I wonder if this is a bug or if I'm missing something.
There are 15 occurrences of this word in the LXX. (You can see this by searching for "lemma:ἡδονή" in Morph Search in Logos LXX.) Two are in the Hebrew Bible (Numbers & Proverbs) and 13 are not (11 in 4 Maccabees & 2 in Wisdom of Solomon).
This is why the BWS shows 2 of 15 occurrences in the Septuagint Translation section; admittedly this is presented in a confusing way.
Well, my BWS should show the 2 additional in Wisdom but not the 11 in 4 Maccabees. But if I become Georgian Orthodox I should see them all.[:P] When is a BWS not a BWS? When Logos tells me what my canon is rather than asking me. And here I'd thought Logos made progress when they labelled the Book of Enoch as Bible.[:(] Has it occurred to you it is easy to ignore too much information but nigh unto impossible to see data that isn't there?
admittedly this is presented in a confusing way.
Seriously, why on earth shouldn't I expect the section labelled LXX to use the LXX canon?[8-)] I think I would change the adjective "confusing" to one with a more pejorative nuance.
This is the Septuagint Translation section, which shows how words from the LXX are translated in the BHS. Your personal choice of canon doesn't affect the books that are included (or not!) in the BHS. [;)]
This is the Septuagint Translation section, which shows how words from the LXX are translated in the BHS.
I doubt that you typed what you meant, Bradley. Did you really mean that the BHS is a translation of the LXX?[;)] But I get what you mean - the BHS is the driving manuscript. So what I really want it a BWS driven by the Septuagint ... then a third BWS driven by the Vulgate ...then a fourth BWS driven by the Peshitta ... hey this could be fun... Coptic, Georgian, Armenian .. suppose I can find a complete Sogdian manuscript?.[Y]
This is the Septuagint Translation section, which shows how words from the LXX are translated in the BHS. I doubt that you typed what you meant, Bradley. Did you really mean that the BHS is a translation of the LXX?
I doubt that you typed what you meant, Bradley. Did you really mean that the BHS is a translation of the LXX?
I neither typed what I meant, nor meant what I typed. [:)]
As you understood, the Septuagint Translation section shows the Hebrew words to which the current Greek lemma is aligned (in the BHS/LXX alignment DB).
But I get what you mean - the BHS is the driving manuscript. So what I really want it a BWS driven by the Septuagint ... then a third BWS driven by the Vulgate ...then a fourth BWS driven by the Peshitta ... hey this could be fun... Coptic, Georgian, Armenian .. suppose I can find a complete Sogdian manuscript?.
All BWS are driven by a lemma (or a stemmed word in English). Additional information is provided when an alignment exists between that lemma and words in another language.
Assuming we develop a Latin morphology, ship a morph- and lemma-tagged Vulgate, and align it to the MT, LXX, and GNT (as appropriate), then it's reasonable to expect that the BWS would show that information for a BWS on a Latin word.
(You can already run a BWS on a Syriac word, but the only sections that have data are Lemma and Textual Searches.)
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
