Michael W. Holmes And The LEB

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, Aug 28, 2016.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    For the Greek text of the New Testament in the Lexham English Bible (LEB) -- the SBLGT by Michael W. Holmes was used. I think it would be interesting if I quote what Stanley E. Porter, who authored How We Got The New Testament has to say:

    "In many ways similar to the Nestle project, Holmes's edition uses Westcott and Hort's edition as the base
    and then compares it with those of Tregelles, the NIV, and the Byzantine text of Robinson and Pierpont. His procedure is generally to accept their reading when they all agree (although this is not always the case) and
    then to determine the correct reading where they do not all agree. In a few cases he adopts a reading not found in any of the editions. It appears that Holmes has simply used these four editions to ensure the secure 90 percent or more of the established text, and then he has gone on to make his own decision for the remaining portion ---except, apparently, where he thinks he knows better, even than the undisputed tradition. This may not be the best way forward in textual criticism of the Greek New Testament." (p.51)"
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Thanks, that is interesting. Too bad we do not have a listing of the verses where he deviated from the CT and the MT. Some might have been valid, but I suspect most would be questionable.
     
  3. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,071
    Likes Received:
    101
    It's unlikely you'll find such a list anytime soon, given how much work it would be to ferret it out.

    In general, though, the text follows most closely the text used for the 2010 NIV. In the preface, Holmes says that "the SBLGNT differs from the standard text (NA27 if my presumption) in more than 540 variation units (either a word or a phrase)." Of the 6,928 variation units, the text agrees with the underlying text of the NIV 6,311 times and disagrees 617 times. It agrees with Robinson-Pierpont 969 times and disagrees 5,959 times.

    'In all, there are 56 variation units in the SBLGNT where I preferred a reading not found in any of the four primary editions, though in 31 of these instances, the preferred reading is given as an alternative (or marginal) reading by Westcott & Hort and/or Tregelles; if we include NA27 in the mix, the respective totals are 46 and 28." (The SBL Greek New Testament: Papers from the 2011 SBL Panel Review Session)
     
  4. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Thanks Rsr, so the LEB has between 56 and 617 questionable renderings based on the underlying text. Next, even when translating from the same source material, the LEB might have blundered in translation or to be accurate, used less than the best translation choice.

    Still, without specific examples of those flaws, the conclusion must be drawn that the LEB is a very good "word for word" translation philosophy version, comparable to the NASB.
     
  5. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    From the preface of The Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)

    Why a new edition? ...

    "...The standard text is viewed by some of those who use it as a "final" text to be passively accepted rather than a "working" text subject to verification and improvement. ...
    ...the existence of an alternative critically edited text—the SBLGNT differs from the standard text in more than 540 variation units—will help to remind readers of the Greek New Testament that the text-critical task is not finished. Moreover, by reminding readers of the continuing need to pay attention to the variant readings preserved in the textual tradition, it may also serve to draw attention to a fuller understanding of the goal of New Testament textual criticism: both identifying the earliest text and also studying all the variant readings for the light they shed on how particular individuals and faith communities adopted, used, and sometimes altered the texts that they read, studied, and transmitted."


    Lexham English Bible Preface
    "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. In its evaluation of textual variation, the SBLGNT uses modern text-critical methodology along with guidance from the most recently available articles, monographs, and technical commentaries to establish the text of the Greek New Testament."

    The Lexham English Bible like most modern versions, identifies the textual alternatives.

    Additionally Rick Brannan (NT) and Israel Loken (OT) developed a resource called The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible (2014) which complements Metzger, Comfort, Omanson and many other's work to aid students in the task of textual criticism.

    Rob
     
  6. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    I think it is possible, if I had the LTNB, I could find many of these deviations. I am reminded of the tag line from the X Files, the truth is out there.
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Are you now referring to variants as deviations? If so, why?
     
  8. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,071
    Likes Received:
    101
    Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. It could be none; it could be thousands (if you hold to the MT). All are attested in some way.

    If you add the NA27, the numbers of renderings not taken from the selected texts falls to 46 and 28. I read somewhere that he has footnoted the 18 renderings that do not come from one of the five texts or margins.

    Keep in mind that (except perhaps for the cases in which Holmes reached outside the preferred texts) that the footnotes do not address individual manuscripts, only published compilations.
     
  9. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    No, per the article I am referring to deviations from the standard texts.
     

Share This Page

Loading...