nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

The translation for a note in the BHS Critical Apparatus

Charlene

I had posted this earlier, but had no response and was puzzled, as I was sure that many use this apparatus often.

I don't know what the note in the BHS Critical Apparatus says for Daniel 12:11. Could someone please explain what it actually is saying? I am writing a paper on Daniel 12:11-12 and am unsure of what the apparatus is actually saying. I have copied it below.

11 a 11.12 add || b 𝔊θ´ καὶ δοθήσεται, prp וְנִתַּן

Thanks for any help!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Lee

If you're much into BHS this resource is invaluable: Understanding BHS

On to the notes:

In note a, the editor suggests that verses 11 and 12 are (later) additions

In note b, the editor notes that Theodotion's version of Daniel has καὶ δοθήσεται which the editor proposes is a translation from the Hebrew וְנִתַּן instead of the MT

Charlene

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/946901#Comment_946901

If you're much into BHS this resource is invaluable: Understanding BHS

Thanks, Lee! I have this, so I will definitely be looking at it!

And just two more (probably dumb) questions:

In note a, the editor suggests that verses 11 and 12 are (later) additions

When you say "the editor," who is that?

And what proof does the editor have that these are "later additions"?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/946905#Comment_946905

Since you have the resource Lee mentions, you may want to read the Introduction .... not from a technical POV, but rather a humorous one. Multiple editors, multiple approaches, and mystery as well. The writer seems to share your frustration.

Regarding the note, you'd think initially there's levels to his (?) certainty ... sometimes uses probably, sometimes a '?'. Here he seems certain?

If you have AYB, that author assigns 3 writers to the section. If you have Hermaneia, that author tries a different perspective. And Davies book is considerably more blunt. But all seem to bounce back to Jerome, who struggled as well with Macabees' timing.

But the apparatus seems to have gone beyond apparatus'ing. A new word.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/946905#Comment_946905

Denise said it well.

Technical commentaries are the go-to in situations like this.

Charlene

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/946922#Comment_946922

So really the BHS Critical Apparatus is a waste of money and I should spend it instead on critical/technical commentaries?

Charlene

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/946908#Comment_946908

Since you have the resource Lee mentions, you may want to read the Introduction .... not from a technical POV, but rather a humorous one. Multiple editors, multiple approaches, and mystery as well. The writer seems to share your frustration.

Regarding the note, you'd think initially there's levels to his (?) certainty ... sometimes uses probably, sometimes a '?'. Here he seems certain?

If you have AYB, that author assigns 3 writers to the section. If you have Hermaneia, that author tries a different perspective. And Davies book is considerably more blunt. But all seem to bounce back to Jerome, who struggled as well with Macabees' timing.

But the apparatus seems to have gone beyond apparatus'ing. A new word.

thanks, Denise.

So, am I wrong in my original assumption? I thought that the purpose of the apparatus was to show which manuscripts had made changes or additions to individual verses. Does this not do that?

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/946948#Comment_946948

So really the BHS Critical Apparatus is a waste of money and I should spend it instead on critical/technical commentaries?

In a word, no. If you need to delve into these issues deeply they all have a part to play.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/946949#Comment_946949

thanks, Denise.

So, am I wrong in my original assumption? I thought that the purpose of the apparatus was to show which manuscripts had made changes or additions to individual verses. Does this not do that?

Adding to Lee, I think you 'lucked' into an apparatus curiousity! Generally, apparatus mean a literal mss problem. And 'add's usually have an mss with it missing.

But it illustrates maybe 2 issues:

- Logos has sort of created an expectation of objectivity in reference resources. But apparatus, especially, in their history, were personal affairs. Not unlike commentaries. With the idea of critical editions, apparatus's (I hate the plural) have moved toward the literal. Gottingen as an example.

- Daniel, Joshua and Jeremiah are sort of train-wrecks .... an apparatus author has to struggle with what can be seen, and what to him is obvious. So, maybe there's room for graciousness, I suppose.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/946983#Comment_946983

Well, I feel the apparatus is a kind of hieroglyph to decipher.

But I expect it would be relatively easy to create some software functionality which converts the apparatus information into side-by-side text paragraphs for comparison (with some non-artistic coloring to highlight the differences), with human-readable information about the source, date and other information.

I think this kind of feature could give FL a leading edge [H]

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/947002#Comment_947002

When it's complete, BHQ should finally lay those issues to rest.