Why Does the NASB not have the right Greek word in its interlinear text?

Why does the NASB interlinear use a different Greek text than the one used to
translate it? This makes doing original language work unreliable. For example
in Jude 5 the NASB has “The Lord” but in the Greek interlinear pane it shows “Ἰησοῦς”
(Jesus). I know that the NA28 committee changed the text from “[ὁ] κύριος” to “Ἰησοῦς”
but shouldn’t the underlying Greek text for each translation be the correct one
for each translation? I don’t know if this is a mistake and easily corrected or
not. I also don’t know if this is the only place this occurs or not but it does
make me question the reliability of the interlinear feature.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

Why does the NASB interlinear use a different Greek text than the one used to translate it? This makes doing original language work unreliable. For example in Jude 5 the NASB has “The Lord” but in the Greek interlinear pane it shows “Ἰησοῦς” (Jesus).

The Information page of the NASB95 states that the NT interlinear is aligned with the SBLGNT (a Faitlife product). Some others also use SBLGNT, but the NIV84 is aligned with the NA/UBS edition, whilst the rest of the modern translations use a "representative Greek text" that differs from the NA27 (it may be the text used by the translators). The interlinears of three bibles based on the King James version use Scrivener's edition of the TR.

The actual reason for the NASB95 alignment to SBLGNT is not stated, but a reason given elsewhere is that the Greek text used by the translators was not available.

The interlinears of Jude 5 for all the modern translations use Ἰησοῦς, and ὁ κύριος is used for the three "KJV" bibles where the translation is "the Lord". The NIV84, however, is based on a Greek text that uses ὁ κύριος and consequently translates it "the Lord". The NIV footnote states "Some early manuscripts Jesus". The NASB95 footnote explains that "two early mss read Jesus".

The NLT translation is "Jesus" and the footnote explains that "Other manuscripts read [the] Lord, or God, or God Christ.".

The ESV translation is based on the NA27 but the translators preferred "Jesus" to "the Lord"; acknowledging that "the Lord" is used in some manuscripts.

The NET bible translation is "Jesus" and its footnote says:

"tc ‡ The reading Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel. However, not only does this reading enjoy the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or1739mg), but the plethora of variants demonstrate that scribes were uncomfortable with it, for they seemed to exchange κύριος (kurios, “Lord”) or θεός (theos, “God”) for Ἰησοῦς (though 𝔓72 has the intriguing reading θεὸς Χριστός [theos Christos, “God Christ“] for Ἰησοῦς). In addition to the evidence supplied in NA27 for this reading, note also {88 322 323 424c 665 915 2298 eth Cyr Hier Bede}. As difficult as the reading Ἰησοῦς is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation (Jude being one of the last books in the NT to be composed), it is wholly appropriate."

NA27 has [ὁ] κύριος.

NA28 has Ἰησοῦς.

So there you have an interesting history of scribal and modern preferences for this passage.

James C.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906317#Comment_906317

Dave, thanks for the reply and I understand the textual issues.

My only concern is that I no longer have complete trust in the interlinears that are connected to each translation. They might accurately display the original Greek or Hebrew but they might not. This also affects the Word Study feature as well as other right click original language features.

Thanks again for taking the time to post the above information.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906317#Comment_906317

The actual reason for the NASB95 alignment to SBLGNT is not stated, but a reason given elsewhere is that the Greek text used by the translators was not available.

This seems to me to be the important insight here. Some interlinears may not use the Greek text that the English version is based on. In that case, the interlinear gives me quick access to a Greek text, which is still a convenience, but not the translator's Greek text. As this question demonstrates, it can be a source of confusion if I don't know what's going on.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906321#Comment_906321

My only concern is that I no longer have complete trust in the interlinears that are connected to each translation. They might accurately display the original Greek or Hebrew but they might not.

The reverse-interlinears accurately display a Greek or Hebrew (or Aramaic) text, but no one has access to the original texts (AKA, the "autographs"). But perhaps you mean the "original" text as determined by the translators of each respective translation.

I also have noted that there are times when the interlinear text is not the same as that used by translators. This is even more problematic in the OT when translators decide that the Septuagint (Greek) version is preferable to the Hebrew (perhaps as informed by Qumran texts, e.g.).

It would be helpful if the reverse-interlinears used an asterisk, or some other mark to note when the original language text does not represent the text used by the translators (as in the case you cite). As it is, reverse-interlinears require a lot of time and effort, finding and noting these exceptions would add another layer of linking (original language with translation), and editing. In fact, it would be helpful if English translations noted every time they diverged from the base text they use.

