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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Lynden O. Williams

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.

David Bailey

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

Jack Caviness

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.

George Somsel

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.

Alan Macgregor

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

David Bailey

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

Gary Shogren

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

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

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

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

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?

Mike Aubrey

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.

Gary Shogren

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.

Mike Aubrey

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.

Paul N

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.

MJ. Smith

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.

Mike Aubrey

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:

http://www.logos.com/greek/nt

Gary Shogren

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?

Milford Charles Murray

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...

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.

Peace to you, Michael! And Joy! *smile*

I was a student of Fred Danker for several classes back in the 50's and 60's. I appreciate you remarks, and I appreciate your reference to Multipurpose Tool, a book he was working on when I was a student.

Mike Childs

Gary,

It seems to me you would "throw the baby out with the bath water." I believe we have the common sense to know these works are dated. That doesn't mean that they have nothing to offer. One should not use only dated material, but there are insights to be gained from these great scholars of yesterday.

Personally, I bought nothing by Hastings for the reasons you give. One the other hand I will be delighted to get the old Cambridge Commentaries.

You might consider the remote possibility that God spoke to some folks before our generation.

Bohuslav Wojnar

Just my 2 cents of non-expert observation: Gary IMHO touched very important and practical points we as pastors need to realize. It needs to be more obvious on the Logos page of the resource what is the time frame and background information for the resources like Thayer's etc. I have Thayer's lexicon in paper version, so my automatic reaction was to get it in Logos too. I was helped however by some discussion like this one to realize some pitfalls of just putting that lexicon (and similar resources which might be obsolete already) into the same line with my other, more current and better resources.

I believe it is not a matter of having it in Logos or not, but rather giving us some more information that would put it into the right perspective from the point of view the average Logos user.

Another matter is, if producing that kind of resources is somehow slowing down the the production of more needed resources, than I would say, don't do that Logos, focus on more needed and useful ones. However, if Logos has enough technical and human resources to produce those less useful (from the common user perspective) resources without slowing down the production of current, up-to date tools and resources, than it is fine with me. I just need to be more selective in choosing the resources I really need to buy. And my wife would say amen to that last point. [:)]

Thank you Gary for that thread.

Donovan R. Palmer

Very thought provoking and enjoyable thread. Improvements in Logos 4 do help us with our growing libraries. That said, sometimes 'less is more'. For some users, the morass of information can be a hindrance to focused effective study. A library of 1,000 carefully selected resources can be just as effective as a library of 5,000 resources of varying quality... particularly if it creates a need for the user to wade through a lot of dated or outlying information that is not required. To that end, threads like this are very useful to provoke users to think about what they need and why they need it. I also think the commentary and reference materials/websites that many have referred to on these forums are going to be even more invaluable to helping users decide where to invest precious resources.

Matthew C Jones

I believe it is not a matter of having it in Logos or not, but rather giving us some more information that would put it into the right perspective from the point of view the average Logos user.

More information regarding the usefulness to the average Logos user. I strongly agree.

Another matter is, if producing that kind of resources is somehow slowing down the the production of more needed resources, than I would say, don't do that Logos, focus on more needed and useful ones. However, if Logos has enough technical and human resources to produce those less useful (from the common user perspective) resources without slowing down the production of current, up-to date tools and resources, than it is fine with me.

It is possible the cheap, well-known titles are driving the baseline profits to enable production of higher priced works from Brill, Cambridge Anchor-Yale, or whatever. It is like the grocery store offering cheap macaroni & cheese and an expensive. but tasty brand. The store definitely sells more of the cheap stuff. Especially to those who would rather buy Logos resources than eat fancy. [:$]
(beans + ramen noodles+ hot dogs + mac & cheese = Portfolio Edition [:D])

If Logos can make lots of money producing non-Biblical resources like
The Century Dictionary http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/6749
The Harvard Classics & Fiction Collection http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/3662
The Complete Works of William Shakespeare http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/6336
The Iliad in Greek and Translation http://www.logos.com/products/details/3320

then I wish them great success. These resources don't add a lot to Bible study but I'm happy to see them.

My problem is too much interest in too many subjects. My wife can attest to that.

