This resource is tagged as a Bible Commentary, but should be tagged Monograph.
Shalom Mark!
I like the fact that this book appears in the commentary section when studying the Gospel of John. Therefore I would prefer that it remains tagged as a Bible Commentary even though I admit that it is technically a monograph.
I would prefer that it remains tagged as a Bible Commentary even though I admit that it is technically a monograph.
I'd say that for a resource to be a bible commentary in Logos, it needs a bible index that is going up (not jumping around) through (a portion) of scripture - that's what Cullmann does and what is tagged as such in the book, so technically it is a commentary on John.
So keep it as Bible Commentary, as it fits the (technical) requirements.
it is technically a monograph.
And the description page says so.
The majority of the book is dedicated to expounding portions of the Gospel of John, but just sections and individual verses in John. It is hardly what I'd consider a commentary on John. I'd argue it is a monograph about early Christian worship using the gospel of John as its primary source material.
Never-the-less if there was a deliberate decision made about this and it is not just an accident, it should be left as is. Likewise if some feel strongly about keeping it as a commentary, I defer to their desires. It won't make a difference to me.
Self-descriptions aren't the best guide to Logos type ... I'm with NBMick on this ... I'd rather have it pop up as a commentary than be buried as a monograph.
I would guess there is a huge number of volumes in my library that aren't strictly commentaries and one would not normally be shopping for them as such, but clearly fill that role by their content and focus. And so often traditional commentaries do reference them.
I'm not a librarian and don't play one on TV.[8-|]
If that had no effect on its functionality in Verbum, I would agree with you.
