Why not textual notes in the Lexham English Septuagint 2nd Edition?

I am doing a study on the Septuagint and 4QDeutj's translation of "Angels of God"/"sons of God" vs. the MT's "sons of Israel" at Deuteronomy 32:8. I have been using the Lexham English Septuagint, so I opened the newly downloaded 2nd edition just to use the newest version, when I noticed that the LES2 has no textual notes as you can see from the picture below:

The one on the left is the LES, and the one on the right is the LES2. Why are there no textual notes in the 2nd edition?!?

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Joseph Turner

I wanted to bump this for Monday morning so that someone from Logos might jump in. This seems like an important omission from the LES2.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086701#Comment_1086701

Was hoping you said, yes, you checked your visual filter display.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086711#Comment_1086711

Was hoping you said, yes, you checked your visual filter display.

Not sure about what you mean by "Was hoping you said, yes," but I do not see anything under visual filters that would affect this. I did turn them all on to see if it changed anything.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086716#Comment_1086716

Not sure about what you mean

Often, when less experienced users note the missing notes, it's due to their filter for notes or non-Bible text set to off. You're an experienced user, so I was assuming you checked already.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086717#Comment_1086717

Not sure about what you mean

Often, when less experienced users note the missing notes, it's due to their filter for notes or non-Bible text set to off. You're an experienced user, so I was assuming you checked already.

I did actually look after you mentioned it, but there was nothing to cause it. Do you have the LES2?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086719#Comment_1086719

No ... they likely will release the mobile sometime this year. But I was comparing LES1 to NETS. I really don't know about the translation philosopy in LES1 (will re-check later with LES2). In LES1, at least what I was checking (Penteteuch most stable LXX), LES was iffy. Not sure why .. maybe LES2 will be better.

Hopefully, this small chat will bounce your question back up, and Rick will see it.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086721#Comment_1086721

Hopefully someone will see it. I think this is a pretty important issue.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086754#Comment_1086754

The reverse interlinear for LES2 is shipping during February - I wonder if that will add in this functionality?

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086721#Comment_1086721

No ... they likely will release the mobile sometime this year.

If you are referring to LES2, it is available on mobile now

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

Joseph, one reason we left LES1 as it was in Logos was that LES2 did not retain all of the notes. I can't speak to how decisions were reached at every point about which notes to retain and which to remove for LES2. I can tell you that thousands of notes were re-evaluated for whether they were necessary (and undoubtedly different editors had different criteria for what was "necessary"). In general, from a quick flip through the print edition, it appears the remaining notes in LES2 relate to noting literal wording where the translation was more idiomatic and to indicating versification differences. LES2 was revised with print in mind and with the knowledge that LES1 retained all of the technical notes. I'm curious now just how frequently LES1 had textual notes of the type at Deut 32:8. I don't recall seeing that many in the books I proofread for LES2.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086758#Comment_1086758

If you are referring to LES2, it is available on mobile now

Thank you, Graham. I was crazily filtering Lexham LXX. I don't know why. But reading Doug's reply, I guess I'll download it to see what it doesn't have. Smiling.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086765#Comment_1086765

Joseph, one reason we left LES1 as it was in Logos was that LES2 did not retain all of the notes. I can't speak to how decisions were reached at every point about which notes to retain and which to remove for LES2. I can tell you that thousands of notes were re-evaluated for whether they were necessary (and undoubtedly different editors had different criteria for what was "necessary"). In general, from a quick flip through the print edition, it appears the remaining notes in LES2 relate to noting literal wording where the translation was more idiomatic and to indicating versification differences. LES2 was revised with print in mind and with the knowledge that LES1 retained all of the technical notes. I'm curious now just how frequently LES1 had textual notes of the type at Deut 32:8. I don't recall seeing that many in the books I proofread for LES2.

So then the LES2 is not a replacement for the LES1? I do understand the focus on the print edition, but the LES has copious notes throughout, while it is actually hard to find notes in the LES2. I see on the product page for the LES2 that it states, "The second edition of the LES makes more of an effort than the first to focus on the text as received rather than as produced. Because this approach shifts the point of reference from a diverse group to a single implied reader, the new LES exhibits more consistency than the first edition." This may be a reflection of that redirection in focus.

It might have been better to call the LES2 the "Reader's Edition" or something similar.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086813#Comment_1086813

It might have been better to call the LES2 the "Reader's Edition" or something similar.

I hope you're being sardonic, not serious. But from what I can see, LES had a bunch of look-like-NETS naming notes (removed in LES2), with a residual that is similar to NETS. My impression.

But the claim, 'from a reader', presumably would be more accurately, 'from a reader almost 5 centuries after the writer-edition'. Now, granted, NETS trying to match up to the hebrew/english semantic, is comfortable, but one is never sure what happened. One returns to the 'Old Greek'.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086816#Comment_1086816

I hope you're being sardonic, not serious.

No, I'm not, but I wasn't being negative in any way. My comment was based on the stated focus which I cited above, which seems to be to make a more readable version without all of the extra notes and concern for different readings.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086833#Comment_1086833

I'm concerned about this trend.

There was talk about italics and brackets possibly being removed from a future edition of the LEB. Removing footnotes or visual formatting that conveys information such as idioms, literal translations, words that aren't present in the original language, or verses missing from other manuscripts diminishes the usefulness of the resource, and places more of a burden on the user.

I'd rather see an option to hide any formatting or footnotes for users who didn't want to see them, instead of removing them.

Steve Maling

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086911#Comment_1086911

I'm with PetahChristian[:D]

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086911#Comment_1086911

I'd rather see an option to hide any formatting or footnotes for users who didn't want to see them, instead of removing them.

I totally agree with this.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086833#Comment_1086833

seems to be to make a more readable version without all of the extra notes and concern for different readings.

You may be right (even though their 'readers' was an attempt to justify a diplomatic in the face of Gottengen, and the recent monster LXX commentaries). In theory, they'd need churchy-greek from the 3rd-4th century.

But I was scanning the notes. In my mind, LES1 went nutty with notes (ie every Noah gets a Noe note; NETS simply used Noe, etc). But then LES2 kind of cut beyond good judgment (vs a typical average Bible).

In the example below (top=LES2; bottom LES1), the note at Gen 8:21 disappeared. First, they consciously re-translated the verse a 2nd time. And the re-wording was theologically significant in the New Testament, and required explanation to the LES2 reader. So, anyway, I guess they have their printed book.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086947#Comment_1086947

But I was scanning the notes. In my mind, LES1 went nutty with notes (ie every Noah gets a Noe note; NETS simply used Noe, etc). But then LES2 kind of cut beyond good judgment (vs a typical average Bible).

I agree with this sentiment on both sides.

Ken M. Penner

The "textual notes" in LES1 are primarily of two kinds:

Greek spellings of names (e.g., Jacob in Deut 32:9)
Alternate translations (e.g., descendants in Deut 32:8)

More rarely, there are notes explaining how the Hebrew differs (e.g., angels in Deut 32:8).

The Introduction explains why we considered the name footnotes unnecessary:

The first edition of the LES included the transliterated forms of Greek proper names as footnotes so that scholars and students could have access to the Greek forms. Such footnotes were not cumbersome in a digital publication, but because the second edition was prepared for print publication, these footnotes have been omitted from the second edition.

Some of the alternate translations were eliminated for reasons also explained in the Introduction.

With regard to gender issues in translation, the LES strives to translate as literally as possible, in a contextually appropriate manner, using terminology that is widely acceptable. The goal is contextually appropriate semantics more than gender-inclusive wording. Perhaps the most notable example is the phrase “sons of” as a translation for a generic people group such as Israel. In such instances, the first edition of the LES had “children of Israel” instead of “sons of Israel,” and for people groups other than Israel, “descendants of” was used in place of “sons of.” In each such instance, a note was included indicating the alternate translation “sons of.” This second edition has eliminated these footnotes and consistently uses the translation “sons of.” This policy rests on the observation that the Greek word υἱός (huios)—translated “sons”—almost never refers to both genders; rather it is used when “sons” is contrasted with “daughters.” When both genders were intended, a Greek writer would specify “sons and daughters.” Similarly, although the first edition of the LES sometimes translated the Greek word for “fathers” with the gender-inclusive “ancestors” when the context suggested earlier generations, the second edition uses “fathers” more consistently, on the basis of Greek usage. These translation equivalents bring today’s reader to the ancient culture rather than the reverse.

Notes regarding the Hebrew are out-of-place in a translation that takes the Greek text on its own. The Introduction also addresses this point:

Every effort was made to render the Greek in its own right, with no eye to the Hebrew at all. The LES is an attempt to answer the question, “How would this text have been read—understood and experienced—by a fourth century, Greek-speaking gentile Christian?” This implied reader’s knowledge of Hebrew and Jewish customs is restricted to what could be learned from the Greek Scriptures and by observing fourth-century Jews in the Greco-Roman world.

Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
General Editor, Lexham English Septuagint, second edition

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086965#Comment_1086965

The Introduction explains ...

I think therein lies the problem. Actually, the NETS intro tries also, since effectively, there's a sandwich involved ... hebrew, greek, english (not unlike DR in many respects). You say you're only dealing in 2 parts of the sandwich, while NETS happily admits, there's an expectation that all 3 are involved, with the middle adjusted this way and that. Or as you put it " ...rather than being an original translation from the Greek, the nets is a modified nrsv" (Logos app copy removed the caps).

But the simplification of a 4th century greek outside of Christiandom, or the synagogue seems semantically esoteric. The text (greek) lived and was understood within its community ... ergo the sandwich.

Now, visa vis MJ, and my point the writing was for the boys ... let's see, where's that Pastoral writer. Here, somewhere.