Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Ronald Monestime wrote:

>> > With maqqef: Deu 34:5,Jos 1:13,Jos 8:31,Jos 8:33,Jos 12:6,Jos 14:7,Jos 
>> > 22:5,2Ch
>> > 1:3,2Ch 24:6
>> > Without maqqef:Jos 1:1,Jos 1:15,Jos 11:12,Jos 13:8,Jos 18:7,Jos 22:2,Jos
>> > 22:4,Jos 24:29,Jdg 2:8,2Ki 18:12
>> In all the cases you gave for with maqqef vs without maqqef, in the
>> with maqqef examples, the
>> preceding word has a conjunctive cantillation mark whereas in the
>> without maqqef it has a
>> disjunctive one. This suggests that in the with-maqqef cases the
>> maqqef is there to create
>> a united element to which the preceding word is conjoined.
>> The maqqef essentially means that the two words are spoken as one
>> word, and there is only
>> one primary stress, the word with the maqqef getting secondary stress at
>> most.

> WBSC: My understanding has been that the use of Hebrew accents could also
> reflect the oral understanding/tradition and some words may be considered as
> a single entity, even in cantillation, because of this underlying
> historical/oral/theological understanding.

There are some cases where the Hebrew accents do signify some theological
concept.  These are generally visible in a different sentence
division.  For example,

Deut 26:5 )rmy )bd )by wyrd mcrymh

The Hebrew accents divide the sentence as )rmy, )bd )by.  This follows
the Midrash
(to be told across the world at the Passover Seder on Monday night) as well as
various translations that Laban tried to destroy Jacob.  However, the
simple reading
of the sentence is with the pause between )bd and )by - "my father was a lost
Aramean."  Indeed, it was Jacob who was of Aramean descent and who went to
Egypt.  Laban was not the one who went to Egypt.  The Masoretic reading is 
very
early, adopted already by translations like Onqelos.

There are other cases where the Masoretic reading does not make some 
theological
concept.  For example:

Gen 3:22 hn h)dm hyh k)xd mmnw ld(t +wb wr(

The Hebrew accents divide the sentence: k)xd mmnw, ld(t +wb wr( "like one of 
us,
to know good and bad."  However, early translations, like Onqelos again, read
k)xd, mmnw ld(t +wb wr( "as unique, from himself to understand good and bad."
The Masoretic reading here avoids the theological interpretation that seeks to
remove possible anthropomorphic and polytheistic understanding of the verse.

In both cases, the theological reading is apparent from the verse
division.  That is,
the Masoretic accents divide the verse, and this may identify
theological readings.
There isn't always a theological motive present, but when it is there
it is readily
apparent.

In some cases the maqqef has a purely phonetic background.  For example, the
word kol "every" when in construct form practically always appears
with a maqqef.
This is probably because the word originally had a short vowel - kull.  In the
Masoretic pronunciation, any stressed syllable had a long vowel, so the word
kol if read as a single word, with one syllable on which the primary
stress had to
fall, would have had to have a long vowel.  By adjoining it to the
following word
the stress could be alleviated and thus the syllable could retain its
short vowel.
Said differently, as stressed syllables became long, some words were adjoined
to the following ones in the tradition in order to lose the stress but
maintain the
short vowel.

In any case, the working thesis you suggested does not follow readily from the
division of the verse structure given by the accents as do cases of
clear theological
interpretations of the verse.  It also appears oblivious to the use of
the maqqef for
purely phonetic reasons.  I'm not even sure you were aware that the
maqqef implies
that the two words are to be read as one when you formed your thesis, so that
verse division and phonetic reasons were possible not considered.  For
all these
reasons, it does not seem very likely to me.

Incidentally, it occurred to me that if we assume an intermediate stage to the
loss of case endings, whereby )rmy and )by had a long -i vowel at the end, but
)bd still had the genitive case ending, the phrase )rmy )bd )by would make for
sort of a rhyme - *)arami: )obedi )abi:.  Such a structure itself (a nominal
sentence with the object preceding the subject) suggests by itself that some
case ending was still in use.

Yitzhak Sapir