Inconsistency with apocrypha

[countach]

I don't understand why the NRSV has the apocrypha as part of the text, but when it comes to the REB or the RSV I've suddenly got to be swapping to a different version, RSVA and REBA to access them. It is very irritating. Why is it so? It means I've got to waste precious screen real estate having both RSV and RSVA etc.

 

Also, what is NRSV2 about?

[Helen Brown]

It simply depends on how the electronic texts were supplied to us. Sorry it irritates you, we may eventually combine them all, but most people seem to manage OK.

 

In general, modules like NRSV2 or LXX2 contain alternative readings for the same passages. This is explained in the Read Me file for the module which you should find in the Read Mes folder in the Accordance folder. In order to display alternative versions of a chapter, and let you compare them, we create a second module.

[countach]

I really really really really really think you need to fix this inconsistency.

 

Or can I fix it myself? Is there a way to export them and re-import them as a single user bible?

[Helen Brown]

You can try. Verse matching in the Apocrypha is very complex. We did not support the user Bible import for these books, and users have had difficulties. However, the RSV is the standard so you may succeed with it, and with REB if it follows the RSV. Most importantly, no chapter may have more verses that the standard.

 

Many thousands of users over 13 years have lived with this issue. May I suggest another workaround? Duplicate your search tab and link the second window to the first with the [LINK windowname] command so it updates the search each time. In the second window switch those Bibles where the Apocrypha is separate, to the Apocrypha module. Then work in the first window, but when you see lacunae because the verse is in the Apocrypha, switch to the second tab to see it in all versions. That way you lose no "real estate" in the first window.

[countach]

Uh yeah, then I can't see it all at once, which is worse!

 

And it's not just a real estate issue, if I want to search all the occurrences of XYZ in the RSV, now I've got to search twice or else mess with that multi-bible search which I don't want to do for just a simple search.

 

If I want to be studying the LXX, I'd want say LXX, KJV, RSV and REB across the screen comparing them without having to be flipping around for no reason. But as it is I'd need 7 columns instead of 4!

 

I really cannot fathom why you wouldn't want to fix this ASAP. Maybe those thousands of users you mention weren't reading the apocrypha or the LXX?

[David Lang]

The truth is that we may indeed combine the RSV and REB modules with their apocrypha. In fact, I seem to remember us discussing it as a possibility before you even raised the issue. The reasons the RSVA and REBA are separate modules are largely historical (they were some of the first translations we offered), and since, to date, no one has complained, combining the modules has not been one of our highest priorities. I believe that was the only point Helen was trying to make.

 

But there are other reasons we have not been quick to include the apocrypha in all our Bible modules. For example, the KJVA is a separate module and should, I believe, remain so; since today the KJV is typically published without the apocrypha. Many KJV users simply would not want the apocrypha included in the main KJV module.

 

So we have two clear-cut ends of the spectrum: most KJV users do not expect the apocrypha to be included, most NRSV users do. What about RSV and REB users? Well now we have to consider how those Bibles are published. I believe the RSV has been published in two editions: a Protestant edition without the apocrypha, and a Catholic edition with it. How's that for complicating things?

 

All that is to say that we will certainly consider your request, but the issue is not so simple from our standpoint as you may think. If you want to see things change, make a case for why most RSV and REB users would expect the apocrypha to be included, but please understand that assuming an irritated and demanding tone is not the best way to get us (or anybody) to do what you want. Remember, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!

[Lorinda H. M. Hoover]

Just as a point of reference, the Oxford Annotated RSV was published for Protestants with the apocrypha in the back. (There may have been a non-apocrypha version, too). My parents gave me one when I was in junior high (more than two decades ago) and Mom thought having the apocrypha available was a good idea.

 

I appreciate very much that the NRSV includes the apocrypha in the main module. I don't currently own either the RSV or REB modules. I'm not likely to purchase the RSV, but the REB is on my "to purchase eventually" list. I would certainly prefer for the apocrypha to be part of the main REB module, as it is in the NRSV.

 

That said I know there's always more on the Accordance "to do list" than you folks can get done, and priorities have to be set.

 

Lorinda

[countach]

Well David, you have stumbled into a multi-millenia controversy about what to do with these books.

 

The question is, do you want to cater for whatever group can gain >51% of your market.

 

Or, do you want to accept that you are not going to be able to make everyone conform to a common denominator, and therefore cater for both?

 

You would cater for both either by releasing two versions of each, one combined, or one separate.

 

Or else programmatically, by having some way to make the program ignore the apocryphal books. I wouldn't think it would be too hard, just allow the user to redefine the [all text] category to exclude the apocrypha. You could even make [all text] to default to the shorter list and document how to edit that category to re-add them. Everybody is happy and all you've got to do is remove the restriction on editing "[All Text]" range.

 

I cannot tell you what proportion of your market wants them combined. I can surmise that scholars want them combined for studying the LXX. I can imagine that Catholics aren't just sticking with the NAB and NJB they also want to know what other versions say. I know that Eastern Orthodox use the KJV and RSV and want those books included.

 

I also know that the NET bible has an apocrypha in the works that I am hoping will turn up in Accordance, but I cringe at having a separate NETA module.

 

Sorry if you think my tone was demanding, but you know about the squeaky wheel and all. I really think this needs to be fixed, including, or even especially the KJV.

[mythrenegade]

Can I suggest a simple answer?

 

Leave the RSV and KJVS modules alone, but put the entire bible with apocrypha in RSVA and KJVA. In the day and age of 120GB+ HD's with almost every machine on the market, this wouldn't cost much disk-space wise, and would solve everyone's problem.

 

For those who don't want Apocryphal results, they continue to use the RSV and KJVS modules. For those who want to search it all, they use the "A" versions which have the entire text.

 

Everyone's happy?

 

Joel