A review of the 77 ambiguous early meteg marks in UXLC

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
bdenckla
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:28 am

A review of the 77 ambiguous early meteg marks in UXLC

Post by bdenckla »

Sometimes manuscript ל is clearer than its transcription in BHS! Consider ויעשו in Exodus 12:50:

Image

Although the placement of the meteg under the pataḥ of the vav is a little out-of-the-ordinary, it makes the "ownership" of this meteg clear.

Contrast with what this looks like in BHS:

Image

Yeah, with a microscope (this image was taken with a USB microscope) you can see that the meteg is under the vav. But the existence of "early meteg" in BHS still leaves you wondering, even with a microscope, whether that micro-alignment was intentional.

In transcribing BHS, WLC chose to make this meteg "early on yod" rather than "normal on vav." While this is understandable, transcribing from the somewhat-ambiguous BHS, it is clearly wrong, if you consult the manuscript.

This case is one of 77 such cases in UXLC that I have put in a comprehensive review.
Ben Denckla
Contributor, MAM & UXLC.
Post Reply