That’s right cool!
Logos has the three volumes of Symposium papers:
These three volumes, the very best of critical scholarship, demonstrate in detail how the scrolls have revolutionized our knowledge of the text of the Bible, the character of Second Temple Judaism, and the Jewish beginnings of Christianity. In addition to unearthing historical and theological background to the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls are the most important discovery for studying the textual history of the Old Testament.
There truly are some very remarkable contributors, and contributions. In case you’re interested in the topic.
For Logos is the ease with which one can work with both the base text and textual variants. Here’s a screenshot of the text of Genesis 1 on the left and the textual apparatus of the Göttingen edition on the right:
While it may seem but a small thing to have text + apparatus side by side believe me, it’s monumentally useful. One needn’t hunt to the bottom of the page or in a completely different volume altogether (as with the Göttingen edition, which has the text in one volume and the apparatus separately).
I felt compelled to point that out (since I’m at this very moment using exactly this layout for work I’m doing in Genesis). I’m also compelled, once more, to laud Logos and Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht for the Göttingen edition. Spectacular gratitude really doesn’t capture the full spirit of my sentiment towards them, and it.
First, a few preliminaries: the nice folk at Logos have sent a copy of the Göttingen Septuagint for review. Second, the opinions that I’ll express concerning the value, usefulness, and importance of the edition are my own and were not coerced or even so much as suggested (as though I were susceptible to arm-twisting anyway, right?!) by Logos. And third, because the edition is so utterly massive my observations on it will occur over a fairly extended period (and besides, it deserves careful attention). What follows, then, is merely the first in a series I’ll call, quite cleverly, ‘The Göttingen Septuagint: A Review Series‘.
Second, my own history in relation to the edition goes back decades, when it was just appearing and I was a lowly grad student at SEBTS. There in that lovely library were shelved the beautiful red volumes which comprise the edition and I consulted them constantly for my work on the use of the Old Testament by the New (my central interest then and now and the topic of both my ThM Thesis and Dissertation). How I pined to have them as my own. But, alas, they were priced far beyond what I could afford. Nevertheless, I loved them and used them. Here’s the primary reason why: the textual apparatus is as far superior to Rahlfs and BHS as the sun is superior to a candle.
Take, for example, Jeremiah 1:4. Here, on the left, the G.E. and on the right, Rahlfs (and you’ll need to click to enlarge all the screen shots to follow) –
I’ve highlighted a variant for you.
Here’s what the apparatus of BHS has here:
Which indicates that there is a variation but is utterly devoid of any useful information beyond that bare fact.
Here’s the apparatus for Swete’s edition of the LXX (which is akin to Rahlfs)
At least that’s a bit more than BHS, but insubstantial nonetheless. And, to be fair, not at all helpful for persons genuinely interested in textual criticism.
But now the G.E.-
Not only are more textual sources listed, there are more variants included as well. In other words, the G.E. is thorough whilst the others are not.
On the surface of the text there aren’t that many substantive differences between G.E. and Rahlfs. But under the hood the materials supporting various readings are so much more complete that the student of the Old Testament who fails to make use of the G.E. simply fails to apprehend the scope of the data and cannot fully grasp the history of the text.
To say it a bit differently: scholars failing to make use of the G.E. do not have the best tools. They’re trying to do the job with just a screwdriver when it requires a toolbox full of instruments. For that reason the G.E. is inestimably superior to its parallel resources.
Does anyone care to explain to me why, when I attempt to generate a vocabulary list using Logos 5 for the LXX of Isaiah when I do this
I get this:
And if I select another version of the LXX, in this instance the lovely Logos LXX, I don’t get Greek at all, I get Hebrew:
Any ideas? Anyone? (I happily confess that I’m no computer wizard- but it seems to me that if one selects the LXX one should get Greek and not Hebrew- so what steps am I missing?)
But they both, and all electronic texts for that matter, suffer one major shortfall: you can’t give them to other people and you can’t pass them along when you die.
Print books, on the other hand, can be passed along. You can designate persons or libraries to receive then when you’ve shuffled off this mortal coil.
Perhaps, then, the next step in electronic publishing should be the establishment of some kind of possession in perpetuity program whereby anyone you wish can be named the inheritor of your collection and when you die all those volumes you’ve so diligently assembled and all those texts you’ve acquired can be used on into the future.
After all, really, what’s the sense of having things if they die when you do. Especially expensive, and useful things.
I for one would like to be able to say ‘when I die I want my entire Logos and Bibleworks collections to be passed on to my daughter and she can then do what she wishes to do with them- either keeping them for herself or selling them to someone else or giving them to a library (just as she will be able to do with all my other books).
So how about it Logos, and Bibleworks? How about it?
I hope this is something that has a simple solution. Let’s say that I’m reading Exodus and I want the Hebrew text to be synchronized as I scroll through it with the Latin text and the LXX. Is that possible? Or must I, as I now do, manually scroll through each window?
Further- I presume that if I can do this for the Old Testament I can also do it with the new, aligning the GNT with the Vulgate and some or other English version or German or whatever. Right?
- I Need Some Help, Logos User People (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
Thanks to the good folk at Logos, this collection arrived for review in the recent past:
The Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible represents the culmination of years of study on the discourse features and devices speakers and writers of all languages use to convey meaning. The text of the Old Testament is annotated with visual representations for numerous communicative devices. These devices we use every day, but determining what they are, what they signify, and how to identify them in the Bible is something the vast majority of people are not equipped to do. The Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible identifies these discourse markers and performs complex discourse analysis of the entire Old Testament quickly, easily, and accurately, making it one of the most advanced tools for studying the Hebrew text.
My review is here.
Logos has an interview up today with Joel Green, general editor of the New International Commentary on the New Testament series. I like this question a lot-
If you had to choose one NICNT volume as your favorite, or one that best represents the series as a whole, which would you choose?
That’s a tough question. On the one hand, I’ve often thought of Gordon Fee’s commentary on 1 Corinthians as the “standard” for evangelical commentary: clearly written, eminently readable, a model of exegesis in the service of the biblical text, biblical interpretation for the church. Among my favorites, though, would be R. T. France’s volume on Matthew, which represents decades of intimacy with Matthew’s Gospel, with his mature reflections on this Gospel evident on every page.
There are several others as well.
Logos seems to have put together a new twittering thing account. It’s here. It may be useful to those of you who make use of the 140 character limit thingie. In the words of Calvin, who when asked about saying something briefly-
In his ‘Reply to Emser‘ Zwingli opens with this beautiful salvo-
NOT far were you, most nimble Emser (for wild goats should be more nimble than stags), from tearing me away from the very clear light of the celestial word and bringing me over to the side of the Roman Pontiff by that threatening pamphlet of yours against my confutation of the Canon of the Mass which I thrust forth rather than published. It is so grandiloquent that no one can understand its difficult periods unless he descends into a well; so fortified with things more solid than the Scriptures, namely, legends of the saints and trifles more foolish than old wives’ tales, that no one can take it by storm unless he is well equipped with gourds, pumpkins, and rotten cabbage.
Besides, the snares which you cleverly spread, because of their unexpectedness, terrify me more than their real importance warrants; for you did not, as a Christian especially ought, give any warning; you sent no herald with a demand for satisfaction; and you attacked suddenly, not in front but from the rear, one who suspected no such thing; nor did you engage at close quarters, so that at least the clash of arms might give notice of an enemy’s presence, but you skirmished in quite remote parts.
Consequently, not even a rumor of the wrathful ibex who was rashly laying everything waste could have reached me, if it had not by mere chance happened that George Vadian, a man of marked piety and culture, was journeying on certain business in the parts where you were tearing around. While he was at first not a little disturbed by the strangeness of your conduct, yet, having obtained one of your pamphlets—a prisoner, as it were, from your army—he promptly transmitted it to me, and I have treated it a little more kindly than you treated mine.
It’s quite sad that theologians today aren’t masters of prose in the way the Reformers were. No wonder the 16th century-ers are far more entertaining and memorable than our flat-lining near death through sheer boring-ness contemporaries.
[Thanks to the Logos edition of Zwingli’s works I’m re-reading things I read decades ago and several times since with renewed joy. And I can share them without having to type them all out! Thank heaven for whoever invented cut and paste].
- The Most Important Collection in English of Zwingli’s Works and Life (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
Logos has assembled a very nice collection of Baptist History resources (including many volumes by that brilliant Greek scholar A. T. Robertson). You can find the details here. As they rightly note
Now is the perfect time to examine Baptist history, study the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism, and brush up on other Baptist theologies. Logos offers a myriad of books by, for, and about Baptists.
Some very, very useful things there indeed.
While looking into Psalm 36 this morning (for a lecture later today) I noticed that the suggested ‘root’ of the word in question in Ps 36:3 (2 in English) is incorrect. Instead, another word altogether is right. Note the screenshot below:
The root to which Logos should direct readers is root II, not root I. I’ve sent along a note to the Logos folk but in the meanwhile, before it’s corrected there, researchers may wish to take note of the proper reading.
To mark the release of the newest addition to the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (44 vols.), we’re giving away a copy of the entire EEC! This giveaway ends June 30, so enter soon—and often!
Indeed do. It’s a fantastic series (so far at least and there’s no reason to think the quality will decline).
The Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (44 vols.) is the first major academic Bible commentary series published in many years. Like the Word Biblical Commentary, the EEC offers the best in evangelical scholarship. Logos has carefully selected authors who are specialists in their field of study, ensuring that each commentary offers critical and exegetical interaction with the Bible in its original languages and context.
The EEC is written from a distinctively evangelical perspective and each volume provides serious exegesis, interacting with primary sources as well as the most up-to-date secondary sources. Such interaction requires that contributors engage with the very best scholarship available. Our commitment to evangelical scholarship is spelled out clearly in the sections on “Biblical Theology” and “Application and Devotional Implications” at the end of each pericope.
I’ve reviewed several of the volumes and found them really quite useful.
- Evangelicals, Don’t Be Ashamed… A New Commentary Series Called the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- The Evangelical Exegetical Commentary: Philemon (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Evangelical Exegetical Commentary: 1-3 John (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
My friend Cliff Kvidahl writes on the facebook-
Help me bring French scholarship to English readers.
And then he links to Ceslas Spicq’s two volume commentary on Hebrews which Logos is considering publishing in English if there is sufficient interest. Apparently they’re almost there- so I’m happy to mention it and bring attention to it.
Tale a look- it certainly might be something you’d find useful.
Logos launched, last year, a new commentary series aimed at bringing the best of Evangelical scholarship to bear on the interpretation of the biblical text. It’s called the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary.
I’ve received the commentaries on Philemon and Ezra/Nehemiah (take note, Thomas Bolin) and feel like saying a few things about them. But first, a word about the series itself.
These days a lot of Evangelicals are being ‘shamed’ into retreat of a sort into the back room of biblical studies. ‘Oh Evangelicals can’t be objective so their work is illegitimate’ or ‘Evangelical = Fundamentalist, ergo, what they write doesn’t matter’ are phrases sometimes heard in the hallways of academic conferences. Take heart, Evangelicals, you have no cause to be ashamed of who you are or where you stand.
Let’s be really, really objective for a moment, shall we? These days the bible is read through a variety of lenses. We have ‘queer’ commentaries, ‘feminist’ commentaries, ‘minority’ commentaries, ‘third world’ commentaries, ‘Catholic’ commentaries, ‘secularist’ commentaries, ‘Pentecostal’ commentaries and of course the usual ‘historical-critical’ commentaries. And the one common truth they all share is that they come from a point of view- they all operate with presuppositions. I guarantee you that if you pick up a ‘queer’ commentary its reading of Romans 1-2 will be quite idiosyncratic, pressing, as it must, a reading which accords to its viewpoint.
Historical-critical commentaries too come from a point of view which has problems inherent in the system. The entire ‘documentary hypothesis’ of the Pentateuch is a case in point. It’s nothing more than the fruit of academic imagination, pure and simple, and yet it remains the reigning theory of pentateuchal composition.
As my dear teacher reminded us all in an essay he wrote many, many years ago- ‘there is no such thing as presuppositionless exegesis!’
Hence, fellow Evangelicals, don’t be ashamed of who you are nor of your supposition that Scripture is just that, Scripture. ‘Queer’ theorists aren’t ashamed of who they are nor of their point of view and neither are feminists. Why should Evangelicals be?
Frankly I’m proud of Logos for publishing a commentary series that actually admits its presuppositions beforehand. I’m not ashamed of the title ‘Evangelical’ and I look forward to digging in more to exegetical commentaries which bear the name I also proudly wear.
So, in the next week or so, expect a few words about both the Philemon volume and the Ezra/Nehemiah volume.
- Ezra, Nehemiah: New Collegeville Bible Commentary (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Thomas Bolin’s Commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah: An Excerpt (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
Logos, which is making available the recently announced 7 volume Zwingli Collection, writes
“Logos is excited to see the amazing interest and love for the works of one the Reformation’s most important figures. We are excited to see the enthusiasm from our customers, as displayed in the mere two days it took to get the collection into production.”
That is, there was so much interest generated in two short days that the collection was moved immediately into production. Given my appreciation for Zwingli and given the fact that he is still not widely enough known or read, this is exceptionally good news.
- The Contract Is Signed and The Collection is in the ‘Works’ (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
Happily the folk at Logos have decided to publish a collection of Huldrych Zwinglis works in English! It should be appearing in the not too distant future- so look for it (and rest assured, when it appears, I’ll post mention too).
Still happier (from my point of view anyway)- the fact that they’ve chosen to include my little introduction to Zwingli titled ‘Christ Our Captain: An Introduction to Huldrych Zwingli‘ (Quartz Hill Publishing: 2011) in it (as the introductory volume!).
The volume in hand is a small contribution to the relatively small pool of scholarship in the English speaking world on the life and thought of Huldrych Zwingli. Whereas Luther and Calvin are widely known and their works widely available in English, Zwingli has not been so fortunate.
The volume seeks to correct that and the collection from Logos will do so even more!
I’ve spent this morning (when I wasn’t cleaning the house or piddling around at Starbucks) uploading modules for BibleWorks 9 and installing fonts from Tyndale Tech and adding in foreign language keyboards.
The machine is up to date, fully armed, and fully equipped (except for Luther’s Complete Works which is on an old Libronix disk and I have no clue how to add it in without messing everything up in Logos 4- and that, after the process I’ve already endured, I’m not willing to do).
Here’s a photo of the new equipment, which is very, very fast and very very nice.
I know this will sound strange but what I especially like is the 8 in 1 card slot and the wheel-less mouse. Somehow or other the mouse just knows, via some sort of light beam, where my hand is taking the cursor. It’s magic!
Hey Logos user folk- I wonder if you might lend a hand. I’ve been looking at Prov 6:16 and looking at the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament is one of the parallel resources. Curiously, though, it seems that the Ugaritic font is missing or I’ve missed a download or an update or something. Here’s a screenshot-
Note the little empty square boxes in the pop up bubble. Any suggestions?