I made a new bible translation and ask for feedback

OMC said:

I think your greatest strength is transparency. You've identified your base text, documented variants, and explained how you evaluate differences.
That allows others to examine your decisions rather than simply accept them.
I would encourage you to keep distinguishing between translation decisions and textual decisions.
A translator can produce excellent English while still inheriting questionable readings from a preferred Greek text, and vice versa. Because RP2026 functions as your anchor, there is always a risk of unconsciously filtering evidence through that tradition rather than reassessing each variation on its own merits.
That's not a criticism unique to RP users; every translator who adopts a preferred text faces the same challenge.
If I were to suggest one practical adjustment, it would be to make your rationale for significant variant choices more explicit, especially where a reading affects meaning rather than spelling, syntax, or inflection.
Readers can then see not only which reading you chose, but why.
Beyond that, based on the examples you've presented, I see your project less as a direct translation of a single fixed "397 CE text" and more as a translation built from a particular textual tradition while remaining aware of competing manuscript evidence.
In my view, framing it that way would make the methodology even stronger because it better reflects the reality of the manuscript tradition and the textual decisions that every translator ultimately has to make.

Click to expand...

OMC ...a translation built from a particular textual tradition while remaining aware of competing manuscript evidence. ...framing it that way would make the methodology even stronger, because it better reflects the reality of the manuscript tradition and the textual decisions ...keep distinguishing between translation decisions and textual decisions ... a risk of unconsciously filtering evidence through that tradition rather than reassessing each variation on its own merits.

(Robin)
There are instances, where the RP2026 is not my "go to" ... frankly, I think Pickerings F35 critical text is sometimes the more attractive (to me); there really others where the HF seems more logical ... seldom do I find that the SBL, WH, NA, TH are convincingly different; the TR is the TR but almost all the differences there are just fluff; the OC has historical precident, and I always give it more credence than it sometimes merits .... Bottom line, I have a standard established (RP), and as I refine and tweak my Greek text, as well as my English readings, I find that it seems to be the most consistent ... those troublesome instances are, indeed, noted and filed away for future research, but overall the project is to fjust get to the point where I can say ... Ahhhhh ,,,, and then go back to the start and look at all things with a more critical eye; adding commentary for hard decisions, and guesswork decisions ... But I'm not there yet, even after 30 years of just playing with my Pauline food! Hey, I'm only 79, surely I've got decades to go before I sleep! LOL ... I'm no herald, nor see notable, or even a teacher ... at best just might have the "gift" of being a helper ... will anyone actually use my work, not very likely, so why am I doing it ... I really do not know? But it does bring me closer ... or at least, to a somewhat closer awareness of God speaking to us through Paul ... I'm doing it for selfish reasons, I guess. But back to your critique ...a risk of unconsciously filtering evidence ... there is that. There is no human way of that not being the case ... one can, at least, admit that to ones self and be aware, as possible, of that risk ... that does, at times help to avoid some mistakes, so there are a few wins in that arena. Thanks for the critique!

RWRiley said:

But in the assumption that the 397 CE canon existed as one uniform Greek Bible rather than a collection of manuscripts with differences, so the correction you need is methodological, not grammatical.

(Robin)
I'd be most interested in what you make of my approach to translation ... I like my approach, so am not asking for your appreciation .. what I was looking for is some critique of the means and methods used ... because I am aways open to making adjustments.

Click to expand...

I know from my instructor, the number one rule in translating scripture is, " never take an uncertain passage and knock down a mountain of passages were are certain about. Instead, try and make the uncertain passage fit into the mountain of passages we are certain about".

Watchman22 said:

I know from my instructor, the number one rule in translating scripture is, " never take an uncertain passage and knock down a mountain of passages were are certain about. Instead, try and make the uncertain passage fit into the mountain of passages we are certain about".

Click to expand...

I would say the clearer passages should help us understand the uncertain one. Otherwise, there is a danger of forcing the text to conform to a conclusion we have already reached.

Bottom line is the original Hebrew Tanakh has only 22 Books as God Himself intended. The number 22 matches there are only 22 Hebrew Letters in the Alphabet and 22 Numerical Values that can be added together.

22 is the perfect number God chose for the Hebrew people.

Jerome, when translating the Hebrew into Latin (Vulgate) turned the 22 Books into 37.

When you read the Tanakh as it was originally written you get a complete history of the events that happened from Creation until roughly 400 years before the arrival of the Messiah.

OMC said:

I would say the clearer passages should help us understand the uncertain one. Otherwise, there is a danger of forcing the text to conform to a conclusion we have already reached.

Click to expand...

That make so sense, unless you explain .. otherwise its just garble that I'd be guessing at, about what you actually mean ... that is, if you really want to engage with me, you need to be speciric .. I am very specirfix, .. your turn

lrs68 said:

Bottom line is the original Hebrew Tanakh has only 22 Books as God Himself intended. The number 22 matches there are only 22 Hebrew Letters in the Alphabet and 22 Numerical Values that can be added together.

22 is the perfect number God chose for the Hebrew people.

Jerome, when translating the Hebrew into Latin (Vulgate) turned the 22 Books into 37.

When you read the Tanakh as it was originally written you get a complete history of the events that happened from Creation until roughly 400 years before the arrival of the Messiah.

Click to expand...

I realy do not care much for the Hebrew scriptures ... And, I'd hazard the guess that you do not care that much for the Pauline epistles. Do we really have anything of note to say to each other ?

RWRiley said:

That make so sense, unless you explain .. otherwise its just garble that I'd be guessing at, about what you actually mean ... that is, if you really want to engage with me, you need to be speciric .. I am very specirfix, .. your turn

Click to expand...

When I say the clear verses should help us understand the hard verses, I mean this: if ten verses clearly teach something and one verse is harder to understand, we should not use the hard verse to cancel out the clear ones.
We should first learn what the clear verses say, then see if the harder verse fits with them.
My concern is that sometimes people decide what they believe first and then make the Bible fit that belief.

Watchman22 said:

I know from my instructor, the number one rule in translating scripture is, " never take an uncertain passage and knock down a mountain of passages were are certain about. Instead, try and make the uncertain passage fit into the mountain of passages we are certain about".

Click to expand...

Well Watchman ...let's not continue to post each other. I do not see how there would be any common ground, you are steeped in ... more about yourself, I. think? Let's just agree to disagree an disngage ... let me know, though, when you really want to talk about the Pauline epistles ... text variants, the grammar, and the word usage ... real discussions, that sort of stuff.

RWRiley said:

I realy do not care much for the Hebrew scriptures

Click to expand...

May I ask why? I ask because you are the first person I have run into to say that. I am most curious and I am being honest in my inquiry.

CayHasselmann said:

At https://thecanonicalbible.com/, I have translated the bible with the books listed in the canon in the form existing 397 CE into English, using the papyri and codices that are nowadays all digitized. In 397 the bible was only existing in ancient greek. All improvements later were however done differently by the various churches and denominations. So this is the english translation of the original "source code".
As I have done the collection of all fragments and the translation mostly by myself, as there are few christians interested enough in the "source code", please let me know of any mistakes I have made?

Thanks

Cay

Click to expand...

1) The OT was originally written in Hebrew (though some parts were in an ancient Aramaic form of Chaldean).
So why are you going with a translation from Hebrew to Greek before translating to English?

2) Do you find problems with the original languages that you think need to be improved upon?

RWRiley said:

I realy do not care much for the Hebrew scriptures ... And, I'd hazard the guess that you do not care that much for the Pauline epistles. Do we really have anything of note to say to each other ?

Click to expand...

Paul's Letters are vital to numerous key aspects concerning the Church. It is interesting that at least 8 of the Churches he set up failed in some way or another from Corinth to the 7 Asia Minor (Turkey) Churches. That has nothing to do with Paul but interesting how many of his Churches he started went through a period of lawlessness and had to be rebuked and guided back on track.

But if you love Paul's Letters then it's odd that you hate the Old Testament. Look how Paul set up the Church. It's basically identical to the ancient Synagogue.

OMC said:

May I ask why? I ask because you are the first person I have run into to say that. I am most curious and I am being honest in my inquiry.

Click to expand...

Because I've spent decades reviewing them; engaged in a cult attempting to practice their practices ... and then realized they were not aimed at me. God talks to me through the epistles of Paul; via His spirt actually, but I am drawn closer to God when focusing on what I read in the Pauline epistles. I research them; debate about the source text variants; delve into grammatical issues; attempt to continually apply the more accurate English reading of the Greek text ... it's a long, apparently never ending quest, but the real purpose and benefit from all this labor is not necessarily that I've come to better, more accurately understand what is being said, but that I have come to realize that God is talking to me ... there is a joy and peace that comes with that; something I never experienced when I spent so much time with the Hebrew scriptures ... and by Hebrew scriptures, I am not just talking, only, about the books of the Old Testament, I mean a good part of the New Testament as well.

lrs68 said:

Paul's Letters are vital to numerous key aspects concerning the Church. It is interesting that at least 8 of the Churches he set up failed in some way or another from Corinth to the 7 Asia Minor (Turkey) Churches. That has nothing to do with Paul but interesting how many of his Churches he started went through a period of lawlessness and had to be rebuked and guided back on track.

But if you love Paul's Letters then it's odd that you hate the Old Testament. Look how Paul set up the Church. It's basically identical to the ancient Synagogue.

Click to expand...

Irs68 .... Look how Paul set up the Church. It's basically identical to the ancient Synagogue.

(Robin)

I don't know if that is really so! And by "church" what exactly do you mean? There are the out-called individuals that God calls to be in the the body of Christ (the Anointed) ... but as for it being in some sort of organized corporate grouping, with a required liturgy and hierarchy ... that's your synagogue and "church" concepts; which have nothing to do with the actual body of Christ.
.
But tell me this, Irs68 ... I've engaged with numerous forums like this, over the decades ... and there are always the Jewish/ law abiging elements, those participants, who usually dominate the ongoing discussions ... They are aways dissuaders of the grace that Paul heralds. So then, Irs68 are you one of those?

Davidstarr said:

1) The OT was originally written in Hebrew (though some parts were in an ancient Aramaic form of Chaldean).
So why are you going with a translation from Hebrew to Greek before translating to English?

2) Do you find problems with the original languages that you think need to be improved upon?

Click to expand...

(Robin)
... I'm interested, Cay ... when you talk to this "397" as being the source text, from which you have translated and compiled your own version of the scriptures ... whey you reference this, what exactly are you talking about?

Here's what I immediately think of, when you reference this 397 ...two different items, source texts of sorts:


1. Minuscule 397 (GA 397)

• What it is: A 10th or 11th-century Greek New Testament minuscule manuscript written on parchment.
• Content: It contains the text of the Gospel of John.
• Features: It features a catena, which is a verse-by-verse biblical commentary compiled entirely from the commentary excerpts of early Church fathers.
• Current Location: It is currently housed at the Biblioteca Vallicelliana (shelf number E. 40) in Rome, Italy. [1, 2, 3]

2. Lectionary Fragment 397 (GA Lect 397)

• What it is: A 10th-century Greek New Testament lectionary fragment.
• Features: This is a palimpsest, meaning it is a recycled manuscript where an older biblical text was scraped away (the under-text) so that a newer text could be written over it.

(Robin)
So then, Cay ... if you are just using that first item mentioned above ... it's just the one gospel of John, but it aligns closely with the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus. However it is not ideal because the scripture is chopped up and abridged to make room for the commentary ... how early church fathers interpreted specific passages.

And, Cay, if you are talking about the second item above ...it is a lectionary, which does not contain continuous biblical books ... it contains Gospel selectioms (pericope readings) arranged sequentially according to the Byzantine liturgical calendar ... the manuscript exclusively covers the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, That is, the Lect 397 is an Evangelistarion, and completely excludes Acts; the Paulime epistles, the General/Catholic epistles, and Revelation ...

I'm interested in your translation, Cay ... is it one of the whole NT, or just a Evangelistarion translation ... or just one of Johns Gospel?
That is, you did give my your reading, your translation of the first three Philemon verses ... so your are obviously usimg something other than the 397 ... right???

RWRiley said:

I realy do not care much for the Hebrew scriptures ... And, I'd hazard the guess that you do not care that much for the Pauline epistles. Do we really have anything of note to say to each other ?

Click to expand...

I trust that you have studied the Septuagint enough to recognize that in places it differs with the Hebrew Masoretic text? In fact it is one of three variant texts for the OT which all contain some differences, most, from my studies, appear in the Torah, but some do pop up throughout the scriptures.

