Removing the apocrypha...

Hi all, I want to get rid of references to the apocrypha. When I do searches it always seems to pop up. While I could probably come up with some fancy search terms to exclude it, it seems like Logos is bent in a direction that puts the apocrypha on a level that's equal to the rest of the bible. To me, it definitely isn't. Ages ago a guy asked about this and someone from Logos said they had no idea what would happen in regards to it.

Can anyone comment on this?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

PetahChristian

I'm not sure what you're trying to eliminate.

If you don't want a bible reference to the apocrypha to return a verse, then you'd have to hide bibles which contain apocryphal books.

If you don't want to see any search results from books which reference an apocryphal book, you'd have to find those books and hide them.

If you're referring to something else, you'd have give a specific search example, and point out what you don't want to show up.

it seems like Logos is bent in a direction that puts the apocrypha on a level that's equal to the rest of the bible. To me, it definitely isn't.

FL appropriately doesn't cater to one particular set of beliefs, however this forum wouldn't be the right place to debate views about beliefs or denominations, per the forum guidelines.

Sean

If you're referring to Bible search results, you shouldn't get hits from the Apocrypha unless you're searching a version that includes it.

If you're wanting to search a version that does have it, like the NRSV, make sure you select the range "Old and New Testament" instead of entire Bible.

Not sure what you might be needing beyond that.

Andrew Biddinger

Can anyone comment on this?

This has always been weird to me as well. I understand that if you search just one Bible it won't show apocryphal results as long as the Bible(s) you search don't have those included (in the Verses section). But, no matter how you set your filters (even Gen-Rev) it will show apocryphal results in the Fuzzy Bible section. This is a weird in functionality and weird that Logos (not Verbum) would not default just to the 66 book canon of Gen-Rev in both.

Sascha Andreas John

Hey Joel

OK first for understanding. You do a search and don't want apocrypha within the Search? Or you wanna get rit of all apocrypha in your Libary?

1) simple search in a Bible without apocrypha

2) Do a search just in OT/NT

3) create a Collection where you exclude the Apocrypha

if you wanna get rid of all Apocrypha simple delete them

There is one Point to think About. The Apocrypha are in the Septuaginta and this is the BIble of the First Christians and the Church Fathers….dont'care About Church Fathers? You should they created what you believe ;-) So if you wanna get rid of Apocrypha you also get rid of them.

Hope this helps you

Joel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051422#Comment_1051422

Thanks all for the replies...

Andrew, that's exactly what I found. As someone who would prefer to have the apocryphal works as a "once in a blue moon" reference, having them pop up all the time by default is quite frustrating, especially considering how otherwise helpful the fuzzy search is.

Sascha Andreas John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051423#Comment_1051423

Andrew are you shure your Translation has no Apokrypha ...if I run your search I don't get Apokrypha

Sascha Andreas John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051426#Comment_1051426

even if I search all Bibles...seems I have to include them first

Joel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051428#Comment_1051428

Sascha Andreas John, I want to search the bible and not have the apocrypha scriptures show up. As Andrew pointed out, this isn't as easy as clicking OT or NT. Creating collections and whatnot just to do a basic bible search is a huge waste of time.

To be honest Sascha Andreas John, I don't especially care what the early church fathers used. The apocryphal works are interesting as reference, but that's all they are to me. For a basic bible search there's no search option for 'exclude apocrypha', and from what I've seen the fuzzy search always includes them.

Sascha Andreas John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051429#Comment_1051429

I agree after testing with another Phrase...this should not happen.

How About the inline search...as I understand you just use one Bible anyway?

Joel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051430#Comment_1051430

Thanks for testing...

I use a few bibles. I guess I could use inline, or a bible without the apocrypha. Those are definitely workarounds. That said, how do we get this thing looked into by the Logos team? If this is a challenging thing to do on the desktop, I assume it's impossible to do on mobile.

Andrew Biddinger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051428#Comment_1051428

even if I search all Bibles...seems I have to include them first

Right, so what I am referring to (looking at your screenshot) is the "Unscharfe Suche" section which only works if you are connected to internet. You can see that in my screenshot, the "Fuzzy Search" has apocryphal results even though I was filtering them out. Which, I do like to search those books. But, it's just weird that it is by default in Faithlife's Protestant version of their products.

Sascha Andreas John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051432#Comment_1051432

thanks andrew

Andrew Biddinger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051433#Comment_1051433

thanks andrew

[Y][Y]

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051432#Comment_1051432

the "Fuzzy Search" has apocryphal results even though I was filtering them out

Since the Fuzzy Bible Search is run on Logos servers, it searches their collection of all bibles (even ones we don't own), some of which happen to include apocrypha.

Filtering isn't performed on fuzzy results, since the client search range is not supplied to the remote fuzzy search.

I don't know if anyone has suggested that improvement or not, or whether it would be easy for FL to implement.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051449#Comment_1051449

I don't know if anyone has suggested that improvement or not, or whether it would be easy for FL to implement.

It has been raised - https://community.logos.com/forums/p/148370/922009.aspx#922009 - but no commitment as to when / if it will be done last I saw.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051459#Comment_1051459

Thanks, Graham!

Joel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051460#Comment_1051460

That's the link I was referring to at the start of the thread. It sounds like it's sitting at the very bottom of the, "who knows what will happen with these ideas" list, if it's even on there.

It can't be that difficult a thing to implement. A request doesn't need to be sent to the server - the returned results can be filtered on the client's computer, according to the settings.

Robert M. Warren

In the recesses of my frequently faulty memory, there's recollection of a Program Setting in Logos to filter out the Apocrypha. It would have been in the earlyish days of my use, probably L4, but maybe L3. I never used the filter (irrespective of my theological view), and I don't remember when it fell away.

Anyone else remember this?

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051470#Comment_1051470

a Program Setting in Logos to filter out the Apocrypha.

I also recall a toggle in the program settings between a shorter canon (66 books) and a fuller canon (since there are various traditions of deutero-canonical books). I seem to recall that Logos used to default to a 66 book canon in searches, where Verbum defaults to a larger canon. Does one's default (highest prioritized) Bible translation do this? I would value an MVP's clarification.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051423#Comment_1051423

The Apocrypha are in the Septuaginta and this is the BIble of the First Christians and the Church Fathers….dont'care About Church Fathers? You should they created what you believe ;-)

Now, now. We don't actually know what the Antiochians were using, though James appears to be using a superset of the hebrew OT. And one has to guess about early LXX content. Yes, later LXXs had the apocrypha, and then some.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051422#Comment_1051422

Logos (not Verbum) would not default just to the 66 book canon

The division is not Catholic/non-Catholic so a Verbum/Logos distinction would be inaccurate. See https://ref.ly/logosres/interactive:canon-comparison?pos=index.html%23!%2flist%2fbooks or The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes by Edward A. Engelbrecht However, in many cases, the canon of your highest priority Bible rules so I try to have a Bible with an ecumenical canon as my highest priority e.g. NRSV.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051429#Comment_1051429

For a basic bible search there's no search option for 'exclude apocrypha', and from what I've seen the fuzzy search always includes them.

FALSE. You exclude them by use of the Bible range parameter as Sean illustrated above. However, the Fuzzy Bible Search has a bug that causes it to ignore the range parameter. BUG: Fuzzy Search ignores reference range setting What Bible are you using as your highest priority Bible? IIRC that determines the canon in some contexts.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051470#Comment_1051470

In the recesses of my frequently faulty memory, there's recollection of a Program Setting in Logos to filter out the Apocrypha

There should be a corresponding brouhaha memory that caused Logos to remove the option as too controversial. The thread is locked.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051504#Comment_1051504

Now, now. We don't actually know what the Antiochians were using, though James appears to be using a superset of the hebrew OT.

No evidence whether oral or LXX or . . . but https://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanonical-books-new-testament/ sheds some light on your comment.

Andrew Biddinger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051511#Comment_1051511

The division is not Catholic/non-Catholic so a Verbum/Logos distinction would be inaccurate. See https://ref.ly/logosres/interactive:canon-comparison?pos=index.html%23!%2flist%2fbooks

That is a helpful chart showing the differences in canons in the religions and denominations today. Thanks. In regards to this thread, it would be nice if this could be set by default to one's corresponding tradition. I don't know what FL's official plans are for their software. My statement was was on what I see advertised by the two versions. Verbum is obviously advertised as the Catholic Bible software. Logos (from what I've seen in advertising) focuses on Protestant audiences.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051516#Comment_1051516

Now, now. We don't actually know what the Antiochians were using, though James appears to be using a superset of the hebrew OT.

No evidence whether oral or LXX or . . . but https://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanonical-books-new-testament/ sheds some light on your comment.

First, no intent to offend.

Second, it's really hard to figure out who was using what (DSS use of parts of the apocrypha is truly bizarre), and I agree that your reference (from well after the first Christians) reflects a loosey-goosey authoritative source list (much of the greek LXX parallels appear to have a third source).

But third, the early Christians don't seem to really care where things came from. My favorite remains with Clement (Rome). Why bother with the Old Testament, quotes from Jesus, or swirling Pauline logic. The best explanation for resurrection is the Thunderbirds! Phoenix Arizona!

And finally fourth, I don't understand 'protestants don't use the apocrypha' (forum discussions). Where'd that come from? I'd think protestant usage is fairly common knowledge.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051522#Comment_1051522

First, no intent to offend.

None taken. None presumed [8-|]

And finally fourth, I don't understand 'protestants' don't use the apocrypha. Where'd that come from?

The usual, "they ain't us so I can be sloppy in my descriptions" garbage that is terrible hard to avoid.

But third, the early Christians don't seem to really care where things came from.

My favorite lesson on this subject was a joint seminar in which a Buddhist text was offered in Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese and, where practical, Mongolia, Korean, Sanskrit. The participants had to be comfortable in at least two of the languages. Those who were most comfortable in Sanskrit would argue morphology and syntax; those who were most comfortable in Chinese would argue the linage of those who translated the text into Chinese. We were used to popular "author" names being used for centuries with no indication who the actual author was.

Andrew Biddinger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051526#Comment_1051526

And finally fourth, I don't understand 'protestants' don't use the apocrypha. Where'd that come from?

The usual, "they ain't us so I can be sloppy in my descriptions" garbage that is terrible hard to avoid.

I might not totally understand who/what you are referring to in the thread. But, my intent was not to classify anyone that doesn't believe what I believe with any description and pretend to know what they believe. My intent was to comment on the topic of this thread which was on being able to do a Bible search without what Protestants call the Apocrypha. Because we (I speak in general terms not pretending to know what all Protestants believe about the canon, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Bible) don't believe the Apocrypha is what we call "The Bible." I hope that clears up my intent.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051603#Comment_1051603

I might not totally understand who/what you are referring to in the thread.

I can't speak for MJ, but I clarified while she was replying to me.

The issue goes back, and from what I can see:

- Logos tended to see a 66 book Bible, in their various designs, leaving out various protestants, as well as most of Catholics. MJ's spent quite a bit of effort trying to get their designers to recognize the customer variations

- When Logos cuts corners, it can impact both ways. In this thread, apparently the design (fuzzy) favored the larger canon, to those using the 66 canon. The OP was justified in asking why.

- Many users, on FL intro'ing Verbum, viewed Logos as the 'evangelical' version, forgetting there were more protestants that use the larger set of books, as well as variations of non-Protestant.

- Logos tries to avoid options, and only from nails on a chalkboard, will entertain the obvious: there's multiple user groups, and it matters to them.

Andrew Biddinger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051624#Comment_1051624

there's multiple user groups, and it matters to them.

Agreed. I can see how this would be a sensitive issue for her, hearing a bit of background. Thanks for replying.

Joel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051626#Comment_1051626

MJ. Smith, have you been playing too much Phoenix Wright lately or what? I see you like to lead with some hard hitting all-caps!

As mentioned, I’m just a guy who doesn’t want to see the apocryphal works (or whatever you want to call them) in a fuzzy search by default. It doesn’t matter why, beyond understanding there are many people like me out there. Whether this is a bug or design fault doesn’t matter either. It shouldn’t be a difficult thing to adjust.

Logos devs, can you guys please tweak things so this is as easy as it probably should be? That goes for mobile as well as desktop. Thanks muchly.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051629#Comment_1051629

Hi Joel

That goes for mobile as well as desktop

I just wanted to understand this a bit better.

