What qualifies a resource to be tagged as an "ancient manuscript"?

Check out my ancient manuscript type resources:

The Ancient Manuscript type is applied inconsistently. The translations of the Koran and the Nag Hammadi Library are tagged Ancient Manuscript. However, the translated versions of Josephus, Philo, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Iliad are tagged Monograph, but their original language versions are Ancient Manuscript.

I'd rather all the translations of Ancient Manuscripts be tagged as something other than Monograph. Perhaps a new type is needed: Translated Ancient Manuscripts. For now, I'd rather have all the translations to be type Ancient Manuscript, instead of thrown in the default Monograph melting pot. This would be similar to the Bible type, that has both original language texts and all translations as the same type.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kevin Becker

I agree that this is rather inconsistent. I have often wished that it would be different but I'm not certain what would be the ideal solution for this...

MJ. Smith

I'd rather all the translations of Ancient Manuscripts be tagged as something other than Monograph. Perhaps a new type is needed: Translated Ancient Manuscripts. For now, I'd rather have all the translations to be type Ancient Manuscript, instead of thrown in the default Monograph melting pot. This would be similar to the Bible type, that has both original language texts and all translations as the same type.

I see your point and understand what it would be nice to have them separated from other monographs but to me a manuscript implies "original language". If translations were intermingled, I'd be making a suggestion that they not be.[:)] Your idea of a new data type for them would be a viable option from my perspective. But as a first step can we have the data corrected to omit the English translations?

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213022#Comment_213022

I agree the inconsistency would be alleviated by calling them all Ancient Manuscripts - it is better than the way it is now, and it solves the problem consistent with how Bibles are handled. Unless all Ancient Manuscripts are original languages ONLY, your suggestion here makes sense.

They sure aren't Monographs, by the pure definition of the term. And there is no consistency today the way it is now.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213022#Comment_213022

I'd rather all the translations of Ancient Manuscripts be tagged as something other than Monograph. Perhaps a new type is needed: Translated Ancient Manuscripts. For now, I'd rather have all the translations to be type Ancient Manuscript, instead of thrown in the default Monograph melting pot. This would be similar to the Bible type, that has both original language texts and all translations as the same type.

I see your point and understand what it would be nice to have them separated from other monographs but to me a manuscript implies "original language". If translations were intermingled, I'd be making a suggestion that they not be. Your idea of a new data type for them would be a viable option from my perspective. But as a first step can we have the data corrected to omit the English translations?

Maybe the type should be renamed to Ancient Texts to allow the translations to be included. I can't think of a use for the Ancient Manuscript type as it is right now other than visual organization in the library (to aid in finding resources), which is it failing at because of the inconsistencies. Any other use (like building a collection for searching) would also need to specify the Language type which would automatically filter out the translations. If the type only included original language texts, you would still need to use the Language type to limit it to a target language.

Personally I would like both the manuscripts and their translations in the same "section" in my library.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213028#Comment_213028

but to me a manuscript implies "original language".

Exactly the point - that's not consistently applied today. Translations are in that category now.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213028#Comment_213028

Any other use (like building a collection for searching) would also need to specify the Language type which would automatically filter out the translations.

This is true for English speakers but may not be universally true. What you want is for non-biblical texts to follow the same pattern as Bibles - the ancient manuscripts are mixed with their translations. Your suggestion makes my collection definitions a bit more complex; mine makes your a bit more complex. Like I said, I understand your point but it is not my preference. Yours does have the advantage of being closer to standard library catalogues if I recall correctly and that may be a trumping argument.

fgh

Corrections addressed by Logos

(...)

From “Proposals for consistency”

• Ancient manuscripts: Ancient texts translated into English are best tagged as type:ancient manuscript; lang:English

“Ancient manuscript” is reserved for transcriptions of ancient manuscripts. Modern translations don’t fall into this category.

It seems from the screenshot that this is far less addressed than Logos claims... I hate inconsistency! Even a tagging I don't agree with is better than inconsistency!

Personally, I would prefer, either having them all under Ancient Texts, or else having one category for Ancient Manuscripts (or Texts), and one for Ancient Manuscripts (or Texts) in Translation. I don't want them in Monographs! That category is far too wide as it is. And I would also prefer if all books that are essentially collections of ancient letters, inscriptions, or texts of some kind were moved into one of these categories as well. It would make making background collections much easier.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213063#Comment_213063

And I would also prefer if all books that are essentially collections of ancient letters, inscriptions, or texts of some kind were moved into one of these categories as well. It would make making background collections much easier.

I agree--I forgot about those (hence the problem) :

Amarna Letters, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C, and The Context of Scripture

They're all type Monograph.

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213022#Comment_213022

to me a manuscript implies "original language".

To me a manuscript implies something written by hand - it may in fact be a translation as many of the ancient manuscripts in various languages are.

I wish that they'd get rid of the term all together (and then apply new terms consistently)

David Bailey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213019#Comment_213019

I agree that this is rather inconsistent. I have often wished that it would be different but I'm not certain what would be the ideal solution for this...

I think the ideal solution would be: let the user customize how resources are tagged, with the option to go back to default settings.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213225#Comment_213225

to me a manuscript implies "original language".

To me a manuscript implies something written by hand

If a manuscript implies "original language", does that mean the LXX can never be a manuscript?

If a manuscript implies "written by hand", does that mean that the typed book a writer sent to his publisher not so long ago wasn't a manuscript?

I wish that they'd get rid of the term all together

I'm beginning to agree with you.

(and then apply new terms consistently)

Definitely agree with that one!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213335#Comment_213335

Latin manū, ablative of manus, hand + Latin scrīptus, past participle of scrībere, to write.

Damian's Latin takes the prize[:D] and the rest of us can commit the fallacy of etymology.[6]