Is this the Hebrew text we want?

[wie]

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.

And what is your problem with that? Some such format has to be chosen.

[Joe Fleener]

This is not entirely correct…



A proprietary coding format giving exclusive distribution rights to one US company was not necessary. There are many examples of software programs both related to Biblical Studies and not, that make other choices all the time.



Nothing that is stated on this tread is going to change decisions that were made nor reveal why they were. That was not my point. Nor was my point to upset anyone.



My personal opinion (and I may be the only one on the planet who holds this opinion) is that GBS’s choice of the Libronix format is unfortunate to the greater Christian and Biblical Software community

[wie]

A proprietary coding format giving exclusive distribution rights to one US company was not necessary. There are many examples of software programs both related to Biblical Studies and not, that make other choices all the time.

I think it is a great progress for the GBS, actually. So far they released their digital products (NA etc.) in a rather poor format, kind of "home-made" software. Switching to one of tha major programs is a progress.
What do you want? txt format? MS Word? This includes more than just the words. Of course I would have preferred a BW edition, too, but so is business.

[Ewan MacLeod]

This is not entirely correct…

A proprietary coding format giving exclusive distribution rights to one US company was not necessary. There are many examples of software programs both related to Biblical Studies and not, that make other choices all the time.

My personal opinion (and I may be the only one on the planet who holds this opinion) is that GBS’s choice of the Libronix format is unfortunate to the greater Christian and Biblical Software community

I agree - it would have been much better to supply the critical apparatus in an electronic format (as for WTM 4.0) and let a number of companies (BibleWorks, Logos) license it in their own products. I for one will not buy it in Logos Library format because 1) it is much more expensive that just buying the book form (BHS); 2) it is much too heavily tied into Windows and Internet Explorer to be easy to use on different machines; 3) Logos is a pain because it needs the software to be activated and it won't work otherwise, so installing and re-installing on the same machine is a problem; 4) there is no way to try it and not buy if it isn't what you were hoping for (unlike BibleWorks); 5) I don't use Logos and prefer BibleWorks.

I firmly believe the decision to give exclusive rights to Logos was a bad business decision, since it rules out its use by the users of every other Bible study program.

Regards,

Ewan MacLeod

[Ewan MacLeod]

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.

I have emailed Tigran Aivazian who runs this site, and he is willing to make his input files available to produce a new/alternative user-defined Hebrew text available to BibleWorks users. I will investigate how difficult it would be to convert his input format into the CCAT format required by BibleWorks. Realistically, there would be three stages:

1) Make the base text available, which would make it possible to use BibleWorks' text comparison facility.

2) (Later) make his critical apparatus available, which would be a fantastic bonus for BibleWorks users. It provides a wealth of information on the Hebrew text.

3) (Much later) provide an alternative morphological version, although the differences would probably be more at the accent and spelling levels, or singular/plural use of words, rather than a different interpretation or understanding of words.

Tigran's text is already very high quality, but has not been fully proof-read, and not all the masoretic footnotes have been entered. Text which has not been proof-read is likely to be "correct" according to some Hebrew text traditions, but not necessarily exactly in line with Ginsburg's or the Rabbinic text traditions.

If anyone wants to help, the best way would be to help proof-read the base text. See the www.bibles.org.uk web site for details.

Regards,

Ewan MacLeod

[Eric Kvaalen]

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...

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean about Logos not knowing it yet.

In any case, it seems that the Logos product is better in this respect than BibleWorks.

Personally I would rather have a product in which the text itself is as good as possible, not just have notes in the critical apparatus. I spent years reading the paper version of the Stuttgartensia looking at all the notes to see whether the text was good. It really makes reading more difficult!

[Ben Spackman]

When I posted the links, the German site said it was available for purchase, the Logos site said it was still in development, and had no availability date...

[Eric Kvaalen]

I have emailed Tigran Aivazian who runs this site, and he is willing to make his input files available to produce a new/alternative user-defined Hebrew text available to BibleWorks users. I will investigate how difficult it would be to convert his input format into the CCAT format required by BibleWorks. Realistically, there would be three stages:

1) Make the base text available, which would make it possible to use BibleWorks' text comparison facility.

2) (Later) make his critical apparatus available, which would be a fantastic bonus for BibleWorks users. It provides a wealth of information on the Hebrew text.

3) (Much later) provide an alternative morphological version, although the differences would probably be more at the accent and spelling levels, or singular/plural use of words, rather than a different interpretation or understanding of words.

When I made my last post, I hadn't noticed that there was a whole second page of discussion!

Your idea is good, but it sounds like a long-term project and a lot of work. I think that the BW text could be fixed up with a lot less effort.

[Ewan MacLeod]

Your idea is good, but it sounds like a long-term project and a lot of work. I think that the BW text could be fixed up with a lot less effort.

The current BW Hebrew text (as of BibleWorks 6.0) isn't "just" the BHS - it is the "corrected BHS" text. That is, the original problems in the printed editions of BHS have been substantially corrected and the electronic WTT text has been extensively proofread to bring it much more in line with the Leningrad Codex (see the copyrights section in the BW manual for further details). The WTT text is therefore actually very good, and if it contains typos there won't be many and they won't be serious (unlike printed editions of BHS). If you look at the comments in the WTM, there are lots of places where there is a note to the effect that the morphology is different to what BHS says. So, there is really no need to "fix" the current BHS text, and it stands as a good Hebrew text which very closely matches the Leningrad Codex (the original intention of the BHS).

Actually, importing the Ginsburg/ben Chayyim text won't take much longer, and I have already got a working text in my copy of BibleWorks. The Text Comparison tool works well, and picks up the differences between WTT and the Ginsburg text. There are a few issues with some of the accents (like rafe) and circula not being displayed, but that is being worked on. It would also be nice if large/small/raised letters, etc. were also displayed. Importing the footnotes isn't so far away either, but there are a number of ways that could be done, which I am still deciding upon.

Regards,

Ewan

[Ewan MacLeod]

A snapshot of the Ginsburg/ben Chayyim text is available for downloading as a user-compiled database by going to the link http://www.bibles.org.uk/pdf/misc/bibleworks

The GBC.txt is the CCAT file. If you download and unzip the scripts.zip, you will also see GBC.ddf (the Database Definition File) and GBC.vmf (the verse Mapping File, because a few of the verses are different from the WTT). There are also the scripts used to convert the *.inp files to BibleWorks CCAT format, but these probably won't be useful unless you are helping to proofread the text and have been supplied with the *.inp files.

The current status of the project can be seen on the www.bibles.org.uk web site. You can just download the PDF to read the Tanach on the screen. If the text is "proofread", it means that it is in line with the Ginsburg/ben Chayyim tradition, and footnotes have been entered, and it has been meticulously proofread. If it is not yet proofread, the text will very likely be at least as good quality as other Bibles, but not necessarily in line with the ben Chayyim text, and only a few footnotes will have been entered.

Further snapshots of the text will be put onto the site from time to time, and at a later stage the footnotes will also be available to BibleWorks users. These contain a wealth of information on the Hebrew text and are an essential critical apparatus based on traditional massoretic material.

If anyone wants to help proofread the text, then please help. You can download a Proofreaders Guide from the above web site, to see what is involved.

Regards,

Ewan MacLeod