Difference Between Translations Given Discoveries of Manuscripts

Status
Not open for further replies.
ralfyman

ralfyman

New member
Given discoveries of manuscripts during the last few decades, what is the percentage of differences, or how significant are the changes in translation, from the RSV to the NRSV, from the NAB to the NABRE, and from the Jerusalem Bible to the New Jerusalem Bible?
 
I just found the preface to NABRE here, and the last paragraph indicates several of the revisions made. They look substantial, and I’m guessing similar took place for NRSV and NJB.
 
Here’s the NRSV preface. I think translators used newer versions of the Hebrew Bible and Greek NT, plus the Dead Sea Scrolls, and others.

For the NJB, according to this source, they translated from the Greek and Hebrew texts rather from the French edition of the same.
 
The Masoretic text has been the basis for most translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. Sometimes Septuagint readings supplemented, particularly for books jot in the Masoretic text.

Evidence from mss found more recently have been incorporated into the standard text of the OT, currently the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) but soon to be replaced by the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ). The compilers of these texts make decisions about which version of a text is more likely the earliest. They note variants so any reader can understand why the choice was made. The discoveries around the Middle East have affected these standard texts by showing earlier versions that convince the editors revise the text.

Translators use these texts and the critical notes associated with them as the text from which they translate. To get a real sense of changes, you could look through BHS or BHQ and read the notes attached. If you understand Hebrew. The translator does that, and that may further inform changes they make it going from Hebrew or Greek to English or another modern language.

Is that what you are asking about?
 
I was wondering about differences in the English translation from one version to the other (percentage-wise or significance in change) based on manuscript discoveries alone (i.e., excepting changes in diction for readability and gender inclusivity), and it appears to be significant.
 
I know there was at least one change in the RSV because of discoveries in the dead sea scrolls. It was in Psalms in a particularly difficult passage. I don’t remember where I read it though. But at the time, I checked it out and saw the clarity that the discovery added to the translation. But generally speaking, I think changes are very few.

The problem is (as I see it) is what constitutes the “best” original text? The oldest? (not necessarily the best indicator depending on the text, although it still is important, considering how relative age might be when compared to the real original.) Most of the oldest manuscripts have significant differences, omissions, additions etc among themselves, while at the same time corroborating (for the most part) the accuracy of the text we currently use.
 
Yes, of the total content. But I understand that it might not necessarily reflect significance in changes.

In any event, I hope the last paragraph of the NABRE preface was helpful, as well as the various points given in the NRSV preface. (Links given above.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top