New Anabaptist Traditional Text Bible Project

[JohnH]

But we both know that great care was expended in ensuring the accuracy of the MT Hebrew? And translators have to make choices that may or may not be the best choice. I have made such choices, and they proved horribly wrong, but at least no harm was done, except an amused Sunday school class.

I guess this is a choice passage of time or original language.

The MT isn’t in the “original language”, and the LXX contains additional information that could be portrayed in Greek but wasn’t portrayed in their Hebrew back then because they didn’t use points.

I do not consider Hebrew without points to be the “same language” as what is in the MT; before the points, you had to learn and memorise the entire text from another person who knew it. That’s what the “70” did, and then they took the additional step to write it all down.

If you want the most ancient text, you should be using the Samaritan text.

[Judas Maccabeus]

But we both know that great care was expended in ensuring the accuracy of the MT Hebrew? And translators have to make choices that may or may not be the best choice. I have made such choices, and they proved horribly wrong, but at least no harm was done, except an amused Sunday school class.

I guess this is a choice passage of time or original language.

The MT isn’t in the “original language”, and the LXX contains additional information that could be portrayed in Greek but wasn’t portrayed in their Hebrew back then because they didn’t use points.

I do not consider Hebrew without points to be the “same language” as what is in the MT; before the points, you had to learn and memorise the entire text from another person who knew it. That’s what the “70” did, and then they took the additional step to write it all down.

If you want the most ancient text, you should be using the Samaritan text.

It is clear you have never studied a Semitic language. Otherwise you would know that they can be written both with and without short vowels. In a newspaper you are likely to see the Arabic written without short vowels (points) and other times with (a Bible, Koran or important documents). So with your understanding, these would be different languages.

For a better understanding of the preservation of the Hebrew text, there is a very good chapter in Geisler and Nix and a good write up in “Evidence That Demands a Verdict.” Most Bible believing scholars would differ with you on that point.

[Bootstrap]

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.

I consider both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text inspired. But the Masoretic text is about a thousand years newer than the oldest Septuagint texts, even if it is in Hebrew. I don't think there is a law that says a translation must be less accurate, and passage of time is also a real concern.

But we both know that great care was expended in ensuring the accuracy of the MT Hebrew? And translators have to make choices that may or may not be the best choice. I have made such choices, and they proved horribly wrong, but at least no harm was done, except an amused Sunday school class.

I guess this is a choice passage of time or original language.

For the Hebrew Old Testament, about 6-7% of all verses also have two different readings in the Masoretic. Ketiv = the written text as they had received it by around 1,000 AD, Qere = how it should be read when you read it out loud. Most of our translations follow the Qere, which exists only when they wanted to clarify or change the written text they had inherited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qere_and_Ketiv

Most of the time, there's not a lot of difference between the two readings, but sometimes there is - e.g. in Isaiah 9, Ketiv: “you have not increased the joy”, Qere: “you have increased the joy”. You can see that in Isaiah 9:2 here:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=WLC

2 הִרְבִּ֣יתָ הַגּ֔וֹי ׳לֹא׳ ״ל֖וֹ״ הִגְדַּ֣לְתָּ הַשִּׂמְחָ֑ה שָׂמְח֤וּ לְפָנֶ֙יךָ֙ כְּשִׂמְחַ֣ת בַּקָּצִ֔יר כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר יָגִ֖ילוּ בְּחַלְּקָ֥ם שָׁלָֽל׃

It uses ׳ to mark the Ketiv reading, ׳׳ to mark the Qere reading.

• ׳לֹא׳
• ״ל֖וֹ״

I think we can have great confidence in the Bible, but not in every jot and tittle of the text. Sometimes that may mean we need to get our heads out of the jots and tittles.

[JohnH]

It is clear you have never studied a Semitic language.

I'm not sure this level of snark is necessary. The above was explained to me by two different experts on Hebrew languages: one got his Master's at Bethany seminary, the other got his Master's at Columbia and his Ph.D at Harvard.

Otherwise you would know that they can be written both with and without short vowels. In a newspaper you are likely to see the Arabic written without short vowels (points) and other times with (a Bible, Koran or important documents). So with your understanding, these would be different languages.

The language in question is ancient Hebrew, not Aramaic, modern Arabic, or modern Hebrew.

My "point" is that written ancient Hebrew is often ambiguous due to the lack of the vowel points, which is why eventually the pointings were added, because before that you would have to memorise the entire text. The written language was merely a guide.

For a better understanding of the preservation of the Hebrew text, there is a very good chapter in Geisler and Nix and a good write up in “Evidence That Demands a Verdict.” Most Bible believing scholars would differ with you on that point.

You seem to be making a case that Hebrew texts somehow have more authenticity than Greek texts, despite the Hebrew texts we have mostly being much newer, and no particular reason to believe they are any more authentic. I am familiar with this kind of belief system; I just happen to not agree with it. Any Hebrew with pointings on it is newer than the LXX.

[Bootstrap]

Otherwise you would know that they can be written both with and without short vowels. In a newspaper you are likely to see the Arabic written without short vowels (points) and other times with (a Bible, Koran or important documents). So with your understanding, these would be different languages.

