Accordance tools and features how do they compare?

[JamesT]

Hi,

 

I am interested in studying ancient greek and hebrew and I am looking for the best set of tools to help me accomplish this. I have found out about Accordance recently and I am interested in learning how it compares to Logos 6. Logos has everything Accordance does and over double the important tools like lexicons, interlinear, grammars and so on which means in terms of the depth and accuracy Accordance will struggle to produce the same results. Accordance doesn't really have any interlinears at all I found out and that's because of its dynamic interlinear tool which is neat but I am not sure how it would compare to having actual interlinears available.

 

My main concerns with either Accordance or Logos are depth and accuracy granted through the tools and features available through either software. I would also like to know how the dead sea scrolls and greek resources compare with logos thanks.

Edited June 26, 2015 by JamesT

[Daniel Francis]

I am sure someone like Dr. J or Helen will come along soon to give you the most accurate information. I am a lay person who does not read hebrew or greek beyond recognizing the occasional word. But having hung out in both this forum and the Logos forum long enough to know Accordance is a superior tool for original language study and offers several key features that you do not find in Logos. 

 

-Dan

[jeremyduncan]

The Accordance Interlinear feature is far more powerful than purchasing specific interlinears. Any interlinear will likely be keyed to either the Strong's or G/K numbers anyway and in Accordance you can line up any keyed text with the original language.

 

The key feature that Logos does have over Accordance is breadth of resources. I much prefer Accordance software but frequently end up buying resources in Logos because they are not being actively pursued in Accordance or are too slow to come to market.

 

That said, original language texts may be the one area Accordance has a clear edge. For example Accordance has many DSS manuscripts in both images and tagged texts. What specific texts are you looking for?

Edited June 26, 2015 by jeremyduncan

[ukfraser]

Hi james,

 

I recommend you searching this forum, there was a very lengthy comparison between the two products not so long ago see link below. try entering logos and you get a load of hits which may not all be useful.

 

http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/15661-questions-from-a-beginner-accordance-11-vs-logos-6-original-language-study/?hl=logos

 

There is an original language section, Also, enter other key words for things you are actively interested in and you may find a thread where it is discussed, not to mention the other resources under support such as webinars, videos, blogs and podcasts where you can see it in action.

 

It may spark off specific points you want to discuss, there are enough users on this forum who use both.

Edited June 26, 2015 by ukfraser

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi ya,

 

  On interlinears. When I started learning Greek three and half years ago I bought one in hard copy. I almost never open it and frankly have used it very little. In Accordance I pretty much never use the interlinear feature. Much more useful to me have parallel texts, my Brenton diglot in two columns, the parallel pane support in Accordance, which I use on a daily basis.

 

Thx

D

[JamesT]

The Accordance Interlinear feature is far more powerful than purchasing specific interlinears. Any interlinear will likely be keyed to either the Strong's or G/K numbers anyway and in Accordance you can line up any keyed text with the original language.

 

The key feature that Logos does have over Accordance is breadth of resources. I much prefer Accordance software but frequently end up buying resources in Logos because they are not being actively pursued in Accordance or are too slow to come to market.

 

That said, original language texts may be the one area Accordance has a clear edge. For example Accordance has many DSS manuscripts in both images and tagged texts. What specific texts are you looking for?

Hi Jeremy,

 

my main focus is on the DSS and Masoretic manuscripts along with the Septuagint and Koine Greek texts. Will Accordance really allow me the depth and accuracy to dig deeper into the ancient/original languages then Logos with only a faction of the tools and resources available?

Edited June 27, 2015 by JamesT

[Anon]

To answer your immediate question, JamesT, you will need to answer it yourself. You can find the capabilities of Accordance by assessing its features vis-à-vis these forums, its magnificent help files, and its demo version. You can continually ask yourself whether the features of the program match your research needs. That should give you first hand knowledge of whether to invest in Accordance.

 

My personal choice is Accordance, but you should bear in mind several things:

 

1. There is still a lot of work to do on the scrolls.

2. Neither program has sufficient images to conduct rigorous study of the scrolls.

3. Neither program offers the editio princeps, namely, the DJD series.

4. Neither program sufficiently enables the user to make necessary emendations and account for transcriptional variations (hence the need for images).

 

So, if by digging deeper you mean linguistic analysis, then Accordance is unparalleled—but there is a lot of room for improvement (and the same could be said of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library). If by digging deeper, you mean studying secondary resources, then Accordance does not offer as many resources on scrolls as Logos. However, Accordance's strength is found insofar as it facilitates grammatical research with ease (because of its user interface). For philological issues, you will need to focus on the images. And by the way, the Accordance images are minimal, as they only cover the Saint Mark's Monastery (or DSSHU, taken by Trever). There are other programs you will need to access for images as well.

 

Lastly, you say Massoretic manuscripts. Accordance has only B19A. They don't have any other, as well as Logos as far as I can tell.

 

Instead of asking questions, your time is better spent using Accordance some and giving it a whirl. Enjoy! and have fun!

Edited June 27, 2015 by Anon

[JamesT]

To answer your immediate question, JamesT, you will need to answer it yourself. You can find the capabilities of Accordance by assessing its features vis-à-vis these forums, its magnificent help files, and its demo version. You can continually ask yourself whether the features of the program match your research needs. That should give you first hand knowledge of whether to invest in Accordance.

 

My personal choice is Accordance, but you should bear in mind several things:

 

1. There is still a lot of work to do on the scrolls.

2. Neither program has sufficient images to conduct rigorous study of the scrolls.

3. Neither program offers the editio princeps, namely, the DJD series.

4. Neither program sufficiently enables the user to make necessary emendations and account for transcriptional variations (hence the need for images).

 

So, if by digging deeper you mean linguistic analysis, then Accordance is unparalleled—but there is a lot of room for improvement (and the same could be said of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library). If by digging deeper, you mean studying secondary resources, then Accordance does not offer as many resources on scrolls as Logos. However, Accordance's strength is found insofar as it facilitates grammatical research with ease (because of its user interface). For philological issues, you will need to focus on the images. And by the way, the Accordance images are minimal, as they only cover the Saint Mark's Monastery (or DSSHU, taken by Trever). There are other programs you will need to access for images as well.

 

Lastly, you say Massoretic manuscripts. Accordance has only B19A. They don't have any other, as well as Logos as far as I can tell.

 

Instead of asking questions, your time is better spent using Accordance some and giving it a whirl. Enjoy! and have fun!

Hi anon,

 

I am currently demoing Accordance and I have watched plenty of videos on both software but there is not enough included to make a definitive decision in my opinion. Logos on the other hand I have not been able to try they want a $300 entry fee. I am not at all interested in studying secondary resources so I would be fine with Accordance in that regard.

 

Is there a full list of the manuscripts in the Accordance DSS bundle there should be 2 Masoretic manuscripts or at least there is in the Logos DSS database. 

[Anon]

The scrolls and fragments from the environs of Qumran are formatted into two "modules." Two modules are the same in content but differ in organization. Both modules share the DSS (= Dead Sea Scrolls) title, but differ in terms of whether M/C. Hence, DSS-C(anonical) is a module of fragments and scrolls pertaining to a parallel portion of text that can be found in the Hebrew. Despite the inaccuracies of the title, since they are neither canonical nor masoretic, this (organized format) presents opportunities to have the BHS (B19A) parallel this module since Accordance syncs on the basis of "verses." The DSS-M(anuscripts), on the the other hand, are the fragments and scrolls in a quasi-diplomatic presentation (which is erratic at times), and thus cannot sync with BHS. The content between M/C is the same, but are, as I said, organized differently. The DSS-M follows the fragment and scroll numbering as in the DJD, DSSHU, or IES volumes. An accompanying Dead Sea Scrolls Index is purchasable, offering a slight bit of information on the provenance of each scroll as discussed by the editor in the editio princeps.

 

A third module, "Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts," is also available. It contains non-canonical scriptures—again the terminology is contrary to ongoing research in the field. This is something that needs to change in light of scholarly consensus and research. However, I understand why the developers at Accordance have neglected to innovate how texts are handled in the software (e.g., a particular problem is that 4Q158, 4Q364–367, as an example, are scriptural texts and are thus in the wrong module). Nevertheless, the aggregate of material in this module is the most current, though not complete in terms of known evidence (e.g., the Schøyen Collection or the Green Collection).

 

I believe that answers your question. Others can contribute further should you require help.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Anon

[JamesT]

Thanks for clearing that up for me I appreciate it. I have decided to go with Accordance based upon the information I received from this thread and the Independent research I have done. I am not going to even bother with Logos.

[Michael Miles]

Thanks for clearing that up for me I appreciate it. I have decided to go with Accordance based upon the information I received from this thread and the Independent research I have done. I am not going to even bother with Logos.

I've owned extensive Logos resources, which I ended up giving away.  You will be good with your focus of study in Accordance; going straight to the Hebrew and Greek and skipping what man has to say about it is a laudable route to take.

 

Building a print library is also a good idea.  Computers and software are tied to an ever changing technology chain, whereas books are always ready and able to perform.  Books have been with us for a very long time and many books that are right up in your center of focus are still available for purchase.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Michael Miles

[Timothy Jenney]

I think most of us have what I'd call "split libraries." We buy Accordance and add the primary texts and secondary tools we use most often. We then have 1) resources in a portable library we can access anywhere, 2) the ability to use them on multiple devices, 3) the advantage of using them in research and writing efficiently, and 4) a sophisticated search engine that can find and analyze results quickly.

 

We also have personal libraries with books in print. Mine includes 1)  purchases made long ago, 2) resources not available [yet] electronically, and 3) some that we just prefer to consult in print for one reason or another.

 

We all draw the dividing line between the two differently—and some of us regularly transfer resources from one to the other. We either sell our books and buy software (guilty as charged) or print out portions of our digital resources (I haven't yet, but have thought about it.).

 

I should add that some of us also have access to research libraries, either online or close to where we live. Those that don't generally invest more heavily in their own personal libraries (digital and print).

Edited June 27, 2015 by Timothy Jenney

[ukfraser]

Am i alone in having (rather a lot of) items in my library still to be read that i bought as hard copies coz they looked interesting or in accordance coz they were on offer and something i want to read (when i have time)?

 

;o)

Edited June 28, 2015 by ukfraser

[Michael Miles]

Am i alone in having (rather a lot of) items in my library still to be read that i bought as hard copies coz they looked interesting or in accordance coz they were on offer and something i want to read (when i have time)?

 

;o)

I suspect that you are not alone.  

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Am i alone in having (rather a lot of) items in my library still to be read that i bought as hard copies coz they looked interesting or in accordance coz they were on offer and something i want to read (when i have time)?

 

;o)

I consider it a red letter day when I complete a book. Happened the other day actually - 1 down - 27 million to go

[Michael J. Bolesta]

Am i alone in having (rather a lot of) items in my library still to be read that i bought as hard copies coz they looked interesting or in accordance coz they were on offer and something i want to read (when i have time)?

 

;o)

 

You need not feel alone