My new Facsimilie edition of the Leningrad codex.
Hello everyone I know I havent been able to comment much on my BLOG nor have been able to post the articles that i have promised due to time restraints on my person. Anyhow I would like to say that I am extremely happy now that my facsimilie edition of the Leningrad codex has arrived. Oh my I just couldnt contain myself when I was reading the text and all of that. I know many who say that the Leningrad codex is not the best or anything like that but they have to realize the Artscroll Tanakh, the BHS, The JPS Hebrew -English Tanakh and others are based on this manuscript. While I will agree that the Aleppo Codex is older and probably more accurate, in most cases, the fact of the matter is that that Aleppo Codex is incomplete. It is missing three fourths of the Torah and many of the writings due to suspicious conditions or the "fire" incident. That is all I would like to say at this time other than I am very close to finishing the articles promised and hopefully within the next few days they will be out there on the web read by whomever needs the Info.
Shalom,
posted by Menachem @ 10:59 AM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
Interesting. I hear haShem is vowelized in the Leningrad Codex. Is that so? שבת שלום
Shalom. Does the LC have variant reading for Psalm 22:17 K ) R Y?
Todah, Joseph
Dear Anonymous,
The Leningrad Codex Give the reading of כארי just as every other hebrew bible does. I dont know what you hoped that the Codex would reveal in this regards perhaps it would be hopeful reading of Ka'aru a nonexistant hebrew word that many christians think means "they pierced" sorry to break it to ya that way.
Hey goose,
The Codex does vowelize the Divine name. it gives the Vocalization of the hebrew word "Adonai" in some cases but the vocalization of the Hebrew word "Elohim" in others.
>they have to realize the Artscroll Tanakh, the BHS, The JPS Hebrew -English Tanakh and others are based on this manuscript.
That's technically incorrect. Only the BHS in the above list are based on the Leningrad Codex--and only since 1937, with the 3rd edition put out by Paul Kahle (who would have used the Aleppo Codex, except he couldn't get access).
The other Bibles you listed are all based on the Second Rabbinic Bible published by Daniel Bomberg with the text prepared by Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, based on the best manuscripts he could find--which did not include either the Aleppo or Leningrad Codex.
In fact, Kahle's choice of a genuine Ben Asher type manuscript for BHS was a revolutionary idea. Practically all Bibles before then were based on the 2nd Rabbinic Bible.
That's technically incorrect. Only the BHS in the above list are based on the Leningrad Codex--and only since 1937, with the 3rd edition put out by Paul Kahle (who would have used the Aleppo Codex, except he couldn't get access).
Actually that is not ocrrect. the JPS Tanakh in its preface says it uses the BHS which is based on manuscript Leningrad B19A or Leningrad Codex. The artscroll was also based on this I communicated with Artscroll via Email to confirm this.
Kahle didnt use the Aleppo Codex becasue it is incomplete. Otherwise if he had access to it he probably would have used it. I would have if it were me.
The other Bibles you listed are all based on the Second Rabbinic Bible published by Daniel Bomberg with the text prepared by Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, based on the best manuscripts he could find--which did not include either the Aleppo or Leningrad Codex.
See Above..
In fact, Kahle's choice of a genuine Ben Asher type manuscript for BHS was a revolutionary idea. Practically all Bibles before then were based on the 2nd Rabbinic Bible.
I am not disputing this. I am disputing the above claims becasue they run contrary to to the evidence provided by both publishers JPS and Artscroll.
I did a little more research yesterday and learned something new. :)
First, I confirmed that Artscroll did use the BHS, as you said. Secondly, I confirmed that the 1962 revision of the JPS used the BHS, so I was mistaken--I was thinking of the original 1917 edition.
The Aleppo Codex was not incomplete in 1937. Kahle tried, but failed to get access. Of course he would have used it if he could have. The only modern Bible scholars who were granted access while it was complete was M.D. Cassuto and (was it Wickes? The one who photographed a page from Bereshit).
"Eliyosef said...
Dear Anonymous,
The Leningrad Codex Give the reading of כארי just as every other hebrew bible does. I dont know what you hoped that the Codex would reveal in this regards perhaps it would be hopeful reading of Ka'aru a nonexistant hebrew word that many christians think means "they pierced" sorry to break it to ya that way."
Shalom Eliyosef,
At the time I asked about K)RY in LC I knew the Text was K)RY but I didn't know what the Masorah was. The fascimile is now available online and I can see the Masorah has no textual variation.
According to BHS, which is basically a Christian product, K)RW is in 3-10 texts and KRW is in 2. As a starting point for identifying textual variation I am trying to identify the specific manuscripts of BHS above. No one appears to have such a list.
The contributors to the BHS inventory were Kennicott, DeRossi and Ginsburg, who were all Christians. Kennicott and DeRossi were clergy. Most of the inventory is from Kennicott and DeRossi and their related studies are rare/expensive.
The objective student must wonder if some of the Texts they inventoried as K)RW or KRW :
1) Were deliberately written for Christians.
2) Have a disputed reading.
Calvin wrote that in his time all Manuscripts had K)RY. Ben-Chayyim, another Christian, appears to be the first known person to actively look for K)RW in the 16th century. He wrote that he saw K)RW in accurate manuscripts but they had a Qere of K)RY and for 22:17 in his Eclectic Bible he uses K)RY with no related Masorah.
It may be that he knew or suspected that these Texts were written for Christians and that was the only reason they had K)RW.
To illustrate these potential problems with Christian Bible scholarship, Peter Flint is probably considered the top Christian scholar regarding DSS. The first fragment found containing 22:17 is mostly illegible for this word yet Flint categorized it as a certain reading for K)RW which I believe would be unprecedented in his field. The later fragment at NH is badly faded yet again Flint categorizes it as a certain reading for K)RW. The best available test though, comparison of the length of the downstroke of the letter in question to the length of the downstroke of the letter that precedes it, favors a Yod identification.
Joseph
Blogger Mississippi Fred MacDowell said...
The other Bibles you listed are all based on the Second Rabbinic Bible published by Daniel Bomberg with the text prepared by Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, based on the best manuscripts he could find--which did not include either the Aleppo or Leningrad Codex.
It is well known that Bomberg's Bible contains hosts of errors, but the Masora he included redeemed the work. The works of the Minchat Shai, and Levita among others restored the text to a pristine work of scholarship and accuracy. Ginsburg did the same in the early 20th Century.
The Rabbinic Bible as it has come to be known, is accurate, and differs slightly from the Leningrad and Aleppo texts.
I'd be interested in just knowing more about this so-called "Second Rabbinic Bible." I have heard that this was also the basis of the KJV. What is the quality of the Hebrew text? Where did it come from?
Thanks,
Jason
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home