how about no biases at all? Not even Catholic? 

I do not claim to be unbiased; I claim to try to write in neutral language, using the vocabulary I have learned over the years. I offer the tips for two reasons: (1) to keep myself informed on the current behavior of the Logos/Verbum software and (2) to help others do so as well. As the entries are free on the forums, others are free to use them to the extent they find them useful and to ignore them if they are not helpful.

What's the obsession with Catholic today? I'm sorry but I can't find a leap to make from "pericope" to "Catholic" ... perhaps because pericope is Greek? or perhaps because pericopes are universal - whether labeled or unlabeled, named or unnamed pericopes are a universal phenomenon. The Jews used them for their readings at least from the time of Ezra and had a definition of the smallest unit of scripture that could be used as a reading. [quote]One basic halakhic rule for public reading of the Torah is that no fewer than three verses at a time be read.. You might find Parashah - Wikiwand useful for the definition of and use of pericopes "parashah" in the Jewish context.

Note: any time a preacher preaches on a passage of text that is less than the entire book, even in the context of a series eventually covering the entire book, that preacher is using or defining a pericope.

OK, I recognize you're a pericope person

Thank heavens I'm not a chapter and verse person! Give me a rational unit used for thousands of years for study rather than those new-fangled, highly useful for reference only chapter and verse numbers ...

But that said, pericopes dangerously (exagerating) hover as doctrine, like a dark cloud.  Was it the writer's intent? Or the later church?  So, I always just turn them off ... read the text.  But just me.

I think in this case we may have a difference in definition. I think of pericopes as simply a block of text normally identified by its incipit as that is how they are used in the old commentaries before chapter and verse became the standard method of reference. There are particular pericopes that I assign names to because they serve particular liturgical functions e.g. the Bread of Life discourse from John that is used to fill out Cycle B (Mark) Gospel readings in the late summer or The Man Born Blind & The Woman at the Well & The Raising of Lazarus that are the three Gospels leading up to the reception of adults into the Church on Easter, or the Farewell Discourse used by Dominicans to end Holy Thursday Adoration ... if I were Eastern Orthodox, this list would be much longer.

I suspect that my desire for lectionaries including historical lectionaries address your two major concerns - first, it smashes the absurd FL assumption that pericopes cover the entire scripture and have no overlap - this is true only of the new-fangled Bible headings as pericopes; second, the pericopes are unnamed except by use so that no interpretation of the text is implied by the pericope name.

Seeing your list, I wonder if you're compromising ... eg a good pericope-handling design or just improve what is.

In the list of suggestions from the feedback site, I tried to include all the ideas out there whether or not I would support them. In my own critique, I tried to be balanced between what fit into the current structure (commentaries) and what required a new structure (lectionaries). This tends to be my overall approach as I would rather have incremental progress than no progress.

Chunks as to labeling the writer's intent, meh.

I understand your objection to this (erroneous) understanding of pericopes; precis of pericopes share the strengths and weaknesses of all precis.

Due I suspect, to their using chunk-boundaries (aka pericopes), instead of section dependencies.

I don't understand your point here - how do/can section dependencies differ from pericope dependencies? I see sections as simply meta-pericopes. But then again, I'd never accuse Logos of being pericope oriented although they are moving in that direction.

Thank you - I now understand your point and agree to some extent. I tend to take a perspective of a British chap whose name I forget and whose evidence was weak that writing before the concept of silent reading was essentially driven by pericopes. But that didn't mean that person A reading the text would make the same pericope choice as person B but rather that there were stronger and weaker options for pericopes boundaries that one would choose from. The end of the pericope starting at Gn 1:1 and ending at Gen 1:31 or 2:1 or 2:3 or 2:4a is my favorite example of how boundaries of a pericope may change depending upon the aspect of the passage one wishes to emphasize.

I agree that it is absolutely necessary to study the Bible book as a whole to understand the flow of thought structuring the text whether that be an argument, a narrative, or the flow of poetry. Pericopes by the earliest definition in Greek are intended to provide rationale for selecting portions to read or study when considering the whole of the book is impractical. Because of their rational nature they are not just an alternative to chapters and verse. For an absurd example to make a point, chapter and verse allows one to study Song of Solomon 6:3-4 which is a single verse from the woman and one from the man. Pericopes require that you take the entire woman's part Sg 6:2-3, or the entire man's response Sg 6:4-10 or Sg 5:2-6:3 i.e., the entire second dream sequence.

The fact that the boundaries are debatable, it precisely why I find them useful for study -- a way to study minutely the elements that tie the text together or break it apart; the relationship of these elements to those of the previous (potential) boundary. I give the labels no truck except as easy liturgical references e.g. The Sunday of the Man Born Blind. Nor do I see pericopes as a simple stack except in the case of the modern, labeled, sequential, comprehensive "pericopes" printed in Bibles - I didn't even use the term pericope to refer to these until Logos taught me too. I used the term only in the context of passage for study or liturgical passage. They are overlapping and intertwined.

It appears that our original encounter/understanding of pericopes was quite different, leading us to quite different experiences in their use. Understanding that has allowed me to understand your position perhaps even to the point of saying that if I accepted the same base assumptions, I might come to the same conclusion as you. But I don't, so I don't.