As you probably know, I’m an ‘information architect’ at Logos Bible Software. We recently (today!) released Logos Bible Software 5. There are lots of bug fixes and new features and stuff, but the big deal with Logos 5 are the new data sets that allow for examination of the scripture like we’ve never done before. I think it is a huge step forward, though admittedly I might be biased.

This is data we’ve been working on for a long time (some of it before we even released Logos 4 in 2009, believe it or not). The data sets I’m most excited about include:

• Biblical Referents: So, you’ve always been able to search for “Jesus” and “said” and find where Jesus says something. But that’s only where the word “Jesus” is explicitly used. What about when it is “he said”? Biblical Referents solve that problem. We’ve analyzed the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament and resolved these sorts of things. Because the data is annotated on the original languages, that means it bubbles up all over the place through our linking of the original languages to modern translations.
• Bible Sense Lexicon: This is just the start of a massive project that will allow for incredible things. If you’re familiar with WordNet, then this is like WordNet for the Bible. We are analyzing every word (nouns, adjectives, verbs, , determining sense used, and annotating them. Further, we have a cross-linguistic approach that allows us to map from Hebrew to Greek, which means that we can find when a sense occurs in the Bible, not just in the NT or the OT. Right now we have an initial annotation of nouns in both Hebrew and Greek, and are starting work on verbs. It is very cool.
• Clause Search: Clause search allows one to search for clauses and clause components. It integrates several data sets: Biblical People, Places and Things, Referents, Syntax data, morphological data, and makes it all searchable bounded to a clause. Search for “subject:Jesus verb-lemma:θεραπεύω” (the verb for “to heal”) and find everything. Even stuff like “he healed them” (Mt 4.24, ESV).
• Reported Speech: Sometimes it is handy to know who or what is speaking. We have annotated “reported speech” through the whole of the Bible. One way this is viewable is through a visual filter for “Speaker Labels” in Bibles with reverse interlinears.
• Roots in Greek NT and Hebrew Bible. Roots (both Greek and Hebrew) are integrated with original language texts and reverse interlinears. This has been a much-requested feature over the years, and we’re glad to finally make it available to users!

Here's a video from YouTube that describes many of these features.

On top of this, we have new resources. There are a few I am personally very happy to have see the light of day in that I either produced it myself or was the lead editor. Here they are.

The Lexham English Septuagint. The Lexham English Septuagint (LES) is a new translation of the Septuagint (LXX, the Greek version of the Old Testament) based on Henry Barclay Swete's edition of the Septuagint, The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint. Based on the work of the popular The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint, the LES provides a literal, readable and transparent English edition of the Greek Old Testament, which was the edition of the Old Testament writings most popularly used during New Testament times and in the early church.

There was a small but stellar group that did the primary editing of the translation, including myself, Ken M. Penner, Israel Loken, Michael Aubrey and Isaiah Hoogendyk.

One of the things I really like about the LES is the approach to proper nouns. Septuagint Lexicons typically do not handle proper nouns. Septuagint translations typically transliterate all but the most important (e.g. David, Jerusalem, Moses). What this means is that the names most English readers are familiar with (from translations of the Hebrew Bible) are not used in LXX translations. So it is hard to track who does what. Read something like First Chronicles, and you’re completely lost because the majority of the names are not familiar at all.

In the LES, we were able to use, where possible, names familiar to those who have only worked with English translations of the Hebrew Bible and the apocryphal books. So Reuben is Reuben, Manasseh is Manasseh. Cities use names you’re probably expecting (e.g. Gibeah, not Gabaa). However, because the differences in spelling/representation are sometimes insightful, we’ve footnoted the transliterated form of proper nouns — where the transliteration is different from the familiar representation — so the information is not lost.

The Apostolic Fathers in English (with reverse interlinear). This is a new translation of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers in English. It is a follow-up to my Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear. Here’s an excerpt from the introduction:

This translation is not meant to replace either Holmes' or Ehrman's editions in print. Instead, my goal in creating a new English translation was to create a tighter and more transparent relationship with the underlying Greek text. As this translation has its genesis with my Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear, it began with a direct relationship with every word and phrase of the underlying Greek. From here, the English translation was reviewed and edited to become more readable yet still retain its relationship with the Greek text. Finally, using tools provided by Logos Bible Software, the English text was completely re-aligned with the Greek text, word by word, phrase by phrase. When the English text is read with the reverse interlinearized Greek text displayed in Logos Bible Software, the result is an English translation that shows exactly where each word and phrase has its origin.

This level of alignment becomes more useful in reading and particularly when studing how words and structures found in the New Testament are used in contemporary literature. And this, to my mind, can help the writings of the Apostolic Fathers play a larger role in one's study of the New Testament and Septuagint, which is my larger goal.

I’m super-excited about this one too. It has been hard to not talk about as it has been complete for almost a year!

Anyway, to sum it up, I’m excited about Logos 5!

Just over two weeks ago, Logos (my employer) put an edition of the Greek Apocryphal Gospels, Fragments, and Agrapha on pre-pub. This meant that when enough pre-orders were made to cover the cost of the project, we would begin development. I mentioned it on this blog, it was mentioned on the Logos blog as well.

I was expecting it to take a few months for costs to be covered. To my surprise, it took about 10 days.

So I wanted to make sure all those who haven’t yet deleted this feed from their readers also knew that this project is now under development.

I’m going to have to do some shifting of my schedule to begin the necessary work; there is much to do — more research, writing, and some code to write. I don’t have a time frame for release, but am committed to make sure it happens in a timely manner.

Thanks to all those who pre-ordered! And you can still pre-order at the discounted pre-pub price!

I’ve been studying the apocryphal gospels off and on for a few years now. They are fascinating documents. I forget what pushed me over the edge, but I realized a few months ago that this is a hole in the Greek offerings of Logos Bible Software.

So I did a lot more research, and proposed that we do our own edition of the Greek Apocryphal Gospels. It is now available for pre-pub purchase.

We plan on using Tischendorf’s edition (without apparatus) for the major documents (Protevangelium of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate) and the Descent of Christ to Hell); Swete for the Gospel of Peter (plus transcriptions of P.Oxy.2949 and 4009); Grenfell & Hunt for Greek portions of the Gospel of Thomas. And we’ll do some transcriptions of some fragmentary stuff (P.Merton 51; P.Egerton 2; some P.Oxy stuff as well; see pre-pub page for a full list) as well as an ‘inclusive’ collection of agrapha.

The Greek texts will be morphologically tagged, but in an effort to keep costs down, the analysis will be primarily automated (much like the analysis available for the Logos editions of the Perseus Classics Collection and the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri).

In addition, much like Michael S. Heiser did for our Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha project, I will be writing new introductions and collecting bibliographies for each document/writing contained in the resource.

English translation for most of the material is available in M.R. James’ The Apocryphal New Testamentvolume, which is already available in Logos format. Where James’ edition has translation, the Greek editions will scroll synchronously with James’ edition.

Anyway, that’s the scoop. I’m hoping folks like the idea and that the pre-pub gets enough subscriptions to be funded so we can start into this material. If it goes well, we could have follow-up projects for the apocryphal acts and apocalypses as well.

I’ve been thinking a lot about cohesion lately, for a number of reasons.

• It’s interesting
• There is some decent stuff written on it from the perspective of NT studies:
• Jeffrey T. Reed on Philippians
• Ray Van Neste on the Pastorals
• George Guthrie to some degree on Hebrews
• Cynthia Westfall on Hebrews
• Varner on James
• Earlier standard linguistics/discourse literature goes back to Halladay & Hasan and others; I still need to read this stuff.

Anyway, my mind has been turning on cohesion, thinking about what it is, and thinking about how to make examining a discourse for cohesion (and other above-the-word-level stuff) easier to do.

Essentially, I’m taking a very brief look at what is (very loosely) termed “lexical” and “semantic” cohesion using a method described in O’Donnell/Porter/Reed’s paper “OpenText.org: the problems and prospects of working with ancient discourse,” specifically the notion of “Semantic Chains” described in the latter half of the paper. This basically amounts to counting words and counting instances of words in Louw-Nida domains, and looking at how they are used together in a discourse. I am also looking at participants (person and non-person) in a discourse at the same time, to see how they co-occur with semantic chains as described in the paper, hoping to understand more about how people understand cohesion to work. And I’ve done this, very very briefly, for chapters 1 & 2 of James, primarily because I’ve been looking at Varner’s commentary, because my pastor is preaching through James, and because there is a session on James and discourse at ETS (I think it is ETS, right?). Anyway, below are my notes.

James 1.2-8: Convergence of domains 31 (Believe) and 57 (Possess, Transfer, Exchange). This is largely an exhortation to the addressee of James (3-4). Switch from v. 4 to v. 5 is rhetorical, from v.4 “lacking in nothing” to v. 5 “if any of you lacks in wisdom”. Verses 5-8 rely on domains 57 and 31 asking for wisdom in faith, without doubting, in order to receive what is lacked. Domain 57 comes from lack/give/receive language. Domain 31 comes from faith/doubting language. One frequent participant in vv. 5-8 is the doubter.

James 1.9-11: Some words in the plant domain (domain 3) are grouped here, showing we have an illustration that uses plants to convey a point. Domain 57 continues (the rich person and receiving) perhaps providing some cohesion with the previous section. We also have new participants introduced in the context of the illustration, the rich person and the humble person. Figurative language also includes the sun. Further use of domain 13 (the 'exist' subdomain, specifically 13.93, 13.94 and 13.96, pass away/lost/wither away) and domain 79 (for beauty / withering language) provide cohesion internal to the illustration.

James 1.12-16: Language from domain 27 (testing/tempting, 27.46, πειραζω/πειρασμος) provides a cohesive tie with James 1.2-3, which has some use of domain 27 where trials are endured to ensure one becomes complete. Domain 88 (moral/ethical qualities) is also concentrated in this passage. This section is also general in that no particular participant is named, but a general 'person' (ανηρ) is the subject of the beatitude of v. 12; he carries as subject through the paragraph. Sin/temptation language is prevalent, especially with the use of opposites πειραζω/πειρασμος and απειραστος in v. 13.

James 1.17-18: Primary participant is God. Some lexical/conceptual cohesion with previous by use of αποκευω (earlier in v. 15), give birth to. In the previous section sin gave birth to death, in this section God gives birth to “us” (James and his addressee) by his will, through the “message of truth”.

James 1.19-21: Participants in this section include anger, immorality and wickedness as well as gentleness/humility (all domain 88). Lexical/conceptual cohesion exist with the previous section due to a reference to “the implanted message/word” which is a reference to the “message/word of truth.” Note also use of domain 67 (quick/slow) in the wisdom statement.

James 1.22-25: Participants include those who hear the “message/word of truth” (previous sections) and those who do the message/word. This segues into an illustration centered on mirror and reflection.

James 1.26-27: This section has a concentration of domain 53 terms (religious activities, “pure and undefiled religion”) with some domain 31 language (thinking/deceiving). James' generic person as subject (“anyone”) is the primary participant.

James 2.1-7: Domains having to do with artifacts (domain 6, gold ring/clothing/footstool), object features (domain 79, glorious/fine/filthy), positions in spacial relation (domain 83, prepositions and adverbs, largely, providing here/there senses), possess/transfer (domain 57, poor, rich, heirs) and some believe language (domain 31, faith, listen (v. 5)). This all combines for a powerful illustration given to James' addressee (“brothers”, with second-person verbs and further second-person pronouns throughout the section) illustrating a problem among the addresses with partiality/differences in perception and attitude of those with means (rich) and those without (poor). These references also provide some lexical/semantic cohesion with rich/poor in 1.9-11.

James 2.8-13: James' generic addressee is again a participant; with an exhortation again reinforcing the problem of partiality. Domain 88 (partiality, sin, adultery, mercy/merciless, stumble) is common in this section. James appeals to the law (two of the ten commandments), thus an increase in the common domain 33 (communication) due to citation language (according to scripture, etc.). The section encourages proper action and discourages improper through use of domain 13 (be) and 88 (moral activity).

James 2.14-17; 18-26: Domains frequent in this section include 31 (belief/trust/faith), 42 (works/working/doing), and 88 (moral qualities: justify/justification/righteousness, but also prostitute). The discussion is about faith and works and the effect on those who practice one or both. Some OT illustrations (Abraham, Rahab) are given.

So, what’s the big deal? Well, one thing is that lexical and semantic cohesion has to involve more than simple repetition and clustering. That might help identify areas of cohesion, but it does not define them. Specifically with Louw-Nida domains, some are huge (e.g. 33 and 15) and some are very small. To count frequencies doesn’t really do much. But what this type of work can do is help to reinforce themes/topics in given sections, and it can also help to isolate paragraph boundaries (and larger-level discourse boundaries).

I’m a little dismayed at how easy it is to count frequencies of domain (or term) instances, and then see a relationship between two portions of a discourse simply because they’ve been counted and noted. Sure, “testing” language is used in James 1.2-7 and in 1.12-16, but that doesn’t mean there is some inherent relationship between those two portions of the text. There may be, and examining “semantic chains” may bring it to light, but the simple co-occurrence does not a relationship (inclusio, link, chiasm, chain, etc.) make.

It is too easy to have a load of data, and then posit things about the text because you’re (I’m) riffing off the count data. If there is some relationship there, there must be other means of confirming it than simple counting and being. Because an author uses similar language / words / topics in two places or more doesn’t mean he’s implying a relationship.

A good example is the use of domain 33 in James 2.8-13. Domain 33 is the largest domain and one of the most consistently represented domains in the book (in any book) outside of domains dominated by function words (89, 91, 92). In James 2.8-13, though, one can see the reason for an increase in ‘communication’ language is because James is citing OT material and telling the readers/hearers about it. So here we have a reason for the increase: It isn’t because James is focusing on saying something about communication, it is because he is stopping to cite OT material that is relevant to his point. These are the nuts and bolts required for talking about and citing other literature (I’m sure the ‘communication’ language in this paragraph has a higher concentration than the rest of this post, but I’m communicating about communication so the higher concentration is to be expected. Focus on the citation, not the mechanics of citation. Move on.)

So while I can see (even better now) the nuts and bolts of lexical and semantic cohesion, I’m dismayed that in several (not all, but several) it is explained as little more than counting stuff and examining clusters, as if the cluster of data (the semantic chain) exists and is meaningful simply because it was counted. It is a blip on the radar; worthy of further examination but not necessarily meaningful at all.

We must be careful because my guess is that there are a fair amount of mountains made out of some of these mole-hills.

Thanks to the generosity of the author, I’ve received a copy of Will Varner’s The Book of James: A New Perspective (amazon.com). The subtitle is “A Linguistic Commentary Applying Discourse Analysis.” Thanks, Dr. Varner!

I’ve been interested in working through this for a few reasons. First, the church I attend will be working through the book of James in the late summer/fall, I think, and I’d like to work through Varner’s stuff as part of that. Second, I haven’t seen a commentary focused on linguistics/discourse targeted at a less academic level (outside of Runge’s High Def Commentary on Philippians, but it is a different beast altogether) and wanted to see how it frames the discussion and approaches the problem of discourse/linguistics for the non-academic. Third (and related to the second) I’ve always had the idea that I’d like to write something discourse-y (is that a word?) on the Pastorals, so it’s good to see what others have done and are doing.

I’ve done an initial read of the introduction and a bit more. Varner seems to have hitched his syntactic wagons to the OpenText.org analysis (which I am intimately familiar with, having implemented it for Logos Bible Software; a static visual representation is also available online at OpenText.org). This is good and bad. It is good because OpenText.org is out there and known to some degree, it is bad because there is an (admittedly not too steep) learning curve to begin to think in OpenText.org-ese. It’s bad (at least for me) because I’m not a fan of the contained-box-style notation that OpenText.org uses in its online form, and that is what Dr. Varner has emulated in his commentary. All told, Varner includes the Greek text with translation beside it in a table, and then has the contained-box-style visuals after that. I’d rather have had the Greek text once, perhaps even with a less detailed block outline or some other notation influenced by OpenText.org. I just think it would’ve been easier to refer to and it would lose the confusion of the unfamiliar box notation. The other thing I’m dealing with is that I would probably describe myself as post-OpenText.org these days. It was great and formative as I really began to understand how text functions above the word level, but it is now, to me, quirky enough in terminology and approach (what, really, is a ‘definer’ and how is it different than a ‘qualifier’ in ways that aren’t describable using more standard morphological or syntactical terminology?) that I tend to lean more toward the Cascadia analysis these days (this is also in Logos).

What I’ve read of the commentary is good; I hope to dig into it in greater detail soon. Discussion of cohesion is promising, and there is some discussion/use of semantic chaining as well. The introduction seems heavy on citations from Porter and Reed; though they have done some foundational work in this area (particularly Reed in his Philippians volume). I’ve been reading some stuff from Scandiavians lately (in the Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series), while this is more “textlinguistics” than “Discourse Analysis” (slight differences), there is some good stuff (particularly in discourse markers, continuity/discontinuity, and the like) that should make its way into more stuff than it has.

Also sad (in the intro), for me, were the “forthcoming” citations of Porter and O’Donnell’s Intro to Discourse Analysis that has been “forthcoming” for more years than I have digits to count on my right hand. I’d love to see that one, too, but will be waiting for a few more years if past history of Porter’s cited “forthcoming” titles is any indicator. (note: I know this isn’t Dr. Varner’s fault, he’s using the sources he has and needs to use. I just wish the blasted thing would finally be published.)

I plan on blogging more as I get further into the book. That may be awhile, though, as my available time is largely consumed by my work with the Apostolic Fathers and a class on the text of the NT I’m teaching for six weeks (through mid September).