emanuel tov background

THE USE OF COMPUTERS IN BIBLICAL RESEARCH

EMANUEL TOV

BACKGROUND

Computers provide us with passive tools that are also active andinteractive when used as an extension of our own thinking in the studyof Scripture. In both areas, colleagues, projects, and companies havecreated tools with great potential for searching and researching, butthese are greatly under-used for a variety of reasons. There remains awide gap between the knowledge of the experts creating the tools andthat of the scholars for whom the tools are intended. The idea behindthese tools is that we scholars continue our investigations as before,but now utilize the additional tools and databases.1

Computer programs and databases serve active and passive func-tions. As passive tools, they serve us just like books, especially texteditions, concordances, lexicons, grammars, commentaries, atlases,and encyclopedias. As active tools, programs and databases can beused to improve and expand the areas of our research. We make a dis-tinction between non-flexible computer-assisted research and flexiblecomputer programs and databases. Some very fine computer-assistedresearch has been presented to the public in a fixed, printed, form. Ifperchance a reader wished to retrieve information from the data thatthe author had not thought of providing, it would be a lost cause, sincethe reader has no access to the computer data and, in the worst casescenario, the electronic data may no longer be in existence. On theother hand, if a database is available to the public, all questions can beasked at any time.

Seventeen years ago, at a computer conference, I stressed that therewas a yawning gap between the knowledge of computer experts andthat of the public at large,2 and this is still the case. Colleagues and

1 This paper is dedicated to a dear friend and an appreciated colleague, a man

of great wisdom and of unequaled experience in the reading of biblical scrolls andpreparing text editions.

2 E. Tov, “A New Generation of Biblical Research,” in Proceedings of theFirst International Colloquium Bible and Computer, The Text, Louvain-la-Neuve

338 EMANUEL TOV

students still do not open an electronic search program with the sameease as a printed concordance, even if the former provides far betterresults.

I cannot survey the results of computer-assisted research in the pre-sent context, nor do I necessarily know everything that has been ac-complished. Often the creation of tools has occupied our minds morethan their use in research, but it is the latter to which I turn. In biblicalscholarship, computer-assisted studies have focused on the followingareas:

1. Authorship StudiesScholars have tried to determine authorship with the aid of statisti-

cal analysis of pericopes of 100 words or more, especially outside therealm of biblical scholarship. Statistical analysis was supposed to an-swer questions such as whether or not two segments of a compositionwere composed by the author whose name is connected with thatcomposition, and also whether two different compositions were per-chance composed by the same author. In our area, pioneering workwas performed by Y. Radday et al.3 The statistics provided by theseauthors were supposed to show that the only distinction which can bemade between the so-called sources of Genesis is that between thePriestly layer P and the combined source JE. In their view, J and E arenot separate entities. This early work by Radday et al. has been criti-cized much by J. Krispenz,4 who herself favors computerized statisti-cal research that is based on different principles.5 Criticism had been

(Belgique) 2–3–4 septembre 1985 (Paris: Champion; Geneva: Sladkine, 1986)413–43.

3 Y. T. Radday and H. Shore, Genesis, An Authorship Study in Computer-Assisted Statistical Linguistics (AnBib 103; Rome: Biblical Institute Press;Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1985).

4 J. Krispenz, Literarkritik und Stilstatistik im Alten Testament: Eine Studie zurliterarkritischen Methode, durchgeführt an Texten aus den Büchern Jeremia,Ezechiel und I Könige (BZAW 307; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001). See also G. E.Weil et al., Le livre d’Isaîe et l’analyse critique des sources textuelles,” in J. P.Benzécri (ed.), Pratique de l’analyse des donneés (Paris: Dunod, 1982) 140–60.

5 Among other things, she criticizes Radday for formulating criteria for lin-guistic analysis that are meaningful in the analysis of German, but not Hebrewliterature. Krispenz also claims (p. 90) that Radday explained away the differ-ences between P on the one hand and J and E on the other by ascribing these dif-ferences to different literary genres (Gattungen).

