LEB slips
Unless I am overlooking something, Ps 67:3 and Ps 67:5 are identical in Hebrew and thus also in English, but these verses differ (very slightly) in the LEB.
I also recently used "Report typo" for the following:
- "the women" in Num 5:22 should be "the woman"
- "exalt" in Isa 13:4 should be "exult"
Hope these will all be processed. Thanks!
Comments
-
bump 15
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 -
David B. Woods said:
Concur so reported typo. Suspect Psalm 67:3 is correct (last word in Hebrew is construct => "of").
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
David B. Woods said:
I will make note of these needed corrections, though I have no timeline for when fixes will appear in the resource. Usually we wait for a critical mass of a batch of fixes at once. So if you find more, post them here and I'll add them to the list.
0 -
Hebrews 1:8 is missing a suffix:
the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom.
0 -
Exodus 7:1 plural el-lo-HEEM אֱלֹהִ֖ים => "a god" (seems "a" could be removed from LEB).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Perplexed by he addition in John 13:19 (bit inconsistent translation of phrase ἐγώ εἰμι in various places, plus he addition with footnote is a recent discussion issue in Christian Discourse)
From now on I am telling you before it happens, in order that when it happens you may believe that I am he.*
* Here the predicate nominative (“he”) is understood, but must be supplied in the translation
Recommend changing ... I am he.* (John 13:19) to match John 8:58 ... I am !
Likewise recommend same change in John 18:5-6 from:
They replied to him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He said to them, “I am he.*” (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, was also standing with them.) So when he said to them, “I am he,”* they drew back and fell to the ground.
to:
They replied to him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He said to them, “I am !” (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, was also standing with them.) So when he said to them, “I am !”, they drew back and fell to the ground.
Recommending more verses for he* removal: Matthew 14:27, Mark 6:50, Mark 13:6, Luke 21:8, John 4:26 (could be reworded: "I am, the one speaking to you"), John 6:20 ("it is I !" => "I am !"), John 8:24, John 8:28, John 18:8, Acts 10:21.
Matthew 26:22 & Matthew 26:25 could have he* removed
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Recommending more verses for he* removal: Matthew 14:27, Mark 6:50, Mark 13:6, Luke 21:8, John 4:26 (could be reworded: "I am, the one speaking to you"), John 6:20 ("it is I !" => "I am !"), John 8:24, John 8:28, John 18:8, Acts 10:21.
Matthew 26:22 & Matthew 26:25 could have he* removed
I get concerned when this sort of editorial change (as opposed to a correction of an obvious error) is done outside the translation and review process. It makes the text inconsistent when one cannot trust that the text one sees is what was debated and accepted by the team of translators with a common understanding of their guidelines (formal or informal).
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 -
MJ. Smith said:
Recommending more verses for he* removal: Matthew 14:27, Mark 6:50, Mark 13:6, Luke 21:8, John 4:26 (could be reworded: "I am, the one speaking to you"), John 6:20 ("it is I !" => "I am !"), John 8:24, John 8:28, John 18:8, Acts 10:21.
Matthew 26:22 & Matthew 26:25 could have he* removed
I get concerned when this sort of editorial change (as opposed to a correction of an obvious error) is done outside the translation and review process. It makes the text inconsistent when one cannot trust that the text one sees is what was debated and accepted by the team of translators with a common understanding of their guidelines (formal or informal).
Searched many English Bibles for phrase "I am he"
LEB and Young's Literal Translation (YLT) add he in Matthew 14:27 and Mark 6:50 (personally like "I am he" over "It is I" while "I am" is more literal)
FYI: used minus to exclude four English Bibles that lack individual verse milestones.
FWIW: background is searching Greek phrase "ἐγώ εἰμί" translation, spoken by many people. Majority of "ἐγώ εἰμί" phrases spoken in the Bible were by <Person God> OR <Person Jesus>
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Perplexed by he addition in John 13:19 (bit inconsistent translation of phrase ἐγώ εἰμι in various places, plus he addition with footnote is a recent discussion issue in Christian Discourse)
...
Matthew 26:22 & Matthew 26:25 could have he* removed
This sort of thing is more of a choice than a "slip." With few exceptions, we are mainly fixing errors, not places where we disagree with the translator's original choice. The few times we've made changes that weren't merely correcting typos tend to be places where the translators clearly departed from the guidelines they were given, but it was overlooked in later reviews.
Many decisions in LEB go back to the NT/OT interlinear resources on which the translation is based. The addition of he in the passages you've noted tend to be of that nature. John 13:19 has a footnote in both LEB and the interlinear saying "he" was understood but needed to be explicit in English (yes, that's debatable, but it's debating a choice, not an error). Your own search shows that the addition of he in John 13:19 is far from unique to the LEB. Matthew 26:22, 25 both also have the object supplied in the interlinear.
I'm not sure how it would make sense in English to say, literally, "I am not." In this case, I think supplying "he" is necessary for understanding. The ESV in Matt 26 goes with "Is it I?" for these, also supplying an object. This is a case where a pure literal one-to-one correspondence doesn't actually capture the meaning of an emphatic statement inviting a negative answer. The ESV's "Is it I?" and the LEB's "Surely, I am not he, am I?" are both attempts to capture that.
If we ever decided to do a full revision and update to the LEB, then the team would revisit items like this that fall under translator's choice rather than translator's errors. In the meantime, I'm compiling all notes I get on errors that somehow made it through, even, apparently, in books that had a recent full error check like Numbers.
0 -
Num 23.7: "lead" should be "led" (or perhaps "leads")
If the Report Typo tool is sufficient, I'll quit replicating here. Please let me know your preference.
0 -
David B. Woods said:
If the Report Typo tool is sufficient, I'll quit replicating here. Please let me know your preference.
You can do one or the other, but you don't need to do both. If you want to make sure an editor sees the mistake, post it here. Before I submit any request to update the Logos resource, I will ask for the report generated by the typo reporting feature though. However, I don't usually make that request until I already have a growing list of typos that I want to fix anyway. The main advantage of posting here is that it gets on my radar for gauging whether I have enough fixes for an update.
However, you can stop reporting errors for Numbers. I thought it odd you were finding some still since we had someone go through the whole book last year because it had an inordinate number of typos. I thought those corrections had been made in the resource, but I just checked several examples, including Num 23:7, and discovered they were noted for correction but not implemented yet. I will follow up on that and probably add these latest observations to the notes for the update.
0 -
Many thanks for your diligence and thoroughness, Doug, and also for previously clarifying the distinction between errors and translator's choices.
Glad to be in the digital age!
Blessings,
David0
said:
