I would like to see the Nickelsburg/VanderKam translation of 1 Enoch that is available separately from the Hermeneia commentaries.
Nice idea but hard to say if Fortress or Logos would be in a hurry to give people an excuse to not buy the commentary. But I would be happy to see them get it...
-Dan
Well, it wouldn't take the place of the commentary. It is just the text used in the commentary. They already sell the text separately, as shown in the link above.
It says that the translation is BASED on the commentary. Would it be a good idea to buy the translation separately then buy the commentary WITH the translation?
No, if you want to read the text, as you would read any other, then you would buy just the text. The commentary doesn't have one continuous version of the text, as it is split throughout the commentary. You could read the text via the commentary, but it would be very inconvenient.
Reading the text from the commentary would be like reading the Gospel of John from the pericopes in something like the NICNT commentary on John.
I own both the text and the 1 Enoch vol 1 commentary in paper. Also, if the Enoch text was available in Logos, then it could be linked from Enoch references in other texts.
No, if you want to read the text, as you would read any other, then you would buy just the text. The commentary doesn't have one continuous version of the text, as it is split throughout the commentary. You could read the text via the commentary, but it would be very inconvenient. Reading the text from the commentary would be like reading the Gospel of John from the pericopes in something like the NICNT commentary on John. I own both the text and the 1 Enoch vol 1 commentary in paper. Also, if the Enoch text was available in Logos, then it could be linked from Enoch references in other texts.
RH Charles and Charlesworth already have the text.
And I have them both, but the one suggested is newer and well respected.
And I will admit this volume looks like it will a good thing to have in addition to the commentary.
I do like it a lot. The text only version obviously doesn't have commentary, but it does have textual notes and such, which is useful.
I would like to bring this up again, especially since the 2 volumes of commentary are finished.
[Y][Y]
I can't imagine why this is not available.
Probably because its basically contained in the Hermeneia series https://www.logos.com/product/33511/hermeneia-old-testament
George, do you own Bibles? If so, then why? I am sure that you have the entire text of the Bible in your commentaries, correct?
Vol 1 in the 2 vol set on Enoch is almost all translation.
No it isn't. It covers the introduction, 1-36, and 81-108. Each section covers between 1 and 8 verses, and then has a large amount of commentary. One would also have to look through both volumes to get the full text. I would rather read the text in one section, as opposed to searching throughout the commentaries, which I do own. Why do you find that suggestions so disagreeable? Surely you don't choose to look through commentaries instead of using a Bible.
Of course I read a commentary rather than the scripture; don't you? [;)]
There is another translation of 1 Enoch in Charlesworth
Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1. New York; London: Yale University Press, 1983.
It's not Nickelsburg, but it appears to be complete (of course there's always Charles).
BTW: Are you now considering 1 Enoch to be scripture?
I personally don't but the Ethiopian orthodox church does. Some people might be inclined to think of it as so since Jude quoted it... but just because something is quoted in the NT does not mean the author considered it scripture either.
-dan
BTW: Are you now considering 1 Enoch to be scripture? I personally don't but the Ethiopian orthodox church does. Some people might be inclined to think of it as so since Jude quoted it... but just because something is quoted in the NT does not mean the author considered it scripture either. -dan
Yes, and Paul (well, pseudo-Paul) quoted the Cretan Epimenides. Does anyone consider him to be included in "scripture"?
BTW: The OT has some quotes (or references) to the Book of Jashar and to the Annals of the kings but we know nothing else about them.
Joseph Turner is right here guys. Because Logos does not treat translations embedded as Scripture we cannot use it in text comparisons. References to the text do not work as it is the commentary not the Bible text that is opened as the link. All in all the handling of translations within a commentary is an abomination.
The Book of Enoch by Charles is rightly classified as Bible and should behave as Bible ... I just had a prioritization hassle with it this weekend when I want's Black's Commentary to display is in a Power Lookup. I was not happy with Logos inconsistencies.
Well, if Enoch was good enough for Clement (plus the church fathers demonstrating how the manuscripts survived Noah's flood), then by all means, yet one more translation is called forth:
'Let us stedfastly contemplate those who have perfectly ministered to His excellent glory. Let us take Enoch, who, being found righteous in obedience, was translated ....'
So there you go.
Of course I read a commentary rather than the scripture; don't you?
Not me [A]
No, I was just making the comparison because they are similar in that they are books with commentaries. One wouldn't want to use a commentary to reconstruct a text for ANY text. I do think that 1 Enoch is very important for biblical studies, and that is why I want it! It's funny, we had this conversation above about three years ago when I first made this suggestion. I was waiting for you to bring up Charlesworth, so that we could say we rehashed everything from before. Now we have come full circle. [B]
Joseph Turner is right here guys. Because Logos does not treat translations embedded as Scripture we cannot use it in text comparisons. References to the text do not work as it is the commentary not the Bible text that is opened as the link. All in all the handling of translations within a commentary is an abomination. The Book of Enoch by Charles is rightly classified as Bible and should behave as Bible ... I just had a prioritization hassle with it this weekend when I want's Black's Commentary to display is in a Power Lookup. I was not happy with Logos inconsistencies.
[Y]
Does it make desolate? [:D]
Logos tagging is far from perfect. I was delighted to see what was suppose to be a link to the Testament of Dan linked and I thought fabulous I do not have to manually open up the Charlesworth and search for it... only to see it was linked to Daniel 6:4 and not the Testament of Dan 6:4. So believe me i understand your frustration.
I hope you reported it as a typo/data error
I was on my iPad I know it was in an article dealing with angels but for the life of me I am not finding it... but then I have had a small glass of Benedictine so not at my shapes now... Found it done.
I would like to bring this back up. It would be nice if someone from Logos would comment on whether or not there is a chance this could be released.
I too would like to raise this as a suggestion yet again. I would love to see the stand alone Hermeneia Translation of 1 Enoch in Logos. It's the best translation and right now I have to either use my paperback copy (the horror! [:D]) or go through the big Hermeneia commentaries (2 vols.) in Logos to get to the translation.
Someone created a UserVoice suggestion that everyone should vote for: https://suggestbooks.uservoice.com/forums/308269-book-suggestions/suggestions/18546943-1-enoch-the-hermeneia-translation-paperback-oct
Can Logo please please please produce this resource??
I think we have a 'Hermie' in production. Maybe an Enoch would be an easy addition, afterward.
I was busily into Enoch yesterday ... the Logos resource comparing the Parables to the more accepted Paulines. I really wish the Parables writer (Enoch!!) would have just gone ahead and put in 100 bce in his text, to save later academics the chore of proving 100 bce! Parthians, Parthians!
Bumping this again. How do we have the Hermenera commentary series, but we cannot manage to get this?
It's particularly surprising because we do have the Hermeneia Jubilees translation.
However, I would prefer Logos find a way to play nicely with all translations in commentaries.
It's particularly surprising because we do have the Hermeneia Jubilees translation. However, I would prefer Logos find a way to play nicely with all translations in commentaries.
I had not seen this. This does indeed make it more surprising. Maybe it’s on its way!
It would be so comforting, especially in light of Nick’s pointing out that we already have the Jubilees translation in the works, to get a “We are hopeful that we will have this up soon,“ or “we are working on getting this.” My OCD is really getting to me on this one for some reason.
Hi Joseph, I'll see what I can do about getting this in Logos. Thanks for your interest.
Thank you!!!
https://www.logos.com/product/37474/enoch-and-the-mosaic-torah-the-evidence-of-jubilees
A tiny bit of irony, but the only 'complete' versions pf both Jubilees and 1 Enoch go back to the upper-Nile and Ethiopia, and thense their earlier translations. Of course, later fragments of each from Qumran, etc.
It's finally here. It's in production! Whoo hoo! https://www.logos.com/product/205143/1-enoch-the-hermeneia-translation
Yes! Mike Hanes made it happen and answered in this thread.
Mine just downloaded! So happy to have this in Logos!
It's finally here. It's in production! Whoo hoo! https://www.logos.com/product/205143/1-enoch-the-hermeneia-translation Mine just downloaded! So happy to have this in Logos!
Me too! It's crazy to think I first made this suggestion almost 10 years ago! Also looking back, it makes me miss George. He said he was working on a Revelation commentary, and I would have been interested to see it.
Just for future Enochian Logosians:
- Logos has Nickelsburg, Charlesworth, and Charles. It's productive to compare, as you go along. Charles seems to have the most inline notes about which Enoch source is in view (except DSS).
- Logos also has the greek interlinear, for the greek portion of Enoch (treated as later than the DSS Aramaic Enoch)
- Nyland's Enoch (not in Logos) includes a play-by-play discussion, from the perspective of greek usage, to include aramaic discussion (translation).
Below, is top-left Nickelsburg, lower-left Charles, and right Nyland:
