Phoenix From Ashes

Yep. That's a he. Not particularly surprising for a Jewish Tanach from the 15th century.

However, it would be interesting if someone could translate the chicken-scratch Hebrew commentary of Rashi to the left of the verse. Is there anything there concerning this particular verse?

Duh...actually the rubric on the top left begins with the text in question. Can anyone translate what follows in the commentary? I can't read it.

spin

There certainly is, young Joseph, but there was one in the Kochba text we looked at.

If you are still referring to the page from the Prague bible that Joe put up, it's just the text of the psalm, without commentary on the page.


spin

Phoenix From Ashes

Sorry, I assumed that others would follow his links as I did to find the original image. Joe cut out only the part he wanted to show, but there are two columns on the page and a commentary on the left edge. The commentary on the left edge is the part to which I was refering. If I took the time, I might be able to read it, but just glancing at it, it looks like chicken scratch (most likely "Rashi script"). It may have something enlightening to say about Psalm 22:17, however, as the rubric at the top left of the page is the part of the verse in question.

The following link may get you to the Ketuvim portion of the Prague Bible. If it does, all you need to do is click Ketuvim, Psalms, and then Psalm 22:17...(you'll probably have to zoom in to read it)

http://cdm.metro.org:8080/cdm4/docum...PTR=1364&REC=3

JoeWallack

JW:
"rubric". How refreshing, don't hear that word much anymore. It is indeed the Rashi commentary on the Left edge:



This commentary is valuable because there are differences between the Script and modern printed versions (of the Rashi's commentary).

Fortunately Rashi commentary has already been translated into English:

http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...showrashi=true

Rashi's commentary indicates K)RY along with all other known Hebrew commentary as I've documented in this Thread.

The point here is that BHS does not identify K)RYH as a variant even though we can see with our own ayins that it is. BHS is limited to Inventories supplied by Kennicott, DeRossi and Ginsburg (Christians). Either they/BHS didn't identify K)RYH because they didn't think/notice it was Significant or it just wasn't in their Manuscripts/Prints.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spin

OK, I got you. Alles klar.


spin

Phoenix From Ashes

Just calling it what it is... ?

Thanks for the link. Can you read the script well enough to tell that this English translation matches the Hebrew commentary in the image you linked to?

I don't have access to one at the moment, so I can't confirm this.

The problem with the Prague Bible is its late date...15th century. After all, many critical editions were beginning to be developed right around this time period. I can see why they would not have included this particular one in the BHS. If there are other, earlier examples, then that would be different.

spin

I'm sure you'll remember that the Murabba'at fragment has K)R? YDYH with the anomalous HEH at the end of YDY. Perhaps in the Prague bible, it has migrated backwards.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Like a Gospeller, I need to be more careful about what I write, someone might believe that everything I write is true.

Here's the unenchanted frag:



Here's the enchanted frag:



JW:
I think what we are actually seeing after YDY is a W and R close together which looks like a H (Mah leg, I can't see mah leg!). Note that the W than which would follow the offending letter appears to be longer than the offending letter. More support for Y I think. This Scroll looks like it follows the Masoretic pretty closely.

Since this Script has pretty similar Ys and Ws and not much word spacing I think one of the subtle characteristics to help Mark off words was a little shorter Y at the Start of a word and a little longer Y at the End. More support for Y. The only explanation I've seen Flint give for his W identification is he claims that under magnification a W was clear to him. That he has not to date given any detailed reason like this Thread has done suggests to me that he has none for W.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spin

Not a bad proposal, though I still don't agree with it at the moment. Why is this line apparently the only one which ends with an unfinished word? Also the second YOD of YDY seems attached to what follows it, which argues against it being a separate word. It seems to me too much of an ad hoc solution for a scribe to suddenly end a line that way when it is not a feature of the copy elsewhere. While you do get reading copies which give you the start of the next line, that doesn't seem to be the case with this fragment.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Exxxcellent observations. I give it a certain reading of ?. I base my guess of W and R on a combination of illegibility and closeness in general to Masoretic text. Our friend A also assumed it was a W and R. Regarding your complaints:

1) The two lines below both seem to end with Masoretic verse endings and there looks to be one faint letter to the left of the offending letters.

2) Regarding the Y touching the offending letter the letters at this point in the Script seem to have turned farther to the Left than Dennis Miller turned to the Right after 911.

I tell you the Truth though, it's entirely Possible that it is a H. The one thing I've learned here is that there is more Textual Variation than Fundamentalists or Skeptics think there is.

Getting back to the original issue all of the quality Hebrew Manuscripts and related Masorahs show K)RY with no textual variation. The quality early general Masorah Olah V-Olah, addresses K)RY, 22;17, confirms it as the spelling and states it has a different meaning. I think the "different meaning" just means that "like a lion" was to be taken as a Verb since there was no other verb for the phrase. This was the understanding of the Targum and Rashi.

The visual confusion this Thread has documented between Y and W explains the Greek confusion. The Jewish translators such as Aquila lacked the Rabbinic tradition of knowing what K)RY meant for 22:17 and being visually ambivalent about a Y or W and thinking the phrase needed a verb opted for a W leaving them with an unknown word whose meaning they had to guess. This is why the Jewish Greek translations are all different. Aquila's text is closest to the Masoretic but it contains other confusion between Y and W.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page