DATA ERROR: Strange addressee tagging for Acts 7

I've always heard of this as Stephen talking to the Sanhedrin/Council at the instigation of members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen. I would expect those stoning Stephen to be a subset of those groups (and the other conspiracy theorists [;)] ) And to be picky, there weren't any people stoning Stephen when he was speaking. This tagging seems either incorrect or sloppy.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Agree, stonification hasn't yet attached.

But it's arguable for the addressees being the instigated-men (separate from the Freedmen), instead of the council. If we take 'brothers' at face value (ancient; equals), it'd be the instigator-men. But it's near 50-50. Maybe 51-49.

Andrew Batishko

I've reported this to the data team.

Jimmy Parks

I understand the confusion on this, and it is an issue that occurs quite a lot. In order to tag a group they must have an identifier. We create identifiers (especially for groups like this one) based on their significant actions. I don't know that there is a better solution for tagging a group like this, but I would love to have feedback for possible alternatives.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1264353#Comment_1264353

We create identifiers (especially for groups like this one) based on their significant actions.

The problem is a bit deeper ... you are assuming that EVERYONE who listened participated in the stoning. That, to me, is very sloppy exegesis that should not be encouraged (or condoned). I think it is better to name the group after the larger crowd (listeners) and allow the subset (stoners) to be implied. Here we have the subset (stoners) providing the name for the larger crowd (listeners).

Given where I live, it is like certain politicians assuming that all Portland demonstrators are Portland rioters.

Jimmy Parks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1264354#Comment_1264354

Sorry. I was looking at the participant tagging, which includes a larger collection of groups. You are correct, we failed to include that larger collection in the addressee's. I'll fix that.