Okay, I lied. I do use compare pericopes - a lot in fact. But I do have some complaints.
Related suggestions:
Well... how about no biases at all? Not even Catholic? [8-|]
how about no biases at all? Not even Catholic?
I do not claim to be unbiased; I claim to try to write in neutral language, using the vocabulary I have learned over the years. I offer the tips for two reasons: (1) to keep myself informed on the current behavior of the Logos/Verbum software and (2) to help others do so as well. As the entries are free on the forums, others are free to use them to the extent they find them useful and to ignore them if they are not helpful.
What's the obsession with Catholic today? I'm sorry but I can't find a leap to make from "pericope" to "Catholic" ... perhaps because pericope is Greek? or perhaps because pericopes are universal - whether labeled or unlabeled, named or unnamed pericopes are a universal phenomenon. The Jews used them for their readings at least from the time of Ezra and had a definition of the smallest unit of scripture that could be used as a reading. [quote]One basic halakhic rule for public reading of the Torah is that no fewer than three verses at a time be read.. You might find Parashah - Wikiwand useful for the definition of and use of pericopes "parashah" in the Jewish context.
Note: any time a preacher preaches on a passage of text that is less than the entire book, even in the context of a series eventually covering the entire book, that preacher is using or defining a pericope.
Okay, I lied. I do use compare pericopes - a lot in fact.
OK, I recognize you're a pericope person. And I've no problem with improving pericope handling in Logos. In fact, I'd argue for church use (FL's new market), pericopes should be the lingua franca, if history is any teacher. Indeed when you go back centuries, they're working pericopes (I guess before chapters/verses). Just a few words, and you already know where they are in the Bible!
But that said, pericopes dangerously (exagerating) hover as doctrine, like a dark cloud. Was it the writer's intent? Or the later church? So, I always just turn them off ... read the text. But just me.
Seeing your list, I wonder if you're compromising ... eg a good pericope-handling design or just improve what is.
OK, I recognize you're a pericope person
Thank heavens I'm not a chapter and verse person! Give me a rational unit used for thousands of years for study rather than those new-fangled, highly useful for reference only chapter and verse numbers ...
I think in this case we may have a difference in definition. I think of pericopes as simply a block of text normally identified by its incipit as that is how they are used in the old commentaries before chapter and verse became the standard method of reference. There are particular pericopes that I assign names to because they serve particular liturgical functions e.g. the Bread of Life discourse from John that is used to fill out Cycle B (Mark) Gospel readings in the late summer or The Man Born Blind & The Woman at the Well & The Raising of Lazarus that are the three Gospels leading up to the reception of adults into the Church on Easter, or the Farewell Discourse used by Dominicans to end Holy Thursday Adoration ... if I were Eastern Orthodox, this list would be much longer.
I suspect that my desire for lectionaries including historical lectionaries address your two major concerns - first, it smashes the absurd FL assumption that pericopes cover the entire scripture and have no overlap - this is true only of the new-fangled Bible headings as pericopes; second, the pericopes are unnamed except by use so that no interpretation of the text is implied by the pericope name.
In the list of suggestions from the feedback site, I tried to include all the ideas out there whether or not I would support them. In my own critique, I tried to be balanced between what fit into the current structure (commentaries) and what required a new structure (lectionaries). This tends to be my overall approach as I would rather have incremental progress than no progress.
A useful resource from Brill on behalf of the Pericope academic group referred to in the original post:
[quote]
Amazon link: AmazonSmile: Layout Markers in Biblical Manuscripts and Ugaritic Tablets (Pericope Series Vol 5): 9789023241782: Korpel, M C a, Oesch, Joseph: Books
A useful resource from Brill
Excellent examples. And one could also argue, the earliest scriptural usage were likely in the form of pericopes (snippets pasted together). So, by the time of Tertulian (P46-ish) the little added (apparently) marks would potentially represent the tradition already in place.
The pericopes included are strictly 20-21st century Bible pericopes which is a very biased sample of the definition and use of pericopes over the 2000 year history of Christianity. Pericopes drawn from lectionaries, including historical lectionaries, would provide a much better base for the data. Note this would require a redesign of the feature as the assumptions of continuous Bible text and no duplicates are not applicable to lectionary pericopes.
Adding the pericopes as defined by commentaries based on pericopes rather than chapters or verses would be a step forward and would fit into the structure of the current feature. It would at least move us back a century or two in history.
See Pericope Homepage for examples of how pericopes form a basis for academic study of scripture and possible implementation for the rest of us; also available a series of books from the pericope perspective.
Morris Proctor provides information on this topic:
https://www.logos.com/grow/the-difference-between-verses-and-perciopes-in-the-bible-browser/
Related suggestions: Passage Guide Lock Button | Faithlife Create parallel of commentary based compare pericope | Faithlife Clarify menu | Faithlife Standardize Bible TOC to include pericopes | Faithlife Add parallel pericopes to Important Passages | Faithlife Add next/prior to pericope entry in Factbook | Faithlife Parallel Pericope Bible NRSV | Faithlife (available as personal book) Bible browser export to passage list respect displayed units | Faithlife Add optional compact view to Pericope Comparison | Faithlife Enhance hover popup in Compare Pericopes | Faithlife Pericope lists | Faithlife Bible Navigation by Pericope | Faithlife Studies in Scriptural Unit Division (Pericope series vol.3) | Faithlife Parashat titles | Faithlife Compact version of Compare pericope | Faithlife Pericope Headlines in TOC of Bibles | Faithlife Pericope List | Faithlife Sort option on Compare Pericopes | Faithlife Aligned Pericope comparison / Text comparison | Faithlife Suppress empty columns in Compare Pericope | Faithlife Add multiple search scopes for Bible search | Faithlife
Another related suggestion:
What is/are the advantage/s of pericopes over chapter and verse in our study of the Bible or how do pericopes add to our understanding of scripture?
Chapter and verse were created to have a way to specify a place in scripture - independent of content and meaning. Pericopes are designed to mark units of meaning. Think of chapter and verse as like using clauses without regard to what sentence the clause is in and pericopes as being full sentences. Unfortunately, due to the formatting on some contemporary Bible, some people have confused the pericope with its title. A title is not required. The pericope is simply the block of text, historically known by its first words (incipit) or a title such as "The Man Born Blind". Chapter and verse were created to help those who don't immediately know to look in John in the middle part prior to the Raising of Lazarus for the passage.
Would you please provide a reference as an example of this assertion?
Simply look through your commentaries by era - the pericope unit precedes the Bibles with pericope headings by centuries, e.g.Lightfoot, John. The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot. Edited by John Rogers Pitman. Vol. 3. London: J. F. Dove, 1822.
Note the unit in the red box is a pericope -- albeit one I would treat as a metapericope i.e. a pericope composed of smaller pericopes.
would you provide secure access to this data?
No, because I know the site and know the organization to be small, I ignore the warning and override it with a simple datacheck (my browser's approach to the problem.
Note: the moment you tear a portion of scripture out of its context i.e. the entire book, you are using a pericope. The question is whether to use pericopes consciously and wisely or whether to use them in an unthinking, cavalier manner, potentially distorting the meaning.
MJ, I don't know how to express my fullest gratitude to you for passing your wisdom and knowledge along to me and others like me who once viewed pericopes as restatements of what was better said by what would follow it.
No more, thanks to you. Excellent!
I remain a pericope disbeliever (and support efforts for pericope improvements). Chunks for studying, yes. Chunks as to labeling the writer's intent, meh.
Today, I got tangled up in another post (Isa 28:16). I knew the hebrew was speculative thru-out. But noticed Logos had the Ephrahimites ruling Jerusalem. Due I suspect, to their using chunk-boundaries (aka pericopes), instead of section dependencies.
Chunks as to labeling the writer's intent, meh.
I understand your objection to this (erroneous) understanding of pericopes; precis of pericopes share the strengths and weaknesses of all precis.
Due I suspect, to their using chunk-boundaries (aka pericopes), instead of section dependencies.
I don't understand your point here - how do/can section dependencies differ from pericope dependencies? I see sections as simply meta-pericopes. But then again, I'd never accuse Logos of being pericope oriented although they are moving in that direction.
I think we're sliding into terminology-paralleling. I'm using 'pericope' in the sense of Christian tradition (as above, pretty sure quite early). Pericope isn't just a start sentence, and an end sentence (or similar). It's a fully functioning religious artifact. It's very close to a 'story' or 'narritive' (you'd call a meta-pericope, I assume). In teaching Jesus, it's almost the only way, where populations are limited in the religious language (eg latin or english), or limited in basic cultural understanding (eg the southwestern natives when Catholic priests arrived). It's also why visual assists are very helpful. A cross. An image of Mary. Paintings, etc.
I don't know if you're disassociating the labels. I think the labels are the criticality. The borders are arguable. But to have any success with spreading Christianity, 'pericopes' are the lingua franca (contra apologetics, arguing theology, etc).
So, that's why even though I'm personally a not-pericope'r, I believe a strong pericope base would be needed in a future Logos (the current Logos is an intellectual hobby-horse from the late 1800s).
For own use, pericopes divert 'the brain' from reading the text. Even just sections, as a pericope equivalent. In the Isaiah example yesterday, one could assign a pericope to part of chap 18 into part of 19. Hezekiah learns the importance of trusting in YHWH! But was that the early author's intent, either the label or the grouping? Chances are, no .... Hezekiah is making the same mistake the Samaritans made! Maybe. Maybe not. But 'sectioning' is a later device (as are chapters and verses) ... it's own commentary.
Regarding dependencies, that's the next 'evil', for trying to figure out the writer's argument. Pericopes tend to be serial. One after another. For sure, the handling in Logos. Basically (as Morris Proctor explained) just an alternative to chapters/verses. Certainly true for the current Logos. But sections (or pericopes) have dependencies. In the Hezekiah account, the entry section acts similar to a dependent clause in a sentence. It's not just a stack of sections to pick from.
I've 'run-on' but trying to explain a perspective.
Thank you - I now understand your point and agree to some extent. I tend to take a perspective of a British chap whose name I forget and whose evidence was weak that writing before the concept of silent reading was essentially driven by pericopes. But that didn't mean that person A reading the text would make the same pericope choice as person B but rather that there were stronger and weaker options for pericopes boundaries that one would choose from. The end of the pericope starting at Gn 1:1 and ending at Gen 1:31 or 2:1 or 2:3 or 2:4a is my favorite example of how boundaries of a pericope may change depending upon the aspect of the passage one wishes to emphasize.
I agree that it is absolutely necessary to study the Bible book as a whole to understand the flow of thought structuring the text whether that be an argument, a narrative, or the flow of poetry. Pericopes by the earliest definition in Greek are intended to provide rationale for selecting portions to read or study when considering the whole of the book is impractical. Because of their rational nature they are not just an alternative to chapters and verse. For an absurd example to make a point, chapter and verse allows one to study Song of Solomon 6:3-4 which is a single verse from the woman and one from the man. Pericopes require that you take the entire woman's part Sg 6:2-3, or the entire man's response Sg 6:4-10 or Sg 5:2-6:3 i.e., the entire second dream sequence.
The fact that the boundaries are debatable, it precisely why I find them useful for study -- a way to study minutely the elements that tie the text together or break it apart; the relationship of these elements to those of the previous (potential) boundary. I give the labels no truck except as easy liturgical references e.g. The Sunday of the Man Born Blind. Nor do I see pericopes as a simple stack except in the case of the modern, labeled, sequential, comprehensive "pericopes" printed in Bibles - I didn't even use the term pericope to refer to these until Logos taught me too. I used the term only in the context of passage for study or liturgical passage. They are overlapping and intertwined.
It appears that our original encounter/understanding of pericopes was quite different, leading us to quite different experiences in their use. Understanding that has allowed me to understand your position perhaps even to the point of saying that if I accepted the same base assumptions, I might come to the same conclusion as you. But I don't, so I don't.
Thank you, both. Having come from a background that suppresses pericopes importance, I understand intimately Denise's viewpoint. What I think I have learned from MJ is that pericopes can help the reader navigate the text as it can be used to locate relevant chapter and verse. This is what I see as its contributing importance.
I don't buy the view that it can function independently from its context if anyone is an advocate of this assertion. But, as a help for locating important narratives, I'm all in. As MJ points out Logos has a ways to go towards fulfilling this promise.
I therefore support efforts to improve the utility of pericopes.
Pericopes drawn from lectionaries, including historical lectionaries, would provide a much better base for the data.
Some pericopes are also indicated in ancient manuscripts of the Bible or portions thereof.
