Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Albert Haig <albert.haig AT gmail.com>]

Dear B-Hebrew list,

Regarding Malachi 1:10, there are no textual variants marked in Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) in relation to the first word of the verse,
MIY. However, when I looked up the verse in English in Quickverse, in the
notes for this verse was the following (I have just cut and pasted this):

Who (KJV): Instead of {mi,} "who," one MS. (30 K.) with the LXX reads {ki,}
"surely," which is adopted by Houbigant and Abp. Newcome, who renders,
"Surely the doors shall be closed against you, neither shall ye kindle the
fire of my altar in vain."

When I checked the LXX, it reads DIOTI, which certainly does seem to be a
translation of KIY rather than MIY. So it seems that the LXX does in fact
have a variant reading at this point. As regards Hebrew manuscripts, I am
not sure what manuscript "30 K." refers to, I can't find any such manuscript
listed in BHS or in the Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (vol. 2, pp.
1311-1323). I assume they are using a different nomenclature.

Now it seems to me that this textual variant (i.e. the reading KIY) can't be
correct on grammatical grounds. This is because I assume that it requires us
to understand the subject of the verb W:YISGOR to be God; however, just a
few words later in the verse God is referred to in the first person (the
suffix on MIZB:XIY); I can't see how you can have God changing from the
third person to the first person in a couple of words, and I can't see who
could be the subject for the verb W:YISGOR if not God, unless, of course,
the text reads MIY, in which case that acts as subject. So I think the
reading MIY is correct.

But my main concern is as follows. I was under the impression (perhaps
illusion) that BHS listed all textual variants in the footnotes, except of
course those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). But here it seems to have
missed a variant in the LXX and one Hebrew manuscript.  Have I been misled?
Does BHS omit some textual variants (other than the DSS)? How frequently
does this happen? Often BHS does note variant readings found in the LXX, so
what criteria do they use to decide what gets noted and what does not?

And if this is true, can anyone tell me if there is a critical text of the
Hebrew Old Testament available in print that notes ALL the textual variants
in the footnotes (excepting perhaps the DSS, although ideally it would
include these also)? I would be keen to purchase it if there is.

Thank you for your help! I am somewhat disgruntled at BHS at the moment.

Very best wishes,

Albert Haig.