Lexham English Bible: What do you think?
Comments
-
BillS said:
Hi Rick,
Not sure I follow how this relates to the question Blair & others are asking. As I understand it, here's the substance of their question...
When the Greek itself is ambiguous about whether a clause refers to what precedes or what follows (e.g., 1 John 5:2)? How then does the LEB show its rationale for WHICH relationship was ASSUMED to be correct?
Which assumption apparently makes a theological difference for 1 John 5:2. For LEB to silently assume one of the two choices without a rationale appears to call its transparency into question.
So... if the Greek itself is ambiguous, how does any linkage to the English count as transparency without a note to explain what assumptions were made about the Greek?
Yes that is what I am trying to get at.
0 -
Hi Bill
BillS said:When the Greek itself is ambiguous about whether a clause refers to what precedes or what follows (e.g., 1 John 5:2)? How then does the LEB show its rationale for WHICH relationship was ASSUMED to be correct?
Which assumption apparently makes a theological difference for 1 John 5:2. For LEB to silently assume one of the two choices without a rationale appears to call its transparency into question.
So... if the Greek itself is ambiguous, how does any linkage to the English count as transparency without a note to explain what assumptions were made about the Greek?
One of the primary goals for the LEB is to have a tight relationship with the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts. We can't possibly anticipate all of the questions every user will ever have as they examine a text and then insert a footnote with an answer. Instead, we want to make it easy for folks who have questions about a passage to dig and find answers.
In the case you mention (1Jn 5.2), whether τουτω is anaphoric (pointing back) or cataphoric (pointing ahead), it will likely be translated "this". Instead of answering the anaphoric/cataphoric question in the text, the LEB allows one to get straight into the lexical resources, to run word study guides, then to hop to grammars, commentaries or other resources (like, particularly for this example involving anaphoric and cataphoric reference, the Lexham Syntactic Greek NT: Expansions and Annotations or perhaps the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament).We want to make this sort of information for words and groups of words relatively easy to obtain. Using the LEB with the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear NT and sympathetic highlighting lets one follow the trail back to the Greek and see the 'mileposts' of lexical value glosses and a more context-sensitive translation gloss. Working directly with the LEB and its reverse interlinear provides a similar function, though it is direct and without intermediate stops. Bringing the other "Lexham" NT resources into the mix (Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament, Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament, Lexham Clausal Outlines of the GNT) also provide good supplementary data. I can't guarantee that all Lexham resources will answer each question the same, but they (and their associated glossaries and other supplementary resources) will give you information that will help in the journey.
The other primary ways in which 'transparency' can be seen in the LEB itself are in specifying which words are supplied, and which phrases are either idiomatic or just plain difficult to translate. Most translational notes provide some brief information for the reason behind supplying these words, or a very literal translation of the smoothed-over idioms.
When you're working through the whole text, you can only do a few things systematically. Our choices for those few things with the LEB involve documenting the reasons for many of the supplied words, providing very literal translation of all idioms/difficult phrases, and also in ensuring every English word can account for where it came from and why it is in the text.
Hope this helpsRick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Rick Brannan said:
Hi Bill
BillS said:When the Greek itself is ambiguous about whether a clause refers to what precedes or what follows (e.g., 1 John 5:2)? How then does the LEB show its rationale for WHICH relationship was ASSUMED to be correct?
Which assumption apparently makes a theological difference for 1 John 5:2. For LEB to silently assume one of the two choices without a rationale appears to call its transparency into question.
So... if the Greek itself is ambiguous, how does any linkage to the English count as transparency without a note to explain what assumptions were made about the Greek?
One of the primary goals for the LEB is to have a tight relationship with the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts. We can't possibly anticipate all of the questions every user will ever have as they examine a text and then insert a footnote with an answer. Instead, we want to make it easy for folks who have questions about a passage to dig and find answers.
