B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

https://hb.openscriptures.org/structure ... n&c=1&v=16

וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים

Now according to the KJV and NIV the translation for the last clause reads : '..and He made the stars also'. But according to the masoretes interpretation the וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים should be joined with לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה and not be an implied 'after-thought'. According to Futato's book if the intention was to separate the stars from the fact that they rule the night along with the 'Lesser Light' then there would be an Atnah underneath the word הַלַּ֔יְלָה . It is interesting to note that both the KJV and the NIV contradict Psalm 136:9 on this point.

I would like others' observations please?

Chris watts

Hi

He repeats the words of Shadal, by his student, (and others).

Reading it separated would be logical, since the verse starts talking about the creation of the two great lights. And so, the expected mentioned lights are just the two - and the stars to be mentioned as an "after-thought" (the way you call it).

The cantillation marks connect the stars to the creation of the small light probably because of the reason that you mentioned.

****
Here are the words of Shadal:
It is also to be considered why the etnaḥ (major disjunction) was not placed at the word lailah (“night”) [but earlier in the verse] (my student, Isaac Judah Klineberger)...
It was indeed in such a sense that the psalmist said, “The sun to rule by day…. The moon and stars to rule by night” (Ps. 136:8-9). It seems that this was the intention of the accentuator at v. 16 in connecting the phrase ve-et ha-ma’or ha-katon le-memshelet ha-lailah (“and the minor luminary for the government of the night”) with ve-et ha-kokhavim (“and the stars”), as the psalmist said, “The moon and stars to rule by night.”


[translation from alhatorah]
*******

By the way, the title you chose is not relevant. Because the Tipha would be there on both cases.

Thank you Ducky for your clarification, your points were actually very helpful. It seemed a pedantically minor point but needed to clear it up. Obviously without accents the verse would have been understood quite naturally and logically - I know that, but I am just moving on from the basics of the popular accents from a syntactical perspective into a more detailed study of the first three groups only, Hence then my title being up the creek I suppose. (The fourth group of accents seem to me like taking the English Comma and cutting it up four more times).
Chris watts