New Anabaptist Traditional Text Bible Project

[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.

Do you consider Isaiah 61 to say “the virgin shall conceive and bear a son” or not?

Because the only reason we have that reading is the LXX, which is based on manuscripts that are long lost to us.

I disagree that translations aren’t inspired scripture because the only texts we have are translations. The Hebrew texts we have are not the same language that Moses would have written down, let alone his predecessors.

[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.

Do you consider Isaiah 61 to say “the virgin shall conceive and bear a son” or not?

Because the only reason we have that reading is the LXX, which is based on manuscripts that are long lost to us.

I disagree that translations aren’t inspired scripture because the only texts we have are translations. The Hebrew texts we have are not the same language that Moses would have written down, let alone his predecessors.

Isiah 61 says nothing of the kind. Wherever are you getting this?

61 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.

4 And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.

5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.

6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

7 For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them.

8 For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

9 And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed.

10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

11 For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.

[Ernie]

The reason I like using translations based on the Majority text rather than the critical text is that any additions that might have been added to the text are there for me to read. Most translations based on the Critical text do not even let me read what the majority text includes.
In other words, "Please let us as readers decide what to do about the supposed additions rather than making that decision for me."

[JohnH]

Sorry, I meant Isaiah 7:14… Isaiah 61 has other issues in the MT.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Sorry, I meant Isaiah 7:14… Isaiah 61 has other issues in the MT.

There is no issue with the MT here; stop making an issue when no issue exists. The Hebrew word here, 'almah (עַלְמָה), can mean a virgin or simply a young woman. The LXX translators simply used the context, miraculous birth, to make a translational choice, which is what translators do. A young woman with child is no miracle, a virgin is.so the translators of the LXX used the word that fit the context of the situation. The MT proclaims it a miracle, or a sign, so simply accept it at face value.

I have translated a decent amount of Arabic to English, and you make similar choices all the time. That is how translation works.

[ohio jones]

The reason I like using translations based on the Majority text rather than the critical text is that any additions that might have been added to the text are there for me to read. Most translations based on the Critical text do not even let me read what the majority text includes.
In other words, "Please let us as readers decide what to do about the supposed additions rather than making that decision for me."

NKJV includes notes that indicate which textual traditions have variant readings. NASB says vague things like "a few late mss. add..."

[Neto]

The reason I like using translations based on the Majority text rather than the critical text is that any additions that might have been added to the text are there for me to read. Most translations based on the Critical text do not even let me read what the majority text includes.
In other words, "Please let us as readers decide what to do about the supposed additions rather than making that decision for me."

I have only used two such translations (those based on the older texts) extensively, the 1978 and 84 NIV, and the NASB. Both of these include the later textual additions, either in the text itself (marked as of questionable provenance), or in footnotes.

The decisions for textual choices are based on a rigid set of rules, and each decision is given a 'grade', a scale of doubt or certainty as to the likelihood of it being an original wording. I would submit that the Majority Text and the Received Text were also based on a similar process, although I am not aware of any record of how decisions were made in any given case.

[JohnH]

The reason I like using translations based on the Majority text rather than the critical text is that any additions that might have been added to the text are there for me to read. Most translations based on the Critical text do not even let me read what the majority text includes.
In other words, "Please let us as readers decide what to do about the supposed additions rather than making that decision for me."

I have only used two such translations (those based on the older texts) extensively, the 1978 and 84 NIV, and the NASB. Both of these include the later textual additions, either in the text itself (marked as of questionable provenance), or in footnotes.

An ongoing problem with the niv is it keeps changing and the myriads of editions like “teen bibles” tend to have completely different notes in terms of what is present and not present.

[Neto]

The reason I like using translations based on the Majority text rather than the critical text is that any additions that might have been added to the text are there for me to read. Most translations based on the Critical text do not even let me read what the majority text includes.
In other words, "Please let us as readers decide what to do about the supposed additions rather than making that decision for me."

I have only used two such translations (those based on the older texts) extensively, the 1978 and 84 NIV, and the NASB. Both of these include the later textual additions, either in the text itself (marked as of questionable provenance), or in footnotes.

An ongoing problem with the niv is it keeps changing and the myriads of editions like “teen bibles” tend to have completely different notes in terms of what is present and not present.

The KJV also went through a phase of "constant changes" in its early years. It is just that we are now very far removed from that time, and very few of us (if any) have read the earlier texts.

[barnhart]

The KJV also went through a phase of "constant changes" in its early years. It is just that we are now very far removed from that time, and very few of us (if any) have read the earlier texts.

The 1611 KJV is readable if you have a lot of familiarity with the modern KJV but it is uphill for most.