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?

judge

The original version of mark is contained in the eastern aramaic peshitta. This version is actually in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke.
The variations occur in the greek mss, which are translations.

Gawdawful

G-zuss And The D-Cycles spake in King James English. I thought everyone knew that. I don't know how many times I have been told the KJV is the Divine Word of God. Why doth thou not knowest thee thusly?


Warren in Oklahoma

Javaman

So, what's your answer? I'll keep using Young's Literal Translation for the most part and other versions if I need help.

rlogan

I'd be careful with this Peshitta. My understaning is that the original texts were in Greek. Here is a vitriolic attack on the assertion about the Peshitta being the "original":

vitriol

"any honest scholar is aware that these contentions are blatant lies. First of all, the language of the Peshitta is Syriac, not Aramaic. It is true, as stated before, that Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, but so is Arabic. They are not the same. The Syriac of the Peshitta did not become popular until about the 3rd century AD, and it must be distinguished from the Aramaic being spoken in the 1st century. Scholars call the Aramaic of the 1st century "Early Aramaic," and the Aramaic from which Syriac is derived is called "Late Aramaic." By the differences in the languages alone, and the evolution of the Syriac dialect, it can be shown that the Peshitta was not written before the 3rd century. Furthermore, by comparing the Peshitta texts with the Old Syriac manuscripts, it can be established that the Peshitta was not produced until the 5th century."

Doctor X

I had a response which I did not post because I did not wish to seem that I was "tweaking" judge for his "pet theory."

Suffice to write, "Aramaic Primacy" is a minority theory [Poisoning the Well.--Ed.] . . . no . . . it is not a fallacy if true . . . though if someone can prove otherwise it will prove quite a discovery for NT studies.

Until that time, I had the RSV recommended . . . but it makes a lot of theologic decisions in its translation. I had a course . . . sort of a Textual Criticism for Poets where the professor demonstrated how the RSV . . . and the base Nestle-Aland Greek proved a bit "inconsistent" with their arguments.

For the most part, if you realize translation is interpretation and are willing to compare, you should be alright. People use the NIV all the time. I have noticed a "bias" in that many books will use the RSV for their English . . . though many scholars will translate passages themselves! Mack has a section in his Who Wrote the New Testament? where he demonstrates a theologically-driven translation.

Of course, you could learn Greek . . . then Hebrew. . . .

--J.D.

judge

Hmmmm...can you explain why you give creedence to the contents of your link?

lets hear what a real scholar had to say.

evidence existed at that time for him to be certain, but... [5]:

"Generally it may be observed that the language used by our Saviour and his apostles beingthat ordinarily employed by the Hebrews in Palestine at the time, and called by St. Luke (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 1), Papias, and Irenaeus, the Hebrew Dialect, is so very similar and closely allied with the Syriac of the New Testament, called the Peshitto, that the two may be considered identical, with the exception, perhaps, of some very slight dialectical peculiarities. These facts are so well known to all who have given attention to this subject, that it is not necessary for me to enter into any proof of them in this place."

William Cureton.

from...
http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html

Doctor X

Step over the fallacies. . . .

It rather speaks for itself.

--J.D.

-FAITH ALONE-

Anybody read "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible"? I saw it on Amazon

and it looked like it had some potential...

leftfist

I use the Revised English Bible. It has both the notes in Mark you mention.

It's also incredibly readable.

As far as translation accuracy, from what little I know it does well.