More books that Logos shouldn't reprint...
Please, mercy! I've complained before and will continue to do so.
Just saw that Logos is publishing Sophocles' Greek works. They are over a century and half old. They are not to be trusted. When people use them alongside of more reputable works, the net effect will be to downgrade our understanding of Greek and weaken our exegesis.
I cannot understand why Logos posts these recommendations as selling points:
Sophocles
ADVERTISING: "On the whole, I know of no elementary grammar which fulfills the demands which are made by the present state of this science more completely than that of Mr. Sophocles." —T. D. Woolsey, Professor of Greek at Yale College
CONTEXT: T. D. Woolsey hasn't been professor of Greek at Yale since 1846!!
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
ADVERTISING: "We could not point out better handbooks for the student of the Greek." —Expository Times
CONTEXT: Research shows that the Expository Times made this comment at least as early as 1892.
Please, it's a question of ethics in advertising! These are long-obsolete books and should be allowed to retire. Bite the bullet, spend the bucks, and buy real Greek tools!
PS - the same may be said of James Hastings' dictionaries - fine when they were published. Now they are just tired and positively misleading.
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
Comments
-
Gary, based on the speed at which some of these books on Community Pricing reached 100% and went over, there is a demand for the older works. Furthermore, an individual's research may require him/her to conduct a "history of interpretation" on even greek exegesis and interpretation. Just my 2 cents worth.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
Hi Gary,
I have sometimes thought the same for these older resources. I've wondered why these resources are still valuable. But, then, Lynden presented a very good point about historic research. Perhaps someone is writing a dissertation on the development of Greek exegesis in church history. Who knows. Also, Logos must continue to supply resources for people like Rosie Perera, Mark Barnes, etc. [;)]
Some of these resources are out of print and may even be collector's items?
David
0 -
Please, mercy! I've complained before and will continue to do so.
Just saw that Logos is publishing Sophocles' Greek works. They are over a century and half old. They are not to be trusted.
By your reasoning, Logos should also cease publishing the Church Fathers, Spurgeon, Calvin, Luther, et.al.
0 -
Please, mercy! I've complained before and will continue to do so.
Just saw that Logos is publishing Sophocles' Greek works. They are over a century and half old. They are not to be trusted.
By your reasoning, Logos should also cease publishing the Church Fathers, Spurgeon, Calvin, Luther, et.al.
Some of Sophocles I would say are not of much value to me. His lexicon, however, is one item I wouldn't mind having. I agree with Jack that a work is not worthless simply because it is old. I would rather say that there are some older works which aren't of much value TO ME since they are old and aren't in my field of interest. Some are classics regardless of one's field. I think of Aquinas, Calvin, Luther et al. I won't say Spurgeon since much of his consists of sermons which I don't have much use for -- I get enough sermons at church (and from my daughter who thinks she knows everything). It is important to distinguish not simply the age of a work but the reason why it may, or may not, be valuable for MY USE.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Gary
I think you are being a bit harsh here.
As someone who has Hastings Dictionary of the Bible in print, I can honestly say that I have never been misled by it. It is thorough and often avoids some of the pitfalls of more modern scholarship. I also have many more recently published resources which I consult as well. Taken together they provide a more rounded exegetical framework than would be possible without Hastings.
Similarly, with Greek texts. It is useful to compare older editions with more modern ones. Then you have a locus for comparison which you might otherwise miss out on.
As far as Sophocles Greek books are concerned, Logos does not pretend that they are modern or to be used in isolation. "Likewise, Sophocles' Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods fills a needed gap in lexical resources for post-Classical Greek. To this day, it is one of only a handful of lexicons that covers the Koine and Byzantine periods of the Greek language." As someone who uses older Greek texts and grammars as well as the modern ones, I am grateful that Logos is making them available and they can be easily integrated with other more modern Greek language resources.
It's a similar case with Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. It is by no means the last word on the topic and has considerable lacunae, but it is a useful resource to have in examining the Greek New Testament text.
I am as glad to have those tools as I am to have the Lexham Discourse Series and the complete Semeia.
There's room for both in our libraries, whether print or digital.
