Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction by Klauck-No Apocrypha links?!?

I just purchased Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction by Hans-Josef Klauck, along with The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction. I am shocked to find that apparently, there are no links to any of the Apocryphal Gospels. I don't mean that the links don't work, I mean that there are no links at all. The references to the Apocryphal Gospels are just plain black text. There are links to other NT/OT/OT Apocryphal texts, but none to the material that is the subject of the book. This doesn't seem to make any sense, especially considering the cost of the resource.

The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles seems to have the appropriate links.

Here is an example:

(2) The contents

– Jesus at the age of five

In the preamble, the author presents himself as ‘Thomas the Israelite’ and declares his intention of making known to ‘the brethren from among the Gentiles’ the mighty deeds which Jesus performed in his childhood. He begins with episodes from the life of the five-year-old Jesus, who plays by a brook on the sabbath day, gathers the water into pools, and fashions twelve sparrows from the moist clay. When his father Joseph rebukes him for profaning the sabbath day, Jesus claps his hands, and the sparrows come to life and fly away (2:1–5; this may be meant as a presage of the sending of the twelve apostles).

In ch. 3, the son of Annas the scribe disperses the water which Jesus had gathered, so that the pools dry up. As a fitting punishment, his entire body withers up (cf. Mk 11:20f.), and his distraught parents must take away his corpse for burial. Another child has the misfortune to bump into Jesus as he is running through the village: he drops dead on the spot (4:1), and when his parents complain to Joseph, Jesus strikes them with blindness (5:1). This illustrates the efficacy of his words—‘From where does this child spring, since his every word is an accomplished deed?’ (4:1; repeated at 17:2). Joseph is angry, and twists Jesus by the ear. The child protests in words which are difficult to interpret; but at any rate he refrains from punishing Joseph (5:2f.).

The only citation above that is a resource link is Mk 11:20f. All of the other references to The Infancy Gospel of Thomas are just plain black text.

I have both Hone and James, which both have the work. I assumed that there would be links to those works. How strange is that? Am I expecting too much?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Joseph ... since you own both books, do the links work in Biblia? (Just looking at the 2 previews that operate in Biblia)

Nick Steffen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/527292#Comment_527292

Denise, only the one tagged above appeared in Biblia (as in Logos). This seems to be common. Quickly scrolling down I found two other references that were tagged, apparently because they also included both the abbreviation for the book as well as chapter and verse. Other references were left untouched.

http://biblia.com/books/apocrypgospl/offset/200510

logosres:apocrypgospl;ref=Page.p_74;off=693

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/527292#Comment_527292

Joseph ... since you own both books, do the links work in Biblia? (Just looking at the 2 previews that operate in Biblia)

Denise, the resource shows the same in biblia. This is so strange to me. There are citations throughout this resource, and they all link to the appropriate resources, except for the citations for the works for which the book is an introduction. Again, they are not links that aren't working correctly, they are not resources links at all. There was no attempt to make these links. It's simply not logical.

I might add that since I just got this last night I have not had a chance to look through all possible works to see if they provided links to other apocryphal gospels, but I figure if they made no attempt to link the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, then I shouldn't get my hopes up.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

All of the other references to The Infancy Gospel of Thomas are just plain black text.

Concur these references could have tags added:

Suggestion is right click on references, then report typo about missing link.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/527368#Comment_527368

Curious to see if anyone from Logos will comment on this.

Mark Barnes

I just purchased Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction by Hans-Josef Klauck, along with The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction. I am shocked to find that apparently, there are no links to any of the Apocryphal Gospels.

I think that Klauck's book was released in 2009, before either the Apocryphal New Testaments were available. Unfortunately, it's cost-prohibitive for Logos to go back and add links to books, when the books the they could link to are later released. So links to the Gospel of Thomas are included (there are 184 of them), as that was available beforehand. So are the Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Truth and so on.

That said, Klauck's book is also missing at least one link to the Church Fathers, for which there's no excuse...

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528163#Comment_528163

Unfortunately, it's cost-prohibitive for Logos to go back and add links to books, when the books the they could link to are later released.

I am not saying this should be a high priority but it most definitely should be something that is rectified in the long term. Logos goes on and on about how integrated all resources are and that is one reason to purchase within Logos. I wonder if all the missing links were reported as typos that might get them fixed?

-Dan

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528170#Comment_528170

I am not saying this should be a high priority but it most definitely should be something that is rectified in the long term. Logos goes on and on about how integrated all resources are and that is one reason to purchase within Logos.

I'm with you here. As a kind of workaround, missing links might be added as Community Notes in group "Typos", thus everyone displaying those can follow a link.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528170#Comment_528170

I wonder if all the missing links were reported as typos that might get them fixed?

I'm not sure: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/23422.aspx

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528179#Comment_528179

I wonder if all the missing links were reported as typos that might get them fixed?

I'm not sure: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/23422.aspx

Thanks Mark that somewhat dated response answers things better.

-Dan

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528210#Comment_528210

I wasn't aware that this book came out before Logos had volumes of the NT Apocrypha, so that certainly explains the initial issue, but it doesn't make sense to me to have a book on a subject without links to the material that it covers. This just doesn't seem logical. It wouldn't be so bad if the book only cost $20, but for something that costs over $60 I would expect it to be fully usable.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528163#Comment_528163

That said, Klauck's book is also missing at least one link to the Church Fathers, for which there's no excuse...

Far more than one, I would say. It seems to be missing all links to Eusebius' Church History, which was out many years before Klauck, and I'm seeing loads of other unlinked Church Father references. They can't all be to writings that aren't in the ECF...

Logos goes on and on about how integrated all resources are

They do. They ought to make it true first, and boast about it afterwards. Not the other way around.

This book clearly needs an update, especially, as Joseph says, as it's so expensive. And sooner rather than later. The current file is from 2009-10-27. It's waited long enough. (And, incidentally, Hone's Apocryphal NT is only one day younger, so Klauck was updated in some way when that was produced. Only not nearly enough.)

Also, with Rick's fairly new resource out, the interest in this book ought to be on the rise.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/527368#Comment_527368

Wow, I've never seen a book so thoroughly marked up. It almost seems like there is no rhyme or reason to it all.

Jannie van Niekerk

I am shocked to find that apparently, there are no links to any of the Apocryphal Gospels.

Thanks for the report. As it so happens, an update was started some time ago, and was only recently finished. Look out for the updated resource soon.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528762#Comment_528762

Nice! Thanks.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528762#Comment_528762

I am shocked to find that apparently, there are no links to any of the Apocryphal Gospels.

Thanks for the report. As it so happens, an update was started some time ago, and was only recently finished. Look out for the updated resource soon.

Awesome, thanks!

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528791#Comment_528791

I just downloaded the updated resource. Much better! Thanks Logos!

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528762#Comment_528762

I really wanted to say that this is so much better, and of course it is, but I'm afraid you'll have to redo it nevertheless. Just look at this:

logosres:apocrypgospl;ref=Page.p_62;off=101

The first two links ignore the f's and only display verses 17 and 7, instead of 17-18 and 7-8 (and for the latter, only one word in the quite comes from v 7, all the others are in v 8!).

The third not only displays 69:9 instead of 69:9-22, it's also incorrect in itself. The quote below comes from 66:9-22. (Though that, of course, may be Klauck's or the publisher's fault.)

The ignored '-22' seems to be an isolated (or at least rare) case, but the ignored f's occur all through the book.

Jannie van Niekerk

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529755#Comment_529755

The first two links ignore the f's and only display verses 17 and 7, instead of 17-18 and 7-8

I do not think that the NHC data type supports f/ff extension and as a rule, we do not turn these into ranges as suggested. If you have seen these turned into ranges in other resources, it probably is an older resource, which should be reviewed in the future.

The third not only displays 69:9 instead of 69:9-22, it's also incorrect in itself. The quote below comes from 66:9-22. (Though that, of course, may be Klauck's or the publisher's fault.)

I filed a typo report for this one.

Thanks!

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529767#Comment_529767

I do not think that the NHC data type supports f/ff extension and as a rule, we do not turn these into ranges as suggested

and that is because... what exactly? I thought the goal is to make the software better and more user friendly; are we missing something?

Jannie van Niekerk

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529770#Comment_529770

and that is because... what exactly?

I'll forward your question to the appropriate persons as I'm not the right person to answer this one

Thanks!

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529767#Comment_529767

I do not think that the NHC data type supports f/ff extension

Thanks for answering so fast, but:

• This doesn't just affect the NHC datatype.

• Like Sleiman says: why? It makes the popups for these verses pretty useless.

• I've just reported a whole bunch of missing or incorrect links to the Protevangelium of James, and some to I don't remember what.

• I'm also seeing a lot of missing links to the Gospel of Nicodemus.

• Do you think 'NTApo' in a book about the NT Apocrypha really means what this popup claims it means[:P]:

• If I can find all of this within minutes, you should have been able to find it before shipping. I really do appreciate the updates, but I'm so incredibly tired of having to do your job proofing them.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529767#Comment_529767

Just FYI...this post (and similar concerns) would probably do better if started in the Suggestions category rather than in General.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529819#Comment_529819

Nonsense. Error reports don't belong in Suggestions.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529826#Comment_529826

Nonsense. Error reports don't belong in Suggestions.

But I suggest you fix it… lol [:D]

Dan

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528163#Comment_528163

Unfortunately, it's cost-prohibitive for Logos to go back and add links to books, when the books the they could link to are later released. So links to the Gospel of Thomas are included (there are 184 of them), as that was available beforehand. So are the Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Truth and so on.

That said, Klauck's book is also missing at least one link to the Church Fathers, for which there's no excuse...

Since tagging is one of Logos' major selling points, it might be cost prohibitive not to correct this. I am not saying these things must be instantly corrected, but, when Logos adds a resource, part of that new resource's tagging should be to tag it to what is already in the Logos Library. So really there was poor tagging done on the "Gospel of the Egyptians", etc. when these resources were added to the Logos catalog.

In other words, that is not much excuse. Regardless of which resource came first, tagging should be corrected in a timely manner, or Logos is doomed to be a increasingly less valuable study tool as more resources are added.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/529826#Comment_529826

Nonsense. Error reports don't belong in Suggestions.

[Y]

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/530130#Comment_530130

So really there was poor tagging done on the "Gospel of the Egyptians", etc. when they were added to the Logos catalog.

Actually, I was saying that links to the Gospel of the Egyptians were in this book, when the book was released. Other links were added in the recent update, but links to that gospel were already there.

But your general point remains valid, and I agree in principle. Yet in practice it may make made the cost of the many resources cost-prohibitive. Would everyone be happy if Logos waited until there's enough pre-pub orders to cover the additional cost of tagging old resources — especially if those orders never come? Would not at least some people prefer to at least have the resource in Logos, knowing that means future books will link to it, and that they can look up old references manually if necessary. There are two ways of looking at the problem.