What is the best authority on what the Bible says- the earliest authentic manuscripts, or your choice of Bible version?
- TeeMLv 71 month agoFavorite Answer
This is a tricky question for most people, since most people BELIEVE their choice of Bible is based upon the earliest authentic manuscripts.
Sadly this isn't the truth.
Most translations are written by a select few who have their own understanding of God's word.
Their understanding of God's word will seep into their translation to some degree, making God's word agree with their understanding.
The KJV is an example of this.
The translators of the KJV had some 8 Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to work with, only dating back to the 9th century C.E.
Thus the translators main authority was the Vulgate and Tyndale's translation. These translators also had the input of King James to whose name the translation bears.
In the book 'Truth in Translation' Dr BeDunn tells us about this problem. Translations have to deal with, what he calls, the Protestant Burden:
“the Protestant’s Burden. . . . one aspect of Protestantism that puts added pressure on translators from it’s ranks. . . . “The problem is that Protestant Christianity was not born in a historical vacuum, and does not go back directly to the time that the Bible was written. . . . it did not re-invent Christianity from scratch, but carried over many of the doctrines that had developed within Catholicism over the course of the previous thousand years or more. . . . the Protestant Reformation is incomplete, in that it did not fully realize the high ideals that were set for it.”
- ArcherLv 71 month ago
Nothing in the bible is "authentic" for it is simply man presenting "their" opinions, stories and thought about the gods.
- UserLv 71 month ago
The best authority in the sense that you are using the term
is not any particular early manuscript or collection of such
is the modern, scholarly critical source texts that are available.
There are several, because there are several portions to the Bible.
-- New Testament --
The latest edition of the Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies "Novum Testamentum Graece"
(Note: the two have the same primary text, UBS provides a limited set of textual variants, NA provides a complete set.)
-- Old Testament --
A) Masoretic Text
"Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia" (currently in the process of being replaced by "Biblica Hebraica Quinta")
Note: that is the primary source, the "best authority", but translators of necessity often need to employ alternate sources, most especially the Septuagint.
There are two important critical source texts
B1) Rahlf's "Septuaginta", Revised (2006 revision of 1935 work)
B2) The Gottingen "Vetus Testamentum Graecum" (not yet complete, but a very thorough and scholarly critical text that is superior to Rahlf's in most ways)
-- Apocrypha / Deuterocanon / Anagignoskomena --
The same as for the Septuagint
The latest Biblica Hebraica (BH) is taking into account the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), which were mostly unpublished when the previous version of BH was produced. Most modern, scholarly translations take the now-completely-published DSS into account to some degree despite the lack of inclusion in critical source texts. (But note: that lack is in the process of being rectified.)
- ShilohLv 61 month ago
We know the jolly old King didn't like the original Bible transcript and so, he created his own translation from which most Protestants i.e. Christians get all their Bible reading. Based on this, Christians would have to say, "their own version " and not earliest manuscript.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Praise jebus you after mate and yep I got a Q left you can have it for the half can be there in the morning
- WilliamLv 71 month ago
The first books of the New Testament weren't written until 40 years after the crucifixion. None of them written by eye witnesses.
The first writing about the crucifixion was in the year 70.
Up to that point NO ONE ever heard about the event.
That's why it's closer to cruciFICTION.