Biblical Hebrew Forum

[DrJDPrice AT aol.com]

Dear Friends:
I tuned in to this thread just recently, so I may not have all the background.
However, I recently studied this subject with regard to Isaiah 40:3. Here is 
a summary of my conclusions:

Accents and Isaiah 40:3
    A strong opinion exists that the Hebrew accents favor the translation "A 
voice of one who cries, 'In the wilderness prepare . . .'" This division of 
the text is followed by the NIV, NASB (1995), NRSV, NAB, NLT, and NJB--an 
impressive list of support. However, all these versions seem to be following 
the layout of the text as found in BHS which sets off the words qol qore' as 
an introduction to the poem that follows. But several good reasons support 
the traditional division: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare 
the way of the LORD . . ."

(1) The accents--the words qore' and bammidbar both are pointed with the 
accent Zaqeph--the word qore' with Little Zaqeph and the word bammidbar with 
Great Zaqeph. According to William Wickes, the acknowledged authority on 
accents, "ZAQEPH appears under two forms, Great and Little Zaqeph. Great 
Zaqeph always stands alone" [Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old 
Testament (1881; reprint, New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1970), 
Treatise II, p. 75; emphasis and capitalization his]. Little Zaqeph is 
usually used, but Great Zaqeph is used under the following circumstances:
    (a) The Zaqeph segment consists of only one word, that is, it "stands 
alone," and 
    (b) the word is short, that is, it has no Metheg.
Thus, the poetic line equally could be divided either after qore' or after 
bammidbar.

(2) The poetic structure--when the poetic lines are arranged as found in BHS, 
the poetic lines are unbalanced. The first lines of the poem, according to 
BHS, are 
bammidbar pannu / derek YHWH
yashsheru ba'arabah / mesillah le'lohiym
kol-gey' yinnase' / wekol-har wekol-gib'ah yishpalu

It is evident that the first line is comparatively short. Likewise, it is the 
only line that is divided by an accent other than Zaqeph or Athnach. Tiphcha, 
the accent on the word pannu, rarely divides a poetic line. This is true 
because Tiphcha must appear on the first or second word before Silluq, never 
earlier, or on the first, second, or third word before Athnach, never 
earlier. One is hard pressed to find a legitimate example where Tiphcha 
divides a poetic line.
However, if the first line reads
Qol qore' bammidbar / pannu Derek YHWH,
then it is of comparable length, and divided with Zaqeph as expected.

(3) The LXX, the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek NT all seem to support the 
traditional translation found in the KJV and NKJV. 

One may object on the basis of Joüon-Muraoka (§15k), who assert that when two 
similar accents appear side-by-side, the first is stronger (they cite this 
verse as an example). However, Joüon-Muraoka surely got their rule from 
William Wickes who stated: "In certain cases, indeed, the same accent is 
repeated in the division of a clause; but from the very nature of the 
continuous dichotomy, it loses in disjunctive value each time of repetition" 
[Wickes, Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament (1887, 
reprint; New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc. 1970), Treatise II, p. 31; 
emphasis his]. This statement is based on what Wickes called the Law of 
Continuous Dichotomy. It is true that this diminishing of strength is often 
the case. However, I demonstrated that this is not a law, and that the 
phenomenon is explained on the basis of the syntax of the accents themselves 
[The Syntax of the Hebrew Accents in the Hebrew Bible (Lewiston, NY: The 
Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), pp. 40-41]. 

The evidence is abundant. Here is a list of places in the poetry of the 22 
prose books, where Great Zaqeph immediately follows Little Zaqeph, and where 
the editors of BHS regard the second accent as the stronger disjunctive: Isa. 
6:7; 52:11; Jer. 2:25; 4:5; 12:3; 47:2; 49:3; Ezek. 21:19; Hos. 12:2; Mic. 
4:5; Hab. 1:8, 13; 2:6; Zech. 2:12; Song 3:1; Eccl. 9:10. There are a few 
other places where this sequence occurs where the second Zaqeph probably 
should be regarded as the stronger, such as Isa. 22:18, and 40:3. 

Wickes "law" is not limited to the same accent on adjacent words, but it 
includes the same accent dividing the domain of its immediately 
higher-ranking disjunctive. In the case of Zaqeph, it includes cases where 
two or more Zaqephs occur in the domain of Athnach or Silluq. Here are a few 
places in just Isaiah where Little Zaqeph follows Little Zaqeph in poetry, 
and where the editors of BHS regard the second one as the stronger: 4:1; 
11:10, 16; 19:8; 23:4; 56:6. Likewise, here is a list of places in Isaiah 
where two Zaqephs divide an Athnach segment or a Silluq segment, and where 
the editors of BHS regard the two as having equal disjunctive strength: 9:6; 
10:15; 11:10; 21:2, 11; 24:2; 25:1; 27:11; 28:4; 30:1, 6, 32; 32:7; 34:4, 16; 
37:30; 40:9, 26; 42:24; 44:12 (twice), 14, 15, 16, 24; 46:1; 47:9; 49:6; 
53:10; 54:16; 57:15; 58:11; 63:16; 66:8. Unfortunately, BHS usually prints 
these triplets as doublets, thus obscuring the threefold parallelism. Here is 
a place where three Zaqephs divide a Silluq segment, and where BHS regards 
them as being of equal strength: 30:26. Others could be added where the 
evidence is not quite so apparent. So Wickes "law" is wrong, and so are Joüon 
and Muraoka who followed him.

In addition, the editors of BHS sometimes sets off the lines of poetry quite 
contrary to the accents, and where translators agree with the accents against 
BHS. Here are a few places that I just came across in Isaiah: 
Isa. 8:6 where BHS has the line at a conjunctive accent after Athnach. NKJV, 
NASB, NIV, NRSV, and NLT divide at Athnach.

A similar condition occurs at Isa. 25:1.

In Isa. 38:10, BHS divides the line one word after Athnach, with NRSV 
agreeing with BHS against the others.

A similar problem exists at 42:24. 

Respectfully,
James D. Price
Prof. of Hebrew and OT
Temple Baptist Seminary
Chattanooga, TN