Need Help with reverse interlinear re: variant @ Mark 1:41
See the attached image for further details. But I see several issues at Mark 1:41:
(1) The reverse interlinear for ESV seems to suggest that orgizo is untranslated, but
(2) This at least makes some sense since the ESV does not take orgizo to be the reading, but
(3) The NASB reverse interlinear does appear to show orgizo as translated, albeit wrongly, since the NASB likewise goes with splanchnistheis, but
(4) Compare this with the correct reverse interlinear of the NLT at Mark 1:41, which takes the same reading as ESV and NASB.
Again, see the image. And hopefully someone at Faithlife can take a look at this.
Comments
-
(1), (2) & (3) The ESV & NASB Reverse Interlinears for NT are (stated to be) aligned with SBLGNT, The translation is consistent, but alignment to the Greek word "being angry" is inconsistent.
(4) The NLT is also (stated to be) aligned with SBLGNT, but it uses the correct Greek word for "having compassion".
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Oh, I see. That's helpful to know. Thanks Dave!
So I might be expecting too much from the reverse interlinear feature. I suppose I'm hoping for consistencies from Faithlife in the case of variants of this sort:
1. Textual - adjust the SBLGNT to reflect the textual choices of individual translations
and/or
2. Translation:
(a) either show the variant (between the SBLGNT & translation choice) to be consistently untranslated (as in ESV @ Mark 1:41)
(b) or else consistently (wrongly) translated (as in the NASB @ Mark 1:41)
In the case of 2.(a), things like the right-click context menu will not function as one might expect, and in the case of 2.(b), things like the Bible Word Study will give misleading results (as well as the context menu, etc.).
0 -
Bump to Faithlife.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
I've since reported it through the "report typo" feature in ESV and NASB, in hopes that it gets caught there in case it gets missed on the forums.
0 -
We'll work on making this more consistent (and fix the particular case you've mentioned).
The guiding principle for these situations is: don't link if the word or words are actually translated from a variant Greek word not used in the linked Greek text. Unfortunately, applying this consistency across translations over the years, and using many different text alignment contractors, is a challenge.
Thanks for letting us know about this situation!
Isaiah
0 -
That’s great! Thank you Isaiah.
0 -
I hope this doesn’t sound impatient, especially given the present atypical working environment, but what’s the timeframe on a fix for this or a fix of this nature? Thanks.
0 -
Karl:
I hope to get a new build pushed out soon. Part of what holds this up is having to update several Bible translations at once. I'll look at priorities and see where this one currently sits.
Thanks for asking about it again.
Isaiah
0 -
Makes sense. I appreciate the response Isaiah. Hope you are all doing well over there at Faithlife.
0 -
Isaiah said:
We'll work on making this more consistent (and fix the particular case you've mentioned).
Hi Isaiah,
I noticed another similar one this morning in the OT. The ESV contains a line in Deuteronomy 32 not found in Masoretic text. See picture:
0 -
Karl,
This is a case where the translation is based on the LXX. We can only align to one source text for a particular corpus. So, places where the translation does not follow the MT, alignment will show bullet points to indicate there is no parallel in the original.0 -
Isaiah said:
Karl,
This is a case where the translation is based on the LXX. We can only align to one source text for a particular corpus. So, places where the translation does not follow the MT, alignment will show bullet points to indicate there is no parallel in the original.Thanks for the quick response, Isaiah. I was actually thinking maybe it could be supplied from the Dead Sea scrolls. It was the note in the ESV re: LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls that got my attention. Maybe 4Q44 could supply it. Something along those lines was my thinking anyway.
0