I agree. And a Hebrew newspaper is written entirely without vowels. The Hebrew scrolls used in synagogues are also written without vowels, punctuation, or cantillation marks.

My "point" is that written ancient Hebrew is often ambiguous due to the lack of the vowel points, which is why eventually the pointings were added, because before that you would have to memorise the entire text. The written language was merely a guide.

I don't think that is accurate. People do manage to read Hebrew newspapers without memorizing them first.

It is true that some words are ambiguous without vowel markings, but in context, most are not. People did not need to memorize the entire text in order to read it. The written text was not just a vague guide. If you are really fluent in Hebrew, you don't need the vowel markings to read the text.

The vowel points were added later, when there were fewer fluent Hebrew readers, when people no longer spoke it every day as their primary language. And it does clarify some places where the text could otherwise be read more than one way.

[JohnH]

Modern Hebrew isn’t anything like Biblical Hebrew. Modern Hebrew effectively has a few letters used for common vowels.

[cmbl]

I hadn't heard of the NET. Direct to English translation in today's English with a reasonable copyright license. Reasonable copyright license makes me think a repeat of the 1984 NIV being made unavailable is less likely. This could be the successor to the 1984 NIV.

Actually it seems like the successor to the 1984 NIV is the BSB, which has been placed into the public domain. The BSB has a similar reading style and even corrects a number of not-so-good 1984 NIV decisions. I guess this is what I've wanted since 2011.

A couple blog posts by an evangelical Friends pastor:
A case for the Berean Standard Bible
If you want today's version of the 1984 NIV

Seeing as it's in the public domain, a free ePub of the BSB translation is available at https://eBible.org

[Bootstrap]

I hadn't heard of the NET. Direct to English translation in today's English with a reasonable copyright license. Reasonable copyright license makes me think a repeat of the 1984 NIV being made unavailable is less likely. This could be the successor to the 1984 NIV.

Actually it seems like the successor to the 1984 NIV is the BSB, which has been placed into the public domain. The BSB has a similar reading style and even corrects a number of not-so-good 1984 NIV decisions. I guess this is what I've wanted since 2011.

A couple blog posts by an evangelical Friends pastor:
A case for the Berean Standard Bible
If you want today's version of the 1984 NIV

Seeing as it's in the public domain, a free ePub of the BSB translation is available at https://eBible.org

It's a good translation. I know and respect some of the people who did it, and I use it when i am producing materials that need a freely licensed text.

I like the NET notes, but not so much the translation. I like the BSB translation much better.

[Neto]

I hadn't heard of the NET. Direct to English translation in today's English with a reasonable copyright license. Reasonable copyright license makes me think a repeat of the 1984 NIV being made unavailable is less likely. This could be the successor to the 1984 NIV.

Actually it seems like the successor to the 1984 NIV is the BSB, which has been placed into the public domain. The BSB has a similar reading style and even corrects a number of not-so-good 1984 NIV decisions. I guess this is what I've wanted since 2011.

A couple blog posts by an evangelical Friends pastor:
A case for the Berean Standard Bible
If you want today's version of the 1984 NIV

Seeing as it's in the public domain, a free ePub of the BSB translation is available at https://eBible.org

Thanks for the links. I read through both of these 'blog' articles, and wrote a comment on the first one, which was rejected for some unspecified reason. Oh well.

I also read what he wrote about comparing the 78 and 84 NIV text, as I've wondered this myself. The only 78 edition I have here in the States is just the NT, which was published in 1973. I have no idea if there were changes to the NT text between 73 & 78, when the entire Bible (NIV) was published for the first time. My only full copy of the 78 version is still in the village, hopefully in the barrel, or it has almost certainly ceased to exist. (Both termites and especially one species of ants are extremely fond of books.)

[Judas Maccabeus]

It is clear you have never studied a Semitic language.

I'm not sure this level of snark is necessary. The above was explained to me by two different experts on Hebrew languages: one got his Master's at Bethany seminary, the other got his Master's at Columbia and his Ph.D at Harvard.

Otherwise you would know that they can be written both with and without short vowels. In a newspaper you are likely to see the Arabic written without short vowels (points) and other times with (a Bible, Koran or important documents). So with your understanding, these would be different languages.

The language in question is ancient Hebrew, not Aramaic, modern Arabic, or modern Hebrew.

My "point" is that written ancient Hebrew is often ambiguous due to the lack of the vowel points, which is why eventually the pointings were added, because before that you would have to memorise the entire text. The written language was merely a guide.

For a better understanding of the preservation of the Hebrew text, there is a very good chapter in Geisler and Nix and a good write up in “Evidence That Demands a Verdict.” Most Bible believing scholars would differ with you on that point.

You seem to be making a case that Hebrew texts somehow have more authenticity than Greek texts, despite the Hebrew texts we have mostly being much newer, and no particular reason to believe they are any more authentic. I am familiar with this kind of belief system; I just happen to not agree with it. Any Hebrew with pointings on it is newer than the LXX.

I make that case, and am certain it is a good one, that much meaning is lost in translation. That fact , above should drive the question. No translation is perfect, none. Considering the amount of effort expended in maintaining the integrity of the Hebrew texts, I would choose those. Most scholars, at least the ones I have studied under, do,