Posted on 01/06/2007 7:13:58 AM PST by Titanites
King James was written with the help of Catholic scholars????????
(Mind you, it's been proposed both that Shakespeare translated the Book of Psalms, and that he was a crypto-Catholic... not to press either supposition as necessarily being very well founded at all.)
You asked: "Which of the above versions is the most authoritative?"
In my view, it depends on what underlying texts are being translated.
If the text being translated is the Codex Vaticanus or Sianaticus, I think the Catholic translation is the best. In a perverse sort of way, precisely BECAUSE Catholicism is not as preoccupied with the doctrinal issues of the Bible that have caused so many competing Protestant sects to arise, I find the translation by the Catholic scholars of the books they've decided to be the most authoritative sources to be the most reliable translations. I particularly note the difference in the footnotes between the NAB (Catholic) and the NIV (Evangelical Protestant). The NIV footnotes take challenging text and make a theological argument for a viewpoint. The Catholic translators give parallel translations from parallel sources and don't take a source. In actual Catholic dogma, there are only about 15 passages in the Bible that have ever had been interpreted by the Catholic Church under its rubric of "Infallibility", and other than those points, Catholics are largely free to interpret the text as they see it. Because so much less in Catholicism actually DEPENDS upon specific, arduous readings of the text, I find that Catholic translations of the texts they have selected as authoritative (as far as the Catholic Church is concerned) contains more "tell me what it SAYS" and less "tell me what it MEANS" than the comparable NIV or New World Translation Protestant forms.
When it comes to translating the specific Greek textus receptus of Erasmus, that specific document, I think the King James Version (the original, not the revised) is probably the most word-for-word. After all, that is what it was intended to be, and having made the choice of THAT underlying text as authoritative, the lack of any competing text to have to synthesize makes the KJV translation pure. My main problem with the KJV is that it is written in Shakespearean English and requires a dictionary to read it and understand it correctly in some parts...and how do I know that the DICTIONARY gets the word just right, or that I have selected the right word from the dictionary?
When it comes to translations of the Masoretic Text, I agree with you when you say: "And those who trust the Scriptures read these words from Paul: 'unto them [the Jews] were committed the oracles of God'. And let's not forget every New Testament book, though written in Greek, was written by a Jew.". And for that reason I find the Jewish translations of their own Hebrew Canon to be more authoritative of what it actually says, verbatim, than any Christian translation.
Now, it is a different matter when one speaks of the translation of the specific Ben Chayimm version of the Masoretic Text. To the extent that a modern Jewish translation uses the Ben Asher text, then it does not trasnlate the same document as the KJV. But when given a choice between the translation of the Hebrew of the Ben Chayimm Masoretic Text by Jewish scholars of Hebrew, or the translation of the Hebrew by 16th Century English goyim of the text, without consultation of actual Jewish scholars of Hebrew, I have to say that I find the authority of Jewish scholars of Hebrew, with the advantage of all of the additional ancient Hebrew texts that have been found so as to be able to perfect and enrich our knowledge of ancient Hebrew itself, working in a society where Jews operate openly, have successful institutions of learning and are no longer suppressed and repressed (as they were in England of King James' time) to vastly exceed the authority to adequately render Hebrew of the KJV translators.
But even that said, I don't find much substantive difference between the KJV, my copy of the Torah and the Catholic translation. The most substantive differenceI have ever found in the whole Bible is the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation rendering of the opening of John, in which "The Word was with the God, and the Word was a god". Now THAT is really a key difference.
All of this is why I say that I am perfectly content with the KJV, and willing to use JUST it with someone, if the use of any other text causes them a stumbling block in the discussion.
However, having done thatthe moment that someone starts to back away from the English of the KJV itself and starts to argue with me that the Hebrew 'Actually MEANT..." something other than what the KJV said, well, at that point it becomes a battle of the authority of external scholars of Hebrew, and to me it is obvious that modern Jewish PhDs of Hebrew are the best Hebrew scholars in the world, and what THEY say the Masoretic text means in English is what it means in English, period.
"Maybe Kolokotronis can inform us about the version preferred by the Orthodox."
Here's an article which will go some of the way to answering your question. The quick simple answer is that we use the Septuagint which The Church has always used. The various other older or newer versions don't mean much to us. As a matter of fact, I don't think we even have anything approaching an "authorized" version of either the OT or the NT in English. But then again, the Bible as a collection of sacred and inspired writings plays little role in Orthodoxy. The scriptures themselves do in that they form the basis of much of our liturgical life, but the collection not so much. I think these issues are really more of interest to Western Christians, in great measure because of the Protestant focus on scripture to the near exclusion of liturgical worship. That's just not something we have had to deal with in the East.
www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bible_texts.html
Okay, we will, just as soon as we stop savoring the love in that remark.
Y'all have more divisions and doctrines than the Protestants do...
You really think so? Seriously? Can you document this statement? How many divisions and doctrine do Protestants have, and how many more to Catholics have? More divisions AND more Doctrines - more of both or just more total?