On the bright side, the textual variations that cause these problems are very few and far between. So, these reverse-interlinears are reliable about 95%-99% of the time (my guess based on my experience). That's pretty good! For those other times, the SBLGNT (often used as the base text for reverse-interlinears) does include textual variants. If you have your copy open you could easily and quickly investigate these (to a limited degree, at least).

James C.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906339#Comment_906339

perhaps you mean the "original" text as determined by the translators of each respective translation.

Rich, that is what I meant.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906317#Comment_906317

Where is the nformation page you were looking at Dave?

The Information page of the NASB95 states that the NT interlinear is aligned with the SBLGNT (a Faitlife product). Some others also use SBLGNT, but the NIV84 is aligned with the NA/UBS edition, whilst the rest of the modern translations use a "representative Greek text" that differs from the NA27 (it may be the text used by the translators). The interlinears of three bibles based on the King James version use Scrivener's edition of the TR.

The actual reason for the NASB95 alignment to SBLGNT is not stated, but a reason given elsewhere is that the Greek text used by the translators was not available.

It would be helpful if FL made this information more transparent but we need to be careful to not throw out the Baby with the bath water. I'd rather have a RI that is accurate in the majority of cases than not have one at all.

Paul N

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906439#Comment_906439

James, this is an interesting subject, and I appreciate the way your brought it up.

I also appreciate how others have responded and added knowledge to it.

*following*

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906439#Comment_906439

Where is the nformation page you were looking at Dave?

Doc - it's available in the Resource Information page available by clicking the "?" at the top-right of the resource in Logos

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906551#Comment_906551

Where is the nformation page you were looking at Dave?

Doc - it's available in the Resource Information page available by clicking the "?" at the top-right of the resource in Logos

Which raises another question..."Which Hebrew Text is Aligned in the NASB95?"

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906594#Comment_906594

"Which Hebrew Text is Aligned in the NASB95?"

All Hebrew RI's are aligned with the text of the LHB (Lexham Hebrew Bible):

"Because LHB is the Bible on which we base all of our in-house data projects, it has the best integration with the most Logos databases, including the Bible Knowledgebase (Biblical People, Biblical Places, etc.), the participant referent tagging (which tags things like who/what a pronoun refers to, or who the implied subject of a verb is), the Bible Sense Lexicon, the Hebrew Pronunciation audio clips, and more. It is also the Hebrew Bible that Logos’ interlinears and reverse interlinears are aligned to, as well as the Hebrew Discourse project,..."

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906551#Comment_906551

Thanks Graham, I was thinking Dave meant a resource information page on the website.

I have little access to my desktop at the moment, so mainly using my phone and couldn't find what was being referred to as a result as the book info panel in the iOS app doesn't contain as much detail. It makes sense now where to find it. But it does not state on this panel that this is a substitute text since the one the translator's used was not available so I still hold that FL needs to be more accountable to users about the data they are providing us for usage so we can make informed decisions when using them. FL need to be more open and make it as easy as possible to find this information regardless of the platform we are using, particularly as the functionality of the web and mobile apps improves. There will be a growing number of users who turn to these platforms out of t desktop apps as their primary means of using Logos resources and datasets.

Where is the nformation page you were looking at Dave?

Doc - it's available in the Resource Information page available by clicking the "?" at the top-right of the resource in Logos

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906630#Comment_906630

"Which Hebrew Text is Aligned in the NASB95?"

All Hebrew RI's are aligned with the text of the LHB (Lexham Hebrew Bible):

"Because LHB is the Bible on which we base all of our in-house data projects, it has the best integration with the most Logos databases, including the Bible Knowledgebase (Biblical People, Biblical Places, etc.), the participant referent tagging (which tags things like who/what a pronoun refers to, or who the implied subject of a verb is), the Bible Sense Lexicon, the Hebrew Pronunciation audio clips, and more. It is also the Hebrew Bible that Logos’ interlinears and reverse interlinears are aligned to, as well as the Hebrew Discourse project,..."

Who formatted the interlinear? The publisher or Faithlife is the question that needs to be resolved. The above implies that Faithlife did.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906832#Comment_906832

Lexham = Faithlife

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906339#Comment_906339

This would improve the transparency of the data limitations and so I like the idea. I don't know how much work would be involved to implement it, but would hope FL do take note of this thread and come up with a way to make users aware that these exceptions exist.

