Help me understand 'Clause Search'

So... I see in the search drop down that I have two resources to search in. The Lexham Hebrew Bible and the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Edition.

Am I understanding correctly that OT searches go to LHB and NT searches to the other?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kevin Becker

Correct, pick what you want based on the testament you want to search. It's one of my favorite new features in L5, being able to find all those tagged people as subject/object regardless of word used.

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425392#Comment_425392

Thanks Kevin... Should subject:Jesus pull up results in the LHB?

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425396#Comment_425396

Thanks Kevin... Should subject:Jesus pull up results in the LHB?

If it did there would be some big interpretive steps happening [:)]. I did just run that search and got 0 results. Did you get any?

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425402#Comment_425402

No, there were none for me. I'm simply trying to understand the feature. Are there no verses in the OT where Jesus is the subject? Isaiah 53:5?

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425404#Comment_425404

Or even the pronoun search? HE? Isaiah 53:5

person:Jesus doesn't pull up anything in the LHB either.

Really confused.... [^o)]

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425406#Comment_425406

Or even the pronoun search? HE? Isaiah 53:5

person:Jesus doesn't pull up anything in the LHB either.

It doesn't seem confusing at all to me. This is a clause search tool, not a prophecy interpretation tool. It is doing its job just fine.

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425430#Comment_425430

This is a clause search tool, not a prophecy interpretation tool. It is doing its job just fine.

Well, thanks for your laconic response, Mark. I didn't know that the 'HE' in that verse was open to 'interpretation. I'm certainly not efforting a theological discussion. Just attempting to UNDERSTAND the tool.

I really don't even know what to say after that response. Guess I'll just shut up.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425433#Comment_425433

I don't think Mark was laconic. I think Mark just 'spilled the beans' on feature planning at Logos.

This is exactly how the forum tends to get out of hand. Next, someone's going to want to know if it'll be included in the Q1 2013 engine rollout.

Or whether just Jesus, or the gentile nations too. Also 'when' for each prophesy would good, to tie into the L5 timelines.

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425438#Comment_425438

Look... I'm simply trying to understand what can and cannot be done with the tool. Apparently, I've chosen the wrong place to ask. I have no ulterior motive other than understanding the tool that I just purchased.

I apologize for asking.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425440#Comment_425440

I'm sorry Tom. My apologies. But your idea really hit the spot (I just got L5 running). The power of this thing seems unstoppable!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425433#Comment_425433

I really don't even know what to say after that response. Guess I'll just shut up.

The tool is a grammatical tool. As such the best way to understand what it is trying to do is "When this sentence was written, what did the author/reader understand to be the subject/antecedent"

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425442#Comment_425442

I was simply hoping someone would help me understand the functionality and/or limitations of the tool. The title of the thread WAS: Help me understand...

[*-)]

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425443#Comment_425443

The tool is a grammatical tool. As such the best way to understand what it is trying to do is "When this sentence was written, what did the author/reader understand to be the subject/antecedent"

Thanks, M.J. I appreciate your reply. I'm hoping that my questions are not construed as 'stirring the pot' or whatever.

In light of it being a grammatical tool... and in attempting to understand what it is trying to do... and in applying your question... Wouldn't the HE in Isaiah 53:5 or the HIS in Gen 3:15 be pronouns for Jesus? What is the limitation or issue with identifying these pronouns to Jesus? <--- That question isn't a theological one... but one of the limitations of the tool.

I hope I'm making myself clear in these questions. I feel like I'm just making myself look stupid.

John Fidel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425447#Comment_425447

Hi Tom,

I think it best to realize that the clause search is a biblical search tool that can search for persons when the person's name is not in the biblical text. Jesus would be referred to as "He said" or "Him" etc. Since Jesus is not in the OT except in the prophetic sense you cannot search for the Person:Jesus there. Regarding Isaiah 53:5, try using the clause search in the NT for Person:Jesus and limit your search to 1 Peter. You will find that the parallel OT in the NT for the Isaiah passage is included as referring to Him, ie Jesus. So where the OT is quoted as a reference to Jesus the Clause search will pick it up.

