Preference of Greek Texts for Morphology

I almost hate asking the question for fear of where it may lead (over my head), but I'd really like to better understand the benefits/barriers of using the different Greek texts for Morphology work. What is your preferred Greek text and why?

Particularly, I'm setting up visual filters to help me identify morphology patterns in my favorite Bible. I understand some resources are based on textus receptus texts and others on Wescott-Hort. But beyond that, choosing one for me is like rolling dice. I'd rather make a more intelligent choice.

I'm not a linguist, so simple answers are better. Big Smile

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kevin Becker

I prefer resources with the Logos Greek Morphology. This is because it is the most widely deployed of the Greek morphologies so I can do the same searches on non-NT sources (LXX, Philo etc.).

The question of morphology is really separate from the TR/eclectic text debate. Different morph schemes will view the language in different ways. Frankly, the Hebrew morphologies vary more significantly than the Greek ones, but some variation exists. I remember someone posting an evaluation of the various Greek morphology I'll see if I can dig it up.

EDIT: See my answer to a similar question here: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/11270/88249.aspx#88249

Dave Hooton

Particularly, I'm setting up visual filters to help me identify morphology patterns in my favorite Bible.

Do not use a Reverse Interlinear for morphology patterns because the Greek/Hebrew word order is changed. You need a Greek bible (or Hebrew bible) and this makes it easy to distinguish bibles based on TR eg. use NA27/UBS4, LGNTI; based on the latest critical version of the Greek text. WH is somewhat older but not TR!

Pat Flanakin

Majority text preferred as it is more faithful to proven methods of determining the best manuscripts. When I say preferred, it is preferred over Wescott/Hort which is considered an eclectic text now, although many translations (NASB) are based on it. The Wescott/Hort basis its preference for manuscripts on "older is better," however, older is not better when newer is a perfect copy of an even older text. The Majority text wades through all this to render a rather excellent Greek text and is worth the investment (not really expensive as an additional resource (you won't find it in any base packages as I purchased the Port LE and it was absent).

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/203079#Comment_203079

Pat,

I'm curious which Majority Text you purchased separately. I have Platinum and a quick perusal of my library finds quite a few Textus Receptus/Majority Texts.

Now I've had Logos for some time, upgrading along the way, so I've picked up more of these Bibles than what is probably in the current packages.

I also feel obliged to point out that everything you said about the majority text being preferred over the eclectic text is debatable. I say this not to start an argument but to communicate to the OP that if he feels like the choice is flipping a coin then he should probably read some books on textual criticism (from both perspectives) to decide whether he wants to use the majority text or the eclectic text.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/203134#Comment_203134

I agree with Kevin....

the statement:

"older is better," however, older is not better when newer is a perfect copy of an even older text."

Is incorrect. Textual Critics do not just blindly take "older is better" and ignore all other issues. They give weight to manuscripts based on a lot of factors.

Logos has a LOT of books on textual criticism...I just bought Comforts book...it was pretty inexpensive too.

Shawn Nichols

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/202248#Comment_202248

The question of morphology is really separate from the TR/eclectic text debate.

I never intended to debate TR vs. Wescott-Hort. That would be like asking Logos users to collectively choose to use the same English translation by Sunday. But rather, within those camps I wanted to understand the textual choices available for morphology. So to bring us back on course, I think Kevin's statement above embodies the intent of my question.

I especially liked the WordPress article he referenced at http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/comparing-greek-morphologies-part-ii.As suspected, it was a little over my head, but with several readings I'm starting to grasp it. It's exactly what I was needing to help me make some decisions about my morph searches. Thanks Kevin.