PDA

View Full Version : Proverbs 26:17's odd daghesh



Dan Phillips
11-26-2009, 11:22 AM
Why is there a daghesh in the lamed of lo'? It follows a consonant.

I don't think it's a typo; it's in the Logos version too.

Yet Fox, Clifford, and Waltke take no note of it; nor do Delitzsch, Garrett, the worthless Murphy, nor the grammars. Has me wondering if I'm seeing things.

Brainiacs?

Adelphos
11-26-2009, 02:41 PM
Why is there a daghesh in the lamed of lo'? It follows a consonant.

I don't think it's a typo; it's in the Logos version too.

It's not a typo in that it accurately represents the Lenningrad Codex, which has a number of oddities throughout.

The Masoretic Text does not contain the dagesh.

Dan Phillips
11-26-2009, 02:55 PM
Oh, that's interesting about the MT; perhaps why the commentators don't deal with it. Yet most of the odd font/pointing gets mentioned by someone.

SkipB
11-27-2009, 02:32 AM
As I recall, it is also in the Allepo codex which like Leningrad is a ben Asher text. Letteris does not, and Kittel's first 2 editions which like Letteris are based on the Bomberg Bible (ben Chayyim text) do not have it. I know in the 4th edition of Kittel it is there. I have a pdf of a text that is reputed to be a ben Chayyim text and it surprisingly has the dagesh. I remember translating a note about this verse but can't find it on my computer. Just odd.

Dan Phillips
11-27-2009, 12:04 PM
Thanks.

I do like these little oddities, though. I appreciate you already know where I'm going the conservative ethos of the scribes. They come on something like this, and rather than say "Whoa, that doesn't make sense; I'll fix it," they in effect shrug, respect the text, reproduce it as-is.

That's why the thousand-year leap back to the DSS wasn't as huge a transition as one might've feared.

jimofbentley
11-27-2009, 07:06 PM
Thanks.

I do like these little oddities, though. I appreciate you already know where I'm going the conservative ethos of the scribes. They come on something like this, and rather than say "Whoa, that doesn't make sense; I'll fix it," they in effect shrug, respect the text, reproduce it as-is.

That's why the thousand-year leap back to the DSS wasn't as huge a transition as one might've feared.

Of course, it is possible, that it didn't seem odd to them at all, but they had a perfectly good understanding of why it was the way it was, which, unfortunately, they didn't tell anybody else about.

Dan Phillips
11-27-2009, 07:45 PM
...from the upcoming best-seller, The Da Gheshi Code, by Jim of Bentley.

(c;

Adelphos
11-27-2009, 09:12 PM
I don't know about this verse specifically, but it should be understood that a great many variants in the Leningrad Codex, a.k.a., B19a, are speculation. Here's an excerpt from Dotan's transcription of this codex --

"Sometimes it is difficult to decide whether the manuscript offers the commonly accepted reading or a different reading which, though possible in itself, was perhaps not intended by the scribe but may be read only because of the state of the manuscript... The most problematic decision is in those cases where a blurred reading in the manuscript gives an intrinsically possible text, even though it is unusual, and one does not know whether it is a fault in the manuscript and the intended reading is the usual one or if perhaps the scribe intended an unusual reading... Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between two equally possible readings, which makes a decision even harder... As is well known, the Leningrad Codex is a corrected document, which has been ADAPTED TO BEN ASHER'S READINGS BY A LARGE NUMBER OF EMENDATIONS. These are not always absolutely clear, especially when observed through a photographic reproduction of the manuscript. The worst problem is the erasures of marks in the original that have not always been carried out with a firm hand." Aron Dotan, Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia, Foreward, emphasis added

Although those remarks should be quite revealing for anyone who is even bascially familiar with philology, here is one that is even more so...

"There are NUMEROUS fundamental decisions for adding or omitting symbols on which we had to decide FOR THE SAKE OF THE UNIFORMITY AND LEGIBILITY OF THE TEXT." ibid, emphasis added.

Among MANY other such like, the above comments should tell many people all they need to know about the veracity of the text of B19a.