[b-hebrew] Leningrad Codex YHWH-Holem

David P Donnelly davedonnelly1 at juno.com
Thu Sep 25 13:27:55 EDT 2003


Peter,

I examined hovah [he-holem-vav-qamets-he] 
at the two places it occurs in the single verse Ezekiel 7:26,
of the Leningrad Codex.

At Ezekiel 7:26 in the Leningrad Codex
the holem in hovah
[in both occurrences] 
is centered between the right side of the vav
and the left side of the he.

The holem appears to be positioned exactly as it is positioned 
in Yehovah 
[yod-simple shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
at Genesis 3:14 in the Leningrad Codex.

However the BHS text shows the holem in hovah
and the holem in Yehovah differently,
although in the Leningrad Codex they appear to be positioned identical

At Ezekiel 7:26 in the BHS text,
the holem in hovah
[in both occurences] 
is shown over the upper left edge of the he.

However at Genesis 3:14 in the BHS text
the holem in Yehovah
is shown at the top right of the vav.

In all three cases the vav has a qamets under it.

Is there any reason why the BHS text might treat 
the holem in Yehovah
and
the holem in hovah differently?

Dave Donnelly 

  
 
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:06:18 -0700 Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya.org>
writes:
> On 25/09/2003 06:41, David P Donnelly wrote:
> 
> > Concerning the holem being centered between
> > the right side of the vav
> > and the left side of the he
> > in YHWH at Genesis 3:14 in the Leningrad Codex,
> > Peter Kirk said
> >  
> > >>>
> > This is the typical position of holam in the Leningrad codex,
> > on any  word,
> > not just the divine name,
> > and before any letter,
> > not just vav. 
> >
> > It  is a later convention to shift holam to the left when followed 
> by a 
> > silent vav and sometimes a silent alef,
> > and to the right otherwise.
> > >>>
> > Dave asks Peter:
> >  
> > Isn't the holem shifted to the top right of the vav,
> > when the holem is followed by a silent vav.
> >  
> 
> Yes, this is the modern convention used in the printed BHS and most 
> 
> other texts. L, written nearly 1000 years ago, does not follow the 
> modern convention.
> 
> > In Joshua 1:1 in the BHS text,
> > the holem is placed at the top right of the vav in 
> Yehowshua/Yehoshua.
> >  
> > The holem in effect follows the he,
> > and I thought that this holem was followed by a  silent vav,
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > although by James Strong's convention,
> > he appears to write the silent vav as the "w" in Yehowshua
> > [e.g. Hebrew word #3091  
> >  
> > Doesn't the "w" in James Strong's transliteration of Hebrew word 
> #3091,
> > [by convention]
> > indicate a silent vav??????????
> >  
> 
> All I know about Strong's transliteration is that it is very 
> misleading.
> 
> > The KJV translates Numbers 13:16 as Jehoshua [not Jehowshua] .
> >  
> 
> And everywhere else (except 1Ch 7:27 "Jehoshuah") it renders the 
> same 
> Hebrew form as Joshua. All this proves is that KJV is inconsistent.
> 
> If  you want to know Hebrew, look at the Hebrew text and not  KJV or 
> Strong.
> 
> -- 
> Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list