Source texts for the Bible translations/reading

[fredoheaven]

Sadly I have lost a lot of my Hebrew. I find it enough work to keep moving forward in Greek at this time. However, it is my goal to get back to it. I also like Greek better, although I did well in the Hebrew classes, extremely well. Apparently most people generally like one or the other of the Biblical languages a bit more.

I use the Masoretic, because we read from it a lot in Hebrew class. We did a lot of passages, chapters and whole books. However, you have to remember that although the vowel points really are essential to the grammar, and pronunciation, they weren't added till the 7th to 10th centuries AD. And the oldest copies date to the 10th Century AD. The Septuagint, on the other hand was completed around 300 BC. Strangely, that makes the Greek older, and probably closer to the originals. I have a downloaded copy of the Septuagint, but one of my goals is to get the hard copy of it. I can't help it, I am a book person!

The other issue with the OT, is that it has a much larger vocabulary than the NT. So, many more words to learn! I'm down to 10 frequencies of Greek words in the NT. Which means, I can read pretty fluently. So, I guess when I want a challenge, I will start on the Septuagint.

Here is something I found on the internet, which I think is about right!

1. The Masoretes admitted that they received corrupted texts to begin with.
2. The Masoretic Text is written with a radically different alphabet than the original.
3. The Masoretes added vowel points which did not exist in the original.
4. The Masoretic Text excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures.
5. The Masoretic Text includes changes to prophecy and doctrine.

"In other words, the Masorites themselves felt they had received a partly corrupted text.

Here is a non bias source in regards to Masoretic Text

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Masoretic-text

“The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word and every letter was checked with care.”
The rigorous care given the Masoretic text in its preparation is credited for the remarkable consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew texts since that time. The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600 years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late 9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic Hebrew Bible.

 

[fredoheaven]

here is a goggle link for your perusal.

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=7bar8huYEBAC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=when+is+the+corruption+of+the+New+Testament+Texts+occur?&source=bl&ots=nwwAXhfTgI&sig=37s5njSnPpFhg-NgZav7LVT0VZM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYiaTWyfDQAhUFMo8KHXkgB8w4ChDoAQgeMAA#v=onepage&q=when%20is%20the%20corruption%20of%20the%20New%20Testament%20Texts%20occur%3F&f=false

hope this help.

 

[fredoheaven]

The lower criticism sub-divided the two families, the pure and the impure/corrupt into four families. This makes a real advantage to critics of the Bible, it is all because the byzantine in origin were divided.

Lower textual criticism does nothing but mere “conjectural emendation” which is purely and “educated guess” a guesswork indeed. They employ two test to determine what the text is, using the “ transcriptional probability or the “intrinsic probability”. It will be the critics “… in many cases must still decide… and in some cases have to resort to conjectural emendation…”
See: Encyclopedia Americana Vol.3 p.656

So what does this means? This means the Bible as Final Authority is displaced by the so called Scholars.

 

[jaybird88]

for the Hebrew bible i have read the DSS aligns better with the LXX than the masoretic. some have even made claims the masoretic text have been altered in the messianic passages.

 

[trofimus]

I like Nestle for the nt... it's constantly updated...
with the sblgnt second... it's available on bible gateway


for ot, any common edition of the masoretic, with the lxx (any common version) as a close second.

I was reading Nestle Aland last few weeks. I was reading the Our Father prayer in some Gospel and I could not recognize it. Very cut version.

Luke and Matthew are very different in NA, but similar in Byzantine family, regarding Our Father prayer.

Now, the question is - Have byzantine scribes "corrected" the Luke to be more full like Matthew or did the old manuscripts left many things from Luke out?

Difficult to decide.

 

[trofimus]

Here is a non bias source in regards to Masoretic Text

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Masoretic-text

“The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word and every letter was checked with care.”
The rigorous care given the Masoretic text in its preparation is credited for the remarkable consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew texts since that time. The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600 years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late 9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic Hebrew Bible.

Yeah, the 15th century MSS text is very similar to 9th century MSS text.

The problem is, it differs from the 1st century texts on many crucial places, very often the messianic ones. MSS text was never used in the global church till the 16th century.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Read first F.F. Bruce's The Books and the Parchments. (Oh, and feel free to skip the semantics parts, if you're not into semantics. Some of it is as dry as dirt in the Sahara. I liked even that part, but that's my background.) It's a good book to learn the history of how we came up with the bible. Downright God-given in more ways than most know, so a good read.

BUT I want you to read it because you seem to think "the older the better," when what it teaches us is a lot of work goes into the history of figuring out what a very old word meant in a dead language by sleuthing out that same word in the historic writings of all kinds.

I used to be a KJV onlyist out of ignorance. I was a new Christian, and my first teacher was a KJV onlyist, so I was more interested in God's word then ever to ask the obvious question. (Obvious question: Why KJV only?" lol) And then when I first became reformed I was into the NIV, partly because I knew one of those guys who did the research to translate one of the books (Jude. At least he took the shortest book, and it only took him 10 years to do it justice. lol), but also because that was the version our denomination used back then, so easy to read along with the teaching elder on Sunday.

