how can I most efficiently see all the lex of an OL word if I start with English?
I feel like I am not doing this efficiently, but it isn't clear to me what I am doing wrong.
To begin, I wanted the Aramaic of Jerusalem, so I just did a generic search which brought up that Word Study thing. So I clicked on the part of the wheel which was obviously Aramaic, and clicked on the first reference.
Yet that brought up the ESV, so I clicked on the Aramaic word in parallel and clicked Inline, which obviously didn't work since it did an inline of the ESV (even though I clicked on an Aramaic word).
So then I tried again to do Search All which brought up a Hebrew text with the ESV as a parallel on the right, which I liked, but there was no way to see parsing or see Strongs or whatever. I could, however see the number of hits and verses.
So I knew I had to get it out of this limited search window, and thought maybe a passage list? So I created that, which seemed to show the verses, but it deleted the number of hits. :/
So then I decided to open the passage list, yet that not only doesn't give the ability to see Strongs, but now the verse count is missing as well as the hits.
Is there a better way to do this? I am used to it being a 2 step process in Accordance.
I am attaching a screenshot of my rabbit trail in case it helps.
Thanks,
Kristin
Comments
-
Hi everyone,
I am sorry to comment to this, but I would like to provide an update and ask another question. Or maybe a few. :)
So I am still been sort of struggling to find a Hebrew layout that works for my needs. I had mentioned some of the issues I am having here, and I think all things considered I like the view of "search" the best. HOWEVER, while the parallel looks much nicer visually, it only lists the verses for the text on the left, despite the text on the right literally not being the same verse.
I also wanted to look at the prior word next to Jerusalem, so I opened the BHS tab I have open and tried to copy its lemma, but I had a hard time doing that. So I decided to add it to a "word list" to look at later. It interestingly things I am making a flashcard, which is fine, but it added a "Section." Could someone clarify this? And can I add a note or something to this? I don't really care about the ESV gloss, but I do care about the Strongs number.
I then tried the Power Lookup and that was helpful, but is there a way to edit this to add Strongs? I know it isn't nearly as in depth as HALOT or BDB or whatever, but I have a system.
So I will attach another screenshot.
Thanks.
0 -
If I want to see all the lexicons (I think that's what you are asking), I right-click the word, open the bible word study, then look in the 'Lemma' section…they are listed there and I can click through to each of them easily.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
Hi @Doc B,
Thank you for the screenshot. I might be mistaken, but I don't think I am trying to do the word study.
The situation is that I had searched for a specific word (יְרוּשְׁלֶם), and was using the "search tab" since it is the ONLY way to view the Hebrew and ESV with the verses remaining aligned. Anyway, in the process l saw another word (נֶגֶד) I wanted to review LATER, but as you know, the search tab aligns the text, but it is very limited. So I had to go elsewhere to see ANYTHING about that other verse.
So I opened a Hebrew text tab (as in, where the text is clickable), and I right clicked and did "Power Lookup" on (נֶגֶד) which brought up a tiny pane on the right. I really liked the idea, and it was a great way to quickly see info about this word and get back to work without needing to actually look the new word up, but I REALLY needed the Strongs number. So is there a way to add Strongs to the "Power Lookup" without actually going down a trail of opening the random word like your screenshot?
0 -
Instead of using the Power Lookup tool, use the Information tool.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
Hi @Doc B,
Thanks for the screenshot. I think I am clicking the right thing, but since I am not sure, I am attaching a screenshot. I recreated the same layout where I was looking for a word and then stumbled on a random word to look at later. So "power lookup" is only for the main word and not random words?
However, when I click on Information, I am still not seeing Strongs. Is it in my screenshot and I am just missing it? Or how can I add it?
0 -
BHS is not tagged for Strongs. But select the word in your parallel ESV tab and it will show up in the info pane.
For your original question, what about doing a Bible search for Jerusalem and then going to the analysis tab?
You can sort by Strong's number by dragging them to the top. Then I like to right click and use Summary view.
The layout seems weird, but the first 640 words are H3389, and have no Greek strong's number, so their second section is blank. The next 149 are Greek words, so they have no Hebrew strong's number, etc.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
Yet that brought up the ESV, so I clicked on the Aramaic word in parallel and clicked Inline, which obviously didn't work since it did an inline of the ESV (even though I clicked on an Aramaic word).
Using lemma.a will work for an inline search. For reasons that are opaque to me, BHS is tagged with a different lemma system (lemma.sesb.a:יְרוּשְׁלֶם) when you do a search, but if you use lemma.a, you will get the results you want.
I am trying to understand what you want; let me know if this is on the right track. I set the ESV as my main Bible, turned on interlinear with manuscript and Strong's numbers on, and added the BHS OT and the UBS as the parallel texts (so the relevant one will turn up).
The Bible Word Study tool is the best and easiest way to get all of the lemmas behind a particular English word. I don't understand what didn't work for you there before. Right-click the lemma in the Word Study pane, click "Copy Reference Search" and then paste that into your inline Bible search.
I don't think you want a word list; you want notes. Go to tools → notes.
Create a new notebook by clicking on the notebook tab and then the plus sign and call it "Word Studies."
Right click a word in the ESV, select the Strong's number in the context menu and click "Word Studies" under add note.
