How Can I Put This?
How Can I Put This?
I’d like a database of biblical issues and stances with faceted browsing and graphical functionality.
However, I don’t think this is clear enough for adding as a feature on UserVoice (https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-7). How can I phrase it better?
Allow me to explain:
Issues: Debated interpretations of scripture and related information (e.g. author of 2 Peter; date of writing of Revelation; whether the dreamers in Jude 8 are “filthy”, revelatory or metaphorical). The issues are all the debated points discussed in the major commentaries or outlined in works such as SIL’s Exegetical Summaries (https://www.logos.com/product/38965/exegetical-summaries-series) and Lexham Bible Guides (e.g. https://www.logos.com/product/27493/lexham-bible-guides-pauls-letters-collection).
Stances: These are the stances for each issue (e.g. author of 2 Peter: Peter, colleague of Peter, later pseudonymous author...; date of Revelation: 41-54, 54-68, 81-96, 98-117 (depending on the emperor) or more specifically 90-95, 95-96 ...; dreamers in Jude: “filthy”, revelatory, metaphorical).
Facets: Country, Date, Denomination and Stream (see http://community.logos.com/forums/p/54491/854808.aspx#854808), Type of Work (e.g. technical commentary, devotional commentary, academic study, popular paperback, sermon)
Graphical Functionality: This should allow aggregated statistics (e.g. graphs of: stances by different denomination; stances through time; works taking particular stances on multiple issues; percentages of commentaries/works representing a particular stance over time).
Why?
Many issues are related. For example, according to Bateman (https://www.logos.com/product/56272/2-peter-and-jude-evangelical-exegetical-commentary), taking one stance on the authorship of Jude affects many other stances, such as recipients and occasion for writing. A browsable database would display this effectively allowing works to be grouped by author, recipient and occasion, demonstrating the truth or otherwise of this claim, while also highlighting exceptions to the rule, such as works that suggest Jude is written to Jewish Christians in the 80s-160s.
Some stances belong to a particular era. For example, in the 1991 introduction to the second edition of The Romans Debate (sadly not available in Logos), Donfried argues that there is a growing consensus on a number of issues (pp.lxix-lxx). A database would quickly show whether he is correct that Romans 16 is now viewed as an integral part of the original letter, for example, as well as demonstrating that scholarship has left behind a whole host of ideas, although some are still promoted in popular works.
Some stances are fairly dependent on the denomination or stream of the author. For example, in Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Blomberg, Klein and Hubbard state (pp.409-410 – see lengthy quote below) that traditional Catholics, Lutherans, Anabaptists, nineteenth-century liberals, existentialists and dispensationalists take different approaches to understanding Matthew 5:21-48. A limited study of the command to “love your enemies” that I did for my Masters shows this is basically true, though their “Lutheran” interpretation was difficult to find in scholarly Lutheran literature. A searchable database could potentially allow this to be checked in seconds.
Similarly, Horton (https://www.logos.com/product/16626/four-views-on-eternal-security) lists “Eternal Security” passages and “Arminian” passages. A database of issues and stances could quickly show to what extent authors (and which authors) that are not heavily committed to the Calvinist and Arminian traditions agree with the various Calvinist and Arminian interpretations, shedding light on the extent to which the tradition is shaping the interpretation.
There is still a tremendous amount of data in Logos that needs to be unpacked before trends can be mapped easily. Over the last decade or so, Hans Rosling has demonstrated how creating a single database of UN data and applying powerful informational visualisation software can increase understanding quickly and even at a popular level (e.g. see the TED talk at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUwS1uAdUcI). I would love to see this applied to the Bible, particularly demonstrating how some interpretations are reliant on time, place and traditions or systems of belief. I know that this would take a great deal of time and energy, but I think that Logos could do this, possibly beginning with the data in the SIL Exegetical Summary series, or even their own Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series. I believe they have the user base to allow this to be paid for and, if it is requested by enough people, I believe they will do it.
