BHQ and OHB at Deuteronomy 32:2: A Comparison

Textual criticism is not for the faint of heart. Languages and scripts galore! What I find to be a common denominator in the ancient text traditions is an intense devotion to the transmitted text. Any attempt to attribute base motives to the textual tradents is misplaced. (Are you listening, Bart Ehrman?) Of course the tradents were not disinterested transmitters. Why should they have been?

The apparatus to Deut 32:2 in the OHB sample reads:

32:2 תזל M ] ותזל [sic: should read ותאזל] SP ֗G (καὶ καταβήτω) sim T^J S (+conj, assim v 1a [sic: should read v 1b] §

 The apparatus to Deut 32:2 in BHQ 5 reads:

32:2 תִּזַּ֥ל V T^OF │ prec cj Smr G S T^JN (facil-synt)

OHB’s explanation of the variant (+conj, assim v 1b [corrected]) is more exact than that of BHQ (facil-synt). OHB sometimes supplies the actual reading, but on other occasions, without explanation, does not. SP’s actual reading is important. It provides background for G’s reading. OHB would be improved in this locus if it read:

32:2 תזל M T^O (יתקבל) T^F-P (יתקבל) T^F-VNL (תתקבל) V (fluat)] ותאזל SP G (καταβήτω) sim T^J (ותתקבל) T^N (ויתקבל) S (ܘܢܚܘܬ ) (+conj, assim v 1b)

Comments

[C. Hogan]

I sent you an email with a question that I hope you can help me with. I like your site.