Accordance MT Text differences

[Steve Bishop]

I'm new to the Forum and I posted this is another section. I now realize it fits better here. So here is the original post:

 

I get different search results in a word search when switching between my Hebrew texts: BHS-T, BHS-W4, and HMT-W4. I've tried to uncover why they are different and have concluded it must be the result of whether or not variants are in the text rather than in a critical apparatus. Can someone confirm this or give me a better--that is, more correct--answer? Of those three texts is there one that is 'better' than the other two?

[Ken Simpson]

Hi rsb,

the BHS-T text is the text of the printed Stuttgartensia, and it’s associated apparatus

the HMT-W4 is the upgraded Westminster-Groves Leningradensia text, which does differ in places from the Stuttgart text

the BHS-W4 is a previous iteration of the HMT-W4 text and has not been updated for some time. So it will differ from the BhS because it’s not the Stuttgart text, and from BhS-W4 because it does not include the last few years of W-G text updates. 
 

does that make any sense at all?

[Steve Bishop]

Ken,

Thank you so much for this information. It seems then it might make sense for me to remove BHS-W4 from my active library. Where did you find this information? I'd like to be able to get the same info should I need it for other texts in the future.

Many thanks,

Steve (rsb)

[Ken Simpson]

Hi Steve, if you open the text then you can select "About this text" in either the Accordance menu, or in the contextual menu if you ctrl-click (or right click windows)

 

It will show you the info below. You may see that the BHS-T and BHS-W4 have not been updated in copyright since 2010, whereas the HMT-W4 is more recent.

 

You can copy this information using the little clipboard icon in the upper right corner of the splash that appears.

[Benjamin Denckla]

One thing to be aware of, if you're not already, is that all 3 of these texts are representations of a specific (though hugely important) manuscript, namely, the LC.

 

To put it another way, none of these 3 texts is attempting to represent something like a consensus on the (admittedly vague) notion of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible.

 

To put it yet another way, these are not really intended to be general-purpose texts, though historically they have been the only electronic texts widely available, and therefore have come to be used as general-purpose texts.

 

To put it yet another way, these are diplomatic/scholarly editions of the LC, not eclectic/general-purpose editions of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible.

 

Eclectic/general-purpose editions draw on the various other extant manuscripts, all of which are, unlike the LC, incomplete.

 

The most notable among these manuscripts is of course the AC (Aleppo Codex, aka Crown of Aleppo, aka Crown of Jerusalem).

[Iconoclaste]

On 7/11/2021 at 10:21 PM, rsb594 said:

I'm new to the Forum and I posted this is another section. I now realize it fits better here. So here is the original post:

 

I get different search results in a word search when switching between my Hebrew texts: BHS-T, BHS-W4, and HMT-W4. I've tried to uncover why they are different and have concluded it must be the result of whether or not variants are in the text rather than in a critical apparatus. Can someone confirm this or give me a better--that is, more correct--answer? Of those three texts is there one that is 'better' than the other two?

Another difference between BHS-T and HMT-W4 is that HMT-W4 provides the qere readings in brackets, immediately after the ketiv. Contrary to the Leningrad codex, the J Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research added theoretical vowel pointings for the ketiv to the HMT-W4. This is somewhat confusing and important to be aware of. As far as the Masoretic tradition is concerned, the text to be read, heard, and interpreted is the qere, not the ketiv, when the two differ. 
If you are reading in the BHS-T module, the only way to recognize that you are seeing the hypothetical vowel pointings to a ketiv and that the reading the Masoretes want you to follow is not even in the text is that the word in question will be entirely lacking its Masoretic accent. 

See the screenshot below. The Masoretes want you to read what is in brackets instead of the word which precedes it. The word which precedes it has vowels added by a modern scholar, vowels which are entirely absent from the millenium-old Leningrad Codex. In the BHS-T, all that you see is the modern scholar's vowel pointing!

Because of this, I only use the BHS-T module when I want to look at the BHS apparatus. I always read from the HMT-W4. 

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Iconoclaste

[Benjamin Denckla]

Expanding on what @Iconoclaste said above, if you ever look at images of the actual Masoretic manuscripts, be prepared to see ketiv & qere presented in yet another way. In the manuscripts:

• The ketiv is pointed with the points of the qere. The ketiv, and only the ketiv, appears on the body text.
• The qere is unpointed (!) and appears only in the margin.

In the standard modern way of presenting ketiv & qere:

• The ketiv is unpointed and appears in the body text, usually before the qere.
• The qere is pointed and also appears in the body text.

For the Genesis 8:17 example above, here's what the LC looks like:

 

 

Whereas, for example on tanach.us, the words appear like this:

[LordByron]

Wow.  I learned a lot just reading these posts!

 

I wonder, how is OT textual criticism done?  I get the impression that in the Hebrew we have very few different texts to work with.  Alternate readings are sometimes invented or proposed by rearranging Hebrew letters or substituting a similarly spelled word with no actually textual support.  The LXX is often compared, but that's not Hebrew.  Here are ones I can think of:

1. Leningrad Codex (the MT, I think!)
2. Aleppo Codex (someone mentioned that above)
3. DSS
4. Samaritan Pentateuch 

I didn't see the Aleppo in the Accordance store.

 

Anyway, I wonder if someone would care to give some pointers on getting started in OT textual criticism?

[Benjamin Denckla]

@LordByron I can only recommend this book "aspirationally", i.e. I can only recommend it in the sense I aspire to some day engage with this book myself:

 

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Third Edition, Revised and Expanded | Fortress Press

 

But I'm not really sure whether one can just dive into such a book without a teacher, mentor, or guide. One would not enter an unfamiliar jungle without a guide. But perhaps I am too timid, and this is no jungle.

[Michael J. Bolesta]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Denckla said:

@LordByron I can only recommend this book "aspirationally", i.e. I can only recommend it in the sense I aspire to some day engage with this book myself:

 

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Third Edition, Revised and Expanded | Fortress Press

 

But I'm not really sure whether one can just dive into such a book without a teacher, mentor, or guide. One would not enter an unfamiliar jungle without a guide. But perhaps I am too timid, and this is no jungle.

 

This book is available as an Accordance module: https://accordancebible.com/product/textual-criticism-of-the-hebrew-bible-3rd-edition-tov/

[LordByron]

16 hours ago, Michael J. Bolesta said:

 

This book is available as an Accordance module: https://accordancebible.com/product/textual-criticism-of-the-hebrew-bible-3rd-edition-tov/

Thanks!  I added this to my wishlist.  This would require some serious study.

 

I don't suppose there is anything similar to the critical apparatuses that we have for the GNT?  That pretty much would show you what is out there for any given passage of Scripture at a glance.

 

Edit: After a bit of searching in the Accordance store I found this: https://accordancebible.com/product/hebrew-bible-apparatus/

Edited October 7, 2021 by LordByron

[jlm]

This eAcademy talk by Dr. Tov could be a good introduction: https://vimeo.com/489605276