More books that Logos shouldn't reprint...
Comments
-
Very thought provoking and enjoyable thread. Improvements in Logos 4 do help us with our growing libraries. That said, sometimes 'less is more'. For some users, the morass of information can be a hindrance to focused effective study. A library of 1,000 carefully selected resources can be just as effective as a library of 5,000 resources of varying quality... particularly if it creates a need for the user to wade through a lot of dated or outlying information that is not required. To that end, threads like this are very useful to provoke users to think about what they need and why they need it. I also think the commentary and reference materials/websites that many have referred to on these forums are going to be even more invaluable to helping users decide where to invest precious resources.
0 -
Let me play devil's advocate here:
1) The Calvinists are requesting all Arminian works be purged.
2) The Arminians are likewise requesting the Calvinist works be removed.
3) The Catholics would agree to the two previous requests.
4) The (non-Messianic) Orthodox Jews don't have much use for the Catholic resources.5) The Samaritans don't have much use for the Prophets and Writings
When you get done accommodating all the wold-be censors, all you are left with is the Torah.[:D]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
6) Could I request the purging of all feline literature? I don't like felines.
0 -
I believe it is not a matter of having it in Logos or not, but rather giving us some more information that would put it into the right perspective from the point of view the average Logos user.
More information regarding the usefulness to the average Logos user. I strongly agree.
Another matter is, if producing that kind of resources is somehow slowing down the the production of more needed resources, than I would say, don't do that Logos, focus on more needed and useful ones. However, if Logos has enough technical and human resources to produce those less useful (from the common user perspective) resources without slowing down the production of current, up-to date tools and resources, than it is fine with me.
It is possible the cheap, well-known titles are driving the baseline profits to enable production of higher priced works from Brill, Cambridge Anchor-Yale, or whatever. It is like the grocery store offering cheap macaroni & cheese and an expensive. but tasty brand. The store definitely sells more of the cheap stuff. Especially to those who would rather buy Logos resources than eat fancy. [:$]
(beans + ramen noodles+ hot dogs + mac & cheese = Portfolio Edition [:D])If Logos can make lots of money producing non-Biblical resources like
The Century Dictionary http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/6749
The Harvard Classics & Fiction Collection http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/3662
The Complete Works of William Shakespeare http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/6336
The Iliad in Greek and Translation http://www.logos.com/products/details/3320then I wish them great success. These resources don't add a lot to Bible study but I'm happy to see them.
My problem is too much interest in too many subjects. My wife can attest to that.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
beans + ramen noodles+ hot dogs + mac & cheese = Portfolio Edition
I like your math. Unfortunately, I think there's an error in my equation: rice and beans + ramen noodles + hot dogs + mac & cheese = Bible Study Library!!! This is SO unfair!
Costa Rica
0 -
As one of Gary's students, it isn't in my best interest to disagree with him... so I won't! [:P] (Just kidding, Gary!)
In all seriousness, I believe he makes a valid point. The Logos advertisements of the kind of resources in question can be misleading. Thankfully, I'm in school, so I have professors, like Gary, who can point me in the right direction. Not so for many people, and they're not going to ask on the forums about a bunch of resources to see what's up-to-date and what isn't. If it weren't for him, I would have spent precious dollars on resources that would benefit me little to nothing. If I were doing research on the development of Biblical Backgrounds studies or the history of Greek lexicography, then I would purchase Hastings and Sophocles and every other relevant, extant resource that I could afford. But I'm just a student trying to exegete the biblical text as faithfully as possible. I'm not a scholar who has so much information committed to memory that he can merely read an entry in a given resource and know whether or not the information is accurate.
The great majority of Logos users (and I'm assuming here; I don't have the statistics) are not widely read scholars, and could be easily convinced that Vine, Hastings, Thayer, Sophocles, etc. are still wholly academically reliable resources, even though they were written however long ago. Most people don't have a basis of comparison to be able to decide what's reliable and what's not. How many times have I heard from the pulpit and elsewhere that the aorist tense is a once-for-all action, never to be repeated?! The only reason I know that's NOT the case is because I'm in seminary. Recent grammars correct this misconception and Wallace even gives some background on it, yet it continues to be taught.
So, offer the resources, fine, but it wouldn't hurt to look into being a bit more non-scholar friendly with the resource advertisements. I LOVE Logos and use it almost daily, and I know they're not trying to fool people just to sell more books. But, as good as Logos is, there's always room for improvement.
Again, this isn't about offering resources, but about resource description.
Blessings!
Costa Rica
0 -
I believe we have the common sense to know these works are dated.
I would be very glad to know that were the case. I'm sure you have the common sense! However...google "thayer lexicon" and you'll get an eyeful... don't know, you might even come up with hits for "Thayers is the best lexicon".
Thanks for your thoughts!
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
That said, sometimes 'less is more'. For some users, the morass of information can be a hindrance to focused effective study
You know Donovan, I resonate with your thought, being something of a minimalist myself. For a sermon I rarely use more than 3 well-chosen commentaries. On Luke 15 for this weekend, probably Calvin, Nolland and one other (I'm not at home and am limited to what I have on Logos). Maybe Chrysostom. Or maybe the unabridged Matthew Henry. I tell my students: besides reference tools, use 5 commentaries for an exegesis paper, 3 for a sermon, and emphasize quality over quantity.
To me, using one excellent lexicon (BDAG) is better than using two (if we're talking about BDAG + Thayer).
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
You might consider the remote possibility that God spoke to some folks before our generation.
Please, no sarcasm, okay?
If you've read what I've written on this thread, Michael, you know that I'm constantly reading old works. Ask my student, Stefán (he's shared above), I think he'd tell you a hair-raising tale of how much I make my students read the ancients.
But, if I were to say today, for example, Calvin says that this is the best information available on a word, so that's that, I would be afraid that Calvin would appear before me to tell me "Don't be so silly!"
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
However...google "thayer lexicon" and you'll get an eyeful...
Some results on a Google Search on "Thayer lexicon" follow...
From Wikipedia :
"In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy, asserting that his own acceptance of various errors of history and science in the Bible did not materially detract from his belief in the overall soundness of Christianity.
This is the least of the information from the google search.
Gary, I wasn't purchasing the resource, but thank you for a heads-up on Thayer.
I recommend each do a google search to see what viewpoint Thayer was really coming from in his comments.I have to add this one taken from Can You Trust Your Lexicon? which also quotes the Publisher's Introduction to Thayer's:
"The following is the exact quotation from the Publisher's introduction to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon:
"A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy. When defining metamelomai [the Greek word for regret], Thayer refuses to draw a clear distinction between this word and metanoeo [the Greek word for a change of mind - repentance]. Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example.""
0 -
"A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy. When defining metamelomai [the Greek word for regret], Thayer refuses to draw a clear distinction between this word and metanoeo [the Greek word for a change of mind - repentance]. Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example.""
I have seen this, Praiser. My only concern is the reasoning that SINCE Thayer was a unitarian, THEREFORE he wasn't a good lexicographer. People say the same thing about Bauer and Danker - "why use a lexicon written by apostates?" says one site I've got open. These statements tend to be passed rapidly from site to site on the internet, until no-one is sure who said it originally, and upon what basis.
I don't accept that logic, which is a form of begging the question. The real question should be "Did Thayer's theology harm the accuracy of his lexicon?"
It's important that we don't draw conclusions about his theology, unless the data are clear and not a surmise. That is: "Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example" - did Thayer say this, or is this someone's inference...? Maybe it's true, but I wouldn't accept it as a given without clear proof. The page where I found this same paragraph goes on to say: "I'll take the men who translated the King James Bible and the God who preserved His word over any dozen lost apostate men who write lexicons. Don't let the lexicon, or those that trust in it, deceive you. Stick with your King James Bible."
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
By the way, speaking of wonderful ancient sources: Logos has the Ancient Christian Commentary series, which is very useful. And I flipped when I saw that IVP had published Ambrosiaster's commentary on Paul's epistles from the Latin - I know of no other English version of this vital ancient work, a sane and literal commentary that influenced the Western church for about 1000 years. Logos doesn't have it, maybe it'll add it in sometime. The Ante-Nice Fathers and the Nicene-Post-Nicene Fathers is also great to have since it's searchable, despite the old English and the incompleteness.
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
(I shamelessly point to ...yet again)
from the guidelines:
Please do not use our forums to
- sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products
- promote
or link to competitors - point
people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products - advertise
yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in
your forum signature is acceptable)
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
(I shamelessly point to ...yet again)
from the guidelines:
Please do not use our forums to
- sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products
- promote or link to competitors
- point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products
- advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable)
My mistake, sorry!
Gary Shogren http://openoureyeslord.com
0 -
beans + ramen noodles+ hot dogs + mac & cheese = Portfolio Edition
I like your math. Unfortunately, I think there's an error in my equation: rice and beans + ramen noodles + hot dogs + mac & cheese = Bible Study Library!!! This is SO unfair!
You gotta lose the rice to move up to Portfolio. It almost killed me since I could eat rice three times a day.
are still wholly academically reliable resources, even though they were written however long ago. Most people don't have a basis of comparison to be able to decide what's reliable and what's not.
"..wholly academically reliable resources," ------ Well now. Did not all the scholars of the day tell us those resources were the latest and most reliable we could get based on the newest discoveries and textual criticism? Today we have the latest scholars telling us just how bad and unreliable the last century's scholars were. I bet in 50 years the majority of today's experts will be held in disrespect by our grandchildren's contemporary scholars. Somebody has to be wrong in this formula. And if scholars were wrong in 1900, it isn't a stretch to think some could be in error today. But is it not the natural inclination of a scholar to think everyone else is wrong and himself the only repository of wisdom & truth?
I still want to see the big picture: Give me Thayer, Robertson, Kittel, Gingrich, & Runge. Then let me enjoy the pursuit of Bible study. Any other way is like a guided safari hunt in an African game preserve. The real big game hunters tracked in the wild. Besides that, Dr. Heisler says I am smarter than a lexicon! http://blog.logos.com/archives/2010/06/you_are_smarter_than_a_lexicon.html He ought to know. He is a scholar & a PhD.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Did not all the scholars of the day tell us those resources were the
latest and most reliable we could get based on the newest discoveries
and textual criticism? Today we have the latest scholars telling us just how bad and unreliable the last century's scholars were.To repeat myself... Here's one of today's scholars talking about another scholar from 150 years ago:
"The
fact that Tregelles comes so well out of this comparison with [the
texts of] Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and the Editio Critica Maior
suggests that we need to reconsider the usual view of nineteen century
textual criticism as a linear development culminating in The New Testament in the Original Greek. It may be that we have overlooked the significance and standard of Tregelles' achievement."--David C. Parker
The essay is on google books, though not all is available. This particular quote is available here on the final page: http://books.google.com/books?id=C7ZLQns00MAC&lpg=PP1&dq=david%20c%20parker%20collected&pg=PA215#v=onepage&q&f=false
0 -
Here's one of today's scholars talking about another scholar from 150 years ago:
"The fact that Tregelles comes so well out of this comparison with [the texts of] Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and the Editio Critica Maior suggests that we need to reconsider the usual view of nineteen century textual criticism as a linear development culminating in The New Testament in the Original Greek. It may be that we have overlooked the significance and standard of Tregelles' achievement."
--David C. Parker
I am pleased I am getting my message through to the scholars. [:D] But a 3 to 3 tie being newsworthy only proves my point: the present norm is to reject the previous scholars in favor of our contemporaries. Parker said as much in your quote.
Thank you for sharing Parker's work. It is refreshing.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I am pleased I am getting my message through to the scholars.
But a 3 to 3 tie being newsworthy only proves my point: the present norm is to reject the previous scholars in favor of our contemporaries. Parker said as much in your quote.Indeed, and both Parker and myself lament the situation -- as does Danker in the quote from him I posted quite a bit earlier on this same thread.
0 -
Indeed, and both Parker and myself lament the situation -- as does Danker in the quote from him I posted quite a bit earlier on this same thread.
I re-read that earlier post carefully and agree heartily. I especially liked these sentences:
emphasis mine.
But we do want people to know:Old books still had value.
The old books we produce were the best of what was available for the time.
We do this because we want to follow Danker's warning about ignoring old works. We're a company of employees who love books and making them available is 1st priority -- all of them.Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Thanks for the reply, Matthew.
I'm afraid I didn't explain myself well enough in my last post. The whole point of scholarship is to learn, that is, to continue the learning process. I'm not sure there's anything biblical that hasn't been studied and written on; or, as some else said, "there is nothing new under the sun." So, if all the scholars of old got it all right, and if there were no new information which shed light on our understanding, there would be no need for continued scholarship. We all know that this isn't the case. The fact of the matter is that scholars don't get it all right, not in the past and not now, but I would hope that our information today is more extensive than it was 100 or 1000 years ago. If it's not, I'll stop buying books. Why spend $150 on BDAG or Liddell-Scott when I can get Thayer for $25? Why spend $190 on the IVP Reference Collection when I can get Hastings' works for $50(?)?
My goal is NOT to have the biggest library, but to have the best information available. And I don't think it should be looked down upon to say that the old guys got some things wrong and they aren't as reliable in certain areas as some newer guys. Really I don't see what the fuss is about. Again, if newer scholars aren't better, or more "reliable", in some areas, why buy them?
I stand buy what I said: resources like Thayer and Hastings are NOT wholly reliable. They are partially reliable. And most Logos users probably don't have the background to separate the good from the bad. You may argue, "What resource IS wholly reliable?" The answer is, "Nothing in the absolute sense." The difference is that we know where past scholars missed the mark, but we won't know where we missed the mark until the future generations point it out, based on their recent findings and more accurate information. And that's how it should be. What we know now is what's reliable for us.
It's not "disrespect" to admit error. And there's nothing wrong with "see[ing] the big picture", as should be clear from my former post. Again, what I believe was Gary's point, and what it seems this thread has deviated from, the issue isn't with offering resources, but resource description.
Costa Rica
0 -
More information regarding the usefulness to the average Logos user. I strongly agree.
So do I. That's exactly the point![:D]
Costa Rica
0 -
You gotta lose the rice to move up to Portfolio. It almost killed me since I could eat rice three times a day.
No can do. If I lose the rice here in Latin America it will kill me!! [:'(]
Costa Rica
0 -
So, if all the scholars of old got it all right, and if there were no new information which shed light on our understanding, there would be no need for continued scholarship.
Or is the journey of scholarship sufficient reward in itself?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
The whole point of scholarship is to learn, that is, to continue the learning process. I'm not sure there's anything biblical that hasn't been studied and written on; or, as some else said, "there is nothing new under the sun." So, if all the scholars of old got it all right, and if there were no new information which shed light on our understanding, there would be no need for continued scholarship. We all know that this isn't the case. The fact of the matter is that scholars don't get it all right, not in the past and not now, but I would hope that our information today is more extensive than it was 100 or 1000 years ago.
]Here we agree.
My goal is NOT to have the biggest library,
Here we diverge.[:D] No maybe agree. [8-|] No, definitely diverge. [6]
You may argue, "What resource IS wholly reliable?"
Yep, that is what I ask. I hold the Bible to be reliable. Nothing else.
What we know now is what's reliable for us.
I conceed your point.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Or is the journey of scholarship sufficient reward in itself?
As always, MJ "gets it."
Some think I am wasting my time without having a stated purpose for my knowledge quest. It is more rewarding than hitting a little ball into 18 holes in the grass. Sometimes I get to share tidbits with those who don't have time for a quest of their own. But usually it is a solitary journey of wonder.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Some think I am wasting my time without having a stated purpose for my knowledge quest. It is more rewarding than hitting a little ball into 18 holes in the grass. Sometimes I get to share tidbits with those who don't have time for a quest of their own. But usually it is a solitary journey of wonder.
You said it very well, Matthew. [Y]
Bohuslav
0 -
This discussion has been very interesting, I whole-heartily agree that there needs to be a better system to help non-scholars with what books to buy and read. I like the suggestions that there needs to be user reviews on the book page, however since Logos customers are so different in view-points; Catholic, Baptist, Jew, etc… I suggest to let there be a tab that people can select their religion, if they want to, so that anther person of that faith can see other people of that faith had to say about that book.I agree that it can be like trying to swim against a tidal wave, not knowing what books, or authors, are ‘good’, or are current, and knowledgeable with the field of study that they are writing about. I like to have the older books since most new books will quote from earlier books, and it would be nice to be able to go to that earlier book to read the WHOLE paragraph, chapter, or whatever, not just the snippet that the new book provides.
I think that the reason why Logos publishes old books, is that they are cheaper, and that there is no end of supply of people wanting them. Don’t forget that Logos has to pay copyrights to be able to publish books, as stated before, it is cheaper for Logos to re-print an older, out-of-print book than a new book. Also don’t forget that Logos users have a say too, we speak with our money, and by outright telling Logos what books to publish, and what ones, we think, should be delayed until the more useful books are published first.
0 -
I love that we can get some of the older works for not much money!
Its tricky to know if someone from 1793, that studied Latin and Greek for 47 years of his life has more to say then some new book, where the Author has been working with NT Greek for 7 years! (*)
I say offer me both, but describe them with enough detail to let me decide how to use each work, and which I want to buy.
[ * Invented example: I have no actual works in mind here. ]
0 -
I like to have the older books since most new books will quote from earlier books, and it would be nice to be able to go to that earlier book to read the WHOLE paragraph, chapter, or whatever, not just the snippet that the new book provides.... and that there is no end of supply of people wanting them.....Also don’t forget that Logos users have a say too, we speak with our
money, and by outright telling Logos what books to publish, and what
ones, we think, should be delayed until the more useful books are
published first.Well said! I could not have put it any better. My simple take on this is, if you want the book purchase it. If you don't want the book, don't purchase it. No one is forcing you to part with your money. That said, Gary has clarified his point that he is calling for better info to be provided rather than censorship. That way customers will be able to make an informed choice on their purchase[Y].
Funny this thread, I pleaded with Logos to offer Hastings again and again!http://community.logos.com/forums/p/9748/77191.aspx#77191 Logos responded to a customers request, controversy breaks out! Logos cannot win, surely the customer has a say in this matter. Logos is a business and they should respond to the request of their customers. I hope this continues and thank you Logos for honouring my request to have Hastings. I feel valued as a customer.
Gary's point again, is for a better resource description & with that I will not quarrel. I do agree with those who have argued against the arrogance of modern scholarship over previous scholarship as if there is nothing to learn from them, the oldies[:P].
Again, thank you Logos, If some customers do not want a particular book others want them.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
It seems to me that it should also be fair to suggest that LOGOS remove a book - either from its library (publishers have done this from time to time, why not users), pre-pub, or the community pricing program.
I'd have some real problems with this although occasionally inflammatory, slanderous material might be removed to the "back room".
I have to say I am not real comfortable with this idea either.
0
