Differences in Hebrew Bibles

Michel Pauw

I have:

• BHS: SESB 2.0 Version (and it is strange, but I do have two copies in my Library, exactly the same!)
• BHS: with Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit Morphology
• The Hebrew Bible: Anderson-Forbes Analyzed Text
• The Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible
• The Lexham Hebrew Bible

Questions:

1. How can I have two copies of the same resource in my Library (the only difference being that one is used 2% and the other 7%)?

2. What are the differences?

3. Which one is considered the best one and for what reasons?

NB.Mick

I have:

• BHS: SESB 2.0 Version (and it is strange, but I do have two copies in my Library, exactly the same!)
• BHS: with Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit Morphology
• The Hebrew Bible: Anderson-Forbes Analyzed Text
• The Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible
• The Lexham Hebrew Bible

Questions:

1. How can I have two copies of the same resource in my Library (the only difference being that one is used 2% and the other 7%)?

2. What are the differences?

3. Which one is considered the best one and for what reasons?

1. It's not the same resource - names are arbitrary, the real identifier for Logos are the resource id LLS:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and the (often identical) filename. Those two BHS SESB editions have different IDs (see the support info down below at the info page) and theoretically could be very different.
2. In case of the two BHS editions, IIRC they were real duplicates at a time and Faithlife decided to abandon one of them - so you should use the one with the newer date in the support info, the other is obsolete (this was an official statement some time ago, I think from Bradley).
   In terms of the other Hebrew bibles, it's the morphological analysis which is different for all of them except the discourse one. The text is AFAIK the same for all of them (BHS based on Codex Leningrad or so).
3. Depends.

• When the academic community you write papers for prefers or even dictates one, you take that.
• When you often use Logos tools like BWS, especially across languages, you'd want the Logos Hebrew Morphology used.  
• For discourse analysis, the discourse version might be very helpful (gives a structured display of the text tracing textual argument flow)
• When you are keen on the much more detailed morphological analysis of AFAT, which e.g. has places identified, (maybe even supported by L4-level Logos training material), you take that.
• When you like the WIVU analysis plus the accompanying "constituency trees" (syntax visualization like Cascadia or Opentext do for the Greek NT), take that 

Hope this helps.