Printable View
I would like to raise the following subject: Is the Hebrew text provided by BW as accurate as possible?
BW uses the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia which is based on the Leningrad text. But the Leningrad manuscript differs in hundreds of places from the standard Masoretic text. A large part of these are minor, like missing or extra dagesh, but there are also lots of wrong vowel points, and sometimes wrong letters or missing letters.
Your thoughts?
Can you suggest another Hebrew text readily available in electronic form and a corresponding morphologically tagged database?
Even if everyone were to agree that the BHS is not the best (not saying I do), the issue is still irrelevant to electronic databases if there is no other option available.
If there is, I would love to have the BHS and whatever else is out there so as to facilitate OT Text Criticism.
This guy is making probably one of the most accurate electronic editions of the Hebrew Bible yet (based on ben Chayyim/Ginsburg):
http://www.bibles.org.uk/
He is actively seeking help for fixing it up.
No edition is infallible of course, and there are also different opinions as to what manuscripts are more reliable. There are many people arguing for a new more comprehensive eclectic critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, and of course, the Jerusalem Bible Project is working on one. BHS definitely needs some work and we can only cross our fingers hoping for something better.
You are right this guy is doing some nice stuff, but it is only the text right now, we would need it to be tagged...but one thing at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by d-man
I would love to see this work integrated into BW.
If anyone wants another (better) text, why not export the current WTT text, then modify it to bring it in line with another text (e.g. Aleppo Codex, Koren Tanach, Leningrad Codex) then re-import it as another version using the database compiler facility. It would need several people to agree to proof-read sections of the text and make appropriate corrections. The Text Comparison tool would then allow you to see what the differences are.
A morphologically tagged version is probably not necessary (at least at first), because the differences are likely to be small, such as spelling differences, vowel or accent differences, etc.
The fact that BibleWorks only has one Hebrew text (and BHS is a particularly bad example) is a severe limitation for serious Hebrew study.
Why don't several volunteers contribute to have another text, complete with Massoretic notes, etc?
Shalom,
Ewan
Yes, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewan MacLeod
What about other commercial programs? Do any have a better Hebrew text?
Well, according to this page, LOGOS/Libronix now has the BHS with the critical apparatus available (though LOGOS doesn't appear to know it yet. Though that's not a different text, having the apparatus available is virtually the same thing...
There is a lot of confusion and controversy surrounding this.
The program in its entirety was developed by the German Bible Society. They chose to develop it in the Libronix "language" (or whatever you want to call it). This seems to violate on of the tenets of the German Bible Society's existence, since they are not supposed to be associated with any singular group, but to be a help and aid to all those who desire to study the text of Scripture.
Originally, the only place one was going to be able to purchase this program was through the GBS. It has been a recent development that Logos has become a distributor of the program, and an exclusive distributor (this is a real violation of point one above, from my perspective).
However, Logos is limited to only distributing to people in North America (of course that is me).
This is nonsense. They are associated with printers to print their books, they are associated with software developers (M. Frey) from the beginning to create their CDs. This new program is quite complex and has input from several parties. There is no possibility for the GBS to do this all on their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Fleener
I appologize for my wording.
When I stated that the GBS developed this all on their own, what I meant was that it as not a Logos develop module. Rather it was developed by the GBS in Libronix format (I am sure with the help of others), not by Logos for the GBS.