How to locate minuses in the LXX

If I open the Logos LXX and turn on the interlinear I don't see where the portions of the OT in Hebrew are not represented in LXX. For instance I looked for 1 Ki 7:31 it is missing in the LXX but there is no clue in the Interlinear for the minus. Any solution other than Tov's Parallel alignment?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Barnes

I guess because it's a reverse interlinear, then the Greek text is primary. On a matter of principle, I don't think I'd expect or want a reverse interlinear to display text from the source language that wasn't included in the receptor language. For example, I wouldn't want the Greek of 1 John 5:7b suddenly appearing in my ESV reverse interlinear when the ESV editors have chosen not to include it. So, yes, the standard (not reverse) interlinear (Tov's, as you say) is the right place to go in my view.

David Knoll

I guess because it's a reverse interlinear, then the Greek text is primary. On a matter of principle, I don't think I'd expect or want a reverse interlinear to display text from the source language that wasn't included in the receptor language. For example, I wouldn't want the Greek of 1 John 5:7b suddenly appearing in my ESV reverse interlinear when the ESV editors have chosen not to include it. So, yes, the standard (not reverse) interlinear (Tov's, as you say) is the right place to go in my view.

But Tov is so poorly implemented in Logos [:'(]

Mark Barnes

I know. The format badly needs updating to bring it into line with other interlinears, the Hebrew text would benefit from pointing, and parsing information would also be beneficial. I'm not sure the resource has been touched since 2003.

David Knoll

I know. The format badly needs updating to bring it into line with other interlinears, the Hebrew text would benefit from pointing, and parsing information would also be beneficial. I'm not sure the resource has been touched since 2003.

Plus: In other packages (both of the other packages) you can compare forms: i.e. search where λογος@Ns = דבר@NPetc.

I wonder if someone from Logos is watching this....

Mark Barnes

I wonder if someone from Logos is watching this....

I've just emailed Rick Brannan. With all the new Lexham Interlinears coming on stream, it would be good to get a proper Hebrew/Greek interlinear sorted.

tom

it would be good to get a proper Hebrew/Greek interlinear sorted.

Mark, I am wondering if you could help me out because I am confused. The Hebrew MT text and the Greek LXX text are not the same text in different languages. They are two different texts, and in some areas they are very very very different.

Why would we need (or want) an interlinear that attempts to merge these two texts?

Thanks

Mark Barnes

We don't need an interlinear that 'merges' these texts. No-one is suggesting that. The texts are aligned, not merged. A reverse interlinear more helpful than a traditional interlinear, because we can use it to see (for example) how the LXX editors tended to translated particular Hebrew words. That can be very useful.

A traditional interlinear (at least one formatted the way Logos normally does interlinears) would also have value for at least two reasons: (a) you'd get a reconstructed Hebrew text that you could work with like we already do with the MT, and use in text comparisons and the like, and (b) we could work in the Hebrew text and in a couple of mouse clicks see how the LXX translators dealt with that passage.

David may be able to add more uses, but they would be the two main ones for me.

George Somsel

I guess because it's a reverse interlinear, then the Greek text is primary. On a matter of principle, I don't think I'd expect or want a reverse interlinear to display text from the source language that wasn't included in the receptor language. For example, I wouldn't want the Greek of 1 John 5:7b suddenly appearing in my ESV reverse interlinear when the ESV editors have chosen not to include it. So, yes, the standard (not reverse) interlinear (Tov's, as you say) is the right place to go in my view.

Due to the fact that there are places where the LXX has what appears to be additional text when compared to the MT and in other cases is missing for portions of the MT (besides being in a different order -- particularly for Jeremiah) I would recommend that Logos NOT due an interlinear style. I would recommend rather that it be formatted after the fashion of the Aland Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (separate columns as in the print edition). This would display not only where the text differs slightly but also where there is text missing or added. I would also recommend that in cases of a reorginization of the text that it be printed in a different color so as to flag the reorganization.

David Knoll

Due to the fact that there are places where the LXX has what appears to be additional text when compared to the MT and in other cases is missing for portions of the MT (besides being in a different order -- particularly for Jeremiah) I would recommend that Logos NOT due an interlinear style. I would recommend rather that it be formatted after the fashion of the Aland Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (separate columns as in the print edition). This would display not only where the text differs slightly but also where there is text missing or added. I would also recommend that in cases of a reorginization of the text that it be printed in a different color so as to flag the reorganization.

This is a nice idea in terms of graphic presentation but the thing about Tov's parallel aligned text or the interlinear is that it enables you (if rightly implemented) to run searches and produce statistics. This makes this tool much more than a book in different form.

I think what you suggest is important when presenting the two texts side by side in Logos (Two tabs) but for me as someone who uses Logos for searches, the interlinear is of higher priority.