Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Roth <daroth AT JTSA.EDU>]

Peter Kirk quoted Rolf Furuli:
> ... On the basis of years of textual studies, he was able to show that
> the authors of Biblia Hebraica in many cases had changed the Hebrew 
> text in order to conform with their grammatical views (we find the 
> same in the apparatus of BHS regarding weyiqtols in "wrong" places 
> etc.). ...

And commented:
Are you, or Sperber, claiming that there are cases where the BHS authors 
have departed from the text (rather than the apparatus) of their base 
manuscript, Leningradensis, to conform to grammatical views? That is a 
grave charge - at least if it applies to cases where Leningradensis is 
clear, rather than where it is damaged and a reconstruction must be 
made.


Sperber is referring to Biblia Hebraica (either 1 or 2), but certainly not 
BHS.   Notice that Rolf Furuli cites "Biblia Hebraica" (as opposed to the BHS 
apparatus, on which he comments later) regarding Sperber's claim (whether 
they emend the text "inside" or suggest emendations in the notes, his point 
is the same: that their preconceived grammatical assumptions lead them to 
deny the evidence before them (the actual text), rather than deriving the 
grammar from the data).  I believe the difference between the early BH (1-2) 
and BHK (Kittel) and BHS is that the latter two are meant to be diplomatic 
representations of the Leningrad Codex.

To give just one example that I remember (correctly, I hope) from Professor 
Sperber's work, he gives example after example of cases where 'el and `al 
seem to have identical meanings, thus arguing against emending `al to 'el 
when the meaning is clearly "to."  It seems that Rolf Furuli is pointing out 
that a suggested emendation in the notes may have the same methodological 
problems that Sperber noticed in BH; he does not seem to be implying any 
dishonesty or misrepresentation on the part of the BHS editors.

Since you mention Kirk Lowery's work with the electronic text of 
Leningradensis, can anyone point to a statement of purpose for the project?  
I have a couple of questions about it:
1) Will it include the Masorah?
2) Will this version have the rafe marks (it seems that any diplomatic 
representation of L should have these).  It would be fairly easy to remove 
them automatically for those who find them to be annoying.

Best Regards,
David Roth

P.S. Anyone happen to have any second-hand copies of Sperber's works they'd 
like to sell at a reasonable price?