KYLE: Resource missing crucial part - the Bible text.

This is the sort of error that really annoys me because it should NEVER happen. Let's hope I'm missing something obvious.

Resource Robertson, J. The First and Second Books of Kings. The Temple Bible. London; Philadelphia: J. M. Dent & Company; J. B. Lippincott Company, 1902.

LLS:KINGSROBERTSON
2012-12-31T21:37:52Z
KINGSROBERTSON.logos4

This is one piece of a series "The Temple Bible" that is treated very inconsistently - type:Bible with the commentary "hidden" in footnotes (not the original format); or as in this case type:Bible commentary with the commentaries in a notes section and the Bible translation omitted entirely.

The first and second Books of Kings, ed. by J. Robertson - Google Books clealy shows that a translation is present in the original. This omission not only halted my progress on a project but also wasted an hour of my time while I tried to sort out this resource series.

Note: Vincent, M. R., ed. The Gospel according to St. Luke. The Temple Bible. London; Philadelphia: J. M. Dent & Sons; J . B. Lippincott Company, 1911. appears to have the same problem.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Kyle G. Anderson

If a commentary includes a translation of the Bible that we carry we typically don't produce that portion of the text.

This goes back to 2012 and I may be wrong on this point but it looks like this uses the Authorized Version we carry.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1184747#Comment_1184747

If a commentary includes a translation of the Bible that we carry we typically don't produce that portion of the text.

Some volumes of this series you produced the Bible text with the Notes as footnotes; other volumes you omit the text and produce the notes as text. This makes the use as a series very difficult. It needs to be one or the other.

Note: that most of the texts include pericope headings not in the AV.

Sean

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1184747#Comment_1184747

If a commentary includes a translation of the Bible that we carry we typically don't produce that portion of the text.

I find this problematic. If we're buying the book, we should get it as published.

I've noticed this in several volumes I have. One that was most problematic was the Kregel Commentary on Judges & Ruth (https://www.logos.com/product/153561/a-commentary-on-judges-and-ruth) It is supposed to include the author's translation, based on the NET, but it is totally omitted. Note the big jump in page numbers:

It's not so simple as running the NET (if we own it) parallel to the commentary. On page 14 the author says this about the text of the translation:

[quote]The commentary includes my own translation of the books. The translation is a slightly revised version of the one I prepared for the NET Bible. I wish to thank www.Bible.org and its Executive Director Michael Garrett for granting me permission to use my work for the NET Bible. In the commentary I have arranged the translation in a format that may seem strange to readers. Yet I think that the arrangement is helpful because it reflects the clausal structure of the original Hebrew text and allows us to see the text’s contours as envisioned by the author. I distinguish between the three main elements of a narrative: (1) mainline clauses, (2) offline clauses (highlighted in bold), and (3) quotations (or discourse). All mainline and offline clauses in the narrative framework are classified. Clauses within quotations are not analyzed; quotations are simply set apart by italics.

So, even if we have the NET, we lose his minor revisions; we also lose the special formatting designed to bring out the structure of the text. If references are made to this in the commentary, we're left in the dark.

This really does not seem like a good practice for ebooks of the caliber reputed of Logos.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1184819#Comment_1184819

Agree Sean disappointing FL has decided we don’t need to see the authors revised translation because it is similar to NET translation.

These should be as the publishe produced the resource. And hence I think the series MJ raised should include the text in all volumes for the reasons she raised.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1184819#Comment_1184819

Sean, I find your case very disturbing as it is NOT the same text. I'm am documenting versifications problems in the series I am trying to work in where the quality is severly hampering my ability to do my job.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1184819#Comment_1184819

One that was most problematic was the Kregel Commentary on Judges & Ruth (https://www.logos.com/product/153561/a-commentary-on-judges-and-ruth) It is supposed to include the author's translation, based on the NET, but it is totally omitted. Note the big jump in page numbers:

Seems like a good case for using https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-resource-updates. Kyle might not see this thread again, but he will see that.