Why is Accordance so fast?

[aperkinson]

On another forum, R. Mansfield wrote "There are reasons as to why Accordance is faster than Logos. I don't feel it is in the spirit of propriety to go in to such in the Logos forums, but if anyone here wants to come to the Accordance forums and ask that question, you have my blessing."

 

Why is Accordance faster?

[Daniel Francis]

I mockingly think, former Microsoft people over there...  That said it is at least partially true. In that tools they choose to use we based on standards MS recommended. It is currently being transitioned away from one .net technology. But the main reason i see, is what some love about some other Programs.. Many bells and whistles, most of which I can gladly live with out. One start up function I can think of robbing one of a quick start up is the home page with it's many resource highlights and numerous ads. These are all superficial things, but they do add up. Without giving away any proprietary secrets maybe Rick will give us a more informed answer from the inside.

 

-Dan

[Alistair]

Didn't Accordance 9 have some kind of start-up page with the devotional of the day etc on it?

[Daniel Francis]

Yes it did but much quicker to start up than some others.

 

-Dan

[Joel Brown]

While I obviously cannot go into any details as to the inner workings of the program, and I also cannot comment as to how any other application is structured, I can hopefully provide some insight to help answer your question!

 

Accordance, since day 1, has always had the goal of being the most effective bible study tool out there.  This means that, while of course we develop new features all of the time, we always wanted to ensure that the entire program was highly accessible to our users.  This can be seen by the fact that we still support Windows XP and OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard.  More relevantly, this can be seen by the fact that we do our best to keep the entire program running quickly and smoothly at all times.

 

When we develop a feature, if it runs too slow for us, or seems to place a drag on the program, it is regularly optimized or retooled before it ever reaches the hands of the beta testers.  In fact, once a feature reaches beta, it rarely needs to be touched again - often for years! - because we did our best to provide the users with something already polished.

 

As Alistair mentioned, a few revs ago we included a startup window that offered a variety of options, yet did not slow down the program.  When we released version 11, none of the new capabilities slowed down the program at all, and some (such as the Research and Syntax) were actually made faster.  On the rare case when there is a naturally time-intensive feature, such as [COUNT] or [iNFER], we do not let it bog down the rest of the program.  On the rare occasion that Accordance does index (generally, only if the user requests it from the Preferences), the entire process is done on the order of seconds to minutes.  I say all of this to show that, to us, adding features never has to compromise speed or quality.

 

If you consider the breadth of features we provide, from the various unique searching abilities (Infer, Merge, Hits, etc.), to the unique visual tools (Atlas, Photomuseum, Virtual Tour to the Temple), to the large range of resources (Massive commentaries, tiny pocket sized dictionaries, Ugaritic, user created content, Dead Sea Scrolls, Church Fathers), I don’t believe that you can say that our speed is due to having a limited focus.

 

To also note, Accordance is fairly new to the Windows platform.  Despite this, it runs just as quickly as it does on the Mac.  There is no special Mac-voodoo we run to make it seem faster since we’ve had more opportunity to optimize on the Mac, we just try to provide a well engineered program.

 

So, to directly answer your question, there sadly is no clear-cut answer.  It is not that we are too specialized in any way, nor is it due to a lack of capabilities, nor is it due to particular platform issues.

 

At the end of the day, we greatly value the user experience, and we strive to provide what we believe to be an excellent product that remains feature-rich, yet capable and accessible to all.  I cannot comment on how any other application runs, as I remain pretty focused on developing Accordance, so please don’t take any comments as relative to any other software.

 

Thanks for your question, and feel free to ask any follow up questions you have!

[Michael P Finkelstein]

I've sensed this gap has drastically reduced in the past two years. Logos has released several updates to increase their speed in searches, but it still does perform a little slower than Accordance. With that said, It seems that if Logos ever made this an important "feature" to add to their application, then it will come. When it does come, this would deal a severe blow to Accordance. I have found Accordance's advertising of its speed a weak leg to stand on, especially when Logos is producing some language rich research tools and ancient literature datasets. I've have also been perplexed over Accordance's claim that it is somehow more "Academic" than Logos. It seems to me this is patently false. I've found evidence to suggest the opposite is the case—has anyone ever tried to study the Targumim in Accordance? You will quickly need to go to CAL for variant readings and such, and even then one still needs the editio princeps (also see the IOSCS article on the Isaiah text in Göttingen). I have also found that Logos 6 is much more stable than Accordance 11. Accordance 11 crashes on me at least once a day last week, and Logos crashed once. This is just my experience.

