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.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
