By Timothy
____________
http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress/?p=28614
From: TS
Subject: Re: so which geneva bible version should i get
Date: 8 January 2012 23:04:24 GMT
Subject: Re: so which geneva bible version should i get
Date: 8 January 2012 23:04:24 GMT
To the interested scholar & seeker of spiritual wisdom who asked the question above:
I posted a reply (see below) to another correspondent recently who asked the same, with additional info on a couple of other lesser known translations (both published quite recently) that are well worth obtaining & using for comparative study.
Note that neither use the so-called Alexandrian-type manuscripts, one (the E.O.B., which like the Geneva) uses the Byzantine-type manuscripts, the other (Magiera-translated “Peshitta”) the Aramaic. These latter two are both New Testament only. The King James Version mixes Byzantine & Alexandrian-type texts (more on this below).
Based on my own research, for the Old Testament the following versions (the first based on the Masoretic texts, the second based on the Greek “Septuagint” – as quoted in the New Testament in at least the Byzantine & Alexandrian versions, but I’m not sure about the Aramaic, no version of which I have obtained yet) would be my recommendations for authoritative comparative study:
The Jewish Study Bible: featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation[Hardcover]
New English Translation of the Septuagint-OE [Hardcover]
Also: While I do not endorse the Alexandrian-type texts, if one feels inclined to get one for direct comparison with the others mentioned, then the following (as essentially the source material that the NRSV, NIV, etc are based on, which also includes interlinear Alexandrian-type Koine Greek texts) would be the scholar’s choice:
The New Greek-English Interlinear NT (Personal Size) [Hardcover]
Please read below for my summarised comments on versions & editions which I would recommend. Note that there are other, earlier English translations of the Eastern Orthodox Bible but these have been unnecessarily coloured by being filtered through the Douay-Rheims & King James Versions (the latter being in turn essentially a composite of the Geneva with the Catholic Douay-Rheims). There have likewise been a number of questionable translations of the Aramaic Peshitta in recent years, which I briefly touch on below, the Magiera translation being the exception as a work of scholarship that is in its own league in that area of scriptural analysis.
I will preface all of that with a recent piece of correspondence that I put together which I would humbly suggest is worth consideration & contemplation regarding translations & versions of scripture.
Peace be with you -
T
===
TRANSLATIONS (IN THE LIGHT OF THE KNOWN UNCIALS & CODICES WITH TEXT-TYPES CONSIDERED)
Dear friends & brothers in the Spirit
All of the energy expended in debating whether or not these versions are acceptable or not would probably be better turned to learning more about the earliest manuscripts still extant. Such as:
Where we learn that scripture written on papyri are generally the oldest of all such remnants of scripture, often no more than a few verses, often fragmentary (only one exists from the 2nd – or possibly 3rd – century:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_0189 – which is the oldest parchment manuscript of any New Testament text, a portion of the Acts of the Apostles), the other types being miniscules which were mostly written on parchment (& mostly slightly more recent from the 9th century with the newest being much less ancient) & lectionaries which were written a variety of materials such as parchment, papyrus, vellum & paper (the oldest of these is from the 7th century & the newest are also much less ancient).
Also: Devoting some time to being acquainted with some of the history & comparative merits of the codices (codexes) should be a focus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex), these are also “uncials”. For example:
Some study on the matters pertaining to the Byzantine & Alexandrian text types should also be given importance:
Please also study my posting from last night (which is a copy of an email that I sent to a former correspondent around one year ago), as the relatively new E.O.B. New Testament is in my opinion the most accurate New Testament translation to date, being derived from the earliest of Byzantine texts (the basis of the Geneva, the KJV by contrast being a thoroughly mixed combination of Byzantine & corrupted Alexandrian (via the undeniable & significant Douay-Rheims influence).
Especially worth reading is the piece at the bottom of my post, an article headed “Byzantine Text History”.
Let’s deal in scholarly discussion & go to the source(s), or at least the earliest materials of the text-types & consider the evidence as it presents itself in the light of critical thinking & honest analysis.
===
SOME CORRESPONDENCE EXCERPTS OF MINE REGARDING MY RESEARCHES INTO BIBLE/N.T. TRANSLATIONS:
As I have been asked this on many an occasion I had prepared the following sometime back. Have a look around the Tolle Lege website, although I don’t recommend their “Patriot’s Bible” version which is full of all manner of extraneous material from the 19th century, etc. which was never part of the Geneva. Also the leatherbound (or “bonded” “leather”-bound more like) reportedly falls to bits too easily due to the sheer size of the editions, this is a problem also with the Hendrickson edition. I wouldn’t get too hung up on 1560 or 1599 as it’s only the notes that were expanded upon &/or modified. Hardback would be the way to go.
My Hendrickson edition of the Geneva 1560 weighs a ton & is admittedly harder to read with the antiquated spelling (“f”‘s foe “s”‘s. etc.), this is a reprint of a good quality original & includes the woodcut illustrations & is very evocative of the spirit of the time & circumstances out of which it came. I keep meaning to get a hardback copy of the Tolle Lege edition of the Geneva1599 (unembellished with extraneous text, careful which you order if you get ones, see my links below), but will admit that the shipping cost from the US is very high as it weighs quite a bit as well & makes it very expensive. Being in modern typeset with no text changes apart from modern spellings, which makes for a more immediate/direct read obviously, is obviously the appeal here.
Incredible isn’t it that those most highly esteemed of academic publishers Oxford & Cambridge (the latter being the most renown of KJAV publishers) do not have among their thousands of available works a single edition of the Geneva, published in these isles & more affordable for those on this side of the globe?
No I guess not when we realise that till this very day the British Crown owns the copyright for the KJAV & thus earns all royalties at least for those copies printed here & that this (hodge-podge of the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims & the Protestant Geneva) Jacobean Bible is – as it has always been – still the “High Church” text for the Romish-esque Conformist Church of England (not to mention for the United Grand Lodge of England & aligned international grand lodges & for the 33° Supreme Councils of the Ancient & Accepted “Scottish” [Jesuit "Stuart" more like] Rite in their “Masonic” Bibles)
Those who mither about them having some additional material like maps & other mundane appended material that does not disguise itself as scripture & thus “aren’t real King James Bible’s are splitting hairs – not to mention the fact that probably none of these critics own an original 1611 “King James Bible” which was so full of appalling typos that it needed the several revisions that led to the Cambridge edition – & its many copyright-free non-British “bootleg” editions – that most are familiar with.
Also: I would not be surprised if the C of E’s High Commission Court-derived edicts for the supplanting of the Geneva still stand to this day!
Hope that the above & the following is of some use:
“WHICH GENEVA BIBLE TO GET?”
Which Geneva Bible to get?
For a readability (with modern spelling, but with the original wording meticulously recreated & authentic) I would recommend this Tolle Lege hardback edition of the 1599:
If you are in the U.S. then the 38.88 FRN’s + 5.94 FRN’s shipping is not bad. Free shipping if you order over 100 FRN’s worth. Shipping internationally is what will be the stumbler for most potential purchasers, due to the weight: at 2.6 pounds it is around two & a half times that of my Cambridge standard text black French Moroccan leather KJV edition 43 (which is 15.2 ounces):
If you don’t like the embossed floral motif on the Tolle Lege Geneva hardback that I refer to above (which is at least subtle), you could (finances permitting) get it rebound at some stage, like this perhaps:
It could be argued that it would make more aesthetic sense rebinding the Hendrickson 1560 (like the fellow in the article did) – & I think that this is something that I would like to have done myself at some stage, but that is a luxury that I am not likely to commission any time soon.
I have posted the following elsewhere:
QUOTE
The hardback Tolle Lege edition of the 1599 Geneva is better priced & less prone to come apart than the leather edition & this is incomparably easier to read with modern spelling, compared to the original antiquarian type. This would be the recommended one, especially if in the 4th (latest) edition (see errata corrections link above):
QUOTE
The hardback Tolle Lege edition of the 1599 Geneva is better priced & less prone to come apart than the leather edition & this is incomparably easier to read with modern spelling, compared to the original antiquarian type. This would be the recommended one, especially if in the 4th (latest) edition (see errata corrections link above):
Also available as mp3′s:
For the original typeset/layout with woodcuts, it’s probably best to get the Hendrickson 1560 hardback version, as the leather seems to have issues (as does that of the Tolle Lege 1599):
Here are PDF version of different books within the Geneva Bible with modern spelling, although not all of the footnotes have been added yet:
If money is tight at the moment then just download the PDF’s at the link above for safekeeping & place the link in your bookmarks favourites or bookmarks toolbar for easily accessing, as it can be a pain digging into folders within folders.
For example: for lack of being able to think of a better access system, if I was to access a PDF of 1 Corinthians with footnotes (although for online quoting of verses I would tend to leave the footnotes out to avoid potential confusion) I have named the file “Corinthians_1_F”, this is then in a folder called “Pauline Epistles”, within another called “New Testament”, which is within another marked “With Footnotes”, which is within “Proofread”, which is within “GENEVA BIBLE”.
The site with the free PDF’s has proofread text of the New Testament & the Torah (Pentateuch). The rest of the PDF’s of the other Old Testament books have not been proofread. On these PDF’s, the versions with the footnotes are hard to read verse to verse, due to the layout/formatting – which also makes copying & pasting for quotes impractical, so I use the ones without footnotes for those – albeit taking them straight from the online pages, not from my copied/downloaded PDF’s.
The above notes might seem a bit over-detailed, but hopefully they will be of help as research tools.
Peace be unto you -
T
===
ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE EXCERPTS OF MINE REGARDING MY RESEARCHES INTO BIBLE/N.T. TRANSLATIONS:
The EOB link is to a PDF text-based book, not an audio-book:
Note that I am not advocating the Eastern/Greek Orthodox church rituals & hierarchy as such, but giving this translation of the Byzantine text serious consideration, seeing as the Geneva (& thus the majority of the KJV – not including its Alexandrian-based Vulgate/Douay-Rheimsisms) is also Byzantine-based.
—
The links that I just sent you (to the EOB NT, the Magiera Peshitta NT& the Tolle Lege Geneva 4th edition) are the fruits of much research. If I posted all the whys & wherefores of how I eliminated the other English translations of the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Koine Greek NT texts or the Peshitta Aramaic NT then I wouldn’t have time to study them. Not having a go, just explaining that it is tough to cover all the bases that I wish to even for personal research.
Note that while the Hendrickson is nice, it can be difficult for the modern eye to follow as it is an actual reprint of the original 1560 pages. Some prefer the notes in the 1560, while some prefer the notes in the 1599 (as available in the Tolle Lege editions). Legibility of the actual text is paramount though. Seeing as you love the audio of Romans from the Geneva the it would seem to makes sense that you go for the Tolle Lege Geneva hardback & MP3 audio CD’s set:
US$79 seems reasonable. I just wish that Tolle Lege would get rid of the illustration on the cover, which seems a bit cheap/cheesy/tacky. I would be tempted to get it re-covered as it would bug me no end. Why they don’t just do a plain clothbound like my Hendrickson 1560 is beyond me. I would go for Tolle Lege’s bonded leather (which I wish was not “bonded” – another less than optimal choice) Geneva if I hadn’t read that it falls apart. Maybe they have improved this, but publishers usually don’t. Publishers will often fix typos & errata (as Tolle Lege have done to their credit up to the current 4th edition, which is excellent & most accurate according to some very eagle-eyed reviews I have read) & yet not do anything about less than fantastic bindings. Mind you Hendrickson are no better in this regard. Their bonded-leatherbound Geneva also reportedly falls apart. That’s why I chose the superior strength hardback & would do the same for the Tolle Lege. The Hendrickson is a big book. There is a bigger print 1560 Geneva facsimile available by Greatsite publishers with incomparably superior leather binding that is truly beautiful. Mind you it does cost US$495. They also do a less expensive – but still great quality – leather-bound edition for US$179. I will be sticking with my less expensive Hendrickson for the 1560 for some time though I imagine. Check these eye-watering (& very tasteful) marvels out:
Godspeed -
Troy
—
I have also just received delivery of the following very new Eastern/Greek Orthodox Church English translation of the New Testament, the first decent translation into English (there are at least three other English translations that I know of, none of which I was particularly enthused to get) taken from the Byzantine-type “Patriarchal Text”.
The Textus Receptus was also derived from the Byzantine texts & is the basis of the Geneva Bible; the KJV being largely derived from both the Geneva & the Latin Vulgate-derived Douay Rheims Roman Catholic translations. The Patriarchal text & Textus Receptus (both being Byzantine-type texts) are both different to the Alexandrian-type texts [as used in the numerous & varied translations derived from the Nestle-Aland-UBS "Critical Text"].
Have not had time to study/read the paper hard copy EOB, but did a fair bit of research before purchasing it.
Here’s a PDF copy for you to download & peruse:
The hardcopy is only available via the print-to-order outlet Lulu.com (http://www.lulu.com/product/hardcover/eob-new-testament-6×9-hardcover/5004567 ).
Note that the colour artwork in the PDF version is printed as black & white in the hardcopy. Which for the price is surprising, but is probably explained by the fact that it is print-to-order from Lulu.com, who have a low overheads type operation.
My copy has a small “ding” in the back cover’s edge, presumably from where postman tried to shove it through our front door mailbox (the shipping box had a big ding in it). I considered sending it back as it wasn’t cheap (£25 plus shipping), but it is a hassle & as it is neither clothbound nor leather bound I am thinking that it is not worth being fussed about it. After all my Hendrickson 1560 Geneva Bible has got some coffee stains on the edge of the pages at the bottom of the book that I don’t recall that happening, so things happen even on one’s own watch! I prefer reading scripture from hard copy paper books than PDF’s/
I also wish to get the Janet Magiera translation of the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Peshitta-New-Testament-Translation/dp/096796136X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297358079&sr=8-1 ). This appears to be the most scholarly translation of the Aramiac Peshitta NT, although I would suggest that it is also worth having a copy of George Lamsa’s classic English translation of the Peshitta.
The two other translations of the Peshitta of the full Aramaic NT that I am aware of.
One by Andrew Gabriel Roth (whose own translation skills are highly debated & refuted), basically a compilation of the separate translations by Paul Younan (an alleged Jesuit infiltrator in the Church of the East – though this is mere allegation, his role as the actual translator behind the Jewish AG Roth, both of whom have a [possibly contrived] battle with another Aramaic NT translator Dave Bauscher), LL Sheets (an internet only published translator & likely pseudonym) & James Murdock (a 19th century translator), with added notes & one original translation by Roth.
& another by Dave Bauscher (who has only been studying Aramaic for five years).
I would advise caution with these two translations, as both sides are involved in an ongoing feud with each other that is too detailed to go into here & IMO serves to distract from the much more credible translation by Janet Magiera.
I hope to find some time this year to compare the EOB NT, Magiera’s Peshitta NT with the Tolle Lege Geneva Bible. I still have to purchase the Tolle Lege edition of the Geneva. My Geneva hard copy is the Hendrickson hardback, which due to its weight & original 1560 spelling & layout gets used less than my computer PDF’s of the Geneva! So I would recommend the 4th (& latest) Tolle Lege edition of the Geneva:
& perhaps also the audio versions:
Anyway, here’s the EOB NT:
E.O.B. NEW TESTAMENT (THE EASTERN/GREEK ORTHODOX BIBLE, VOLUME III)
EOB New Testament 6×9 Hardcover
By Laurent Cleenewerck, Editor
View this Author’s Spotlight
Hardcover, 672 pages (2 Ratings)
PreviewPrice: £24.43
By Laurent Cleenewerck, Editor
View this Author’s Spotlight
Hardcover, 672 pages (2 Ratings)
PreviewPrice: £24.43
Ships in 5–7 business days
The EOB (Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible) is an Orthodox edition of the Holy Scriptures based on the Septuagint (with variants to the Masoretic text) and on the Patriarchal Text for the New Testament. This is the New Testament volume.
The EOB (Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible) is an Orthodox edition of the Holy Scriptures based on the Septuagint (with variants to the Masoretic text) and on the Patriarchal Text for the New Testament. This is the New Testament volume.
Product DetailsCopyright Standard Copyright License
Published June 11, 2009
Language English
Pages 672
Published June 11, 2009
Language English
Pages 672
Binding Hardcover (casewrap)
Interior Ink Black & white
Dimensions (cm) 15.2 wide × 22.9 tall
Interior Ink Black & white
Dimensions (cm) 15.2 wide × 22.9 tall
God bless -
Troy
P.S.: Some info on the text that the EOB is based on is below:
The New Testament (completed and available) is based on the official ecclesiastical text published in 1904 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (again documenting all significant variants to the Critical Text, Majority Text and Textus Receptus). It also provides extensive footnotes and Appendices dealing with significant verses such as Matthew 16:18; John 1:1,18; John 15:26. The Patriarchal text was selected on Mount Athos from among a large number of reliable ecclesiastical manuscripts and appears to be identical or similar to Minuscule 1495 (KR subgroup).
Byzantine Text History
Why The ‘Patriarchal’ Text of Greek New Testament ?
By R.D. Dedman (April 2005) v1.1
Why The ‘Patriarchal’ Text of Greek New Testament ?
By R.D. Dedman (April 2005) v1.1
What is the ‘Patriarchal’ Text of the New Testament?
It is the official text of the Greek speaking churches. This Greek New Testament, obtainable fromhttp://kainh.homestead.com/English.html is the 1904 ‘Patriarchal’ edition of the Greek Orthodox Church.
“The Patriarchal text arose from the need for a uniform text throughout the Greek
Orthodox Churches. During the Turkish occupation there were various editions of the NT with the result that in different places a different NT was read. To avoid this the Ecumenical Patriarchate appointed a committee in 1902 to decide on a text that would be adopted as the official text. The committee retired in Mount Athos and studied about 20 Byzantine manuscripts from which they decided on one taking into consideration some parts of the other manuscripts. This text was published in 1904 and it has been since then adopted by all Greek Orthodox Churches.” by Petros Petallides (kainh.homestead.com)
Orthodox Churches. During the Turkish occupation there were various editions of the NT with the result that in different places a different NT was read. To avoid this the Ecumenical Patriarchate appointed a committee in 1902 to decide on a text that would be adopted as the official text. The committee retired in Mount Athos and studied about 20 Byzantine manuscripts from which they decided on one taking into consideration some parts of the other manuscripts. This text was published in 1904 and it has been since then adopted by all Greek Orthodox Churches.” by Petros Petallides (kainh.homestead.com)
How was the New Testament Text Transmitted?
The Hebrew scriptures (“Old Testament”), were written and compiled over a long period (approx. 1450 – 400 BC). These Scriptures were entrusted for their keeping to the Jews (Romans 3:2). But that part of Scripture called the “New Testament” has been preserved in a different manner. Written in the common Greek (Koine Greek) language of the 1st century AD it was completed in a relatively short period following Jesus’ death and resurrection, probably by 90 AD. It was anapostolic production fulfilling the promise Jesus made to them prior to His death (John 15:27, 17:20). The apostles wrote as well as preached the truth.
Thus the Gospels, Acts, Letters, and later Revelation became copied and distributed, firstly, we may reasonably suppose, among the Christian communities themselves and later more broadly as non-Christians began to take notice. By the late-fourth century, however, knowledge of Greek was in sharp decline in the western half of the empire. A century later and knowledge of Greek had almost entirely vanished in the west. But the knowledge of Greek did not vanish in the eastern half of the empire. And it was within theByzantine empire that the work of preserving the sacred Greek texts – copying and proof-reading – continued unabated, as we shall now see.
Why is the ‘Patriarchal’ Text Important?
Monks – the scholars of their day – first came to Mount Athos as early as the fifth century, according to the official history of Mount Athos.1 Monastries later became established and the number of manuscripts, including those of the NT, rapidly accumulated. The work of copying and transcribing manuscripts continued unabated at Mount Athos over the centuries. From the midninth century this work included the transcribing of the very oldest manuscripts:
“The Greek manuscripts up to the 9th century and sporadically in the 10th and early 11th centuries were written in majuscule writing, today’s capital letters, Few samples of manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts in majuscule writing are preserved to this day in the libraries of Mount Athos. The reason is that since the mid-9th century miniscule writing became predominant, and all the manuscripts of the previous centuries were transcribed in that writing and therefore became unused and little by little disappeared.” 2
By the time of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks, in 1453, the bulk of these same NT manuscripts still existed in the East. As some Greek-speaking scholars fled West they carried with them copies of some of these NT manuscripts.
These few copies formed the basis of Erasmus’ first Greek New Testament.3 Tyndale’s New Testament, which still remains as a model of clarity4 is essentially based on Erasmus’ text. In 1550, an edition by Robert Stephanus was published, the third edition of which became one of the two ‘standard’ texts of the ‘Textus Receptus’ on which the King James Version is essentially based.
However, the majority of the Greek manuscripts of the new Testament remained in Greece at Mount Athos. The Moslem Turks allowed the work of the copyists at Mount Athos to continue during their occupation.
Conclusion
For those who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, the Byzantine text form has long held an esteemed position over self-contradicting Western text forms such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus: these last two often disagree with one another and so their witness is
unreliable.
unreliable.
By contrast, the Byzantine texts are in substantial agreement. They have a proven lineage. Indeed no other textual history stretching back centuries even exists elsewhere. Unambiguously from the 5th century onwards the focus for copyists and scholars was Mount Athos. And it is from this source that the ‘Patriarchal’ official text was taken.
2 Libraries and manuscripts in Mount Athos: A survey; Efthimios Litsas, Senior Researcher, Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, Associate Professor of Paleography, Ionian Senior Cataloguer, Mount AthosManuscripts Digital Library, December 2001.
3 First edition published in 1516, subsequent revised editions in 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535.
4 Witness his correct translation of ekklesia to ‘congregation’ rather than ‘church’, a word of very different etymology.
No comments:
Post a Comment