Fathers of the Church Commentary Volumes not Working as Commentaries

The following volumes from the Fathers of Church series do not work as commentaries. They do not link with the Bible and do not scroll simultaneously with the Bible:

- Homilies on Genesis - John Chrysostom

- Commentary on the Gospel of John - Origen

- Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew - Origen

- Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans - Origen

- Homilies on Genesis and Exodus - Origen

- Homilies on Jeremiah and 1 Kings 28 - Origen

- Homilies on Joshua - Origen

- Homilies on Judges - Origen

- Homilies on Leviticus 1-16 - Origen

- Homilies on Luke - Origen

Why is that?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Graham Criddle

Why is that?

Because they are not structured as commentaries - more as sequences of articles and are tagged as monographs.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984396#Comment_984396

Why is that?

Because they are not structured as commentaries - more as sequences of articles and are tagged as monographs.

Some of the FotC monographs are in fact structured as commentaries, e.g., Origen's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1–5.

Kyle G. Anderson

The following volumes from the Fathers of Church series do not work as commentaries. They do not link with the Bible and do not scroll simultaneously with the Bible:

- Homilies on Genesis - John Chrysostom

- Commentary on the Gospel of John - Origen

- Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew - Origen

- Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans - Origen

- Homilies on Genesis and Exodus - Origen

- Homilies on Jeremiah and 1 Kings 28 - Origen

- Homilies on Joshua - Origen

- Homilies on Judges - Origen

- Homilies on Leviticus 1-16 - Origen

- Homilies on Luke - Origen

Why is that?

It is because of how they're structured. Unlike traditional commentaries that are organized by a particular Bible and verse and lend themselves to placement of Bible milestones these volumes are organized by homily number or book/chapter number which does not lend themselves to a Bible milestone.

Why is that?

Because they are not structured as commentaries - more as sequences of articles and are tagged as monographs.

Some of the FotC monographs are in fact structured as commentaries, e.g., Origen's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1–5.

I'll grant that it is possible to discern potential milestones by digging through footnotes but the general structure doesn't follow that of a typical bible commentary.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984406#Comment_984406

Why is that?

Because they are not structured as commentaries - more as sequences of articles and are tagged as monographs.

Some of the FotC monographs are in fact structured as commentaries, e.g., Origen's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1–5.

I'll grant that it is possible to discern potential milestones by digging through footnotes but the general structure doesn't follow that of a typical bible commentary.

I respectfully disagree.

In this volume, Origen quotes one part of Romans--given in italics--and comments on it. Then he quotes the next little bit. Each chapter in Origen's Commentary begins with a quotation, and from what I've looked at so far (pp. 135ff), he's not skipping verses. It's quite similar to St. Thomas Aquinas's Commentary on the Gospel of John, which FL does have typed as a Bible commentary, except that the FotC volume only italicizes the Scripture verses whereas the editors of Aquinas on John chose to bold them as well, and they also retroactively add verse numbers in brackets rather than putting them in footnotes. The footnote difference is also the only difference between Origen on Romans and FotC's edition of Jerome's Commentary on Galatians, which is (correctly) typed by FL as a Bible commentary. It's worth noting that Aquinas on John is organized by chapter and lecture, "which do[] not lend themselves to a Bible milestone." In short, general structure does not differentiate Origen's commentary on Romans from Jerome on Galatians or Aquinas on John.

I also do not see what's at all different between the monograph Origen's Homilies on Luke and Fragments on Luke and the Bible commentary by St. John Chrysostom called Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist: Homilies 1–47, both FotC. They both even have the relevant Scripture passages in their respective tables of contents.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984406#Comment_984406

It is because of how they're structured. Unlike traditional commentaries that are organized by a particular Bible and verse and lend themselves to placement of Bible milestones these volumes are organized by homily number or book/chapter number which does not lend themselves to a Bible milestone.

Sorry, but I can't resist a little bit of teasing. These ARE traditional commentaries. You, Kyle, are speaking of that new fangled layout that became popular after the text was mutilated into illogical chapters and verses and those dang printing presses put scribes out of work and got the Sunday afternoon commentary cum homilies ousted for secular activities. [;)]

Seriously, if you ignore the fact that these commentaries were presented orally (i.e. homilies), you will see that they have the commentary structure you expect. However, because they pre-date chapters and verses, longer passages are often referred to simply by their incipit.

