PDA

View Full Version : On Greek text crit



Michael Hanel
05-11-2010, 11:29 AM
It has been noted here many times before that BibleWorks currently lacks the critical apparatus for the NA27 and BHS because the license holders for those works have not agreed to any licensing deals with BibleWorks. However it has also been said that despite not having the NA27 app crit specifically, there still are many other valuable tools for text crit in BW8 such as Von Soden and Tischendorf. Although both are older than NA27, they both contain much more information and often more accurate information. It is sad BW can't have everything in it, but the fact that it has those two really means it has more and better information than the NA27 itself. If you don't believe me, these are the words of the editors of the NA27, "(von Soden and Tischendorf) are indispensible for specialized studies on the transmission of particular texts and passages because (unfortunately) they still represent the most detailed collect of variants (von Soden) and the most accurate presentation of the evidence from them (Tischendorf) available today." (From Peter Head's review of Editio Critica Maior (http://www.box.net/shared/khthq736ki)). So I'd say that's pretty much straight from the horse's mouth. Of course it should be noted that the Editio Critica Maior when it's finished should replace both von Soden and Tischendorf, but the point is, that edition would essentially be superseding von Soden and Tisch, not NA27.

Adelphos
05-11-2010, 12:46 PM
I believe I've made a number of statements in this forum to that very effect. :cool:

Michael Hanel
05-11-2010, 12:55 PM
I believe I've made a number of statements in this forum to that very effect. :cool:

Agreed, but sometimes people need talking Heads to drive that point home :)

Adelphos
05-11-2010, 01:22 PM
Agreed, but sometimes people need talking Heads to drive that point home :)

True. Formal announcements by formally credentialed people makes a bigger splash in the headlines, but the only problem with formal statements is that they come about ten or fifteen years too late.

As of the late 90's, I was only the living human on the planet who had personally collated Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph and Codex Bezae and a few other manuscripts in the New Testament. Nobody else had claimed to have done so. My main fault was not organizing my collations into one manageable unit and publishing it. Instead, my collations are scattered through a whole slew of BibleWorks notes and Excel and Word documents. Back then, you'll remember, I had to use real books with the text of these manuscripts and do everything by hand.

In any case, I was vociferous back then about the legions of errors in the NA/UBS Critical Apparatus, and the extraordinarily sparse and misleading coverage of those two works. That drew a lot of snickers at the time.

But then Reuben Swanson came out with his collations and totally corroborated everything I had been saying. Since Swanson, others have done the same.

Swanson's quotes and a very small example of the avalanches of errors of those works can be seen in my article on 1 Timothy 3:16 here --

http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm

In fact, there is not a person on this planet who is more familiar with the actual TEXT of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph than me. I'm not talking about the paleography, for many have delved more deeply into that in recent years, but as for the actual TEXT, I know it backwards and forwards.

I have literally lived with those two manuscripts and their manifest corruptions for many years now, in addition to studying the collations of others, such as Hoskier, Burgon, Swanson, as well as the various textual anaysis' that have been conducted on them by others.

And I could add much more besides.

And that's why I'll say right now that this new work that is reportedly forthcoming will not change the landscape hardly at all. The same gross errors of B and Aleph will continue to live on, and the same blindness that brought forth the NA/UBS will only be perpetuated in this new edition, even though it may have a much more glittering appearance than its predecessors, if and when it ever sees the light of day.

For the fact is, all the new editions in the world will never obscure the FACT that B and Aleph are so INFESTED with grammatical and phililogical solecisms that they LITERALLY cannot be counted, as well as their legions upon legions of other problems.

Which means, of course, that if B and Aleph are true representatives of the autographa, then Paul, and Luke, and Matthew, and John, et cetera, were the most unskilled writers that the Greek language has ever known, and were as well the biggest buffoons in the entire history of all of Greek literature, not only with regard to plain, simple, schooboy Greek, but also with regard to the geography of the regions they wrote about, its history, and numerous other categories, a number of which I've written about, just as I wrote about this matter ten or fifteen years ago.

MGVH
05-11-2010, 04:14 PM
For Greek NT text critical work, I do consult the NA27 apparatus (in Logos), but there is still quite a bit available in BW.


As already noted, Tischendorf and von Soden are easily available.
In addition to the resource modules, there are the texts themselves of TIS and VST and also WHO (Westcott/Hort) and TRG (Tregelles) along with the various Byzantine/Majority Text ones. (Cf. the versions page (http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/?page_id=138).)
You can always buy Comfort and Barrett book on the mss (http://store.bibleworks.com/CTENTM.html) or Metzger's commentary (http://store.bibleworks.com/product52.html) to add in to BW.
Wieland Willker has done an excellent job with the Gospels. Cf. the Old in the New modules page (http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/?page_id=151) to get it for integration w/in BW. Free!
While there, you can also get images of the mss themselves: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Bezae...
Using ERMIE, link to this excellent resource (http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php) at LaParola. You can use this database in the LaParola program, but EVEN BETTER, note on that page the downloadable CHM files. Either one can be unzipped into your BW database folder and show up properly linked to the texts in your Resource tab of the analysis window.
Once you enter a passage on the LaParola site, it will also link you to the Manuscript Comparator (http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/?passage=Matthew+1:1&view=parallel&ins[]=1&ins[]=2&ins[]=3&ins[]=4&del[]=5&del[]=6&del[]=7&strongs=1).
Using the Laparola databases in BW will also link out to the very helpful "A Student's Guide to NT Textual Variants (http://bible.ovc.edu/tc/)"

BTW: Michael or Jim: It doesn't appear that the LaParola databases are in the Old in the New collection. Pasquale is the one who compiled the CHM files. These are incredibly helpful and worth highlighting.

Michael Hanel
05-11-2010, 05:22 PM
BTW: Michael or Jim: It doesn't appear that the LaParola databases are in the Old in the New collection. Pasquale is the one who compiled the CHM files. These are incredibly helpful and worth highlighting.

Which particular file do you mean? I know there were some files that although we thought were valuable, we weren't entirely sure they would not be infringing on some sort of copyright rules. Also I don't know about Jim's life status, but I've found my free-time match finally at school, so I know I've desperately fallen behind adding materials to the blog, so I can certainly take the blame on that account.

MGVH
05-11-2010, 06:10 PM
On that page:
CHM format (with manuscripts in the usual order (http://www.webalice.it/pasgil/mantext.zip), or in the order of the text type (http://www.webalice.it/pasgil/mantext2.zip)) for Windows Help or Bibleworks.

Either file works. The text type one provides ms family info.

The copyright info at the bottom states:
The basic Greek text was made available by James Tauber (http://www.jtauber.com/morphgnt/) with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/) licence, and is based on that of the Center for Computer Analysis of Texts (CCAT) (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/) at the University of Pennsylvania. The text is that of Nestle-Aland and the UBS, and is only available for NON-COMMERCIAL personal/scholarly and educational use. However I added the punctuation to the text, and know that it still contains many errors - write to me if you find one.

Since this database only has variants it is not using the base NA27/UBS text at all.
I checked a number of passages, and it does not duplicate the variant database of NA27. It omits some. On others it provides more information, especially in terms of the early Church Fathers.
>> I'm thinking it's clear...

Adelphos
05-11-2010, 06:40 PM
Well, I can't figure out how to type Greek or Hebrew with this new board, so I'll transliterate.

And here is the inherent problem with the various apparatusus. See if you can deduce that this is the text of Vaticanus B in John 1:13 from any of them...

"oi ouk ex anqhpwpwn oude ek qelamatoj sarkoj all ek qeou egenhqhsan"

In other words, Vaticanus B reads "not from man or from the will of the flesh but born of God"

IOW, in addition to missing almost half of the phrase, the word anqhrwpwn is substituted for androj, not to mention orthagraphic and other differences in this one clause.