[Daniel Francis]

I never meant to imply Logos or Wordsearch were bad... Olivetree is underwhelming under powered at the moment in my mind but their mobile app use to be nearly ideal... 6 has made it sluggish and poor in the mobile world which use to be it's one saving grace. One major benefit for me in Accordance is it;s  powerful, Mobile App that runs rings around the FL app. Now I would love to see Accordance mobile add in their info pane. I know of serious scholars that prefer Accordance over Logos, I use both, indeed I use all 4 of the apps I have mentioned daily. I am seriously troubled how dependant the FL platform is moving into cloud dependancy, indeed their mobile app requires it to do anything beyond the most basic functions. I rarely have crashes in either FL apps or Accordance... historically i had 2-3 crashes daily in FL apps, but since 6.6 it seems to have stabilized... my crashes in accordance only seem to happen when I open older workspaces... I have used all four for many many years, but I have found Accordance to be the most stable over all of all of them over the long haul. I do not want to bad mouth any software although in my frustration with one particularly buggy release of Verbum I did cross the line, and I apologize, if any FL employees visit here know I mean your hard work no ill will and use it perhaps even a little more than Accordance because I have more resources there. One major benefit of Accordance is any Christian can start off here for $60 and have a core library that  offers everything you need to start off with. FL offered FLS bible products free but in order to get original language support you need to spend $300. Therefore I consider Accordance with it's more affordable starting point, a more open spot for the average christian to get into good Bible study, and Accordance in my mind offers most all core resources one might want and several key ones FL does not offer. Each person must decide which tools will work best for themselves. I MEAN to say Accordance and Faithlife are both applications at the top of their field. I do not try to say X is better than Y because it is like saying this navel orange is better than this mandarin orange: each has qualities to make it favourite of different people. 

 

-Dan

Edited December 5, 2015 by Dan Francis

[Brian K. Mitchell]

....Logos has released several updates to increase their speed in searches, but it still does perform a little slower than Accordance. With that said, It seems that if Logos ever made this an important "feature" to add to their application, then it will come. When it does come, this would deal a severe blow to Accordance. I have found Accordance's advertising of its speed a weak leg to stand on, especially when Logos is producing some language rich research tools and ancient literature datasets. I've have also been perplexed over Accordance's claim that it is somehow more "Academic" than Logos. It seems to me this is patently false. ...

 

One, the speed of logos these days probably is also effected by the speed of one's Hard drive and/or SSD. I have a very fast SSD, but I still find that Accordance is much faster at running queries and displaying the results than Logos. That, of course may change in the future and people with different PC/Mac set ups may have different experiences than I. So, I agree with you that if speed was the only thing that Accordance had going for it that would be rather lame. However, Accordance has a lot more going for it than speed in my opinion. The way I as an end user am able to interact with Accodance and run searches is a lot more intuitive (in my opinion). 

 

Two, Academic claims are retaliative to where one's interest are. Here is a hypothetical example:  

Say there is a researcher out there who needs:

(a) to run queries on  'regular expression'

b ) to run queries on individual ta`amei ha-mikra   (cantillation marks/diacriticals)

c ) to run wildcard pattern string searches on  ta`amei ha-mikra  

(d)  to run searches on vowel patterns in the Hebrew without having search on specific consonant patterns.

(e) to access actual images of the Leningrad codex, the Dea sea scrolls

(f) Hebrew texts of the Mishnah, Talmuds, and medieval rabbinic commentaries, as well as primary documents from 2nd temple Judaism

(g) a company that focus primarily on producing, maintaining, and correcting primary texts of the Bible.

