The Sub-Loco Notes in the Former Prophets of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 9781463205317, 2016013059, 1463205317

Citation preview

The Sub-Loco Notes in the Former Prophets of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

Texts and Studies

12 Series Editor H. A. G. Houghton

Editorial Board Jeff W. Childers Viktor Golinets Christina M. Kreinecker Alison G. Salvesen Peter J. Williams

Texts and Studies is a series of monographs devoted to the study of Biblical and Patristic texts. Maintaining the highest scholarly standards, the series includes critical editions, studies of primary sources, and analyses of textual traditions.

The Sub-Loco Notes in the Former Prophets of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

Christopher Dost

9

34 2016

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2016 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

2016

‫ܓ‬

ISBN 978-1-4632-0531-7

9 ISSN 1935-6927

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Dost, Christopher, author. Title: The sub-loco notes in the Former Prophets of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia / by Christopher Dost. Description: Piscataway, NJ : Gorgias Press, 2016. | Series: Texts and studies ; 12 | Revised version of the author’s thesis (doctoral)--The Jewish Theological Seminary (New York), 2014. | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2016013059 | ISBN 9781463205317 Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Former Prophets--Criticism, Textual. | Masorah. | Bible. Old Testament. Hebrew--Versions--Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. | Weil, G. E. (Gâerard E.)--Scholia. Classification: LCC BS1286.5 .D67 2016 | DDC 222/.0446--dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016013059 Printed in the United States of America

Title of the Book

Do not delete the following information about this document. Version 1.0 Document Template: Template book.dot. Document Word Count: 12772 Document Page Count: 327

For Michelle

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v Preface ................................................................................................................................. vii Common Abbreviations .................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 The History of Sub Loco Scholarship ..................................................................... 1 Aim and Methodology ............................................................................................... 5 Resources ................................................................................................................... 10 Layout of the Sub Loco Entries ............................................................................. 12 Chapter 2: Joshua ............................................................................................................... 15 Chapter 3: Judges ............................................................................................................... 58 Chapter 4: 1 Samuel ........................................................................................................... 97 Chapter 5: 2 Samuel ......................................................................................................... 151 Chapter 6: 1 Kings ........................................................................................................... 207 Chapter 7: 2 Kings ........................................................................................................... 255 Chapter 8: The Sub Loco Notes of the Sedarîm .......................................................... 295 Joshua........................................................................................................................ 295 Judges ........................................................................................................................ 295 Kings ......................................................................................................................... 296 Chapter 9: Conclusions ................................................................................................... 299 A Taxonomy of the Sub Loco Notes in the Former Prophets ....................... 299 Clarifications and Emendations of Frequency ............................................. 300 Clarifications of Text Features ........................................................................ 300 Clarifications of Context .................................................................................. 302 Text-Critical Notes ........................................................................................... 303 Matching Errors ................................................................................................ 304 Errors in BHK ................................................................................................... 305 Standardizations ................................................................................................ 305 Combinations of Two or More MpL Notes ................................................. 305 Unresolved ......................................................................................................... 306 A Comparison of Taxonomies ............................................................................. 306 Weil’s Treatment of the Masorah: An Evaluation ............................................. 308 Emendations of Frequency ............................................................................. 309 Statements about Text Features ..................................................................... 310 Incorrect Context .............................................................................................. 310 Text-Critical Notes ........................................................................................... 310 v

vi

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Matching Errors ................................................................................................ 311 BHK Notes ......................................................................................................... 311 Standardizations ................................................................................................ 311 Completions of the Masorah .......................................................................... 312 Failure to Emend MpL ..................................................................................... 312 The Reliability of the Sub Loco Notes in the Former Prophets of BHS ...... 312 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 315 Electronic Search Engines ..................................................................................... 315 Bible Manuscripts, Facsimiles, and Printed Editions ........................................ 315 Masoretic Treatises and Principal Resources for Masoretic Research ........... 316 General ..................................................................................................................... 317

PREFACE The Sub Loco Notes in the Former Prophets of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is a revised version of my 2014 Ph.D. dissertation, which was written under the supervision of Prof. David Marcus at The Jewish Theological Seminary (New York). Building upon Daniel S. Mynatt’s monograph The Sub Loco Notes in the Torah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BIBAL, 1994), the present work analyzes all of the sub loco notes in the Former Prophets of BHS with a view to (1) discovering Gerard Weil’s reasons for marking select Masorah parva notes “sub loco” and (2) evaluating the reliability of his revisions to the Masorah parva in the Leningrad Codex, the manuscript upon which BHS is based. Chapter 1 outlines the history of sub loco research, discusses the aim and methodology of the present research, introduces the principal resources used, and explains the layout of the entries which comprise chapters 2–8. In these chapters I analyze each of the sub loco notes in the Former Prophets, comparing the Masorah parva notes in BHS with data culled from the Aleppo, Leningrad, and Cairo Codices and other masoretic manuscripts, treatises, and resources. The ninth and final chapter presents a taxonomy of the sub loco notes in the Former Prophets and evaluates Weil’s emendations to the Masorah parva of the Leningrad Codex that appear in the Masorah parva of BHS. I am indebted to the many who contributed to my research and to the production of this work. Helen and Roy Brown of OakTree Software, Inc., provided me with the electronic editions of Biblia Hebraica Quinta and Aron Dotan and Nurit Reich’s A Complete Alphabetic Collection of Comments from the Masora in the Leningrad Codex, both of which helped me to resolve numerous masoretic conundrums. David DeLauro helped me to resolve technological problems, and a number of individuals assisted me in various ways in my research, including Kristine Yi, Rimon Armaly, Janisha Gabriel, Kylene Lopo, Pamela Schwartz, Jacki Wincowski, Sean Muldowney, David Jones, Stephanie Babu, Angie Valli, Hilary Shui, Amy Cheung, Joel Geer, Kay Hautea, Lisa Li, Nanette Richardson, and Jason Lee. Fellow Masorah scholars Elvira Martín Contreras and Judy Weiss also offered helpful suggestions, and Judy graciously loaned to me a number of resources from her library that greatly aided me in my research. I am also thankful to the members of my dissertation committee— Robert Harris, Stephen Garfinkel, Jonathan Milgram, and Harold Scanlin—for their feedback and encouragement. I am grateful to Viktor Golinets, who made numerous suggestions that significantly improved the manuscript, and to Melonie Schmierer-Lee and Hugh Houghton for seeing this work to production. Special thanks are due to David Marcus, my Ph.D. dissertation advisor, for his careful suvii

viii

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

pervision of my research. Virtually every page of the present work has benefitted from his insights. Any errors that remain are, of course, my responsibility. Finally, I wish to thank my parents, Mark and Karen Dost, my daughters— Abigail, Anna, Mia, and Gabrielle—and my wife, Michelle Dost. Without their understanding, love, and support, this work would not have come to fruition.

COMMON ABBREVIATIONS BHK BHS

M MA MB MC MCm ML MLm MM1 MS5 MS1 MV Mf MGK Mp Mm ms(s) OchlahH OchlahP *

Biblia Hebraica Kittel (= Biblia Hebraica 3) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. A superscript number indicates a particular edition of BHS. Masoretic Text Aleppo Codex Oriental Ms. 4445 of the British Library Cairo Codex Ms. Cambridge Add. 5702 Leningrad Codex Codex Leningrad M Madrid Codex M1 The Damascus Pentateuch Ms. Sassoon 1053 The Second Rabbinic Bible, the Bomberg edition of Jacob ben Ḥayyim Masorah finalis The ‘Keter’ databases of Mikra’ot Gedolot – Haketer Masorah parva Masorah magna manuscript(s) Fernando Díaz-Esteban, Sefer ’Oklah wə-’Oklah (Instituto de Filología del CSIC, 1975) Salomon Frensdorff, Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah (KTAV, 1968) contra textum

ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION THE HISTORY OF SUB LOCO SCHOLARSHIP

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) presents the text of the eleventh-century Leningrad Codex (ML). The manuscript, which was produced in Cairo by Shemuʾel ben Yaʿaqob in ca. 1008, 1 is the oldest complete Tiberian Masoretic codex now extant. 2 As a diplomatic edition, BHS presents the text of ML in almost every instance, regardless of a given reading’s merit. 3 Unlike its predecessor BHK, however, BHS does not merely reproduce the Masorah parva (Mp) of the Leningrad Codex (MpL). Gérard E. Weil—the Masorah editor of BHS—chooses against a purely diplomatic approach because of the numerous difficulties that the Masorah of ML presents. 4 First, the Masoretic notes and lists of ML, like other Tiberian codices, are rarely completed; that is to say, they are generally not copied down in the manuscript’s margin for every instance of the form or phrase with which the note is concerned. For example, MpL has the note ‫ מלכה“ ֗ב סברי֗ מלכה‬is wrongly suggested twice” in 1 Chr 20:2, but this note does not appear in the margin of the other occurrence (2 Sam 12:30). Thus, if one were using BHK or a facsimile of ML, one would not know from the Mp in 2 Sam 12:30 that there is a MpL note elsewhere that relates to this form. Furthermore, from looking at 1 Chr 20:2 one would not know where the other form is found. A second reason why Weil opts against presenting MpL diplomatically is that MpL notes are often abridgements of longer Masoretic rules, 5 and if one does not properly understand the scope of a given rule one may incorrectly evaluate the Mp note under consideration. Such is the case with the MpL note for ‫ וַ יִּ ָקּ ְבצוּ‬in 1 Sam 7:6. In Weil’s opinion, this MpL note ‫“ ֗ג‬there are three occurrences” is an abridged

Beit-Arié et al., CHLE, I:114, 118, though four other dates are considered. Victor V. Lebedev provisionally concludes that “the copying might have begun in 1008 and been finished in May–June 1010 (Lebedev, “The Oldest Complete Codex of the Hebrew Bible,” xxii). 2 Beit-Arié et al., CHLE, I:114; Beck, “Introduction to the Leningrad Codex,” xviii. 3 BHS5, XII–XIII. 4 Weil, “La nouvelle Édition,” 271–72. 5 A masoretic rule generally consists of (1) the form or phrase from the biblical text that is under consideration, (2) a frequency note, and (3) one or more strictures. 1

1

2

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

form of a longer Masoretic rule: ‫דכות ֗ב ֗מ ֗א‬ ֗ ‫בסיפ וכל ד״ה‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫“ ויקבצו ֗ד ֗ג‬there are four occurrences of ‫ויקבצו‬, three of which are in this book, and all in Chronicles are similar except for one.” 6 A third reason why merely presenting MpL is problematic is because ML and its Masorah contain numerous errors. Concerning its reliability, Breuer inveighs against ML: 5F

Thus the competition between the three manuscripts (viz., the Aleppo, Leningrad, and Cairo Codices) is a contest between unequal competitors and the discussion among the scholars is a meaningless one… The claim of Kahle that the Leningrad Codex is the ‘text of Ben-Asher’ is an injustice to Ben-Asher. 7

Breuer so strongly objects to using ML as the basis for a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible that he sarcastically opines, “Had they been seeking the most error-filled of all the ancient manuscripts, they could not have made a better choice.” 8 Thus, one may argue that the numerous errors that characterize ML may in many instances mislead the reader as to the correct reading of the Masoretic text and the correct interpretation of the Mp. For these reasons, Weil makes it his task to “revise,” “integrate,” and “complete” MpL. 9 His revised Masorah includes an apparatus in which he presents footnotes for select MpBHS notes. These footnotes include references to the Masorah magna of ML (MmL), citations of masoretic resources, and brief comments on MpBHS. 10 On virtually every page of BHS one finds at least one Mp note for which Weil adds the comment “sub loco” (lit., “placed beneath”). He explains in the introduction to BHS that “sub loco” indicates that the MpBHS note to which it refers is (1) contrary to the text of ML, (2) modified from the MpL note for the particular form or phrase under consideration, or (3) in need of clarification and/or interpretation due to the lack of a relevant MmL list. 11 Before his passing, Weil had intended to comment on the sub loco notes in the third volume of his planned four-volume work, Massorah Gedolah. He explains that the third volume was to serve as: Breuer’s The Biblical Text (pp. 389–400) includes a selection of reconstructed Masoretic rules, many of which are of use in interpreting the sub loco notes discussed in chapters 2– 7 of this work. 7 Breuer, The Aleppo Codex, XI. 8 Ibid., XII. Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph do not share Breuer’s sentiments, however: “There is no need to defend the use of the Leningrad Codex B19A (L) as the basis for an edition of the Hebrew Bible, whatever one may think of its relationship to the Ben Asher text… L is still ‘the oldest dated manuscript of the Hebrew Bible’” (BHS5, XII). 9 BHS5, XV. 10 In this work the term “Masoretic apparatus” refers to the section of each page of BHS where these footnotes are printed. 11 In Weil’s own words, “The note indicates that we have corrected an error in the Mp of L, or that the difficulty is due to the absence of a related list in the Mm of L” (BHS5, XVII–XVIII). 6

INTRODUCTION

3

…an exhaustive commentary on the Mp of the BHS where it is independent of the Mm found in L. In this commentary a full article is devoted to the first appearance of each note in the Mp which is independent of L. Each article gives the reader the complete lists of passages from which the particular note is derived, and indicates the manuscript sources in which the list is found… It should also be observed that the commentary in our Massorah Gedolah, vol. III, includes words of the Biblical text itself where they show any peculiarities or differences from the text of L, or from the so-called Textus Receptus, even when these are not noticed in the Mp and the Mm. 12

Aside from the fact that Weil would have listed his entries in order of their appearance in the Hebrew Bible and not alphabetically, his stated intention for volume III suggests that his commentary would have born a certain resemblance to Christian David Ginsburg’s fourth and final volume of The Massorah: Compiled from Manuscripts: Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged. Unfortunately, only the first of the proposed volumes made it to publication before Weil’s death in 1986. 13 The first thoroughgoing analysis of the sub loco notes was Daniel S. Mynatt’s 1994 monograph The Sub Loco Notes in the Torah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, in which he lists, analyzes, and classifies the Torah’s 297 sub loco notes. Because he was unable to obtain Weil’s research on the sub loco notes, Mynatt had to create a method by which he could discover the reasons that Weil considered these notes problematic and how he resolved them. 14 Mynatt’s method involves (1) comparing and contrasting MpBHS and MpL, (2) addressing Weil’s treatment of all related problems with the help of resources that he claims to have used, 15 and (3) providing an evaluation thereof. 16 For many sub loco notes, simply comparing MpL with MpBHS reveals the problem that Weil intended to address in his commentary. For example, the twelfth sub loco note of my commentary (see chapter 2) addresses the phrase ‫אל־מוּל‬, ֶ for which MpL presents the note ֗‫“ ו‬there are six occurrences” even though ML has fourteen Ibid., XVI, XVII. Weil, Massorah gedolah iuxta codicem Leningradensem B 19a. Vol. 1: Catalogi. 14 Prior to commencing my investigation of the sub loco notes of the Former Prophets, I assumed that Weil’s research still had not been made available to the scholarly community. I attempted to locate it anyway because drawing from Weil’s own research could potentially illumine how he resolved individual problems and how his commentary would have taken shape. As expected, however, I was unable to locate Weil’s sub loco research despite the gracious assistance of Professors Philippe Cassuto, Bruno Chiesa, Aron Dotan, and Colette Sirat, with whom I corresponded via email in July, 2011. The situation has not changed in the interim, as per my personal communication with Harold Scanlin in January, 2015. Thus, one can only assume that whatever Weil committed to writing on the subject, however little or much, is unlikely to ever see the light of day. 15 BHS5, XVII. 16 Mynatt, Sub Loco, 3–4. 12 13

4

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

֗ “in the Prophets” to indicate such forms. In MpBHS Weil supplements ֗‫ ו‬with ‫בנביא‬ that the tally of six only applies to the Prophets. It is evident that he presents a sub loco note in this instance because he has altered the MpL note. Recourse to other manuscripts or masoretic resources does not yield additional insights. There are many other sub loco notes, however, that present problems which cannot be decisively resolved by merely comparing MpBHS and MpL, as is evident in my commentary on note 381. This sub loco note addresses the comment in 2 Kgs ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ט‬there are nine plene occurrences in 17:6 that MpBHS presents for ‫א ָֹתם‬: ‫בסיפ‬ this book.” ML has only eight such occurrences of the plene form, but Weil reads ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ against ML in 2 Kgs 17:6, which raises the tally to nine. One finds support for ָ 17 Weil’s contra textum reading in the MpL notes for certain other instances of ‫אוֹתם‬ and in notes from other manuscripts and resources that Weil claims to have used. 18 Through the use of these and other resources that are listed in Weil’s introduction to BHS, 19 one is able to discover cogent explanations for the problems with which most of the sub loco notes are concerned. As useful as these sources are, Mynatt, like Weil, argues that the tenth-century Aleppo Codex (MA)—the most reliable Tiberian manuscript—must also be consulted in the analysis of the sub loco notes. MA was not available to Weil for his preparation of MpBHS because it was being collated at that time; 20 but by the time Mynatt began his research, Goshen-Gottstein’s facsimile edition had been published. A major problem that Mynatt faced, however, was that most folios of MA’s Torah are no longer extant, whether because they were removed sometime before the manuscript arrived in Israel, 21 consumed by fire during the Syrian riots of 1947, 22 or destroyed by fungi. 23 While scholarship has recently made significant strides in reconstructing the missing portions of MA, 24 the only portions of the Torah available to Mynatt were Deut 28:17–34:12 and photographs of a few other sections. 25 As a result, only twenty-three of the 297 MpL notes in the Torah that are marked “sub loco” (7.7%) have parallels in the extant portions of MA. Had Mynatt decided to collate all relevant MpA notes and MmA lists still extant and to incorporate relevant data from F

17F

18F

E.g., MpL 2 Kgs 3:10; 3:13; 6:21. E.g., MC 2 Kgs 17:6; MpC,V 2 Kgs 3:10; MmV 2 Kgs 3:10; Ginsburg, 1, ‫א‬, §1440. 19 BHS5, XVII. 20 This matter is taken up in detail in chapter 9. 21 Ofer, “The History and Authority of the Aleppo Codex,” 30. For a more detailed treatment of the history of the Aleppo Codex from the 1947 pogrom in Aleppo until the manuscript’s arrival in Israel in 1958, see Tawil and Schneider, Crown of Aleppo, 75–106. For a new perspective on the fate of MA in the wake of the Syrian riots, see Friedman, The Aleppo Codex. 22 Ofer, “The History and Authority of the Aleppo Codex,” 29. 23 See I. Polachek et al., “Damage to an Ancient Parchment Document by Aspergillus,” 89–93. I thank Viktor Golinets for referring me to this article. 24 See Ofer, “The History and Authority of the Aleppo Codex,” 40–43. 25 Mynatt, Sub Loco, 239–40. 17 18

INTRODUCTION

5

Breuer’s The Aleppo Codex, he would have been able to produce (1) a more accurate assessment of the correspondence between MpA and MpL, (2) an evaluation of Weil’s revision of the Masorah in BHS, and (3) a more refined taxonomy of the sub loco notes. Though one could reasonably expect Mynatt to have consulted Breuer, it is understandable why he considered collating all relevant MpA notes and MmA lists to be too great a task for his own research project. 26 Only recently have resources become available that allow one to search MA and its Masorah (see below). Though Mynatt did not fully develop these three areas of inquiry, he culls sufficient data from MA to allow for a projection of how drawing from MA could potentially impact sub loco research. 27 First, Mynatt observes that of the sixteen sub loco notes that have a corresponding MpA note in the same location, five of them (31.25%) resolve an error in MpL, which suggests that MpA will frequently be of use in resolving errors in MpL that occur elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Second, of the five MpA notes that resolve an error in MpL, four of the five (80%) 28 confirm Weil’s corrections, while only one of the five (20%) militate against Weil’s corrections. 29 Finally, Mynatt observes that for the three notes that he subsumes under the rubric “textual issue,” MpA provides a note expected in MpL. 30 This data suggests (1) that employing the Masorah of MA will regularly aid one in evaluating Weil’s treatment of MpL and (2) that the evaluation will reveal that his emendations to MpL are largely reliable. I shall return to this matter in chapter 9.

AIM AND METHODOLOGY

The present work continues Mynatt’s research by analyzing and classifying the 451 sub loco notes in the Former Prophets. The principal goal of this investigation is to resolve the problems related to each of the notes and to classify them. In chapters 2–7 each of the sub loco notes are analyzed in order of the appearance within the biblical text, with the exception of those that concern sədarîm. Such notes are treated together in chapter 8 because they are interrelated. The goal of each note is to present the problem in MpL, to examine Weil’s treatment of the problem in MpBHS, and in cases where Weil’s solution is shown to be dubious or incorrect, to propose a solution to the problem. Drawing from this analysis, chapter 9 presents a taxonomy that classifies the sub loco notes in the Former Prophets as Weil would have likely classified them. Following this is an evaluation of his treatment of MpL and a discussion of the role that MpA plays in properly resolving the sub loco notes and in evaluating MpBHS. In analyzing the sub loco notes in the Former Prophets I employ a revised form of Mynatt’s methodology that allows me to evaluate Weil’s treatment of MpL. Ibid., 240. For his evaluation of the data that he culls from MA, see Mynatt, Sub Loco, 245–46. 28 Entries 286 (Deut 30:18), 288 (Deut 32:4), 295 (Deut 32:32), and 296 (Deut 33:24). 29 Note 289 (Deut 32:8). 30 Mynatt, Sub Loco, 246. 26 27

6

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

The principal changes that I make to Mynatt’s method are two. First, unlike Mynatt, I compare the texts and Masorahs of ML and BHS to the Tiberian Masoretic Text. 31 To establish the Tiberian Masoretic Text where MA is not extant Breuer argues that one must compare four ancient Tiberian manuscripts that “have been written during a period close to that of the Masorah.” 32 For example, for cases in the Torah, Breuer collates the following witnesses: the Leningrad Codex (ML), Ms. British Museum Or. 4445 (MB), the Damascus Pentateuch (MS5), Ms. Sassoon 1053 (MS1), and the second Rabbinic Bible (MV). 33 He finds that even when only four of the five witnesses agree (what he calls “the decisive majority”), such readings are supported by the masoretic notes. 34 For cases in which the evidence from the manuscripts’ respective readings proves inconclusive (two manuscripts disagreeing with the reading of the majority), one can determine the correct reading by consulting the masoretic notes as an additional witness. 35 Breuer finds that this method is also valid for establishing the text of the Prophets. By producing an eclectic text based on (1) the decisive majority of MA,L,S1,V and MC (the Cairo Codex) and (2) the masoretic notes of MA,L,C,S,S1,V and MCm (Ms. Cambridge Add. 5702), the resulting text is virtually identical to MA. As of 1976 Breuer had found only eight possible discrepancies between MA and the Masoretic Text in the Prophets: ‫ שהוא שונה עקרונית מאשר כל כתבי היד הנידונים‬,‫ נראה‬,‫אם נעבור עתה אל א‬ ,‫ שבהם נוסח א מנוגד‬,‫כאן; שהרי יש רק שבעה או שמונה מקומות בנביאים‬ .‫ למסורה‬,‫כנראה‬

If we turn now to MA, we see that it differs fundamentally from all of the manuscripts that we address here; for there are only seven or eight instances in the Prophets in which the text of MA seems to contradict the Masorah. 36

Of the eight readings that he lists, he considers three to be certain mistakes: ‫וְ ִתמֹרוֹת‬ (1 Kgs 6:29); ‫( ָא ִשׁיב‬Jer 33:26); ‫( וְ נ ַֹדד‬Nah 3:17). The first two of these forms should be written with defective orthography, whereas the latter form should be written plene. By 2003, however, it had become less certain to him that MA truly contains Breuer refutes the pluralistic conception of the Masorah held by those such as Orlinsky (The Aleppo Codex, XII–XVIII). 32 Ibid., VII. 33 His includes MV because it is “far different from the (aforementioned) manuscripts” (ibid., XXI). 34 Ibid., XXIV. 35 Ibid. Concerning the reliability of this method, Breuer states that the eclectic text that this method produces “is almost identical with the eclectic text of the Ramah and absolutely identical with the diplomatic text of the Yemenites” and this should be satisfactory for “even the most extreme scientist” (ibid., XXV). 36 Breuer, The Aleppo Codex, 140. 31

INTRODUCTION

7

the incorrect plene spelling in 1 Kgs 6:29. Though faded, the reading seems clear enough in the facsimile, however, and should be considered an error.

The fourth form that Breuer lists appears to have been correctly written ‫ימיו‬ ָ ‫( ְמ ִר‬Isa 10:15) in accordance with the decisive majority but then incorrectly emended to ‫מ ִר ָמיו‬. ְ The ‫ י‬under consideration has not been completely removed, which leads one to question whether the partial fading of the letter is intentional or not. 37 36F

In two instances—‫( ֶה ְﬠ ִמיקוּ‬Jer 49:8) and ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫( וְ ִהגְ ֵל‬Amos 5:27)—Breuer follows MA,L against the majority of MC,S1,V and MpC,V. 38 There is some doubt as to the correct reading for ‫מוֹס ֵדי‬ ְ in Mic 6:2, but Breuer prefers this plene ‫ ו‬reading, which is found S1,V in M , to the defective ‫ ו‬reading ‫מ ְֹס ֵדי‬, which is supported by ML,C, MpC,V, and Minḥat Shay. Finally, Breuer initially argues that the plene form ‫ ְבּבוֹ ָאהּ‬in Ezek 24:24 is against the Masorah even though the decisive majority agrees upon this reading (MA,C,S1,V). 39 Later, however, he resolves the ostensible contradiction found in the Masoretic notes. 40 Thus, there are only three instances in which the text of the Prophets in MA is almost certainly at variance with the Masorah: ‫( וְ ִתמֹרוֹת‬1 Kgs 6:29); ‫( ָא ִשׁיב‬Jer 33:26); ‫( וְ נ ַֹדד‬Nah 3:17). 41 With the exception of the three aforementioned errors, the text of the Prophets in MA is the Ben Asher text of the Prophets. The text of the Prophets in ML, by contrast, differs from the Masorah in approximately 280 instances. 42 Therefore, the importance of the role of MA for the analysis of the sub loco notes cannot be overstated. In his introduction to the Masorah in BHS, Weil mentions a small selection of manuscripts and resources that he used in preparing MpBHS. Of these, the only Tiberian codex featuring the Prophets (aside from ML) that he claims to have used in his preparation is MC. 43 Therefore, one may reasonably expect to find in MC data that 40F

41F

In 2003, Breuer presents the defective reading for MA but expresses his uncertainty (The Biblical Text, 141). 38 Breuer, The Biblical Text, 193, 232. 39 Breuer, The Aleppo Codex, 140. 40 Breuer, The Biblical Text, 211, n. 71. 41 In 2003, he mentions only two: Jer 33:26; Nah 3:17 (Breuer, The Biblical Text, ‫י‬-‫)יא‬. 42 Breuer, The Aleppo Codex, 139. 43 BHS5, XVII. 37

8

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

helps to explain why Weil did or did not emend MpL. And indeed, readings found in MC regularly confirm Weil’s emendations either in part or in whole, even in cases in which MA does not. 44 Of all the early Tiberian manuscripts containing the Prophets (MA,C,L,S1), MC is second only to MA with regard to correspondence between the Masorah and the text of the Prophets (approximately 130 discrepancies). 45 When contrasted with MA, which has only three incongruities in the Prophets, MC may appear to be relatively unreliable; but considered against the two other early Tiberian codices, ML and MS1, which respectively contain approximately 280 and 500 such discrepancies in this corpus, MC is seen to be a very reliable manuscript. 46 For the reasons stated above, I have checked in MA,L,C every instance of every form and phrase referenced in chapters 2–8. 47 Comparing ML and BHS with the text of the Tiberian Masoretic Text is the first improvement that I make to Mynatt’s methodology. The second is that I compare the MpL notes under consideration with MpA,C and MmA,L,C in order to determine whether they accord with the Tiberian Masorah. As Breuer has shown, there is For examples of partial confirmations, see entries 46, 97, and 102. For examples of complete confirmations, see entries 43 and 114. 45 Breuer, The Biblical Text, ‫י‬. MC has received significantly less attention, for which reason it is warranted to briefly discuss here the manuscript and its import. According to the manuscript’s first colophon, the text and the full Masorah of MC were completed in 895/896 CE by Moshe ben Asher, the father of the famed Masorete Aaron ben Moshe ben Asher. As per Kahle, this would suggest that MC is the “oldest dated” manuscript of the Hebrew Bible known prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, predating even the famed Babylonian Codex of the Prophets, which he dates to 916 CE (Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 6). Loewinger also espouses the date of 896 CE (Loewinger, Cairo Codex, 1). The authenticity of the colophon has been largely accepted by scholars (Yeivin, Introduction, 21; Mulder, “The Transmission of the Biblical Text,” 115), and according to Kahle, who follows N. Wieder, this position is corroborated by the fact that the language of the colophon is “characteristic (of) Ḳaraite writing” (Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 97). E. J. Revell suggests that the colophon dating MC to 896 CE “likely… applies only to the letters of the text, since the pointing conforms more closely to the details of the tradition of ben-Naftali recorded in the Kitāb al-khilaf than does that of any other manuscript known” (Revell, “The Codex as a Representative of the Masoretic Text,” xxxi). David Lyons notes, however, that through studies of MC’s content and the codex itself, scholarship has concluded that the aforementioned colophon is indeed a forgery and that the manuscript dates to ca. 1000 CE45 (Lyons, The Cumulative Masora, vii, 4– 5). Lyons observes that Yeivin’s analysis of MC as “the most developed of the manuscripts” undermines the early date (for which see Yeivin, The Aleppo Codex, 361). A date of ca. 1000 CE is also adopted by Beit-Arié et al., who note that radio-carbon tests allow for a terminus a quo of 990 CE (Beit-Arié et al., CHLE, I: 28). 46 Breuer, The Aleppo Codex, 139 (translation mine). On the importance of MC, see also M. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Authenticity of the Aleppo Codex,” §18. 47 BHQ’s masoretic commentaries for the Prophets also address evidence from these three manuscripts (“Judges,” 5*). 44

INTRODUCTION

9

only one Tiberian Masorah, and it is from this Masorah that individual Masoretes incorporated selections into the margins of Tiberian witnesses: ‫ד מתארות את הנוסח האחיד של המקרא על פי‬1‫הערות המסורה שבאלקשש‬ ‫ מתארים את הנוסח המיוחד לכל אחד מהם; אלא‬1‫אין מסרני אלקשש‬...‫המסורה‬ ‫ מתארים כאחד – איש איש על פי סיגנונו ועל פי שיטתו‬1‫מסרני אלקשש‬ ‫ והנוסח האחיד המשותף לכולם‬.‫המיוחדת – את הנוסח האחיד המשותף לכולם‬ .‫הוא נוסח המקרא על פי מסורת טבריה‬

The Masoretic comments that are in MA,L,C,S,S1,V describe the single version of the Bible according to the Masorah… The Masranîm of MA,L,C,S,S1 do not describe the unique texts that are before each one of them, respectively; but the Masranîm of MA,L,C,S,S1 unanimously describe—each one according to his own style and according to his own unique method—the single version shared by all of them. And the unique version shared by all of them is the version of the Bible according to the Masorah of Tiberias. 48

Masoretic notes are often incomplete, and this can lead the reader to draw incorrect conclusions in determining the correctness of a given reading. Breuer observes that even where MA is extant, one needs to consult more than just one manuscript in order to emend corruptions in the masoretic notes and to fully understand the intended scope of each masoretic note: ‫למרות דיוקה המופלג של מסורת א – חובה עלינו לבדוק גם כתבי יד אחרים כדי‬ ‫ אלא אם כן‬,‫ ואין אדם עומד על טיב המסורה‬.‫ללמוד מהם את כללי המסורה‬ ‫ כי דברי המסורה עניים במקום אחד ועשירים‬.‫קיבץ את כלליה מכתבי יד רבים‬ ‫ ואין בידינו שום‬.‫במקום אחר; הם סתומים בכתב יד זה ומפורשים בכתב יד אחר‬ ‫ שכל כללותיו הם מדוייקים וגם מלאים – עד שאין הוא זקוק עוד‬,‫כתב יד‬ .‫להשלמה או לתיקון‬

Despite the great accuracy of the Masorah of MA, we are obligated to also check other manuscripts in order to learn the rules of the Masorah from them. And no one can claim to reply upon the quality of the Masorah unless he has collected its rules from many manuscripts. For the words of the Masorah are poor in one place and rich in another place; they are ambiguous in one manuscript but explicit in another manuscript. And there is no manuscript in our hands in which all of the rules of the Masorah are discussed, and are complete, and which do not require completion or correction. 49

As one sees in my commentary, Weil regularly errs in his interpretation of MpL notes. 50 My incorporating of MpA,C helps to insure that the masoretic notes in BHS and other witnesses (including MA,L) are interpreted correctly. 51

Breuer, The Aleppo Codex, 203 (translation mine). Ibid., 282 (translation mine). 50 Barthélemy (Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 338) notes that there is a certain element of unreliability that characterizes Weil’s emendation of the Masorah. 48 49

10

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

I also follow Mynatt in collating all relevant data from Bomberg’s second Rabbinic Bible (1524–25; hereafter MV), the Masorah of which was prepared by Jacob ben Ḥayyim ibn Adonijah. Given the authoritative nature of MV as the Textus Receptus of the Hebrew Bible, 52 it is no surprise that Weil made use of it in preparing the Masorah of BHS. I collate MV principally because it has the potential to explain Weil’s reason for treating each sub loco note as he does. However, my drawing upon MA,C diminishes the role that MV serves in my research vis-à-vis Mynatt’s. 53

RESOURCES

Before delving in to the analysis of the sub loco notes it is necessary to discuss the resources that I have employed in my research. First, the focus of sub loco research is the text of BHS and MpBHS. I have checked every form and masoretic note referenced in this work in the second, fourth, and fifth editions of BHS to ensure that my analysis of Weil’s treatment of the Masorah is not based on typographical errors or changes inserted by subsequent editors of MpBHS. I have chosen to consult these three editions of BHS because the second edition is the last edition published before Weil’s passing and the fourth and the fifth editions are the most commonly used editions. Of all the forms and MpBHS notes that are examined in chapters 2–8, only one is presented with inconsistency. For the form ‫ ְב ַחיָּ ו‬in 2 Sam 18:18 (see note 254) BHS5 presents the qərê form ‫בחייו‬, whereas BHS2,4 do not. I have also availed myself of the previous and subsequent editions of Biblia Hebraica—BHK and BHQ, respectively. MpBHK is a diplomatic text that presents MpL. For a small selection of notes, however, Paul Kahle, the editor of MpBHK, emends MpL. Through the course of my research I have discovered that Weil occasionally In this light, Mynatt would have done well to collate the Damascus Pentateuch (MS5) because of the degree to which it corresponds to the Masorah (ibid., 86) and because its Torah is almost entirely extant (according to Breuer, MS5 is extant from Gen 9:26 through Deut 34:12 with the exception of Exod 18:1–23 [ibid., VII]). 52 Snaith, “Prolegomenon,” XI. Concerning MV’s authoritativeness, Ginsburg explains, “All subsequent editions are in so far Massoretic as they follow the standard edition of Jacob b. Chayim. Every departure from it on the part of editors who call their texts Massoretic has to be explained and justified on the authority of the Massorah and MSS. which exhibit the Massoretic recension of the text” (Ginsburg, Introduction, 976). 53 While Bomberg’s earlier Rabbinic Bible, prepared by Felix Pratensis (1516–17), presents a version of the text more closely corresponding to Masoretic tradition than Bomberg’s second Rabbinic Bible, MV presents a superior Masorah, prepared by Jacob ben Ḥayyim ibn Adonijah. The Masorah of the Pratensis edition was for the most part limited to qərê/kəṯîḇ readings and Masoretic summary notes; Ben Ḥayyim, on the other hand, produced a full Masorah. While the text of MV suffers from Ben Ḥayyim’s adoption of inferior variant readings, the second Bomberg edition was instrumental in vivifying the Masorah, and it would come to serve as the base text for numerous Bible editions, including Biblical Hebraica of 1909 (Snaith, “Prolegomenon,” X–XII). 51

INTRODUCTION

11

presents a sub loco note in BHS partly in response to a problem in BHK. 54 I have also discovered that Weil’s resolutions of certain difficult MpL notes are based on incorrect data presented in BHK. 55 BHQ, the fifth edition of Biblia Hebraica and the successor to BHS, includes commentaries on MpL and MmL. These commentaries frequently address issues that concern the sub loco notes of BHS and were thus of great aid in my research. When I proffer a solution to a masoretic problem that is contrary to BHQ’s analysis, I generally discuss the matter briefly in a footnote. As noted above, the three masoretic codices that I have collated for every biblical form and masoretic note addressed are MA,L,C. I have checked the text of ML from the 1998 facsimile and the text of MA from the 1976 facsimile. I have checked the Cairo Codex from the 2010 digital photographs 56 as well as from the transcription and indices of El Códice de Profetas de El Cairo. All references to MV and Jedidiah Solomon Raphael ben Abraham Norzi’s masoretic commentary Minḥat Shay come from the Pardes edition of the second Rabbinic Bible. In conducting searches of ML, Mynatt primarily used Even-Shoshan’s concordance but also occasionally uses Mandlekern’s and Lisowsky’s. 57 Fortunately, since the publication of Mynatt’s dissertation, highly sophisticated electronic search engines have been developed that outmode the printed concordance. Of the many ML/BHS-based programs for the PC, I chose BibleWorks as my principal tool for electronic searches because when I commenced my research it was the product that most easily allowed one to conduct complex morphological, syntactical, and accent searches with the expectation of accurate results. For more difficult queries, I also periodically use Logos Bible Software to confirm BibleWorks’ search results. For electronic searches of MA and its Masorah, I used the MGK database, which is the electronic edition of Mikraʾot Gedolot – Haketer (henceforth, “Haketer”), the new, scientific edition of the Rabbinic Bible that is based on MA and other early medieval manuscripts. Because MGK is still in the beta phase, I checked its results against the print edition of Haketer. Both the print and electronic editions Haketer are of particular value for the running commentary on the Masorah (‫עין המסורה‬, Ein HaMasorah), which interprets the masoretic notes and lists and provides the biblical references to which MpA and MmA refer. All references to Haketer’s interpretation of the Masorah refer to the Ein Ha-Masorah commentary. Unfortunately, no such electronic program exists for MC, but the masoretic indices that are part of El Códice de Profetas de El Cairo facilitate the searching of MC and its Masorah. I have also used the standard masoretic treatises and tools that both Weil and Mynatt employed in their research. The most significant of these are Solomon Frensdorff’s and Fernando Díaz-Esteban’s respective editions of Okhlah we-Okhlah For example, see note 115. For example, see note 52. 56 In 1971, Loewinger published a facsimile edition of MC (Loewinger, Cairo Codex of the Bible), but it lacks the clarity that the digital photographs provide. 57 Mynatt, Sub Loco, 20. 54 55

12

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

(abbreviated OchlahP and OchlahH, respectively) and Christian David Ginsburg’s The Massorah: Compiled from Manuscripts: Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged. Additionally, two very useful masoretic resources have appeared since the publication of Mynatt’s dissertation. The first is Kelley, Mynatt, and Crawford’s The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. This work’s key contribution is that it lists, explains, and provides examples of all masoretic notes in BHS. More recently, Accordance Bible Software published an electronic module of Aron Dotan and Nurit Reich’s Masora Thesaurus: A Complete Alphabetic Collection of the Masora Notes in the Leningrad Codex. In its present form, the Thesaurus is a partial fulfillment of Dotan’s vision to produce “an exhaustive Tiberian Masora Thesaurus, covering fully the Masora of the entire Tiberian School to the Hebrew Bible,” which he outlined in his 1977 work, Thesaurus of the Tiberian Masora. The new Thesaurus is a repository of some forty years of masoretic research. As the title suggests, it presents alphabetically each Hebrew and Aramaic form or phrase for which the Masorah of ML presents a note or list. It simplifies research of MpL and MmL in that “each Masora item is accompanied with the relevant material from Masora Parva and Masora Magna both ad locum and elsewhere in the Bible-text, as well as with everything mentioned about the Link-word, whether in comparison with the Bibletext, or in discussing contradictions with other notes or with the Bible-text, including also the clarification of obscurities and the resolution of difficulties.” 58 While certain of the Thesaurus’ resolutions of difficult masoretic problems are conjectural, most are reliable, as the entries feature corroborating evidence from the best masoretic codices and resources. While my sub loco commentary was near completion by the time the Thesaurus was published, I nevertheless provide the relevant entry or entries in the Thesaurus for most of the sub loco entries presented in chapters 2–7.

LAYOUT OF THE SUB LOCO ENTRIES

Each note begins by presenting three elements: (1) the number of the note, (2) the biblical verse to which the sub loco note applies, and (3) the form or phrase in BHS with which the note is concerned. 59 For cases in which the form or phrase under consideration appears more than once in the same verse, it is followed by a superscript letter to identify it precisely. The letter “a” refers to the first occurrences within a verse, “b” refers to the second occurrence, and so on. For instance, note 71 begins as follows:

Dotan and Reich, Thesaurus, n.p. Unlike BHQ, I use the term “lemma” in a more limited sense. To obviate confusion, in this work “lemma” refers specifically to a lexeme and not to a particular inflected form. I use the term “form” to refer to an inflected form and “phrase” to refer to any construction of two or more words with which a given Masoretic rule is concerned (likewise, Breuer, The Biblical Text, ‫)ה‬. 58 59

INTRODUCTION

13

Note 71: Judges 5:6 ‫ ֳא ָרחוֹת‬b

Beneath these three elements I present and translate the notes that are found in MpBHS, MpL, MpA, and MpC for the form under consideration: MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב ובפסוק‬ Twice and in this verse.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

Where MA,L,C do not spell, vocalize, or accent the form under consideration as per BHS, I enclose the form in brackets next to the Mp note. One such case is found in note 350: Note 350: 2 Kings 2:18 ‫ֲהלוֹא‬ MpBHS MpL

◦

No note.

MpA MpC

No note [‫]הלֹא‬. ֲ No note [‫]הלֹא‬. ֲ

Following the presentation of these data I include a commentary, wherein I compare the MpL note to the text of ML, explain the problem with which Weil is concerned, and identify and evaluate Weil’s resolution of the problem. In the Masorah a dot is customarily placed over abbreviated forms and letters that have a numerical function. This is not the case in every instance, however. In some cases fading of the print and the appearance of other specks above letters preclude one from determining whether or not the Masorete included a dot. 60 Thus, it is for the reader’s convenience that I standardize my presentation of all masoretic notes by featuring a dot above all frequency notes. When listing the verses to which a masoretic note makes reference, I place an asterisk next to any verse that contains a form that Weil reads against the text (contra textum). For example, the first note focuses on a MpBHS note that counts three occurrences in the Prophets of the defective form ‫צ ָדה‬.ֵ According to Weil, the first of the three is Josh 1:11, even though ML contains the plene form ‫צ ָידה‬.ֵ Because Weil reads against the text of ML in this instance, I place an asterisk next to this reference: A recent study by Viktor Golinets discusses how specks on the manuscript of ML can be confused for dageš and mappîq (Golinets, “Specks on Vellum, and Editing of the Codex Leningradensis,” especially 247–254). 60

14

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) Josh 1:11* (2) Judg 7:8 (3) Judg 20:10

Whenever a Mm list is brought to bear on a sub loco problem, the list is referenced in the footnotes and in most cases is presented in full with translation. When an entire Mm list is presented, punctuation marks are added in order to facilitate reading. The masoretic rule is always followed by a colon, and each catchword and catchphrase is followed by a period. See, for example, footnote 3 to note 1: .‫ לקחת צדה לעם‬.‫ ויקחו את צדה העם‬.‫ הכינו לכם צדה‬: ֗‫חס וסי‬ ֗ ‫“ צדה ֗ג‬there are three defective occurrences of ‫צדה‬, and their references are Josh 1:11; Judg 7:8; Judg 20:10.”

Finally, in every case in which Dotan and Reich’s Thesaurus and/or BHQ address a form or phrase under consideration, references are provided either in the text of the commentary or in a footnote. This will give the reader an appreciation for how these works contribute to masoretic research.

CHAPTER 2: JOSHUA

NOTE 1: JOSHUA 1:11 ‫ֵצ ָידה‬ MpBHS

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective in the Prophets. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

ML contains the plene form ‫ ֵצ ָידה‬in Josh 1:11, but Weil counts it as one of three defective forms in the Prophets. According to Weil’s completion of the Masorah, the three are: (1) (2) (3)

Josh 1:11* Judg 7:8 Judg 20:10

MpBHS Josh 1:11 is a contra textum completion of Weil’s emendation of MpL Judg 20:10 (‫חס‬ ֗ ‫)ג‬, ֗ 1 which is influenced by a tradition 2 to which MmV Judg 7:8 is witness. 3 Breuer contends, however, that MV incorrectly presents the defective form in Josh 1:11 and that this reading should be corrected against MmA Judg 20:10, which in60F

61F

62F

Though MpL Judg 7:8 also reads ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬three times defective,” the corresponding ֗ “in the Prophets.” This appears to be a Mp note does not include the supplement ‫בנביא‬ mere oversight, however. 2 See Weil’s comment in BHS’s Masoretic apparatus: “Mp contra textum; mlt Mss plen, duae scholae non congruentes.” 3 .‫ לקחת צדה לעם‬.‫ ויקחו את צדה העם‬.‫ הכינו לכם צדה‬: ֗‫חס וסי‬ ֗ ‫“ צדה ֗ג‬there are three defective occurrences of ‫צדה‬, and their references are Josh 1:11; Judg 7:8; Judg 20:10.” This is affirmed by Minḥat Shay Josh 1:11. 1

BHS

15

16

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

cludes (1) Judg 7:8; (2) Judg 20:10; and (3) all occurrences within the Torah. 4 Thus, a total of five forms are subsumed under this masoretic rule: 5 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Gen 42:25 Gen 45:21 Exod 12:39 Judg 7:8 Judg 20:10

In this light, it is clear that Weil is incorrect both in treating Joshua 1:11 as defective and in limiting the scope of MpL Judg 20:10 to the Prophets.

NOTE 2: JOSHUA 2:2 ‫ִהנֵּ ה ֲאנָ ִשׁים‬ MpBHS

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

No note.

MpL

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

In ML the phrase ‫ ִהנֵּ ה ֲאנָ ִשׁים‬occurs only here, a fact not noted by MpL. Weil adds the note ‫“ ֗ל‬unique,” which is also present in MpA,C. It would seem, then, that the principal reason for this sub loco note is Weil’s presenting of a Mp note where MpL does not. However, one must also take notice that MpL 1 Kgs 13:25 counts two occurrences (‫)ב‬ ֗ of ‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה ֲאנָ ִשׁים‬, a phrase that occurs in this precise form in ML only 6 once. It appears that the tally of two includes Josh 2:2, and one would therefore reasonably expect Weil to emend MpL 1 Kgs 13:25 to ‫ ֗ל‬since he marks Josh 2:2 as unique. Surprisingly, however, he simply reprints ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” for 1 Kgs 13:25 without featuring a sub loco note or clarifying that the other occurrence is the similar phrase in Joshua. Regardless of the fact that Weil does not standardize the Masorah for ‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה ֲאנָ ִשׁים‬/‫הנֵּ ה‬,ִ the note that he adds for Josh 2:2 accords with the normative Masorah and is thus correct.

Breuer, The Biblical Text, 43, n. 1–2. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫צ ָדה‬,ֵ Judg 7:8. The same list of five is found in BHQ, “Judges,” 20*. By contrast, Ginsburg only includes the first, fourth, and fifth of the above forms (Ginsburg, 2, ‫צ‬, §127). 6 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁים‬ ִ ָ‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה ֲאנ‬. 4 5

JOSHUA

17

NOTE 3: JOSHUA 2:10 ‫ְל ִסיחֹן‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫דכות ֗ב ֗מ ֗ד‬ ֗ ‫אורית‬ ֗ ‫חס בנ"ך וכל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective in the Prophets and the Writings, and all the Torah likewise except for four plene occurrences.

MpA

‫ובכת‬ ֗ ‫בנב‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective in the Prophets and in the Writings.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫אור דכו֗ ֗ב ֗מ ֗ד‬ ֗ ‫חס וכל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times defective and all the Torah likewise except for four plene occurrences.

MpC

֗‫חס בנ‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective in the Prophets.

ML contains four occurrences of the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫ל ִסיחֹן‬,ְ and this accords with the first portion of this MpL note (‫חס‬ ֗ ‫)ד‬. ֗ The four references are: 7 (1) (2) (3) (4)

Num 21:34 Deut 3:2 Deut 3:6 Josh 2:10

6F

Weil, however, emends this portion of the note from ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ד‬to ‫חס בנ"ך‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬once defective in the Prophets and the Writings,” as per MpA, 8 a change that also accords with ML. The remainder of the MpL note indicates that all occurrences in the Torah are similar except for four. This is intelligible only if both ‫ ִסיחֹן‬and ‫ ְל ִסיחֹן‬are in view because the Torah only contains a total of four forms of ‫ל ִסיחֹן‬,ְ regardless of spelling. The four plene ‫ ו‬forms of this lemma in the Torah are: 9 67F

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Num 21:27 Num 21:29 Deut 2:26 Deut 31:4

68F

‫ִסיחוֹן‬ ‫ִסיחוֹן‬ ‫ִסיחוֹן‬ ‫ְל ִסיחוֹן‬

Though Weil should have clarified in his emended note that similar forms are inthis MpBHS note is otherwise in accordance with ML and the normacluded (‫)בליש‬, ֗ 10 tive Masorah. 69F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ל ִסיחֹן‬.ְ Similarly, MpC. 9 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫סיחוֹן‬, ִ Num 21:27. 10 Breuer, The Biblical Text, 48, n. 29. 7 8

18

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 4: JOSHUA 3:10 ‫יְבוּסי‬ ִ ‫ת־הגִּ ְרגָּ ִשׁי וְ ָה ֱאמ ִֹרי וְ ַה‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ְפּ ִרזִּ י וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ִחוִּ י וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ִח ִתּי וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ְכּנַ ֲﬠנִ י וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫סימן ֗כ ֗ת ו֗ ֗פ ֗ג ֗מ ֗ס‬ The mnemonic is ‫֗כ ֗ת ו֗ ֗פ‬ ‫֗ג ֗מ ֗ס‬

MpA

‫֗ע ֗תו֗ ֗פ ֗ג ֗מ ֗ס‬ The mnemonic is ‫֗ע ֗ת ו֗ ֗פ ֗ג ֗מ‬ ‫֗ס‬

‫֗ע ֗תו֗ ֗פ ֗ג ֗מ ֗ס‬ The mnemonic is ‫֗ע ֗ת ו֗ ֗פ‬ ‫֗ג ֗מ ֗ס‬

MpC

‫סימ ֗כ ֗תו֗ ֗פ ֗ג ֗מ ֗ס‬ ֗ The mnemonic is ‫֗כ ֗ת ו֗ ֗פ ֗ג‬ ‫֗מ ֗ס‬

MpL Josh 3:10 supplies an abbreviation for each of the gentilics occurring in this verse in order to preserve their proper order, and this produces the mnemonic ֗‫֗ע ֗ת ו‬ ‫ ֗פ ֗ג ֗מ ֗ס‬. Weil emends the Masorah in two ways. First, he adds the term ‫ סימן‬before the mnemonic, as is sometimes the case with mnemonics in MpL. 11 He also substitutes ‫—ע‬an ֗ abbreviation often used by MpA,L for ‫ ַה ְכּנַ ֲﬠנִ י‬12—for the alternative abbreviation ‫כ‬.֗ 13 Both of these changes occasion this sub loco note. 72F

NOTE 5: JOSHUA 4:12 ‫יהם מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ֵל‬ MpBHS

‫֗ג‬ Three times. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

The phrase ‫א ֵל ֶהם מ ֶֹשׁה‬/‫ם‬ ֲ ‫יה‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ֵל‬occurs five times ML. 14 Three have the plene form ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫א ֵל‬, ֲ while the other two have the defective counterpart: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Exod 34:31 Num 9:8 Num 31:15 Num 32:20 Josh 4:12

‫ֲא ֵל ֶהם מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ‫ֲא ֵל ֶהם מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ‫יהם מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ֵל‬ ‫יהם מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ֵל‬ ‫יהם מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ֵל‬

E.g., Deut 7:1; cf. BHQ, “Deuteronomy,” 21*. E.g., MpL Josh 9:1; MpA Judg 3:5. 13 Likewise, MpC. 14 Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫ֹשׁה‬ ֶ ‫אמר ֲא ֵל ֶהם מ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬. 11 12

JOSHUA

19

Though MpL does not present a note for Josh 4:12, Weil adds the note ‫“ ֗ג‬three times,” which ostensibly counts the three plene occurrences (forms 3–5). Such is not the case, however. Instead, Weil reads the defective form for Josh 4:12 against ML but in accordance with other manuscripts. 15 It appears that he decides to correct ֗ which ostensibly counts three occurrences the text on the basis of MpL Num 9:8 (‫)ג‬, of the defective ‫א ֵל ֶהם מ ֶֹשׁה‬. ֲ This decision is incorrect, however, as MA,L,C Josh 4:12 all have the plene reading. On the basis of MmLm Num 9:8, 16 Dotan and Reich sugֶ ‫אמר ֲא ֵל‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬in gest that MpL Num 9:8 likely counts the three occurrences of ‫)י(הם מ ֶֹשׁה‬ Numbers, even though a circellus is not present above ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫אמר ֲא ֵל‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬.

NOTE 6: JOSHUA 6:15 ‫וַ יַּ ְשׁ ִכּמוּ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

MpA

‫חס וכל שמואל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective and all instances in Samuel.

‫כות‬ ֗ ֗‫חס וכל שמו‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective and all instances in Samuel likewise.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

As per MpL Josh 6:15, ML contains six occurrences of ‫וַ יַּ ְשׁ ִכּמוּ‬, two of which occur outside of Samuel: 17 (1) Num 14:40 (2) Josh 6:15 (3) 1 Sam 1:19 76F

(4) 1 Sam 5:3 (5) 1 Sam 5:4 (6) 1 Sam 9:26

֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬three times defective” in According to Mynatt, Weil deliberately alters MpL to ‫חס‬ accordance with an erroneous masoretic tradition that only includes forms 1, 2, and 6. 18 Weil’s decision to read against ML for forms 3–5 runs counter to MA,C and is 7F

He states in the Masoretic apparatus, “Alii Mss ‫ אלהם‬def sicut Ex 34,31; Nu 9,8 (other manuscripts [include] the defective [form] ‫[ אלהם‬as does] Exod 34:31; Num 9:8).” 16 .‫ מלבד התיחשם‬.‫ ללוים במשמרותם‬:‫ֹשׁה ֗ג וסימנהון‬ ֶ ‫אמר ֲא ֵל ֶהם מ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫“ וַ יּ‬there are three occurrences of ‫אמר ֲא ֵל ֶהם מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬, and their references are Num 9:8; 31:15; 32:20.” 17 Likewise, MpA. See also Breuer’s completion: ‫“ ב׳ חס׳ מחוץ לשמואל‬there are two defective occurrences outside of Samuel” (Breuer, The Biblical Text, 399). Similarly, MpL Num 14:40 and MpC Josh 6:15 count two defective forms, but they do not mention Samuel. 18 Mynatt, Sub Loco, 166. MmV Num 14:40, for example, counts only three: ‫וישכמו ֗ג‬ .‫ וחברו‬.‫ כעלות יהושע‬.‫ וישכמו בבקר ויעלו‬:‫“ חסרים וסימן‬there are three defective occurrences 15

20

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

therefore incorrect. Breuer observes that the third occurrence for this method of counting should be “all Samuel,” 19 as per MmLm Num 14:40. 20

NOTE 7: JOSHUA 6:27 ‫ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫֗ד וכל נדרים‬ Four times and the whole section on vows likewise.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective.

MpC

֗‫פרש נדרי֗ דכו‬ ֗ ‫֗ד וכל‬ Four times and the whole section on vows likewise.

No note.

MpL Josh 6:27 indicates that ‫ ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬is both unique and defective, but this note is incorrect on both counts. This form should not be labeled defective, as a plene spelling is not possible. Furthermore, this form is not unique, as it occurs nine times in ML (including the similar, prefixed ‫ ו‬form): 21 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Num 30:6 Num 30:8 Num 30:13 Num 30:15 Num 30:16

‫ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬ ‫ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬ ‫ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬ ‫ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬ ‫ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬

(6) (7) (8) (9)

Josh 6:27 Josh 9:9 Jer 6:24 Esth 9:4 80F

‫ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬ ‫ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬ ‫ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬ ‫וְ ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬

Weil emends the Masorah in accordance with MpL Josh 9:9, which correctly counts four occurrences outside of Num 30 (the section on vows). 22

of ‫וישכמו‬, and their references are Num 14:40; Josh 6:15; 1 Sam 9:26;” likewise, Ginsburg, 2, ‫ש‬, §424. 19 Breuer, The Biblical Text, 68, n. 1. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁ ִכּמוּ‬ ְ ַ‫וַ יּ‬, Josh 6:15. 20 .‫שמ‬ ֗ ‫ וכול‬.‫ כעלות השחר דיהושע‬.‫ בבקר ויעלו אל ראש ההר‬:‫חס וסימנהון‬ ֗ ‫“ וַ יַּ ְשׁ ִכּמוּ ֗ג‬there are three defective occurrences of ‫וַ יַּ ְשׁ ִכּמוּ‬, and their references are Num 14:40; Josh 6:15; and all Samuel.” 21 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁ ְמעוֹ‬, ָ Josh 9:9. The only prefixed form included in this tally of four is ‫ וְ ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬because forms with other prefixes have their own Masoretic notes (e.g., ְ MmL Exod 16:7 [Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §485], which lists the three occurrences of ‫)בּ ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬. 22 Likewise, MmA Josh 6:27: ‫ הולך בכל‬.‫ רפו ידינו‬.‫ כי שמענו‬.‫ ויהי יהוה‬:‫קמצ‬ ֗ ‫שמעו ֗ד‬ .‫“ המדינות‬there are four occurrences of ‫ שמעו‬with qameṣ: Josh 6:27; 9:9; Jer 6:24; Esth 9:4.”

JOSHUA

21

NOTE 8: JOSHUA 8:12 MpBHS MpL

‫ָל ִﬠיר‬

°

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note. No note.

ML contains the reading ‫ ָל ִﬠיר‬without a qərê in Josh 8:12. 23 By contrast, MV(qere) and “other manuscripts” that Weil consults have the reading ‫ל ָﬠי‬,ָ a reading that is characteristic of the Eastern masoretic tradition. If Weil supports the qərê, he would have likely indicated so in MpBHS. 24 Instead, he simply presents a comment in the masoretic apparatus to alert the reader to this alternative reading, and the focus of his commentary would probably have been an explanation of his reason for not emending. Weil’s decision not to include the qərê accords with MA,C. 83F

NOTE 9: JOSHUA 8:20 ‫ֵהנָּ ה וָ ֵהנָּ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫֗ד ֗ול‬ Four times and unique in this book.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

MpL Josh 8:20 counts three occurrences of ‫הנָּ ה וָ ֵהנָּ ה‬.ֵ ML, however, contains four occurrences of this form, three of which occur in Kings: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Josh 8:20 1 Kgs 20:40 2 Kgs 2:8 2 Kgs 2:14

Dotan and Reich suggest that the tally of three reflects a counting in which both occurrences in 2 Kgs 2 are viewed as one. 25 By contrast, Weil resolves the problem by (1) revising the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ד‬four times,” which he completes in all cases, and (2) supplementing each note with a comment that addresses how many times the form appears in Joshua (‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫)ול‬. ֗ Likewise, MA,C. See, for example, note 130 (1 Samuel 3:18). 25 See Dotan and Reich, §‫הנָּ ה וָ ֵהנָּ ה‬. ֵ 23 24

22

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 10: JOSHUA 8:31 ‫תּוֹרת מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ַ ‫ַכּ ָכּתוּב ְבּ ֵס ֶפר‬ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique in this book.

MpA

‫תּוֹרת מ ֶֹשׁה[ ֗ל‬ ַ ‫]בּ ֵס ֶפר‬ ְ Unique.

MpL

MpC

‫תּוֹרת מ ֶֹשׁה[ ֗ג‬ ַ ‫]בּ ֵס ֶפר‬ ְ Three times. No note.

MpL Josh 8:31 marks ‫תּוֹרת מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ַ ‫ ְבּ ֵס ֶפר‬as unique even though the phrase occurs three times in ML. 26 Instead of treating the MpL note as a mere frequency error and emending it to ‫“ ֗ג‬three” as he does in sub loco note 11, Weil creates this extra note for the longer rubric ‫תּוֹרת מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ַ ‫כּ ָכּתוּב ְבּ ֵס ֶפר‬,ַ a phrase that occurs twice in ML: Josh 8:31; 2 Kgs 14:6. Instead of emending the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice,” however, he marks the phrase as unique (‫ ֗)ל‬and restricts its scope to Joshua (‫)בסיפ‬. ֗

NOTE 11: JOSHUA 8:31 ‫תּוֹרת מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ַ ‫ְבּ ֵס ֶפר‬ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫֗ג ֗ול‬ Three times and unique in this form within this book. ‫תּוֹרת מ ֶֹשׁה[ ֗ל‬ ַ ‫]בּ ֵס ֶפר‬ ְ Unique.

MpL

MpA

MpC

‫תּוֹרת מ ֶֹשׁה[ ֗ג‬ ַ ‫]בּ ֵס ֶפר‬ ְ Three times. No note.

ַ ‫ ְבּ ֵס ֶפר‬as unique, but the phrase occurs three times MpL Josh 8:31 marks ‫תּוֹרת מ ֶֹשׁה‬ in ML. Weil adds the frequency note ‫“ ֗ג‬three times” in accordance with MpL Josh 23:6. 27 The three references are: 28 86F

(1) (2) (3)

Josh 8:31 Josh 23:6 2 Kgs 14:6

87F

‫תּוֹרת מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ַ ‫)כּ ָכּתוּב( ְבּ ֵס ֶפר‬ ַ ‫תּוֹרת מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ַ ‫)ה ָכּתוּב( ְבּ ֵס ֶפר‬ ַ ‫תּוֹרת מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ַ ‫)כּ ָכּתוּב( ְבּ ֵס ֶפר‬ ַ

Additionally, Weil adds the note ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ול‬to draw attention to the fact that the phrase is preceded by ‫ ַכּ ָכּתוּב‬in Josh 8:31 and not ‫ ַה ָכּתוּב‬as in Josh 23:6. Ultimately, 14:6.

26 27 28

Likewise, MpA Josh 8:31; see also Dotan and Reich, §‫ר־תּוֹרת־מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ַ ‫ ַכּ ָכּתוּב ְבּ ֵס ֶפ‬, 2 Kgs

MmV Josh 8:31 and Ginsburg, 2, ‫ס‬, §173 also present this tally. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ר־תּוֹרת־מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ַ ‫כּ ָכּתוּב ְבּ ֵס ֶפ‬,ַ 2 Kgs 14:6.

JOSHUA

23

Weil’s revised Mp note is an expansion of MpL 2 Kgs 14:6, which has the note ‫֗ג‬ ‫בליש‬ ֗ for ‫תּוֹרת‬ ַ ‫כּ ָכּתוּב ְבּ ֵס ֶפר‬.ַ

NOTE 12: JOSHUA 8:33 ‫ ֶאל־מוּל‬a

MpBHS MpL

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times in the Prophets.

MpA

No note.

֗‫ו‬ Six times.

MpC

No note.

ֶ but this phrase occurs fourteen MpL Josh 8:33 counts six occurrences of ‫אל־מוּל‬, times in ML. Weil correctly clarifies the scope by limiting it to the Prophets. 29 The six references are: 8F

(1) Josh 8:33a (2) Josh 8:33b (3) Josh 9:1

(4) Josh 22:11 (5) 1 Sam 17:30 (6) 2 Sam 11:15

NOTE 13: JOSHUA 9:7 ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בנביא ֗ול‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗מ ֗ט‬ Forty-nine times plene in the Prophets and once in this book.

MpA

‫בנב‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫י֗ ז‬ Seventeen times plene in the Prophets.

MpC

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once plene in this book. 30 No note.

MpL Joshua 9:7 counts seventeen occurrences in the Prophets of the plene form ‫יוֹשׁב‬, ֵ whereas ML contains fifty:

29 30

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫אל־מוּל‬. ֶ MpA does not present a circellus.

24

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)

Josh 9:7 Judg 1:9 Judg 1:17 Judg 4:2 Judg 11:21 1 Sam 14:2 1 Sam 19:9 1 Sam 22:6 2 Sam 5:6 2 Sam 7:2a 2 Sam 11:1 2 Sam 16:3 2 Sam 18:24 2 Sam 19:9 Isa 5:3 Isa 5:9 Isa 6:5

(18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34)

Isa 6:11 Isa 24:17 Jer 4:7 Jer 4:29 Jer 9:10 Jer 26:9 Jer 29:32 Jer 33:10 Jer 36:22 Jer 36:30 Jer 38:7 Jer 44:2 Jer 44:22 Jer 46:19 Jer 47:2 Jer 48:9 Jer 48:43

(35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50)

Jer 49:31 Jer 50:3 Jer 51:29 Jer 51:37 Jer 51:62 Ezek 2:6 Ezek 7:7 Ezek 8:1 Hos 4:3 Amos 1:5 Amos 1:8 Amos 8:8 Zeph 2:5 Zeph 3:6 Zech 12:8 Zech 12:10

The tally of seventeen appears to derive from a masoretic tradition attested in MpL Exod 18:14, according to which there are seventeen plene forms of ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ within the 31 Torah. Apparently, this note was mistakenly transferred to Joshua 9:7 and then clarified with “in the Prophets.” 32 Weil correctly emends MpL’s frequency note to forty-nine and not fifty because he reads the defective form ‫ י ֵֹשׁב‬against the text in 1 Sam 19:9, as per MA 1 Sam 19:9 and MmA,C 2 Sam 7:2. 33 To this correction Weil adds the supplement ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ול‬and once in this book.” 34 93F

See Breuer, The Biblical Text, 29, 394. Dotan and Reich suggest this possibility in a footnote. They also incorrectly suggest that ֗‫“ י֗ ז‬seventeen” should perhaps be emended to ֗‫“ ֗מז‬forty-seven.” Their list of forty-seven forms incorrectly includes 1 Sam 19:9 and excludes 2 Sam 7:2, Jer 9:10, and Amos 1:5 (Dotan and Reich, §‫)יוֹשׁב‬. ֵ 33 .‫ ראה נא אנכי יושב‬.‫ אל היבסי יושב הארץ‬.‫ תחת האשל‬.‫ תחת הרמון‬:‫מל בסיפ ֗ר‬ ֗ ‫יושב ֗ח‬ .‫ הנה המלך יושב בשער‬.‫ ודוד יושב בין שני השערים‬.‫ הנה יושב בירושלם‬.‫ויהי לתשובת השנה‬ “there are eight plene occurrences of ‫ יושב‬in this book: 1 Sam 14:2; 22:6; 2 Sam 5:6; 7:2; 11:1; 16:3; 18:24; 19:9.” This is corroborated by MpA,C 2 Sam 11:1, which count eight plene forms within Samuel. Ct. MC and MpC 1 Sam 19:9. 34 See also MpA,V. 31 32

JOSHUA

25

NOTE 14: JOSHUA 9:21 ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫אמרוּ ֲא ֵל‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice in the Prophets.

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ג‬ Three times. No note.

Like MmA Josh 9:21, 35 MpL counts three occurrences of ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫אמרוּ ֲא ֵל‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬, including both plene and defective spellings of ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫א ֵל‬: ֲ (1) Josh 9:21; (2) Judg 18:2; and (3) all occurrences within the Torah: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Gen 34:14 Exod 5:21 Exod16:3 Num 14:2

‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫אמרוּ ֲא ֵל‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫אמרוּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫אמרוּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫אמרוּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬

(5) Num 16:3 (6) Josh 9:21 (7) Judg 18:2

‫אמרוּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫אמרוּ ֲא ֵל‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫אמרוּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬

Thus, MpL’s frequency is correct. 36 Curiously, of the above references from the Torah, Weil completes the Masorah with ‫“ ֗ג‬three times” only for Gen 34:14. Furthermore, though Weil does well to clarify matters by featuring ‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬twice in the Prophets” in MpL Josh 9:21 and MpL Judg 18:2, he should have added this as a supplement to the correct note ‫ג‬,֗ not as a replacement for it.

NOTE 15: JOSHUA 10:12 ‫ָאז יְ ַד ֵבּר‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫ליהוָ ה[ ֗ג‬...‫ר‬ ַ ‫]יְ ַד ֵבּ‬ Three times. No note.

MpL Josh 10:12 counts three occurrences of ‫אז יְ ַד ֵבּר‬, ָ whereas ML has only two: Josh 10:12; Ps 2:5. Accordingly, Weil revises the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice.” Like MpL, MpA counts three occurrences, but the circelli are placed above ‫ יְ ַד ֵבּר‬and ‫ליהוָ ה‬.ַ .‫ חקרו‬.‫ הנשיאים‬.‫ כל אוריתא‬:‫“ ויאמר אליהם ֗ג‬there are three occurrences of ‫ויאמר‬ ‫אליהם‬: all the Torah; Josh 9:21; Judg 18:2.” See also Dotan and Reich, §‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫אמרוּ ֲא ֵל‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬. 36 Ginsburg (1, ‫א‬, §895a–b) preserves two different lists for ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫אמרוּ ֲא ֵל‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬, with the first of the two listing only the first, sixth, and seventh occurrences and the latter listing all seven. 35

26

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Haketer rightly observes that the Masorah counts the cases in which the verb .‫ר‬.‫ב‬.‫ד‬ governs ‫ליהוָ ה‬:ַ 37 (1) (2) (3)

96F

Josh 10:12 2 Sam 22:1 Ps 18:1

‫הוֹשׁ ַ� ַליהוָ ה‬ ֻ ְ‫יְ ַד ֵבּר י‬ ‫וַ יְ ַד ֵבּר ָדּוִ ד ַליהוָ ה‬ ‫יהוה‬ ֗ ָ ‫ִדּ ֶבּר ַל‬

Thus, what Weil treats as a frequency error is actually matching error. 38

NOTE 16: JOSHUA 10:14 ‫וְ לֹא ָהיָ ה‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫מנה ר״פ‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ה ֗ג‬ Twenty-five times, three of which are at the beginning of a verse.

MpA

No note.

֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times.

MpC

No note.

MpL Josh 10:14 counts twenty-seven occurrences of ‫וְ לֹא ָהיָ ה‬, whereas ML has only twenty-five. The references are: 39 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Lev 13:32 Num 20:2 Num 33:14 Josh 5:1 Josh 5:12 Josh 8:20 Josh 10:14 2 Sam 19:44 1 Kgs 10:5

98F

(10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)

1 Kgs 11:4 1 Kgs 15:3 2 Kgs 3:9 2 Kgs 4:41 2 Kgs 25:3 Isa 10:14 Jer 52:6 Ezek 19:14 Lam 2:22

(19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

Dan 8:7a Dan 8:7b 1 Chr 2:34 1 Chr 23:17 1 Chr 24:28 2 Chr 9:4 2 Chr 9:9

MpL is not internally consistent with regard to the number of occurrences of ‫וְ לֹא‬ ‫היָ ה‬,ָ however, as elsewhere it presents tallies of twenty-six and twenty-seven. In fact, these three tallies sometimes appear in three successive occurrences, e.g., 1 Kgs 10:5 Haketer, “Joshua-Judges,” 40. See also Fernández Tejero, Las Masoras del Libro Josué, 75; Dotan and Reich, §‫אז יְ ַד ֵבּר‬. ָ 38 Dotan and Reich (§‫)אז יְ ַד ֵבּר‬ ָ conjecture that the three instances of ‫ ָאז יְ ַד ֵבּר‬includes ‫ָאז‬ ‫( יְ ַד ֵבּרוּ‬Isa 41:1) and not ‫( ִדּ ֶבּר ַליהוָ ה‬Ps 18:1). 39 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ לֹא ָהיָ ה‬, Josh 8:20. 37

JOSHUA

27

(27x); 40 1 Kgs 11:4 (25x); 1 Kgs 15:3 (26x). Because MA,C,L,V do not have Mm lists, it is uncertain how the tradition developed. Nevertheless, it is clear that the confusion did not originate with ML. While largely affirming the correct reading twenty-five throughout, even MpA is not entirely consistent. 41 In addition to correcting the frequency error in MpL Josh 10:14, Weil also completes the Masorah for MpL 1 Chr 2:34 (‫)ג ר״פ‬. ֗ He also does so for Num 20:2, the other verse that begins with ‫וְ לֹא ָהיָ ה‬.

NOTE 17: JOSHUA 10:25 ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫נִ ְל ָח ִמים‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

No note.

ָ ‫נִ ְל ָח ִמים‬, whereas ML has only MpL Josh 10:25 counts four occurrences of ‫אוֹתם‬ 42 one. There are at least two possible explanations for MpL’s corrupt reading. The error may be one of dislocation, seeing as how the similar form ‫ וְ נִ ָלּ ֲח ָמה‬occurs four times in ML. 43 Alternatively, it is noteworthy that this is the third sub loco note in Joshua for which Weil emends ‫“ ד‬four times” to ‫“ ל‬unique” or vice versa. 44 Thus, the error may be merely a case of corruption due to graphic similarity. Whatever the reason, Weil emends what he considers to be a frequency error. 103F

MpL 2 Kgs 4:41 presents the tally of twenty-seven, and it is discussed in note 356. Weil also emends MpL Josh 8:20 from ֗‫“ ֗כז‬twenty-seven times” to ‫“ ֗כ ֗ה‬twenty-five times,” but he fails to add a sub loco note. 41 MpA 1 Kgs 15:3, for instance, counts twenty-six. 42 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫נִ ְל ָח ִמים‬. 43 See MmL Judg 1:3 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1389): .‫ונלחמה ֗ד וסימנהון׃ ונלחמה בכנעני‬ .‫ ונלחמה אותם במישור‬.‫ ונלחמה יחד‬.‫“ בבני עמון‬there are four occurrences of ‫ונלחמה‬, and their references are Judg 1:3; 11:6; 1 Sam 17:10; 1 Kgs 20:25.” 44 See notes 3 (Josh 2:10) and 7 (Josh 6:27). 40

28

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 18: JOSHUA 10:26 ‫יתם‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpC

No note.

MpL Josh 10:26 counts five occurrences of ‫יתם‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬, 45 whereas ML has only three. The tally rises to four, however, if one includes the one occurrence that is spelled with defective spelling: 46 104F

(1) (2) (3) (4)

105F

Josh 10:26 Josh 11:17 2 Kgs 25:21 Jer 52:27

‫יתם‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ ‫יתם‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ ‫יתם‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ ‫וַ יְ ִמ ֵתם‬

Weil emends the tally to four but only completes the frequency note ‫“ ֗ד‬four times” for forms 1–3. This is likely a mere oversight, however. Another masoretic rule counts five hifil infinitival and prefix conjugation forms of .‫ת‬.‫ו‬.‫ מ‬that have pronominal suffixes and defective spelling. As per MmL Num ִ ַ‫( ו‬form 4 35:19 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1036), 47 one of these five forms is ‫יְמ ֵתם‬ above). That this form is listed as part of both of the aforementioned masoretic rules may have resulted in the misapplication of the frequency note ‫“ ֗ה‬five times” to ‫יתם‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ ו‬in Josh 10:26.

45 Though MpL Josh 10:26 does not present a circellus over ‫יתם‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬, it is clear that the note ‫ ֗ה‬belongs to this form, as ‫י־כן‬ ֵ ‫א ֲח ֵר‬, ַ the only other available form on the same line in ML to which this note might be applied, occurs twenty-two times.

Dotan and Reich, §‫יתם‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬. .‫ ויכה‬.‫ ועשרה‬.‫ והנה קמה‬.‫ וישלח שאול‬.‫ בפגעו‬:‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ימתנו ֗ה‬there are five defective occurrences of ‫ימתנו‬: Num 35:19; 1 Sam 19:15; 2 Sam 14:7; Jer 41:8; 52:27.” 46 47

JOSHUA

29

NOTE 19: JOSHUA 10:42 ‫�הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ִכּי יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ MpBHS

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫֗ד ֗ג‬ Four times, three of which are in the Prophets. ‫�הי[ ֗ג‬ ֵ ‫]יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ Three times.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

MpL Josh 10:42 counts three occurrences of ‫�הי‬ ֵ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬, whereas ML has 209. Weil inserts additional circelli in order to change the rubric to ‫�הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ ִכּי יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬, which occurs four times in ML: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Josh 10:42 Isa 21:17 Ezek 44:2 2 Chr 13:5

He resolves the discrepancy by (1) adding the note ‫“ ֗ד‬four times” as a tally for all occurrences in the text of ML and (2) clarifying that the tally of three addresses forms within the Prophets. 48 Surprisingly, Weil does not complete the Masorah for form 4. 107F

NOTE 20: JOSHUA 11:16 ‫וּשׁ ֵפ ָלתֹה‬ ְ MpBHS MpL

‫וכת ה‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique and written with ‫ה‬.

MpA

‫וכת ה‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique and written with ‫ה‬.

‫וכת ה‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique and written with ‫ה‬.

MpC

‫תו ֗ק‬ Read ‫ושפלתו‬.

ְ is unique and to be spelled with ‫ ה‬as the pronominal suffix, MpA,L note that ‫וּשׁ ֵפ ָלתֹה‬ whereas MpC indicates that one should read the homophonous form ‫וּשׁ ֵפ ָלתוֹ‬. ְ It would seem that Weil’s intention is to affirm that the reading supported by MpL is the correct one, not the reading to which MpC is a witness.

48

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫�הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ ִכּי י—ה ֱא‬.

30

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 21: JOSHUA 12:5 ‫ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗י֗ב‬ Twelve times.

MpA

No note.

‫י֗ ֗ג‬ Thirteen times.

MpC

No note.

MpL Josh 12:5 counts thirteen occurrences ‫ﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬,ַ which is correct if one includes occurrences of ‫ וְ ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬and ‫ד־הגְּ בוּל‬ ַ ‫ﬠ‬,ַ as per MmLm Deut 3:14: 49 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Deut 3:14 Josh 12:5 Josh 13:3 Josh 13:4 Josh 13:10 Josh 13:26 Josh 16:3

‫ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬ ‫ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬ ‫וְ ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬ ‫ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬ ‫ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬ ‫ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬ ‫ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬

(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

1 Sam 6:12 1 Kgs 5:1 Ezek 29:10 Ezek 48:21 Obad 1:7 2 Chr 9:26

108F

‫ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬ ‫וְ ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬ ‫וְ ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬ ‫ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬ ‫ד־הגְּ בוּל‬ ַ ‫ַﬠ‬ ‫וְ ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬

Weil emends the tally to twelve, however, presumably because he fails to discern that the Masorah includes Obad 1:7, the only occurrence that contains the definite article. Thus, it would appear that Weil intends to correct a frequency error but bases his emendation on a misunderstanding of the full scope of the note. Weil also makes two small oversights. First, he fails to complete the note ‫ ֗י֗ב‬for 1 Sam 6:12 and 2 Chr 9:26. Furthermore, while he prints ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗י֗ב ֗ד‬twelve times, four of them in this form” for the first three instances of ‫וְ ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬, he merely prints ‫ ֗ד‬for 2 Chr 9:26.

49

‫ וישרנה‬.‫ היפלטי‬.‫ ושלא׳‬.‫ ושלאח׳‬.‫ ושלאח׳‬.‫ מן השיחר‬.‫ ומשל‬.‫ יאיר‬:‫ י֗ ֗ג וסימנהון‬1‫ַﬠד גְּ בוּל‬ ‫ ויהי‬.‫ עד הגבול‬.‫ והנותר לנשיא‬.‫ סונה‬.‫ ושלמה‬.‫“ הפרות‬there are thirteen occurrences of ‫ﬠד גְּ בוּל‬,ַ and their references are Deut 3:14; Josh 12:5; 13:3; 13:4; 13:10; 13:26; 16:3; 1 Sam 6:12; 1 Kgs 5:1; Ezek 29:10; 48:21; Obad 1:7; 2 Chr 9:26.” See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ַﬠד־‬ ‫גְּ בוּל‬. .2‫מושל‬

JOSHUA

31

NOTE 22: JOSHUA 13:11 ‫ד־ס ְל ָכה‬ ַ ‫ַﬠ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫מיחד ס״פ‬ ֗ ‫֗ג ֗ב‬ Three times, and two at the end of a verse are unusual.

MpA

‫מיוחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Unusual in two instances.

MpC

‫]ס ְל ָכה[ ֗ג‬ ַ Three times. No note.

The phrase ‫ד־ס ְל ָכה‬ ַ ‫ ַﬠ‬appears three times in ML: 50 109F

(1) Deut 3:10 (2) Josh 13:11 (3) 1 Chr 5:11

Two of the three are given different but non-contradictory notes in MpL. MpL 1 Chr 5:11 notes that ‫ד־ס ְל ָכה‬ ַ ‫ ַﬠ‬occurs three times, 51 while MpL Josh 13:11 counts two unusual instances of ‫ד־ס ְל ָכה‬ ַ ‫ ַ;ﬠ‬MpBHS Josh 13:11 is a conflation of these two notes. The unusual feature noted by MpL Josh 13:11 appears to be that Josh 13:11 ends with ‫ד־ס ְל ָכה‬ ַ ‫ ַﬠ‬while Deut 3:10, a parallel verse, includes a few more words before the verse’s end. Since Josh 13:11 and 1 Chr 5:11 conclude with ‫ד־ס ְל ָכה‬ ַ ‫ﬠ‬,ַ they are unusual when compared with Deut 3:10. 52 The occasion for this sub loco note, then, is Weil’s explanatory gloss ‫ס״פ‬.

NOTE 23: JOSHUA 14:11 ‫אוֹתי‬ ִ MpBHS MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene in this book.

MpA

No note.

‫בספ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times plene in this book.

MpC

No note.

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ד־ס ְל ָכה‬ ַ ‫ﬠ‬,ַ 1 Chr 5:11. See also MpA Josh 13:11. That MpA only addresses ‫ ַס ְל ָכה‬and not ‫ד־ס ְל ָכה‬ ַ ‫ ַﬠ‬does not affect the tally or my analysis. 52 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ד־ס ְל ָכה‬ ַ ‫ﬠ‬,ַ Josh 13:11. 50 51

32

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

ִ whereas ML MpL Josh 14:11 counts four occurrences in the book of Joshua of ‫אוֹתי‬, 53 has only three occurrences of this plene form: (1) Josh 14:10 (2) Josh 14:11 (3) Josh 14:12

Weil correctly treats MpL as a frequency error and emends the Masorah accordingly.

NOTE 24: JOSHUA 14:12 ‫אוֹתי‬ ִ MpBHS MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene in this book.

MpA

No note.

‫בספ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times plene in this book.

MpC

No note.

See note 23 (Josh 14:11).

NOTE 25: JOSHUA 15:2 ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗כ ֗ט‬ Twenty-nine times.

MpC

No note.

MpL counts twenty-nine occurrences of ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬, and this tally includes similar prefixed forms: 54 13F

53 54

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫אוֹתי‬, ִ Josh 14:11. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬, Josh 15:2.

JOSHUA (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Gen 12:9 Gen 13:1 Gen 13:14 Gen 28:14 Exod 26:18 Exod 40:24 Josh 15:1 Josh 15:2 Josh 15:21 Josh 17:9

‫ַהנֶּ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫ַהנֶּ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫וָ נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫וָ נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫ַבּנֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

Josh 17:10 Josh 18:13 Josh 18:14a Josh 18:14b Josh 18:15 Josh 18:16 Josh 18:19 1 Kgs 7:25 Ezek 47:19 Ezek 48:10

33 ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫וְ נֶ גְ ָבּה‬

(21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29)

Ezek 48:17 Ezek 48:33 Zech 14:4 Dan 8:4 1 Chr 9:24 1 Chr 26:15 1 Chr 26:17 2 Chr 4:4 2 Chr 4:10

‫וְ נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫וָ נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫וָ נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫ַלנֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬

MpL Gen 13:14, however, only counts twenty-seven occurrences, excluding the two occurrences prefixed by the article (forms 1–2). 55 Weil standardizes the Masorah according to the lower tally. 56

NOTE 26: JOSHUA 15:35 ‫שׂוֹכֹה‬ MpBHS

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice thus written. No note.

MpL

MpA MpC

No note. ‫֗כו֗ ֗ק‬ Read ‫שׂוֹכוֹ‬.

Contrary to MpBHS, the precise form ‫ שׂוֹכֹה‬appears three times in ML: 57 (1) Josh 15:35 (2) Judg 9:49 (3) 1 Sam 17:1

16F

The frequency note that Weil presents here (‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫)ב‬ ֗ is a completion of MpL 1 Sam 17:1, but because he presents this note for the three aforementioned forms, it appears that he intended to emend the frequency to three (‫)ג‬. ֗ The occasion for the sub Weil is inconsistent in his treatment of this Masorah, however. For each of the twelve for which MpL reads ‫כ ֗ט‬,֗ Weil revises the Masorah to ֗‫כז‬,֗ yet he only includes sub loco notes for some of them. For example, Josh 15:2 has a sub loco note while Josh 18:19 does not. Furthermore, in Josh 15:21 Weil emends the Masorah from ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” to ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫֗כז֗ ֗ול‬ “twenty-seven times and once in this form” but does not include a sub loco note. 56 MpA includes only the tally of twenty-seven (MpA Josh 18:16; 2 Chr 4:4). 57 Dotan and Reich (§‫ )שׂוֹכֹה‬fail to include Judg 9:49 and thus incorrectly count only two occurrences. 55

34

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

loco note, then, is not the completion of MpL 1 Sam 17:1 but Weil’s rejection of the tradition that reads ‫שׂוֹכוֹ‬. 58 17F

NOTE 27: JOSHUA 15:48 ‫וְ שׂוֹכֹה‬ MpBHS

‫וכת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique and thus written. No note.

MpL

No note.

MpA

‫֗כו֗ ֗ק‬ Read ‫וְ שׂוֹכוֹ‬

MpC

The reasons for this sub loco note are two: Weil’s adding a note not found in MpL and his text-critical decision to reject the tradition which reads ‫ וְ שׂוֹכוֹ‬instead of ‫וְ שׂוֹכֹה‬. 59 18F

NOTE 28: JOSHUA 15:50 ‫וְ ֶא ְשׁ ְתּמֹה‬ MpBHS

‫כת ה‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique, written with ‫ה‬. No note.

MpL

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫ו֗ ֗ק‬ Read ‫וְ ֶא ְשׁ ְתּמוֹ‬

The reasons for this sub loco note are two: Weil’s adding a note not found in MpL and his text-critical decision to reject the tradition which reads ‫וְ ֶא ְשׁ ְתּמוֹ‬. Weil’s decision agrees with MpA against MpC.

58 59

See MpC. See MpC,V.

JOSHUA

35

NOTE 29: JOSHUA 15:51 ‫וְ גִ �ה‬ MpBHS

‫כת ה‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique, written with ‫ה‬. No note.

MpL

MpA

‫וכת ֗ה‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique and written with ‫ה‬.

MpC

‫ו֗ ֗ק‬ Read ‫וְ גִ לוֹ‬.

The reasons for this sub loco note are two: Weil’s adding a note not found in MpL and his text-critical decision to reject the tradition attested by MpC, which reads ‫וְ גִ לוֹ‬.

NOTE 30: JOSHUA 15:55 ‫יוּטּה‬ ָ ְ‫ָמעוֹן ַכּ ְר ֶמל וָ זִ יף ו‬ MpBHS

‫קדמ לא נסבין‬ ֗ ‫פסוק דאית בהון ֗ד מילין ר״פ ֗ב‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ ֗‫בתר נסבין ו‬ ֗ ‫וב‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Four verses in which there are four words at the beginning of the verse, the first two of which lack prefixed ‫ ו‬and the latter two of which have prefixed ‫ו‬.

MpL MpA MpC

No note.

No note.

No note.

MpBHS Josh 15:55 notes that there are four verses that are unusual in that only the third and fourth of the first four words are prefixed with ‫ו‬. The four verses for which Weil presents this note are: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Num 35:15 Josh 15:55 Josh 19:7 1 Chr 22:16

֗ ‫יחיד אית בהון ֗ד מילין ֗ב‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ The note is adapted by Weil from MpL 1 Chr 22:16: ‫קדמ‬ ‫נסב ווי֗ י‬ ֗ ‫בתר‬ ֗ ‫וב‬ ֗ ‫“ לא נסבין ווי‬there are four unusual occurrences in which there are four words, the first two of which are not prefixed with ‫ ו‬and the latter two of which are prefixed with ‫ו‬.” In emending the Mp note, Weil substitutes ‫יחיד‬ ֗ “unusual” with ‫פסוק‬ ֗ “verses” but indicates that these verses are distinct (or unusual) in that they include the phenomenon under consideration at the beginning of the verse (‫)ר״פ‬. 60 19F

60

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫לזָּ ָהב ַל ֶכּ ֶסף וְ ַלנְּ ח ֶֹשׁת וְ ַל ַבּ ְרזֶ ל‬.ַ

36

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

While such emendations warrant a sub loco note, it is unlikely that this is the reason for the present note, as one would expect to see the sub loco placed at 1 Chr 22:16, which is not the case. Strangely, Weil includes a sub loco note only at the three locations where he completes the Masorah (Num 35:15; Josh 15:55; 19:7). Mynatt suggests that Weil’s intention is “presumably to explain (MpL) further,” 61 but he does not propose a solution and does not account for Weil’s unusual distribution of sub loco notes. As it is Weil’s policy not to insert a sub loco note when he merely completes the Masorah, 62 it is reasonable to assume that his intent was to address the incorrect frequency of four. A cursory electronic search for the phenomenon under consideration reveals a number of additional instances occurring at the beginning of a verse. For example: (1) (2) (3)

Deut 2:21 ‫ַﬠם גָּ דוֹל וְ ַרב וָ ָרם‬ Deut 8:8 ‫וּשׂע ָֹרה וְ גֶ ֶפן‬ ְ ‫ֶא ֶרץ ִח ָטּה‬ Deut 28:39 ‫ְכּ ָר ִמים ִתּ ַטּע וְ ָﬠ ָב ְד ָתּ וְ יַ יִ ן‬

But because Weil does not emend the frequency, one cannot be entirely certain that he intends to address this matter.

NOTE 31: JOSHUA 15:63 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ MpBHS MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל ֗ד‬ Thirty-four times plene.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל ֗ד‬ Thirty-four times plene.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫י֗ ֗ד‬ Fourteen times plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל ֗ד‬ Thirty-four times plene.

