Mova0.5 pre-release⌕
☰
home / docs / papers / Ancient Hebrew / The System of Masoretic Accentuation: Some Introductory Issues

The System of Masoretic Accentuation: Some Introductory Issues

What it is about

A long introduction to what the accents (teʿamim) were for. It reviews the field's limited interest, the terminology, texts outside the Bible that carry accents, and the three aspects usually claimed: stress, syntax and recitation. It argues that recitation was the original purpose: the accents delimit reading units within a verse. Syntax-based readings run into problems, such as conjunctive accents at the end of speech introductions or splits that ignore a chiasm. The weight of a disjunctive is relative, not absolute: each unit is divided by the next lower grade, by continuous dichotomy, and a fixed rank of "emperors, kings, dukes" misleads. All three traditions (Babylonian, Palestinian, Tiberian) mark cadences with fixed pairs, a major disjunctive and a precursor that predicts it, which is why the major one was often left unwritten outside Tiberias. The system of the Three Books (Psalms, Job, Proverbs) is older and less clear; that of the Twenty-one Books is the later, more transparent product.

Ideas

For Mova

All three belong to 2. Cantillation: the accents (te'amim) (disjunctive and conjunctive accents, the dichotomy of the verse, accents as syntax) and use the accent marks kept on each word in the macula trees. I3 is a data-quality check for 13-mova-tools.md §13 (known defects).

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.5508/jhs29622

@article{hoop2022system,
  title = {{The System of Masoretic Accentuation: Some Introductory Issues}},
  author = {Hoop, Raymond de and Sanders, Paul},
  journal = {Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 22},
  year = {2022},
  doi = {10.5508/jhs29622},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs29622}
}