Every blessing
Alan
iMac Retina 5K, 27": 3.6GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.15.5; 1TB SSD; Logos 8
MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.13.6; 256GB SSD; Logos 8
iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 13.5.1
iPhone 8+ 64GB iOS 13.5.1
0 -
I get enough sermons at church (and from my daughter who thinks she knows everything).
Thanks for the laugh!
Indeed, you all have made good points! I'm not a student of history; in fact, when I first came across the reference Gary had mentioned, I thought it was Sophocles the Greek dramatist.
David
0 -
Hi Lynden, Well, it's a question of economics and sales rather than objective worth. They are cheap, and they are advertised as the best...no wonder they're scooped up.
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
Hi Alan, excuse the two versions of this posting, I had to correct a couple of items.
If you read an older dictionary, you will learn that scholars are not sure of the location of the key town, Capernaum, nor did they know that it was (or was going to be) discovered in 1838. I don't recall what Hastings said, but there are earlier works in many pastors' libraries. Easton's isn't sure where it is.
If you read an up-to-date work, you will learn that it has been discovered and that the Franciscans have been excavating it for over a century and discovered all kinds of wonders.
It's not possible to simply add the data and divide by 2 - one is wrong, the other right.
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
Hi Jack, I value old things. I hardly pass a day without working in the Fathers, often in the original, let alone Calvin, Spurgeon, etc.
But...I would not take Calvin's word for it if he were to say that "this Greek word means such-and-such", based on our current knowledge of Greek in this [16th] century.
There's a difference of kind here.
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
Hi David,
With regard to studying the history of exegesis, here's my thought:
- If someone were writing about the history of dentistry, and a publisher said, here's the classic handbook on dentistry from 1842, you historians of dentistry should buy it...then by all means, yes.
- If someone were practicing dentistry, and a publisher advertises, here's the classic handbook on dentistry - but omits to mention that it's from 1842 - then dentists and their patients should be warned!
The latter is what is happening in this case. Most of us study the Bible because we are practicioners, not because history is our hobby.
As I mention below, I use the Church Fathers constantly - daily - Calvin, Spurgeon, all the works of Second Temple Judaism, etc., etc...but I would never take them as the last word on issues such as lexicography or grammar, where our knowledge grows by the day.
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
Hi again, Alan...one more thought, and then I'll stop preaching (tip of the cap to Georgeʼs daughter!).
I was likewise pretty turned off by how Logos marketed Thayer's Lexicon. Thayer's was the standard for only a decade, starting in 1890. Now, his information is simply no longer trustworthy, and hasn't been for a century. Even an expert would have trouble discerning what was useful and what was not. All of the really interesting new discoveries postdated his publication, starting with Deissmann's work in 1901. Not Thayer's fault, it's just when he was born. See an article on Thayer at my blog at www.justinofnablus.wordpress.com - I spent a couple of evenings trying to figure out Thayer's article on agape, where he (wrongly) claims the word was invented by the Septuagint author of the Song of Solomon. False information - yet Thayer's viewpoint can probably be heard, backed up with quotations from the Lexicon, from some American pulpit every Sunday.
There is often an assumption among conservatives (and I am one) that older = conservative and reliable, newer = theologically untrustworthy. This is simply not the case. I wouldn't want to go into the relative orthodoxy of Thayer versus Baur and Danker...only to mention that Thayer was no evangelical, he denies the Trinity in his work, he calls Biblical authority an "exaggerated theory" etc. So the real question is - as lexicographers, who has the goods?
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
Gary, if you click on the "More" tab at the upper right of your post you have the option to edit a previous post ... you could have consolidated your final few post. Why does this matter? To avoid teasing from MVP's who want to boost their posting count. ... Seriously, I just wondered if you knew.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MVP's, very good! No, "the less said the better", so, thanks for your tip.
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
Just saw that Logos is publishing Sophocles' Greek works. They are over a century and half old. They are not to be trusted. When people use them alongside of more reputable works, the net effect will be to downgrade our understanding of Greek and weaken our exegesis.
Gary, this is simply not true.
These are books that should be reprinted. E. A. Sophocles could run Greek circles around any of us. Same thing with many, many of the authors (including Plummer & Moule) of the Cambridge Greek Testament -- I've spent the past four years struggling to obtain copies of those volumes and thus far have only obtained 14 of the 21 that Logos is producing (at a greater cost than they're available here). I cannot tell you how excited I am to see the rest of them in Logos Sophocles is on the short list of works that A. T. Robertson includes in his limited bibliography -- a bibliography that contains probably less than a quarter of the works that Robertson actually used in writing his grammar.
Its not about ethics and advertising. You're simply confusing old with obsolete. Those are extremely different. If I may quote Frederick Danker -- a recent name that everyone should know.
"The historical discussions are not designed to satisfy mere antiquarian curiosity. To ignore the contributions of those who have gone before is base ingratitude. Sad to say, arrogance is no stranger to our craft, and to imbue students with incivility promotes demeaning of our enterprise. The truth is that the future will declare us all myopic. To understand the lineage of a book is to appreciate better its character and function."
Frederick W. Danker, Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study (Rev. and expanded ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), xi; my emphasis.I would go as far as to say that many of the dead grammarians and Greek scholars knew Greek better than Mounce or Wallace or Porter combined!
Danker continues with reference to Hasting's four volume Dictionary of the Bible:
"A less technical production designed also for the nonspecialist was undertaken by James Hastings, with the assistance of John Alexander Selbie, Andrew Bruce Davidson, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Henry Barclay Swete. The title, A Dictionary of the Bible, Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology, 4 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1898–1902; extra vol., 1904), abbreviated HDB, indicates the broad scope of this work. Beware of the hazard of “lust for the latest.” Older works of this quality are not to be ignored. Jewish scholars like Wilhelm Bacher made signal contributions to this set, and Sir William Ramsay, who helped ancient Asia Minor come alive for New Testament students, contributed numerous articles of considerable durability to all of the volumes in this set."
Frederick W. Danker, Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study (Rev. and expanded ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 150.Yes, there are historical developments. Hastings doesn't have an entry on the Dead Sea Scrolls and they don't know where Capernum is. But if you look in Anchor Bible Dictionary, you'll find an entry for Q, a document nobody has every seen with no actual historical evidence of its existence.
Just as importantly, I must point out the very great need for Sophocles:
There is no Ancient Greek lexicon in existence (yet -- two are in production, though neither are Greek-English) that as thoroughly covers the time period dealt with by Sophocles' lexicon. Neither LSJ nor Lampe comes even close. Unless you know Spanish incredibly well, you would need Sophocles to do good work in the church fathers. According to your blog, Gary, you know Spanish quite well, but being that DGE probably won't be completed in our life time, both of us still need Sophocles to work in the church fathers.
[quote]
Hi Lynden, Well, it's a question of
economics and sales rather than objective worth. They are cheap, and
they are advertised as the best...no wonder they're scooped up.PD books like these are only cheap if reliable and accurate
text files exist. That's not the case in either of these -- which means
typing thousands of pages by hand. Logos wants to make these available
because they're worth something. As a Greek scholar myself, I'm disappointed that they're not being scooped up as quickly as I would like. Most are below 50%, tragically...In fact most of the PD books that we do are chosen because some one at Logos who has an academic specialty in a given field has suggested them as worth while at some point. There's a significant amount of biblical and theological education at Logos and many of us view many of thew PD works as highly valuable.
I wrote the description for the
Sophocles. He's a scholar I've hoped to see in Logos for years now and
to have the opportunity to write his pre-pub page only a couple months
after beginning to work at Logos Bible Software was an honor and incredibly exciting.Incidentally, T. D. Woolsey was a fantastic Greek scholar. Personally, I would love to see more old Greek scholars -- especially Gildersleeve & Jelf's respective grammars, but also the entire selected bibliography in A. T. Robertson's big grammar.