It is a great tool once the idea of what it does and does not do is understood.

Does this help?

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425433#Comment_425433

Just attempting to UNDERSTAND the tool.

Tom, I'm sorry to have hurt you. The way you asked seemed argumentative. I wasn't going to argue whether Logos was wrong or right about tagging OT texts for Jesus.

John has pointed out the gist of the feature. Since it is a tool that is based just on the text of the Bible, not our understanding of the Bible, it cannot find things like you expected. It is a very powerful tool, just the same. It will allow you to find all the times Jesus is referred to in the Bible where the original text actually refers to him either with his name, one of his titles, or just with a pronoun. That will restrict the results to the NT since that is the only place where the text contains direct references to him. What it does, it does well. It just doesn't do what you thought it might.

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425455#Comment_425455

Thanks, John.

So is the applied limitation one of prophecy and presence? If so, that makes sense. I attempted the same type of search on John the Baptist with no results. So this seems to be in line with this idea.

If this is the case, would it be fair to say that I should use the tool in researching for 'present' personalities in each testament?

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425464#Comment_425464

Just attempting to UNDERSTAND the tool.

Tom, I'm sorry to have hurt you. The way you asked seemed argumentative. I wasn't going to argue whether Logos was wrong or right about tagging OT texts for Jesus.

John has pointed out the gist of the feature. Since it is a tool that is based just on the text of the Bible, not our understanding of the Bible, it cannot find things like you expected. It is a very powerful tool, just the same. It will allow you to find all the times Jesus is referred to in the Bible where the original text actually refers to him either with his name, one of his titles, or just with a pronoun. That will restrict the results to the NT since that is the only place where the text contains direct references to him. What it does, it does well. It just doesn't do what you thought it might.

Apology accepted, Mark. And I certainly apologize for seeming argumentative. I have no desire to be. Again, I was/am sincerely attempting to understand the tools. I'm hyper-excited about the possibilities. I just want to understand how to properly utilize them. I hope that it evident in my subsequent postings.

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425468#Comment_425468

I hope that it evident in my subsequent postings.

It is.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425465#Comment_425465

If this is the case, would it be fair to say that I should use the tool in researching for 'present' personalities in each testament?

Yes - it tries to reflect how it was understood at the time it was written - a very literal interpretation of the text.

John Fidel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425465#Comment_425465

Tom,

That is a good assumption, except that where the NT quotes or alludes to the OT regarding the person in question, it should provide a hit. I work from the NT back to the OT in those passages such as 1 peter 2.24 where you get a hit when searching on person:Jesus by using either the parallel passage tool or footnotes to see that it is quoting Isaiah 53.5. You would never find this using a regular bible or even morph search. That is why this is a great tool.

You will find if the actual name Moses is used in the NT it will find it, because it is searching the biblical text and Moses is in the NT. Play with it a bit and see if it begins to make sense. There is a video review of the feature here that may provide some clarity:

http://www.bsreview.org/blog/2012/11/my-thoughts-on-clause-searches-in-logos-5.html

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425455#Comment_425455

Regarding Isaiah 53:5, try using the clause search in the NT for Person:Jesus and limit your search to 1 Peter. You will find that the parallel OT in the NT for the Isaiah passage is included as referring to Him, ie Jesus. So where the OT is quoted as a reference to Jesus the Clause search will pick it up.

I think the Isaiah 53 quote is an interesting example of how the Clause search handles this. I went and looked at the tagging in the Lexham Hebrew Bible. It tags the "He" as the Pierced Servant. The tagging doesn't answer the question of who this servant is, that's the role of theology and interpretation to make clear. Now, in this case I imagine that a significant portion of Christians (a majority?), in light of the way 1 Peter quotes this, understand Isaiah to be referring to Jesus.However, I can think of a number of hermeneutical strategies that would place doubt on that conclusion. I'm not endorsing any particular understanding with this observation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I like this strategy because the less interpretation in the tagging, the more useful it is to people of differing opinions and hermeneutics.

