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)

Find more posts tagged with

Features

Comments

Dave Hooton

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?

Rich DeRuiter

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).

Damian McGrath

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...

Damian McGrath

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).

Dave Hooton

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"!

Ken McGuire

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

Clark Bradley

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.

Damian McGrath

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?

Vincent Setterholm

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'.)

Vincent Setterholm

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'.

Rich DeRuiter

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.

Ken McGuire

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

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.

Damian McGrath

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.)