4 ms·

The problem (which Shakespeare also has[1]) is that there are numerous versions of the texts in their original languages, with no particularly definitive or eve

• skissane 6y ago
  > Not to mention, the original Mosaic writings have been completely lost to time, having been written in Ugaritic and not Hebrew. Where did you get the bit about the Torah originally being written in Ugaritic? What scholarly sources say that?
  • sb057 6y ago
    I was speaking slightly out-of-hand, but it's the natural conclusion if you take the writings to have been authentically authored by Moses. Religious traditions place him in approximately the middle of the 2nd millenium BC, while secular scholarship, when they assume he even existed, put him in the 13th century BC. There are numerous scholarly sources attesting to the fact that Hebrew only began to exist as a language in about the 10th century BC. Ergo, Moses must have written in a pre-Hebrew language, which would have very likely been Ugaritic, or at least a related dialect. This is backed up by the fact that there are certain portions of the Old Testament that are written in a form of Hebrew which is comparatively archaic, such as the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy and the middle chunk of the Book of Job. You can see this reflected in the 2nd century BC Greek translation, the Septuagint, wherein various chunks of these texts are skipped, apparently on account of the translators being unsure how to translate what would be comparable to Middle English to us.
    • josh_fyi 6y ago
      The earliest parts were written in a early form of Hebrew which existed roughly at the same time as Ugaritic, a closely related language. However, this early Hebrew was not Ugaritic, which had sounds, words, and grammar that was quite distinct from any historical or pre-historical Hebrew.
• wcarey 6y ago
  The gold standard for the Greek text of the New Testament is the critical edition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece) published by Nestle-Aland.
  • sb057 6y ago
    True, but that raises the question as to what to do with the various footnotes other variant-related snags. It's just not particularly suited for something like an API for verses.
    • wcarey 6y ago
      It is, as you say, not particularly suited for something like an API for verses.
  • hajile 6y ago
    Gold Standard? Hardly. It is barely more than a regurgitation of the older Wescott-Horte manuscript. They decided to use the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus. These are of very questionable origin and the presence of forgeries like Tobit in the Siniaticus throw them into serious doubt (and that's before looking at the poor quality of the copy, erasures/replacements, etc). Another point of contention is the dating. In the 3rd and 4th centuries, the Church of Rome was at open war with other Christian factions over both doctrine and the Bishop of Rome's desire to coalesce political power. They seem to support the Bishop of Rome's claim to power rather well (as well as supporting their side of the doctrinal dispute). While they may be the oldest Bibles with that much intact, they are hardly the oldest manuscript in general and the Textus Receptus seems to agree much better with the body of work (something like 95+% of all found texts agree with the Textus Receptus). These works were known and rejected by Protestant translators because of their dubious origin and low quality. I agree with holding it as a translation of interest, but it is hardly a gold standard of anything.
    • wcarey 6y ago
      Which critical edition do you prefer?