Vowel points, Accents, Dagesh, and Consonantal issues in various Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

[Benjamin Denckla]

12 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

Here is a similar one, 2kings 14:7:

Should say [גיא-מלח][ב]

 

Again, to me the issue is not so much that the ב in בגיא got left behind but why was בגיא swept up into the qere altogether? The ketiv/qere only concerns the second atom of this maqaf compound, and though this makes notating this ketiv/qere awkward, it nonetheless must be notated as such. In MAM we put the ketiv after the qere in such cases:

 

[Benjamin Denckla]

12 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

Here is yet another issue. In Job 38:1 the Accordance text HMT-W4 shows exactly no difference between the Ketiv and Qere:

 

But here is the manuscript:

 

So the Ketiv should be "מנ הסערה" with a non-final Nun.

 

Almost... according to MAM the ketiv should be one word: 

(BTW that is a paseq not a legarmeih separating the two qere words. And unlike Josh. 18:24 & 2Sam. 21:16, this is one of those rare cases where there are two qere words. In fact, I call it a k1q2 because it is a special subclass of that already-special class, where there is one ketiv word corresponding to two qere words.

[Benjamin Denckla]

12 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

Another one:

MAM:

[Benjamin Denckla]

12 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

The same mistake also occurs in Job 40:6:

 

 

The ketiv should say "מנ סערה" as in the printed BHS.

 

In fact, I would say there is no space between the "מנ" and "סערה", and the Ketiv should perhaps be "מנסערה"

 

Yes, this is another k1q2, very similar to the Job 38:1 case discussed above:

 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Denckla said:

Again, to me the issue is not so much that the ב in בגיא got left behind but why was בגיא swept up into the qere altogether? The ketiv/qere only concerns the second atom of this maqaf compound, and though this makes notating this ketiv/qere awkward,

@Benjamin Denckla, I think it is because these are compound names, or names consisting of two or more words. For that reason I believe the entire phrase of two or more words are treated as Ketiv Qere...

Edited October 9, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast

[Benjamin Denckla]

16 hours ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

@Benjamin Denckla, I think it is because these are compound names, or names consisting of two or more words. For that reason I believe the entire phrase of two or more words are treated as Ketiv Qere...

It is not up to each edition of the Hebrew Bible to define or decide the "scope" of a ketiv/qere. As you know from showing the manuscript in your initial example, the scope of a ketiv/qere is defined by the masorah, by which I mean not some vague notion of tradition but, specifically, masorah qetanah notes and any other relevant Masoretic content such as masorah gedolah notes or Masoretic lists.

 

True, manuscripts sometimes differ amongst themselves about these notes. Either the content of the note differs, or the note is present in one manuscript but not another. So, in that sense, editions of the Hebrew Bible might differ with respect to how they define the "scope" of a ketiv/qere.

 

But I don't think that's what's going on here. I.e. I have no reason to believe that HMT-W4 is using different manuscript evidence than MAM (or using the same manuscript evidence with different "weightings" of the evidence). For one thing all these digital editions basically unquestioningly follow WLC, they are not really independent editions of the Hebrew Bible. And WLC itself is a diplomatic edition of the LC, i.e., its explicit editorial policy is to ignore all manuscripts other than the LC.

 

I suspect what's going on here is simply that we're seeing a combination of two things:

 

* botched handling of morphology divisions (prefixes) in the presence of ketiv/qere

* botched handling of maqaf compounds in the presence of ketiv/qere

 

So, I guess I sort of agree with you, in the sense that compound names are maqaf compounds, but I want to push back against the idea that this might be due to the exercise of some legitimate (or even conscious!) editorial decision on the part of the editors of HMT-W4.

 

Perhaps you weren't implying that this was a legitimate (or even conscious!) editorial decision, and you agree with me that this is just basically a bug in HMT-W4's handling of maqaf compounds in the presence of ketiv/qere. If so, apologies in advance.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

There is an issue in the Mishnah Kaufman module, with vowel points:

 

 

Compare manuscript:

 

 

Would you be interested in such corrections?

 

These words marked should have a Qamets and not a Chateph Patach.

 

 

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

55 minutes ago, Accordance Enthusiast said:

Would you be interested in such corrections?

