I am curious as to why there is no NETS in Logos?
The New English Translation of the Septuagint
Is there just a preference for the in house LES?
Is the NETS just not that widely accepted?
I seen an older thread from 2014 of interest but no updates from FL why this cannot happen.
Personally wish Oxford had stuck with NEBS (New English Bible Septuagint) to be consistent with Their earlier NEB. This NET Septuagint has great likelihood for misunderstanding that it is done by the committee that does the NET Bible.
My vote is for Logos to add the NETS immediately if not sooner.[:D]
https://community.logos.com/forums/p/14951/114139.aspx#114139
For those interested in past history. And it was started Apr 5, 2010
Looks like a competitor has it available, see below "electronic edition"
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/
More than one:
https://www.olivetree.com/store/search.php?q=nets
More than one: https://www.olivetree.com/store/search.php?q=nets
And Accordance too. It's pretty much everywhere, except ...
Plus Version 3 a few years back. Maybe Logos is waiting for Version 4.
Appreciators of Jeremiah will appreciate its removal from Baruch (which always grinded, not being ground in good support).
Good news, folks: https://www.logos.com/product/165276/a-new-english-translation-of-the-septuagint
What are the chances this will be in a base package?
Lexham Press already has an English translation of the Septuagint, the LES... how is this different?
With all due respect for the scholars who work for Lexham, the brand has not established itself solidly within the academia yet. This is probably due in part to the fact that Logos has not had a great reputation because of qualities issues in the past and was snubbed by many academics (despite endorsement by others, mainly Evangelicals).
As a result, those who do academic work will probably prefer to quote, when English translation is needed, from the NETS, published by Oxford, rather than the LES. The LES can be used to compare translation along with the older English translations. I do not know otherwise how the quality of translation compares between the two versions.
At $19.99 in pre-pub, I heartily recommend to all who are engaged in scholarly work to seize the opportunity before the price goes up, although it looks like the full price will remain a reasonable $29.99.
As Francis notes, NETS is quotable; LES isn't. Academically. And arguing with your friend, too.
OTH, LES is a reverse RI. NETS, you need some greek. The reason is the LXX is an amalgam of LXX's. And it's not entirely clear what hebrew sits under it. Ergo, the added value of DSS examples, early commentaries, etc. So, absent a glance at the RI for what greek is in play, NETS will need a greek version, side by side, and familiarity.
Translating-wise, NETS is smoother, and chooses more traditional english where feasible. LES is more raw, iin your face. In 'normal' passages, they're the same, word for word. In more discussed passages, LES goes raw. Here's an example from my reading yesterday: Psa 8:5
Tanakh: What is man that You have been mindful of him, mortal man that You have taken note of him.
NETS: What is man that you are mindful of him or son of man that you attend to him?
LES: What is a person that you remember him? Or a son of a person that you observe him?
Note tha verbs ... tracking down, I suppose LES is more literal. In v6, LES is helpful in noting the bizarre sequence; NETS just makes a run at it. And presumably, LES tries to reflect a not-only-guys usage (persons).
I can't imagine not having as many translation opinions as possible. On the cheap, too.
NETS, you need some greek.
I would assume that as other English translations of the Bible, the Logos edition of NETS would be tagged with lemmas and parsing though.
NETS, you need some greek. I would assume that as other English translations of the Bible, the Logos edition of NETS would be tagged with lemmas and parsing though.
No, it won’t. It would only have lemmas if it had a Reverse-Interlinear which it’s not advertised as having.