And this type of thing could be multiplied LITERALLY EXPONTIALLY with regard to deducing a manuscript reading from the apparatuses, especially with regard to the infinite number of vagaries in B and Aleph. And I mean EXPONENTIALLY X EXPONENTIALLY X EXPONENTIALLY.

If we're ever going to get an another apparatus into BW, I still vote that something get worked out with Swanson, and I know about all the problems there, but still, at least with Swanson you get to see what the manuscript actually says instead of LEGIONS UPON LEGIONS UPON LEGIONS WORLD WITHOUT END of missing data.

bkMitchell
05-11-2010, 08:39 PM
...
"oi ouk ex anqhpwpwn oude ek qelamatoj sarkoj all ek qeou egenhqhsan"

In other words, Vaticanus B reads "not from man or from the will of the flesh but born of God"

IOW, in addition to missing almost half of the phrase, the word anqhrwpwn is substituted for androj, not to mention orthagraphic and other differences in this one clause...


Correct me if I am wrong, but I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
In other words you are saying or illustrating...



(1) the Vaticanus B reads something like:



John 1:13 οἳ οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν


(VS the usual printed editions')


John 1:13 οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός(σαρκὸς), οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν.


(2) It is difficult or impossible to discover the above information from the commonly accepted apparati.
(3) The current apparati do not provide enough data about the manuscripts they site
(4) Therefore, the current apparati may be misleading
(5) There are errors in the apparati

MBushell
05-11-2010, 08:54 PM
Just to chime in briefly: we are still scheduled to include the New Orleans Baptist Seminary apparatus when they are finished with the current round of edits. The BibleWorks manuscript project is also still progressing, albeit much more slowly than I would like. The initial offering of 7 of the most important manuscripts should be released by the end of the year. They will be free of charge to BW8 users, though we may need to charge a media fee for discs with manuscript images. Also keep in mind, as has been said, that Tischenfdorf is a gold mine, and that most major textual issues suface with a simple comparision of the NA27 and Robinson-Pierpont texts. Oh, yeah, we also have brand new proofs of the Westcott-Hort text and the Scrivener texts to release soon. These should be about as accurate as anyone can get them, much better than what we or anyone else has now. So there's lots of TC stuff in the pipeline and it won't cost you a penny extra - except possibly for the NOBTS stuff - I am not sure if we were able to work out a royalty low enough for us to put it in the base package - if not the price will be reasonable - they are good guys.

Adelphos
05-11-2010, 09:03 PM
Brian, you haven't caught the orthographic errors in B, at least not in egenhqhsa, and I haven't checked the others, but here's the point...

This particular verse is one that the apparatuses deign to cover. They DO NOT cover REAMS UPON REAMS UPON REAMS of other problems with B and Aleph.

And yet, even in this verse which they DO cover, I am asking if it is possible to REPRODUCE the actual reading of B, including orthograpics, word order, words substitution, et. al..

Again, THIS verse is one pertaining to B and Aleph that the apparatuses DO make an attempt to cover. Can you reproduce this text STRICLTY from the apparatus EXACTLY as it is written in B?

And what about the REAMS UPON REAMS UPON REAMS of verses where B and Aleph have gross blunders that are NOT covered?

Adelphos
05-11-2010, 09:06 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I'd still prefer Swanson over all of them, but I guess that's no longer an option.

bkMitchell
05-11-2010, 10:15 PM
Brian, you haven't caught the orthographic errors in B, at least not in egenhqhsa, and I haven't checked the others,

You're right, I overlooked that one



but here's the point...

This particular verse is one that the apparatuses deign to cover. They DO NOT cover REAMS UPON REAMS UPON REAMS of other problems with B and Aleph.

And yet, even in this verse which they DO cover, I am asking if it is possible to REPRODUCE the actual reading of B, including orthograpics, word order, words substitution, et. al..


The answer is no, or at least I am unable to reproduce B from the various apparatuses/apparati



Again, THIS verse is one pertaining to B and Aleph that the apparatuses DO make an attempt to cover. Can you reproduce this text STRICLTY from the apparatus EXACTLY as it is written in B?

Again, the answer is no. There is no way that I could or anyone else could do that without enough data which the apparati do provide



And what about the REAMS UPON REAMS UPON REAMS of verses where B and Aleph have gross blunders that are NOT covered?

I think it is obvious that the compilers of many of the NT apparatuses/apparati have a basis for Alexandrian text and/or readings. They claim the Alexandrian texts and their eclectic derivatives of it or close to their hypothetical original text. This is why they probably don't publish the dirty Laundry.

Text forms such as the Byzantine/Majority text, Syrian Texts forms, Western Text, the caesarean text and various sub-categories seem to have equally been ignored or outright dismissed by the majority of the critical scholars.

Although, the Syrian texts may have been the earliest translations or transcriptions of parts of the NT many scholars dismiss it because these texts often support a text form closer to the Byzantine Greek texts and to the Textus Receptus rather than the beloved Alexandrian text form.

Adelphos
05-11-2010, 10:22 PM
Yep, you are correct, except I don't put any value on the Syrian text for the NT. And the argument over the underlying text is not going to change any minds here.

I just want to make people aware that a critical apparatus is virtually useless in making accurate textual decisions, and therefore, ultimately, not having the NA Apparatus in BW is no loss whatsoever.

Now, could someone please tell me how to type Greek and Hebrew here? When I choose the font box, I get no options for the BWGRK or Hebrew, or any other Greek or Hebrew.

bkMitchell
05-11-2010, 10:32 PM
WOW


Just to chime in briefly: we are still scheduled to include the New Orleans Baptist Seminary apparatus when they are finished with the current round of edits. The BibleWorks manuscript project is also still progressing, albeit much more slowly than I would like. The initial offering of 7 of the most important manuscripts should be released by the end of the year. They will be free of charge to BW8 users, though we may need to charge a media fee for discs with manuscript images. Also keep in mind, as has been said, that Tischenfdorf is a gold mine, and that most major textual issues suface with a simple comparision of the NA27 and Robinson-Pierpont texts. Oh, yeah, we also have brand new proofs of the Westcott-Hort text and the Scrivener texts to release soon. These should be about as accurate as anyone can get them, much better than what we or anyone else has now. So there's lots of TC stuff in the pipeline and it won't cost you a penny extra - except possibly for the NOBTS stuff - I am not sure if we were able to work out a royalty low enough for us to put it in the base package - if not the price will be reasonable - they are good guys.

Yet, another reason to buy BibleWorks!:D
Although, I'd love to see more Hebrew texts, I am excited about this news.

I really, believe that providing the actually electronic transcripts of the NT texts is far better than any apparatus could ever be. In fact I think in the age when when can carry around digital libraries with full texts there is no longer any need for the highly abbreviated and cherry picked data of apparatus.

In paper where one has to save space apparatus make a lot of sense but in digital form where one can hold libraries it's simple ridiculous. In other words even though I am not a NT textual critic I think Bibleworks has made the right decision.:cool:

ISalzman
05-11-2010, 11:16 PM
Well, I can't figure out how to type Greek or Hebrew with this new board, so I'll transliterate.



Scott, that was one of my complaints about these new boards. The previous boards came with the ability to type in Greek or Hebrew. Seemingly, that capability is no longer available with these new boards. I mentioned this at the time the new boards were inaugurated, but no one cared to comment at the time.

Irving

Michael Hanel
05-11-2010, 11:20 PM
Now, could someone please tell me how to type Greek and Hebrew here? When I choose the font box, I get no options for the BWGRK or Hebrew, or any other Greek or Hebrew.

You'd have to beg Michael Tan, he's the forum fixer guy.

Adelphos
05-11-2010, 11:26 PM
Well then Brian is smarter than us all because he somehow was able to type in Greek.

bkMitchell
05-11-2010, 11:27 PM
Yep, you are correct, except I don't put any value on the Syrian text for the NT. And the argument over the underlying text is not going to change any minds here.

