Curious if anyone might know how well Neusner 's version relates to the more classic Danby. I have a print copy of Danby but am not familiar enough to know if the former is supposed to be sufficient for reference.
Neusner is a standard modern translation. Comparing multiple translations can often be helpful, of course. but in most cases Neusner will be sufficient.
I for one would like to have an alternative/comparative text/translation available in Logos. [Y]
Nearly fell off my chair when I saw how expensive Danby is today in print. Retail is $299.
Neusner breaks each passage into sense units - an outline form that lets you see the structure of the argument being made. Danby is more of a straight prose presentation. They're both useful and I wouldn't mind seeing Danby digitized, but if I had to have only one, I'd take Neusner because the structural presentation is, I think, an effective aid to unpacking the meaning of the (often dense) text.
Neusner applies the same sense-unit method to his translations of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, shipping soon:
http://www.logos.com/product/6667/babylonian-and-jerusalem-talmud-collection
That's a very helpful explanation. Anything that clarifies the text is good. Trying to read some of that stuff makes me want to reach for an Excedrin.
