BUG in Bible Browser treatment of apocrypha well actually in the Bible metadata affecting Search as

MJ. Smith

What's a lady to do? I take a break and no one verifies the consistency of alternative canons [8-|]

Notice that the 3rd view (NRSVCE) shows no Apocrypha which is appropriate. However, the NABRE shows Apocrypha (which it should not) but only a partial list because the additions to Daniel and Greek Esther are not shown despite being "apocrypha" in the same sense as the items shown. The NRSV itself, like NRSVCE, shows as I would expect.

I would expect NABRE like NRSVCE to show no Apocrypha. I would not expect to ever see a half-baked list of Apocrypha as shows for the NABRE.

Note NRSV is the highest priority Bible for all of the test cases above.

Dave Hooton

MJ. Smith said:

I would expect NABRE like NRSVCE to show no Apocrypha.

Are you saying that NABRE and NRSVCE are Catholic editions with (Protestant) Apocryphal books and should be treated the same in both Verbum and Logos? Note that I use Logos, don't have the NRSVCE, and see the same as you for the other bibles. It's interesting that NABRE (above) doesn't have Common Divisions, but under Common Divisions in the Search menu, Apocrypha includes the same books as listed above for NRSV and NABRE.

MJ. Smith said:

I would not expect to ever see a half-baked list of Apocrypha as shows for the NABRE.

The anomaly for NABRE (vs. NRSV) lies in the fact that Daniel and Esther include the Greek additions but they are not included as Apocrypha. So, for example,  Astyages is only found in Dan 14 (Bel), but it will not be found if using Apocrypha as the Search range. The NRSV (NRSVCE?) is somewhat better served because Daniel 13, 14 are two separate books and Astyages will be found when using Apocrypha as the Search range. But Greek Esther (in Apocrypha) also incorporates the chapters of Hebrew Esther!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/982738#Comment_982738

Dave Hooton said:

Are you saying that NABRE and NRSVCE are Catholic editions with (Protestant) Apocryphal books and should be treated the same in both Verbum and Logos?

Yes, both NABRE and NRSVCE are Catholic editions with the Catholic canon - they should behave identically in the browser

Dave Hooton said:

The anomaly for NABRE (vs. NRSV) lies in the fact that Daniel and Esther include the Greek additions but they are not included as Apocrypha.

Both the NABRE and the NRSVCE have the additions to Daniel and the Greek Esther. Only the NRSV has the Protestant apocrypha as apocrypha; it also has extended apocrypha to include the Orthodox canons. The actual behavior is bizarre - treating it inconsistently for the NABRE and omitting it for the NRSVCE.

So yes, Dave, you understand the problem of inconsistent behavior.

Mark Barnes

MJ. Smith said:

Notice that the 3rd view (NRSVCE) shows no Apocrypha which is appropriate. However, the NABRE shows Apocrypha (which it should not) but only a partial list because the additions to Daniel and Greek Esther are not shown despite being "apocrypha" in the same sense as the items shown. The NRSV itself, like NRSVCE, shows as I would expect.

I would expect NABRE like NRSVCE to show no Apocrypha. I would not expect to ever see a half-baked list of Apocrypha as shows for the NABRE.

This is not a bug in Bible Browser. It's an issue with the metadata associated with each Bible. If you do a Bible search, and select an individual Bible, you can see exactly the same data in the "All Passages" menu.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/982749#Comment_982749

Mark Barnes said:

This is not a bug in Bible Browser. It's an issue with the metadata associated with each Bible. If you do a Bible search, and select an individual Bible, you can see exactly the same data in the "All Passages" menu.

You are correct. I so rarely use the system predefines that I'd not noticed the problem in the Search. I use my own saved ranges in the Search.