The following passage reads fine at first glance, but on a second thought it a perfect example of Faithlife's general evangelical bent/blinders.
[quote]First Esdras (Έσδράς Α, Esdras A) is a Greek translation of 2 Chr 35–36, Ezra 1–10, and Neh 8:1–13, and some non-biblical material. Second Esdras is the Greek translation of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah found in the Septuagint.
Amy L. Balogh, “Ezra, Book of,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
Error 1 re: Septuagint from Wikipedia: "The Greek Septuagint, the Old Latin bible and related bible versions include both Esdras Αʹ (English title: 1 Esdras) and Esdras Βʹ (Ezra–Nehemiah) as separate books." The LBD makes it sound as it First Esdras is separate from the Septuagint and thoroughly non-canonical "some non-biblical material". It is, in fact, a book in the Septuagint.
Error 2 re: "some non-biblical material" ignores that it was used in the West until the Vulgate replaced the Old Latin and it is still canonical in several Eastern/Oriental Orthodox churches. Therefore it should at least read "some apocryphal material" to represent the "general evangelical perspective".
Why it matters or why I'm not just being picky. It makes the evangelical perspective look either (a) sloppy for academic use or (b) ignorant - either of which makes Logos look like an unreliable tool outside a specific data - morphological, syntactical, cross-referencing - i.e. things that fit into tightly contained tagging.
Or put another way, this is an earlier example of the problems that reappeared in the LST - it is not the evangelical perspective that gets FL in trouble, it is the lack of knowledge/care when speaking of that which is outside the evangelical perspective.