THE USE OF COMPUTERS IN BIBLICAL RESEARCH 339

voiced earlier by A. D. Forbes who claimed that Radday used thewrong sampling practices for attempting to establish authorship.6 Inote that all these authorship studies are not easily intelligible to thosewho are not experts in mathematics, and therefore, according to V.Premstaller, cannot be evaluated well.7

2. StylisticIn a long series of studies using the database of the Werkgroep In-

formatica in Amsterdam, F. Polak investigated the vocabulary of theHebrew Bible. One study investigates in particular the relation be-tween the number of verbs in the sentence as opposed to the numberof nouns.8 The author shows that this relation changes in the transitionfrom early to late Hebrew in the Bible and also differs between thedifferent literary genres. In another study, Polak investigated the epicformulas used in Scripture.9

3. LinguisticSeveral important computer-assisted linguistic studies have been

written, mainly in Europe. As far as I know, only a few traditional lin-guistic studies involving the analysis of specific words, word-groups,grammatical forms, vocalization patterns, and linguistic features of abiblical book or layer in the Bible have been carried out with the aidof computerized data. These studies mainly advance modern linguistictheories, and not the exegesis of these books.10

6 A. Dean Forbes, “A Critique of Statistical Approaches to the Isaiah Author-

ship Problem,” in Association Internationale Bible et Informatique, Actes duTroisième Colloque International (Paris: Champion; Geneva: Sladkine, 1992)531–45., idem, “Statistical Research on the Bible,” ABD (1992) 6.185–206.

7 V. Premstaller, on the work of Krispenz: http://www.bookreviews.org/.8 F. Polak, “New Means–New Ends: Scholarship and Computer Data,” Asso-

ciation Internationale Bible et Informatique 4 (Travaux de Linguistique Quantita-tive 57; Paris: Slatkine, 1995) 282–312.

9 F. H. Polak, “Epic Formulas in Biblical Narrative: Frequency and Distribu-tion, 2 in R. Poswick et al. (ed.), Les actes du second colloque internationale Bi-ble et†Informatique: mèthodes, outils, résultats (Jerusalem, 9–13 Juin 1988)(Genève: Champion-Slatkine, 1989) 435–88.

10 I confess to not always understanding the mathematical aspects of many lin-guistic studies, of which the THLI series (Textwissenschaft-Theologie, Herme-neutik, Linguistik-Literaturanalyse, Informatik) edited by H. Schweizer is proba-bly typical. See, e.g., W. Bader, Simson bei Delila—Computer-linguistische In-

340 EMANUEL TOV

4. Statistical

Important studies published in inflexible paper editions have beencarried out by F. I. Andersen and D. Forbes, especially in their bookThe Vocabulary of the Old Testament. This work of 721 large pagesinvolves word counts of all the words in each biblical book, includingthe Pentateuchal sources and the individual segments of Isaiah and thePsalms (part III), and a list showing the frequency of occurrences ofthe binyanim of all the verbs (part IV). Part I gives the statistical pic-ture of all the grammatical categories appearing in each of the subdi-visions of the Bible, such as the number of common nouns appearingin Genesis or in P, without further details.11 With all its useful infor-mation, this book exemplifies the category of non-flexible data, as wecannot view the data behind the numbers given nor ask additionalquestions from the data.

5. Textual Criticism

A study by G. E. Weil lists the number of verses in the LeningradCodex compared with the Masoretic lists.12 With the aid of Accor-dance, I myself studied the frequency of the petuchot and setumot inthe various books in the MT.13

The study of orthography is a typical example of an area that bene-fits much from computer-assisted research. A study by Andersen andForbes analyzes the spelling of word-groups and individual words,providing, for example, data about the spelling of the patterns qotel,

terpretation des Textes Ri 13–16 (TLHI 3; Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 1991); H.Schweizer, Die JosefsgeschichteKonstituierung des Texts (THLI 4; Tübingen:Francke Verlag, 1991).

11 For example, this book provides statistics regarding the relation between taand µ[ in a given book. Thus, the Priestly source prefers ta over µ[, while theother sources in the Torah display the opposite tendency (p. 28).

12 G. E. Weil, “Les décomptes de versets, mots et lettres du Pentateuque selonle manuscrit B 19a de Léningrad,” Mélanges D. Barthélemy (OBO 38; Fribourg:Éditions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 651–703.

13 E. Tov, “Sense Divisions in the Qumran Texts, the Masoretic Text, and An-cient Translations of the Bible,” in J. Krasovec (ed.), Interpretation of the Bible,International Symposium on the Interpretation of the Bible on the Occasion of thePublication of the New Slovanian Translation of the Bible (Ljubljana: SlovenskaAkademija Znanosti in Umetnosti; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998)121–46, esp. 134–36.


qotlim, and qotlot which were not previously available.14

The creation of the CATSS database in Philadelphia and Jerusalembrought about a host of studies based on the morphological analysis ofthe Hebrew and the Greek and on features in the parallel alignment.15

This project created a flexible multi-purpose database aimed at thestudy of the LXX and its relation to the MT. The database contains along list of stereotyped notes on such matters as Ketiv/Qere, render-ings of prepositions, the addition/deletion of pronouns, differences inaspect (active/passive) between the Hebrew and Greek texts, the arti-cle, addition/deletion of lk, transliterations, doublets, and inter-changes of consonants, many of which have been studied in mono-graphs.

