Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification
  • Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:33:23 +0200

John,

Even assuming that there WAS an original Hebrew text of Matthew, and that that text somehow survived all the way to the 16th century, the trope marks would not have been a part of that "original" text, since they had not been invented yet. So my advise would be to just ignore them.

Yigal Levin
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brak" <Brak AT neo.rr.com>
To: "Jason Hare" <jaihare AT gmail.com>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification



My goal is to transcribe the text as it is written. So for me to use the
meteg/silluq glyph for both the meteg/silluq and this mystery mark then
the distinction which the writer made would be lost - something that
goes against my transcription philosophy.

So the only options I see are the following:
1: Figure out what trope this mystery glyph is supposed to be and use
the traditional glyph for that mark
2: Treat this as a new glyph, and just make a new chevron in my
font/encoding scheme for this glyph.

I'm wondering is possible the writer is using this glyph for the mahpak?


On a different note, that everyone seems to be talking about:
According to many, this Hebrew text of Matthew (and other Hebrew texts
of Matthew) isn't a translation from the Greek into Hebrew, but rather
is preservation (how preserved it is ... well that's a BIG debate) of
the actual Hebrew text that the Greek Matthew was translated from.
But whether this text is a continuation of the original Hebrew text, or
a transation from a Greek text, or even a hybrid of the two has no
affect on my question: What in the world is that glyph supposed to be?



B"H
John Steven

"He who makes a mistake is still our friend; he who adds to or shortens
a melody is still our friend; but he who violates a rhythm unawares can
no longer be our friend."
-Ishaq Ibn Ibrahim 767-850 CE.

"If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you
behave."
-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

"The difference between the intelligent man and the simpleton is not the
correctness of their decisions, but rather the cunning sinner can more
skillfully defend and justify his iniquity."
- Rabbi Tovia Singer


Jason Hare wrote:
The new image you sent has a grammatical mistake from the outset. It's
a construct chain, so the construct forms do not take articles, as
with the word ??????? in your image. It seems that the author did a
poor job translating Matthew into Hebrew, and then to add to his
confusion he attempted to adopt Tiberian markings but not to use them
in any standard way. Apparently, he took three disjunctive accents to
indicate pause and disregarded the phrase accents leading into them.

With the information that only these three accents are mentioned (and
I did see them in the larger image you posted), I am left to think
that he simply used the silluq/meteg sign as a secondary stress marker
on all words that did not receive one of his (randomly) chosen
disjunctive accents. The system employed here is completely for stress
marking, devoid of any reference to cantillation or tone.

Perhaps he even used the pausal marks in different ways, marking
verse-final with sof pasuq, verse medial with etnach and tertiary
pause with zaqef qaton. I want to spend a bit more time looking over
the image that you sent before of two pages, but it doesn't seem like
a very complete system to me, and I think you should simply choose the
meteg for your encoding.

The presence of two metegs on the one word in ??????? is probably to
look Biblical, where there are sometimes two accents on long words
(for example ????? in Deuteronomy 6:5 with both munach and zaqef
qaton). It indicates that the author things that there should be a
small stress on the -TO- syllable: ha-TO-le-DOT. Or, it could simply
indicate the vocal sheva in the following syllable (using it as the
standard meteg, holding the long vowel away from the following
syllable).

It could be a number of things, but I think you should interpret all
of these marks (even the ones that are a little curved and look more
like either tipcha or mercha) as meteg/silluq.

Best regards,
Jason Hare
Rehovot, Israel

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com> wrote:

I'm currently wondering if this glyph in the text is indeed a NEW glyph,
or just a different style for a current glyph.

Here's another example, which has a word with two glyphs, a meteg and
the mystery mark.
http://home.roadrunner.com/~pgj_k/example_4.jpg

What's interesting is that the preface doesn't mention the use of the
meteg.

B"H
John Steven

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.17/1847 - Release Date: 12/13/2008 4:56 PM

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



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.17/1847 - Release Date: 13/12/2008 16:56





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page