Additional "Common Divisions" in Bible Browser, Bible Search (and Bible Book Explorer?)

[quote user="Bradley Grainger (Faithlife)"]Bible Browser shows the same "Common Divisions" as Bible Search. These come from the same source: the primary data type for the Bible, and the divisions it supports. While both probably could be enhanced with additional "common divisions", it's currently "working as designed".[/quote]

In trying to verify Bradley's statement (something I rarely do because he is so reliable) I found the following:

- In the Browser, I see Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical available as a heading but not a choice for Biblical text range. I think someone brought this up as a bug some time ago.
- I do find a core of 20 ranges shared by the Browser and Bible Search
- The Bible Browser has a category: Aramaic portions that I don't find in the Bible Search
- A variety of other small discrepancies that are appropriately ignored.
However, especially with the opening offered by the Aramaic portions of collections not based on book boundaries, I suggest that the following common divisions be added - in support of some of the newer data in Logos and as examples of other possible uses:

-- Proto (or authentic) Isaiah
-- Deutero-Isaiah
-- Trito-Isaiah
-- Q
-- J source
-- E source
-- P source
-- D source
-- L source
-- 5 discourses of Matthew
-- Passion Narratives
-- Holiness Code + Covenant Code + Deuteronomic Code

Full books:

-- Apocalyptic literature
-- Prophet literature
-- Novellas

Find more posts tagged with

Features

Need your opinion

biblical text analysis

Logos Data Sets

Status: Need Your Opinion

Comments

Dave Hooton

The current 'offerings' would be adequate if they were consistent:
NAB - 3 divisions!
NABRE - 4 divisions!
ESV, NRSV, MEV - 25 divisions
NIV,NIV 2011 - 23 divisions
CSB, HCSB - 23 divisions
KJV's - 25 divisions
LEB - 23 divisions
Another 12-15, 'specialist' divisions are not needed. These could be provided as shared Passage Lists.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1332877#Comment_1332877

@mailmedav-48 The NRSV is 25 in the Search but only 20 in the Browser where Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocrypha are not selectable. I agree with you that consistency is a fundamental requirement - but that should be consistency within a canon rather than consistency across all Bibles.

I suspect that the Prophetic, Apocalyptic, and (possibly) Novellas are as or more common than some of the items already in the list. My intent is that regardless of religious tradition, the average user can find the vocabulary that is familiar to them.

As for the others, I feel strongly that they need to be available to a novice user but when we see the implementation of Named Texts, this may no longer be the best place to put them. In my parish, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Isaiah is not specialized vocabulary but common knowledge spread through homilies.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1332877#Comment_1332877

@mjespuiva-86 Whilst I wouldn't disagree about the former three divisions, the latter are not "Common"!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1332877#Comment_1332877

@mailmedav-48 Unfortunately, "Common" varies by theological tradition, geographic region, and specific groups of parishes.