Kyle: puzzling type on Hermeneia Commentary Series

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 ...

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Mark Barnes

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.

Kyle G. Anderson

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

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1068461#Comment_1068461

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.