Jump to content

BHS-T and BHS-W4


David Knoll

Recommended Posts

Are these two similar in repect of their grammatical tagging? In other words can I now remove my BHS-W4?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While there are many similarities between the BHS-W4 and BHS-T, there are also many differences. Some of those differences are tagging decisions, and others formatting (e.g., Ketiv/Qere). I would advise that you keep the BHS-W4, not only for the above reasons, but also to work with your Syntax Trees should you have them installed or later desire them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank You. I usethe syntax trees all the time. I thought they work on BHS-T as well. Who did the tagging of BHS-T?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the BHS-T will work with current syntax trees. My misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi J.T.,

 

If this thread is dead, please tell me so. But my question is pretty much the same as the starter of this thread: What differences are there between the BHS-T and BHS-W4? What sort of tagging differences are there? Would it be good to have these two parallel with each other, or just pick one and go with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Outis,

the BHS-W4 is no longer being developed. Our (free) replacement for it is the HMT-W4. The BHS-T is the tagged text of the BHS with sigla and apparatus.

 

The HMT-W4 is the latest form of the MT from Westminster-Groves that varies just a little from the BHS. The major functional difference between the two texts is that the Syntax trees (if owned) are linked to the HMT-W4, and not the BHS-T. I tend to use the HMT-W4 and just open the BHS-T when I want to look at the apparatus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, thanks Ken.

 

So if I do look at the apparatus often, then I'd probably want to make use of the BHS-T rather than the HMT-W4? Are these two bible going to eventually merge into the same bible or are they going to maintain parallel paths? And finally, what does the BHQ have to do in relation to these? I had just thought that the BHQ was going to be the next update to BHS-T (with commentary on the apparatus notes). Is this correct or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

this is not my area particularly, and others may be able to comment better than I.

 

The BHS-T and the HMT-W4 will not converge as far as I can tell. The BHS-T is the BHS text is fixed as far as I know. The BHQ text is the latest reconstruction (a la BHS was last century) to produce a critical text. I think there are almost no textual differences (can anyone confirm that?) between BHS and BHQ, but the apparatus is substantially changed.

 

HMT is (as I understand) conforms to the WLC and bears the latest Groves morphology.

 

I'd be very pleased for anyone else to comment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I do look at the apparatus often, then I'd probably want to make use of the BHS-T rather than the HMT-W4?

That's correct. The BHS-T includes the Hebrew text as printed in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, and the critical sigla that are tied to the data in the apparatus. The HMT-W4 does not include the critical sigla. Its Hebrew text is very similar, but not identical, to that of the BHS-T. (Both are based on the Leningrad Codex, the eleventh-century copy of the Hebrew Bible that is the basis of almost all modern editions. However, the HMT-W4 is based on a more recent, electronic edition of the codex that includes some changes and corrections that have appeared since the release of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.)

Are these two bible going to eventually merge into the same bible or are they going to maintain parallel paths?

According to Helen's comments in some other threads, BHS-T and HMT-W4 are not going to merge in the near future. I believe the primary reason for this is that BHS-T is not compatible with the syntax modules; the presence of the sigla causes the modules to malfunction. Also, it's important to note that they're two separate things: BHS-T is a version of the Leningrad Codex as printed in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, and HMT-W4 is a version of the Leningrad Codex as prepared by the J. Allan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research, and is continually updated and refined.

And finally, what does the BHQ have to do in relation to these? I had just thought that the BHQ was going to be the next update to BHS-T (with commentary on the apparatus notes). Is this correct or not?

This is a slightly more complicated question. ;) The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is the fourth edition of a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible that began with the German scholar Rudolf Kittel in the early twentieth century. Unlike most critical editions of the New Testament, in which the base text is eclectic (a scholarly construction derived from multiple witnesses), its base text is diplomatic (derived from a single witness, in this case the Leningrad Codex). Since the introduction of the Leningrad Codex as the base text in the third edition of the Biblia Hebraica, subsequent printings and editions have sought to align the base text and the codex more closely. As its name implies, the Biblia Hebraica Quinta is the fifth edition of the critical edition. In addition to a more faithful representation of the text of the Leningrad Codex using recent color photographs, it includes all of the masora, an updated and enlarged apparatus that incorporates the readings of the biblical manuscripts from Qumran, and a textual commentary on notable variants. However, it's unlikely that it will be completed before 2020.

Edited by Matthew Burgess
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Matthew, I found this very helpful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're most welcome!

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
×
×
  • Create New...