New Anabaptist Traditional Text Bible Project

[ohio jones]

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).

I understand Erasmus' object in compiling the TR was not the Greek text itself, but his Latin translation of that text for the purpose of amending scribal errors that had crept into the Vulgate over the course of a millennium. But Luther, Tyndale, and others found value in the Greek rather than the Latin (the zeitgiest was ad fontes, after all) and used that as the basis for their common language translations. The Vulgate itself was originally a common language translation, hence the name (derived from vulgar, or common).

Anyway, a translation project should be based on the best original-language text available. One can reasonably disagree about whether Robinson-Pierpont or UBS/NA are "best" since they represent fundamentally different approaches.

[Wesleyb]

One can reasonably disagree about whether Robinson-Pierpont or UBS/NA are "best" since they represent fundamentally different approaches.

But doesn't it take two to disagree?

[ohio jones]

One can reasonably disagree about whether Robinson-Pierpont or UBS/NA are "best" since they represent fundamentally different approaches.

But doesn't it take two to disagree?

I am of two minds about that.

[Wesleyb]

One can reasonably disagree about whether Robinson-Pierpont or UBS/NA are "best" since they represent fundamentally different approaches.

But doesn't it take two to disagree?

I am of two minds about that.

Well, I have half a mind to argue with you but I guess I'll shut up.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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).

How so? The LXX is a translation, based on a small set of manuscripts. I suspect that LXX advocates who have already learned Greek simply want to avoid the heavy lift of learning Hebrew. I will admit i am quite dismissive of the LXX as it is a translation, and simply not the inspired scripture.

[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).

How so? The LXX is a translation, based on a small set of manuscripts. I suspect that LXX advocates who have already learned Greek simply want to avoid the heavy lift of learning Hebrew. I will admit i am quite dismissive of the LXX as it is a translation, and simply not the inspired scripture.

Well, things like Isaiah 61 are significantly different in the LXX.

The texts we have that quote Jesus reading scripture use the LXX. That’s good enough for me.

The Masoreric texts are also translations in some parts. We don’t have the “original texts”. The closest you can get is some of the texts the Samaritans maintain (which are closer to the LXX than the Masoretic Text).

[eccentric_rambler]

If you should purchase a copy, please do post your feelings. I would like to know what others think. To be honest, at first I thought somewhat negatively, but I have since changed by mind.

One of our ministers said he was given a copy of one of the translations of the gospels and I think he liked it. I dont' have high expectations for a new version of the Bible produced by conservative Anabaptists, but even if it was just a variation of the KJV with the archaic language updated, it would maybe be a good thing.

Agreed something with language more modern than the KJV is a good idea. Too much preaching and teaching time is spent clarifying meaning.

I don't really understand why we don't trust other modern versions of the Bible because of supposed translator biases, but we would produce our own with our own biases. I wonder how that would be any better. And I wonder about the translators' qualifications in biblical languages. Maybe they're not actually doing a new translation from the ground up, but rather an update of the English verbiage. I also wonder about the argument for using the same texts as the KJV, when there are good arguments to be made that older and more authentic texts exist.

They had offered a sample of 1 Cor. but I never took the time to pursue it. I'm interested to see how the head covering portion of chapter 11 was handled. Hopefully the original text was followed closely enough that it does not appear biased.

The bigger problem, however, is that none of this work will probably matter all that much anyway, as I don't see very many CAs changing from the KJV at least for another generation or two. And for those inclined to change, I am not sure why they would choose this one above all the others. I would be amazed if there is a market for it.

I wouldn't be surprised if some people use it for personal or family devotions.

Further changes to a translation are undesirable and copyrights are an issue. See the 1984 NIV vs the 2011 for an example of the first. These factors make the decision to leave the KJV status quo even more difficult.

The Westcott & Hort fears are overblown, perhaps because of the smear efforts of their opponents. UBS balanced the W&H text against other sources and is not the direct lineal descendant it is made out to be. NA is even less a lineal descendant. This article does a good job of addressing the question. This comment

In a very real sense, the question of which is superior, Westcott and Hort, or the textus receptus, is passé, since neither is recognized by experts in the field as the standard text.

is worth keeping in mind.

What most concerns me about the TTB is the optics. If congregations switch to this translation how will it look to outsiders? It's one thing to be old-fashioned and use the KJV. It sounds quite cult-like to say "We didn't like any of the other translations so we made our own."

My children are not good readers. The KJV is pretty inaccessible. We have been using the ESV for some Bible study recently. I like the ASV as a compromise to a more modern version, it avoids the copyright issues and maintains the use of Thee and Thou that some people cling to, but the decision to use Jehovah makes it read oddly.

