Jump to content

Accordance MT Text differences


rsb594
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Screen Shot 2021-07-13 at 18.48.59.png

Screen Shot 2021-07-13 at 18.47.51.png

Screen Shot 2021-07-13 at 18.48.36.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...