Hebrew textual criticism question

Hey, @Kristin , I haven't had time to check, but this isn't a qere/ketiv issue? I know this passage is ripe for such indications.

You might be right, as they wanted to get rid of offensive language. That is certainly possible. Either way though, there are two different versions to this text, yet Logos is only showing one version. Is there a way in Logos for the text to display the issue, like my HMT text? As it is, Logos lets me know there is an issue, but I need to go to Accordance to actually see the issue.

Ah, yes, @Kristin. I'm looking at the The Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible and it shows the קְרֵי.

If I hover over, say, the second ק, it shows the replacement:

I don't know what other resources you've got, though.

Just curious … on your Accordance side, I assume you're looking at the BHS apparatus (the BHS-T module). In Logos the BHS apparatus is attached to BHS; not BHW. And the BHW has an interlinear for Q/Ks. Am I misunderstanding?

Somewhat off-topic relative to offensive language, the Targum uses the qere, below. One of many reasons I love Logos (so many books).

Screenshot 2025-03-17 at 10.15.48 AM.png

Ah, yes, @Kristin. I'm looking at the The Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible and it shows the קְרֵי.

Thank you for the screenshots. Ya, I have the Lexham Hebrew, and I see that now. Thank you! So if I am understanding correctly, no text in Logos displays the words in the text like Accordance. However, the Lexham will show you the words in the text if I hover over ק, while the BHS doesn't show it in the text at all. Is that correct? Apart from the Lexham being tagged better, are there other differences between Lexham and BHS/W? Or are they otherwise the same text?

Likewise, I am super confused about "BHW" vs "BHS". I had the BHW open in my screenshot, yet the * spoke of the BHS.

Just curious … on your Accordance side, I assume you're looking at the BHS apparatus (the BHS-T module). In Logos the BHS apparatus is attached to BHS; not BHW. And the BHW has an interlinear for Q/Ks. Am I misunderstanding?

Hi @DMB,

I don't think I am. To be honest, in Accordance I just used my "Hebrew" without thinking much of it. Textual issues were just sitting there in the text, and it just wasn't something I thought about. Then when Logos didn't have that specific text, it has made me uneasy since I don't understand the differences between them. Anyway, in Accordance my screenshot was from the HMT-W4, which is the "Masoretic Text with Westminster Hebrew Morphology."

Also, I was surprised by your screenshot, as your BHS has little footnotes going to an apparatus, while you can see that my screenshot doesn't. I guess this is something you can turn off an on? Could you explain how you got that?

Somewhat off-topic relative to offensive language, the Targum uses the qere, below. One of many reasons I love Logos (so many books).

That is interesting about the Aramaic. :)

MJ. Smith

ps - Not a big deal, but “People” “Pronouns” and “Implied subjects” are all turned off, so I am not sure why the first line is showing the speaker and receiver.

You have speaker an addressee turned on. The toggle in the upper right of the menu or the individual check marks will turn them off.

I don't think I am. To be honest, in Accordance I just used my "Hebrew" without thinking much of it. Textual issues were just sitting there in the text, and it just wasn't something I thought about. Then when Logos didn't have that specific text, it has made me uneasy since I don't understand the differences between them. Anyway, in Accordance my screenshot was from the HMT-W4, which is the "Masoretic Text with Westminster Hebrew Morphology."
Also, I was surprised by your screenshot, as your BHS has little footnotes going to an apparatus, while you can see that my screenshot doesn't. I guess this is something you can turn off an on? Could you explain how you got that?

@Kristin Below, I put Accordance on the left; Logos on the right. Then, for Logos, going down, what is called BHW (what you used), and then BHS, followed by its apparatus. For info/source, I put the boilerplate for each, on the far-right. BHW shows its 'notes' either thru pop-overs or interlinear lines (Q/K), and (I believe) is packaged by Logos (they're slightly behind Accordance on morphs). The BHS and apparatus are from GBS (separately sold in Logos), and that's what you saw in my layout. So … I 'think' you arrived where you needed (ignoring the curious Logos note … there's many like that in the Logos BHW).

Screenshot 2025-03-17 at 12.23.12 PM.png

You have speaker an addressee turned on. The toggle in the upper right of the menu or the individual check marks will turn them off.

Hi @MJ. Smith,

I might be mistaken, but I don't think I do have them turned on. Here is a screenshot.

Bildschirmfoto 2025-03-17 um 09.52.31.png

I'm sorry. AFAIK, I've never been within an arm's reach of Accordance 😉 so I can make no comparison. But my BHS also shows text critical stuff as well as qere/ketiv:

Aaron Hamilton

@Kristin Your screenshots are frequently difficult to follow because you include only a small portion of your screen. Larger screenshots are more helpful. Nonetheless, MJ is correct. You would need to locate Markers via the Visual Filters button.

@Kristin Below, I put Accordance on the left; Logos on the right. Then, for Logos, going down, what is called BHW (what you used), and then BHS, followed by its apparatus. For info/source, I put the boilerplate for each, on the far-right. BHW shows its 'notes' either thru pop-overs or interlinear lines (Q/K), and (I believe) is packaged by Logos (they're slightly behind Accordance on morphs). The BHS and apparatus are from GBS (separately sold in Logos), and that's what you saw in my layout. So … I 'think' you arrived where you needed (ignoring the curious Logos note … there's many like that in the Logos BHW).

Hi @DMB,

Thanks for the screenshot. I see. So it appears that the Lexham has the textual discrepancy as something I can hover over, the BHS has it as the little alphabetical footnotes going to the apparatus, and the BHW has none of it. So of all the Hebrew options, I should stay away from the BHW. Is that right? (I have all three Hebrew texts, I just literally don't know what to use. In Accordance I am pretty sure I just had that one, but I would have to check).

I'm sorry. AFAIK, I've never been within an arm's reach of Accordance 😉 so I can make no comparison. But my BHS also shows text critical stuff as well as qere/ketiv:

Ya, my BHS also shows the text critical stuff too (thankfully). I guess the moral is to stay away from BHW? Is there a reason to use it?

@Kristin Your screenshots are frequently difficult to follow because you include only a small portion of your screen. Larger screenshots are more helpful. Nonetheless, MJ is correct. You would need to locate Markers via the Visual Filters button.

Hi @Aaron Hamilton,

Thank you for letting me know, and I will try to provide better screenshots in the future. :) I also see the problem, the "speaker" I had turned off was apparently for the "Factbook." I finally went to the three dots of "Visual Filters" next to it and turned it off. :) Ya, if I had shown a larger screenshot, it would have been obvious what I was doing wrong. Thanks again.

@Kristin AFAIK the BHW is Logos' latest. And DOES have the same info as the Accordance MHT. Accordance shows it inline and interlinear; Logos shows as interlinear lines and popovers.

BHS is a separate purchase with apparatus by GBS.

I don't know to what degree the Lexham Interlinear is maintained.

By and large research folks either work off the BHS, or BHW (in Logos).

Hi @DMB, Thanks for the clear explanation of the three texts. I appreciate it. I guess the concern I have is that sometimes I am seeing textual differences, and sometimes I am not. So for example, I realized that if I opened the BHS, that it had those little footnotes, but then after closing it and reopening it, it seems to be gone. SoI see the numbers in the apparatus, but not in the actual text. I feel like I must have turned something off, but I am not sure what it is.

Bildschirmfoto 2025-03-17 um 15.55.09.png

https://www.logos.com/product/179884/biblia-hebraica-stuttgartensia-apparatus-criticus?queryId=e0ffa163a2b6e50fa83261fca4e56949

@Kristin, I own the BHS critical apparatus.

Perhaps you don't and perhaps that's what's missing.

I think I do. If I am not mistaken, that is the third thing on the right in my screenshot above. I think.

Since I am finding it confusing, here is a screenshot of my library if I type "bh" in the search box. The three things on the top with the "reading" circles are the three in my screenshot in order.

I don't think any of the "unread" stuff is relevant here, but I will include them in the screenshot just in case it is.

Bildschirmfoto 2025-03-17 um 16.36.04.png

Kristin you have what you need. All 3 … BHS with BHW.

On BHS, click on the hebrew/greek icon to see the apparatus letters. You accidentally turned them off.

Also, you seem to using the MultiBook display. Only the leader can be adjusted (footnotes, etc). As a result you can't see BHW's interlinear Q/Ks.

Better to use 3 linked panels, separately.

This is super-confusing, right?!

@Kristin , indeed, you have it. I know there are lots of people that know more about these details than I do. But for me, the BHS version that gets the apparatus to show up is the SESB version.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363053#Comment_1363053

Thing of it is for me, @DMB is that when I'm using the BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), SESB 2nd edition, I cannot get the apparatus indicators to shut off (which is fine with me), so it doesn't appear to be an interlinear sort of thing. I'm super confused, but usually, I just get stuff set up and forget everything else. 😉

Aaron Hamilton

Perhaps footnotes are turned off?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363057#Comment_1363057

I think I had to turn off 1-verse … don't ask … years and years.

Hi @Lew Worthington, @DMB, and @Aaron Hamilton,

Thank you all for the help and for the screenshots, ya, the footnotes were turned off, so I turned them on, and now they appear. :) I found it under the Visual Filter, but also, there is this little squiggle, but it is unclear what it is. It seems to just flip the version? Without it being a parallel? What is the point of that?

Also, I think I have the textual issues in the text now, I think. So they show up under the text between the lines? Compared to my text in Accordance, they don't seem to be the same though.

I am attaching a screenshot where the textual issues are indicated with arrows. The pink arrow agrees with Accordance, but the blue arrows don't. I literally can't tell if it really is saying something different, or it is just because I am so unfamiliar with how Logos handles "bracketed" words.

