Is Logos Squeemish About the Deuterocanon (aka Apocrypha)

Yes, it's New Year's Day ... time for a Bible search to include those 2nd Temple tomes!

I select 'Bible' search. I click on the picker for what part of the Bible. Entire Bible is Gen-Rev. Well ok. How about 'Not-the-Entire-Bible' to include what most of Christianity has working access to?

Now if I've memorized the not-entire-Bible books, I can type in one, and it's included in parts of the Bible (History, Poetry, and so forth).

Is Logos that squeemish? Actually, I'm using Verbum.

I must be missing the obvious. New Year's Day!

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

Entire Bible is Gen-Rev.

If you look at this image long enough you can probably figure it out. Hint: set union.

Graham Criddle

I select 'Bible' search. I click on the picker for what part of the Bible. Entire Bible is Gen-Rev. Well ok. How about 'Not-the-Entire-Bible' to include what most of Christianity has working access to?

What Bible were you using? If one containing the apocrypha it should show options for those - and the Gen-Rev search would include those books

DMB

Don't have one of those!

Actually, the list presumably depends on what's the first entry in a grouping (eg tagged, etc). Which I use routinely. I guess.

Which means the big boy, no-can-do.

So, squeemish he is not. UI-bound, he is.

EDIT:

Actually, doing a little more digging, apparently the NRSVc is my lead in the tagging (?). Anyway it's first listed for a reference. And it does have the apocrypha. In the below example, I just chose it (and no apocrypha listed, though search results!). If I was going to guess, my NRSVc is a lead in a MBD with the next guy not having any apocrypha (syriac text).

DMB

If you look at this image long enough

I looked at it pretty long. Nothing happened.

Graham Criddle

If I was going to guess, my NRSVc is a lead in a MBD with the next guy not having any apocrypha (syriac text).

I'm not sure that's the issue.

I see the same set of passages as you do in my NRSVce which isn't configured in any Multi-book display.

My guess is that the Apocrypha "grouping" of books wasn't included in the tagging of that particular book - which strikes me as strange and probably an unintended omission in its tagging.

MJ. Smith

If you want the common divisions to show the deuterocanonicals as a separate entry, chose the NRSV rather than the Catholic version. It is a matter of the sequence of the books within the Bible.

Graham Criddle

It is a matter of the sequence of the books within the Bible.

That makes sense - thanks MJ

DMB

It is a matter of the sequence of the books within the Bible.

That sounds like a non-answer. Smiling. They have to be grouped for Logos to find them? Too tough for the big boy? Although that does look like the best it can do. You have to pick Bibles by ordering!

The other issue, of course, is why it's demanding NRSVc in the first place. It's in none of my prioritized Bibles. Not in my layout. I use it now and then to avoid messing up the layout. Can't tell what the first entry is in the tagging.

Rick Brannan

I'm not sure that's the issue.

I see the same set of passages as you do in my NRSVce which isn't configured in any Multi-book display.

My guess is that the Apocrypha "grouping" of books wasn't included in the tagging of that particular book - which strikes me as strange and probably an unintended omission in its tagging.

Note that the NRSVce is the "Catholic Edition" which only has the deuterocanon, not the wider apocrypha that is also found in the plain-vanilla NRSV. The "apocrypha" would include further books like 3 & 4 Maccabees and some others. That is, "deuterocanon" is a subset of protestant "apocrypha." So the lack of "apocrypha" in the NRSVce is totally appropriate.

(Note: This is all guesswork on my end because I don't own an edition of the NRSVce to consult, just the NRSV; maybe it has neither deuterocanon or apocrypha. If that's the case, then it needs to be updated.)

Dave Hooton

Actually, doing a little more digging, apparently the NRSVc is my lead in the tagging (?). Anyway it's first listed for a reference. And it does have the apocrypha. In the below example, I just chose it

Try selecting Top Bibles to see if you get a listing for Apocrypha (assuming NRSV, NABRE, or another bible that lists Apocrypha is in your top 5).

DMB

Try selecting Top Bibles to see if you get a listing for Apocrypha

I tried that with the exact same results as above (no apocrypha or deuterocanon, if you trust my screen capture). I only have 4 Bibles prioritized (Emphasis, NRSV, NABre, LES1). I guess the question is where it draws NRSVc from (in the top ask for a reference).

I checked my last used (library). It's maybe #9 in last used english Bibles.