Then you have a note tied to that Strong's number where you can add tags, links, whatever.
The situation is that I had searched for a specific word (יְרוּשְׁלֶם), and was using the "search tab" since it is the ONLY way to view the Hebrew and ESV with the verses remaining aligned.
I didn't catch this until I had done the above, but that is not true. Instead of using the parallel resources pane, just open up ESV in one window and open the BHS separately. Then on the home panel, select Link Set and put them both to the same letter. The verses will stay aligned when you scroll.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
BHS is not tagged for Strongs. But select the word in your parallel ESV tab and it will show up in the info pane.
Hi @Justin Gatlin ,
Thanks. :) I clicked the word from the ESV side and Strongs magically appeared. :) I guess I know Strongs isn't associated with the Hebrew, but I guess I sort of forgot the ramifications of that.
For your original question, what about doing a Bible search for Jerusalem and then going to the analysis tab?
Thank you for your screenshots. It has taken me a minute to respond since I am still a little confused, but I will try to respond to this in sections to sort of unwind my confusion.
I am trying to understand what you want; let me know if this is on the right track.
Thank you, and to be honest, I am not sure if it is since I am so confused. I think part of why I was trying to start with English might not be relevant. The fundamental issue is that I don't like typing in Hebrew, so if I can type in English and select a Hebrew word, I always feel better about it. However, I have since discovered that if I type h: and start typing in English, that the system starts producing Hebrew hits. If I do that, is that just as reliable as if I started with typing Hebrew?
I set the ESV as my main Bible, turned on interlinear with manuscript and Strong's numbers on, and added the BHS OT and the UBS as the parallel texts (so the relevant one will turn up).
My understanding is that if the ESV is on the left, that it is going to only fundamentally search words which are attached to the ESV. So if, for example, I want to search for all the hits of a random Hebrew word, and I start with the English, it won't find EVERYTHING, while if I search the Hebrew directly, it will. Is this correct? As an example, I just opened the ESV and clicked on the אֵ֥ת in Gen 1:1, which is obviously not translated and clicked inline, which brought it up, which is interesting. However, the result is different compared to the actual Hebrew text. Here is a screenshot. The Hebrew is also backwards in the ESV Inline. 🙃
I am trying to understand what you want;
I am too. :) I think something which would help, if you don't mind, is I will show what I am trying to do from an Accordance workspace. In Accordance I don't need to type in Hebrew. I just type a random English word, then with the Hebrew on the right, I click the lex of the Hebrew (the Logos lemma), and Accordance will auto-set the Hebrew to be primary in a new tab. I can then just go though all my Hebrew words with the English there, or the LXX or whatever. The top half of the screenshot is what I typed, and the bottom half is the result.
So this is ultimately what I am trying to do, and it isn't clear to me how to do that in Logos without literally typing in Hebrew. Greek isn't so bad, but Hebrew and their quirky vowels is obnoxious to type, imo.
I don't think you want a word list; you want notes. Go to tools → notes.
Create a new notebook by clicking on the notebook tab and then the plus sign and call it "Word Studies."
Thank you for this idea. I frankly forgot about notes. So if I am understanding correctly, if I find a random word I want to look at later, it would be better to add the word to a note instead of a word list. Is that correct? Maybe I should add it to a passage list? Notes are sort of permanent, but these random words to review are words I intend to get to in a matter of hours.
Right click a word in the ESV, select the Strong's number in the context menu and click "Word Studies" under add note. Then you have a note tied to that Strong's number where you can add tags, links, whatever.
Thank you for these screenshots. I will need to review these screenshots and experiment with this. If I am understanding correctly, the Notes are in different Notebooks. So I could have a "class" notebook that has a bunch of class notes, then I could have a "random words to review" notebook which has a bunch of random words I find and want to check later. Is this correct? Also, regarding notes, if I take a note in Genesis and put it in a notebook, then I take a note in Philo in the same notebook, is that ok? Or do the notebooks need to be literature segregated to prevent data corruption? Or is that not an issue here?
The Bible Word Study tool is the best and easiest way to get all of the lemmas behind a particular English word. I don't understand what didn't work for you there before. Right-click the lemma in the Word Study pane, click "Copy Reference Search" and then paste that into your inline Bible search.
But the Bible Word Study will also disregard words which are not translated. Is that correct?
I didn't catch this until I had done the above, but that is not true. Instead of using the parallel resources pane, just open up ESV in one window and open the BHS separately. Then on the home panel, select Link Set and put them both to the same letter. The verses will stay aligned when you scroll.
If I am understanding correctly, instead of putting resources in parallel, it is better to just open another resource on the right side of the screen and then link them. That way both texts are "primary" and there isn't the parallel problem issue. Is that correct?
Thank you very much again for this detailed response and the screenshots. I appreciate it. I hope everything I wrote in this response is clear, but if not, please let me know if I need to clarify anything. Thank you again.
0 -
However, I have since discovered that if I type h: and start typing in English, that the system starts producing Hebrew hits. If I do that, is that just as reliable as if I started with typing Hebrew?
Yes, it is exactly the same. Just type it and select the right option from the dropdown.
My understanding is that if the ESV is on the left, that it is going to only fundamentally search words which are attached to the ESV. So if, for example, I want to search for all the hits of a random Hebrew word, and I start with the English, it won't find EVERYTHING, while if I search the Hebrew directly, it will. Is this correct?
I don't think I understand. If you start with "beginning" and select רֵאשִׁית or type h:resit, you will get the same results. It does not matter if you start with English. Of course, searching for "beginning" will only give you that surface text, which may correspond to several lemmas. Searching for a Hebrew word which is untranslated will also give you a hit, although there is nothing to highlight unless you have the interlinear on.
What you are doing in Accordance is very easy in Logos. Open your Hebrew Bible and the ESV and set them both to Link set A.
Under formatting, click "Emphasize" and turn on corresponding text (ignore the boxes on the Hebrew, which are an unrelated visual filter).
Right-click a word in English and do an inline search for the lemma.
The English Bible will be filtered to the relevant verses and the Hebrew will highlight the word too. The Hebrew will give you the full context, while if you scroll in the ESV it will move the Hebrew to the next search result.
Notes are sort of permanent, but these random words to review are words I intend to get to in a matter of hours.
You can sort your notes however you like. Some people keep everything in one big notebook. The only advantage to sorting with notebooks is that you can share a specific notebook with other users. You can also add tags like "temporary" or "spring 25" so you can delete temporary notes when you are done with them. There is no risk of data corruption. Notes are best for storing information, and you can even use the ref.ly links to create a link in a note to a passage list or whatever.
But the Bible Word Study will also disregard words which are not translated. Is that correct?
No, that is not correct. A Bible Word study on an English word will only show times when that English word is translated. But if you go from the English word to a specific lemma, it will mark it whether it is translated or not.
If I am understanding correctly, instead of putting resources in parallel, it is better to just open another resource on the right side of the screen and then link them. That way both texts are "primary" and there isn't the parallel problem issue. Is that correct?
It probably isn't always better but for what you are looking for, it is. I use parallel resources for things like having a Bible on one side and a commentary on the other, where I want to be able to scroll through the commentary without losing my place in the Bible, but if I move the Bible, the commentary will readjust. For keeping two texts always synced, link sets are much better.
Thank you very much again for this detailed response and the screenshots. I appreciate it. I hope everything I wrote in this response is clear, but if not, please let me know if I need to clarify anything. Thank you again.I'm happy to help. You will be a Logos power user and a big benefit to the forum as soon as you learn to speak Logos-ese, so it is an investment in the community! :)
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
Yes, it is exactly the same. Just type it and select the right option from the dropdown.
Hi @Justin Gatlin,
Ok, thanks for clarifying that. :)
I don't think I understand. If you start with "beginning" and select רֵאשִׁית or type h:resit, you will get the same results. It does not matter if you start with English. Of course, searching for "beginning" will only give you that surface text, which may correspond to several lemmas. Searching for a Hebrew word which is untranslated will also give you a hit, although there is nothing to highlight unless you have the interlinear on…. What you are doing in Accordance is very easy in Logos. Open your Hebrew Bible and the ESV and set them both to Link set A.
Thank you very much for the screenshots. I set up a workspace to match your screen, and it visually works much, much better! It is also helpful for both the Hebrew and ESV to be prioritized in their own window. I am still a little confused, however. I first started by selecting the lemma of רֵאשִׁית from the ESV and got 51 hits. I then searched for the lemma of רֵאשִׁית on the Hebrew side, and it was also 51 hits. However, I then searched for the lemma of אֵת on the ESV side and the lemma of אֵת on the Hebrew side, and these numbers do not match. I am kind of confused about this since if the ESV inline is ONLY recording the times it is translated by the ESV, then it seems like it should be 0, since the ESV obviously doesn't translate DO markers. So it seems like the ESV number should either match the Hebrew or be 0.
Under formatting, click "Emphasize" and turn on corresponding text (ignore the boxes on the Hebrew, which are an unrelated visual filter).
This worked well, and regardless if I searched in the ESV or Hebrew, the other text recognized it. :) Is there a way for the Hebrew or English to sort of cross highlight wherever my mouse is? Or does that only work with parallels? I will attach a screenshot regarding this and the DO marker.
You can sort your notes however you like. Some people keep everything in one big notebook. The only advantage to sorting with notebooks is that you can share a specific notebook with other users. You can also add tags like "temporary" or "spring 25" so you can delete temporary notes when you are done with them.
If I understand correctly, I could add a tag of "spring 25" to a bunch of notes, then I could tell Logos to delete everything tagged with "spring 25" is that correct? Then it would delete all the notes regardless of which notebook they are in? Likewise, if I have multiple notebooks and I have notes open, in parallel I guess, do I see ALL the notes, regardless of the notebook? Or do you only see one notebook at a time?
There is no risk of data corruption. Notes are best for storing information, and you can even use the ref.ly links to create a link in a note to a passage list or whatever.
That sounds great, especially the no data corruption part. :)
No, that is not correct. A Bible Word study on an English word will only show times when that English word is translated. But if you go from the English word to a specific lemma, it will mark it whether it is translated or not.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that.
