Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

As I understand it, the point at Psalm 11:2 is that the WTS compilers of the
electronic text are suggesting (by the marking [3) a typo in the printed
BHS. In this case the printed BHS compilers seem to have followed Kittel, as
my BHS 1990 edition has mahpak below HINNE, not galgal as in the OTA text.
But the electronic BHS text (later than OTA?) which comes with my SIL tools
has mahpak below HINNE, so perhaps the error is in the OTA text, not in the
printed text. Perhaps someone else could tell us what the accent is in the
facsimile of L, and which accent would be more appropriate here.

Peter Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: John Richards [mailto:jhr AT universalist.worldonline.co.uk]
Sent: 20 November 2000 14:01
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Corrected OTA BHS text


From: "Cees van Veelen" <ceesv AT veelen.hobby.nl>

> Now I have the OTA text from www.stackpole.freeserve.co.uk/hebrew/bhs.zip
I did the conversion to a accented text. It is amazing, it's all there.
> I have some questions that I hope can be answered:
> 1. At certain places I find the characters '3 [' in the text. For example
Psalm 11:2 between the second and third word of verse 2. Where does '3 ['
stand for?
> 2 While at Psalm 11:2: In my printed BH (edition 1975, last edition of
Kittel prior to BHS) I see a mahpak below the first and the second word, KI
and HINNE. In the OTA text I see a mahpak below KI but a galgal below HINNE.
I just wonder: is this one of the things that is different between my Kittel
and BHS?
>

This should clarify the issue.

I don't know about the Psalm 11:2 issue. Perhaps someone else does.

Best wishes

John

<snip>