BUT since then I've learned "newer is better," because of F.F. Bruce. He taught some of the fight for some of the words. And it's minor fights, like the middle east didn't have rabbits back in the OT times, so a rabbit couldn't be on the list of unclean animals. But they're still fighting those fights, and you need to get that.

If you go with the Vulgate, for instance, you'd think we should do penance instead of repent, because that's the best that scholar could make out of a word at that time. The Bible doesn't change. What historians and scholars learn about an old language by finding it in context in more and more old manuscripts recently found changes what they thought it meant.

You really need to get that better than I explained it, so, again Read The Books and the Parchments. Added bonus -- you'll enjoy it.

And once you understand that, then you can google to see what folks say about the newer versions. I'm stuck on ESV now, not because it's superior, but I know what it will say and how it will say it, and I'm just too old to relearn verses in a different way. Rumor has it Holman is better still, but the ones who like that one are middle aged, so maybe younger folks know something newer and even better. We really do progress, but the progression is to revert it back to the original better and better at each try.

It makes perfect sense that newer can be better in this instance because we know that in the end times, knowledge will increase. Why not take advantage of that increased knowledge and a better translation and understanding? Not that I would read The Message. That's too loose of a handling in my opinion!

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

It makes perfect sense that newer can be better in this instance because we know that in the end times, knowledge will increase. Why not take advantage of that increased knowledge and a better translation and understanding? Not that I would read The Message. That's too loose of a handling in my opinion!

And now I have to tell this story once again. If any man could have been helped by a newer version than the King James, it was this old man that I once sat and talked with who remarked on where it said in scripture that in the endtimes there would be an increase of tsunamis. I knew that it didn't say that anywhere in the bible, so I asked him where. He couldn't remember but was positive it was in there. So we dragged out a concordance. I eventually found something that sparked his memory and he said, yes, yes! It's there! So we looked it up and he pointed and said: there will be earthquakes in divers places, right there! Divers dive in the ocean and if there are earthquakes in the ocean, there will then be tsunamis!

I tried to explain to him that it was the old spelling of the word diverse and what the word diverse meant, but he wasn't having any of it. And I also told him there weren't men diving back then, which he also wasn't having any of. At some point I gave up because I realized he wasn't really that far off. If earthquakes increase, tsunamis will increase, so...

 

[trofimus]

Nestle is a Jesuit inspired corrupted text

No, you got it wrong again.

"Nestle took the three leading scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament at that time as a basis:
1. Tischendorf (protestant, I think Lutheran)
2. Westcott/Hort (anglicans)
3. Weymouth (baptist)

After 1901 he replaced the latter with Bernhard Weiß’s 1894/1900 edition (protestant, German evangelical)."

Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: History

Nestle Aland edition is the most protestant edition there is. Which is not the argument for its precision, of course, I am just correcting your factual errors.

Byzantine text is from the Orthodox church and Textus Receptus by Erasmus was a catholic edition adopted later by the first protestant translations.

 

[Grace777x70]

Well... we certainly can't figure out what is right by NOT THINKING ABOUT IT.

: )


God brings up the topic of STUDY in 2 Timothy 2:15, and COMMANDS us to STUDY.

We don't gain knowledge of ANY topic by failing to study.

This is a classis example of why we are to "look at all things". The word "study" as we know it in our modern day usage is not in the Greek text. The actual word means to "be diligent".

In the 11 places this greek word was used in the NT - only the 2 Tim. 2:15 passage translates it as "study" and that is in the KJV.

Here is how the NASB translates it.

2 Timothy 2:15 (NASB)
[SUP]15 [/SUP] Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.


The proper meaning is to make haste, to be diligent and it does not mean "to study" as in studying at a school or a subject as is commonly taught.

We have been told this so many times in our church teachings that now we believe it means " to study the bible". I'm all for searching the scriptures to see whether things being told to us are in fact true but this "study" thing in 2 Tim.2:15 is not correct in our understanding - IMO.

Things like this make for a great case to look at the original languages and words used as there will always be translator bias in every translation.

4557. [FONT="Galatia Sil" !important]σπουδάζω[/FONT] [FONT="Gentium" !important]spoudazō[/FONT] verb

Hasten, do one’s best, be eager or diligent.

Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary, The - The Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary – Sigma-Omega.

 

[trofimus]

Boy, you are picky.

The Septuagint XXL for the OT is the best, mainly because it was written by 70 scholars ( septuagint meaning 70), under the sponsorship of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.) to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.
The Hebrew in those days was to the Jews as Latin is to the RC. It was a lesser used language at the time where Greek was the main language.


The NT is a little harder because so many copies were distributed (so its authenticity could not be disputed) but I will try.

The oldest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament are three that had their origins in Alexandria during the 4th/5th centuries.There are several passages that do not appear in these passages. This no doubt makes for some good debate.

