BHS-W4 to HMT-W4 Update?

[Brett K.]

I see that I can update from BHS-W4 to HMT-W4 for free. What is different between them?

I don't know Hebrew or Greek, but I use these modules to look at the basis for English translations. What are the advantages of updating to HMT-W4?

Does HMT-W4 replace BHS-W4 or can you have both at the same time?

Thanks

--

Brett

[Brett K.]

Bueller…Bueller…Bueller…

[ukfraser]

I have replaced bms with hmt in 2012 and just use hmt these days, as it was free upgrade and i trust the folks at accordance to only issue an upgrade if it is required. Not sure if bms is still maintained with corrections while hmt will be.

 

Below are the information notes for it, there are no resource notes like we have for the tagged Gnt. Sorry dont have bms on the ipad for reference and no longer in my available downloads but if you have bms, you can compare.

 

I will let someone more knowledgable explain the differences between the two but it could be as simple as realligning title.

 

But there is a hint from helen halfway down this thread

https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/15164-verses-in-hebrew-bible-bhs-but-not-in-biblia-hebraica-stuttgartensia-and-hebrew-bible/

Edited June 18, 2017 by ukfraser

[Brett K.]

Thanks for the info. I don't know much about it at all. I know BHS is has some relation to "Stuttgartensia" and the HMT has something to do with Leningrad. Are these using the same manuscripts? Is this still the Hebrew Bible most translators use?

Sorry for being so ignorant on this one.

Thanks

[ukfraser]

I find sometimes Ignorance is bliss, just happy to sit at the feet of the masters gathering up crumbs.

 

So much else to discover (like the current fathers sale illustrates).

 

;o)

 

According to this it is 'almost identical' to bhs so there are differences but how important compared to not being updated. However, as we are both using these to understand english translations, i guess we really should look at the english and see what it is based on and then use the appropriate underlying translation though i just use the hmt in interlinear these days as my ignorance is linked to Convenience (also called laziness).

 

From the accordance web site free update page

 

This upgrade is offered free to users who previously purchased the BHS-W4. Purchase of this product will supply user with Biblia Hebraica with Westminster Hebrew Morph 4 (HMT-W4). Please place this product in your cart like any other order. Manual processing is required for this order.

 

Requires Accordance 9 or above.

 

The complete text of the Hebrew Bible, following the Biblia Hebraica Leningradensis, with the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.18. This module includes vowel pointing, cantillation marks, and lemma and grammatical tagging information for each word in the text. The text is almost identical to the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

Edited June 18, 2017 by ukfraser

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Brett,

Without wishing to become embroiled in controvery, here are a few things to consider.

 

At https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/17352-difference-between-bhs-w4-and-hmt-w4/?hl=mudded&do=findComment&comment=84112 I wrote, "I'm not sure if everyone knows that HMT originated as a transcription of BHS (see https://students.wts.edu/resources/alangroves/grovesprojects.html). Moreover, I don't think BHS and HMT share the same tagging database. A brilliant example is the one Dr. Holmstedt mentioned at https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/17348-trying-to-understand-pronominal-suffixes/?do=findComment&comment=84084 - "I would take חשׁבי מחשׁבת in Exod 35.[3]5 as a participle bound to its complement, but the Westminster tagging takes חושׁב as a noun, not a participle." The SESB BHS tagging is, "Qal, participle . . . " So, just because HMT is updated more often than BHS, it doesn't mean HMT is more accurate! It may just mean BHS doesn't have as many errors.

 

They are both based on the same manuscript. But their tagging differs ever so slightly.   In many scholarly opinions, BHS's tagging is sometimes better than HMT's. For example, see the example above. At the same time, no Hebrew teacher/scholar treats either tagging database as the final authoritative word on the subject.

 

I would think the reason that Acc has said HMT is corrected more often than BHS, i.e., with regards to the tagging mostly, is that they don't carry the SESB (Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible) edition anymore, which has the latest updates from the German Bible Society. Even though Logos and BW carry it, I don't see it on Accordance's website. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

If I were you, I would update and keep both if you can.

Regards,

Michel

 

 

Edit: fixed the links, although you have to scroll down for the first one

Edited June 18, 2017 by Michel Gilbert

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Also, if you get into Hebrew the HMT is the text which supports the Holmstedt Hebrew Syntax module.

 

Here are some threads on the differences:

 

   https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/9960-greek-gnt-t-vs-na28-t-hebrew-hmt-w4-vs-bhs-t/

   https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/17352-difference-between-bhs-w4-and-hmt-w4/

 

Thx

D

[Fabian]

I would think the reason that Acc has said HMT is corrected more often than BHS, i.e., with regards to the tagging mostly, is that they don't carry the SESB (Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible) edition anymore, which has the latest updates from the German Bible Society. Even though Logos and BW carry it, I don't see it on Accordance's website. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If I'm correct the database from the SESB was the one from WIVU which is now ETCBC. Available here https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=MT-ETCBC. The Accordance implantation differs a little bit from the Shebanq. So I know can the Accordance version a little bit less. But also the L version differs to integrate it in their software.

 

See also the banner from the DBG/GBS on the bottom of https://shebanq.ancient-data.org

 

 

But for you Brett I think it doesn't matter which one you own on the Accordance library. 

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[Brett K.]

Hi Brett,

 

Without wishing to become embroiled in controvery, here are a few things to consider.

 

At https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/17352-difference-between-bhs-w4-and-hmt-w4/?hl=mudded&do=findComment&comment=84112 I wrote, "I'm not sure if everyone knows that HMT originated as a transcription of BHS (see https://students.wts.edu/resources/alangroves/grovesprojects.html). Moreover, I don't think BHS and HMT share the same tagging database. A brilliant example is the one Dr. Holmstedt mentioned at https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/17348-trying-to-understand-pronominal-suffixes/?do=findComment&comment=84084 - "I would take חשׁבי מחשׁבת in Exod 35.[3]5 as a participle bound to its complement, but the Westminster tagging takes חושׁב as a noun, not a participle." The SESB BHS tagging is, "Qal, participle . . . " So, just because HMT is updated more often than BHS, it doesn't mean HMT is more accurate! It may just mean BHS doesn't have as many errors.

Whenever I read an English translatoins basis for the OT, it usually says BHS. Is the HMT ever used for translation? If so, which translations use it?

 

Thanks

Doe Accordance allow you to run both modules or does the HMT replace BHS?

[ukfraser]

I have both bhs-w4 and hmt-w4 on my mbp running v12

I have hmt-w4 on my ipad and phone. Bhs isnt showing up on easy install (but second greek text is) on either but think i could probably sync it if i needed to but am happy to only have one.

 

Fraser

Edited June 18, 2017 by ukfraser

[Michel Gilbert]

Whenever I read an English translatoins basis for the OT, it usually says BHS. Is the HMT ever used for translation? If so, which translations use it?

 

 

Hi Brett,

A simple answer to your question is, BHS, then HMT, are both trying to do the same thing, to transcribe the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript, Codex Leningrad B19. HMT started with BHS's transcription. But, since BHS also included text critical notes, it became the scholarly standard for translation. But anyone starting with BHS now would probably also check HMT to see if they had any corrections towards the manuscript. Also, English, etc. translations are not just translations of L B19. There are many text critical decisions that have to be made, some of which rely on the notes in BHS, but many which don't. There are also other scholarly editions to check now.

I don't know of any translations that are based on HMT. Since BHS and HMT are practically identical, and since HMT doesn't have scholarly notes like BHS does, there is no reason to state "based on HMT" as opposed to BHS.

Regards,

 

Michel

[Michel Gilbert]

If I'm correct the database from the SESB was the one from WIVU which is now ETCBC.

 

 

Hi Fabian,

Yes, WIVU/ETCBC is based on BHS, but I don't know if it is updated along with SESB, i.e., whether the texts are identical. It would be good if you could find out for us!

Regards,

Michel

[Brett K.]

1. What is the advantage of the HMT over the BHS? Why would I want to update?

2. Can you run both modules simultaneously?

Thanks

[Λύχνις Δαν]

If you are speaking in terms of Accordance modules which I'll assume, the answer to 1 depends upon what you want to do. If you want to read a bit of Hebrew you're not likely to notice much difference between the two. If you want to do syntax searches based on the Holmstedt model you simply have to use HMT as that is what that syntax is based on. If you want to look at variants and text critical issues you are going to need an apparatus and that would point you to BHS or to the BHQ if you get really into it. Of course these are add-on modules once you have one or other of the base texts.

 

Regarding running both Fraser I think addressed that. I personally do not have BHS, I use HMT and ETCBC, but then I'm not doing text critical stuff. If you want confirmation on the upgrade, whether it will leave you with both or whether it really replaces the BHS with an HMT, and whether you can run them in parallel - I would be very surprised if you could not as they sell BHS and HMT modules separately and I already use HMT and ETCBC together on occasion - the best I can recommend is call Oaktree sales. They have always helped me out with such questions very quickly.

 

Thx
D

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Fabian,

To clarify, my Logos SESB edition says the text is copyright of DBG (BHS, [1977]), and the morphology is copyright of WIVU. So you are certainly correct that the SESB morphology came from WIVU.

But it's not clear if the BHS in ETCBC is the updated 1997 edition, whether ETCBC updated the SESB morphology, and if they did, whether those updates made it to the SESB editions in Logos and BW. So I don't know if the ETCBC in Acc is the same as the SESB editions in other Bible software.

I remember there being one update to SESB on Logos a few years back. I think we would have to contact DBG and ETCBC to see if that update reflects the latest ETCBC text and morphology. If it does, it would be to Accordance's advantage to advertise ETCBC as the equivalent of SESB BHS in other software. Also, we would be able to answer Brett's original question more precisely. I prefer SESB over HMT, and if ETCBC is the same as SESB BHS, I would recommend it to Brett.

Regards,

Michel

[Michel Gilbert]

1. What is the advantage of the HMT over the BHS? Why would I want to update?

 

 

Brett,

 

 

I just remembered that Accordance’s BHS module is matched with the Westminster morphology, not with the German Bible Society’s morphology. So I have to revise one of my statements. Accordance has said that BHS isn’t updated as frequently as HMT. That’s because only the text of BHS is updated. Morphological tags for BHS come from Westminster, and someone decided to stop them at a certain version number, 4.14 I think, for BHS. The updates for the Westminster tags continue in HMT, up to version 4.20. So of course, now HMT is updated more frequently than BHS. While the texts of BHS and HMT are nearly identical, the updated morphology from Westminster is in HMT.  On that basis alone, you should update to see the new tags, and compare them to the old.

 

The text of the ETCBC is nearly identical to BHS and HMT, perhaps identical to BHS. If ETCBC’s morphological tags are identical to SESB’s, or nearly so, then you might find some significant differences between it and BHS/HMT. You would have to wait on Accordance to answer this question.

 

Sorry for the confusion. I assumed that BHS in Acc was paired with GBS tagging. As an aside, I would be interested in knowing if BHS in Acc was originally paired with SESB tagging in the Mac Studienbibel. I thought someone told me this once.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

[Joel Brown]

We have multiple Hebrew texts by now.  Any and all can be used simultaneously, even for comparison purposes.  The only reasons to not keep multiple ones are 1) Hard Drive/Accordance Library clutter, 2) Potential confusion, if you open the 'wrong' one for a particular purpose.

 

1) HMT-W4 (https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=HMT-W4).  This is our 'main' Hebrew text.  It is the Westminister morphology and follows the Biblia Hebraica Leningradensis text.  It is compatible with the Holmstedt Syntax database (https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=HMT-W4.syntax).  This is also receiving the most updates as necessary.

 

2) BHS-W4 (not available anymore).  This is our old 'main' Hebrew text.  It is no longer updated, and it followed the BHS text a bit more instead of the Leningrad text.  It is compatible with an old version of the Holmstedt database, but is not recommended for use.  There is a free upgrade to get to the HMT-W4 (https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=HMT-W4-free).

 

3) BHS-T (https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=BHS-T).  This is our 'main' Hebrew text with apparatus.  It currently uses the Westminister morphology, but attached to text that follows the BHS instead of Leningrad.  It also has the apparatus markings throughout the text to link to the BHS Apparatus information.  However, there is currently no Syntax database that connects to it.

 

4) ETCBC (https://www.accordancebible.com/ETCBC/).  This is our new ETCBC morphological and syntactical database.  It is quite up to date with the ETCBC database (formerly known as WIVU) (https://www.godgeleerdheid.vu.nl/en/research/institutes-and-centres/eep-talstra-centre-for-bible-and-computer/index.aspx).  The ETCBC database includes both morphology and syntax, but follows very different conventions than both Westminster and Holmstedt.  The text does seem to have very minor differences with both the BHS and HMT.

 

I hope this helps!  I find it useful to have multiple texts available, as comparing the different textual, morphological, and/or syntactical versions of a passage is quite fascinating.

[Susan]

My difficulty has been that, as far as I've been able to figure out, neither BHS nor HMT combine the BHS notes with the Masoretic qere the way that the paper BHS does.  Sometimes in BHS there is a note "mlt Mss ut Q" or some such thing, which at least alerts you that there's an important variant in Q, but the variant itself is generally not there (and for most reading I don't look at every BHS note anyway, whereas the Q are rather unavoidable for making sense of many texts). I could just switch to HMT (which has the qere in line), but then I'm missing the BHS notes when I do want them. Has anybody found a solution to this?

Edited June 20, 2017 by Susan

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi,

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.

Regards,

Michel

 

Edited: at the strikeouts

Edited June 20, 2017 by Michel Gilbert

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Honestly this is a problem with digital data all over. I was discussing the issue of digital provenance a couple of months back and it is in cases like this, and many others, that it shows its importance.

 

I know comparatively little about the ETCBC versions but I do know that there are a b an c versions as they are referred to. a and b are available in Shenbanq. c is not yet but then it is available for coders via a Python framework. I have in the past asked here if we could even identify whether the Accordance version of ETCBC accorded with any one of these versions. I suspect the answer is "not quite". I also know that I requested updates to the ETCBC text for four verb occurrences a little while back after discussions here. I now the changes were made (it was confirmed to me) but I do not know when those changes will ripple through.

 

So I agree that it would be good to know the relationships between all these texts but it will be a business to accurately reconstruct and almost impossible I suspect to keep accurately up to date. We probably end up wanting to generate DOIs on a version by version basis for all of them and document the changes, and indicate at which version a particular new branch diverged, but I don't know if anyone is up for that. And in any case putting a stake in the ground now would involve some work I suspect. I rather fear, sometimes when feeling pessimistic, that we are adding to the problems of variant textual witnesses as time goes on rather than the reverse, due to the differing text lines and branches.

 

For casual reading, and for learning languages, none of this matters, probably in the slightest. But for scholarly work of course it does matter.

 

Thx

D

Edited June 20, 2017 by דָנִיאֶל

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi Daniel,

I agree in general, except regarding learning Hebrew. You only progress as a reader when you make sense of the text, eventually encountering the K/Q, which often help to establish subject/predicate agreement, and progressing to critical notes regarding other readings, whether supported by witnesses or not. Susan appears to be at this intermediate stage, and having to go back and forth is something I wouldn't tolerate as a reader, or as a teacher. As it says in the Prolegomena, "May BHS find everywhere fair critics, but especially readers worthy of the greatness of the subject."

Regards,

Michel

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Fair point - I guess I have just revealed I have not yet got that far which I haven't really but progress continues. I would just use the ETCBC or HMT with it inline, but I agree that it would be nice to all the features (incl. the apparatus) integrated in one text.

 

Thx

D

Edited June 20, 2017 by דָנִיאֶל

[Michel Gilbert]

 GBS and Westminster disagree on the reading of a few hundred consonants,

 

An update for those interested, and a request

 

It appears I have read too much into Westminster's description of their modifications towards Leningrad. After further research, it appears that consonantal changes may be in the tens, not the hundreds.

For BHS and HMT, the consonantal text of Leningrad conceptually includes the marginal Qeres. It appears that most/almost all of HMT's proposed different readings of consonants are to the Qeres. These different readings of the Qeres even include such things as the mysterious yathir readings (disregard the superflous yod or waw, according to Tov).

So, it appears that a major portion of the many hundreds of modifications towards Leningrad, in the course of Westminster's continued work, affects the Qeres, which aren't even pointed in Leningrad, and are open to interpretation. They even add a maqef to some Qeres, and these too probably count as changes.

I can't find a way to search the popups in HMT to list the many hundreds of changes. And I can't find a list of Westminster's many hundreds of modifications. If there is one, they should make it more readily available. I would like to know if the vast majority of consonantal modifications occur in Qeres, and if the vast majority of the remaining modifications are limited to different readings of accents, and a vowel here and there.

Microsoft Word says there are about 2.5 million characters in my BHS file. I'm sure that the amount of significant variations between it and HMT can be whittled down from many hundreds, and the ones that remain would be open to investigation and interpretation.

Like I've said, BHS and HMT are practically identical. And just like there is no practical reason to base a translation on HMT as opposed to BHS, there is no practical reason for scholars and their students to switch from BHS to HMT. BW offered the Stuttgart Original Languages Modules because it was "often requested by advanced BibleWorks users." I want to do the same in Accordance. I request that Accordance offers BHS, its apparatus, GBS morphology, and its English and German glosses in one module. I ask this because I want to do all of my  work in Accordance.

 

Regards,

 

Michel