Why I don't use Propositional Outlines or Discourse Features - an appeal for votes on suggestions
Propositional Outlines and Discourse Features are a classic case of the Logos/Verbum conundrum. As someone who produces adult Bible studies that assume a high school education as "general knowledge", I find few people have the background to learn the linguistics of propositional outlines and discourse features in the context of small Bible study groups. I find that for my own use, they add a new vocabulary and lens to apply to scripture, but they provide me with no new insights that I can't gain from other tools. However, I would never call it "bloat ware" or "too complex to use" because of features I do not use. Rather I recognize that there are other types of users for whom this is a useful and innovative feature and simply ignore the features I don't use. Now and then I come back to explore features like this to see if further exploration shows more usefulness,
These features have generated few requests as their implementation works well:
- New Feature: Propositional Outlines | Faithlife (mobile/accessibility)
- Discourse Analysis | Faithlife (Arcing which one may not consider discourse analysis)
- Discourse features visual filters | Faithlife (group features in filter selection)
- Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek - Levinsohn, Stephen H. | Faithlife (resource request see Discourse Features of New Testament Greek | Logos Bible Software)
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Comments
-
I remember, when Discourse came out. Several posts, 'what do you do with it?' Even some discourse commentaries that fell flat?
I never saw that issue answered, beyond some hem'ing and haw'ing. It's a decade later (?) and all is quiet ... beyond a missing NT Discourse resource..
Personally, neither discourse nor propsitions answer the Logosian mail. Sure, needed, but descriptive, not proscriptive. No inherent meaning supplied.
Emphasis Bible hints at the solution .... though hard to nail down whense its own propositions. All muddyness.
I think they need the next layer .. greek (or hebrew) argument formation. The how, that delivers the message.
0 -
I think they need the next layer .. greek (or hebrew) argument formation. The how, that delivers the message.
[Y]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Well, this is the way I use them, almost daily. As a guide for reading, not deep diving.
Levinson's book is in the bookshelf, but it is dangerous - trying to grab it I could fall off from my chair.
Arcing would be a cool tool.
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
0 -
Thank you. This kind of give and take helps others decide how they may (or may not) use them and which suggestions for improvement they wish to support.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I find that for my own use, they add a new vocabulary and lens to apply to scripture, but they provide me with no new insights that I can't gain from other tools.
That's generally been my experience as well. But I'm with you - if it's helpful to someone else, that's great.
0 -
This is a timely post, I was just experimenting with the sentence diagramming tool but it is fairly anemic. Like Will, who provided the Discourse Analysis suggestion above, I was surprised that nothing quite like Biblearc is made available in logos.
My particular desire is to be able to easily diagram and label the relationship between clauses. Sentence diagramming (what logos calls line diagramming) is more helpful to understand the relationships between words within the clause, but flow diagramming (text flow diagramming) is best for understanding the relationship between the various clauses, which is what I want to do 90% of the time.
I can sort of do this in a limited sense with the current sentence diagramming tool, but it lacks the ability to clearly and easily categorize the various types of clauses.
The best resource that I have seen that unpacks this method of flow diagramming is Andrew Naselli's 'How to Understand and Apply the New Testament: Twelve Steps from Exegesis to Theology.' Chapter 5 'Argument Diagram' covers pretty much everything, and I would love to see the ability to perform this level of diagramming within logos.
Additionally, the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary series (example below is taken from Galatians) is the only current one that I am aware of that in addition to providing a translation of the text before commentating on it also traces the flow of the argument. It's lovely. And it's what I want to be able to do within logos. Currently my main options are to either export the text from logos into MS Word or Onenote and do the work there, or use Biblearc as others have already mentioned.
.png)
Current MDiv student at Trinity Theological College - Perth, Western Australia
0 -
I was surprised that nothing quite Biblearc is made available in logos.
I have reason to believe, but not absolute proof, that there are copyright/monetarization issues involved.There is a form of text flow called mechanical layout that I am surprised Logos has not tried to provide. But lately Logos has seemed (subjectively) to be less interested in visualizations/cutting-edge text analysis and more interested in alternative ways to slice-and-dice the same material without the resources to complete the projects.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Well, this is the way I use them, almost daily. As a guide for reading, not deep diving.
Veli, thank you for the reminder ... I'd been on the fence on Friberg's Greek NT. Already use their Analytical Lexicon.
0 -
But lately Logos has seemed (subjectively) to be less interested in visualizations/cutting-edge text analysis and more interested in alternative ways to slice-and-dice the same material without the resources to complete the projects.
I wonder why that is? Do you think logo's target audience has shifted away from the pastor/scholar and more towards the regular lay person? I could see how a shift in focus towards the laity would de prioritize features such propositional outlines, discourse features etc.
Current MDiv student at Trinity Theological College - Perth, Western Australia
0 -
I wonder why that is? Do you think logo's target audience has shifted away from the pastor/scholar and more towards the regular lay person? I could see how a shift in focus towards the laity would de prioritize features such propositional outlines, discourse features etc.
It's hard to tell who Faithlife is targeting, if anyone. I remember when 'books' was their mantra ... thousands!! Then pastors. Hints of app integration, before they gave up. Then slice and dice'rs. Followed by 'Factbook'ing'. They currently try to front with academic language (especially Rick's contributions). Just watching the sales, it's low-end (lower price; higher margin) evangels, currently.
The problem is their app designs filter out their targets. At each new 'thing', it's non-standard, not easy to pick up and therefore not easy to market. I was pleasantly impressed with the 'users' (aka customers) wanting to tailor the top bar at pre-L10 ... and the UI guy delivering a buggy vertical/horizontal bar. I laughed. They have a company at odds with itself, and think it's the economy.
0 -
I would love to be a fly on the wall in some of their strategy meetings, its difficult trying to recommend suggestions and provide feedback when I'm not sure what the target (audience) is.
Current MDiv student at Trinity Theological College - Perth, Western Australia
0 -
Ditto. I find my Logos experience getting more and more cluttered with cruft that is clearly targeted for someone else, yet I keep picking up the academic packages.
I find Biblearc absolutely invaluable for my study and prep. I asked the Biblearc guy 6 or 7 years ago if they ever planned to provide any integration with Logos, and he told me they had had a couple conversations but that was it - didn't seem to be any interest from FL. Not surprised, of course, but man - I've tried more than once to arc in Logos and my perfectionist tendencies make me give up before I spend an hour doing what takes me 30 seconds on Biblearc. Having said that, I just cast my vote for the discourse analysis feature request.
0 -
My visual filter highlighting includes Discourse emphasis using orange wavy underline:
In Philippians 4:4-9, Discourse emphasis:
- v4 again
- v6 pray - and thank - for all - done
- v8 fix - thoughts on
- v9 all
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
I use a few visual filters occasionally to make a few things pop out, but I find I get much more when I do the work of determining logical relationships as opposed to trusting someone else's work. There's something to be said for doing the work of analysis yourself (what my hermeneutics class taught me to do first before consulting commentaries etc.). This is why I personally would like a discourse analysis tool similar to Biblearc.
0
