BUG strange entries for the book of Isaiah in Factbook.

I can see where Logos invented its own names, but trust me I would NEVER come up with these titles or recall what they might mean. Aren't proto-Isaiah, deutero-Isaiah, and trito-Isaiah the standard nomenclature? or Is Logos going rogue academically? If this is theologically motivated, you don't want to hear my opinion.

Find more posts tagged with

Web App

Comments

MJ. Smith

weekly bumping of unanswered posts

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1303858#Comment_1303858

I've passed this along to Doug for him to answer when he gets back.

Rick Brannan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1303999#Comment_1303999

In the Lexham Context Commentary, these are meant to be descriptive titles (with short descriptions) for paragraphs, pericopes, and larger sections of text. They weren't meant to track and record the labels that scholars give the section(s), they were meant to describe the section(s) in the context of the commentary.

Whether that is appropriate for what's going on in Factbook with these titles is a different question that I think you're correct to ask. The labels "deutero-Isaiah" and "trito-Isaiah" (as I understand/recall) come from form critics who argue the textual unity of Isaiah. There are Factbook entries for them (the deutero-Isaiah entry points out that there is not complete unity on the boundaries (40-55 or 40-66?)). How/if those might be indexed to the passage is a question for Logos to figure out.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304008#Comment_1304008

In the Lexham Context Commentary, these are meant to be descriptive titles (with short descriptions) for paragraphs, pericopes, and larger sections of text. They weren't meant to track and record the labels that scholars give the section(s), they were meant to describe the section(s) in the context of the commentary.

Okay, I've learned to live with the Lexhamese dialect of Americo-Evangelicalese. But shouldn't they be under Isaiah rather than at the book level if they aren't the textual critic divisions?

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1304009#Comment_1304009

Ah, I was hung up on the pericope titles themselves and didn't notice your screenshot on the left.

Yeah, they should definitely be a child element of Isaiah. I'll make a case.