Jump to content


Photo

Ecclesiastes 5:4


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 nicklaurence

nicklaurence

    Bronze

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 21 June 2013 - 11:17 AM

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?



#2 Robert Holmstedt

Robert Holmstedt

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 512 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 21 June 2013 - 01:10 PM

Looking closely at the Leningrad facsimile, there is no dagesh in the shin. There are many such small "errors" in the BHS.


Associate Professor, Ancient Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Languages
Dept. of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
The University of Toronto
blog: ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com

#3 nicklaurence

nicklaurence

    Bronze

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 21 June 2013 - 03:06 PM

Thanks for checking Robert. Anyone know what BHQ has to say on this matter?

 

Thanks



#4 Michael J. Bolesta

Michael J. Bolesta

    Platinum

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 678 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Addison TX
  • Interests:scripture study, preaching, teaching
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 21 June 2013 - 03:21 PM

מִשֶׁתִּ֯דּ֖וֹר

 

no dagesh in the shin


Edited by Michael J. Bolesta, 21 June 2013 - 03:22 PM.

Michael


#5 Timothy Jenney

Timothy Jenney

    Platinum

  • Accordance
  • 1,519 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:sunny Winter Haven, FL
  • Interests:a good cup of coffee, sci-fi, playing bass, listing to jazz and the blues, camping, fishing and the great outdoors
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 21 June 2013 - 03:23 PM

BHQ (in Accordance): Eccl 5:4 טוֹב אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תִדֹּר מִשֶׁתִּ֯דּוֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁלֵּם׃

 

no dagesh


Blessings,
"Dr. J"

Timothy P. Jenney, Ph. D.
"Lighting the Lamp" Host and Producer

#6 nicklaurence

nicklaurence

    Bronze

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 21 June 2013 - 03:31 PM

Many thanks guys, much appreciated!



#7 Yohanan

Yohanan

    Member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Accordance Version:9.x

Posted 06 August 2013 - 10:50 AM

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.



#8 nicklaurence

nicklaurence

    Bronze

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Accordance Version:10.x

Posted 06 August 2013 - 04:25 PM

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






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users