[b-hebrew] ps 29:11 BA$.FLOWM vs B:$FLOWM
farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com
Wed Nov 28 05:41:54 EST 2007
Intriguing issues are raised in your post. Some thoughts:
1) As you say, בַשלום would prototypically form a separate prosodic
phrase. However, the preceding conjunctive accent unusually includes
בַשלום within its scope contra the prototypical prosodic separation of a
phrase like בַשלום
2) What, indeed, is the functional motivation for the use of the
definite article? Perhaps it's recognitional use of the definite
article: "the peace (which we all know comes from God)" or "the peace
(which we has come from God)".
3) Interesting suggestion that the accents provide some sort of "quality
control" in copying. Certainly in interpretation. In copying is
something knew, but it could lend itself to that.
4) My feeling is that commentators skip such details because they are
more interested in the "big picture" rather than the details of the
Hebrew grammar itself. Compare a "technical" OT commentary with a NT
one: often they're worlds apart in their treatment of the actual
grammatical details of the text itself.
> dear friends on b-hebrew,
> the problem of ps 29:11 and related puzzlers is not addressed (apparently)
> in standard works. any insights/references would be appreciated.
> re BA$.FLOWM (ps 29:11) for B:$FLOWM
> the pointing with the definite article here appears to be a glaring error
> for at least two reasons:
> (1) BA$.FLOWM is clearly and uncontroversially a "long word", and should
> not trigger the accent transformation (conjunctive munach in the place of
> revia-mugrash). the accents presuppose B:$FLOWM. (curiously, sharp-eyed
> Wickes used this phrase as a parade example of shalsheleth without
> noticing the problem: vol I, p. 67.) crucially, it's hard to imagine a
> wholesale jigging of the accents, including the introduction of
> shalsheleth; but easy to understand a minor difference in pointing the
> (2) consulting the lisowsky concordance, we see that the inseparable
> preposition is usually pointed with shwa: 29/29 with lamed, 34/36 with
> beth. (perhaps not coincidentally, the other case is also in the poetic
> system: job 15:21?)
> on the other hand, there are things to be said for the definite article:
> (1) not only is the form attested in our best/earliest mss, it is
> protected by MT mas. parva: BHS note confirms "twice" (ie ps 29:11, job
> 15:21). the form is undoubtedly part of the tradition.
> (2) the form is the lectio difficilior, and should be preferred, all
> things being equal. (mas. parva is designed to protect the l. diff.)
> (1) the presence/absence of the definite article does not appear as a
> problem in standard commentaries. can it be that it makes no difference?
> (2) but then, what would the difference be? what would motivate the
> definite article in the face of overwhelming stats to the contrary?
> (3) does the possibility of a mistake in vowel-pointing slipping in
> against the accents say anything about the masorah: theoretically,
> practically? what value should we assign to the accents as "quality
> control" in copying?
> Dr Vincent DeCaen
> DeCaen and Associates Research and Communications
> 135 Bleecker Street, Suite 307
> Toronto ON, M4X 1X2
> vince at decaen.ca
> Information provided is compiled from sources believed to be reliable, but
> no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made by DeCaen and
> Associates as to its accuracy, completeness or correctness.
More information about the b-hebrew