John Fidel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425492#Comment_425492

Kevin, very well stated.

Sean Lillis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425492#Comment_425492

Kevin, you hit it on the head. I would be very uneasy if the software started making interpretive decisions for me. That's our job, aided by the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit. The value of Logos is its ability to aid us in getting the information that we need in order to make an interpretation. If clause search did pull up Is 53 in a search for Jesus, I would be in agreement theologically, but I would not be in agreement with the fact that it did so for the reasons I stated above. As great as Bible software is, it's not inspired or innerrant. :-)

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425512#Comment_425512

First, thank everyone for contributing to this thread.

Secondly, I hope that nobody has gotten the impression that I'm looking for Logos to make interpretations for me or do my exegesis for me. Simply put, pretty much EVERY review I've read or seen on this feature has made the statement that the Clause Search addresses all the pronouns of the text, etc. Without mention of the limitations or selective strategies that Logos has put in place (that are now revealed in this thread)

I agree with the strategy here. (Now that I understand what it is) I believe it's important (maybe more important than the reverse) to UNDERSTAND what the software CANNOT or IS NOT trying to do.

John - the video was, indeed, very helpful. Thank you for posting it.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425519#Comment_425519

Well, maybe Tom's idea will show up in the future?

It took me the better part of two months to first pull all the prophetic statements/allusions out of the OT, then pull all the speakers/writers out of the NT as to which 'pieces' they were using in their arguments/logic. The resulting matrix was a fairly large spreadsheet, espacially when I added the Qumran, PG wriitngs and Targums. Now I'm going through the apostolic fathers.

(Yes I know about all the OT quotes resources, but I'm talking here of the prophetic structures).

Sean Lillis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425519#Comment_425519

Secondly, I hope that nobody has gotten the impression that I'm looking for Logos to make interpretations for me or do my exegesis for me. Simply put, pretty much EVERY review I've read or seen on this feature has made the statement that the Clause Search addresses all the pronouns of the text, etc. Without mention of the limitations or selective strategies that Logos has put in place (that are now revealed in this thread)

I agree with the strategy here. (Now that I understand what it is) I believe it's important (maybe more important than the reverse) to UNDERSTAND what the software CANNOT or IS NOT trying to do.

Nope, I understood your request to be just what you said: an attempt to better understand the functions and limitations of the software. So I'm not thinking your looking for Logos to do the hard work for you at all [:D]

Here is an example of what I was talking about, however, just as food for thought. When I run a BSL search on "deacon," I get 4 hits in the NT and a description which reads in part: "a person in the office of deacon...". One hit is in the opening of Philippians and two more are in 1 Timothy, all of which are pretty clearly related to the office of deacon, as the gloss states. The fourth hit is in Romans. A morph search of Romans reveals 9 hits for διακονος, but only Rom.16:1 could really be seen as possibly speaking of the office and not just the non-technical usage of the word as general service. But deciding that is an issue of interpretation, or it should be, and it should be up to the interpreter to decide. The BSL seems to be making that interpretation for me (assuming that Rom.16:1 is the referent in the tool's report). So a person might run that report and conclude just on the basis of the report that deaconesses are normative in the NT (i'm not saying they are or aren't here, just using the issue as an example). But of course, its not quite that cut and dry [:D] Phoebe could be a deaconess, or Paul could be simply commending her for her service...its the same word. It seems to me that the tool has made the decision for me.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425524#Comment_425524

I'm wrapping my head around the power of the clause search as well. I'm trying to find all clauses with Jesus and a Louw Nida reference between 88.1 and 88.11. Is this possible?

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425572#Comment_425572

Is this possible?