If I am understanding correctly, instead of putting resources in parallel, it is better to just open another resource on the right side of the screen and then link them. That way both texts are "primary" and there isn't the parallel problem issue. Is that correct?It probably isn't always better but for what you are looking for, it is. I use parallel resources for things like having a Bible on one side and a commentary on the other, where I want to be able to scroll through the commentary without losing my place in the Bible, but if I move the Bible, the commentary will readjust. For keeping two texts always synced, link sets are much better.
Thank you for clarifying this distinction, and that makes sense. In Accordance both texts and commentaries are put in parallel the same way. They also have a "link" feature, but the function of the Accordance linking is to link multiple workspaces (layouts) which are all open at the same time. So since Logos only lets you have one open at a time, putting something in parallel or linking it seemed sort of redundant. So I appreciate this distinction.
Speaking of only having one layout open at a time, sometimes if I have a bunch of tabs open and I open something, that thing just gets added to the layout. However, other times if I click something (like a saved layout), Logos appears to close the layout I had open. Is this distinction of how the system handles it based on if I open a resource or a layout? Likewise, I frequently do "close all" throughout the day to make sure my layouts don't get messed up, but it seems like this might not be necessary, since just the act of opening something else closes the first thing. Is this correct?
I'm happy to help. You will be a Logos power user and a big benefit to the forum as soon as you learn to speak Logos-ese, so it is an investment in the community! :)
Thank you. :) I appreciate your encouragement.
0 -
However, I then searched for the lemma of אֵת on the ESV side and the lemma of אֵת on the Hebrew side, and these numbers do not match. I am kind of confused about this since if the ESV inline is ONLY recording the times it is translated by the ESV, then it seems like it should be 0, since the ESV obviously doesn't translate DO markers. So it seems like the ESV number should either match the Hebrew or be 0.
A Hebrew/Greek search on the ESV does not only search the times it is translated by the ESV. To diagnose what is going on, I did both searches and saved the results as passage lists. Then, I took the symmetric difference of the two lists to get a passage list of the differences.
That shows me that Genesis 9:2, for example, is different between the two texts. In Genesis 9:10, right-clicking the particle gives me the lemma.h:אֵת.2. The ESV does not interpret it as the untranslated direct object (lemma 1, Strongs 853) but as with/together with/with the help of (lemma 2, strongs 854). It is just a difference in the two lemma systems, one marked by lemma.h and the other by lemma.sesb.h. HALOT lists the 3 lemmas that all have the same text (strongs 855: plowshare) but the third one seems less relevant, and so if you wanted an exhaustive search, you would want to do lemma.sesb.h:אֵת.2 OR lemma.sesb.h:אֵת.1 and lemma.h:אֵת.2 OR lemma.h:אֵת.1. This still shows a slight difference for me (11,865 results vs 11,873 verses) but the same number of verses (7,226). strongs:h854 OR strongs:h853 matches the lemma.h search against the ESV. The few remaining differences are where the underlying Hebrew text is different in the Lexham Hebrew Bible and the BHS. You can see this in the Text Comparison tool.
If you're curious about my process, I was writing as I was working:
Since there are the same number of verses, my passage list trick is not helpful this time, but I am no quitter. I did selective searches to narrow is down and found a difference in the number of results for 1 Samuel - 2 Kings. So I tried 1 Samuel by itself and found 583 results in BHS and 584 in the ESV. As a math major for my undergrad, I decided to use the bisection method. 1 Samuel 1-15 showed no difference, so I tried 1 Samuel 16-23, which also had no difference. But 1 Samuel 24-27 shows 72 results in BHS and 73 in the ESV. That was enough for me to see that 1 Samuel 24:2 has a hit in the ESV and not in the BHS. Comparing the two texts, this is not a tagging issue - אֵת is just not present in the BHS.
Is there a way for the Hebrew or English to sort of cross highlight wherever my mouse is?
Yes. Formatting → emphasize → corresponding words, select either hover or click. I made a video demonstrating it here:
If I understand correctly, I could add a tag of "spring 25" to a bunch of notes, then I could tell Logos to delete everything tagged with "spring 25" is that correct? Then it would delete all the notes regardless of which notebook they are in? Likewise, if I have multiple notebooks and I have notes open, in parallel I guess, do I see ALL the notes, regardless of the notebook? Or do you only see one notebook at a time?
You can see all notebooks at once, or you can filter by notebook like you can filter by tag. Either way is fine. But yes, you could search for "spring 25" and then CTRL+A to select and delete them all at once. There will be a button that says "Delete selected notes"
Speaking of only having one layout open at a time, sometimes if I have a bunch of tabs open and I open something, that thing just gets added to the layout. However, other times if I click something (like a saved layout), Logos appears to close the layout I had open. Is this distinction of how the system handles it based on if I open a resource or a layout? Likewise, I frequently do "close all" throughout the day to make sure my layouts don't get messed up, but it seems like this might not be necessary, since just the act of opening something else closes the first thing. Is this correct?
Layouts do not update automatically. So a layout is exactly what you have saved. If you open new resources, you are now in an unnamed layout, although you can always go to layouts and click "update active layout" to save your changes. Logos will not ever change a saved layout unless you ask it to. So you don't need to close all or worry about messing up your existing layouts.
