Error in the resource text for Daniel 7:8 of the BHS with Westminster morphology
Greetings!
I also sent a message to the customer service email, but I am posting this here since I couldn't find any contact info for notifying Logos of errors in resources.I wanted to make you aware of a text error in the BHS with Westminster morphology. In Daniel 7:8, your version has:
"קַדְמָ֣יָתָ֔א אֶתְעֲ֯קַ֖רָו מִן־ קֳרָמַ֑֯יהּ וַאֲל֨וּ עַיְנִ֜ין"
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology., electronic ed. (Stuttgart; Glenside PA: German Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996), Da 7:8.
The word after
מִן־
is wrong. It should be:
קֳדָמַ֑֯יהּ
That is, the resh in your version should be replaced by a dalet.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Blessings,
Tim Graham
Comments
-
When you right click the text there comes an option to report the typo. Don't know how often they correct these mistakes I have reported some typos in a syriac grammar 5 months ago and they have not been fixed yet...
0 -
I don't see an error here.
מִשְׂתַּכַּ֨ל הֲוֵ֜ית בְּקַרְנַיָּ֗א וַ֠אֲלוּ קֶ֣רֶן אָחֳרִ֤י זְעֵירָה֙ סִלְקָ֣ת בֵּינֵיהוֹן וּתְלָ֗ת מִן־קַרְנַיָּא֙ קַדְמָ֣יָתָ֔א אֶתְעֲקַרוּ מִן־קֳדָמַיַּהּ וַאֲל֨וּ עַיְנִ֜ין כְּעַיְנֵ֤י אֲנָשָׁא֙ בְּקַרְנָא־דָ֔א וּפֻ֖ם מְמַלִּ֥ל רַבְרְבָֽן׃Biblia Hebraica Westmonasteriensis with Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.18 (J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research, 2013), Da 7:8.You didn't note which edition of the text you are using. What I have displayed is the latest version from Logos. Even the earliest version has
8 מִשְׂתַּכַּל הֲוֵית בְּקַרְנַיָּא וַאֲלוּ קֶרֶן אָחֳרִי זְעֵירָה סִלְקָת בֵּינֵיהֵן וּתְלָת מִן־קַרְנַיָּא קַדְמָיָתָא אֶתְעֲקַרָה מִן־קֳדָמַהּ וַאֲלוּ עַיְנִין כְּעַיְנֵי אֲנָשָׁא בְּקַרְנָא־דָא וּפֻם מְמַלִּל רַבְרְבָן׃Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Stuttgart; Glenside PA: German Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1995.
Note that in both have קַדְמָ֣יָתָ֔א with a daleth following your citation. The word with the resh signifies the "horns" while the word with the daleth specifies the "former" horn.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Hi, Timothy. That version of the Westminster database is at least 9 years old (I can't tell exactly which edition you pasted from). We did just release the latest version, 4.18, which if I'm looking at the correct account, should already be unlocked for you. Because the Westminster text really isn't the BHS (and hasn't been since version 2), it's under a new name, BHW. Check for it in 'my library', and if you don't see it, make sure you're got internet access and automatic updates turned on.
The addition of the hybrid forms (the consonants of the kethiv with the vowels of the qere, with some modifications, the way the main manuscript line reads in L) was not part of the Westminster database, but something we added to that older version. I did not include that line in the 4.18 in part because any errors in it would be mine, not theirs. But I did put a corrected version of that data line in our in-house Lexham Hebrew Bible, so if you're interested in those hybrid forms, you can still look them up there (LHB is in most of the Logos 5 base packages, and is even in the minimal crossgrade). I found that the issues with search results from qere forms were multiplied when the hybrid form was the top interlinear line, so in LHB, it is the third line down, with the reconstructed kethiv as the top line.
0 -
Thank you for your response, George. The error I was pointing out in my version of the text BHS/WHM 4.2 was actually a few words later - in English, the correct translation of the correct BHS text (the text which, in BHS/WHM 4.2, is in error) is "was uprooted from before it". But the version of the text that I have doesn't have "min kodhamayah" but "min koramaih". BHW 4.18, however, does have the correct version of the BHS text (as pointed out in Vincent Setterholm's response to my post).
0 -
Thank you, Vincent. The text is indeed correct in BHW. The BHS/WHM 4.2 text, though, is definitely wrong (although the morphological tagging is correct).
0
