Lexham Enlgish Bible is really good!

I am surprised how literal and smooth this translation is. I just got done listening to the Gospel of Matthew on the LEB. The entire time I was hitting myself for not giving this translation a fair chance earlier. My go to Bibles are usually the ESV, NASB, and the NET. I'm seriously considering adding the LEB to this list.

What are others opinion about this translation? Has anyone run across any verses that they thought were awkward or translated incorrectly? I'm interesting in listening to both criticism and praise.

I'll start by saying that I appreciate that the LEB uses Yahweh instead of LORD. I, also, like that they translated John 3:16 LEB much like how the NET does. "For in this way God loved the world.." Ephesians 5:21-22 LEB is interesting - and I think I like it better.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Josh

Okay, I went back and spotted some awkward sentences.

Matthew 26:7 LEB

"...a woman came up to him holding an alabaster flask of very expensive perfumed oil, and poured it* out on his head while he was reclining at table."

I would have preferred "at the table". I'm not sure why this was done. They do it again in Matthew 26:20 LEB.

Matthew 22:28 LEB

"...in the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her as wife."

I would have preferred "as their wife".

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/532951#Comment_532951

Hi Josh

I like the "reclining at table" rendering.

I can't quite explain it but it conveys - to me - the sense of what they were doing with "table" being "where they were and what they were doing - sharing a meal around a table" as opposed to just being "at the table".

As I expect you are aware neither "table" nor "wife" are in the original.

Graham

Mike Binks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/532951#Comment_532951

Hi Josh

'at table' is a pretty sophisticated use of the english phrase and perhaps a little old fashioned these days.

With 29 separate definitions as a noun using the word 'table' needs to be carefully contextualised for non-native english speakers.

According to my dictionary 'at table' = 'at a meal'. If this is correct then the 'actual (furniture) table' may only be implied.

Can you be 'at table' at a buffet?

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/532951#Comment_532951

Okay, I went back and spotted some awkward sentences.

Matthew 26:7 LEB

"...a woman came up to him holding an alabaster flask of very expensive perfumed oil, and poured it* out on his head while he was reclining at table."

I would have preferred "at the table". I'm not sure why this was done. They do it again in Matthew 26:20 LEB.

Matthew 22:28 LEB

"...in the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her as wife."

I would have preferred "as their wife".

I also really like the LEB! In regard to these two instances, I like the translation the way it stands ..

I think the difference is between British English and American English .... At this point all the responders to your post are from the Commonwealth ... *smile*

Peace to you AND Joy in the Lord!

Rich DeRuiter

What are others opinion about this translation? Has anyone run across any verses that they thought were awkward or translated incorrectly? I'm interesting in listening to both criticism and praise.

I also really like the LEB for study purposes. It is one of my preferred Bibles in Logos. There are times when, to my ear, the translation does not flow very well for public reading, or even private reading (I feel the same way about the ESV). The approach is to try to be literal, rather than to flow nicely in natural sounding English, which is why I like it for study purposes. I wouldn't use it outside the arena of study (e.g., in a worship service).

There have been times when I did not agree with the rendering in the LEB. One example is Esther 2:23 LEB where 'ets (עֵץ) is translated "gallows." There is no historical nor linguistic reason for this. Literally this should be "the two of them were hung on a wooden pole." With concurring historical evidence (Herodotus) it would be appropriate to translate this "the two of them were impaled on a wooden pole." I have noticed a few other times where the translation choice varies from what most translators would choose, but no specifics come to mind at the moment.

But those differences are few and far between, and more often reflect a choice that Bible scholars themselves have no general consensus on.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/532973#Comment_532973

I also really like the LEB!                    In regard to these two instances, I like the translation the way it stands ..

                   I think the difference is between British English and American English ....           At this point all the responders to your post are from the Commonwealth ...           *smile*

                                                                                                                                  Peace to you                    AND              Joy in the Lord!

That may be it! Do people really say "at table"? I did a search through the LEB and it is used several times throughout the LEB gospels. Mark 14:18 LEB, John 13:28 LEB.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533104#Comment_533104

Hey, Josh! *smile*

Sometimes -- as a Canadian, eh??? -- I'm not sure what to say ....

But we do say "at table" and "in hospital" ...

Frankly, I rue the day when all of us will speak the same way! I like and appreciate the "regionalism"!

I am so sad that international news has been such a great "leveler" of language ...

For example, here in Canada, the people in Newfoundland and the Maritime Provinces are beginning to talk like the rest of us ...

How sad!

A "clip" from Wikipedia ..

Grammar[edit]

When writing, Canadians will start a sentence with As well, in the sense of "in addition"; this construction is a Canadianism.^[48]
Canadian, Australian and British English share idioms like in hospital and at university,^[49]^[50] although "in the hospital" is also commonly heard. In American English, the definite article is mandatory in both cases. (However, in most situations where English speakers outside the U.S. use the phrase to university, American English speakers instead use the phrase to college, with no article required.)
In speech and in writing, Canadian English speakers permit (and often use) a transitive form for some past tense verbs where only an intransitive form is permitted in other dialects. Examples include: "I'm finished my homework" (rather than "I'm finished with my homework"), "I'm done dinner" (rather than "I'm done with dinner"), and "I'm graduated university" (rather than "I graduated from university").

Vocabulary[edit]

Where Canadian English shares vocabulary with other English dialects, it tends to share most with American English. Many terms are shared with Britain, but not with the majority of American speakers. In some cases British and the American terms coexist in Canadian English to various extents; a classic example is holiday, often used interchangeably with vacation, distinguishing the two between a trip elsewhere and general time off work respectively. In addition, the vocabulary of Canadian English also features words that are seldom (if ever) found elsewhere. A good resource for these and other words is the Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles (Avis and others. 1967), which is currently being revised at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

As a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, Canada shares many items of institutional terminology and professional designations with the countries of the former British Empire – for example, constable, for a police officer of the lowest rank, and chartered accountant.

Education[edit]

The term college, which refers to post-secondary education in general in the U.S., refers in Canada to either a post-secondary technical or vocational institution, or to one of the colleges that exist as federated schools within some Canadian universities. Most often, a college is a community college, not a university. It may also refer to a pre-university college in Quebec. In Canada, college student might denote someone

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533121#Comment_533121

Thanks for all the info. I figured there was a good reason for the phrasing - it wasn't isolated so it couldn't have been a mistake. It still sounds awkward to me though. [;)]

I had asked in my OP if anyone had come across any verses that they thought were translated incorrectly. I was able to find one - though this one deals with a textual issue.

In Mark 1:1 LEB "the Son of God" is omitted. Now, I understand why this was done, but I do not think it was the best option. The ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET, HCSB, NAB, and NRSV all include it. In fact, the NET translation notes argue persuasively that this was part of the original text.

I still like this translation though. For the most part I believe the translators have made good decisions.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533225#Comment_533225

Hi Josh

In Mark 1:1 LEB "the Son of God" is omitted

Thanks for pointing that out - I was surprised to see it.

Looking into this I found that:

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

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

and the SBLGNT doesn't include the "son of God" text.

The SBLGNT itself utilises four earlier GNT editions with:

The starting point for the SBLGNT was the edition of Westcott and Hort. First, the WH text was modified to match the orthographic standards of the SBLGNT (described below). Next, the modified version was compared to the other three primary editions (Treg, NIV, and RP) in order to identify points of agreement and disagreement between them.

Michael W. Holmes, Apparatus for the Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Logos Bible Software, 2010).

Looking at the SBLGNT apparatus for this verse we get:

and Westcott-Hort has:

So what we see in LEB is consequent on the SBLGNT taking the Westcott-Hort text in this verse.

Graham

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533234#Comment_533234

Looking into this I found that:

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

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

and the SBLGNT doesn't include the "son of God" text.

The SBLGNT itself utilises four earlier GNT editions with:

The starting point for the SBLGNT was the edition of Westcott and Hort. First, the WH text was modified to match the orthographic standards of the SBLGNT (described below). Next, the modified version was compared to the other three primary editions (Treg, NIV, and RP) in order to identify points of agreement and disagreement between them.

Michael W. Holmes, Apparatus for the Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Logos Bible Software, 2010).

Looking at the SBLGNT apparatus for this verse we get:

and Westcott-Hort has:

So what we see in LEB is consequent on the SBLGNT taking the Westcott-Hort text in this verse.

Graham

You are correct! The SBLGNT also states: Where there was disagreement among the four editions, the editor determined which variant to print as the text...

As such, I find it odd that since the NIV, Treg, and RP include the phrase, the editors of the SBLGNT decided to go with the WH text - especially in light of the fantastic textual arguments that suggest it should be there. Oh well...[:(]

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533250#Comment_533250

And now for some praise...[:)]

I appreciate that the LEB translates δοῦλος (doulos) as "slave". Col 4:7 LEB, Phil. 2:7 LEB, Jude 1 LEB, etc. The NET does this too.

I also think "bondservant" is a good translation, but I don't agree with the ESV, NIV, and the NRSV that use merely "servant". Both slave and bondservant work for me. [Y]

Brother Mark

LEB has many features that I love:

Literal (or as literal as possible while retaining a word order and sense that makes understandable sentences in English).
Audible. Marv's smooth baritone voice narrating the text is awesome.
Notes. Extensive and comprehensive. It is very nearly a study Bible. That's a left handed compliment. [:D]
Reverse Interlinear. George's well considered opinions taken into account, I want to see the original language alongside the English.
Corner brackets to offset idiomatic phrases with literal renderings supplied in referenced call-outs.
Italics make supplied words (not in the original) obvious.
Componentized. The LEB is apparently one component of several that are intended to make a complete bible study framework. Now, exactly what all of those components are, and examples of how that framework may be used (or exactly how useful it may be) are not obvious. Or, at least, not obvious to me. I'd very much like to see either a video, or step by step guide for using the LEB with all of the other components of this framework.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533284#Comment_533284

The more I use the LEB the more I like it. Thanks for starting this thread Josh.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533284#Comment_533284

LEB has many features that I love:

Literal (or as literal as possible while retaining a word order and sense that makes understandable sentences in English).

Audible. Marv's smooth baritone voice narrating the text is awesome.

Notes. Extensive and comprehensive. It is very nearly a study Bible. That's a left handed compliment.

Reverse Interlinear. George's well considered opinions taken into account, I want to see the original language alongside the English.

Corner brackets to offset idiomatic phrases with literal renderings supplied in referenced call-outs.

Italics make supplied words (not in the original) obvious.

Componentized. The LEB is apparently one component of several that are intended to make a complete bible study framework. Now, exactly what all of those components are, and examples of how that framework may be used (or exactly how useful it may be) are not obvious. Or, at least, not obvious to me. I'd very much like to see either a video, or step by step guide for using the LEB with all of the other components of this framework.

This probably should have been the OP. [:)] All very true points. The audio is what first drew me to it. I couldn't handle the impersonal electronic voice of the others. They need to call Marv back in to do the OT!

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533398#Comment_533398

An interesting example of where LEB did 'not' go (given that LEB does spend time recognizing early usage in the OT) ...

If you compare the LEB to the ISV in Gen 3:1 and thereafter, LEB didn't pick up 'the Shining One' (ISV relative to Isaiah usage), where normally most translations go with the traditional serpent/snake. I was surprised.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533421#Comment_533421

An interesting example of where LEB did 'not' go (given that LEB does spend time recognizing early usage in the OT) ...

If you compare the LEB to the ISV in Gen 3:1 and thereafter, LEB didn't pick up 'the Shining One' (ISV relative to Isaiah usage), where normally most translations go with the traditional serpent/snake. I was surprised.

I'm happy the LEB didn't pick up that bizarre ISV translation!

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533425#Comment_533425

Josh and friends,

A separate instance where LEB demonstrates its power of translation is in its seemingly insignificant choice in using a more literal translation of Mic4.8. Why does this matter? Well, Luke2.12 prophesies that the Christ child will be lying in a manger wrapped in swaddling cloths. And this will be a sign.

The sign refers to Micah 4.8 and specifically to the tower at Migdal Eder. If you use most of the go to translations ESV, NASB, NIV KJV etc. you will miss this significant piece of prophesy. Knowing this observation informs us that the sheperd watchtower where both non-priestly and priestly shepards attended to their flocks. The priests would segregate the newly born lambs and wrap them in swaddling cloth in preparation for sacrifice so as to protect the from becoming blemished.

Well once I discovered the superiority of the LEB in this regard I added it to my Top Five. Another useful translation for the Old Testament is the Tanakh (The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text).

So we are in agreement. The lowly LEB deserves another look.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533458#Comment_533458

Thank you, Beloved! That's new to me! ... and so beautiful! Thank you indeed .... your note here is in my Logos5 notefile already yet! *smile*

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533458#Comment_533458

Josh and friends,

A separate instance where LEB demonstrates its power of translation is in its seemingly insignificant choice in using a more literal translation of Mic4.8. Why does this matter? Well, Luke2.12 prophesies that the Christ child will be lying in a manger wrapped in swaddling cloths. And this will be a sign.

The sign refers to Micah 4.8 and specifically to the tower at Migdal Eder. If you use most of the go to translations ESV, NASB, NIV KJV etc. you will miss this significant piece of prophesy. Knowing this observation informs us that the sheperd watchtower where both non-priestly and priestly shepards attended to their flocks. The priests would segregate the newly born lambs and wrap them in swaddling cloth in preparation for sacrifice so as to protect the from becoming blemished.

Well once I discovered the superiority of the LEB in this regard I added it to my Top Five. Another useful translation for the Old Testament is the Tanakh (The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text).

So we are in agreement. The lowly LEB deserves another look.

This sounds interesting. I'm having trouble verifying this though. Do you have any citations? Thanks!

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533484#Comment_533484

On the Micah ref that Beloved mentions, JPS Tanakh attaches a note 'Apparently near Bethlehem; see Gen. 35.19–21. NAB-rev has a similar comment which NET points to.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533484#Comment_533484

This sounds interesting. I'm having trouble verifying this though. Do you have any citations? Thanks!

Hi Josh,

I borrowed this assertion from a book I am reading on my Kindle. This resource is not found among the Logos catalog but I point to it here

A reference which supports this opinion is found in a resource that is in the Logos library and can be found here logosres:edsketch;ref=Page.pp_79-82;off=1360;ctx=Bethlehem_of_Judah. You may also be interested in this account found in .pdf format http://www.kolsimcha.org/messages/2009/040909M.pdf Josh, like you I am curious to find new and more direct support for this account. However, it will only add color to what I already "know" by faith.

Milford; your largess is humbling and Denise, thanks for your support.

Peace to all knowing the unfailing Love of Christ

Edit: To set the record straight in my first post on this thread I sloppily referred to the "go to" translations and missed the fact that the NIV does indeed use the literal Migdal Eber as its translation choice. Please excuse this oversight.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533693#Comment_533693

Please forgive me. I was trying to be efficient. Here is the extended quote from Edersheim's work.

But there is one passage in the Mishnah which throws such peculiar light on the Gospel narrative, that it will be best to give it in its entirety. We know that, on the night in which our Saviour was born, the angels’ message came to those who probably alone of all in or near Bethlehem were “keeping watch.” For, close by Bethlehem, on the road to Jerusalem, was a tower, known as Migdal Eder, the “watch-tower of the flock.” For here was the station where shepherds watched the flocks destined for sacrifices in the Temple. So well known was this, that if animals were found as far from Jerusalem as Migdal Eder, and within that circuit on every side, the males were offered as burnt-offerings, the females as peace-offerings. R. Jehudah adds: “If suited for Paschal sacrifices, then they are Paschal sacrifices, provided it be not more than thirty days before the feast” (Shekal. 7. 4; compare also Jer. Kid. 2. 9). It seems of deepest significance, almost like the fulfilment of type, that those shepherds who first heard tidings of the Saviour’s birth, who first listened to angels’ praises, were watching flocks destined to be offered as sacrifices in the Temple. There was the type, and here the reality. At all times Bethlehem was among “the least” in Judah—so small that the Rabbis do not even refer to it in detail. The small village-inn was overcrowded, and the guests from Nazareth found shelter only in the stable, whose manger became the cradle of the King of Israel. It was here that those who tended the sacrificial flocks, heaven-directed, found the Divine Babe—significantly the first to see Him, to believe, and to adore. But this is not all. It is when we remember, that presently these shepherds would be in the Temple, and meet those who came thither to worship and to sacrifice, that we perceive the full significance of what otherwise would have seemed scarcely worth while noticing in connection with humble shepherds: “And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds” (Luke 2:17, 18). Moreover, we can understand the wonderful impression made on those in the Courts of the Temple, as, while they selected their sacrifices, the shepherds told the devout of the speedy fulfilment of all these types in what they had themselves seen and heard in that night of wonders; how eager, curious crowds might gather around to discuss, to wonder, perhaps to mock; how the heart of “just and devout” old Simeon would be gladdened within him, in expectation of the near realisation of a life’s hopes and prayers; and how aged Anna, and they who like her “looked for redemption in Israel,” would lift up their heads, since their salvation was drawing nigh. Thus the shepherds would be the most effectual heralds of the Messiah in the Temple, and both Simeon and Anna be prepared for the time when the infant Saviour would be presented in the sanctuary. But there is yet another verse which, as we may suggest, would find a fuller explanation in the fact that these shepherds tended the Temple flocks. When in Luke 2:20 we read that “the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God,” the meaning in that connection seems somewhat difficult till we realise that, after bringing their flocks to the Temple, they would return to their own homes, and carry with them, joyfully and gratefully, tidings of the great salvation. Lastly, without entering into controversy, the passage from the Mishnah above quoted in great measure disposes of the objection against the traditional date of our Lord’s birth, derived from the supposed fact, that the rains of December would prevent the flocks being kept all night “in the field.” For, in the first place, these were flocks on their way to Jerusalem, and not regularly pasturing in the open at that season. And, secondly, the Mishnah evidently contemplates their being thus in the open thirty days before the Passover, or in the month of February, during which the average rainfall is quite the largest in the year.

Edersheim, A. (2003). Sketches of Jewish social life in the days of Christ (pp. 79–82). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533699#Comment_533699

Thanks again, Beloved! *smile*

A few minutes ago I just down-loaded the brand new Jewish Study Bible --

Thought you folks might like to peruse this resource on the Micah section we have been discussing ... here it is: (Peace!)

4:1–5:14: A series of texts about the future. This section consists of six different subunits (4:1–5; 4:6–8; 4:8–5:1; 5:1–5; 5:6–8; 5:9–14). Each of these literary subunits presents a portrait of a future. These images of the future are widely different from one another, allowing each one to inform and balance the other. One of the most significant differences among these images of an ideal future concerns the fate of the nations other than Israel. Are they going to flow to Jerusalem to learn divine teachings coming from Jerusalem and its religious elite (4:2), or are they going to be crushed (5:14)? Despite these significant differences, this section should be viewed as a collection of oracles of consolation. 4:1–5: In this portrait of the future, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are the center of the world. Vv. 1–3 are nearly identical with Isa. 2:2–4; the exact literary relationship between these two units is debated. 2: Instruction, Heb “torah.” The text clearly associates “torah” with “the word of the Lord.” In Jewish liturgy this portion of the verse, For instruction shall come forth from Zion,/ The word of the Lord from Jerusalem, is read when the Torah scroll is taken out of the Ark to be read. 3: He will judge: The one who will judge is the Lord. Some medieval commentators, however, identified the judge with the Messiah (Ibn Ezra, Radak) and thus reformulated to some extent the image of the ideal period. In its biblical context, however, this passage depicts a messianic age without a personal messiah. They shall beat their swords into plowshares … they shall never again know [others translate, “train for”] war is one of the most popular, condensed descriptions of an ideal future. (Contrast it with Joel 4:10.) 5: This v. has been considered “narrowly particularistic” or “nationalistic” (as opposed to “universalistic”) and has certainly been read in such a fashion (cf. Targum, Rashi, Exod. Rab. 15.15). In its context in Micah, however, the v. rejects the “imperial” model of everyone becoming Israel. Instead, it supports the concept that non-Israelites may accept the word of the Lord from Jerusalem and still maintain their non-Israelite identity and worship (cf. the sailors in Jonah ch 1). 8: Migdal-eder, “tower of the flock,” reinforces the previous image of Israel as “flock” whose shepherd is the Lord. Outpost of Fair Zion may be translated as “Ophel (or stronghold) of the daughter of Zion.” 10: The explicit reference to the Babylonian exile of Judah shows the authorship’s awareness of both the historical event and its importance for post-monarchic Israel. The actual writer cannot be identified with Micah, because the latter lived—according to the book—more than a century before the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile to Babylonia. Quite remarkably, this v. views the Babylonian exile as a positive experience, and along with other vv. helps to explain why those who returned to Yehud (Judah) after the exile felt superior to those who remained behind, a major theme of Ezra-Nehemiah. 5:1: The reference is to David, from Bethlehem in Judah. 2: Until she who is to bear has borne: Traditional Jewish interpretations of this v. tend to focus on comparisons between the birth pangs of a woman and the hardship of Israel prior to the coming of the Messiah. See the following text: “Rab said: The son of David will not come until the [Roman] power enfolds Israel for nine months, as it is written, Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel. ‘Ulla said: Let him [The Messiah] come, but let me not see him. Rabbah said likewise: Let him come, but let me not see him … Abaye enquired of Rabbah: ‘What is your reason [for not wishing to see him]? Shall we say, because of the birth pangs [preceding the advent] of the Messiah?’ But it has been taught, R. Eleazar’s disciples asked him: ‘What must a man do to be spared the pangs of the Messiah?’ [He answered,] ‘Let him engage in study and benevolence; and you Master do both.’ ” (b. Sanh. 98b [Soncino ET]). 5: The land of Nimrod, Assyria (cf. Gen. 10:8–12). Nimrod is chosen because might was associated with him (Gen. 10:8), but this image is turned against him. 9–14: A divine purge of Israel and the nations that serves to emphasize the importance of obedience to the Lord. Note the rhetorically powerful repetitions of “you/your” and “I will” that serve to stress the main point of the text, namely the relation between the Lord and Israel in the future envisioned in these vv., as the destruction of sinful elements of Judah is transformed at the last moment to retribution on the nations.^{^[1]}

Ibn Ezra Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, a Bible commentator and grammarian who lived in Spain in the 12th century.

Targum A Jewish translation of the Bible into Aramaic, a language once widely spoken in western Asia, of which Syriac was a later development.

Rashi Rabbi Shlomo Yitzḥaki, the best-known Jewish commentator on the Bible. He lived in France at the end of the 11th century.

Rab. Rabbah (book + Rabbah, e.g., Gen. Rab. = Genesis Rabbah)

b. Babylonian Talmud

Sanh. Sanhedrin (Talmudic Tractate)

^{^[1]} Berlin, A., Brettler, M. Z., & Fishbane, M. (Eds.). (2004). The Jewish Study Bible (pp. 1211–1214). New York: Oxford University Press.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533693#Comment_533693

A reference which supports this opinion is found in a resource that is in the Logos library and can be found here logosres:edsketch;ref=Page.pp_79-82;off=1360;ctx=Bethlehem_of_Judah._~But_there_is_one_pas

Yes, I own this resource. Interesting article, thanks.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533699#Comment_533699

I think I'll go with Beloved's quote from A. Ebersheim, since it has all the scholarship up to 2003. Maybe Logos will update it up to 2013.

The Jewish Study Bible, though recently written (2004, a whole year newer), admits to almost medieval sources (obviously not the latest and greatest).

But it's interesting when one reads these type of writings, that their sources are centuries (even millenia) after the events they confidently discuss. As much as I have to squeak out apologetic use of the Targums, and hem and haw over the Talmud datings, scholars just jump right in!

I'll stick with Jacob settling opposite the Temple flock grazing area. I think he had some sort of flocks too. So the targum in Genesis adds 'the place from which the King Messiah will reveal himself in the end of days.' Interesting.

Min. Ann

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/533777#Comment_533777

I agree the LEB is really good! [:)]