Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Raymond de Hoop <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>]

Eduardo, 

> In CL, (MNW )L is written in Isaiah 7:14, 8:8 and 8:10 as two words and
> therefore BHK, BHS and Snaith are right.

What is the criterion which you use to distinguish two words here? The space
between the two elements is in Isaiah 7:14 less as 1mm (in the other verses
even less). In Isaiah 8:5 (on the same page as 7:14) you'll find the word
<Hebr> l)mr <endHebr>, which is undoubtedly ONE word. Between the Aleph and
the Mem there is a space of 1mm, which is more than between the Waw and the
Aleph of the two elements (mnw and )l in 7:14.

So, the room left between the consonants cannot be used as an argument in
favour of your two-words-theory. You're dealing with a handwritten text and
the space used between the letters may differ.


> In all three cases there is paseq
> and Shewa which unmistakenly separates )L from (MNW.

Paseq is "a small vertical stroke between one word and the next" (Yeivin,
_Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah_, p.216). If there would have been
such a small vertical stroke BETWEEN the two elements , that would have been
an argument. However, I suggest you take another look in CL because there is
no such vertical stroke between the two elements, even not in Isa. 8:10.

In case you considered the vertical stroke beneath the Mem to be Paseq, that
is the accent which is erroneously represented in BHS/BHK/Snaith by Merka,
and which should be read as a Metheg (or Ga`ya; curved to the right). In
8:10 this is Tipcha, to be sure. Further, the vertical stroke under the
Aleph (of <Hebr> )l <endHebr>) is Silluq.

Finally, I have to suppose that you erred with regard to the Shewa you
mention, there is no Shewa in <Hebr> (mnw)l <endHebr>, so what do you mean?

> As a confirmation,
> the masorah did not marked Immanuel as a unique one word for the entire
> Tanakh.

Why should the Masorah have done this?


I appreciated it that you took a look at the accentuation, even though you
erred somewhat. But we still have to consider (mnw)l as one word on the
basis of the Masoretic accentuation, and I'm looking forward to your answer
with regard to this argument.

Yet, this is only part of the discussion because a name could exist of more
than one word, as was indicated by Liz. So, in addition I repeat my
questions in my previous mailing to you once more:

>>> How do you render <Hebr> WQR'T SMW... <endHebr> ?

And, with regard to the LXX, I wrote the following:

>>> 4. LXX has a footnote explaining the name meaning; i.e., the two words.
> That's is new to me that the LXX has footnotes.  Unless you mean the
> t.c.-aparatus, but there such a reference is not given. Or are you talking
> again of a certain edition, which is an interpretation of an editor? But
> which LXX-edition are you refering to?


Unless you give some good argued answers to all three questions
(accentuation; rendering WQRT SMW; LXX-edition), I will quite this
discussion. Untill now, you only answered to a part of my mail, which fitted
you the best. 

Regards,
Raymond