Fuzzy search - which I think is what is being focussed on here - isn't currently supported on mobile so I'm interested where you are seeing this.

I know if you select all Bibles you do get results from the apocrypha (assuming you have Bibles that include those books) but that's a different topic.

Are you able to advise please?

Liam Maguire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051629#Comment_1051629

I'm a Protestant who does not see the Apocryphal books as canon, however, personally, I don't mind seeing them in searches. Many of these intertestamental books (which is what they are IIRC) are important regardless of whether they are inspired or not. They show how ideas develop after the end of the OT canon and help form the 'background radiation' to much of the New Testament (along with Philo, the Pseudepigrapha, etc.). I mean, several NT texts make direct references and allusions to works that ended up in the Apocrapha so one has to do something with it/them.

Long story short, I like to think about it as getting a bonus background search thrown in for free! Sorry, a bit off topic but I hope it will help the stimulating conversation around the OP question. :-)

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051639#Comment_1051639

As a Catholic, I'd like to be able to limit Fuzzy Search results according to whatever reference range I feel like and to change that range whenever I want.

I think the canon issue is a red herring in this thread: I think that the real trouble is the relevant BUG, already mentioned above.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051664#Comment_1051664

[Y]

Liam Maguire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051664#Comment_1051664

I think the canon issue is a red herring in this thread: I think that the real trouble is the relevant BUG, already mentioned above.

On reflection, yeah that's fair. Thanks for the gentle reminder to stay on topic and to direct replies at the issue at hand. Blessings.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051526#Comment_1051526

Just for clarity as I have been somewhat misunderstood:

My objection was the use of "Protestant" to define the shorter canon as there are Protestants (Anglican, Lutheran, ...) who acknowledge the broader canon and it is mainline Protestants who fuel the ecumenical canon market.
My comment re:sloppiness was specifically with regards to not acknowledging that there is variation within the Protestants ... which is typical of seeing things e.g. Logos/Verbum as a Catholic/Protestant when few if any things fit nicely into the division. And it usually is thinking only of English speaking Europeans and North Americans.
I agree wholeheartedly that the Fuzzy Search should respect the range option which is why I've called it a bug. I suspect the designers thought that if you barely remembered the words, you certainly wouldn't remember where it was from.

P.S. I'd actually like to see an even broader canon supported as canonical so I could read books from any tradition with equal ease. And, I would like to be able to use a narrower New Testament for the same reason.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051629#Comment_1051629

MJ. Smith, have you been playing too much Phoenix Wright lately or what? I see you like to lead with some hard hitting all-caps!

Had to Google that one - haven't heard of it from my video game playing grandsons and my only great-grandchild is still too young to be interested. [:D]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051472#Comment_1051472

I seem to recall that Logos used to default to a 66 book canon in searches, where Verbum defaults to a larger canon. Does one's default (highest prioritized) Bible translation do this?

Passage ranges (COMMON DIVISIONS under All Passages) reflect the bible being searched. In Logos, the OT Division for English bibles tends to reflect a shorter Protestant canon (Gen-Mal); so the Apocrypha is excluded from KJV/NRSV. But the OT division for Douay-Rheims includes Apocrypha (Gen- 2 Macc). This seems to be independent of preferred bible (D-R vs. ESV). The Divisions in Verbum might reflect a larger canon.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051425#Comment_1051425

As someone who would prefer to have the apocryphal works as a "once in a blue moon" reference, having them pop up all the time by default is quite frustrating, especially considering how otherwise helpful the fuzzy search is.

Fuzzy Bible Search results should respect the passage range you specify.

From my previous post, though, you have to be careful about the passage range and bible(s) that you select. In particular, avoid Entire Bible and All Passages in bibles like AV1873, NRSV - use Old and New Testament instead.

Joel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051727#Comment_1051727

I had a try at that Dave... hence being confused by the bug. Hopefully someone from Logos swings by this thread and mentions if this issue is on their radar or not...

MJ. Smith - haha, it was a bit of a gaming reference. In the game, the lawyers yell things like ‘objection!’ all the time... and all-caps are often seen as yelling on the internet