The Hebrew is also backwards in the ESV Inline. 🙃
I meant to respond to this before but missed it. The Hebrew in the reverse interlinear will follow the same order as the English words (that's what makes it a reverse interlinear), so the Hebrew is out of order. But there is a small number to show you the order in the original text.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
Kristin you landed a much better instructor than me in @Justin Gatlin …he has a YT channel and I just watched his latest video about an hour ago. (And BTW Justin, thanks for responding to my question…I'm sillyrabbi64 on YT.)
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
A Hebrew/Greek search on the ESV does not only search the times it is translated by the ESV. To diagnose what is going on, I did both searches and saved the results as passage lists. Then, I took the symmetric difference of the two lists to get a passage list of the differences…
Hi @Justin Gatlin,
Thank you for the detailed explanation and screenshots. While after it you clarified another conclusion, I will try to follow those steps for the sake of practice. In the meantime, however…
Since there are the same number of verses, my passage list trick is not helpful this time, but I am no quitter. I did selective searches to narrow is down and found a difference in the number of results for 1 Samuel - 2 Kings. So I tried 1 Samuel by itself and found 583 results in BHS and 584 in the ESV. As a math major for my undergrad, I decided to use the bisection method. 1 Samuel 1-15 showed no difference, so I tried 1 Samuel 16-23, which also had no difference. But 1 Samuel 24-27 shows 72 results in BHS and 73 in the ESV….
I appreciated your further review of this, as I like precision also. :) Trying to follow the steps you do has also been helpful practice to understand the system.
… That was enough for me to see that 1 Samuel 24:2 has a hit in the ESV and not in the BHS. Comparing the two texts, this is not a tagging issue - אֵת is just not present in the BHS.
I am unsure about this conclusion about 1Sam 24:2 for two reasons. First, if the ESV has it but the text underneath does not, why wouldn't that be a tagging issue? Second, I think you mean 2Sam 24:2 "in the ESV," correct? In which case, that is 2Sam 24:3 and the אֵת is there, or am I missing something? I am attaching a screenshot and I have color coded the verses. Also, I am 99% sure I know the answer, but in this format with the Bible, there is no way to isolate 1Sam 24:1-3, as the only option in the Bible is to see ALL the verses. Is this correct?
Is there a way for the Hebrew or English to sort of cross highlight wherever my mouse is?Yes. Formatting → emphasize → corresponding words, select either hover or click. I made a video demonstrating it here:…
Thank you for the video. I am not sure what I am doing wrong, but if I click on a random word ("returned" in this example), it highlights in the BHS and BHW, but not the Lexham. Here is a screenshot of that, and to the right of it is the settings for the Lexham.
You can see all notebooks at once, or you can filter by notebook like you can filter by tag. Either way is fine. But yes, you could search for "spring 25" and then CTRL+A to select and delete them all at once. There will be a button that says "Delete selected notes"
Thank you for clarifying this, and I will look into notebooks.
Layouts do not update automatically. So a layout is exactly what you have saved. If you open new resources, you are now in an unnamed layout, although you can always go to layouts and click "update active layout" to save your changes. Logos will not ever change a saved layout unless you ask it to. So you don't need to close all or worry about messing up your existing layouts.
Ok, great. :) I really like saving layouts, and if something is super useful, I have been making it a shortcut. However, the more I learn the program, the less I am using the shortcuts of the older layouts. If I delete the shortcut, will it delete the layout also? I will attach a screenshot of what I mean.
(Sorry this screenshot is so huge, I am not sure why it is expanding or what to do about it).
I meant to respond to this before but missed it. The Hebrew in the reverse interlinear will follow the same order as the English words (that's what makes it a reverse interlinear), so the Hebrew is out of order.
Regarding the order, ya, I know interlinears are typically (or always) like that, which is one of the main reasons why I don't like them. However, I really need it on the ESV though for the Strongs numbers, and then I also need the OL there to confirm that the Strongs number is aligning with the word I expect. That said, now that I am using tab ties instead of parallels, it is lining up much better and is not as much of an issue since I can just read the text and then glance at the ESV for a Strongs number if I need it.
But there is a small number to show you the order in the original text.
I hadn't noticed that. :) I still find it difficult to sit down and read Hebrew in reverse, so I really only glance at them. However, I really like the number system. Maybe other interlinears might do that, but I am pretty sure I haven't seen that before.
0 -
Kristin you landed a much better instructor than me in @Justin Gatlin …he has a YT channel and I just watched his latest video about an hour ago. (And BTW Justin, thanks for responding to my question…I'm sillyrabbi64 on YT.)
Hi @Doc B,
I am sorry I didn't see this before, but thanks for the comment, and ya, I really appreciate discussing these topics with him. I feel like I am finally getting a grip on this software as a result. :) Thanks for your channel also. :)
1 -
Trying to follow the steps you do has also been helpful practice to understand the system.
I am glad it helped. I thought about deleting all of that, but I decided that seeing someone else's process is usually helpful for me and might benefit you too.
I am unsure about this conclusion about 1Sam 24:2 for two reasons. First, if the ESV has it but the text underneath does not, why wouldn't that be a tagging issue?