No. It's been asked for. It would be a perfect fit for this tool. Right now it's one L-N number at a time.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425492#Comment_425492

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I like this strategy because the less interpretation in the tagging, the more useful it is to people of differing opinions and hermeneutics.

[Y]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425468#Comment_425468

Again, I was/am sincerely attempting to understand the tools. I'm hyper-excited about the possibilities. I just want to understand how to properly utilize them.

I think there is still a question for Logos to answer re Is 53. The references to "him" include "my servant" (and even "righteous one") but there is no such person. If I type person:messiah I actually see person: Jesus (Messiah) and it searches for person:Jesus, but there are no hits!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425559#Comment_425559

It seems to me that the tool has made the decision for me.

The references to "him" include "my servant"
(and even "righteous one") but there is no such person.

I have noted with amusement that Logos often does make decisions - the most obvious is equating Old Testament "God" with "God the Father". I understand why it is done - my concern is not theological but linguistic and logical ... but I take all of it with a large dose of salt.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425624#Comment_425624

I have noted with amusement that Logos often does make decisions

And when they do this, they lose creditably in the academia world IMHO.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425621#Comment_425621

The references to "him" include "my servant" (and even "righteous one") but there is no such person.

"the righteous one, my servant" could equally be translated as "my righteous servant", and that's how it seems to have been interpreted, although why that warrants two Biblical people, I'm not sure.

"Messiah" in the OT is usually translated Anointed, and there are various Anointed people in the Bible Facts tool. I know MJ and Tom will probably disagree, but I think the database is excessively cautious in the way it splits out all these prophetic figures (some splitting out is necessary, of course, but not this much, in my opinion).

Sean Lillis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425676#Comment_425676

I have noted with amusement that Logos often does make decisions
And when they do this, they lose creditably in the academia world IMHO.

It's a real danger that is inherent in a critter like Bible software, and Logos in particular. Why? Because Logos simply does what no one else is doing (one of the reasons we love it). But lets face it...there are only so many ways one can search for word like deacon (as an example). Morph searches engines are generally free from any possibility of interpretive bias because they are simply looking for the naked structure of a word with no thought to how it is being used. Searches of the sense of the word imply that the tagging has gone beyond the lexical meaning and have crossed over into meaning as it relates to usage. That's entering the realm of interpretation. Syntactical searches have the same potential for preempting the interpretive process because sometimes determining syntax isn't black and white the way grammar is (eg, is "pistos kurios" to be understood as a subjective or objective genitive?)

Im not saying that these capabilities are bad. On the contrary, I think they can be a valuable and powerful tool. But it should be recognized that sometimes the software is doing some interpretation. To Tom's point, teachers who want their students to become proficient in exegetical methodology want them to learn to make interpretive decisions by following that method and not rely on their Bible software (and thus someone else's conclusion) to make the decision for them. I look at tools like syntax search, clausal search, and the BSL the same as I look at my commentaries...as tools to help me make my interpretation. But just as I need to be wary about the temptation to just accept the commentary conclusion, I need to make sure I validate the conclusions drawn by there other reports as well, and then leverage them as a means to an end rather then as an end in themselves.

Again, I'm in now way bashing these new tools...they are a powerful resource and I think they are awesome! I just hope that people are aware of some of the things inherent in these types of tools and cautious to resist the temptation to think that "My Bible software said it, so it must be what the biblical author meant." Maybe I'll coin a phrase and call it the Wikipedia effect! :-) :-)

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425559#Comment_425559

Here is an example of what I was talking about, however, just as food for thought. When I run a BSL search on "deacon," I get 4 hits in the NT and a description which reads in part: "a person in the office of deacon...". One hit is in the opening of Philippians and two more are in 1 Timothy, all of which are pretty clearly related to the office of deacon, as the gloss states. The fourth hit is in Romans. A morph search of Romans reveals 9 hits for διακονος, but only Rom.16:1 could really be seen as possibly speaking of the office and not just the non-technical usage of the word as general service. But deciding that is an issue of interpretation, or it should be, and it should be up to the interpreter to decide. The BSL seems to be making that interpretation for me (assuming that Rom.16:1 is the referent in the tool's report). So a person might run that report and conclude just on the basis of the report that deaconesses are normative in the NT (i'm not saying they are or aren't here, just using the issue as an example). But of course, its not quite that cut and dry Phoebe could be a deaconess, or Paul could be simply commending her for her service...its the same word. It seems to me that the tool has made the decision for me.

This is a little off the original poster's question, but the goal of the BSL is to identify meanings in the text. This is hard of course because it involves some analysis: nobody could disagree that διακονος is the word used in Rom.16:1, but honest interpreters can (and do) disagree about what that word means in this context. So in this case we've put two possible interpretations, both "attendant ⇔ servant" and "deacon". You can see this by turning on the interlinear ribbon and making sure the Sense line is displayed by right-clicking on the left side of the ribbon.

So (in this case at least), we haven't made the decision for you. Providing valuable data to users always involves difficult choices and tradeoffs, but we've tried hard to be conservative in what we assert and to not impose controversial decisions on the text.

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425759#Comment_425759

...

I look at tools like syntax search, clausal search, and the BSL the same as I look at my commentaries...as tools to help me make my interpretation. But just as I need to be wary about the temptation to just accept the commentary conclusion, I need to make sure I validate the conclusions drawn by there other reports as well, and then leverage them as a means to an end rather then as an end in themselves.

...

I think that's a fair statement, and consistent with the tools and analyses we're providing. The other side of this is that there are a great many people with only limited capability to do these fundamental analyses for themselves. So we'd like to provide them as much help as we can (rather than insist they do it all themselves).

Even the words of the text themselves represent an "interpretive" decision by textual scholars as to what "the text" actually is. And every English translation is also an interpretive process (one that is strongly constrained by having to produce readable English as a result). In the vast majority of cases, these decisions are pretty straightforward, but there's no getting around the fact that sometimes they're difficult. You can think of these analyses as funny kinds of translations where the target isn't another human language (like English), but other kinds of linguistics representations (morphology, syntax, lexical semantics, discourse).

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425804#Comment_425804

So in this case we've put two possible interpretations, both "attendant ⇔ servant" and "deacon". You can see this by turning on the interlinear ribbon and making sure the Sense line is displayed by right-clicking on the left side of the ribbon.

So (in this case at least), we haven't made the decision for you. Providing valuable data to users always involves difficult choices and tradeoffs, but we've tried hard to be conservative in what we assert and to not impose controversial decisions on the text.

Thanks Sean

I note that in my upgraded version of Logos 5 this was not turned on by default (didn't exist in L4 obviously). Here's a screenshot for everyone — right-click on the left side of ribbon and enable 'Sense'.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425804#Comment_425804

This is a little off the original poster's question, but the goal of the BSL is to identify meanings in the text. This is hard of course because it involves some analysis: nobody could disagree that διακονος is the word used in Rom.16:1, but honest interpreters can (and do) disagree about what that word means in this context. So in this case we've put two possible interpretations, both "attendant ⇔ servant" and "deacon". You can see this by turning on the interlinear ribbon and making sure the Sense line is displayed by right-clicking on the left side of the ribbon.

And you also get this information when running a BWS on διάκονος

However, while this shows that each form is present in Romans (looking at the distribution graph) we can't see which verses are tagged in which way.

Yet another reason to include references in this segment of the BWS!

Graham

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425752#Comment_425752

The references to "him" include "my servant" (and even "righteous one") but there is no such person.

"the righteous one, my servant" could equally be translated as "my righteous servant", and that's how it seems to have been interpreted, although why that warrants two Biblical people, I'm not sure.

"Messiah" in the OT is usually translated Anointed, and there are various Anointed people in the Bible Facts tool. I know MJ and Tom will probably disagree, but I think the database is excessively cautious in the way it splits out all these prophetic figures (some splitting out is necessary, of course, but not this much, in my opinion).

Looking at the specific case of Is 53:11, i'm not sure the analysis of "the righteous one" as a distinct person (rather than being in apposition to "my servant") is correct. I'll pass this back to our curators for review.

We did make a deliberate choice in the referent analysis (that together with syntax is what clause search is searching) to stay as close as possible to what the original author was trying to convey. That seemed like the best way to avoid adding theological interpretation: our focus is instead linguistic interpretation in the immediate context. In this view, the author of 1 Peter 2:24 is looking back to Isaiah 53:5 but understanding the referent as Jesus. So it's appropriate to indicate Jesus as the referent in 1 Peter 2:24, but to record that analysis back into Isaiah would be more interpretation than we set out to do.

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425833#Comment_425833

This is a little off the original poster's question, but the goal of the BSL is to identify meanings in the text. This is hard of course because it involves some analysis: nobody could disagree that διακονος is the word used in Rom.16:1, but honest interpreters can (and do) disagree about what that word means in this context. So in this case we've put two possible interpretations, both "attendant ⇔ servant" and "deacon". You can see this by turning on the interlinear ribbon and making sure the Sense line is displayed by right-clicking on the left side of the ribbon.

And you also get this information when running a BWS on διάκονος

However, while this shows that each form is present in Romans (looking at the distribution graph) we can't see which verses are tagged in which way.

Yet another reason to include references in this segment of the BWS!

Graham

Yes, there's no easy way yet to find where particular senses are used. That's coming soon (though it will probably live in BSL rather than BWS, along with the search launched either from BSL or the context menu).

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425839#Comment_425839

Hi Sean

Yes, there's no easy way yet to find where particular senses are used. That's coming soon (though it will probably live in BSL rather than BWS, along with the search launched either from BSL or the context menu).

Great to hear it is is coming - appreciated

Graham

Pastor Michael Huffman

So... I see in the search drop down that I have two resources to search in. The Lexham Hebrew Bible and the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Edition.

Am I understanding correctly that OT searches go to LHB and NT searches to the other?

Hey Tom,

I completely understand and agree with where you are trying to go with this and let me see if I can explain why the tag does not give the resutls from Jesus in the LHB, I am sure others have done a much better job, but here goes.

The clause search searches for incidents as to the intent and understanding of the author. We understand the the suffering servant of Isa. 53 is Jesus as well as the one who would crush the head of Satan; however, Moses and Isaiah would not have had any idea that these reference referred to Jesus of Nazareth; therefore, the LHB is not tagged to have the pronoun HE come back with the search result as Jesus.

That being said, I competely agree with you that that would be a nice result to see the complete scope of Jesus from the entire Bible. Part of that is becasue we, as NT Christians, understand that those references are to Jesus of Nazareth; but, again, the OT writers would not have known that and Logos is going to give you the answer that the author would have understood. I hope that helps in your undertstanding.

Michael

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425833#Comment_425833

This is a little off the original poster's question, but the goal of the BSL is to identify meanings in the text. This is hard of course because it involves some analysis: nobody could disagree that διακονος is the word used in Rom.16:1, but honest interpreters can (and do) disagree about what that word means in this context. So in this case we've put two possible interpretations, both "attendant ⇔ servant" and "deacon". You can see this by turning on the interlinear ribbon and making sure the Sense line is displayed by right-clicking on the left side of the ribbon.

And you also get this information when running a BWS on διάκονος

However, while this shows that each form is present in Romans (looking at the distribution graph) we can't see which verses are tagged in which way.

Yet another reason to include references in this segment of the BWS!

Graham

Hey Graham,

Can you explain the "type of" section?

