Jump to content

LXX and GNT as a single module?


Dominic
 Share

Recommended Posts

So far I've really only been able to find one thing I like about Bibleworks over Accordance. In Bibleworks I can search the entire Greek Bible for a grammatical construction. In Accordance I would have to search the GNT and then the LXX as seperate modules. That's not a huge deal, or anything, but it would be kind of nice to have them both in one module (for other reasons as well).

 

I also really wish that a morphologically tagged version of the LXX was included in the Scholar's Core bundle, but that's not really a module request. Its just frustrating, since that's the one thing I overlooked in my comparison and research for which packages to buy. I just assumed that collection would include the LXX. Now I've got to save up another 80-140 bucks just to be able to search usages in the LXX.

 

P. S.

I am still very happy with Accordance, and the new upgrade is even better! Thanks!

Edited by Dominic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may eventually allow the user to combine two texts with different books but the same language and corpus, and view them in one pane. It's actually quite easy to search two texts at once now, by creating a Search All group or a text set, or linking the search arguments of two windows.

 

We don't include the LXX because we want to keep the price of the Core Bundle affordable, and most students do not need it for their initial studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may eventually allow the user to combine two texts with different books but the same language and corpus, and view them in one pane. It's actually quite easy to search two texts at once now, by creating a Search All group or a text set, or linking the search arguments of two windows.

 

We don't include the LXX because we want to keep the price of the Core Bundle affordable, and most students do not need it for their initial studies.

 

Oh, yeah. I completely forgot about how Accordance lets you search all. That pretty much solves the problem. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love this "Greek Bible" effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second Joe. A 'Greek Bible' would be *very useful*. The concatenation of the GNT and LXX would speed the research process.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Adding a voice of dissension... I'm against such an 2-in-1 module.

 

I do, however, like Helen's suggestion of having it as a searching option to combine two books.

 

Especially something like what is being suggested for a full Greek Bible... the LXX and the GNT are two very different types of documents - I can't see a purpose in combining texts that really have no relation to one another, other than they happen to be in the same language.

 

To put it another way, to me, it would be like having a Bible with an RSV Old Testament and an ESV New Testament; sort of the same, but really not.

 

Just my thoughts. I like to keep different things separate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dissension? As in, you don't want such a thing to exist in the world for those who would like to use it? Or were you just being hyperbolic for effect?

Surely what you mean is, you won't care to use it. But I'm "for" Accordance features that I think will make users happy, whether I care to use them or not.

 

And anyhow, you're argument doesn't really hold up. A GNT and a LXX are very much very different pieces of literature, but no more so than an RSV OT and an RSV NT. I could argue, even less so. At the least, you're argument should mean I wouldn't want any OT and NT's together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dissension? Yes! If others wish to use such a module, well, that, of course would be for them... dissension is not ardent opposition that is to be imposed on others, but rather it is a voicing of a minority opposition opinion after they majority has made its voice known - and usually decided.

 

And yes, I am opposed, because the two documents are fundamentally different in my mind. Perhaps you, or someone else, might try to persuade me otherwise?

 

I would like to show that my argument does hold up, however I first must reply to the assertion that I do not wish to have the OT and NT together in one book. I would no sooner separate the OT from the NT than my right hand from my arm. If one had read my first post, it would be clear that I support the joining of two modules together for a user to, in fact, use the LXX and GNT as one (this was the idea that Helen had suggested). My position is against the LXX and GNT being together as a single module.

 

Now, as to my argument: For certain both texts are the word of God and the biblical text, however, the documents that they exist as (this is to say, the LXX and the GNT-NA, or whichever GNT, are distinct documents; the argument does not pertain to the Old Testament and its text or the New Testament and its text), were created in different ways and represent very a very different reality. The LXX a document that was composed as a book in and of itself in Greek through that great mysterious project of its inception. We have a fixed form in Ralph's LXX here in Accordance. It represents, effectively, the work of one man (with a few editorial updates).

