MT-LXX Accordance and Logos Comparison Question

[Fabian]

Hello 

 

Does the Accordance MT-LXX Tool cover all 3 tools from the competitor? Or only a part?

 

The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture

 

The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture - Alexandrinus and Theodotion Variants

 

The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture

 

 

[Fabian]

BTW I see an update from last October in Ruth  http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/text/religion/biblical/lxxmorph/

[Joel Brown]

I can't speak for Logos' products, but looking at your links, products 1 and 3 seem identical.  Our MT-LXX resource (https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=MT-LXX+Parallel) covers both products 1 and 2.  I don't know anything special that Logos' version does or does not do, but our version is highly searchable, supports MERGE, enables MT-LXX TEXT searches, cross highlighting, analysis, analytics and more.

[Fabian]

Thanks for your answer. I have it in Accordance. 

 

But I see in the http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/text/religion/biblical/lxxmorph/books I don't find in the Accordance module. Bel, Susanna, Epistel of Jeremiah, 

So not all is in the Accordance module. Maybe that's why L has 3 modules and Accordance only 2. I really don't want to think about it, but it supports again my thoughts ... Please OakTree give more attention you have all from the publisher not only a part. 

 

I guess someone other has to answer the question about the update.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Fabian

[Mendel]

Hello 

 

Does the Accordance MT-LXX Tool cover all 3 tools from the competitor? Or only a part?

 

The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture

 

The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture - Alexandrinus and Theodotion Variants

 

The Parallel Aligned Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Texts of Jewish Scripture

 

I don't have the Logos MT-LXX. You can preview the table of contents and you will find that Bel, Susanna and Epistel of Jeremiah are not included either. 

[R. Mansfield]

Bel, Susanna, and the Epistle of Jeremiah are not in the Masoretic Text, so they would not be covered in our MT-LXX.

[Mendel]

Bel, Susanna, and the Epistle of Jeremiah are not in the Masoretic Text, so they would not be covered in our MT-LXX.

 

This is true but according to the manual the MT-LXX includes also Sirach and Baruch and they also don't have a Masoretic Text. But I can't check it if they are really included.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Mendel

[Joel Brown]

Right, they included some reconstructions and Ben Sira as well.  But Fabian is, again, looking at any LXX books, rather than resources present in the MT-LXX alignment.

[R. Mansfield]

This is true but according to the manual the MT-LXX includes also Sirach and Baruch and they also don't have a Masoretic Text. But I can't check it if they are really included.

 

They are included. 

 

Okay, don't tell, but I have the competitor's version of what we call the MT-LXX, too. Both ours and theirs is from the same work by Emanual Tov. And I've confirmed that ours contains all the content as questioned in Fabian's original post. 

 

And as Joel stated, our version is highly searchable, supports MERGE, enables MT-LXX TEXT searches, cross highlighting, analysis, analytics and more." The competitor's copy does not come anywhere near this kind of functionality.

[Mendel]

They are included. 

 

Okay, don't tell, but I have the competitor's version of what we call the MT-LXX, too. Both ours and theirs is from the same work by Emanual Tov. And I've confirmed that ours contains all the content as questioned in Fabian's original post. 

 

And as Joel stated, our version is highly searchable, supports MERGE, enables MT-LXX TEXT searches, cross highlighting, analysis, analytics and more." The competitor's copy does not come anywhere near this kind of functionality.

 

 

It's true that their Emanuel Tov MT-LXX  is outdated and useless. But they have some other valuable MT-LXX functions. The competitors are not sleeping

 

 

[MattChristianOT]

Baruch and Sirach are probably included because they have ALOT of manuscripts to back them up and textually are used heavily in research, especially in terms of Sirach. Bel and Susanna, not so much

[Mendel]

Check out Sirach from 3:18. There is a lot of Hebrew text from Qumran and other sources. And Baruch has als a Hebrew Text. 

[Fabian]

Check out Sirach from 3:18. There is a lot of Hebrew text from Qumran and other sources. And Baruch has als a Hebrew Text. 

This leads me to another question. Are they in Accordance?

Edited January 22, 2020 by Fabian

[Mendel]

This leads me to another question. Are they in Accordance?

 

I don't know since I don't have Accordance yet but I was curious about the Logos E. Tov Resource. This is Chapter 5 and the Hebrew shown here is from the Genizah:

 

[Mendel]

I think Accordance has it too, since it is in the Manual on page 117. It's written there: 

The Hebrew material for Sirach consists of Qumran, Massada and medieval Hebrew manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza. For the Alignment these data have been encoded and aligned according to the text of The Book of Ben Sira, Text, Concordance and Analysis of the Vocabulary (Jerusalem 1973).25
In addition we have introduced the data for ms F from the Genizah,26 courtesy Ben Wright. For consistency, the encoding includes transcription
of the shin as v, although the manuscripts have X only.