Allow me to explain myself. Basically, I think the Textus Recptus and Byzantine texts have far more textual witness and support than any hypothetical scholarly text. I used the Syrian as an example for an early witness for the TR and Byzantine form since the Syrian texts can claim to be the earliest translation.

The reason, I did that is many claim the Alexandrian/Neutral texts to be earlier and therefore closer to the so called original text. However, the fact that the Alexandrian texts remain in great condition proves they probably weren't used, handled, or read very often, while the TR and Byzantine forms where.

I throw the Majority text in there with the Byzantine and TR, too, but the certain Majority texts are also highly eclectic(there is room for that) and I place much higher emphasis and credence to texts that actual existed and exist; where and are used in communities of faith. I am still studying these issues for myself and have not yet come to any final conclusion on these matters. I do have a sweet tooth for Semetic text hence a give some love to the Aramaic/Syriac texts.



I just want to make people aware that a critical apparatus is virtually useless in making accurate textual decisions, and therefore, ultimately, not having the NA Apparatus in BW is no loss whatsoever.


I figured that, but thanks for spelling it so clearly. This is an important point.

And, I agree with you however, I am not really a fan of any apparatus especially not in digital form! It is much better in my opinion to have actual texts, transcriptions, and facsimiles than to have an apparatus.




Now, could someone please tell me how to type Greek and Hebrew here? When I choose the font box, I get no options for the BWGRK or Hebrew, or any other Greek or Hebrew.

What, I have been doing, recently, is typing Hebrew/Greek Unicode in Bibleworks Editor and then cutting and pasting to my post when I reply to a thread. One, can also use DavkaWriter6 which is fast, easy, and efficient! (which you, I, and others like).

Open source(free) alternatives to DavkaWriter are OpenOffice and AbiWord which can one can type in unicode Hebrew and Greek, too (I am sure you know about these, too but for the sake of others reading I write).

κἀγὼ ὑμῖν λέγω, Αἰτεῖτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν· ζητεῖτε, καὶ εὑρήσετε· κρούετε, καὶ ἀνοιγήσεται ὑμῖν.


וְגַם־אֲנִי אֹמֵר לָכֶם שַׁאֲלוּ וְיִנָּתֵן לָכֶם דִּרְשׁוּ וְתִמְצָאוּ דִּפְקוּ וְיִפָּתַח לָכֶם׃

SCR and DLZ (Luke 11:9)

Adelphos
05-11-2010, 11:37 PM
Well, now...


שׁמי סכוֹת


λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, εἰ μὴ δι᾽ ἐμοῦ.


I'm gonna assume these both show up in Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew is from Davka, and the Greek from the BW editor.

bkMitchell
05-11-2010, 11:56 PM
Well, now...


שׁמי סכוֹת


λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, εἰ μὴ δι᾽ ἐμοῦ.


I'm gonna assume these both show up in Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew is from Davka, and the Greek from the BW editor.

Yes, I am using firefox ,even, and I can see both the Hebrew and the Greek you have typed.
You typed, "my name is Scott" (Hebrew) and "Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life, no one (can) comes to the father if not through me"(Greek).

Also, it just dawned on me that one can use Window XP or Windows 7's language tool bar to type in different languages on these forums, too.

ISalzman
05-12-2010, 12:10 AM
Great guys. But couldn't we prevail upon the good folks who control the boards here at BibleWorks to add Hebrew and Greek fonts to the dropdown menu of available fonts? Now Gordie Howe was a fine example of someone who used to control the boards!

MGVH
05-12-2010, 12:51 AM
And here is the inherent problem with the various apparatusus. See if you can deduce that this is the text of Vaticanus B in John 1:13 from any of them...

"oi ouk ex anqhpwpwn oude ek qelamatoj sarkoj all ek qeou egenhqhsan"

In other words, Vaticanus B reads "not from man or from the will of the flesh but born of God"


Are you sure about that? Here's a pic of Vaticanus. (Verse 13 starts with the last 4 letters of the top line)

723

Yes, it is clear that the οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς phrase has been omitted and is added in the margin by a corrector.
It is also clear that the original has ἐγενήθησαν and that a corrector has added the missing nu.
BUT, it is also clear that the text reads ἐξ αἱμάτων (not ἐκ ανθρωπων as you indicate).

Also, you may find the Laparola database helpful that I mentioned above. Here is what it looks like:
>>>
724
>>>
If you look for the B* (ie, the original hand) and B2 (superscript 2 indicating corrector #2) references, I think it does correctly and accurately reflect Vaticanus to the point that one could reconstruct it.
I'm not saying there aren't problems elsewhere as you argue, but John 1.13 looks fairly straightforward.

The NA27, in its very concise form, does correctly provide all the relevant information for Vaticanus as well.

bkMitchell
05-12-2010, 12:54 AM
Great guys. But couldn't we prevail upon the good folks who control the boards here at BibleWorks to add Hebrew and Greek fonts to the dropdown menu of available fonts?...

But, you can sort of..


Browse the Bibleworks forums and pick some thread you want to reply, to
Click on the IME on the task/tool bar and change the imput language to HE Israeli or another HE keyboard( like tyndale) layout you have installed or El for Greek.
Pick the font you want to type in from Bibleworks forums drop down font menu

Remember all the fonts used on the forums are Unicode complaint so most should have both Hebrew and Greek. However, you need to tell your computer which language you would like to type and use Bibleworks forum to select the font.

this works for many languages for example: Japanese 日本語, Greek ἡ ζωή ἡ ζωή ἡ ζωή, Hebrew וְיִנָּתֵן וְיִנָּתֵן וְיִנָּתֵן

Sure, it might have been easier for you the other way and you can continue to ask but while you wait I sure you might like to type in Hebrew and Greek.

MGVH
05-12-2010, 01:07 AM
I have usually found it easier to copy text to the BW editor, then copy that text and paste here where it will show up in Unicode.
You can also type if you have installed Unicode keyboards. I'll switch to my Greek keyboard and start typing...
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
Almost all the available fonts will do unaccented Greek. If you want to type with accented Greek, then use the Palatino Linotype.

Mark Eddy
05-12-2010, 01:07 AM
(1) the Vaticanus B reads something like:


John 1:13 οἳ οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησα


(VS the usual printed editions')


John 1:13 οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός(σαρκὸς), οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν.



Vaticanus (B) is available in BW in one of the user databases. But that text (Tischendorf's Transcription) is not at all what Adelphos says that B actually says. Here is Tischendorf's Transcription:
οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς [οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς] ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ θῦ ἐγεν[ν]ήθησα
I produced the above by copying Unicode from the BW browse window into the editor, dropping off letters not in B, and putting brackets around words in the margin and letters added between the lines.
So, is Adelphos saying that Tischendorf's Transcription is actually NOT a transcription of B? The transcription is actually much closer to the printed edition than what Adelphos wrote. What form of B does Adelphos have available that we do not have in BW?
Mark Eddy

bkMitchell
05-12-2010, 10:06 AM
I have usually found it easier to copy text to the BW editor, then copy that text and paste here where it will show up in Unicode. You can also type if you have installed Unicode keyboards. I'll switch to my Greek keyboard and start typing...Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
Almost all the available fonts will do unaccented Greek. If you want to type with accented Greek, then use the Palatino Linotype.


Hey, thanks for mentioning this Mark. This is really a great idea. I recall someone said something along the same lines. See post #19:




What, I have been doing, recently, is typing Hebrew/Greek Unicode in Bibleworks Editor and then cutting and pasting to my post when I reply to a thread...

bkMitchell
05-12-2010, 10:20 AM
Vaticanus (B) is available in BW in one of the user databases. But that text (Tischendorf's Transcription) is not at all what Adelphos says that B actually says...So, is Adelphos saying that Tischendorf's Transcription is actually NOT a transcription of B? The transcription is actually much closer to the printed edition than what Adelphos wrote. What form of B does Adelphos have available that we do not have in BW?Mark Eddy

I think Adelphos, can and probably will speak for himself on this issue.
Till he does so I will tell you I think he was specifically speaking about the apparati VS his experience with the Vaticanus from working with it and other manuscripts(see post #4 of this thread).



