Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?
Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?
The Biblehub Berean versions are absent again.
Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?
Still down.
Meanwhile I picked up today the 2011 English Standard Version Edition, English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 28th Revised Edition, published by Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois.
Fantastic!
The top line is in English from the English Standard Version. The second line is the Greek 28th Nestle-Aland. The third line is the transliteration (like for my use in this forum, I can't type Greek). OK, so the first line is not in order with the second and third, right? Yes, but every word is NUMBERED giving its place in the original Nestle-Aland! Where necessary I can know from here the actual word order, but where parallel gospels are translating the same word order Greek and English. the results can be displayed for anyone to understand. That includes scholars whose prime language is German or French (or Dutch) due to such similarity to English. Only a small minority of scholars are in other languages not so amenable to learning English as their second language.
Five pages justify the ESV itself. Six pages justify the Reverse Interlinear procedure, followed by another five pages of Introduction.
The fourth line provides parsing information for every Greek word, as explained in a five-page guide. The fifth and last line is Strong's Concordance number. Each book has an Evangelical introduction of about 8 lines.
I'm very encouraged. It's not perfect, of course. I would prefer it to be literal both in word order and in never using the same English word for more than one and only one Greek word.
EDITED TO ADD:
This was far too optimistic. See next post, "ABORT" and afterwards.
Meanwhile I picked up today the 2011 English Standard Version Edition, English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 28th Revised Edition, published by Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois.
Fantastic!
The top line is in English from the English Standard Version. The second line is the Greek 28th Nestle-Aland. The third line is the transliteration (like for my use in this forum, I can't type Greek). OK, so the first line is not in order with the second and third, right? Yes, but every word is NUMBERED giving its place in the original Nestle-Aland! Where necessary I can know from here the actual word order, but where parallel gospels are translating the same word order Greek and English. the results can be displayed for anyone to understand. That includes scholars whose prime language is German or French (or Dutch) due to such similarity to English. Only a small minority of scholars are in other languages not so amenable to learning English as their second language.
Five pages justify the ESV itself. Six pages justify the Reverse Interlinear procedure, followed by another five pages of Introduction.
The fourth line provides parsing information for every Greek word, as explained in a five-page guide. The fifth and last line is Strong's Concordance number. Each book has an Evangelical introduction of about 8 lines.
I'm very encouraged. It's not perfect, of course. I would prefer it to be literal both in word order and in never using the same English word for more than one and only one Greek word.
EDITED TO ADD:
This was far too optimistic. See next post, "ABORT" and afterwards.
Last edited by Adam on Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?
My previous post explaining my purchase of the English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament has graduated to applying it to my project of demonstrating the historicity of John the Baptist. I'll be starting a thread to display about twenty pages of hand-written excerpts of sources in the four gospels about John the Baptist. (Come to think of it, is there anything about John the Baptist in the Gospel of Thomas? His absence there would not be any great disproof, as Thomas seems likely to be at the opposite pole theologically from John the Baptist. I'll have to look in my The Five Gospels from the Jesus Seminar, but anyone else feel free to help.)
As I have stated in this thread, I'll be using Reuben Swanson's Horizontal Line Synopsis as modified by editing in the English Standard Version that is more literal than the Revised Standard Version of 1971. My work will be subject to more sophistication if we ever get a literal Bible in contemporary English. (Once again even internet the Berean Literal (nor the Study) Bible is not up on Biblehub.)
Certain words, particularly verbs, are present in multiple forms in Greek, but with usually only one English translation. I'll be presenting the exceptions transliterated in my study article. As it happens my very first extracts have several examples of this.
Lk 3.2 The word (rema) of God came (egeneto) to John the son of Zechariah.
Mt 3.1 In those days came (paraginetai) John the Baptist
Mk1.4 John appeared (egeneto) baptizing in the wilderness
Jn 1.6 There was (egeneto) a man sent (apestalmenos) from God whose name was John
(And this comparison happens to miss the MAIN Greek for "come" (elthen)
ABORT!
Things could not have gone worse had I planned it so! The verb "to come" is displayed in all four gospels, ideally displaying my Thesis that this comes from an Aramaic source, BUT....
The verb varies in Greek, fine, and has three translations HERE in English, but the Greek egeneto really is a loose word meaning something like "occurred" or "happened", but here in one study element (verse of the source) it has three DIFFERENT English translations "came", "appeared", and "was"! I was expecting that the ESV had settled on translating it as "came" in the sense of "came about", but no, the ESV does not follow its own semi-literal rule that a Greek word has only one translation. (Fully literal would not allow more than one GREEK word to have more than one translation either.)
How have things gone so haywire so fast?
Number one, my quick recasting of Swanson RSV English to ESV English had been noticing that the Gospel of Mark is messy. I was assuming this stems from the notoriously bad textual transmission of the Gospel of Mark. I was seeing numerous cases where the English of the Reverse Transliteral was not matched by a Greek text (and vice versa?). I figured the critical standards to get into the Nestle-Aland Greek were higher than to get into the ESV English.
Here's a very pertinent example. "Egeneto" in addition to having at least five potential English translations can (like many other "superfluous" Greek works) just not be translated. That happens in Mark 9:7 "And a cloud [came] overshadowed them. The comparable "egeneto" in Luke 9.34 IS translated "came". Is this due to the manuscript evidence showing that "egeneto" is missing in some Greek texts?
Whatever excuse might apply to the text of Mark, this Reverse Interlinear is deficient here. The main problem is in the ESV that made some decisions about "egeneto" and did not explain this exception to the general rule on (somewhat) literal translation. That the ESV and/or its Reverse Interlinear is inadequate to my challenge seems to be in question. I'll go back and read the "Preface to the English Standard Version".
As I have stated in this thread, I'll be using Reuben Swanson's Horizontal Line Synopsis as modified by editing in the English Standard Version that is more literal than the Revised Standard Version of 1971. My work will be subject to more sophistication if we ever get a literal Bible in contemporary English. (Once again even internet the Berean Literal (nor the Study) Bible is not up on Biblehub.)
Certain words, particularly verbs, are present in multiple forms in Greek, but with usually only one English translation. I'll be presenting the exceptions transliterated in my study article. As it happens my very first extracts have several examples of this.
Lk 3.2 The word (rema) of God came (egeneto) to John the son of Zechariah.
Mt 3.1 In those days came (paraginetai) John the Baptist
Mk1.4 John appeared (egeneto) baptizing in the wilderness
Jn 1.6 There was (egeneto) a man sent (apestalmenos) from God whose name was John
(And this comparison happens to miss the MAIN Greek for "come" (elthen)
ABORT!
Things could not have gone worse had I planned it so! The verb "to come" is displayed in all four gospels, ideally displaying my Thesis that this comes from an Aramaic source, BUT....
The verb varies in Greek, fine, and has three translations HERE in English, but the Greek egeneto really is a loose word meaning something like "occurred" or "happened", but here in one study element (verse of the source) it has three DIFFERENT English translations "came", "appeared", and "was"! I was expecting that the ESV had settled on translating it as "came" in the sense of "came about", but no, the ESV does not follow its own semi-literal rule that a Greek word has only one translation. (Fully literal would not allow more than one GREEK word to have more than one translation either.)
How have things gone so haywire so fast?
Number one, my quick recasting of Swanson RSV English to ESV English had been noticing that the Gospel of Mark is messy. I was assuming this stems from the notoriously bad textual transmission of the Gospel of Mark. I was seeing numerous cases where the English of the Reverse Transliteral was not matched by a Greek text (and vice versa?). I figured the critical standards to get into the Nestle-Aland Greek were higher than to get into the ESV English.
Here's a very pertinent example. "Egeneto" in addition to having at least five potential English translations can (like many other "superfluous" Greek works) just not be translated. That happens in Mark 9:7 "And a cloud [came] overshadowed them. The comparable "egeneto" in Luke 9.34 IS translated "came". Is this due to the manuscript evidence showing that "egeneto" is missing in some Greek texts?
Whatever excuse might apply to the text of Mark, this Reverse Interlinear is deficient here. The main problem is in the ESV that made some decisions about "egeneto" and did not explain this exception to the general rule on (somewhat) literal translation. That the ESV and/or its Reverse Interlinear is inadequate to my challenge seems to be in question. I'll go back and read the "Preface to the English Standard Version".
Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?
Now that the English Standard Version has failed me--
At least it was so similar to the 1971 Revised Standard Version that I did not put a lot of time into altering the latter (from Reuben Swanson's 1975 Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels). Conversely, the time I spent doing the latter did not require much alteration to bring it into line with the more recent ESV.
Where do I go from here?
Perhaps a poll of members here?
1. "update" (backdate to pre-Revised Version) Swanson by substituting a literal translation. Choice One: the little-known and rather quaint Concordant Literal Bible (that I conveniently own).
2. Choice Two: Substitute the well-known but even older and TR based Young's Literal Bible.
3. Choice Three: Substitute the Berean Literal Bible, unfortunately unavailable in print and only occasionally offered online at Biblehub. Attractive modern language and critical text
4. Choice Four: Wait for the Literal Bible to become available, the uselessness of which I demonstrated earlier in this thread.
5. Choice Five: Instead of the above short-cuts, work directly with the Greek alone and translate word-for-word. I recommend no one choose this alternative.
6. Choice Six: use the Interlinear ESV I just ordered.
N. B. Biblehub still not carrying the two Berean versions.
Also: Reading the Preface to the ESV did not help. Its pretensions were modified in some general ways, but without giving any specific violations like with "egeneto". This makes ESV no better than its Evangelical competitors, such as the NASB and the Holman Christian Standard Bible. It's the 1971 RSV warmed over, same as those. At least it's not strike-out new approach New International Version.
At least it was so similar to the 1971 Revised Standard Version that I did not put a lot of time into altering the latter (from Reuben Swanson's 1975 Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels). Conversely, the time I spent doing the latter did not require much alteration to bring it into line with the more recent ESV.
Where do I go from here?
Perhaps a poll of members here?
1. "update" (backdate to pre-Revised Version) Swanson by substituting a literal translation. Choice One: the little-known and rather quaint Concordant Literal Bible (that I conveniently own).
2. Choice Two: Substitute the well-known but even older and TR based Young's Literal Bible.
3. Choice Three: Substitute the Berean Literal Bible, unfortunately unavailable in print and only occasionally offered online at Biblehub. Attractive modern language and critical text
4. Choice Four: Wait for the Literal Bible to become available, the uselessness of which I demonstrated earlier in this thread.
5. Choice Five: Instead of the above short-cuts, work directly with the Greek alone and translate word-for-word. I recommend no one choose this alternative.
6. Choice Six: use the Interlinear ESV I just ordered.
N. B. Biblehub still not carrying the two Berean versions.
Also: Reading the Preface to the ESV did not help. Its pretensions were modified in some general ways, but without giving any specific violations like with "egeneto". This makes ESV no better than its Evangelical competitors, such as the NASB and the Holman Christian Standard Bible. It's the 1971 RSV warmed over, same as those. At least it's not strike-out new approach New International Version.
Last edited by Adam on Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?
I've discovered that my 1983 printing (1978 Sixth Edition likewise falls apart with the word "egeneto" which it translates variously as "came" and "occurred" even though it also translates "elthen" as "came". See Mark 1.9 with those two words respectively as "And it occurred in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth..."
Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?
Even Young's Literal fails the "egeneto" test at Mark 1:9. Here's Mark 1.9-11:
9 And it came (egeneto) to pass in those days, Jesus came (elthen) from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John at the Jordan; 10 and immediately coming (anavainoon) up from the water, he saw the heavens dividing, and the Spirit as a dove coming (katavainon) down upon him; 11 and a voice came (egeneto) out of the heavens, ‘Thou art My Son — the Beloved, in whom I did delight.’
Young had a fixation on the English word "come", apparently, using it to translate at least three verbs. Yes, the verb can well be recognized as different depending upon whether one says "come about" or "come up" or "come out" etc., but as we can see he did not achieve any consistency that-a-ways either.
As for the Concordant Literal, it "cheats" with a concordance of 335 pages to explain word use (just for the NT!). Maybe Young's does the same, I don't have the text.
9 And it came (egeneto) to pass in those days, Jesus came (elthen) from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John at the Jordan; 10 and immediately coming (anavainoon) up from the water, he saw the heavens dividing, and the Spirit as a dove coming (katavainon) down upon him; 11 and a voice came (egeneto) out of the heavens, ‘Thou art My Son — the Beloved, in whom I did delight.’
Young had a fixation on the English word "come", apparently, using it to translate at least three verbs. Yes, the verb can well be recognized as different depending upon whether one says "come about" or "come up" or "come out" etc., but as we can see he did not achieve any consistency that-a-ways either.
As for the Concordant Literal, it "cheats" with a concordance of 335 pages to explain word use (just for the NT!). Maybe Young's does the same, I don't have the text.
Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?
To be fair, does the Concordant Literal actually claim word-for-word correspondence? Exceptions are admitted, but they do claim more than they deliver.
"While acknowledging that absolute consistency cannot be achieved in the making of an idiomatic English version, the introduction to the Sixth edition of the Concordant Literal New Testament states that the CLNT, by being harmonious with the original texts, keeps to a minimum the confusion resulting from translating different Greek words with the same English word, or one Greek word with many English words. It is this principle of consistent or "concordant" translation which was also employed in the compilation of the Concordant Version of the Old Testament (CVOT), now completed. Therefore, with the exception of occasional idiomatic variants, each English word in the Concordant Version does exclusive duty for a single Greek or Hebrew word."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordant_Version
As I showed two posts ago, they stumble over the Greek verb "egeneto" at Mark 1.9. At least they do usually try to translate "egeneto". regularly avoided by the ESV.
Perhaps the Concordant Literal NT fails on only a few words. If so, they should state which they are in addition to "egeneto".
"While acknowledging that absolute consistency cannot be achieved in the making of an idiomatic English version, the introduction to the Sixth edition of the Concordant Literal New Testament states that the CLNT, by being harmonious with the original texts, keeps to a minimum the confusion resulting from translating different Greek words with the same English word, or one Greek word with many English words. It is this principle of consistent or "concordant" translation which was also employed in the compilation of the Concordant Version of the Old Testament (CVOT), now completed. Therefore, with the exception of occasional idiomatic variants, each English word in the Concordant Version does exclusive duty for a single Greek or Hebrew word."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordant_Version
As I showed two posts ago, they stumble over the Greek verb "egeneto" at Mark 1.9. At least they do usually try to translate "egeneto". regularly avoided by the ESV.
Perhaps the Concordant Literal NT fails on only a few words. If so, they should state which they are in addition to "egeneto".
Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?
Here's from the Modern Literal Version, which seems to be pushing full immersion baptism more than other literal features. Here's the acid test, Mark 1.9-11:
" 1:9 And it happened (egeneto) in those days, that Jesus came (elthen) from Nazareth of Galilee, and was immersed* by John in the Jordan. 1:10 And immediately coming up (anavainoon) from the water, he saw the heavens being split-apart, and the Spirit like a dove coming down (katavainon) upon him. 1:11 And a voice came* (egeneto) out of the heavens, You are my beloved Son, in whom I am delighted."
Looks like a rip-off from Young's Literal. No wonder I had never heard of this translation.
Biblehub still does not display either Berean translation, can't give the Literal the acid test yet.
" 1:9 And it happened (egeneto) in those days, that Jesus came (elthen) from Nazareth of Galilee, and was immersed* by John in the Jordan. 1:10 And immediately coming up (anavainoon) from the water, he saw the heavens being split-apart, and the Spirit like a dove coming down (katavainon) upon him. 1:11 And a voice came* (egeneto) out of the heavens, You are my beloved Son, in whom I am delighted."
Looks like a rip-off from Young's Literal. No wonder I had never heard of this translation.
Biblehub still does not display either Berean translation, can't give the Literal the acid test yet.
Last edited by Adam on Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?
Biblehub still not displaying the Berean Literal Bible (nor the Berean Study Bible).
Re: Best Bible Version for Scholars for Synoptic Problem?
Disciples' Literal New Testament: Serving Modern Disciples by More Fully Reflecting the Writing Style of the Ancient Disciples, Copyright © 2011 Michael J. Magill. All Rights Reserved. Published by Reyma Publishing
{Per Biblegate, just now published by them, available on their website now--as seen below)
Applying the Acid Test, DLNT does pretty well. It does not dodge the "egeneto" problem, does indeed translate it and as "came about". Same verse Mark 1.9 does also have "came" from "elthen" , so we know it does have at least one English word employed for more than one Greek word. But I would argue for "egeneto" being a "loose" word that needs a exception to the one-word one-word ideal.
In Mark 1.10b DLNT accepts the reasonable solution as seen in the ESV and Concordant of translating "katavainon" as "descending" and not as "coming down". ESV nevertheless uses "came up" in 1.10a instead of "ascended". "ascended" is a little "arch", but is used in the Berean Literal, I believe, and best I can tell it is necessary to use this way, both "ascended" and "descended" in any literal translation that's worthy of the name.
Edited to add:
I was positive some translation uses "ascended' in Mark 1.10a, but apparently that's a figment of my rationalist imagination, that "katavainon" translating as "descended" would mean a word with the same root, "anavainoon", would be translated parallel to it as "ascended".
{Per Biblegate, just now published by them, available on their website now--as seen below)
Mark 1:9-11Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT)
Jesus Is Baptized By John. God Expresses His Pleasure. Jesus Is Tempted By Satan
9 And it came about during those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. 10 And immediately while ascending[a] out-of the water, He saw the heavens being divided and the Spirit like a dove descending to[c] Him. 11 And a voice came from the heavens— “You are My beloved Son. With You I was[d] well-pleased”.
Applying the Acid Test, DLNT does pretty well. It does not dodge the "egeneto" problem, does indeed translate it and as "came about". Same verse Mark 1.9 does also have "came" from "elthen" , so we know it does have at least one English word employed for more than one Greek word. But I would argue for "egeneto" being a "loose" word that needs a exception to the one-word one-word ideal.
In Mark 1.10b DLNT accepts the reasonable solution as seen in the ESV and Concordant of translating "katavainon" as "descending" and not as "coming down". ESV nevertheless uses "came up" in 1.10a instead of "ascended". "ascended" is a little "arch", but is used in the Berean Literal, I believe, and best I can tell it is necessary to use this way, both "ascended" and "descended" in any literal translation that's worthy of the name.
Edited to add:
I was positive some translation uses "ascended' in Mark 1.10a, but apparently that's a figment of my rationalist imagination, that "katavainon" translating as "descended" would mean a word with the same root, "anavainoon", would be translated parallel to it as "ascended".
Last edited by Adam on Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.