Kyle: puzzling type on Hermeneia Commentary Series

MJ. Smith
MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 53,804
edited November 2024 in English Forum

I understand why part of the Hermeneia Commentary Series is under "Bible Commentary" while other portions are under "Commentary". This is an implementation of the Logos sense of canon. But why are portions of Hermeneia Commentaries under "Monographs" for example The Apostolic Tradition: A commentary by Bradshaw et. al. (yes that is from the title page) ...  The Critical Edition of Q I can justify as a monograph but ...

Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

Tagged:

Comments

  • Mark Barnes
    Mark Barnes Member Posts: 15,432 ✭✭✭

    MJ. Smith said:

    But why are portions of Hermeneia Commentaries under "Monographs" for example The Apostolic Tradition: A commentary by Bradshaw et. al. (yes that is from the title page) ...  The Critical Edition of Q I can justify as a monograph but ...

    It's not a monograph. This book is split into three resources: "Commentary", "Adaptations", and "Original Languages". The commentary resource is of type commentary.

    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!

  • Kyle G. Anderson
    Kyle G. Anderson Member, Logos Employee Posts: 2,233
    https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1068461#Comment_1068461

    What Mark said.

    We don't really have a good resource type for translations of old source documents that don't have Bible milestones.

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 53,804
    https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1068461#Comment_1068461

    Mark Barnes said:

    It's not a monograph.

    Allow me to be more precise 2/3 of a commentary is type "monograph" whereas the Bible equivalents are entirely "Bible Commentary".

    In Logos, when is a book not a book. When it is in multiple languages. That I am willing to accept despite the complexity it adds to work flows. But dividing a single volume commentary and assigning them to different resource types goes beyond what I am willing to accept as a way to "shoehorn" a resource into Logos architecture. The software was built to handle the resources; the resource were NOT written to give the software a purpose.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

Categories