 

Now, if we look at the GNT, it is a composite text put together by a team and is continually undergoing revision and updating - major changes in the text through its editions. And besides, it represents not one literary project, but many separate books that were not created together in Greek. But besides that, the GNT (whichever one) was not published to be together with the LXX.

 

Perhaps to many, these would not be large differences, but I see them as fundamentally different.

 

Now, as for the RSV OT and the RSV NT - they do, of course, deserve to be in the same module, for they were translated by a single team for a publisher which published them together. What I have in my mind is that they project, from its inception, was intended for being published as a whole. Whereas for the the LXX and GNT, they were not projects intended to be lumped together.

 

Well, Joe, that's more than I wanted to say at 1 in the morning... but there it is. I hope it clear enough.

 

Be well,

 

Peace,

 

-Gord

 

 

 

 

Dissension? As in, you don't want such a thing to exist in the world for those who would like to use it? Or were you just being hyperbolic for effect?

Surely what you mean is, you won't care to use it. But I'm "for" Accordance features that I think will make users happy, whether I care to use them or not.

 

And anyhow, you're argument doesn't really hold up. A GNT and a LXX are very much very different pieces of literature, but no more so than an RSV OT and an RSV NT. I could argue, even less so. At the least, you're argument should mean I wouldn't want any OT and NT's together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gord,

 

Thanks for spelling out your thoughts. I agree that the LXX and GNT are fundamentally different. I still think they are no more different than the RSV OT and RSV NT. I do not hold to such a legendary, single work hypothesis regarding the inception of the LXX.

 

It seems you're making some theological distinction between how getting the LXX/GNT effect in one window gets accomplished--whether it's a single module file or two modules tied together. I couldn't care less how it is accomplished.

 

We'll just agree to dissent. :)

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I understand the desire for a single module of LXX/GNT, I would prefer some kind of feature that allowed users to combine two modules into one, like text sets, but with the two modules being able to be viewed in one, single, continuous pane in the search window. This would allow for users to have a "Greek Bible" of LXX/GNT, as well as an "Original Language Bible" consisting of BHS/GNT. Personally, I would find the latter more useful.

 

The search language could be an issue if a Greek and Hebrew module were joined. Perhaps under "More Options" a drop-down could be added allowing the user to tell Accordance which language to search when one of these customized modules using two languages was selected. Or, the search by words feature could be disabled in cases where two texts of different languages were joined, since if a user wanted to search by word, why would he join two modules written in different languages?

 

Since users could conceivably put two text modules together with overlapping content if any two text modules could be joined, the following are ideas for dealing with duplicate references:

 

a) show both modules' text at that reference as separate verses, like an interlinear in a sense

B) allow the user to pick which module is the default when identical references appear in the two texts

c) give the option to the user for (a) or (B)

 

To me, being able to join two text modules together with the above options for display would be a killer feature.

Edited by Robb B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're a Greek Christian they certainly aren't different!!!

 

Not to mention these together being THE bible of the early church.

 

I add my vote for them as one module too.

 

(along with one KJV/KJVA, RSV/RSVA, REB/REBA)

 

The one tricky thing is which GNT and LXX to combine, but I'd be happy with the NA27. Some might prefer the majority text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(along with one KJV/KJVA, RSV/RSVA, REB/REBA)

 

The one tricky thing is which GNT and LXX to combine, but I'd be happy with the NA27. Some might prefer the majority text.

 

It's user requests like these that make me think the ability to combine two modules as one would be a killer feature. That way, the user decides if it's the majority text or NA27. Best of all possible worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's user requests like these that make me think the ability to combine two modules as one would be a killer feature. That way, the user decides if it's the majority text or NA27. Best of all possible worlds.

 

I like the idea of having the "Bible" of the first century believers--I also like the BHS-GNT in one module. On my desktop I reserve a column for the original languages but it requires switching between the Hebrew & Greek. If they were one module it would be automatic.

Edited by tlw5560
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of having the "Bible" of the first century believers--I also like the BHS-GNT in one module. On my desktop I reserve a column for the original languages but it requires switching between the Hebrew & Greek. If they were one module it would be automatic.

 

This is one of the liveliest discussions I've come across on this forum in ages. It has me laughing with delight. I do the same thing as you do, one column for original languages and needing to switch when I go back and forth between NT and OT.

 

I really like the idea of the flexible linkage. Sometimes I'm in a pretty Semitic mood and like to have BHS and the Peshitta in that column.

 

For a truly east-west early church, one could link the LXX to the PESHNT. ;)

 

All this concatenation might rouse yet more dissension. All friendly, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us all keep in mind that we don't know what THE bible of the early church was... :blink: and even if we did know for one location, it would not hold for another. Besides, the early church didn't really have a bible :o - it had a collection of documents that were circulated - and in different locations those documents were different.

 

Oh, and the GNT-NA27 didn't exist back then, either, eh. ;)

 

My fear is not that people will use these documents - that would be wonderful... but we must understand what we are reading. It is only then that the text is allowed to speak (and its author, lest I hear charges of being a deconstructionist).

 

Link modules all the way! Yes, I'm for it. To such concatenation I would be congenial~ But let us not put unlike with dissimilar.

 

And I look forward to having the option... although it seems it would create some fundamental problems for the way we use Accordance searching if modules of different language were made searchable... I hope that can be overcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do the same thing as you do, one column for original languages and needing to switch when I go back and forth between NT and OT.

It seems likely that this is what most of us do. Perhaps what we're asking for is for the pane to automagically switch between modules. The choice could simply be a preference that you enable which tells Accordance, when the top level verse being displayed is not found in this module, to switch to the first module in the module list that does contain it.

Alternatively, the preference panel could ask for a default replacement module for OT text and NT text each.

 

I do see potential confusion for a some verses which are missing just a single verse in one OT module but may be present in another.

Fun problem to solve. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I thank you all for the lively discussion. I am myself very interested in both the GNT and the LXX. I am also respecful of different views about the Canon of Biblical books. Different confessions have different Bibles, and Accordance offers a wealth of options. I don't think that there is any question about that. There is a question, however, about how sound it would be, from a scholarly point of view, to put together the LXX and the GNT in the same module. This is the discussion I would like to contribute to.

 

Some have stressed the continuity in Greek language between the LXX and the GNT. I would add that in GNT there is a wealth of quotations from LXX.

 

Some others have stressed that GNT is a recent critical edition that has been prepared by a committee according to principles that are different from those used by Rahlfs to prepare his edition of LXX. This is a real difference in the way the two texts have been edited, that would make the results of a joint search less useful than they look at first glance.

 

I would like to suggest a solution that takes into account the good reasons expressed by both sides.

 

Accordance already offers some modules that include single manuscripts, along with modules that include critical editions. For instance, we have the NT from Codex Vaticanus (=VAT from now on). Actually, the VAT includes also the LXX. Even more, there are no manuscripts of the LXX that include the OT alone: the most ancient manuscripts are the Sinaiticus and the VAT that date to the IV century, then the Alexandrinus a century later. They all include both the OT and the NT.

 

It would make a lot of sense to have an edition of the VAT or the Sinaiticus that includes all of the Codex, not only the NT part.

 

This module would not reflect the options of one modern scholar or another. It would reflect the options of the editor that in the IV century put together all these books. I don't know whether somebody else did the same before; what we know for certain is that the editors of VAT or Sinaiticus were the first that were successful, so that we can still enjoy their editions.

 

Wouldn't it be great to have the GNT-VAT continued in a module that includes all the ancient VAT?

Edited by Marco
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be great to have the GNT-VAT continued in a module that includes all the ancient VAT?

Yes.

I would add a response to the warning regarding the inappropriateness of making it too easy to search N26 and Rahlf's together: It is true that the nature of the text's final composition is very different, that would render certain uses of the texts together quite questionable. But a bible study software program is a tool, and not research in and of itself. If the scholar/pastor is making false uses then the fault lies with her poor scholarship. The most common use, I would presume is two-fold...

1. I want to be reading in Greek, and be able to seamlessly move from OT to NT. Nothing wrong with that.

2. I want to explore the contexts of where I find words/construction, with data from both OT and NT. Nothing wrong with that, even though knowledge of the differences of the LXX and GNT will make interpretation more informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be great to have the GNT-VAT continued in a module that includes all the ancient VAT?

 

No. I think with the amount of controversy surrounding the VAT that the GNT-VAT would not appeal to the whole of Accordance users. I would not mind seeing a single module of LXX-GNT, but I think that Accordance would want to use texts that would appeal to the whole of their user base. I think that is what BibleWorks has done. While some individuals may disagree with the GNT text that they choose, it is still a main stream text, that should be the aim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I think with the amount of controversy surrounding the VAT that the GNT-VAT would not appeal to the whole of Accordance users.

 

Justin, perhaps I have not made my point clearly enough. I am not suggesting that this module would appeal the the whole of users.

 

Accordance and Bibleworks until now have offered the same thing, that is, the two modules separately. There is no difference in this. They also offer a way to search both of them at the same time. In Accordance I find it especially easy.

 

It just came to my mind that a whole VAT module would serve the particular need of those who think they would prefer the have the NT and the LXX together in one module. A VAT module, or a Sinaiticus module, or an Alexandrinus module. I singled out the Vaticanus because the GNT-VAT is already offered as a module.

 

Far be it from me to suggest that it should replace the existing tagged GNT. I think that testual criticism is a needed tool, and I prefer to use critical editions.

 

However, there is no critical edition of the Greek OT + Greek NT as a whole.

 

At the moment, the only critical edition of the LXX that meets the standard of GNT is the Gottingen edition, but at the moment that isn't available in electronic format. I think we both wish it were. If it were, I would be an early adopter.

 

I am not sure that I understand in what sense the Codex Vaticanus is controversial, at least among scholars. It is quite clear to everybody that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two most ancient Greek manuscripts that include both the OT and the NT. If they are controversial, then also the Rahlfs' edition is controversial, as it is based upon them.

 

The Rahlfs' edition is a so-called pocket edition, based on just three manuscripts: A (Alexandrinus), B (Vaticanus), and Sinaiticus (sometimes a fourth, Venetus, is used: see the books of the Maccabees). In order to make decisions about his text, Rahlfs followed a majority rule: if the three agree, that is the text. If they disagree two to one, he prefers the two. Sometimes the text form is so different, that he offers them separately, as in Judges or Tobit. Unimportant scribal errors are ignored.

 

As I see it, there would still be an important practical problem that need to be solved when preparing a single-manuscript edition: a few books are missing from the Codex Vaticanus, and the first and the last pages have been torn away. Genesis starts from chapter 46. The Apocalypse is missing. This would make the Alexandrinus a better choice, even if it is later.

 

The good thing is that we can discuss this while we already have the Rahlfs's edition. There are different ways to add to this wealth. The best one for scholars would be to prepare an electronic edition of the Gottingen Septuagint. Another way would be to offer single manuscripts just as they are. The two options would serve very different needs.

Edited by Marco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not mind seeing a single module of LXX-GNT, but I think that Accordance would want to use texts that would appeal to the whole of their user base. I think that is what BibleWorks has done. While some individuals may disagree with the GNT text that they choose, it is still a main stream text, that should be the aim.

 

I agree. I think what BibleWorks has done is the way to go. I cast my vote for a LXX-GNT module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I think what BibleWorks has done is the way to go. I cast my vote for a LXX-GNT module.

 

Thank you, Ruben, for making clear that such module actually exists. I was confused by the BibleWorks web page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure that I understand in what sense the Codex Vaticanus is controversial...

 

Marco,

 

First I must apologize for my misunderstanding of what you had written. I agree that there is no controversy surrounding the Codex Vaticanus. I was thinking of the text by Westcott & Hort that was based on the Codex Vaticanus that some argue is not a good text, mainly people of the TR persuasion. But I do think we are wanting the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of the text by Westcott & Hort that was based on the Codex Vaticanus that some argue is not a good text, mainly people of the TR persuasion.

Well, if a TR enthusiast despisea the WH edition, she should hate the Nestle edition that we're all using even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...