System Ranges for Bible Searches
Seeing as Martha is not here to fly the flag for a diversity of canons: would it be possible to change the name of the system ranges for bible searches.
Currently, they look like this:
These, of course, reflect a protestant perspective on the canon and on "apocrypha". My Bible does not contain apocryphal writings (according to the canon of my religious community) yet has a range larger than the first option for Bible searching - in fact, it equates to the second option....
A more objective description would be 1) Bible: Protestant Canon 2) Bible: Catholic Canon 3) OT: Protestant Canon.
Noticeably absent, from my perspective, is a system defined range for the Catholic Canon of the OT.
Over time, system ranges for other Canons could be included (Orthodox, Syriac, Coptic)
Comments
-
You must also consider that the Jewish perspective is not represented either, nor the ...... perspective! The order/arrangement of books in bibles is probably Protestant (Western?) as well, and you may have to live with that constraint and define your own ranges, for I would object to Bible:xxxx Canon replacing a "default" range, or having a multiplicity of such as default definitions.
Perhaps a better solution would be to suggest that Logos provide pre-defined ranges for different religions and have that as an option for the Bible picker?
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Perhaps a better solution would be to suggest that Logos provide pre-defined ranges for different religions and have that as an option for the Bible picker?
Or, we could simply choose our preferred canonical scheme at the same time we choose our preferred Bible. The options we're presented from then on would simply reflect those choices (with the others as options?). I don't see why this wouldn't be possible.
Logos is quite committed to being a first choice for Bible study for all Christian communions (at least). So, why not? But I don't think Logos is interested in supporting other religions (this week on pre-pub: the Bagvad Gitah -- I don't think so).
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
You must also consider that the Jewish perspective is not represented either, nor the ...... perspective!
Well, there are only about 6 major canons. So 5 of them aren't represented.
Perhaps a better solution would be to suggest that Logos provide pre-defined ranges for different religions and have that as an option for the Bible picker?
I thought that this was exactly what I was suggesting - other pre-defined ranges that recognise that "Bible" and "Apocrypha" do not equal the same thing for every user.
I would object to Bible:xxxx Canon replacing a "default" range, or having a multiplicity of such as default definitions.
Why would you object to Bible (Gen-Mal, Matt-Rev) being replaced by Bible: Protestant Canon? That's surely what it is?
There are already a multiplicity of "default" ranges - I was suggesting that they be named for what they are.... and that another option be given for Catholic users whose OT canon is not represented...
0 -
Or, we could simply choose our preferred canonical scheme at the same time we choose our preferred Bible. The options we're presented from then on would simply reflect those choices (with the others as options?). I don't see why this wouldn't be possible.
That would be possible. Though, I'm not sure that a couple of extra options in the drop down of system set ranges would be too much.
Logos is quite committed to being a first choice for Bible study for all Christian communions (at least). So, why not?
That's definitely the sense that I get.
It would be good if the language they used recognised the diversity of their market (current and future).
0 -
Or, we could simply choose our preferred canonical scheme at the same time we choose our preferred Bible. The options we're presented from then on would simply reflect those choices (with the others as options?). I don't see why this wouldn't be possible.
That would be possible. Though, I'm not sure that a couple of extra options in the drop down of system set ranges would be too much.
That was what i was suggesting, as there would be considerably more than "a couple of extra options in the drop down"!
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Yes, the current system has more than a bit of a American Protestant bias, even if a search of Gen-Rev includes more than 66 books. Using the term "Apocrypha" to describe some of the Bible is taking a side in the issue and doesn't really say anything else because of the diversity of books that can be included.
The range "Apocrypha" says Tobit to Laodicians. I am not aware of any community which views Laodicians as canonical. It may have been convienient back when you initially created the Vulgate, but that one really belongs in a different category.
Ken
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Why would you object to Bible (Gen-Mal, Matt-Rev) being replaced by Bible: Protestant Canon? That's surely what it is?
For the reason given by K. McGuire--the choices are confusing if you don't know all the books in the different sets of ranges. I too didn't know that any church considered Laodiceans to be canonical. Wouldn't all the choices confuse many users? Maybe Logos can offer people a choice of this type as part of the Logos setup, like Windows lets people select a language.
