Mon Feb 17 09:22:28 1997
From owner-tc-list Mon Feb 17 09:22:28 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id JAA29705; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:22:27 -0500
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:21:50 -0500
From: "Harold P. Scanlin"
Subject: Koren vs BHS (2)
To: TC-List
Message-ID: <199702170921_MC2-1159-E164@compuserve.com>
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3099
About a week ago I posted two items on the tc-list, but I am not sure if
they were actually received, perhaps because of swichover problems.. I have
now added some additional information supplied by several of you.
In addition to the valuable resource list shared by Price, some (most?)
editions of the Koren Tanakh include a list of differences between their
edition and other editions. Their list does not include matres lectionis
differences; thus for the Torah only Gen 9:29 and Deut 23:2 are listed.
Further, the list is not necessarily a comparison with BHS. My guess is
that it is a comparison with the second Rabbinic Bible.
A new Tanakh was just published in a Hebrew-English diglot "Stone" edition
by Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, NY. It will be interesting to see how
well this Hebrew text is received in the Jewish religious community as
something of a rival to the well-received Koren edition. As far as the
text is concerned, in a very preliminary check I have spotted a few
readings in Stone which agree with L (via BHS?) but it generally agrees
with Koren.
All this suggests the need for a careful electronic comparison of the major
editions and manuscripts along the lines already undertaken by Price. The
electronic status of the different texts is not well documented. This
would, of course, be a major first step. My understanding of the situation
is as follows:
PRINTED EDITIONS
BHS (extremely close to L): the Westminster-CCAT file in its most recent
release(s) should be considered the authority for this file. It should be
noted, however, that the Westminster morph version includes some changes
not introduced in to the latest printed edition of BHS (1990). Many of
these changes will be introduced into the next printing of BHS (probably
1997). Note that practically all of the 1990 and upcoming 1997 changes are
teamim. The revised edition of BHS, tentatively designated BHQ (Quinta),
should advance the accuracy of the electronic file even further.
Ultimately, these files will be available for academic research.
Koren: Torah used in "Torah Codes" program. Is the Nakh available?
"Stone": ArtScroll has a computer program of Torah
Davka CD-ROM, "The Holy Scriptures"
"Bar Ilan Judaic Library" CD-ROM: I am under the impression that these
files are essentially related to the Rabbinic Bible. Does anyone have more
information?
MANUSCRIPTS
Aleppo: currently appearing in print (for the extant portions of the ms)
in several editions:
HUBP: Isaiah, Jeremiah forthcoming
Bar Ilan Miqraot Gedolot: Joshua - Isaiah
Breuer edition (Jerusalem: Kook, 1989), but I have detected a
number of examples where it does not totally conform to the ms.
According to P. Cassuto (IOMS 8th Congress, p. 3, fn.3) CATAB has an
electronic file. Cassuto is arranging the AIBI 5 program , to be held in
Aix-en-Provence, 1 -4 September 1997. This would be a good occasion to
discuss informally the issue of Tanakh texts.
Leningradensis: See BHS
Cairo: CATAB, according to Cassuto
Harold P. Scanlin
United Bible Societies
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 17 11:13:51 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA29924; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:13:51 -0500
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Koren text
Message-ID: <19970217.080007.10278.0.HILKAP@juno.com>
References: <970216064943_-972582813@emout17.mail.aol.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-18
From: hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:02:38 EST
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 546
On what medieval Hebrew manuscript does the KOREN text depend ?
CODEX LENINGRADENSIS and CODEX ALEPPO represent Ben Asher.
There was also the Ben Naphthali texts, from another family of Tiberian
scribes.
Ben Chayim was the basis/author of the Second Rabbinic Bible, but
from whence cometh the KOREN ?
HILLEL
On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 06:49:45 -0500 (EST) DrJDPrice@aol.com writes:
>Hi:
>Dr. Haralick verified that the Koren text agrees with the Tikun Sefer
>edition
>in all the places where I found Koren to differ from BHS.
>James D. Price
>
>
From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 17 14:23:50 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA00303; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:23:50 -0500
Message-ID: <3308B040.1669@accesscomm.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:23:44 -0600
From: Jack Kilmon
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Parchment & papyrus
References:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1949
Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote:
>
> N.B. Christians didn't "invent" the codex; it had been used
> for some time, but primarily for non-formal writing, such as
> notes, etc. Earliest was the bundle of wax tablets,
> thereafter parchment codices. Martial even refers to
> experiments with the codex for publication of literary works
> but suggests this didn't catch on. Christians appropriated
> the codex-format and seem to have *used* it programmatically
> far earlier than any other group. WhY?
> Various possibile scenarios have been suggested. They fall basically
> into 2 types: (1) The Christians may have intended some
> socially/religiously defining significance--Torah is to be written on
> scrolls, so the Christian writings were put in anothe format to
> distinguish them, either as Christian or as something other than
> "scripture"?
I would tend to believe that Jewish writings continued in scrolls
because they believed that's how Moses wrote the Torah. The adoption
and
refinement of the codex form by Christians may have coincided with the
institution
of a "canon" and the desire to keep the "apostolically authoritative"
writings in one package.
(2) Christians appropriated the codex for practical
> reasons, such as the one Kilmon sketched. But remember that scrolls
> can be prepared with more than one book (e.g., the "book of the 12",
> the "minor Prophetes" are written on one scroll in ancient times).
> Codices did come to be made that could handle a larger amount of
> texts and more writings than is practical for scrolls, but the
> earliest Christian codices are quite a bit smaller and more modest
> than the grand 4th cent ones!
Of course. On papyrus and smaller, they were less expensive
and portable....and hideable! :) At the time Constantine may have
bankrolled Eusebius to produce Aleph and 49 others, no need for
portability and hideability (is that a word>) :)
Jack Kilmon
JPMan@accesscomm.net
Back