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" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Malachi 1:10 textual variant > Message-ID: > < > 2fc463e6b2073b4d998c93a858c0d47601115...@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: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Albert Haig > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:52 PM > To: [email protected] > 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
