Quirks in μL in Job

This document presents some quirks in μL in the book of Job.

The header of each entry below takes the following form:

Where:

• proposed is a proposed transcription of μL or, rarely, μA
• consensus is the Masoretic consensus reading (or a good guess of it)
• # (hash sign) (number sign) is a link to more details on this quirk
• c:v is the chapter and verse of the book of Job

A דגש may be hiding high up on the yod and touching it. — U — M — μL 397A col. 3 line 21

BHQ notes this quirk. As usual, it does so by noting that μA and μY agree, and μL disagrees with them. I.e. μA=μY=x, μL=w, and w≠x. So what we boldly call the consensus, BHQ merely calls the matching contents of μA and μY. — U — M — μL 397B col. 1 line 1

U — M — μL 397B col. 2 line 12

U — M — μL 397B col. 2 line 14

The יתיב accent doesn’t make sense here because this is in the poetic rather than prose section of Job (3:2 – 42:6). — I don’t think BHQ is really proposing that μL has יתיב here. This is more likely a typo (inherited from BHS) than a deliberate choice. — U — M — μL 398A col. 1 line 3

U — M — μL 398A col. 1 line 20

This is one of seven similar cases in Job in μL. All are correctly transcribed in BHQ, i.e. transcribed without a מפיק. Although all are correctly transcribed in BHQ, they are noted to different extents in BHQ. Six of these seven, including this one, are noted in the entry for 4:9 in the BHQ section “Commentary on the Critical Apparatus.” Only this one and 11:6 are noted in the bottom-of-page critical apparatus as well. The one in 4:17 is not noted in any way in BHQ. — U — M — μL 398A col. 1 line -2 (2 counting from bottom of column)

This is one of seven similar cases in Job in μL. All are correctly transcribed in BHQ, i.e. transcribed without a מפיק. Although all are correctly transcribed in BHQ, they are noted to different extents in BHQ. This is the only one of these seven not noted in any way in BHQ. For more details, see my entry on 4:9. — U — M — μL 398A col. 2 line 10

There is little or no evidence of a דגש in the צ, and the consensus has no such דגש.

It is said (from direct inspection of μL in Russia) that there is “a pale yellow dot in the [צ] which could be the trace of a worn-off [דגש]” in Viktor Golinets, “Dageš, Mappiq, Specks on Vellum, and Editing of the Codex Leningradensis”, KUSATU 15/2013, p. 242 (2013).

This is interesting to know, since this pale yellow dot is not visible in the color image. All that is present in the color image is a slight smudge between the צ and the נ. This smudge closely resembles other nearby smudges.

Though interesting, this report of a pale yellow dot still falls well under the “little” of my assessment that there is little or no evidence of a דגש here.

The proposed transcription must either be a simple typo or must spring from some source other than the color image of μL or the consensus. Sometimes the black and white images of μL can be misleading, particularly when they are presented with high contrast, i.e. showing little or no “middle ground” of gray tones.

U — M — μL 398A col. 2 line 22

U — M — μL 398B col. 1 line 13

There is some kind of a dot way over next to the final khaf ( ך ) but it could easily be either not ink, or not intentional ink. Aside: the קמץ under ה is קטן. — U — M — μL 398B col. 1 line 17

The dot above the final khaf ( ך ) might at first glance appear to be a candidate for the possibly-expected רביע, but it is almost certainly the קמץ dot belonging to the word-part השלמה־ above, which, coincidentally, is part of our entry for 5:23. — U — M — μL 398B col. 1 line 19

Note that consensus has a rare and hard-to-understand phenomenon called “secondary מרכא” by Breuer.

This is one of only two strictly analogous cases listed here, though there are about 30 analogous cases if one includes those where the analogy is allowed to be less strict. What makes this case “rare among rare” is that, contrary to most cases, the מקף that is normally implicit is explict (in the consensus). Interestingly, μL has some sort of disturbance where one would expect the מקף, suggesting that there might have been a מקף here that was erased.

See Breuer CoS sections 09.27, 9.37, and 11.06.rn2. (CoS = The Cantillation of Scripture.) (Note that an English translation of CoS is now available, a great boon to students of cantillation who cannot easily read the original in its modern Hebrew.)

The mark under the ו of ותהי was changed from מרכא to געיה in going from BHS to BHQ. This was a regression, in my opinion, since it leaves ותהי with no accent, only געיה. This is an uncharitable transcription.

U — M — μL 398B col. 2 line 7

U — M — μL 398B col. 2 line 15

Consensus has no כתיב/קרי here, or, if you like, לא are the letters of both the כתיב and קרי. So, we could say that the consensus כתיב/קרי is לא/לא and the proposed כתיב/קרי for μL is לא/לו.

Aside: don’t be confused by what might look like an L (ell) open to the southeast, above the א of לא; it is the bar of a קמץ connected to a מרכא, both belonging to the ב of בָּ֥אוּ on the line above.

U — M — μL 398B col. 2 line 20

U — M — μL 398B col. 2 line 27

Contrary to the transcription shown above, the most likely scribal intent was מרכא. — U — M — μL 399A col. 1 line 2

BHQ silently ignores the possible רביע. — U — M — μL 399A col. 1 line 4

U — M — μL 399A col. 1 line 14

An argument could be made that it is μL not μA that represents the consensus here. For example, the Jerusalem Crown edition, despite normally staying quite close to μA, has עולה on א in its body text and only notes in an appendix that μA has עולה on ה. — U — M — μL 399A col. 1 line 27

It doesn’t make sense to have a חטף vowel (aka a חטף שווא) immediately followed by a simple שווא. Yet, the manuscript image clearly shows this: a חטף פתח (under ח) is immediately followed by a simple שווא (under ר). — U — M — μL 399A col. 2 line 3

This quirk is noted in BHQ. — U — M — μL 399A col. 2 line 5 (including 1 blank line in the count)

U — M — μL 399A col. 2 line 6

The געיה difference is not important to us here. — BHQ silently ignores the possible שורוק dot. — U — M — μL 399A col. 2 line 13 (including 1 blank line in the count)

Perhaps a רביע is merged into the left end of the (untranscribed) רפה. — U — M — μL 399A col. 2 line 20

U — M — μL 399A col. 2 line 23

Above I have asserted that the consensus has געיה here, but this געיה, like most cases of געיה, is optional. Therefore, one could just as easily assert the consensus has no געיה. I have chosen the consensus to be as close as possible to the proposed transcription of μL. I did this in order to make the proposed transcription seem no weirder than it really is. In other words, it is better to frame this as a question of דחי vs געיה than as a question of דחי vs no mark at all. — U — M — μL 399A col. 2 line -4 (4 counting from bottom of column)

There is a bump on the פ that might be a misplaced דגש. — U — M — μL 399B col. 1 line 12 (including 1 blank line in the count)

As UXLC notes, the possible גרש מוקדם appears to be doubled, possibly as the result of a single stroke whose only remains are its edges. — The evidence for this גרש מוקדם is slim, so BHQ’s choice to leave it out is reasonable. Having left it out though, BHQ should have noted its absence, i.e. noted the divergence from consensus. — U — M — μL 399B col. 1 line 16

BHQ silently supplies the סילוק that is the consensus expectation, despite little or no evidence for it in μL. — U — M — μL 399B col. 1 line 22 (including 1 blank line in the count)

BHQ silently supplies the סילוק that is the consensus expectation, despite little or no evidence for it in μL. — U — M — μL 399B col. 2 line 15

As DM footnote 20 mentions, this is one of three such cases, the other two being 27:9 and 34:33. In all three cases, the consensus has געיה on an initial vocal שווא notated as a חטף פתח. In μL, the געיה is on an initial פתח, a full (albeit short) syllable rather than a שווא. — U — M — μL 399B col. 2 line -8 (8 counting from bottom of column)

U — M — μL 399B col. 2 line -6 (6 counting from bottom of column)

Whereas usually we just baldly and boldly state what (we think) the consensus is, here we will try to explain why the transcription’s divergence from consensus seems so unlikely to reflect the scribal intent.

In BHS, a דחי followed by מרכא is probably found only here and in the following three cases: Ps 86:7 צָ֭רָתִ֥י, Ps 118:5 הַ֭מֵּצַ֥ר, and Ps 139:7 אָ֭נָ֥ה. In those three cases, there is little question about the דחי: the question is only whether the second mark is מרכא or געיה. (In the Ps 118:5 הַ֭מֵּצַ֥ר case, there is also a question of whether there should be a second mark at all.)

In contrast, here in 10:6 the דחי is highly questionable because it follows an אתנח, a sequence unprecedented in the consensus and rare even in BHS, where it is probably found in only two other cases: Ps 115:3 כֹּ֭ל אֲשֶׁר־חָפֵ֣ץ עָשָֽׂה׃ and Ps 119:16 לֹ֭א אֶשְׁכַּ֣ח דְּבָרֶֽךָ׃. In both of those two cases, טרחא is a better transcription of μL.

After אתנח, the consensus sequence here in 10:6 is מרכא and then סילוק: וּֽלְחַטָּאתִ֥י תִדְרֽוֹשׁ׃. After אתנח, this sequence is found about 194 times in poetic verses, about 38 of which are in Job, e.g. 6:12 אִֽם־בְּשָׂרִ֥י נָחֽוּשׁ׃, 7:14 וּֽמֵחֶזְיֹנ֥וֹת תְּבַעֲתַֽנִּי׃, and 8:11 יִשְׂגֶּה־אָ֥חוּ בְלִי־מָֽיִם׃.

This mark was probably transcribed as a דחי ignoring context, using only the mark’s position relative to its letter (early) and its inclination (twisted somewhat counterclockwise from vertical). Although in an ideal world we could transcribe using only such criteria, in practice we must transcribe more charitably, considering context as well. The relevant context includes both the consensus pointing and the likelihood of the non-consensus (quirky) pointing under consideration. Here, a transcription of געיה seems best given that the consensus is געיה and דחי seems very unlikely.

U — M — μL 400A col. 1 line 2

Aside: the קמץ under ע is קטן. — U — M — μL 400A col. 1 line 14

U — M — μL 400A col. 1 line -1 (1 counting from bottom of column)

This is one of seven similar cases in Job in μL. All are correctly transcribed in BHQ, i.e. transcribed without a מפיק. Although all are correctly transcribed in BHQ, they are noted to different extents in BHQ. 4:9 discusses the matter at greater length. — U — M — μL 400A col. 2 line 5

This is one of seven similar cases in Job in μL. All are correctly transcribed in BHQ, i.e. transcribed without a מפיק. Although all are correctly transcribed in BHQ, they are noted to different extents in BHQ. 4:9 discusses the matter at greater length. — U — M — μL 400A col. 2 line 6

U — M — μL 400A col. 2 line 13

BHQ silently supplies the מקף that is the consensus expectation, despite no evidence for it in μL. — U — M — μL 400A col. 2 line -1 (1 counting from bottom of column)

The חולם חסר dot’s absence from μL is not important to us here. — U — M — μL 400B col. 1 line 9

There is a blob of ink below the ת. Most likely, this mark is a malformed masorah circle on the word מוליך on the line below. — BHQ seems to transcribe the blob of ink as both a געיה on ת and a masorah circle on מוליך. BHS did not have this געיה; I wish BHQ had left well enough alone. — U — M — μL 400B col. 1 line -11 (11 counting from bottom of column)

U — M — μL 400B col. 1 line 20

The possible דגש looks slightly different than nearby dots in the two ציריה vowels. This raises the possibility that it is not ink, e.g. a speck on the vellum. — BHQ silently ignores the possible דגש. Since BHQ does not note any uncertainty in its transcription here (or anywhere), it is hard to distinguish whether BHQ has ignored the mark in question on purpose or by accident. — U — M — μL 401A col. 1 line -9 (9 counting from bottom of column)

I find WLC’s transcription far-fetched. Note that the consensus has a rare and hard-to-understand phenomenon called “secondary מהפך” by Breuer. It may seem rather extraordinary that in the consensus, געיה immediately follows the מהפך, but this is actually expected (or at least “allowed”) if the מהפך is secondary, as it is here, according to Breuer.

The consensus word תָּ֤שִֽׁית may be easier to understand if one considers it and לִ֖י (the next word) to form a compound word whose the מקף is, somewhat inexplicably, left implicit. If the מקף were made explicit, the compound would be written as תָּ֤שִֽׁית־לִ֖י and indeed that is the way that word is written (albeit with the מקף colored gray) in some editions of MAM (מקרא על פי המסורה). This and a handful of analogous cases are listed here, with the implicit מקף represented as a tilde (~).

See Breuer CoS sections 11.66.rn1 and 11.79. (CoS = The Cantillation of Scripture; rn = Roman numeral.) (Note that an English translation of CoS is now available, a great boon to students of cantillation who cannot easily read the original in its modern Hebrew.)

In my opinion, BHQ benefits from ignoring WLC here, though BHQ likely ignored WLC as a whole rather than considering and rejecting this particular change in WLC relative to BHS.

U — M — μL 401A col. 1 line -3 (3 counting from bottom of column)

This is one of seven similar cases in Job in μL. All are correctly transcribed in BHQ, i.e. transcribed without a מפיק. Although all are correctly transcribed in BHQ, they are noted to different extents in BHQ. 4:9 discusses the matter at greater length. — U — M — μL 401A col. 2 line -7 (7 counting from bottom of column)

BHQ silently ignores the possible מרכא. — U — M — μL 401B col. 1 line -3 (3 counting from bottom of column)

The proposed transcription of μL above shows nothing (∅) on yod and מונח on ל. (By “nothing” on yod I mean nothing other than קמץ.) In contrast, the consensus transcription shows מונח on yod and געיה on ל. (The געיה on ל is extraordinary since it follows the accent (מונח).) The proposed transcription seems far-fetched because there is little evidence of a מונח in any location on this word. There is a mark that looks like a פתח between the yod and the ל, but that is grammatically implausible. — U — M — μL 401B col. 1 line -3 (3 counting from bottom of column)

Though it is not relevant to the point at hand, which is the presence of a מקף, note that in μL, the shape we take to be מחפך is touching the bottom of the ל. — Though it is not relevant to the point at hand, note that BHQ continues to fail to distinguish between גלגל and אתנח הפוך. — U — M — μL 401B col. 2 line 3

As DM footnote 25 mentions, the omission of דגש after מה־ is common in μL. See 21:15, 34:33, and 35:7. — U — M — μL 401B col. 2 line 7

U — M — μL 401B col. 2 line -10 (10 counting from bottom of column)

This is one of seven similar cases in Job in μL. All are correctly transcribed in BHQ, i.e. transcribed without a מפיק. Although all are correctly transcribed in BHQ, they are noted to different extents in BHQ. 4:9 discusses the matter at greater length. — U — M — μL 401B col. 2 line -2 (2 counting from bottom of column)

This case is the opposite of 3:4, except there the קמץ is not קטן. Some very faint remains of what might have been a “קמץ dot” can perhaps be seen under the horizontal line that is transcribed as a פתח. — U — M — μL 402A col. 1 line 4

The color image of μL reveals this דגש to be unlikely. Surprisingly, BHL includes this דגש in its body text rather than noting it in BHL-A.

BHQ has no דגש here. I happen to think that this is the best transcription of μL here, but I don’t know whether BHQ arrived at this transcription on purpose or by accident. Did the editors of BHQ consider, but ultimately decide against, the faint possible דגש? Or did they simply ignore μL entirely, supplying the consensus pointing, which has no דגש?

