Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> Besides Hummel's article in JBL (1957), I was wondering if anyone else has
read or knows of other material that argues for the validity of Second
Isaiah based upon its lack of enclitic mems? Hummel lists twenty-four
enclitic mems for First Isaiah:
>
> 1.6, 3.12, 3.13, 5.23, 9.18, 10.1, 10.2, 10.5, 11.15, 17.9, 17.13, 19.4,
19.9, 19.12, 24.18, 24.22, 25.2, 28.1, 28.9, 29.4, 30.27, 33.2, 33.21,
33.23;
>
> five for Second Isaiah:
> 40.17, 47.14, 53.3, 62.10 (?), 65.20


Well, my personal opinion is that enclitic mems serve to prevent
phonetically unpleasant amalgamation, separating last consonant of preceding
word from first consonant of the following word.
Enclitic mem could be perhaps useful in poetry and chanting to adjust the
length or rhyme, something like ummm. Just a guess.
But note that the Masoretes soundly explained most (all?) cases as either
suffix or min prefix. Since min has very wide meaning, the Masoretic
explanation seems completely plausible to me. Why, for example, insist on
enclitic in Isaiah 53:3?

Vadim Cherny