11-05-2009, 01:24 AM
|
|
Fundamental Pope
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,741
|
|
Hi Folks,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tamar
Inasmuch as the Tetragram was not supposed to be spoken aloud, the pointing, such as it was, was intended to jog the reader into substituting the word Adonai (My Lord) wherever YHVH appeared. As the pointing was, for that one word, intended only to jog a substitution, I do not believe that the pointing can be called inconsistent if it was sufficient to serve that purpose (even if it was not always the same).
|
This does not make much sense. Remember there are two distinct pointings given in the Tanach, so it is significant there is a lack of precision. (The Leningrad Codex ends up with six pointings.) More so on the Tetragram than other words. I would have to find the post where the details are discussed, however I was surprised that the Leningrad Codex would falter on something so basic. Perhaps there is some excuse or explanation worthy of consideration but not the one you give above. The scribes were supposed to be more careful with the Tetragram than with any other word, so the pointings would be expected to be consistent and accurate unto their purpose. And afaik the Ben Hayim text handles this close to perfection.
Beyond that the other question of the purpose of the pointings is discussed in scholarly circles, with Gerard Gertoux and Nehemiah Gordon taking the position that the vowels in the main usages do in fact represent the actually pronounciation. This can also go along with the question of whether the Masoretes were Karaites or from Rabbinists, and what was the Karaite view of the pronounciation of the Tetragram.
Either way, the sloppy pointing in the Leningrad Codex is a negative, quite clearly. Again, I do not say this makes the manuscript 'corrupt' (especially since I do not know how well 50 other Masoretic Text manuscripts handle the consistency) however it is not a good indication of Leningrad Codex accuracy.
===============================================
The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (2006)
The influential German scholar Rudolf Kittel was swayed by Paul Kahle to abandon the text then traditional, and to adopt the Leningrad Codex as the base for the third edition of the Biblia Hebraica which he edited with other scholars. (p. 218) ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=HMkMeaijNT4C&pg=PA218
The 1524–5 second Rabbinic Bible printed by Daniel Bomberg in Venice (Goshen-Gottstein 1972), although itself probably an eclectic text, has proved a single source for many editions of the Bible. This was prepared by Jacob ben Hayyim, and is distinguished from the First Rabbinic Bible of 1516/17 by the inclusion of the Masorah. The sources for this text are not clear, but they seem to have included one or more manuscripts in the ben Asher tradition represented by Aleppo and Leningrad. This text of Ben Hayyim is still influential today, occupying a position in Jewish tradition sometimes seen as analogous to that of the Textus Receptus in New Testament studies. This term should be used with caution in the context of the Hebrew Bible. It was used by Kittel for the first two editions of Biblia Hebraica. The edition produced by Ginsburg for the British and Foreign Bible Society (and published posthumously in 1926) is an example of persistent dependence on the second Rabbinic Bible.
http://books.google.com/books?id=HMkMeaijNT4C&pg=PA219
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-05-2009 at 03:15 AM.
|