Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job

Abstract

In an article published in Eretz Israel in 1969, David Noel Freedman called attention to the great number of forms in the book of Job that are spelled without internal vowel markers ( matres lectionis ) where one might expect them.1 This is particularly remarkable in cases where diphthongs are contracted and unmarked by matres. Thus, we have JN instead of JIN (18:12; 40:16), HQN instead of nQ'NK (9:34; 13:21; 20:25; 33:7), JHK instead of jrTK (12:19; 33:19), ^jnn instead of' UpTIH (13:23; 1JTT in 32:7), NSH instead of (10:18; 15:13; Nim in 12:22; N3T in 28:11), Tin instead of Tim (34:32; Tin in 12:7, 8; Tin in 30:19), b^ instead of b^V (30:13; 35:3), jnn instead of JQTl (9:9; flDn in 22:1), and so forth. By Freedmans count, there are forty-two such forms with contracted and unmarked diphthongs in the book, though one might also add conservative spellings like nip (2:2), nD (2:9), OVDQ (11:3), p*D (11:15), n£)pn (11:17), (18:16), )bp (37:2; nftp in 28:26), T1 (29:16; nirn in 13:6; Din in 31:13), and on^N (29:24).2 Moreover, there are a number of Ketiv readings that suggest a conservative orthography: IT for IT (5:18), innn for innn (9:13), lurrp for uznp (15: 15), imty for mby (20: 11), irp for iry (21:20), 1JTP for 1PT (24:1), mte for lTIW (27:15), lifcn for vfon (31:20), irftlinn for inSnnn (37:12), rfr for rfr (38:41), n£DJr> for (39:26), inn£DN for in hflN (39:30), and lins for nna (40:17). Drawing on the results of his joint dissertation with Frank Moore Cross, which argued in part that such spellings typified epigraphic Hebrew of the

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.