OT Use Of OT Concordance Results Using 8 Different Versions

The Concordance Tool generates widely divergent results among varying translations. I presume it has something to do with how the version is footnoted, but I'm far from sure. I would welcome an explanation from someone well informed on the matter. I dredged up an old thread upon researching methods to investigate OT intertextuality; Graham's method impressed me as being very elegant, but its' inconsistency among translations concerns me, I'd like to know more. https://community.logos.com/forums/p/173348/1000349.aspx#1000349

NIV11 4,040

ESV 2,891

NASB95 2,544

NRSV 38

NET Bible 946

HCSB 2,288

ASV 0

KJV1900 137,118

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Justin Gatlin

You are correct that all the concordance tool is doing is identifying footnotes. I do not think it will give you Old Testament references of the Old Testament like you are looking for. Unfortunately, the most likely candidate (am intertext search) is only tagged for OT->NT. I don't know if more complete tagging within the testaments is in the works or not.

Graham Criddle

Yes - the problem with my suggestion in that other thread is it depends on the cross-referencing provided by the translators. And, as you have seen, this varies by translation.

The same issue applies to other approaches outlined in that thread.

There isn't any other set of tagging that can be used - that I am aware of - to do what you are looking for.

The Cross References section in the Passage Guide might help

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1151720#Comment_1151720

The Cross References section in the Passage Guide might help

Or you can search NTSK:

using a passage range of Gen-Mal for <Dt> i.e. all references to Dt in the OT
using a passage range of Dt for <Gen-Mal> i.e. all OT references in the book of Dt

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1151738#Comment_1151738

I thank you all for your input, explanation, and suggestions. I'm in search of a comprehensive treatment of this subject that ideally behaves like the Interactive available for the NT which identifies the allusions, citations, echoes, and quotations for the selected verses. I'm fully aware that FL has yet to deliver this resource. NTSK although a wonderful work does not offer a complete treatment of these areas.

Now that it has been established that there does not exist a satisfactory way to generate this information with Logos. I hope you all will join me in pushing for a Interactive Tool similar in conception to that which exists for the NT. I also look forward to the release of the Old Testament Use of the Old Testament: A Book by Book Guide. Vote here: https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/interactive-old-testament-use-of-the-old-testament

I'm aware that Phil Gons has posted an idea to add OT use of OT to the Bible Books Explorer. I would prefer an interactive as I believe it would be more comprehensive. Correct me if I'm wrong.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1151747#Comment_1151747

If you are looking for "comprehensive", it simply doesn't exist and probably can't exist. At the very least it would take dozens if not hundreds or thousands of sets of eyes rolling up their sleeves and doing the leg work. It has a lot to do with perspective, as well, and some perspectives can't see things that others do, and versa vice. To approach what you want, you're best bet would probably be a wiki that people could add to. That would require some curating, of course...fit throwing to follow.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1151768#Comment_1151768

If you are looking for "comprehensive", it simply doesn't exist and probably can't exist. At the very least it would take dozens if not hundreds or thousands of sets of eyes rolling up their sleeves and doing the leg work. It has a lot to do with perspective, as well, and some perspectives can't see things that others do, and versa vice. To approach what you want, you're best bet would probably be a wiki that people could add to. That would require some curating, of course...fit throwing to follow.

I'm disappointed of course, but at least I have an answer. Thanks, David. Perhaps, my best hope is Phil Gon's idea. I've voted and commented twice. I hope it becomes a reality.