Aleppo Codex transcribed text

[justinjevans]

This isn't exactly an Accordance question (excepting that I would request an electronic text of the Aleppo Codex in accordance, which could be compared with Leningrad Codex via the INFER command).

The best place I know to view the Aleppo Codex manuscript is here: https://www.mgketer.org/mikra/22/1/1/mg/106

There are other images online, but this is the only one I know with a Scripture index.

Does anyone know where the transcribed text of the codex is from? Who produced it? Has it undergone extensive editing/correcting?

Is there a better transcribed text available somewhere?

Thank you!

[Benjamin Denckla]

The digital Tanakh text at mgketer.org is supposed to correspond to the printed edition of Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter (MGH).

 

I don't know how well it corresponds, both because I don't have the printed edition, and because anyway such comparisons are a huge task. Both texts are, as you mention, supposed to correspond closely to the Aleppo Codex.

 

I'm not sure if the editors of MGH would quite characterize their Tanakh as being so literal as to be thought of as a transcription. But something close to a transcription.

 

All that having been said, I'm biased, but I think for most purposes you should use an edition of MAM rather than MGH (assuming all you're interested in is the MGH Tanakh and not its commentary). Notable editions of MAM include:

• The canonical edition at Hebrew Wikisource
• The "with doc" edition (the only edition showing MAM's documentation)
• The Sefaria edition (MAM is Sefaria's default Hebrew Tanakh)

For many disputed details, MAM's documentation cites MGH's "take" on things, among other esteemed editions. This is high praise for MGH. But MAM does not always agree with MGH. We have not (yet) exhaustively compared MAM and MGH. So who knows, there may be many places where MAM should be more like MGH. But for places where MGH was consulted, I can say that MAM is always at least as good as MGH and is often better (according to the values and editorial policies of MAM at least).

 

One area where MAM, by policy, diverges from the AC is with respect to some ḥataf vowels. But recently MAM has added the Unicode "Judeo-Spanish [Ladino] varika" point to mark such divergences. So, in editions that preserve these varika marks (Sefaria does not), MAM no longer diverges from the AC if you know how to "decode" that notation.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

I've been chatting with @Benjamin Denckla about bringing the MAM into Accordance. Now that I've been trained on Bible development, I can chat further about the formatting I'd recommend for it to get it into Accordance quickly.