Qere–Ketib: Różnice pomiędzy wersjami

Usunięte 2717 bajtów ,  5 lat temu
...jeszcze
(...jeszcze)
* ''ketib we-la'qere'' (tzn. [słowo] zapisane, a nie czytane) – przeciwna sytuacja: w takim przypadku w tekście dane słowo występuję bez wokalizacji; są to drobne zmiany, często spowodowane błędem [[Dittografia|dittografii]]; tradycja rabiniczna i masorecka nieznacznie różnią się – podają 5 lub 8 takich miejsc, np. 2Sm 13,33; pełną listę można znaleźć w traktacie ''Okhlah we-Okhlah'', lista nr 98<ref>Kelley, P. H., Mynatt, D. S., & Crawford, T. G., ''The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and annotated glossary'', Grand Rapids 1998, s. 40.</ref>
* ''qere perpetuum'' (stałe qere) – słowo nie jest specjalnie oznaczone, ale samogłoski dodane należą do słowa, które należałoby przeczytać zamiast tego zapisanego danymi spógłoskami (np. zamiana Tetragrammu na imiona Adonaj albo Elohim)<ref>E. Tov, ''Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible'', Minneapolis 2001<sup>2</sup>, s. 59.</ref>.
Yeivin dzieli wszystkie ''qere-ketib'' na 6 kategorii:
Yeivin divides the Ketiv/Qere into six categories. He dates three of these categories as proto-Masoretic. 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). 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. 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.
# 16 eufemizmów
# aaa
# aaa
# aaa
# ''qere we-la'ketib'' oraz ''ketib we-la'qere''
# ''qere perpetuum''
Kategorie nr 1, 5 i 6 uważa on za przed-masoreckie, inne opierają się na elementach tekstu dodanych później.
 
Yeivin, ''Tiberian Masorah'', pp. 56–60.
 
== Propozycje interpretacyjne ==
* pozycje pośrednie – poszczególne oznaczenia były zawarte jako korekcje tekstu, które z czasem stały się wariantami. lub na odwrót
* tradycja lektury – Levin i inni twierdzą, że ''qere-ketib'' powstały pierwotnie nie w formie pisanej, ale czytanej, jako warianty przekazywanej ustnie tradycji; później masoreci zechcieli wyraźnie odseparować różne tradycje, szczególnie tam, gdzie mogłoby to wpłynąć na niezmienność świętego tekstu<ref>Kelley, P. H., Mynatt, D. S., & Crawford, T. G., ''The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and annotated glossary'', Grand Rapids 1998, s. 42.</ref>
 
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.
 
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.
 
== Zobacz też ==