Book listing verses w/ disputed manuscript evidence value and/or uncertain Greek?

[Unix]

I compare eight translations of the New Testament. (On the morning of August 28th, I decided about what throughout weights to give them, but then I changed my mind a bit early in the morning of September 24th and slightly on the day after.) On November 14th I bumped up TNIV because I had finished reading the book Textual Optimism and had gained a higher appreciation for the UBS4. I lowered NRSV because it's a moderate version. I added 2 to the NJB because it is saied to include some verses that are usually not found in protestant versions, and because it's the only major version that had no protestant translators, and because I haven't yet heard any complaints about it
'98 La Bible de Jérusalem. Nouv. éd. rev. et corr. 23%, TNIV 20%, NRSV 17%, RSV2 13%, NET 12%, NEB 9%, REB 4%, NAB'86 2%.
What I do, is to put the versions to a vote, variant by variant.
When footnotes give variants, I make the following extra weighing:
1 variant: text -17%, variant 17%
2 variants: text -20%, first variant 11% second variant 9%
3 variants: text -23.5%, first variant 9%, second variant 7.5%, third variant 7%
4 variants: text -27.5%, first variant 8%, second variant 7%, third variant 6.5%, fourth variant 6%
5 variants: text -30.5%, first variant 7.5%, second variant 6.5%, third variant 6%, fourth variant 5.5%, fifth variant 5%
Example: If a verse in the TNIV gives two variants in the footnote: the text of the NRSV then has 16%, the first variant 2.2% and the second variant 1.8%
When a whole verse is absent from the text of all but one or two versions, it needs a 33% support alltogether from the eight versions. When some versions have a verse and some not it needs 50%. The end of Mark (verses 9-) needs 85% to qualify, Pericope Adulteræ (Jh 7:53-8:10) needs 75%, and the end of Pericope Adulteræ (Jh 8:11) needs 90%
I don't have any knowledge in Greek. But do I need to as I have these terrific methods? I would like to get some book that, in English, (simply) lists verses that have disputed manuscripts evidence value or uncertain meaning of Greek! Suggest a suitable book, it wouldn't need to be a lot more comprehensive than this. Preferably, discussions and examples about what manuscripts have what readings, should take no, or not a lot of, space, but that's not an important criteria. Please just suggest any book or version that meets the task! I'll keep checking for at least two years for new posts, so it's not too late! I'm liberal, and I'm an Orthodox Cathecumen and it will take years for me to join the Finnish-Orthodox Church mostly because of my national registration address issues, and as a purhaps temporary solution I'm just about becoming a member of the Anglican Church sometime within about a year

Previously edited : 26th September
Previously edited : 2nd October. Reason: change NAB'70 to NAB'86
For a while, the percentages were: NJB 22%, NRSV 22%, RSV2 18%, NEB 14%, TNIV 10%, NAB'86 8%, REB 6%
Previously edited : 15th November
Previously edited : 25th November. Reason: TNIV +2, NEB -2

 

[tesnusxenos]

Why not learn Greek?

 

[StAnselm]

The standard text concerning the value of different manuscipts is A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger. It pretty much assumes you know Greek - in fact, it's basically a companion volume to the Greek NT - but you can still make some sense of it even if you don't.

It goes through the whole NT verse by verse and says which reading is to be preferred, and what are the other possible readings. (It's only regarding manuscript evidence, and not uncertain meanings.)

But really, for the sort of thing you're after there's not substitute for learning Greek...

 

[StAnselm]

I would also suspect that with most of the translations you mentioned, the differences do not lie in following different manuscripts, but only differences in interpretation.

 

[daveleau]

Words typically have more than one meaning. For instance, how many definitions are there of the word "green" or "head". The issue is more with translation and interpretation in regards to the different versions. while I once sought a book as you have mentioned, I think the best tools are Parallel Bibles. I have 2, 1 w/ 4 version and 1 with 2 versions. These help me in study. Also UBS4 and TR interlinear Bibles help a great deal in checking manuscript difference in the NT. (The OT was much better preserved). This is all of course in lieu of learning Kione Greek, which is the best way to do this sort of study.

 

[filosofer]

Comfort's recent publication might be the best available. But again, it does so with Greek.

Once you begin discussing manuscript differences, you can't get very far without a knowledge of Greek (NT).

 

[JohnJones]

(The OT was much better preserved).

