Greek Majority Text W/ Sympathetic Highlighting

Page 1 of 2 (21 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 20 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 3808
spitzerpl | Forum Activity | Posted: Mon, Dec 7 2009 5:56 AM

Is there a text of the Majority persuasion that allows sympathetic highlighting?

Posts 12700
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 6:10 AM

No, I don't think so. At least my Byzantine 2005 doesn't (and nor do my three Received Texts if it comes to it). Logos' Greek Texts page doesn't appear to include any other resources which may do instead.

Posts 1193
LogosEmployee
Rick Brannan (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 6:16 AM

Hi Philip.

Philip Spitzer:

Is there a text of the Majority persuasion that allows sympathetic highlighting?

There is a particular version of the Scrivener text that should work for this as it is the basis of the KJV, NKJV and RVR60 NT Reverse Interlinears. (RVR60 is a Spanish text). "The New Testament in Greek (Scrivener 1881)" should do it.

I'm assuming that "textus receptus" and "Majority persuasion" are close enough. If you're looking specifically for an edition of Maurice Robinson's text (New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005) or the Hodges/Farstad text, then we don't have such a beast at present.

 

Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print

Posts 3808
spitzerpl | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 6:17 AM

Mark Barnes:

No, I don't think so. At least my Byzantine 2005 doesn't (and nor do my three Received Texts if it comes to it). Logos' Greek Texts page doesn't appear to include any other resources which may do instead.

Hope they include it or update one of these resources to include it eventually. For now I found a trick to finding differences, at least between the text underlying the various translations. Open two up with sympathetic highlighting on and highlight a verse. If they have different underlying texts it will not highlight the differences. It would be helpful if it colored or shaded variants differently.

Posts 3808
spitzerpl | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 6:21 AM

Rick Brannan:
There is a particular version of the Scrivener text that should work for this as it is the basis of the KJV, NKJV and RVR60 NT Reverse Interlinears. (RVR60 is a Spanish text). "The New Testament in Greek (Scrivener 1881)" should do it.

That's what I was looking for! Thanks! Any plans to have sympathetic highlighting shade variants different colors?

Posts 12700
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 6:56 AM

Rick,

This good news. But I'm getting increasingly confused by the number of 'old' resources in my library that have been seemingly replaced by newer versions, but the old version remains in use. I'd looked at the 1894 Scrivener's for example, which doesn't have sympathetic highlighting. I've got a number of confusing 'duplicate' resources, particular with original texts:

The NT Greek is a minefield, too. It's bad enough that there's already NA26, NA27 and UBS4, though I appreciate that's not your fault and I'm glad you support them all. But then we have competing morphologies. Again, not your fault. But the simpler way of naming new resources (e.g. The New Testament in the Original Greek) is confusing when put next to the 'old' way (e.g. Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (1881) With Morphology). It seems to me that the first resource is actually a W&H with Logos morphology. But how would I know?

It's also frustrating that I can have the UBS4 with Apparatus, or with Morphology, but not both, while I'm at it.

Sorry to winge, but it's getting rather confusing and the lack of serial resource associations isn't helping.

Posts 1193
LogosEmployee
Rick Brannan (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 7:58 AM

Hi Mark.

I understand exactly what you're saying. The basic issue is that we want to keep 'older' versions of things around so that folks who choose not to upgrade will still have functional copies of everything, but we don't want to limit upgrading/new users to those older versions when we have newer (likely better) versions of things. This can end up being a problem for those who have crossgraded/upgraded from older packages to newer packages because of the proliferations of similar editions of texts.

I think the first thing I can recommend (speaking personally, not necessarily as a Logos employee) is to use the "Hide Resources" feature with several 'older' versions of things if you've done a crossgrade/upgrade to a Logos 4 LE package.

There are several older versions of Greek New Testaments that have their genesis with editions done by Dr. Maurice Robinson. These versions, however, were originally done by Dr. Robinson for his own (noble) purposes before he released them to the public domain. They have no accents/breathing, they have no casing, they have the moveable nu normalized, and there are some other issues. Where we have updates/newer editions, I'd recommend hiding the old edition. This means:

For Scrivener's text, keep "The New Testament in Greek (Scrivener 1881)". Hide "Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) with Morphology". You can also hide "Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1881)" as it has accents, but no morphology.

For the Stephanus text, we still only have Robinson's edition, which is witnessed in "Stephen's Textus Receptus (1550) with Morphology" and also in the Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament".

