Freethought & Rationalism Archive

11-08-2003, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RUmike
Which bible version do you prefer to reference?

I like the NAB because it is by far the most poetic translation. This quality avoids literalism and because the bible is all metaphor unless indicated otherwise (such as in Jn.6 with the words "real food" and "real drink)" it is an important feature.

Haran · 11-09-2003, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by -FAITH ALONE-
Anybody read "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible"? I saw it on Amazon

and it looked like it had some potential...

So that you know, in case you don't, this only contains the Old Testament books as represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Where the Dead Sea Scrolls are deficient, I believe it is filled in with the Masoretic Text.

I prefer the NIV first (NIV study bible has some great historical notes), NRSV and/or NAB second, and Young's Literal third (I would only suggest this if you have some knowledge of other translations and possibly some knowledge of the underlying Greek text as well, though, otherwise it can be a little confusing - not to mention a somewhat older style of English.).

Layman · 11-09-2003, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RUmike
Which bible version do you prefer to reference?

I noticed that only the NIV on BibleGateway has the following remark right before Mark 16:9: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." Additionally it seems to be the only version with the foonote "Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God" for Mark 1:1. It seems then that the NIV is the most honest, then, albeit this doesn't mean it's the most accurate in translation. Any opinions?

I can't speak for gateway, but my Scofield NAS and my Spirit-Filled Life NKJV both have such notations about Mark. I think it has more to do with wether and what kind of Study Bible you have.

I prefer the NASV and the NRSV. Both are more literally-minded translations.

Toto · 11-09-2003, 11:42 AM

Dead Sea Scrolls Bible

rated "Misleading, But Valuable" by JesusMysteries list moderator Jay Raskin, March 28, 2001

Quote:

Over 90% of this book is made up of an English translation of the 10th century Masoretic Hebrew Text interspersed with less than 10% translated Dead Sea Scrolls material. The Masoretic Text is only separated by brackets instead of being differently colored or bold/light/italic faced which any reasonable writer-editor-publisher would have insisted on. Thus if we're looking up the first line of The Ten Commandments we get:

"[5."You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them, for I the Lord] your. [G]od..."

Translating this means we just have the word "your" and "...od" from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is impossible to know if these words really were meant to be part of this sentence or not. By doing this, the authors make it appear that there are only a few thousand minor differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls Text and the later Masoretic Texts. In fact, what we find is thousands of differences in just the small portion of the Dead Sea Scroll texts we have, which represents less than 10% of the entire Masoretic Texts. (And we can't even judge how much of this 10% is in the right order) So on the one hand if one carefully analyzes the text, one does find that the Biblical Text in the 1st Century was incredibly different from the 10th century Biblical text, but the book seems designed to purposefully to give the opposite impression. Very misleading, but still valuable. Hopefully, someone will publish just the Dead Sea Scroll fragments, so readers can make their own assessment of what was found.

Haran · 11-09-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

"Misleading, But Valuable"

Personally, I would reword this as "Possibly confusing to the layman, but valuable". I see no intentionally "misleading" qualities to the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, especially in light of the Introduction and "How to Read This Book" sections.

Quote:

Over 90% of this book is made up of an English translation of the 10th century Masoretic Hebrew Text interspersed with less than 10% translated Dead Sea Scrolls material.

From the Introduction of The DSSB:
"Unfortunately, for all the other biblical books [i.e. other than Isaiah and Psalms], only fragments survive (some quite substantial, but most of them small). Thus for these books the translation is necessarily a patchwork of the remaining pieces from different scrolls. Since the text is constantly interrupted by the breaking off of the fragments, intervening text is inserted to provide context; this material is taken from our traditional Bible (based on the Masoretic Text)." (square brackets in this quote are my addition - Haran)

Quote:

The Masoretic Text is only separated by brackets instead of being differently colored or bold/light/italic faced which any reasonable writer-editor-publisher would have insisted on. Thus if we're looking up the first line of The Ten Commandments we get:

"[5."You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them, for I the Lord] your. [G]od..."

Multicolored text would certainly be helpful, but is rarely seen in these types of books (with the possible exception of the Jesus Seminar). Using brackets to demarcate extant/non-extant text is a common scholarly practice, as is filling in a deficient document with context provided by a particular source, like the Masoretic Text. In similar fashion, I believe these methods are used in both Martinez' and Vermes' English translations of the DSS.

From the Introduction of the DSSB:
"The preserved text is presented in regular type, with nonextant text supplied in square brackets."