In the case you mention (1Jn 5.2), whether τουτω is anaphoric (pointing back) or cataphoric (pointing ahead), it will likely be translated "this". Instead of answering the anaphoric/cataphoric question in the text, the LEB allows one to get straight into the lexical resources, to run word study guides, then to hop to grammars, commentaries or other resources (like, particularly for this example involving anaphoric and cataphoric reference, the Lexham Syntactic Greek NT: Expansions and Annotations or perhaps the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament).We want to make this sort of information for words and groups of words relatively easy to obtain. Using the LEB with the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear NT and sympathetic highlighting lets one follow the trail back to the Greek and see the 'mileposts' of lexical value glosses and a more context-sensitive translation gloss. Working directly with the LEB and its reverse interlinear provides a similar function, though it is direct and without intermediate stops. Bringing the other "Lexham" NT resources into the mix (Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament, Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament, Lexham Clausal Outlines of the GNT) also provide good supplementary data. I can't guarantee that all Lexham resources will answer each question the same, but they (and their associated glossaries and other supplementary resources) will give you information that will help in the journey.
The other primary ways in which 'transparency' can be seen in the LEB itself are in specifying which words are supplied, and which phrases are either idiomatic or just plain difficult to translate. Most translational notes provide some brief information for the reason behind supplying these words, or a very literal translation of the smoothed-over idioms.
When you're working through the whole text, you can only do a few things systematically. Our choices for those few things with the LEB involve documenting the reasons for many of the supplied words, providing very literal translation of all idioms/difficult phrases, and also in ensuring every English word can account for where it came from and why it is in the text.
Hope this helpsI guess I just misunderstood the preface that you provided. I thought that what was going to be shown was all the problems translating over to English because of text variances or language barriers. Using power lookup the majority of what I see is supplied words. Most modern translations show supplied word. I guess what you are saying is the only difference between the Leb and any other English bible is the close relationship to the interlinear. Thanks for all the information and help you have provided.
0 -
Grace & Peace,
Bill
MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
iPad 9th Gen iOS 15.6, 256GB0 -
Hi folks.
I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who has responded to this thread. It is helpful for us to see how folks are using the LEB.
It's also helpful to learn how to talk about the LEB, so big thanks to Pat Flanakin, Blair Laird and BillS for their comments as well.
If you have any further thoughts about the LEB, please do feel free to list them on this thread.
Thanks!
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
BillS said:
Hi Rick,
Not sure I follow how this relates to the question Blair & others are asking. As I understand it, here's the substance of their question...
When the Greek itself is ambiguous about whether a clause refers to what precedes or what follows (e.g., 1 John 5:2)? How then does the LEB show its rationale for WHICH relationship was ASSUMED to be correct?
Which assumption apparently makes a theological difference for 1 John 5:2. For LEB to silently assume one of the two choices without a rationale appears to call its transparency into question.
So... if the Greek itself is ambiguous, how does any linkage to the English count as transparency without a note to explain what assumptions were made about the Greek?
This is exactly my point from my previous comments and questions.
When
ambiguity appears to exist in the way a translation will go (and we can
all agree that words have meaning and we strive to have it be a
singular meaning; therefore the word chosen in translation is very
important), then a translator's theology matters since exegesis involves
first translation, then the application of hermeneutical principles.We are all aware that many translators of some Bible versions were not believers, but excellent language scholars. When this is the case, then when ambiguity arrives for that translator which has come to a proverbial fork in the road, instead of leaning on the understanding of the context of a passage, which may only be understood as a believer with a human spirit and the indwelling Holy Spirit, then there is a chance that translator may not get it right.
If the Lexham translators are not utilizing their theological background to translate the Bible from the original languages, and this is supposed to yield the most unbiased, proper translation ever; then logically a successful appeal should be made to pastors and believers to utilize this one, final, English translation and pastors then can eliminate the need to spend so much time in the Hebrew and Greek original languages in preparation for their sermons, but instead just utilize this English version and start from there. I doubt this is the intention or the case.
I do not believe that Mr. Brannon is claiming this to be the end all of English translations; however, when you simply state that no theological understanding is utilized in translation, then you either are stating theology has nothing to do with communicating Truth of God's Word from one language to another, or that translation by unbelievers and believers alike can yield equivalent translations.
0 -
Amen ! and I think the LEB puts it well " Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who [is] from God, in order that we may know the things freely given to us by God, [things] which we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in [words] taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual [things] to spiritual [people]. But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand [them], because they are spiritually discerned "
0 -
Hi Pat.
Thanks again for this response. I really do value the interaction.
However, I don't think I said that the LEB is the "end all of English translations" (I think I said that it would be a good one to consult after your primary reading translation). And I don't think I called the LEB "the most unbiased, proper translation ever". I said I thought it was "transparent", specifically in providing a direct link between the English text and the underlying Greek text.
I think the strong point of the LEB is its relationship with the original language. It is documented through both an interlinear and a reverse interlinear. We *want* people to go back to the original language and work through the text. We don't want folks to ignore the original languages, and I don't think I ever said or intimated separation from the original languages to be a goal of the LEB. We *want* the reader/user to be able to flow back and forth between original and translation so they can see where the words come from, and study the original languages for themselves to see if they agree or disagree.
The translator and editor of the NT is not hidden from the crowd. His name is W. Hall Harris III. He's worked on other Bible translation projects, taught Greek and exegesis to hundreds if not thousands of students over his career, written other books and done other academic work. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society (http://etsjets.org) and the Society of Biblical Literature (http://www.sbl-site.org); among other academic/professional associations/societies.
He and his team (which is being finalized) have recently commenced work on the OT. The OT translation of the LEB will have a similarly tight relationship with the existing Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible, which was created by Dr. Christo van der Merwe and a team of editors that he assembled (see http://www.logos.com/lexham for that editorial team and further info on the Hebrew interlinear).
Thanks again.
Rick Brannan
Data Wrangler, Faithlife
My books in print0 -
Rick, I love all of the Lexham stuff and keep it coming. I am a seminary student and I can never fully describe how Logos in general and the Lexham material specifically, (HDNT, Discourse NT etc..) have impacted my studies. My only concern, or gripe, is that I want the GNT expansions and annotations finished already [:D]
As a case in point, some friends and I were discussing the Great Commision in Matt. I mentioned that the imperative is to make disciples. There was some confusion about the participle "go." The LEB has a note that go "carries imperatival force from "make disciples." The moral of the story is that this stuff is extremely helpful!!!!!!
Thanks, and Godspeed
William Dirr
0 -
Rick Brannan said:
I think the strong point of the LEB is its relationship with the original language.
Hi Rick,
For me, transparency and strength of the relationship original language is still a problem. Is LEB free to make an undocumented assumption about how the underlying clauses relate (forward? backward?)? If most other translators see a "well known" problem, and if LEB is free to make an undocumented assumption, it moves into the realm of interpretation & is open to the appearance of bias. To avoid the appearance of bias, LEB needs a translator's note wherever such an assumption is made. Otherwise, the claim of a tight linkage to the text ends up suspect, given that the underlying clausal relationships of the text itself have to be assumed.
Wouldn't many (most?) accept the UBS handbook series as an authoritive source to locate such "issues"?
Thanks for allowing us any input at all into the process... Many blessings to you!
Grace & Peace,
Bill
MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
iPad 9th Gen iOS 15.6, 256GB0 -
Hi,
There are some marks (maybe words, or worst phrases or sentences) missing from the LEB itself, and I just sent a typo report maybe an hour ago. There are also a passage in the Old Testement that have wrong grammar. How can I trust that this is still a reliable translation?
0 -
Welcome to the forums. You realize that you have revived a thread that has been dormant for 12 years? You can post grammar questions here or report them as typos. However, there are many grammars, many ambiguities, many variants. You need to judge the tagging against the theory used to create them. You can find similar "errors" in all translations - the LEB is simply more transparent in showing them.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Is that so? But I saw one that really is wrong, I saw that error through someone's comment. I forgot where it was, but I think it was in the Pentateuch.
0 -
Erick
Erick Leosala Banga said:But I saw one that really is wrong, I saw that error through someone's comment. I forgot where it was, but I think it was in the Pentateuch
Every bible has typos, starting with the 1611 KJV, that require correction. But it does not mean the resource/bible is unreliable. If you have specific concerns then start a new thread in the General forum.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0
