LRC Romans Opens Incorrect Source

Christian Alexander

I have a question. When I open the Lexham Research Commentary on Romans and go to the "historical setting" section and click on Bray, 1998, it brings me to a source it says I do not have the license to the source which is the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture for Romans. When I manually open the source I have the license. Why is this happening? 

7416.Document 2 (1).pdf. 

EDIT It appears after doing some research there are two volumes within the ACCS collection on Romans. One from 1998 and one from 2005. As it seems the Lexham Research Commentary on Romans by Derek R. Brown is from 2014. So why did it cite the 1998 Romans ACCS volume? Is this a typological error in the LRC?

NB.Mick

When I open the Lexham Research Commentary on Romans and go to the "historical setting" section and click on Bray, 1998, it brings me to a source it says I do not have the license to the source which is the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture for Romans.

The resource linked is LLS:ACCSREVNT06 - the revised edition of ACCS Romans. Possibly you own another edition? Check the information panel on your version and go down to the bottom, there you'll find the ID.

EDIT: as per your Edit:

EDIT It appears after doing some research there are two volumes within the ACCS collection on Romans.

Actually there are at least three (since I have three of them in my library). LRC links one - and that's probably the one the writer of that article in LRC used and where he cited the quote from. Since different editions might change the wording and/or position of quoted text, it is very common to have only one version cited, and not to check every quote whether it shows up in different editions and then to link several of them - even though this would be helpful for Logos users.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1276791#Comment_1276791

I own Resource ID: LLS:ACCSREVNT06REV and Resource ID: LLS:ACCSREVGEN for Romans but I do not own the 1998 volume in which LRC Romans. I am not sure what I am doing wrong

EDIT: I would just like to view the set of pages (xvii–xviii) in the 1998 volume of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Romans. Can someone help me with verifying if these are the same from the first edition to the second edition of the ACCS Romans?

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1276792#Comment_1276792

I own Resource ID: LLS:ACCSREVNT06REV and Resource ID: LLS:ACCSREVGEN for Romans but I do not own the 1998 volume in which LRC Romans. I am not sure what I am doing wrong

You're not doing anything wrong. You just don't own the cited resource which is LLS:ACCSREVNT06.  

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1276795#Comment_1276795

Thanks NB I am so amazed at how writers use old resources that have been updated when writing newer commentaries. I mean it is like he was writing this in 2010 or so and should had the 2005 update to the ACCS series. It makes it hard for people who are writing and researching to find this data.

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

It appears after doing some research there are two volumes within the ACCS collection on Romans. One from 1998 and one from 2005. As it seems the Lexham Research Commentary on Romans by Derek R. Brown is from 2014. So why did it cite the 1998 Romans ACCS volume? Is this a typological error in the LRC?

It's not a typo. Many additional commentaries have been added to the Logos platform since 2013—2014 when LRC Romans was being written. I'm not entirely sure when the revised ACCS Romans first became available for Logos. I suspect it was after LRC Romans was written, but if it was out before, then we just missed that the 2005 version was in Logos and used the 1998 edition instead. In some cases where we knew there were two editions, sometimes we linked both. Since that didn't happen, I suspect we didn't know about the other edition (in the sense that we didn't know it was in Logos at the time, if it was).

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1276798#Comment_1276798

I don't know if this is readable, but it's a screenshot of the first pages of the intro from the 1998 ACCS Romans for comparison. I skimmed both side by side for this intro and the text seemed identical to me. I did not do a full compare.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1276797#Comment_1276797

I am so amazed at how writers use old resources that have been updated when writing newer commentaries.

Most academics I know use the edition they are familiar with or that is in the easily accessed library unless they know there is a reason to seek out the newest version. Over a 50 year career this often means something other than the current edition/printing.