Missing pashta in BHQ Hab 1:1
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:08 am
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)?
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)?