References

9 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Unfortunately, most textbooks on biblical Hebrew grammar and textual criticism value only the few “major” accents, notably silluq, atna ḥ , ʿole w e yored, zaqef qa ṭ on, and sometimes r e viaʿ (Weingreen 1959: 20–21; Meyer 1966: 74–75, § 15.4; Lambdin 1971: 201–2, § 152; Seow 1995: 64–65; Fischer 2009: 43, 46). Only these accents are regarded as important, since they are supposed to mark the ends of larger units within a verse. Even the more extensive grammars and handbooks on textual criticism do not offer a comprehensive guide to the accentuation system and its background (cf. Tov 2012: 62–65; Joüon & Muraoka 2013: 57–63, § 15). Despite the recent studies on the subject, especially biblical scholars are barely familiar with all the signs, the system as a whole, and its relevance (Trompelt 2010: 334, with n. 4). Despite the lack of attention and a widespread scepticism, scholars like William LaSor (1979), Duane Christensen (1985) and William Koopmans (1990) have drawn attention to the Tiberian Masoretic accentuation in their exegetical studies. LaSor started apparently from scratch, without knowledge of any literature on the subject (1979: 327). He analysed the use of the disjunctive accents in poetic texts and concluded that they help to gain insight into the poetic structure of these texts. He argued that further analysis would be quite useful (1979: 339). In the case of Lam 1:1–8, the accentuation enabled him to propose a poetic division that differs from the one that we usually find in text editions and see reflected in translations (LaSor 1979: 332– 33, 341; cf. also de Hoop 2000c). In his analysis of Joshua 24 as “poetic narrative,” Koopmans (1990: 177–78) divided the Masoretic verses into “cola.” He based himself on the study of Korpel and de Moor, who had defined a “colon” (singular of “cola”) as a textual unit of one to five stressed word-units, “that could be recited or sung in one breath” (1988: 4). 5 Koopmans deemed it useful to mark the accent which occurs at the end of each colon. Since in his book the Hebrew text had to be transcribed, Koopmans (1990: 178) decided to represent the accents by means of the numbers in the tabula accentuum of BHS. Thus, he rendered the first colon of Josh 24:2 (colon aA) as follows: wyʾmr yhwšʿ ʾl-kl-hʿm [7] (Koopmans 1990: 181). Here, [7] represents the r e viaʿ that occurs above the final word of this colon: ם ע ָ ָ֗ ה־ל ָ כּ־ל ָ א ֶ ע ַ שוֹה ֻׁ֜ ְי ר מא ֶ י ֹּ֨ ַו, “and Joshua said to all the people.” The fact that Koopmans took the accents into account when analysing the structure of the text is noteworthy, but the way in which he used them is somewhat problematic. Since only the disjunctive accents occurring at the end of the alleged cola are represented in the transcription, inconsistencies in the use of the accents may go unnoticed (de the Masoretic accents was once considered to be of great importance for understanding the text of the Hebrew Bible. Lately, however, it has fallen into disuse. This results in many misunderstandings which knowledge of the accents could have prevented” (Weisberg 1966: 315). Also, more recently the complaint was heard; see Trompelt 2010: 333– 34. 5 A word-unit is defined as one word, or two or more words connected by one or more maqqefs. find
  2. Hoop 2000a: 52–53). For instance, Koopmans (1990: 182) read the beginning of Josh 24:5 (colon aA) as a colon ending with the accent paš ṭ a (nr. [10] in the tabula accentum): wʾšl ḥ ʾt-mšh wʾt-ʾhrn [10] (“And I sent Moses and Aaron”; BHS: ־ת א ָּֽ ֶ ְו ה ש ֶׁ֤ ֶ מ־ת א ֶ ח ל ַ ַ֞ ש ְ א ֶ ָו ן ר ה ֲ א). ַ On the other hand, he read the following phrase at the beginning of Josh 24:6 also as a colon (colon aA): wʾw ṣ yʾ ʾt-ʾbwtykm mm ṣ rym [5] (“When I had brought your fathers out of Egypt”; BHS: ם י ר ִ֔ ַ צ ְ מ מ ם כי ֶ תוֹ ֵ ב ָּֽ א־ת ֲ א ֶ אי צוֹאָּֽ ֶׁ֤ ו). ָ This phrase ends with the accent zaqef qa ṭ on (nr. [5] in the tabula accentum). Unfortunately, the transcription does not show that this phrase contains another occurrence of the accent paš ṭ a, namely with the word ʾbwtykm (BHS: ם כי ֶ תוֹ ֵ ב ָּֽ א). ֲ Only the accent at the end (here zaqef qa ṭ on) is represented. This inconsistency in the use of the accents raises questions regarding the delimitation of these and other cola. Although Koopmans’s approach was followed by some scholars in the field (e.g., Korpel & de Moor 1998: 10), it was critically evaluated and modified in other studies, with the suggestion to take all the disjunctive accents in the text into account (de Hoop 1993; 1998: 85 [with n. 18], 93–95; Sanders 1996: 104– 5, 137–258). Moreover, further improvements were suggested by pointing out that the weight of individual accents is not absolute but seems to depend on their position among the other accents of the verse (de Hoop 1993; 2000a; 2000b; 2003; Renz 2003; for a critical follow-up of de Hoop and Renz, see Park 2013). Notwithstanding these critical remarks, Koopmans’s initiative to take the Masoretic accentuation into account must be taken seriously. According to several studies, the Masoretic accentuation system shows significant correspondences with text divisions from the beginning of the common era in Hebrew manuscripts (de Moor 1996; Flint 2000: 21–22; de Hoop 2022: 65–69; Sanders & de Hoop forthcoming) as well as in Greek manuscripts (Barthélemy 1963: 166; Revell 1971/72; 1976; Tov 1990: 9–12; Sanders 1996: 121–30). In certain studies, however, the antiquity and reliability of the traditions represented by