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

Re: Why the difference between Biblia Hebraica Quinta and BHS in Zec

Expand Messages
  • C L
    Dear Rob, Thank you. Your comments are very helpful. I suspected - as you suggest - that Gelston simply rejected the proposed emendation as pure conjecture on
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 17, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Rob,

      Thank you. Your comments are very helpful.

      I suspected - as you suggest - that Gelston simply rejected the proposed emendation as pure conjecture on the part of BHS. Certainly, the reading of BA'ReTs [the reading indicated in the text itself] seems pretty straightforward and unproblematic to me.
      What surprises me, in fact, is not so much that Gelston has not included the BHS conjecture in BHQ, but rather that he does not explain why in his notes. Perhaps he just felt the BHS proposal so absurd as not to merit commentary.


      Also, I have a question regarding the Masorah Magna/Gedolah:
      I am just now learning to use the marginal notes, since these were ignored in our seminary instruction. I see that at least some of the Masorah Magna notes are included right in BHQ right above the apparatus; however, I don't see notes for all the circules in the text. Does that mean that I still need Weil's Massorah Gedolah, even though I have BHQ? I can apparently purchase the Masorah Gedolah in Logos. Can anybody confirm whether the "BHS Helps" module contains the full Massoretic marignal notations? (See: http://www.logos.com/product/5962/bhs-helps-collection)

      Thanks again, Rob.

      And thanks to everybody else in advance for any help.

      Sincerely,

      Chris Lovelace
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.