Jump to content

an accentual difference between the ETCBC and the BHS-W4 (Genesis 5:29)


Brian K. Mitchell

Recommended Posts

The BHSW4 and the MTECBC are both based on the printed edition of the BHS or on some printed representation of the Leningrad

Codex. So, I am curious if anyone knows the reason for the difference in cantillation mark choices between the before mentioned databases in regards to the זה in (Genesis 5:29) " ...  ויקרא את־שמו נח לאמר זה"

MT-ETCBC (V1.0) זֶ֞ה֠ (has both a Telisha Gedolah and the Gershayim accent)

BHS-W4 (V4.14) זֶה֠ (has only the Telisha Gedolah accent)

 

The MT-ETCBC agrees with the printed BHS (see page 8 / Genesis 5:29/ the edition I have was printed in 1990). Also, the images of the Leningrad Codex (see, Genesis 5:26b - 6:19a, 4 recto) are clear enough to see that there are actually two markings over the זה in the verse.

 

It seems that it may have been common practice to place two accents above the זה in the Genesis 5:29:

In five passages, Gen. 5:29; Lev. 10:4; 2 Ki. 17:13; Ezek. 48:10; Zeph. 2:15 (see Mas. to Gen. 5:29), Géresh and T’lîsha are found together in the same word,—an intimation that ancient authorities differed as to the chanting. The later Massoretes, unable to decide which was right, directed that both accents should be chanted (הקורא יטעים הגרש קדם התלישא), Géresh first, as being the more common. And this chanting is observed in the present day.

Wickes, William. Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament. Vol. 2. (page 101) Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1887.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is interesting, Maybe a typo? It is possible since the ETCBC is a database outside of Accordance. Everything else seems to be the same. Any other instances you can find?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another from 1 Chronicles Chapter 10 verse 1 (click on the image below)

post-31817-0-17214600-1542631546_thumb.png

 

בְיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיָּ֤נָס
The following editions have the Athnach accent on בישראל and a  Mahpach accent on וינס
1. Letteris Hebrew Bible (London 1852) page 1290
2,Ginsburg Hebrew Bible (London 1894 /1998 ) page 1698
3.Biblia Hebraica Kittel (Leipzig 1906) page 1241
4. Snaith Hebrew Bible/OT (London 1958) page 1274
5. Koren Tanakh ( Jerusalem 1966)
6. Breuer Tanach ( Jerusalem 1989)
7. Art Scroll Tanach (Brooklyn 1996) page 1898
8.Jerusalem Crown (Jerusalem 2004) page 819
9.Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1997) page 1480
10.The Leningrad Codex Images (1 Chronicles 9:33b-10:14a) 333 verso


 בְיִשְרָאֵ֑ל וַיָ֑נָס
1 Chronicles 10:1 (the consecutive athnach)

The following editions on the other hand have the repetitive Athnach one on both וינס  and בישראל

1. Aron Dotan, Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia (Hendrickson Peabody, Massachusetts 2001) page 1146
2.JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh 2nd edition ( Philadelphia 2004 ) page 1911
3.Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1984) page 1480
4.BHS-W4 (version 4.35 / Morphology 4.14)
5.BHS-T (version 1.8 / Morphology 4.14)
6.MT-ETCBC (WIVU version 1.0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another from 1 Chronicles Chapter 10 verse 1 (click on the image below)

attachicon.gif1 Chronicles chapter 10 verse 1.png

 

בְיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיָּ֤נָס

The following editions have the Athnach accent on בישראל and a  Mahpach accent on וינס

1. Letteris Hebrew Bible (London 1852) page 1290

2,Ginsburg Hebrew Bible (London 1894 /1998 ) page 1698

3.Biblia Hebraica Kittel (Leipzig 1906) page 1241

4. Snaith Hebrew Bible/OT (London 1958) page 1274

5. Koren Tanakh ( Jerusalem 1966)

6. Breuer Tanach ( Jerusalem 1989)

7. Art Scroll Tanach (Brooklyn 1996) page 1898

8.Jerusalem Crown (Jerusalem 2004) page 819

9.Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1997) page 1480

10.The Leningrad Codex Images (1 Chronicles 9:33b-10:14a) 333 verso

 

