CX

This has been discussed here many times. My basic feeling is that no one translation is adequate as all contain at least some translator bias based on the translators' particular confessional stances. The best bet is to consult several different translations and, if possible, a Greek Critical Text like NA27, although Yuri will say that is itself a product of Alexandrian bias and is fraudulent.

In any event I like the NIV, but it has a strong evangelical slant and the translators were apparently not above tinkering with words to convey the message they accept. In the places were they do point out errors etc (or include existing errors in the text unaltered). I think it is largely motivated by a desire to undermine translations based on different text families, notably the KJV (I.e. compare the difference in GMk 1 between the two translations)

Radcliffe Emerson

I also visit the Skeptic's Annotated site.

spin

For those interested in the best bible for accuracy of text, Apikorus gives a good suggestion with the JPS's translation of the Hebrew Bible, (the xian's old testament), but at the same time I'd suggest the old RSV, which doesn't kowtow to political correctness, or clarify certain terms and by so doing lose their significance (such as some of the divine names), as does the NRSV, which is also a good solid literal type translation. Most of the others are not good value for trying to get at what the text actually says.

The AV, which was a great translation now in an obscure form of English (and I don't believe that many who use it can undertand the significance of Shakespearean age English), but its starting material, the Greek and Hebrew texts available at the time, were not up to modern standards.

NIV is a shocker: this is a xian translation and it shows. Compare for example the very first verse of Genesis with that found in the two versions I advocate above. Not even a footnote to say how many scholars read the verse. It just gives the tired old "In the beginning God...", which is probably erroneous.

I recommend to people interested in reading the bible for more than looking for errors not to go for easy translations which lose a lot of the meaning of the texts, which obscure difficulties, which make xian interpretations easy.

I also recommend that you use more than one translation. I've given a suggestion for the Hebrew bible above. For the NT, still use the RSV (or the NRSV if you can't get the other) along with something blasphemous like the jehovah's witnesses literal translation (remembering its greatest interest is to eliminate the rough edges used by trinitarian xians). Of course one could also try the Jerusalem bible instead of the jw text.

A good bible translation will help you get closer to the original texts.


spin

p.s. Haran is correct in his comments about the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible.

Yuri Kuchinsky

RSV is based on the Egyptian Greek text, which is extremely corrupt. It's a dud!

Quote:

The AV, which was a great translation now in an obscure form of English (and I don't believe that many who use it can undertand the significance of Shakespearean age English), but its starting material, the Greek and Hebrew texts available at the time, were not up to modern standards.

The "modern standards" my foot. The Egyptian Greek text is a DELUSION!

Byzantine text is far preferable. But the ancient Aramaic gospel MSS are of course the best.

Cheers,

Yuri.

spin

Very amusing.

The old tired Aramaic original belief has got nowhere over the millennia that people have barracked for it. The same sorts of unsupportable presuppositions can only get nowhere.

I get the idea you like the "byzantine" text. Fine. It's one major tradition. However, I don't mind Hort. But then I have no axe to grind over hypothetical tradition precursors.

It is fine to advocate a translation based on the byzantine tradition along with one based on the alexandrian, so you might suggest a literal translation to help the original enquirer get a further perspective.


spin

judge

Who exactly has barracked for it?
Those who believe in a greek original simply follow protestant christians who needed to assert the authority of scripture and scripture only.
This led to an insistence (by their followers) that the reformers relied upon the correct (greek) texts.

I'm not sure the Catholics have always agreed.
"Now, when I was in Rome, I saw three Chaldeans, who arrived from the country of Prester John, having been sent for by Pope Leo X. They were masters of the Syriac language and literature, though their vernacular language was Arabic. The special language, however, wherin the books were written, as well as that of the gospels of the Christians which they brought with them was Syriac, which is also called Aramean, Babylonian, Assyrian... Pope Leo X. had sent for them, in order to correct by their Codices his exemplar of his New Testament, which was written in Latin.....Now I saw them reading this (Syriac) Psalter without points, and asked them, Have you points, or any signs to indicate the vowels? and they answered me: "No! but we have been conversant with that language from our youth till now, and therefore, know how to read without points." ( Eliahu ben Asher Ashkenazi (Elias Levita), Masoret HaMasoret (first published: Venice 1538), edited by C. D. Ginsburg, in: Harry M. Orlinsky (ed.), The Library of Biblical Studies, New York: Ktav, 1968, pp. 130-131. )

spin

You give some examples in your message.

What you should be looking at is the wealth of modern analysis based on all the earliest manuscripts of the texts.

You have the burden of believing in the precedence of the Syriac. Before you can get any further, you need to justify that belief, ie turn it into something more than just belief, in order to work from sound premises. In order to justify your belief you need to deal with that wealth of modern analysis. Until you do, one can't make much of your assertions.


spin

judge

Well if you believe there are good reasons based on a "wealth of modern analysis" that supports the greek being the original then just what are these reasons.

I mean they do actually exist don't they?

spin

I'll let you do your own homework. You've merely ragged Metzger, who is a fine scholar, so you show little knowledge of even vaguely modern analysis.


spin

judge

I rest my case.

You cannot offer anyhting at all?????