Denominational sorting in Passage Guide: No Jewish?

I note that the Jewish Study Bible (JPS), and JPS Torah Commentary series, the Commentator's Bible (JPS), JPS Rashi, etc. have no denominational tagging. They're clearly Jewish, but they all go into the "--" unsorted grouping.

Can we fix that? Are there objections somehow?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Simon’s Brother

I would give the benefit of doubt on this one and say tagging is incomplete. Surely it is not being said Jewish is not a denomination.

But agree these should be in a group.

I note that the Jewish Study Bible (JPS), and JPS Torah Commentary series, the Commentator's Bible (JPS), JPS Rashi, etc. have no denominational tagging. They're clearly Jewish, but they all go into the "--" unsorted grouping.

Can we fix that? Are there objections somehow?

mab

Judaism isn't really a denomination from a Christian perspective. We might shoehorn these into Messianic Judaism although there is a considerable divergence as to what exactly constitutes the theological perspective for that. And Judaism itself is so very diverse.

As someone born Jewish and having been through more than through multiple Christian denominations and am now content to simply call myself a Messianic Jew, I don't have problem sticking a tag on these, but I wonder what that would be. One of the things I most admire about good Jewish bible scholarship is that it doesn't usually seek to push some denomination at all!

Sean Boisen

I note that the Jewish Study Bible (JPS), and JPS Torah Commentary series, the Commentator's Bible (JPS), JPS Rashi, etc. have no denominational tagging. They're clearly Jewish, but they all go into the "--" unsorted grouping.

Can we fix that? Are there objections somehow?

We've left these in the category of belief systems that could also be usefully grouped, but aren't actually denominations per se.

You can vote for adding this capability to the Passage Guide here: https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-data-sets/posts/899

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131239#Comment_1131239

Surely it is not being said Jewish is not a denomination.

Judaism is a religion, not a denomination of a religion.

I note that the Jewish Study Bible (JPS), and JPS Torah Commentary series, the Commentator's Bible (JPS), JPS Rashi, etc. have no denominational tagging. They're clearly Jewish, but they all go into the "--" unsorted grouping.

Can we fix that? Are there objections somehow?

The majority of commentaries don't have denominational tagging yet.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131262#Comment_1131262

Surely it is not being said Jewish is not a denomination.

Judaism is a religion, not a denomination of a religion.

I note that the Jewish Study Bible (JPS), and JPS Torah Commentary series, the Commentator's Bible (JPS), JPS Rashi, etc. have no denominational tagging. They're clearly Jewish, but they all go into the "--" unsorted grouping.

Can we fix that? Are there objections somehow?

The majority of commentaries don't have denominational tagging yet.

i am fully aware it is a belief system. My point was it should not be ignored because it does not neatly fit into a denomination. I was not saying it was a denomination.

But the major belief systems overarch denominations and if there is no specific denomination per then ignoring Judaism is poor form from FL. This is casting aside a race, ethnic grouping, belief system or whatever other technical terminology you because it doesn’t fit neatly into the classification system of the dominant culture. This is not what users want from the software as a whole and is not in line with the policy of the company to treat all with respect.

The passage guide is pointless with belief systems ignored and it is back to users creating their own tagging and commentary collections if you want to support FL playing hardball and ignoring them all together. My point was I don’t agree with this approach and this so called advancement if the passage is a complete waste if time, FL as per usual have ignored what users wanted and given them something they want to do instead of taking on board user requirements. they would have been better served tagging more resources for the counselling guide than dishing up what they have.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131278#Comment_1131278

"My point was it should not be ignored because it does not neatly fit into a denomination."

Exactly. I care more about seeing my Jewish resources than I do distinguishing between, say, Baptist and Presbyterian. And I also don't care about particularities between "denomination" vs. "religious tradition." This is just another way Logos misses an entire subgroup and emphasizes its Christian orientation and branding.Why should a scholarly Jew (which I am not, to be clear) pick up Logos over Accordance with that kind of second-class treatment? Jewish resources get lumped in with "Other"? Come on.

Moreover, no one's going to dispute that publications from the Jewish Publication Society could reasonably be classified under... Jewish. If the day comes that we need to distinguish between Haredi, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform commentaries/resources, well, that'll be a good day for Logos users AND the company.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131261#Comment_1131261

Sean we should not have to vote on somethng that:

we have already asked for many times in the past and FL have chose to ignore this customer requirement of this feature

-> FL should have note customer requirements instead of building something different.

that reeks of dominant culture saying to a group you do not fit in with what we value so you don't have a place

-> this needs no explanation it is simply not an acceptabe attitude from FL and leaves a very bad taste in the mouth about the company and Logos 9 that they would think it is acceptable to ignore a people grouping, culture, belief sytem etc because it doesn't fit neatly into the dominant cultures accepted classification system.

More often than not I will defend the work you do and the importance of it and because of how important it is, how significant it is. The fact you as a fl representative are taking a hardline apporach to this that I am left with no choice but to push back with a hardline rebuttlal of FL's position and attitude on this topic.

Bob Pritchett you need to fix this sooner rather than later.

I note that the Jewish Study Bible (JPS), and JPS Torah Commentary series, the Commentator's Bible (JPS), JPS Rashi, etc. have no denominational tagging. They're clearly Jewish, but they all go into the "--" unsorted grouping.

Can we fix that? Are there objections somehow?

We've left these in the category of belief systems that could also be usefully grouped, but aren't actually denominations per se.

You can vote for adding this capability to the Passage Guide here: https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-data-sets/posts/899

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131286#Comment_1131286

Yeah, I don't care about that vote so much. It just further treats Judaism like some kind of afterthought, or a minor minor theological subdivision of the interpretive tradition, instead of something that's been going on since before New Testament times.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131278#Comment_1131278

My point was it should not be ignored because it does not neatly fit into a denomination. I was not saying it was a denomination.

And my point was that it is not a denomination. I was not saying that it should be ignored.

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131286#Comment_1131286

The fact you as a fl representative are taking a hardline apporach to this that I am left with no choice but to push back with a hardline rebuttlal of FL's position and attitude on this topic.

I'm not sure what you see as a hardline approach. I was just trying to describe the current situation:

we haven't included theological positions for grouping commentaries in Passage Guide
that will require additional work that we have to prioritize
you can express your own priorities through the feedback site

I have no objection to categorizing commentaries in a variety of ways, including theological positions: it's simply that everything takes work.

DMB

Can we fix that? Are there objections somehow?

Good luck on that ... how to execute.

I was getting rid of my Targums (hardcopy). I thought my jewish friends next door might enjoy them ... fun to read. Or someone at the synogogue, I've visited a few times. Then, I remembered the 'commentary' was Christian-oriented ... I didn't want to offend them. So, the volumes are in a box ready for collector.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131292#Comment_1131292

I know you weren’t. Forums not always the best medium for fully understanding one another.

My point was it should not be ignored because it does not neatly fit into a denomination. I was not saying it was a denomination.

And my point was that it is not a denomination. I was not saying that it should be ignored.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131293#Comment_1131293

The fact you as a fl representative are taking a hardline apporach to this that I am left with no choice but to push back with a hardline rebuttlal of FL's position and attitude on this topic.

I'm not sure what you see as a hardline approach. I was just trying to describe the current situation:

we haven't included theological positions for grouping commentaries in Passage Guide

that will require additional work that we have to prioritize

you can express your own priorities through the feedback site

I have no objection to categorizing commentaries in a variety of ways, including theological positions: it's simply that everything takes work.

