April 01, 2021

macOS and Accordance running on Apple Watch

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but tweaking the kernel from the package at mini vMac I have now been able to install macOS on my Apple Watch. It is smooth as butter, even scrolling the window panes. The caveats are:

  1. I need my 3.0x reading glasses
  2. Processor tasks are sloooow. For instance, on Accordance, it takes 10 seconds for the simplest word search
  3. I haven't figured out how to select an object or text. But, connecting a Bluetooth trackpad solves that problem. Maybe just keep that in my back pocket?
  4. macOS 10.4.1 is the latest version that will run stable.

I'm still thinking through use cases, but it is thrilling to see nonetheless.

August 10, 2020

Accordance Better Touch Tool Preset

 For those who use Better Touch Tool to customize the Touch Bar on a MacBook Pro, I created a preset that contains a load of triggers for Accordance.

You can download the preset at the BTT community forum here.

The list of triggers include:

  • New tab… various
  • Copy as… various
  • Toggle Library
  • Toggle Instant Details
  • Change current field
  • Bookmark selection
  • Highlight selection
  • Global font size up / down
  • Previous / Next Hit
  • Context Increase / Decrease
  • Reader View Toggle
  • Display as Paragraph / Verses
  • Search selection on the web
  • Lookup selection in lexicon
  • New Workspace
  • Duplicate Current Tab
  • Get Verses… function
  • An AppleScript to simply paste the current selection in the open TextEdit window (this is simple to change to Word or Pages, etc.)

You will want to disable the ones you don't use. I'd suggest turning off the Control Strip to give more room for the Accordance-specific triggers.

July 26, 2020

Touch Bar Customizations for Accordance

Here is a quick video to show off how I've customized the Touch Bar on my MacBook Pro to work well with Accordance Bible Software. You may want to view it in YouTube for best results.

In general, I only find the Touch Bar useful in specific contexts. I'm now using BetterTouchTool to customize the Touch Bar. If there is interest in this setup for Accordance, I can see about sharing the preset.

April 01, 2020

New position

I am pleased to make public that I have accepted the positions of Campus Chaplain and Associate Professor of Religion at the University of Farmington.

May 23, 2019

Inconsistencies in Counting Overlapping Synoptic Stories

A side note to the previous posts on how best to graphically display overlap among the synoptic gospels. When we are using the pericope/section/story/number divisions as provided in the Aland Synopsis, I ran into places where I was having to make a judgment call in how I counted a section. What that means is, my resulting data was not above reproach. It would be simple if the gospel sections were all in the same order, and all discreet sections. Where an outline would be:

§ Matt Mark Luke
§1 Birth 1 - 1
§2 Baptism 2 1 2
§3 Healing A 3-4 2 3
§4 Healing B 5 3 -

But that's often not the situation. Because they occur in different order, sections in Aland are repeated, in particular, they are repeated each time that collection of verses occurs in the order for a given book. We even have a couple stories that occur in three different places in the triple tradition. Sometimes this is innocuous.
The Parable of the Great Supper that is in Matthew and Luke shows up twice in the synopsis and both times with the same verse reference:

§ Matt Mark Luke
§216 Great Supper 22.1-14 - 14.15-24
§279 Great Supper 22.1-14 - 14.15-24

The bold indicates that this is the place that it occurse in that books order. Luke's §216 occurs before the parables of salt and lost sheep. In Matthew, §279 is well after that, in a completely different act of the book. No problem. But one must use a consistent method so that the results are repeatable, because sometimes it's tricky.

My method for listing "which gospel sections overlap with sections of another gospel" has been:

  1. note the bolded sections in Mark, counting whether that section is also in Matt &/or Luke
  2. note the bolded sections in Luke that aren't also already bolded sections of Mark, counting whether that section is also in Matt or is stand alone, and
  3. note the bolded sections in Matthew not already accounted for that don't have corresponding material in Mark or Luke and count them.

A synoptics person might say, Mark sections, plus Luke's Matthew and Luke's sondergut, and Matthew's sondergut.
I also do it again switching Matthew's and Luke's place for comparison. And that's where I get most of my problematic results.
As one example, look at the The Women at the Tomb and Jesus Appearing to the Women.

§ Matt Mark Luke
§352 The Women At the Tomb 28.1-8 16.1-8 24.1-12
§353 Jesus Appears to the Women 28.9-10 - 24.10-11

When I'm trying to count how many pericopes/sections/stories/numbers overlap using the Aland divisions, I will get a different result depending on my method. In my first count, looking at bold Mark, then bold Luke, then bold Matthew, I will get one less Matthew and Luke count than when I prioritize Matthew's divisions before Luke's. This is because the same story is broken into two sections in Matthew, but remains as one primary section in Luke, according to Aland's method.
Of course I'm tempted to count them both no matter what, but methodologically, that's problematic since I'm not counting stories like the Great Supper twice.
This issue introduces subjectivity and bias into the procedure. I can't just make it up as I go along. This is one of the reasons that using Aland sections as a datapoint for this purpose falls short. Aland was set up to be descriptive of each book's order and divisions, and include it all. It was not set up to ensure 1 to 1 parity between content.

To further illustrate the flaws in what I'm doing, Goodacre (and Larsen) find 107 overlapping pericopae between Matt and Mark. My tables have 106 sections. They both have published books and I haven't, so I yield to their intelligence, but in looking over, I can't even see what I'm missing.
My sections are:
Matt and Mark only: 34, 130, 147, 148, 151, 152, 153, 162, 272, 275, 342
And Triple Tradition: 1, 13, 16, 18, 20, 30, 32, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 128, 136, 137, 138, 139, 142, 143, 144, 146, 150, 154, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 262, 263, 264, 269, 271, 273, 276, 278, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 315, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 339, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 350, 352

Unless they are counting the long ending? Still, the big issue is between Matthew and Luke, and my counts are different from theirs.

Having said that, when our purpose is inputing the data into broad-stroke Venn diagrams, a few differences in data points won't even perceivably alter the graphic.
Arbitrary decisions on how you decide to display the data make a much bigger impact. I hope to post on that in time.