I meant that it is not a tagging issue in the sense that the issue is not what the lemma should be tagged as but whether or not it is present in the text Logos is using to generate the Reverse Interlinear. But now I'm really confused. The ESV New Testament interlinear is based on a modified UBS that the ESV translators submitted to Logos showing where they accepted different readings (about 100 places). But the Hebrew interlinear is supposed to be based on the Lexham Hebrew Bible (according to the info pane for the ESV) which does not have the marker in 1 Samuel 24:2. So I am not sure how it got into the reverse interlinear. I doubt that @Rick Brannan remembers after so long and he no longer works for Logos, but it doesn't cost anything to tag him.
Thank you for the video. I am not sure what I am doing wrong, but if I click on a random word ("returned" in this example), it highlights in the BHS and BHW, but not the Lexham. Here is a screenshot of that, and to the right of it is the settings for the Lexham.
Your Lexham setting is on "hover" not "click."
If I delete the shortcut, will it delete the layout also?
Nope. Delete away.
@Doc B happy to help and glad to make the connection between the two accounts. I am sorry I wasn't more useful. My hybrid Logos-paper workflow is not perfect, but it works for me. And I am trying to slow down!
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
1 -
I am glad it helped. I thought about deleting all of that, but I decided that seeing someone else's process is usually helpful for me and might benefit you too.
Hi @Justin Gatlin, Ya, this has for sure been helpful, so I am grateful you left it there. :)
I meant that it is not a tagging issue in the sense that the issue is not what the lemma should be tagged as but whether or not it is present in the text Logos is using to generate the Reverse Interlinear. But now I'm really confused. The ESV New Testament interlinear is based on a modified UBS that the ESV translators submitted to Logos showing where they accepted different readings (about 100 places)….
I am confused too, but I think we are for different reasons. First though regarding the UBS, that surprised me, as I didn't know they used the UBS as well as the NA28. In any case, that is interesting that the translators submitted changes to Logos. I wouldn't have expected that since Logos was just recording what the ESV had already done.
…But the Hebrew interlinear is supposed to be based on the Lexham Hebrew Bible (according to the info pane for the ESV) which does not have the marker in 1 Samuel 24:2. So I am not sure how it got into the reverse interlinear. I doubt that @Rick Brannan remembers after so long and he no longer works for Logos, but it doesn't cost anything to tag him.
However, it is this part that confused me. The ESV interlinear is based on the Lexham? So if I have the ESV open with an interlinear, and the Lexham open to compare them, I wouldn't really be comparing them, as it is the same Hebrew? Why is the Lexham used as the interlinear, given that the ESV is based on the BHS?
Thank you also for clarifying about the cross highlighting and that it is safe to delete those shortcuts. :)
0 -
Why is the Lexham used as the interlinear, given that the ESV is based on the BHS?
To my knowledge, all Logos Reverse Interlinears for the OT are based on the LHB, regardless which Hebrew text was used to create the translation. As to why: The LHB is a product that Logos made themselves, thus know in depth, can use freely and can change if necessayr. Actually getting a licence that allows doing RIs this way may have been defficult. Possibly the question of royalties played into this, too. Having the same underlying text for all RIs is crucial for many features of Logos, such as compare versions, carrying highlights over from other translations etc. It may somewhat work if you have different OL texts (in the NT, Logos uses basically two Greek OL texts to reflect for the textus receptus implications), but it surely requires a lot of additional effort. In fact it is impossible to know the exact OL text a bible is based on, unless this text is published - "Based on XYZ" is always only a directional intention, translators may go with the margin or another reading from the apparatus instead of the main text, especially in the OT they may look over to the LXX in some cases (and tell in a footnote or not) etc.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Logos Reverse Interlinears for the OT are based on the LHB, regardless which Hebrew text was used to create the translation.
Andersen-Forbes is an exception …
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I think they were all based on Andersen-Forbes before the Lexham Hebrew Bible came out. But the New Testaments are more bespoke. It is all in the info pane for each Bible, under the copyright information. This post is old but explains it:
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
To my knowledge,
allLogos Reverse Interlinears for the OT are based on the LHB, regardless which Hebrew text was used to create the translation.Hi @NB.Mick,
If I am understanding correctly, this is purely regarding "interlinears" specifically. So if I open the interlinear for the ESV, and then the interlinear Lexham, the interlinear for BOTH is the Lexham Hebrew. So, theoretically, if someone didn't really know Hebrew well, but they wanted to compare the BHS and Lexham Hebrew, and so they opened the ESV and English Lexham and set them both to interlinear to compare, this would be a total waste of time.
HOWEVER… this problem is just for the interlinears. So if I open the BHS HEBREW and the Lexham HEBREW and look at the parsing information, the parsing and tagging of the BHS will reflect that of the BHS, and not the Hebrew Lexham. Likewise, if I open the BHW and look at parsing, this is likewise based on the actual BHW text, and it is not all just getting squashed into the Lexham. Is this correct?
In fact it is impossible to know the exact OL text a bible is based on, unless this text is published - "Based on XYZ" is always only a directional intention, translators may go with the margin or another reading from the apparatus instead of the main text, especially in the OT they may look over to the LXX in some cases (and tell in a footnote or not) etc.
My understanding is that most mainstream published Bibles clarify their underlying text if someone looks for it. While the LXX is sometimes used, like you said, this is normally a footnote. Perhaps there are random verses which are not clarified if it deviates from the BHS, but it seems unlikely.