As of the late 90's, I was only the living human on the planet who had personally collated Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph and Codex Bezae and a few other manuscripts in the New Testament. Nobody else had claimed to have done so... Back then, you'll remember, I had to use real books with the text of these manuscripts and do everything by hand.

In any case, I was vociferous back then about the legions of errors in the NA/UBS Critical Apparatus, and the extraordinarily sparse and misleading coverage of those two works. That drew a lot of snickers at the time.But then Reuben Swanson came out with his collations and totally corroborated everything I had been saying. Since Swanson, others have done the same.
Swanson's quotes and a very small example of the avalanches of errors of those works can be seen in my article on 1 Timothy 3:16 here --
http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm

In fact, there is not a person on this planet who is more familiar with the actual TEXT of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph than me. I'm not talking about the paleography, for many have delved more deeply into that in recent years, but as for the actual TEXT, I know it backwards and forwards.
I have literally lived with those two manuscripts and their manifest corruptions for many years now, in addition to studying the collations of others, such as Hoskier, Burgon, Swanson, as well as the various textual anaysis' that have been conducted on them by others...

Adelphos
05-12-2010, 10:56 AM
I copied the text straight out of Tischendorf's edition of printed edtion of Vaticanus exactly as he transcribed it. Here it is exactly in the true Greek font --

oi ouk ex anqrwpwn oude ek qelhmatoj sarkoj all ek qeou egenhqhsa

Morever, there are so many assertions of various correctors in B and Aleph that one can never be certain which is which. It is up to each to take the word of whoever asserts which correcter did which correction.

For example, Tischendorf asserted that one of the correctors of Aleph was a twelth or thirteenth century hand. Ultraviolet technology in the twentieth century refuted Tischendorf's assertion in this matter.

In any case, the text above has been the accepted version of Tischendorf ever since he published his edition.

Adelphos
05-12-2010, 11:03 AM
And since it was asserted that one might be able to reconstruct B in John 1:13 strictly from the apparatus, although I doubt anyone really could, nevertheless, if you'd care to try, please reconstruct BOTH B and Aleph -- or either one by itself -- in John 1:21 from the apparatuses.

Good luck.

And that's just ONE example out of REAMS UPON REAMS UPON REAMS.

Adelphos
05-12-2010, 11:10 AM
See next post.

Adelphos
05-12-2010, 11:17 AM
Vaticanus (B) is available in BW in one of the user databases. But that text (Tischendorf's Transcription) is not at all what Adelphos says that B actually says. Here is Tischendorf's Transcription:
οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς [οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς] ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ θῦ ἐγεν[ν]ήθησα

EDIT: I remember now that there was disagreement with Tischendorf here, i.e., that while Tischendorf has "anthrwpwn" it appears in the picture itself that it reads "aimatwn" instead. To clear the matter up, I went to Swanson and he also reads "aimatwn", so Tischendorf is clearly in error here.

Adelphos
05-12-2010, 11:35 AM
So after consulting Swanson it appears that the correct reading of B in John 1:13 is this --

oi ouk ex aimatwn oude ek qelhmatoj sarkoj all ek qeou egenhqhsa

In other words --

"not of blood nor of the will of the flesh but born of God."

So that the only discrepancy was with Tischendorf's error in regard to the one word.

SkipB
05-12-2010, 12:08 PM
Boy, one long day of teaching and a world of discussion happens here.
Brian has made two points along the way that I have a lot of sympathy for.
I am afraid I must paraphrase:

The actual transcriptions of the text are more valuable than an apparatus. Having worked at collating just one LXX book for my advisor to publish (not nearly as intensive as Scott's work), I realized that most printed editions and the underlying collations of the "big names" (like Tischendorf) do not match the manuscripts.
An actual text, that exists and has been used by a community of faith offers something that an ecclectic text doesn't. It may not be "closest to the autographa" but it is real and my understanding of the doctrine of the preservation of God's word would expect to see it preserved by usage.
I would prefer to consult the different texts before I read the judgments of the critics. And it has been the inaccuracies of the 19th C. textual critics that has prompted my inclination to begin my exegesis with a "real" text. Of course, it is easy for me to be an oddball here, since I have an OT specialty.
I am eagerly looking forward to the developments that Mike describes. It is amazing that I can toss the contents of several bookshelves into my briefcase every time I pack my laptop.

Adelphos
05-12-2010, 12:14 PM
The actual transcriptions of the text are more valuable than an apparatus.

And that is the real heart of the matter. It used to irk me when some greenhorn would say, "but the NA appartus says..." when the NA apparatus was either wrong or totally misleading.

The moral of the whole story is the fact that an apparatus is actually more downright dangerous than it is helpful, for as we have all noted now, the actual text often reveals something entirely different.

And even with transcriptions of the text we have to be careful, as this matter in John 1:13 and Tischendorf's error over that one word demonstrates.

MGVH
05-12-2010, 12:42 PM
[Now I just saw Adelphos' next post which basically says the same thing as I do here...]

I copied the text straight out of Tischendorf's edition of printed edtion of Vaticanus exactly as he transcribed it. Here it is exactly in the true Greek font --

oi ouk ex anqrwpwn oude ek qelhmatoj sarkoj all ek qeou egenhqhsa


Ah... now I think I am beginning to see the problem. Ι consulted the Tischendorf transcription, and in this particular instance of John 1.13, it appears that Tischendorf is obviously wrong regarding the εξ ανθρωπων reading. The photo (in my post below (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?4532-On-Greek-text-crit&p=22663#post22663)) clearly shows that the text reads εξ αιματων.
If you check Tischendorf's textual apparatus to this verse, his proposed text reads εξ αιματων, and there is no mention at all of εξ ανθρωπων in the listing of variants. (He does correctly note the other textual issues.)
SO: The problem here is Tischendorf's transcription of Vaticanus. The various textual apparati, including Tischendorf's own, do correctly present the status of the text.

Adelphos
05-12-2010, 01:52 PM
Michael, is Mark saying that there is a user module in text form for Vaticanus? If so, I can't find it on the blog.

Adelphos
05-12-2010, 01:55 PM
[Now I just saw Adelphos' next post which basically says the same thing as I do here...]

Ah... now I think I am beginning to see the problem. Ι consulted the Tischendorf transcription, and in this particular instance of John 1.13, it appears that Tischendorf is obviously wrong regarding the εξ ανθρωπων reading. The photo (in my post below (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?4532-On-Greek-text-crit&p=22663#post22663)) clearly shows that the text reads εξ αιματων.
If you check Tischendorf's textual apparatus to this verse, his proposed text reads εξ αιματων, and there is no mention at all of εξ ανθρωπων in the listing of variants. (He does correctly note the other textual issues.)
SO: The problem here is Tischendorf's transcription of Vaticanus. The various textual apparati, including Tischendorf's own, do correctly present the status of the text.

Yes, you have assessed it 100% correctly.

Remember, I did my collations in the 90's, and all I had to go by were the printed editions of Tischendorf. I had books spread all over the place. So wherever Tischendorf erred, that would show up in my citation as well.

I now remember that I had at some subsequent time known about the error in this verse, but I had completely forgotten about. I even still had the Tischendorf citation in my BW notes, which I have now corrected.

MGVH
05-12-2010, 05:45 PM
Michael, is Mark saying that there is a user module in text form for Vaticanus? If so, I can't find it on the blog.
The Vaticanus module is listed on the Old in the New modules page:
Images of Tischendorf’s transcription of Codex Vaticanus (http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/module/vaticanus.zip) linked to the Gospels 115MB! Updated 10.13.2006. - Pasquale Amicarelli

That description isn't exactly correct. There are actually two linked databases. One is the facsimile of Vaticanus. The other is an image of Tischendorf's transcription. Well, here, let me just copy/paste the info:

The database is provided in HTML Help format and it is integrated into BibleWorks in several ways. Scripture references in the database are linked to BibleWorks and the Lexical and Grammatical Help feature in BibleWorks permits you to open up the "Codex" to the verse that is being displayed in the Results Window.