For the Westcott and Hort text, I can highly recommend the latest released form, "The New Testament in the Original Greek" as it has had significant proofing and correction done on it. It is the most accurate edition of W&H's printed text that I know of. It also has the Logos morphology applied, and should function with sympathetic highlighting. This means I'd hide "1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament". Note that there is also an edition of W&H with Swanson's morphology (The Swanson Greek New Testament Morphology (Westcott-Hort Edition)"; I believe this one supports sympathetic highlighting as well. This is much more accurate than the Robinson edition, but our new edition with the Logos morph is even more accurate when compared to the printed W&H edition.

For Tischendorf, "Novum Testamentum Graece (Tischendorf)" is the best, it aligns best with the apparatus. This does not have sympathetic highlighting. Other Tischendorf editions (if you have them) have no morph, or they have no accents/breathings.

For Byzantine stuff, if you have "Byzantine/Majority Textform Greek New Testament", this is the 1995 edition of Robinson's text. The one you probably want (the better edition of his work) is "The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005". I know the name is confusing, but it's the name of the printed edition, and that's why we go with it. These are now editable/configurable on the user side, so you can open the properties from the library and edit the title and/or the shortname to whatever works for you.

On NA2[67], UBS[34], it really boils down to choosing which edition you like best, if you want an interlinear, and if you'd like to have apparatus indicators (providing you have the SESB from the German Bible Society). Promote the one(s) you like best. Note that as you use the command bar to open texts, it remembers what you type and what got opened, so it will begin to prefer particular resources you use frequently with the strings you type to access them. On the issue you raise with UBS4, that is completely out of our hands; if you have feedback on the features or configuration of the SESB product please make it known to the German Bible Society (http://www.dbg.de/index.php?L=1 for their English site) or suggest@logos.com and I'm sure it will be forwarded to them.

Hope it helps.

Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print

Posts 3808
spitzerpl | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 8:14 AM

Rick Brannan:
I understand exactly what you're saying. The basic issue is that we want to keep 'older' versions of things around so that folks who choose not to upgrade will still have functional copies of everything, but we don't want to limit upgrading/new users to those older versions when we have newer (likely better) versions of things.

that makes perfect sense to me now. I never thought of that rational.

Rick Brannan:
I think the first thing I can recommend (speaking personally, not necessarily as a Logos employee) is to use the "Hide Resources" feature with several 'older' versions of things if you've done a crossgrade/upgrade to a Logos 4 LE package.

your whole post was extremely helpful. Thank you.

Posts 2765
J.R. Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 10:07 AM

Rick, I have held off from hiding resources because I did not want to break the Logos functionality and never got around to asking this question.  thanks for the suggestions on which resources to hide.  Much appreciated!

My Books in Logos & FREE Training

Posts 12700
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 11:56 AM

Thanks Rick, that's really helpful. Can I suggest a blog post in the future that includes this information and quickly compares the various morphologies that are available to us? Having said that, I do think it may have been better to upgrade the old resources, rather than create new ones. Less confusing all around, although I know it reduces the amount of NEW resources upgraders will feel they're getting.

To everyone else, in an earlier post Rick also recommended that we do away with Septuaginta: Morphologically Tagged Edition in favour of Septuagint with Logos Morphology.

Posts 2212
Damian McGrath | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2009 1:56 PM

Rick, that was great.

You didn't mention the two versions of the SESB - one of these is faulty (I believe) and I'm not sure why it wasn't replaced. One needs to go into the information pane of the open resources to find which is the older version.

Posts 404
Fred Greco | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 18 2009 7:04 PM

Yes, thank you Rick.  Very helpful.

But it also shows up the useless nature of the "Ranking."  On almost every one of these sets, the higher ranked item was the one suggested to be hidden.  It also does not seem to be subjectively worse, but objectively worse (older resource, missing morphology, etc.)

Would there be any way to get some information from Logos on the duplicate resources? I understand the desire to keep users of older versions from "breaking" but I would think that those of us who are paying top-dollar for the latest versions should not have to dig around to get rid of old versions.  I'm willing to hide the resources, but I think Logos should give me the information on them (after all, Logos knows the most about them).

Am I all wet on this?

Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA, Katy, TX
Windows 10 64-bit; Logos 7.1 SR-2 (Reformed Platinum)

Posts 12700
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 19 2009 3:13 AM

No, you're right Fred. I would be very useful to have some kind of warning when we first opened a superseded resource. How can be expected to know which is the 'best' resource, particularly when the descriptions and titles give us no indication. I wouldn't want them automatically hidden though, as I can imagine users would differ on whether they wanted to do this.