It is just barely possible that when somebody wrote, "So the Spirit of Truth guides the Church in all truth, not an individual person," they made the mistake of thinking that careless language (like, for example, "Y'all have more division and doctrines ...,") would be allowed for by those holding one of the many other sides of the argument.
I think the statement would be better adumbrated by reference to Mrs Don-o's excellent post , #4346 discussing the organic nature of the church, and the heterogenous distribution of gifts of the Spirit.
So the statement at issues was, I'd venture to guess, a statement denying the autonomy or even the ability of each individual person who considers himself a believer to sit in judgment on the entire Church or to choose whether or not to pay the least attention to what the Church says. The way the Spirit of truth might lead someone into all truth MIGHT be to lead him to the feet of a really good and holy teacher, and the first truth someone might need to learn might be the truth of humility and patience.
People often say they are filled with the Spirit. I have seen that claim used to justify the breaking promises and the display of such hatred and arrogance as left me breathless. The claim of being filled with the Spirit is, in my experience, often used to justify the display of works of the flesh. And the number of self-describer Spirit-filled Christians who seem to have difficulty with their marriage vows troubles me. Tertullian seems to have followed the Spirit right out of orthodoxy into Montanism, about one of whom Apolinarius, quoted by Eusebius, says wittily,"He starts with voluntary ignorance and ends in involuntary psychosis..."[Eusebius, The History of the Church, Chapter 5.17.1 ff]
This quote has stayed with me because I saw it happen to an Episcopal priest who began to display contempt for any writers with whom he did not agree, going so far as to discard a book of mine because he didn't like the cover and to rip up a book of somebody else's because he disagreed with it. Later he was hospitalized for depression and, possibly, other issues. Upon his discharge he divorced his patient and long-suffering wife and soon afterwards married another woman.
SO, there's being filled with the Spirit and, in that spirit displaying humility, and there's CLAIMING to be filled with the spirit, and displaying what are often fruits of false claims about the God who loves us.
Me, I'm working on forbearance right now.
>> Yikes! Thank goodness this scandal isn't on the Catholics. <<
No, no-one ever accused the Catholic Church of being dominated by numismatists!
Maybe not, but my pastor smokes a pipe, so he might be a philatelist!
Once in a while you say something really foreign, K! I can't imagine not reading the Bible.
The Undead Thread? That'd be like finding the Lost Ark of the Covenant in the US Government's inventory (ref: Indiana Jones' ending.)
>> Maybe not, but my pastor smokes a pipe, so he might be a philatelist! <<
That's a habit he should stamp out, immediately!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1757812/posts
Tickety-boo! All it took was a keyword search on "SPORKWEASEL."
He's 70; it's probably too late.
Anyway, wasn't all the dust-up with Johann Tetzel and Martin Luther mostly about coin collecting? (ba-dum-bump!)
LOL.
Thank you! Please tip your waitress ...
I agree with you.
Um, ping to #264.
Yes, I think that's right (as usual). In the East, the Protestant issue did not arise as such, and so the Orthodox Church has not had to respond with a translation and textual selections that seek to answer the Protestant challenge.
In the West, I think that Catholicism itself looks at the Bible exactly as the Orthodox do, but that living in a world full of Protestant challenges,. the Church arms Catholic with translations which the Church authorizes, so that Catholics don't end up having to rely on non-Catholic translations.
I cite the situation with the opening of John, from above. The New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) interlinear of the key phrase "and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", specifically makes the point, and includes an essay, that asserts that the Greek is actually "and the Word was with the God, and the Word was a god", with the articles "the" and "a" and capitalization or not of "God" being intentional and explicit. Jehovah's Witnesses are not Trinitarians, and this is one of their proof texts.
Now, obviously the translation of THAT has ENORMOUS theological impact if taken literally, one way or the other.
Similarly, Tyndale and the Geneva Bible made the point of translating "presbyter" as "elder" and not the traditional "priest", and avoids the use of the word "bishop", the point being to not have a text that has a hierarchical church. The King James version doesn't do that.
But anyway, in the West, it matters to have Catholic translations, because the Protestant translations matter so much.
***"The Shepherd of Hermas" was not in 4th century bibles. ***
Here are some o the books that WERE in early bibles and not in them today.
Laodecians
Alexandrians
Shepherd
Here are some of the bibles.
Codex Vaticanus 4th century located in Rome. Missing Hebrews 9:14 - Revelation 22:21
Codex Sinaiticus 4th century located in London. Also contains Barnabas and Hermas. c. 340 AD
Codex Alexandrinus 5th century located in London. Also contains 1 & 2 Clement
Now, how many of these books are NOT in the bibles today.
"Once in a while you say something really foreign, K!"
Patrick will explain it to you!
Worse, he masticates in public, right there in the diner downtown!
***King James was written with the help of Catholic scholars???????? ***
Did I say that? I know they used Eurasmus' Greek but also Stephen's text of 1550.
The translators were themselves all protestant and very capable of reading Greek and Hebrew themselves.
I used to have a list of all of them but I let it slip away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.