/lit/ - Literature

>>22106716
I would but I have to go to some activities tomorrow so I should probably sleep soon. I may be back tomorrow. But basically, for the New Testament you want a translation that reflects the received text (or Textus Receptus). This is what has been used continually from the first century until now, unlike the other types which came into being later. The received text of 1598 by Beza is the closest reflected edition of the TR by the 1611 translation, which is the version I recommend. You will also want to look at the 1550 and 1551 editions of Stephanus, and in a few edge cases some of the other editions by him and Beza in order to get all of the 1611 source readings. These editions were all based on manuscripts of the New Testament that ultimately goes back to the first century. And for the Old Testament go with the Bomberg 2nd/3rd editions Tanakh (1525/1545), and/or the Bibliorum Hebraicorum of Hutter (one edition made in 1587; printed in useful 'hollow' font to help identify the root words of the Hebrew, which is normally a much more difficult task). But avoid the Biblia Hebraica of Kittel, or its descendants, which is what the NKJV used.

Honestly, I don't really have a way of ranking English translations. I think we should look for the one that has the most accurate representation or reflection of the original sources. My ranking for English would probably be something like: "KJV > Geneva Bible > Bishops' Bible > earlier translations". I don't really have rankings for non-TR translations though. It is misleading to see translations based on the "received text" like the Authorized version placed alongside modern versions which are based on different texts that are missing about 7% of the text of the New Testament.

The Westcott and Hort text, based on the Alexandrian line of minority manuscripts, omits words 1952 times, adds words 467 times, and substitutes/modifies words 3185 times. Overall, 9970 individual Greek words have been either removed, modified, or added. This is about 7% of the words, and an average of 15.4 words on every page of the Greek New Testament.

Now ask yourself, if someone with a hostile agenda were able to change even 1% of the words, in any book, do you think they could alter the meaning overall? Of course they would. So even if only a minority of the changes affects doctrine in any way, if even 1% of these are real changes, that signals something is horribly wrong with these newer translations that are based on the Alexandrian text mentioned above. The (modern) Nestle-Aland text is almost entirely Alexandrian.

Ignoring the additions, the Westcott and Hort text is 1952 words shorter than the received text as mentioned before. Meanwhile, the Nestle/Aland text is 2886 words shorter. So, even more has been removed since then. But this is the basis for translations like the NIV and ESV. But I just don't think it makes sense to stack them up against a TR translation like the KJV on a comparison chart, as some have.

>>21879879
>The closest one can come in English to the Latin Vulgate is the Douay-Rheims.
Problem is that both the Douay-Rheims and the Reformation-era Vulgate (which is what it is based on) are inaccurate to the original languages, containing some errors. The DRB has the unique corruption in Jeremiah 39:2 where it says the city was broken into on the "fifth day," thereby contradicting 2 Kings 25:3 + Jeremiah 52:6, which both say "ninth day." Most Bibles say "ninth day" in all three places.

The Sixtine/Clementine Vulgate and the DRB also say, in 1 Samuel 13:1, that Saul was "one year old" when he began to reign.

We should distinguish the Reformation-era Latin text compiled by Sixtus and Clement in the 16th century, which does not particularly reflect the older editions of the so-called "Vulgate" to a high degree of accuracy. We should also note that before that time period, the term "Vulgate" instead applied to another older Latin translation (or set of translations) that we call the "Vetus Latina" or Old Latin, which predates Jerome. It was only gradually that some of Jerome's works were compiled together, possibly with some translations of books that were made and edited by others, and began to be called "Vulgate," as they are now referred to today. (see: http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html))

Interestingly, many of the Old Latin manuscripts we still have today are in some places a better reflection of the original language Greek New Testament that we still have, in ways that the Latin Vulgate varies from. For example John 3:5 in Codex Brixianus and Codex Usserianus Primus, two Old Latin manuscripts, more closely reflects the Greek manuscript tradition for John 3:5 (i.e. specifically saying "born," as in the Greek form of this verse, instead of "born again" or "renatus"). This is also how Codex Carnotensus and Codex Sangallensis 60, two more Old Latin manuscripts, reads in this verse. The usual reading found in direct translations of the Greek New Testament such as the 1611 Authorized Version or KJV, is the same as these.

There is also good reason to object to the translation of the word "daily" in the phrase "daily bread" in Matthew 6:11 in the DRB as instead "supersubstantial bread." Looking at Luke 11:3, this is even more clear.

I also know of places where the DRB follows the Jewish Targums in removing Messianic prophecies from the Bible, such as in Psalm 2:12, where the original language text says "Kiss the Son," in referring to the Son of God; but the DRB, the Septuagint and others say "Embrace discipline" in Psalm 2:12 instead, omitting any reference to the Son in this verse. It's interesting because Psalm 2:12 is the one place in the Psalms where it specifically says those who trust in the Son are blessed. While in other Psalms and passages in the Bible, emphasis is repeatedly placed over and over again on trusting in God in the same way. These are just a few issues one should consider regarding the DRB and its source text.