When translations are older...

[GenevanBaptist]

How come when you want a 'reliable' translation in Greek, and say it is more accurate, you refer to 'the oldest' and be done with it - but when you go to English you go the more modern?

We speak English.

One thing that some don't clearly see, when talking NT 'translations', is that the oldest English translations, that are more reliable, are NEVER just translated from Greek.

Translators in previous centuries knew that the NT part of the word of God was penned in, possibly, the Greek originally. Yet they understood when 'pentacost' occured that the earliest copies of the NT were most likely spread in multiple languages around the globe. So when you can't find an older Greek manuscript, look for more accurate Hebrew, Spanish, Cretian...just like the KJV and older English translators did.

That's why the modern translations don't match up with the older more reliable Bibles.

It's not about the 'oldest Greek' - it's really about the more accurate way of 'more witnesses' to show that the Greek you use is accurate, regardless of its age.

 

[Rob_BW]

But we can't judge the accuracy of translations without considering their source materials. Which just brings us back to the oldest vs. more prevalent arguments, right?

So when you can't find an older Greek manuscript, look for more accurate Hebrew, Spanish, Cretian...just like the KJV and older English translators did.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

But we can't judge the accuracy of translations without considering their source materials. Which just brings us back to the oldest vs. more prevalent arguments, right?

When you have original source material in another language quoting THE original source in Greek, which Greek wore out and was replaced by copies, and you need a translation in your own language, why not use the oldest source in another language rather than the younger source of oldest Greek?

Seems simple to me.

The oldest Greek is never better than an older source quoting the actual autographs themselves, and that is why translators of the Geneva Bible and KJV often used other language sources to confirm the text accuracy. It wasn't just about the Greek with them, like most seminaries today, it was about accuracy.

That's why there are verse differences between modern time translations and English Bibles the faithful used centuries ago.

They didn't just rely on one language to produce the life saving text of the holy scriptures. They wanted precision.

If you desire a Greek NT English translation - we gottem everywhere.

If you want precision - we gottem too!

 

[TCassidy]

The "oldest and best" mantra was a mess of pottage sold to Christendom by the "textual critics" of the 1800s.

The problem is that the "oldest" are not the oldest and the "best" are not the best.

But they, nevertheless, are still considered to be the baseline manuscripts for translation purposes.

 

[Yeshua1]

But we can't judge the accuracy of translations without considering their source materials. Which just brings us back to the oldest vs. more prevalent arguments, right?

the sources available to the Kjv were not as good as the ones modern versions have access to and have used!

 

[Yeshua1]

The "oldest and best" mantra was a mess of pottage sold to Christendom by the "textual critics" of the 1800s.

The problem is that the "oldest" are not the oldest and the "best" are not the best.

But they, nevertheless, are still considered to be the baseline manuscripts for translation purposes.

there are many Textual critics, and yes, several of them hold to the Fundamenals of the faith, who would disagree with you!

I think best to just agree that either the CT/MT can be used as valid text sources, and that good and solid translations can result from using either of them for translation purposes!

 

[TCassidy]

there are many Textual critics, and yes, several of them hold to the Fundamenals of the faith, who would disagree with you!

Anyone who knows anything at all about manuscript evidence knows that there are manuscripts older than Aleph and B, and that "best" is an entirely subjective opinion.

 

[TCassidy]

the sources available to the Kjv were not as good as the ones modern versions have access to and have used!

What texts/manuscripts were available to the KJV translators and why are later found manuscripts superior?

 

[Yeshua1]

Anyone who knows anything at all about manuscript evidence knows that there are manuscripts older than Aleph and B, and that "best" is an entirely subjective opinion.

You are correct on both counts, and just think that neither CT/MT supporters will give in on this discussion!

 

[Yeshua1]

What texts/manuscripts were available to the KJV translators and why are later found manuscripts superior?

Think they used 5 different version of Eramus greek NT, the Bishop/geneva Bible mainly, as well as some others sources, and think that the TR would be seen by both CT/MT advocates as being worse than those 2 as a greek NT source material!

