Questions on Loeb vs. Perseus

Thanks for your question Dean.

Since the Perseus texts were made available as free resources, they did not receive the standard tagging that you’ve come to expect of Logos books. Any tagging present in Perseus came with the original source code we used to produce the Perseus resources.

The major difference, then, is that all Loeb Classical Library volumes that become Logos books will receive standard Logos tagging. As a result, the tagging in Loeb will be better than that in Perseus. Morphogical tagging will be part of that process for the original language portions of these resources. And as with other Logos books, we will also be updating the Loeb resources as the need arises; Perseus texts, since they’re free, do not merit the same level of support.

Two more differences: the Loeb volumes include introductions, whereas the Perseus editions only contain the source text; the Loeb editions will also be typeset to match their print counterparts, so there won’t be any odd formatting.

This discussion deserves more attention! Thanks Mike for your input. 

I'm most interested in the histories, biographies, and geographies that have tie-ins through say Maccabees, such as Strabo, Livy, Plutarch, etc.

Interesting, thanks.  

I'm still a little confused on a number of points though.  For example, I see you are preparing a Loeb-originating Herodotus. In addition to vocabulary there will be many grammatical forms in Herodotus that will not be found in the Greek NT, so how is that sort of thing resolved?  Or are you saying that an author like him is not going to receive the same morphological/tagging treatment, so this text will be more or less like the Perseus text?  And so on with Homer, etc.  

And what about Plato and Aristotle?  Obviously, they're not Christian but they played a pivotal role in the development of Christian theology?  Etc.  

Mr. Micawber said:

And what about Plato and Aristotle?  Obviously, they're not Christian but they played a pivotal role in the development of Christian theology?

This should spook all who read it.

David Paul said:

Mr. Micawber said:

And what about Plato and Aristotle?  Obviously, they're not Christian but they played a pivotal role in the development of Christian theology?

This should spook all who read it.

And to others your bibleism and lack of belief in natural law spooks.[:O]

David Paul said:

Learning what a syllogism is and how to apply it is one thing...syncretism is another.

And natural law is a greased pig.

There are many, many things to learn from Aristotle (and Plato.)  One of them is how to construct an argument.  Vaguely suggestive, more or less incoherent, drive-by pot-shots do not qualify as one.  [;)]

Now, my good sir, if you're interested in actually debating something, I would all-too-gladly do so.  

All you need to do is start a thread, state exactly what you have to say in the most concise way possible.  And off we'll go.  

Okay?

[:)] 

David Paul said:

Having a debate about the syncretic influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity is not near the top of my to-do list...at best it is around #665 or perhaps #666. At present, I am working on #1g and trying to work my way back to #1a.

Sorry, perhaps another time.

To be honest, you wouldn't fair particularly well.  I've debated this topic many, many times with sophisticated opponents, and in many types of venues.

I can tell already by your few words that your knowledge is limited to that which you've absorbed from screeds written from an extreme Sola Scriptura perspective.  You will find yourself very quickly in over your head.  

Nevertheless, I would relish the chance to teach you.  So let me know if you ever find the time to learn.  

[:)]

So, tell me David, exactly how many times did you edit this post? I saw three; I’m estimating five. It seems that while backing up your “pot shots” with actual argument does not rate high on your list of priorities, protecting your ego does indeed rate very highly, probably somewhere in the range of “1.a.” using your nomenclature above.  [;)]

Bullies are fascinating creatures. They will take taunt, intimidate, and act imposing - however, as soon as someone squares up against them, suddenly they’re not interested, they’re busy, they don’t have the time, they find it boring. They want to go home. 

Which is as much to say that a bully veers between two vices, which are two extremes: cowardness (self-preservation) and rashness (self-aggrandizement.) But he is rarely able to muster genuine courage, the virtue between two vices. Mustering genuine courage, of course, is much harder.

See, there’s a lot you can learn from Aristotle beyond syllogisms.

Anyway, God Bless you sir.  [:)]