Seems like a strange inaccuracy in BHS Readers Edition A missing rafe and a missing dagesh. Deut 5:13,5:17-19

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
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Seems like a strange inaccuracy in BHS Readers Edition A missing rafe and a missing dagesh. Deut 5:13,5:17-19

Post by ralph »

Seems like a strange inaccuracy in BHS Readers Edition A missing rafe and a missing dagesh. Deut 5:13,5:17-19

I have a copy of BHS Readers Edition..


One issue I run into is Deut 5:13 Kol Melachtecha. In BHS Reader
there is no Rafe on Kol.


http://i.imgur.com/FvmhnlM.png

on the tanach.us site Which has a or the WLC,

there is a rafe mark on the word Kol A horizontal line above the
letter kaf. As pointed out in that image linked to above.

Whereas in my BHS readers edition, I don't see a Rafe. I don't know
if the regular/non-readers BHS edition has it? Can anybody comment re that if it does?

But also in bibleworks which uses the WLC or a WLC, It doesn't have a rafe there. Are there different versions of the WLC? With tanach.us having a more accurate one and others a less accurate one?

I notice looking in the LC itself

http://i.imgur.com/oXjjLZg.png

It looks like there might be a rafe there.

biblegateway has a rafe there.

I don't know if there are different editions of WLC.

But is there a reason why there is no rafe in the BHS Reader, when
there seems to be in the LC?

Also I see another case,

Deut 5:17 Loh tirtzach In the BHS Reader, The BHS Reader has no dagesh, no
dot, in the middle of the letter Tav. (Does the actual BHS have a dagesh?)

The LC does have a dagesh

http://i.imgur.com/cJIkGnm.png

there's also no rafe there either in the BHS reader, as well as no dagesh.

That's in v17, v18, v19

Loh Tirzach, Loh Tinaf, Loh tignov.

Perhaps no Rafes are printed in BHS Reader? Are they in the regular BHS?

The missing dagesh seems like perhaps it may be an error in the BHS
Reader book, or an amendment to the LC made by BHS or BHS Reader?
Though I was under the impression that it wouldn't make an amendment
(or if it did it'd note it)?

Note- I notice that , I think there aren't any Rafes anywhere in BHS Reader. The WLC shows 7 rafes. I think 4 in deuteronomy and 3 in exodus. I see the LC and the WLC on tanach.us has rafes so it seems strange that the BHS Reader doesn't.

edit
looking further I see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafe
This lists WLC 4.5 as having a rafe on Acharecha of Songs 1:4
Though it's not on tanach.us which shows 4.20 (I guess 4.20 is, unlike the mathematical 4.2, and that 4.20 is after 4.5).
Also I see from wikipedia that it'd perhaps be a bit contradictory to have a dagesh with a rafe. So that may explain why the BHS reader has chosen to have neither, though I see it doesn't have any rafes at all anyway.

Regards
Ralph Zak
ducky
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Seems like a strange inaccuracy in BHS Readers Edition A missing rafe and a missing dagesh. Deut 5:13,5:17-19

Post by ducky »

Hello
According to the tradition of the MT, there are a few other things in the ten commandments verses
1. Two cantillation marks for the same word.
2. Raphe and Dagesh together for the same letter.
3. two pointing marks for the same letter.

1. In most of the verses, there are two cantillation marks for each word (also two words connected are considered a "word")
Even at the end of the verse, the word would come with another mark next to the Siluq.

2. You mentioned already the four cases of Raphe+Dagesh for same one letter in:
כ(ל מלאכתך)
ת(רצח)
ת(נאף)
ת(גנב)

3. There are three words that one of their letters gets two pointing-mark (Patah' & Qamats together):
The letter N of פני has both Patah' and Qamats
The letter T of בארץ מתחת has both Patah' and Qamats
The letter Tsadi of לא תרצח has both Patah' and Qamats

in the case of לא תרצח the cantillation mark, Tiph'a, is between the Patah' and the Qamats.
David Hunter
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Seems like a strange inaccuracy in BHS Readers Edition A missing rafe and a missing dagesh. Deut 5:13,5:17-19

Post by ralph »

From what I have been told.

The BHS Reader uses the text of the BHS.

The BHS is based on the LC but is not an exact reproduction of the LC, it varies from it.

The BHL may be closer to the LC than the BHS, but still differs.

e.g. I was told that both the BHS and BHL lack the rafe . they said "not sure about the degashim in Deut 5:17-19. In Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia, edited by Aron Dotan and published by Hendrickson, the main text of this passage omits the degashim, but the "upper cantilation" version of the text, which is printed as an appendix at the end of the Bible, includes the degashim. I can't find an explanation for why this is in Dotan's foreword to this volume, but you might be interested to read this foreword in its entirety since Dotan discusses rafe, dagesh, and other related marks at some length."


I was told "Reviewers of BHS over the years have pointed out that, although it is based on codex L, it diverges from the latter in many small ways. Thus, BHS is not an exact reproduction of L. The Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia is closer to L than BHS."

"This mark[rafe] is also absent in the regular BHS (the text of which is used in the BHS Reader), as well as in the Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia, which attempts to reproduce the readings of the Leningrad Codex as faithfully as possible."

Also, I think it has been mentioned here, that- The WLC was originally a digitization of the BHS which is based largely on the LC, but it moved
away from the BHS and onto the the LC itself.

Also I notice that a review on amazon.com of the BHL mentions that the text differs.

And an interesting thing is that the L in BHL stands for Leningradensia.. whereas the L in LC stands for Leningradensis
Ralph Zak
Post Reply