Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] weak verb reference

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Tigran Aivazian <tigran AT bibles.org.uk>
  • To: Karyn Traphagen <karyn AT birchbarkstudio.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] weak verb reference
  • Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:25:23 +0000 (GMT)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, Karyn Traphagen wrote:
From Ruth 2 vs 2 we have the verb _wa'alaqotah_ (I probably don't have the transliteration accurate... the word is: waw-patach--aleph-hataf patach--lamed-patach--qof-hataf qamats--tet-qamats--heh) No dagesh. The verb is parsed as a Piel cohortative. I don't expect this pointing with a Piel stem! Where is the dagesh in the middle root? The BHQ has a dagesh in the tet. Why?

If you had checked with my massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible you would have noticed the reading to be (in Tiqwah encoding, see http://www.bibles.org.uk/pdf/misc/tiqwah.pdf for a table of conversion, but I think it is intuitively obvious :)

wa<SIL>'Halaq*"TA<MUN>h<RAF>

and there is a textual footnote explaining why and showing the alternative:

\fn{<H>kn wa'Halaq*"TAh hqw!!p bW/w' lbd d!!', d!!b, d!!g, d!!w wdT!!w, 'bl bhrbh sprym k<NIL>!!y wdpwsym yW/nym wa'Halaq*HATAh hqw!!p bxTp qmY wkn xd!!h, dy!!', xd!!w, dy!!b wdy!!d.</H>}

For those not familiar with textual variant footnotes I shall gladly translate it to English:

"thus qoph with Shewa only in the following editions:

1. Hagiographa, Naples 1486-1487
2. First edition of the Bible Soncino 1488
3. Second edition, Naples ca 1491-1493
4. Third edition, Brescia 1494, and
5. ben Chayim's 1524-1524 Second Rabbinic Bible.

However, in many manuscripts and ancient editions the reading has qoph with khateph kamets and so in the following editions:

1. Pentateuch, Brescia 1492
2. Complutensian Polyglott
3. Pentateuch, Venice 1516
4. First Rabbinic Bible by Felix Pratensis, 1517. and
5. Bomberg quarto edition, Venice 1521"

As you see, I don't even mention the reading you quote, found in the so-called "scholar" editions (based on Leningrad Codex) because there is no real manuscript or early printed editions support for it. Ok, except Leningrad Codex. But Aleppo Codex has a dagesh there, so Leningrad Codex is here a "law unto itself". I sometimes quote it but not always.

Also, if you check the Oriental 2626-27-28 (obviously "28" volume thereof) you will also see a dagesh in there. This is the beautifully illuminated Shephardi Codex which is the base of Snaith's edition published by BFBS in 1958. And Letteris has a dagesh in there as well. (though it is not known which mss served as a base for Meri haLevi Letteris)

My guess is that Leningrad Codex also had a dagesh in there but it's just not visible any more (that particular part of the manuscript is not very easily readable). This is why I haven't listed L's reading against Ruth 2:2,
because I am not 100% sure it was like that originally... (ah, I should be
careful with the word "original" here :)

Shalom
Tigran

PS. The edition I referred to is still work in progress but the current snapshot is freely downloadable as tnk.pdf from http://www.bibles.org.uk




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page