All of the above is rambling as usual. Subject to change and not edited as heavily as I would like.

[Bootstrap]

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).

How so? The LXX is a translation, based on a small set of manuscripts. I suspect that LXX advocates who have already learned Greek simply want to avoid the heavy lift of learning Hebrew. I will admit i am quite dismissive of the LXX as it is a translation, and simply not the inspired scripture.

The Hebrew text that most of us use are the Westminster Leningrad Codex (around 1,008 AD) and the Aleppo Codex (around 930 AD). These represent the Tiberian Masoretic tradition in its late stages. They really cannot be considered early witnesses.

The Dead Sea Scrolls include texts that are much older than that (3rd century BC to 1st century AD). These scrolls include several textual traditions, some more like the Masoretic text, some more like the Septuagint. Textual criticism is more complicated and different for the Old Testament than for the New Testament - it is an older text, spanning much longer time. And it was probably transmitted orally for a very long time, so "the original" may not be a written text at all.

The book "When God Spoke Greek" is a really compelling read that covers this well.

[MattY]

I don't really see the need for a new translation, especially one that might need to be double-checked and compared against other translations (and Hebrew/Greek lexicons) even more often than normal due to the possibility of sectarian bias.

Being based on the Majority Text is interesting, and I guess there might be some interest in that, but there is good reason most translations are based on the earlier ”Alexandrian" texts. Same for the Masoretic text; since translation from one language to another is not a one-to-one simple affair, surely it is easy to understand that translators have to start with the best Hebrew texts and go from there. A translation of a translation can be valuable for understanding how the translated document was being read in its day, but it is surely not the best source for translating the most accurate version of the original document. In certain cases in the Old Testament, translators do go with other readings (other than the MT), but in each individual case they have to compare the texts and see if it makes sense. They also don't use general conspiratorial reasoning to reject an entire source, such as assertions that people "removed" or "altered” texts for ideological purposes (note that such assertions use biased language and assume the outcome from the beginning). If you don't assume nefarious intentions from the scribes and copyists, it's easier to see how certain readings might get mistakenly added, or how they might be mistakenly altered to match another more familiar passage - in dim light, or by a scribe who thought he remembered the passage and made a copying error. This tends to favor readings that are shorter and readings that are unique and not found in other passages. For example, there is a verse in Acts that says, "Spirit of Jesus" in modern translations, a unique reading not found in other verses.

Occasionally that's not the case - see Deut. 32:43, where there's good reason to prefer the Septuagint's reading. It's not just that the Dead Sea Scrolls agrees with the LXX in this case, but the LXX's reading sufficiently explains how the MT's reading arose, while the MT's reading would not explain the LXX's reading. (It calls on "sons of God" or "divine beings" to worship God, a somewhat difficult verse for monotheists).

But most of the time, the Dead Sea Scrolls are more similar to the Masoretic text rather than the Septuagint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagin ... ea_Scrolls

[Judas Maccabeus]

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).

How so? The LXX is a translation, based on a small set of manuscripts. I suspect that LXX advocates who have already learned Greek simply want to avoid the heavy lift of learning Hebrew. I will admit i am quite dismissive of the LXX as it is a translation, and simply not the inspired scripture.

The Hebrew text that most of us use are the Westminster Leningrad Codex (around 1,008 AD) and the Aleppo Codex (around 930 AD). These represent the Tiberian Masoretic tradition in its late stages. They really cannot be considered early witnesses.

The Dead Sea Scrolls include texts that are much older than that (3rd century BC to 1st century AD). These scrolls include several textual traditions, some more like the Masoretic text, some more like the Septuagint. Textual criticism is more complicated and different for the Old Testament than for the New Testament - it is an older text, spanning much longer time. And it was probably transmitted orally for a very long time, so "the original" may not be a written text at all.

The book "When God Spoke Greek" is a really compelling read that covers this well.

Are you familiar with Walter Kaiser's "Uses of the Old Testament in the New." He points out that sometimes NT writers used the LXX, but sometimes they did not. The notion that the early church exclusively used it is therefore not supported. My take: The writers of the New Testament used the LXX when they were speaking Greek, as any good missionary would.

I would be much more open to use of the Septuagint if it were not a translation. It is, however, a translation, and I don't see how anyone could call a translation "inspired" unless you believe that God performed a second act of inspiration for the translators of the LXX. I can't buy that. It is, interestingly similer to some KJV only arguments I have heard in the past, particularly out of Pensacola.