I think Susan has a valid concern, but I'll get to it in a moment. There is still lot of confusion regarding Hebrew texts in Acc,
and at least from a scholarly point of view, and Joel inavertently added to it a bit. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that he read too much into Westminster's description of their text. Even if he didn't, others might have.
First, BHS and Westminster texts both transcribe the Leningrad codex. To follow BHS is to follow Leningrad, the same for Westminster. Westminster says that after it transcribed/copied BHS 1983, and continued the work, it made hundreds of changes towards Leningrad. Taken in context, this doesn't even mean that BHS has many hundreds of transcription errors, but that in their continued work on the text, they found hundreds of errors against L B19. My Logos edition of HMT has some places where it says, "We read a consonant in L differently than in BHS," e.g., at Gen 14:2, So, in the context of approx 300,000+ words in the HB, the GBS and Westminster disagree on the reading of a few hundred consonants, which usually boils down to yod/waw confusion. So, BHS and HMT are practically the same as L, and one still has to check Leningrad to make a decision to follow BHS or HMT.
Second, what God joined together in the German Bible Society, i.e., BHS, its apparatus, and its morphology from WIVU, and which is available in Logos and BW as separate modules, Accordance has separated. It is quite simple in L and BW - the Westminster text is matched with Westminster morphology, and you can buy the GBS modules for its text, morphology, and apparatus. Regarding Susan's point, my BHS apparatus has the Qere spelled out, either fully, or with a hint so you can fill out the rest. I'm shocked to hear it's not spelled out in Acc's version, and that Susan has to go back and forth.
Third, there is confusion regarding ETCBC. It is not clear which edition or year of BHS it uses - still 1977? Did the momentum of the project with its almost half a million tags prevent easy updates of BHS? And, its relationship to SESB 3.0 is not as clear as its relationship with the original SESB 2.0 version. If ETCBC is equivalent to SESB 3.0, with the latest BHS and WIVU morphology, then Acc would have clear equivalents to L and BW, i.e., Westminster MT/morphology matched, and BHS/GBS morphology matched. But there is still the issue of BHS's apparatus in a separate module. I can read BHS, and access its apparatus and GBS morphology with German and English glosses in the same module, with the Qere spelled out. I know for a fact that the way Acc separated the GBS offerings has been a deal breaker for
a some former colleagues of mine, and for some new found scholar friends.
Anyways, honestly just trying to be constructive. Perhaps Acc could look into offering the Stuttgart Original Languages Modules, OT (and NT) like BW does. I assume it is based at least on SESB 3.0.
Edited: at the strikeouts
Edited by Michel Gilbert, 20 June 2017 - 09:09 AM.