Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

I would assume that the setumot and petuhot are pre-Masoretic. As for the
10th commandment, note that in the Ex. 20:17 version there is no setumah.

Yigal

----- Original Message -----
From: "Trevor Peterson" <06peterson AT cua.edu>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] stuma in Deut 5,21


> Peter Kirk wrote:
>
> > The pattern of setuma and petuha in the Hebrew Bible does not always
> > correspond to verse divisions (not just here, in quite a lot of places),
> > which suggests to me that it is part of a tradition independent from the
> > Masoretic one which divides the text into verses and subdivisions with
> > sof pasuq and accents (cantillation marks). The Masoretic marking tells
> > readers how to chant the verse. If the setuma does as well, it is at
> > least part of an independent chanting tradition.
> >
> I'm not sure this actually answers the question. It does suggest that
> the Masoretes weren't necessarily trying to pass judgment on how the
> passage should be subdivided. In any case, we might say the same thing
> generally--they were trying to preserve the tradition handed down to
> them. Where the tradition diverged, they appear in some cases to have
> done the best they could to preserve multiple options. But whether or
> not we can say anything about the Masoretes' own views on the passage,
> it does seem like whatever tradition the stumah preserves is in fact
> following a division similar to that of the iconic Christian tradition,
> whereby vv. 6-10 constitute one command and v. 21 constitutes two
> (English vv.). Even the versification of this passage varies, BTW,
> between the two accenting systems.
>
> Trevor Peterson
> CUA/Semitics
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>