In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

THE MASORAH PARVA OF".11 IN NUMBERS 35:24 Daniel S. Mynatt Anderson College Although the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) reproduces the text of the Leningrad Codex faithfully. O. E. Wei! exercised considerable freedom in preparing the Masorah. editing extensively to make it more complete and systematic. Although Weirs innovations made the masoretic material easier to use. his editorial techniques also masked problems with interpretations that are clearly open to inquiry. The goal of this critical note is to take issue with one ofWeil's interpretations in the Masorah Parva of the Leningrad Codex and to suggest a better alternative. In Num 35:24. the preposition ';l-l' has the accent merka. The Masorah Parva note for ';l-l' in BHS is jn!l:1 Ii (occurs 8 times with this accent). although in the Leningrad Codex the note is actually .v1!l:1 R\ (occurs II times with this accent). Presumably. Wei! altered the note because he believed the Masorah Parva to be in error. An understanding of the issue in this Masorah Parva note is complicated by the existence of a similar. yet distinctly different rubric for ';loP in Masorah Magna 747 of WeWs Massorah Gedolah,l In the Masorah Parva. the term merka can refer either to the accent merka or to any conjunctive accent as opposed to maqqeph.2 This latter usage is implied in Masorah Magna 747. which draws together 8 occurrences of ';loP that are merka in the book of Leviticus. only two of which (Lev 2:13. 14:31) bear the actual accent merka.3 In BHS. all 8 of these occurrences bear the Masorah Parva note £1'0:1 .vl!l:l Ii (occurs 8 times with this accentuation in this book). rather imprecise but nonetheless the way in which the note is formulated in the Leningrad Codex.4 The BHS Masorah Parva note for ';loP in Num 35:24 is formulated very similarly. but unlike the usage in Masorah Magna 747 apparently refers to the actual accent merka. This conclusion seems explicit from the BHS Masorah Parva notes in the two cases in Leviticus where ?oP has the accent 10. E. Weil, Massorah Gedolah (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971), p. 90. 2 I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (SBLMasS, No.5; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980), p. 99. 3 The other 6 cases are Lev 1:11; 4:3; 5:6; 5:18; 10:15; and 23:20. 4 For examples of this note in the Leningrad Codex, sec Lev 2:13 and 5:18. Also, sec this note in C. D. Ginsburg, The Massorah (4 vo1s.; New York: Ktav, 1968), vol. 2, p. 390, list 356. Hebrew Studies 39 (1998) 54 Mynatt: Masorah Parva merka (2:13 and 14:31) and thus intersects with the rubric in Masorah Magna 747. In these cases. the BHS Masorah Parva has Ii 10 "In' El'O:l l71!1:l Ii 1" l71!1:l (occurs 8 times with this accentuation in this book and is one of 8 occurrences with this accent). In this longer note. the usage of 1" 'u1!I:l (with this accent) appears to indicate the accent merka which occurs in both of those cases. If the Masorah Parva of BHS is enumerating occurrences of".\1 with the accent merka in Num 35:24, then there is a problem, since there are actually 22 instances rather than the 8 occurrences stated in the note.S Of these 22 passages, BHS has the note 'u1!I:l Ii only for the 6 cases in the Torah. This implies that the rubric should be restricted to the Torah. The frequency statement in the BHS note would be correct if we add the Torah's two occurrences of ".\11 with merka (Lev 10:6 and Num 16:22). This must have been Weirs intention, since the Masorah Parva note for ".\11 in Num 16:22 is also l1I!I:l Ii, the same as in the 6 cases of".\1 with merka in the Torah. There are two complicating factors for this suggestion. First, it is odd that Weil has omitted ;,n:l (in the Torah), which is necessary for...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 53-55
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.