AI Search differs for same query on two different computers

Vanilla ate my answer being more interested in display the homepage of a quotation …

Why was your friend looking at "trito canon" or "trito-canon" which is a very specialized term: From Perplexity:

The concept of a "trito-canon" or "third canon" is not widely recognized or used in mainstream biblical scholarship. However, some discussions of canonical categories do mention a third level of texts beyond the proto-canonical and deutero-canonical works. Here are the key points about trito-canonical texts:

Definition and Usage

Trito-canonical texts are generally described as:

Works that are considered good for individual reading but not used as a foundation for theology or in liturgical worship[1][17].

Texts that are formally accepted as canonical by some traditions but rarely used or included in actual biblical texts[5][18].

A category created for works left over after defining proto-canonical and deutero-canonical books, mainly relevant to some Eastern Orthodox traditions[5].

Context in Canon Discussions

The term "trito-canonical" is not universally accepted or applied. It appears to be used primarily in specific contexts:

In discussions of Eastern Orthodox canons, particularly Slavic and Oriental Orthodox traditions[5][18].

As a way to categorize works that have some level of ecclesiastical approval but less authority than deutero-canonical texts[1].

In academic discussions about the gradations of canonicity in different Christian traditions[5].

Limitations and Criticisms

It's important to note some limitations of the trito-canonical concept:

The term is not widely used outside of specialized discussions of canon formation.

There is no universally agreed-upon list of trito-canonical works.

The concept may oversimplify the complex history of canon formation and usage in different Christian traditions.

In conclusion, while the idea of trito-canonical texts exists in some scholarly and ecclesiastical discussions, it is not a widely recognized or standardized category in biblical studies or most Christian traditions. Its usage is primarily limited to specific contexts within Eastern Orthodox canon discussions and some academic analyses of canonicity gradations.

Citations:
[1] https://community.logos.com/discussion/223170/trito-canonical-texts
[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Old-Testament-canon-texts-and-versions
[3] https://secundumscripturas.com/2013/04/18/canonical-method/
[4] https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Determination-of-the-canon-in-the-4th-century
[5] https://community.logos.com/discussion/171559/canon-comparison-and-deuteroncanon
[6] https://exegeticaltools.com/2017/12/17/three-competing-definitions-canon/
[7] https://baptistnews.com/article/whats-in-a-canon/
[8] https://www.monergism.com/concept-and-importance-canonicity
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah
[10] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/history-theology-and-the-biblical-canon-an-introduction-to-basic-issues/
[11] https://thecripplegate.com/the-question-of-canonicity/
[12] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/moth.12486
[13] https://jimmyakin.com/2006/08/tritiocanonical.html
[14] https://thebibleisinmyblood.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/reading-the-bible-in-canonical-context-2/
[15] https://bibleinspectors.com/articles/2017/10/23/inspecting-claims-of-biblical-canon-and-historicity
[16] https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm
[17] https://community.logos.com/discussion/223170/trito-canonical-texts
[18] https://community.logos.com/discussion/171559/canon-comparison-and-deuteroncanon
[19] https://tcpc.ipbhost.com/topic/2612-the-canon-within-the-canon/
[20] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/canonicity-a-theologians-observations/
[21] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/history-theology-and-the-biblical-canon-an-introduction-to-basic-issues/
[22] https://www.swiftcreekbaptist.org/blog/the-bible-as-canon/
[23] https://e360bible.org/blog/a-basic-explanation-of-the-canon-of-scripture/
[24] https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/71/2/802/5885259

Emphasis added.

From the Canon Comparison tool:

I find only one other mention in Logos - and I own nearly all their titles on canon development.

from https://jimmyakin.com/2006/08/tritiocanonical.html

Just the other day, I was reminded of my surprise when I read this discussion of the deuterocanonical books from the Proemial Annotations of Volume I of the Old Testament of Douay, the 1635 edition from before Challoner’s revision:

"True it is that some of these books … were sometimes doubted of by some Catholics, and called Apocrypha, in that sense as the word properly signifieth hidden, or not apparent. So St. Jerome (in his prologue before the Latin Bible) calleth divers books Apocryphal, being not so evident, whether they were Divine Scripture, because they were not in the Jews’ Canon, nor at first in the Church’s Canon,  but were never rejected as false or erroneous. In which sense the Prayers of Manasses, the third book of Esdras, and the third of Machabees are yet called Apocryphal. As for the fourth of Esdras, and the fourth of Machabees there is more doubt."

Is it just me, or is Cardinal Allen here saying that these books may someday be "tritocanonical"? If this was true in 1592, could this still be true today? If not, then why not?

from https://www.torahapologetics.com/apologetics--daily-life/a-review-of-the-eth-cepher-part-2

Well for starters, I’m not sure what exactly “recaptured” means, but from context here the author seems to be implying that these books belong in the Bible and he has helped to restore them. Yet there has never been a time when 1 Enoch, Jubilees, 2 Baruch, 3 and 4 Maccabees, and Jasher, have all been in the canon. 3 Maccabees is canonical to the Eastern Orthodox, and 4 Maccabees is considered deuteron-canonical to them. Jasher has never been canonized by any group: ever. 1 Enoch and Jubilees are only considered deuteron-canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Beta Israel, and trito-canon by the Orthodox. 2 Baruch is considered trito-canon by the Orthodox and that is all. (Note: deuteron-canon means secondary rule, and trito-canon means tertiary rule or perhaps you could say “third rank.” These very definitions mean these books are not consider canonically equal to Scripture). For the author of the Cepher to say he has “recaptured” books that were “traditionally recognized as set-apart Scripture” is intellectually dishonest at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst.

from https://rratedreligion.com/2021/09/02/biblical-canon-a-short-history-proof-of-divinity/

The Bible is comprised of many ancient manuscripts, codexes, and other ancients writings that have persevered for centuries. “The word manuscript comes from the Latin  manu (hand) and scriptum(written). The original writing is called the autograph, from the Greek autos(self) and graphas (written).”[3] Moreover, many terms have been codified over the years to explain the various writings that have been both in and out of biblical canonization. To this date, there have been 269 written texts that have aided in, or been debated about, that make up most biblical canons of today. These terms are:

Protocanon — Works used in public services and as a basis of doctrine.

Deuterocanon — Works used in public services but not as a basis of doctrine.

Trito-canon — Works that are “good for reading” but not used in service or for doctrine.

Additional Material – Works often bound in Bibles, but not considered canonical.

Questionable – Works about which there is some debate.

Explicitly Non-Canonical – Works as a list outside of the canon.

So given the paucity of information, why are you expecting consistent results from AI?

Yes. You've got the basic understanding I wanted you to understand. I still use a precise search more often than a smart search but I am using the smart search whenever I don't know how to make a precise query. Even if it doesn't give me the answer I wanted, it often gives me the right language so I can write a precise query.