Hey Lee, I believe the Hebrew University Bible will have an apparatus too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Printable View
Hey Lee, I believe the Hebrew University Bible will have an apparatus too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
You're right Isalzman, and there is more to this than belief since the three volumes that have been produced prove that an apparatus is included. And, let us also not forget about the MGHaKeter project it's great too!Quote:
Originally Posted by ISalzman
As, for the BHQ check out this article(It includes page samples)
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/Weis2002.html
The published volumes of the BHQ are already available in two different electronic formats, hopefully BibleWorks will also be able acquire a license to this as well. Not, only is the apparatus much improved, but the full Massorah is included, and a sort commentary on it and the apparatus.
the Author of the Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog, John F. Hobbins, has also published an article on the BHQ in comparison with the other projects out there:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.c...ica_quinta.pdf
Another very interesting feature of Quinta - that the BHS Apparatus did/does not do - is that the editors of the BHQ give you the reasons why, they believe, the variants arose. In other words, they attempt to explain the reasoning behind them. This makes for a rather nice feature. (I have been working more and more with BHQ, and am, thus, becoming more familiar with it.)
That is very interesting. If you'll excuse my using the Greek NT to illustrate, that would be as if Metzger's Textual Commentary were included right in the UBS apparatus itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by ISalzman
Just in case others might like to know this, the Masorah of BHS/BHQ is a radically different Masorah than was employed by Bomberg/Ben Chayyim. The Masorah of BHQ is based wholly on the Leningrad Codex and was begun by Gerard E. Weil.
Weil was forced in numerous places to insert conjectural emendation because the Masorah of the Leningrad Codex was too slovenly written and too unclear and haphazzard to make a definitive reading. I don't know if the current BHQ Masorah has undergone further emendations, alterations since Weil's time, or what-have-you, only that permission has been granted by the UBS and Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome to continue the work.
In short, everyone should know that the Masorah is not a monolithic corpus that all agree on. Quite the opposite. The BHQ may be very well organized after making some sense out of much that is difficult to make sense of in the Leningrad Codex, but it represents far and away only one viewpoint.
In other words, there needs to be a critical apparatus/edition for the Masorah too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adelphos
Don't hold your breath. That would be a decades-long work at the very minimum, and even then you'd have find somebody who was actually willing to undertake it. And digging up the Bomberg/Ben Chayyim stuff would take a researcher par excellance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Hanel
Yes, Lee. Nowhere near as detailed as Metzger, of course. They give a very brief explanation. But still a nice feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee