I Wish There was a 'All Verses' Driver in Logos

DMB

I'll get in trouble with MJ on this.

But a little background. I was caught by surprise in the LEB, where it includes Rom 16:24, but not Rom 16:25-27. And that's in comparison to the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear, which does just the opposite. Of course (!) most big-boys don't pick up v24. Interestingly, the older Vulgate picked up both alternatives. The updated dropped v24.

Now, I know, Rom 16 is sort of disfunctional; lots of arguments. But trying to see how LEB decided theirs (Rick or Douglas might know) is a pain, since most of my text-compares and MBD's lead with a deutero-Bible, just to pick up the apocrypha. CNTTS doesn't even bother with v24.

Having to re-engineer to analyze another verse decision for comparison etc. is a pain. Now, yes, I can search, but verse by verse?? Version by version??

I'd be nice to have 'all'. Now the contra, of course, is numbering conflicts.

Rick Brannan

@DMB , the LEB NT is a translation of the SBLGNT. So Holmes reads 16:24 but not 25-27, which is different than NA/UBS (no 24, but yes to 25-27).

The SBLGNT apparatus has the edition variations.

You're right this whole chunk is a minefield (along with the relevant portion of Romans 14 that has similar issues).

There are two Lexham Greek NT Interlinears, of course. The SBLGNT edition should match the SBLGNT and LEB regarding the end of Romans. The non-SBLGNT edition (NA/UBS) will reflect that text (and differ from SBLGNT/LEB here).

EDIT: Also, the Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible does discuss exactly this variation: https://ref.ly/logosres/lexcontxtntbbl?ref=BibleNRSV.Ro16.24

DMB

Thank you Rick!

I do use LEB as primary for recent translation choices

mab

I'm glad to know this about the LEB. I frequently look at it when trying to see how they translate.