I think they were all based on Andersen-Forbes before the Lexham Hebrew Bible came out. But the New Testaments are more bespoke. It is all in the info pane for each Bible, under the copyright information. This post is old but explains it:
Hi @Justin Gatlin, Thank you for this post. In light of this, I found this post where someone made a note file about what you mentioned.
0 -
if I open the BHS HEBREW and the Lexham HEBREW and look at the parsing information, the parsing and tagging of the BHS will reflect that of the BHS, and not the Hebrew Lexham. Likewise, if I open the BHW and look at parsing, this is likewise based on the actual BHW text, and it is not all just getting squashed into the Lexham. Is this correct?
yes
Have joy in the Lord!
1 -
If I am understanding correctly, this is purely regarding "interlinears" specifically. So if I open the interlinear for the ESV, and then the interlinear Lexham, the interlinear for BOTH is the Lexham Hebrew. So, theoretically, if someone didn't really know Hebrew well, but they wanted to compare the BHS and Lexham Hebrew, and so they opened the ESV and English Lexham and set them both to interlinear to compare, this would be a total waste of time.
FYI to avoid confusion the original language —> translated language is called an interlinear. the translated language —> original language is called a reverse interlinear.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
FYI to avoid confusion the original language —> translated language is called an interlinear. the translated language —> original language is called a reverse interlinear.
Hi @MJ. Smith,
Ok, interesting. I don't think I had heard that distinction before Logos, and I am typically used to seeing it being called an "interlinear" both directions, but I suppose that distinction makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
0 -
Not sure exactly what to respond to, but since the Rick-signal went up, here I am.
There are relatively few differences between the Lexham Hebrew Bible, the BHS, and the BHW. Like, if you take out qere/kethiv and just compare letters, they might actually be equal. The rest is editorial.
Note: I can only speak about this topic as it was implemented through Sept 2023; that's where my knowledge ends.
Basically, the goal of a reverse-interlinear alignment is to align the original language text as well as possible ("generously") with the translation. For Hebrew that usually means trying to figure out how best to handle kethiv/qere instances where the translators may have taken a different reading. As mentioned above, the Lexham Hebrew Bible was always used as the original language basis of a translation when aligning a translation of the OT against the Hebrew. That said, if an alignment (reverse interlinear) follows kethiv, say, the qere may not be visible through the alignment (and vice-versa). The actual Lexham Hebrew Bible text is the authoritative statement of the text; a reverse interlinear just has the necessary tokens mapped as well as possible between the LHB and the translation.
Does that make sense? Probably not. Not sure how else to explain it.
Rick Brannan | Bluesky: rickbrannan.com
1 -
There are relatively few differences between the Lexham Hebrew Bible, the BHS, and the BHW. Like, if you take out qere/kethiv and just compare letters, they might actually be equal. The rest is editorial.
Hi @Rick Brannan, Thank you for this explanation. To be honest, a lot of my concern is just that in Accordance I simply used the HMT-W4 and that was the end of it, then in Logos it has been sort of confusing since BHS, BHW, and Lexham all differ from that text I know. It might be slight, but nonetheless. Further, I don't have a list of the differences, so I often just stumble on them and I don't know what to do with the information. For example, I had recently been looking for a random verb in the BHS, and it listed two hits in a specific verse, but I just knew that wasn't the case, so I checked the verse in the HMT-W4, and sure enough, there were three hits of it. I am not saying the HMT-W4 is more reliable, or maybe it is, I just don't know. It is just simply that it differs.
While I unfortunately neglected to make a note of that specific verse, I am able to re-create the general idea. In this screenshot the BHS has an extra hit in contrast to the BHW and Lexham. While I have discovered the issue is Ps 19:19, I don't understand why there is a discrepancy.
Does that make sense? Probably not. Not sure how else to explain it.
Regarding the logic of the interlinears and the reverse of it, yes, that does make sense. Thank you for the clarification. I think I am still confused about the stray אֵת issue, however. I think the best way to clarify my confusion is to start with a quote from @Justin Gatlin when he wrote:
But the Hebrew interlinear is supposed to be based on the Lexham Hebrew Bible (according to the info pane for the ESV) which does not have the marker in 1 Samuel 24:2. So I am not sure how it got into the reverse interlinear. I doubt that @Rick Brannan remembers after so long and he no longer works for Logos, but it doesn't cost anything to tag him.
So the issue is that there is an אֵת recorded in the reverse interlinear of 1Sam 24:2 (and Justin clarified he means the Hebrew verse if I understand correctly), which is not in the Hebrew. However, what I am confused about is that I just don't see it. There is an אֵת in 1Sam 24:2, but that is only of the ESV which matches 1Sam 24:3 in Hebrew, and the אֵת is there, including the Lexham. So if I look at the Hebrew 1Sam 24:2, that is 1Sam 24:1 in the ESV, and there is not a stray אֵת. So I am not sure if I am misunderstanding Justin's conclusion, but from my perspective, there is not an erroneous אֵת in the interlinear, and thus the stray אֵת in the lemma comparison count is still missing.
I fully understand that I am misunderstanding something, but it is not clear what.
0 -
For what it's worth, the Accordance product page says "The text [of HMT-W4] is almost identical to the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia." And the Lexham Hebrew Bible is also almost identical to BHS. They are just slightly different in different ways. I think the takeaway for that is that saying there are 5,308 hits of something is false precision. There is enough manuscript variation that the kind of absolute precision we are looking for is arbitrary.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
For what it's worth, the Accordance product page says "The text [of HMT-W4] is almost identical to the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia." And the Lexham Hebrew Bible is also almost identical to BHS. They are just slightly different in different ways.
Hi @Justin Gatlin, Thanks for checking the product page! That was a good idea, and that hadn't occurred to me. :) There is some info given on my HMT-W4 module, but not nearly as much as the product page. Anyway, I think it is all this "almost" identical language that has just concerned me, since I like certainty. This quest for certainty is primarily why I have always liked Greek better, as Hebrew has uncertainly built into the language not having vowels.
I have always known that there has been this "written vs read" situation, but to be completely honest, I have always sort of ignored it since in my mind, what I cared about is simply what the text said, and so I wasn't really concerned about what was "read" instead. In other words, I saw the "read" text as basically saying אֲדֹנָ֤י for the name of God.
However, being without my HMT-W4 as sort of forced me to realize that it is more complicated than that, and often dealing with odd verses such as the first vs second person in Ruth 3:3, as an example. (This was a while ago when it had been discussed, but I had misunderstood something in Accordance, as they use brackets for this, and so I had just seen it as a "textual issue." So in my Hebrew in Accordance the Ruth situation is in brackets, as is Prov. 19:19 as mentioned my previous screenshot).
As a result of all of this, if you don't mind, I am hoping I can get some clarity concerning all of this. Before I ask my questions, however, I would like to say I apologize if this has already been explained, but I find it very confusing.
1) Regarding the BHS, in my screenshot I asked how it is possible to deselect the printed text, but I just tried doing it and I see that I cannot, so that resolves that. However, how is the "printed" text different from the "written" text, these sound like synonyms. I can understand that a "translation" might write the read text instead of the written text, but the written text in the BHS by definition would have to be what is written?2) Likewise with the BHW under it, the written text seems like the same as the printed text, as again, this is not a translation.
3) Then the Lexham has a hybrid option?? Is that as arbitrary as it sounds? Or how does someone know when the published text is what is written or read?4) Going back to the Ruth example for a minute, if I am understanding correctly, the "read" text is never claiming to be authentic, it is rather claiming to make more sense. For example, the most reliable text says "I will go down" but contextually the read text makes more sense. Or rather, is the read text considered to be more historically authentic to what was written, and not just tradition?
Apart from the above, it appears that the HMT-W4, BHS, and Lexham are all basically the same, while the BHW is fundamentally different. Is this correct? I gather this since in the base text of Ruth 3:3 the BHW says יָרַ֣דְתְּ while the other texts say יָרַדְתִּי.
So maybe I should just stick to the BHS and have the apparatus open. The BHS apparatus in fact does make a point of both the Prov 19:19 and Ruth 3:3 issues. Then check the DDS if the apparatus says something alarming. Thank God for the DDS.
I think the takeaway for that is that saying there are 5,308 hits of something is false precision. There is enough manuscript variation that the kind of absolute precision we are looking for is arbitrary.
I think you are correct, but it is also the type of thing which can cause nightmares.
Thank you again for checking that Accordance page.
0 -
With regards to the LHB question, have you checked out the front matter? There is an entire section on the Kethiv/Qere System: https://ref.ly/a/lhb/kethivqeresystem
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
1 -
With regards to the LHB question, have you checked out the front matter? There is an entire section on the Kethiv/Qere System: https://ref.ly/a/lhb/kethivqeresystem
Hi @Andrew Batishko,
No, I hadn't seen that page. Thank you for the link! :) I just read it and that for sure helped clarify it. If I understand correctly, the hybrid is basically a modern reconstruction based on the scholarly work that the people who tagged the LHB did. Is this correct?
On a side note, this link is "Biblia" and when I clicked it, it recognized me as already logged in. If I understand correctly, Faithlife is the main company, and Logos is a daughter company of Faithlife, and then Biblia is a daughter company of Logos, making it the "granddaughter" company of Faithlife. Is this correct?
0 -
If I understand correctly, the hybrid is basically a modern reconstruction based on the scholarly work that the people who tagged the LHB did. Is this correct?
Sorry, I'm not a Hebrew guy…
On a side note, this link is "Biblia" and when I clicked it, it recognized me as already logged in. If I understand correctly, Faithlife is the main company, and Logos is a daughter company of Faithlife, and then Biblia is a daughter company of Logos, making it the "granddaughter" company of Faithlife. Is this correct?
Not really. There is only one company, which is Faithlife, commonly referred to as Logos.
Logos and Biblia are brand names for products.
Biblia is a web application for reading your books. Kind of like our standard web application at https://app.logos.com but with minimal functionality. I had forgotten that the link might take you to Biblia. I had expected one that takes you to the standard web application and would prompt you to open the book in your desktop application. Like this one: https://ref.ly/logosres/lhb?art=technicaldetails&off=2512 I think we have a case to clean up that behavior, but I'm not sure when it will be resolved.
Andrew Batishko | Logos software developer
0 -
Hi @Andrew Batishko,
Thank you for clarifying this, and you are correct that the second link prompted me to open it in my Logos app.
0
