Is Logos Squeemish About the Deuterocanon (aka Apocrypha)

Yes, it's New Year's Day ... time for a Bible search to include those 2nd Temple tomes!

I select 'Bible' search. I click on the picker for what part of the Bible. Entire Bible is Gen-Rev. Well ok. How about 'Not-the-Entire-Bible' to include what most of Christianity has working access to?

Now if I've memorized the not-entire-Bible books, I can type in one, and it's included in parts of the Bible (History, Poetry, and so forth).

Is Logos that squeemish? Actually, I'm using Verbum.

I must be missing the obvious. New Year's Day!

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

Entire Bible is Gen-Rev.

If you look at this image long enough you can probably figure it out. Hint: set union.

Graham Criddle

I select 'Bible' search. I click on the picker for what part of the Bible. Entire Bible is Gen-Rev. Well ok. How about 'Not-the-Entire-Bible' to include what most of Christianity has working access to?

What Bible were you using? If one containing the apocrypha it should show options for those - and the Gen-Rev search would include those books

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282136#Comment_1282136

Don't have one of those!

Actually, the list presumably depends on what's the first entry in a grouping (eg tagged, etc). Which I use routinely. I guess.

Which means the big boy, no-can-do.

So, squeemish he is not. UI-bound, he is.

EDIT:

Actually, doing a little more digging, apparently the NRSVc is my lead in the tagging (?). Anyway it's first listed for a reference. And it does have the apocrypha. In the below example, I just chose it (and no apocrypha listed, though search results!). If I was going to guess, my NRSVc is a lead in a MBD with the next guy not having any apocrypha (syriac text).

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282136#Comment_1282136

If you look at this image long enough

I looked at it pretty long. Nothing happened.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282139#Comment_1282139

If I was going to guess, my NRSVc is a lead in a MBD with the next guy not having any apocrypha (syriac text).

I'm not sure that's the issue.

I see the same set of passages as you do in my NRSVce which isn't configured in any Multi-book display.

My guess is that the Apocrypha "grouping" of books wasn't included in the tagging of that particular book - which strikes me as strange and probably an unintended omission in its tagging.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282139#Comment_1282139

If you want the common divisions to show the deuterocanonicals as a separate entry, chose the NRSV rather than the Catholic version. It is a matter of the sequence of the books within the Bible.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282152#Comment_1282152

It is a matter of the sequence of the books within the Bible.

That makes sense - thanks MJ

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282152#Comment_1282152

It is a matter of the sequence of the books within the Bible.

That sounds like a non-answer. Smiling. They have to be grouped for Logos to find them? Too tough for the big boy? Although that does look like the best it can do. You have to pick Bibles by ordering!

The other issue, of course, is why it's demanding NRSVc in the first place. It's in none of my prioritized Bibles. Not in my layout. I use it now and then to avoid messing up the layout. Can't tell what the first entry is in the tagging.

Rick Brannan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282148#Comment_1282148

I'm not sure that's the issue.

I see the same set of passages as you do in my NRSVce which isn't configured in any Multi-book display.

My guess is that the Apocrypha "grouping" of books wasn't included in the tagging of that particular book - which strikes me as strange and probably an unintended omission in its tagging.

Note that the NRSVce is the "Catholic Edition" which only has the deuterocanon, not the wider apocrypha that is also found in the plain-vanilla NRSV. The "apocrypha" would include further books like 3 & 4 Maccabees and some others. That is, "deuterocanon" is a subset of protestant "apocrypha." So the lack of "apocrypha" in the NRSVce is totally appropriate.

(Note: This is all guesswork on my end because I don't own an edition of the NRSVce to consult, just the NRSV; maybe it has neither deuterocanon or apocrypha. If that's the case, then it needs to be updated.)

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282139#Comment_1282139

Actually, doing a little more digging, apparently the NRSVc is my lead in the tagging (?). Anyway it's first listed for a reference. And it does have the apocrypha. In the below example, I just chose it

Try selecting Top Bibles to see if you get a listing for Apocrypha (assuming NRSV, NABRE, or another bible that lists Apocrypha is in your top 5).

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282163#Comment_1282163

Note that the NRSVce is the "Catholic Edition" which only has the deuterocanon,

Yes, I realize that. As well as your LES (which I like for its extended grouping).

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282165#Comment_1282165

Try selecting Top Bibles to see if you get a listing for Apocrypha

I tried that with the exact same results as above (no apocrypha or deuterocanon, if you trust my screen capture). I only have 4 Bibles prioritized (Emphasis, NRSV, NABre, LES1). I guess the question is where it draws NRSVc from (in the top ask for a reference).

I checked my last used (library). It's maybe #9 in last used english Bibles.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282169#Comment_1282169

I tried that with the exact same results as above (no apocrypha or deuterocanon, if you trust my screen capture).

Your screenshot shows only a selection for the 1993 NRSVCE

I only have 4 Bibles prioritized (Emphasis, NRSV, NABre, LES1)

Include NRSVCE as #5 and then select Top Bibles in the Search

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282161#Comment_1282161

That sounds like a non-answer. Smiling. They have to be grouped for Logos to find them? Too tough for the big boy? Although that does look like the best it can do. You have to pick Bibles by ordering!

Sorry if you think it is a non-answer. Play with the JPS, NRSV, and NABRE to prove that it IS the answer. I use custom groupings to bypass the Logos definitions which as all sequential ranges if you look at their definitions. I didn't make them just for the fun of it but to compensate for the sequence of books in the Bibles I most often use as my primary Bible. Besides, I tell you when I give you a non-answer ...

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282173#Comment_1282173

Include NRSVCE as #5 and then select Top Bibles in the Search

Did as instructed; restarted Verbum:

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282177#Comment_1282177

Sorry if you think it is a non-answer.

Oh I'm not questioning your observation. Just for a user, asking them to find a Bible that has the correct grouping (not just that it includes the apocrypha/deutero) isn't going to be a good answer.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282184#Comment_1282184

Just for a user, asking them to find a Bible that has the correct grouping (not just that it includes the apocrypha/deutero) isn't going to be a good answer.

Logos' secret byline is "esoteric bible study made inscrutable" for obvious reasons. There is also a secret handshake taught at a higher level of initiation than I have achieved.

Of course, I can't admit publicly how long it took me to find a way to get 1 Enoch to be recognized as Biblical.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282183#Comment_1282183

Did as instructed; restarted Verbum:

This is a Verbum bug. I also get "Type a reference from: Bible (NRSVCE)"; and I don't own the bible! It appears for any range of bibles e.g. All bibles. This deserves a separate BUG report.

Logos 30.1 produces the expected "Type a reference from: Bible", even if NABRE is #1.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282273#Comment_1282273

Thank you Dave, for checking.

Matt Mattox (Faithlife)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1282273#Comment_1282273

This is a Verbum bug. I also get "Type a reference from: Bible (NRSVCE)"; and I don't own the bible! It appears for any range of bibles e.g. All bibles. This deserves a separate BUG report

Thanks for the information. I'll create a case for our team to investigate.