Psalm 78/Notes/Phrasal.V. 52.774916: Difference between revisions
Ian.Atkinson (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{ExegeticalNote |Layer=Phrasal |VerseRange=V. 52 |Text='''v. 52''' – Regarding the article on both כַּצֹּ֣אן and כַּ֝עֵ֗דֶר, "It has long been noted that the article seems to be vocalized in the Masoretic Text much more frequently than might be expected in these [בְּ, כְּ, and לְ proclitic] phrases" (Bekins, forthcoming §4.2; cf. Lambert 1898, 208). Similarly, Waltke & O'Connor claim that "the Masoretes tended to regularize articular use w...") |
Ian.Atkinson (talk | contribs) (Edited automatically from page Psalm 78/Diagrams/6.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Layer=Phrasal | |Layer=Phrasal | ||
|VerseRange=V. 52 | |VerseRange=V. 52 | ||
|Diagram=V-52-None | |||
|Text='''v. 52''' – Regarding the article on both כַּצֹּ֣אן and כַּ֝עֵ֗דֶר, "It has long been noted that the article seems to be vocalized in the Masoretic Text much more frequently than might be expected in these [בְּ, כְּ, and לְ proclitic] phrases" (Bekins, forthcoming §4.2; cf. Lambert 1898, 208). Similarly, Waltke & O'Connor claim that "the Masoretes tended to regularize articular use where they could, that is, with the monographic prepositions" (IBHS §13.7a). See, e.g., the complete lack of independent article in the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15), yet according to the Tiberian vocalization it appears eight times in one-word prepositional phrases (בַיָּֽם, בָּֽאֵלִם֙, בַּקֹּ֑דֶשׁ, etc.).<ref>It should be noted, however, that the definite reading of the one-word prepositional phrases throughout the Song of the Sea are also attested in the Samaritan Pentateuch (see Ben-Ḥayyim 1977, 418).</ref> Indeed, concerning one of our phrases in question, כַּצֹּ֣אן, the term כַּצֹּ֤אן׀ in Ps 49:15 is attested in the Secunda as χα'''σ'''ων (https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/hexapla/), lacking the gemination we would expect if read with the definite article. Contrast בַּמִּלְחָמָֽה (Ps 89:44), transcribed as βα'''μμ'''αλαμα (with gemination) reflecting the definite ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ in the LXX. Thus, the indefinite ὡς πρόβατα (and similar phrases among the Greek revisers) both in Ps 49:15 and 78:52 may lend grammatical support to the anarthrous reading here if reflecting a pronunciation as that of the Secunda. In short, an indefinite rendering is both contextually and grammatically appropriate, despite the Masoretic vocalization. | |Text='''v. 52''' – Regarding the article on both כַּצֹּ֣אן and כַּ֝עֵ֗דֶר, "It has long been noted that the article seems to be vocalized in the Masoretic Text much more frequently than might be expected in these [בְּ, כְּ, and לְ proclitic] phrases" (Bekins, forthcoming §4.2; cf. Lambert 1898, 208). Similarly, Waltke & O'Connor claim that "the Masoretes tended to regularize articular use where they could, that is, with the monographic prepositions" (IBHS §13.7a). See, e.g., the complete lack of independent article in the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15), yet according to the Tiberian vocalization it appears eight times in one-word prepositional phrases (בַיָּֽם, בָּֽאֵלִם֙, בַּקֹּ֑דֶשׁ, etc.).<ref>It should be noted, however, that the definite reading of the one-word prepositional phrases throughout the Song of the Sea are also attested in the Samaritan Pentateuch (see Ben-Ḥayyim 1977, 418).</ref> Indeed, concerning one of our phrases in question, כַּצֹּ֣אן, the term כַּצֹּ֤אן׀ in Ps 49:15 is attested in the Secunda as χα'''σ'''ων (https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/hexapla/), lacking the gemination we would expect if read with the definite article. Contrast בַּמִּלְחָמָֽה (Ps 89:44), transcribed as βα'''μμ'''αλαμα (with gemination) reflecting the definite ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ in the LXX. Thus, the indefinite ὡς πρόβατα (and similar phrases among the Greek revisers) both in Ps 49:15 and 78:52 may lend grammatical support to the anarthrous reading here if reflecting a pronunciation as that of the Secunda. In short, an indefinite rendering is both contextually and grammatically appropriate, despite the Masoretic vocalization. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 16:35, 23 April 2025
v. 52 – Regarding the article on both כַּצֹּ֣אן and כַּ֝עֵ֗דֶר, "It has long been noted that the article seems to be vocalized in the Masoretic Text much more frequently than might be expected in these [בְּ, כְּ, and לְ proclitic] phrases" (Bekins, forthcoming §4.2; cf. Lambert 1898, 208). Similarly, Waltke & O'Connor claim that "the Masoretes tended to regularize articular use where they could, that is, with the monographic prepositions" (IBHS §13.7a). See, e.g., the complete lack of independent article in the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15), yet according to the Tiberian vocalization it appears eight times in one-word prepositional phrases (בַיָּֽם, בָּֽאֵלִם֙, בַּקֹּ֑דֶשׁ, etc.).[1] Indeed, concerning one of our phrases in question, כַּצֹּ֣אן, the term כַּצֹּ֤אן׀ in Ps 49:15 is attested in the Secunda as χασων (https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/hexapla/), lacking the gemination we would expect if read with the definite article. Contrast בַּמִּלְחָמָֽה (Ps 89:44), transcribed as βαμμαλαμα (with gemination) reflecting the definite ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ in the LXX. Thus, the indefinite ὡς πρόβατα (and similar phrases among the Greek revisers) both in Ps 49:15 and 78:52 may lend grammatical support to the anarthrous reading here if reflecting a pronunciation as that of the Secunda. In short, an indefinite rendering is both contextually and grammatically appropriate, despite the Masoretic vocalization.
- ↑ It should be noted, however, that the definite reading of the one-word prepositional phrases throughout the Song of the Sea are also attested in the Samaritan Pentateuch (see Ben-Ḥayyim 1977, 418).