The plene form ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ occurs twenty-seven times in ML, and the tally rises to thirtyeight when prefixed forms are included:

61 62

Mynatt, Sub Loco, 175. Ibid., 13, 16.

JOSHUA

37

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Josh 15:63 Judg 1:11 Judg 1:27a (qere) Judg 1:27b Judg 1:27c Judg 1:30a Judg 1:30b Judg 1:31 Judg 2:2 Judg 21:9 Judg 21:10 Judg 21:12 1 Sam 6:21

‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ְל‬ ‫יּוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ִמ‬ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יּוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ִמ‬ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ

(14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)

Isa 38:11 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 8:1 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 10:18 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 18:11 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 21:6 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 35:13 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫וּל‬ ְ Jer 35:17 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 50:21 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 51:24 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Ezek 12:19 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ְל‬ Ezek 32:15 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Hos 4:1 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Joel 1:2 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ

(27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

Josh 15:63 Judg 1:11 Judg 1:27b Judg 1:27c Judg 1:30a Judg 1:30b Judg 1:31 Judg 1:32 Judg 21:10 1 Sam 6:21 2 Kgs 23:2 Isa 38:11

‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ

(13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

Jer 8:1 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 10:18 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 18:11 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 21:6 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 35:17 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 50:21 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 51:24 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Ezek 32:15 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Hos 4:1 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Joel 1:2 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Amos 9:5 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Nah 1:5 ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬

(25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34)

Amos 9:5 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Zeph 1:4 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Ps 84:5 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Dan 9:7 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫וּל‬ ְ 1 Chr 8:6 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ְל‬ 1 Chr 8:13a ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ְל‬ 1 Chr 8:13b ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ 2 Chr 15:5 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ 2 Chr 20:23b ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ְבּ‬ 2 Chr 22:1 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ 2 Chr 31:4 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ְל‬ 2 Chr 35:18 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬

By contrast, MpL Josh 15:63 counts fourteen occurrences of ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ , a tally that Weil corrects to thirty-four (‫מל‬ ֗ ‫ ֗)ל ֗ד‬in accordance with MpL Isa 38:11. 63 In Weil’s completion of the Masorah, he only includes plene forms of ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬, ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬and certain of their defective counterparts that he reads as plene: Zeph 1:4 Zech 8:21 Ps 84:5 Ps 107:34 1 Chr 8:13 2 Chr 15:5 2 Chr 22:1 2 Chr 32:26 2 Chr 34:32 2 Chr 35:18

‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ b ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫וְ י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬

In his comment on 2 Kgs 23:2 in the masoretic apparatus, however, Weil indicates that he is not certain that he should read against the text in that instance; 64 and indeed, MA,L,C,V all agree that the form is defective. Breuer resolves the problem differently by including ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ and all prefixed 65 plene forms except for ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ל‬.ְ His list of thirty-four includes: 124F

See also MpA,C Josh 15:63. It is this matter that is the occasion for note 404. 65 Breuer, The Biblical Text, 394. 63 64

38

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

Josh 15:63 Judg 1:11 Judg 1:27b Judg 1:27c Judg 1:30a Judg 1:30b Judg 1:31 Judg 21:9 Judg 21:10 Judg 21:12 1 Sam 6:21 Isa 38:11

‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יּוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ִמ‬ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יּוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ִמ‬ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ

(13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

Jer 8:1 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 10:18 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 18:11 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 21:6 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 35:17 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 50:21 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Jer 51:24 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Ezek 32:15 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Hos 4:1 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Joel 1:2 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Amos 9:5 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Nah 1:5 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ

(25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34)

Zeph 1:4 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Zech 8:21 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Ps 84:5 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ Ps 107:34 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ 1 Chr 8:13b ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ 2 Chr 20:23b ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ‫ְבּ‬ 2 Chr 22:1 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ 2 Chr 32:26 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ 2 Chr 34:32 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ 2 Chr 35:18 ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬

Breuer’s list is entirely in accord with MA except for his decision to exclude the qərê that occurs in Judg 1:27a, which Weil also excludes. He decides to exclude this form because the kəṯîḇ does not include the construct suffix ‫י‬. While the Masorah generally includes qərê forms, Breuer reasons that absence of the ‫ י‬suffix in the kəṯîḇ precludes the form from being regarded as plene, 66 and he appeals to the masoretic rule that counts eight defective forms of ‫י ֶֹשׁ ֶבת‬. 67 Breuer argues that the eight includes the seven forms that are both written and read ‫ י ֶֹשׁ ֶבת‬and the one occurrence of the pausal form ‫ י ָֹשׁ ֶבת‬but not the qərê ‫( י ֶֹשׁ ֶבת‬Jer 10:17), whose kəṯîḇ is the suffixed ‫י‬ form ‫ישבתי‬. 68 Though supported by MmS1, Breuer’s reasoning is specious, however, as (1) the Masorah regularly includes qərê forms and (2) Breuer’s eighth form ‫י ָֹשׁ ֶבת‬ (2 Kgs 4:13) is given its own Mp note (‫ב‬,ָ “twice with qameṣ”) that distinguishes it from ‫י ֶֹשׁ ֶבת‬. It is equally reasonable to conclude that MA does not accord with the Masorah. 69 128F

NOTE 32: JOSHUA 16:6 ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫מל ֗ד‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ד‬ Twenty-four times plene, four of which are in this book.

MpA

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫֗ד מל‬ Four times plene in this book.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ה‬ Twenty-five times plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ה‬ Twenty-five times plene.

Ibid., 55, n. 1. E.g., MpA 2 Kgs 22:14. 68 Breuer, The Biblical Text, 155, n. 86. 69 For Weil’s treatment of the qərê in Judg 1:27, see note 65 (Judg 1:27). 66 67

JOSHUA

39

ML contains thirty-seven occurrences of ‫( אוֹתוֹ‬and similar, prefixed cases), and if all of the occurrences within Judges are counted as one, the tally reduces to twenty-five, as per MpL. 70 The twenty-four outside of Judges are: 71 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Josh 6:18 Josh 16:6 Josh 24:3 Josh 24:4 Josh 24:22 1 Kgs 22:7 2 Kgs 1:15a 2 Kgs 1:15b 129F

‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫ֵמאוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

2 Kgs 3:11 2 Kgs 3:12 2 Kgs 3:26 2 Kgs 8:8 Jer 18:10 Jer 37:15b Jer 52:31 Ezek 17:17

130F

‫ֵמאוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫ֵמאוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬

(17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

Ezek 43:20 Hos 10:6 Mal 1:12 Mal 1:13 Mal 3:22 Ps 18:1 Ps 101:5a Neh 13:26

‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתו‬

In emending the tally to twenty-four in accordance with MpL Mal 1:12, it might seem that Weil simply excludes Judges from consideration altogether in his standardizing of the Masorah. But while he does indeed exclude all occurrences within the book of Judges, there are four discrepancies between Weil’s list and the text of ML. The first concerns forms within the book of Joshua. While ML contains five forms (1–5 above), Weil includes all except for Josh 24:3 (form 3 above). 72 A second discrepancy concerns the number of occurrences within the book of Kings. While ML has seven forms (forms 6–12 above), MpL notes that there are only six within Kings. 73 Accordingly, Weil only completes the Masorah for six, excluding 1 Kgs 22:7 (form 6 above), as per MA. 74 The third discrepancy concerns the number of occurrences within the book of Jeremiah. According to ML, there are three occurrences within the book (forms 13–15 above). Weil agrees with MpL concerning the number of occurrences, but he reads contra textum for two forms, excluding Jer 52:31 (form 15 above) and including Jer 39:5. 75 This decision also accords with MA. Finally, while ML contains three occurrences in the Writings (forms 22–24 above), MpL See MpC. BHQ (“The Minor Prophets,” 19*) observes that MpL presents the tallies of twenty-four and twenty-five but seems to suggest that it is the lower tally that is correct (see also Breuer, The Biblical Text, 390). It should be noted, however, that MpA Josh 6:16 also counts twenty-five. 71 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫אוֹתוֹ‬, Josh 16:6. 72 Likewise, MA,C. See MpL Josh 6:18 and MpA Josh 16:6, which count four occurrences within Joshua. 73 See, e.g., MpL 2 Kgs 3:11. 74 Ct. MC. Weil adds sub loco notes for four of the six forms within Kings: 2 Kgs 1:15a; b 1:15 ; 3:12; 3:26. For all but the second of these four, MpL presents the frequency note ‫֗כ ֗ה‬ ‫מל‬ ֗ “there are twenty-five plene occurrences,” which Weil emends to ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ֗‫מל ו‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗כ ֗ד‬there are twenty-four plene occurrences, six of which are in this book” (see the slight variation in 2 Kgs 3:26).The rest of the six do not receive a MpL note. 75 See MmL Jer 18:10 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §2559): ‫ ונתנו אותו בית‬.‫ ונחמתי‬:‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ .‫ ויקחו אתו‬.‫“ האסור‬there are three plene occurrences in this book: Jer 18:10; 37:15b; 39:5.” 70

40

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

counts five. 76 In reading two defective forms as plene (Ps 56:1; 67:8), Weil ultimately sides with MpL. Again, this decision is in accord with MA wherever the text is extant. Weil’s list of twenty-four correctly includes: 77 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Josh 6:18 Josh 16:6 Josh 24:4 Josh 24:22 2 Kgs 1:15a 2 Kgs 1:15b 2 Kgs 3:11 2 Kgs 3:12

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫ֵמאוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬

2 Kgs 3:26 2 Kgs 8:8 Jer 18:10 Jer 37:15b Jer 39:5 Ezek 17:17 Ezek 43:20 Hos 10:6

‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫ֵמאוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬

(17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

NOTE 33: JOSHUA 17:9 ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗כ ֗ט‬ Twenty-nine times.

MpC

No note.

See note 25 (Josh 15:2).

NOTE 34: JOSHUA 17:10 ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗כ ֗ט‬ Twenty-nine times.

MpC

No note.

See note 25 (Josh 15:2).

76 77

See, e.g., MpL Ps 18:1. Breuer’s list is identical (Breuer, The Biblical Text, 390).

Mal 1:12 Mal 1:13 Mal 3:22 Ps 18:1 Ps 56:1 Ps 67:8 Ps 101:5a Neh 13:26

‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אֹתוֹ‬ ‫אֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ ‫אוֹתוֹ‬

JOSHUA

41

NOTE 35: JOSHUA 17:11 MpBHS MpL

‫יה‬ ָ ‫וּבנ ֶֹת‬ ְ a

◦

No note [‫נוֹתיה‬ ֶ ‫]וּב‬. ְ

MpA

No note.

No note [‫נוֹתיה‬ ֶ ‫]וּב‬. ְ

MpC

Concerning the first of this verse’s two occurrences of the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫יה‬ ָ ‫וּבנ ֶֹת‬, ְ Weil comments in the masoretic apparatus of BHS, “Textus contra Mp ‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫ב‬,֗ cf Jos 15,45; Jer 49,2 et Mp sub loco” (the text contradicts the Mp: “five times defective in the Prophets, two of which are in this book;” cf. Josh 15:45; Jer 49:2 and Mp sub loco). The first problem is that MpL Josh 15:45 counts only two defective forms within Joshua, 78 even though ML has three such forms: 79 (1) (2) (3)

Josh 15:45 Josh 17:11d Josh 17:11e

137F

138F

A second, related problem is that MpL Jer 49:2 counts five defective forms in the ָ ‫וּבנ ֶֹת‬ ְ and two of the similar form Prophets, 80 while ML has four occurrences of ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫בּנ ֶֹת‬,ְ thus totaling six. The forms and their references are: 81 (1) Josh 15:45 ‫יה‬ ָ ‫וּבנ ֶֹת‬ ְ (2) Josh 17:11d ‫יה‬ ָ ‫וּבנ ֶֹת‬ ְ (3) Josh 17:11e ‫יה‬ ָ ‫וּבנ ֶֹת‬ ְ

(4) Judg 1:27b (5) Judg 1:27d (6) Jer 49:2

140F

‫יה‬ ָ ‫ְבּנ ֶֹת‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ְבּנ ֶֹת‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫וּבנ ֶֹת‬ ְ

From these two notes one may deduce that the Masorah only counts one occurrence in Josh 17:11, and MA,C and MmA Josh 17:11 confirm that form 3—the form that this sub loco note addresses—is plene ‫ ו‬and is thus excluded in these tallies. 82 It is according to this tradition that Weil, too, reads against the text of ML, and this text-critical issue is the reason for this sub loco note. 83 14F

142F

Likewise, MpA,C Josh 15:45. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫יה‬ ָ ‫וּבנ ֶֹת‬, ְ Josh 15:45. 80 Likewise, MpA,C Jer 49:2, though in MpC “in the Prophets” is merely implied. 81 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫יה‬ ָ ‫וּבנ ֶֹת‬, ְ Jer 49:2. 82 MmA Josh 17:11 reads: .‫ וישבי תענך ובנתיה‬.‫ עקרון ובנתיה‬:‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬there are two defective occurrences in this book: Josh 15:45; 17:11d.” 83 MpC Judg 1:27 counts six forms, but in his discussion of the Masorah of Judg 1:27 Perez Castro suggests that this figure may result from confusion with a Masoretic tally of six for the occurrences of the plene counterpart within Chronicles (Perez Castro, Josue-Jueces, 129). 78 79

42

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 36: JOSHUA 17:14 ‫וְ ֶח ֶבל‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ב נמרץ‬ Twice; Mic 2:10.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫֗ב נמרץ‬ Twice; Mic 2:10.

In accordance with MpL Josh 17:14, ML contains two occurrences of ‫וְ ֶח ֶבל‬: Josh 17:14; Mic 2:10. These two forms constitute what Aron Dotan calls “homonymous hapax doublets,” 84 with the present instance meaning “territory” and the parallel in Micah 2:10 meaning “destruction.” It seems that Weil’s purpose for featuring a sub loco note here may be to call attention to this phenomenon. 143F

NOTE 37: JOSHUA 18:12 ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫נ֗ ֗ג‬ Fifty-three times.

MpA

No note.

‫נ֗ ֗ב‬ Fifty-two times.

MpC

No note.

MpL Josh 18:12 counts fifty-two occurrences of ‫( ָצפוֹנָ ה‬including ‫ ָצפֹנָ ה‬and also prefixed forms with plene and defective spelling). 85 MpL 1 Chr 26:14 counts fifty-three such forms, however, and Weil completes the Masorah accordingly: 14F

For an overview of the subject, see Aron Dotan, “Homonymous Hapax Doublets in the Masorah” Textus 14 (1988): 131–45. For a discussion of this particular case, see Aron Dotan, The Awakening of Word Lore: From the Masora to the Beginnings of Hebrew Lexicography (The Academy of the Hebrew Language Sources and Studies VII; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2005), 78. Note, however, that Dotan incorrectly cites Mic 2:16 instead of 2:10. Lists of such pairs are also found in OchlahP §59 and OchlahH §60. 85 MpL 1 Kgs 7:25 and MpL Ezek 48:10 also count fifty-two. 84

JOSHUA (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)

Gen 13:14 Gen 28:14 Exod 40:22 Lev 1:11 Num 2:25 Num 3:35 Deut 2:3 Deut 3:27 Josh 13:3 Josh 15:5 Josh 15:7 Josh 15:8 Josh 15:10 Josh 15:11 Josh 17:10 Josh 18:12 Josh 18:16 Josh 18:18

‫ָצפֹנָ ה‬ ‫וְ ָצפֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפֹנָ ה‬ ‫וְ ָצפֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫וְ ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפֹנָ ה‬ ‫ִמ ָצּפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫וְ ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬

(19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36)

Josh 18:19a Josh 18:19b Josh 19:27 Judg 12:1 Judg 21:19 1 Kgs 7:25 2 Kgs 16:14 Jer 1:13 Jer 1:15 Jer 3:12 Jer 23:8 Jer 46:6 Ezek 8:3 Ezek 8:5a Ezek 8:5b Ezek 8:14 Ezek 9:2 Ezek 21:3

43 ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ִמ ְצּפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ַה ָצּפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬

(37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53)

Ezek 40:40 Ezek 46:9 Ezek 46:19 Ezek 47:2 Ezek 47:15 Ezek 47:17 Ezek 48:1a Ezek 48:1b Ezek 48:10 Ezek 48:17 Ezek 48:31 Zech 14:4 Dan 8:4 1 Chr 9:24 1 Chr 26:14 1 Chr 26:17 2 Chr 4:4

‫ַה ָצּפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫וְ ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ַל ָצּפוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬

The larger tally appears to be incorrect, however, because form 23 (Judg 21:19) is distinct from all others in that qameṣ is not written beneath ‫צ‬. 86 That MpL Judg 21:19 marks the form as unique corroborates this conclusion. It would appear, then, that Weil has erred in his emendation of MpL Josh 18:12. 87 145F

146F

NOTE 38: JOSHUA 18:15 �‫תּוֹ‬ ַ ‫נֶ ְפ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

ַ ‫נֶ ְפ‬, whereas ML only has two: Josh MpL Josh 18:15 counts three occurrences of �‫תּוֹ‬ 15:9; Josh 18:15. Weil’s correction of the frequency error is in accordance with Ginsburg, 2, ‫נ‬, §323. Accordingly, Dotan and Reich (§‫צפוֹנָ ה‬,ָ Josh 18:12) exclude this form. It is also possible that the discrepancy is somehow related to the incorrect tally of three forms of ‫ ַה ָצּפוֹנָ ה‬that MpL Ezek 40:40 presents. The correct tally is two, as per MpA Ezek 40:40. 86 87

44

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 39: JOSHUA 18:16 ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times.

MpA

‫֗כ ֗ט‬ Twenty-nine times.

MpC

֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times.

No note.

See note 25 (Josh 15:2).

NOTE 40: JOSHUA 18:20 ‫ִל ְפ ַאת‬ MpBHS MpL

‫י֗ ֗ד‬ Fourteen times.

MpA

No note.

‫י֗ ֗ג‬ Thirteen times.

MpC

No note.

MpL Josh 18:20 counts thirteen occurrences of ‫ל ְפ ַאת‬.ִ This form occurs fourteen times in ML, however, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. The fourteen are: 88 147F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Exod 26:18 Exod 26:20 Exod 27:9 Exod 27:11 Exod 27:12 Exod 27:13 Exod 36:23

(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Exod 36:25 Exod 38:9 Josh 15:5 Josh 18:12 Josh 18:14 Josh 18:20 Ezek 47:15

Nevertheless, Dotan and Reich suggest that the tally of thirteen may also be correct. Forms three and nine occur in verses that are nearly identical, for which reason, they argue, they may have been grouped together when tallying occurrences of ‫ל ְפ ַאת‬.ִ

88

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ל ְפ ַאת‬.ִ

JOSHUA

45

NOTE 41: JOSHUA 19:7 ‫ַﬠיִ ן ִרמּוֹן וָ ֶﬠ ֶתר וְ ָﬠ ָשׁן‬ MpBHS

֗‫קדמ לא נסבין ו‬ ֗ ‫פסוק דאית בהון ֗ד מילין ר״פ ֗ב‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ ֗‫בתר נסבין ו‬ ֗ ‫וב‬ ֗ Four verses in which there are four words at the beginning of the verse, the first two of which lack prefixed ‫ ו‬and the latter two of which have prefixed ‫ו‬.

MpL MpA MpC

No note.

No note.

No note.

See note 30 (Josh 15:55).

NOTE 42: JOSHUA 19:29 ‫ד־ﬠיר‬ ִ ‫וְ ַﬠ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

MpL Josh 19:29 counts two occurrences of ‫ד־ﬠיר‬ ִ ‫וְ ַﬠ‬, whereas the phrase occurs only once in ML. The note ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” may have arisen as a dittography of the note for ‫מב ַצר־צֹר‬, ְ 89 and this suggestion is corroborated by the fact that MpV transposes the note ‫ ֗ב‬from ‫מב ַצר־צֹר‬, ְ which does occur twice (Judg 19:29; 2 Sam 24:7), 90 to ‫וְ ַﬠד־‬ ‫ﬠיר‬.ִ 91 150F

See MpA,C. MmL Josh 19:29 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1353): .‫ ויבאו מבצר צר‬.‫ ועד עיר‬:‫מבצר צר ֗ב‬ “there are two occurrences of ‫מבצר צר‬: Josh 19:29; 2 Sam 24:7.” 91 Dotan and Reich (§‫ד־ﬠיר‬ ִ ‫ )וְ ַﬠ‬confirm the tally of two by conjecturing that 1 Sam 15:5 (‫ד־ﬠיר‬ ִ ‫)ﬠ‬ ַ is the second form. There are four other instances of ‫ד־ﬠיר‬ ִ ‫ﬠ‬,ַ however, and they do not provide evidence in support of their conjecture. 89 90

46

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 43: JOSHUA 19:29 ‫ַא ְכזִ ָיבה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note. ‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL Josh 19:29 counts two occurrences of ‫א ְכזִ ָיבה‬. ַ The form occurs only once in ML, however, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. 92 15F

NOTE 44: JOSHUA 20:6 ‫ֲא ֶשׁר־נָ ס ִמ ָשּׁם‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

MpL Josh 20:6 counts two occurrences of ‫א ֶשׁר־נָ ס ִמ ָשּׁם‬. ֲ The phrase occurs only once in ML, however, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. 93 152F

NOTE 45: JOSHUA 20:7 ‫וַ יַּ ְק ִדּשׁוּ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective in this and similar cases.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective.

The defective form ‫ וַ יַּ ְק ִדּשׁוּ‬is unique, as per MpC. In counting six occurrences, MpL also has in mind similar forms, including all hifil forms of the root .‫ש‬.‫ד‬.‫ ק‬in which 92 93

Likewise, MpC. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫א ְכזִ ָיבה‬. ַ Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫א ֶשׁר־נָ ס ִמ ָשּׁם‬.ֲ

JOSHUA

47

the theme vowel is pointed with the defective ḥîreq and not the plene ḥîreq yôd. The six forms are: 94 (1) Lev 22:2 (2) Lev 27:14 (3) Josh 20:7

(4) Jer 12:3 ‫וְ ַה ְק ִדּ ֵשׁם‬ a (5) Neh 12:47 ‫וּמ ְק ִדּ ִשׁים‬ ַ (6) Neh 12:47b ‫ַמ ְק ִדּ ִשׁים‬

‫ַמ ְק ִדּ ִשׁים‬ ‫יַ ְק ִדּשׁ‬ ‫וַ יַּ ְק ִדּשׁוּ‬

֗ ֗‫“ ו‬six times defective” to ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫“ ו‬six times Thus, Weil broadens MpL from ‫חס‬ defective in this and similar cases” 95 and thereby clarifies the scope of an otherwise correct MpL note. His emendation is not in conformity with MpA, however, which only counts the three non-participial forms (forms 2–4). 154F

NOTE 46: JOSHUA 21:5 ‫וְ ִל ְבנֵ֙ י ְק ָ֜הת‬ MpBHS

MpL

֗‫בטע בעינ‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times with this accent pattern in this section.

MpA

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice with this accent pattern.

MpC

No note [‫]וְ ִל ְבנֵ֙ י ֳק ָ֜הת‬.

‫בט‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times with this accent pattern.

MpL is correct in noting that the phrase ‫ וְ ִל ְבנֵ֙ י ְק ָ֜הת‬appears only twice in ML with the accent pattern ʾazlâ-geresh: Josh 21:5; 1 Chr 6:46. 96 Nevertheless, Weil alters the Masorah in accordance with a different masoretic tradition attested in MpL Josh 21:32 (‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫)ג‬, ֗ which counts within this section occurrences of a word plus a name featuring the accent pattern ʾazlâ-geresh. According to Ginsburg, three phrases meet these strictures: 97 (1) (2) (3)

156F

Josh 21:5 Josh 21:7 Josh 21:32

‫וְ ִל ְבנֵ֙ י ְק ָ֜הת‬ ‫ִל ְבנֵ֙ י ְמ ָר ִ ֜רי‬ ‫וּמ ַמּ ֵ֙טּה נַ ְפ ָתּ ֜ ִלי‬ ִ

Because the latter two have MpL notes that mark them as one of three “with this accent,” Weil chooses to complete this note for the other occurrence: Josh 21:5. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וַ יַּ ְק ִדּשׁוּ‬. See Breuer, The Biblical Text, 398. 96 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ ִל ְבנֵ֙ י ְק ָ֜הת‬. 97 Ginsburg, 1, ‫ב‬, §374. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ל ְבנֵ֙ י ְמ ָר ִ ֜רי‬. ִ 94 95

48

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

One apparent difficulty with this solution is that there is an additional occurrence in Josh 21:6 (‫)וּמ ַמּ ֵ֙טּה נַ ְפ ָתּ ֜ ִלי‬, ִ which is closer in proximity to the others than its parallel in Josh 21:32. Accordingly, in his interpretation of MmC Josh 21:5, 98 Perez Castro indicates that it is 21:6 and not 21:32 that is intended by the catchword ‫נפתלי‬. 99 What he does not notice, however, is that 21:6 is excluded from among the three because it does not occur at the beginning of the verse, a fact which, in all fairness, is not noted in MpL,C or Ginsburg. In sum, Weil expunges the correct MpL note in Josh 21:5 but correctly completes the Masorah of a different rule. 158F

NOTE 47: JOSHUA 21:6 MpBHS MpL

‫ִמ ִמּ ְשׁ ְפּחוֹת‬

°

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note. No note.

While ML contains the plene form ‫ ִמ ִמּ ְשׁ ְפּחוֹת‬in Josh 21:6, BHS’s critical apparatus (note 21:6b) indicates that the defective reading ‫ ִמ ִמּ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬is attested in certain Hebrew manuscripts, MV, and in witnesses from the Cairo Geniza. MpV and Ginsburg (2, ‫מ‬, §849) present a variant masoretic tradition that includes this occurrence as one of the three defective forms of ‫( ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬and similar cases) in the Prophets. 100 According to these sources the three forms are: 159F

(1) Josh 21:4 (2) Josh 21:6 (3) Josh 21:27

‫ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬ ‫ִמ ִמּ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬ ‫ִמ ִמּ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬

By not featuring a “contra textum” note, Weil indicates that he intended to render a text-critical verdict, confirming that Josh 21:6 should be read plene, as per ML. For further discussion see note 50 (Josh 21:27).

MmC Josh 21:5 reads: .‫ נפתלי‬.‫ מררי‬.‫ קהת‬:‫מלה וסימנהון‬ ֗ ֗‫בט בעינ‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬there are three occurrences with this accent in this section, and their references are Josh 21:5; 21:7: 21:6.” (It is should be rendered.) not clear how “‫”מלה‬ ֗ 99 Perez Castro, Josue-Jueces, 104. 100 Each of the following three is marked by MpV as one of three defective forms. 98

JOSHUA

49

NOTE 48: JOSHUA 21:10 ‫ִריאשׁ ֹנָ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫י֗ ֗ול‬ Ten times and once written thus.

MpA

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once written thus.

MpC

֗‫כת י‬ ֗ ‫]ראישׁ ֹנָ ה[ ֗ל‬. ִ Once written with ‫י‬.

‫כת‬ ֗ ‫]ראישׁ ֹנָ ה[ ֗ל‬. ִ Once written thus.

In its various plene and defective spellings, the lemma ‫ ִראשׁ ֹנָ ה‬occurs ten times in ML: 101 160F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Gen 33:2 Gen 38:28 Lev 5:8 Num 2:9 Josh 21:10

‫ִראשׁ ֹנָ ה‬ ‫ִראשׁ ֹנָ ה‬ ‫ִראשׁוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ִראשׁ ֹנָ ה‬ ‫ִריאשׁ ֹנָ ה‬

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

1 Kgs 18:25 Isa 65:7 Jer 16:18 Esth 1:14 Ezra 9:2

‫ִראשׁ ֹנָ ה‬ ‫ִראשׁ ֹנָ ה‬ ‫ִראשׁוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ִראשׁ ֹנָ ה‬ ‫ִראשׁוֹנָ ה‬

As per MpL, Josh 21:10 is unique, featuring plene ‫ י‬and defective ‫ו‬. The occasion for the sub loco note, however, seems to be a text-critical matter. All witnesses that Breuer collates other than ML (MA,C,S1,V, their respective Masorahs, and Minḥat Shay) are witness to the form ‫ ִראישׁ ֹנָ ה‬in Josh 21:10, 102 indicating that ‫ א‬and ‫ י‬are metathesized in ML. Weil likely seeks to render a verdict on this text-critical issue.

NOTE 49: JOSHUA 21:16 ‫ֶאת‬ MpBHS MpL

101 102

֗‫֗כ ֗ח בעינ‬ Twenty-eight times in this context.

MpA

No note.

֗‫י֗ ֗ח בעינ‬ Eighteen times in this context.

MpC

No note.

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ראשׁוֹנָ ה‬,ִ Ezra 9:2. Breuer, The Biblical Text, 53.

50

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

The form ‫את‬, ֶ vocalized thus and without prefixes, occurs thirty-eight times in Josh 21. Ginsburg notes that twenty-eight, not eighteen, precede the name of a town, and Weil corrects MpL’s frequency error accordingly. The twenty-eight references are: 103 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Josh 21:11 Josh 21:13b Josh 21:16 Josh 21:17a Josh 21:17b Josh 21:18 Josh 21:21b Josh 21:23a Josh 21:23b Josh 21:24a

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

(21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28)

Josh 21:24b Josh 21:25 Josh 21:27b Josh 21:28a Josh 21:28b Josh 21:29a Josh 21:29b Josh 21:30a Josh 21:30b Josh 21:31

Josh 21:32b Josh 21:34a Josh 21:34b Josh 21:35a Josh 21:35b Josh 21:38b Josh 21:39a Josh 21:39b

162F

NOTE 50: JOSHUA 21:27 ‫ִמ ִמּ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective in the Prophets.

MpA

‫דכות ֗ב ֗מ ֗א‬ ֗ ‫אורית‬ ֗ ‫חס וכל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective and all of the Torah likewise except for one.

MpC

‫בנב‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective in the Prophets. No note.

MpL Josh 21:27 correctly notes that the defective form ‫ ִמ ִמּ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬occurs twice outside the Torah: Josh 21:5; 21:27. The problem, however, is that the second half of the note, which counts only one plene form within the Torah, is correct only if one includes the similar form ‫( ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחוֹת‬Gen 10:18). Each half of the MpL note, then, differs from the other in scope; the first half pertains to occurrences of the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫ ִמ ִמּ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬with the prefix, while the second half pertains to such forms with or without the prefix. Weil emends MpL Josh 21:27 to count three defective forms within the Prophets because he has chosen to standardize the Masorah. The emendation ‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ “three times defective in the Prophets” is a completion of the MpL note for ‫ ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬in Josh 21:4, 104 whose focus differs from that of MpL Josh 21:27. Accord163F

See Ginsburg, 4, ‫א‬, §1207. Note that Ginsburg and Weil are both correct in excluding forms occurring in Josh 21:36–37 (according to the numbering in BHS), as MA does not contain these verses. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ת־בּית ֶשׁ ֶמשׁ‬ ֵ ‫א‬. ֶ 104 Likewise, MpA Josh 21:27. 103

JOSHUA

51

ing to MmA Josh 21:4, the tally of three counts occurrences within the Prophets of the defective form ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬and similar prefixed forms: 105 (1) Josh 21:4 (2) Josh 21:5 (3) Josh 21:27

164F

‫ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬ ‫ִמ ִמּ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬ ‫ִמ ִמּ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת‬

One may presume, then, that Weil’s standardizing of the Masorah is the reason for this sub loco note.

NOTE 51: JOSHUA 21:35 ‫ת־מגְ ָר ֶשׁ ָה ָﬠ ִרים ַא ְר ַבּע‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶא‬ MpBHS

֗‫ז‬ Seven times.

‫]מגְ ָר ֶשׁ ָה ָﬠ ִרים[ ֗ג‬ ִ Three times.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

In ML there is a circellus in Josh 21:35 over ‫מגְ ָר ֶשׁ ָה ָﬠ ִרים‬, ִ a phrase which ML features ten times. Weil adds additional circelli so as to include the longer phrase ‫ת־מגְ ָר ֶשׁ ָה‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ﬠ ִרים ַא ְר ַבּע‬,ָ which occurs only six times in ML: (1) Josh 21:18 (2) Josh 21:22 (3) Josh 21:24

(4) Josh 21:29 (5) Josh 21:31 (6) Josh 21:35

Weil emends the tally to seven, 106 however, because he includes Josh 21:37, a verse not found in ML. Dotan and Reich (§‫)מגְ ָר ֶשׁ ָה ָﬠ ִרים‬ ִ suggest that the tally of three counts occurrences of the sequence “‫ת־מגְ ָר ֶשׁ ָה ָﬠ ִרים ַא ְר ַבּע‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֶא‬...‫ ֶאת־‬... ‫ת־מגְ ָר ֶשׁ ָה‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֶא‬...‫ ” ֶאת־‬They admit, however, that the sources lack corroborating evidence. Alternatively, one

MmA Josh 21:4 reads: ‫ ולבני קהת‬.‫ ויצא הגורל למשפחת הקהתי‬:‫חס בנביאייא‬ ֗ ‫משפחת ֗ג‬ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫דכות‬ ֗ ֗‫ וכל כתיבי‬.‫מל ואחר נפצו משפחות‬ ֗ ‫ וכל אוריתא דכותהון בר מן חד‬.‫ ולבני גרשון‬.‫הנותרים‬ .‫חס ומשפחת אחרחל‬ ֗ ‫“ בר מן חד‬there are three occurrences in the Prophets of the defective form ‫משפחת‬: Josh 21:4; 21:5; 21:27; and all occurrences in the Torah are like them except for one plene occurrence: Gen 10:18; and all occurrences in the Writings are likewise plene except for one defective occurrence: 1 Chr 4:8.” 106 Likewise, MpBHK. 105

52

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

could argue that the tally of three belongs to ‫ל־ﬠ ִרים‬ ָ ‫כּ‬.ָ 107 The phrase occurs three A,L times, as Mp Josh 15:32 indicate: 16F

(1) (2) (3)

Josh 15:32 Josh 21:26 Josh 21:39

If this solution is correct, the error is one of dislocation.

NOTE 52: JOSHUA 22:3 ‫יכם‬ ֽ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ִמ ְצַו֖ת י‬ MpBHS

‫ובסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫בטע ֗ל‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times with these accents, one of which in this form and in this book. ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ֗‫הו֥ה[ ו‬ ָ ְ‫]מ ְצַו֖ת י‬ ִ Six times with these accents in this book.

MpL

MpA

‫]מ ְצוַ ת יְ הוָ ה[ ֗ג‬ ִ Three times.

MpC

‫]מ ְצוַ ת יְ הוָ ה[ ֗ג‬ ִ Three times.

MpL Josh 22:3 counts six occurrences of ‫הו֥ה‬ ָ ְ‫( ִמ ְצַו֖ת י‬with the ṭiṕḥâ and mêrəḵâ accents). ML, however, contains only three occurrences of ‫( ִמ ְצוַ ת יְ הוָ ה‬regardless of the accents) 108 and three occurrences of ‫( ִמ ְצַו֖ת‬with ṭiṕḥâ). In fact, Josh 22:3 is the only verse in ML to include ‫הו֥ה‬ ָ ְ‫מ ְצַו֖ת י‬, ִ for which reason MpL is in error. Following BHK, Weil arrives at the tally of six by (1) adding ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬to the rubric, (2) removing the stricture “in this book,” and (3) including phrases that read ‫ ִמ ְצוֹת‬instead of ‫מ ְצוַ ת‬. ִ 109 The six phrases for which he completes the Masorah are: 168F

(1) Deut 4:2 ‫יכם‬ ֶ֔ ‫הו֣ה ֱא ֽ� ֵה‬ ָ ְ‫וֹת י‬ ֙ ‫ִמ ְצ‬ (2) Deut 6:17 ‫�ה ֶיכ֑ם‬ ֵ ‫הו֣ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ִמ ְצוֹ֖ ת י‬ (3) Deut 11:27 ‫יכם‬ ֶ֔ ‫הו֣ה ֱא ֽ� ֵה‬ ָ ְ‫וֹת י‬ ֙ ‫ִמ ְצ‬

(4) Deut 11:28 (5) Josh 22:3 (6) 1 Chr 28:8

‫יכם‬ ֶ֔ ‫הו֣ה ֱא ֽ� ֵה‬ ָ ְ‫וֹת י‬ ֙ ‫ִמ ְצ‬ ‫יכם‬ ֽ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ִמ ְצַו֖ת י‬ ‫�ה ֶיכ֑ם‬ ֵ ‫הו֣ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ִמ ְצוֹ֖ ת י‬

Despite the creativeness of this resolution, it is highly irregular for a masoretic note to include in the same tally singular and plural forms of a lemma, even if they are consonantally identical. Furthermore, the six phrases listed above are not morphologically or accentually identical, and thus the solution is unsatisfactory. See MpA,L Josh 15:32. See MmL Josh 22:3 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1364): ‫ לא עזבתם‬:‫מצוַ ת יהוה ֗ג וסימנהון‬ .‫ ברה‬.‫ נסכלת‬.‫“ את אחיכם‬there are three occurrences of ‫מצוַ ת יהוהת‬, and their references are Josh 22:3; 1 Sam 13:13; Ps 19:9; likewise, MpA,C Josh 22:3; MmA,C Josh 22:3. 109 See the note for Josh 22:3 in BHK’s apparatus: “cf Dt 4,2; 6,17; 11,27; 11,28; 1 Chr 28,8; in L add false ‫בסיפ‬.” ֗ 107 108

JOSHUA

53

Dotan and Reich (§‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫ ) ִמ ְצוַ ת י—ה ֱא‬suggest that the tally of six includes instances within the book of Joshua of the sequence ṭiṕḥâ-mêrəḵâ-sillûq with the Tetragrammaton as the second lemma and ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ ֱא‬as the third. The six references that they list are: (1) Josh 14:8 (2) Josh 14:9 (3) Josh 18:6

‫�הי‬ ֽ ָ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ַא ֲח ֵ ֖רי י‬ ‫�הי‬ ֽ ָ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ַא ֲח ֵ ֖רי י‬ ‫�הינוּ‬ ֽ ֵ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ִל ְפ ֵנ֖י י‬

(4) Josh 22:3 (5) Josh 22:19 (6) Josh 23:11

‫יכם‬ ֽ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ִמ ְצַו֖ת י‬ ‫�הינוּ‬ ֽ ֵ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ִמזְ ַ ֖בּח י‬ ‫יכם‬ ֽ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ְל ַא ֲה ָ ֖בה ֶאת־י‬

This solution is not entirely correct, however, as this patters is also found in Josh 3:9: ‫יכם‬ ֽ ֶ ‫הו֥ה ֱא ֽ� ֵה‬ ָ ְ‫ת־דּ ְב ֵ ֖רי י‬ ִ ‫א‬. ֶ Seeing as how Josh 23:11 has unaccented ‫ ֶאת‬between the forms with ṭiṕḥâ and mêrəḵâ, perhaps Josh 23:11 should be expunged from Dotan and Reich’s list of six and Josh 3:9 should be added in its place. (1) Josh 3:9 ‫יכם‬ ֽ ֶ ‫הו֥ה ֱא ֽ� ֵה‬ ָ ְ‫ת־דּ ְב ֵ ֖רי י‬ ִ ‫( ֶא‬4) Josh 18:6 (2) Josh 14:8 ‫�הי‬ ֽ ָ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ַא ֲח ֵ ֖רי י‬ (5) Josh 22:3 (3) Josh 14:9 ‫�הי‬ ֽ ָ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ַא ֲח ֵ ֖רי י‬ (6) Josh 22:19

‫�הינוּ‬ ֽ ֵ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ִל ְפ ֵנ֖י י‬ ‫יכם‬ ֽ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ִמ ְצַו֖ת י‬ ‫�הינוּ‬ ֽ ֵ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫ִמזְ ַ ֖בּח י‬

NOTE 53: JOSHUA 22:9 ‫וּבנֵ י־גָ ד וַ ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט ַה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ְ ‫אוּבן‬ ֵ ‫י־ר‬ ְ ֵ‫ְבּנ‬ MpBHS

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

‫אוּבן[ ֗ד‬ ֵ ‫י־ר‬ ְ ֵ‫]בּנ‬ ְ Four times.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

ֵ ‫י־ר‬ ְ ֵ‫בּנ‬,ְ but the phrase MpL Josh 22:9 would seem to count four occurrences of ‫אוּבן‬ occurs twenty-two times in ML. 110 Weil follows BHK in emending the rubric to ‫ְבּנֵ י־‬ ‫וּבנֵ י־גָ ד וַ ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט ַה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ְ ‫אוּבן‬ ֵ ‫ר‬,ְ which is the first reason for this sub loco note. The second reason for the sub loco note is that he emends the frequency to five in accordance with MpL Josh 22:10 and the text of ML, and he completes the note for: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

110

Josh 4:12 Josh 22:9 Josh 22:10 Josh 22:11 Josh 22:21

Not twenty-one, pace Dotan and Reich, §‫וּבנֵ י־גָ ד וַ ֲח ִצי ֵשׁ ֶבט ַה ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ְ ‫אוּבן‬ ֵ ‫י־ר‬ ְ ֵ‫ ְבּנ‬.

54

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Dotan and Reich suggest that the tally of four is not incorrect, however. They propose that it includes only the occurrences within Josh 22 (forms 2–5). Thus, it is possible that Weil considered his emendation of the frequency to be a standardization of the Masorah and not a correction thereof.

NOTE 54: JOSHUA 22:31 ‫ל־בּנֵ י ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ְ ‫וְ ֶא‬ MpBHS

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫]בּנֵ י ְמנַ ֶשּׁה[ ֗ב‬ ְ Twice.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

MpL Josh 22:31 counts two occurrences of ‫בּנֵ י ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬,ְ whereas ML contains eleven occurrences of the phrase. Instead of correcting the frequency error accordingly, Weil modifies the rubric to ‫ל־בּנֵ י ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֶא‬and then emends the frequency note from two to one. 111 170F

NOTE 55: JOSHUA 22:34 ‫ֵבּינ ֵֹתינוּ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫מל וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ג ֗ב‬ Three times, twice plene and once defective.

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

MpL and MpBHS both count three occurrences of ‫( ֵבּינ ֵֹתינוּ‬and its plene ‫ ו‬counterpart), 112 and all three have the corresponding note ‫ ֗ג‬in MpL: (1) (2) (3)

111 112

Gen 26:28 Josh 22:34 Judg 11:10

‫ינוֹתינוּ‬ ֵ ‫ֵבּ‬ ‫ֵבּינ ֵֹתינוּ‬ ‫ינוֹתינוּ‬ ֵ ‫ֵבּ‬

Dotan and Reich, §‫ל־בּנֵ י ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ְ ‫וְ ֶא‬. Likewise, MpA Josh 22:34. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ינוֹתינוּ‬ ֵ ‫בּ‬,ֵ Gen 26:28.

JOSHUA

55

Weil has supplemented the Masorah with the clarification that two of the three are plene. 113 The confused tradition in other manuscripts 114 may have prompted him to add this clarification.

NOTE 56: JOSHUA 24:2 �ַ ‫הוֹשׁ‬ ֻ ְ‫אמר י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫י֗ ו‬ Sixteen times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpC

No note.

MpL Josh 24:2 counts five occurrences of �ַ ‫הוֹשׁ‬ ֻ ְ‫אמר י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬. ML, on the other hand, contains sixteen occurrences of this phrase, and Weil corrects the frequency error. The sixteen references are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Josh 3:5 Josh 3:6 Josh 3:9 Josh 3:10 Josh 6:16 Josh 7:7 Josh 7:19 Josh 7:25

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

Josh 10:18 Josh 10:22 Josh 17:17 Josh 18:3 Josh 24:2 Josh 24:19 Josh 24:22 Josh 24:27

NOTE 57: JOSHUA 24:8 ‫וָ ָא ִבאה‬ MpBHS

MpL

113 114

forms.

‫למערב‬ ֗ ‫ואביא ֗ק כן‬ Read ‫ ואביא‬in accordance with the Western tradition.

MpA

‫ואביא קרי‬ Read ‫ואביא‬.

‫ואביא קרי‬ Read ‫ואביא‬.

MpC

‫ואביא ֗ק‬ Read ‫ואביא‬.

See MpA,C Judg 11:10. For example, MpC Josh 22:34 incorrectly notes that ‫ ֵבּינ ֵֹתינוּ‬is one of two defective

56

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

The three manuscripts presented here all concur that the text should read ‫ וָ ָא ִביא‬instead of ‫וָ ָא ִב ָאה‬. To MpL’s note Weil adds a text-critical insight concerning the Western tradition’s rejection of the kəṯîḇ. 115 174F

NOTE 58: JOSHUA 24:15 ‫ֵבּ ֵﬠ ֶבר‬ MpBHS

MpL

֗‫מעבר ֗ק כן למדינ‬ Read ‫ מעבר‬in accordance with the Eastern tradition.

MpA

‫מעבר קרי‬ Read ‫מעבר‬.

‫מעבר ֗ק‬ Read ‫מעבר‬.

MpC

‫מע ֗ק‬ ֗ Read ‫מעבר‬.

Weil supplements MpL Josh 24:15 by clarifying that it is the Eastern tradition that supports the qərê ‫מ ֵﬠ ֶבר‬. ֵ 116 175F

NOTE 59: THE MASORAH FINALIS OF JOSHUA MpBHS

MpL

‫סכום הפסוקים של ספר שש מאות‬ ‫וחמשים וששה וחציו ומחשבון‬ ֗‫וסדרים ֗הי‬ The tally of the book’s verses is 656; its middle is Josh 13:26; and its sədarîm are fifteen. 117

MpA ‫סכום הפסוקים שלספר‬ ‫שש מאות וחמשים וששה‬ The tally of the verses of the book is 656.

‫סכום הפסוקים שלספר שש מאות‬ ‫וחמשים וששה‬ The tally of the book’s verses is 656.

MpC ‫סכום הפסוקים שלספר‬ ‫יהושע שש מאות וחמשים‬ ‫וששה נ֗ ו֗ ֗ח‬ The tally of the verses of the book is 656. 118

Weil prints MpL’s statement on the number of verses within Joshua, and he adds two additional data. First, and in reverse order, he notes that Joshua has fifteen sədarîm. Second, he indicates with the catchword ‫וּמ ֶח ְשׁבּוֹן‬ ֵ that the first verse of the

See folio 466 recto. Unlike the previous dispute between Eastern and Western text traditions, the present dispute is not listed in the summary list at the end of ML. The next variant listed after Josh 24:8 (sub loco note 57) is Judg 1:21. 117 ML’s tallies of verses and sədarîm are listed on folio 326 recto. 118 The catchword ‫ נוח‬is a corruption for ‫נום‬, which is found in MM1. 115 116

JOSHUA

57

book’s second half (i.e., the “middle”) is Joshua 13:26. 119 As this verse is the book’s 329th verse, this supplement supports MpL’s tally of 656. This contrasts with the text of BHS, however, which includes two additional verses (Josh 21:36–37), as per the Eastern tradition. 120 Weil’s supplementing of ML and his intent to discuss this discrepancy are the reasons for this sub loco note.

Likewise, MpA,C Josh 13:26. Ginsburg (Introduction, 88) states that Josh 13:25 is the middle verse. 120 Ginsburg, Introduction, 88. 119

CHAPTER 3: JUDGES NOTE 60: JUDGES 1:9 ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫בנביא ֗ד‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗מ ֗ט‬ Forty-nine times plene in the Prophets, four of which are in this book.

MpA

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times plene in this book.

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫י֗ ֗ד‬ Fourteen times plene in this book.

MpC

‫בס‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times plene in this book.

MpL Judg 1:9 counts fourteen occurrences in the book of Judges of the plene form ‫יוֹשׁב‬, ֵ whereas ML contains only four such forms: 1 (1) (2) (3) (4)

Judg 1:9 Judg 1:17 Judg 4:2 Judg 11:21

180F

Weil correctly emends the frequency error in accordance with MpL Judg 11:21. 2 The tally of forty-nine is the completion of Weil’s emendation of MpL Josh 9:7, which is the focus of note 13.

1 2

Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 17*; Dotan and Reich, §‫יוֹשׁב‬. ֵ Likewise, MpA,C Judg 1:17

58

JUDGES

59

NOTE 61: JUDGES 1:17 ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫בנביא ֗ד‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗מ ֗ט‬ Forty-nine times plene in the Prophets, four of which are in this book. No note.

MpL

MpA

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times plene in this book.

MpC

‫בס‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times plene in this book.

See note 60 (Judg 1:9).

NOTE 62: JUDGES 1:21 �‫רוּשׁ ַל‬ ָ ְ‫י ֵֹשׁב י‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫ז‬ Seven times.

MpA

֗‫ז‬ Seven times.

MpC

֗‫ז‬ Seven times. No note.

The phrase �‫רוּשׁ ַל‬ ָ ְ‫ י ֵֹשׁב י‬occurs seven times in ML if one includes plene and prefixed forms of ‫י ֵֹשׁב‬: 3 (1) (2) (3) (4)

182F

Judg 1:21 Isa 5:3 Isa 8:14 Isa 22:21

�‫רוּשׁ ַל‬ ָ ְ‫י ֵֹשׁב י‬ �‫רוּשׁ ַל‬ ָ ְ‫יוֹשׁב י‬ ֵ �‫רוּשׁ ָל‬ ָ ְ‫יוֹשׁב י‬ ֵ ‫ְל‬ �‫רוּשׁ ַל‬ ָ ְ‫יוֹשׁב י‬ ֵ ‫ְל‬

(5) Zech 12:7 (6) Zech 12:8 (7) Zech 12:10

�‫רוּשׁ ַל‬ ָ ְ‫י ֵֹשׁב י‬ �‫רוּשׁ ַל‬ ָ ְ‫יוֹשׁב י‬ ֵ �‫רוּשׁ ַל‬ ָ ְ‫יוֹשׁב י‬ ֵ

Though Weil’s intent to clarify the rubric is the primary reason for this sub loco note, he may have also intended to discuss the Eastern tradition’s reading ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬. 4 183F

Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 17*; Dotan and Reich, §�‫רוּשׁ ַל‬ ָ ְ‫יוֹשׁב י‬, ֵ Isa 5:3. See ML folio 466 recto, but ct. MpA. Note, however, that in Josh 15:63 the plural construct form occurs in a similar context: ‫ישׁם‬ ָ ‫הוֹר‬ ִ ‫הוּדה ְל‬ ָ ְ‫א־יָכלוּ ְבנֵ י־י‬ ְ ֹ ‫רוּשׁ ַל� ל‬ ָ ְ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי י‬ ְ ‫יְבוּסי‬ ִ ‫ת־ה‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬. 3 4

60

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 63: JUDGES 1:25 ‫ל־מ ְשׁ ַפּ ְחתּוֹ‬ ִ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 1:25 counts two occurrences of ‫ל־מ ְשׁ ַפּ ְחתּוֹ‬ ִ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬. ML, on the other hand, 5 contains only one, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. 6 MpA,C do not present a note for ‫ל־מ ְשׁ ַפּ ְחתּוֹ‬ ִ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬, but they do present the note ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” for the previous phrase ‫ת־ה ִאישׁ‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬, which does occur twice: Deut 22:24; Judg 1:25. 7 That MpL Judg 1:25 does not address ‫ת־ה ִאישׁ‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֶא‬suggests that the note for ‫ל־מ ְשׁ ַפּ ְחתּוֹ‬ ִ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֶא‬is applied to the wrong phrase and thus constitutes a dislocation error.

NOTE 64: JUDGES 1:27 ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ְבּנ ֶֹת‬a

MpBHS

MpL

‫ובסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה בפסוק‬ ֗ ‫בנביא ֗ב‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times defective in the Prophets, two of which are in this verse and in this book.

MpA

֗‫חס בסי‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective in this book.

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice in this book.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

This MpBHS note involves the completion of MpL Jer 49:2 (‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫חסיר‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ה‬, “five times defective in the Prophets”) and an expansion of MpL Judg 1:27, which indicates that both occurrences in Judges are found within this verse. For a more comprehensive analysis, see note 35 (Josh 17:11).

Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 17*. Similarly, Dotan and Reich, §‫ל־מ ְשׁ ַפּ ְחתּוֹ‬ ִ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬. 7 See MmL Deut 22:24 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1184): ‫ ואת האיש ואת כל‬:‫ואת־האיש ֗ב‬ .‫ ואת האיש על דבר‬.‫“ משפחתו‬there are two occurrences of ‫ואת־האיש‬: Judg 1:25; Deut 22:24.” 5 6

JUDGES

61

NOTE 65: JUDGES 1:27 ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵב‬ MpBHS MpL

‫ישבי ֗ק‬ Read ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬.

MpA

‫יושבי ֗ק‬ Read ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬. ְ

MpC

‫]יוֹשׁ ֵב[ יושבי ֗ק‬ ְ Read ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬. ְ ‫]יוֹשׁ ֵב[ בי ֗ק‬ ְ Read ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬. ְ

MpA,L,C Judg 1:27 all agree that the text should read the plene form ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬. ְ Weil, on the other hand, reads the defective counterpart ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬, as per MS1,V. In enumerating the thirty-four occurrences of ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ (and similar cases), 8 Breuer also excludes the qərê under consideration but not because he reads the form as defective ‫ו‬. Instead, he argues that the qərê form ‫יוֹשׁ ֵב‬ ְ cannot be considered plene because its kəṯîḇ does not include the construct suffix ‫י‬. 9 If one follows Breuer, then Weil correctly excludes the form under consideration from the thirty-four but does so for the wrong reason. 18F

NOTE 66: JUDGES 1:32 ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬ MpBHS

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל ֗ד‬ Thirty-four times plene. No note.

MpL

See note 31 (Josh 15:63).

Mp A

No note.

MpC

No note.

NOTE 67: JUDGES 2:2 ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫חוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ִמזְ ְבּ‬ MpBHS

MpL

8 9

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ג ֗ב‬ Three times, two of which are defective and one of which is plene.

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

‫י֗ ֗ג‬ Thirteen times.

MpC

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

See note 31 (Joshua 15:63). Breuer, The Biblical Text, 55, n. 1.

62

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

ֶ ‫חוֹת‬ ֵ ‫מזְ ְבּ‬, ִ whereas in ML this plene ‫ו‬ MpL Judg 2:2 counts thirteen occurrences of ‫יהם‬ form occurs only twice (Judg 2:2; Ezek 6:13) and the defective ‫ ו‬form only once (Deut 7:5). Weil emends MpL Judg 2:2 in accordance with MpL Deut 7:5, which is correct in its overall tally of three 10 but incorrect in counting two of the three as defective forms. 11 MmA Judg 2:2 agrees with ML that Judg 2:2 and Ezek 6:13 are both plene. 12 Though Weil fails to emend MpL Deut 7:5, his not marking Judg 2:2 or Ezek 6:13 contra textum suggests that he reads with ML and not MpL Deut 7:5. 189F

190F

19F

NOTE 68: JUDGES 3:8 ‫ְשׁמֹנֶ ה ָשׁנִ ים‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 3:8 counts three occurrences of ‫ ְשׁמֹנֶ ה ָשׁנִ ים‬. ML, on the other hand, contains only two, but the tally rises to four when occurrences featuring the plene form ‫ ְשׁמוֹנֶ ה‬are counted: 13 (1) (2) (3) (4)

Judg 3:8 Judg 12:14 2 Chr 34:1 2 Chr 36:9 192F

‫ְשׁמֹנֶ ה ָשׁנִ ים‬ ‫ְשׁמֹנֶ ה ָשׁנִ ים‬ ‫ְשׁמוֹנֶ ה ָשׁנִ ים‬ ‫ְשׁמוֹנֶ ה ָשׁנִ ים‬

Thus, Weil seems to be correct in emending a frequency error in MpL. It should be noted, however, that Dotan and Reich suggest that three is correct if one groups the two occurrences in Chronicles together as one. 14 Likewise, MpA,C Judg 2:2. Dotan and Reich (§‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫חוֹת‬ ֵ ‫מזְ ְבּ‬, ִ Judg 2:2) emend the tally of thirteen to three. 11 BHQ notes that MpL Deut 7:5 likely considers Judg 2:2 to be the contra textum form (BHQ, “Deuteronomy,” 21*), and this is likely the case, as the first hand of MC Judg 2:2 is witness to the defective form. 12 MmA Judg 2:2 reads: .‫ ואתם לא תכרתו‬.‫ כי אם כה תעשו‬:‫חס‬ ֗ ‫מל וחד‬ ֗ ‫מזבחותיהם ֗ג ֗ב‬ .‫“ וידעתם‬there are three occurrences of ‫מזבחותיהם‬, two plene and one defective: Deut 7:5; Judg 2:2; Ezek 6:13.” Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫מזְ ְבּח ֵֹת‬. ִ 13 BHQ, “Judges,” 18* lists the four references but does not indicate that both plene and defective spellings are counted. 14 Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁנִ ים‬ ָ ‫שׁמֹנֶ ה‬. ְ They also note that both occurrences are part of the longer phrase ‫מוֹנ֥ה ָשׁ ִנ֖ים‬ ֶ ‫ן־שׁ‬ ְ ‫ ֶבּ‬. 10

JUDGES

63

NOTE 69: JUDGES 4:2 ‫ָמ ַל� ְבּ ָחצוֹר‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 4:2 counts two occurrences of ‫מ ַל� ְבּ ָחצוֹר‬. ָ In ML, on the other hand, this 15 phrase occurs only once, and Weil emends the frequency error accordingly. 16 194F

195F

NOTE 70: JUDGES 5:4 ‫נָ ְטפוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 5:4 counts only two occurrences of ‫נָ ְטפוּ‬. This form occurs three times in ML, however, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. The references are: 17 (1) (2) (3)

Judg 5:4 Ps 68:9 Song 5:5

196F

By contrast, Dotan and Reich observe that the tally of two is correct if one limits the scope to occurrences with milʿêl stress (forms 1 and 3). 18 Thus, Weil could have clarified the scope of the note instead of emending its frequency.

Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 18*. Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫מ ַל� ְבּ ָחצוֹר‬. ָ 17 Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 18*. 18 Dotan and Reich, §‫נָ ְטפוּ‬. 15 16

64

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 71: JUDGES 5:6 ‫ ֳא ָרחוֹת‬b

MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב ובפסוק‬ Twice and in this verse.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note. ‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpL Judg 5:6 correctly notes that ‫ ֳא ָרחוֹת‬occurs twice, 19 and Weil supplements this note with the clarification “and in this verse.” 20 His supplementing MpL appears to be the reason for the sub loco note. 198F

19F

NOTE 72: JUDGES 5:7 ‫ ַשׁ ַקּ ְמ ִתּי‬a

MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב ובפסוק‬ Twice and in this verse.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpL Judg 5:7 correctly notes that ‫ ַשׁ ַקּ ְמ ִתּי‬occurs twice, 21 and Weil supplements this note with the clarification “and in this verse.” 22 His supplementing MpL appears to be the reason for the sub loco note. 20F

201F

NOTE 73: JUDGES 5:18 ‫וְ נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpA

No note.

֗‫ז‬ Seven times.

MpC

No note.

Likewise, MpC Judg 5:6b and MpA Judg 5:6a; Dotan and Reich, §‫א ָרחוֹת‬, ֳ Judg 5:6b. a V This clarification for ‫ ֳא ָרחוֹת‬is also found in Mp Judg 5:6. 21 Likewise, MpA,C Judg 5:7; Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁ ַקּ ְמ ִתּי‬, ַ Judg 5:7a. 22 MpV Judg 5:7 ‫שׁ ַקּ ְמ ִתּי‬ b ַ also includes this clarification. 19 20

JUDGES

65

MpL Judg 5:18 ostensibly counts seven occurrences of ‫וְ נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬, whereas ML has only five: 23 20F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Gen 35:25 Exod 1:4 Deut 27:13 Judg 5:18 1 Chr 12:41

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Judg 1:33 Judg 4:6a Judg 4:6b Judg 4:10

Weil emends the frequency accordingly, but Dotan and Reich (§‫ )וְ נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬propose that the tally of seven includes all forms of the lemma that occur within Judges: ‫נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬ ‫נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬ ‫נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬ ‫נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬

(5) Judg 5:18 (6) Judg 6:35 (7) Judg 7:23

‫וְ נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬ ‫וּבנַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬ ְ ‫ִמנַּ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬

Thus, Weil could have chosen to clarify the scope of the Masorah rather than to emend the frequency.

NOTE 74: JUDGES 5:20 ‫ן־שׁ ַמיִם‬ ָ ‫ִמ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

ָ ‫ ִמ‬appears twice in ML: Judg 5:20; 2 Sam As per MpL Judg 5:20, the phrase ‫ן־שׁ ַמיִ ם‬ 24 22:14. It is possible that Weil intends to discuss the incorrect frequency of three, which MpL 2 Sam 22:14 presents. 25 It is also possible, however, that he intends to discuss BHS’s presentation of the variant reading ‫ן־ה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬ ַ ‫מ‬, ִ which occurs in certain manuscripts, as per the critical apparatus. This variant is clearly a corruption, however, as neither MA,L,C nor any of the ancient versions are witness to it. 26 Because he does not revise MpL Judg 5:20 it is clear that Weil also rejects this tradition, and thus 205F

Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 18*–19*. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ן־שׁ ַמיִם‬ ָ ‫מ‬, ִ Judg 5:20. 25 See note 269 (2 Sam 22:14). 26 Note the paucity of evidence presented in the critical note in BHS (“pc Mss '‫) ַהשּׁ‬. BHQ does not address this variant. 23 24

66

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

his intention to comment upon this text-critical matter may be the reason for this sub loco note.

NOTE 75: JUDGES 5:30 ‫ְלרֹאשׁ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ד ֗ה‬ Twenty-four times, five of which are in this book.

MpA

No note.

‫֗כ ֗א‬ Twenty-one times.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 5:30 counts twenty-one occurrences of ‫לרֹאשׁ‬.ְ This form occurs twentyfour times in ML, 27 however, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. The references are: 28 206F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

207F

Gen 49:26 Num 17:18 Deut 28:13 Deut 28:44 Deut 33:16 Judg 5:30 Judg 10:18 Judg 11:8

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

Judg 11:9 Judg 11:11 2 Sam 22:44 Jer 13:21 Amos 6:12 Ps 18:44 Ps 118:22 Prov 10:6

(17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

Prov 11:26 Lam 1:5 Lam 2:19 1 Chr 11:6a 1 Chr 11:6b 1 Chr 26:10 1 Chr 29:11 2 Chr 25:12

To his revision of the frequency error Weil adds a complementary note derived from MpL Judg 11:8, which counts five occurrences in Judges.

NOTE 76: JUDGES 6:4 ‫יְבוּל‬ MpBHS MpL

MpL

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpC

No note.

Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 19*. The correct tally of twenty-four is found elsewhere in (e.g., MpL Judg 10:18). 28 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫לרֹאשׁ‬, ְ Judg 10:18. 27

JUDGES

67

MpL Judg 6:4 counts five occurrences of ‫יְבוּל‬. ML, on the other hand, contains only three occurrences of this form, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. The three references are: 29 (1) (2) (3)

Judg 6:4 Hab 3:17 Job 20:28

208F

NOTE 77: JUDGES 6:14 ‫וַ יִּ ֶפן ֵא ָליו‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 6:14 marks ‫ וַ יִּ ֶפן ֵא ָליו‬as unique. There are two occurrences of this phrase in ML, however, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. The two references are Judg 6:14; 2 Chr 26:20. 30 Instead of emending the frequency, Dotan and Reich (§ ‫וַ יִּ ֶפן‬ ‫)א ָליו‬ ֵ add the stricture “in the Prophets.” 31 210F

NOTE 78: JUDGES 6:16 ‫ית‬ ֥ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times with this accent.

MpA

‫בט‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times with this accent.

‫בט‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice with this accent.

MpC

‫בט‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times with this accent.

The form ‫ית‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִה ִכּ‬occurs five times in ML:

See also BHQ, “Judges,” 19*; Dotan and Reich, §‫יְבוּל‬. Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 19*. 31 They also conjecture that the note is intended for ‫וַ יִּ ֶפן ֵא ָליו יְ הוָ ה‬, for which the MpL note ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” would not require emendation. 29 30

68

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Exod 17:6 Deut 20:13 Judg 6:16 1 Sam 23:2 2 Kgs 13:17

‫ית‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִ ֣כּ‬ ‫ית‬ ֥ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬ ‫ית‬ ֥ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬ ‫ית‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִ ֣כּ‬ ‫ית‬ ֧ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Deut. 20:13 Judg 6:16 1 Sam 15:3 2 Kgs 9:7 2 Kgs 13:17

‫ית‬ ֥ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬ ‫ית‬ ֥ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬ ‫יתה‬ ָ֜ ‫וְ ִה ִ ֽכּ‬ ‫יתה‬ ָ֔ ‫וְ ִ֙ה ִכּ‬ ‫ית‬ ֧ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Deut 20:13 Judg 6:16 1 Sam 23:2 2 Kgs 9:7 2 Kgs 13:17

‫ית‬ ֥ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬ ‫ית‬ ֥ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬ ‫ית‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִ ֣כּ‬ ‫יתה‬ ָ֔ ‫וְ ִ֙ה ִכּ‬ ‫ית‬ ֧ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬

In accordance with MpL Judg 6:16, only two of the five have the accent mêrəḵâ (forms 2–3). For this particular form, however, masoretic tradition generally understands the qualification ‫בט‬ ֗ “with this accent” to refer not to mêrəḵâ but to milraʿ stress on both ‫ית‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִה ִכּ‬and the similar, plene ‫ ה‬form ‫יתה‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬. 32 With these strictures applied, the five forms are:

It is evident by his completion of the Masorah, however, that Weil incorrectly follows Ginsburg, who mistakenly prints the reference 1 Sam 23:2 in place of 1 Sam 15:3, even while correctly featuring the catchphrase for the latter. 33 Thus, Weil’s list of five includes:

For the correct frequency, see MpL Deut 20:13 and 2 Kgs 13:17. For a more detailed ֗ ‫והכיתה ֗ה‬, “there are five occurrences of masoretic rule, see MmC 1 Sam 15:3 (...‫בט בתיו‬ ‫ והכיתה‬with the accent on the ‫)”ת‬, which is followed by BHQ, Judges, 19* and Dotan and Reich, §‫ית‬ ֥ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬, Deut 20:13. Likewise, MpA Judg 6:16 and 2 Kgs 13:17 both present the note ‫֗ה‬ ‫בט‬, ֗ and the commonality of the forms occurring in these verses is milraʿ stress and not the accent itself. 33 Ginsburg, 2, ‫נ‬, §232. 32

JUDGES

69

NOTE 79: JUDGES 7:7 ‫ִל ְמקֹמוֹ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫אורית ושמואל‬ ֗ ‫בסיפ וכל‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective in this book and all instances in the Torah and Samuel likewise.

MpA

No note.

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 7:7 counts three occurrences of the defective form ‫ל ְמקֹמוֹ‬,ִ whereas the form occurs nine times in ML: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Gen 18:33 Gen 32:1 Num 24:25 Judg 7:7 Judg 9:55

(1) (2) (3)

All within the Torah All within Judges 2 Sam 19:40

(6) (7) (8) (9)

Judg 19:28 1 Sam 2:20 1 Sam 5:11 2 Sam 19:40

By contrast, MfV correctly excludes forms 7–8, which should be spelled with plene spelling, 34 and counts the remaining seven forms as three:

This method of counting is corroborated by MpA,L,C 2 Sam 19:40, all of which have the note ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬three times defective.” 35 Weil incorrectly completes the Masorah only for the three forms within Judges, thereby limiting the scope to the one book. 36 This leads him to emend the tally in MpL 2 Sam 19:40 from three to one. 37 Thus, it is clear that Weil misunderstands the intent of MpL Judg 7:7. 214F

215F

216F

MfV ‫§ קם‬25 agrees with the text of MA. Likewise, Ginsburg, 2, ‫מ‬, §721; Breuer, The Biblical Text, 68, n. 5. 36 BHQ incorrectly follow suit (BHQ, “Judges,” 20*); likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫ל ְמקֹמוֹ‬,ִ Judg 7:7. 37 This is the focus of note 260. 34 35

70

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 80: JUDGES 7:10 ‫וְ ִאם‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫֗ג ר״פ‬ Three times at the beginning of a verse in this book.

MpA

No note.

‫בס‬ ֗ ‫פס‬ ֗ ‫רא‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times at the beginning of a verse in this book.

MpC

No note.

As MpL Judg 7:10 indicates, within ML there are four occurrences of ‫ וְ ִאם‬at the beginning of a verse within the book of Judges: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Judg 7:10 Judg 9:19 Judg 9:20 Judg 14:13

For reasons that are not clear, Weil reduces the tally to three and does not complete the Masorah for form 4. 38

NOTE 81: JUDGES 7:19 ‫וְ נָ פוֹץ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫ומל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and plene.

MpA

‫ומל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and plene.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene.

MpC

‫ומל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and plene.

MpL Judg 7:19 counts three occurrences of the plene form ‫וְ נָ פוֹץ‬, but this form occurs only once in ML. Weil emends the frequency accordingly, as per MpA,C Judg 7:19. 39 Dotan and Reich (§‫)וְ נָ פוֹץ‬, on the other hand, show that the tally of three is correct if one includes similar forms that derive from the lemmata .‫ץ‬.‫ו‬.‫ פ‬and .‫ץ‬.‫פ‬.‫נ‬: (1) Judg 7:11 ‫וְ נָ פוֹץ‬ (2) Jer 10:21 ‫וֹצה‬ ָ ‫נָ ֽפ‬ (3) 2 Chr 18:16 ‫פוֹצים‬ ִ ְ‫נ‬ 38 39

BHQ (“Judges,” 20*) and Dotan and Reich (§‫וְ ִאם־‬, Judg 7:10) mistakenly follow suit. Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 20*.

JUDGES

71

This method of reckoning is not supported by MpA,L,C or MmA,L,C, however, which indicates that Weil is correct to emend.

NOTE 82: JUDGES 8:15 ‫זֶ ַבח וְ ַצ ְל ֻמנָּ ע‬a

MpBHS MpL

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 8:15 counts four occurrences of ‫זֶ ַבח וְ ַצ ְל ֻמנָּ ע‬, but the phrase occurs six times in ML: 40 (1) Judg 8:5 (2) Judg 8:6 (3) Judg 8:12

(4) Judg 8:15a (5) Judg 8:15b (6) Judg 8:21

219F

The circellus for the note ‫“ ֗ה‬five times” appears over ‫ וְ ַצ ְל ֻמנָּ ע‬in Judg 8:21, and Dotan and Reich (§‫זֶ ַבח וְ ַצ ְל ֻמנָּ ע‬, Judg 8:21) argue that it should properly appear over ‫זֶ ַבח‬ ‫וְ ַצ ְל ֻמנָּ ע‬. Weil probably emends MpL Judg 8:15 for the same reason. For reasons that are not clear, however, it is the third of the six forms that Weil excludes, as his completion of the Masorah indicates. Though Dotan and Reich agree with Weil that the tally of five is correct for ‫זֶ ַבח וְ ַצ ְל ֻמנָּ ע‬, they arrive at this tally differently. They include all six of the aforementioned occurrences, with forms 4 and 5 counted as one because they occur in the same verse. Without additional evidence, it is impossible to evaluate these two solutions.

NOTE 83: JUDGES 8:21 ‫וְ ַצ ְל ֻמנָּ ע‬ MpBHS MpL

40

֗‫ז‬ Seven times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpC

No note.

This matter is overlooked by BHQ.

72

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpL Judg 8:21 counts only five occurrences of ‫וְ ַצ ְל ֻמנָּ ע‬. ML, on the other hand, has seven occurrences of this form, and Weil emends the frequency error accordingly. The seven references are: 41 (1) (2) (3) (4)

Judg 8:5 Judg 8:6 Judg 8:10 Judg 8:12

20F

(5) Judg 8:15a (6) Judg 8:15b (7) Judg 8:21

By contrast, Dotan and Reich (§‫זֶ ַבח וְ ַצ ְל ֻמנָּ ע‬, Judg 8:21) argue that the circellus should properly appear over ‫זֶ ַבח וְ ַצ ְל ֻמנָּ ע‬, which occurs six times in ML: (1) Judg 8:5 (2) Judg 8:6 (3) Judg 8:12

(4) Judg 8:15a (5) Judg 8:15b (6) Judg 8:21

They count forms 4 and 5 as one because they occur in the same verse and thus arrive at the tally of five. This solution is preferable to Weil’s because it does not involve an emendation of the Mp note.

NOTE 84: JUDGES 9:3 ‫ל־ה ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬ ַ ‫ֵאת ָכּ‬ MpBHS

‫֗כ ֗ה‬ Twenty-five times. ‫ל־ה ְדּ ָב ִרים[ י֗ ֗ג‬ ַ ‫]את ָכּ‬ ֵ Thirteen times.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

ַ ‫( ֵאת ָכּ‬and ‫ת־כּל־‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ MpL Judg 9:3 notes that there are thirteen occurrences of ‫ל־ה ְדּ ָב ִרים‬ L ‫)ה ְדּ ָב ִרים‬, ַ and according to Mm Deut 1:18 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §707), such is the case but only when ‫ ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬is not present. 42 Thus, MpL Judg 9:3 is to be classified as a matching error. 43 Instead of expunging the MpL notes under consideration, Weil 21F

2F

See BHQ, “Judges,” 21*. .‫ ואצוה אתכם‬.‫ ויעש אהרן ובניו‬.‫ וידבר אהרן‬.‫ ויספר העבד‬:‫דחס האלה‬ ֗ ‫את כל הדברים י֗ ֗ג‬ ‫ ויהי‬.‫ ויגד להם מיכיהו‬.‫ וכתבת אליה‬.‫ כתב לך‬.‫ שלחני להנבא‬.‫ עמד בחצר בית יי‬.‫ויגד לו שמואל‬ .‫ שוב קח לך‬.‫ ויבאו אל המלך‬.‫“ כשמעם‬there are thirteen occurrences of ‫ את כל הדברים‬which lack ‫האלה‬: Gen 24:66; Exod 4:30; Lev 8:36; Deut 1:18; 1 Sam 3:18; Jer 26:2; 26:12; 30:2; 36:2; 36:13; 36:16a; 36:20; 36:28.” Likewise, BHQ, “Deuteronomy,” 33*; Dotan and Reich, §‫ל־ה ְדּ ָב ִרים‬ ַ ‫את ָכּ‬, ֵ Lev 8:36. 43 BHQ, “Judges,” 21* fails to indicate this. 41 42

JUDGES

73

emends it in accordance with MpL 2 Sam 13:21, which counts twenty-five occurrences of ‫ל־ה ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬ ַ ‫את ָכּ‬/‫ת־‬ ֵ ‫א‬: ֶ 44 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Gen 20:8 Gen 29:13 Exod 19:7 Exod 20:1 Num 16:31 Deut 12:28 Deut 32:45 Judg 9:3 1 Sam 19:7

(10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)

2 Sam 13:21 2 Sam 14:19 1 Kgs 18:36 Jer 7:27 Jer 11:6 Jer 16:10 Jer 25:30 Jer 26:15 Jer 34:6

(19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)

Jer 36:16 Jer 36:17 Jer 36:18 Jer 36:24 Jer 43:1 Jer 51:60 Jer 51:61

NOTE 85: JUDGES 9:33 ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ַבבּ ֶֹקר‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

No note.

As per MpL Judg 9:33, ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ַבבּ ֶֹקר‬occurs twice in ML: 45 Judg 9:33; Ruth 3:13. 46 Thus, Weil errs in emending the Masorah from ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique.”

NOTE 86: JUDGES 9:55 ‫ִל ְמקֹמוֹ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫אורית ושמואל‬ ֗ ‫בסיפ וכל‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective and all instances in the Torah and Samuel likewise.

MpA

No note.

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

MpC

No note.

See note 79 (Judg 7:7).

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ל־ה ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬ ַ ‫את ָכּ‬, ֵ 2 Sam 13:21. Likewise, MpA Judg 9:33. 46 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ ָהיָ ה ַבבּ ֶֹקר‬. 44 45

74

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 87: JUDGES 11:7 ‫וַ ְתּגָ ְרשׁוּנִ י‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫ומל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique and plene.

MpL Judg 11:7 counts two occurrences of ‫וַ ְתּגָ ְרשׁוּנִ י‬. In ML, however, this form occurs only once, and Weil emends the frequency error accordingly. 47 26F

NOTE 88: JUDGES 11:13 ‫ד־היַּ בֹּק‬ ַ ‫וְ ַﬠ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

In accordance with MpL Judg 11:13, ‫ד־היַּ בֹּק‬ ַ ‫ וְ ַﬠ‬occurs twice in ML: Judg 11:13; 48 11:22. For both of these occurrences, Weil merely reproduces MpL and adds a sub loco note. It is likely that the reason for this note is the variant reading ‫ד־היַּ בֹּק‬ ַ ‫ ַﬠ‬in 11:13, which is supported by the Syro-Hexapla and the Old Latin, and is the best attested reading according to the Greek. 49 According to BHQ, the reading ‫וְ ַﬠד־‬a may have arisen on account of the subsequent occurrence of ‫וְ ַﬠד־‬. Though one cannot be certain, Weil may have added this sub loco note because he intended to discuss the impact of the variant reading upon the Masorah.

MpC

Likewise, MpA Judg 11:7; BHQ, “Judges,” 22*; Dotan and Reich, §‫וַ ְתּגָ ְרשׁוּנִ י‬. Similarly, Judg 11:7. 48 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ד־היַּ בֹּק‬ ַ ‫וְ ַﬠ‬, Judg 11:13. 49 BHQ, “Judges,” 85*. 47

JUDGES

75

NOTE 89: JUDGES 11:22 ‫ד־היַּ בֹּק‬ ַ ‫וְ ַﬠ‬ MpBHS MpL ‫֗ב‬

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

No note.

Twice.

MpC

Illegible.

See note 88 (Judg 11:13).

NOTE 90: JUDGES 11:27 ‫וְ ַא ָ֞תּה‬ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times with this accent in this book. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

In contrast with MpBHS, which ostensibly counts three occurrences of ‫ וְ ַא ָתּה‬with the geršayim accent in the book of Judges, the form is unique therein. None of the manuscripts or masoretic treatises surveyed addresses this phenomenon, and Weil does not complete the Masorah for this note anywhere else within the book of Judges. One finds, however, that this form occurs exactly three times in the Former Prophets: (1) (2) (3)

Judg 11:27 1 Sam 15:6 1 Kgs 9:4

֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫) ֗ג‬. Though completion of the For all three Weil presents MpL 1 Kgs 9:4 (‫בסיפ‬ Masorah does not normally warrant a sub loco note, Weil makes an exception in this case, presumably on account of the incorrect scope “in this book,” which he does not correct. It is possible that this Masorah has become confused with a Masorah for ‫( וְ ַﬠ ָ֞תּה‬and similar forms), of which MmC 1 Kgs 8:25 (Perez Castro, “Reyes,” 69) counts three within Kings: 50 29F

.‫ לפני‬.‫ הנכרי‬.‫ שמר‬:‫בס וסימנהו֗ ן‬ ֗ ‫בט‬ ֗ ‫“ ועתה ֗ג‬there are three occurrences of ‫ ועתה‬with this accent in this book, and their references are 1 Kgs 8:25; 1 Kgs 8:43; 1 Kgs 9:4.” See also note 310 (1 Kgs 9:4) below. 50

76

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3)

1 Kgs 8:25 1 Kgs 8:43 1 Kgs 9:4

‫וְ ַﬠ ָ֞תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ֞תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ֞תּה‬

NOTE 91: JUDGES 11:30 ‫נָ תוֹן‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven times plene in this and similar cases.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times plene. No note.

MpL Judg 11:30 counts five occurrences of the plene form ‫נָ תוֹן‬. 51 ML, on the other hand, has only three occurrences, but if one includes similar prefixed forms, the tally rises to seven: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Gen 41:43 Deut 15:10 Judg 8:25 Judg 11:30

‫וְ נָ תוֹן‬ ‫נָ תוֹן‬ ‫נָ תוֹן‬ ‫נָ תוֹן‬

(5) Qoh 8:9 (6) Esth 2:3 (7) Esth 6:9

‫וְ נָ תוֹן‬ ‫וְ נָ תוֹן‬ ‫וְ נָ תוֹן‬

Weil emends the tally to seven in accordance with MpL Gen 41:43; Esth 2:3; and ֗ “in this and similar cases” beEsth 6:9. 52 Additionally, he supplements with ‫בליש‬ cause similar forms are included. MpA Judg 11:30 counts five, however, likely grouping all occurrences in the Writings together as one. 53 This emendation is best viewed as a standardization of the Masorah.

NOTE 92: JUDGES 11:33 ‫דוֹלה ְמאֹד‬ ָ ְ‫ַמ ָכּה גּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ג‬ Three times. No note.

Dotan and Reich (§‫ )נָ תוֹן‬read ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ח‬there are eight plene occurrences.” These have ֗‫“ ז‬there are seven occurrences” without ‫מל‬ ֗ “plene.” 53 This explanation is proffered by BHQ, “Judges,” 22*; ct. Haketer (“Joshua-Judges,” 129), which lists only the first five of the seven forms. 51 52

JUDGES

77

MpL Judg 11:33 counts three occurrences of ‫דוֹלה ְמאֹד‬ ָ ְ‫מ ָכּה גּ‬, ַ which occurs twice in this form (Josh 10:20; Judg 11:33) and once as ‫דוֹלה ְמאֹד‬ ָ ְ‫( ַה ַמּ ָכּה גּ‬1 Sam 4:10), as MmA Josh 10:20 indicates. 54 Because the third occurrence is not identical, Weil chooses to treat this MpL note as a frequency error and to emend the note to ‫֗ב‬ “twice” and not ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬three times in this and similar cases,” as per the scope of MmA. It is possible that Weil’s decision to treat 1 Sam 4:10 separately from the other two is based on an error in MpBHK,BHS 1 Sam 4:10. Whereas MpL 1 Sam 4:10 has the frequency note ‫ ֗ג‬only for ‫דוֹלה ְמאֹד‬ ָ ְ‫גּ‬, both BHK and BHS mistakenly place a circellus over ‫ה ַמּ ָכּה‬,ַ which does, coincidentally, occur three times.

NOTE 93: JUDGES 11:37 ‫ְשׁנַ יִם ֳח ָד ִשׁים‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 11:37 marks ‫ ְשׁנַ יִ ם ֳח ָד ִשׁים‬as unique. In ML, on the other hand, this phrase occurs three times, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. The three references are: 55 (1) (2) (3)

234F

Judg 11:37 Judg 11:39 1 Kgs 5:28

NOTE 94: JUDGES 12:5 ‫ַה ֶא ְפ ָר ִתי‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MmA Josh 10:20 reads: ‫ וילחמו‬.‫ ויכם מערוער‬.‫ ויהי ככלות יהושע‬:‫מכה גדולה מאד ֗ג‬ .‫“ פלשתים‬there are three occurrences of ‫מכה גדולה מאד‬: Josh 10:20; Judg 11:33; 1 Sam 4:10.” Similarly, BHQ, “Judges,” 22*; Dotan and Reich, §‫דוֹלה ְמאֹד‬ ָ ְ‫מ ָכּה גּ‬. ַ 55 Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 22*; Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁים‬ ִ ‫שׁנַ יִ ם ֳח ָד‬. ְ 54

78

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpL Judg 12:5 counts three occurrences of ‫ה ֶא ְפ ָר ִתי‬.ַ In ML, however, this form occurs only once, 56 and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. Dotan and Reich (§‫)ה ֶא ְפ ָר ִתי‬ ַ suggest that the problem may be due to confusion with the similar form ‫א ְפ ָר ִתי‬, ֶ which occurs three times, as per MpL 1 Sam 1:1.

NOTE 95: JUDGES 13:7 ‫אכ ִלי‬ ְ ֹ ‫וְ ַאל־תּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

No note.

ְ ֹ ‫ וְ ַאל־תּ‬as unique. ML, however, has two occurrences of MpL Judg 13:7 marks ‫אכ ִלי‬ this form (Judg 13:4; 13:7), 57 and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. 236F

NOTE 96: JUDGES 13:10 ‫אמר ֵא ֔ ָליו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣תּ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע זקף‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times with the zaqeṕ qaṭan accent in this book.

MpA

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע זקף‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven times with the zaqeṕ qaṭan accent in this book.

MpC

No note.

֗‫בט בעי‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times with this accent in this section.

MpL Judg 13:10 counts seven occurrences in the book of Judges of ‫אמר ֵא ָליו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ תּ‬with zaqeṕ qaṭan on ‫א ָליו‬, ֵ whereas ML has a total of only six occurrences of this exact phrase (‫אמר ֵא ֔ ָליו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫)וַ תּ‬, only three of which appear in Judges: 58 237F

Likewise, MpA,C Judg 12:5; BHQ, “Judges,” 22*. Likewise, MpA Judg 13:7; BHQ, “Judges,” 23*; Dotan and Reich, §‫אכ ִלי‬ ְ ֹ ‫וְ ַאל־תּ‬. 58 BHQ (“Judges,” 23*) incorrectly states that the phrase ‫אמר ֵא ֔ ָליו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ תּ‬occurs twice within Judges, citing only Judg 13:10; 16:9. Also, MpC incorrectly counts only five occurrences within the section (= Judges?), and Perez Castro incorrectly affirms this tally, listing only forms 1–5 (Perez Castro, “Josue-Jueces,” 191). 56 57

JUDGES (1) Gen 24:24 (2) Gen 24:25 (3) Gen 27:42

79

(4) Judg 13:10 (5) Judg 16:9 (6) Judg 16:14

In an effort to resolve this corrupted MpL note, Weil emends the tally to six and completes the revised Mp note for all six occurrences of ‫אמר ֵא ָליו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ תּ‬in Judges in which mûnaḥ appears on ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ תּ‬regardless of the accent on ‫א ָליו‬: ֵ (1) Judg 4:18 (2) Judg 11:36 (3) Judg 13:10

‫אמר ֵא ֗ ָליו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣תּ‬ ‫אמר ֵא ֗ ָליו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣תּ‬ ‫אמר ֵא ֔ ָליו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣תּ‬

(4) Judg 16:9 (5) Judg 16:14 (6) Judg 16:15

‫אמר ֵא ֔ ָליו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣תּ‬ ‫אמר ֵא ֔ ָליו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣תּ‬ ‫אמר ֵא ֗ ָליו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣תּ‬

Though Weil’s attempt to resolve this problem is creative, he would have done better to revise MpL in accordance with MpV Judg 13:10, which counts six occurrences in the book of Judges of ‫( ֵא ָליו‬not ‫אמר ֵא ָליו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ )וַ תּ‬with the zaqeṕ qaṭan accent: 59 (1) Judg 3:13 (2) Judg 6:12 (3) Judg 6:17

(4) Judg 13:10 (5) Judg 16:9 (6) Judg 16:14

238F

Thus, MpL contains errors of frequency and dislocation.

NOTE 97: JUDGES 13:18 ‫ֶפ ִלאי‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל ויתיר ֗א‬ Unique and ‫ א‬is superfluous.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫יתי֗ ֗א‬ Superfluous ‫א‬.

MpL Judg 13:18 correctly notes that ‫ ֶפ ִלאי‬is unique. 60 The reason for the sub loco note is Weil’s supplemental note, which indicates that the superfluous ‫ א‬makes the form unique. 61 240F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫א ֔ ָליו‬, ֵ Judg 13:10. Likewise, MpA Judg 13:18; Dotan and Reich, §‫פ ִלאי‬.ֶ 61 See MpC Judg 13:18. 59 60

80

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 98: JUDGES 15:4 ‫שׁוּﬠ ִלים‬ ָ MpBHS MpL

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ The plene form is unique in the Prophets.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene.

ML contains four occurrences of the fully plene form ‫שׁוּﬠ ִלים‬: ָ (1) (2) (3) (4)

Judg 15:4 Song 2:15a Song 2:15b Lam 5:18

ָ 62 By contrast, MpL Judg 15:4 counts two occurrences of the fully plene form ‫שׁוּﬠ ִלים‬, reflecting a different text tradition according to which forms 2–3 are spelled without ‫ו‬. 63 Instead of simply printing MpL and noting the disagreement between ML and MpL, Weil restricts the scope of the note to the Prophets and emends the frequency note to accordingly. This is the principal reason for the sub loco note. ֗ ‫ב‬,֗ but Weil emends it to ‫֗ב‬ MpL Lam 5:18 also correctly presents the note ‫מל‬ ‫בכתיב‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ “twice plene in the Writings” and without featuring a sub loco note. Furthermore, he incorrectly completes the emended note for Song 2:15a and 2:15b. Weil’s emendation runs contrary to the normative Masorah and is therefore incorrect.

NOTE 99: JUDGES 15:17 ‫הי‬ ֙ ִ ְ‫ַ ֽו י‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ֗‫י‬ Ten times with this accent in this book.

MpA

No note.

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times with this accent in this book.

MpC

No note.

Likewise, MpA,C Judg 15:4; Breuer, The Biblical Text, 400. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁוּﬠ ִלים‬, ָ Judg 15:4. BHQ addresses this matter at Lam 5:18 (“Megilloth,” 34*) but not at Judg 15:4. 62 63

JUDGES

81

MpL Judg 15:17 counts only six occurrences of ‫ וַ יְ ִהי‬with the pašṭâ accent in the book of Judges, whereas in ML there are ten occurrences of the form: 64 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Judg 1:28 Judg 3:18 Judg 7:9 Judg 9:42 Judg 15:17

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Judg 16:4 Judg 16:25 Judg 19:1 Judg 19:5 Judg 21:4

243F

The frequency error, which Weil corrects, 65 may have arisen from confusion of ‫ י‬for the orthographically similar ‫ו‬. 66 245F

NOTE 100: JUDGES 16:11 ‫ָאסוֹר‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once defective and once plene.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once plene.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times plene.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫וא‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once plene and once defective.

ָ though the form MpL Judg 16:11 counts four occurrences of the plene form ‫אסוֹר‬, ָ observe that ML has four occuroccurs only once in ML. Dotan and Reich (§‫)אסוֹר‬ rences of plene verbal forms of .‫ר‬.‫ס‬.‫ א‬within the book of Judges: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Judg 15:10 Judg 16:11a Judg 16:11b Judg 16:21

‫ֶל ֱאסוֹר‬ ‫ָאסוֹר‬ ‫יַ ַא ְסרוּנִ י‬ ‫וַ יַּ ַא ְסרוּהוּ‬

MA,C have a fifth form in Judg 16:5 (‫)וַ ֲא ַס ְרנוּהוּ‬, however, for which reason the tally of four should be considered erroneous. 67 Weil emends MpL by (1) emending the 246F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫הי‬ ֙ ִ ְ‫וֽ י‬.ַ Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 23*. 66 Ginsburg (The Massorah, ‫ה‬, §172), on the other hand, counts only five occurrences of ‫הי‬ ֙ ִ ְ‫ ַוֽ י‬in Judges (forms 3, 6–9). Ginsburg’s list is also flawed in that he mistakenly lists Judg 19:8, which does not include ‫הי‬ ֙ ִ ְ‫וֽ י‬,ַ instead of Judg 19:5. The confusion likely arose because the catchphrase for 19:5 (�‫)ס ָﬠד ִל ְבּ‬ ְ resembles a similar phrase in 19:8 (�‫)ס ָﬠד־נָ א ְל ָב ְב‬. ְ 67 Ginsburg counts four occurrences but includes Judg 16:5 and not Judg 16:21. 64 65

82

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

ָ and (2) addfrequency note to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” in accordance with MpL Judg 15:13 (‫)אסֹר‬ ing the clarification that one is plene and the other is defective. 68 247F

NOTE 101: JUDGES 16:19 ‫רֹאשׁוֹ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫בנביא ֗ד‬ ֗ ‫֗ל ֗ב‬ Thirty-two times in the Prophets, four of which are in this book.

