Biblish Pseudoquotes

[Hawkmoon]

You've said similar about the King James being based on Greek translations of Aramaic before. That conflicts with what I have read. Where did you get your information? I think you may be mis-remembering, or getting bad info.

I don't think so. I attended an Episcopal college as an undergraduate and took a number of religion and Bible-oriented courses. My roommate for three years was already planning to enter the priesthood (and did), so he took a lot more courses than I did -- to which I was exposed through both discussions and typing his term papers.

I might be mis-remembering, but I don't think so.

http://yourbackpocket.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-king-james-bible-only-bible.html

The King James Version was completed in 1611 and again in 1769. This version was mainly derived from two separate sources. The New Testament is largely compiled from the Stephanus text, which is traced back to the Textus Receptus, and the Old Testament is taken from the Masoretic Hebrew text. A Roman Catholic humanist named Erasmus in 1516 translated the Textus Receptus. Erasmus is quoted as saying that his text was “thrown together rather than edited.” His text had many errors including twenty in just the last six verses of Revelation.
This text was compiled from Byzantine text-type. The main strength of this text-type is found in its numbers. Over eighty percent of Greek manuscripts belong to this text-type, although no Byzantine manuscripts have been found before the 4th century leading one to believe it did not exist before that time. This brings a big problem to the King James Only position.

http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature!

http://www.kjvonly.org/james/may_great_inconsistency.htm

[Ron]

If I so desired I could post up several links that argue very effectively in favor of the Majority Text or Byzantine Text that the Textus Receptus agrees with, or vice versa.

Hence my comment about angels and pins.

As I mentioned I prefer the KJV generally and I prefer the Majority Text. Yet, I'm currently really digging a translation based on Westcot and Horts text (the so called superior text based on older manuscripts) by a guy who wasn't even a professed Christian.  

Those of us who aren't textual critics or professors in the ancient languages can do no more than appeal to one authority or another for our opinion. There are highly regarded experts on both or all sides of the issues regarding textual criticism.

Thankfully the differences between the various streams of texts are dwarfed by their overwhelming agreement.

You guys are going to feel so silly when Christ looks you in the eye and says "Well done thou good and faithful servant"  

[Perd Hapley]

The translation from Hebrew and Greek is weak? The text it is based upon is weak? What is weak?

I was talking about the portions of Revelation, where Erasmus did not have any Greek available, and translated the Vulgate into Greek. I don't think that's controversial. As to the real or alleged weaknesses of the Majority Text or TR, versus the Nestle-Alland, et al; it appears neither of us presume to have the expertise for that discussion. I'm N-A, you're TR, and that's OK.

Thankfully the differences between the various streams of texts are dwarfed by their overwhelming agreement.

Indeed.

[roo_ster]

Not sure if serious. I know you're not one of those.

Not serious.  Though, I did save my very first use of tinfoil hat smiley for it. 

[gunsmith]

eggs came first, not chickens.

[Perd Hapley]

I might be mis-remembering, but I don't think so.

I'm not defending the King James as the super-best-and-only English Bible, I'm talking specifically about the idea that KJV comes from Greek translations of Aramaic.

http://yourbackpocket.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-king-james-bible-only-bible.html

The King James Version was completed in 1611 and again in 1769. This version was mainly derived from two separate sources. The New Testament is largely compiled from the Stephanus text, which is traced back to the Textus Receptus, and the Old Testament is taken from the Masoretic Hebrew text. A Roman Catholic humanist named Erasmus in 1516 translated the Textus Receptus. Erasmus is quoted as saying that his text was “thrown together rather than edited.” His text had many errors including twenty in just the last six verses of Revelation.
This text was compiled from Byzantine text-type. The main strength of this text-type is found in its numbers. Over eighty percent of Greek manuscripts belong to this text-type, although no Byzantine manuscripts have been found before the 4th century leading one to believe it did not exist before that time. This brings a big problem to the King James Only position.

This source you quoted is telling you that the King James is based on "Masoretic Hebrew text" (original language), and Erasmus's critical edition of the Greek, based on "Byzantine" Greek texts (also original language). That doesn't mean the texts used for the KJV were better or worse than the text behind 20th-century translations, but it does mean the KJV was translated from the original languages (other than some problems with the book of Revelation).

http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them.

I just want to point out that the author probably misspoke, and meant to say that no printed edition had been published, or no critical edition, or perhaps he meant both. The Greek New Testament, of course, was published in the first century.

[RevDisk]

In fairness, unless you're reading in the original language, they're all pseudoquotes. Some are more accurate than others, but it's dang near impossible to translate the meaning (ideas) via word for word accurate transcription. Literal vs meaning translation is extremely tricky, from my time overseas trying in communicate in even modern languages like German or Albanian.  "Furious anger" vs "furious rebukes", could be pretty close or pretty far from the original meaning.

IMHO, the Samuel L Jackson version sounds better, even if it is perhaps less accurate. I'd pay a fair chunk of change for a Samuel L Jackson translation audiobook of the Bible.

[Jamisjockey]

In fairness, unless you're reading in the original language, they're all pseudoquotes. Some are more accurate than others, but it's dang near impossible to translate the meaning (ideas) via word for word accurate transcription. Literal vs meaning translation is extremely tricky, from my time overseas trying in communicate in even modern languages like German or Albanian.  "Furious anger" vs "furious rebukes", could be pretty close or pretty far from the original meaning.

IMHO, the Samuel L Jackson version sounds better, even if it is perhaps less accurate. I'd pay a fair chunk of change for a Samuel L Jackson translation audiobook of the Bible.

Only if he reads it in the style of "snakes on a plane"......

[roo_ster]

In fairness, unless you're reading in the original language, they're all pseudoquotes. Some are more accurate than others, but it's dang near impossible to translate the meaning (ideas) via word for word accurate transcription. Literal vs meaning translation is extremely tricky, from my time overseas trying in communicate in even modern languages like German or Albanian.  "Furious anger" vs "furious rebukes", could be pretty close or pretty far from the original meaning.

IMHO, the Samuel L Jackson version sounds better, even if it is perhaps less accurate. I'd pay a fair chunk of change for a Samuel L Jackson translation audiobook of the Bible.

No, that is not the point at all.  It is not mere gilding the lily or translator word choice.  The point is making up quotes out of whole cloth and then claiming Biblical origin.   

[BlueStarLizzard]

No, that is not the point at all.  It is not mere gilding the lily or translator word choice.  The point is making up quotes out of whole cloth and then claiming Biblical origin.   

Ummmm....

The one from pulp fiction does actually have biblical orgins...
 

[roo_ster]

Ummmm....

The one from pulp fiction does actually have biblical orgins...
 

FTR, Ezekiel 25:17, "And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."

The bold part ^^^ is the entirety of Ezekiel 25:17.  SL Jackson's monologue runs 30-45 seconds and a word count more than 10x Ez 25:17.  We're talking Chapter length verbiage, longer than the longest verse in the Bible (Ester 8:9, at ~76 words, FTR)

99% biblish bullshit, 1% clunkily reworded KJV Ez 25:17 qualifies as a pseudquote.

[RevDisk]

No, that is not the point at all.  It is not mere gilding the lily or translator word choice.  The point is making up quotes out of whole cloth and then claiming Biblical origin.   

Ah, gotcha.  Eh, it's Hollywood.

[BlueStarLizzard]

The bold part ^^^ is the entirety of Ezekiel 25:17.  SL Jackson's monologue runs 30-45 seconds and a word count more than 10x Ez 25:17.  We're talking Chapter length verbiage, longer than the longest verse in the Bible (Ester 8:9, at ~76 words, FTR)

99% biblish bull*expletive deleted*, 1% clunkily reworded KJV Ez 25:17 qualifies as a pseudquote.

I don't think you know what the word "orgins" means.