(g2)In other words: Quality over quantity

 

Such a person might find Accordance to be better at achieving his/her goals than Logos is.

 

On, the other hand I can understand how one one who needs lots of 2nd and 3rd hand resources and a big research library will find Logos better matches his/her academic interest. I use and love Logos as a theological library(e-reader), but as Bible Program, and a morpological-syntatical search engine the Accordance experience simply meets my goals better than anything else I have seen out there. 

Edited December 6, 2015 by bkMitchell

[R. Mansfield]

I've have also been perplexed over Accordance's claim that it is somehow more "Academic" than Logos.

 

Regardless of whether or not Accordance is "more academic than Logos," where have you seen us make this claim? In fact, I can't think of any mention of Logos in any of our advertising copy. I've heard users make the claim, but we don't spend time in our promotional materials referring to other platforms.

[R. Mansfield]

I take responsibility for this thread. It was the result of my reply over in the Logos forums to what was a grossly inaccurate portrayal of Accordance by a Logos employee. I did not feel it was appropriate for me to go into great detail about Accordance in their forums, so I invited anyone to make inquiries here. 

 

If you want to see my original post in the Logos forums, you can follow this link. 

 

Eli Evans, a Logos employee, offered this description of how he imagines Accordance works: "Accordance ... modules ... are essentially databases, that is, small, highly structured chunks of data that are assembled at run time to resemble documents." Agreeing with Joel in his earlier response, I'm not free to share proprietary information about how the Accordance engine works; however, I can state without reservation that it doesn't work like Eli's description. Accordance modules absolutely are not "chunks of data that are assembled at run time." If anything, I would think that if this were the case, Accordance would run much slower than Logos. 

 

Eli's entire implication that Accordance is a database program and Logos is not is absurd. Any software application by definition is a database at some level. Regardless, our software does not function as he described it in the quotation in the above paragraph. Plus, if you run a search for the word "database" on the Logos website or in the Logos 6 help file, there are plenty of references to the word in reference to their software. In fact, you can run the same search on the Accordance website, and you will not find as many occurrences of the word in reference to Accordance. But it really doesn't matter. Both programs store, handle, and analyze data. We just don't do it in the ludicrous manner that Eli suggested. 

 

Eli also tried to suggest that Logos was more generalized and therefore more flexible than Accordance. Truthfully, both Accordance and Logos are flexible and specialized enough to be used both for general purposes and for very specialized uses. Users of all kinds do this with either program every day.

 

For quite a while there's been a lot of Accordance vs. Logos rhetoric. I was guilty in the past of a lot of it, too. But it was primarily when I was a user--not working for the company. It boggles my mind that Eli Evans is spending time on his company's forums making false characterizations about a competitor. You'd think we'd all have better ways to promote the benefits of our respective Bible software platforms. 

[markbarnes]

I'll weigh in tentatively. About me: I'm committed Logos user and have been for many years. I poke around quite a bit, and think I understand the workings of Logos better than the majority of Logos users (and perhaps better than most non-technical employees). However, I have recently purchased the Accordance starter pack with a few hundred dollars worth of extras.

 

FWIW I don't think Eli's description of Logos vs Accordance as 'documents' vs 'database' is accurate. But what I think he was really trying to say (and if so I agree) is that Logos' approach to engineering often sacrifices speed for the sake of flexibility and possible future development. I could easily be wrong for the same reasons Eli might be wrong (neither of us know Accordance well). Feel free to politely correct me   .

 

As one example, Logos has a visual filter system whereby the text you see is effectively emended before it is displayed. This can be done by the user, or by the software itself. I know Accordance has something somewhat similar, but the Logos version is very powerful, with the ability to create custom highlighting styles with custom images, etc. User visual filters are also supported on mobile. Recently we've seen a raft of new, and quite interesting visual filters, made possible by technology that's slowly been building for a long time.

 

Anyway the point is that to support all that, Logos has to have a particular way of displaying the resources, and limits itself to technologies such as WPF which makes that sort of display possible without creating too much code from scratch. And in so doing there is a performance hit, even if a particular user doesn't even use visual filters. That is, you could code it to run faster if you never wanted to add that feature in the future.

