Nick Laurence Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 In BST-T and HMT-W4 there is the word מִשֶׁתִּדּוֹר but my printed BHS has מִשֶּׁתִּדּוֹר (i.e. there's a dagesh in the shin) which makes more sense to me. Is this an error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Holmstedt Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Looking closely at the Leningrad facsimile, there is no dagesh in the shin. There are many such small "errors" in the BHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Laurence Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 Thanks for checking Robert. Anyone know what BHQ has to say on this matter? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael J. Bolesta Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) מִשֶׁתִּ֯דּ֖וֹר no dagesh in the shin Edited June 21, 2013 by Michael J. Bolesta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Jenney Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 BHQ (in Accordance): Eccl 5:4 טוֹב אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תִדֹּר מִשֶׁתִּ֯דּוֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁלֵּם׃ no dagesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Laurence Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 Many thanks guys, much appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yohanan Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Sorry for coming late, I am on the forum in search of some other matters. As a matter of fact in the aparatus of BHQ I noted this variation of Leningradensis versus the two other Tiberian manuscripts collated (Firkovitch 34 and Cambridge Add 1753). This follows our BHQ policy of presenting the L ms as it is in its consonants and vowels. So the error ins not from BHS or BHQ but of the scribe of L. Kol Tuv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Laurence Posted August 6, 2013 Author Share Posted August 6, 2013 Sorry for coming late, I am on the forum in search of some other matters. As a matter of fact in the aparatus of BHQ I noted this variation of Leningradensis versus the two other Tiberian manuscripts collated (Firkovitch 34 and Cambridge Add 1753). This follows our BHQ policy of presenting the L ms as it is in its consonants and vowels. So the error ins not from BHS or BHQ but of the scribe of L. Kol Tuv. Many thanks for that - fascinating. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now