MpA

No note.

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times in the Prophets.

MpC

No note.

According to MpL Judg 16:19, ‫ רֹאשׁוֹ‬occurs only five times in the Prophets. Weil, however, correctly notes that the form occurs thirty-two times in the Prophets in ֗ ‫)ל ֗ב‬, ֗ and this completes his emendation of MpL 2 Kgs 9:6 (‫)ל ֗ב‬. ֗ The thirtyML (‫בנביא‬ two are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

Judg 5:26 Judg 13:5 Judg 16:19 Judg 16:22 1 Sam 1:11 1 Sam 4:12 1 Sam 10:1 1 Sam 14:45 1 Sam 17:5 1 Sam 17:38 1 Sam 17:51

(12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22)

1 Sam 31:9 2 Sam 1:2 2 Sam 1:10 2 Sam 4:7a 2 Sam 4:7b 2 Sam 12:30 2 Sam 14:26a 2 Sam 14:26b 2 Sam 15:30 2 Sam 15:32 2 Sam 16:9

(23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32)

2 Sam 18:9 2 Sam 20:21 1 Kgs 2:32 2 Kgs 9:3 2 Kgs 9:6 Isa 58:5 Jonah 4:6 Zech 2:4 Zech 3:5a Zech 3:5b

Weil also emends the frequency and scope of MpL Judg 16:19, revising it from ‫֗ה‬ ‫בנביא‬ ֗ “five times in the Prophets” to ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫…“ ֗ד‬four of them in this book.” 69 248F

Similarly, MpC Judg 16:11; BHQ, “Judges,” 24*. BHQ does not comment on this problem. Dotan and Reich (§‫)מ ְח ְלפוֹת רֹאשׁוֹ‬ ַ suggest that the circellus should have been placed over ‫ ַמ ְח ְלפוֹת רֹאשׁוֹ‬because ML contains five occurrences of the lemma ‫ רֹאשׁ‬preceded by a lemma that means or is synonymous with “hair.” They admit, however, that their sources do not include a Mp note that supports this conjecture. 68 69

JUDGES

83

NOTE 102: JUDGES 16:23 ‫אוֹיְבינוּ‬ ֵ MpBHS

֗‫חס י‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective ‫י‬.

MpA

No note.

MpL

MpC

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫]אוֹיְבנוּ[ ֗ב‬ ֵ Twice written thus. ֗‫חס י‬ ֗ [‫]אוֹיְבנוּ‬ ֵ Defective ‫י‬.

The texts of ML and BHS present the fully plene form ‫אוֹיְבינוּ‬ ֵ in Judg 16:23. Weil reads against the text, however, by marking the form as one of two defective ‫ י‬forms of ‫אוֹיְבנוּ‬. ֵ The Mp note ֗‫חס י‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ב‬is a completion of the first half of MpL Judg 16:24: ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫למד‬ ֗ ֗‫חס י‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬twice defective ‫ ;י‬plene in the Eastern tradition.” MmA Judg 16:23 indicates that the two defective occurrences appear in Judg 16:23 and Judg 16:24, 70 and this is consistent with the text of MA. By contrast, the only instance of the defective ‫ י‬form ‫אוֹיְבנוּ‬ ֵ in the text of ML appears in the second hand’s emendation of Judg 16:24. Thus, Weil includes a sub loco note here because he completes a masoretic note that contradicts the text.

NOTE 103: JUDGES 16:24 ‫אוֹיְבנוּ‬ ֵ MpBHS MpL

֗‫חס י‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective ‫י‬.

MpA

No note.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫למד‬ ֗ ֗‫חס י‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective ‫ ;י‬plene in the Eastern tradition.

MpC

No note [‫]אוֹיְבינוּ‬. ֵ

ֵ whereas the second hand The first hand of ML presents the plene ‫ י‬form ‫אוֹיְבינוּ‬, emends the form to the defective ‫אוֹיְבנוּ י‬. ֵ This is the only instance in ML where this defective form occurs. By contrast, MpL Judg 16:24 notes that the Western tradition considers this form to be one of two such defective forms. MmA Judg 16:23 indicates that the two occurrences appear in Judg 16:23 and Judg 16:24, 71 and this is 250F

70

‫ וכל עזרא אויבינו כתב בר מן חד כתב איבינו ולגשם‬.‫וסרני פלשתים ושלאחריו אויבנו כתב‬ .‫ וכל שאר קרייה דכותה איבינו כתב‬.‫“ הערבי וליתר איבינו‬In Judg 16:23 and 16:24 ‫ אויבנו‬is written; and every instance in Ezra ‫ אויבינו‬is written except for one, which is written ‫איבינו‬: Neh 6:1; and in all the rest of the Bible ‫ איבינו‬is likewise written.” Breuer (The Biblical Text, 64) ֵ In observes MS1,V and MmS1,V further corroborate MmA. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫אוֹיְבנוּ‬. MC only the second hand reads the defective form in Judg 16:23. 71 See note 102.

84

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

consistent with the text of MA. Weil is therefore correct to print the first half of MpL Judg 16:24 ( ֗‫חס י‬ ֗ ‫)ב‬ ֗ here and to complete it in Judg 16:23 against the text of ML. The contra textum Mp note that he prints in BHS is the first reason for this sub loco note. The second is that he chooses not to print the second half of MpL Judg 16:24, which notes that the Eastern tradition favors the plene reading (‫מל‬ ֗ ‫)למד‬. ֗

NOTE 104: JUDGES 18:2 ‫אמרוּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ MpBHS

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice in the Prophets. No note.

MpL

MpA MpC

‫֗ג‬ Three times. No note.

This MpBHS note is a completion of Weil’s revision of MpL Josh 9:21 (see note 14).

NOTE 105: JUDGES 18:5 ‫ְשׁ ַאל־נָ א‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 18:5 counts three occurrences of ‫שׁ ַאל־נָ א‬. ְ This form occurs five times in ML, however, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. The five references are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Deut 4:32 Judg 18:5 Hag 2:11 Job 8:8 Job 12:7

Instead of narrowing the scope to the Torah and the Prophets, as per BHK, 72 Weil opts to emend the frequency.

See the critical note at Judg 18:5; Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 24*. Dotan and Reich (§‫ ) ְשׁ ַאל־נָ א‬emend the note to ‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג וכל איוב‬three times, and all of Job likewise.” 72

JUDGES

85

NOTE 106: JUDGES 18:12 ‫ְבּ ִק ְריַת יְ ָﬠ ִרים‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once in this book.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

No note.

Following BHK, Weil adds the clarification ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ “in this book” to MpL’s note ‫֗ל‬ 73 “unique.” The phrase also occurs in 1 Sam 7:2 in ML, for which reason Dotan and Reich (§‫)בּ ִק ְריַ ת יְ ָﬠ ִרים‬ ְ emend the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice.” 74 253F

NOTE 107: JUDGES 18:28 ‫ְרחוֹב‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫מל שם קריה‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene as the name of a city.

MpA

‫בקר‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene as the name of a city.

MpC

‫בקרית‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene as the name of a city. No note.

MpL Judg 18:28 correctly notes that the plene form ‫ ְרחוֹב‬occurs only twice in ML as a place name (Judg 18:28; 2 Sam 10:6). 75 By contrast, MpL 2 Sam 10:6 indicates that there are three such forms (‫בקר‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫)ג‬. ֗ 76 The scope of this latter note, however, appears to include ‫ ְרחוֹב‬and the one similar case of ‫( ְוּרחוֹב‬2 Sam 10:8), and Weil emends the Masorah accordingly. Thus, the three forms and their references are: (1) Judg 18:28 ‫ְרחוֹב‬ (2) 2 Sam 10:6 ‫ְרחוֹב‬ (3) 2 Sam 10:8 ‫ְוּרחוֹב‬

73 74

book.”

75 76

BHQ does not comment on this problem. They do, however, acknowledge the alternative solution ‫“ ֗ל בסיפרא‬unique in this See also Dotan and Reich, §‫רחוֹב‬,ְ Judg 18:28. Likewise, MpA Judg 18:28.

86

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 108: JUDGES 19:5 ‫ֲח ָתנוֹ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

No note.

MpL Judg 19:5 counts two occurrences of ‫ח ָתנוֹ‬.ֲ This form occurs only here in ML, however, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. 77 256F

NOTE 109: JUDGES 19:6 ‫הוֹאל‬ ֶ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 19:6 counts five occurrences of ‫הוֹאל‬, ֶ whereas ML contains only two occurrences of this form: Judg 19:6; 2 Kgs 6:3. There are, however, two other forms of the hifil masculine singular imperative that have ṣerê as the graphical sign for the theme vowel, and these raise the total to four: 78 (1) (2) (3) (4)

Judg 19:6 2 Sam 7:29 ‫הוֹאל‬ ֵ 2 Kgs 5:23 ‫הוֹאל‬ ֵ 2 Kgs 6:3

257F

Weil prints this emended Mp note for all four forms, and it is his emendation of the frequency note that is the reason for this sub loco note.

See also BHQ, “Judges,” 25*; Dotan and Reich, §‫ח ָתנוֹ‬.ֲ In MA the forms ‫ ֲח ָתנוֹ‬and ‫ ְס ָﬠד‬appear adjacently and are marked with the Mp notes ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” and ‫“ ֗ב‬twice,” respectively. Furthermore, in MC ‫ ְס ָﬠד‬is marked with the Mp note ‫ב‬,֗ while ‫ ֲח ָתנוֹ‬does not receive an Mp note. Thus, it seems that MpL applies the circellus to the wrong form. 78 Likewise, Ginsburg, 1, ‫י‬, §52; BHQ, “Judges,” 25*; Dotan and Reich, §‫הוֹאל‬. ֵ 77

JUDGES

87

NOTE 110: JUDGES 19:13 �‫ְל‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫לכה ֗ק חד מן ֗ג‬ Read ‫ ;לכה‬one of three defective forms with this meaning.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

‫חס בהליכה‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective with the meaning “going.”

MpC

‫הליכ‬ ֗ ‫בלש‬ ֗ ‫חס ֗ה‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times lacking ‫ ה‬with the meaning “going.”

As Mynatt, Kelley, and Crawford observe, the form �‫ ְל‬is not a prepositional phrase but the defective paragogic form of the qal masculine singular imperative of .‫ך‬.‫ל‬.‫ה‬. 79 According to MmL Isa 3:6 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §2214), there are three such defective forms: 80 258F

(1) (2) (3)

259F

Num 23:13 Judg 19:13 2 Chr 25:17

Instead of printing MpL Judg 19:13, Weil completes his revision of MpL Num 23:13 (‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫)לכה ֗ק ֗ג‬, which contains two conflicting notes: 81 a note indicating that the form should be written and read defective and a qərê in support of the plene ‫ ה‬reading. It is his revision of MpL Judg 19:13 that is the reason for this sub loco note. In his commentary, he possibly would have addressed the incorrectness of the qərê, which is at variance with MmL Isa 3:6 and MpA,L,C Judg 19:13.

Kelley, Mynatt, and Crawford, The Masorah, 98. .‫ולכה לישעתה לנו‬. ‫ שמלה לכה‬.‫ ולכה אין בשורה מצאת‬.‫ ולכה אפוא מה אעשה‬:‫מל‬ ֗ ‫לכה ֗ד‬ .‫דדבר ימים‬ ֗ ‫ נתראה פנים‬.‫ ויאמר אליו בלק‬.‫ ויאמר לנערו לך‬:‫“ וכל לשון הליכה דכותהון ֗ב ֗מ ֗ג‬there are four occurrences of plene ‫לכה‬: Gen 27:37; 2 Sam 18:22; Isa 3:6; Ps 80:3; and every instance of .‫ך‬.‫ל‬.‫ ה‬is like them except for three: Judg 19:13; Num 23:13; 2 Chr 25:17.” Likewise, MpC and MmC Judg 19:13; Ginsburg, 1, ‫י‬, §356; Dotan and Reich, §�‫ל‬,ְ 2 Chr 25:17; similarly, MpA Judg 19:13. 81 Surprisingly, Weil does not present a sub loco note for Num 23:13. 79 80

88

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 111: JUDGES 19:21 ‫יָּבול‬ ָ ַ‫ו‬ MpBHS MpL

‫ויבל ֗ק‬ Read ‫ויבל‬.

MpA

֗‫יתיר ו‬ Superfluous ‫ו‬.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times plene.

MpC

֗‫יתי֗ ו‬ Superfluous ‫ו‬.

As ‫ ויבול‬is vocalized to read ‫וַ ָיָּבל‬, Weil adds a qərê not found in MpL. 82 The plene ‫ו‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ה‬five times kəṯîḇ ‫ ויבול‬is unique in ML as is the defective qərê ‫וַ ָיָּבל‬. The MpL note ‫מל‬ ֵ ‫וַ ִיְב‬, which is found two plene” is invariably a dittography of the MpL note for ‫יאהוּ‬ words prior. 83 26F

NOTE 112: JUDGES 19:28 ‫קוּמי וְ נֵ ֵל ָכה‬ ִ MpBHS

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫]וְ נֵ ֵל ָכה[ ֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 19:28 marks ‫ וְ נֵ ֵל ָכה‬as unique, though the form occurs three times in ML: (1) (2) (3)

Gen 33:12 Gen 43:8 Judg 19:28

Noting that the phrase ‫קוּמי וְ נֵ ֵל ָכה‬ ִ is unique in ML, Weil repositions the circellus above the two terms and so resolves what he regards as a dislocation error. 84 Dotan and Reich (§‫)וְ נֵ ֵל ָכה‬, on the other hand, emend the note to ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬once with this accent” because Judg 19:28 is distinct from the other occurrences in that it is accented with ṭiṕḥâ.

Similarly, MpA,C Judg 19:21. Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 25*; Dotan and Reich, §‫יָּבול‬ ָ ַ‫ו‬. 84 Likewise, BHQ, “Judges,” 25*. 82 83

JUDGES

89

NOTE 113: JUDGES 19:28 ‫ִל ְמקֹמוֹ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫אורית ושמואל‬ ֗ ‫בסיפ וכל‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective in this book and all instances in the Torah and Samuel likewise.

MpA

No note.

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective. 85

MpC

No note.

See note 79 (Judg 7:7).

NOTE 114: JUDGES 19:29 ‫וַ יְ נַ ְתּ ֶח ָה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note. ‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL Judg 19:29 counts two occurrences of ‫וַ יְ נַ ְתּ ֶח ָה‬. In ML, however, the form occurs only here, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. 86 265F

NOTE 115: JUDGES 20:9 ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫֗ד רפי֗ וכל וידבר‬ Four times raṕê and all occurrences within the book of Numbers likewise.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

No note.

Unlike BHS (and BHQ), BHK mistakenly prints the circellus between ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫יה ְבּ‬ ָ ‫ﬠ ֶל‬,ָ L which occurs only once in M , not four times. This is surely one of the reasons why 85 86

Note that BHQ (“Judges,” 25*) fails to translate ‫חס‬ ֗ “defective.” See also MC Judg 19:29; BHQ, “Judges,” 25*; Dotan and Reich, §‫וַ יְ נַ ְתּ ֶח ָה‬.

90

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Weil has added a sub loco note. Yet correcting the rubric to ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ‬does not in and ָ ‫בּ‬/‫ל‬ ְ ‫גוֹר‬ ַ ‫בּ‬:ְ of itself solve the problem, as ML has eight occurrences of ‫גוֹרל‬ (1) (2) (3) (4)

Num 26:55 Num 33:54 Num 34:13 Num 36:2

‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Josh 14:2 Josh 19:51 Judg 20:9 Mic 2:5

‫גוֹרל‬ ַ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬

(5) (6) (7) (8)

Josh 14:2 Josh 19:51 Judg 20:9 Mic 2:5

‫גוֹרל‬ ַ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬

MmC Mic 2:5, which reads virtually identically to Weil’s emended Mp note for Judg 20:9, appears to provide the solution. 87 According to MmC, the tally of four includes indefinite forms (i.e., raṕê, and thus ‫גוֹרל‬ ַ ‫בּ‬/‫ל‬ ְ ‫גוֹר‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ‬and not ‫גּוֹרל‬ ַ ‫בּ‬/‫ל‬ ַ ‫גּוֹר‬ ָ ‫)בּ‬ ַ outside of the book of Numbers, and the catchwords indicate that the four are:

From his completion of the Masorah for forms 1–3 above, it seems likely that Weil follows MmC, though he does not complete the Masorah accordingly at Mic 2:5. But because he does not include a contra textum note there and because it is the only additional form of ‫גוֹרל‬ ַ ‫בּ‬/‫ל‬ ְ ‫גוֹר‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ‬outside of the book of Numbers, it must be his fourth form. 88 267F

NOTE 116: JUDGES 20:11 ‫וַ יֵּ ָא ֵסף‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫וב מלרע‬ ֗ ‫ז֗ ֗ה מלעיל‬ Seven times, five times milʿêl and twice milraʿ.

MpA

‫֗ב משה‬ Twice; Num 11:30.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

ML contains seven occurrences of ‫ וַ יֵּ ָא ֵסף‬and its counterpart ‫וַ יֵּ ָא ֶסף‬:

.‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫ וכל וידבר‬.‫ משליך‬.‫ לגבעה‬.‫ נחלתם‬.‫ הנחלות‬:‫רפ וסימנהוֹן‬ ֗ ‫“ ְב�ורל ֗ד‬there are four occurrences of the rap̄ê form ‫ב�ורל‬,ְ and their reference are: Josh 19:51; 14:2; 20:9; Mic 2:5; and all Numbers likewise.” See also Dotan and Reich, §‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫בּ‬.ְ 88 Given the opaqueness of MpL, it is surprising the BHQ does not address the matter. 87

JUDGES (1) (2) (3) (4)

Gen 25:8 Gen 25:17 Gen 35:29 Gen 49:33

91

(5) Num 11:30 ‫וַ יֵּ ָא ֵסף‬ (6) Deut 32:50 ‫וַ יֵּ ָא ֶסף‬ (7) Judg 20:11 ‫וַ יֵּ ָא ֵסף‬

‫וַ יֵּ ָא ֶסף‬ ‫וַ יֵּ ָא ֶסף‬ ‫וַ יֵּ ָא ֶסף‬ ‫וַ יֵּ ָא ֶסף‬

Weil completes the Masorah in all seven instances with the note ‫וב מלרע‬ ֗ ‫ז֗ ֗ה מלעיל‬ “seven times, five times milʿêl and twice milraʿ,” which, as Ginsburg suggests, 89 is a conflation of three complementary MpL notes: ֗‫( ז‬Gen 49:33), ‫( ֗ב‬Num 11:30), and ‫ָ֗ה‬ (Deut 32:50, [qameṣ = milʿêl stress]). MpL Judg 20:11 incorrectly counts three milraʿ forms instead of two, 90 and this is the reason for the sub loco note. 91 269F

270F

NOTE 117: JUDGES 20:17 ‫ִה ְת ָפּ ְקדוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

No note.

MpL Judg 20:17 marks ‫ ִה ְת ָפּ ְקדוּ‬as unique, whereas the form occurs twice in ML: Judg 20:15; 20:17. MpL Judg 20:15 presents the correct tally, 92 and Weil correctly emends MpL Judg 20:17 to two. 93 271F

27F

Ginsburg, 4, ‫א‬, §1008; note, however, that Ginsburg mistakenly states that the milraʿ forms are pointed with səḡôl. BHQ, on the other hand, mistakenly excludes Deut 32:50 and includes Gen 49:33 twice (BHQ, Judges, 25*). 90 Likewise, MpA,C Judg 20:11. 91 See Mynatt, Sub Loco, 163; cf. MpA Judg 20:11; MmC Judg 20:11, which reads: ‫ויאסף ֗ב‬ .‫ כל איש ישראל‬.‫ ויאסף משה‬:‫“ וסימנהון‬there are two occurrences of ‫ויאסף‬, and their references are Num 11:30; Judg 20:11.” Dotan and Reich (§‫ )וַ יֵּ ָא ֵסף‬conjecture that the tally of three includes occurrences of ‫ וַ יֵּ ָא ֵסף‬and ‫ יֵ ָא ֵסף‬that begin a verse (Num 11:30; Judg 20:11; 20:24). However, without corroboration from the Masorah it is more reasonable to treat the tally of three as a frequency error. 92 Likewise, MpA Judg 20:17; BHQ, “Judges,” 26*. 93 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ ִה ְת ָפּ ְקדוּ‬, Judg 20:17. 89

92

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 118: JUDGES 20:20 ‫ִא ָתּם‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫֗לז‬ Thirty-seven times.

MpA

No note.

֗‫֗לו‬ Thirty-six times.

MpC

No note.

As BHQ notes, the tally of thirty-six presented here should be thirty-seven. 94 Elsewhere, MpL presents the correct tally, 95 and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. The references are: 96 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Gen 7:13 Gen 11:31 Gen 14:8 Gen 23:8 Gen 34:8 Gen 40:4 Gen 42:7 Gen 43:16 Exod 6:4 Exod 12:38 Exod 34:33 Lev 16:16 Lev 26:39

(14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)

Lev 26:44 Num 22:20 Num 32:19 Deut 28:69 Josh 22:15 Judg 20:20 1 Sam 25:15 2 Sam 12:17 1 Kgs 20:23 2 Kgs 6:4 2 Kgs 17:35 2 Kgs 22:7 Isa 14:20

(27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37)

Isa 30:8 Isa 60:9 Isa 65:23 Jer 27:18 Ezek 30:5 Ezek 34:30 Ezek 38:5 Prov 1:15 Prov 24:1 Dan 1:19 2 Chr 22:12

NOTE 119: JUDGES 20:23 ‫ָלגֶ ֶשׁת‬ MpBHS

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

‫]לגֶ ֶשׁת ַל ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה[ ֗ל‬ ָ Unique.

MpL

MpA MpC

‫]לגֶ ֶשׁת ַל ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה[ ֗ל‬ ָ Unique. No note.

BHQ, “Judges,” 26*, though the Ginsburg reference that BHQ features should read “Ginsburg, 1, ‫א‬, §1455.” The corruption of the frequency note may be due to the resemblance of ‫ ו‬and ‫ז‬. 95 E.g., MpL 1 Sam 25:15. 96 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫א ָתּם‬, ִ Judg 20:20. 94

JUDGES

93

MpL Judg 20:23 correctly notes that the phrase ‫ ָלגֶ ֶשׁת ַל ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬occurs only once. 97 BHK, however, misreads MpL, featuring ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” instead of ‫“ ֗ל‬unique.” Weil follows BHK and attempts to resolve what he perceives to be a frequency error by repositioning the circellus over ‫לגֶ ֶשׁת‬,ָ which does occur twice in ML: Judg 20:23; Jer 30:21. Though his emendation includes correct information, Weil’s decision to emend is mistaken.

NOTE 120: JUDGES 20:36 ‫ָב ְטחוּ ֶאל‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫י֗ בטח אל‬ ‫ בטח אל‬occurs ten times.

MpA

֗‫י‬ Ten times.

MpC

֗‫י֗ בלשנ‬ Ten times in this and similar cases. 98

No note.

MpL Judg 20:36 counts ten occurrences of ‫ב ְטחוּ ֶאל‬,ָ but the phrase occurs only once ֗ ֗‫“ י‬ten times in this in ML. MpL Prov 3:5, however, has the complementary note ‫בליש‬ and similar cases,” 99 which indicates that the scope is broader than ‫ ָב ְטחוּ ֶאל‬itself. MmA Judg 20:36 lists the ten occurrences of the root .‫ח‬.‫ט‬.‫ ב‬combined with the nonsuffixed preposition ‫ ֶאל‬instead of ‫ﬠל‬,ַ 100 and Weil emends MpL to reflect this phenomenon. The ten occurrences with their immediate context are: 101 279F

280F

Likewise, MpA Judg 20:23; Dotan and Reich, §‫לגֶ ֶשׁת ַל ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬.ָ The first hand presents the tally of 11 (‫)י֗ ֗א‬, but the ‫ א‬has been partially erased to bring the tally to ten ( ֗‫ )י‬in accordance with MmA Judg 20:36: : ֗‫כל לשון בטיחה על קרי בר מן י‬ ‫ בטח אל‬.‫ זבחו זבחי‬.‫תבטחו לכם אל ֗ד‬ ְ ‫ אל‬.‫ ואל יבטח‬.‫ ואל יבטח‬.‫ וכי תאמר‬.‫כי בטחו אל הארב‬ .‫ כי מי אשר יחבר‬.‫ שנאתי השמרים‬.‫“ יהוה‬every instance is read ‫ בטיחה על‬except for ten: Judg 20:36; 2 Kgs 18:22; Isa 36:7; 2 Kgs 18:30; Isa 36:15; Jer 7:4; Ps 4:6; Prov 3:5; Ps 31:7; Qoh 9:4.” 99 Likewise, MpA Judg 20:36; BHQ, “Judges,” 26*. 100 Like MmA, Ginsburg (4, ‫ב‬, §217) fails to note that suffixed forms of the preposition are excluded. 101 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ב ְטחוּ ֶאל־‬. ָ 97 98

94

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Judg 20:36 2 Kgs 18:22 2 Kgs 18:30 Isa 36:7 Isa 36:15 Jer 7:4 Ps 4:6 Ps 31:7 Prov 3:5 Qoh 9:4

‫ל־הא ֵֹרב‬ ָ ‫ִכּי ָב ְטחוּ ֶא‬ ‫�הינוּ ָבּ ָט ְחנוּ‬ ֵ ‫ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫ל־יַב ַטח ֶא ְת ֶכם ִחזְ ִקיָּ הוּ ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה‬ ְ ‫וְ ַא‬ ‫�הינוּ ָבּ ָט ְחנוּ‬ ֵ ‫ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫ל־יַב ַטח ֶא ְת ֶכם ִחזְ ִקיָּ הוּ ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה‬ ְ ‫וְ ַא‬ ‫ל־דּ ְב ֵרי ַה ֶשּׁ ֶקר‬ ִ ‫ל־תּ ְב ְטחוּ ָל ֶכם ֶא‬ ִ ‫ַא‬ ‫וּב ְטחוּ ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה‬ ִ ‫ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה ָבּ ָט ְח ִתּי‬ ‫ְבּ ַטח ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫ל־ה ַחיִּ ים יֵ שׁ ִבּ ָטּחוֹן‬ ַ ‫ֶאל ָכּ‬

NOTE 121: JUDGES 20:42 ‫יתים‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְשׁ ִח‬ MpBHS MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫֗ח ֗ד‬ Eight times, four of which are plene.

MpA

֗‫ז‬ Seven times.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times plene. No note.

ִ ‫מ ְשׁ ִח‬, ַ if one includes As per MpL Judg 20:42, ML contains seven occurences of ‫יתים‬ the three occurrences of ‫ ַמ ְשׁ ִח ִתים‬and ‫יתם‬ ִ ‫מ ְשׁ ִח‬. ַ 102 MpL Gen 19:13 and MpL 2 Sam 20:15 present the tally of eight, 103 however, which includes the only similar, prefixed form ‫יתם‬ ִ ‫ה ַמּ ְשׁ ִח‬.ַ Weil chooses to standardize the Masorah according to this higher tally. The eight are: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Gen 19:13 Judg 20:42 1 Sam 6:5 2 Sam 20:15

‫ַמ ְשׁ ִח ִתים‬ ‫יתים‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְשׁ ִח‬ ‫יתם‬ ִ ‫ַה ַמּ ְשׁ ִח‬ ‫יתם‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְשׁ ִח‬

(5) (6) (7) (8)

Isa 1:4 Jer 6:28 Jer 22:7 2 Chr 27:2

‫יתים‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְשׁ ִח‬ ‫יתים‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְשׁ ִח‬ ‫ַמ ְשׁ ִח ִתים‬ ‫יתים‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְשׁ ִח‬

Weil also completes MpL Isa 1:4 (‫מל‬ ֗ ‫)ד‬, ֗ which counts fully plene forms. 104 283F

See Dotan and Reich, §‫יתים‬ ִ ‫מ ְשׁ ִח‬, ַ Judg 20:42. MpL elsewhere presents the tally of seven: Jer 6:28; Jer 22:7; 2 Chr 27:2. 103 Also counting eight occurrences are MpC 2 Sam 20:15; MmV Gen 19:13; Ginsburg, 2, ‫ש‬, §345; see also BHQ, “Judges,” 26*. 104 Weil completes MpL Isa 1:4 for three of the four: Judg 20:42; Isa 1:4; 2 Chr 27:2. His failure to do so for Jer 6:28 is surely a mere oversight. 102

JUDGES

95

NOTE 122: JUDGES 20:48 ‫ַהנִּ ְמ ָצאוֹת‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫מל וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once plene and once defective.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times plene.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫מל וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once plene and once defective. No note.

MpL Judg 20:48 counts four occurrences of the plene ‫הנִּ ְמ ָצאוֹת‬,ַ whereas the form occurs only this once in ML. Weil emends the Masorah in accordance with a rule found in MpA Judg 20:48, which counts two forms of ‫הנִּ ְמ ָצאוֹת‬:ַ one plene (Judg 20:48) and one defective (Gen 19:15). 105 284F

NOTE 123: JUDGES 21:18 ‫ָא ֕רוּר‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בטע‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven times with this accent.

MpA

No note.

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ח‬ Eight times with this accent.

MpC

No note.

MpL Judg 21:18 counts eight occurrences of ‫( ָא ֕רוּר‬with the zaqeṕ gaḏôl accent), whereas ML contains only seven occurrences. The tally rises to eight, however, if one includes the similar form ‫וְ ָא ֕רוּר‬: 106 (1) (2) (3) (4)

Deut 27:16 Deut 27:17 Deut 27:18 Deut 27:21

285F

‫ָא ֕רוּר‬ ‫ָא ֕רוּר‬ ‫ָא ֕רוּר‬ ‫ָא ֕רוּר‬

(5) (6) (7) (8)

Deut 27:23 Deut 27:24 Judg 21:18 Jer 48:10b

‫ָא ֕רוּר‬ ‫ָא ֕רוּר‬ ‫ָא ֕רוּר‬ ‫וְ ָא ֕רוּר‬

Weil chooses to standardize the Masorah according to MpL Deut 27:18 (‫בטע‬ ֗ ֗‫)ז‬, L 107 however, and thus emends Mp Judg 21:18 accordingly. 286F

Likewise, Ginsburg, 2, ‫מ‬, §670; BHQ, “Judges,” 26*; Dotan and Reich, §‫הנִּ ְמ ָצאוֹת‬.ַ See also Ginsburg, 1, ‫א‬, §1119; Dotan and Reich, §‫א ֕רוּר‬,ָ Judg 21:18. 107 BHQ (“Judges,” 26*), on the other hand, treats the tally of seven as a frequency er105 106

ror.

96

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 124: JUDGES 21:22 ‫ִאישׁ ִא ְשׁתּוֹ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

No note.

MpL Judg 21:22 counts three occurrences of ‫אישׁ ִא ְשׁתּוֹ‬, ִ whereas ML has only two: 108 Judg 21:21; 21:22. Weil emends the frequency accordingly. 287F

108

Likewise, MpA Judg 21:22; BHQ, “Judges,” 26*; Dotan and Reich, §‫אישׁ ִא ְשׁתּוֹ‬. ִ

CHAPTER 4: 1 SAMUEL NOTE 125: 1 SAMUEL 2:6 ‫וּמ ַחיֶּ ה‬ ְ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL 1 Sam 2:6 counts two occurrences of the form ‫וּמ ַחיֶּ ה‬, ְ which is correct only if the one other similar form is included: ‫( ְמ ַחיֶּ ה‬Neh 9:6). 1 Instead of completing MpL 1 Sam 2:6, Weil emends it to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique,” as per MpA,C 1 Sam 2:6.

NOTE 126: 1 SAMUEL 2:10 ‫יַ ְר ֵﬠם‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 2:10 counts three occurrences of ‫יַ ְר ֵﬠם‬. ML, however, has four, and Weil emends the frequency note accordingly. The four are: (1) (2) (3) (4)

1

1 Sam 2:10 2 Sam 22:14 Job 37:4 Job 37:5

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וּמ ַחיֶּ ה‬. ְ

97

98

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Dotan and Reich (§‫יַ ְר ֵﬠם‬, 1 Sam 2:10) observe that the tally of three is correct if the two instances in Job are counted as one. One must note, however, that for this to work, the two occurrences in Samuel need to be distinguished. It is at least equally possible that the tally of three may have been misapplied to ‫ יַ ְר ֵﬠם‬2 as a result of confusion with the consonantally identical form ‫יִ ְר ֵﬠם‬, for which MmL lists three forms: 3 290F

(1) Hos 4:16 (2) Hos 9:2 (3) Ps 49:15

NOTE 127: 1 SAMUEL 2:20 ‫וְ ָה ְלכוּ ִל ְמקֹמוֹ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note [‫]וְ ָה ְלכוּ ִל ְמקוֹמוֹ‬. ‫( וְ ָה ְלכו ִל ְמקוֹמוֹ[ ֗ל‬sic)]. Unique.

MpL 1 Sam 2:20 counts two occurrences of ‫( וְ ָה ְלכוּ ִל ְמקֹמוֹ‬regardless of whether ‫ ִל ְמקֹמוֹ‬is spelled defective or plene), though this phrase occurs only this once in ML, as per Weil’s emendation. 4 While the frequency error is the primary reason for this sub loco note, Weil may also wish to draw attention to the spelling of ‫ל ְמקֹמוֹ‬.ִ It is clear from his treatment of other MpL notes that he reads the plene form for 1 Sam 2:20. For further discussion of the plene form ‫ל ְמקוֹמוֹ‬,ִ see note 79 (Judg 7:7).

NOTE 128: 1 SAMUEL 2:25 ‫יתם‬ ָ ‫ַל ֲה ִמ‬ MpBHS

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once defective and once plene. ‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpL

MpA

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice. No note.

MpL also presents the frequency note ‫ ֗ג‬for form 2. See note 268 (2 Sam 22:14). The frequency note ‫ ֗ג‬is presented, for example, in MmL Hos 4:16 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §3007); MmA Hos 9:2. See BHQ, “The Twelve Minor Prophets,” 36*. 4 Likewise, MpC 1 Sam 2:20. Dotan and Reich (§‫ )וְ ָה ְלכוּ ִל ְמקוֹמוֹ‬conjecture that the tally of two includes the one similar occurrence (‫קוֹמם‬ ָ ‫ה ְלכוּ ִל ְמ‬,ָ 1 Sam 14:46), but this solution is not supported in the sources. 2 3

1 SAMUEL

99

Though the plene ‫ י‬form ‫יתם‬ ָ ‫ ַל ֲה ִמ‬occurs only once in ML, MpL counts two, 5 including the unique form ‫( ַל ֲה ִמ ָתם‬Deut 9:28). 6 Weil adds a sub loco note because he supplements MpL 1 Sam 2:25 by noting that one form is plene and one form is defective. 7 293F

294F

NOTE 129: 1 SAMUEL 2:34 ‫יָב ֹא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective in this book.

MpA

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective in this book.

MpC

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective in this book.

No note.

This sub loco note is significant in that it concerns Weil’s emendation of a MpL note that agrees with MpA. MpL 1 Sam 2:34 counts only one occurrence in Samuel of the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫יָבֹא‬, whereas ML contains two such occurrences: 1 Sam 2:34; 2 Sam 15:37b. 8 Weil emends the Masorah in accordance with the text of ML by raising the frequency from one to two, and he completes the revised Mp note (‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫)ב‬ ֗ for 2 Sam 15:37b. The weight of evidence is against Weil’s decision, however. In MA,C the defective form occurs only in 1 Sam 2:34, and MpA,L mark 1 Sam 2:34 as the only occurrence. 9 Weil is, therefore, incorrect to treat MpL 1 Sam 2:34 as a frequency error. Instead, he should have printed the MpL note without emendation and commented on the discrepancy between ML and MpL in the commentary. 296F

Likewise, MpA 1 Sam 2:25. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫יתם‬ ָ ‫ל ֲה ִמ‬.ַ 7 Likewise, Mynatt, Sub Loco, 194. 8 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫יָבֹא‬, 1 Sam 2:34 9 For additional evidence in support of MpL, see Breuer, The Biblical Text, 92. 5 6

100

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 130: 1 SAMUEL 3:18 ‫ְבּ ֵﬠינָ ו‬ MpBHS

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫בליש וחד מן ֗ח‬ ֗ ‫בעיניו ֗ק חד מן י֗ ֗א‬ Read ‫ ;בעיניו‬one of eleven in this and similar forms and one of eight written thus.

No note.

MpL

MpA

‫בעיניו ֗ק‬ Read ‫בעיניו‬.

MpC

‫ניו ֗ק‬ Read ‫בעיניו‬.

‫ – בעיניו ֗ק‬Weil marks this MpBHS note “sub loco” partly because he adds a qərê (‫ )בעיניו‬that is not present in MpL. That this qərê is found in MpA,C supports Weil’s decision.

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫ – חד מן י֗ ֗א‬Weil mistakenly marks ‫ ְבּ ֵﬠינָ יו‬as one of eleven similar cases. The tally of eleven is correct for ‫ וְ ֵﬠינָ יו‬10 but not for ‫בּ ֵﬠינָ יו‬,ְ which occurs forty-nine times in ML. For most occurrences of ‫ ְבּ ֵﬠינָ יו‬Weil prints the MpL note ‫“ נ֗ ֗א‬fifty-one times,” 11 and thus it is likely that he also intended to print this frequency note for 1 Sam 3:18. 12 This, too, may be one of Weil’s reasons for this sub loco note. By adding this qərê to the MpBHS 1 Sam 3:18 and an identical qərê to MpBHS Prov 6:13, 13 Weil increases the number of forms of ‫ ְבּ ֵﬠינָ יו‬from forty-nine (as per ML) to fiftyone (as per MpL). The fifty-one references are: 14

See, for example, Ginsburg, 2, ‫ע‬, §316, which lists the following references: 1 Sam 3:2; 1 Sam 4:15; 2 Kgs 4:34; Isa 6:10; Isa 17:7; Jer 32:4; Ezek 18:6; Ezek 18:15; Zech 14:12; Job 41:10; Dan 10:6. Weil includes ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫ חד מן י֗ ֗א‬as part of the larger MpBHS note for the qərê ‫ וְ ֵﬠינָ יו‬in 1 Sam 3:2. 11 MpL presents the frequency note ‫ נ֗ ֗א‬in Ps 36:3; Job 15:15; 25:5; Prov 21:2; 21:10; 26:5; 26:12; 26:16; 28:11; 30:12; Ruth 2:2; Esth 2:9; 3:6; 5:2; 1 Chr 19:13. Note that though all of these MpL notes are contra textum, BHQ does not address this matter in the “Proverbs” and “Megilloth” fascicles. 12 The only other two occurrences of ‫ ְבּ ֵﬠינָ יו‬for which Weil does not present the frequency note ‫ נ֗ ֗א‬are Judg 21:25 and 2 Sam 4:10. These two omissions appear to be a mere oversight, however. 13 MmL 1 Sam 3:2 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1543) provides confirmation that Weil is correct in emending Prov 6:13: .‫ ועברה‬.‫ הנער הצפה‬.‫ יעשה‬.‫ החלו‬:‫וקר עיניו וסימנהון‬ ֗ ‫כת עינו‬ ֗ ‫֗ח‬ .‫ קרץ‬.‫ יראו‬.‫ ודבר פיו‬.‫“ יקח ויעל‬there are eight occurrences in which ‫ עינו‬is written but ‫ עיניו‬is read, and their reference are: 1 Sam 3:2; 3:18; 2 Sam 13:34; 19:19; 24:22; Jer 32:4; Job 21:20; Prov 6:13.” Likewise, MmA Prov 6:13; MmC 1 Sam 3:2. 14 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫בּ ֵﬠינָ יו‬, ְ Ps 36:3. 10

1 SAMUEL (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)

Gen 27:12 Gen 29:20 Gen 39:4 Gen 48:17 Exod 15:26 Lev 10:20 Lev 13:5 Lev 13:37 Deut 12:8 Deut 24:1 Judg 17:6 Judg 21:25 1 Sam 3:18(qere addidi) 1 Sam 18:8 1 Sam 18:20 2 Sam 4:10 2 Sam 10:12

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Sam 3:2 1 Sam 3:18 2 Sam 13:34 2 Sam 19:19

(18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34)

2 Sam 15:26 2 Sam 19:19(qere) 2 Sam 24:22(qere) 1 Kgs 9:12 Isa 6:10b Isa 59:15 Ps 15:4 Ps 36:3 Ps 72:14 Job 15:15 Job 25:5 Job 32:1 Job 40:24 Prov 6:13(qere addidi) Prov 12:15 Prov 16:2 Prov 20:8

101 (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51)

Prov 21:2 Prov 21:10 Prov 24:18 Prov 26:5 Prov 26:12 Prov 26:16 Prov 28:11 Prov 30:12 Ruth 2:2 Song 8:10 Qoh 8:16 Esth 2:9 Esth 3:6 Esth 5:2 Esth 8:5 1 Chr 19:13 1 Chr 21:23

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫ – וחד מן ֗ח‬The remainder of MpBHS 1 Sam 3:18 is merely a completion of ֗ ‫)ח‬, ֗ which according to MmL 1 Sam 3:2 Weil’s emendation of MpL Prov 6:13 (‫חס‬ counts the occurrences of the form ‫ ֵﬠינָ ו‬and similar prefixed cases whose pronominal suffix is written defective ‫ י‬but read plene ‫י‬. 15 The references and their respective kəṯîḇ forms are: ‫וְ ֵﬠינָ ו‬ ‫ְבּ ֵﬠינָ ו‬ ָ‫ֵﬠינ‬ ‫ְבּ ֵﬠינָ ו‬

(5) (6) (7) (8)

2 Sam 24:22 Jer 32:4 Job 21:20 Prov 6:13

‫ְבּ ֵﬠינָ ו‬ ‫ֵﬠינָ ו‬ ‫ֵﬠינָ ו‬ ‫ְבּ ֵﬠינָ ו‬

Thus, the two reasons for this sub loco note are Weil’s adding of the qərê and his intended addition of the frequency note ‫“ נ֗ ֗א‬fifty-one times.”

NOTE 131: 1 SAMUEL 4:8 ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ֵהם ָה ֱא‬ MpBHS MpL 15

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫קהל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג וכל‬ Three times and all of Qohelet likewise.

MpC

See also MmA Prov 6:13; MmC 1 Sam 3:2; BHQ, “Proverbs,” 24*.

No note. ‫֗ל‬ Unique.

102

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

ִ ‫ ֵהם ָה ֱא‬outside of Qohelet. In ML MpL 1 Sam 4:8 counts three occurrences of ‫�הים‬ this phrase occurs only here, however, and Weil emends the Masorah accordingly, as per MpC 1 Sam 4:8. It is clear by comparison with MA that this MpL note belongs not to ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ ֵהם ָה ֱא‬but to the antecedent phrase ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫מיַּ ד ָה ֱא‬. ִ 16 Had Weil been able to A consult M , it is likely that he would have opted to treat MpL as a dislocation error by moving the circellus to ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ ִמיַּ ד ָה ֱא‬.

NOTE 132: 1 SAMUEL 4:21 ‫י־כבוֹד‬ ָ ‫ִא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫יכבוֹד[ ֗ב‬ ָ ‫]א‬. ִ Twice.

‫ומל‬ ֗ ‫יכבוֹד[ ֗ב‬ ָ ‫]א‬. ִ Twice and plene.

As per MpA,L,C 1 Sam 4:21, ML contains two occurrences of ‫י־כבוֹד‬ ָ ‫א‬: ִ 1 Sam 4:21; ָ ‫)א‬ ִ 14:3. 17 In ML the two are distinct, however, in that the first has maqqeṕ (‫י־כבוֹד‬ whereas the latter does not (‫יכבוֹד‬ ָ ‫)א‬. ִ By contrast, both instances lack maqqeṕ in MA,C, and this difference may be the reason for the sub loco note. Seeing as how the maqqeṕ in ML 1 Sam 4:21 seems to have been inserted correctively (as the lack of space between ‫ י‬and ‫ כ‬indicates), Weil may have intended to state his opinion on this matter. But because he does not correct 1 Sam 4:21 with a qərê, it is likely that he intends to do no more than comment on the difference between the two forms.

NOTE 133: 1 SAMUEL 5:11 ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫יַ ד ָה ֱא‬ MpBHS

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times in this and similar cases. ‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫�הים‬ ִ ‫הם ָה ֱא‬.ֵ For further discussion of ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫מיַּ ד ָה ֱא‬, ִ see note 133 (1 Sam 5:11). 17 See also Ginsburg, 1, ‫א‬, §343; Dotan and Reich, §‫י־כבוֹד‬ ָ ‫א‬. ִ 16

1 SAMUEL

103

MpL 1 Sam 5:11 counts three occurrences of ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫יַ ד ָה ֱא‬, and it is clear from MmA 2 Chr 30:12 that the tally includes all occurrences outside Qohelet of ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ יַ ד ָה ֱא‬and similar cases featuring a prefixed form of ‫יַ ד‬. 18 The five occurrences are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Sam 4:8 1 Sam 5:11 Qoh 2:24 Qoh 9:1 2 Chr 30:12

305F

‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ִמיַּ ד ָה ֱא‬ ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫יַ ד ָה ֱא‬ ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ִמיַּ ד ָה ֱא‬ ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ְבּיַ ד ָה ֱא‬ ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫יַ ד ָה ֱא‬

֗ ‫“ ֗ד‬four times in this Weil treats MpL 1 Sam 5:11 differently, emending it to ‫בליש‬ and similar cases” as per MpL Qoh 2:24, which appears to count both occurrences within Qohelet as one. 19 While BHQ argues that ‫“ ֗ד‬four times” should likely read ‫֗ה‬ “five times,” 20 both MpL Qoh 2:24 and MpL 1 Sam 5:11 are correct and merely in need of clarification. 307F

NOTE 134: 1 SAMUEL 6:11 ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ְטח ֵֹר‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice thus written in this and a similar form.

MpA

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice thus written.

MpC

֗‫כת בעינ‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice written in this section.

No note.

In counting two occurrences that are “written thus,” MpL 1 Sam 6:11 includes the unique form ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ְטח ֵֹר‬and the similar form ‫( ְטח ֵֹרי‬1 Sam 6:17; see note 135), which are the only two instances in which this lemma is both written and read. 21 All other instances of this lemma are qərê readings for a kəṯîḇ that features the corresponding 308F

MmA 2 Chr 30:12 reads: ‫ וכל‬.‫ גם ביהודה‬.‫ כבדה מאד‬.‫ אוי לנו מי יצילנו‬:‫יד האלהים ֗ג‬ .‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫“ קהלת‬there are three occurrences of ‫יד האלהים‬: 1 Sam 4:8; 5:11; 2 Chr 30:12; and all Qohelet likewise.” See also MfV, ‫אל‬, §71; Ginsburg, 4, ‫י‬, §87. 19 Though Weil does not complete the Masorah for form 4, he may still be reading both as one. Cf. sub loco notes 1 (Josh 1:11) and 127 (1 Sam 2:20). 20 BHQ, “Megilloth,” 29*. 21 Likewise, MmA 1 Sam 6:11: ‫כת טחרים וקרי‬ ֗ ‫כל עינינה כתב עפלים וקרי טחרים בר מן ֗ב‬ ...‫“ טחרים‬every occurrence in this section is written ‫ עפלים‬but read ‫ טחרים‬except for two, which are written ‫ טחרים‬and read ‫ ”…טחרים‬Ginsburg, 1, ‫ט‬, §67; Dotan and Reich, §‫ְ;טח ֵֹרי‬ similarly, MpV 1 Sam 6:17. 18

104

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

form of the lemma ‫ע ֶֹפל‬. 22 Because 1 Sam 6:17 is not identical, Weil adds the clarifi“in a similar form,” and this is the reason for the sub loco note. cation ‫בליש‬ ֗

NOTE 135: 1 SAMUEL 6:17 ‫ְטח ֵֹרי‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice thus written in this and a similar form.

MpA

‫וקר‬ ֗ ‫כת‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice written and read.

MpC

֗‫כת בעינ‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Written twice in the section. No note.

In counting two occurrences that are thus “written and read,” MpL 1 Sam 6:17 includes the unique form ‫ ְטח ֵֹרי‬and the only other similar form ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫( ְטח ֵֹר‬1 Sam 6:11). For further discussion, see note 134 (1 Sam 6:11).

NOTE 136: 1 SAMUEL 7:6 ‫וַ יִּ ָקּ ְבצוּ‬ MpBHS

‫דכות ֗ב ֗מ ֗א‬ ֗ ‫בסיפ וכל ד״ה‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫֗ד ֗ג‬ Four times, three of which are in this book, and all in Chronicles are similar except for one.

The form ‫ וַ יִּ ָקּ ְבצוּ‬occurs nine times in ML: 23 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Sam 7:6 1 Sam 25:1 1 Sam 28:4 Ezra 10:9 1 Chr 11:1

310F

(6) (7) (8) (9)

MpL MpA MpC

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

No note. No note

2 Chr 13:7 2 Chr 15:10 2 Chr 20:4 2 Chr 32:4

The references are Deut 28:27; 1 Sam 5:6; 5:9; 5:12; 6:4; 6:5. Instead of counting two forms that are “written thus,” MpA notes that there are “two kəṯîḇ (forms) in this section” (viz., 1 Sam 5–6). 23 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וַ יִּ ָקּ ְבצוּ‬. 22

1 SAMUEL

105

MpL 1 Sam 7:6, however, only counts three, which, as Weil observes, is the number of occurrences within Samuel. 24 The tally of four with which this MpBHS note begins is the completion of MpL 1 Sam 25:1, which counts all forms excluding those in Chronicles. 25 The excluded form in Chronicles to which Weil makes reference is 1 Chr 13:2, which is distinct in that it is preceded by conjunctive ‫ )וְ יִ ָקּ ְבצוּ( ו‬and not consecutive ‫)וַ יִּ ָקּ ְבצוּ( ו‬. The principal reason for this sub loco note, however, is Weil’s clarifying of the scope of MpL.

NOTE 137: 1 SAMUEL 8:8 ‫�תי‬ ִ ‫ַה ֲﬠ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ג ֗ב‬ Three times, two of which are defective and one of which is plene.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective. No note.

ִ ‫ה ֲﬠ‬.ַ Weil’s MpL 1 Sam 8:8 counts three occurrences of the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫�תי‬ emended note, however, counts two defective forms and one plene form: (1) (2) (3)

1 Sam 8:8 2 Sam 7:6 Jer 11:7

‫�תי‬ ִ ‫ַה ֲﬠ‬ ‫�תי‬ ִ ‫ַה ֲﬠ‬ ‫לוֹתי‬ ִ ‫ַה ֲﬠ‬

Weil’s emendation is supported by MpC 2 Sam 7:6, which counts only two defective ֗ ‫֗ג‬ forms. MpA 1 Sam 8:8 and MpA 2 Sam 7:6, however, both present the Mp note ‫חס‬ “three times defective” and thus concur with MpL 1 Sam 8:8. Breuer explains that while MmS,S1 count three defective forms, they include the similar defective ‫ ו‬form ‫�תי‬ ִ ‫( ַבּ ֲﬠ‬Deut 9:9) instead of the plene ‫ ו‬form ‫לוֹתי‬ ִ ‫( ַה ֲﬠ‬Jer 11:7). 26 Nevertheless, he notes that the tally of two defective forms is not mistaken; rather, it is an earlier tally that excludes similar forms. 27 Weil, on the other hand, does not see that the tallies of two and three are complementary, which results in his needless and incorrect emendation of MpL 1 Sam 8:8. 31F

314F

See MpV 1 Sam 28:4; Frensdorff, Die Massorah Magna, 163. Ginsburg (2, ‫ק‬, §20) lists only these four forms without indicating that others occur in Chronicles. 26 Breuer, The Biblical Text, 73, n. 20; likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫�תי‬ ִ ‫ה ֲﬠ‬.ַ Against the text of MA, Haketer (“Samuel I & II,” 40) reads Jer 11:7 as a defective form. 27 Breuer, The Biblical Text, 73, n. 20. 24 25

106

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 138: 1 SAMUEL 8:8 ‫א ָֹתם‬ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times plene in this book. No note.

MpL

MpA MpC

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫]אוֹתם[ ֗ד‬ ָ Four times plene in this book.

‫בס‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫]אוֹתם[ ֗ד‬ ָ Four times plene in this book.

MpL 2 Sam 8:2 counts four occurrences within Samuel of the plene form ‫אוֹתם‬, ָ 28 in L contrast with M , which contains only three: 315F

(1) (2) (3)

1 Sam 9:12 2 Sam 8:2 2 Sam 12:31

MmA 2 Sam 8:2 indicates that the other form is 1 Sam 8:8. 29 Weil correctly follows this tradition and thus completes MpL 2 Sam 8:2 for this form, too.

NOTE 139: 1 SAMUEL 8:13 ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ת־בּ‬ ְ ‫וְ ֶא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times in the Prophets.

MpA

No note.

‫בנב‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice in the Prophets. 30

MpC

No note.

Likewise, MpA,C 1 Sam 8:8. MmA 2 Sam 8:2 reads: ‫ והעביר‬.‫ השכב אותם‬.‫ ותענינה‬.‫ ככל המעשים‬:‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫אותם ֗ד‬ .‫“ אותם‬there are four occurrences of the plene form ‫ אותם‬in this book: 1 Sam 8:8; 9:12; 2 Sam 8:2; 12:31.” See also MA,C 1 Sam 8:8; MpA,C 1 Sam 8:8; Ginsburg, 1, ‫א‬, §1439; Dotan 2 Sam 8:2. and Reich, §‫אוֹתם‬, ָ 30 MpL does not present a circellus for either ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ת־בּ‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֶא‬or ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫בּ‬,ְ and the Mp note ‫“ ֗ב בנ ֗ב‬twice in the Prophets” appears in the margin of the subsequent line. 28 29

1 SAMUEL

107

MpL 1 Sam 8:13 indicates that ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ת־בּ‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֶא‬occurs twice in the Prophets, but in ML this phrase occurs three times in the Prophets: (1) (2) (3)

1 Sam 8:13 Jer 29:6 Joel 4:8

Based on his emendation of the Masorah, it is clear that Weil treats this as a frequency error. It is possible, however, that the frequency is correct and that Weil has wrongly inserted the missing circellus above ‫ וְ ֶאת‬and ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ ְבּ‬when it should have ֶ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ ְבּ‬, been placed over the latter form. Though ML contains seven occurrences of ‫יכם‬ MmA Hos 4:13 counts the seven as two: (1) all occurrences within the Prophets; (2) Ezra 9:12. 31 The references are: (1) (2) (3) (4)

318F

1 Sam 8:13 Jer 9:19 Jer 29:6 Hos 4:13

(5) Hos 4:14 (6) Joel 4:8 (7) Ezra 9:12

Thus, contra Weil, it is likely that ‫בנב‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬twice in the Prophets” in MpL 1 Sam 8:13 belongs to ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ ְבּ‬and not ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ת־בּ‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֶא‬and that MpL’s scope “in the Prophets,” not its frequency, is incorrect.

NOTE 140: 1 SAMUEL 9:13 ‫ַה ָבּ ָמ ָתה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 9:13 indicates that ‫ ַה ָבּ ָמ ָתה‬occurs twice, but it only occurs once in ML. Weil emends the frequency accordingly. 32 319F

Because none of the words in the immediate context prove to be better alternatives, it is all but certain that the incorrect note ‫בנב‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ב‬in MpL 1 Sam 8:13 was intended for either ‫וְ ֶאת־‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ ְבּ‬or ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫בּ‬.ְ See below for further discussion. 31 Similarly, MpL Ezra 9:12 notes that the corresponding form is unique with the exception of all occurrences within the Prophets (‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫נביא‬ ֗ ‫מל וכול‬ ֗ ‫)ל‬. ֗ 32 Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫ה ָבּ ָמ ָתה‬. ַ

108

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 141: 1 SAMUEL 9:23 ‫ַל ַטּ ָבּח‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note. ‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL 1 Sam 9:23 indicates that ‫ ַל ַטּ ָבּח‬occurs twice. In the text of ML, however, the form occurs only once, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. 33 Dotan and Reich (§‫)ל ַטּ ָבּח‬, ַ however, conjecture that the tally of two includes ‫( ַה ַטּ ָבּח‬1 Sam 9:24), the only other singular form of this lemma in ML.

NOTE 142: 1 SAMUEL 10:5 ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫נְ ִב‬ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times defective in this book. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note [‫]נְ ִב ִאים‬.

MpC

No note [‫]נְ ִב ִאים‬.

ִ ‫נְ ִב‬, and this occurrence is not given In 1 Sam 10:5 ML reads the fully plene form ‫יאים‬ a MpL note. Weil, however, adds a contra textum Mp note that counts this form as one of four forms of ‫ נְ ִב ִאים‬in Samuel whose first ‫ י‬is lacking. Weil’s contra textum ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫)ד‬, ֗ and reading of 1 Sam 10:5 has the support of MA,C, MpL 1 Sam 10:10 (‫בסיפ‬ A 34 Mm 1 Sam 10:10. The catchwords and catchphrases in this Mm list are for the following four forms: (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Sam 10:5 ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫*נְ ִב‬ 1 Sam 10:10 ‫נְ ִב ִאים‬ 1 Sam 10:11a ‫נְ ִב ִאים‬ 1 Sam 10:12 ‫ַבּנְּ ִב ִאים‬

Weil does not present the note ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ד‬for form 4, but it is fairly certain that he regards 1 Sam 10:12 as the fourth because it is the only reasonable candidate and Likewise, MpC 1 Sam 9:23. .‫ היתה למשל‬.‫ ויהי כל יודעו‬.‫ וחבירו‬.‫ חבל נבאים‬:‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ נבאים ֗ד‬there are four occurrences in this book of the defective form ‫נבאים‬: 1 Sam 10:5; 10:10; 10:11; 10:12.” Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫נְ ִב ִאים‬. 33 34

1 SAMUEL

109

because he does not complete MpL 1 Sam 10:10 for any other form in Samuel. 35 But aside from this oversight and Weil’s failure to indicate in the Mp note that a similar 36 his treatment of the Masorah is otherwise form is included among the four (‫)בליש‬, ֗ correct. 32F

NOTE 143: 1 SAMUEL 10:8 ‫בּוֹאי‬ ִ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene in this and one similar case.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene.

ִ occurs three times. MmA 1 MpA,L,C 1 Sam 10:8 all agree that the plene ‫ ו‬form ‫בּוֹאי‬ Sam 10:8 indicates that this tally includes the similar form ‫וּבוֹאי‬ ִ (Song 4:16), 37 and L ֗ “in this and one similar case” and completes it Weil supplements Mp with ‫בליש‬ accordingly. The three occurrences are: 38 (1) (2) (3)

1 Sam 10:8 ‫בּוֹאי‬ ִ 2 Sam 13:11 ‫בּוֹאי‬ ִ Song 4:16 ‫וּבוֹאי‬ ִ

325F

For form 4 Weil only prints the frequency note ‫“ ֗ה‬five times,” which counts plene and defective forms of the prefixed form ‫בּנְּ ִב ִאים‬.ַ The note is a completion of MpL 1 Sam 10:11 (see also MmL Hos 6:5 [Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §3012]). 36 Breuer (The Biblical Text, 395), on the other hand, does indicate this: ‫נְ ִב ִאים ד׳ כת׳ כן‬ ‫ יב‬,1‫ יא‬,‫ י‬,‫ ה‬,‫ ש״א י‬:‫“ בליש׳ בשמואל‬in Samuel ‫ נְ ִב ִאים‬is spelled thus four times: 1 Sam 10:5; 10:10; 10:11a; 10:12.” 37 .‫ עורי צפון‬.‫ בואי שכבי עמו‬.‫ שבעת ימים תוחל‬:‫מל‬ ֗ ‫“ בואי ֗ג‬there are three occurrences of the plene form ‫בואי‬: 1 Sam 10:8; 2 Sam 13:11; Song 4:16.” 38 See also Ginsburg, 4, ‫ב‬, §93; Dotan and Reich, §‫בּוֹאי‬, ִ 2 Sam 13:11. 35

110

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 144: 1 SAMUEL 10:8 ‫הוֹד ְﬠ ִתּי‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ MpBHS MpL

‫ומל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice and plene.

MpA

‫ומל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times and plene.

MpC

‫֗ב את חקי‬ Twice; Exod 18:16. No note.

MpL 1 Sam 10:8 counts three occurrences of the plene form ‫הוֹד ְﬠ ִתּי‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬. ML, however, contains only two occurrences of this form, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. 39 The references are Exod 18:16; 1 Sam 10:8. 326F

NOTE 145: 1 SAMUEL 10:11 ‫ִשׁ ְלשׁוֹם‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫דכות ֗ב ֗מ ֗ב‬ ֗ ‫אורית‬ ֗ ‫חס וכל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times defective and all the Torah likewise except for two.

MpA

‫דכות ֗ב ֗מ ֗ב‬ ֗ ‫אור‬ ֗ ‫חס וכל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times defective and all the Torah likewise except for two.

MpC

‫דכות ֗ב ֗מ ֗ב‬ ֗ ֗‫בנב וכל אורי‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ [‫]שׁ ְלשׁ ֹם‬ ִ Four times defective in the Prophets and all the Torah likewise except for two.

No note [‫]שׁ ְלשׁ ֹם‬. ִ

Against the text of ML, which presents the plene form ‫שׁ ְלשׁוֹם‬, ִ MpL indicates that the form should be the defective ‫ ו‬counterpart ‫שׁ ְלשׁ ֹם‬, ִ as per MA,C. According to this note, there are four such forms outside the Torah, for all of which Weil completes the Masorah: 40 (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Sam 4:7 1 Sam 10:11* 1 Sam 21:6 2 Sam 3:17 327F

See also MpA; Ginsburg, 1, ‫י‬, §154; Dotan and Reich, §‫הוֹד ְﬠ ִתּי‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬, 1 Sam 10:8. Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁ ְלשׁוֹם‬, ִ 1 Sam 10:11; Ginsburg, 2, ‫ש‬, §591. Ginsburg’s subsequent list (2, ‫ש‬, §592) includes only these four forms but incorrectly prints the frequency note ‫ה‬.֗ The MpBHS note for form 3 involves a misprint of the frequency note ‫ ֗ד‬as ‫ח‬.֗ 39 40

1 SAMUEL

111

The second half of MpL 1 Sam 10:11 counts two occurrences within the Torah of the plene form ‫שׁ ְלשׁוֹם‬, ִ and this is corroborated by MmL Deut 19:6 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1164), 41 which includes catchphrases for Gen 31:2 and Deut 19:6. 42 While ִ Weil follows MmL in completing ML Deut 4:42 also presents the plene form ‫שׁ ְלשׁוֹם‬, 43 the Masorah for only Gen 31:2 and Deut 19:6. This sub loco note, then, addresses two contra textum issues. 30F

NOTE 146: 1 SAMUEL 12:3 ‫צּוֹתי‬ ִ ‫ַר‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

‫ומל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and plene.

MpL 1 Sam 12:3 counts four occurrences of ‫צּוֹתי‬ ִ ‫ר‬.ַ ML, however, contains only one occurrences of the form, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. 44 31F

NOTE 147: 1 SAMUEL 12:16 ‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ְל ֵﬠינ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗י֗ב‬ Twelve times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 12:16 counts twelve occurrences of ‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ל ֵﬠינ‬,ְ whereas ML contains only eight occurrences of this form:

.‫ פן ירדף גאל‬.‫ וירא יעקב את פני לבן‬:‫מל‬ ֗ ‫“ שלשום ֗ב‬there are two occurrences of the plene form ‫שלשום‬: Gen 31:2; Deut 19:6.” 42 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁ ְלשׁוֹם‬, ִ Deut 19:6. 43 BHQ does not address this problem. 44 Likewise, MpA 1 Sam 12:3; similarly, MpC 1 Sam 12:3. Dotan and Reich (§‫צּוֹתי‬ ִ ‫ ַ)ר‬observe that ‫ ֗ד‬correctly belongs to the phrase ‫ת־מי‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶא‬, which precedes the form under consideration, and this is confirmed in MpA,C. 41

112

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4)

Deut 1:30 Deut 9:17 Deut 29:1 1 Sam 12:16

(5) (6) (7) (8)

Jer 16:9 Jer 29:21 Jer 51:24 Zeph 3:20

Weil corrects the frequency in accordance with Ginsburg 45 and MpV. 46

NOTE 148: 1 SAMUEL 12:23 ‫וְ ַהיְ ָשׁ ָרה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל ֗ג‬ Thirty-three times.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 12:23 counts thirty-three occurrences of ‫וְ ַהיְ ָשׁ ָרה‬, whereas ML contains only once occurrence of this form. By comparing MpL with MpA it appears that the frequency error results from a conflation of two distinct Mp notes. MpA correctly presents the frequency note ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” for ‫ וְ ַהיְ ָשׁ ָרה‬and the frequency note ‫“ ֗ג‬three times” for the second subsequent word ‫יְ ראוּ‬.

Because MpL does not present a circellus above ‫יְ ראוּ‬, the two distinct frequency notes ‫ ֗ל‬and ‫ ֗ג‬are incorrectly conflated and become an incorrect frequency note for ‫וְ ַהיְ ָשׁ ָרה‬.

Weil resolves this matter by correcting the frequency error for ‫ וְ ַהיְ ָשׁ ָרה‬and by creating a separate Mp note for ‫( יְ ראוּ‬see note 149, 1 Sam 12:24).

45 46

Ginsburg, 2, ‫ע‬, §323. E.g., MpV Deut 29:1. Likewise, MmLm Deut 1:30; Dotan and Reich, §‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ל ֵﬠינ‬.ְ

1 SAMUEL

113

NOTE 149: 1 SAMUEL 12:24 ‫יְ ראוּ‬ MpBHS

‫֗ג יתיר ֗א‬ Three times with superfluous ‫א‬. No note.

MpL

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

The form ‫ יְ ראוּ‬occurs three times in ML: 47 (1) Josh 24:14 (2) 1 Sam 12:24 (3) Ps 34:10

34F

As was noted in the discussion of note 148 (1 Sam 12:23), MpL lacks a circellus over ‫ יְ ראוּ‬resulting in the note ‫ ֗ג‬being conflated with the Mp note ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” that belongs to ‫( וְ ַהיְ ָשׁ ָרה‬1 Sam 12:23). In addition to supplying the frequency note ‫“ ֗ג‬three times” here, Weil also completes the Masorah with ‫“ יתיר ֗א‬superfluous ‫א‬,” a feature that derives from MpL Ps 34:10.

NOTE 150: 1 SAMUEL 13:9 ‫ַהגִּ שׁוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective in this and similar cases.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective.

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective in this and similar cases.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective.

As per MpA,C 1 Sam 13:9, ML contains one occurrence of the defective form ‫הגִּ שׁוּ‬.ַ MpL 1 Sam 13:9 counts three similar defective forms, however. Weil completes the note at Gen 27:25 (‫)הגִּ ָשׁה‬ ַ but apparently not for a third form. It seems that he marks this note “sub loco” with the intent of discussing his difficulty in resolving this Mp note. Dotan and Reich (§‫)הגִּ שׁוּ‬, ַ however, identify three defective yôd hifil forms of .‫ש‬.‫ג‬.‫ נ‬in ML, all of which conclude with šûreq:

47

See MpA,C 1 Sam 12:24; Dotan and Reich, §‫יְ ראוּ‬, 1 Sam 12:24.

114

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3)

Exod 32:6 ‫וַ יַּ גִּ שׁוּ‬ 1 Sam 13:9 ‫ַהגִּ שׁוּ‬ 1 Sam 14:34 ‫וַ יַּ גִּ שׁוּ‬

Thus, it would seem that Weil’s completion of ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬three times defective in this and similar cases” at Gen 27:25 is incorrect.

NOTE 151: 1 SAMUEL 13:13 �‫ַמ ְמ ַל ְכ ְתּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 13:13 counts eight occurrences of �‫מ ְמ ַל ְכ ְתּ‬. ַ ML contains only three occurrences of this form, however, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. The three references are: (1) (2) (3)

1 Sam 13:13 1 Sam 13:14 1 Kgs 9:5

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Sam 13:13 2 Sam 2:9 2 Kgs 9:3 2 Kgs 9:6 2 Kgs 9:12

Dotan and Reich (§�‫)מ ְמ ַל ְכ ְתּ‬ ַ emend the entry to ‫ ַמ ְמ ַל ְכ ְתּ� ֶאל‬and the frequency to “five.” These emendations are influenced by MmL 1 Sam 13:13 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1592), which counts five instances of lemmata based on the root .‫ך‬.‫ל‬.‫ מ‬followed by the preposition ‫ ֶאל‬when it has the meaning of “over” and not “to”: ‫ַמ ְמ ַל ְכ ְתּ� ֶאל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ל־הגִּ ְל ָﬠד‬ ַ ‫יַּמ ִל ֵכהוּ ֶא‬ ְ ַ‫ו‬ ‫ְל ֶמ ֶל� ֶאל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ל־ﬠם יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ְל ֶמ ֶל� ֶא‬ ‫ְל ֶמ ֶל� ֶאל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

In light of this MmL entry it would appear that the circellus for MpL 1 Sam 13:13 was mistakenly placed above �‫ ַמ ְמ ַל ְכ ְתּ‬instead of ‫מ ְמ ַל ְכ ְתּ� ֶאל‬, ַ as per Dotan and Reich. It would seem, then, that Weil did not make the connection between MpL 1 Sam 13:13 and MmL 1 Sam 13:13.

1 SAMUEL

115

NOTE 152: 1 SAMUEL 13:15 ‫ַהנִּ ְמ ְצ ִאים‬ MpBHS

°

MpA

MpL

‫֗ב בשושן‬ Twice.

MpC

‫]ה ָﬠם ַהנִּ ְמ ְצ ִאים[ ֗ב‬ ָ Twice. No note.

The form ‫ ַהנִּ ְמ ְצ ִאים‬occurs twelve times in ML: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1 Sam 13:15 2 Kgs 14:14 2 Kgs 25:19 Jer 52:25 Esth 1:5 Esth 4:16

(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

2 Chr 5:11 2 Chr 25:24 2 Chr 29:29 2 Chr 30:21 2 Chr 31:1 2 Chr 35:17

By contrast, MpL 1 Sam 13:15 counts two forms and provides the catchword ‫בשושן‬. In his note in the masoretic apparatus, Weil draws attention to Esth 1:5 and Esth 4:16, both of which contain the form ‫ ַהנִּ ְמ ְצ ִאים‬immediately followed by ‫שׁוּשׁן‬ ַ ‫בּ‬.ְ 48 He seems to suggest, however, that the tally of two is meant to include Esth 1:5 and 4:16 but not 1 Sam 13:15. 49 From MpA 1 Sam 13:15 one can see, however, that MpL incorrectly places the circellus over ‫ ַהנִּ ְמ ְצ ִאים‬rather than ‫ה ָﬠם ַהנִּ ְמ ְצ ִאים‬,ָ 50 which occurs only twice: 1 Sam 13:15; Esth 1:5. 51 Thus, it would seem that Weil incorrectly resolves this problem. 37F

38F

Esth 4:16 has ‫שׁוּשׁן‬ ָ ‫בּ‬.ְ He writes, “Mp L ‫ ֗ב‬non in loco proprio, cf Mp Est 1,5; 4,16 et Mp sub loco.” 50 The rubric ‫ ַהנִּ ְמ ְצ ִאים ִﬠמּוֹ‬in MmA is a mistake for ‫ה ָﬠם ַהנִּ ְמ ְצ ִאים‬. ָ It does correctly include the catchwords for 1 Sam 13:15 and Esth 1:5, however. 51 Likewise, David Marcus, “Doublet Catchwords in the Leningrad Codex,” n.p. [cited 23 May 2013]; Dotan and Reich, §‫ה ָﬠם ַהנִּ ְמ ְצ ִאים‬.ָ 48 49

116

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 153: 1 SAMUEL 13:17 ‫ָהרֹאשׁ‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫֗לז‬ Thirty-seven times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ל ֗ב‬ Thirty-two times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 13:17 counts thirty-two occurrences of ‫הרֹאשׁ‬,ָ whereas ML contains thirty-seven occurrences of this form. 52 The correct tally of thirty-seven, with which Weil completes the Masorah, derives from MpL Ps 133:2 and numerous references within Chronicles. The thirty-seven references are: 53 39F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Lev 1:8 Lev 8:20 Lev 9:13 Lev 13:30 1 Sam 13:17 2 Sam 15:32 2 Kgs 25:18 Isa 7:20 Isa 9:14 Jer 52:24 Ezek 10:11 Ps 133:2 Ezra 7:5

(14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)

Ezra 8:17 1 Chr 5:7 1 Chr 5:12 1 Chr 9:17 1 Chr 12:3 1 Chr 12:10 1 Chr 16:5 1 Chr 23:8 1 Chr 23:11 1 Chr 23:16 1 Chr 23:17 1 Chr 23:18 1 Chr 23:19

(27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) 340F

1 Chr 23:20 1 Chr 24:21 1 Chr 24:31 1 Chr 26:10 1 Chr 26:31 1 Chr 27:3 2 Chr 19:11 2 Chr 24:6 2 Chr 24:11 2 Chr 26:20 2 Chr 31:10

See the first of Ginsburg’s two lists for ‫( ָהרֹאשׁ‬2, ‫ר‬, §99a), which though counting only thirty-one occurrences in the rubric, lists all thirty-seven of the above references. Ginsburg’s second list for ‫( ָהרֹאשׁ‬2, ‫ר‬, §99b), however, is incorrect in that (1) the rubric counts thirty-two occurrences while presenting only thirty-one in the list, and (2) the list excludes certain forms of ‫ ָהרֹאשׁ‬while including similar forms. MpL presents the incorrect tally of seventy-five at Ezra 8:17 (see BHQ, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 19*). 53 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫הרֹאשׁ‬, ָ Ps 133:2. 52

1 SAMUEL

117

NOTE 154: 1 SAMUEL 14:33 ‫גֹּלּוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice and defective.

MpA

‫֗ב אבנים גדלות‬ Twice; Josh 10:18.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫וחס אבנים גדלות‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice and defective; Josh 10:18.

The tally of two that MpL 1 Sam 14:33 presents for ‫ גֹּלּוּ‬is correct, as this form occurs in ML only in Josh 10:18 and 1 Sam 14:33. 54 Weil reproduces MpL, but in order to standardize the Masorah he adds ‫וחס‬ ֗ “…and defective,” as per MpL Josh 10:18 ( ‫֗ב‬ 55 L ‫)וחס‬. ֗ This emendation to Mp 1 Sam 14:33 requires a sub loco note. Another reason for the sub loco note is that Weil intends to comment on BHK’s having incorrectly placed the circellus above ‫ֹלּוּ־א ַלי‬ ֵ ‫גּ‬, a phrase which occurs only in 1 Sam 14:33. While the circellus is placed far to the left of ‫ גֹּלּוּ‬in ML, it is clearly not placed above the two words:

Weil corrects BHK’s misplacement of the circellus.

NOTE 155: 1 SAMUEL 15:2 ‫כֹּה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫י֗ ו‬ Sixteen times.

MpA

֗‫֗לז‬ Thirty-seven times.

MpC

No note.

‫מנב‬ ֗ ‫בקוד‬ ֗ ‫קדמ‬ ֗ First in the first part of the Prophets. 56

The phrase ‫ כֹּה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬occurs seventy-six times in ML, whereas MpL 1 Sam 15:2 counts only thirty-seven occurrences. Dotan and Reich (§‫כֹּה ָא ַמר י—ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬, 1 Sam 15:2) plausibly suggest that the tally of thirty-seven ( ֗‫ ֗)לז‬is a corruption of thirSee also Dotan and Reich, §‫גֹּלּוּ‬, Josh 10:18. MpA,C 1 Sam 14:33 includes the catchphrase ‫ אבנים גדלות‬for Josh 10:18. 55 Similarly, MpC 1 Sam 14:33. 56 I thank Elvira Martín-Contreras for suggesting this translation. 54

118

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

ty-six ( ֗‫)לו‬, ֗ which is the number of occurrences of ‫ כֹּה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬not preceded by ‫ ָל ֵכן‬or ‫ ִכּי‬and not followed by ‫�הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫א‬: ֱ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

1 Sam 15:2 57 2 Sam 7:8 Jer 6:9 Jer 9:16 Jer 19:11 Jer 23:16 Jer 25:28 Jer 25:32 Jer 26:18 Jer 29:17 Jer 33:12 Jer 49:7

(13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

Jer 49:35 Jer 50:33 Jer 51:58 Hag 1:2 Hag 1:5 Hag 1:7 Hag 2:11 Zech 1:3 Zech 1:4 Zech 1:14 Zech 1:17 Zech 3:7

(25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36)

Zech 6:12 Zech 7:9 Zech 8:2 Zech 8:4 Zech 8:6 Zech 8:7 Zech 8:9 Zech 8:19 Zech 8:20 Zech 8:23 Mal 1:4 1 Chr 17:7

Weil follows Ginsburg, however, by emending the incorrect frequency of thirtyseven to sixteen ( ֗‫ )י֗ ו‬and by completing the Masorah for all sixteen forms in the above list that occur outside the Former Prophets. 58 345F

NOTE 156: 1 SAMUEL 15:6 ‫וְ ַא ָ֞תּה‬ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times with this accent in this book. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

In contrast with MpBHS, which ostensibly counts three occurrences in the book of Samuel of ‫ וְ ַא ָתּה‬with the geršayim accent, the form is unique within this book. As was pointed out in the commentary to note 90 (Judg 11:27), this form occurs exactly three times in the Former Prophets: (1) Judg 11:27; (2) 1 Sam 15:6; (3) 1 Kgs 9:4. ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫)ג‬. ֗ Though completion of a For all three Weil presents MpL 1 Kgs 9:4 (‫בסיפ‬ MpC 1 Sam 15:2 presents the note ‫מנב‬ ֗ ‫בקוד‬ ֗ ‫קדמ‬ ֗ “first in the codex of the Prophets” for ‫יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬, though Perez Castro (“Samuel,” 81) correctly observes that this note belongs to the longer phrase ‫כֹּה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬. 58 Ginsburg, 2, ‫כ‬, §76. MpA 1 Chr 17:7 also counts sixteen occurrences, and Haketer (“Samuel I & II,” 74) presents the same list of sixteen, though it does not fully disclose how one arrives at the tally of sixteen. It only states that occurrences within the Former Prophets are excluded and that this Masorah deals with this expression “as is” (‫)הביטוי כמות שהוא‬. 57

1 SAMUEL

119

masoretic note does not normally warrant a sub loco note, Weil makes an exception in this case, presumably due to the unusual application of the term “in this book.”

NOTE 157: 1 SAMUEL 15:7 �‫בּוֹא‬ ֲ MpBHS MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times plene.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times plene.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ח‬ Eight times plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times plene.

ֲ ML contains only five, 59 MpL 1 Sam 15:7 counts eight plene occurrences of �‫בּוֹא‬. however: 346F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Judg 6:4 Judg 11:33 1 Sam 15:7 1 Sam 17:52 1 Sam 27:8

Weil emends the Masorah accordingly and completes the revised note for all of the above instances except Judg 11:33, which he likely regards as defective, as per MA. In its place he completes the Masorah for the similar form �‫וּבוֹא‬ ֲ (Isa 37:28), which is defective according to the normative Masorah. 60 Therefore, Weil could have supplemented the Mp note with ‫בליש‬ ֗ “in this and one similar case.” 61 This sub loco note, then, involves both a text-critical decision and an emendation of the scope. 348F

Likewise, MpA. See MmA 1 Sam 17:52: ‫ ויך‬.‫ ויעל דוד ואנשיו‬.‫ ויקמו אנשי ישראל‬.‫ ויחנו עליהם‬:‫מל‬ ֗ ‫בואך ֗ה‬ .‫ ושבתך וצאתך דישעיהו‬.‫“ שאול את עמלק‬there are five occurrences of the plene form ‫בואך‬: Judg 6:4; 1 Sam 17:52; 27:8; 15:7; Isa 37:28.” See also MmV 1 Sam 15:7; BHQ, “Judges,” 19*; Judg 6:4. Dotan and Reich, §�‫בּוֹא‬, ֲ 61 Breuer, The Biblical Text, 390; Ginsburg, 4, ‫ב‬, §94. While Ginsburg (1, ‫ב‬, §94) also counts the same five forms as Weil, he has accidentally included a sixth, Isa 14:9, which should be �‫בּוֹא‬ ֶ (cf. 1, ‫ב‬, §96). Perez Castro (“Samuel,” 82) proposes a different way of resolving the problem. Contrary to MpC, which indicates that there are six plene forms, he counts only five, all of which occur in Samuel: (1) 1 Sam 15:7; (2) 1 Sam 16:4; (3) 1 Sam 17:52; (4) 1 Sam 27:8; (5) 2 Sam 15:20. The second and fifth of these five forms, however, and Weil rightly excludes such forms from consideration. preserve a different form, �‫בּוֹא‬, ֶ 59 60

120

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 158: 1 SAMUEL 15:30 ‫וְ נֶ גֶ ד‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

ML contains eight occurrences of ‫וְ נֶ גֶ ד‬, three of which are in Samuel: 62 (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Sam 12:3b 1 Sam 15:30b 2 Sam 12:12b Isa 5:21

(5) (6) (7) (8)

Isa 24:23 Ezek 42:3b Ruth 4:4b Neh 3:10

349F

Though Weil could have indicated that the scope of MpL 1 Sam 15:30 is limited to Samuel, he opts to emend the frequency note to eight in accordance with MpL 2 Sam 12:12 63 and Isa 5:21, thereby standardizing the Masorah.

NOTE 159: 1 SAMUEL 16:4 ‫ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר יְ הוָ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 16:4 counts eight occurrences of ‫את ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר יְ הוָ ה‬, ֵ whereas ML contains only three occurrences of this phrase: (1) (2) (3)

Num 32:31 1 Sam 15:16 1 Sam 16:4

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ נֶ גֶ ד‬, 2 Sam 12:12b. In MpL 2 Sam 12:12 the notes ‫“ ֗ח‬there are eight occurrences,” which rightly belongs to ‫וְ נֶ גֶ ד‬, and ‫“ ֗ב‬twice,” which rightly belongs to ‫נֶ גֶ ד ָכּל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, have each been applied to the wrong form. Weil corrects this in BHS without indicating so. 62 63

1 SAMUEL

121

Interestingly, Weil does not correct the frequency error nor does he complete the Masorah with ‫“ ֗ח‬eight times” in either of the other two instances. Unfortunately, none of the other manuscripts or masoretic treatises surveyed helps to resolve the problem, and thus Weil’s intent remains unclear. Dotan and Reich (§ ‫ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר‬ ‫ )י—ה‬do in fact emend the tally from eight to three, however.

NOTE 160: 1 SAMUEL 16:4 �‫בּוֹא‬ ֶ MpBHS MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times plene.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times plene.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times plene.

ֶ whereas ML conMpL 1 Sam 16:4 counts five occurrences of the plene ‫ ו‬form �‫בּוֹא‬, tains only three occurrences of this form. The tally rises to four if one includes the The four forms and their references are: 64 similar form �‫וּבוֹא‬. ֶ (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Sam 16:4 2 Sam 15:20 Isa 14:9 Ps 121:8

351F

�‫בּוֹא‬ ֶ �‫בּוֹא‬ ֶ �‫בּוֹא‬ ֶ �‫וּבוֹא‬ ֶ

ֶ MpA Isa 14:9 counts four (‫מל‬ ֗ ‫)ד‬, ֗ whereMpA presents two different tallies for �‫בּוֹא‬. A as Mp 1 Sam 16:4 counts five (‫מל‬ ֗ ‫)ה‬. ֗ According to Breuer, the larger tally results from including the unique form �‫בוֹא‬ ֶ ‫( ְתּ‬Ezek 32:11). 65 Weil excludes this additional ֗ ‫ ֗ה‬to form from consideration, which leads him to emend MpL 1 Sam 16:4 from ‫מל‬ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫ד‬.֗ While this emendation is at variance with MpA 1 Sam 16:4, it accords with MpA Isa 14:9 and is thus another instance in which Weil’s emendation of MpL agrees with MpA.

64 65

See also Dotan and Reich, §�‫בּוֹא‬, ֶ 1 Sam 16:4. Breuer, The Biblical Text, 74, n. 25*.

122

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 161: 1 SAMUEL 16:21 ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל ֗ח‬ Thirty-eight times.

MpA

No note.

֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times.

MpC

No note.

ML contains thirty-three occurrences of the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫ נ ֵֹשׂא‬and another six of the similar defective form ‫וְ נ ֵֹשׂא‬: 66 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Exod 34:7 Num 14:18 Deut 24:15 Judg 9:54 1 Sam 10:3a 1 Sam 10:3b 1 Sam 10:3c 1 Sam 14:1 1 Sam 14:3 1 Sam 14:6 1 Sam 14:7 1 Sam 14:12a 1 Sam 14:12b

35F

(14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)

‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬

1 Sam 14:13a ‫וְ נ ֵֹשׂא‬ 1 Sam 14:13b ‫וְ נ ֵֹשׂא‬ 1 Sam 14:14 ‫וְ נ ֵֹשׂא‬ 1 Sam 14:17 ‫וְ נ ֵֹשׂא‬ 1 Sam 16:21 ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ 1 Sam 17:7 ‫וְ נ ֵֹשׂא‬ 1 Sam 17:41 ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ 1 Sam 22:18 ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ 1 Sam 31:4 ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ 1 Sam 31:5 ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ 1 Sam 31:6 ‫וְ נ ֵֹשׂא‬ 2 Sam 23:37(qere) ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ 1 Kgs 5:29 ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬

(27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39)

2 Kgs 3:14 Amos 5:1 Mic 7:18 Ps 99:8 Ps 126:6a Ps 126:6b Prov 19:19 Dan 1:16 1 Chr 10:4a 1 Chr 10:4b 1 Chr 10:5 1 Chr 11:39 2 Chr 14:7

‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬ ‫נ ֵֹשׂא‬

It seems that MpL presents the tally of twenty-seven here due to confusion with the phonetically similar form ‫נ ְֹשׂ ֵאי‬, which together with its plene ‫ ו‬counterpart is written twenty-seven times in ML. 67 Weil correctly recognizes that MpL 1 Sam 16:21 is in error, and he emends the frequency to thirty-eight in accordance with other MpL notes. 68 Because he does not complete the Masorah for forms 25 and 30, one cannot be certain which of the two Weil would have excluded from the thirty-eight. 69 354F

35F

356F

Likewise, MA. One of the twenty-seven occurrences of ‫ נ ְֹשׂ ֵאי‬is read as ‫( נ ֵֹשׂא‬form 25 above), and thus MpL is correct in featuring the tally of twenty-six ( ֗‫ ֗;כו‬see, e.g., MpL 2 Sam 18:15). 68 See MpL 1 Sam 31:5; 1 Sam 31:6; 1 Kgs 5:29; 2 Kgs 3:14. 69 Dotan and Reich (§‫ֹשׂא־‬ ֵ ‫נ‬, 1 Sam 31:5) provisionally conclude the form 25 is to be excluded on the basis of the kəṯîḇ ‫נ ְֹשׂ ֵאי‬. 66 67

1 SAMUEL

123

NOTE 162: 1 SAMUEL 17:5 ‫ָלבוּשׁ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene in the Prophets.

MpA

‫בנב‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene in the Prophets.

MpC

‫בנב‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene in the Prophets. No note.

MpL 1 Sam 17:5 counts within the Prophets two occurrences of ‫לבוּשׁ‬,ָ but this form occurs in ML only here and in Dan 10:5. Surprisingly, Weil completes MpL 1 Sam 17:5 at Dan 10:5, marking it as the other plene form within the Prophets, even though Daniel is not reckoned among the Prophets in the Hebrew Canon. MmA 1 Sam 17:5 and MmV Prov 31:21 agree that ‫ ָלבוּשׁ‬occurs twice within the Prophets, but they list catchphrases for 1 Sam 17:5 and 2 Kgs 10:22 (‫)לבוּשׁ‬. ְ 70 Perhaps Weil does not complete the Masorah accordingly because one additional form occurs ְ 71 In the end, Weil’s choice to not within the Prophets in ML (Isa 14:19, ‫)לבוּשׁ‬. L emend Mp 1 Sam 17:5 is correct, but his completion (Dan 10:5) is not. 358F

NOTE 163: 1 SAMUEL 17:23 ‫וְ הוּא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל ֗ג ר״פ‬ Thirty-three times at the beginning of a verse.

MpA

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ֗‫ראש פסו‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once at the beginning of a verse in this book.

MpC

No note. ‫]וְ ֣הוּא׀ ְמ ַד ֵ ֣בּר[ ֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL 1 Sam 17:23 ostensibly counts only one occurrence in Samuel of ‫ וְ הוּא‬at the beginning of a verse, whereas ML contains three such forms: (1) (2) (3)

1 Sam 17:23 2 Sam 17:10 2 Sam 23:21

Likewise, Ginsburg, 2, ‫ל‬, §293. Dotan and Reich (§‫)לבוּשׁ‬ ָ note that the two forms are distinct in that one is a participle and the other is a noun. 71 MA,C,V have the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫ ְל ֻבשׁ‬in Isa 14:19, and thus the reading in ML is a corruption. 70

124

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpL also presents this note for the latter two forms, 72 and these notes are technically correct if accentuation is considered. In the case of 1 Sam 17:23, then, MpL correctly marks ‫( וְ ֣הוּא׀‬with ləḡarmeh) as unique. However, instead of emending these three notes accordingly, Weil emends MpL to count thirty-three occurrences of ‫וְ הוּא‬ at the beginning of a verse in the Bible (not just within Samuel, as per MpL), and this revision accords with evidence within MpA,L. 73 The thirty-three references are: 74 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

Gen 16:12 Gen 33:3 Lev 21:13 Judg 3:19 Judg 3:24 1 Sam 17:23 2 Sam 17:10 2 Sam 23:21 1 Kgs 19:4 2 Kgs 5:25 Isa 10:7

(12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22)

Isa 34:17 Isa 42:22 Isa 53:5 Ezek 18:11 Hab 1:10 Zech 6:13 Ps 9:9 Ps 19:6 Ps 78:38 Ps 130:8 Job 13:28 360F

(23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33)

Job 21:32 Job 22:18 Job 23:13 Job 34:29 Job 37:12 Dan 2:21 1 Chr 11:23 2 Chr 27:5 2 Chr 28:3 2 Chr 32:30 2 Chr 33:6

361F

Dotan and Reich (§‫וְ הוּא‬, 1 Sam 17:23) suggest that the frequency note ‫ ֗ל‬is not erroneous, however. They suppose that it functions as the number thirty here (not “unique,” as per usual) and that “in this book” refers to the Prophets and the Writings, which contain exactly thirty occurrences (forms 4–33 above). One cannot be certain if Weil considered his emendation to MpL 1 Sam 17:23 to be a standardization of the Masorah or a correction of a frequency error.

