Psa 16:10; chasideycha

peter_kirk at sil.org peter_kirk at sil.org
Thu Dec 2 19:44:45 EST 1999


Interesting. The yod appears in my Hebrew text edited by Norman Henry 
Snaith, published by Israel Bible Society 1970. I thought that the 
Leningrad codex (dated 1008-9), the basis of BHS, was a Ben Asher 
text. But of course no two MSS are identical. Does the Aleppo codex 
have the yod here? Perhaps Jewish commentators know that this is a 
peculiarity of a single MS, or of later Jewish MS tradition. It seems 
remiss that there is no textual note at this point in BHS or the 
Christian commentaries, especially given the doctrinal implications of 
this difference. There is a Masoretic note in the margin of BHS, but I 
don't understand it, perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Psa 16:10; chasideycha
Author:  <Numberup at worldnet.att.net> at Internet
Date:    02/12/1999 12:16


I have two copies of the standard (Ben Asher) text used by Jewish translations 
which
have the extra yod, ("chasideykha") but with the note that it should be read 
without
it ("chasidkha").  These two texts are found in "Tehillim," published by Mesorah
Publications, and "The Soncino Books of the Bible: The Psalms."  In both 
instances,
these Jewish translators followed the singular reading and translated "Your 
devout
one" and "Thy godly one," respectively.

I believe the Ben Asher text dates from the 10th century, C.E., but every modern
Jewish translation I have  translates in the singular, "chasidkha."  It is also 
translated as a singular in the pre-Christian version produced by Jews in the 2n
d
century BCE, the Greek Septuagint, which has "ton hosion," Your holy/loyal one."

Solomon Landers
Memra Institute for Biblical Research 
http://www.memrain.org

peter_kirk at sil.org wrote:

> The BHS text at this point in Psalm 16:10 is X:ASIYD:KF (in your
> transliteration this would be chasidkha), which is singular - no yod 
> before the -kha ending. There is no textual note in BHS, and no note 
> in HOTTP or the Word commentary. But are there other MSS, printed
> editions or translations which have a plural here? Could this be a 
> correction, or an interpretation, to get away from the Christian
> understanding of this verse, in Acts 13:35? 
>
> Peter Kirk
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
> Subject: Psa 16:10; chasideycha
> Author:  <devious at carol.net> at Internet 
> Date:    30/11/1999 00:00
>
> Greetings,
>
> Could someone point me in the right direction with this, I am not a Hebrew 
> scholar.
> Isn't chasideycha plural? And if it plural then why is it translated in the 
> singular?
>
> Gratefully,
> Lee Deavers
>
> ---


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk at sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list