Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?

Post by Adam »

"The “Modern Literal Version” uses the Majority Text (“The New Testament in the Original Greek Byzantine Textform 2005 Compiled and Arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William Pierpont”)."
https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Liter ... 87SWBCA9T7

Claims to be about the most literal translation, but we have seen earlier today in my posts that this is a knock-off (without being enough of a clone of Knoch's Concordant Literal), and the very low price it's available at gives that away.
Last edited by Adam on Sun Jul 10, 2016 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?

Post by Adam »

Two other literal translations are available, both by Michael Magill. The first was in 2002 in Outline format, up to 2 1/2 inches thick.

"The New Testament Transline: A Literal Translation in Outline Format puts the NT text in outline format so as to visually display the flow of thought contained in the Greek words. It includes detailed study notes on the facing page. It brings you closer to the Greek text than even the most literal word-for-word English translations, allowing you access to the many nuances of Biblical Greek. It retains the writing style of the apostles themselves, rather than transforming their Greek ways of writing into an elegant or contemporary English writing style, as has been beautifully done so many times. In addition, these books set you free from our artificial 460 year old chapter and verse structure, replacing it with paragraphing that reflects the flow of thought in the original Greek writings. "
http://www.reymapublishing.com/
Available from the publisher for $81.60. http://wipfandstock.com/new-testament-transline.html
Last edited by Adam on Sun Jul 10, 2016 5:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?

Post by Adam »

More recently Magill has put forth the DLNT:
"The goal of the Disciples’ Literal New Testament is to help all Bible readers better understand the New Testament from the original writers’ point of view. This is accomplished in two primary ways. First, the translation reflects the Greek forms, grammar, and sentence structure, rather than using elegant English like our standard translations. Second, the paragraphs are arranged to display the flow of thought in the Apostles’ minds as revealed in their Greek writings, rather than the artificial 460 year old chapter and verse structure we are used to seeing. The New Testament is opened up to English readers in a depth formerly available only to those who carefully studied their Greek New Testament. Used together with your standard Bible version, you will now have the best of both languages." http://literalnewtestament.com/disciple ... disciples/

This one I have to own. The problem is why just a New Testament costs as much as an interlinear Greek-English NT. Plus there's the choice between hardback and paper and new or used.

"How does the Disciples’ Literal New Testament compare to other translations?
Imagine a translation scale of zero to ten, where zero is the Greek New Testament and ten is an exciting paraphrase such as The Message. A one would be a Greek-English interlinear. A five would be a translation that seeks to perfectly balance the Greek and English. The NASB, NKJV, RSV and ESV would be examples of a five. The NRSV would be a six; the NIV a seven. There are many wonderful translations available between five and ten. The Disciples’ Literal New Testament would be a three, opening a new view into the New Testament for English readers." http://literalnewtestament.com/disciple ... disciples/
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?

Post by Adam »

Here's the Acid Test on the Berean Literal Bible: WHOOPS, it's really merely the NIV.
'9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
http://biblehub.com/niv/mark/1.htm
Does not shy away from "come", translates as something else only at 10b with "descending". This does not look like the literal Bible I was looking for. Good thing the website messed up, it's just the NIV when I searched for Berean Literal Bible.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?

Post by Adam »

9 And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. 10 And immediately going up from the water, he saw the heavens tearing open and the Spirit descending as a dove upon Him. 11 And a voice came out of the heavens: “You are My Son, the beloved; in You I am well pleased.”

OK, now this IS the Berean Literal Bible, and it's WORSE. It uses "come" once less and substitutes "going" where "come" would normally be (idiomatically), adds it in at the start where is could have passed or used "happened".

And I can't find the version that uses paralleling "ascended" and "descended" in 1.10.
Edited to add. The version with ascended is the Disciples Literal New Testament, the one that did pass the Acid Text back on page 4 of this thread. Thus it alone has the nice parallelism in Mark 1.10 of "ascended" for "anavainoon" and "descended" (the standard translation for practically everyone else) for "katavainon".
Last edited by Adam on Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?

Post by Adam »

Here's the Berean Study Bible. It ignores the first "egeneto".
'9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 As soon as Jesus came up out of the water, he saw the heavens breaking open and the Spirit descending on Him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased." '
http://biblehub.com/bsb/mark/1.htm

Note: I can't access the Berean texts on Biblehub by selecting "Parallel" but by searching the net for the two Berean texts.
Or maybe I just caught it when the two Bereans came back. They're back now.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?

Post by Adam »

Bibles are popping up all over, no one can even keep track of them all.
There's The Essential New Testament that I could only find out its author.
The Essential New Testament
by Dennis Beatty
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/essenti ... 1594674792

But also new is The Essential Greek New Testament, based on the Majority Text.

The Essential Greek New Testament For the Absolute Beginner Kindle Edition
by OSNOVA (Editor)
4.6 out of 5 stars
17 customer reviews https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Greek- ... B00GU60RA6
I read the reviews, they're all good, but seems to be an undiscriminating audience.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?

Post by Adam »

Sorry about my confusion in the prior page (4) about not remembering what version used "ascended" at Mark 1.10a. It's the Disciples Literal New Testament that just arrived from Amazon. (As I had displayed right here in the same Page 4.) Together with the Interlinear I am picking up today I should be ready to start my new thread demonstrating the various sources telling about John the Baptist. I'll be "translating" Swanson's Revised Standard Version into the Disciples Literal New Testament. I have already modified Swanson's RSV with the slightly different English Standard Version, so this will also be a test of the three versions, as well as establishing whether Disciples is a better Literal than either the Concordant or the Young's (and its clone the Modern).
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?

Post by Adam »

Yes, I have now used the DLNT for two major postings in my new John the Baptist Bible Sources thread. I'm not sure yet it has strict one-to-one correspondence between Greek words and English words, but it sure seems to. Of course that means that combination words can't be one-to-one. There's our "winnowing fork" translation of Greek "ptuon", and "was-announcing-good-news-to" is the translation of "euvangelizeto".
Newly put into use today satisfactorily is the 1990 The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, translated by Brown & Comfort using the UBS 4th Edition and Nestle-Aland 27th edition, along with a narrow column each page of the NRSV.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?

Post by Adam »

I happily used the Disciple Literal New Testament for my John the Baptist Source Parallel Bible thread, and it's serviceable. But only because I supplemented it with insertions of contentious Greek words. I see now by re-studying the Introduction that the DLNT makes no extreme literalist claim of one-Greek-word limited to one-English word. I already knew the key synonyms in gospel study from my knowledge of Howard M. Teeple's Literary Origin of the Gospel of John: "come, go,know say, see, and send". Magill does have some unique solutions for these, but basically ignores the problem. That leaves the antiquated versions Young's and Concordant superior for this purpose. Magill does take seriously grammatical idiosyncracies that he scrupulously carries forward into English. And THIS is EXACTLY what I need. Maybe it's not enough for anyone else or for being able to present a text free of Greek words.
It remains that Magill's DLNT passed the Acid Text. It failed the Aqua Regia Test, it's not golden. But that failure makes it readable without piling up lots of "declared", "proclaimed", and (worst) "heralded". For ME it's the best version. I don't even see any in-process versions (Berean, Literal) that are better. But depending on your purpose and willingness to accept poor "sound", the Concordant Literal is probably best. And several of the others are Majority Text, not even B (Diaglott Interlinear) or "Neutral" (Concordant Literal).
Post Reply