Michael Faltas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984434#Comment_984434

I also do not find much of difference between these commentaries and some other commentaries. I think that making the listed FotC volumes as commentaries would be very beneficial to the Logos users, even if they do not qualify perfectly as commentaries (although I think they do), whereas keeping them as monographs does not really provide practical benefit to the users. Just a suggestion that would be greatly appreciated if implemented.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984857#Comment_984857

I think that making the listed FotC volumes as commentaries would be very beneficial to the Logos users, even if they do not qualify perfectly as commentaries (although I think they do), whereas keeping them as monographs does not really provide practical benefit to the users.

I have to agree [Y]

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984867#Comment_984867

I hope one of the pastor/preacher types in our midst use this as thread as a parable of prayer. [:D]

I'll be looking for ways to get these updated.

Michael Faltas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984872#Comment_984872

Yes. Because I wanted to buy the rest of the set but this is a drawback... Kyle I see that you work for Logos. Will you make a request for this change? Seems like other users would benefit.

Also, are the following volumes structured as commentaries in the Logos software:

- Jerome – Homilies on the Psalms (2 volumes)

- Jerome - Commentary on Matthew

- Jerome - Commentary on Galatians

- Hilary of Poitiers – Commentary on Matthew

- Andrew of Caesarea – Commentary on Apocalypse

- Oecumenius - Commentary on Apocalypse

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984873#Comment_984873

Michael--I'll take a look at those at the same time.

I forgot to mention: some of the volumes in the series pre-date when we were adding sermon labels. I've already opened a case to go back and add sermon labels to appropriate resources that are lacking that tagging.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984878#Comment_984878

I hope one of the pastor/preacher types in our midst use this as thread as a parable of prayer.
I'll be looking for ways to get these updated.

[:D] Thank you, Kyle!

I forgot to mention: some of the volumes in the series pre-date when we were adding sermon labels. I've already opened a case to go back and add sermon labels to appropriate resources that are lacking that tagging.

Thanks again Kyle! [Y]

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984873#Comment_984873

Yes. Because I wanted to buy the rest of the set but this is a drawback... Kyle I see that you work for Logos. Will you make a request for this change? Seems like other users would benefit.

Also, are the following volumes structured as commentaries in the Logos software:

-         Jerome – Homilies on the Psalms (2 volumes)

-         Jerome - Commentary on Matthew

-         Jerome - Commentary on Galatians

-         Hilary of Poitiers – Commentary on Matthew

-         Andrew of Caesarea – Commentary on Apocalypse

-         Oecumenius - Commentary on Apocalypse

I misread this earlier. To answer your question, they're all currently classified as a commentary except the work by Hilary which I've added to our list to try to update--although that one is going to be tricky.

Michael Faltas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984904#Comment_984904

Ok. Perfect. Thanks Kyle. Appreciate this.

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984905#Comment_984905

Hopefully my last word on this but I want to put it out there for clarity:

These were produced when we had less options available to us. (When you only had one box, you had to cram as much in as possible.) There are collections of homilies that we produced as Bible Commentaries. Today we wouldn't classify those as Bible Commentaries. We would most likely give them sermon label tagging. For these volumes we'll be keeping them as Bible Commentaries but also will be adding sermon label tagging.
Resources identified by the title as homilies or sermons will be receiving sermon label tagging. For now they'll remain as a monograph but will be exposed in the Passage Guide.
Resources identified by the title as a commentary but otherwise haven't received the Bible Commentary treatment will be receiving the Bible commentary treatment. i.e. they'll have Bible milestones and will have a new resource type.
I'll mention here that we're planning on expanding the list of available resource types. We also experience your frustration that is the great big box that is "monograph". One of the resource types will be "sermons". Those titles that I referenced in point #2 will be changing their resource type at that time from monograph to "sermon". I'm not sure what I'll do with the list of titles #1. Based upon your feedback I've learned that changing something from a monograph to something more useful is a good thing but changing a non-monograph resource to something else can be frustrating as it may break collections.

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984908#Comment_984908

Kyle,

Thank you for your detailed response, It is so much better to know what to expect ahead of time. There is large surge of interest in the area of Patristics, and I hope Logos will be leading the way in how to access the thinking and preaching of the early church fathers.

Best,

Bobby

Michael Faltas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/984908#Comment_984908

Honestly, I would prefer both the homilies and the commentaries be treated as commentaries. That way we benefit from the extremely useful linking feature.

Looking at the Nicene Post Nicene Fathers collection, all the volumes for St. John Chrysostom (volumes 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14) which are all titled as homilies are actually treated as commentaries in the Logos software. Not sure why the homilies on Genesis in FotC by the same author would be treated as sermon and by the same token all the homilies of Origen be treated as sermons either.