HUC 935: Prayers for Sukkot : Nehemiah 8

 

In this manuscript, prayers for Sukkot, which is written in a clean and strong hand, a westerner wrote in pencil on page 47 "Neh 8:1"  It is safe to say that by the time this codex was copied in the seventeenth century, the Book of Nehemiah was no longer in the library of the Kaifeng Community (but we do not know).  As we have seen many times in this blog, the community's siddurim and their Torah section books differ dramatically.  The Torah sections are very close to our modern versions.  The siddurim have a great many divergences.  So how will a text of Tanakh (granted, not Torah) embedded in a siddur fare in terms of divergences?  Please note that the passage are out of order.

NEH 8:1

Kaifeng places a dagesh in the kof.  No difference in pronunciation.

   

Here, the Kaifeng changes the resh to lamed.  This kind of example has been pointed out by Pollak as an example of the difficult for native Chinese speakers to say r, so they replace it with l.  But if this is just pronunciation, would it necessarily impact spelling.  And wouldn't we see this nearly everywhere in Kaifeng manuscripts?

Here, the Kaifeng text replaces the segol  with tsere.  No difference in pronunciation.

Kaifeng places a dagesh in the samech, and replaces the tsere under the peh with a segol.  No difference in pronunciation.

In the Kaifeng, the beneath the mem is sh'va.  The Kaifeng fails to have a shuruk above the mem.  Kaifeng: L'Sh'm'm'a.  Modern: Lshm'moa.

NEH 8:5

The Kaifeng puts a dagesh in the kof.  No difference in pronunciation.

The Kaifeng replaces the kamatz below the ayin with patch.  No change in pronunciation. 

NEH 8:6

The Kaifeng replaces the segol beneath the rest with tsere.  No difference in pronuciation.

In the Kaifeng the yod is missing the shuruk and the kof has a dagesh.   Kaifeng: Va'ya'anu.  Modern: Va'yoal'lanu.

The Kaifeng has a variant spelling of the word b'molal.  No variant spelling in Brown Driver Briggs.

In the Kaifeng, the yod is missing a shuruk.  The kof does not have a dagesh.  Kaifeng: va-yikro.  Modern: va'yokedu.

NEH: 8:3

In the Kaifeng, the chirik beneath the tzade has replaced with patach.   No real change of pronunciation.

In the Kaifeng, the mem has been replaced by an nun.   Kaifeng: v'han'ninim.  Modern: v'ham'vinim.

The Kaifeng text does not have a dagesh in the kof.  No change in pronunciation.

The Kaifeng replaces the tsere with segol.  No change in pronunciation.

The Kaifeng text changes the tsere to segol. No change in pronunciation. 

The Kaifeng text replaces the segol beneath the tzade with sh'va.  Kaifeng: atz'ret.  Modern: atzereth.

The Kaifeng text replaces hametz beneath ayin and dat with patach.  No change in pronunciation.

The Kaifeng text replaces the tsere beneath the samech with a segol.  No change in pronunciation.  

There are no major divergences between the modern and the Kaifeng text.  Most involves minor issues of pointing, dageshes, variant spelling, and one probably spelling error.  I am not familiar with how this text is used in Sukkot.  It is not in order.  The text is Nehemiah 8:1, 5, 6. 3. and 9:1.  

There are 139 words in this section, and 20 divergences, for a total of 14%.  The two Square Sections we examined previously had just under 2% divergences.  It seems this instance imbedding a tanakh text in a siddur did not diminish the rate of divergences.