Well, in a qoph it would be dagesh forte, right? Therefore, the shewa is
vocal. Unless this is something like the "guh-lory of reading", I don't buy
it. Either way, it's weird.
Maybe the original scribe with the bad aim also had a mean left hook, so no
one was game to correct him?
GEORGE ATHAS
Director of Postgraduate Studies,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia
And then never corrected by any later copyist or printer?
Many of the Jewish commentators, such as Ibn-Ezra, claim that the unique
feature is "letif'eret haqeri'ah" - "for the glory of reading". In other
words, since this is poetry and the niqud and cantilation marks are meant as
an aid to aural recitation of the text, so that the reader emphasizes that
the word "Miqdash" is not connected to the following "Adonai" ("the temple,
Lord", and not "the temple of the Lord").
In all of the places in which the word "Miqdash" (temple, sanctuary)
appears, there is a dagesh on the dalet. Only in Ex. 15:17, the dagesh is on
the qoph. This is consistent in all of the editions that I have checked,
including BHS. Anyone have any idea why?