Jump to content

Vowel points, Accents, Dagesh, and Consonantal issues in various Hebrew and Aramaic texts.


Accordance Enthusiast

Recommended Posts

Here I will post a number of problems / mistakes in the vowel points in Accordance Hebrew and Aramaic modules.

 

Please add your post or a link to it here if you have found any similar problems. I'll ask Nathan to pin this topic so others can contribute.


I have previously reported these issues and they went unnoticed. So hopefully this will be shared with the person(s) who make corrections in moduels.

 

Hoping to see these corrected within a few months. That would be great. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve noticed that there is a major inconsistency in the vowel pointing in the Targums Tagged module.

 

In many sections of this module, there is no compound Shewa, only a simple Shewa. In other sections there are many compound Shewas.

 

I’ve checked in Sperbers original book and in the manuscripts and these manuscripts do not use compound Shewas ever. Thus every compound Shewa in this module is determined by the editor.

 

Please see the attached graphs and Acc. file which will show the inconsistent use of compound Shewa.

 

image.thumb.jpeg.c78e5e048b0b4e72ef707610424e0311.jpeg

 

My suggestion is that either you replace every compound Shewa with a simple Shewa, as there are no compound Shewas in the manuscripts. Or, else the system of using compound Shewas on guttural letters should be applied systematically throughout the whole module.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hebrew Bible HMT-W4 is an excellent resource. If these mistakes could be corrected it would be amazing:

 

There are a few errors in the transcript:
1. Deu. 12:9 “כִּ֥י לֹא־בָּאתֶ֖ם” should have no Dagesh in Bet of ‘Batem’ – I checked the manuscript.
2. Ps. 83:11 “הָ֥יוּ דֹּ֝֗מֶן” – should have no Dagesh in Dalet of ‘Domen’ – I checked the manuscript.
3. Ps. 105:1 “קִרְא֣וּ בִּשְׁמ֑וֹ” – should have no Dagesh in Bet of ‘Bishmo’ – I checked the manuscript.
6. Lev. 26:34 “כֹּל יְמֵ֣י הֳשַּׁמָּ֔ה” – should have a Qamets and not Cheteiph Qamets on He of ‘Hoshamah’(@Benjamin Denckla corrected me). Should have no Dagesh in Shin of 'Hoshamah' – I checked the manuscript.
9. Eze. 23:36 “אֵ֖ת תוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶֽן” – should have a Dagesh in the Taw of “To’avoteihem” – I checked the manuscript.

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

Hebrew Bible ETCBC has similar though not always identical problems:

 

The transcript contains some errors:
1. Deu. 12:9 “כִּ֥י לֹא־בָּאתֶ֖ם” should have no Dagesh in Bet of ‘Batem’ – I checked the manuscript.
2. Ps. 83:11 “הָ֥יוּ דֹּ֝֗מֶן” – should have no Dagesh in Dalet of ‘Domen’ – I checked the manuscript.
3. Ps. 105:1 “קִרְא֣וּ בִּשְׁמ֑וֹ” – should have no Dagesh in Bet of ‘Bishmo’ – I checked the manuscript.
4. Ps. 21:14 “יְהוָ֣ה בְעֻזֶּ֑ךָ” – should have a Dagesh in Bet of ‘Be’uzecha’ – I checked the manuscript.
5. Lev. 26:34 “כֹּל יְמֵ֣י הֳשַּׁמָּ֔ה” – should have a Qamets and not Cheteiph Qamets on He of ‘Hoshamah’(@Benjamin Denckla corrected me). Should have no Dagesh in Shin of 'Hoshamah' – I checked the manuscript.

6. Lev. 26:35 “כָּל־יְמֵ֥י הָשַּׁמָּ֖ה” – should have no Dagesh in Shin of ‘Hoshamah’ – I checked the manuscript.
7. Is. 14:11 “הוּרַ֥ד שְׁא֛וֹל גְאוֹנֶ֖ךָ” – should have a Dagesh in Gimel of ‘Ge’onecha’ – I checked the manuscript.
8. Jer. 49:37 “אֶת־עֵ֠ילָם לפְנֵ֨” – The lamed has no vowel!
9. Eze. 23:36 “אֵ֖ת תוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶֽן” – should have a Dagesh in the Taw of ‘To’avoteihem’ – I checked the manuscript.
10. 1Chron. 5:16 “עַל־תוֹצְאוֹתָֽם” – should have a Dagesh in the first Taw of ‘Tots’otam’ – I checked the manuscript.

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

Similar mistakes in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with Apparatus and tagging:

 

There are also a few errors in the transcript:
1. Deu. 12:9 “כִּ֥י לֹא־בָּאתֶ֖ם” should have no Dagesh in Bet of ‘Batem’ – I checked the manuscript.
2. Ps. 83:11 “הָ֥יוּ דֹּ֝֗מֶן” – should have no Dagesh in Dalet of ‘Domen’ – I checked the manuscript.
3. Ps. 105:1 “קִרְא֣וּ בִּשְׁמ֑וֹ” – should have no Dagesh in Bet of ‘Bishmo’ – I checked the manuscript.
4. Lev. 26:34 “כֹּל יְמֵ֣י הֳשַּׁמָּ֔ה” – should have a Qamets and not Cheteiph Qamets on He of ‘Hoshamah’ – I checked the manuscript.
5. Eze. 23:36 “אֵ֖ת תוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶֽן” – should have a Dagesh in the Taw of ‘To’avoteihen’ – I checked the manuscript.

6. Lev. 26:35 “כָּל־יְמֵ֥י הָשַּׁמָּ֖ה” – should have no Dagesh in Shin of ‘Hoshamah’ – I checked the manuscript.

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

  • Dr. Nathan Parker pinned this topic

Pinned so others can contribute to it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Accordance Enthusiast changed the title to Vowel points, Accents, Dagesh, and Consonantal issues in various Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

This is a mistake in FTP. There is no Waw in the manuscript, just ייי - NOT וייי. I checked the ms.

In Gen 1:1 there is already a mistake! Maybe the whole module should be re-checked against the manuscript. 

 

image.thumb.png.d28272b31dfd98161dbc92bacd8daa46.png

Edited by Anonymous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should have a Patach on the Lamed next to YHWH, not Shewa. I checked the manuscript.

 

image.png.dda36b4172b72ba771b756ad6f1ff768.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2023 at 8:36 PM, Accordance Enthusiast said:

The Hebrew Bible HMT-W4 is an excellent resource. If these mistakes could be corrected it would be amazing:

 

There are a few errors in the transcript:
1. Deu. 12:9 “כִּ֥י לֹא־בָּאתֶ֖ם” should have no Dagesh in Bet of ‘Batem’ – I checked the manuscript.
2. Ps. 83:11 “הָ֥יוּ דֹּ֝֗מֶן” – should have no Dagesh in Dalet of ‘Domen’ – I checked the manuscript.
3. Ps. 105:1 “קִרְא֣וּ בִּשְׁמ֑וֹ” – should have no Dagesh in Bet of ‘Bishmo’ – I checked the manuscript.
6. Lev. 26:34 “כֹּל יְמֵ֣י הֳשַּׁמָּ֔ה” – should have a Qamets and not Cheteiph Qamets on He of ‘Hoshamah’ – I checked the manuscript.
9. Eze. 23:36 “אֵ֖ת תוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶֽן” – should have a Dagesh in the Taw of “To’avoteihem” – I checked the manuscript.


I have checked only Deu. 12:9 and it appears that the Dagesh should be in the Bet, but that it is faint in the mss. Both of my printed editions of BHS and BHQ have the daggesh so I assume that they believe the faint dot to be the remnants of a daggesh.

Based on the rule of אהו'י I would expect there not to be a Dagesh, so my guess is that it is faint because the scribe attempted to erase a misplaced Dagesh, so it probably shouldn't be copied but the editors of both BHS and BHQ have included it.

image.png.32125538a486e14312ab108280b48584.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, miketisdell said:


I have checked only Deu. 12:9 and it appears that the Dagesh should be in the Bet, but that it is faint in the mss. Both of my printed editions of BHS and BHQ have the daggesh so I assume that they believe the faint dot to be the remnants of a daggesh.

Based on the rule of אהו'י I would expect there not to be a Dagesh, so my guess is that it is faint because the scribe attempted to erase a misplaced Dagesh, so it probably shouldn't be copied but the editors of both BHS and BHQ have included it.

image.png.32125538a486e14312ab108280b48584.png


It is noted in the BHS apparatus but is ignored in the BHQ apparatus and textual commentary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2023 at 3:59 AM, miketisdell said:


I have checked only Deu. 12:9 and it appears that the Dagesh should be in the Bet, but that it is faint in the mss. Both of my printed editions of BHS and BHQ have the daggesh so I assume that they believe the faint dot to be the remnants of a daggesh.

