Error in the BHS apparatus?

[Martin Z]

When I was writing some introductory blogs for (lower) textual criticism this week, I decided to choose 1 Sam 13:1 as an example.

I found out that there might be an error in the BHS apparatus.

 

Here is the BHS apparatus:

The apparatus in the Accordance module is the same as in the paper copy of BHS, except under the variant "b", the letter "p" is not subscripted in the Accordance module (I think this is a typo; it should be corrected).

 

It says that the Syriac version has "21" for Saul's age when he became king.

 

Here is the text of the Syriac version from CAL:

 

This is Lamsa's translation: AND when Saul had reigned one or two years in his kingdom over Israel.

 

I think Lamsa's translation is correct.

The editor who is responsible for 1 Sam of the BHS probably, mistakenly, took the form ܘܬܪ̈ܬܝܢ (the feminine form for "two") as the plural form for "two" and understood it as "20." But as in Biblical Hebrew, "20" is the plural form of "ten" in Syriac. Unless the editor had a different Syriac version before him, I think this is an error.

 

 

Besides this error (if my understanding is correct), the hard copy of the BHS (both seem to be corrected in Accordance) also has other minor typos, such as the lack of a hireq under yod in "Israel" (the last word in Josh 11:5), and two dagesh fortes in taw (the third word in Mal 1:13). Hilarious~ 

 

Blessings,

Martin

 

[Michel Gilbert]

 

. . . the hard copy of the BHS (both seem to be corrected in Accordance) also has other minor typos, such as the lack of a hireq under yod in "Israel" (the last word in Josh 11:5), and two dagesh fortes in taw (the third word in Mal 1:13).

 

 

Hi Martin,

 

FWIW, and as far as I know, the errors/readings at Josh 11,5 and Mal 1,13 appeared in the smaller editions. I have six paper editions. The large 1984 and 1997 editions (I have two of the former, one of the latter) are correct. The small 1984 and1997 editions have both errors, as well as the wide margin 2007 edition with the smaller font face. Of course, they've long been corrected in the SESB (electronic) edition. I would assume DBG passed the corrections on to Accordance, but I could be wrong.

 

I'd be interested if you noticed the errors in a large paper BHS, and if so, in which edition.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

[Martin Z]

Hello Michel,

 

Thanks for replying.

Mine is the 1997 smaller edition.

The Accordance module has both (the hireq and the dagesh) correct.

 

The typo in Accordance I talked in the post is about the letter "p" in the apparatus for 1 Sam 13:1. The letter "p" should be superscripted.

 

The main error in the 1 Sam 13:1 apparatus I talked is the reading in the Peshitta. The BHS has "21", but the Peshitta reads "one or two." This is a misreading of the Peshitta by the editors. I posted here, to see if anyone who knows better could either confirm mine understanding or correct it if I was wrong.

 

If this error is confirmed, is it ok for Accordance to make note in the apparatus?

 

Blessings,

Martin

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Martin,

 

I don't think Acc would change the BHS apparatus, even if it is incorrect. Helen can confirm. But I assume you could report a typographical error, like the superscript you mentioned.

 

You have to use your own judgment when it comes to the apparatus.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

[Martin Z]

I thought the electronic version has the advantage of always being most updated (even correcting the errors in the hard copy editions). 
Now it seems the electronic would only be close the hard copies, even following their errors. Ironical, but makes perfect sense. This is seems to be the attitude of the Masoretes. 

[Rick Bennett]

If we receive, or can access, an official errata list from GBS then we can make corrections not related to our conversion. Otherwise, we tend not to make editorial corrections unless they are very obvious or are confirmed by scholars in the field (I can think of a couple instances over the years where we have done so).

 

We will look into the superscript, and an errata list.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

[Martin Z]

Hello Rick,

 

Thanks for your reply. I understand that it is better to follow the database which Accordance draws from to make the text. Speaking of scholarly confirmation, I have posted the Peshitta text here. Any scholar who knows Syriac should be able to read it instantly. Since "20" is the plural form of "10" rather than that of "2", it should not be difficult to distinguish that. I posted here, because quite a few scholars are active on this forum, I hope some of them can confirm it for me. (I don't think a scholarly paper is needed for this.)

 

Blessings,

Martin