Thus I was able to investigate the frequency of the interchanges inconsonants between the MT and the LXX16 and the types of render-ings of the infinitive absolute.17 B. A. Nieuwoudt examined aspects ofthe finite verb;18 Polak studied the relation between the Samuel scrollsfrom Qumran and the LXX;19 K. Kyung-Rae Kim analyzed the rela-tionship between the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch;20 F. W.Knobloch studied the phonology of the transliterations in the LXX,21

14 F. I. Andersen and D. Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible (BibOr 41;

Rome: Biblical Institute Press; Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1986).15 For a bibliography, see E. Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible—Collected

Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 41–43 and R. A. Kraft:http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu//rs/rak/catssbibliog.html.

16 The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 301–11.17 The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 247–56.18 B. A. Nieuwoudt, Aspects of the Translation Technique of the Septuagint:

The Finite Verb in the Septuagint of Deuteronomy, unpublished Ph.D dissertation,Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch, 1992.

19 F. H. Polak, “Statistics and Textual Filiation: the Case of 4QSama/LXX(with a Note on the Text of the Pentateuch),” in G. J. Brooke and B. Lindars (ed.),Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the InternationalSymposium on the Septuagint and its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and OtherWritings (Manchester, 1990) (SBLSCS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992)215–76.

20 Kyung-Rae Kim, Studies in the Relationship between the Samaritan Penta-teuch and the Septuagint, unpublished diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1994.

21 F. W. Knobloch, Hebrew Sounds in Greek Script: Transcriptions and Re-lated Phenomena in the Septuagint, with Special Focus on Genesis, unpublishedPh.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 1995.

342 EMANUEL TOV

while the literalness of the LXX translation was subjected to scrutinyby Tov and B. G. Wright.22 Differences in sequence were studied byG. Marquis,23 and J. Lust studied multiple authorship in Ezekiel.24

Moreover, Polak and Marquis devoted a large study to the classifica-tion of the minuses of the LXX vis-à-vis the MT.25

AVAILABLE SOFTWARE PACKAGES

The Appendix26 displays a list of the available electronic resourcesas known to me in February 2003, both as freeware and in commercialsoftware packages (indicated with a star*). Usually the rule is, themore recent the program, the more sophisticated the software.27 For

22 E. Tov and B. G. Wright, “Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for As-

sessing the Literalness of Translation Units in the LXX,” Textus 12 (1985)149–87. Revised version: The Greek and Hebrew Bible (1999) 219–37. See alsoB. G. Wright, “The Quantitative Representation of Elements: Evaluating ‘Literal-ism’ in the LXX,” in C. E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organiza-tion for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Jerusalem 1986 (SCS 23; Atlanta, 1987)311–35.

23 G. Marquis, “Word Order as a Criterion for the Evaluation of TranslationTechnique in the LXX and the Evaluation of Word-Order Variants as Exemplifiedin LXX-Ezekiel,” Textus 13 (1986) 59–84.

24 J. Lust, “The Computer and the Hypothetic Translators of Ezekiel,” in Actesdu Premier Colloque Internationale Bible et Informatique: Le texte, Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgique) 2-3–4 septembre 1985 (Paris and Geneva: Association inter-nationale Bible et informatique, 1986) 265–74.

25 F. H. Polak and G. Marquis, A Classified Index of the Minuses of the Sep-tuagint, Part I: Introduction; Part II: The Pentateuch (CATSS Basic Tools 4.5;Stellenbosch: Print24.com, 2002).

26 Special thanks are due to R. Brown, A. Groves, R. A. Kraft, and G. Marquis,as well as others, for information provided and criticisms given. The websites byJoel Calvesmaki (http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/), David L. Washburn(http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/), and by James Adair, as part of a service pro-vided by TC, A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/TC-links.html) were also helpful. To the best of my knowledge, no printedbibliography exists with the exception of the following sources, which are notvery helpful since the data in this field change very rapidly: John J. Hughes, Bits,Bytes & Biblical Studies: A Resource Guide for the Use of Computers in Biblicaland Classical Studies (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987); I. Lancashire, The Hu-manities Computing Yearbook 1989–90: A Comprehensive Guide to Software andother Resources (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991) 18–31 (Biblical Studies).

27 For example, since the CATSS database was planned way back in 1980, we


details pertaining to the description below, the reader is referred to theAppendix.

At this point, the presence of the Hebrew Bible in machine-readableform, with vowels and accents, and of the Greek Bible with accents, isa fait accompli. Such texts usually contain the vocalized MT withoutcantillation signs, while the Bar-Ilan database includes them. The Ac-cordance program offers two separate text files, one with accents(HMT-C), and one without them (HMT-T). This separation has al-lowed the programmers of Accordance to offer sophisticated searchprograms for the text without accents, since these accents are notneeded for the great majority of our needs.

All available sources are designed exclusively for a PC environmentexcept for Accordance (Macintosh) and the Jewish Classics Library(PC and Macintosh). However, with emulation programs, the PC pro-grams can now be used on the Macintosh, and the Accordance pro-gram can be used on a PC.

The great majority of the software programs of the Hebrew Biblerepresent the Leningrad Codex or BHS. In principle, these two sourcesshould be identical, since BHS is based on codex L, but in practicethey are not identical. The main text which is used, the so-calledMichigan-Claremont-Westminster text, has been corrected accordingto codex L. On the other hand, the Bar-Ilan database, Tokhnit“HaQeter,” displays the Aleppo Codex, which differs in only a smallnumber of details from codex L, but for students of grammar thesedifferences are important. No less than fourteen software packages of-fer the Hebrew Bible text, all reflecting BHS or codex L, with theexception of the Bar-Ilan database.28

can now perform only limited tasks in the comparison of the MT with the LXX.When that database was planned, the current more sophisticated programs did notyet exist. Moreover, the CATSS database was construed on a mainframe com-puter, since microcomputers were not yet in common usage.

28 In all programs, slight adjustments were made to the appearance of the textsince all used different fonts. A. Groves notes: “The text was first made availablefor word-processing using the Hebraica font created and distributed (font andtext) by Linguist’s Software (Phil Payne in Seattle). Until Hebrew Bible searchsoftware became available, this was probably the most widely used version inword processing. There are now many word-processing versions of the text avail-able using fonts produced by the various Bible software companies. Some of thecompanies have licensed Linguist’s Software. The most common of which I amaware are: Hebraica I & II and the New Jerusalem font (Linguist’s Software), the

344 EMANUEL TOV

The text of the MT is thus available in several commercial softwarepackages bearing such names as Accordance, BibleWorks [6],29 theJewish Classics Library, Logos, WordSearch, Gramcord, Bible Win-dows, SESB, and Global Jewish Database.

The text of the Qumran biblical manuscripts is not available in anysoftware package even though several texts have been encoded pri-vately. At this point, they are not as researchable as the non-biblicalQumran scrolls, but are scheduled to be included in the Accordanceprogram.

Internal differences between the medieval manuscripts of the MTare only researchable electronically for the few books that have beenrecorded by the HUBP (part of Isaiah as well as Jeremiah and Eze-kiel), but otherwise the differences between them are not researchableon the computer. The Masoretic accents are accessible in Accordance,BibleWorks 5, and in the Tochnit HaQeter of Bar-Ilan. These pro-grams allow for studies on the frequency of specific accents in the in-dividual books and in the Bible as a whole, their internal sequence andinterrelation. Similarly, research can be performed in these programson the vowels alone, for example, on irregular vocalizations, combi-nations of vowels and consonants, as well as linguistic patterns, suchas the pattern qetel or qitalon with a wildcard for the waw of qitalon.

The Masorah Magna and Parva are now available in the Bar-Ilandatabase.

The Samaritan Pentateuch is available within Accordance in theedition of A. Tal,30 without morphological analysis.

In addition to Hebrew Scripture, ten software packages also containthe LXX as encoded by the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) from BibleWorks font, the BibleWindows font, SuperHebrew (I think the predecessorto Hebraica?) and the Gramcord font. Then there is SIL’s font (called SIL Ezra;public domain). I also think that SBL has produced a public domain font. Any-way, these are the fonts I see from my various students. Note that each of thesefonts map the Hebrew a little differently, so the vendor has revised our text foruse with their fonts. Which means that a text in a particular font is not easily con-verted to another font.” In addition, Accordance uses its own font called Yehudit,while Gramcord for Windows uses a different font.

29 See a detailed review of this package in: http://www.bibfor.de/archiv/02-2.schmidl.htm.

30 A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch, Edited according to MS 6 (C) of theShekhem Synagogue (Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and RelatedSubjects 8; Tel Aviv 1994).


the edition of A. Rahlfs (1935),31 without any variant readings. Thevariants of the LXX have been encoded by CCAT in Philadelphia,though not yet for all books. Other tools available are the text editionsby H. B. Swete, A. E. Brooke, N. McLean, and H. St. J. Thackeray(1906–1940),32 and F. Field (1875),33 the grammar of F. C. Cony-beare and St. G. Stock (1905),34 the introductions by H. B. Swete (2ded., 1914)35 and G. Dorival, M. Harl, and O. Munnich (1988),36 andmodern translations, some of them as scanned images.

