|
Updated: 2019.10.05 
Note: a frequent error by Hellenist Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) scholars: The tiny tick on some C.E. (i.e., non-ancient) Hebrew letters, as found in the font and calligraphy from the earliest extant (Middle Ages) SeiphꞋër Tōr•âhꞋ until today is a ÷åÉõ, not a ÷ÆøÆï. Any perusal of pre-33 C.E. Hebrew mss. demonstrates that the ÷åÉõ did not exist as part of a letter in the scribal mss. up through the 1st century C.E. Therefore, ÷ÆøÆï could not have been what RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa used as an example in The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM, in English) 5.18. As there are no Hebrew mss. of that period exhibiting written trops, it seems very probable that this was part of the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
While named differently in different traditions, the most pristine – No•sakhꞋ Tei•mânꞋ – instantiates the ÷ÆøÆï as forward-leaning ôÄùÑÀèÈà ( à֙, note the leftmost position), which stands alone, or forward-leaning àÈæÅéì ( à֨, note the centered position), which may be found alone (as in bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 1.2 in the word úÉ֨äåÌ֙, where the conjunctive, àÈæÅéì, is followed by the disjunctive ôÄùÑÀèÈà) or paired with backward-leaning àÈúÌÅé ( à֜) as àÈæÅéì åÀàÈúÌÅé to delimit a clause (i.e., àà֨ àà àà֜ – as found in the first two words of Mᵊlâkh•imꞋ Beit 1.6).
Thus, losing, or even wrongly placing, a ÷ÆøÆï would alter the punctuation, the reciting, the phraseology and resulting interpretation of a passage of úÌåÉøÈä, which would then radiate apostate implications causing extensive misinterpretations.
Confusing a é (Hellenized to ιοτα) with a ÷ÆøÆï in an old, hand-copied and worn manuscript could be even worse.
That RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa used a cantillation mark as an example instantiates the antiquity of the written system. See further details in The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM, in English) note 5.18.2.
 |
|
 |