Wed Feb 12 02:08:48 1997

From owner-tc-list  Wed Feb 12 02:08:48 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id CAA18529; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:08:47 -0500
Message-Id: <9702120808.AB29497@iris.arcadis.be>
Subject: Re: Koren vs BHS text
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 08:08:40 +0100
X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be
X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: Jean VALENTIN 
To: "tc-list" 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1376

To add to the very interesting list of differences between Qoren and BHS 
that Dr Prince provided, there's a study about textual differences 
between the three main masoretic mss, the Leningrad, Aleppo and Cairo 
codices.

Philippe Cassuto, Masoretic Lists and Matres Lectionis, in VIII 
International Congress of the International Organization for masoretic 
Studies - edited by E.J. Revell - Masoretic Studies 6 - Scholars Press, 
1988 - pp. 1-30

It shows that these three mss disagree in many instances, specially when 
it comes to matres lectionis. And, of course, this raises the inevitable 
remark that this theory of equidistant letters works only with one text. 
I met here several people who were enthusiastic about this theory, but of 
course they were totally unaware of the fact that such questions could 
even be asked and were unable to answer me :-)

In fact, when we cumulate this study and the list of Dr Prince, this 
gives the impression that the fixity of the hebrew MT has something of a 
myth. But this is probably an overstatement.

_______________________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est 
inutilisable.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable.
Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar.

Back