 

 בְיִשְרָאֵ֑ל וַיָ֑נָס

1 Chronicles 10:1 (the consecutive athnach)

 

The following editions on the other hand have the repetitive Athnach one on both וינס  and בישראל

 

1. Aron Dotan, Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia (Hendrickson Peabody, Massachusetts 2001) page 1146

2.JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh 2nd edition ( Philadelphia 2004 ) page 1911

3.Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1984) page 1480

4.BHS-W4 (version 4.35 / Morphology 4.14)

5.BHS-T (version 1.8 / Morphology 4.14)

6.MT-ETCBC (WIVU version 1.0)

Now that is interesting- BHS is based on the L text and yet a difference in multiple versions is attested. Any idea of the text base on some of the others mentioned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that is interesting- BHS is based on the L text and yet a difference in multiple versions is attested. Any idea of the text base on some of the others mentioned?

The BHS modules in Accordance stem from the Alan Groves and Dan Wheelers transcription (and morphological analysis) of the early editions of the paper/printed BHS by the german Bible Society. However, the early editions of the BHS misread the early photos and or microfilm versions of the Leningrad Codex.

 

This why the printed BHS before 1997 have double athanach in 1 Chronicles 10:1

While the BHS printed in and after 1997 have have the Athanch and the Mahpach accent (which matches the newer images from the 90's we have in Accordance).

 

I am guessing though that this issue isn't a misreading, but rather that someone was tried slipped and made a mistake. That mistake then

came into the electronic edition of the BHS and to printed editions that used those older electronic files.

 

Notice: The above is all my conjecture so take it with a grain of salt.

 

If, you are curious about the other edition mentioned on the list, not all of them are based on the BHS/Leningrad Codex. Some are based on the 2nd great Rabbinic Bible, one purportedly on spanish manuscripts, one is based on the princples Wolf Heidenheim esstabled, and another on the princples of Rabbi Mordechai Breuer of memory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BHS modules in Accordance stem from the Alan Groves and Dan Wheelers transcription (and morphological analysis) of the early editions of the paper/printed BHS by the german Bible Society. However, the early editions of the BHS misread the early photos and or microfilm versions of the Leningrad Codex.

 

This why the printed BHS before 1997 have double athanach in 1 Chronicles 10:1

While the BHS printed in and after 1997 have have the Athanch and the Mahpach accent (which matches the newer images from the 90's we have in Accordance).

 

I am guessing though that this issue isn't a misreading, but rather that someone was tried slipped and made a mistake. That mistake then

came into the electronic edition of the BHS and to printed editions that used those older electronic files.

 

Notice: The above is all my conjecture so take it with a grain of salt.

 

If, you are curious about the other edition mentioned on the list, not all of them are based on the BHS/Leningrad Codex. Some are based on the 2nd great Rabbinic Bible, one purportedly on spanish manuscripts, one is based on the princples Wolf Heidenheim esstabled, and another on the princples of Rabbi Mordechai Breuer of memory.

Its a perfect example of scribal transmission...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a perfect example of scribal transmission...

 

For what it's worth, my Stone Tanach (1996) has the mehupakh / mahpak, but I'm sure that level of detail is far beneath your scouring of the manuscripts and editions above.  (The intro doesn't even say what MSS. / editions they used, but I'm not surprised, given the tradition behind this publication).

 

But, it's a beautiful discussion, and one reason to appreciate electronic editions / software, like Accordance (especially taking it a step up with the ETCBC, and other resources of the like).

Edited by TYA
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

For what it's worth, my Stone Tanach (1996) has the mehupakh / mahpak,

Thank you! and Sorry for being two years late to reply.

 

...but I'm sure that level of detail is far beneath your scouring of the manuscripts and editions above. 