 

[Donald Cobb]

This leads me to another question. Are they in Accordance?

 

There are several resources in Accordance for Ben Sirah with the Hebrew text (canonical order and manuscript order) and a corresponding English translation. Obviously, you can find the Greek text in the Rhalfs LXX module.

 

I'm intrigued about the TM-LXX text for Baruch, since everything I've read up to this point states that it is not extant in Hebrew. For instance:

 

"The earliest preserved text of Baruch is in Greek, in the Septuagint (cf. in LXX^A and LXX^B, but not in Codex Sinaiticus), and in most Greek manuscripts it appears between Jeremiah and Lamentations. The later versions, i.e., Latin (in the oldest known mss. of the Vulgate, Amiatinus, both Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah are omitted), Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and others are based on the Greek version, and already in Origen’s time (A.D. 185?–254) there was no Hebrew text available. No text of Baruch has as yet been identified among the fragments from Qumran"; Doron Mendels, “BARUCH, BOOK OF,” AYBD, 1:618.

 

So I'd be interested to see where Tov's Hebrew Baruch text actually comes from. Looking in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, I notice there is a total of two verses included in the English translation (Bar 6:43-44), which would seemingly point to a very small fragment of this work and nothing more. But unfortunately, the editors (Abegg, Flint and Ulrich) give no explanatory introduction for this particular book. So again, it would be interesting to see where Tov got his Hebrew text for this.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Donald Cobb

[Mendel]

There are several resources in Accordance for Ben Sirah with the Hebrew text (canonical order and manuscript order) and a corresponding English translation. Obviously, you can find the Greek text in the Rhalfs LXX module.

 

I'm intrigued about the TM-LXX text for Baruch, since everything I've read up to this point states that it is not extant in Hebrew. For instance:

 

"The earliest preserved text of Baruch is in Greek, in the Septuagint (cf. in LXX^A and LXX^B, but not in Codex Sinaiticus), and in most Greek manuscripts it appears between Jeremiah and Lamentations. The later versions, i.e., Latin (in the oldest known mss. of the Vulgate, Amiatinus, both Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah are omitted), Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and others are based on the Greek version, and already in Origen’s time (A.D. 185?–254) there was no Hebrew text available. No text of Baruch has as yet been identified among the fragments from Qumran"; Doron Mendels, “BARUCH, BOOK OF,” AYBD, 1:618.

 

So I'd be interested to see where Tov's Hebrew Baruch text actually comes from. Looking in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, I notice there is a total of two verses included in the English translation (Bar 6:43-44), which would seemingly point to a very small fragment of this work and nothing more. But unfortunately, the editors (Abegg, Flint and Ulrich) give no explanatory introduction for this particular book. So again, it would be interesting to see where Tov got his Hebrew text for this.

 

Check out the Manual on page 14. It's written there: 

 

​The Greek text of the apocryphal books of Baruch and First Esdras is accompanied by a full Hebrew reconstruction, based on work by Zipporah Talshir and Emanuel Tov.

 

[Donald Cobb]

Ah! So, from what I understand from your quote in the manual, we should apparently understand that the Hebrew is a back-translation from the Greek text. That squares with everything I've ever read (i.e., that there's no Hebrew text for Baruch). Thanks for looking that up, I didn't think to do that.

[Jordan S]

1. MT-LXX contains only Baruch 1:1-3:8 (See Tov, TCHB, 129, 138). Probably also see, E. Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8 (HSM 8; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976).

 

2. MT-LXX contains Sir 0-51 (with significant gaps in the Hebrew). It appears every Hebrew word has a link to one of the following manuscripts:

 

1 Geniza, ms B

2 Geniza, ms B (margin) 

3 Geniza, ms A 

4 Geniza, ms C 

5 Geniza, ms D 

6 Geniza, ms E 

7 Massada Scroll

8 Massada Scroll (corrector) 

9 11QPs(a) (ch. 51); 2Q18 (6:25-31) 

0 Geniza, ms F 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Jordan S

[Donald Cobb]

 

1. MT-LXX contains only Baruch 1:1-3:8 (See Tov, TCHB, 129, 138). Probably also see, E. Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8 (HSM 8; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976).

 

 

This makes sense. From what I can see, it is generally considered that the Greek text of this first part of Baruch, i.e., 1:1–3:8—the only one we actually have—was translated from a Hebrew original. There's more doubt concerning the following sections. Apparently Tov is actually one who has done a lot of work on this. That being said, the Hebrew text in MT-LXX is a hypothetical reconstruction.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Donald Cobb