 

These words marked should have a Qamets and not a Chateph Patach.

 

Feel free to post any of them here, as well as send them to Corrections.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Another vowel issue in the Mishnah module:

 

 

 

 

[Accordance Enthusiast]

A few more in the Mishnah:

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by Accordance Enthusiast

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Are there any scholars or highly-skilled students that would be interested in either re-checking these modules or even a certain portion of these modules? I'm kicking around an idea we might want to try. I won't elaborate on it publicly yet since I don't want to over-promise something, but anyone that would be interested or who knows someone that could be interested is welcome to DM or email me.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

@miketisdell reported an issue I will link here:

 

 

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Thanks!

[Accordance Enthusiast]

I'm disappointed with the inaccuracy of the Mishnah Kaufmann module, I'll add another example below:

 

Accordance:

 

Actual Manuscript

 

 

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Thanks!

[Accordance Enthusiast]

Another example of mistake in the pointing of Kaufmann module. Anyone with knowledge of Hebrew grammar should pick up the mistake. You can't have two Shva's back-to-back at the start of a word.

 

 

[Brian K. Mitchell]

Okay, I have mentioned 1 Chronicles 10:1 before, but not on this thread. 

So, notice how 1 Chronicles 10:1 appears in the Accordance's Biblia Hebraica, and compare that with the photo of the Leningrad Codex, notice that in the database there is the mistaken repetitive Athnach on וינס This is also the case in the BHS-W4 (version 4.35 / Morphology 4.14), BHS-T (version 1.8 / Morphology 4.14), and the MT-ETCBC (WIVU version 1.0). 

[Brian K. Mitchell]

I posted the following back in November 2018 on the following ( link  ) But, I will repost this on this thread:

 

The BHSW4 and the MTECBC are both based on the printed edition of the BHS or some printed representation of the Leningrad Codex. So, I am curious if anyone knows the reason for the difference in cantillation mark choices between the before-mentioned databases in regards to the זה in (Genesis 5:29) " ...  ויקרא את־שמו נח לאמר זה"

MT-ETCBC (V1.0) זֶ֞ה֠ (has both a Telisha Gedolah and the Gershayim accent)

BHS-W4 (V4.14) זֶה֠ (has only the Telisha Gedolah accent)

 

The MT-ETCBC agrees with the printed BHS (see page 8 / Genesis 5:29/ the edition I have was printed in 1990). Also, the images of the Leningrad Codex (see, Genesis 5:26b - 6:19a, 4 recto) are clear enough to see that there are two markings over the זה in the verse.

 

It seems that it may have been common practice to place two accents above the זה in Genesis 5:29...

Quote

In five passages, Gen. 5:29; Lev. 10:4; 2 Ki. 17:13; Ezek. 48:10; Zeph. 2:15 (see Mas. to Gen. 5:29), Géresh and T’lîsha are found together in the same word,—an intimation that ancient authorities differed as to the chanting. The later Massoretes, unable to decide which was right, directed that both accents should be chanted (הקורא יטעים הגרש קדם התלישא), Géresh first, as being the more common. And this chanting is observed in the present day.

Wickes, William. Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament. Vol. 2. (page 101) Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1887.

[Ken Simpson]

I won't speak to the Mishnah issues, as I am aware that these do seem like significant issues that we should be able to correct (IMHO). 

 

However, I am aware this has been mentioned before, but as I understand it our HMT-W4 is the Westminster text, and we receive the formatted  text from Westminster-Groves. I have been told in the past that only WG can alter this text, so issues like these atnah's would need to be submitted to them. Either by us or by whoever finds them directly.

 

My suspicion is though, that with BHQ coming out (albeit at snail's pace) very little effort is being put in to update the WG text.

[Brian K. Mitchell]

6 hours ago, Ken Simpson said:

My suspicion is though, that with BHQ coming out (albeit at snail's pace) very little effort is being put in to update the WG text.

This is sad because...

(1) The digital version of the BHQ as far as I can tell retains these errors

(2) The digital version of the BHQ isn't tagged (meaning the digital WG hasn't been replaced by the BHQ as far as morphological and syntax searching is concerned )

 

 

[jlm]

10 hours ago, Ken Simpson said:

I won't speak to the Mishnah issues, as I am aware that these do seem like significant issues that we should be able to correct (IMHO). 