NOTE 164: 1 SAMUEL 17:26 ‫ַה ְפּ ִל ְשׁ ִתּי ֶה ָﬠ ֵרל‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice. 75

MpA

No note.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

No note.

The occurrence in 2 Sam 23:21 is the focus of sub loco note 273. Weil does not present a sub loco note for the occurrence in 2 Sam 17:10. 73 See, e.g., MpA 2 Sam 17:10; 23:21; MpL Gen 33:3; 2 Kgs 5:25; Hab 1:10; Dan 2:21. 74 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ הוּא‬, Gen 33:3. 75 The ‫ ֗ב‬in MpBHS is missing the lower horizontal stroke. 72

1 SAMUEL

125

MpL 1 Sam 17:26 marks ‫ ַה ְפּ ִל ְשׁ ִתּי ֶה ָﬠ ֵרל‬as unique, whereas ML contains two occurrences of this phrase twice: 1 Sam 17:26; 17:36. Weil corrects the frequency and completes the Masorah accordingly. 76 36F

NOTE 165: 1 SAMUEL 17:50 ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫בנביא ֗ב‬ ֗ ‫֗ל ֗ב‬ Thirty-two times in the Prophets, two of which are defective in this book. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note [‫יְמ ֵתהוּ‬ ִ ַ‫]ו‬.

MpC

No note [‫יְמ ֵתהוּ‬ ִ ַ‫]ו‬.

Weil counts thirty-two occurrences in the Prophets of ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫ וַ יְ ִמ‬and its defective ‫י‬ 77 L counterpart ‫וַ יְ ִמ ֵתהוּ‬, whereas M contains only twelve such forms in these books. Thus, Weil may have intended to print ‫“ ֗י֗ב‬twelve” instead of ‫“ ֗ל ֗ב‬thirty-two.” The twelve forms and their references are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1 Sam 17:50 2 Sam 21:17 1 Kgs 2:34 1 Kgs 13:24 1 Kgs 13:26 1 Kgs 15:28

‫יְמ ֵתהוּ‬ ִ ַ‫*ו‬ ‫יְמ ֵתהוּ‬ ִ ַ‫*ו‬ ‫יְמ ֵתהוּ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ ‫יְמ ֵתהוּ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ ‫יְמ ֵתהוּ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬

(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

1 Kgs 16:10 2 Kgs 15:10 2 Kgs 15:14 2 Kgs 15:25 2 Kgs 15:30 2 Kgs 23:29

‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ ‫יְמ ֵתהוּ‬ ִ ַ‫ *ו‬78 ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬

֗ ‫“ ֗ל ֗ב‬thirty-two times in the ProphCuriously, neither MpL nor MpBHS present ‫בנביא‬ ets” or ‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗י֗ב‬twelve times in the Prophets” for any other occurrence of ‫וַ יְ ִמ ֵתהוּ‬/‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬. Weil places this sub loco note’s index number after ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫…“ ֗ב‬two of which are defective in this book” in order to indicate that the principal aim of this sub loco note is to address the evidence that militates against ML’s plene ‫ י‬reading ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ ו‬in 1 Sam 17:50. 79 From MmL 2 Kgs 15:30, which lists the only eight occurrences of the plene form ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬, Weil determines that the two forms of ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ ו‬in See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ה ְפּ ִל ְשׁ ִתּי ֶה ָﬠ ֵרל‬.ַ The second half of MpBHS indicates that the two occurrences in Samuel are defective, and from this one should infer that Weil includes in the larger tally both plene and defective forms. 78 This contra textum form is the focus of sub loco note 378. 79 This is confirmed by his comment in the Masoretic apparatus: “Mp contra textum, cf Mm 2137 et Mp sub loco.” 76 77

126

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Samuel should be defective, 80 a decision that is supported by MA and MmA 1 Chr 2:3. 81

NOTE 166: 1 SAMUEL 17:57 ‫וַ ִיְב ֵאהוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫י֗ ֗א‬ Eleven times.

MpA

No note.

‫י֗ ֗א‬ Eleven times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 17:57 counts eleven occurrences of ‫וַ ִיְב ֵאהוּ‬, and Weil prints this note without emendation in MpBHS. ML, however, contains six occurrences of this exact form and seven occurrences of the plene ‫ י‬counterpart ‫יאהוּ‬ ֵ ‫וַ ִיְב‬: 82 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Gen 29:13 Judg 19:21 1 Sam 16:12 1 Sam 17:54 1 Sam 17:57 2 Kgs 4:20 2 Kgs 25:7

‫יאהוּ‬ ֵ ‫וַ ִיְב‬ ‫יאהוּ‬ ֵ ‫וַ ִיְב‬ ‫יאהוּ‬ ֵ ‫וַ ִיְב‬ ‫וַ ִיְב ֵאהוּ‬ ‫וַ ִיְב ֵאהוּ‬ ‫יאהוּ‬ ֵ ‫וַ ִיְב‬ ‫וַ ִיְב ֵאהוּ‬

(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Jer 37:14 Jer 52:11 Ezek 17:4 2 Chr 25:23 2 Chr 36:4 2 Chr 36:10

369F

‫וַ ִיְב ֵאהוּ‬ ‫וַ ִיְב ֵאהוּ‬ ‫יאהוּ‬ ֵ ‫וַ ִיְב‬ ‫יאהוּ‬ ֵ ‫וַ ִיְב‬ ‫יאהוּ‬ ֵ ‫וַ ִיְב‬ ‫וַ ִיְב ֵאהוּ‬

Weil may have chosen not to emend ‫ י֗ ֗א‬because he does not interpret it to be a frequency error. 83 It is more likely that he considers this MpL note to be a dittography of the MpL note for ‫וְ רֹאשׁ‬, which appears in the subsequent line of ML. 84 371F

MmL 2 Kgs 15:30 counts eight plene forms but lists nine catchwords and catchphrases, eight for the aforementioned verses and one for 2 Kgs 15:25 (‫)גלעדים‬: :‫מל‬ ֗ ‫וימיתהו ֗ח‬ ‫ ולא דרש ביהוה‬.‫ במגדו‬.‫ ויהי‬.‫הוש‬ ֗ ‫ ויקשר קשר‬.‫ גלעדים‬.‫ קבלעם‬.‫ ויעל מנחם‬.‫ ויבא זמרי‬.‫וימצאהו‬ .‫“ וימיתהו‬there are eight occurrences of the plene form ‫וימיתהו‬: 1 Kgs 13:24; 16:10; 2 Kgs 15:14; 15:10; 15:25; 15:30; 1 Chr 2:3; 2 Kgs 23:29; 1 Chr 10:14.” The inclusion of ‫ גלעדים‬is mistaken, however, because it is the only one of the nine without a MpL note marking it plene and because MA has the defective form in 2 Kgs 15:25. Thus, Weil is correct in expunging this from the Mm list. See Weil, Massorah Magna, §2137; similarly, Dotan and Reich, §‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫וַ יְ ִמ‬, 2 Kgs 15:30. 81 MmA 1 Chr 2:3: .‫ ויקשר קשר‬.‫ ֗ב בו‬.‫ שלום בן יביש‬.‫ ויבא זמרי‬.‫ וילך וימצאהו‬:‫מל‬ ֗ ‫וימיתהו ֗ח‬ . ֗‫ ולא דרש ביי‬.‫ ויהי ער‬.‫“ וימיתהו במגדו‬there are eight occurrences of the plene form ‫וימיתהו‬: 1 Kgs 13:24; 16:10; 2 Kgs 15:10; 15:14; 15:30; 2 Kgs 23:29; 1 Chr 2:3; 10:14.” 82 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫יְב ֵאהוּ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬, 1 Sam 17:57. 80

1 SAMUEL

127

NOTE 167: 1 SAMUEL 18:14 ‫ְדּ ָר ָכו‬ MpBHS

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫דרכיו ֗ק חד מן ֗ה‬ Read ‫ ;דרכיו‬one of five written thus. ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times defective.

MpL

MpA

‫דרכיו ֗ק‬ Read ‫דרכיו‬.

MpC

‫כיו ֗ק‬ Read ‫דרכיו‬.

MmL Ps 10:5 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §3210) lists the form under consideration as one of five occurrences of ‫ ְדּ ָר ָכיו‬and similar forms with suffixed pronouns that are written with defective ‫ י‬but read with plene ‫י‬. 85 The references and qərê forms are: 86 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Sam 8:3 1 Sam 18:14 Jer 17:10 Ps 10:5 Job 26:14

372F

37F

‫ִבּ ְד ָר ָכיו‬ ‫ְדּ ָר ָכיו‬ ‫ִכּ ְד ָר ָכיו‬ ‫ְדּ ָר ָכיו‬ ‫ְדּ ָר ָכיו‬

MpL 1 Sam 18:14, however, counts only four such occurrences and fails to provide the qərê and the additional data found in MmL, which is necessary for a correct interpretation of the note. Ginsburg explains that the tally of four is elsewhere attested to the exclusion of form 5, 87 but from evidence in the most reliable manuscripts one should conclude that this lower tally is a frequency error. Weil correctly emends the tally to five and adds a clarification of the note’s scope that derives from MmL Ps 10:5.

This is one of many examples in which Weil presents a sub loco note without emending the incorrect MpL note. Another such example is the focus of sub loco note 242 (2 Sam 14:29). 84 Likewise, MpA Judg 7:25 presents the note ‫ י֗ ֗א‬for ‫וְ רֹאשׁ‬. 85 ‫ ולתת‬.‫ ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל‬.‫ ולא הלכו בניו‬:‫וקר דרכיו וסימנהון‬ ֗ ‫כת דרכ)י(ו‬ ֗ ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ .‫ הן אלה קצות דרכיו‬.‫ יחילו דרכיו‬.‫“ לאיש‬there are five occurrence in this and similar forms that are written ‫ דרכו‬but read ‫דרכיו‬, and their references are 1 Sam 8:3; 18:14; Jer 17:10; Ps 10:5; Job 26:14.” Similarly, MmA 1 Sam 18:14 lists the same five forms, though with an abridged rule: ...‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ דרכו ֗ה‬there are five occurrences of the defective form ‫”…דרכו‬ 86 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ד ָר ָכו‬, ְ Ps 10:5. 87 Ginsburg, 4, ‫ד‬, §212. 83

128

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 168: 1 SAMUEL 18:22 ‫ֲﬠ ָב ָדו‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫כת‬ ֗ ‫עבדיו ֗ק חד מן ֗ב‬ Read ‫ ;עבדיו‬one of two written defective in this and similar cases.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

‫]עבדיו[ ֗ק‬ Read ‫עבדיו‬.

MpC

‫דיו ֗ק‬ Read ‫עבדיו‬.

MpL 1 Sam 18:22 contains the qərê reading ‫עבדיו‬, though it is almost completely erased. 88 It would seem that Weil did not see this form in the margin because he notes in the masoretic apparatus that he has added the qərê on account of MmL Jer 22:4 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §2571). 89 This MmL list counts two instances in which the plural defective ‫ י‬form ‫ ֲﬠ ָב ָדו‬is written (1 Sam 18:22; Jer 22:4, ‫)וַ ֲﬠ ָב ָדו‬, and it is supported by MpA 1 Sam 18:22 and MmA 1 Sam 18:22. 90 The supplement that Weil adds (‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫כת‬ ֗ ‫ )חד מן ֗ב‬is merely an amplification of MmL Jer 22:4. These two BHS additions to Mp are the reasons that Weil marks this note “sub loco.”

NOTE 169: 1 SAMUEL 19:13 ‫ְמ ַר ֲאשׁ ָֹתיו‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 19:13 marks ‫ ְמ ַר ֲאשׁ ָֹתיו‬as unique. ML, however, contains eight occurrences of this form, and MpL Gen 28:11 and MpL 1 Kgs 19:6 present the correct tally. 91 The eight references are: 92 378F

379F

This qərê is clearly printed in MpC. .‫ כי אם עשו תעשו‬.‫ ויצו שאול את עבדיו‬:‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ועבדו ֗ב‬there are two occurrences of the defective form ‫ועבדו‬: 1 Sam 18:22; Jer 22:4.” See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וַ ֲﬠ ָב ָדו‬. 90 .‫ הוא ועבדו ועמו‬.‫ ויצו שאול את עבדו‬:‫כתב עבדו‬ ֗ ‫“ עבדיו ֗ב‬there are two occurrences in which ‫ עבדיו‬is written ‫עבדו‬: 1 Sam 18:22; Jer 22:4.” 91 Likewise, MpA 1 Sam 19:16. 92 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫מ ַר ֲאשׁ ָֹתיו‬, ְ 1 Sam 19:13 88 89

1 SAMUEL (1) (2) (3) (4)

Gen 28:11 Gen 28:18 1 Sam 19:13 1 Sam 19:16

(5) (6) (7) (8)

129

1 Sam 26:7(qere) 1 Sam 26:11(qere) 1 Sam 26:16(qere) 1 Kgs 19:6

Weil correctly emends MpL 1 Samuel 19:13 to ‫“ ֗ח‬eight times,” 93 and it is this change that is the reason for this sub loco note. 380F

NOTE 170: 1 SAMUEL 19:24 ‫יאם‬ ִ ‫ַבּנְּ ִב‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ה וחד מן ֗ג‬ Five times, and one of three in this and similar forms that are written thus.

MpA

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times written thus.

MpC

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times written thus. No note.

ִ ‫ ַבּנְּ ִב‬in its various plene and According to MmL Hos 6:5, there are five forms of ‫יאם‬ defective spellings: 94 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Sam 10:11 1 Sam 10:12 1 Sam 19:24 1 Sam 28:6 Hos 6:5 381F

‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ַבּנְּ ִב‬ ‫ַבּנְּ ִב ִאים‬ ‫יאם‬ ִ ‫ַבּנְּ ִב‬ ‫יאם‬ ִ ‫ַבּנְּ ִב‬ ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ַבּנְּ ִב‬

ִ ‫ ַבּנְּ ִב‬as one of three occurrences that have an initial MpL 1 Sam 19:24 counts ‫יאם‬ plene ‫ י‬and a subsequent defective ‫י‬, and two of these forms are listed in MmL Hos 6:5 (forms 3–4). The third occurrence is the similar form ‫יאם‬ ִ ‫( ַהנְּ ִב‬Jer 23:31), for L ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬three times written thus,” 95 just as it does for which Mp supplies the note ‫כת כן‬ 96 L the other two. Though M 1 Sam 28:15 also contains ‫יאם‬ ִ ‫הנְּ ִב‬,ַ 97 Weil treats the 384F

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫יג‬,‫ ְמ ַר ֲאשׁ ָֹתיו ש״א יט‬. MmL Hos 6:5 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §3012) reads as follows: ‫ ויהי כל‬:‫בנביאים ֗ה‬ .‫ על כן חצבת‬.‫ גם בחלמות גם באורים‬.‫ ויפשט גם הוא‬.‫ ויען איש משם‬.‫“ יודעו‬there are five occurrences of ‫בנביאים‬: 1 Sam 10:11; 10:12; 19:24; 28:6; Hos 6:5.” Note that Weil emends ‫גם‬ ‫ בחלמות גם באורים‬to ‫ בחלמות גם באורים‬and ‫ על כן חצבת‬to ‫על כן חצבתי‬. 95 Weil correctly notes in the Masoretic apparatus for 1 Sam 19:24 that MpL incorrectly affixes the note to ‫ ַהנְּ ִב ִאים‬of Jer 23:30 and not ‫יאם‬ ִ ‫ ַהנְּ ִב‬of Jer 23:31. The intent is clear, however. 96 All three forms have a corresponding note in MpA,L. 93 94

130

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

form as fully plene (‫יאים‬ ִ ‫)הנְּ ִב‬, ַ 98 a decision that is supported by MA, MpA 1 Sam 99 L 28:15, and Mm 1 Sam 19:20. 100 Thus, Weil presents this sub loco note because he (1) joins the two rubrics, (2) supplements MpL with ‫בליש‬ ֗ “in this and similar forms,” and (3) reads against the text of ML to arrive at the tally of three.

NOTE 171: 1 SAMUEL 20:2 ‫ָאזְ נִ י‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpA

No note.

֗‫י‬ Ten times.

MpC

No note.

ָ 101 whereas ML contains only MpL 1 Sam 20:2 counts ten occurrences of ‫אזְ נִ י‬, 102 eight: 38F

389F

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Sam 20:2 1 Sam 22:8a 1 Sam 22:8b 1 Sam 22:17(qere)

(5) (6) (7) (8)

Ps 49:5 Job 4:12 Job 13:1 Prov 5:13

Weil emends the frequency accordingly. In MA one finds the frequency note ֗‫ י‬attached to the subsequent word �‫דּוּ‬ ַ ‫וּמ‬, ַ which does indeed occur ten times, 103 and 104 thus this error is one of dislocation. 390F

391F

Likewise, MC. Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫יאם‬ ִ ‫בּנְּ ִב‬,ַ 1 Sam 19:24. See MpBHS 1 Sam 28:15: ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ “three times plene in this book.” 99 See MpA 1 Sam 28:15: ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬there are three plene occurrences in this book.” 100 MmL 1 Sam 19:20 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1636) reads as follows: ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫הנביאים ֗ג‬ .‫ למה הרגזתני‬.‫ את להקת הנביאים‬.‫דסיפ‬ ֗ ‫ הגם שאול בנביאים קדמייה‬:‫בסיפ‬ ֗ “there are three occurrences in this book of the plene form ‫הנביאים‬: 1 Sam 10:11; 19:20; 28:15.” MA,C 1 Sam 28:15 likewise read ‫יאם‬ ִ ‫הנְּ ִב‬.ַ 101 Likewise, MpL 1 Sam 22:8b, which is the focus of sub loco note 178. 102 Likewise, MmV Job 13:1; Ginsburg, 1, ‫א‬, §249. 103 See MmL Judg 9:27 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1454), which reads: :‫מדוע י֗ וסימנהון‬ .‫ לא שמרת‬.‫ הכיתו שם‬.‫ הקלתני‬.‫ יסתיר‬.‫ הצלתם‬.‫ באתם‬.‫ נעבדנו‬.‫ תתנשאו על קהל‬.‫ומדוע לא יראתם‬ “there are ten occurrences of ‫מדוע‬, and their reference are: Num 12:8; 16:3; Judg 9:28; 11:7; 11:26; 1 Sam 20:2; 2 Sam 19:44; 18:11; ; 2:43.” 104 Likewise, Dotan and Reich (§‫אזְ נִ י‬, ָ 1 Sam 20:2) suggest this as a possible solution, but they also consider the possibility that the incorrect tally of ten resulted from confusion with the similar form ‫אזְ נָ ם‬, ָ for which MpL Jer 7:26 correctly counts ten occurrences. 97 98

1 SAMUEL

131

NOTE 172: 1 SAMUEL 20:12 � ֶ‫ָאזְ נ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective in the Prophets.

MpA

‫בנב‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective in the Prophets.

‫֗ט‬ Nine times.

MpC

֗‫חס בנ‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective in the Prophets.

ָ 105 and this MpL 1 Sam 20:12 counts nine occurrences of the defective ‫ י‬form � ֶ‫אזְ נ‬, L tally is correct for M if one includes the one similar case � ֶ‫( וְ ָאזְ נ‬Prov 23:12). The nine references are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Sam 20:12 1 Sam 20:13 Isa 48:8 Ps 10:17 Ps 102:3

� ֶ‫ָאזְ נ‬ � ֶ‫ָאזְ נ‬ � ֶ‫ָאזְ נ‬ � ֶ‫ָאזְ נ‬ � ֶ‫ָאזְ נ‬

(6) (7) (8) (9)

Prov 2:2 Prov 4:20 Prov 5:1 Prov 23:12

� ֶ‫ָאזְ נ‬ � ֶ‫ָאזְ נ‬ � ֶ‫ָאזְ נ‬ � ֶ‫וְ ָאזְ נ‬

Instead of merely clarifying the Masorah, Weil opts to complete MpL 1 Sam 20:13 ( ‫֗ג‬ ‫בנב‬ ֗ ‫)חס‬, ֗ which counts three occurrences in the Prophets (forms 1–3 above). 106 39F

NOTE 173: 1 SAMUEL 20:21 ‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫֗ב ר״פ והנה והנה‬ ‫ והנה והנה‬twice with the first at the beginning of a verse.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב פסו֗ והנה והנה‬ ‫ והנה והנה‬occurs in two verses.

MpC

No note.

MmV Prov 2:2 counts nine occurrences, but instead of including the similar form in Prov 23:12, this list presents a catchphrase for Ps 130:2, which in ML is written with the plene ‫ י‬counterpart; likewise, Dotan and Reich, §� ֶ‫אזְ נ‬, ָ 1 Sam 20:21. Ginsburg (4, ‫א‬, §263) indicates that the two readings for Ps 130:2 derive from two different schools. 106 Likewise, MmA and MpC 1 Sam 20:12. MmA does not include the stricture “in the Prophets,” but it is included in the corresponding MpA note. 105

132

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Dotan and Reich (§‫[ וָ ֵהנָּ ה‬...] ‫ )וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬correctly observe that MpL 1 Sam 20:21 counts two verses in which ‫וָ ֵהנָּ ה‬...‫ וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬occurs: Josh 8:20; 1 Sam 20:21. By contrast, Weil emends MpL 1 Sam 20:21 to ‫“ ֗ב ר״פ והנה והנה‬twice with the first at the beginning of a verse,” and he completes the note in Gen 37:7. This completion is clearly incorrect because in Gen 37:7 there are three instances of ‫ וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬and no instances of ‫וָ ֵהנָּ ה‬. Weil should have refrained from emending MpL 1 Sam 20:21 and should have completed it for Josh 8:20, as per Dotan and Reich.

NOTE 174: 1 SAMUEL 20:42 ‫ֵבּינִ י‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫פסוק ביני ובינך ובין ובין‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ ‫ ביני ובינך ובין ובין‬occurs in three verses.

MpA

֗‫֗ג פסו‬ Three verses.

MpC

‫פס דמיין ביני ובינך ובין‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three verses are similar in featuring ‫ביני ובינך ובין‬.

No note.

Though MpL 1 Sam 20:42 ostensibly suggests that ‫ ֵבּינִ י‬occurs in three verses, Weil correctly observes that this masoretic rule counts the three verses in which ‫ֵבּינִ י‬ ‫וּבין‬ ֵ ‫וּבין‬ ֵ �(‫וּבינֶ )י‬ ֵ occurs: 107 (1) Gen 13:8 (2) 1 Sam 20:42 (3) 2 Chr 16:3

394F

NOTE 175: 1 SAMUEL 21:7 ‫ַה ָפּנִ ים‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫ו‬ Six times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ט‬ Nine times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 21:7 counts nine occurrences of ‫ה ָפּנִ ים‬,ַ whereas ML contains ten: 108 395F

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫וּבין‬ ֵ [...] ‫וּבין‬ ֵ � ֶ‫וּבינ‬ ֵ ‫ ֵבּינִ י‬, 1 Sam 20:42. MpA omits from the rubric the second ‫ובין‬, which is essential, as there are four verses that contain ‫ביני ובינך‬ ‫ובין‬: the three aforementioned and Gen 17:7. 107

1 SAMUEL (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Exod 35:13 Exod 39:36 Num 4:7 1 Sam 21:7 1 Kgs 7:48

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

133

Ezek 10:22 Prov 27:19a Dan 9:7 Dan 9:8 2 Chr 4:19

Though Weil appears to have incorrectly revised MpL’s tally from nine to six, the ֗‫ו‬ in MpBHS is a typographical error that results from orthographic confusion with Weil’s intended revision of ֗‫י‬. This is confirmed by the fact that the MpBHS note ֗‫ י‬is presented for the other nine. Thus, Weil correctly emends the frequency error.

NOTE 176: 1 SAMUEL 21:7 ‫ִה ָלּ ְקחוֹ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpC

No note. ‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL 1 Sam 21:7 indicates that there are five occurrences of ‫ה ָלּ ְקחוֹ‬,ִ but in ML this form occurs only once. Weil emends the frequency accordingly. 109 396F

NOTE 177: 1 SAMUEL 22:8 ‫ ָאזְ נִ י‬a

MpBHS

‫֗ח‬ Eight times. No note.

MpL

See note 171 (1 Sam 20:2).

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ה ָפּנִ ים‬.ַ The tradition of nine is attested by Ginsburg, 2, ‫פ‬, §140 and MfV, ‫פנ‬, §27, but they disagree on which of the ten is excluded. The former excludes Dan 9:8, while the latter excludes Num 4:7. 109 Likewise, MpC 1 Sam 21:7. Dotan and Reich (§‫)ה ָלּ ְקחוֹ‬ ִ conjecture that the tally of five includes nifal infinitive construct and second-person prefix conjugation forms, but they do not present supporting evidence. 108

134

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 178: 1 SAMUEL 22:8 ‫ ָאזְ נִ י‬b

MpBHS MpL

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpA

No note.

֗‫י‬ Ten times.

MpC

No note.

See note 171 (1 Sam 20:2).

NOTE 179: 1 SAMUEL 22:15 ‫�תי‬ ִ ‫ַה ִח‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ב ראה‬ Twice; Deut 2:31.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫וחס ראה‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice and defective; Deut 2:31.

ִ ‫ ַה ִח‬is unique, whereas ML contains two occurMpL 1 Sam 22:15 indicates that ‫�תי‬ A,C rences of this form. Mp provide the correct frequency, and with the catchword ‫ ראה‬they indicate that the other occurrence appears in Deut 2:31. 110 Though Weil treats MpL’s tally as a frequency error, David Marcus argues that the purview of the present MpL note is likely limited to the Prophets, in which case the Masorah is essentially correct, needing only a clarification of the scope. 111 397F

398F

NOTE 180: 1 SAMUEL 23:2 ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַאל ָדּוִ ד ַבּיהוָ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

Likewise, Mynatt, Sub Loco, 182; BHQ, “Deuteronomy,” 18*. David Marcus, “Doublet Catchwords in the Leningrad Codex,” n.p. [cited 18 Feb 2013]. Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫�תי‬ ִ ‫ה ִח‬,ַ 1 Sam 22:15. 110 111

1 SAMUEL

135

Because of the placement of the Mp notes ‫“ ֗ג‬three times” and ‫“ ֗ד‬four times,” MpL appears to count three occurrences of ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַאל ָדּוִ ד ַבּיהוָ ה‬and four of �‫ה ֵא ֵל‬.ַ

MmL Exod 2:7 counts three occurrences of �‫ה ֵא ֵל‬,ַ 112 however, and MpL presents the frequency note ‫ ֗ד‬for three other occurrences of ‫( וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַאל ָדּוִ ד ַבּיהוָ ה‬forms 2, 4, and 5 below). Weil recognizes this and therefore transposes the note ‫ ֗ג‬to �‫ ַה ֵא ֵל‬in 1 Sam 23:2. He prints the note ‫“ ֗ה‬five times” and not ‫ ֗ד‬for ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַאל ָדּוִ ד ַבּיהוָ ה‬because this phrase occurs five times in ML: 113 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Sam 23:2 1 Sam 30:8 2 Sam 2:1 2 Sam 5:19 2 Sam 5:23

40F

Dotan and Reich note that the tally of four is correct for the longer phrase ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַאל‬ ‫דּוִ ד ַבּיהוָ ה ֵלאמֹר‬,ָ which occurs in 1 Sam 23:2. But while MpL presents the frequency note ‫ ֗ד‬for three instances of ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַאל ָדּוִ ד ַבּיהוָ ה ֵלאמֹר‬, not one of them have a circellus above ‫בּיהוָ ה ֵלאמֹר‬.ַ It is presumably for this reason that Weil emends the frequency note to ‫ ֗ה‬in every instance, treating it as a frequency error, as per Ginsburg. 114 Dotan and Reich (§‫)וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַאל ָדּוִ ד ַבּי—ה ֵלאמֹר‬, however, choose to let the frequency stand and simply add ‫ ֵלאמֹר‬to the masoretic rule.

NOTE 181: 1 SAMUEL 23:19 ‫ַהיְ ִשׁימוֹן‬ MpBHS MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene. No note.

MmL Exod 2:7 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §380) reads: ‫ האלך‬.‫ האלך וקראתי לך‬:‫האלך ֗ג‬ .‫ האלך על רמת גלעד‬.‫“ והכיתי‬there are three occurrences of ‫האלך‬: Exod 2:7; 1 Sam 23:2; 1 Kgs 22:6.” Likewise, MpA 1 Sam 23:2. 113 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁ ַאל ָדּוִ ד ַבּי—ה‬ ְ ִ‫וַ יּ‬. 114 Ginsburg, 2, ‫ש‬, §39. 112

136

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpL 1 Sam 23:19 counts three occurrences of the fully plene form ‫היְ ִשׁימוֹן‬,ַ whereas ML contains only two occurrences of this form: 1 Sam 23:19; 23:24. Weil emends the frequency accordingly, ostensibly correcting an error. MpL accords with MpA 1 Sam 23:19, however, and Haketer explains that the third occurrence is all similar forms within the Writings, 115 which are four in number. 116 Thus, there are six forms in all: 402F

(1) 1 Sam 23:19 (2) 1 Sam 23:24 (3) Ps 68:8

403F

‫ַהיְ ִשׁימוֹן‬ ‫ַהיְ ִשׁימוֹן‬ ‫ישׁימוֹן‬ ִ ‫ִבּ‬

(4) Ps 78:40 (5) Ps 106:14 (6) Ps 107:4

‫ישׁימוֹן‬ ִ ‫ִבּ‬ ‫ישׁימוֹן‬ ִ ‫ִבּ‬ ‫ישׁימוֹן‬ ִ ‫ִבּ‬

In light of this, Weil would have done better to clarify the masoretic rule than to emend the frequency.

NOTE 182: 1 SAMUEL 23:22 ‫יַ ְﬠ ִרם‬ MpBHS MpL

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective. No note.

MpL 1 Sam 23:22 counts two occurrences of the defective ‫ י‬form ‫יַ ְﬠ ִרם‬. ML, however, contains three occurrences of this form, and Weil revises the frequency accordingly. The three references are: 117 (1) (2) (3)

1 Sam 23:22 Prov 15:5 Prov 19:25

40F

The discrepancy between MpL and ML concerns form 2. MmV Prov 15:5 indicates that all three of the above verses contain the defective ‫ י‬form ‫יַ ְﬠ ִרם‬. 118 There is also another widely attested tradition that counts Prov 15:5 as one of four verses of seven four-letter words, and this means that Prov 15:5 contains the defective ‫ י‬form of Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫היְ ִשׁימוֹן‬,ַ 1 Sam 23:19. Haketer, “Samuel I & II,” 122. 117 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫יַ ְﬠ ִרם‬, 1 Sam 23:22. 118 .‫ לץ תכה ופתי יערם‬.‫ ושמר תכחת יערם‬.‫ ערום חערם הוא דזיפים‬:‫וסימ‬ ֗ ‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫“ ירעם ֗ג‬there are three occurrences of the defective form ‫ירעם‬, and their references are 1 Sam 23:22; Prov 15:5; 19:25.” 115 116

1 SAMUEL

137

‫יַ ְﬠ ִרם‬. 119 MmL Prov 17:3 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §3618), 120 however, counts only three such verses to the exclusion of Prov 15:5. 121 Furthermore, MA Prov 15:5 contains the plene ‫ י‬form ‫יַ ְﬠ ִרים‬, 122 and MpA Prov 17:3 counts only three verses with seven words of four letters each. Thus, evidence from the more reliable witnesses supports MpL 1 Sam 23:22 and not Weil’s emendation. 123

NOTE 183: 1 SAMUEL 23:24 ‫ַהיְ ִשׁימוֹן‬ MpBHS MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene. No note.

See note 181 (1 Sam 23:19).

NOTE 184: 1 SAMUEL 24:5 �‫א ְֹיִבי‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ֗‫איבך ֗ק יתיר י‬ Read ‫ ;איבך‬superfluous ֗‫ י‬in this and one similar form.

MpA

֗‫יתיר י‬ Superfluous ֗‫י‬.

֗‫יתיר י‬ Superfluous ֗‫י‬.

MpC

֗‫יתיר י‬ Superfluous ֗‫י‬.

MpS1,L,V Ps 73:2; MpS1,V Prov 12:16; MpV Prov 17:3; Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna, 147; Breuer, The Biblical Text, 280, n. 39. 120 ‫ אויל‬.‫ ואני כמעט נטיו רגלי‬:‫פסוק בקריה מן ז֗ ז֗ מילין וכו ֗ל מילה מן ֗ד ֗ד אותיות וסימנהון‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ .‫ מצרף לכסף וכור לזהב‬.‫“ ביום יודע כעסו‬there are three verse in the Bible that have seven words in which every word has four letters, and their references are Ps 73:2; Prov 12:16; 17:3.” 121 According to Breuer, Prov 15:5 may have been incorrectly included under this rubric because it, like Prov 12:16, has seven words including ‫( ֱאוִ יל‬Breuer, The Biblical Text, 280, n.39). 122 Cf. MpA Prov 17:3 ‫“ ֗ג פסו֗ מן ז֗ מלין ארבעה אתין‬there are three verses that have seven words each of four letters.” 123 BHQ (“Proverbs,” 18*) fails to note that Prov 15:5 should read ‫יַ ְﬠ ִרים‬. 119

138

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

The reasons for this sub loco note are two: Weil adds a qərê note and supplements ֗ “in this and one similar form” in order to draw attention to the simiMpL with ‫בליש‬ lar, plene ‫ ו‬qərê form �‫אוֹיִבי‬ ְ (Prov 24:17).

NOTE 185: 1 SAMUEL 24:12 ‫אתי‬ ִ ‫א־ח ָ ֣ט‬ ָ ֹ ‫וְ ל‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫בטע‬ ֗ ֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times with this accent.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

According to MpL 1 Sam 24:12, ‫אתי‬ ִ ‫א־ח ָט‬ ָ ֹ ‫ וְ ל‬occurs twenty-seven times with the mûnaḥ accent. Regardless of the accent, however, this phrase is unique in ML, as per MpA,C 1 Sam 24:12. By comparing MpL with MpA,C, one can see that the correct Mp note for ‫אתי‬ ִ ‫א־ח ָט‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ֗)ל( וְ ל‬has been misapplied to the previous phrase ‫ר ָﬠה וָ ֶפ ַשׁע‬,ָ for ֗ ֗‫“ ֗כז‬twenty-seven times with which MpA,C do not present a note. The MpL note ‫בטע‬ this accent” belongs to the subsequent form ‫( וְ ַא ָתּה‬with təḇîr). 124 This error, then, is one of dislocation. 41F

NOTE 186: 1 SAMUEL 24:12 ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ MpBHS

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫בטע ֗ח‬ ֗ ֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times with this accent, eight in this form. No note.

MpL

MpA

‫בט‬ ֗ ֗‫י‬ Ten times with this accent.

MpC

‫בט‬ ֗ ֗‫י֗ ז‬ Seventeen times with this accent.

֗ ֗‫“ ֗כז‬twenty-seven times with this accent” is attached to Though the MpL note ‫בטע‬ ‫אתי‬ ִ ‫א־ח ָ ֣ט‬ ָ ֹ ‫ וְ ל‬in 1 Sam 24:12, it belongs to ‫( וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬with təḇîr) as per the commentary on note 185 (1 Sam 24:12). According to Weil, the tally of twenty-seven includes the

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫אתי‬ ִ ‫א־ח ָט‬ ָ ֹ ‫וְ ל‬. The form ‫ וְ ַא ָתּה‬is the focus of sub loco note 186 (1 Sam 24:12). 124

1 SAMUEL

139

eight occurrences of ‫ וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬125 in addition to the nineteen occurrences of the similar form ‫א ָ ֛תּה‬, ַ regardless of servi or maqqeṕ: 126 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Gen 15:15 Gen 17:9 Exod 10:25 Exod 18:19 Num 22:34 Deut 28:52 Josh 5:15 Judg 7:10 1 Sam 24:12

‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬

(10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)

413F

1 Sam 28:9 1 Sam 29:9 2 Sam 5:2 2 Sam 7:20 1 Kgs 18:37 2 Kgs 19:10 2 Kgs 19:19 Isa 14:10 Isa 37:10

‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬

(19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27)

Jer 5:17 Jer 10:6 Jer 22:6 Jer 45:5 Obad 1:13 1 Chr 11:2 1 Chr 17:4 2 Chr 2:15 2 Chr 21:15

‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬

MpL 1 Sam 27:1 also presents the tally of twenty-seven for ‫( ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬see note 191). As per Haketer, this may indicate a second method of counting twenty-seven forms, which includes all forms of ‫א ָ ֛תּה‬, ַ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬, ‫ﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬,ַ and ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬that do not have maqqeṕ and servi. 127 There are twenty-eight forms in ML: 41F

Like MpA 1 Sam 24:12, MmL 2 Chr 2:15 counts ten occurrences of ‫ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬and ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ not preceded by a servus or maqqeṕ: ‫ ואתה‬.‫ אתה וזרעך אחריך‬.‫ תבוא אל אבותיך‬:‫בטע‬ ̇ ̇‫ואתה י‬ ‫ ואתה‬.‫ הסבות את לבם‬.‫ ומה יוסיף עוד דשמואל‬.‫ גם אתמול גם שלשום בתרי̇ דפסוק‬.‫צדה את נפשי‬ ‫ ואתה‬.‫ ואנחנו נכרת עצים‬.‫ גם תמל גם שלשום קדמיה דפסוק דדברי הימים‬.‫תבקש לך גדלות‬ .‫“ בחליים‬there are ten occurrences of with this accent: Gen 15:15; 17:9b; 1 Sam 24:12; 2 Sam 5:2b; 7:20; 1 Kgs 18:37b; Jer 45:5; 1 Chr 11:2a; 2 Chr 2:15; 2 Chr 21:15.” Though he prints all ten catchphrases in Massorah Gedolah, §4158, Weil incorrectly emends the frequency note from ten to eight because MmL excludes the two occurrences that lack ‫( ו‬see also Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬, 2 Chr 2:15). This indicates that he fails to understand the precise scope of the rule. 126 The only two in this list for which he does not complete this note are forms 23–24, for which he presents a complementary note (see note 191, 1 Sam 27:1). 127 See Haketer, “Samuel.” Perez Castro (“Samuel,” 137) notes that MC contains eight occurrences of ‫( וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬see above), not seventeen as per MpC. He suggests that seventeen ( ֗‫)י֗ ז‬ could be a corruption of eighteen (‫)י֗ ֗ח‬, the tally that Ginsburg (1, ‫א‬, §1474) presents for ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ and ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬. 125

140

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Gen 15:15 Gen 17:9 Gen 47:4 Num 11:6 Num 22:34 1 Sam 24:12 1 Sam 27:1 2 Sam 5:2 2 Sam 7:20 2 Sam 19:10

‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

1 Kgs 1:18 1 Kgs 12:26 1 Kgs 18:37 1 Kgs 21:7 2 Kgs 5:15 Isa 5:3 Jer 45:5 Ezek 23:43(qere) Hos 2:12 Hos 5:7

‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬

(21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28)

Mic 4:11 Mic 7:10 Mal 1:9 Ezra 9:10 Ezra 10:2 1 Chr 11:2 2 Chr 2:15 2 Chr 21:15

‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬

Haketer excludes Ezek 23:43(qere) (‫)ﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ַ because the kəṯîḇ lacks ‫ה‬. 128 Weil resolves the problem differently, however. He attempts to simplify the Masorah by grouping occurrences of ‫ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬and ‫ וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬and featuring the tally of twenty-seven for them, while grouping ‫ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬and ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬and featuring the tally of twenty for them (see note 191). This particular sub loco note is superfluous, though, because Weil has not altered MpL. 415F

NOTE 187: 1 SAMUEL 25:18 ‫ֲﬠשׂוּוֹת‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ֗‫כת תרי֗ ו‬ ֗ ‫עשויות ֗ק חד מן י֗ ֗א‬ Read ‫ ;עשויות‬one of eleven in this and similar cases written with double ‫ו‬.

MpA

‫עשיות ֗ק‬ Read ‫עשיות‬.

‫עשוית ֗ק‬ Read ‫עשוית‬.

MpC

‫עשויות ֗ק‬ Read ‫עשויות‬.

ML contains the kəṯîḇ form ‫עשוות‬, 129 and this reading accords with MmL Exod 39:4 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §648), which lists this and ten other forms written with double ‫ו‬. 130 MpA,L,C, however, all agree that the orthography should include ‫י‬, but they disagree as to which of the two u-class vowels should be read plene. As per Dotan and Reich (§‫ )וְ ַא ָתּה‬suggest that the tally of twenty-seven includes all forms of ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬, ‫ﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬,ַ and ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬with təḇîr except for Ezek 23:43. 129 Likewise, MA,L,C. On the legitimacy of this spelling of the feminine plural qal passive participle, see GKC, §75v. 130 ‫ שתו‬.‫ וחמש צאן עשוות‬.‫וחבר‬.‫ על שני קצוותיו‬.‫ כרוב אחד מקצה מזה דכפרת‬: ֗‫כת ו֗ ו‬ ֗ ‫י֗ ֗א‬ .‫הימ‬ ֗ ‫ העבר נא את עוון עבדך דדברי‬.‫ הן בעוון חוללתי‬.‫ ומצאנו עוון‬.‫ ותלכנה נטוות גרון‬.‫ושכרו וקוו‬ .‫ ומצוות וחקים‬.‫“ ולצוות עליה‬there are eleven words written with double waw: Exod 37:8; 39:4; 1 Sam 25:18; Jer 25:27; Isa 3:16; 2 Kgs 7:9; Ps 51:7; 1 Chr 21:8; Esth 4:8; Neh 9:14; .” 128

1 SAMUEL

141

MpC,V, Weil suggests that the qərê should be the fully plene form ‫ﬠשׂוּיוֹת‬,ֲ and it is this text-critical emendation and his supplementing the Masorah with an expanded form of MmL Exod 39:4 that are the reasons for this sub loco note.

NOTE 188: 1 SAMUEL 25:23 ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ל־פּנ‬ ָ ‫ַﬠ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpA

No note.

֗‫י‬ Ten times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 25:23 counts ten occurrences of ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ל־פּנ‬ ָ ‫ﬠ‬,ַ whereas ML only contains three occurrences. There are ten occurrences of ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ ָפּנ‬in ML, however: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Gen 38:15 Exod 25:37 1 Sam 25:23 2 Kgs 21:13 Isa 24:1

‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ָפּנ‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ָפּנ‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ל־פּנ‬ ָ ‫ַﬠ‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ל־פּנ‬ ָ ‫ַﬠ‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ָפּנ‬

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Isa 28:25 Ezek 40:45 Ezek 40:46 Prov 7:13 Ruth 2:10

‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ָפּנ‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ָפּנ‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ָפּנ‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ָפּנ‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ל־פּנ‬ ָ ‫ַﬠ‬

From the sources consulted, it would seem that Weil should have moved the circellus between ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ל־פּנ‬ ָ ‫ ַﬠ‬instead of emending the frequency for ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫פּנ‬.ָ 131 418F

NOTE 189: 1 SAMUEL 25:31 �‫וְ ִל ְשׁ ָפּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

No note.

MpBHS correctly follows MpL 1 Sam 25:31 in marking �‫ וְ ִל ְשׁ ָפּ‬as unique. 132 As the manuscripts and resources do not bear witness to another masoretic tradition, it would seem that the reason for this sub loco note is Weil’s desire to comment upon 419F

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ל־פּנ‬ ָ ‫ﬠ‬.ַ See MfV, ‫פן‬, §16; Frensdorff, Die Massorah Magna, 155; Ginsburg, 2, ‫פ‬, §172. 132 Likewise, MpA 1 Sam 25:31; see also Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁ ָפּ�־‬ ְ ‫וְ ִל‬. 131

142

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

the variant reading �‫ל ְשׁ ָפּ‬,ִ which, according to the critical apparatus of BHS, is witnessed by a few Hebrew manuscripts, the Greek, the Syriac, and the Latin. It is clear that Weil rejects this variant, for had he accepted it, he would have surely emended the frequency accordingly.

NOTE 190: 1 SAMUEL 26:25 ‫ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗כ ֗ג‬ Twenty-three times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 26:25 counts twenty-three occurrences of ‫ﬠשׂ ֹה‬.ָ The form occurs only eight times in ML, however, and Weil revises the frequency accordingly. The eight references are: (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Sam 25:28 1 Sam 26:25 2 Sam 9:7 2 Kgs 3:16

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Gen 31:28 Gen 50:20 1 Sam 25:28 1 Sam 26:25 2 Sam 9:7 2 Kgs 3:16 Jer 4:18 Jer 7:5 Jer 22:4 Jer 44:17

(5) (6) (7) (8)

Jer 44:17 Jer 44:25 Ezek 23:30 Prov 23:5

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19)

Jer 44:25a Jer 44:25b Ezek 23:30 Ezek 31:11 Ps 101:3 Prov 21:3 Prov 23:5 Esth 9:17 Esth 9:18

Dotan and Reich (§‫ ָﬠשׂ ֹה־‬, 1 Sam 25:28) note that even if one includes similar forms, the tally rises only to nineteen: ‫ֲﬠשׂוֹ‬ ‫ֲﬠשׂ ֹה‬ ‫ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬ ‫ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬ ‫ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬ ‫ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬ ‫ָﬠשׂוֹ‬ ‫ָﬠשׂוֹ‬ ‫ָﬠשׂוֹ‬ ‫ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬

‫ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬ ‫וְ ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬ ‫ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬ ‫ָﬠשׂוֹ‬ ‫ֲﬠשׂ ֹה‬ ‫ֲﬠשׂ ֹה‬ ‫ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬ ‫וְ ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬ ‫וְ ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬

Weil is presumably unable to account for the tally of twenty-three and thus treats it as a frequency error.

1 SAMUEL

143

NOTE 191: 1 SAMUEL 27:1 ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗כ‬ Twenty times with this accent.

MpA

No note.

‫בטע‬ ֗ ֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times with this accent.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 27:1 counts twenty-seven occurrences of ‫ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬with the təḇîr accent, whereas ML contains only eight: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Num 22:33 1 Sam 14:30 1 Sam 27:1 1 Kgs 12:26

(5) (6) (7) (8)

1 Kgs 21:7 Ezek 23:43(qere) Hos 5:7 Mic 7:10

As per Haketer, the tally of twenty-seven may include all occurrences of ‫א ָ ֛תּה‬, ַ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬, ‫ﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬,ַ and ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬that do not include maqqeṕ and servi. 133 There are twenty-eight forms in ML: 420F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Gen 15:15 Gen 17:9 Gen 47:4 Num 11:6 Num 22:34 1 Sam 24:12 1 Sam 27:1 2 Sam 5:2 2 Sam 7:20 2 Sam 19:10

‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

1 Kgs 1:18 1 Kgs 12:26 1 Kgs 18:37 1 Kgs 21:7 2 Kgs 5:15 Isa 5:3 Jer 45:5 Ezek 23:43(qere) Hos 2:12 Hos 5:7

‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬

(21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28)

Mic 4:11 Mic 7:10 Mal 1:9 Ezra 9:10 Ezra 10:2 1 Chr 11:2 2 Chr 2:15 2 Chr 21:15

‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬

ַ because the kəṯîḇ lacks ‫ה‬. 134 Haketer excludes Ezek 23:43(qere) (‫)ﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ Weil emends the tally to twenty, however, because he groups together occurrences of ‫ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬and ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬regardless of maqqeṕ and servi: 135 421F

42F

See Haketer, “Samuel.” Perez Castro (“Samuel,” 137) notes that MC contains eight forms of ‫( וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬see above), not seventeen as per MpC 1 Sam 24:12. He suggests that seventeen ( ֗‫ )י֗ ז‬could be a corruption of eighteen (‫)י֗ ֗ח‬, the tally that Ginsburg (1, ‫א‬, §1474) presents for ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬and ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬. 134 Dotan and Reich suggest that the tally of twenty-seven includes all forms of ‫תּה‬ ֛ ָ ‫וְ ַא‬, ‫ﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬,ַ and ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬with təḇîr except for Ezek 23:43 (Dotan and Reich, §‫)וְ ַא ָתּה‬. 133

144

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Gen 47:4 Num 11:6 Num 22:33 Num 22:34 1 Sam 14:30 1 Sam 27:1 2 Sam 19:10 1 Kgs 1:18 1 Kgs 12:26 1 Kgs 21:7

‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬136 ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

2 Kgs 5:15 Isa 5:3 Ezek 23:43(qere) Hos 2:12 Hos 5:7 Mic 4:11 Mic 7:10 Mal 1:9 Ezra 9:10 Ezra 10:2

‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬

He presents the tally of twenty-seven only for occurrences of ‫ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬and ‫( וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬regardless of maqqeṕ and servi; see note 186). Weil distinguishes ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬/‫ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬from ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬/‫ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬presumably to obviate confusion between the similar masoretic rules of the homophonous pairs. The principal reason for this sub loco note, however, is his emendation of the frequency note in MpL 1 Sam 27:1.

NOTE 192: 1 SAMUEL 28:1 ‫ְל ִה ָלּ ֵחם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫מט‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five verses in which there is the possibility for confusion.

MpC

No note.

Ginsburg, on the other hand, counts twenty forms of the homophones ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬and ‫( וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬Ginsburg, 4, ‫א‬, §1474; cf. BHQ, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 19*). Note that BHQ here fails to mention that “this lemma” addressed by Ginsburg is the aforementioned homophonous pair. That these two rubrics featuring twenty forms may be easily confused is evident from ֗ ‫בכתיב‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫בטע ֗ד‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗כ‬there are twenty occurrences the MpBHS notes for forms 19–20: ‫ובליש‬ with this accent, four of which are in the Writings and in this and a similar form.” As I have already established, Weil completes ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫ ֗כ‬for occurrences of ‫א ָ ֛תּה‬, ַ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬, ‫ﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬,ַ and ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬that do not have maqqeṕ and servi, only two of which occur in the Writings (forms 19–20). The rest of the note counts four occurrences of ‫ וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬and ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬in the Writings regardless of ֗ ‫ואתה ועתה ֗ד‬ maqqeṕ and servi, as per MmL Ezra 9:10 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §3923): ‫בטע‬ .‫ בחליים‬.‫ יש מקוה‬.‫ מה נאמר‬.‫ ואתה תעלה‬:‫בכת‬ ֗ “there are four occurrences of ‫ ואתה‬and ‫ועתה‬ in the Writings: 2 Chr 2:15; Ezra 9:10; 10:2; 2 Chr 21:15.” 136 Note that MpBHS here incorrectly prints ֗‫ י‬instead of ‫כ‬. ֗ 135

1 SAMUEL

145

MpL 1 Sam 28:1 appears to count five occurrences of nifal verb forms of the root .‫ם‬.‫ח‬.‫ ל‬governing the phrase ‫ ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬that could be mistakenly written with the more common, synonymous phrase ‫ﬠם־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬.ִ There are seven occurrences in M, however: 137 42F

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Num 21:1 Num 21:23 Josh 24:9 1 Sam 28:1

‫וַ יִּ ָלּ ֶחם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫וַ יִּ ָלּ ֶחם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫וַ יִּ ָלּ ֶחם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫לה ָלּ ֵחם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ִ

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Num 21:23 Josh 24:9 1 Sam 7:1 1 Sam 28:1 2 Kgs 6:8

‫וַ יִּ ָלּ ֶ֖חם‬ ‫וַ יִּ ָלּ ֶ֖חם‬ ‫ַל ִמּ ְל ָח ָ ֖מה‬ ‫לה ָלּ ֵ ֖חם‬ ִ ‫נִ ְל ָ ֖חם‬

(5) 1 Sam 31:1 ‫נִ ְל ָח ִמים ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ (6) 2 Kgs 6:8 ‫נִ ְל ָחם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ (7) 1 Chr 10:1 ‫נִ ְל ֲחמוּ ְביִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

Weil’s referencing Exod 17:8 and Judg 11:20 in the masoretic apparatus indicates that he is aware of Ginsburg’s list that addresses these synonymous expressions, 138 but it is evident that he is not able to resolve the problem. Dotan and Reich (§‫)ל ִה ָלּ ֵחם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ְ conjecture that ‫מט‬ ֗ is in this case an abbreviation for ‫מטעמין‬ “there is the possibility for confusion” which may serve to distinguish the five forms of the root .‫ם‬.‫ח‬.‫ ל‬that are accented with ṭiṕḥâ:

NOTE 193: 1 SAMUEL 28:3 ‫ֵמ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpA

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

ֵ ML includes five occurrencMpL 1 Sam 28:3 counts only one occurrence of ‫מ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬. es of this form, however, and Weil emends the frequency in accordance with MpL 2 Sam 12:20; MpL Ezek 41:20; MpL Ezek 42:6. The five references are: 139 426F

Dotan and Reich §‫ ְל ִה ָלּ ֵחם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬incorrectly present only forms 2–7. Ginsburg, 2, ‫ל‬, §333 distinguishes forms of this verb with ‫( ִﬠם־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬e.g., Exod 17:8; Judg 11:20) from those with ‫ ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬. 139 Likewise, MpA,C 1 Sam 28:3. 137 138

146

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Sam 28:3 1 Sam 28:23 2 Sam 12:20 Ezek 41:20 Ezek 42:6

Dotan and Reich (§‫)מ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ֵ observe, however, that MpL 1 Sam 28:3 is correct to count one occurrence of ‫ ֵמ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬if the scope is limited to occurrences at the end of a verse within Samuel. And indeed, the two other occurrences of ‫ ִמן‬+ ‫ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬occurring at the end of a verse in Samuel are written ‫ן־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫( ִמ‬1 Sam 28:13; 2 Sam 4:11), not ‫מ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬. ֵ It would seem, however, that this creative solution did not occur to Weil. It is therefore best to assume that his change to MpL was intended as a correction and not a standardization.

NOTE 194: 1 SAMUEL 28:8 ‫וּ ְשׁנֵ י ֲאנָ ִשׁים ִﬠמּוֹ‬ MpBHS

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫]אנָ ִשׁים ִﬠמּוֹ[ ֗ג‬ ֲ Three times.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

ֲ whereas ML contains only MpL 1 Sam 28:8 counts three occurrences of ‫אנָ ִשׁים ִﬠמּוֹ‬, one occurrence of this phrase. Dotan and Reich (§‫)אנָ ִשׁים ִﬠמּוֹ‬ ֲ conjecture that the tally of three includes occurrences of ‫( ֲאנָ ִשׁים‬with or without prefixes) that are followed by ‫ﬠמּוֹ‬.ִ There are actually four such occurrences: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Gen 24:54 Num 13:31 1 Sam 17:26 1 Sam 28:8

‫ר־ﬠמּוֹ‬ ִ ‫הוּא וְ ָה ֲאנָ ִשׁים ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ‫ר־ﬠלוּ ִﬠמּוֹ‬ ָ ‫וְ ָה ֲאנָ ִשׁים ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ‫ל־ה ֲאנָ ִשׁים ָהע ְֹמ ִדים ִﬠמּוֹ‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ ‫וּשׁנֵ י ֲאנָ ִשׁים ִﬠמּוֹ‬ ְ ‫הוּא‬

They only present occurrences 2–4, however, and do not explain their reason for omitting Gen 24:54. Thus, it would seem that Weil’s emendation of the tally is the most reasonable solution to this problem. In addition to correcting the frequency error, Weil adds to the masoretic rule the preceding form ‫וּשׁנֵ י‬, ְ though this does not affect the tally. Furthermore, he adds the Mp note ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” for ‫וּשׁנֵ י ֲאנָ ִשׁים‬ ְ , though this phrase is not addressed by MpL. The two forms are: 1 Sam 28:8; 2 Sam 4:2. As none of the sources consulted addresses either of these two constructions, it remains unclear why Weil proceeds as he does. Nevertheless, it is both his altering of the phrase under consideration and the frequency note that are the reasons for this sub loco note.

1 SAMUEL

147

NOTE 195: 1 SAMUEL 28:8 ‫ומי‬ ִ ‫ָק ֳס‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ֗‫קסמי ֗ק יתיר ו‬ Read ‫ ;קסמי‬superfluous ‫ ו‬in this and one similar form.

MpA

‫יתיר ו֗ ֗ל‬ Superfluous ‫ ;ו‬unique.

֗‫יתיר ו‬ Superfluous ‫ו‬.

MpC

֗‫יתיר ו‬ Superfluous ‫ו‬.

MpL 1 Sam 28:8 agrees with MpA,C 1 Sam 28:8 that the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫ ָק ֳס ִמי‬should be read ( ֗‫)יתיר ו‬. As is his wont, Weil inserts a marginal note for the qərê in BHS, even ֗ “in this and though one is not included in MpL. He also supplements MpL with ‫בליש‬ one similar form” to draw attention to Ezek 21:28, which includes the plene ‫ ו‬kəṯîḇ form ‫ כקסום‬and the defective ‫ ו‬qərê form ‫כּ ְק ָסם‬.ִ

NOTE 196: 1 SAMUEL 28:10 ‫וַ יִּ ָ ֤שּׁ ַ ֽבע‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice with this accent.

MpA

No note.

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice with this accent.

MpC

No note.

ML contains the form ‫( וַ יִּ ָ ֤שּׁ ַ ֽבע‬with the mahpaḵ accent) only here. If one interprets to signify milʿêl stress, then there are three such forms: ‫בטע‬ ֗ (1) (2) (3)

Gen 24:9 ‫וַ יִּ ָ ֣שּׁ ַ ֽבע‬ 1 Sam 28:10 ‫וַ יִּ ָ ֤שּׁ ַ ֽבע‬ 2 Sam 19:24 ‫וַ יִּ ָ ֥שּׁ ַ ֽבע‬

On account of the fact that MpBHS agrees with MpL, and because Weil does not complete the Masorah for any other verbal form of the root .‫ע‬.‫ב‬.‫שׁ‬, it is possible that Weil interprets ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” as a frequency error and thus intended to emend the note to ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬once with this accent.”

148

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 197: 1 SAMUEL 29:5 ‫ַבּ ֲא ָל ָפיו‬ MpBHS

‫כת כן‬ ֗ Written thus. No note.

MpL

There are three occurrences of ‫ ַבּ ֲא ָל ָפיו‬in ML: (1) (2) (3)

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

1 Sam 18:7(qere) 1 Sam 21:12(qere) 1 Sam 29:5

In ML, the first two of these forms differ from the third in that they both have a kəṯîḇ that is spelled without ‫י‬. According to Breuer, certain manuscripts and versions, such as MS1,V, also spell ‫ ַבּ ֲא ָל ָפיו‬with defective spelling in 1 Sam 29:5; 140 but Weil indicates by his adding the Mp note ‫כת כן‬ ֗ “written thus” that he rejects the defective spelling in this case, and his decision accords with MA,C.

NOTE 198: 1 SAMUEL 31:10 ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂמוּ‬ MpBHS

‫֗ל ֗ה‬ Thirty-five times. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note [‫]וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬

MpC

No note [‫]וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬

MpL elsewhere counts thirty-six occurrences of ‫ וַ יָּ ִשׂמוּ‬and its plene ‫ י‬counterpart ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬. 141 ML contains only thirty-five, 142 however, and Weil emends MpL and completes the Masorah accordingly. The thirty-five forms and their references are: 428F

429F

Breuer, The Biblical Text, 82. MpL Ps 109:5; Prov 30:26; Ezra 10:44; 1 Chr 10:10. Dotan and Reich (§‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬, Ps 109:5) suggest that the tally of thirty-six is an error that arose because two catchphrases were entered for Ezek 20:28 in the Mm, as evidence from MB suggests. 142 Likewise, BHQ, “Proverbs,” 21*. 140 141

1 SAMUEL (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

Gen 9:23 Gen 43:32 Exod 1:11 Exod 17:12 Exod 39:19 Lev 9:20 Lev 10:1 Num 16:18 Josh 8:13 Josh 10:24 Josh 10:27 Judg 8:33

‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂמוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬

(13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

Judg 9:25 Judg 9:49 Judg 11:11 Judg 18:21 Judg 18:31 1 Sam 6:11 1 Sam 6:15 1 Sam 31:10 2 Sam 12:20 1 Kgs 20:12 2 Kgs 9:13 2 Kgs 10:7

149 ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂמוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂמוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂמוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬

(25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35)

2 Kgs 11:16 2 Kgs 20:7 Jer 32:34 Ezek 20:28 Zech 3:5 Zech 7:14 Ps 109:5 Prov 30:26 Ezra 10:44 1 Chr 10:10 2 Chr 23:15

‫וַ יָּ ִשׂמוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬

It is unlikely that this is the reason for this sub loco note, however, because MpBHS 1 Sam 31:10 is merely a completion of Weil’s emendation of MpL notes located in other verses (e.g., Ps 109:5). Weil’s comment in the masoretic apparatus indicates that the focus of this note is a contra textum reading. ML contains five occurrences of the defective form ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂמוּ‬: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Josh 10:27 1 Sam 6:11 1 Sam 6:15 1 Sam 31:10 2 Kgs 11:16

֗ ‫“ ֗ד‬four times defective,” which For all but 1 Sam 31:10, MpA,L,C present the note ‫חס‬ indicates that the Masorah regards 1 Sam 31:10 as plene. This is corroborated by MA,C. Thus, Weil correctly decides to read the plene ‫ י‬form ‫ וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬against ML 1 Sam 31:10, and it is this decision that is the reason for this sub loco note. 143 430F

See his note in the Masoretic apparatus: “‫ וישמו‬def contra Mp ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ד‬1 S 6,11.15, cf Mp sub loco.” 143

150

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 199: 1 SAMUEL 31:12 ‫גְּ וִ יּ ֹת‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once defective and once plene.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫ידין בגוים ֗ל‬ Ps 110:6; once defective and once plene.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫מל ידין בגוים‬ ֗ ‫וא‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once defective and once plene; Ps 110:6.

According to MpL 1 Sam 31:12, the form ‫ גְּ וִ יֹּת‬occurs twice, 144 but as Weil indicates, the other form (Ps 110:6) is plene ‫)גְּ וִ יּוֹת( ו‬. His clarification of the masoretic rule accords with MpA,C 1 Sam 31:12.

NOTE 200: 1 SAMUEL 31:12 ‫חוֹמת‬ ַ ‫ֵמ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Sam 31:12 counts three occurrences of ‫חוֹמת‬ ַ ‫מ‬. ֵ ML, however, contains only one instance of this form, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. Dotan and Reich (§‫חוֹמת‬ ַ ‫)מ‬ ֵ suggest that the circellus for the frequency note ‫ ֗ג‬should be placed above the subsequent phrase ‫בּית ָשׁן‬,ֵ which does in fact occur three times: (1) (2) (3)

144

1 Sam 31:10 1 Sam 31:12 2 Sam 21:12

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫גְּ וִ יּוֹת‬.

CHAPTER 5: 2 SAMUEL

NOTE 201: 2 SAMUEL 1:1 ‫ְבּ ִצ ְק ָ ֖לג‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ ָל‬ Once with qameṣ.

‫֗ ָל‬ Once with qameṣ.

MpC

‫֗ ָל‬ Once with qameṣ.

MpA,L,C 2 Sam 1:1 ostensibly indicate that ‫( ְבּ ִצ ְק ָלג‬with qameṣ) is a unique form, and OchlahP, §21 includes this instance of ‫ ְבּ ִצ ְק ָלג‬in a list of forms with qameṣ that occur only once in the Bible (‫)א״ב מן חד וחד קמץ ולי׳ וסימניהון‬. The texts of MA,L,C, however, contain two instances of this form (2 Sam 1:1; 4:10), 1 and MpL 2 Sam 4:10 accordingly counts two forms. Weil follows suit by emending MpL 2 Sam 1:1 to ‫֗ב‬ “twice.” These two notes are not contradictory, however. 2 OchlahH, §22 ( ‫֗א ֗ב מן חד וחד‬ ‫ )קמץ בזקפא‬explains that it is forms with qameṣ and zaqeṕ qaṭan that are under consideration. The problem, then, is that in MA,L,C neither occurrence of ‫( ְבּ ִצ ְק ָלג‬2 Sam 1:1; 4:10) occurs with zaqeṕ qaṭan. 3 It would seem that Ochlah is based on an variant 43F

The first hand of MC 2 Sam 4:10 reads ‫יק ָלג‬ ְ ‫בּ ִצ‬,ְ however, which leaves 2 Sam 1:1 as the only other form, in accordance with the Masorah. The second hand of MC, however, emends the reading to the defective ‫ י‬form in accordance with MA,L. Because these three agree upon the defective reading, it seems that the discrepancy between the text and the Masorah is to be explained otherwise. 2 Despite this tension between the Masorah and the text, Breuer (The Aleppo Codex, 140) does not list it among the discrepancies between MA and the Masorah. 3 It appears that MC 2 Sam 1:1 occurs with a partially erased zaqep̄ qaṭan over the ‫ ק‬in ‫בּ ִצ ְק ָל֖ג‬.ְ Though Perez Castro (“Samuel,” 170) fails to identify the correct solution that Ochlah provides, he does correctly suggest that the problem is due to a difference in accentuation. 1

151

152

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

tradition. One cannot determine whether Weil was able to reconcile the two tallies, as his emendation of 2 Sam 1:1 from ‫“ ֗ ָל‬once with qameṣ” to ‫ ֗ב‬may just be a standardization of the Masorah.

NOTE 202: 2 SAMUEL 1:20 ‫ְבּחוּצ ֹת‬ MpBHS MpL

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once written thus.

MpA

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times written thus.

MpC

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times written thus. No note.

MpL 2 Sam 1:20 counts three occurrences of ‫ ְבּחוּצֹת‬spelled with ‫ ו‬in the stem and without ‫ ו‬in the plural suffix. 4 ML contains only one such form, and therefore Weil emends the Mp note to ‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬once written thus.” MmA 2 Sam 1:20, however, lists three occurrences of the plural form ‫ חוּצֹת‬and similar cases that are spelled with the same plene-defective sequence, 5 and this indicates that MpL is not in need of emendation. The three forms and their references are: 6 436F

(1) (2) (3)

437F

2 Sam 1:20 ‫ְבּחוּצֹת‬ Isa 15:3 ‫ְבּחוּצ ָֹתיו‬ Ezek 11:6 ‫יה‬ ָ ‫חוּצ ֶֹת‬

Clearly, then, Weil’s decision to emend MpL is misguided and not influenced by the Masorah of MA.

NOTE 203: 2 SAMUEL 3:13 ‫ת־פּנָ י‬ ָ ‫ִל ְראוֹת ֶא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ג‬ Three times. No note.

Likewise, MpA 2 Sam 1:20. MmA 2 Sam 1:20 reads: .‫ ומלאתם חוצתיה‬.‫ בחוצתיו חגרו שק‬.‫ בחוצת אשקלון‬:‫כת חוצת‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ “there are three occurrences that are spelled ‫חוצת‬: 2 Sam 1:20; Isa 15:3; Ezek 11:6.” 6 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫בּחוּצ ֹת‬. ְ 4 5

2 SAMUEL

153

MpL 2 Sam 3:13 counts three occurrences of ‫ת־פּנָ י‬ ָ ‫ל ְראוֹת ֶא‬.ִ 7 This phrase only occurs L twice in M (2 Sam 3:13; Exod 33:20), however, 8 for which reason Weil emends the Mp note to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice.” 9 But according to Haketer’s interpretation of MpA 2 Sam 3:13, the tally of three includes all qal verbal forms of .‫ה‬.‫א‬.‫ ר‬followed by the definite direct object marker and the direct object ‫פּנָ י‬:ָ 10 (1) (2) (3)

Exod 33:20 ‫ת־פּנָ י‬ ָ ‫ִל ְראֹת ֶא‬ 2 Sam 3:13a ‫ת־פּנַ י‬ ָ ‫ִת ְר ֶאה ֶא‬ 2 Sam 3:13b ‫ת־פּנָ י‬ ָ ‫ִל ְראוֹת ֶא‬

41F

Here again, Weil misinterprets MpL and produces an emendation that is not guided by the Masorah of MA.

NOTE 204: 2 SAMUEL 3:17 ‫ם־תּמוֹל‬ ְ ַ‫גּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

֗‫י‬ Ten times.

MpC

‫ם־תּמוֹל גַּ ם[ ֗ב‬ ְ ַ‫]גּ‬ Twice. No note.

MpL 2 Sam 3:17 ostensibly counts ten occurrences of ‫ם־תּמוֹל‬ ְ ַ‫גּ‬, but according to Dotan and Reich (§‫[גַּ ם־‬...]‫ )גַּ ם־‬this frequency note counts the number of verses in the Prophets that have only two instances of ‫ גַּ ם‬with only one interposed word. The ten references are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Sam 12:25 1 Sam 20:27 1 Sam 25:16 2 Sam 3:17 2 Sam 5:2

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

2 Sam 16:23 1 Kgs 3:26 Jer 14:18 Zeph 1:18 Zeph 2:14

֗ which initially appears to On the same line in ML, there is a second MpL note (‫)ב‬, belong to the phrase ‫ם־שׁ ְלשׁ ֹם‬ ִ ַ‫גּ‬, which occurs three times in ML:

Likewise, MpA 2 Sam 3:13. Exod 33:20, unlike 2 Sam 3:13, contains the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫ל ְראֹת‬.ִ 9 Likewise, Ginsburg, 2, ‫ר‬, §35. 10 Haketer, “Samuel I & II,” 166. Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫ת־פּנָ י‬ ָ ‫ל ְראוֹת ֶא‬.ִ 7 8

154

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpA 2 Sam 3:17 also presents the note ‫“ ֗ב‬twice,” though with two corresponding circelli: one over ‫ם־תּמוֹל‬ ְ ַ‫ גּ‬and one over the subsequent ‫גַּ ם‬:

Because ‫ם־תּמוֹל גַּ ם‬ ְ ַ‫ גּ‬occurs four times, it would appear that the intended phrase is ‫ם־שׁ ְלשׁ ֹם‬ ִ ַ‫ם־תּמוֹל גּ‬ ְ ַ‫גּ‬, which does occur twice: 11 (1) (2)

2 Sam 3:17 ‫ם־שׁ ְלשׁ ֹם‬ ִ ַ‫ם־תּמוֹל גּ‬ ְ ַ‫גּ‬ 1 Chr 11:2 ‫ם־שׁ ְלשׁוֹם‬ ִ ַ‫ם־תּמוֹל גּ‬ ְ ַ‫גּ‬

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Exod 5:14 1 Sam 20:27 2 Sam 3:17 1 Chr 11:2

42F

Thus, MpL 2 Sam 3:17 is quite unusual in that it has two circelli that both belong to two separate Mp notes (‫ ֗ב‬and ֗‫)י‬. Weil correctly recognizes that ‫ ֗ב‬corresponds to ‫ם־שׁ ְלשׁ ֹם‬ ִ ַ‫ם־תּמוֹל גּ‬ ְ ַ‫ גּ‬and he adds the needed circelli. However, he incorrectly assumes that the frequency note ֗‫“ י‬ten times” corresponds only to the circellus over ‫ם־תּמוֹל‬ ְ ַ‫גּ‬. As this phrase occurs four times in ML, he emends the Mp note to ‫“ ֗ד‬four times.” The four references are:

Thus, Weil presents this sub loco note because he emends both a rubric and a frequency note.

NOTE 205: 2 SAMUEL 3:18 ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וּמיַּ ד ָכּל־א ֵֹיְב‬ ִ MpBHS MpL 11

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice in this and a similar form.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

No note.

See also Ginsburg, 1, ‫ג‬, §176; Dotan and Reich, §‫ם־שׁ ְלשׁ ֹם‬ ִ ַ‫ם־תּמוֹל גּ‬ ְ ַ‫גּ‬.

2 SAMUEL

155

In accordance with the text of ML, MpL 2 Sam 3:18 marks the phrase ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וּמיַּ ד ָכּל־א ֵֹיְב‬ ִ as unique. Weil, on the other hand, emends the tally to two and adds the clarification ‫בליש‬ ֗ “in this and a similar form.” He does this to indicate that the tally of two includes the similar phrase ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫( ִמיַּ ד ָכּל־א ֵֹיְב‬Judg 8:34). 12 Weil’s emendation is based L 13 ֗ and it has the support of MmA Judg 8:34, which includes upon Mp Judg 8:34 (‫)ב‬, catchphrases for both verses. 14 Though the exact phrase ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וּמיַּ ד ָכּל־א ֵֹיְב‬ ִ does in fact occur only once, as per MpL 2 Sam 3:18, Weil’s emendation standardizes MpL and clarifies the scope.

NOTE 206: 2 SAMUEL 3:38 ‫י־שׂר וְ גָ דוֹל‬ ַ ‫ִכּ‬ MpBHS

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫]שׂר וְ גָ דוֹל[ ֗ב‬ ַ Twice.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

ַ whereas ML contains only one MpL 2 Sam 3:38 counts two occurrences of ‫שׂר וְ גָ דוֹל‬, occurrence of this phrase. Unlike MpL, MpV 2 Sam 3:38 contains the rubric ‫י־שׂר‬ ַ ‫ִכּ‬ ‫ וְ גָ דוֹל‬and the frequency note ‫“ ֗ל‬unique.” Weil emends the rubric and frequency note of MpL in accordance with MpV, 15 and it is because of these changes that he marks this note “sub loco.” 46F

Similarly, Dotan and Reich, §‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫מיַּ ד ָכּל־א ֵֹיְב‬. ִ MpL Judg 8:34 only presents one circellus, which occurs over ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ָ;כּל־א ֵֹיְב‬but as ML contains three occurrences of ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫( ָכּל־א ֵֹיְב‬see Josh 21:44), it is clear that the intended rubric is ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וּמיַּ ד ָכּל־א ֵֹיְב‬. ִ Note that BHQ, “Judges” does not indicate this, nor does it point out that ‫וּמיַּ ד‬, ִ not ‫מיַּ ד‬, ִ occurs in 2 Sam 3:18. 14 MmA Judg 8:34 reads: .‫ ועתה עשו כי יהוה‬.‫ ולא זכרו בני ישראל‬:‫“ מיד כל איביהם ֗ב‬there are two occurrences of ‫מיד כל איביהם‬: Judg 8:34; 2 Sam 3:18.” Likewise, MpA Judg 8:34 and MpA 2 Sam 3:18 present the note ‫ב‬.֗ 15 Dotan and Reich (§‫)שׂר וְ גָ דוֹל‬ ַ also emend the frequency note to ‫ל‬.֗ 12 13

156

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 207: 2 SAMUEL 5:2 ‫מּוֹציא‬ ִ ◌ַ ‫יתה‬ ָ ִ‫ָהי‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫היית המוציא ֗ק‬ Read ‫היית המוציא‬.

MpA

‫המוציא ֗ק‬ Read ‫המוציא‬.

MpC

‫מּוֹציא[ היית המוציא ֗ק‬ ִ ‫ית ַה‬ ָ ִ‫] ָהי‬. Read ‫היית המוציא‬. ‫היית המוציא ֗ק‬ Read ‫היית המוציא‬.

ָ ִ‫ָהי‬ According to MpL 2 Sam 5:2, the kəṯîḇ phrase ‫ הייתה מוציא‬should be read ‫ית‬ ‫מּוֹציא‬ ִ ‫ה‬.ַ Instead of following MpL by merely featuring ‫ המוציא‬as the qərê, Weil expands it to ‫היית המוציא‬, as per MpA,C 2 Sam 5:2. 16 It is Weil’s emendation of MpL that is the reason for this sub loco note. 47F

NOTE 208: 2 SAMUEL 5:4 �‫ַא ְר ָבּ ִﬠים ָשׁנָ ה ָמ ָל‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל ס״פ‬ Once at the end of a verse.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

No note. ‫֗ל ֗ס ֗פ‬ Once at the end of a verse.

MpL 2 Sam 5:4 correctly notes that �‫ ַא ְר ָבּ ִﬠים ָשׁנָ ה ָמ ָל‬is unique. Weil, however, emends the note in accordance with MpC 2 Sam 5:4, which indicates that this form occurs only once at the end of a verse. It appears that this note is intended to distinguish 2 Sam 5:4 from the two instances of the similar phrase �‫( וְ ַא ְר ָבּ ִﬠים ָשׁנָ ה ָמ ַל‬2 Kgs 12:2; 2 Chr 24:1), which do not occur at the end of the verse. Weil’s addition of the supplement ‫ ס״פ‬is the reason for this sub loco note.

This reading is also confirmed by MmC, which addresses “three word pairs in which the letter ending the first word should begin the second…and two word pairs in which the letter beginning the second word should end the first word” (Perez Castro, “Samuel,” 191). This particular instance is also found in OchlahP §101 and OchlahH §84. Note that MA includes the vowel for the definite article under the ‫ה‬, whereas in ML,C it is found before the ‫ מ‬that begins the second word. This is one of many examples of inversion in the qərê-kəṯîḇ of MA (Israel Yeivin, “The Vocalization of Qere-Kethiv in A,” 147). 16

2 SAMUEL

157

NOTE 209: 2 SAMUEL 5:11 ֘‫ירם ֶ ֽמ ֶל�־ ֥צ ֹר ַמ ְל ָא ִכים‬ ֙ ָ ‫ִח‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫פסוק דמיין‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven verses similarly contain these accents.

MpA

‫בטע בס ֗יפ‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven times with these accents in this book.

MpC

No note. ‫] ֣צֹר[ ֥צֹר‬ Read ‫ ֥צֹר‬.

MpL 2 Sam 5:11 counts seven instances in Samuel in which a phrase contains the accent pattern ʾazlâ-mêrəḵâ-zarqâ, but there are actually eight such occurrences: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1 Sam 3:8 1 Sam 26:7 2 Sam 3:8 17 2 Sam 4:8 2 Sam 5:11 2 Sam 5:20 2 Sam 19:12 2 Sam 24:16

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Sam 3:8 2 Sam 3:8 2 Sam 4:8 2 Sam 5:11

‫מוּא ֘ל‬ ֵ ‫א־שׁ‬ ְ ֹ ‫הו֥ה ְקר‬ ָ ְ‫וַ ֙יּ ֹ ֶסף י‬ ‫ם‬ ֘ ‫ל־ה ָﬠ‬ ָ ‫ישׁי׀ ֶא‬ ֥ ַ ‫ָד֙ ִוד וַ ֲא ִב‬ ‫ֲה ֙ר ֹאשׁ ֶ ֥כּ ֶלב ָא ֘נ ֹ ִכ֮י‬ ‫ל־דּוִ ֘ד‬ ָ ‫ת־ר ֹאשׁ ִ ֽאישׁ־ ֥בֹּ ֶשׁת ֶא‬ ֙ ‫ֶא‬ ֘‫ירם ֶ ֽמ ֶל�־ ֥צֹר ַמ ְל ָא ִכים‬ ֙ ָ ‫ִח‬ ֘‫ל־פּ ָר ִצים‬ ְ ‫וַ ֙יָּב ֹא ָדִ ֥וד ְבּ ַ ֽב ַﬠ‬ ‫ם‬ ֘ ‫ל־א ְביָ ָ ֥תר ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ י‬ ֶ ‫ל־צ ֙דוֹק וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ �֘ ‫וּשׁ ַל‬ ָ ‫יָ ֙דוֹ ַה ַמּ ְל ָ ֥א�׀ יְ ֽר‬

In order to resolve this problem, Dotan and Reich (§֘‫)מ ֶל�־ ֥צֹר ַמ ְל ָא ִכים‬ ֽ ֶ emend the masoretic rule by (1) omitting the circellus above �‫ירם ֶ ֽמ ֶל‬ ֙ ָ ‫ח‬,ִ (2) reducing the accent pattern under consideration from ʾazlâ-mêrəḵâ-zarqâ to mêrəḵâ-zarqâ, (3) omitting instances in which paseq is interposed, and (4) adding the stricture “in this book”: ‫מוּא ֘ל‬ ֵ ‫א־שׁ‬ ְ ֹ ‫הו֥ה ְקר‬ ָ ְ‫י‬ ‫ֶ ֥כּ ֶלב ָא ֘נ ֹ ִכ֮י‬ ‫ל־דּוִ ֘ד‬ ָ ‫ִ ֽאישׁ־ ֥בֹּ ֶשׁת ֶא‬ ֘‫ֶ ֽמ ֶל�־ ֥צֹר ַמ ְל ָא ִכים‬

(5) 2 Sam 5:20 ‫ם‬ ֘ ‫ל־פּ ָר ִצי‬ ְ ‫ָדִ ֥וד ְבּ ַ ֽב ַﬠ‬ (6) 2 Sam 7:7 ‫תּי‬ ֮ ִ ‫ר־ה ְת ַה ַלּ ְכ‬ ִ ‫ְבּ ֥כֹל ֲא ֶ ֽשׁ‬ (7) 2 Sam 19:12 ֘‫ל־א ְביָ ָ ֥תר ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬ ֶ ‫וְ ֶא‬

According to this explanation, then, MpL 2 Sam 5:11 is only in need of clarification and emendation of the circelli. Weil, however, emends the note to ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫פסוק דמיין‬ ֗ ֗‫“ ז‬seven verses similarly contain these accents” in order to identify exceptions to the rule for zarqâ with two servi. Yeivin notes that the there are eight instances in which mêrəḵâ occurs where munaḥ is expected: 18 49F

in

According to Yeivin (Introduction, §262), ML contains two instances of zarqâ on ‫ָאנ ִֹכי‬ 2 Sam 3:8 in order to indicate penultimate stress. 18 Ibid. 17

ML

158

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Num 30:15 Deut 19:5 Josh 18:14 2 Sam 3:8 2 Sam 4:8 2 Sam 5:11 Dan 6:13 1 Chr 14:1(qere)

‫ישׁ ֮הּ‬ ָ ‫יַ ֲח ִ ֙רישׁ ָ ֥להּ ִא‬ ‫ת־ר ֵ ֥ﬠהוּ ַביַּ ַﬠ ֘ר‬ ֵ ‫֙יָב ֹא ֶא‬ ֘‫ל־פּ ֵנ֥י ֵבית־חֹרוֹן‬ ְ ‫ֲא ֶ֙שׁר ַﬠ‬ ‫הר ֹאשׁ ֶ ֥כּ ֶלב ָא ֘נ ֹ ִכ֮י‬ ֙ ‫ל־דּוִ ֘ד‬ ָ ‫ת־ר ֹאשׁ ִ ֽאישׁ־ ֥בֹּ ֶשׁת ֶא‬ ֙ ‫ֶא‬ ֘‫ירם ֶ ֽמ ֶל�־ ֥צֹר ַמ ְל ָא ִכים‬ ֙ ָ ‫ִח‬ ‫ם־מ ְל ָכּ ֘א‬ ַ ‫ְק ִ ֙ריבוּ וְ ָא ְמ ִ ֥רין ֳק ָד‬ ֘‫חוּרם ֶ ֽמ ֶל�־ ֥צֹר ַמ ְל ָא ִכים‬ ָ֙

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Deut 19:5 Josh 18:14 2 Sam 4:8 2 Sam 5:11 Dan 6:13 Neh 8:15 1 Chr 14:1(qere)

‫ת־ר ֵ ֥ﬠהוּ ַביַּ ַﬠ ֘ר‬ ֵ ‫֙יָב ֹא ֶא‬ ֘‫ל־פּ ֵנ֥י ֵבית־חֹרוֹן‬ ְ ‫ֲא ֶ֙שׁר ַﬠ‬ ‫ל־דּוִ ֘ד‬ ָ ‫ת־ר ֹאשׁ ִ ֽאישׁ־ ֥בֹּ ֶשׁת ֶא‬ ֙ ‫ֶא‬ ֘‫ירם ֶ ֽמ ֶל�־ ֥צֹר ַמ ְל ָא ִכים‬ ֙ ָ ‫ִח‬ ‫ם־מ ְל ָכּ ֘א‬ ַ ‫ְק ִ ֙ריבוּ וְ ָא ְמ ִ ֥רין ֳק ָד‬ ‫ם‬ ֘ ‫יה‬ ֶ ‫ל־ﬠ ֵר‬ ָ ‫וְ יַ ֲﬠ ִ֙בירוּ ֥קוֹל ְבּ ָכ‬ ֘‫חוּרם ֶ ֽמ ֶל�־ ֥צֹר ַמ ְל ָא ִכים‬ ָ֙

Yeivin’s list is problematic, however, in that it excludes Neh 8:15 (‫וְ יַ ֲﬠ ִ֙בירוּ ֥קוֹל ְבּ ָכל־‬ ‫יה ֮ם‬ ֶ ‫)ﬠ ֵר‬. ָ Though Weil completes the Masorah for Neh 8:15, he does not for Num 30:15 and 2 Sam 3:8: 19 450F

Regardless, Dotan and Reich provide a more reasonable reconstruction of the phenomenon that MpL intends to address, and Weil’s solution should be rejected.

NOTE 210: 2 SAMUEL 5:14 ‫וְ ֵא ֶלּה ְשׁמוֹת‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד בנ״ך‬ Four times in the Prophets and the Writings.

MpA

No note.

֗‫ו‬ Six times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 5:14 counts six occurrences of ‫וְ ֵא ֶלּה ְשׁמוֹת‬, whereas ML contains fifteen occurrences of this phrase. Ten of the occurrences are in the Torah, and five are in the Prophets and Writings:

MpM1 Josh 18:14 also presents the tally of seven for ‫אשר על‬: ‫פסוק מיחדין בטעמהון‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ “seven verses are unusual in their accents.” 19

2 SAMUEL (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Gen 25:13 Gen 36:40 Gen 46:8 Exod 1:1 Exod 6:16 Num 1:5 Num 3:2 Num 3:18

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)

159

Num 27:1 Num 34:19 Josh 17:3 2 Sam 5:14 Ezek 48:1 1 Chr 6:2 1 Chr 14:4

Only Exod 6:16 and 2 Sam 5:14 have a MpL note, and it is ֗‫“ ו‬six times” in both cases. Dotan and Reich (§‫וְ ֵא ֶלּה ְשׁמוֹת‬, Exod 6:16) resolve the tally of six by counting all occurrences within the Torah as one. Weil, however, emends MpL Exod 6:16 to ֗‫י‬ ‫בתור‬ ֗ “ten times in the Torah” and completes the Masorah accordingly for all ten; 20 but he emends MpL 2 Sam 5:14 to ‫“ ֗ד בנ״ך‬four times in the Prophets and Writings,” not ‫“ ֗ה בנ״ך‬four times in the Prophets and Writings,” because he excludes form 11 (Josh 17:3) on account of its being the only one of the five in the Prophets and the Writings that does not begin a verse. This is evident from the MpBHS notes for forms 13–15, which read ‫“ ֗ד ר״פ בנ״ך‬four times at the beginning of a verse in the Prophets and the Writings.” 21 Thus, Weil’s emendations of frequency and scope are the reasons for this sub loco note. 22 452F

453F

NOTE 211: 2 SAMUEL 5:24 ‫קוֹל ְצ ָﬠ ָדה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 5:24 counts two occurrences of ‫קוֹל ְצ ָﬠ ָדה‬, and this tally likely includes the one similar phrase ‫( קוֹל ַה ְצּ ָﬠ ָדה‬1 Chr 14:15). 23 MpL 1 Chr 14:15 presents the frequency note ‫ל‬,֗ however, and it is likely for this reason that Weil standardizes the Masorah by emending MpL 2 Sam 5:24 from ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique.” 24 45F

Likewise, Ginsburg, 1, ‫א‬, §702. Ginsburg (4, ‫א‬, §702) lists these four references but does not make reference to the stricture ‫ר״פ‬. 22 It is noteworthy that though one of the ten occurrences within the Torah does not occur at the beginning of the verse (form 9), Weil does not exclude it from consideration. 23 Dotan and Reich, §‫קוֹל ְצ ָﬠ ָדה‬. 24 MpA presents the frequency note ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” in both instances. 20 21

160

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 212: 2 SAMUEL 6:19 ‫ ְל ָכל‬a

MpBHS

‫פסוק לכל לכל‬ ֗ ֗‫י‬ Ten verses with two occurrences of ‫לכל‬. ‫פסוק לכל לכל‬ ֗ ֗‫]וַ יְ ַח ֵלּק[ ו‬ Six verses with two occurrences of ‫לכל‬.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 6:19 counts six verses in which ‫ל ָכל‬/‫ֹל‬ ְ ‫ ְלכ‬occurs exactly twice. The corresponding circellus is mistakenly placed over ‫וַ יְ ַח ֵלּק‬, but Weil corrects the problem by adding a circellus over ‫ ְל ָכל‬a. 25 He also emends the tally for ‫ לכל לכל‬from six to ten even though there are fourteen verses in ML in which ‫ל ָכל‬/‫ֹל‬ ְ ‫ ְלכ‬occurs exactly twice: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Num 15:26 2 Sam 6:19 1 Kgs 8:38 Jer 19:13 Ezek 16:33 Ps 103:3 Ps 145:14

(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Ps 145:18 Eccl 4:16 Ezra 7:25 1 Chr 27:1 2 Chr 1:2 2 Chr 11:23 2 Chr 19:11

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Num 15:26 2 Sam 6:19 1 Kgs 8:38 Jer 19:13 Ps 103:3

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Ps 145:14 Ps 145:18 Qoh 4:16 2 Chr 11:23 2 Chr 19:11

Weil completes his revised Mp note for the ten occurrences that Ginsburg lists: 26

However, the tally of ten that Ginsburg presents may be a corruption resulting from confusion with a similar list, which counts ten verses featuring ‫ כל כל‬twice. 27 Such a mistake could easily have been made because 1 Kgs 8:38 contains both ‫ לכל לכל‬and ‫כל כל‬. 28 Weil’s decision to blindly follow Ginsburg’s list may result from his failure to correctly interpret the scope of MpL 2 Sam 6:19. Upon closer examination of the 459F

Weil also retains the circellus over ‫וַ יְ ַח ֵלּק‬. The corresponding note ‫“ ֗ג‬there are three occurrences” is a completion of MpL 1 Chr 16:3. 26 Ginsburg, 2, ‫כ‬, §292. 27 See MpL 1 Kgs 8:38 (‫ביניה‬ ֗ ‫פסוק כל כל ומלה‬ ֗ ֗‫ ;)י‬OchlahP §314: “Ten verses in which ‫כל‬ occurs twice in the middle with an intervening word.” 28 MpL 1 Kgs 8:38 presents both ‫פס לכל לכל‬ ֗ ֗‫ ו‬and ‫ביניה‬ ֗ ‫פסוק כל כל ומלה‬ ֗ ֗‫י‬. 25

2 SAMUEL

161

fourteen verses featuring ‫ל ָכל‬/‫ֹל‬ ְ ‫ ְלכ‬twice, one discovers that there are six that are distinct from all others because in them the two occurrences of ‫ל ָכל‬/‫ֹל‬ ְ ‫ ְלכ‬begin phrases that are adjacent to one another. The six verses are: 29 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

2 Sam 6:19 1 Kgs 8:38 Ps 145:18 Qoh 4:16 Ezra 7:25 2 Chr 11:23

460F

‫ל־המוֹן‬ ֲ ‫ל־ה ָﬠם ְל ָכ‬ ָ ‫ְל ָכ‬ �‫ל־ה ָא ָדם ְלכֹל ַﬠ ְמּ‬ ָ ‫ְל ָכ‬ ‫ְל ָכל־ק ְֹר ָאיו ְלכֹל ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְק ָר ֻאהוּ ֶב ֱא ֶמת‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ר־היָ ה ִל ְפנ‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ָﬠם ְלכֹל ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ָ ‫ְל ָכ‬ �‫ל־ﬠ ָמּה ִדּי ַבּ ֲﬠ ַבר נַ ֲה ָרה ְל ָכל־יָ ְד ֵﬠי ָדּ ֵתי ֱא ָל ָה‬ ַ ‫ְל ָכ‬ ‫יָמן ְלכֹל ָﬠ ֵרי ַה ְמּ ֻצרוֹת‬ ִ ְ‫וּבנ‬ ִ ‫הוּדה‬ ָ ְ‫ל־א ְר ֧צוֹת י‬ ַ ‫ְל ָכ‬

OchlahP and MfV both include a list of six that is identical to the above list except that it lists Ps 145:14 instead of Ezra 7:25. 30 However, because the six verses presented in Ochlah and MfV do not share a common thread, it is possible that Ps 145:18 was mistakenly included in the list in place of Ezra 7:25. Aside from the incorrect placement of the circellus, MpL 2 Sam 6:19 is essentially correct in featuring the tally of six. Instead of emending the frequency error, Weil would have done well to print the MpL note without emendation and to simply clarify the scope in his commentary.

