Lexham Hebrew Bible vs. BHS w/morphology

Page 1 of 1 (11 items)
This post has 10 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 149
Alexander Fogassy | Forum Activity | Posted: Wed, Jan 10 2018 2:52 PM

I own the LHB and am considering buying the BHS w/morphology for my Seminary studies.

After reading the descriptions of each, it seems both are based on the Leningrad codex and both have morphological information as well as vowel pointers. 

So, is there any significant advantage the BHS has over Faithlife's LHB? 

Thanks!

Posts 1586
John Kight | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 10 2018 5:06 PM

Regardless of the base text, you will likely need the critical apparatus in the near future. I would recommend taking the plunge on the Stuttgart Scholarly Editions: Old and New Testament bundle, or at least BHS with the critical apparatus.  

For book reviews and more visit sojotheo.com 

Posts 694
Steve Maling | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jan 10 2018 5:53 PM

I'm with John.

Posts 147
C.E.H. | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 11 2018 12:25 AM

Alexander Fogassy:

So, is there any significant advantage the BHS has over Faithlife's LHB? 

There is a very helpful Logos side, where you can see all the differences:

https://www.logos.com/hebrew-texts-product-guide

Posts 147
C.E.H. | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 11 2018 12:30 AM

John Kight:

Regardless of the base text, you will likely need the critical apparatus in the near future. I would recommend taking the plunge on the Stuttgart Scholarly Editions: Old and New Testament bundle, or at least BHS with the critical apparatus.  

The BHS and the BHQ are the academic editions of the Hebrew text. The LHB is only a Logos version.

So John is right, the BHS with critical apparatus is a good choice

Posts 149
Alexander Fogassy | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 11 2018 5:39 AM

Okay thank you everyone.

I understand that BHS w/apparatus is the "critical" text of choice, but it seems to NOT have the features that the BHS w/morphology has. Can someone please expound? 

Also, which one is better, BHS w/WIVU morphology or the BHW?

Thanks again. 

Posts 19205
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 11 2018 8:51 AM

C.E.H.:
The BHS and the BHQ are the academic editions of the Hebrew text. The LHB is only a Logos version.

Logos Hebrew Morphology and Logos Aramaic Morphology are also used in Old Testament Reverse Interlinear resources. Faithlife integration of Lexham Hebrew Bible (LHB) includes Clause Search (not mentioned on product page). LHB has Inline Interlinear for Kethiv Reading, Qere Reading, and Kethiv-Qere Hybrid form

The German Bible Society editions => Stuttgart Scholarly Editions: Old Testament (16 vols.) have Khetiv and Qere readings.

Reply by Vincent Setterholm on 4 Nov 2012 => https://community.logos.com/forums/p/30110/417149.aspx#417149 includes:

Vincent Setterholm:

What makes the BHS one of the Bibles of choice amongst scholars is not primarily the text (though it is a good one, most of editions of L are very nice in their own way), but the critical apparatus and the Massorah - all the marginal notes and footnotes.

 

The only complete edition that includes the apparatus (and the in-text indicators for looking up information in the apparatus) is the BHS SESB. This does not include the Massorah that is found in the print BHS. The BHQ fascicles are a work in progress, but they do contain the Massorah. (I think there are also Massorah notes in the print BHS that do not come from L, but from other manuscript traditions. I haven't dug into BHQ to know precisely which Massorah they are reproducing - only those from L or from the broader tradition. But eventually there will be a complete set of Massorah notes of some kind in the BHQ - and if I remember right, they're translating that material so that non-specialists can access it. Nice!)

Reply by Vincent Setterholm on 10 Feb 2014 in thread BHS and BHW => https://community.logos.com/forums/p/81118/567644.aspx#567644 has insights about Hebrew Bibles. FYI: sympathetic highlighting in Logos 5 has been superseded by Corresponding Words. Later reply in thread => https://community.logos.com/forums/p/81118/567832.aspx#567832 includes:

Vincent Setterholm:

Personally, I'd love it if everyone used LHB as their go-to Hebrew Bible, because I'd like to gather as much feedback on that edition as possible, since that's the one we can improve in house. There's another, perhaps more compelling, reason to do with pronominal suffixes (see below). In terms of searching, one major feature LHB currently has that BHW does not is searching on roots (in addition to lemmas), though BHW tags some morph features that LHB does not (like more particular tagging of the volitives for form vs. function). LHB has a slightly fuller treatment of Kethiv-Qere in that it includes the hybrid form with the consonants of the K and the vowels of the Q. (That was something we added to one older edition of the Westminster database, but probably shouldn't have - it wasn't part of their data and they got typo reports for a couple of my mistakes!)

 

BHW and BHS SESB currently treat pronominal suffixes in the same 'segment' as the word they are attached to, and then have the suffix information tacked on to the end of the morph code. While LHB, AFAT and BHS/WIVU all split the pronominal suffixes out into separate segments. So if you're using only BHS SESB or BHW, you're going to miss out on some of our in-house data work that involves hanging data on individual segments. For example, we've done work disambiguating pronouns by tagging their referent (e.g. where 'him' or 'his' = Moses in some particular instance). You'll miss out on some of that context-sensitive information that comes not from the Hebrew Bible itself, but from our in-house ancillary databases, when you're working with databases that segment the text very differently than the LHB and AFAT. And this, then, is also a reason why one might keep BHS/WIVU around even if one had BHS/SESB - assuming BHS/WIVU gets an update at some point.

Thread posted on 25 Jan 2016 => Biblia Hebraica transcripta (BHt, aka "Richter Morphology"): Pending Release

Thread posted on 10 Feb 2016 => WIVU Constituency Trees Updated

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 694
Steve Maling | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 11 2018 9:18 AM

Picking up on this last paragraph from Vincent -

BHW and BHS SESB currently treat pronominal suffixes in the same 'segment' as the word they are attached to, and then have the suffix information tacked on to the end of the morph code. While LHB, AFAT and BHS/WIVU all split the pronominal suffixes out into separate segments. So if you're using only BHS SESB or BHW, you're going to miss out on some of our in-house data work that involves hanging data on individual segments. For example, we've done work disambiguating pronouns by tagging their referent (e.g. where 'him' or 'his' = Moses in some particular instance). You'll miss out on some of that context-sensitive information that comes not from the Hebrew Bible itself, but from our in-house ancillary databases, when you're working with databases that segment the text very differently than the LHB and AFAT. And this, then, is also a reason why one might keep BHS/WIVU around even if one had BHS/SESB - assuming BHS/WIVU gets an update at some point.

I find that the "Word  By Word" section in  the "Exegetical Guide" provides a very useful summary comparison of the various parsings. In my own adaptation as "My Guide" I have LHB, Westminster, SESB, and WIVU all showing.

Posts 149
Alexander Fogassy | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 11 2018 5:09 PM

I think i'm simply more confused than I was before....

sounds like LHB it is for me until I have the scholarly knowledge necessary to appreciate the different works....

Posts 149
Alexander Fogassy | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 11 2018 8:24 PM

Is there any real advantage of having BHS/WIVU over LHB?

Posts 19205
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 11 2018 10:00 PM

Alexander Fogassy:

I think i'm simply more confused than I was before....

sounds like LHB it is for me until I have the scholarly knowledge necessary to appreciate the different works....

When ready for critical apparatus, concur with John:

John Kight:

Regardless of the base text, you will likely need the critical apparatus in the near future. I would recommend taking the plunge on the Stuttgart Scholarly Editions: Old and New Testament bundle, or at least BHS with the critical apparatus.  

Massorah Gedolah: Manuscrit B. 19a de Léningrad (Hebrew marginal notes) is in some bundles:

Alexander Fogassy:

Is there any real advantage of having BHS/WIVU over LHB?

Personally not know (yet) as still have much Hebrew to learn. For visual filters, plan to learn Logos Hebrew Morphology before WIVU.

Keep Smiling Smile

Page 1 of 1 (11 items) | RSS