(October 14, 2019 at 2:01 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: And the instances where the variations go beyond different approaches to transliterating Aramaic? Because the addition of an entire verse is not something that strikes me as just a different interpretation of some Aramaic.
And your remark on Aramaic not having a written form, I’m not sure how to interpret it, whether it means Aramaic didn’t actually have a written alphabet at the time, which is flat-out wrong, whether the original Aramaic speakers who told the stories didn’t actually write it down until Greek supplanted Aramaic, which is accurate, or if you meant that it was hard to properly transliterate a system that doesn’t have its own vowels into one that does, well, it’s an oversimplified version of the truth.
have you even look at some of the translations side by side?
No
because in truth there are only three cntextual variances for the NT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism
e Alexandrian text-type
(also called the "Neutral Text" tradition; less frequently, the "Minority Text")
2nd–4th centuries CE
This family constitutes a group of early and well-regarded texts, including Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Most representatives of this tradition appear to come from around Alexandria, Egypt and from the Alexandrian Church. It contains readings that are often terse, shorter, somewhat rough, less harmonised, and generally more difficult. The family was once[when?] thought[by whom?] to result from a very carefully edited 3rd-century recension, but now is believed to be merely the result of a carefully controlled and supervised process of copying and transmission. It underlies most translations of the New Testament produced since 1900.
NIV, NAB, NABRE, Douay, JB and NJB (albeit, with some reliance on the Byzantine text-type), TNIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, EBR, NWT, LB, ASV, NC, GNB, CSB
The Western text-type
3rd–9th centuries CE
Also a very early tradition, which comes from a wide geographical area stretching from North Africa to Italy and from Gaul to Syria. It occurs in Greek manuscripts and in the Latin translations used by the Western church. It is much less controlled than the Alexandrian family and its witnesses are seen to be more prone to paraphrase and other corruptions. It is sometimes called the Caesarean text-type. Some New Testament scholars would argue that the Caesarean constitutes a distinct text-type of its own.
Vetus Latina
The Byzantine text-type; also, Koinē text-type
(also called "Majority Text")
5th–16th centuries CE
This group comprises around 95% of all the manuscripts, the majority of which are comparatively very late in the tradition. It had become dominant at Constantinople from the 5th century on and was used throughout the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. It contains the most harmonistic readings, paraphrasing and significant additions, most of which are believed[by whom?] to be secondary readings. It underlies the Textus Receptus used for most Reformation-era translations of the New Testament.
KJV, NKJV, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops' Bible, OSB
And the changes are very minor things like you shall not murder. verses a later version of you shall not kill. there is a difference in meaning but the principle and the means is still communicated effectivly. It is not like there are completely different bibles.
These three compilations are the three primary/showing the most dramatic differences.. those difference are the ones found in some of the oldest bibles like the tynsdale or the king james version.
If you want to compare the contextual differences side by side look at an original kjv and a 21st century king james version. The later bible has the older text.