That's the standard modern way of looking at it, yes. But I look at it this way: the New Testament is more vigorously attacked in modern times than the Old Testament, at least textually. Modern scholars attack the NT textually (via printing corrupted modern texts) and the OT theoretically (via the JEPD theory and the like). No matter what the manuscript claim is, the modern Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society texts are all based on deficient manuscripts that the church never used and that spent the sum total of their pre-modern existance in a trash dump in Egypt or on book shelf not being read. All the manuscripts that make up the Recieved text on the other hand spent their pre-modern existance being read by people who beleived what they said. The Recieved text was perfectly preserved via use, while the Alexandrian text was partially preserved via being dumped in the trash in a land full of sand. The church has always used the Received Text until the 1840's when Germans began to use the Alexandrian text and 1881 when English speakers began to via the Revised Version. The Received Text is based on 95% of the extant manuscripts, and these manuscripts actually agree with each other. The Alexandrian texts are based on 5% of extant manuscripts, and these manuscripts do not agree with the other 95% nor with their own selves. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, harolded by liberals as the best mss don't even agree with each other, and both show signs of tampering, mutilation, and pulsing (erasure). One of them actually has a margin note that says "You fool, why can't you leave the old reading alone?" Another doesn't even contain the book of Hebrews. Add to that the fact that most of the Egyptian (Alexandrian) mss are fragments and they still don't agree with each other - here's two mss which are each just a page of Luke, and they still can't agree! The Alexandrian text was discarded to the trash heaps of antiquity by the church way back in the 4th century because it isn't worth reading, but modern scholars refuse to accept the God-Preserved-Recieved-Text and would rather have a text that they found in a trash can. God PERFECTLY preserved his words, as he promised, and we have them in the Recieved Text. "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6-7

I must add to this one more thing: Since the Alexandrian text constantly morphs, at the will of Greek 'scholars' such as Nestle and Aland, we find that the authority of the churches that use these text is no longer the Bible but Nestle and Aland. Nestle and Aland become the popes of these churches. They've printed 27 editions of Greek NT's so far, and when a new one comes out, translations that were based on an old one actually change! The earliest printings of the NIV say "No man has ever seen God, but God the only Son,..." whereas the most recent printings of the NIV read "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,..." Why the change? Nestle and Aland changed their Greek text from monogenes uios (onlybegotten son) to monogenes theos (onlybegotten god), and the NIV changed accordingly, replacing it's phrase "God the only Son" with "God the One and Only" (neither of which is an actual translation of either Greek text anyway, but merely a strange paraphrase).

 

[Unix]

Judging by the many posts about the TR or MT, I should have mentioned that I prefer the CT

The issue is more with translation and interpretation in regards to the different versions

Well yes, it's more about how these translations say it in English. But the percentages I mentioned in the opening post, are not the same as the percentages that apply to how I choose the reading for all other verses in the New Testament, namely the verses where the Greek or the variants are not all too difficult, disputed or uncertain. Compare the percentages in the opening post with the percentages in this post. As I'm updating this post now, on November 17. 2004, I weren't sure about these percentages (below) until today, but as with this update today I'm now somewhat content, an in every way noticable improvement over the old percentages. I still haven't even looked at any of the versions I've mentioned in this thread, not on the internet nor physically, except I've seen the NJB in a store (which is not the reason for the high percentages, I saw the unappealingly thick paperback one), and read a couple of verses on the internet from CEV, Wuest and Good As New. In this way I've tried to first do an as neutral consideration as possible as of what versions I like, and exactly how much, for which parts of the NT, before I start to actually look at these versions. And I haven't stuffed myself with information and opinions about these versions. I'm just careful not to have presumptions.
Matthew, Luke: GNB=TEV '76 British. This translation I use throughly for Mt and Lk also for all verses where manuscript evidence is disputed, but for verses with uncertain/unclear Greek I go by the percentages I meantioned in my opening message to this thread
Mark: NJB 42%, NAB'70 15%, NEB 13%, NRSV Catholic Anglicized 11%, TNIV Anglicized 9%, Good As New 5%, CEV Catholic 3% ,Wuest 2%
Gospel of John: Anchor Bible The Gospel According to John by Raymond E. Brown 54%, NRSV Catholic Anglicized 12%, NJB 10%, NAB'70 10%, Good As New 7%, NEB 6%, RSV2 1%
Acts, 1. Corinthians: NJB 26%, NRSV Catholic Anglicized 17%, NAB'70 14%, NEB 14%, TNIV Anglicized 8%, Good As New 8%, ORT* 5%, CEV Catholic 5%, RSV2 2%, Wuest 1%
all other: NJB 32%, NRSV Catholic Anglicized 14%, NAB'70 12%, NEB 11%, TNIV Anglicized 10%, Good As New 9%, CEV Catholic 6%, ORT* 2%, RSV2 2%, Wuest 2%
Revel: NJB 27%, NRSV Catholic Anglicized 18%, ORT* 18%, Good As New 8%, NAB'70 7%, NEB 6%, TNIV Anglicized 6%, CEV Catholic 5%, RSV2 3%, Wuest 2%
*Orthodox New Testament, abbrevation mine