0 -
Dear Michael,
There is a difference between old and obsolete: a work becomes "obsolete" at the point beyond which the data are no longer of sufficient reliability to warrant its employment by the average user. Given that, a desire for up-to-date works isn't necessarily a "lust", apologies to Danker. For most people, it's a deep desire to have reliable data – the truth –, rather than data that look plausible but which we have no time to prove or disprove. If more reliable tools exist, why not use those, rather than tools which might be of use?
I use the Anchor Bible - and wrote for it - and am at times badly frustrated, usually by its omissions. Nevertheless, it's going to be superior nine times out of ten to, say, the old ISBE - another favorite, since it's a "classic"...and, well, cheap. Your argument: “But if you look in Anchor Bible Dictionary, you'll find an entry for Q, a document nobody has ever seen with no actual historical evidence of its existence…” well, I miss your point of logic there. Older works have their idiosyncrasies as well. Nevertheless, the ABD…the relevant article says that Q “is the name scholars have given to the hypothetical source that would account for the gospel material (not found in Mark) that Matthew and Luke have in common.” That looks like a pretty creditable definition to me, a doubter in Q. It is very close to the definition found in the more conservative work, the new ISBE, under its article on Q: “[Q] is the name given to the hypothetical body of teaching from which this common material was derived.” And…to my surprise, the original ISBE from 1915 tilts more toward the existence of Q, under the article “Gospels, Synoptic” – it offers, without contradiction that “the other source (now commonly named Q) is found first by an examination of the matter not contained in the 2nd Gospel, which is common to Matthew and Luke. While there are differences as to the extent and character of the 2nd source, there is something like general agreement as to its existence.”
Danker says of Hastings: “Jewish scholars like Wilhelm Bacher made signal contributions to this set, and Sir William Ramsay, who helped ancient Asia Minor come alive for New Testament students, contributed numerous articles of considerable durability to all of the volumes in this set." I have no doubt of that…but who in the world is going to flip through thousands of pages in order to correct and update Hastings’ articles before being able to use them? Not I. To me Danker sounds like the man who says, this bridge has 1000 girders, many of which are quite useful, so across you go! I’d rather start with something that is known to be generally solid, and then add to it.
If you’d like, take a few minutes and read through my short article on Thayer that I’ve mentioned on this page, to see how frustrating I found it, using an obsolete tool which Logos promotes as reliable, quoting a very old notice in the Methodist Review – “The publication of this lexicon unquestionably brings in a new epoch for English-speaking students of the Greek Testament. . . . It will affect commentaries, sermons, Sunday school expositions, and other religious literature.” Why not mention that this note was probably written in the 1890’s? Well…I’ve just looked at the Thayer page, and I wonder if it hasn’t been updated since I wrote in to complain.
I have no doubt that Sophocles could run circles around all of us with the Greek. So could Thayer, in whom I have a greater interest. Nevertheless, it’s also true that great scholars of times past did not have data or rapid access to data that one can get in seconds from TLG or Gramcord. That means that we lesser lights will stumble across new insight, but only IF we start with what is now known and go from there.
Please – I’ll take a second look at Sophocles, upon your say-so. But I still object to ads that upon first glance make it seem as if such-and-such a book is the latest thing.
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
Hi again, Alan...one more thought, and then I'll stop preaching (tip of the cap to Georgeʼs daughter!).
I was likewise pretty turned off by how Logos marketed Thayer's Lexicon. Thayer's was the standard for only a decade, starting in 1890. Now, his information is simply no longer trustworthy, and hasn't been for a century. Even an expert would have trouble discerning what was useful and what was not. All of the really interesting new discoveries postdated his publication, starting with Deissmann's work in 1901. Not Thayer's fault, it's just when he was born. See an article on Thayer at my blog at www.justinofnablus.wordpress.com - I spent a couple of evenings trying to figure out Thayer's article on agape, where he (wrongly) claims the word was invented by the Septuagint author of the Song of Solomon. False information - yet Thayer's viewpoint can probably be heard, backed up with quotations from the Lexicon, from some American pulpit every Sunday.
There is often an assumption among conservatives (and I am one) that older = conservative and reliable, newer = theologically untrustworthy. This is simply not the case. I wouldn't want to go into the relative orthodoxy of Thayer versus Baur and Danker...only to mention that Thayer was no evangelical, he denies the Trinity in his work, he calls Biblical authority an "exaggerated theory" etc. So the real question is - as lexicographers, who has the goods?