Posts 404
Fred Greco | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 19 2009 3:42 PM

Mark Barnes:

No, you're right Fred. I would be very useful to have some kind of warning when we first opened a superseded resource. How can be expected to know which is the 'best' resource, particularly when the descriptions and titles give us no indication. I wouldn't want them automatically hidden though, as I can imagine users would differ on whether they wanted to do this.

Agreed.  I would think the best solution would be for Logos to create a list of the few categories (Greek Majority text, Greek Critical text, Hebrew Bible, etc) that hiding duplicative (but inferior) resources would be applicable.

Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA, Katy, TX
Windows 10 64-bit; Logos 7.1 SR-2 (Reformed Platinum)

Posts 3163
Dominick Sela | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 2 2010 5:58 AM

Someone referred me to this now-a-year-old thread, which was very informative! I wanted to make sure I didn't hide anything incorrect as the titles were not always exactly how they appear in Logos 4. I am new to starting to research differences in Greek texts (as you may have discerned from some of my posts Smile), so your replies are as always appreciated!

As a result of this thread, I hid (note exact title names in Logos):

Novum Testamentum Graece

Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) with Morphology

Septuaginta: Morphologically Tagged Edition

Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (1881) with Morphology

Note I did not hide Byzantine/Majority Textform Greek 2.0 as I do not have it, I just have the more current resource, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005.

Are there other resources Rick implied to hide that I may have missed the thought?

Also - on NA27, I have 5: NA27, NA27 with GRAMCORD, NA27 with GRAMCORD and McReynolds English Interlinear, NA27 with McReynolds Interlinear, NA27 without Morphology. Should any be hidden? I am wondering why I need NA27  without Morphology if I have NA27 with Morphology, for instance. Unless there are differences int he text?

Last question! I have UBS4 with Interlinear and Morphology, and UBS4 with Morphology. Should I hide the one without Interlinear, any reason to keep it, are the texts otherwise identical?

I only want to hide resources that are truly superseded.  So thanks again for your help deciphering all this so I don't get confused more than I already am!

 

Posts 12700
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 2 2010 8:27 AM

Dominick Sela:

Also - on NA27, I have 5: NA27, NA27 with GRAMCORD, NA27 with GRAMCORD and McReynolds English Interlinear, NA27 with McReynolds Interlinear, NA27 without Morphology. Should any be hidden? I am wondering why I need NA27  without Morphology if I have NA27 with Morphology, for instance. Unless there are differences int he text?

Last question! I have UBS4 with Interlinear and Morphology, and UBS4 with Morphology. Should I hide the one without Interlinear, any reason to keep it, are the texts otherwise identical?

Just to say that occasionally there are advantages in having or more two identical copies of bible resources, particularly that you can have different visual filters in different but functionally identical resources, but you can't have different visual filters in two copies of the same resource. For that reason I've kept most of my duplicates, even though I could (for example) turn off the interlinear and turn my NA27/Interlinear into a standard NA27. That said, I don't see much point in an NA27 without morphology…

Posts 9464
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 2 2010 8:52 AM

Dominick ... I'd give you pretty good odds you'll be un-hiding some of the ones you're listing, as you proceed with your studies. The reason is that as you research some of the textual arguments (JBL, critical commentaries, etc), you'll want to look at the text form (esp W/H and Tisch, and any that sit behind the english at the time). And doing Text Comparison quickly highlights 'problem' areas for your eyes. Just my 2 cents.


Posts 12700
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 2 2010 9:01 AM

Denise: I think you might have missed Rick's post above, which explains why Dominick hid what he did: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/6544/50658.aspx#50658

Posts 9464
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 2 2010 10:07 AM

Yep ... after I pushed the 'Send'. Though, in working with the 1800s commentaries, I like to make 'sure' I'm looking at the closest text form that they appear to be using. Appreciate your courtesy.


Posts 3163
Dominick Sela | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 2 2010 11:15 AM

Thanks Mark and Denise for your replies.

Given I am a person who both likes his cake and enjoys simultaneously consuming it (I would have loved being in the story at Matt 14:20!!), here is what I did - I unhid them all again, and tagged them all "Hidden".  That way if I ever am unsure what resource I am looking at I can check the tag, or I can easily create a Collection with/without them, yest they are still available!

Page 1 of 2 (21 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS