHS text and on the Paratext UBS Translation Software, which reproduce the aforementioned word in the plural in 2 Chronicles 6:42 in the Codex M^L.

There is actually a dot/stain inside the letter mem in the masculine proper name אֲבִימֶּ֥לֶךְ (Heb. ‘Avimmélek’ [Abimelech]) in Genesis 26:1 in the Codex M^L. However, is such a point some diacritic or is it merely a small stain on the parchment? Dotan points out such variation in his list, however, he expresses doubt ⁶⁰ . Breuer does not point out the variant in his work, possibly because he considers that it is not a diacritic, but a mere stain on the parchment. In the black-and-white facsimile version of Freedman et al. , the impression is that it is, in fact, a diacritic. However, in the color version, the dot has a slightly lighter color in relation to the vocalisation signals ⁶¹ .

On folio 15r of the Codex M^L, where the masculine proper name is highlighted, it is possible to perceive many points similar to the supposed diacritic dagesh in the letter mem, both in terms of size and in terms of coloration (usually the color is in a shade of brown or ochre), but which are clearly small stains typical of the parchment. However, by facsimile edition the dot resembles a diacritic, and it is not in principle possible to distinguish it from some stain on the parchment. Another detail that can be commented on is that the spot has a smaller size in contrast to the vowel signs that have a larger size. Golinets and Himbaza mention the same case in their texts, confirming that it is only a stain on the parchment ⁶² .

The name אֲבִימֶּ֥לֶךְ (Heb. ‘Avimmélek’ [Abimelech]), possessing a supposed diacritic dagesh in Genesis 26:1, is recorded in the following sources that reproduce the Codex M^L: the BHS, the Paratext UBS Translation Software and the “Manuscript Variants” in the BHL. The BHS also has the following annotation in its apparatus of textual variation on the subject: sic L, mlt Mss Edd מ sine dageš (i.e. the name is thus according to the Codex M^L, in many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg] the letter mem is without the diacritic dagesh). The same name, being worded as אֲבִימֶ֥לֶךְ in Genesis 26:1, but without the hypothetical diacritic, it is found in the following sources that are also based on the Codex M^L: BHK, BHQ, and BHL. The BHK and the BHQ editions do not dedicate any observation in their critical apparatus to such a situation, certainly because they consider that it is only a stain on the parchment.

Finally, the inclusion of this case in the LéxATI was due to two main reasons: 1. the lexicographic work is based on both the BHS and the Paratext UBS Translation Software (note: this program is based on BHS) and 2. the aforementioned work also had as reference the “Manuscript Variants” list found in the BHL, despite the doubt indicated in this text. Such works were decisive for the inclusion of the occurrence in the LéxATI.

There is a supposed diacritic dagesh in the letter bêt in the word הַנָּבִּיא (Heb. ‘the announcer’ [the prophet]) in the Codex M^L in 1 Kings 1:45. The normative form הַנָּבִיא (Heb. ‘the announcer’ [the prophet]), without the dagesh signal, it is found in the codices M^A, M^C, M^M1, M^S1, and M²⁶²⁷ and in the Second Rabbinic Bible. By the black-and-white facsimile edition, the dot actually resembles a vocalic signal, and it is not possible to distinguish it from any stain on the parchment. However, through the color image of the same manuscript it is possible to clearly perceive that it is a stain of the parchment, and this because of the brown/ochre color of the stain. In addition, throughout folio 185r it is possible to see that there are several similar spots in terms of coloration and size ⁶³ . Dotan mentions the occurrence in the “Manuscript Variants” list, but Breuer does not ⁶⁴ .

The BHK, BHS, and BHL editions have the word as הַנָּבִיא (Heb. ‘the announcer’ [the prophet]), not considering the hypothetical dagesh signal. The BHK and the BHS have annotations in their critical apparatuses about the word, but not about the supposed orthographic situation, possibly because they consider that it is not a graphic signal.

Again, the justification for the inclusion of such a case in the LéxATI was because of the two main reasons: 1. the lexical work was based on the BHS and the Paratext UBS Translation Software and 2. the aforementioned lexicon was also based on the “Manuscript Variants” list.

Here there are the vocalic signals ḥolem in the letter ṭet, shûreq and dagesh in the character bêt in the word טֹוּֽבּ׃ (Heb. ‘good’) in Proverbs 24:25 in the Codex M^L. The occurrence is recorded by Dotan, but not by Breuer. In his list, Dotan reproduces the word as טוֹּֽב (Heb. ‘good’), being almost close to what is in the Codex M^{L 65} . In the LéxATI the reproduction tends to be diplomatic, showing the wording that is found, as close as possible, in the Codex M^L. The codices M^A, M^M1, M^S1, and M²⁶²⁸ and the Second Rabbinic Bible have the word in normal wording, as טֹֽוב׃ (Heb. ‘good’). Both from the color image and from the black-and-white image of the Codex M^L it is possible to perceive that there are some more graphic signals of vocalisation in the highlighted word ⁶⁶ . Visually, the word has three diacritics: ḥolem in the character ṭet, shûreq, and dagesh in the letter bêt. Possibly, these signals may have been inadvertently inserted in the process of repainting the manuscript. In addition, it is possible to see that on folio 418r several words were repainted by a secunda manus, however, such repainting was not always so careful.

The following situation of reproduction of the word from the Codex M^L is verified in the scholarly editions of the Hebrew Bible: the BHK, the BHS, the BHQ, and the BHL correct the word in their texts, such as טֹֽוב׃ (Heb. ‘good’). However, the BHK, the BHS, and the BHQ do not dedicate any notes in their critical apparatuses to the peculiar wording of the word in the Codex M^L.

Is the diacritic dagesh really seen here in the letter bêt in the word כַּרְכֹּבּ (Heb. ‘the compass of’) in Exodus 27:5 in the Codex M^L? The case is included by Dotan in his list, however, Breuer does not ⁶⁷ . Normative wording כַּרְכֹּב (Heb. ‘the compass of’) it is found in codices M^B, M^M1, M^S1, M^S5, and M²⁶²⁶ and in the Second Rabbinic Bible. Through black-and-white photography, the dot in the word is very similar to an unusual dagesh in the character bêt, mainly because of the physical dimensions of the dot. However, through color photography, it is possible to verify that the hypothetical point has a lighter color, being brown/ochre ⁶⁸ . Therefore, the point in the highlighted word is a mere smudge of the parchment and not an unexpected diacritic.

The BHK, BHS, and BHL have the reading כַּרְכֹּב (Heb. ‘the compass of’) in their texts. The BHS is silent about the occurrence, not dedicating any notes on the subject in its critical apparatus. However, the BHK dedicates a note to its apparatus of textual variants, but it has no relation to the spelling situation. The silence of the BHK and BHS editions could indicate that the editors would not have taken into account the hypothetical point in the letter bêt in the aforementioned word and would have considered that the spelling of the word would be normative.

As already informed above, the inclusion of such an occurrence in LéxATI was due to two main reasons: 1. the lexicographic work was based on both the BHS and the Paratext UBS Translation Software and 2. the aforementioned work was also referenced to the “Manuscript Variants” list, despite the doubt indicated in this text. Such works were decisive for the inclusion of the occurrence in the LéxATI.

The vocalic signal qubbûts in the letter mem, modifying the pronunciation of the word מֻאוּם (Heb. ‘blemish’) in Daniel 1:4 in the Codex M^L. The pronunciation of the word according to the vocalisation of the Codex M^L is um’ûm, and the pronunciation of the same word, but with normative spelling מאוּם (Heb. ‘blemish’), is m’ûm. Both from the color image of Zuckerman and from the black-and-white image of Freedman et al., it is noticeable that in the highlighted word there are actually two vocalic signals: qubbûts and shûreq, being the reading of the prima manus of the Codex M^L (this spelling is not always reproduced, exactly, by the editions of the Hebrew Bible, cf. below) ⁶⁹ . The case is listed by Dotan, but in the BHL the word is recorded as מאום (as ketîv) and מוּם (as qerê) ⁷⁰ . Breuer ignores the textual variant in his work, although other sources, such as the codices M^M1, M^S1, and M²⁶²⁸ and the Second Rabbinic Bible, record a different vocalisation in relation to that of the Codex M^L.

In the apparatus of textual variants of the BHK, is found the note sic L*, �� מאוּם, nonn MSS Q, pl etiam K מוּם (i.e. the word is spelled in this way in the Codex M^L [prima manus], the Second Rabbinic Bible has the reading מאוּם [Heb. ‘blemish’], several medieval Hebrew manuscripts have such a spelling as qerê; many medieval Hebrew manuscripts have the spelling מוּם [Heb. ‘blemish’] also as ketîv). In the critical apparatus of the BHS there is the following annotation: �� מאוּם, mlt Mss ut Q מוּם (i.e. the Second Rabbinic Bible has the reading מאוּם [Heb. ‘blemish’], many medieval Hebrew manuscripts such as the qerê read מוּם [Heb. ‘blemish’]) ⁷¹ . Both editions provide virtually the same information, demonstrating the existence of different spellings for the word featured in this topic among various Masoretic sources.

