Ok, so the Peshitta (Aramaic), Vulgate (Latin), Luther Bible (German), and King James Version (English) are arguable the most significant and influential Bible translations. But which is really the best?
Inb4 IFB KJV worship and Papist Vulgate worship.
Other urls found in this thread:
ccat.sas.upenn.edu
twitter.com
you forgot the Septuagint
Septuagint is only the Old Testament.
well i would say vulgate since it seems to be a amalgamation of aramaic, hebrew, greek and latin sources and predates any lasting schism and is accepted by the Council of Trent.
...
Don't forget the Armenian bible, the first one with the perfect all inspired index. Created before the vulgate. It's good as God is.
Priase.
What's the best English translation of the Vulgate? Not fussed on how "old fashioned" the wording is.
Peshitta is only the New Testament, and not even the full New Testament
No the Peshitta is an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew OT and Greek NT.
Ah you're right my mistake
Most influential Bibles:
What are some I'm missing? There's an obvious English bias as that's all I speak
Douay Rheims obviously. Why is this even a question? There are only three english translations as far as I know. Douay-Rheims which is very good but old, The Knox Bible which is good but a lot more modern, and the Catholic Public Domain Version - translated by some weird internet dude who thinks he's a theologian and runs his own website with some wacky theories. It's on the YouVersion bible app so just beware of that version. I don't really know how good or bad it is, but considering the source, i'd be pretty weary.
also St. Jerome claims he had the original hebrew version of Matthew.
hmm, but it looks like he didn't use it for the vulgate
DRB. Wycliffe and Knox are also Vulgate translations, but Wycliffe was a heretic and the Knox translation is more 'thought-for-thought' than 'word-for-word', making it (by my estimation) inferior to the DRB.
I'm not sure it so certain, I've read it might be influenced by the Septuagint and Aramaic targums as well.
Wycliffe is probably the most literal.
As far as dynamic vs literal translations go I'd ask if one would suggest for Harry Potter or Tolkien to be dynamicized.
slavonic bible, armenian bible, ethiopic bible
This pretty much covers it. Perhaps the Wulfila bible should also be included.
Do you mean Samaritan?
Is the lxx really more influential than the dead sea Scrolls?
Uh it's complete for one.
Dead sea scrolls are also only recently discovered.
The best thing about DSS (at least the parts that exist) is it shows that it often agrees with the LXX. That there was a family of underlying Hebrew that was different than the MT.
And the passages often tampered with JUST SO HAPPEN to be Messianic. Or are things that were quoted in the NT, but become completely different in the Masoretic. All of these centuries of biblical scholarship that put Judaism on a pedestal as the true "preservers" of text wrongfully made Christianity look deceptive. It's the worst kind of betrayal, where Protestants decided that their own fellow Christians were distrustful and trusted outsiders instead. And not mere outsiders, but people who blasphemed and said Jesus was in hell and Mary was a whore.
The damage is so far done that the West will never recover from it. Even with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, modern scholarship still revere the MT and never truly take the DSS or LXX into account.
Anyways, the MT is important. But in an infamous sort of way. It's a greater split in the church than either the Great Schism or the Reformation.
The MT is still the most authentic complete representation of the supposed original Hebrew syntax for the most part.
Any differences with other texts should simply be taken into account when translating.
It doesn't even the same Alphabet as the original Hebrew (MT is using post-exilic Chaldean, but the original was shared a Phoenician script).. and adds vowel signs that have thrown things off in places. It's practically a "running commentary" within the text itself.
That said, there is a large bulk that is similar between all texts, but it's suspect and shouldn't have the primary spot for *just so happening* to be wrong in the Messianic areas. The church fathers called this out millenia ago.
It doesn't even use the same Alphabet as the original Hebrew (MT is using a post-exilic Chaldean, but the original related to the Phoenician script).. and adds vowel signs that have thrown things off in places. It's practically a "running commentary" within the text itself.
That said, there is a large bulk that is similar between all texts, but it's suspect and shouldn't have the primary spot for *just so happening* to be wrong in the Messianic areas.
Also, I think the main guide should be the New Testament itself - if that text that they were using was good enough for them, then it's the biggest guideline of interpretation and syntax one could possibly want. Imagine if there was a Bible translation and commentary with "blurbs" on the back cover with endorsements from Jesus, John the Baptist, Mary, Peter, Paul, and John themselves!
And yet… that's EXACTLY what we have. Only a rebellious and twisted mind doesn't rejoice at the blessing given to us.
The Samaritan Pentateuch which may have variants that agree with other witnesses also appears to follow the Masoretic text for the most part.
The Vulgate being that it is said to have been translated from a Hebrew text also does similar.
Also the different dialects of Hebrew can and have been examined to corroborate the evidence.
Samaritan agrees with the LXX in important spots too. Like I said, there's a bulk that all texts agree on, but can be suspect when NT quotations and prophecies come into play. Since the Samaritan is just the Torah, there's not as much of this. Although a big departure from the Masoretic is Shem's genealogy in Genesis 11. It lines up with the LXX. The Masoretic is a subtle, but insidious slap in the face of Jesus' claim to High Priest position spoken about in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
That's why the ideal would is an eclectic text with a Hebrew text as the base. Probably what the latest and future translations will try to aim for anyways.
I guess you're more optimistic than me. We'll see. I know that the NRSV is undergoing another revision by the SBL, and one of their goals is, in fact, more incorporation of DSS and LXX research. But as we all know, the NRSV is one of the more liberally minded bible projects. It'll be a two steps forward, one step back thing, I'm sure.
I can deal with it since I'll just use multiple materials (For English, I use a KJV with an LXX translation on the side). But I wish the average Christian had easy access to one Bible without being thrown about like this.
The NETS translation of the Septuagint is based on the NRSV is is said to avoid its gender neutrality.
ccat.sas.upenn.edu
Otherwise Brenton's is the classical Septuagint translation.
ftfy
Yeah, I just use Brenton's. Flows well with the KJV language I already use otherwise.
There's also the Confraternity Version. But it's impossible to find a complete copy. The NT is easy enough to come by though.
The Knox bible is pretty cool, from what I've read. And I don't know why, but it's the only version I've read with the Lord's Prayer in the version many of us recite:
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us"
Usually it's translated "forgive us our debts" or something along those lines (more accurate), but yet, many denominations recite the Prayer the former way.