BWS -- difference in hits between textual searches and LXX translation

I'm curious why the BWS shown below has different numbers of results for the LXX -- 272 in textual searches section and 211 in the LXX translation section. The numbers match between the textual searches section and the translation section -- 143 in each.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

The Septuagint translation does not include the Apocrypha books. There are 10 results labelled "no equivalent" belonging to the "canonical" books, and it does not list the 61 "no equivalents" in the Apocrypha.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/83964#Comment_83964

The Septuagint translation does not include the Apocrypha books.

And to think I've never seen a Septuagint translation that did not contain the Deuterocanonicals.[:D]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/84223#Comment_84223

And to think I've never seen a Septuagint translation that did not contain the Deuterocanonicals.

Martha, do you know why Deuterocanonicals do not have a Hebrew translation? Is it that there are simply no extant Hebrew originals?

Russ Quinn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/84434#Comment_84434

And to think I've never seen a Septuagint translation that did not contain the Deuterocanonicals.

Martha, do you know why Deuterocanonicals do not have a Hebrew translation? Is it that there are simply no extant Hebrew originals?

There are different textual traditions for different books.

No extant Hebrews texts for Baruch for example but medieval and Dead Sea fragments for Ecclesiasticus.
The Epistle of Jeremiah was probably originally written in Greek based on the Greek fragment found at Qumran.
The original language of the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children is debated.
Susanna was probably originally written in Greek based on its subtle use of word plays in Greek.
1 Maccabees was probably written in Hebrew but no extant copies.
2 Maccabees was probably written in Greek.

One of the most accessible introductions with biblio for each book is Craig Evans Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. You can see his chapter on the OT Apocrypha here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Wf6BzO6TkyUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/84438#Comment_84438

One of the most accessible introductions with biblio for each book is Craig Evans Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. You can see his chapter on the OT Apocrypha here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Wf6BzO6TkyUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Thanks Russ. That confirms the reason (to me!) for the discrepancies between Text Search results of the LXX and Septuagint Translation results. The confusion could be avoided if the Textual Search ignored the results from the Apocrypha books.

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/84445#Comment_84445

The confusion could be avoided if the Textual Search ignored the results from the Apocrypha books.

But, why should a textual search ignore some of the hits found in the text....?

Surely, the "solution" would be a blank section of the translation ring for those words which are not translated?

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/84472#Comment_84472

Surely, the "solution" would be a blank section of the translation ring for those words which are not translated?

That would certainly be the best option.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/84472#Comment_84472

Surely, the "solution" would be a blank section of the translation ring for those words which are not translated?

Hi Damian, I was trying not to attract your attention ...[;)]

My thinking was that Logos needed to be consistent with their approach of not having a "not translated" section, noting that they do have a "no equivalent" section. But, yes, they could include a "not translated" section to balance the counts.

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/84488#Comment_84488

Hi Damian, I was trying not to attract your attention ...

I've been lurking (but, I'm finding it hard to keep up with all the posts). Too much on the plate currently with our 5 schools starting back (yikes!), lenten program to write, etc, etc...

My thinking was that Logos needed to be consistent with their approach of not having a "not translated" section, noting that they do have a "no equivalent" section. But, yes, they could include a "not translated" section to balance the counts.

Obviously, the textual searches section has to show how many hits there are (as it does for the Apostolic Fathers, Philo, etc.). That section is not constrained by the "protestant" canon.

The issue of people being confused by the translation section is an interesting one. This confusion arises because people assume a 1:1 correspondence between BHS and the LXX. The question should be how does Logos address this assumption: ignore it (the current approach); add a not translated section - which is not the same as ignoring deuterocanonicals because there are other differences; or add a information (i) which explains the output of the window.

This is not an issue for me.. I would not rely on this tool for anything as we simply do not know in way too many cases what Hebrew text/s was/were used for the LXX - imho, the "translation" section offers a false report and should be scrapped for LXX-BHS

Russ Quinn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/84506#Comment_84506

The question should be how does Logos address this assumption: ignore it (the current approach); add a not translated section - which is not the same as ignoring deuterocanonicals because there are other differences; or add a information (i) which explains the output of the window.

I would like more information not less. It would be great if the translation section was able to show variants from the DSS for instance.

I think an information window explaining how the search interacts with the various texts would be extremely helpful.

I would not want to ignore hits from the Greek LXX text in the textual results section because they are valuable in their own right even if there is no Hebrew equivalent for a particular word or phrase.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/84506#Comment_84506

imho, the "translation" section offers a false report and should be scrapped for LXX-BHS

Also for LXX-Tanakh, LXX-Hebrew New Testament! The ordinary Translation section is biased toward Andersen-Forbes for Hebrew words in BWS, so Logos should do a better job than accept the highest prioritized "Hebrew" bible ie. ignore BHS and go for LHI or AFAT.

Damian, looking at Greek words like ἄγγελος in BWS could you confirm that the Apostolic Father's Textual Search is conducted in Lake's Apostolic Fathers in Greek or Lightfoot's which I believe you also have (it might be a matter of your preference, but I'd still like to know).

Thanks,

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/84773#Comment_84773

Damian, looking at Greek words like ἄγγελος in BWS could you confirm that the Apostolic Father's Textual Search is conducted in Lake's Apostolic Fathers in Greek or Lightfoot's which I believe you also have (it might be a matter of your preference, but I'd still like to know).

Mine produces its search results from the Michael Holmes resource, which for ἄγγελος produces one more hit than Lightfoot and three more than Lake

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/84786#Comment_84786

On another note:

The translation section includes a "no equivalent" Thus, the little graph is simply incorrect..... It is not the number of hits in the book. It is the number of hits in the LXX when the deuterocanonicals are excluded.