BECNT-Luke tagging of other resources

Am I expecting too much? Having paid the premium price for the Logos Research Edition, I expected many more citations to be tagged.

This is just one example (clipped from p. 828) where I expect to hover over "Ellis", "Danker" or "Fitzmyer" and see what commentary this is citing.

This city, then, was outside Herod’s jurisdiction (Ellis 1974: 138). The locale’s name means “place of hunting,” not “place of satisfaction” (so Danker 1972: 112, a view not mentioned in the second edition of his commentary); but Luke makes nothing of the name (Fitzmyer 1981: 765).

Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, vol. 1, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994), 828.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ken McGuire

I was not aware that Danker's Commentary, Jesus and the New Age was available in Logos... And if it isn't, I would not really expect there to be links to a resource that doesn't exist in the system.

That said, I would expect that Fitzmyer's commentary would be linked, since it is a major series that exists in Logos.

But as much as I want everything to be linked where it exists within Logos, I do understand that to do this requires a fair amount of manual tagging - and expense to pay someone to do that. And since more and more resources are finding their way into Logos, it would turn into a never ending task.

So there does have to be a practical limit to the linking provided. What I really want is for Logos/Faithlife to make public some information that must exist in internal style guides about what is consistently linked...

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152568#Comment_1152568

it is a major series that exists in Logos.

The post above was a random clip from the page I happened to be on at the time. Here is another example where not a single citation is linked.

A parallel to this account is found in Mark 6:6b–13 = Matt. 10:1–14, which is part of a much larger commission unit in Matt. 10:1–42 (Aland 1985: §142). Most see Luke following Mark (Schürmann 1969: 504; Marshall 1978: 349; Fitzmyer 1981: 751; Bovon 1989: 454). They argue that Matthew combined some elements that seem to belong to separate events. For example, he has saved the listing of the Twelve until this point (see the introduction to Luke 6:12–16). Elements in the Lucan commission to the larger group of disciples (10:1–16) appear at this point in Matthew (Aland 1985: §99). But this is a minor problem, since the form of the two ministries in Luke is parallel and only Luke details the larger mission. One can assume that the smaller mission operated on a similar basis. However, the Matthean unit is not as composite as many suggest and can be regarded as one commission (Carson 1984: 240–43; Liefeld 1984: 917–18; against Marshall 1978: 349, who speaks of a conflation of two accounts in Matthew, as do most).

Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, vol. 1, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994), 810–811.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1152570#Comment_1152570

Here is another example where not a single citation is linked.

Ugg... I pulled it up in my copy, and it is worse than I expected. Lots of Logos Research Editions are tagged with Bibliographic items, so you can at least mouse over the reference abbreviation so you can see what the resources mean. It can be frustrating when this doesn't resolve to a link to the actual resource, but it at least helps you understand things. And none of that is here...

And as you say, none of the major commentaries are linked. Not NIGTC (Marshall). Not AYB (Fitzmeyer). Not Herm (Bovon - although by pub date, the reference may be to the French original, and not the English translation that is in Logos). The one link I did find was just a bit before the section you gave, where there was a link to Noland's WBC.

Looking up the support information, and the digital file has not been updated since 2009 - probably when it was converted over to Logos4 format from Libronix. For such a major technical commentary, the lack of links is quite disappointing to me too.

Which is why I go back to my initial response. Just tell us to what level you are linking things. Let us make informed decisions - and know when the information from the Concordance tool would actually be useful.