Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

      Well, does the English word "man" refer to the masculine gender, as one 
would think, or really to both masculine and feminie? The term "mankind" or 
the expression "everyman" does refer genrally to both sexes.
   Which raises a question about your examples: what conclusions about a rule 
can one derive from the exceptions?
 
    Uri

Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:

But 'ish by no means always refers to an adult male, although doubtless 
it does in this context in Leviticus. It is commonly used in a much 
weaker sense "each", where the referents may include women as in Job 
42:11, 1 Chronicles 16:3, and inanimate objects as in 1 Kings 7:30,36. 
And similarly in an indefinite sense, Psalm 1:1 is hardly restricted in 
application to adult males.

-- 
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

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
>From kwrandolph AT email.com  Mon Feb 28 11:53:38 2005
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT email.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com
        (webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9524C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:53:38 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from wfilter.us4.outblaze.com (wfilter.us4.outblaze.com
        [205.158.62.180])
        by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
        B57E41800280
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:53:37 +0000 
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.55)
        by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 28 Feb 2005 16:53:34 -0000
Received: by ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
        id AB10D101D9; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:53:34 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from [66.81.74.3] by ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com with http for
        kwrandolph AT email.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:53:34 -0500
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:53:34 -0500
Subject: Re: tnk.pdf and Aleppo/L variants (was Re: [b-hebrew] weak verb
        reference
X-Originating-Ip: 66.81.74.3
X-Originating-Server: ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20050228165334.AB10D101D9 AT ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:53:38 -0000

Peter and Tigran:

I have heard the argument that the better the manuscript, the more likely i=
t was to be copied and read, therefore the shorter it would last before it =
was worn out and replaced. That would make it that the worse the manuscript=
, the more likely it was to be stashed on a shelf, and survive to this day.=
 Hence, the older the manuscript, the less likely it is to be a good copy. =
(The DSS are an exception to this rule, as they are in many respects a "tim=
e capsule" from 2000 years ago.)

For years I have been using an unpointed text based on the BHS. I noticed t=
hat most of the unpointed varients (Ketib vs. Qere) reflect more spelling v=
ariations and only a few that were more substantive. Just recently I got un=
pointed texts based on Aleppo and Leningrad codices. Whereas the unpointed =
text based on the Aleppo Codex seems to follow mainly the BHS in that its v=
arients can largely be explained as spelling variations (some of which indi=
cate that Biblical pronunciation may have differed significantly from the t=
radition as preserved by the Masoretes), not so the Leningrad Codex, where =
many of the varients include added and deleted letters and even words. Woul=
d not these variations indicate that the Leningrad Codex is decidedly an in=
ferior copy, inferior to even later MSS based on betterr originals? In othe=
r words, is the Leningrad Codex an example of an inferior text that survive=
d because it was not used as much, while better MSS wore out and were repla=
ced? Could many of the Qere in the Leningrad Codex include corrections base=
d on other MSS? Now these are my initial impressions based on an admittedly=
 small sample which I have not systematically noted (I'm just reading, not =
making scholarly treatises, not yet at least), but I wonder if these carry =
throughout the whole text.

Which brings up questions: how much have the unpointed texts based on these=
 codices been compared with the DSS? Has there been an effort ot determine =
which would be the best pre-Masorete text based largely on the DSS suplimen=
ted by surviving later MSS?

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tigran Aivazian" <tigran AT bibles.org.uk>
>=20
> Greetings Peter,
>=20
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Peter Kirk wrote:
> > You ignore the best evidence - apparently Aleppo as well in the=20
> > evidence you quoted - and concentrate on differences between late=20
> > derivative copies of that best evidence.
>=20
> No, that is not quite true, although it is right to say that what I=20
> actually _quoted_ (i.e. listed) indeed contained only the printed=20
> editions. But the data I examine is based on the collation=20
> (sometimes complete!) of the SEVENTY ancient manuscripts, some of=20
> which (e.g. Or. 4445 and Codex Beth of the Prophets) much more=20
> ancient than either Leningrad and Aleppo Codices.
>=20
> However, for the lack of space on a page (as I construct an edition=20
> to be read every day and not to sit on a shelf as an Encyclopaedia)=20
> I do not actually list individual manuscripts (though I could do=20
> that, in a separate edition that will be designed for that very=20
> purpose, to record _detailed_ data of this sort) and only record=20
> printed editions, but only _according_ to the way they agree with=20
> those ancient manuscripts.
>=20
> > I think that your work will still be in progress and far from=20
> > complete until it includes all variations in the Leningrad and=20
> > Aleppo texts.
>=20
> There is nothing stopping some volunteer (you and anyone are=20
> welcome to join :) to include all such variations. I will gladly=20
> accept the patches.
> Now, as I said, there is no space on a page to record all the data=20
> from all those 70 manuscripts. But, okay, Leningrad and Aleppo are=20
> special enough to make an exception for these two.
>=20
> Btw, speaking of Leningrad Codex, it is actually on my list of=20
> things TODO to generate the differences automatically as I can use=20
> Kirk Lowery's electronic text I have (which I converted to Tiqwah=20
> encoding and also typeset as PDF available at=20
> http://www.bibles.org.uk/pdf/bibles/Hebrew). So, at least for=20
> Leningrad Codex the task is not that hard and should be doable in=20
> the near future. (everyone who reads this can consider it a "call=20
> for volunteers" --- the environment for work is already set up and=20
> an ssh account will be provided whereby you can help with the task=20
> Peter mentioned)
>=20
> As for Aleppo, I have seen electronic (meaning machine-readable,=20
> not just scanned facsimiles) versions thereof (one even produced by=20
> one of my students :) but I am not sure if they are 100% reliable,=20
> so to include all variants from Aleppo may be a lot more work...
>=20
> In summary, thank you Peter for your opinion on my work --- it is=20
> constructive and lead me to some ideas for future work that are=20
> quite reasonable and should be doable.
>=20
> Shalom
> Tigran
--=20
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm