Searching commentaries for "Q"
How do I search for Q in my commentaries? I've tried several methods, but have not found one that works.
UPDATE: Thank you for those taking the time to give me tips for this search!! I am grateful.
Comments
-
InNeedOfGod said:
How do I search for Q in my commentaries? I've tried several methods, but have not found one that works.
What do you mean by "search for Q"? Because Q is hypothetical, there are no direct references to it. (Apart from in the Hermeneia commentary on Q, that is.)
If you want to search for every time the word Q occurs, you can literally just search for Q. There will be many false positives — for example when "Q" means "question".
You can narrow it down by searching for quelle ANDEQUALS Q. That will only show occurrences of the word 'Q', when the hovertext on the word contains the single word 'quelle'. There should be no false positives, but not all occurrences of Q have hovertext, so you'll miss some.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
What do you mean by "search for Q"? Because Q is hypothetical, there are no direct references to it. (Apart from in the Hermeneia commentary on Q, that is.)
No offense to Mark, but ??.
The best I use is "'Q'" WITHIN 4 WORDS Mark (or Mat, Luk, Tho, etc)
Of course, that just narrows down the Q's.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Mark is right. Q is hypothetical there is no Q document. It’s an assumption but there is no hard proof for it. Funny if there was such a document it did not survive
Keith Pang, PhD Check out my blog @ https://keithkpang.wixsite.com/magnifyingjesus
0 -
Denise said:Mark Barnes said:
What do you mean by "search for Q"? Because Q is hypothetical, there are no direct references to it. (Apart from in the Hermeneia commentary on Q, that is.)
No offense to Mark, but ??.
Do the question marks indicate confusion, or disagreement? In other words, which part isn't clear, or with which part don't you agree with?
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
How does an opinion concerning Q impact searching for Q discussions? Ergo ??.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
How does an opinion concerning Q impact searching for Q discussions? Ergo ??.
Saying that Q is hypothetical is hardly an opinion. It's scholarly consensus. Exhibit A: the definition given in AYBD: "“Q” (the abbreviation for German Quelle, “source”) is the name scholars have given to the hypothetical source that would account for the gospel material (not found in Mark) that Matthew and Luke have in common."
Leaving that aside, my point remains. Other than in the Hermeneia Commentary on Q, there are no direct references to Q in Logos, so you can't search for them. In other words, you can search for any references to Matthew by searching for <Bible ~ Matthew>, but you can't search for references to Q by doing <Bible ~ Q>, or anything like it.
I said the single Hermeneia volume that purports to be a commentary on Q was an exception. That creates a Q referencing scheme, which allows you to search for <Q ~ Q 1-22>, which will return all the references to Q in your library. But that's not at all helpful, as they're all within that single volume.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
You miss the ?? point. Searching for Asherah doesn't mean she's real or needs to be. Ditto Q.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I performed a search using the search term: 'Q source'
and received a number of good hits - articles about the Q hypothesis as well as commentaries that refer to it.
0 -
InNeedOfGod said:
How do I search for Q in my commentaries?
quelle WITHIN {Milestone <Mt-Lk>}
Mark Barnes said:You can narrow it down by searching for quelle ANDEQUALS Q. That will only show occurrences of the word 'Q', when the hovertext on the word contains the single word 'quelle'. There should be no false positives, but not all occurrences of Q have hovertext, so you'll miss some.
Thanks - Bible Milestone searching finds Bibles, Commentaries, Notes with "Q" hover-text having quelle ("Q" without hover-text are missing).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Denise said:
You miss the ?? point. Searching for Asherah doesn't mean she's real or needs to be. Ditto Q.
The analogy doesn't apply. You can search for mentions of Asherah, and my post also explained how to search for mentions of Q.
But Asherah isn't a document, hypothetical or otherwise, so she can't stand as an analog to a document you would reference. My simple point was that you can't search for direct references to Q. That's because while you can mention a hypothetical document, you can't give a reference to hypothetical document. There is not yet such thing a Q 11:1, and therefore you can't search for Q 11:1 (previous exceptions for Hermeneia, of course). That's all I was saying.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Actually, I chose Asherah on purpose ... the god or the symbol. Another argument one can search for.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Hey InNeedOfGod
I tried " Q " (quotation mark, space, capital Q, space, quotation mark) and got a pretty good response. Maybe that will help.
0 -
This comment/questions does not pertain to the specific questions at hand, but I am very curious as I look at your screenshot - how did you get the year of publication, abbreviation for series, and author's name to appear in front of almost every commentary? Have you manually edited the names of each commentary?
eChristianResources.com - Connecting Christians With Quality Evangelical Resources Available For FREE On The Internet (including links to free Logos/Vyrso resources!)
0 -
Thanks - This is a help
0 -
Thank you - that gave me a lot of good hits
0 -
Thanks - I got a lot of good results with this
0 -
Daniel Radke said:
This comment/questions does not pertain to the specific questions at hand, but I am very curious as I look at your screenshot - how did you get the year of publication, abbreviation for series, and author's name to appear in front of almost every commentary? Have you manually edited the names of each commentary?
Yes for manually editing all my English commentary titles => https://community.logos.com/forums/p/139386/890581.aspx#890581
Note: sorting commentary search results by Resource is chronological.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
I've got good results with
" Q " WITHIN {Milestone<Mt-Lk>}
I checked "match case" and left other matches unchecked.
I am not a search expert, but just tried.
It finds also Qumran related text etc.
(I am not supporter of the Q hypothesis, I prefer to think that the authors had longer pieces of written material and used a cut-and-paste method. Maybe my thinking is too modern [:$])
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
0 -
Veli Voipio said:
I've got good results with
" Q " WITHIN {Milestone<Mt-Lk>}
I checked "match case" and left other matches unchecked.
I am not a search expert, but just tried.
It finds also Qumran related text etc.
(I am not supporter of the Q hypothesis, I prefer to think that the authors had longer pieces of written material and used a cut-and-paste method. Maybe my thinking is too modern
)The Griesbach hypothesis assumes that Matthew wrote his "long" gospel first (as per Papias' remark preserved in Eusebius that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel first, and everyone else translated him into Greek), and Luke used him and "other sources" (cf Luke 1.3 " having investigated [b]everything[/b] carefully" - this is thought by many scholars to refer to other sources for his gospel) to compile his gospel. Then, Mark made a "summary" of both Luke and Matthew.
The principle reason why the 2-Source Hypothesis (which assumes the existence of an "UrMarkus" or "Q" source) is so popular is because it assumes that things evolve from the "simple" or "primitive", into the more complex. And not the other way round - from the complex into the simple. This is thought of as more "scientific" because Darwinian evolution assumes the same thing - that simple life forms develop into more complex life forms - and thus adds credence to such an assumption.
Also, the 2-Source theory assumes that authors are less likely to take out sayings by Jesus, than they are at adding to them. Thus Matthew and Luke expanded upon Mark adding more words of Jesus, rather than Mark subtracting word of Jesus from both Matthew and Luke. This assumption is a fundamental axiom in textual criticism - that scribes are more likely to expand upon a source rather than to edit out words - and thus, again, seems to bolster up such an assumption. It seems more "scientific".
I prefer the Griesbach hypothesis principally because it is the only one that assumes that the Evangelists were authors or writers of the gospels, and not mere editors or redactors. The 2-Source hypothesis assumes more copying-and-pasting than Griesbach, leaving little room for creativity by the authors. They are thought of as slavishly using sources, rather than creating a gospel. At least in Griesbach, Matthew created his original Hebrew gospel. He wasn't a slave to sources.
Dr David Staveley Professor of New Testament. Specializing in the Pauline Epistles, Apocalyptic Judaism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
0 -
I get more results with this search string:
The word proximity criterion is not redundant because Q is almost always discussed in relation to one of the words in the brackets (you could add "tradition").
The type:commentary criterion does narrow it down to this resource type only (other results are included otherwise).
You can dispense of "Bible ~" : {Milestone <Mt-Lk>} is equivalent and shorter (produces the same number of results.
0 -
Daniel Radke said:
how did you get the year of publication, abbreviation for series, and author's name to appear in front of almost every commentary? Have you manually edited the names of each commentary?
If memory serves, KS4J manually inputs the data into the title line for each commentary. It must have taken aaaagggggeeesssss!
Carpe verbum.
0 -
LMAM said:Daniel Radke said:
how did you get the year of publication, abbreviation for series, and author's name to appear in front of almost every commentary? Have you manually edited the names of each commentary?
If memory serves, KS4J manually inputs the data into the title line for each commentary. It must have taken aaaagggggeeesssss!
Took many months last year to add title prefixes. Thankful could create a "Top 2 Commentaries" series that has volumes from a variety of series:
FYI: Jerome finished a commentary on Daniel in 420, which was translated into English in 1958 so title modification has prefix (with leading 0 for sorting) and suffix (with translation publication date)
Having series abbreviation in title is helpful when desire to change series for a volume back to original.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
David Staveley said:
I prefer the Griesbach hypothesis principally because it is the only one that assumes that the Evangelists were authors or writers of the gospels, and not mere editors or redactors
You might also like The Progressive Publication of Matthew by Ward Powers who also argues that the Evangelists were authors and for the priority of Matthew.
0 -
LMAM said:
If memory serves, KS4J manually inputs the data into the title line for each commentary. It must have taken aaaagggggeeesssss!
Can confirm that this process takes a good bit of time on the front end. Can also confirm it is well worth it. I did mine slightly different, with the goal of having the series name be the first thing displayed in the passage guide, with the author and date at the end. Regardless of what order this information is put in, it is helpful for distinguishing situations such as the one shown below where the Pillar set has two volumes on Romans. I can quickly see who wrote which volumes and when each volume was published.
0 -
Jack Caviness said:David Staveley said:
I prefer the Griesbach hypothesis principally because it is the only one that assumes that the Evangelists were authors or writers of the gospels, and not mere editors or redactors
You might also like The Progressive Publication of Matthew by Ward Powers who also argues that the Evangelists were authors and for the priority of Matthew.
I wasn't aware of that particular theory, so thanks for the heads-up! On the strength of your recommendation, I bought the eBook. So, if it turns out to be rubbish, it's all your fault! [;)]
Dr David Staveley Professor of New Testament. Specializing in the Pauline Epistles, Apocalyptic Judaism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
0 -
David Staveley said:
So, if it turns out to be rubbish, it's all your fault!
caveat emptor [:P] If you don't like it, you have 30 days to cancel the purchase,
I found his theory quite interesting—and believable. However, I did not study the supporting details, which make up the majority of the book.
0 -
Matthew said:LMAM said:
If memory serves, KS4J manually inputs the data into the title line for each commentary. It must have taken aaaagggggeeesssss!
Can confirm that this process takes a good bit of time on the front end. Can also confirm it is well worth it. I did mine slightly different, with the goal of having the series name be the first thing displayed in the passage guide, with the author and date at the end. Regardless of what order this information is put in, it is helpful for distinguishing situations such as the one shown below where the Pillar set has two volumes on Romans. I can quickly see who wrote which volumes and when each volume was published.
Passage Guide screen shot for comparison of Title modifications:
NICNT has two volumes for Romans. Moo's volume is in my "Top 2 Commentaries" series. Two Pillar volumes are adjacent. Having Series abbreviation in title allows Library filtering when volumes are in "Top 2 Commentaries" and original series: e.g. NICNT
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus
wrote the following post at Yesterday 7:18 AM: LMAM said:Daniel Radke said:how did you get the year of publication, abbreviation for series, and author's name to appear in front of almost every commentary? Have you manually edited the names of each commentary?
If memory serves, KS4J manually inputs the data into the title line for each commentary. It must have taken aaaagggggeeesssss!
Please Keep Smiling 4 Jesus, how did you obtain the year of publication of each resource?
Logos library seems to show electronic publication date for most of the resources.
I quite like the way you have done it and would be putting in the time to do it for my whole library if only I can obtain the year of publication for each resource.
Thanks.
0 -
Alexxy Olu said:
Please Keep Smiling 4 Jesus, how did you obtain the year of publication of each resource?
Logos library seems to show electronic publication date for most of the resources.
I quite like the way you have done it and would be putting in the time to do it for my whole library if only I can obtain the year of publication for each resource.
Thanks.
The publication date is available (separate from the electronic publication date). Just right-click on any of the columns and you'll see the options.
0 -
Alexxy Olu said:
Please Keep Smiling 4 Jesus, how did you obtain the year of publication of each resource?
Logos library seems to show electronic publication date for most of the resources.
I quite like the way you have done it and would be putting in the time to do it for my whole library if only I can obtain the year of publication for each resource.
The publication date is available (separate from the electronic publication date). Just right-click on any of the columns and you'll see the options.
Thanks Yasmin for your response.
Am aware of that separate column for the publication date. What I have found out is that quite a number of the resources I checked at random especially older publications do not seem right.
Here are a few examples:
Matthew Henry's Commentary 1994
Barth’s Church Dogmatics 2004
Calvin commentaries 2010
Crossway Classic Commentaries: Most are dated in the 1990s
Lange’s Commentary 2008
Some even have n.d. which I take to meaning "no date of publication known"
Except there is some plausible explanation I doubt if the year of publication for these few examples are correct. And this may just be the tip of the iceberg!
It is important that one has reliable data before embarking on this type of time consuming project. Hence my request.
0 -
Alexxy Olu said:
Am aware of that separate column for the publication date. What I have found out is that quite a number of the resources I checked at random especially older publications do not seem right.
Yes, I now see what you're saying. For the older commentaries, you'd probably have to search our their original publication date online or elsewhere. Or maybe inside the resource itself, if it's a translation, reprint etc
0 -
Yasmin Stephen said:Alexxy Olu said:
Please Keep Smiling 4 Jesus, how did you obtain the year of publication of each resource?
Logos library seems to show electronic publication date for most of the resources.
I quite like the way you have done it and would be putting in the time to do it for my whole library if only I can obtain the year of publication for each resource.
Thanks.
The publication date is available (separate from the electronic publication date). Just right-click on any of the columns and you'll see the options.
Personal quirk is preference for year written. Sources for authorship year: Resource Information, Title Page, Preface(s), Biographical, which can include comparison with other resource(s). Many years for title prefixes are easy to find. If year has challenges, one option is forum discussion.
Some years are challenging. For example, Calvin's dedication date in "Catholic Epistles" is Geneva Jan 24, 1551 (for year Calvin completed writing of 1 John). Translator's Preface includes Sep 29, 1855 so my title for Calvin's "Catholic Epistles" has 1551 prefix (Authorship) and 1855 suffix (translation from Latin to English)
Crossway Classic commentaries for 1-3 John includes Calvin for 1 John and Matthew Henry for 2-3 John so prefix years of 1551-1714 reflect Calvin's authorship and Matthew Henry's human tent departure. After comparing with Matthew Henry Commentary, changed 1714 to 1728 to show assistants completed Matthew Henry's commentary (Preface Five has year 1721).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Alexxy Olu said:
Matthew Henry's Commentary 1994
Barth’s Church Dogmatics 2004
Alexxy Olu said:Calvin commentaries 2010
Alexxy Olu said:Crossway Classic Commentaries: Most are dated in the 1990s
Alexxy Olu said:Lange’s Commentary 2008
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Thanks Yasmin and KS4J for your responses.
The suggestions as to where to look are useful, and the screen captures from KS4J are especially very helpful.
I now know where and how to look when am ready to start.
0 -
Alexxy Olu said:
The suggestions as to where to look are useful, and the screen captures from KS4J are especially very helpful.
If any date(s) you find are different, let's discuss. Am finding some of my earlier title changes have needed later revision: e.g. now usually including Author(s) and adding prefix (while keeping resource title).
Thankful can reset Title/Series back to default value by deleting it then press enter.
Keep Smiling [:]
0 -
If any date(s) you find are different, let's discuss. Am finding some of my earlier title changes have needed later revision: e.g. now usually including Author(s) and adding prefix (while keeping resource title).
Thankful can reset Title/Series back to default value by deleting it then press enter.
Thanks KS4J for your help. I appreciate your offer to discuss dates that may be different.
I plan to start with the resources I use most often and gradually cover my whole library over time.
So, I would likely start in this order for the resources I consult most frequently:
- Top 6 study bibles I use most often;
- My go-to 6 commentaries for each bible book;
- Top 10 one-volume commentaries I consult most often;
- Top ten dictionaries/lexicons I use most often;
- Top ten systematic theology resources;
- Every resource on my ever-expanding reading list;
- And on till I cover my whole library.
The emphasis is to organise the resources I use most frequently in the most efficient way for me.
Other potentially useful resources from my library will be added as I get to realise their potential usefulness.
When I encounter a different date I will post here for you to see. and discuss
Thanks again.
0 -
Alexxy Olu said:
I plan to start with the resources I use most often and gradually cover my whole library over time.
A suggestion is sorting Library by Reading Status into three groups:
- Reading
- Finished
- Unread
Screen shot shows Reading Progress column clicked twice to sort Reading progress into descending order, followed by shift click of Type. Expanded Type:Manual to show Reading Progress rings.
Finished can include resource(s) used most often so suggest modifying Finished resources first followed by Reading resources.
For commentary prefixes, found filtering library by series was helpful when modifying titles.
Searching for Bible Milestones included results in some Monographs so added prefixes to those titles. Most Monographs have original titles (along with no plans to prefix them).
Resource Types that currently have title prefixes in my Library:
- Bible (year suffix has Language Indicator - albeit many languages remind me of phrase "That's Greek to me")
- : no suffix for English
- a - Arabic
- d - Deutsch (German)
- e - Español (Spanish)
- f - François (French)
- g - Greek
- h - Hebrew
- i - Italian
- L - Latin
- s - Syriac
- Bible Commentary
- Bible Concordance
- Bible Cross-Reference Index
- Bible Notes
- Commentary (of Apostolic Fathers)
- Dictionary
- Encyclopedia
- Lexicon
- Systematic Theology
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Alexxy Olu said:
I plan to start with the resources I use most often and gradually cover my whole library over time.
A suggestion is sorting Library by Reading Status into three groups:
- Reading
- Finished
- Unread
Screen shot shows Reading Progress column clicked twice to sort Reading progress into descending order, followed by shift click of Type. Expanded Type:Manual to show Reading Progress rings.
Finished can include resource(s) used most often so suggest modifying Finished resources first followed by Reading resources.
For commentary prefixes, found filtering library by series was helpful when modifying titles.
Searching for Bible Milestones included results in some Monographs so added prefixes to those titles. Most Monographs have original titles (along with no plans to prefix them).
Resource Types that currently have title prefixes in my Library:
- Bible (year suffix has Language Indicator - albeit many languages remind me of phrase "That's Greek to me")
- : no suffix for English
- a - Arabic
- d - Deutsch (German)
- e - Español (Spanish)
- f - François (French)
- g - Greek
- h - Hebrew
- i - Italian
- L - Latin
- s - Syriac
- Bible Commentary
- Bible Concordance
- Bible Cross-Reference Index
- Bible Notes
- Commentary (of Apostolic Fathers)
- Dictionary
- Encyclopedia
- Lexicon
- Systematic Theology
Keep Smiling
My reading list:
I made a collection of the resources on my reading list.
My reading list tags are:
- To_Read = resources I plan to read.
- I made a collection for my reading list with the rule: mytag:To_Read . It is updated automatically.
- Finished reading + date = resources I have finished reading with date finished
- To_Read_Again = Resources I finished reading, and which I will read again
I have not found the reading progress ring reliable: resources I have never read often show percentages as high as 50 or more while the ones I have finished reading often show low percentages. So I don't use it.
I use reading plans to pace myself as I am reading at least 7 resources each from a different category at any point in time.
Filtering commentaries by series is useful as I have oftentimes use it to tag some of my commentaries before then making some specific collections.
The list of your resources that currently have prefixes is noted and will be help when I start.
Thanks for all your help.
0
