REQUEST for FL -- Re: NASB 2020

I have a request for the NASB 2020 that I sincerely hope FL will implement in Logos. This request may be something that just occurs naturally, but on the chance that it won't, I would like FL to take steps to deliberately implement this "feature".

I would like the "side arrow" feature of Logos, which switches to a series of related resources in your library, to be constructed such a way that a SINGLE tap of the arrow key (left or right doesn't matter) changes from the NASB 1995 to the NASB 2020. This is a feature I anticipate making use of constantly, so having the switch occur as briefly and immediately as possible is of supreme importance to me.

Having read the comment by Scott Shirley of the NASB 2020 product page, I'm feeling a fair amount of tentative concern regarding this update. The NASB has been the most literal English Bible for some time...

...and since knowing what the the original languages actually say is the most important concern for anyone who takes the Bible seriously, the NASB's word-for-word ethos, and its diligence at indicating marginally what a literal reading is in those places when a less literal choice was made for the text, makes it the best English study Bible. Some of what appears to be guiding the newest version sounds as if it is trading off its strength for the sake of hoped for sugar-coated mass adoption. I hope such fears are mostly unwarranted. I suspect that I will be switching back and forth for comparison, so having these two adjacent in the side arrow scheme will be immensely helpful. Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

John Fidel

David Paul,

If I understand your suggestion, you want to be able to use the right/left arrow keys to switch between NASB 95 and NASB 20... the right and left arrow keys change similar resources in the order they are prioritized. So if you put the NASB 95 above or below the NASB 20 you should be able to use the arrow keys to switch back and forth with a single click.

I have the ESV first and the NASB 95 second in priority. Using the arrow keys moves between the two. They do not need to be first and second, you just need them next to each other.

Does this accomplish your request or have I misunderstood?

Graham Criddle

Hi David

You can configure this in Logos using current capability - and I've just seen John's suggestion which is another good way of doing this.

Set up a collection containing just the two Bibles you want to switch between - I've used NASB and NIV for illustration. Ensure the Collection is set to Show in parallel resources

Then, from one of the Bibles, choose that collection in the parallel resources menu

Now the left / right arrow will cycle between just these two resources.

David Paul

Thanks for the replies. Concern alleviated. [Y]

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

The NASB has been the most literal English Bible for some time...

Noticed 2012 Lexham English Bible (LEB) is missing from Bible Translations chart, which should be next to NASB (possibly between NASB and Interlinear).

Keep Smiling [:)]

David Paul

The NASB has been the most literal English Bible for some time...

Noticed 2012 Lexham English Bible (LEB) is missing from Bible Translations chart, which should be next to NASB (possibly between NASB and Interlinear).

Keep Smiling

This is interesting. Am wondering if you have access to any data that confirms your statement. Not doubting your veracity at all. Just hadn't heard anything to this effect. Also, I've never noticed anything about LEB that grabbed my attention with regard to literalness. I will give it more attention in the mean time, though. While I wouldn't say I have doubts about LEB, the fact that it is an in-house project of FL has generally kept me from relying on it. Also, I haven't noticed the kind of marginal notes in LEB that the NASB has--maybe I've overlooked them? While I personally have no qualms about individual translations that are well-sourced and defensible, I generally tend to prefer a Bible that is widely available as my starting point, and I can build upon that with my own translations with whatever support I can find elsewhere. I think I may have called upon LEB at least a couple or so times, but not in any way that stands out to me.

For the sake of addressing my own internal consistency, I do make free use of Lexham's original language Bibles (LHI, LLXXI, LGNTI) since folks are much more open to accepting varied resources for non-English material, but when quoting an English language Bible, I prefer to use a Bible that people are familiar with and can easily access. I want to avert any charge that I'm cherry picking a Bible translation that suits my arguments. The fact that less than 1% of folks are likely to utilize LEB makes it more susceptible to being viewed with suspicion. If LEB is in fact MORE literal and word-for-word than NASB, I'd be willing to call on it...I just need to have evidence to accept that claim.

Graham Criddle

If LEB is in fact MORE literal and word-for-word than NASB, I'd be willing to call on it...I just need to have evidence to accept that claim.

The LEB preface doesn't claim to be more literal than the NASB but it does speak about its approach to being literal. This could be a good place to start to explore this question:

First, the LEB achieves an unparalleled level of transparency with the original language text because the LEB had as its starting point the Lexham Hebrew–English Interlinear Bible and the Lexham Greek–English Interlinear New Testament. It was produced with the specific purpose of being used alongside the original language text of the Bible. Existing translations, however excellent they may be in terms of English style and idiom, are frequently so far removed from the original language texts of Scripture that straightforward comparison is difficult for the average user. Of course distance between the original language text and the English translation is not a criticism of any modern English translation. To a large extent this distance is the result of the philosophy of translation chosen for a particular English version, and it is almost always the result of an attempt to convey the meaning of the original in a clearer and more easily understandable way to the contemporary reader. However, there are many readers, particularly those who have studied some biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, who desire a translation that facilitates straightforward and easy comparisons between the translation and the original language text. The ability to make such comparisons easily in software formats like Logos Bible Software makes the need for an English translation specifically designed for such comparison even more acute.

Second, the LEB is designed from the beginning to make extensive use of the most up-to-date lexical reference works available. For the Old Testament this is primarily The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), and for New Testament this is primarily the third edition of Walter Bauer’s A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). Users can be assured that the LEB as a translation is based on the best scholarly research available. The Hebrew text on which the LEB Old Testament is based is that of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The Greek text on which the LEB New Testament is based is that of The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (SBLGNT), a new edition produced by Michael W. Holmes in conjunction with the Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software. In its evaluation of textual variation, the SBLGNT uses modern text-critical methodology along with guidance from the most recently available articles, monographs, and technical commentaries to establish the text of the Greek New Testament.

Naturally, when these two factors are taken into consideration, it should not be surprising that the character of the LEB as a translation is fairly literal. This is a necessary by-product of the desire to have the English translation correspond transparently to the original language text. Nevertheless, a serious attempt has been made within these constraints to produce a clear and readable English translation instead of a woodenly literal one.

W. Hall Harris III et al., eds., The Lexham English Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012).

Fábio Silva

I've used the LEB in seminary to a certain extent these last 2 years. My takeaway was that it was in fact a very literal translation while still being readable.

This is anecdotal for sure, but often in OT/NT or Hebrew/Greek classes we would have discussions about how to best translate a sentence withtout making it sound wooden, and often I would refer to the LEB and the general opinion in the classroom was that it did a good job.

In language lectures there's many times where the lecturer goes "I don't like the way that the ESV/NASB/NIV etc. translates this passage, because it misses x and y"

I would often ommit the version by saying "there's a translation of this passage that says 'x'" and very often this would be followed by someone complimenting it and asking which version it was.

David Paul

The Hebrew text on which the LEB Old Testament is based is that of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

On this point, a few years back, Vincent Setterholm (the Johnny-on-the-spot Hebrew guy at FL in days gone by) made a point of stating once in a forum thread that both the BHS and the BHQ had been surpassed by the BHW, and (if I remember correctly) that the BHW was the version that would be the touchstone for future Logos energies regarding the Biblical Hebrew text. As I remember it, he also said that as far as he was concerned, he recommended people abandon the BHS & BHQ in favor of the BHW. Ever since then, I have used BHW as my go-to Hebrew text.

However, ever since Vincent evaporated into the ether (one day he was just gone), I've only heard discussion about BHS and BHQ, and hardly any mention of BHW at all. I sure would like an explanation about that.

As far as the LEB goes, I'll be giving it attention going forward. Improving on the NASB is a high hurdle, but it does have a few spotty shortcomings. I have sent Lockman somewhere between half-a-dozen and a dozen emails about typos, words that should definitely be italicized, translation inconsistencies, and the like, and I've looked forward to seeing them in the next edition. I'm now feeling a bit of trepidation. I guess I'll be comparing LEB alongside the two NASBs during the next year.

Hey! I just got a great idea!! I would very much like to see some kind of NASB dataset in Logos that culls out and compares all of the variations in the NASBs '77, '95, and '20. I only have '77 in print (I missed the time window for the freebie giveaway years ago by a matter of hours), and I was reading it in Lev. 16 (if memory serves) and I noticed a variation that jumped out at me. It wasn't just that it was different to what I was accustomed to in '95, but it actually seemed to have some degree of potential preferability. I wanted to do a study on the variation, but time passed and I never got around to it. Having all of the NASB variations in a great big ol' list would be extremely helpful in terms of studying both "the what" and "the why" regarding the changes Lockman made. Just a listing of verses affected by alterations over the years would be sufficient, but any additional insights FL might add in terms of explanation would be welcomed gravy.

Ha! It would be great at this point for someone to jump in and say, "Logos already has a way to do a comparison of NASB variations". That would be sweet!