Bildschirmfoto 2025-03-17 um 17.22.10.png

Bildschirmfoto 2025-03-17 um 17.39.12.png

Andrew Batishko

The blue lines are probably Factbook Tags. You can turn them off here:

Andrew Batishko

The extra lines of text (blue and pink arrows) come from the inline interlinear settings. Those will tell you what the lines represent.

Hi @Andrew Batishko,

Thank you for the clarification about those lines being from the fact book. Regarding the qere and ketiv thank you also for confirming that I was reading that correctly, that the qere and ketiv are in between the lines. However, I am still confused about the pink vs blue arrows. While the pink arrow makes sense, why is there a discrepancy between the blue lines when it comes to Accordance and Logos? For example, why isn't מימֵ֥י in between the lines in Logos?

why is there a discrepancy between the blue lines when it comes to Accordance and Logos? For example, why isn't מימֵ֥י in between the lines in Logos?

Mine matches (BHW == HMT). Not sure about BHS' relative to the apparatus mss's ref'd (though your note over-topped the interlinear line).

Mine matches (BHW == HMT). Not sure about BHS' relative to the apparatus mss's ref'd (though your note over-topped the interlinear line).

Hi @DMB,

Ya, that is true, my BHW also shows the מימֵ֥י, but the BHS just has this שְׁ instead, among the other differences in my screenshot. So it is just concerning. I guess I would like the BHW better then, I guess, but it is frustrating about the tagging, and that none of them have Strongs.

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

@Kristin I can't entirely reproduce your view on BHS or BHW for this verse, but I can answer what I think is your underlying question: "I literally can't tell if it really is saying something different." The different texts you are looking at in Accordance and Logos are treating the same textual situation (a qere/ketiv). I can't explain why BHS is not showing the detail for the 2nd term inline. There might be a display bug because I have a line gap and tagging data shows up for the second set of words when I hover there.

BHW shows the word to be read beneath what is written for both cases in my view. BHS is showing me the first but not the second inline. Notes e and f in BHS provide the relevant info regardless. Accordance is showing the qere in brackets after the word while most Hebrew texts in Logos are supposed to have that data inline. I find the bracket approach potentially confusing because we use brackets to indicate added or reconstructed text in an ancient text (like inscriptions or Dead Sea Scrolls), but K/Q in brackets is showing words that are meant to replace the one in front of the brackets (more or less). For academic work, I always use BHS (unless BHQ is available).

Accordance is showing the qere in brackets after the word while most Hebrew texts in Logos are supposed to have that data inline. I find the bracket approach potentially confusing because we use brackets to indicate added or reconstructed text in an ancient text (like inscriptions or Dead Sea Scrolls), but K/Q in brackets is showing words that are meant to replace the one in front of the brackets (more or less). For academic work, I always use BHS (unless BHQ is available).

Hi @Doug Mangum (Lexham),

Thank you for the screenshots and clarification. You raise a very good point about the use of brackets. Given what you wrote, if you don't mind, I have a few questions.

How does Logos handle added or reconstructed text in the OT? Does it also use brackets, and is this the case for all versions? (BHS, BHW, Lexham). If you don't mind, could you provide an example of added /reconstructed text in the OT, as I am not sure how to find it in Logos.I am really grateful that you mentioned this, as my concern is actual textual issues.

2) Also, in order to check this, I just opened the "Bible" icon on the toolbar and the ESV with the interlinear popped open. I was doing this since I want the Strongs numbers, and also the Hebrew to confirm which Strongs it is attached to. However, it just occurred to me that since NO Hebrew is attached to Strongs in Logos, the ESV having "Strongs" is just attached to the ESV English, and not the Hebrew? If so, that would totally defeat the reason I was using it. Similarly if it is the Hebrew, why isn't it actually linked to the Hebrew text?

3) I understand that textual options can ONLY be changed for the leading text, but this is sort of confusing since if I want to change a text, there doesn't appear to be ANY way to change it on the current layout. The only way is to close the current layout, re-open the text in question, change the text settings, close the text, and re-open the first layout. Is this correct?

4) While versions are always shown on the "tab" sometimes the text is listed right above the text, and sometimes it is not. Is there a reason for this?

Thank you, and attached is a screenshot indicating this.

Bildschirmfoto 2025-03-18 um 12.34.25.png

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

I can address #1 and #2, but I'm less tuned into the details of what you want for #3 and #4 (Hebrew Bible expert, not software designer). If my answer seems too introductory, I apologize since I don't know how much background you have in Biblical Hebrew or OT textual criticism.

Most Hebrew Bible critical texts do not ever add or reconstruct readings that end up in your main reading line like someone might for guessing at a reading in an inscription. That was just my observation about why I wouldn't have recommended using brackets that way because it is a convention for other texts to use brackets to mark added or reconstructed words. Hebrew text criticism follows the diplomatic approach (with one exception but that project won't ever be completed). A diplomatic critical edition reproduces the text of L (more or less) and adding apparatus notes to show textual issues. You saw that in the asterisk from BHW ("we follow L"). NT text criticism is a different story. They reconstruct texts that never actually existed (because all copies have some mistakes) to make a corrected version. With Hebrew, your apparatus notes usually point out textual variants from other witnesses including reconstructed Hebrew readings, sometimes (like LXX says XYZ which would be ABC in Hebrew). On occasion, the text critic suggests an emendation, a speculative guess usually motivated by serious difficulties in the Hebrew such that even all other witnesses offer little help.
With the ESV and the Hebrew interlinear display, most words do have Hebrew aligned. And most of those have Strong's numbers. You can also right-click and get the menu where you could select the Hebrew lemma among other options. In your screenshot, I see no Strong's alignment for the conjunction, the definite article, and some prepositions. Strong's doesn't have an entry on those. In other cases, ESV interlinear may show no alignment because English grammar or style requires more words, usually words that are implied by the inflected Hebrew form. But English versions sometimes also read with other versions, so you've probably seen notes where a translation points out they are not translating the Hebrew MT (e.g., Lam 3:22 in ESV). In those cases, the Hebrew interlinear doesn't line up with the translation well at all. Using the ESV interlinear, you also have the problem (and perhaps this is what you are raising in #3) where the word order follows the English so the Hebrew text gets all shuffled around.

Andrew Batishko

3) I understand that textual options can ONLY be changed for the leading text, but this is sort of confusing since if I want to change a text, there doesn't appear to be ANY way to change it on the current layout. The only way is to close the current layout, re-open the text in question, change the text settings, close the text, and re-open the first layout. Is this correct?

Unfortunately this is an area of some weakness at the moment. You are correct about how you would need to adjust this, with the minor clarification that "layout" means all currently open panels (tabs), so you wouldn't be closing/opening the layout. You would just be closing/opening the panel.

4) While versions are always shown on the "tab" sometimes the text is listed right above the text, and sometimes it is not. Is there a reason for this?

You need to go to the panel menu and turn on the "Show locator bar" option. The panel menu is the button in the upper right corner of the panel with the three vertically stacked dots.

I can address #1 and #2, but I'm less tuned into the details of what you want for #3 and #4 (Hebrew Bible expert, not software designer). If my answer seems too introductory, I apologize since I don't know how much background you have in Biblical Hebrew or OT textual criticism.

Hi @Doug Mangum (Lexham),

Thank you for your response, and no, it isn't too introductory at all. I consider myself a translator who cares deeply about textual accuracy, but I am not a textual critic. (I was taught the basics of it in seminary). So in the NT when there are issues I look at Comfort and Metzger, and I trust and follow their scholarship. I do check the CNTTS, but I defer to the work of textual critics.

In the OT, by contrast, I have really felt at a lost since there isn't a "Metzger" OT equivalent that I am aware of, so I have felt like it is up to me to check the DDS when a random commentary mentions something odd. (Like the Deut 32:6 issue, for example).

By contrast, when a word is in brackets in Accordance, I have sort of handled it as a bracketed word (like a sheer textual discrepancy (for example צֵידָה [צָֽיִד׃] in Gen 27:3). If I am understanding correctly though, this is not a textual issue (like Deut 32:6), but rather just what is written (צֵידָה) vs what is said (צָֽיִד)? If that is so, what on earth would be the point? There isn't a theological reason for making such a change, so it seems like the qere/ketiv is just for the sake of doing it??

A diplomatic critical edition reproduces the text of L (more or less) and adding apparatus notes to show textual issues.

If I am understanding correctly, the apparatus shows the qere/ketiv but also textual issues all sort of lumped together.

NT text criticism is a different story. They reconstruct texts that never actually existed (because all copies have some mistakes) to make a corrected version. With Hebrew, your apparatus notes usually point out textual variants from other witnesses including reconstructed Hebrew readings, sometimes (like LXX says XYZ which would be ABC in Hebrew). On occasion, the text critic suggests an emendation, a speculative guess usually motivated by serious difficulties in the Hebrew such that even all other witnesses offer little help.

Thank you for saying this, and I think this is the root of my confusion, as I have been trying to make sense of textual issues in the OT just like the NT. Regarding such textual issues, I have been relying on general commentators, but is there a specific resource addressing this?

With the ESV and the Hebrew interlinear display, most words do have Hebrew aligned. And most of those have Strong's numbers. You can also right-click and get the menu where you could select the Hebrew lemma among other options. In your screenshot, I see no Strong's alignment for the conjunction, the definite article, and some prepositions. Strong's doesn't have an entry on those. In other cases, ESV interlinear may show no alignment because English grammar or style requires more words, usually words that are implied by the inflected Hebrew form.

Thank you for clarifying this, and that helps a lot. I turned off the Hebrew under the ESV, and to see the lex and lemma I am able to right click to confirm the Hebrew. Ya, I am aware that Strongs doesn't have keys for certain words. I understand that Strongs had his issues, I don't dispute that, but something I really respect him for is giving a genuine effort to provide one key for one word, without distinguishing between theological beliefs (like one key for κύριος, for example while LN has I think four keys). So for years I have been organizing my personal dictionary according to Greek and Hebrew lemmas as well as Strongs numbers, since it is legions easier to organize numbers than Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words. So for words like ו and the article in Hebrew, those are only in my dictionary as their lemma without a Strongs key, but a few hundred keyless words is far better than 13,000+ keyless words. As a result of this, it is super important that if I find a lemma in Logos, that I can have assurance that it is matching the correct key.