I also have noted that there are times when the interlinear text is not the same as that used by translators. This is even more problematic in the OT when translators decide that the Septuagint (Greek) version is preferable to the Hebrew (perhaps as informed by Qumran texts, e.g.).

It would be helpful if the reverse-interlinears used an asterisk, or some other mark to note when the original language text does not represent the text used by the translators (as in the case you cite). As it is, reverse-interlinears require a lot of time and effort, finding and noting these exceptions would add another layer of linking (original language with translation), and editing. In fact, it would be helpful if English translations noted every time they diverged from the base text they use.

I like the idea of having an asterisk in the RI pane, indicating that the word in question is not the one that the translators believed to be the original. Otherwise, the Bible Word Study results are routinely going to be inaccurate.

Sometimes, it is difficult to tell what to make of the RI information. Take 1 Thess. 2:7 KJV for example, "But we were gentle among you..." For this famous variant, the KJV translators clearly translated from the Greek word ἤπιος, which means gentle (see BDAG). Scrivner's Greek NT, which serves as the RI for the KJV indeed has ἤπιοι (plural form of ἤπιος) for this word. Yet, there is a footnote on this word in the Scrivner text, as there are on all major variants, indicating that the marginal reading is νήπιοι (infants).

The problem is that in the KJV RI pane, the MSS says "ἤπιοι" (gentle) and the Lemma says "νήπιος" (infant). The Bible Word Study report makes it seem that the translators goofed in translating "baby" as "gentle." So, is this just a case of incorrect tagging? Whatever the case, these types of things cast some doubt on the Bible Word Study results.

Furthermore, underlying Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic words that are not tagged to translated words (e.g. "like a lion" in Ps. 22:16 MT) do not show up on the BWS word wheel at all.

These couple of examples, to me, indicate that some additional notations are needed either in the RI pane or in the BWS report.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906339#Comment_906339

The problem is that in the KJV RI pane, the MSS says "ἤπιοι" (gentle) and the Lemma says "νήπιος" (infant).

Amongst the RI's only the LEB translates mss ἤπιοι as "infants" from lemma "infants", and only the NLT uses the mss νήπιοι (translated as "Children").

Scrivener's 1881 TR has the "infant" lemma but the other TR's e.g. Stephanus' 1550, Elzevir's 1624 and Scrivener's 1894 avoid this, but it only shows that the outcome depends on the person performing the morphological analysis (M. Robinson for the "gentle" TR's).

The Lexham SBL Editions use the "infant" lemma with the "gentle" mss word. But the NA/UBS prefer the "infant" mss word (NA27 uses the "infant" lemma, but I don't have NA28).

The Bible Word Study report makes it seem that the translators goofed in translating "baby" as "gentle."

You would expect modern translators to use "infant" in this passage given the NA/UBS preference, but it seems that context outweighs the mss evidence.--->

"[Despite the weight of external evidence, only ἤπιοι seems to suit the context, where the apostle’s gentleness makes an appropriate sequence with the arrogance disclaimed in ver. 6..." Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition

So I tend to agree that the interlinear lemma is a tagging issue arising from the Lexham SBL.You can address this directly with an email to revint@logos.com.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906317#Comment_906317

The Information page of the NASB95 states that the NT interlinear is aligned with the SBLGNT (a Faithlife product).

This is why I always check the TC (Textual Criticism) notes in the NetBible as a minimum to make sure I am aware of discussions about textual variants, this raises a flag for me to look for situations like this thread exposes where a TRANSLATION may or may not be of the Lemma that I believe belongs. By being aware of TC issues I pay a little more attention to RI links.

Yes, it may be nice for Faithlife to notate the RI pane that the base text is translated from another variant, but as an exegete I take ownership that one of the tasks I must complete is "establishing in my mind what is the best text from all the variants" Then I realize that the Bible Word Studies and Morphologies derived from the RI data may or may not align with the text used by the translators or the RI data compilers.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/906912#Comment_906912

This is why I always check the TC (Textual Criticism) notes in the NetBible as a minimum to make sure I am aware of discussions about textual variants, this raises a flag for me to look for situations like this thread exposes where a TRANSLATION may or may not be of the Lemma that I believe belongs. By being aware of TC issues I pay a little more attention to RI links.

Have found that the NetBible Notes do not note every textual variant - They do a good job on most.