 

[Yeshua1]

Think they used 5 different version of Eramus greek NT, the Bishop/geneva Bible mainly, as well as some others sources such as beza, , and think that the TR would be seen by both CT/MT advocates as being worse than those 2 as a greek NT source material!

 

[TCassidy]

Think they used 5 different version of Eramus greek NT, the Bishop/geneva Bible mainly, as well as some others sources, and think that the TR would be seen by both CT/MT advocates as being worse than those 2 as a greek NT source material!

Erasmus had in his possession 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, & 817.

Miniscule 1 is a 12th century manuscript which contains the entire New Testament except the Book of Revelation. It is an example of the Byzantine textform.

1rK is a 12th century miniscule containing the Book of the Revelation but is missing the last six verses of chapter 22. It is Byzantine.

2e is an 11th or 12th century miniscule containing all four gospels and is representative of the Byzantine textform.

2ap is a 12th century miniscule containing Acts, the General epistles, and the Pauline epistles. It too represents the Byzantine textform.

4ap is a 15th century miniscule containing complete text of Acts, Paul's epistles, and the General epistles. It is Byzantine.

7 is a miniscule dated to the 12th century containing all four Gospels. It is mostly Byzantine with a few Alexandrian readings.

817 is a 15th century miniscule containing all four Gospels but missing the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11). It is Byzantine in nature.

And your last statement is purely subjective. And Aleph and B have more corrections and variants than most other manuscripts.

 

[Yeshua1]

Erasmus had in his possession 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, & 817.

Miniscule 1 is a 12th century manuscript which contains the entire New Testament except the Book of Revelation. It is an example of the Byzantine textform.

1rK is a 12th century miniscule containing the Book of the Revelation but is missing the last six verses of chapter 22. It is Byzantine.

2e is an 11th or 12th century miniscule containing all four gospels and is representative of the Byzantine textform.

2ap is a 12th century miniscule containing Acts, the General epistles, and the Pauline epistles. It too represents the Byzantine textform.

4ap is a 15th century miniscule containing complete text of Acts, Paul's epistles, and the General epistles. It is Byzantine.

7 is a miniscule dated to the 12th century containing all four Gospels. It is mostly Byzantine with a few Alexandrian readings.

817 is a 15th century miniscule containing all four Gospels but missing the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11). It is Byzantine in nature.

And your last statement is purely subjective. And Aleph and B have more corrections and variants than most other manuscripts.

The good news is that both of us are right in this area, as either CT.?T would be the word of the lord to us, as we do not have the originals, but either would do the Job representing them!

 

[TCassidy]

<Sigh> Two different readings can't both be right.

When we evaluate a manuscript or text or reading we use these criteria:

1. Antiquity - The age of the actual manuscript. This is not a conclusive text for a 14th century mss may be an accurate copy of a 3rd century mss, whereas a 6th century mss may be a poor copy of a 3rd century mss.

2. Consent - The number of other witnesses. Normal practice is to accept the word of the majority of witnessess against the different readings of a few, especially when those few do not agree with each other.

3. Variety - The universality of evidence. Manuscripts supporting a certain reading should come from a variety of geographical locations and be attested to by a variety of other mss, lectionaries, versions, and Patristics.

4. Respectability - The reliability of the witness. Manuscripts which habitually contain errors are poor witnesses.

5. Continuity - The unbroken tradition of a witness. Have the readings/mss in question been widely accepted by churches over a wide spectrum of time?

6. Context - The evidence of the whole passage. The nature of the text surrounding a questioned reading can cast much light on the issue. If the reading is surrounded by obvious errors, it is much less likely to be a true reading.

7. Reasonableness - The internal credibility of the text. If a text contains grammatical absurdities, or obvious geographical, scientific, or biblical errors, the reading is not likely to be reliable.

8. Geography. The area of origin of the manuscript. Did the manuscript originate in a geographic location to which books of the New Testament were addressed? A geographic location where the autographs may have existed for as much as several hundred years to which early copies could be compared with and corrected from.