Using the ESV interlinear, you also have the problem (and perhaps this is what you are raising in #3) where the word order follows the English so the Hebrew text gets all shuffled around.

Yes, you are correct. I can't stand Hebrew written left to right, it is just simply too difficult to read, so as a general rule I don't like interlinears.

Thank you again.

Unfortunately this is an area of some weakness at the moment. You are correct about how you would need to adjust this, with the minor clarification that "layout" means all currently open panels (tabs), so you wouldn't be closing/opening the layout. You would just be closing/opening the panel.

Hi @Andrew Batishko,

Thank you for clarifying this that I am not missing anything. While I wish I could control the settings of all the parallels open, I am grateful to hear that I just need to close that specific text and reopen it, as opposed to closing the entire layout, that is helpful.

You need to go to the panel menu and turn on the "Show locator bar" option. The panel menu is the button in the upper right corner of the panel with the three vertically stacked dots.

Thank you, that fixed the issue. :)

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

@Kristin for OT textual issues, I don't know of any single resource to wrangle all (or even most) of them. Have you looked at the UBS Handbooks (though they cover translation issues broadly, not textual only)? You've got me thinking, though. Maybe there's a need for an OT textual commentary, Metzger-style. Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible is too brief and selective. It doesn't even cover 2 Kgs 18:27, for example. If I ever get around to creating an OT-equivalent to Metzger, I'll let you know (it will take a back seat to several other large projects that your fellow forumites are clamoring for).

@Kristin for OT textual issues, I don't know of any single resource to wrangle all (or even most) of them. Have you looked at the UBS Handbooks (though they cover translation issues broadly, not textual only)? You've got me thinking, though. Maybe there's a need for an OT textual commentary, Metzger-style. Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible is too brief and selective. It doesn't even cover 2 Kgs 18:27, for example.

Hi @Doug Mangum (Lexham),

Thank you for clarifying this, and yes, I love UBS. :) Once in while they get into something specific with textual issues, but like you mentioned, that isn't really their focus.

If I ever get around to creating an OT-equivalent to Metzger, I'll let you know (it will take a back seat to several other large projects that your fellow forumites are clamoring for).

That would be great. :)

Baylor Handbooks is about as close as it gets for Hebrew (and not a lot to work with). As above, the issue has more to do with the language (as written), then a selection of manuscripts (Metzger).

Baylor Handbooks is about as close as it gets for Hebrew (and not a lot to work with). As above, the issue has more to do with the language (as written), then a selection of manuscripts (Metzger).

Hi @DMB, thanks for letting me know. I just looked at the preview of it in Logos, and if I am understanding correctly, this is sort of a grammar style book clarifying why words were used? Like you said, this seems to be pretty distinct from textual criticism, but I appreciate you letting me know.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363189#Comment_1363189

@Kristin wrote:

In the OT, by contrast, I have really felt at a lost since there isn't a "Metzger" OT equivalent that I am aware of, so I have felt like it is up to me to check the DDS when a random commentary mentions something odd. (Like the Deut 32:6 issue, for example).

I know enough Hebrew to be dangerous and this might not be suitable for your research and study purposes, but have you looked at the translation notes in Word Biblical Commentary? I often consult them when I have a Metzger type of question for Hebrew. It is at least a starting point for me as I go out to troll technical commentaries and any journals that refer to the passage of scripture in question.

This is for Deut 32:

Notes

1.a. SP reads פיי for MT פי, “my mouth,” with no change in meaning.

2.a. SP, LXX, Syr., and Tg. Ps.-J. add waw-conj.; some SP MSS read ותזאל (meaning uncertain) for MT תזל, “it will condense.”

3.a-a. SP and Tg. read בשׁם, “in the name,” for MT שׁם, “name.” Prosodic analysis supports MT.

3.b. Reading ṭip̱ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ.

3.c. SP reads והבו, “and let us (ascribe),” for MT הבו, “let us (ascribe).” Prosodic analysis supports MT.

4.a. B has צ maj; LXX reads θεός, “God,” here and in vv 15, 18, and 30, which appears to be an interpretive gloss.

4.b. LXX reads (ὁ) κύριος, “the Lord,” for MT הוא, “he.”

5.a-a. SP reads שׁחתו לו לא בני מום, “they have dealt corruptly with him, not (with) the children of defection” (?), for MT שׁחת לו לא בניו מומם, “has he dealt corruptly with them? No! As for his children, (it is) their blemish.” LXX reads לא לו, “not to him,” for MT לו לא, “to him, not”; Syr. reads ולא לו בני מום. Prosodic analysis supports MT. The 3 sg. suff. on לוֹ is taken as collective for עם, “people” (= בניו), in v 6, and thus rendered in English as “them.”

