Bible Word Study LXX Discrepancy

When I do a Bible Word Study, I get a different number of results in the Septuagint Translation section than I do under the LXX in the Textual Searches section.

For example, when I conduct a study on ἔσχατος, 145 uses are listed under Septuagint Translation, but only 12 under LXX in the Textual Searched section. The results are similar in other Bible Word Study searches.

Why is there this discrepancy?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

David Thomas

When you do a textual search do you enter Lemma: ? Otherwise your textual search would only yield masc, sing, nom occurrences of the word

My question is irrelevant to the OP's problem.

John Coatney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/405974#Comment_405974

When I highlight a word (for example, ἐσχάτου in Hebrews 1.2), right click it, and select Bible Word Study, the new panel opens with both a Septuagint Translation section and a Textual Searches section (among others). Under Textual Searches, there are a number of resources listed (New Testament, LXX, Apostolic Fathers, etc.). ἔσχατος is the word that appears in the search window at the top of the panel. Although there are 145 uses listed under the Septuagint Translation section, there are only 12 in the LXX part of the Textual Searches section. Those 12 results are not all lexical (NOM M S) forms; they include a variety of forms.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/405980#Comment_405980

John

Your BWS results will depend on your selection on the right side of the right-click menu

John Coatney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/405987#Comment_405987

Thanks, Jack; I am using the lemma, and still getting the discrepancy between 145 uses in the Septuagint Translation section and the 12 uses in the Textual Searches: LXX section.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/405989#Comment_405989

I wonder if your index is corrupt and you need to reindex, for me they match if I understand your correction. Does my image match what you are trying to do? If it does and you get different answers I would reindex all and see if that solves the problem.

John Coatney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/405993#Comment_405993

Thanks, Dominick; the images matches but the results are different; how do I reindex?

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/405995#Comment_405995

how do I reindex?

This can be a rather lengthy process. Since this seems to be a Bible problem, I would start with "Rebuild Bible Index" in the command field. That will not take nearly as long as rebuilding the resources index.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/405989#Comment_405989

Thanks, Jack; I am using the lemma, and still getting the discrepancy between 145 uses in the Septuagint Translation section and the 12 uses in the Textual Searches: LXX section.

Before you reindex, can you click on the word LXX in textual searches? That will perform a morph search, and you should be able to see what the problem is. I suspect that it will be caused by your prioritisation - probably having Gottingen prioritised above your other LXXs. Because Gottingen has each Biblical book in a separate resource, the results will only be from the first book in Gottingen that has results (Deuteronomy). If it's not Gottingen, it could be one of the alternate texts that's prioritised.

If that is the case, and you want those numbers to be accurate, you'll have to prioritise Septuagint with Logos Morphology or The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint above other LXX texts.

John Coatney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/406002#Comment_406002

Mark, that was it exactly; thank you!

So I'm guessing that I need to either re-prioritize or disregard the Textual Searches: LXX? Is there any way to have my cake and eat it, too?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/406004#Comment_406004

So I'm guessing that I need to either re-prioritize or disregard the Textual Searches: LXX? Is there any way to have my cake and eat it, too?

You can have your cake and eat it, but it's a bit of a hack. Here's what you need to do:

Above Gottingen, prioritise in the LXX resource (that you want to show in the Textual Searches section (warning: if this resource is already in the prioritisation list somewhere else, it will get removed from the other position - although you can add it back in later).
Right-click on that LXX resource and choose advanced prioritisation.
Under "of this type" choose Bible (there will probably be something following Bible in brackets, but you can ignore that).
Under "in this range" type a single verse. Choose a verse that's not in Gottingen, and that you'd be using this version of the LXX for anyway — perhaps 1 Kings 1:1 (aka 3 Kingdoms 1:1).
If this resource get removed in step (1), you can add it back now.

The hack works because the Textual Searches section of the BWS is not interested in the 'range' settings of advanced prioritisation, so it will choose the highest prioritised Septuagint (e.g. Septuagint with Logos morphology). But when you lookup a specific Bible verse, then this high-prioritised resource will get ignored (unless it's 1 Kings 1:1), and Logos will use the next Septuagint on this list, which will be Gottingen. But you don't mind using Logos' Septuagint if it is 1 Kings 1:1, because that verse doesn't appear in Gottingen anyway.

There may be other places this hack would effect, but essentially what it will do is prioritise Septuagint with Logos morphology when the whole Bible is under consideration, but prioritise Gottingen when a verse or verse range is under consideration. One side effect is that this will cause Septuagint with Logos morphology to appear above Gottingen in the parallel resource menu.

John Coatney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/406014#Comment_406014

Mark,

Thanks for all you help. I tried the hack, but can't get it to work. Even when I prioritize any other LXX over Gottingen completely (no advanced settings), I get the Gottingen results. It's only when I remove Gottingen from priorities totally does the problem go away. Any tips?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/406071#Comment_406071

Thanks for all you help. I tried the hack, but can't get it to work. Even when I prioritize any other LXX over Gottingen completely (no advanced settings), I get the Gottingen results. It's only when I remove Gottingen from priorities totally does the problem go away. Any tips?

The only thing I can think of is either (a) you're prioritising an LXX that doesn't have morphology, or (b) you need to refresh your BWS. If that latter, press F5 in your BWS to refresh it (you'll see it regenerating).

In the screenshot below, Brenton is ignored (no morphology), but Logos LXX is used above Gottingen:

If you still can't get it working, post a screenshot of the relevant part of your prioritisation: http://wiki.logos.com/Screenshot

John Coatney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/406078#Comment_406078

That did it, Mark; thank you!

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/406002#Comment_406002

Before you reindex, can you click on the word LXX in textual searches? That will perform a morph search, and you should be able to see what the problem is. I suspect that it will be caused by your prioritisation - probably having Gottingen prioritised above your other LXXs. Because Gottingen has each Biblical book in a separate resource, the results will only be from the first book in Gottingen that has results (Deuteronomy).

That makes sense. Since you understand these things, can you perhaps solve a similar two-year-old issue of mine, which also has to do with BWS and prioritization: why doesn't BHS give any results in Textual Searches?

E g h:qadosh gives 116 results in the main section, but 0 under Textual Searches. But if I prioritize AFAT instead, I get 116 in both places.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/406298#Comment_406298

Because the Reverse Interlinears use A-F Hebrew morphology I suspect that BWS is biased toward that Morphology. Lemmas for the Text Search may look similar but the subtle difference in pointing (in this case) means you get zero results in BHS e.g. to get the same results

BHS/WIVU <lemma = wivu/he/קָדוֹשׁ>

A-F <lemma = af/he/קדושׁ>

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/406298#Comment_406298

That makes sense. Since you understand these things, can you perhaps solve a similar two-year-old issue of mine, which also has to do with BWS and prioritization: why doesn't BHS give any results in Textual Searches?

I should have said this earlier, that the textual searches section will use your highest prioritised lexicon if you type in the word yourself, or it will use the resource you have come from if you choose BWS from the context menu. But the rest of the BWS is always generated from AFAT, no matter what your prioritisation or lookup source (one reason for that is that the translation wheels require an RI, and all RIs use AFAT). That means if your using something other than AFAT to generate the BWS, Logos will be using two different morphologies in the report.

Because of the differences between morphologies, a lemma in one morphology isn't always exactly equivalent to a lemma in another morphology. So Logos has a lookup table which tries to map the subtle differences between lemmas, to make sure everything lines up. Unfortunately, SESB BHS (I assume that's the BHS you're using, because BHS WHM 4.2 works fine) isn't part of this system - hence the zero results for certain lemmas.

If you want to understand how the BWS is put together, this thread is definitive, although you'll see that it took those of us who were posting a few attempts to understand it correctly, so there are a few wrong assumptions in the early posts: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/23519.aspx Despite your frustration due to the zero-results here, you'll be impressed at how much work goes on behind the scenes in handling this type of request.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/406357#Comment_406357

Thank you, Dave and Mark! So nice to finally get an explanation for this discrepancy, and some understanding of what's going on!

SESB BHS (I assume that's the BHS you're using, because BHS WHM 4.2 works fine)

I'm using the BHS/WIVU from the base packages.

(Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I haven't been on much lately, so I'm quite a bit behind on my replies.)