Based on the rule of אהו'י I would expect there not to be a Dagesh, so my guess is that it is faint because the scribe attempted to erase a misplaced Dagesh, so it probably shouldn't be copied but the editors of both BHS and BHQ have included it.

image.png.32125538a486e14312ab108280b48584.png

 

The dot is too large and too high in the letter to be the remains of a dagesh. It's a mistake to think it is a Dagesh.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

 

The dot is too large and too high in the letter to be the remains of a dagesh. It's a mistake to think it is a Dagesh.

 

I disagree but, more importantly, the editors of WTT, BHS, and BHQ all disagree; the dagesh is included in all of these texts which means that it should also be included in Accordance.

 

I do think that the scribe who wrote this intended to erase it, and the BHS apparatus does note the issue so maybe the editors of BHQ could be convinced to issue a revision but unless a revision is released, the dagesh should stay in the Accordance version of these same texts. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, miketisdell said:

 

I disagree but, more importantly, the editors of WTT, BHS, and BHQ all disagree; the dagesh is included in all of these texts which means that it should also be included in Accordance.

 

I do think that the scribe who wrote this intended to erase it, and the BHS apparatus does note the issue so maybe the editors of BHQ could be convinced to issue a revision but unless a revision is released, the dagesh should stay in the Accordance version of these same texts. 

 

Firstly, if the scribe erased a Dagesh, it means there is no dagesh in the Codex - it is erased. There are hundreds of erasures in the Leningrad Codex and BHS does not give the erased words in the main text. If the scribe corrected a mistake, the correct text is placed in the transcript.

 

Secondly, BHS was prepared based on black and white photos, which made it difficult to distinguish between stains, dots of mold etc. vs. real ink. They probably did not know that it was erased / a stain. The BHS footnote does not state that the Dagesh is erased. It states that it is spelled this way in the Leningrad Codex, while it is not. Even if there were a Dagesh it is no longer there in the Leningrad Codex.

 

Thirdly, the editors of BHS and the other editions of the Leningrad Codex's text, did not care much about the Dageshes. That's why I could find multiple mistakes in this regard in all these editions. They never cared to check for these types of mistakes and still follow the old errors. In the other examples I noted, there is no ambiguity. E.g. Ps 105:1: image.png.08a87e6fa0291522847d6c95155e5a61.png

The BHS etc. versions have a Dagesh in the Bet! Despite the fact that there should be no dagesh based upon the rules of the Messorah, and there is no dagesh, and their is even a Raphe over the bet. Don't tell us all the editors agree that there is a Dagesh. Because there is no Dagesh. And the editors simply did not care to check their transcripts - they all follow the previous mistaken transcript.

 

Fourthly, the Leningrad Codex scribe even placed a Raphe above the Aleph which leans over slightly to the Bet, indicating Bet Raphe. The Raphe is often used with such a double duty: image.png.22bcfdbfd6ef4d43d2bdbfd5262e8702.png 

The fact that the Raphe hangs over slightly to the right hand side of the Aleph shows that it applies both to the Aleph and the Bet. Here is another example, Gen 45:19:

image.png.0407fd67d4b63680e3c0820fecb01394.png

 

If the Raphe is not intended for the initial Bet, it is moved over to the Taw, and hangs over slightly to the Aleph, as in Gen 26:27:image.png.5ee96e868f87fba217175323aed46eab.png

 

The bottom line is that this is certainly a mistake, and the editors of the new BHQ simply did not care to check the text with regards to Dagesh. There is no dagesh in the Leningrad Codex, and if they want to indicate their opinion that there used to be a Dagesh which the scribe erased, that should go in a footnote. The main text does not and should not give the erased text in BHS etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

 

Firstly, if the scribe erased a Dagesh, it means there is no dagesh in the Codex - it is erased. There are hundreds of erasures in the Leningrad Codex and BHS does not give the erased words in the main text. If the scribe corrected a mistake, the correct text is placed in the transcript.

 

Secondly, BHS was prepared based on black and white photos, which made it difficult to distinguish between stains, dots of mold etc. vs. real ink. They probably did not know that it was erased / a stain. The BHS footnote does not state that the Dagesh is erased. It states that it is spelled this way in the Leningrad Codex, while it is not. Even if there were a Dagesh it is no longer there in the Leningrad Codex.

