Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 9:49 pm
The theory I have heard is that the best copies were in Constantinople when it was sacked, and the best, oldest copies were lost. So we really do not have a complete picture. Still, the MT is that which churches of almost all stripes "received." I just worry about the methodology of the Nestle-Aland people . Fun Fact: The dean of the grad. school I attended for a year was involved in the 1984 NIV translation, and the principle NT prof was through and through MT.
Good people can disagree on this one.
Oh yes, good people can definitely disagree on this.
But almost all translations are based on the Masoretic Text, which is from about 1,000 AD. The reason for that is simple: until recently, we didn't have the older Hebrew texts, and we haven't really figured out how to compare all the texts we have to guess at an original. The Dead Sea Scrolls includes texts from several traditions, all old. People are writing critical editions, and that will lead to more footnotes in our translations and probably to translations based on a different text.
My take: I think we should feel free to read and trust either the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text. And the Hebrew Old Testament is just plain harder. It's older and stranger and there are more text traditions to deal with.
Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 9:49 pmI just taught the end of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) in history class today, including the fall of Constantinople . I sometimes wonder, IF autographs existed, where would they have been. My mind goes back to that day in 1543......I just wonder what was lost.
For the Hebrew Old Testament, there was a very long oral tradition. It's quite possible that the "original autographs" were oral, not written, and that various written forms are all derivative. I personally think that the current Old Testament was compiled after return from the Babylonian Exile, bringing together themes from all of Israel's history, drawing on older sources.
For the New Testament, it's a lot easier. Everything was written in a shorter period of time, in a language that scholars understood better for most of our history, in a small geographic area. But even then, what was "the original autograph" of a letter of Paul? The wax tablets? The copy of the letter he had sent to a given church? The copy he kept so that other copies could be made and sent to other churches? I assume these were quite similar to each other, but there were probably very small differences.
Regardless, either the Byzantine or the Nestle-Aland or SBLGNT or Tyndale House GNT are fine. They will all give you a New Testament that is more or less like the others, especially in translation, where the small differences won't be as noticeable. In any of these, there are questions about which ending of Mark is original, or if all were added, so translations have footnotes. There are questions about where the story of the woman caught in adultery originally appeared, but it's pretty obvious where to put it in translations now.
And unless you are reading in the original Greek and Hebrew, your translator has basically made your choices for you. Very few people read translations of the original manuscripts.
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?