0 -
If I wish to set up my own verse range to search the OT according to the Catholic Canon, I know that the very first book is Genesis. Which is the last book of the OT: Catholic Canon according to Logos? Is it 2 Maccabees?0
-
The Catholic Canon is Ge-2Macc, Mt-Rv.
That includes
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther (the A-F sections from the LXX which are part of the Catholic Canon)
Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah (i.e. Baruch 6)
Song of Three Youths (part of Daniel 3)
Susanna (i.e. Daniel 13)
Bel and theDragon (i.e. Daniel 14)
First Maccabees
Second MaccabeesScott
0 -
Thanks Scott.
I set up a custom range Ge-2Macc, Mt-Rv and searched for "joakim" in the NJB.
I get all the hits from Judith but do not get the hits from Daniel 13
0 -
Same result for the system range "Bible and Apocrypha"
A search on All Passages in the NJB for Joakim produces this:
Note the lack of references for the verses from Daniel 13
0 -
That's interesting. It's returning Daniel 13 results for me with the latest dev build, so let me know if you're still having the problem with the next beta.
Scott
0 -
It's returning Daniel 13 results for me with the latest dev build, so let me know if you're still having the problem with the next beta.
It's just a matter of getting a rebuilt NJB sent out. This works fine on Beta 5 if you have the latest NJB.
0 -
OK. The rebuilt NJB must have been in the final download with the biblical people and things. I didn't download that one. Got all the other rebuilt bibles (I think).
0 -
current system has more than a bit of a American Protestant bias
Let's give credit where credit is due. It was really the British who pushed through the 66-book Bible. American Protestants merely inherited this trait.
The range "Apocrypha" says Tobit to Laodicians. I am not aware of any community which views Laodicians as canonical.
If 'Apocrypha' means 'stuff not in the canon', then isn't Laodiceans the ONE book we can all agree is Apocrypha?
(I have, BTW, seen a Russian Bible that included books like Tobit in the Old Testament, as you would expect, but had Laodiceans in another section called 'Apocrypha' - using the word in the sense of 'stuff in this Bible, but not in the Canon'.)0 -
Not being on the development team, these should be read as my thoughts, not as a spec for a future beta. Just looking to bounce the idea around.
One of the open questions here is: are we modeling Canons or modeling Bibles? Seems to me that when talking about search ranges, it'd be better if we modeled Bibles, since it is easy to just open a Bible and see the order and contents. What if you could save ranges like 'NJB:Joshua-2 Maccabees'? There is still a question about how those ranges behave when run against the whole Library. Would a range of 'VUL:1 Samuel-2 Chronicles' include a hit in the Greek addition at 1 Kings 12:24 (verses a-z) if run against the LXX, or would these verses be excluded because they have no VUL equivalent?Then perhaps whenever searching against all your Bibles, the default (unspecified) search ranges could respect your choice of preferred Bible, so you don't have to tell it every time, for example, if you mean to include Susanna in your Daniel searches. While when searching a single Bible, the default behavior would be to respect that Bible.
If the right metadata was created, the default search ranges could also respect your preferred Bible. So if you were in the NRSV, you'd have an 'Apocrypha' range, but in the NRSV Catholic Edition, you'd only have an Old Testament. And if a book contained an Apocrypha as a distinct section, we could have one of the search ranges read 'Old and New Testament' rather than calling that range 'Bible' (which would be modeling a canon, not a Bible).
This approach of modeling Bibles instead of Canons has the added benefit of not making labels like 'Protestant Bible' that don't apply to Anglicans or German speaking Lutherans, or having someone here in Bellingham decide if any given Greek Orthodox person considers 4 Maccabees as part of the 'Bible'.
0 -
One of the open questions here is: are we modeling Canons or modeling Bibles?
One issue here is that there are different editions of some Bibles - but many don't know this. The KJV originally included what most protestants consider apocryphal. So is it the KJV plus the KJV Protestant Edition? The same is true of the RSV and the NRSV (which were released with both editions from the start), though our Logos editions of the RSV/NRSV already include the 'apocrypha' (though, out of order, in it's table of contents) while the default KJV does not. So, if some conservative evangelical chooses the RSV as his preferred Bible, he may be shocked to find that it consistently returns hits from what he considers apocryphal.
I'm still thinking that choosing one's preferred canonical structure, as a user setting, is the best way to go here.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
One issue here is that there are different editions of some Bibles
Yes, there are different editions of each Bible, but only one edition will you YOUR preferred Bible. We have one KJV with the deutero-canonical materials and one or two without. (The only thing we don't have is a KJV with the deutero-canonicals in the original 1611 order.) So the range behavior would depend on which KJV you preferred or specified by abbreviation.
though, out of order, in it's table of contents
Unless you know something I don't, they are in the right order for those editions of the Bible. Which is part of my point - when specifying search ranges, the diverse orders that books can appear in really matters, doesn't it? A sort order is required to parse a range. 'Psalms-2 Chronicles' makes perfect sense in the BHS, but it gibberish in the ESV. These are Bible issues, not canon issues, which is why I'm kicking out the idea that modeling Bibles is better.
if some conservative evangelical chooses the RSV as his preferred Bible
Yes, I am presuming that all of our users are brilliant enough to know the contents of the Bible they are picking as their number one, preferred Bible. So if they don't want a range of 'Old Testament' to return hits in Tobit, they should pick 'NRSV' not 'NRSV Catholic Edition'. And as I said, in something like the RSV, I'm proposing a range of 'Old and New Testament' being one of the defaults, which - in that edition - would not include the deutero-canonicals since they have their own section in that Bible. Besides, in the real world, how many 'conservative evangelicals' are so contrary as to prefer the RSV as their favorite Bible AND be bothered by getting search hits in the Apocrypha?
0 -
current system has more than a bit of a American Protestant bias
Let's give credit where credit is due. It was really the British who pushed through the 66-book Bible. American Protestants merely inherited this trait.[
This is drifting off topic, but my understanding was that English Parliment actually required that the KJV versions sold include more than just the 66. While British Puritans admittedly wanted the 66 book bible, the law officially didn't allow it. However, there were publishers in Geneva and across the pond that didn't care what Parliment said and wanted to save money on paper and text setting and so marketed the 66 book version, sometimes even with a table of contents that included the Apocrypha even if the pages were not there.
But even with as much work as Logos has done reaching out to others, a quick look at their standard collections does show a bit of an American Evangelical Protestant bias. There are probably valid market reasons for this, but as someone from a tradition at the edge of this group (Lutheran) I have been quite glad that our Lutheran publishing houses have added quite a bit of our stuff to your system because we Lutherans have never really been comfortable with American Evangelicalism.
Ken McGuire
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
If the right metadata was created, the default search ranges could also respect your preferred Bible. So if you were in the NRSV, you'd have an 'Apocrypha' range, but in the NRSV Catholic Edition, you'd only have an Old Testament. And if a book contained an Apocrypha as a distinct section, we could have one of the search ranges read 'Old and New Testament' rather than calling that range 'Bible' (which would be modeling a canon, not a Bible).
The problems I see with this would be ancient language versions as well as potential nightmare of data structure issues for you at Logos.
As a side issue, as you know, sometimes there are minor differences between the NAMES of the books as well.
Also, it can be problematic to sometimes find the exact right "favorite" bible version. I remember a First Things editorial where Fr. Neuhaus was complaining about how it was litterally impossible to find a printed bible with the same text as was read in Mass. Evidently there are some revisions to the NAB that the Bishops made for the lectionary that haven't made it into the standard NAB. Damian I think has mentioned how it is actually the Jerusalem Bible, which is not available for Logos, is the standard version in worship for him.
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Damian I think has mentioned how it is actually the Jerusalem Bible, which is not available for Logos, is the standard version in worship for him.
That's right. Most of the English speaking Catholic world uses the Jerusalem Bible as the liturgical biblical text. It's a shame that this is no longer available in Logos. I have to use another program to copy these texts for orders of service, etc.
0 -
are we modeling Canons or modeling Bibles?
Currently, obviously, you're modelling Canons.
I would be very happy with your proposal that if I chose to search in "Old Testament" in my top 5 bibles, then I would receive hits in 1 and 2 Maccabees as they appear in the NJB and NAB.
I like the idea of respecting the particular bibles and their choices about what is OT, NT and Apocrypha.
This approach of modeling Bibles instead of Canons has the added benefit of not making labels like 'Protestant Bible' that don't apply to Anglicans or German speaking Lutherans
From my perspective, anything is better than the system telling me every time that "Bible" only equals Gen-Mal (excluding 1,2 Macc etc.)
0 -
Unless you know something I don't, they are in the right order for those editions of the Bible.
Does the NRSV "with Apocrypha" normally print the other books after the NT or between the Testaments? I was sure that they always came between Testaments.
The NRSV "Catholic Edition" places these works in the "traditional" Catholic order.... gets a bit confusing for me sometimes.
0 -
I was sure that they always came between Testaments.
Ah, I believe you are right. This is easily fixed.
0 -
Currently, obviously, you're modelling Canons.
Not really. (Though I appreciate why you'd think that since 'Bible' searches 66 books.) The basic LDLS 3 Bible data type was based on the NRSV with the following caveats: 1) Every reference had to be presented in a Book.Chapter.Verse format, where each of those variables could only be an integer, and 2) certain books that were in Rahtfs Septuagint or Weber's Vulgate, but not in the NTSV, were inserted between the NRSV Apocrypha and the NT. Then any sub-types created (such as Bible+VUL) had the same limitations regarding the use of integers AND had to respect the NRSV book boundaries (so no valid Esther 12, even in the Vulgate, and Baruch 6 had to be tagged as Letter of Jeremiah, etc.). In other words, the current default order of books, while similar to the NRSV, doesn't actually match any specific Bible exactly, nor does it line up with any particular canon.
The Logos 4 Bible data type doesn't have any of those limitations. We can use the book names and content boundaries appropriate to the resource you are in (You can see this now in the beta, just look at the book names used in the Vulgate or the LXX), use letters (or even words, like 'Prologue', as chapters, verses that are numbers, letters, or a combination (or again, specal verses like the 'title' of certain Psalms) and we support as many books as needed (so 'Enoch' can be in the Bible data type if we ever do Swete's LXX or the Ethiopian Bible. Actually, it already is.).
I appreciate that I'm hi-jacking a thread that was really about people not liking the 'Bible' and 'Apocrypha' labels and making it about a bigger picture, namely 'how do I specify ranges that work/make sense/are intuitive?' If searching the BHS, a range like 'Psalms-2 Chronicles' makes a lot of sense, while searching against the ESV, that would be gibberish, since 2 Chronicles comes before Psalms in that Bible. And yet, modeling canons is not necessarily the answer, since even if I pick 'Jewish Canon', there is not actually agreement across all Jewish Bibles on whether 2 Chronicles should be at the end of the Bible (like in the BHS) or before the Psalms (like in the Leningrad Codex). Modeling canons makes an abstraction layer not unlike the current situation where it isn't easy to find out how to specify ranges properly all the time.
0 -
The problems I see with this would be ancient language versions as well as potential nightmare of data structure issues for you at Logos.
Logos 4 does a great job of modeling both ancient and modern versions. We have a very flexible Bible data type system now. Just today, we started a new data type for the Russian Synodal Bible that will properly treat the Prayer of Manasseh as 2 Chronicles 37, and yet sync and scroll and 'passage in all versions' with other Bibles that have the Prayer of Manasseh as a separate book, or even editions of the LXX that include it as one of the Odes.
Yes, the amount of data required to solve all these problems was 'nightmarish', but we've already done it.
As a side issue, as you know, sometimes there are minor differences between the NAMES of the books as well.
Yes, but this is no longer a limitation. Indeed, part of what I'm proposing is that you should be able to use the proper names for your search ranges that are appropriate for the Bible you are in. No more having to type '2 Esdras' when you mean '4 Ezra'. No more typing 'Song of Three Youths' when you mean 'Daniel 3'. Our data type system supports all that, so to me the logical thing to do is find the right behavior so that you can use all that smarts in your custom search ranges as well.
Also, it can be problematic to sometimes find the exact right "favorite" bible version.
It is true that we can only search the Bibles that you have in your library. I don't see a work around for that.
0 -
Not really. (Though I appreciate why you'd think that since 'Bible' searches 66 books.)
Well, I was make a reference to the modelling done in the system defined search ranges not to the underlying data structures.
I appreciate that I'm hi-jacking a thread that was really about people not liking the 'Bible' and 'Apocrypha' labels
I started the thread and I don't feel as if you're hijacking it.
But, if I may add, it was never about be "not liking" the labels. They are simply inaccurate from a certain perspective. There is no "Apocrypha" in the NJB or NAB or Vulgate or LXX.
The question of ranges and of order of books is one that I had to ask myself. In the NJB, the last book is Malachi not 2Macc. Yet, I have to specify Gen-2Macc to search on the OT in the NJB. I would rather just be able to select OT and search on all the passages in the NJB's OT - which is what you are suggesting, if I'm rading you correctly.
0 -
-
If the right metadata was created, the default search ranges could also respect your preferred Bible. So if you were in the NRSV, you'd have an 'Apocrypha' range, but in the NRSV Catholic Edition, you'd only have an Old Testament. And if a book contained an Apocrypha as a distinct section, we could have one of the search ranges read 'Old and New Testament' rather than calling that range 'Bible' (which would be modeling a canon, not a Bible).
This approach of modeling Bibles instead of Canons has the added benefit of not making labels like 'Protestant Bible' that don't apply to Anglicans or German speaking Lutherans, or having someone here in Bellingham decide if any given Greek Orthodox person considers 4 Maccabees as part of the 'Bible'.
OK - let's model a Bible chooser based on my Preferred ESV.
This is what I want but note:-
- the Apocrypha is implied by Vincent's model and I trust the reference range will work in all bibles!
- the Bible and Apocrypha passage range is contrived even if it works in NRSV. Prefer to see (Gen-Rev, Tobit-Laodiceans)**
- an Old and New Testament passage range would not include the Apocrypha!
- all custom ranges would show the passage names, unlike Paul's Letters
** this works in Beta5 searches, but Gen-Rev includes Tobit-Laodiceans which is not true for the ESV! In other words, if you model bibles you can't have a passage range that suggests books that are not there!
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Also, it can be problematic to sometimes find the exact right "favorite" bible version.
It is true that we can only search the Bibles that you have in your library. I don't see a work around for that.
Personally, I'm served very well. As a Lutheran in the USA, if I walk into an ELCA congregation, it will be NRSV. If I walk into LCMS it will be ESV or NIV. Technically, I am in some smaller body, but you cover the choices well. The version read if Church is also available for study and is quite available.
However, for Roman Catholics it is different. The Brits and Aussies use the Jerusalem Bible, not available for Logos.
In the USA I think their situation is a bit like it was for me in the 1980's when the readings in church were from a modification of the RSV called "Lectionary for the Christian People" which was not available in a normal Bible format. Listen to the lively stylings of the Late Fr. Neuhaus complain about their Bible situation in the Feb 2007 issue of First Things.
• There are many reasons why one might wish to live in the Bahamas, Jamaica, or the Leeward Islands. Catholics have an additional reason. These are places where they can, in the Mass and other liturgical settings, hear the Scriptures read in a translation that is both accurate and of literary excellence. The Episcopal Conference of the Antilles has approved, with the full support of Rome, the two-volume lectionary containing the second Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version (RSV). The volumes are handsomely produced by Ignatius Press, as is the full RSV, giving to the faithful there a complete Bible that is in accord with the texts read in liturgy. The lectionary in use in this country employs the unfortunate New American Bible (NAB), which is frequently different from the separately published complete NAB. The Antilles lectionary and Bible is also in entire accord with the 2001 Vatican instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam. As it happens, the RSV translation is approved also by the U.S. bishops conference (USCCB)—but not for liturgical use. The bishops here hold the copyright to the regrettable NAB and make a great deal of money by charging for its use in liturgical publications. The National Council of Churches, which holds the copyright to the RSV, believing that the Christian people are deserving of a worthy translation of the word of God, generously allows its reproduction. It is expected that in the next few years the English-speaking world will have a new sacramentary, the book that contains the liturgical texts. But it seems that budget considerations at the USCCB dictate that we will still be burdened with the Scripture readings from the deeply embarrassing NAB. The American bishops could readily remedy this scandal by simply joining their Caribbean confreres in approving the RSV lectionary for liturgical use. I know the USCCB is hard up for funds, and there were further cutbacks this year, but surely the translation of the Bible that is heard and studied by the Catholic faithful should be a matter of some priority for men who are, after all, bishops before they are bookkeepers. They could approve the RSV lectionary while still allowing the use of the NAB in parishes that, for whatever elusive reason, might prefer it. No doubt there are those for whom embarrassing banalities and near-comical solecisms have a certain charm. But for those to whom accuracy joined to literary grace matters, it should not be necessary to move to the Bahamas.I will certainly admit that we can't expect you to get their act together, but for quite a few Christians, it is problematic to really pick a "favorite" bible.
Ken
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0
