RSV - No translation or cross-reference footnotes?

Greetings,

I recently purchased the RSV translation for Logos 9. To my surprise, there seem to be no translation or cross-reference footnotes. I've already checked out the Visual filters drop-down menu to see if they were turned off by some chance, but no dice; there appears to be no option for them whatsoever.

Is there something wrong with the software itself, or the translation copy that I downloaded? Are cross-references and translation notes going to be added in the future? Or is it just a translation that is old enough and obscure enough to not have such features, in a manner similar to the ASV and Darby translations?

Thank you for your time.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

I suspect your "is old enough" explanation is correct. The RSV2CE contains notes.

John Sommer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210170#Comment_1210170

Thanks for the reply, I think that you're probably right.

Which is unfortunate, yet in some ways doesn't completely make sense. According to Faithlife, the RSV is supposedly one of the top 9 bestselling Bibles for their software:

https://www.logos.com/bibles

On top of that, the RSV has it's own reverse interlinear, which I would think is a much more high effort undertaking than some cross references and a smattering of translation footnotes:

https://www.logos.com/product/154108/revised-standard-version-with-reverse-interlinear

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210242#Comment_1210242

Not disagreeing with you. And the 'top-10' is interesting. But apparently, Logos brought both RSVs in the same year ... I guess choosing one to footnote?

And not downplaying the RSV (which is in the top-10), but NABRE has really good notes. Sometimes, half a Logos-page. I'd rank them with NET's notes, in terms of usefulness.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210242#Comment_1210242

On top of that, the RSV has it's own reverse interlinear, which I would think is a much more high effort undertaking than some cross references and a smattering of translation footnotes:

Footnotes come from the publisher/translator; the interlinear is created by Faithlife. If a Bible has no footnotes that implies that the contract for the text did not include the notes.

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210250#Comment_1210250

The RSVCE has notes

Odd that the RSV doesn't... never noticed that before!

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210264#Comment_1210264

The RSV2CE has more notes than the 1st edition as well

John Sommer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210246#Comment_1210246

Perhaps the RSVCE is still in use in the Catholic church to the point of meriting footnotes, while the RSV has been mostly supplanted by the NRSV? That's my best guess. I thank you also for the suggestion, but the NABRE is just not my personal cup of tea in terms of translations.

John Sommer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210250#Comment_1210250

Thank you for the clarification. Very puzzling that they would contract the translation but not the footnotes to go with it.

John Sommer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210264#Comment_1210264

Very odd indeed! Like I said in another reply, perhaps the RSVCE is just still in more use in the Catholic church, while the RSV has been replaced by the NRSV in mainline Protestant denominations.

John Sommer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210264#Comment_1210264

I went ahead and bought the RSVCE, and it does indeed have translation and cross-reference footnotes.

However, for whatever reason, the cross-references, rather than being scattered throughout the text to mouse hover over, are instead squeezed together under one translation note. The only way I can get the cross-references to display in a usable and practical format is to either to display them in Power Lookup, or to go to the three dot panel menu and change the Columns setting to 1 so that they are visible in a group at the bottom of the page like a paper Bible.

Is their anyway to get the cross-references in the RSVCE to behave in a manner akin to other Logos translations, or is this some sort of bug or weird peculiarity of the RSVCE in Logos?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210311#Comment_1210311

I'm not seeing the problem as they appear by verse - please post a screen shot.

Mike Binks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210311#Comment_1210311

Is their anyway to get the cross-references in the RSVCE to behave in a manner akin to other Logos translations, or is this some sort of bug or weird peculiarity of the RSVCE in Logos?

or, with Columns set to 'None'...

John Sommer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210322#Comment_1210322

Mike Binks' post demonstrates the core of the problem. I'll go into more detail via the following screenshots.

This first screenshot demonstrates how other translations other than the RSVCE handle translation and cross-reference footnotes. They are scattered throughout the text as little letters and numbers that one can hover over with the mouse pointer and click on in order to access:

In contrast, the RSVCE, has normal translation footnotes like this, but for cross-references, by default, stacks them together to be accessed via mouse over under one translation footnote:

In order to get said cross-references to display in a more practical manner, I have to either set the Columns to 1:

Or I have to pull up the Power Lookup window:

This issue becomes really noticeable on the Logos mobile app. With non-RSVCE translations, the little letters and numbers are displayed, and the information can be accessed via a finger tap. But once again, with the RSVCE, translation footnotes can be accessed in this manner, but cross-references are stacked together under one single translation note. Such a window, on the mobile app, can end up taking up the entire smartphone screen, rendering this function virtually unusable.

My question is this: is there a way to get the RSVCE to act like other translations in Logos in terms of how it handles translation footnotes and cross-reference footnotes in the desktop app and mobile app? Is this a bug or glitch or whatnot that can be corrected via menu choices? Or is the RSVCE formatted in such a way as to handle translation and cross-reference footnotes in a manner that is radically different from literally every other translation in Logos? And if the latter is the case, why is this?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210366#Comment_1210366

John, I guess the question is, do you have an RSVCE hardcopy (I don't). To check.

The reason is, FL tends to track the publisher, no matter. NABRE's (excellent as above) sin, is all their notes use an asterisk. Which means you have to search 'which one'. Bible refs are lettered. NJB's notes are chaptered (if I remember right ... and useless). And so on. The latest, forced NET's notes into its text resource, to squeals of grief.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210366#Comment_1210366

This first screenshot demonstrates how other translations other than the RSVCE handle translation and cross-reference footnotes.

The contents of the notes show that the notes are keyed to the verse references not to superscripts. No, this is not changeable within the application. RVS2CE works as you expect.

John Sommer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210371#Comment_1210371

Thank you very much for your help and clarification on this issue. It sounds like if I want an RSV with footnotes and cross-references, I'll either just have to make the RSVCE work for me, or perhaps switch to the RSV2CE. I do wonder why the RSVCE in particular is formatted so unusually compared to other translations in Logos?

Regardless, I heartily thank you for helping me to clear this up. God Bless!

John Sommer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1210368#Comment_1210368

John, I guess the question is, do you have an RSVCE hardcopy (I don't). To check.

The reason is, FL tends to track the publisher, no matter. NABRE's (excellent as above) sin, is all their notes use an asterisk. Which means you have to search 'which one'. Bible refs are lettered. NJB's notes are chaptered (if I remember right ... and useless). And so on. The latest, forced NET's notes into its text resource, to squeals of grief.

Ah, that makes sense. So if the publisher engages in wonky footnote formatting, Faithlife marches in lockstep, no matter what. That's a shame. It also explains the RSV footnote situation overall. I rechecked the listings of the RSV, RSVCE, and RSV2CE on the Logos website, and found that while the RSVCE lists the publisher as the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, the RSV lists the publisher as Faithlife itself. The RSV2CE being published by Ignatius Press.

Thank you very much for helping to further clarify this issue. God Bless!