Jot in Kittel

[99asteroids]

I received the 1937 BHK3 Genesis fascicle today, and there are a couple things I want to mention.

 

First, as one of you pointed out (I don't remember who), "Eshau" instead of "Esau" makes it's first appearance here in 32:18. It's not in the prior editions of BHK, but it is in BHS, so it does seem we have here a "Leitfehler" or "shared derived innovation" that indicates BHS is a reworked BHK3. I'd love to know if there are unique errors in BHK 1 and 2 that would show up in BHK3.

 

Second, just two words into the first book of the Bible in BHK3 and we have an inexplicable error.

Remember, Kittel had the frickin' manuscript in his hands, right under his nose, for two years. And the color photos clearly show a conjunctive munach here, not a tebir, which is a disjunctive accent that doesn't make sense here. BHK2 has the correct accent. So how did this tebir get in there? This is the kind of mystery that baffles me. I can't imagine Kittel or his team deliberately introducing this error based on their direct viewing of the manuscript. So is it some kind of error introduced in the printing stage?

[99asteroids]

@Ben Denckla @Brian K. Mitchell @Abram K-J

[99asteroids]

Never mind everything I said. I just realized that my copy of BHK3 was printed in 1963, so it can't be trusted, especially since the original moulds were destroyed in the bombing of Leipzig. Ugh. I'll have to try to find an original BHK3.

[Ben Denckla]

3 hours ago, 99asteroids said:

I just realized that my copy of BHK3 was printed in 1963, so it can't be trusted, especially since the original moulds were destroyed in the bombing of Leipzig.

 

Hm so how did they produce that 1963 one? At that point in time, could they reproduce it from a paper copy of the 1937 edition using photolithography? If so, there'd be some degradation in quality, but in the abstract, it would be faithful to the original. E.g. as long as it didn't blur beyond readability, an accent is not going to change.