Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:46 pm
To prove anything about the Synoptic Problem, analysis of the Greek is necessary. However, it is not sufficient because most people don't know Greek to be able to read the answer.
To display anything sufficiently to impress most people, use of English is essential.
What Bible translation into English serves best? In 1975 Reuben Swanson thought the Revised Standard Version would serve him best. He used it in preparing his exacting and elaborate Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels. His method was correct, but he chose his version apparently on popular appeal rather than on scientific demonstration. Unfortunately the two versions better suitable for his purpose were awkward and unknown. Already a century old was Young's Literal Version. Not quite as old, but even less used and little known was the Concordant Version. Both of these were based on the essential principle that each Greek word gets its own English word. But what antiquated, awkward word use came out all too often! Both were written before the Revised Standard Version set the new standard.
An apparently better alternative finally arose. Whereas the Revised Standard Version renders meaning quite well, the judgment of the translators could choose varying English choices for the same Greek word, depending upon the context and extra-Biblical common use. However, the Revised Standard Version has been the basis for several updates. The New Revised Standard Version cannot serve because it puts inclusivity above literal translation. The New American Standard Bible is better at being literal. It had to wait for the English Standard Version more recently, however, to apply the Greek-word-one-English-word principle. I went to work to revise Swanson's analysis based on it, only to find that sometimes the ESV used one English word to translate two Greek originals. The fatal word is "send" to translate both pempo and apostello, both common in the gospels. Not too bad, huh? But what if (as is the case) I'm tracing authors of sources and the different authors use (as they do) a different preferred Greek original?
I will proceed nevertheless on such matters as proving several sources chronicling John the Baptist, proving his historicity. Anyone have any suggestions? I already have the Concordant Version, and Young's Literal is better known and thus also available. For both, the choice of words is out of the ordinary and often jarring, but I don't yet know how many words the ESV translates with the same English word. (Maybe there's even a Greek word with two English translated words?)
There's also the problem that no one seems to care. Whether I come up with the truth or not seems irrelevant if an academic professorship is mandatory before one is taken seriously in any field, but particularly in Bible criticism where there is such an excess of scholars with pretentions.
To display anything sufficiently to impress most people, use of English is essential.
What Bible translation into English serves best? In 1975 Reuben Swanson thought the Revised Standard Version would serve him best. He used it in preparing his exacting and elaborate Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels. His method was correct, but he chose his version apparently on popular appeal rather than on scientific demonstration. Unfortunately the two versions better suitable for his purpose were awkward and unknown. Already a century old was Young's Literal Version. Not quite as old, but even less used and little known was the Concordant Version. Both of these were based on the essential principle that each Greek word gets its own English word. But what antiquated, awkward word use came out all too often! Both were written before the Revised Standard Version set the new standard.
An apparently better alternative finally arose. Whereas the Revised Standard Version renders meaning quite well, the judgment of the translators could choose varying English choices for the same Greek word, depending upon the context and extra-Biblical common use. However, the Revised Standard Version has been the basis for several updates. The New Revised Standard Version cannot serve because it puts inclusivity above literal translation. The New American Standard Bible is better at being literal. It had to wait for the English Standard Version more recently, however, to apply the Greek-word-one-English-word principle. I went to work to revise Swanson's analysis based on it, only to find that sometimes the ESV used one English word to translate two Greek originals. The fatal word is "send" to translate both pempo and apostello, both common in the gospels. Not too bad, huh? But what if (as is the case) I'm tracing authors of sources and the different authors use (as they do) a different preferred Greek original?
I will proceed nevertheless on such matters as proving several sources chronicling John the Baptist, proving his historicity. Anyone have any suggestions? I already have the Concordant Version, and Young's Literal is better known and thus also available. For both, the choice of words is out of the ordinary and often jarring, but I don't yet know how many words the ESV translates with the same English word. (Maybe there's even a Greek word with two English translated words?)
There's also the problem that no one seems to care. Whether I come up with the truth or not seems irrelevant if an academic professorship is mandatory before one is taken seriously in any field, but particularly in Bible criticism where there is such an excess of scholars with pretentions.