NOTE 213: 2 SAMUEL 7:8 ‫כֹּה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬ MpBHS

֗‫י֗ ו‬ Sixteen times.

‫]א ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת[ ֗ל‬ ָ Unique.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 7:8 marks ‫ ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬as unique, whereas ML contains 103 occurrences of the phrase. Instead of emending the frequency in accordance with the text of ML, Weil expands the rubric to ‫ כֹּה ָא ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬and emends the frequency to sixteen. For further discussion, see note 155 (1 Sam 15:2).

MpL

OchlahP §302 ( ֗‫ ;)ו֗ פסוקים ְל ָכל ְל ָכל וסי‬MfV, ‫כל‬, §26 ( ֗‫)ו֗ פסוקים לכל לכל וסי‬. Similarly, 1 Kgs 8:38 presents the tally of six (‫פס לכל לכל‬ ֗ ֗‫)ו‬. 30 Dotan and Reich (§ 1‫[ ְל ָכל‬...] ‫ ) ְל ָכל־‬hesitantly follow OchlahP. 29

162

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 214: 2 SAMUEL 7:12 ‫ת־מ ְמ ַל ְכתּוֹ‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 7:12 counts two occurrences of ‫ת־מ ְמ ַל ְכתּוֹ‬ ַ ‫א‬. ֶ In ML, however, this phrase occurs only once, and for this reason Weil emends the tally to one. 31 It is possible ַ ‫ ֶא‬and the one similar case that the tally of two presented in MpL includes ‫ת־מ ְמ ַל ְכתּוֹ‬ within Samuel (�‫ת־מ ְמ ַל ְכ ְתּ‬ ֽ ַ ‫א‬, ֶ 1 Sam 13:13). MpL does not present a note for the latter, and neither of the two instances receive a note in MpA,C,V. Thus, Weil’s decision to emend the frequency in MpL 2 Sam 7:12 is reasonable.

NOTE 215: 2 SAMUEL 7:13 ‫וְ כֹנַ נְ ִתּי‬ MpBHS

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice and defective. No note.

MpL

MpA MpC

No note. ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective.

֗ ‫)ל‬. ֗ ML, however, MpL 1 Chr 17:12 marks the defective form ‫ וְ כֹנַ נְ ִתּי‬as unique (‫חס‬ 32 contains two occurrences of the form: 2 Sam 7:13; 1 Chr 17:12. Dotan and Reich (§‫ )וְ כֹנַ נְ ִתּי‬are likely correct in suggesting that the frequency note ‫ ֗ל‬of MpL 1 Chr 17:12 is limited in scope to the Writings. 33 Instead of emending MpL 1 Chr 17:12 ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬twice and accordingly, Weil follows MpV 2 Sam 7:13 in emending the note to ‫וחס‬ defective” and in completing the note for 2 Sam 7:13. 34 A sub loco note for 1 Chr 17:12 is justified because he emends the text, but the sub loco note for 2 Sam 7:13 is superfluous. 465F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ת־מ ְמ ַל ְכתּוֹ‬ ַ ‫א‬.ֶ MpA 1 Chr 17:12 apparently has these two forms in mind in noting that all forms are defective (‫חס‬ ֗ ‫)כול‬. 33 Thus, the scope of MpC 2 Sam 7:13 is limited to the Prophets. 34 Ct. MpC 2 Sam 7:13: ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬once defective.” 31 32

2 SAMUEL

163

NOTE 216: 2 SAMUEL 7:25 ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫כת‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times written thus in the Prophets.

MpA

‫בנב‬ ֗ ‫כת‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times written thus in the Prophets.

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

֗‫כת בנ‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times written thus in the Prophets.

ִ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬, and this tally accurately reMpL 2 Sam 7:25 counts four occurrences of ‫�הים‬ flects the number of occurrences in the Prophets of ML if one includes the similar case ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫( וַ יהוָ ה ֱא‬Jer 10:10). 35 The four occurrences are: (1) (2) (3) (4)

2 Sam 7:25 2 Kgs 19:19 Jer 10:10 Jon 4:6

46F

‫�הים‬ ִ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫וַ יהוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ה־א‬ ֱ ָ‫יְ הו‬

MpL 2 Kgs 19:19 and MpL Jon 4:6, however, count five occurrences within the Prophets (‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫כת‬ ֗ ‫)ה‬, ֗ and this tally is in accord with MA,C, which contain a fifth occurrence in 2 Sam 7:22. 36 In accordance with this tradition, Weil reads against the ֲ and emends the tally of MpL 2 Sam 7:25 to five. 37 His emendtext of ML (‫)אד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬ ing of this note in accordance with MpL 2 Kgs 19:19 and MpL Jon 4:6 is the reason for this sub loco note. 468F

NOTE 217: 2 SAMUEL 7:27 �‫ְל ִה ְת ַפּ ֵלּל ֵא ֶלי‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

No note.

֗‫ז‬ Seven times.

MpC

No note.

Likewise, MpL Jer 10:10 presents the note ‫“ ֗ד‬there are four occurrences.” MpA,C 2 Sam 7:25 provide additional support. 37 Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫�הים‬ ִ ‫י—ה ֱא‬, 2 Kgs 19:19. While BHQ (“The Twelve Minor Prophets,” 24*) correctly indicates that the tally of five includes the prefixed form ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫וַ יהוָ ה ֱא‬, it does not mention that one of the five is read contra textum. 35 36

164

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpL 2 Sam 7:27 counts seven occurrences of �‫ל ִה ְת ַפּ ֵלּל ֵא ֶלי‬,ְ but as Dotan and Reich (§�‫)ל ִה ְת ַפּ ֵלּל ֵא ֶלי‬ ְ note, there are only six occurrences of this and similar occurrences (those featuring any verbal form of the lemma .‫ל‬.‫ל‬.‫ )פ‬in ML, and in one of them �‫ ֵא ֶלי‬occurs before the verb: (1) 2 Sam 7:27 �‫לה ְת ַפּ ֵלּל ֵא ֶלי‬ ִ (2) 1 Kgs 8:33 �‫וְ ִה ְת ַפּ ְללוּ וְ ִ ֽה ְת ַחנְּ נוּ ֵא ֶל‬ (3) 1 Kgs 8:48 �‫וְ ִה ְת ַפּ ְללוּ ֵא ֶלי‬

(4) Ps 5:3 ‫י־א ֶלי� ֶא ְת ַפּ ָלּל‬ ֵ ‫ִכּ‬ (5) Ps 32:6 �‫ל־ח ִסיד ֵא ֶלי‬ ָ ‫יִ ְת ַפּ ֵלּל ָכּ‬ (6) 2 Chr 6:34 �‫וְ ִה ְת ַפּ ְללוּ ֵא ֶלי‬

Weil recognizes the frequency error in MpL but incorrectly emends the tally to two (‫)ב‬. ֗ It is possible that he intended to emend the note to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” but confused the Masorah of this phrase with that of the similar phrase �‫וְ ִה ְת ַפּ ְללוּ ֵא ֶלי‬, for which he presents the note ‫( ֗ב‬1 Kgs 8:48; 2 Chr 6:34). Whatever the reason for his error, Weil decides to mark this Mp note sub loco because of the incorrect frequency in MpL 2 Sam 7:27, which likely arose due to orthographic confusion.

NOTE 218: 2 SAMUEL 7:28 ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpA

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

‫]וְ ַﬠ ָתּה ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִֹ ה[ ֗ג‬. Three times.

No note [‫]וְ ַﬠ ָתּה ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִֹ ה‬.

MpL 2 Sam 7:28 counts four occurrences of the phrase ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬, whereas ML contains only two occurrences of this exact phrase (regardless of the vocalization of ‫)יהוה‬: 2 Sam 7:28; Isa 48:16. Weil emends the tally to three in accordance with MpL Isa 48:16 38 and completes the Masorah at 2 Sam 7:25, even though MA,L,C 2 Sam 7:25 all have ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָתּה יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬instead of ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬. 39 Presumably, these two phrases are tallied together because ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬and ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬are read identically. 40 471F

Likewise, MpA 2 Sam 7:28 presents the tally of three. Note that for MpL Isa 48:16, one circellus appears between ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה ֲאד ֹנָ י‬. However, there is a second ‫ ֗ג‬printed to the right of ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫( ֱא‬the phrase’s third and final word), which begins the subsequent line. This suggests that the tally of three applies to the full three-word phrase. 39 Likewise, Ginsburg (2, ‫ע‬, §926) lists all three references under the rubric ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה ֲאד ֹנָ י‬ ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫א‬,ֱ but the catchphrases for all three have ‫ועתה יהוה אלהים‬. 40 On this phenomenon as the earliest example of kəṯîḇ-qərê in the Hebrew Bible, see Robert Gordis, The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere, 29–30. Gordis concludes that the practice “must precede the Samaritan schism, since the Samaritans use ‫שימא‬ corresponding to the Jewish ‫ השם‬instead of the Tetragrammaton” (ibid., 30, n. 2). From the 38

2 SAMUEL

165

It cannot be determined whether Weil interprets the tally of four in MpL 2 Sam 7:28 as a frequency error or if he simply aims to standardize the Masorah. Regardless, the tally of four is correct, as it includes the one non-prefixed occurrence of ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫( ַﬠ ָתּה יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬2 Chr 1:9). 41 472F

NOTE 219: 2 SAMUEL 8:13 ‫ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫מל וכל ד״ה‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene and all Chronicles likewise.

MpA

‫דכות‬ ֗ ֗‫דבר הימי‬ ֗ ‫מל וכל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene and all Chronicles likewise.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times plene.

ְ and the tally rises to sixML contains nine occurrences of the plene ‫ ו‬form ‫שׁמוֹנָ ה‬, teen if one includes similar cases: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

2 Sam 8:13 Ezek 40:41 Qoh 11:2 1 Chr 12:32 1 Chr 12:36 1 Chr 16:38 1 Chr 18:12 1 Chr 23:3

‫ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ִל ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ‫וּשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ְ ‫וּשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ְ ‫ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ‫וּשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ְ

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

1 Chr 24:4 1 Chr 24:15 1 Chr 25:7 1 Chr 25:25 1 Chr 26:9 2 Chr 11:21 2 Chr 29:17a 2 Chr 29:17b

‫ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ‫וּשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ְ ‫ִל ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ‫וּשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ְ ‫ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬

֗ ‫)ד‬ ֗ present is correct The tally of four that MpL 2 Sam 8:13 and MpA Ezek 40:41 (‫מל‬ if one counts all occurrences within Chronicles as one. 42 Weil groups all of Chronicles together, but he excludes Chronicles from the tally, thus reducing it to three. This alternative method of counting is supported by MpA 2 Sam 8:13 and MmV Qoh 473F

additional evidence that Gordis presents, it is clear that this practice was well-established by the third century BCE: Qohelet and Esther refrain from using the Tetragrammaton, and the LXX Pentateuch translates the Tetragrammaton with κυριος. 41 Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה ֲאד ֹנָ י י—ה‬. While Ginsburg does not include this phrase in the tally, he does mention it after the three catchphrases: “ .‫�הים‬ ִ ‫וחד ַﬠ ָתּה יְ הוָֹ ה ֱא‬ ‫( ”יאמן דבריך דד״ב‬Ginsburg, 2, ‫ע‬, §926). 42 Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁמוֹנָ ה‬. ְ

166

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

11:2. 43 Because the tallies of three and four are both legitimate, Weil’s change constitutes a standardizing of the Masorah. 44

NOTE 220: 2 SAMUEL 8:15 ‫ל־כּל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ָ ‫ַﬠ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ג‬ Twenty times, three of which are in this book.

MpA

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times in the Prophets.

MpC

‫֗כ‬ Twenty times. No note.

There are twenty occurrences of ‫ל־כּל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ָ ‫ ַﬠ‬in ML, as per MpL 1 Kgs 11:42: ‫֗כ‬ “twenty times.” 45 Weil completes this note for 2 Sam 8:15, and the twenty references are: 46 476F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

47F

1 Sam 11:2 2 Sam 5:5 2 Sam 8:15 1 Kgs 4:1 1 Kgs 4:7 1 Kgs 11:42 1 Kgs 12:20 1 Kgs 15:33 Mal 3:22 Ezra 6:17

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

Ezra 8:35 Neh 13:26 1 Chr 12:39 1 Chr 14:8 1 Chr 18:14 1 Chr 28:4 1 Chr 29:26 2 Chr 9:30 2 Chr 29:24 2 Chr 30:1

ָ ‫ַﬠ‬ The problem with MpL 2 Sam 8:15 is that it counts three occurrences of ‫ל־כּל־‬ ‫ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬in the Prophets when there are actually nine. MpL 2 Sam 5:5, however, cor-

MpA 2 Sam 8:13: ‫דכות‬ ֗ ֗‫דבר הימי‬ ֗ ‫מל וכל‬ ֗ ‫ג‬,֗ “there are three plene occurrences and all ֗ ‫לשמונ֗ ֗ג‬ occurrences in Chronicles are similar. Similarly, MmV Qoh 11:2 reads: ‫ ויעש‬: ֗‫מל וסי‬ ‫מל וכל שמונת ושמונת‬ ֗ ֗‫ וכל ד״ה דכו‬.‫ תן חלק לשבעה וגם‬.‫ שמונה שלחנות‬.‫דוד שם בשבו מהכותו‬ .‫חס במ״א שמונת אלפים ככרים‬ ֗ “there are three occurrences of the plene form ‫לשמונה‬, and their reference are: 2 Sam 8:13; Ezek 40:41; Qoh 11:2; and all occurrences in Chronicles are likewise plene; and all occurrences of ‫ שמונת‬are defective except for one: 1 Chr 29:7.” Similarly, Ginsburg, 2, ‫ש‬, §706, 709; Breuer, The Biblical Text, 19. 44 Perez Castro (“Samuel,” 208) explains that the tally of five plene ‫ ו‬forms found in C ְ According to Breuer (The Biblical Text, 319, n. 19*), Mp includes both ‫ ְשׁמוֹנָ ה‬and ‫שׁמוֹנֶ ה‬. however, the tally of five includes the four aforementioned occurrences and the unique plene construct form ‫וּשׁמוֹנַ ת‬ ְ (1 Chr 29:7), as per MmV Qoh 11:2. 45 Likewise, MpA 2 Sam 8:15. 46 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫שׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ִ‫ל־כּל־י‬ ָ ‫ﬠ‬,ַ 1 Kgs 4:7. 43

2 SAMUEL

167

rectly notes that the tally of three applies only to Samuel (‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫ ֗;ג‬forms 1–3 above), and Weil emends MpL 2 Sam 8:15 accordingly. 47 478F

NOTE 221: 2 SAMUEL 8:17 ‫יָתר כּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬ ָ ‫ֶא ְב‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

No note.

In accordance with MpL 2 Sam 8:17, ML contains four occurrences of ‫ֶא ְביָ ָתר כּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬ (and the similar case ‫)וְ ֶא ְביָ ָתר כּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬: 48 (1) (2) (3) (4)

2 Sam 8:17 2 Sam 20:25 1 Kgs 4:4 1 Chr 18:16

479F

‫ֶא ְביָ ָתר כּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬ ‫וְ ֶא ְביָ ָתר כּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬ ‫וְ ֶא ְביָ ָתר כּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬ ‫ֶא ְביָ ָתר כּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬

Because Weil simply reprints MpL, he may have intended to clarify that two occurrences are prefixed with a conjunction. 49

NOTE 222: 2 SAMUEL 9:3 ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ֶח ֶסד ֱא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

ִ ‫ח ֶסד ֱא‬.ֶ Even though this exact MpL 2 Sam 9:3 counts two occurrences of ‫�הים‬ phrase occurs only once in ML, this tally is correct if one includes the similar case in

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫ל־כּל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ָ ‫ﬠ‬,ַ 2 Sam 8:15. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫א ְביָ ָתר כּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬.ֶ 49 Though MpBHS also presents the note ‫ ֗ד‬for form 2, it mistakenly presents ‫ ֗ג‬for forms 47 48

3–4.

168

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Ps 52:10 (‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ד־א‬ ֱ ‫)ב ֶח ֶס‬, ְ as per MmA 2 Sam 9:3. 50 MpL Ps 52:10 does not group the two cases together, however, but instead distinguishes the one from the other by featuring the frequency note ‫“ ֗ל‬unique.” Presumably influenced by MpL Ps 52:10, Weil emends MpL 2 Sam 9:3 to ‫ל‬.֗ 51 One cannot determine whether Weil regards MpL 2 Sam 9:3 as a frequency error or if he merely seeks to standardize the Masorah. What is clear, though, is that his emendation of MpL 2 Sam 9:3 is the reason for this sub loco note.

NOTE 223: 2 SAMUEL 9:4 ‫ְבּלוֹ‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫כת ו‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times written with ‫ו‬.

MpA

֗‫כתב ו‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times written with ‫ו‬.

MpC

‫חס ֗א‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times lacking ‫א‬. No note.

MpL 2 Sam 9:4 correctly notes that the form ‫ ְבּלוֹ‬occurs four times. Therefore, Weil prints this note without emendation here and completes the Masorah for the other three occurrences. The four references are: 52 (1) (2) (3) (4)

2 Sam 9:4b Ezra 4:13 Ezra 4:20 Ezra 7:24

483F

The four forms derive from two different lemmata. The first instance of ‫ ְבּלוֹ‬consists of the prepositional prefix ‫ ב‬and the lemma ‫“ לֹא‬no/not” spelled with ‫ ו‬and without ‫ א‬and is part of the compound toponym ‫לֹא ְד ָבר‬. The other three forms are from the Aramaic lemma ‫“ ְבּלוֹ‬tribute.” 53 Thus, it would seem that Weil intended to comment on homonymity. 54 48F

485F

.‫ ושארא חסד יהוה‬.‫ ואני כזית רענן‬.‫ ואעשה עמו‬:‫“ חסד אלהים בחסד אלהים ֗ב‬there are two occurrences of ‫ חסד אלהים‬and ‫בחסד אלהים‬: 2 Sam 9:3; Ps 52:10; and the rest are ‫חסד‬ ‫יהוה‬.” Similarly, MpA presents the note ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” in both instances. Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ח ֶסד ֱא‬.ֶ 51 MpC 2 Sam 9:3 also has ‫“ ֗ל‬unique.” 52 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫בּלוֹ‬. ְ 53 Ginsburg, 4, ‫ב‬, §313. Similarly, Dotan and Reich, §‫בּלוֹ‬. ְ 54 Note that Haketer (“Samuel I & II,” 192) understands the similar note in MpA ( ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ ‫)א‬ ֗ to count defective ‫ א‬forms of the lemma ‫לֹא‬: (1) 1 Sam 2:16, ‫( ;לוֹ‬2) 1 Sam 20:2, ‫( ;לוֹ‬3) 2 50

2 SAMUEL

169

NOTE 224: 2 SAMUEL 10:7 ‫ַהגִּ בּ ִֹרים‬ MpBHS

‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven times plene. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note [‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫]הגּ‬. ַ

The Mp note that Weil presents here (‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫ )ז‬for ‫ ַהגִּ בּ ִֹרים‬is a completion of MpL Joel L 4:9 and Mp 1 Chr 19:8, and there are in fact seven instances in ML of the fully plene form ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫הגּ‬:ַ (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Kgs 1:10 Jer 46:9 Joel 4:9 Song 4:4

‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬ ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬ ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬ ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Kgs 1:8 1 Kgs 1:10 Jer 46:9 Joel 4:9 Song 4:4

‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ַהגּ‬ ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬ ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬ ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬ ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬

(5) 1 Chr 11:10 (6) 1 Chr 11:19 (7) 1 Chr 19:8

‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬ ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬ ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬

ִ ִ‫וְ ַהגּ‬, however. This means that MpL 1 Kgs 1:8 also presents the same note for ‫בּוֹרים‬ this masoretic rule includes fully plene occurrences of ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ ַהגּ‬and ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ַהגּ‬, which total nine in ML: (6) (7) (8) (9)

1 Chr 11:10 1 Chr 11:19 1 Chr 19:8 1 Chr 28:1

‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬ ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬ ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ַהגּ‬ ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ַהגּ‬

Sam 9:4, ‫( ְ;בּלוֹ‬4) 2 Sam 9:5, ‫מלּוֹ‬. ִ Neither MpA nor MmA provide direct evidence supporting this interpretation, however.

170

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

In accordance with MpL, however, MA contains only seven occurrences (forms 1–4 and 7–9), all of which are listed in MmA 1 Kgs 1:10. 55 Weil correctly completes the note ‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫ ז‬for the seven plene forms listed in MmA. 56 Surprisingly, however, he also presents ‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫ ז‬for 2 Sam 10:7, which lacks ‫ ו‬in MA,L. 57 In so doing, he seemingly ignores Ginsburg’s observation that 2 Sam 10:7 is sometimes accidentally included because it is almost identical to 1 Chr 19:8 (form 8 above). 58 Weil’s decisions to complete the note ‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫ ז‬for 2 Sam 10:7 and to mark it contra textum are mistaken. 59 490F

NOTE 225: 2 SAMUEL 11:1 ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫בנביא ֗ח‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗מ ֗ט‬ Forty-nine times plene in the Prophets, eight of which are in this book.

MpA

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ח‬ Eight times plene in this book.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗מ ֗א‬ Forty-one times plene.

MpC

‫בס‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ח‬ Eight times plene in this book.

MpL 2 Sam 11:1 counts forty-one occurrences of the plene ‫ ו‬form ‫יוֹשׁב‬. ֵ 60 ML contains seventy-five occurrences, with the tally rising to eighty-two if forms prefixed with a conjunction or preposition are included: 491F

55

‫ אלה עשו‬.‫ קראו זאת בגוים‬.‫ עלו הסוסים‬.‫ ושלאחריו‬.‫ ו)את( נתן הנביא‬:‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫הגבורים ז‬ .‫ ויקהל דויד‬.‫ ואת כל צבא‬.‫“ שלשת‬there are seven occurrences of ‫הגבורים‬: 1 Kgs 1:8; 1:10; Jer 46:9;Joel 4:9; 1 Chr 11:19; 19:8; 28:1.” Note that the catchphrase for 1 Kgs 1:8 is incorrect and should read ‫ונתן הנביא‬, as MA reads ‫ ואת נתן הנביא‬in 1 Kgs 1:10, and for which MmA presents ‫ושלאחריו‬. Dotan and Reich (§‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ )וְ ַהגּ‬follow this MmA list. MpL 1 Kgs 1:10 incorrectly presents the tally of six. 56 Weil does not present a note for 1 Chr 11:10, and he simply adds ‫כת כן‬ ֗ “written thus” for Song 4:4. That 1 Chr 11:10 should not be read fully plene is supported by MmL 1 Chr 11:19 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §4061), which does not count 1 Chr 11:10 as one of three plene occurrences of ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ ַהגּ‬in Chronicles: ‫ וישמע דויד‬.‫ אלה עשו שלשת‬:‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫הגבורים ֗ג‬ ִ 1 .‫ ויקהל דויד‬.‫“ דהצבא‬there are three occurrences in this book of the plene form ‫הגבורים‬: ִ Chr 11:19; 19:8; 28:1.” 57 The fully plene form is incorrectly written in MC. 58 Ginsburg, 4, ‫ג‬, §39. 59 In light of the confusion concerning this Masorah, it is curious that BHQ (“The Twelve Minor Prophets,” 20*) offers no comment other than to indicate that the Masorah addresses both ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫ ַהגּ‬and ‫בּוֹרים‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ַהגּ‬. 60 Likewise, MpL 2 Sam 18:24 (note 255) and MpL 2 Sam 19:9 (note 257).

2 SAMUEL (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28)

Gen 24:3 Gen 24:62 Gen 50:11 Exod 18:14 Exod 34:12 Exod 34:15 Num 13:19b Num 13:29a Num 13:29b Num 14:14 Num 14:25 Num 21:34 Deut 1:4a Deut 1:4b Deut 3:2 Deut 4:46 Josh 9:7 Judg 1:9 Judg 1:17 Judg 4:2 Judg 11:21 1 Sam 14:2 1 Sam 19:9 1 Sam 22:6 2 Sam 5:6 2 Sam 7:2a 2 Sam 11:1 2 Sam 16:3

‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫ְל‬ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫ְל‬ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ

(29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56)

2 Sam 18:24 2 Sam 19:9 Isa 5:3 Isa 5:9 Isa 6:5 Isa 6:11 Isa 8:14 Isa 9:8 Isa 22:21 Isa 24:17 Isa 28:6 Isa 49:19 Jer 4:7 Jer 4:29 Jer 9:10 Jer 26:9 Jer 29:32 Jer 33:10 Jer 36:22 Jer 36:30 Jer 38:7 Jer 44:2 Jer 44:22 Jer 46:19 Jer 47:2 Jer 48:9 Jer 48:43 Jer 49:31

‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫ְל‬ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫ְל‬ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יּוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫ַל‬ ‫יּוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫ִמ‬ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ

171 (57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) (64) (65) (66) (67) (68) (69) (70) (71) (72) (73) (74) (75) (76) (77) (78) (79) (80) (81) (82)

Jer 50:3 Jer 51:29 Jer 51:37 Jer 51:62 Ezek 2:6 Ezek 7:7 Ezek 8:1 Hos 4:3 Amos 1:5 Amos 1:8 Amos 8:8 Zeph 2:5 Zeph 3:6 Zech 12:8 Zech 12:10 Ps 2:4 Ps 22:4 Prov 3:29 Prov 20:8 Esth 5:1 Esth 5:13 1 Chr 5:8 1 Chr 13:6 1 Chr 17:1 2 Chr 6:16 2 Chr 18:18

‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹ ֵשׁב‬ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ

The text of ML is at variance with the normative Masorah 61 in three instances. There are two forms in ML that are incorrectly written with defective spelling (Esth 2:21; 62 Num 13:29c63) and one form incorrectly written with plene spelling (1 Sam 19:9). 64 Thus, according to the Masorah there should be eighty-three occurrences. The Tiberian Masorah, as determined per Breuer’s method. For further discussion, see chapter 1. 62 See MpL Esth 2:19, which notes that the defective form ‫ֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫ י‬in that verse is the only ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫) ֗ל‬. For further evidence in favor of this reading, see Breuer, The instance in the book (‫בסיפ‬ Biblical Text, 322. 63 The decisive majority of MB,S,S1,V and MmS1,V all support the plene reading (Breuer, The Biblical Text, 29). 64 See Breuer, The Biblical Text, 76. 61

172

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Breuer explains that the eighty-three forms can be tallied as forty-two by following a method of counting that derives from his reconstruction of the original masoretic rule for ‫יוֹ ֵשׁב‬: ‫ ב׳‬...‫ ח׳ בשמואל‬...‫ ד׳ בשפטים‬...‫ א׳ ביהושע‬...‫יושב ל׳׳ד מל׳ י׳׳ז בתורה‬ ...‫ וכל שאר קריה דכות׳ מל׳ בר מן י׳׳ז חס׳ ה׳ בישעיהו‬...‫ ב׳ במשלי‬...‫בתהלים‬ ...‫ א׳ באסתר‬...‫ א׳ באיוב‬...‫ א׳ בד׳׳ה‬...‫ ב׳ בתרי עשר‬...‫ א׳ ביחזקאל‬...‫ה׳ בירמיהו‬ .‫ וכל מלכים דכות׳ חס׳‬...‫א׳ בעזרא‬

‫יושב‬: thirty-four times plene: seventeen in the Torah… one in Joshua… four in

Judges… eight in Samuel… two in Psalms… two in Proverbs… and all the rest of Scripture is likewise plene except for seventeen defective: five in Isaiah… five in Jeremiah… one in Ezekiel… two in the Book of the Twelve… one in Chronicles… one in Job… one in Esther… one in Ezra… and all of Kings is likewise defective. 65

This masoretic rule, which Breuer reconstructs from MmS Deut 4:46 and MfV ‫יש‬.17, counts each of the books listed in the second half of the rule, with the exception of Kings, as one occurrence. This brings the tally to forty-two. 66 Dotan and Reich, however, count the book of Proverbs as one occurrence instead of counting them separately as per Breuer. This reduces the tally to forty-one, as per MpL 2 Sam 11:1; 18:24; 19:9. The forty-one forms that Dotan and Reich include are: 67 497F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Gen 24:3 Gen 24:62 Gen 50:11 Exod 18:14 Exod 34:12 Exod 34:15 Num 13:19b Num 13:29a Num 13:29b Num 14:14 Num 14:25 Num 21:34 Deut 1:4a Deut 1:4b

‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫ְל‬ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫ְל‬ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ

(15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28)

Deut 3:2 Deut 4:46 Josh 9:7 Judg 1:9 Judg 1:17 Judg 4:2 Judg 11:21 1 Sam 14:2 1 Sam 19:9 1 Sam 22:6 2 Sam 5:6 2 Sam 7:2a 2 Sam 11:1 2 Sam 16:3

‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ

(29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41)

498F

2 Sam 18:24 ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ 2 Sam 19:9 ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel Book of the Twelve Ps 2:4 ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ Ps 22:4 ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ Proverbs Job Megilloth Ezra-Nehemiah Chronicles

Breuer, The Aleppo Codex, 216 (translation mine). For a further analysis of this masoretic rule, see Breuer, The Aleppo Codex, 216–17. 67 From their commentary, it is clear that Dotan and Reich are aware of the three errors in ML mentioned above. Surprisingly, however, they do not make the necessary corrections in their list of the forty-one. 65 66

2 SAMUEL

173

Weil does not understand how the Masoretes tallied occurrences of ‫יוֹשׁב‬, ֵ and therefore emends the tally to forty-nine and limits the scope to the Prophets rather than broadening the scope to cover the entire Bible. These two emendations are part of the reason for this sub loco note. It appears that he chooses to limit the scope to the Prophets and emend the tally accordingly because of MpL Josh 9:7 (see note 13), which counts seventeen plene occurrences of ‫יוֹשׁב‬. ֵ As noted in note 13, it seems that the tally of seventeen was mistakenly transferred to Joshua 9:7 and then clarified with “in the Prophets.” The second half of MpBHS 2 Sam 11:1 (‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫ח‬,֗ “…eight of them in this ֗ ‫מל ב‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ח‬, “eight times plene in this book”) is a completion of MpL 1 Sam 14:2 (‫סיפ‬ book”), which has been modified slightly because Weil has joined it with MpL 2 Sam 11:1. 68 This also requires a sub loco note. 49F

NOTE 226: 2 SAMUEL 11:11 ‫וְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ MpBHS

‫֗ל ֗ג‬ Thirty-three times.

‫]י ְֹשׁ ִבים[ ֗ל ֗ג‬ Thirty-three times.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 11:11 counts thirty-three occurrences of ‫י ְֹשׁ ִבים‬, and this tally corresponds with the text of ML if one includes plene and defective forms with and without a prefixed ‫ו‬. By contrast, MA contains only thirty-two such forms, which suggests that both ML and MpL are in error. The subsequent form ‫ וְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬occurs thirtythree times in ML, however, and the tally of thirty-three for this form has strong masoretic support. 69 Therefore, Weil repositions the circellus over ‫וְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, 70 and he completes the frequency note for all thirty-three forms contained in ML: 501F

The tally of eight occurrences of the plene ‫ ו‬form ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ in Samuel (MpL 1 Sam 14:2) is A,C correct if one excludes 1 Sam 19:9. Mp 2 Sam 18:24 confirm this tally, and the eight occurrences are listed in MmA 2 Sam 7:2. This Mm list is presented in the commentary on sub loco note 13 (Josh 9:7). 69 For example, MmA 1 Chr 1:34: .‫ עמדים אל ההר‬.‫ אל אלהים‬.‫ עשה חיל‬.‫ אהב‬:‫וישראל ֗ל ֗ג‬ .‫ לבזזים‬.‫ תושע יהודה‬.‫ שבט נחלתו‬.‫ ויהי בעלות‬.‫ וישב יהודה‬.‫ כחול‬.‫ נס איש לאהליו‬.‫ חנים‬.‫הארון‬ .‫ לא נכחד ממני‬.‫ לא יכירנו‬.‫ מקראי‬.‫ לא יאסף‬.‫ למען עבדי יעקב‬.‫ זכר אלה‬.‫ ועתה שמע‬.‫לגדופים‬ .‫ שובו אל יהוה‬.‫ אסא‬.‫ יחזקיהו‬.‫ אחז‬.‫ אמציהו‬.‫ שמרה זאת‬.‫ בני יצחק‬.‫ וחבירו‬.‫ גלה יגלה‬.‫יכשלו בעונם‬ .‫ לא אבה‬.‫“ ולא נעשה‬there are thirty-three occurrences of ‫וישראל‬: Gen 37:3; Num 24:18; Josh 22:22; 1 Sam 17:3; 2 Sam 11:11; 1 Sam 29:1; 2 Sam 19:9; 1 Kgs 4:20; 5:5; 18:36a; Jer 10:16; 23:6; Isa 42:24; 43:28; 44:1; 44:21a; 45:4; 49:5; 48:12; 63:16; Hos 5:3a; 5:5b; Amos 7:11; 7:17; 1 Chr 1:34; 29:18; 2 Chr 25:26; 28:26; 32:32; 16:11; 30:6c; 35:18c; Ps 81:12.” 70 Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫שׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ִ‫וְ י‬, 2 Sam 11:11. 68

174

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

Gen 37:3 Num 24:18 Josh 22:22 1 Sam 17:3 1 Sam 29:1 2 Sam 11:11 2 Sam 19:9 1 Kgs 4:20 1 Kgs 5:5 1 Kgs 18:36a Isa 42:24

(12) Isa 43:28 (13) Isa 44:1 (14) Isa 44:21a (15) Isa 45:4 (16) Isa 48:12 (17) Isa 49:5 (18) Isa 63:16 (19) Jer 10:16 (20) Jer 23:6 (21) Hos 5:3a (22) Hos 5:5b

(23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33)

Amos 7:11 Amos 7:17 Ps 81:12 1 Chr 1:34 1 Chr 29:18 2 Chr 16:11 2 Chr 25:26 2 Chr 28:26 2 Chr 30:6c 2 Chr 32:32 2 Chr 35:18c

This dislocation error, which Weil correctly resolves, is the reason for this sub loco note.

NOTE 227: 2 SAMUEL 11:13 ‫לֹא יָ ָרד‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 11:13 counts three occurrences of ‫לֹא יָ ָרד‬, 71 and this tally is correct for ML if one includes the one instance with a prefixed ‫ו‬: 72 503F

Though MpL does not have a clearly written circellus over ‫לֹא יָ ָרד‬, there are two marks that may be the remnant of a circellus. Nevertheless, the placement of the note indicates that the frequency note is applied to ‫ לֹא יָ ָרד‬and not ‫ל־בּיתוֹ‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֶא‬. 71

72

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫לֹא יָ ָרד‬.

2 SAMUEL (1) (2) (3)

175

2 Sam 11:9 ‫וְ לֹא יָ ַרד‬ 2 Sam 11:10 ‫לֹא יָ ַרד‬ 2 Sam 11:13 ‫לֹא יָ ָרד‬

Weil chooses to exclude the prefixed form from consideration (form 1), however, and to emend MpL 2 Sam 11:13 to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice.” It is noteworthy that MpA,C 2 Sam 11:13 present the tally of three for the preֵ ‫ וְ ֶא‬occurs three times vious phrase ‫ל־בּיתוֹ‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֶא‬73 and not for ‫לֹא יָ ָרד‬. Accordingly, ‫ל־בּיתוֹ‬ (Josh 20:6; 2 Sam 11:13; 1 Kgs 16:7) in ML, 74 and thus Weil should have treated the frequency note ‫ ֗ג‬in MpL 2 Sam 11:13 as a dislocation error. Nevertheless, from the evidence available, Weil appears to treat this MpL note as a frequency error.

NOTE 228: 2 SAMUEL 11:16 ‫ִבּ ְשׁמוֹר‬ MpBHS MpL

‫ומל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique and plene.

MpA

‫ומל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique and plene.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times plene.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL 2 Sam 11:16 counts five occurrences of the plene form ‫בּ ְשׁמוֹר‬,ִ whereas ML contains only one instance of this form. In accordance with MpA,C 2 Sam 11:16, Weil emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique.” 75 This emendation is the reason for the sub loco note. Dotan and Reich (§‫)בּ ְשׁמוֹר‬ ִ suggest that ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ה‬five times plene” properly belongs to ‫ ִל ְשׁמוֹר‬and was mistakenly attached to this similar form.

NOTE 229: 2 SAMUEL 12:8 ‫וְ ֶאת־נְ ֵשׁי‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

No note.

֗‫י‬ Ten times.

MpC

No note.

Likewise, MpL Josh 20:6. Catchphrases for the three following occurrences are listed in MmA 2 Sam 11:13: ‫ואל‬ .‫ וגם ביד יהוא‬.‫ ואל ביתו לא ירד‬.‫ אז ישוב הרוצח‬:‫“ ביתו ֗ג‬there are three occurrences of ‫ואל ביתו‬: Josh 20:6; 2 Sam 11:13; 1 Kgs 16:7.” 75 MpA,C 2 Sam 11:16 also presents the frequency note ‫“ ֗ל‬unique.” 73 74

176

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpL 2 Sam 12:8 counts ten occurrences of ‫וְ ֶאת־נְ ֵשׁי‬, but in ML this phrase occurs only twice: 2 Sam 12:8; 2 Kgs 24:15. For this reason, Weil emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice,” and it is his emendation of the frequency that is the reason for this sub loco note. Dotan and Reich (§‫ )נְ ֵשׁי‬are likely correct in suggesting that it is the placement of the circellus and not the frequency note that is incorrect. According to them, the circellus should appear over ‫נְ ֵשׁי‬, which occurs ten times in ML: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Gen 4:23 Gen 7:13 Gen 37:2 Gen 46:26 Num 31:9

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

1 Sam 30:5 2 Sam 12:8 2 Kgs 24:15 Jer 29:23 Mic 2:9

NOTE 230: 2 SAMUEL 12:8 ‫ָכּ ֵהנָּ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 12:8 counts four occurrences of ‫כּ ֵהנָּ ה‬,ָ and this tally is correct for ML if one includes the two occurrences of the similar form ‫וְ ָכ ֵהנָּ ה‬. That the prefixed form is to be included in the tally of four is confirmed by MpL Job 23:14, which presents the Mp note ‫“ ֗ד‬four times” for ‫וְ ָכ ֵהנָּ ה‬. 76 The four forms and their references are: 77 (1) (2) (3) (4)

Gen 41:19 78 2 Sam 12:8a 2 Sam 12:8b Job 23:14

507F

508F

‫ָכ ֵהנָּ ה‬ ‫ָכּ ֵהנָּ ה‬ ‫וְ ָכ ֵהנָּ ה‬ ‫וְ ָכ ֵהנָּ ה‬

It seems that Weil presents a sub loco note here because he wishes to clarify that the tally includes both ‫ ָכּ ֵהנָּ ה‬and ‫וְ ָכ ֵהנָּ ה‬. 79 510F

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫כּ ֵהנָּ ה‬.ָ See also Dotan and Reich, §‫כּ ֵהנָּ ה‬,ָ 2 Sam 12:8a. 78 Gen 41:19 is also marked “sub loco,” though it is not treated by Mynatt. In the corresponding comment in the Masoretic apparatus Weil makes reference to Dan 12:8, which is clearly a misprint for 2 Sam 12:8. 76 77

2 SAMUEL

177

NOTE 231: 2 SAMUEL 12:25 ‫יְ ִד ְידיָ הּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫ופלג‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique but there is a difference of opinion.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

No note. ‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL 2 Sam 12:25 marks ‫ יְ ִד ְידיָ הּ‬as unique, 80 and this is consistent with the text of ֗ ML. 81 Weil supplements MpL by noting that there is a difference of opinion (‫)ופלג‬. Kelley, Mynatt, and Crawford suggest that this difference of opinion may concern “David’s having named his son Solomon (2 Sam 12:24), only to have Nathan call him by a totally different and otherwise unknown name.” 82 As creative as this solution is, the debate seems to concern whether ‫ יְ ִד ְידיָ הּ‬should be read as one word or two. This is the explanation provided by Minḥat Shay, who bases his conclusion upon b. Pesaḥ. 117a: Said R. Hisda said R. Yohanan, “The words, hallelujah, kesjah [Ex. 17:16] and yedidyah [2 Sam. 12:25] are single words.”…The question was asked: as to yedidyah from the perspective of Rab, what is the situation? Come and take note, for said Rab, “Yedidyah is divided into two, so the Yedid part is secular, the Yah part is sacred.” 83

Minḥat Shay 2 Sam 12:25 also addresses the problem of whether the final ‫ ה‬should include mappîq, as per MA,L,C. Thus, the reason for the sub loco note may be Weil’s desire to comment on both problems.

NOTE 232: 2 SAMUEL 12:25 ‫ַבּ ֲﬠבוּר יְ הוָ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

Note that Weil mistakenly prints only ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” for Job 23:14. Perhaps he meant to indicate that the form occurs four times with only one appearing in the Writings (cf. MpBHS Gen 41:19: ‫בתור‬ ֗ ‫ד ֗ול‬,֗ “there are four occurrences, and it is unique in the Torah”). 80 Likewise, MpC 2 Sam 12:25. 81 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ידיָ הּ‬ ְ ‫יְ ִד‬. 82 Kelley, Mynatt, and Crawford, The Masorah, 168. 83 Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, 539. 79

178

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpL 2 Sam 12:25 counts two occurrences of ‫בּ ֲﬠבוּר יְ הוָ ה‬,ַ whereas Weil emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” in accordance with the text of ML. 84 It is his emendation of the frequency that is the reason for this sub loco note. 51F

NOTE 233: 2 SAMUEL 12:30 ‫ַמ ְל ָכּם‬ MpBHS

‫סביר מלכה‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ ‫ מלכה‬is wrongly suggested twice. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

֗ there are two instances in which the According to MpL 1 Chr 20:2 (‫)ב סברי֗ מלכה‬, reading ‫“( ַמ ְל ָכּהּ‬her king” = the king of the city of Rabbah) is wrongly suggested for ‫“( ַמ ְל ָכּם‬their king” = the king of the inhabitants of Rabbah). In completing MpL 2 Sam 12:30, Weil agrees with MpV and Minḥat Shay 85 that this is the second occurrence. 86 As it is merely a completion of the Masorah, though, MpBHS 2 Sam 12:30 does not require a sub loco note. 87 516F

517F

518F

NOTE 234: 2 SAMUEL 12:31 ‫וּב ֲח ִר ֵצי‬ ַ MpBHS MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once defective and once plene.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

MpC

‫֗ג‬ Three times. No note.

The plural construct form of the lemma ‫ ָח ִריץ‬occurs three times in ML: (1) (2) (3) 84 85

12:30.

1 Sam 17:18 ‫ֲח ִר ֵצי‬ 2 Sam 12:31 ‫וּב ֲח ִר ֵצי‬ ַ 1 Chr 20:3 ‫יצי‬ ֵ ‫וּב ֲח ִר‬ ַ

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫ ַבּ ֲﬠבוּר י—ה‬. MpV 2 Sam 12:30 affirms the reading ‫)ב מטעי֗ ( ַמ ְל ָכּם‬. ֗ Likewise, Minḥat Shay 2 Sam

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫מ ְל ָכּם‬. ַ Mynatt, Sub Loco, 16. For another example of a superfluous sub loco note in the Former Prophets, see note 251 (2 Samuel 17:27). 86 87

2 SAMUEL

179

Two of the three are defective (forms 1–2), as MpL 2 Sam 12:31 indicates. Weil, ֗ ‫ ֗ב‬to ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב חד‬twice, once dehowever, emends MpL 2 Sam 12:31 from ‫חס‬ fective and once plene” because he wrongly assumes that the tally of two includes only prefixed forms (forms 2–3). Because MpA 1 Sam 17:18 and MpA 2 Sam 12:31 group the three similar forms together without distinguishing them, one could argue that MpL 2 Sam 12:31 correctly counts two defective occurrences: one without a prefix (form 1) and one with a prefix (form 2). 88 519F

NOTE 235: 2 SAMUEL 12:31 ‫ל־ה ָﬠם‬ ָ ‫וְ ָכ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫דכות ֗ב ֗מ ֗ג‬ ֗ ‫נ֗ ֗א מ״פ וכל ר״פ‬ Fifty-one times within a verse, and all except three at the beginning of a verse are similar.

MpA

‫דכות ֗ב ֗מ ֗ג‬ ֗ ‫פסוק‬ ֗ ‫ראש‬ ֗ ‫באמצ וכל‬ ֗ ֗‫נ֗ ז‬ Fifty-seven times within a verse, and all except three at the beginning of a verse are similar.

MpC

No note.

‫דכ ֗ב ֗מ ֗ג‬ ֗ ‫פס‬ ֗ ‫רא‬ ֗ ‫נ֗ וכל‬ Fifty times within a verse, and all except three at the beginning of a verse are similar.

MpL 2 Sam 12:31 counts fifty-seven occurrences of ‫ל־ה ָﬠם‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָכ‬in the middle of a verse, and it notes that all occurrences at the beginning of the verse except for three are similar (i.e., they contain ‫ל־ה ָﬠם‬ ָ ‫ ָכּ‬and not ‫ל־ה ָﬠם‬ ָ ‫)וְ ָכ‬. 89 Weil, however, emends the L frequency to fifty-one in accordance with Mp Josh 1:2, and this revision is supported by MpA Josh 1:2 and MpA Judg 9:48. 90 He presents the frequency note ‫ נ֗ ֗א‬for the following fifty-one occurrences:

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וּב ֲח ִר ֵצי‬. ַ The three exceptions are 1 Kgs 9:20; Ezek 45:16; 2 Chr 8:7. 90 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ל־ה ָﬠם‬ ָ ‫וְ ָכ‬. 88 89

180

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)

Gen 35:6 Exod 11:8 Exod 18:14 Num 13:32 Josh 1:2 Josh 5:5 Josh 8:5 Judg 7:1 Judg 7:7 Judg 9:34 Judg 9:48 Judg 20:26 1 Sam 13:7 1 Sam 14:20 2 Sam 6:2 2 Sam 12:31 2 Sam 15:17

(18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34)

2 Sam 15:23a 2 Sam 15:23b 2 Sam 15:30 2 Sam 16:6 2 Sam 16:14 2 Sam 16:15 2 Sam 17:22 2 Sam 18:4 2 Sam 18:5 2 Sam 20:15 1 Kgs 12:12 1 Kgs 20:8 2 Kgs 23:2 Jer 26:7 Jer 26:8 Jer 26:16 Jer 28:1

(35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51)

Jer 34:10 Jer 36:9 Jer 42:1 Jer 43:4 Jer 44:15 Ruth 4:9 Ezra 3:11 1 Chr 20:3 1 Chr 28:21 2 Chr 7:4 2 Chr 7:5 2 Chr 10:12 91 2 Chr 23:5 2 Chr 23:6 2 Chr 24:10 2 Chr 29:36 2 Chr 34:30

Some of the above forms have an associated MpL note that counts fifty occurrences, however. 92 Frensdorff suggests that ‫“ מ״פ‬in the middle of the verse” may exclude entries at the beginning and end of the verse. If so, 2 Chr 7:5—the only form to ap-

BHS incorrectly prints the circellus directly over ‫ה ָﬠם‬.ָ E.g., MpL Gen 35:6. BHQ (“Ezra-Nehemiah,” 17*) notes that one can find within L Mp fifty and fifty-one as tallies for this form but directs the reader to Mynatt, Sub Loco, 82– 83 for discussion. 91 92

2 SAMUEL

181

pear at the end of a verse—would be excluded, reducing the tally to fifty. 93 The tallies of fifty and fifty-one are not necessarily contradictory, therefore; they may simply be the result of different interpretations of the stricture ‫מ״פ‬. As a result, one cannot ascertain whether Weil considers his revision to be the correction of a frequency error or merely the standardization of the Masorah. Regardless, his emendation of the frequency is the reason for the sub loco note.

NOTE 236: 2 SAMUEL 13:6 ‫וַ יִּ ְת ָחל‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL 2 Sam 13:6 counts three occurrences of ‫וַ יִּ ְת ָחל‬, whereas ML contains only once instance of this form. Weil emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique,” which is the reason for the sub loco note, and his emendation accords with MpA,C 2 Sam 13:6. Dotan and Reich (§‫ )וַ יִּ ְת ָחל‬plausibly conjecture, however, that MpL 2 Sam 13:6 counts the three occurrences of .‫ה‬.‫ל‬.‫ ח‬that occur in the pericope about Amnon and Tamar: 94 52F

Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna, 142–43, n. 2; likewise, Haketer, “Samuel I & II,” 60. This explanation is reasonable because the Masorah elsewhere distinguishes verse-final forms (e.g., see note 208 [2 Samuel 5:4]). Dotan (Thesaurus, 104), however, proposes that the tally of fifty derives from counting the two occurrences in 2 Sam 15:23 as one. Alternatively, MmC 2 Sam 17:22 counts fifty occurrences but includes catchwords for both instances in 2 Sam 15:23. This list includes correct catchwords for all of the fifty-one forms presented above except for 2 Sam 6:2 and 2 Chr 29:36. Perez Castro (“Samuel,” 258) takes ‫ ויחלק‬as a corrupt catchword for one of the two outstanding verses, but he mistakenly prints the reference “2 Sam 29:36.” Thus, one cannot be sure if he means to associate this corrupt catchword with 2 Sam 6:2 or 2 Chr 29:36. A cursory survey of this Mm list reveals at least two factors that may have contributed to the confusion. First, the catchword ‫ויקם‬, which Perez Castro assigns to 2 Sam 17:22, would also be an appropriate catchword for 2 Sam 6:2. In both cases this form begins the verse, and this may have led to the omission of the catchwords for one of the verses. Second, it is possible that ‫ ויחלק‬was accidentally written as the catchword for 2 Sam 6:2 because it occurs in a nearby verse (2 Sam 6:19) that includes the phrase ‫ל־ה ָﬠם‬ ָ ‫ל ָכ‬.ְ To be sure, one cannot ascertain the reason behind the corruption in MmC, but it is clear that there is no convincing reason for excluding either 2 Sam 6:2 or 2 Chr 29:36. 94 They also suggest that the tally of three may actually include forms that end with the syllable ‫( – ָחל‬2 Sam 13:5; 13:6; Isa 48:11). 93

182

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3)

2 Sam 13:2 ‫ְל ִה ְת ַחלּוֹת‬ 2 Sam 13:5 ‫וְ ִה ְת ָחל‬ 2 Sam 13:6 ‫וַ יִּ ְת ָחל‬

If one accepts this interpretation, then this Mp note is only in need of clarification of the scope.

NOTE 237: 2 SAMUEL 13:11 ‫בּוֹאי‬ ִ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene in this and one similar case.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times plene.

See note 143 (1 Sam 10:8).

NOTE 238: 2 SAMUEL 13:19 ‫אשׁהּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫ר‬a

MpBHS MpL

֗‫ז‬ Seven times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpC

No note.

There are seven occurrences of ‫אשׁהּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ר‬in ML. MpL 2 Sam 13:19, however, counts eight, which is a correct tally if one includes the unique, similar form ‫אשׁהּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫( ְבּר‬Esth 95 2:17). The references are: (1) (2) (3) (4)

95

Gen 28:18 Deut 21:12 2 Sam 13:19a 2 Sam 13:19b

526F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫אשׁהּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫ר‬.

(5) (6) (7) (8)

2 Kgs 9:30 Zech 4:2a Zech 4:2b Esth 2:17

2 SAMUEL

183

Weil appears to regard the tally of seven as an error of frequency. Like MmV Gen 28:18 96 and Ginsburg (2, ‫ר‬, §111), Weil excludes Esth 2:17 and reduces the tally to seven.

NOTE 239: 2 SAMUEL 13:32 ‫שׂוּמה‬ ָ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

Weil reproduces MpL 2 Sam 13:32, which marks ‫שׂוּמה‬ ָ as unique. It appears that he presents a sub loco note because he intends to discuss his rejection of the Eastern ָ ‫שׂ‬: ִ 97 tradition that writes ‫ימה‬ ָ ‫ ִשׂ‬but reads ‫שׂוּמה‬. ָ The first hand of ML reads ‫ימה‬ 528F

NOTE 240: 2 SAMUEL 14:12 ‫ַדּ ֵבּ ִרי‬ MpBHS

‫֗ל‬ Unique. ◦

MpL

MpA MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 14:12 places a circellus over ‫ ַדּ ֵבּ ִרי‬but does not include a corresponding Mp note. Weil, however, adds the Mp note ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” because this form occurs

96

‫ וגלה על‬.‫ ותשם בפוך עיניה‬. ֗‫ ֗ב בפסו‬.‫ ותקח תמר אפר‬.‫ וגלחה את‬.‫ וישכם יעקב‬: ֗‫ראשה ז֗ וסי‬ .‫ ֗ב בפסוק‬.‫“ רושה‬there are seven occurrences of ‫ראשה‬, and their references are Gen 28:18; Deut 21:12; 2 Sam 13:19a; 13:19b; 2 Kgs 9:30; Zech 4:2a; Zech 4:2b.” 97 ML folio 466 verso lists the Western and Eastern readings: .‫וק‬ ֗ ‫כת‬ ֗ ‫למע היתה שומה‬ ֗ .‫קר‬ ֗ ‫כת שומה‬ ֗ ‫למד שימה‬ ֗ “according to the Western tradition ‫ היתה שומה‬is written and read; according to the Eastern tradition ‫ שימה‬is written but ‫ שומה‬is read.” MA,L,C all follow the Western tradition.

184

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

only once, 98 as MpA 2 Sam 14:12 indicates. Weil’s addition of this Mp note is the reason for the sub loco note.

NOTE 241: 2 SAMUEL 14:15 ‫יֵ ְר ֻאנִ י‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective.

MpL 2 Sam 14:15 counts two occurrences of ‫יֵ ְר ֻאנִ י‬, whereas ML contains only one occurrence of this form. Weil emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” in accordance with the text of ML, 99 and his emendation of the frequency error is the reason for this sub loco note. 530F

NOTE 242: 2 SAMUEL 14:29 ‫וְ לֹא ָא ָבה ָלבוֹא‬a

MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 14:29 counts only one occurrence of ‫וְ לֹא ָא ָבה ָלבוֹא‬. There are two occurrences of this phrase in ML, however: 2 Sam 14:29a; 2 Sam 14:29b. Because Weil does not emend the Mp note to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice,” it seems that he follows a tradition attested by MpV that regards 2 Sam 14:29b as unique because it, unlike 2 Sam 14:29a, is not followed by ‫א ָליו‬. ֵ 100 If this is how he interprets MpL 2 Sam 14:29, it is curious that he does not follow MpV in clarifying the matter (‫ל חסר אליו‬,֗ “once lacking ‫)”אליו‬. 101 532F

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫דּ ֵבּ ִרי‬.ַ Likewise, Dotan and Reich, ‫יֵ ְר ֻאנִ י‬. MpA,C 2 Sam 14:15 also present the tally of one (‫֗ל‬ and ‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫ל‬,֗ respectively). 100 Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ לֹא ָא ָבה ָלבוֹא ֵא ָליו‬. 101 Dotan and Reich note that MpV incorrectly place the note with the first occurrence. 98 99

2 SAMUEL

185

NOTE 243: 2 SAMUEL 14:32 ‫וֶ ֱה ִמ ָתנִ י‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective.

MpL 2 Sam 14:32 marks ‫ וֶ ֱה ִמ ָתנִ י‬as unique, a note which Weil does not emend. The reason for this note is not clear, but it is possible that Weil intended to indicate that this form is indeed defective, as per MpA,C. A second possible explanation is that Weil intended to comment on OchlahH, §15, which incorrectly prints the catchphrase for ‫( וֶ ֱה ִמ ָתנִ י‬2 Sam 14:32) instead of the catchphrase for the form under consideration: ‫וְ יָ מֹת‬. 102 53F

NOTE 244: 2 SAMUEL 15:8 ‫ְבּ ִשׁ ְב ִתּי‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ט זוגין‬ Nine word-pairs.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫זוג‬ ֗ ‫֗ט‬ Nine word-pairs.

MpC

‫֗ל וחד בשבתו עם זקני ֗א‬ Unique, and once ‫( בשבתו עם זקני‬Prov 31:23).

MpL 2 Sam 15:8 notes that ‫ ְבּ ִשׁ ְב ִתּי‬belongs to a group of nine word pairs, and Weil does not emend this MpL note except to replace the abbreviation ‫זוג‬ ֗ with the nonabbreviated form ‫זוגין‬. These nine pairs consist of one form terminating with ‫ י‬and one form terminating with ‫ו‬: 103 534F

OchlahH incorrectly prints the plene form ‫וְ יָ מוֹת‬. OchlahP §53; OchlahH §54; see also Dotan and Reich, §‫בּ ִשׁ ְב ִתּי‬.ְ Note that DíazEsteban mistakenly prints “1 Kgs 23:35” instead of “2 Kgs 23:35.” MmA Ps 45:11 also presents the same list, though it omits the catchwords for 2 Chr 6:29 and Isa 3:7.: ‫֗ט זוגין מן ֗ב‬ ‫ כערכו‬.‫ כבדו כבדי‬.‫ דורו דורי‬.‫ גדולתו גדלתי‬.‫ ברצתו ברצותי‬.‫ בשבתו בשבתי‬:‫מיחדין חד וו֗ וחד יוד‬ .‫ ובביתו‬.‫ ומכאובו‬.‫ והטו והטי‬.‫“ כערכי‬there are nine pairs of two unique words, one with ‫ ו‬and one with ‫י‬: Prov 21:23; 2 Sam 15:8; Job 34:9; 1 Chr 29:3; Esth 1:4; Ps 71:21; Isa 53:8; 38:12; Prov 7:23; Lam 2:11; 2 Kgs 23:35; Ps 55:14; Josh 24:23; Ps 45:11; 2 Chr 6:29; Ps 38:18. 102 103

186

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

2 Sam 15:8 Prov 31:23 Isa 38:12 Isa 53:8 1 Chr 29:3 Job 34:9 Ps 71:21 Esth 1:4 Lam 2:11

‫ְבּ ִשׁ ְב ִתּי‬ ‫ְבּ ִשׁ ְבתּוֹ‬ ‫דּוֹרי‬ ִ ‫דּוֹרוֹ‬ ‫צוֹתי‬ ִ ‫ִבּ ְר‬ ‫ִבּ ְרצֹתוֹ‬ ‫גְּ ֻד ָלּ ִתי‬ ‫דוּלּתוֹ‬ ָ ְ‫גּ‬ ‫ְכּ ֵב ִדי‬

(10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)

Prov 7:23 Ps 55:14 2 Kgs 23:35 Ps 45:11 Josh 24:23 Ps 38:18 2 Chr 6:29 Isa 3:7 2 Chr 7:11

‫ְכּ ֵבדוֹ‬ ‫ְכּ ֶﬠ ְר ִכּי‬ ‫ְכּ ֶﬠ ְרכּוֹ‬ ‫וְ ַה ִטּי‬ ‫וְ ַהטּוּ‬ ‫אוֹבי‬ ִ ‫וּמ ְכ‬ ַ ‫וּמ ְכאֹבוֹ‬ ַ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫וּב ֵב‬ ְ ‫וּב ֵביתוֹ‬ ְ

Because MpL is correct, Weil may have simply intended to list the pairs.

NOTE 245: 2 SAMUEL 15:10 ‫ַהשּׁ ָֹפר‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective in this form.

MpA

No note.

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 15:10 counts three occurrences of the defective form ‫השּׁ ָֹפר‬,ַ whereas ML contains only two: Exod 20:18; 2 Sam 15:10. The plene ‫ ו‬form ‫שּׁוֹפר‬ ָ ‫ ַה‬is incorrectly written in ML at Exod 19:19, however. This form should also read ‫השּׁ ָֹפר‬,ַ 104 which would raise the tally to three, as per MpL 2 Sam 15:10. Breuer explains that there is another way to interpret ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ג‬,֗ however. The Masorah counts nine defective occurrences of ‫ שׁ ָֹפר‬and similar cases: 105 53F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Exod 19:16 Exod 19:19 Exod 20:18 2 Sam 15:10 2 Sam 18:16

‫שׁ ָֹפר‬ ‫ַהשּׁ ָֹפר‬ ‫ַהשּׁ ָֹפר‬ ‫ַהשּׁ ָֹפר‬ ‫ַבּשּׁ ָֹפר‬

(6) (7) (8) (9)

2 Sam 20:1 2 Sam 20:22 Hos 8:1 Job 39:25

536F

‫ַבּשּׁ ָֹפר‬ ‫ַבּשּׁ ָֹפר‬ ‫שׁ ָֹפר‬ ‫שׁ ָֹפר‬

If one excludes from the tally all occurrences within the Torah, as per MpL Hos 8:1 (‫דכות ֗ב ֗מ ֗ב‬ ֗ ‫אור‬ ֗ ‫חס וכל‬ ֗ ‫)ג‬, ֗ 106 and counts all occurrences within Samuel as one, the tally is reduced to three: 107 537F

538F

Breuer, The Biblical Text, 13. Ibid., 400. One such example is MpC Hos 8:1 (‫חס‬ ֗ ‫)ט‬. ֗ ML contains only seven defective occurrences, however, as forms 2 and 7 are incorrectly written plene. 104 105

2 SAMUEL (1) (2) (3)

Hos 8:1 Job 39:25 All Samuel

187

‫שׁ ָֹפר‬ ‫שׁ ָֹפר‬

From this evidence one can see that the tally of three (see MpL 2 Sam 15:10) is simply in need of clarification. Weil, however, emends this Mp note to ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ “once defective in this form,” thereby distinguishing 2 Sam 15:10 from the other three forms within Samuel (forms 5–7 in the first list), all of which are prefixed with ‫ב‬. He completes ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ג‬for forms 5–7, however. 108 In so doing, Weil misinterprets and misapplies MpL 2 Sam 15:10. 539F

NOTE 246: 2 SAMUEL 15:21 ‫ם־בּ ְמקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ִ ‫ִכּי ִא‬ MpBHS

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

No note.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

While MpBHS ostensibly counts two occurrences of ‫ם־בּ ְמקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ִ ‫כּי ִא‬,ִ the MpBHS note for ‫ ִאם‬indicates that it is to be written but not read (‫קר‬ ֗ ‫כת ולא‬ ֗ ‫אם חד מן ֗ח‬, “‫ אם‬is one of eight written but not read”). 109 Thus, the rubric for which Weil presents the tally of two is ‫כּי ִבּ ְמקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬,ִ not ‫ם־בּ ְמקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ִ ‫כּי ִא‬.ִ The note ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” found at MpBHS 2 Sam 15:21 is a completion of MpL Jer 22:12, where ‫ִכּי ִבּ ְמקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ appears without an interposed ‫אם‬. ִ 110 Seeing as how the completion of MpL does not warrant a sub loco note, it would appear that Weil presents the sub loco note for 2 Sam 15:21 because he intended to comment upon this confusing matter in his commentary. 541F

MA,C

18*).

Likewise, MpA Hos 8:1. In addressing MpL Hos 8:1, BHQ does not point out that contain four defective forms within Samuel (BHQ, “The Twelve Minor Prophets,”

106

See Breuer, The Biblical Text, 95, n. 40; likewise, Ginsburg, 2, ‫ש‬, §289. Dotan and Reich (§‫)שׁ ָֹפר‬, on the other hand, also exclude occurrences of ‫בּשּׁ ָֹפר‬.ַ Therefore, they suggest that the three are 2 Sam 15:10 (‫;)השּׁ ָֹפר‬ ַ Hos 8:1 (‫ ;)שׁ ָֹפר‬Job 39:25 (‫)שׁ ָֹפר‬. 108 In treating 2 Sam 20:22 as defective, as per MA,C, Weil reads against the text of ML, which has the plene ‫ ו‬form. While his featuring the Mp note ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ג‬indicates that he is reading against ML, he does not add a contra textum note in the Masoretic apparatus. 109 Likewise, MmL Jer 51:3 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §2752) counts eight forms that are written but not read, one of which is ‫ ִאם‬in 2 Sam 15:21: ‫ חמש‬.‫ ידרך‬.‫ את‬.‫ נא‬: ֗‫כתיב ולא קרי‬ ֗ ‫֗ח‬ .‫ גאל‬.‫ כאשר‬.‫ במקום‬.‫ אמנון‬.‫“ דנגב‬there are eight occurrences that are written but not read: 2 Kgs 5:18; Jer 38:16; 51:3; Ezek 48:16; 2 Sam 13:33; 15:21; Jer 39:12; Ruth 3:12.” 110 Dotan and Reich present ‫ ִכּי ִבּ ְמקוֹם‬as the entry, not ‫שׁר‬ ֶ ‫כּי ִבּ ְמקוֹם ֲא‬.ִ 107

188

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 247: 2 SAMUEL 15:23 ‫בּוֹכים‬ ִ MpBHS MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene. No note.

MpL 2 Sam 15:23 counts five plene occurrences of ‫בּוֹכים‬. ִ ML contains only two instances of this form (2 Sam 15:23; Neh 8:9), however, for which reason Weil emends the frequency note to ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬twice plene” and marks it “sub loco.” This emendation is supported by MpA 2 Sam 15:23 and MmA 2 Sam 15:23. 111 Dotan and Reich (§ ‫)בּוֹכים‬ ִ suggest that ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ה‬five times plene” may be a corruption of ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫ה ֗ב‬,֗ noting that the five forms are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Num 25:6 2 Sam 15:23 Job 30:31 Ezra 3:12 Neh 8:9

‫בּ ִֹכים‬ ‫בּוֹכים‬ ִ ‫בּ ִֹכים‬ ‫בּ ִֹכים‬ ‫בּוֹכים‬ ִ

While this resolution is reasonable, Dotan and Reich fail to note that the reconstructed rule excludes the one other instance of ‫( בּ ִֹכים‬Judg 2:5), which functions as a toponym. 112 543F

NOTE 248: 2 SAMUEL 15:24 ‫וַ יַּ ִצּקוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective.

MpA

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective.

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice and defective.

MpC

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective.

MpL 2 Sam 15:24 counts two occurrences of the defective ‫ י‬form ‫וַ יַּ ִצּקוּ‬. This precise form occurs only once in ML, but Ginsburg (1, ‫י‬, §534) proposes that the tally of MmA 2 Sam 15:23 reads: .‫ כי בוכים כל העם‬.‫ וכל הארץ בוכים‬:‫מל‬ ֗ ‫“ בוכים ֗ב‬there are two occurrences of the plene form ‫בוכים‬: 2 Sam 15:23; Neh 8:9.” 112 Ginsburg (4, ‫ב‬, §294) does not distinguish Judg 2:5 from the other defective forms. 111

2 SAMUEL

189

two is correct if one includes the one other similar form ‫( וַ יַּ ִצּ ֻקם‬Josh 7:23). 113 Nevertheless, Weil emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” and includes a sub loco note. This emendation is supported by MpA,C 2 Sam 15:24.

NOTE 249: 2 SAMUEL 15:32 ‫ָהרֹאשׁ‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫֗לז‬ Thirty-seven times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ל ֗ב‬ Thirty-two times.

MpC

No note.

See note 153 (1 Sam 13:17).

NOTE 250: 2 SAMUEL 15:36 ‫וּשׁ ַל ְח ֶתּם‬ ְ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

ְ This precise form occurs MpL 2 Sam 15:36 counts three occurrences of ‫וּשׁ ַל ְח ֶתּם‬. only once in ML, however, for which reason Weil emends the frequency note to ‫֗ל‬ “unique” and includes a sub loco note. This emendation is supported by MpA,C 2 Sam 15:36. Dotan and Reich (§‫)וּשׁ ַל ְח ֶתּם‬ ְ confirm the tally of three, however, including the similar form ‫ ְשׁ ַל ְח ֶתּם‬but restricting the scope to the Prophets on account of the one other occurrence (Gen 45:8, ‫)שׁ ַל ְח ֶתּם‬. ְ They do not present evidence in support of their explanation, however. Their solution is derived from Ginsburg (2, ‫ש‬, §494), which simply lists all four occurrences: (1) (2) (3) (4)

113

Gen 45:8 2 Sam 15:36 Jer 42:9 Jer 42:20

‫ְשׁ ַל ְח ֶתּם‬ ‫וּשׁ ַל ְח ֶתּם‬ ְ ‫ְשׁ ַל ְח ֶתּם‬ ‫ְשׁ ַל ְח ֶתּם‬

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫וַ יַּ ִצּקוּ‬.

190

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 251: 2 SAMUEL 17:27 ‫ִמלֹּא‬ MpBHS

‫ליש‬ ֗ ֗‫חס בתרי‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ MpA Twice defective with two different meanings. No note.

MpL

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective. No note.

This MpBHS note is a completion of the MpBHS note for ‫ ִמלּ ֹא‬in 2 Kgs 12:21. MpL 2 Kgs 12:21 correctly counts two occurrences of the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫מלֹּא‬, ִ 114 and to this note Weil adds the supplement ‫ליש‬ ֗ ֗‫ בתרי‬to clarify that the two occurrences differ in meaning. The occurrence in 2 Sam 17:27 is a conflation of ‫ ִמן‬and ‫ל ֹא‬, whereas the occurrence in 2 Kgs 12:21 is the defective ‫ ו‬form of the lemma ‫מלּוֹא‬. ִ Because MpBHS 2 Sam 17:27 is merely the completion of Weil’s emendation of MpL 2 Kgs 12:21, one would expect a sub loco note for 2 Kgs 12:21 but not for 2 Sam 17:27. 115 546F

NOTE 252: 2 SAMUEL 18:8 ‫נָ פ ֶֹצית‬ MpBHS MpL

‫נפוצת ֗ק‬ Read ‫נפוצת‬.

MpA

‫נפצת ֗ק‬ Read ‫נפצת‬.

MpC

‫]נפצות[ נפוצת קרי‬ Read ‫נפוצת‬. ‫]נפצות[ נפוצת ֗ק‬ Read ‫נפוצת‬.

MpL 2 Sam 18:8 contains the defective ‫ ו‬qərê ‫נָ פ ֶֹצת‬, which Weil emends to the plene ‫ו‬ qərê ‫פוֹצת‬ ֶ ָ‫נ‬. Weil’s emendation of MpL is the reason for this sub loco note, and the emendation is corroborated by MpA,C 2 Sam 18:8. 116 547F

Likewise, MpA 2 Sam 17:27; 2 Kgs 12:21. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫מלֹּא‬. ִ Note 372 addresses ‫ ִמלֹּא‬in 2 Kgs 12:21. 116 The kəṯîḇ of ML differs from the kəṯîḇ in MA,C. ML reads ‫נפצית‬, whereas MA,C read ‫נפצות‬. 114 115

2 SAMUEL

191

NOTE 253: 2 SAMUEL 18:11 ‫וַ ֲחג ָֹרה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once defective and once plene.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫בט וחד וחג֖ ורה על חלצים‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once with this accent and once ‫ ;וחג֖ ורה‬Isa 32:11.

MpL 2 Sam 18:11 counts two occurrences of ‫וַ ֲחג ָֹרה‬. In ML, however, this defective ‫ו‬ form occurs only once, and for this reason Weil emends the frequency note to ‫֗ל‬ “unique.” Like this MpL note, MpA 2 Sam 18:11 counts two occurrences, but it also clarifies that this tally includes one defective ‫ ו‬form (2 Sam 18:11) and one plene ‫ו‬ form (‫גוֹרה‬ ָ ‫ ;וַ ֲח‬Isa 32:11). 117 Thus, Weil could have simply clarified MpL instead of emending the frequency. It is possible that Weil chooses to emend MpL 2 Sam 18:11 from ‫ ֗ב‬to ‫ ֗ל‬be֗ ‫)ב‬, ֗ the other of which is the cause MpL Isa 32:11 counts two plene occurrences (‫מל‬ 118 similar form ‫גוֹרה‬ ָ ‫( ֲח‬Isa 3:24). Had Weil chosen not to emend MpL 2 Sam 18:11, he would have had to complete it for Isa 32:11, which means that MpBHS Isa 32:11 would have included two occurrences of the frequency note ‫ב‬:֗ once for the pair ‫גוֹרה‬ ָ ‫ח‬/‫ה‬ ֲ ‫גוֹר‬ ָ ‫ וַ ֲח‬and once for the pair ‫וַ ֲחג ָֹרה‬/‫גוֹרה‬ ָ ‫וַ ֲח‬. Thus, Weil’s emending MpL 2 Sam 18:11 to ‫ ֗ל‬may have been intended to obviate confusion. 119 548F

50F

NOTE 254: 2 SAMUEL 18:18 ‫ְב ַחיָּ ו‬ MpBHS MpL

‫חס בחייו ֗ק‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times defective; read ‫בחייו‬.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times defective.

‫בחייו ֗ק‬ Read ‫בחייו‬.

MpC

֗‫חס י‬ ֗ Lacking ‫י‬.

The first hand of ML is spelled without ‫ו‬. Likewise, MpA,L,C Isa 3:24; MpA Isa 32:11; MmA Isa 32:11: ‫ ותחת חגורה‬:‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חגורה ֗ב‬ .‫ וחגורה על חלצים‬.‫“ נקפה‬there are two occurrences of the plene form ‫חגורה‬: Isa 3:24; 32:11.” 119 On the other hand, MpC 2 Sam 18:11 marks ‫ וַ ֲחג ָֹרה‬as unique because it, unlike its counterpart ‫גוֹרה‬ ָ ‫( וַ ֲח‬Isa 32:11), is marked with milraʿ accent. Additionally, Dotan and Reich (§‫ )וַ ֲחג ָֹרה‬note a semantic distinction between the two forms. 2 Sam 18:11 is a noun, whereas Isa 32:11 is an imperative. 117 118

192

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpL 2 Sam 18:18 contains the plene ‫ י‬qərê form ‫בחייו‬, whereas MmL 2 Sam 18:18 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1811) supports the defective kəṯîḇ. 120 Weil indicates in the masoretic apparatus that he follows MmL and the kəṯîḇ, 121 and it is for this reason that he completes here the note ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ד‬four times defective,” which is found at MpL L ַ His decision to follow the kəṯîḇ is corrob2 Kgs 25:30 (‫)חיָּ ו‬ ַ and Mp Jer 52:33 (‫)חיָּ ו‬. orated by MA,C 2 Sam 18:18 and MpA,C 2 Sam 18:18. Though Weil does not indicate so in the Masorah, the tally of four includes ‫ ַחיָּ ו‬and ‫ב ַחיָּ ו‬:ְ 122 (1) (2) (3) (4)

2 Sam 18:18 2 Kgs 25:30 Jer 52:33 Qoh 5:17

53F

‫ְב ַחיָּ ו‬ ‫ַחיָּ ו‬ ‫ַחיָּ ו‬ ‫ַחיָּ ו‬

Though previous editions of BHS “suppress” the plene ‫ י‬qərê form ‫בחייו‬, the editors of the fifth revised edition wrongly reinsert the qərê after the contradictory note ‫֗ד‬ ‫חס‬. ֗ 123 It is clear from the evidence presented above that Weil’s emendation of MpL 2 Sam 18:18 from ‫ בחייו ֗ק‬to ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ד‬is correct, and it is this emendation that is the reason for the sub loco note.

120

‫ מספר‬.‫ ושנה את בגדי דירמיה‬.‫ וארחתו ארחת דמלכים‬.‫ ואבשלום לקח ויצב‬:‫בחיו ֗ד חסירין‬ .‫ וחד לחיו כערוגת הבשם‬.‫“ ימי חיו‬there are four occurrences of the defective form ‫בחיו‬: 2 Sam 18:18; 2 Kgs 25:30; Jer 52:33; and once ‫ לחיו‬in Song 5:13.” This last occurrence is presumably excluded from the tally because of the different vowel pattern (‫)ל ָחיָ ו‬. ְ 121 See his comment in the Masoretic apparatus: “L ‫ בחייו‬Q contra Mm 1811, suppressi, cf Qoh 5, 17 et Mp sub loco.” 122 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ב ַחיָּ ו‬. ְ 123 Weil also suppresses the plene ‫ י‬qərê form ‫ חייו‬in Qoh 5:17 in favor of the defective ‫י‬ kəṯîḇ form ‫חיו‬, but the fifth revised edition does not “unsuppress” the qərê as it does in 2 Sam 18:18. Though BHQ (“Megilloth,” 41*) explains MmL Qoh 5:17, which lists the four defective forms, it does not address the problem of the plene qərê reading in MpL Qoh 5:17.

2 SAMUEL

193

NOTE 255: 2 SAMUEL 18:24 ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫בנביא ֗ח‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗מ ֗ט‬ Forty-nine times plene in the Prophets, eight of which are in this book.

MpA

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ח‬ Eight times plene in this book.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗מ ֗א‬ Forty-one times plene.

MpC

‫בס‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ח‬ Eight times plene in this book.

See note 225 (2 Samuel 11:1).

NOTE 256: 2 SAMUEL 19:3 ‫ַה ְתּ ֻשׁ ָﬠה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס ֗ול‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective, and once in this form.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective.

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective. 124

MpL 2 Sam 19:3 counts six defective occurrences of ‫ה ְתּ ֻשׁ ָﬠה‬,ַ and it is clear from MmA Ps 35:3 that this tally includes all defective forms of the two closely related lemmata ‫ ְתּ ֻשׁ ָﬠה‬and ‫יְ ֻשׁ ָﬠה‬: 125 (1) Deut 32:15 ‫יְ ֻשׁ ָﬠתוֹ‬ (2) 2 Sam 19:3 ‫ַה ְתּ ֻשׁ ָﬠה‬ (3) Ps 35:3 �‫יְ ֻשׁ ָﬠ ֵת‬ 56F

(4) Ps 53:7 ‫יְ ֻשׁעוֹת‬ (5) Ps 80:3 ‫ישׁ ָﬠ ָתה‬ ֻ ‫ִל‬ (6) Job 30:15 ‫יְ ֻשׁ ָﬠ ִתי‬

Weil reproduces MpL 2 Sam 19:3 and adds a supplement which clarifies that ‫ַה ְתּ ֻשׁ ָﬠה‬ is itself unique. Though the emendation of MpL 2 Sam 19:3 is the principal reason for this sub loco note, Weil may have also intended to discuss the tally of seven defective forms, The first hand is plene ‫( ו‬Perez Castro, “Samuel,” 269). MmA Ps 35:3 reads: .‫ ישעתך אני‬.‫ ולכה לישעתה לנו‬.‫ וינבל צור ישעתו‬: ֗‫חס בלשנ‬ ֗ ֗‫ישועה ו‬ .‫ וכעב עברה ישעתי‬.‫ מי יתן מציון ישעות‬.‫“ ותהי התשעה‬there are six occurrences of ‫ ישועה‬with defective spelling in this and similar forms: Deut 32:15; Ps 80:3; 35:3; 2 Sam 19:3; Ps 53:7; ֗ ֗‫ו‬. StrikJob 30:15.” Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §�‫יְ ֻשׁ ָﬠ ֵת‬. MpL Deut 32:15 also presents ‫חס‬ ingly, BHQ, “Deuteronomy” does not elaborate the scope of the note. 124 125

194

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ )ז‬126 and MpL Ps 80:3 (‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ )ז‬present. 127 Though he which MpL Ps 35:3 (‫בליש‬ rejects the tally of seven, Frensdorff notes that certain manuscripts count Ps 14:7 as ַ ְ‫י‬, however, which the seventh form. 128 MA,L Ps 14:7 contain the plene form ‫שׁוּﬠת‬ indicates that Weil is correct not to include it as a defective form.

NOTE 257: 2 SAMUEL 19:9 ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ח‬129 ‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗מ ֗ט‬ Forty-nine times plene in the Prophets, eight of which are in this book.

MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗מ ֗א‬ Forty-one times plene.

MpA

MpC

See note 225 (2 Samuel 11:1).

◦ 130

‫בס‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ח‬ Eight times plene in this book.

NOTE 258: 2 SAMUEL 19:10 ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗כ‬ Twenty times with this accent.

MpA

‫בטע‬ ֗ ֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times with this accent.

MpC

No note. ‫בט‬ ֗ ֗‫י֗ ז‬ Seventeen times with this accent.

MpL 2 Sam 19:10 counts twenty-seven occurrences of ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬with the təḇîr accent, but Weil revises the frequency to twenty and completes it for all occurrences of ‫ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬and 126 Because the ֗‫ ז‬is not written clearly, Dotan and Reich to suggest that an (unsuccessful) attempt may have been made to correct it to ֗‫ו‬. 127 Mynatt, Sub Loco, 217–18. 128 Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna, 96. 129 MpBHS 2 Sam 19:9 mistakenly prints ‫בוביא‬, ֗ which I correct to ‫בנביא‬ ֗ “in the Prophets.” 130 MpA 2 Sam 19:9 places a circellus over ‫יוֹשׁב‬ ֵ but does not present a corresponding Mp note.

2 SAMUEL

195

‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬. For a full discussion of Weil’s emendation of ‫בטע‬ ֗ ֗‫“ ֗כז‬twenty-seven times” to ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗כ‬twenty times,” see note 191 (1 Sam 27:1). 131

NOTE 259: 2 SAMUEL 19:35 ‫יְמי ְשׁנֵ י ַחיַּ י‬ ֵ MpBHS

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

‫]שׁנֵ י ַחיַּ י[ ֗ה‬ ְ Five times.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

ְ In ML, however, the phrase MpL 2 Sam 19:35 counts five occurrences of ‫שׁנֵ י ַחיַּ י‬. occurs only twice (Gen 47:9; 2 Sam 19:35), for which reason Weil emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice.” He also adds an additional circellus over ‫יְמי ְשׁנֵ י‬ ֵ so that the text under consideration becomes ‫יְמי ְשׁנֵ י ַחיַּ י‬. ֵ This change has no bearing on the frequency, however. Both of these emendations are the reasons for this sub loco note. Ginsburg includes a note for ‫יְמי ְשׁנֵ י ַחיֵּ י‬, ֵ but unlike Weil, he includes similar cases and therefore presents the tally of five. 132 Frensdorff also has the tally of five but only for occurrences of ‫יְמי ְשׁנֵ י‬ ֵ in the Torah. 133 564F

NOTE 260: 2 SAMUEL 19:40 ‫ִל ְמקֹמוֹ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective in this book.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

See note number 79 (Judg 7:7).

Concerning MpC’s tally of seventeen, Perez Castro (“Samuel,” 137) observes that it could be a corruption of eighteen (‫)י֗ ֗ח‬, the tally that Ginsburg (The Massorah, 1, ‫א‬, §1474) presents for ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬and ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬. 132 Ginsburg, 1, ‫י‬, §259. This list is corrupt, however. 133 Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna, 79. Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁנֵ י ַחיַּ י‬. ְ 131

196

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 261: 2 SAMUEL 20:3 ‫וַ יִּ ְתּנֵ ם ֵבּית‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

֗‫ו‬ Six times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 20:3 counts six occurrences of ‫וַ יִּ ְתּנֵ ם ֵבּית‬, whereas ML contains only one instance of this phrase. Weil adds a sub loco note because he emends the frequency to one in accordance with the text of ML. Dotan and Reich (§‫ )וַ יִּ ְתּנֵ הוּ ֵבּית‬observe that MpL 2 Chr 16:10 presents the note ‫מטע‬ ֗ ֗‫“ ו‬six verses in which there is the possibility for confusion” for ‫וַ יִּ ְתּנֵ הוּ ֵבּית‬. 134 They explain that the tally of six likely includes occurrences of a form of ‫ ָל ֵתת‬followed by ‫ ֵבּית‬in which ‫ ְבּ ֵבית‬is wrongly supposed (səḇîrîn) to be the correct reading: 135 (1) 2 Sam 20:3 ‫וַ יִּ ְתּנֵ ם ֵבּית‬ (2) 1 Kgs 10:17 ‫ ֵבּית‬...‫וַ יִּ ְתּנֵ ם‬ (3) 2 Kgs 22:5 *‫ ֵבּית‬...*‫וְ יִ ְתּנֻ הוּ‬

56F

(4) 2 Kgs 22:9 ‫ ֵבּית‬...‫וַ יִּ ְתּנֻ הוּ‬ (5) Jer 52:11 *‫וַ יִּ ְתּנֵ הוּ ֵבית‬ (6) 2 Chr 16:10 ‫וַ יִּ ְתּנֵ הוּ ֵבּית‬

This solution is a conjecture, however, for which reason Weil’s emendation is an equally reasonable solution.

NOTE 262: 2 SAMUEL 20:10 ‫ישׁי ָא ִחיו‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲא ִב‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 20:10 counts only one occurrence of ‫ישׁי ָא ִחיו‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲא ִב‬, whereas ML contains two instances of this phrase: 2 Sam 3:30; 2 Sam 20:10. Weil adds a sub loco note because he emends the frequency to two in accordance with the text of ML. 136 567F

They also note that a circellus is mistakenly written over ‫ ֵבּית‬and not ‫וַ יִּ ְתּנֵ הוּ ֵבּית‬. Qərê forms are marked with * due to space constraints. 136 Likewise, Dotan and Reich §‫ישׁי ָא ִחיו‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲא ִב‬. 134 135

2 SAMUEL

197

NOTE 263: 2 SAMUEL 20:13 ‫הֹגָ ה‬ MpBHS

‫֗ג‬ Three times. No note.

MpL

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫וא‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ג ֗ב‬ Three times, twice plene and once defective.

MpL Lam 1:12 and MpL Lam 3:32 count three occurrences of ‫הוֹגָ ה‬, and this is the correct tally for ML if one includes the defective ‫ ו‬counterpart in 2 Sam 20:13. Weil features the frequency note for all three occurrences, and his decision is in accordance with MmA,C 2 Sam 20:13. 137 BHQ (“Megilloth,” 31*) correctly observes that the similar form ‫( הוֹגָ הּ‬Lam 1:5) is excluded because it does not include ‫ ה‬raṕê like the three aforementioned forms.

NOTE 264: 2 SAMUEL 20:19 ‫ְשׁ ֻל ֵמי‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective in this and similar cases.

MpA

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective.

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

MpC

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective.

ְ and this tally MpL 2 Sam 20:19 counts three occurrences of the defective form ‫שׁ ֻל ֵמי‬, is correct if one includes the two similar cases: 138 (1) (2) (3)

2 Sam 20:19 ‫ְשׁ ֻל ֵמי‬ Hos 9:7 ‫ַה ִשׁ ֻלּם‬ Ps 91:8 ‫וְ ִשׁ ֻלּ ַמת‬

569F

The lemmata for forms 2–3—‫ ִשׁ ֻלּם‬and ‫שׁ ֻלּ ָמה‬, ִ respectively—are piel derivatives, while form 1 is a qal passive participle. MmA 2 Sam 20:13 reads: ‫ כי אם‬.‫ אשר הוגה יהוה‬.‫ כאשר הגה‬:‫חס‬ ֗ ‫מל וחד‬ ֗ ‫הוגה ֗ג ֗ב‬ .‫“ הוגה‬there are three occurrences of ‫הוגה‬, twice plene and once defective: 2 Sam 20:13; Lam 1:12; 3:32.” Similarly, MmC 2 Sam 20:13. 138 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁ ֻלּם‬ ִ ‫ה‬.ַ MpA,C 2 Sam 20:19 present the complementary note ‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬once and defective.” 137

198

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Weil standardizes the Masorah with the more precise note ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬three times defective in this and similar cases” in accordance with MpL Ps 91:8, and his decision is supported by MmA Ps 91:8. 139 BHS presents a sub loco note because of Weil’s emendation of MpL 2 Sam 20:19. 570F

NOTE 265: 2 SAMUEL 21:12 ‫ֵמ ְרחֹב‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective in this and a similar case.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective. No note.

ֵ whereas ML MpL 2 Sam 21:12 counts two occurrences of the defective form ‫מ ְרחֹב‬, contains only one instance of this form. There are a total of three occurrences in which the preposition ‫ ִמן‬is prefixed to the lemma ‫רחֹב‬,ְ however: (1) (2) (3)

2 Sam 21:12 ‫ֵמ ְרחֹב‬ Jer 9:20 ‫ֵמ ְרחֹבוֹת‬ Ps 55:12 ‫ֵמ ְרח ָֹבהּ‬

Because only forms 1 and 3 are singular forms of the lemma ‫רחֹב‬,ְ Weil presents the emended Mp note ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬twice defective in this and a similar case” for them. It appears that he was not guided by MpA 2 Sam 21:12 because he opts to clarify MpL 2 Sam 21:12 rather than to emend the frequency. Dotan and Reich (§‫)מ ְרחֹב‬, ֵ however, observe that the Masora marginalis of MV Judg 19:17 reads against the text of MV and correctly counts ‫ ִבּ ְרחוֹב‬as one of two similar forms that are defective. If one excludes ‫וּרחֹב‬, ְ which occurs twice (Josh 19:28, 30), and ‫רחֹב‬,ְ which occurs six times, one is left with only two forms: ‫ִבּ ְרחוֹב‬ (Judg 19:17) and ‫( ֵמ ְרחֹב‬2 Sam 21:12). Thus, it would appear that Weil’s creative solution of this masoretic conundrum is incorrect.

