Questions about differences in various Logos Septuagint resources

Harry Hahne

I have several versions of the Septuagint in Logos. Since I have been using Logos since version 1.6, some of these may have been dragged along with various upgrades and have probably been superseded by later versions. I would like some help sorting out these versions I can hide any that are replaced by newer resources.

Here is what I have:

• Septuaginta: Morphologically Tagged Edition: This appears to  be the original CCAT morphological parsing from University of Pennsylvania. It uses Rahlf's edition. I think this was the LXX in Logos 2. It appears not to have been updated since 2006.
• Septuagint with Logos Morphology: Uses Rahlf's edition. It adds a reverse interlinear for the Hebrew Bible (very cool!) Is this also the CCAT tagging or a totally new tagging?
• The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint: Swete's edition.
• The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint: H.B. Swete Edition: Apparently the Swete edition with the addition of the interlinear tagging.
• The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint: It does not say what version of Septuagint it is, but it appears to be Rahlf's.
• The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: Greek: Brenton's edition. No morphological tagging.
• The Lexham English Septuagint: An English translation from the LXX done by Logos staff. Unfortunately, it lacks reverse interlinear tagging, so the corresponding Greek expressions in one of the Septuagints could be highlighted.
• The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: English Translation: The old but respected Brenton translation.
• The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture: The Hebrew Bible, but with tags for the corresponding words in the Septuagint.

I also have the Alternate texts edition for many of these.

A few questions for anyone with esoteric knowledge of such things:

1. Which of these are currently available to new purchasers either in base collections or as a separate resource?
2. Has the Septuagint with Logos Morphology replaced the Septuaginta: Morphologically Tagged Edition?
3. Is the Logos parsing in the various editions the same as CCAT? Is it based on CCAT, but with errors corrected? Or is it a totally new tagging system?
4. Does the Hebrew reverse interlinear tagging in Septuagint with Logos Morphology use the information from Tov's Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture?
5. Is The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint the same as The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint: Swete's edition, except for the addition of the interlinear tagging?

Thanks for any help sorting this out.

Mary-Ellen

Here's yet another one:

• Septuagina: SESB Edition

Thank you for starting this thread, Harry -- great questions!

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442456#Comment_442456

Mary-Ellen ... did you check up on Harry? Pretty nice guy to know (scholarly-wise, and probably on the forum as well). We're lucky to have his participation.

Mary-Ellen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/442463#Comment_442463

DMB said:

Mary-Ellen ... did you check up on Harry? Pretty nice guy to know (scholarly-wise, and probably on the forum as well). We're lucky to have his participation.

I see what you mean -- [Y]

 

G.E.

Is there any way to get Corresponding Notes and Highlights to display when viewing the Septuagint? After all, the Septuagint file does have a reverse interlinear.

Moreover, in the Visual Filter setting (three dots), there is a setting to display corresponding Notes and Highlights - but activating this Visual Filter setting (three dots) does not result in corresponding highlights being displayed.

G.E.

Is there any way to get Corresponding Notes and Highlights to display when viewing the Septuagint? After all, the Septuagint file does have a reverse interlinear.

Moreover, in the Visual Filter setting (three dots), there is a setting to display corresponding Notes and Highlights - but activating this Visual Filter setting (three dots) does not result in corresponding highlights being displayed.