In the meantime some communities of Christendom have been experiencing weekly internecine unpleasantness over whether God’s name is “hallowed” or “holy” and describable as “thy” or “your.” If for nigh unto four centuries people have been able to say the Lord’s prayer the same way (at least in the same church), why rattle them? This sort of squabble is a work of the Devil. Virtually all the enduring hymns were written on the phraseology of established translations (”Great is THY faithfulness”). For these and other reasons, much of the effect of the plethora of modernized versions is to help confuse or efface the once-common grasp of biblical quotations and allusions.

You are indeed perceptive concerning the DA VINCI CODE. In amplification of your empirical observations, let us note certain grammatical, stylistic, organizational, and substantive errors, as well as other peculiarities, together with the frontispiece claim that it’s all “accurate.” Yet a more penetrating analysis–unnoticed since the book’s publication but now coming evermore to light as Brent has probed into the economic motives for the tome and its ecclesiological adherents and detractors–lends credence to a view that the narrative has evolved in various places and times and that it seems to be a blend of at least four different perspectives, contributing to doublets and even triplets in the discourse. This analysis shall henceforth be dubbed the Brent-David documentary hypothesis (BDDH), which began from your self-evident exposure to Hegelian economic theory. BDDH will have absolutely no practical application to the needs of lost and dying humanity, but it will possess the potential to get the Brownians at each other’s throats while it gets our mentees tenure in prestigious institutions laden with eggheads.

“I am a sinful man, O Lord.”

Everyone wants a piece of the pie that is the world’s largest seller. We see the same thing taking place with all the publishers that are taking advantage of Dan Brown’s success.

–David

Scholars use a number of methods for determining the reliability of a text, age being one of them.

Concerning the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus, I recommend — by Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman.

Yet what was Jerome looking at when he translated manuscripts into Latin as the Vulgate in the 5th Century C.E.? Weren’t the manuscripts Jerome used older than many of the manuscripts discovered later? Additionally, did not Erasmus have access to, and consider and even use, much of the same corpus of manuscripts in delivering the Textus Receptus, which forms the basis of the Authorized King James Version? Can Jerome’s Vulgate be easily dismissed when it is actually older than some manuscripts used in modern translations and in view of the fact that Jerome must have had manuscripts no longer extant when he did his work?

I’m just trying to learn.

–David

JESUSISNOWHERE

Okay, which is it?

Now here?

Or nowhere?

If you have the time, can you let me know what translation most likely reflects what was originally written, according to most scholars?

mail: jeff (at) jefferywhite.com

Thank you!

Jeff

I think I’ll stick with the good ol’ TNIV.

A related issue that interests me is this: if we conclude that a particular segment of text was NOT a part of the original writing (say, the latter part of Mark 16 or John’s account of the woman caught in adultery), should we still consider that text to be canonical? In other words, if the original writer didn’t write it, should we think of it as “part of the Bible”?

As you study the Greek text, what are finding out you didn’t already know? Is there something earth shattering revealed? For instance if we took a closer look at the Greek, we might have women elders?

Do think what is gleened from this textual criticism is “nice to know” or is critical to our current way of doing things?

Simply put, we used to do or think “A” but upon further review of the Greek text we now don’t do “A.”