Posted by: Nick Norelli | May 4, 2008

What’s Up with This?

I was going through the Reader’s Hebrew Bible and in Psalm 107 I noticed that in vss. 21-26, 40 that there is what appears to be little magnifying glasses to the right of the verse number.  They look like cantillation marks, but they aren’t within the text, so they can’t be.  They can’t be vowel points either, so what are they?  Why on earth would these appear to the side of these verse numbers?

I checked this against my NJPS Tanakh and to the side of the verse number in these verses, there is what appears to be an upside down nun (נ).  These mark out footnotes at the bottom of the page.  Likewise, when checking my Stone Edition Tanach, there are upside down nuns, not to the side of the verse number, but before each new verse starts within the body of the text.

So my question is, why has the RHB opted for this little magnifying glass looking sign while other Hebrew Bibles use an upside down nun?  Any help will be much appreciated.

B”H

 

Posted in Old Testament

« Bray on the Fathers’ Guide
Gregory of Nazianzus on Unity & Division »

Responses

The inverted nuns are the Hebrew adaption from a Greek manuscript editing system, using a sigma and reversed sigma to mark off a section of a text that was assumed misplaced. The sigma and reversed sigma are the forerunners of the parenthesis this way.

The same inverted nuns mark Numbers 10:35-6. Dots were also used in the ancient manuscripts to indicate the same thing.

Thank you, Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, pg. 54-5

By: Chuck Grantham on May 4, 2008
at 2:20 pm

Chuck: Any idea why the RHB would use the magnifying glass (which is really a telisha parvum I found out) instead of the inverted nun? The introduction doesn’t say anything about them.

By: Nick Norelli on May 4, 2008
at 5:24 pm

That is interesting. I was going to say, check out the intro, but I guess that doesn’t help.

By: Brian on May 4, 2008
at 6:10 pm

Nick: computer error in printing I think. See this blog for more info.

By: Chuck Grantham on May 5, 2008
at 12:23 am

Chuck: Thanks! Now that makes sense. I don’t know if you noticed, but that blog belongs to one of the editors of the RHB.

By: Nick Norelli on May 5, 2008
at 1:43 am

I noted that, and his desire for a Reader’s Hebrew and Greek Bible combo!

By: Chuck Grantham on May 5, 2008
at 1:49 am

Chuck: Yes, that would be a grand idea. The German Bible Society already does one if I’m not mistaken, but I’m sure with the critical apparatus(es) it’s huge. A Reader’s combo wouldn’t be much bigger than your average study Bible. Which reminds me, I’m going to have to see if I can’t get a review copy of the RGNT one of these days. :)

By: Nick Norelli on May 5, 2008
at 1:53 am

He should have stuck to Unicode, instead of developing his own font system which didn’t work.

By: Peter Kirk on May 5, 2008
at 9:25 am

Peter: I don’t know if you read the post that Chuck linked to, but Brown explained his reasons for not using unicode in it.

By: Nick Norelli on May 5, 2008
at 10:25 am

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories