Ad Fontes

Masora

How the accents of the Hebrew Bible can change the meaning?

by Leave a Comment

Does the study of the accents / cantillation marks of the Hebrew Bible aid one in understanding or interperting the meaning of the text?

Yes, I believe so take Deuteronomy 26:5 for example. Below is an image of the text in Hebrew. Notice that the text of Deuteronomy has been mirrored. The Hebrew consonants’ of both texts colored in black as well as the ‘vowels’ colored in blue are identical. The accents/cantillation marks are colored red. However, to demonstrate how accents can radically change the meaning of the text one accent on the first word (on the right) has been substituted for another:

Disclaimer: Each of the translations above represent only one of the multiple ways each of the parallel lines of text could be understood or translated in English.

Now, examine how this same verse appears in a Torah scroll the verse appears neither with accents nor with vowel points. So a reader without these Masoretic notations would have had to decide from him or herself how to interpret this verse:

For more on the on the issue mentioned above check out:

https://www.thetorah.com/article/did-an-aramean-try-to-destroy-our-father

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/an-aramean-destroyed-my-father/

The above was originally posted back n 2018 on the Logos forums: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/135738/1008148.aspx#1008148 Here I have made a few minor changes and additions.

1 Kings 17:6 an Orthographic Issue

by Leave a Comment

It would seem that most (if not all) translators follow the ‘Ktiv Menuqad’ of the ‘Masoretic’ text when attempting to render 1 kings 17:6 into English. In doing so translators have either knowingly or unwittingly accepted the Masoretes’ interpretation of scripture. The text that lay before the Masoretes was probably the ambiguous והערבים . Without, the Neqqudot the word could be read either as ‘ravens’ or ‘Arabs’ depending on its literary context or on the interpreter’s decision. However, the Masoretes who added the Neqqudot had to decide whether to point the word with the ‘patach’ vowel under the letter ‘Ayin’ or a ‘Holam’ above the letter ‘Ayin’. A simple change of even a single vowel point can sometimes radically alter the meaning of a word in classical Hebrew and that actually is the only difference between the reading ‘ravens’ or ‘Arabs’.

Examine the image below carefully. The vowel points are in red to make it easier to spot the difference between these two readings/vocalizations/interpretations:

What’s your opinion or take on the above?

Untitled.png.c96b160364e06327073b11b4bb588493.png

Genesis 18:22 (phenomenon)

by Leave a Comment

Not everything found in Codices of Hebrew Bible nor in the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible is translated in Christian editions of the OT.

There are numerous notes, list, and pages left by the Masoretes that are rarely if ever translated into English or any other modern language.

Common examples of this include the Masorah Ketanah, Masorah Gedolah, keri uchetiv (Qere) readings, data list at the end of each book, mikra Soferim, ittur Soferim, and the Tiqqune Soferim.

In the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (page 25 print) Genesis 18:22 is notated with two lowercase ‘a’s one before (and Avraham) ‬וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם and one attached to יְהוָֽה (YHWH )

a‬וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם עֹודֶ֥נּוּ עֹמֵ֖ד לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֽהa‬

(a) but, Avraham still stood before YHWH (a) (Genesis 18:22)

the (a)s direct us to the apparatus or footnotes:

22 a–a Tiq soph, lect orig אברהם … ויהוה

‘Tiq soph’ tells us that we are encountering what is known as a Tiqqūn sōferīm

‘lect’ is short for ‘lectio’ (reading)

‘Orig’ is short for originalis (original)

What, the abbreviated notes from the BHS’ textual apparatus are telling us is that originally the text may have ‘theoretically’ read:”but, YHWH still stood before Avraham“. This text is one of the 18 tiqqūnēy sōferīm texts that were alleged (according to tradition) changed by the ancient scribes for theological reasons.

This begs the question: “what was the theological reason that the text was supposedly changed for”?

Some claim that this text put YHWH is less role by having YHWH stand before Avraham rather than the other around, but it, in my opinion, is more likely that the alleged Scribes were worried if read that way it would paint an anthropomorphic picture of YHWH by directly stating that YHWH was actually standing in front of Avraham. The Masoretes themselves did not make the Tiqquney Soferim changes but only noted changes they believed had happened.

However, If the Masoretes were Karaite Jews (as some claim) rather than Rabbinic Jews and they would have outright rejected the early Midrashic/oral interpretations that claimed that YHWH would either manifest himself personally as the Memra and or Metatron or that these where mediators or conduits with which to speak to mankind. I have no doubt that would not have not also have found John 8:56-58 problematic too none the less they wanted to make sure that any changes or textual phenomenon were noted.

Sources Cited:
(1) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: SESB Version. electronic ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2003. Print.
(2) Weil, Gérard E., K. Elliger, and W. Rudolph, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5. Aufl., rev. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. Print.

Jeremiah 42:6

by Leave a Comment

The following widely used editions of the Hebrew Bible agree with the followig reading: אֲֽנַ֜וְּ
1)The Jerusalem Crown: Keter Yerushalayim (pg. 467)
(2)BHS (pg 867)
(3)Rabbi M. Breuer’s Tanakh( שנט or pg. 359 )
(3)Letteris Tanakh (pg. 812)
(4)Norman Henry Snaith’s Tanakh (Pg. 776)
(5)DavkaWriter Hebrew Bible


These three popular versions leave אנו unpointed (without vowel points)
(1) C.D. Ginsburg Tanakh (pg. 912)
(2) Koren Tanach (pg. 430)
(3) Adi (A. Dotan) Tanakh (pg. 712)
(4) The Stone Edition of the Tanach (pg. 1172)
(5)The JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (pg. 1115)

TanakhML Project and the online Westminster Leningrad Codex 4.14 have אֲנַ֜חְנוּ in the text with אנו as a subscript. however, both also display other choices. If you click on אֲנַ֜חְנוּ in the TanakhML it will open another page with variants.

Jeremiah 42:6 in some editions of the Hebrew Bible might prove hard to find because they may utilizes Hebrew letters as numbers. In Hebrew Jeremiah 42:6 might look something like this ספר ירמיה (the book of Jeremiah) then פרק מב (section 42) and ו (the number 6).

1 Kings 17:6 a Masoretic issue

by Leave a Comment

It would seem that most (if not all) translators follow the ‘Ktiv Menuqad’ of the ‘Masoretic’ text when attempting to render 1 kings 17:6 into English. In doing so translators have either knowingly or unwittingly accepted the Masoretes’ interpretation of scripture. The text that lay before the Masoretes was probably the ambiguous והערבים . Without, the Neqqudot the word could be read either as ‘ravens’ or ‘Arabs’ depending on its literary context or on the interpreter’s decision. However, the Masoretes who added the Neqqudot had to decide whether to point the word with the ‘patach’ vowel under the letter ‘Ayin’ or a ‘Holam’ above the letter ‘Ayin’. A simple change of even a single vowel point can radically alter the meaning of a word in classical Hebrew and that actually is the only difference between the reading ‘ravens’ or ‘Arabs’. Examine the image below carefully. The vowel points are in red to make it easier to spot the difference between these two readings/vocalizations/interpretations:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190210085506if_/http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16a743b84c462aab.png

What’s your opinion or take on the above?  In the over all context of the narrative how do you think the word under consideration should be rendered and why?