 

Not only are they using a slower technology, but to display text on the screen Logos has to check through all these visual filters (there could be dozens), to see whether a visual filter even ought to be applied to what the user can currently see. This might mean running searches, for example. Again, it all takes time.

 

What I think Eli was trying to say was that these bells and whistles requires a far more abstract approach to storing and displaying text than is required by software programs that don't have the same aims. Logos can't go straight from the 'database' to the screen, because there's a LOT of hoops to be jumped through first.

 

Some people like Logos' bells and whistles. Some people like Accordance's speed. A lot of people wish both applications had both to the same measure! That's unlikely to happen because of the different approaches.

 

It's good that there's a choice in the market. Logos has certainly been forced to spend more time on optimisation because users often make unfavourable speed comparisons with Bibleworks and Accordance. I'm sure the competition has spurred Accordance on, too. 

 

(I hope this isn't perceived as Accordance-bashing. I'm certainly aware that in other areas Accordance has its own bells and whistles that Logos can't match. I'm not suggesting one application is better than the other, I'm just pointing out one of the ways in which they're different.)

Edited December 6, 2015 by markbarnes

[Brian K. Mitchell]

(I hope this isn't perceived as Accordance-bashing. I'm certainly aware that in other areas Accordance has its own bells and whistles that Logos can't match. I'm not suggesting one application is better than the other, I'm just pointing out one of the ways in which they're different.)

 

Mark, I can't speak for anyone other than myself, however, I feel your post was honest and friendly.

I appreciate you for taking the time to explain how you see things and what you think was Eli's point was. 

[EricC]

I think it's great that the programs are different in many ways. It seems to me the worst thing they could do is to try to imitate each other. I use four Bible software programs. I like them all, and I have a favorite. (Even it won't do everything I'd like it to, thus the multiplicity of tools.)

 

The thing that is most important to me is customer service. I think Accordance's is second to none (I'm leaving myself wiggle room, because I actually think the customer service of three of the four I use is excellent.)

[Michael P Finkelstein]

One, the speed of logos these days probably is also effected by the speed of one's Hard drive and/or SSD. I have a very fast SSD, but I still find that Accordance is much faster at running queries and displaying the results than Logos. That, of course may change in the future and people with different PC/Mac set ups may have different experiences than I. So, I agree with you that if speed was the only thing that Accordance had going for it that would be rather lame. However, Accordance has a lot more going for it than speed in my opinion. The way I as an end user am able to interact with Accodance and run searches is a lot more intuitive (in my opinion). 

 

Two, Academic claims are retaliative to where one's interest are. Here is a hypothetical example:  

Say there is a researcher out there who needs:

(a) to run queries on  'regular expression'

b ) to run queries on individual ta`amei ha-mikra   (cantillation marks/diacriticals)

c ) to run wildcard pattern string searches on  ta`amei ha-mikra  

(d)  to run searches on vowel patterns in the Hebrew without having search on specific consonant patterns.

(e) to access actual images of the Leningrad codex, the Dea sea scrolls

(f) Hebrew texts of the Mishnah, Talmuds, and medieval rabbinic commentaries, as well as primary documents from 2nd temple Judaism

(g) a company that focus primarily on producing, maintaining, and correcting primary texts of the Bible.

(g2)In other words: Quality over quantity

 

Such a person might find Accordance to be better at achieving his/her goals than Logos is.

 

On, the other hand I can understand how one one who needs lots of 2nd and 3rd hand resources and a big research library will find Logos better matches his/her academic interest. I use and love Logos as a theological library(e-reader), but as Bible Program, and a morpological-syntatical search engine the Accordance experience simply meets my goals better than anything else I have seen out there. 

A few comments regarding your a-g2;

 

a. Neither program has incorporated full-fledged REGEX searching. If they did, a great deal of the so-called commands would be redundant. In fact, with a simple Python Script and full regular expression capabilities and a Unicode BHS Text (or DSS, Mishnah, Talmud, whatever), I can get quicker results than either of the programs. Since I can program, this is what I often do; I am therefore not reliant on anyone's decisions except my own.