 

Thirdly, the editors of BHS and the other editions of the Leningrad Codex's text, did not care much about the Dageshes. That's why I could find multiple mistakes in this regard in all these editions. They never cared to check for these types of mistakes and still follow the old errors. In the other examples I noted, there is no ambiguity. E.g. Ps 105:1: image.png.08a87e6fa0291522847d6c95155e5a61.png

The BHS etc. versions have a Dagesh in the Bet! Despite the fact that there should be no dagesh based upon the rules of the Messorah, and there is no dagesh, and their is even a Raphe over the bet. Don't tell us all the editors agree that there is a Dagesh. Because there is no Dagesh. And the editors simply did not care to check their transcripts - they all follow the previous mistaken transcript.

 

Fourthly, the Leningrad Codex scribe even placed a Raphe above the Aleph which leans over slightly to the Bet, indicating Bet Raphe. The Raphe is often used with such a double duty: image.png.22bcfdbfd6ef4d43d2bdbfd5262e8702.png 

The fact that the Raphe hangs over slightly to the right hand side of the Aleph shows that it applies both to the Aleph and the Bet. Here is another example, Gen 45:19:

image.png.0407fd67d4b63680e3c0820fecb01394.png

 

If the Raphe is not intended for the initial Bet, it is moved over to the Taw, and hangs over slightly to the Aleph, as in Gen 26:27:image.png.5ee96e868f87fba217175323aed46eab.png

 

The bottom line is that this is certainly a mistake, and the editors of the new BHQ simply did not care to check the text with regards to Dagesh. There is no dagesh in the Leningrad Codex, and if they want to indicate their opinion that there used to be a Dagesh which the scribe erased, that should go in a footnote. The main text does not and should not give the erased text in BHS etc.

This reminds me of another case in which there was a disputed dagesh, and a color photo showed it was a colored speck on the parchment:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be interesting to note where UXLC stands on the ten problems in ETCBC pointed out above, since those ten problems seem to be a superset of the problems listed in HMT-W4 and BHS w/App. & tagging.

 

The summary is:

  • 8 of these 10 problems have been fixed as suggested in UXLC.
  • 1 of these 10 problems (Lev 26:34.8 ḥataf qamats) is not a problem, at least according to a recent look at this particular mark on this particular word by the editors of UXLC. (For full disclosure, I am one of those editors.)
  • 1 of these 10 problems (Eze 23:36.14) should be of interest to UXLC as a change proposal!

I think the summary suggests that having a UXLC Accordance module could be of value to Accordance users, particularly if it is frequently updated, since one of the advantages of UXLC compared to these other texts is not only that it has been recently updated but that it continues to be actively updated.

 

In more detail:

 

כִּ֥י לֹא־בָּאתֶ֖ם -dag in Bet of ‘Batem’ Deut 12:9.3  
הָ֥יוּ דֹּ֝֗מֶן -dag in Dalet of ‘Domen’ Ps 83:11.5  
קִרְא֣וּ בִּשְׁמ֑וֹ -dag in Bet of ‘Bishmo’ Ps 105:1.4  
יְהוָ֣ה בְעֻזֶּ֑ךָ +dag in Bet of ‘Be’uzecha’ Ps21:14 Dagesh was added to bet at some point back in the WLC era?
כֹּל יְמֵ֣י הֳשַּׁמָּ֔ה -dag in Shin of ‘Hoshamah’ Lev 26:34.8 Dagesh was removed from shin at some point back in the WLC era? Recently the lack of dagesh has been c-noted.
כֹּל יְמֵ֣י הֳשַּׁמָּ֔ה should have a q and not ḥq on He of ‘Hoshamah’ Lev 26:34.8 The fact that the qamats is ḥataf is unexpected, as has been recently been c-noted, but the the qamats does look to be ḥataf not plain qamats here, albeit with the sheva-like part of the ḥataf qamats placed a bit oddly low.
הוּרַ֥ד שְׁא֛וֹל גְאוֹנֶ֖ךָ +dag in Gimel of ‘Ge’onecha’ Isa 14:11 Dagesh was added to gimel at some point back in the WLC era?
אֶת־עֵ֠ילָם לפְנֵ֨[י] The lamed [in לפני] has no vowel! Jer 49:37 Ḥiriq was added to lamed at some point back in the WLC era? Manuscript check needed.
אֵ֖ת תוֹעֲבוֹתֵיהֶֽן[׃] +dag in the [first] Taw of ‘To’avoteihem’ Eze 23:36 UXLC should be interested in this change proposal!
עַל־תוֹצְאוֹתָֽם[׃] +dag in the first Taw of ‘Tots’otam’ 1Chr 5:16

Dagesh was added to that tav at some point back in the WLC era?

