BHS-T Kethiv&Qere

[Martin Z]

I have a question regarding the BHS-T module.

 

Why does it not include the Qeres in the module? The Qeres represent the reading tradition that has been passed down over the centuries, or we may consider them (in most cases, excluding YHWH vs. Adonai) the textual criticism works of the masoretes, and should be regarded as the correct reading. In other words, those qeres should be regarded as part of the MT text.

 

I know that we have HMT-W4 module in Accordance. But it is inconvenient that BHS-T cannot be read by its own (i.e., we still need HMT-W4 to get the Qeres).

 

Is it possible to update the BHS-T to include the Qeres?

(It often surprises me when I see some unusual forms in BHS-T. At first, I thought they were typos. After double checking with the HMT-W4 and paper copy of BHS, I finally realized that they were merely Kethivs...)

 

Thanks!

 

[Helen Brown]

We received this text from the German Bible Society and are not authorized to edit it. Dr. J's recent podcast on the use of brackets explains Qere and Kethiv and the fact that each text treats them differently. It's a pity the Qere is not included in the Apparatus module.

[Martin Z]

We received this text from the German Bible Society and are not authorized to edit it. Dr. J's recent podcast on the use of brackets explains Qere and Kethiv and the fact that each text treats them differently. It's a pity the Qere is not included in the Apparatus module.

 

This is a pity.

Just to give an example, Isa 10:6.

The וּלְשׂיּמ֥וֹ word in BHS-T is unreadable. And readers are left without any clue whether it is a typo or a kethiv/qere case.

the HMT-W4 lists both the kethiv and qere forms (the kethiv form seems to be a typo? the dot is not a hireq, but a dagesh in yod).

 

[MattChristianOT]

I have a question regarding the BHS-T module.

 

Why does it not include the Qeres in the module? The Qeres represent the reading tradition that has been passed down over the centuries, or we may consider them (in most cases, excluding YHWH vs. Adonai) the textual criticism works of the masoretes, and should be regarded as the correct reading. In other words, those qeres should be regarded as part of the MT text.

 

I know that we have HMT-W4 module in Accordance. But it is inconvenient that BHS-T cannot be read by its own (i.e., we still need HMT-W4 to get the Qeres).

 

Is it possible to update the BHS-T to include the Qeres?

(It often surprises me when I see some unusual forms in BHS-T. At first, I thought they were typos. After double checking with the HMT-W4 and paper copy of BHS, I finally realized that they were merely Kethivs...)

 

Thanks!

I am not sure the claim that the Qetiv/Kere represents the "correct" reading tradition is entirely accurate. There are two other reading traditions (Babylonian and Palestinian), and the Secunda which has some variation in vocalization (I would recommend Eric Reymonds recent "Intermediate Hebrew Grammar- Guide to phonology and Morphology" as well as Benjamin Suchard's recent dissertation on vowel vocalizations ( https://www.academia.edu/28718606/The_development_of_the_Biblical_Hebrew_vowels) more on that. I would say the Qetiv/Kere represent a tradition (Tiberian) that passed into favored use is a better way of saying it. It is odd these are not in the module but GBS does get to make the rules.

Edited September 20, 2018 by MattChristian

[Martin Z]

I am not sure the claim that the Qetiv/Kere represents the "correct" reading tradition is entirely accurate. There are two other reading traditions (Babylonian and Palestinian), and the Secunda which has some variation in vocalization (I would recommend Eric Reymonds recent "Intermediate Hebrew Grammar- Guide to phonology and Morphology" as well as Benjamin Suchard's recent dissertation on vowel vocalizations ( https://www.academia.edu/28718606/The_development_of_the_Biblical_Hebrew_vowels) more on that. I would say the Qetiv/Kere represent a tradition (Tiberian) that passed into favored use is a better way of saying it. It is odd these are not in the module but GBS does get to make the rules.

Thanks, Matt.

I should qualify the "correct" reading. I was merely talking about the masoretic tradition. If I am correct, the Leningrad Codex is behind both modules mentioned above. The masoretes did not want to alter anything in the body of the text. But they marked out the qere forms in the margin, which according to them, should be the "correct" reading.

To argue that the qere forms should be taken as the MT reading (or at least mark out both kethiv and qere forms) is one thing (my post), to argue that the MT text should be amended is another question.

[MattChristianOT]

Thanks, Matt.

I should qualify the "correct" reading. I was merely talking about the masoretic tradition. If I am correct, the Leningrad Codex is behind both modules mentioned above. The masoretes did not want to alter anything in the body of the text. But they marked out the qere forms in the margin, which according to them, should be the "correct" reading.

To argue that the qere forms should be taken as the MT reading (or at least mark out both kethiv and qere forms) is one thing (my post), to argue that the MT text should be amended is another question.

That is correct- The Leningrad Codex is the textual base and I agree with you. The BHQ Commentary/Apparatus is fairly informative where Keith/Qere is necessary for understanding.