The character waw after the letter aleph in the word נְאֻום־ (Heb. ‘the utterance of’) in Jeremiah 7:30 in the Codex M^L. Schenker et al. comment on the situation in the introduction to the BHQ, saying that it would be the result of the careless repainting process of the manuscript and that, clearly, the prima manus would have worded the word as נְאֻם־ (Heb. ‘the utterance of’). Schenker et al. also explain that whoever repainted the aforementioned word would have misinterpreted some remnants of letters and would have written, erroneously, as נְאֻום־ (Heb. ‘the utterance of’) ⁷² .

On the folio 250r of the Codex M^L, which covers the text of Jeremiah 7:24b-8:9a, three other occurrences of the word appear, two with the signal maqqef and one without, and all with normative wording: נְאֻם־ (Heb. ‘the utterance of’) (Jer 7:32; 8:1) and נְאֻם (Heb. ‘the utterance of’) (Jer 8:3). In Jeremiah 7:30 the signal maqqef is very subtle, but noticeable in both the black-and-white and color images of the manuscript, but magnifying to larger dimensions is necessary ⁷³ . Dotan registers the variant, but without the signal maqqef in the “Manuscript Variants” list, but in the BHL there is the aforementioned diacritic in the word ⁷⁴ . Breuer does not allude to such an occurrence in Jeremiah 7:30 in his work.

In Jeremiah 7:30, in the editions based on the Codex M^L, the wording נְאֻום־ (Heb. ‘the utterance of’) is found in the BHS and the wording נְאֻם־ (Heb. ‘the utterance of’) is found in the BHK and in the BHL. Only the BHS mentions the unusual spelling in its apparatus of textual variants: sic L, mlt Mss Edd נְאֻם (i.e. the word is thus, according to the Codex M^L, in many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg] the word is worded as נְאֻם [Heb. ‘the utterance of’]).

The vocalic signal qubbûts in the letter taw, modifying the pronunciation of the word פְתֻוּחוֹת (Heb. ‘the ones that open’) in Neemiah 1:6 in the Codex M^L. The Codex M^S1 has the same reading as the Codex M^L, but the character waw does not have any vocalic points. The other Masoretic sources have normative readings, such as פְתוּחוֹת (Heb. ‘the ones that open’): the codices M^M1 and M²⁶²⁸ and the Second Rabbinic Bible. Dotan records the occurrence in his list, but Breuer makes no mention in his work about the unusual spelling in the Codex M^{L 75} .

Both from the color photo and the black-and-white photo of the manuscript, the word clearly has the wording פְתֻוּחוֹת (Heb. ‘the ones that open’) with the diacritic qubbûts in the character taw, possibly the result of repainting ⁷⁶ . It is also possible to notice that several words on folio 454r of the Codex M^L have also been repainted and, visually, the letters are thicker in relation to the typical orthography of Samuel ben Jacob. A detail that draws attention is the graphic design of the letter waw of the secunda manus in relation to the graphic design of the same character by Samuel ben Jacob. The letter of the secunda manus is thicker, having a straight base, and of the prima manus (that of Samuel ben Jacob) the same character is thinner, having a pointed base. Such differences would indicate a process of repainting the manuscript also on the folio 454r.

The reproduction of the above-mentioned word in the editions based on the Codex M^L is as follows: the BHK and the BHL reproduce as פְתוּחוֹת (Heb. ‘the ones that open’) and the BHS and the BHQ reproduce as פְתֻוּחוֹת (Heb. ‘the ones that open’). Three publications allude to the original spelling of the word in the Codex M^L in their critical apparatus, through the following annotations: 1. BHK: L פְתֻוּחוֹת sic! (i.e. the Codex M^L has the wording פְתֻוּחוֹת [Heb. ‘the ones that open’], thus!); 2. BHS: sic L, mlt Mss Edd פְתוּ׳ (i.e. the word is thus, according to the Codex M^L, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible [Kennicott, De Rossi, and Ginsburg] have the wording פְתוּחוֹת [Heb. ‘the ones that open’]) e 3. BHQ: פְתֻוּחוֹת M^L M^S1 (err) | פְתוּחוֹת M^Y (i.e. the wording פְתֻוּחוֹת [Heb. ‘the ones that open’] is found in the codices M^L and M^S1, being scribe error; the wording פְתוּחוֹת [Heb. ‘the ones that open’] is found in the Codex M¹⁷⁵³).