And I believe it is Colossians 2:20 (I would have to look to be certain, but if I am wrong, it is a closely neighboring verse) that is exceedingly difficult to translate, and that there are at least 6 possible ways to translate that single verse, how do you translate it?

rewriter said:

I trust that you have studied the Septuagint enough to recognize that in places it differs with the Hebrew Masoretic text? In fact it is one of three variant texts for the OT which all contain some differences, most, from my studies, appear in the Torah, but some do pop up throughout the scriptures.

And I believe it is Colossians 2:20 (I would have to look to be certain, but if I am wrong, it is a closely neighboring verse) that is exceedingly difficult to translate, and that there are at least 6 possible ways to translate that single verse, how do you translate it?

Click to expand...

rewriter ... I trust that you have studied the Septuagint enough to recognize

(Robin)
I've dabbled ... Rahlfs-Hanhart; the Gottingen, and Swete's ... I use the Jewish Publication Society "Tanakh," and find the "Apostolic Bible Polyglot" useful (highly recommend it) ... But again, my focus is just on the Pauline and Pastoral epistles ... the others no longer interest me.

(rewriter)
And I believe it is Colossians 2:20 ...

(Robin)
Was that a question ... a statement ... I could not follow your thought, there?
Also, it was a very large jump in topic! LOL

There are some variants in 2:20 ... two additional word ... the conjunction "therefore"
if {1487 COND} therefore {3767 CONJ} ... and the definite article before τῷ χριστῷ
unto~the [One] {3588 T-DSM} unto~an~Anointed/ unto~a~Christ {5547 N-DSM}} tOi+ ||christOi+

But I did not find these too hard to deal with, nor the translation all that difficult ...

If you had away-died, together with~[the]~Anointed, from the alignments of~the regulated-world, [then] to~what~a [matter] are you supposed, as [ones] living in with~a~regulated-world --

if {1487 COND} you had away-died {0599 V-2AAI-2P} together {4862 PREP} unto~an~Anointed/ unto~a~Christ {5547 N-DSM} from {0575 PREP} of~the [things] {3588 T-GPN} of~alignments {4747 N-GPN} of~the [one] {3588 T-GSM} of~a~regulated-world {2889 N-GSM} to~what~a [thing?] {5101 I-ASN} as {5613 ADV} living {2198 V-PAP-NPM} in {1722 PREP} unto~a~regulated-world {2889 N-DSM} you are supposed {1379 V-PPI-2P}

RWRiley said:

rewriter ... I trust that you have studied the Septuagint enough to recognize

(Robin)
I've dabbled ... Rahlfs-Hanhart; the Gottingen, and Swete's ... I use the Jewish Publication Society "Tanakh," and find the "Apostolic Bible Polyglot" useful (highly recommend it) ... But again, my focus is just on the Pauline and Pastoral epistles ... the others no longer interest me.

(rewriter)
And I believe it is Colossians 2:20 ...

(Robin)
Was that a question ... a statement ... I could not follow your thought, there?
Also, it was a very large jump in topic! LOL

There are some variants in 2:20 ... two additional word ... the conjunction "therefore"
if {1487 COND} therefore {3767 CONJ} ... and the definite article before τῷ χριστῷ
unto~the [One] {3588 T-DSM} unto~an~Anointed/ unto~a~Christ {5547 N-DSM}} tOi+ ||christOi+

But I did not find these too hard to deal with, nor the translation all that difficult ...

If you had away-died, together with~[the]~Anointed, from the alignments of~the regulated-world, [then] to~what~a [matter] are you supposed, as [ones] living in with~a~regulated-world --

if {1487 COND} you had away-died {0599 V-2AAI-2P} together {4862 PREP} unto~an~Anointed/ unto~a~Christ {5547 N-DSM} from {0575 PREP} of~the [things] {3588 T-GPN} of~alignments {4747 N-GPN} of~the [one] {3588 T-GSM} of~a~regulated-world {2889 N-GSM} to~what~a [thing?] {5101 I-ASN} as {5613 ADV} living {2198 V-PAP-NPM} in {1722 PREP} unto~a~regulated-world {2889 N-DSM} you are supposed {1379 V-PPI-2P}

Click to expand...

The Greek grammar is vague in the Colossian passage. Depending on what one decides is the subject, among different options and what is the object, and similar vague points, the verse can greatly change in meaning.