If one reads the Introduction and "How To Read This Book" sections as was intended, then there is nothing "misleading".

Quote:

Translating this means we just have the word "your" and "...od" from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is impossible to know if these words really were meant to be part of this sentence or not. By doing this, the authors make it appear that there are only a few thousand minor differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls Text and the later Masoretic Texts. In fact, what we find is thousands of differences in just the small portion of the Dead Sea Scroll texts we have, which represents less than 10% of the entire Masoretic Texts. (And we can't even judge how much of this 10% is in the right order) So on the one hand if one carefully analyzes the text, one does find that the Biblical Text in the 1st Century was incredibly different from the 10th century Biblical text, but the book seems designed to purposefully to give the opposite impression. Very misleading, but still valuable.

I disagree with much of this. Again, many things are addressed in the Introduction. There is no reason to feel that this book is "misleading".

Quote:

Hopefully, someone will publish just the Dead Sea Scroll fragments, so readers can make their own assessment of what was found.

I agree. I would love to see the Hebrew text of the fragments. I'm not sure, however, that I would want them without context since I would not want to have to go searching through the texts in an attempt to do what scholars have already done. Even with context, I could make my own judgements about the text without having to try and figure out where scholars believe the fragments of text belong.

Finally, at the beginning of the book is a section entitled "Advance International Acclaim" in which praising quotes are printed from many excellent scholars and others. I don't think that many if any of them would recommend this book if it were intentionally "misleading": John Collins, David Noel Freedman, James Sanders, Lawrence H. Schiffman, James C. VanderKam, Emanuel Tov, Carol Meyers, Hershel Shanks, Philip R. Davies, Florentino Garcia Martinez, Michael A. Knibb, Arie van der Kooij, John Barton, and Frank Moore Cross.

It is a good resource if you want to know more about what Old Testament text remains were found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, as long as you read the Introduction to understand what you are reading about.

Haran · 11-09-2003, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
...NRSV and/or NAB second...

Oops. That should have been NAS - New American Standard (as mentioned by Layman) - and not the NAB (New American Bible). Too many similar acronyms...

Layman · 11-09-2003, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
Oops. That should have been NAS - New American Standard (as mentioned by Layman) - and not the NAB (New American Bible). Too many similar acronyms...

I was curious about that one.

You have excellent tastes.

I have to admit that I find the NKJV quite readable as well. But it's third on my list.

What's funny is that the only NRSV I have been able to get my hands on quite prominetly states "WITH THE APOCRYPHA" on it. I get a few curious looks from my staunch Protestant church-mates.

Apikorus · 11-09-2003, 06:47 PM

I prefer the NJPS (New Jewish Publication Society) Tanakh. Aside from being the best translation of the Hebrew Bible available, it has the added virtue of naturally omitting the New Testament entirely.

Celsus · 11-09-2003, 08:42 PM

I generally use the NRSV, though I've been quite used to the RSV, NIV, and KJV thanks to a Christian past. I greatly enjoyed reading a Scots Bible--imagine Mel Gibson's William Wallace as Jesus (I did, I finished all the gospels in Scots, it was that fun). Lately, I've been meaning to get a Hebrew parallel Bible but it's bloody expensive, and its basically for showing off since my Hebrew is nonexistant. After that, I intend to reach the pinnacle of text critical analysis by getting me The Message.

Incidentally, how useful is Young's Literal Translation?

Joel

Apikorus · 11-10-2003, 12:35 AM

I heard that, in the Scots Bible, Jesus eats haggis at the Last Supper. True?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-09-2003, 06:47 PM	#18
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	I prefer the NJPS (New Jewish Publication Society) Tanakh. Aside from being the best translation of the Hebrew Bible available, it has the added virtue of naturally omitting the New Testament entirely.

11-09-2003, 08:42 PM	#19
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	I generally use the NRSV, though I've been quite used to the RSV, NIV, and KJV thanks to a Christian past. I greatly enjoyed reading a Scots Bible--imagine Mel Gibson's William Wallace as Jesus (I did, I finished all the gospels in Scots, it was that fun). Lately, I've been meaning to get a Hebrew parallel Bible but it's bloody expensive, and its basically for showing off since my Hebrew is nonexistant. After that, I intend to reach the pinnacle of text critical analysis by getting me The Message. Incidentally, how useful is Young's Literal Translation? Joel

11-10-2003, 12:35 AM	#20
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	I heard that, in the Scots Bible, Jesus eats haggis at the Last Supper. True?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.