From the 6th to the 14th century, the great majority of New Testament manuscripts were produced in Byzantium, in Greek. It was in 1525 that Erasmus, using five or six Byzantine manuscripts dating from the 10th to the 13th centuries, compiled the first Greek text to be produced on a printing press, subsequently known as Textus Receptus ("Received Text").

The translators of the King James Version had over 5,000 manuscripts available to them, but they leaned most heavily on the major Byzantine manuscripts, particularly Textus Receptus.

Therefore I would recommend the Textus Receptus or Just go with the KJV Version.....It is a little harder to read and understand but look at it like this. All those words you have to look up, you will be deciphering (like that word lol) them and their meaning(s). Good luck.

Thanks.

Questions:

1.
Did the so called "Alexandrian" manuscripts originate in Alexandria or were simply discovered/preserved in the hot dry Egyptian climate? Their origin could be elsewhere.

2.
"From the 6th to the 14th century, the great majority of New Testament manuscripts were produced in Byzantium"
- what is the earliest complete codex (or almost complete) of the Byzantian family? Something comparable to lets say Codex Sinaiticus

3.
"The translators of the King James Version had over 5,000 manuscripts available"
- are you sure? England was not the top of the world or education those days. It was alway an "island".
It would be Paris or Basel.. and even such cities had only few of manuscripts, not more than dozen each... where would KJV translators get 5000?

 

[Bladerunner]

Thanks.

Questions:

1.
Did the so called "Alexandrian" manuscripts originate in Alexandria or were simply discovered/preserved in the hot dry Egyptian climate? Their origin could be elsewhere.

Does it matter,,,,God determined which scrolls, manuscripts or books were to be used. Here is a Google search url that will give you the information you seek NOW.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Alaxandriean+manuscripts&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

2.
"From the 6th to the 14th century, the great majority of New Testament manuscripts were produced in Byzantium"
- what is the earliest complete codex (or almost complete) of the Byzantian family? Something comparable to lets say Codex Sinaiticus

See Question #1

3.
"The translators of the King James Version had over 5,000 manuscripts available"
- are you sure? England was not the top of the world or education those days. It was alway an "island".
It would be Paris or Basel.. and even such cities had only few of manuscripts, not more than dozen each... where would KJV translators get 5000?

I told you what the information I have in my possession is....that is all I have. Sorry if it is not enough to answer your original Question which is what I tried to and think I did..

 

[trofimus]

I told you what the information I have in my possession is....that is all I have. Sorry if it is not enough to answer your original Question which is what I tried to and think I did..

No problem. You can add something later, if you will arrive at something new.

 

[Dan_473]

Nestle is a Jesuit inspired corrupted text

yes, in the same way that Einstein was a New Age philosopher who failed high school calculus.

Peace, man!

 

[Dan_473]

I was reading Nestle Aland last few weeks. I was reading the Our Father prayer in some Gospel and I could not recognize it. Very cut version.

Luke and Matthew are very different in NA, but similar in Byzantine family, regarding Our Father prayer.

Now, the question is - Have byzantine scribes "corrected" the Luke to be more full like Matthew or did the old manuscripts left many things from Luke out?

Difficult to decide.

yes, it is difficult to decide.

imo textual criticism gets complicated real fast.

the cool thing about NA is that they say which manuscripts have which variations, leaving the reader to decide. (in the 'textual apparatus', not sure if it's available online, or only in print editions.)

 

[PeterJens]

I know that this was probably debated in "KJV only" threads or "NIV errors" threads etc. But only as something helpful for the translation debate.

I would like to keep this thread about the sources only.

I am currently choosing what to read for the OT and for the NT.

I have these choices:

----------------------

Old Testament:
LXX - Brenton or NETS
MSS - Stutgart or Hebraica

New Testament:
Nestle Aland (UBS)
Tischendorf
Stephanus 1550 Textus Receptus
Hodges & Farstad Majority text
Pierpont & Robinson Majority Text

----------------------

What would you recommend and why?

This is thread meant mostly for people knowing what I am talking about and having something interesting (argument for, argument against, some intersting insight etc) to say.

I do not want to debate KJV or NIV etc.
If you just googled the terms, please do not be too much active in posting your quick opinions

Thank you

The living word dwells in your heart. Read all or any which helps the living word dwell within you.
Depending on your background, walk, will effect which speaks most at one point in time, and at
another a different translation will open other avenues.

 

[trofimus]

I have come accross some interesting information about Greek version of the Septuagint:

There are obviously two main Greek versions:

1. Critical, Ralph edition:
The edition is based on the Codex Vaticanus, but with the Codex Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus being prefered in certain places.
Online: Vetus Testamentum graece LXX

2. Ecclesiastical, traditional text by the Church of Greece:
It should be also available in print, but I have not found where. There is an online version, though.

-------

If somebody wants to get into it, he should probably compare these two editions, while studying the LXX.

Info taken from the orthodox discussion forum: Which versions of the LXX are best? - Translations and editions - Monachos.net Discussion Community