Scrutinizing biblical translations - should we even bother?

Recently, I took part in a discussion which raised some interesting questions on the coherence of the King James Version Creation Account. The discussion was interesting and raised some important points regarding the effectiveness of higher level biblical translations.Throughout history, textual criticism has been the weapon of choice to scrutinize and decipher the meaning of biblical scriptures. However, in cases where evaluations are limited to higher level translations, the quality of the document would be compromised beyond reliability.All hand waving and mud slinging aside, there is little sense in debating biblical meanings without the inclusion of the parent data.So I wondered, if someone were to setup a starting point to launch a well rounded scriptural evaluation of the Genesis Creation Account, what would be the oldest known documents to that effect? - Also, would it lend itself to verification or cross referencing against other writings?I hope, this topic makes it into the forums. I for one would really like to see some input from other people and hopefully gather some valuable material along the way.

My question to you: Should we even bother?What type of information do you hope to get out of such a discussion? Also.....what is the parent data?Edited by AdminPhat, : clarification

I can only answer on my own accord, and(unfortunately) I am biased to that question.Personally, I would like to see and hear from others as to whether or not it is reasonable to expect anything worthy of scrutiny as far as current biblical texts are concerned. Moreso, how realistic would it be to dig up and use reference material to that effect? Is it even plausible to expect anything other than added confusion? Could it help put things into perspective where modern life and science are concerned? Parent data(ideally) would be "the one" or root document of the translation. - Assuming we could even drill down near that level and compare our results.

Pbee has replied.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Some study of ancient manuscripts in the original language is insightful. Even so, ALL of our Bible study is based upon faith in the accuracy of the translators through the ages. The Bibles we use now, including the KJV, are, unless otherwise noted, just about as faithful a translation of the old documents as is possible given the nuances of language. The oldest extent documents are roughly 1000 years old. Whatever is in your Bible is the direct result of some 'drilling' but you need to remember that it was all faith based. While the translations of the 'originals' may be good, what went into the Bible, or what comes out of it, is entirely a matter of belief in inspiration. Digging up ancient manuscripts would probably be more confusing to you, yes, because then you will see just how many manuscripts didn't make it into the Bible, and just how age was not the primary criteria for selection.

But a lot is lost in translation. Any serious, in-depth Bible study works from the original languages, not from the English translations. That's about right for our oldest copy of the Hebrew Bible. But our oldest copies of the Greek and Syriac translations of the Hebrew are more like 2000 years old, as are Hebrew Bible fragments from Qumran.From wiki:

quote:

---

In terms of the dating of complete authoritative texts, there are three main versions of the Hebrew Bible. There is the Masoretic text of the Torah, thought to have been first assembled in the 4th century AD. The oldest known copy (the oldest is the Aleppo Codex; the oldest complete text is the Leningrad Codex) now dates to the tenth century AD. There is the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Torah, made under Ptolemy in the 3rd century BC. The oldest copy of the Septuagint is centuries older than the oldest complete Masoretic text, and fragments of the Septuagint date to the 2nd century BC. There is also the Samaritan Torah, which emerged after the Assyrian occupation of the northern kingdom of Israel. The Peshitta, a translation of the Christian Bible into Syriac, a variant of Aramaic, can be useful in determining authenticity of passages and hence help establish dates. The earliest known copy of the Peshitta dates to the 2nd century.

---

Old Testament textual scholarship ALWAYS tries to "drill down" to the oldest texts and to compare the various early translations. The results of this "drilling" are noted in the margins of any modern critical text of the Hebrew Bible. What other manuscripts are you talking about? There are very few early Hebrew manuscripts (2 or 3 major ones). The major variant readings of any passage (including variants from the Greek and Syriac) are in the margins of the BHS. Instead of trying to hide these textual variants (as you imply), modern Hebrew texts try to reveal them.Edited by kbertsche, : Added wiki quote.

As I mentioned, there are three main early texts: the Hebrew Masoretic text (BHS), the Greek Septuagint, and the Syriac Peshitta.I don't think there are substantive differences between these in the Creation account. But there are other interesting differences. For example, the very long lifespans in the genealogy of Gen 5 are different in all three versions. This is one of the reasons that most conservative biblical scholars claim that biblical genealogies cannot be relied upon for dates before Abraham.

Agreed. Of course, we can't all be fluent in ancient languages, but we do have wide recourse to Lexicons and such nowadays that can allow us to be comfortable with some translations.I don't know how much pbee knows already, so I just wanted to tell him or her that we do have access to the best possible translations. They aren't perfect, but they are not that far removed from the oldest documents. We DON'T know how far off they are from the originals, but we never will unless we find one. Oh, no, I didn't try to imply that anything has been hidden. I was referring to texts that are not part of the Bible, and how the age of any text was not the primary reason for its use.

But which texts are "not part of the Bible"?The text that we use for study is the BHS, which is "an exact copy (barring a handful of errors) of the masoretic text as recorded in the Leningrad Codex." The other major copy is the Aleppo Codex. The marginal notes contain variants from the other sources that I mentioned (and the Aleppo Codex, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, which I forgot).Note that the Leningrad Codex is "one of the oldest manuscripts of the complete Hebrew Bible produced according to the Tiberian mesorah." So while age may not be THE primary reason for its use, it is certainly A primary reason. All of the major textual variants are in the margin, so all known texts ARE "part of the Bible".(The Greek New Testament is done differently. Each major variant is evaluated and the best is retained in an eclectic "critical text" with the others placed in the marginal notes. For the Hebrew Bible one copy was chosen to be the main text and all variants are in the margins. My guess is that this approach was simpler because there are so few copies in comparison with Greek NT, so the number of variants is far fewer.)

I am following this topic with some interest.As a librarian, I am currently involved in weeding the collection which means that I must get rid of obsolete, worn-out, or irrelevant books both due to currency of information and lack of space. In this collection, there are many translations of the Bible, whole, old, or new testaments.So what are your suggestions to what should be there? Please be as specific as possible, including ISBNs and availability from B&N or Amazon.

Which Bible?kbertsche, pbee isn't here for comment apparently, but I was only trying to keep him from making the error I sometimes hear...'hey, if this text is so old, it should be in the Bible!

Edited by kbertsche, : accidental duplicate post

The question was about the Genesis account of creation, so the pertinent "Bible" is the Hebrew BHS.

Whew, I would have to do some research for exacts.If you have any nice, rare, commemorative, Latin, or color-plated Catholic editions, give 'em to me!Otherwise, get rid of the hotel-drawer variety Bibles, the inclusive language crap, and the translations that are geered to dumb people. If you really need space, keep the complete Bibles in the most common translations. KJV, NIV, etc. Or, tell us what you've got, and we can see if anyone gets fiesty about what to trash.