New Anabaptist Traditional Text Bible Project

[Neto]

A little more information is available in these places:

https://traditionaltextbiblepublishers. ... update.pdf

https://traditionaltextbiblepublishers.org/sample-text/

https://traditionaltextbiblepublishers.org/about-us/

Thanks. From the About Us page:

The project is being approached initially from the standpoint that the Bible has already been translated, numerous times, and that “we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation.” Therefore, it is primarily a linguistic update towards current English. However, this is done only with a close eye to the original languages of Hebrew and Greek as the basis and final authority.

So it does appear to be simply an update of verbiage as opposed to an actual full translation.

The arguments that they make about archaic language are good, but they primarily make the case that we should have been willing to change from the KJV a long time ago, because its language has been out of date for quite a while.

In the case of my own people, it appears that changes in what translation is used generally have come about where the primary language has changed (such as when the German Luther text was given up for the English KJV. It would be interesting to know if Plautdietsch people who have changed from English or German to Spanish or Portuguese have switched to more modern translations. I don't know, so maybe my entire thought here is bogus.

[Bootstrap]

I may catch some flak for saying this, but if they would at least correct the glaring textual additions, like I John 5:7b-8a, then I'd be fine with it. I'm not aware of a single commentary after the mid 1700's that considers those phrases as being authentic. Actually, none of the other textual additions bother me at all. I think that the rest are all cases where a phrase from a similar context was added into places where that phrase did not (from actual textual evidence) appear in the original text. Also, those cases do not interfere with the context of the passage, although they may slightly draw the reader's attention away from the writer's particular intent in each case. But there is no theological "interference" going on, as there is in the passage in I John.

I definitely agree - 1 John 5:7–8 is worth checking.

A few more places to check:

- Revelation 22:16–21
- Acts 9:5–6 vs Acts 26:14
- Luke 2:22
- Matthew 5:22

[JohnL]

In the case of my own people, it appears that changes in what translation is used generally have come about where the primary language has changed (such as when the German Luther text was given up for the English KJV. It would be interesting to know if Plautdietsch people who have changed from English or German to Spanish or Portuguese have switched to more modern translations. I don't know, so maybe my entire thought here is bogus.

I don’t think your thought is bogus. Languages change. Dialects change. Context and vocabulary is always a moving target. I’ve watched it happen in my own holler with the “cornbread” mountain dialect only coming out when families and close friends meet together. Mass communication has had a huge impact on languages. I think the best Bible translation is the one that is faithful to the message of Jesus and at the same time is comprehensible.
Now if they come out with the Cornbread Bible Translation I’d buy it.

[Neto]

In the case of my own people, it appears that changes in what translation is used generally have come about where the primary language has changed (such as when the German Luther text was given up for the English KJV. It would be interesting to know if Plautdietsch people who have changed from English or German to Spanish or Portuguese have switched to more modern translations. I don't know, so maybe my entire thought here is bogus.

I don’t think your thought is bogus. Languages change. Dialects change. Context and vocabulary is always a moving target. I’ve watched it happen in my own holler with the “cornbread” mountain dialect only coming out when families and close friends meet together. Mass communication has had a huge impact on languages. I think the best Bible translation is the one that is faithful to the message of Jesus and at the same time is comprehensible.
Now if they come out with the Cornbread Bible Translation I’d buy it.

Ever read anything from the Cotton Patch New Testament? (I bought one back in around 1975 - sent it back.)

[Judas Maccabeus]

Feeling in my circles is that the wescott-Horst just has far too questionable methodology. I tend to agree. Just because a manuscript is old, doesn’t mean it is more accurate.

[JohnL]

In the case of my own people, it appears that changes in what translation is used generally have come about where the primary language has changed (such as when the German Luther text was given up for the English KJV. It would be interesting to know if Plautdietsch people who have changed from English or German to Spanish or Portuguese have switched to more modern translations. I don't know, so maybe my entire thought here is bogus.

I don’t think your thought is bogus. Languages change. Dialects change. Context and vocabulary is always a moving target. I’ve watched it happen in my own holler with the “cornbread” mountain dialect only coming out when families and close friends meet together. Mass communication has had a huge impact on languages. I think the best Bible translation is the one that is faithful to the message of Jesus and at the same time is comprehensible.
Now if they come out with the Cornbread Bible Translation I’d buy it.

Ever read anything from the Cotton Patch New Testament? (I bought one back in around 1975 - sent it back.)

Hadn’t heard of that one. I’m guessing that it might be done in a dialect common in the flatland cotton fields. That’s a very different dialect compared to the mountains.
Probably a good Cornbread Mountain Bible would just be an audio reading of the New American translation so the accent can be heard.

[barnhart]

Ever read anything from the Cotton Patch New Testament? (I bought one back in around 1975 - sent it back.)

Never heard of it before, but I think I'll pass. In defence, I don't think it claims to be a translation but a fiction account that parallels the gospels.

[Neto]

I don’t think your thought is bogus. Languages change. Dialects change. Context and vocabulary is always a moving target. I’ve watched it happen in my own holler with the “cornbread” mountain dialect only coming out when families and close friends meet together. Mass communication has had a huge impact on languages. I think the best Bible translation is the one that is faithful to the message of Jesus and at the same time is comprehensible.
Now if they come out with the Cornbread Bible Translation I’d buy it.

Ever read anything from the Cotton Patch New Testament? (I bought one back in around 1975 - sent it back.)

Hadn’t heard of that one. I’m guessing that it might be done in a dialect common in the flatland cotton fields. That’s a very different dialect compared to the mountains.
Probably a good Cornbread Mountain Bible would just be an audio reading of the New American translation so the accent can be heard.

It is not only a 'translation' of the words, from one language to another (although it is very possibly not based on any original language text at all), but a 'translation' of the very settings, era, and location. At one time YWAM in Brazil was suggesting an approach like this - for instance, making Abraham an Amazonian Indian, and changing the entire historical setting. That's what the Cotton Patch does, setting the story in the American South.

[JohnL]

Ever read anything from the Cotton Patch New Testament? (I bought one back in around 1975 - sent it back.)

Hadn’t heard of that one. I’m guessing that it might be done in a dialect common in the flatland cotton fields. That’s a very different dialect compared to the mountains.
Probably a good Cornbread Mountain Bible would just be an audio reading of the New American translation so the accent can be heard.

It is not only a 'translation' of the words, from one language to another (although it is very possibly not based on any original language text at all), but a 'translation' of the very settings, era, and location. At one time YWAM in Brazil was suggesting an approach like this - for instance, making Abraham an Amazonian Indian, and changing the entire historical setting. That's what the Cotton Patch does, setting the story in the American South.

Yep I know I wouldn’t like that version. That’s leading down a road that can lead to huge errors. I don’t know all about translators but it seems to me that if other religions protect their “holy” books from having the words and settings changed then Christianity should be thinking about learning from that example and why it’s important.

[JohnH]

I had a long discussion with Ivan Martin about this (somehow I respect highly, and one of the key figures in this project), specifically choosing the Masoretic Text (which I don't really have much respect for) vs the Septuagint, particularly concerning passages like Isaiah 61.

Where the are at is that they don't want to make changes to the KJV's textual decisions because this Bible is intended to serve people who prefer the textual origins of the KJV or Lutherbibel - mostly out of a desire to avoid the W&H critical text, which (as J. M. mentioned above) many people across the conservative Anabaptist spectrum are, well, quite critical of.

There is a certain irony because the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text were very much the equivalent of the W&H critical text of that era. A "traditional" translation would have been based on the LXX (or the Vulgate).