TAGGING ISSUE: Can you find all the references to 1 Maccabees .... in all Bibles with a canon > 66 (

This case is not at all exotic. Most bookstores allow the choice of Bibles between those that have it and those that don't.

1. Run a basic, all text search on <1 Macc> which should be sufficient. In my library this results in 54,898 results in 15,318 articles in 1, 371 resources.

2. Run a search to verify your results by going to https://www.logos.com/support/windows/L3/book_abbreviations and copy all the abbreviations recognized for 1 Maccabees, add the required parents and run the search on "1 Macc", "1 Mac", 1M, "I Ma", 1Ma, "I Mac", 1Mac, "I Macc", 1Macc, "I Maccabees", 1Maccabees, "1st Maccabees", "First Maccabees" In my library this results in 23,717 results in 12,644 articles in 1,273 resources.

3. Check the results for 1 Kings in the FOTL commentary series ... oops 5 clear cut occurrences of 1 Macc which were not selected by <1 Macc>... keep checking and getting more discouraged it you want.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Barnes

This is not a bug.

It's a tagging issue in the FOTL volume on Kings, which hasn't tagged the 1st Maccabees references.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

What Mark said.

I'm not able to check right now, but that resource may well have been produced before tagging apocryphal references was standard practice.

Over time, resource tagging becomes more thorough, but we don't revisit the entire catalogue every year and bring all resources up to the current standard. (This has been discussed previously on the forums, but I don't have a link right now.)

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697509#Comment_697509

I will refine my search and give you are more complete list of discrepancies.

That's probably unnecessary; we can find those as easily as you.

It might be more helpful for you to post an ordered list of resources that you consider most important to be retagged first; that information would be helpful for guiding our priorities when updating existing resources to the latest standards.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697528#Comment_697528

The three major commentary series most affected are:

Hermeniea
Yale Bible Commentary
Forms of Old Testament Literature

Among those that surprise me most:

Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible
Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697531#Comment_697531

If I could offer a suggestion too, if we are looking at significant Catholic works, there are two Catholic series which are not that old, that are missing significant tagging in the area MJ noted:

Sacra Pagina NT

Navarre NT and OT series

Another significant work that, like the other two has not been out for very long, which is also missing this tagging but does not have quite as many references, is the Berit Olam Series.

All three of these are regular Catholic seminary references, I would think complete tagging would be important to securing their endorsement of Verbum.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697551#Comment_697551

Thanks Don, I didn't think to check these closely given they were built for a Catholic market. What has me so frustrated is that as an undergraduate student nearly 50 years ago at a liberal arts college writing a paper on the Syriac Psalms (Ps 152-155) would have been just up my alley .... and the alley of many of my friends. Yet I could have check my most likely books through the index in the back faster than I've been able to build a satisfactory query.

Lest you think I'm joking about my friends one went on to translate Beowulf into Newari, another specialized in Medieval Persian love poetry, another in Chinese bone inscriptions ...

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697528#Comment_697528

It might be more helpful for you to post an ordered list of resources that you consider most important to be retagged first; that information would be helpful for guiding our priorities when updating existing resources to the latest standards.

I searched my library, and there are very few resources missing substantial tagging for 1 Maccabees or other deuterocanonical books.

From my perspective:

Forms of Old Testament Literature (1 Kings, Daniel, Numbers)
Lange's Commentaries (all of them)
AYBC commentaries (1 Chronicles 10-29, Joshua)
Lexham Bible dictionary (e.g. "Modein" article)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697565#Comment_697565

From my perspective there is more than the NRSV ecumenical canon that I ought to be able to find as easily as in paper indexes since the paper indices are omitted:

apocrypha & pseudepigraphia
creeds & confessions
early church fathers (Migne coverage as minimum)
Talmud and Mishnah

And I would expect the list to be expanding to include major seminal works such as those of

Thomas Aquinas
John Calvin
Martin Luther
the Wesley brothers ...

