BUG: Prioritizing a book

I am attempting to prioritize a single book -- the Book of Enoch -- so that the text not the commentary will appear in Power Lookup. However, when I drag the Book of Enoch over to the priority panel it insists on inserting the series without asking (CLEAR BUG)- it used to ask book or series. Not only is the series not what I want, it hides the fact that this prioritization is to solve a specific problem with Enoch.

If I "go with the flow" and use advanced prioritization to make the purpose visible I am confronted with an abbreviation I don't recognize (CAP) or a classification that belies my purpose.(POSSIBLE BUG)

But as a cheerful trooper I settle on:

Too bad it doesn't work (POSSIBLE BUG) ... I'm still getting the commentary from Hermeneia ... not the text that precedes the commentary.

Hmm try to switch to 1 Enoch but it keeps reverting to Enoch.(POSSIBLE BUG) Hmm switch to Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and I'm only allowed 1 Enoch. Ah yes, that was obvious (sarcastic emoticon omitted).

Well look at that I finally have the desired results:

Well so much for extended canon ... the book in question is type:Bible but I have to call it pseudepigraphia in unnecessary advanced prioritization and I have something that works.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

However, when I drag the Book of Enoch over to the priority panel it insists on inserting the series without asking (CLEAR BUG)- it used to ask book or series.

If you right click you get the choice of resource or series.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/690406#Comment_690406

However, when I drag the Book of Enoch over to the priority panel it insists on inserting the series without asking (CLEAR BUG)- it used to ask book or series.

If you right click you get the choice of resource or series.

Also, if you hold down Ctrl while you drag it will just prioritize the single resource.

Mark Barnes

As I think is clear from the other posts, all this is working as designed. CAP stands for Charles' Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and is used on a lot on the earlier Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal texts.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/690518#Comment_690518

Whereas I think that since prioritizing against CAP required one name and didn't work and against OTP required a different name and did work, it is a bug ... if by design, the design itself is flawed and the UI flawed ... what I wished to prioritized should have required no additional knowledge other such as what apocrypha/pseudepigraphia collection somebody somewhere had placed it in. Knowing that it was deuterocanonical/apocrypha [pseudepigraphia] should be sufficient.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/690604#Comment_690604

Whereas I think that since prioritizing against CAP required one name and didn't work and against OTP required a different name and did work, it is a bug ... if by design, the design itself is flawed and the UI flawed ...

It's partly a legacy issue, but mostly partly a result of having a wide canon. If we only had 66 books in the Bible datatype, it would be easy. Enoch wouldn't be part of a Bible datatype, just the Pseudepigrapha datatype. But if you want the whole of the Ethopian canon as a Bible datatype, then this is the sort of situation that's going to arise [:P].

what I wished to prioritized should have required no additional knowledge other such as what apocrypha/pseudepigraphia collection somebody somewhere had placed it in. Knowing that it was deuterocanonical/apocrypha [pseudepigraphia] should be sufficient.

All you needed to do to prioritise this was to prioritise the individual volume, not the series. You didn't need advanced prioritisation at all. In this case, a little knowledge was a dangerous thing.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/690626#Comment_690626

Mark, I found with the Wisdom of Solomon that I do want advanced priorities. And it should be possible to set them whether or not they are technically required.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/690642#Comment_690642

And it should be possible to set them whether or not they are technically required.

And it is possible. Advanced prioritisation works. I accept that it requires a deeper understanding of datatypes than 'normal' prioritising, but isn't that why it's called 'advanced prioritisation'?

If you want to see your English translation of Wisdom specifically, all you need to do is drag the book you want over, set the datatype to a Bible datatype, and enter "Wisdom of Solomon" in the range. That's all. (And if you inadvertently choose the wrong datatype for that reference, Logos won't let you set the range, which alerts users to their error.)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/690768#Comment_690768

Mark, part of my objection is that the same pseudepigraphical book must be called "Enoch" if tagged as Bible (CAP) and "1 Enoch" if called Old Testament pseudepigraphia. That is the sort of Faithlife "esoterica" I consider ridiculous for an application that claims to not need documentation because it is "intuitive". And one option for advanced prioritization worked for my test case; the other did not. Yes, I know that there are several ways to get what I need ... or get close enough to require precisely the right case to show the flaw. And in this particular case as I have only one volume of the series, the behavior is the same either way. ... But I hope to have the opportunity to add more [;)]

I've had the Wisdom of Solomon working just fine for over a year. It worked as I expected when I took into account what other Biblical books were in the various prioritized Bibles. My choice of how to do 1 Enoch is based on that same knowledge. I'm not having trouble making it work -- it is simply that there is no excuse for how it works not based upon system logic but upon the specific tagging/coding associated with the Book of Enoch/ 1 Enoch.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/690775#Comment_690775

I've had the Wisdom of Solomon working just fine for over a year. It worked as I expected when I took into account what other Biblical books were in the various prioritized Bibles. My choice of how to do 1 Enoch is based on that same knowledge. I'm not having trouble making it work -- it is simply that there is no excuse for how it works not based upon system logic but upon the specific tagging/coding associated with the Book of Enoch/ 1 Enoch.

What I'm trying to say is that the "inconsistencies" merely follow the inconsistencies in the way deuterocanonical and pseudepigraphal literature is referred to in the literature. Charles' Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha calls "1 Enoch" simply "Enoch". Logos therefore supports both referencing systems — "1 Enoch" under the Pseudepigrapha datatype, and "Enoch" under the BibleCAP datatype. It does that it each of the books have have Enoch, not just CAP. I know that's slightly confusing, but as you know better than anyone, apocrypha/pseudepigrapha is a confusing world.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/690778#Comment_690778

And what I am saying is that most alternative names for books are treated s synonyms. There are a handful where a name is truly ambiguous that require careful specification - 1 &2 Kingdoms (not Kings) and the Ezra material are the only ones that come to mind.

The "basic" source I was taught was Charlesworth not Charles which adds to the confusion as the other specifications I have run into are manuscript traditions not edition specific.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/691000#Comment_691000

And what I am saying is that most alternative names for books are treated s synonyms.

Sure, I understand that's true for Bible books. But that's an exception. But there are also plenty of examples where there are two different datatypes that do essentially the same thing, within the same resource, but with different referencing systems. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the most obvious example, but there's also Josephus, several of the Fathers, and so on. This is no different. It's a bit confusing having multiple reference systems, but that's a problem that having two datatypes solves, it's not a problem that two datatypes creates.

A final though. Perhaps if you think of Enoch as a Bible book and nothing else, it doesn't make sense. If you think of it as a Bible book and/or a Pseudepigraphal work, it does make sense.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/691268#Comment_691268

I consider the church fathers as totally screwed up in a way that has left many newer books without datatypes and some documents within tagged resources unspecifiable. As I have said before I am astonished that they did not start by developing a scheme that would handle all works in Migne as a minimum.

I do not particularly consider 1 Enoch as a biblical book - but it is a book that has such standard referencing in the academic world that its references require no special knowledge or mental conversions. Datatypes appear to me a bit too much like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin - they just grew. They don't appear to have a coherent design.