Problems with Dates in Multiple Resources

Page 1 of 1 (15 items)
This post has 14 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 928
Matthew | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, Mar 10 2017 9:22 AM

I have noticed there are several Logos resources that do not clearly distinguish between the publication date of a book, the publication date of the electronic edition of that book, and the year in which the text contained within that book was created. These issues should be fixable by updating the resource information page of the resource.  

Young, Robert. Young’s Literal Translation. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997.

LLS:1.0.82014-10-08T23:52:08ZYLT.logos4

This resource or its resource information page should be updated to reflect that translation itself dates from 1862, not 1997.

 

Septuaginta: With Morphology. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996.

LLS:1.0.3012016-07-07T17:38:15ZLXX.logos4

The copyright date is listed as 1979 on the resource information page, leading me to conclude that this is a 1996 reprint of the 1979 edition, but I cannot find a clear date for the text of this edition anywhere within the resource itself or within the product resource information page.

 

The Apocrypha: King James Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995.

LLS:1.0.42014-10-08T23:08:36ZKJVAPOC.logos4

Is 1995 the year that the English text of this resource was created/revised? I would assume 1995 was the year Logos published this electronic edition, but there is no information regarding the date of the actual text. The copyright is listed as “Public Domain.”

 

The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament. Bellingham, WA, 2008.

LLS:LGNTI2013-02-01T02:09:58ZLGNTI.logos4

The resource information page of this resource lists the copyright dates of the Greek text as 1993, 1994, and 1998. Based on those dates, I think the Greek text being presented here is that of the NA27/UBS4, but this is not specified anywhere from what I can tell.

 

Cambridge Greek Testament: Greek Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

LLS:CAMGTTXT2014-10-08T23:53:48ZCAMGTTXT.logos4

I cannot find any information either within the text of this resource or on its resource information page regarding the date that should actually be assigned to this Greek text. Considering the commentary series it is a part of, the date should be much earlier than 2012 (which I am assuming is an electronic publication date).

 

Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.

LLS:NA282016-06-03T16:37:36ZNA28.logos4

The text of this resource notes that this is the “2nd corrected Printing 2013.” Should the citation date be changed from 2012 to 2013?

 

Runge, Steven E. The Lexham High Definition New Testament: ESV Edition. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008–2014.

LLS:HDNTESV2016-03-02T19:19:34ZHDNTESV.logos4

Would I be safe in assuming that the text used here is that of 2011 revision of the ESV? I do not see that information in the resource itself or on its resource information page.

 

, n.d.

LLS:LLEIV2017-02-15T21:03:06ZLLEIV.logos4

This is supposed to be the Lexham Latin-English Interlinear Vulgate, but the citation information on the product page seems missing in action. I do not see any information in the resource itself or on the product page pointing me to a date for the Latin text used.

 

There are likely other examples, but these are some that I found.

Posts 24730
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 10 2017 3:32 PM

Matthew:
LLS:1.0.82014-10-08T23:52:08 ZYLT.logos4

FYI, the underlined does not represent a publication date, nor an edition. It is the time stamp (version) of the electronic file containing the resource text and metadata. The file is updated and released for many reasons that are not related to the edition of the resource text e.g. metadata fixes, tags, links, and typos.

Dave
===

Windows & Android

Posts 26140
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 10 2017 4:48 PM

Publication date should be the publication date of the text used to create the electronic form not the date of original writing.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 3148
LogosEmployee
Thomas Ball | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 10 2017 5:05 PM

What date we use for public domain resources has changed over the years, so depending on the age of the resources you may see that reflected across time. We used to strip out the publication info of all public domain resources, and when that changed, not all of those resources had easy references to restore their original citations. Some we actually made from modern reprints that had no original publication info in them (a common practice). Some were made from modern reprints that are significantly different from their original publications, and can't be cited by original information without being misleading (page numbering is a big concern here). The use of "Logos" as the publisher in the bibliographic citation is a hint that this happened, or that we knowingly made changes to the book that would "break" the original citation (combining multiple public domain works into a compendium, for example).

 

Posts 928
Matthew | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 10 2017 9:06 PM

Dave Hooton:
FYI, the underlined does not represent a publication date, nor an edition.

I understand. I only included the support information as an additional means of clarifying which resource I was referencing.

MJ. Smith:
Publication date should be the publication date of the text used to create the electronic form not the date of original writing.

Agreed, but that was not really my point. What I had suggested in my post was updating the resource information page, where Faithlife often provides information other than just a bibliography citation. A good example of this is The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament, where the resource information page informs readers that the Greek text used is "the 1550 Textus Receptus," and that the work was originally published under a different title in 1877. Compare this with The Cambridge Greek Testament that I referenced. This has absolutely no information at all either within the resource or on the resource information page regarding what Greek text is used, where it came from, etc. A publication date of 2012 is not sufficient, and more information should be provided. I do not and have never used this text for anything because I do not know what it even is.

Tommy Ball:
What date we use for public domain resources has changed over the years...

Thank you for the insight into what Faithlife has done. I suspected some things had changed over time based on newer resources listing separate copyright dates for the text, morphology,  etc. I am afraid I did not explain my concern very well. As more critical texts are published (eg, NA26, NA27, NA28) and as English Bibles continued to be updated (eg, ESV 2007, 2011, 2016), it becomes more important for Faithlife to document somewhere which version of a text is being used in which resource. For example, even though the NA27 was available when The Lexham Clausal Outlines of the Greek New Testament was produced in 2006, that resource is based on the NA26 text of 1979. Being able to tell that the Greek text is two editions out of date is important because it alerts me that I might want to compare it with the Greek text of the NA28. If I am using The Lexham High Definition New Testament: ESV Edition, it is relevant information to know whether the ESV text used is from 2007, 2011, or if it was ever updated to the 2016 text. I could be missing it, but I do not see that information anywhere within the resource itself or on the resource information page. Yes, I could find a website that shows me places where the ESV text has changed over time, look up one of those passages in the LHDNT, and then try determining which text Faithlife used, but I should not have to do that. I am much less concerned about the date listed in the citation and much more concerned about having this type of information specified somewhere, whether it is in the resource itself or on the resource information page.

The backstory of this thread is that I am trying to add dates to the titles of my Bibles, which is something I have seen others on the forums do. This is especially handy when it comes to original language Bibles. All my Septuagints that use Swete's text now have titles that begin with "1909," all Greek New Testaments that use the Westcott-Hort text have titles that begin with "1881," etc. In going through this process, the resources I identified in my initial post were resources where the inclusion of additional information would have made it easier to assign a date. That was the goal of this post, to provide specific examples of where Faithlife could update the resource information page to provide users with additional relevant information. I apologize for the lengthy post, but hopefully this makes my initial post more intelligible.

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 11 2017 8:38 AM

Matthew:

Young, Robert. Young’s Literal Translation. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997.

LLS:1.0.82014-10-08T23:52:08ZYLT.logos4

This resource or its resource information page should be updated to reflect that translation itself dates from 1862, not 1997.

Wikipedia mentions 1862 and 1898 => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_Literal_Translation Bible Gateway has 1898 for YLT text.

Resource does not have preface. CCEL has YLT prefaces => http://www.ccel.org/bible/ylt/ylt.htm

Appears Logos resource is the 1898 YLT that has "the Christ is born." in Matthew 2:4 while 1863 has "the Christ may be born!" (Orlginal Bibles web site has PDF with 1863 date).

Matthew:

Septuaginta: With Morphology. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996.

LLS:1.0.3012016-07-07T17:38:15ZLXX.logos4

The copyright date is listed as 1979 on the resource information page, leading me to conclude that this is a 1996 reprint of the 1979 edition, but I cannot find a clear date for the text of this edition anywhere within the resource itself or within the product resource information page.

The 1996 electronic edition includes morphology tagging done by the University of Pennsylvania using 1979 text revision by Robert Hanhart of the 1935 publication by Alfred Rahlfs.

Matthew:

The Apocrypha: King James Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995.

LLS:1.0.42014-10-08T23:08:36ZKJVAPOC.logos4

Is 1995 the year that the English text of this resource was created/revised? I would assume 1995 was the year Logos published this electronic edition, but there is no information regarding the date of the actual text. The copyright is listed as “Public Domain.”

Series connects this resource with KJV based upon the Pure Cambridge Edition first published around 1900.

Matthew:

The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament. Bellingham, WA, 2008.

LLS:LGNTI2013-02-01T02:09:58ZLGNTI.logos4

The resource information page of this resource lists the copyright dates of the Greek text as 1993, 1994, and 1998. Based on those dates, I think the Greek text being presented here is that of the NA27/UBS4, but this is not specified anywhere from what I can tell.

Text Comparison shows match with NA27 in James, Peter, John and Jude (Catholic Epistles) while NA28 has some differences.

Matthew:

Cambridge Greek Testament: Greek Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

LLS:CAMGTTXT2014-10-08T23:53:48ZCAMGTTXT.logos4

I cannot find any information either within the text of this resource or on its resource information page regarding the date that should actually be assigned to this Greek text. Considering the commentary series it is a part of, the date should be much earlier than 2012 (which I am assuming is an electronic publication date).

Commentary Series Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges was published between 1891 (Acts) and 1925 (1st & 2nd Thessalonians).

Acts has section "On the Greek Text" => https://ref.ly/logosres/camgt65ac;ref=Page.p_ix

On the Greek Text:

IN undertaking an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament with English notes for the use of Schools, the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press have not thought it desirable to reprint the text in common use*. To have done this would have been to set aside all the materials that have since been accumulated towards the formation of a correct text, and to disregard the results of textual criticism in its application to MSS., Versions and Fathers. It was felt that a text more in accordance with the present state of our knowledge was desirable. On the other hand the Syndics were unable to adopt one of the more recent critical texts, and they were not disposed to make themselves responsible for the preparation of an entirely new and independent text: at the same time it would have been obviously impossible to leave it to the judgment of each individual contributor to frame his own text, as this would have been fatal to anything like uniformity or consistency. They believed however that a good text might be constructed by simply taking the consent of the two most recent critical editions, those of Tischendorf and Tregelles, as a basis. The same principle of consent could be applied to places where the two critical editions were at variance, by allowing a determining voice to the text of Stephens where it agreed with either of their readings, and to a third critical text, that of Lachmann, where the text of Stephens differed from both. In this manner readings peculiar to one or other of the two editions would be passed over as not being supported by sufficient critical consent; while readings having the double authority would be treated as possessing an adequate title to confidence.
A few words will suffice to explain the manner in which this design has been carried out.
In the Acts, the Epistles, and the Revelation, wherever the texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles agree, their joint readings are followed without any deviation. Where they differ from each other, but neither of them agrees with the text of Stephens as printed in Dr Scrivener’s edition, the consensus of Lachmann with either is taken in preference to the text of Stephens. In all other cases the text of Stephens as represented in Dr Scrivener’s edition has been followed.
In the Gospels, a single modification of this plan has been rendered necessary by the importance of the Sinai MS. (א), which was discovered too late to be used by Tregelles except in the last chapter of St John’s Gospel and in the following books. Accordingly, if a reading which Tregelles has put in his margin agrees with א, it is considered as of the same authority as a reading which he has adopted in his text; and if any words which Tregelles has bracketed are omitted by א, these words are here dealt with as if rejected from his text.
In order to secure uniformity, the spelling and the accentuation of Tischendorf have been adopted where he differs from other Editors. His practice has likewise been followed as regards the insertion or omission of Iota subscript in infinitives (as ζῆν, ἐπιτιμᾶν), and adverbs (as κρυφῆ, λάθρα), and the mode of printing such composite forms as διαπαντός, διατί, τουτέστι, and the like.
The punctuation of Tischendorf in his eighth edition has usually been adopted: where it is departed from, the deviation, together with the reasons that have led to it, will be found mentioned in the Notes. Quotations are indicated by a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence. Where a whole verse is omitted, its omission is noted in the margin (e.g. Matt. 17:21; 23:12).
The text is printed in paragraphs corresponding to those of the English Edition.
Although it was necessary that the text of all the portions of the New Testament should be uniformly constructed in accordance with these general rules, each editor has been left at perfect liberty to express his preference for other readings in the Notes.
It is hoped that a text formed on these principles will fairly represent the results of modern criticism, and will at least be accepted as preferable to “the Received Text” for use in Schools.


Perowne, J. J. S. (1891). On: the Greek Text. In The Acts of the Apostles (pp. vii–x). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Matthew:

Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.

LLS:NA282016-06-03T16:37:36ZNA28.logos4

The text of this resource notes that this is the “2nd corrected Printing 2013.” Should the citation date be changed from 2012 to 2013?

Or citation date updated with 4th corrected printing => NA28 4th Corrected Printing

Matthew:

Runge, Steven E. The Lexham High Definition New Testament: ESV Edition. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008–2014.

LLS:HDNTESV2016-03-02T19:19:34ZHDNTESV.logos4

Would I be safe in assuming that the text used here is that of 2011 revision of the ESV? I do not see that information in the resource itself or on its resource information page.

Text comparison shows High Definition currently has 2011 ESV text.

Matthew:

, n.d.

LLS:LLEIV2017-02-15T21:03:06ZLLEIV.logos4

This is supposed to be the Lexham Latin-English Interlinear Vulgate, but the citation information on the product page seems missing in action. I do not see any information in the resource itself or on the product page pointing me to a date for the Latin text used.

Concur citation could be improved plus noticed Copyright is missing from resource information.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 928
Matthew | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 11 2017 12:23 PM

Keep Smiling,

Wow, you really went WAY above and beyond in your response! Thank you very much! I guess to kind of summarize everything, if Faithlife is interested in updating the resource information pages on anything, they could indicate that:

1. Young's Literal Translation uses the 1898 text.
2. Septuaginta: With Morphology uses the 1979 text (which can already be inferred from the copyright date, even though it is not directly stated).
3. The Apocrypha: King James Version uses the 1900 Cambridge text.
4. The Cambridge Greek Testament: Greek Text uses a text whose origin is explained in the volume on Acts (never would have thought to look there, so thank you, Keep Smiling!).
5. The NA28 text is the 2nd corrected printing from 2013, not the 2012 text indicated by resource's citation (can we attempt to update to the 4th corrected printing?).
6. The Lexham High Definition New Testament: ESV Edition uses the ESV's 2011 text.
7. The Lexham Latin-English Interlinear Vulgate uses... well, we still have no idea what this one uses. The citation and copyright information need to be added, and preferably some explanation somewhere about what text is being used and where it came from.

Not sure who at Faithlife would need to see that list to actually implement the changes, but hopefully it can be passed on to that person. Thanks again, Keep Smiling!

Posts 928
Matthew | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 11 2017 12:32 PM

In case anyone has successfully waded through all this and wants to see the master list of dates I have arrived at, here are two screenshots showing what I have so far. Please note that I have also used custom titles on many of these Bibles. I am sure my system is not perfect and I am open to suggestions for improvement.

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 11 2017 12:55 PM

Matthew:
5. The NA28 text is the 2nd corrected printing from 2013, not the 2012 text indicated by resource's citation (can we attempt to update to the 4th corrected printing?).

NA28 Title page shows 2nd corrected printing while resource update in Jun 2016 has most of the 4th edition corrections (from 2015) => NA28 4th Corrected Printing

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 928
Matthew | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 11 2017 1:26 PM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):
NA28 Title page shows 2nd corrected printing while resource update in Jun 2016 has most of the 4th edition corrections (from 2015) => NA28 4th Corrected Printing

I do not have the apparatus, so the only changes I can look for are the ones within the text itself. I do NOT have the 4th corrected printing readings listed for Acts 20:18; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:23; 1 John 3:18-19; 1 John 3:19; Jude 8-9; Jude 9; or Jude 14. Oddly enough, I DO have the 4th corrected printing reading for 1 Peter 2:22.

Posts 14
LogosEmployee
Andrew Curtis | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Mar 13 2017 3:43 PM

Matthew:
The Lexham Latin-English Interlinear Vulgate uses... well, we still have no idea what this one uses. The citation and copyright information need to be added, and preferably some explanation somewhere about what text is being used and where it came from.

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for pointing out the gap in the citation metadata for the LLEIV. It has been fixed, and a note about the source of the LLEIV's Latin text has been added to the resource information panel as well. (For clarity's sake a similar note has also been added to the information panel of the Clementine Vulgate resource.)

Posts 928
Matthew | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 14 2017 12:58 AM

Andrew Curtis:
It has been fixed, and a note about the source of the LLEIV's Latin text has been added to the resource information panel as well.

Glad to hear it! I see the note that says, "The Latin text of the Lexham-English Interlinear Vulgate mirrors the Logos edition of the Clementine Vulgate based on the Editio Typica of 1598." It looks like the inline interlinear options for these two resources will complement each other nicely. The 1598 date mentioned does raise another question I would like to ask if you, if you don't mind. I see the date 1592 several times in looking at the Clementine Vulgate, but I do not see anywhere the 1598 date mentioned in the LEIV's new info. Do I just have the wrong edition of the Clementine Vulgate, am I missing it, or is the 1598 date not actually in the resource anywhere? Thanks.

LLS:VULGATACLEM
2017-02-16T15:16:59Z
VULGATACLEM.logos4

Posts 14
LogosEmployee
Andrew Curtis | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 14 2017 9:34 AM

Matthew:
I see the date 1592 several times in looking at the Clementine Vulgate, but I do not see anywhere the 1598 date mentioned in the LEIV's new info. Do I just have the wrong edition of the Clementine Vulgate, am I missing it, or is the 1598 date not actually in the resource anywhere?

Both the Logos resources Clementine Vulgate and Lexham Latin-English Interlinear Vulgate (LLEIV) are based on the same Latin text of the Clementine Vulgate, which was originally printed in 1592 and issued in successive revised editions. Our Logos text of the Clementine is ultimately based on the 1598 edition. So you can think of the LLEIV as the Latin-English interlinear version of the Logos Clementine Vulgate resource. You can read more about the derivation of the text on the Logos.com product page for the Clementine Vulgate resource. 

Your version of the resource is correct and up to date. The 1598 date should appear in the description paragraph in the "Resource Information" panel for both the Clementine Vulgate and the LLEIV. 

Hope this helps!

 

Posts 928
Matthew | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 15 2017 4:29 AM

Andrew Curtis:
The 1598 date should appear in the description paragraph in the "Resource Information" panel

Thank you. It was not there previously but I see it has now been added. 

It was only a single sentence that was added, but it provides key information about the resource. Any chance the same will be done to some of the other resources mentioned in this thread?

Posts 979
Harry Hahne | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 15 2017 2:33 PM

Matthew:
I have noticed there are several Logos resources that do not clearly distinguish between the publication date of a book, the publication date of the electronic edition of that book, and the year in which the text contained within that book was created.

I agree that this is an important concern for citing a resource. It is important for researchers to know the date of the original publication, because that places the source in its time in the history of research. A book written in 1862 should not be cited as if it were written in 1997. My students often miss this point and assume that the Logos date is the date of the original printed book. They end up using a very old book in research papers, thinking that they are using an up to date book. 

The widely used Turabian citation style (based on University of Chicago style) requires that the printed citation information be included for electronic books, along with the form of the electronic book.

The citation format for electronic books is discussed in Turabian 8th edition in section 17.1.10. The citation format for reprinted books is discussed in section 17.1.3.2.

For reprinted books, Turabian requires both the original date and the reprint date:

Smith, John. The Sample Book. 1920. Reprint, Pittsburgh: BibMe, 2008.

Based on the Turabian examples for books reprinted electronically in Kindle, Adobe eBooks and ProQuest Ebrary format, Turabian requires this format:

Smith, John. The Sample Book. 1920. Logos Bible Software.

The Society of Biblical Literature style is similar:

Smith, John. The Sample Book. 1920. Logos Bible Software edition.

In my opinion, the Logos digital edition of a book is like a reprinted edition. I think the most informative citation would include the publication information of the printed book that was digitized as well as the date of the digital conversion:

Smith, John. The Sample Book. 1920. Logos Bible Software, 2008.

Page 1 of 1 (15 items) | RSS