Damian,
Is the BWS reporting "no equivalent because the actual word appears, but not in that verse?
In the case of Gen 16:8, the word actually appears in the LXX at verse 9.
Is that why it's saying that?
Bob,
The problem with this whole tool is that it makes it appear as if there is a one-to-one equivalence between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. There are, in fact, very many differences between these texts. The translators of the Septuagint used manuscripts which are not simply equivalent to what we know as the Hebrew Text today.
In a number of cases, this is very clear - the Greek word and the Hebrew word bear no resemblance to one another; They belong to different semantic classes.
In other cases the LXX has more words than appear in the Hebrew. Gen 16:8 is an example, where as the Hebrew says simply, "He said." The Greek says "The angel/messenger said." So, the Wheel is telling us that there is no Hebrew equivalent for the Greek.
There are also, verses, chapters, books in the LXX which do not appear in the Hebrew. These are not dealt with well by this tool. For example, it is as if Psalm 151 simply does not exist. It should, be treated together with single words and verses in "canonical" books which find no parallel in the Hebrew and appear in the "no equivalent" section.
Damian, I'm interested in a few of your observations.
1. If you say 239 is incorrect do you mean that it should be 282 or that 239 as a number of translations is wrong?
My search shows there are 212 greek words with a corresponding Hebrew word:-
+ 24 "no equivalents"
So I would reckon 212+24 = 236. But the strip chart is all over the place in getting to its 239 total.
2. My search shows 71 "no equivalents" throughout the LXX. The 24 in BWS represents those in the "Protestant" canon, where you expect it to be an "interpolation" from the Hebrew eg Gen 16.8 angel of the Lord said vs. (he) said. The other 47 arise simply because Logos provides no interlinear data in the "non-canonical" books, where there may be no extant Hebrew anyway!??
EDIT: were you watching the tennis final as well - otherwise i would have posted this before seeing Bob's question!
If you say 239 is incorrect do you mean that it should be 282 or that 239 as a number of translations is wrong?
The hover says: "number of Hits in Book". This is incorrect. It is not the number of hits in the Septuagint. It is the number of hits in a portion thereof, not simply equivalent to the "protestant" canon. For example, look at the hit for 2 Samuel (2 Kingdoms) 11:22. This does not appear in the MT, nor in the "protestant" or "roman" Canons, yet is marked as a "no equivalent" hit. If this is so marked, why not the other verses for which there is no MT equivalent (i.e. those found in the deuterocanonicals).
My search shows 71 "no equivalents" throughout the LXX. The 24 in BWS represents those in the "Protestant" canon
Not quite as noted above.
The other 47 arise simply because Logos provides no interlinear data in the "non-canonical" books, where there may be no extant Hebrew anyway!??
The source text from which this graph is produced provides no interlinear data. But, there are extant Hebrew texts for some of the deuterocanonical books. Tov's Parallel Aligned Hebrew/Greek text provides these.
But, the hover is simply incorrect. It is not the number of "hits" in the book.
Now, how did you do all your searches?
Forgot all about it - we have Sunday evening Mass at 7pm so I was at the church between 6.30pm and 8.30pm
OK. Revisiting this... The graph has nothing at all to do with translations. I'm not sure what it is doing there. It is a simple graph of how many times each word appears in the books which belong to the "protestant" canon irrespective of whether the individual verses appear therein.
I really can't see a point to this graph in a section on translations.
I've been misreading the hover: I though it was referring to "number of hits in book (=LXX)".
Here's an example of an error in the BWS because of the assumption that the MT underlies the LXX...
The BWS shows that the Greek word Ῥόδιοι is used in Gen 10:4 to translate the Hebrew דֹדָנִים. This is most assuredly not the case. As Brotzman notes:
[quote] The textual apparatus of BHS for this verse indicates that some Hebrew manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint all are in agreement with the text of 1 Chronicles 1:7, which reads רֹדָנִים instead of דֹדָנִים. It seems evident that a confusion of ד for ר or ר for ד has occurred in one of these texts. Many hold, rightly in my opinion, that רֹדָנִים is original because of a likely relation between the Rodanim and the Island of Rhodes.
<lemma = lbs/el/ἄγγελος> NOTEQUALS <H1-H8679>
H1 to H8679 represents the valid range of Hebrew Strong's, so there will be a hit if there is NO Strong's number where ἄγγελος is found.
Here's an example of an error in the BWS because of the assumption that the MT underlies the LXX... The BWS shows that the Greek word Ῥόδιοι is used in Gen 10:4 to translate the Hebrew דֹדָנִים. This is most assuredly not the case. As Brotzman notes: [quote] The textual apparatus of BHS for this verse indicates that some Hebrew manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint all are in agreement with the text of 1 Chronicles 1:7, which reads רֹדָנִים instead of דֹדָנִים. It seems evident that a confusion of ד for ר or ר for ד has occurred in one of these texts. Many hold, rightly in my opinion, that רֹדָנִים is original because of a likely relation between the Rodanim and the Island of Rhodes.
Hi Damian,
It looks as though I'm going to have to wait a bit longer before I buy that SESB. I was sooooo close to pulling the trigger on it but decided to wait until the programmers get things like this all fixed. I don't need to get ulcers worrying if the Bible study tools that I'm using are giving me correct information or not. Owell. When I start seeing you post how awesome things are working -AND- maybe when I can actually install the SESB in L4 without having to have an L3 install to bootstrap getting the SESB on L4 then I'll give it another consideration. I was also going to buy the Halot/BDAG bundle and the Liddel & Scott for L4, but every time I read a forum post that tells me that the Hebrew/Aramaic & Greek tools are borked I get real uneasy about forking over loot for resources.
Thanks for saving me some grief.
Mike
Thanks for saving me some grief. Mike
Oh Mike.....
I'm only playing with this tool because of a query yesterday which got my mind working. As I said elsewhere, I'd personally get rid of it because it suggests an equivalence between LXX and MT. I don't normally use it.
I'm a very happy owner of SESB, BDAG, HALOT. and LSJ. I've just been zipping through LSJ for the meaning of some LXX words which were unfamiliar to me. I've also just been scrolling through the SESB BHS and LXX with their apparatuses open while reading through Brotzman's Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction which uses Ruth as its test case. I was using these to examine how well the Logos LXX deals with the issues of different possible Hebrew Vorlagen. I'm really quite impressed.
Whether the BWS "Septuagint Translation" tool is of any value or has flaws ought, imho, play no part in a decision concerning the purchase of the critical texts.
Regards
Damian
Now, how did you do all your searches? <lemma = lbs/el/ἄγγελος> NOTEQUALS <H1-H8679> H1 to H8679 represents the valid range of Hebrew Strong's, so there will be a hit if there is NO Strong's number where ἄγγελος is found.
Dave, you really are the search Guru. Now if only I could remember things like this.
