Yes, I know this is as meaningless as the number of chapters and verses, but I need a fairly accurate count of the number of pericopes to spread material tied to pericopes across the year. How would you count the number of pericopes?
Not at home so can’t test this out, but can you export the compare periscopes report to excel and cont the number of lines, potentially after some data cleanup? this tough is limites to where FL includes the pericope set you are interrated in working with for your lessons. For want your want to do this is quite a logicsl question.
... I need a fairly accurate count of the number of pericopes to spread material tied to pericopes across the year. How would you count the number of pericopes?
Create a Reading Plan based on Pericopes and daily readings. Then select a range and estimate pericopes based on the number of chapters e.g. 2x no. of chapters, and make that the number of Sessions for the Plan. I started with 260 sessions for Gen-Lev and noticed there were days with no readings, so I reduced that to 220 and there were still days with no readings. When you get no gaps you may have your number of pericopes, but a quick check may reveal multiple readings e.g. ones that span chapters or books, so work from your gaps. 210 sessions had 6 gaps, so I would say 204 pericopes (in ESV).
It didn't take long to get 352 for Gen-Dt (ESV) - 472 (NABRE)
Personally I would create a quick script to extract the data directly from the dataset.
ARA - 2887Basis - 1276BFC - 3180BFC - 2760BIMK - 2614Bruns - 2794Buber - 408COL - 1617CUV-SC - 889CUV-TC - 889DANCLV - 2179DKV 페리코페 - 1726EINHEIT - 2922ELB - 1903ESV - 2412Eusebian Canons - 1144Fijian Bible - 1162GN97 - 3453GNB - 3504GNTMAJ - 1122HCSB - 2742Hfa - 2707HNT - 691ISV - 3666ITB - 2304KRV 페리코페 - 2302LBLA - 2253LBT - 1917LEB - 2436LES - 1911LES(AT) - 49Logos - 3911LPB - 2727LS21 - 1658LUT84 - 2474Luther - 2593NABRE - 3041NASB2020 - 2238NASB95 - 2245NBG1951 - 2062NBLH - 2258NBS - 2766NBV - 1561NCTB 페리코페 - 2528NEG - 1853NeÜ - 2271NFC - 3049NGÜ - 1225NIRV - 2025NIV - 2082NIV84 - 2030NJB - 3439NKJV - 2787NKRV 페리코페 - 2299NLB - 2180NLGNB - 2154NLT - 2363NRSV - 3000NRSVCE - 2881NTLH - 2687NTV - 2194NVI - 2172Parashat - 105PDV - 3362RC - 1933RC1914 - 1922RCDN - 1920REB - 2021RVA - 2583RVR60 - 2093RVR95 - 2054Schlachter - 2302Semeur (2000) - 2274Semeur (2015) - 2275SILQED - 883SILQEH - 899SILTXA - 1156TB2010 - 2774TDYMALAYV - 2645TH-THBS1973 - 2219TLA - 2478TNIV - 2105TOB (2010) - 2787TPC91R - 847UBS4 - 850VPEE - 2654Zürcher - 2145가톨릭 페리코페 - 3317京委本（简体） - 3024当代译本修订版（简体） - 2060新漢語譯本新約（繁體） - 849新譯本（繁體） - 3321简体和合本修订版（神版） - 2608简体和合本神版 - 2585简体现代中文译本上帝版 - 2550简明圣经（简体） - 978簡明聖經(增訂版） - 978繁體台灣客語聖經 - 2601繁體和合本上帝版 - 2591繁體和合本修訂版（上帝版） - 2601繁體四福音書 - 464繁體現代中文譯本上帝版 - 2569
That said, Dave's plan of creating a pericope-based reading plan is fantastic. If you create a whole Bible plan, it will (potentially) spread your material for you without you having to do the work (and without needing to count the pericopes).
Create a Reading Plan based on Pericopes and daily readings.
I did that and didn't know when I had gotten to the actual pericope level. It obediently keeps dividing (or combining) sections up to the limit of 215 weeks. It would take some work to figure out exactly when I'd hit the right number of weeks.
Of course, Andrew knows just how to find the data!
I did that and didn't know when I had gotten to the actual pericope level.
The software only allows a maximum of 1500 sessions. According to Andrew's results that would not cover almost all the Bibles he listed.
It seems that we should be able to create a pericope based reading plan that actually works on the level of pericopes without a lot of extra effort or knowledge. Is that something FL could create???
EDIT: It seems FL could add a 'time' limit of 'however long it takes' to the drop-down menu and let the software create however long a plan is required.
Thanks for everyone's help - and especially Andrew for running a script.
Andrew,
Agree USB4 (with Morph) - 850
Differ:
NIV2011 - 2113 vs. 2082 (I have to split the range to overcome the 1500 limit)
NIV84 - 2062 vs. 2030
ESV - 2424 vs. 2412
TNIV - 2137 vs. 2105
LES - 1913 vs. 1911 (Agree on LES Alt at 49)
- but the many pericopes in Enoch are treated as a single Enoch 1-89 in both LES and LES2
NIV2011 - 2113 vs. 2082 (I have to split the range to overcome the 1500 limit) NIV84 - 2062 vs. 2030 ESV - 2424 vs. 2412 TNIV - 2137 vs. 2105 LES - 1913 vs. 1911 (Agree on LES Alt at 49)
I believe this is because there are verses that aren't contained in any pericope. For example, in ESV, Jeremiah 1:1-3, or Malachi 1:1. These verses get included in the reading plan (potentially as separate readings), but are not listed in my counts because I'm just counting the number of pericopes.
LES and LES2 do not have pericopes in Enoch. I'll report this. You can verify this with the Compare Pericopes section of the Passage Analysis tool.
I believe this is because there are verses that aren't contained in any pericope. For example, in ESV, Jeremiah 1:1-3, or Malachi 1:1. These verses get included in the reading plan (potentially as separate readings),
Yes, they are included as separate readings.
The tool indicates that, but there are "pericope" headings in LES and LES2?
The text shows up as labels in the resource, but they aren't included in the dataset. You'll notice that unlike other pericopes in the resource, you can't type those pericope titles in the navigation box for that resource.
To date, I believe we have only included pericope data for books in the Catholic canon + deuterocanon or in the Protestant OT+NT and Apocrypha. These are basically the books found in the ecumenical version of the NRSV with Apocrypha or the NRSV Catholic Edition. Or, in the case of the Psalms of Solomon and the Odes, the Rahlfs edition of the LXX. This is largely for historical (to Logos/Faithlife) and pragmatic reasons.
I can (and will) add a case to look into adding the pericope headings from the LES/LES2 Enoch, but I have to be open about it and say that this will not be a high-priority item for us to evaluate and implement.
Somehow, the old "we didn't do it right in the first place so it is low priority to fix" argument - in some cases this is reasonable. Here it sounds rather silly.