.‫ ושלמת רשעים‬.‫ באו ימי השלם‬.‫ אנכי שלמי‬: ֗‫חס בלשנ‬ ֗ ‫“ שלום ֗ג‬there are three defective occurrences of ‫ שלום‬in this and similar forms: 2 Sam 20:19; Hos 9:7; Ps 91:8.” BHQ (“The Twelve Minor Prophets,” 18*) does not list the forms or provide the clarification of ‫בליש‬. ֗ 139

2 SAMUEL

199

NOTE 266: 2 SAMUEL 21:17 ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective in this book. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note [‫יְמ ֵתהוּ‬ ִ ַ‫]ו‬.

MpC

No note [‫יְמ ֵתהוּ‬ ִ ַ‫]ו‬.

ֵ ‫וַ יְ ִמ‬, which occurs one other time in SamuML 2 Sam 21:17 has the plene ‫ י‬form ‫יתהוּ‬ el: 1 Sam 17:50. Weil, however, adds the Mp note ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬twice defective in this book” for both forms so as to indicate that he reads them as defective against the text of ML. For a complete discussion of this matter, see note 165 (1 Sam 17:50).

NOTE 267: 2 SAMUEL 22:6 ‫מ ְֹק ֵשׁי‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective in this and similar cases.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective. No note.

MpL 2 Sam 22:6 counts two occurrences of the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫מ ְֹק ֵשׁי‬, whereas ML contains only one instance of this form. If similar forms are included, however, the tally rises to six: (1) 2 Sam 22:6 ‫מ ְֹק ֵשׁי‬ (2) Ps 140:6 ‫מ ְֹק ִשׁים‬ (3) Ps 141:9 ‫וּמ ְֹקשׁוֹת‬

(4) Job 34:30 ‫ִממּ ְֹק ֵשׁי‬ (5) Prov 13:14 ‫ִממּ ְֹק ֵשׁי‬ (6) Prov 14:27 ‫ִממּ ְֹק ֵשׁי‬

֗ ‫ג‬,֗ “three times defective”), Weil emends Presumably guided by MpL Ps 140:6 (‫וחס‬ the tally of MpL 2 Sam 22:6 to three and adds the clarification that similar forms are included. 140 By completing this note for forms 1–3, it is clear that he excludes forms 4–6 because they are prefixed by the preposition ‫מן‬. ִ His emendation and completion thereof is supported by MmA 2 Sam 22:6. 141 572F

Likewise, MpA 2 Sam 22:6. MmA 2 Sam 22:6 reads: ‫ ומקשות‬.‫ מקשים שתו לי סלה‬.‫ מקשי מות דשמואל‬:‫חס‬ ֗ ‫מקשי ֗ג‬ .‫ וכל ממקשי דכותהון‬.‫“ פעלי און‬there are three occurrences of the defective form ‫מקשי‬: 2 Sam 22:6; Ps 140:6; Ps 141:9; and all occurrences of ‫ ממקשי‬are like them.” Dotan and Reich 140 141

200

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 268: 2 SAMUEL 22:14 ‫יַ ְר ֵﬠם‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

See note 126 (1 Samuel 2:10).

NOTE 269: 2 SAMUEL 22:14 ‫ן־שׁ ַמיִם‬ ָ ‫ִמ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ב נלחמו‬ Twice; Judg 5:20.

ָ ‫מ‬, ִ whereas ML contains two MpL 2 Sam 22:14 counts three occurrences of ‫ן־שׁ ַמיִ ם‬ occurrences of this phrase: Judg 5:20; 2 Sam 22:14. Weil emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” in accordance with MpL Judg 5:20. 142 For further discussion see note 74 (Judg 5:20). 573F

NOTE 270: 2 SAMUEL 22:16 ‫ֲא ִפ ֵקי‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective in this and a similar case.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective.

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once defective.

(§‫ )מ ְֹק ֵשׁי־‬follow MmA 2 Sam 22:6 and the similar entry in Ginsburg (2, ‫מ‬, §178), but without explanation they refrain from emending the tally from two to three. 142 MpA,C 2 Sam 22:14 also present the frequency note ‫ב‬. ֗

2 SAMUEL

201

MpL 2 Sam 22:16 counts two occurrences of the defective ‫ י‬form ‫א ִפ ֵקי‬, ֲ and this tally is correct for ML if one includes the similar form ‫( וַ ֲא ִפ ִקים‬Ezek 32:6). 143 Weil chooses to emend MpL 2 Sam 22:16 by adding the clarification ‫בליש‬ ֗ “in this and a similar case” rather than simply emending the note to ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬once defective,” as per MpA,C 2 Sam 22:16. 144 57F

NOTE 271: 2 SAMUEL 22:48 MpBHS

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective. ‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpL

‫וּמוֹריד‬ ִ

MpA MpC

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫]וּמ ִֹריד[ ֗ל‬. Once and defective.

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫]וּמ ִֹריד[ ֗ל‬. 145 Once and defective. 576F

ִ and this tally is correct for ML if MpL 2 Sam 22:48 counts two occurrences of ‫וּמוֹריד‬, 146 one includes the similar form ‫מוֹריד‬ ִ (1 Sam 2:6). Weil, however, rejects the plene ‫ו‬ reading of 2 Sam 22:48. Instead, he proposes its defective ‫ ו‬counterpart, which is ֗ ‫֗ל‬ also found in MA,C. He also emends MpL 2 Sam 22:48 from ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” to ‫וחס‬ “once and defective,” in accordance with MpA,C. 147 578F

NOTE 272: 2 SAMUEL 22:51 ‫ה־ח ֶסד‬ ֶ ‫וְ ע ֶֹשׂ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫֗ד ֗ול‬ Four times but unique in this book.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ד‬ Four times. No note.

ֶ ‫ וְ ע ֶֹשׂ‬occurs four times, whereas MpL 2 Sam 22:51 counts In ML the phrase ‫ה־ח ֶסד‬ only one. The four occurrences are:

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫א ִפ ֵקי‬. ֲ MpL Ezek 32:6 also presents ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ל‬,֗ which Weil emends to ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ב‬.֗ Surprisingly, he does not present a sub loco note for this emendation. 145 Perez Castro notes that the first hand in MC is plene ( “Samuel,” 295). 146 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וּמוֹריד‬. ִ 147 Similarly, OchlahP §18, §248; OchlahH, §19. 143 144

202

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4)

Exod 20:6 Deut 5:10 2 Sam 22:51 Ps 18:51

MpL presents the tally of four (‫)ד‬ ֗ for forms 1, 2, and 4, 148 however, and Weil completes this frequency note for 2 Sam 22:51. Instead of treating MpL 2 Sam 22:51 as a frequency error, Weil limits the scope to Samuel. 149 The addition of this clarification to MpL 2 Sam 22:51 and the conjoining of the two Mp notes with ‫ ו‬are the reasons for this sub loco note.

NOTE 273: 2 SAMUEL 23:21 ‫וְ הוּא‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫֗ל ֗ג ר״פ‬ Thirty-three times at the beginning of a verse.

MpA

‫ראש פסוק‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once at the beginning of a verse.

MpC

‫פס‬ ֗ ‫רא‬ ֗ ‫֗ל ֗ג‬ Thirty-three times at the beginning of a verse. 150

No note.

See note 163 (1 Sam 17:23).

NOTE 274: 2 SAMUEL 23:33 ‫אר ִרי‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫חס ֗א‬ ֗ ‫כת ֗א וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once written with ‫ א‬and once without ‫א‬.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

ָ ‫ה‬,ָ whereas ML contains only MpL 2 Sam 23:33 counts three occurrences of ‫אר ִרי‬ L once instance of this form. Weil transfers the Mp note ‫“ ֗ג‬three times” to the previMpL Ps 18:51 incorrectly places the circellus over ‫ח ֶסד‬.ֶ Dotan and Reich (§‫וְ ע ֶֹשׂה ֶח ֶסד‬, 2 Sam 22:51) also observe that MpL 2 Sam 22:51 distinguishes this occurrence from the other three because it is the only one in which the two words are joined by maqqeṕ. 150 MpA does not place a circellus over ‫וְ הוּא‬. 148 149

2 SAMUEL

203

ous form ‫ה ֲה ָר ִרי‬,ַ however, for which MpL does not present a note. This form does in fact occur three times, as per MmL 2 Sam 23:33: 151 (1) (2) (3)

582F

2 Sam 23:33 1 Chr 11:34 1 Chr 11:35

As for ‫אר ִרי‬ ָ ‫ה‬,ָ MpA,C 2 Sam 23:33 both count two, with MpA noting that the other form (‫ ָ;ה ָר ִרי‬2 Sam 23:11) is distinct in that it lacks ‫א‬. Weil has simply chosen to mark these two forms as unique in BHS because MpL 2 Sam 23:11 already presents the frequency note ‫ל‬.֗ 152 Thus, it would seem that Weil treats MpL 2 Sam 23:33 as a dislocation error and a frequency error. 583F

NOTE 275: 2 SAMUEL 24:16 ‫ֶה ֶרף‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫ו‬ Six times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Sam 24:16 counts only three occurrences of ‫ה ֶרף‬,ֶ whereas ML contains six occurrences of this form. MpL 1 Sam 11:3 presents the correct tally of six, 153 and Weil revises MpL 2 Sam 24:16 accordingly. The six references are: 584F

(1) Deut 9:14 (2) 1 Sam 11:3 (3) 1 Sam 15:16

(4) 2 Sam 24:16 (5) Ps 37:8 (6) 1 Chr 21:15

It is possible that the tally of three found here is intended to count only forms within Samuel, in which case the Mp note is simply in need of clarification (‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫ו֗ ֗וג‬,

MmL 2 Sam 23:33 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1857) reads: .‫ שמה דשמואל‬:‫ההררי ֗ג‬ .‫ אליפל‬.‫“ הגזוני‬there are three occurrences of ‫ההררי‬: 2 Sam 23:33; 1 Chr 11:34; 11:35. Similarly, MmL 1 Chr 11:34; MmA,C 2 Sam 23:33. 152 Dotan and Reich, §‫ה ָר ִרי‬. ָ 153 Likewise, MpL Ps 37:8 and MpL 1 Chr 21:15. 151

204

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

“six times, and three in this book”), not emendation. 154 Weil simply emends the frequency in accordance with MmV and Ginsburg, however. 155

NOTE 276: THE MASORAH FINALIS OF SAMUEL MpBHS

MpL

‫סכום הפסוקים של ספר אלף‬ ‫וחמש מאות וששה וחציו ולאשה‬ ‫וסדרים ֗ל ֗ד‬ The tally of the verses of the book is 1,506; its middle verse is 1 Sam 28:24; its sədarîm number thirty-four.

MpA

‫סכום הפסוקים שלספר אלף וחמש‬ ‫מאות וששה‬ The tally of the verses of the book is 1,506.

‫סכום הפסוקים שלספר אלף‬ ‫וחמש מאות וששה‬ The tally of the verses of the book is 1,506.

MpC

‫סכום הפסוקים שלספר שמואל‬ ֗‫ ֗א ֗ךו‬.‫אלף וחמש מאות וארבעה‬ The tally of the verses of the book of Samuel is 1,504. 1,506.

In ML the Masorah finalis for the book of Samuel counts 1506 verses, and this tally agrees with the verse divisions in ML. According to this tally, the last verse of the first half of the book should be verse 753, which is 1 Sam 28:23. This means that the MpL is correct to mark the middle of the book at 1 Sam 28:24 (the first verse of the book’s second half). Likewise, the Masorah finalis in MA for the book of Samuel counts 1506 verses, which is the number of verses in the text of MA. MpA marks the middle of the book at 1 Sam 28:23, however, which would be appropriate if the tally were 1504. 156 MpC also marks the halfway point at 1 Sam 28:23 but includes both of the aforementioned tallies (1504 and 1506) at the end of Samuel. Ginsburg suggests that this disSimilarly, Dotan and Reich (§‫ ֶה ֶרף‬2 Sam 24:16) add the clarification ‫בנביא‬ ֗ “in the Prophets.” 155 MmV 1 Sam 15:16: ...‫“ הרף ו֗ בקריאה‬there are six occurrences of ‫ הרף‬in the Bible…” Similarly, Ginsburg, 2, ‫ר‬, §435. 156 It should not escape notice that the aforementioned discrepancy between MpA 1 Sam 28:23 (‫ )חצי הספר‬and the text of MA, whose middle is 1 Sam 28:24, is one of few such discrepancies between MA and its Masorah. It is certain that the note ‫ חצי הספר‬in MpA 1 Sam 28:23 is no mere dislocation error because other manuscripts, including MC, place this note in the same location. Rather, it is an early Masoretic tradition that ultimately gave way to the tradition featuring the larger tally upon which the verse divisions and summary notes for Samuel in MA,L are based. According to Ginsburg, the later manuscripts almost unanimously present the larger tally at the end of Samuel, though some also mark 1 Sam 28:23 as the beginning of the second half (Ginsburg, Introduction, 89–90). 154

2 SAMUEL

205

crepancy, which also occurs in later manuscripts, 157 may have resulted from two different traditions of verse division in Samuel. Weil follows the Masorah of ML and adopts the higher tally. It is likely that he adds a sub loco note, in part, because he wishes to comment upon this discrepancy. The other reason that he adds a sub loco note is because he adds ‫וחציו ולאשה‬ to the summary note in order to make it clear that the second half of the book begins with 1 Sam 28:24 (...‫ל־מ ְר ֵבּק ַבּ ַבּיִ ת‬ ַ ֶ‫)וְ ָל ִא ָשּׁה ֵﬠג‬. He also adds a tally of the sədarîm in Samuel, of which he numbers thirty-four. 158 589F

157 158

Ginsburg, Introduction, 89–90. On the problem of the sədarîm in Samuel, see the commentary in chapter 8.

CHAPTER 6: 1 KINGS

NOTE 277: 1 KINGS 1:18 ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗כ‬ Twenty times with this accent.

MpA

‫בטע‬ ֗ ֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times with this accent. 1

MpC

No note. ‫בט‬ ֗ ֗‫י֗ ז‬ Seventeen times with this accent.

MpL 1 Kgs 1:18 counts twenty-seven occurrences of ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬with the təḇîr accent. In note 191 it is observed that the tally of twenty-seven may include all occurrences of ‫א ָ ֛תּה‬, ַ ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬, ‫ﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬,ַ and ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬that do not have maqqeṕ and servi 2 except for Ezek 23:43(qere). See note 191 for a list of the forms and additional discussion. Weil emends the tally to twenty here, however, because he groups together occurrences of ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ and ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬regardless of maqqeṕ and servi: The circellus is mistakenly placed over ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ֕תּה‬, which appears at the beginning of the same line in the manuscript. 1

See Haketer, “Samuel.” Perez Castro (“Samuel,” 137) notes that MC contains eight occurrences of ‫( וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬see above), not seventeen as per MpC. He suggests that seventeen ( ֗‫)י֗ ז‬ could be a corruption of eighteen (‫)י֗ ֗ח‬, the tally that Ginsburg (1, ‫א‬, §1474) presents for ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ and ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬. 2

207

208

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Gen 47:4 Num 11:6 Num 22:33 Num 22:34 1 Sam 14:30 1 Sam 27:1 2 Sam 19:10 1 Kgs 1:18 1 Kgs 12:26 1 Kgs 21:7

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬

2 Kgs 5:15 Isa 5:3 Ezek 23:43(qere) Hos 2:12 Hos 5:7 Mic 4:11 Mic 7:10 Mal 1:9 Ezra 9:10 Ezra 10:2

‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬

He presents the tally of twenty-seven only for occurrences of ‫ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬and ‫( וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬regardless of maqqeṕ and servi; see note 186). Weil distinguishes ‫וְ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬/‫ ַא ָ ֛תּה‬from ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬/‫ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬presumably to obviate confusion between the masoretic rules of the homophonous pairs. The principal reason for this sub loco note, however, is his emendation of the frequency note in MpL 1 Kgs 1:18.

NOTE 278: 1 KINGS 1:19 ‫וּמ ִריא־וְ צֹאן‬ ְ ‫שׁוֹר‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

No note.

ְ ‫שׁוֹר‬, whereas in ML the MpL 1 Kgs 1:19 counts only one occurrence of ‫וּמ ִריא־וְ צֹאן‬ phrase occurs twice: 1 Kgs 1:19; 1:25. Weil emends MpL 1 Kgs 1:19 with the correct frequency note ‫“ ֗ב‬twice,” 3 as per MpL 1 Kgs 1:25. 592F

NOTE 279: 1 KINGS 1:30 �‫נִ ְשׁ ַבּ ְﬠ ִתּי ָל‬ MpBHS

‫֗ג‬ Three times. ‫]נִ ְשׁ ַבּ ְﬠ ִתּי[ ֗ג‬ Three times.

MpL

3

MpA MpC

‫�הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל[ ֗ג‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬...‫]נִ ְשׁ ַבּ ְﬠ ִתּי‬ Three times. No note.

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫וּמ ִריא־וְ צֹאן‬ ְ ‫ שׁוֹר‬1 Kgs 1:19.

1 KINGS

209

MpL counts three occurrences of ‫נִ ְשׁ ַבּ ְﬠ ִתּי‬, whereas ML contains twenty-seven such forms, including one that is vocalized with qameṣ instead of paṯaḥ. Weil reproduces MpL but moves the circellus above �‫נִ ְשׁ ַבּ ְﬠ ִתּי ָל‬, which occurs only once. He does not complete this Mp note elsewhere. The frequency note ‫“ ֗ג‬three times” is also found at MpA 1 Kgs 1:30 but with two corresponding circelli instead of one: one over ‫ נִ ְשׁ ַבּ ְﬠ ִתּי‬and one over the subsequent words ‫�הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫א‬. ֱ From MmA Josh 9:18 one finds that this Mp note includes nifal forms of .‫ע‬.‫ב‬.‫ שׁ‬followed by ‫�הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫בּיהוָ ה ֱא‬:ַ 4 (1) (2) (3)

Josh 9:18 Josh 9:19 1 Kgs 1:30

593F

‫�הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַבּיהוָ ה ֱא‬...‫נִ ְשׁ ְבּעוּ ָל ֶהם‬ ‫�הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫נִ ְשׁ ַבּ ְﬠנוּ ָל ֶהם ַבּיהוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫�הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫נִ ְשׁ ַבּ ְﬠ ִתּי ָל� ַבּיהוָ ה ֱא‬

This is yet another example in which Weil’s emendation of MpL is not guided by the Masorah of MA.

NOTE 280: 1 KINGS 1:30 ‫וְ הוּא יֵ ֵשׁב‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 1:30 counts only two occurrence of ‫וְ הוּא יֵ ֵשׁב‬. In ML, however, there are four occurrences of this phrase, and Weil emends the frequency in accordance with the text of ML. 5 The four references are: (1) (2) (3) (4)

594F

1 Kgs 1:13 1 Kgs 1:17 1 Kgs 1:24 1 Kgs 1:30

.‫ כי כאשר נשבעתי‬.‫ ויאמרו‬.‫ ולא חכום‬:‫“ שבועה ביהוה אלהי ישראל ֗ג‬there are three occurrences of ‫שבועה ביהוה אלהי ישרעל‬: “Josh 9:18; 9:19; 1 Kgs 1:30.” Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫�הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫[ ַבּי—ה ֱא‬...] ‫נִ ְשׁ ַבּ ְﬠ ִתּי‬. 5 Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁב‬ ֵ ֵ‫וְ הוּא י‬. 4

210

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 281: 1 KINGS 1:40 ‫ַבּ ֲח ִל ִלים‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

֗‫חס י‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice lacking ‫י‬.

MpL 1 Kgs 1:40 counts three occurrences of ‫בּ ֲח ִל ִלים‬,ַ whereas ML contains this form only once. However, MpL Jer 48:36 also presents the tally of three for ‫ ַכּ ֲח ִל ִלים‬even though the form occurs twice in ML (one plene and one defective). The tally of three includes occurrences of ‫ ַבּ ֲח ִל ִלים‬and ‫כּ ֲח ִל ִלים‬,ַ therefore. The forms and their references are: 6 (1) (2) (3)

59F

1 Kgs 1:40 Jer 48:36 Jer 48:36

‫ַבּ ֲח ִל ִלים‬ ‫ַכּ ֲח ִל ִלים‬ ‫ַכּ ֲח ִל ִילים‬

While it would have been reasonable for Weil to merely clarify the two aforementioned Mp notes, he chooses to treat both MpL 1 Kgs 1:40 and MpL Jer 48:36a as frequency errors and revises their tallies to one and two, respectively. 7 Weil’s emendation of MpL 1 Kgs 1:40 agrees with MpA 1 Kgs 1:40.

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫בּ ֲח ִל ִלים‬.ַ MpA Jer 48:36a (‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ב חד‬,֗ “there are two occurrences, one of which is defective”) distinguishes forms 2–3 (those with the prefix ‫ )כ‬from form 1, while MpC 1 Kgs 1:40 distinguishes forms 1–2 (those featuring defective ‫ )י‬from form 3. 6 7

1 KINGS

211

NOTE 282: 1 KINGS 2:3 ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו‬ ִ ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫ֻחקּ ָֹתיו ִמ ְצ‬ MpBHS ‫מתחלפ ֗ק ֗צ ֗פ‬ ֗ ‫פסוק מן ֗ג מילין‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ ‫סימן‬ Six verses with the same three lemmata but in varied order. The order here is ‫)ק( וְ ֻח ָקּיו‬, ֗ ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫)צ( ִמ ְצ‬, ֗ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו‬ ִ (‫)פ‬. ֗ ‫֗ק ֗צ ֗פ ֗ע‬ The order here is ‫)ק( וְ ֻח ָקּיו‬, ֗ ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫)צ( ִמ ְצ‬, ֗ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו‬ ִ (‫)פ‬, ֗ ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫)ע( וְ ֵﬠ ְד‬. ֗

MpL

MpA

MpC

‫בסיפ מחלפין ֗ק ֗צ ֗פ‬ ֗ ‫פסוק‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ ‫סימן‬ Two verses in this book featuring a varied order. The order here is ‫)ק( וְ ֻח ָקּיו‬, ֗ ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫)צ( ִמ ְצ‬, ֗ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו‬ ִ (‫)פ‬. ֗ 8

‫וֹתיו[ ֗ל‬ ָ ‫]חקּ ָֹתיו ִמ ְצ‬ ֻ Unique.

597F

By featuring the abbreviation ‫ק ֗צ ֗פ ֗ע‬,֗ MpL indicates that the proper order of the four synonyms in this verse is ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו וְ ֵﬠ ְד‬ ִ ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫חקּ ָֹתיו ִמ ְצ‬.ֻ Weil’s emendation of P 9 this note follows Ochlah , §276, which includes (1) abbreviations for only the first three of the four synonyms and (2) an expanded and more detailed rule. 10 This expanded rule counts six verses that include (in varied order) plural forms of the lemmata ‫מ ְצוָ ה‬, ִ ‫ ֻח ָקּה‬/‫חֹק‬, and ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬that have a third person masculine singular pronominal suffix: 11 The six are: 12 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Deut 8:11 Deut 11:1 Deut 26:17 Deut 30:16 1 Kgs 2:3 1 Kgs 8:58 60F

601F

‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו וְ ֻחקּ ָֹתיו‬ ִ ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫ִמ ְצ‬ ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫וּמ ְצ‬ ִ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו‬ ִ ‫וְ ֻחקּ ָֹתיו‬ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו‬ ִ ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫וּמ ְצ‬ ִ ‫ֻח ָקּיו‬ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו‬ ִ ‫וֹתיו וְ ֻחקּ ָֹתיו‬ ָ ‫ִמ ְצ‬ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו‬ ִ ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫ֻחקּ ָֹתיו ִמ ְצ‬ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו‬ ִ ‫וֹתיו וְ ֻח ָקּיו‬ ָ ‫ִמ ְצ‬

Of these six, three have sîmanîm in MpL: numbers 1 (‫)צ ֗פ ֗ק‬, ֗ 2 (‫)ק ֗פ ֗ץ‬, ֗ and 5 (‫)ק ֗צ ֗פ ֗ע‬. ֗ The sîman for the fifth form (1 Kgs 2:3) is unusual in that it includes an abbreviation for a fourth synonym ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫)ע( וְ ֵﬠ ְד‬. ֗ Weil decides not to print the abbreviation ‫ ֗ע‬of L Mp 1 Kgs 2:3, presumably because he wishes to standardize the Masorah. This decision accords with MpA 1 Kgs 2:3. Because the facsimile is not clear, I reproduce Haketer’s transcription of MpA. ...‫“ ו׳ פסוקים דאית בהון ג׳ זוגין מתחלפין‬there are six verse in which there are a group of three words whose order alternates…” 10 By contrast, MpC merely notes that the phrase ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫ ֻחקּ ָֹתיו ִמ ְצ‬is unique. 11 Kelley, Mynatt, and Crawford, The Masorah, 177. 12 Featuring these six are Ginsburg, 1, ‫ח‬, §373; BHQ, “Deuteronomy,” 21*–22*. 8 9

212

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 283: 1 KINGS 2:20 �‫שׁ ֶֹא ֶלת ֵמ ִא ָתּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 2:20 counts three occurrences of �‫שׁ ֶֹא ֶלת ֵמ ִא ָתּ‬, whereas in ML the phrase occurs only here. MpL 1 Kgs 2:16 also presents the frequency note ‫“ ֗ג‬three times” for the similar phrase �‫שׁ ֵֹאל ֵמ ִא ָתּ‬, however. The tally of three is correct if one counts occurrences of .‫ל‬.‫א‬.‫ ש‬+ �‫מ ִא ָתּ‬: ֵ 13 (1) (2) (3)

1 Kgs 2:16 1 Kgs 2:20 Prov 30:7

602F

�‫שׁאל ֵמ ִא ָתּ‬ ֵ �‫שׁא ֶלת ֵמ ִא ָתּ‬ ֶ �‫ָשׁ ַא ְל ִתּי ֵמ ִא ָתּ‬

For reasons that are not clear, Weil chooses not to group the three forms together. Instead, he emends MpL 1 Kgs 2:20 to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique,” which is the reason for the sub loco note.

NOTE 284: 1 KINGS 2:26 ‫את‬ ָ ‫נָ ָשׂ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpC

No note.

ָ ‫נָ ָשׂ‬, whereas ML contains only four MpL 1 Kgs 2:26 counts five occurrences of ‫את‬ occurrences of this form. The tally rises to five, however, if one includes the one occurrence of the grammatically identical form ‫שׂאתה‬ ָ ָ‫נ‬. The five forms and their 14 references are: 603 F

13 14

See also Dotan and Reich, §�‫שׁאל ֵמ ִא ָתּ‬. ֵ See also Dotan and Reich, §‫את‬ ָ ‫נָ ָשׂ‬.

1 KINGS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Num 14:19 1 Kgs 2:26 Ps 32:5 Ps 85:3 Neh 9:15

213

‫אתה‬ ָ ‫נָ ָשׂ‬ ‫את‬ ָ ‫נָ ָשׂ‬ ‫את‬ ָ ‫נָ ָשׂ‬ ‫את‬ ָ ‫נָ ָשׂ‬ ‫את‬ ָ ‫נָ ָשׂ‬

ָ ‫מל( נָ ָשׂ‬ ֗ ‫ל‬,֗ “once plene”), Presumably because MpL Num 14:19 distinguishes ‫אתה‬ Weil excludes it from the tally in MpL 1 Kgs 2:26, which he emends to four. This emendation is the reason for the sub loco note.

NOTE 285: 1 KINGS 3:10 ‫ֲאד ֹנָ י‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ק ֗ל ֗ד‬ 134 times.

MpA

‫֗ק ֗ל ֗ד‬ 134 times.

‫֗ק ֗ל ֗ד‬ 134 times.

MpC

‫כת‬ ֗ ‫֗ק ֗ל ֗ד‬ Written 134 times.

MpL 1 Kgs 3:10 counts 134 occurrences of the form ‫אד ֹנָ י‬, ֲ a tally which is also found in MpA,C 1 Kgs 3:10. 15 Following MfV ‫אד‬, §23, Breuer concludes that the tally of 134 includes all forms of ‫( ֲאד ֹנָ י‬including ‫ ַלאד ֹנָ י‬and ‫ )וַ אד ֹנָ י‬before which and after which the Tetragrammaton with the vocalization for ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ ֱא‬does not occur. 16 MfV lists 134 occurrences but includes Judg 13:8, which is correctly spelled plene. 17 The only other form that may reasonably take the place of Judg 13:8 and so satisfy the tally of 134 is ‫( ַבּאד ֹנָ י‬Ps 73:28). The masoretic rule apparently precludes this form from consideration, however, because it is followed in the text by the Tetragrammton vocalized as ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫א‬. ֱ Nevertheless, Ginsburg (The Massorah, 4, ‫א‬, §115) indicates that all four of the lists of 134 that he collates include this form. For want of a better solution, we include it in the following list of 134 occurrences, which was established through an electronic search of MGK. 18 607F

MpC 1 Kgs 3:10 adds ‫כת‬ ֗ to indicate that perpetual qərê forms written as the Tetragrammaton are to be excluded. 16 Breuer, The Biblical Text, 103, n. 6. Breuer’s explanation is based on the rubric found in MfV ‫אד‬, §23. 17 The 129 legible catchphrases featured in OchlahH accord with MGK/MA except for ֲ Ginsburg, 1, ‫א‬, §115 also incorrectone. It includes Judg 13:8, which is plene in MA,L (‫)אדוֹנָ י‬. ly includes Judg 13:8. 18 One asterisk indicates ‫לאד ֹנָ י‬, ַ two asterisks indicate ‫וַ אד ֹנָ י‬, while three asterisks indicate ‫בּאד ֹנָ י‬.ַ 15

214

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34)

Gen 18:3 Gen 18:27 Gen 18:30* Gen 18:31 Gen 18:32* Gen 19:18 Gen 20:4 Exod 4:10 Exod 4:13 Exod 5:22 Exod 15:17 Exod 34:9a Exod 34:9b Num 14:17 Josh 7:8 Judg 6:15 1 Kgs 3:10 1 Kgs 3:15 1 Kgs 22:6 2 Kgs 7:6** 2 Kgs 19:23 Isa 3:17 Isa 3:18 Isa 4:4 Isa 6:1 Isa 6:8 Isa 6:11 Isa 7:14 Isa 7:20 Isa 8:7 Isa 9:7 Isa 9:16 Isa 10:12 Isa 11:11

(35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56) (57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) (64) (65) (66) (67) (68)

Isa 21:6 Isa 21:8 Isa 21:16 Isa 28:2* Isa 29:13 Isa 30:20 Isa 37:24 Isa 38:14 Isa 38:16 Isa 49:14** Ezek 18:25 Ezek 18:29 Ezek 21:14 Ezek 33:17 Ezek 33:20 Amos 5:16 Amos 7:7 Amos 7:8 Amos 9:1 Mic 1:2 Zech 9:4 Mal 1:12 Mal 1:14* Ps 2:4 Ps 16:2 Ps 22:31* Ps 30:9 Ps 35:17 Ps 35:22 Ps 35:23** Ps 37:13 Ps 38:10 Ps 38:16 Ps 38:23

(69) (70) (71) (72) (73) (74) (75) (76) (77) (78) (79) (80) (81) (82) (83) (84) (85) (86) (87) (88) (89) (90) (91) (92) (93) (94) (95) (96) (97) (98) (99) (100) (101) (102)

Ps 39:8 Ps 40:18 Ps 44:24 Ps 51:17 Ps 54:6 Ps 55:10 Ps 57:10 Ps 59:12 Ps 62:13 Ps 66:18 Ps 68:12 Ps 68:18 Ps 68:20 Ps 68:23 Ps 68:27 19 Ps 68:33 Ps 73:20 Ps 73:28*** Ps 77:3 Ps 77:8 Ps 78:65 Ps 79:12 Ps 86:3 Ps 86:4 Ps 86:5 Ps 86:8 Ps 86:9 Ps 86:12 Ps 86:15 Ps 89:50 Ps 89:51 Ps 90:1 Ps 90:17 Ps 110:5

(103) (104) (105) (106) (107) (108) (109) (110) (111) (112) (113) (114) (115) (116) (117) (118) (119) (120) (121) (122) (123) (124) (125) (126) (127) (128) (129) (130) (131) (132) (133) (134)

Ps 130:2 Ps 130:3 Ps 130:6* Job 28:28 Lam 1:14 Lam 1:15a Lam 1:15b Lam 2:1 Lam 2:2 Lam 2:5 Lam 2:7 Lam 2:18 Lam 2:19 Lam 2:20 Lam 3:31 Lam 3:36 Lam 3:37 Lam 3:58 Dan 1:2 Dan 9:3 Dan 9:4 Dan 9:7 Dan 9:9* Dan 9:15 Dan 9:16 Dan 9:17 Dan 9:19a Dan 9:19b Dan 9:19c Ezra 10:3 Neh 1:11 Neh 4:8

The lists of 134 occurrences presented by Dotan and Reich (§‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬Gen 18:3) and Haketer (“Kings I & II,” 22) do not successfully resolve the problem. Dotan and Reich justifiably omit Ps 73:28, but they incorrectly exclude Ps 68:27 and include Judg 13:8 and Isa 10:16. Haketer, on the other hand, simply presents the 134 includThe normative Masorah has ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬where ML incorrectly has the Tetragrammaton (see Breuer, The Biblical Text, 257). 19

1 KINGS

215

ed in MfV, which excludes Ps 73:28 and includes Judg 13:8. For lack of evidence one cannot determine how Weil would have resolved this conundrum. 20 This particular masoretic crux likely results largely from the early practice of reading ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬in place of the Tetragrammaton. 21 As the uttering of the divine name became anathema, 22 the oral practice of reading ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬in place of ‫ יהוה‬surely resulted in textual corruption, with the former replacing the latter. 23 612F

NOTE 286: 1 KINGS 5:23 ‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ַ ‫ַﬠ‬ MpBHS

‫מיחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Two unusual occurrences. ‫מיוח‬ ֗ ‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם[ ֗ב‬ ַ ‫]ﬠ‬ ַ Two unusual occurrences.

MpL

MpA MpC

‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם[ ֗ה‬ ַ ‫]ﬠ‬ ַ Five times. No note.

The phrase ‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם‬ ַ ‫ ַﬠ‬occurs five times in ML, as MpL Deut 9:7 and MpA 1 Kgs 5:23 24 (‫)ה‬ ֗ indicate: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

613F

Gen 13:3 Deut 1:31 Deut 9:7 Deut 11:5 1 Kgs 5:23

‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ַ ‫ַﬠ‬ ‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬ ַ ‫ַﬠ‬ ‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬ ַ ‫ַﬠ‬ ‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬ ַ ‫ַﬠ‬ ‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ַ ‫ַﬠ‬

Weil does not complete the Masorah for forms that occur more than 100 times (BHS, xv), which is very unfortunate in this case. He states in the introduction to BHS that the full list of masoretic rules including forms with 100 occurrences or more were to appear in his commentary (BHS2, xv). 21 On this phenomenon as the earliest example of kəṯîḇ-qərê in the Hebrew Bible, see Robert Gordis, The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere (aug. with prolegomenon; New York: KTAV, 1971), 29–30. Gordis concludes that the practice “must precede the Samaritan schism, since the Samaritans use ‫ שימא‬corresponding to the Jewish ‫ השם‬instead of the Tetragrammaton” (ibid., 30, n. 2). From the additional evidence that Gordis presents, it is clear that this practice was well-established by the third century BCE: Qohelet and Esther refrain from using the Tetragrammaton and the LXX Pentateuch translates the Tetragrammaton with κυριος. 22 Gordis (The Biblical Text, 30) observes that clear evidence of this phenomenon is evinced by b. Pesaḥim 50a. 23 Mynatt, Sub Loco, 55. 24 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם‬ ַ ‫ﬠ‬,ַ Deut 9:7. 20

216

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpL 1 Kgs 5:23 notes that two of the five (Gen 13:3 and 1 Kgs 5:23) are unusual because they have ‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ַ ‫ ַﬠ‬instead of ‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬ ַ ‫ﬠ‬.ַ Weil emends the Masorah by printing the note ‫מיוח‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬two unusual occurrences” for ‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ַ ‫ ַﬠ‬and the frequency note ‫ ֗ה‬for ‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם‬ ַ ‫ﬠ‬,ַ thereby standardizing the Masorah in accordance with MpL Deut 9:7. Both of these emendations warrant the sub loco note.

NOTE 287: 1 KINGS 6:6 ‫וﬠ‬ ַ ‫ַהיָּ ִצ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫היציע ֗ק‬ Read ‫היציע‬.

MpA

‫היציע קרי‬ Read ‫היציע‬.

‫היציע קרי‬ Read ‫היציע‬.

MpC

‫י ֗ק‬ Read ‫היציע‬.

In ML one finds the kəṯîḇ form ‫היצוע‬, for which MpL 1 Kgs 6:6 reads �‫היָּ ִצ ַי‬.ַ 25 As is his wont, Weil standardizes the Masorah by emending ‫ קרי‬to ‫ק‬.֗ It is unlikely that this is the occasion for the sub loco note, though, as MpBHS 1 Kgs 6:6 has the same qərê form. Weil also inserts a sub loco note for MpL 1 Kgs 6:10, which also has the same qərê form, even though the corresponding MpBHS note is identical (‫היציע ֗ק‬, “read ‫)”היציע‬. It is not clear why Weil presents a sub loco note here.

NOTE 288: 1 KINGS 6:8 ‫ַה ְשּׁ ִל ִשׁים‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 6:8 counts two occurrences of ‫ה ְשּׁ ִל ִשׁים‬,ַ whereas this form occurs in ML only once. Dotan and Reich (§‫)ה ְשּׁ ִל ִשׁים‬ ַ suggest that the tally of two includes the similar form ‫( ַבּ ְשּׁ ִל ִשׁים‬Ezek 42:3), which is the only other definite plural form in the Hebrew Bible of the lemma ‫ישׁי‬ ִ ‫שׁ ִל‬, ְ though they do not present another instance in which the Masorah groups these two forms together. Weil chooses, instead, to emend MpL 1 Kgs 6:8 from ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique.” This emendation, which is the reason for the sub loco note, accords with MpA 1 Kgs 6:8. 26 615F

25 26

Likewise, MA,C,V. See also MpL Ezek 42:3 (‫)ל‬. ֗

1 KINGS

217

NOTE 289: 1 KINGS 6:10 ‫וﬠ‬ ַ ‫ַהיָּ ִצ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫היציע ֗ק‬ Read ‫היציע‬.

MpA

‫היציע ֗ק‬ Read ‫היציע‬.

MpC

‫היציע קרי‬ Read ‫היציע‬.

No note. [�‫]היָּ ִצ ַי‬ ַ

As is the case with 1 Kgs 6:6 (see note 287), here ML has the kəṯîḇ form ‫ היצוע‬and the qərê form ‫וﬠ‬ ַ ‫היָּ ִצ‬.ַ 27 Because MpBHS agrees with MpL, the reason for this sub loco note is not clear. 61F

NOTE 290: 1 KINGS 6:20 ‫זָ ָהב ָסגוּר‬ MpBHS

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpA

No note.

MpL

MpC

‫֗ח‬ Eight times. No note.

As Weil correctly notes, there are eight occurrences of ‫ זָ ָהב ָסגוּר‬in ML: 28 (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Kgs 6:20 1 Kgs 6:21 1 Kgs 7:49 1 Kgs 7:50

(5) (6) (7) (8)

1 Kgs 10:21 2 Chr 4:20 2 Chr 4:22 2 Chr 9:20

617F

The frequency note ‫“ ֗ח‬eight times” that Weil supplies here is merely a completion of MpL 1 Kgs 10:21 and MpL 2 Chr 9:20, which does not require a sub loco note. It seems that Weil adds this sub loco note because BHK prints the frequency note ‫֗ב‬ “twice” for form 1 (1 Kgs 6:20), whereas MpL presents this note for form 2 (1 Kgs 6:21). 29 618F

Likewise, MA. In contrast, MC has the correct reading. Likewise, MpA 1 Kgs 6:20; Dotan and Reich, §‫זָ ָהב ָסגוּר‬, 1 Kgs 10:21. 29 See note 291 below. 27 28

218

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 291: 1 KINGS 6:21 ‫זָ ָהב ָסגוּר‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 6:21 counts two occurrences of ‫זָ ָהב ָסגוּר‬, whereas ML contains eight occurrences of this phrase (see note 290). Weil emends the frequency note in accord֗ 30 and it is for this reason that ance with MpL 1 Kgs 10:21 and MpL 2 Chr 9:20 (‫)ח‬, he presents a sub loco note. As per note 290 (1 Kgs 6:20), Weil may have also wished to point out that BHK prints the frequency note ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” for form 1 (1 Kgs 6:20), whereas MpL presents this note for form 2 (1 Kgs 6:21). 31 Dotan and Reich (§‫זָ ָהב ָסגוּר‬, 1 Kgs 6:21) suggest, however, that the tally of two may not be an error of frequency. Instead, it may simply count occurrences in the immediate context (1 Kgs 6:20; 6:21).

NOTE 292: 1 KINGS 6:29 ‫טוּרי‬ ֵ ‫וּפ‬ ְ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

No note.

ֵ ‫וּפ‬ ְ is unique, whereas ML contains three occurMpL 1 Kgs 6:29 indicates that ‫טוּרי‬ rences of this form. If one includes the similar defective ‫ ו‬form, however, the tally rises to four. MpL 1 Kgs 6:18 and MpL 1 Kgs 6:32 present the frequency note ‫֗ד‬ “four times,” and Weil emends MpL 1 Kgs 6:29 accordingly. The four references are: 32 621F

Likewise, MpA 1 Kgs 6:20. See note 291 below. 32 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫טוּרי‬ ֵ ‫וּפ‬ ְ , 1 Kgs 6:18. 30 31

1 KINGS (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Kgs 6:18 1 Kgs 6:29 1 Kgs 6:32 1 Kgs 6:35

219

‫טוּרי‬ ֵ ‫וּפ‬ ְ ‫טוּרי‬ ֵ ‫וּפ‬ ְ ‫טוּרי‬ ֵ ‫וּפ‬ ְ ‫וּפ ֻט ֵרי‬ ְ

Rather than categorizing this discrepancy as a frequency error, it may be better to categorize it as a dislocation error because MpA,L,C 1 Kgs 6:35 all present the frequency note ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” for form 4. 33 One cannot be certain how Weil would have categorized it, however. 62F

NOTE 293: 1 KINGS 6:29 ‫ִצ ִצּים‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 6:29 indicates that ‫ ִצ ִצּים‬is unique, but in ML this form occurs four times. Weil emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ד‬four times” in accordance with MpL 1 Kgs 6:32. The four references are: 34 (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Kgs 6:18 1 Kgs 6:29 1 Kgs 6:32 1 Kgs 6:35

623F

NOTE 294: 1 KINGS 7:9 ‫ְמג ָֹררוֹת‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

In all three instances the note ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬once defective” is presented. The four occurrences are listed in MmV 1 Kgs 6:29; Ginsburg, 2, ‫צ‬, §134. Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫צ ִצּים‬,ִ 1 Kgs 6:32. 33 34

220

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

ְ whereas ML contains only one MpL 1 Kgs 7:9 counts three occurrences of ‫מג ָֹררוֹת‬, occurrence of this form. Weil emends the frequency accordingly, and his emendation accords with MpA,C 1 Kgs 7:9. 35 624F

NOTE 295: 1 KINGS 7:14 ‫אכתּוֹ‬ ְ ‫ל־מ ַל‬ ְ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ ֶא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 7:14 counts two occurrences of ‫אכתּוֹ‬ ְ ‫ל־מ ַל‬ ְ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ ֶא‬, whereas ML contains only one occurrence of this phrase. Weil emends the frequency in accordance with the text of ML, which is the reason for this sub loco note. Dotan and Reich (§‫ת־כּל־‬ ָ ‫ )וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ ֶא‬suggest, however, that the tally of two may be meant for the shorter phrase ‫ת־כּל־‬ ָ ‫וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ ֶא‬, which does occur twice in ML: Exod 38:3; 1 Kgs 7:14. The only corroboration that they present, however, is MpV 1 Kgs 7:14, which, like MpL 1 Kgs 7:14, counts two occurrences but incorrectly places the circelli above ‫אכתּוֹ‬ ְ ‫ל־מ ַל‬ ְ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫א‬, ֶ which occurs only once. Thus, Weil’s decision to treat MpL 1 Kgs 7:14 as a frequency error is reasonable.

NOTE 296: 1 KINGS 7:16 ‫ֻמ ַצק‬ MpBHS MpL

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

MpC

‫בלש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫פת ֗ג‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once with paṯaḥ; three times defective in this and similar cases.

ֻ and MpC 1 Kgs 7:16 MpL 1 Kgs 7:16 counts three defective occurrences of ‫מ ַצק‬, indicates that this tally is correct if one includes similar cases. The three forms and their references are: 36

35 36

Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫מג ָֹררוֹת‬. ְ Similarly, Perez Castro, “Reyes,” 58; Dotan and Reich, §‫מ ַצק‬. ֻ

1 KINGS (1) (2) (3)

1 Kgs 7:16 Job 11:15 2 Chr 4:3

221

‫ֻמ ַצק‬ ‫ֻמ ָצק‬ ‫ְבּ ֻמ ַצ ְקתּוֹ‬

֗ ‫)ב‬ ֗ counts only two defective occurrences, however, and MmA 1 MpL Job 11:15 (‫חס‬ Kgs 7:16 indicates that they are forms 1–2, the two non-prefixed and non-suffixed ֗ forms. 37 Though Weil could have merely supplemented MpL 1 Kgs 7:16 with ‫בליש‬ “in similar cases,” he chooses to standardize the Masorah in accordance with MpL Job 11:15.

NOTE 297: 1 KINGS 7:25 ‫ָצפוֹנָ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫נ֗ ֗ג‬ Fifty-three times.

MpA

No note.

‫נ֗ ֗ב‬ Fifty-two times.

MpC

No note.

See note 37 (Josh 18:12).

NOTE 298: 1 KINGS 7:31 ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ְסגְּ ר ֵֹת‬ ִ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

ֶ ‫וּמ ְסגְּ ר ֵֹת‬, ִ and this tally is correct if MpL 1 Kgs 7:31 counts three occurrences of ‫יהם‬ 38 one includes the two similar cases: (1) (2) (3)

1 Kgs 7:31 Mic 7:17 Ps 18:46

627F

‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ְסגְּ ר ֵֹת‬ ִ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ִמּ ְסגְּ ר ֵֹת‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫רוֹת‬ ֵ ְ‫ִמ ִמּ ְסגּ‬

MmA 1 Kgs 7:16 reads: .‫ והיית מצק ולא תירא‬.‫ מצק נחשת‬:‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ מצק ֗ב‬there are two occurrences of the defective form ‫מצק‬: 1 Kgs 7:16; Job 11:15.” 38 Likewise, Dotan and Reich, § ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ְסגְּ ר ֵֹת‬. ִ 37

222

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Nevertheless, Weil emends MpL 1 Kgs 7:31 to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” in order to distinguish form 1 from forms 2–3, perhaps because of MmL Mic 7:17, which tallies and lists only the two occurrences of ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫מ ִמּ ְסגְּ ר ֵֹת‬. ִ 39 Weil’s emendation accords with MpA,C 1 Kgs 7:31, and it is this emendation that is the reason for the sub loco note. 628F

NOTE 299: 1 KINGS 7:33 ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִח ֻשּׁ ֵק‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

֗‫וחס ו‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and lacking ‫ו‬.

ֶ ‫וְ ִח ֻשּׁ ֵק‬, whereas in ML this form ocMpL 1 Kgs 7:33 counts two occurrences of ‫יהם‬ 40 curs only once. Weil emends the frequency accordingly, which is the reason for the sub loco note, and his emendation accords with MpA 1 Kgs 7:33. 41 629F

630F

NOTE 300: 1 KINGS 7:41 ‫וְ גֻ �ת‬a

MpBHS MpL

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven times defective.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫י֗ ֗א‬ Eleven times defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven times defective.

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 7:41 counts eleven occurrences of the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫וְ גֻ �ת‬/‫גֻּ �ת‬, but the note ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ י֗ ֗א‬belongs to ‫ ַﬠ ֻמּ ִדים‬and not ‫וְ גֻ �ת‬/‫גֻּ �ת‬, 42 as one can see in MA: 631F

MmL Mic 7:17 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §3109) reads: ‫ בני‬.‫ ילחכו עפר‬:‫ממסגרתיהם ֗ב‬ .‫מל‬ ֗ ‫בתר‬ ֗ ‫“ נכר יבלו ויחרגו דתלימ‬there are two occurrences of ‫ממסגרתיהם‬: Mic 7:17; Ps 18:46; the latter one is plene, which is in Psalms.” 40 Likewise, Dotan and Reich, §‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִח ֻשּׁ ֵק‬. 41 Similarly, MpC 1 Kgs 7:33. 42 For the list of eleven, see MmL Exod 27:10 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §558): ‫העמדים י֗ ֗א‬ .‫ והימישני את העמדים‬.‫ והאדנים לעמודים‬.‫ ולפאת ים‬.‫ ווי העמודים בתרא‬.‫ ווי העמדים קדמייה‬:‫חס‬ ֗ .‫ ועמדים אל האלם‬.‫ כי כה אמר יי צבאות‬.‫ עמדים שנים‬.‫ ויקם את העמודים‬.‫ועמודים ועב על פניהם‬ .‫“ ויעש שרשרת‬there are eleven occurrences of the defective form ‫העמדים‬: Exod 27:10; 27:11; 38:12; 38:17; Judg 16:26; 1 Kgs 7:6; 7:21; 7:41; Jer 27:19; Ezek 40:49; 2 Chr 3:16.” 39

1 KINGS

223

This constitutes a dislocation error. The second problem is that Weil emends the tally to seven despite the fact that in ML there are nine occurrences of ‫וְ גֻ �ת‬/‫גֻּ �ת‬: 43 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Josh 15:19a Josh 15:19b Josh 15:19c Judg 1:15a Judg 1:15b

(6) (7) (8) (9)

‫גֻּ �ת‬ ‫גֻּ �ת‬ ‫גֻּ �ת‬ ‫גֻּ �ת‬ ‫גֻּ �ת‬

632F

Judg 1:15c 1 Kgs 7:41a 1 Kgs 7:41b 1 Kgs 7:42

‫גֻּ �ת‬ ‫וְ גֻ �ת‬ ‫גֻּ �ת‬ ‫גֻּ �ת‬

The tally of seven defective forms is nevertheless correct, as per MpA 1 Kgs 7:41 ( ֗‫ז‬ ‫)חס‬, ֗ and it accords with the text of MA, in which forms 8–9 are written ‫גֻּ לּוֹת‬. Likewise, MmV 1 Kgs 7:41 only lists forms 1–7. Therefore, Weil is correct to emend MpL 1 Kgs 7:41 to ‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ ז‬and to mark forms 8–9 with ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬twice plene in this book.” 44 63F

NOTE 301: 1 KINGS 7:41 ‫גֻּ �ת‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene in this book.

MpA

No note [‫]גֻּ לּוֹת‬.

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven times defective.

MpC

No note [‫]גֻּ לּוֹת‬.

In ML 1 Kgs 7:41 the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫ גֻּ �ת‬is found, and MpL 1 Kgs 7:41 counts it as one of seven such forms. 45 Against the text of ML, Weil reads the plene form ‫גֻּ לּוֹת‬, which is found in MA,C. For this reason, he emends the Masorah to ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬twice plene in this book” and completes this note for the only other occurrence (1 Kgs 7:42). 46 This emendation of the Masorah is the reason for the sub loco note. 635F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫גֻּ �ת‬, Josh 15:19a. These two forms are the focus of sub loco notes 301 and 302, respectively. The currently published fascicles of BHQ do not comment on this problem. 45 For a list of the seven occurrences, see note 300 (1 Kgs 7:41). 46 This second occurrence is the focus of sub loco note 302. 43 44

224

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 302: 1 KINGS 7:42 ‫גֻּ �ת‬ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice plene in this book. No note.

MpL

See note 301 (1 Kgs 7:41).

MpA

No note [‫]גֻּ לּוֹת‬.

MpC

No note [‫]גֻּ לּוֹת‬.

NOTE 303: 1 KINGS 7:49 ‫ִמ ְשּׂמֹאול‬ MpBHS

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times defective. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

In ML there are three occurrences of the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫מ ְשּׂמֹאל‬, ִ whereas MpL Josh 19:27 counts four such forms. According to Weil, the form under consideration should be read ‫מ ְשּׂמֹאל‬, ִ for which reason he supplies a contra textum note in the masoretic apparatus. 47 The four for which Weil completes the Masorah are: 48 (1) (2) (3) (4)

Gen 14:15 Gen 48:13 Josh 19:27 1 Kgs 7:49* 63F

637F

֗ ‫)ד‬, ֗ but MA MpA Josh 19:27 also counts four occurrences of the defective ‫ ו‬form (‫חס‬ L agrees with M that 1 Kgs 7:49 should be read plene ‫ו‬. Haketer (“Joshua-Judges,” 71) interprets the tally of four to include all occurrences of ‫ ְשׂמֹאל‬and similar defective ‫ו‬

Likewise, MV; though note that the Pardes edition incorrectly represents MV by printing the plene form. 48 Possibly following Weil, Perez Castro (“Josue-Jueces,” 99) lists the same four forms in explaining the same note in MpC. 47

1 KINGS

225

non-suffixed forms, with all occurrences in Genesis counted as one. 49 The forms and their references are: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Gen 13:9 Gen 14:15 Gen 24:29 Gen 48:13

‫ַה ְשּׂמֹאל‬ ‫ִמ ְשּׂמֹאל‬ ‫ְשׂמֹאל‬ ‫ִמ ְשּׂמֹאל‬

(5) Deut 5:32 ‫וּשׂמֹאל‬ ְ (6) Deut 17:11 ‫וּשׂמֹאל‬ ְ (7) Josh 19:27 ‫ִמ ְשּׂמֹאל‬

This explanation is based upon photographic evidence of a masoretic note in MpA Deut 5:28, 50 which counts three defective occurrences of ‫( וּ ְשׂמֹאל‬and similar cases) outside of Genesis. 51 In this light, Weil’s contra textum reading in this verse proves to be an incorrect solution to the problem for which he did not consult MA. 640F

NOTE 304: 1 KINGS 8:4 ‫ֶאת‬ MpBHS

‫בסיפ את ואת ואת‬ ֗ ‫פסוק‬ ֗ ‫֗ט‬ Nine verses in this book containing ‫את ואת ואת‬. ‫וְ ֶאת[ ֗ה‬a] Five times.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 8:4 presents the note ‫“ ֗ה‬five times” for ‫וְ ֶאת‬a and the note ‫פסוק את‬ ֗ ‫֗ט‬ ‫“ ואת ואת‬nine verses in this book containing ‫ ”את ואת ואת‬for ‫וְ ֶאת־א ֶֹהל‬.

Similarly, Breuer (The Biblical Text, 399) completes the Masorah for the defective forms as follows: “‫ כז‬,‫ יא; יהושע יט‬,‫ כח; יז‬,‫ דב׳ ה‬:‫“ ” ְשׂמֹאל ג׳ חס׳ בליש׳ מחוץ לבראשית‬there are three defective occurrences of ‫ ְשׂמֹאל‬in this and similar forms outside of Genesis: Deut 5:28; 17:11; Josh 19:27”. Note that Haketer prints this reference as Deut 5:29, whereas Breuer lists it as Deut 5:28. Dotan and Reich (§‫)מ ְשּׂמֹאל‬, ִ on the other hand, indicate that the tally of four includes only the occurrences of ‫ ְשׂמֹאל‬and ‫מ ְשּׂמֹאל‬, ִ thereby excluding forms 1, 5, and 6 above. 50 MA Deut 5:28 = ML Deut 5:32. 51 The photograph to which Haketer refers includes Deut 4:38–6:3 (M. Beit-Arié, C. Sirat, and M. Glatzer, Codices Hebraicis, Tome 1, 65). 49

226

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Weil emends MpL in the following ways. First, he presents ‫ ֗ה‬for ‫וְ ֶאת־א ֶֹהל‬, which occurs five times in ML: 52 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Lev 16:20 Lev 16:33 Num 4:25 1 Kgs 8:4 2 Chr 5:5

641F

MpL presents the note ‫ ֗ה‬for the other four forms, which corroborates this emenda֗ ‫֗ט‬ tion. 53 Second, Weil transposes the circellus for the MpL note ‫פסוק את ואת ואת‬ from ‫וְ ֶאת‬a to ‫ ֶאת‬because the text that the Mp note addresses begins with ‫את‬. ֶ Third, Weil emends ‫פסוק את ואת ואת‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ט‬to ‫בסיפ את ואת ואת‬ ֗ ‫פסוק‬ ֗ ‫ט‬,֗ thereby limiting the scope to Kings. 54 This emendation is problematic because in ML this phenomenon occurs ten times in Kings, not nine: 55 643F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Kgs 8:4 1 Kgs 9:1 2 Kgs 7:7 2 Kgs 11:18 2 Kgs 12:19

64F

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

2 Kgs 14:14 2 Kgs 18:17 2 Kgs 24:14 2 Kgs 25:18 2 Kgs 25:25

Because Weil only counts nine occurrences, one might suspect that he reads against the text for one of the ten. Because he does not complete the Masorah for any of the other occurrences, however, one cannot be certain how he intended to treat this problem. It is possible that either he was not able to resolve the matter and merely wished to call attention to the problem or that he regarded this Masorah as a corruption of another. 56

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ ֶאת־א ֶֹהל‬, Lev 16:20. Likewise, MmA 2 Chr 5:5: .‫ ויעלו‬.‫ ויעלו‬.‫ ונשאו את יריעת‬.‫ וכלה‬.‫ וכפר‬:‫“ ואת אהל ֗ה‬there are five occurrences of ‫ואת אהל‬: Lev 16:20; 16:33; Num 4:25; 1 Kgs 8:4; 2 Chr 5:5.” 54 Likewise, MpV 1 Kgs 8:4: ‫“ ֗ט פסו֗ בסי֗ את ואת ואת‬there are nine verses in this book that include ‫את ואת ואת‬.” 55 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫[ וְ ֶאת־‬...]‫[ וְ ֶאת־‬...]‫ ֶאת־‬, 1Kgs 8:4. 56 See, e.g., Ginsburg, 1, ‫א‬, §1217, which counts nineteen occurrences of ‫ ֶאת‬...‫ ֶאת‬...‫ֶאת‬ in Kings. 52 53

1 KINGS

227

NOTE 305: 1 KINGS 8:43 ‫ְמכוֹן‬ MpBHS

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

֗‫]מכוֹן ִשׁ ְב ֶתּ�[ ו‬ ְ Six times.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 8:43 counts six occurrences of �‫מכוֹן ִשׁ ְב ֶתּ‬, ְ and this tally is correct if one includes similar cases: 57 (1) 1 Kgs 8:39 (2) 1 Kgs 8:43 (3) 1 Kgs 8:49

64F

�‫ְמכוֹן ִשׁ ְב ֶתּ‬ �‫ְמכוֹן ִשׁ ְב ֶתּ‬ �‫ְמכוֹן ִשׁ ְב ְתּ‬

(4) 2 Chr 6:30 (5) 2 Chr 6:33 (6) 2 Chr 6:39

�‫ְמכוֹן ִשׁ ְב ֶתּ‬ �‫ִמ ְמּכוֹן ִשׁ ְב ֶתּ‬ �‫ִמ ְמּכוֹן ִשׁ ְב ְתּ‬

MpBHK 1 Kgs 8:43 and MpBHS 1 Kgs 8:43 incorrectly place the circellus above ‫ְמכוֹן‬ and not �‫מכוֹן ִשׁ ְב ֶתּ‬, ְ however. That this is merely a misprint by BHS is confirmed by the fact that for forms 1, 3, and 4 the circellus is presented above the two words. Excluding the two prefixed cases (forms 5–6), Weil emends MpL 1 Kgs 8:43 from ֗‫ו‬ “six times” to ‫“ ֗ד‬four times,” and it is for this reason that he adds a sub loco note. Because the tally of four is not found in any of the other primary or secondary resources consulted , it is not clear why Weil has emended the Masorah.

NOTE 306: 1 KINGS 8:43 ‫יתי‬ ִ ִ‫ָבּנ‬ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times in this book. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

ִ ִ‫בּנ‬,ָ and it is clear from Weil’s comMpBHS 1 Kgs 8:43 counts six occurrences of ‫יתי‬ pletion of the Masorah that this tally includes the one occurrence of the defective ‫י‬ form ‫בּנִ ִתי‬.ָ The forms and their references are: (1) 1 Kgs 8:13 (2) 1 Kgs 8:27 (3) 1 Kgs 8:43 57

‫יתי‬ ִ ִ‫ָבּנ‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ִ‫ָבּנ‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ִ‫ָבּנ‬

(4) 1 Kgs 8:44 (5) 1 Kgs 8:48 (6) 1 Kgs 11:38

See also Dotan and Reich, §�‫מכוֹן ִשׁ ְב ֶתּ‬. ְ

‫ָבּנִ ִתי‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ִ‫( ָבּנ‬qere) ‫יתי‬ ִ ִ‫ָבּנ‬

228

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬once MpL only presents notes for two of the six forms. Form 4 has the note ‫חס‬ defective,” and form five has a qərê in the margin. The tally of six, which Weil prints for all of the aforementioned forms, is not found in any of the other primary or secondary sources consulted. Though he would have inevitably observed that one of the six forms is defective (form 4), his reason for adding this note in BHS is not clear.

NOTE 307: 1 KINGS 8:46 ‫רוֹבה‬ ָ ‫חוֹקה אוֹ ְק‬ ָ ‫ְר‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

No note.

֗‫ז‬ Seven times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 8:46 counts seven occurrences of ‫רוֹבה‬ ָ ‫חוֹקה אוֹ ְק‬ ָ ‫ר‬,ְ whereas in ML this 58 phrase occurs only twice: 1 Kgs 8:46; 2 Chr 6:36. Weil emends the frequency accordingly, which is the reason for the sub loco note. 647F

NOTE 308: 1 KINGS 8:54 �ַֹ ‫ִמ ְכּר‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective.

ִ whereas ML contains only one MpL 1 Kgs 8:54 counts two occurrences of �ַֹ ‫מ ְכּר‬, occurrence of this form. 59 Weil emends the frequency accordingly, which is the reason for the sub loco note, and his emendation accords with MpA 1 Kgs 8:54. 60 648F

649F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫רוֹבה‬ ָ ‫חוֹקה אוֹ ְק‬ ָ ‫ר‬.ְ See also Dotan and Reich, �ַֹ ‫מ ְכּר‬. ִ 60 Similarly, MpC 1 Kgs 8:54. 58 59

1 KINGS

229

NOTE 309: 1 KINGS 8:58 ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו‬ ִ ‫וֹתיו וְ ֻח ָקּיו‬ ָ ‫ִמ ְצ‬ MpBHS

‫מתחלפ ֗צ ֗ק ֗פ סימן‬ ֗ ‫פסוק מן ֗ג מילין‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six verses with the same three lemmata but in varied order. The order here is ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫)צ( ִמ ְצ‬, ֗ ‫)ק( וְ ֻח ָקּיו‬, ֗ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו‬ ִ (‫)פ‬. ֗ No note.

MpL

MpA

MpC

‫֗צ ֗ק ֗ף‬ The order is ‫וֹתיו‬ ָ ‫ִמ ְצ‬ (‫)צ‬, ֗ ‫)ק( וְ ֻח ָקּיו‬, ֗ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָטיו‬ ִ (‫)פ‬. ֗ No note.

This MpBHS note is a completion of Weil’s emendation of MpL 1 Kgs 2:3 (see note 282).

NOTE 310: 1 KINGS 9:4 ‫וְ ַא ָ֞תּה‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times with this accent in this book.

MpA

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times with this accent in this book.

MpC

No note.

‫בע‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times with this accent in this context.

MpL 1 Kgs 9:4 ostensibly counts three occurrences of ‫ וְ ַא ָתּה‬with the geršayim accent in the book of Kings, but in ML this form occurs only once. This form occurs exactly three times in the Former Prophets, however, and for all three Weil presents the note ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬three times with this accent in this book”: (1) (2) (3)

Judg 11:27 1 Sam 15:6 1 Kgs 9:4

(1) (2) (3)

1 Kgs 8:25 1 Kgs 8:43 1 Kgs 9:4

It is possible that this masoretic rule has become confused with a rule for ‫( וְ ַﬠ ָ֞תּה‬and similar forms), of which MmC 1 Kgs 8:25 counts three within Kings: ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ֞תּה‬ ‫ַא ָ֞תּה‬ ‫וְ ַא ָ֞תּה‬

According to this explanation, “in this book” is a corruption of “in this context” (i.e., the reign of Ahaz: 2 Kings 8:25–9:29), as a check of MpC 1 Kgs 9:4 reveals. For further discussion, see note 90 (Judg 11:27).

230

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 311: 1 KINGS 9:6 ‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫נָ ַת ִתּי ִל ְפנ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpA

No note.

֗‫ו‬ Six times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 9:6 counts six occurrences of ‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫נָ ַת ִתּי ִל ְפנ‬, whereas ML contains only five occurrences of this phrase: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Deut 1:8 1 Kgs 9:6 Jer 26:4 Jer 44:10 2 Chr 7:19

Weil emends the frequency accordingly, which is the reason for the sub loco note. Dotan and Reich (§‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ )נָ ַת ִתּי ִל ְפנ‬observe that the tally of six may be satisfied by including the similar phrase ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫( נָ ַת ִתּי ִל ְפנ‬Jer 9:12), but they do not present substantiation from the Masorah itself.

NOTE 312: 1 KINGS 9:20 ‫יְבוּסי‬ ִ ‫ָה ֱאמ ִֹרי ַה ִח ִתּי ַה ְפּ ִרזִּ י ַה ִחוִּ י וְ ַה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫סימן ֗מ ֗ת ֗פ ו֗ ֗ס‬ The catchword is ‫מתפו״ס‬.

MpA

‫֗מ ֗ת ֗פו֗ ֗ס‬ The catchword is ‫מתפו״ס‬.

‫֗מ ֗ת ֗פו֗ ֗ס‬ The catchword is ‫מתפו״ס‬. 61

MpC

‫סימ ֗מ ֗ת ֗פו֗ ֗ס‬ ֗ The catchword is ‫מתפו״ס‬. 62

The function of the catchword ‫( ֗מ ֗ת ֗פו֗ ֗ס‬MpL 1 Kgs 9:20) is to preserve the proper word order for the gentilics found in this verse: ‫יְבוּסי‬ ִ ‫ה ֱאמ ִֹרי ַה ִח ִתּי ַה ְפּ ִרזִּ י ַה ִחוִּ י וְ ַה‬.ָ 63 650F

651F

652F

BHK mistakenly prints ‫מ ֗ת ֗פי֗ ֗ס‬, ֗ but it is clear that the penultimate letter in MpL is a truncated ‫ ו‬and not ‫י‬. 62 MpC does not present a corresponding circellus. 63 MpA,C 1 Kgs 9:20 present the same catchphrase. 61

1 KINGS

231

MpL does not always present ‫ סימן‬before gentilics, 64 but Weil chooses to do so consistently in order to standardize the way in which gentilics are presented in MpBHS. 65 The addition of ‫ סימן‬is likely the reason for the sub loco note. 66 65F

NOTE 313: 1 KINGS 10:7 ‫הוֹס ְפ ָתּ‬ ַ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note. ‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL 1 Kgs 10:7 counts two occurrences of ‫הוֹס ְפ ָתּ‬, ַ whereas ML contains only one 67 occurrence of this form. Weil emends the frequency accordingly, which is the reason for the sub loco note, and his emendation accords with MpC 1 Kgs 10:7. 65F

NOTE 314: 1 KINGS 10:13 ‫וַ ֵתּ ֶפן‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 10:13 counts two occurrences of ‫וַ ֵתּ ֶפן‬, whereas ML contains only one occurrence of this form. 68 Weil emends the frequency accordingly, which is the reason for the sub loco note, and his emendation accords with MpA 1 Kgs 10:13. 657F

One instance in which MpL does place ‫ סימן‬before an abbreviated list of gentilics is Deut 7:1: ‫סימנ֗ ֗ת ֗ג ֗מ ֗כ ֗פו֗ ֗ס‬. 65 Another instance in which he adds ‫ סימן‬before a list of abbreviated gentilics is addressed in note 4 (Josh 3:10). 66 OchlahP, §274 preserves the proper word order and proper distribution of conjunctive ‫ ו‬for this and other such strings of Canaanite gentilics. 67 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫הוֹס ְפ ָתּ‬. ַ 68 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וַ ֵתּ ֶפן‬. 64

232

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 315: 1 KINGS 10:22 ‫ֶשׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpL 1 Kgs 10:22 counts only one occurrence of ‫שׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬, ֶ whereas ML contains two such forms: 1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21. Weil emends the frequency to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice,” which is the reason for the sub loco note, and his emendation accords with MpA,C 1 Kgs 10:22. Dotan and Reich (§‫שׁנְ ַה ִבּים‬, ֶ 1 Kgs 10:22) observe that the tally of one may be limited in scope to the Prophets, but they do not present substantiation from the Masorah itself.

NOTE 316: 1 KINGS 10:22 ‫וְ ק ִֹפים‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫וא‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, one defective and once plene.

As per MpL 1 Kgs 10:22, ML contains only one occurrence of ‫( וְ ק ִֹפים‬spelled without ‫)ו‬. 69 MpL 2 Chr 9:21, on the other hand, counts two occurrences, including the defective form ‫( וְ ק ִֹפים‬1 Kgs 10:22) and the plene form ‫קוֹפים‬ ִ ְ‫( ו‬2 Chr 9:21). While the first part of MpC 1 Kgs 10:22 groups the two together, the second part distinguishes the two from one another (‫מל‬ ֗ ‫וא‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫חד‬, “once defective and once plene”). Thus, it would appear that MpL 1 Kgs 10:22 has the same purpose in featuring ‫ל‬.֗ However, ֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬once defective” in order to clarify instead of emending MpL 1 Kgs 10:22 to ‫חס‬ the scope of the note, Weil emends it to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” in accordance with MpL 2 Chr 9:21 in order to standardize the Masorah. This emendation is the reason for the sub loco note, and it accords with MpA,C 1 Kgs 10:22 and MmA 1 Kgs 10:22. 70 659F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ ק ִֹפים‬. MmA 1 Kgs 10:22: .‫דב ימי֗ וקופים ותוכיים‬ ֗ .‫“ מלכים וקפים ותכיים‬1 Kgs 10:22: ‫וקפים‬ ‫ ;ותכיים‬2 Chr 9:21: ‫וקופים ותוכיים‬.” 69 70

1 KINGS

233

NOTE 317: 1 KINGS 10:22 ‫וְ ֻת ִכּיִּ ים‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 10:22 counts two occurrences of ‫וְ ֻת ִכּיִּ ים‬, which includes ‫( וְ ֻת ִכּיִּ ים‬1 Kgs 10:22) and the plene ‫ ו‬counterpart ‫תוּכּיִּ ים‬ ִ ְ‫( ו‬2 Chr 9:21). 71 Because MpL presents the note ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” for both forms, it seems that Weil marks this form “sub loco” because he wants to comment on the kəṯîḇ of the Eastern tradition (‫)ותכוים‬, 72 which he rejects. 61F

NOTE 318: 1 KINGS 11:10 ‫וְ ִצוָּ ה ֵא ָליו‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 11:10 counts three occurrences of ‫וְ ִצוָּ ה ֵא ָליו‬, though the phrase occurs only once in the text of ML. Weil emends the frequency accordingly, which is the reason for the sub loco note. Though they do not present substantiation from the Masorah itself, Dotan and Reich (§‫ )וְ ִצוָּ ה‬observe that the circellus placed above ‫וְ ִצוָּ ה‬ ‫ ֵא ָליו‬may belong over ‫ וְ ִצוָּ ה‬alone. They suggest that the three occurrences tallied are: (1) (2) (3)

All within Leviticus. 73 1 Kgs 11:10 Nah 1:14

Likewise, MmA 1 Kgs 10:22: .‫דב ימי֗ וקופים ותוכיים‬ ֗ .‫“ מלכים וקפים ותכיים‬1 Kgs 10:22: ‫ ;וקפים ותכיים‬2 Chr 9:21: ‫וקופים ותוכיים‬.” See also Dotan and Reich, §‫תוּכּיִּ ים‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬. 72 ML folio 466 verso. 73 Lev 13:54; 14:4, 5, 36, 40. Dotan and Reich argue that these five are counted as one because they all appear as part of the phrase ‫( וְ ִצוָּ ה ַהכּ ֵֹהן‬Lev 14:5). 71

234

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 319: 1 KINGS 11:15 ‫ַשׂר ַה ָצּ ָבא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 11:15 counts four occurrences of ‫שׂר ַה ָצּ ָבא‬, ַ whereas ML contains ten occurrences of this phrase: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Sam 17:55 1 Kgs 1:19 1 Kgs 11:15 1 Kgs 11:21 2 Kgs 4:13

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

2 Kgs 25:19 Jer 52:25 Dan 8:11 1 Chr 19:18 1 Chr 27:5

It is possible that the frequency note ‫“ ֗ד‬four times,” which MpL presents here for ‫שׂר ַה ָצּ ָבא‬, ַ actually counts occurrences of ‫ ַשׂר ָצ ָבא‬and similar cases, 74 which are: (1) (2) (3) (4)

2 Sam 2:8 2 Sam 19:14 1 Kgs 16:16 1 Chr 27:34

63F

‫ר־צ ָבא‬ ָ ‫ַשׂ‬ ‫ר־צ ָבא‬ ָ ‫ַשׂ‬ ‫ר־צ ָבא‬ ָ ‫ַשׂ‬ ‫ר־צ ָבא‬ ָ ‫וְ ַשׂ‬

Weil does not correct MpL, however, and therefore it is not certain how he would have treated the problem.

NOTE 320: 1 KINGS 11:21 ‫ר־ה ָצּ ָבא‬ ַ ‫ַשׂ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

No note.

See Ginsburg, 2, ‫ש‬, §927; see also Dotan and Reich, §‫שׂר ַה ָצּ ָבא‬, ַ 1 Kgs 11:15. Also featuring the frequency note ‫ ֗ד‬are MpC 1 Kgs 16:16; MpV 2 Sam 2:8. Note that the Pardes edition incorrectly presents the tally of three for MpV 2 Sam 2:8. 74

1 KINGS

235

See note 319 (1 Kgs 11:15).

NOTE 321: 1 KINGS 11:41 ‫מה‬ ֹ ֛ �‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֧רי ְשׁ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times with these accents in this book.

MpA

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בט‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times with these accents in this book.

[‫בס]יפ‬ ֗ [‫בט]ע‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice with these accents in this book. 75

MpC

‫בס‬ ֗ ‫בט‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times with these accents in this book.

MpL 1 Kgs 11:41 counts two occurrences of ‫מה‬ ֹ ֛ �‫ וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֧רי ְשׁ‬in Kings with this acA,C cent pattern, whereas Mp 1 Kgs 11:41 count five such occurrences. Ginsburg explains that this Masorah is concerned with instances of ‫( וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר‬with ʾazlâ) followed by ‫( ִדּ ְב ֵרי‬regardless of accentuation) and a king’s name (with təḇîr). 76 The five for which Weil completes the Masorah are: 77 65F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Kgs 11:41 1 Kgs 16:5 1 Kgs 22:46 2 Kgs 10:34 2 Kgs 13:8

6F

‫מה‬ ֹ ֛ �‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֧רי ְשׁ‬ ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי ַב ְﬠ ָ ֛שׁא‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ָ ֛פט‬ ָ ְ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֧רי י‬ ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי יֵ ֛הוּא‬ ‫הוֹא ָ ֛חז‬ ָ ְ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֧רי י‬

Though Weil would have likely discussed the discrepancies in the manuscript tradition, the principal reason for his marking this note sub loco is because he has corrected a frequency error in MpL. While the tally of two is not correct for 1 Kgs 11:41, it is correct for instances of ‫( וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר‬with ʾazlâ) followed by ‫( ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי‬with mêrəḵâ) and a king’s name (with təḇîr): 78 67F

MpL 2 Kgs 10:34 also incorrectly presents the tally of two ( ֗‫בט בסי‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ב‬, “two times with this accent in this book”). This Mp note is the focus of sub loco note 369. 76 Ginsburg (4, ‫י‬, §753a) observes that the manuscript traditions do not agree upon which five occurrences of ‫יֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵרי‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬plus a personal name are accented with this particular accent pattern. 77 The five for which he completes the Masorah accords with MA,L,C. Likewise, MmC 1 Kgs 11:41: .‫ יהואחז‬.‫ יהוא‬.‫ יהושפט‬.‫ בעשה‬.‫ שלמה‬:‫בס וסימנהוֹן‬ ֗ ‫בט‬ ֗ ‫דברי פלו֛ ני ֗ה‬ ֧ ‫“ ֙ויתר‬there are five occurrences in this book of ‫דברי פלו֛ ני‬ ֧ with these accents: 1 Kgs 11:41; 16:5; 22:46; 2 Kgs 10:34; 13:8.” 78 Dotan and Reich, §‫יֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵרי יֵ הוּא‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬. 75

236

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2)

1 Kgs 16:5 ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי ַב ְﬠ ָ ֛שׁא‬ 2 Kgs 10:34 ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי יֵ ֛הוּא‬

This is the focus of note 369 (2 Kgs 10:34).

NOTE 322: 1 KINGS 12:18 ‫ֲאד ָֹרם‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ל וחד ואדרם‬ Unique, and once as ‫ואדרם‬. No note.

ֲ As per MpL 1 Kgs 12:18, the text of ML contains only once occurrence of ‫אד ָֹרם‬. MpL 2 Sam 20:24, on the other hand, presents for the unique form ‫ וַ ֲאד ָֹרם‬the tally of two, which includes the similar form ‫אד ָֹרם‬. ֲ 79 Weil emends MpL 1 Kgs 12:18 in acL cordance with Mp 2 Sam 20:24 in order to standardize the Masorah, and this emendation agrees with MpA 2 Sam 20:24. Weil marks this note “sub loco” because he has emended MpL and because he wishes clarify the scope of the note. 68F

NOTE 323: 1 KINGS 12:22 ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ְדּ ַבר ָה ֱא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ג‬ Three times. No note.

ִ ‫דּ ַבר ָה ֱא‬,ְ whereas ML contains MpL 1 Kgs 12:22 counts three occurrences of ‫�הים‬ only two occurrences: 1 Kgs 12:22; 1 Chr 26:32. Weil accordingly emends MpL to ‫֗ב‬ “twice,” 80 which is the reason for the sub loco note. Like MpL 1 Kgs 12:22, however, MpA 1 Kgs 12:22 presents the tally of three, and from MmA 1 Chr 26:32 one finds that the tally of three includes the similar case ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫( ִבּ ְד ַבר ָה ֱא‬2 Sam 16:23). 81 670F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וַ ֲאד ָֹרם‬. Likewise, Ginsburg, 1, ‫ד‬, §88. 81 .[‫ כאשר ישאל א]יש‬.‫ אל שמעיה דמלכים‬.‫ ואחיו בני חיל‬:‫“ דבר האלהים ֗ג‬there are three occurrences of ‫דבר האלהים‬: 1 Chr 26:32; 1 Kgs 12:22; 2 Sam 16:23.” See also Dotan and Reich, §‫�הים‬ ִ ‫דּ ַבר ָה ֱא‬.ְ 79 80

1 KINGS

237

Though Weil’s decision to treat MpL 1 Kgs 12:22 as a frequency error is understandable, the Masorah of MA nevertheless confirms that MpL 1 Kgs 12:22 is correct.

NOTE 324: 1 KINGS 12:28 �‫ֶה ֱﬠלוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 12:28 counts two occurrences of �‫ה ֱﬠלוּ‬,ֶ whereas ML contains three occurrences of the form: 82 (1) (2) (3)

Exod 32:4 Exod 32:8 1 Kgs 12:28

671F

Accordingly, Weil emends the frequency note to ‫ג‬,֗ which is the reason for the sub loco note. Nevertheless, the tally of two is correct if the occurrences within Exodus are counted as one, as Dotan and Reich (§�‫)ה ֱﬠלוּ‬ ֶ suggest. It is possible, therefore, that Weil emends the frequency not because it is incorrect but because the reader would be easily misled if Weil were to have completed the Masorah and thus present the frequency note ‫ ֗ב‬for all three occurrences.

Likewise, Ginsburg, 2, ‫ע‬, §578; MmV Exod 32:4: .‫ סרו מהר‬.‫ ויקח מידם ויצר‬: ֗‫העלוך ֗ג וסי‬ .‫“ ויועץ המלך ויעש‬there are three occurrences of ‫העלוך‬, and their references are Exod 32:4; 32:8; 1 Kgs 12:28.” 82

238

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 325: 1 KINGS 13:1 ‫ִבּ ְד ַבר יְ הוָ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗י֗ב‬ Twelve times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗י֗ב‬ Twelve times.

MpC

◦

Weil correctly follows MpL 1 Kgs 31:1 in counting twelve occurrences of ‫ִבּ ְד ַבר‬ ‫יְ הוָ ה‬: 83 672F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1 Sam 3:21 1 Kgs 13:1 1 Kgs 13:2 1 Kgs 13:5 1 Kgs 13:9 1 Kgs 13:17

(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

1 Kgs 13:18 1 Kgs 13:32 1 Kgs 20:35 Jer 8:9 Ps 33:6 2 Chr 30:12

Weil does not complete the frequency note ‫“ ֗י֗ב‬twelve times,” however. Instead, he presents the note ‫“ ֗ה‬five times” for forms 1 and 9–12, the only forms that MmL 1 Sam 3:21 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1549) tallies. 84 It would seem, then, that 1 Kgs 13:1 is marked sub loco in order to refer the reader to the commentary entry in which he would have explained this matter. 673F

NOTE 326: 1 KINGS 13:20 ‫ֱה ִשׁיבוֹ‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫֗ג בעינ‬ Three times in this section.

MpA

No note.

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times in this particular form.

MpC

No note.

See also Dotan and Reich, § ‫ ִבּ ְד ַבר י—ה‬. .‫ שמים נעשו‬.‫ גם ביהודה‬.‫ הבישו חכמים‬.‫ ואיש אחד‬.‫ כי נגלה יהוה אל שמואל‬:‫בדבר יהוה ֗ה‬ .‫ ויתנהו יהוה לאריה‬.‫“ ומן והנה איש אלהים עד כי היה יהיה ֗ב ֗מ ֗א‬there are five occurrences of ‫בדבר יהוה‬: 1 Sam 3:21; 1 Kgs 20:35; Jer 8:9; 2 Chr 30:12; Ps 33:6; and (all) from 1 Kgs 13:1 to 1 Kgs 13:32 except for one: 1 Kgs 13:26.” See also MmC 1 Kgs 20:35. 83 84

1 KINGS

239

MpL 1 Kgs 13:20 ostensibly counts three occurrences of ‫ ֱה ִשׁיבוֹ‬and similar forms, but as there are exactly three occurrences of ‫ה ִשׁיבוֹ‬,ֱ Dotan and Reich (§‫ה ִשׁיבוֹ‬,ֱ 1 Kgs 13:20) suggest that ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ג‬is to be understood in this case as ‫“ ֗ג ובלשון הזה‬three times and in this [particular] form.” The three verses in which this form appears are: 85 674F

(1) (2) (3)

1 Kgs 13:20 1 Kgs 13:23 1 Kgs 13:26

MpL 1 Kgs 13:26 also counts three occurrences but limits the scope with ֗‫“ בעינ‬in this section,” and Weil chooses to standardize the Masorah accordingly. 86 This emendation of the scope of MpL 1 Kgs 13:20 is the reason for this sub loco note. 675F

NOTE 327: 1 KINGS 14:9 ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times written thus.

MpA

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times written thus.

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times written thus.

MpC

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times written thus.

ֵ ‫ל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬,ְ whereas ML MpL 1 Kgs 14:9 counts three occurrences of the plene ‫ י‬form ‫יסנִ י‬ contains four occurrences of this form. Instead of emending the tally to four, how֗ ֗‫)ו‬. 87 MpL 2 ever, Weil counts six forms, in accordance with MpL Ezek 8:17 (‫כת כן‬ Kgs 22:17 also counts six occurrences of the similar form ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫כת( ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬, “six times spelle thus”), and this suggests that the tally of six includes occurrences of both ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ ְל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬and ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ה ְכ ִﬠ‬.ַ The problem is that ML has three occurrences of the latter form (2 Kgs 22:17; Jer 25:7[qere]; 2 Chr 34:25), which raises the tally to seven. 88 MmL Judg 2:12 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1401) regards Jer 25:7(qere) as defective, however. 89 Thus, the six for which Weil completes the Masorah are: 90 67F

678F

679F

See also Ginsburg, 2, ‫ש‬, §205. MpV 1 Kgs 13:20: ‫ג ובענין‬.֗ 87 Likewise, MpA,C 1 Kgs 14:9. 88 Likewise, MA,C. 89 .[‫ ]למען הכעסני‬.‫ מדוע הכעסוני‬.‫ כן תכעסנה ותבכה‬.‫ ויכעסו את יהוה‬:‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ויכעסו ֗ה‬ . ֗‫ והכה יי‬:‫דכות ֗ב ֗מ ֗א מכעיסים‬ ֗ ‫ וכל מכעסים‬.‫“ למען הכעסוני דלרע‬there are five defective occurrences of ‫ ויכעסו‬and similar forms: Judg 2:12; 1 Sam 1:7; Jer 8:19; 7:18; 25:7; and all (occurrences of) ‫ מכעסים‬are similar except for one: 1 Kgs 14 :15.” Breuer also considers this form to be defective (Breuer, The Biblical Text, 135, n.70; likewise, Haketer, “Kings I & II,” 107), 85 86

240

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) 1 Kgs 14:9 ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬ (2) 1 Kgs 16:2 ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬ (3) 2 Kgs 22:17 ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬

(4) Ezek 8:17 ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬ (5) Ezek 16:26 ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬ (6) 2 Chr 34:25 ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬

The tally of three that MpL 1 Kgs 14:9 presents is not a frequency error, however. Breuer suggests that ‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ג‬should be followed by the stricture ‫בסיפ‬, ֗ as there are three occurrences of ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫(ה ְכ ִﬠ‬ ַ ‫)ל‬ ְ in Kings (forms 1–3 above). 91 Thus, it would seem that Weil presents this sub loco note (1) to discuss his standardization of the Masorah, (2) to clarify the scope (‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫כת כן‬ ֗ ֗‫)ו‬, and (3) to discuss a text-critical issue (Jer 25:7).

NOTE 328: 1 KINGS 14:10 ‫ֵמ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

No note.

ֵ whereas ML contains nine MpL 1 Kgs 14:10 counts four occurrences of ‫מ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬, occurrences of this phrase:

but he fails to note that MpA Jer 25:7 appears to indicate that the form should be read ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ה ְכ ִﬠ‬,ַ as per MpA,C Jer 25:7(qere):

It appears, therefore, that the Masorah of MA is conflicted on this matter. 90 These six occurrences are listed in Ginsburg, 2, ‫כ‬, §413. 91 Breuer, The Biblical Text, 135, n.70; see also Dotan and Reich, §‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬,ְ 1 Kgs 14:9. Breuer also explains that the tally of two that MpL 1 Kgs 16:2 presents counts only occurrences of ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ ְל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬in Kings (forms 1–2 above); see also Dotan and Reich, §‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬,ְ 1 Kgs 16:2.

1 KINGS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Kgs 14:10 1 Kgs 21:21 2 Kgs 21:12 2 Kgs 22:16 Jer 6:19

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Jer 4:6 Jer 6:19 Jer 32:42 Jer 51:64

‫ֵמ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬ ‫ ֵא ֶלי� ָר ָﬠה‬92 ‫ֵמ ִביא‬ ‫ֵמ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬ ‫ֵמ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬ ‫ֵמ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬

(6) (7) (8) (9)

241

Jer 11:11 Jer 19:3 Jer 45:5 2 Chr 34:24

‫יהם ָר ָﬠה‬ ֶ ‫ֵמ ִביא ֲא ֵל‬ ‫ֵמ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬ ‫ֵמ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬ ‫ֵמ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬

Weil does not emend the frequency to nine, however, nor does he complete the MpL note ‫“ ֗ד‬four times” for any of the other occurrences. There is no indication of how Weil would have resolved this problem. Dotan and Reich (§‫)מ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬ ֵ suggest the tally of four may count only the occurrences within Kings. It is also possible that this note has been mistakenly applied to ‫ֵמ ִביא‬ ‫ ָר ָﬠה‬instead of ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי ֵמ ִביא‬and should thus be classified as a dislocation error. According to this explanation, the source of the error is Jer 6:19, in which the unique phrase ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי ֵמ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬occurs. MpL Jer 6:19 correctly counts four occurrences of ‫אנ ִֹכי ֵמ ִביא‬, ָ 93 not ‫מ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬. ֵ The four occurrences of ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי ֵמ ִביא‬are:

The MpL note ‫ ֗ד‬may have been incorrectly written at 1 Kgs 14:10 because of the striking similarity between 1 Kgs 14:10 (‫)הנְ נִ י ֵמ ִביא ָר ָﬠה‬ ִ and Jer 6:19 ( ‫ִהנֵּ ה ָאנ ִֹכי ֵמ ִביא‬ ‫)ר ָﬠה‬. ָ

NOTE 329: 1 KINGS 14:18 ‫שׁר ִדּ ֶ֔בּר ְבּיַ ד‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ֲא‬ MpBHS

֗‫דמטע בעינ‬ ֗ ‫פסוק‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ For two verses in this section there is the possibility for confusion. ֗‫מטע בעינ‬ ֗ ֗‫]וַ יִּ ְק ְבּרוּ[ ֗ב פסו‬ For two verses in this section there is the possibility for confusion.

