Got this and a few other updates just recently and could not seem to locate what changed.
Anyone else get a recent update and notice anything new or different?
Maybe a developer could speak some on this and the others.....
Thanks.
Noticed "The New Testament in the original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with morphology. 2006. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software." now has Robinson Greek Morphology tagging, which allows a search for 2nd Aorist, see => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/48456/360177.aspx#360177
Keep Smiling [:)]
No I haven't. Not sure which NT in the Original Greek text you are referring to, but both of mine (Byzantine Textform 2005 and Westcott and Hort) have not been updated in some time.
I spoke too soon, something is downloading now. Back in a bit.
Here's what I received:
Unfortunately, other than guessing there may have been a typo reported and corrected or a metadata correction, I have no idea what may have been updated.
ok, from my older laptop that is set not to update I gather that it was a preface and some minor changes at the beginning.......
this may be associated with this:
http://community.logos.com/forums/t/48456.aspx
All I can see that I hadn't noticed previously is that the NT in the Original Greek (Byzantine Textform 2005) has both Robinson and Logos morphologies (do a morph search and either can be selected). Maybe that is always the way it was. I rarely use this text.
Ok thanks for checking.....
Tried searching Byz using Robinson and Logos Greek Morphologies: only found results using Robinson:
It depends on the search. If you look for a morph form without the lemma you get matching results from either morphology:
If you do a lemma plus morph search the Robinson works, but for some reason the search with Logos morph returns nothing.
The Logos morph alone search returns the results for the above lemma, but it will not work with the above input. Seems like a bug.
Dunno if'n that would constitute a bug. Go back to Mat 4.17 and do your word there with the 'lemma' / Logos gr Morhp and the results is zero as well...
The Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Greek New Testament with complete parsing information and lemmas for all Greek words.
The Byzantine Textform represents the texttype reflected among the vast majority of extant manuscripts. It is from this family of Byzantine texts that the early printed Greek New Testaments ("Textus Receptus" editions) and early English versions such as the Bishop's, Geneva, Coverdale, and King James Version derive, as well as the early European versions such as that of Luther and the Dutch Staten Vertaling.
This 2005 edition of the Byzantine Textform includes variant readings from within the Byzantine tradition and variants found in the NA27 and UBS4 modern critical editions.
NA27 gives 'lemma:ἄρχω@VAMI3S' for the Mat 4.17 but it gives the Logos morphing
same for ESV. Whereas using the [correction Logos Westcot hort, which uses the Logos Morph 'lemma:ἄρχω@VAMI3S'gives nothing - no results,
Maybe there is a bug....
Observation: Morph Code VA-DI3S cannot be built using Logos Greek Morphology (only matches Verb and Aorist)
Likewise the Morph Code for Verb, Aorist, and Middle are a bit different.
Wonder when Logos Greek Morphology will disappear from Byz drop down ? (seems a bit buggy)
Maybe there is a bug....gimme a few minutes and let me check the 2aorist against the un-update one on the other laptop....
*********************
interestingly enough using the BYZ- all morph text : All Passages : Robinson : @VA2 : No results
same - same : same : Logos Morph : same : No results....
@VA-DI3S - NO Results for either morphing
so there were some changes......
I've checked, and the only updates that have been made to this resource are the adding of front matter and back matter.
The back matter is an extensive argument for byzantine priority, in case anyone is interested. Robinson is refreshing because he does not make the argument from the perspective of KJV-only-ism; he makes a text-critical argument based on data, manuscripts, and ideas about transmission of text.
The text should only use the Logos Morphology. We will dig in today and see what caused the notion of Robinson-style morphology to be introduced. There may be something in the front or back matter, or perhaps some metadata that caused this blip.
Hey thanks, Rick. was going to run thru what is posted here in a few minutes to make sure something was not missed...gotta let that first cup open the eyes......[C]
***********************
OK, Rick, they stand as is posted. Thanks for looking into this....................
Robinson's discussion (seperately available on the web) is well worth considering. Long before I'd even read his logic, I had figured out NA/USB was badly 'eclectic' (meaning it's inherent language patterns that should be there appear to be long gone ... the disappearance presumably occurring before the large manuscripts NA/USB are largely based on).
To what degree the Byzantine 2005 does a better job is arguable, but it does better reflect normally expected language patterns (e.g. between separate writers, script flowing, etc). I'm into my 3rd gospel book comparing the various syriacs, coptics (english only), latin and the two big greek textforms. I now don't have a lot of confidence in NA/USB, especially looking at the Sinai syriac's patterns. I like Metzger, but 'the copyists' is starting to get a bit worn out.
Of course if instead you read Aland, those byz-iacs are just misleading 'the multitudes'. There are just no words the match their lack of intelligence, etc.
I think Ehrman's obvious points concerning (1) desert preservation and (2) varients increasing when moving earlier, bears remembering.
I know Ben will probably knock me on the head, but one reason I wanted to see copies of Joseph Smith's early writings was to see how quickly disciples altered the writings and approximately why. Interestingly it happens pretty quickly.
Dmb,
Interesting, but I think you got left on the bench and the team has gone home 'cause of the rain. It was not about who wrote what and why, but rather what was/were the changes made to the update, since they were not that noticable as with other resources. But I do appreciate your comment.
Joseph Smith, was who again...?
Room4More ... you're lots of fun to read. Your techniques are random but close enough.
But I'm not on your team. Remember 'Jesus-guy'?
Room4More ... you're lots of fun to read. Your techniques are random but close enough. But I'm not on your team. Remember 'Jesus-guy'?
thanks./ what about him?
Short history and an update:
When Robinson's 2005 edition was released, rather than making yet another Greek New Testament resource, since this was an update to Robinson's 1995 edition we simply released the completely new version as an update (same name, BYZPRSD, same identifiers, same license). But we were never able to get to the front/back matter back then, and it slipped through the cracks.
It looks like when we recently added the front and back matter to Robinson's 2005 edition, we actually ended up adding it to the older edition (1995 edition) of his text. In Logos, that old edition used Robinson's morph, not Logos morph.
We are presently migrating the front/back matter to the actual Roberson 2005 edition, which uses the Logos morph. When this is done (hopefully later today), the metadata will be corrected as well, and we should be back in business.
Thanks for your patience as we fix this one, and apologies for the disruption.
thanks Rick for looking into this and letting us know what was generating the change. I don't cosider it too much of a disruption, maybe 'inquiring minds' may fit the bill.
Thanks again for your time............
Wonder about releasing 1995 edition with Robinson Greek Morphology ? along with 2005 edition using Logos Greek Morphology ?
Follow-up to thread => Suggestion: Robinson Greek Morphology resource(s) since would appreciate one (or a few) resources with Robinson Greek Morphology, which has some tagging that is not present in Logos Greek Morphology (e.g. 2nd Aorist for stem changes).
Hi folks.
We have the revisions made, I believe an update will be coming sometime later today.
No, as the 1995 edition is clearly inferior. It has no punctuation, no casing, no accents, no breathing marks, no paragraph information. While I appreciate and understand the request, in most cases, the difference between aorist/2nd aorist (and other 'second' stuff going on, e.g. perfects) is a distinction without a real difference. It can be interesting for word formation, but for that purpose, even, would be incomplete as other such formation details are not annotated or integrated in the morphology.
Anyway, there are some issues with the way the Robinson morph is formed and implemented (in Logos resources); and there are more benefits to moving to a unified morph scheme, such as searching across multiple versions and editions for the same form despite edition orthography.
Appreciate insights about Greek Morphology along with move to unified morphology. Thankful can use Logos Greek Morphology visual filters in more resources.
Wondering if similar morph unification is planned for Hebrew and Aramaic in Old Testament ? that have a variety of homograph numbers for various lemma's ? cantillation marks ?
For those of you interested in the Byzantine Text, von Soden's edition of it with apparatus might be of interest also:
http://www.logos.com/product/15705/von-soden-greek-new-testament
using the [correction Logos Westcot hort, which uses the Logos Morph 'lemma:ἄρχω@VAMI3S'gives nothing - no results,
After the latest round of bible updates (which didn't include Logos WH) I can get the following results for this search:-
Logos WH 82 in 41 verses
NA27 82 / 41
LGNTI 82 / 41
Byz 2005 41 / 41
ESV 41 / 41
So why do ESV and Byz list 41 results and Logos WH suddenly gives a result? All with Logos morphology...
If you look at the results in Aligned view you will see the duplication that gives the double count, but why do Logos not correct this inconsistency/bug?
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