Pasquale

There are two databases both linked. You must copy both chm file in the same Bibleworks database directory.

Codex Vaticanus is linked with Bibleworks, Tischendorf's Transription is linked only with Codex Vaticanus.

Tischendorf's Transcription images used by permission "TC Ebind Index"

Adelphos
05-12-2010, 05:58 PM
Oh, okay. Yes, I found those. I was thinking that there might actually be a text file created with the VDF that we could manipulate. I think BW is working on a Vaticanus and Sinaiticus text. Not sure, I think they are. The text itself is what would be really useful. We could use the images to validate/correct, but text file would be the best.

bkMitchell
05-12-2010, 09:54 PM
I am afraid I must paraphrase:

Don't be, go ahead!



The actual transcriptions of the text are more valuable than an apparatus. Having worked at collating just one LXX book for my advisor to publish (not nearly as intensive as Scott's work), I realized that most printed editions and the underlying collations of the "big names" (like Tischendorf) do not match the manuscripts.
An actual text, that exists and has been used by a community of faith offers something that an ecclectic text doesn't. It may not be "closest to the autographa" but it is real and my understanding of the doctrine of the preservation of God's word would expect to see it preserved by usage.



I might, have said it first, but YOU SAID IT BETTER!!!:cool:



I would prefer to consult the different texts before I read the judgments of the critics. And it has been the inaccuracies of the 19th C. textual critics that has prompted my inclination to begin my exegesis with a "real" text. Of course, it is easy for me to be an oddball here, since I have an OT specialty.

I heartily agree, with you concerning the issue of texts and critics!
Oddball? No, we need more people with an interest in Hebrew Bible/Tanakh/OT on the these forums!

The Hebrew Bible is the Original Bible and it was the Bible Bible of the Church(at least in Greek/Syriac translation) till the New Testament was completed. Knowing the Hebrew Bible/OT will help you be a better interpret of the NT since the OT was the NT Christian text.


I am eagerly looking forward to the developments that Mike describes. It is amazing that I can toss the contents of several bookshelves into my briefcase every time I pack my laptop.

Me, too! It sounds really cool and it is so generous of them. It really is a labor of love.

MBushell
05-14-2010, 01:37 PM
Hi All,
This discussion is spot on. It is better to have actual manuscripts rather than an apparatus. Our ultimate goal is to have enough accurate tranascriptions available that the software can generate an apparatus on the fly, tuned to whatever parameters you want to give the program. But the full transcriptions (morphologically tagged), as well as images where we can get them (here come the lawyers), will be available. I probably will not live to see this happen for all the "constantly cited manuscripts" but we are very close to taking a first crack at the idea with a decent number of manuscripts. There will be caveats of course. Some of our transcriptions were done utilizing better manuscript images than the ones we can distribute (because of copytright issues). And in a very few cases the lower quality image makes the transcrition look wrong when it is actually correct. But I think we are moving in the right direction. This is a big loser for us financially, but it is sort of an obsession of mine. As one user pointed out, these old manuscripts were once the treasured possessions of individuals and churches. They are holy treasures. The academics that compile the various apparati can very easily lose sight of this fact. These ancient manuscripts are the Word of God, both collectivelly and individually. That is why the copyright wars really irritate me. And it is why this and other projects like it are worthwhile (like Wallace's project to photographically presevere the manuscripts, many of which will eventually succumb to entropy).
Mike

ISalzman
05-14-2010, 02:26 PM
Thanks Mike for your heart's burden!

I just read an article this week about Dead Sea Scroll scholar, Geza Vermes, and what he went through to liberate and make publicly accessible the Dead See Scrolls from the cabal of scholars that maintained rigorous control over them. They had been hording them unto themselves. Vermes' story itself is fascinating. His Hungarian Jewish parents had him converted to Roman Catholicism at the tender age of five. He later studied at some of the more prestigious Catholic academies and seminaries in France. When he began his work on the Scrolls, he rediscovered his Jewish roots. Nevertheless, he maintains a fascination with Jesus. He teaches at Oxford today. But he is the one who is largely credited with making the Dead Sea Scrolls and their contents readily available to us and the masses. Thank you Mike for the work that you are doing.

Irving

Adelphos
05-14-2010, 04:28 PM
Hi All,
This discussion is spot on. It is better to have actual manuscripts rather than an apparatus. Our ultimate goal is to have enough accurate tranascriptions available that the software can generate an apparatus on the fly, tuned to whatever parameters you want to give the program. But the full transcriptions (morphologically tagged), as well as images where we can get them (here come the lawyers), will be available...

I'm glad a few of us could be "spot on". Does that mean then, that in addition to the text of B and Aleph, we can also expect the text of Codex Britanicus? :cool:

calvary
05-18-2010, 04:34 AM
Hi All,
The academics that compile the various apparati can very easily lose sight of this fact. These ancient manuscripts are the Word of God, both collectivelly and individually. That is why the copyright wars really irritate me.
Mike


A hearty AMEN on this one!!!

Dave

wie
05-24-2010, 06:24 AM
I have some doubts that if BW does not come up with this stuff soon, it will be quite irrelevant, because everything will be online anyway. All the transcriptions already exist, done by the IGNTP and Muenster in a very accurate form in Unicode, a lot already freely available online. It is easy with the current convertors to convert them into BW. Many working in the field already have done this. So even if BW will come up with the major manuscripts it will be nothing new for most. Also more and more images appear online.
I must admit that even though I have the manuscripts in BW, I more often look them up online, because it is easier, more flexible and more up-to-date.
The future is online!

This does not mean that I don't want to see the manuscripts in BW. I am looking forward to it. But it makes me sad that all this is a repetition of what has already been done. It is a waste of man power. It would be better to prepare something new and innovative. Perhaps there will be an online version of BW in one or two years?

Adelphos
05-24-2010, 10:43 AM
Wieland, are you saying that there are text files of B and Aleph online? If so, where?

wie
05-24-2010, 01:18 PM
Here:
http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv
(go to the most right drop down menu and choose the manuscript).
01 is also available from the sinaiticus.net homepage.
Gospel of John also here:
http://arts-itsee.bham.ac.uk/AnaServer?majuscule+0+start.anv
(all majuscules)
Vetus Latina:
http://arts-itsee.bham.ac.uk/AnaServer?verbum+0+start.anv

Adelphos
05-24-2010, 01:45 PM
Thanks, Wieland. I was aware of those sites. I was hoping that there was a raw text file that contained the text of the whole manuscript, at least in the NT, for B, Aleph, and so on.

That's why I'm looking forward to the BW version of these works, as they can be manipulated in so many ways from within BW.

MBushell
05-25-2010, 12:18 PM
This does not mean that I don't want to see the manuscripts in BW. I am looking forward to it. But it makes me sad that all this is a repetition of what has already been done. It is a waste of man power. It would be better to prepare something new and innovative. Perhaps there will be an online version of BW in one or two years?

There is some truth in your observations. But it is not the entire truth. As I understand it extracting online transcriptions, to the extent that they are available, and putting them in BibleWorks is a violation of copyright law. We approached many of these organizations about including their transcriptions in BibleWorks, so that we could analyze the text in ways simply not possible online, but we we received either outright rejections or demands for royalties that would have made it impossible to anyone but experts and scholars to gain access to the texts. Unless there are major changes in the way licensors view these manuscripts, they will never be available in commercial products without huge financial costs for the end user. And there will be severe restrictions on how the data can be used.

It is also true that there are bandwidth limits to what can be done online. That is not going to change anytime soon. Local access will always be faster and more reliable.