If you are going to attack Logos, make sure you read their description carefully. Logos says of Thayer's Lexicon, "Joseph Henry Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament is one of the greatest achievements in biblical scholarship [b] at the turn of the last century[/b]." I also don't think experts would have a difficult time separating the wheat from the chaff in Thayer.
0 -
Please – I’ll take a second look at Sophocles, upon your say-so. But I still object to ads that upon first glance make it seem as if such-and-such a book is the latest thing.
That's all I ask.
I have no doubt that Sophocles could run circles around all of us with the Greek. So could Thayer, in whom I have a greater interest. Nevertheless, it’s also true that great scholars of times past did not have data or rapid access to data that one can get in seconds from TLG or Gramcord. That means that we lesser lights will stumble across new insight, but only IF we start with what is now known and go from there.
True, they didn't have TLG or Gramcord (though Gramcord hasn't done much for some time now...). But in my mind, that only makes it all the more embarrassing that we have progress so very little since those scholars who did not have such resources. A. T. Robertson did more with Moulton-Geden, and W-H and Tischendorf than any grammarian since the appearance of the TLG.
Please – I’ll take a second look at Sophocles, upon your say-so. But I still object to ads that upon first glance make it seem as if such-and-such a book is the latest thing.
I will concede this is true to an extent. But again, it isn't intentional. The fact is that in a culture of scholars that's obsessed with "what new," its almost impossible to find reviews of the PD works we produce and its important to have reviews and comments on books whether they are old or new. Old reviews are an unfortunate side affect that was never a willful goal. Nobody at Logos would make the claim that we intentionally try to make old PD books like like they're still the best thing in the universe. But we do want people to know:
- Old books still had value.
- The old books we produce were the best of what was available for the time.
We do this because we want to follow Danker's warning about ignoring old works. We're a company of employees who love books and making them available is 1st priority -- all of them.
Our ability to provide recent reviews of old books is generally an accident of history. Sophocles has few. In providing a review quote for his page, I had the choice between going to a dead Greek scholar from Yale or an unknown online reviewer from Amazon who wrote:"This is a very good lexicon of Greek as it was written in medium and
high registers from about the second century through the fourteenth
century of our era. As a Byzantinist, I find that this lexicon picks up
what is lacking in the Liddell-Scott-Jones. It includes terms from daily
life, like a word for swamp derived from Slavonic, or bureaucratic
terminology derived from Latin. The references to late Antique authors
make this often more useful than Erich Trapp's newer work in
appreciating the changing meaning of a word from Antiquity into the
middle Byzantine period."I made the choice to go with the review that had clear academic pedigree. Yale was still a top school with top scholars in the 1800's, whereas I have no idea who this amazon review was. And for the record, I am aware that there are other more negative reviews on Amazon of Sophocles' work, but you still must note that every single one of them acknowledges that Sophocles fills a gap that hasn't been filled any anything else in existence (except for DGE for α-δ). And even then, the main complaint isn't the quality of Sophocles' entries, but the size. Its more of an extremely large glossary -- like Barclay Newman for a 1000 year period. Well, perhaps double the entry size of Newman.Also, because Sophocles is more of a glossary to Byzantine Greek than a true lexicon, its far more functional for most students who are interested in reading Church Fathers than Lampe will ever be -- that an Lampe borderlines half a dozen word study fallacies throughout his work -- had James Barr's Semantics of Biblical Language appeared sooner, Lampe would be more tolerable -- though at $300 used and $600 retail, I doubt it will ever truly be tolerable...