5.b. Reading ṭip̱ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ.

6.a-a. As Tigay notes, “the interrogative prefix ha (‘Is it …?’) is written in larger script and, anomalously, as a separate word” ([1996] 301–2). The reason may be the need for an additional word in the numerical composition of the text. Cf. 33:28 and the summary discussion of the numerical composition of 29:9–34:12 under 34:1–12 below.

6.b. Reading pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn as conj.

7.a-a. SP reads זכרו יומת for “remember [2 pl.] the days (of yore)” for MT זכר ימות, “remember [2 sg.] the days (of yore)”; two Heb. MSS read זך(ו)ר ימת.

7.b. Syr., Tg., and Vg. read sg., perhaps בִּינָה or בִּין for MT בינו, “consider!”

8.a. Two Heb. MSS read בהנחיל for MT בהנחל, “when he caused (nations) to inherit,” with no change in meaning.

8.b. One SP MS reads יַצִּיב for MT יַצֵּב, “he fixes/sets,” with no change in meaning.

8.c. Tg. Ps.-J. adds the number seventy (see Comment on 32:8).

8.d. Reading בני אלהים, “sons of God,” in place of MT בני ישׁראל, “sons of Israel,” as lectio difficilior. DSS read בני אל, “sons of God,” and LXX ἀγγέλων θεοῦ, “angels of God” (so also ς’ and some OL witnesses).

9.a-a. LXX reads καὶ ἐγενήθη μερίς, “and he became the (Lord’s) portion” (= ויהי חלק). Prosodic analysis tends to support MT. The כי here is taken as emphatic, with Tigay ([1996] 303; see A. Schoors, “The Particle ki,” OTS 21 [1981] 243–53).

9.b. Reading ṭip̱ḥāʾ as conj. because of misplaced ʾatnāḥ.

10.a-a. SP reads יאמצהו, “he encouraged him,” for MT ימצאהו, “he found him” (cf. LXX αὐτάρκησεν αὐτόν, “he maintained him”).

10.b. SP reads המדבר, “the desert,” for MT מדבר, “a desert.”

10.c-c. SP reads ובתהללות ישׁ(י)מנהו for MT ובתהו ילל ישׂמן, “in a wasteland, a howling wilderness” (cf. Neh 9:25).

10.d. SP and LXX add waw-conj. before both verbs. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

11.a-a. Two Heb. MSS read יער for MT יעיר, “he rouses.” Prosodic analysis supports MT.

11.b. Two Heb. MSS, SP, LXX, Syr., Tg. Ps.-J., and Vg. add waw-conj., which is best explained as scribal dittography. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

11.c-c. SP adds waw-conj., which is possible from a prosodic point of view. The reading taken here is that of a shared consonant; i.e., a single consonant is used to end one word and to begin the next word as well. On this phenomenon, see W. Watson, “Shared Consonants in Northwest Semitic,” Bib 50 (1969) 525–33; and idem, “More on Shared Consonants,” Bib 52 (1971) 44–50. See also D. L. Christensen, “The March of Conquest in Isaiah x 27c–34,” VT 26 (1976) 390–92.

13.a. Reading Q בָּמֳתֵי, “on the heights,” rather than K בָּמוֹתֵי (meaning uncertain). This reading is found in DSS, a number of Heb. MSS, and Cairo Geniza fragments.

13.b. SP and LXX read יַאֲךִ(י)לֵהוּ, “he fed him”; Tg. (Tg. Ps.-J.) reads וַיַּאֲכִילֵם, “and he fed them,” for MT ויאכל, “and he ate.” Prosodic analysis supports MT.

13.c. SP and Syr. read יינקהו, “he will make him suck,” for MT וינקהו, “and he made him suck”; LXX reads ἐθήλασαν, “they sucked” (= יִינְקוּ); Tg. and Tg. Ps.-J. have 3 pl. suffs. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

14.a. SP reads חמת, “waterskin” (?), for MT חמאת, “curds.”

14.b. Relocating כליון, “kidneys,” as a “nomistic correction” in MT as suggested by Tigay ([1996] 403 n. 79).

14.c. The pašṭāʾ followed by zāqēp̱ qāṭôn is read as conj.

14.d. SP and LXX insert ו)יאכל יעקב וישׂבע), “(and) Jacob ate and was filled.” Prosodic analysis supports MT.

Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12, vol. 6B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 791–792.

I know enough Hebrew to be dangerous

haha :)

and this might not be suitable for your research and study purposes, but have you looked at the translation notes in Word Biblical Commentary? I often consult them when I have a Metzger type of question for Hebrew. It is at least a starting point for me as I go out to troll technical commentaries and any journals that refer to the passage of scripture in question.

Hi @Donovan R. Palmer, Thank you very much, and ya, the type of stuff you copied from Word would be helpful. However, I am not seeing this. I have Word, but what it is saying for both Deut 32:1 and Deut 32:6 is useful, but something different from what you wrote. How did you access this in Word?

Also this has left me with a few questions. As a preface though, I would like to say I have been feeling A LOT better about the functionality of Logos. A few days ago @Aaron Hamilton had suggested that I might like to organize favorites and drag them to the left toolbar as a shortcut. That has been HUGE and setting up very specific layouts with floating windows, links of A, B, and C, and "send hyperlinks here" has been extremely helpful. So thank you. :) With that all as a preface, I have a few functional / practical issues.

Regarding the "one layout at a time" situation I think right now is a good example. Before reading this post I had been in the middle of setting up a very complicated layout, but it just isn't set up how I need it quite yet. (Since it might be relevant, I am trying to organize the Ugaritic material and don't have a Bible open). So now with what you wrote, Donovan, I wanted to go check Word. Yet I CAN'T without destroying my partial layout in Logos, so I had to look at Word in Accordance. Functionally, what do people do in this type of situation? In Accordance if something interrupts my work, I simply open a new Workspace, address the issue, close the new workspace and go back to my work. So how do I do this here?

2. What is the easiest way to open a specific resource in Logos? While I went to Accordance to check this since I had an active partial layout open in Logos, I also gravitated to Accordance since it was clear what to do. If I want to check Deut 32:1 and Deut 32:6, I go to the verses in the Bible, open the Info Pane, click on Word and there it is. I think the equivalent might be to start with the book instead of the passage? So without a Bible open, go to the Library, open Word, then from there type Deut 32? Or maybe Start with the Bible and then click "All" for the verse and scroll down to commentaries until I find Word? Or what is the best way to mimic the simplicity in Accordance?

3) Last night I was watching a YouTube video about the BHS and its apparatus which was super helpful, and as an example he was discussing Josh 21:27 and 1Chr 6:56 (1Chr 6:71 ESV), so I typed these verses into my Hebrew in Accordance, and there they are. Regarding Logos, I had previously been told it isn't possible to look up more than one verse at a time, and the only work around is to create a "Passage List." But my recollection from doing that before is that it truly just creates a list which is separate from the active Bible tab I had been working with. I am hoping someone can tell me I am misunderstanding something and I in fact can type more than one verse at a time, as this is just basic functionality. Even BibleGateway lets me do this. So while watching the video, I pretty much had to use Accordance since I needed to see two verses at the same time. I will post a screenshot with a book open to show what I am trying to reproduce.

Bildschirmfoto 2025-03-19 um 09.42.01.png

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363317#Comment_1363317

Hi Kristin

Not sure why what you are seeing is different. Here's my screen shot.

As far as where to put Word Biblical Commentary in your layout so that you can refer to it, if you can post a screenshot of your entire layout, I or other Logosians might be able to offer a suggestion.

@Kristin wrote:

Regarding Logos, I had previously been told it isn't possible to look up more than one verse at a time, and the only work around is to create a "Passage List." But my recollection from doing that before is that it truly just creates a list which is separate from the active Bible tab I had been working with. I am hoping someone can tell me I am misunderstanding something and I in fact can type more than one verse at a time, as this is just basic functionality. Even BibleGateway lets me do this.

I'll take the liberty of pinging @Rick Mansfield (Logos) as he has straddled both worlds forever, but I am 99% sure you can't do this in Logos.

I have pushed for this ability over the years. The only way to isolate a series of scriptures or a range of texts is with a passage list, which creates a lot of friction in a workflow. I've included a screenshot below. It does work, though and I occasionally use it when I just want to zero in on some text.

It is a bit of a multi-step bother to use it though. Like Accordance and Bible Gateway, it would be nice to key these in directly from the toolbar and then have the option to append them to a passage list, but I would imagine this would take a fair bit of work to build. It doesn't hurt to ask bring it up from time to time. (which I do)

As an example, in the discussions about the new dynamic toolbar, I advocated keeping inline search because diminishing this feature would have set us further back in terms of text-centric workflows. The good news is that we still have it (and I use it every day). I am really grateful that @Mark Barnes (Logos) and @Bradley Grainger (Logos) took on some input, and I think we got a good compromise moving forward for some of the original languages crowd that uses this feature.

This is pretty amazing when you think about how many points of input that a company like Logos can receive from such a broad range of users with their various use cases.

I think the in-book search (forgot name) supports multi-refs?

NB.Mick

Q

I had previously been told it isn't possible to look up more than one verse at a time, and the only work around is to create a "Passage List."

A

I am 99% sure you can't do this in Logos. I have pushed for this ability over the years. The only way to isolate a series of scriptures or a range of texts is with a passage list, which creates a lot of friction in a workflow. I've included a screenshot below. It does work, though and I occasionally use it when I just want to zero in on some text.

I don't think so:

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363341#Comment_1363341

Every day is a school day! How is it I have never stumbled across this? 👍🙂

Not sure why what you are seeing is different. Here's my screen shot.
As far as where to put Word Biblical Commentary in your layout so that you can refer to it, if you can post a screenshot of your entire layout, I or other Logosians might be able to offer a suggestion.
I'll take the liberty of pinging @Rick Mansfield (Logos) as he has straddled both worlds forever, but I am 99% sure you can't do this in Logos.

Hi @Donovan R. Palmer, Thank you very much for the screenshot. Well, a wrench in this whole thing is that I apparently don't own Word in Logos. haha :) I seriously have a hard time keeping track of what I own where. Anyway, I will post my screenshot in Accordance, as the fundamental question still remains. In my screenshot I just randomly opened Word next to the Deut passage, but I ONLY see the commentary, not the notes. So then on the right I opened Word on it's own and finally did a word search of a random phrase in what you pasted, and now I found the notes. However, there doesn't seem to be a way that I would have known about these notes, as there are NO footnotes linking to the notes from the Deut passage. Likewise, if on the the notes part if I click on 1a (on that first note), it doesn't link to the passage, but just some extra footnote. On your end, if you are reading Word in Deut, do you have footnotes to the notes? And if so, can you post a screenshot? Likewise, you don't seem to have any way to get to the verse from the notes section either, correct? Ironically, your 1a isn't hyperlinked, and SPENT just leads to a def.

Bildschirmfoto 2025-03-19 um 14.14.38.png

I have pushed for this ability over the years. The only way to isolate a series of scriptures or a range of texts is with a passage list, which creates a lot of friction in a workflow. I've included a screenshot below. It does work, though and I occasionally use it when I just want to zero in on some text.

That's wild something so basic wasn't in Logos version 1, as just though the process of writing a sermon people usually need to compare more than one verse. I agree completely that the Passage List creates a lot of friction, and while I only looked at it briefly, it seemed pretty limited.

I think the in-book search (forgot name) supports multi-refs?

Hi @DMB,

I am grateful to here there is potentially a way to do this.

Hi @NB.Mick,

Could you clarify how you created your layout in your screenshot? I can't find anywhere like that. I found something, but it's closer to a passage list where it is just a list you can't do much with and isn't in the normal bible pane. It is also collecting a bunch of footnotes. :( How do I turn that off? If I click the "match case" thing or not it doesn't matter.

Bildschirmfoto 2025-03-19 um 14.46.13.png

@NB.Mick

So, I went to play with this and I triggered a memory synapse that I did indeed try this some years ago. The first is that it sometimes picks up more than just the references.

Also, I could not figure out how to put in a range, without it also picking up more than it should.

Am I still missing something, or have I hit the limit with this functionality? I suspect my hope might be dashed again!

So, I went to play with this and I triggered a memory synapse that I did indeed try this some years ago. The first is that it sometimes picks up more than just the references. Also, I could not figure out how to put in a range, without it also picking up more than it should. Am I still missing something, or have I hit the limit with this functionality? I suspect my hope might be dashed again!

I just need to say I find it really wild that we are literally needing to have a brainstorming discussion about how to see two verses at a time… in a Bible software. :/

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363355#Comment_1363355

@Kristin

So, WBC is a bit of an oddball. I don't know how Accordance shows this in its TOC, but here it is in Logos:

Verse milestones start in the comment section. So before the verse by verse comments occur, there is the 'Translation and Prosodic Analysis', followed by the Notes. The screen shot I sent you is from the notes.

So a chunk of scripture in WBC is almost like a journal article. The introduction of 32:1-43 with a massive bibliography, the translation and translation notes, a form and setting section, followed by a verse by verse commentary, then a summary explanation.

So for the translation notes for 32:1 or verse 32:6, you will need to scroll up to the Notes section. It is not hard to find the notes that you want, but it is not automatically scrolled like Metzger.

So, WBC is a bit of an oddball. I don't know how Accordance shows this in its TOC, but here it is in Logos: … So for the translation notes for 32:1 or verse 32:6, you will need to scroll up to the Notes section. It is not hard to find the notes that you want, but it is not automatically scrolled like Metzger.

Hi @Donovan R. Palmer,

Thank you for your help! Ya, I found them now, thank you! It seriously never occurred to me it had to be read like that. Normally when I open a book, I read the section for the verse, and then I read what comes before and after it to see if there is anything else relevant, but it actually never occurred to me to scroll so far up as to go ABOVE the comments for more "comments." I seriously wonder why Word didn't link the sections? The fact that both Accordance and Logos handles it the same makes me think it is Word as opposed to the software. It seems to me that on Deut 32:6, for example, there should be a little footnote going to the notes, and then at the notes there is a footnote going back to the comments of v.6, like almost any other book. Whatever the case, thank you again for clarifying this!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363368#Comment_1363368

Yes, it is all on Word Biblical Commentary. Bible software can't have two milestones for the same verse, so Logos and Accordance just had to link to the commentary section.

To be fair, most commentaries begin with a lot of information at the beginning… setting, authorship, etc. which you need to scroll up to read if you want to see the approach that the commentary is taking in the verse by verse comments.