On the Code of Marcus the Gnostic

I wrote:

Here is an article which might interest you:





The "normal" mode that one would expect in an alphabetical acrostic would be 22 verses each beginning with letters of the alphabet running consecutively from aleph to vav in the conventional order. Surprisingly, we find in Scripture only two occurrences that meet these criteria: Proverbs 31:10-31 and Lamentations 1.
Nahum 1 and Psalms 9-10 have acrostics so mutilated and truncated that the traces of an alphabetic "order" go unnoticed by most readers. As for Lamentations 2 and 4, each consists of 22 verses; however, they have the peculiarity of transposing the ayin () and the peh (). Lamentations 3 has 66 verses constituting a triple acrostic with the same curious transposition.

In Psalms 37, the successive letters head each alternate verse instead of each consecutive verse, while in Psalms 111 and 112 they head each half-verse. The acrostic art reaches its ultimate expression is Psalms 119 (the longest chapter in the Bible), which consists of 22 stanzas, each with 8 verses for each consecutive letter of the alphabet.

Psalms 145, which is recited in our prayers thrice daily, more frequently than others, comes close to fitting the "normal" mode except for its lack of a nun () verse. (Incidentally, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Psalms Scroll do have such a verse. The Scroll reads ).

This article, however, will focus on the two remaining biblical acrostics which have, so far, been unmentioned: Psalms 25 and 34. These two psalms share an interesting peculiarity. Each has an acrostic with the vav () verse omitted and with a peh () heading the final verse. This raises two questions: (1) Why do they omit the vav? (2) Why do they conclude with a peh verse?

As for the first question, the omission of the vav is quite understandable as there is a paucity in Hebrew of basic words beginning with this letter. Excluding proper names (such as Vashti, Vaizatha, etc.), one would be hard put to find even three words in biblical Hebrew that begin with the letter vav. All the acrostics in the Hebrew Bible and almost all in our liturgy (and they are numerous) use the vav with some artificiality – usually a conjunctive vav or a vav consecutive. There are just hardly any basic words beginning with that letter.

As for the second question, regarding the supernumerary peh, this writer, after searching the literature without finding any satisfactory explanation, proposes the following solution. The key to solving this puzzle is to be found in the fascinating phenomenon of ATBaSH (), which is a code where the first letter of the alphabet is represented by the last, the second letter by the second to the last, and so on. (This is very much the same as if one were to devise a code in which A=Z, B=Y, etc., and then name the code AZBY.)

This ATBaSH device is to be found in the Book of Jeremiah where in 25:26 and 51:41 the word Sheshach is an ATBaSH cryptogram for Babel, and 51:1 Lebkamai is an ATBaSH cryptogram for Kasdim (Chaldea). It appears that the psalmist (or psalmists) of chapters 25 and 34, having omitted the vav, now compensate for this omission by concluding with a peh — which is, of course, a vav in the language of ATBaSH!
There still remains the question: Why did the psalmist place the peh at the end of the acrostic, instead of the beginning of verse six, replacing by the method of ATBaSH the letter vav? The answer seems to me that this would constitute a violation to the integrity of the Hebrew alphabet, much more so than the omission of a letter.

Boid wrote back:

This is useful. It has saved me a lot of time.

Now, as to the consecutive tenses. [Note the term].You need some more exact information. The often-heard statement that prefixing the vav changes the tense is misleading. Let’s start with the past, which is easier to set out.

The tenses with vav at the start are common to North-West Semitic, i.e. Canaanite (Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician etc.) and Aramaic. In Aramaic they disappeared very early, but they are attested in the very earliest inscriptions. They are well attested in Moabite and obviously in Biblical Hebrew. I don’t know of them in Phoenician, but I will have to see if they occur early. (My knowledge of Phoenician is not extensive).

They are ONLY used in narrative and can only designate events, not states. An exception to this is that verb hayah. This can be used purely as a time marker. Thus vayehi at the start of a sentence can mean simply “this sentence describes a situation or state in the past”. In the same way, vehayah at the start of a sentence means “this sentence is about a state or condition in the future”. In the past, there are marked changes to the verb, due to the shifting of the accent BACKWARDS. Thus amar “he said” accented on the second syllable. Yomar “he will say” or “he generally or often says” accented on the second syllable. Vayyomer “after that, he then said” accented on the second syllable, not the third. Here is one example out of many of a change in the last vowel in this tense. With most weak verbs, the last syllable is dropped, or markedly changed. Thus panah (the HE is a vowel marker in the spelling, not a consonant sound) “he turned away” yifneh “he will turn away” vayyifen (accented on the second syllable) “after that, he then turned away” Again, hikkah “he hit” (smote), yakkeh “he will smite”, vayyakh (accented on the second syllable) “after that, he smote”. [All these examples are according to the Masoretic system and pronunciation]. Another example is vayehi [note that the YOD is not doubled. [And please disregard the frequently heard vayhi, very common in Christian theological colleges, but pidgin Hebrew. [As is the Hebrew from such circles in most other respects] Changes to the accent occur in the future, but less markedly.

The vav is to regarded NOT as meaning “and” but as being a tense marker. If the context demands it, it can mean “and” AS WELL as being a tense marker. It is easy to find cases where it CAN’T mean “and”. These are the new sections of free-standing description of the past or future starting with vayehi or vehayah used only to mark the time as past or future. Examples are the first verse of I Samuel or the second verse of the second chapter of Isaiah.