Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 27/02/2005 20:25, Tigran Aivazian wrote:

> ...
>
> "thus qoph with Shewa only in the following editions:
>  ...
>
> However, in many manuscripts and ancient editions the reading has qoph 
> with khateph kamets and so in the following editions:
> ...


This kind of variation between qof with sheva and qof with hataf qamets 
is very typical of different editions, but is essentially irrelevant to 
the issue at hand.

> 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.


Well, there is no evidence except from the best complete MS - at least 
the one judged by most scholars to be the best (in most places, though 
perhaps not here). You ignore the best evidence - apparently Aleppo as 
well in the evidence you quoted - and concentrate on differences between 
late derivative copies of that best evidence. This may be instructive 
for students of the history of mediaeval Judaism, but by far less useful 
than a comparison of Leningrad and Aleppo for those of us who are 
interested in the original pronunciation and meaning of the text.

> ...
>
> PS. The edition I referred to is still work in progress ...


I think that your work will still be in progress and far from complete 
until it includes all variations in the Leningrad and Aleppo texts.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 27/02/2005