The edition of the Vulgate is presently available in nine softwaresources.37

The Targumim as well as the Peshitta are available in severalsources, foremost on the website of the Comprehensive AramaicLexicon (CAL), together with lexicographical facilities and search ca-pacities.38

The key to the effective use of any software program of Scripturetexts is the availability in the background of a lemmatization and of amorphological analysis (grammatical tagging) of all the Hebrew,Greek, Aramaic, and Syriac text words. This lemmatization allows fora search of all the text words as well as for producing concordances.39

While word searches are available in several programs, Accordance isprobably the only one that enables the creation of complete concor-dances. Such concordances can be produced for any text range so de-fined: any combination of biblical books or parts thereof, combina-tions of verses, pericopes, or selections, such as the deuteronomisticverses, Wisdom literature, or late biblical prose or poetry. The defin-

31 Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.32 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.33 Oxford: Oxford University Press.34 Boston: Ginn and Company.35 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.36 Paris: Cerf.37 For the history of the encoding of the Vulgate text and for further sites, see

the data provided by R. A. Kraft in http://www.le.ac.uk/elh/grj1/linksa.html.38 Based mainly on Mikra’ot Gedolot HaKeter (Bar-Ilan University Press,

1992–2000) as well as on various editions. For details, see http://call.cn.huc.edu/searching/targum_info.html.

39 See http://www.balboa-software.com/semcomp/scbible2.htm for H. Hahne’sdescriptions of these aspects in “Using a Computer in Biblical and TheologicalStudies, Lesson 6: Computer-Assisted Bible Study, Part 2.”

346 EMANUEL TOV

ing of such ranges is subjective, and can be changed at any givenmoment. The search facilities of the various programs differ; some aremore sophisticated than others. The most sophisticated programs, Ac-cordance and BibleWorks 6, also allow for the search of morphologi-cal features, such as the frequency of the individual binyanim of theverb and unusual nominal forms, and also the search for combinationsof lexical and grammatical information. The morphological and lexi-cal information in the background of Accordance also allows forgrammatical and orthographical studies on the Qumran nonbiblicaltexts.

Although these morphological analyses usually follow one centralsource, such as the lexicon of Köhler-Baumgarten in the case of He-brew Scripture, they are subjective, and a word which one scholarconsiders a noun, may be considered by another to be a verb. Onescholar may ascribe a given form to the nip>al, while another one con-siders it to be a hitp>ael. One source discerns one main meaning of de-ver, while another differentiates between two homographs. Accor-dance probably places too many groups of words under the heading of“particle.” This subjectivity comes to light when one reviews the dif-ferences between the existing morphological analyses.40

The morphological analyses that are at the base of the softwarepackages should be considered separate entities since they derivedfrom independent sources. Seven different morphological analyses ofHebrew Scriptures are based on codex L/BHS. These include theWestminster Hebrew Old Testament Morphology of Groves-Wheeler,available in at least five software packages, the Werkgroep Infor-matica (including syntax and clause hierarchy) from Amsterdam, theBar-Ilan analysis, the analysis of the Academy of the Hebrew Lan-guage, as well as additional commercial and private morphologicalanalyses. For the LXX, I know of just one such analysis, that ofCATSS-Taylor-Wheeler, which is available in eight different softwarepackages. For the Targumim, there is the analysis of CAL, while forthe Vulgate there is no such analysis, so searching in that translation israther restricted. In addition, four different morphological analysesexist for the non-biblical Qumran texts.

The availability of different lemmatizations enlarges the search fa-

40 I have seen several grammatical decisions in Accordance which I considerundesirable, and in addition, have found mistakes in the morphological analysis ofthe Hebrew, which, however, are being corrected.


cilities, since different lemmatizations and grammatical decisionsyield different results. Accordingly, differences relating to exactly thesame search executed in different software packages may derive from(1) differences in the base text, among them errors; (2) differences intagging words41 and determining of lemmas; (3) differences due to thecapabilities and assumptions of the software. In an example given byH. Hahne (n. 39), the different programs provide differing numbersfor the occurrences of the pair of Greek particles mevn and dev.

The bilingual CATSS database, in Accordance, allows examinationof Greek-Hebrew equivalences, select features in translation tech-nique, and searches of Hebrew or Greek grammatical features.

APPENDIX

The Appendix lists the available sources (commercial products [in-dicated with a star*] and freeware) relevant to textual criticism as ofFebruary 2003.42

I. Source Texts of the Hebrew Bible

MT, Codex Leningrad B19A/Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia

1. Accordance [6.4]* (OakTree Software)http://www.oaksoft.com/

2. BibleWorks for Windows [6.0]*http://www.bibleworks.com/

3. Jewish Classics Library* (Davka Company)http://www.davka.com/

4. SESB*http://www.logos.com/products/details/1981

5. Logos* (Logos Research Company)http://www.logos.com/

41 Hahne (n. 39) compared a few software packages for the New Testament.

Thus, some programs classify kaiv as an adverb, while others classify it as a con-junction.

42 In this area, data change constantly, and the use of a web search engine suchas google.com may provide additional information on new projects and products.Use of the search facility in google.com under “images” provides further linksunder such headings as “Septuagint,” “Dead Sea Scrolls,” and “Hebrew manu-scripts.” For a helpful new site, see http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/Dinur/links/textsheb.htm.

348 EMANUEL TOV

6. WordSearch [5]*http://www.wordsearchbible.com/

7. Gramcord for Windows* (Gramcord Institute)http://www.gramcord.org/

8. Bible Windows [6.0]*http://www.silvermnt.com/bwinfo.htm

9. Global Jewish Database* (Responsa Project, CD-ROM 10, Bar-Ilan University) (with cross-references to Rabbinic Literature)http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Responsa/index.html

10. Translator’s Workplace [3.0] (private software package of theSummer Institute for Linguistics [SIL])http://www.sil.org/

11. Bible Companion (restricted use)http://www.biblecompanion.com/

12. DBS International Corporation* (probably BHS)http://www.dbs123.com/main\products.htm

13. Mechon Mamre http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0.htm

14. Snunithttp://kodesh.snunit.k12.il

MT, Codex Leningrad B19A, scanned images

1. West Semitic Research Project (private)http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/

MT, Aleppo Codex

1. Tokhnit “HaKeter”–Ma’agar HaTanakh, Bar-Ilan University,Ramat Gan; part of the Miqraot Gedolot “HaKeter” Project*(in books in which the Codex is missing, its text has been re-constructed according to sources close to the Aleppo Codex)

2. http://aleppocodex.org/flashopen.html (scanned pages)

MT, Masoretic Accents

1. Accordance [6.4]* (OakTree Software) (HMT-C and BHS-W4files)http://www.oaksoft.com/

2. Tokhnit “HaKeter”–Ma’agar HaTanakh*, Bar-Ilan University,Ramat Gan

MT, Aleppo Codex, Masorah Magna and Parva1. Tokhnit “HaKeter”–Ma’agar HaTanakh*, Bar-Ilan University,


Ramat Gan; part of the Miqraot Gedolot “HaKeter” Project*, ver-sion 2 (2005)

Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert

1. Dead Sea Scrolls Publication Project (Jerusalem; Notre Dame) (pri-vate, texts published after 1990)

2. Database of J. Cook, Stellenbosch (private, incomplete)

3. Qumran database of S. Pfann (private, incomplete)

4. Biblia Qumranica (in preparation; private, incomplete)

5. Large Isaiah scroll, scanned images (F. P. Miller)http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

6. Accordance [6.4]*http://www.oaksoft.com/ (OakTree Software, in preparation)

Samaritan Pentateuch

1. Edition of A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch, Edited according toMS 6 (C) of the Shekhem Synagogue (Texts and Studies in the He-brew Language and Related Subjects 8; Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosen-berg School for Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1994)


3. Edition using Samaritan fonts on the basis of “Rylands Sam. MS 1with Chester Beatty and Cambridge 1846” (private: A. Crown)

4. Edition of A. F. von Gall, Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samari-taner (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1914–8), scanned images: TC EbindIndexhttp://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/

Ben Sira, Hebrew, medieval manuscripts1. Ma’agarim*, CD-ROM of the Academy of the Hebrew Language

http://hebrew-academy.huji.ac.il/

2. P. C. Beentjes, Utrecht (private)


II. Source Texts of Ancient VersionsLXX, Codex S, Scanned Images

Edition of C. von Tischendorf, Bibliorum Codex SinaiticusPetropolitanus (Leipzig 1862): TC Ebind Index: http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/

350 EMANUEL TOV

LXX, Codex W, Scanned Images

1. Edition of H. A. Sanders, Facsimile of the Washington Manuscriptof Deuteronomy and Joshua in the Freer Collection (1910), andidem, Facsimile of the Washington Manuscript of the Minor Proph-ets in the Freer Collection and the Berlin Fragment of Genesis (NewYork, 1927): TC Ebind Index:http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/

