LEB

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by rsr, May 22, 2016.

  1. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    The Lexham English Bible has been mentioned several times in passing, but I thought it deserved its own thread.

    The LEB is gradually becoming my "go-to" Bible, along with the ESV. I am irritated that the OT is not available on YouVersion, although it is on E-Sword and (naturally) Logos, which commissioned it.

    Any thoughts?
     
  2. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    As is the case with any translation of the Bible, the reader should know what he or she is getting into, and reading the preface is usually very helpful. Here is a link to the preface of the LEB,

    http://lexhamenglishbible.com/preface/
     
    #2 Craigbythesea, May 23, 2016
    Last edited: May 23, 2016
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    It is my go-to bible of late - I really enjoy using it in my personal study.

    • Quite readable and very understandable yet still retains the properties of a literal translation – considered even more literal than the NASB
    • Not enslaved to literalism, the LEB puts literal translations of idioms in the footnotes.
    • There is consistency of phrasing; repeated phrases are translated the same way.
    • Translators’ decisions are footnoted; textual issues, and major translational issues are clearly identified.
    • A single Hebrew or Greek word may have multiple definitions based upon its context; the LEB uses different English words for the same Hebrew or Greek word.
    • Hebrew Scriptures use Yahweh for YHWH rather than Lord
    • Greek Scriptures are derived from a critical text
    • Formatting distinguishes a variety of genera
    Rob
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Spot on Deacon. The more I refer to it (LEB) the more I find I like it for the reasons you listed.
     
  5. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The LEB does not use Yahweh for YHWH rather than Lord; it uses Yahweh for YHWH rather than LORD. The preface to the NRSV explains why its translators and editors believed that this practice is inappropriate,

    Careful readers will notice that here and there in the Old Testament the word Lord (or in certain cases God) is printed in capital letters. This represents the traditional manner in English versions of rendering the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton" (see the notes on Exodus 3.14, 15), following the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh," this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel sounds to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning "Lord" (or Elohim meaning "God"). Ancient Greek translators employed the word Kyrios ("Lord") for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus ("Lord"). The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. Although the American Standard Version (1901) had used "Jehovah" to render the Tetragrammaton (the sound of Y being represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin), for two reasons the Committees that produced the RSV and the NRSV returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version. (1) The word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew. (2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.
     
  6. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The LEB is one of the very few contemporary translations of the Bible that translates Eph. 1:3-14 as a single sentence as it is in the Greek text that it is translated from. However, the practice of translating Eph. 1:3-14 as a single sentence was severely criticized by several BB members in another thread. How do the readers of this thread feel about that practice?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. banana

    banana
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2014
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's better to translate it as one sentence
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328

    No, the NRSV translates it into six sentences.
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    Have you ever written a 280 word sentence?
     
  10. banana

    banana
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2014
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, and I don't need to
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The LEB and the NRSV are two entirely different translations, and their New Testaments are translated from different Greek texts!
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    My mistake. I somewhow that you were speaking of the NRSV. I'll chalk that up to a senior moment.
     
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Okie Dokie
     
  14. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Lets take a little closer look at Ephesians 1:11. It is part of that long sentence discussed above.
    Apparently either two variants are in play, or the scholars are divided on whether we were apportioned or we received (assigned, obtained) a portion.

    Anyone have insight as to why the translations differ (NIV, LEB NET) on "we were chosen" side of the divide, with the WEB, NASB, and NRSV on the "obtained an inheritance" side.

    Here is my "literal" attempt at translation "In Him in whom also our lot was cast, being designated beforehand, put forth according to the One operating all according to the counsel of His will."
     
  15. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The WEB, NASB, and NRSV translate here from the “NA25/UBS3” or earlier Greek texts; the NIV, LEB NET translate here from a variant. Please see the textual apparatus in the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th or 28th edition.
     
    #15 Craigbythesea, May 25, 2016
    Last edited: May 25, 2016
  16. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Thanks CraigbytheSea, but I do not know how to access the textual apparatus. Perhaps you could copy and paste it? The NET footnote makes clear the other interpretation is viable. But it doesn't seem to mention a variant. Usually you get a list of the manuscripts or sources for each text.
     
  17. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Here are the meat and the potatoes without the gravy:

    The NA28, the UBS4, and the SLB all read εκληρωθημεν. However, the variant εκληθημεν (“we were called”) is found in the following manuscripts: A, D, F, and G. This variant is considered by the very large majority of N.T. scholars to be very insignificant and is usually ignored in discussions on the interpretation of Eph. 11. For the four most common interpretations of Eph. 1, and a discussion of them, please see pages 225-230 in the 2002 commentary on the Greek text of Ephesians by Harold W. Hoehner published by Baker Academic, a division of the Baker Publishing Group. Hoehner relegates the variant to a brief footnote on page 226.

    Due to the textual evidence in favor of εκληρωθημεν over εκληθημεν, I believe that it is possible that some scholars have confused the two words and simply mistranslated εκληρωθημεν. In the case of the NET, we read,


    1:11InChrist28 wetoohave been claimed as God’s own possession,29 since we were predestinedaccording tothe one purposeof him who accomplishesall thingsaccording tothe counselof hiswill

    The footnote reads,

    9tnGrk“we were appointed by lot.” The notion of the verbκληρόω(klhrow) in the OT was to “appoint a portion by lot” (the more frequent cognate verbκληρονομέω[klhronomew] meant “obtain a portion by lot”). In the passive, as here, the idea is that “we were appointed [as a portion] by lot” (BDAG 548 s.v.κληρόω1). The words “God’s own” have been supplied in the translation to clarify this sense of the verb. An alternative interpretation is that believers receive a portion as an inheritance: “In Christ we too have been appointed a portion of the inheritance.” See H. W. Hoehner,Ephesians, 226-27, for discussion on this interpretive issue.

    snGod’s own possession. Although God is not mentioned explicitly in the Greek text, it is clear from the context that he has chosen believers for himself. Just as with the nation Israel, the church is God’s chosen portion or possession (cf.Deut 32:8-9).


    It is clear from the footnote that the NET is translating εκληρωθημεν rather than εκληθημεν. Therefore, I refer you to Hoehner, as does the NET.
     
  18. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Lets see if I understand:
    1) There is a variant reading at Ephesians 1:11, and some translations use it, but instead of we have been called, refer to us being chosen rather than our portion. OK but not a compelling view, IMHO.

    2) The NET, and presumable the NIV and LEB for reasons unknown, have us being chosen as God's portion, rather us receiving a portion. This view supports the idea that individuals were chosen beforehand (before the foundation of the world).

    3) The mainstream view found in the NRSV, NASB, WEB and NKJV is that we (located in Christ) obtained our "lot" or "portion" or inheritance which had been designated beforehand. We were sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit who is the guarantee of our inheritance.
     
  19. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    Logos Bible Software products are integrated into their other resources. The Lexham English Bible was originally developed as an Greek (and Hebrew) interlinear, only later as an English translation. http://lexhamenglishbible.com/about/

    United Bible Societies provides a handbook of textual notes for translators. Below is a lengthy discussion of the issue.

    Rob
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,134
    Likes Received:
    266
    So, does a lack of a dead tree version keep people from adopting this version?

    I enjoyed using it when going through commentaries on Logos, very handy.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Loading...