I can try to describe the reasons for why I've concluded these kind of percentages: I wanted "braveness", opacity, vulgarity, liberalness, dynamic equivalence, British. And for reliability reasons: (things such as: non-familiar wording is good, differing subjects always translated differently as in translating passages separately from each other, #1Orthodoxy, #2Catholicism, #2Anglicanism, minimize Protestantism, madee by a large board of translators and stylists, interpretation, enough words (Wuest), sparse w/ words (CEV Cath), large vocabular)

Previously edited : 1st September Reason: various percentages
Previously edited : 8th September. Reason: Gospel of John percentages
Previously edited : 24th September Reason: change of most of the percentages
Previously edited : 27th September 2004 Reason: add CEV Catholic
For a while, the percentages were: Mark: NJB 56%, NEB 16%, NRSV Angl 12%, TNIV Angl 8%, NAB'70 4%, CEV Cath 2%, Good as New 2%
Gospel of John: Anchor Bible ... by Raymond E. Brown 64%, NRSV Angl 12%, NJB 8%, NEB 4%, NAB'70 2%, TNIV Angl 2%, CEV Cath 2%, Good as New 2%
Acts, 1. Corinthians: NEB 28%, NJB 20%, NRSV Angl 16%, ORT* 12%, NAB'70 8%, TNIV Angl 8%, CEV Cath 4%, Good as New 4%
all other, Revel: NJB 30%, ORT* 20%, NRSV Angl 16%, NEB 10%, TNIV Angl 8%, NAB'70 6%, CEV Cath 6%, Good as New 4%

 

[Unix]

If you have some book in mind but you're not sure if it suits me, do a search for it on the below pages, and PM me about it, these are the sellers/sites I'm using in the beginning of next month, I try avoid abebooks because, for most sellers, it charges so much for the delivery:
Powells
Alibris
Amazon.co.uk
Amazon.de

 

[Oblio]

That's the standard modern way of looking at it, yes. But I look at it this way ...
<snip>

Let me guess, you subscribe to the belief that the KJV is the only acceptable version of the bible ? If so, I think you will find your view is outside that of most Christians and that of the Church both today and throughout history.

 

[Polycarp1]

Slotte: Pick up a copy of the Jerusalem Bible with annotations -- while based on a Catholic viewpoint (and including the deuterocanonicals), they're scrupulously fair about annotating every time a verse is of debatable origin or of unclear meaning in the original Hebrew (or Greek -- it's rare in the NT). They give what the translators believe to be a clear rendering, and then footnote it to give alternate readings, manuscript sources that include, omit, or give variant readings for that passage, etc.

John Jones: That bit about 'a trash heap in Egypt' is a blatant lie -- whether yours or your sources' I couldn't say. Do some background reading on the reasons for modern scholars favoring the older manuscripts over the Textus Receptus -- and be aware that the Church was around for over 1400 years before Erasmus compiled the T.R.

 

[JohnJones]

John Jones: That bit about 'a trash heap in Egypt' is a blatant lie -- whether yours or your sources' I couldn't say. Do some background reading on the reasons for modern scholars favoring the older manuscripts over the Textus Receptus -- and be aware that the Church was around for over 1400 years before Erasmus compiled the T.R.

It was Beza that compiled the TR, and it doesn't matter when he did it, seeing that he used the manuscripts that the church had been using. The manuscripts used by 'scholars' today are manuscripts that the church consigned to the trash heaps in the 4th century, and the only reason that atheistic and liberal scholars favor them is their irrational hatred of the idea that God is powerful enough to preserve his words and their irrational hatred of the preserved TR text. They want a text that justifies Arianism and Doubtism (believing in the Bible without believing that you have the Bible), so they created one that fits their wants. That's all there is to it.

 

[Polycarp1]

It was Beza that compiled the TR, and it doesn't matter when he did it, seeing that he used the manuscripts that the church had been using. The manuscripts used by 'scholars' today are manuscripts that the church consigned to the trash heaps in the 4th century, and the only reason that atheistic and liberal scholars favor them is their irrational hatred of the idea that God is powerful enough to preserve his words and their irrational hatred of the preserved TR text. They want a text that justifies Arianism and Doubtism (believing in the Bible without believing that you have the Bible), so they created one that fits their wants. That's all there is to it.

Pardon me for objecting to this, but I would consider it both appropriate and essential that you tack in a few "In my opinion" phrases in that. You have a right to feel as you do -- but all we who accept scholarly study are not motivated by the hideous insults you are flinging our way.

 

[Breetai]

Why not learn Greek?

Stupid numerous female noun declentions... (having horrible flashbacks of way-too-long study sessions...).

 

[Unix]

Pick up a copy of the Jerusalem Bible with annotations -- while based on a Catholic viewpoint (and including the deuterocanonicals), they're scrupulously fair about annotating every time a verse is of debatable origin or of unclear meaning in the original Greek

When I first read that, I thought: - Great, , an easy sollution! But then I began to hesitate about if that's enougg, because you say "every time a verse". I also need to know what phrases and single words have a weak manuscript support. But purhaps it's enough for the uncertain Greek. Is unclear meaning and uncertain Greek are the same thing? Do I have to order the JB, which othervise seems as a translation that I don't need since it has been updated in the NJB, which I soon have. As everybody purhaps have concluded, I don't yet have these translations, I already placed an order on NEB and NJB. I'm updating this post now, I still, partially purposely, haven't had any possibility yet to check if any of the translations i desire have the kind of square brackets or footnotes that I would make use of. ([/B]Speaking about New Testament translations, I'm about to order the NRSV Catholic Anglicized, TNIV Anglicized, and Anchor John by R. E. Brown. I'm still a little bit uncertain about the "ORT", for some more or less important reasons)

footnote to give alternate readings, manuscript sources that include, omit, or give variant readings for that passage, etc

That's no disadvantage if it does, it helps me a bit to know what the variant readings are, but I can manage without, I'm very happy if I get a good list of in exactly what places the manuscript support is considered debatable or the Greek uncertain

 

[Unix]

Because, I think like this: that unclear meaning would mean that it's difficult to put in Greek, whereas uncertain Greek means that the Greek itself is uncertain in meaning

How about:
Textual Optimism: United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament and Its Evaluation of Evidence Letter-ratings (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement S.) , by Kent D. Clarke would I have use of it? What do you people know about Kent D. Clarke?

 

[Oblio]

I'm still a little bit uncertain about the "ORT", for some more or less important reasons

Would that be because of the jaded past and pedigree of the publisher (Holy Apostles Convent - ROAC) ?

 

[Unix]

Would that be because of the jaded past and pedigree of the publisher (Holy Apostles Convent - ROAC) ?

Well, yes, you made the right guess.

 

[Oblio]

I don't think I've seen anything un-Orthodox in their theology (or the volumes in question). The theological commentary is exclusively from the Holy Fathers so the books are worth it just for that. The problem with ROAC (or any other schismatic group) is you cannot separate yourself sacramentally from the Church and still be part of the Church. I've heard good things about some of their other publications, it's just that ecclesiastically that are nutjobs.

 

[Unix]

The problem with ROAC (or any other schismatic group) is you cannot separate yourself sacramentally from the Church and still be part of the Church

OK, well that's no problem. I think I will buy it, however, I'm still not sure if I should buy the first volume of the two, containing the Gospels. I can't put more weight than I've mentioned, to this translation, since it seems to have been done by one, two or a few translators, and I can't tell from the description on the site whether it constantly follows the CT? As I've written about the percentages, I think I wont put a lot of weight to it for the Gospels, and I use only TEV/GNB '76 British for Matthew and Luke, and mainly Raymond E. Browns translation for John. Or purhaps I still should buy the Gospels volume of the Orthodox New Testament because of the footnotes that give the Orthodox view on things, what do you think?