MpL

92

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

Qərê. Likewise, MpA Jer 6:19 (‫;)ד‬ ֗ MmL Jer 4:6 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §2471): :‫אנכי מביא ֗ד‬ .‫ ככה תשקע‬.‫ כאשר הבאתי‬.‫ שמעי הארץ‬.‫“ שׂאו נס ציונה‬there are four occurrences of ‫אנכי‬ ‫מביא‬: Jer 4:6 ; 6:19 ; 32:42; 51:64.” 93

242

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpL 1 Kgs 14:18 ostensibly indicates that there are two occurrences of ‫ וַ יִּ ְק ְבּרוּ‬in this “section” of 1 Kings. The form does occur twice in this general context (1 Kgs 14:18; 1 Kgs 15:8), but there is nothing unusual about either. Weil moves this note to ‫שׁר ִדּ ֶ֔בּר ְבּיַ ד‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ ֲא‬from ‫ וַ יִּ ְק ְבּרוּ‬because there are two instances of ‫ד־ﬠ ְבדּוֹ‬ ַ ַ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר ְבּי‬ ‫א ִחיָּ ה‬/‫הוּ‬ ֲ ָ‫ ֲא ִחיּ‬within the section dealing with the ruin of Jeroboam’s house (1 Kgs 14– 16): 1 Kgs 14:18; 15:29. 94 Dotan and Reich explain that these two verses may potentially be confused because the simple subject in the former instance (‫)א ִחיָּ הוּ‬ ֲ is modified by ‫ ַהנָּ ִביא‬in the former whereas the simple subject of the latter instance (‫)א ִחיָּ ה‬ ֲ is modified by ‫ה ִשּׁי�נִ י‬.ַ 95 Presumably, Weil intended to draw attention to these differences, which are listed among the ‫ חילופי קריאה‬by Ginsburg. 96 685F

NOTE 330: 1 KINGS 15:5 ‫ת־היָּ ָשׁר‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה ָדוִ ד ֶא‬ MpBHS

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

‫]א ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה[ ֗ה‬ ֲ Five times.

MpL

MpA MpC

‫ת־היָּ ָשׁר[ ֗ב‬ ַ ‫א‬...‫ה‬ ֶ ‫]ﬠ ָשׂ‬ ָ Twice.

No note.

ֲ but ML contains MpL 1 Kgs 15:5 ostensibly counts five occurrences of ‫א ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה‬, 171 occurrences of this phrase. Dotan and Reich (§‫)א ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה ָדוִ ד‬ ֲ conjecture that the tally of five counts instances of ‫דוִ יד‬/‫ד‬ ָ ִ‫א ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה ָדו‬: ֲ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

2 Sam 11:27 1 Kgs 15:5 2 Kgs 18:3 2 Chr 7:6 2 Chr 29:2

Weil, however, emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” in accordance with the MpL note for ‫ת־היָּ ָשׁר‬ ַ ‫( וַ ַתּ ֲﬠשׂוּ ֶא‬Jer 34:15) and presents circelli for the entire phrase ‫ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫ת־היָּ ָשׁר‬ ַ ‫ ָﬠ ָשׂה ָדוִ ד ֶא‬. By comparing 1 Kgs 15:5 with Jer 34:15 it becomes clear that the tally of two counts occurrences of the verbal root .‫ה‬.‫ש‬.‫ ע‬followed by ‫ת־היָּ ָשׁר‬ ַ ‫א‬. ֶ 97 It L is impossible to determine whether Weil considers his emendation of Mp I Kgs 15:5 to be a correction or a standardization. I follow Dotan and Reich (§‫)הנָּ ִביא‬ ַ in limiting ֗‫“ בעינ‬in this context” to 1 Kgs 14–16. Ibid. 96 Ginsburg, 1, ‫ח‬, §514. 97 MpA 1 Kgs 15:5; Haketer, “Kings I & II,” 111; Ginsburg, 2, ‫ע‬, §803. 94 95

1 KINGS

243

NOTE 331: 1 KINGS 15:20 ‫ ֶאת‬a

MpBHS MpL

‫פסוק את את ואת ואת ואת‬ ֗ ‫י֗ ֗ד‬ Fourteen verses have ‫את את ואת ואת ואת‬.

MpA

No note.

‫פסוק את את ואת ואת ואת‬ ֗ ֗‫י֗ ז‬ Seventeen verses have ‫את את ואת ואת ואת‬.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 15:20 counts seventeen verses in which occurs ‫את את ואת ואת ואת‬, whereas ML has only fourteen. Accordingly, Weil emends the frequency note to ‫י֗ ֗ד‬ “fourteen times.” The fourteen references are: 98 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Exod 29:13 Exod 37:16 Lev 11:22 Josh 8:1 Josh 21:13 Josh 21:21 Josh 21:27

(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

687F

Josh 21:38 Judg 18:17 1 Kgs 15:20 1 Chr 6:52 2 Chr 11:20 2 Chr 16:4 2 Chr 29:18

In addition to correcting the frequency error, Weil marks this Mp note “sub loco” because the circellus that he presents in BHS is absent ML.

NOTE 332: 1 KINGS 16:2 ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times written thus.

MpA

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice written thus.

MpC

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times written thus. No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 16:2 counts two occurrences of the plene ‫ י‬form ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬,ְ and this is the correct tally for this exact form if one limits the scope to Kings. In accordance with ֗ ֗‫)ו‬, Weil counts six forms, including two non-prefixed plene ‫י‬ MpL Ezek 8:17 (‫כת כן‬ forms. The six for which he completes the Masorah are: See also Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna, 223; Dotan and Reich, § [...]‫[ ֶאת־‬...]‫ֶאת־‬ ‫[ וְ ֵאת‬...] ‫[ וְ ֵאת‬...]‫וְ ֶאת־‬. 98

244

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) 1 Kgs 14:9 ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬ (2) 1 Kgs 16:2 ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬ (3) 2 Kgs 22:17 ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬

(4) Ezek 8:17 (5) Ezek 16:26 (6) 2 Chr 34:25

‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬ ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ְל ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬ ‫יסנִ י‬ ֵ ‫ַה ְכ ִﬠ‬

Weil emends the frequency from ‫“ ֗ב‬twice” to ֗‫“ ו‬six times,” which is the reason for the sub loco note, and his emendation accords with MpA 1 Kgs 16:2. For a discussion of problems related to the tally of six, see note 327 (1 Kgs 14:9).

NOTE 333: 1 KINGS 17:4 ‫ֵמ ַהנַּ ַחל‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

ֵ whereas ML contains only one. MpL 1 Kgs 17:4 counts two occurrences of ‫מ ַהנַּ ַחל‬, 99 Weil emends the frequency to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique,” which is the reason for the sub loco note, and his emendation accords with MpA,C 1 Kgs 17:4. 68F

NOTE 334: 1 KINGS 17:7 ‫ָה ָי֥ה‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫דמטע‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times with this accent which might lead to error.

MpA

‫מטע‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times with this accent which might lead to error.

MpC

No note.

‫בט‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times with this accent.

ML contains ninety occurrences of ‫ ָה ָי֥ה‬with mêrəḵâ, and MpL 1 Kgs 17:7 notes that three of these ninety appear to be mistaken but are indeed correct. MmC Jer 52:6 100 indicates that the three occurrences are: 101 689F

690F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫מ ַהנַּ ַחל‬. ֵ ‫ לחם‬.‫ גשם‬.‫דמל‬ ֗ ‫ הנחל‬:‫בט וסימנהון‬ ֗ ‫מטע‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬three times that might lead to error with this accent: 1 Kgs 17:7; Jer 14:4; 52:6.” 101 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ה ָי֥ה‬. ָ 99

100.‫דירמ‬ ֗

1 KINGS (1) (2) (3)

1 Kgs 17:7 Jer 14:4 Jer 52:6

245

‫ָה ָי֥ה ֶג ֶ֖שׁם‬ ‫ָה ָי֥ה ֶג ֶ֖שׁם‬ ‫ָה ָי֥ה ֶל ֶ֖חם‬

These three milraʿ forms of ‫ ָה ָי֥ה‬are distinct from the other eighty-seven in that they precede a word accented with ṭiṕḥâ on the first or only syllable and thereby violate the rule of nasôḡ ʾaḥôr. It seems, then, that Weil marks this Mp note “sub loco” because he wishes to clarify its purpose.

NOTE 335: 1 KINGS 17:23 ‫ֵ ֣א ִל ָ֔יּהוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice with this accent.

MpA

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice with this accent.

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice with this accent.

MpC

‫בט‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice with this accent.

ML contains nine occurrences of ‫ ֵ ֣א ִל ָ֔יּהוּ‬with mûnaḥ-zaqeṕ: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Kgs 17:18 1 Kgs 17:23b 1 Kgs 17:24 1 Kgs 18:1 1 Kgs 18:46

(6) (7) (8) (9)

1 Kgs 21:20 2 Kgs 1:15 2 Kgs 2:1a 2 Kgs 2:11

Perez Castro explains that the tally of two only counts forms of ‫ ֵ ֣א ִל ָ֔יּהוּ‬to which a particle is not attached (by maqqeṕ). 102 Of the nine listed above, the only two that meet this criterion are 1 Kgs 17:23b and 2 Kgs 2:11. That 2 Kgs 2:11 is the other occurrence included in the Masorah’s tally of two is certain because MpA,L,C 2 Kgs 2:11 all present notes for ‫ ֵ ֣א ִל ָ֔יּהוּ‬that count it as one of two occurrences “with this accent.” 103 In not emending MpL 1 Kgs 17:23, Weil’s treatment of the Masorah is consistent with MpA,C. It seems that Weil marks this note “sub loco” because he wishes to simply clarify MpL. 692F

102 103

Perez Castro, “Reyes,” 135; Likewise, Haketer, “Kings I & II,” 125 Weil does not present a sub loco note for MpL 2 Kgs 2:11, however.

246

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 336: 1 KINGS 18:1 ‫ֵה ָר ֵאה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫ֵ֗ב‬ Twice with ṣerê.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL 1 Kgs 18:1 counts two occurrences of ‫ה ָר ֵאה‬,ֵ whereas ML contains only one occurrence. Weil emends the Mp note to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” (without ṣerê) in accordance with the text of ML, 104 and this emendation is the reason for the sub loco note. Dotan and Reich (§‫)ה ָר ֵאה‬ ֵ suggest that the MpL note ‫“ ֵ֗ב‬twice with ṣerê ” may be presented here mistakenly as a result of confusion with the Masorah for ‫ל ֵה ָראֹה‬.ְ This form occurs twice (Judg 13:21; 1 Sam 3:21), and MpL presents the note ‫ ֗ב‬for both occurrences. 105 694F

NOTE 337: 1 KINGS 18:27 ‫ַב ָצּ ֳה ַריִם‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗י֗ב‬ Twelve times.

MpA

No note.

‫י֗ ֗א‬ Eleven times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 18:27 counts eleven occurrences of ‫ב ָצּ ֳה ַריִ ם‬,ַ 106 whereas ML contains twelve occurrences of the form (regardless of spirantization of ‫ ב‬and tonal lengthening). The forms and their references are: 107 69F

Likewise, MpA,C 1 Kgs 18:1. It would appear that the purpose of the vowel ṣerê in MpL 1 Kgs 18:1 is to ensure that text is vocalized as a nifal imperative. 106 Likewise, MpL 1 Kgs 20:16, which is the focus of sub loco note 341. 107 Catchphrases for the twelve are listed in MmV 1 Kgs 18:27; Ginsburg, 2, ‫צ‬, §74; Dotan and Reich, §‫ב ָצּ ֳה ַריִם‬.ַ 104 105

1 KINGS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Gen 43:16 Gen 43:25 Deut 28:29 1 Kgs 18:27 1 Kgs 20:16 Isa 59:10

‫ַבּ ָצּ ֳה ָריִ ם‬ ‫ַבּ ָצּ ֳה ָריִ ם‬ ‫ַבּ ָצּ ֳה ַריִ ם‬ ‫ַב ָצּ ֳה ַריִ ם‬ ‫ַבּ ָצּ ֳה ָריִ ם‬ ‫ַב ָצּ ֳה ַריִ ם‬

(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

247

Jer 6:4 Jer 15:8 Amos 8:9 Zeph 2:4 Job 5:14 Song 1:7

‫ַב ָצּ ֳה ָריִ ם‬ ‫ַבּ ָצּ ֳה ָריִ ם‬ ‫ַבּ ָצּ ֳה ָריִ ם‬ ‫ַבּ ָצּ ֳה ַריִ ם‬ ‫ַב ָצּ ֳה ָריִ ם‬ ‫ַבּ ָצּ ֳה ָריִ ם‬

Accordingly, Weil corrects the frequency note to ‫“ י֗ ֗ב‬twelve times,” and this is the reason for the sub loco note. His emendation accords with MpA,C 1 Kgs 10:22.

NOTE 338: 1 KINGS 18:27 �‫ִשׂ ַי‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ה‬ Five times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 18:27 counts eight occurrences of �‫שׂ ַי‬, ִ whereas ML has only five: 108 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Gen 2:5 1 Kgs 18:27 Job 12:8 Job 30:4 Prov 23:29

697F

Accordingly, Weil emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ה‬five times,” which is the reason for the sub loco note. It is likely that the frequency error arose due to confusion of ‫ ה‬and ‫ח‬.

NOTE 339: 1 KINGS 18:44 ‫ַבּ ְשּׁ ִב ִﬠית‬ MpBHS MpL 108

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice written thus.

MpA

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice written thus.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective. No note.

The following list is presented in Ginsburg, 2, ‫ש‬, §357; Dotan and Reich, §�‫שׂ ַי‬. ִ

248

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpL 1 Kgs 18:44 counts two occurrences of ‫ ַבּ ְשּׁ ִב ִﬠית‬spelled in this way (defective ‫י‬ followed by plene ‫)י‬. ML contains only one occurrence of this form, however, but the tally rises to two if one includes the similar form ‫( ַה ְשּׁ ִב ִﬠית‬2 Chr 23:1). 109 Weil ֗ ‫֗ג‬ completes the note ‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬twice written thus” for 2 Chr 23:1, where MpL has ‫כת‬ 110 ‫“ כן‬three times written thus.” The tally of three is not necessarily incorrect, however. Breuer (The Biblical Text, ‫יז‬-‫ )יח‬explains that MmLm groups together the three occurrences in the Bible that have an initial defective ‫י‬: the two aforementioned forms and ‫וּב ְשּׁ ִב ִﬠת‬ ַ (Exod 21:2). The stricture ‫כת כן‬ ֗ in MpL 2 Chr 23:1, then, only pertains to the orthography for the first of the “i”-class vowels. Therefore, Weil’s emendation of MpL 2 Chr 23:1 is best considered a standardization of the Masorah. In this light, it is reasonable to assume that Weil presents a sub loco note for MpL 1 Kgs 18:44 because he intended to comment on the confusion that arises from the two different meanings of ‫כת כן‬. ֗

NOTE 340: 1 KINGS 19:21 ‫ִבּ ְשּׁ ָלם‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫֗ב ובתרי֗ לישנ‬ Twice and with two different meanings.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL 1 Kgs 19:21 marks ‫ ִבּ ְשּׁ ָלם‬as unique, in accordance with MpA,C 1 Kgs 19:21 and the text of ML. 111 Weil, however, emends the frequency to two and adds a supplementary note that indicates that ‫ ִבּ ְשּׁ ָלם‬and a nearly identical Aramaic form (‫בּ ְשׁ ָלם‬,ִ ֗ Ezra 4:7) have different meanings. 112 This emendation is based on MpL Ezra 4:7 (‫)ב‬, which groups these two forms together. The two forms are not morphologically identical, however, and thus, pace Weil, should not be counted as homonymous hapax doublets. 113 702F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫בּ ְשּׁ ִב ִﬠית‬.ַ MpA presents the note ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ב‬in both instances. On the other hand, Haketer (“Kings I & II,” 130) concludes that MpA 1 Kgs 18:44 counts the two similar forms prefixed with ‫ב‬: ‫( ַבּ ְשּׁ ִב ִﬠית‬1 Kgs 18:44) and ‫וּב ְשּׁ ִב ִﬠת‬ ַ (Exod 21:2). 111 Likewise, BHQ, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 17*. 112 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁ ָלם‬ ְ ‫בּ‬.ִ 113 OchlahH, §60 presents a list of homonymous hapax doublets but does not include these two forms. 109 110

1 KINGS

249

NOTE 341: 1 KINGS 20:16 ‫ַבּ ָצּ ֳה ָריִ ם‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗י֗ב‬ Twelve times.

MpA

No note.

‫י֗ ֗א‬ Eleven times.

MpC

No note.

See note 337 (1 Kgs 18:27).

NOTE 342: 1 KINGS 21:4 ‫בוֹתי‬ ָ ‫ֲא‬ MpBHS MpBHS

‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven times plene.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven times plene.

‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven times plene. 114

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫ז‬ Seven times plene.

ָ ‫א‬/ ֲ ‫בוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ ֲא‬, and the tally rises to ML contains six occurrences of the plene ‫ ו‬form ‫בוֹתי‬ seven 115 if one includes the similar form ‫בוֹתי‬ ַ ‫( וַ ֲא‬2 Chr 32:13), as per MmA Ps 39:13. 116 The seven are: 705F

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Kgs 21:4 2 Kgs 19:12 Isa 37:12 Ps 39:13

‫בוֹתי‬ ָ ‫ֲא‬ ‫בוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ֲא‬ ‫בוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ֲא‬ ‫בוֹתי‬ ָ ‫ֲא‬

(5) 2 Chr 32:13 (6) 2 Chr 32:14 (7) 2 Chr 32:15

‫בוֹתי‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲא‬ ‫בוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ֲא‬ ‫בוֹתי‬ ָ ‫ֲא‬

It is reasonable to suppose that Weil intended to discuss Ginsburg’s suggestions that the rule should properly read either ‫בוֹתי‬ ַ ‫וא וַ ֲא‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫בוֹתי ו‬ ַ ‫בוֹתי“ ֲא‬ ַ ‫ ֲא‬occurs six times plene and once as ‫בוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ ”וַ ֲא‬or ֗‫מל בלישי‬ ֗ ֗‫בוֹתי ז‬ ַ ‫בוֹתי“ ֲא‬ ַ ‫ ֲא‬occurs seven times plene in this and a similar case.” 117 It is also possible that he would have addressed the incorrect tally of ten plene forms found in MpBHK 1 Kgs 21:4 (‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫)י‬.

While ‫מל‬ ֗ appears clearly in MpL, the frequency note ֗‫ ז‬is faded. A,C Cf. Mp 1 Kgs 21:4; MpL 2 Kgs 19:12. 116 ‫ מי בכל‬.‫ הלא תדעו‬.‫ אשר השחיתו‬.‫ אשר שחתו אבותי‬.‫ ויבא אחאב אל ביתו‬:‫מל‬ ֗ ֗‫אבותי ז‬ .‫ תושב ככל אבותי‬.‫ ועתה אל ישיא‬.‫“ אלהי‬there are seven plene occurrences of ‫אבותי‬: 1 Kgs 21:4; 2 Kgs 19:12; Isa 37:12; 2 Chr 32:13; 32:14; 32:15; Ps 39:13.” See also Dotan and Reich, §‫בוֹתי‬ ַ ‫א‬, ֲ 2 Kgs 19:12. 117 Ginsburg, 4, ‫א‬, §39. 114 115

250

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 343: 1 KINGS 21:11 ‫ ָשׁ ְל ָחה‬a

MpBHS MpL

֗‫ו‬ Six times.

MpA

No note.

֗‫ו‬ Six times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 1 Kgs 21:11 counts six occurrences of ‫שׁ ְל ָחה‬, ָ whereas ML contains only four such forms, with the tally rising to five if the one occurrence of ‫ וְ ָשׁ ְל ָחה‬is included: 118 70F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Gen 38:25 ‫ָשׁ ְל ָחה‬ Deut 25:11 ‫וְ ָשׁ ְל ָחה‬ 1 Kgs 21:11a ‫ָשׁ ְל ָחה‬ 1 Kgs 21:11b ‫ָשׁ ְל ָחה‬ Prov 9:3 ‫ָשׁ ְל ָחה‬

Since Weil does not complete the Masorah for any of the three forms, it is possible that he regards this as a matching error for the nearly identical form ‫( ִשׁ ְל ָחה‬without mappîq in the ‫ ה‬and without daḡeš in the ‫)ל‬. This form does occur six times, a fact that is noted in the Masorah: 119 (1) Gen 43:8 (2) 1 Sam 16:11 (3) 1 Sam 16:19

708F

(4) 2 Kgs 4:22 (5) Ezek 17:7 (6) Ezek 31:4

Without additional evidence, however, one cannot be sure how Weil would have addressed this issue.

See Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁ ְל ָחה‬. ָ MpA,L 2 Kgs 4:22; MmL Ezek 31:4 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §2915): ‫ ויאמר‬. ̇‫ִשׁ ְל ָחה ו‬ .‫ ואת תעלתיה‬.‫ ודליותיו‬.‫ שלחה וקחנו‬.‫ שלחה נא לי‬.‫ ויאמר שלחה אלי‬.‫“ יהודה אל ישראל‬there are six occurrences of ‫שׁ ְל ָחה‬: ִ Gen 43:8; 1 Sam 16:19; 2 Kgs 4:22; 1 Sam 16:11; Ezek 17:7; 31:4 .” See also Ginsburg, 2, ‫ש‬, §499. 118 119

1 KINGS

251

NOTE 344: 1 KINGS 22:27 ‫וְ ַה ֲא ִכ ֻילהוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

MpA

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

MpC

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫]וְ ַה ֲא ִכ ֻלהוּ[ ֗ב‬ Twice defective.

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ ]וְ ַה ֲא ִכ ֻלהוּ[ ֗ל‬120 Once defective. 709F

MpL 1 Kgs 22:27 counts two defective forms of ‫וְ ַה ֲא ִכ ֻילהוּ‬, whereas in ML the defective ‫ י‬form ‫ וְ ַה ֲא ִכ ֻלהוּ‬occurs only in 2 Chr 18:26. By contrast, MA contains two occurrences of the defective form ‫( וְ ַה ֲא ִכ ֻלהוּ‬1 Kgs 22:27; 2 Chr 18:26), 121 and this accords with MpA,L 1 Kgs 22:27. Accordingly, Weil prints this MpL 1 Kgs 22:27 without emendation, and he comments in the masoretic apparatus that 1 Kgs 22:27 is to be read contra textum. This latter consideration is the reason for the sub loco note. 710F

NOTE 345: 1 KINGS 22:36 ‫ְכּבֹא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

MpL 1 Kgs 22:36 agrees with the text of ML in counting six occurrences of the defective form ‫כּבֹא‬.ְ The six references are: 122 (1) Exod 33:9 (2) Deut 24:13 (3) 1 Kgs 22:36

71F

(4) 2 Kgs 6:32 (5) 2 Kgs 10:2 123 (6) 2 Kgs 10:7

MmV Exod 33:9 lists six forms, as well, but it excludes Deut 24:13, which is plene in MV, and it includes the similar form ‫וּכב ֹא‬ ְ (Deut 23:12): 124 713F

Perez Castro (“Kings,” 167) notes that the first hand is witness to the plene form. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ ַה ֲא ִכ ֻילהוּ‬. While MC reads ‫ וְ ַה ֲא ִכ ֻלהוּ‬for 1 Kgs 22:27, MpC marks it as unique. Breuer (The Biblical Text, 118, n.86) suggests that the scope of this note may be limited to the Prophets, as per MS1. 122 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫כּבֹא‬, ְ Exod 33:9. 123 While ML reads ‫ ְכּבֹא‬here, earlier printings of BHS incorrectly have ‫בּבֹא‬. ְ This error has been corrected in the fifth edition of BHS. 120 121

252

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) Exod 33:9 ‫ְכּבֹא‬ (2) Deut 23:12 ‫וּכבֹא‬ ְ (3) 1 Kgs 22:36 ‫ְכּבֹא‬

(4) 2 Kgs 6:32 (5) 2 Kgs 10:2 (6) 2 Kgs 10:7

‫ְכּבֹא‬ ‫ְכּבֹא‬ ‫ְכּבֹא‬

Like MmV, Weil excludes Deut 24:13. Unlike MmV, however, he excludes Deut 23:12 as well, which leads him to reduce the tally to five. 125 Weil’s emendation is at variance with MpA,C 1 Kgs 22:36, however, as both present the tally of six. Even though the editors of the fifth revised edition of BHS correctly print the tally of six, they do so only for the five occurrences of ‫ ְכּבֹא‬and not the one instance of ‫וּכבֹא‬. ְ

NOTE 346: 1 KINGS 22:48 �‫וּמ ֶל‬ ֶ MpBHS

‫י֗ ו֗ ר״פ וס״פ חד‬ Sixteen verses that end with a form similar to the one that begins the verse. ‫וסופ חד‬ ֗ ‫ראש‬ ֗ ‫פסוק‬ ֗ ֗‫֗לז‬ Thirty-seven verses whose beginning and ending is the same.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

According to MpL 1 Kgs 22:48, there are thirty-seven verses that begin and end with the same form. Weil treats the tally of thirty-seven as a frequency error and emends it to sixteen. By comparing the verses for which he completes his revised Mp note it becomes clear that he interprets the scope of the note to include verses that begin with a word prefixed with waw and conclude with the waw-less form of the same word. The sixteen occurrences are:

124

‫ ראו‬.‫ ויעבר הרנה במחנה‬.‫ וכבא השמש יבא‬.‫ כבא משה האהלה‬: ֗‫חס בלישנא וסי‬ ֗ ֗‫כבא ו‬ .‫ ויהי כבא הספר אליהם‬.‫ כבא הספר הזה אליכם‬.‫“ כבא מלאך סגור הדלת‬there are six occurrences of the defective form ‫ כבא‬in this and similar forms, and their references are Exod 33:9; Deut 23:12; 1 Kgs 22:36; 2 Kgs 6:32; 10:2; 10:7.” See also Breuer, The Biblical Text, 39. 125 Mynatt (Sub Loco, 128–29) correctly observes that Weil’s emended tally of five excludes the similar form ‫וּכבֹא‬ ְ (Deut 23:12), but he fails to note that Weil excludes the ‫ ְכּבֹא‬in Deut 24:13.

1 KINGS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Exod 26:24 Exod 32:16 Num 8:12 Num 31:40 Num 32:1 Num 32:41 Josh 15:25 Judg 11:1

‫יִ ְהיוּ‬...‫וְ יִ ְהיוּ‬ ‫ה ֻלּחֹת‬...‫ֹת‬ ַ ‫וְ ַה ֻלּח‬ ‫ה ְלוִ יִּ ם‬...‫ם‬ ַ ִ‫וְ ַה ְלוִ יּ‬ ‫נָ ֶפשׁ‬...‫וְ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬ ‫מ ְקנֶ ה‬...‫ה‬ ִ ֶ‫וּמ ְקנ‬ ִ ‫יָ ִאיר‬...‫וְ יָ ִאיר‬ ‫חצוֹר‬...‫צוֹר‬ ָ ‫וְ ָח‬ ‫יִ ְפ ָתּח‬...‫וְ יִ ְפ ָ ֣תּח‬

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

253

1 Sam 26:23 2 Sam 9:12 2 Sam 19:8 1 Kgs 22:48 2 Kgs 23:25 Esth 7:7 Neh 11:21 1 Chr 9:8

‫יְ הוָ ה‬...‫וַ יהוָ ה‬ ‫ל ְמ ִפיב ֶֹשׁת‬...‫ת‬ ִ ‫וְ ִל ְמ ִפיב ֶֹשׁ‬ ‫ﬠ ָתּה‬...‫ה‬ ָ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּ‬ �‫מ ֶל‬...� ֶ ‫וּמ ֶל‬ ֶ ‫כּמֹהוּ‬...‫ֹהוּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ָכמ‬ �‫ה ֶמּ ֶל‬...� ַ ‫וְ ַה ֶמּ ֶל‬ ‫הנְּ ִתינִ ים‬...‫ים‬ ַ ִ‫וְ ַהנְּ ִתינ‬ ‫יִבנִ יָּ ה‬...‫ה‬ ְ ָ‫ וְ ְיִבנְ י‬126 F

Weil presents his revised Mp note for the first word of all sixteen verses except for the first two, but this seems to be a simple oversight. A second reason for this sub loco note is that Weil emends ‫וסופ‬ ֗ ‫ראש‬ ֗ ‫פסוק‬ ֗ to ‫ ר״פ וס״פ‬for the sake of standardizing Masorah. However, Dotan and Reich (§�‫[ ֶמ ֶל‬...] �‫)וּמ ֶל‬ ֶ explain that the tally of thirtyseven is in fact correct, and they present the follow list of verses, which, as they indicate, is addressed in MfL: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Gen 9:3 Exod 26:24 Exod 32:16 Lev 7:19 Lev 23:42 Num 3:33 Num 8:12 Num 31:40 Num 32:1 Num 32:41 Deut 31:3 Josh 15:25 Judg 5:24

(14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)

Judg 9:51 Judg 11:1 1 Sam 26:23 2 Sam 9:12 2 Sam 19:8 1 Kgs 7:41 1 Kgs 22:48 2 Kgs 23:25 Isa 38:20 Isa 53:6 Isa 57:1 Ezek 10:11 Ezek 34:5

(27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37)

Ezek 46:7 Zech 1:2 Ps 53:3 Ps 77:14 Lam 2:12 Esth 7:7 Neh 11:21 1 Chr 8:38 1 Chr 9:44 1 Chr 9:8 1 Chr 26:18

Thus, Weil has incorrectly resolved the masoretic note under consideration.

126

Note that these two forms are not pointed identically.

CHAPTER 7: 2 KINGS

NOTE 347: 2 KINGS 1:15 ‫אוֹתוֹ‬a

MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ֗‫מל ו‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ד‬ Twenty-four times plene, six of which are in this book.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ה‬ Twenty-five times plene.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ה‬ Twenty-five times plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ה‬ Twenty-five times plene.

ML contains thirty-seven occurrences of ‫( אוֹתוֹ‬and similar, prefixed cases), and if all occurrences within Judges are counted as one, the tally reduces to twenty-five, as per MpL 2 Kgs 1:15. Even though this tally is supported by MpA,C 2 Kgs 1:15, Weil emends the tally to twenty-four, in accordance with MpL Mal 1:12. For a discussion of this discrepancy and problems related to this Mp note, see note 32 (Josh 16:6). 1 716F

Weil supplements the emended MpL note with a (modified) completion of MpL 2 Kgs 3:11 and 2 Kgs 8:8, which notes that there are six cases within Kings (‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ֗‫)ו‬. ML contains seven such cases, however, and this issue is also addressed in the commentary on sub loco note 32. 1

255

256

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 348: 2 KINGS 1:15 ‫אוֹתוֹ‬b

MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ֗‫מל ו‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ד‬ Twenty-four times plene, six of which are in this book. No note.

MpL

No note.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ה‬ Twenty-five times plene.

MpC

See note 347 (2 Kgs 1:15).

NOTE 349: 2 KINGS 2:4 ‫אמר לוֹ ֵא ִליָּ הוּ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note.

As per MpL 2 Kgs 2:4, ML contains two occurrences of ‫אמר לוֹ ֵא ִליָּ הוּ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬: 2 Kgs 2:4; 2:6. 2 Because MA,L,C all contain two occurrences of this phrase—even when accents and the position in the verse are considered—Weil has clearly erred in emending the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique.” MpA 2 Kgs 2:6 also presents the frequency note ‫֗ב‬ “twice,” which confirms MpL 2 Kgs 2:4 and indicates that Weil was not guided by MpA in his emendation of MpL.

NOTE 350: 2 KINGS 2:18 ‫ֲהלוֹא‬ MpBHS MpL

◦

No note.

No note [‫]הלֹא‬. ֲ

MpA

No note [‫]הלֹא‬. ֲ

MpC

MpL 1 Kgs 2:42 notes that the plene form ‫ ֲהלוֹא‬occurs seventeen times in Kings 3 but ML contains twenty occurrences of ‫הלוֹא‬: ֲ 4 (‫)בסיפ‬, ֗ 719F

2 3

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫אמר לוֹ ֵא ִליָּ הוּ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬. Likewise, MpA,C 1 Kgs 2:42.

2 KINGS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

1 Kgs 1:11 1 Kgs 2:42 1 Kgs 11:41 1 Kgs 15:7 1 Kgs 16:14 1 Kgs 22:18 1 Kgs 22:39 2 Kgs 1:18 2 Kgs 2:18 2 Kgs 5:13

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

257

2 Kgs 6:11 2 Kgs 6:32 2 Kgs 8:23 2 Kgs 10:34 2 Kgs 12:20 2 Kgs 13:8 2 Kgs 13:12 2 Kgs 15:21 2 Kgs 18:22 2 Kgs 20:19

For three of the twenty (2 Kgs 2:18; 8:23; 13:12), MA has the defective ‫ ו‬counterpart, which reduces the tally to seventeen; 5 and it is in accordance with MA that Weil completes the Masorah. Presumably, it is Weil’s contra textum reading in 2 Kgs 2:18 that occasions this sub loco note. 720F

NOTE 351: 2 KINGS 3:12 ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ֗‫מל ו‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ד‬ Twenty-four times plene, six of which are in this book.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ה‬ Twenty-five times plene.

MpC

See note 347 (2 Kgs 1:15).

No note.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ה‬ Twenty-five times plene.

See Weil’s note in the Masoretic apparatus at 2 Kgs 2:18: “Lectio plena contra Mp ֗‫י֗ ז‬ ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬, ֗ cf 1 R 2,42 et Mp sub loco.” 5 For the list of seventeen, see Breuer, The Biblical Text, 395; Dotan and Reich, §‫הלוֹא‬, ֲ 1 Kgs 2:42. MpBHS 1 Kgs 22:18 erroneously presents the tally thirty-five. This is a misprint, however, and it is clear that Weil regards this as one of the seventeen. 4

258

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 352: 2 KINGS 3:16 ‫ָﬠשׂ ֹה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpA

‫֗כ ֗ג‬ Twenty-three times.

MpC

No note. ‫ו֗ ֗ק‬ Read ‫ﬠשׂוֹ‬.ָ

MpL 2 Kgs 3:16 counts twenty-three occurrences of ‫ﬠשׂ ֹה‬.ָ 6 ML contains only eight occurrences of this form, however, and Weil revises the frequency accordingly. For a list of occurrences and for discussion of related problems, see note 190 (1 Sam 26:25). 721F

NOTE 353: 2 KINGS 3:26 ‫אוֹתוֹ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ֗‫מל ו‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ד‬ Twenty-four times plene, six of which are in this book.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ה‬ Twenty-five times plene.

MpC

See note 347 (2 Kgs 1:15).

No note.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗כ ֗ה‬ Twenty-five times plene.

NOTE 354: 2 KINGS 3:27 ‫ַהח ָֹמה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times defective in this book.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

MpC

No note. ֗‫חס ו‬ ֗ Lacking ‫ו‬.

MpL 2 Kgs 3:27 ostensibly counts six occurrences of the defective form ‫הח ָֹמה‬,ַ 7 but ֗ ֗‫“ ו‬six times defective” to ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ה‬five times ML contains only five. Weil emends ‫חס‬ 6 7

MC includes the qərê ‫ ָﬠשׂוֹ‬whereas MA,L do not. Likewise, MpL 2 Kgs 6:26, though Weil does not add a sub loco note there.

2 KINGS

259

defective” and adds the stricture ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ “in this book” because all forms occur within Kings: 8 723F

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

2 Kgs 3:27 2 Kgs 6:26 2 Kgs 6:30 2 Kgs 18:26 2 Kgs 18:27

Contrary to Perez Castro (“Reyes,” 205), who posits ‫( ַהחֹמ ַֹתיִ ם‬2 Kgs 25:4) as a sixth occurrence, and Weil, who reduces the tally to five, the problem is one of metathe֗ ֗‫ו‬, MpC 2 Kgs 3:27 correctly has ֗‫חס ו‬, ֗ sis. Whereas MpL 2 Kgs 3:27 presents ‫חס‬ 9 L which should be read as “lacking ‫ו‬.” Instead of emending Mp 2 Kgs 3:27 as he has, Weil should have emended the note in accordance with MpC 2 Kgs 3:27. 724F

NOTE 355: 2 KINGS 4:13 ֘‫ִה ֵנּ֣ה ָח ַ ֣ר ְד ְתּ׀ ֵא ֵלינוּ‬ MpBHS

‫דסמיכ לזרקא‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice when near zarqâ. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

Though MpL does not present a note for ֘‫ה ֵנּ֣ה ָח ַ ֣ר ְד ְתּ׀ ֵא ֵלינוּ‬,ִ Weil adds the note ‫֗ב‬ ‫דסמיכ לזרקא‬ ֗ “twice when near zarqâ” and marks it “sub loco.” This note is the completion of Weil’s revised Mp note for ‫ם‬ ֒ ‫ ָד‬in Gen 37:22. There MpL presents ֗‫֗הי‬ ‫לזרק‬ ֗ ‫דם‬, which, as Mynatt observes, is unintelligible. 10 He explains that Weil attempts to resolve this problem by (1) applying ֗‫ ֗הי‬to the note for the subsequent term ‫וְ יָ ד‬, (2) adding the frequency note ‫ב‬,֗ and (3) featuring ‫דסמיכ‬ ֗ in place of ‫דם‬. In so doing, Weil correctly emends the Masorah in accordance with Yeivin (Introduction, §262), who notes that Gen 37:22 ( ֘‫אוּבן‬ ֵ ‫אמר ֲא ֵל ֶ ֣הם׀ ְר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ )וַ ֙יּ‬and 2 Kgs 4:13 ( ‫ִה ֵנּ֣ה ָח ַ ֣ר ְד ְתּ׀‬ ֘‫)א ֵלינוּ‬ ֵ are the two exceptions to a certain rule concerning zarqâ: “Where zarqa has two servi, the first before zarqa is usually munaḥ…However if the first servus before zarqa is followed by paseq (#283), that servus is merka.” ML contains a third exception to this rule in Josh 14:10 ( ֘‫אוֹתי‬ ִ ‫הו֣ה׀‬ ָ ְ‫ח ה י‬ ָ֙‫)ה ֱ י‬, ֶ 11 but reading contra textum, Weil follows a tradition attested in MA, which correctly has mêrəḵâ. 726F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫הח ָֹמה‬,ַ 2 Kgs 3:27. Similarly, MpC 1 Kgs 7:33 (sub loco note 299). See also MpC 2 Kgs 13:6 (sub loco note 373), where the note ‫חס ֗א‬ ֗ “lacking ‫ ”א‬is found. 10 Mynatt, Sub Loco, 84. Mynatt incorrectly prints ‫ לזרקא‬in his transcription of MpL. 11 See also MC. 8 9

260

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Thus, Weil correctly emends the Mp note but fails to move the circellus in Gen 37:22 from ‫ם‬ ֒ ‫ ָד‬to ֘‫אוּבן‬ ֵ ‫אמר ֲא ֵל ֶ ֣הם׀ ְר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֙יּ‬. It would seem, then, that since MpBHS 2 Kgs 4:13 is not in error, the purpose of this sub loco note is to identify 2 Kgs 4:13 (and not Josh 14:10) as the second of the two occurrences counted in MpL Gen 37:22.

NOTE 356: 2 KINGS 4:41 ‫וְ לֹא ָהיָ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗כ ֗ה‬ Twenty-five times.

MpA

No note.

֗‫֗כז‬ Twenty-seven times.

MpC

No note.

See note 16 (Josh 10:14).

NOTE 357: 2 KINGS 5:15 ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗כ‬ Twenty times with this accent.

MpA

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ט‬ Nine times with this accent.

MpC

No note. ‫בט‬ ֗ ֗‫י֗ ז‬ Seventeen times with this accent.

MpL 2 Kgs 5:15 counts nine occurrences of ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬with the təḇîr accent, whereas ML contains twelve, nine of which occur in the Prophets and Writings: 12 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Gen 47:4 Num 11:6 Num 22:34 2 Sam 19:10 1 Kgs 1:18b 2 Kgs 5:15

(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

Isa 5:3 Hos 2:12 Mic 4:11 Mal 1:9 Ezra 9:10 Ezra 10:2

72F

Weil emends the tally to twenty, which includes all occurrences of ‫ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬and the similar form ‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬. 13 The list of the twenty is presented in note 191 (1 Sam 27:1). 728 F

12 13

See Dotan and Reich §‫וְ ַﬠ ָ ֛תּה‬, 2 Kgs 5:15. The tally of seventeen, which MpC 2 Kgs 5:15 presents, is corrupt.

2 KINGS

261

NOTE 358: 2 KINGS 6:22 ‫ִשׂים‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗כ ֗ד‬ Twenty-four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗כ ֗ב‬ Twenty-two times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Kgs 6:22 counts only twenty-two occurrences of ‫שׂים‬. ִ ML, on the other hand, contains thirty-six occurrences of this form: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

Gen 24:2 Gen 31:37 Gen 47:29 Gen 48:18 Josh 7:19 Josh 8:2 Judg 18:19 1 Sam 9:23 1 Sam 9:24 2 Sam 14:7 (qere) 2 Kgs 6:22 Jer 38:12

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Josh 7:19 Josh 8:2 Judg 18:19 1 Sam 9:23 1 Sam 9:24 2 Sam 14:7 (qere) 2 Kgs 6:22 Jer 38:12

(13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)

Jer 39:12 Ezek 6:2 Ezek 13:17 Ezek 21:2 Ezek 21:7 Ezek 21:24 Ezek 25:2 Ezek 28:21 Ezek 29:2 Ezek 35:2 Ezek 38:2 Ezek 44:5

(25) Obad 4 (26) Job 20:4 (27) Job 40:32 (28) Dan 3:29 (29) Dan 4:3 (30) Dan 6:27 (31) Ezra 4:19 (32) Ezra 5:17 (33) Ezra 6:8 (34) Ezra 6:11 (35) Ezra 7:13 (36) Ezra 7:21

Nevertheless, Weil only counts twenty-four forms: 1–9, 11–24, and 27. He does not complete the Masorah for 2 Sam 14:7 (form 10), which has ‫ ִשׂים‬as a qərê. He also refrains from completing the Masorah for forms 26 and 35 (Job 20:4; Ezra 7:13), the two occurrences of ‫ ִמנִּ י ִשׂים‬that MpL Job 20:4 groups together. The remaining forms seem to be excluded because of text-critical considerations, as in BHS’s critical apparatus there is a variant reading for each of them. Unfortunately, none of the sources consulted addresses this rule, and so it is not clear why Weil resolves the Masorah as he does. Dotan and Reich (§‫)שׂים‬ ִ arrive at the tally of twenty-two by limiting the scope to the Prophets and Writings and by counting all occurrences within Ezekiel as one: (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

Jer 39:12 All of Ezekiel Obad 4 Job 20:4 Job 40:32 Dan 3:29 Dan 4:3 Dan 6:27

(17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22)

Ezra 4:19 Ezra 5:17 Ezra 6:8 Ezra 6:11 Ezra 7:13 Ezra 7:21

262

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

They acknowledge, however, that this solution is conjectural.

NOTE 359: 2 KINGS 7:5 ‫וַ יָּ קוּמוּ‬ MpBHS

MpL

◦ Lectio plena contra Mm 1663, cf 1 R 7,7 (sic) et Mp sub loco. 14

MpA

No note [‫]וַ יָּ ֻקמוּ‬.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ט‬ Nine times plene. 15

MpC

No note [‫]וַ יָּ ֻקמוּ‬.

MpL 2 Kgs 7:5 counts nine occurrences of ‫וַ יָּ קוּמוּ‬, whereas ML contains ten occurrences of this plene form: 16 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Gen 24:54 Num 22:14 Judg 20:19 1 Sam 23:24 1 Sam 31:12

731F

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

2 Kgs 7:5 2 Kgs 7:7 Ezra 1:5 Neh 9:3 1 Chr 10:12

In MpL the tally of nine occurs for all ten forms. As MpA,C 2 Kgs 7:5 and MmL 1 Sam 23:24 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §1663) bear witness, 17 however, the form under consideration should be written with defective spelling. Recognizing the error and reading against the text, Weil expunges the note here and explains in the masoretic apparatus that the plene reading contradicts MmL. “1 R 7,7” is incorrect and should read “2 R 7,7.” MpL presents in incorrect order the notes for three entries that occur at the end of 7:4 and the beginning of 7:5: ‫יתנוּ‬ ֻ ‫יְמ‬ ִ (‫)ה‬, ֗ ‫מל( וָ ָמ ְתנוּ‬ ֗ ‫)ט‬, ֗ and ‫וחס( וַ יָּ קוּמוּ‬ ֗ ‫)ל‬. ֗ BHK and Weil match the notes as follows: ‫יתנוּ‬ ֖ ֻ ‫יְמ‬ ִ (‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫)ל‬, ֗ ‫)ה( וָ ָ ֽמ ְתנוּ‬, ֗ and ‫מל( וַ יָּ קוּמוּ‬ ֗ ‫)ט‬. ֗ Seeing as how only the last of these three forms is marked with a sub loco note, it is not likely that this problem is the occasion for the note. 16 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וַ יָּ קוּמוּ‬, 1 Sam 23:24; BHQ, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 24*, 27*. This problem is not noted in BHQ, “Judges,” however. 17 .‫ עמדם‬.‫ ראשי‬.‫ המחנה‬.‫ ויקחו‬.‫ וישאו‬.‫ שאול‬.‫ מואב‬.‫ בבקר‬.‫ בבקר‬:‫מל וסימנהון‬ ֗ ‫ויקומו ֗ט‬ “there are nine plene occurrences of ‫ויקומו‬, and there references are Gen 24:54; Judg 20:19; Num 22:14; 1 Sam 23:24; 1 Chr 10:12; 1 Sam 31:12; 2 Kgs 7:7; Ezra 1:5; Neh 9:3.” Similarly MpA 2 Kgs 7:7; MmC Judg 20:19; MmV 1 Sam 23:24*; Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna, 166; Ginsburg, 2, ‫ק‬, §129. *MmV incorrectly marks the catchphrase for Neh 9:3 with ‫דד״ה‬. 14 15

2 KINGS

263

NOTE 360: 2 KINGS 7:17 ‫ל־ה ַשּׁ ַﬠר‬ ַ ‫ַﬠ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Unique in this form.

MpA

No note.

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times in this and similar forms.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Kgs 7:17 counts four occurrences of ‫ל־ה ַשּׁ ַﬠר‬ ַ ‫ﬠ‬.ַ Ginsburg (2, ‫ש‬, §855) identifies seven excluding those forms within Nehemiah, but he presents the tally of five because all occurrences within Chronicles are counted as one. 18 The seven references are: 73F

(1) (2) (3) (4)

2 Kings 7:17 Ezek 21:27 Prov 14:19 Song 7:5

(5) 2 Chr 23:19 (6) 2 Chr 26:9a (7) 2 Chr 26:9b

Dotan and Reich (§‫ל־ה ַשּׁ ַﬠר‬ ַ ‫)ﬠ‬ ַ plausibly suggest that the tally of four that MpL 2 Kgs 7:17 presents excludes occurrences within both Nehemiah and Chronicles. Weil, ֗ ‫֗ל‬ however, treats MpL’s tally of four as a frequency error and emends it to ‫בליש‬ “unique in this form.”

NOTE 361: 2 KINGS 8:21 ‫ַהסּ ֵֹביב‬ MpBHS MpL

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

MpA

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once written thus.

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

MpC

‫כת‬ ֗ ‫יתי֗ י֗ ֗ל‬ Superfluous ‫ ;י‬once written [thus].

While MpL 2 Kgs 8:21 counts three defective ‫ ו‬occurrences of ‫הסּ ֵֹביב‬,ַ this tally is only correct for ML if one also includes forms with defective ‫ י‬and the definite article: 19 734F

‫ומן ויקם על מעלה יד סופ׳ דספ׳ דכו׳‬...‫“ כל לשון ַשׁ ַﬠר ֶאל במ״ה ַﬠל‬every instance of ‫ַשׁ ַﬠר‬ occur with ‫ ֶאל‬except in five instances…and from Neh 9:4 through the end of the book is similar.” 19 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫הסּ ֵֹביב‬. ַ 18

264

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3)

Gen 2:11 2 Kgs 8:21 Qoh 1:6b

‫ַהסּ ֵֹבב‬ ‫ַהסּ ֵֹביב‬ ‫ס ֵֹבב‬

The note may actually refer only to fully defective forms, however, in which case the correct tally would be two. The three following data support the latter interpretation. First, MmL Qoh 1:6 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §3684) groups together only the two fully defective forms. 20 Second, MpA distinguishes 2 Kgs 8:21 from all other forms. Finally, Ginsburg (2, ‫ס‬, §14) lists this form as one of eight defective forms but draws attention to the unique spelling of this particular form, thereby distinguishing it from the two fully defective masculine singular participles. Because Weil has not emended MpL, one cannot ascertain exactly how he intended to deal with the problem.

NOTE 362: 2 KINGS 9:3 ‫רֹאשׁוֹ‬ MpBHS

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫֗ל ֗ב‬ Thirty-two times in the Prophets. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

This MpBHS note is a completion of Weil’s emendation of MpL 2 Kgs 9:6 (‫ל ֗ב‬,֗ “thirty-two times”). Therefore, it is MpBHS 2 Kgs 9:6 and not MpBHS 2 Kgs 9:3 that should have a sub loco note. The misprint likely occurs because of the close proximity in which these two MpBHS notes appear. For a list of the thirty-two forms and a discussion of related issues, see note 101 (Judg 16:19).

‫דפסוק‬ ֗ ֗‫ סובב סבב תינ‬.‫ האחד פישון‬:‫חס‬ ֗ ֗ב‬there are two occurrences of the defective form ‫סבב‬: Gen 2:11; Qoh 1:6b;” BHQ, “Megilloth,” 40*. 20

2 KINGS

265

NOTE 363: 2 KINGS 9:33 ‫ִמ ָדּ ָמהּ‬ MpBHS MpL

֗‫ו‬ Six times.

MpA

No note.

֗‫ז‬ Seven times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Kgs 9:33 counts seven occurrences of ‫מ ָדּ ָמהּ‬, ִ whereas ML contains only six 21 occurrences of this form: (1) Lev 4:30 (2) Lev 6:20 (3) Lev 6:23

736F

(4) Num 19:4a (5) Num 19:4b (6) 2 Kgs 9:33

Accordingly, Weil emends the frequency to six, 22 and this emendation is the reason for the sub loco note.

NOTE 364: 2 KINGS 10:2 ‫ְכּבֹא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

While the fifth revised edition of BHS follows ML in printing ‫כּבֹא‬,ְ earlier editions of BHS incorrectly print ‫בּבֹא‬.ְ Weil may present this sub loco note to draw attention to this incorrect reading. For a discussion of the note ‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬, see note 345 (1 Kgs 22:36).

Likewise, MmV Lev 4:30. Similarly, MmL Lev 4:30 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §678) lists all five occurrences in the Torah. 22 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫מ ָדּ ָמה‬, ִ 2 Kgs 9:33. 21

266

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 365: 2 KINGS 10:6 ‫גְּ ד ֵֹלי‬ MpBHS MpL

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective.

MpC

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective. No note.

MpL 2 Kgs 10:6 counts six occurrences of the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫גְּ ד ֵֹלי‬. ML contains only one occurrences of this form, however, and Weil emends the frequency note accordingly. The error is clearly one of dislocation because MpC 2 Kgs 10:7 attests that the note ‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫“ ו‬six times defective” is meant for ‫ ְכּב ֹא‬in 2 Kgs 10:7. 23 Neverthe֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬once and defecless, Weil treats MpL as a frequency error and emends it to ‫וחס‬ tive” in accordance with MpA 2 Kgs 10:6.

NOTE 366: 2 KINGS 10:11 ‫גְּ ד ָֹליו‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

No note.

MpL 2 Kgs 10:11 counts two occurrences of ‫גְּ ד ָֹליו‬. ML contains only one occurrence of this defective form, however, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. It is possible that MpL’s purview includes both ‫ גְּ ד ָֹליו‬and the unique, similar form ‫וּגְ ד ָֹליו‬ (Jon 3:7). 24 In accordance with MpA, however, Weil treats this MpL note as a frequency error. 739F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫גְּ ד ֵֹלי‬. For further discussion of the note ‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫כּבֹא ו‬,ְ see note 345 (1 Kgs 22:36). 24 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫גְּ ד ָֹליו‬. Though this latter form does not have a corresponding MpL note, Weil marks the form as unique but does not add a sub loco note. 23

2 KINGS

267

NOTE 367: 2 KINGS 10:15 ‫ל־ה ֶמּ ְר ָכּ ָבה‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Kgs 10:15 counts four occurrences of ‫ל־ה ֶמּ ְר ָכּ ָבה‬ ַ ‫א‬, ֶ whereas ML contains only two occurrences of this phrase: 2 Kgs 9:27; 10:15. Weil emends the frequency accordingly, 25 which is the reason for the sub loco note. 740F

NOTE 368: 2 KINGS 10:29 ‫ית־אל‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ֵבּ‬ MpBHS

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫] ֲא ֶשׁר ֵבּית[ ֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL

MpC

‫]א ֶשׁר ֵבּית[ ֗ב‬ ֲ Twice.

No note.

ֲ whereas ML contains nine MpL 2 Kgs 10:29 counts only one occurrence of ‫א ֶשׁר ֵבּית‬, occurrences of this phrase. Weil changes the rubric to ‫ית־אל‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר ֵבּ‬and emends the tally to two in accordance with the text of ML, 26 in which the phrase occurs in 2 Kgs 2:3 and 2 Kgs 10:29. 27 Thus, it is both a frequency error and a matching error that are the reasons for this sub loco note. 741F

742F

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ל־ה ֶמּ ְר ָכּ ָבה‬ ַ ‫א‬.ֶ See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ית־אל‬ ֵ ‫א ֶשׁר ֵבּ‬, ֲ 2 Kgs 10:29. 27 Though MpA’s tally of two is correct, its rubric (‫שׁר ֵבּית‬ ֶ ‫)א‬ ֲ is not. Like Weil, Haketer (“Kings I & II,” 205) correctly broadens the rubric to ‫ית־אל‬ ֵ ‫א ֶשׁר ֵבּ‬. ֲ 25 26

268

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 369: 2 KINGS 10:34 ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי יֵ ֛הוּא‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times with these accents in this book.

MpA

֗‫בט בסי‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice with these accents in this book.

MpC

No note.

‫בס‬ ֗ ‫בט‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times with these accents in this book.

MpL 2 Kgs 10:34 counts two occurrences within Kings of ‫( וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר‬with ʾazlâ) followed by ‫( ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי‬with mêrəḵâ) and a king’s name (with təḇîr): 28 (1) (2)

1 Kgs 16:5 ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי ַב ְﬠ ָ ֛שׁא‬ 2 Kgs 10:34 ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי יֵ ֛הוּא‬

743F

Weil presents a sub loco note because he has standardized the Masorah by emending the frequency to five in keeping with a masoretic rule that counts instances of ‫( וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר‬with ʾazlâ) followed by ‫( ִדּ ְב ֵרי‬regardless of accentuation) and a king’s name (accented with təḇîr): 29 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

74F

1 Kgs 11:41 1 Kgs 16:5 1 Kgs 22:46 2 Kgs 10:34 2 Kgs 13:8

‫מה‬ ֹ ֛ �‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֧רי ְשׁ‬ ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי ַב ְﬠ ָ ֛שׁא‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ָ ֛פט‬ ָ ְ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֧רי י‬ ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי יֵ ֛הוּא‬ ‫הוֹא ָ ֛חז‬ ָ ְ‫וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֧רי י‬

Dotan and Reich, §‫יֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵרי יֵ הוּא‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬. See MpL 1 Kgs 16:5 (‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫;)ה‬ ֗ 22:46 (‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫)ה‬. ֗ Likewise, MmC 1 Kgs 11:41: ‫֙ויתר‬ .‫ יהואחז‬.‫ יהוא‬.‫ יהושפט‬.‫ בעשה‬.‫ שלמה‬:‫בס וסימנהוֹן‬ ֗ ‫בט‬ ֗ ‫דברי פלו֛ ני ֗ה‬ ֧ “in this book there are five occurrences of ‫דברי פלו֛ ני‬ ֧ ‫ ֙ויתר‬with these accents, and their references are 1 Kgs 11:41; 16:5; 22:46; 2 Kgs 10:34; 13:8.” 28 29

2 KINGS

269

NOTE 370: 2 KINGS 12:1 ‫הוֹאשׁ‬ ָ ְ‫י‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ד‬ Four times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Kgs 12:1 counts four occurrences of ‫הוֹאשׁ‬ ָ ְ‫י‬, whereas ML has seventeen occurrences of this form: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

2 Kgs 12:1 2 Kgs 12:2 2 Kgs 12:3 2 Kgs 12:5 2 Kgs 12:7 2 Kgs 12:8 2 Kgs 12:19 2 Kgs 13:10 2 Kgs 13:25

(10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)

2 Kgs 14:8 2 Kgs 14:9 2 Kgs 14:11 2 Kgs 14:13a 2 Kgs 14:13b 2 Kgs 14:15 2 Kgs 14:16 2 Kgs 14:17

While Ginsburg (1, ‫י‬, §164a) lists four occurrences of ‫הוֹאשׁ‬ ָ ְ‫ י‬in his first volume (forms 2–3 and 5–6 above), he corrects the tally to seventeen in his fourth volume (4, ‫י‬, §164a), noting that there is nothing to distinguish these four forms from the others. 30 It would seem that Weil recognizes the frequency error and intends to correct it but mistakenly prints MpL as is. 745F

NOTE 371: 2 KINGS 12:13 ‫וְ ִל ְקנוֹת‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once defective and once plene.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

No note.

Dotan and Reich (§‫הוֹאשׁ‬ ָ ְ‫ )י‬suggest that forms 1–4 are distinct in that they do not occur in conjunction with the terms �‫ ָמ ַל‬or �‫ל ֶמּ ֶל‬.ַ This explanation is incorrect, however, because 2 Kgs 12:2 (form 2) features the phrase ‫הוֹאשׁ‬ ָ ְ‫מ ַל� י‬. ָ 30

270

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

MpL 2 Kgs 12:13 indicates that one occurrence of ‫ וְ ִל ְקנוֹת‬is defective and the other is plene. ML, on the other hand, has two occurrences of the plene form (2 Kgs 12:13; 22:6) and no occurrences of the defective form. 31 MpL 2 Kgs 22:6 presents the correct note ‫“ ֗ב‬twice,” 32 and Weil emends MpL 2 Kgs 12:13 accordingly. 74F

NOTE 372: 2 KINGS 12:21 ‫ִמלֹּא‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫ליש‬ ֗ ֗‫חס בתרי‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective with two different meanings.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective. No note.

See note 251 (2 Sam 17:27).

NOTE 373: 2 KINGS 13:6 ‫ֶה ֱח ִטי‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫החטיא ֗ק חד מן ֗ב‬ Read ‫ ֶ;ה ֱח ִטיא‬one of two defective occurrences, one of which is a similar form.

MpA

‫חס ֗א‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice lacking ‫א‬.

‫חס החטיא ֗ק‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective; read ‫ה ֱח ִטיא‬.ֶ

MpC

‫חס ֗א‬ ֗ Lacking ‫א‬.

Though MpL 2 Kgs 13:6 correctly counts two occurrences of the defective ‫ א‬form ‫החטי‬, 33 Weil observes that the two are not entirely identical, which is why he supplements the Masorah with ‫בליש‬ ֗ “in this and a similar case.” A suffix conjugation form (‫)ה ֱח ִטי‬ ֶ occurs in 2 Kgs 13:6, while an infinitival form (‫)ה ֲח ִטי‬ ַ occurs in Jer 32:35. In addition to this clarification, Weil surely intends to draw attention to this MpL note’s contradiction concerning the spelling of the form. The first half of the note (‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ב‬,֗ “twice defective”) affirms the defective reading ‫ה ֱח ִטי‬,ֶ while the second

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ ִל ְקנוֹת‬, 2 Kgs 12:13. Likewise, MpA 2 Kgs 12:13. 33 See also MpA 2 Kgs 13:6; Dotan and Reich, §‫ה ֱח ִטי‬. ֶ 31 32

2 KINGS

271

half (‫החטיא ֗ק‬, “read ‫ )”החטיא‬supports the plene reading ‫ה ֱח ִטיא‬.ֶ Surprisingly, Weil preserves this contradiction in MpBHS. 34 749F

NOTE 374: 2 KINGS 14:17 ‫ַ ֽא ֲח ֵ ֣רי ֔מוֹת‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times with these accents.

MpA

No note.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note.

ַ even though ML contains MpL 2 Kgs 14:17 counts three occurrences of ‫א ֲח ֵרי מוֹת‬, eleven occurrences of this phrase. MmV Lev 16:1, however, counts only the three occurrences that have the mûnaḥ and zaqeṕ qaṭan accents. 35 Assuming this to be the scope of MpL, Weil supplements and completes the Masorah accordingly for the following three occurrences: 36 750F

(1) (2) (3)

Lev 16:1 2 Kgs 14:17 2 Chr 25:25

751F

Thus, Weil presents a sub loco note because he clarifies a text feature.

NOTE 375: 2 KINGS 15:6 ‫ֲﬠזַ ְריָ הוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times in the Prophets.

MpA

Not extant.

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice in the Prophets.

MpC

No note.

MpA,C 2 Kgs 13:6 favor the defective ‫ א‬reading, while MpV 2 Kgs 13:6 (‫ )החטיא ֗ק‬and Ginsburg (2, ‫כ‬, §496) favor the plene ‫ א‬reading. 35 ‫ וחברו דד״ה ויהי אמציהו בן‬.‫ יהואש בן יהואחז‬.‫ שני בני אהרן‬:‫אחרי מות ֗ג בטעם וסימן‬ .‫“ יואש‬there are three occurrences of ‫ אחרי מות‬with these accents, and their references are Lev 16:1; 2 Kgs 14:17; 2 Chr 25:25.” 36 See also Ginsburg, 1, ‫א‬, §321; Dotan and Reich, §‫רי ֔מוֹת‬ ֣ ֵ ‫א ֲח‬. ַֽ 34

272

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

In accordance with MpL 2 Kgs 15:6, there are two occurrences of ‫ ֲﬠזַ ְריָ הוּ‬in the ֲ presents Prophets in ML: 1 Kgs 4:2; 2 Kgs 15:6. By contrast, MpL 1 Kgs 4:2 (‫)ﬠזַ ְריָ הוּ‬ a tally of four (‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫)ד‬, ֗ which clearly includes similar forms because MpL presents the same note in 1 Kgs 4:5 for the prefixed form ‫וַ ֲﬠזַ ְריָ הוּ‬. For this reason, Weil emends the tally of MpL 2 Kgs 15:6 to four, 37 and they are: 38 (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Kgs 4:2 39 1 Kgs 4:5 2 Kgs 15:6 2 Kgs 15:8

752F

753F

‫ֲﬠזַ ְריָ הוּ‬ ‫וַ ֲﬠזַ ְריָ הוּ‬ ‫ֲﬠזַ ְריָ הוּ‬ ‫ַל ֲﬠזַ ְריָ הוּ‬

MpL 2 Kgs 15:8 misapplies the note ‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫ד‬,֗ which belongs to ‫ל ֲﬠזַ ְריָ הוּ‬,ַ to the form 40 ‫זְ ַכ ְריָ הוּ‬, which occurs directly above it. This suggests the note under consideration should be classified as a dislocation error. 75F

NOTE 376: 2 KINGS 15:8 ‫זְ ַכ ְריָ הוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice in the Prophets

MpA

‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times in the Prophets.

MpC

Not extant. ֗‫דכ ֗ב ֗מ ז‬ ֗ ‫הימ‬ ֗ ‫֗ב וכל ֗ד ֗ב‬ Twice, and all Chronicles likewise except for seven.

MpL 2 Kgs 15:8 counts four occurrences in the Prophets of ‫זְ ַכ ְריָ הוּ‬, whereas ML contains only two occurrences of this form within this corpus: 2 Kgs 15:8; Isa 8:2. MpL Isa 8:2 presents the correct note (‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫ב‬,֗ “twice in the Prophets”), 41 and Weil emends the present note accordingly. 42 Because the MpL note ‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ד‬four times in Likewise, MpA,C 1 Kgs 4:2; MmV 2 Kgs 15:8: .‫ ואלה השרים אשר‬: ֗‫עזריהו ֗ד בנביאים וסי‬ ‫ ומן ועזריהו בן עודד דברי הימים עד סןף‬.‫ בשנת שלשים ושמנה‬.‫ ויתר דברי עזריהו‬.‫ועזריהו בן נתן‬ .‫“ ספרא דכוו֗ ֗ב ֗מ א ולו אחים קדמא דפסוק‬there are four occurrences in the Prophets of ‫עזריהו‬, and their references are 1 Kgs 4:2; 4:5; 2 Kgs 15:6; 15:8; and occurrences from 2 Chr 15:1 unto the end of the book are similar except for one: 2 Chr 21:2a.” 38 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ﬠזַ ְריָ הוּ‬, ֲ 1 Kgs 4:2. 39 BHS mistakenly prints ‫בנביא‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬there are two occurrences in the Prophets” here. 40 See note 376 (2 Kgs 15:8). 41 This is supported by MpA Isa 8:2; MmC 2 Kgs 15:8: ‫ לעזריהו‬:‫בנב וסימנהון‬ ֗ ‫זכריהו ֗ב‬ ...‫ ואעידה לי‬.‫“ מלך יהודה‬there are two occurrences of ‫ זכריהו‬in the Prophets, and their references are 2 Kgs 15:8; Isa 8:2…” 42 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫זְ ַכ ְריָ הוּ‬, 2 Kgs 15:8. 37

2 KINGS

273

the Prophets” is likely intended for ‫ל ֲﬠזַ ְריָ הוּ‬,ַ which is located in the previous line directly above ‫זְ ַכ ְריָ הוּ‬, 43 it is better to classify this problem as a dislocation error. 758F

NOTE 377: 2 KINGS 15:13 ‫ֵיָבישׁ‬ MpBHS

‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬ Six times defective. No note.

MpL

MpA

Not extant.

MpC

No note.

While ML has the plene form ‫ ֵיָבישׁ‬in 2 Kgs 15:13, Weil presents the contra textum Mp note ‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬, which is a completion of MpL 2 Kgs 15:10. As ML contains nineteen occurrences of the defective form ‫יָבשׁ‬, ֵ it is clear that this Mp note is more restricted in scope. BHQ (“Judges,” 26*) observes that ‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫( ו‬MpL Judg 21:14) counts six occurrences of ‫“ ֵיָבשׁ‬in this and similar forms when the lemma designates a place or a person,” but it does not identify the six references. Weil follows MmV Judg 21:9 44 by completing the Masorah for the following: (1) Judg 21:9 (2) Judg 21:10 (3) Judg 21:14

(4) 2 Kgs 15:10 (5) 2 Kgs 15:13 (6) 1 Chr 10:12

‫ְבּ ֵיָבשׁ‬

He thereby excludes 1 Sam 11:1a, which ML incorrectly presents with defective spelling, and 1 Sam 31:12, which reads ‫( ֵיָב ָשׁה‬with locative ‫)ה‬. He is clearly incorrect in including 2 Kgs 15:13, however, as the weight of evidence supports the plene reading. 45 MmA Judg 21:9 includes all of the above forms except for 2 Kgs 15:13 and instead includes as the other occurrence all instances of ‫ﬠץ ֵיָבשׁ‬,ֵ 46 which Breuer (without explanation) takes to mean all occurrences of ‫ ֵיָבשׁ‬that are not proper nouns. 47 760F

762F

See note 375 (2 Kgs 15:6). .‫ וישב בנימן בעת ההיא‬.‫ וישלחו שם העדה‬.‫ ויתפקד העם‬: ֗‫בליש בקריאה וסי‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫יבש ו‬ .‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫ יבש בן שלום ר״פ וכל יבשו דכוו‬.‫ תחת האלה ביבש‬.‫“ ויקשר עליו שלום בן יבש‬there are six defective occurrences of ‫ יבש‬and similar forms in the Bible, and their references are Judg 21:9; 21:10; 21:14; 2 Kgs 15:10; 1 Chr 10:12; 2 Kgs 15:10 (beginning of the verse); and all occurrences of ‫ יבשו‬are likewise defective.” See also Ginsburg, 1, ‫י‬, §71 and the corresponding commentary in vol. 4. 45 See Breuer, The Biblical Text, 72. 46 Haketer (“Joshua-Judges,” 177) incorrectly includes form 5 as well as all occurrences of ‫ ֵﬠץ ֵיָבשׁ‬in addition to the six. 47 Breuer, The Biblical Text, 66, n. 57. 43 44

274

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Whatever the correct resolution, it is clear that this Masorah became confused at an early date.

NOTE 378: 2 KINGS 15:25 ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫יְמ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ MpBHS

‫חס ֗ב ֗מ ֗ח‬ ֗ ‫כל‬ All are defective except for eight. No note.

MpL

MpA

Not extant.

MpC

No note [‫יְמ ֵתהוּ‬ ִ ַ‫]ו‬.

Though this instance of the plene form ‫יתהוּ‬ ֵ ‫ וַ יְ ִמ‬does not have a corresponding MpL note, Weil adds a note in BHS to indicate that he reads this form as defective. 48 For a more comprehensive treatment, see note 165 (1 Sam 17:50). 763F

NOTE 379: 2 KINGS 16:6 ‫וַ ֲאר ִֹמים‬ MpBHS

‫וקר ֗ד‬ ֗ ‫כת ֗ר‬ ֗ ‫ואדמים ֗ק חד מן ֗ד‬ MpA Read ‫וַ ֲאד ִֹמים‬. One of four forms written with ‫ ר‬but read with ‫ד‬. ‫ואדומים ֗ק‬ Read ‫דוֹמים‬ ִ ‫וַ ֲא‬.

MpL

MpC

Not extant.

‫כת ֗ד ֗ק‬ ֗ ‫֗ר‬ ‫ ר‬is written but ‫ ד‬is read. 49

According to MmL Prov 19:19 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §3624), 50 ‫ וארמים‬is one of four forms in ML whose kəṯîḇ is spelled with ‫ ר‬and whose qərê is spelled with ‫ד‬: 51 76F

Likewise, MC,V; MmL 2 Kgs 15:30 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §2137): :‫מל‬ ֗ ‫וימיתהו ֗ח‬ ‫ ולא דרש ביהוה‬.‫ במגדו‬.‫ ויהי‬.‫הוש‬ ֗ ‫ ויקשר קשר‬.‫ גלעדים‬.‫ קבלעם‬.‫ ויעל מנחם‬.‫ ויבא זמרי‬.‫וימצאהו‬ .‫“ וימיתהו‬there are eight occurrences of the plene form ‫וימיתהו‬: 1 Kgs 13:24; 16:10; 2 Kgs 15:14; 15:10; 15:25; 15:30; 1 Chr 2:3; 2 Kgs 23:29; 1 Chr 10:14.” 49 MpC misprints ‫ ר‬as ‫ד‬. 50 .‫גדל המה‬ ֗ .‫ואדמים באו אילת‬ ֗ .‫השרמות‬ ֗ ‫ וכל‬.‫ בן עמיחוד‬:‫דכת ריש וקרי֗ דלת וסימנהון‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ “there are four occurrences that are written with ‫ ר‬and read with ‫ד‬, and their references are 2 Sam 13:37; Jer 31:40; 2 Kgs 16:6; Prov 19:19.” See also Dotan and Reich, §‫גְּ ָרל־‬. 51 BHQ, “Proverbs,” 27* notes that in the Mm list ‫ ד‬is found only in the first of these four references. 48

2 KINGS (1) (2) (3) (4)

2 Sam 13:37 2 Kgs 16:6 Jer 31:40 Prov 19:19

275

‫ַﬠ ִמּיהוּד‬ ‫דוֹמים‬ ִ ‫וַ ֲא‬ ‫ַה ְשּׁ ֵדמוֹת‬ ‫גְּ ָדל‬

The problem with which Weil is concerned seems to be the discrepancy between MpL and MmL. While the former contains the plene form ‫ואדומים‬, the latter has the defective ‫ ו‬counterpart, 52 which Weil follows. 76F

NOTE 380: 2 KINGS 16:7 ‫הוֹשׁ ֵﬠנִ י‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬ MpBHS MpL

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once defective and once plene.

MpA

Not extant.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

No note [‫יﬠנִ י‬ ֵ ‫הוֹשׁ‬ ִ ְ‫]ו‬.

ִ ְ‫ו‬, and as Weil correctly observes, MpL 2 Kgs 16:7 counts two occurrences of ‫הוֹשׁ ֵﬠנִ י‬ this tally includes both plene and defective forms. Weil clarifies this matter in his supplement to MpL, and he completes his revised note for the fully plene form ‫יﬠנִ י‬ ֵ ‫הוֹשׁ‬ ִ ְ‫( ו‬Ps 71:2). 53 768F

NOTE 381: 2 KINGS 17:6 ‫א ָֹתם‬ MpBHS

‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ט‬ Nine times plene in this book. No note.

MpL

MpA

Not extant.

MpC

54 No note [‫]אוֹתם‬. ָ 769F

MpL 1 Kgs 20:25 counts nine occurrences of the plene form ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ in the book of Kings. Though ML only contains eight occurrences of the plene form, Weil reads See also MmC 2 Kgs 16:6: .‫גרל‬ ֗ .‫השרמות‬ ֗ .‫ואדמים‬ ֗ .‫עמיחוד‬ ֗ :‫וקר ֗ד וסימנהון‬ ֗ ‫כת ֗ר‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ “there are four occurrences that are written with ‫ ר‬and read with ‫ד‬, and their references are 2 Sam 13:37; 2 Kgs 16:6; Jer 31:40; Prov 19:19.” 53 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫הוֹשׁ ֵﬠנִ י‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬. 54 According to Perez Castro (“Reyes,” 182), the first hand of MC 2 Kgs 6:21 and 17:6 both contain the defective ‫א ָֹתם‬. 52

276

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

against the text of ML in 2 Kgs 17:6 in accordance with MC,V, and this raises the tally to nine: 55 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 Kgs 20:25 2 Kgs 3:10 2 Kgs 3:13 2 Kgs 6:16 2 Kgs 6:19

(6) (7) (8) (9)

2 Kgs 6:21 2 Kgs 10:6 2 Kgs 17:6* 2 Kgs 17:26

NOTE 382: 2 KINGS 17:13 ‫֩֝ ֻשׁבוּ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫טעמ וחד מן ֗ה‬ ֗ ֗‫֗ה בתרי‬ Five times with two accents, and one of five defective in this and similar cases.

MpA

‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times with these accents.

MpC

Not extant. ‫בט‬ ֗ ‫]שׁוּ֝בוּ[ ֗ה‬. ֠ Five times with these accents.

The present MpBHS note addresses two phenomena. The first part of the note ( ‫֗ה‬ ‫טעמ‬ ֗ ֗‫ )בתרי‬is Weil’s completion of MmL Ezek 48:10, which refers to the five times in which a word is accented with təlîšâ gəḏôlâ and gereš: 56 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Gen 5:29 Lev 10:4 2 Kgs 17:13 Ezek 48:10 Zeph 2:15

71F

‫זֶ֞ ֠ה‬ ‫֠ ִק ְר ֞בוּ‬ ‫֩֝ ֻשׁבוּ‬ ‫וּ֠ ְל ֵ֜א ֶלּה‬ ‫֞ז ֹ֠את‬

As per MmC 2 Kgs 17:13, gereš should precede təlîšâ gəḏôlâ in such instances. 57 In ML Ezek 48:10, however, gereš occurs before and after təlîšâ gəḏôlâ. Thus, Weil notes in Likewise, MpL 2 Kgs 3:10; 3:13; 6:21; MpA,C 2 Kgs 3:10; MmV 2 Kgs 3:10; Ginsburg, 1 Kgs 20:25. 1, ‫א‬, §1440; Dotan and Reich, §‫אוֹתם‬, ָ 56 MmL Ezek 48:10 (cf. Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §2991) reads: :‫֗ה בתריין טעמין וסימנהון‬ .‫ זאת‬.‫ ולאלה‬.‫ שובו‬.‫[ קרבו‬.‫“ ]זה‬there are five occurrences with two accents, and their references are Gen 5:29; Lev 10:4; 2 Kgs 17:13; Ezek 48:10; Zeph 2:15.” Similarly, MpA Zeph 2:15; MmV Gen 5:29; Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna, 355; Dotan and Reich, §‫וּ֠ ְל ֵ֜א ֶלּה‬. 57 .‫ זאת‬.‫ ולאלה‬.‫ שובו‬.‫ קרבו‬.‫ זה‬:‫מחלפ‬ ֗ ‫בט‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ה‬five occurrences present a variant tradition with regard to this accent; Gen 5:29; Lev 10:4; 2 Kgs 17:13; Ezek 48:10; Zeph 2:15.” In accordance with MmV Gen 5:29, Yeivin remarks, “In printed editions, the telisha sign is marked 55

2 KINGS

277

the masoretic apparatus that MmL is against the text. Because 2 Kgs 17:13 is the only one of the five that is given a sub loco note, however, it is clear that the reason for the sub loco note is the phenomenon addressed in the second half of MpBHS 2 Kgs 17:13. The latter part of the note is concerned with the spelling of ‫שׁבוּ‬. ֻ MpBHS 2 Kgs L 58 17:13 completes Mp Isa 21:12 and Joel 2:12 (‫חס‬ ֗ ‫)ה‬, ֗ which indicate that there are five defective forms. 59 While ML contains seven, the two within the Torah are excluded, 60 which leaves five: 73F

74F

75F

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Gen 43:2 Gen 44:25 2 Kgs 17:13 Isa 21:12

(5) Jer 35:15 (6) Joel 2:12 (7) Job 6:29

Though Weil notes that this is one of five occurrences of this and similar forms, he completes ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ה‬only for the five occurrences of ‫ ֻשׁבוּ‬and not one or more similar forms.

NOTE 383: 2 KINGS 17:24 ‫וּס ַפ ְרוַ יִם‬ ְ MpBHS MpL

‫למערב‬ ֗ ‫כת כן‬ ֗ Spelled thus in the Western tradition. No note.

MpA

Not extant.

MpC

No note.

ְ which is characteristic of the Western tradition, as per ML,C both read ‫וּס ַפ ְרוַ יִ ם‬, MpBHS. 61 Weil presumably presents this sub loco note with the intent of clarifying that the Eastern qərê reading ‫וּמ ְסּ ַפ ְרוַ יִ ם‬ ִ is not to be followed. 62 7F

at the beginning of the word, and the geresh sign on the stress syllable, even though the reader is warned to read the geresh before the telisha. In MSS the accent signs are marked in the order in which they are to be read, with the geresh before the telisha” (Yeivin, Introduction, §272). 58 MpL Jer 35:15 also has the note ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ה‬,֗ though the circellus is incorrectly placed above �� ַ ‫וְ ָשׁ‬. Weil corrects the placement of the circellus but without marking the note sub loco. The corresponding MpA note is correct. 59 See Ginsburg, 2, ‫ש‬, §182 and 183, though the latter list incorrectly includes Zech 1:4 instead of Joel 2:12. 60 See MpL Gen 44:25; Dotan and Reich, §‫שׁבוּ‬, ֻ Isa 21:12. 61 Likewise, ML folio 466 verso. 62 The Eastern reading is found in MV(qere) and GLSTV.

278

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 384: 2 KINGS 17:31 ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫ֱא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫אלהי ֗ק‬ Read ‫�הי‬ ֵ ‫א‬. ֱ

MpA

‫אלהי ֗ק‬ Read ‫�הי‬ ֵ ‫א‬. ֱ

MpC

Not extant. ‫אלהי ספרוים ֗ק‬ Read ‫�הי ְס ַפ ְרוָ יִ ם‬ ֵ ‫א‬. ֱ

According to MpL 2 Kgs 17:31, ‫�הי‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬is to be read instead of �‫לוֹ‬ ַ ‫א‬, ֱ 63 the reading suggested by the kəṯîḇ. According to BHS’s critical apparatus, one finds support for the kəṯîḇ in GLT, and thus Weil’s intent to state his opinion on this text-critical matter may be the reason for this sub loco note. 78F

NOTE 385: 2 KINGS 18:1 ‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗י֗ב‬ Twelve times.

MpA

Not extant.

‫֗י֗ב‬ Twelve times.

MpC

No note.

The tally of twelve that MpL 2 Kgs 18:1 presents for ‫ ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬is problematic because ML contains only ten occurrences of ‫ ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬in this specific form and thirteen times when similar, prefixed forms are included. The thirteen are: 64 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

2 Kgs 18:1 2 Kgs 18:10 2 Kgs 18:13 2 Kgs 18:14a 2 Kgs 18:14b 2 Kgs 18:15 2 Kgs 18:16a

(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ ‫ְל ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ ‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ ‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ ‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ ‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ ‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬

2 Kgs 18:16b Zeph 1:1 Prov 25:1 Neh 7:21 Neh 10:18 1 Chr 3:23

79F

‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ ‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ ‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ ‫ְל ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ ‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ ‫וְ ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬

Weil completes the Masorah for all of the above except for form 12, and his conclusion is based on his misinterpretation of MmL Zeph 1:1, which counts three occurrences of ‫ ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬outside of Kings. 65 The three catchwords/catchphrases are: 780F

63 64

See MpC 2 Kgs 17:31; OchlahP, §§93, 126. See also Dotan and Reich (§‫חזְ ִקיָּ ה‬,ִ 2 Kgs 18:1).

2 KINGS (1) (2) (3)

279

‫אל צפניה‬ ‫גם אלה‬ ‫אטר‬

The first two clearly refer to Zeph 1:1 and Prov 25:1, respectively, and pose no problem. Weil has incorrectly interpreted the final catchword, however, as a reference to Neh 7:21 (‫)ל ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ ְ instead of Neh 10:18 (‫)חזְ ִקיָּ ה‬. ִ 66 Left with only eleven forms of ‫( ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬and similar cases), Weil chooses to complete the Masorah for the only other similar case ‫( וְ ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬1 Chr 3:23). Had he not mistakenly identified ‫ אטר‬with Neh 7:21 (‫)ל ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬, ְ he would have realized that MmL Zeph 1:1 addresses only the three forms of ‫ ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬outside of Kings and not similar cases as well. 67 With Neh 10:18 included in the list of twelve, it become clear that the only form that could reasonably be excluded is the unique form ‫( וְ ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬1 Chr 3:23). 68 783F

NOTE 386: 2 KINGS 18:10 ‫ְל ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫֗י֗ב ֗ב‬ Twelve times, two of them in this form.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

Not extant. ‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpL 2 Kgs 18:10 correctly counts two occurrences of ‫ל ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬:ְ 69 2 Kgs 18:10; Neh 7:21. The reasons for this sub loco note are the supplementing of the Masorah with the clarification ‫בליש‬ ֗ “in this form” and the addition of ‫מנה‬, ֗ which is needed to smoothly conjoin the Mp notes ‫“ ֗י֗ב‬twelve times” and ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬two in this form.” The tally of twelve is a completion of MpL 2 Kgs 18:1, for an analysis of which see note 385. MmL Zeph 1:1 (cf. Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §3125) reads: .‫ גם אלה‬.‫ אל צפניה‬:‫חזקיה ֗ג‬ .‫ ויהי בשנה הרביעית‬.‫ות בר מן ֗א חזקיהו‬ ֗ ‫ ומן ויהי בשנת שלוש להושע עד וישלח מלך־אשור דכ‬.‫אטר‬ “there are three occurrences of ‫חזקיה‬: Zeph 1:1; Prov 25:1; Neh 7:21; and occurrences from 2 Kgs 18:1 to 2 Kgs 18:17 are likewise except for one occurrence of ‫חזקיהו‬: 2 Kgs 18:9.” 66 The confusion is understandable because in listing the two forms of ‫ל ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬, ְ MmL 2 Kgs 18:10 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §2155) includes the catchphrase ‫ בני אטר‬for Neh 7:21. 67 See BHQ, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 37*. 68 The decision to exclude 1 Chr 3:23 is supported by MpA 1 Chr 3:23, which marks the forms as unique (‫)ל‬. ֗ Breuer (The Biblical Text, 131, n. 53) hesitantly agrees that it is 1 Chr 3:23 that should be excluded from the twelve, offering various conjectures for the exclusion. 69 Likewise, MpC 2 Kgs 18:10. 65

280

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 387: 2 KINGS 18:13 See note 385 (2 Kgs 18:1).

‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬

NOTE 388: 2 KINGS 18:14A See note 385 (2 Kgs 18:1).

‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬

NOTE 389: 2 KINGS 18:14B See note 385 (2 Kgs 18:1).

‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬

NOTE 390: 2 KINGS 18:15 See note 385 (2 Kgs 18:1).

‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬

NOTE 391: 2 KINGS 18:16A See note 385 (2 Kgs 18:1).

‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬

NOTE 392: 2 KINGS 18:16B See note 385 (2 Kgs 18:1).

‫ִחזְ ִקיָּ ה‬

2 KINGS

281

NOTE 393: 2 KINGS 18:31 ‫בוֹרוֹ‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫מל וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once plene and once defective.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫]בֹרוֹ[ ֗ל‬ Once defective.

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once plene.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫וא‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫]בֹרוֹ[ ֗ב חד‬ Twice, once defective and once plene.

MpL 2 Kgs 18:31 counts one occurrence of the plene form ‫ בוֹרוֹ‬and one occurrence of its defective counterpart, whereas ML has two occurrences of the plene form (2 Kgs 18:31; Isa 36:16) 70 and no instances of the defective form. MpL Isa 36:16, however, indicates that the plene form ‫ בוֹרוֹ‬is found only in Isa 36:16 (‫מל‬ ֗ ‫)ל‬, ֗ and MA,C have the defective form ‫ בֹרוֹ‬in 2 Kgs 18:31. 71 Because MpL wrongly suggests that 2 Kgs 18:31 contains the one occurrence of the plene form ‫בוֹרוֹ‬, Weil emends the Masorah in accordance with MpC 2 Kgs 18:31 for clarity’s sake. 72 78F

NOTE 394: 2 KINGS 18:32 ‫וִ ְחיוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ח‬ Eight times.

MpA

No note.

֗‫ז‬ Seven times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Kgs 18:32 counts only seven occurrences of ‫וִ ְחיוּ‬. ML contains eight occurrences of this form, however, and Weil emends the frequency accordingly. The references are: 73 (1) (2) (3) (4)

Gen 42:18 2 Kgs 18:32 Jer 27:12 Jer 27:17 78F

(5) (6) (7) (8)

Ezek 18:32 Amos 5:4 Amos 5:6 Prov 9:6

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫בוֹרוֹ‬, 2 Kgs 18:31. Likewise, MpA 2 Kgs 18:31 marks ‫ בֹרוֹ‬as a unique, defective form. 72 Likewise, Ginsburg, 4, ‫ב‬, §191. 73 Likewise, Ginsburg, 1, ‫ח‬, §172; Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna, 62, n. 6. 70 71

282

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Dotan and Reich (§‫ )וִ ְחיוּ‬proffer two explanations for the tally of seven. One possibility is that the scope is limited to the Prophets and the Writings, in which case form 1 should be omitted. Another option is that both occurrences within Amos are counted as one.

NOTE 395: 2 KINGS 19:23 ‫ִקצֹּה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫קצו ֗ק חד מן ֗ג‬ Read ‫ ִ;קצּוֹ‬one of three in this and similar cases.

MpA

‫ו֗ ֗ק‬ Read ‫ו‬.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫ו֗ ֗ק‬ Read ‫ו‬.

MpL 2 Kgs 19:23 counts three occurrences of ‫קצֹּה‬,ִ whereas ML contains only one occurrence of this form. In accordance with MpA,C,V 2 Kgs 19:23, 74 however, Weil adds a qərê for the form ‫קצּוֹ‬,ִ which occurs twice elsewhere in ML, thus satisfying the tally of three: (1) (2) (3)

2 Kgs 19:23(qere) Isa 37:24 Dan 11:45

Weil’s revised Mp note is confusing in that the first half (‫ )קצו ֗ק‬supports the form ‫קצּוֹ‬,ִ of which there are exactly three occurrences, while the second half of the note supports the kəṯîḇ form ‫קצֹּה‬,ִ which is one of three similar forms, as per Ginsburg (2, ‫ק‬, §222). 75 790F

NOTE 396: 2 KINGS 20:11 ‫ַבּ ַמּ ֲﬠלוֹת‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

No note.

See also Ginsburg, 2, ‫כ‬, §523. See also Haketer, “Kings I & II,” 251. Note that Ginsburg’s rubric incorrectly prints ‫ ִקצּוּ‬instead of ‫קצּוֹ‬.ִ 74 75

2 KINGS

283

MpL 2 Kgs 20:11 marks ‫( ַבּ ַמּ ֲﬠלוֹת‬with dageš in the ‫ )מ‬as unique, but this form is also found in ML in Isa 38:8, where one finds the correct MpL note ‫“ ֗ב‬twice.” 76 Weil emends the frequency error accordingly. 77 Attached to the ‫ ֗ב‬in MpBHS 2 Kgs 20:11 is the index number 8, which corresponds to the following comment in the masoretic apparatus: “Q addidi, cf Mp sub loco” (A qərê has been added, see Mp sub loco). As I discuss below, the kəṯîḇ/qərê problem does not pertain to the form under consideration but to ‫( נְ כֹתֹה‬2 Kgs 20:13; see note 397). 791F

792F

NOTE 397: 2 KINGS 20:13 ‫נְ כֹתֹה‬ MpBHS MpL

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫נכתו ֗ק חד מן ֗ב‬ Read ‫ ;נְ כֹתוֹ‬one of two written thus.

MpA

‫ו֗ ֗ק‬ Read ‫נְ כֹתוֹ‬.

‫כת כן‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice written thus.

MpC

‫ו֗ ֗ק‬ Read ‫נְ כֹתוֹ‬.

ML contains two occurrences of ‫נְ כֹתֹה‬: 2 Kgs 20:13; Isa 39:2. 78 For both, however, MpA,C 2 Kgs 20:13 present the qərê reading ‫נְ כֹתוֹ‬. 79 Weil likewise adds the qərê here. 80 794F

795F

NOTE 398: 2 KINGS 21:9 ‫ת־ה ָ ֔רע‬ ָ ‫ַל ֲﬠ ֣שׂוֹת ֶא‬ MpBHS

MpL

‫דסמיכ‬ ֗ ‫קמ‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice with qameṣ when following (.‫ה‬.‫ש‬.‫ע‬.)

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫ת־ה ָרע[ ֗ ָג‬ ָ ‫]א‬ ֶ Three times with qameṣ. No note.