If I can give one more example of the accident of history for review quotes, consider Samuel Tregelles:
Samuel Tregelles (another old scholar I had the pleasure of recently writing about for his product description), makes extremely similar statements about the work of past scholars in his introduction to textual criticism (I won't have access to that quote until I get back to the office tomorrow though). And his is a name that just as old as Sophocles, but has continued to maintain the respect he deserves. Note that the comments on Tregelles' product page come from
-
A. T. Robertson (old - kind of) - David C. Parker (new - less than 10 years old)
In fact, David C. Parker's words proposes that the critical text of Tregelles is superior to any other critical text of the 19th century and is only being equaled/surpassed with the still in progress Editio Critica Maior. It was quite exciting to find a quality review from a modern author. This is generally easier to do in textual criticism than other fields in biblical studies, because text critics tend to have more respect for those who came before them. If only it were so in Greek grammar, which really hasn't changed much since at least as far back as the 1830s, assuming William Jelf's 1842 edition of Raphael Kuhner's magisterial grammar is a reliable translation (caveat: Buist Fanning of DTS, Con Campbell at Moore Theological College, and Steve Runge here at Logos are two exceptions to that general rule).
I should also emphasize that Logos' goal isn't say what resources someone should or shouldn't buy. The goal for producing books is reading critical mass, something that Dale Pritchett define some time back on Logos' blog:
"Critical mass is a sufficient volume of titles to represent the
equivalent number of volumes in a corresponding paper-based library. On
this basis, critical mass may be different for a pastor’s library and a
Bible college or seminary library. In time we hope to have sufficient
digital resources to equal a large seminary library. When that time
comes we will be able to think in terms of "brick and mortar"
replacement or real estate savings" (my emphasis).A seminary library is going to have Thayer and ISBE1 and Hastings and Cambridge Bible and Sophocles.
Finally (more because it was a similar relevant discussion), I'll point you to my comments on another thread comparing ISBE1, ISBE2, and the Baker Encyclopedia on another forum thread -- all in all, Bible Dictionaries and lexicons are like commentary sets. There are always amazing contributions and always a few duds, too. So its always worth having more than one (though you and I probably agree about Thayer more than we do about these others -- the papyri revolution changed NT lexicography far more than grammar).
And with that in mind, I'll take a look at your post on Thayer and comment there on your blog. I'm looking forward to reading it.
0 -
Welp, this will be a subject I won't have to struggle through the next time I come across it.
Good show gentlemen, both sides duly noted.
0 -
There is a difference between old and obsolete: a work becomes "obsolete" at the point beyond which the data are no longer of sufficient reliability to warrant its employment by the average user. Given that, a desire for up-to-date works isn't necessarily a "lust", apologies to Danker. For most people, it's a deep desire to have reliable data – the truth –, rather than data that look plausible but which we have no time to prove or disprove. If more reliable tools exist, why not use those, rather than tools which might be of use?
Although Michael does make the same point, I must say I have a somewhat different description of what I would like to have in Logos - if I would expected to find the volume at the Graduate Theological Union library in Berkeley or the St. Vladimir Seminary library or some major Jewish rabbinical college library, then I'd like to have access to it through Logos.
I do agree with you that individuals should pay attention to what they purchase and buy the quality books for their particular use. But there will always be some who want to have the biggest library to beat out the Jones. There will always be those who want poor quality works because they support what is already believed and they don't want to be challenged.
I don't blame Logos for people's misuse of the available resources. At least I haven't found them publishing an "encyclopedia" with reference that don't check out - as I have a big-time secular press.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I do agree with you that individuals should pay attention to what they purchase and buy the quality books for their particular use. But there will always be some who want to have the biggest library to beat out the Jones. There will always be those who want poor quality works because they support what is already believed and they don't want to be challenged.
This is what our product guides are for:
0 -
Gary
I think that you misconstrue the thrust of my argument. I did not suggest that Hastings had no errors in it. I merely said that I had not been misled by it, because I take it for what it is – a thorough treatment of the world of the Bible, based on the current scholarship of the time. I am well aware of the fact that our knowledge is contingent, partial, and even dated, at any time – including the present time. Neither is it a case of putting something wrong alongside something right and dividing it to ascertain the truth, as you seem to suggest. However, to discard it because it is dated seems rather harsh. All books are dated as soon as they are written!
In the University of Aberdeen library we have stacks where older books (10 to 20 years old depending on the field), mostly in the sciences and social sciences, are stored (each with a coloured label to indicate that it is no longer current). They are not the latest word in their field and several can be seen to be erroneous in the light of modern scholarship, but they are useful in getting an overview of a particular field of study. Moreover, they serve as a warning against the hubris/folly of focussing on what is current without reference to the past; for they were current once.
Older scholarship helps keep modern scholarship in perspective and may usefully critique modern scholarship. That is why we need both.
Our great libraries, like the British Library or the National Library of Scotland, hold massive collections of what has been published. And they are full of scholars (not only historians) who consult them because they are insightful or suggestive for their current studies.
As far as New Testament Greek language is concerned, Louw-Nida has not replaced BAGD/BDAG, rather it supplements and complements it. So I shall use both and LSJ and Moulton-Milligan and others.
If Logos only published old texts, then you might have a point, but they also, in conjunction with existing publishers, publish more recent works, like the Yale Anchor Bible series of commentaries, and even commission new works, like the Lexham discourse analysis series.
Every blessing,
Alan
iMac Retina 5K, 27": 3.6GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.15.5; 1TB SSD; Logos 8
MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.13.6; 256GB SSD; Logos 8
iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 13.5.1
iPhone 8+ 64GB iOS 13.5.1
0 -
Logos is a business.
It is a business I like and have spent thousands of dollars with.
It is a business nonetheless.
I think it has over-promoted some older works.
But I say: Caveat Emptor!
0 -
Dear Michael, Many thanks...and I do sincerely apologize if I offended you or the good people at Logos...all of whom make my life a daily wonder of Bible exploration!
I went cover to cover in A. T. Robertson and all of the major available grammars about 15 years ago in order to get a sense of where syntactical studies have gone. My sense is that our understanding of syntax has undergone a revolution, due in part to semantical studies and due in part to the ability to test older assumptions, based on the ability to rapidly search the texts. I thought that Robertson showed his age, but the fact that his work is, what, 1300 pages, means that he carries much "weight" still.
I take your point about Amazon.com versus an old review...but isn't it possible to get a couple of sentences from Buist Fanning or Stan Porter?
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
Hi Jeremy, thanks for the response.
Would experts have difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff in Thayer?
1. It's not the expert who is depending on Thayer. The reality is that many with little or no facility in Greek link into it via the Strong's numbering system, and quote it as authoritative.
2. Yes, an expert would have trouble separating the wheat from the chaff. I'm no expert, but I can do research in the field, and I had a huge amount of trouble analyzing just one article in Thayer, on agape. See my essay in www.justinofnablus.wordpress.com, search under "Thayer"
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
Hi Alan, thanks for your interesting post.
In my experience, the revolution of evangelical scholarship since the war means that recent works often provide credible, well-researched critiques of modern scholarship, of a quality not available for the 50 years previous...well, since Sir William Ramsay, another Aberdonian!
Louw/Nida hasn't replaced BDAG, nor was it intended to. But, BDAG with MM and LSJ - the latter free on Perseus! - is a nice combination, esp when supplemented with some theological word study books.
BTW, a shout out from an Aberdeen grad in NT Exegesis, 1986!
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
Hi Brad, yeah...and I'm not anti-business. AND I will continue to squeeze the family budget for Logos sources.
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
Dear Michael, Many thanks...and I do sincerely apologize if I offended you or the good people at Logos...all of whom make my life a daily wonder of Bible exploration!
No worries! I wanted to try to explain the situation more than anything else. No offense taken.
I went cover to cover in A. T. Robertson and all of the major available grammars about 15 years ago in order to get a sense of where syntactical studies have gone. My sense is that our understanding of syntax has undergone a revolution, due in part to semantical studies and due in part to the ability to test older assumptions, based on the ability to rapidly search the texts. I thought that Robertson showed his age, but the fact that his work is, what, 1300 pages, means that he carries much "weight" still.
Perhaps, though I would suggest the revolution is more one of clarifying terminology than it is of underlying meaning -- and the question various from grammatical category to category. I'm sure of us could give examples going in either direction (e.g. contemporary grammars make no attempt to explain the difference between accented and enclitic personal pronouns -- you must go to an old grammar for those). In the verb, Constantine Campbell in his 2007 book, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood and Narrative, draws on Georg Curtius for a large portion of his understanding of the Greek perfect, reviving the work of a old grammar (now on pre-pub btw).