The problem is that in a paper index, I can quickly find Psalms whether it is labeled Ps, Pss, Psa or Psalm whereas if they are not tagged, I have to try all the possibilities on the computer. And to avoid references to the book rather than a specific psalm, I have to verify that there is a numeral (Arabic or Roman) following. Then I have to check for Dead Sea Scroll, pseudepigrapha or Early Church Father alternative designations. Then for some books such as Daniel I need to repeat the process for portions of the book that are often split off as independent books.

To the response "we can't afford all the retagging" I respond that there is a reasonable compromise which could either be presented as a table I can cut and paste into the search box or call within the system by shortcut notation. That table would simply be a list of all known ways that the item is referred to in the texts (string search) and all known datatype/Bible designations that refer to the same item. Missing items could simply be reported as errors and added to the table. Yes, multiple languages and verse mapping make this much larger than it sounds but by controlling granularity just as paper indices do should make it possible for those times one really wants all occurrences.

My parameters for success:

an accuracy rate no lower than using paper indices
an elapsed work time of building the search and pulling out false positives less than the time spend efficiently using paper indices

Louis St. Hilaire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697551#Comment_697551

Sacra Pagina NT

Navarre NT and OT series

Another significant work that, like the other two has not been out for very long, which is also missing this tagging but does not have quite as many references, is the Berit Olam Series.

Can you be more specific about the problems you're seeing? At least using MJ's method, I'm not seeing any obvious problems with the tagging of 1 Maccabees in these series. The quality and consistency of our reference tagging has improved substantially in the last several years, so I would be pretty surprised if there are widespread substantial problems with the tagging of Maccabees in recent resources.

... since the paper indices are omitted:

We did omit reference indexes for a long time, but newer resources (from the last five or six years at least) generally include them.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697843#Comment_697843

Sacra Pagina NT

Navarre NT and OT series

Another significant work that, like the other two has not been out for very long, which is also missing this tagging but does not have quite as many references, is the Berit Olam Series.

Can you be more specific about the problems you're seeing? At least using MJ's method, I'm not seeing any obvious problems with the tagging of 1 Maccabees in these series. The quality and consistency of our reference tagging has improved substantially in the last several years, so I would be pretty surprised if there are widespread substantial problems with the tagging of Maccabees in recent resources.

Hi Louis, here is a picture of what I attempted with the Sacra Pagina - as one example test, to me it shows that there are 124 places where 1 Maccabees is referenced in all the different forms in the series, yet only 50 are actually tagged as 1st Maccabees. I did a similar double-search of the other resources I cited. I mostly looked for deuterocanonical tags, vs. the other ones MJ referenced, which would be great to have too. I thought 1 Macc would be the most obvious, if it had problems the others likely do too.

Does this make sense, and is it a valid comparison?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697852#Comment_697852

Hi Louis, here is a picture of what I attempted with the Sacra Pagina - as one example test, to me it shows that there are 124 places where 1 Maccabees is referenced in all the different forms in the series, yet only 50 are actually tagged as 1st Maccabees.

Logos never tag references to entire books, only references that at least specify the chapter. If you check the 'missing' links, they're all entire book references, so they're 'missed' on purpose.

Louis St. Hilaire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697852#Comment_697852

Does this make sense, and is it a valid comparison?

In addition to what Mark said, there's an error in your reference search in that screen shot. You're searching for <Macc 1> instead of <1 Macc>. Searching for <1 Macc>, I get 187 hits in Sacra Pagina.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697861#Comment_697861

Glad to hear its not a problem. Thanks.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/697886#Comment_697886

Having manually verified the first page of the search results, I have refined my search argument to:

("( "1 Macc", "1 Mac", 1M, "I Ma", 1Ma, "I Mac", 1Mac, "I Macc", 1Macc, "I Maccabees", "1 Maccabees", 1Maccabees, "1st Maccabees", "First Maccabees", "1 Mace", "1 Maccab", "1 Mc", 1Mc) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi)" OR 1Ma) ANDNOT ("1 Mac 1 Maccabees", "1 Maccabees 2 Mac", "1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees", "1 Mc 1 Maccabees", "1 Maccabees 2 Mc")