Merka and Metheg Discrepancy in BHS (and Accordance) and MS L?

[Jeff Kermah]

Do words that appear to share merka and tevir need correction in Accordance? How should I understand the dynamics below?  

 

For example, in Accordance (also printed BHS), 2 Chr 1:10 has וְאֵֽצְאָ֛ה with metheq and tevir.

 

In MS L (fol. 345r col. 1) it seems to have a merka and tevir.

 

Sefaria.org records a merka and tevir. Wickes (Treatise Twenty-One, 109) records 2 Chr 1:10 as an example of a word with both merka and tevir.  

 

Should it be merka with tevir or metheg with tevir?  I checked and the same variation exists for Deut 13:10 יָֽדְךָ֛. Here, MS L (fol. 107v  col 3 l. 1) seems even more clear than 2 Chr 1:10. There are others.  

 

  2 Chr 1:10 

 

Deut 13:10 

 

 

[Jeff Kermah]

Pardon the double pasting of images. 

[Jeff Kermah]

Here is something, Yeivin (Introduction 203) remarks in MS L gaya/metheq occurs in most of the places one expects merka. MSS before 1000 followed these rules but printed editions abandoned them. This may explain BHS having metheq instead of merka in the situations above. 

[Ben Denckla]

@Jeff KermahGreat question. I have a variety of responses, some superficial, some substantive.

1. (Superficial) It will keep the conversation clearer if you are more specific about editions. In particular, both Accordance and Sefaria have multiple editions. For Accordance, there is at least BHS-T and HMT-W4. I think HMT-W4 (derived from WLC) is now the default, so that's probably what you mean by "Accordance." For Sefaria, there is at least tanach.us (derived from WLC) and MAM. MAM is now the default, so that's probably what you mean by "Sefaria."
2. (Superficial): It is probably better to refer to Wickes' work as Wickes' "Treatise on the Twenty-One Books" rather than just "Treatise Twenty-One" since "Treatise Twenty-One" makes it sound a little like it is #21 in a series. To be really pedantic, since there are a lot of other words in the title, one might call it "A Treatise on [...] the Twenty-One [...] Books [...]"
3. Regarding your citation of Yeivin:
   1. (Superficial) Your "203" is referring to page 203, paragraph 254. (I think paragraphs are better to use for that book than pages, or at least should be used in addition to pages. Or at the very least it is good to be clear when a number you use is a page number not a paragraph number.)
   2. (Finally, something substantive) The naqdan (pointing scribe) of L frequently fails to distinguish merkha from meteg (gaʿya). These failures are widespread, i.e. not restricted to the merkha-tevir cases at issue here. The failures are usually in the direction of merkha looking like meteg, i.e., merkha being approximately vertical rather than having the expected NE-to-SW inclination. Sometimes we can tell from context that merkha was intended, but sometimes we cannot. So, let's look at Yeivin's statement (filtered through Revell's translation), "Already in L gaʿya occurs in most of the cases where merka is expected." I hope I am disrespecting neither Yeivin nor Revell by interpreting this as "Already in L [an ambiguous vertical mark, i.e., a mark inclined like] gaʿya occurs in most of the cases where merka is expected."
   3. Let's look at the statement by Yeivin/Revell, "The rules [for the use of merka and tevir on the same word] are not followed in printed editions at all." Recall that Revell's translation is from 1980 and Yeivin's original from even earlier, I think 1972. At that time, my understanding is that most if not all printed editions, like all editions since the early 1500s, stuck closely to the Venice Miqraot Gedolot text. In other words, most if not all printed editions were untouched by any modern, manuscript-based scholarship. The BHS more or less as we know it today was rolling out, fascicle by fascicle, between 1968 and 1976. I'm not sure how much the landmark Koren Bible of 1962 incorporated modern scholarship; for one thing a lot of modern scholarship had not even happened at that time, and typically it takes many decades for scholarship to filter down into popular editions. Bottom line, "printed editions" meant something very different in 1972 (when I think the equivalent words were written in Hebrew) compared to now. For instance, leaving BHS out of it (for once I'm following the advice of "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it"), consider the huge (but not widely-known) achievements of the 2001 BHL (Dotan) and the 2000 Keter Yerushalayim (Ofer, following the methods of Breuer). You'll find merkha-tevir, not meteg-tevir, in BHL and the Keter. At least in the two cases you call out, and I suspect more generally, too.
4. I don't think Accordance is interested in corrections. I think HMT-W4's goal is to represent whatever version of WLC (4.something) it is based on. So, unless HMT-W4 diverges from that version of WLC, I doubt Accordance would be interested. This makes sense: Accordance is not in the (very tricky) business of being a publisher of a Hebrew Bible, nor does it want to enter that business. Accordance is a re-publisher of someone else's Hebrew Bible (Groves), warts and all.
   1. If you're interested in a diplomatic digital edition of the LC that moves forward from WLC, taking on that very tricky business (and I hope usually succeeding), check out UXLC, hosted at tanach.us. (The tanach.us site used to host what was "just" an XML/Unicode edition of WLC; now that WLC development has stalled, tanach.us has "forked" from WLC and hosts an edition in its own right, which is called UXLC.) (I'll note that this very issue of resolving meteg vs. merkha is one in which I differ from UXLC's editor though.)
   2. If you're interested in a general-purpose paper edition of the Hebrew Bible on paper, consider BHL, the Keter, or a modern Koren. Digitally, consider MAM (Sefaria's default, but also available elsewhere with more features, such as at MAM with doc).

Edited October 11, 2023 by Benjamin Denckla

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Denckla said:

I don't think Accordance is interested in corrections. I think HMT-W4's goal is to represent whatever version of WLC (4.something) it is based on. So, unless HMT-W4 diverges from that version of WLC, I doubt Accordance would be interested. This makes sense: Accordance is not in the (very tricky) business of being a publisher of a Hebrew Bible, nor does it want to enter that business. Accordance is a re-publisher of someone else's Hebrew Bible (Groves), warts and all.

 

If you are finding something in the HMT-W4 that is inaccurate, definitely let Corrections and us know on the forums so we can be aware of it.

[Jeff Kermah]

@Benjamin Denckla Thank you very much for taking the time to give a thorough explanation of the situation! Thank you also for the corrections and the resources! Very helpful!