My hobbyhorse: electronic editions of lexicons, commentaries, etc.

Recently Rick Mansfield compared Accordance's new bibliographic citation feature with Logos's citation feature. While neither do it flawlessly, Accordance comes off better I think (of course I am triply biased, I'm a Mac user, Accordance user, and assisted with this new feature).

During the course of the video comparison, Rick mentions the fact that both programs include the program information (Accordance or Logos) in the citation. He mentions that students may have to remove the mention of Logos or Accordance for old-school teachers who prefer the citation to be of the "actual book" (I'm paraphrasing here, watch the video for his exact words).

Now, this is undoubtedly true as it has happened to me but I decided a few years ago that I will simply refuse to "quote the real thing" as if electronic editions are second class citizens. 2 things really bother me about this perspective, and teachers out there would do well to listen up.

First, if a student is using an electronic edition of a text in Accordance or Logos or whatever, they should tell you that- it should be treated as an edition of the book. If you ask them to cite the "real thing" they won't. That is to say, if they are using an electronic edition, they will not simultaneously use the hardcopy edition as well. That is doubling the amount of work and unduly punishing them for making a better choice! (more below) So, if you ask a student who cited a Logos or Accordance version of a text to "cite the real thing", all that student will do is take the words "Logos" or "Accordance" out of the citation. They will not go and look at the hard copy. Rather, your odd legalism for citation has caused them to improperly cite the source (giving credit where credit is due) AND you have asked the student to dupe you!

Second, whether you like it or not, electronic copies of texts are here to stay and will only grow with time. Bible software is an integral part of most scholars lives now. Why treat it so poorly? In my opinion, an electronic edition is often the better choice. I am able to do full text searches of electronic copies, read them side by side with other texts, etc. There is no end to their usefulness. I recommend to all of my students that they not only invest in Bible software, but to NOT EVEN bother with hard copies of lexicons, dictionaries, grammars, and commentaries. If they are available as a bible software module, they will be more useful in the long term for them if it resides on their Accordance shelf rather than their bookshelf.

Finally, even if you do not like that they are using an electronic edition, it is safer for your students (and for scholars) to make note of the electronic version in their citation. Why? Two reasons. First, no Bible software program is perfect- sometimes mistakes, human or computer, creep in. If something happens to be incorrect in the electronic version and this is cited in a paper, blame for misrepresentation cannot fall on the person who made the citation- the problem is with the edition not with the person. Second, there are times when the hardcopy original has mistakes (gasp!) and Bible software publishers choose (wisely) to fix those mistakes in the electronic edition. So sometimes the electronic copy is in fact better!

Thus ends my tirade. I will continue to bang this drum from time to time until every single person agrees with me.

—