 

[Yeshua1]

<Sigh> Two different readings can't both be right.

When we evaluate a manuscript or text or reading we use these criteria:

1. Antiquity - The age of the actual manuscript. This is not a conclusive text for a 14th century mss may be an accurate copy of a 3rd century mss, whereas a 6th century mss may be a poor copy of a 3rd century mss.

2. Consent - The number of other witnesses. Normal practice is to accept the word of the majority of witnessess against the different readings of a few, especially when those few do not agree with each other.

3. Variety - The universality of evidence. Manuscripts supporting a certain reading should come from a variety of geographical locations and be attested to by a variety of other mss, lectionaries, versions, and Patristics.

4. Respectability - The reliability of the witness. Manuscripts which habitually contain errors are poor witnesses.

5. Continuity - The unbroken tradition of a witness. Have the readings/mss in question been widely accepted by churches over a wide spectrum of time?

6. Context - The evidence of the whole passage. The nature of the text surrounding a questioned reading can cast much light on the issue. If the reading is surrounded by obvious errors, it is much less likely to be a true reading.

7. Reasonableness - The internal credibility of the text. If a text contains grammatical absurdities, or obvious geographical, scientific, or biblical errors, the reading is not likely to be reliable.

8. Geography. The area of origin of the manuscript. Did the manuscript originate in a geographic location to which books of the New Testament were addressed? A geographic location where the autographs may have existed for as much as several hundred years to which early copies could be compared with and corrected from.

And those holding to the priority of the CT would produce their own list on evaluation of the manuscripts....

I think both can be right, as we do not have the originals left, and either do a good job in getting very close to them to us today!

 

[TCassidy]

So, please explain to me how two different readings can both be right.

 

[Yeshua1]

So, please explain to me how two different readings can both be right.

We do not have the original documents, so there is not a need to have 100% accuracy on every line/word on the CT/MT in order for each one to be consider accurate and faithful copies of the originals...
There are NO doctrines violated changed by using either greek text to study/translate off from, and pretty close agreement with each other...
One text might say the the man Christ Jesus, other man Jesus Christ, that big a difference?

 

[Rob_BW]

When you have original source material in another language quoting THE original source in Greek, which Greek wore out and was replaced by copies, and you need a translation in your own language, why not use the oldest source in another language rather than the younger source of oldest Greek?

Seems simple to me.

The oldest Greek is never better than an older source quoting the actual autographs themselves, and that is why translators of the Geneva Bible and KJV often used other language sources to confirm the text accuracy. It wasn't just about the Greek with them, like most seminaries today, it was about accuracy.

That's why there are verse differences between modern time translations and English Bibles the faithful used centuries ago.

They didn't just rely on one language to produce the life saving text of the holy scriptures. They wanted precision.

If you desire a Greek NT English translation - we gottem everywhere.

If you want precision - we gottem too!

I am glad it is simple for you, but I'm still not getting it entirely. Like how something that has been translated could still be considered original source material. And what non-Greek sources do we have that pre-date the oldest Greek sources.

And regarding your use of terms like precision and accuracy, they don't exactly match up with how I use those terms in my secular career.

I haven't seen a "smoking gun" from either side yet, but do enjoy listening to the arguments. So please, don't take any offense at my questions.

 

[Rob_BW]

Well, the wife and I are out celebrating our 15th anniversary, and stopped by a used book to kill some time before dinner.

Saw a copy of God's Secretaries for only a few bucks and snagged it. Any good?

 

[TCassidy]

We do not have the original documents, so there is not a need to have 100% accuracy on every line/word on the CT/MT in order for each one to be consider accurate and faithful copies of the originals...
There are NO doctrines violated changed by using either greek text to study/translate off from, and pretty close agreement with each other...
One text might say the the man Christ Jesus, other man Jesus Christ, that big a difference?

Again, please explain to me how two different readings can both be right.