Isa 29:2 Maquef or no maquef?

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.
bdenckla
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:28 am

Re: Isa 29:2 Maquef or no maquef?

Post by bdenckla »

Chris, I'm curious what book (Hebrew Bible edition) do these notes come from?
Ben Denckla
Contributor, MAM & UXLC.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Isa 29:2 Maquef or no maquef?

Post by Jason Hare »

Chris Watts wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:56 am I can not translate the masoretic notes at the bottom of my scripture but I noticed that on the word וְהָיְתָה לִּי they indicate the preference for a 'Maquef'. Question: How does the nuance change? Or is it just for grammatical appearance to maintain a single word idea?
Hi, Chris. The question is to you about what version of the Hebrew Bible you use when you say “my scripture.”
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
cvkimball
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 4:11 pm
Location: West Redding, CT USA
Contact:

Re: Isa 29:2 Maquef or no maquef?

Post by cvkimball »

The Leningrad Codex has no maqaf anywhere in the verse Isaiah 29:2. Sefaria.org BB_LENCDX_F230B.jpg at <https://manuscripts.sefaria.org/leningr ... _F230B.jpg>, Column 1, Lines 20-22.

Dotan's Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia, 2001 (BHL), has no maqaf anywhere in the verse; Dotan's BHL has no notes on this verse in Appendix A.

Chris Kimball
West Redding, CT
USA
ducky
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Isa 29:2 Maquef or no maquef?

Post by ducky »

The point is that there is no Maqaph.
The note just points out that there are a minority of Prints that he knows that a Maqaph was found in that verse.
David Hunter
Post Reply