A textual commentary is hiding in my library diguised as a monograph

Today I was pleasantly surprised to find that I own a small textual commentary that I had somehow overlooked and never utilized, probably because the resource type is Monograph rather than Bible Commentary. That resource is Thomas Sheldon Green's A Course of Developed Criticism on Passages of the New Testament Materially Affected by Various Readings from 1856. I would love to see this resource updated so that it appears with the other textual commentaries in the Exegetical Guide!

I have been away from the forums for some time, so apologies if there was a better place to post this!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Absent creating a Bible index, monograph is all it'll ever be. It's indexed by page.

But a nice reminder! I hadn't taken a look at it. I'm not sure about 1856 ... that pretty much eliminates much of the papyri.

I did, however, tag it for inclusion in my apparatus group (searches, CitedBy, etc).

MJ. Smith

resource type is Monograph rather than Bible Commentary.

Because it deals with only selected passages, it doesn't meet the requirements for being a Bible Commentary ... you could ask Kyle to reconsider its classification ... perhaps Bible Notes?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1242807#Comment_1242807

... perhaps Bible Notes?

Technically, an apparatus?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1242810#Comment_1242810

Could be ...

Matthew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1242807#Comment_1242807

Because it deals with only selected passages, it doesn't meet the requirements for being a Bible Commentary

This is confusing to me. As far as I know, all textual commentaries only deal with selected passages (Metzger, Omanson, Comfort, etc.). That they address passages where there are textual variants is what makes them textual commentaries. True, some may cover more passages and some less, but it seems odd to me that the number of passages covered determines the Logos resource type (I do not mean that sarcastically). For example, a commentary on 2 John covers far less verses than a commentary on Genesis, but both are commentaries. True, the resource I linked is not very long, but in terms of integration and function within Logos, it seems like it would best fit as a textual commentary that shows up in the Exegetical Guide. There are relatively few textual commentaries available, which to me makes each one valuable.

you could ask Kyle to reconsider its classification

What is the best way to get his attention to do this? Thank you for your guidance!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1242947#Comment_1242947

I can't find a description of Bible Commentary requirements from Kyle at the moment but part of the classification requirements are documented here: New Resource Types with 9.3 - Logos Forums. To get his attention, start your post with ATTN Kyle: