Why does Logos have editions of both the NA27 and UBS4?

If you’ve looked at the list of Greek New Testaments contained in Scholar’s Library (and Silver, and Gold) in any detail, you’ve likely noticed that both the UBS4 and NA27 texts are included.

I’m sure you’re asking, “Hey, aren’t those the same text? Why would you ever have them both?”
It’s true, the texts share great similarity and can even be said to be the same text. From tha NA27 Introduction:

The text of this edition reproduces that of the 26th edition unchanged. Consequently, with rare exceptions, the paragraphing and punctuation remains the same, avoiding the necessity for altering the page makeup. Thus the text of the present edition is identical as before with that of The Greek New Testament, now in its 4th revised edition. The same text underlies the concordances, the Lexikon zum Neuen Testament, and the Synopsis quattuor Evangeliorum.

Nestle, E., Nestle, E., Aland, K., Aland, B., & Universität Münster. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung. (1993, c1979). Novum Testamentum Graece. At head of title: Nestle-Aland. (27. Aufl., rev.). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung.

But an edition is more than text. The NA27 and UBS4 editions have the same letters in the same order with the same book, chapter and verse breaks. But that’s where the similarity ends. The texts have different punctuation, different casing, different paragraph breaks, different ideas of what constitute quotes or allusions from the Old Testament, and different poetry formatting.

All of these features play in to how a text is read and understood—you know, the very thing that students of the Greek New Testament (and the Bible in general) are very interested in.

Because Logos preserves as much formatting of the printed edition of the text as possible, these differences can be seen in comparisons of the text. One good example that has exegetical implications is found in 1Ti 3.16. This is a well known verse that contains what may be an early hymn or creed that the author used to support his argument. Some commentators see 1Ti 3.14-16 as the central piece of the epistle. But NA27 and UBS4 format the poetry/creed/hymn differently. UBS4 has the six lines formatted as two triplets while NA27 formats the text as three doublets.

Click image for larger graphic

The formatting has direct impact on how one reads the text. Are there two groups of three things? Or three groups of two things? What items are parallel to each other? Each edition presents different options, so both are necessary to consult to get a clear picture of the problem.

Sometimes one text will format things as poetry when another does not. An example of this is found in 1Ti 2.1-7. The UBS4 text sees this whole block as one paragraph, while the NA27 breaks out verses 5 and 6 as poetry (or perhaps an early hymn or creed or saying of some sort).

Click image for larger graphic

If one considers vv 5-6 as a reference to an early creedal statement, it may play a different role in exegesis than normal supporting text in prose. There are a few options. From the NA27 text, one might conclude that Paul is either waxing poetic/creedal (very possible) or referring to a commonly known creedal statement to back up his statement in vv. 3-4 (God wants to save all people, and wants them all to come into knowledge of the truth). Or, reading from the UBS4 text, one might consider vv 5-6 to be normal prose offered in support of the previous assertion with no creedal sort of impact. Is Paul appealing to an external saying he knows his audience will see as authoritative? Or is he being creative? Or did he just come up with some nice phraseology in the context of his argument? All (and more!) are possible. Whichever you prefer, the typography of each edition conveys the editors’ thoughts and it is valuable to take into account when reading and exegeting the text.

Another difference between editions is when one text has more paragraph breaks than the other. A good example of this is found in 1Ti 5.3-16. In the UBS4 text, this is one paragraph. In the NA27 text, it is two paragraphs (vv 3-8 and vv 9-16) with a sub-paragraph break in the second paragraph (so sub-paragraphs of vv 9-13 and vv 14-16). UBS4 has no notion of sub-paragraph breaks, but the NA27 uses them routinely to break larger paragraphs. You can see another one in the screen shot before verse 21.

Click image for larger graphic

A few other slight differences between versions can be seen in the above screen capture.
First, note the word Σατανᾶ in verse 15 of UBS4. The same term is σατανᾶ in the NA27. One could conclude that the UBS4 edition considers this to be a name or title, while the NA27 edition considers it a noun (“adversary”). This is not a small difference when it comes to exegesis.

Second, note the quotations and allusions from the Old Testament in vv. 17-19. They’re different typographically. UBS4 uses bold font while NA27 uses an italic font. But if you look closely, you’ll see disagreement on what is and is not a quotation from or allusion to the Old Testament. The UBS4 is much more conservative here; it generally only emboldens fairly direct quotations. The NA27, on the other hand, notes both quotations (the one matching the UBS4 edition) and allusions (the balance of italic text in vv 18-20. This as well is exegetically significant. If I think the author is reaching back to quote or allude to the Old Testament in the course of his argument, it may affect exegesis of the text.

The bottom line: While UBS4 and NA27 do share the same sequence of letters, they differ in many, many other ways. They are different editions of the same text. Some of these differences can and do affect exegesis. I’ve used examples from the same relatively short epistle (First Timothy, six chapters long) on purpose so you can see these differences can and do occur with frequency.

They are not isolated.

The good news is that your Logos Bible Software presents these texts as they appear in their printed versions. The UBS4 text even has section heads and, in the gospels, cross-references after the headings to parallel passages. You can simply scroll the text side-by-side to see if there are any differences in the passage you’re studying.

When you run across differences, ask yourself: “What impact would this difference have on exegesis of the text? What would I have missed if I wouldn’t have noticed this?” and seriously think about the options. Your exegesis will be better for it.

Greek Syntax: Searching for Granville Sharp

If you’ve studied NT Greek, you’ve likely heard of something called the “Granville Sharp Rule”.

If you’ve been around Bible software, you know that many folks use “finding Granville Sharp” as a sort of litmus test for the capabilities of their Bible software.

The OpenText.org Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament gives us an opportunity to examine what the Granville Sharp rule really is and to think about new ways to find instances of it.
Awhile back I wrote a paper for internal use here at Logos examining what “Granville Sharp” is and how to find it using the traditional “morphology+proximity+agreement” approach. This approach has problems because one must approximate relationships between words using morphological criteria (i.e. part-of-speech data), morphological agreement (i.e. terms ‘agree’ in their specified case), and word proximity (i.e. words are within N words of each other).

Then I examined finding Granville Sharp using the OpenText.org SAGNT. With the syntax annotation, you’re freed from approximating relationships with morphology+proximity+agreement and empowered to actually specify relationships that the syntax annotation encodes.

The 17-page PDF document linked below is that paper. It has explanation and screen shots of the queries, graphs and whatnot so it should help in thinking about how to go about isolating syntactic structures via searching the OpenText.org SAGNT. It might even help get the juices flowing for those considering the Logos/SBL Technology Paper Awards.

I’ve also included the two syntax queries discussed in the paper. I just tested them on 3.0b Beta 2, so if you have that version installed, you should be fine. I would think it would work on any flavor of 3.0, but why not upgrade if you’re not up to date?

Copy the queries to your My Documents\Libronix DLS\Syntax Queries folder and then load them as you would any other syntax search, from the Load … button in the Syntax Search dialogue.

Sahidic Coptic. Why?

We’ve recently pre-pubbed a collection called the Sahidic Coptic Collection. I can hear the questions already:

  • Why worry about a language like Coptic?
  • What is Coptic, anyway?
  • How could that ever be useful?

I’m sure there are other questions along those lines. The short answer to them all is that the Sahidic Coptic editions of New Testament writings are very valuable for text-critical purposes.
Yes, I can see the eyes rolling now, but please, keep up with me. For at least a little longer.

You see, the Sahidic Coptic editions of the New Testament were some of the first translations from the Greek New Testament into another language. And because Coptic has much affinity with Greek (sharing the most of the same alphabet and even sharing many Greek words) those who know a little Greek (like me) can muddle through Coptic after spending time to learn the alphabet and some basic vocabulary.

The resources in the Sahidic Coptic Collection make this a little easier for the Coptic neophyte (that’s where I am) and the folks who are big-time into Coptic.

Because the Sahidic Coptic editions we have are likely very early, they provide an early glimpse into the texts they are translations of. And because most editions are extremely (almost woodenly) literal, they can provide insight into the underlying text — helping in the quest to “establish the text” which is one of the first steps in any serious exegete’s process.

So let’s take an easy example from John 1.28 and see what we can find.

[Read more...]

Zooming Syntax Graphs

Some syntax graphs are small. Others (e.g. Rom 1.1-6; Titus 1.1-4; Col 1.3-8) are huge.

Sometimes it’s nice to zoom in and out to get a picture of the whole structure, or the extent of the clause. And that can be hard to do using the zoom button in the toolbar.

But if you have a mouse with a scroll wheel and a control key … well, it’s pretty easy. And this video shows you how.

Now try it yourself: click here to open the OpenText.org Syntactically Analyzed GNT: Clause Analysis and get your zoom on.

Greek Syntax: Love in the Johannines

Most folks are very familiar with the first part of John 3.16, “For God so loved the world”. In the OpenText.org Clause Analysis, that phrase is a Primary Clause (PC), and the word translated “loved” (ἀγαπάω) is the Predicator (P) of the Primary Clause.

Now, if you wanted to find other situations where the underlying Greek word (ἀγαπάω) is used similarly, you could search the New Testament for all instances of ἀγαπάω. You’d find over 100 of them. Perhaps (as the below video assumes) you’re only interested in ἀγαπάω as it is used in the writings traditionally ascribed to John. You could search all of those out too; there are 72 of them (in 51 verses).

But if you did a syntax search and just looked for where a Primary Clause has ἀγαπάω as its predicator, you’d narrow your list down to 18 hits, and you’d know they’re used as the main verb in the primary clause.

Confused? That’s OK. I recorded a video showing all of this. It’s just under nine minutes long and is about 10.6 megs. Watch out, though, I’m getting over a cold so I’m a little congested.

Products Pages: What’s New?

If you’ve followed Logos for any amount of time, you know that we publish a lot of books electronically for use with the Libronix Digital Library System (LDLS).

You also probably know about pre-pubs and community pricing. But did you know we don’t always pre-pub books? Some books we just know will be received well, so we make them and release them.

Other times, you may just forget to check in to see what we’ve been up to.

No worries if you haven’t kept up to date. That’s why we have the New Products page. Here you can browse down the list and see the new things we’ve released recently. Cool stuff that even I hadn’t realized we’ve released recently, like:

I’m sure there’s more there that will float your boat. So check it out!

Soup Contest Recipe: Chuck’s Spicy Seafood Bisque

Chuck Brannan, my Dad and perennial soup fan, can’t be kept away from the soup cookoff. But that’s OK because he brings some mighty fine soup along with him when he comes.

This year, his Spicy Seafood Bisque placed on top. And count yourself lucky, he agreed to share his recipe. So here it is!

Chuck’s Spicy Seafood Bisque

1/2 c chopped sweet onion
1/2 c chopped celery
2 tbsp butter
4 c chicken broth
3 c tomato juice
1 14 oz. can diced tomatoes undrained (I used garlic and onion flavored)
1 tbsp Worcestershire sauce
1 tsp Old Bay Seafood seasoning
1 tsp dried oregano
1 tsp garlic powder
1/2 to 1 tsp hot pepper sauce (to taste)
1/4 to 1/2 tsp cayenne pepper (to taste)
1 bay leaf
1/2 c small shell pasta (may use any small pasta)
1 lb uncooked med. shrimp (31-40 count)
2 6 oz cans crab meat or 12 oz dungeness crab meat drained, flaked, cartilage removed
1 lb white fish (such as true cod or halibut)
1 lb mussels in shell
1 lb small steamer clams in shell (such as Manila clams)

In a large sauce pan, saute onion and celery in butter until tender. Add broth, tomato juice, tomatoes, Worchestershire sauce and all seasonings. Bring to a boil, cover and simmer for 20 min.

Discard bay leaf, add pasta, cook uncovered until tender. Add shrimp, crab, and white fish. Cook until shrimp are pink. Add mussels and clams, cook until shells open. Remove from heat and serve with warm garlic bread. Yield 10-12 servings.

Soup Contest Recipe: Big Toe Baked Potatoe Soup

Naomi Boyer, project manager in the Logos Text Development department, graciously consented to allow her 2nd place soup recipe, Big Toe Baked Potatoe Soup, to be posted here on the Logos Bible Software Blog.

So … here’s the recipe, straight from Naomi!

Big Toe Baked Potatoe Soup

2/3 cup butter
2/3 cup flour
7 cups milk
4 large baking potatoes, baked, cooled, peeled and cubed, about 4 cups
6 green onions, thinly sliced
14 strips of bacon, cooked, drained, and crumbled
1 1/4 shredded mild cheddar cheese
1 cup (8 oz) sour cream
1 tsp. salt
3/4 tsp. pepper
1/2 tsp. chives

In a large Dutch oven or stockpot over low heat, melt butter. Stir in flour; stir until smooth and bubbly. Gradually add milk and raise to medium heat, stirring constantly, until sauce has thickened. Add potatoes and onions. Continue to cook, stirring constantly, until soup begins to bubble. Add bacon. Reduce heat; simmer gently for 10 minutes. Add remaining ingredients; stir until cheese is melted. Ideally, serve baked potato soup immediately.

Serves 6-8.

The trick to this soup is to have your husband do the “stirring constantly” part while he reads Leviticus and you chop up the rest of the ingredients. And also have the potatoes cooked well in advance to give them time to cool.

Original recipe gleaned (and slightly altered) from: http://southernfood.about.com/od/potatosoups/r/bl30324f_p.htm (Baked Potato Soup)

Logos Soup Contest 2006

Last Friday (Sept. 15) was Soup Cookoff Day at Logos. We blogged the soup cookoff last year and wanted to do something similar this year.
This year the winner was actually my Dad (!) who loves soup so much we can’t keep him away on soup day. Congrats to Dad and to the other winners:

  • 1st Place: Chuck Brannan with “Chuck’s Spicy Seafood Bisque”
  • 2nd Place: Justin & Naomi Boyer with “Big Toe Baked Potatoe Soup”
  • 3rd Place: Dave Kaplan with “Cheesy Chicken”

We had 20 soups this year. Your intrepid Logos bloggers didn’t fare so well in the contest. My soup, “Sweet Panang’d Squash” didn’t place; nor did Eli’s “Ye Olde Lentils”. I guess the Logos palatte wasn’t ready for squash & lentils. Maybe next year …
More photos of the day are below the fold, so check ‘em out!
Update: Several have asked about recipes. I’ll see if the chefs who created the top 3 recipes will allow their recipes to be posted on the blog.

[Read more...]

Here’s Something Nuevo … er, New

Last week, I posted about syntax searching for “fronted complements“.

Today, I ran the same search with a slight preference change. Here’s the result. Can you see what’s new in this screenshot?

What’s different here? (hint: the column on the right … )

Did you get it?

That’s right, the difference is that the syntax hits are highlighted in Spanish (the 1960 Reina Valera New Testament). Now, the Nuevo Testamento Interlineal Revertido Español-Griego: Reina Valera 1960 is still in development, but you can see how, even though it is Spanish, it just plugs right in and is useful in the same way as the ESV NT Reverse Interlinear.

Search hits work the same way:

Reverse Interlinear … with Spanish!

This was all done — again, on my computer here at the office because the resource has not been released yet — by switching my preferred Bible to the Reina Valera Revisada (1960).

Oh, yeah … we’re working on an RV1960 Old Testament Reverse Interlinear as well …