Greek Scripture, Papyri1. Duke Papyrus Archive

http://odyssey.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/

2. APIShttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/projects/digital/apis/index.html/

3. P.Oxyhttp://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/poxy/

4. Database of R. A. Kraft (links to the major early witnesses of theLXX, usually with images)http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/jewishpap.html

5. The Perseus Digital Library (in all these: search for “Septuagint,”“LXX,” ”Bible,” etc.)http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/

LXX, edition of A. Rahlfs (Stuttgart, 1935) (encoded by TLG)



3. SESB*http://www.logos.com/products/details/1981/




7. CCAThttp://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/

8. Bible Companion (restricted use)http://www.biblecompanion.com/


9. University of British Columbiahttp://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible

10. Websites, see:http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

LXX, edition of H. B. Swete, scanned images

1. Christian Classics Ethereal Libraryhttp://www.ccel.org/s/swete/index.html

LXX, edition of Brooke-McLean, scanned images

1. TC Ebind Indexhttp://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/

LXX, variants, Göttingen and Cambridge editions (incomplete)

1. CCATgopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/11/Archive/Religion/Suppl/lxxvar/

LXX, Hexapla, edition of F. Field (Oxford 1875), scanned images


LXX, H. B. Swete, Introduction to the OT in Greek (Cambridge, 1914),scanned images

1. CCELhttp://ccel.org/s/swete/greekot/


LXX, Dorival-Harl-Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante (1994),scanned images

1. http://www.tradere.com/biblio/lxx/frame.htm

LXX, grammar, F. C. Conybeare and St. G. Stock (Boston, 1905)

1. CCEL (scanned images)http://ccel.org/c/conybeare/greekgrammar/


LXX, grammar, H. St. J. Thackeray (Cambridge, 1909)

1. Accordance [6.4]* (OakTree Software, in preparation)http://www.oaksoft.com/

LXX, translations into English:

a. Brenton’s Translation, without the Deutero-canonical books

352 EMANUEL TOV

1. Boston Christian Bible Study Resourceshttp://www.bcbsr.com/topics/olb.html

2. BibleWorks for Windows [6.0]http://www.bibleworks.com/


b. NETShttp://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/

LXX, translation into French:http://epelorient.free.fr/

LXX, translation into German:

Septuaginta Deutschhttp://www.septuaginta-deutsch.de/

LXX, translations into modern languages: work in progress

1. http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

Symmachus

1. J. Lust, Leuven (private)Email: [email protected]

Vetus Latina

1. Vetus Latina Institut, Beuron*http://www.brepolis.net/login/overview.cfm#

Vulgate: Edition of R. Weber (Stuttgart, 1969, 1983)






6. Bible Gateway.comhttp://www.catholic.net/RCC/Catechism/bible.html

7. The Internet Sacred Text Archivehttp://www.sacred-texts.com/


8. Unbound Biblehttp://unbound.biola.edu/

9. http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=latin

Targumim (Onk., Ps-Jon., Targumim to the Prophets and Hagiographa,Palestinian Targumim)

1. CAL (Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon)http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/

Targum Onkelos

1. Global Jewish Database (12)*http://www.accordancebible.com/


3. CCAT/PHI CD-ROM (1987) (text encoded by M. Grossfeld,Wisconsin)

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

1. CCAT/PHI CD-ROM (1987) (text encoded by E. G. Clarke,Toronto)


Targum Jonathan

1. DBS International Corporation*http://www.dbs123.com/main\products.htm

2. Accordance [6.4]* (in preparation; OakTree Software)http://www.oaksoft.com/

Targum to Job

1. CCAT/PHI CD-ROM (1987) (text encoded in Oxford)

Targum Neophyti

1. CCAT/PHI CD-ROM (1987) (text encoded by M. Sokoloff)


Targumim, Pseudo-Jonathan and Onkelos, translations

1. Translation of J. W. Etheridge (1862)http://www.tulane.edu/~ntcs/pj/psjon.htm

Targumim to the megillot and Psalms

1. http://www.tulane.edu/~ntcs/tgtext.htm

354 EMANUEL TOV

Targumim from Qumran

1. CAL (private)http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/

Peshitta

1. CAL (most books)http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/

2. Peshitta Institute, Leiden (private)http://www.leidenuniv.nl/gg/

For progress reports see also Hugoye:http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/

3. Project of W. Strothmann, Göttingen University, discontinued(complete Peshitta, including morphological analyses and concor-dances). The material is found at the Theologicum, Göttingen (M.Zumpe)http://www.gwdg.de/~mzumpe/strothm.htm

