Common Divisions for bibles not standard? Why?
I was working with the NRSV, NABRE, and RSVCE when going through the Verbum Advanced Academic training and noticed that the Common Divisions for the bible in the search drop down are no longer the same across the bibles (see pictures below). They used to be standard, and they were at the time the video was made. Why was this changed?
I'd like to have the same functionality in all of my bibles, or at least all of my reverse interlinear bibles. There is not nearly enough detail in the common divisions for the NABRE and RSVCE now, and I don't see the benefit of having them different by bible. Can this be changed back to have standard common divisions across bibles?
Comments
-
It does seem bizarro. I've always felt that if you thought long enough, the Bellingham brain would reveal itself.
Alexander Campbell gets the full treatment. Julia Smith gets 3 sections. But then the Baptist one got shorted too. All shipped on the same day (though developed across years maybe). Maybe we'll learn the secret sauce!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
For some reason, Logos is staying busy thinking about whether or not it should come up on Easter. I guess I need to send a Mary to go check on it.
However, my suspicion is that many people disliked the listing of unfamiliar (Jewish) divisions or divisions including books not in a particular translation. As it is easy enough to add your own divisions, it doesn't seem too unreasonable. However, for Bibles containing the same canon in the same order, consistency does seem appropriate.Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
For some reason, Logos is staying busy thinking about whether or not it should come up on Easter. I guess I need to send a Mary to go check on it.
However, my suspicion is that many people disliked the listing of unfamiliar (Jewish) divisions or divisions including books not in a particular translation. As it is easy enough to add your own divisions, it doesn't seem too unreasonable. However, for Bibles containing the same canon in the same order, consistency does seem appropriate.I agree, if a set of bibles all have the same books they should have consistent/relevant divisions. Being in seminary myself I love having all of the options for canon divisions, because that is how you divide up the Bible in seminary. I'm glad they didn't take the detail away on all of the bibles (the NRSV, ESV, NASB still have it among others). But the NABRE and RSVCE are pretty commonly used bibles (for Catholics/Orthodox at least) and so you would think they would have left those alone. And the NABRE is a pretty scholarly translation as well, so I would think people who use it might also want the different division options. I hate when they take functionality away. Stop tinkering. Urgh.
0
