Lyndon Drake Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Hi, I noticed what looks like a very minor pointing error in Esther 5.13, which might just be because it's technically impossible to reproduce BHS with the Accordance Hebrew font. In print BHS, the holem between the shin and waw of שוה (shin waw he) is to the right of where a holem-waw dot would be. In Accordance, it is to me at least indistinguishable from a holem-waw, leaving the impossible situation of two vowel points for the same waw. I've checked Leningradensus and the print BHS correctly reproduces it—in fact the facsimile is clearer that the holem is midway between the shin and waw, I guess, in order to distinguish it from a sin dot. I wonder if someone else could have a look at it and see if they agree? Cheers,Lyndon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Holmstedt Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 It's not really an issue. The Leningrad codex often has the holem dot just to the right of the waw even in cases when it is in fact a holem-waw vowel. And in the word in question in Esth 5.13, the holem is in the exact same place. The implication is, of course, that the Masoretes expected the reader to recognize when the holem goes with the waw to form a holem-waw and when the holem is to be read with the preceding consonant. The fact that the BHS has it slightly to the right in Esth 5.13 but in other cases has it directly over the waw is itself an interpretive change meant to clarify when the holem is part of the holem-waw and when it is not. The HMT (and BHS) digital texts in Accordance are consistent, like the L but unlike print BHS, since they both place the holem directly above the waw, in both contexts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyndon Drake Posted November 11, 2016 Author Share Posted November 11, 2016 Cool, thanks for clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Holmstedt Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 You're welcome. It's always fun to open up my copy of Leningrad. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theblackbluejay Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 Prof. Holmstedt, Are you using the Accordance Leningrad codex images, or a printed facsimile of Leningrad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Simpson Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) I can’t say what Rogert is using - probably a real book, but who knows. Here however is the section from Esther 5:13 in our images. Edited December 13, 2016 by Ken Simpson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Holmstedt Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Actually, my hard copy is at my office at the univ., so I was reading a scanned PDF I found years ago. I really prefer the bound facsimile, though. It's very clear. Edited December 13, 2016 by Robert Holmstedt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now