U — M — μL 402A col. 1 line 5

A דגש in a final ת doesn’t make sense without a קמץ or a שווא נח below. But the dot is convincing. — U — M — μL 402A col. 1 line 7

U — M — μL 402A col. 1 line 13

BHQ: הַ֭לְמַּעַנְךָ

The quirk that מ has דגש is discussed in a separate entry of mine. The געיה difference is not important to us here. — BHQ silently ignores the possible שווא part of the possible חטף פתח. It also silently ignores the possible interpretation of that ink as a געיה. I.e. other than the prepositive דחי accent, BHQ supplies only the (full) פתח that is the consensus expectation here. BHQ does so silently, i.e. with no note about the pointing of ה. — U — M — μL 402A col. 1 line -4 (4 counting from bottom of column)

BHQ: הַ֭לְמַּעַנְךָ

The quirk that the פתח on ה is חטף is discussed in a separate entry of mine. The געיה difference is not important to us here. — BHQ notes that the דגש on the מ in μL disagrees with μA and μY. BHQ misses the געיה in μA. This געיה is irrelevant to BHQ’s point here, which is about the דגש. Still, it would have been nice if BHQ had transcribed the געיה. — U — M — μL 402A col. 1 line -4 (4 counting from bottom of column)

μA (Aleppo):

The scribe of μL probably intended a דחי but placed it like a טרחא. — BHQ positions the mark ambiguously. The mark is a little to the right of center. So it is not centered, as one would expect a טרחא to be, but neither is it as far to the right as דחי normally is in BHQ. — U — M — μL 402A col. 1 line -2 (2 counting from bottom of column)

A דגש in a ע doesn’t make sense. But the dot is convincing, despite being a little close to the right arm of the ע. — BHQ notes this possibility, whereas this is not noted in the other editions under consideration. It could be the editors of those other editions did not catch this, or it could be that they caught it but considered to be too slight a possibility to note it. — U — M — μL 402A col. 2 line 2

As UXLC notes, an erasure under the כ is apparent. — U — M — μL 402A col. 2 line 19

A דגש on a letter with רפה doesn’t make sense. The color image of μL reveals this דגש to be unlikely. It is judged to be just a speck, not a דגש, in Viktor Golinets, “Dageš, Mappiq, Specks on Vellum, and Editing of the Codex Leningradensis”, KUSATU 15/2013, p. 251 (2013). — BHQ drops the note that BHS has on this quirk, which is extraordinary. As usual, we don’t know whether BHQ dropped this note on purpose or by accident. BHQ silently lets the faint possible דגש “win” over the clear רפה in μL. In my opinion, BHQ should have transcribed either both marks (דגש and רפה) or neither. Thus I consider BHQ to have not accurately transcribed μL here. Also, BHQ should have had a note. — U — M — μL 402A col. 2 line -5 (5 counting from bottom of column)

The dot is suspiciously brown rather than black. — BHQ notes that the דגש on the ק in μL disagrees with μA and μY. — U — M — μL 402B col. 1 line 8

μL omits the רביע of רביע מוגרש, which is expected, since μL’s habit is to omit the רביע in cases like this, where the רביע and the גרש מוקדם would be cramped together on the same letter. So, while μL doesn’t literally match the consensus we have presented, we can say that it implies that consenus, that consensus being merely the explicit notation of what μL implies.

In μL, there is some extra ink on the right side of the גרש מוקדם, which could, perhaps, be a misplaced רביע, but I find this unlikely.

U — M — μL 402B col. 1 line 8

μA (Aleppo):

U — M — μL 402B col. 1 line 23

U — M — μL 402B col. 1 line 28

U — M — μL 402B col. 2 line 26

U — M — μL 403A col. 1 line 16 (including 1 blank line in the count)

As DM footnote 25 mentions, the omission of דגש after מה־ is common in μL. See 16:6, 34:33, and 35:7. — U — M — μL 403A col. 1 line 26

The dot is suspiciously brown rather than black, making me wonder whether the ו was pointed at all. — BHQ silently supplies the שווא that is the consensus expectation, despite little or no evidence for it in μL. — U — M — μL 403A col. 2 line 13

U — M — μL 403A col. 2 line 24

The געיה difference is not important to us here. Aside: in μL, the געיה (under ו) has either survived much better than the other pointing of this word, been carefully re-inked (unlikely: the re-inking is rarely careful), or been added during re-inking (most likely). — U — M — μL 403B col. 1 line 10

The transcription differs from the consensus in way opposite to most such reports here: here we see a דחי vs טרחא difference, with BHQ having דחי, whereas most such reports involving these two accents involve a טרחא vs דחי difference, with BHQ having טרחא. — U — M — μL 403B col. 1 line 12

U — M — μL 403B col. 1 line 14

A dot under the מ of עמו is fairly clear. It is (charitably) not transcribed by BHL-A, presumably based on the consensus expectation that it is absent. — BHQ fails to note that the אתנח it transcribes on עמו disagrees with μA and μY. — U — M — μL 403B col. 1 line -6 (6 counting from bottom of column)

μA (Aleppo):

μY (Cambridge 1753) (note that instead of a masorah circle, μY uses a pair of above-dots as a “callout” for a Masorah parva note; hence the pair of above-dots above ל in ושלם.):

Perhaps some very faint remains of an אתנח under ל can be seen. The top dot of the שווא (under the ש) is very faint. See my entry for 22:21 עמי for μA and μY images. — BHQ (charitably) transcribes the top dot of the שווא using, as one often has to, faint evidence bolstered by consensus expectations. BHQ notes (as does BHS) that whereas the ל of ושלם is unpointed in μL, that ל has קמץ and אתנח in μA and μY. — U — M — μL 403B col. 1 line -6 (6 counting from bottom of column)

Although my focus is pointing rather than spelling, I am interested in a spelling difference like this, since it is not just a חסר vs מלא difference. — BHQ hints at the khaf consensus via note on V (the Vulgate). Nonetheless, perhaps uncharitably, we consider BHQ to not note this quirk. Aside: the שורוק dot and the טרחא had to be transcribed with great charity here, as is often the case in re-inked sections, since often only the letters are re-inked, not the pointing. — U — M — μL 403B col. 1 line 25

The scribe of μL probably intended a דחי but placed it like a טרחא. The מלא/חסר spelling difference is not important to us here.