In keeping with MpL 2 Kgs 21:9, ML contains three occurrences of .‫ה‬.‫ש‬.‫ ע‬followed by ‫ה ָרע‬:ָ Likewise, MpA 2 Kgs 20:11. Similarly, MpC Isa 38:8 has ‫דג‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬there are two occurrences with dageš.” 77 Dotan and Reich (§‫בּ ַמּ ֲﬠלוֹת‬, ַ 2 Kgs 20:11), on the other hand, present MpL but with “in this book.” the clarification ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ 78 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫נְ כֹתֹה‬. 79 See also Ginsburg, 2, ‫כ‬, §§496–497. 80 MpL Isa 39:2 has ‫נכתו ֗ק‬. 76

284

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS (1) (2) (3)

2 Kgs 21:9 ‫ת־ה ָ ֔רע‬ ָ ‫ַל ֲﬠ ֣שׂוֹת ֶא‬ Qoh 4:3 ‫שׂה ָה ָ ֔רע‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ַה ַמּ ֲﬠ‬ 2 Chr 12:14 ‫וַ ַיּ ַ֖ﬠשׂ ָה ָ ֑רע‬

Weil, however, emends the Masorah by completing MpL Qoh 4:3 ‫דסמיכ‬ ֗ ‫קמ‬ ֗ ‫ב‬,֗ and in so doing he excludes 2 Chr 12:14 because it has a different accent pattern. 81 By contrast, MpA 2 Kgs 21:9 counts three occurrences of ‫ת־ה ָרע‬ ָ ‫( ֶא‬with qameṣ), which is correct if one includes the two occurrences of the similar case ‫ת־ה ָרע‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬: 796F

(1) (2) (3)

Deut 30:15 ‫ת־ה ָרע‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬ 2 Kgs 21:9 ‫ת־ה ָ ֔רע‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ Job 2:10 ‫ת־ה ָרע‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬

(1) (2) (3)

2 Kgs 21:9 Qoh 8:11 2 Chr 33:9

Dotan and Reich (§‫ת־ה ָרע‬ ָ ‫)ל ֲﬠשׂוֹת ֶא‬, ַ however, interpret MpA,L to mean three occurrences of ‫ ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת‬followed by ‫ ָה ָרע‬and similar forms that are accented with qameṣ: ‫ת־ה ָרע‬ ָ ‫ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת ֶא‬ ‫ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת ָרע‬ ‫ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת ָרע‬

If there explanation is correct, then MpA incorrectly omits a circellus above ‫ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת‬ ‫את‬. ֶ 82 79F

NOTE 399: 2 KINGS 21:11 ‫וַ יַּ ֲח ִטא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times defective.

MpA

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective.

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ Four times defective.

MpC

‫וחס‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ Once and defective.

See also Ginsburg 2, ‫ע‬, §807. In light of the complexity of MpL Qoh 4:3 ( ‫קמ‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ ‫)דסמיכ‬, ֗ it is surprising that BHQ does not offer comment. MmV Qoh 4:3 takes a different tack with the note ‫ב‬.ָ֗ Instead of counting 2 Kgs 21:9 as the other occurrence, it counts Qoh 8:12, which contains the only other occurrence within Qohelet of ‫( ָרע‬with qameṣ) found in proximity to .‫ה‬.‫שׂ‬.‫ע‬. 82 Haketer (“Kings I & II,” 259) incorrectly lists the following three references: 1 Sam 29:7; 2 Kgs 21:9; 2 Chr 33:9. 81

2 KINGS

285

It is evident from Weil’s completion of MpL 2 Kgs 21:11 that he interprets the note as a tally of all defective occurrences of the yiqtôl and wayyiqtôl hifil forms of .‫א‬.‫ט‬.‫ח‬, which are: 83 (1) (2) (3) (4)

Judg 20:16 1 Kgs 16:2 1 Kgs 21:22 2 Kgs 21:11 798F

‫יַ ֲח ִטא‬ ‫וַ ַתּ ֲח ִטא‬ ‫וַ ַתּ ֲח ִטא‬ ‫וַ יַּ ֲח ִטא‬

Though Weil does not do so, it would have been appropriate for him to supplement “in this and similar cases.” 84 Nevertheless, it is clear that the Masorah with ‫בליש‬ ֗ Weil’s intent is to clarify MpL. 79F

NOTE 400: 2 KINGS 21:12 ‫יהוּדה‬ ָ ִ‫רוּשׁ ַל� ו‬ ָ ְ‫י‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpA

No note.

֗‫י‬ Ten times.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Kgs 21:12 counts ten occurrences of ‫יהוּדה‬ ָ ִ‫רוּשׁ ַל� ו‬ ָ ְ‫י‬. 85 This phrase occurs only L 86 three times in M , however, and Weil therefore emends the frequency accordingly. 87 The references are: 80F

801F

802F

(1) (2) (3)

2 Kgs 21:12 Isa 3:8 Jer 40:1

See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וַ יַּ ֲח ִטא‬, 2 Kgs 21:11. Likewise, MpV 2 Kgs 21:11. 85 Likewise, MpL Jer 40:1. 86 Dotan and Reich (§‫יהוּדה‬ ָ ִ‫רוּשׁ ַל� ו‬ ָ ְ‫י‬, 2 Kgs 21:12) show that the tally of ten cannot be conclusively satisfied by including similar occurrences. 87 Likewise, MpV 2 Kgs 21:12. 83 84

286

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 401: 2 KINGS 22:14 ‫ַשׁ ֻלּם‬ MpBHS MpL

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫י֗ ֗א‬ Eleven times defective.

MpA

No note.

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ Three times defective.

MpC

No note.

MpL 2 Kgs 22:14 counts three occurrences of ‫ ַשׁ ֻלּם‬spelled with defective spelling, whereas ML contains nine such occurrences, with the tally rising to ten when the only other similar defective form is included: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

2 Kgs 15:10 2 Kgs 22:14 Jer 22:11 Jer 32:7 Jer 35:4

‫ַשׁ ֻלּם‬ ‫ַשׁ ֻלּם‬ ‫ַשׁ ֻלּם‬ ‫ַשׁ ֻלּם‬ ‫ַשׁ ֻלּם‬

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Ezra 10:24 1 Chr 4:25 1 Chr 9:31 2 Chr 28:12 2 Chr 34:22

‫ַשׁ ֻלּם‬ ‫ַשׁ ֻלּם‬ ‫ְל ַשׁ ֻלּם‬ ‫ַשׁ ֻלּם‬ ‫ַשׁ ֻלּם‬

Weil correctly reads against the text at Neh 7:45, however, which is an eleventh form; and in accordance with MpL Jer 22:11, Weil emends the frequency note to 11.

NOTE 402: 2 KINGS 22:20 �‫ִק ְבר ֶֹתי‬ MpBHS

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once defective and once plene. No note.

MpL

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫וא‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב חד‬ Twice, once defective and once plene.

ML contains two instances of the defective form �‫ ִק ְבר ֶֹתי‬and does not contain an occurrence of the plene counterpart. By contrast, MpL 2 Chr 34:28 counts two forms of �‫ק ְבר ֶֹתי‬:ִ one that is spelled with ‫ ו‬and one that is spelled without ‫ו‬. 88 Accordingly, MA reads the defective form in 2 Kgs 22:20 89 and the plene form in 2 Chr 804F

88 89

Likewise, MpC 2 Kgs 22:20; MpA 2 Chr 34:28; see also Dotan and Reich, §�‫ק ְבר ֶֹתי‬.ִ Likewise, MC.

2 KINGS

287

34:28. Judging by his emendation to MpBHS 2 Kgs 22:20, Weil presumably intends to comment on this contra textum matter.

NOTE 403: 2 KINGS 22:20 ‫וַ יָּ ִשׁיבוּ‬ MpBHS

֗‫י‬ Ten times. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note [‫]וַ יָּ ִשׁבוּ‬.

MpC

No note.

ML contains four occurrences of the plene form ‫וַ יָּ ִשׁיבוּ‬. As per MmL Num 13:26 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §910), 90 however, the tally rises to ten when one includes occurrences of the corresponding defective ‫ י‬form. Weil completes the Masorah accordingly: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Num 13:26 Deut 1:25 Josh 22:32 1 Sam 5:3 2 Sam 3:26

‫וַ יָּ ִשׁיבוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׁבוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׁבוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׁבוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׁבוּ‬

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

1 Kgs 12:16 2 Kgs 22:20 Jer 34:11 2 Chr 10:16 2 Chr 34:28

‫וַ יָּ ִשׁבוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׁיבוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׁבוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׁיבוּ‬ ‫וַ יָּ ִשׁיבוּ‬

This list includes four plene yôd forms (Num 13:26; 2 Kgs 22:20; 2 Chr 10:16; 34:28), ֗ ‫)ג‬. ֗ Acbut the MpL notes for the latter two count only three plene occurrences (‫מל‬ cording to MA, 2 Kgs 22:20 should be defective. 91 Weil is of the same mind, as one can see from his having completed ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ג‬for the first of the four forms, and it is presumably his decision to read against the text that is the reason for this sub loco note.

90

‫ וישכימו‬.‫ וישב פינחס בן אלעזר‬.‫ ויקחו בידם מפרי הארץ‬.‫ וילכו ויבאו אל משה‬: ֗‫וישיבו י‬ ‫ לכן הנני‬.‫ וירא כל ישראל‬.[‫]וחבירו‬.‫ וכל ישראל כי לא שמע המלך‬.‫ ויצא יואב מעם דוד‬.‫אשדודים‬ .‫ וישובו אחרי כן‬.‫וחביר‬ ֗ .‫“ אספך‬there are ten occurrences of ‫וישיבו‬, and their references are : Num 13:26; Deut 1:25; Josh 22:32; 1 Sam 5:3; 2 Sam 3:26; 2 Chr 10:16; 1 Kgs 12:16; 2 Kgs 22:20; 2 Chr 34:28; Jer 34:11 .” See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וַ יָּ ִשׁיבוּ‬, Num 13:26. 91 Likewise, MmA 2 Chr 10:16; MmC 1 Kgs 12:16; Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna, 190; Ginsburg, 2, ‫ש‬, §§230–31. BHQ does not explain the note ֗‫ י‬found in MpL Deut 1:25.

288

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 404: 2 KINGS 23:2 ‫י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬ MpBHS

‫מל‬ ֗ ‫֗ל ֗ד‬ Thirty-four times plene. No note.

MpL

MpA

No note.

MpC

No note.

As was discussed in note 31 (Josh 15:63), Weil counts thirty-four occurrences of the ְ for 2 Kgs 23:2 instead of the plene form ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ (and similar cases). 92 He reads ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ defective counterpart, which is found in ML. However, it is clear by his comment in the masoretic apparatus (“Dub” = dubious) that he is not certain that his emendation is correct; and indeed, MA,L,C agree that the form should be defective. His uncertainty about this contra textum reading is the reason for this sub loco note. For a discussion of various ways in which the tally of thirty-four may be resolved, see note 31 (Josh 15:63).

NOTE 405: 2 KINGS 23:2 ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫וְ ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים וְ ַהנְּ ִב‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpA

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

No note. ‫֗ל‬ Unique.

ִ ‫וְ ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים וְ ַהנְּ ִב‬, whereas ML contains MpL 2 Kgs 23:2 counts three occurrences of ‫יאים‬ 93 only one occurrences of this phrase. Ginsburg (2, ‫כ‬, §91), however, counts three occurrences outside of Jeremiah in which forms of ‫( כּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬and similar cases) precede ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫( נְ ִב‬and similar cases) regardless of the distance between them. The references are: 94 809F

(1) (2) (3) (4)

2 Kgs 23:2 ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫וְ ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים וְ ַהנְּ ִב‬ Zech 7:3 ‫יאים‬ ֖ ִ ‫הו֣ה ְצ ָב ֔אוֹת וְ ֶאל־ ַהנְּ ִב‬ ָ ְ‫ל־ה ֽכֹּ ֲהנִ ֙ים ֲא ֶשׁ ֙ר ְל ֵבית־י‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ Neh 9:32 ‫יאנוּ‬ ֵ ‫וּלכ ֲֹהנֵ ינוּ וְ ִלנְ ִב‬ ְ All in Jeremiah featuring plene forms of ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫נְּ ִב‬.

E.g., MpL Isa 38:11. Likewise, MpC 2 Kgs 23:2. 94 See also Dotan and Reich, §‫יאים‬ ִ ‫וְ ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים וְ ַהנְּ ִב‬. 92 93

2 KINGS

289

It is likely that Weil follows Ginsburg, but because he does not complete or clarify the Masorah and simply reproduces MpL, one cannot be certain.

NOTE 406: 2 KINGS 23:4 ‫ָה ֲﬠשׂוּיִם‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpL 2 Kgs 23:4 correctly notes that ‫ ָה ֲﬠשׂוּיִ ם‬is unique, and Weil reproduces this note in MpBHS. 95 It would seem that Weil presents this sub loco note because he wishes to state that he rejects the reading ‫ה ֲﬠשׂוּוִ ם‬,ָ which is found, for example, in OchlahP, §184. 96 MA,L,C,V all agree that 2 Kgs 23:4 should be written and read ‫ה ֲﬠשׂוּיִ ם‬,ָ and this is corroborated by the fact that the form under consideration does not appear in the list of double-waw forms presented in MmL Exod 39:4 (Weil, Massorah Gedolah, §648). 97 Weil’s comments would have been presumably text-critical in nature, confirming the reading of ML. 812F

NOTE 407: 2 KINGS 23:15 ‫ת־ה ָבּ ָמה‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל וחד מן ֗ד זוגין‬ Unique and one of four pairs.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

No note.

ַ ‫ וְ ֶא‬is found in ML only Following MpL 2 Kgs 23:15, Weil correctly notes that ‫ת־ה ָבּ ָמה‬ here. The supplement (‫וחד מן ֗ד זוגין‬, “and one of four pairs”) completes his revision See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ה ֲﬠשׂוּיִם‬.ָ This list includes twelve forms in which ‫ ו‬occurs twice in succession. OchlahP, §81 indicates that this form is written ‫ ָה ֲﬠשׂוּוִ ם‬but is read ‫ה ֲﬠשׂוּיִם‬.ָ 97 ‫ שתו‬.‫ וחמש צאן עשוות‬.‫וחבר‬. ‫ על שני קצוותיו‬.‫ כרוב אחד מקצה מזה דכפרת‬: ֗‫כת ו֗ ו‬ ֗ ‫י֗ ֗א‬ .‫הימ‬ ֗ ‫ העבר נא את עוון עבדך דדברי‬.‫ הן בעוון חוללתי‬.‫ ומצאנו עוון‬.‫ ותלכנה נטוות גרון‬.‫ושכרו וקוו‬ .‫ ומצוות וחקים‬.‫“ ולצוות עליה‬there are eleven words written with double waw: Exod 37:8; 39:4; 1 Sam 25:18; Jer 25:27; Isa 3:16; 2 Kgs 7:9; Ps 51:7; 1 Chr 21:8; Esth 4:8; Neh 9:14; .” 95 96

290

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

֗ ֗‫“ ֗ד זוגין ֗מ ֗ב ֗ב בחד פסו‬four pairs of two of the MpL note for ‫ גָּ זֵ ז‬in 1 Chr 2:46: ‫מיחד‬ unique words, with each pair occurring in the same verse.” Strangely, Weil follows BHK in citing OchlahP, §231, which lists only two verses featuring word pairs in which ‫ וְ ֶאת‬precedes the first member and ‫ ֶאת‬precedes the second: 98 (1) (2)

813F

2 Kgs 23:15 ‫ת־ה ָבּ ָמה‬ ַ ‫א‬...‫ה‬ ֶ ‫ת־ה ָבּ ָמ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ 1 Chr 2:46 ‫את־גָּ זֵ ז‬...‫ז‬ ֶ ֵ‫וְ ֶאת־גָּ ז‬

The correct list in OchlahP is §359, which lists four verses featuring the pair ‫גַּ ם‬...‫וְ גַ ם‬, 99 of which 2 Kgs 23:15 is one. Thus, Weil has failed to emend the Masorah correctly. 814F

NOTE 408: 2 KINGS 23:15 ‫ת־ה ָבּ ָמה‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ MpBHS

‫֗ד זוגין‬ Four pairs. No note.

MpL

See note 407 (2 Kgs 23:15).

MpA MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

No note.

NOTE 409: 2 KINGS 24:11 ‫אצּר‬ ַ ֶ‫בוּכ ְדנ‬ ַ ְ‫נ‬ MpBHS

◦ “Textus contra Mp ‫חס וכל מלכים‬ ֗ ֗‫י‬ cf Jer 28,11; 2 R 25,22 et ‫דכות ֗ב ֗מ ֗א‬, ֗ Mp sub loco.” No note.

MpL

MpA

No note [‫אצּר‬ ַ ֶ‫]נְ ֻב ַכ ְדנ‬.

MpC

No note [‫אצּר‬ ַ ֶ‫]נְ ֻב ַכ ְדנ‬.

ַ ֶ‫בוּכ ְדנ‬ ַ ְ‫נ‬, two of which Within Kings ML contains six occurrences of the lemma ‫אצּר‬ are plene: Likewise, MmA 2 Kgs 23:15b: .‫ ועיפה פילגש כלב‬.‫ וגם את המזבח‬:‫פסוק דמיין‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬there are two verses that are similar: 2 Kgs 23:15; 1 Chr 2:46.” 99 Likewise, MmA 2 Kgs 23:15a: ‫ וגם את‬.‫ הרצחת‬.‫ ואיש לא יעלה‬:‫פסוק דמיין וגם גם‬ ֗ ‫֗ד‬ .‫ מבחר הצאן‬.‫“ המזבח‬there are four verses that are similar in that they contain ‫וגם גם‬: Exod 34:3; 1 Kgs 21:19; 2 Kgs 23:15; Ezek 24:5.” 98

2 KINGS (1) 2 Kgs 24:1 (2) 2 Kgs 24:10 (3) 2 Kgs 24:11

291

(4) 2 Kgs 25:1 (5) 2 Kgs 25:8 (6) 2 Kgs 25:22

‫אצּר‬ ַ ֶ‫בוּכ ְדנ‬ ַ ְ‫נ‬

‫אצּר‬ ַ ֶ‫בוּכ ְדנ‬ ַ ְ‫נ‬

As per MA,C 2 Kgs 24:11, which read the defective ‫ ו‬form, MpL 2 Kgs 25:22 indicates that only form 6 is plene (‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫ל‬,֗ “one plene in this book”). 100 Weil draws attention to this problem in the masoretic apparatus, and it is the reason for the sub loco note. 101 815F

816F

NOTE 410: 2 KINGS 25:5 ‫וַ יַּ ִשּׂגוּ‬ MpBHS MpL

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times defective.

MpA

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ Five times defective.

MpC

‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice defective.

MpL 2 Kgs 25:5 counts five occurrences of ‫וַ יַּ ִשּׂגוּ‬, whereas ML contains only two occurrences of this defective form: 2 Kgs 25:5; Jer 39:5. 102 However, because MpL 1 Sam 30:8 presents the same note for ‫ה ַא ִשּׂגֶ נּוּ‬,ַ it becomes clear that the Masorah is counting defective ‫ י‬hifil forms of .‫ג‬.‫שׂ‬.‫ נ‬that are pointed with ḥîreq as the theme vowel. The forms and references are: 103 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Gen 44:6 1 Sam 30:8 2 Sam 15:14 2 Kgs 25:5 Jer 39:5

81F

‫וַ יַּ ִשּׂגֵ ם‬ ‫ַה ַא ִשּׂגֶ נּוּ‬ ‫וְ ִה ִשּׂגָ נוּ‬ ‫וַ יַּ ִשּׂגוּ‬ ‫וַ יַּ ִשּׂגוּ‬

MpA,C,V 2 Kgs 25:22; Ginsburg, 2, ‫נ‬, §45. Weil’s reason for directing the reader to Jer 28:11 is not clear, as MpL does not have a corresponding note, and all forms outside of Kings lie outside of the purview of this Masorah. 102 Likewise, MpA,C 2 Kgs 25:5; MmA 2 Kgs 25:5: ‫ וירדפו‬.‫ וירדפו דמלכים‬:‫חס‬ ֗ ‫וישגו ֗ב‬ .‫“ קדמיה דירמיהו‬there are two defective occurrences of ‫וישגו‬: 2 Kgs 25:5; Jer 39:5.” 103 MpA 2 Sam 15:14; MmV Jer 39:5, which reads: : ֗‫וישגו ֗ה חסר בלישנא בקריאה וסי‬ ‫ וישגו אתו בערבות‬.‫ פן ימהר והשגנו הרעה‬.‫ ארדוף אחרי הגדוד הזה האשגנו‬.‫וישגם וידבר אליהם‬ .‫ וחברו קדמא דירמיה‬.‫“ יריחו דמלכים‬there are five defective occurrences in the Bible of ‫וישגו‬ and similar forms, and their references are Gen 44:6; 1 Sam 30:8; 2 Sam 15:14; 2 Kgs 25:5; Jer 39:5.” See also Dotan and Reich, §‫ה ַא ִשּׂגֶ נּוּ‬.ַ 100 101

292

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

֗ Weil is thus correct to print MpL, though he could have added the clarification ‫בליש‬ “in this and similar cases.”

NOTE 411: 2 KINGS 25:12 ‫וּלי ֹגְ ִבים‬ ְ MpBHS

MpL

‫למערב‬ ֗ ‫וכת כן‬ ֗ ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice in this and a similar form and written thus in the Western tradition.

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫]ולגבים[ וליוגבי֗ ֗ק‬. Read ‫וּליוֹגְ ִבים‬. ְ

ְ 2 Kgs 25:12; Jer As per MpL 2 Kgs 25:12, ML contains two occurrences of ‫וּלי ֹגְ ִבים‬: 52:16. 104 The purpose of Weil’s supplemental note is to indicate that the Western tradition deviates from the Eastern tradition. Ginsburg explains, “The design of this rubric is to militate against the Babylonian recension of the text which exhibits ‫וּלגָ ִבים‬ ְ as the Kethiv and ‫וּלי ֹגְ ִבים‬ ְ as the Keri, whilst the Palestinians have ‫וּלי ֹגְ ִבים‬ ְ both as Kethiv and Keri.” 105 820F

NOTE 412: 2 KINGS 25:23 ‫וְ יַ ֲאזַ נְ יָ הוּ‬ MpBHS

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

‫]הנְּ ט ָֹפ ִתי[ ֗ב‬ ַ Twice.

MpL

MpA

‫֗ב‬ Twice.

MpC

‫מפק אלף‬ ֗ ‫֗ב‬ Twice and with mappîq in the ʾaleṕ. 106

MpL 2 Kgs 25:23 presents the tally of two not for ‫וְ יַ ֲאזַ נְ יָ הוּ‬, the form under consideration, but for the preceding form ‫הנְּ ט ָֹפ ִתי‬,ַ which occurs five times in ML: F

Likewise, MpA,L,C Jer 52:16. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫וּלי ֹגְ ִבים‬, ְ 2 Kgs 25:12. Ginsburg, 4, ‫י‬, §73. MC is witness to the Babylonian reading. 106 The first two consonants of “‫ ”אלף‬are written as a ligature. MA,L do not include mappîq. 104 105

2 KINGS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

293

2 Sam 23:28 2 Sam 23:29 2 Kgs 25:23 Jer 40:8 1 Chr 11:30

By consulting MpA,C,V, it becomes clear that MpL mistakenly places over ‫ ַהנְּ ט ָֹפ ִתי‬the circellus that belongs to the subsequent word ‫וְ יַ ֲאזַ נְ יָ הוּ‬, and this constitutes a dislocation error. As per MpA,C,V, ML contains two occurrences of ‫( וְ יַ ֲאזַ נְ יָ הוּ‬2 Kgs 25:23; Ezek 8:11), and Weil has correctly emended this Mp note. 107 82F

NOTE 413: 2 KINGS 25:25 ‫הוּדים‬ ִ ְ‫ת־היּ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ MpBHS MpL

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

MpA

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

‫֗ג‬ Three times.

MpC

‫֗ל‬ Unique.

ִ ְ‫ת־היּ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬, whereas ML contains MpL 2 Kgs 25:25 counts three occurrences of ‫הוּדים‬ only one occurrence of this phrase. 108 Accordingly, Weil emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique,” which is the reason for the sub loco note. His emendation accords with MpA,C 2 Kgs 25:25.

107 108

See also MpL Ezek 8:11; Dotan and Reich, §‫וְ יַ ֲאזַ נְ יָ הוּ‬, 2 Kgs 25:23. See also Dotan and Reich, §‫הוּדים‬ ִ ְ‫ת־היּ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬.

294

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

NOTE 414: THE MASORAH FINALIS OF KINGS MpBHS

MpL

MpA

‫סכום הפסוקים שלספר אלף‬ ‫וחמש מאות ושלשים וששה‬ The tally of the verses of the book is 1,536.

‫ סכום הפסוקים שלספר אלף‬MpC ‫וחמש מאות ושלשים וארבעה‬ The tally of the verses of the book is 1,534

‫סכום הפסוקים אלף וחמש‬ ‫ א ולך‬-‫מאות ושלשים וששה‬ The tally of the verses is 1,536: 1,536.

‫סכום הפסוקים של ספר‬ ‫אלף וחמש מאות ושלשים‬ ‫וארבעה וחציו ויקבץ מלך‬ ‫ישראל וסדרים ֗ל ֗ה‬ The tally of the verses of the book is 1,534; its middle verse is 1 Kgs 22:6; its sədarîm number thirty-five.

Against ML’s Masorah finalis for the books of Kings, which counts 1,534 verses, Kings actually contains 1,536 verses. 109 If the lower tally were correct, then 1 Kgs 22:5 would begin the second half of Kings in terms of verses; but MpL marks the beginning of the second half of Kings at 1 Kgs 22:6, which reflects the longer tally. The self-contradictory note of MpBHS is well attested in the manuscript tradition, according to Ginsburg. 110 Weil adds a sub loco note because he wants to draw attention to this discrepancy and because of the additional data that he adds to MpL.

109 110

See MpA,C. Ginsburg, Introduction, 90–91.

CHAPTER 8: THE SUB LOCO NOTES OF THE S EDARÎM Weil emends certain seder notes in the Former Prophets of ML and therefore marks them “sub loco.” Many of these sub loco notes are interrelated, for which reason they are treated together here.

JOSHUA

The only sub loco note that addresses the sədarîm of Joshua concerns the fifteenth and final seder note (Josh 22:34). 1 Weil adds a sub loco note because he has standardized the Masorah by metathesizing “fifteen” from ‫ י֗ ֗ה‬to ֗‫הי‬.֗ 2 827F

JUDGES

The seder sign at Judg 2:7 is the second seder in the book, but MpL incorrectly marks it as the first. As a result, MpL incorrectly numbers all subsequent sədarîm in the book. Weil corrects all such enumeration errors in accordance with the corresponding masoretic list at the end of the Prophets, 3 for which reason he marks them with a sub loco note. 4

ML folio 326 recto. Similarly, he emends ‫( ֡ס י֗ ֗ה‬MpL 1 Kgs 18:39) to ֗‫( ֡ס ֗הי‬MpBHS 1 Kgs 17:24). 3 See ML folio 326 recto. 4 The only seder sign that Weil does not mark with a sub loco note is the fourteenth, but this is a mere oversight. 1 2

295

296

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Table 1: The Sədarîm of Judges References 1. Judges 1:1 2. Judges 2:7 3. Judges 3:31 4. Judges 5:31 5. Judges 6:40 6. Judges 8:3 7. Judges 9:7 8. Judges 10:1 9. Judges 11:32 10. Judges 13:24 11. Judges 16:3 12. Judges 18:6 13. Judges 19:20 14. Judges 20:27

BHS

[‫]ס ֗א‬ ֡ ‫֡ס ֗ב‬ ‫֡ס ֗ג‬ ‫֡ס ֗ד‬ ‫֡ס ֗ה‬ ֗‫֡ס ו‬ ֗‫֡ס ז‬ ‫֡ס ֗ח‬ 5‫֡ס ֗ט‬ 6‫י֗ ֡ס‬ ‫֡ס י֗ ֗א‬ ‫֡ס ֗י֗ב‬ [‫֡ס ]י֗ ֗ג‬ ‫֡ס י֗ ֗ד‬

ML Not marked *‫֡ס ֗א‬ ‫֡ס‬ *‫֡ס ֗ג‬ *‫֡ס ֗ד‬ *‫֡ס ֗ה‬ * ֗‫֡ס ו‬ * ֗‫֡ס ז‬ *‫֡ס ֗ח‬ *‫֡ס ֗ט‬ * ֗‫֡ס י‬ *‫֡ס י֗ ֗א‬ *‫֡ס ֗י֗ב‬ *‫֡ס י֗ ֗ג‬

KINGS

As is the case with the sədarîm in Judges, the first hand to copy the sədarîm in the book of Kings misnumbered many of the notes. The errors begin with the second seder, which the first hand marks with ‫א‬. ֗ A later hand corrects the incorrect enumerations of the first ten notes, however. The sign for seder 11 is the first in Kings with an incorrect numeral that has been left to stand (* ֗‫)ס י‬. ֡ Weil corrects it and presents a sub loco note. All subsequent numerals for the seder signs in ML are off by one until the fourteenth seder, which has the correct numeral. 7 The numbering of the fifteenth through the thirty-first sədarîm, however, are off by one; and then, because MpL does not mark the thirty-second seder, all subsequent enumerations are off by two. Weil corrects all such enumeration errors in accordance with the corresponding masoretic list in ML, which occurs at the end of the Prophets. 8 He also presents a sub loco note for all corrected seder notes except for #32, which is surely an oversight.

* indicates evidence of erasure. 5 Weil has applied the wrong index number “25,” which should read “18,” thus keying it to the comment “Mp sub loco” in the Masoretic apparatus. 6 Weil mistakenly places the yôd to the right of the seder sign. 7 Note, however, that the numeral found in MpL is printed as ֗‫די‬. ֗ 8 See ML folio 326 recto.

SUB LOCO NOTES OF THE SEDARÎM Table 2: The Sədarîm of Kings References 1. 1 Kgs 1:1 2. 1 Kgs 1:48 3. 1 Kgs 2:45 4. 1 Kgs 4:20 5. 1 Kgs 6:13 6. 1 Kgs 7:21 7. 1 Kgs 8:11 8. 1 Kgs 8:58 9. 1 Kgs 10:9 10. 1 Kgs 11:28 11. 1 Kgs 12:24 12. 1 Kgs 13:30 9 13. 1 Kgs 15:9 10 14. 1 Kgs 16:15 15. 1 Kgs 17:24 16. 1 Kgs 18:39 17. 1 Kgs 20:13 18. 1 Kgs 21:17 19. 1 Kgs 22:43 20. 2 Kgs 2:15 21. 2 Kgs 4:26 22. 2 Kgs 6:7 23. 2 Kgs 7:16 24. 2 Kgs 9:13 25. 2 Kgs 10:15 26. 2 Kgs 12:3 27. 2 Kgs 13:23 28. 2 Kgs 15:7 29. 2 Kgs 16:20 30. 2 Kgs 18:6 31. 2 Kgs 19:19 32. 2 Kgs 20:8 33. 2 Kgs 22:2 34. 2 Kgs 23:25 35. 2 Kgs 24:18

BHS

‫֡ס ֗א‬ ‫֡ס ֗ב‬ ‫֡ס ֗ג‬ ‫֡ס ֗ד‬ ‫֡ס ֗ה‬ ֗‫֡ס ו‬ ֗‫֡ס ז‬ ‫֡ס ֗ח‬ ‫֡ס ֗ט‬ ֗‫֡ס י‬ ‫֡ס י֗ ֗א‬ ‫֡ס ֗י֗ב‬ ‫֡ס י֗ ֗ג‬ ‫֡ס י֗ ֗ד‬ ֗‫֡ס ֗הי‬ ֗‫֡ס י֗ ו‬ ֗‫֡ס י֗ ז‬ ‫֡ס י֗ ֗ח‬ ‫֡ס י֗ ֗ט‬ ‫֡ס ֗כ‬ ‫֡ס ֗כ ֗א‬ ‫֡ס ֗כ ֗ב‬ ‫֡ס ֗כ ֗ג‬ ‫֡ס ֗כ ֗ד‬ ‫֡ס ֗כ ֗ה‬ ֗‫֡ס ֗כו‬ ֗‫֡ס ֗כז‬ ‫֡ס ֗כ ֗ח‬ ‫֡ס ֗כ ֗ט‬ ‫֡ס ֗ל‬ ‫֡ס ֗ל ֗א‬ [‫]ס ֗ל ֗ב‬ ֡ ‫֡ס ֗ל ֗ג‬ ‫֡ס ֗ל ֗ד‬ ‫֡ס ֗ל ֗ה‬

297

ML ‫֡ס ֗א‬ *‫֡ס ֗ב‬ *‫֡ס ֗ג‬ *‫֡ס ֗ד‬ *‫֡ס ה‬ * ֗‫֡ס ו‬ * ֗‫֡ס ז‬ *‫֡ס ֗ח‬ *‫֡ס ֗ט‬ * ֗‫֡ס י‬ * ֗‫֡ס י‬ ‫֡ס י֗ ֗א‬ ‫֡ס ֗י֗ב‬ * ֗‫֡ס ֗די‬ *‫֡ס י֗ ֗ד‬ *‫֡ס י֗ ֗ה‬ * ֗‫֡ס י֗ ו‬ ֗‫֡ס י֗ ז‬ ‫֡ס י֗ ֗ח‬ *‫֡ס י֗ ֗ט‬ ‫֡ס ֗כ‬ *‫֡ס ֗כ ֗א‬ *‫֡ס ֗כ ֗ב‬ ‫֡ס ֗כ ֗ג‬ ‫֡ס ֗כ ֗ד‬ *‫֡ס ֗כ ֗ה‬ * ֗‫֡ס ֗כו‬ * ֗‫֡ס ֗כז‬ *‫֡ס ֗כ ֗ח‬ ‫֡ס ֗כ ֗ט‬ *‫֡ס ֗ל‬ Not marked. ‫֡ס ֗ל ֗א‬ *‫֡ס ֗ל ֗ב‬ ‫֡ס ֗ל ֗ג‬

Weil mistakenly places the twelfth seder at 1 Kgs 13:30 instead of at 13:31, as per and MfL. For a presentation of the evidence of MpA,L,C and sefer haḥilufim, see Yosef Ofer, “The Sedarim of Prophets and Writings,” 156. 10 In accordance with MfL, Weil places the thirteenth seder at 1 Kgs 15:9 instead of at 15:8, as per MpL (cf. MpA,C). 9

MpA,L,C

298

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSIONS A TAXONOMY OF THE SUB LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

As demonstrated in chapters 2–8, Weil’s reasons for marking some MpBHS notes with the footnote “sub loco” are transparent. These reasons are discovered by simply comparing the MpBHS note under consideration with the corresponding MpL note. Many other cases are more complicated and involve a detailed search of BHS and the masoretic manuscripts and resources available to Weil. For still other cases, it is not at all clear why Weil adds a sub loco note. This means that any taxonomy of Weil’s reasons for adding sub loco notes to MpBHS is only provisional. In what follows I discuss each type of sub loco note that I have discovered, illustrating each with one or two examples from chapters 2–8 of this work, and thereby providing the reader with a cross-section of the sub loco notes in the Former Prophets. From the analysis of the sub loco notes in the Former Prophets presented in chapters 2–8, one finds that there are nine different reasons that prompted Weil to present the note “Mp sub loco” in the masoretic apparatus of BHS. So that my taxonomy may be more readily compared with Mynatt’s, I try to use his terminology in naming categories and subcategories whenever possible. The nine major classifications are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Clarifications and Emendations of Frequency Clarifications of Text Features Clarifications of Context Text-Critical Notes Matching Errors Errors in BHK Standardizations Combinations of Two or More MpL Notes Unresolved

These categories are not mutually exclusive. Many of the sub loco notes belong to more than one category. Each classification presented below has been classified as Weil likely would have classified it, regardless of whether or not his assessment is correct. In a subsequent section of this chapter I evaluate Weil’s treatment of MpL. 299

300

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Clarifications and Emendations of Frequency Many sub loco notes involve an emendation of a frequency note in MpL. Some sub loco notes of this type could be considered bona fide frequency errors. For example, note 16 concerns the MpL note for ‫ וְ לֹא ָהיָ ה‬in Josh 10:14, which counts twentyseven instances of this phrase. The text of ML, however, contains only twenty-five instances, as MpL 1 Kgs 11:4 indicates, and Weil emends MpL Josh 10:14 accordingִ in the ly. Note 23 addresses MpL Josh 14:11, which counts four occurrences of ‫אוֹתי‬ L book of Joshua. M contains only three occurrences of this plene form, however. Weil correctly treats this MpL note as a frequency error and emends it accordingly. In both cases, Weil emends a frequency note, which requires that he add a sub loco note in BHS. Elsewhere Weil adds frequency notes for forms or phrases whose respective frequencies are not addressed in MpL. For example, MpL 2 Sam 14:12 (see note 240) does not present a note for ‫דּ ֵבּ ִרי‬,ַ even though a circellus appears above the word. Weil adds the frequency note ‫ל‬,֗ which accords with MpA,V 2 Sam 14:12. Similarly, the focus of note 27 is the form ‫וְ שׂוֹכֹה‬. MpL Josh 15:48 does not present a note for this form, but Weil presents in BHS the note ‫וכת כן‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬unique and written thus.” In ML many of the sədarîm in the Former Prophets are misnumbered, and in these cases Weil corrects the enumeration and presents a sub loco note because he has revised MpL. I illustrate this here by summarizing Weil’s treatment of the sədarîm of Kings. The errors begin with the second seder note, which the first hand marked with ‫ ֗א‬as opposed to ‫ב‬.֗ One can see that a later hand corrected this and the rest of the first ten notes, however. Seder 11 is the first in Kings with an incorrect numeral that has been left to stand, and thus Weil presents a sub loco note to draw attention to his correction of the enumeration. All subsequent numerals are off by one until the fourteenth seder, for which MpL has the correct tally. The numbering of the fifteenth through the thirty-first sədarîm, however, are off by one; and then, because MpL does not mark the thirty-second seder, all subsequent numerals are off by two. Weil has corrected all such enumeration errors in accordance with the corresponding masoretic list in ML, which occurs at the end of the Prophets. The incorrect numerals in MpL can mislead the reader concerning the number of sədarîm, and it is for this reason that the corresponding sub loco notes belong to the category “emendations of frequency.” Weil also presents sub loco notes for the Mf notes of Joshua, Samuel, and Kings, in part, because they deal with problems of frequency. For example, Weil supplements MfL Joshua (see note 59) by noting that the book’s second half begins with Josh 13:26. While this information is correct for ML, BHS contains two additional verses (Josh 21:36–37), as per the Eastern tradition, and this changes the location of the middle of the book. Because this sub loco note concerns a dispute over the number of verses in Joshua, it is appropriately subsumed under this category. Clarifications of Text Features Weil recognizes that certain MpL notes are correct only if one limits the tally to forms with a certain text feature.

CONCLUSIONS

301

Plene and Defective Spelling The first type to be considered involves frequency notes that only count forms with ָ ‫ ַל ֲה ִמ‬in 1 Sam 2:25 plene or defective spelling. For instance, the MpL note for ‫יתם‬ (see note 128) includes only the frequency note ‫“ ֗ב‬twice.” In accordance with the ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב חד‬twice, once defectext of ML, however, Weil emends the note to ‫מל‬ tive and once plene” in order to indicate that two different spellings are in view: the plene ‫ י‬form ‫יתם‬ ָ ‫ ַל ֲה ִמ‬and the defective ‫ י‬form ‫ל ֲה ִמ ָתם‬.ַ Another example is addressed in the commentary to note 55. MpL Josh 22:34 counts three occurrences of ‫בּינ ֵֹתינוּ‬.ֵ Two of the three forms are spelled with plene ‫ו‬, however, for which reason Weil adds the clarification ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫מל וחד‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬twice plene and once defective.” Note 371 concerns a rare instance in which Weil corrects a MpL note by removing a description of text features. MpL 2 Kgs 12:13 counts two occurrences of ‫ וְ ִל ְקנוֹת‬but states that one is defective and one is plene (‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫)ב חד‬. ֗ As ML correctly contains two occurrences of the plene form (2 Kgs 12:13; 22:6) and no occurrences of the defective form, Weil emends the note to simply ‫ב‬.֗ A similar text-feature note that Weil commonly adds to a frequency note is ‫כת‬ ֗ ‫“ כן‬written thus.” This clarification serves to emphasize that a particular spelling is in view. In note 27 Weil adds the note ‫וכת כן‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬unique and written thus” in MpBHS in order to emphasize that Josh 15:48 should read ‫( וְ שׂוֹכֹה‬as per ML) and not ‫וְ שׂוֹכוֹ‬ ֗ that Weil adds for ‫ַבּ ֲא ָל ָפיו‬ (as per MC[qere]). Note 197 concerns the supplement ‫כת כן‬ (1 Sam 29:5), a form for which MpL does not present a note. According to Breuer, the defective spelling (‫)בּ ֲא ָל ָפו‬ ַ is attested in 1 Sam 29:5 in certain manuscripts and ֗ Weil indicates his support for the versions (e.g., MS1,V). By adding the Mp note ‫כת כן‬ plene spelling in this particular case. Similar cases ֗ in order to indicate that In certain cases, Weil supplements a MpL note with ‫בליש‬ the frequency note includes one or more “similar cases.” Sometimes ‫בליש‬ ֗ indicates that similar, prefixed forms are included. MpL 1 Samuel 10:8 (see note 143) counts three occurrences of ‫בּוֹאי‬, ִ whereas ML contains only two occurrences of this particular form. Weil correctly observes that this tally also includes the similar form ֗ ‫וּבוֹאי‬ ִ (Song 4:16) and thus supplements the MpL note with ‫בליש‬. Sometimes, however, it is not immediately clear what constitutes a similar form. For instance, note 7 discusses a MpBHS note in Josh 6:27 that counts four occurrences of ‫ ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬outside Num 30 (‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫)ד וכל נדרים‬. ֗ It is only from Weil’s completion of the note that one discovers that the tally of four includes ‫ ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬and ‫וְ ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬ but not other prefixed forms such as ‫בּ ָשׁ ְמעוֹ‬.ְ The instance discussed in note 45 is even less clear. The MpL note for the unique form ‫( וַ יַּ ְק ִדּשׁוּ‬Josh 20:7) counts six defective occurrences, and it becomes clear only through very careful investigation that the tally of six includes all hifil forms of the root .‫ש‬.‫ד‬.‫ ק‬in which the theme vowel is pointed with the defective ḥîreq and not the plene ḥîreq yôd. For this reason, Weil ֗ ֗‫“ ו‬six times defective” to ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ֗‫“ ו‬six times defective revises MpL’s note from ‫חס‬ in this and similar cases.” Weil also uses ‫בליש‬ ֗ to emphasize that only one particular form or phrase is in ֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ֗‫“ ו‬six times with these accents in view. Note 52 addresses the MpL note ‫בסיפ‬

302

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

this book” that occurs in Josh 22:3 for ‫הו֥ה‬ ָ ְ‫ ִמ ְצַו֖ת י‬. This note counts six occurrences of this phrase with the ṭiṕḥâ and mêrəḵâ accents. Following BHK, Weil arrives at the tally of six by (1) adding ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬to the rubric, (2) removing the stricture “in this book,” and (3) including phrases that contain ‫ ִמ ְצוֹת‬instead of ‫מ ְצוַ ת‬. ִ As ‫הו֥ה‬ ָ ְ‫ִמ ְצַו֖ת י‬ ‫יכם‬ ֽ ֶ ‫�ה‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬occurs only in Josh 22:3, Weil adds the supplement ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ל‬one of them is in this particular form.” Raṕê On one occasion Weil clarifies a MpL note by indicating that the tally only includes forms with the text feature raṕê. Note 115 addresses the note ‫“ ֗ד‬four times” that ָ ‫בּ‬.ְ Weil recognizes that the tally of four only includes MpL Judg 20:9 presents for ‫גוֹרל‬ raṕê forms of ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ‬and ‫גוֹרל‬ ַ ‫ ְבּ‬that occur outside of the book of Numbers, and for this reason he emends the note to ‫דכות‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ד רפי֗ וכל וידבר‬four times raṕê and all occurrences within the book of Numbers likewise.” On another occasion, Weil distinguishes raṕê forms but does not indicate so in his emendation of MpL. As per note 263, MpL Lam 1:12 and MpL Lam 3:32 count three occurrences of ‫הוֹגָ ה‬, and this is the correct tally for ML if one includes the defective ‫ ו‬counterpart in 2 Sam 20:13. Weil presents the frequency note for all three occurrences, but he excludes ‫הוֹגָ הּ‬ (Lam 1:5) because it does not have ‫ ה‬raṕê. Accentuation Another type of text feature that Weil addresses is accentuation. MpL sometimes has a frequency note that is correct only if forms with a certain accent or accent pattern are considered. For example, MpL 2 Kgs 14:17 (see note 374) counts three occurrences of ‫א ֲח ֵרי מוֹת‬, ַ whereas ML contains eleven occurrences of this phrase. In accordance with MmV Lev 16:1 and Ginsburg, 1, ‫א‬, §321, Weil emends the note to ‫֗ג‬ ‫בטע‬ ֗ “three times with these accents” to clarify that this Mp note addresses the three occurrences of ‫ ַא ֲח ֵרי מוֹת‬that are accented with mûnaḥ and zaqeṕ qaṭan. Clarifications of Context Weil also marks MpBHS notes “sub loco” when he adds a clarification of context to MpL. Some MpL notes are correct only if the scope is restricted to a major division within the Hebrew Bible. Note 12 concerns a MpL note for the first instance of ‫ֶאל־‬ ‫ מוּל‬in Josh 8:33 that simply counts six occurrences ( ֗‫)ו‬. The text of ML contains a total of fourteen occurrences of this phrase, six of which occur in the Prophets. Therefore, Weil emends the Mp note to ‫בנביא‬ ֗ ֗‫ו‬. In other cases, Weil adds the stricture ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ “in this book” to limit the scope to one particular book of the Bible. For example, the MpL note for ‫ ְבּ ִק ְריַ ת יְ ָﬠ ִרים‬in Judg 18:12 (see note 106) marks the phrase as unique (‫)ל‬. ֗ Weil emends the note to ‫בסיפ‬ ֗ ‫֗ל‬ L “once in this book,” however, because the phrase is also found in M in 1 Sam 7:2. Certain MpL notes have a smaller context in view. The MpL note for ‫ ֱה ִשׁיבוֹ‬in 1 Kgs 13:20 (see note 326) incorrectly includes ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬there are three occurrences in this and similar cases.” Weil correctly emends it to ֗‫“ ֗ג בעינ‬there are three occurrences in this section” because all three instances occur within a seven-verse context (1 Kgs 13:20–26).

CONCLUSIONS

303

Finally, certain MpL notes are correct only when the scope is limited to forms that occur in a certain position within a verse. For example, MpL Josh 13:11 counts two unusual instances (‫מיוחד‬ ֗ ‫)ב‬ ֗ of ‫( ַﬠד־ ַס ְל ָכה‬see note 22). Observing that the two are unique in that they appear at the end of a verse, Weil emends the MpL note to ‫֗ג‬ ‫מיחד ס״פ‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬there are three occurrences, and two are unusual in that they occur at the end of a verse.” Text-Critical Notes Certain MpBHS notes are marked “sub loco” because of text-critical considerations, and there are three types within the Former Prophets. Variants Supported by MpL and Other Tiberian Masoretic Witnesses Sometimes a reading in ML is at variance with the reading of another masoretic witness. Weil provides a brief explanation of the problem in the masoretic apparatus in many such cases. For example, MpBHS Josh 4:12 presents the note ‫“ ֗ג‬there are three occurrences” for ‫יהם מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ֶ ‫( ֲא ֵל‬see note 5). Weil explains in the masoretic apparatus that certain manuscripts contain the defective ‫ ֲא ֵל ֶהם‬in Josh 4:12, and it becomes clear from his completion of the Masorah and from his note in the masoretic apparatus that the tally of three that he presents counts occurrences of ‫ ֲא ֵל ֶהם מ ֶֹשׁה‬and not ‫יהם מ ֶֹשׁה‬ ֶ ‫א ֵל‬, ֲ as one would first expect. Elsewhere Weil reads against the text but does not present a MpBHS note. In such cases, he presents a circellus in the margin of BHS and adds a footnote in the masoretic apparatus. Note 35, for example, addresses the first occurrences of the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫יה‬ ָ ‫וּבנ ֶֹת‬ ְ in Josh 17:11. Weil does not present a Mp note but he comments in the masoretic apparatus of BHS: “Textus contra Mp ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫בנביא ֗ב‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ה‬ cf Jos 15,45; Jer 49,2 et Mp sub loco” (the text contradicts the Mp, which ‫בסיפ‬, ֗ reads “there are five defective occurrences in the Prophets, two of which are in this book,” cf. Josh 15:45; Jer 49:2 and Mp sub loco). While MpL Josh 15:45 counts only two defective forms within Joshua, ML contains three such forms. It appears, then, that the purpose of this note is to draw attention to this discrepancy. Qərê/Kəṯîḇ Note 31 addresses an instance in which Weil reads against a qərê form. The MpL note for ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ in Josh 15:63 counts fourteen instances of the plene form ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬. ְ ְ with the However, ML contains twenty-seven occurrences of the plene form ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬, tally rising to thirty-eight when prefixed forms are included. Weil arrives at the tally of thirty-four partly because he excludes a plene qərê form (Judg 1:27a). Sometimes Weil expressly states in the masoretic apparatus that he “suppresses” a qərê. Note 254 discusses two related instances: Weil suppresses the qərê ‫ בחייו‬in MpL 2 Sam 18:18 and the qərê ‫ חייו‬in Qoh 5:17. Weil occasionally prints a qərê not found in MpL. Such entries are marked “sub loco” because a change has been made to MpL. Note 130 discusses one such example. MpBHS presents the note ‫( בעיניו ֗ק‬1 Sam 3:18), whereas MpL does not present a note. Weil marks the qərê “sub loco” and comments in the masoretic apparatus: “Q addidi, cf Mp sub loco” (the qərê has been added; see Mp sub loco).

304

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Eastern and Western Traditions Other text-critically oriented notes concern Weil’s position on discrepancies between the Eastern and Western traditions. For example, ML Josh 8:12 (see note 8) simply presents the reading ‫ל ִﬠיר‬,ָ whereas MV(qere) and other of Weil’s witnesses contain the reading ‫ל ָﬠי‬.ָ The form ‫ ָל ִﬠיר‬does not have a corresponding MpL note, but Weil adds a circellus over ‫ ָל ִﬠיר‬and supplies a sub loco note. Presumably, this is because he intended to discuss that the qərê is absent in ML but present in both the Eastern and Western masoretic traditions. Similarly, note 239 concerns the MpL ָ as unique, and Weil follows suit. It note for ‫שׂוּמה‬ ָ in 2 Sam 13:32. MpL marks ‫שׂוּמה‬ seems that he adds the sub loco note because he intends to discuss his rejection of the Eastern tradition that writes ‫ימה‬ ָ ‫ ִשׂ‬but reads ‫שׂוּמה‬. ָ Matching Errors A matching error occurs when a Mp note is attached to the wrong form or phrase. There are four types of matching errors within the corpus of the sub loco notes in the Former Prophets. Dittography Some matching errors occur as the result of dittography, which in this context refers to a Mp note that is printed twice, once with the correct form and once with an incorrect form. Note 111 discusses the MpL note for ‫ וַ ָיָּבול‬in Judg 19:21, which counts five plene occurrences (‫מל‬ ֗ ‫)ה‬. ֗ Both the plene ‫ ו‬kəṯîḇ form ‫ ויבול‬and the defective ‫ו‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ה‬is invariably a dittogqərê form ‫ וַ ָיָּבל‬are unique in ML, however. The MpL note ‫מל‬ ֵ ‫וַ ִיְב‬, which appears two words prior. Therefore, Weil raphy of the MpL note for ‫יאהוּ‬ replaces this instance of ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ה‬with ‫ויבל ֗ק‬. Dislocation Another type of matching error is the dislocation error. A dislocation error occurs when a circellus is placed over an incorrect form or phrase. For instance, MpL Judg 19:28 presents the frequency note ‫ ֗ל‬for the form ‫וְ נֵ ֵל ָכה‬, even though the form occurs three times (see note 112). Weil considers this to be a dislocation error and thus which is unique. repositions the circellus over ‫קוּמי וְ נֵ ֵל ָכה‬, ִ Transposition A matching error can occur as the result of transposition. MpL 1 Kgs 8:4 presents the note ‫“ ֗ה‬five times” for the first instance of ‫ וְ ֶאת‬and the note ‫פסוק את ואת ואת‬ ֗ ‫֗ט‬ “nine verses (in this book) containing ‫ ”את ואת ואת‬for ‫וְ ֶאת־א ֶֹהל‬. By consulting MpA,C,V, however, it becomes clear that these notes have been transposed, for which reason Weil reverses their order (see note 304). Conflation In one instance, MpL accidentally conflates two independent notes. MpL 1 Sam 12:23 (see note 148) presents the frequency note ‫“ ֗ל ֗ג‬there are thirty-three occurrences” for the form ‫וְ ַהיְ ָשׁ ָרה‬, even though the form is unique. Because MpA pre-

CONCLUSIONS

305

sents the frequency notes ‫ ֗ל‬for ‫ וְ ַהיְ ָשׁ ָרה‬and ‫ ֗ג‬for the second subsequent word ‫יְ ראוּ‬, it becomes clear that the frequency note ‫ ֗ל ֗ג‬results from a conflation of two distinct Mp notes. Therefore, Weil emends the note to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique” and creates a separate Mp note for ‫ ֗;ג יתיר ֗א( יְ ראוּ‬see note 149, 1 Sam 12:24).

Errors in BH K Five MpBHS notes in the Former Prophets may be marked “sub loco” in part because Weil intends to comment on an error in BHK. Note 115, for instance, concerns the form ‫גוֹרל‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ‬in Judg 20:9. MpL counts only four occurrences, but Weil emends the note to indicate that BHK mistakenly prints the circellus above ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ָﬠ ֶל‬ ‫ ְבּגוֹ ָרל‬, which occurs once in ML, not four times. Standardizations There are many instances in which Weil emends a frequency note in MpL not because the frequency note is incorrect but because MpL presents different but complementary tallies for another instance of the same form. In certain cases, Weil emends one of the two correct notes in favor of the other, thereby standardizing the Masorah. Note 205 addresses one such example. MpL Judg 8:34 counts two occurrences of ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫מיַּ ד ָכּל־א ֵֹיְב‬, ִ and the second occurrence is the similar phrase ‫וּמיַּ ד ָכּל־‬ ִ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫א ֵֹיְב‬, which is found in 2 Sam 3:18. MpL 2 Sam 3:18, however, presents the frequency note ‫“ ֗ל‬unique,” which is also correct. For both occurrences Weil prints the frequency note ‫“ ֗ב‬there are two occurrences,” thereby standardizing the Masorah, “in this and another form” to clarify the but he also adds the clarification ‫בליש‬ ֗ scope. In some instances there is insufficient evidence to determine whether Weil views his emendation of MpL as a correction of a frequency error or as a standardization of two complementary Mp notes. MpL 2 Sam 7:28 (see note 218) counts four occurrences of the phrase ‫ וְ ַﬠ ָתּה ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬and ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬, whereas ML only contains a total of three occurrences of these phrases. Weil emends the tally to three in accordance with MpL Isa 48:16. It is not certain that he considers the tally of four to be an error of frequency, though, because the tally of four is in fact correct if the one non-prefixed occurrence of ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫( ַﬠ ָתּה יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬2 Chr 1:9) is included. Weil also standardizes mnemonics. For instance, MpL Josh 3:10 (see note 4) presents the mnemonic ‫ ֗ע ֗תו֗ ֗פ ֗ג ֗מ ֗ס‬for the phrase containing the numerous Canaanite gentilics. Because MpL abbreviates ‫ ַה ְכּנַ ֲﬠנִ י‬with ‫ ֗ע‬in certain mnemonics and ‫ ֗כ‬in others, Weil standardizes the abbreviation in MpBHS. Weil also standardizes mnemonics by preceding them with the word ‫“ סימן‬mnemonic.” Combinations of Two or More MpL Notes Occasionally, instead of standardizing the Masorah with one of two correct tallies, Weil chooses to combine notes. This requires a sub loco note because it involves a modification of MpL. Note 16 concerns Weil’s emendation of the MpL note for ‫וְ לֹא‬ ‫ ָהיָ ה‬in Josh 10:14 from ֗‫ ֗כז‬to ‫מנה ר״פ‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗כ ֗ה ֗ג‬there are twenty-five occurrences, three ֗ is a of which are at the beginning of a verse.” The first part of the MpBHS note (‫)כ ֗ה‬ correction of the incorrect frequency note ֗‫כז‬.֗ The second part of the note is a com-

306

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

֗ Weil presents a sub loco pletion of Weil’s emendation of MpL 1 Chr 2:34 (‫)ג ר״פ‬. note for MpBHS Josh 10:14 because he emends a frequency note, conjoins it with another frequency note, and adds the supplement ‫מנה‬. ֗ Unresolved Weil occasionally prints an incorrect MpL note in MpBHS without emending it. In many such cases he does so presumably because he is not able to find a satisfactory resolution. For instance, ML contains the form ‫( וַ יִּ ָ ֤שּׁ ַ ֽבע‬with the mahpaḵ accent) only in 1 Sam 28:10 (see note 196). However, MpL 1 Sam 28:10 counts two occurrences, and Weil simply reprints this note for MpBHS without completing it for any other verbal form of the root .‫ע‬.‫ב‬.‫שׁ‬. It is therefore possible that he interprets ‫ ֗ב‬as a frequency error and intended to emend the note to ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫ל‬.֗ However, from the evidence available one cannot be certain that Weil was able to resolve the problem. Elsewhere, he expressly states that he is unsure about his resolution of a masoretic problem. In note 404 it is observed that certain MpL notes count thirty-four occurrences of the plene form ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ and similar cases. ML has ‫ י ְֹשׁ ֵבי‬in 2 Kgs 23:2, but Weil reads ‫יוֹשׁ ֵבי‬ ְ and considers it to be one of the thirty-four forms counted by the Masorah. However, his comment in the masoretic apparatus (“Dub” = dubious) indicates that he is not certain that his emendation is correct. His uncertainty about this contra textum reading is the reason for this sub loco note.

A COMPARISON OF TAXONOMIES

Daniel Mynatt’s principal objective in his monograph The Sub Loco Notes in the Torah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is to analyze and classify each of the sub loco notes within the Torah. 1 He groups each of the notes into one of three categories: no error, error, and unsolved. However, the classification “unsolved” is more of a repository for notes that he would have ultimately assigned to one of the first two categories if the information necessary for resolving these problems had been available to him. The two classifications of “no error” and “error” divide into nine major types, many of which are broken down into subtypes. The following table is adapted from his “Table 4: An Outline of Categories for Explaining Errors in the Sub Loco Notes of the Torah” 2 and from his subsequent discussion of the taxonomy.

1 2

Mynatt, Sub Loco, 1–2. Ibid., 227–38.

CONCLUSIONS I.

II.

III.

307

No Error A. Clarification: Note Exists in L i. MpBHS notes that do not contradict MpL ii. MpL notes supplemented with information not attested in MpL iii. Different notes for different text features iv. Non-standardized notes v. Emendation of a correct note B. Clarification: No Note in L i. Explanatory comments in the apparatus not directly related to the MpBHS note ii. Explanatory comments in the apparatus without a MpBHS note iii. Additions to MfL iv. Completed notes unnecessarily marked “sub loco” C. Incomplete information

Error A. Enumeration Errors B. Matching Errors i. Notes out of order ii. Dislocation errors iii. Rubric errors iv. Combination divided C. Copyist Errors i. Text feature description errors 1. Incomplete text feature descriptions 2. Inaccurate text feature descriptions ii. Conflated notes iii. Digit errors iv. Characters confused v. Proximity errors D. Another Text Tradition E. Contra Textum F. BHS Mp against the Text Unsolved

Mynatt’s taxonomy elucidates the numerous reasons that prompted Weil to present sub loco notes in the Torah of BHS, and it filled a void that had obtained in scholarship from the publication of the first fascicle of BHS in 1968 until the publication of his monograph in 1994. Mynatt is to be lauded for his diligence in analyzing and classifying these notes. Within the corpus of the sub loco notes in the Former Prophets I have found at least one example for every one of his classifications, and this suggests that his taxonomy is largely sound.

308

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

There are two significant distinctions between Mynatt’s taxonomy and my own, however. The first concerns the aim of our respective taxonomies. My taxonomy attempts to strictly reflect Weil’s treatment and interpretation of MpL, whereas his focuses heavily on his own resolution of the problems that occasioned the sub loco notes. For example, Mynatt use the classification “unsolved” for entries that he could not resolve. The present work uses the classification “unresolved” for entries that Weil could not resolve. A second distinction between our two taxonomies is that I have combined some of Mynatt’s categories that I consider to be too finely parsed. He distinguishes notes that involve an emendation of frequency according to the reason for the corruption. Examples are emendations of a correct note (I.A.v), enumeration errors (II.A), digit errors (II.C.iii), and characters confused (II.C.iv). Such a nuanced treatment is useful in that it sheds light on the various phenomena that lead to corruptions of MpL, but there are two problems with how Mynatt categorizes these notes. First, the reason for the corruption of frequency notes is rarely certain, as he himself states. 3 In most cases multiple explanations for a corruption can be posited, which leads one to wonder if Mynatt should have so finely distinguished problems of frequency. Second, all such subcategories have a common denominator: they involve emendations of frequency. In Mynatt’s taxonomy notes of these types fall into both of the two major categories of “error” and “no error.” I have grouped them together into one category (“clarifications and emendations of frequency”) because Weil’s reason for marking them with a sub loco note is the same. Mynatt’s classifications “Contra Textum” and “BHS Mp against the Text” are also too finely distinguished from one another. He uses the former classification for MpL notes that disagree with the text of ML and the latter classification for MpBHS notes that disagree with the text of ML. Both types are—technically speaking—contra textum notes, however. For this reason, the present work subsumes notes of both types under the category “text-critical notes.”

WEIL’S TREATMENT OF THE MASORAH: AN EVALUATION

With the publishing of BHS and its revised, integrated, and completed Masorah, those without expertise in Masorah could at last interpret the cryptic Mp and gain a deeper appreciation for the Masoretes and their work. Weil prepared MpBHS with great precision, as is clear from the analysis presented in chapters 2–8, and his interpretations of the Masorah are largely correct, making it a very reliable tool for interpreting MpL. Nevertheless, MpBHS does contain a number of inconsistencies and errors, many of which pertain to the sub loco notes. One way in which Weil is particularly inconsistent is in the application of the clarification ‫בליש‬ ֗ (generally translated “in this and similar cases”). Many MpL notes are correct only when similar, prefixed forms are included. In some of these cases, MpL 1 Samuel 10:8 (see note 143) Weil supplements the frequency note with ‫בליש‬. ֗ 3

Mynatt, Sub Loco, 229; similarly, Breuer, The Aleppo Codex, 205.

CONCLUSIONS

309

counts three forms of ‫בּוֹאי‬, ִ and this tally is correct only when one includes the similar form ‫וּבוֹאי‬ ִ (Song 4:16), which Weil does. In other cases, however, MpBHS presents a tally that includes similar forms, yet Weil does not include the clarification ‫בליש‬. ֗ For example, MpBHS Josh 15:2 counts twenty-seven occurrences of ‫נֶ גְ ָבּה‬, and from Weil’s completion of the Masorah one sees that this tally includes a number of prefixed forms (see note 25). He does not add the clarification ‫בליש‬, ֗ however. Other entries involve a correct frequency note in MpL that includes similar cases which Weil emends due to his exclusion of the similar forms. For example, the MpL note for ‫וּמ ַחיֶּ ה‬ ְ in 1 Sam 2:6 (see note 125) counts two occurrences of the form ‫וּמ ַחיֶּ ה‬, ְ which is correct if one includes the similar form ‫( ְמ ַחיֶּ ה‬Neh 9:6). Instead of adding ‫בליש‬, ֗ Weil emends the frequency note to ‫“ ֗ל‬unique.” Weil is also inconsistent in his adding of sub loco notes to MpBHS notes that are completions of emended MpL notes. Generally, Weil does not present a sub loco note for such notes because a change in MpL has not taken place in that particular instance, 4 but there are exceptions. For instance, MpL 1 Chr 17:12 marks the defective form ‫ וְ כֹנַ נְ ִתּי‬as unique (‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ ֗)ל‬even though ML contains two occurrences of the form (see note 215). According to expectation, Weil emends MpL 1 Chr 17:12 to ‫֗ב‬ ‫וחס‬ ֗ “twice and defective” and presents a sub loco note. He completes this emended note for the parallel form in 2 Sam 7:13, but his marking it with a sub loco note is unnecessary because a MpL note has not been altered in that particular instance. In addition to the many inconsistencies, MpBHS also contains a number of errors, as has long been recognized. 5 From chapters 2–8 one finds that Weil commits nine types of errors in the Former Prophets. Emendations of Frequency Occasionally, Weil incorrectly emends a frequency note. Note 85 addresses one such example. As per MpL Judg 9:33, ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ַבבּ ֶֹקר‬occurs twice in ML: Judg 9:33; Ruth 3:13. Weil incorrectly emends the Masorah from ‫ ֗ב‬to ‫ל‬.֗ Elsewhere, he emends the frequency because he follows a source that presents an incorrect frequency note. Note ֗ ֗‫ו‬ 212 discusses one such instance. MpL 2 Sam 6:19 presents for ‫ וַ יְ ַח ֵלּק‬the note ‫פסוק‬ ‫“ לכל לכל‬there are six verses with two occurrences of ‫לכל‬.” Though Weil correctly moves the circellus from ‫ וַ יְ ַח ֵלּק‬to the first instance of ‫ל ָכל‬,ְ he incorrectly emends the frequency from six to ten in accordance with Ginsburg. The tally of six is in fact correct (as per OchlahP §302 and MfV, ‫כל‬, §26) even though there are fourteen verses in the Hebrew Bible in which ‫ל ָכל‬/‫ֹל‬ ְ ‫ ְלכ‬occurs twice. Upon closer examination of these fourteen verses, one discovers that there are six that are distinct from all others because in them the two occurrences of ‫ל ָכל‬/‫ֹל‬ ְ ‫ ְלכ‬begin phrases that are adjacent to one another. Thus, Weil should have printed the MpL note with a clarification rather than emending the frequency error. 4 5

Mynatt, Sub Loco, 14. Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 338.

310

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Weil’s treatment of the Mf of Kings also contains a frequency error. The Mf for Kings in ML counts 1,534 verses, whereas Kings actually has 1,536 verses. If the lower tally were correct, then 1 Kgs 22:5 would begin the second half of Kings in terms of verses. MpL marks the beginning of the second half of Kings at 1 Kgs 22:6, which reflects the longer tally. Weil’s revised Mf note is self-contradictory in that it counts 1534 verses but marks 1 Kgs 22:6 as the middle. There are also two insignificant problems in Weil’s treatment of the sədarîm in the Former Prophets. First, he mistakenly places the twelfth seder at 1 Kgs 13:30 instead of at 13:31. Second, he fails to present a sub loco note for the thirty-second seder sign. Statements about Text Features Weil occasionally makes incorrect statements about text features. MpL 1 Sam 8:8 presents the note ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ג‬for the defective ‫ ו‬form ‫�תי‬ ִ ‫( ַה ֲﬠ‬see note 137), and Weil emends the note to ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫חס וחד‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג ֗ב‬three times, two of which are defective and one of which is plene.” Though his emendation is correct for non-prefixed forms of ‫�תי‬ ִ ‫ה ֲﬠ‬,ַ Weil fails to realize that the Mp note ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ג‬includes the two occurrences of ‫�תי‬ ִ ‫( ַה ֲﬠ‬1 Sam 8:8; 2 Sam 7:6) and the similar defective ‫ ו‬form ‫�תי‬ ִ ‫( ַבּ ֲﬠ‬Deut 9:9). Weil’s failure to recognize that the similar form ‫�תי‬ ִ ‫ ַבּ ֲﬠ‬is included in the tally of three leads him to needlessly emend a correct MpL note. Incorrect Context Weil also errs by incorrectly identifying the portion of the Bible that is within a giv֗ ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬there are three en MpL note’s scope. The focus of note 310 is the note ‫בסיפ‬ occurrences with this accent in this book,” which MpL and MpBHS present for ‫וְ ַא ָ֞תּה‬ (1 Kgs 9:4). Whereas these notes ostensibly count three occurrences of ‫ וְ ַא ָתּה‬with the geršayim accent in the book of Kings, ML only contains one such occurrence. This form occurs exactly three times in the Former Prophets, however. Because Weil completes this note for the other two occurrences (Judg 11:27; 1 Sam 15:6), it would seem that he intended to broaden the scope to the Prophets but failed to do so. Note 162 is the most curious of Weil’s context errors. MpL 1 Sam 17:5 counts two occurrences of the plene form ‫ ָלבוּשׁ‬in the Prophets. This form occurs twice in ML (1 Sam 17:5; Dan 10:5), but only one of the occurrences is within the Prophets. MmA 1 Sam 17:5, MmV Prov 31:21, and Ginsburg, 2, ‫ל‬, §293 specify that the two forms within the Prophets are 1 Sam 17:5 (‫)לבוּשׁ‬ ָ and 2 Kgs 10:22 (‫)לבוּשׁ‬. ְ Weil corL ֗ ‫מל‬ ֗ ‫)ב‬ ֗ without emendation but he incorrectly rectly prints Mp 1 Sam 17:5 (‫בנב‬ completes the note for Dan 10:5. Text-Critical Notes The fourth category concerns text-critical errors. One type of text-critical error concerns contra textum readings, one example of which is addressed in note 6. For the ֗ ֗‫חס וכל שמו‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ב‬there are two deform ‫( וַ יַּ ְשׁ ִכּמוּ‬Josh 6:15) MpL presents the note ‫כות‬ fective occurrences and all instances in Samuel likewise,” but Weil emends it to ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫֗ג‬ “there are three defective occurrences.” His emendation of MpL is based upon his

CONCLUSIONS

311

contra textum readings in Samuel (1 Sam 1:19; 5:3; 5:4), which are not supported by MA or its Masorah. Weil’s erroneous treatment of a qərê/kəṯîḇ is another type of text-critical error. Note 65 discusses Weil’s emendation of a qərê. MpA,L,C present the qərê ‫יושבי‬, whereas Weil follows MS1,V in presenting the defective form ‫ ישבי‬as the qərê. The best evidence militates against his emendation. Matching Errors A fifth type of error is matching errors. One such instance is addressed in note 15. MpL Josh 10:12 counts three occurrences of ‫ ָאז יְ ַד ֵבּר‬, whereas this phrase occurs only twice in ML: Josh 10:12; Ps 2:5. Accordingly, Weil revises the frequency note to ‫ב‬.֗ Haketer rightly observes that the Masorah counts cases in which the verb .‫ר‬.‫ב‬.‫ד‬ governs ‫ליהוָ ה‬.ַ Weil fails to correct the circelli, which leads him to needlessly emend the frequency note. Thus, what Weil treats as a frequency error is actually a matching error. As per note 131, MpL 1 Sam 4:8 counts three occurrences of ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ ֵהם ָה ֱא‬outL side of Qohelet. This phrase occurs only once in M , however, and Weil emends the Masorah accordingly. It is clear by comparison with MA that this MpL note belongs not to ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫ ֵהם ָה ֱא‬but to the antecedent phrase ‫�הים‬ ִ ‫מיַּ ד ָה ֱא‬. ִ Had Weil been able to consult MA, it is likely that he would have corrected the placement of the circellus.

BHK Notes

Weil also errs in his treatment of the Masorah by following incorrect data found in ָ ְ‫ ִמ ְצַו֖ת י‬in Josh 22:3, which counts BHK. The focus of note 52 is the MpL note for ‫הו֥ה‬ six occurrences in the book of Joshua that are accented with ṭiṕḥâ and mêrəḵâ. ML, however, contains only three instances of ‫מ ְצוַ ת יְ הוָ ה‬, ִ regardless of the accents, and only three occurrences of the form ‫( ִמ ְצַו֖ת‬with ṭiṕḥâ). BHK lists five other occurrences, but these five and Josh 22:3 are not morphologically or accentually identical, which indicates that the MpL note under consideration is corrupt. Weil nevertheless completes the Masorah for the five other references that BHK lists. MmA,L,C Josh 22:3 count only three occurrences of ‫ ִמ ְצוַ ת יְ הוָ ה‬regardless of the accents, however, and this indicates that Weil should have emended the MpL Josh 22:3 in accordance with MmL Josh 22:3. Standardizations Errors in standardizing the Masorah is the seventh type. As per note 340, Weil emends a correct frequency note in MpL in accordance with another, incorrect frequency note in MpL. MpL 1 Kgs 19:21 marks ‫ ִבּ ְשּׁ ָלם‬as unique, in accordance with MpA,C 1 Kgs 19:21 and the text of ML. Weil, however, emends the frequency to two and adds a supplementary note that indicates that ‫ ִבּ ְשּׁ ָלם‬and a nearly identical form (‫בּ ְשׁ ָלם‬,ִ Ezra 4:7) have different meanings. This emendation is based on MpL Ezra 4:7 (‫)ב‬, ֗ which groups these two forms together. The two forms are not morphologically identical, however, and thus should not be grouped together.

312

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Completions of the Masorah Occasionally, Weil fails to complete a MpBHS note. Note 21 addresses an instance in which Weil’s failure to complete the Masorah is due to mere oversight. Weil prints the note ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫מנה‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗י֗ב ֗ד‬there are twelve occurrences, four of which occur in this form” for the first three instances of ‫( וְ ַﬠד־גְּ בוּל‬Josh 13:3; 1 Kgs 5:1; Ezek 29:10). For the fourth occurrence (2 Chr 9:26), however, Weil merely prints ‫ד‬.֗ Elsewhere Weil seems to refrain from completing a Mp note because he cannot resolve the related difficulties. Note 150 concerns the note ‫בליש‬ ֗ ‫חס‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ג‬there are three defective occurrences in this and similar cases” which MpL 1 Sam 13:9 presents for the form ‫הגִּ שׁוּ‬.ַ The tally includes occurrences of hifil verbal forms of .‫ש‬.‫ג‬.‫נ‬ that are pointed with ḥîreq and not ḥîreq yôd. Weil reprints the MpL note for 1 Sam 13:9 but completes it for only one other occurrence (Gen 27:25). Note 78 discusses another instance in which Weil incorrectly completes a MpL note. He correctly prints the note ‫בטע‬ ֗ ‫“ ֗ה‬five times with this accent” in Judg 6:16 for ‫ית‬ ֥ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬, but he mistakenly completes the Mp note for 1 Sam 23:2. Failure to Emend MpL Sometimes Weil fails to emend a MpL note that is incorrect. MpL 1 Sam 16:4 (see note 159) counts eight occurrences of ‫את ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר יְ הוָ ה‬, ֵ whereas ML contains only three occurrences of this phrase. Weil does not correct the frequency error nor does he complete the Masorah with ‫ ֗ח‬in either of the other two instances. Another instance is discussed in note 166. MpL 1 Sam 17:57 counts eleven occurrences of ‫וַ ִיְב ֵאהוּ‬, and Weil prints this note without emendation in MpBHS. This exact form occurs only six time in ML, however; and if one includes occurrences of the plene ‫י‬ counterpart ‫יאהוּ‬ ֵ ‫וַ ִיְב‬, the tally rises to thirteen. Weil may consider this MpL note not to be a frequency error but a dittography of the MpL note for ‫וְ רֹאשׁ‬, which appears in the subsequent line of ML. Regardless of his interpretation, however, an emendation or deletion is needed.

THE RELIABILITY OF THE SUB LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS OF BHS

If one excludes the sədarîm notes and entries that concern a masoretic rule addressed in a previous note, the entries in the Former Prophets number 355. Of these 355 MpBHS sub loco notes, sixty-six (18.59%) are at least partially in error. The datum corresponds very closely to the initial projection based on Mynatt’s findings. I have noted in chapter 1 that four of the five MpA notes (80%) from the Torah that correct an error in MpL support the corresponding MpBHS note, while one of the five (20%) does not. Having investigated a substantially larger corpus and having thoroughly searched MpA for all relevant data, I have found that Weil’s resolutions of MpL are completely correct 81.41% of the time. This differs from Mynatt’s projection by only 1.41% and confirms that slightly more than four out of every five MpBHS notes marked sub loco are completely correct. It must be noted, however, that many of these sixty-six MpBHS notes that are partially or completely in error are incorrect in only insignificant ways. This means that the accuracy of Weil’s solutions to the sub loco notes in the Former Prophets significantly exceeds 81.41%. One

CONCLUSIONS

313

cannot scientifically determine the reliability of MpBHS, however, because, as we have seen in the commentary, evaluating Weil’s treatment of MpL regularly involves some degree of speculation. Without being able to consult all of the sources upon which he drew and without recourse to his research, there are many instances in which one can only conjecture how Weil would have resolved the matter in his commentary. Numerous sub loco notes in the Former Prophets closely correspond or identically correspond to a MpA note presented for the same form in the same location. However, there are still a number of sub loco notes that contradict MpA, which would suggest that when MpBHS agrees with MpA it is not necessarily because Weil consulted the Masorah of MA. Now it is clear that Weil was privy to a substantial amount of research on MA that was published in the years prior to the publication of the first fascicle of BHS. For example, the first volume of Textus appeared in 1960, and every volume between 1960 and the publication of BHS’s first fascicle in 1968 includes at least one article pertaining to MA. Sometimes these essays even address issues that pertain to a sub loco note. For instance, note 207 (2 Sam 5:2) addresses a problem that Yeivin discusses in Textus in 1962. 6 Seeing as how Weil himself published in Textus as early as 1962 7 and was therefore involved in masoretic circles prior to that, it would seem that he could have discussed with other scholars matters related to the sub loco notes and that he had the time necessary to incorporate into MpBHS any data that he received from them. While he acknowledged in 1963 that MA had not yet become available to him, 8 the first fascicle of BHS would not be published for another five years, leaving him sufficient time before the publication of that fascicle to revise MpBHS in accordance with the text of MA and its Masorah. Nevertheless, the weight of evidence suggests that he did not draw upon MA to resolve the sub loco notes in the Former Prophets, except perhaps in only a few instances. It is more likely that such correspondences between MA and MpBHS occur because Weil correctly emended the Masorah from (1) another, correct MpL note or MmL list, (2) a Mp note or Mm list from another source (e.g., MC,V or Ginsburg), or (3) from the text of ML itself. The clearest reason for concluding that Weil did not draw upon MA is because he does not list it as one of his resources in the introduction to BHS. 9 He is clearly aware that it would have been ideal to draw upon MA. 10 Therefore, if he had in fact consulted MA, it is surprising that he would not have said so in his introduction to BHS, especially since he mentions MC,V, various masoretic treatises, and modern masoretic studies (see chapter 1 for further discussion). Furthermore, the facsimile of MA was not published by Goshen-Gottstein until Israel Yeivin, “The Vocalization of Qere-Kethiv in A.” G. E. Weil, “Propositions pour une etude de la Tradition massorétique babylonienne,” 103–19. 8 Weil, “La nouvelle Édition de la Massorah [BHK IV] et L’Historie de la Massorah,” 268. 9 BHS5, XVII. 10 Weil, “La nouvelle Édition,” 268. 6 7

314

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

1976, the year that the last fascicles of BHS were published (Daniel and EzraNehemiah), and Loewinger did not publish MmA until 1977. 11 Weil was already awaiting the publication of MmA in 1962, 12 but it would be another fifteen years before the edition saw the light of day. Weil did publish an article comparing the MmA and MmL lists of Deut 28:17–34:12, but that was not until 1971. He states: “Le manuscrit A est aujourd’hui conservé au Ben-Zvi Institute de Jérusalem, au pouvoir discrétionnaire du Dr. M. Benayahu, son directeur. Ce document ne peut être vu en passant qu’après autorisation spéciale; aucune photographie ni aucun microfilm ne sont, par ailleurs, communiqués aux chercheurs.” 13

This statement suggests that he would have had very little data from MA and its Masorah in the years during which he was preparing MpBHS. Additionally, Yeivin’s The Aleppo Codex of the Bible: A Study of Its Vocalization and Accentuation was not published until 1968, and Breuer’s The Aleppo Codex and the Accepted Text of the Bible, which contains numerous entries that would have been useful to Weil in checking the accuracy of MpL, was not published until 1976. Finally, it seems that Weil, at best, had limited recourse to MA because numerous entries in this work involve an emendation of MpL that he would have resolved differently had MA been at his disposal (see, e.g., note 91). Though Weil would have produced a more accurate Masorah for BHS had he been able to consult MA, it has been shown above that he nevertheless resolved the problems with which the sub loco notes in the Former Prophet are concerned with a success rate of greater than 80%. As these notes are some of the greatest masoretic conundrums in MpL, his high rate of success suggests that the overall reliability of MpBHS is significantly higher. This is particularly impressive, especially when one recognizes that he did not have recourse to MA and its Masorah and the electronic and print resources that have been published since his completion of MpBHS. Whatever its shortcomings, MpBHS has allowed students and scholars of the Hebrew Bible a reliable means to explore the content and function of the Tiberian Masorah and the role that masoretic study can play in biblical criticism and interpretation.

D. S. Loewinger, Massorah Magna of the Aleppo Codex. Weil, “La nouvelle Édition, 268. 13 “La Formation du commentaire de la Massorah Magna marginale dans les grands codex biblique: Etude comparée des listes de Dt 28,17 a 34,12 dans les manuscrits A et L,” 3, n. 1. 11 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY ELECTRONIC SEARCH ENGINES

Accordance Bible Software – Version 10. Oaktree Software, Inc., 2013. BibleWorks – Version 9. BibleWorks, LLC, 2013.

Logos Bible Software 4. Logos Bible Software, 2000–2012.

MgKeter Application. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1994. The ‘Keter’ Databases – Second Version (beta1), 2009.

BIBLE MANUSCRIPTS, FACSIMILES, AND PRINTED EDITIONS

Beit-Arié, M., C. Sirat, and M. Glatzer. Codices Hebraicis Litteris Exarati Quo Tempore Scripti Fuerint Exhibentes. Vol. 1. Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi, Series Hebraica. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997.

Ben Hayim Ibn Adoniya, Jacob, ed. Biblia Rabbinica. 4 vols. Venice: Bomberg, 1524– 25. Repr., New York: Pardes, 1951.

Breuer, Mordechai, ed. Jerusalem Crown: The Bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Printing, 2000.

———. The Masora Magna of the Pentateuch. Jerusalem: The Masora Foundation, 2002. Cohen, Menachem, ed., Mikraʾot Gedolot ‘Haketer’. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan, 1992–. Dotan, Aron, ed. Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984 (First edition: Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1977). Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 4th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990 (First edition: Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1977).

Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997 (First edition: Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1977). 315

316

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Freedman, David Noel, Astrid B. Beck, Bruce E. Zuckerman, Marilyn J. Lundberg, and James A. Sanders, eds. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H., ed. The Aleppo Codex, Volume 1, The Plates. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1976.

Kittel, Rudolf, ed. Biblia Hebraica. 7th ed. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1951. Lowinger, D. S., ed. Codex Cairo of the Bible From the Karaite Synagogue At Abbasiya. Jerusalem: Makor Press, 1971.

Perez Castro, Federico, et al., eds. El Códice de Profetas de El Cairo. 8 vols. Madrid: CSIC, 1979–1988; 4 vols. of indices, Madrid: CSIC, 1992–1997. Schenker, A., Y. A. P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij, G. J. Norton, S. Pisano, J. de Waard, R. D. Weis, eds. Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004–.

.2010 ,‫ ירושלים‬.‫היד העבריים‬-‫ המכון לתצלומי כתבי‬.‫בית הספרים הלאומי והאוניברסיטאי‬

MASORETIC TREATISES AND PRINCIPAL RESOURCES FOR MASORETIC RESEARCH

Breuer, Mordechai. The Biblical Text in the Jerusalem Crown Edition and Its Sources in the Masora and Manuscripts. Jerusalem: Keren Ha-Masora, 2003 (Heb.). Díaz-Esteban, Fernando. Sefer ʾOklah wə-ʾOklah. Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC, 1975.

Dotan, Aron. Thesaurus of the Tiberian Masorah. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1977.

Dotan, Aron and Nurit Reich, eds. A Complete Alphabetic Collection of Comments From the Masora in the Leningrad Codex. Accordance Bible Software, 2014.

Frensdorff, Salomon. Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah (Massora). Hannover: Hann’sche Hofbuchhandlung, 1864. Repr., New York: KTAV, 1968. ———. Die Massora Magna: erster Theil, Massoretisches Wörterbuch. Hannover: Cohen & Risch, 1876. Repr., New York: KTAV, 1968. Ginsburg, Christian D. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897. Repr. with prolegomenon by Harry M. Orlinsky; New York: KTAV, 1966.

———. The Massorah: Compiled from Manuscripts. Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged. 4 vols. London, 1880–1905. Repr., New York: KTAV, 1975.

Gordis, Robert. The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere. Aug. with prolegomenon. New York: KTAV, 1971.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

317

Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Loewinger, D. S. Cairo Codex of the Bible (Facsimile). Jerusalem: Makor, 1971.

———. Massorah Magna of the Aleppo Codex. Jerusalem: Shrine of the Book, 1977.

Marcus, David. “Doublet Catchwords in the Leningrad Codex,” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 12 (2007): n.p. [cited 23 May 2013].

Mynatt, Daniel S. The Sub Loco Notes in the Torah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. BIBAL Dissertation Series 2. N. Richland Hills, Tex.: BIBAL, 1994.

Ognibeni, Bruno. Index biblique à la Ochlah W’ochlah de S. Frensdorff de S. Frensdorff. Torino: Silvio Zamorani Editore, 1992.

———. La seconda parte del sefer ʾoklah we ʾoklah: edizione del ms. Halle. Madrid: Instituto de Filologfa, 1995.

Price, James D. Concordance of the Hebrew Accents in the Hebrew Bible. 5 vols. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1996.

Weil, Gérard E. Massorah gedolah iuxta codicem Leningradensem B 19a. Vol. 1: Catalogi. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971.

GENERAL

Andersen, Francis I. and A. Dean Forbes. Spelling in the Hebrew Bible: Dahood Memorial Lecture. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. Barthélemy, Dominique. Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. English Translation of the Introductions to Volumes 1, 2, and 3 Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testement. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Breuer, Mordechai. The Aleppo Codex and the Accepted Text of the Bible. Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1976 (Heb. with English introduction). Cohen, Maimon. The Kethiḇ and Qeri System in the Biblical Text: A Linguistic Analysis of the Various Traditions Based on the Manuscript “Keter Aram Tsova.” Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2007. Dotan, Aron. “The Beginnings of Masoretic Vowel Notation.” Pages 21–33 in 1972 and 1973 Proceedings of the First Congress of the IOMS. Edited by H. M. Orlinksy. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974. ———. “Homonymous Hapax Doublets in the Masorah.” Textus 14 (1988): 131– 45. ———. The Awakening of Word Lore: From the Masora to the Beginnings of Hebrew Lexicography. The Academy of the Hebrew Language Sources and Studies VII; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2005. ———. “Masorah.” Pages 603–56 in vol. 13 of Encyclopedia Judaica. 2d ed. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007.

318

THE SUB-LOCO NOTES IN THE FORMER PROPHETS

Friedman, Matti. The Aleppo Codex: A True Story of Obsession, Faith, and the Pursuit of an Ancient Bible. New York: Algonquin Books, 2012. Golinets, Viktor. “Dageš, Mappiq, Specks on Vellum, and Editing of the Codex Leningradensis.” Pages 233‐263 in “Schrift und Sprache” Papers Read at the 10th Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH); Mainz, 28–30 October 2011. KUSATU 15. Edited by Reinhard G. Lehmann and Anna Elise Zernecke. Waltrop: Spenner, 2013. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe, “The Authenticity of the Aleppo Codex.” Textus 1 (1960): 17–58. Jastrow, Marcus, ed. Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903. Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Geniza. 2d ed. New York: Fredrick A. Praeger, 1959. Khan, Geoffrey. A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Msoretic Bible and its Reading Tradition Gorgias Handbooks 25. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2012. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Electronic ed. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. New York: Brill, 1999. Lyons, David. The Cumulative Masora: Text, Form and Transmission with a Facsimile Critical Edition of the Cumulative Masora in the Cairo Prophets Codex. Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion, 1999 (Heb.). Martín Contreras, Elvira. “Masora and Masoretic Interpretation.” Pages 542–550 in vol. 1 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation. Ed. Steven L. McKenzie. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Mulder, Martin Jan, ed. Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Mynatt, Daniel S. and Timothy G. Crawford. “Integrating the Masorah into the Classroom: A Tribute to Page Kelley.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 28.4 (2001): 373–84. Neusner, Jacob. The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2005. Ofer, Yosef. “The Sedarim of Prophets and Writings.” Tarbiz 58 (1989): 155–89 (Heb.). ———. The Babylonian Masora of the Pentateuch: Its Principles and Methods. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001. ———. “The History and Authority of the Aleppo Codex.” Pages 37–39 in Jerusalem Crown: Companion Volume. Edited by Mordechai Glatzer. Jerusalem: BenZvi, 2002. Polachek, I., I. F. Salkin, D. Schenhav, & Ofer, M. Maggen, and J. H. Haines. “Damage to an Ancient Parchment Document by Aspergillus.” Mycopathologia 106 (1989): 89–93. Tawil, Hayim and Bernard Schneider. Crown of Aleppo: The Mystery of the Oldest Hebrew Bible Codex. Philadelphia: JPS, 2010.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

319

Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3d rev. and exp. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Weil, Gerard E. “La nouvelle Édition de la Massorah (BHK IV) et L’Historie de la Massorah.” Pages 266–84 in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum: Congress Volume: Bonn, 1962. Edited by G. W. Anderson et al. Leiden: Brill, 1963. ———. “Propositions pour une etude de la Tradition massorétique babylonienne.” Textus 2 (1962): 103–19. ———. “La massorah magna babylonienne des prophetes.” Textus 3 (1963): 163– 70. ———. “La Formation du commentaire de la Massorah Magna marginale dans les grands codex biblique: Etude comparée des listes de Dt 28,17 a 34,12 dans les manuscrits A et L” Revue d’Histoire des Textes, 1 (1971): 1–48. Weiss, Judy. “The Masorah of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America Library Manuscript 232 (E. N. Adler Ms. 346).” Ph.D. diss., The Jewish Theological Seminary, 2009. Wickes, William. Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament. 1881. Repr., Prolegomenon by A. Dotan, New York: Ktav, 1970. Yeivin, Israel. “The Vocalization of Qere-Kethiv in A.” Textus 2 (1962), 146–49. ———. The Aleppo Codex of the Bible: A Study of Its Vocalization and Accentuation. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1968 (Heb. with English introduction). ———. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated and edited by E. J. Revell. Masoretic Studies 5. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1980. ———. The Biblical Masorah. 2d ed. Ed. Yosef Ofer. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2003.