Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

On 29 feb 2004 at 0:25 Yigal Levin wrote:

> 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

Shalom,
In our discussion of a few weeks ago on "Ta`am `Elyon of the 
Decalogue", I referred to the setumah in Exod. 20:17, which is not 
printed in BHS, but still is in Codex Leningradensis (cf. Dothan, 
Biblia Hebraica Leningradensis, pp. 109, 1227; I checked it in the 
facsimile edition, to be sure).

This tradition is related to the tradition that reads Exod. 20:2-6 / 
Deut. 5:6-10 as one commandment (note that there is NO setuma or 
petucha found in these verses), which would result otherwise in nine 
commandments, but now --with setumah in Ex.20:17 / Deut.5:21-- in ten.

For the division of the text by means of cantilation accents, there are 
two systems (found in BHS) which suggest the first verse (20:2/5:6) to 
be a separate verse from the following four; and one tradition that 
reads 20:2-3/5:6-7 as one verse, separate from the following verses 
(though without setuma or petucha). However, there is a third tradition 
that even reads the five verses (20:2-6/5:6-10) as one Masoretic verse, 
with a revia at the end of the first verse. This tradition is not found 
in BHS (nor Codex Leningradensis and other mss), but in many Jewish 
Bible editions, starting with Miqra'ot Gedolot (Venice 1526).
Since the last mentioned tradition is an obvious late one, and is in 
line with the setuma and petucha tradition in the text, I would suggest 
that this setuma-tradition of the ten commandments is also a late 
tradition.

Kol Tuv,
Raymond

——————————————————————————
Dr Raymond de Hoop
Lecturer of Classical Hebrew
Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Groningen
Oude Boteringestraat 38
9712 GK Groningen
+31 503 635 574
R.de.Hoop AT theol.rug.nl

Home:
Boeiersingel 11
9745 CA Groningen
0031 505 530 115
rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl