Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

The main place for discussion the Hebrew Bible, its language and message.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
ralph
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby ralph » Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:39 pm

I see on wikipedia it says "The Westminster Leningrad Codex is an online digital version of the Leningrad Codex" and it says "transcribed from BHS"

Which is it?

For example, I know the LC on Deut 5:17-19 has dageshim in Loh Tirzach, Loh Tinaf, Loh tignov. http://i.imgur.com/cJIkGnm.png

Whereas I understand that the BHS does not.

And the WLC does.

So it seems the WLC is based quite directly on the LC not really the BHS.. though wikipedia says both.. and it's not clear to me which it is, as the BHS and LC are a bit different e.g. that example verse.

Isaac Fried
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby Isaac Fried » Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:55 pm

The dagesh is in any event a redundancy. The dot in the first letter of תרצח is, methinks, only a vestige of an old marking for the first letter of the word.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby Kirk Lowery » Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:26 am

Just a bit of history: the WLC text was originally created in the late 1980s, and it was indeed a transcription of BHS, since that was the only generally available text in those days. The LC facsimile (Eerdmans) didn't appear until 1993. BHS was an edited text, including line breaks for poetic text. This, of course, was an interpretation or reading of the text. During the 1990s the editors/curators of the electronic text moved away from BHS and made their goal to be as faithful to the LC as possible. Indeed, even the German Bible Society moved in that direction. Successive printings of BHS corrected toward LC and Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) has the same goal, so that BHQ and WLC are the same text -- except where the interpretation of the manuscript differs, of course! ;-) So that explains the not so clear description in Wikipedia.

Check the date of the printing of your BHS. If it is earlier than 1990, then BHS is in error. I would think later printings would have corrected it.
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Co-moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh
#mb-hga

ralph
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby ralph » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:39 pm

Isaac Fried wrote:The dagesh is in any event a redundancy. The dot in the first letter of תרצח is, methinks, only a vestige of an old marking for the first letter of the word.

Isaac Fried, Boston University


@Isaac I have no idea what you mean.. What dot as an "old marking" are you referring to. Do you think that this "old marking" that you speak of has a name. And what makes you think that there exists an "old marking" to point out the first letter of a word.. If you're talking about a dagesh, then dagesh is a marking still used today. And if you're trying to suggest that every first letter has a dagesh, then that is not true, even for BGDKFT letters it's not true. Nobody skips out a dagesh in a marked text, thinking it's superfluous.

ralph
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby ralph » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:44 pm

Kirk Lowery wrote:Just a bit of history: the WLC text was originally created in the late 1980s, and it was indeed a transcription of BHS, since that was the only generally available text in those days. The LC facsimile (Eerdmans) didn't appear until 1993. BHS was an edited text, including line breaks for poetic text. This, of course, was an interpretation or reading of the text. During the 1990s the editors/curators of the electronic text moved away from BHS and made their goal to be as faithful to the LC as possible. Indeed, even the German Bible Society moved in that direction. Successive printings of BHS corrected toward LC and Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) has the same goal, so that BHQ and WLC are the same text -- except where the interpretation of the manuscript differs, of course! ;-) So that explains the not so clear description in Wikipedia.

Check the date of the printing of your BHS. If it is earlier than 1990, then BHS is in error. I would think later printings would have corrected it.


Thanks Kirk, i'm really glad you replied.. That makes a lot of sense.

The funny thing is the LC seems to have a dagesh and rafe which i'd have thought are contradictory? (According to wikipedia on Rafe and on Begadkefat The rafe , used back then, would mean it's fricative rather than plosive, so, the rafe would indicate that there's no dagesh)

The book I have is BHS Reader, 2014.. I contacted BHS and they said the BHS like the BHS reader, has no dagesh and they didn't give a specific reason. But I was told the following

(from emaling the BHS people) - "Reviewers of BHS over the years have pointed out that, although it[BHS] 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."

Isaac Fried
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby Isaac Fried » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:08 pm

The marking I refer to is the ubiquitous dot inside the Hebrew letter, known today as a dagesh. Here is what I think about it:

1. The inner dot, the dagesh, was entered into the biblical text about a thousand years before the invention of the dotting, the NIYQUD. In my opinion the introduction of the dagesh, which brought about a change in the form of the Hebrew letter could have been initiated only by an authority of the highest order. I can not imagine the Qaraites of Tiberias of the 9th or 10th century daring to add a dot to the inside of the biblical text.

2. The purpose of the inside dot was first and foremost to alert the reader to a vowel sound and thus help him in the correct reading of the clueless skeletal text. The dagesh comes, thus, after a PATAX, a QUBUC and a XIREQ. The dagesh is not part of the NIYQUD and has no vocal function whatsoever. The claim that the dagesh "forte" is a "doubler" or a gemination prompt, is in my opinion, a myth originated in the spellings of European languages.

3. In crude texts a dot was placed, I think, inside the first letter of each word to clearly mark it off from the previous word. With time, the reading of some letters, such as the pairs B-V, K-X, F-P were senselessly and erratically modified by the dot, a habit still causing havoc to the pronunciation of spoken Hebrew. I will give you an example. There is a qibutz in the south of Israel near the Gaza strip called כֶּרֶם שָׂלוֹם kerem shalom, 'the vineyard of peace'. But when you add a utility letter to the name, say L, it turns into לְחֶרֶם שָׂלוֹם, by our inability to vocally differentiate between a soft (a dageshless) כ and a ח.

4. In deference to tradition the "masoretes" left most of the dgeshim in place, for us to ponder and puzzle over them.

Some examples:
וְהִנֵּה הָעַתֻּדִים הָעֹלִים עַל הַצֹּאן עֲקֻדִּים נְקֻדִּים וּבְרֻדִּים Gen. 31:12. Notice the lack of dagesh in the B of וּבְרֻדִּים UVRUDIYM.כִּי רָאִיתִי אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לָבָן עֹשֶׂה לָּךְ Gen. 31:12. Notice the dagesh in the initial L of לָּךְ.
כִּי כָל הָעֹשֶׁר אֲשֶׁר הִצִּיל אֱלֹהִים מֵאָבִינוּ לָנוּ הוּא וּלְבָנֵינו Gen. 31:16. Notice the lack of dagesh in the initial K of כָל (being read now חָל.)

Isaac Fried, Boston University

ralph
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby ralph » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:28 pm

@isaac
gen 31:16
כִּי כָל <-- no puzzle, i'd expect no dagesh in chol. it's a general rule that if the previous word(in this case, kee), ends in an open syllable and has a conjunctive trope then there's no dagesh in the first letter of the word(chol). Looks to me like maybe one of those many cases.

Isaac Fried
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby Isaac Fried » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:59 pm

I see a similar phenomenon in the name מִיכַל (Sam2 14:49), written also here with a dageshless כ, bringing the reading מִיחַל.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac Fried
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby Isaac Fried » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:51 am

On the other hand, מִכָּל, as in Gen. 2:2, is with a dagesh in the כ leading to the reading מיקל or מיקוֹל.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac Fried
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Is the WLC based on the BHS, or based on the LC?

Postby Isaac Fried » Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:07 am

So, how come there is a dagesh in the M of עֲרוּמִּים of Gen. 2:25, even though the word is written in full with a shuruk? It is, I think, because the shuruk was added to the biblical text later, after (after!) the placing of the dagesh. Indeed, the עֲרֻמָּה of Hosea 2:5 is written with a qubutz, and thus the dagesh in the M.

Isaac Fried, Boston University


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests