Qere–Ketib: Różnice pomiędzy wersjami

Dodane 1689 bajtów ,  6 lat temu
...
(nowy artykuł - początek)
 
(...)
qerê – ketîb – oznacza (z aram.): „czyta się” – „pisze się”; bardzo częsty znakoznaczenie wmasory masoratekstu Biblii hebrajskiej parva (występuje w zależności od manuskryptu od 800 do ponad 1500 razy); oznacza poprawkę tekstu spółgłoskowego (najczęściej z powodu błędu kopisty); błędne słowo jest oznaczone punktem, a na marginesie podano prawidłowe wraz z literą ק (od qere); samogłoski z „błędnego” słowa mają być czytane ze słowem „poprawionym”
 
== Historia powstania ==
In the categories of Qere we-laʾ Ketiv and Ketiv we-laʾ Qere the difference of the text from the reading tradition is an issue of the presence or absence of a word. The Qere/Ketiv differs from these in that it deals with cases where the reading tradition records a different word or, more often, a different form of a word from the written text. The Qere indicates how the word should be read. In BHS the Ketiv is pointed with the vowels belonging to the Qere while the Qere (in the margin written over ק̇) remains unpointed. Other printed editions follow a different procedure. Other manuscripts also vary in the ways Qere/Ketiv is marked.43
Masora została spisana ostatecznie w końcu I tysiąclecia n.e. przez [[Masoreci|masoretów]]. Jednak korzenie zawartych w niej tradycji i interpretacji sięgają czasów dużo wcześniejszych.
Scholars are divided with regard to the Ketiv/Qere notation system. Morrow says that the Ketiv/Qere variations represent alternative traditions accepted in different circles, specifically, Ketiv represents the written tradition of the scribes; Qere the oral tradition of readers and synagogue schools. The Masoretes, who knew both traditions, devised this system to safeguard readings where the Qere varied so much from the Ketiv that it might affect the consonantal text, which was the Masoretes’ primary concern. He bases his argument that the Masoretes were the creators of the Ketiv/Qere notation system on two points: 1) there is no manuscript evidence for Ketiv/Qere notes before the Masoretes and 2) the Ketiv/Qere notes are integral to the character of other Masoretic activity.44 But there are also two alternate theories regarding the origin of the notes and these are often held together. The collation theory holds that the marginal Qere notes represent a method of collating variant readings from other manuscripts. The collation theory dates back to the time of David Kimhi (ca. 1160–1235) who suggested that the scribe Ezra collated the manuscripts after the exile. Objections to this theory include the question of why there are only two traditions preserved. The correction theory dates to the time of Abrabanel (ca. 1437–1508) who held that Ezra and the scribes found mistakes—carelessness, improper grammar, etc.—in the text. Against these theories, Morrow argues the strong likelihood that the Ketiv/Qere notes are the work of the Masoretes based on manuscript evidence and the fact that it was the primary goal of the Masoretes to preserve the consonantal text passed down to them.
 
But, while the notation system for Ketiv/Qere was probably developed by the Masoretes, some of the categories of Ketiv/Qere it notes likely predate the notation system and the Masoretes. Yeivin divides the Ketiv/Qere into six categories. He dates three of these categories as proto-Masoretic.45 We have already examined one of these three, Qere we-laʾ ketiv and Ketiv we-laʾ Qere which he groups together as “category 5.” The other two are the sixteen Ketiv/Qere euphemisms (his category 1) and the perpetual Qere of the divine name (part of his category 6).46 He makes the point that these are proto-Masoretic because they are mentioned in the Talmud. On the other hand, the other categories are based on elements of the text which were added later. Weil also notes the antiquity of some of the information recorded in Ketiv/Qere.47
Współczesne badania krytyki tekstualnej Starego Testamentu pozwalają zauważyć powstanie wewnątrz judaizmu w I wieku n.e. silnego ruchu, mającego za cel wybranie, skodyfikowanie i przekazanie dalej jednego, autorytatywnego tekstu świętych ksiąg{{odn|Wegner|2006|s = 70, 71}}. Z czasem opracowano szczegółowe zasady kopiowania świętych ksiąg tak, by uniknąć błędów czy wypaczeń przy ich przepisywaniu{{odn|Wegner|2006|s = 73}}. Po ustabilizowaniu się jednego tekstu spółgłoskowego po domniemanym [[Synod w Jamni|Synodzie w Jamnii]]{{odn|Würthwein|1995|s = 13}} (który z czasem stał się obowiązującym tekstem masoreckim) w okresie pomiędzy I a VI wiekiem n.e. mamy jednak wciąż do czynienia z pewnymi poprawkami dokonywanymi przez kopistów, które doprowadziły z czasem do wynalezienia i opracowania jednego systemu korygowania i zabezpieczania tekstu przed zmianami albo błędnymi poprawkami{{odn|P.H. Kelley, D.S. Mynatt, T.G. Crawford|1998|s = 31}}.
From all of the previous categories, one can see that the proto-Masoretic text contained a variety of irregularities. Some were orthographic, and some were matters of oral tradition. The Masoretes faithfully preserved these anomalies, and their tradition continues into modern times.
 
W tym celu wprowadzono znaki samogłoskowe, akcentowe oraz dokonano podziału ksiąg{{odn|Tov|2001|s = 50-53}}. Powstawał też powoli materiał będący swoistym komentarzem językowo-hermeneutycznym do świętego tekstu, mającym bronić jego autorytetu. Materiał masory na początku był przekazywany ustnie. Kiedy jego ilość rosła, zaczął być dopisywany do samych rękopisów{{odn|Würthwein|1995|s = 30}}.
 
Świętość tekstu nie pozwalała na jakiekolwiek poprawki w tekście spółgłoskowym, dlatego opracowany cały system różnych oznaczeń w tekście. 
 
== Podział ==
In the categories of Qere we-laʾ Ketiv and Ketiv we-laʾ Qere the difference of the text from the reading tradition is an issue of the presence or absence of a word. The Qere/Ketiv differs from these in that it deals with cases where the reading tradition records a different word or, more often, a different form of a word from the written text. The Qere indicates how the word should be read. In BHS the Ketiv is pointed with the vowels belonging to the Qere while the Qere (in the margin written over ק̇) remains unpointed. Other printed editions follow a different procedure. Other manuscripts also vary in the ways Qere/Ketiv is marked.43
 
Scholars are divided with regard to the Ketiv/Qere notation system. Morrow says that the Ketiv/Qere variations represent alternative traditions accepted in different circles, specifically, Ketiv represents the written tradition of the scribes; Qere the oral tradition of readers and synagogue schools. The Masoretes, who knew both traditions, devised this system to safeguard readings where the Qere varied so much from the Ketiv that it might affect the consonantal text, which was the Masoretes’ primary concern. He bases his argument that the Masoretes were the creators of the Ketiv/Qere notation system on two points:
 
1) there is no manuscript evidence for Ketiv/Qere notes before the Masoretes
 
2) the Ketiv/Qere notes are integral to the character of other Masoretic activity.
 
But there are also two alternate theories regarding the origin of the notes and these are often held together. The collation theory holds that the marginal Qere notes represent a method of collating variant readings from other manuscripts. The collation theory dates back to the time of David Kimhi (ca. 1160–1235) who suggested that the scribe Ezra collated the manuscripts after the exile. Objections to this theory include the question of why there are only two traditions preserved. The correction theory dates to the time of Abrabanel (ca. 1437–1508) who held that Ezra and the scribes found mistakes—carelessness, improper grammar, etc.—in the text.
 
Against these theories, Morrow argues the strong likelihood that the Ketiv/Qere notes are the work of the Masoretes based on manuscript evidence and the fact that it was the primary goal of the Masoretes to preserve the consonantal text passed down to them. But, while the notation system for Ketiv/Qere was probably developed by the Masoretes, some of the categories of Ketiv/Qere it notes likely predate the notation system and the Masoretes.
 
But, while the notation system for Ketiv/Qere was probably developed by the Masoretes, some of the categories of Ketiv/Qere it notes likely predate the notation system and the Masoretes. Yeivin divides the Ketiv/Qere into six categories. He dates three of these categories as proto-Masoretic.45 We have already examined one of these three, Qere we-laʾ ketiv and Ketiv we-laʾ Qere which he groups together as “category 5.” The other two are the sixteen Ketiv/Qere euphemisms (his category 1) and the perpetual Qere of the divine name (part of his category 6).46 He makes the point that these are proto-Masoretic because they are mentioned in the Talmud. On the other hand, the other categories are based on elements of the text which were added later. Weil also notes the antiquity of some of the information recorded in Ketiv/Qere.47 From all of the previous categories, one can see that the proto-Masoretic text contained a variety of irregularities. Some were orthographic, and some were matters of oral tradition. The Masoretes faithfully preserved these anomalies, and their tradition continues into modern times.
 
== Propozycje interpretacyjne ==
 
Kelley, P. H., Mynatt, D. S., & Crawford, T. G. (1998). The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and annotated glossary (42). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.