All I want for Christmas (or New Year's) is... a complete English LXX

Logos has long known that the version of Brenton we have inadvertently omitted the Apocrypha.

So (to repeat a past request for the same) I would like this soon to be remedied by giving us the full Brenton translation and/or NETS in Logos (I'd like NETS whether we get the full Brenton or not) so we have a complete English translation of the LXX in a single resource.

Pretty please? [8-|]

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ergatees

Nice!

Pedro

(I'd like NETS whether we get the full Brenton or not) so we have a complete English translation of the LXX in a single resource.

Yes, please. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/

Eric Weiss

Logos has long known that the version of Brenton we have inadvertently omitted the Apocrypha.

So (to repeat a past request for the same) I would like this soon to be remedied by giving us the full Brenton translation and/or NETS in Logos (I'd like NETS whether we get the full Brenton or not) so we have a complete English translation of the LXX in a single resource.

Pretty please?

So I go to look at the New Products listing today (I regularly check Pre-Pubs, Community Pricing and New Products) and there is Brenton's LXX for $35.75 the sixth item from the top when sorted by "Newest" first. It's still being advertised as including the Apocrypha, so I opened Logos to see if they had finally updated this to include the Apocrypha, but, no, it's still just the Protestant Old Testament.

Bummer.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/318975#Comment_318975

I was about to commend you for effecting progress so quickly. Something is better than nothing. We call that political compromise. One would think our Catholic friends would be happy to get what you call the "Protestant" edition because they use those books too. I have many commentary sets that are only partially complete but the volumes I have work somewhat satisfactorily.

Keep pushing for everything in Logos.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/318981#Comment_318981

I was about to commend you for effecting progress so quickly. Something is better than nothing. We call that political compromise. One would think our Catholic friends would be happy to get what you call the "Protestant" edition because they use those books too. I have many commentary sets that are only partially complete but the volumes I have work somewhat satisfactorily.

Keep pushing for everything in Logos.

I'm only wanting Logos to provide the product as advertised. IIRC, Bibleworks has the full Brenton, and Logos belatedly realized that the file they had obtained was one that lacked the Apocrypha. But they've known about this for at least a couple years now.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/318981#Comment_318981

One would think our Catholic friends would be happy to get what you call the "Protestant" edition because they use those books too.

Get? I've had Brenton since I first bought Logos. It's the deuterocanonicals I'd be happy to finally get. After all, I've paid for them.

I have many commentary sets that are only partially complete

Yeah, but I would imagine you knew you bought them incomplete. I was told I bought Brenton complete.

fgh

Good news! I just got this in my mail:

"I made some inquires with our text development department about the Brenton LXX. There have been some complications in combining the two editions. However, we think we have a solution and are confident that the deuterocanonicals will be finished sometime this month. The person who is working on it tells me that he will have a more certain date tomorrow of the next day. I’ll let you know."

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/318981#Comment_318981

One would think our Catholic friends would be happy to get what you call the "Protestant" edition because they use those books too.

We do accept "incomplete" translations when that is the common publishing practice. However, we have this silly little idea that a complete LXX ought to be complete. We have also observed that while it is easy to ignore text that we don't use (say Ps. 151 for myself) it is considerable harder to read what it not present. Given the expanding interest in the LXX (evidence forthcoming Lutheran Commentary on the Apocrypha), I judge it as short-sighted on the part of Logos to omit the deuterocanonicals when they are reasonably expected.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/323142#Comment_323142

Hurray! Thank you, Logos.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/323172#Comment_323172

However, we have this silly little idea that a complete LXX ought to be complete.

I understand this well. That is how Logos succeeds so easily in selling me sets of commentaries. Really, the more resources, the better.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/323142#Comment_323142

Good news! I just got this in my mail:

"I made some inquires with our text development department about the Brenton LXX. There have been some complications in combining the two editions. However, we think we have a solution and are confident that the deuterocanonicals will be finished sometime this month. The person who is working on it tells me that he will have a more certain date tomorrow of the next day. I’ll let you know."

So ... is the Brenton LXX Apocrypha coming before midnight tonight?

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/333543#Comment_333543

I'm wondering as well (though it's already been midnight here). He never got back to me, but I just sent an e-mail.

Louis St. Hilaire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/333550#Comment_333550

The text is complete, but the update requires changes to the data type, which will have to go into a release of the application. I'm attempting to get an estimate of how soon this can be completed and whether there are workarounds that would allow us to make the text available sooner.