 

b-d. you do realize this is a medieval age of research, and moreover is not limited to B19a. I use MG Keter application for this kind of research, along with HUBP App IV (when available). MG Keter is unparalleled.

 

e. these images are free (and much better quality) on the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Website, as well as Inscriptifact Digital Library. I see no need to pay for free stuff.

 

f. I use Bar Ilan Responsa for this. It is unparalleled. Moreover, Sefaria is also quickly becoming a powerhouse, and they just received $1.5 Million grant to add more text and features. Again, it's free. Bar Ilan Responsa is based on the best editions of each respective text. A good talmudist scholar already knows where to access images of the mss for inspection. More so, the digital mishnah project was just awarded a large grant from NEH for their work. So, again, we are on the cusp of having everything Accordance offers in open source formatting. I am also aware of some very advanced projects underway regarding the scrolls, in which their aim is open source content accessible on the web in HTML 5. Also consider the recent announcement of Tiberias—my point here is that academics are now producing the material in conjunction with computer scientist. In five years time, both Logos and Accordance will have a hard time maintaining the interest of the Academic.

 

g. I think both companies are concerned with both quality and quantity.

 

Thanks.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Michael P Finkelstein

[R. Mansfield]

Mark, let me join BKMitchell in complimenting you on the spirit of your response. 

 

 

But what I think he was really trying to say (and if so I agree) is that Logos' approach to engineering often sacrifices speed for the sake of flexibility and possible future development. I could easily be wrong for the same reasons Eli might be wrong (neither of us know Accordance well). Feel free to politely correct me   .

 

My problem with Eli's position and your respectful attempt to interpret it has to do with the necessary implication that if Accordance is faster, it must be because it is not as flexible or prepared for possible future development. And I simply believe this suggestion is not accurate in regard to either application. You mentioned Logos' use of a slower technology, and I assume you're referring to the software's .NET foundation. That may be a factor, but that still doesn't address the implication regarding Accordance that I believe is inherent to your argument. 

 

I would suggest that when a text (or multiple texts) is opened in Accordance, there are immediately an infinite number of "flexible" possibilities waiting with the text. These are right there ready and waiting. That can include visual filters, too. A checkbox will immediately display differences between texts. I've seen Accordance users who have extremely intricate highlighting schemes, including icons integrated with the text, that instantaneously appear. Underlying data such as morphology and syntax that can display in instant details without any delay or drive crossover highlighting as fast as one can move the mouse, or even the fluid Info Pane that fluidly adapts and changes as quickly as one can scroll through the text--these are just there when the software loads. 

 

Accordance has continued to use a search text as the default workspace upon opening. It would be easy to say this is why it loads quicker. But actually, Accordance is "flexible" enough not to force this default on anyone. A user can have a customized startup workspace of nothing but Carta modules to load upon opening Accordance if he or she wants. A default workspace of Carta modules might take a second or two more to load than a default search text, but what is a second or two in comparison? Morris Proctor suggests for the other platform that the user start with a blank screen upon startup to save time (you could do this in Accordance, too, if you wanted) but would this make all things equal in regard to startup time when compared to Accordance? 

 

I could go on and take this further, but even on the Accordance forums I want to be careful not to cross lines of propriety in regard to potentially talking negatively about another company. My point is simply that I still don't buy Eli's explanations regardless of how politely and sincerely they are explained. 

 

For what it's worth, I don't believe Bible software is a zero sum game. That is, I don't believe for Accordance to win Logos has to lose or vice versa. We can go into strengths and weaknesses of platforms, but I assume that even in regard to weaknesses, platforms will continue to improve. I'm content to let those improvements continue to happen without having to publicly put down other platforms or make inaccurate assertions about the other platform. That was my beef with Eli's posts on the Logos forums and why I initially responded there. 

[markbarnes]

My problem with Eli's position and your respectful attempt to interpret it has to do with the necessary implication that if Accordance is faster, it must be because it is not as flexible or prepared for possible future development.

 

I'm not trying to imply that. I'm commenting on Logos' strategy, not yours. My quote in context: "Logos' approach to engineering often sacrifices speed for the sake of flexibility and possible future development." (emphasis added).

I'm simply saying that when it comes to coding there are always trade-offs, and priorities. Unless you have unlimited time and money, then that's inevitable. Logos has made no secret of the fact that speed is rarely a primary consideration for them (they've said more than once that they 'code first, optimise later'). On this thread it's been made clear that speed is more important to you guys, even from the design stage. That's great, and your users love it — but they'll be trade-offs, of course.

 

I've obviously also not made myself clear regarding my comments on flexibility. That relate to my observations (they're no more than that) on the underlying architecture of both Logos and Accordance, as I see them. I'm not referring to the number of different ways that users can operate the software. Perhaps flexibility was a poor choice of words on my part. I'm talking about the ways the datatypes work, text display, bible verse mapping, etc. Logos have made a number of design choices there which I don't see in Accordance, that in my opinion offer a greater potential for future development, because they are more abstracted (and therefore more flexible), but are therefore also somewhat slower. .NET and WPF are part of that, but I was talking primarily about the underlying architecture that Logos have built themselves.

 

For what it's worth, I don't believe Bible software is a zero sum game. That is, I don't believe for Accordance to win Logos has to lose or vice versa. We can go into strengths and weaknesses of platforms, but I assume that even in regard to weaknesses, platforms will continue to improve. I'm content to let those improvements continue to happen without having to publicly put down other platforms or make inaccurate assertions about the other platform. That was my beef with Eli's posts on the Logos forums and why I initially responded there. 

 

I agree with this. It's not dissimilar to the Mac vs PC argument. They have different strategies (closed vs open, software/hardware vs just software, etc.), and their own caricatures (PCs aren't secure! Macs are overpriced!), just like Accordance and Logos. Which is better? There's no real answer to that question. Which is better for me? Well, that question can be answered.

 

I know Eli reasonably well (through online interaction — we've never met), and I think he would be embarrassed by the upset he's caused. His comments were at the end of a long thread on the Logos forums that started as "Logos is better than Accordance!", turned into "No, Accordance is better than Logos!", and ended up at "Why can't Logos do this? Accordance can!". Eli was trying to answer that question. As I read the thread, Eli was simply trying to say that the two companies have a slightly different approach, both at a philosophical level and architectural level, which means that it's too simplistic to say that just because Accordance can do something, Logos should be able to do it too (and vice-versa, of course). In trying to explain that difference he's obviously upset you (and I can understand why). But I certainly don't believe he was deliberately trying to put Accordance down. He was simply trying to say that Logos had made their choices, and were confident that they were the right ones, even if that meant they couldn't do some of the things that Accordance can, or as quickly as Accordance can. In fairness, I don't think there was anything derogatory about what he said (although I accept your view that he was factually incorrect about how you structure your resource files).

[Michael P Finkelstein]

 In fairness, I don't think there was anything derogatory about what he said (although I accept your view that he was factually incorrect about how you structure your resource files).

 Here, from what I can tell by examining the coding elements of a tool, I am more suspect of the push back than I am of the claim!

 

 

(let me also say that a published software is more telling than what is presumed. There is a lot one can learn from examining the coding. As my comp prof. would say, no code is private, especially when it is published.)

Edited December 6, 2015 by Michael P Finkelstein

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi Michael,

 

  Your comments on opensource and research requirements interest me a bit. I agree on the utility of simple things like a base text and regex. But I have a question. What tools do you lack ? What would you like to see provided for research, in tools such as Logos or Acc or in open source ? Where do you think tooling should go ? I ask because I am actively thinking on these issues myself now.

 

Tx

D

[Michael P Finkelstein]

Daniel,

 

Thanks for the questions. First off, I am in a long line of Jewish tradition where the text is the tool to me. So, this has significant implications on how I view a tool. The only thing I'd like to see in digital format, for me at least, is a text and lexicon--perhaps some of the more detailed research grammars.

 

Accordance and Logos for that matter are ill suited in traditional rabbinic texts. The company is more Reformed Christian than anything when it comes to religious views and perhaps this why there is not much emphasis put on traditional rabbinic texts.

 

For research and academic integrity, one needs to the ability to code a text for himself or herself. In terms of rabbinic lit, Sefaria's source list sheets are apropos—and only one understandable of the intertextual relationships would have even thought of it! But for, the importance is that annotations need to be available to the research--not the programmer. The programmer just needs to say this is the format you can use, and put the burden of learning on the user (or even easier, let the researcher create his own variables for morph-tagging).

 

I see accordance as a decent tool for biblical studies. For textual studies, however, it is—to use an analogy—one volume on the shelf. One will have to get more volumes to complete the research.

 

There is certainly room in the market for an academically driven platform—and digital humanities are fetching large grant funding. All of this to say, we need an open source wiki-type platform where we can emend the data and contribute to the data. But as far as a published item that was intended to be read between two covers, I say let it stay in that format.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Your thoughts are not far from what I have been thinking about, not least the biblical versus textual studies remark.

My Hebrew is still so weak that Sefaria is a challenge for me. In time that will be less of a problem, but I'll look at the source list sheets. Actually I see a good deal of English just looking now - let me look in more detail. I think content generation is a need for true research and such content must be shareable and recreateable (for the purpose of verification of findings independently) and comparable.

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Thx

D

[Michael P Finkelstein]

No problem, Daniel.

 

For those interested in Bar Ilan, Jewish Software dot Org has a current sale. It's an older version, but the price is unbeatable.

 

Yes, Sefaria has some English translations. The more you can remain in Hebrew, the better off you will be working with this literature. It's an ancient philology—not scientific and modern like used in critical studies—and is necessary to see how the ancient tradents would make meaning from their sources (sometimes on the tense of verbs alone!). You will not get this in English translation.

[Brian K. Mitchell]

 

 

b-d. you do realize this is a medieval age of research, and moreover is not limited to B19a. I use MG Keter application for this kind of research, along with HUBP App IV (when available). MG Keter is unparalleled.

I realize that, but I was speaking strictly about the commercial Bible programs, I know very well about the oldest and the largest electronic database of Hebrew literature  Bar Ilan's Judaic Responsa. I am of course also aware of Menaḥem Cohen's Mikraot Gedolot ha-keter as well as the Hebrew University project (by the way there is one user on these forums named David Knoll who is working on that project in Israel). I also use and love http://www.hebrewbooks.org/ and http://www.otzar.org/. 

 

Now,  I doubt that this will happen, but I do wish the Accordance was able to get הרב מרדכי ברויאר (Mordechai Breuer ztl) edition of the Tanakh based on the Aleppo Codex כֶּתֶר אֲרָם צוֹבָא‎ or at least the   כתר ירושלים  (of course the Hebrew University Bible project is better and I would not mind seeing an electronic version of it)

 

 

Sefaria  ( http://www.sefaria.org/ ) is awesome!! Thanks for mentioning that project. 

Edited December 7, 2015 by bkMitchell

[David Knoll]

We use Accordance at HUBP. I think the integration of Accordance in our work was a game changer.

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi David,

 

That's interesting. Would you care to elaborate?

 

Regards,

 

Michel

 

[Edit: can't even spell my own name]

Edited December 7, 2015 by Michel Gilbert

[David Knoll]

Hi David,

 

That's interesting. Would you care to elaborate?

 

Regards,

 

Michel

 

[Edit: can't even spell my own name]

Offhand and in a nutshell: We previously used concordances to decide whether a reading represents a variant and now we can even check how syntactical constructions are translated to see if a difference between versions is significant. The ability to quickly search more than one word in the same verse and even grammatical constructions reduced the preparation time considerably. We are now able to offer much more comparative data: verses which might have influenced the translator, similar cases of inner-Greek or inner-Syriac corruptions etc. The apparatus now incorporates hundreds if not thousands of Accordance searches. We were able to do that only because Accordance was intuitive enough and quick enough to allow us to search these data in real time during our meetings. 

Edited December 8, 2015 by David Knoll