We have no plans to produce an online version of BibleWorks. And I personally do not think it is what most people want. They do not want their most important reference tools to go down with their Internet connection. Cloud computing is being pushed by big companies like Google and Microsoft, but it is being done primarily because it provides them with new ways to force all users to provide a permanent revenue stream, not because of huge advantages for the enduser. The ultimate goal is for you to have to pay for your use of things like word processors on a per use basis. If you want a look at this glorious future, just think for a while about the way Apple and Amazon implement DRM in their books and music. They have the right now to delete any licensed content from your computer, without your explicit permission. I personally do not buy and will never buy any products that will not run permanently without an Internet connection. I use the Internet for research but I treat everything on the Internet with suspicion because the Internet is 99% garbage. And the content will eventually be controlled by the government. So I don't think the future is online, at least not a future that I see as being very pleasant.

Mike

Michael Hanel
05-25-2010, 06:00 PM
There is some truth in your observations. But it is not the entire truth. As I understand it extracting online transcriptions, to the extent that they are available, and putting them in BibleWorks is a violation of copyright law. We approached many of these organizations about including their transcriptions in BibleWorks, so that we could analyze the text in ways simply not possible online, but we we received either outright rejections or demands for royalties that would have made it impossible to anyone but experts and scholars to gain access to the texts. Unless there are major changes in the way licensors view these manuscripts, they will never be available in commercial products without huge financial costs for the end user. And there will be severe restrictions on how the data can be used.

It is also true that there are bandwidth limits to what can be done online. That is not going to change anytime soon. Local access will always be faster and more reliable.

We have no plans to produce an online version of BibleWorks. And I personally do not think it is what most people want. They do not want their most important reference tools to go down with their Internet connection. Cloud computing is being pushed by big companies like Google and Microsoft, but it is being done primarily because it provides them with new ways to force all users to provide a permanent revenue stream, not because of huge advantages for the enduser. The ultimate goal is for you to have to pay for your use of things like word processors on a per use basis. If you want a look at this glorious future, just think for a while about the way Apple and Amazon implement DRM in their books and music. They have the right now to delete any licensed content from your computer, without your explicit permission. I personally do not buy and will never buy any products that will not run permanently without an Internet connection. I use the Internet for research but I treat everything on the Internet with suspicion because the Internet is 99% garbage. And the content will eventually be controlled by the government. So I don't think the future is online, at least not a future that I see as being very pleasant.

Mike


Is it a coincidence that companies that are saying that cloud computing is the future are the very ones who have the most to gain ($$) from it? It's a silly marketing ploy, which many people are buying into, but I'm glad you guys are not. It's one thing to be able to download updates and such online, but it's another for the program and/or its resource to only exist online. I am sure part of the reason other companies are looking at this method is related to the effort to stop widespread piracy, but it's not my cup of tea. But then again, whether it will be to our benefit or harm, our money will determine which model succeeds.

MBushell
05-25-2010, 09:40 PM
Is it a coincidence that companies that are saying that cloud computing is the future are the very ones who have the most to gain ($$) from it? It's a silly marketing ploy, which many people are buying into, but I'm glad you guys are not. It's one thing to be able to download updates and such online, but it's another for the program and/or its resource to only exist online. I am sure part of the reason other companies are looking at this method is related to the effort to stop widespread piracy, but it's not my cup of tea. But then again, whether it will be to our benefit or harm, our money will determine which model succeeds.

I think it is all ultimately about control. If all of your resources are remote they must be controlled by someone other than you. Whether it is Google or the government or Microsoft doesn't matter. It is dangerous in the extreme. Information is power. And whoever controls the information controls everything. I believe in decentralized information stores for the same reason that I believe in limited government. If I own a book like a Bible or history book, no one can take it from me or rewrite it to revise the "truth". Once we are totally dependent on sources of information managed electronically by unknown parties, we are at their mercy. I know that the Internet has wonderful and amazing applications. I use it every day. But the Bible teaches me that centralization of power in a fallen world always, without fail, ends badly. While I love BibleWorks and how it can help us study the Bible better, I hate what computers are doing to our civilization. As long as I am in charge of this company we will encourage people to buy books, lots of books, on acid free paper, and dabble in the computer world only when necessary and never at the expense of traditional methods of learning. I have a friend whose primary goal in life is to reproduce Biblical manuscripts in PRINT, on high quality paper that can endure, even if our civilization crumbles and with it the age of computers. I think it is a noble and worthwhile task. I didn't mean to sound Apocalyptic. But these are strange times we are living in. Civilization is very fragile.

Adelphos
05-25-2010, 11:43 PM
I didn't mean to sound Apocalyptic. But these are strange times we are living in. Civilization is very fragile.

Probably most who read this won't agree, but the return of Jesus Christ is imminent. I don't mean in the next day or two, but very, very soon.

Thus, while the times are certainly strange from a practical outworking, especially for anyone over forty or certainly fifty, they are not strange at all in the light of prophecy. In fact, they aren't quite strange enough. But they will be soon.

In any case, whether one agrees with me or not on the above, I can tell you with absolute certainty that control of information is only going to become tighter, not looser. In addition to the Bible predicting it, the world system also demands it, and the evolution of technology will feed those demands like the Philistines fed Dagon. And security will be the lead stalking horse for tighter controls, not merely electronic and financial security, but security from terrorists and other ne'er do-wells.

It simply is not possible for this world system to reign in its lust for technology and control. The Tower of Babel was a forewarning of what we are now seeing, and the prophetic events of Revelation and the other prophetic books are only the outworking of what Babel was all about in the first place.

It's going to get worse in every repect, including weather and geologic events, financial, information control, and any other relational category you care to name.

That's because the world has rejected Jesus Christ as Lord, Saviour, and King. The world will not have Jesus Christ to reign over it.

Accordingly, now it's time for the world to reap the fruit of that rejection, and the punishments are going to be more brutal and more horrible and more torrential than even the angels are fully aware of.

I would tell you that it's coming soon, but that would not be the entire truth. The entire truth is that we are already in the very beginning of it. I don't mean the seven years, but that will be very, very soon upon this world as well.

And the security of this world will evaporate before the wrath of the Lamb, so that there will be no eartly security. Not even a whiff.

The only security is in Jesus Christ, and by that I mean in the reality of the supernatural miracle of the New Birth, without which no man can see God.

wie
05-26-2010, 03:27 AM
As I understand it extracting online transcriptions, to the extent that they are available, and putting them in BibleWorks is a violation of copyright law.
It is probably not allowed for you as distributor, but it is certainly allowed for me and private usage. At least I don't feel bad in doing so.

My main point is that those people who do the collating etc. are financed by public money, my money, but still their work is not freely available. One example is codex Sinaiticus, which is put online in a way that the images are not downloadable. I have requested the images several times but they refused to give them out. This project was financed i.a. by German public money. This protective attitude leaves a bad impression.

Btw. did you ask Muenster to use the material that they put online if you can use it in BW?

MBushell
05-26-2010, 07:12 PM
It is probably not allowed for you as distributor, but it is certainly allowed for me and private usage. At least I don't feel bad in doing so.

My main point is that those people who do the collating etc. are financed by public money, my money, but still their work is not freely available. One example is codex Sinaiticus, which is put online in a way that the images are not downloadable. I have requested the images several times but they refused to give them out. This project was financed i.a. by German public money. This protective attitude leaves a bad impression.

Btw. did you ask Muenster to use the material that they put online if you can use it in BW?

We did talk informally about a cooperative effort, but they really weren't interested. It is probably better that I not say any more than that. We have always been interested in a cooperative effort but certain organizations think they have a monopoly on this kind of work and resent outsiders who think they can make a real contribution. My hope is that when people see what we are doing, things will open up a bit. We can hope.