 

 

Or as an image:

 

image.thumb.png.68f3decf50df6dfd097e607504e2f8f7.png

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello @Benjamin Denckla,

 

Thank you for confirming 9 out of 10 of these issues.

 

However, I ask you to please reconsider the one disagreement you have with me in Lev 26:34: (My mistake see posts below)

image.png.3d9b99867fc08e335cabdab79976b5f6.png

 

Exactly how you can think that the Qamets on the 'He' is a Chateph Qamets I don't know.

 

I was looking at the wrong occurrence of the word. please see posts below.

 

Also, there is no Dagesh in the following Shin either. (Still true for both cases).

Edited by Accordance Enthusiast
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the proposals that these Dageshes were added sometime after the BHS transcript was made is not warranted, as we can still see the black and while images they used for the BHS edition. The main advantage of the color photos is so we can see when the dots are not ink. But if the black and white plus colour images agree that there is a Dagesh we don't need to defend / come up for the mistakes in BHS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

I ask you to please reconsider the one disagreement you have with me in Lev 26:34: [image] Exactly how you can think that the Qamets on the 'He' is a Chateph Qamets I don't know.

 

Also, there is no Dagesh in the following Shin either.

 

@Accordance Enthusiast, the image you show is for the start of 26:35, not for the similar phrase in the previous verse (26:34). In terms of codex locations, the image you show is from Folio F073A column 1 line 3, not for the similar phrase in Folio F072B column 3 line 27 (last line). The two instances of השמה "agree" with respect to lacking dagesh on shin but "disagree" with respect to the type of qamats on the first he, the first instance of this word having ḥataf qamats and the second instance having plain qamats. Here's a UXLC link narrowing in on the two verses in question. Here is the image of the first השמה, taken from the UXLC change record 2021.12.28-1:

 

1-Detail.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

Also, the proposals that these Dageshes were added sometime after the BHS transcript was made is not warranted, as we can still see the black and while images they used for the BHS edition. The main advantage of the color photos is so we can see when the dots are not ink. But if the black and white plus colour images agree that there is a Dagesh we don't need to defend / come up for the mistakes in BHS.

 

I'm not able to understand what you mean here. Are you referring to speculations like the one I made about Ps 21:14, "Dagesh was added to bet at some point back in the WLC era?" To clarify what I mean about these speculations, I am speculating as to why ETCBC has certain errors that UXLC does not. In some cases, it is clear why ETCBC has errors that UXLC does not, because I have been able to find the UXLC change records that document the change/fix. But in other cases, I can't find any relevant UXLC change records, so I speculate that ETCBC has errors that UXLC does not simply because, although both ETCBC and UXLC are WLC-based, I suspect that ETCBC is not based on the most recent WLC, whereas UXLC is based on the most recent WLC (WLC version 4.20).

 

Unless I were motivated to do some research on the following, these speculations will have to remain just that: speculations.

  • the change history of WLC
  • the exact provenance of ETCBC: in particular, what version of WLC it is based on

A final note that hopefully further clarifies my meaning: when I speculate that something was changed (e.g., a dagesh was added) "at some point back in the WLC era" I am speculating that that change was made to WLC at some point in the course of development of the various versions of WLC. (As of now, WLC development seems to have stopped, or at least stalled.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much @Benjamin Denckla!

 

Sorry for my mistake. I'll have to correct the initial posts above. 

 

Thus, in both these cases the only mistake is the Dagesh, not the vowel. Thank you for the correction!

 

Also, no problem for the 'speculations' - I thought you were referring to changes in the manuscript, whereas you are really referring to changes in WLC transcription.

 

Thanks again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick update/correction: Above I said that 1 of these 10 problems (Eze 23:36.14) should be of interest to UXLC as a change proposal. I'm pleased to say that this is even truer than I thought: it has been pointed out to me that the fix for this problem is currently in the pending changes slated for the April 1 release of UXLC. So, the change has already been proposed, and I see no reason for it to be rejected.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2023 at 11:38 PM, Accordance Enthusiast said:

8. Jer. 49:37 “אֶת־עֵ֠ילָם לפְנֵ֨” – The lamed has no vowel!
 

Indeed, the manuscript shows a ḥiriq under the lamed, although the ḥiriq does cling quite closely to the lamed. Yet, I doubt this is an error in transcription due to uncertainty in the manuscript. This error is not present in BHS. So, I would speculate that the error happened during the transcription of BHS to WLC, probably purely an accidental omission.