Sean Lillis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425804#Comment_425804

Thanks for your responses, Sean! :-)

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425875#Comment_425875

This is a little off the original poster's question, but the goal of the BSL is to identify meanings in the text. This is hard of course because it involves some analysis: nobody could disagree that διακονος is the word used in Rom.16:1, but honest interpreters can (and do) disagree about what that word means in this context. So in this case we've put two possible interpretations, both "attendant ⇔ servant" and "deacon". You can see this by turning on the interlinear ribbon and making sure the Sense line is displayed by right-clicking on the left side of the ribbon.

And you also get this information when running a BWS on διάκονος

However, while this shows that each form is present in Romans (looking at the distribution graph) we can't see which verses are tagged in which way.

Yet another reason to include references in this segment of the BWS!

Graham

Hey Graham,

Can you explain the "type of" section?

(grabbing the keyboard away from Graham ...) The Bible Sense Lexicon arranges senses in a hierarchy, with more broader senses at the top and narrower ones at the bottom. What's here in Bible Word Study is just a preview of, and link to, the BSL entry, which might make this clearer.

So we're saying that "attendant ⇔ servant" is a kind of "helper", and a "helper" is a kind of "good person". Note you have to look at the definition to know what we mean by these labels. We often can't squeeze enough information into the label to make them fully clear: they're more like a help or reminder. The definition carries more weight as to what this sense actually means.

As it happens, there are no narrower senses below "attendant ⇔ servant". If you click on "helper", you'll see there are other kinds of helpers (narrower senses). For example, "advocate (legal)" is someone who helps specifically in the legal arena.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425938#Comment_425938

Hi Sean

(grabbing the keyboard away from Graham ...)

Feel free to grab the keyboard from me anytime you like.

I learn a lot that way[:)]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425837#Comment_425837

Looking at the specific case of Is 53:11, i'm not sure the analysis of "the righteous one" as a distinct person (rather than being in apposition to "my servant") is correct. I'll pass this back to our curators for review.

It's just that the choice of "pierced servant" is not obvious. "my xxx servant" could point to that.

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425492#Comment_425492

Regarding Isaiah 53:5, try using the clause search in the NT for Person:Jesus and limit your search to 1 Peter. You will find that the parallel OT in the NT for the Isaiah passage is included as referring to Him, ie Jesus. So where the OT is quoted as a reference to Jesus the Clause search will pick it up.

I think the Isaiah 53 quote is an interesting example of how the Clause search handles this. I went and looked at the tagging in the Lexham Hebrew Bible. It tags the "He" as the Pierced Servant. The tagging doesn't answer the question of who this servant is, that's the role of theology and interpretation to make clear. Now, in this case I imagine that a significant portion of Christians (a majority?), in light of the way 1 Peter quotes this, understand Isaiah to be referring to Jesus.However, I can think of a number of hermeneutical strategies that would place doubt on that conclusion. I'm not endorsing any particular understanding with this observation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I like this strategy because the less interpretation in the tagging, the more useful it is to people of differing opinions and hermeneutics.

Well said Kevin.You are completely right.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425869#Comment_425869

That being said, I competely agree with you that that would be a nice result to see the complete scope of Jesus from the entire Bible. Part of that is becasue we, as NT Christians, understand that those references are to Jesus of Nazareth;

But not everyone who uses Logos software is a Christian. We do have some jewish brothers (and sisters?) who use this program, and not all Christians believe the Isa. text is refering to Jesus.

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/425869#Comment_425869

The clause search searches for incidents as to the intent and understanding of the author. We understand the the suffering servant of Isa. 53 is Jesus as well as the one who would crush the head of Satan; however, Moses and Isaiah would not have had any idea that these reference referred to Jesus of Nazareth; therefore, the LHB is not tagged to have the pronoun HE come back with the search result as Jesus.

That being said, I competely agree with you that that would be a nice result to see the complete scope of Jesus from the entire Bible. Part of that is becasue we, as NT Christians, understand that those references are to Jesus of Nazareth; but, again, the OT writers would not have known that and Logos is going to give you the answer that the author would have understood. I hope that helps in your undertstanding.