TYA you are way too kind! Actually I find that it is always nice to have extra eyes and feedback! No one individual can see or know it all.

 

For what it's worth, my Stone Tanach (1996) has the mehupakh / mahpak, but I'm sure that level of detail is far beneath your scouring of the manuscripts and editions above.  (The intro doesn't even say what MSS. / editions they used, but I'm not surprised, given the tradition behind this publication).

 

But, it's a beautiful discussion, and one reason to appreciate electronic editions / software, like Accordance (especially taking it a step up with the ETCBC, and other resources of the like).

I agree 100% on that point. Accordance forums have provided for a lot of great conversations!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for being two years late to reply.

 

 

You are forgiven; but only because of your astute reply in this post.

Edited by TYA
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
On 11/19/2018 at 8:50 AM, Brian K. Mitchell said:

[...] 1 Chronicles Chapter 10 verse 1 [...] The following editions have the Athnach accent on בישראל and a  Mahpach accent on וינס [...]
The following editions on the other hand have the repetitive Athnach one on both וינס  and בישראל [...]

 

Fixed in the 2021.04.01 release of UXLC. See 1Chr 10:1.4 change (tanach.us).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This 1 Chr 10:1 double etnaḥta is so interesting to me. Thanks for your great research on it, @Brian K. Mitchell. Part of its value is it is pretty clearly a "pure typo," i.e. its source is not in some ambiguity in the manuscript or something like that. Because it is a pure typo, it allows us to trace provenance with more confidence than something where two independent transcribers could have made the same mistake. The two things I find most interesting about it are:

  1. It shows a fix was made in BHS somewhere after the 1984 BHS. Maybe the fix was made in the 1997 BHS; maybe it was made before then. As far as I know there is no documentation of BHS changes, so one must just stumble upon ones like this!
  2. It shows that Dotan's BHL is almost certainly derived from WLC. I have found various errors in BHL but none of them pointed to its base text being WLC as clearly as this error does. That having been said, BHL is a very heavily edited version of WLC, edited for the better I should add.

The 1984 BHS is referred to as "editio secunda emendata" (2nd edition) and 1997 as quinta (5th), so there must have been a 3rd and 4th (tertia and quarta) in between; some cursory Googling suggests these were 1987 and 1990. But perhaps 1984 is actually the one WLC was made from?

 

This brings up a question: has a "clean room" transcription of L (or any other Masoretic manuscript) ever been made? It seems like the transcriptions are always done by modifying a base text to (try to) match the manuscript. So you can always see the base text "leaking through" in some places where, understandably, the transcriber slipped up.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2023 at 11:23 AM, Benjamin Denckla said:

This 1 Chr 10:1 double etnaḥta is so interesting to me.

Yeah, this and issues like these are fascinating.

 

On 12/23/2023 at 11:23 AM, Benjamin Denckla said:

It shows that Dotan's BHL is almost certainly derived from WLC.

I find that intirging and it makes me wish editions of the Hebrew Bible would document the sources for their Hebrew texts they use or modify. 

 

On 12/23/2023 at 11:23 AM, Benjamin Denckla said:

BHL is a very heavily edited version of WLC, edited for the better I should add.

I agree

 

On 12/23/2023 at 11:23 AM, Benjamin Denckla said:

This brings up a question: has a "clean room" transcription of L (or any other Masoretic manuscript) ever been made?

Now, that is a really good question!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 12/22/2023 at 7:47 PM, Benjamin Denckla said:

Fixed [etnaḥta changed to mahapakh] in the 2021.04.01 release of UXLC. See 1Chr 10:1.4 change (tanach.us).

 

I should have mentioned that UXLC got this fix from the much-ignored 4.22 release of WLC!

 

In that 4.22 release of WLC, WA/Y.F92NFS becomes WA/Y.F70NFS. (92 is etnaḥta and 70 is mahapakh.) With some color to show the diff (4.20 red, 4.22 green):

 

image.png.1332c0b65039cf3e26be70a59001744d.png

Edited by Benjamin Denckla
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...