the accents seem to be exaggerated (Haïk-Vantoura 1991; Burns 2011; Mitchell 2012). In his survey of the research on the Masoretic accentuation, Dotan argued that the newly discovered evidence necessitated a fresh analysis of the accentuation system (Dotan 1970: xli). He subsequently published studies on the development of the accentuation and vocalisation (Dotan 1981; 1987), while further research was carried out by a new generation of scholars, such as Lea Himmelfarb (1998; 2007; 2014), Ronit Shoshany (2007; 2009; 2011; 2013), and Rachel (Hitin-)Mashiah (2005; 2011). Some of these studies describe the historical developments and relations between the different schools. Shoshany argued that already in the Babylonian tradition the disjunctive accents are not to be studied separately, but that the weight of each individual accent depends on the series of accents in which it occurs (cf. Shoshany 2009; 2013). find
  3. Other studies focussed mainly on the contribution of the Masoretic accentuation to exegesis (Cohen 1972; Freedman and Cohen 1974; Kogut 1996), and this interest only seems to increase (see, e.g., Carasik 2001; Himmelfarb 2007; Trompelt 2009; 2010; 2008–11; Kogut 2011; Tomášek 2011: 62–111; 2017; Strauss Sherebrin 2013; Park 2013; 2014; 2020). Of course, this increase of attention to the Masoretic accentuation of the text is more than welcome. However, we may find in some of these studies a misunderstanding of the accentuation. Tobie Strauss Sherebrin writes “that some of those who have sought to spell out the accents’ understanding of the text have occasionally made unfounded claims and attributed to the accents exegetically-motivated syntactic analyses that may not have been intended at all” (Strauss Sherebrin 2013: 300). She observes: “Alas, a comprehensive set of accentual phrasing rules—rigorously tested and shown to be highly accurate—remains an elusive goal” (Strauss Sherebrin 2013: 300; cf. also Dotan 1970: xlii). find
  4. Baer (1894: 835) applied this term especially to the accentuation of the Three Books. 7 םי מ ע ָ ט ְ is derived from the root םעט, “to taste, eat, perceive, learn” > ם ע ַ ט, ַ “taste, feeling, sense, order” (HALOT, 377). 8 The word ת״מא is an acronym for the three books בוֹי א, Job, י ל ֵ ש ְ מ, Proverbs, and םי ל ִ ה ִ ת, ְ Psalms. It functions as a mnemonic word (ת מ ֶ א, ֱ “truth”), but is distinguished from this word by means of the abbreviation sign (״) (see Joüon & Muraoka 2013: 57, § 15d). scholarly literature it is quite common to distinguish the accentuation of the “poetic books” from the accentuation of the “prose books” and to contrast the “poetic system” and the “prose system.” 9 This differentiation is inadequate, since some of the Twenty-one Books are written entirely or partially in verse (e.g., Song of Songs, Lamentations, Isaiah, Jeremiah). On the other hand, the Three Books are not completely in verse (especially Job 1–2; 32:1–6a; 42:7–17). Most of these non-poetic parts (with Job 32:1–6a as an exception) are not provided with the accentuation of the “poetic system,” but of the “prose system.” Since the differentiation between the two subsystems based on the literary classification “poetry” versus “prose” is incorrect, we prefer to differentiate between the two subsystems with the expressions “Three Books” and “Twenty-one Books”—albeit faute de mieux. The accents are also differentiated on the basis of their function, namely as disjunctive (or: distinctive; Hebrew: םי קי ס פ ְ מ) ַ and conjunctive (Hebrew: םי ר ב ְ ח ַ מ) ְ accents (Wickes 1881: 10–11; 1887: 9, n. 2; König 1881: 84; Jacobson 2002: 56; Revell 2007: 61). Disjunctive accents are also designated as םי כ ל ָ מ ְ , “kings” (sometimes םי ר שׂ, ָ “officials”), because they dominate the verse (Wickes 1881: 11; 1887: 9–10; Kahle 1922: 137, § 9m; Jacobson 2002: 56, n. 1). Conjunctive accents are denoted as םי ת ר ְ ש ָ מ, ְ “servants,” a term which is still applied (Wickes 1887: 9; Kahle 1922: 137, § 9m; Jacobson 2002: 56, n. 2). 10 Sometimes we find the suggestion that Diqduqe ha ṭṭ e ʿamim, an important mediaeval grammar of the accents, designates only the group of disjunctive accents with the term םי מ ע ָ ט, ְ not the conjunctive accents, which are assumed to be designated only as םי ת ר ְ ש ָ מ, ְ “servants” (Gesenius & Kautzsch 1909: 62, n. 1, § 15f; Kahle 1901: 167–94; 1913: 173–75; Yeivin 1980: 165, § 192; Jacobson 2002: 56, n. 1). However, Diqduqe ha ṭṭ e ʿamim lists some of the conjunctive accents as םי מ ע ָ ט ְ and some of the disjunctive accents as םי ת ר ְ ש ָ מ. ְ This shows that the word םי מ ע ָ ט ְ was not used exclusively for the disjunctive accents (Revell 1973: 138–42). 11 9 The tabula accentum in the BHS contrasts the “accentus communes (in libris XXI)” and the “accentus poëtici.” See also Joüon & Muraoka 2013: 57, § 15d. find
  5. Baer (1894: 835) and others used the designation “metrical accentuation” when referring to the system found in the Three Books. find
  6. Wickes (1881: 8, n. 15) objected that the accentuation of the Three Books does not express metre and proposed the designation “musical accentuation.” 10 Gesenius 1817: 113, § 26.3 (followed by König 1881: 78, § 11.2b; Korpel & de Moor 1998: 10; Korpel 2000: 30) claimed that some of the minor disjunctive accents (like ṭ if ḥ a) function as conjunctives, because they do not mark the end of a textual unit (phrase, etc.). He labeled such disjunctive accents as servi, while he used the Hebrew term םי ת ר ְ ש ָ מ ְ exclusively for the conjunctive accents. Cf. Yeivin 1980: 165, § 192. 11 Kahle (1901: 174) stuck to the opinion that the disjunctive accents should be called םי מ ע ָ ט ְ and considered the heading of the list of םי מ ע ָ ט ְ in the Diqduqe ha ṭṭ eʿamim as incorrect. find
  7. The distinction of disjunctive and conjunctive accents is relevant. While the group of disjunctive accents indicates that there is a pause or rest of some sort in the reading, the conjunctive accents indicate that the reading should continue without such pause. As Joüon & Muraoka put it: The accents that mark the caesuras (major, intermediate, or minor pauses) are called disjunctive, for in effect they separate a word or phrase from the following word or phrase, like punctuation marks (. ; ,) in Roman script. The other accents, by contrast, unite a word with what follows and are called conjunctive (Joüon & Muraoka 2013: 58, § 15e). find
  8. Among the relatively weak disjunctive accents are r e viaʿ qa ṭ on, m e huppak l e garmeh and azla l e garmeh in the Three Books, and t e liša g e dolah and muna ḥ l e garmeh in the Twenty-one Books. Even such relatively weak disjunctive accents cause a certain break in the recitation after the word to which they were added. This can be demonstrated quite easily. If a word starting with a b e gadk e fat consonant is preceded by a word ending with a vowel and provided with a conjunctive accent, the Masoretes usually did not provide the b e gadk e fat consonant with a dageš lene. In such a case, the spirantisation of the b e gadk e fat consonant is due to the absence of a break in the recitation after the word with the conjunctive accent. However, if a word starts with one of the b e gadk e fat consonants and the preceding word ends in a vowel, the Masoretes consistently added a dageš lene to the b e gadk e fat consonant if the preceding word has a disjunctive accent. This demonstrates that each disjunctive accent indicates a break of some sort in the recitation after the word to which it was added (Sanders 1996: 111– 12, with n. 41; Park 2020: 85, 96–97). 12 12 The distinction between disjunctive and conjunctive accents is questioned by Alexander Sperber (1966: 462–69). He points to 1) the many occurrences of a nomen regens with a disjunctive accent that is assumed to separate it from the following nomen rectum, 2) inconspicuous little particles carrying disjunctive accents, and 3) many pairs of words of which the first carries a disjunctive accent while elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the first word of an identical or similar pair carries a conjunctive accent. This leads him to the conclusion that “any assumption of the accents’ use for interpunction does not correspond to the facts” (1966: 465; similarly, Trompelt 2010: 352, n. 35; see also n. 35 below). Sperber’s observations are distorted by his supposition that the disjunctive accents should have marked the ends of syntactical units (cf. Section 5). Since the disjunctive accents appear not to delimit syntactical units, he questions their distinction from the conjunctive accents altogether. Remarkably, the evidence adduced by Sperber (1966: esp. 467–69) shows that the distinction between disjunctive and conjunctive accents is indisputable. The examples confirm the rule that a begadkefat consonant at the beginning of a word virtually always lacks a dageš lene if the preceding word ends with a vowel and carries a conjunctive accent, while the consonant always has a dageš lene if the preceding word carries a disjunctive accent, even if the preceding word ends with a vowel. find
  9. Suzanne Haïk Vantoura (1978: 55, 169–70, 189–92, 291–93; 1991: 36, 147–49, 167–70, 278– 81) casts doubt on the distinction between An illustrative example occurs in Judg 20:3: י֣ נ ֵ ב ְ וּע מ ְ ש ְ יַָּֽֽ ו ַ ה פ ָ֑ ָ צ ְ מ ה ַ ל א ֹ֖ ֵ ר ָ שׂ ְ י־יָּֽ נ ֵ ב ְ וּ ֹ֥ל ע־י ָ כּ ָּֽ ן מ ִ֔ ָי ְנ ב, “The children of Benjamin heard that the children of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.” Although וּע מ ְ ש ְ יַָּֽֽ ו ַ ends with a vowel, the ב at the beginning of the following word י֣ נ ֵ ב ְ has been provided with a dageš because of the break between these two words. This break is indicated by the disjunctive accent with וּע מ ְ ש ְ יַָּֽֽ ו ַ (paš ṭ a). However, the ב at the beginning of ן מ ָי ְנ ב and the ב at the beginning of the second י ֵנ ב ְ do not have a dageš, since each of these words is preceded by a word ending with a vowel that has been provided with a conjunctive accent (י֣ נ ֵ ב ְ and וּ ֹ֥ל ע, ָ with muna ḥ and mer e ka, respectively). One relatively rare designation for the Masoretic accentuation still deserves to be mentioned. Because of the chanting character of the recitation in the synagogue, the term “neumes” (i.e., musical tones) was sometimes used as a designation of the accents from the beginning of the twentieth century. These “neumes” were assumed to represent an adaptation of the Greek system of accentuation and chanting (Praetorius 1901: 41–53; 1902; Kahle 1901: 167; 1922: 143–44; Gesenius & Kautzsch 1909: 60, § 15b; also, Engberg 1966). Because of the considerable differences from the Greek system of ekphonetic neumes, this theory is not accepted anymore (Spanier 1927: 113–15; Revell 1979). Despite that, the biblical accentuation system is sometimes still designated as a set of “neumes” (Lettinga, Baasten, & van Peursen 2012: 18, § 7a; Joüon & Muraoka 2013: 58, § 15e). This designation emphasises only the recitative function of the accents. find

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2022-hoop-system-masoretic-accentuation-some-introductory/