I am imagining a tool that could be used by academic and non-academic alike so, for example, people at my church can check whether the interpretation they have just read on a website or in the latest popular book agrees with what scholars or others in their tradition are currently teaching. Is it outdated or linked with a particular tradition other than their own? It should also point to further reading for where they can read arguments for and against. Surely this is one thing Logos is particularly good for and will encourage further sales for Logos.
But if UserVoice is the place for the suggestion, my description of “a database of biblical issues and stances with faceted browsing and graphical functionality” may not be clear enough to attract enough interest. How can I put it better?
I’d welcome comments.
Long quote from Blomberg, Klein and Hubbard:
Did Jesus seriously expect his followers to view hatred as murder, to view lust as adultery, never to retaliate when abused, and actually to love their enemies (Mt 5:21–48)? We have already noted the traditional Catholic response: only select disciples are expected to follow these more austere rules. Lutherans often viewed Jesus’ ethics as “law” (rather than “gospel”) meant to point out the hopelessness of our sinful condition and drive us to our knees in repentance and faith in Christ. Against both these views note that Jesus addressed his words to all his disciples, as well as to the crowds of would-be followers who flocked to hear him (Mt 5:1). Anabaptists frequently took these commands as seriously applying to public life and to all people on earth, so they renounced all violence and became pacifists. Tolstoy adopted a similar response on a personal level, as do many Mennonites and others today. But Jesus nowhere teaches that his kingdom principles should form the basis for civil law. Nineteenth-century liberals often preached a “social gospel” of human progress and moral evolution apart from the personal transformation of conversion to Christ, but twentieth-century worldwide warfare squelched much of their optimism. Existentialists see in Jesus’ teaching precedent for decisive calls to ethical action without viewing any of his teaching as absolute. Dispensationalists have traditionally reserved Jesus’ kingdom ethic for the millennial age and have not found it directly relevant for Christians now. But this requires a greater disjunction between Israel and the Church than Scripture allows. Jesus’ choice of twelve disciples, for example, almost certainly was deliberate—to match the twelve tribes of Israel and portray the community of his followers as the new locus of God’s saving activity.[1]
PS. If some of this sounds familiar, you may be remembering my comments on Lexham Bible Guides here: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/63694/447500.aspx. As there have been no new guides produced since my comments nearly four years ago, it's hard to know how much Logos has taken the comments on board.
[1] Klein, W.W., Blomberg, C. & Hubbard, R.L., 2004. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Comments
I wouldn't want the database filled in with data. That would be too subjective.
What I would want would be a database capable of holding such data. In many instances, the data will be interrelated. I would also like to be able to collaborate with others in the endeavor of "filling in the blanks". Being able to look at the maps of others or a map distributed by Logos would be interesting, but I would want to build my own from scratch.
Two structures come to mind. The first database I saw capable of this was a product called HyperCard which was available on Macintosh computers in the 1980's. Data was held in searchable "stacks" of cards. Fields on the cards could refer to other cards and other stacks. It was the first implementation of hyperlinks that I had ever seen since it predated the web and http.
Using HyperCard, I would organize each major issue in it's own stack. The cards would hold information about the issue and links back to resources in your Logos library.
The second, and more modern, of the databases which could hold such data would be a mind map. The issues could be the major nodes of the map. The links would be far more visual.
There have been other threads discussing how mind maps could be integrated into Logos.
One additional thought. If this dataset is ever created, and if the first books to be included in it are in fact commentaries, then it would be reasonable to hold out hope that the same dataset might also make it possible to run a commentary search whose results are automatically sorted by religious perspective. It would be really helpful to enter a passage and have the commentaries sorted into Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc. With no additional tagging, collections, etc. needing to be created by the user.
Andrew,
I've been pondering your request and I'm wondering if you've looked at any of the Lexham Bible Guides? They seem to do a good bit of what you are looking for other than graphs. They seem to be hand crafted from Logos resources by knowledgable people and seem very thorough. The downside is they are pricey, and not available yet for all the books in the Bible, though i suspect Logos is working toward that end.
Thanks, John. I commented on the Lexham Bible Guides in my last post above, referring to my earlier review. [Apologies for the delay in replying.]
Thanks, Matthew. I think that once Logos have adopted the data from the Denomination/Theology project (http://community.logos.com/forums/p/54491/878819.aspx#878819 or created their own), there should be no reason this can't be done simply. There is an increasing amount of data becoming available, and as we find better ways to link it up, it will make it much easier to find what we're looking for.
Thanks, David, but I'm not sure you've understood this. The idea is that it will be objectively recording and allowing a quick and simple analysis of what others have said. It shouldn't be impossible to create your own database, and it may be possible to have user-created entries in the system I'm suggesting. It would largely be equivalent to adding a line of data to the spreadsheet I'm about to post, although I'm not suggesting that the data would actually be held in a spreadsheet, or that it would be as cumbersome to manipulate.
In an earlier post, mab suggested I come up with a methodology for this proposal. It's not clear whether he meant for collecting the data, for storing the data, for presenting the data, or what.
My proposal is that Logos automate the collection of data from the SIL Exegetical Summaries series, and then add in data from the major commentaries, including their own Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series, as it is produced. If the product is well-utilised, data from other commentaries and studies can be added later.
The data would be stored in their SQL database. This could be done fairly simply by starting with a spreadsheet and then importing the data into the database, or using a simple data entry programme created for this purpose.
The data could be presented in the forms of charts and summary data. A tree structure should allow the mapping of different issues and stances, as held in different traditions and/or over time. I think that this may be the hardest to imagine, so I have had a play with doing this using a spreadsheet. The advantage of the spreadsheet is that it is simpler for others to use. However, I'm aware that it appears large and cumbersome. Data is usually hidden. See the following post.
I've had a play with the Book of Jude to show how this could be done. I used a spreadsheet for the sake of transparency, though the final product would be a lot more straightforward to use.
Here are samples of the graphs that could be produced: 1768.Jude Graphs.pdf. I hope each tells its own story.
Here is a short analysis showing how the data could be used: 1447.Jude Analysis.docx. The tables of summary data would be automatically generated.
Here is the data that these are based on: 6116.Jude Issues and Stances - For Sharing.xlsx. I've created it to allow easy filtering of the data by stances. This should also be possible in the final product.
If you would like to see these features available in Logos, please vote for them on UserVoice (https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-7/suggestions/17871697-create-a-database-of-biblical-issues-and-stances-w).
Thanks.
Issues: Debated interpretations of scripture and related information (e.g. author of 2 Peter; date of writing of Revelation; whether the dreamers in Jude 8 are “filthy”, revelatory or metaphorical). The issues are all the debated points discussed in the major commentaries or outlined in works such as SIL’s Exegetical Summaries (https://www.logos.com/product/38965/exegetical-summaries-series) and Lexham Bible Guides (e.g. https://www.logos.com/product/27493/lexham-bible-guides-pauls-letters-collection).
Stances: These are the stances for each issue (e.g. author of 2 Peter: Peter, colleague of Peter, later pseudonymous author...; date of Revelation: 41-54, 54-68, 81-96, 98-117 (depending on the emperor) or more specifically 90-95, 95-96 ...; dreamers in Jude: “filthy”, revelatory, metaphorical).
Facets: Country, Date, Denomination and Stream (see http://community.logos.com/forums/p/54491/854808.aspx#854808), Type of Work (e.g. technical commentary, devotional commentary, academic study, popular paperback, sermon)
Graphical Functionality: This should allow aggregated statistics (e.g. graphs of: stances by different denomination; stances through time; works taking particular stances on multiple issues; percentages of commentaries/works representing a particular stance over time).
I am not entirely sure of what I think of the idea at this point. It is a good concept. What I am not sure about is how much use it would actually see in comparison to the work required to compile all this information. But I really mean it: I am not sure... either way.
Some comments:
I think that a coverage of issues could be helpful but easier to document than stances. So, for instance, one might look at Genesis 1 and would expect discussion of the image of God. However, not every commentary will be interested in source critical analyses. So, seeing which commentaries do or don't could be helpful for those who either want it or the reverse.
Stances are more difficult to document. Let's take as an illustrative example the idea that a passage that pertains to election could be interpreted in a "calvinistic" or "arminian" way. Surely, there would be a full spectrum of variations in views that might be misrepresented by either label. I think it may be more difficult to label these properly and incontroversially.
As far as graphical interface is concerned, I like the "browser" model in Logos.
As far as feasibility is concerned, it needs not be all or nothing: it could be a progressive tagging.
Yet several questions arise:
(1) What's in it for Faithlife that would make the time investment worthwhile?
(2) Would there be sufficient interest/use for it?
(3) Would this be seen as lessening the value of the Lexham guides that Faithlife has already invested in?
Many thanks for the response, Francis. I'll try to respond to your points.
Firstly, thank you for recognising that it is a good concept. I think that with good integration, it would be well used. I also think that many people will think that it will take more time to compile than it needs to. I've tried to transparently stand on the shoulders of others, using some of the best work out there to summarise the issues and the stances of different interpreters. Once the issues have been decided, it is quicker than I thought it would be to log the data.
Limiting the suggestion to covering issues would come closer to the Lexham Bible Guides as they now are. This would be much more limiting than I would like. Detailing the most current stances has been really quite informative in itself, and allowing people to produce graphs would allow people to discover traits and patterns for themselves. If I can find the time, I might try to outline some key findings, and how the data made them clear.
For a small number of issues, nuance is important. I've found that the Exegetical Summaries series falls short here at times as I have plunged into commentaries to check the summaries. Refinement over time will help, but it will never fully capture the spectrum for all issues. I found myself drawing a few conclusions regarding the Jude data that didn't quite hold up as I checked the data. However, the overall benefit outweighs this difficulty. For an example that illustrates this difficulty, see the final paragraph in the Jude Analysis document.
I fully agree with progressive tagging. I suggested this above, saying:
"It's a sizeable undertaking, but I think a worthwhile one. The problem is if we try to aim for completeness which, as you say could never really be achieved. However, the trick is to start with an achievable step, and then keep expanding. The SIL Exegetical Summaries (SILES) series could provide the initial base data, and the list of commentaries could be limited to, say, the top 20 commentaries on www.bestcommentaries.com that are available in Logos, for each book of the Bible. The exact number isn't important. Probably the best commentaries to include first are those that are systematically referneced by the top commentaries. If the SILES data is used, then the first stage could be largely automated.
My feeling is that if you decide your initial questions/issues, such as in SILES, then it doesn't take as long as you'd think to skim commentaries and match them against the questions. In time, the list of questions could expand (e.g. which are the focus of the Evangelical Exegetical Commentaries, as they're written, or better still those treated at length in the major commentary series, such as the Word Biblical Commentaries, the recent International Critical Commentary Series, Anchor Yale, NIGTC, NICNT and BECNT)."
In response to your questions:
1) What's in it for Faithlife? I think Faithlife are interested in helping people understand the Bible, and need to find ways to make money from doing so in order to pay for the project. My suggestion helps people understand the Bible, and written the right way could point people to commentaries to explore different ideas, much like the Lexham Bible Guides do, thus increasing sales. I would see it either as an interactive feature within Logos, included in a Feature Set, or incorporated into the Lexham Bible Guides, providing the data that I think they currently lack, both as evidence of what is said, and of extra information that they could quite easily include.
2) Would there be sufficient interest/use? I would like to think so, but it's difficult to prove the concept up front. I can foresee many more uses than I have so far documented, and I think it could easily become a major 'go to' point for checking out the biases and perspectives of the main commentaries, translations and study bibles people use, and the impact these have on the text and interpretation. I'm not sure how Logos decide to produce their feature sets. I suspect that a lot of people would not really see the use of many of them until they have the tool in front of them. Even then, not every tool will be used by everyone. I'm not sure how they usually gauge interest up front.
3) Would this lessen the value of the Lexham guides? Personally I think it would add to their value, whether incorporated into them or produced separately. I suggest, as I suggested years ago, that there could be more issues covered, with better evidence for what is said, and a wider treatment of commentaries. The Guides are good overviews, but are not transparent as to their own biases, and sometimes make things seem clearer and less controversial than they are. The overview of commentaries suggested is as transparent as possible, and tackles all of the major issues that the major commentaries tackle. Instead of simply saying "most commentators now think...", it provides the easily-checked evidence. The Lexham Guides generally point to one commentary per stance for controversial issues. They have (hopefully) curated the best. My suggestion also allows people to click through to alternative commentaries with the same stance, to see how others have argued their case, or to click through to those who stand against, for their perspective. If people don't have the "best" commentary for arguing the stance, they still might have one of their commentaries with the stance, which should be clear from a glance at the data, and they can then decide whether investing in the "best" commentary would help them.
I hope this sheds some light at least.
Thanks for engaging.
I think it's time for another push on this, so I've added another reason to vote for it here: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/169335/979212.aspx
It shows how easy it is to mislead readers and how hard it is for most of us to check the claims. I happen to have the journal that was referenced and Thiselton's commentary, along with a little time to wade through the many pages required to check the references to it. I don't think many of us have this time for every issue, so it would be useful if Logos produced the suggested resource. Feel free to vote here: https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-7/suggestions/17871697-create-a-database-of-biblical-issues-and-stances-w
Thanks.
In another push, I've added a few more reasons, here: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/171781.aspx, including a few examples from the big black IVP dictionaries here: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/171781/993822.aspx#993822
Please keep the votes coming at: https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-7/suggestions/17871697-create-a-database-of-biblical-issues-and-stances-w
Thanks.
I see where you are going, but I think you need to come up with some methodology to make it coherent. The only thing I can suggest is that you want some sort of filtering system to apply to your information. FWIW, I'd place church grouping dead last. It's really just a label for the most part after factoring the Reformation.
The other thing is where you focus. Keep this entirely exegetical because that's where the issues are centered.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
Thanks for the feedback. Anyone else?
Michael's Carson quote reminded me of Carson's comment on the impossibility of neutrality. Neither historians, theologians nor Bible scholars can avoid bringing their own presuppositions and prejudices to a text. The more I understand the authors, the better I can assess what they are trying to say. Here's Carson:
But if we sometimes read our own theology into the text, the solution is not to retreat to an attempted neutrality, to try to make one’s mind a tabula rasa so we may listen to the text without bias. It cannot be done, and it is a fallacy to think it can be. We must rather discern what our prejudices are and make allowances for them; and meanwhile we should learn all the historical theology we can. One well-known seminary insists that proper exegetical method will guarantee such a high quality of exegesis that historical theology may be safely ignored. I can think of no better way of cultivating the soil that sprouts either heresy or the shallowest sort of traditionalism.[1]
[1] Carson, D.A., 1996. Exegetical fallacies 2nd ed., Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books.
I finally added this as a suggestion on UserVoice, linking back to this thread. In case anyone wants to support it, here's the link:
https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-7/suggestions/17871697-create-a-database-of-biblical-issues-and-stances-w
I try to avoid mystery come-on titles, but maybe I shouldn't. Especially reaching into to back of the frig for a long-forgotten recent thread.
Personally, I think there's two groups that Logos sells to. (1) I made up my mind, don't waste my time, and (2) I like to think I have an open mind, but don't ... sure, waste my time.
I'm in group (1). Churchmen don't know the when, who, why, or how of the sacred writings; only the arguments. Ergo denomination as the major cut, linked to denomination denominated Logos versions. That is where the money ultimatedly resides.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.