The hardline approach is you have excluded the Jewish belief system because it doesn‘t fit into the dominant cultures belief classification system this making this belief system second class instead of adapting the classification system to include groupings for Jewish commentaries or any other valid grouping that goes not quite fit the system. if you had done so you would not only habe met user requirements but shown respect to people who identify with those groupings instead of throwing them into the bin that says you don’t belong. Sean it is really sad if you are so caught up in adherence to the classification system yo could not see the dominant culture attitude at play here. FL needs to be above that and it can be if It chooses to do so.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131293#Comment_1131293

we haven't included theological positions for grouping commentaries in Passage Guide

I'd expect theological positions might be about views on eschatology (pre, mid, post, ...) or baptism.

Are you suggesting that Judaism should be a theological position? Jews have differing theological positions, just as Christians or other religions do.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131304#Comment_1131304

The hardline approach is you have excluded the Jewish belief system because it doesn‘t fit into the dominant cultures belief classification system this making this belief system second class instead of adapting the classification system to include groupings for Jewish commentaries or any other valid grouping that goes not quite fit the system. if you had done so you would not only habe met user requirements but shown respect to people who identify with those groupings instead of throwing them into the bin that says you don’t belong. Sean it is really sad if you are so caught up in adherence to the classification system yo could not see the dominant culture attitude at play here. FL needs to be above that and it can be if It chooses to do so.

Shouldn't we be "above that," ourselves, in how we treat FL?

If FL should show respect to people, should people set an example by showing respect to FL?

FL hasn't even finished categorizing commentaries. Let's please give them a chance to figure out how everything will fit together, rather than accusing them of something they might not have even done yet.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131300#Comment_1131300

I know you weren’t. Forums not always the best medium for fully understanding one another.

Agreed! [:)]

The hardline approach is you have excluded the Jewish belief system because it doesn‘t fit into the dominant cultures belief classification system this making this belief system second class instead of adapting the classification system to include groupings for Jewish commentaries or any other valid grouping that goes not quite fit the system.

Incidentally, the Catholic self-understanding is very distinctly that we are not a "denomination", yet we get lumped in to the denomination classification system (and I'm not complaining).

Logos.com handles the denomination problem by calling everything it lists a "Christian Group". It lists Judaism as a "Christian Group". Oops. (Vote here for that to be fixed: https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-com-website/posts/717 )

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131312#Comment_1131312

Logos.com handles the denomination problem by calling everything it lists a "Christian Group". It lists Judaism as a "Christian Group". Oops. (Vote here for that to be fixed: https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-com-website/posts/717 )

Done, thanks!

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131312#Comment_1131312

I guess you can just call it Denomination or Religion

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131304#Comment_1131304

I appreciate the concerns expressed here, and we certainly have no intention of excluding the Jewish belief system.

We've discussed adding a categorization of belief systems/theological positions to the Commentaries section, and certainly Judaism would be one of those categories. It's hard to find the right terms that communicate enough and also fit in a limited space: there's more discussion of that in this thread, where i try to explain that what's currently labeled as "Denomination" here is really a denomination group.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131324#Comment_1131324

I appreciate the concerns expressed here, and we certainly have no intention of excluding the Jewish belief system.

We've discussed adding a categorization of belief systems/theological positions to the Commentaries section, and certainly Judaism would be one of those categories. It's hard to find the right terms that communicate enough and also fit in a limited space: there's more discussion of that in this thread, where i try to explain that what's currently labeled as "Denomination" here is really a denomination group.

Sean the current situaiton is not accpetable you can not explain it away and justify it by definitions and then tell users they have to vote on it for a fix. FL got it wrong, it should be fixed. You have made a deliberate decision to exlclude certain groups and produced a report that doesn't fit user expectations, it's way off user expectations - so why do it? Why is FL ignoring what users want, ignoring what they say is the way they act as a business and expect users to treat other user with different beliefs and discarding those who dont' fit into these neat denominational definitions ? These groups that do not strictlly fit the definition could have been included with an asterick attatched to the group name highighting it is not strickly a denomination but a belief system that does not have specific denominational lines - problem solved - respect shown to those who identify with these groups. Instead you have chose an approach that is devisive and shows little respect for those identify with these groups or want to study them specifically using the pasage buide by throwning them into a non-classifiable bin. Very disappointing all round.

Joseph Sollenberger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131370#Comment_1131370

I have always thought of various faith traditions rather than denominations because that concept is used by groups that do not consider themselves denominations. In fact, these faithful christians find the concept of denomination an issue. Language is difficult, but some careful thought may find another term that does the same job in a more inclusive way.

That then opens the way to represent even more faith traditions than originally conceived.

—Joseph

Please note my next post as well.

Joseph Sollenberger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131418#Comment_1131418

And by the above I mean other than christian traditions as well.

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131418#Comment_1131418

Sean the current situaiton is not accpetable you can not explain it away and justify it by definitions and then tell users they have to vote on it for a fix. FL got it wrong, it should be fixed. You have made a deliberate decision to exlclude certain groups and produced a report that doesn't fit user expectations, it's way off user expectations - so why do it? Why is FL ignoring what users want, ignoring what they say is the way they act as a business and expect users to treat other user with different beliefs and discarding those who dont' fit into these neat denominational definitions ? These groups that do not strictlly fit the definition could have been included with an asterick attatched to the group name highighting it is not strickly a denomination but a belief system that does not have specific denominational lines - problem solved - respect shown to those who identify with these groups. Instead you have chose an approach that is devisive and shows little respect for those identify with these groups or want to study them specifically using the pasage buide by throwning them into a non-classifiable bin. Very disappointing all round.

Indeed, there are many belief systems.

I have always thought of various faith traditions rather than denominations because that concept is used by groups that do not consider themselves denominations. In fact, these faithful christians find the concept of denomination an issue. Language is difficult, but some careful thought may find another term that does the same job in a more inclusive way.

That then opens the way to represent even more faith traditions than originally conceived.

—Joseph

How many times can we split a hair?

Joseph Sollenberger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131423#Comment_1131423

A hair may be split many times. Perhaps the problem is how the splitting is taking place. Some creative thought and analysis could be used to examine faith traditions and nomenclature currently used to develop a new taxonomy that may prove to be more useful. Biological taxonomies are often adjusted to create more useful classifications. Labels are useful as tags for concepts, but if the tags do not bring forth the proper concept in the mind of the reader or listener, there is a language problem. It is amazing how often language problems have occurred in the past as two groups are thinking the same concept using different terminology (language), but do not realize their commonality and split from one another rather than trying to understand one another. It will require thoughtful effort.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131418#Comment_1131418

faith traditions rather than denominations

Much better than the current classification

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131445#Comment_1131445

faith traditions rather than denominations

Much better than the current classification

Yes.

I have always thought of various faith traditions rather than denominations because that concept is used by groups that do not consider themselves denominations.

cOC quickly comes to mind, though I doubt they'd complain.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131454#Comment_1131454

I do think Tradition is the best choice.

The crowdsourced data called many things "denomination stream" because there are (as a for instance) baptists, southern baptist, independent baptist, particular baptists, missionary baptists, Reformed Baptists, Northern Baptists etc etc etc.

Perhaps Tradition Stream, or Tradition Group, would be idea:?

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131548#Comment_1131548

baptists, southern baptist, independent baptist, particular baptists, missionary baptists, Reformed Baptists, Northern Baptists etc etc etc.

Don't forget American Baptists, Seventh Day Baptists, Six Principle Baptist. No wonder there are so many of us [:P] We can't get along with one another, so we start a new church, or even a whole new domination denomination [;)]

HJ. van der Wal

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131445#Comment_1131445

faith traditions rather than denominations

Much better than the current classification

FYI The German UI already uses "Tradition":

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1131577#Comment_1131577

faith traditions rather than denominations

Much better than the current classification

FYI The German UI already uses "Tradition":

Interesting (to me, at least) that it does not use Konfession, which de.logos.com does use instead of "Christian Group".