Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Thanks James! I will look forward to BHQ. I like to know what the actual
variants are, and not rely on editorial judgement about which ones are
important and which ones aren't.

All the best,

Albert.


Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:45:08 -0400
> From: "James Spinti" <JSpinti AT Eisenbrauns.com>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Malachi 1:10 textual variant
> Message-ID:
>        <
> 2FC463E6B2073B4D998C93A858C0D47601115B6F AT HPLH301.ane.eisenbrauns.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> Albert,
>
> There is no such animal; it would be huge. The closest we have--outside
> of BHS--is the new BHQ, of which 4-5 fascicles are now available. The
> expected completion date continues to move into the future, so don't
> hold your breath waiting for it. It does include DSS variants, as well
> as Syriac, LXX, and Vulgate among others. The drawback is that Syriac is
> not in transliteration as it is in BHS, but in the Syriac script,
> Nestorian, if I remember correctly (but I might be wrong). And, it is
> priced out of the range of the average person. The retails run over
> $100/fascicle, although most of the time you can purchase them for
> $75.00 or so.
>
> >From personal experience, I can sympathize with you. On more than one
> occasion I have had BHS, LXX, and Vulgate texts open in front of me and
> seen BHS ignore what I thought were important variants.
>
> James
>
> ________________________________
> James Spinti
> Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
> Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
> Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
> jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
> Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
> Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
> Fax: 574-269-6788
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Albert Haig
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:52 PM
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Malachi 1:10 textual variant
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>