Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Aleppo vs. Leningrad Codex vs. BHS

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros AT iol.ie>
  • To: "Ewan MacLeod" <macleod_ewan AT hotmail.com>
  • Cc: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Aleppo vs. Leningrad Codex vs. BHS
  • Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 15:38:05 +0100


Ewan:

This is primarily a text-critical question, and on the TC mailing list only a week ago, James Adair posted the following notice:

>>>> Richard Weis has written an article entitled "Biblia Hebraica Quinta and the Making of Critical Editions of the Hebrew Bible," now published in TC volume 7. He compares BHQ (he's a member of the editorial committee) with earlier publications in the BH series and with other Hebrew Bible projects currently underway.<<<

The URL for TC is: http://purl.org/TC

You will also find answers to some of your queries in reviews of:
Dotan, Aron, ed. Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia. Prepared according to the Vocalization, Accents, and Masora of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the Leningrad Codex. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2001. [ and, of course, in the introduction and various appendices of this fine book ]

One is on pp.716-8 of the current issue ( vol. 63 #4 ) October 2001 of the Catholic Biblical Quarterly -- this paragraph is typical of the review:

>>>The text differs from other European editions in many respects. As is well know, BH3 and BHS contain typographical and substantive errors in the consonants and the vowels. There are substantially fewer such errors in the Dotan text. D. also presents a superior text for the accentual markings. D. refers to BH3 's " numerous errors and corruptions, particularly in vocalization and accents, , but also in _plene_ and defective spelling, some of them printing errors and others due to faulty reading of the manuscript " In BHS he alleges that the printing errors are fewer " but the corruptions from mistaken readings of of the manuscript are even more numerous ". Despite its common use ( e.g in the Claremont-Michagan electronic text and the NJPSV bilingual ( 1999 ) and even with many small improvements the BHS text is problematic >>>

There are on-line reviews which will be of help, e.g one in the 2001 volume of TC (just click on the link on the TC home page ).
Another one, by Kevin Woodruff, is to be found in vol. 1 #2 April/June 2001 of the Journal of Biblical Studies at:
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue2/Book_Review/leningradensia_review.htm



At 14:22 22/06/02, Ewan MacLeod wrote:

In the intro to the Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia, it said that there were known errors in the BHS. Apart from differences in the nikud, does anyone know if there any mistakes/differences in the consonants (letters) of the BHS, compared with the Leningrad Codex? Has a list ever been published? The BHS would have been done before the recent facsimile edition of the Leningrad Codex, so the new photos may have made the text easier to read.

Similarly, are there any differences between the consonants (letters) of the Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex? When Shmuel ben Yakov corrected the Leningrad Codex, would it have been corrected to the
Aleppo Codex or another Masoretic manuscript?

Maurice A. O'Sullivan
[Bray, Ireland]

" To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not observe them in the making " -- Otto von Bismarck





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page