 

Folio F273B column 2 line 4:

 

image.png.f0e5d21a3934439f9675cb5042164458.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Denckla said:

Indeed, the manuscript shows a ḥiriq under the lamed, although the ḥiriq does cling quite closely to the lamed. Yet, I doubt this is an error in transcription due to uncertainty in the manuscript. This error is not present in BHS. So, I would speculate that the error happened during the transcription of BHS to WLC, probably purely an accidental omission.

 

Folio F273B column 2 line 4:

 

image.png.f0e5d21a3934439f9675cb5042164458.png

 

Thanks for confirming. Yes, this mistake is only in the ETCBC module, in BHS-HMT-W4 and BHS-T the text is correct with a Chireq on the Lamed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2023 at 4:18 PM, Accordance Enthusiast said:

 

Firstly, if the scribe erased a Dagesh, it means there is no dagesh in the Codex - it is erased. There are hundreds of erasures in the Leningrad Codex and BHS does not give the erased words in the main text. If the scribe corrected a mistake, the correct text is placed in the transcript.

 

Secondly, BHS was prepared based on black and white photos, which made it difficult to distinguish between stains, dots of mold etc. vs. real ink. They probably did not know that it was erased / a stain. The BHS footnote does not state that the Dagesh is erased. It states that it is spelled this way in the Leningrad Codex, while it is not. Even if there were a Dagesh it is no longer there in the Leningrad Codex.

 

Thirdly, the editors of BHS and the other editions of the Leningrad Codex's text, did not care much about the Dageshes. That's why I could find multiple mistakes in this regard in all these editions. They never cared to check for these types of mistakes and still follow the old errors. In the other examples I noted, there is no ambiguity. E.g. Ps 105:1: image.png.08a87e6fa0291522847d6c95155e5a61.png

The BHS etc. versions have a Dagesh in the Bet! Despite the fact that there should be no dagesh based upon the rules of the Messorah, and there is no dagesh, and their is even a Raphe over the bet. Don't tell us all the editors agree that there is a Dagesh. Because there is no Dagesh. And the editors simply did not care to check their transcripts - they all follow the previous mistaken transcript.

 

Fourthly, the Leningrad Codex scribe even placed a Raphe above the Aleph which leans over slightly to the Bet, indicating Bet Raphe. The Raphe is often used with such a double duty: image.png.22bcfdbfd6ef4d43d2bdbfd5262e8702.png 

The fact that the Raphe hangs over slightly to the right hand side of the Aleph shows that it applies both to the Aleph and the Bet. Here is another example, Gen 45:19:

image.png.0407fd67d4b63680e3c0820fecb01394.png

 

If the Raphe is not intended for the initial Bet, it is moved over to the Taw, and hangs over slightly to the Aleph, as in Gen 26:27:image.png.5ee96e868f87fba217175323aed46eab.png

 

The bottom line is that this is certainly a mistake, and the editors of the new BHQ simply did not care to check the text with regards to Dagesh. There is no dagesh in the Leningrad Codex, and if they want to indicate their opinion that there used to be a Dagesh which the scribe erased, that should go in a footnote. The main text does not and should not give the erased text in BHS etc.

 

Again, I do not doubt that the Dagesh was erased and that the editors of BHS and BHQ were wrong for including it. However, this is not a mistake in Accordance as they have correctly copied the BHS and BHQ and WLC texts. An appeal needs to be made to the editors of BHQ if one wants to see these texts changed, if the editors accept that change then Accordance will adopt the change. 

The only option for Accordance would be to add an additional Hebrew text from a source that does not include the dagesh or to create their own Hebrew text. They should not remove the dagesh because then it would not accurately reflect the source texts they are using. 

 

Edited by miketisdell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2023 at 2:47 PM, Benjamin Denckla said:

I think the summary suggests that having a UXLC Accordance module could be of value to Accordance users, particularly if it is frequently updated, since one of the advantages of UXLC compared to these other texts is not only that it has been recently updated but that it continues to be actively updated.


This would be a great addition to Accordance!!!

  • Like 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...