The quote orginates from the biblical. It's altered and expanded, but it's orgins is still biblical.
 

[Hawkmoon]

This source you quoted is telling you that the King James is based on "Masoretic Hebrew text" (original language), and Erasmus's critical edition of the Greek, based on "Byzantine" Greek texts (also original language). That doesn't mean the texts used for the KJV were better or worse than the text behind 20th-century translations, but it does mean the KJV was translated from the original languages (other than some problems with the book of Revelation).

No, it's saying that the OLD Testament is based on the Masoretic Hebrew text. The New Testament is that part that's of more concern to Christians because that's the part that's about Jesus. And the King James translators relied primarily on Greek translations of the original manuscripts (which themselves were a couple of hundred years removed from the actual events of Jesus' lifetime).

[Perd Hapley]

No, it's saying that the OLD Testament is based on the Masoretic Hebrew text. The New Testament is that part that's of more concern to Christians because that's the part that's about Jesus. And the King James translators relied primarily on Greek translations of the original manuscripts (which themselves were a couple of hundred years removed from the actual events of Jesus' lifetime).

Yes, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and a little bit of Aramaic (the original languages). The New Testament was translated from Greek texts, based on earlier Greek texts, eventually going back to the Greek autographs written within a few decades of Christ's death and resurrection.

The idea that the New Testament was written much later is a theory that was wrong a hundred years ago, and no longer has much credibility. If there were any Aramaic "originals" before the Greek, that is just speculation.

[Ron]

No, it's saying that the OLD Testament is based on the Masoretic Hebrew text. The New Testament is that part that's of more concern to Christians because that's the part that's about Jesus. And the King James translators relied primarily on Greek translations of the original manuscripts (which themselves were a couple of hundred years removed from the actual events of Jesus' lifetime).

Actually, to date, we have a second century witness to over 40% of the New Testament. As more 2nd century manuscripts are discovered by archaeologists they continue to confirm just how accurate the later copies have been. Later on this year there will be a first century copy of the Gospel of Mark published.

You seem to be arguing that if we don't have Aramaic copies of the NT we don't have accurate accounts of Christ or the early church. If that be the case you are holding a radical position way outside the mainstream that I've never even heard before!

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, to date, we have a second century witness to over 40% of the New Testament. As more 2nd century manuscripts are discovered by archaeologists they continue to confirm just how accurate the later copies have been. Later on this year there will be a first century copy of the Gospel of Mark published.

Sounds interesting. Where have you been finding this info? Do share!

[Ron]

Since I've been going to RealClearPolitics every day I've started reading all the other categories also, tech, markets, science, religion etc. It has been a wealth of info and links. I discovered the Center for Study of New Testament Manuscripts recently and read the article about the Mark fragment at RealClearReligion.

http://www.csntm.org/

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37197

[Perd Hapley]

Thanks. Cool.

[lee n. field]

Sounds interesting. Where have you been finding this info? Do share!

Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?

Paleography dates one scrap to the first century.  

On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000 people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.

These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection!

Prior to this the earliest known is P52, dated to somewhere in the first half of the second century.

Although Rylands \mathfrak{P}52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among critical scholars. The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.

[Carl N. Brown]

The Firefly "Good Bible" quote was from Saffron/Yolanda/Bridget, so I would credit the shinola to the character of SafYoBridge: if you know her character .... . I don't think Whedon meant the dialogue to be taken literally.

[seeker_two]

I don't think Whedon meant the dialogue to be taken literally.

I take the "If someone tries to kill you, you kill them right back" dialogue quite literally....

[brimic]

Pulp Fiction

I would look for spiritual guidance and accurate Bible quotes elsewhere.
That is all that needs to be said.

[Triphammer]

I take the "If someone tries to kill you, you kill them right back" dialogue quite literally....

I believe that's a paaraphase of a Dali Lama (SP) quote.

[roo_ster]

I believe that's a paaraphase of a Salvador Dali Lama (SP) quote.