Bible Study Magazine No Corresponding Text

Page 1 of 1 (5 items)
This post has 4 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 2913
David Ames | Forum Activity | Posted: Sat, Oct 23 2010 7:05 PM

Bible Study Magazine No Corresponding Text

 

Just got the Nov / Dec Bible Study Magazine.

 

In the article “Is My Bible Right” the word “MISSING” is used where the Masoretic Text is “missing” text that is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 

 

Several years ago I was working with a Bible Translator.  He used the term “Missing Text”.

I (hopefully politely) taught him to use the term “no corresponding text” as follows:   

 

There are many places where two versions do not agree as to verses.

Sometimes one and other times the other will have text that is not found in the other.

This list is where I have found these NO CORRESPONDING TEXTS

 

Note: Many would try to use the words TEXT DELETED or TEXT ADDED. 

 

That assumes that someone has proven that one or the other is correct everywhere.  And all differences are MEASURED against that IDEAL STANDARD or STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE.  In that case ALL adds or deletes are WRONG because we are measuring against an IDEAL STANDARD – THE PERFECT TEXT.   We are just trying to see how BAD the other is.  We are admitting, in advance, that the version we are examining is WRONG before we start. 

 

These WORDS can also be used when a well known text is selected as a REFERENCE STANDARD against which all others are TRACKED – not measured.  Then at the end of the study when all the differences are flagged, all the differences are examined and evaluated to see if one of the texts shows signs of being an IDEAL STANDARD or if the situation is still in doubt.  This is what we are trying to do – to examine the differences between the two texts.  However there is a PROBLEM in using the well known version as a REFERENCE STANDARD.

 

The PROBLEM is that in the REAL world people MISREAD that you have set up a REFERENCE STANDARD and assume that you are using an IDEAL STANDARD especially when the REFERENCE STANDARD you are using is a source they like such as the King James Version of the Bible or the Hebrew text behind the Old Testament (Masoretic). 

 

So in this study no STANDARD is being selected, nether a REFERENCE nor an IDEAL one. 

 

The words “No Corresponding Text” are used where we find that there is a phrase that is in one version that is not in the other. 

 

[Comments please]

 

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 24 2010 5:02 AM

That's a good point...very interesting.

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 24 2010 6:36 AM

There is also the consideration of when printing 14,000 copies of something, 14 extra characters could end up being no small sum.

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Posts 2913
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 24 2010 7:57 AM

Paul Golder:

There is also the consideration of when printing 14,000 copies of something, 14 extra characters could end up being no small sum.

OK -

“Missing” => 7 letters

“No Corresponding Text” => 21 Characters

Diff of 14 Characters

 

Try using:

“No Corresponding Text [NCT]”      the first time

And “NCT” all others times [and save the ink of 4 letters each time after the first]

 

And then [IMHO] in your text defend which version is correct [InYourHumbleOpinion] but [please] not in the listings

[IMHO I see that as misleading]

 

Posts 1674
Paul Golder | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Oct 24 2010 9:51 AM

David Ames:

Try using:

“No Corresponding Text [NCT]”      the first time

And “NCT” all others times [and save the ink of 4 letters each time after the first]

Very, very good Yes

"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

Page 1 of 1 (5 items) | RSS