Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

A Review of BHQ

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    Hello! I think it fair to say that you will be very interested indeed in this review of BHQ
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 19, 2007
      Hello!

      I think it fair to say that you will be very interested indeed in this
      review of BHQ

      http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2007/03/taking_stock_of.html

      A remarkable piece of work.


      --
      Jim West, ThD

      http://drjewest.googlepages.com/ -- Biblical Studies Resources
      http://drjimwest.wordpress.com -- Weblog
    • Michael Marlowe
      ... Thanks for that link, Jim. It was interesting, although I think the author goes in the wrong direction with his criticism. The heart of the article seems
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 20, 2007
        Jim West wrote:

        > I think it fair to say that you will be very interested
        > indeed in this review of BHQ
        >
        > http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2007/03/taking_stock_of.html

        Thanks for that link, Jim. It was interesting, although I think the author
        goes in the wrong direction with his criticism.

        The heart of the article seems to be this satement:

        "This, in my view, is the chief drawback of BHQ. It mutilates the field of
        text criticism by eliminating from consideration an aspect of the discipline
        as traditionally understood: to wit, that covered in chapter eight of
        Emanuel Tov’s Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible under the rubric of
        “conjectural emendation.” BHK, the predecessor of BHS, gave a bad name to
        this text-critical endeavor. Tov defends the practice but not its misuse."

        I had to smile when I realized that the author apparently thinks BHS is much
        better than BHK in this regard. I've spent (unwisely) many days puzzling
        over the conjectural emendations recommended in the BHS apparatus, most of
        which seem rather arbitrary and capricious to me. Probably the BHQ editors
        decided to leave them out because it's just impractical to try to include
        all the "interesting" conjectural emendations recommended in the exegetical
        literature of the past few decades. Imagine the MT of Psalms annotated with
        all of Dahood's emendations. And everyone else's, too. It's a scholar's
        nightmare. These conjectural emendations have their place in the
        commentaries, where a scholar can explain why he thinks they are necessary;
        but they usually require an explanation, and explanations like this cannot
        be given in the margin of a manual edition of the text.

        Actually, what we need is not another edition of the text with a condensed
        apparatus, like BHQ, but a decent textual commentary series. I do wish that
        someone would undertake that task.

        Michael Marlowe
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.