Muenster said they would be happy to permit us to link to their site from BibleWorks in exchange for us sharing our data with them. Of course we can link to their site anyway. It is a public site. This is typical. The entire community is very protective. It is the only reason we have chosen the road we are on. To properly analyze the transcription data we really need transcriptions for all the available mss available locally so we can build analysis tools around them. That can never happen as long as key data sources are locked up behind monopolistic and protectionistic barriers.

bkMitchell
05-26-2010, 11:02 PM
We did talk informally about a cooperative effort,...

This really amazes me, even after certain individuals or organizations have singled your company's product out and publicly dismissed it here: (English) (http://www.sesb-online.de/en/sesb-or-bibleworks/) and (German) (http://www.sesb-online.de/sesb-vs-bibleworks/)
You guys are still willing to 'turn the other cheek' and work with them without any hard feelings? If that isn't the spirit of Christ at work, then I don't know what is.


Post Script:
If you feel this message might be construed as inflammatory/libel by the parties mentioned above, then please feel free to delete this post and accept my apology.

wie
05-27-2010, 04:04 AM
This really amazes me, even after certain individuals or organizations have singled your company's product out and publicly dismissed it here: (English) (http://www.sesb-online.de/en/sesb-or-bibleworks/) and (German) (http://www.sesb-online.de/sesb-vs-bibleworks/)
Why do you think that they dismissed it? I think the comparison is reasonably fair.
And, it is an advertisement for the SESB after all.

But this is actually the problem:
The German Bible Society wants to sell their own program and so it is clear that they try to protect the source material. Not good.

wie
05-27-2010, 06:40 AM
An additional thought:
One could also blame the international Bible society that they allowed the contracts to be this way.
And that they allowed the monopoly situation with the Greek text. In the beginning this was an international project, with an international committee, but now only Muenster is left. Nobody else is working or producing a Greek text.
It would be nice if some of the Bible societies would come up with a rival Greek text. I don't think that the quasi Standardtext of NA is a good thing. Nobody is thinking about the Greek text anymore. I often note in articles that the author just takes the NA text without discussing any variants. This also happens in commentaries, even in Synoptic research!

bkMitchell
05-27-2010, 10:37 AM
Why do you think that they dismissed it?

Basically, because...

[Point one] They(in that advertisement) do not mention any other Bible software products, do they? They could have compared their product with Gramcord, Bibloi 8.0, Biblesoft PC study Bible, or anyone else. So, why did they single out Bibleworks? Is that fair?

[Point two] Also, notice that in Bibleworks, and Accordance 'never' officially compare and contrast their respective programs against each other in their advertisements or webpages, nor do they do so against Logos.


[Point three] In the advertisement in question they claim that Bibleworks is only capable of searching on the word level and morphology. Misleading readers to believe BW can only search on random words. Yet, this is not the case! In a addition to the command line Bibleworks through the use of their GSE(graphic search Engine) is capable of searching on phrases, sentences, and other type of grammatical structures. Also, BW's is can search on Massoretic accents in two databases.

[Point four] Notice, an entire web-page was dedicated to targeting BW for comparison with their program, not only in one language but others as well so it is actually more than one page. Yet, where are their pages dedicated comparing their product against other Bible software products? I find all of this highly suspicious for something that is supposed to be simply an advertisement for their product. In light of this it hard for me to call this fair or normal.

Adelphos
05-27-2010, 11:41 AM
Brian, do you (or anybody else) know what Masora they have in the SESB? Is it Ben Chayyim's real Masora, or the fake Masora that passes itself off as a real Masora for BHS?

wie
05-27-2010, 12:51 PM
Brian, this is all actually very simple.
They compare it to BW, because they consider BW to be the best program, the best competitor. It is only natural to compare the two. This is what customers want to know. This is not "dismissing" it. It is actually an honor, I would say.

bobvenem
05-27-2010, 06:23 PM
Additionally, the SESB sold in the US is actually a Logos module. Naturally, the competition has to be represented poorly.

bkMitchell
05-27-2010, 09:39 PM
Brian, do you (or anybody else) know what Masora they have in the SESB? Is it Ben Chayyim's real Masora, or the fake Masora that passes itself off as a real Masora for BHS?

Simple answer: No


somewhat longer answer:
The SESB provides a brand new transcription of Masora Parva and Magna for the BHQ(Biblia Hebraica Quinta), which is based on the photos taken in the 1990's of the Leningrad codex. So, the work of Gérard E. Weil found in the BHS and in the Massorah Gedolah will in someways, be superseded when the BHQ comes to completion. Whither or not they were successful in reproducing a diplomatic edition of L codex B19a's Massorah can be judge by comparing it with the Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition published by Eerdmans Pub Co; (1998/01). SESB also includes the BHS, but without Massorah.

Adelphos
05-27-2010, 10:06 PM
Well, actually you answered my question.

The Masora by Weil is not even a genuine Masora. The Masora of the Leningrad Codex is so corrupt and confused that Weil had to impose his own opinion into the whole thing. Thus, it's not even a genuine Masora, and unless Weil is Jewish, which I don't know, but if he wasn't, then it's not even remotely acceptable.

Thus, for my purposes, the SESB edition is worthless. That would have been my only reason for considering their product. I know I'm a BibleWorks user and supporter, but seriously, have you seen the screenshots of SESB? They look awful Mickey-Mouse to me.

bkMitchell
05-27-2010, 11:09 PM
...The Masora of the Leningrad Codex is so corrupt and confused that Weil had to impose his own opinion into the whole thing...

Yes, that about sums up what happened and others would also agree with you:

"Professor Gérard E. Weil was entrusted with the task of editing both the Mp and Mm notes of BHS. He set out to give a complete and integrated version of the Mp notes of L. This meant that the terminology and abbreviations of parallel notes were made consistent wherever they occurred. It also meant that where a note was missing from one or more of a series of related passages in L, it was supplied in the margins of BHS." (The Masorah of Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia pg: xii)

"With regard to the Masora in the BHS, these facts should be noted: although the BHS reproduces manuscript L with the greatest fidelity, the editor of the Masora, Gérard E. Weil, is much freer with it. The notes of the Mp in the margin of BHS are still based on the MP of L, but its terminological and abbreviations are made consistent in a standardized form, and it's references are filled out where the manuscript itself in is incomplete...The expansion of Mp in BHS to three times as many entries as BHK, which reproduces only the references found in L, suggests how frequently such supplements were necessary. The Larger part of the MP in BHS, then was supplied by the editor who completed the pattern of L where it was defective." (The Text of the Old Testament pg. 29)


The Massoretic notations found in the Leningrad Codex do not always match with the main text found in the codex leading some to the conclusion that L's Massorah came from another source, and was added at a later date in an attempted to bring L closer to the Ben Asher tradition.

However, having said that, the Masorah found in BHQ in not the same as Weil's edition in every aspect, but is a new edition in it's own right.

The BHQ's Masora also had nothing at all to do with the Masorah of Ben Chayyim or that of any edition of the Mikraot Gedolot.

It would be nice to have the Masora of Ben Chayyim in BibleWorks.
I have found a few PDF's of old Chumash with Masorah and have been thinking of trying to input it into BW. Sadly, I can not do so in unicode but I must do so using CCAT/ASCII which is far more difficult for me to type in.

Adelphos
05-27-2010, 11:37 PM
It would be nice to have the Masora of Ben Chayyim in BibleWorks. I have found a few PDF's of old Chumash with Masorah and have been thinking of trying to input it into BW. Sadly, I can not do so in unicode but I must do so using CCAT/ASCII which is far more difficult for me to type in.

I agree completely. The Ben Chayyim Masora is at the very top of my list for what I would want to see in BibleWorks, but it is so massive an undertaking that I doubt we'll see it in any electronic format in the near future.

bkMitchell
09-28-2010, 09:05 PM
In the advertisement in question they claim that Bibleworks is only capable of searching on the word level and morphology. Misleading readers to believe BW can only search on random words.


I reply here to myself to note that SESB web pages have recently been 'slightly' corrected or rewritten to be somewhat more honest about BibleWorks morphological search capabilities. Any improvement is better than none.

ISalzman
09-28-2010, 09:19 PM
I believe what they mean is that BW is incapable of performing syntactical searches at the level of the clause.

bkMitchell
09-29-2010, 12:23 AM
I believe what they mean is that BW is incapable of performing syntactical searches at the level of the clause.

ISalzman,

Did you read my post?
From your response I gather you are answering someone else's question or you misunderstood my post.
If read you my post and misunderstood it that is my fault.
So, now I will try to be clearer:

my original point on this thread was about the web site in question's explanation of BibleWorks being misleading( esp to people who do not know the jargon) and what I was saying in post before this one is that they have fixed some of their wording and that now it is clearer. I was encouraged by that.

Which sentence is clearer?
(a)Bible works can only search on the word level
(b)Bible works can only search on morphological features on word level

If, you did not know anything about grammatical tagged databases and search engine you might assume that sentence "a" meant that BW can only search on individual words, or would you automatically know well enough to believe that they meant was that BibleWorks can not search on syntactical features?

Now, the web site in question appears to have clearer headings and clearer sentences(this is the point).

None both the first sentence and the next paragraph are both clearer(esp the paragraph):

"BibleWorks does only allow to search for words or morphological features."

"BibleWorks only allows to search the Hebrew Bible text on morphological features on word level. In contrast, the XXXX database in XXX also allows to build complex queries on phrase, clause and sentence level in order to find special syntactic structures."

There is more that they have corrected, but these examples should suffice.

bkMitchell
09-29-2010, 12:39 AM
Brian, this is all actually very simple.
They compare it to BW, because they consider BW to be the best program, the best competitor. It is only natural to compare the two. This is what customers want to know. This is not "dismissing" it. It is actually an honor, I would say.

You have made a good point

ISalzman
09-29-2010, 12:07 PM
ISalzman,

Did you read my post?
From your response I gather you are answering someone else's question or you misunderstood my post.
If read you my post and misunderstood it that is my fault.
So, now I will try to be clearer:

my original point on this thread was about the web site in question's explanation of BibleWorks being misleading( esp to people who do not know the jargon) and what I was saying in post before this one is that they have fixed some of their wording and that now it is clearer. I was encouraged by that.

Which sentence is clearer?
(a)Bible works can only search on the word level
(b)Bible works can only search on morphological features on word level

If, you did not know anything about grammatical tagged databases and search engine you might assume that sentence "a" meant that BW can only search on individual words, or would you automatically know well enough to believe that they meant was that BibleWorks can not search on syntactical features?

Now, the web site in question appears to have clearer headings and clearer sentences(this is the point).

None both the first sentence and the next paragraph are both clearer(esp the paragraph):

"BibleWorks does only allow to search for words or morphological features."

"BibleWorks only allows to search the Hebrew Bible text on morphological features on word level. In contrast, the XXXX database in XXX also allows to build complex queries on phrase, clause and sentence level in order to find special syntactic structures."

There is more that they have corrected, but these examples should suffice.


Hey Brian, all I intended to say was that I understood their point to mean that BW did not enable syntactical searches at the clause or sentence level. Perhaps my understanding was erroneous, but that's what I took it to mean.

bkMitchell
09-29-2010, 07:33 PM
Hey Brian, all I intended to say was that I understood their point to mean that BW did not enable syntactical searches at the clause or sentence level. Perhaps my understanding was erroneous, but that's what I took it to mean.


ISalzman Your understanding is right, of course this is what they intended.
As, we both agree I want to make clear I am not disputing your understanding that we both share.

However, I was addressing a concern of a different nature.
One, that I may not have communicated well enough.

I would like to make it clear that:
I was never addressing the 'exegetical software enthusiast' niche made up of those (like you and me) who understand the "jargon" and "terms" used in software advertisements rather my concern was about a different crowed made up of laymen, people just beginning language study, and first time buyers. These are people whom may be mislead by the passages in discussion. Of, course you, I, and others on these forums understand the said intent, but we must keep in mind that we are in a niche group and in the minority.

ISalzman
09-29-2010, 09:38 PM
Sorry for my misunderstandings, BK.

bkMitchell
09-29-2010, 09:57 PM
Sorry for my misunderstandings, BK.

No, I am sorry I did not communicate more clearly

I will take more time to compose posts in the future.
(maybe I will even avoid my own spelling mistakes and typos, too:o)

ISalzman
09-29-2010, 10:52 PM
All's well that ends well. Thank the Lord for shalom bayit.

bkMitchell
09-29-2010, 11:15 PM
All's well that ends well. Thank the Lord for shalom bayit.

Yes, I agree brother. Amen and Amen.

Well, I think SESB'S WIVU database is a great tool and having the BHS apparatus in electronic format is fantastic. I hope, Bibleworks will be able to implement something in terms of an OT/Tanach/Hebrew Bible syntactical database. (Now, Logos/Libronix and Accordance9 have syntactical databases.) It would also be nice to have more transcriptions of the Tanakh to compliment the WTT and WTM.

I am excited though that NOBTS CNTTS apparatus will soon be made available for purchase for Bibleworks users. And some new electronic transcriptions of Greek NT text will be made free of charge to Bibleworks 8 users.

ISalzman
09-29-2010, 11:40 PM
Yes, I agree bother. Amen and Amen.

Thanks Brian. But I sure hope I'm not that much of a bother!


Well, I think SESB'S WIVU database is a great tool and having the BHS apparatus in electronic format is fantastic. I hope, Bibleworks will be able to implement something in terms of an OT/Tanach/Hebrew Bible syntactical database. (Now, Logos/Libronix and Accordance9 have syntactical databases.) It would also be nice to have more transcriptions of the Tanakh to compliment the WTT and WTM.

I am excited though that NOBTS CNTTS apparatus will soon be made available for purchase for Bibleworks users. And some new electronic transcriptions of Greek NT text will be made free of charge to Bibleworks 8 users.

All good stuff. Is the WIVU Database the one done by Eep Talstra?

bkMitchell
09-30-2010, 12:23 AM
Thanks Brian. But I sure hope I'm not that much of a bother!

All good stuff. Is the WIVU Database the one done by Eep Talstra?

No, you're not a bother at all, brother.
My apologizes and I have fixed the former post.

AND Yes, the WIVU database is the one done by Eep Talstra (http://www.dans.knaw.nl/en/content/categorieen/projecten/text-database-hebrew-old-testament) and his team.
It is also online but you have to have a license to use it:
http://wivu.dans.knaw.nl/


Now, I am still waiting to see if BibleWorks can or will obtain "The (http://www.grovescenter.org/GC/projects)Westminster Hebrew Syntax" (http://www.grovescenter.org/GC/projects) either for their base package or for sale. According, the Westminster website it(the website information) was copyright in 2010 so this information must be somewhat recent. And, it is said to be "nearly ready for distribution".

I guess if Bibleworks were to obtain it, that would mean one of the following:

(1) It would be bundled with BibleWorks9 (whenever that is developed and released)
(2) It would be available as a download
(3) or It would be a available as a for purchase module

I am not sure I am ready for a new edition of Bibleworks just, yet as there is much about the current Bibleworks8 I still want to learn.
However, I am sure I would upgrade if it were to be released. Paper Bibles are easier on my eyes, but I really enjoy using Bibleworks.

ISalzman
09-30-2010, 11:15 AM
Thanks Brian. I've appreciated the work of Eep Talstra. And, yes, it would be great if BW were able to secure the Westminster Syntactical Database. I'm ready for BW 9.

bkMitchell
10-06-2010, 12:34 PM
Thanks Brian...And, yes, it would be great if BW were able to secure the Westminster Syntactical Database. I'm ready for BW 9.

Yeah, me too!
It's always exciting to see what innovations they have been working, on.
Well, I guess well just have to wait to find-out what they are going to do next.