Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: BHS critical apparatus

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    Irving,

    Thanks for the reply and info. I've read a few blurbs here and there about BHQ, but wasn't sure what set it apart from BHS to that degree. You mention Oxford's apparatus . . . is Hebrew University's Bible going to leave off producing an apparatus?
    Hey Lee, I believe the Hebrew University Bible will have an apparatus too.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Thumbs up Hubp

    Quote Originally Posted by ISalzman View Post
    Hey Lee, I believe the Hebrew University Bible will have an apparatus too.
    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!

    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
    Last edited by bkMitchell; 09-07-2012 at 06:59 PM.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    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.)

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ISalzman View Post
    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.
    καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν ἵνα οἱ ζῶντες μηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντι καὶ ἐγερθέντι.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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?
    Michael Hanel
    PhD candidate Classics Univ. of Cincinnati
    MDiv Concordia Seminary
    MA Classics Washington University
    Unofficial BibleWorks Blog
    LibraryThing!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Hanel View Post
    In other words, there needs to be a critical apparatus/edition for the Masorah too?
    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.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    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.
    Yes, Lee. Nowhere near as detailed as Metzger, of course. They give a very brief explanation. But still a nice feature.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •