Missing pashta in BHQ Hab 1:1

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
rjwalker
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:41 am

Missing pashta in BHQ Hab 1:1

Post by rjwalker »

While perusing the BHQ fascicle of the Twelve, I noticed that the first word of the text of Hab 1:1 is missing its accent. There is a note in the apparatus for 1:1, in order to indicate that M(L) erroneously omits the dagesh in the sin. But that note gives the reading from M(L), and it includes a pashta.

I managed to find that this is already noted as a mistake by WLC -- it is reported as issue http://www.grovescenter.org/bugzilla/sh ... gi?id=1115 -- and in WLC 4.20, there is now an additional note on Hab 1:1 that means "We read an accent in L differently from BHQ".

The Bugzilla issue says "This anomaly should be reported to the German Bible Society."

So, question (1): are there any "official" (in any sense) lists of errata for the published fascicles of BHQ? Does DBG acknowledge errors like this? Or, is it a matter of waiting for a revised printing?

The Bugzilla issue also says, 'The accent is also missing from the "correct" form <HA/M.A&.F)> cited as being found in M(A) and M(C).' I'd noticed that, but I assumed that a reason could be that alternative readings don't usually include vowels and accents, where they are not relevant to the note in the apparatus. In this case, the reading from M(A)/M(C) has vowels/dagesh/sin dot precisely because in this note, it is a dagesh that is in question, but not the accent.

Question (2): so, although it is certainly confusing, could it nevertheless be "correct" for the apparatus to omit the pashta in the reading from M(A)/M(C)?
Richard Walker
Canberra
Post Reply