Peshitta, codex A, scanned imagesEdition of A. M. Ceriani, Translatio Syro Pescitto Veteris Testamentiex codice Ambrosiano (Milan 1876–1881):

TC Ebind Indexhttp://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/

Hebrew and Greek Scripture compared: LXX (ed. of A. Rahlfs [Stuttgart1935]) and MT (BHS) compared in parallel alignment


2. CCAT (ASCII format)http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/

3. CATSS, Ben-Sira (in preparation; private: B. G. Wright and G.Marquis)

4. CATSS, programs for the use of: J. Lust (private) [merging of thetext file and the morphological analysis]

5. CATSS, analysis of minuses of the LXX (private: F. Polak and G.Marquis)


III. Modern Translations of Hebrew Scripture1. Accordance [6.4]* (OakTree Software)

http://www.oaksoft.com/



3. Jewish Classics Library* (Davka Company)http://www.davka.com/




7. Nelson’s Electronic Bible Reference Libraryhttp://www.nelsondirect.com/nelsondirect/custom/nerl54Edition.asp

8. Unbound Bible (allows searches in many translations in several lan-guages)http://unbound.biola.edu/

9. Blue Letter Bible (allows for comparative searches in the KJV anddictionaries)http://blueletterbible.org/links.html


10. In addition, modern translations are presented in countless websites.

IV. Critical ApparatusesBHS



HUBP

1. HUBP (private): Isaiah 45 ff., Jeremiah, Ezekiel

Göttingen Septuagint

1. Septuaginta Unternehmen (private): Daniel, Joshua

Biblia Hebraica Quinta (in preparation)

Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland)


356 EMANUEL TOV


V. Morphological AnalysesHebrew Scripture

1. Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Old Testament Morphology

a. BibleWorks for Windows [6.0]*http://www.bibleworks.com/

b. Accordance [6.4]* (OakTree Software)http://www.oaksoft.com/

c. Gramcord for Windows* (Gramcord Institute)http://www.gramcord.org/

d. Logos* (Logos Research Company)http://www.logos.com/

e. CCAT (ASCII format) http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/

2. Werkgroep Informatica (including syntax and clause hierarchy)http://www.th.vu.nl/~wiweb/

Available in SESB*http://www.logos.com/products/details/1981

3. Tokhnit “HaKeter”–Ma’agar HaTanakh*, Bar-Ilan University,Ramat Gan; part of the Miqraot Gedolot “HaKeter” Project*

4. Global Jewish Database*http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Responsa/index.html

5. Ma’agarim*, CD-ROM of the Academy of the Hebrew Language

http://hebrew-academy.huji.ac.il/

6. Database of F. Andersen and D. Forbes (private)

7. Database of CIB/Maredsous (Mikrah) (private: R. F. Poswick,Maredsous)

Greek Scripture: CATSS, Morphologically Analyzed LXX text(http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/). Accessible, with corrections by D.Wheeler (version 2.2), in:








7. Nelson’s Electronic Bible Reference Libraryhttp://www.nelsondirect.com/nelsondirect/custom/nerl54Edition.asp

8. CCAT (ASCII format)http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/

Targumim and Peshitta

1. CAL (allows on-line lexical and concordance searches)http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/

All Hebrew texts from the Bible until the 11th century

1. Ma’agarim*, CD-ROM of the Academy of the Hebrew Language(based on fresh readings of manuscripts as well as critical editions).

VI. ToolsBiblical Hebrew Reference Grammar


S. R. Driver, F. Brown, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon ofthe Old Testament (Oxford, 1957)





5. Translator’s Workplacehttp://www.sil.org/


L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon ofthe Old Testament, trans. and ed. under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson

358 EMANUEL TOV

1. CD-ROM [Brill, Leiden]




H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed.;Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940); with E. A. Barber, A Greek-English Lexicon,A Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) and P. G. W. Glare, RevisedSupplement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) (the latter three: intermediateedition)

1. The Perseus Digital Library (includes links with other lexicons, andprovides links to all the texts)http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/





J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septua-gint, I–II (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,1992, 1996)




G. Kittel (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. G. W.Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968–1976), abridged edition





Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. D. N. Freedman; New York and London: Dou-bleday, 1992)

1. * CD-ROM



Bible Atlas



PhotoGuide (linked with text files)


W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, W. D. Danker, A Greek-EnglishLexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (2nd ed.,Chicago and London, 1979; 3rd ed., 2000)




4. Translator’s Workplacehttp://www.sil.org/


emanuel tov background

Documents