BHQ places the mark a little left of center. Though this placement is odd, this makes it clear that a טרחא was intended by BHQ rather than a דחי. Thus BHQ somewhat-accurately transcribes the quirk in μL, but should have noted the quirk. Perhaps even better would have been to (charitably) transcribe this as a דחי, and note the quirk. But it is not the editorial policy of BHQ to make such notes: although BHQ is full of charitable transcriptions, as far as I know it never notes its charity.

U — M — μL 403B col. 2 line 2

The possible געיה is before שווא. There is another mark below those marks. It is likely unintentional, and is treated accordingly, i.e. ignored, by all editions I know. — BHQ has the געיה but makes no note as to whether the געיה diverges from consensus. There is no consensus in many cases of געיה, since most cases of געיה are optional. געיה with שווא (whether before or after שווא) occurs often, but further research would be needed to say whether this is a case in which געיה with שווא would be expected (or at least an expected option). — U — M — μL 403B col. 2 line 4

The dot in question is suspiciously smaller than nearby ones. — BHQ notes this possibility, whereas this is not noted in the other editions under consideration. It could be the editors of those other editions did not catch this, or it could be that they caught it but considered to be too slight a possibility to note it. — U — M — μL 403B col. 2 line 4

In addition to the מקף question, there is also some question of מרכא vs געיה. — U — M — μL 403B col. 2 line 11

μA (Aleppo):

U — M — μL 403B col. 2 line 11

The writing is not well preserved here: the letters have been re-inked, but among the points, only the דגש in the ד has been re-inked. So, a דגש in the ש could easily have been lost. But, because other similar words lack דגש in μL (e.g., 27:13, Isaiah 13:6, Joel 1:15), it seems likely that there was never a דגש in the ש to begin with.

This case and that of 27:13 are raised in Viktor Golinets, “Dageš, Mappiq, Specks on Vellum, and Editing of the Codex Leningradensis”, KUSATU 15/2013, p. 242 (2013). 21:15 seems possibly analogous, but not mentioned in Golinets.

Aside: note that the final פתה is charitably transcribed as belonging to the ד rather than the yod.

U — M — μL 403B col. 2 line 25

U — M — μL 404A col. 1 line 1

Gray מקף in MAM. — U — M — μL 404A col. 1 line 11

A דגש on a letter with רפה doesn’t make sense. The dot in question is suspiciously larger than nearby ones, and looks different from them in other ways. — BHQ notes this possibility, whereas this is not noted in the other editions under consideration. It could be the editors of those other editions did not catch this, or it could be that they caught it but considered to be too slight a possibility to note it. — U — M — μL 404A col. 1 line -12 (12 counting from bottom of column)

U — M — μL 404A col. 1 line 19

Perhaps there is some very faint evidence of a third dot that would make a סגול, but this could be just wishful thinking. Note that there is a third dot above the two clearer dots, but I take that to be part of the ע that did not flake off like its neighboring ink did. — BHQ silently supplies the סגול that is the consensus expectation. I.e. despite little or no evidence for it in μL, BHQ silently infers a third dot centered below the two clearer dots. — U — M — μL 404A col. 1 line -6 (6 counting from bottom of column)

The consensus is that חולם stays חסר in the קרי, i.e. – רתו in the כתיב merely expands to – רתיו in the קרי. In contrast to the consensus, in μL, – רתו in the כתיב expands all the way to – רותיב in the קרי. The marginal קרי note in μL is a little hard to parse until you realize that it is “invaded” from above by the descender of a big dotted ק.

BHS does not catch this quirk in μL: it reflects the consensus rather than μL. BHQ half-fixes the error in BHS: it updates its marginal קרי note to reflect μL rather than the consensus, but it does not correspondingly update its bottom-of-page critical apparatus note. This is similar to what happened with the μL קרי of ידעתה השחר in 38:12.

U — M — μL 404A col. 2 line -5 (5 counting from bottom of column)

μA (Aleppo):

Perhaps there was a מקף that was ignored during re-inking, leaving only is some very faint evidence of this מקף. By the way, the evidence for the דחי on the א of the next word is very faint. — BHQ silently supplies the מקף that is the consensus expectation, despite little or no evidence for it in μL. — U — M — μL 404A col. 2 line -2 (2 counting from bottom of column)

As DM footnote 20 mentions, this is one of three such cases, the other two being 9:35 and 34:33. In all three cases, the consensus has געיה on an initial vocal שווא notated as a חטף פתח. In μL, the געיה is on an initial פתח, a full (albeit short) syllable rather than a שווא. — U — M — μL 404B col. 1 line 7

See 24:1 for discussion of the דגש in ש in שדי. — U — M — μL 404B col. 1 line 12

The מלא/חסר spelling difference is not important to us here. — BHQ silently supplies the חיריק that is the consensus expectation, despite no evidence for it in μL. — U — M — μL 404B col. 2 line 5

U — M — μL 404B col. 2 line 25

Contrary to the transcription shown above, the image of μL clearly shows μL to have both a sin dot and a חולם dot. — I don’t think BHQ is really proposing that μL lacks this חולם dot. This is more likely a typo (inherited from BHS) than a deliberate choice. — U — M — μL 404B col. 2 line -1 (1 counting from bottom of column)

U — M — μL 405A col. 1 line 7

As far as I know, this is the only such case that DM fails to note. (It is the policy of BHL and WLC to merely transcribe such cases, not note them.) The געיה difference is not important to us here. — U — M — μL 405A col. 1 line 12

μA (Aleppo):

BHQ silently supplies the חיריק that is the consensus expectation, despite no evidence for it in μL. — U — M — μL 405A col. 1 line -12 (12 counting from bottom of column)

Probably the ascender of the ל on the line below “forced” the סילוק to be early. — U — M — μL 405A col. 1 line -4 (4 counting from bottom of column)

U — M — μL 405A col. 2 line 25

U — M — μL 405B col. 1 line 3

U — M — μL 405B col. 1 line 12

An argument could be made that it is μL not μA that represents the consensus here. For example, the Jerusalem Crown edition, despite normally staying quite close to μA, has לגרמיה in its body text and only notes in an appendix that μA has no לגרמיה.See the MAM documentation for this word for a list of where various manuscripts fall on this issue. — U — M — μL 405B col. 1 line 15

U — M — μL 405B col. 1 line 17

BHQ silently supplies the marks in the vowel-then-accent order that is the consensus expectation, in clear contradiction of μL here. 32:6 is similar. In my opinion BHQ shows itself to be out of date by continuing to aspire, as BHS did, to reflect all such ordering quirks. I think the modern consensus is that these orderings are as meaningless as the variable length of ascenders on ל. Nonetheless, since BHQ still aspires to get these orderings right, it is fair for me to point out when it fails to do so. — U — M — μL 405B col. 1 line -9 (9 counting from bottom of column) (including 1 blank line in the count)

BHQ: מֻאֽוּם׃

BHQ reflects neither μL nor the consensus expectation here. It reflects μL except it places the סילוק under the א. This not only contradicts μL, but also makes no sense given the רפה on the א. One might argue that this רפה should have been shown, despite the general policy of BHQ to ignore רפה marks in μL. Regardless of whether the רפה should have been shown, its presence in μL should have excluded the possibility of a סילוק under its letter (א)! BHQ notes that here μL disagrees with μA and μY. But BHQ gives the מ in μA and μY a מרכא rather than a סילוק, which seems more likely a typo than a deliberate choice.

U — M — μL 405B col. 1 line -6 (6 counting from bottom of column) (including 1 blank line in the count)

A גרש מוקדם accent doesn’t make sense here, and the color image suggests that the mark is not ink. — BHQ has wisely removed the גרש מוקדם that BHS had here. Unfortunately, as always, BHQ has not documented this change, leaving it as a painful “exercise left to the reader” to discover such changes. — U — M — μL 405B col. 2 line 4

U — M — μL 405B col. 2 line 9

U — M — μL 405B col. 2 line 10

U — M — μL 405B col. 2 line 18

U — M — μL 405B col. 2 line -3 (3 counting from bottom of column)

U — M — μL 406A col. 1 line 5

BHQ silently supplies the marks in the vowel-then-accent order that is the consensus expectation, in clear contradiction of μL here. 31:5 is similar and discusses the matter at greater length. — U — M — μL 406A col. 1 line -6 (6 counting from bottom of column)

There is little or no evidence of a דגש in the ד, and the consensus has no such דגש. — U — M — μL 406A col. 2 line 1

As DM footnote 32 mentions, in two cases in Job, μL omits the לגרמיה stroke before a word with געיה and רביע. The other such case is 34:33. In both cases, it looks like there may have been an erasure in between the words, where one would expect a לגרמיה to have been, if one was originally present in μL. — U — M — μL 406A col. 2 line 1

This is one of seven similar cases in Job in μL. All are correctly transcribed in BHQ, i.e. transcribed without a מפיק. Although all are correctly transcribed in BHQ, they are noted to different extents in BHQ. 4:9 discusses the matter at greater length. — U — M — μL 406B col. 1 line 2

Note that above we only show (and are only concerned with) the קרי form. — U — M — μL 406B col. 1 line 24

BHQ notes that here μL disagrees with μA and μY, which have the consensus pointing. — U — M — μL 406B col. 1 line -1 (1 counting from bottom of column)

U — M — μL 406B col. 2 line 8

Note that consensus has a rare and hard-to-understand phenomenon called “secondary מרכא” by Breuer. It may seem rather extraordinary to have two מרכא marks on the same word, but this is actually expected (or at least “allowed”).

This is one of about a dozen analogous cases listed here.

See Breuer CoS sections 9.23, 9.24, and 11.20. (CoS = The Cantillation of Scripture.) (Note that an English translation of CoS is now available, a great boon to students of cantillation who cannot easily read the original in its modern Hebrew.)

U — M — μL 406B col. 2 line 14

The possible דגש is faint. The adjacent דגש (on כ) and other nearby marks are quite clear, casting suspicion on the legitimacy of this דגש.

BHQ has no דגש here. I happen to think that this is the best transcription of μL here, but I don’t know whether BHQ arrived at this transcription on purpose or by accident. Did the editors of BHQ consider, but ultimately decide against, the faint possible דגש? Or did they simply ignore μL entirely, supplying the consensus pointing, which has no דגש?

Since BHQ does not note any uncertainty in its transcription here, it is hard to distinguish whether BHQ has ignored the mark in question on purpose or by accident.

More broadly, BHQ Job never notes any uncertainty in its transcription of μL. This may mislead many readers. Despite the fact that high-resolution, color images of μL are now widely available, many readers will not engage with those images enough to understand how often there is great uncertainty in transcribing μL. And, even if the reader understands that such uncertainty exists in general, BHQ should, in my opinion, indicate to the reader the specific cases where its transcription is particularly uncertain.

U — M — μL 406B col. 2 line -2 (2 counting from bottom of column)

U — M — μL 406B col. 2 line 26

U — M — μL 407A col. 1 line 3

As DM footnote 20 mentions, this is one of three such cases, the other two being 9:35 and 27:9. In all three cases, the consensus has געיה on an initial vocal שווא notated as a חטף פתח. In μL, the געיה is on an initial פתח, a full (albeit short) syllable rather than a שווא. — U — M — μL 407A col. 1 line 16

U — M — μL 407A col. 1 line 16

As DM footnote 32 mentions, in two cases in Job, μL omits the לגרמיה stroke before a word with געיה and רביע. The other such case is 32:11. In both cases, it looks like there may have been an erasure in between the words, where one would expect a לגרמיה to have been, if one was originally present in μL. In this case here in 34:33, there is an additional mark after the possible erasure. This mark is hard to interpret. — U — M — μL 407A col. 1 line 18

As DM footnote 25 mentions, the omission of דגש after מה־ is common in μL. See 16:6, 21:15, and 35:7. — U — M — μL 407A col. 1 line 18

Although my focus is pointing rather than spelling, I am interested in a spelling difference like this, since it is not just a חסר vs מלא difference. — U — M — μL 407A col. 1 line 22

As DM footnote 25 mentions, the omission of דגש after מה־ is common in μL. See 16:6, 21:15, and 34:33. — U — M — μL 407A col. 2 line 4

U — M — μL 407A col. 2 line 12

In the middle of a word, the “half-accent” עולה (half of עולה ויורד) should never appear on a letter with a vocal שווא, regardless of whether the שווא is notated as a simple שווא or a חטף vowel. Yet, here is just such an עולה, on the letter ע with a חטף פתח. (Rarely, עולה appears on a letter with a vocal שווא at the beginning of a word. See my document, “Tsinnorit & Oleh on Initial Vocal Shewa” for details.) — U — M — μL 407B col. 1 line 1

Although my focus is pointing rather than spelling, I am interested in a spelling difference like this, since it is not just a חסר vs מלא difference.

Here BHQ has a typo: it has בִּבְלִ־ rather than בִּבְלִי־ in the word it reports for μA and μY. I.e. it is missing a final yod before the מקף. The same typo appears in the BHQ section “Commentary on the Critical Apparatus.” In addition to the typo, for some reason BHQ reports this word as being the קרי of μY, i.e. M^Y(qere) rather than just M^Y. I see no “Masora dot pair” (μY’s equivalent of a masorah circle) on this word in μY. Nor do I see any קרי note in the margin.

U — M — μL 407B col. 1 line 4

μA (Aleppo):

μY (Cambridge 1753):

All but the southeast end of the דחי seems to have flaked off, but luckily left some faint trace behind. To charitably transcribe this word, we must not only transcribe this faint trace but also decline to transcribe the similarly faint blob (an erasure?) right next to it under the ש. — U — M — μL 407B col. 1 line 11

The color image strongly suggests that the mark in question is not ink. A געיה right next to סילוק like that would be extraordinary, by the way, though no appeal to expectations is needed to dismiss this possible געיה.

BHQ has no געיה here. I happen to think that this is the best transcription of μL here, but I don’t know whether BHQ arrived at this transcription on purpose or by accident. Did the editors of BHQ consider, but ultimately decide against, the faint possible large געיה? Or did they simply ignore μL entirely, supplying the consensus pointing, which has no געיה?

U — M — μL 407B col. 1 line -5 (5 counting from bottom of column)

U — M — μL 407B col. 2 line 7

The pointing of this word must, by necessity, be transcribed with much charity. Nonetheless, the mark in question here is fairly clearly positioned as a דחי not a טרחא, though it is, unfortunately, attached to the right leg of the ה. (At least, it is attached to the right leg of the re-inked ה.) — U — M — μL 407B col. 2 line 23

The distinction between the מרכא accent, the געיה mark, and the טרחא accent is a vexing problem. Perhaps in some manuscripts, the angle of these marks can help make this distinction, but μL is not such a manuscript. We can, as usual, lean on consensus for help, although consensus based on manuscript evidence is hard to determine in these cases due to this same problem of angle-reliability mentioned above. Notably, I suspect that μA is more reliable than μL in this regard, but I am not sure. So, in these cases, in determining consensus, we may have to rely more than usual on the evidence of printed editions. We may also have to rely more than usual on context like the grammar of cantillation, to determine which of these marks is most likely in a given situation. Aside: the מקף is very faint. — U — M — μL 407B col. 2 line 24

U — M — μL 407B col. 2 line 24

39:20 is similar — BHQ notes that here μL disagrees with μA and μY, which have the consensus pointing. — U — M — μL 408A col. 1 line -12 (12 counting from bottom of column)

The consensus is that this is one of those כתיב/קרי cases where the word boundary shifts from being after a ה to before that ה. I.e. ידעתה שחר becomes ידעת השחר. I.e. the ה that is at the end of the first word in the כתיב moves to the start of the second word in the קרי. Similar cases include 2 Samuel 5:2 (the כתיב is הייתה מוציא) and Ezekiel 42:9 (the כתיב is ומתחתה לשכות). In contrast to the consensus, in going from כתיב to קרי, μL can be though of as having copied the ה to the second word rather than moving it.

Aside: the Jerusalem Crown edition, despite normally staying quite close to μA, found μA’s pointing of the כתיב to be too confusing for its body text, relegating it to an appendix. The question is where on the כתיב letters should we put the פתח that implicitly belongs to the ה of השחר. Both μA and μL put this פתח on the ה of ידעתה. In its body text, the Jerusalem Crown edition puts the פתח on no letter: instead, it floats before the ש of שחר. A vowel mark floating like this before a כתיב word has manuscript precedent. I.e. although the Jerusalem Crown edition is diverging from the manuscript here, it is not divering from manuscript tradition in general by using this notation.

BHS does not catch this quirk in μL: it reflects the consensus rather than μL. BHQ half-fixes the error in BHS: it updates its marginal קרי note to reflect μL rather than the consensus, but it does not correspondingly update its bottom-of-page critical apparatus note. This is similar to what happened with 26:14.

U — M — μL 408A col. 1 line -11 (11 counting from bottom of column)

μA (Aleppo):

Jerusalem Crown:

U — M — μL 408A col. 1 line -5 (5 counting from bottom of column)

The only mark above the ב is a רפה. — U — M — μL 408A col. 1 line 24

U — M — μL 408A col. 2 line 6

Aside: BHQ not only has a רביע (against μL) but also has a printing problem: the גרש מוקדם overlaps the shin dot almost completely. — U — M — μL 408A col. 2 line 9

The mark in question is very heavy, having a stroke width more typical of a letter-stroke than of a niqqud-stroke. Its clarity suggests it is part of the re-inking. Indeed perhaps it is only part of the re-inking, i.e. perhaps it reflects no mark (or only a much smaller mark) in the original. The mark in question may be two marks, a רביע (expected) overlaid with a גרש (unexpected). Or, it may be only a single mark whose lower end is, for some reason, a blob.

BHQ silently supplies the רביע that is the consensus expectation. It may be interesting to note that BHS had the רביע on ד. Like all changes in BHQ, this change had to be discovered, since changes from 1997 BHS to BHQ are undocumented. It is a painful “exercise left to the reader” to discover such changes. The lack of documentation is a DBG tradition carried over from BHS, which lacks documentation for both its 1977 to 1984 changes and its 1984 to 1997 changes.

U — M — μL 408A col. 2 line -3 (3 counting from bottom of column)

U — M — μL 408B col. 1 line 3

U — M — μL 408B col. 1 line 8

U — M — μL 408B col. 1 line 9

A more charitable interpretation of the image is that the רביע is present but is merged with the masorah circle. (It is fairly clear that a masorah circle is present.) Note that the vertical line above the ר is a סילוק from the line above. — BHQ seems to split the mark(s) in question into a רביע on ר and a masorah circle on ב. This is a reasonable (though somewhat charitable) interpretation of μL, but as is so often the case, BHQ should have noted this quirk. — U — M — μL 408B col. 1 line 11

U — M — μL 408B col. 1 line 14

The situation with המימיך in 38:12 is similar. — U — M — μL 408B col. 1 line -10 (10 counting from bottom of column)

Aside: BHQ’s גרש מוקדם is centered over the ש, as if it were “normal” (prose-system) גרש. — U — M — μL 408B col. 1 line 26

The mark in question could easily be accidental. — U — M — μL 408B col. 2 line -11 (11 counting from bottom of column)

U — M — μL 408B col. 2 line 27

There is a confusing constellation of three dots surrounding the ש in μL, but only one of those dots, a sin dot, belongs to the ש. Working backwards (to the right) from that sin dot, the next dot is a “קמץ dot” belonging to the מ of גרמיו on the line above. The next dot is a חולם חסר dot belonging to the ע. (Or, if you prefer an alternative interpretation of חולם חסר dots in general, the חולם חסר dot belongs to an implicit ו between the ע and ש.) The issue at hand is there is no fourth dot that could be interpreted as a רביע above the ש. — U — M — μL 408B col. 2 line 27

U — M — μL 409A col. 1 line 8

U — M — μL 409A col. 1 line 11

BHQ silently supplies the סילוק that is the consensus expectation, despite no evidence for it in μL. — U — M — μL 409A col. 2 line 14

In situations like this, it is hard to determine which letter an under-accent belongs to. By “situations like this” I mean two narrow letters (in this case ו and yod) where the first letter has an under-vowel and the second letter does not. In the face of this uncertainty, our default should be to transcribe charitably, i.e., all else equal, lean towards the consensus reading. Aside: note that the פתח marks are problematic in both μL and μA, for different reasons: μL’s is faint and μA’s is broken, looking a bit like a ציריה (!). — U — M — μL 409B col. 1 line 10

μA (Aleppo):

U — M — μL 409B col. 1 line -9 (9 counting from bottom of column) (including 1 blank line in the count)