On the other side of things, the best and most important work in parts-of-speech and morphology is Gerhard Mussies Morphology of Koine Greek from 1971 -- a newer work that beats anything else in existence. Yet at the same time, the dead grammarians had a better grasp of the problems with the concept of deponency than we do today with Robertson making clear his disapproval of the term, and always putting it in quotes (but see for Classical Greek, Rutgar Allan's The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek, which validates Robertson's disapproval).
My own opinion is that there was a revolution with Moulton and Robertson which died in the 30's (though struggling to live in Moule's Idiom Book) and then things went backwards during the middle of the 20th century -- especially with Dana & Mantey. Had that revolution not lost momentum, we never would have needed a new one in recent days and the improvements we see today could have (read: should have) taken place in the 30's and 40's rather than in the 80's and 90's. Hopefully we won't loose momentum again.
I take your point about Amazon.com versus an old review...but isn't it possible to get a couple of sentences from Buist Fanning or Stan Porter?
Hmmm...well...I wish I could. Steve gave me a nice quote for the Blass collection a while book, which was great, but I know him well (I helped edit his grammar). I don't know Fanning or Porter. I'm not sure how interested they'd be in random e-mails from people in marketing. Minimally, what I can do is remember to include dates for review quotes, though I'm only one of many who write page descriptions and I have very little authority. We're not perfect, but we do want to be up front and honest.
0 -
I just had a thought; though those that know me, know that could be dangerous. It is obviously okay for a user to suggest a book and provide some reasoning for asking LOGOS for a new resource. It seems to me that it should also be fair to suggest that LOGOS remove a book - either from its library (publishers have done this from time to time, why not users), pre-pub, or the community pricing program.
Obviously, we need to be careful on how we do this, without stepping on someone's theological or exegetical toes. But, it does seem like a fair question for a user to raise. And my theological or exegetical bias is a fair reason for me to argue against a book. Can I do this, without possibly offending anyone?
Of course, the American Library Association gets around this in our public libraries by saying nothing is out of bounds. Is that what we want to say about LOGOS? I doubt it. But where do we draw the lines and how do we do it without breaking the forum guidelines?
Blessings,
FloydPastor-Patrick.blogspot.com
0 -
I just had a thought; though those that know me, know that could be dangerous. It is obviously okay for a user to suggest a book and provide some reasoning for asking LOGOS for a new resource. It seems to me that it should also be fair to suggest that LOGOS remove a book - either from its library (publishers have done this from time to time, why not users), pre-pub, or the community pricing program.
This is the new difficulty with e-books. When it came to print books a publisher would stop printing books that had been surpassed. People were left with decaying personal and library copies. Now, it doesn't cost Logos anything to maintain a library of back-list titles, even if some become so hopelessly out of date we wish they would disappear. It just goes to say that one must show wisdom in what he or she purchases.
Prov. 15:23
0 -
Hi Michael - yeah, I don't want to get started on Dana and Mantey...
I just found an e-version of Sophocles and skimmed through some articles. For agape - which I had studied in Thayer - there wasn't a lot of help for a Bible student. The gloss it offers is "Love, charity" (!) with a handful of biblical references and a nod to 1 Clement. The article on agapao, I think, would be confusing to someone who is playing without a score-card, which will be most Logos users. It lists among its glosses: "love sexually", 'persuade", "value" and "be contented"...none of which have to do with the biblical texts. Yet I can imagine preachers working those data into a sermon...since Sophocles is an authority, he'll be lined up next to BDAG, perhaps on equal terms.
One of the Amazon.com reviewers identified himself as a "Byzantinist" and said he found some help in Sophocles. This rings true with me...nevertheless, 98+% of Logos users are going to be working in biblical exegesis, not Byzantine Greek, and I see very little help in Sophocles for them. I say this as a casual observation, since he has, what, 1300 pages, and I only flipped through it.
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0
