Logos 4 Original Languages vs BibleWorks 9
Comments
-
Here is another screenshot that cannot be replicated because BW doesn't have the exegetical summaries or the WBC. Logos has a lot of secondary literature which is quite helpful. I would get a Logos package so that you can have syntax search, the cascadia and opentext diagrams, and then I would add the exegetical summaries collection and the Discourse Greek NT bundle. The WBC would be nice too as well as the theological journals.
0 -
Here is my BW layout for Greek reading. One thing I like about BW that you cannot do in Logos is you can color code the vocabulary (30 times or greater, etc.) you know for example, blue. And the vocab you don't know can be black. That way when you are reading it, at a glance you know whether you are supposed to know the word or not.
0 -
Also of note is that Logos has the textual apparatus of the UBS and NA, BW does not. Whereas, BW has the CNTTS but Logos does not. The textual apparatus does not come in the base package of Logos.
http://www.logos.com/product/18617/german-bible-society-bundle
0 -
robrecht said:
I understand the advantages of commentaries in Logos for homiletic preparation, but would you be able to share a screenshot or two of the screen layouts you prefer for reading Hebrew or Greek that cannot be duplicated in BibleWorks?
Thanks, Robrecht
Here are the layouts I currently use for reading NT and OT in original languages. These can more or less be replicated in BW. However, even here there are a few nice things that Logos can do that BW has difficulty with. First of all, notice that I have two versions of the ESV open. One version follows the BHS text, and one version is used to receive hyperlinks that I click on. I find it quite nice to have two separate Bible texts that follow each other. In BW, you can show multiple versions, but they are in the same box, and one verse at a time. Here I have two versions side by side and they follow each other. Then, below I have a couple of commentaries open, that also follow the text. BW doesn't have many commentaries available. If I click in a link in one of the commentaries, it takes me to my second ESV, and doesn't disturb the first ESV, which is following the Hebrew text. Finally, on the right I have the "Cited by" tool open, and it's checking my Hebrew Grammars and Lexicons for instances of this verse - BW has this funcionality as well, and I am in fact imitating what BW does by default here in Logos. But, apart from those sets of books, in Logos I can easily configure other sets of books to appear as well. For example, I have a set of books about the "Historical Jesus" studies, or another one for "Background commentaries", etc. I can have those appear as well as a group in the "Cited By" tool. Those are all set up by me, so there is tremendous flexibility. BW, however, is much faster.
Here is the NT layout I am currently using. It is similar. Here I have the RSVCE following the Greek, and have the ESV set up to receive hyperlinks from the commentaries below. The Commentaries also follow the text. On the right, again I am imitating the OOTB BW setup, with the Cited By tool lookup up the references in my Greek Grammars and Lexicons. For word lookups I have the BDAG there (just double click on any word and it looks it up there) and also the standard scientific Greek grammar available for reference.
So, that's all pretty nice, but BW can basically do it, with differences, advantages and disadvantages. But BW cannot do this at all:
This is a setup to study the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is totally different. Now, you might not be interested in studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but the principle is the same. You can do this with any book. You can set up a totally different layout with tools and books that are totally customized for the study of that book. Very nice. Then you can save your layout as a little shortcut up on your shortcut bar and it's just a click away.
0 -
Au contraire, mon Père! But perhaps in another venue.Fr Devin Roza said:... Now, you might not be interested in studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church ...
Thank you for your screen shots. I do not like the the fact that BW can only display multiple versions a single verse at a time.0 -
Fr Devin Roza said:
In BW, you can show multiple versions, but they are in the same box, and one verse at a time.
robrecht said:I do not like the the fact that BW can only display multiple versions a single verse at a time.
Here's what I've been told over at the BW forum: "That's not correct - Bibleworks can display more than one version (indeed numerous versions) over as many verses as you require. Whether you'll fit them all on the screen might be an issue - but that's more about your screen size (and possibly your visual acuity!)."
Now, Father Devin, I want you to say three 'Hail Mary's and make a good act of contrition.
0 -
Bibleworks can show multiple versions with more than one verse at a time. Use the command line to enter a verse range rather than a single verse. Also this can be accomplished with the synopsis tool.
These really are two different programs and I hesitate to compare them. I own both and use both regularly.
0 -
robrecht said:Fr Devin Roza said:
In BW, you can show multiple versions, but they are in the same box, and one verse at a time.
robrecht said:I do not like the the fact that BW can only display multiple versions a single verse at a time.
Here's what I've been told over at the BW forum: "That's not correct - Bibleworks can display more than one version (indeed numerous versions) over as many verses as you require. Whether you'll fit them all on the screen might be an issue - but that's more about your screen size (and possibly your visual acuity!)."
Now, Father Devin, I want you to say three 'Hail Mary's and make a good act of contrition
My point was actually that you can't scroll multiple versions with multiple windows synchronized. You can open up as many verses as you can fit in BW in multiple versions. That's great if you want to study 3 or 4 verses. But if you actually want to read a book in the original language, Logos is much better, because you can set up multiple versions to scroll together in different windows. BW does not have the flexibility to do this.
So, I'll say some Hail Mary's for you. [;)]
0 -
Fr Devin Roza said:
My point was actually that you can't scroll multiple versions with multiple windows synchronized. You can open up as many verses as you can fit in BW in multiple versions. That's great if you want to study 3 or 4 verses.
It appears that one is able to study more than 4 verses in BibleWorks (for example I have 10), and they do scroll together. It doesn't look as nice as Logos4, but it can be done.
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
Looks like Fr Devin's going to have to make another run at it.
I assume BW folks don't need to do what he's describing. I'm like him (I guess) in that I move across 15 or 20 verse-driven resources (eg DSS, Targums, LXX, and so forth). And Logos4 keeps track of the verse numbering differences between all the sources (unlike my cute little Libronix puppy).
Typing in a big range; not. I don't use BW but I think the OP is making the wrong comparison for what he enjoys; should be BW vs Accordance, accepting the differing platforms. In my view Accordance is far superior to BW (again relative to the OP's stated use).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Justin Cofer said:
Here is another screenshot that cannot be replicated because BW doesn't have the exegetical summaries or the WBC. Logos has a lot of secondary literature which is quite helpful.
This is true because BW was not designed to do this. IMHO, This is like comparing a Lexus to an 18 wheeler. While they both can get you down the road, they were designed to do two different functions. BW is designed for a person to do his or her own research on the Biblical text. L4 was designed for you to read and to use other people's research. If you want to dig into the original language, then BW is the way to go. If you want to do anything else, then L4 is the way to go.
0 -
Fr Devin Roza said:
This is a setup to study the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is totally different. Now, you might not be interested in studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but the principle is the same. You can do this with any book. You can set up a totally different layout with tools and books that are totally customized for the study of that book. Very nice. Then you can save your layout as a little shortcut up on your shortcut bar and it's just a click away.
Again, BW was not designed to study the catechism of the Roman Catholic church (or of any other faith group). BW was designed to only study the original text in their original language
1 -
DMB said:
... In my view Accordance is
far superior to BW (again relative to the OP's stated use).Accordance, is brilliant! Unfortunately, it only runs on Macs natively! One, may get it to run on Windows only through an emulator like Basilisk II.
Bibleworks and Logos4 are the OPs only true choices if he wants to do Original Language research Of the Bible on a Windows machine.
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
I mentioned Accordance (Mac) due to what Tom said ... if you're going to study the text, then study the text. Why compromise? I can't imagine the need to study the text and then letting the platform get in the way. And if the platform is worthy of compromise (a BIG compromise), then Logos is a far better Windows solution due the combination of software tools (especially syntax) and even more critical, text resources (where I think Accordance also shines in addition to their software).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
BKMitchell said:Fr Devin Roza said:
My point was actually that you can't scroll multiple versions with multiple windows synchronized. You can open up as many verses as you can fit in BW in multiple versions. That's great if you want to study 3 or 4 verses.
It appears that one is able to study more than 4 verses in BibleWorks (for example I have 10), and they do scroll together. It doesn't look as nice as Logos4, but it can be done.
Good point! If it were possible to dock a view like that and integrate it into the BW main window that would do what I am looking for, because I want it not only to scroll but also to use the language tools. As far as I know that can't be done in BW. If I'm going to really read in Hebrew a book of the Bible I want to use all those tools and have them integrated into the experience, which Logos does great. BW has great tools, but the integration in points like this clunky. But then again, it's clunky fast.
0 -
This thread has become very informative. It ought to be preserved in the Wiki somewhere, for future reference.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
The language tools can be popped out into floating windows, and arranged at will...
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
There are also, of course, innumerable very small things that one program does better or the other.
Just to list one little thing from each program... for example, the little pop-up windows with vocabulary information in BW are nicer than the ones in Logos. Consider the same word, same verse in each:
In BibleWorks 8:
In Logos 4:
The information is more or less the same, but the presentation in BW is much clearer.
In Logos, there is a great little feature called "Reading Lists" that people can share with others. MJ Smith created a reading list with all the free training videos out there for learning Logos. You can check off the ones you have already read, and it stores that info on your computer, but the list is maintained by the entire user base. And it's completely integrated into the program, even though the info comes from the Internet.
They are both the type of things that 95% of the time don't really matter, but both of them are examples of how there are numerous little things that one program does better or the other.
0 -
DMB said:
....And if the platform is worthy of compromise (a BIG compromise), then Logos is a far better Windows solution due the combination of software tools (especially syntax) and even more critical, text resources...
I am not sure, that there is a better choice between the Accordance, BibleWorks, or Logos. All of them do similar things, and there is a large overlap between them. Each program has it's own strengths and weakness. For example; As, you mentioned Logos has more syntactical databases than Accordance, and BibleWork has yet to acquire one. On the other hand BibleWorks and Accordance can search on the accents/cantillation marks and vowel patterns of the BHS, and Logos can't.
Bible works is pretty strong on critical text sources esp for the Greek New Testament: BibleWorks has DSS sectarian texts, LXX, actually images of NT manuscripts, new transcriptions of NT manuscripts, the CNTTS critical apparatus(logos doesn't have it yet, Accordance does for an extra price), the Tischendorf Greek New Testament with Critical Apparatus, comfort's earliest text of the NT, numerous other Greek texts and morphologies, two Hebrew databases one may search accents on.
I use Logos4 and BibleWorks9 regularly. When I need the Masorah Gedolah(Masorah Magna), need to see the BHQ, want to run syntactical quires,or want to read a book for pleasure I use Logos. When I need prepare materials for teaching about the accents or search on combinations of them, and when I need to search on specific vowel point patters with wildcard queries, or graphical construct morphological searches, I use BibleWorks.
Logos4 has so much it is really hard to ignore them and because of the way fonts/screens are rendered in the program Logos4 is easier on my eyes than any other program I have.
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
Hi, all.
This thread has been enormously helpful. Still a few details that I am looking into here:
Any disadvantages to way it is integrated or not as well integrated in Logos?Ben said:4. One of the biggest advantages of BibleWorks for me is the parallel Hebrew-LXX module. It seems like that is not available on Logos. Correct?
It is available, but it's not integrated the same way.
Can anyone point me to the morphologically analyzed text of Josephus on Logos? It does not seem to come up for me in searches.Ben said:5. Another substantial advantage of BibleWorks are the morphologically analyzed complete works of Josephus, Philo, and the apostolic fathers. It seems like that is not available on Logos. Correct?
I believe they are, but as separate purchases or packages. Here's Philo, for example. http://www.logos.com/product/7865/the-works-of-philo-greek-text-with-morphology
Any insights or preferences among the apostolic fathers modules? There seem to be three morphologically analyzed editions (Lake, Holmes, Lightfoot).
Thanks, everyone!
0 -
robrecht said:
Any disadvantages to way it is integrated or not as well integrated in Logos?
I don't have BW, so I can't compare. But the Septuagint with Logos morphology is a standard interlinear with one of the interlinear lines being a Hebrew alignment:
robrecht said:I believe they are, but as separate purchases or packages. Here's Philo, for example. http://www.logos.com/product/7865/the-works-of-philo-greek-text-with-morphology Can anyone point me to the morphologically analyzed text of Josephus on Logos? It does not seem to come up for me in searches.
http://www.logos.com/product/5776/josephus-in-greek-niese-critical-edition-with-apparatus
robrecht said:Any insights or preferences among the apostolic fathers modules? There seem to be three morphologically analyzed editions (Lake, Holmes, Lightfoot).
Holmes is the latest critical edition. Here is the description from the product page that discusses the features:
[quote]This edition includes an in-depth introduction and a bibliography for
each text and an introduction to the collection as a whole. Holmes also
includes an "apparatus" of sorts, with notes on textual matters such as
variations between manuscripts. The introductions to each ancient
document, the bibliographies, and the textual notes make this volume
essential for the serious study of early Christianity.In 1992, Michael Holmes systematically reviewed the Greek (and in a
few instances the Latin) texts originally edited by J. B. Lightfoot and
J. R. Harmer in 1891. While Lightfoot and Harmer produced a magnificent
work for their time, advances in the past century, including new
manuscript discoveries, dictate that their work be updated. Holmes
provided that updated edition complete with a critical apparatus to
substantiate his textual decisions. He also revised Lightfoot's English
translation to conform to current style and usage.The 1999 edition also features updated introductions to the various
writings, enhanced bibliographies with additional entries for the
specialist, and in some cases additional textual witnesses.MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
robrecht said:
Can anyone point me to the morphologically analyzed text of Josephus on Logos? It does not seem to come up for me in searches.Ben said:5. Another substantial advantage of BibleWorks are the morphologically analyzed complete works of Josephus, Philo, and the apostolic fathers. It seems like that is not available on Logos. Correct?
I believe they are, but as separate purchases or packages. Here's Philo, for example. http://www.logos.com/product/7865/the-works-of-philo-greek-text-with-morphology
http://www.logos.com/product/5776/josephus-in-greek-niese-critical-edition-with-apparatus
0 -
Thanks, Todd & Hapax.
Has morphological analysis been added to the Niese edition in Logos?
Anyone else have comments about the Septuagint with Logos morphology and Hebrew interlinear, particularly how it compares with BibleWorks?
Thanks, Robrecht
0 -
Logos has a 4th interlinear - the Lexham Apostolic Fathers by Brannan. Includes notes, Louw-Nida and 2 english gloss forms.
Below is a screen of Josephus - Niese.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I was just looking for something else (what update was downloading [:)]) and thought I would add some remarks.
1) Tov-Polak parallel LXX-BHS. This is one of the most efficient tools you can find for textual criticism of the old testament. The Logos version is outdated and it is very poorly implemented. I don't think it would be proper here to count the advantages of the implementation of this resource in both BW and Accordance. Suffice it to say that in Logos you can only scroll through an older version of the database but no real search capabilities are available to you.
2) Greek morphological searches are quite the same between Logos and BW. Accordance allows you to search by roots (i.e. you can search +λαμβανω and get also lemmas of compound verbs like συλαμβανω καταλαμβανω etc.). The Niese version is morphologically tagged in all three. The difference being that in Logos you get the critical apparatus (if you choose to purchase the full Niese edition) which may be useful if you want to see the textual witnesses to Josephus.
3) Hebrew morphological searches in Logos are currently much less sophisticated in Logos than in the two other software packages. Personally I don't rely on Logos for any Hebrew morphological search. As for searching for an exact vowelled form, I subscribe (as usual) to the wise words of BKMitchell above. He makes a habit of refuting the Karaite saying attached as a signature to his posts. You don't need to search well after reading what he has to say. Just trust him. [:)]
0 -
Thanks again, everyone.
I think I will buy the BibleWorks 9 package and purchase select texts from Logos that I cannot get on BibleWorks, using the free Logos 4 engine. This seems much more economical and it seems like BibleWorks offers the best approach for immersing oneself in the original texts. Whatever I purchase for Logos 4, however, will not be as useful without the Original Languages base package, so that is a clear disadvantage of this approach.
Here's what I'm currently planning on purchasing from BibleWorks:
$359 BibleWorks 9
$80 Qumran sectartian texts morphologically analyzed
$30 Qumran sectarian and biblical texts in English
$469 Total[Edit: Corrected Table]
To get pretty much the same texts from Logos, I think I would need to nearly $1000.
$80.00 $99.95 $49.95 $179.95 $120.00 $26.65 $9.99 $415.95 $10.00 Subtotal $992.44 The NIV and Jerusalem Bibles are not at all critical to me, but I do like having access to dynamic equivalent translations, even the JB in French, not to mention quite a few German and Dutch translations, which I enjoy.
Please feel free to mention any corrections. I am not sure that this is a fair comparison. What do you think?
0 -
You're probably along the right 'thinking' path. I have the OL package and except for some Lexham resources I do not get in the lower priced packages, I don't use much of the supplied resources. For example they have the 'Concise HALOT' which I've never used; I bought the separate HALOT/BDAG combo. So carefully picking and comparing is good. Two software packages is good too ... future options. I use 3 each day. I suppose you'll have to have a good memory on the syntax searching; mine's disappearing fast.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
robrecht said:
To get pretty much the same texts, I think I would need to spend over $1100.
Subtotal $1,187.34 For starters I'm pretty sure Tov, CAL and the LXX Lexicon are already included in OLL, so there's no need to buy them separately as well. [;)]
Secondly, if it's a price issue, don't decide anything until you've spoken to a sales rep. I'm pretty sure they'd give you at least 15%, perhaps more. (Considerably more if you qualify for the academic discount (I don't remember if that's been discussed earlier in the thread).)
As for Vermes, you might want to have a look at http://www.logos.com/product/3874/studies-in-the-dead-sea-scrolls. Admittedly it's $100 more, but you'd get 11 more volumes, so it's at least worth checking out. (Never buy any single resource without checking in the right column what collections it's part of. (Believe it or not, there are collections that are cheaper than buying one of its books separately!)) There's also The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, though there's no knowing when it'll actually be ready to ship.
Btw, there was a post earlier suggesting you're Catholic. Have you looked at the Catholic base packages at all?
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Off topic post
David Knoll said:I was just looking for something else
Nice to see you back, David. You've been missed. I hope you'll drop by a bit more often in the future than you've done lately.
David Knoll said:He makes a habit of refuting the Karaite saying attached as a signature to his posts.
Now you made me curious. Care to translate for us poor folks who aren't quite up to the challenge? (I really need to find some time to work on my Hebrew!)
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0
