So, does anybody know this work, and what is your opinion? I would think MJ would have particular insight . . . any others?]
http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/6494?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+LogosPrepubs+(Logos+Pre-Publications)
I would suggest that Logos should add a third book to the set: Translation of the Primitive Liturgies by J. M. Neale and R. F. Littledale (1859). Hammond refers to Neale's work in his introduction.
Hammond provides texts for the liturgies; these are not "critical editions" but solid versions. While it would be unusual to have them, I wish that the lectionary references were supplied; but I get to be unreasonable. The introductory material focus on structure and remains solid scholarship. Give the book [Y]
Brightman, I have a beef with. How dare he leave the work unfinished.[:'(] He provides much more material on the sources of the liturgy as well as translations. Give him [Y][Y]
While both books are available in PDF form on the web, this is a case where Logos tagging should greatly increase the usefulness of the books. In addition, simply by providing the framework for understand, the set should make it easier to find and use the liturgical resources available on the web for these rites.
hese are not "critical editions" but solid versions.
What does this mean?
He provides much more material on the sources of the liturgy
Betraying my ignorance here, but what kind of sources -- like early church Fathers? Scripture? Councils?
Either way, you are saying these will show the whole liturgical outline and text of the various traditions? So, one could use it for worship? (besides just intellectual study)
thank you for you input, MJ.
They are the liturgical texts such as you might find in The Book of Common Prayer (Anglican) or The Book of Common Worship (Presbyterian) or bound into a denominational hymnal. He didn't try to make a critical version i.e. compare several manuscripts, compare text against rubrics and historical development etc. For most of us, the Hammond version is sufficient.
Some of all of the above but also manuscripts, other studies, related texts such as the Apostolic Constitutions, other liturgies ... The emphasis is on the earliest evidences of the text. You can readily find a scanned version on line. Unfortunately, it has several pages of smear, or fingers and other such distractions that Logos won't duplicate.
Thank you, MJ.
Both Hammond and Brightman tried to use the best critical texts that they had available. Brightman, writing almost 20 years after Hammond was able to include superior texts to those of Hammond on a number of occasions. And occasionally, both of them directly reproduced manuscripts for certain texts -- this is particularly true in the appendices.
We considered including Neale, but there aren't any texts in Neale that aren't in the other two, so it didn't seem necessary. Moreover, the history of scholarship for liturgy has tended to give far, far more approval to the work of Hammond and Brightman than to Neale -- Joseph Lightfoot was particularly critical of Neale's work.
Thank you, too, Michael. When you say "we considered . . . " are you in on this somehow? Outside consultant or something?
(and I swear you have posted more than a dozen times. I must have seen all dozen of them!)
Both Hammond and Brightman tried to use the best critical texts that they had available.
I realize this. However, from Hammond's preface:
I think of Hammond and Brightman as being to liturgy what Breton is to LXX. Probably Hammond and more so Brightman have stood the "test of time" a bit better.
I agree completely that Neale is flawed. However, because of his work translating hymns, I consider his book useful as another aspect of his translation philosophy. Neale isn't necessary strictly from the liturgical perspective.
I am thrilled to see Logos expand their offerings in this direction. Thanks. And thanks for your perspective, Michael.
Thank you, too, Michael. When you say "we considered . . . " are you in on this somehow? Outside consultant or something? (and I swear you have posted more than a dozen times. I must have seen all dozen of them!)
As of a month ago, I'm an employee -- the dozen times are under my employee account / logos.com e-mail address. I was the one who wrote up the product page for this collection and have spent a nice chunk of time familiarizing myself with these two volumes.
have spent a nice chunk of time familiarizing myself with these two volumes.
What a fun job!
Thanks for the insight. Most helpful.
Thank you, too, Michael. When you say "we considered . . . " are you in on this somehow? Outside consultant or something? (and I swear you have posted more than a dozen times. I must have seen all dozen of them!) As of a month ago, I'm an employee -- the dozen times are under my employee account / logos.com e-mail address. I was the one who wrote up the product page for this collection and have spent a nice chunk of time familiarizing myself with these two volumes.
just saw your response: Congratulations! All the best to you! (you need a little blue logo below you . . .)
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
