A quick comment on 1:38. The Old Testament portion of most decent modern translations are based on various editions of the Masoretic text(Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), which should reflect the latest textual criticism. The Latin(Vulgate) or the Septuagint were not used as a basis for the translation. The dead sea scrolls were also used, in some instances. This is true of every translation that I've used(ESV, NIV, NASB, which are all widely used and very common translations). Anyway, thank you for this recommendation. As I do not own a Chumash, I look forward to adding it to the library, and studying from it.
That’s exactly why Christian translations are totally different from Jewish translations e.g ArtScroll, Koren, Chabad etc. Jewish translations only use Masoretic manuscripts. You have no idea where the translators use textual criticism with the BHS. The NRSV does list it sometimes, but not every variation they use. You have to remember, the Latin, Septuagint, etc were barely, if at all translated yet even copied, by Jewish scribes let alone haven’t been preserved by Jews for 2,000+ years.. Sure the Dead Sea scrolls are important but in the Jewish religious world, the Masoretic manuscripts are still supreme as they reflect our oral tradition while the DSS reflect a different oral tradition (over the course from 1000BCE-1000AD different oral traditions creeped into the written Tanakh - it’s just a fact.)
@@Ralbuug I'm confused🤔 I said that the septuagint or vulgate was not used as a basis for the translations. We use the Masoretic text. Of the translations mentioned, I believe the NASB is the only translation which uses the dead sea scrolls as a reference, and even there, the Masoretic text is the primary source. Textual criticism refers to the scientific study of manuscripts. Its aim, through the study of available fragments, manuscripts, etc, is to determine what was in the original text. As far as I know, it does not reflect theological bias, and Christians, Jews, and even secular scholars can work together, since it is a purely(so far as it is possible) scientific endeavor.
@@paulyoshida1747Yes, I know the Masoretic is the “base text.” I’m saying all these translations use the Biblica Hebraica - meaning they’re using the apparatus to determine or help them translate. You have no idea where they factored in the Syriac, Latin, Greek, DSS etc or even where they used different Masoretic manuscripts. Never mind the fact these works are translations themselves. Jewish translations only use the Masoretic, nothing else. The Dead Sea Scrolls aren’t important as people think they are. Like I said, they represent a different oral tradition which is why entire sections disagree with the Masoretic and even the Septuagint. A FAR more valuable find would be the original Masoretic manuscript or finding missing pages of the Aleppo Codex. The DSS definitely are important, but not as important as the Masoretic.
@@Ralbuug This is very interesting. Thank you for your clarification. It was my understanding that part of the Aleppo codex has been lost, but that the Leningrad Codex and AC were identical for all intents and purposes. Also, while I have not personally verified it, as I am not literate in Hebrew, I believe in the BHS, any "corrections" made are extensively footnoted, and are clearly indicated. I would be curious to know, as you say, what major differences there are, and what important theological differences may result from these textual variations.
@@paulyoshida1747 Yes, I think we have about 40% of the Aleppo. Most of textual criticism in the religious Jewish world is about the Masoretic manuscripts and that’s mainly because one of our Sages personally vouched for the Aleppo but most of us use the Leningrad Codex The Aleppo & Leningrad Codex are pretty similar however I think there’s differences at 5% and disagreements on 2%. Now the Aleppo is far more authoritative because the Leningrad has 400+ scribal errors especially in the Prophets section while the Aleppo has maybe 10 errors, however this isn’t as important in a translation as it is in Hebrew. Yes, footnotes in Christian translations will mark when other texts differ but what I’m saying is if the translator(s) decided a conclusion in the apparatus of the BHS you don’t know how they came to that conclusion (would you disagree on their thinking?) and while they may list some, I don’t know if it’s 100% listed. But like I said, the main problem is that they’re using the BHS which uses textual criticism from Latin, Greek etc. personally when I’m doing textual criticism I’m only looking at the Masoretic manuscripts & the DSS. So for example, what does the Leningrad, Aleppo etc differ? And how does the DSS compare? I’m not using Latin, Greek etc because I don’t trust them nor do I think they’re authoritative. This is the main differences between Christian vs Jewish bibles. In fact I’m pretty sure none of our translations even use the DSS - it’s all Masoretic manuscripts only.