Stefán Féliz-Kent

beans + ramen noodles+ hot dogs + mac & cheese = Portfolio Edition

I like your math. Unfortunately, I think there's an error in my equation: rice and beans + ramen noodles + hot dogs + mac & cheese = Bible Study Library!!! This is SO unfair!

Gary Shogren

I believe we have the common sense to know these works are dated.

I would be very glad to know that were the case. I'm sure you have the common sense! However...google "thayer lexicon" and you'll get an eyeful... don't know, you might even come up with hits for "Thayers is the best lexicon".

Thanks for your thoughts!

Gary Shogren

That said, sometimes 'less is more'. For some users, the morass of information can be a hindrance to focused effective study

You know Donovan, I resonate with your thought, being something of a minimalist myself. For a sermon I rarely use more than 3 well-chosen commentaries. On Luke 15 for this weekend, probably Calvin, Nolland and one other (I'm not at home and am limited to what I have on Logos). Maybe Chrysostom. Or maybe the unabridged Matthew Henry. I tell my students: besides reference tools, use 5 commentaries for an exegesis paper, 3 for a sermon, and emphasize quality over quantity.

To me, using one excellent lexicon (BDAG) is better than using two (if we're talking about BDAG + Thayer).

Gary Shogren

You might consider the remote possibility that God spoke to some folks before our generation.

Please, no sarcasm, okay?

If you've read what I've written on this thread, Michael, you know that I'm constantly reading old works. Ask my student, Stefán (he's shared above), I think he'd tell you a hair-raising tale of how much I make my students read the ancients.

But, if I were to say today, for example, Calvin says that this is the best information available on a word, so that's that, I would be afraid that Calvin would appear before me to tell me "Don't be so silly!"

Praiser

However...google "thayer lexicon" and you'll get an eyeful...

Some results on a Google Search on "Thayer lexicon" follow...

From Wikipedia :

"In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy, asserting that his own acceptance of various errors of history and science in the Bible did not materially detract from his belief in the overall soundness of Christianity.

This is the least of the information from the google search.
Gary, I wasn't purchasing the resource, but thank you for a heads-up on Thayer.
I recommend each do a google search to see what viewpoint Thayer was really coming from in his comments.

I have to add this one taken from Can You Trust Your Lexicon? which also quotes the Publisher's Introduction to Thayer's:

"The following is the exact quotation from the Publisher's introduction to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon:

Gary Shogren

"A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy. When defining metamelomai [the Greek word for regret], Thayer refuses to draw a clear distinction between this word and metanoeo [the Greek word for a change of mind - repentance]. Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example.""

I have seen this, Praiser. My only concern is the reasoning that SINCE Thayer was a unitarian, THEREFORE he wasn't a good lexicographer. People say the same thing about Bauer and Danker - "why use a lexicon written by apostates?" says one site I've got open. These statements tend to be passed rapidly from site to site on the internet, until no-one is sure who said it originally, and upon what basis.

I don't accept that logic, which is a form of begging the question. The real question should be "Did Thayer's theology harm the accuracy of his lexicon?"

It's important that we don't draw conclusions about his theology, unless the data are clear and not a surmise. That is: "Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example" - did Thayer say this, or is this someone's inference...? Maybe it's true, but I wouldn't accept it as a given without clear proof. The page where I found this same paragraph goes on to say: "I'll take the men who translated the King James Bible and the God who preserved His word over any dozen lost apostate men who write lexicons. Don't let the lexicon, or those that trust in it, deceive you. Stick with your King James Bible."

Gary Shogren

By the way, speaking of wonderful ancient sources: Logos has the Ancient Christian Commentary series, which is very useful. And I flipped when I saw that IVP had published Ambrosiaster's commentary on Paul's epistles from the Latin - I know of no other English version of this vital ancient work, a sane and literal commentary that influenced the Western church for about 1000 years. Logos doesn't have it, maybe it'll add it in sometime. The Ante-Nice Fathers and the Nicene-Post-Nicene Fathers is also great to have since it's searchable, despite the old English and the incompleteness.

Stefán Féliz-Kent

More information regarding the usefulness to the average Logos user. I strongly agree.

So do I. That's exactly the point![:D]