1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured What is more important, Greek text, or translation philosophy?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Yeshua1, Feb 25, 2017.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    21,211
    Ratings:
    +718
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As I contend that one can make a good and legit translation from TR/CT/MT text source, but how they choose to translate, formal DE inclusive etc more important factors?

    I did not bring into this Henrew text, as think most use the standard Hebrew text?
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,478
    Ratings:
    +3,939
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why create a false dichotomy? Why not use the historically accepted textform translated using a verbal/formal equivalency technique?

    And there is no really "standard" Hebrew text. There is the Ben Chayyim text and the Ben Asher text. BH1 & 2 (Biblia Hebraica Kittel first and second edition) follow the Ben Chayyim text (Bomberg). Biblia Stuttgartensia follows the Ben Asher text. But even then, there are far fewer textual variants between the two than between the BT and CT New Testaments.

    Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Hebrew text differs from the Ben Chayyim text (Bomberg), in only 8 places (that I am aware of) that would have an effect on translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    21,211
    Ratings:
    +718
    Faith:
    Baptist
    maybe because the Critical text might be a superior one to base work off of though? And the Hebrew text does seem to be pretty much same for all, it appears...
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,478
    Ratings:
    +3,939
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why? On what rational basis can a text that never existed prior to the 20th century be the text of the 1st century AD?
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    21,211
    Ratings:
    +718
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, it can shown to have been existing in the church before the Bzt text, at least parts of it!
     
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    21,211
    Ratings:
    +718
    Faith:
    Baptist
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,478
    Ratings:
    +3,939
    Faith:
    Baptist
  8. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,478
    Ratings:
    +3,939
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No Critical Text existed prior to 1898. If you are not aware of that then you know nothing about textual criticism and how we got the Critical Text.
     
  9. Baptist Brother

    Baptist Brother Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2017
    Messages:
    177
    Ratings:
    +102
    Translation philosophy is a bigger concern for me. And, translation philosophy has a lot to do with what Greek sources are used and combined.
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,478
    Ratings:
    +3,939
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A good translation of a poor text produces a poor version.

    A poor translation of a good text produces a poor version.

    But a good translation of a good text produces a good version.

    Both are important. :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,419
    Ratings:
    +298
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No clue. This is not my area of strength.
     
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    21,211
    Ratings:
    +718
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There was no completed Greek Critical text until that time, but there were the pieces of it found from the 2nd/3rd century in the paprus and codex from that time... I do know about the critical text, as was taught on that subject, I am ignorant on the Majority text, as that was not the text used/taught on, so appreciate yours and John help on that!
     
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    21,211
    Ratings:
    +718
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You and I would agree here though that formal is to be preferred to DE , correct
     
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    21,211
    Ratings:
    +718
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We both would prefer the Kjv off inferior TR text, to somewone using DE on the MT/CT sources!
     
  15. banana

    banana Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2014
    Messages:
    67
    Ratings:
    +10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The difference is that the poor text will only be poor in some areas while the poor translation will be poor in all areas
     
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,478
    Ratings:
    +3,939
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Only in the areas it is poor.
     
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,220
    Ratings:
    +37
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What is your sound translation philosophy?
     
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    21,211
    Ratings:
    +718
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ALL translations would have some parts of them weaker than others, correct? But looking for overall would be giving to us the word of God....
     
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    21,211
    Ratings:
    +718
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hopefully , would not be KJVO!
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,220
    Ratings:
    +37
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Concerning this second edition printed by Bomberg, Gergely Juhasz wrote: “For his edition, Bomberg relied on fourteenth and fifteenth-century manuscripts that mainly followed the Ben Asher text but also showed certain influences of the Ben Naphtali text” (Arblaster, Tyndale’s, p. 94).

    In an introductory article to a facsimile edition of The Leningrad Codex, Victor Lebedev wrote: “It is well known that the first editions of the Hebrew Bible were based on fourteenth- to fifteenth-century manuscripts reflecting a mixture of the Ben Asher and the Ben Naphtali traditions” (Freedman, p. xxv). Page Kelley maintained that “these manuscripts [used by ben Chayyim] represented a mixture of traditions, which were further mixed in ben Chayyim’s text (and Masorah)“ and that “the Second Rabbinic Bible is not viewed as a pure ben Asher text” (The Masorah, p. 25).

    Emanuel Tov asserted that “it has been demonstrated” that the second Rabbinic Bible “does not reflect any specific manuscript” (Textual Criticism, p. 46). Tov wrote: “No single source has been found from which the editors of the first two Rabbinic Bibles could have derived their biblical text” (p. 78).

    Bleddyn Roberts wrote: “The ben Chayim text does not follow any manuscript or authority in detail, and therefore shows an eclectic text. It has been shown that though a Spanish manuscript was the basis, the text frequently deviates from it, and the divergent readings reveal traces of ben Naphtali and both Ma’arbae (Western) and Madinhae (Eastern) readings” (Old Testament Text, p. 88). Roberts added: “The text of ben Chayim was substantially that of the ben Asher recension, but, based on young and sometimes corrupt manuscripts, it included occasional foreign matter that showed adherence to the ben Naphtali and other recensions” (pp. 90-91). In his foreword, Aron Dotan claimed: “Their desire to rely on Ben Asher’s text was never more than a pious wish, for the text was only known by hearsay. All the evidence about Ben Asher’s readings was second- or third-hand. It derived from masoretic remarks in biblical manuscripts, from the writings of the grammarians and Masoretes, and the lists of differences between Ben Asher and his opponent Moses ben David ben Naphtali” (Biblia, pp. viii-ix). Norman Gottwald maintained that “Ben Chayyim used Tiberian manuscripts but he worked eclectically, drawing now from one and now from another manuscript” (Hebrew Bible, p. 121).
     
Loading...