 

However, I am aware this has been mentioned before, but as I understand it our HMT-W4 is the Westminster text, and we receive the formatted  text from Westminster-Groves. I have been told in the past that only WG can alter this text, so issues like these atnah's would need to be submitted to them. Either by us or by whoever finds them directly.

 

My suspicion is though, that with BHQ coming out (albeit at snail's pace) very little effort is being put in to update the WG text.

Perhaps that’s a good argument for adding a well-maintained text like the Miqra according to the Masorah.

[Ken Simpson]

Please understand I have NO inside knowledge on the maintenance or otherwise of the WLC from the Groves Institute. It's just a gut feel, and while I do have a few guts, that doesn't guarantee the veracity of my thoughts.

[Benjamin Denckla]

17 hours ago, Ken Simpson said:

I have been told in the past that only WG can alter this text, so issues like these atnah's would need to be submitted to them. Either by us or by whoever finds them directly.

 

Neither Groves nor anyone else maintains WLC any longer. To put it bluntly, WLC is dead/frozen. So, if it is Accordance's policy to not modify its WLC-derived products, then those products (notably HMT-W4) are dead/frozen.

 

17 hours ago, Ken Simpson said:

My suspicion is though, that with BHQ coming out (albeit at snail's pace) very little effort is being put in to update the WG text.

 

Yes and no. WLC had started to incorporate corrections from BHQ. But as I mentioned above, WLC is now dead/frozen.

[Benjamin Denckla]

9 hours ago, Brian K. Mitchell said:

(1) The digital version of the BHQ as far as I can tell retains these errors

 

Yes, the Hebrew text of the Accordance BHQ volumes do not match the BHQ paper. After I found one or two differences, I reported this to Accordance and gave up on using the Hebrew text of the Accordance BHQ volumes. (If you can easily find a few differences in the course of normal use, that's probably just the tip of an iceberg.) The apparatus of the Accordance BHQ volumes is useful though.

 

Even on paper, the BHQ series doesn't seem committed to significantly improving the Hebrew text beyond BHS. Perhaps individual editors of individual volumes vary in their commitment, but I have not seen a high level of commitment from any of them. I see BHQ making a few corrections to the BHS base here and there but no coherent effort to really "up their game."

 

If you want a good transcription of the Leningrad Codex, use Dotan's BHL. (This is a 2001 update to a similar 1973 work. Note that this 1973 one pre-dates the 1977 completion of BHS!)

 

If you want a good critical apparatus reviewing multiple Masoretic manuscripts, use Breuer's work in the Da`at Miqra series (unfortunately scattered among its 30 volumes)!

 

BHS was groundbreaking work when it was completed, 46 years ago (in 1977). But there are better alternatives now. (And for some purposes there may have even been better alternatives back then (see my comments re: Dotan 1973).)

 

I'm not sure BHQ does enough to "catch up" on what's happened in Masoretic scholarship in the meantime. I'm just speaking within my narrow area of interest: the Masoretic texts. I merely pretend to have some expertise in Masoretic scholarship. I can't even pretend to know anything about Greek sources, Samaritan sources, etc. For all I know, BHQ is a big update/improvement in those areas.

[Brian K. Mitchell]

On 1/16/2024 at 8:58 AM, Benjamin Denckla said:

If you want a good transcription of the Leningrad Codex, use Dotan's BHL. (This is a 2001 update to a similar 1973 work. Note that this 1973 one pre-dates the 1977 completion of BHS!)

I agree...

 

 

 

Here is a link to an article about it :

http://scholar.davidesstein.name/Articles/ReviewOfBHL--Stein.pdf

 

On 1/16/2024 at 8:58 AM, Benjamin Denckla said:

the Hebrew text of the Accordance BHQ volumes do not match the BHQ paper.

My guess is that whoever provided the digital text of the BHQ to Accordance simply reused an untagged digital text of the BHS when they started making the BHQ files.

 

On 1/16/2024 at 8:58 AM, Benjamin Denckla said:

Even on paper, the BHQ series doesn't seem committed to significantly improving the Hebrew text beyond BHS.

This is a very sad state of affairs.